[0:24] While we're waiting

[0:25] to get started,

[0:26] there are more seats up front

[0:27] of you.

[1:01] I just wanted to add a welcome

[1:02] to everybody here.

[1:03] To get started, we'll do the

[1:05] Pledge of Allegiance and really

[1:08] fortunate that we have some

[1:10] of our youth here.

[1:12] I'm going to welcome not only

[1:14] the kids who made it all the

[1:15] way from Washington Elementary

[1:16] but also our Red Parrots AYSO

[1:19] soccer team

[1:20] to stand and lead us in the

[1:22] Pledge of Allegiance.

[1:28] Anytime you want to start,

[1:29] everybody will jump in.

[1:38] I pledge allegiance

[1:39] to the flag of the United

[1:40] States of America and

[1:42] to the republic

[1:45] for which it stands,

[1:46] one nation under God,

[1:47] indivisible,

[1:49] with liberty and justice

[1:50] for all.

[1:52] Thank you.

[1:57] Madam City Clerk, could I have

[1:58] a roll call, please?

[2:00] Council Member Thayer?

[2:01] Here.

[2:02] Council Member Colson?

[2:03] Here.

[2:04] Council Member Pappajohn?

[2:05] Here.

[2:06] Vice Mayor Brownrigg?

[2:07] Here.

[2:08] Mayor Stevenson?

[2:09] Here.

[2:10] Thank you.

[2:11] I see we have no requests

[2:12] for AB 2449, remote

[2:13] participation.

[2:16] So we'll move on

[2:17] to item number five,

[2:18] which is a report out

[2:20] from the closed session.

[2:21] Mr. City Attorney.

[2:22] Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

[2:23] There is no reportable action.

[2:24] Thank you.

[2:25] Excellent.

[2:27] Okay.

[2:28] So bear with me.

[2:29] I'm going to read a few

[2:30] upcoming events

[2:31] at our library and elsewhere,

[2:32] our park and rec department.

[2:33] So first of all,

[2:35] in the library,

[2:36] the 3D printing lab

[2:37] in person.

[2:39] Bring your files to print and

[2:40] drop into the library's 3D

[2:41] printing open lab.

[2:44] Learn about the library's 3D

[2:45] printers, how

[2:47] to use slicing software,

[2:48] and how

[2:49] to start a print job.

[2:51] Come and share your 3D printed

[2:52] creations with other 3D

[2:55] printing enthusiasts.

[2:58] That's all this Thursday,

[2:59] March 6th, at the library

[3:01] from 2 to 4 p.m.

[3:03] in the tech lab.

[3:06] How to use your AI tools

[3:08] in your job search.

[3:09] Join Faze at Careers

[3:12] for an overview

[3:13] of AI as well as specific tools

[3:15] for your job search.

[3:17] Learn how to use AI tools to

[3:18] analyze and improve your resume

[3:21] and how AI can assist you with

[3:23] improving your interviewing

[3:24] skills.

[3:26] That's going to take place on

[3:27] Monday, March 10th, 2025,

[3:29] from 1 to 3 p.m. in the Lane

[3:32] Community Room.

[3:33] That's at the library, just

[3:35] to make sure everybody knows.

[3:38] Number three,

[3:39] spring craft supply swap.

[3:41] Join us at the main library

[3:43] for a craft supply swap.

[3:45] Bring something and take

[3:48] something.

[3:50] It's all free.

[3:51] All crafty items are welcome.

[3:52] That's going to take place on

[3:53] Saturday, March 15th, 2025,

[3:54] from 11 to 1.

[3:55] Again, that's at the main

[3:58] library.

[3:59] For our Parks and Rec's

[4:00] department, the Royal Ball

[4:01] Adult Child Dinner Dance is

[4:04] on Friday, March 14th,

[4:05] at the community center.

[4:07] Also included is a horse-drawn

[4:08] carriage ride in Washington

[4:11] Park, which is made possible

[4:13] by the Burlingame Parks

[4:15] Forever Foundation.

[4:16] Sign up through Parks and

[4:18] Rec's department.

[4:19] Again, that's Friday, March

[4:20] 14th.

[4:22] Join us for the annual Arbor

[4:24] Day celebration on Thursday,

[4:26] March 13th, at 11 a.m. at

[4:28] Murray Field.

[4:30] Most of you probably know that

[4:31] Burlingame is the city

[4:32] of trees,

[4:33] and so here's a wonderful way

[4:35] to celebrate all the trees and

[4:36] what we do to make sure we have

[4:39] an excellent celebration for

[4:41] Arbor Day.

[4:43] The Senior St. Patrick's Day

[4:44] Tea is on Monday, March 10th,

[4:46] from 3 to 4 p.m.

[4:48] Irish tea, delicious bread

[4:50] from Fiddler's Green and Molly

[4:52] O's, and a lively performance

[4:54] by the Kennelly School of

[4:55] Irish Dance are included.

[4:57] Subsidized fee is only $5, and

[4:58] pre-registration and payment

[5:01] are required.

[5:03] You can register online,

[5:04] by phone, or in person.

[5:06] And then finally, Free Yoga

[5:08] Friday is on March 7th and

[5:09] March 21st, from 11 a.m. to 12

[5:11] p.m.

[5:13] at the Community Center.

[5:15] All levels are welcome,

[5:16] and a mat is needed.

[5:18] Please call or email Colleen,

[5:19] email address is cconefrey

[5:28] at burlingame.org

[5:29] to reserve a spot, and again,

[5:31] there is no fee

[5:32] for this program.

[5:34] I'll pause for a moment

[5:36] to see if my colleagues on

[5:37] council have any other upcoming

[5:38] events they want

[5:39] to highlight.

[5:41] Yes, Vice Mayor Brownrigg.

[5:43] Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

[5:45] Just quickly,

[5:46] I believe it's a public event,

[5:48] but this Saturday, Nuts for

[5:51] Candy is celebrating its 30th

[5:52] anniversary here in the city

[5:53] of Burlingame, from 2 to 3 p.m.

[5:57] And so, if one wants to go

[5:58] along and support Nuts for

[6:00] Candy and Mr. Cabranian, then

[6:03] please feel free.

[6:04] And then finally,

[6:05] and a lot less fun than this

[6:07] evening, but on March 12th,

[6:09] we're having a budget meeting,

[6:10] so if you want to get

[6:12] under the hood with us,

[6:14] then that is 6.30, I think,

[6:16] start time.

[6:17] Excellent.

[6:19] And we hope

[6:20] to see as many people here for

[6:22] that event as there are here

[6:23] tonight.

[6:24] Mayor Stephenson, I forgot,

[6:25] tomorrow is also election day.

[6:26] It's your last day

[6:28] to get your ballot in

[6:29] for the special election, and

[6:30] we do have a vote center open

[6:32] at the Community Center until

[6:33] 8 p.m. tomorrow.

[6:35] Excellent.

[6:36] Very important.

[6:37] It's for regional and local

[6:39] reasons, not necessarily a

[6:40] national election.

[6:42] Okay, if there's no more

[6:43] upcoming events,

[6:46] this is really one

[6:48] of the exciting parts of City

[6:49] Council, is when folks

[6:51] from our community come

[6:52] in and want to let us know

[6:54] about something, a major

[6:55] accomplishment,

[6:56] and some exciting news.

[6:58] So I would love it if the

[7:00] Burlingame Red Parrots could

[7:02] stand when I call your name,

[7:06] but we're recognizing you

[7:08] for the tremendous effort

[7:10] of not only doing well locally,

[7:12] but also participating

[7:14] in the AYSO Western States

[7:16] Tournament coming up soon.

[7:18] So not too often does a local

[7:20] community get to send a group

[7:23] of star athletes at your level

[7:25] to an event like that,

[7:27] so we're really appreciative of

[7:29] you coming and sharing that

[7:30] story, and I think Coach

[7:31] Jamie, is that correct,

[7:33] or did I have that right?

[7:35] Jamie's the coordinator.

[7:39] Okay, how

[7:41] about I just read the names,

[7:43] and you guys can stand,

[7:44] and then we're going

[7:45] to come down,

[7:46] we'll have some comments from

[7:47] Council, but we'll come

[7:48] down and take a big picture.

[7:49] How does that sound?

[7:51] Okay?

[7:52] But you've got to promise that

[7:53] you'll frame it and put it

[7:55] on the wall in your house,

[7:56] okay?

[7:57] So I hope I pronounced these

[7:58] correctly, but Ameya

[8:01] Guharoi.

[8:04] No.

[8:06] Okay.

[8:07] Well, somebody has to give it

[8:08] to her.

[8:09] How about Arya Mohazabi?

[8:11] All right.

[8:17] Charlotte French.

[8:23] Emma Cheng.

[8:29] Isabella Wiseman.

[8:35] Kaitlyn Shaughnessy.

[8:42] Leah Reese.

[8:48] Margaret Anguera.

[8:55] McKenna Reynolds.

[9:02] Myla Hernandez.

[9:09] Nadia Phillips.

[9:15] Deanna Wade.

[9:21] And Talia Wu.

[9:25] How about everybody get up

[9:26] for one big round?

[9:28] Oh, Ashley Putnam.

[9:36] I might have grabbed it

[9:37] by accident, too, so if I did,

[9:38] I apologize, but we'll make

[9:41] sure you have the certificate.

[9:43] So from Council, can I have any

[9:45] notes or comments or

[9:47] expressions?

[9:50] That would be great.

[9:52] Go ahead.

[9:53] Can I say something?

[9:54] Thank you, Mayor Stevenson.

[9:56] I love AYSO.

[9:58] I just know the values are so

[10:00] aligned with our community.

[10:01] Everyone plays, balanced teams,

[10:03] open registration, good

[10:04] sportsmanship,

[10:05] and positive coaching.

[10:07] And I just want

[10:09] to reflect a minute.

[10:10] When my kids were younger,

[10:11] they all played soccer,

[10:13] and it's a volunteer

[10:14] organization, so I coached.

[10:16] And it was so much more than

[10:18] just coaching to me, because it

[10:19] was such a great community I

[10:20] met parents, so many other

[10:21] people, and my kids met people

[10:23] that weren't

[10:25] in their schools,

[10:27] and I really enjoyed it.

[10:28] And I also met former Mayor

[10:30] Ricardo Ortiz through that,

[10:32] because I served on the board

[10:34] for 10 years, over 10 years.

[10:36] And it's just a wonderful

[10:38] organization, and I'm just so

[10:40] happy that it's so strong

[10:41] in our community.

[10:42] And thank you

[10:43] to all the volunteers, the

[10:45] players, and the parents who

[10:46] are here and involved.

[10:49] Thank you.

[10:55] Council Member Donna Colson.

[10:56] Thank you.

[10:58] Well, I just want to say

[10:59] to all of you young women,

[11:00] aspiring young women,

[11:02] congratulations.

[11:03] And I'm so happy to see that

[11:05] your organization stood up for

[11:07] you and made sure that you got

[11:08] the recognition you deserved

[11:10] for what you're doing today.

[11:12] It is incredibly special

[11:14] to be able

[11:15] to go and represent our city

[11:17] at this elite level.

[11:18] And what I'm particularly proud

[11:20] about is the beautiful

[11:22] diversity that I see sitting

[11:23] in front of me, the way that

[11:26] you comport yourselves

[11:28] on the field, the graciousness

[11:30] with which you win and

[11:31] with which you lose, because

[11:33] those, my friends, are the

[11:35] attributes and the lessons that

[11:36] you are going to learn that

[11:38] will someday carry you

[11:39] into adulthood,

[11:41] into womanhood, and into being

[11:42] amazing young businesswomen,

[11:46] teachers, leaders,

[11:48] whatever you decide to do.

[11:50] So this journey, while it is

[11:51] about soccer for the

[11:53] near term, and I'm excited and

[11:55] hope you and wish you the best

[11:56] in your tournament,

[11:59] the appreciation that I have

[12:00] for you representing our city

[12:02] so beautifully and your amazing

[12:05] coaches and the standard that

[12:06] they set and the time and

[12:08] commitment that they put into

[12:12] this are really what I'm most

[12:13] proud about.

[12:14] So thank you, and I look

[12:15] forward to 20 years

[12:17] from now seeing some

[12:18] of you ladies sitting up here

[12:19] in these seats.

[12:20] Thank you.

[12:28] Councilmember Thayer.

[12:31] So I'll just make very brief

[12:32] remarks just

[12:33] to say congratulations

[12:34] to you young ladies.

[12:35] You've worked really hard,

[12:36] and I hope you represent us

[12:38] well, both, as Councilmember

[12:39] Colson said, both on the field

[12:41] but also off the field.

[12:42] And also congratulations to all

[12:45] the coaches and parents.

[12:46] This is a really unique

[12:48] opportunity where,

[12:51] as was mentioned by

[12:52] Councilmember Pappajohn,

[12:54] everyone gets to play

[12:55] in AYSO, and it's volunteer

[12:57] run, and that really speaks

[12:59] to the community that we have

[13:00] in Burlingame, where we're very

[13:01] diverse and we want to make

[13:03] sure that everyone's included

[13:04] and everyone has a time

[13:05] to play.

[13:06] So congratulations and good

[13:07] luck.

[13:12] Vice Mayor Brownrigg.

[13:14] I'll be quick.

[13:15] Have fun.

[13:17] These kind of things don't

[13:18] happen all that often.

[13:20] I can tell you, I never got

[13:21] to a regional anything,

[13:22] so good for you.

[13:25] We can confirm that.

[13:29] Enjoy every, work hard.

[13:31] Your coaches have put a lot

[13:32] of time in.

[13:33] Your parents have.

[13:34] Work hard.

[13:35] Have fun.

[13:36] And have fun.

[13:37] That's really the message I

[13:38] wanted to leave

[13:39] with you guys.

[13:40] But we're all so proud

[13:41] of you.

[13:42] Thank you.

[13:45] So, on behalf of the whole

[13:47] Council, we just want

[13:48] to wish you good luck.

[13:49] Have fun.

[13:50] Stay safe.

[13:52] Enjoy the time.

[13:53] Bring back memories.

[13:54] Thank your parents.

[13:55] Thank your coaches.

[13:57] It's a wonderful thing.

[13:58] And so, we'll enjoy it

[14:00] from afar,

[14:01] but you go and enjoy it

[14:02] on the field, okay?

[14:03] Excellent.

[15:18] You guys can go forward just a

[15:19] little bit.

[15:20] Tall girls, come back here.

[15:21] This is like when you took your

[15:23] AYSO picture.

[15:24] Come on over.

[15:25] Come on over.

[15:33] Should we go,

[15:34] should we do a cheer

[15:35] for the red parrots,

[15:36] like let's go parrots,

[15:37] or what?

[15:38] Sure.

[15:41] All right.

[15:42] The whole community.

[15:47] Let's go parrots.

[15:54] Awesome.

[16:00] Don't have to take it all

[16:10] with you.

[16:11] Two more hours.

[16:12] All right.

[16:14] I'm sure you have a whole crew

[16:16] of friends.

[16:18] We appreciate it.

[16:19] Thanks again.

[16:21] Thank you.

[16:42] All right.

[16:56] So moving on to item number

[16:58] eight, public comments,

[16:59] non-agenda.

[17:00] These are for the members

[17:01] of the public who may want

[17:02] to speak about a topic that is

[17:04] not formally on the agenda.

[17:06] Just so you know, the mic

[17:07] at the podium is yours

[17:09] for anybody who wants to speak

[17:12] about a topic as long as it's

[17:14] not on the agenda.

[17:15] And also the council itself

[17:17] can't respond to it.

[17:19] We just take this as input, but

[17:22] if you have a public comment

[17:24] open, you know, feel free

[17:26] to come

[17:27] on up.

[17:28] I do have one card from Brian

[17:29] Lee.

[17:30] Is Brian here today?

[17:32] Excellent.

[17:34] Come on up, Brian.

[17:45] Hello, Mayor, Council.

[17:47] My name is Brian Lee, I'm at

[17:55] 1468 Benito Avenue since

[17:58] 1951.

[18:01] I'm here today to talk about

[18:03] speed bumps that I call stop

[18:06] bumps on Adeline Alvarado and

[18:07] Carmelita.

[18:14] I understand there's a need

[18:16] for control for speeding on

[18:18] Hillside.

[18:19] The cars are going very fast up

[18:21] and down, especially on the

[18:23] straightaway.

[18:26] I think that

[18:28] with the new gymnasium,

[18:29] which I support

[18:31] at our activity center at

[18:33] Mercy, you're going to have

[18:34] more traffic and I've got a

[18:36] little bit of a solution.

[18:39] Number one, the speed bumps,

[18:42] I was told, I think are

[18:43] temporary.

[18:45] I hope they are.

[18:48] I think you should construct

[18:50] them very similar to the ones

[18:51] on Hillside Drive that are

[18:53] near the fire station and

[18:55] to the west of that.

[18:57] They slow down traffic,

[18:59] they don't jar your car,

[19:01] and they're safe

[19:02] for bicyclists.

[19:03] So I don't think there's a need

[19:06] on Benito.

[19:09] You can check with the people

[19:10] who live there,

[19:12] there's not a lot of traffic

[19:13] there.

[19:14] I think there is a need on

[19:15] Adeline and on Alvarado

[19:17] for sure.

[19:21] I have an idea for speed

[19:22] controls.

[19:24] In Scottsdale, Arizona, they

[19:26] just initiated a new program

[19:28] with photo radar that are

[19:31] portable.

[19:33] The key is they're portable.

[19:34] They're the size

[19:35] of a mailbox,

[19:36] maybe a little taller.

[19:37] They work real well.

[19:40] They're portable,

[19:41] so you can move them

[19:42] around and so nobody can plan

[19:43] on where they are.

[19:45] I like to drive smooth, fast

[19:48] at times and whatever, but

[19:50] these things work.

[19:54] I have some photos that I'd

[19:55] like to distribute to you

[19:56] of what they look

[19:58] like and I guess I'll give them

[20:00] to you a little later or

[20:01] whatever.

[20:02] I really think you should

[20:03] consider this product and the

[20:05] comments that I made about how

[20:06] to build a good, accurate speed

[20:10] bump that will slow down

[20:11] traffic and not hurt the

[20:13] suspension on your cars.

[20:16] Thank you very much.

[20:17] Thank you, Mr. Lee.

[20:33] Any other public comments

[20:35] for non-agenda items?

[20:40] Anything online?

[20:42] Okay.

[20:43] Seeing none, we'll move on

[20:46] to item number nine,

[20:47] our consent calendar.

[20:48] Let me ask my colleagues if

[20:49] there are any items on the

[20:51] consent calendar that anybody

[20:53] would like to pull.

[21:01] Seeing none.

[21:02] Anybody from the public that

[21:04] would like to pull any item

[21:05] on consent?

[21:09] Seeing none in the room.

[21:10] Anything online?

[21:12] No.

[21:13] We don't pull.

[21:14] Okay.

[21:15] No longer doing online.

[21:16] Okay.

[21:17] Can I have a motion from the

[21:19] council to approve the consent

[21:20] calendar?

[21:24] It's all moved.

[21:26] Second.

[21:27] So we have a motion by Vice

[21:28] Mayor Brownrigg and a second

[21:31] by Council Member Pappajohn.

[21:33] Madam City Clerk, can we have a

[21:35] roll call?

[21:36] Council Member Thayer?

[21:37] Yes.

[21:38] Council Member Colson?

[21:39] Yes.

[21:40] Council Member Pappajohn?

[21:41] Yes.

[21:42] Vice Mayor Brownrigg?

[21:43] Yes.

[21:44] Mayor Stevenson?

[21:45] Yes.

[21:47] Okay.

[21:48] Thank you.

[21:51] I suspect this is going

[21:53] to be the longer part

[21:54] of the evening,

[21:56] so we're all settled

[21:57] in and look forward

[21:58] to getting started.

[22:01] Item number 10A requires

[22:06] excusing Vice Mayor Brownrigg

[22:11] as Vice Mayor Brownrigg is part

[22:13] and parcel

[22:15] to the applicant process.

[22:23] Excellent.

[22:24] Okay.

[22:25] Item number 10 requires some

[22:27] instructions that I'll read and

[22:29] then I'll ask our Director of

[22:37] Community Development to come

[22:39] up and address as the first

[22:41] step.

[22:43] So at this time, the Council

[22:44] will consider the review of

[22:46] 2750 and 2300 Adeline Drive

[22:49] zoned R1 and their application

[22:52] for commercial design review,

[22:54] hillside area construction

[22:55] permit and variance for

[22:57] building height and amendment

[22:59] to conditional use permit for

[23:01] the construction and operation

[23:02] of a new athletic center and

[23:04] outdoor swimming pool on the

[23:06] Mercy High School property.

[23:09] This project was approved

[23:10] by the Planning Commission

[23:12] during their October 15th,

[23:13] 2024 regularly scheduled

[23:15] meeting.

[23:17] Following that meeting,

[23:18] Councilmember at that time,

[23:20] now Vice Mayor Michael

[23:21] Brownrigg

[23:23] in his capacity as a

[23:24] Councilmember filed a timely

[23:26] call for review of the

[23:28] Planning Commission approval as

[23:30] authorized by BMC section

[23:32] 2598.030.

[23:35] This meeting was scheduled

[23:37] in accordance

[23:38] with the timeline specified

[23:39] in the Burlingame Municipal

[23:40] Code.

[23:42] Following his timely call

[23:43] for review, Councilmember

[23:45] Brownrigg requested an opinion

[23:48] from the Fair Political

[23:50] Practices Commission known as

[23:51] the FPPC as

[23:52] to whether he had the conflict

[23:54] of interest

[23:55] on this matter based

[23:56] on his home's proximity

[23:58] to the project site.

[23:59] The FPPC determined that a

[24:00] conflict did exist, therefore

[24:03] Councilmember and now Vice

[24:05] Mayor Brownrigg will be

[24:07] recusing himself from this item

[24:09] and therefore will be

[24:10] presenting any evidence and or

[24:12] testimony solely in his private

[24:14] capacity as a resident and not

[24:15] as an official of the City of

[24:18] Burlingame.

[24:21] This hearing will proceed

[24:23] in the following manner.

[24:24] First we will receive a staff

[24:25] presentation and the Council

[24:28] will ask any questions

[24:29] of staff at this time.

[24:31] Following staff's presentation,

[24:32] the individual who called

[24:34] for the item for review,

[24:35] in this case Mr. Michael

[24:36] Brownrigg, will have 10 minutes

[24:38] to present his case as

[24:39] to why the Planning

[24:41] Commission's approval should be

[24:42] overturned in whole or

[24:43] in part.

[24:46] Following this 10 minute

[24:47] period,

[24:48] the applicant will receive 10

[24:49] minutes

[24:51] to present their case.

[24:52] Following the applicant's time,

[24:54] we will move to public comment

[24:55] on the item.

[24:57] Any member of the public who is

[24:58] not a party to the hearing may

[25:00] speak for 3 minutes each.

[25:02] Following public comment, Mr.

[25:04] Brownrigg will receive an

[25:05] additional 5 minute period

[25:07] to address the Council and

[25:09] present any rebuttal or final

[25:10] testimony, and then finally the

[25:12] applicant will receive 5

[25:14] minutes to provide their

[25:16] rebuttal and or final

[25:17] testimony.

[25:21] Councilmembers may ask

[25:22] questions following the

[25:23] conclusion of any party's

[25:24] presentation and responses

[25:26] to questions will not be

[25:27] counted

[25:29] against the allotted time for

[25:30] the respective presentations.

[25:32] Councilmembers should reserve

[25:33] their comments

[25:34] for a deliberation portion

[25:35] of the preceding.

[25:38] Staff have all the parties been

[25:40] notified

[25:41] of this hearing pursuant

[25:42] to the requirements of the

[25:43] Burlingame Municipal Code

[25:44] related to calls for review?

[25:46] Yes, they have.

[25:47] Excellent.

[25:48] Mayor, I will now ask

[25:51] for my fellow Councilmembers to

[25:52] disclose any ex parte

[25:54] communications they may have

[25:56] had related to this item.

[25:57] Have any members of Council had

[25:59] any ex parte communications

[26:01] on this item?

[26:02] Yes.

[26:05] Councilmember Colson?

[26:06] Yes, I have spoken

[26:07] to the leadership at Mercy

[26:08] High School.

[26:11] Councilmember Pappajohn?

[26:12] Yes, I have also spoken

[26:14] to the leadership at Mercy

[26:15] High School.

[26:16] I also met with former Mayor

[26:18] Anne Keagren and I had a couple

[26:19] very brief minutes with Vice

[26:22] Mayor Michael Brownrigg.

[26:24] I spoke with resident Lynn

[26:27] Israelit and resident Mike

[26:29] Collins and I'd like to

[26:30] disclose that I did have a

[26:31] child who went to Mercy but

[26:32] later transferred and I can say

[26:35] that I am an unbiased decision

[26:37] maker.

[26:39] Excellent.

[26:41] No, I have not had any ex parte

[26:42] communication and I thank the

[26:44] community who did reach

[26:45] out and was respectful

[26:47] of my decision

[26:48] to not have any.

[26:49] Thank you, Councilmember

[26:50] Thayer.

[26:52] I have had two ex parte

[26:53] conversations,

[26:55] an impromptu meeting with

[26:57] Vice Mayor Michael Brownrigg

[26:59] and also a meeting

[27:00] with the leadership at Mercy

[27:02] High School.

[27:08] So when we get to public

[27:10] comment, how many

[27:13] in the room are planning

[27:15] to speak?

[27:17] Raise your hand.

[27:18] We should reduce the three

[27:19] minutes.

[27:21] Okay, and online too?

[27:23] No.

[27:24] We don't take.

[27:25] Okay.

[27:27] So we're going to start

[27:29] with the two minutes each.

[27:31] We want to make sure everybody

[27:33] has an opportunity

[27:35] to speak and to share their

[27:36] input and that way we'll make

[27:38] sure that we're respectful

[27:39] of time and the process.

[27:40] To get started though,

[27:44] we're going to first have our

[27:47] staff report led by our

[27:48] Director of Community

[27:50] Development, Netta.

[27:56] Good evening, Mayor, City

[27:57] Councilmembers, Netta Thayer,

[27:59] Community Development Director

[28:01] with the City of Burlingame.

[28:03] I will not be presenting

[28:04] tonight.

[28:06] I actually have Senior

[28:07] Planner Erica Lewitt here

[28:09] tonight and she'll be providing

[28:10] the presentation.

[28:11] She's been the Project Planner

[28:12] through the duration

[28:13] of this project.

[28:14] She and I will be available

[28:16] for questions, but she'll be

[28:18] giving the presentation.

[28:36] Good evening, Council.

[28:38] I'll start

[28:40] with the existing site.

[28:43] Okay.

[28:44] Thank you.

[28:45] The existing site is located

[28:46] at the corner of Hoover Avenue

[28:48] and Adeline Drive.

[28:50] You can see

[28:51] on the left side aerial shown

[28:53] on the slide.

[28:54] It's surrounded by single unit

[28:56] dwellings that are both

[28:58] in the County of San Mateo and

[29:00] in the City of Burlingame.

[29:01] The site actually has two lots.

[29:03] The larger is owned by Sisters

[29:05] of Mercy and has the address

[29:06] 2300 Adeline Drive and the

[29:09] smaller is owned by Mercy

[29:11] High School with the address

[29:12] of 2750 Adeline Drive.

[29:15] The two lots are treated as a

[29:16] single site for the purposes

[29:18] of zoning administration.

[29:20] That's because there are a

[29:22] number of existing unrecorded

[29:23] cross-access easements

[29:25] between the sites,

[29:27] which keep them

[29:29] from operating independently.

[29:31] There's also an existing

[29:32] conditional use permit that was

[29:33] approved in 2010 that governs

[29:35] the operations

[29:36] on the properties, and that

[29:38] links the properties together

[29:40] as a single site.

[29:42] On the right side

[29:43] of the slide,

[29:44] you can see blown up the

[29:45] Sisters of Mercy campus, and

[29:46] the project location is

[29:49] outlined in blue.

[29:56] Here we see two renderings

[29:57] of the project shown.

[29:59] The October 2024 Planning

[30:01] Commission action of approval

[30:03] of the project entitled

[30:06] Commercial Design Review,

[30:10] Hillside Area Construction

[30:11] Permit, a Variance for

[30:13] Building Height, and Amendment

[30:15] to the Conditional Use Permit

[30:17] for a New Athletic Center.

[30:22] The project was submitted in

[30:24] January 2023 and went

[30:25] to two public hearings

[30:26] before the Planning

[30:27] Commission.

[30:29] A study hearing June 2024 and

[30:31] an action hearing in October

[30:32] 2024.

[30:35] You can see on the slide the

[30:37] site plan

[30:39] for the approved project,

[30:40] and the details

[30:41] of the project include a Class

[30:42] 14 categorical exemption

[30:43] for CEQA to demolish the

[30:45] existing tennis courts and

[30:47] outdoor pool to build a new

[30:49] 16,319 square foot gymnasium

[30:53] and a new regulation size

[30:55] outdoor pool.

[30:57] The yellow arm that stretches

[30:59] from the buildings out to the

[31:01] parking lot is an ADA

[31:02] accessible pedestrian walkway.

[31:05] In the upper right hand corner,

[31:07] you can see there's the

[31:08] existing Grisilli parking lot,

[31:10] and it's going

[31:12] to be re-striped and re-paved

[31:13] to add 15 parking spaces.

[31:17] At the lower side, you'll see,

[31:18] also highlighted in yellow,

[31:20] a little arm leading

[31:22] from the building out to

[31:23] Adeline Drive.

[31:25] This is an emergency vehicle

[31:27] access road that's required

[31:29] by fire regulations.

[31:32] The approved project that went

[31:35] forward to the Planning

[31:36] Commission showed the removal

[31:37] of 20 protected size trees,

[31:39] and finally a revision to the

[31:41] Conditional Use Permit so that

[31:43] the hours for after school

[31:44] activities and the gymnasium

[31:46] match the existing end times

[31:48] for the Cole Mansion.

[31:58] There was, as the Mayor

[31:59] mentioned,

[32:00] there was a timely call

[32:01] for review

[32:03] of the project approval, and

[32:06] there were five items brought

[32:07] up in this call for review.

[32:10] The request to protect an

[32:11] existing walking path

[32:12] on site, that the emergency

[32:15] access road did not be used

[32:18] for pedestrian access,

[32:21] that the Commission did not

[32:23] adequately discuss a third

[32:24] party rental

[32:25] of the gymnasium, an insurance

[32:27] that guests do not park

[32:29] in the neighborhood, and

[32:31] to ensure that 7% of Mercy

[32:33] students shuttle

[32:34] to the school.

[32:39] I'll now go over each of these

[32:41] appeal items individually.

[32:44] The first item in the call

[32:45] for review was that the

[32:47] Planning Commission did not

[32:48] address a neighbor request to

[32:50] maintain a pedestrian parkway

[32:51] that's on the site.

[32:54] The facts regarding the path is

[32:56] that it's

[32:57] on private property.

[32:58] It was never formally

[33:00] memorialized at any stage

[33:01] of the site's existence in the

[33:03] county or the city's

[33:05] jurisdiction.

[33:07] Public access to any private

[33:08] property is also not required

[33:10] by the Burlingame Municipal

[33:11] Code or

[33:13] to the specific private

[33:14] property by any existing legal

[33:15] agreements.

[33:17] For these reasons,

[33:18] the path was not included

[33:20] on the project plans or as part

[33:21] of the application,

[33:24] but I've shown here on this

[33:25] aerial an approximate location.

[33:27] It runs parallel to Adeline

[33:29] Drive, and it's shown in red

[33:30] on the slide.

[33:34] During the hearings,

[33:36] the request to have the public

[33:37] access guaranteed was brought

[33:39] forth by a member

[33:41] of the public.

[33:43] The applicant for the project

[33:44] noted that the path extends

[33:46] across both properties,

[33:47] and that Mercy High School

[33:49] could not legally grant access

[33:50] to sisters of Mercy private

[33:52] property.

[33:54] The applicant stated that the

[33:56] owners of the property

[33:57] like the idea of continuing

[33:59] to offer this amenity

[34:00] to the public,

[34:02] but are prevented

[34:03] from formalizing access

[34:04] with an agreement because

[34:05] of security, safety, and

[34:07] liability concerns that are

[34:08] associated

[34:10] with allowing public access to

[34:12] a school site and private

[34:13] property.

[34:15] The commission acknowledged

[34:16] these security and liability

[34:17] concerns and did not add a

[34:19] condition of approval that

[34:20] required public access

[34:22] to the site.

[34:26] The second item brought up

[34:27] in the call for review was that

[34:28] the commission did not address

[34:29] a request to prevent parking

[34:31] and pedestrian access

[34:33] from the emergency access road

[34:35] off Adeline Drive.

[34:37] You can see the approved plans

[34:39] here on the slide,

[34:41] and the access lane is required

[34:43] by the fire division

[34:45] to improve emergency access

[34:46] to the site.

[34:48] The approved plans were

[34:49] reviewed by the fire division

[34:50] and show that the road will

[34:51] have a locked gate that can

[34:53] only be opened

[34:55] by school staff or by emergency

[34:56] response personnel.

[34:59] That's using something known as

[35:01] a knock box.

[35:04] The plans also show that the

[35:05] road is required to have

[35:07] signage indicating that no

[35:08] parking is allowed

[35:09] for non-emergency vehicles.

[35:11] Parking or pulling over

[35:12] to drop off students at the

[35:13] emergency access road is

[35:14] prohibited by the signage and

[35:15] by the locked gate,

[35:16] and these are both shown

[35:18] on the approved plans.

[35:21] Therefore, the commission did

[35:22] not require further discussion

[35:23] of this matter.

[35:28] The third point brought forth

[35:30] in the appeal is that the

[35:31] commission did not adequately

[35:32] discuss prohibiting the

[35:33] gymnasium from being used for

[35:34] third-party rentals or

[35:36] additional hourly restrictions

[35:38] on the use of the gym.

[35:41] At the hearings, the neighbors

[35:42] requested that the activities

[35:44] in the gym be limited

[35:46] in various ways.

[35:48] Therefore, at the action

[35:49] hearing,

[35:50] staff included a condition

[35:51] of approval for consideration

[35:53] by the commission, and that

[35:56] condition stated that there

[35:58] would be no third-party rentals

[36:00] of the gymnasium.

[36:04] The condition was considered

[36:05] by the commission

[36:06] at the hearing, and

[36:07] after discussion, the

[36:08] commission deemed the condition

[36:09] unnecessary

[36:10] for the following reasons.

[36:12] The commission found that the

[36:13] school is not unique

[36:14] in its location in a

[36:16] single-unit dwelling

[36:17] neighborhood and that the

[36:18] applicants submitted

[36:19] information that showed that

[36:20] the majority of public and

[36:21] private high schools in the

[36:23] surrounding cities were not

[36:24] restricted from renting

[36:26] to third parties.

[36:28] The commission noted that the

[36:29] gym was intended to serve the

[36:30] existing student population,

[36:33] which is not to be increased,

[36:36] and that the gym would

[36:37] primarily be used

[36:38] for school activities.

[36:40] The commission determined that

[36:41] the conditional use permit

[36:43] that's in place already limited

[36:44] the total number of guests

[36:46] on the entire site to 300

[36:48] persons, and that this guest

[36:49] maximum could continue

[36:51] to be applied to the site

[36:53] whether the guests were using

[36:55] the gym, full mansion,

[36:57] or were divided

[36:58] between the two facilities.

[37:00] The commission then voted

[37:01] to approve the project

[37:02] with the existing condition of

[37:04] approval that limits the number

[37:06] of guests to 300 persons.

[37:12] The fourth issue brought

[37:13] forward in the appeal was that

[37:15] the commission did not require

[37:19] gym guests to park,

[37:21] did not prohibit gym guests

[37:23] from parking

[37:25] in the neighborhood,

[37:26] and that overflow parking

[37:27] for events was not identified.

[37:29] There are conditions existing

[37:32] in the conditional use permit

[37:34] that address the on-site

[37:35] parking issue.

[37:37] In particular,

[37:39] existing condition number 28

[37:40] states that the use

[37:42] of any facility on the site

[37:44] shall have all guest parking

[37:46] on site.

[37:47] That includes student, staff,

[37:49] full mansion guests, Sister

[37:50] of Mercy guests,

[37:51] and any other facilities.

[37:54] The overflow parking for

[37:55] Mercy High School was discussed

[37:57] in the staff report,

[37:59] and it's identified on sheet

[38:01] 2.1 in the plans,

[38:02] which is a little difficult

[38:04] to read on the slide, but it

[38:05] shows that the eucalyptus,

[38:06] lake,

[38:08] and forest lots are available

[38:09] for overflow parking

[38:11] with a total of 181 additional

[38:13] parking spaces.

[38:15] Planning Commission discussed

[38:16] that the site had been

[38:18] operating

[38:19] with these conditions for 14

[38:20] years, and that Mercy High

[38:21] School puts forth significant

[38:23] efforts to communicate these

[38:24] parking restrictions

[38:25] to all school families and to

[38:27] any guests visiting the site.

[38:30] The commission deemed

[38:31] additional conditions requiring

[38:33] on-site parking to be

[38:34] duplicating the conditions that

[38:36] are in place.

[38:40] The final issue brought forth

[38:42] in the call for review was that

[38:43] there was an existing condition

[38:46] about shuttles that was

[38:48] revised, and that the applicant

[38:49] did not have time

[38:51] to review the revisions.

[38:53] The condition

[38:54] in question is number 4.

[38:56] You see it here before you

[38:57] on the slide.

[38:59] The original wording is

[39:00] in white, and the revision is

[39:01] in yellow.

[39:03] The original condition is

[39:04] from the 2010 approval,

[39:06] and it listed the number of

[39:08] shuttles and the seats

[39:09] required.

[39:11] The city had no complaints

[39:12] about the violations

[39:13] of this condition during the

[39:14] 14 years of operation, and

[39:16] during the hearings,

[39:18] the applicant noted that

[39:20] Mercy High School now contracts

[39:21] with other shuttle services

[39:23] to arrange rides

[39:24] for students.

[39:26] So in order to clarify the

[39:27] wording of the condition and to

[39:29] allow the high school more

[39:30] flexibility in how they fulfill

[39:31] the condition,

[39:33] staff revised the wording

[39:35] to try to capture the number of

[39:37] required shuttle students as a

[39:39] percentage

[39:41] of the total enrollment.

[39:42] That works out to 7% of the

[39:44] student population if the

[39:46] school is fully enrolled.

[39:49] The applicant reviewed the

[39:50] conditions of approval when

[39:51] they were published

[39:52] in the staff report prior

[39:53] to the action hearing.

[39:54] It did not raise concerns.

[40:00] The council has four action

[40:02] alternatives before them.

[40:04] To uphold the Planning

[40:06] Commission's approval

[40:07] of the application, which is

[40:08] staff's recommendation.

[40:10] To deny the application.

[40:12] To adopt additional conditions

[40:13] of approval,

[40:15] and these conditions may or

[40:16] may not be related

[40:17] to the items listed

[40:18] in the call for review.

[40:22] Or finally,

[40:23] to remand the application

[40:24] to the Planning Commission

[40:25] for additional consideration.

[40:29] This concludes my presentation,

[40:30] but I'm available

[40:31] for questions if you have any.

[40:33] Thank you,

[40:34] and I'll ask my colleagues

[40:35] on the dais for questions.

[40:38] There is a part where we have

[40:39] public comment, so this is

[40:41] for the council

[40:42] to ask questions directly

[40:43] of staff and the report.

[40:46] Yes, Councilmember Colson.

[40:48] Thank you.

[40:50] Thank you, Ms. Levitt,

[40:52] for your work on this project.

[40:54] I appreciate you coming here

[40:55] tonight.

[40:56] The trail, the path that

[40:58] extends along Adeline.

[41:03] Is it presently open

[41:06] to the public, and

[41:08] during the day, 24-7,

[41:10] is it locked?

[41:11] What's the status of that?

[41:14] I actually can't answer that

[41:15] question.

[41:16] I'll leave that to the head

[41:17] of school to answer.

[41:18] Okay.

[41:19] As I mentioned,

[41:20] it's not required.

[41:22] It was never recorded.

[41:23] Right.

[41:24] So I never asked for that

[41:25] information as part of the

[41:26] project review.

[41:27] I'm just curious if, I mean,

[41:30] you know, a lot of,

[41:33] I don't think there would be,

[41:35] I mean, you know, a public

[41:36] school that would be able

[41:37] to allow people to sort of

[41:38] randomly walk onto campus or

[41:40] onto their enclosed community.

[41:42] So I'm just, I was just kind

[41:44] of curious, and they can answer

[41:45] that later when they make their

[41:46] presentation.

[41:48] You don't have

[41:49] to respond now.

[41:50] Any other questions

[41:51] at this time?

[41:56] Yes.

[41:58] Yes.

[41:59] Council Member Pappajohn.

[42:00] Yes.

[42:01] Can you just give me one minute

[42:03] here?

[42:04] Mr. Mayor, I might as well

[42:05] also, I hadn't really thought

[42:06] about it, but because I lived

[42:07] at 2616 Hale for over 15 years,

[42:10] I've had a number

[42:12] of neighbors reach out

[42:13] to me just to, in just normal

[42:15] friendship relations and, you

[42:18] know, have chit-chats

[42:19] about this,

[42:20] but nothing formal.

[42:22] Okay.

[42:23] Thank you

[42:24] for acknowledging that.

[42:34] Thank you, Ms. Leavitt, for

[42:35] your presentation.

[42:37] I really appreciate you going

[42:38] through everything.

[42:39] So I think one

[42:41] of the questions I have is

[42:42] about third-party rentals,

[42:44] and I was curious as

[42:46] to whether, I think there was

[42:50] a, could you please elaborate

[42:51] if there was a study done

[42:53] on any impacts

[42:55] of additional traffic

[42:57] for that,

[43:01] or if there would be any impact

[43:02] to have third-party rentals or

[43:05] more people coming

[43:06] to the site?

[43:07] That study was not done.

[43:09] The traffic and circulation

[43:10] analysis that was submitted

[43:12] by the applicant and reviewed

[43:13] by the city only looked

[43:15] at the primaries at the gym,

[43:17] which would be after-school

[43:19] activities

[43:20] during the school year.

[43:22] The things that are now

[43:23] occurring off-site,

[43:25] that would now be moving

[43:26] on-site, things like dances,

[43:28] volleyball games, that sort

[43:31] of thing.

[43:33] And then the result of that was

[43:35] no substantial impact,

[43:36] negative impact to the

[43:38] surrounding neighborhood.

[43:40] Okay.

[43:41] Thank you.

[43:45] I have a couple questions,

[43:49] particularly because a lot of

[43:50] the conversation and feedback

[43:52] is centered around parking,

[43:53] congestion, what's going

[43:54] to happen to the local

[43:56] neighborhood streets.

[43:57] Was there any discussion

[43:59] in the Planning Commission

[44:00] process from a standpoint

[44:01] of enforcement, knowing that

[44:04] all parking is supposed

[44:06] to be contained on-site

[44:08] in either the main lot or

[44:09] in overflows?

[44:10] And the second would be, was

[44:12] there any consideration or

[44:13] request

[44:14] from a signage standpoint along

[44:16] those neighborhoods where there

[44:17] would be control of parking,

[44:19] meaning, you know, it's coming

[44:23] in for a late volleyball game

[44:25] and just parking

[44:26] on the street and then running

[44:27] into the school

[44:28] to go watch it or play?

[44:30] Just curious about that part

[44:31] of the conversation.

[44:33] So the way this conditional use

[44:35] permit has always operated

[44:37] since it was first approved

[44:39] in 2007 and amended in 2010 is

[44:40] similar to any other

[44:42] conditional use permit

[44:46] in the city.

[44:47] It's enforcement upon

[44:48] complaint.

[44:49] So if we are getting frequent

[44:51] complaints of traffic issues

[44:54] specifically related

[44:56] to the school, then the city

[44:58] investigates.

[44:59] I think one of the conditions

[45:03] of approval that's in,

[45:06] I forget which number it is,

[45:07] number 29 or 30, requires that

[45:09] the school operate a 24-hour

[45:12] hotline so that they're the

[45:16] first stop for any issues.

[45:18] So they can call at any time if

[45:21] they see that somebody who's

[45:23] clearly belonging

[45:24] to the school parks in the

[45:26] neighborhood and then walks

[45:28] on-site.

[45:29] And that should be addressed

[45:30] first by the school.

[45:32] If an issue continues and it's

[45:33] not being resolved,

[45:35] then it comes to the city

[45:37] to resolve.

[45:39] Thank you.

[45:41] Another question?

[45:42] Thank you.

[45:43] Yes.

[45:44] This triggers a question.

[45:45] Currently, in the surrounding

[45:48] neighborhoods, are there any

[45:49] residential parking permit

[45:51] programs that have been

[45:52] implemented due to strain

[45:56] on the system already?

[45:58] So we've spoken at length

[46:00] with the city's traffic

[46:01] engineer about this.

[46:03] And I have to say that,

[46:05] in large part,

[46:06] that any traffic concerns

[46:08] in this area in the last 10

[46:10] years or so have been dealt

[46:12] with by the Traffic Safety and

[46:14] Parking Commission, the

[46:15] Teaspoon Commission, as they

[46:17] are with any school, public,

[46:18] private.

[46:21] So they've explored everything

[46:24] in every possible option

[46:27] in the Teaspoon Commission.

[46:29] So what I'm asking, though,

[46:30] is there's Hale Drive, Poppy

[46:33] Drive, Adeline, Hoover,

[46:35] Columbus.

[46:37] Do any of those streets have

[46:39] current residential parking

[46:40] permit programs?

[46:41] They do not.

[46:42] Again, I think that was

[46:43] explored in the Teaspoon

[46:46] Commission, and the

[46:48] neighborhood did not have an

[46:49] appetite for it.

[46:50] Okay.

[46:53] So they did not support it.

[46:58] Yes, Councilmember Thayer.

[47:00] Just one question regarding

[47:02] noise.

[47:03] So I don't think there's

[47:04] anything

[47:05] in the conditional use permit,

[47:06] but regarding the zoning, is

[47:08] there a certain level?

[47:09] I think I recall maybe 60

[47:11] decibels.

[47:13] Yes.

[47:14] 60 decibels at the nearest

[47:17] property line.

[47:19] So that has been measured in,

[47:20] there was a noise analysis

[47:22] submitted by the applicant

[47:24] looking specifically

[47:25] at the gym, and the closest

[47:27] residential property line was

[47:28] across the street on Adeline,

[47:31] somewhere near Poppy, and that

[47:34] noise analysis showed that they

[47:35] would come in occasionally at

[47:38] 50 decibels, so

[47:39] below the maximum.

[47:42] Thank you.

[47:45] Another question,

[47:46] Councilmember Pappajohn.

[47:47] Thank you, Mayor Stevenson.

[47:49] Ms. LeWitt, so the school

[47:51] currently rents

[47:54] out the facility

[47:56] for weddings and other events.

[47:58] Could you describe how it would

[48:00] be similar or different if they

[48:03] rent out the gym?

[48:05] So they currently rent out, I

[48:07] believe, Cole Mansion is what

[48:08] gets rented out.

[48:09] Thank you.

[48:10] That is on the Sisters of

[48:11] Mercy property.

[48:13] So the conditions

[48:14] of approval that are in place

[48:16] for 300 persons maximum applies

[48:19] not only to the Mercy High

[48:21] School campus, Cole Mansion,

[48:24] the gym, which would be new,

[48:26] but it applies to all

[48:27] of the events that take place

[48:29] on the Sisters of Mercy

[48:30] property.

[48:32] So any building on that site

[48:36] that could be rented that would

[48:37] be hosting a conference,

[48:40] those are all limited to 300

[48:41] guests and 50 persons.

[48:44] Currently they operate

[48:46] together, Sisters of Mercy and

[48:47] Mercy High School,

[48:48] to coordinate events.

[48:52] My understanding from speaking

[48:53] with the head

[48:54] of school is that, first

[48:55] of all,

[48:57] they don't typically rent out

[48:59] Cole Mansion during school

[49:02] hours and school operations

[49:03] because it's being used

[49:04] for offices.

[49:05] You don't want members

[49:07] of the public mixing

[49:09] with your school.

[49:10] So they don't have a lot of

[49:11] conflict now.

[49:13] I anticipate that would also be

[49:16] the case when the gym is onsite

[49:17] operational.

[49:21] Thank you.

[49:22] So just to clarify that it's

[49:23] 300 in aggregate, let's say

[49:25] there's multiple events going

[49:26] on both on Cole Mansion side as

[49:28] well as in the new gym,

[49:30] for example, it's 300

[49:31] in aggregate.

[49:33] Yes.

[49:34] There is a provision in the

[49:36] zoning code that allows any use

[49:38] to apply

[49:39] for a temporary use permit

[49:41] to exceed that.

[49:43] The school has had two such

[49:44] events

[49:45] in the past year and a half, I

[49:47] believe, where they had up to

[49:49] 500 persons onsite that were

[49:50] then shuttled in and we didn't

[49:54] receive any complaints

[49:56] during those events.

[50:00] Okay, thank you.

[50:02] Any other questions

[50:03] at this time?

[50:05] Okay, thank you very much.

[50:07] Now is the time for the

[50:08] appellant presentation.

[50:09] So I'd like to invite Mr.

[50:11] Brownrigg to step up

[50:12] to the podium, provide the

[50:14] evidence regarding the project

[50:15] and city clerk,

[50:17] please set your timer for 10

[50:18] minutes once he's.

[50:27] Okay, good evening, members of `

[50:30] city council and city staff.

[50:32] I stand here as a neighbor and

[50:33] a property owner.

[50:36] That said, in 14 years,

[50:37] I have never had cause

[50:38] to appeal an action by a city

[50:39] commission.

[50:41] I have consistently supported

[50:43] our hardworking commissions and

[50:44] tried not

[50:46] to second guess their work,

[50:48] but I couldn't do that here.

[50:49] In my view, this item

[50:51] through no fault of the

[50:52] applicants was not handled

[50:53] fairly

[50:54] by the planning commission on

[50:55] October 15th.

[50:57] This is most especially true

[50:58] for the question

[50:59] of third party rentals,

[51:00] where as the staff report says,

[51:02] the staff recommended there be

[51:04] no third party rentals and

[51:06] mercy was not requesting any.

[51:07] And yet the planning commission

[51:09] decided at the end

[51:11] of a long hearing

[51:12] to not just allow some, but

[51:13] to allow any amount of third

[51:15] party rentals and didn't allow

[51:17] the public to comment on this

[51:19] 180 degree turn.

[51:20] This is in spite of the fact

[51:22] that the city had already

[51:24] regulated third party rentals

[51:25] at Cole mansion for precisely

[51:26] the same reason that third

[51:28] party rentals,

[51:29] but an extra strain

[51:30] on the neighborhood,

[51:31] on its streets and

[51:32] on its quality of life.

[51:34] So the city didn't ban third

[51:35] party rentals, but it did set

[51:36] specific hard caps.

[51:38] And yet the planning commission

[51:40] didn't go down that road.

[51:41] Instead, it simply eliminated

[51:42] any limits at all

[51:43] without a chance for input.

[51:45] And so I appeal

[51:47] to allow neighbors and

[51:50] residents of this city

[51:51] to provide input

[51:53] on that decision.

[51:54] I want to emphasize that this

[51:55] is not a case of nimbyism

[51:57] by the neighborhood.

[51:58] Not a single neighbor in June

[52:00] or in October said mercy should

[52:02] not have a gym or that it

[52:04] should be built somewhere else.

[52:05] Everybody understands the

[52:07] importance of this

[52:08] to mercy and supports it.

[52:09] Moreover, every single public

[52:10] comment by neighbors praised

[52:11] mercy high as a neighbor and

[52:13] wish the school well and

[52:15] virtually everyone.

[52:17] And certainly I also praised

[52:19] mercy's current head

[52:20] of school, Natalie Brosman, who

[52:22] has consistently listened and

[52:24] tried her best to respond

[52:25] to neighbor concerns.

[52:27] She has been a breath

[52:28] of fresh air in the

[52:29] neighborhood and I thank her

[52:30] on behalf of all

[52:31] of her neighbors.

[52:32] That said, traffic issues are

[52:34] real and third party rentals

[52:35] are optional.

[52:38] As we've all learned, the only

[52:39] time you can get commercial or

[52:40] an institutional entity

[52:41] to agree to oversight is when

[52:43] it needs something

[52:44] from the city.

[52:45] That's what happened with Cole

[52:46] mansion.

[52:47] And so it's now or never

[52:48] in terms of whether we want

[52:49] to put some limits

[52:50] on third party rentals.

[52:52] With that, I open the door,

[52:53] but I want to hand it over to

[52:55] Lynn Israel, it to speak

[52:57] on behalf of a group

[52:58] of neighbors

[52:59] with her concerns and to

[53:00] suggest some simple tweaks that

[53:01] the council might consider

[53:02] adopting.

[53:06] Thank you, Michael.

[53:07] Thank you.

[53:08] Commission commissioners,

[53:09] council members,

[53:11] I'm good evening.

[53:12] Let me begin

[53:14] by stating that all

[53:15] of the neighbors are supportive

[53:16] of mercy building a new gym

[53:18] for their girls.

[53:19] And we're fully supportive of

[53:20] all school sponsored activities

[53:21] that might occur

[53:22] in this gym.

[53:24] We've been clear about that.

[53:26] We've been meeting and working

[53:27] with mercy

[53:28] from early stages.

[53:30] However, the neighbors do

[53:32] object to the renting out

[53:34] of this new facility for

[53:35] outside non school related and

[53:37] for profit functions.

[53:40] Mercy repeatedly assure the

[53:41] neighbors at informational

[53:43] meetings that they would not be

[53:44] renting

[53:45] out the gym they intended

[53:46] to build.

[53:47] They did not request that

[53:48] rentals be permitted

[53:49] in their proposal

[53:51] to the city.

[53:52] And the city staff analysis to

[53:53] the planning commission

[53:55] recommended that third party

[53:56] rentals not be permitted.

[53:57] However, at the end of the

[53:59] planning commission meeting

[54:03] in October, the commissioners

[54:04] themselves made the decision to

[54:06] strike the language preventing

[54:08] non school rental.

[54:10] This was a complete flip from

[54:12] the previous planning

[54:13] commission in June, where each

[54:16] and every single commissioner

[54:17] said concessions

[54:19] to the neighbors on operating

[54:20] hours and rentals was

[54:21] reasonable and fair.

[54:24] The staff report you received

[54:25] this evening in your materials

[54:28] doesn't include this discussion

[54:29] for some reason,

[54:30] but it is clearly documented

[54:32] in the June meeting video.

[54:34] Frankly, the optics

[54:36] of fairness were not great

[54:37] at the October planning

[54:39] commission meeting as each

[54:41] commissioner

[54:42] but one prefaced their comments

[54:43] by mentioning their sympathies

[54:46] for Catholic schools financial

[54:47] needs, connections to Mercy or

[54:48] their board, or being alumni

[54:52] of Catholic schools themselves.

[54:54] They did not come

[54:55] across as unbiased,

[54:56] neutral decision makers

[54:58] to the public.

[55:00] Neighbors are really concerned

[55:01] about any increase in traffic

[55:03] on these narrow residential

[55:04] streets.

[55:06] This is a tight area.

[55:07] There's not even room

[55:09] for two cars

[55:10] to pass each other on Alvarado

[55:11] and Adeline is narrow and

[55:13] twisty road.

[55:15] There's a well documented

[55:16] history of traffic issues here

[55:18] already that's required city

[55:20] intervention.

[55:22] Neighbors are unable to get

[55:23] out of their driveways.

[55:25] Their cars are clipped and

[55:26] sideswiped and there are daily

[55:27] near misses when you're trying

[55:28] to pull out

[55:30] from side streets onto

[55:31] Adeline.

[55:33] Teaspoon measures were

[55:34] implemented.

[55:36] I'm a member of the Teaspoon

[55:37] and just to let you know,

[55:39] and they have helped but they

[55:40] in no way decreased the amount

[55:43] of traffic itself.

[55:46] And contrary to the statement

[55:48] by the planning commission,

[55:49] Mercy is indeed located

[55:51] in a unique site compared to

[55:53] all other county high schools.

[55:56] Not one other school has only

[55:58] two lane residential roads as

[56:00] the only access streets

[56:02] to their property.

[56:04] Other schools were built on

[56:05] El Camino Real, Murchison,

[56:07] Carol Ann, Alameda de Los

[56:09] Puglis, etc.

[56:10] And Crystal Springs is the only

[56:13] other exception to this.

[56:17] We neighbors are willing to

[56:20] accommodate the current impacts

[56:21] we experience

[56:23] with coal mansion rentals

[56:25] but not an increase

[56:27] in rental use of the property

[56:28] and the resulting traffic that

[56:31] will further impact our lives.

[56:33] Interestingly

[56:35] in their discussion, planning

[56:36] commissioners suggested that

[56:38] it's the neighbors who should

[56:40] have to give up something and

[56:41] sacrifice in order

[56:42] to accommodate Mercy's

[56:44] increased needs.

[56:45] One commissioner even suggested

[56:46] taking away resident street

[56:48] parking on both Adeline and

[56:49] Alvarado to allow Mercy's

[56:52] expanded use and to solve the

[56:53] traffic problems we're facing.

[56:56] Let me just say that would be

[56:57] an incredibly unfair and

[56:59] unpopular solution.

[57:03] People want to understand why a

[57:05] private institution seems to be

[57:07] getting preferential treatment

[57:09] over the neighbors who live

[57:11] here, pay Burlingame taxes,

[57:12] and vote.

[57:14] The neighbors only ask for

[57:15] earlier end times and no third

[57:16] party rentals in order to fully

[57:20] support this gym project.

[57:23] Neither concession was given.

[57:25] We currently have a one-sided

[57:27] compromise

[57:28] on the neighbors' parts and at

[57:29] this point they do not have

[57:31] faith in the process or feel

[57:32] that their voices matter.

[57:35] So in summary,

[57:36] we strongly request a return to

[57:38] the original staff

[57:41] recommendation

[57:42] of no outside party gym rentals

[57:44] with coal mansion remaining the

[57:46] only rental venue

[57:48] on the high school campus.

[57:49] That was what was originally

[57:50] agreed upon

[57:52] between the neighbors and

[57:53] Mercy High School.

[57:55] We think that's fair to all

[57:56] parties and we feel that this

[57:58] is the decision council should

[57:59] make tonight.

[58:03] However, if you decide to allow

[58:06] some non-school related gym

[58:07] rentals, we believe there

[58:09] should be limits

[58:10] in place just as there are

[58:12] for coal mansion rentals.

[58:13] After all, it's one thing

[58:15] for neighbors to put up

[58:16] with traffic

[58:18] from students and athletes, but

[58:19] it's not right that we should

[58:20] also have to deal

[58:23] with more traffic

[58:24] from third party rentals.

[58:25] There are many ways such limits

[58:27] could be designed.

[58:28] Mercy gym rentals

[58:29] to third parties could count

[58:31] against the coal limits of 125

[58:32] events per year

[58:34] for outside use.

[58:37] Mercy rentals to third parties

[58:38] could be required

[58:39] to end earlier, for instance

[58:41] at 8 p.m. rather than 10 p.m.

[58:43] to minimize disturbances to the

[58:45] surrounding neighborhood.

[58:47] And Mercy rentals could be

[58:49] limited to the summertime when

[58:50] school is not in session.

[58:53] These changes could reduce the

[58:55] negative impact of rentals

[58:57] on our neighborhoods

[58:59] without impairing Mercy

[59:00] students' use and enjoyment

[59:02] of their new gym, especially

[59:04] since Mercy didn't even request

[59:06] these rights.

[59:08] Overall, we have a great

[59:10] relationship, as you've heard,

[59:12] with Mercy, unlike what you see

[59:13] surrounding Sara Castilleja

[59:14] in Palo Alto, for example,

[59:17] and we'd like

[59:18] to keep it that way.

[59:20] We think these simple

[59:21] constraints will create a

[59:22] reasonable balance

[59:23] for everybody.

[59:25] And thank you

[59:26] for your attention.

[59:28] Thank you, Mr. Brownrigg and

[59:29] Ms. Israeli.

[59:31] If you could remain up,

[59:32] now is the time

[59:34] for my councilmembers

[59:35] to address questions of you,

[59:39] so I'll open it up.

[59:45] Councilmember Pappajohn?

[59:52] I don't have any questions

[59:53] right now.

[59:54] Okay.

[59:55] My thoughts.

[59:56] Thank you.

[59:57] Any questions?

[59:58] Councilmember Thayer?

[59:59] Councilmember Colson?

[1:00:02] I do have a question related

[1:00:03] to this, but I'm, I think it's

[1:00:05] probably better addressed

[1:00:07] by the applicant.

[1:00:09] So, but there'll be a chance

[1:00:11] for rebuttal.

[1:00:13] But I, I'm curious, maybe just

[1:00:17] from the,

[1:00:19] from the appellant perspective,

[1:00:21] the 125 limitation on Cole

[1:00:22] Mansion and what has been the

[1:00:25] experience in terms

[1:00:27] of the neighborhood?

[1:00:30] I am happy to speak to that.

[1:00:33] Although 125 rentals is the cap

[1:00:36] for Cole Mansion per year,

[1:00:38] in actuality, it's far fewer

[1:00:40] events than that because let's

[1:00:42] face it, Cole Mansion costs

[1:00:43] $15,000 a French.

[1:00:45] And you know, weddings tend

[1:00:47] to occur solely

[1:00:49] on the weekends.

[1:00:50] So I'm sure Mercy could

[1:00:51] probably tell you exactly how

[1:00:52] many times per year it's

[1:00:53] rented.

[1:00:55] But currently we can handle the

[1:00:57] number

[1:01:01] of events that occur there,

[1:01:02] but it's not 125.

[1:01:04] Okay, thank you.

[1:01:08] I think that's it.

[1:01:09] And we'll have the applicant

[1:01:11] come up now and give their

[1:01:14] evidence.

[1:01:18] And we'll then go

[1:01:22] into public comments

[1:01:23] after that.

[1:01:29] Thank you.

[1:01:30] Hello, thank you

[1:01:31] for allowing me

[1:01:32] to be here this evening.

[1:01:33] My name is Natalie Serigliano

[1:01:34] Brosnan and I am the head of

[1:01:35] School of Mercy High School and

[1:01:36] a proud alum and a proud former

[1:01:40] resident of Burlingame.

[1:01:41] I was born and raised in

[1:01:42] Burlingame.

[1:01:43] So I'm very grateful

[1:01:44] for all you do to keep the city

[1:01:45] that raised me what it was.

[1:01:47] Before anything, I don't think

[1:01:49] that we can stress enough as a

[1:01:51] community, our desire

[1:01:52] to partner

[1:01:53] with our neighbors.

[1:01:54] We very much have come to value

[1:01:55] the neighbor relationships and

[1:01:57] I'm grateful that this project

[1:01:58] and this process has given us

[1:01:59] tremendous opportunity

[1:02:01] to know our neighbors like

[1:02:02] those that just talked and a

[1:02:03] number

[1:02:04] of other neighbors that we see

[1:02:05] in the crowd.

[1:02:06] And that is something that is

[1:02:07] incredibly, thank you,

[1:02:08] important,

[1:02:10] incredibly important to us and

[1:02:11] to our board

[1:02:13] of directors as we continue

[1:02:14] to plan for Mercy's future and

[1:02:17] the expectations and

[1:02:19] maintaining those relationships

[1:02:20] with our neighbors.

[1:02:22] We are really excited that we

[1:02:24] are at this point to build a

[1:02:27] state-of-the-art facility for

[1:02:28] our young women and we are very

[1:02:29] grateful for the support

[1:02:31] from our neighbors.

[1:02:33] We know that neighbors have

[1:02:34] concerns,

[1:02:35] but we do feel their support in

[1:02:36] building a gym and recognizing

[1:02:37] that our young women deserve a

[1:02:39] gym and we are incredibly

[1:02:40] grateful for that.

[1:02:43] You know, I just bring this

[1:02:44] picture because I think it's so

[1:02:45] important for us

[1:02:46] to acknowledge that

[1:02:48] in the city's history,

[1:02:49] six years

[1:02:52] after it was incorporated,

[1:02:53] Mercy, the Cole Mansion was

[1:02:54] built and the Cole Mansion has

[1:02:55] had a significant presence

[1:02:57] in the Mercy community

[1:02:59] through the Cole Mansion,

[1:03:00] through Sisters of Mercy,

[1:03:01] through Mercy High School.

[1:03:03] It is this incredible piece

[1:03:04] of our history in Burlingame

[1:03:05] and we are grateful

[1:03:07] to have this opportunity

[1:03:08] to speak

[1:03:09] of how we ensure the future

[1:03:10] of Mercy High School at this

[1:03:11] property.

[1:03:13] I know this was already shown,

[1:03:14] but I just feel it's important

[1:03:15] to acknowledge that we are the

[1:03:16] island in the acreage there,

[1:03:18] the smaller area,

[1:03:20] and I do just want a correction

[1:03:22] to Ms. Leavitt, Cole Mansion is

[1:03:23] on Mercy High School property.

[1:03:25] It is not on Sisters of Mercy

[1:03:26] property and I just want to

[1:03:27] acknowledge that we can only

[1:03:29] speak for what is

[1:03:30] within our property, not

[1:03:31] on the Sisters of Mercy

[1:03:32] property.

[1:03:36] I know that in our commission

[1:03:37] meetings, we were able

[1:03:38] to express the need

[1:03:40] for a gymnasium and I don't

[1:03:42] want to go over all this,

[1:03:43] but I just feel the need to

[1:03:45] remind us that we are here

[1:03:46] because a 94-year-old school

[1:03:49] for young women does not have a

[1:03:50] gym and we are the only high

[1:03:52] school in the Archdiocese of

[1:03:54] San Francisco and the Diocese

[1:03:55] of Santa Rosa, Oakland, and

[1:03:57] San Jose without a gym and our

[1:03:59] young women deserve equitable

[1:04:00] facilities and this has been

[1:04:02] decades in the making and it is

[1:04:04] something that is crucial to

[1:04:05] Mercy's future.

[1:04:07] All girls' education is

[1:04:09] absolutely imperative and it is

[1:04:11] something that I believe we

[1:04:12] should be proud that we have

[1:04:14] in the city of Burlingame.

[1:04:16] Very few cities have all girls'

[1:04:17] education offerings.

[1:04:19] The city of San Francisco

[1:04:21] in the 1950s alone had 14 all

[1:04:22] girls' schools and only two

[1:04:24] exist today, two that serve

[1:04:26] very different socioeconomic

[1:04:27] groups which leaves Mercy

[1:04:29] High School as the closest all

[1:04:31] girls' opportunity

[1:04:32] for many young women north of

[1:04:34] us and that is something that

[1:04:35] is incredibly important.

[1:04:38] Again, these are just some

[1:04:39] renderings of what we plan.

[1:04:43] And then I'll jump right

[1:04:44] into the appeal and

[1:04:46] before going into that, I know

[1:04:48] that it was addressed formally

[1:04:51] by Lynn and Michael that there

[1:04:54] is a concern that the

[1:04:56] Planning Commission felt

[1:04:58] like it was biased

[1:04:59] in its decisions

[1:05:00] in acknowledging Catholic

[1:05:01] education, talking about our

[1:05:02] local community and I just have

[1:05:04] to say that I do believe that

[1:05:06] the decisions were unbiased and

[1:05:08] it has nothing to do

[1:05:10] with the fact that Mercy High

[1:05:12] School had decisions made that

[1:05:14] were positive for the future

[1:05:16] of the school but truly the

[1:05:17] fact that we brought a number

[1:05:19] of data points and we felt that

[1:05:20] the commission made database

[1:05:22] decisions that we were able

[1:05:24] to show based on the concerns

[1:05:26] that had been brought forward.

[1:05:28] So I know the pedestrian

[1:05:29] walkway path protection is

[1:05:30] something that our neighbors

[1:05:32] truly want.

[1:05:34] We love the beauty

[1:05:35] of our neighborhood.

[1:05:36] Neighbors frequent the pathway

[1:05:38] and we cannot speak

[1:05:40] for this.

[1:05:41] The majority of the pathway is

[1:05:42] on property but

[1:05:44] from a legal standpoint,

[1:05:45] a safety standpoint,

[1:05:46] we always need to be able

[1:05:47] to maintain control of access

[1:05:52] to that pathway but there is

[1:05:53] of course no desire

[1:05:54] to disrupt the beauty

[1:05:55] of our campus.

[1:05:58] That's something we care just

[1:05:59] as much

[1:06:00] about as anybody else.

[1:06:03] The emergency road access has

[1:06:04] already been addressed in the

[1:06:05] Planning Commission documents.

[1:06:06] This will be a locked gate.

[1:06:08] This was required by the Fire

[1:06:11] Department.

[1:06:13] There is no plan

[1:06:14] for any neighbors,

[1:06:16] pedestrians or employees

[1:06:18] to have access

[1:06:19] to this parking.

[1:06:20] It will be a locked gate.

[1:06:23] Third party rentals and I do

[1:06:24] believe that this is

[1:06:25] at the heart of concern from

[1:06:26] our neighbors and so I can't

[1:06:29] stress enough that first and

[1:06:30] foremost, the gym is

[1:06:31] about the high school.

[1:06:32] Our young women need access

[1:06:34] to a gymnasium.

[1:06:35] We need a home of Mercy High

[1:06:36] School in the form

[1:06:37] of a gymnasium.

[1:06:38] We have always historically

[1:06:39] held a deep desire to support

[1:06:41] our community and we have never

[1:06:43] had a lack of transparency

[1:06:46] for this.

[1:06:48] Over the years, we have

[1:06:49] supported our community

[1:06:50] in a number of ways.

[1:06:51] Burlingame Aquatic Center has

[1:06:52] regularly used our pool when

[1:06:55] the community center was being

[1:06:56] built.

[1:06:58] The rec center asked if they

[1:07:01] could have activities held in

[1:07:02] those years so that there

[1:07:04] wouldn't be a loss

[1:07:05] to the programming available

[1:07:06] by the city of Burlingame.

[1:07:08] We supported that.

[1:07:09] There's times when our local

[1:07:11] schools, public and Catholic

[1:07:12] reach out to us

[1:07:14] for last minute support.

[1:07:15] We always want the ability

[1:07:17] to offer support to our local

[1:07:19] community and that's the heart

[1:07:20] of where we are.

[1:07:22] I understand that yes,

[1:07:24] we never talked about having

[1:07:25] rentals and there's not this

[1:07:26] huge request to have rentals

[1:07:29] but there is a desire to

[1:07:31] support our local community and

[1:07:33] now that it has been brought

[1:07:35] forward about the ability

[1:07:36] to have rentals,

[1:07:37] to have it taken away,

[1:07:39] it's difficult

[1:07:40] to say it's okay,

[1:07:41] take that away because again,

[1:07:42] as a community

[1:07:44] for young women,

[1:07:45] our young women are watching.

[1:07:46] Our young women are very aware

[1:07:47] of what is going on with our

[1:07:48] project and our plans and to

[1:07:50] stand here and say that we are

[1:07:52] okay not being treated as all

[1:07:55] the other schools would be a

[1:07:56] disservice to our young women

[1:07:58] and the message that they are

[1:08:00] receiving in that.

[1:08:01] So that is why we are moving

[1:08:02] forward with this conversation

[1:08:04] regarding third party rentals.

[1:08:07] We have heard a number of fears

[1:08:09] that the gym could be used

[1:08:11] for a number of activities such

[1:08:12] as regular crash events

[1:08:15] in the crab, crab events

[1:08:16] in the gym, different

[1:08:19] fundraisers,

[1:08:20] major outside events.

[1:08:22] We have navigated rentals

[1:08:24] for decades through Cole

[1:08:25] Mansion and to the best

[1:08:26] of our knowledge, we have not

[1:08:28] had major issues or ongoing

[1:08:29] issues.

[1:08:31] To Ms. Leavitt's point,

[1:08:32] we had two events

[1:08:33] over the last year and a half

[1:08:34] of 500 people and we did not

[1:08:36] receive any concern

[1:08:37] from either of those.

[1:08:39] In looking

[1:08:40] at the third party rentals, I

[1:08:43] think it's really important

[1:08:45] that we pause and acknowledge

[1:08:46] that the Cole Mansion revenue

[1:08:47] is critical to Mercy High

[1:08:48] School's success and survival,

[1:08:51] quite frankly.

[1:08:53] Cole Mansion revenue goes

[1:08:55] directly into the school's

[1:08:56] operating budget.

[1:08:57] I know that there is a concern

[1:08:59] that we would use the gym

[1:09:00] for a number of events.

[1:09:01] That is not on the docket

[1:09:03] at all for the school.

[1:09:04] One, we wanna maintain a gym

[1:09:05] that's taken 94 years

[1:09:06] to get.

[1:09:08] All of our fundraisers have

[1:09:09] already been done on campus and

[1:09:11] that won't change anything.

[1:09:12] And to potentially rent out a

[1:09:17] gym space when we could be

[1:09:19] renting out the Cole Mansion

[1:09:21] for tens of thousand dollars

[1:09:23] more would be a horrible

[1:09:25] financial decision for the

[1:09:26] school and really should help

[1:09:27] to appease the neighbors that

[1:09:30] there is no desire or plans

[1:09:32] to significantly rent

[1:09:34] out the gym.

[1:09:35] Our hope and our goal has

[1:09:36] always been about supporting

[1:09:37] our local community as needs

[1:09:39] arise and looking at how we can

[1:09:42] be a community member.

[1:09:47] I also feel it's important

[1:09:48] to acknowledge with the Cole

[1:09:49] Mansion rentals,

[1:09:50] and we've stated this a number

[1:09:51] of times and we continue

[1:09:53] to share, the Cole Mansion

[1:09:56] rentals will never be able

[1:09:57] to access the gym.

[1:09:59] We don't want them

[1:10:00] in two different facilities.

[1:10:01] The Cole Mansion is for 300

[1:10:03] in the Cole Mansion.

[1:10:06] So as I said earlier,

[1:10:07] it's the hope that Mercy High

[1:10:08] School's gym usage will be

[1:10:09] in line with all the gym usage

[1:10:10] in the Burlingame schools.

[1:10:12] From the best

[1:10:13] of our knowledge,

[1:10:14] we have seen that a number

[1:10:15] of schools have no restrictions

[1:10:18] on them.

[1:10:19] And we would like to be able to

[1:10:20] know that we are being treated

[1:10:22] the exact same as all other

[1:10:23] schools in our community,

[1:10:25] including our private schools

[1:10:27] with our public schools.

[1:10:30] I just wanna acknowledge that

[1:10:32] the shuttle usage has come up.

[1:10:34] We are required, so in the blue

[1:10:35] is the previous writing that we

[1:10:39] had in our CUP up

[1:10:40] until recently, that we offer

[1:10:42] at minimum three shuttle routes

[1:10:43] to the high school and

[1:10:44] after school shuttles to the

[1:10:45] Millbrae Caltrain BART.

[1:10:48] We more than exceed this,

[1:10:49] and we have for many years,

[1:10:50] and that should be a sign

[1:10:53] of our commitment to this.

[1:10:54] We offer nine private shuttles

[1:10:55] on top of what we pay into

[1:10:58] with the city,

[1:10:59] and currently 10% of our

[1:11:00] student body use shuttles.

[1:11:03] I just wanna confirm I have 48

[1:11:05] seconds left.

[1:11:06] Is that true?

[1:11:07] Traffic has been an ongoing

[1:11:08] issue.

[1:11:09] I would just like to call

[1:11:11] out that we are one

[1:11:12] of four schools within less

[1:11:13] than one mile range, and

[1:11:14] within five miles proximity

[1:11:16] to 12 schools in Burlingame.

[1:11:17] I agree with the neighbors that

[1:11:19] we have a number

[1:11:21] of traffic issues.

[1:11:22] We have wanted

[1:11:24] to support traffic.

[1:11:25] We are part

[1:11:26] of the calming measures

[1:11:27] with the neighbors, with the

[1:11:28] traffic committee that did come

[1:11:30] up that we would potentially

[1:11:32] could have one-way parking or

[1:11:34] permanent parking.

[1:11:35] That was something that was

[1:11:36] brought up to explore,

[1:11:37] but the neighbors didn't

[1:11:38] like it, and we wanted to

[1:11:39] support the neighbors.

[1:11:41] I also know that parking spaces

[1:11:43] have been a concern.

[1:11:44] This is new data

[1:11:45] from the month of January.

[1:11:46] These are the amount

[1:11:48] of cars actually

[1:11:49] in our parking spots,

[1:11:51] in our parking lots.

[1:11:53] Thank you very much.

[1:11:57] Thank you.

[1:11:58] So now I'm gonna ask colleagues

[1:12:00] on the dais

[1:12:01] for any questions.

[1:12:05] Yes, Council Member Colson.

[1:12:09] Thank you.

[1:12:10] Thank you very much, Ms.

[1:12:11] Brosnan, for coming today.

[1:12:13] So as I understand it,

[1:12:16] generally Catholic schools do

[1:12:17] not have activities on

[1:12:18] Sundays.

[1:12:20] So is that the main day that

[1:12:23] you're thinking if you did

[1:12:24] rentals, they would be to rent

[1:12:26] out on Sunday?

[1:12:30] Yeah, Catholic schools do not

[1:12:32] have any events on Sunday.

[1:12:34] That's something that has

[1:12:36] always been

[1:12:37] in place and will continue

[1:12:38] to be in place.

[1:12:39] Again, I think the main focus

[1:12:40] of potential rentals would have

[1:12:42] to do with is there a community

[1:12:43] need that we can support?

[1:12:46] If there is a wedding on a

[1:12:47] Sunday schedule, there's no way

[1:12:48] that we could plan a Sunday

[1:12:53] rental.

[1:12:54] And when I'm talking rental,

[1:12:55] my understanding from talking

[1:12:57] to neighbors is they believe

[1:12:59] that rentals could be hundreds

[1:13:00] of people on our campus,

[1:13:01] not a team of 10 kids from a

[1:13:02] local school that needed a last

[1:13:03] minute gym facility usage.

[1:13:07] But again, for Colemansion

[1:13:09] Revenue, we would not ever be

[1:13:12] looking to rent

[1:13:13] out a gym months in advance

[1:13:14] because a few hundred dollars

[1:13:17] could limit our ability

[1:13:18] to bring in a few thousand, 10

[1:13:19] to 17,000.

[1:13:22] So I guess I would ask then,

[1:13:23] you anticipate that when you

[1:13:25] rent out the gym,

[1:13:27] it would mainly be for

[1:13:30] basketball or volleyball or

[1:13:32] sports related activities.

[1:13:35] We all know in this city,

[1:13:37] there is an immense amount

[1:13:39] of pressure.

[1:13:40] When we were building our

[1:13:41] community center,

[1:13:43] there was one

[1:13:45] of the number one things,

[1:13:46] we need a gym, we need a gym,

[1:13:47] we need a gym.

[1:13:48] I've heard constantly,

[1:13:49] we need a gym

[1:13:50] in this community.

[1:13:51] So for example, with that gym

[1:13:53] on Sundays, if it were rented,

[1:13:57] be available for, one of the

[1:13:58] rental opportunities would be

[1:14:02] local youth basketball teams

[1:14:05] and organizations.

[1:14:06] Yes.

[1:14:07] Okay, and volleyball,

[1:14:08] I take it too?

[1:14:09] And volleyball.

[1:14:11] I'm guessing you can serve

[1:14:12] volleyball, basketball,

[1:14:13] maybe indoor futsal or

[1:14:14] something like that.

[1:14:15] So do you anticipate that it

[1:14:19] would be for, say

[1:14:20] for example, parties or things

[1:14:21] like that in there?

[1:14:22] No.

[1:14:23] No, so it would really be

[1:14:24] limited to the same exact use

[1:14:26] that it has for the girls?

[1:14:29] Yes.

[1:14:30] The only time I could think

[1:14:31] of a party off the top

[1:14:32] of my head, again,

[1:14:33] it's all been

[1:14:35] about the local community.

[1:14:36] If OLA, if BIS, they have a

[1:14:38] facility that floods right

[1:14:39] before graduation and they say,

[1:14:42] can we use your gym in order

[1:14:44] to have a graduation event

[1:14:46] with parents and kids?

[1:14:48] Again, as a community member,

[1:14:49] I always think we lean

[1:14:50] into that and we try

[1:14:51] to build community with one

[1:14:52] another and support each other.

[1:14:54] Thank you.

[1:14:56] And do, are there other sports

[1:14:58] on campus that are not able

[1:15:00] to be played that have

[1:15:01] to be played

[1:15:02] off campus right now?

[1:15:03] Other sports?

[1:15:05] Yes, every sport is played

[1:15:06] off campus at this point.

[1:15:08] Our pool isn't regulation.

[1:15:09] We do practice water polo,

[1:15:11] but we have to play

[1:15:12] off campus.

[1:15:13] So the gym would allow

[1:15:14] volleyball, basketball, some

[1:15:16] cheer, dance, and gymnastics

[1:15:18] to stay on campus.

[1:15:19] Thank you.

[1:15:23] Yes, Council Member

[1:15:24] Pappajohn.

[1:15:25] Thank you, Mayor.

[1:15:26] Thank you for your

[1:15:27] presentation.

[1:15:28] I just wanted to kind

[1:15:29] of continue

[1:15:30] on the conversation with

[1:15:32] Council Member Colson.

[1:15:34] And so what I am understanding

[1:15:35] is that the gym would really,

[1:15:38] rentals would be for sports,

[1:15:41] unless you wanted to lean in

[1:15:44] to a community that needed it

[1:15:46] for an organization that needed

[1:15:47] it for event.

[1:15:49] So could you just elaborate

[1:15:52] again on then how you would

[1:15:54] incentivize, or how you would

[1:15:58] have the community rent the

[1:16:00] Cole Mansion and then not the

[1:16:02] gym, because obviously it makes

[1:16:04] so much more financial sense

[1:16:05] to do that.

[1:16:06] Could you just repeat that part

[1:16:08] for me, please?

[1:16:09] Yes, so typically we leave the

[1:16:11] Cole Mansion open for rentals

[1:16:12] throughout the year.

[1:16:14] Some people are planning

[1:16:15] weddings 18 months

[1:16:16] in advance.

[1:16:17] Some people are calling two

[1:16:18] months in advance or a month

[1:16:19] in advance for a celebration

[1:16:20] of life.

[1:16:21] And so to try to rent

[1:16:22] out the gym months in advance

[1:16:24] for a major event would just,

[1:16:25] again, be poor judgment

[1:16:27] on our part.

[1:16:28] And that is something we would

[1:16:29] never do because it limits our

[1:16:30] ability to bring

[1:16:32] in more money.

[1:16:34] If there is, and there's a

[1:16:35] balance, a delicate balance

[1:16:36] to running an event venue,

[1:16:39] especially for weddings,

[1:16:40] when people want the best day

[1:16:41] of their life.

[1:16:42] For example, and we put this

[1:16:44] in our meeting notes

[1:16:45] with the commission,

[1:16:46] let's say we had a wedding plan

[1:16:47] for 200, 300 people and we

[1:16:49] happened to get to the CCS

[1:16:51] semifinals and we got home

[1:16:54] court advantage.

[1:16:56] Weddings don't want kids

[1:16:57] in uniforms walking

[1:16:59] in and out.

[1:17:00] They don't want a bunch

[1:17:02] of high school students.

[1:17:03] So even having a gym, we

[1:17:04] recognize there might be times

[1:17:05] where we still have to rent

[1:17:06] another facility or we have

[1:17:07] to think twice of, do we have

[1:17:08] to shuttle people

[1:17:10] in and out?

[1:17:12] So it's a very delicate rentals

[1:17:15] that we have been doing

[1:17:16] for decades and we continue

[1:17:17] to give that same care to the

[1:17:19] way we would balance any gym

[1:17:20] rental requests.

[1:17:23] Again, the gym rental

[1:17:24] for me allows us

[1:17:28] to support the community.

[1:17:31] Thank you.

[1:17:32] Any other questions?

[1:17:33] Yes.

[1:17:34] Yeah, so I did have a question.

[1:17:35] So I think

[1:17:36] in the conditional use permit,

[1:17:38] it does mention summer school

[1:17:39] and sports camp.

[1:17:40] Currently, there's some

[1:17:41] restrictions on that as far as

[1:17:42] how many participants and the

[1:17:43] time of day.

[1:17:45] Do those types of activities

[1:17:46] happen now and would any

[1:17:48] of those happen in the gym

[1:17:49] in the future?

[1:17:51] Yes, they do happen now and

[1:17:52] they will continue to happen

[1:17:53] in the future in the gym and

[1:17:54] the gym can only support the

[1:17:56] growth of Mercy High School,

[1:17:59] which is something I believe is

[1:18:00] important

[1:18:01] to us as a city as well.

[1:18:03] Because right now,

[1:18:04] for instance, some

[1:18:05] of our programming is

[1:18:07] on campus and then we have

[1:18:08] to rent gyms for volleyball,

[1:18:09] basketball,

[1:18:10] camps or conditioning.

[1:18:11] And so we're taking students

[1:18:12] and potential people that wanna

[1:18:14] learn about Mercy off

[1:18:15] of our campus.

[1:18:16] So it wouldn't change anything

[1:18:17] in the numbers in the CUP.

[1:18:18] It would just, again, ensure

[1:18:21] that we have students coming

[1:18:23] onto our campus and have the

[1:18:24] facilities to keep them indoors

[1:18:25] and reduce the noise.

[1:18:27] Yeah, because I did notice the

[1:18:28] time limits on those are

[1:18:29] Monday through Friday, 8.15

[1:18:31] to 3.15 p.m.

[1:18:32] So those are very strict

[1:18:33] limits.

[1:18:35] So even if you did do third

[1:18:36] party rentals,

[1:18:37] I think it would probably have

[1:18:38] to fall

[1:18:39] under these guidelines.

[1:18:40] So those are the guidelines

[1:18:41] for summer camp.

[1:18:42] So those aren't the guidelines,

[1:18:44] like the Cole Mansion, we can

[1:18:45] rent until 11 p.m.

[1:18:47] So I would just, and I think

[1:18:49] that's where this conversation

[1:18:50] originally came from when

[1:18:52] neighbors were hoping that we

[1:18:53] would limit gym usage to 8.30

[1:18:54] p.m.

[1:18:56] We did our research comparing

[1:18:57] to other schools and we

[1:18:58] recognize that that would be

[1:18:59] holding Mercy

[1:19:02] to a very different standard

[1:19:03] of all

[1:19:04] of their schools being able

[1:19:05] to use their gym.

[1:19:06] And that by saying you can

[1:19:07] leave the gym at 8.30, you have

[1:19:08] to leave the gym at 8.30,

[1:19:10] but you can go hang out

[1:19:11] in the Cole Mansion until 11

[1:19:12] p.m.

[1:19:13] There was a huge discrepancy

[1:19:14] there.

[1:19:15] So yes, I agree that there's

[1:19:16] the summer camp and that is

[1:19:18] something that we always uphold

[1:19:19] every year.

[1:19:20] And quite frankly,

[1:19:21] in the summer,

[1:19:22] we don't wanna be at Mercy

[1:19:23] late.

[1:19:24] We want our time to rest.

[1:19:25] But in terms of

[1:19:26] during the school year,

[1:19:28] that point in the CUP, I don't

[1:19:29] think applies right now.

[1:19:31] And then the other question I

[1:19:32] had is, so the conditional use

[1:19:34] permit also requires you

[1:19:35] to have a public calendar

[1:19:37] of any of the events at Cole

[1:19:39] Mansion or otherwise.

[1:19:40] And I assume that would apply

[1:19:42] to the gymnasium as well.

[1:19:44] Is that something you would

[1:19:45] plan to do for the events?

[1:19:47] Yeah, so our calendar is

[1:19:48] public.

[1:19:50] So we have our school calendar,

[1:19:52] we have a shared calendar

[1:19:53] with the sisters.

[1:19:54] Our athletic calendar would

[1:19:55] also be available.

[1:19:56] So neighbors would know when

[1:19:57] there's home games and not.

[1:19:59] And if there were any

[1:20:00] additional events specific

[1:20:01] to the gym, like for example,

[1:20:05] BIS needed, all

[1:20:07] of their teams went to the

[1:20:08] championship and needed an

[1:20:09] extra two hours of practice.

[1:20:10] We could add that into our

[1:20:12] Cole Mansion calendar somehow,

[1:20:13] the larger link outside

[1:20:15] of the school calendar.

[1:20:17] Thank you.

[1:20:19] This may seem a little weird,

[1:20:20] and I know you're not fully

[1:20:22] into design and production yet,

[1:20:24] but what type of materials has

[1:20:27] the school talked about

[1:20:29] for noise prevention

[1:20:30] in that gym?

[1:20:32] You're right,

[1:20:33] that is not my specialty.

[1:20:35] But what I do know is we

[1:20:36] specifically design it

[1:20:37] to have a lobby

[1:20:39] before you would go

[1:20:40] into the main doors

[1:20:41] of the gym.

[1:20:42] And that lobby from previous

[1:20:44] conversations that I know our

[1:20:45] architects spoke to at the

[1:20:47] commission meeting would

[1:20:48] maintain the noise inside.

[1:20:50] And so actually the gym brings

[1:20:51] noise.

[1:20:54] Like for right now, we have

[1:20:56] rallies outdoors.

[1:20:57] And as you can imagine, 400

[1:20:58] girls yelling can get noisy.

[1:20:59] All that will be brought

[1:21:01] inside.

[1:21:03] So there are different pieces

[1:21:04] where we'll actually decrease

[1:21:05] the noise that our community

[1:21:06] members have been used to.

[1:21:09] Thank you.

[1:21:10] And our architects are here if

[1:21:11] you want more specific details

[1:21:12] about that.

[1:21:14] Any other questions?

[1:21:17] Okay, thank you very much.

[1:21:18] Thank you.

[1:21:19] Stay tuned, we have rebuttal

[1:21:21] section coming.

[1:21:27] So just as a reminder,

[1:21:28] this is the time for public

[1:21:29] comment and I'll go ahead and

[1:21:30] we're gonna limit it to two

[1:21:32] minutes and we'll go ahead and

[1:21:35] open that.

[1:21:36] I do have a special request

[1:21:37] though.

[1:21:38] We have somebody who needs

[1:21:41] to come and go.

[1:21:43] And so we're gonna invite Mr.

[1:21:44] Collins up first.

[1:21:46] Is Mr. Collins here?

[1:21:48] And I'm opening public comment.

[1:21:53] Go ahead.

[1:21:55] Thank you.

[1:21:56] My name is Michael Collins.

[1:21:57] I live at 2405 Adeline Drive.

[1:22:00] I'm directly across the street

[1:22:01] from where the gym is proposed.

[1:22:05] I fully support Mercy High

[1:22:06] School's need

[1:22:08] for a gym.

[1:22:09] I think it's ideal for their

[1:22:12] long-term success that they

[1:22:14] have a gym that's state

[1:22:15] of the art.

[1:22:17] And I do believe they need to

[1:22:18] improve and enhance their pool.

[1:22:21] I'm a big believer

[1:22:22] in the importance

[1:22:23] of high school athletics,

[1:22:25] particularly

[1:22:26] with young women.

[1:22:27] Lynn Israelet, myself, met

[1:22:29] with the principal

[1:22:30] in the spring of 2024 where she

[1:22:32] outlined and articulated the

[1:22:36] needs, the uses, the timing,

[1:22:37] the parking, the traffic

[1:22:40] controls, et cetera,

[1:22:42] all associated

[1:22:44] with this gym.

[1:22:45] It was a thoughtful,

[1:22:46] well-organized presentation.

[1:22:48] Lynn and I both supported the

[1:22:51] need for the gym and we

[1:22:54] supported what they were

[1:22:55] proposing.

[1:22:58] That began a very collaborative

[1:22:59] and transparent process between

[1:23:03] the neighbors and the gym,

[1:23:05] between the neighbors and the

[1:23:07] school.

[1:23:08] There were instances where

[1:23:09] concerns were raised

[1:23:10] by neighbors, we were able

[1:23:12] to work with the school and

[1:23:13] achieve common ground.

[1:23:16] I'm here before you because I

[1:23:17] feel as though the Planning

[1:23:18] Commission is doing a

[1:23:19] disservice.

[1:23:21] This was a collaborative

[1:23:23] effort.

[1:23:24] There's a lot of projects that

[1:23:25] are large

[1:23:26] in scale where the committee,

[1:23:27] the council wants cooperation

[1:23:30] between the developer and the

[1:23:31] neighbors.

[1:23:34] We had that, we had an

[1:23:35] agreement,

[1:23:36] and unilaterally the Planning

[1:23:38] Commission changed what was

[1:23:39] agreed upon.

[1:23:41] And I think that's just not

[1:23:42] fair and I think that's bad

[1:23:43] business for the city of

[1:23:45] Burlingame.

[1:23:46] And I'd suggest that we rethink

[1:23:47] that process.

[1:23:49] And again, I support the gym, I

[1:23:52] just don't support these last

[1:23:53] minute changes that weren't

[1:23:55] agreed upon.

[1:23:57] Thank you for your time.

[1:23:58] Thank you.

[1:24:00] Stephen.

[1:24:01] Oh.

[1:24:10] We generally ask no clapping

[1:24:11] in the audience

[1:24:13] after each public speaker.

[1:24:15] So I appreciate if you could

[1:24:16] adhere to that.

[1:24:17] Thanks for the reminder.

[1:24:19] There's a bunch

[1:24:20] of yellow cards.

[1:24:21] If you plan

[1:24:23] to speak and you haven't filled

[1:24:24] out a yellow card,

[1:24:25] please do so.

[1:24:26] They're in the back

[1:24:27] of the room.

[1:24:28] You can hand them

[1:24:29] to our city clerk.

[1:24:30] But I'm gonna go

[1:24:31] in random order.

[1:24:32] And so the first is gonna be

[1:24:34] Sharon Coleman.

[1:24:45] Try to keep it to two minutes.

[1:24:46] I practiced and got it

[1:24:47] under three.

[1:24:49] The focus and my concern is

[1:24:51] on the third party rentals.

[1:24:53] From the October meeting

[1:24:55] minutes, the head

[1:24:56] of the school confirms, I want

[1:24:58] to reiterate that there is no

[1:24:59] plan to rent the gymnasium.

[1:25:01] That's page 19.

[1:25:02] The fact is the school is not

[1:25:03] advocating for third party

[1:25:04] rentals and the city of

[1:25:06] Burlingame recommended no third

[1:25:08] party rentals.

[1:25:11] What the commission granted is

[1:25:12] out of the norm for private

[1:25:13] schools.

[1:25:14] I know we're hearing opposite,

[1:25:16] but my kids went to Crystal,

[1:25:17] Nueva, and Menlo.

[1:25:18] I spoke with the head

[1:25:19] of facility operations at

[1:25:20] Nueva, who confirms school

[1:25:23] activities can be scheduled

[1:25:24] until 10, but they rarely have

[1:25:25] them past eight or nine.

[1:25:27] There are no third party

[1:25:28] rentals, only partnerships,

[1:25:30] like when the use of a CSM pool

[1:25:32] is needed.

[1:25:33] I spoke with the director

[1:25:34] of operations at Crystal and

[1:25:35] confirmed their CUP states no

[1:25:36] school on campus activities

[1:25:38] at all.

[1:25:42] The commission showed lack

[1:25:43] of knowledge, expertise,

[1:25:45] and energy on how

[1:25:46] to craft the wording

[1:25:49] for the parameters

[1:25:50] around the use of the gym.

[1:25:51] When the commissioners could

[1:25:52] not figure out how

[1:25:53] to word the existing

[1:25:54] partnership between Mercy and

[1:25:55] the Burlingame Aquatic

[1:25:56] Center's use of the pool,

[1:25:57] one commissioner said, strike

[1:25:59] out this language and not have

[1:26:01] the restriction as part

[1:26:02] of this approval.

[1:26:04] Another said, I would be happy

[1:26:05] to remove that.

[1:26:06] It seems like an extra ball and

[1:26:07] chain.

[1:26:09] Page 38, a commissioner said,

[1:26:10] my concern is restricting

[1:26:12] Mercy from making money.

[1:26:14] Personally, I want

[1:26:16] to strike it out.

[1:26:17] So I ask, is it the planning's

[1:26:19] commission responsibility

[1:26:20] to find sources of income

[1:26:23] for private institutions?

[1:26:25] Lack of knowing how

[1:26:26] to word a partnership led to

[1:26:28] removing wording that gave full

[1:26:29] rein to renting the space

[1:26:30] for profit.

[1:26:32] So the planning commission

[1:26:33] showed bias towards Mercy in

[1:26:35] this way and discounted the

[1:26:36] neighbors' reasonable requests

[1:26:37] throughout the process.

[1:26:38] So after a very long meeting,

[1:26:41] the commissioners came

[1:26:43] to the swift and frankly,

[1:26:45] fatigued conclusion.

[1:26:46] They were tired, to give Mercy

[1:26:48] carte blanche.

[1:26:50] Thank you for recognizing.

[1:26:51] Thank you, Ms. Coleman.

[1:26:53] Holly Daly.

[1:27:01] Thank you.

[1:27:02] I live on Poppy, so I hear the

[1:27:04] rallies and my car has been

[1:27:06] sideswiped and there are times

[1:27:09] that I detour

[1:27:11] around when it's pick up or

[1:27:13] drop off time

[1:27:14] at the high school.

[1:27:15] Happy to have the school there,

[1:27:16] happy to have a gym, but I feel

[1:27:20] that the material presented

[1:27:21] tonight has been not

[1:27:23] necessarily fact-based.

[1:27:26] I think Sharin brought up a few

[1:27:28] facts to share

[1:27:29] with the group.

[1:27:31] And I feel that

[1:27:32] in the interest

[1:27:33] of clarity is kindness,

[1:27:34] there's an opportunity

[1:27:36] to really carve out

[1:27:37] in the wording the usage, the

[1:27:40] times, and reach agreement.

[1:27:41] I think there's an opportunity

[1:27:42] here for a win-win.

[1:27:43] It seems like there've been

[1:27:45] some proposals put forward

[1:27:47] for consideration, and I hope

[1:27:48] that we can work something

[1:27:50] out that benefits everybody.

[1:27:52] Thanks.

[1:27:54] Thank you, Ms. Daly.

[1:27:56] Chris Denton.

[1:28:06] Thank you, council members

[1:28:07] for the opportunity

[1:28:08] to speak.

[1:28:09] I'm a parent of a 2023 graduate

[1:28:11] of Mercy and also a board

[1:28:12] member.

[1:28:14] And I would like to admit that

[1:28:16] I've never been

[1:28:18] to an athletic event at Mercy

[1:28:19] High School.

[1:28:21] I've never been to an event

[1:28:22] there that had the opportunity

[1:28:24] for the whole school

[1:28:25] to gather.

[1:28:26] So I have been to Sarah,

[1:28:28] Burlingame High, Mills

[1:28:30] for similar events,

[1:28:32] which is kind of sad.

[1:28:34] So I'm glad that the question

[1:28:36] isn't whether or not Mercy

[1:28:37] deserves this opportunity.

[1:28:40] So I'm glad that's not

[1:28:43] in question.

[1:28:44] So I appreciate that as well.

[1:28:46] Having been to many events at

[1:28:48] Mercy with the Cole Mansion

[1:28:50] for other events,

[1:28:53] and I've mentioned I've been

[1:28:54] to the other schools,

[1:28:56] I've always found the

[1:28:58] opportunity, there's always

[1:29:00] parking, there's always the

[1:29:02] events.

[1:29:03] I'm surprised at the

[1:29:04] spaciousness of Mercy compared

[1:29:05] to, for example, when you go

[1:29:07] to Sarah, it's

[1:29:08] on the school streets, it's

[1:29:09] Burlingame, even though it has

[1:29:11] access on El Camino, there are

[1:29:13] still limitations.

[1:29:14] And I just feel that Mercy does

[1:29:16] have the facilities available

[1:29:20] and you have an example

[1:29:21] of a partner

[1:29:22] for many years that has proven

[1:29:24] to use that wisely and

[1:29:26] cooperated

[1:29:27] with the community.

[1:29:29] So I think as to the questions

[1:29:33] of putting additional

[1:29:35] conditions, I think you just

[1:29:37] have an opportunity with the

[1:29:38] community that has addressed

[1:29:40] those.

[1:29:42] One other concern as a board

[1:29:43] member too, one particular

[1:29:45] point is the safety

[1:29:46] of the community is one

[1:29:48] of my major concerns.

[1:29:50] And as far as the condition

[1:29:51] about a public walkway,

[1:29:53] I do have concerns about that

[1:29:55] because I think our utmost

[1:29:57] responsibility is to be able

[1:29:58] to ensure the safety

[1:29:59] of our students and

[1:30:01] to have no restrictions

[1:30:02] on that type of act.

[1:30:04] Thank you.

[1:30:05] Thank you, Mr. Denton.

[1:30:07] Ginny Wright.

[1:30:16] Good evening.

[1:30:17] Thanks for the opportunity

[1:30:18] to speak and thank you for your

[1:30:19] community service.

[1:30:21] I'm Ginny Wright.

[1:30:22] My family and I have lived in

[1:30:23] Burlingame since 1983.

[1:30:25] We lived in our current house

[1:30:27] on Adeline since 1988.

[1:30:30] In addition to my career

[1:30:31] in finance, I volunteered as a

[1:30:32] board member and treasurer

[1:30:33] for a number

[1:30:35] of local nonprofits.

[1:30:36] Including Burlingame Community

[1:30:38] for Education, Burlingame

[1:30:39] High School Parents Group and

[1:30:40] Burlingame Aquatic Club.

[1:30:42] We raised our two daughters

[1:30:43] in Burlingame and sports were

[1:30:45] important in their lives.

[1:30:48] With that experience,

[1:30:49] I support Mercy's goal to

[1:30:50] provide quality sports

[1:30:51] facilities on their campus and

[1:30:54] I support this gym

[1:30:55] for their students.

[1:30:57] However, the conditional use

[1:30:59] permit as currently drafted is

[1:31:02] very open-ended.

[1:31:04] It would allow activities,

[1:31:06] rentals, till 10 o'clock many

[1:31:09] nights, 11 o'clock other

[1:31:11] nights, 365 days a year.

[1:31:16] Administrations

[1:31:17] in the school come and go.

[1:31:19] It may not be Natalie's intent

[1:31:22] to rent this now for profit or

[1:31:24] to rent it very many nights a

[1:31:25] week, but there's nothing in

[1:31:27] this documentation that would

[1:31:29] prevent the next person coming

[1:31:32] in to really change that

[1:31:33] policy.

[1:31:35] I would like the council to

[1:31:36] consider approving the facility

[1:31:38] for use by the school, but not

[1:31:40] for commercial rentals.

[1:31:41] Thank you

[1:31:42] for your consideration.

[1:31:44] Thank you, Ms. Ring.

[1:31:46] Tom Wooten or Wooten?

[1:31:49] I hope I didn't mess that up.

[1:31:52] What is your last name again?

[1:31:55] My name is Tom Wooten.

[1:31:56] Wooten, okay.

[1:31:57] I'd like to thank the council

[1:31:58] for allowing me

[1:31:59] to speak and I also like

[1:32:00] to thank the neighbors

[1:32:01] for their continued support

[1:32:03] of Mercy High School.

[1:32:04] As I said, my name is Tom

[1:32:05] Wooten.

[1:32:08] I'm a 20, 24, 25 year teacher

[1:32:10] at Mercy High School and a

[1:32:12] former coach

[1:32:14] in particular basketball.

[1:32:16] I'd like to talk a little bit

[1:32:17] about my own experience as a

[1:32:20] basketball coach of having

[1:32:22] to drive 20 minutes to get

[1:32:23] to a gym from a closed down

[1:32:26] high school so that we could

[1:32:29] practice or our girls would

[1:32:31] have a space to play.

[1:32:34] I'd like to talk about some

[1:32:36] of our students not being able

[1:32:38] to practice or having

[1:32:41] to do cardio in the cafeteria

[1:32:46] because there is no gym space

[1:32:47] for us.

[1:32:49] And I'd like to comment that

[1:32:52] since gym space is extremely

[1:32:55] needed for five, six sports,

[1:33:00] they would be very difficult if

[1:33:03] not impossible to give much

[1:33:06] of that time

[1:33:07] to any other third party.

[1:33:08] Thank you.

[1:33:09] Thank you, Mr. Wooten.

[1:33:17] I'm gonna mess this up.

[1:33:20] Tasella Gawler, Gawler?

[1:33:24] Rebecca, okay, sorry.

[1:33:26] It was filled

[1:33:27] out quickly.

[1:33:28] I apologize.

[1:33:30] So thank you so much

[1:33:31] for the time,

[1:33:32] everyone.

[1:33:33] I come here with two different

[1:33:34] hats on.

[1:33:36] I am a Burlingame resident and

[1:33:37] I have for the last over 10

[1:33:38] years lived within two blocks

[1:33:41] of Mercy.

[1:33:42] And at no point in any of that

[1:33:43] time have I ever experienced

[1:33:44] bad traffic due to the Mercy

[1:33:46] girls.

[1:33:47] We have many schools.

[1:33:48] We have Lincoln.

[1:33:49] We have Hoover.

[1:33:50] And I would say to see people

[1:33:52] in the car, it tends

[1:33:53] to be the other folks,

[1:33:54] but I'll just leave that

[1:33:55] to our imaginations.

[1:33:57] And I have now a house that

[1:33:59] backs up onto Hillside Drive

[1:34:00] at the corner of Newton across

[1:34:01] from the fire station.

[1:34:03] So I know when it's hard

[1:34:04] to get out of my driveway.

[1:34:05] And I will say I'm always

[1:34:07] impressed by the young women

[1:34:08] that are driving themselves

[1:34:09] to school.

[1:34:11] But also more importantly,

[1:34:12] I think Burlingame needs

[1:34:13] to support all of our schools

[1:34:14] to thrive.

[1:34:15] It only improves our community

[1:34:17] for everyone in it.

[1:34:19] And Mercy has been waiting way

[1:34:20] too long

[1:34:23] for this athletic building.

[1:34:27] My daughter attended Mercy

[1:34:28] Public High Schools as well as

[1:34:30] Mercy, excuse me, Burlingame

[1:34:32] Public High Schools, as well as

[1:34:33] Mercy High School.

[1:34:34] And so I've seen both parts

[1:34:36] of the wonder of our community

[1:34:37] and the great educations we

[1:34:38] provide.

[1:34:39] And Mercy education for my

[1:34:41] daughter was extraordinary.

[1:34:42] And I am always impressed with

[1:34:45] the care and service they give

[1:34:47] to the surrounding communities

[1:34:48] as well as the girls on their

[1:34:49] campus.

[1:34:50] I think we all know how

[1:34:51] important it is to provide

[1:34:53] young women opportunities

[1:34:54] for sports.

[1:34:55] I think we see, and Natalie and

[1:34:57] the leadership team, and while

[1:34:59] I agree we don't know what's

[1:35:00] gonna happen with future

[1:35:01] administrations and leadership

[1:35:03] in the school, I think Mercy

[1:35:05] throughout the years has always

[1:35:06] proven to be a very trustworthy

[1:35:08] partner.

[1:35:09] And to Mr. Wooten's point,

[1:35:11] I can't conceive of a time when

[1:35:13] they'd really wanna rent

[1:35:14] out that train after hours.

[1:35:15] They have such vast need

[1:35:17] for it and

[1:35:18] for the student body and the

[1:35:19] Mercy school community.

[1:35:21] I think it's sort

[1:35:22] of a false concern.

[1:35:23] So I guess the other thing is

[1:35:26] that I just think we need

[1:35:28] to think about equity in our

[1:35:30] schools and giving everybody a

[1:35:31] chance.

[1:35:32] So I'll just end it there,

[1:35:33] but thank you.

[1:35:34] Thank you, Ms. Coleman.

[1:35:36] Isis Ordaz.

[1:35:43] Good evening, my name is Isis

[1:35:44] Ordaz and I'm currently a

[1:35:46] senior at Mercy

[1:35:47] on a merit scholarship.

[1:35:48] As a student body president,

[1:35:49] I'm here

[1:35:50] to ask the city council

[1:35:51] to support the Planning

[1:35:52] Commission's decision

[1:35:53] to allow us

[1:35:54] to build a gymnasium on our

[1:35:55] campus.

[1:35:56] A gym would absolutely

[1:35:57] transform student activities

[1:35:58] and Athletics at Mercy.

[1:35:59] Not only would we be able

[1:36:01] to host our own home games,

[1:36:03] we could have indoor pep

[1:36:04] rallies with court games and

[1:36:06] designated places to start our

[1:36:07] own championship banners,

[1:36:08] trophies, and rings.

[1:36:09] A gymnasium would be pivotal

[1:36:11] for our athletics program.

[1:36:14] As a varsity volleyball player,

[1:36:16] I personally know the

[1:36:18] difficulty that comes

[1:36:19] with having to utilize our

[1:36:20] brother school's gym as our

[1:36:21] home court.

[1:36:22] When we decorate for Dig Pink

[1:36:23] or Senior Night, there is

[1:36:24] absolutely no indication

[1:36:25] of it being Mercy's home court.

[1:36:28] The walls and ceiling are

[1:36:29] crowded with Sarah's classic S

[1:36:31] logo in blue and gold

[1:36:32] with the names of Sarah's

[1:36:34] student athletes

[1:36:35] on banners and plaques.

[1:36:36] This year, Mercy Volleyball

[1:36:37] went undefeated in league,

[1:36:39] finishing as WBAL champions,

[1:36:40] and even made it to CIF

[1:36:41] Division I NorCal playoffs.

[1:36:44] If we were Sarah or a co-ed

[1:36:45] school in the area, our

[1:36:47] achievements would be honored

[1:36:48] with a glass case and blue and

[1:36:50] white fabric banners,

[1:36:52] but instead,

[1:36:53] our awards are held

[1:36:54] in storage collecting desks.

[1:36:55] Having our own gym would allow

[1:36:56] all athletic programs

[1:36:58] to exhibit school records,

[1:36:59] accomplishments, and awards.

[1:37:00] Our students would be able

[1:37:02] to play

[1:37:03] in an environment indicative

[1:37:04] of their school, showcasing

[1:37:05] their strengths and admirable

[1:37:06] athletic abilities.

[1:37:07] With a genuine heart,

[1:37:09] I deeply implore you to

[1:37:10] consider the conditions that

[1:37:11] other schools have in regards

[1:37:12] to their gym usage.

[1:37:14] I am kindly asking

[1:37:15] for equity,

[1:37:16] and if any conditions are

[1:37:17] placed on our gym,

[1:37:18] I'd hope that they remain

[1:37:19] in line with those

[1:37:20] of all boys and co-ed schools

[1:37:21] in the area.

[1:37:23] I'd also like to assure the

[1:37:24] city council and our neighbors

[1:37:26] that Mercy High School has a

[1:37:27] longstanding reputation of

[1:37:28] responsibility and

[1:37:29] respectfulness in terms

[1:37:30] of community events.

[1:37:33] If anything is off limits due

[1:37:34] to Cole Mansion rentals or the

[1:37:35] Music at Cole Mansion program,

[1:37:36] there's always an announcement

[1:37:37] so that events may take place

[1:37:39] without student interruption.

[1:37:40] I recognize the concern of

[1:37:42] maintaining a quiet

[1:37:44] neighborhood.

[1:37:45] Thank you for your time and

[1:37:46] consideration.

[1:37:48] Thank you, Ms. Harden.

[1:37:50] Nels DeLander.

[1:38:00] Good evening, Mayor, city

[1:38:01] council members,

[1:38:02] and city staff.

[1:38:03] My name is Nels DeLander, and

[1:38:04] I'm a representative of

[1:38:05] Carver's Local 213 that covers

[1:38:06] San Mateo County.

[1:38:09] We're in full support of

[1:38:10] Mercy High School new athletic

[1:38:12] center and swimming pool.

[1:38:14] This project will be built by

[1:38:15] Carver's signatory union

[1:38:16] contractor that supports a

[1:38:18] state credit training program,

[1:38:22] pays area standard wages,

[1:38:23] and has access

[1:38:24] to medical coverage

[1:38:25] for workers and their families.

[1:38:28] By doing so, the workers and

[1:38:29] their families do not need

[1:38:30] to depend on county medical

[1:38:31] facilities funded

[1:38:32] by taxpaying dollars.

[1:38:35] This project is not only

[1:38:37] to support workers, but gives

[1:38:39] local workers the opportunity

[1:38:40] to work

[1:38:41] in their own community.

[1:38:42] By doing so,

[1:38:43] it helps businesses in

[1:38:44] Burlingame

[1:38:45] by knowing that the funds in

[1:38:46] this project will be spent

[1:38:47] locally in helping the economy

[1:38:48] of Burlingame.

[1:38:49] This project will not only help

[1:38:51] the local economy, the

[1:38:52] workforce, but

[1:38:54] by approving this project,

[1:38:55] you're giving students a new

[1:38:56] facility and pool

[1:38:57] to be excited

[1:38:58] about that promotes exercise

[1:39:00] for the future of generation

[1:39:01] of Burlingame children.

[1:39:02] Carver's Local 217 is full

[1:39:04] support of the project.

[1:39:07] Thank you for your time.

[1:39:09] Thank you, Mr. DeLander.

[1:39:10] Brian Lee.

[1:39:27] I wanna read something

[1:39:28] from my sister.

[1:39:31] I was raised on Benito Avenue

[1:39:32] and walked to Mercy every day

[1:39:33] during high school.

[1:39:35] As a land use planner for

[1:39:36] over 40 years in both the

[1:39:37] private and public sectors, I

[1:39:39] was shocked when the city

[1:39:40] decided to change the master

[1:39:42] plan requirement

[1:39:43] for the entire 40 acres prior

[1:39:45] to any redevelopment,

[1:39:47] including the gym.

[1:39:48] This was done by determining

[1:39:51] that the project is not a reuse

[1:39:52] repurposing of the site and

[1:39:54] does not require a master plan

[1:39:56] application and how it is not

[1:39:59] as a mystery to me.

[1:40:01] Now the property is being

[1:40:03] developed piecemeal.

[1:40:05] The gym project uses existing

[1:40:07] onsite roads and parking lots

[1:40:09] over the entire 40 acres to

[1:40:10] meet the access and parking

[1:40:13] requirements

[1:40:14] for the gym redevelopment.

[1:40:15] How will these same roads and

[1:40:17] parking lots be used when the

[1:40:18] sisters figure out what

[1:40:20] development they want?

[1:40:21] There are already several uses

[1:40:23] at Mercy, Cole Mansion, the

[1:40:25] high school, the Mercy

[1:40:27] Center, Marion Oaks,

[1:40:28] Montessori, Convent Mass, et

[1:40:31] cetera, and now a gym center

[1:40:32] that can be rented.

[1:40:35] There's valid concern

[1:40:36] for overflow parking.

[1:40:39] An MOU seems logical

[1:40:42] since the memorandum

[1:40:43] of understanding is an

[1:40:44] agreement between the parties

[1:40:46] that outlines their intentions,

[1:40:48] roles, and expectations.

[1:40:49] How will overflow parking work?

[1:40:51] It is difficult now that the

[1:40:52] property has been allowed

[1:40:53] to develop piecemeal.

[1:40:56] The MOU must clearly address

[1:40:58] how overflow parking will be

[1:41:00] accommodated onsite.

[1:41:01] Also, the new poppy emergency

[1:41:04] only access must be fenced,

[1:41:06] gated,

[1:41:08] and signed so there's no

[1:41:10] pedestrian, vehicular,

[1:41:11] or staff access.

[1:41:13] Please do not allow any more

[1:41:14] piecemeal development

[1:41:16] of this beautiful property.

[1:41:17] Thank you, Marsha Lee.

[1:41:21] Thank you.

[1:41:22] Thank you, Mr. Lee.

[1:41:26] Jeb Gibney.

[1:41:34] I'm Jeb Gibney, I live at 1473

[1:41:36] Alvarado.

[1:41:37] Thank the mayor and

[1:41:38] councilmembers.

[1:41:39] My main concern is the game

[1:41:41] plan seems

[1:41:43] to have been changed

[1:41:44] without further consultation

[1:41:46] with the citizens.

[1:41:49] The primary concern is the

[1:41:50] traffic and the noise and time

[1:41:55] limits.

[1:41:57] I tend to get up

[1:41:58] at six o'clock every morning,

[1:41:59] I always have, I'd like

[1:42:00] to do it

[1:42:02] for quite a few more years,

[1:42:03] and I'd like

[1:42:05] to get a full night's sleep.

[1:42:08] But if the traffic and the

[1:42:09] noise continues past 10 o'clock

[1:42:10] at night,

[1:42:13] it's gonna be difficult

[1:42:14] for everybody to do that.

[1:42:17] But I'd like

[1:42:18] to have it reconsidered.

[1:42:19] Thank you for your time.

[1:42:21] Thank you, Mr. Gibney.

[1:42:23] Dr. Kevin Baker.

[1:42:41] Good evening.

[1:42:42] My name's Kevin Baker.

[1:42:44] I'm a concerned resident of

[1:42:46] Alvarado Avenue, which is

[1:42:48] immediately adjacent to the

[1:42:49] school property.

[1:42:52] I fully support the use

[1:42:53] of the building

[1:42:55] of the gym.

[1:42:56] I'm opposed to the use

[1:42:57] of rental at that same gym,

[1:42:59] especially

[1:43:02] at non-school event spaces.

[1:43:05] The impact on the neighborhood

[1:43:07] will be significant,

[1:43:08] especially if events are

[1:43:09] allowed to go on to 10 and 11

[1:43:12] p.m. at night.

[1:43:14] This likely means that the

[1:43:15] traffic leaving the venue will

[1:43:17] be happening late

[1:43:18] into the night.

[1:43:19] And with the new speed bumps

[1:43:21] that have been installed on

[1:43:23] Adeline and Alvarado, one of

[1:43:26] which is directly outside my

[1:43:27] residence, I'll be hearing the

[1:43:29] thump, thump of traffic

[1:43:33] at all hours of the night.

[1:43:34] This is not hypothetical.

[1:43:38] We already hear traffic

[1:43:39] from the mansion events, or

[1:43:41] happens almost every weekend.

[1:43:44] I'm asking you to consider for

[1:43:48] the property taxpaying

[1:43:50] residents who this will impact,

[1:43:52] that you do not vote,

[1:43:54] that you vote

[1:43:55] to deny the application

[1:43:57] for rent.

[1:43:59] Thank you.

[1:44:01] Thank you, Dr. Baker.

[1:44:03] David Green.

[1:44:12] Hi there.

[1:44:13] Thank you

[1:44:14] for giving me this opportunity

[1:44:15] to speak to you tonight.

[1:44:16] David Green, I live at 2020

[1:44:17] Adeline Drive, which is at

[1:44:18] Vancouver, a few blocks away.

[1:44:21] And like everybody

[1:44:23] in this room, I'm supportive of

[1:44:25] the gym project.

[1:44:26] I'm delighted to see Mercy

[1:44:28] continue to success.

[1:44:29] It's one

[1:44:30] of the reasons I wanted

[1:44:31] to live in this neighborhood

[1:44:32] for the last 20 years.

[1:44:33] And I knew there was gonna be

[1:44:34] traffic when I bought the

[1:44:35] house.

[1:44:36] I came out to see what it'd be

[1:44:37] like.

[1:44:38] And yeah, there's a lot

[1:44:39] of traffic in the morning,

[1:44:40] and there's a lot of traffic

[1:44:41] in the afternoon.

[1:44:42] And I bought the house knowing

[1:44:43] that.

[1:44:44] So my only objection,

[1:44:46] like you've heard, is

[1:44:48] on the use of this property

[1:44:49] of the gym to 11 o'clock, seven

[1:44:51] days a week.

[1:44:54] I can tell you right now,

[1:44:55] when there's a wedding at

[1:44:56] Mercy, when it's over,

[1:44:57] I can tell you when it's over,

[1:44:59] because the traffic is

[1:45:00] substantial.

[1:45:01] And I can live

[1:45:03] with what we have today,

[1:45:04] but adding to that, I don't

[1:45:05] think it's reasonable.

[1:45:06] I respectfully ask you

[1:45:08] to stick

[1:45:09] with the original plan

[1:45:10] before the Planning Commission

[1:45:12] unilaterally overturned that

[1:45:13] recommendation with the uses as

[1:45:17] described before.

[1:45:18] Thanks.

[1:45:20] Thank you, Mr. Green.

[1:45:23] Minjee Lee.

[1:45:32] Hi, thank you for giving me

[1:45:33] this opportunity to speak.

[1:45:35] My name is Minjee.

[1:45:36] I currently live on Hoover

[1:45:37] Avenue, like right across

[1:45:38] from the Mercy main entrance.

[1:45:41] So my family and I, we love

[1:45:43] Mercy community.

[1:45:46] We've really come

[1:45:47] across really, we got

[1:45:48] to know a lot

[1:45:49] of really awesome, great folks

[1:45:50] from Mercy.

[1:45:51] So by no means, we are kind

[1:45:52] of opposed to any of the plans

[1:45:54] that was discussed tonight.

[1:45:56] We are very much supportive

[1:45:57] of building the gym

[1:45:58] for the girls and students.

[1:46:00] However, we do have concerns

[1:46:02] about the third-party rental.

[1:46:04] My husband and I moved from

[1:46:07] San Francisco to Burlingame

[1:46:09] like five years ago

[1:46:10] to raise our young children.

[1:46:12] And we actually chose to move

[1:46:13] to Burlingame because we loved

[1:46:14] how family-friendly the entire

[1:46:16] neighborhood seemed like

[1:46:17] at the time.

[1:46:19] So we decided to buy a place

[1:46:20] and decided

[1:46:21] to raise our children

[1:46:22] in the city of Burlingame,

[1:46:23] right across from the Mercy.

[1:46:25] And one of the main reasons we

[1:46:26] moved away from San Francisco

[1:46:28] was that we actually wanted

[1:46:29] to move away

[1:46:30] from late-night traffic,

[1:46:32] late-night noise, all the kind

[1:46:33] of late-night things the city

[1:46:35] has to offer.

[1:46:36] So that's actually why we moved

[1:46:38] here.

[1:46:39] And hearing the whole

[1:46:40] discussion

[1:46:41] around the third-party rentals,

[1:46:42] potentially running into late

[1:46:43] in the night and all that,

[1:46:44] that's been kind of concerning

[1:46:45] to us.

[1:46:47] And I do understand that other

[1:46:48] schools do not have the same

[1:46:50] restrictions as what's

[1:46:51] currently discussed.

[1:46:53] However, I think every school

[1:46:55] needs to be kind of addressed

[1:46:59] in given its own own and unique

[1:47:01] special situations.

[1:47:03] I don't think it's

[1:47:04] like school versus

[1:47:05] like single house

[1:47:06] like dwellings,

[1:47:07] but it's really about the

[1:47:08] community that we are building

[1:47:09] together.

[1:47:10] So I really hope the city

[1:47:11] council members do consider the

[1:47:12] residents' and neighbors' needs

[1:47:13] and like voices

[1:47:14] in today's hearing.

[1:47:15] Thank you.

[1:47:17] Thank you, Ms. Lee.

[1:47:19] Mike Brunicardi.

[1:47:28] Mr. Mayor, council members,

[1:47:30] and guests, my name is Mike

[1:47:31] Brunicardi, and I have the

[1:47:32] pleasure and honor to live at

[1:47:33] 2200 Adeline, which is at

[1:47:34] Adeline and Columbus, a half

[1:47:35] block down from the Mercy

[1:47:36] Lower Gate.

[1:47:38] Love Mercy.

[1:47:39] Beautiful school, beautiful

[1:47:40] campus, great neighbor.

[1:47:42] I'm fully supportive of them

[1:47:44] building a gymnasium.

[1:47:45] I have five grown children.

[1:47:46] They all played athletics.

[1:47:48] Two played all the way

[1:47:49] through college.

[1:47:51] And I support that

[1:47:52] wholeheartedly.

[1:47:53] New pool,

[1:47:55] that's great.

[1:47:56] I think in order for this

[1:47:57] to be successful

[1:47:58] in our neighborhood,

[1:47:59] because it is indeed unique,

[1:48:00] it has to have three specific

[1:48:01] conditions.

[1:48:03] One is that the gym

[1:48:05] in that area needs

[1:48:06] to be cleared out by 10.

[1:48:07] Secondly, there needs

[1:48:08] to be a law enforcement officer

[1:48:09] in attendance

[1:48:10] at those night events to make

[1:48:12] sure that all the rules are

[1:48:13] being followed.

[1:48:15] And third, there should be no

[1:48:17] third-party outside rentals.

[1:48:19] I can say this

[1:48:21] from experience.

[1:48:23] I was in law enforcement for

[1:48:24] 33 years.

[1:48:25] I retired from San Mateo PD

[1:48:26] in 2012.

[1:48:29] I ran operations, and we have

[1:48:31] four large high schools.

[1:48:33] I dealt specifically with

[1:48:34] Hillsdale High School, who

[1:48:36] revamped their sports and

[1:48:37] athletic areas off of 36th.

[1:48:40] And I can tell you,

[1:48:41] it was not successful.

[1:48:42] And complaints came in heavy,

[1:48:45] and it really divided the

[1:48:46] neighborhood.

[1:48:47] And that's my concern here.

[1:48:48] What the main issues were

[1:48:51] during my tenure was traffic

[1:48:53] loitering, garbage.

[1:48:54] Garbage ended up being a big

[1:48:57] concern.

[1:48:58] Parking, and all these things

[1:48:59] are really difficult

[1:49:00] to enforce.

[1:49:01] So you really have to look

[1:49:02] at the conditions and use

[1:49:04] permit in order

[1:49:05] to prohibit these sort

[1:49:06] of things to ruin the ambience

[1:49:08] of the neighborhood.

[1:49:10] Because it really is a great

[1:49:11] partnership right now,

[1:49:12] and I'd hate to see the use

[1:49:14] permit being a divider between

[1:49:15] a really great neighborhood

[1:49:18] to live and have kids in,

[1:49:20] and some minor chaos

[1:49:23] during the evening hours.

[1:49:25] Thank you.

[1:49:26] Thank you, Mr. Pernod-Carty.

[1:49:28] Anya McKissack, is that

[1:49:31] correct?

[1:49:39] My name is Anya McKissack, and

[1:49:40] I'm speaking on behalf of

[1:49:41] Mercy High School Burlingame to

[1:49:43] express our sincere

[1:49:44] appreciation

[1:49:45] for the consideration given to

[1:49:47] our recent proposal regarding

[1:49:48] gym usage.

[1:49:50] We are grateful for the

[1:49:51] planning commission, whose

[1:49:52] decision reflected a fair

[1:49:53] approach to supporting both our

[1:49:54] school and the surrounding

[1:49:55] community.

[1:49:57] We hope that the city council

[1:49:59] will uphold this well-reasoned

[1:50:00] decision.

[1:50:02] Mercy High School has long

[1:50:03] valued its place within the

[1:50:04] Burlingame community,

[1:50:06] and we remain steadfast

[1:50:08] in our commitment

[1:50:10] to being a good neighbor.

[1:50:11] Our school understands the

[1:50:13] importance of maintaining the

[1:50:14] peaceful character

[1:50:15] of our neighborhood,

[1:50:16] and we will continue

[1:50:17] to operate in a manner that

[1:50:18] respects our surroundings.

[1:50:19] But please consider our request

[1:50:20] that any conditions placed

[1:50:22] on our gym usage align with the

[1:50:24] standard practices upheld

[1:50:25] for all schools in

[1:50:27] Burlingame.

[1:50:28] Consistency in these policies

[1:50:29] ensures fairness and equity,

[1:50:31] and allows us to continue

[1:50:33] providing valuable athletic and

[1:50:35] extracurricular opportunities

[1:50:37] for myself and my fellow

[1:50:38] students.

[1:50:40] We appreciate your thoughtful

[1:50:41] deliberation on this matter,

[1:50:43] and your ongoing partnership

[1:50:44] in preserving the integrity of

[1:50:46] our neighborhood while allowing

[1:50:47] Mercy High School to thrive in

[1:50:48] the same matter as our co-ed

[1:50:50] counterparts.

[1:50:52] Thank you for your leadership

[1:50:53] and service to the Burlingame

[1:50:54] community.

[1:50:55] Thank you for the opportunity

[1:50:57] to speak.

[1:50:58] Thank you, Ms. McKesson.

[1:50:59] Valerie Teal or Teal?

[1:51:03] Teal, thank you.

[1:51:07] Hi, I'm Valerie Teal.

[1:51:09] We live at 1448 Alvarado.

[1:51:11] And I just wanna first say that

[1:51:12] my mother was Mercy class of

[1:51:14] 46, and that Brett and I were

[1:51:17] married at Cole Mansion.

[1:51:18] In fact, we bought our house

[1:51:20] partly because we could see

[1:51:21] where we got married

[1:51:22] from our kitchen window.

[1:51:25] Our concerns are not about

[1:51:29] anything other than the traffic

[1:51:30] and the noise.

[1:51:32] We fully support girls' sports,

[1:51:35] equity, them having the gym,

[1:51:37] the whole thing.

[1:51:40] But we've had an ongoing issue

[1:51:42] with traffic and noise

[1:51:43] for years,

[1:51:44] and we've brought it

[1:51:45] before the city council

[1:51:46] on many occasions.

[1:51:47] I mean, the city in general.

[1:51:49] We have every right

[1:51:50] to be concerned

[1:51:51] about the safety

[1:51:52] of the children that live

[1:51:53] on our block and the safety

[1:51:54] of the joggers, the bike

[1:51:55] riders, and the dog walkers who

[1:51:56] share our streets.

[1:51:57] The Hillside corridor speed

[1:52:00] issue has been addressed and

[1:52:01] remedied, but the traffic on

[1:52:02] Alvarado, a much narrower

[1:52:04] street, and one

[1:52:05] of the contributing factors

[1:52:07] to the dangerous intersection

[1:52:08] at Hillside and Alvarado

[1:52:10] remains a persistent problem,

[1:52:12] largely because of Mercy

[1:52:13] traffic.

[1:52:14] We have had five incidents

[1:52:17] of vehicle damage because

[1:52:19] of excessive speed and traffic,

[1:52:21] one being a wedding guest at

[1:52:23] Cole who partied a little too

[1:52:24] much, smashed into our car,

[1:52:26] and pushed it up

[1:52:27] on the sidewalk.

[1:52:29] We have to plan

[1:52:30] to leave our house around

[1:52:31] pick-up and drop-off because we

[1:52:32] can't get into and out

[1:52:33] of our driveway.

[1:52:34] We've been honked at, yelled

[1:52:35] at, just for trying to get

[1:52:36] to our house.

[1:52:37] And I want to say,

[1:52:38] it is not the student drivers.

[1:52:40] It's the parents.

[1:52:42] A child has been hit

[1:52:43] in the crosswalk.

[1:52:44] There have been several more

[1:52:45] near misses.

[1:52:46] Pets have been struck and

[1:52:47] killed.

[1:52:49] You add in the delivery trucks,

[1:52:50] the gardeners, the tree

[1:52:51] trimmers, the contractors,

[1:52:52] the garbage trucks, and it's

[1:52:53] like a video game trying

[1:52:54] to navigate down the street.

[1:52:55] But every single weekday,

[1:52:57] we have to deal with it.

[1:52:59] We're actually very reasonable

[1:53:00] people who deal

[1:53:01] with all these isolated events,

[1:53:03] but when you take it

[1:53:04] in aggregate, the traffic and

[1:53:05] noise absolutely negatively

[1:53:07] impacts the neighborhood,

[1:53:09] particularly Alvarado.

[1:53:12] Thank you, Ms. Teal.

[1:53:14] Rick Lechleitner.

[1:53:25] Hi, my name's Rick

[1:53:26] Lechleitner.

[1:53:27] I am a Sarah graduate, and I

[1:53:30] like to say I'm a graduate of

[1:53:32] Mercy or alumni of Mercy

[1:53:34] because I did go to tri-school

[1:53:35] for my senior year and got an A

[1:53:37] in art class with Sister

[1:53:38] Jean-Marie.

[1:53:43] And I'm here to fully support

[1:53:45] the gym for Mercy.

[1:53:48] My wife's an alumni also.

[1:53:50] She's on the board.

[1:53:52] Our little daughter's

[1:53:53] in fourth grade,

[1:53:54] and she's gonna be a Mercy

[1:53:55] Bear someday.

[1:53:57] But we also go to Good

[1:53:59] Shepherd right now.

[1:54:02] So I just wanted

[1:54:03] to share my experience

[1:54:04] with our gym.

[1:54:05] We're also in the Archdiocese

[1:54:06] of San Francisco.

[1:54:08] So we are a little private

[1:54:09] school.

[1:54:10] We do rentals.

[1:54:11] We have parking.

[1:54:13] We take care of the noise.

[1:54:16] All these are fair concerns,

[1:54:19] but as far as the parking goes,

[1:54:21] we have a smaller school,

[1:54:23] smaller parking lot,

[1:54:25] and we rent out our gym

[1:54:27] to leagues, other leagues

[1:54:29] around, athletic departments,

[1:54:32] sports teams.

[1:54:35] They're all very respectful,

[1:54:36] and there's always enough

[1:54:39] parking for these teams.

[1:54:41] They're always doing

[1:54:42] after school.

[1:54:43] They're coming in one

[1:54:44] at a time.

[1:54:45] There's never overflow.

[1:54:46] It always works, and I don't

[1:54:48] see it being any different

[1:54:49] for Mercy.

[1:54:50] It's not like we're gonna have

[1:54:51] 500 or 300 extra cars there

[1:54:52] at a time.

[1:54:53] So you gotta be realistic

[1:54:56] about the parking and stuff.

[1:54:58] And the rentals,

[1:54:59] they're not renting it out

[1:55:01] to these huge parties.

[1:55:04] That's for the Cole Mansion.

[1:55:05] The gym is for sports,

[1:55:06] volleyball, like you said,

[1:55:08] futsal, basketball,

[1:55:10] and we need something

[1:55:12] like that here in Burlingame

[1:55:14] and for Mercy and for the other

[1:55:15] neighbors and community.

[1:55:18] And then the noise,

[1:55:20] just real quick.

[1:55:22] I mean, the building made

[1:55:23] of brick.

[1:55:24] It's gonna have a lobby.

[1:55:25] The noise is gonna stay inside.

[1:55:26] It's probably gonna be better

[1:55:27] for noise for the community.

[1:55:28] So I say, let's go, gym,

[1:55:29] Mercy.

[1:55:30] Thank you.

[1:55:32] Thank you, Mr. Lechneitner.

[1:55:34] Lynn Israelit.

[1:55:38] She already spoke.

[1:55:40] No, she don't.

[1:55:41] She already spoke.

[1:55:42] Okay, I know, but.

[1:55:43] Yeah, so she spoke as the

[1:55:45] appellant, so she doesn't get

[1:55:49] to speak as a member

[1:55:51] of the public.

[1:55:52] Very good, okay.

[1:55:53] Anne Keegren.

[1:56:01] Good evening, Mayor and council

[1:56:02] members.

[1:56:04] I received this brochure today

[1:56:05] in the mail.

[1:56:07] We'll see.

[1:56:09] It says, I can play

[1:56:10] like the greats.

[1:56:12] The only difference is I don't

[1:56:13] have a gym.

[1:56:15] And it's a very sad statement

[1:56:17] considering Mercy was built

[1:56:19] in 1931.

[1:56:21] It provides a unique and

[1:56:23] valuable educational

[1:56:24] experience.

[1:56:25] It's an all-girl Catholic

[1:56:26] school on private property and

[1:56:28] does not rely

[1:56:29] on taxpayer money

[1:56:30] to support it.

[1:56:32] Let's not jeopardize this.

[1:56:33] I do think Mercy should have

[1:56:36] the option

[1:56:37] of third-party rentals, just

[1:56:38] like Burlingame High School.

[1:56:41] If you want to compromise

[1:56:42] with the neighbors,

[1:56:43] because they do have concerns,

[1:56:45] maybe do an evaluation after

[1:56:47] 12 to 18 months to see how it

[1:56:50] goes and then reevaluate.

[1:56:54] I understand the importance

[1:56:55] of trying to avoid parking in

[1:56:56] the neighborhood and it should

[1:56:57] be strongly encouraged.

[1:56:58] However, let me remind you,

[1:57:00] this is an issue

[1:57:02] with all the schools here in

[1:57:03] Burlingame.

[1:57:04] This is nothing unique.

[1:57:05] Mercy has approximately 390

[1:57:06] parking spaces versus the 217

[1:57:10] that is required.

[1:57:11] Let us not forget that only

[1:57:12] 360 students attend Mercy

[1:57:15] versus over 1200 students that

[1:57:17] attend Burlingame High School

[1:57:19] and they only have 217 parking

[1:57:20] spaces.

[1:57:22] Many Burlingame neighborhoods

[1:57:23] experience heavy traffic

[1:57:25] around all our schools.

[1:57:27] It may be an inconvenience.

[1:57:29] We are here

[1:57:30] to promote education, not

[1:57:32] stifle it because we do have

[1:57:33] some inconveniences.

[1:57:35] Let's not forget Mercy has been

[1:57:37] an outstanding neighbor

[1:57:38] for many years.

[1:57:39] They have allowed neighbors

[1:57:40] to enter private property,

[1:57:41] to stroll, walk their dogs and

[1:57:42] enjoy tranquil surroundings.

[1:57:44] I appreciate what Mercy has

[1:57:46] done to accommodate our

[1:57:47] community and we should strive

[1:57:49] to support them.

[1:57:51] I do live two blocks away

[1:57:52] from Mercy on Vancouver, grew

[1:57:54] up

[1:57:55] in the community and attended

[1:57:56] Mercy.

[1:57:57] I ran up the hill every morning

[1:57:59] to go to school.

[1:58:00] This school and its beautiful

[1:58:01] surroundings are assets to

[1:58:02] Burlingame.

[1:58:03] Let us preserve this asset and

[1:58:06] embrace the proposed

[1:58:07] improvements

[1:58:09] without onerous conditions.

[1:58:11] Thank you.

[1:58:12] Thank you, Ms. Kuechman.

[1:58:13] Jamie Lechneitner.

[1:58:26] Good evening,

[1:58:28] city council members.

[1:58:29] My name is Jamie Lechneitner.

[1:58:31] I'm a graduate of the class

[1:58:34] of 2002.

[1:58:35] I wore that same uniform you

[1:58:37] just saw that Isis and Anya

[1:58:39] wore and I played basketball

[1:58:41] there 23 years ago.

[1:58:43] And 23 years ago, just

[1:58:46] like today,

[1:58:47] there was no gym.

[1:58:49] My request is pretty simple.

[1:58:50] If you're going to restrict

[1:58:53] Mercy Burlingame, and I'm not

[1:58:56] suggesting that you do that,

[1:58:59] but if you're going to, then I

[1:59:01] suggest that you explore doing

[1:59:03] that for all the other schools

[1:59:05] that you would do that to.

[1:59:07] Because why should we be the

[1:59:09] exception?

[1:59:11] I don't suggest it.

[1:59:13] For the record, I do not

[1:59:14] suggest that.

[1:59:15] I think we need more gym space

[1:59:17] and we need more facilities

[1:59:18] for our kids.

[1:59:19] And my hope is that the

[1:59:21] neighbors hear us loud and

[1:59:24] clear.

[1:59:25] We are committed to being

[1:59:27] strong partners, empathetic

[1:59:29] partners, compassionate

[1:59:31] partners, and stewards

[1:59:33] of our foundress, Sister

[1:59:35] Catherine McAuley, and that's

[1:59:37] in everything we do at every

[1:59:38] level.

[1:59:39] I'm not sure if I mentioned I'm

[1:59:41] now a board member and I take

[1:59:43] that very seriously.

[1:59:45] So thank you for your

[1:59:46] consideration.

[1:59:47] I really hope you take it to

[1:59:48] heart and you understand that

[1:59:50] our hope is to, like Natalie

[1:59:52] said, is to be active stewards

[1:59:55] of community.

[1:59:57] And when anyone needs us,

[1:59:58] we're available

[1:59:59] to provide that space.

[2:00:00] Thank you.

[2:00:02] you. Thank you Ms.

[2:00:04] Lechneidner. Sandy Comarado.

[2:00:09] Mayor, while Ms. Comarado is

[2:00:12] on her way up, I'd just like

[2:00:13] to acknowledge that by 4 p.m.

[2:00:14] today we did receive a little

[2:00:16] over 60 emails that the council

[2:00:18] had time

[2:00:20] to review and that were placed

[2:00:21] in the back of the room also

[2:00:22] on our website.

[2:00:24] Thank you for that reminder.

[2:00:27] Madam Clerk, yes there were 78

[2:00:29] pages and we went

[2:00:31] through those so thank you.

[2:00:34] Dear Mayor Stianson and City

[2:00:36] Council, I've been a proud

[2:00:37] resident of Burlingame since

[2:00:38] 1972. During my time here I've

[2:00:40] attended Our Lady of Angels and

[2:00:42] Notre Dame High School while

[2:00:44] living in this wonderful city.

[2:00:46] I served as a member of the

[2:00:47] Planning Commission for the

[2:00:48] last eight years and my husband

[2:00:50] and I have constantly

[2:00:51] contributed to the community

[2:00:53] in various ways. We deeply

[2:00:56] value Burlingame and its

[2:00:58] neighborhoods having lived

[2:00:59] in different areas

[2:01:00] of the city including

[2:01:01] across the street from Our

[2:01:02] Lady of Angels. We understand

[2:01:04] the impact of traffic

[2:01:05] in the area

[2:01:06] but we embraced it as part

[2:01:07] of our community. Our children

[2:01:08] attended OLA, Sarah, Notre

[2:01:11] Dame and we served as booster

[2:01:12] presidents at Notre Dame High

[2:01:14] School supporting the school

[2:01:15] and its students. All our

[2:01:17] children went to play,

[2:01:18] all our children went on

[2:01:20] to play college sports, an

[2:01:22] experience that underscores the

[2:01:23] importance of access

[2:01:24] to facilities like a gym for

[2:01:26] student-athletes. A gymnasium

[2:01:29] is more than a school facility,

[2:01:31] it serves as a hub

[2:01:32] for the community.

[2:01:33] Like a piazza,

[2:01:35] it serves people together

[2:01:36] for sports, assemblies,

[2:01:37] performances and public events.

[2:01:38] When I graduated from OLA in

[2:01:42] 1981, I chose to attend Notre

[2:01:43] Dame High School partly because

[2:01:45] Mercy did not have a gym and I

[2:01:47] like playing basketball. The

[2:01:49] gym at OLA hosted many events

[2:01:52] I've cherished, dances,

[2:01:54] schools, sports, plays,

[2:01:56] community service

[2:01:58] for the elderly. My husband has

[2:01:59] served on the Board of Mercy

[2:02:01] from 2011 to 2013 but stepped

[2:02:02] down when our daughter began

[2:02:06] attending Notre Dame High

[2:02:08] School. Recently there's been a

[2:02:09] question about whether I should

[2:02:10] have recused myself

[2:02:12] from a discussion

[2:02:13] about this agenda item from

[2:02:14] Michael Brownrigg. As a

[2:02:16] Planning Commissioner, my focus

[2:02:17] is on improving the community.

[2:02:19] I carefully evaluate every

[2:02:21] single project in front

[2:02:22] of me, supporting some and

[2:02:24] opposing others based on their

[2:02:26] merits and the impact. I have

[2:02:29] no vested interest in this

[2:02:30] decision and derive no personal

[2:02:31] benefit from it. I want to

[2:02:33] acknowledge the positive role

[2:02:34] Mercy has played

[2:02:36] in our neighborhood

[2:02:37] over the last years. Thank you,

[2:02:40] Mr. Camarado. Brett Thiel.

[2:02:50] Good evening. I'm Brett Thiel

[2:02:52] and my wife Valerie and I have

[2:02:53] lived on Alvarado for over 20

[2:02:54] years. I'd like to start by

[2:02:57] addressing an issue that was

[2:02:58] raised by the Mercy staff and

[2:03:01] multiple Mercy students

[2:03:03] at the October 15th planning

[2:03:04] meeting we attended. The

[2:03:06] assertion that the neighbors

[2:03:07] are against women's sports

[2:03:09] absolutely untrue. While issues

[2:03:11] surrounding DEI

[2:03:13] in the national stage and in

[2:03:14] Washington of late is

[2:03:15] absolutely a concern, however,

[2:03:17] it has never been something

[2:03:19] discussed amongst the neighbors

[2:03:21] and frankly we were all shocked

[2:03:23] that it was brought up. So let

[2:03:25] me be clear,

[2:03:26] the issues we are here

[2:03:27] to discuss are 100% about

[2:03:28] traffic and noise concerns,

[2:03:29] period, full stop. I think it's

[2:03:33] fantastic that the student

[2:03:35] athletes at Mercy are getting

[2:03:37] their own gym and it's well

[2:03:38] overdue. However, any

[2:03:40] implications that the neighbors

[2:03:41] would be more amenable

[2:03:43] to extended hours

[2:03:44] for the gym's usage simply

[2:03:45] based

[2:03:46] on gender is patently false.

[2:03:48] So let's not spend any more

[2:03:50] time on this point as it's

[2:03:51] misleading and distracting from

[2:03:52] the primary concerns the

[2:03:54] neighbors have which are

[2:03:55] about traffic, parking, noise,

[2:03:56] and in particular,

[2:03:58] the not-so-upfront approval

[2:03:59] of the gym being able

[2:04:00] to be rented

[2:04:01] for non-school purposes. I'd

[2:04:05] like to share some thoughts

[2:04:06] on the proposed operating hours

[2:04:08] at the planning meeting. The

[2:04:09] Mercy proponents made the case

[2:04:10] that keeping the gym open

[2:04:11] until 10 p.m. made all the

[2:04:13] difference in whether a girl

[2:04:15] would succeed or fail. The two

[2:04:17] primary concerns raised

[2:04:18] in many letters

[2:04:19] at that meeting focused

[2:04:20] on commuting to off-site

[2:04:21] facilities and shared space,

[2:04:22] both

[2:04:24] of which would be eliminated

[2:04:25] with the on-site gym. Assuming

[2:04:26] the gym is open for six hours

[2:04:27] after school each day and is

[2:04:28] solely dedicated

[2:04:30] to each season's activities,

[2:04:34] six hours would seem more than

[2:04:36] the sufficient time for

[2:04:37] practice and league games even

[2:04:38] if we are taking into

[2:04:39] consideration multiple sports,

[2:04:41] varsity, and JV schedules,

[2:04:42] which one Mercy student said

[2:04:45] typically practice lasts

[2:04:47] around two hours. So I'm

[2:04:49] running out of time, but I

[2:04:50] appreciate this and I hope the

[2:04:52] next Kaitlyn Clark or Angel

[2:04:53] Reese comes out of Mercy.

[2:04:56] Thank you, Mr. Teal.

[2:04:57] John Schmidt.

[2:05:13] Good evening, John Schmidt,

[2:05:14] Planning Commissioner, resident

[2:05:16] 245 Chapin. I wanted

[2:05:19] to just kind of address the

[2:05:21] main thing that we that we ran

[2:05:23] into in our meeting. The third

[2:05:25] party became an issue when we

[2:05:26] started to talk about the

[2:05:29] Aquatic Center that is already

[2:05:30] a third-party renting space

[2:05:32] from them. And then as we

[2:05:34] started to talk

[2:05:36] about conditions

[2:05:37] on how we wanted

[2:05:38] to manage that,

[2:05:39] there was no talk

[2:05:40] of big parties. It was talks

[2:05:42] about aquatics and sports camps

[2:05:43] and the opportunity to use it

[2:05:47] during off hours

[2:05:48] during the summer. It seemed

[2:05:50] kind of random

[2:05:52] to say we're going to pick 20

[2:05:53] events. That's the maximum you

[2:05:55] could do when the school hasn't

[2:05:57] really worked

[2:05:58] through the programming. We

[2:06:00] felt that the school has

[2:06:01] restrictions that it has

[2:06:03] on the coal and those events,

[2:06:04] and we felt that they were

[2:06:07] already a good neighbor.

[2:06:09] They're going to manage this

[2:06:10] in a smart way,

[2:06:13] and as has been said earlier,

[2:06:15] the coal mansion is a better

[2:06:16] money maker than trying

[2:06:18] to rent out the gym. So it was

[2:06:19] never our our position to say

[2:06:23] let's make it a party room and

[2:06:25] let's have it go all year long.

[2:06:28] So I think that the idea of how

[2:06:30] much use the gym would get has

[2:06:32] been taken a largely out

[2:06:35] of proportion and

[2:06:36] for what it is we looked at.

[2:06:37] We felt that fewer restrictions

[2:06:39] would give the school a greater

[2:06:42] opportunity

[2:06:43] to use the space effectively

[2:06:44] and for the benefit

[2:06:45] of the community. Thank you.

[2:06:46] Thank you Mr. Schmidt. Peter

[2:06:48] Comaroto.

[2:07:00] I don't think we can do that.

[2:07:03] Hey, Bert McCarty, I think

[2:07:04] didn't we drag race

[2:07:05] in high school against each

[2:07:07] other maybe? I don't

[2:07:09] like bullies. I stand up

[2:07:12] to bullies and they don't like

[2:07:15] you when I do it. I was going

[2:07:17] to have a different discussion

[2:07:18] tonight and I've changed it.

[2:07:21] So I'm going to outline some

[2:07:24] other talking points because I

[2:07:26] think we're all pretty civil

[2:07:27] here. You don't need

[2:07:29] to see my bully

[2:07:30] against bully come out.

[2:07:39] When you buy a house,

[2:07:40] by the way my wife has sold

[2:07:42] over a billion dollars

[2:07:43] of real estate. Billion. A lot.

[2:07:49] When you buy a house that's

[2:07:51] near a school,

[2:07:52] there's gonna be noise.

[2:07:53] There's gonna be traffic. I'm

[2:07:55] not upset at you being upset. I

[2:07:56] get that. I get it.

[2:07:59] But you bought a house

[2:08:00] near a school. The school's

[2:08:03] gonna grow. It's gonna create

[2:08:05] some more noise over time.

[2:08:08] Behind every well-organized

[2:08:09] opposition there's a ringleader

[2:08:12] or a group. Michael

[2:08:14] Brownrigg sat

[2:08:15] on planning commission

[2:08:16] for eight years. He's also been

[2:08:17] a councilperson for 14 years.

[2:08:25] I'd like the legal counsel

[2:08:28] for the city to look at the

[2:08:30] jurisdictional rules that apply

[2:08:32] to a member of council

[2:08:34] for accusing himself to not

[2:08:35] leaving chambers and then

[2:08:37] speaking as a private citizen

[2:08:38] as the previous speaker said,

[2:08:40] optics are important. Maybe the

[2:08:43] rules allow for it, but there

[2:08:44] are ethical concerns and I'd

[2:08:49] like you to send

[2:08:50] out those rules to me and

[2:08:51] to the community please.

[2:08:53] That's an official request.

[2:09:03] I think that's where I'm going

[2:09:04] to stop. Thank you. Thank you

[2:09:06] Mr. Camarado. Joe Nesbitt.

[2:09:24] Hey Mr. Mayor. Pleasure

[2:09:25] to meet you. The only other

[2:09:26] mayor I ever met at

[2:09:27] Burlingame. She came

[2:09:28] to the house

[2:09:29] for a re-election time so I got

[2:09:30] to meet her

[2:09:31] at the time so it's a pleasure

[2:09:32] to meet you and the council

[2:09:33] members. Real quickly,

[2:09:35] I'm a neighbor. I'm not part of

[2:09:38] this big neighbor group. I

[2:09:39] don't even know if it's a big

[2:09:41] neighbor group. I'm just a guy

[2:09:42] that lives on Adeline Drive

[2:09:43] right across from Mercy High

[2:09:44] School and they have been

[2:09:46] incredible neighbors and I have

[2:09:49] this nightmare. I'll wake up

[2:09:53] and I'll see this big billboard

[2:09:55] across from my house and it'll

[2:09:56] say coming soon, Cole Mansion

[2:09:58] condos and apartments and it

[2:10:01] just scares me and then I think

[2:10:03] of Mercy High School and how

[2:10:06] well they're run and how well

[2:10:08] they should stay on forever and

[2:10:09] ever and that's why I'm telling

[2:10:11] you all to try not

[2:10:12] to put any restrictions

[2:10:13] on these guys. They have been

[2:10:14] incredible neighbors.

[2:10:16] The girls are friendly. The

[2:10:18] management is friendly.

[2:10:20] They're always looking out

[2:10:22] for the neighbors. They are not

[2:10:24] going to abuse of privilege.

[2:10:26] They're putting 25, 26, 27

[2:10:27] million dollars

[2:10:28] of their own money to improve

[2:10:30] that property and we're trying

[2:10:32] to tie their hands. They're not

[2:10:35] going to do something silly and

[2:10:36] stupid. I would say let this

[2:10:39] gym be built. Put some

[2:10:40] restrictions 10 p.m.

[2:10:43] but third-party rentals,

[2:10:44] they got to be able

[2:10:45] to do that. I mean a Catholic

[2:10:46] school needs money

[2:10:47] to exist and to continue to

[2:10:49] thrive and that's a moneymaker

[2:10:50] for them just like the Cole

[2:10:52] Mansion is and they're not

[2:10:54] going to abuse it because

[2:10:55] of the Cole Mansion and you've

[2:10:56] got a traffic department that

[2:10:58] is outstanding. They will find

[2:10:59] out solutions. I sympathize

[2:11:01] with the neighbors on El

[2:11:03] Dorado. It's worse than

[2:11:04] Adeline but there's got

[2:11:06] to be solutions for that and

[2:11:08] they'll find those solutions

[2:11:10] and one last thing,

[2:11:11] I think the Planning

[2:11:12] Commission did a great job. I

[2:11:13] was here

[2:11:14] at both meetings that went well

[2:11:15] into the night and they were

[2:11:17] very respectful, asked a lot

[2:11:19] of questions,

[2:11:20] read every email. Those are

[2:11:21] good people. Thank you. Thank

[2:11:24] You, Mr. Nesbitt.

[2:11:28] Penny Alexander.

[2:11:42] Good evening. Thank you

[2:11:43] for your time. Appreciate your

[2:11:45] support. I'm Penny Alexander,

[2:11:47] an alumni of the class of 1978

[2:11:50] from Mercy High School and I'm

[2:11:51] the chair of the Board of

[2:11:53] Directors. I had not intended

[2:11:55] to speak tonight. I felt that

[2:11:57] this was going to be important

[2:11:58] for Natalie

[2:11:59] to represent the school,

[2:12:00] to listen to our neighbors who

[2:12:02] we have worked collaboratively

[2:12:03] with over the last year or so

[2:12:05] to listen to their concerns and

[2:12:08] come together. When we were

[2:12:10] developing this project and

[2:12:11] I've been involved in this for

[2:12:12] over ten years, at that point

[2:12:16] the gymnasium was going to cost

[2:12:17] roughly eight million dollars.

[2:12:19] We are now at a point we are

[2:12:20] over 24 million dollars

[2:12:22] to build this gym. So time is

[2:12:26] of the essence. There's no

[2:12:27] getting around that. When we

[2:12:28] developed this project,

[2:12:30] rentals were never part

[2:12:31] of our decision-making

[2:12:33] at that period of time. Simply

[2:12:35] put, we are focused

[2:12:37] on a facility

[2:12:38] for our young girls

[2:12:39] to play sports and to gather

[2:12:40] and have liturgy and the like.

[2:12:44] Having said that,

[2:12:45] we appreciate the Commission's

[2:12:47] recommendations to allow

[2:12:49] for that.

[2:12:51] Period. We simply want that

[2:12:52] option. Are we going

[2:12:55] to be irresponsible

[2:12:56] with that?

[2:12:57] Absolutely not. No questions

[2:12:59] about that. We do need

[2:13:02] to move forward

[2:13:03] with this gymnasium. We

[2:13:05] appreciate your support. We

[2:13:06] think the Commission did

[2:13:09] tremendous job

[2:13:10] in studying this. Traffic,

[2:13:11] parking, and other studies have

[2:13:14] been going on

[2:13:16] for years now and we don't need

[2:13:17] to relitigate those now. I

[2:13:20] appreciate the concerns that

[2:13:22] the neighbors have. They are

[2:13:23] real. We want to work

[2:13:25] with them going forward. Thank

[2:13:27] you so much. Thank you, Ms.

[2:13:30] Alexander. Any other members

[2:13:36] of the public that would like

[2:13:37] to speak and who did not turn

[2:13:39] in a yellow card? Okay. Would

[2:13:45] that will close public comment.

[2:13:49] Just personally, I want

[2:13:50] to thank everybody.

[2:13:51] Obviously, this is a process

[2:13:54] that comes up from time

[2:13:55] to time and I want

[2:13:57] to commend the input.

[2:13:59] Regardless of what side

[2:14:01] of the equation you're on,

[2:14:03] this was part

[2:14:05] of the process that helps us

[2:14:07] from a council perspective,

[2:14:08] from a city perspective,

[2:14:09] hear the voices

[2:14:11] of everybody who is, you know,

[2:14:15] close to or interested or has a

[2:14:17] perspective on this. So, I just

[2:14:19] want to thank you

[2:14:20] for that and I thank you for

[2:14:21] your cordial and respectful

[2:14:24] input. That's not always the

[2:14:26] case. So, with that,

[2:14:27] we're going to be moved

[2:14:30] to the next part

[2:14:31] of the process,

[2:14:32] which is the appellant

[2:14:34] rebuttal. So, Mr. Brownrigg,

[2:14:36] you now can provide a rebuttal

[2:14:38] statement on final thoughts.

[2:14:41] City Clerk, please set

[2:14:42] for five minutes.

[2:14:44] Thanks very much. I want

[2:14:46] to start with an apology to

[2:14:47] Sandy Camerado, who's a fine

[2:14:48] public servant. Lynn asked me

[2:14:50] to wrap up. You know,

[2:14:52] I think you've heard a lot of

[2:14:54] testimony tonight and it's

[2:14:55] really up to you to make some

[2:14:56] decisions. I would say that if

[2:14:58] one of the conditions

[2:14:59] of approval could be that

[2:15:00] Natalie Brosen was the

[2:15:02] perpetual head of school, I

[2:15:03] think the whole neighborhood

[2:15:04] would feel a lot better. That

[2:15:06] isn't the case, obviously. The

[2:15:09] staff report does a really good

[2:15:10] job of talking about all of the

[2:15:12] issues that are not third-party

[2:15:14] rentals, so I don't, and very

[2:15:16] clearly explains why they are

[2:15:18] either taken care of or

[2:15:20] in the plans, etc.

[2:15:21] So, I don't think that's really

[2:15:23] the issue. I think it's just

[2:15:24] about third-party rentals,

[2:15:26] which was acknowledged was not

[2:15:28] part of the plan that went

[2:15:31] to the October 15th thing.

[2:15:34] So, the remaining request

[2:15:35] by neighbors that I've heard,

[2:15:36] and by the way,

[2:15:38] no matter what anyone thinks,

[2:15:39] I'm glad I made this

[2:15:40] opportunity available to the

[2:15:41] neighborhood. I know it's

[2:15:42] consumed a few hours

[2:15:44] of our time, but I think it was

[2:15:45] a conversation worth having

[2:15:46] for everybody. Pretty simple

[2:15:48] request,

[2:15:49] which is either adhere

[2:15:50] to the original recommendation

[2:15:52] of staff to not allow

[2:15:54] third-party rentals, allow

[2:15:55] Mercy to come back

[2:15:56] in a couple years and say, how

[2:15:58] about it? Let's think about it

[2:15:59] now that we see how much use

[2:16:01] the regular gym gets.

[2:16:02] Or, if you don't want

[2:16:05] to do that, then

[2:16:06] at least put some guardrails

[2:16:07] on third-party rentals. And

[2:16:08] there have been a number

[2:16:10] of different suggestions made.

[2:16:12] You could require that the

[2:16:13] third-party rentals be done

[2:16:14] earlier in the evening, say 8

[2:16:15] p.m.

[2:16:17] You could limit them to the

[2:16:18] summertime. You could limit

[2:16:20] them to sports uses and not

[2:16:21] allow just sort of general use

[2:16:22] of the gym. You might come up

[2:16:26] with other limitations. You

[2:16:28] might have a consultation

[2:16:30] provision that was

[2:16:32] in a way recommended by

[2:16:34] Mayor, former Mayor Keegran,

[2:16:35] you know,

[2:16:36] where you have a requirement

[2:16:37] to consult. I think the issue

[2:16:40] with just trusting that it will

[2:16:41] all be okay, the challenge is

[2:16:42] this is the one chance the city

[2:16:44] has

[2:16:45] to affect an actual provision

[2:16:49] for either consultation or

[2:16:50] limits. There's no reason

[2:16:52] afterwards, and that's why

[2:16:54] Cole Mansion has the limits it

[2:16:55] does, because the Cole needed

[2:16:58] permits back in 2007. So this

[2:17:02] is the chance. If you need to,

[2:17:04] if you decide

[2:17:05] to make an amendment, you have

[2:17:06] to have a finding. It seems

[2:17:08] to me it's pretty simple

[2:17:09] to justify a finding based on

[2:17:10] the conditional use permit

[2:17:11] conditions for, you know,

[2:17:12] improving public health,

[2:17:13] safety, general welfare,

[2:17:15] or convenience

[2:17:16] for your residents. You've

[2:17:17] heard a lot

[2:17:18] of testimony tonight

[2:17:19] about the convenience of not

[2:17:21] having more traffic. I

[2:17:24] appreciate the city has stepped

[2:17:25] up with respect to Alvarado and

[2:17:27] Adeline to put

[2:17:28] in some speed controls,

[2:17:30] but you've heard from a number

[2:17:31] of Alvarado residents it's

[2:17:32] still a real mess, and every

[2:17:35] incremental car that goes

[2:17:37] on that street is tough,

[2:17:40] really tough. So I appreciate

[2:17:43] you guys taking the time

[2:17:44] tonight to consider this. I

[2:17:45] appreciate listening to the

[2:17:46] neighbors. I appreciate all the

[2:17:47] points

[2:17:48] of view expressed tonight,

[2:17:50] plus and minus. The rest is up

[2:17:52] to you. Thank you. Any

[2:17:56] questions regarding the

[2:17:58] rebuttal from Mr. Brownrigg and

[2:18:00] the appellant?

[2:18:09] Seeing none, we'll move on

[2:18:10] to the applicant rebuttal.

[2:18:26] Hi, we want to thank all

[2:18:27] of our neighbors

[2:18:28] for supporting the rally that

[2:18:29] Mercy needs a gym. I just want

[2:18:31] to acknowledge that if bringing

[2:18:33] up the issue of equity in the

[2:18:35] previous relationship felt

[2:18:37] wrong to any neighbors,

[2:18:38] please know it had nothing

[2:18:39] to do with you. It's the

[2:18:40] reality of our situation. We

[2:18:41] are firm believers.

[2:18:42] If Mercy had a boys, the gym

[2:18:43] would have been built decades

[2:18:44] ago,

[2:18:45] and if the gym was built

[2:18:46] decades ago,

[2:18:47] this wouldn't be up

[2:18:48] for discussion. So for us,

[2:18:49] it always turns to equity. I

[2:18:51] know there was a comment made

[2:18:53] that we've received

[2:18:54] preferential treatment. ICS is

[2:18:55] receiving the same treatment as

[2:18:56] other schools, which is

[2:18:57] equitable and fair. I know

[2:18:59] there was a point brought up

[2:19:02] that we should have law

[2:19:03] enforcement. We do have

[2:19:04] security on campus. We did have

[2:19:07] games, water polo games and

[2:19:09] tennis matches and swim meets

[2:19:10] for decades at Mercy before

[2:19:11] sport regulations changed.

[2:19:14] Never once to my knowledge did

[2:19:16] we have any concerns,

[2:19:17] and I was a coach

[2:19:18] at that time. We also have

[2:19:19] facilities on campus from 5 6

[2:19:21] a.m.

[2:19:22] to 11 p.m. taking care of our

[2:19:23] campus. I want to clarify the

[2:19:25] gym project does not depend

[2:19:26] on Sister Mercy parking. That

[2:19:29] data is present in the

[2:19:30] Commission notes from the

[2:19:32] October meeting. While we do

[2:19:34] use overflow parking,

[2:19:35] it's used

[2:19:36] for back-to- school night,

[2:19:37] Christmas at Cole open house.

[2:19:38] We have plenty of parking,

[2:19:39] and we've had the data

[2:19:41] to prove it. Traffic and noise

[2:19:43] concerns I know continue

[2:19:45] to be an issue,

[2:19:46] and it's an issue that we share

[2:19:47] with neighbors and want

[2:19:48] to support. We do everything we

[2:19:49] can from a noise standpoint

[2:19:50] to support our neighbor

[2:19:53] in terms of traffic. Again, I

[2:19:54] know there are multiple schools

[2:19:55] in our area. There have been

[2:19:56] opportunities and

[2:19:57] recommendations that were

[2:19:59] brought up at the calming

[2:20:00] traffic committee, and for the

[2:20:01] neighbors we did not support it

[2:20:05] because we wanted to ensure

[2:20:06] that they had what they wanted,

[2:20:08] but we do know that there are

[2:20:10] other opportunities that have

[2:20:11] yet to be explored that could

[2:20:13] support park traffic concerns

[2:20:14] specifically. I appreciate all

[2:20:17] the kind words said

[2:20:19] about my leadership,

[2:20:20] and I want

[2:20:21] to acknowledge that the Board

[2:20:22] of Directors and the Sisters

[2:20:23] of Mercy have very clear

[2:20:24] expectations for the head

[2:20:25] of school position, and that

[2:20:26] the board has long-term best

[2:20:28] practices built into bylaws so

[2:20:30] that the neighbor relations are

[2:20:32] important. In fact, it is part

[2:20:34] of my annual review, that's how

[2:20:36] much external stakeholders

[2:20:37] matter to Mercy, and that would

[2:20:39] be the same as any head

[2:20:40] of school moving forward at

[2:20:41] Mercy High School. All

[2:20:44] neighbors do have access

[2:20:46] to a call line for the Mercy

[2:20:47] property, as well have access

[2:20:48] to my personal cell phone

[2:20:50] number, which some have texted

[2:20:51] at times, and then whenever

[2:20:52] there's a concern of noise, we

[2:20:53] immediately call and do a noise

[2:20:55] check, and

[2:20:57] for the most part we all are

[2:20:58] within the noise parameters,

[2:20:59] and if there's any change,

[2:21:00] we shift it immediately. One

[2:21:03] thing that has been left out of

[2:21:05] this entire conversation is

[2:21:06] respect

[2:21:07] for professional judgment.

[2:21:08] In every role, we respect the

[2:21:09] professionalism,

[2:21:10] and that's no different

[2:21:12] in education. To the best

[2:21:14] of our knowledge and research,

[2:21:17] there have been no issues

[2:21:18] in our community of Burlingame

[2:21:19] based on poor decision-making

[2:21:21] from leaders on how

[2:21:23] to use the gym, and best

[2:21:25] to our knowledge, every school

[2:21:27] in Burlingame has the ability

[2:21:29] to rent out the gym. Whether

[2:21:30] they choose to or not is up

[2:21:31] to them, but their professional

[2:21:32] judgment is given the respect

[2:21:35] that they will not do anything

[2:21:38] to harm the community. We are

[2:21:39] simply asking for the choice

[2:21:41] to use our gym as needed. As

[2:21:43] stewards of Mercy High

[2:21:44] School, that means we're

[2:21:45] steward

[2:21:46] of the present and stewards

[2:21:47] of the future. We do not know

[2:21:48] what the future holds, and to

[2:21:51] Joe's nightmare

[2:21:52] of having signs up for, you

[2:21:53] know, Cole Mansion condos,

[2:21:55] that would be a nightmare

[2:21:57] for the community. Right now,

[2:21:58] this is a historical moment

[2:22:00] for the city of Burlingame,

[2:22:01] whether you recognize it or

[2:22:02] not. I know that there can be

[2:22:03] many different ways that you

[2:22:05] can vote tonight, and the one

[2:22:06] way that you could vote could

[2:22:09] be to completely overturn the

[2:22:10] Planning Commission, and that

[2:22:12] would significantly put our

[2:22:13] project at risk because it

[2:22:14] would postpone the project.

[2:22:16] As Penny shared,

[2:22:17] our amount has increased $20

[2:22:18] million.

[2:22:21] To postpone this project six to

[2:22:23] twelve months more means that

[2:22:26] we will price ourselves out

[2:22:27] of ever building a gym. There

[2:22:29] is a tipping point

[2:22:30] in private education

[2:22:31] of how much parents are willing

[2:22:32] to pay tuition for a lack

[2:22:34] of facilities. Well, we are

[2:22:35] fine, and I want it documented

[2:22:37] a million times over, we are

[2:22:38] in strong financial state,

[2:22:39] we are nowhere near closure.

[2:22:41] Without facilities, Mercy

[2:22:43] High School will be at risk,

[2:22:45] and so I just hope that the

[2:22:47] Council will take a moment

[2:22:48] to pause to really consider

[2:22:50] that because I know

[2:22:51] at the heart, all of us,

[2:22:53] neighbors, Mercy High School,

[2:22:54] City Council, we want what's

[2:22:56] best for the city, and I know

[2:22:57] that we all share the shared

[2:22:59] mission of making sure that our

[2:23:02] community is respected and

[2:23:03] feels the compassion

[2:23:05] from one another

[2:23:06] in our partnership.

[2:23:07] At the heart of this, the

[2:23:08] neighbors and the high school

[2:23:09] want the same thing. They agree

[2:23:11] a gym is essential to Mercy

[2:23:12] High School. I believe the term

[2:23:14] rental and partnerships is

[2:23:17] being confused when we want

[2:23:18] to be able

[2:23:19] to partner and leave Mercy's

[2:23:21] future open for opportunities

[2:23:22] to ensure we are part

[2:23:23] of the history of Burlingame

[2:23:24] forever. Thank you. Thank you.

[2:23:31] So, are there any questions

[2:23:33] for the applicant on the dais

[2:23:38] that we have not covered yet?

[2:23:43] Okay, with that,

[2:23:45] we'll close the public hearing.

[2:23:49] Now is our point

[2:23:50] for deliberation and decision.

[2:23:52] Council members,

[2:23:53] we are now going to discuss and

[2:23:54] deliberate upon this matter and

[2:23:55] make our decision. Pursuant

[2:23:56] to BMC 25.98.030D, we may take

[2:24:02] the following actions related

[2:24:05] to the Planning Commission

[2:24:06] approval. 1. Affirm. 2. Affirm

[2:24:11] in part. 3. Reverse any action,

[2:24:14] determination, or decision

[2:24:16] of the Planning Commission. Or

[2:24:17] finally, 4. Adopt additional

[2:24:20] conditions of approval which

[2:24:23] may address issues of concern

[2:24:24] or other issues related

[2:24:27] to and or other than the

[2:24:29] subject of the appeal. So, our

[2:24:32] decision must be based

[2:24:34] on the finding of facts

[2:24:35] of this specific application

[2:24:37] and with that,

[2:24:38] I'll request each of us

[2:24:41] to begin the deliberation.

[2:24:42] So, would you like to start?

[2:24:46] Mayor Stevenson, may I ask a

[2:24:48] clarifying question or is that

[2:24:49] passed now for the staff?

[2:24:50] Her staff is okay. Yeah, you

[2:24:53] can. Go ahead, Council Member

[2:24:56] Pappajohn. Thank you, Mayor

[2:24:57] Stevenson. So, I may have asked

[2:24:59] this question but I just need

[2:25:01] to get this correct. May I ask

[2:25:03] Ms. LeWitt a quick question?

[2:25:07] My understanding is the City

[2:25:08] commissioned a traffic study

[2:25:09] even if there were rentals and

[2:25:13] that there was no significant

[2:25:14] impacts. Is that correct? The

[2:25:16] applicant submitted a traffic

[2:25:20] and a circulation study

[2:25:22] prepared by a third-party

[2:25:23] traffic consultant that looked

[2:25:26] at the proposal which was

[2:25:28] primarily using the gym

[2:25:30] for school activities. It did

[2:25:33] not look at the impact

[2:25:35] of third-party rentals. That's

[2:25:37] correct.

[2:25:38] Okay, thank you very much. A

[2:25:40] follow-up question

[2:25:42] for staff is the dimensions

[2:25:43] of the pool

[2:25:45] in the remodel and the addition

[2:25:46] of the gym, will it make it

[2:25:48] legal dimensions and therefore

[2:25:50] be subject to rental

[2:25:51] for swim meets

[2:25:53] during the weekends? Yes, if

[2:25:57] there's, that's already

[2:25:58] actually I believe happening

[2:26:00] on site. For water polo?

[2:26:03] For water polo.

[2:26:05] But that is existing today?

[2:26:06] The athletic center, the

[2:26:08] project is defined as both the

[2:26:09] gym and the pool. Okay, thank

[2:26:15] you. So, moving on

[2:26:17] to deliberations, would you

[2:26:19] like to start Councilmember

[2:26:20] Pappajohn? Sure, I will start.

[2:26:22] Thank you. So, first of all, I

[2:26:26] really appreciate everyone's

[2:26:28] input and comments.

[2:26:29] Clearly, this is, you know,

[2:26:33] very important topic and I just

[2:26:36] appreciate everyone's time that

[2:26:38] they've taken

[2:26:40] to express their opinions.

[2:26:45] So, I'd like to start off

[2:26:47] by saying that, you know,

[2:26:48] I've talked to several people

[2:26:50] and what I have heard is that

[2:26:52] Mercy has always been a great

[2:26:54] neighbor, that they have been

[2:26:57] respectful,

[2:26:59] they've done outreach

[2:27:01] to the neighbors, they have,

[2:27:04] you know, they're very, a very

[2:27:07] good community member and they

[2:27:08] are trustworthy. So, I also

[2:27:14] feel that it's very important

[2:27:17] to be consistent

[2:27:19] in policies that we have with

[2:27:20] other schools and treat all our

[2:27:21] schools fairly. And so,

[2:27:24] I would really lean

[2:27:28] toward being consistent to,

[2:27:30] you know, giving Mercy the

[2:27:33] opportunity

[2:27:35] to rent their gym just

[2:27:37] like BHS can. I,

[2:27:43] what I feel is that Mercy is

[2:27:46] going to use the gym

[2:27:48] for their own use, for their

[2:27:49] sports and their assemblies. I

[2:27:51] really don't see them wanting

[2:27:55] to rent it out, you know,

[2:27:58] over and above what their uses

[2:28:00] are and they're, and they want

[2:28:03] to have it also as the

[2:28:04] opportunity to help other

[2:28:06] community members. While I

[2:28:10] acknowledge that there may be

[2:28:13] additional traffic, I do feel

[2:28:15] that we can also continue

[2:28:18] to look at this further

[2:28:20] down the road. If there's

[2:28:21] issues and complaints, then I

[2:28:23] believe those could be

[2:28:25] addressed independently. Thank

[2:28:30] you.

[2:28:31] Thank you. Council Member

[2:28:33] Thayer. Yeah, I also want

[2:28:36] to thank everyone for coming

[2:28:38] and providing comment, all the

[2:28:39] neighbors and the students and

[2:28:42] everyone

[2:28:43] from the community. I do lean

[2:28:44] into the fact that

[2:28:47] for other schools, we don't

[2:28:48] have these restrictions as well

[2:28:49] placed on them. You know,

[2:28:50] I've been to events at BHS,

[2:28:51] I've been to weekend things

[2:28:53] at Sarah where I've done

[2:28:54] training, and so I do look

[2:28:57] at it from an equity lens. I do

[2:29:00] see the concerns

[2:29:02] of the neighbors, though, and,

[2:29:03] you know,

[2:29:04] it is a little bit inconsistent

[2:29:05] to have followed the timing,

[2:29:07] like the allowance of going

[2:29:09] until 10 p.m. or 11 p.m. being

[2:29:11] consistent with Cole Mansion,

[2:29:13] but then not making it

[2:29:16] consistent with the number of

[2:29:17] third party events that could

[2:29:18] take place,

[2:29:20] as I could see that both

[2:29:21] of those feed

[2:29:23] into the frequency, right, of

[2:29:24] how often events happen there,

[2:29:25] and that then feeds into the

[2:29:27] traffic and noise concerns

[2:29:29] of the neighbors. And so I am

[2:29:32] kind of thinking

[2:29:33] about that as well,

[2:29:34] as if there does need

[2:29:35] to be additional guardrails,

[2:29:36] do we lump Cole Mansion and the

[2:29:39] gym rentals

[2:29:41] in together as an aggregate,

[2:29:44] much like we're doing an

[2:29:45] aggregate for, you know,

[2:29:48] the number

[2:29:49] of visitors that can be

[2:29:50] on the site, and we're doing an

[2:29:51] aggregate the number of parking

[2:29:52] spaces that are required. So

[2:29:55] that's where my thinking is

[2:29:57] right now,

[2:30:00] and so I'm still kind of

[2:30:01] deciding exactly where my boat

[2:30:02] would lie.

[2:30:07] Vice Mayor, sorry, Council

[2:30:11] Member Colson. Thank you,

[2:30:12] thank you very much. Mr.

[2:30:13] Mayor, I just wanted

[2:30:15] to approach this kind of

[2:30:16] in a methodological way. We

[2:30:19] have, I believe, four, five

[2:30:23] requests, and I think it would

[2:30:26] maybe help the staff if we sort

[2:30:27] of kind of went through these.

[2:30:29] I think basically the audience

[2:30:31] and everyone I heard

[2:30:32] from today is dispensing

[2:30:33] with one, which is a request to

[2:30:35] protect a well-used pedestrian

[2:30:37] walkway. That seems to be,

[2:30:40] for obvious reasons,

[2:30:42] it's very hard to keep, you

[2:30:44] know, to tell a private

[2:30:46] property owner that you have to

[2:30:47] have and allow the public

[2:30:49] access to your property

[2:30:50] at all time. We don't do that

[2:30:51] for any other property in in

[2:30:54] Burlingame, so I think we can

[2:30:56] dispense

[2:30:57] with that. I believe the

[2:30:59] request to ensure a new

[2:31:01] emergency road access is not

[2:31:02] used for pedestrian access. I'm

[2:31:04] satisfied that they have met

[2:31:05] that standard,

[2:31:07] and that is fine. I'm going

[2:31:09] to skip number three, go

[2:31:11] to four, commitment

[2:31:13] to ensure 7% of all students.

[2:31:14] We've heard tonight that 10% of

[2:31:16] the students are taking

[2:31:17] shuttles, and let me tell you,

[2:31:19] as a mom who had

[2:31:20] to drive kids all around, my

[2:31:21] kids would be taking the

[2:31:22] shuttle. No one wants

[2:31:25] to drive their kids everywhere,

[2:31:26] so I am really grateful that

[2:31:28] 10%

[2:31:29] of the students are using it,

[2:31:31] and I and I do want

[2:31:32] to point out, again, as I

[2:31:34] mentioned, I lived at 2616

[2:31:35] Hale Drive, and I drove every

[2:31:37] single day for 15 years up

[2:31:38] Adeline

[2:31:39] at exactly the same time Mercy

[2:31:40] was coming down, and

[2:31:41] in general, they were very

[2:31:42] respectful, and I didn't have

[2:31:43] any problems or any problems

[2:31:44] with traffic, nor,

[2:31:47] and the only noise I heard,

[2:31:48] ironically, after 15 years

[2:31:50] of living there was the,

[2:31:52] were the pep rallies

[2:31:53] during the day, so I think it's

[2:31:54] really interesting that that's

[2:31:56] actually going to go away,

[2:31:57] and because it's going

[2:31:58] to be sequestered

[2:31:59] into the gym,

[2:32:02] and then a pledge by Mercy

[2:32:03] High School

[2:32:05] to use its best efforts

[2:32:06] to make sure guests

[2:32:07] for the new gym do not park in

[2:32:08] the neighborhood. I would also

[2:32:09] concur that in my 15 years

[2:32:11] of living literally four houses

[2:32:13] down from the entrance of

[2:32:15] Mercy off of Adeline, never

[2:32:18] once in 15 years did anyone

[2:32:21] ever park in front

[2:32:22] of my house,

[2:32:24] and I have that big island

[2:32:25] in front of me, which made it

[2:32:26] very attractive place

[2:32:27] to park, there's a lot

[2:32:29] of parking around there,

[2:32:30] and we simply just didn't have

[2:32:32] it, and I checked

[2:32:33] with all my neighbors

[2:32:34] around there, including Ms.

[2:32:36] Galler, who lived there

[2:32:37] for years, and none of us,

[2:32:38] none

[2:32:39] of us had problems there,

[2:32:40] so I would probably dispense

[2:32:41] with number five,

[2:32:44] so that takes us back

[2:32:45] to item number three,

[2:32:46] which is the ban on rentals,

[2:32:47] and interestingly,

[2:32:50] having been involved in the

[2:32:51] field rentals and policy work

[2:32:52] here in Burlingame and

[2:32:54] at the school district, you

[2:32:57] know, we as a community rent

[2:32:59] out Osberg, Franklin, Ray,

[2:33:01] Cornevaca, Washington Park, and

[2:33:02] the Community Center

[2:33:04] to almost the exact, you know,

[2:33:06] Washington Park has lights,

[2:33:07] it's almost the exact same

[2:33:09] timing, and in fact,

[2:33:10] we have numerous events, at

[2:33:12] least one that goes all night

[2:33:14] long at Washington Park, which

[2:33:16] is, you know, right

[2:33:17] in the middle

[2:33:18] of a neighborhood as well,

[2:33:19] and it's our family campout,

[2:33:20] which goes all night long,

[2:33:21] so and our Community Center is

[2:33:25] open late, it's open

[2:33:26] for events, it's open

[2:33:27] for rentals,

[2:33:28] and when I was involved

[2:33:29] in field use,

[2:33:31] the school districts are

[2:33:32] allowed to rent out to,

[2:33:34] in fact, like I know I rented

[2:33:37] the gyms when I was opening up

[2:33:40] the Burlingamer, we needed

[2:33:42] rental space until we could

[2:33:44] finalize that project, and so

[2:33:45] that, I was allowed

[2:33:47] to rent from, you know,

[2:33:50] these rentals start at 7 a.m.

[2:33:51] in the morning and, you know,

[2:33:53] they go until quite late

[2:33:55] in the evening, that was

[2:33:57] Burlingame High School, so

[2:34:01] given that that's kind of the

[2:34:02] standard and there's a lot

[2:34:04] of neighborhoods that, you

[2:34:06] know, are impacted, another

[2:34:09] school, right,

[2:34:10] I live two blocks away from

[2:34:11] Crocker and, you know, we're

[2:34:15] in the same boat,

[2:34:16] like I can't get in or out

[2:34:17] of my house up to 280,

[2:34:18] at least two times,

[2:34:20] for an hour, two times a day,

[2:34:22] and that's pretty much the only

[2:34:23] way to get up to 80, so I think

[2:34:25] we all just sort of learn

[2:34:29] to deal

[2:34:30] with these accommodations,

[2:34:32] we kind of, you know,

[2:34:33] it's part of living

[2:34:34] in a dense, dense community,

[2:34:36] so my recommendation would be

[2:34:38] to join in with my two

[2:34:39] colleagues and say that I

[2:34:42] would, I would like to allow

[2:34:45] Mercy the opportunity

[2:34:47] to explore rentals,

[2:34:48] and what I would like

[2:34:50] to do is take former Mayor

[2:34:51] Anne Keagran's suggestion that

[2:34:56] we revisit it, maybe

[2:34:58] in a year and a half,

[2:34:59] two years

[2:35:00] after the project is complete,

[2:35:02] and you've been renting, and we

[2:35:04] could revisit and just see if

[2:35:06] there needs

[2:35:07] to be any accommodation,

[2:35:08] any change in hours,

[2:35:09] and I'm looking to Natalie

[2:35:10] to see if something

[2:35:12] like that might be amenable

[2:35:13] to them, you know, put it this

[2:35:15] way, we can do that or not

[2:35:16] tonight, but I can assure you

[2:35:18] if it's abused and there's a

[2:35:19] problem, it will be back

[2:35:20] in front of this council

[2:35:22] in two years,

[2:35:24] so it doesn't really even have

[2:35:25] to be a condition,

[2:35:26] it's just sort

[2:35:28] of how things work

[2:35:30] around here. If something's not

[2:35:32] working,

[2:35:33] I can assure you everyone will

[2:35:34] complain, and we will have

[2:35:35] to revisit it. So my

[2:35:38] inclination right now would be

[2:35:40] to vote to uphold the

[2:35:44] Planning Commission's, and I

[2:35:46] just want to make a comment

[2:35:48] about our Planning

[2:35:49] Commission, the number, the

[2:35:51] Planning Commission sits up

[2:35:53] here probably longer than the

[2:35:54] City Council does,

[2:35:55] their meetings go

[2:35:56] till midnight, 1, 2 a.m., and

[2:35:58] that organization's commitment

[2:36:01] and help

[2:36:03] in brewing game has been

[2:36:06] like nothing I've ever seen,

[2:36:08] so I want to thank every single

[2:36:09] person who is on that

[2:36:10] Planning Commission and their

[2:36:11] thoughtful review of all of

[2:36:13] these applications that we

[2:36:15] receive over and over again,

[2:36:16] most

[2:36:17] of which never ever make it up

[2:36:18] to the City Council. So that

[2:36:21] would be my, I would be

[2:36:23] in consensus and collaboration

[2:36:24] with my colleagues

[2:36:26] on that recommendation,

[2:36:28] and look forward to hearing

[2:36:29] from the Mayor.

[2:36:31] Yeah, and thank you council

[2:36:32] members. Anybody who knows me

[2:36:34] knows I'm a huge supporter

[2:36:35] of the education system

[2:36:38] in our community, whether

[2:36:40] that's private or public. I

[2:36:43] think Burlingame is really a

[2:36:45] community that is principled

[2:36:48] on neighborhood schools. Most

[2:36:51] of the schools we have

[2:36:53] in here have populations around

[2:36:54] them that are walking distance,

[2:36:56] commuting distance, shuttle

[2:36:57] distance, and really I look

[2:36:59] at it from a glass-half-full

[2:37:01] standpoint rather than the

[2:37:04] opposite. What do schools add

[2:37:05] to our community? So that's

[2:37:09] where I'm coming

[2:37:11] from emotionally and in my

[2:37:12] perspective. I think schools

[2:37:14] are one of the three pillars

[2:37:16] of our city that add

[2:37:17] to the value

[2:37:19] of our life here and add

[2:37:20] to the value of all

[2:37:21] of what we do

[2:37:22] in our homes and the valuations

[2:37:23] of those as well. I do think

[2:37:27] the best way though

[2:37:30] for a community school is

[2:37:31] to engage

[2:37:33] with their neighbors. That is

[2:37:34] true for the elementary school

[2:37:36] that I was involved in heavily.

[2:37:38] I'm sure that's fairly true

[2:37:40] historically for Mercy. It

[2:37:42] sounds very much like even

[2:37:44] those who are concerned about

[2:37:45] parking or noise or these types

[2:37:47] of things have consistently

[2:37:48] said Mercy has been a great

[2:37:49] partner in our community and I

[2:37:53] would hope that that wouldn't

[2:37:55] change. I do think the

[2:37:58] methodology was important

[2:38:05] because I do think it comes

[2:38:07] down to this one provision

[2:38:08] about rental use. It's pretty

[2:38:11] clear that the space at Mercy

[2:38:13] is going

[2:38:14] to accommodate this gym. It

[2:38:15] actually may end up lowering

[2:38:16] noise that is existing today

[2:38:18] because of the movement

[2:38:20] of those activities indoors.

[2:38:23] It's certainly going

[2:38:24] to give the girls a sense

[2:38:26] of pride to be able to have

[2:38:27] their own home court and I

[2:38:29] don't think anybody in the room

[2:38:30] has articulated that they were

[2:38:32] against the gym. So I think

[2:38:34] really this comes down

[2:38:37] to the collaboration between

[2:38:39] the neighborhood and the school

[2:38:40] and how it's going to

[2:38:42] administer and stay respectful

[2:38:45] from a third-party use,

[2:38:48] from a traffic perspective,

[2:38:50] from a noise perspective. So I

[2:38:52] do take former Mayor Kegran's

[2:38:53] counsel very seriously that I

[2:38:57] think there's an opportunity

[2:38:58] to continue this dialogue,

[2:39:00] not necessarily

[2:39:01] in this context, but that there

[2:39:04] should be some degree

[2:39:05] of evaluation and some degree

[2:39:07] of understanding. How is it

[2:39:09] going? Is there something that

[2:39:10] we've learned

[2:39:11] through that that we want

[2:39:13] to either bring back

[2:39:15] to the council or figure

[2:39:16] out how you work it

[2:39:17] out as a community?

[2:39:20] Countless stories of that

[2:39:22] in where I live in Burlingame

[2:39:23] and I've heard that

[2:39:24] from many,

[2:39:25] many other neighbors

[2:39:26] over the years. And this isn't

[2:39:27] a contentious relationship

[2:39:30] with Mercy over the years,

[2:39:31] right? They've been a

[2:39:35] substantive part of the

[2:39:36] neighborhood and a good

[2:39:37] neighbor and very respectful.

[2:39:39] So I'm inclined to go with the

[2:39:43] affirmation. I'm inclined to

[2:39:45] encourage that the dialogue

[2:39:47] continue,

[2:39:49] that there is an evaluation.

[2:39:51] Certainly the onus is on Mercy

[2:39:52] to make sure they're responsive

[2:39:54] to complaints,

[2:39:55] that the public feels

[2:39:57] like they have access and input

[2:39:59] into that, because if not,

[2:40:03] it will come back

[2:40:05] to the council.

[2:40:07] But I wouldn't, I would

[2:40:08] encourage, I don't know if I

[2:40:10] would put stipulations

[2:40:11] on the decision today to

[2:40:12] actually have specific

[2:40:15] guardrails articulated,

[2:40:16] but I would like

[2:40:18] to see some encouragement

[2:40:20] about maybe in six months the

[2:40:21] community comes back and

[2:40:23] debriefs, not only the

[2:40:25] Planning Commission,

[2:40:26] but staff and council.

[2:40:28] Six months

[2:40:29] after the operation.

[2:40:30] Correct. And we're talking, I

[2:40:31] don't know what the

[2:40:32] construction cycle time is,

[2:40:34] it's probably

[2:40:35] at least a couple years, 14

[2:40:37] months,

[2:40:39] so that that would be good.

[2:40:40] Maybe in a couple years is

[2:40:42] to have that. So a question

[2:40:43] from our city council,

[2:40:46] our city attorney.

[2:40:47] Before the council goes further

[2:40:48] along, I think our Community

[2:40:51] Development Director wanted

[2:40:53] to chime in about sort

[2:40:54] of that evaluation process.

[2:40:56] Okay, please do.

[2:40:59] In collaboration

[2:41:00] with the city attorney. So

[2:41:05] conditional use permits run

[2:41:06] with the land when the council

[2:41:09] acts on it tonight,

[2:41:10] an entitlement is issued

[2:41:12] to them and that runs with,

[2:41:15] therefore they would be able

[2:41:17] to operate under the conditions

[2:41:18] that have been stipulated

[2:41:21] in the permit in perpetuity.

[2:41:24] If they are in violation

[2:41:26] of those conditions,

[2:41:27] if they haven't fulfilled them,

[2:41:30] a permit can be brought back

[2:41:32] to the City Council for

[2:41:33] revocation. A evaluation where

[2:41:35] in six months time, a year's

[2:41:38] time, we come back and discuss

[2:41:40] the conditions of approval and

[2:41:43] they've agreed and fulfilled

[2:41:44] all the requirements and say

[2:41:47] the public or there is a desire

[2:41:50] not to allow say third-party

[2:41:53] rentals, we wouldn't be able

[2:41:55] to at that time

[2:41:56] to revoke their ability

[2:41:58] to do it if they have not been

[2:41:59] in any violation

[2:42:01] of their permits. So I want

[2:42:02] to be very clear, we can

[2:42:04] absolutely have a discussion

[2:42:06] but that is limited to the

[2:42:09] parameters and conditions.

[2:42:11] Future mitigation, I mean as

[2:42:16] in like overuse, violating the

[2:42:18] 300 maximum, noise decibel,

[2:42:21] exceeding those. Correct, and

[2:42:24] discussing that. If the council

[2:42:26] desires to put parameters

[2:42:28] around third-party rentals,

[2:42:30] the time would be now

[2:42:32] to stipulate it

[2:42:33] in their conditions

[2:42:34] of approval that they need

[2:42:35] to adhere to. We could not

[2:42:37] retroactively come back in the

[2:42:39] future and then start putting

[2:42:42] further stipulations

[2:42:43] on their conditions.

[2:42:44] Understood. If there's a desire

[2:42:45] now for guardrails,

[2:42:46] this is the time. I'll go back

[2:42:50] to our council members. So I

[2:42:51] have no I have no reason

[2:42:55] to believe that Mercy will not

[2:42:56] be responsible and this is the

[2:42:58] same with every conditional

[2:43:00] permit that we not unique

[2:43:01] to this we issue. So my

[2:43:04] inclination would be to sort

[2:43:09] of fall in line

[2:43:10] with what happens with regular

[2:43:12] high schools and other schools.

[2:43:13] I also do want to point out,

[2:43:14] I don't think any of the three

[2:43:16] of you were involved,

[2:43:19] but when we were working on the

[2:43:20] community center and we were

[2:43:21] listening to the charrettes

[2:43:22] about what people wanted,

[2:43:23] you know one

[2:43:26] of the things that is most

[2:43:27] short in this city happens to

[2:43:30] be basketball space and we

[2:43:31] don't have a gym. So I'm kind

[2:43:35] of grateful that there may be a

[2:43:36] gym that's available for

[2:43:38] rentals. I know there are adult

[2:43:40] leagues that have wanted things

[2:43:42] stuff like that

[2:43:43] on the weekends. So I have just

[2:43:46] heard over and over again from

[2:43:48] the public that there's a

[2:43:50] demand for that. So I guess my

[2:43:52] my inclination would be just

[2:43:55] to carry the full

[2:43:57] recommendation of the

[2:43:59] Planning Commission as stands

[2:44:05] then. Thank you Mayor. I agree

[2:44:08] with Council Member Colson. I

[2:44:13] don't think that there's any

[2:44:14] big concern that that though

[2:44:16] that there will be misuse

[2:44:22] of the gym and of the rentals

[2:44:24] and I yeah I agree I think if

[2:44:29] we need it for if it's needed

[2:44:33] for other community uses then

[2:44:34] it should be available and

[2:44:36] again I think we should be

[2:44:37] consistent with how we treat

[2:44:39] our other schools as well.

[2:44:42] Council Member Thayer.

[2:44:43] Yeah as well I think I would I

[2:44:44] would lean in on you know

[2:44:46] Mercy being a good neighbor

[2:44:49] over the years you know running

[2:44:50] their campus appropriately. I

[2:44:52] mean hearing how much more they

[2:44:54] make from rental of Cole

[2:44:55] Mansion really does make me

[2:44:57] realize that they're going

[2:44:59] to prioritize that

[2:45:00] over the gym rental. So the

[2:45:02] likelihood they're going

[2:45:03] to have anything

[2:45:05] in the gym really late

[2:45:06] at night on the weekends is

[2:45:07] just it's much smaller because

[2:45:09] there's so many weddings and

[2:45:10] other things. I do worry if we

[2:45:14] put an extra guardrail

[2:45:15] in place that we don't have for

[2:45:19] our public schools where where

[2:45:20] they're allowed to to rent out

[2:45:21] their gym and facilities that

[2:45:22] it that it's unfair to this

[2:45:23] this private school that's been

[2:45:25] a good neighbor for us. All

[2:45:29] right can we make a motion?

[2:45:31] Would you like a motion? Well

[2:45:32] let me comment and then a

[2:45:34] motion. Yeah I you know I think

[2:45:41] there's it's difficult

[2:45:44] to put a condition on this. I

[2:45:45] think if there is an issue

[2:45:47] it'll surface in one of those

[2:45:48] parameters that's already part

[2:45:50] of this EUP which is either

[2:45:51] noise or other violations

[2:45:54] of the size

[2:45:56] of an event and these type

[2:45:57] of things. I do think Mercy is

[2:45:59] going to prioritize Cole

[2:46:01] Mansion more so than its own

[2:46:03] facility albeit you know as a

[2:46:06] city we're always short

[2:46:09] of facilities to to utilize

[2:46:11] for leagues and so forth

[2:46:12] but a lot

[2:46:13] of times they're still within

[2:46:16] the organization's control is I

[2:46:17] can set a policy around how one

[2:46:22] you know what I want to rent

[2:46:23] to as well as at what time of

[2:46:26] the day and I don't know if it

[2:46:27] necessarily needs

[2:46:28] to be legislated at this point

[2:46:31] from an extra guardrail and so

[2:46:36] I'm still inclined

[2:46:38] to move forward

[2:46:39] with the original Planning

[2:46:40] Commission's affirmation

[2:46:41] of the permit to proceed with

[2:46:44] the project and I'll ask

[2:46:46] colleagues for a motion. May I

[2:46:48] also just point out Mr. Mayor

[2:46:50] please I'm sorry through the

[2:46:53] Mayor I did look through I just

[2:46:56] because we haven't mentioned

[2:46:57] other than they came in but we

[2:46:59] did receive a very large stack

[2:47:00] and I would say it was you know

[2:47:02] 80% pro leave it as it is and

[2:47:06] 20% negative so I just add that

[2:47:10] on to what we heard this

[2:47:11] evening because the public may

[2:47:13] not have the benefit

[2:47:14] of reading all these emails.

[2:47:20] Yeah I took stock

[2:47:22] of that as well. A lot of the

[2:47:25] students which I applaud, they

[2:47:27] care, they want a place to grow

[2:47:30] and experience and leverage and

[2:47:31] so certainly acknowledge that

[2:47:34] as part of the pool

[2:47:35] of feedback not just

[2:47:36] in the room

[2:47:38] but online as well. So

[2:47:39] with that I'm going

[2:47:40] to ask colleagues

[2:47:41] for a motion. Do you like

[2:47:45] to make it? Sure I'll make a

[2:47:46] motion to uphold the Planning

[2:47:49] Commission's decision. Motion

[2:47:51] by Councilmember Pappajohn. Do

[2:47:53] I have a second? I'll second.

[2:47:58] Seconded by Councilmember

[2:48:01] Thayer. Madam City Clerk can we

[2:48:02] have a roll call please?

[2:48:03] Councilmember Thayer? Yes.

[2:48:04] Councilmember Colson? Yes.

[2:48:06] Councilmember Pappajohn? Yes.

[2:48:08] Mayor Stevenson? Yes. So thank

[2:48:14] you for everybody in this

[2:48:15] process. I know there's going

[2:48:16] to be people that are a little

[2:48:17] bit maybe disappointed about

[2:48:19] the outcome and some people

[2:48:21] that are happy about it. I will

[2:48:23] share my perspective that

[2:48:27] continue the discussions,

[2:48:28] continue to work together. If

[2:48:31] there are things that the city

[2:48:32] needs to do on other parts of

[2:48:34] making sure that traffic and

[2:48:35] other things are there we want

[2:48:37] to make sure you have an avenue

[2:48:39] to do that. I appreciate the

[2:48:41] appellate. I appreciate the

[2:48:43] applicants time and thank you

[2:48:46] for that and and thank you for

[2:48:50] the you know keeping it civil

[2:48:52] and keeping it you know

[2:48:54] constructive. There was a lot

[2:48:55] of great input

[2:48:56] on everybody and it's not lost

[2:48:57] on the council.

[2:49:00] With that I'm going to move on

[2:49:01] to item number 11. Five minute

[2:49:04] break. Okay five minute break.

[2:49:06] I was trying to get us out

[2:49:07] of here for 11. Okay five

[2:49:09] minute break.

[2:49:40] I'm going to open myself up

[2:49:42] to say no. Not only has he

[2:49:43] already heard about that,

[2:49:48] that's going to add vividly

[2:49:51] to the decision he'd like

[2:49:53] to make moving forward. That's

[2:49:55] going to add vividly. It

[2:49:57] doesn't give away my opinion

[2:49:59] to them all of a sudden saying

[2:50:00] oh I forgot what I wanted

[2:50:02] to do.

[2:50:04] So much trust.

[2:50:16] There's more laughter than not.

[2:50:40] Well thanks guys. I didn't

[2:50:41] think it would take so long.

[2:50:42] That's okay. It was a good it

[2:50:44] was a good process. No I I

[2:50:46] think I was just telling

[2:50:48] Desiree that this is going

[2:50:50] to pay dividends. There's

[2:50:51] people that are disappointed

[2:50:53] that they're on guardrails or

[2:50:54] on things but I guarantee you

[2:50:56] and that's going

[2:51:02] to pay dividends in defense

[2:51:03] of being open

[2:51:04] to community input, working

[2:51:05] with same folks that are

[2:51:06] concerned

[2:51:07] about different things. So

[2:51:08] that's well I'm not sure it's

[2:51:09] naive. It's just that you can't

[2:51:11] ever go back.

[2:51:16] Once you give it away,

[2:51:17] you can't get it back. No it's

[2:51:18] an entitlement and a mentality.

[2:51:20] But there is the violation

[2:51:23] of the case.

[2:51:24] They have parties later.

[2:51:26] They have decibels holding a

[2:51:28] party that's called a police.

[2:51:32] Three months ago.

[2:51:34] I'm going to go use the

[2:51:35] bathroom now.

[2:51:37] I'm going to go in.

[2:51:39] If you're talking

[2:51:44] about the high school level,

[2:52:21] yeah 100 percent.

[2:52:22] Like the elementary school

[2:52:25] for Burlington, you know it.

[2:52:26] It's on Howard and people treat

[2:52:28] each other like El Camino. And

[2:52:30] we put the traffic calming in.

[2:52:32] I was literally ran out into

[2:52:33] the street when a guy was going

[2:52:35] 80 in his Mustang

[2:52:36] on the roadway in the middle of

[2:52:38] the day where the kids were

[2:52:40] getting out of school. So

[2:52:42] that's not going to stop.

[2:52:44] But I don't know. Yeah it

[2:52:46] wasn't.

[2:52:48] I mean you know it's it's it's

[2:52:52] really hard and it is

[2:52:55] indisputable if everyone was

[2:52:57] okay.

[2:52:58] Like the fact there's a lot

[2:52:59] more traffic. All those kids

[2:53:01] are.

[2:53:04] Yeah they're going to have more

[2:53:05] events where they're staying

[2:53:06] rather than parting

[2:53:08] to another field. Yeah I mean

[2:53:09] maybe that's maybe there's a

[2:53:10] net out.

[2:53:14] There's a lot more activity.

[2:53:16] No one's ever said we don't

[2:53:17] want to.

[2:53:21] It's more than the question

[2:53:22] about third party and some

[2:53:23] of the other side issues.

[2:53:25] Anyway good conversation.

[2:53:28] He's not speaking in the

[2:53:29] conference.

[2:53:32] I'm not giving up so easy.

[2:53:56] All right let's go.

[2:54:19] I can't believe everyone left

[2:54:20] with this exciting topic.

[2:54:25] Okay we're going

[2:54:26] to reconvene.

[2:54:35] Okay moving on to item 11.

[2:54:38] The Broadway grade separation

[2:54:40] project update and request

[2:54:42] for City Council direction. I

[2:54:45] presume that Director Murtaza

[2:54:48] is going to lead the beginning

[2:54:50] of this discussion.

[2:54:51] So take it away. Well thank you

[2:54:53] Mr. Mayor and Council.

[2:54:54] I'll do a brief introduction

[2:54:56] and we have Caltrain team here.

[2:54:58] Rob Bernard, Capital Program

[2:54:59] Director and Navi Dhaliwal.

[2:55:03] She's a Government and

[2:55:04] Community Affairs Manager.

[2:55:06] They will walk through the

[2:55:07] presentation. I just wanted

[2:55:09] to let the City Council

[2:55:11] at large and the members of the

[2:55:12] community know that staff has

[2:55:14] been working really hard

[2:55:16] on this project for last

[2:55:17] several months especially

[2:55:19] in the context of that when we

[2:55:22] were told that the cost

[2:55:23] of this project Broadway grade

[2:55:24] separation project has

[2:55:26] skyrocketed and so staff has

[2:55:28] been working with Caltrain and

[2:55:30] Transportation Authority

[2:55:31] to look at different options to

[2:55:33] reduce the cost and what you

[2:55:35] have tonight is a number

[2:55:37] of options that have been

[2:55:39] looked at and what those costs

[2:55:41] are and one of those options

[2:55:43] include no train station and

[2:55:46] the City Council Subcommittee

[2:55:49] consisting of Mayor Stevenson

[2:55:50] and Council Member Colson have

[2:55:52] looked at these presentations

[2:55:53] before and staff has been

[2:55:55] closely working with the City

[2:55:58] Council Subcommittee to look at

[2:56:00] different options including the

[2:56:02] meeting on February 3rd earlier

[2:56:04] this year and as well as the

[2:56:05] meeting this afternoon to look

[2:56:07] at funding options. So

[2:56:09] with that I will introduce

[2:56:10] Navi Dhaliwal and Rob

[2:56:13] Bernard.

[2:56:22] Good evening Mayor Stevenson,

[2:56:23] Vice Mayor Brownrigg, esteemed

[2:56:25] Council Members, City staff and

[2:56:26] members of the Burlingame

[2:56:28] community. My name is Navi

[2:56:29] Dhaliwal and I'm Caltrain's

[2:56:31] Manager of Government

[2:56:32] Community Affairs. Tonight I am

[2:56:34] joined by my Chief of Design

[2:56:35] and Construction Robert

[2:56:36] Bernard who will be speaking

[2:56:37] later in this presentation.

[2:56:39] Thank you for the opportunity

[2:56:41] to provide this update on

[2:56:42] Caltrain's ongoing safety

[2:56:43] enhancements and our efforts

[2:56:44] to advance the Broadway

[2:56:45] Burlingame grade project.

[2:56:49] We'll be diving

[2:56:50] into current safety

[2:56:52] improvements on Caltrain

[2:56:53] focusing on both the immediate

[2:56:55] actions underway and the

[2:56:56] long-term strategies needed

[2:56:57] to upgrade and enhance safety

[2:56:58] across the system. We'll start

[2:57:00] with an overview of the

[2:57:01] background and key

[2:57:03] considerations that have shaped

[2:57:04] our approach.

[2:57:05] From there we'll walk through

[2:57:06] the cost estimates and trends

[2:57:07] highlighting how financial

[2:57:08] projections have evolved and

[2:57:10] what they mean

[2:57:11] for decision making.

[2:57:13] Next we'll explore value

[2:57:14] engineering and option analysis

[2:57:15] looking at ways to optimize

[2:57:18] safety investments while

[2:57:19] maintaining effectiveness.

[2:57:21] We'll then discuss the funding

[2:57:22] strategy, outlining potential

[2:57:24] sources and key funding

[2:57:25] challenges. Finally we'll close

[2:57:28] with next steps ensuring

[2:57:30] alignment on priorities and

[2:57:31] upcoming actions.

[2:57:33] With that let's get started.

[2:57:36] So just to touch on the recent

[2:57:38] and ongoing safety

[2:57:39] improvements. This past year

[2:57:41] Rail Sentry which is an AI

[2:57:43] solution was successfully

[2:57:45] installed at the crossing and

[2:57:47] this AI utilizes LiDAR and

[2:57:49] cameras

[2:57:50] to detect pedestrians,

[2:57:52] cyclists and cars on our tracks

[2:57:54] and alerts railroad operations

[2:57:56] to prevent a collision. This

[2:57:59] AI-based software analyzes data

[2:58:00] and alerts Caltrain dispatchers

[2:58:03] and transit police

[2:58:04] of potential risks. Data

[2:58:07] collected helps refine traffic

[2:58:08] control measures reducing

[2:58:09] congestion and improving

[2:58:11] vehicle movements

[2:58:13] near crossings. This is

[2:58:15] especially critical when

[2:58:16] talking about the Broadway

[2:58:17] Burlingame grade crossing and

[2:58:18] it's why we implemented this

[2:58:20] software here first and we're

[2:58:22] looking to implement it just

[2:58:24] down the corridor in Palo Alto

[2:58:26] at the Churchill Avenue grade

[2:58:28] crossing. Additionally we also

[2:58:30] installed new solar-powered

[2:58:32] road markers last month

[2:58:33] at the Burlingame crossing.

[2:58:35] This clearly delineates roadway

[2:58:37] boundaries to prevent vehicles

[2:58:38] from turning too far onto the

[2:58:40] tracks similar to pedestrian

[2:58:42] crossing markers enhancing

[2:58:44] visibility.

[2:58:46] Additionally we upgraded

[2:58:47] crossing surfaces in late 2024

[2:58:48] with railroad tie replacement

[2:58:49] and upgraded concrete panels.

[2:58:50] This provides a smoother

[2:58:54] surface reducing the risk

[2:58:56] of vehicles getting stuck

[2:58:57] on the tracks. Folks are

[2:59:00] definitely excited about it.

[2:59:01] Yeah just to be clear it's

[2:59:02] like when people say

[2:59:04] to me I had no idea this was

[2:59:05] on the agenda. There were 200

[2:59:06] people sitting here tonight

[2:59:08] remembering tonight. So

[2:59:12] additional enhancements coming

[2:59:13] into 2025. We're going

[2:59:14] to update the paint stripings

[2:59:15] to improve lane clarity. We're

[2:59:17] going to add new signage to

[2:59:19] better direct drivers and

[2:59:20] pedestrians. We're going to

[2:59:21] install flexible reflective

[2:59:23] delineator posts to help reduce

[2:59:24] speeds and guide drivers safely

[2:59:26] and then additionally Caltrain

[2:59:28] has been actively working with

[2:59:30] our GPS navigation systems

[2:59:32] including Google, Apple, and

[2:59:33] Waze to enhance navigation

[2:59:35] instructions preventing drivers

[2:59:36] from mistakenly stopping on

[2:59:38] tracks and that happens more

[2:59:40] than folks really like estimate

[2:59:42] and understand and so this has

[2:59:44] been a true win for Caltrain

[2:59:46] and the larger region. These

[2:59:49] ongoing efforts really

[2:59:51] demonstrate our dedication

[2:59:52] to making the crossing safer

[2:59:54] for rail passengers and the

[2:59:55] broader community in the

[2:59:56] near term.

[2:59:58] We deeply appreciate the City

[2:59:59] of Burlingame support in

[3:00:00] advancing these efforts and we

[3:00:01] recognize the the community's

[3:00:02] vested interest in ensuring a

[3:00:03] safe and efficient rail

[3:00:04] corridor.

[3:00:07] To frame today's discussion,

[3:00:09] it is important

[3:00:10] to highlight the partnership

[3:00:11] at play with respect to the

[3:00:12] Broadway-Burlingame grade

[3:00:13] separation project.

[3:00:15] Caltrain is the lead

[3:00:16] implementing agency as the

[3:00:18] project requires modifications

[3:00:19] to safety critical systems

[3:00:21] on our operating railroad.

[3:00:23] San Mateo County

[3:00:25] Transportation Authority is the

[3:00:26] funding partner.

[3:00:28] The City of Burlingame is the

[3:00:29] project sponsor, and from

[3:00:30] Caltrain's perspective, the

[3:00:32] City of Burlingame is the

[3:00:33] client.

[3:00:34] As we move forward, we are

[3:00:35] committed to ongoing

[3:00:36] collaboration not only with

[3:00:38] City Council leaders here

[3:00:39] today, staff, and the broader

[3:00:41] Burlingame community

[3:00:42] to ensure this project aligns

[3:00:44] with local needs and

[3:00:46] priorities.

[3:00:50] As many of you know, Broadway

[3:00:52] is one

[3:00:53] of the highest ranked crossings

[3:00:54] for grade separation in

[3:00:55] California.

[3:00:57] The California Public

[3:00:58] Utilities Commission designated

[3:00:59] it as a high-priority location

[3:01:01] due to safety risks,

[3:01:03] congestion, and train-vehicle

[3:01:04] conflict potential.

[3:01:06] In general, what we know is

[3:01:08] grade separations improve

[3:01:09] public safety, traffic flow,

[3:01:11] and train reliability

[3:01:12] in highly urbanized corridors

[3:01:14] like Burlingame.

[3:01:16] I want to begin by sharing just

[3:01:17] a few project goals and

[3:01:18] benefits.

[3:01:21] Grade separations aim

[3:01:22] to enhance safety by

[3:01:23] eliminating vehicle and

[3:01:24] pedestrian conflicts

[3:01:25] with trains,

[3:01:26] improve local and regional

[3:01:27] mobility, support Caltrain

[3:01:28] modernization and increase

[3:01:30] service frequencies

[3:01:31] in this region particularly,

[3:01:32] and ensure long sustainability

[3:01:35] for current electrified

[3:01:38] Caltrain service and potential

[3:01:39] high-speed rail integration.

[3:01:43] To remind the Council and

[3:01:44] members

[3:01:45] of the public here today, the

[3:01:46] project features include grade

[3:01:47] separation at Broadway

[3:01:48] with the City's 65% design,

[3:01:51] elevating Caltrain's tracks,

[3:01:53] allowing vehicles and

[3:01:54] pedestrians

[3:01:55] to pass underneath,

[3:01:56] we're envisioning a Broadway

[3:01:57] station

[3:01:58] with center boarding platforms,

[3:01:59] improving accessibility and

[3:02:00] transit connections.

[3:02:02] We wanted to maintain in this

[3:02:04] concept local access north and

[3:02:05] south of Broadway

[3:02:06] for traffic and businesses.

[3:02:08] Additionally, this project

[3:02:10] contemplated temporary

[3:02:12] two-track electrified shoe

[3:02:14] flies,

[3:02:15] ensuring continued train

[3:02:16] service during construction.

[3:02:17] We had creek locations at

[3:02:19] Easton and Sanchez Creeks

[3:02:21] necessary to accommodate this

[3:02:22] new infrastructure, and

[3:02:24] additionally bike and

[3:02:26] pedestrian connections at

[3:02:28] Cadillac Way and Carmelita

[3:02:29] Avenue.

[3:02:30] I'd like to now turn it over

[3:02:31] to Mr. Bernard, Caltrain's

[3:02:32] Chief of Design and

[3:02:33] Construction,

[3:02:34] for further discussion.

[3:02:36] Thank you.

[3:02:45] Good evening, Mayor, Vice

[3:02:47] Mayor, Council Members, Rob

[3:02:49] Bernard, Chief of Rail Design

[3:02:50] and Construction.

[3:02:51] I'd like to begin

[3:02:53] by sharing information

[3:02:55] on recent project activities.

[3:02:57] For context,

[3:02:59] as the project moved

[3:03:00] from 35% design

[3:03:01] to 65% design,

[3:03:04] three estimates were done by

[3:03:06] three separate design firms.

[3:03:09] The estimated results for all

[3:03:10] of those were very similar,

[3:03:12] but it's important to

[3:03:14] understand what they assumed.

[3:03:16] They assumed that given this

[3:03:17] project was number one on

[3:03:19] California's Public Utility

[3:03:20] Commission's priority list,

[3:03:22] that it would be funded and

[3:03:24] would get into construction

[3:03:26] in 2024.

[3:03:28] However, some of the grants

[3:03:30] that were applied for,

[3:03:31] the money was not received.

[3:03:34] Some prior approved funding was

[3:03:36] delayed.

[3:03:37] This is a complex project.

[3:03:41] There are seven bridges and

[3:03:42] structures to build.

[3:03:43] Work is near six creeks.

[3:03:45] Two creeks require relocation,

[3:03:48] and it's in an electrified

[3:03:50] operating railroad environment.

[3:03:52] And we are in a post-pandemic

[3:03:54] world where the construction

[3:03:56] market remains highly volatile.

[3:04:00] Given these unique project

[3:04:01] characteristics, risks,

[3:04:04] and the market conditions,

[3:04:06] the project team,

[3:04:07] with the help of the City and

[3:04:09] the TA and Caltrain, did an

[3:04:11] analysis to determine an

[3:04:12] optimal delivery method.

[3:04:16] Construction Manager General

[3:04:18] Contractor Delivery Method,

[3:04:20] CMGC, was selected.

[3:04:24] The benefits of this method is

[3:04:26] to provide that early

[3:04:28] contractor involvement

[3:04:30] before the drawings are

[3:04:31] at 100% design.

[3:04:33] So you don't get the 100%

[3:04:34] design and then get a price

[3:04:35] from a contractor.

[3:04:38] You get your price from the

[3:04:39] contractor while you're still

[3:04:40] doing design.

[3:04:41] This provides that commercial

[3:04:43] pricing when you're working

[3:04:44] on design and also allows you

[3:04:47] to explore contract options

[3:04:50] to support decision-making.

[3:04:53] So in October of 2023, the

[3:04:56] SMCTA board allocated funds

[3:04:59] for the CMGC contract

[3:05:02] to support this approach.

[3:05:05] As a complement to that, in

[3:05:06] December of 23, Caltrain

[3:05:09] awarded a contract with Kelly

[3:05:11] McNutt Consulting, KMC.

[3:05:15] This provides a

[3:05:17] contractor-style estimating

[3:05:18] resource for the project team.

[3:05:21] KMC provides an independent

[3:05:23] cost estimator

[3:05:24] to support the evaluation

[3:05:26] of the CMGC's price to make

[3:05:28] sure we're getting a fair price

[3:05:30] from the contractor.

[3:05:32] In February of 2024, the

[3:05:34] contract was awarded with

[3:05:36] Flatiron Herzog, a joint

[3:05:38] venture.

[3:05:40] In August of 2024, the initial

[3:05:42] commercial pricing was received

[3:05:45] from both the CMGC, Flatiron

[3:05:47] Herzog, and KMC, the owner's

[3:05:51] independent cost estimator.

[3:05:53] These range from $527 million

[3:05:56] to $590 million

[3:05:58] for construction portion

[3:05:59] of it.

[3:06:01] These were significantly higher

[3:06:03] than the prior estimates done

[3:06:05] by the design teams.

[3:06:07] With these results,

[3:06:08] the team focused

[3:06:09] on developing an understanding

[3:06:10] of what were the key cost

[3:06:14] factors that were driving this

[3:06:16] price,

[3:06:17] and what was the difference

[3:06:18] between our original estimate

[3:06:20] and these new estimates,

[3:06:21] and looking

[3:06:24] to develop alternatives

[3:06:25] to lower cost.

[3:06:27] At this time, the team did not

[3:06:28] refresh the cost estimate

[3:06:29] for the total project cost.

[3:06:32] We turned our focus

[3:06:33] on solving the problem.

[3:06:35] But at the time, we did

[3:06:36] indicate that the total project

[3:06:37] cost was going to be well

[3:06:39] in excess of $600 million.

[3:06:45] With this commercial pricing

[3:06:46] for construction being

[3:06:47] significantly higher,

[3:06:49] it was important

[3:06:50] to understand the differences

[3:06:51] between those two estimates.

[3:06:52] First of all,

[3:06:55] the design had changed.

[3:06:56] The drawings used by the design

[3:06:59] consultants were the early 65%

[3:07:02] set.

[3:07:04] That set was updated

[3:07:05] after the review comments, and

[3:07:08] the CMGC and our independent

[3:07:10] cost estimators used the

[3:07:12] updated sets.

[3:07:14] The drawings had been changed.

[3:07:15] The sizes of structural and

[3:07:17] members had increased.

[3:07:18] We added new foundation types,

[3:07:20] which increased cost

[3:07:21] significantly.

[3:07:23] Those costs were not included

[3:07:24] in the prior estimate.

[3:07:26] Also, the intended

[3:07:28] groundbreaking was delayed.

[3:07:30] The designers assumed that we'd

[3:07:33] be into construction in May

[3:07:34] of 2024.

[3:07:36] The enabling right-of-way

[3:07:37] activities and funding was not

[3:07:39] secured.

[3:07:40] So the CMGC and our independent

[3:07:42] estimators assumed construction

[3:07:45] would be two years later

[3:07:46] before we started work.

[3:07:49] There were also environmental

[3:07:50] and operational constraints.

[3:07:53] The designers assumed an

[3:07:55] aggressive 40-month

[3:07:56] construction schedule.

[3:07:58] The contractor's initial

[3:08:00] constructability review

[3:08:01] forecasted a longer duration,

[3:08:04] from 59 to 70 months.

[3:08:07] This duration was the result

[3:08:08] of a variety of things, one,

[3:08:10] the increased foundations that

[3:08:12] added to the project, the need

[3:08:14] to relocate work in creeks that

[3:08:16] had in-water work restrictions,

[3:08:19] and the available work windows

[3:08:21] in the electrified environment

[3:08:22] with the increased service that

[3:08:23] Caltrain's put out

[3:08:24] on the street.

[3:08:26] With these, the midpoint

[3:08:28] of construction moved

[3:08:30] about three years in time,

[3:08:31] adding cost.

[3:08:33] The duration got longer,

[3:08:34] adding cost for overseeing

[3:08:35] of the management

[3:08:36] of the work.

[3:08:38] And also, there was a

[3:08:39] post-pandemic bid climate.

[3:08:42] As we all know,

[3:08:43] construction costs increased,

[3:08:45] both labor costs, material

[3:08:46] costs, we have a fragile supply

[3:08:48] chain.

[3:08:50] Although escalation was

[3:08:51] estimated

[3:08:53] by the design teams, what

[3:08:54] actually happened far exceeded

[3:08:57] that from their forecast.

[3:09:04] With that, the team focused

[3:09:05] on driving for solutions based

[3:09:07] on those key cost drivers.

[3:09:08] First, the footprint.

[3:09:13] How do we make the improvements

[3:09:14] smaller?

[3:09:16] So the platform configuration

[3:09:18] that had been originally

[3:09:19] designed was a center board

[3:09:20] platform, which is what

[3:09:21] Caltrain's standard criteria

[3:09:22] is.

[3:09:24] Looked at changing it to a side

[3:09:26] platform, which narrows the

[3:09:28] overall improvement.

[3:09:31] Caltrain's design standard is

[3:09:32] for a 10-car train platform.

[3:09:35] Looked at changing that

[3:09:36] to a 7-car, make it shorter.

[3:09:40] Over the last year, we've

[3:09:42] changed our design criteria

[3:09:43] to allow the rail grade to go

[3:09:45] from 1%

[3:09:46] to 2% and allow the footprint

[3:09:49] to get smaller.

[3:09:52] We also looked at deferring the

[3:09:53] station or eliminating the

[3:09:55] station.

[3:09:57] Then we turned our focus

[3:09:58] on those structural changes,

[3:10:00] looking for alternative

[3:10:01] foundation types that still

[3:10:03] accomplish the need but

[3:10:04] at a lower cost.

[3:10:07] We also focused

[3:10:08] on temporary facilities.

[3:10:11] Is there a way

[3:10:12] to eliminate the need to build

[3:10:13] an electrified two-track shoe

[3:10:16] fly

[3:10:18] around all the improvements?

[3:10:21] Is there a way to use existing

[3:10:22] tracks as a shoe fly instead

[3:10:24] of building a temporary one?

[3:10:26] When the footprint got

[3:10:28] narrower, it allowed us to

[3:10:30] change the alignment and move

[3:10:33] the improvements over to

[3:10:34] Carolyn as opposed to

[3:10:36] over the existing tracks.

[3:10:38] That allows us to use the

[3:10:40] existing tracks as a shoe fly

[3:10:42] to save that money.

[3:10:45] We wanted

[3:10:46] to go one step farther,

[3:10:47] looking at production rates.

[3:10:50] Code does not allow work

[3:10:52] within 10 feet of the 25 kV

[3:10:55] electrified system.

[3:10:58] Our current revenue service is

[3:11:01] only four hours at night when

[3:11:03] the system is powered down.

[3:11:05] On the weekends, it's powered

[3:11:07] down

[3:11:08] for six and a half hours.

[3:11:09] That's not a lot of time

[3:11:10] to get work done.

[3:11:11] So we looked at,

[3:11:12] is there a way

[3:11:13] to isolate the work?

[3:11:15] With a single track shoe fly,

[3:11:16] putting

[3:11:18] in positive protection,

[3:11:19] a fence between where we're

[3:11:21] running trains and where the

[3:11:22] contractor is building the

[3:11:24] work, you're on your side

[3:11:25] of the fence, go to work

[3:11:27] without those restrictions

[3:11:29] to increase production rates,

[3:11:31] reduce duration,

[3:11:33] reduce cost.

[3:11:34] So we looked at turning that

[3:11:35] knob.

[3:11:37] The next thing we took a look

[3:11:39] at was schedule compression.

[3:11:41] As you heard

[3:11:42] in the prior testimony

[3:11:43] on projects, time is money.

[3:11:48] So with the use of the CMGC

[3:11:49] delivery method provides that

[3:11:52] opportunity for early work

[3:11:54] to overlap design.

[3:11:58] So the team explored how

[3:11:59] to leverage this opportunity

[3:12:00] to reduce schedule and cost,

[3:12:05] such as the early right-of-way

[3:12:06] activities

[3:12:07] to move the right-of-way off

[3:12:08] of the critical path,

[3:12:10] but also enabling work like

[3:12:12] advanced utility relocation.

[3:12:15] This project also has long lead

[3:12:17] materials

[3:12:18] for special track work.

[3:12:20] It takes about 18 months

[3:12:21] to get some of that.

[3:12:22] It also has traction power and

[3:12:24] signals.

[3:12:25] Some of those require 18 months

[3:12:27] to two years to acquire.

[3:12:28] Can we start that work early

[3:12:31] to compress the schedule?

[3:12:33] So we looked

[3:12:34] at using those tools as well.

[3:12:39] So with that toolkit

[3:12:40] of ideas, conceptual packages

[3:12:42] were developed and estimated.

[3:12:46] Note that all these costs

[3:12:48] assume that funding will be

[3:12:49] available

[3:12:51] to timely progress the work.

[3:12:52] Of course, that's uncertain,

[3:12:54] but we had to price it

[3:12:55] with that assumption

[3:12:56] for today.

[3:12:58] H1, shown here on the screen,

[3:13:01] was the original design.

[3:13:03] It's important to note that

[3:13:05] there were limited

[3:13:06] opportunities

[3:13:07] for additional VE

[3:13:09] on this package.

[3:13:10] Between January of 21 and

[3:13:13] January of 22, at the start

[3:13:15] of final design, there was a

[3:13:16] value engineering exercise

[3:13:19] for option one in order

[3:13:20] to optimize the design, and

[3:13:22] those levers had already been

[3:13:23] pulled.

[3:13:25] In terms of key considerations

[3:13:27] for this project,

[3:13:28] it still required

[3:13:29] for package one the relocation

[3:13:30] of Easton Creek, the temporary

[3:13:33] relocation of Sanchez Creek.

[3:13:34] It required extensive shoring,

[3:13:39] soil removal, backfill,

[3:13:41] increasing the cost,

[3:13:42] and complexity.

[3:13:45] It did include the design

[3:13:46] of the center board platform,

[3:13:48] which is Caltrain standard

[3:13:49] for customer experience during

[3:13:51] single track operations and

[3:13:53] also provides a wider platform

[3:13:55] for queuing and for comfort

[3:13:57] during high speed train passes.

[3:14:00] The results of that work,

[3:14:02] as noted earlier, both the

[3:14:04] contractor and our independent

[3:14:06] cost estimator, initial

[3:14:08] constructability review showed

[3:14:09] a longer duration of 59 to 70

[3:14:11] months versus the designer's

[3:14:13] 40.

[3:14:15] The two construction estimates

[3:14:17] were 527 to 590

[3:14:18] for construction portion

[3:14:20] of it.

[3:14:22] These were reconciled

[3:14:23] between the two at 577.

[3:14:26] With that, the team updated the

[3:14:28] other project costs besides

[3:14:29] construction, leading

[3:14:31] to a total project cost

[3:14:32] for package one of 889.

[3:14:41] So you heard me talk

[3:14:42] about a lot of things we tried

[3:14:43] to do to lower cost,

[3:14:44] so now I'm going to talk

[3:14:46] about the results

[3:14:47] of that effort.

[3:14:48] First is package two,

[3:14:49] which is that side platform.

[3:14:51] That makes a narrower overall

[3:14:53] footprint, less work, less

[3:14:54] time, lower cost.

[3:14:59] So with this alternative,

[3:15:01] it avoids the relocation of

[3:15:03] Easton Creek.

[3:15:04] It avoids the relocation

[3:15:05] of some of the electrified

[3:15:06] infrastructure.

[3:15:08] It enables flipping the

[3:15:10] alignment and moving this

[3:15:11] station over towards Carolin

[3:15:13] and using the existing track as

[3:15:15] a shoe fly.

[3:15:17] It allows using just a single

[3:15:20] track shoe fly.

[3:15:21] It allows for the contractor

[3:15:22] to be on his side

[3:15:23] of the fence, just go

[3:15:24] to work.

[3:15:25] It also allows the parking

[3:15:26] to move over

[3:15:29] to the west side towards

[3:15:30] California Drive, closer

[3:15:32] to downtown.

[3:15:34] It reduces environmental

[3:15:35] impacts, it reduces utility

[3:15:37] relocations,

[3:15:39] and has a smaller footprint.

[3:15:42] Now it does have some

[3:15:43] challenges.

[3:15:44] One, it's a side platform that

[3:15:45] impacts the rider experience.

[3:15:48] It will require redesign.

[3:15:49] It will require cost and money

[3:15:53] for that redesign and,

[3:15:54] of course, public outreach,

[3:15:55] which we always do.

[3:15:58] The bottom line results.

[3:16:00] It saved a year in time,

[3:16:02] which saved $147 million

[3:16:04] in cost compared to Package

[3:16:08] 1, bringing the total project

[3:16:09] to $679 million.

[3:16:18] So the next package we did was

[3:16:19] take a look

[3:16:20] at deferring the station.

[3:16:22] This is the same as Package

[3:16:23] 2, but deferring building the

[3:16:26] station itself.

[3:16:28] This, of course,

[3:16:29] further reduced cost and time.

[3:16:32] However, in terms

[3:16:33] of a challenge, the project

[3:16:34] already is environmentally

[3:16:36] cleared, and we will need to

[3:16:38] update that environmental work.

[3:16:41] This is under review from legal

[3:16:43] and environmental teams, but

[3:16:45] the early indications are

[3:16:47] positive that this item can be

[3:16:49] addressed without the

[3:16:50] additional time shown

[3:16:51] on the slide.

[3:16:52] We still have a little bit

[3:16:53] of homework to do there.

[3:16:54] We haven't got the final read

[3:16:55] from our attorneys.

[3:16:58] At the end of the day,

[3:16:59] the results

[3:17:00] of this also reduced duration

[3:17:01] by the year,

[3:17:03] saved an additional $34 million

[3:17:05] from Package 2 for a cost of

[3:17:08] $638 million.

[3:17:13] The team went one step farther.

[3:17:16] What if we do no station?

[3:17:18] What if we just instead

[3:17:21] of defer the station,

[3:17:23] let's just not build it?

[3:17:24] Let's not build the

[3:17:25] infrastructure necessary

[3:17:26] to support that.

[3:17:27] Just go up at 2%, cross over

[3:17:29] Broadway, come back down

[3:17:30] at 2%,

[3:17:32] make it as narrow as you can,

[3:17:33] get up as fast as you can, get

[3:17:35] across the road, come back

[3:17:36] down,

[3:17:38] build it as fast as you can.

[3:17:40] Of course, the key benefits

[3:17:41] to that is improved Caltrain

[3:17:43] travel times.

[3:17:45] Again, it reduces scope,

[3:17:46] reduces duration,

[3:17:47] and reduces cost.

[3:17:51] It has the same challenges as

[3:17:52] Package 3 with doing the

[3:17:54] environmental review that we

[3:17:55] still need to do the rest

[3:17:56] of that homework on.

[3:17:58] It does save that year

[3:18:01] of construction, and it saves

[3:18:02] $50 million from the Package 2

[3:18:03] version for a total cost of

[3:18:04] $615 million.

[3:18:09] This is a summary of the VE and

[3:18:11] the construction cost savings.

[3:18:13] We started out at $577 million.

[3:18:17] We did a lot of work and got

[3:18:19] down to $430 million,

[3:18:21] which is Package 2.

[3:18:23] Then we got down to Package

[3:18:24] 3, which is $396 million,

[3:18:27] and then to $380 million.

[3:18:30] These prices, of course,

[3:18:31] are again based

[3:18:32] on having the necessary funding

[3:18:34] to begin work

[3:18:35] in a timely manner.

[3:18:38] So in summary,

[3:18:39] the team created options.

[3:18:41] How do we solve this problem?

[3:18:42] These prices were not what we

[3:18:43] expected.

[3:18:46] So we found ways to reduce the

[3:18:47] duration by reducing scope.

[3:18:49] We have more work

[3:18:50] to do there.

[3:18:52] We reduced the cost

[3:18:53] in construction.

[3:18:54] Package 2 saved about 25%,

[3:18:55] $147 million.

[3:18:57] Package 3 saved about 31%,

[3:18:59] and Package 4 saved

[3:19:05] about 34%.

[3:19:06] We did a line-by-line review

[3:19:08] of all of the cost,

[3:19:09] and we welcome the City and

[3:19:10] TA's help with that, to walk

[3:19:12] through all

[3:19:14] of the costs line-by-line

[3:19:15] to make sure we're driving

[3:19:16] value

[3:19:17] for the public's money.

[3:19:20] We also did a line-by-line

[3:19:21] review

[3:19:22] of all the contingencies.

[3:19:23] For every work activity,

[3:19:24] what's the appropriate level

[3:19:25] of contingency

[3:19:26] for that risk?

[3:19:27] And welcome the City's and the

[3:19:29] TA's review of that as well.

[3:19:34] How do we make sure that we've

[3:19:35] got the right contingencies

[3:19:37] for the construction risks,

[3:19:38] project risk, and other risk

[3:19:39] of the project?

[3:19:41] With that, we generated the

[3:19:43] go-for pricing.

[3:19:44] How much money do we need going

[3:19:45] forward, plus what we spent

[3:19:46] to date,

[3:19:48] to get the total project cost?

[3:19:50] So you're going

[3:19:51] to see that total project cost

[3:19:52] in the next slide,

[3:19:53] and there are a lot of numbers

[3:19:54] on this page.

[3:19:57] So the top line is that CMGC's

[3:20:01] rough order of magnitude

[3:20:03] construction cost.

[3:20:05] I want to be mindful here.

[3:20:07] Package 2, 3, and 4 are based

[3:20:10] on conceptual designs.

[3:20:12] We have a very talented

[3:20:14] contract team, a very talented

[3:20:16] designer,

[3:20:17] and they developed kind of

[3:20:18] conceptual plans that were

[3:20:19] priced.

[3:20:20] Package 1 was a 65% plan set.

[3:20:24] Package 2, 3, and 4 were based

[3:20:26] on conceptuals,

[3:20:28] so the rough order

[3:20:29] of magnitude.

[3:20:30] So there's more work

[3:20:31] to do here.

[3:20:32] And the costs vary from $577

[3:20:33] to $380, and these vary

[3:20:36] by the scope, the level

[3:20:38] of improvements we do,

[3:20:40] and the duration

[3:20:41] of the work.

[3:20:43] How fast can the work be done,

[3:20:44] and what's the smallest

[3:20:46] footprint can be done

[3:20:47] to get the project done?

[3:20:49] The next group of lines are

[3:20:51] other project costs.

[3:20:52] The design side to get

[3:20:54] to 100% design, Caltrain's cost

[3:20:56] for management of the work,

[3:20:58] the construction management

[3:20:59] support, the right-of-way,

[3:21:01] and those vary

[3:21:03] by duration and scope from

[3:21:04] about $111 to $92 million.

[3:21:05] The next lines are for

[3:21:09] contingencies and project

[3:21:10] risks.

[3:21:12] The CMGC included in their

[3:21:14] pricing to us risk money.

[3:21:17] They included a range of $57

[3:21:19] to $35 million

[3:21:21] for the geotechnical risk.

[3:21:23] You heard me talk

[3:21:25] about the excavation, the

[3:21:26] shoring, the backfill.

[3:21:28] If we do more geotechnical,

[3:21:30] we might be able

[3:21:31] to avoid all the cost,

[3:21:32] but we didn't know yet, so they

[3:21:33] included that money as a risk

[3:21:34] element.

[3:21:36] We also included monies

[3:21:38] for escalation.

[3:21:39] We only included 3.5% because

[3:21:42] this project will have several

[3:21:43] years of a lifespan,

[3:21:45] and escalation tends

[3:21:46] to go up and down over time.

[3:21:48] So with that, we developed the

[3:21:49] go-forward pricing and expanded

[3:21:51] to date, and the bottom line

[3:21:53] there is the total project

[3:21:54] cost.

[3:21:55] We started at $889 million.

[3:21:57] We got down to $615 million.

[3:22:04] Next, I want

[3:22:05] to talk a little bit

[3:22:06] about escalation.

[3:22:09] In the next several months,

[3:22:11] a decision will be necessary.

[3:22:14] The current funding we have

[3:22:16] will be exhausted.

[3:22:18] Time is a key cost driver

[3:22:20] on large projects.

[3:22:23] We selected the CMGC

[3:22:25] construction method delivery

[3:22:26] method.

[3:22:28] This early contract involvement

[3:22:29] provides commercial pricing

[3:22:32] before the drawings are done.

[3:22:34] It also provides the

[3:22:36] opportunity

[3:22:37] to do that enabling work

[3:22:39] before the design is complete.

[3:22:41] With this known opportunity,

[3:22:44] the costs shown are based

[3:22:45] on using that tool.

[3:22:50] It shows funding the redesign

[3:22:52] of the work to get

[3:22:54] to 65% drawings.

[3:22:57] It assumes funding production

[3:22:59] of 100% drawings

[3:23:01] for that enabling work, the

[3:23:03] utilities, the track work,

[3:23:05] get those drawings to 100% so

[3:23:06] we can get them priced and get

[3:23:08] into construction.

[3:23:10] It shows funding the enabling

[3:23:11] right-of-way work

[3:23:13] to remove that from the

[3:23:14] critical path so those

[3:23:15] properties are cleared because

[3:23:17] that's where the contractor is

[3:23:18] going to go to work.

[3:23:20] It also shows seeking

[3:23:22] authorization to proceed

[3:23:23] with construction coming back

[3:23:25] in the spring of next year,

[3:23:27] asking for money to begin

[3:23:29] construction so you can

[3:23:32] mobilize and begin construction

[3:23:33] in the fall of 26.

[3:23:35] It also would include and ask

[3:23:37] next spring

[3:23:39] to complete the 100% drawings.

[3:23:43] This slide is to show even

[3:23:44] with moderate escalation

[3:23:46] at 3.5%, the bottom line there

[3:23:48] is the cheapest option at $615

[3:23:51] million.

[3:23:53] One year of delay is $22

[3:23:54] million.

[3:23:56] That's why the team said let's

[3:23:58] assume for these pricing that

[3:23:59] we're going to find a way

[3:24:01] to get the ability to go to

[3:24:03] work and find a funding

[3:24:04] strategy that would support

[3:24:06] that given this is number one

[3:24:07] in the state

[3:24:09] on the priority list.

[3:24:19] In terms

[3:24:21] of funding and expenditure,

[3:24:22] the project has received

[3:24:23] about $28.9 million

[3:24:26] from the and the city

[3:24:28] since this project began in

[3:24:29] 2017.

[3:24:32] The majority of these funds

[3:24:33] have been expended to get

[3:24:34] to this point.

[3:24:36] At the end of the calendar

[3:24:37] year, there was about $2.4

[3:24:38] million left.

[3:24:42] So we're going to be running

[3:24:43] out of capacity to continue

[3:24:45] work and a decision is needed

[3:24:46] in the coming months in order

[3:24:48] to continue on this project.

[3:24:55] So in terms of next steps,

[3:24:59] tomorrow and Thursday, we will

[3:25:01] go to the SMCTA Citizens

[3:25:03] Advisory Committee and their

[3:25:04] board, Caltrain staff, will

[3:25:05] provide a project update

[3:25:07] similar to what we're doing

[3:25:09] here today and the TA staff

[3:25:12] will seek feedback from their

[3:25:13] CAC and their board.

[3:25:15] If the region elects to

[3:25:17] continue moving this project

[3:25:19] forward, the team's

[3:25:20] recommendation would be

[3:25:22] to drive schedule

[3:25:24] to reduce cost.

[3:25:26] We've got a final design team,

[3:25:27] Mark Thomas, that's ready

[3:25:29] to go to work, knows the

[3:25:30] project well and is poised to

[3:25:33] advance that work and reuse a

[3:25:35] lot of the things that they've

[3:25:36] already done.

[3:25:37] They've already designed the

[3:25:38] intersection at Broadway.

[3:25:39] There's a lot of work there

[3:25:40] that can be reused.

[3:25:42] We've got a seasoned CMGC

[3:25:44] contractor, Flatiron Herzog,

[3:25:45] ready to go

[3:25:47] to work.

[3:25:48] I'm meeting with their vice

[3:25:49] presidents tomorrow

[3:25:51] before the CAC meeting

[3:25:52] in my office to talk

[3:25:54] about work on this project.

[3:25:56] Put forward a request

[3:25:58] for funding to move the design

[3:26:00] to 65% and 100% design

[3:26:03] for that enabling work.

[3:26:06] Find a way to do the enabling

[3:26:08] right-of-way work, update the

[3:26:09] environmental and come forward

[3:26:12] with a funding request

[3:26:13] in the spring of 26

[3:26:15] to start support construction

[3:26:17] of that enabling work

[3:26:19] in the fall of 26 and fund the

[3:26:21] 100% design.

[3:26:26] Of course, Caltrain will

[3:26:27] continue to evaluate all

[3:26:29] supplemental safety measures as

[3:26:30] part

[3:26:31] of our rail crossing program

[3:26:32] like we do up and

[3:26:33] down the alignment.

[3:26:41] So what amount

[3:26:42] of funds are necessary

[3:26:44] to do this next step?

[3:26:46] I want to be very clear.

[3:26:48] This is just essentially a

[3:26:50] placeholder.

[3:26:52] We asked the contractor, the

[3:26:54] designer,

[3:26:55] about how much it would be

[3:26:57] to advance

[3:26:58] to this next level.

[3:26:59] Of course, they didn't know

[3:27:00] which package would be

[3:27:01] selected,

[3:27:02] so there's still work

[3:27:04] to be done based

[3:27:06] on what package is selected,

[3:27:07] asking for a proposal, and then

[3:27:08] doing a line-by-line review

[3:27:09] with Caltrain, the city staff,

[3:27:12] and the TA staff,

[3:27:13] making sure we drive value

[3:27:14] to money to drive that cost

[3:27:15] down for both the contractor's

[3:27:17] proposal

[3:27:20] for the designer's proposal and

[3:27:22] Caltrain's cost.

[3:27:24] This money would support

[3:27:26] getting the updated cost

[3:27:29] from the CMGC for the 65% set

[3:27:31] and the enabling work.

[3:27:34] Because we'd be looking

[3:27:35] to issue a contract amendment

[3:27:36] to go to work,

[3:27:37] we'd be negotiating a price

[3:27:38] for that work.

[3:27:40] The designer's work I've talked

[3:27:42] about and then enabling

[3:27:43] right-of-way work.

[3:27:44] That's authorizing relocation

[3:27:46] benefit eligibility

[3:27:48] for the lease tenants on the

[3:27:50] San Mateo County Transit

[3:27:51] Authority

[3:27:52] for two parcels and,

[3:27:54] of course, the other elements

[3:27:55] that are shown.

[3:27:58] And then we'd come back

[3:27:59] for a future funding request

[3:28:01] for 100% design and the

[3:28:03] long-lead material procurement.

[3:28:11] With that being said, package

[3:28:13] 1, 2, and 3 are estimated at

[3:28:16] $679 to $615 million.

[3:28:21] With the current $28.9 million,

[3:28:24] that leaves a gap of $650 to

[3:28:27] $586 million.

[3:28:31] We did work with SMCTA staff

[3:28:34] and your staff to identify

[3:28:36] known sources and amounts

[3:28:38] of funding.

[3:28:40] All in, an additional $438

[3:28:42] million might be available.

[3:28:47] This still leaves a significant

[3:28:49] gap of $211 to $147 million.

[3:28:55] We know that this location is

[3:28:57] the highest-ranked crossing

[3:28:58] in California CPUC's list.

[3:28:59] We know that.

[3:29:01] We want to drive this project

[3:29:02] forward.

[3:29:04] Caltrain is firmly committed

[3:29:05] in order

[3:29:06] to get this project done.

[3:29:09] But with all the VEA options

[3:29:10] implemented,

[3:29:12] it's still a heavy lift

[3:29:14] to fund.

[3:29:15] And we know that the state and

[3:29:17] federal landscape remains

[3:29:19] uncertain.

[3:29:22] And we know that construction

[3:29:23] market remains volatile.

[3:29:29] We would like

[3:29:30] to thank the mayor, the vice

[3:29:31] mayor, and the council members

[3:29:34] for the opportunity

[3:29:35] to provide this update.

[3:29:37] The project evaluated that

[3:29:38] contract delivery model.

[3:29:40] We selected CMGC to get that

[3:29:42] commercial pricing now

[3:29:44] before we were done

[3:29:45] with the drawings.

[3:29:47] We knew this was a unique

[3:29:48] project with lots of risk.

[3:29:50] It had seven structures, six

[3:29:51] creeks, relocating creeks,

[3:29:52] new pedestrian

[3:29:56] under crossings,

[3:29:57] an electrified operating

[3:29:58] railroad, and a volatile

[3:29:59] post-pandemic bid market.

[3:30:00] We wanted

[3:30:01] to get contractor pricing now.

[3:30:03] We obtained that pricing

[3:30:05] before we were done

[3:30:07] with designing.

[3:30:08] And similar to many public

[3:30:09] infrastructure projects

[3:30:11] across the United States, this

[3:30:14] pricing was not what we

[3:30:15] expected.

[3:30:18] However, now we have more

[3:30:19] information

[3:30:21] to support decision-making

[3:30:23] on what to do next.

[3:30:24] I'd like to turn it back to

[3:30:26] Saiyed for that conversation.

[3:30:47] Before I go

[3:30:50] to the next steps, I would

[3:30:51] like

[3:30:54] to have the council follow up

[3:30:55] with any questions for Rob or

[3:30:56] Navi.

[3:30:59] Council members, who's got

[3:31:02] questions for Robert or Navi

[3:31:05] regarding what was presented?

[3:31:09] May I do the mayor,

[3:31:10] please?

[3:31:12] I might just say that

[3:31:15] Councilman, or Mayor Stevenson

[3:31:17] and I have had the opportunity,

[3:31:19] this is now the third time

[3:31:21] we've seen this,

[3:31:22] and we have spent

[3:31:24] over four hours asking hundreds

[3:31:25] of questions.

[3:31:27] So I would like to defer

[3:31:29] to my three colleagues to make

[3:31:32] sure you have the opportunity

[3:31:33] to answer, ask some

[3:31:34] of the same questions,

[3:31:36] and maybe hopefully even hit

[3:31:38] on something that we've missed.

[3:31:39] But I do want you to know,

[3:31:41] on your behalf, we have been

[3:31:43] asking hours and hours

[3:31:45] of questions.

[3:31:47] We are obviously disappointed.

[3:31:50] We are upset about this.

[3:31:54] This is a shock to everyone.

[3:31:56] Has ramifications and

[3:31:57] implications, and this is the

[3:32:00] first time that I've had the

[3:32:02] opportunity to see the slide

[3:32:03] that shows the casting out

[3:32:05] of costs up to 2031.

[3:32:09] A billion dollars sat on that

[3:32:12] chart.

[3:32:16] I haven't seen that before, but

[3:32:20] you can see the conundrum that

[3:32:25] we are in, in terms

[3:32:28] of advancing this project.

[3:32:30] So please, colleagues.

[3:32:35] Any initial questions?

[3:32:36] Yes, Vice Mayor.

[3:32:38] I do, but I don't feel a need

[3:32:39] to go first.

[3:32:41] Okay.

[3:32:42] Well, I mean, so one,

[3:32:44] I guess I have a question

[3:32:45] for the Mayor and

[3:32:47] Councilwoman Colson.

[3:32:48] So the questions that you've

[3:32:49] asked, were they addressed

[3:32:51] in this presentation?

[3:32:52] In other words,

[3:32:53] are the answers that you got

[3:32:54] in this presentation, or?

[3:32:57] Mr. Mayor, would you like to

[3:32:58] address that?

[3:33:00] I think there are still some

[3:33:02] unknown questions,

[3:33:03] and we gave guidance

[3:33:06] around some of the current

[3:33:07] estimates that you see,

[3:33:09] in terms of, especially in the

[3:33:11] near term, in terms

[3:33:12] of the next wave of funding

[3:33:14] to get to 65% with the redesign

[3:33:16] and what options that impacts.

[3:33:18] Because I don't think the

[3:33:20] scenario was with Caltrain, and

[3:33:23] correct me if I'm wrong, that

[3:33:25] they asked other than just a

[3:33:27] high level, what is your sense

[3:33:29] of what this is going

[3:33:30] to cost?

[3:33:32] So there's costs that are

[3:33:33] projected in that $28 million

[3:33:34] that we had questions about,

[3:33:36] and I don't know what the final

[3:33:38] answer will be on that,

[3:33:39] because there's more work

[3:33:40] to be done.

[3:33:42] In general, I think some

[3:33:45] of the questions about the

[3:33:46] value engineering certainly

[3:33:47] clarified a picture for us,

[3:33:50] in terms of what options.

[3:33:54] But there's also questions

[3:33:55] about governance,

[3:33:57] there's questions

[3:33:58] about how we drive this,

[3:33:59] how we work together

[3:34:00] to make this the exception

[3:34:01] of the surprise,

[3:34:03] rather than the rule,

[3:34:05] going forward.

[3:34:08] For other grade separations.

[3:34:09] Yeah, and I think, just

[3:34:10] to frame it, it seems

[3:34:11] to me that this evening,

[3:34:13] the decisions that we need

[3:34:14] to make are looking at, you

[3:34:16] know, options one through four.

[3:34:18] I think the mayor and I have a

[3:34:20] suggestion, along with staff,

[3:34:23] of where we're going to have

[3:34:24] to go on this,

[3:34:26] pretty obvious.

[3:34:28] It's complex, because of the

[3:34:33] transit-oriented development

[3:34:34] situation, whether that train

[3:34:36] station is there or not.

[3:34:38] We heard very loud and clear

[3:34:39] from our scoping meetings

[3:34:41] with the TOD

[3:34:43] for a specific plan for

[3:34:44] Broadway, that change is not,

[3:34:48] people are not interested

[3:34:49] in change,

[3:34:50] they don't want more dense

[3:34:51] housing, they don't want all

[3:34:52] that, and those two things

[3:34:54] interrelate, right?

[3:34:55] If we have a train station,

[3:34:57] by law,

[3:34:58] then we must zone very dense

[3:35:00] around it, without parking.

[3:35:02] So there's complexity

[3:35:04] around that, and we sorted

[3:35:05] through some

[3:35:06] of those questions.

[3:35:07] And then, I think,

[3:35:09] so that sort

[3:35:11] of is the first framing.

[3:35:12] There was a lot of,

[3:35:13] I guess what I would say is,

[3:35:15] there was a lot

[3:35:16] of conversation and sort

[3:35:17] of rehashing around, how in the

[3:35:19] world did we actually get here?

[3:35:21] So I think you can be pretty

[3:35:22] confident that we have made it

[3:35:24] very clear, the mistakes,

[3:35:26] and we've stood by our staff,

[3:35:30] who has been discussing for 10

[3:35:31] years, if not arguing

[3:35:33] vehemently, of why 10 years

[3:35:35] ago, before electrification,

[3:35:37] et cetera, we needed

[3:35:39] to have begun this project.

[3:35:40] And we were always at the top

[3:35:42] of the list, and projects below

[3:35:43] us got picked up and put on,

[3:35:45] you know, the Mateo, and every

[3:35:47] one of these projects has gone

[3:35:48] over and over and

[3:35:49] over and running.

[3:35:51] And then, there was extensive

[3:35:52] debate, even around,

[3:35:54] so that was number one, like,

[3:35:55] what are we going to build?

[3:35:56] Then number two, how come the

[3:35:57] process is so screwed up, and

[3:35:58] how do we make sure that going

[3:36:00] forward it doesn't get this

[3:36:01] out of control?

[3:36:05] And then number three is really

[3:36:06] the funding plan,

[3:36:07] and how do we put a funding

[3:36:08] plan together, even, you know,

[3:36:10] if the TA gave us every dollar

[3:36:11] that they had, we're still

[3:36:14] $147 million short on the, you

[3:36:17] know, in an environment

[3:36:19] of 25% tariffs, an environment

[3:36:21] of the Fed pulling back tons

[3:36:23] and tons of funding, it's just

[3:36:25] all getting very complicated.

[3:36:28] So to pick up on that,

[3:36:29] I'll just turn to a couple

[3:36:30] of questions.

[3:36:32] What is the funding plan?

[3:36:33] So you have to find $100, we

[3:36:34] have to find $150, $200

[3:36:36] million, where does it come

[3:36:37] from in your view?

[3:36:39] So the discussion we had

[3:36:42] earlier this afternoon was

[3:36:43] establishing an ad hoc

[3:36:44] committee

[3:36:46] with the finance folks

[3:36:47] for both Caltrain, the TA,

[3:36:48] and the city to meet

[3:36:49] on a regular cadence

[3:36:50] over the next year

[3:36:52] to develop that funding plan.

[3:36:53] You could imagine a future

[3:36:55] where there's a decision made,

[3:36:56] we'll pick a package,

[3:36:58] we're going

[3:36:59] to advance the design

[3:37:00] to get ready with the CMGC

[3:37:01] to go to work.

[3:37:02] Excuse me?

[3:37:03] We won't be able to go to work

[3:37:04] without that funding plan.

[3:37:06] So we don't have that plan,

[3:37:08] but we've talked

[3:37:09] about a structured process

[3:37:11] in order to try

[3:37:12] to drive the development

[3:37:13] of that plan.

[3:37:14] As far as I know,

[3:37:15] there's no additional sources

[3:37:16] of capital for this kind of

[3:37:18] project that wasn't available a

[3:37:19] year ago, two years ago,

[3:37:20] three years ago.

[3:37:22] There's no, I mean, certainly

[3:37:25] not the federal government

[3:37:27] hasn't created a vast new

[3:37:29] spending program, far

[3:37:30] from it.

[3:37:31] State is not in a better fiscal

[3:37:32] position than it was.

[3:37:33] So if we couldn't do it last

[3:37:34] year with a $300 million

[3:37:36] estimate where we needed 50

[3:37:39] to 60, I don't understand where

[3:37:41] you think 150 to 200 is coming

[3:37:42] from.

[3:37:45] The team doesn't have an answer

[3:37:47] for where that funding- I don't

[3:37:49] think you can get an answer.

[3:37:51] I mean, I invest for a living.

[3:37:55] I would fire you guys,

[3:37:57] honestly.

[3:37:59] This isn't, you weren't off

[3:38:02] by a little bit, you were off

[3:38:03] by a lot.

[3:38:04] And now you want this

[3:38:05] community, which I express

[3:38:08] broadly, the city of

[3:38:09] Burlingame and a lot

[3:38:10] of other people,

[3:38:11] to throw another $25 million

[3:38:15] onto the fire.

[3:38:17] I mean, I don't see what value

[3:38:18] we've got for the $25 million

[3:38:19] you've spent.

[3:38:22] If this were a startup,

[3:38:23] I wouldn't keep funding you.

[3:38:24] If this were a good idea, I'd

[3:38:26] go somewhere else.

[3:38:28] I don't see you guys

[3:38:29] delivering.

[3:38:31] I mean, I'm sorry,

[3:38:32] I'm not usually this blunt, but

[3:38:34] this upsets me.

[3:38:36] I admire the mayor and

[3:38:40] Councilwoman Colson

[3:38:41] for keeping their cool.

[3:38:42] Maybe they blew their stack in

[3:38:43] private.

[3:38:44] I think this is outrageous.

[3:38:45] And to ask the city and the

[3:38:47] community and the county and

[3:38:48] the state

[3:38:49] to keep backing your agency

[3:38:50] with this record of missing

[3:38:52] over and over again, I don't

[3:38:57] see how you stand there and

[3:38:58] say, just trust me.

[3:39:01] Give me another 10, 15, 20

[3:39:02] million, I'll figure it out.

[3:39:07] Sorry, it wasn't really a

[3:39:08] question, but you can go ahead

[3:39:10] and answer it, please do.

[3:39:15] I hear you loud and clear.

[3:39:20] When I joined Caltrain, we were

[3:39:22] doing work with low bid.

[3:39:26] These are complex projects,

[3:39:28] and I've built complex projects

[3:39:31] at over a billion dollars.

[3:39:32] And the way we do those is

[3:39:34] bring a contractor in

[3:39:36] to get contractor pricing

[3:39:38] to drive decision making.

[3:39:40] And that's not what was being

[3:39:41] done.

[3:39:42] So I said, let's change the way

[3:39:44] we deliver work.

[3:39:47] We brought on a CMGC out at

[3:39:50] Mountain View.

[3:39:51] We did it at Rangsdorf.

[3:39:53] We did it at Broadway.

[3:39:55] We're going to bring one

[3:39:56] to our council in April for

[3:39:58] Middle Avenue

[3:40:00] to bring the contractor

[3:40:01] in early

[3:40:02] to get their pricing.

[3:40:03] The pricing that we've been

[3:40:05] getting from the design

[3:40:06] professionals doesn't align

[3:40:07] with the current realities

[3:40:10] of this construction market.

[3:40:12] So coming in and changing the

[3:40:13] way we do business to get

[3:40:15] better pricing earlier than

[3:40:17] what was done before.

[3:40:20] So I hear you,

[3:40:22] and what are we doing

[3:40:23] about it?

[3:40:24] And that was changing the way

[3:40:26] we get our pricing.

[3:40:27] Now there are other projects

[3:40:29] that are earlier

[3:40:30] in their design process, in

[3:40:31] Palo Alto.

[3:40:33] We went out to the market, and

[3:40:35] we got this specialized

[3:40:36] expertise that is a contractor

[3:40:40] style estimating from Kelly

[3:40:42] McNutt, and there are other

[3:40:44] firms that do that as well,

[3:40:46] to provide that resource to

[3:40:48] Caltrain for other projects.

[3:40:49] Because you can't hire a CMGC

[3:40:52] contractor on a project

[3:40:53] in 15% design.

[3:40:55] There's no construction money

[3:40:57] yet.

[3:40:58] They're in the business

[3:40:59] of construction.

[3:41:00] So we're bringing them on and

[3:41:01] getting that commercial pricing

[3:41:03] at 15%

[3:41:04] from the contractor industry

[3:41:05] on these earlier projects to

[3:41:08] change the way we do business.

[3:41:10] But on projects that were

[3:41:12] in flight, let's bring them in

[3:41:13] to get commercial pricing,

[3:41:15] because the pricing we were

[3:41:16] getting from the design

[3:41:17] communities didn't match the

[3:41:18] realities we're getting

[3:41:20] from the construction community

[3:41:21] for pricing.

[3:41:24] So it came in and changed the

[3:41:26] way we do business.

[3:41:27] So I hear you on that,

[3:41:29] and what are we doing

[3:41:30] about it?

[3:41:33] Well, if, and sorry, but the-

[3:41:34] No, no, no, keep going,

[3:41:35] but I just want to elaborate

[3:41:37] on something you pointed out,

[3:41:38] Michael, or Councilman

[3:41:39] Brownrigg, Vice Mayor.

[3:41:41] If you don't think you can find

[3:41:42] the 200 million, and that's,

[3:41:43] if you don't think you can,

[3:41:44] if one doesn't think one can,

[3:41:47] it's like asking you to buy,

[3:41:49] to pay for an architect

[3:41:50] to design the Taj Mahal, and

[3:41:52] you know damn well you don't

[3:41:54] have the money to build the

[3:41:55] Taj Mahal.

[3:41:56] So why am I paying the

[3:41:57] architect?

[3:41:58] Who am I kidding?

[3:41:59] That's the question

[3:42:00] before the region today.

[3:42:04] With what we know now

[3:42:06] about what this project cost,

[3:42:07] we brought in a contractor,

[3:42:09] we turned over every rock,

[3:42:11] how cheap can you make it

[3:42:12] in today's ball to market?

[3:42:17] Does the region want

[3:42:18] to move forward

[3:42:19] with this project or not?

[3:42:20] That's the question.

[3:42:21] And then if they want

[3:42:23] to move forward, which one?

[3:42:25] And if that's the choice,

[3:42:27] we have a steep hill to climb

[3:42:30] in a, where the state and

[3:42:31] federal funding is uncertain,

[3:42:33] and the construction market is

[3:42:35] volatile.

[3:42:37] Do we want to take that next

[3:42:38] step or not?

[3:42:40] That's the question.

[3:42:46] Sorry, I do not want to, if

[3:42:49] Desiree or Andrea, so I just

[3:42:52] want to point out, and we have

[3:42:54] three new council people here,

[3:42:56] but Councilman Brownrigg and I,

[3:42:58] you know, I expressed great

[3:43:01] concern that this is not the

[3:43:02] first time that we've had this

[3:43:04] kind of a problem.

[3:43:06] The first time we had this

[3:43:07] problem was

[3:43:08] over the parallel station,

[3:43:09] which was going

[3:43:10] to be built right adjacent

[3:43:11] to where we're talking

[3:43:12] about grade separation.

[3:43:14] And when I asked,

[3:43:15] and we had an outpour

[3:43:17] of community dissent about

[3:43:19] building this monstrosity right

[3:43:21] in front

[3:43:22] of all these homeowners.

[3:43:23] So they all came

[3:43:25] out and we were given 24 hours

[3:43:26] to solve this problem.

[3:43:30] The most disconcerting thing

[3:43:34] that happened was we asked, so

[3:43:35] wait, you're going to build a

[3:43:36] $17 million parallel station

[3:43:38] on a location that's going

[3:43:40] to need a grade separation?

[3:43:41] And we were told

[3:43:43] in that meeting, oh, yeah,

[3:43:44] we'll just tear it

[3:43:46] down and we'll rebuild it

[3:43:48] into the new station, $17

[3:43:49] million

[3:43:50] of wasted taxpayer money, which

[3:43:53] either says you never planned

[3:43:54] to build this station ever,

[3:43:58] or you were foolish enough to

[3:44:01] think that you could build and

[3:44:03] then tear it

[3:44:04] down and waste that much money

[3:44:05] of taxpayers' money.

[3:44:07] We solved that problem, thank

[3:44:08] goodness, from our amazing

[3:44:09] staff and our lawyers and our

[3:44:11] city manager, Michael.

[3:44:12] We sat down with a map.

[3:44:14] By two feet, we put it

[3:44:15] on our own property.

[3:44:16] We signed the papers,

[3:44:17] got an MOU together in 24

[3:44:18] hours.

[3:44:19] And when did that project

[3:44:21] start?

[3:44:23] Two years later.

[3:44:25] Two years later.

[3:44:26] So these are the things that

[3:44:28] have given pause to those

[3:44:29] of us who've been working

[3:44:30] on this for a decade.

[3:44:33] And one of the reasons we don't

[3:44:35] have a lot of confidence

[3:44:37] in this, and I point out one

[3:44:40] other thing that the mayor and

[3:44:42] I discussed today with staff,

[3:44:43] and that is, for example,

[3:44:45] on the funding need,

[3:44:46] the advanced updated

[3:44:47] alternative to 65%.

[3:44:49] So thankfully, we had a former

[3:44:50] mayor, Gina Pappin,

[3:44:55] representative

[3:44:57] of MTC was there,

[3:44:58] and I think she got right

[3:44:59] to the heart of this,

[3:45:00] which was we've already spent

[3:45:02] $20 million on design.

[3:45:04] We don't throw it

[3:45:06] out and start again.

[3:45:08] You just start rebuilding.

[3:45:10] And you know, when we look

[3:45:12] here, designer,

[3:45:14] for nine months of design work

[3:45:17] by a new designer to do this,

[3:45:19] $9.3 million

[3:45:22] to design an overpass, that's a

[3:45:24] million dollars a month.

[3:45:27] The mayor calculated it, it's

[3:45:29] like 25 people full-time

[3:45:30] for nine months.

[3:45:32] Is that really what it takes

[3:45:33] to redesign this?

[3:45:35] It just cannot.

[3:45:36] So it's these numbers that just

[3:45:39] give me so much pause and

[3:45:41] concern,

[3:45:42] and are where we really dove

[3:45:44] down on a lot

[3:45:45] of these meetings.

[3:45:47] Plausibility and just,

[3:45:48] and I wholeheartedly agree

[3:45:51] with Councilman Brownrigg,

[3:45:53] it's, you know, the adage

[3:45:55] of throwing good money

[3:45:57] after bad, you know,

[3:45:58] where do you stop?

[3:46:01] So I mean, this was the level

[3:46:03] of frustration we were dealing

[3:46:04] with.

[3:46:05] At the end of the day, dealing

[3:46:07] with all this frustration,

[3:46:09] I think we have to, you know, I

[3:46:12] think you can be assured that

[3:46:15] your sort of sentiments today

[3:46:17] have been echoed profusely

[3:46:19] in many meetings, and I am

[3:46:21] grateful that you also feel the

[3:46:23] same way that we feel.

[3:46:27] Trying to get through the

[3:46:28] decision-making process today

[3:46:29] of, you know, is it one, two,

[3:46:30] three, or four, and then how

[3:46:33] do, you know, do we proceed,

[3:46:34] and, you know, there's a

[3:46:36] decision five that's not

[3:46:38] on here, which is do nothing,

[3:46:41] or just do the safety features,

[3:46:44] and then the question becomes,

[3:46:47] you know, do we keep the train

[3:46:48] station open and force them

[3:46:51] to make good

[3:46:52] on their agreement and have

[3:46:53] to stop at that train station

[3:46:54] and do the work that they had

[3:46:55] to do?

[3:46:56] Then we do have to do TOD

[3:46:57] development in that area, which

[3:46:58] I think the community should

[3:47:00] have a say in.

[3:47:02] Do they want to be able to

[3:47:03] build housing there that would

[3:47:06] have no parking because

[3:47:07] of the proximity

[3:47:08] to an operating train station?

[3:47:10] And by the way, we found out

[3:47:11] even if the train stops once a

[3:47:12] week, it's considered a train

[3:47:16] station, and it has

[3:47:18] to be TOD.

[3:47:19] Yep.

[3:47:20] So it's not a maybe, a sort of,

[3:47:22] a this or that,

[3:47:24] it's either it's open and it's

[3:47:25] TOD,

[3:47:27] and now the zoning standards

[3:47:29] set by the state apply,

[3:47:31] and no parking requirements,

[3:47:32] greater density, all these

[3:47:35] things that the neighborhood

[3:47:36] has made very clear in this

[3:47:39] planning session that we've

[3:47:41] been working on, this specific

[3:47:42] plan, that they don't want.

[3:47:44] So you can't have both,

[3:47:45] you can't have a train station,

[3:47:46] and if you have a train

[3:47:47] station, you have

[3:47:49] to have TOD.

[3:47:51] So that conversation needs

[3:47:53] to go back to the community,

[3:47:55] but, you know, option number

[3:47:57] five is you keep it as it is,

[3:47:59] they have to upgrade it

[3:48:00] to the standards required,

[3:48:02] and it stays non-grade

[3:48:03] separated, and you have a

[3:48:05] station or you don't.

[3:48:07] So, you know, these are big,

[3:48:10] important questions, and a lot

[3:48:12] of it depends

[3:48:13] on our TA meetings this week,

[3:48:14] because if the TA says we're

[3:48:15] not going to fund to give you

[3:48:17] every dollar that we have,

[3:48:20] and we don't have that, I just

[3:48:22] don't understand where we're

[3:48:23] going

[3:48:26] to have a basis or a footing.

[3:48:28] Council Member Pappajohn, did

[3:48:30] you have a question?

[3:48:32] Thank you, Mayor.

[3:48:33] So do we, I heard you say we

[3:48:36] have this placeholder where we

[3:48:37] have to spend, is it $20

[3:48:39] million or $18 million just

[3:48:41] for a placeholder, I mean.

[3:48:45] It was asking the designers,

[3:48:46] we don't know which package,

[3:48:48] but

[3:48:49] about how much would it be,

[3:48:50] realizing we will still need

[3:48:51] to figure out what scope, the

[3:48:53] duration,

[3:48:54] and get a proposal and do a lot

[3:48:56] of negotiations.

[3:48:57] So we put a number there

[3:48:58] to say, we're going to ask

[3:49:00] for money, it's

[3:49:01] about this much, we expect it

[3:49:03] to be less, but we needed

[3:49:05] at least what's the range

[3:49:07] of cost,

[3:49:08] because there would be work

[3:49:09] to redo the 65% design,

[3:49:10] but we have a lot more homework

[3:49:12] to do on that.

[3:49:14] Thank you, I mean, can we wait

[3:49:16] until we hear

[3:49:17] from the TA and other agencies,

[3:49:18] I guess it's mainly the TA,

[3:49:20] about funding before we even

[3:49:21] move forward with.

[3:49:24] I think they need

[3:49:25] to know what the funding, that

[3:49:26] tonight's meeting will help

[3:49:28] them make a decision,

[3:49:29] because if we say we're going

[3:49:32] to go to one or the other, you

[3:49:33] know, whatever our feedback is,

[3:49:34] they're going to,

[3:49:35] they'll take that into

[3:49:36] consideration.

[3:49:39] I think it would be,

[3:49:41] did you want

[3:49:42] to address that?

[3:49:43] Yeah, I wanted to prioritize

[3:49:45] the decision making for

[3:49:46] Council, is that the first

[3:49:48] question is, for Council, is do

[3:49:50] we have a project?

[3:49:52] Do we have a viable project?

[3:49:53] That's the first question.

[3:49:54] And if we do,

[3:49:56] which option do we want?

[3:49:57] And if we address those two

[3:49:58] questions,

[3:50:00] then the third question about

[3:50:01] the near-term funding need,

[3:50:03] the $20 million,

[3:50:04] we will come back

[3:50:05] to you later,

[3:50:06] because they have

[3:50:07] to do some homework

[3:50:08] about bringing that cost

[3:50:09] down further,

[3:50:10] so we'll come back to you.

[3:50:11] The first two questions are

[3:50:12] whether we have a project,

[3:50:13] and what option do we want,

[3:50:15] those are two big questions.

[3:50:21] I will say then, I think it

[3:50:24] would be irresponsible not

[3:50:26] to move forward

[3:50:28] with the project, because of

[3:50:29] the liabilities and health and

[3:50:31] safety of the public.

[3:50:33] And yeah,

[3:50:37] that's where I am open to, you

[3:50:39] know,

[3:50:40] hearing what my colleagues have

[3:50:42] to say.

[3:50:44] Do you, may I ask, Mr. Mayor,

[3:50:45] sorry, may I ask,

[3:50:47] do you have a preference

[3:50:48] of one, two, three, or four?

[3:50:50] Yeah, I'll, well,

[3:50:54] I saw the recommendation

[3:50:55] from the subcommittee,

[3:50:57] a recommendation

[3:50:58] on package four.

[3:51:00] And so, you know, I would,

[3:51:01] I know you have spent a lot

[3:51:03] of time on it, as well as the

[3:51:06] mayor, and, you know,

[3:51:08] I really appreciate that,

[3:51:09] and I would just defer

[3:51:12] to your recommendation.

[3:51:13] And I think just, you know, we

[3:51:15] can, it's simpler,

[3:51:19] we're just going

[3:51:20] to solve the problem

[3:51:21] of the grade separation, and

[3:51:22] just forego the station.

[3:51:23] I think that's the problem,

[3:51:24] the grade separation.

[3:51:26] So, I agree.

[3:51:29] Just a suggestion on process,

[3:51:31] Mr. Mayor, so I'd like,

[3:51:33] I know we all want to hear

[3:51:34] from Council Member Thayer,

[3:51:35] but before we start voting,

[3:51:36] we might have public.

[3:51:38] Yeah, that would be helpful,

[3:51:40] yeah.

[3:51:41] Thank you.

[3:51:42] Yeah.

[3:51:43] Yeah, I mean, I guess

[3:51:45] in my mind, it's a little hard

[3:51:47] for me to know, do we actually

[3:51:48] have a viable project here?

[3:51:50] I mean, just because the

[3:51:51] funding situation for all

[3:51:52] of them, it seems

[3:51:54] like it's going

[3:51:56] to be difficult.

[3:51:57] There's more than $200 million

[3:51:58] gap for all of them.

[3:52:02] I guess I'm thinking between,

[3:52:03] if I had to choose

[3:52:04] between options three and four,

[3:52:07] there was less of a gap,

[3:52:09] at least

[3:52:10] at the current numbers,

[3:52:11] it was something like $23

[3:52:13] million difference

[3:52:14] between the two,

[3:52:15] and having that option to still

[3:52:17] have the station deferred,

[3:52:19] maybe it's wishful thinking.

[3:52:21] But I do think having that

[3:52:24] station,

[3:52:26] that neighborhood where I live,

[3:52:28] we really could get a lot more

[3:52:30] people on transit, and the

[3:52:32] reason why it's not well

[3:52:33] utilized now is because it is a

[3:52:35] weekend only stop.

[3:52:39] But first and foremost

[3:52:41] for me is safety.

[3:52:42] So if we have to get rid of the

[3:52:44] station because the only thing

[3:52:45] we afford is grade separating

[3:52:47] without a station,

[3:52:48] then that's why I'm kind

[3:52:49] of thinking between options

[3:52:50] three and four.

[3:52:51] Thank you.

[3:52:53] I think a lot of what I would

[3:52:57] say has been said.

[3:52:58] I think we have a challenge

[3:53:00] structurally in the way we

[3:53:01] approach capital projects on

[3:53:03] the grade separation concept

[3:53:05] and topic.

[3:53:06] The reality is plenty

[3:53:08] of other communities on the

[3:53:09] corridor have already done

[3:53:10] their project.

[3:53:11] Where was learning

[3:53:12] from those about, you know,

[3:53:16] whether you're talking about

[3:53:17] San Bruno or South City or

[3:53:19] Belmont or, let's face it,

[3:53:20] there's no institutional

[3:53:23] knowledge being leveraged

[3:53:25] because Caltrain looks

[3:53:27] at this as a city level project

[3:53:30] in coordination rather than a

[3:53:32] responsibility of the Caltrain

[3:53:35] organization.

[3:53:37] And so the right resources

[3:53:38] aren't brought

[3:53:39] in necessarily.

[3:53:41] We don't have institutional

[3:53:42] learning.

[3:53:43] We don't leverage the fact that

[3:53:44] a contractor might bid

[3:53:45] on both projects

[3:53:46] for different communities.

[3:53:48] We go after funding

[3:53:50] at an individual city level.

[3:53:51] There's very little

[3:53:52] coordination at the Caltrain

[3:53:53] level.

[3:53:54] And it's just a disaster

[3:53:55] recipe.

[3:53:58] And so I do think there's the

[3:54:01] first question is the viability

[3:54:03] of is there a project?

[3:54:05] I think the answer is if that's

[3:54:07] yes, then the only option we

[3:54:08] have is four.

[3:54:10] Because we haven't even been

[3:54:12] able to in the previous design

[3:54:13] close the gap on full funding

[3:54:15] in the way things have been,

[3:54:16] you know, and then you put the

[3:54:21] macro climate around it, it

[3:54:22] makes it even more difficult.

[3:54:24] So I do think the idea

[3:54:30] of a station,

[3:54:33] while conceptually may look

[3:54:34] interesting,

[3:54:35] the reality is the numbers even

[3:54:36] before COVID never justified

[3:54:37] it.

[3:54:39] You know, ridership was always

[3:54:40] very low.

[3:54:41] It wasn't highly utilized.

[3:54:42] So that makes the decision

[3:54:43] about which option

[3:54:45] for me is four.

[3:54:46] Because that's the only

[3:54:49] financially realistic shot we

[3:54:50] have.

[3:54:51] But we still need to get

[3:54:52] answers on, frankly, some

[3:54:56] of the initial costs

[3:54:59] in the next several weeks

[3:55:01] to make that, you know,

[3:55:02] palatable.

[3:55:04] But go ahead.

[3:55:05] Well, just before I opine

[3:55:07] on one, two, three, or four,

[3:55:08] again,

[3:55:09] I think it would be helpful to

[3:55:10] at least see if there's anyone

[3:55:11] in the public who wants

[3:55:12] to comment.

[3:55:15] But is there an option besides

[3:55:16] Caltrain to do design work?

[3:55:18] Because this doesn't seem

[3:55:19] to be working.

[3:55:20] So that's a serious,

[3:55:22] that's not meant

[3:55:23] to be a slight,

[3:55:24] that's a serious question.

[3:55:25] Is there a way to get different

[3:55:28] engineers involved?

[3:55:34] So, this project was done

[3:55:36] in phases, and the preliminary

[3:55:39] engineering team didn't get the

[3:55:42] award for final design.

[3:55:44] Caltrain, the city,

[3:55:46] and the TA put out our RFP

[3:55:49] to design community.

[3:55:52] They jointly selected Mark

[3:55:54] Thomas

[3:55:55] to advance final design.

[3:55:57] We worked with Mark Thomas

[3:55:59] to generate the drawings, to

[3:56:01] implement the vision as we

[3:56:02] understood it.

[3:56:05] That was already in flight when

[3:56:06] I joined the team.

[3:56:08] Taking a look at this,

[3:56:10] we now have electrified

[3:56:11] service, and we increased our

[3:56:12] frequency.

[3:56:14] The construction market is

[3:56:16] highly volatile.

[3:56:18] We better go get ourselves a

[3:56:19] contractor

[3:56:20] to estimate this price,

[3:56:21] this project for us.

[3:56:24] And we got that price.

[3:56:25] It wasn't what any

[3:56:26] of us expected

[3:56:27] from what we heard from three

[3:56:28] different design firms.

[3:56:29] Those prices weren't

[3:56:31] from the one we have.

[3:56:32] They were from the prior group

[3:56:35] for that estimating.

[3:56:36] We brought on Mark Thomas

[3:56:37] to do the design for us,

[3:56:39] and then we brought

[3:56:40] on a contractor

[3:56:41] to give us a price,

[3:56:43] and it's not what we expected.

[3:56:45] So I don't think it's the

[3:56:46] design team here.

[3:56:47] It's now we've got, if we get,

[3:56:49] if the decision is made, as a

[3:56:51] region,

[3:56:52] let's advance this project.

[3:56:53] We don't know how we're going

[3:56:54] to fund it in totality,

[3:56:56] but we want

[3:56:57] to take that next step, get

[3:57:00] to 65% design, continue

[3:57:03] over this next year to try

[3:57:04] to drive costs down,

[3:57:07] and how fast can we build it,

[3:57:08] and come back, and try

[3:57:11] to find a way to want

[3:57:12] to lower the cost

[3:57:14] to lower that gap, because

[3:57:16] state and federal funding is

[3:57:17] uncertain,

[3:57:20] or let's not do the work.

[3:57:23] So I don't think it's the

[3:57:24] design team.

[3:57:29] To Vice Mayor Brownrigg's

[3:57:31] request, is there folks

[3:57:34] in the audience who are part

[3:57:36] of the public that would like

[3:57:38] to comment or share

[3:57:39] perspective?

[3:57:40] Okay.

[3:57:46] Yeah, I've got some comments.

[3:57:48] May I, before,

[3:57:49] since we only have one member

[3:57:51] of the public commenting, I

[3:57:52] would really appreciate the

[3:57:53] opportunity to hear more than

[3:57:55] three minutes, just under this

[3:57:56] particular circumstance.

[3:57:58] If he exceeds, would it be the

[3:58:00] mayor's pleasure?

[3:58:01] With colleagues,

[3:58:03] there's not a lot of, yeah,

[3:58:04] so go for it.

[3:58:05] No time.

[3:58:06] Well, I've shrunk

[3:58:07] down my one minute and 47

[3:58:09] second presentation, because I,

[3:58:14] at this point, kind of feel

[3:58:16] like I'm rearranging deck

[3:58:17] chairs on the Titanic,

[3:58:18] to use a hackneyed phrase,

[3:58:21] which I've always loved.

[3:58:22] In any event, over 100 years

[3:58:29] ago, Broadway was created as a

[3:58:31] transit village.

[3:58:35] By 1990, we had the highest

[3:58:40] ridership of any station

[3:58:42] on the line

[3:58:44] for people who did not arrive

[3:58:47] by car.

[3:58:49] The highest ridership

[3:58:50] from people walking

[3:58:51] from their homes in

[3:58:52] Hillsborough and Burlingame and

[3:58:53] their apartments off

[3:58:55] Broadway, we had the highest

[3:58:58] ridership.

[3:58:59] We had the highest ridership.

[3:59:02] Now, of course, as Caltrain cut

[3:59:03] back the service,

[3:59:04] ridership went down, and then

[3:59:05] Caltrain said, gee,

[3:59:08] we're just going

[3:59:09] to make it weekend service,

[3:59:11] because nobody rides the train

[3:59:12] anymore on Broadway.

[3:59:13] Well, they strangled

[3:59:14] Broadway, and we're still a

[3:59:19] transit village.

[3:59:22] I mean, we are a bullseye built

[3:59:24] around our train station back

[3:59:27] before the age of automobile,

[3:59:28] and we are heading towards a

[3:59:30] future where we want to have

[3:59:32] automobiles be an option,

[3:59:35] not a necessity.

[3:59:37] And in order to do that,

[3:59:39] we have to be able to walk

[3:59:40] to our station.

[3:59:41] Now, people have said

[3:59:42] in the past, gee, you know,

[3:59:44] we don't need Broadway, because

[3:59:46] you've got the Millbrae

[3:59:48] Internodal Station

[3:59:51] to the north, and you've got

[3:59:52] Burlingame Avenue

[3:59:54] to the south.

[3:59:55] Well, you know what?

[3:59:57] On a rainy March morning,

[4:00:00] you don't want to go to

[4:00:01] a hike to work seven blocks one

[4:00:04] way or another when you can

[4:00:05] just go to Broadway and hop a

[4:00:08] train as most of my father's

[4:00:11] friends did throughout the 30s,

[4:00:17] 40s, 50s, 60s, up until pretty

[4:00:20] much the train was cut back

[4:00:22] in the 90s.

[4:00:24] So even though people don't

[4:00:26] like the idea of having a

[4:00:29] Prancet protocol shoved

[4:00:31] down their throat

[4:00:33] with minimal parking and all,

[4:00:37] everybody I've spoken to on

[4:00:40] Broadway, the merchants,

[4:00:42] the business community and the

[4:00:43] Chamber of Commerce, my tenants

[4:00:47] that walk

[4:00:48] in the door and sign a lease

[4:00:50] in Burlingame want

[4:00:52] to have that station.

[4:00:54] And I think a grade separation

[4:00:57] at some point is inevitable,

[4:00:58] but if we don't have a

[4:01:01] functioning station there now

[4:01:05] and most especially

[4:01:06] at the time of construction,

[4:01:08] it's not going to happen.

[4:01:09] So I'm going to recommend that

[4:01:12] we keep our station open and

[4:01:14] that we expand the service.

[4:01:18] If that creates problems,

[4:01:22] I think that they're easier to

[4:01:24] surmount than the financial

[4:01:26] problems we're discussing right

[4:01:28] now.

[4:01:30] And we can have people walk

[4:01:32] to their train.

[4:01:35] The cool thing about the

[4:01:36] electric trains is they

[4:01:38] accelerate and decelerate much

[4:01:40] faster than the diesel electric

[4:01:42] ones,

[4:01:44] which means we can make up some

[4:01:45] of that time.

[4:01:46] So yes, even though having a

[4:01:48] functional flat station on

[4:01:51] Broadway will delay things,

[4:01:54] we'll make it up

[4:01:58] in the acceleration

[4:01:59] over the long run

[4:02:00] of the design.

[4:02:04] And this is a great opportunity

[4:02:09] to really utilize our mass

[4:02:11] transit, whether it's on a

[4:02:13] single level that we can afford

[4:02:15] now or ultimately, hopefully,

[4:02:17] on a raised level.

[4:02:20] But either way, I think all

[4:02:22] of the communities,

[4:02:24] and most especially us on

[4:02:25] Broadway, should enforce and

[4:02:28] foster having a transit

[4:02:32] village.

[4:02:33] That is the wave of the future.

[4:02:35] I mean, we've all traveled to

[4:02:37] Europe and we all know it

[4:02:38] works.

[4:02:39] And it can work for us.

[4:02:41] And it can even work for us

[4:02:42] without a grade separation

[4:02:44] for now, especially with that

[4:02:47] new fangled safety arrangement

[4:02:48] you've got there.

[4:02:49] So I say,

[4:02:53] let's open the station.

[4:02:55] Let's use the advanced safety

[4:02:57] techniques.

[4:02:59] And let's build a grade

[4:03:00] separation when we can afford

[4:03:01] it.

[4:03:03] And in the meantime, it'll all

[4:03:06] work out.

[4:03:10] Thank you for your

[4:03:11] consideration.

[4:03:13] Thank you, Ross.

[4:03:16] Good thought.

[4:03:19] So we do need to give

[4:03:21] direction.

[4:03:25] I think we maybe need to

[4:03:26] revisit where everybody is just

[4:03:28] to opine on direction

[4:03:30] for staff and for next steps.

[4:03:35] I think the question is,

[4:03:37] do we have a project?

[4:03:39] Which option, if therefore?

[4:03:41] And additional steps

[4:03:43] on near-term funding scrutiny.

[4:03:48] Question?

[4:03:49] Go ahead.

[4:03:50] This is a question for

[4:03:51] Netta.

[4:03:52] Netta, do you mind?

[4:04:03] So you've been conducting some

[4:04:05] public meetings around a

[4:04:07] transit-oriented development

[4:04:09] through the Broadway-specific

[4:04:10] plan.

[4:04:12] Can you tell me a little bit

[4:04:13] about the feedback on those?

[4:04:16] Yeah, through the workshops and

[4:04:18] the pop-ups,

[4:04:19] we've been conducting

[4:04:20] about the Broadway-specific

[4:04:23] plan, which encompasses

[4:04:25] intensifying development based

[4:04:27] on the TOC policies

[4:04:28] to streetscape, to murals,

[4:04:30] to activating.

[4:04:33] The general consensus is that

[4:04:35] the residents and even the

[4:04:37] businesses around Broadway

[4:04:39] within the specific plan area

[4:04:40] would like things

[4:04:42] to remain the same.

[4:04:43] So they don't want parking

[4:04:45] changes,

[4:04:46] they don't want development

[4:04:48] to occur, they don't want wider

[4:04:50] sidewalks.

[4:04:51] They're generally happy

[4:04:53] with the way that they are.

[4:04:54] If we continue to have a

[4:04:56] station operating there,

[4:04:59] how does that work together?

[4:05:04] Generally, the state laws and

[4:05:06] MTC's TOC policies that they

[4:05:09] are asking cities to adopt

[4:05:12] would require the existing

[4:05:16] zoning that's in place to be

[4:05:18] intensified and the FAR that

[4:05:20] manages the commercial

[4:05:23] densities

[4:05:25] to also be intensified, and

[4:05:26] then they have parameters

[4:05:28] related to parking where they

[4:05:29] are requiring not only parking

[4:05:31] minimums but parking maximums

[4:05:34] around their stations.

[4:05:37] So if the station stays open,

[4:05:41] it is virtually impossible due

[4:05:44] to state zoning for it to,

[4:05:46] I mean we would have

[4:05:49] to finish the TOD plan.

[4:05:52] How do those, can you, let's

[4:05:55] just say the station stays as

[4:05:56] it is, you know, frankly I

[4:05:58] don't think we're ever going

[4:05:59] to be able

[4:06:00] to raise a billion dollars to

[4:06:01] build an overpass and a station

[4:06:03] and whatever.

[4:06:04] And I would welcome anyone who

[4:06:07] would be willing to take

[4:06:08] on the $2,500 per parcel parcel

[4:06:10] tax that that's going to

[4:06:13] require because that would be

[4:06:14] what it would cost everyone.

[4:06:18] So if the station stayed open

[4:06:21] as it is right now, you know,

[4:06:23] and we requested it to be open

[4:06:25] five days a week so people

[4:06:27] could use the train,

[4:06:30] by law are we then mandated

[4:06:32] to proceed

[4:06:34] with the state requirements for

[4:06:36] densification and parking

[4:06:39] changes, et cetera,

[4:06:40] et cetera?

[4:06:41] So MTC's TOC policies are

[4:06:45] voluntary for cities.

[4:06:46] They don't have

[4:06:47] to adopt them.

[4:06:48] However, MTC has tied it

[4:06:51] to their OBAG funding.

[4:06:53] So whether we view that as a

[4:06:55] characteristic,

[4:06:56] they're saying you don't have

[4:06:58] to do these cities,

[4:07:00] you can voluntarily comply,

[4:07:01] however, the scale in which we

[4:07:04] are allocating our funding

[4:07:06] under OBAG is tied

[4:07:08] to cities that are complying.

[4:07:10] So you don't have to do it,

[4:07:12] but then a city would be

[4:07:14] subject to not potentially

[4:07:16] being competitive to receive

[4:07:18] funding that we receive, that

[4:07:21] Syed and his team use for

[4:07:22] transportation improvements.

[4:07:28] I have a question related

[4:07:30] to that actually.

[4:07:31] So that would be something that

[4:07:32] we would have to comply with,

[4:07:34] but I mean,

[4:07:36] those property owners would

[4:07:37] still, like those properties

[4:07:38] would still have

[4:07:39] to be developed privately.

[4:07:42] So it's not as if we could come

[4:07:43] in and mandate that the housing

[4:07:46] be built there.

[4:07:48] It would still be just an

[4:07:49] option,

[4:07:50] now a more dense option.

[4:07:51] Correct.

[4:07:52] The developer wanted to come

[4:07:54] in and do so.

[4:07:55] Yeah.

[4:07:56] The policies are just in terms

[4:07:57] of the city changing its

[4:07:59] regulatory framework.

[4:08:01] We then don't have, besides our

[4:08:03] city-owned properties that we

[4:08:05] do have there, there are

[4:08:06] several parking lots.

[4:08:09] It would be incumbent

[4:08:10] on private property owners

[4:08:12] to want

[4:08:13] to then redevelop those sites,

[4:08:14] which the city does not have

[4:08:15] control over.

[4:08:20] Sorry, go ahead, Andrew.

[4:08:22] Yes, Council Member Pappajohn.

[4:08:23] Yes, thank you, Mayor.

[4:08:26] I actually have a question,

[4:08:29] or maybe I should ask Vice

[4:08:31] Mayor if he had a question

[4:08:33] for the city development,

[4:08:36] because I have a question for

[4:08:37] Caltrain.

[4:08:38] No, I'm, no, thank you.

[4:08:39] Okay, thank you.

[4:08:41] Thank you.

[4:08:42] Yes, please.

[4:08:44] I'd like to request that

[4:08:46] Caltrain put a dedicated

[4:08:47] shuttle at the station.

[4:08:48] At least then there would be

[4:08:51] transportation

[4:08:54] to the other train stations.

[4:08:56] Would that be something

[4:08:58] possible?

[4:09:01] I would have to talk

[4:09:02] to the operations side

[4:09:03] of the house on that,

[4:09:05] but happy

[4:09:06] to take that request back to

[4:09:07] Caltrain.

[4:09:09] I know there's a shuttle that

[4:09:10] works there today, I believe,

[4:09:12] during the weekdays,

[4:09:13] makes that shuttle.

[4:09:15] Right, but I mean, at least

[4:09:16] then there's public

[4:09:17] transportation for that on

[4:09:19] Broadway, and they could get,

[4:09:21] you know.

[4:09:23] I think there is a shuttle,

[4:09:24] right?

[4:09:25] Yeah, there is a shuttle.

[4:09:26] There's an existing shuttle.

[4:09:28] There's a shuttle currently.

[4:09:29] Yeah.

[4:09:30] There's seven days a week.

[4:09:31] There's a shuttle.

[4:09:32] Okay.

[4:09:33] So, I would ask that then

[4:09:34] Caltrain could help pay

[4:09:35] for that.

[4:09:36] Yeah, I was going to address a

[4:09:37] number of questions earlier,

[4:09:38] but yes, there is a shuttle

[4:09:39] currently operates

[4:09:40] during the weekdays,

[4:09:42] morning and evening commute

[4:09:43] hours, takes the folks

[4:09:47] from the Broadway's train

[4:09:49] station parking lot to the

[4:09:51] Millbury train station,

[4:09:53] and makes several trips

[4:09:54] in the morning and

[4:09:55] in the evening as well.

[4:09:57] That can be requested of

[4:09:58] Caltrain to maintain that in

[4:10:00] the event the station does not

[4:10:02] exist in the future.

[4:10:05] I wanted to clarify a couple

[4:10:06] of things that we are speaking

[4:10:09] of the options,

[4:10:10] the four options

[4:10:11] in the context of the grade

[4:10:13] separation project,

[4:10:14] not outside of the station as

[4:10:15] it currently sits.

[4:10:19] It's only,

[4:10:20] it's the service can be there

[4:10:22] until as long as it needs to be

[4:10:24] there or as the council

[4:10:26] decides.

[4:10:28] So, currently, the weekday

[4:10:29] service is suspended only and

[4:10:30] the shuttle operates and the

[4:10:32] weekend service continues.

[4:10:33] Now, one of the challenges,

[4:10:37] suppose if the grade separation

[4:10:39] project does not happen and we

[4:10:42] ask Caltrain

[4:10:44] to have the train stop in the

[4:10:46] morning and evening hours

[4:10:48] regularly as it used

[4:10:50] to happen before.

[4:10:51] The challenge is that the

[4:10:53] current, the platform where it

[4:10:54] is located is right next

[4:10:56] to the Broadway crossing.

[4:10:59] So the train will stop

[4:11:00] in the middle of the crossing

[4:11:02] and so the traffic will come

[4:11:04] to fill.

[4:11:06] Grinding halt.

[4:11:08] Yeah, exactly.

[4:11:09] Grinding halt and more so than

[4:11:10] it currently happens, which

[4:11:12] will further exacerbate the

[4:11:13] traffic conditions.

[4:11:15] So, unless the station is moved

[4:11:17] away from that location further

[4:11:20] south, further north.

[4:11:21] So those are some

[4:11:23] of the intricacies that we need

[4:11:24] to be aware of.

[4:11:26] Yeah, can I ask, sorry, just

[4:11:28] before again we decide 1, 2,

[4:11:31] 3, 4, so first of all I have to

[4:11:35] say I have a very strong sense

[4:11:38] of fool me once, shame

[4:11:39] on you, fool me twice, shame

[4:11:40] on me.

[4:11:42] So I'm just dealing

[4:11:43] with that.

[4:11:45] But if we, whatever we select

[4:11:47] as a potential option, are we

[4:11:50] making any financial commitment

[4:11:52] in so doing?

[4:11:54] Yes, that's a question that

[4:11:57] we'll need

[4:11:59] to answer that question.

[4:12:01] So for example, typically $20

[4:12:03] million is what is being

[4:12:05] requested or what is being

[4:12:06] projected this time.

[4:12:08] And based

[4:12:10] on earlier discussion today

[4:12:12] with the City Council

[4:12:13] subcommittee, CalTrain was

[4:12:15] directed

[4:12:16] to lower that number,

[4:12:17] go back and lower that number.

[4:12:18] And when they come back

[4:12:20] with that lowered number,

[4:12:21] which we hope, then we

[4:12:24] typically, then we need

[4:12:26] to go ask for funding at the

[4:12:28] Transportation Authority.

[4:12:30] And they're just as much

[4:12:32] concerned as we are concerned

[4:12:33] about the cost.

[4:12:34] They've spent $26 million on

[4:12:36] this project and there's

[4:12:37] nothing to show for it.

[4:12:38] So they're concerned

[4:12:40] about spending more money.

[4:12:41] And typically the formula is

[4:12:45] that City pays 10% and

[4:12:46] Transportation Authority pays

[4:12:49] 90%.

[4:12:50] So that's the share of funding

[4:12:53] so far.

[4:12:54] And they can, by their policy,

[4:12:56] they can fund up to 50%

[4:12:59] of the overall project cost.

[4:13:01] But

[4:13:02] in this particular project, if

[4:13:03] they spend every penny they

[4:13:07] have in this bucket,

[4:13:08] it's still short of over $200

[4:13:11] million.

[4:13:14] So what is the financial

[4:13:16] commitment we're making if we

[4:13:17] say we want to pursue option

[4:13:19] three or four or whatever?

[4:13:21] We don't know the answer.

[4:13:23] We're committing ourselves

[4:13:24] though to a meaningful number

[4:13:26] and the TA would be putting in

[4:13:28] an even more meaningful number.

[4:13:30] Based on today's discussion,

[4:13:34] we could be looking at $2

[4:13:35] million based on the numbers

[4:13:37] that are presented today.

[4:13:39] That would be 10% of $20

[4:13:40] million.

[4:13:42] Again, we haven't gone to the

[4:13:44] Transportation Authority, we

[4:13:46] haven't asked them.

[4:13:47] So they may not agree

[4:13:49] to that and all

[4:13:52] of that will...

[4:13:54] So then this would have

[4:13:55] to come back to Council either

[4:13:57] later in March or in early

[4:13:59] April with more refined numbers

[4:14:01] and then a vote

[4:14:02] for commitment.

[4:14:03] Definitely.

[4:14:04] So tonight the Council is not

[4:14:05] making a commitment on the cost

[4:14:08] yet and tonight is which

[4:14:10] option.

[4:14:12] And then based on that,

[4:14:14] this will be presented to the

[4:14:15] Transportation Authority and

[4:14:16] then there will be a cost

[4:14:18] revision on the engineering,

[4:14:21] 65% engineering,

[4:14:22] then we'll come to Council and

[4:14:24] then ask Council direction on

[4:14:26] that and then we'll then take

[4:14:28] next steps with the

[4:14:29] Transportation Authority.

[4:14:32] So with that in mind,

[4:14:34] I'll just move to the direction

[4:14:36] I think you want to take us,

[4:14:37] Mr.

[4:14:38] Mayor, which is from my point

[4:14:40] of view, given that we're not

[4:14:42] making a financial commitment,

[4:14:44] I feel that option three, which

[4:14:46] is the one where you don't

[4:14:47] build the station

[4:14:48] but you have the option

[4:14:50] in the future

[4:14:51] to build a station, right,

[4:14:53] would be the path I would

[4:14:58] suggest following.

[4:15:00] I remain...

[4:15:01] I mean, when this comes back

[4:15:02] in terms of funding,

[4:15:05] I think you have

[4:15:06] to believe there's a way to

[4:15:07] find the gap and if you don't,

[4:15:08] then it's to me irresponsible

[4:15:09] to keep spending money.

[4:15:11] But if you ask me which one

[4:15:14] would I prefer to build, I

[4:15:15] agree that obviously the

[4:15:16] cheapest is the best,

[4:15:18] but I kind of feel

[4:15:20] like we're made to negotiate

[4:15:21] against ourselves, you know?

[4:15:23] How much more will you give?

[4:15:24] How much more will you give?

[4:15:25] And you know, anyway, so I

[4:15:28] think maintaining the

[4:15:29] optionality

[4:15:30] of having a station

[4:15:32] at this point feels worth it to

[4:15:35] me.

[4:15:36] I have a...

[4:15:38] I appreciate that perspective.

[4:15:39] I have a question,

[4:15:40] I think maybe for Robert,

[4:15:41] but also for Sayed.

[4:15:43] The material difference

[4:15:45] between option three and four,

[4:15:48] it's not so simple as three

[4:15:51] gives us, you know,

[4:15:53] gives us an option

[4:15:54] to add a station.

[4:15:55] There's material work that has

[4:15:57] to be in scope even in the

[4:15:58] initial phase and you could

[4:16:00] decide 10 years from now

[4:16:01] to add the...

[4:16:02] What is that?

[4:16:06] What makes up that component

[4:16:08] that's roughly, what, $23

[4:16:10] million difference

[4:16:12] between three and four,

[4:16:14] somewhere in there?

[4:16:15] So it is...

[4:16:17] Like you said, a wider station,

[4:16:19] does it preclude, you know,

[4:16:21] having a 2% ramp and a shorter

[4:16:22] car base

[4:16:25] to have that station?

[4:16:26] So you could imagine

[4:16:28] with option four, you go up,

[4:16:30] cross over the street and go

[4:16:32] back down.

[4:16:34] The other alternative has the

[4:16:35] space

[4:16:37] for the seven-car platforms.

[4:16:38] So you're building that

[4:16:40] seven-car platform flat and

[4:16:44] you're also accommodating a

[4:16:45] future

[4:16:47] on each side and reserving

[4:16:48] space

[4:16:49] for a future parking lot.

[4:16:51] With no station, you can go up

[4:16:53] and go back down.

[4:16:54] You don't have that implication

[4:16:55] of the future parking lot and

[4:16:57] it makes the whole footprint

[4:16:59] materially different.

[4:17:01] So there are choices.

[4:17:04] Okay.

[4:17:05] Yeah.

[4:17:06] Question?

[4:17:07] Councilmember?

[4:17:08] So the problem,

[4:17:09] the concern I have with, I

[4:17:11] mean, I think it's going

[4:17:12] to be hard enough to fill $147

[4:17:14] million gap.

[4:17:15] I don't think we can fill 250

[4:17:16] or whatever it's going

[4:17:17] to be because,

[4:17:19] and you saw the escalation.

[4:17:21] So, you know, we're talking

[4:17:22] about you build a grade

[4:17:24] separation,

[4:17:25] you potentially build a station

[4:17:26] in the future,

[4:17:27] that station's going

[4:17:28] to be an additional, you know,

[4:17:29] $800 million

[4:17:30] to add on.

[4:17:31] I mean, so then the problem,

[4:17:32] you know, sort of the issue you

[4:17:34] have here is if we direct them

[4:17:36] to build, you know,

[4:17:39] this is a one-time direction.

[4:17:41] We can't say build it, you

[4:17:44] know, with the option

[4:17:45] to put the station in down the

[4:17:46] road and then they design that

[4:17:52] now, that's what we have

[4:17:53] to build.

[4:17:56] Because we can't spend another

[4:17:58] $20 million on another design

[4:17:59] in six months or a year.

[4:18:00] So this is it.

[4:18:01] And while I love, you know,

[4:18:02] keeping the optionality

[4:18:03] of it,

[4:18:04] there is no other city that

[4:18:05] has, I mean, there is a station

[4:18:07] a quarter mile away, you know,

[4:18:09] down in Broadway and there is a

[4:18:10] shuttle that can run.

[4:18:12] I do think we can solve the

[4:18:13] circulation problems.

[4:18:15] People can go to Broadway, they

[4:18:16] can pick up the shuttle,

[4:18:17] they can go to Millbrae or they

[4:18:19] can take a shuttle over

[4:18:20] to the Burlingame, you know,

[4:18:21] Avenue.

[4:18:25] And from the talking

[4:18:26] to people that I have talked

[4:18:28] to in the neighborhood

[4:18:29] at these events and just

[4:18:31] friends of mine that live

[4:18:32] over there,

[4:18:33] the number one thing I've heard

[4:18:35] from them is the traffic is

[4:18:36] unbearable, it's dangerous and

[4:18:39] we need a great separation.

[4:18:40] And for the most part,

[4:18:42] they're willing to give up on

[4:18:44] the station because they know

[4:18:47] they can walk pretty close and

[4:18:50] pretty proximate to get

[4:18:53] to another station.

[4:18:55] And you know, I calculated it,

[4:18:59] right?

[4:19:00] So I looked and said, all

[4:19:01] right, let's just say we have

[4:19:03] a, you know, $150 million

[4:19:05] funding gap and they say

[4:19:06] to us, because this was

[4:19:08] on the table today, well,

[4:19:09] Burlingame, you are going

[4:19:10] to have to figure out where

[4:19:11] to get the $147 million.

[4:19:13] So that would be a parcel tax.

[4:19:14] Our school parcel taxes are

[4:19:17] $250 when interest rates were

[4:19:18] at 3% and 4% and they were

[4:19:26] $250 a parcel.

[4:19:28] So to get to $147 million,

[4:19:29] $150 million, $200 million,

[4:19:31] if you want to be safe,

[4:19:32] we're talking about $1,000 to

[4:19:35] $1,500 per parcel,

[4:19:36] per parcel tax.

[4:19:38] And if the city council puts

[4:19:39] that on the ballot,

[4:19:41] that's a 67% threshold.

[4:19:42] Yeah, and also the implication

[4:19:46] on the schools and competition

[4:19:47] for money.

[4:19:49] And I appreciate the math.

[4:19:51] I guess I think the whole thing

[4:19:53] is so unlikely.

[4:19:57] I mean, you know,

[4:19:58] the difference between $147

[4:20:00] million and $175 million,

[4:20:02] it's all.

[4:20:04] It's $50 million in today's

[4:20:06] dollars and extrapolates into a

[4:20:09] grander number because we're

[4:20:11] not building it today.

[4:20:12] So the Delta is $50 million

[4:20:13] today.

[4:20:17] It's $50 million today,

[4:20:19] let's call it, or even $40

[4:20:20] million, even $30 million.

[4:20:23] If we defer for 10 years,

[4:20:24] that number becomes $500

[4:20:26] million.

[4:20:27] I mean, you can just see

[4:20:28] by the exponential.

[4:20:29] So then the question becomes

[4:20:30] the reality of are we ever as a

[4:20:32] community going to be able

[4:20:33] to catch up with that?

[4:20:35] And I'm right now pragmatically

[4:20:37] looking at it like if the

[4:20:38] number one priority is safety

[4:20:41] and it's grade separation and

[4:20:43] it's safety and we can solve

[4:20:46] the transit problem through

[4:20:48] shuttle or we can solve it

[4:20:50] through, you know, the bike,

[4:20:51] you know, the one mile bike,

[4:20:53] you can get on your bike there

[4:20:54] and you can go to Broadway or

[4:20:56] you can go to wherever.

[4:20:58] And you know, then to me, I'm

[4:21:01] like, got

[4:21:03] to pick the lowest hanging

[4:21:06] fruit to be a responsible

[4:21:07] council person and prioritize

[4:21:10] the safety first and foremost.

[4:21:11] So, you know, I'm, you know,

[4:21:17] we can all, I think it's

[4:21:19] like you say, this sort

[4:21:21] of arguing against ourselves,

[4:21:22] you know,

[4:21:23] and it feels really crummy

[4:21:24] to have to do that.

[4:21:25] And it feels crummy to have

[4:21:26] to say to people, you know,

[4:21:27] you've been promised a train

[4:21:28] station for the last 20 years

[4:21:29] and say, oh my gosh,

[4:21:31] now we're not.

[4:21:32] But it also feels really crummy

[4:21:34] for a lot of people who have

[4:21:35] recently moved in here

[4:21:36] in the last 15 years, they've

[4:21:37] never had train service there

[4:21:38] and they've managed

[4:21:39] to figure it all out.

[4:21:40] Could we revitalize it?

[4:21:42] Yeah, but for, you know, $50

[4:21:44] million, I can run a lot

[4:21:46] of shuttles.

[4:21:50] Yep.

[4:21:51] Councilman.

[4:21:52] Thank you.

[4:21:53] Thank you, Mayor.

[4:21:54] Robert, may I ask a question?

[4:21:57] So if we don't, if we go

[4:22:00] without package

[4:22:02] without the train station

[4:22:04] for four,

[4:22:06] and then so that would

[4:22:08] basically save, you know,

[4:22:12] Caltrain from having

[4:22:15] to maintain the station.

[4:22:19] And I mean, it would save what

[4:22:20] 30, 40 million, would that,

[4:22:22] would you be able

[4:22:25] to put that money into, you

[4:22:27] know, help us and put that

[4:22:28] money that you're saving

[4:22:30] into the project?

[4:22:34] It's important

[4:22:36] to understand that Caltrain, as

[4:22:39] the Mayor said,

[4:22:41] this is a local project.

[4:22:43] That the money that Caltrain

[4:22:44] gets is for service.

[4:22:47] Now these improvements that get

[4:22:49] built,

[4:22:51] build a bridge that needs

[4:22:52] to be inspected every year,

[4:22:54] that needs to be maintained

[4:22:55] in perpetuity,

[4:22:57] the retaining walls need to be

[4:22:58] inspected every year and

[4:22:59] maintained in perpetuity.

[4:23:01] Although we don't pay

[4:23:02] for the capital side

[4:23:04] of the house,

[4:23:05] there's dedicated funding

[4:23:07] with the measures

[4:23:08] for grade separations

[4:23:09] for that.

[4:23:10] Caltrain operations cost does

[4:23:12] increase in perpetuity when

[4:23:14] these structures get built

[4:23:16] because they become an asset we

[4:23:17] have to maintain.

[4:23:19] And so there is,

[4:23:20] we're not paying today

[4:23:21] to build it,

[4:23:23] but we do get that obligation

[4:23:25] to continue to maintain it.

[4:23:26] That increases Caltrain's

[4:23:27] overall operating cost forever.

[4:23:29] I don't know if that helps.

[4:23:33] And Vice Mayor Brownrigg,

[4:23:35] you're right, it's $20, $23

[4:23:36] million is what they're saying

[4:23:41] the delta is today.

[4:23:47] A question, I get the idea of

[4:23:52] building a flatter platform

[4:23:54] when you have a station because

[4:23:56] you've got seven car minimum

[4:23:57] and you get people in and out

[4:23:58] of the train.

[4:24:01] Is there evidence across the

[4:24:02] U.S. where,

[4:24:04] let's say we build option four,

[4:24:06] but ten years from now we want

[4:24:07] to put a station in.

[4:24:09] Why do we have to have the

[4:24:11] train open all seven cars?

[4:24:13] Why can't it open only three

[4:24:14] cars?

[4:24:16] In the middle of the station,

[4:24:18] the pop-up, so to speak,

[4:24:20] or the adjunct,

[4:24:21] and you just allow riders

[4:24:22] in and out

[4:24:23] over those three cars.

[4:24:25] There's movement up and

[4:24:26] down the train

[4:24:27] inside the cars.

[4:24:30] It's really a question

[4:24:31] of safety and volume.

[4:24:33] And the volume never will be

[4:24:34] that great, except maybe

[4:24:36] on a giant scheme.

[4:24:37] But is that ever an option

[4:24:39] down the road?

[4:24:40] What would the provisions be

[4:24:42] to be able to say,

[4:24:43] I'm just going to put a very

[4:24:44] minimal station that's only

[4:24:46] open to three or four cars

[4:24:48] because it's flat for that

[4:24:49] level when it goes up and over

[4:24:50] on option four?

[4:24:52] We haven't looked

[4:24:53] at that option, but happy

[4:24:55] to do so.

[4:24:57] Because then that option three

[4:24:59] and four are no longer mutually

[4:25:00] separate.

[4:25:01] And I do get the aspect that

[4:25:02] from a design standpoint,

[4:25:03] we have to give you direction

[4:25:05] because you're going

[4:25:07] to go back and ask CGMG, CMGC,

[4:25:09] and all the others to say,

[4:25:10] well, you're going to be

[4:25:12] designing a seven-car station

[4:25:13] side thing, or you're going to

[4:25:15] be designing nothing other than

[4:25:17] the grade separation.

[4:25:20] And so sometimes we get mired

[4:25:21] in our own thinking

[4:25:23] about what's possible.

[4:25:25] Why isn't that something other

[4:25:28] than maybe an R or something

[4:25:29] like that?

[4:25:30] But the reality is you only

[4:25:32] have 25 people getting

[4:25:33] on the train or 50 people

[4:25:34] getting on the train.

[4:25:36] They don't need seven options.

[4:25:40] But you would be deferring the

[4:25:42] station, but building it that

[4:25:44] it could accommodate a special

[4:25:47] event or a special train that

[4:25:50] allows shorter operation with

[4:25:52] fewer doors is what you're

[4:25:53] suggesting.

[4:25:54] It's still up 10 cars.

[4:25:56] No, but what I want

[4:25:57] to make sure I understand is

[4:26:00] in the design, you'd go up and

[4:26:03] have a shorter flat section

[4:26:05] that in the future you could

[4:26:07] build a station, not today.

[4:26:09] But that way you wouldn't have

[4:26:11] to rebuild that infrastructure

[4:26:12] that would accommodate that.

[4:26:13] Right.

[4:26:14] Is that the question?

[4:26:16] Let me take a look at that.

[4:26:17] Because that would narrow that

[4:26:20] $23 million gap, theoretically,

[4:26:21] because you're going up and

[4:26:23] over faster.

[4:26:24] You have a shorter window

[4:26:25] of flat.

[4:26:27] It'd be an interesting.

[4:26:29] We haven't asked our operation

[4:26:31] folks the implications of that.

[4:26:33] I'm a builder.

[4:26:35] I don't play train operations.

[4:26:36] That's not my wheelhouse.

[4:26:38] So you'd have

[4:26:39] to ask the experts on that.

[4:26:42] About that information, it's

[4:26:46] like the station idea puts us

[4:26:49] further away.

[4:26:51] It isn't maybe as much as we

[4:26:54] think, but I don't want

[4:26:55] to come back and say a month

[4:26:57] from now after saying, you

[4:27:00] know, let's do four, and then

[4:27:01] we later decide when we really

[4:27:04] have to vote on something

[4:27:06] to say, well, let's go

[4:27:08] with three, because now we just

[4:27:09] wasted the design effort

[4:27:11] of rethinking the design

[4:27:13] for an option four.

[4:27:15] So we have this mutual

[4:27:16] exclusivity right

[4:27:17] in this window

[4:27:18] for coming back,

[4:27:19] what we would financially

[4:27:20] commit to in the near term,

[4:27:23] but we haven't done all

[4:27:25] of the options, really,

[4:27:26] when you think

[4:27:28] about station or no station.

[4:27:30] That's my view.

[4:27:31] Right now, I would push for.

[4:27:33] Can I elaborate?

[4:27:34] Yes.

[4:27:36] Go ahead.

[4:27:38] Kind of related to that, I

[4:27:40] don't know if it's been

[4:27:41] considered

[4:27:42] to essentially do option four,

[4:27:44] where you could quickly go up

[4:27:46] and over Broadway,

[4:27:48] but move the station

[4:27:49] like a quarter of a mile, say,

[4:27:51] I don't know how far, north or

[4:27:52] south, where it could be

[4:27:53] at grade.

[4:27:55] So separate the grade

[4:27:58] separation from the station.

[4:27:59] Now, it wouldn't be right at

[4:28:01] Broadway, but, you know,

[4:28:02] it might be able to be over

[4:28:03] by Lincoln or Armalita or

[4:28:04] something.

[4:28:06] Yes, there are creeks and other

[4:28:07] things, but I'm just wondering

[4:28:09] if that was considered.

[4:28:10] The initial project study

[4:28:12] report was done in 2017, and

[4:28:14] I'm not sure what were the full

[4:28:16] range of options they took

[4:28:17] for it, realizing there was a

[4:28:19] full project study report,

[4:28:21] I imagine lots

[4:28:22] of public outreach,

[4:28:24] exploring a lot of options, and

[4:28:26] I don't know whether that was

[4:28:29] one of them or not.

[4:28:30] Ron?

[4:28:31] I was just going

[4:28:32] to say it's getting late, and,

[4:28:33] you know, Councilwoman Colson

[4:28:35] makes a compelling argument

[4:28:36] that the responsible vote

[4:28:38] tonight would be

[4:28:40] for the least expensive option,

[4:28:41] because it is the most likely

[4:28:44] to be funded, and I will

[4:28:46] reluctantly join that

[4:28:48] consensus.

[4:28:49] What I really believe is that

[4:28:51] tonight is not the hard

[4:28:52] decision.

[4:28:53] The hard decision is when this

[4:28:54] comes back

[4:28:55] in six or eight or ten weeks,

[4:28:56] and we have to decide whether

[4:28:58] to spend real money,

[4:29:00] and I'll just say right now, I

[4:29:02] don't,

[4:29:04] I have real problems thinking

[4:29:05] about betting again

[4:29:08] on this enterprise,

[4:29:10] but we don't have

[4:29:11] to decide that tonight.

[4:29:13] And then we'll have more

[4:29:14] information from the TA,

[4:29:15] and we'll have an understanding

[4:29:17] of their aptitude, you know,

[4:29:20] sort of their interest in,

[4:29:24] yeah, in funding $283 million.

[4:29:27] I do appreciate, Councilwoman

[4:29:29] Thayer's sort of, you know,

[4:29:31] could we move the station?

[4:29:32] The problem

[4:29:34] with that becomes you have to,

[4:29:35] you're going to have to tear

[4:29:37] out houses on California Drive

[4:29:39] to build, you know, you'd have

[4:29:40] to have a parking lot,

[4:29:41] and you'd have to build a lot

[4:29:42] of infrastructure

[4:29:43] around the station.

[4:29:45] I'd love to say it could be,

[4:29:46] unless it's just a walking

[4:29:47] station, you'd say you have

[4:29:48] to walk to it, possibly,

[4:29:49] but I don't believe that was

[4:29:52] in the design purview, so we've

[4:29:55] never considered that.

[4:29:56] Another issue on that happened

[4:29:59] to be because of the proximity

[4:30:02] to two other stations,

[4:30:04] like if you look up and

[4:30:05] down the train corridor,

[4:30:06] most cities have one station,

[4:30:08] you know, of our size,

[4:30:10] only have one station.

[4:30:13] The allowance for Broadway, I

[4:30:16] think, as I'm understanding it,

[4:30:18] was an exception, granted

[4:30:20] like 15 years ago, sort

[4:30:23] of as a, you know,

[4:30:26] I don't know how it happened,

[4:30:29] I wasn't here, but it's

[4:30:30] essentially an unstandard

[4:30:32] situation for a station, and I

[4:30:35] mean, I would love

[4:30:39] to build a station.

[4:30:41] I mean,

[4:30:42] I'm playing the lottery every

[4:30:43] day, hoping

[4:30:44] to win the big ticket,

[4:30:45] and we can all do it and build

[4:30:46] it, and we just do it.

[4:30:47] I just know, I'm also kind

[4:30:49] of trying to deal with what the

[4:30:53] next four years are going

[4:30:54] to look like.

[4:30:55] I'm trying to be pragmatic

[4:30:56] about our chances

[4:30:58] of getting money out

[4:30:59] of the federal government,

[4:31:02] the defunding that's going

[4:31:04] to occur in the state of

[4:31:05] California, and the move away

[4:31:07] from transit money in order

[4:31:09] to probably fund Medicaid,

[4:31:12] Medicare, social services that

[4:31:14] are going to be cut

[4:31:16] by this administration,

[4:31:18] how that's going to look.

[4:31:19] These are just the,

[4:31:20] and then today we are going

[4:31:21] to have 25% tariffs go in,

[4:31:22] so I'm just trying to think

[4:31:24] about it

[4:31:25] from the standpoint of, you

[4:31:26] know, maximizing safety,

[4:31:28] minimizing cost.

[4:31:30] Those are the two variables

[4:31:32] that I'm considering the

[4:31:33] highest, and the station is,

[4:31:36] I would have, should have,

[4:31:37] loved to have had it 10 years

[4:31:39] ago, but at this point,

[4:31:41] even adding 20 or 30 or $40

[4:31:42] million just seems incredibly

[4:31:46] out of reach, but I agree,

[4:31:49] Councilman, we, or Vice

[4:31:50] Mayor, we may, I mean,

[4:31:53] there just may be, right,

[4:31:56] just a bridge, it just, you

[4:31:57] know, this was,

[4:32:00] should have happened 10 years

[4:32:01] ago, and I don't want to,

[4:32:03] I really don't want

[4:32:04] to abandon it.

[4:32:06] The reason I

[4:32:07] like option number four, too,

[4:32:08] is because I feel

[4:32:09] like we can shove it

[4:32:10] in the queue, and we can, you

[4:32:12] know, sort

[4:32:13] of make a decision of,

[4:32:15] like you say, do we want

[4:32:17] to do another $2 million,

[4:32:20] and get a sense of the TA,

[4:32:21] and then put it in the queue,

[4:32:22] and then my sort of thinking

[4:32:23] on this is,

[4:32:25] how do we fund it?

[4:32:26] It's, you know, the federal

[4:32:29] administration,

[4:32:30] the feds have just pulled back

[4:32:32] $4 billion in funding

[4:32:34] for the high-speed rail, so

[4:32:35] maybe the high-speed rail isn't

[4:32:36] really as viable as a project,

[4:32:37] so maybe we go

[4:32:38] to the state and we lobby,

[4:32:40] I was talking to a couple

[4:32:41] of assembly people today

[4:32:42] about this, could we go back

[4:32:44] and lobby the state and say,

[4:32:46] all right, you know,

[4:32:47] the bullet train,

[4:32:49] the high-speed rail is just

[4:32:50] floundering,

[4:32:51] that's really not going

[4:32:52] to happen, let's take that,

[4:32:53] those billions that were

[4:32:54] allocated to that

[4:32:55] at the state level, and bring

[4:32:56] them back and solve this

[4:32:57] corridor problem all up and

[4:32:59] down, and a coalition

[4:33:01] of elected from Morgan Hill

[4:33:03] to San Francisco could work

[4:33:08] together to help the state

[4:33:10] craft a new funding philosophy,

[4:33:11] you know, possibly,

[4:33:15] and prioritize dealing with the

[4:33:17] corridor transit right now,

[4:33:21] and then go back and for more

[4:33:23] years when there's maybe a

[4:33:24] different administration and

[4:33:25] different feeling on funding

[4:33:27] the high-speed rail.

[4:33:28] I don't know if that's

[4:33:29] practical or not,

[4:33:31] I'm just trying to use my, you

[4:33:33] know, every where

[4:33:34] with all I have to think

[4:33:35] about how to do this,

[4:33:36] and that's kind

[4:33:37] of where I'm ending up.

[4:33:39] And that's a heavy lift

[4:33:40] for us,

[4:33:42] because that means we're going

[4:33:43] to have to hire lobbyists,

[4:33:44] and we're going to have

[4:33:45] to work on all this stuff,

[4:33:46] and it's a big, big, heavy

[4:33:51] lift. I think we've gotten

[4:33:52] input from across the dais,

[4:33:55] I think to summarize the

[4:33:59] direction is option four,

[4:34:02] we need to know the scrutiny

[4:34:06] of the 20 million,

[4:34:08] and what is that real number.

[4:34:11] To Vice Mayor's point, I think

[4:34:13] the real hard decision is

[4:34:14] coming, it's not right now, and

[4:34:16] obviously there's broader

[4:34:17] concerns just in terms

[4:34:20] of the feasibility, but

[4:34:24] to be focused first

[4:34:26] on safety,

[4:34:28] which I think is uniform

[4:34:30] across the dais, is number one,

[4:34:32] I think focus on cost is

[4:34:34] obviously a close second,

[4:34:36] and the option of a station,

[4:34:39] while interesting, you know,

[4:34:44] it would be maybe nice

[4:34:45] in some respect,

[4:34:48] we can't just decide

[4:34:49] on that right now. We have

[4:34:51] to think

[4:34:52] about what we can get done

[4:34:53] for safety. High-speed rail

[4:34:55] doesn't have people dying

[4:34:56] on their tracks. They don't

[4:34:58] have accidents in their

[4:35:00] corridors or their crossings.

[4:35:02] We do,

[4:35:03] and so I think there's a lot

[4:35:05] of work that has to be done,

[4:35:07] and I did like some

[4:35:08] of the input earlier today

[4:35:09] about that joint lobbying

[4:35:10] effort,

[4:35:11] because I think it's been

[4:35:12] talked about historically,

[4:35:15] particularly at the LPMG,

[4:35:17] but never really executed on,

[4:35:20] and yet we're at a situation

[4:35:21] now where this isn't the only

[4:35:23] problem on the corridor,

[4:35:24] it's the most important, but

[4:35:25] there's other great crossings,

[4:35:27] and we need some different

[4:35:28] approach to get the confidence

[4:35:30] back that we can actually

[4:35:31] execute this, so,

[4:35:34] fair enough? Okay. Thank you.

[4:35:37] Thank you. With that,

[4:35:40] I'm just going to ask Council

[4:35:42] for future agenda items,

[4:35:45] if any. Yes. Yeah. I have one.

[4:35:51] Member Colson. So, having been

[4:35:55] in the neighborhood where the,

[4:35:57] when we had the active shooter

[4:35:58] situation at the Hillsborough

[4:35:59] Police Station, the SMC alert

[4:36:03] system was very inconsistent.

[4:36:06] Some people received alerts,

[4:36:07] some people didn't receive

[4:36:08] alerts,

[4:36:09] some people got notifications.

[4:36:11] Just sometime in the next,

[4:36:14] no high priority,

[4:36:16] but I would really love

[4:36:17] to understand a little more

[4:36:19] about that alert system and

[4:36:22] how, what the process is

[4:36:23] for dissemination, just

[4:36:25] to make sure that

[4:36:27] in the future, when there is a

[4:36:29] lockdown, everybody who needs

[4:36:30] to be informed is informed. If

[4:36:33] there's a fire, if there's an

[4:36:34] emergency and that system's

[4:36:36] working, it didn't work

[4:36:38] on this particular incident,

[4:36:40] so I just, I want

[4:36:43] to make sure we figure

[4:36:44] out why and we fix it

[4:36:47] for the future. Thank you.

[4:36:50] Yeah, I think, having been

[4:36:51] overseas and starting

[4:36:52] to get text messages

[4:36:53] from people that lived on

[4:36:54] Walnut elsewhere, they're like,

[4:36:57] where was the SMC alert? And

[4:36:58] other people were saying,

[4:36:59] I got it, and so I definitely

[4:37:01] think an update from the police

[4:37:04] department and emergency

[4:37:06] services would be valuable

[4:37:08] education, not only

[4:37:10] for the council, but maybe

[4:37:11] identify changes that we can do

[4:37:12] going forward. So, for that,

[4:37:14] we'll need

[4:37:15] to bring the county in,

[4:37:16] because it's actually the

[4:37:18] county system, not a study

[4:37:20] session, or? Anybody else

[4:37:23] with advice? So not a new item,

[4:37:25] but just, sorry, a PS to the

[4:37:26] last item. I think it would be

[4:37:28] very helpful when this comes

[4:37:31] back for our consideration,

[4:37:34] if we asked,

[4:37:35] which I think is the very,

[4:37:36] very least we could ask,

[4:37:38] but we ask the Washington,

[4:37:39] D.C. lobbyists we currently

[4:37:41] have for their assessment

[4:37:42] of money

[4:37:44] from the federal government

[4:37:46] over the next four years. I

[4:37:48] just think there's a lot

[4:37:50] of guessing going on, and there

[4:37:51] are people who know more than

[4:37:52] we do. Maybe, and another PS on

[4:37:55] that. I think when this item

[4:37:58] comes back, we really need

[4:37:59] to do a little more outreach

[4:38:01] to make sure people know it's

[4:38:03] on the agenda, so letting the

[4:38:04] Broadway bid know,

[4:38:06] letting the neighbors

[4:38:07] in that area know, putting it

[4:38:09] in the e-newsletter,

[4:38:10] this is just a huge decision,

[4:38:14] and I want to make sure we're

[4:38:15] getting a lot of,

[4:38:17] we're hearing

[4:38:18] from people. I mean,

[4:38:19] I'm talking to people,

[4:38:21] but I just think we need

[4:38:22] to make sure we put it

[4:38:24] out there. And give them, well,

[4:38:28] we don't have a lot of time.

[4:38:32] Yeah. Any agenda items? Okay.

[4:38:36] And we've got both

[4:38:37] of those noted. Appreciate

[4:38:39] that. Anybody want

[4:38:40] to end the meeting

[4:38:42] with an acknowledgment? Okay.

City Council on 2025-03-03 7:00 PM

Agenda

Transcript