While we're waiting
to get started,
there are more seats up front
of you.
I just wanted to add a welcome
to everybody here.
To get started, we'll do the
Pledge of Allegiance and really
fortunate that we have some
of our youth here.
I'm going to welcome not only
the kids who made it all the
way from Washington Elementary
but also our Red Parrots AYSO
soccer team
to stand and lead us in the
Pledge of Allegiance.
Anytime you want to start,
everybody will jump in.
I pledge allegiance
to the flag of the United
States of America and
to the republic
for which it stands,
one nation under God,
indivisible,
with liberty and justice
for all.
Thank you.
Madam City Clerk, could I have
a roll call, please?
Council Member Thayer?
Here.
Council Member Colson?
Here.
Council Member Pappajohn?
Here.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg?
Here.
Mayor Stevenson?
Here.
Thank you.
I see we have no requests
for AB 2449, remote
participation.
So we'll move on
to item number five,
which is a report out
from the closed session.
Mr. City Attorney.
Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
There is no reportable action.
Thank you.
Excellent.
Okay.
So bear with me.
I'm going to read a few
upcoming events
at our library and elsewhere,
our park and rec department.
So first of all,
in the library,
the 3D printing lab
in person.
Bring your files to print and
drop into the library's 3D
printing open lab.
Learn about the library's 3D
printers, how
to use slicing software,
and how
to start a print job.
Come and share your 3D printed
creations with other 3D
printing enthusiasts.
That's all this Thursday,
March 6th, at the library
from 2 to 4 p.m.
in the tech lab.
How to use your AI tools
in your job search.
Join Faze at Careers
for an overview
of AI as well as specific tools
for your job search.
Learn how to use AI tools to
analyze and improve your resume
and how AI can assist you with
improving your interviewing
skills.
That's going to take place on
Monday, March 10th, 2025,
from 1 to 3 p.m. in the Lane
Community Room.
That's at the library, just
to make sure everybody knows.
Number three,
spring craft supply swap.
Join us at the main library
for a craft supply swap.
Bring something and take
something.
It's all free.
All crafty items are welcome.
That's going to take place on
Saturday, March 15th, 2025,
from 11 to 1.
Again, that's at the main
library.
For our Parks and Rec's
department, the Royal Ball
Adult Child Dinner Dance is
on Friday, March 14th,
at the community center.
Also included is a horse-drawn
carriage ride in Washington
Park, which is made possible
by the Burlingame Parks
Forever Foundation.
Sign up through Parks and
Rec's department.
Again, that's Friday, March
14th.
Join us for the annual Arbor
Day celebration on Thursday,
March 13th, at 11 a.m. at
Murray Field.
Most of you probably know that
Burlingame is the city
of trees,
and so here's a wonderful way
to celebrate all the trees and
what we do to make sure we have
an excellent celebration for
Arbor Day.
The Senior St. Patrick's Day
Tea is on Monday, March 10th,
from 3 to 4 p.m.
Irish tea, delicious bread
from Fiddler's Green and Molly
O's, and a lively performance
by the Kennelly School of
Irish Dance are included.
Subsidized fee is only $5, and
pre-registration and payment
are required.
You can register online,
by phone, or in person.
And then finally, Free Yoga
Friday is on March 7th and
March 21st, from 11 a.m. to 12
p.m.
at the Community Center.
All levels are welcome,
and a mat is needed.
Please call or email Colleen,
email address is cconefrey
at burlingame.org
to reserve a spot, and again,
there is no fee
for this program.
I'll pause for a moment
to see if my colleagues on
council have any other upcoming
events they want
to highlight.
Yes, Vice Mayor Brownrigg.
Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Just quickly,
I believe it's a public event,
but this Saturday, Nuts for
Candy is celebrating its 30th
anniversary here in the city
of Burlingame, from 2 to 3 p.m.
And so, if one wants to go
along and support Nuts for
Candy and Mr. Cabranian, then
please feel free.
And then finally,
and a lot less fun than this
evening, but on March 12th,
we're having a budget meeting,
so if you want to get
under the hood with us,
then that is 6.30, I think,
start time.
Excellent.
And we hope
to see as many people here for
that event as there are here
tonight.
Mayor Stephenson, I forgot,
tomorrow is also election day.
It's your last day
to get your ballot in
for the special election, and
we do have a vote center open
at the Community Center until
8 p.m. tomorrow.
Excellent.
Very important.
It's for regional and local
reasons, not necessarily a
national election.
Okay, if there's no more
upcoming events,
this is really one
of the exciting parts of City
Council, is when folks
from our community come
in and want to let us know
about something, a major
accomplishment,
and some exciting news.
So I would love it if the
Burlingame Red Parrots could
stand when I call your name,
but we're recognizing you
for the tremendous effort
of not only doing well locally,
but also participating
in the AYSO Western States
Tournament coming up soon.
So not too often does a local
community get to send a group
of star athletes at your level
to an event like that,
so we're really appreciative of
you coming and sharing that
story, and I think Coach
Jamie, is that correct,
or did I have that right?
Jamie's the coordinator.
Okay, how
about I just read the names,
and you guys can stand,
and then we're going
to come down,
we'll have some comments from
Council, but we'll come
down and take a big picture.
How does that sound?
Okay?
But you've got to promise that
you'll frame it and put it
on the wall in your house,
okay?
So I hope I pronounced these
correctly, but Ameya
Guharoi.
No.
Okay.
Well, somebody has to give it
to her.
How about Arya Mohazabi?
All right.
Charlotte French.
Emma Cheng.
Isabella Wiseman.
Kaitlyn Shaughnessy.
Leah Reese.
Margaret Anguera.
McKenna Reynolds.
Myla Hernandez.
Nadia Phillips.
Deanna Wade.
And Talia Wu.
How about everybody get up
for one big round?
Oh, Ashley Putnam.
I might have grabbed it
by accident, too, so if I did,
I apologize, but we'll make
sure you have the certificate.
So from Council, can I have any
notes or comments or
expressions?
That would be great.
Go ahead.
Can I say something?
Thank you, Mayor Stevenson.
I love AYSO.
I just know the values are so
aligned with our community.
Everyone plays, balanced teams,
open registration, good
sportsmanship,
and positive coaching.
And I just want
to reflect a minute.
When my kids were younger,
they all played soccer,
and it's a volunteer
organization, so I coached.
And it was so much more than
just coaching to me, because it
was such a great community I
met parents, so many other
people, and my kids met people
that weren't
in their schools,
and I really enjoyed it.
And I also met former Mayor
Ricardo Ortiz through that,
because I served on the board
for 10 years, over 10 years.
And it's just a wonderful
organization, and I'm just so
happy that it's so strong
in our community.
And thank you
to all the volunteers, the
players, and the parents who
are here and involved.
Thank you.
Council Member Donna Colson.
Thank you.
Well, I just want to say
to all of you young women,
aspiring young women,
congratulations.
And I'm so happy to see that
your organization stood up for
you and made sure that you got
the recognition you deserved
for what you're doing today.
It is incredibly special
to be able
to go and represent our city
at this elite level.
And what I'm particularly proud
about is the beautiful
diversity that I see sitting
in front of me, the way that
you comport yourselves
on the field, the graciousness
with which you win and
with which you lose, because
those, my friends, are the
attributes and the lessons that
you are going to learn that
will someday carry you
into adulthood,
into womanhood, and into being
amazing young businesswomen,
teachers, leaders,
whatever you decide to do.
So this journey, while it is
about soccer for the
near term, and I'm excited and
hope you and wish you the best
in your tournament,
the appreciation that I have
for you representing our city
so beautifully and your amazing
coaches and the standard that
they set and the time and
commitment that they put into
this are really what I'm most
proud about.
So thank you, and I look
forward to 20 years
from now seeing some
of you ladies sitting up here
in these seats.
Thank you.
Councilmember Thayer.
So I'll just make very brief
remarks just
to say congratulations
to you young ladies.
You've worked really hard,
and I hope you represent us
well, both, as Councilmember
Colson said, both on the field
but also off the field.
And also congratulations to all
the coaches and parents.
This is a really unique
opportunity where,
as was mentioned by
Councilmember Pappajohn,
everyone gets to play
in AYSO, and it's volunteer
run, and that really speaks
to the community that we have
in Burlingame, where we're very
diverse and we want to make
sure that everyone's included
and everyone has a time
to play.
So congratulations and good
luck.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg.
I'll be quick.
Have fun.
These kind of things don't
happen all that often.
I can tell you, I never got
to a regional anything,
so good for you.
We can confirm that.
Enjoy every, work hard.
Your coaches have put a lot
of time in.
Your parents have.
Work hard.
Have fun.
And have fun.
That's really the message I
wanted to leave
with you guys.
But we're all so proud
of you.
Thank you.
So, on behalf of the whole
Council, we just want
to wish you good luck.
Have fun.
Stay safe.
Enjoy the time.
Bring back memories.
Thank your parents.
Thank your coaches.
It's a wonderful thing.
And so, we'll enjoy it
from afar,
but you go and enjoy it
on the field, okay?
Excellent.
You guys can go forward just a
little bit.
Tall girls, come back here.
This is like when you took your
AYSO picture.
Come on over.
Should we go,
should we do a cheer
for the red parrots,
like let's go parrots,
or what?
Sure.
All right.
The whole community.
Let's go parrots.
Awesome.
Don't have to take it all
with you.
Two more hours.
All right.
I'm sure you have a whole crew
of friends.
We appreciate it.
Thanks again.
Thank you.
All right.
So moving on to item number
eight, public comments,
non-agenda.
These are for the members
of the public who may want
to speak about a topic that is
not formally on the agenda.
Just so you know, the mic
at the podium is yours
for anybody who wants to speak
about a topic as long as it's
not on the agenda.
And also the council itself
can't respond to it.
We just take this as input, but
if you have a public comment
open, you know, feel free
to come
on up.
I do have one card from Brian
Lee.
Is Brian here today?
Excellent.
Come on up, Brian.
Hello, Mayor, Council.
My name is Brian Lee, I'm at
1468 Benito Avenue since
1951.
I'm here today to talk about
speed bumps that I call stop
bumps on Adeline Alvarado and
Carmelita.
I understand there's a need
for control for speeding on
Hillside.
The cars are going very fast up
and down, especially on the
straightaway.
I think that
with the new gymnasium,
which I support
at our activity center at
Mercy, you're going to have
more traffic and I've got a
little bit of a solution.
Number one, the speed bumps,
I was told, I think are
temporary.
I hope they are.
I think you should construct
them very similar to the ones
on Hillside Drive that are
near the fire station and
to the west of that.
They slow down traffic,
they don't jar your car,
and they're safe
for bicyclists.
So I don't think there's a need
on Benito.
You can check with the people
who live there,
there's not a lot of traffic
there.
I think there is a need on
Adeline and on Alvarado
for sure.
I have an idea for speed
controls.
In Scottsdale, Arizona, they
just initiated a new program
with photo radar that are
portable.
The key is they're portable.
They're the size
of a mailbox,
maybe a little taller.
They work real well.
They're portable,
so you can move them
around and so nobody can plan
on where they are.
I like to drive smooth, fast
at times and whatever, but
these things work.
I have some photos that I'd
like to distribute to you
of what they look
like and I guess I'll give them
to you a little later or
whatever.
I really think you should
consider this product and the
comments that I made about how
to build a good, accurate speed
bump that will slow down
traffic and not hurt the
suspension on your cars.
Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Lee.
Any other public comments
for non-agenda items?
Anything online?
Okay.
Seeing none, we'll move on
to item number nine,
our consent calendar.
Let me ask my colleagues if
there are any items on the
consent calendar that anybody
would like to pull.
Seeing none.
Anybody from the public that
would like to pull any item
on consent?
Seeing none in the room.
Anything online?
No.
We don't pull.
Okay.
No longer doing online.
Okay.
Can I have a motion from the
council to approve the consent
calendar?
It's all moved.
Second.
So we have a motion by Vice
Mayor Brownrigg and a second
by Council Member Pappajohn.
Madam City Clerk, can we have a
roll call?
Council Member Thayer?
Yes.
Council Member Colson?
Yes.
Council Member Pappajohn?
Yes.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg?
Yes.
Mayor Stevenson?
Yes.
Okay.
Thank you.
I suspect this is going
to be the longer part
of the evening,
so we're all settled
in and look forward
to getting started.
Item number 10A requires
excusing Vice Mayor Brownrigg
as Vice Mayor Brownrigg is part
and parcel
to the applicant process.
Excellent.
Okay.
Item number 10 requires some
instructions that I'll read and
then I'll ask our Director of
Community Development to come
up and address as the first
step.
So at this time, the Council
will consider the review of
2750 and 2300 Adeline Drive
zoned R1 and their application
for commercial design review,
hillside area construction
permit and variance for
building height and amendment
to conditional use permit for
the construction and operation
of a new athletic center and
outdoor swimming pool on the
Mercy High School property.
This project was approved
by the Planning Commission
during their October 15th,
2024 regularly scheduled
meeting.
Following that meeting,
Councilmember at that time,
now Vice Mayor Michael
Brownrigg
in his capacity as a
Councilmember filed a timely
call for review of the
Planning Commission approval as
authorized by BMC section
2598.030.
This meeting was scheduled
in accordance
with the timeline specified
in the Burlingame Municipal
Code.
Following his timely call
for review, Councilmember
Brownrigg requested an opinion
from the Fair Political
Practices Commission known as
the FPPC as
to whether he had the conflict
of interest
on this matter based
on his home's proximity
to the project site.
The FPPC determined that a
conflict did exist, therefore
Councilmember and now Vice
Mayor Brownrigg will be
recusing himself from this item
and therefore will be
presenting any evidence and or
testimony solely in his private
capacity as a resident and not
as an official of the City of
Burlingame.
This hearing will proceed
in the following manner.
First we will receive a staff
presentation and the Council
will ask any questions
of staff at this time.
Following staff's presentation,
the individual who called
for the item for review,
in this case Mr. Michael
Brownrigg, will have 10 minutes
to present his case as
to why the Planning
Commission's approval should be
overturned in whole or
in part.
Following this 10 minute
period,
the applicant will receive 10
minutes
to present their case.
Following the applicant's time,
we will move to public comment
on the item.
Any member of the public who is
not a party to the hearing may
speak for 3 minutes each.
Following public comment, Mr.
Brownrigg will receive an
additional 5 minute period
to address the Council and
present any rebuttal or final
testimony, and then finally the
applicant will receive 5
minutes to provide their
rebuttal and or final
testimony.
Councilmembers may ask
questions following the
conclusion of any party's
presentation and responses
to questions will not be
counted
against the allotted time for
the respective presentations.
Councilmembers should reserve
their comments
for a deliberation portion
of the preceding.
Staff have all the parties been
notified
of this hearing pursuant
to the requirements of the
Burlingame Municipal Code
related to calls for review?
Yes, they have.
Excellent.
Mayor, I will now ask
for my fellow Councilmembers to
disclose any ex parte
communications they may have
had related to this item.
Have any members of Council had
any ex parte communications
on this item?
Yes.
Councilmember Colson?
Yes, I have spoken
to the leadership at Mercy
High School.
Councilmember Pappajohn?
Yes, I have also spoken
to the leadership at Mercy
High School.
I also met with former Mayor
Anne Keagren and I had a couple
very brief minutes with Vice
Mayor Michael Brownrigg.
I spoke with resident Lynn
Israelit and resident Mike
Collins and I'd like to
disclose that I did have a
child who went to Mercy but
later transferred and I can say
that I am an unbiased decision
maker.
Excellent.
No, I have not had any ex parte
communication and I thank the
community who did reach
out and was respectful
of my decision
to not have any.
Thank you, Councilmember
Thayer.
I have had two ex parte
conversations,
an impromptu meeting with
Vice Mayor Michael Brownrigg
and also a meeting
with the leadership at Mercy
High School.
So when we get to public
comment, how many
in the room are planning
to speak?
Raise your hand.
We should reduce the three
minutes.
Okay, and online too?
No.
We don't take.
Okay.
So we're going to start
with the two minutes each.
We want to make sure everybody
has an opportunity
to speak and to share their
input and that way we'll make
sure that we're respectful
of time and the process.
To get started though,
we're going to first have our
staff report led by our
Director of Community
Development, Netta.
Good evening, Mayor, City
Councilmembers, Netta Thayer,
Community Development Director
with the City of Burlingame.
I will not be presenting
tonight.
I actually have Senior
Planner Erica Lewitt here
tonight and she'll be providing
the presentation.
She's been the Project Planner
through the duration
of this project.
She and I will be available
for questions, but she'll be
giving the presentation.
Good evening, Council.
I'll start
with the existing site.
Okay.
Thank you.
The existing site is located
at the corner of Hoover Avenue
and Adeline Drive.
You can see
on the left side aerial shown
on the slide.
It's surrounded by single unit
dwellings that are both
in the County of San Mateo and
in the City of Burlingame.
The site actually has two lots.
The larger is owned by Sisters
of Mercy and has the address
2300 Adeline Drive and the
smaller is owned by Mercy
High School with the address
of 2750 Adeline Drive.
The two lots are treated as a
single site for the purposes
of zoning administration.
That's because there are a
number of existing unrecorded
cross-access easements
between the sites,
which keep them
from operating independently.
There's also an existing
conditional use permit that was
approved in 2010 that governs
the operations
on the properties, and that
links the properties together
as a single site.
On the right side
of the slide,
you can see blown up the
Sisters of Mercy campus, and
the project location is
outlined in blue.
Here we see two renderings
of the project shown.
The October 2024 Planning
Commission action of approval
of the project entitled
Commercial Design Review,
Hillside Area Construction
Permit, a Variance for
Building Height, and Amendment
to the Conditional Use Permit
for a New Athletic Center.
The project was submitted in
January 2023 and went
to two public hearings
before the Planning
Commission.
A study hearing June 2024 and
an action hearing in October
2024.
You can see on the slide the
site plan
for the approved project,
and the details
of the project include a Class
14 categorical exemption
for CEQA to demolish the
existing tennis courts and
outdoor pool to build a new
16,319 square foot gymnasium
and a new regulation size
outdoor pool.
The yellow arm that stretches
from the buildings out to the
parking lot is an ADA
accessible pedestrian walkway.
In the upper right hand corner,
you can see there's the
existing Grisilli parking lot,
and it's going
to be re-striped and re-paved
to add 15 parking spaces.
At the lower side, you'll see,
also highlighted in yellow,
a little arm leading
from the building out to
Adeline Drive.
This is an emergency vehicle
access road that's required
by fire regulations.
The approved project that went
forward to the Planning
Commission showed the removal
of 20 protected size trees,
and finally a revision to the
Conditional Use Permit so that
the hours for after school
activities and the gymnasium
match the existing end times
for the Cole Mansion.
There was, as the Mayor
mentioned,
there was a timely call
for review
of the project approval, and
there were five items brought
up in this call for review.
The request to protect an
existing walking path
on site, that the emergency
access road did not be used
for pedestrian access,
that the Commission did not
adequately discuss a third
party rental
of the gymnasium, an insurance
that guests do not park
in the neighborhood, and
to ensure that 7% of Mercy
students shuttle
to the school.
I'll now go over each of these
appeal items individually.
The first item in the call
for review was that the
Planning Commission did not
address a neighbor request to
maintain a pedestrian parkway
that's on the site.
The facts regarding the path is
that it's
on private property.
It was never formally
memorialized at any stage
of the site's existence in the
county or the city's
jurisdiction.
Public access to any private
property is also not required
by the Burlingame Municipal
Code or
to the specific private
property by any existing legal
agreements.
For these reasons,
the path was not included
on the project plans or as part
of the application,
but I've shown here on this
aerial an approximate location.
It runs parallel to Adeline
Drive, and it's shown in red
on the slide.
During the hearings,
the request to have the public
access guaranteed was brought
forth by a member
of the public.
The applicant for the project
noted that the path extends
across both properties,
and that Mercy High School
could not legally grant access
to sisters of Mercy private
property.
The applicant stated that the
owners of the property
like the idea of continuing
to offer this amenity
to the public,
but are prevented
from formalizing access
with an agreement because
of security, safety, and
liability concerns that are
associated
with allowing public access to
a school site and private
property.
The commission acknowledged
these security and liability
concerns and did not add a
condition of approval that
required public access
to the site.
The second item brought up
in the call for review was that
the commission did not address
a request to prevent parking
and pedestrian access
from the emergency access road
off Adeline Drive.
You can see the approved plans
here on the slide,
and the access lane is required
by the fire division
to improve emergency access
to the site.
The approved plans were
reviewed by the fire division
and show that the road will
have a locked gate that can
only be opened
by school staff or by emergency
response personnel.
That's using something known as
a knock box.
The plans also show that the
road is required to have
signage indicating that no
parking is allowed
for non-emergency vehicles.
Parking or pulling over
to drop off students at the
emergency access road is
prohibited by the signage and
by the locked gate,
and these are both shown
on the approved plans.
Therefore, the commission did
not require further discussion
of this matter.
The third point brought forth
in the appeal is that the
commission did not adequately
discuss prohibiting the
gymnasium from being used for
third-party rentals or
additional hourly restrictions
on the use of the gym.
At the hearings, the neighbors
requested that the activities
in the gym be limited
in various ways.
Therefore, at the action
hearing,
staff included a condition
of approval for consideration
by the commission, and that
condition stated that there
would be no third-party rentals
of the gymnasium.
The condition was considered
by the commission
at the hearing, and
after discussion, the
commission deemed the condition
unnecessary
for the following reasons.
The commission found that the
school is not unique
in its location in a
single-unit dwelling
neighborhood and that the
applicants submitted
information that showed that
the majority of public and
private high schools in the
surrounding cities were not
restricted from renting
to third parties.
The commission noted that the
gym was intended to serve the
existing student population,
which is not to be increased,
and that the gym would
primarily be used
for school activities.
The commission determined that
the conditional use permit
that's in place already limited
the total number of guests
on the entire site to 300
persons, and that this guest
maximum could continue
to be applied to the site
whether the guests were using
the gym, full mansion,
or were divided
between the two facilities.
The commission then voted
to approve the project
with the existing condition of
approval that limits the number
of guests to 300 persons.
The fourth issue brought
forward in the appeal was that
the commission did not require
gym guests to park,
did not prohibit gym guests
from parking
in the neighborhood,
and that overflow parking
for events was not identified.
There are conditions existing
in the conditional use permit
that address the on-site
parking issue.
In particular,
existing condition number 28
states that the use
of any facility on the site
shall have all guest parking
on site.
That includes student, staff,
full mansion guests, Sister
of Mercy guests,
and any other facilities.
The overflow parking for
Mercy High School was discussed
in the staff report,
and it's identified on sheet
2.1 in the plans,
which is a little difficult
to read on the slide, but it
shows that the eucalyptus,
lake,
and forest lots are available
for overflow parking
with a total of 181 additional
parking spaces.
Planning Commission discussed
that the site had been
operating
with these conditions for 14
years, and that Mercy High
School puts forth significant
efforts to communicate these
parking restrictions
to all school families and to
any guests visiting the site.
The commission deemed
additional conditions requiring
on-site parking to be
duplicating the conditions that
are in place.
The final issue brought forth
in the call for review was that
there was an existing condition
about shuttles that was
revised, and that the applicant
did not have time
to review the revisions.
The condition
in question is number 4.
You see it here before you
on the slide.
The original wording is
in white, and the revision is
in yellow.
The original condition is
from the 2010 approval,
and it listed the number of
shuttles and the seats
required.
The city had no complaints
about the violations
of this condition during the
14 years of operation, and
during the hearings,
the applicant noted that
Mercy High School now contracts
with other shuttle services
to arrange rides
for students.
So in order to clarify the
wording of the condition and to
allow the high school more
flexibility in how they fulfill
the condition,
staff revised the wording
to try to capture the number of
required shuttle students as a
percentage
of the total enrollment.
That works out to 7% of the
student population if the
school is fully enrolled.
The applicant reviewed the
conditions of approval when
they were published
in the staff report prior
to the action hearing.
It did not raise concerns.
The council has four action
alternatives before them.
To uphold the Planning
Commission's approval
of the application, which is
staff's recommendation.
To deny the application.
To adopt additional conditions
of approval,
and these conditions may or
may not be related
to the items listed
in the call for review.
Or finally,
to remand the application
to the Planning Commission
for additional consideration.
This concludes my presentation,
but I'm available
for questions if you have any.
Thank you,
and I'll ask my colleagues
on the dais for questions.
There is a part where we have
public comment, so this is
for the council
to ask questions directly
of staff and the report.
Yes, Councilmember Colson.
Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Levitt,
for your work on this project.
I appreciate you coming here
tonight.
The trail, the path that
extends along Adeline.
Is it presently open
to the public, and
during the day, 24-7,
is it locked?
What's the status of that?
I actually can't answer that
question.
I'll leave that to the head
of school to answer.
Okay.
As I mentioned,
it's not required.
It was never recorded.
Right.
So I never asked for that
information as part of the
project review.
I'm just curious if, I mean,
you know, a lot of,
I don't think there would be,
I mean, you know, a public
school that would be able
to allow people to sort of
randomly walk onto campus or
onto their enclosed community.
So I'm just, I was just kind
of curious, and they can answer
that later when they make their
presentation.
You don't have
to respond now.
Any other questions
at this time?
Yes.
Council Member Pappajohn.
Yes.
Can you just give me one minute
here?
Mr. Mayor, I might as well
also, I hadn't really thought
about it, but because I lived
at 2616 Hale for over 15 years,
I've had a number
of neighbors reach out
to me just to, in just normal
friendship relations and, you
know, have chit-chats
about this,
but nothing formal.
Okay.
Thank you
for acknowledging that.
Thank you, Ms. Leavitt, for
your presentation.
I really appreciate you going
through everything.
So I think one
of the questions I have is
about third-party rentals,
and I was curious as
to whether, I think there was
a, could you please elaborate
if there was a study done
on any impacts
of additional traffic
for that,
or if there would be any impact
to have third-party rentals or
more people coming
to the site?
That study was not done.
The traffic and circulation
analysis that was submitted
by the applicant and reviewed
by the city only looked
at the primaries at the gym,
which would be after-school
activities
during the school year.
The things that are now
occurring off-site,
that would now be moving
on-site, things like dances,
volleyball games, that sort
of thing.
And then the result of that was
no substantial impact,
negative impact to the
surrounding neighborhood.
Okay.
Thank you.
I have a couple questions,
particularly because a lot of
the conversation and feedback
is centered around parking,
congestion, what's going
to happen to the local
neighborhood streets.
Was there any discussion
in the Planning Commission
process from a standpoint
of enforcement, knowing that
all parking is supposed
to be contained on-site
in either the main lot or
in overflows?
And the second would be, was
there any consideration or
request
from a signage standpoint along
those neighborhoods where there
would be control of parking,
meaning, you know, it's coming
in for a late volleyball game
and just parking
on the street and then running
into the school
to go watch it or play?
Just curious about that part
of the conversation.
So the way this conditional use
permit has always operated
since it was first approved
in 2007 and amended in 2010 is
similar to any other
conditional use permit
in the city.
It's enforcement upon
complaint.
So if we are getting frequent
complaints of traffic issues
specifically related
to the school, then the city
investigates.
I think one of the conditions
of approval that's in,
I forget which number it is,
number 29 or 30, requires that
the school operate a 24-hour
hotline so that they're the
first stop for any issues.
So they can call at any time if
they see that somebody who's
clearly belonging
to the school parks in the
neighborhood and then walks
on-site.
And that should be addressed
first by the school.
If an issue continues and it's
not being resolved,
then it comes to the city
to resolve.
Thank you.
Another question?
Thank you.
Yes.
This triggers a question.
Currently, in the surrounding
neighborhoods, are there any
residential parking permit
programs that have been
implemented due to strain
on the system already?
So we've spoken at length
with the city's traffic
engineer about this.
And I have to say that,
in large part,
that any traffic concerns
in this area in the last 10
years or so have been dealt
with by the Traffic Safety and
Parking Commission, the
Teaspoon Commission, as they
are with any school, public,
private.
So they've explored everything
in every possible option
in the Teaspoon Commission.
So what I'm asking, though,
is there's Hale Drive, Poppy
Drive, Adeline, Hoover,
Columbus.
Do any of those streets have
current residential parking
permit programs?
They do not.
Again, I think that was
explored in the Teaspoon
Commission, and the
neighborhood did not have an
appetite for it.
Okay.
So they did not support it.
Yes, Councilmember Thayer.
Just one question regarding
noise.
So I don't think there's
anything
in the conditional use permit,
but regarding the zoning, is
there a certain level?
I think I recall maybe 60
decibels.
Yes.
60 decibels at the nearest
property line.
So that has been measured in,
there was a noise analysis
submitted by the applicant
looking specifically
at the gym, and the closest
residential property line was
across the street on Adeline,
somewhere near Poppy, and that
noise analysis showed that they
would come in occasionally at
50 decibels, so
below the maximum.
Thank you.
Another question,
Councilmember Pappajohn.
Thank you, Mayor Stevenson.
Ms. LeWitt, so the school
currently rents
out the facility
for weddings and other events.
Could you describe how it would
be similar or different if they
rent out the gym?
So they currently rent out, I
believe, Cole Mansion is what
gets rented out.
Thank you.
That is on the Sisters of
Mercy property.
So the conditions
of approval that are in place
for 300 persons maximum applies
not only to the Mercy High
School campus, Cole Mansion,
the gym, which would be new,
but it applies to all
of the events that take place
on the Sisters of Mercy
property.
So any building on that site
that could be rented that would
be hosting a conference,
those are all limited to 300
guests and 50 persons.
Currently they operate
together, Sisters of Mercy and
Mercy High School,
to coordinate events.
My understanding from speaking
with the head
of school is that, first
of all,
they don't typically rent out
Cole Mansion during school
hours and school operations
because it's being used
for offices.
You don't want members
of the public mixing
with your school.
So they don't have a lot of
conflict now.
I anticipate that would also be
the case when the gym is onsite
operational.
Thank you.
So just to clarify that it's
300 in aggregate, let's say
there's multiple events going
on both on Cole Mansion side as
well as in the new gym,
for example, it's 300
in aggregate.
Yes.
There is a provision in the
zoning code that allows any use
to apply
for a temporary use permit
to exceed that.
The school has had two such
events
in the past year and a half, I
believe, where they had up to
500 persons onsite that were
then shuttled in and we didn't
receive any complaints
during those events.
Okay, thank you.
Any other questions
at this time?
Okay, thank you very much.
Now is the time for the
appellant presentation.
So I'd like to invite Mr.
Brownrigg to step up
to the podium, provide the
evidence regarding the project
and city clerk,
please set your timer for 10
minutes once he's.
Okay, good evening, members of `
city council and city staff.
I stand here as a neighbor and
a property owner.
That said, in 14 years,
I have never had cause
to appeal an action by a city
commission.
I have consistently supported
our hardworking commissions and
tried not
to second guess their work,
but I couldn't do that here.
In my view, this item
through no fault of the
applicants was not handled
fairly
by the planning commission on
October 15th.
This is most especially true
for the question
of third party rentals,
where as the staff report says,
the staff recommended there be
no third party rentals and
mercy was not requesting any.
And yet the planning commission
decided at the end
of a long hearing
to not just allow some, but
to allow any amount of third
party rentals and didn't allow
the public to comment on this
180 degree turn.
This is in spite of the fact
that the city had already
regulated third party rentals
at Cole mansion for precisely
the same reason that third
party rentals,
but an extra strain
on the neighborhood,
on its streets and
on its quality of life.
So the city didn't ban third
party rentals, but it did set
specific hard caps.
And yet the planning commission
didn't go down that road.
Instead, it simply eliminated
any limits at all
without a chance for input.
And so I appeal
to allow neighbors and
residents of this city
to provide input
on that decision.
I want to emphasize that this
is not a case of nimbyism
by the neighborhood.
Not a single neighbor in June
or in October said mercy should
not have a gym or that it
should be built somewhere else.
Everybody understands the
importance of this
to mercy and supports it.
Moreover, every single public
comment by neighbors praised
mercy high as a neighbor and
wish the school well and
virtually everyone.
And certainly I also praised
mercy's current head
of school, Natalie Brosman, who
has consistently listened and
tried her best to respond
to neighbor concerns.
She has been a breath
of fresh air in the
neighborhood and I thank her
on behalf of all
of her neighbors.
That said, traffic issues are
real and third party rentals
are optional.
As we've all learned, the only
time you can get commercial or
an institutional entity
to agree to oversight is when
it needs something
from the city.
That's what happened with Cole
mansion.
And so it's now or never
in terms of whether we want
to put some limits
on third party rentals.
With that, I open the door,
but I want to hand it over to
Lynn Israel, it to speak
on behalf of a group
of neighbors
with her concerns and to
suggest some simple tweaks that
the council might consider
adopting.
Thank you, Michael.
Thank you.
Commission commissioners,
council members,
I'm good evening.
Let me begin
by stating that all
of the neighbors are supportive
of mercy building a new gym
for their girls.
And we're fully supportive of
all school sponsored activities
that might occur
in this gym.
We've been clear about that.
We've been meeting and working
with mercy
from early stages.
However, the neighbors do
object to the renting out
of this new facility for
outside non school related and
for profit functions.
Mercy repeatedly assure the
neighbors at informational
meetings that they would not be
renting
out the gym they intended
to build.
They did not request that
rentals be permitted
in their proposal
to the city.
And the city staff analysis to
the planning commission
recommended that third party
rentals not be permitted.
However, at the end of the
planning commission meeting
in October, the commissioners
themselves made the decision to
strike the language preventing
non school rental.
This was a complete flip from
the previous planning
commission in June, where each
and every single commissioner
said concessions
to the neighbors on operating
hours and rentals was
reasonable and fair.
The staff report you received
this evening in your materials
doesn't include this discussion
for some reason,
but it is clearly documented
in the June meeting video.
Frankly, the optics
of fairness were not great
at the October planning
commission meeting as each
commissioner
but one prefaced their comments
by mentioning their sympathies
for Catholic schools financial
needs, connections to Mercy or
their board, or being alumni
of Catholic schools themselves.
They did not come
across as unbiased,
neutral decision makers
to the public.
Neighbors are really concerned
about any increase in traffic
on these narrow residential
streets.
This is a tight area.
There's not even room
for two cars
to pass each other on Alvarado
and Adeline is narrow and
twisty road.
There's a well documented
history of traffic issues here
already that's required city
intervention.
Neighbors are unable to get
out of their driveways.
Their cars are clipped and
sideswiped and there are daily
near misses when you're trying
to pull out
from side streets onto
Adeline.
Teaspoon measures were
implemented.
I'm a member of the Teaspoon
and just to let you know,
and they have helped but they
in no way decreased the amount
of traffic itself.
And contrary to the statement
by the planning commission,
Mercy is indeed located
in a unique site compared to
all other county high schools.
Not one other school has only
two lane residential roads as
the only access streets
to their property.
Other schools were built on
El Camino Real, Murchison,
Carol Ann, Alameda de Los
Puglis, etc.
And Crystal Springs is the only
other exception to this.
We neighbors are willing to
accommodate the current impacts
we experience
with coal mansion rentals
but not an increase
in rental use of the property
and the resulting traffic that
will further impact our lives.
Interestingly
in their discussion, planning
commissioners suggested that
it's the neighbors who should
have to give up something and
sacrifice in order
to accommodate Mercy's
increased needs.
One commissioner even suggested
taking away resident street
parking on both Adeline and
Alvarado to allow Mercy's
expanded use and to solve the
traffic problems we're facing.
Let me just say that would be
an incredibly unfair and
unpopular solution.
People want to understand why a
private institution seems to be
getting preferential treatment
over the neighbors who live
here, pay Burlingame taxes,
and vote.
The neighbors only ask for
earlier end times and no third
party rentals in order to fully
support this gym project.
Neither concession was given.
We currently have a one-sided
compromise
on the neighbors' parts and at
this point they do not have
faith in the process or feel
that their voices matter.
So in summary,
we strongly request a return to
the original staff
recommendation
of no outside party gym rentals
with coal mansion remaining the
only rental venue
on the high school campus.
That was what was originally
agreed upon
between the neighbors and
Mercy High School.
We think that's fair to all
parties and we feel that this
is the decision council should
make tonight.
However, if you decide to allow
some non-school related gym
rentals, we believe there
should be limits
in place just as there are
for coal mansion rentals.
After all, it's one thing
for neighbors to put up
with traffic
from students and athletes, but
it's not right that we should
also have to deal
with more traffic
from third party rentals.
There are many ways such limits
could be designed.
Mercy gym rentals
to third parties could count
against the coal limits of 125
events per year
for outside use.
Mercy rentals to third parties
could be required
to end earlier, for instance
at 8 p.m. rather than 10 p.m.
to minimize disturbances to the
surrounding neighborhood.
And Mercy rentals could be
limited to the summertime when
school is not in session.
These changes could reduce the
negative impact of rentals
on our neighborhoods
without impairing Mercy
students' use and enjoyment
of their new gym, especially
since Mercy didn't even request
these rights.
Overall, we have a great
relationship, as you've heard,
with Mercy, unlike what you see
surrounding Sara Castilleja
in Palo Alto, for example,
and we'd like
to keep it that way.
We think these simple
constraints will create a
reasonable balance
for everybody.
And thank you
for your attention.
Thank you, Mr. Brownrigg and
Ms. Israeli.
If you could remain up,
now is the time
for my councilmembers
to address questions of you,
so I'll open it up.
Councilmember Pappajohn?
I don't have any questions
right now.
Okay.
My thoughts.
Thank you.
Any questions?
Councilmember Thayer?
Councilmember Colson?
I do have a question related
to this, but I'm, I think it's
probably better addressed
by the applicant.
So, but there'll be a chance
for rebuttal.
But I, I'm curious, maybe just
from the,
from the appellant perspective,
the 125 limitation on Cole
Mansion and what has been the
experience in terms
of the neighborhood?
I am happy to speak to that.
Although 125 rentals is the cap
for Cole Mansion per year,
in actuality, it's far fewer
events than that because let's
face it, Cole Mansion costs
$15,000 a French.
And you know, weddings tend
to occur solely
on the weekends.
So I'm sure Mercy could
probably tell you exactly how
many times per year it's
rented.
But currently we can handle the
number
of events that occur there,
but it's not 125.
Okay, thank you.
I think that's it.
And we'll have the applicant
come up now and give their
evidence.
And we'll then go
into public comments
after that.
Thank you.
Hello, thank you
for allowing me
to be here this evening.
My name is Natalie Serigliano
Brosnan and I am the head of
School of Mercy High School and
a proud alum and a proud former
resident of Burlingame.
I was born and raised in
Burlingame.
So I'm very grateful
for all you do to keep the city
that raised me what it was.
Before anything, I don't think
that we can stress enough as a
community, our desire
to partner
with our neighbors.
We very much have come to value
the neighbor relationships and
I'm grateful that this project
and this process has given us
tremendous opportunity
to know our neighbors like
those that just talked and a
number
of other neighbors that we see
in the crowd.
And that is something that is
incredibly, thank you,
important,
incredibly important to us and
to our board
of directors as we continue
to plan for Mercy's future and
the expectations and
maintaining those relationships
with our neighbors.
We are really excited that we
are at this point to build a
state-of-the-art facility for
our young women and we are very
grateful for the support
from our neighbors.
We know that neighbors have
concerns,
but we do feel their support in
building a gym and recognizing
that our young women deserve a
gym and we are incredibly
grateful for that.
You know, I just bring this
picture because I think it's so
important for us
to acknowledge that
in the city's history,
six years
after it was incorporated,
Mercy, the Cole Mansion was
built and the Cole Mansion has
had a significant presence
in the Mercy community
through the Cole Mansion,
through Sisters of Mercy,
through Mercy High School.
It is this incredible piece
of our history in Burlingame
and we are grateful
to have this opportunity
to speak
of how we ensure the future
of Mercy High School at this
property.
I know this was already shown,
but I just feel it's important
to acknowledge that we are the
island in the acreage there,
the smaller area,
and I do just want a correction
to Ms. Leavitt, Cole Mansion is
on Mercy High School property.
It is not on Sisters of Mercy
property and I just want to
acknowledge that we can only
speak for what is
within our property, not
on the Sisters of Mercy
property.
I know that in our commission
meetings, we were able
to express the need
for a gymnasium and I don't
want to go over all this,
but I just feel the need to
remind us that we are here
because a 94-year-old school
for young women does not have a
gym and we are the only high
school in the Archdiocese of
San Francisco and the Diocese
of Santa Rosa, Oakland, and
San Jose without a gym and our
young women deserve equitable
facilities and this has been
decades in the making and it is
something that is crucial to
Mercy's future.
All girls' education is
absolutely imperative and it is
something that I believe we
should be proud that we have
in the city of Burlingame.
Very few cities have all girls'
education offerings.
The city of San Francisco
in the 1950s alone had 14 all
girls' schools and only two
exist today, two that serve
very different socioeconomic
groups which leaves Mercy
High School as the closest all
girls' opportunity
for many young women north of
us and that is something that
is incredibly important.
Again, these are just some
renderings of what we plan.
And then I'll jump right
into the appeal and
before going into that, I know
that it was addressed formally
by Lynn and Michael that there
is a concern that the
Planning Commission felt
like it was biased
in its decisions
in acknowledging Catholic
education, talking about our
local community and I just have
to say that I do believe that
the decisions were unbiased and
it has nothing to do
with the fact that Mercy High
School had decisions made that
were positive for the future
of the school but truly the
fact that we brought a number
of data points and we felt that
the commission made database
decisions that we were able
to show based on the concerns
that had been brought forward.
So I know the pedestrian
walkway path protection is
something that our neighbors
truly want.
We love the beauty
of our neighborhood.
Neighbors frequent the pathway
and we cannot speak
for this.
The majority of the pathway is
on property but
from a legal standpoint,
a safety standpoint,
we always need to be able
to maintain control of access
to that pathway but there is
of course no desire
to disrupt the beauty
of our campus.
That's something we care just
as much
about as anybody else.
The emergency road access has
already been addressed in the
Planning Commission documents.
This will be a locked gate.
This was required by the Fire
Department.
There is no plan
for any neighbors,
pedestrians or employees
to have access
to this parking.
It will be a locked gate.
Third party rentals and I do
believe that this is
at the heart of concern from
our neighbors and so I can't
stress enough that first and
foremost, the gym is
about the high school.
Our young women need access
to a gymnasium.
We need a home of Mercy High
School in the form
of a gymnasium.
We have always historically
held a deep desire to support
our community and we have never
had a lack of transparency
for this.
Over the years, we have
supported our community
in a number of ways.
Burlingame Aquatic Center has
regularly used our pool when
the community center was being
built.
The rec center asked if they
could have activities held in
those years so that there
wouldn't be a loss
to the programming available
by the city of Burlingame.
We supported that.
There's times when our local
schools, public and Catholic
reach out to us
for last minute support.
We always want the ability
to offer support to our local
community and that's the heart
of where we are.
I understand that yes,
we never talked about having
rentals and there's not this
huge request to have rentals
but there is a desire to
support our local community and
now that it has been brought
forward about the ability
to have rentals,
to have it taken away,
it's difficult
to say it's okay,
take that away because again,
as a community
for young women,
our young women are watching.
Our young women are very aware
of what is going on with our
project and our plans and to
stand here and say that we are
okay not being treated as all
the other schools would be a
disservice to our young women
and the message that they are
receiving in that.
So that is why we are moving
forward with this conversation
regarding third party rentals.
We have heard a number of fears
that the gym could be used
for a number of activities such
as regular crash events
in the crab, crab events
in the gym, different
fundraisers,
major outside events.
We have navigated rentals
for decades through Cole
Mansion and to the best
of our knowledge, we have not
had major issues or ongoing
issues.
To Ms. Leavitt's point,
we had two events
over the last year and a half
of 500 people and we did not
receive any concern
from either of those.
In looking
at the third party rentals, I
think it's really important
that we pause and acknowledge
that the Cole Mansion revenue
is critical to Mercy High
School's success and survival,
quite frankly.
Cole Mansion revenue goes
directly into the school's
operating budget.
I know that there is a concern
that we would use the gym
for a number of events.
That is not on the docket
at all for the school.
One, we wanna maintain a gym
that's taken 94 years
to get.
All of our fundraisers have
already been done on campus and
that won't change anything.
And to potentially rent out a
gym space when we could be
renting out the Cole Mansion
for tens of thousand dollars
more would be a horrible
financial decision for the
school and really should help
to appease the neighbors that
there is no desire or plans
to significantly rent
out the gym.
Our hope and our goal has
always been about supporting
our local community as needs
arise and looking at how we can
be a community member.
I also feel it's important
to acknowledge with the Cole
Mansion rentals,
and we've stated this a number
of times and we continue
to share, the Cole Mansion
rentals will never be able
to access the gym.
We don't want them
in two different facilities.
The Cole Mansion is for 300
in the Cole Mansion.
So as I said earlier,
it's the hope that Mercy High
School's gym usage will be
in line with all the gym usage
in the Burlingame schools.
From the best
of our knowledge,
we have seen that a number
of schools have no restrictions
on them.
And we would like to be able to
know that we are being treated
the exact same as all other
schools in our community,
including our private schools
with our public schools.
I just wanna acknowledge that
the shuttle usage has come up.
We are required, so in the blue
is the previous writing that we
had in our CUP up
until recently, that we offer
at minimum three shuttle routes
to the high school and
after school shuttles to the
Millbrae Caltrain BART.
We more than exceed this,
and we have for many years,
and that should be a sign
of our commitment to this.
We offer nine private shuttles
on top of what we pay into
with the city,
and currently 10% of our
student body use shuttles.
I just wanna confirm I have 48
seconds left.
Is that true?
Traffic has been an ongoing
issue.
I would just like to call
out that we are one
of four schools within less
than one mile range, and
within five miles proximity
to 12 schools in Burlingame.
I agree with the neighbors that
we have a number
of traffic issues.
We have wanted
to support traffic.
We are part
of the calming measures
with the neighbors, with the
traffic committee that did come
up that we would potentially
could have one-way parking or
permanent parking.
That was something that was
brought up to explore,
but the neighbors didn't
like it, and we wanted to
support the neighbors.
I also know that parking spaces
have been a concern.
This is new data
from the month of January.
These are the amount
of cars actually
in our parking spots,
in our parking lots.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
So now I'm gonna ask colleagues
on the dais
for any questions.
Yes, Council Member Colson.
Thank you.
Thank you very much, Ms.
Brosnan, for coming today.
So as I understand it,
generally Catholic schools do
not have activities on
Sundays.
So is that the main day that
you're thinking if you did
rentals, they would be to rent
out on Sunday?
Yeah, Catholic schools do not
have any events on Sunday.
That's something that has
always been
in place and will continue
to be in place.
Again, I think the main focus
of potential rentals would have
to do with is there a community
need that we can support?
If there is a wedding on a
Sunday schedule, there's no way
that we could plan a Sunday
rental.
And when I'm talking rental,
my understanding from talking
to neighbors is they believe
that rentals could be hundreds
of people on our campus,
not a team of 10 kids from a
local school that needed a last
minute gym facility usage.
But again, for Colemansion
Revenue, we would not ever be
looking to rent
out a gym months in advance
because a few hundred dollars
could limit our ability
to bring in a few thousand, 10
to 17,000.
So I guess I would ask then,
you anticipate that when you
rent out the gym,
it would mainly be for
basketball or volleyball or
sports related activities.
We all know in this city,
there is an immense amount
of pressure.
When we were building our
community center,
there was one
of the number one things,
we need a gym, we need a gym,
we need a gym.
I've heard constantly,
we need a gym
in this community.
So for example, with that gym
on Sundays, if it were rented,
be available for, one of the
rental opportunities would be
local youth basketball teams
and organizations.
Yes.
Okay, and volleyball,
I take it too?
And volleyball.
I'm guessing you can serve
volleyball, basketball,
maybe indoor futsal or
something like that.
So do you anticipate that it
would be for, say
for example, parties or things
like that in there?
No.
No, so it would really be
limited to the same exact use
that it has for the girls?
Yes.
The only time I could think
of a party off the top
of my head, again,
it's all been
about the local community.
If OLA, if BIS, they have a
facility that floods right
before graduation and they say,
can we use your gym in order
to have a graduation event
with parents and kids?
Again, as a community member,
I always think we lean
into that and we try
to build community with one
another and support each other.
Thank you.
And do, are there other sports
on campus that are not able
to be played that have
to be played
off campus right now?
Other sports?
Yes, every sport is played
off campus at this point.
Our pool isn't regulation.
We do practice water polo,
but we have to play
off campus.
So the gym would allow
volleyball, basketball, some
cheer, dance, and gymnastics
to stay on campus.
Thank you.
Yes, Council Member
Pappajohn.
Thank you, Mayor.
Thank you for your
presentation.
I just wanted to kind
of continue
on the conversation with
Council Member Colson.
And so what I am understanding
is that the gym would really,
rentals would be for sports,
unless you wanted to lean in
to a community that needed it
for an organization that needed
it for event.
So could you just elaborate
again on then how you would
incentivize, or how you would
have the community rent the
Cole Mansion and then not the
gym, because obviously it makes
so much more financial sense
to do that.
Could you just repeat that part
for me, please?
Yes, so typically we leave the
Cole Mansion open for rentals
throughout the year.
Some people are planning
weddings 18 months
in advance.
Some people are calling two
months in advance or a month
in advance for a celebration
of life.
And so to try to rent
out the gym months in advance
for a major event would just,
again, be poor judgment
on our part.
And that is something we would
never do because it limits our
ability to bring
in more money.
If there is, and there's a
balance, a delicate balance
to running an event venue,
especially for weddings,
when people want the best day
of their life.
For example, and we put this
in our meeting notes
with the commission,
let's say we had a wedding plan
for 200, 300 people and we
happened to get to the CCS
semifinals and we got home
court advantage.
Weddings don't want kids
in uniforms walking
in and out.
They don't want a bunch
of high school students.
So even having a gym, we
recognize there might be times
where we still have to rent
another facility or we have
to think twice of, do we have
to shuttle people
in and out?
So it's a very delicate rentals
that we have been doing
for decades and we continue
to give that same care to the
way we would balance any gym
rental requests.
Again, the gym rental
for me allows us
to support the community.
Thank you.
Any other questions?
Yes.
Yeah, so I did have a question.
So I think
in the conditional use permit,
it does mention summer school
and sports camp.
Currently, there's some
restrictions on that as far as
how many participants and the
time of day.
Do those types of activities
happen now and would any
of those happen in the gym
in the future?
Yes, they do happen now and
they will continue to happen
in the future in the gym and
the gym can only support the
growth of Mercy High School,
which is something I believe is
important
to us as a city as well.
Because right now,
for instance, some
of our programming is
on campus and then we have
to rent gyms for volleyball,
basketball,
camps or conditioning.
And so we're taking students
and potential people that wanna
learn about Mercy off
of our campus.
So it wouldn't change anything
in the numbers in the CUP.
It would just, again, ensure
that we have students coming
onto our campus and have the
facilities to keep them indoors
and reduce the noise.
Yeah, because I did notice the
time limits on those are
Monday through Friday, 8.15
to 3.15 p.m.
So those are very strict
limits.
So even if you did do third
party rentals,
I think it would probably have
to fall
under these guidelines.
So those are the guidelines
for summer camp.
So those aren't the guidelines,
like the Cole Mansion, we can
rent until 11 p.m.
So I would just, and I think
that's where this conversation
originally came from when
neighbors were hoping that we
would limit gym usage to 8.30
p.m.
We did our research comparing
to other schools and we
recognize that that would be
holding Mercy
to a very different standard
of all
of their schools being able
to use their gym.
And that by saying you can
leave the gym at 8.30, you have
to leave the gym at 8.30,
but you can go hang out
in the Cole Mansion until 11
p.m.
There was a huge discrepancy
there.
So yes, I agree that there's
the summer camp and that is
something that we always uphold
every year.
And quite frankly,
in the summer,
we don't wanna be at Mercy
late.
We want our time to rest.
But in terms of
during the school year,
that point in the CUP, I don't
think applies right now.
And then the other question I
had is, so the conditional use
permit also requires you
to have a public calendar
of any of the events at Cole
Mansion or otherwise.
And I assume that would apply
to the gymnasium as well.
Is that something you would
plan to do for the events?
Yeah, so our calendar is
public.
So we have our school calendar,
we have a shared calendar
with the sisters.
Our athletic calendar would
also be available.
So neighbors would know when
there's home games and not.
And if there were any
additional events specific
to the gym, like for example,
BIS needed, all
of their teams went to the
championship and needed an
extra two hours of practice.
We could add that into our
Cole Mansion calendar somehow,
the larger link outside
of the school calendar.
Thank you.
This may seem a little weird,
and I know you're not fully
into design and production yet,
but what type of materials has
the school talked about
for noise prevention
in that gym?
You're right,
that is not my specialty.
But what I do know is we
specifically design it
to have a lobby
before you would go
into the main doors
of the gym.
And that lobby from previous
conversations that I know our
architects spoke to at the
commission meeting would
maintain the noise inside.
And so actually the gym brings
noise.
Like for right now, we have
rallies outdoors.
And as you can imagine, 400
girls yelling can get noisy.
All that will be brought
inside.
So there are different pieces
where we'll actually decrease
the noise that our community
members have been used to.
Thank you.
And our architects are here if
you want more specific details
about that.
Any other questions?
Okay, thank you very much.
Thank you.
Stay tuned, we have rebuttal
section coming.
So just as a reminder,
this is the time for public
comment and I'll go ahead and
we're gonna limit it to two
minutes and we'll go ahead and
open that.
I do have a special request
though.
We have somebody who needs
to come and go.
And so we're gonna invite Mr.
Collins up first.
Is Mr. Collins here?
And I'm opening public comment.
Go ahead.
Thank you.
My name is Michael Collins.
I live at 2405 Adeline Drive.
I'm directly across the street
from where the gym is proposed.
I fully support Mercy High
School's need
for a gym.
I think it's ideal for their
long-term success that they
have a gym that's state
of the art.
And I do believe they need to
improve and enhance their pool.
I'm a big believer
in the importance
of high school athletics,
particularly
with young women.
Lynn Israelet, myself, met
with the principal
in the spring of 2024 where she
outlined and articulated the
needs, the uses, the timing,
the parking, the traffic
controls, et cetera,
all associated
with this gym.
It was a thoughtful,
well-organized presentation.
Lynn and I both supported the
need for the gym and we
supported what they were
proposing.
That began a very collaborative
and transparent process between
the neighbors and the gym,
between the neighbors and the
school.
There were instances where
concerns were raised
by neighbors, we were able
to work with the school and
achieve common ground.
I'm here before you because I
feel as though the Planning
Commission is doing a
disservice.
This was a collaborative
effort.
There's a lot of projects that
are large
in scale where the committee,
the council wants cooperation
between the developer and the
neighbors.
We had that, we had an
agreement,
and unilaterally the Planning
Commission changed what was
agreed upon.
And I think that's just not
fair and I think that's bad
business for the city of
Burlingame.
And I'd suggest that we rethink
that process.
And again, I support the gym, I
just don't support these last
minute changes that weren't
agreed upon.
Thank you for your time.
Thank you.
Stephen.
Oh.
We generally ask no clapping
in the audience
after each public speaker.
So I appreciate if you could
adhere to that.
Thanks for the reminder.
There's a bunch
of yellow cards.
If you plan
to speak and you haven't filled
out a yellow card,
please do so.
They're in the back
of the room.
You can hand them
to our city clerk.
But I'm gonna go
in random order.
And so the first is gonna be
Sharon Coleman.
Try to keep it to two minutes.
I practiced and got it
under three.
The focus and my concern is
on the third party rentals.
From the October meeting
minutes, the head
of the school confirms, I want
to reiterate that there is no
plan to rent the gymnasium.
That's page 19.
The fact is the school is not
advocating for third party
rentals and the city of
Burlingame recommended no third
party rentals.
What the commission granted is
out of the norm for private
schools.
I know we're hearing opposite,
but my kids went to Crystal,
Nueva, and Menlo.
I spoke with the head
of facility operations at
Nueva, who confirms school
activities can be scheduled
until 10, but they rarely have
them past eight or nine.
There are no third party
rentals, only partnerships,
like when the use of a CSM pool
is needed.
I spoke with the director
of operations at Crystal and
confirmed their CUP states no
school on campus activities
at all.
The commission showed lack
of knowledge, expertise,
and energy on how
to craft the wording
for the parameters
around the use of the gym.
When the commissioners could
not figure out how
to word the existing
partnership between Mercy and
the Burlingame Aquatic
Center's use of the pool,
one commissioner said, strike
out this language and not have
the restriction as part
of this approval.
Another said, I would be happy
to remove that.
It seems like an extra ball and
chain.
Page 38, a commissioner said,
my concern is restricting
Mercy from making money.
Personally, I want
to strike it out.
So I ask, is it the planning's
commission responsibility
to find sources of income
for private institutions?
Lack of knowing how
to word a partnership led to
removing wording that gave full
rein to renting the space
for profit.
So the planning commission
showed bias towards Mercy in
this way and discounted the
neighbors' reasonable requests
throughout the process.
So after a very long meeting,
the commissioners came
to the swift and frankly,
fatigued conclusion.
They were tired, to give Mercy
carte blanche.
Thank you for recognizing.
Thank you, Ms. Coleman.
Holly Daly.
Thank you.
I live on Poppy, so I hear the
rallies and my car has been
sideswiped and there are times
that I detour
around when it's pick up or
drop off time
at the high school.
Happy to have the school there,
happy to have a gym, but I feel
that the material presented
tonight has been not
necessarily fact-based.
I think Sharin brought up a few
facts to share
with the group.
And I feel that
in the interest
of clarity is kindness,
there's an opportunity
to really carve out
in the wording the usage, the
times, and reach agreement.
I think there's an opportunity
here for a win-win.
It seems like there've been
some proposals put forward
for consideration, and I hope
that we can work something
out that benefits everybody.
Thanks.
Thank you, Ms. Daly.
Chris Denton.
Thank you, council members
for the opportunity
to speak.
I'm a parent of a 2023 graduate
of Mercy and also a board
member.
And I would like to admit that
I've never been
to an athletic event at Mercy
High School.
I've never been to an event
there that had the opportunity
for the whole school
to gather.
So I have been to Sarah,
Burlingame High, Mills
for similar events,
which is kind of sad.
So I'm glad that the question
isn't whether or not Mercy
deserves this opportunity.
So I'm glad that's not
in question.
So I appreciate that as well.
Having been to many events at
Mercy with the Cole Mansion
for other events,
and I've mentioned I've been
to the other schools,
I've always found the
opportunity, there's always
parking, there's always the
events.
I'm surprised at the
spaciousness of Mercy compared
to, for example, when you go
to Sarah, it's
on the school streets, it's
Burlingame, even though it has
access on El Camino, there are
still limitations.
And I just feel that Mercy does
have the facilities available
and you have an example
of a partner
for many years that has proven
to use that wisely and
cooperated
with the community.
So I think as to the questions
of putting additional
conditions, I think you just
have an opportunity with the
community that has addressed
those.
One other concern as a board
member too, one particular
point is the safety
of the community is one
of my major concerns.
And as far as the condition
about a public walkway,
I do have concerns about that
because I think our utmost
responsibility is to be able
to ensure the safety
of our students and
to have no restrictions
on that type of act.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Denton.
Ginny Wright.
Good evening.
Thanks for the opportunity
to speak and thank you for your
community service.
I'm Ginny Wright.
My family and I have lived in
Burlingame since 1983.
We lived in our current house
on Adeline since 1988.
In addition to my career
in finance, I volunteered as a
board member and treasurer
for a number
of local nonprofits.
Including Burlingame Community
for Education, Burlingame
High School Parents Group and
Burlingame Aquatic Club.
We raised our two daughters
in Burlingame and sports were
important in their lives.
With that experience,
I support Mercy's goal to
provide quality sports
facilities on their campus and
I support this gym
for their students.
However, the conditional use
permit as currently drafted is
very open-ended.
It would allow activities,
rentals, till 10 o'clock many
nights, 11 o'clock other
nights, 365 days a year.
Administrations
in the school come and go.
It may not be Natalie's intent
to rent this now for profit or
to rent it very many nights a
week, but there's nothing in
this documentation that would
prevent the next person coming
in to really change that
policy.
I would like the council to
consider approving the facility
for use by the school, but not
for commercial rentals.
Thank you
for your consideration.
Thank you, Ms. Ring.
Tom Wooten or Wooten?
I hope I didn't mess that up.
What is your last name again?
My name is Tom Wooten.
Wooten, okay.
I'd like to thank the council
for allowing me
to speak and I also like
to thank the neighbors
for their continued support
of Mercy High School.
As I said, my name is Tom
Wooten.
I'm a 20, 24, 25 year teacher
at Mercy High School and a
former coach
in particular basketball.
I'd like to talk a little bit
about my own experience as a
basketball coach of having
to drive 20 minutes to get
to a gym from a closed down
high school so that we could
practice or our girls would
have a space to play.
I'd like to talk about some
of our students not being able
to practice or having
to do cardio in the cafeteria
because there is no gym space
for us.
And I'd like to comment that
since gym space is extremely
needed for five, six sports,
they would be very difficult if
not impossible to give much
of that time
to any other third party.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Wooten.
I'm gonna mess this up.
Tasella Gawler, Gawler?
Rebecca, okay, sorry.
It was filled
out quickly.
I apologize.
So thank you so much
for the time,
everyone.
I come here with two different
hats on.
I am a Burlingame resident and
I have for the last over 10
years lived within two blocks
of Mercy.
And at no point in any of that
time have I ever experienced
bad traffic due to the Mercy
girls.
We have many schools.
We have Lincoln.
We have Hoover.
And I would say to see people
in the car, it tends
to be the other folks,
but I'll just leave that
to our imaginations.
And I have now a house that
backs up onto Hillside Drive
at the corner of Newton across
from the fire station.
So I know when it's hard
to get out of my driveway.
And I will say I'm always
impressed by the young women
that are driving themselves
to school.
But also more importantly,
I think Burlingame needs
to support all of our schools
to thrive.
It only improves our community
for everyone in it.
And Mercy has been waiting way
too long
for this athletic building.
My daughter attended Mercy
Public High Schools as well as
Mercy, excuse me, Burlingame
Public High Schools, as well as
Mercy High School.
And so I've seen both parts
of the wonder of our community
and the great educations we
provide.
And Mercy education for my
daughter was extraordinary.
And I am always impressed with
the care and service they give
to the surrounding communities
as well as the girls on their
campus.
I think we all know how
important it is to provide
young women opportunities
for sports.
I think we see, and Natalie and
the leadership team, and while
I agree we don't know what's
gonna happen with future
administrations and leadership
in the school, I think Mercy
throughout the years has always
proven to be a very trustworthy
partner.
And to Mr. Wooten's point,
I can't conceive of a time when
they'd really wanna rent
out that train after hours.
They have such vast need
for it and
for the student body and the
Mercy school community.
I think it's sort
of a false concern.
So I guess the other thing is
that I just think we need
to think about equity in our
schools and giving everybody a
chance.
So I'll just end it there,
but thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Coleman.
Isis Ordaz.
Good evening, my name is Isis
Ordaz and I'm currently a
senior at Mercy
on a merit scholarship.
As a student body president,
I'm here
to ask the city council
to support the Planning
Commission's decision
to allow us
to build a gymnasium on our
campus.
A gym would absolutely
transform student activities
and Athletics at Mercy.
Not only would we be able
to host our own home games,
we could have indoor pep
rallies with court games and
designated places to start our
own championship banners,
trophies, and rings.
A gymnasium would be pivotal
for our athletics program.
As a varsity volleyball player,
I personally know the
difficulty that comes
with having to utilize our
brother school's gym as our
home court.
When we decorate for Dig Pink
or Senior Night, there is
absolutely no indication
of it being Mercy's home court.
The walls and ceiling are
crowded with Sarah's classic S
logo in blue and gold
with the names of Sarah's
student athletes
on banners and plaques.
This year, Mercy Volleyball
went undefeated in league,
finishing as WBAL champions,
and even made it to CIF
Division I NorCal playoffs.
If we were Sarah or a co-ed
school in the area, our
achievements would be honored
with a glass case and blue and
white fabric banners,
but instead,
our awards are held
in storage collecting desks.
Having our own gym would allow
all athletic programs
to exhibit school records,
accomplishments, and awards.
Our students would be able
to play
in an environment indicative
of their school, showcasing
their strengths and admirable
athletic abilities.
With a genuine heart,
I deeply implore you to
consider the conditions that
other schools have in regards
to their gym usage.
I am kindly asking
for equity,
and if any conditions are
placed on our gym,
I'd hope that they remain
in line with those
of all boys and co-ed schools
in the area.
I'd also like to assure the
city council and our neighbors
that Mercy High School has a
longstanding reputation of
responsibility and
respectfulness in terms
of community events.
If anything is off limits due
to Cole Mansion rentals or the
Music at Cole Mansion program,
there's always an announcement
so that events may take place
without student interruption.
I recognize the concern of
maintaining a quiet
neighborhood.
Thank you for your time and
consideration.
Thank you, Ms. Harden.
Nels DeLander.
Good evening, Mayor, city
council members,
and city staff.
My name is Nels DeLander, and
I'm a representative of
Carver's Local 213 that covers
San Mateo County.
We're in full support of
Mercy High School new athletic
center and swimming pool.
This project will be built by
Carver's signatory union
contractor that supports a
state credit training program,
pays area standard wages,
and has access
to medical coverage
for workers and their families.
By doing so, the workers and
their families do not need
to depend on county medical
facilities funded
by taxpaying dollars.
This project is not only
to support workers, but gives
local workers the opportunity
to work
in their own community.
By doing so,
it helps businesses in
Burlingame
by knowing that the funds in
this project will be spent
locally in helping the economy
of Burlingame.
This project will not only help
the local economy, the
workforce, but
by approving this project,
you're giving students a new
facility and pool
to be excited
about that promotes exercise
for the future of generation
of Burlingame children.
Carver's Local 217 is full
support of the project.
Thank you for your time.
Thank you, Mr. DeLander.
Brian Lee.
I wanna read something
from my sister.
I was raised on Benito Avenue
and walked to Mercy every day
during high school.
As a land use planner for
over 40 years in both the
private and public sectors, I
was shocked when the city
decided to change the master
plan requirement
for the entire 40 acres prior
to any redevelopment,
including the gym.
This was done by determining
that the project is not a reuse
repurposing of the site and
does not require a master plan
application and how it is not
as a mystery to me.
Now the property is being
developed piecemeal.
The gym project uses existing
onsite roads and parking lots
over the entire 40 acres to
meet the access and parking
requirements
for the gym redevelopment.
How will these same roads and
parking lots be used when the
sisters figure out what
development they want?
There are already several uses
at Mercy, Cole Mansion, the
high school, the Mercy
Center, Marion Oaks,
Montessori, Convent Mass, et
cetera, and now a gym center
that can be rented.
There's valid concern
for overflow parking.
An MOU seems logical
since the memorandum
of understanding is an
agreement between the parties
that outlines their intentions,
roles, and expectations.
How will overflow parking work?
It is difficult now that the
property has been allowed
to develop piecemeal.
The MOU must clearly address
how overflow parking will be
accommodated onsite.
Also, the new poppy emergency
only access must be fenced,
gated,
and signed so there's no
pedestrian, vehicular,
or staff access.
Please do not allow any more
piecemeal development
of this beautiful property.
Thank you, Marsha Lee.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Lee.
Jeb Gibney.
I'm Jeb Gibney, I live at 1473
Alvarado.
Thank the mayor and
councilmembers.
My main concern is the game
plan seems
to have been changed
without further consultation
with the citizens.
The primary concern is the
traffic and the noise and time
limits.
I tend to get up
at six o'clock every morning,
I always have, I'd like
to do it
for quite a few more years,
and I'd like
to get a full night's sleep.
But if the traffic and the
noise continues past 10 o'clock
at night,
it's gonna be difficult
for everybody to do that.
But I'd like
to have it reconsidered.
Thank you for your time.
Thank you, Mr. Gibney.
Dr. Kevin Baker.
Good evening.
My name's Kevin Baker.
I'm a concerned resident of
Alvarado Avenue, which is
immediately adjacent to the
school property.
I fully support the use
of the building
of the gym.
I'm opposed to the use
of rental at that same gym,
especially
at non-school event spaces.
The impact on the neighborhood
will be significant,
especially if events are
allowed to go on to 10 and 11
p.m. at night.
This likely means that the
traffic leaving the venue will
be happening late
into the night.
And with the new speed bumps
that have been installed on
Adeline and Alvarado, one of
which is directly outside my
residence, I'll be hearing the
thump, thump of traffic
at all hours of the night.
This is not hypothetical.
We already hear traffic
from the mansion events, or
happens almost every weekend.
I'm asking you to consider for
the property taxpaying
residents who this will impact,
that you do not vote,
that you vote
to deny the application
for rent.
Thank you.
Thank you, Dr. Baker.
David Green.
Hi there.
Thank you
for giving me this opportunity
to speak to you tonight.
David Green, I live at 2020
Adeline Drive, which is at
Vancouver, a few blocks away.
And like everybody
in this room, I'm supportive of
the gym project.
I'm delighted to see Mercy
continue to success.
It's one
of the reasons I wanted
to live in this neighborhood
for the last 20 years.
And I knew there was gonna be
traffic when I bought the
house.
I came out to see what it'd be
like.
And yeah, there's a lot
of traffic in the morning,
and there's a lot of traffic
in the afternoon.
And I bought the house knowing
that.
So my only objection,
like you've heard, is
on the use of this property
of the gym to 11 o'clock, seven
days a week.
I can tell you right now,
when there's a wedding at
Mercy, when it's over,
I can tell you when it's over,
because the traffic is
substantial.
And I can live
with what we have today,
but adding to that, I don't
think it's reasonable.
I respectfully ask you
to stick
with the original plan
before the Planning Commission
unilaterally overturned that
recommendation with the uses as
described before.
Thanks.
Thank you, Mr. Green.
Minjee Lee.
Hi, thank you for giving me
this opportunity to speak.
My name is Minjee.
I currently live on Hoover
Avenue, like right across
from the Mercy main entrance.
So my family and I, we love
Mercy community.
We've really come
across really, we got
to know a lot
of really awesome, great folks
from Mercy.
So by no means, we are kind
of opposed to any of the plans
that was discussed tonight.
We are very much supportive
of building the gym
for the girls and students.
However, we do have concerns
about the third-party rental.
My husband and I moved from
San Francisco to Burlingame
like five years ago
to raise our young children.
And we actually chose to move
to Burlingame because we loved
how family-friendly the entire
neighborhood seemed like
at the time.
So we decided to buy a place
and decided
to raise our children
in the city of Burlingame,
right across from the Mercy.
And one of the main reasons we
moved away from San Francisco
was that we actually wanted
to move away
from late-night traffic,
late-night noise, all the kind
of late-night things the city
has to offer.
So that's actually why we moved
here.
And hearing the whole
discussion
around the third-party rentals,
potentially running into late
in the night and all that,
that's been kind of concerning
to us.
And I do understand that other
schools do not have the same
restrictions as what's
currently discussed.
However, I think every school
needs to be kind of addressed
in given its own own and unique
special situations.
I don't think it's
like school versus
like single house
like dwellings,
but it's really about the
community that we are building
together.
So I really hope the city
council members do consider the
residents' and neighbors' needs
and like voices
in today's hearing.
Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Lee.
Mike Brunicardi.
Mr. Mayor, council members,
and guests, my name is Mike
Brunicardi, and I have the
pleasure and honor to live at
2200 Adeline, which is at
Adeline and Columbus, a half
block down from the Mercy
Lower Gate.
Love Mercy.
Beautiful school, beautiful
campus, great neighbor.
I'm fully supportive of them
building a gymnasium.
I have five grown children.
They all played athletics.
Two played all the way
through college.
And I support that
wholeheartedly.
New pool,
that's great.
I think in order for this
to be successful
in our neighborhood,
because it is indeed unique,
it has to have three specific
conditions.
One is that the gym
in that area needs
to be cleared out by 10.
Secondly, there needs
to be a law enforcement officer
in attendance
at those night events to make
sure that all the rules are
being followed.
And third, there should be no
third-party outside rentals.
I can say this
from experience.
I was in law enforcement for
33 years.
I retired from San Mateo PD
in 2012.
I ran operations, and we have
four large high schools.
I dealt specifically with
Hillsdale High School, who
revamped their sports and
athletic areas off of 36th.
And I can tell you,
it was not successful.
And complaints came in heavy,
and it really divided the
neighborhood.
And that's my concern here.
What the main issues were
during my tenure was traffic
loitering, garbage.
Garbage ended up being a big
concern.
Parking, and all these things
are really difficult
to enforce.
So you really have to look
at the conditions and use
permit in order
to prohibit these sort
of things to ruin the ambience
of the neighborhood.
Because it really is a great
partnership right now,
and I'd hate to see the use
permit being a divider between
a really great neighborhood
to live and have kids in,
and some minor chaos
during the evening hours.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Pernod-Carty.
Anya McKissack, is that
correct?
My name is Anya McKissack, and
I'm speaking on behalf of
Mercy High School Burlingame to
express our sincere
appreciation
for the consideration given to
our recent proposal regarding
gym usage.
We are grateful for the
planning commission, whose
decision reflected a fair
approach to supporting both our
school and the surrounding
community.
We hope that the city council
will uphold this well-reasoned
decision.
Mercy High School has long
valued its place within the
Burlingame community,
and we remain steadfast
in our commitment
to being a good neighbor.
Our school understands the
importance of maintaining the
peaceful character
of our neighborhood,
and we will continue
to operate in a manner that
respects our surroundings.
But please consider our request
that any conditions placed
on our gym usage align with the
standard practices upheld
for all schools in
Burlingame.
Consistency in these policies
ensures fairness and equity,
and allows us to continue
providing valuable athletic and
extracurricular opportunities
for myself and my fellow
students.
We appreciate your thoughtful
deliberation on this matter,
and your ongoing partnership
in preserving the integrity of
our neighborhood while allowing
Mercy High School to thrive in
the same matter as our co-ed
counterparts.
Thank you for your leadership
and service to the Burlingame
community.
Thank you for the opportunity
to speak.
Thank you, Ms. McKesson.
Valerie Teal or Teal?
Teal, thank you.
Hi, I'm Valerie Teal.
We live at 1448 Alvarado.
And I just wanna first say that
my mother was Mercy class of
46, and that Brett and I were
married at Cole Mansion.
In fact, we bought our house
partly because we could see
where we got married
from our kitchen window.
Our concerns are not about
anything other than the traffic
and the noise.
We fully support girls' sports,
equity, them having the gym,
the whole thing.
But we've had an ongoing issue
with traffic and noise
for years,
and we've brought it
before the city council
on many occasions.
I mean, the city in general.
We have every right
to be concerned
about the safety
of the children that live
on our block and the safety
of the joggers, the bike
riders, and the dog walkers who
share our streets.
The Hillside corridor speed
issue has been addressed and
remedied, but the traffic on
Alvarado, a much narrower
street, and one
of the contributing factors
to the dangerous intersection
at Hillside and Alvarado
remains a persistent problem,
largely because of Mercy
traffic.
We have had five incidents
of vehicle damage because
of excessive speed and traffic,
one being a wedding guest at
Cole who partied a little too
much, smashed into our car,
and pushed it up
on the sidewalk.
We have to plan
to leave our house around
pick-up and drop-off because we
can't get into and out
of our driveway.
We've been honked at, yelled
at, just for trying to get
to our house.
And I want to say,
it is not the student drivers.
It's the parents.
A child has been hit
in the crosswalk.
There have been several more
near misses.
Pets have been struck and
killed.
You add in the delivery trucks,
the gardeners, the tree
trimmers, the contractors,
the garbage trucks, and it's
like a video game trying
to navigate down the street.
But every single weekday,
we have to deal with it.
We're actually very reasonable
people who deal
with all these isolated events,
but when you take it
in aggregate, the traffic and
noise absolutely negatively
impacts the neighborhood,
particularly Alvarado.
Thank you, Ms. Teal.
Rick Lechleitner.
Hi, my name's Rick
Lechleitner.
I am a Sarah graduate, and I
like to say I'm a graduate of
Mercy or alumni of Mercy
because I did go to tri-school
for my senior year and got an A
in art class with Sister
Jean-Marie.
And I'm here to fully support
the gym for Mercy.
My wife's an alumni also.
She's on the board.
Our little daughter's
in fourth grade,
and she's gonna be a Mercy
Bear someday.
But we also go to Good
Shepherd right now.
So I just wanted
to share my experience
with our gym.
We're also in the Archdiocese
of San Francisco.
So we are a little private
school.
We do rentals.
We have parking.
We take care of the noise.
All these are fair concerns,
but as far as the parking goes,
we have a smaller school,
smaller parking lot,
and we rent out our gym
to leagues, other leagues
around, athletic departments,
sports teams.
They're all very respectful,
and there's always enough
parking for these teams.
They're always doing
after school.
They're coming in one
at a time.
There's never overflow.
It always works, and I don't
see it being any different
for Mercy.
It's not like we're gonna have
500 or 300 extra cars there
at a time.
So you gotta be realistic
about the parking and stuff.
And the rentals,
they're not renting it out
to these huge parties.
That's for the Cole Mansion.
The gym is for sports,
volleyball, like you said,
futsal, basketball,
and we need something
like that here in Burlingame
and for Mercy and for the other
neighbors and community.
And then the noise,
just real quick.
I mean, the building made
of brick.
It's gonna have a lobby.
The noise is gonna stay inside.
It's probably gonna be better
for noise for the community.
So I say, let's go, gym,
Mercy.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Lechneitner.
Lynn Israelit.
She already spoke.
No, she don't.
She already spoke.
Okay, I know, but.
Yeah, so she spoke as the
appellant, so she doesn't get
to speak as a member
of the public.
Very good, okay.
Anne Keegren.
Good evening, Mayor and council
members.
I received this brochure today
in the mail.
We'll see.
It says, I can play
like the greats.
The only difference is I don't
have a gym.
And it's a very sad statement
considering Mercy was built
in 1931.
It provides a unique and
valuable educational
experience.
It's an all-girl Catholic
school on private property and
does not rely
on taxpayer money
to support it.
Let's not jeopardize this.
I do think Mercy should have
the option
of third-party rentals, just
like Burlingame High School.
If you want to compromise
with the neighbors,
because they do have concerns,
maybe do an evaluation after
12 to 18 months to see how it
goes and then reevaluate.
I understand the importance
of trying to avoid parking in
the neighborhood and it should
be strongly encouraged.
However, let me remind you,
this is an issue
with all the schools here in
Burlingame.
This is nothing unique.
Mercy has approximately 390
parking spaces versus the 217
that is required.
Let us not forget that only
360 students attend Mercy
versus over 1200 students that
attend Burlingame High School
and they only have 217 parking
spaces.
Many Burlingame neighborhoods
experience heavy traffic
around all our schools.
It may be an inconvenience.
We are here
to promote education, not
stifle it because we do have
some inconveniences.
Let's not forget Mercy has been
an outstanding neighbor
for many years.
They have allowed neighbors
to enter private property,
to stroll, walk their dogs and
enjoy tranquil surroundings.
I appreciate what Mercy has
done to accommodate our
community and we should strive
to support them.
I do live two blocks away
from Mercy on Vancouver, grew
up
in the community and attended
Mercy.
I ran up the hill every morning
to go to school.
This school and its beautiful
surroundings are assets to
Burlingame.
Let us preserve this asset and
embrace the proposed
improvements
without onerous conditions.
Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Kuechman.
Jamie Lechneitner.
Good evening,
city council members.
My name is Jamie Lechneitner.
I'm a graduate of the class
of 2002.
I wore that same uniform you
just saw that Isis and Anya
wore and I played basketball
there 23 years ago.
And 23 years ago, just
like today,
there was no gym.
My request is pretty simple.
If you're going to restrict
Mercy Burlingame, and I'm not
suggesting that you do that,
but if you're going to, then I
suggest that you explore doing
that for all the other schools
that you would do that to.
Because why should we be the
exception?
I don't suggest it.
For the record, I do not
suggest that.
I think we need more gym space
and we need more facilities
for our kids.
And my hope is that the
neighbors hear us loud and
clear.
We are committed to being
strong partners, empathetic
partners, compassionate
partners, and stewards
of our foundress, Sister
Catherine McAuley, and that's
in everything we do at every
level.
I'm not sure if I mentioned I'm
now a board member and I take
that very seriously.
So thank you for your
consideration.
I really hope you take it to
heart and you understand that
our hope is to, like Natalie
said, is to be active stewards
of community.
And when anyone needs us,
we're available
to provide that space.
Thank you.
you. Thank you Ms.
Lechneidner. Sandy Comarado.
Mayor, while Ms. Comarado is
on her way up, I'd just like
to acknowledge that by 4 p.m.
today we did receive a little
over 60 emails that the council
had time
to review and that were placed
in the back of the room also
on our website.
Thank you for that reminder.
Madam Clerk, yes there were 78
pages and we went
through those so thank you.
Dear Mayor Stianson and City
Council, I've been a proud
resident of Burlingame since
1972. During my time here I've
attended Our Lady of Angels and
Notre Dame High School while
living in this wonderful city.
I served as a member of the
Planning Commission for the
last eight years and my husband
and I have constantly
contributed to the community
in various ways. We deeply
value Burlingame and its
neighborhoods having lived
in different areas
of the city including
across the street from Our
Lady of Angels. We understand
the impact of traffic
in the area
but we embraced it as part
of our community. Our children
attended OLA, Sarah, Notre
Dame and we served as booster
presidents at Notre Dame High
School supporting the school
and its students. All our
children went to play,
all our children went on
to play college sports, an
experience that underscores the
importance of access
to facilities like a gym for
student-athletes. A gymnasium
is more than a school facility,
it serves as a hub
for the community.
Like a piazza,
it serves people together
for sports, assemblies,
performances and public events.
When I graduated from OLA in
1981, I chose to attend Notre
Dame High School partly because
Mercy did not have a gym and I
like playing basketball. The
gym at OLA hosted many events
I've cherished, dances,
schools, sports, plays,
community service
for the elderly. My husband has
served on the Board of Mercy
from 2011 to 2013 but stepped
down when our daughter began
attending Notre Dame High
School. Recently there's been a
question about whether I should
have recused myself
from a discussion
about this agenda item from
Michael Brownrigg. As a
Planning Commissioner, my focus
is on improving the community.
I carefully evaluate every
single project in front
of me, supporting some and
opposing others based on their
merits and the impact. I have
no vested interest in this
decision and derive no personal
benefit from it. I want to
acknowledge the positive role
Mercy has played
in our neighborhood
over the last years. Thank you,
Mr. Camarado. Brett Thiel.
Good evening. I'm Brett Thiel
and my wife Valerie and I have
lived on Alvarado for over 20
years. I'd like to start by
addressing an issue that was
raised by the Mercy staff and
multiple Mercy students
at the October 15th planning
meeting we attended. The
assertion that the neighbors
are against women's sports
absolutely untrue. While issues
surrounding DEI
in the national stage and in
Washington of late is
absolutely a concern, however,
it has never been something
discussed amongst the neighbors
and frankly we were all shocked
that it was brought up. So let
me be clear,
the issues we are here
to discuss are 100% about
traffic and noise concerns,
period, full stop. I think it's
fantastic that the student
athletes at Mercy are getting
their own gym and it's well
overdue. However, any
implications that the neighbors
would be more amenable
to extended hours
for the gym's usage simply
based
on gender is patently false.
So let's not spend any more
time on this point as it's
misleading and distracting from
the primary concerns the
neighbors have which are
about traffic, parking, noise,
and in particular,
the not-so-upfront approval
of the gym being able
to be rented
for non-school purposes. I'd
like to share some thoughts
on the proposed operating hours
at the planning meeting. The
Mercy proponents made the case
that keeping the gym open
until 10 p.m. made all the
difference in whether a girl
would succeed or fail. The two
primary concerns raised
in many letters
at that meeting focused
on commuting to off-site
facilities and shared space,
both
of which would be eliminated
with the on-site gym. Assuming
the gym is open for six hours
after school each day and is
solely dedicated
to each season's activities,
six hours would seem more than
the sufficient time for
practice and league games even
if we are taking into
consideration multiple sports,
varsity, and JV schedules,
which one Mercy student said
typically practice lasts
around two hours. So I'm
running out of time, but I
appreciate this and I hope the
next Kaitlyn Clark or Angel
Reese comes out of Mercy.
Thank you, Mr. Teal.
John Schmidt.
Good evening, John Schmidt,
Planning Commissioner, resident
245 Chapin. I wanted
to just kind of address the
main thing that we that we ran
into in our meeting. The third
party became an issue when we
started to talk about the
Aquatic Center that is already
a third-party renting space
from them. And then as we
started to talk
about conditions
on how we wanted
to manage that,
there was no talk
of big parties. It was talks
about aquatics and sports camps
and the opportunity to use it
during off hours
during the summer. It seemed
kind of random
to say we're going to pick 20
events. That's the maximum you
could do when the school hasn't
really worked
through the programming. We
felt that the school has
restrictions that it has
on the coal and those events,
and we felt that they were
already a good neighbor.
They're going to manage this
in a smart way,
and as has been said earlier,
the coal mansion is a better
money maker than trying
to rent out the gym. So it was
never our our position to say
let's make it a party room and
let's have it go all year long.
So I think that the idea of how
much use the gym would get has
been taken a largely out
of proportion and
for what it is we looked at.
We felt that fewer restrictions
would give the school a greater
opportunity
to use the space effectively
and for the benefit
of the community. Thank you.
Thank you Mr. Schmidt. Peter
Comaroto.
I don't think we can do that.
Hey, Bert McCarty, I think
didn't we drag race
in high school against each
other maybe? I don't
like bullies. I stand up
to bullies and they don't like
you when I do it. I was going
to have a different discussion
tonight and I've changed it.
So I'm going to outline some
other talking points because I
think we're all pretty civil
here. You don't need
to see my bully
against bully come out.
When you buy a house,
by the way my wife has sold
over a billion dollars
of real estate. Billion. A lot.
When you buy a house that's
near a school,
there's gonna be noise.
There's gonna be traffic. I'm
not upset at you being upset. I
get that. I get it.
But you bought a house
near a school. The school's
gonna grow. It's gonna create
some more noise over time.
Behind every well-organized
opposition there's a ringleader
or a group. Michael
Brownrigg sat
on planning commission
for eight years. He's also been
a councilperson for 14 years.
I'd like the legal counsel
for the city to look at the
jurisdictional rules that apply
to a member of council
for accusing himself to not
leaving chambers and then
speaking as a private citizen
as the previous speaker said,
optics are important. Maybe the
rules allow for it, but there
are ethical concerns and I'd
like you to send
out those rules to me and
to the community please.
That's an official request.
I think that's where I'm going
to stop. Thank you. Thank you
Mr. Camarado. Joe Nesbitt.
Hey Mr. Mayor. Pleasure
to meet you. The only other
mayor I ever met at
Burlingame. She came
to the house
for a re-election time so I got
to meet her
at the time so it's a pleasure
to meet you and the council
members. Real quickly,
I'm a neighbor. I'm not part of
this big neighbor group. I
don't even know if it's a big
neighbor group. I'm just a guy
that lives on Adeline Drive
right across from Mercy High
School and they have been
incredible neighbors and I have
this nightmare. I'll wake up
and I'll see this big billboard
across from my house and it'll
say coming soon, Cole Mansion
condos and apartments and it
just scares me and then I think
of Mercy High School and how
well they're run and how well
they should stay on forever and
ever and that's why I'm telling
you all to try not
to put any restrictions
on these guys. They have been
incredible neighbors.
The girls are friendly. The
management is friendly.
They're always looking out
for the neighbors. They are not
going to abuse of privilege.
They're putting 25, 26, 27
million dollars
of their own money to improve
that property and we're trying
to tie their hands. They're not
going to do something silly and
stupid. I would say let this
gym be built. Put some
restrictions 10 p.m.
but third-party rentals,
they got to be able
to do that. I mean a Catholic
school needs money
to exist and to continue to
thrive and that's a moneymaker
for them just like the Cole
Mansion is and they're not
going to abuse it because
of the Cole Mansion and you've
got a traffic department that
is outstanding. They will find
out solutions. I sympathize
with the neighbors on El
Dorado. It's worse than
Adeline but there's got
to be solutions for that and
they'll find those solutions
and one last thing,
I think the Planning
Commission did a great job. I
was here
at both meetings that went well
into the night and they were
very respectful, asked a lot
of questions,
read every email. Those are
good people. Thank you. Thank
You, Mr. Nesbitt.
Penny Alexander.
Good evening. Thank you
for your time. Appreciate your
support. I'm Penny Alexander,
an alumni of the class of 1978
from Mercy High School and I'm
the chair of the Board of
Directors. I had not intended
to speak tonight. I felt that
this was going to be important
for Natalie
to represent the school,
to listen to our neighbors who
we have worked collaboratively
with over the last year or so
to listen to their concerns and
come together. When we were
developing this project and
I've been involved in this for
over ten years, at that point
the gymnasium was going to cost
roughly eight million dollars.
We are now at a point we are
over 24 million dollars
to build this gym. So time is
of the essence. There's no
getting around that. When we
developed this project,
rentals were never part
of our decision-making
at that period of time. Simply
put, we are focused
on a facility
for our young girls
to play sports and to gather
and have liturgy and the like.
Having said that,
we appreciate the Commission's
recommendations to allow
for that.
Period. We simply want that
option. Are we going
to be irresponsible
with that?
Absolutely not. No questions
about that. We do need
to move forward
with this gymnasium. We
appreciate your support. We
think the Commission did
tremendous job
in studying this. Traffic,
parking, and other studies have
been going on
for years now and we don't need
to relitigate those now. I
appreciate the concerns that
the neighbors have. They are
real. We want to work
with them going forward. Thank
you so much. Thank you, Ms.
Alexander. Any other members
of the public that would like
to speak and who did not turn
in a yellow card? Okay. Would
that will close public comment.
Just personally, I want
to thank everybody.
Obviously, this is a process
that comes up from time
to time and I want
to commend the input.
Regardless of what side
of the equation you're on,
this was part
of the process that helps us
from a council perspective,
from a city perspective,
hear the voices
of everybody who is, you know,
close to or interested or has a
perspective on this. So, I just
want to thank you
for that and I thank you for
your cordial and respectful
input. That's not always the
case. So, with that,
we're going to be moved
to the next part
of the process,
which is the appellant
rebuttal. So, Mr. Brownrigg,
you now can provide a rebuttal
statement on final thoughts.
City Clerk, please set
for five minutes.
Thanks very much. I want
to start with an apology to
Sandy Camerado, who's a fine
public servant. Lynn asked me
to wrap up. You know,
I think you've heard a lot of
testimony tonight and it's
really up to you to make some
decisions. I would say that if
one of the conditions
of approval could be that
Natalie Brosen was the
perpetual head of school, I
think the whole neighborhood
would feel a lot better. That
isn't the case, obviously. The
staff report does a really good
job of talking about all of the
issues that are not third-party
rentals, so I don't, and very
clearly explains why they are
either taken care of or
in the plans, etc.
So, I don't think that's really
the issue. I think it's just
about third-party rentals,
which was acknowledged was not
part of the plan that went
to the October 15th thing.
So, the remaining request
by neighbors that I've heard,
and by the way,
no matter what anyone thinks,
I'm glad I made this
opportunity available to the
neighborhood. I know it's
consumed a few hours
of our time, but I think it was
a conversation worth having
for everybody. Pretty simple
request,
which is either adhere
to the original recommendation
of staff to not allow
third-party rentals, allow
Mercy to come back
in a couple years and say, how
about it? Let's think about it
now that we see how much use
the regular gym gets.
Or, if you don't want
to do that, then
at least put some guardrails
on third-party rentals. And
there have been a number
of different suggestions made.
You could require that the
third-party rentals be done
earlier in the evening, say 8
p.m.
You could limit them to the
summertime. You could limit
them to sports uses and not
allow just sort of general use
of the gym. You might come up
with other limitations. You
might have a consultation
provision that was
in a way recommended by
Mayor, former Mayor Keegran,
you know,
where you have a requirement
to consult. I think the issue
with just trusting that it will
all be okay, the challenge is
this is the one chance the city
has
to affect an actual provision
for either consultation or
limits. There's no reason
afterwards, and that's why
Cole Mansion has the limits it
does, because the Cole needed
permits back in 2007. So this
is the chance. If you need to,
if you decide
to make an amendment, you have
to have a finding. It seems
to me it's pretty simple
to justify a finding based on
the conditional use permit
conditions for, you know,
improving public health,
safety, general welfare,
or convenience
for your residents. You've
heard a lot
of testimony tonight
about the convenience of not
having more traffic. I
appreciate the city has stepped
up with respect to Alvarado and
Adeline to put
in some speed controls,
but you've heard from a number
of Alvarado residents it's
still a real mess, and every
incremental car that goes
on that street is tough,
really tough. So I appreciate
you guys taking the time
tonight to consider this. I
appreciate listening to the
neighbors. I appreciate all the
points
of view expressed tonight,
plus and minus. The rest is up
to you. Thank you. Any
questions regarding the
rebuttal from Mr. Brownrigg and
the appellant?
Seeing none, we'll move on
to the applicant rebuttal.
Hi, we want to thank all
of our neighbors
for supporting the rally that
Mercy needs a gym. I just want
to acknowledge that if bringing
up the issue of equity in the
previous relationship felt
wrong to any neighbors,
please know it had nothing
to do with you. It's the
reality of our situation. We
are firm believers.
If Mercy had a boys, the gym
would have been built decades
ago,
and if the gym was built
decades ago,
this wouldn't be up
for discussion. So for us,
it always turns to equity. I
know there was a comment made
that we've received
preferential treatment. ICS is
receiving the same treatment as
other schools, which is
equitable and fair. I know
there was a point brought up
that we should have law
enforcement. We do have
security on campus. We did have
games, water polo games and
tennis matches and swim meets
for decades at Mercy before
sport regulations changed.
Never once to my knowledge did
we have any concerns,
and I was a coach
at that time. We also have
facilities on campus from 5 6
a.m.
to 11 p.m. taking care of our
campus. I want to clarify the
gym project does not depend
on Sister Mercy parking. That
data is present in the
Commission notes from the
October meeting. While we do
use overflow parking,
it's used
for back-to- school night,
Christmas at Cole open house.
We have plenty of parking,
and we've had the data
to prove it. Traffic and noise
concerns I know continue
to be an issue,
and it's an issue that we share
with neighbors and want
to support. We do everything we
can from a noise standpoint
to support our neighbor
in terms of traffic. Again, I
know there are multiple schools
in our area. There have been
opportunities and
recommendations that were
brought up at the calming
traffic committee, and for the
neighbors we did not support it
because we wanted to ensure
that they had what they wanted,
but we do know that there are
other opportunities that have
yet to be explored that could
support park traffic concerns
specifically. I appreciate all
the kind words said
about my leadership,
and I want
to acknowledge that the Board
of Directors and the Sisters
of Mercy have very clear
expectations for the head
of school position, and that
the board has long-term best
practices built into bylaws so
that the neighbor relations are
important. In fact, it is part
of my annual review, that's how
much external stakeholders
matter to Mercy, and that would
be the same as any head
of school moving forward at
Mercy High School. All
neighbors do have access
to a call line for the Mercy
property, as well have access
to my personal cell phone
number, which some have texted
at times, and then whenever
there's a concern of noise, we
immediately call and do a noise
check, and
for the most part we all are
within the noise parameters,
and if there's any change,
we shift it immediately. One
thing that has been left out of
this entire conversation is
respect
for professional judgment.
In every role, we respect the
professionalism,
and that's no different
in education. To the best
of our knowledge and research,
there have been no issues
in our community of Burlingame
based on poor decision-making
from leaders on how
to use the gym, and best
to our knowledge, every school
in Burlingame has the ability
to rent out the gym. Whether
they choose to or not is up
to them, but their professional
judgment is given the respect
that they will not do anything
to harm the community. We are
simply asking for the choice
to use our gym as needed. As
stewards of Mercy High
School, that means we're
steward
of the present and stewards
of the future. We do not know
what the future holds, and to
Joe's nightmare
of having signs up for, you
know, Cole Mansion condos,
that would be a nightmare
for the community. Right now,
this is a historical moment
for the city of Burlingame,
whether you recognize it or
not. I know that there can be
many different ways that you
can vote tonight, and the one
way that you could vote could
be to completely overturn the
Planning Commission, and that
would significantly put our
project at risk because it
would postpone the project.
As Penny shared,
our amount has increased $20
million.
To postpone this project six to
twelve months more means that
we will price ourselves out
of ever building a gym. There
is a tipping point
in private education
of how much parents are willing
to pay tuition for a lack
of facilities. Well, we are
fine, and I want it documented
a million times over, we are
in strong financial state,
we are nowhere near closure.
Without facilities, Mercy
High School will be at risk,
and so I just hope that the
Council will take a moment
to pause to really consider
that because I know
at the heart, all of us,
neighbors, Mercy High School,
City Council, we want what's
best for the city, and I know
that we all share the shared
mission of making sure that our
community is respected and
feels the compassion
from one another
in our partnership.
At the heart of this, the
neighbors and the high school
want the same thing. They agree
a gym is essential to Mercy
High School. I believe the term
rental and partnerships is
being confused when we want
to be able
to partner and leave Mercy's
future open for opportunities
to ensure we are part
of the history of Burlingame
forever. Thank you. Thank you.
So, are there any questions
for the applicant on the dais
that we have not covered yet?
Okay, with that,
we'll close the public hearing.
Now is our point
for deliberation and decision.
Council members,
we are now going to discuss and
deliberate upon this matter and
make our decision. Pursuant
to BMC 25.98.030D, we may take
the following actions related
to the Planning Commission
approval. 1. Affirm. 2. Affirm
in part. 3. Reverse any action,
determination, or decision
of the Planning Commission. Or
finally, 4. Adopt additional
conditions of approval which
may address issues of concern
or other issues related
to and or other than the
subject of the appeal. So, our
decision must be based
on the finding of facts
of this specific application
and with that,
I'll request each of us
to begin the deliberation.
So, would you like to start?
Mayor Stevenson, may I ask a
clarifying question or is that
passed now for the staff?
Her staff is okay. Yeah, you
can. Go ahead, Council Member
Pappajohn. Thank you, Mayor
Stevenson. So, I may have asked
this question but I just need
to get this correct. May I ask
Ms. LeWitt a quick question?
My understanding is the City
commissioned a traffic study
even if there were rentals and
that there was no significant
impacts. Is that correct? The
applicant submitted a traffic
and a circulation study
prepared by a third-party
traffic consultant that looked
at the proposal which was
primarily using the gym
for school activities. It did
not look at the impact
of third-party rentals. That's
correct.
Okay, thank you very much. A
follow-up question
for staff is the dimensions
of the pool
in the remodel and the addition
of the gym, will it make it
legal dimensions and therefore
be subject to rental
for swim meets
during the weekends? Yes, if
there's, that's already
actually I believe happening
on site. For water polo?
For water polo.
But that is existing today?
The athletic center, the
project is defined as both the
gym and the pool. Okay, thank
you. So, moving on
to deliberations, would you
like to start Councilmember
Pappajohn? Sure, I will start.
Thank you. So, first of all, I
really appreciate everyone's
input and comments.
Clearly, this is, you know,
very important topic and I just
appreciate everyone's time that
they've taken
to express their opinions.
So, I'd like to start off
by saying that, you know,
I've talked to several people
and what I have heard is that
Mercy has always been a great
neighbor, that they have been
respectful,
they've done outreach
to the neighbors, they have,
you know, they're very, a very
good community member and they
are trustworthy. So, I also
feel that it's very important
to be consistent
in policies that we have with
other schools and treat all our
schools fairly. And so,
I would really lean
toward being consistent to,
you know, giving Mercy the
opportunity
to rent their gym just
like BHS can. I,
what I feel is that Mercy is
going to use the gym
for their own use, for their
sports and their assemblies. I
really don't see them wanting
to rent it out, you know,
over and above what their uses
are and they're, and they want
to have it also as the
opportunity to help other
community members. While I
acknowledge that there may be
additional traffic, I do feel
that we can also continue
to look at this further
down the road. If there's
issues and complaints, then I
believe those could be
addressed independently. Thank
you.
Thank you. Council Member
Thayer. Yeah, I also want
to thank everyone for coming
and providing comment, all the
neighbors and the students and
everyone
from the community. I do lean
into the fact that
for other schools, we don't
have these restrictions as well
placed on them. You know,
I've been to events at BHS,
I've been to weekend things
at Sarah where I've done
training, and so I do look
at it from an equity lens. I do
see the concerns
of the neighbors, though, and,
you know,
it is a little bit inconsistent
to have followed the timing,
like the allowance of going
until 10 p.m. or 11 p.m. being
consistent with Cole Mansion,
but then not making it
consistent with the number of
third party events that could
take place,
as I could see that both
of those feed
into the frequency, right, of
how often events happen there,
and that then feeds into the
traffic and noise concerns
of the neighbors. And so I am
kind of thinking
about that as well,
as if there does need
to be additional guardrails,
do we lump Cole Mansion and the
gym rentals
in together as an aggregate,
much like we're doing an
aggregate for, you know,
the number
of visitors that can be
on the site, and we're doing an
aggregate the number of parking
spaces that are required. So
that's where my thinking is
right now,
and so I'm still kind of
deciding exactly where my boat
would lie.
Vice Mayor, sorry, Council
Member Colson. Thank you,
thank you very much. Mr.
Mayor, I just wanted
to approach this kind of
in a methodological way. We
have, I believe, four, five
requests, and I think it would
maybe help the staff if we sort
of kind of went through these.
I think basically the audience
and everyone I heard
from today is dispensing
with one, which is a request to
protect a well-used pedestrian
walkway. That seems to be,
for obvious reasons,
it's very hard to keep, you
know, to tell a private
property owner that you have to
have and allow the public
access to your property
at all time. We don't do that
for any other property in in
Burlingame, so I think we can
dispense
with that. I believe the
request to ensure a new
emergency road access is not
used for pedestrian access. I'm
satisfied that they have met
that standard,
and that is fine. I'm going
to skip number three, go
to four, commitment
to ensure 7% of all students.
We've heard tonight that 10% of
the students are taking
shuttles, and let me tell you,
as a mom who had
to drive kids all around, my
kids would be taking the
shuttle. No one wants
to drive their kids everywhere,
so I am really grateful that
10%
of the students are using it,
and I and I do want
to point out, again, as I
mentioned, I lived at 2616
Hale Drive, and I drove every
single day for 15 years up
Adeline
at exactly the same time Mercy
was coming down, and
in general, they were very
respectful, and I didn't have
any problems or any problems
with traffic, nor,
and the only noise I heard,
ironically, after 15 years
of living there was the,
were the pep rallies
during the day, so I think it's
really interesting that that's
actually going to go away,
and because it's going
to be sequestered
into the gym,
and then a pledge by Mercy
High School
to use its best efforts
to make sure guests
for the new gym do not park in
the neighborhood. I would also
concur that in my 15 years
of living literally four houses
down from the entrance of
Mercy off of Adeline, never
once in 15 years did anyone
ever park in front
of my house,
and I have that big island
in front of me, which made it
very attractive place
to park, there's a lot
of parking around there,
and we simply just didn't have
it, and I checked
with all my neighbors
around there, including Ms.
Galler, who lived there
for years, and none of us,
none
of us had problems there,
so I would probably dispense
with number five,
so that takes us back
to item number three,
which is the ban on rentals,
and interestingly,
having been involved in the
field rentals and policy work
here in Burlingame and
at the school district, you
know, we as a community rent
out Osberg, Franklin, Ray,
Cornevaca, Washington Park, and
the Community Center
to almost the exact, you know,
Washington Park has lights,
it's almost the exact same
timing, and in fact,
we have numerous events, at
least one that goes all night
long at Washington Park, which
is, you know, right
in the middle
of a neighborhood as well,
and it's our family campout,
which goes all night long,
so and our Community Center is
open late, it's open
for events, it's open
for rentals,
and when I was involved
in field use,
the school districts are
allowed to rent out to,
in fact, like I know I rented
the gyms when I was opening up
the Burlingamer, we needed
rental space until we could
finalize that project, and so
that, I was allowed
to rent from, you know,
these rentals start at 7 a.m.
in the morning and, you know,
they go until quite late
in the evening, that was
Burlingame High School, so
given that that's kind of the
standard and there's a lot
of neighborhoods that, you
know, are impacted, another
school, right,
I live two blocks away from
Crocker and, you know, we're
in the same boat,
like I can't get in or out
of my house up to 280,
at least two times,
for an hour, two times a day,
and that's pretty much the only
way to get up to 80, so I think
we all just sort of learn
to deal
with these accommodations,
we kind of, you know,
it's part of living
in a dense, dense community,
so my recommendation would be
to join in with my two
colleagues and say that I
would, I would like to allow
Mercy the opportunity
to explore rentals,
and what I would like
to do is take former Mayor
Anne Keagran's suggestion that
we revisit it, maybe
in a year and a half,
two years
after the project is complete,
and you've been renting, and we
could revisit and just see if
there needs
to be any accommodation,
any change in hours,
and I'm looking to Natalie
to see if something
like that might be amenable
to them, you know, put it this
way, we can do that or not
tonight, but I can assure you
if it's abused and there's a
problem, it will be back
in front of this council
in two years,
so it doesn't really even have
to be a condition,
it's just sort
of how things work
around here. If something's not
working,
I can assure you everyone will
complain, and we will have
to revisit it. So my
inclination right now would be
to vote to uphold the
Planning Commission's, and I
just want to make a comment
about our Planning
Commission, the number, the
Planning Commission sits up
here probably longer than the
City Council does,
their meetings go
till midnight, 1, 2 a.m., and
that organization's commitment
and help
in brewing game has been
like nothing I've ever seen,
so I want to thank every single
person who is on that
Planning Commission and their
thoughtful review of all of
these applications that we
receive over and over again,
most
of which never ever make it up
to the City Council. So that
would be my, I would be
in consensus and collaboration
with my colleagues
on that recommendation,
and look forward to hearing
from the Mayor.
Yeah, and thank you council
members. Anybody who knows me
knows I'm a huge supporter
of the education system
in our community, whether
that's private or public. I
think Burlingame is really a
community that is principled
on neighborhood schools. Most
of the schools we have
in here have populations around
them that are walking distance,
commuting distance, shuttle
distance, and really I look
at it from a glass-half-full
standpoint rather than the
opposite. What do schools add
to our community? So that's
where I'm coming
from emotionally and in my
perspective. I think schools
are one of the three pillars
of our city that add
to the value
of our life here and add
to the value of all
of what we do
in our homes and the valuations
of those as well. I do think
the best way though
for a community school is
to engage
with their neighbors. That is
true for the elementary school
that I was involved in heavily.
I'm sure that's fairly true
historically for Mercy. It
sounds very much like even
those who are concerned about
parking or noise or these types
of things have consistently
said Mercy has been a great
partner in our community and I
would hope that that wouldn't
change. I do think the
methodology was important
because I do think it comes
down to this one provision
about rental use. It's pretty
clear that the space at Mercy
is going
to accommodate this gym. It
actually may end up lowering
noise that is existing today
because of the movement
of those activities indoors.
It's certainly going
to give the girls a sense
of pride to be able to have
their own home court and I
don't think anybody in the room
has articulated that they were
against the gym. So I think
really this comes down
to the collaboration between
the neighborhood and the school
and how it's going to
administer and stay respectful
from a third-party use,
from a traffic perspective,
from a noise perspective. So I
do take former Mayor Kegran's
counsel very seriously that I
think there's an opportunity
to continue this dialogue,
not necessarily
in this context, but that there
should be some degree
of evaluation and some degree
of understanding. How is it
going? Is there something that
we've learned
through that that we want
to either bring back
to the council or figure
out how you work it
out as a community?
Countless stories of that
in where I live in Burlingame
and I've heard that
from many,
many other neighbors
over the years. And this isn't
a contentious relationship
with Mercy over the years,
right? They've been a
substantive part of the
neighborhood and a good
neighbor and very respectful.
So I'm inclined to go with the
affirmation. I'm inclined to
encourage that the dialogue
continue,
that there is an evaluation.
Certainly the onus is on Mercy
to make sure they're responsive
to complaints,
that the public feels
like they have access and input
into that, because if not,
it will come back
to the council.
But I wouldn't, I would
encourage, I don't know if I
would put stipulations
on the decision today to
actually have specific
guardrails articulated,
but I would like
to see some encouragement
about maybe in six months the
community comes back and
debriefs, not only the
Planning Commission,
but staff and council.
Six months
after the operation.
Correct. And we're talking, I
don't know what the
construction cycle time is,
it's probably
at least a couple years, 14
months,
so that that would be good.
Maybe in a couple years is
to have that. So a question
from our city council,
our city attorney.
Before the council goes further
along, I think our Community
Development Director wanted
to chime in about sort
of that evaluation process.
Okay, please do.
In collaboration
with the city attorney. So
conditional use permits run
with the land when the council
acts on it tonight,
an entitlement is issued
to them and that runs with,
therefore they would be able
to operate under the conditions
that have been stipulated
in the permit in perpetuity.
If they are in violation
of those conditions,
if they haven't fulfilled them,
a permit can be brought back
to the City Council for
revocation. A evaluation where
in six months time, a year's
time, we come back and discuss
the conditions of approval and
they've agreed and fulfilled
all the requirements and say
the public or there is a desire
not to allow say third-party
rentals, we wouldn't be able
to at that time
to revoke their ability
to do it if they have not been
in any violation
of their permits. So I want
to be very clear, we can
absolutely have a discussion
but that is limited to the
parameters and conditions.
Future mitigation, I mean as
in like overuse, violating the
300 maximum, noise decibel,
exceeding those. Correct, and
discussing that. If the council
desires to put parameters
around third-party rentals,
the time would be now
to stipulate it
in their conditions
of approval that they need
to adhere to. We could not
retroactively come back in the
future and then start putting
further stipulations
on their conditions.
Understood. If there's a desire
now for guardrails,
this is the time. I'll go back
to our council members. So I
have no I have no reason
to believe that Mercy will not
be responsible and this is the
same with every conditional
permit that we not unique
to this we issue. So my
inclination would be to sort
of fall in line
with what happens with regular
high schools and other schools.
I also do want to point out,
I don't think any of the three
of you were involved,
but when we were working on the
community center and we were
listening to the charrettes
about what people wanted,
you know one
of the things that is most
short in this city happens to
be basketball space and we
don't have a gym. So I'm kind
of grateful that there may be a
gym that's available for
rentals. I know there are adult
leagues that have wanted things
stuff like that
on the weekends. So I have just
heard over and over again from
the public that there's a
demand for that. So I guess my
my inclination would be just
to carry the full
recommendation of the
Planning Commission as stands
then. Thank you Mayor. I agree
with Council Member Colson. I
don't think that there's any
big concern that that though
that there will be misuse
of the gym and of the rentals
and I yeah I agree I think if
we need it for if it's needed
for other community uses then
it should be available and
again I think we should be
consistent with how we treat
our other schools as well.
Council Member Thayer.
Yeah as well I think I would I
would lean in on you know
Mercy being a good neighbor
over the years you know running
their campus appropriately. I
mean hearing how much more they
make from rental of Cole
Mansion really does make me
realize that they're going
to prioritize that
over the gym rental. So the
likelihood they're going
to have anything
in the gym really late
at night on the weekends is
just it's much smaller because
there's so many weddings and
other things. I do worry if we
put an extra guardrail
in place that we don't have for
our public schools where where
they're allowed to to rent out
their gym and facilities that
it that it's unfair to this
this private school that's been
a good neighbor for us. All
right can we make a motion?
Would you like a motion? Well
let me comment and then a
motion. Yeah I you know I think
there's it's difficult
to put a condition on this. I
think if there is an issue
it'll surface in one of those
parameters that's already part
of this EUP which is either
noise or other violations
of the size
of an event and these type
of things. I do think Mercy is
going to prioritize Cole
Mansion more so than its own
facility albeit you know as a
city we're always short
of facilities to to utilize
for leagues and so forth
but a lot
of times they're still within
the organization's control is I
can set a policy around how one
you know what I want to rent
to as well as at what time of
the day and I don't know if it
necessarily needs
to be legislated at this point
from an extra guardrail and so
I'm still inclined
to move forward
with the original Planning
Commission's affirmation
of the permit to proceed with
the project and I'll ask
colleagues for a motion. May I
also just point out Mr. Mayor
please I'm sorry through the
Mayor I did look through I just
because we haven't mentioned
other than they came in but we
did receive a very large stack
and I would say it was you know
80% pro leave it as it is and
20% negative so I just add that
on to what we heard this
evening because the public may
not have the benefit
of reading all these emails.
Yeah I took stock
of that as well. A lot of the
students which I applaud, they
care, they want a place to grow
and experience and leverage and
so certainly acknowledge that
as part of the pool
of feedback not just
in the room
but online as well. So
with that I'm going
to ask colleagues
for a motion. Do you like
to make it? Sure I'll make a
motion to uphold the Planning
Commission's decision. Motion
by Councilmember Pappajohn. Do
I have a second? I'll second.
Seconded by Councilmember
Thayer. Madam City Clerk can we
have a roll call please?
Councilmember Thayer? Yes.
Councilmember Colson? Yes.
Councilmember Pappajohn? Yes.
Mayor Stevenson? Yes. So thank
you for everybody in this
process. I know there's going
to be people that are a little
bit maybe disappointed about
the outcome and some people
that are happy about it. I will
share my perspective that
continue the discussions,
continue to work together. If
there are things that the city
needs to do on other parts of
making sure that traffic and
other things are there we want
to make sure you have an avenue
to do that. I appreciate the
appellate. I appreciate the
applicants time and thank you
for that and and thank you for
the you know keeping it civil
and keeping it you know
constructive. There was a lot
of great input
on everybody and it's not lost
on the council.
With that I'm going to move on
to item number 11. Five minute
break. Okay five minute break.
I was trying to get us out
of here for 11. Okay five
minute break.
I'm going to open myself up
to say no. Not only has he
already heard about that,
that's going to add vividly
to the decision he'd like
to make moving forward. That's
going to add vividly. It
doesn't give away my opinion
to them all of a sudden saying
oh I forgot what I wanted
to do.
So much trust.
There's more laughter than not.
Well thanks guys. I didn't
think it would take so long.
That's okay. It was a good it
was a good process. No I I
think I was just telling
Desiree that this is going
to pay dividends. There's
people that are disappointed
that they're on guardrails or
on things but I guarantee you
and that's going
to pay dividends in defense
of being open
to community input, working
with same folks that are
concerned
about different things. So
that's well I'm not sure it's
naive. It's just that you can't
ever go back.
Once you give it away,
you can't get it back. No it's
an entitlement and a mentality.
But there is the violation
of the case.
They have parties later.
They have decibels holding a
party that's called a police.
Three months ago.
I'm going to go use the
bathroom now.
I'm going to go in.
If you're talking
about the high school level,
yeah 100 percent.
Like the elementary school
for Burlington, you know it.
It's on Howard and people treat
each other like El Camino. And
we put the traffic calming in.
I was literally ran out into
the street when a guy was going
80 in his Mustang
on the roadway in the middle of
the day where the kids were
getting out of school. So
that's not going to stop.
But I don't know. Yeah it
wasn't.
I mean you know it's it's it's
really hard and it is
indisputable if everyone was
okay.
Like the fact there's a lot
more traffic. All those kids
are.
Yeah they're going to have more
events where they're staying
rather than parting
to another field. Yeah I mean
maybe that's maybe there's a
net out.
There's a lot more activity.
No one's ever said we don't
want to.
It's more than the question
about third party and some
of the other side issues.
Anyway good conversation.
He's not speaking in the
conference.
I'm not giving up so easy.
All right let's go.
I can't believe everyone left
with this exciting topic.
Okay we're going
to reconvene.
Okay moving on to item 11.
The Broadway grade separation
project update and request
for City Council direction. I
presume that Director Murtaza
is going to lead the beginning
of this discussion.
So take it away. Well thank you
Mr. Mayor and Council.
I'll do a brief introduction
and we have Caltrain team here.
Rob Bernard, Capital Program
Director and Navi Dhaliwal.
She's a Government and
Community Affairs Manager.
They will walk through the
presentation. I just wanted
to let the City Council
at large and the members of the
community know that staff has
been working really hard
on this project for last
several months especially
in the context of that when we
were told that the cost
of this project Broadway grade
separation project has
skyrocketed and so staff has
been working with Caltrain and
Transportation Authority
to look at different options to
reduce the cost and what you
have tonight is a number
of options that have been
looked at and what those costs
are and one of those options
include no train station and
the City Council Subcommittee
consisting of Mayor Stevenson
and Council Member Colson have
looked at these presentations
before and staff has been
closely working with the City
Council Subcommittee to look at
different options including the
meeting on February 3rd earlier
this year and as well as the
meeting this afternoon to look
at funding options. So
with that I will introduce
Navi Dhaliwal and Rob
Bernard.
Good evening Mayor Stevenson,
Vice Mayor Brownrigg, esteemed
Council Members, City staff and
members of the Burlingame
community. My name is Navi
Dhaliwal and I'm Caltrain's
Manager of Government
Community Affairs. Tonight I am
joined by my Chief of Design
and Construction Robert
Bernard who will be speaking
later in this presentation.
Thank you for the opportunity
to provide this update on
Caltrain's ongoing safety
enhancements and our efforts
to advance the Broadway
Burlingame grade project.
We'll be diving
into current safety
improvements on Caltrain
focusing on both the immediate
actions underway and the
long-term strategies needed
to upgrade and enhance safety
across the system. We'll start
with an overview of the
background and key
considerations that have shaped
our approach.
From there we'll walk through
the cost estimates and trends
highlighting how financial
projections have evolved and
what they mean
for decision making.
Next we'll explore value
engineering and option analysis
looking at ways to optimize
safety investments while
maintaining effectiveness.
We'll then discuss the funding
strategy, outlining potential
sources and key funding
challenges. Finally we'll close
with next steps ensuring
alignment on priorities and
upcoming actions.
With that let's get started.
So just to touch on the recent
and ongoing safety
improvements. This past year
Rail Sentry which is an AI
solution was successfully
installed at the crossing and
this AI utilizes LiDAR and
cameras
to detect pedestrians,
cyclists and cars on our tracks
and alerts railroad operations
to prevent a collision. This
AI-based software analyzes data
and alerts Caltrain dispatchers
and transit police
of potential risks. Data
collected helps refine traffic
control measures reducing
congestion and improving
vehicle movements
near crossings. This is
especially critical when
talking about the Broadway
Burlingame grade crossing and
it's why we implemented this
software here first and we're
looking to implement it just
down the corridor in Palo Alto
at the Churchill Avenue grade
crossing. Additionally we also
installed new solar-powered
road markers last month
at the Burlingame crossing.
This clearly delineates roadway
boundaries to prevent vehicles
from turning too far onto the
tracks similar to pedestrian
crossing markers enhancing
visibility.
Additionally we upgraded
crossing surfaces in late 2024
with railroad tie replacement
and upgraded concrete panels.
This provides a smoother
surface reducing the risk
of vehicles getting stuck
on the tracks. Folks are
definitely excited about it.
Yeah just to be clear it's
like when people say
to me I had no idea this was
on the agenda. There were 200
people sitting here tonight
remembering tonight. So
additional enhancements coming
into 2025. We're going
to update the paint stripings
to improve lane clarity. We're
going to add new signage to
better direct drivers and
pedestrians. We're going to
install flexible reflective
delineator posts to help reduce
speeds and guide drivers safely
and then additionally Caltrain
has been actively working with
our GPS navigation systems
including Google, Apple, and
Waze to enhance navigation
instructions preventing drivers
from mistakenly stopping on
tracks and that happens more
than folks really like estimate
and understand and so this has
been a true win for Caltrain
and the larger region. These
ongoing efforts really
demonstrate our dedication
to making the crossing safer
for rail passengers and the
broader community in the
near term.
We deeply appreciate the City
of Burlingame support in
advancing these efforts and we
recognize the the community's
vested interest in ensuring a
safe and efficient rail
corridor.
To frame today's discussion,
it is important
to highlight the partnership
at play with respect to the
Broadway-Burlingame grade
separation project.
Caltrain is the lead
implementing agency as the
project requires modifications
to safety critical systems
on our operating railroad.
San Mateo County
Transportation Authority is the
funding partner.
The City of Burlingame is the
project sponsor, and from
Caltrain's perspective, the
City of Burlingame is the
client.
As we move forward, we are
committed to ongoing
collaboration not only with
City Council leaders here
today, staff, and the broader
Burlingame community
to ensure this project aligns
with local needs and
priorities.
As many of you know, Broadway
is one
of the highest ranked crossings
for grade separation in
California.
The California Public
Utilities Commission designated
it as a high-priority location
due to safety risks,
congestion, and train-vehicle
conflict potential.
In general, what we know is
grade separations improve
public safety, traffic flow,
and train reliability
in highly urbanized corridors
like Burlingame.
I want to begin by sharing just
a few project goals and
benefits.
Grade separations aim
to enhance safety by
eliminating vehicle and
pedestrian conflicts
with trains,
improve local and regional
mobility, support Caltrain
modernization and increase
service frequencies
in this region particularly,
and ensure long sustainability
for current electrified
Caltrain service and potential
high-speed rail integration.
To remind the Council and
members
of the public here today, the
project features include grade
separation at Broadway
with the City's 65% design,
elevating Caltrain's tracks,
allowing vehicles and
pedestrians
to pass underneath,
we're envisioning a Broadway
station
with center boarding platforms,
improving accessibility and
transit connections.
We wanted to maintain in this
concept local access north and
south of Broadway
for traffic and businesses.
Additionally, this project
contemplated temporary
two-track electrified shoe
flies,
ensuring continued train
service during construction.
We had creek locations at
Easton and Sanchez Creeks
necessary to accommodate this
new infrastructure, and
additionally bike and
pedestrian connections at
Cadillac Way and Carmelita
Avenue.
I'd like to now turn it over
to Mr. Bernard, Caltrain's
Chief of Design and
Construction,
for further discussion.
Thank you.
Good evening, Mayor, Vice
Mayor, Council Members, Rob
Bernard, Chief of Rail Design
and Construction.
I'd like to begin
by sharing information
on recent project activities.
For context,
as the project moved
from 35% design
to 65% design,
three estimates were done by
three separate design firms.
The estimated results for all
of those were very similar,
but it's important to
understand what they assumed.
They assumed that given this
project was number one on
California's Public Utility
Commission's priority list,
that it would be funded and
would get into construction
in 2024.
However, some of the grants
that were applied for,
the money was not received.
Some prior approved funding was
delayed.
This is a complex project.
There are seven bridges and
structures to build.
Work is near six creeks.
Two creeks require relocation,
and it's in an electrified
operating railroad environment.
And we are in a post-pandemic
world where the construction
market remains highly volatile.
Given these unique project
characteristics, risks,
and the market conditions,
the project team,
with the help of the City and
the TA and Caltrain, did an
analysis to determine an
optimal delivery method.
Construction Manager General
Contractor Delivery Method,
CMGC, was selected.
The benefits of this method is
to provide that early
contractor involvement
before the drawings are
at 100% design.
So you don't get the 100%
design and then get a price
from a contractor.
You get your price from the
contractor while you're still
doing design.
This provides that commercial
pricing when you're working
on design and also allows you
to explore contract options
to support decision-making.
So in October of 2023, the
SMCTA board allocated funds
for the CMGC contract
to support this approach.
As a complement to that, in
December of 23, Caltrain
awarded a contract with Kelly
McNutt Consulting, KMC.
This provides a
contractor-style estimating
resource for the project team.
KMC provides an independent
cost estimator
to support the evaluation
of the CMGC's price to make
sure we're getting a fair price
from the contractor.
In February of 2024, the
contract was awarded with
Flatiron Herzog, a joint
venture.
In August of 2024, the initial
commercial pricing was received
from both the CMGC, Flatiron
Herzog, and KMC, the owner's
independent cost estimator.
These range from $527 million
to $590 million
for construction portion
of it.
These were significantly higher
than the prior estimates done
by the design teams.
With these results,
the team focused
on developing an understanding
of what were the key cost
factors that were driving this
price,
and what was the difference
between our original estimate
and these new estimates,
and looking
to develop alternatives
to lower cost.
At this time, the team did not
refresh the cost estimate
for the total project cost.
We turned our focus
on solving the problem.
But at the time, we did
indicate that the total project
cost was going to be well
in excess of $600 million.
With this commercial pricing
for construction being
significantly higher,
it was important
to understand the differences
between those two estimates.
First of all,
the design had changed.
The drawings used by the design
consultants were the early 65%
set.
That set was updated
after the review comments, and
the CMGC and our independent
cost estimators used the
updated sets.
The drawings had been changed.
The sizes of structural and
members had increased.
We added new foundation types,
which increased cost
significantly.
Those costs were not included
in the prior estimate.
Also, the intended
groundbreaking was delayed.
The designers assumed that we'd
be into construction in May
of 2024.
The enabling right-of-way
activities and funding was not
secured.
So the CMGC and our independent
estimators assumed construction
would be two years later
before we started work.
There were also environmental
and operational constraints.
The designers assumed an
aggressive 40-month
construction schedule.
The contractor's initial
constructability review
forecasted a longer duration,
from 59 to 70 months.
This duration was the result
of a variety of things, one,
the increased foundations that
added to the project, the need
to relocate work in creeks that
had in-water work restrictions,
and the available work windows
in the electrified environment
with the increased service that
Caltrain's put out
on the street.
With these, the midpoint
of construction moved
about three years in time,
adding cost.
The duration got longer,
adding cost for overseeing
of the management
of the work.
And also, there was a
post-pandemic bid climate.
As we all know,
construction costs increased,
both labor costs, material
costs, we have a fragile supply
chain.
Although escalation was
estimated
by the design teams, what
actually happened far exceeded
that from their forecast.
With that, the team focused
on driving for solutions based
on those key cost drivers.
First, the footprint.
How do we make the improvements
smaller?
So the platform configuration
that had been originally
designed was a center board
platform, which is what
Caltrain's standard criteria
is.
Looked at changing it to a side
platform, which narrows the
overall improvement.
Caltrain's design standard is
for a 10-car train platform.
Looked at changing that
to a 7-car, make it shorter.
Over the last year, we've
changed our design criteria
to allow the rail grade to go
from 1%
to 2% and allow the footprint
to get smaller.
We also looked at deferring the
station or eliminating the
station.
Then we turned our focus
on those structural changes,
looking for alternative
foundation types that still
accomplish the need but
at a lower cost.
We also focused
on temporary facilities.
Is there a way
to eliminate the need to build
an electrified two-track shoe
fly
around all the improvements?
Is there a way to use existing
tracks as a shoe fly instead
of building a temporary one?
When the footprint got
narrower, it allowed us to
change the alignment and move
the improvements over to
Carolyn as opposed to
over the existing tracks.
That allows us to use the
existing tracks as a shoe fly
to save that money.
We wanted
to go one step farther,
looking at production rates.
Code does not allow work
within 10 feet of the 25 kV
electrified system.
Our current revenue service is
only four hours at night when
the system is powered down.
On the weekends, it's powered
down
for six and a half hours.
That's not a lot of time
to get work done.
So we looked at,
is there a way
to isolate the work?
With a single track shoe fly,
putting
in positive protection,
a fence between where we're
running trains and where the
contractor is building the
work, you're on your side
of the fence, go to work
without those restrictions
to increase production rates,
reduce duration,
reduce cost.
So we looked at turning that
knob.
The next thing we took a look
at was schedule compression.
As you heard
in the prior testimony
on projects, time is money.
So with the use of the CMGC
delivery method provides that
opportunity for early work
to overlap design.
So the team explored how
to leverage this opportunity
to reduce schedule and cost,
such as the early right-of-way
activities
to move the right-of-way off
of the critical path,
but also enabling work like
advanced utility relocation.
This project also has long lead
materials
for special track work.
It takes about 18 months
to get some of that.
It also has traction power and
signals.
Some of those require 18 months
to two years to acquire.
Can we start that work early
to compress the schedule?
So we looked
at using those tools as well.
So with that toolkit
of ideas, conceptual packages
were developed and estimated.
Note that all these costs
assume that funding will be
available
to timely progress the work.
Of course, that's uncertain,
but we had to price it
with that assumption
for today.
H1, shown here on the screen,
was the original design.
It's important to note that
there were limited
opportunities
for additional VE
on this package.
Between January of 21 and
January of 22, at the start
of final design, there was a
value engineering exercise
for option one in order
to optimize the design, and
those levers had already been
pulled.
In terms of key considerations
for this project,
it still required
for package one the relocation
of Easton Creek, the temporary
relocation of Sanchez Creek.
It required extensive shoring,
soil removal, backfill,
increasing the cost,
and complexity.
It did include the design
of the center board platform,
which is Caltrain standard
for customer experience during
single track operations and
also provides a wider platform
for queuing and for comfort
during high speed train passes.
The results of that work,
as noted earlier, both the
contractor and our independent
cost estimator, initial
constructability review showed
a longer duration of 59 to 70
months versus the designer's
40.
The two construction estimates
were 527 to 590
for construction portion
of it.
These were reconciled
between the two at 577.
With that, the team updated the
other project costs besides
construction, leading
to a total project cost
for package one of 889.
So you heard me talk
about a lot of things we tried
to do to lower cost,
so now I'm going to talk
about the results
of that effort.
First is package two,
which is that side platform.
That makes a narrower overall
footprint, less work, less
time, lower cost.
So with this alternative,
it avoids the relocation of
Easton Creek.
It avoids the relocation
of some of the electrified
infrastructure.
It enables flipping the
alignment and moving this
station over towards Carolin
and using the existing track as
a shoe fly.
It allows using just a single
track shoe fly.
It allows for the contractor
to be on his side
of the fence, just go
to work.
It also allows the parking
to move over
to the west side towards
California Drive, closer
to downtown.
It reduces environmental
impacts, it reduces utility
relocations,
and has a smaller footprint.
Now it does have some
challenges.
One, it's a side platform that
impacts the rider experience.
It will require redesign.
It will require cost and money
for that redesign and,
of course, public outreach,
which we always do.
The bottom line results.
It saved a year in time,
which saved $147 million
in cost compared to Package
1, bringing the total project
to $679 million.
So the next package we did was
take a look
at deferring the station.
This is the same as Package
2, but deferring building the
station itself.
This, of course,
further reduced cost and time.
However, in terms
of a challenge, the project
already is environmentally
cleared, and we will need to
update that environmental work.
This is under review from legal
and environmental teams, but
the early indications are
positive that this item can be
addressed without the
additional time shown
on the slide.
We still have a little bit
of homework to do there.
We haven't got the final read
from our attorneys.
At the end of the day,
the results
of this also reduced duration
by the year,
saved an additional $34 million
from Package 2 for a cost of
$638 million.
The team went one step farther.
What if we do no station?
What if we just instead
of defer the station,
let's just not build it?
Let's not build the
infrastructure necessary
to support that.
Just go up at 2%, cross over
Broadway, come back down
at 2%,
make it as narrow as you can,
get up as fast as you can, get
across the road, come back
down,
build it as fast as you can.
Of course, the key benefits
to that is improved Caltrain
travel times.
Again, it reduces scope,
reduces duration,
and reduces cost.
It has the same challenges as
Package 3 with doing the
environmental review that we
still need to do the rest
of that homework on.
It does save that year
of construction, and it saves
$50 million from the Package 2
version for a total cost of
$615 million.
This is a summary of the VE and
the construction cost savings.
We started out at $577 million.
We did a lot of work and got
down to $430 million,
which is Package 2.
Then we got down to Package
3, which is $396 million,
and then to $380 million.
These prices, of course,
are again based
on having the necessary funding
to begin work
in a timely manner.
So in summary,
the team created options.
How do we solve this problem?
These prices were not what we
expected.
So we found ways to reduce the
duration by reducing scope.
We have more work
to do there.
We reduced the cost
in construction.
Package 2 saved about 25%,
$147 million.
Package 3 saved about 31%,
and Package 4 saved
about 34%.
We did a line-by-line review
of all of the cost,
and we welcome the City and
TA's help with that, to walk
through all
of the costs line-by-line
to make sure we're driving
value
for the public's money.
We also did a line-by-line
review
of all the contingencies.
For every work activity,
what's the appropriate level
of contingency
for that risk?
And welcome the City's and the
TA's review of that as well.
How do we make sure that we've
got the right contingencies
for the construction risks,
project risk, and other risk
of the project?
With that, we generated the
go-for pricing.
How much money do we need going
forward, plus what we spent
to date,
to get the total project cost?
So you're going
to see that total project cost
in the next slide,
and there are a lot of numbers
on this page.
So the top line is that CMGC's
rough order of magnitude
construction cost.
I want to be mindful here.
Package 2, 3, and 4 are based
on conceptual designs.
We have a very talented
contract team, a very talented
designer,
and they developed kind of
conceptual plans that were
priced.
Package 1 was a 65% plan set.
Package 2, 3, and 4 were based
on conceptuals,
so the rough order
of magnitude.
So there's more work
to do here.
And the costs vary from $577
to $380, and these vary
by the scope, the level
of improvements we do,
and the duration
of the work.
How fast can the work be done,
and what's the smallest
footprint can be done
to get the project done?
The next group of lines are
other project costs.
The design side to get
to 100% design, Caltrain's cost
for management of the work,
the construction management
support, the right-of-way,
and those vary
by duration and scope from
about $111 to $92 million.
The next lines are for
contingencies and project
risks.
The CMGC included in their
pricing to us risk money.
They included a range of $57
to $35 million
for the geotechnical risk.
You heard me talk
about the excavation, the
shoring, the backfill.
If we do more geotechnical,
we might be able
to avoid all the cost,
but we didn't know yet, so they
included that money as a risk
element.
We also included monies
for escalation.
We only included 3.5% because
this project will have several
years of a lifespan,
and escalation tends
to go up and down over time.
So with that, we developed the
go-forward pricing and expanded
to date, and the bottom line
there is the total project
cost.
We started at $889 million.
We got down to $615 million.
Next, I want
to talk a little bit
about escalation.
In the next several months,
a decision will be necessary.
The current funding we have
will be exhausted.
Time is a key cost driver
on large projects.
We selected the CMGC
construction method delivery
method.
This early contract involvement
provides commercial pricing
before the drawings are done.
It also provides the
opportunity
to do that enabling work
before the design is complete.
With this known opportunity,
the costs shown are based
on using that tool.
It shows funding the redesign
of the work to get
to 65% drawings.
It assumes funding production
of 100% drawings
for that enabling work, the
utilities, the track work,
get those drawings to 100% so
we can get them priced and get
into construction.
It shows funding the enabling
right-of-way work
to remove that from the
critical path so those
properties are cleared because
that's where the contractor is
going to go to work.
It also shows seeking
authorization to proceed
with construction coming back
in the spring of next year,
asking for money to begin
construction so you can
mobilize and begin construction
in the fall of 26.
It also would include and ask
next spring
to complete the 100% drawings.
This slide is to show even
with moderate escalation
at 3.5%, the bottom line there
is the cheapest option at $615
million.
One year of delay is $22
million.
That's why the team said let's
assume for these pricing that
we're going to find a way
to get the ability to go to
work and find a funding
strategy that would support
that given this is number one
in the state
on the priority list.
In terms
of funding and expenditure,
the project has received
about $28.9 million
from the and the city
since this project began in
2017.
The majority of these funds
have been expended to get
to this point.
At the end of the calendar
year, there was about $2.4
million left.
So we're going to be running
out of capacity to continue
work and a decision is needed
in the coming months in order
to continue on this project.
So in terms of next steps,
tomorrow and Thursday, we will
go to the SMCTA Citizens
Advisory Committee and their
board, Caltrain staff, will
provide a project update
similar to what we're doing
here today and the TA staff
will seek feedback from their
CAC and their board.
If the region elects to
continue moving this project
forward, the team's
recommendation would be
to drive schedule
to reduce cost.
We've got a final design team,
Mark Thomas, that's ready
to go to work, knows the
project well and is poised to
advance that work and reuse a
lot of the things that they've
already done.
They've already designed the
intersection at Broadway.
There's a lot of work there
that can be reused.
We've got a seasoned CMGC
contractor, Flatiron Herzog,
ready to go
to work.
I'm meeting with their vice
presidents tomorrow
before the CAC meeting
in my office to talk
about work on this project.
Put forward a request
for funding to move the design
to 65% and 100% design
for that enabling work.
Find a way to do the enabling
right-of-way work, update the
environmental and come forward
with a funding request
in the spring of 26
to start support construction
of that enabling work
in the fall of 26 and fund the
100% design.
Of course, Caltrain will
continue to evaluate all
supplemental safety measures as
part
of our rail crossing program
like we do up and
down the alignment.
So what amount
of funds are necessary
to do this next step?
I want to be very clear.
This is just essentially a
placeholder.
We asked the contractor, the
designer,
about how much it would be
to advance
to this next level.
Of course, they didn't know
which package would be
selected,
so there's still work
to be done based
on what package is selected,
asking for a proposal, and then
doing a line-by-line review
with Caltrain, the city staff,
and the TA staff,
making sure we drive value
to money to drive that cost
down for both the contractor's
proposal
for the designer's proposal and
Caltrain's cost.
This money would support
getting the updated cost
from the CMGC for the 65% set
and the enabling work.
Because we'd be looking
to issue a contract amendment
to go to work,
we'd be negotiating a price
for that work.
The designer's work I've talked
about and then enabling
right-of-way work.
That's authorizing relocation
benefit eligibility
for the lease tenants on the
San Mateo County Transit
Authority
for two parcels and,
of course, the other elements
that are shown.
And then we'd come back
for a future funding request
for 100% design and the
long-lead material procurement.
With that being said, package
1, 2, and 3 are estimated at
$679 to $615 million.
With the current $28.9 million,
that leaves a gap of $650 to
$586 million.
We did work with SMCTA staff
and your staff to identify
known sources and amounts
of funding.
All in, an additional $438
million might be available.
This still leaves a significant
gap of $211 to $147 million.
We know that this location is
the highest-ranked crossing
in California CPUC's list.
We know that.
We want to drive this project
forward.
Caltrain is firmly committed
in order
to get this project done.
But with all the VEA options
implemented,
it's still a heavy lift
to fund.
And we know that the state and
federal landscape remains
uncertain.
And we know that construction
market remains volatile.
We would like
to thank the mayor, the vice
mayor, and the council members
for the opportunity
to provide this update.
The project evaluated that
contract delivery model.
We selected CMGC to get that
commercial pricing now
before we were done
with the drawings.
We knew this was a unique
project with lots of risk.
It had seven structures, six
creeks, relocating creeks,
new pedestrian
under crossings,
an electrified operating
railroad, and a volatile
post-pandemic bid market.
We wanted
to get contractor pricing now.
We obtained that pricing
before we were done
with designing.
And similar to many public
infrastructure projects
across the United States, this
pricing was not what we
expected.
However, now we have more
information
to support decision-making
on what to do next.
I'd like to turn it back to
Saiyed for that conversation.
Before I go
to the next steps, I would
like
to have the council follow up
with any questions for Rob or
Navi.
Council members, who's got
questions for Robert or Navi
regarding what was presented?
May I do the mayor,
please?
I might just say that
Councilman, or Mayor Stevenson
and I have had the opportunity,
this is now the third time
we've seen this,
and we have spent
over four hours asking hundreds
of questions.
So I would like to defer
to my three colleagues to make
sure you have the opportunity
to answer, ask some
of the same questions,
and maybe hopefully even hit
on something that we've missed.
But I do want you to know,
on your behalf, we have been
asking hours and hours
of questions.
We are obviously disappointed.
We are upset about this.
This is a shock to everyone.
Has ramifications and
implications, and this is the
first time that I've had the
opportunity to see the slide
that shows the casting out
of costs up to 2031.
A billion dollars sat on that
chart.
I haven't seen that before, but
you can see the conundrum that
we are in, in terms
of advancing this project.
So please, colleagues.
Any initial questions?
Yes, Vice Mayor.
I do, but I don't feel a need
to go first.
Okay.
Well, I mean, so one,
I guess I have a question
for the Mayor and
Councilwoman Colson.
So the questions that you've
asked, were they addressed
in this presentation?
In other words,
are the answers that you got
in this presentation, or?
Mr. Mayor, would you like to
address that?
I think there are still some
unknown questions,
and we gave guidance
around some of the current
estimates that you see,
in terms of, especially in the
near term, in terms
of the next wave of funding
to get to 65% with the redesign
and what options that impacts.
Because I don't think the
scenario was with Caltrain, and
correct me if I'm wrong, that
they asked other than just a
high level, what is your sense
of what this is going
to cost?
So there's costs that are
projected in that $28 million
that we had questions about,
and I don't know what the final
answer will be on that,
because there's more work
to be done.
In general, I think some
of the questions about the
value engineering certainly
clarified a picture for us,
in terms of what options.
But there's also questions
about governance,
there's questions
about how we drive this,
how we work together
to make this the exception
of the surprise,
rather than the rule,
going forward.
For other grade separations.
Yeah, and I think, just
to frame it, it seems
to me that this evening,
the decisions that we need
to make are looking at, you
know, options one through four.
I think the mayor and I have a
suggestion, along with staff,
of where we're going to have
to go on this,
pretty obvious.
It's complex, because of the
transit-oriented development
situation, whether that train
station is there or not.
We heard very loud and clear
from our scoping meetings
with the TOD
for a specific plan for
Broadway, that change is not,
people are not interested
in change,
they don't want more dense
housing, they don't want all
that, and those two things
interrelate, right?
If we have a train station,
by law,
then we must zone very dense
around it, without parking.
So there's complexity
around that, and we sorted
through some
of those questions.
And then, I think,
so that sort
of is the first framing.
There was a lot of,
I guess what I would say is,
there was a lot
of conversation and sort
of rehashing around, how in the
world did we actually get here?
So I think you can be pretty
confident that we have made it
very clear, the mistakes,
and we've stood by our staff,
who has been discussing for 10
years, if not arguing
vehemently, of why 10 years
ago, before electrification,
et cetera, we needed
to have begun this project.
And we were always at the top
of the list, and projects below
us got picked up and put on,
you know, the Mateo, and every
one of these projects has gone
over and over and
over and running.
And then, there was extensive
debate, even around,
so that was number one, like,
what are we going to build?
Then number two, how come the
process is so screwed up, and
how do we make sure that going
forward it doesn't get this
out of control?
And then number three is really
the funding plan,
and how do we put a funding
plan together, even, you know,
if the TA gave us every dollar
that they had, we're still
$147 million short on the, you
know, in an environment
of 25% tariffs, an environment
of the Fed pulling back tons
and tons of funding, it's just
all getting very complicated.
So to pick up on that,
I'll just turn to a couple
of questions.
What is the funding plan?
So you have to find $100, we
have to find $150, $200
million, where does it come
from in your view?
So the discussion we had
earlier this afternoon was
establishing an ad hoc
committee
with the finance folks
for both Caltrain, the TA,
and the city to meet
on a regular cadence
over the next year
to develop that funding plan.
You could imagine a future
where there's a decision made,
we'll pick a package,
we're going
to advance the design
to get ready with the CMGC
to go to work.
Excuse me?
We won't be able to go to work
without that funding plan.
So we don't have that plan,
but we've talked
about a structured process
in order to try
to drive the development
of that plan.
As far as I know,
there's no additional sources
of capital for this kind of
project that wasn't available a
year ago, two years ago,
three years ago.
There's no, I mean, certainly
not the federal government
hasn't created a vast new
spending program, far
from it.
State is not in a better fiscal
position than it was.
So if we couldn't do it last
year with a $300 million
estimate where we needed 50
to 60, I don't understand where
you think 150 to 200 is coming
from.
The team doesn't have an answer
for where that funding- I don't
think you can get an answer.
I mean, I invest for a living.
I would fire you guys,
honestly.
This isn't, you weren't off
by a little bit, you were off
by a lot.
And now you want this
community, which I express
broadly, the city of
Burlingame and a lot
of other people,
to throw another $25 million
onto the fire.
I mean, I don't see what value
we've got for the $25 million
you've spent.
If this were a startup,
I wouldn't keep funding you.
If this were a good idea, I'd
go somewhere else.
I don't see you guys
delivering.
I mean, I'm sorry,
I'm not usually this blunt, but
this upsets me.
I admire the mayor and
Councilwoman Colson
for keeping their cool.
Maybe they blew their stack in
private.
I think this is outrageous.
And to ask the city and the
community and the county and
the state
to keep backing your agency
with this record of missing
over and over again, I don't
see how you stand there and
say, just trust me.
Give me another 10, 15, 20
million, I'll figure it out.
Sorry, it wasn't really a
question, but you can go ahead
and answer it, please do.
I hear you loud and clear.
When I joined Caltrain, we were
doing work with low bid.
These are complex projects,
and I've built complex projects
at over a billion dollars.
And the way we do those is
bring a contractor in
to get contractor pricing
to drive decision making.
And that's not what was being
done.
So I said, let's change the way
we deliver work.
We brought on a CMGC out at
Mountain View.
We did it at Rangsdorf.
We did it at Broadway.
We're going to bring one
to our council in April for
Middle Avenue
to bring the contractor
in early
to get their pricing.
The pricing that we've been
getting from the design
professionals doesn't align
with the current realities
of this construction market.
So coming in and changing the
way we do business to get
better pricing earlier than
what was done before.
So I hear you,
and what are we doing
about it?
And that was changing the way
we get our pricing.
Now there are other projects
that are earlier
in their design process, in
Palo Alto.
We went out to the market, and
we got this specialized
expertise that is a contractor
style estimating from Kelly
McNutt, and there are other
firms that do that as well,
to provide that resource to
Caltrain for other projects.
Because you can't hire a CMGC
contractor on a project
in 15% design.
There's no construction money
yet.
They're in the business
of construction.
So we're bringing them on and
getting that commercial pricing
at 15%
from the contractor industry
on these earlier projects to
change the way we do business.
But on projects that were
in flight, let's bring them in
to get commercial pricing,
because the pricing we were
getting from the design
communities didn't match the
realities we're getting
from the construction community
for pricing.
So it came in and changed the
way we do business.
So I hear you on that,
and what are we doing
about it?
Well, if, and sorry, but the-
No, no, no, keep going,
but I just want to elaborate
on something you pointed out,
Michael, or Councilman
Brownrigg, Vice Mayor.
If you don't think you can find
the 200 million, and that's,
if you don't think you can,
if one doesn't think one can,
it's like asking you to buy,
to pay for an architect
to design the Taj Mahal, and
you know damn well you don't
have the money to build the
Taj Mahal.
So why am I paying the
architect?
Who am I kidding?
That's the question
before the region today.
With what we know now
about what this project cost,
we brought in a contractor,
we turned over every rock,
how cheap can you make it
in today's ball to market?
Does the region want
to move forward
with this project or not?
That's the question.
And then if they want
to move forward, which one?
And if that's the choice,
we have a steep hill to climb
in a, where the state and
federal funding is uncertain,
and the construction market is
volatile.
Do we want to take that next
step or not?
That's the question.
Sorry, I do not want to, if
Desiree or Andrea, so I just
want to point out, and we have
three new council people here,
but Councilman Brownrigg and I,
you know, I expressed great
concern that this is not the
first time that we've had this
kind of a problem.
The first time we had this
problem was
over the parallel station,
which was going
to be built right adjacent
to where we're talking
about grade separation.
And when I asked,
and we had an outpour
of community dissent about
building this monstrosity right
in front
of all these homeowners.
So they all came
out and we were given 24 hours
to solve this problem.
The most disconcerting thing
that happened was we asked, so
wait, you're going to build a
$17 million parallel station
on a location that's going
to need a grade separation?
And we were told
in that meeting, oh, yeah,
we'll just tear it
down and we'll rebuild it
into the new station, $17
million
of wasted taxpayer money, which
either says you never planned
to build this station ever,
or you were foolish enough to
think that you could build and
then tear it
down and waste that much money
of taxpayers' money.
We solved that problem, thank
goodness, from our amazing
staff and our lawyers and our
city manager, Michael.
We sat down with a map.
By two feet, we put it
on our own property.
We signed the papers,
got an MOU together in 24
hours.
And when did that project
start?
Two years later.
So these are the things that
have given pause to those
of us who've been working
on this for a decade.
And one of the reasons we don't
have a lot of confidence
in this, and I point out one
other thing that the mayor and
I discussed today with staff,
and that is, for example,
on the funding need,
the advanced updated
alternative to 65%.
So thankfully, we had a former
mayor, Gina Pappin,
representative
of MTC was there,
and I think she got right
to the heart of this,
which was we've already spent
$20 million on design.
We don't throw it
out and start again.
You just start rebuilding.
And you know, when we look
here, designer,
for nine months of design work
by a new designer to do this,
$9.3 million
to design an overpass, that's a
million dollars a month.
The mayor calculated it, it's
like 25 people full-time
for nine months.
Is that really what it takes
to redesign this?
It just cannot.
So it's these numbers that just
give me so much pause and
concern,
and are where we really dove
down on a lot
of these meetings.
Plausibility and just,
and I wholeheartedly agree
with Councilman Brownrigg,
it's, you know, the adage
of throwing good money
after bad, you know,
where do you stop?
So I mean, this was the level
of frustration we were dealing
with.
At the end of the day, dealing
with all this frustration,
I think we have to, you know, I
think you can be assured that
your sort of sentiments today
have been echoed profusely
in many meetings, and I am
grateful that you also feel the
same way that we feel.
Trying to get through the
decision-making process today
of, you know, is it one, two,
three, or four, and then how
do, you know, do we proceed,
and, you know, there's a
decision five that's not
on here, which is do nothing,
or just do the safety features,
and then the question becomes,
you know, do we keep the train
station open and force them
to make good
on their agreement and have
to stop at that train station
and do the work that they had
to do?
Then we do have to do TOD
development in that area, which
I think the community should
have a say in.
Do they want to be able to
build housing there that would
have no parking because
of the proximity
to an operating train station?
And by the way, we found out
even if the train stops once a
week, it's considered a train
station, and it has
to be TOD.
Yep.
So it's not a maybe, a sort of,
a this or that,
it's either it's open and it's
TOD,
and now the zoning standards
set by the state apply,
and no parking requirements,
greater density, all these
things that the neighborhood
has made very clear in this
planning session that we've
been working on, this specific
plan, that they don't want.
So you can't have both,
you can't have a train station,
and if you have a train
station, you have
to have TOD.
So that conversation needs
to go back to the community,
but, you know, option number
five is you keep it as it is,
they have to upgrade it
to the standards required,
and it stays non-grade
separated, and you have a
station or you don't.
So, you know, these are big,
important questions, and a lot
of it depends
on our TA meetings this week,
because if the TA says we're
not going to fund to give you
every dollar that we have,
and we don't have that, I just
don't understand where we're
going
to have a basis or a footing.
Council Member Pappajohn, did
you have a question?
Thank you, Mayor.
So do we, I heard you say we
have this placeholder where we
have to spend, is it $20
million or $18 million just
for a placeholder, I mean.
It was asking the designers,
we don't know which package,
but
about how much would it be,
realizing we will still need
to figure out what scope, the
duration,
and get a proposal and do a lot
of negotiations.
So we put a number there
to say, we're going to ask
for money, it's
about this much, we expect it
to be less, but we needed
at least what's the range
of cost,
because there would be work
to redo the 65% design,
but we have a lot more homework
to do on that.
Thank you, I mean, can we wait
until we hear
from the TA and other agencies,
I guess it's mainly the TA,
about funding before we even
move forward with.
I think they need
to know what the funding, that
tonight's meeting will help
them make a decision,
because if we say we're going
to go to one or the other, you
know, whatever our feedback is,
they're going to,
they'll take that into
consideration.
I think it would be,
did you want
to address that?
Yeah, I wanted to prioritize
the decision making for
Council, is that the first
question is, for Council, is do
we have a project?
Do we have a viable project?
That's the first question.
And if we do,
which option do we want?
And if we address those two
questions,
then the third question about
the near-term funding need,
the $20 million,
we will come back
to you later,
because they have
to do some homework
about bringing that cost
down further,
so we'll come back to you.
The first two questions are
whether we have a project,
and what option do we want,
those are two big questions.
I will say then, I think it
would be irresponsible not
to move forward
with the project, because of
the liabilities and health and
safety of the public.
And yeah,
that's where I am open to, you
know,
hearing what my colleagues have
to say.
Do you, may I ask, Mr. Mayor,
sorry, may I ask,
do you have a preference
of one, two, three, or four?
Yeah, I'll, well,
I saw the recommendation
from the subcommittee,
a recommendation
on package four.
And so, you know, I would,
I know you have spent a lot
of time on it, as well as the
mayor, and, you know,
I really appreciate that,
and I would just defer
to your recommendation.
And I think just, you know, we
can, it's simpler,
we're just going
to solve the problem
of the grade separation, and
just forego the station.
I think that's the problem,
the grade separation.
So, I agree.
Just a suggestion on process,
Mr. Mayor, so I'd like,
I know we all want to hear
from Council Member Thayer,
but before we start voting,
we might have public.
Yeah, that would be helpful,
yeah.
Thank you.
Yeah.
Yeah, I mean, I guess
in my mind, it's a little hard
for me to know, do we actually
have a viable project here?
I mean, just because the
funding situation for all
of them, it seems
like it's going
to be difficult.
There's more than $200 million
gap for all of them.
I guess I'm thinking between,
if I had to choose
between options three and four,
there was less of a gap,
at least
at the current numbers,
it was something like $23
million difference
between the two,
and having that option to still
have the station deferred,
maybe it's wishful thinking.
But I do think having that
station,
that neighborhood where I live,
we really could get a lot more
people on transit, and the
reason why it's not well
utilized now is because it is a
weekend only stop.
But first and foremost
for me is safety.
So if we have to get rid of the
station because the only thing
we afford is grade separating
without a station,
then that's why I'm kind
of thinking between options
three and four.
Thank you.
I think a lot of what I would
say has been said.
I think we have a challenge
structurally in the way we
approach capital projects on
the grade separation concept
and topic.
The reality is plenty
of other communities on the
corridor have already done
their project.
Where was learning
from those about, you know,
whether you're talking about
San Bruno or South City or
Belmont or, let's face it,
there's no institutional
knowledge being leveraged
because Caltrain looks
at this as a city level project
in coordination rather than a
responsibility of the Caltrain
organization.
And so the right resources
aren't brought
in necessarily.
We don't have institutional
learning.
We don't leverage the fact that
a contractor might bid
on both projects
for different communities.
We go after funding
at an individual city level.
There's very little
coordination at the Caltrain
level.
And it's just a disaster
recipe.
And so I do think there's the
first question is the viability
of is there a project?
I think the answer is if that's
yes, then the only option we
have is four.
Because we haven't even been
able to in the previous design
close the gap on full funding
in the way things have been,
you know, and then you put the
macro climate around it, it
makes it even more difficult.
So I do think the idea
of a station,
while conceptually may look
interesting,
the reality is the numbers even
before COVID never justified
it.
You know, ridership was always
very low.
It wasn't highly utilized.
So that makes the decision
about which option
for me is four.
Because that's the only
financially realistic shot we
have.
But we still need to get
answers on, frankly, some
of the initial costs
in the next several weeks
to make that, you know,
palatable.
But go ahead.
Well, just before I opine
on one, two, three, or four,
again,
I think it would be helpful to
at least see if there's anyone
in the public who wants
to comment.
But is there an option besides
Caltrain to do design work?
Because this doesn't seem
to be working.
So that's a serious,
that's not meant
to be a slight,
that's a serious question.
Is there a way to get different
engineers involved?
So, this project was done
in phases, and the preliminary
engineering team didn't get the
award for final design.
Caltrain, the city,
and the TA put out our RFP
to design community.
They jointly selected Mark
Thomas
to advance final design.
We worked with Mark Thomas
to generate the drawings, to
implement the vision as we
understood it.
That was already in flight when
I joined the team.
Taking a look at this,
we now have electrified
service, and we increased our
frequency.
The construction market is
highly volatile.
We better go get ourselves a
contractor
to estimate this price,
this project for us.
And we got that price.
It wasn't what any
of us expected
from what we heard from three
different design firms.
Those prices weren't
from the one we have.
They were from the prior group
for that estimating.
We brought on Mark Thomas
to do the design for us,
and then we brought
on a contractor
to give us a price,
and it's not what we expected.
So I don't think it's the
design team here.
It's now we've got, if we get,
if the decision is made, as a
region,
let's advance this project.
We don't know how we're going
to fund it in totality,
but we want
to take that next step, get
to 65% design, continue
over this next year to try
to drive costs down,
and how fast can we build it,
and come back, and try
to find a way to want
to lower the cost
to lower that gap, because
state and federal funding is
uncertain,
or let's not do the work.
So I don't think it's the
design team.
To Vice Mayor Brownrigg's
request, is there folks
in the audience who are part
of the public that would like
to comment or share
perspective?
Okay.
Yeah, I've got some comments.
May I, before,
since we only have one member
of the public commenting, I
would really appreciate the
opportunity to hear more than
three minutes, just under this
particular circumstance.
If he exceeds, would it be the
mayor's pleasure?
With colleagues,
there's not a lot of, yeah,
so go for it.
No time.
Well, I've shrunk
down my one minute and 47
second presentation, because I,
at this point, kind of feel
like I'm rearranging deck
chairs on the Titanic,
to use a hackneyed phrase,
which I've always loved.
In any event, over 100 years
ago, Broadway was created as a
transit village.
By 1990, we had the highest
ridership of any station
on the line
for people who did not arrive
by car.
The highest ridership
from people walking
from their homes in
Hillsborough and Burlingame and
their apartments off
Broadway, we had the highest
ridership.
We had the highest ridership.
Now, of course, as Caltrain cut
back the service,
ridership went down, and then
Caltrain said, gee,
we're just going
to make it weekend service,
because nobody rides the train
anymore on Broadway.
Well, they strangled
Broadway, and we're still a
transit village.
I mean, we are a bullseye built
around our train station back
before the age of automobile,
and we are heading towards a
future where we want to have
automobiles be an option,
not a necessity.
And in order to do that,
we have to be able to walk
to our station.
Now, people have said
in the past, gee, you know,
we don't need Broadway, because
you've got the Millbrae
Internodal Station
to the north, and you've got
Burlingame Avenue
to the south.
Well, you know what?
On a rainy March morning,
you don't want to go to
a hike to work seven blocks one
way or another when you can
just go to Broadway and hop a
train as most of my father's
friends did throughout the 30s,
40s, 50s, 60s, up until pretty
much the train was cut back
in the 90s.
So even though people don't
like the idea of having a
Prancet protocol shoved
down their throat
with minimal parking and all,
everybody I've spoken to on
Broadway, the merchants,
the business community and the
Chamber of Commerce, my tenants
that walk
in the door and sign a lease
in Burlingame want
to have that station.
And I think a grade separation
at some point is inevitable,
but if we don't have a
functioning station there now
and most especially
at the time of construction,
it's not going to happen.
So I'm going to recommend that
we keep our station open and
that we expand the service.
If that creates problems,
I think that they're easier to
surmount than the financial
problems we're discussing right
now.
And we can have people walk
to their train.
The cool thing about the
electric trains is they
accelerate and decelerate much
faster than the diesel electric
ones,
which means we can make up some
of that time.
So yes, even though having a
functional flat station on
Broadway will delay things,
we'll make it up
in the acceleration
over the long run
of the design.
And this is a great opportunity
to really utilize our mass
transit, whether it's on a
single level that we can afford
now or ultimately, hopefully,
on a raised level.
But either way, I think all
of the communities,
and most especially us on
Broadway, should enforce and
foster having a transit
village.
That is the wave of the future.
I mean, we've all traveled to
Europe and we all know it
works.
And it can work for us.
And it can even work for us
without a grade separation
for now, especially with that
new fangled safety arrangement
you've got there.
So I say,
let's open the station.
Let's use the advanced safety
techniques.
And let's build a grade
separation when we can afford
it.
And in the meantime, it'll all
work out.
Thank you for your
consideration.
Thank you, Ross.
Good thought.
So we do need to give
direction.
I think we maybe need to
revisit where everybody is just
to opine on direction
for staff and for next steps.
I think the question is,
do we have a project?
Which option, if therefore?
And additional steps
on near-term funding scrutiny.
Question?
Go ahead.
This is a question for
Netta.
Netta, do you mind?
So you've been conducting some
public meetings around a
transit-oriented development
through the Broadway-specific
plan.
Can you tell me a little bit
about the feedback on those?
Yeah, through the workshops and
the pop-ups,
we've been conducting
about the Broadway-specific
plan, which encompasses
intensifying development based
on the TOC policies
to streetscape, to murals,
to activating.
The general consensus is that
the residents and even the
businesses around Broadway
within the specific plan area
would like things
to remain the same.
So they don't want parking
changes,
they don't want development
to occur, they don't want wider
sidewalks.
They're generally happy
with the way that they are.
If we continue to have a
station operating there,
how does that work together?
Generally, the state laws and
MTC's TOC policies that they
are asking cities to adopt
would require the existing
zoning that's in place to be
intensified and the FAR that
manages the commercial
densities
to also be intensified, and
then they have parameters
related to parking where they
are requiring not only parking
minimums but parking maximums
around their stations.
So if the station stays open,
it is virtually impossible due
to state zoning for it to,
I mean we would have
to finish the TOD plan.
How do those, can you, let's
just say the station stays as
it is, you know, frankly I
don't think we're ever going
to be able
to raise a billion dollars to
build an overpass and a station
and whatever.
And I would welcome anyone who
would be willing to take
on the $2,500 per parcel parcel
tax that that's going to
require because that would be
what it would cost everyone.
So if the station stayed open
as it is right now, you know,
and we requested it to be open
five days a week so people
could use the train,
by law are we then mandated
to proceed
with the state requirements for
densification and parking
changes, et cetera,
et cetera?
So MTC's TOC policies are
voluntary for cities.
They don't have
to adopt them.
However, MTC has tied it
to their OBAG funding.
So whether we view that as a
characteristic,
they're saying you don't have
to do these cities,
you can voluntarily comply,
however, the scale in which we
are allocating our funding
under OBAG is tied
to cities that are complying.
So you don't have to do it,
but then a city would be
subject to not potentially
being competitive to receive
funding that we receive, that
Syed and his team use for
transportation improvements.
I have a question related
to that actually.
So that would be something that
we would have to comply with,
but I mean,
those property owners would
still, like those properties
would still have
to be developed privately.
So it's not as if we could come
in and mandate that the housing
be built there.
It would still be just an
option,
now a more dense option.
Correct.
The developer wanted to come
in and do so.
Yeah.
The policies are just in terms
of the city changing its
regulatory framework.
We then don't have, besides our
city-owned properties that we
do have there, there are
several parking lots.
It would be incumbent
on private property owners
to want
to then redevelop those sites,
which the city does not have
control over.
Sorry, go ahead, Andrew.
Yes, Council Member Pappajohn.
Yes, thank you, Mayor.
I actually have a question,
or maybe I should ask Vice
Mayor if he had a question
for the city development,
because I have a question for
Caltrain.
No, I'm, no, thank you.
Okay, thank you.
Thank you.
Yes, please.
I'd like to request that
Caltrain put a dedicated
shuttle at the station.
At least then there would be
transportation
to the other train stations.
Would that be something
possible?
I would have to talk
to the operations side
of the house on that,
but happy
to take that request back to
Caltrain.
I know there's a shuttle that
works there today, I believe,
during the weekdays,
makes that shuttle.
Right, but I mean, at least
then there's public
transportation for that on
Broadway, and they could get,
you know.
I think there is a shuttle,
right?
Yeah, there is a shuttle.
There's an existing shuttle.
There's a shuttle currently.
Yeah.
There's seven days a week.
There's a shuttle.
Okay.
So, I would ask that then
Caltrain could help pay
for that.
Yeah, I was going to address a
number of questions earlier,
but yes, there is a shuttle
currently operates
during the weekdays,
morning and evening commute
hours, takes the folks
from the Broadway's train
station parking lot to the
Millbury train station,
and makes several trips
in the morning and
in the evening as well.
That can be requested of
Caltrain to maintain that in
the event the station does not
exist in the future.
I wanted to clarify a couple
of things that we are speaking
of the options,
the four options
in the context of the grade
separation project,
not outside of the station as
it currently sits.
It's only,
it's the service can be there
until as long as it needs to be
there or as the council
decides.
So, currently, the weekday
service is suspended only and
the shuttle operates and the
weekend service continues.
Now, one of the challenges,
suppose if the grade separation
project does not happen and we
ask Caltrain
to have the train stop in the
morning and evening hours
regularly as it used
to happen before.
The challenge is that the
current, the platform where it
is located is right next
to the Broadway crossing.
So the train will stop
in the middle of the crossing
and so the traffic will come
to fill.
Grinding halt.
Yeah, exactly.
Grinding halt and more so than
it currently happens, which
will further exacerbate the
traffic conditions.
So, unless the station is moved
away from that location further
south, further north.
So those are some
of the intricacies that we need
to be aware of.
Yeah, can I ask, sorry, just
before again we decide 1, 2,
3, 4, so first of all I have to
say I have a very strong sense
of fool me once, shame
on you, fool me twice, shame
on me.
So I'm just dealing
with that.
But if we, whatever we select
as a potential option, are we
making any financial commitment
in so doing?
Yes, that's a question that
we'll need
to answer that question.
So for example, typically $20
million is what is being
requested or what is being
projected this time.
And based
on earlier discussion today
with the City Council
subcommittee, CalTrain was
directed
to lower that number,
go back and lower that number.
And when they come back
with that lowered number,
which we hope, then we
typically, then we need
to go ask for funding at the
Transportation Authority.
And they're just as much
concerned as we are concerned
about the cost.
They've spent $26 million on
this project and there's
nothing to show for it.
So they're concerned
about spending more money.
And typically the formula is
that City pays 10% and
Transportation Authority pays
90%.
So that's the share of funding
so far.
And they can, by their policy,
they can fund up to 50%
of the overall project cost.
But
in this particular project, if
they spend every penny they
have in this bucket,
it's still short of over $200
million.
So what is the financial
commitment we're making if we
say we want to pursue option
three or four or whatever?
We don't know the answer.
We're committing ourselves
though to a meaningful number
and the TA would be putting in
an even more meaningful number.
Based on today's discussion,
we could be looking at $2
million based on the numbers
that are presented today.
That would be 10% of $20
million.
Again, we haven't gone to the
Transportation Authority, we
haven't asked them.
So they may not agree
to that and all
of that will...
So then this would have
to come back to Council either
later in March or in early
April with more refined numbers
and then a vote
for commitment.
Definitely.
So tonight the Council is not
making a commitment on the cost
yet and tonight is which
option.
And then based on that,
this will be presented to the
Transportation Authority and
then there will be a cost
revision on the engineering,
65% engineering,
then we'll come to Council and
then ask Council direction on
that and then we'll then take
next steps with the
Transportation Authority.
So with that in mind,
I'll just move to the direction
I think you want to take us,
Mr.
Mayor, which is from my point
of view, given that we're not
making a financial commitment,
I feel that option three, which
is the one where you don't
build the station
but you have the option
in the future
to build a station, right,
would be the path I would
suggest following.
I remain...
I mean, when this comes back
in terms of funding,
I think you have
to believe there's a way to
find the gap and if you don't,
then it's to me irresponsible
to keep spending money.
But if you ask me which one
would I prefer to build, I
agree that obviously the
cheapest is the best,
but I kind of feel
like we're made to negotiate
against ourselves, you know?
How much more will you give?
And you know, anyway, so I
think maintaining the
optionality
of having a station
at this point feels worth it to
me.
I have a...
I appreciate that perspective.
I have a question,
I think maybe for Robert,
but also for Sayed.
The material difference
between option three and four,
it's not so simple as three
gives us, you know,
gives us an option
to add a station.
There's material work that has
to be in scope even in the
initial phase and you could
decide 10 years from now
to add the...
What is that?
What makes up that component
that's roughly, what, $23
million difference
between three and four,
somewhere in there?
So it is...
Like you said, a wider station,
does it preclude, you know,
having a 2% ramp and a shorter
car base
to have that station?
So you could imagine
with option four, you go up,
cross over the street and go
back down.
The other alternative has the
space
for the seven-car platforms.
So you're building that
seven-car platform flat and
you're also accommodating a
future
on each side and reserving
space
for a future parking lot.
With no station, you can go up
and go back down.
You don't have that implication
of the future parking lot and
it makes the whole footprint
materially different.
So there are choices.
Okay.
Yeah.
Question?
Councilmember?
So the problem,
the concern I have with, I
mean, I think it's going
to be hard enough to fill $147
million gap.
I don't think we can fill 250
or whatever it's going
to be because,
and you saw the escalation.
So, you know, we're talking
about you build a grade
separation,
you potentially build a station
in the future,
that station's going
to be an additional, you know,
$800 million
to add on.
I mean, so then the problem,
you know, sort of the issue you
have here is if we direct them
to build, you know,
this is a one-time direction.
We can't say build it, you
know, with the option
to put the station in down the
road and then they design that
now, that's what we have
to build.
Because we can't spend another
$20 million on another design
in six months or a year.
So this is it.
And while I love, you know,
keeping the optionality
of it,
there is no other city that
has, I mean, there is a station
a quarter mile away, you know,
down in Broadway and there is a
shuttle that can run.
I do think we can solve the
circulation problems.
People can go to Broadway, they
can pick up the shuttle,
they can go to Millbrae or they
can take a shuttle over
to the Burlingame, you know,
Avenue.
And from the talking
to people that I have talked
to in the neighborhood
at these events and just
friends of mine that live
over there,
the number one thing I've heard
from them is the traffic is
unbearable, it's dangerous and
we need a great separation.
And for the most part,
they're willing to give up on
the station because they know
they can walk pretty close and
pretty proximate to get
to another station.
And you know, I calculated it,
right?
So I looked and said, all
right, let's just say we have
a, you know, $150 million
funding gap and they say
to us, because this was
on the table today, well,
Burlingame, you are going
to have to figure out where
to get the $147 million.
So that would be a parcel tax.
Our school parcel taxes are
$250 when interest rates were
at 3% and 4% and they were
$250 a parcel.
So to get to $147 million,
$150 million, $200 million,
if you want to be safe,
we're talking about $1,000 to
$1,500 per parcel,
per parcel tax.
And if the city council puts
that on the ballot,
that's a 67% threshold.
Yeah, and also the implication
on the schools and competition
for money.
And I appreciate the math.
I guess I think the whole thing
is so unlikely.
I mean, you know,
the difference between $147
million and $175 million,
it's all.
It's $50 million in today's
dollars and extrapolates into a
grander number because we're
not building it today.
So the Delta is $50 million
today.
It's $50 million today,
let's call it, or even $40
million, even $30 million.
If we defer for 10 years,
that number becomes $500
million.
I mean, you can just see
by the exponential.
So then the question becomes
the reality of are we ever as a
community going to be able
to catch up with that?
And I'm right now pragmatically
looking at it like if the
number one priority is safety
and it's grade separation and
it's safety and we can solve
the transit problem through
shuttle or we can solve it
through, you know, the bike,
you know, the one mile bike,
you can get on your bike there
and you can go to Broadway or
you can go to wherever.
And you know, then to me, I'm
like, got
to pick the lowest hanging
fruit to be a responsible
council person and prioritize
the safety first and foremost.
So, you know, I'm, you know,
we can all, I think it's
like you say, this sort
of arguing against ourselves,
you know,
and it feels really crummy
to have to do that.
And it feels crummy to have
to say to people, you know,
you've been promised a train
station for the last 20 years
and say, oh my gosh,
now we're not.
But it also feels really crummy
for a lot of people who have
recently moved in here
in the last 15 years, they've
never had train service there
and they've managed
to figure it all out.
Could we revitalize it?
Yeah, but for, you know, $50
million, I can run a lot
of shuttles.
Yep.
Councilman.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mayor.
Robert, may I ask a question?
So if we don't, if we go
without package
without the train station
for four,
and then so that would
basically save, you know,
Caltrain from having
to maintain the station.
And I mean, it would save what
30, 40 million, would that,
would you be able
to put that money into, you
know, help us and put that
money that you're saving
into the project?
It's important
to understand that Caltrain, as
the Mayor said,
this is a local project.
That the money that Caltrain
gets is for service.
Now these improvements that get
built,
build a bridge that needs
to be inspected every year,
that needs to be maintained
in perpetuity,
the retaining walls need to be
inspected every year and
maintained in perpetuity.
Although we don't pay
for the capital side
of the house,
there's dedicated funding
with the measures
for grade separations
for that.
Caltrain operations cost does
increase in perpetuity when
these structures get built
because they become an asset we
have to maintain.
And so there is,
we're not paying today
to build it,
but we do get that obligation
to continue to maintain it.
That increases Caltrain's
overall operating cost forever.
I don't know if that helps.
And Vice Mayor Brownrigg,
you're right, it's $20, $23
million is what they're saying
the delta is today.
A question, I get the idea of
building a flatter platform
when you have a station because
you've got seven car minimum
and you get people in and out
of the train.
Is there evidence across the
U.S. where,
let's say we build option four,
but ten years from now we want
to put a station in.
Why do we have to have the
train open all seven cars?
Why can't it open only three
cars?
In the middle of the station,
the pop-up, so to speak,
or the adjunct,
and you just allow riders
in and out
over those three cars.
There's movement up and
down the train
inside the cars.
It's really a question
of safety and volume.
And the volume never will be
that great, except maybe
on a giant scheme.
But is that ever an option
down the road?
What would the provisions be
to be able to say,
I'm just going to put a very
minimal station that's only
open to three or four cars
because it's flat for that
level when it goes up and over
on option four?
We haven't looked
at that option, but happy
to do so.
Because then that option three
and four are no longer mutually
separate.
And I do get the aspect that
from a design standpoint,
we have to give you direction
because you're going
to go back and ask CGMG, CMGC,
and all the others to say,
well, you're going to be
designing a seven-car station
side thing, or you're going to
be designing nothing other than
the grade separation.
And so sometimes we get mired
in our own thinking
about what's possible.
Why isn't that something other
than maybe an R or something
like that?
But the reality is you only
have 25 people getting
on the train or 50 people
getting on the train.
They don't need seven options.
But you would be deferring the
station, but building it that
it could accommodate a special
event or a special train that
allows shorter operation with
fewer doors is what you're
suggesting.
It's still up 10 cars.
No, but what I want
to make sure I understand is
in the design, you'd go up and
have a shorter flat section
that in the future you could
build a station, not today.
But that way you wouldn't have
to rebuild that infrastructure
that would accommodate that.
Right.
Is that the question?
Let me take a look at that.
Because that would narrow that
$23 million gap, theoretically,
because you're going up and
over faster.
You have a shorter window
of flat.
It'd be an interesting.
We haven't asked our operation
folks the implications of that.
I'm a builder.
I don't play train operations.
That's not my wheelhouse.
So you'd have
to ask the experts on that.
About that information, it's
like the station idea puts us
further away.
It isn't maybe as much as we
think, but I don't want
to come back and say a month
from now after saying, you
know, let's do four, and then
we later decide when we really
have to vote on something
to say, well, let's go
with three, because now we just
wasted the design effort
of rethinking the design
for an option four.
So we have this mutual
exclusivity right
in this window
for coming back,
what we would financially
commit to in the near term,
but we haven't done all
of the options, really,
when you think
about station or no station.
That's my view.
Right now, I would push for.
Can I elaborate?
Yes.
Go ahead.
Kind of related to that, I
don't know if it's been
considered
to essentially do option four,
where you could quickly go up
and over Broadway,
but move the station
like a quarter of a mile, say,
I don't know how far, north or
south, where it could be
at grade.
So separate the grade
separation from the station.
Now, it wouldn't be right at
Broadway, but, you know,
it might be able to be over
by Lincoln or Armalita or
something.
Yes, there are creeks and other
things, but I'm just wondering
if that was considered.
The initial project study
report was done in 2017, and
I'm not sure what were the full
range of options they took
for it, realizing there was a
full project study report,
I imagine lots
of public outreach,
exploring a lot of options, and
I don't know whether that was
one of them or not.
Ron?
I was just going
to say it's getting late, and,
you know, Councilwoman Colson
makes a compelling argument
that the responsible vote
tonight would be
for the least expensive option,
because it is the most likely
to be funded, and I will
reluctantly join that
consensus.
What I really believe is that
tonight is not the hard
decision.
The hard decision is when this
comes back
in six or eight or ten weeks,
and we have to decide whether
to spend real money,
and I'll just say right now, I
don't,
I have real problems thinking
about betting again
on this enterprise,
but we don't have
to decide that tonight.
And then we'll have more
information from the TA,
and we'll have an understanding
of their aptitude, you know,
sort of their interest in,
yeah, in funding $283 million.
I do appreciate, Councilwoman
Thayer's sort of, you know,
could we move the station?
The problem
with that becomes you have to,
you're going to have to tear
out houses on California Drive
to build, you know, you'd have
to have a parking lot,
and you'd have to build a lot
of infrastructure
around the station.
I'd love to say it could be,
unless it's just a walking
station, you'd say you have
to walk to it, possibly,
but I don't believe that was
in the design purview, so we've
never considered that.
Another issue on that happened
to be because of the proximity
to two other stations,
like if you look up and
down the train corridor,
most cities have one station,
you know, of our size,
only have one station.
The allowance for Broadway, I
think, as I'm understanding it,
was an exception, granted
like 15 years ago, sort
of as a, you know,
I don't know how it happened,
I wasn't here, but it's
essentially an unstandard
situation for a station, and I
mean, I would love
to build a station.
I mean,
I'm playing the lottery every
day, hoping
to win the big ticket,
and we can all do it and build
it, and we just do it.
I just know, I'm also kind
of trying to deal with what the
next four years are going
to look like.
I'm trying to be pragmatic
about our chances
of getting money out
of the federal government,
the defunding that's going
to occur in the state of
California, and the move away
from transit money in order
to probably fund Medicaid,
Medicare, social services that
are going to be cut
by this administration,
how that's going to look.
These are just the,
and then today we are going
to have 25% tariffs go in,
so I'm just trying to think
about it
from the standpoint of, you
know, maximizing safety,
minimizing cost.
Those are the two variables
that I'm considering the
highest, and the station is,
I would have, should have,
loved to have had it 10 years
ago, but at this point,
even adding 20 or 30 or $40
million just seems incredibly
out of reach, but I agree,
Councilman, we, or Vice
Mayor, we may, I mean,
there just may be, right,
just a bridge, it just, you
know, this was,
should have happened 10 years
ago, and I don't want to,
I really don't want
to abandon it.
The reason I
like option number four, too,
is because I feel
like we can shove it
in the queue, and we can, you
know, sort
of make a decision of,
like you say, do we want
to do another $2 million,
and get a sense of the TA,
and then put it in the queue,
and then my sort of thinking
on this is,
how do we fund it?
It's, you know, the federal
administration,
the feds have just pulled back
$4 billion in funding
for the high-speed rail, so
maybe the high-speed rail isn't
really as viable as a project,
so maybe we go
to the state and we lobby,
I was talking to a couple
of assembly people today
about this, could we go back
and lobby the state and say,
all right, you know,
the bullet train,
the high-speed rail is just
floundering,
that's really not going
to happen, let's take that,
those billions that were
allocated to that
at the state level, and bring
them back and solve this
corridor problem all up and
down, and a coalition
of elected from Morgan Hill
to San Francisco could work
together to help the state
craft a new funding philosophy,
you know, possibly,
and prioritize dealing with the
corridor transit right now,
and then go back and for more
years when there's maybe a
different administration and
different feeling on funding
the high-speed rail.
I don't know if that's
practical or not,
I'm just trying to use my, you
know, every where
with all I have to think
about how to do this,
and that's kind
of where I'm ending up.
And that's a heavy lift
for us,
because that means we're going
to have to hire lobbyists,
and we're going to have
to work on all this stuff,
and it's a big, big, heavy
lift. I think we've gotten
input from across the dais,
I think to summarize the
direction is option four,
we need to know the scrutiny
of the 20 million,
and what is that real number.
To Vice Mayor's point, I think
the real hard decision is
coming, it's not right now, and
obviously there's broader
concerns just in terms
of the feasibility, but
to be focused first
on safety,
which I think is uniform
across the dais, is number one,
I think focus on cost is
obviously a close second,
and the option of a station,
while interesting, you know,
it would be maybe nice
in some respect,
we can't just decide
on that right now. We have
to think
about what we can get done
for safety. High-speed rail
doesn't have people dying
on their tracks. They don't
have accidents in their
corridors or their crossings.
We do,
and so I think there's a lot
of work that has to be done,
and I did like some
of the input earlier today
about that joint lobbying
effort,
because I think it's been
talked about historically,
particularly at the LPMG,
but never really executed on,
and yet we're at a situation
now where this isn't the only
problem on the corridor,
it's the most important, but
there's other great crossings,
and we need some different
approach to get the confidence
back that we can actually
execute this, so,
fair enough? Okay. Thank you.
Thank you. With that,
I'm just going to ask Council
for future agenda items,
if any. Yes. Yeah. I have one.
Member Colson. So, having been
in the neighborhood where the,
when we had the active shooter
situation at the Hillsborough
Police Station, the SMC alert
system was very inconsistent.
Some people received alerts,
some people didn't receive
alerts,
some people got notifications.
Just sometime in the next,
no high priority,
but I would really love
to understand a little more
about that alert system and
how, what the process is
for dissemination, just
to make sure that
in the future, when there is a
lockdown, everybody who needs
to be informed is informed. If
there's a fire, if there's an
emergency and that system's
working, it didn't work
on this particular incident,
so I just, I want
to make sure we figure
out why and we fix it
for the future. Thank you.
Yeah, I think, having been
overseas and starting
to get text messages
from people that lived on
Walnut elsewhere, they're like,
where was the SMC alert? And
other people were saying,
I got it, and so I definitely
think an update from the police
department and emergency
services would be valuable
education, not only
for the council, but maybe
identify changes that we can do
going forward. So, for that,
we'll need
to bring the county in,
because it's actually the
county system, not a study
session, or? Anybody else
with advice? So not a new item,
but just, sorry, a PS to the
last item. I think it would be
very helpful when this comes
back for our consideration,
if we asked,
which I think is the very,
very least we could ask,
but we ask the Washington,
D.C. lobbyists we currently
have for their assessment
of money
from the federal government
over the next four years. I
just think there's a lot
of guessing going on, and there
are people who know more than
we do. Maybe, and another PS on
that. I think when this item
comes back, we really need
to do a little more outreach
to make sure people know it's
on the agenda, so letting the
Broadway bid know,
letting the neighbors
in that area know, putting it
in the e-newsletter,
this is just a huge decision,
and I want to make sure we're
getting a lot of,
we're hearing
from people. I mean,
I'm talking to people,
but I just think we need
to make sure we put it
out there. And give them, well,
we don't have a lot of time.
Yeah. Any agenda items? Okay.
And we've got both
of those noted. Appreciate
that. Anybody want
to end the meeting
with an acknowledgment? Okay.