[0:24] While we're waiting
[0:25] to get started,
[0:26] there are more seats up front
[0:27] of you.
[1:01] I just wanted to add a welcome
[1:02] to everybody here.
[1:03] To get started, we'll do the
[1:05] Pledge of Allegiance and really
[1:08] fortunate that we have some
[1:10] of our youth here.
[1:12] I'm going to welcome not only
[1:14] the kids who made it all the
[1:15] way from Washington Elementary
[1:16] but also our Red Parrots AYSO
[1:19] soccer team
[1:20] to stand and lead us in the
[1:22] Pledge of Allegiance.
[1:28] Anytime you want to start,
[1:29] everybody will jump in.
[1:38] I pledge allegiance
[1:39] to the flag of the United
[1:40] States of America and
[1:42] to the republic
[1:45] for which it stands,
[1:46] one nation under God,
[1:47] indivisible,
[1:49] with liberty and justice
[1:50] for all.
[1:52] Thank you.
[1:57] Madam City Clerk, could I have
[1:58] a roll call, please?
[2:00] Council Member Thayer?
[2:01] Here.
[2:02] Council Member Colson?
[2:03] Here.
[2:04] Council Member Pappajohn?
[2:05] Here.
[2:06] Vice Mayor Brownrigg?
[2:07] Here.
[2:08] Mayor Stevenson?
[2:09] Here.
[2:10] Thank you.
[2:11] I see we have no requests
[2:12] for AB 2449, remote
[2:13] participation.
[2:16] So we'll move on
[2:17] to item number five,
[2:18] which is a report out
[2:20] from the closed session.
[2:21] Mr. City Attorney.
[2:22] Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
[2:23] There is no reportable action.
[2:24] Thank you.
[2:25] Excellent.
[2:27] Okay.
[2:28] So bear with me.
[2:29] I'm going to read a few
[2:30] upcoming events
[2:31] at our library and elsewhere,
[2:32] our park and rec department.
[2:33] So first of all,
[2:35] in the library,
[2:36] the 3D printing lab
[2:37] in person.
[2:39] Bring your files to print and
[2:40] drop into the library's 3D
[2:41] printing open lab.
[2:44] Learn about the library's 3D
[2:45] printers, how
[2:47] to use slicing software,
[2:48] and how
[2:49] to start a print job.
[2:51] Come and share your 3D printed
[2:52] creations with other 3D
[2:55] printing enthusiasts.
[2:58] That's all this Thursday,
[2:59] March 6th, at the library
[3:01] from 2 to 4 p.m.
[3:03] in the tech lab.
[3:06] How to use your AI tools
[3:08] in your job search.
[3:09] Join Faze at Careers
[3:12] for an overview
[3:13] of AI as well as specific tools
[3:15] for your job search.
[3:17] Learn how to use AI tools to
[3:18] analyze and improve your resume
[3:21] and how AI can assist you with
[3:23] improving your interviewing
[3:24] skills.
[3:26] That's going to take place on
[3:27] Monday, March 10th, 2025,
[3:29] from 1 to 3 p.m. in the Lane
[3:32] Community Room.
[3:33] That's at the library, just
[3:35] to make sure everybody knows.
[3:38] Number three,
[3:39] spring craft supply swap.
[3:41] Join us at the main library
[3:43] for a craft supply swap.
[3:45] Bring something and take
[3:48] something.
[3:50] It's all free.
[3:51] All crafty items are welcome.
[3:52] That's going to take place on
[3:53] Saturday, March 15th, 2025,
[3:54] from 11 to 1.
[3:55] Again, that's at the main
[3:58] library.
[3:59] For our Parks and Rec's
[4:00] department, the Royal Ball
[4:01] Adult Child Dinner Dance is
[4:04] on Friday, March 14th,
[4:05] at the community center.
[4:07] Also included is a horse-drawn
[4:08] carriage ride in Washington
[4:11] Park, which is made possible
[4:13] by the Burlingame Parks
[4:15] Forever Foundation.
[4:16] Sign up through Parks and
[4:18] Rec's department.
[4:19] Again, that's Friday, March
[4:20] 14th.
[4:22] Join us for the annual Arbor
[4:24] Day celebration on Thursday,
[4:26] March 13th, at 11 a.m. at
[4:28] Murray Field.
[4:30] Most of you probably know that
[4:31] Burlingame is the city
[4:32] of trees,
[4:33] and so here's a wonderful way
[4:35] to celebrate all the trees and
[4:36] what we do to make sure we have
[4:39] an excellent celebration for
[4:41] Arbor Day.
[4:43] The Senior St. Patrick's Day
[4:44] Tea is on Monday, March 10th,
[4:46] from 3 to 4 p.m.
[4:48] Irish tea, delicious bread
[4:50] from Fiddler's Green and Molly
[4:52] O's, and a lively performance
[4:54] by the Kennelly School of
[4:55] Irish Dance are included.
[4:57] Subsidized fee is only $5, and
[4:58] pre-registration and payment
[5:01] are required.
[5:03] You can register online,
[5:04] by phone, or in person.
[5:06] And then finally, Free Yoga
[5:08] Friday is on March 7th and
[5:09] March 21st, from 11 a.m. to 12
[5:11] p.m.
[5:13] at the Community Center.
[5:15] All levels are welcome,
[5:16] and a mat is needed.
[5:18] Please call or email Colleen,
[5:19] email address is cconefrey
[5:28] at burlingame.org
[5:29] to reserve a spot, and again,
[5:31] there is no fee
[5:32] for this program.
[5:34] I'll pause for a moment
[5:36] to see if my colleagues on
[5:37] council have any other upcoming
[5:38] events they want
[5:39] to highlight.
[5:41] Yes, Vice Mayor Brownrigg.
[5:43] Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
[5:45] Just quickly,
[5:46] I believe it's a public event,
[5:48] but this Saturday, Nuts for
[5:51] Candy is celebrating its 30th
[5:52] anniversary here in the city
[5:53] of Burlingame, from 2 to 3 p.m.
[5:57] And so, if one wants to go
[5:58] along and support Nuts for
[6:00] Candy and Mr. Cabranian, then
[6:03] please feel free.
[6:04] And then finally,
[6:05] and a lot less fun than this
[6:07] evening, but on March 12th,
[6:09] we're having a budget meeting,
[6:10] so if you want to get
[6:12] under the hood with us,
[6:14] then that is 6.30, I think,
[6:16] start time.
[6:17] Excellent.
[6:19] And we hope
[6:20] to see as many people here for
[6:22] that event as there are here
[6:23] tonight.
[6:24] Mayor Stephenson, I forgot,
[6:25] tomorrow is also election day.
[6:26] It's your last day
[6:28] to get your ballot in
[6:29] for the special election, and
[6:30] we do have a vote center open
[6:32] at the Community Center until
[6:33] 8 p.m. tomorrow.
[6:35] Excellent.
[6:36] Very important.
[6:37] It's for regional and local
[6:39] reasons, not necessarily a
[6:40] national election.
[6:42] Okay, if there's no more
[6:43] upcoming events,
[6:46] this is really one
[6:48] of the exciting parts of City
[6:49] Council, is when folks
[6:51] from our community come
[6:52] in and want to let us know
[6:54] about something, a major
[6:55] accomplishment,
[6:56] and some exciting news.
[6:58] So I would love it if the
[7:00] Burlingame Red Parrots could
[7:02] stand when I call your name,
[7:06] but we're recognizing you
[7:08] for the tremendous effort
[7:10] of not only doing well locally,
[7:12] but also participating
[7:14] in the AYSO Western States
[7:16] Tournament coming up soon.
[7:18] So not too often does a local
[7:20] community get to send a group
[7:23] of star athletes at your level
[7:25] to an event like that,
[7:27] so we're really appreciative of
[7:29] you coming and sharing that
[7:30] story, and I think Coach
[7:31] Jamie, is that correct,
[7:33] or did I have that right?
[7:35] Jamie's the coordinator.
[7:39] Okay, how
[7:41] about I just read the names,
[7:43] and you guys can stand,
[7:44] and then we're going
[7:45] to come down,
[7:46] we'll have some comments from
[7:47] Council, but we'll come
[7:48] down and take a big picture.
[7:49] How does that sound?
[7:51] Okay?
[7:52] But you've got to promise that
[7:53] you'll frame it and put it
[7:55] on the wall in your house,
[7:56] okay?
[7:57] So I hope I pronounced these
[7:58] correctly, but Ameya
[8:01] Guharoi.
[8:04] No.
[8:06] Okay.
[8:07] Well, somebody has to give it
[8:08] to her.
[8:09] How about Arya Mohazabi?
[8:11] All right.
[8:17] Charlotte French.
[8:23] Emma Cheng.
[8:29] Isabella Wiseman.
[8:35] Kaitlyn Shaughnessy.
[8:42] Leah Reese.
[8:48] Margaret Anguera.
[8:55] McKenna Reynolds.
[9:02] Myla Hernandez.
[9:09] Nadia Phillips.
[9:15] Deanna Wade.
[9:21] And Talia Wu.
[9:25] How about everybody get up
[9:26] for one big round?
[9:28] Oh, Ashley Putnam.
[9:36] I might have grabbed it
[9:37] by accident, too, so if I did,
[9:38] I apologize, but we'll make
[9:41] sure you have the certificate.
[9:43] So from Council, can I have any
[9:45] notes or comments or
[9:47] expressions?
[9:50] That would be great.
[9:52] Go ahead.
[9:53] Can I say something?
[9:54] Thank you, Mayor Stevenson.
[9:56] I love AYSO.
[9:58] I just know the values are so
[10:00] aligned with our community.
[10:01] Everyone plays, balanced teams,
[10:03] open registration, good
[10:04] sportsmanship,
[10:05] and positive coaching.
[10:07] And I just want
[10:09] to reflect a minute.
[10:10] When my kids were younger,
[10:11] they all played soccer,
[10:13] and it's a volunteer
[10:14] organization, so I coached.
[10:16] And it was so much more than
[10:18] just coaching to me, because it
[10:19] was such a great community I
[10:20] met parents, so many other
[10:21] people, and my kids met people
[10:23] that weren't
[10:25] in their schools,
[10:27] and I really enjoyed it.
[10:28] And I also met former Mayor
[10:30] Ricardo Ortiz through that,
[10:32] because I served on the board
[10:34] for 10 years, over 10 years.
[10:36] And it's just a wonderful
[10:38] organization, and I'm just so
[10:40] happy that it's so strong
[10:41] in our community.
[10:42] And thank you
[10:43] to all the volunteers, the
[10:45] players, and the parents who
[10:46] are here and involved.
[10:49] Thank you.
[10:55] Council Member Donna Colson.
[10:56] Thank you.
[10:58] Well, I just want to say
[10:59] to all of you young women,
[11:00] aspiring young women,
[11:02] congratulations.
[11:03] And I'm so happy to see that
[11:05] your organization stood up for
[11:07] you and made sure that you got
[11:08] the recognition you deserved
[11:10] for what you're doing today.
[11:12] It is incredibly special
[11:14] to be able
[11:15] to go and represent our city
[11:17] at this elite level.
[11:18] And what I'm particularly proud
[11:20] about is the beautiful
[11:22] diversity that I see sitting
[11:23] in front of me, the way that
[11:26] you comport yourselves
[11:28] on the field, the graciousness
[11:30] with which you win and
[11:31] with which you lose, because
[11:33] those, my friends, are the
[11:35] attributes and the lessons that
[11:36] you are going to learn that
[11:38] will someday carry you
[11:39] into adulthood,
[11:41] into womanhood, and into being
[11:42] amazing young businesswomen,
[11:46] teachers, leaders,
[11:48] whatever you decide to do.
[11:50] So this journey, while it is
[11:51] about soccer for the
[11:53] near term, and I'm excited and
[11:55] hope you and wish you the best
[11:56] in your tournament,
[11:59] the appreciation that I have
[12:00] for you representing our city
[12:02] so beautifully and your amazing
[12:05] coaches and the standard that
[12:06] they set and the time and
[12:08] commitment that they put into
[12:12] this are really what I'm most
[12:13] proud about.
[12:14] So thank you, and I look
[12:15] forward to 20 years
[12:17] from now seeing some
[12:18] of you ladies sitting up here
[12:19] in these seats.
[12:20] Thank you.
[12:28] Councilmember Thayer.
[12:31] So I'll just make very brief
[12:32] remarks just
[12:33] to say congratulations
[12:34] to you young ladies.
[12:35] You've worked really hard,
[12:36] and I hope you represent us
[12:38] well, both, as Councilmember
[12:39] Colson said, both on the field
[12:41] but also off the field.
[12:42] And also congratulations to all
[12:45] the coaches and parents.
[12:46] This is a really unique
[12:48] opportunity where,
[12:51] as was mentioned by
[12:52] Councilmember Pappajohn,
[12:54] everyone gets to play
[12:55] in AYSO, and it's volunteer
[12:57] run, and that really speaks
[12:59] to the community that we have
[13:00] in Burlingame, where we're very
[13:01] diverse and we want to make
[13:03] sure that everyone's included
[13:04] and everyone has a time
[13:05] to play.
[13:06] So congratulations and good
[13:07] luck.
[13:12] Vice Mayor Brownrigg.
[13:14] I'll be quick.
[13:15] Have fun.
[13:17] These kind of things don't
[13:18] happen all that often.
[13:20] I can tell you, I never got
[13:21] to a regional anything,
[13:22] so good for you.
[13:25] We can confirm that.
[13:29] Enjoy every, work hard.
[13:31] Your coaches have put a lot
[13:32] of time in.
[13:33] Your parents have.
[13:34] Work hard.
[13:35] Have fun.
[13:36] And have fun.
[13:37] That's really the message I
[13:38] wanted to leave
[13:39] with you guys.
[13:40] But we're all so proud
[13:41] of you.
[13:42] Thank you.
[13:45] So, on behalf of the whole
[13:47] Council, we just want
[13:48] to wish you good luck.
[13:49] Have fun.
[13:50] Stay safe.
[13:52] Enjoy the time.
[13:53] Bring back memories.
[13:54] Thank your parents.
[13:55] Thank your coaches.
[13:57] It's a wonderful thing.
[13:58] And so, we'll enjoy it
[14:00] from afar,
[14:01] but you go and enjoy it
[14:02] on the field, okay?
[14:03] Excellent.
[15:18] You guys can go forward just a
[15:19] little bit.
[15:20] Tall girls, come back here.
[15:21] This is like when you took your
[15:23] AYSO picture.
[15:24] Come on over.
[15:25] Come on over.
[15:33] Should we go,
[15:34] should we do a cheer
[15:35] for the red parrots,
[15:36] like let's go parrots,
[15:37] or what?
[15:38] Sure.
[15:41] All right.
[15:42] The whole community.
[15:47] Let's go parrots.
[15:54] Awesome.
[16:00] Don't have to take it all
[16:10] with you.
[16:11] Two more hours.
[16:12] All right.
[16:14] I'm sure you have a whole crew
[16:16] of friends.
[16:18] We appreciate it.
[16:19] Thanks again.
[16:21] Thank you.
[16:42] All right.
[16:56] So moving on to item number
[16:58] eight, public comments,
[16:59] non-agenda.
[17:00] These are for the members
[17:01] of the public who may want
[17:02] to speak about a topic that is
[17:04] not formally on the agenda.
[17:06] Just so you know, the mic
[17:07] at the podium is yours
[17:09] for anybody who wants to speak
[17:12] about a topic as long as it's
[17:14] not on the agenda.
[17:15] And also the council itself
[17:17] can't respond to it.
[17:19] We just take this as input, but
[17:22] if you have a public comment
[17:24] open, you know, feel free
[17:26] to come
[17:27] on up.
[17:28] I do have one card from Brian
[17:29] Lee.
[17:30] Is Brian here today?
[17:32] Excellent.
[17:34] Come on up, Brian.
[17:45] Hello, Mayor, Council.
[17:47] My name is Brian Lee, I'm at
[17:55] 1468 Benito Avenue since
[17:58] 1951.
[18:01] I'm here today to talk about
[18:03] speed bumps that I call stop
[18:06] bumps on Adeline Alvarado and
[18:07] Carmelita.
[18:14] I understand there's a need
[18:16] for control for speeding on
[18:18] Hillside.
[18:19] The cars are going very fast up
[18:21] and down, especially on the
[18:23] straightaway.
[18:26] I think that
[18:28] with the new gymnasium,
[18:29] which I support
[18:31] at our activity center at
[18:33] Mercy, you're going to have
[18:34] more traffic and I've got a
[18:36] little bit of a solution.
[18:39] Number one, the speed bumps,
[18:42] I was told, I think are
[18:43] temporary.
[18:45] I hope they are.
[18:48] I think you should construct
[18:50] them very similar to the ones
[18:51] on Hillside Drive that are
[18:53] near the fire station and
[18:55] to the west of that.
[18:57] They slow down traffic,
[18:59] they don't jar your car,
[19:01] and they're safe
[19:02] for bicyclists.
[19:03] So I don't think there's a need
[19:06] on Benito.
[19:09] You can check with the people
[19:10] who live there,
[19:12] there's not a lot of traffic
[19:13] there.
[19:14] I think there is a need on
[19:15] Adeline and on Alvarado
[19:17] for sure.
[19:21] I have an idea for speed
[19:22] controls.
[19:24] In Scottsdale, Arizona, they
[19:26] just initiated a new program
[19:28] with photo radar that are
[19:31] portable.
[19:33] The key is they're portable.
[19:34] They're the size
[19:35] of a mailbox,
[19:36] maybe a little taller.
[19:37] They work real well.
[19:40] They're portable,
[19:41] so you can move them
[19:42] around and so nobody can plan
[19:43] on where they are.
[19:45] I like to drive smooth, fast
[19:48] at times and whatever, but
[19:50] these things work.
[19:54] I have some photos that I'd
[19:55] like to distribute to you
[19:56] of what they look
[19:58] like and I guess I'll give them
[20:00] to you a little later or
[20:01] whatever.
[20:02] I really think you should
[20:03] consider this product and the
[20:05] comments that I made about how
[20:06] to build a good, accurate speed
[20:10] bump that will slow down
[20:11] traffic and not hurt the
[20:13] suspension on your cars.
[20:16] Thank you very much.
[20:17] Thank you, Mr. Lee.
[20:33] Any other public comments
[20:35] for non-agenda items?
[20:40] Anything online?
[20:42] Okay.
[20:43] Seeing none, we'll move on
[20:46] to item number nine,
[20:47] our consent calendar.
[20:48] Let me ask my colleagues if
[20:49] there are any items on the
[20:51] consent calendar that anybody
[20:53] would like to pull.
[21:01] Seeing none.
[21:02] Anybody from the public that
[21:04] would like to pull any item
[21:05] on consent?
[21:09] Seeing none in the room.
[21:10] Anything online?
[21:12] No.
[21:13] We don't pull.
[21:14] Okay.
[21:15] No longer doing online.
[21:16] Okay.
[21:17] Can I have a motion from the
[21:19] council to approve the consent
[21:20] calendar?
[21:24] It's all moved.
[21:26] Second.
[21:27] So we have a motion by Vice
[21:28] Mayor Brownrigg and a second
[21:31] by Council Member Pappajohn.
[21:33] Madam City Clerk, can we have a
[21:35] roll call?
[21:36] Council Member Thayer?
[21:37] Yes.
[21:38] Council Member Colson?
[21:39] Yes.
[21:40] Council Member Pappajohn?
[21:41] Yes.
[21:42] Vice Mayor Brownrigg?
[21:43] Yes.
[21:44] Mayor Stevenson?
[21:45] Yes.
[21:47] Okay.
[21:48] Thank you.
[21:51] I suspect this is going
[21:53] to be the longer part
[21:54] of the evening,
[21:56] so we're all settled
[21:57] in and look forward
[21:58] to getting started.
[22:01] Item number 10A requires
[22:06] excusing Vice Mayor Brownrigg
[22:11] as Vice Mayor Brownrigg is part
[22:13] and parcel
[22:15] to the applicant process.
[22:23] Excellent.
[22:24] Okay.
[22:25] Item number 10 requires some
[22:27] instructions that I'll read and
[22:29] then I'll ask our Director of
[22:37] Community Development to come
[22:39] up and address as the first
[22:41] step.
[22:43] So at this time, the Council
[22:44] will consider the review of
[22:46] 2750 and 2300 Adeline Drive
[22:49] zoned R1 and their application
[22:52] for commercial design review,
[22:54] hillside area construction
[22:55] permit and variance for
[22:57] building height and amendment
[22:59] to conditional use permit for
[23:01] the construction and operation
[23:02] of a new athletic center and
[23:04] outdoor swimming pool on the
[23:06] Mercy High School property.
[23:09] This project was approved
[23:10] by the Planning Commission
[23:12] during their October 15th,
[23:13] 2024 regularly scheduled
[23:15] meeting.
[23:17] Following that meeting,
[23:18] Councilmember at that time,
[23:20] now Vice Mayor Michael
[23:21] Brownrigg
[23:23] in his capacity as a
[23:24] Councilmember filed a timely
[23:26] call for review of the
[23:28] Planning Commission approval as
[23:30] authorized by BMC section
[23:32] 2598.030.
[23:35] This meeting was scheduled
[23:37] in accordance
[23:38] with the timeline specified
[23:39] in the Burlingame Municipal
[23:40] Code.
[23:42] Following his timely call
[23:43] for review, Councilmember
[23:45] Brownrigg requested an opinion
[23:48] from the Fair Political
[23:50] Practices Commission known as
[23:51] the FPPC as
[23:52] to whether he had the conflict
[23:54] of interest
[23:55] on this matter based
[23:56] on his home's proximity
[23:58] to the project site.
[23:59] The FPPC determined that a
[24:00] conflict did exist, therefore
[24:03] Councilmember and now Vice
[24:05] Mayor Brownrigg will be
[24:07] recusing himself from this item
[24:09] and therefore will be
[24:10] presenting any evidence and or
[24:12] testimony solely in his private
[24:14] capacity as a resident and not
[24:15] as an official of the City of
[24:18] Burlingame.
[24:21] This hearing will proceed
[24:23] in the following manner.
[24:24] First we will receive a staff
[24:25] presentation and the Council
[24:28] will ask any questions
[24:29] of staff at this time.
[24:31] Following staff's presentation,
[24:32] the individual who called
[24:34] for the item for review,
[24:35] in this case Mr. Michael
[24:36] Brownrigg, will have 10 minutes
[24:38] to present his case as
[24:39] to why the Planning
[24:41] Commission's approval should be
[24:42] overturned in whole or
[24:43] in part.
[24:46] Following this 10 minute
[24:47] period,
[24:48] the applicant will receive 10
[24:49] minutes
[24:51] to present their case.
[24:52] Following the applicant's time,
[24:54] we will move to public comment
[24:55] on the item.
[24:57] Any member of the public who is
[24:58] not a party to the hearing may
[25:00] speak for 3 minutes each.
[25:02] Following public comment, Mr.
[25:04] Brownrigg will receive an
[25:05] additional 5 minute period
[25:07] to address the Council and
[25:09] present any rebuttal or final
[25:10] testimony, and then finally the
[25:12] applicant will receive 5
[25:14] minutes to provide their
[25:16] rebuttal and or final
[25:17] testimony.
[25:21] Councilmembers may ask
[25:22] questions following the
[25:23] conclusion of any party's
[25:24] presentation and responses
[25:26] to questions will not be
[25:27] counted
[25:29] against the allotted time for
[25:30] the respective presentations.
[25:32] Councilmembers should reserve
[25:33] their comments
[25:34] for a deliberation portion
[25:35] of the preceding.
[25:38] Staff have all the parties been
[25:40] notified
[25:41] of this hearing pursuant
[25:42] to the requirements of the
[25:43] Burlingame Municipal Code
[25:44] related to calls for review?
[25:46] Yes, they have.
[25:47] Excellent.
[25:48] Mayor, I will now ask
[25:51] for my fellow Councilmembers to
[25:52] disclose any ex parte
[25:54] communications they may have
[25:56] had related to this item.
[25:57] Have any members of Council had
[25:59] any ex parte communications
[26:01] on this item?
[26:02] Yes.
[26:05] Councilmember Colson?
[26:06] Yes, I have spoken
[26:07] to the leadership at Mercy
[26:08] High School.
[26:11] Councilmember Pappajohn?
[26:12] Yes, I have also spoken
[26:14] to the leadership at Mercy
[26:15] High School.
[26:16] I also met with former Mayor
[26:18] Anne Keagren and I had a couple
[26:19] very brief minutes with Vice
[26:22] Mayor Michael Brownrigg.
[26:24] I spoke with resident Lynn
[26:27] Israelit and resident Mike
[26:29] Collins and I'd like to
[26:30] disclose that I did have a
[26:31] child who went to Mercy but
[26:32] later transferred and I can say
[26:35] that I am an unbiased decision
[26:37] maker.
[26:39] Excellent.
[26:41] No, I have not had any ex parte
[26:42] communication and I thank the
[26:44] community who did reach
[26:45] out and was respectful
[26:47] of my decision
[26:48] to not have any.
[26:49] Thank you, Councilmember
[26:50] Thayer.
[26:52] I have had two ex parte
[26:53] conversations,
[26:55] an impromptu meeting with
[26:57] Vice Mayor Michael Brownrigg
[26:59] and also a meeting
[27:00] with the leadership at Mercy
[27:02] High School.
[27:08] So when we get to public
[27:10] comment, how many
[27:13] in the room are planning
[27:15] to speak?
[27:17] Raise your hand.
[27:18] We should reduce the three
[27:19] minutes.
[27:21] Okay, and online too?
[27:23] No.
[27:24] We don't take.
[27:25] Okay.
[27:27] So we're going to start
[27:29] with the two minutes each.
[27:31] We want to make sure everybody
[27:33] has an opportunity
[27:35] to speak and to share their
[27:36] input and that way we'll make
[27:38] sure that we're respectful
[27:39] of time and the process.
[27:40] To get started though,
[27:44] we're going to first have our
[27:47] staff report led by our
[27:48] Director of Community
[27:50] Development, Netta.
[27:56] Good evening, Mayor, City
[27:57] Councilmembers, Netta Thayer,
[27:59] Community Development Director
[28:01] with the City of Burlingame.
[28:03] I will not be presenting
[28:04] tonight.
[28:06] I actually have Senior
[28:07] Planner Erica Lewitt here
[28:09] tonight and she'll be providing
[28:10] the presentation.
[28:11] She's been the Project Planner
[28:12] through the duration
[28:13] of this project.
[28:14] She and I will be available
[28:16] for questions, but she'll be
[28:18] giving the presentation.
[28:36] Good evening, Council.
[28:38] I'll start
[28:40] with the existing site.
[28:43] Okay.
[28:44] Thank you.
[28:45] The existing site is located
[28:46] at the corner of Hoover Avenue
[28:48] and Adeline Drive.
[28:50] You can see
[28:51] on the left side aerial shown
[28:53] on the slide.
[28:54] It's surrounded by single unit
[28:56] dwellings that are both
[28:58] in the County of San Mateo and
[29:00] in the City of Burlingame.
[29:01] The site actually has two lots.
[29:03] The larger is owned by Sisters
[29:05] of Mercy and has the address
[29:06] 2300 Adeline Drive and the
[29:09] smaller is owned by Mercy
[29:11] High School with the address
[29:12] of 2750 Adeline Drive.
[29:15] The two lots are treated as a
[29:16] single site for the purposes
[29:18] of zoning administration.
[29:20] That's because there are a
[29:22] number of existing unrecorded
[29:23] cross-access easements
[29:25] between the sites,
[29:27] which keep them
[29:29] from operating independently.
[29:31] There's also an existing
[29:32] conditional use permit that was
[29:33] approved in 2010 that governs
[29:35] the operations
[29:36] on the properties, and that
[29:38] links the properties together
[29:40] as a single site.
[29:42] On the right side
[29:43] of the slide,
[29:44] you can see blown up the
[29:45] Sisters of Mercy campus, and
[29:46] the project location is
[29:49] outlined in blue.
[29:56] Here we see two renderings
[29:57] of the project shown.
[29:59] The October 2024 Planning
[30:01] Commission action of approval
[30:03] of the project entitled
[30:06] Commercial Design Review,
[30:10] Hillside Area Construction
[30:11] Permit, a Variance for
[30:13] Building Height, and Amendment
[30:15] to the Conditional Use Permit
[30:17] for a New Athletic Center.
[30:22] The project was submitted in
[30:24] January 2023 and went
[30:25] to two public hearings
[30:26] before the Planning
[30:27] Commission.
[30:29] A study hearing June 2024 and
[30:31] an action hearing in October
[30:32] 2024.
[30:35] You can see on the slide the
[30:37] site plan
[30:39] for the approved project,
[30:40] and the details
[30:41] of the project include a Class
[30:42] 14 categorical exemption
[30:43] for CEQA to demolish the
[30:45] existing tennis courts and
[30:47] outdoor pool to build a new
[30:49] 16,319 square foot gymnasium
[30:53] and a new regulation size
[30:55] outdoor pool.
[30:57] The yellow arm that stretches
[30:59] from the buildings out to the
[31:01] parking lot is an ADA
[31:02] accessible pedestrian walkway.
[31:05] In the upper right hand corner,
[31:07] you can see there's the
[31:08] existing Grisilli parking lot,
[31:10] and it's going
[31:12] to be re-striped and re-paved
[31:13] to add 15 parking spaces.
[31:17] At the lower side, you'll see,
[31:18] also highlighted in yellow,
[31:20] a little arm leading
[31:22] from the building out to
[31:23] Adeline Drive.
[31:25] This is an emergency vehicle
[31:27] access road that's required
[31:29] by fire regulations.
[31:32] The approved project that went
[31:35] forward to the Planning
[31:36] Commission showed the removal
[31:37] of 20 protected size trees,
[31:39] and finally a revision to the
[31:41] Conditional Use Permit so that
[31:43] the hours for after school
[31:44] activities and the gymnasium
[31:46] match the existing end times
[31:48] for the Cole Mansion.
[31:58] There was, as the Mayor
[31:59] mentioned,
[32:00] there was a timely call
[32:01] for review
[32:03] of the project approval, and
[32:06] there were five items brought
[32:07] up in this call for review.
[32:10] The request to protect an
[32:11] existing walking path
[32:12] on site, that the emergency
[32:15] access road did not be used
[32:18] for pedestrian access,
[32:21] that the Commission did not
[32:23] adequately discuss a third
[32:24] party rental
[32:25] of the gymnasium, an insurance
[32:27] that guests do not park
[32:29] in the neighborhood, and
[32:31] to ensure that 7% of Mercy
[32:33] students shuttle
[32:34] to the school.
[32:39] I'll now go over each of these
[32:41] appeal items individually.
[32:44] The first item in the call
[32:45] for review was that the
[32:47] Planning Commission did not
[32:48] address a neighbor request to
[32:50] maintain a pedestrian parkway
[32:51] that's on the site.
[32:54] The facts regarding the path is
[32:56] that it's
[32:57] on private property.
[32:58] It was never formally
[33:00] memorialized at any stage
[33:01] of the site's existence in the
[33:03] county or the city's
[33:05] jurisdiction.
[33:07] Public access to any private
[33:08] property is also not required
[33:10] by the Burlingame Municipal
[33:11] Code or
[33:13] to the specific private
[33:14] property by any existing legal
[33:15] agreements.
[33:17] For these reasons,
[33:18] the path was not included
[33:20] on the project plans or as part
[33:21] of the application,
[33:24] but I've shown here on this
[33:25] aerial an approximate location.
[33:27] It runs parallel to Adeline
[33:29] Drive, and it's shown in red
[33:30] on the slide.
[33:34] During the hearings,
[33:36] the request to have the public
[33:37] access guaranteed was brought
[33:39] forth by a member
[33:41] of the public.
[33:43] The applicant for the project
[33:44] noted that the path extends
[33:46] across both properties,
[33:47] and that Mercy High School
[33:49] could not legally grant access
[33:50] to sisters of Mercy private
[33:52] property.
[33:54] The applicant stated that the
[33:56] owners of the property
[33:57] like the idea of continuing
[33:59] to offer this amenity
[34:00] to the public,
[34:02] but are prevented
[34:03] from formalizing access
[34:04] with an agreement because
[34:05] of security, safety, and
[34:07] liability concerns that are
[34:08] associated
[34:10] with allowing public access to
[34:12] a school site and private
[34:13] property.
[34:15] The commission acknowledged
[34:16] these security and liability
[34:17] concerns and did not add a
[34:19] condition of approval that
[34:20] required public access
[34:22] to the site.
[34:26] The second item brought up
[34:27] in the call for review was that
[34:28] the commission did not address
[34:29] a request to prevent parking
[34:31] and pedestrian access
[34:33] from the emergency access road
[34:35] off Adeline Drive.
[34:37] You can see the approved plans
[34:39] here on the slide,
[34:41] and the access lane is required
[34:43] by the fire division
[34:45] to improve emergency access
[34:46] to the site.
[34:48] The approved plans were
[34:49] reviewed by the fire division
[34:50] and show that the road will
[34:51] have a locked gate that can
[34:53] only be opened
[34:55] by school staff or by emergency
[34:56] response personnel.
[34:59] That's using something known as
[35:01] a knock box.
[35:04] The plans also show that the
[35:05] road is required to have
[35:07] signage indicating that no
[35:08] parking is allowed
[35:09] for non-emergency vehicles.
[35:11] Parking or pulling over
[35:12] to drop off students at the
[35:13] emergency access road is
[35:14] prohibited by the signage and
[35:15] by the locked gate,
[35:16] and these are both shown
[35:18] on the approved plans.
[35:21] Therefore, the commission did
[35:22] not require further discussion
[35:23] of this matter.
[35:28] The third point brought forth
[35:30] in the appeal is that the
[35:31] commission did not adequately
[35:32] discuss prohibiting the
[35:33] gymnasium from being used for
[35:34] third-party rentals or
[35:36] additional hourly restrictions
[35:38] on the use of the gym.
[35:41] At the hearings, the neighbors
[35:42] requested that the activities
[35:44] in the gym be limited
[35:46] in various ways.
[35:48] Therefore, at the action
[35:49] hearing,
[35:50] staff included a condition
[35:51] of approval for consideration
[35:53] by the commission, and that
[35:56] condition stated that there
[35:58] would be no third-party rentals
[36:00] of the gymnasium.
[36:04] The condition was considered
[36:05] by the commission
[36:06] at the hearing, and
[36:07] after discussion, the
[36:08] commission deemed the condition
[36:09] unnecessary
[36:10] for the following reasons.
[36:12] The commission found that the
[36:13] school is not unique
[36:14] in its location in a
[36:16] single-unit dwelling
[36:17] neighborhood and that the
[36:18] applicants submitted
[36:19] information that showed that
[36:20] the majority of public and
[36:21] private high schools in the
[36:23] surrounding cities were not
[36:24] restricted from renting
[36:26] to third parties.
[36:28] The commission noted that the
[36:29] gym was intended to serve the
[36:30] existing student population,
[36:33] which is not to be increased,
[36:36] and that the gym would
[36:37] primarily be used
[36:38] for school activities.
[36:40] The commission determined that
[36:41] the conditional use permit
[36:43] that's in place already limited
[36:44] the total number of guests
[36:46] on the entire site to 300
[36:48] persons, and that this guest
[36:49] maximum could continue
[36:51] to be applied to the site
[36:53] whether the guests were using
[36:55] the gym, full mansion,
[36:57] or were divided
[36:58] between the two facilities.
[37:00] The commission then voted
[37:01] to approve the project
[37:02] with the existing condition of
[37:04] approval that limits the number
[37:06] of guests to 300 persons.
[37:12] The fourth issue brought
[37:13] forward in the appeal was that
[37:15] the commission did not require
[37:19] gym guests to park,
[37:21] did not prohibit gym guests
[37:23] from parking
[37:25] in the neighborhood,
[37:26] and that overflow parking
[37:27] for events was not identified.
[37:29] There are conditions existing
[37:32] in the conditional use permit
[37:34] that address the on-site
[37:35] parking issue.
[37:37] In particular,
[37:39] existing condition number 28
[37:40] states that the use
[37:42] of any facility on the site
[37:44] shall have all guest parking
[37:46] on site.
[37:47] That includes student, staff,
[37:49] full mansion guests, Sister
[37:50] of Mercy guests,
[37:51] and any other facilities.
[37:54] The overflow parking for
[37:55] Mercy High School was discussed
[37:57] in the staff report,
[37:59] and it's identified on sheet
[38:01] 2.1 in the plans,
[38:02] which is a little difficult
[38:04] to read on the slide, but it
[38:05] shows that the eucalyptus,
[38:06] lake,
[38:08] and forest lots are available
[38:09] for overflow parking
[38:11] with a total of 181 additional
[38:13] parking spaces.
[38:15] Planning Commission discussed
[38:16] that the site had been
[38:18] operating
[38:19] with these conditions for 14
[38:20] years, and that Mercy High
[38:21] School puts forth significant
[38:23] efforts to communicate these
[38:24] parking restrictions
[38:25] to all school families and to
[38:27] any guests visiting the site.
[38:30] The commission deemed
[38:31] additional conditions requiring
[38:33] on-site parking to be
[38:34] duplicating the conditions that
[38:36] are in place.
[38:40] The final issue brought forth
[38:42] in the call for review was that
[38:43] there was an existing condition
[38:46] about shuttles that was
[38:48] revised, and that the applicant
[38:49] did not have time
[38:51] to review the revisions.
[38:53] The condition
[38:54] in question is number 4.
[38:56] You see it here before you
[38:57] on the slide.
[38:59] The original wording is
[39:00] in white, and the revision is
[39:01] in yellow.
[39:03] The original condition is
[39:04] from the 2010 approval,
[39:06] and it listed the number of
[39:08] shuttles and the seats
[39:09] required.
[39:11] The city had no complaints
[39:12] about the violations
[39:13] of this condition during the
[39:14] 14 years of operation, and
[39:16] during the hearings,
[39:18] the applicant noted that
[39:20] Mercy High School now contracts
[39:21] with other shuttle services
[39:23] to arrange rides
[39:24] for students.
[39:26] So in order to clarify the
[39:27] wording of the condition and to
[39:29] allow the high school more
[39:30] flexibility in how they fulfill
[39:31] the condition,
[39:33] staff revised the wording
[39:35] to try to capture the number of
[39:37] required shuttle students as a
[39:39] percentage
[39:41] of the total enrollment.
[39:42] That works out to 7% of the
[39:44] student population if the
[39:46] school is fully enrolled.
[39:49] The applicant reviewed the
[39:50] conditions of approval when
[39:51] they were published
[39:52] in the staff report prior
[39:53] to the action hearing.
[39:54] It did not raise concerns.
[40:00] The council has four action
[40:02] alternatives before them.
[40:04] To uphold the Planning
[40:06] Commission's approval
[40:07] of the application, which is
[40:08] staff's recommendation.
[40:10] To deny the application.
[40:12] To adopt additional conditions
[40:13] of approval,
[40:15] and these conditions may or
[40:16] may not be related
[40:17] to the items listed
[40:18] in the call for review.
[40:22] Or finally,
[40:23] to remand the application
[40:24] to the Planning Commission
[40:25] for additional consideration.
[40:29] This concludes my presentation,
[40:30] but I'm available
[40:31] for questions if you have any.
[40:33] Thank you,
[40:34] and I'll ask my colleagues
[40:35] on the dais for questions.
[40:38] There is a part where we have
[40:39] public comment, so this is
[40:41] for the council
[40:42] to ask questions directly
[40:43] of staff and the report.
[40:46] Yes, Councilmember Colson.
[40:48] Thank you.
[40:50] Thank you, Ms. Levitt,
[40:52] for your work on this project.
[40:54] I appreciate you coming here
[40:55] tonight.
[40:56] The trail, the path that
[40:58] extends along Adeline.
[41:03] Is it presently open
[41:06] to the public, and
[41:08] during the day, 24-7,
[41:10] is it locked?
[41:11] What's the status of that?
[41:14] I actually can't answer that
[41:15] question.
[41:16] I'll leave that to the head
[41:17] of school to answer.
[41:18] Okay.
[41:19] As I mentioned,
[41:20] it's not required.
[41:22] It was never recorded.
[41:23] Right.
[41:24] So I never asked for that
[41:25] information as part of the
[41:26] project review.
[41:27] I'm just curious if, I mean,
[41:30] you know, a lot of,
[41:33] I don't think there would be,
[41:35] I mean, you know, a public
[41:36] school that would be able
[41:37] to allow people to sort of
[41:38] randomly walk onto campus or
[41:40] onto their enclosed community.
[41:42] So I'm just, I was just kind
[41:44] of curious, and they can answer
[41:45] that later when they make their
[41:46] presentation.
[41:48] You don't have
[41:49] to respond now.
[41:50] Any other questions
[41:51] at this time?
[41:56] Yes.
[41:58] Yes.
[41:59] Council Member Pappajohn.
[42:00] Yes.
[42:01] Can you just give me one minute
[42:03] here?
[42:04] Mr. Mayor, I might as well
[42:05] also, I hadn't really thought
[42:06] about it, but because I lived
[42:07] at 2616 Hale for over 15 years,
[42:10] I've had a number
[42:12] of neighbors reach out
[42:13] to me just to, in just normal
[42:15] friendship relations and, you
[42:18] know, have chit-chats
[42:19] about this,
[42:20] but nothing formal.
[42:22] Okay.
[42:23] Thank you
[42:24] for acknowledging that.
[42:34] Thank you, Ms. Leavitt, for
[42:35] your presentation.
[42:37] I really appreciate you going
[42:38] through everything.
[42:39] So I think one
[42:41] of the questions I have is
[42:42] about third-party rentals,
[42:44] and I was curious as
[42:46] to whether, I think there was
[42:50] a, could you please elaborate
[42:51] if there was a study done
[42:53] on any impacts
[42:55] of additional traffic
[42:57] for that,
[43:01] or if there would be any impact
[43:02] to have third-party rentals or
[43:05] more people coming
[43:06] to the site?
[43:07] That study was not done.
[43:09] The traffic and circulation
[43:10] analysis that was submitted
[43:12] by the applicant and reviewed
[43:13] by the city only looked
[43:15] at the primaries at the gym,
[43:17] which would be after-school
[43:19] activities
[43:20] during the school year.
[43:22] The things that are now
[43:23] occurring off-site,
[43:25] that would now be moving
[43:26] on-site, things like dances,
[43:28] volleyball games, that sort
[43:31] of thing.
[43:33] And then the result of that was
[43:35] no substantial impact,
[43:36] negative impact to the
[43:38] surrounding neighborhood.
[43:40] Okay.
[43:41] Thank you.
[43:45] I have a couple questions,
[43:49] particularly because a lot of
[43:50] the conversation and feedback
[43:52] is centered around parking,
[43:53] congestion, what's going
[43:54] to happen to the local
[43:56] neighborhood streets.
[43:57] Was there any discussion
[43:59] in the Planning Commission
[44:00] process from a standpoint
[44:01] of enforcement, knowing that
[44:04] all parking is supposed
[44:06] to be contained on-site
[44:08] in either the main lot or
[44:09] in overflows?
[44:10] And the second would be, was
[44:12] there any consideration or
[44:13] request
[44:14] from a signage standpoint along
[44:16] those neighborhoods where there
[44:17] would be control of parking,
[44:19] meaning, you know, it's coming
[44:23] in for a late volleyball game
[44:25] and just parking
[44:26] on the street and then running
[44:27] into the school
[44:28] to go watch it or play?
[44:30] Just curious about that part
[44:31] of the conversation.
[44:33] So the way this conditional use
[44:35] permit has always operated
[44:37] since it was first approved
[44:39] in 2007 and amended in 2010 is
[44:40] similar to any other
[44:42] conditional use permit
[44:46] in the city.
[44:47] It's enforcement upon
[44:48] complaint.
[44:49] So if we are getting frequent
[44:51] complaints of traffic issues
[44:54] specifically related
[44:56] to the school, then the city
[44:58] investigates.
[44:59] I think one of the conditions
[45:03] of approval that's in,
[45:06] I forget which number it is,
[45:07] number 29 or 30, requires that
[45:09] the school operate a 24-hour
[45:12] hotline so that they're the
[45:16] first stop for any issues.
[45:18] So they can call at any time if
[45:21] they see that somebody who's
[45:23] clearly belonging
[45:24] to the school parks in the
[45:26] neighborhood and then walks
[45:28] on-site.
[45:29] And that should be addressed
[45:30] first by the school.
[45:32] If an issue continues and it's
[45:33] not being resolved,
[45:35] then it comes to the city
[45:37] to resolve.
[45:39] Thank you.
[45:41] Another question?
[45:42] Thank you.
[45:43] Yes.
[45:44] This triggers a question.
[45:45] Currently, in the surrounding
[45:48] neighborhoods, are there any
[45:49] residential parking permit
[45:51] programs that have been
[45:52] implemented due to strain
[45:56] on the system already?
[45:58] So we've spoken at length
[46:00] with the city's traffic
[46:01] engineer about this.
[46:03] And I have to say that,
[46:05] in large part,
[46:06] that any traffic concerns
[46:08] in this area in the last 10
[46:10] years or so have been dealt
[46:12] with by the Traffic Safety and
[46:14] Parking Commission, the
[46:15] Teaspoon Commission, as they
[46:17] are with any school, public,
[46:18] private.
[46:21] So they've explored everything
[46:24] in every possible option
[46:27] in the Teaspoon Commission.
[46:29] So what I'm asking, though,
[46:30] is there's Hale Drive, Poppy
[46:33] Drive, Adeline, Hoover,
[46:35] Columbus.
[46:37] Do any of those streets have
[46:39] current residential parking
[46:40] permit programs?
[46:41] They do not.
[46:42] Again, I think that was
[46:43] explored in the Teaspoon
[46:46] Commission, and the
[46:48] neighborhood did not have an
[46:49] appetite for it.
[46:50] Okay.
[46:53] So they did not support it.
[46:58] Yes, Councilmember Thayer.
[47:00] Just one question regarding
[47:02] noise.
[47:03] So I don't think there's
[47:04] anything
[47:05] in the conditional use permit,
[47:06] but regarding the zoning, is
[47:08] there a certain level?
[47:09] I think I recall maybe 60
[47:11] decibels.
[47:13] Yes.
[47:14] 60 decibels at the nearest
[47:17] property line.
[47:19] So that has been measured in,
[47:20] there was a noise analysis
[47:22] submitted by the applicant
[47:24] looking specifically
[47:25] at the gym, and the closest
[47:27] residential property line was
[47:28] across the street on Adeline,
[47:31] somewhere near Poppy, and that
[47:34] noise analysis showed that they
[47:35] would come in occasionally at
[47:38] 50 decibels, so
[47:39] below the maximum.
[47:42] Thank you.
[47:45] Another question,
[47:46] Councilmember Pappajohn.
[47:47] Thank you, Mayor Stevenson.
[47:49] Ms. LeWitt, so the school
[47:51] currently rents
[47:54] out the facility
[47:56] for weddings and other events.
[47:58] Could you describe how it would
[48:00] be similar or different if they
[48:03] rent out the gym?
[48:05] So they currently rent out, I
[48:07] believe, Cole Mansion is what
[48:08] gets rented out.
[48:09] Thank you.
[48:10] That is on the Sisters of
[48:11] Mercy property.
[48:13] So the conditions
[48:14] of approval that are in place
[48:16] for 300 persons maximum applies
[48:19] not only to the Mercy High
[48:21] School campus, Cole Mansion,
[48:24] the gym, which would be new,
[48:26] but it applies to all
[48:27] of the events that take place
[48:29] on the Sisters of Mercy
[48:30] property.
[48:32] So any building on that site
[48:36] that could be rented that would
[48:37] be hosting a conference,
[48:40] those are all limited to 300
[48:41] guests and 50 persons.
[48:44] Currently they operate
[48:46] together, Sisters of Mercy and
[48:47] Mercy High School,
[48:48] to coordinate events.
[48:52] My understanding from speaking
[48:53] with the head
[48:54] of school is that, first
[48:55] of all,
[48:57] they don't typically rent out
[48:59] Cole Mansion during school
[49:02] hours and school operations
[49:03] because it's being used
[49:04] for offices.
[49:05] You don't want members
[49:07] of the public mixing
[49:09] with your school.
[49:10] So they don't have a lot of
[49:11] conflict now.
[49:13] I anticipate that would also be
[49:16] the case when the gym is onsite
[49:17] operational.
[49:21] Thank you.
[49:22] So just to clarify that it's
[49:23] 300 in aggregate, let's say
[49:25] there's multiple events going
[49:26] on both on Cole Mansion side as
[49:28] well as in the new gym,
[49:30] for example, it's 300
[49:31] in aggregate.
[49:33] Yes.
[49:34] There is a provision in the
[49:36] zoning code that allows any use
[49:38] to apply
[49:39] for a temporary use permit
[49:41] to exceed that.
[49:43] The school has had two such
[49:44] events
[49:45] in the past year and a half, I
[49:47] believe, where they had up to
[49:49] 500 persons onsite that were
[49:50] then shuttled in and we didn't
[49:54] receive any complaints
[49:56] during those events.
[50:00] Okay, thank you.
[50:02] Any other questions
[50:03] at this time?
[50:05] Okay, thank you very much.
[50:07] Now is the time for the
[50:08] appellant presentation.
[50:09] So I'd like to invite Mr.
[50:11] Brownrigg to step up
[50:12] to the podium, provide the
[50:14] evidence regarding the project
[50:15] and city clerk,
[50:17] please set your timer for 10
[50:18] minutes once he's.
[50:27] Okay, good evening, members of `
[50:30] city council and city staff.
[50:32] I stand here as a neighbor and
[50:33] a property owner.
[50:36] That said, in 14 years,
[50:37] I have never had cause
[50:38] to appeal an action by a city
[50:39] commission.
[50:41] I have consistently supported
[50:43] our hardworking commissions and
[50:44] tried not
[50:46] to second guess their work,
[50:48] but I couldn't do that here.
[50:49] In my view, this item
[50:51] through no fault of the
[50:52] applicants was not handled
[50:53] fairly
[50:54] by the planning commission on
[50:55] October 15th.
[50:57] This is most especially true
[50:58] for the question
[50:59] of third party rentals,
[51:00] where as the staff report says,
[51:02] the staff recommended there be
[51:04] no third party rentals and
[51:06] mercy was not requesting any.
[51:07] And yet the planning commission
[51:09] decided at the end
[51:11] of a long hearing
[51:12] to not just allow some, but
[51:13] to allow any amount of third
[51:15] party rentals and didn't allow
[51:17] the public to comment on this
[51:19] 180 degree turn.
[51:20] This is in spite of the fact
[51:22] that the city had already
[51:24] regulated third party rentals
[51:25] at Cole mansion for precisely
[51:26] the same reason that third
[51:28] party rentals,
[51:29] but an extra strain
[51:30] on the neighborhood,
[51:31] on its streets and
[51:32] on its quality of life.
[51:34] So the city didn't ban third
[51:35] party rentals, but it did set
[51:36] specific hard caps.
[51:38] And yet the planning commission
[51:40] didn't go down that road.
[51:41] Instead, it simply eliminated
[51:42] any limits at all
[51:43] without a chance for input.
[51:45] And so I appeal
[51:47] to allow neighbors and
[51:50] residents of this city
[51:51] to provide input
[51:53] on that decision.
[51:54] I want to emphasize that this
[51:55] is not a case of nimbyism
[51:57] by the neighborhood.
[51:58] Not a single neighbor in June
[52:00] or in October said mercy should
[52:02] not have a gym or that it
[52:04] should be built somewhere else.
[52:05] Everybody understands the
[52:07] importance of this
[52:08] to mercy and supports it.
[52:09] Moreover, every single public
[52:10] comment by neighbors praised
[52:11] mercy high as a neighbor and
[52:13] wish the school well and
[52:15] virtually everyone.
[52:17] And certainly I also praised
[52:19] mercy's current head
[52:20] of school, Natalie Brosman, who
[52:22] has consistently listened and
[52:24] tried her best to respond
[52:25] to neighbor concerns.
[52:27] She has been a breath
[52:28] of fresh air in the
[52:29] neighborhood and I thank her
[52:30] on behalf of all
[52:31] of her neighbors.
[52:32] That said, traffic issues are
[52:34] real and third party rentals
[52:35] are optional.
[52:38] As we've all learned, the only
[52:39] time you can get commercial or
[52:40] an institutional entity
[52:41] to agree to oversight is when
[52:43] it needs something
[52:44] from the city.
[52:45] That's what happened with Cole
[52:46] mansion.
[52:47] And so it's now or never
[52:48] in terms of whether we want
[52:49] to put some limits
[52:50] on third party rentals.
[52:52] With that, I open the door,
[52:53] but I want to hand it over to
[52:55] Lynn Israel, it to speak
[52:57] on behalf of a group
[52:58] of neighbors
[52:59] with her concerns and to
[53:00] suggest some simple tweaks that
[53:01] the council might consider
[53:02] adopting.
[53:06] Thank you, Michael.
[53:07] Thank you.
[53:08] Commission commissioners,
[53:09] council members,
[53:11] I'm good evening.
[53:12] Let me begin
[53:14] by stating that all
[53:15] of the neighbors are supportive
[53:16] of mercy building a new gym
[53:18] for their girls.
[53:19] And we're fully supportive of
[53:20] all school sponsored activities
[53:21] that might occur
[53:22] in this gym.
[53:24] We've been clear about that.
[53:26] We've been meeting and working
[53:27] with mercy
[53:28] from early stages.
[53:30] However, the neighbors do
[53:32] object to the renting out
[53:34] of this new facility for
[53:35] outside non school related and
[53:37] for profit functions.
[53:40] Mercy repeatedly assure the
[53:41] neighbors at informational
[53:43] meetings that they would not be
[53:44] renting
[53:45] out the gym they intended
[53:46] to build.
[53:47] They did not request that
[53:48] rentals be permitted
[53:49] in their proposal
[53:51] to the city.
[53:52] And the city staff analysis to
[53:53] the planning commission
[53:55] recommended that third party
[53:56] rentals not be permitted.
[53:57] However, at the end of the
[53:59] planning commission meeting
[54:03] in October, the commissioners
[54:04] themselves made the decision to
[54:06] strike the language preventing
[54:08] non school rental.
[54:10] This was a complete flip from
[54:12] the previous planning
[54:13] commission in June, where each
[54:16] and every single commissioner
[54:17] said concessions
[54:19] to the neighbors on operating
[54:20] hours and rentals was
[54:21] reasonable and fair.
[54:24] The staff report you received
[54:25] this evening in your materials
[54:28] doesn't include this discussion
[54:29] for some reason,
[54:30] but it is clearly documented
[54:32] in the June meeting video.
[54:34] Frankly, the optics
[54:36] of fairness were not great
[54:37] at the October planning
[54:39] commission meeting as each
[54:41] commissioner
[54:42] but one prefaced their comments
[54:43] by mentioning their sympathies
[54:46] for Catholic schools financial
[54:47] needs, connections to Mercy or
[54:48] their board, or being alumni
[54:52] of Catholic schools themselves.
[54:54] They did not come
[54:55] across as unbiased,
[54:56] neutral decision makers
[54:58] to the public.
[55:00] Neighbors are really concerned
[55:01] about any increase in traffic
[55:03] on these narrow residential
[55:04] streets.
[55:06] This is a tight area.
[55:07] There's not even room
[55:09] for two cars
[55:10] to pass each other on Alvarado
[55:11] and Adeline is narrow and
[55:13] twisty road.
[55:15] There's a well documented
[55:16] history of traffic issues here
[55:18] already that's required city
[55:20] intervention.
[55:22] Neighbors are unable to get
[55:23] out of their driveways.
[55:25] Their cars are clipped and
[55:26] sideswiped and there are daily
[55:27] near misses when you're trying
[55:28] to pull out
[55:30] from side streets onto
[55:31] Adeline.
[55:33] Teaspoon measures were
[55:34] implemented.
[55:36] I'm a member of the Teaspoon
[55:37] and just to let you know,
[55:39] and they have helped but they
[55:40] in no way decreased the amount
[55:43] of traffic itself.
[55:46] And contrary to the statement
[55:48] by the planning commission,
[55:49] Mercy is indeed located
[55:51] in a unique site compared to
[55:53] all other county high schools.
[55:56] Not one other school has only
[55:58] two lane residential roads as
[56:00] the only access streets
[56:02] to their property.
[56:04] Other schools were built on
[56:05] El Camino Real, Murchison,
[56:07] Carol Ann, Alameda de Los
[56:09] Puglis, etc.
[56:10] And Crystal Springs is the only
[56:13] other exception to this.
[56:17] We neighbors are willing to
[56:20] accommodate the current impacts
[56:21] we experience
[56:23] with coal mansion rentals
[56:25] but not an increase
[56:27] in rental use of the property
[56:28] and the resulting traffic that
[56:31] will further impact our lives.
[56:33] Interestingly
[56:35] in their discussion, planning
[56:36] commissioners suggested that
[56:38] it's the neighbors who should
[56:40] have to give up something and
[56:41] sacrifice in order
[56:42] to accommodate Mercy's
[56:44] increased needs.
[56:45] One commissioner even suggested
[56:46] taking away resident street
[56:48] parking on both Adeline and
[56:49] Alvarado to allow Mercy's
[56:52] expanded use and to solve the
[56:53] traffic problems we're facing.
[56:56] Let me just say that would be
[56:57] an incredibly unfair and
[56:59] unpopular solution.
[57:03] People want to understand why a
[57:05] private institution seems to be
[57:07] getting preferential treatment
[57:09] over the neighbors who live
[57:11] here, pay Burlingame taxes,
[57:12] and vote.
[57:14] The neighbors only ask for
[57:15] earlier end times and no third
[57:16] party rentals in order to fully
[57:20] support this gym project.
[57:23] Neither concession was given.
[57:25] We currently have a one-sided
[57:27] compromise
[57:28] on the neighbors' parts and at
[57:29] this point they do not have
[57:31] faith in the process or feel
[57:32] that their voices matter.
[57:35] So in summary,
[57:36] we strongly request a return to
[57:38] the original staff
[57:41] recommendation
[57:42] of no outside party gym rentals
[57:44] with coal mansion remaining the
[57:46] only rental venue
[57:48] on the high school campus.
[57:49] That was what was originally
[57:50] agreed upon
[57:52] between the neighbors and
[57:53] Mercy High School.
[57:55] We think that's fair to all
[57:56] parties and we feel that this
[57:58] is the decision council should
[57:59] make tonight.
[58:03] However, if you decide to allow
[58:06] some non-school related gym
[58:07] rentals, we believe there
[58:09] should be limits
[58:10] in place just as there are
[58:12] for coal mansion rentals.
[58:13] After all, it's one thing
[58:15] for neighbors to put up
[58:16] with traffic
[58:18] from students and athletes, but
[58:19] it's not right that we should
[58:20] also have to deal
[58:23] with more traffic
[58:24] from third party rentals.
[58:25] There are many ways such limits
[58:27] could be designed.
[58:28] Mercy gym rentals
[58:29] to third parties could count
[58:31] against the coal limits of 125
[58:32] events per year
[58:34] for outside use.
[58:37] Mercy rentals to third parties
[58:38] could be required
[58:39] to end earlier, for instance
[58:41] at 8 p.m. rather than 10 p.m.
[58:43] to minimize disturbances to the
[58:45] surrounding neighborhood.
[58:47] And Mercy rentals could be
[58:49] limited to the summertime when
[58:50] school is not in session.
[58:53] These changes could reduce the
[58:55] negative impact of rentals
[58:57] on our neighborhoods
[58:59] without impairing Mercy
[59:00] students' use and enjoyment
[59:02] of their new gym, especially
[59:04] since Mercy didn't even request
[59:06] these rights.
[59:08] Overall, we have a great
[59:10] relationship, as you've heard,
[59:12] with Mercy, unlike what you see
[59:13] surrounding Sara Castilleja
[59:14] in Palo Alto, for example,
[59:17] and we'd like
[59:18] to keep it that way.
[59:20] We think these simple
[59:21] constraints will create a
[59:22] reasonable balance
[59:23] for everybody.
[59:25] And thank you
[59:26] for your attention.
[59:28] Thank you, Mr. Brownrigg and
[59:29] Ms. Israeli.
[59:31] If you could remain up,
[59:32] now is the time
[59:34] for my councilmembers
[59:35] to address questions of you,
[59:39] so I'll open it up.
[59:45] Councilmember Pappajohn?
[59:52] I don't have any questions
[59:53] right now.
[59:54] Okay.
[59:55] My thoughts.
[59:56] Thank you.
[59:57] Any questions?
[59:58] Councilmember Thayer?
[59:59] Councilmember Colson?
[1:00:02] I do have a question related
[1:00:03] to this, but I'm, I think it's
[1:00:05] probably better addressed
[1:00:07] by the applicant.
[1:00:09] So, but there'll be a chance
[1:00:11] for rebuttal.
[1:00:13] But I, I'm curious, maybe just
[1:00:17] from the,
[1:00:19] from the appellant perspective,
[1:00:21] the 125 limitation on Cole
[1:00:22] Mansion and what has been the
[1:00:25] experience in terms
[1:00:27] of the neighborhood?
[1:00:30] I am happy to speak to that.
[1:00:33] Although 125 rentals is the cap
[1:00:36] for Cole Mansion per year,
[1:00:38] in actuality, it's far fewer
[1:00:40] events than that because let's
[1:00:42] face it, Cole Mansion costs
[1:00:43] $15,000 a French.
[1:00:45] And you know, weddings tend
[1:00:47] to occur solely
[1:00:49] on the weekends.
[1:00:50] So I'm sure Mercy could
[1:00:51] probably tell you exactly how
[1:00:52] many times per year it's
[1:00:53] rented.
[1:00:55] But currently we can handle the
[1:00:57] number
[1:01:01] of events that occur there,
[1:01:02] but it's not 125.
[1:01:04] Okay, thank you.
[1:01:08] I think that's it.
[1:01:09] And we'll have the applicant
[1:01:11] come up now and give their
[1:01:14] evidence.
[1:01:18] And we'll then go
[1:01:22] into public comments
[1:01:23] after that.
[1:01:29] Thank you.
[1:01:30] Hello, thank you
[1:01:31] for allowing me
[1:01:32] to be here this evening.
[1:01:33] My name is Natalie Serigliano
[1:01:34] Brosnan and I am the head of
[1:01:35] School of Mercy High School and
[1:01:36] a proud alum and a proud former
[1:01:40] resident of Burlingame.
[1:01:41] I was born and raised in
[1:01:42] Burlingame.
[1:01:43] So I'm very grateful
[1:01:44] for all you do to keep the city
[1:01:45] that raised me what it was.
[1:01:47] Before anything, I don't think
[1:01:49] that we can stress enough as a
[1:01:51] community, our desire
[1:01:52] to partner
[1:01:53] with our neighbors.
[1:01:54] We very much have come to value
[1:01:55] the neighbor relationships and
[1:01:57] I'm grateful that this project
[1:01:58] and this process has given us
[1:01:59] tremendous opportunity
[1:02:01] to know our neighbors like
[1:02:02] those that just talked and a
[1:02:03] number
[1:02:04] of other neighbors that we see
[1:02:05] in the crowd.
[1:02:06] And that is something that is
[1:02:07] incredibly, thank you,
[1:02:08] important,
[1:02:10] incredibly important to us and
[1:02:11] to our board
[1:02:13] of directors as we continue
[1:02:14] to plan for Mercy's future and
[1:02:17] the expectations and
[1:02:19] maintaining those relationships
[1:02:20] with our neighbors.
[1:02:22] We are really excited that we
[1:02:24] are at this point to build a
[1:02:27] state-of-the-art facility for
[1:02:28] our young women and we are very
[1:02:29] grateful for the support
[1:02:31] from our neighbors.
[1:02:33] We know that neighbors have
[1:02:34] concerns,
[1:02:35] but we do feel their support in
[1:02:36] building a gym and recognizing
[1:02:37] that our young women deserve a
[1:02:39] gym and we are incredibly
[1:02:40] grateful for that.
[1:02:43] You know, I just bring this
[1:02:44] picture because I think it's so
[1:02:45] important for us
[1:02:46] to acknowledge that
[1:02:48] in the city's history,
[1:02:49] six years
[1:02:52] after it was incorporated,
[1:02:53] Mercy, the Cole Mansion was
[1:02:54] built and the Cole Mansion has
[1:02:55] had a significant presence
[1:02:57] in the Mercy community
[1:02:59] through the Cole Mansion,
[1:03:00] through Sisters of Mercy,
[1:03:01] through Mercy High School.
[1:03:03] It is this incredible piece
[1:03:04] of our history in Burlingame
[1:03:05] and we are grateful
[1:03:07] to have this opportunity
[1:03:08] to speak
[1:03:09] of how we ensure the future
[1:03:10] of Mercy High School at this
[1:03:11] property.
[1:03:13] I know this was already shown,
[1:03:14] but I just feel it's important
[1:03:15] to acknowledge that we are the
[1:03:16] island in the acreage there,
[1:03:18] the smaller area,
[1:03:20] and I do just want a correction
[1:03:22] to Ms. Leavitt, Cole Mansion is
[1:03:23] on Mercy High School property.
[1:03:25] It is not on Sisters of Mercy
[1:03:26] property and I just want to
[1:03:27] acknowledge that we can only
[1:03:29] speak for what is
[1:03:30] within our property, not
[1:03:31] on the Sisters of Mercy
[1:03:32] property.
[1:03:36] I know that in our commission
[1:03:37] meetings, we were able
[1:03:38] to express the need
[1:03:40] for a gymnasium and I don't
[1:03:42] want to go over all this,
[1:03:43] but I just feel the need to
[1:03:45] remind us that we are here
[1:03:46] because a 94-year-old school
[1:03:49] for young women does not have a
[1:03:50] gym and we are the only high
[1:03:52] school in the Archdiocese of
[1:03:54] San Francisco and the Diocese
[1:03:55] of Santa Rosa, Oakland, and
[1:03:57] San Jose without a gym and our
[1:03:59] young women deserve equitable
[1:04:00] facilities and this has been
[1:04:02] decades in the making and it is
[1:04:04] something that is crucial to
[1:04:05] Mercy's future.
[1:04:07] All girls' education is
[1:04:09] absolutely imperative and it is
[1:04:11] something that I believe we
[1:04:12] should be proud that we have
[1:04:14] in the city of Burlingame.
[1:04:16] Very few cities have all girls'
[1:04:17] education offerings.
[1:04:19] The city of San Francisco
[1:04:21] in the 1950s alone had 14 all
[1:04:22] girls' schools and only two
[1:04:24] exist today, two that serve
[1:04:26] very different socioeconomic
[1:04:27] groups which leaves Mercy
[1:04:29] High School as the closest all
[1:04:31] girls' opportunity
[1:04:32] for many young women north of
[1:04:34] us and that is something that
[1:04:35] is incredibly important.
[1:04:38] Again, these are just some
[1:04:39] renderings of what we plan.
[1:04:43] And then I'll jump right
[1:04:44] into the appeal and
[1:04:46] before going into that, I know
[1:04:48] that it was addressed formally
[1:04:51] by Lynn and Michael that there
[1:04:54] is a concern that the
[1:04:56] Planning Commission felt
[1:04:58] like it was biased
[1:04:59] in its decisions
[1:05:00] in acknowledging Catholic
[1:05:01] education, talking about our
[1:05:02] local community and I just have
[1:05:04] to say that I do believe that
[1:05:06] the decisions were unbiased and
[1:05:08] it has nothing to do
[1:05:10] with the fact that Mercy High
[1:05:12] School had decisions made that
[1:05:14] were positive for the future
[1:05:16] of the school but truly the
[1:05:17] fact that we brought a number
[1:05:19] of data points and we felt that
[1:05:20] the commission made database
[1:05:22] decisions that we were able
[1:05:24] to show based on the concerns
[1:05:26] that had been brought forward.
[1:05:28] So I know the pedestrian
[1:05:29] walkway path protection is
[1:05:30] something that our neighbors
[1:05:32] truly want.
[1:05:34] We love the beauty
[1:05:35] of our neighborhood.
[1:05:36] Neighbors frequent the pathway
[1:05:38] and we cannot speak
[1:05:40] for this.
[1:05:41] The majority of the pathway is
[1:05:42] on property but
[1:05:44] from a legal standpoint,
[1:05:45] a safety standpoint,
[1:05:46] we always need to be able
[1:05:47] to maintain control of access
[1:05:52] to that pathway but there is
[1:05:53] of course no desire
[1:05:54] to disrupt the beauty
[1:05:55] of our campus.
[1:05:58] That's something we care just
[1:05:59] as much
[1:06:00] about as anybody else.
[1:06:03] The emergency road access has
[1:06:04] already been addressed in the
[1:06:05] Planning Commission documents.
[1:06:06] This will be a locked gate.
[1:06:08] This was required by the Fire
[1:06:11] Department.
[1:06:13] There is no plan
[1:06:14] for any neighbors,
[1:06:16] pedestrians or employees
[1:06:18] to have access
[1:06:19] to this parking.
[1:06:20] It will be a locked gate.
[1:06:23] Third party rentals and I do
[1:06:24] believe that this is
[1:06:25] at the heart of concern from
[1:06:26] our neighbors and so I can't
[1:06:29] stress enough that first and
[1:06:30] foremost, the gym is
[1:06:31] about the high school.
[1:06:32] Our young women need access
[1:06:34] to a gymnasium.
[1:06:35] We need a home of Mercy High
[1:06:36] School in the form
[1:06:37] of a gymnasium.
[1:06:38] We have always historically
[1:06:39] held a deep desire to support
[1:06:41] our community and we have never
[1:06:43] had a lack of transparency
[1:06:46] for this.
[1:06:48] Over the years, we have
[1:06:49] supported our community
[1:06:50] in a number of ways.
[1:06:51] Burlingame Aquatic Center has
[1:06:52] regularly used our pool when
[1:06:55] the community center was being
[1:06:56] built.
[1:06:58] The rec center asked if they
[1:07:01] could have activities held in
[1:07:02] those years so that there
[1:07:04] wouldn't be a loss
[1:07:05] to the programming available
[1:07:06] by the city of Burlingame.
[1:07:08] We supported that.
[1:07:09] There's times when our local
[1:07:11] schools, public and Catholic
[1:07:12] reach out to us
[1:07:14] for last minute support.
[1:07:15] We always want the ability
[1:07:17] to offer support to our local
[1:07:19] community and that's the heart
[1:07:20] of where we are.
[1:07:22] I understand that yes,
[1:07:24] we never talked about having
[1:07:25] rentals and there's not this
[1:07:26] huge request to have rentals
[1:07:29] but there is a desire to
[1:07:31] support our local community and
[1:07:33] now that it has been brought
[1:07:35] forward about the ability
[1:07:36] to have rentals,
[1:07:37] to have it taken away,
[1:07:39] it's difficult
[1:07:40] to say it's okay,
[1:07:41] take that away because again,
[1:07:42] as a community
[1:07:44] for young women,
[1:07:45] our young women are watching.
[1:07:46] Our young women are very aware
[1:07:47] of what is going on with our
[1:07:48] project and our plans and to
[1:07:50] stand here and say that we are
[1:07:52] okay not being treated as all
[1:07:55] the other schools would be a
[1:07:56] disservice to our young women
[1:07:58] and the message that they are
[1:08:00] receiving in that.
[1:08:01] So that is why we are moving
[1:08:02] forward with this conversation
[1:08:04] regarding third party rentals.
[1:08:07] We have heard a number of fears
[1:08:09] that the gym could be used
[1:08:11] for a number of activities such
[1:08:12] as regular crash events
[1:08:15] in the crab, crab events
[1:08:16] in the gym, different
[1:08:19] fundraisers,
[1:08:20] major outside events.
[1:08:22] We have navigated rentals
[1:08:24] for decades through Cole
[1:08:25] Mansion and to the best
[1:08:26] of our knowledge, we have not
[1:08:28] had major issues or ongoing
[1:08:29] issues.
[1:08:31] To Ms. Leavitt's point,
[1:08:32] we had two events
[1:08:33] over the last year and a half
[1:08:34] of 500 people and we did not
[1:08:36] receive any concern
[1:08:37] from either of those.
[1:08:39] In looking
[1:08:40] at the third party rentals, I
[1:08:43] think it's really important
[1:08:45] that we pause and acknowledge
[1:08:46] that the Cole Mansion revenue
[1:08:47] is critical to Mercy High
[1:08:48] School's success and survival,
[1:08:51] quite frankly.
[1:08:53] Cole Mansion revenue goes
[1:08:55] directly into the school's
[1:08:56] operating budget.
[1:08:57] I know that there is a concern
[1:08:59] that we would use the gym
[1:09:00] for a number of events.
[1:09:01] That is not on the docket
[1:09:03] at all for the school.
[1:09:04] One, we wanna maintain a gym
[1:09:05] that's taken 94 years
[1:09:06] to get.
[1:09:08] All of our fundraisers have
[1:09:09] already been done on campus and
[1:09:11] that won't change anything.
[1:09:12] And to potentially rent out a
[1:09:17] gym space when we could be
[1:09:19] renting out the Cole Mansion
[1:09:21] for tens of thousand dollars
[1:09:23] more would be a horrible
[1:09:25] financial decision for the
[1:09:26] school and really should help
[1:09:27] to appease the neighbors that
[1:09:30] there is no desire or plans
[1:09:32] to significantly rent
[1:09:34] out the gym.
[1:09:35] Our hope and our goal has
[1:09:36] always been about supporting
[1:09:37] our local community as needs
[1:09:39] arise and looking at how we can
[1:09:42] be a community member.
[1:09:47] I also feel it's important
[1:09:48] to acknowledge with the Cole
[1:09:49] Mansion rentals,
[1:09:50] and we've stated this a number
[1:09:51] of times and we continue
[1:09:53] to share, the Cole Mansion
[1:09:56] rentals will never be able
[1:09:57] to access the gym.
[1:09:59] We don't want them
[1:10:00] in two different facilities.
[1:10:01] The Cole Mansion is for 300
[1:10:03] in the Cole Mansion.
[1:10:06] So as I said earlier,
[1:10:07] it's the hope that Mercy High
[1:10:08] School's gym usage will be
[1:10:09] in line with all the gym usage
[1:10:10] in the Burlingame schools.
[1:10:12] From the best
[1:10:13] of our knowledge,
[1:10:14] we have seen that a number
[1:10:15] of schools have no restrictions
[1:10:18] on them.
[1:10:19] And we would like to be able to
[1:10:20] know that we are being treated
[1:10:22] the exact same as all other
[1:10:23] schools in our community,
[1:10:25] including our private schools
[1:10:27] with our public schools.
[1:10:30] I just wanna acknowledge that
[1:10:32] the shuttle usage has come up.
[1:10:34] We are required, so in the blue
[1:10:35] is the previous writing that we
[1:10:39] had in our CUP up
[1:10:40] until recently, that we offer
[1:10:42] at minimum three shuttle routes
[1:10:43] to the high school and
[1:10:44] after school shuttles to the
[1:10:45] Millbrae Caltrain BART.
[1:10:48] We more than exceed this,
[1:10:49] and we have for many years,
[1:10:50] and that should be a sign
[1:10:53] of our commitment to this.
[1:10:54] We offer nine private shuttles
[1:10:55] on top of what we pay into
[1:10:58] with the city,
[1:10:59] and currently 10% of our
[1:11:00] student body use shuttles.
[1:11:03] I just wanna confirm I have 48
[1:11:05] seconds left.
[1:11:06] Is that true?
[1:11:07] Traffic has been an ongoing
[1:11:08] issue.
[1:11:09] I would just like to call
[1:11:11] out that we are one
[1:11:12] of four schools within less
[1:11:13] than one mile range, and
[1:11:14] within five miles proximity
[1:11:16] to 12 schools in Burlingame.
[1:11:17] I agree with the neighbors that
[1:11:19] we have a number
[1:11:21] of traffic issues.
[1:11:22] We have wanted
[1:11:24] to support traffic.
[1:11:25] We are part
[1:11:26] of the calming measures
[1:11:27] with the neighbors, with the
[1:11:28] traffic committee that did come
[1:11:30] up that we would potentially
[1:11:32] could have one-way parking or
[1:11:34] permanent parking.
[1:11:35] That was something that was
[1:11:36] brought up to explore,
[1:11:37] but the neighbors didn't
[1:11:38] like it, and we wanted to
[1:11:39] support the neighbors.
[1:11:41] I also know that parking spaces
[1:11:43] have been a concern.
[1:11:44] This is new data
[1:11:45] from the month of January.
[1:11:46] These are the amount
[1:11:48] of cars actually
[1:11:49] in our parking spots,
[1:11:51] in our parking lots.
[1:11:53] Thank you very much.
[1:11:57] Thank you.
[1:11:58] So now I'm gonna ask colleagues
[1:12:00] on the dais
[1:12:01] for any questions.
[1:12:05] Yes, Council Member Colson.
[1:12:09] Thank you.
[1:12:10] Thank you very much, Ms.
[1:12:11] Brosnan, for coming today.
[1:12:13] So as I understand it,
[1:12:16] generally Catholic schools do
[1:12:17] not have activities on
[1:12:18] Sundays.
[1:12:20] So is that the main day that
[1:12:23] you're thinking if you did
[1:12:24] rentals, they would be to rent
[1:12:26] out on Sunday?
[1:12:30] Yeah, Catholic schools do not
[1:12:32] have any events on Sunday.
[1:12:34] That's something that has
[1:12:36] always been
[1:12:37] in place and will continue
[1:12:38] to be in place.
[1:12:39] Again, I think the main focus
[1:12:40] of potential rentals would have
[1:12:42] to do with is there a community
[1:12:43] need that we can support?
[1:12:46] If there is a wedding on a
[1:12:47] Sunday schedule, there's no way
[1:12:48] that we could plan a Sunday
[1:12:53] rental.
[1:12:54] And when I'm talking rental,
[1:12:55] my understanding from talking
[1:12:57] to neighbors is they believe
[1:12:59] that rentals could be hundreds
[1:13:00] of people on our campus,
[1:13:01] not a team of 10 kids from a
[1:13:02] local school that needed a last
[1:13:03] minute gym facility usage.
[1:13:07] But again, for Colemansion
[1:13:09] Revenue, we would not ever be
[1:13:12] looking to rent
[1:13:13] out a gym months in advance
[1:13:14] because a few hundred dollars
[1:13:17] could limit our ability
[1:13:18] to bring in a few thousand, 10
[1:13:19] to 17,000.
[1:13:22] So I guess I would ask then,
[1:13:23] you anticipate that when you
[1:13:25] rent out the gym,
[1:13:27] it would mainly be for
[1:13:30] basketball or volleyball or
[1:13:32] sports related activities.
[1:13:35] We all know in this city,
[1:13:37] there is an immense amount
[1:13:39] of pressure.
[1:13:40] When we were building our
[1:13:41] community center,
[1:13:43] there was one
[1:13:45] of the number one things,
[1:13:46] we need a gym, we need a gym,
[1:13:47] we need a gym.
[1:13:48] I've heard constantly,
[1:13:49] we need a gym
[1:13:50] in this community.
[1:13:51] So for example, with that gym
[1:13:53] on Sundays, if it were rented,
[1:13:57] be available for, one of the
[1:13:58] rental opportunities would be
[1:14:02] local youth basketball teams
[1:14:05] and organizations.
[1:14:06] Yes.
[1:14:07] Okay, and volleyball,
[1:14:08] I take it too?
[1:14:09] And volleyball.
[1:14:11] I'm guessing you can serve
[1:14:12] volleyball, basketball,
[1:14:13] maybe indoor futsal or
[1:14:14] something like that.
[1:14:15] So do you anticipate that it
[1:14:19] would be for, say
[1:14:20] for example, parties or things
[1:14:21] like that in there?
[1:14:22] No.
[1:14:23] No, so it would really be
[1:14:24] limited to the same exact use
[1:14:26] that it has for the girls?
[1:14:29] Yes.
[1:14:30] The only time I could think
[1:14:31] of a party off the top
[1:14:32] of my head, again,
[1:14:33] it's all been
[1:14:35] about the local community.
[1:14:36] If OLA, if BIS, they have a
[1:14:38] facility that floods right
[1:14:39] before graduation and they say,
[1:14:42] can we use your gym in order
[1:14:44] to have a graduation event
[1:14:46] with parents and kids?
[1:14:48] Again, as a community member,
[1:14:49] I always think we lean
[1:14:50] into that and we try
[1:14:51] to build community with one
[1:14:52] another and support each other.
[1:14:54] Thank you.
[1:14:56] And do, are there other sports
[1:14:58] on campus that are not able
[1:15:00] to be played that have
[1:15:01] to be played
[1:15:02] off campus right now?
[1:15:03] Other sports?
[1:15:05] Yes, every sport is played
[1:15:06] off campus at this point.
[1:15:08] Our pool isn't regulation.
[1:15:09] We do practice water polo,
[1:15:11] but we have to play
[1:15:12] off campus.
[1:15:13] So the gym would allow
[1:15:14] volleyball, basketball, some
[1:15:16] cheer, dance, and gymnastics
[1:15:18] to stay on campus.
[1:15:19] Thank you.
[1:15:23] Yes, Council Member
[1:15:24] Pappajohn.
[1:15:25] Thank you, Mayor.
[1:15:26] Thank you for your
[1:15:27] presentation.
[1:15:28] I just wanted to kind
[1:15:29] of continue
[1:15:30] on the conversation with
[1:15:32] Council Member Colson.
[1:15:34] And so what I am understanding
[1:15:35] is that the gym would really,
[1:15:38] rentals would be for sports,
[1:15:41] unless you wanted to lean in
[1:15:44] to a community that needed it
[1:15:46] for an organization that needed
[1:15:47] it for event.
[1:15:49] So could you just elaborate
[1:15:52] again on then how you would
[1:15:54] incentivize, or how you would
[1:15:58] have the community rent the
[1:16:00] Cole Mansion and then not the
[1:16:02] gym, because obviously it makes
[1:16:04] so much more financial sense
[1:16:05] to do that.
[1:16:06] Could you just repeat that part
[1:16:08] for me, please?
[1:16:09] Yes, so typically we leave the
[1:16:11] Cole Mansion open for rentals
[1:16:12] throughout the year.
[1:16:14] Some people are planning
[1:16:15] weddings 18 months
[1:16:16] in advance.
[1:16:17] Some people are calling two
[1:16:18] months in advance or a month
[1:16:19] in advance for a celebration
[1:16:20] of life.
[1:16:21] And so to try to rent
[1:16:22] out the gym months in advance
[1:16:24] for a major event would just,
[1:16:25] again, be poor judgment
[1:16:27] on our part.
[1:16:28] And that is something we would
[1:16:29] never do because it limits our
[1:16:30] ability to bring
[1:16:32] in more money.
[1:16:34] If there is, and there's a
[1:16:35] balance, a delicate balance
[1:16:36] to running an event venue,
[1:16:39] especially for weddings,
[1:16:40] when people want the best day
[1:16:41] of their life.
[1:16:42] For example, and we put this
[1:16:44] in our meeting notes
[1:16:45] with the commission,
[1:16:46] let's say we had a wedding plan
[1:16:47] for 200, 300 people and we
[1:16:49] happened to get to the CCS
[1:16:51] semifinals and we got home
[1:16:54] court advantage.
[1:16:56] Weddings don't want kids
[1:16:57] in uniforms walking
[1:16:59] in and out.
[1:17:00] They don't want a bunch
[1:17:02] of high school students.
[1:17:03] So even having a gym, we
[1:17:04] recognize there might be times
[1:17:05] where we still have to rent
[1:17:06] another facility or we have
[1:17:07] to think twice of, do we have
[1:17:08] to shuttle people
[1:17:10] in and out?
[1:17:12] So it's a very delicate rentals
[1:17:15] that we have been doing
[1:17:16] for decades and we continue
[1:17:17] to give that same care to the
[1:17:19] way we would balance any gym
[1:17:20] rental requests.
[1:17:23] Again, the gym rental
[1:17:24] for me allows us
[1:17:28] to support the community.
[1:17:31] Thank you.
[1:17:32] Any other questions?
[1:17:33] Yes.
[1:17:34] Yeah, so I did have a question.
[1:17:35] So I think
[1:17:36] in the conditional use permit,
[1:17:38] it does mention summer school
[1:17:39] and sports camp.
[1:17:40] Currently, there's some
[1:17:41] restrictions on that as far as
[1:17:42] how many participants and the
[1:17:43] time of day.
[1:17:45] Do those types of activities
[1:17:46] happen now and would any
[1:17:48] of those happen in the gym
[1:17:49] in the future?
[1:17:51] Yes, they do happen now and
[1:17:52] they will continue to happen
[1:17:53] in the future in the gym and
[1:17:54] the gym can only support the
[1:17:56] growth of Mercy High School,
[1:17:59] which is something I believe is
[1:18:00] important
[1:18:01] to us as a city as well.
[1:18:03] Because right now,
[1:18:04] for instance, some
[1:18:05] of our programming is
[1:18:07] on campus and then we have
[1:18:08] to rent gyms for volleyball,
[1:18:09] basketball,
[1:18:10] camps or conditioning.
[1:18:11] And so we're taking students
[1:18:12] and potential people that wanna
[1:18:14] learn about Mercy off
[1:18:15] of our campus.
[1:18:16] So it wouldn't change anything
[1:18:17] in the numbers in the CUP.
[1:18:18] It would just, again, ensure
[1:18:21] that we have students coming
[1:18:23] onto our campus and have the
[1:18:24] facilities to keep them indoors
[1:18:25] and reduce the noise.
[1:18:27] Yeah, because I did notice the
[1:18:28] time limits on those are
[1:18:29] Monday through Friday, 8.15
[1:18:31] to 3.15 p.m.
[1:18:32] So those are very strict
[1:18:33] limits.
[1:18:35] So even if you did do third
[1:18:36] party rentals,
[1:18:37] I think it would probably have
[1:18:38] to fall
[1:18:39] under these guidelines.
[1:18:40] So those are the guidelines
[1:18:41] for summer camp.
[1:18:42] So those aren't the guidelines,
[1:18:44] like the Cole Mansion, we can
[1:18:45] rent until 11 p.m.
[1:18:47] So I would just, and I think
[1:18:49] that's where this conversation
[1:18:50] originally came from when
[1:18:52] neighbors were hoping that we
[1:18:53] would limit gym usage to 8.30
[1:18:54] p.m.
[1:18:56] We did our research comparing
[1:18:57] to other schools and we
[1:18:58] recognize that that would be
[1:18:59] holding Mercy
[1:19:02] to a very different standard
[1:19:03] of all
[1:19:04] of their schools being able
[1:19:05] to use their gym.
[1:19:06] And that by saying you can
[1:19:07] leave the gym at 8.30, you have
[1:19:08] to leave the gym at 8.30,
[1:19:10] but you can go hang out
[1:19:11] in the Cole Mansion until 11
[1:19:12] p.m.
[1:19:13] There was a huge discrepancy
[1:19:14] there.
[1:19:15] So yes, I agree that there's
[1:19:16] the summer camp and that is
[1:19:18] something that we always uphold
[1:19:19] every year.
[1:19:20] And quite frankly,
[1:19:21] in the summer,
[1:19:22] we don't wanna be at Mercy
[1:19:23] late.
[1:19:24] We want our time to rest.
[1:19:25] But in terms of
[1:19:26] during the school year,
[1:19:28] that point in the CUP, I don't
[1:19:29] think applies right now.
[1:19:31] And then the other question I
[1:19:32] had is, so the conditional use
[1:19:34] permit also requires you
[1:19:35] to have a public calendar
[1:19:37] of any of the events at Cole
[1:19:39] Mansion or otherwise.
[1:19:40] And I assume that would apply
[1:19:42] to the gymnasium as well.
[1:19:44] Is that something you would
[1:19:45] plan to do for the events?
[1:19:47] Yeah, so our calendar is
[1:19:48] public.
[1:19:50] So we have our school calendar,
[1:19:52] we have a shared calendar
[1:19:53] with the sisters.
[1:19:54] Our athletic calendar would
[1:19:55] also be available.
[1:19:56] So neighbors would know when
[1:19:57] there's home games and not.
[1:19:59] And if there were any
[1:20:00] additional events specific
[1:20:01] to the gym, like for example,
[1:20:05] BIS needed, all
[1:20:07] of their teams went to the
[1:20:08] championship and needed an
[1:20:09] extra two hours of practice.
[1:20:10] We could add that into our
[1:20:12] Cole Mansion calendar somehow,
[1:20:13] the larger link outside
[1:20:15] of the school calendar.
[1:20:17] Thank you.
[1:20:19] This may seem a little weird,
[1:20:20] and I know you're not fully
[1:20:22] into design and production yet,
[1:20:24] but what type of materials has
[1:20:27] the school talked about
[1:20:29] for noise prevention
[1:20:30] in that gym?
[1:20:32] You're right,
[1:20:33] that is not my specialty.
[1:20:35] But what I do know is we
[1:20:36] specifically design it
[1:20:37] to have a lobby
[1:20:39] before you would go
[1:20:40] into the main doors
[1:20:41] of the gym.
[1:20:42] And that lobby from previous
[1:20:44] conversations that I know our
[1:20:45] architects spoke to at the
[1:20:47] commission meeting would
[1:20:48] maintain the noise inside.
[1:20:50] And so actually the gym brings
[1:20:51] noise.
[1:20:54] Like for right now, we have
[1:20:56] rallies outdoors.
[1:20:57] And as you can imagine, 400
[1:20:58] girls yelling can get noisy.
[1:20:59] All that will be brought
[1:21:01] inside.
[1:21:03] So there are different pieces
[1:21:04] where we'll actually decrease
[1:21:05] the noise that our community
[1:21:06] members have been used to.
[1:21:09] Thank you.
[1:21:10] And our architects are here if
[1:21:11] you want more specific details
[1:21:12] about that.
[1:21:14] Any other questions?
[1:21:17] Okay, thank you very much.
[1:21:18] Thank you.
[1:21:19] Stay tuned, we have rebuttal
[1:21:21] section coming.
[1:21:27] So just as a reminder,
[1:21:28] this is the time for public
[1:21:29] comment and I'll go ahead and
[1:21:30] we're gonna limit it to two
[1:21:32] minutes and we'll go ahead and
[1:21:35] open that.
[1:21:36] I do have a special request
[1:21:37] though.
[1:21:38] We have somebody who needs
[1:21:41] to come and go.
[1:21:43] And so we're gonna invite Mr.
[1:21:44] Collins up first.
[1:21:46] Is Mr. Collins here?
[1:21:48] And I'm opening public comment.
[1:21:53] Go ahead.
[1:21:55] Thank you.
[1:21:56] My name is Michael Collins.
[1:21:57] I live at 2405 Adeline Drive.
[1:22:00] I'm directly across the street
[1:22:01] from where the gym is proposed.
[1:22:05] I fully support Mercy High
[1:22:06] School's need
[1:22:08] for a gym.
[1:22:09] I think it's ideal for their
[1:22:12] long-term success that they
[1:22:14] have a gym that's state
[1:22:15] of the art.
[1:22:17] And I do believe they need to
[1:22:18] improve and enhance their pool.
[1:22:21] I'm a big believer
[1:22:22] in the importance
[1:22:23] of high school athletics,
[1:22:25] particularly
[1:22:26] with young women.
[1:22:27] Lynn Israelet, myself, met
[1:22:29] with the principal
[1:22:30] in the spring of 2024 where she
[1:22:32] outlined and articulated the
[1:22:36] needs, the uses, the timing,
[1:22:37] the parking, the traffic
[1:22:40] controls, et cetera,
[1:22:42] all associated
[1:22:44] with this gym.
[1:22:45] It was a thoughtful,
[1:22:46] well-organized presentation.
[1:22:48] Lynn and I both supported the
[1:22:51] need for the gym and we
[1:22:54] supported what they were
[1:22:55] proposing.
[1:22:58] That began a very collaborative
[1:22:59] and transparent process between
[1:23:03] the neighbors and the gym,
[1:23:05] between the neighbors and the
[1:23:07] school.
[1:23:08] There were instances where
[1:23:09] concerns were raised
[1:23:10] by neighbors, we were able
[1:23:12] to work with the school and
[1:23:13] achieve common ground.
[1:23:16] I'm here before you because I
[1:23:17] feel as though the Planning
[1:23:18] Commission is doing a
[1:23:19] disservice.
[1:23:21] This was a collaborative
[1:23:23] effort.
[1:23:24] There's a lot of projects that
[1:23:25] are large
[1:23:26] in scale where the committee,
[1:23:27] the council wants cooperation
[1:23:30] between the developer and the
[1:23:31] neighbors.
[1:23:34] We had that, we had an
[1:23:35] agreement,
[1:23:36] and unilaterally the Planning
[1:23:38] Commission changed what was
[1:23:39] agreed upon.
[1:23:41] And I think that's just not
[1:23:42] fair and I think that's bad
[1:23:43] business for the city of
[1:23:45] Burlingame.
[1:23:46] And I'd suggest that we rethink
[1:23:47] that process.
[1:23:49] And again, I support the gym, I
[1:23:52] just don't support these last
[1:23:53] minute changes that weren't
[1:23:55] agreed upon.
[1:23:57] Thank you for your time.
[1:23:58] Thank you.
[1:24:00] Stephen.
[1:24:01] Oh.
[1:24:10] We generally ask no clapping
[1:24:11] in the audience
[1:24:13] after each public speaker.
[1:24:15] So I appreciate if you could
[1:24:16] adhere to that.
[1:24:17] Thanks for the reminder.
[1:24:19] There's a bunch
[1:24:20] of yellow cards.
[1:24:21] If you plan
[1:24:23] to speak and you haven't filled
[1:24:24] out a yellow card,
[1:24:25] please do so.
[1:24:26] They're in the back
[1:24:27] of the room.
[1:24:28] You can hand them
[1:24:29] to our city clerk.
[1:24:30] But I'm gonna go
[1:24:31] in random order.
[1:24:32] And so the first is gonna be
[1:24:34] Sharon Coleman.
[1:24:45] Try to keep it to two minutes.
[1:24:46] I practiced and got it
[1:24:47] under three.
[1:24:49] The focus and my concern is
[1:24:51] on the third party rentals.
[1:24:53] From the October meeting
[1:24:55] minutes, the head
[1:24:56] of the school confirms, I want
[1:24:58] to reiterate that there is no
[1:24:59] plan to rent the gymnasium.
[1:25:01] That's page 19.
[1:25:02] The fact is the school is not
[1:25:03] advocating for third party
[1:25:04] rentals and the city of
[1:25:06] Burlingame recommended no third
[1:25:08] party rentals.
[1:25:11] What the commission granted is
[1:25:12] out of the norm for private
[1:25:13] schools.
[1:25:14] I know we're hearing opposite,
[1:25:16] but my kids went to Crystal,
[1:25:17] Nueva, and Menlo.
[1:25:18] I spoke with the head
[1:25:19] of facility operations at
[1:25:20] Nueva, who confirms school
[1:25:23] activities can be scheduled
[1:25:24] until 10, but they rarely have
[1:25:25] them past eight or nine.
[1:25:27] There are no third party
[1:25:28] rentals, only partnerships,
[1:25:30] like when the use of a CSM pool
[1:25:32] is needed.
[1:25:33] I spoke with the director
[1:25:34] of operations at Crystal and
[1:25:35] confirmed their CUP states no
[1:25:36] school on campus activities
[1:25:38] at all.
[1:25:42] The commission showed lack
[1:25:43] of knowledge, expertise,
[1:25:45] and energy on how
[1:25:46] to craft the wording
[1:25:49] for the parameters
[1:25:50] around the use of the gym.
[1:25:51] When the commissioners could
[1:25:52] not figure out how
[1:25:53] to word the existing
[1:25:54] partnership between Mercy and
[1:25:55] the Burlingame Aquatic
[1:25:56] Center's use of the pool,
[1:25:57] one commissioner said, strike
[1:25:59] out this language and not have
[1:26:01] the restriction as part
[1:26:02] of this approval.
[1:26:04] Another said, I would be happy
[1:26:05] to remove that.
[1:26:06] It seems like an extra ball and
[1:26:07] chain.
[1:26:09] Page 38, a commissioner said,
[1:26:10] my concern is restricting
[1:26:12] Mercy from making money.
[1:26:14] Personally, I want
[1:26:16] to strike it out.
[1:26:17] So I ask, is it the planning's
[1:26:19] commission responsibility
[1:26:20] to find sources of income
[1:26:23] for private institutions?
[1:26:25] Lack of knowing how
[1:26:26] to word a partnership led to
[1:26:28] removing wording that gave full
[1:26:29] rein to renting the space
[1:26:30] for profit.
[1:26:32] So the planning commission
[1:26:33] showed bias towards Mercy in
[1:26:35] this way and discounted the
[1:26:36] neighbors' reasonable requests
[1:26:37] throughout the process.
[1:26:38] So after a very long meeting,
[1:26:41] the commissioners came
[1:26:43] to the swift and frankly,
[1:26:45] fatigued conclusion.
[1:26:46] They were tired, to give Mercy
[1:26:48] carte blanche.
[1:26:50] Thank you for recognizing.
[1:26:51] Thank you, Ms. Coleman.
[1:26:53] Holly Daly.
[1:27:01] Thank you.
[1:27:02] I live on Poppy, so I hear the
[1:27:04] rallies and my car has been
[1:27:06] sideswiped and there are times
[1:27:09] that I detour
[1:27:11] around when it's pick up or
[1:27:13] drop off time
[1:27:14] at the high school.
[1:27:15] Happy to have the school there,
[1:27:16] happy to have a gym, but I feel
[1:27:20] that the material presented
[1:27:21] tonight has been not
[1:27:23] necessarily fact-based.
[1:27:26] I think Sharin brought up a few
[1:27:28] facts to share
[1:27:29] with the group.
[1:27:31] And I feel that
[1:27:32] in the interest
[1:27:33] of clarity is kindness,
[1:27:34] there's an opportunity
[1:27:36] to really carve out
[1:27:37] in the wording the usage, the
[1:27:40] times, and reach agreement.
[1:27:41] I think there's an opportunity
[1:27:42] here for a win-win.
[1:27:43] It seems like there've been
[1:27:45] some proposals put forward
[1:27:47] for consideration, and I hope
[1:27:48] that we can work something
[1:27:50] out that benefits everybody.
[1:27:52] Thanks.
[1:27:54] Thank you, Ms. Daly.
[1:27:56] Chris Denton.
[1:28:06] Thank you, council members
[1:28:07] for the opportunity
[1:28:08] to speak.
[1:28:09] I'm a parent of a 2023 graduate
[1:28:11] of Mercy and also a board
[1:28:12] member.
[1:28:14] And I would like to admit that
[1:28:16] I've never been
[1:28:18] to an athletic event at Mercy
[1:28:19] High School.
[1:28:21] I've never been to an event
[1:28:22] there that had the opportunity
[1:28:24] for the whole school
[1:28:25] to gather.
[1:28:26] So I have been to Sarah,
[1:28:28] Burlingame High, Mills
[1:28:30] for similar events,
[1:28:32] which is kind of sad.
[1:28:34] So I'm glad that the question
[1:28:36] isn't whether or not Mercy
[1:28:37] deserves this opportunity.
[1:28:40] So I'm glad that's not
[1:28:43] in question.
[1:28:44] So I appreciate that as well.
[1:28:46] Having been to many events at
[1:28:48] Mercy with the Cole Mansion
[1:28:50] for other events,
[1:28:53] and I've mentioned I've been
[1:28:54] to the other schools,
[1:28:56] I've always found the
[1:28:58] opportunity, there's always
[1:29:00] parking, there's always the
[1:29:02] events.
[1:29:03] I'm surprised at the
[1:29:04] spaciousness of Mercy compared
[1:29:05] to, for example, when you go
[1:29:07] to Sarah, it's
[1:29:08] on the school streets, it's
[1:29:09] Burlingame, even though it has
[1:29:11] access on El Camino, there are
[1:29:13] still limitations.
[1:29:14] And I just feel that Mercy does
[1:29:16] have the facilities available
[1:29:20] and you have an example
[1:29:21] of a partner
[1:29:22] for many years that has proven
[1:29:24] to use that wisely and
[1:29:26] cooperated
[1:29:27] with the community.
[1:29:29] So I think as to the questions
[1:29:33] of putting additional
[1:29:35] conditions, I think you just
[1:29:37] have an opportunity with the
[1:29:38] community that has addressed
[1:29:40] those.
[1:29:42] One other concern as a board
[1:29:43] member too, one particular
[1:29:45] point is the safety
[1:29:46] of the community is one
[1:29:48] of my major concerns.
[1:29:50] And as far as the condition
[1:29:51] about a public walkway,
[1:29:53] I do have concerns about that
[1:29:55] because I think our utmost
[1:29:57] responsibility is to be able
[1:29:58] to ensure the safety
[1:29:59] of our students and
[1:30:01] to have no restrictions
[1:30:02] on that type of act.
[1:30:04] Thank you.
[1:30:05] Thank you, Mr. Denton.
[1:30:07] Ginny Wright.
[1:30:16] Good evening.
[1:30:17] Thanks for the opportunity
[1:30:18] to speak and thank you for your
[1:30:19] community service.
[1:30:21] I'm Ginny Wright.
[1:30:22] My family and I have lived in
[1:30:23] Burlingame since 1983.
[1:30:25] We lived in our current house
[1:30:27] on Adeline since 1988.
[1:30:30] In addition to my career
[1:30:31] in finance, I volunteered as a
[1:30:32] board member and treasurer
[1:30:33] for a number
[1:30:35] of local nonprofits.
[1:30:36] Including Burlingame Community
[1:30:38] for Education, Burlingame
[1:30:39] High School Parents Group and
[1:30:40] Burlingame Aquatic Club.
[1:30:42] We raised our two daughters
[1:30:43] in Burlingame and sports were
[1:30:45] important in their lives.
[1:30:48] With that experience,
[1:30:49] I support Mercy's goal to
[1:30:50] provide quality sports
[1:30:51] facilities on their campus and
[1:30:54] I support this gym
[1:30:55] for their students.
[1:30:57] However, the conditional use
[1:30:59] permit as currently drafted is
[1:31:02] very open-ended.
[1:31:04] It would allow activities,
[1:31:06] rentals, till 10 o'clock many
[1:31:09] nights, 11 o'clock other
[1:31:11] nights, 365 days a year.
[1:31:16] Administrations
[1:31:17] in the school come and go.
[1:31:19] It may not be Natalie's intent
[1:31:22] to rent this now for profit or
[1:31:24] to rent it very many nights a
[1:31:25] week, but there's nothing in
[1:31:27] this documentation that would
[1:31:29] prevent the next person coming
[1:31:32] in to really change that
[1:31:33] policy.
[1:31:35] I would like the council to
[1:31:36] consider approving the facility
[1:31:38] for use by the school, but not
[1:31:40] for commercial rentals.
[1:31:41] Thank you
[1:31:42] for your consideration.
[1:31:44] Thank you, Ms. Ring.
[1:31:46] Tom Wooten or Wooten?
[1:31:49] I hope I didn't mess that up.
[1:31:52] What is your last name again?
[1:31:55] My name is Tom Wooten.
[1:31:56] Wooten, okay.
[1:31:57] I'd like to thank the council
[1:31:58] for allowing me
[1:31:59] to speak and I also like
[1:32:00] to thank the neighbors
[1:32:01] for their continued support
[1:32:03] of Mercy High School.
[1:32:04] As I said, my name is Tom
[1:32:05] Wooten.
[1:32:08] I'm a 20, 24, 25 year teacher
[1:32:10] at Mercy High School and a
[1:32:12] former coach
[1:32:14] in particular basketball.
[1:32:16] I'd like to talk a little bit
[1:32:17] about my own experience as a
[1:32:20] basketball coach of having
[1:32:22] to drive 20 minutes to get
[1:32:23] to a gym from a closed down
[1:32:26] high school so that we could
[1:32:29] practice or our girls would
[1:32:31] have a space to play.
[1:32:34] I'd like to talk about some
[1:32:36] of our students not being able
[1:32:38] to practice or having
[1:32:41] to do cardio in the cafeteria
[1:32:46] because there is no gym space
[1:32:47] for us.
[1:32:49] And I'd like to comment that
[1:32:52] since gym space is extremely
[1:32:55] needed for five, six sports,
[1:33:00] they would be very difficult if
[1:33:03] not impossible to give much
[1:33:06] of that time
[1:33:07] to any other third party.
[1:33:08] Thank you.
[1:33:09] Thank you, Mr. Wooten.
[1:33:17] I'm gonna mess this up.
[1:33:20] Tasella Gawler, Gawler?
[1:33:24] Rebecca, okay, sorry.
[1:33:26] It was filled
[1:33:27] out quickly.
[1:33:28] I apologize.
[1:33:30] So thank you so much
[1:33:31] for the time,
[1:33:32] everyone.
[1:33:33] I come here with two different
[1:33:34] hats on.
[1:33:36] I am a Burlingame resident and
[1:33:37] I have for the last over 10
[1:33:38] years lived within two blocks
[1:33:41] of Mercy.
[1:33:42] And at no point in any of that
[1:33:43] time have I ever experienced
[1:33:44] bad traffic due to the Mercy
[1:33:46] girls.
[1:33:47] We have many schools.
[1:33:48] We have Lincoln.
[1:33:49] We have Hoover.
[1:33:50] And I would say to see people
[1:33:52] in the car, it tends
[1:33:53] to be the other folks,
[1:33:54] but I'll just leave that
[1:33:55] to our imaginations.
[1:33:57] And I have now a house that
[1:33:59] backs up onto Hillside Drive
[1:34:00] at the corner of Newton across
[1:34:01] from the fire station.
[1:34:03] So I know when it's hard
[1:34:04] to get out of my driveway.
[1:34:05] And I will say I'm always
[1:34:07] impressed by the young women
[1:34:08] that are driving themselves
[1:34:09] to school.
[1:34:11] But also more importantly,
[1:34:12] I think Burlingame needs
[1:34:13] to support all of our schools
[1:34:14] to thrive.
[1:34:15] It only improves our community
[1:34:17] for everyone in it.
[1:34:19] And Mercy has been waiting way
[1:34:20] too long
[1:34:23] for this athletic building.
[1:34:27] My daughter attended Mercy
[1:34:28] Public High Schools as well as
[1:34:30] Mercy, excuse me, Burlingame
[1:34:32] Public High Schools, as well as
[1:34:33] Mercy High School.
[1:34:34] And so I've seen both parts
[1:34:36] of the wonder of our community
[1:34:37] and the great educations we
[1:34:38] provide.
[1:34:39] And Mercy education for my
[1:34:41] daughter was extraordinary.
[1:34:42] And I am always impressed with
[1:34:45] the care and service they give
[1:34:47] to the surrounding communities
[1:34:48] as well as the girls on their
[1:34:49] campus.
[1:34:50] I think we all know how
[1:34:51] important it is to provide
[1:34:53] young women opportunities
[1:34:54] for sports.
[1:34:55] I think we see, and Natalie and
[1:34:57] the leadership team, and while
[1:34:59] I agree we don't know what's
[1:35:00] gonna happen with future
[1:35:01] administrations and leadership
[1:35:03] in the school, I think Mercy
[1:35:05] throughout the years has always
[1:35:06] proven to be a very trustworthy
[1:35:08] partner.
[1:35:09] And to Mr. Wooten's point,
[1:35:11] I can't conceive of a time when
[1:35:13] they'd really wanna rent
[1:35:14] out that train after hours.
[1:35:15] They have such vast need
[1:35:17] for it and
[1:35:18] for the student body and the
[1:35:19] Mercy school community.
[1:35:21] I think it's sort
[1:35:22] of a false concern.
[1:35:23] So I guess the other thing is
[1:35:26] that I just think we need
[1:35:28] to think about equity in our
[1:35:30] schools and giving everybody a
[1:35:31] chance.
[1:35:32] So I'll just end it there,
[1:35:33] but thank you.
[1:35:34] Thank you, Ms. Coleman.
[1:35:36] Isis Ordaz.
[1:35:43] Good evening, my name is Isis
[1:35:44] Ordaz and I'm currently a
[1:35:46] senior at Mercy
[1:35:47] on a merit scholarship.
[1:35:48] As a student body president,
[1:35:49] I'm here
[1:35:50] to ask the city council
[1:35:51] to support the Planning
[1:35:52] Commission's decision
[1:35:53] to allow us
[1:35:54] to build a gymnasium on our
[1:35:55] campus.
[1:35:56] A gym would absolutely
[1:35:57] transform student activities
[1:35:58] and Athletics at Mercy.
[1:35:59] Not only would we be able
[1:36:01] to host our own home games,
[1:36:03] we could have indoor pep
[1:36:04] rallies with court games and
[1:36:06] designated places to start our
[1:36:07] own championship banners,
[1:36:08] trophies, and rings.
[1:36:09] A gymnasium would be pivotal
[1:36:11] for our athletics program.
[1:36:14] As a varsity volleyball player,
[1:36:16] I personally know the
[1:36:18] difficulty that comes
[1:36:19] with having to utilize our
[1:36:20] brother school's gym as our
[1:36:21] home court.
[1:36:22] When we decorate for Dig Pink
[1:36:23] or Senior Night, there is
[1:36:24] absolutely no indication
[1:36:25] of it being Mercy's home court.
[1:36:28] The walls and ceiling are
[1:36:29] crowded with Sarah's classic S
[1:36:31] logo in blue and gold
[1:36:32] with the names of Sarah's
[1:36:34] student athletes
[1:36:35] on banners and plaques.
[1:36:36] This year, Mercy Volleyball
[1:36:37] went undefeated in league,
[1:36:39] finishing as WBAL champions,
[1:36:40] and even made it to CIF
[1:36:41] Division I NorCal playoffs.
[1:36:44] If we were Sarah or a co-ed
[1:36:45] school in the area, our
[1:36:47] achievements would be honored
[1:36:48] with a glass case and blue and
[1:36:50] white fabric banners,
[1:36:52] but instead,
[1:36:53] our awards are held
[1:36:54] in storage collecting desks.
[1:36:55] Having our own gym would allow
[1:36:56] all athletic programs
[1:36:58] to exhibit school records,
[1:36:59] accomplishments, and awards.
[1:37:00] Our students would be able
[1:37:02] to play
[1:37:03] in an environment indicative
[1:37:04] of their school, showcasing
[1:37:05] their strengths and admirable
[1:37:06] athletic abilities.
[1:37:07] With a genuine heart,
[1:37:09] I deeply implore you to
[1:37:10] consider the conditions that
[1:37:11] other schools have in regards
[1:37:12] to their gym usage.
[1:37:14] I am kindly asking
[1:37:15] for equity,
[1:37:16] and if any conditions are
[1:37:17] placed on our gym,
[1:37:18] I'd hope that they remain
[1:37:19] in line with those
[1:37:20] of all boys and co-ed schools
[1:37:21] in the area.
[1:37:23] I'd also like to assure the
[1:37:24] city council and our neighbors
[1:37:26] that Mercy High School has a
[1:37:27] longstanding reputation of
[1:37:28] responsibility and
[1:37:29] respectfulness in terms
[1:37:30] of community events.
[1:37:33] If anything is off limits due
[1:37:34] to Cole Mansion rentals or the
[1:37:35] Music at Cole Mansion program,
[1:37:36] there's always an announcement
[1:37:37] so that events may take place
[1:37:39] without student interruption.
[1:37:40] I recognize the concern of
[1:37:42] maintaining a quiet
[1:37:44] neighborhood.
[1:37:45] Thank you for your time and
[1:37:46] consideration.
[1:37:48] Thank you, Ms. Harden.
[1:37:50] Nels DeLander.
[1:38:00] Good evening, Mayor, city
[1:38:01] council members,
[1:38:02] and city staff.
[1:38:03] My name is Nels DeLander, and
[1:38:04] I'm a representative of
[1:38:05] Carver's Local 213 that covers
[1:38:06] San Mateo County.
[1:38:09] We're in full support of
[1:38:10] Mercy High School new athletic
[1:38:12] center and swimming pool.
[1:38:14] This project will be built by
[1:38:15] Carver's signatory union
[1:38:16] contractor that supports a
[1:38:18] state credit training program,
[1:38:22] pays area standard wages,
[1:38:23] and has access
[1:38:24] to medical coverage
[1:38:25] for workers and their families.
[1:38:28] By doing so, the workers and
[1:38:29] their families do not need
[1:38:30] to depend on county medical
[1:38:31] facilities funded
[1:38:32] by taxpaying dollars.
[1:38:35] This project is not only
[1:38:37] to support workers, but gives
[1:38:39] local workers the opportunity
[1:38:40] to work
[1:38:41] in their own community.
[1:38:42] By doing so,
[1:38:43] it helps businesses in
[1:38:44] Burlingame
[1:38:45] by knowing that the funds in
[1:38:46] this project will be spent
[1:38:47] locally in helping the economy
[1:38:48] of Burlingame.
[1:38:49] This project will not only help
[1:38:51] the local economy, the
[1:38:52] workforce, but
[1:38:54] by approving this project,
[1:38:55] you're giving students a new
[1:38:56] facility and pool
[1:38:57] to be excited
[1:38:58] about that promotes exercise
[1:39:00] for the future of generation
[1:39:01] of Burlingame children.
[1:39:02] Carver's Local 217 is full
[1:39:04] support of the project.
[1:39:07] Thank you for your time.
[1:39:09] Thank you, Mr. DeLander.
[1:39:10] Brian Lee.
[1:39:27] I wanna read something
[1:39:28] from my sister.
[1:39:31] I was raised on Benito Avenue
[1:39:32] and walked to Mercy every day
[1:39:33] during high school.
[1:39:35] As a land use planner for
[1:39:36] over 40 years in both the
[1:39:37] private and public sectors, I
[1:39:39] was shocked when the city
[1:39:40] decided to change the master
[1:39:42] plan requirement
[1:39:43] for the entire 40 acres prior
[1:39:45] to any redevelopment,
[1:39:47] including the gym.
[1:39:48] This was done by determining
[1:39:51] that the project is not a reuse
[1:39:52] repurposing of the site and
[1:39:54] does not require a master plan
[1:39:56] application and how it is not
[1:39:59] as a mystery to me.
[1:40:01] Now the property is being
[1:40:03] developed piecemeal.
[1:40:05] The gym project uses existing
[1:40:07] onsite roads and parking lots
[1:40:09] over the entire 40 acres to
[1:40:10] meet the access and parking
[1:40:13] requirements
[1:40:14] for the gym redevelopment.
[1:40:15] How will these same roads and
[1:40:17] parking lots be used when the
[1:40:18] sisters figure out what
[1:40:20] development they want?
[1:40:21] There are already several uses
[1:40:23] at Mercy, Cole Mansion, the
[1:40:25] high school, the Mercy
[1:40:27] Center, Marion Oaks,
[1:40:28] Montessori, Convent Mass, et
[1:40:31] cetera, and now a gym center
[1:40:32] that can be rented.
[1:40:35] There's valid concern
[1:40:36] for overflow parking.
[1:40:39] An MOU seems logical
[1:40:42] since the memorandum
[1:40:43] of understanding is an
[1:40:44] agreement between the parties
[1:40:46] that outlines their intentions,
[1:40:48] roles, and expectations.
[1:40:49] How will overflow parking work?
[1:40:51] It is difficult now that the
[1:40:52] property has been allowed
[1:40:53] to develop piecemeal.
[1:40:56] The MOU must clearly address
[1:40:58] how overflow parking will be
[1:41:00] accommodated onsite.
[1:41:01] Also, the new poppy emergency
[1:41:04] only access must be fenced,
[1:41:06] gated,
[1:41:08] and signed so there's no
[1:41:10] pedestrian, vehicular,
[1:41:11] or staff access.
[1:41:13] Please do not allow any more
[1:41:14] piecemeal development
[1:41:16] of this beautiful property.
[1:41:17] Thank you, Marsha Lee.
[1:41:21] Thank you.
[1:41:22] Thank you, Mr. Lee.
[1:41:26] Jeb Gibney.
[1:41:34] I'm Jeb Gibney, I live at 1473
[1:41:36] Alvarado.
[1:41:37] Thank the mayor and
[1:41:38] councilmembers.
[1:41:39] My main concern is the game
[1:41:41] plan seems
[1:41:43] to have been changed
[1:41:44] without further consultation
[1:41:46] with the citizens.
[1:41:49] The primary concern is the
[1:41:50] traffic and the noise and time
[1:41:55] limits.
[1:41:57] I tend to get up
[1:41:58] at six o'clock every morning,
[1:41:59] I always have, I'd like
[1:42:00] to do it
[1:42:02] for quite a few more years,
[1:42:03] and I'd like
[1:42:05] to get a full night's sleep.
[1:42:08] But if the traffic and the
[1:42:09] noise continues past 10 o'clock
[1:42:10] at night,
[1:42:13] it's gonna be difficult
[1:42:14] for everybody to do that.
[1:42:17] But I'd like
[1:42:18] to have it reconsidered.
[1:42:19] Thank you for your time.
[1:42:21] Thank you, Mr. Gibney.
[1:42:23] Dr. Kevin Baker.
[1:42:41] Good evening.
[1:42:42] My name's Kevin Baker.
[1:42:44] I'm a concerned resident of
[1:42:46] Alvarado Avenue, which is
[1:42:48] immediately adjacent to the
[1:42:49] school property.
[1:42:52] I fully support the use
[1:42:53] of the building
[1:42:55] of the gym.
[1:42:56] I'm opposed to the use
[1:42:57] of rental at that same gym,
[1:42:59] especially
[1:43:02] at non-school event spaces.
[1:43:05] The impact on the neighborhood
[1:43:07] will be significant,
[1:43:08] especially if events are
[1:43:09] allowed to go on to 10 and 11
[1:43:12] p.m. at night.
[1:43:14] This likely means that the
[1:43:15] traffic leaving the venue will
[1:43:17] be happening late
[1:43:18] into the night.
[1:43:19] And with the new speed bumps
[1:43:21] that have been installed on
[1:43:23] Adeline and Alvarado, one of
[1:43:26] which is directly outside my
[1:43:27] residence, I'll be hearing the
[1:43:29] thump, thump of traffic
[1:43:33] at all hours of the night.
[1:43:34] This is not hypothetical.
[1:43:38] We already hear traffic
[1:43:39] from the mansion events, or
[1:43:41] happens almost every weekend.
[1:43:44] I'm asking you to consider for
[1:43:48] the property taxpaying
[1:43:50] residents who this will impact,
[1:43:52] that you do not vote,
[1:43:54] that you vote
[1:43:55] to deny the application
[1:43:57] for rent.
[1:43:59] Thank you.
[1:44:01] Thank you, Dr. Baker.
[1:44:03] David Green.
[1:44:12] Hi there.
[1:44:13] Thank you
[1:44:14] for giving me this opportunity
[1:44:15] to speak to you tonight.
[1:44:16] David Green, I live at 2020
[1:44:17] Adeline Drive, which is at
[1:44:18] Vancouver, a few blocks away.
[1:44:21] And like everybody
[1:44:23] in this room, I'm supportive of
[1:44:25] the gym project.
[1:44:26] I'm delighted to see Mercy
[1:44:28] continue to success.
[1:44:29] It's one
[1:44:30] of the reasons I wanted
[1:44:31] to live in this neighborhood
[1:44:32] for the last 20 years.
[1:44:33] And I knew there was gonna be
[1:44:34] traffic when I bought the
[1:44:35] house.
[1:44:36] I came out to see what it'd be
[1:44:37] like.
[1:44:38] And yeah, there's a lot
[1:44:39] of traffic in the morning,
[1:44:40] and there's a lot of traffic
[1:44:41] in the afternoon.
[1:44:42] And I bought the house knowing
[1:44:43] that.
[1:44:44] So my only objection,
[1:44:46] like you've heard, is
[1:44:48] on the use of this property
[1:44:49] of the gym to 11 o'clock, seven
[1:44:51] days a week.
[1:44:54] I can tell you right now,
[1:44:55] when there's a wedding at
[1:44:56] Mercy, when it's over,
[1:44:57] I can tell you when it's over,
[1:44:59] because the traffic is
[1:45:00] substantial.
[1:45:01] And I can live
[1:45:03] with what we have today,
[1:45:04] but adding to that, I don't
[1:45:05] think it's reasonable.
[1:45:06] I respectfully ask you
[1:45:08] to stick
[1:45:09] with the original plan
[1:45:10] before the Planning Commission
[1:45:12] unilaterally overturned that
[1:45:13] recommendation with the uses as
[1:45:17] described before.
[1:45:18] Thanks.
[1:45:20] Thank you, Mr. Green.
[1:45:23] Minjee Lee.
[1:45:32] Hi, thank you for giving me
[1:45:33] this opportunity to speak.
[1:45:35] My name is Minjee.
[1:45:36] I currently live on Hoover
[1:45:37] Avenue, like right across
[1:45:38] from the Mercy main entrance.
[1:45:41] So my family and I, we love
[1:45:43] Mercy community.
[1:45:46] We've really come
[1:45:47] across really, we got
[1:45:48] to know a lot
[1:45:49] of really awesome, great folks
[1:45:50] from Mercy.
[1:45:51] So by no means, we are kind
[1:45:52] of opposed to any of the plans
[1:45:54] that was discussed tonight.
[1:45:56] We are very much supportive
[1:45:57] of building the gym
[1:45:58] for the girls and students.
[1:46:00] However, we do have concerns
[1:46:02] about the third-party rental.
[1:46:04] My husband and I moved from
[1:46:07] San Francisco to Burlingame
[1:46:09] like five years ago
[1:46:10] to raise our young children.
[1:46:12] And we actually chose to move
[1:46:13] to Burlingame because we loved
[1:46:14] how family-friendly the entire
[1:46:16] neighborhood seemed like
[1:46:17] at the time.
[1:46:19] So we decided to buy a place
[1:46:20] and decided
[1:46:21] to raise our children
[1:46:22] in the city of Burlingame,
[1:46:23] right across from the Mercy.
[1:46:25] And one of the main reasons we
[1:46:26] moved away from San Francisco
[1:46:28] was that we actually wanted
[1:46:29] to move away
[1:46:30] from late-night traffic,
[1:46:32] late-night noise, all the kind
[1:46:33] of late-night things the city
[1:46:35] has to offer.
[1:46:36] So that's actually why we moved
[1:46:38] here.
[1:46:39] And hearing the whole
[1:46:40] discussion
[1:46:41] around the third-party rentals,
[1:46:42] potentially running into late
[1:46:43] in the night and all that,
[1:46:44] that's been kind of concerning
[1:46:45] to us.
[1:46:47] And I do understand that other
[1:46:48] schools do not have the same
[1:46:50] restrictions as what's
[1:46:51] currently discussed.
[1:46:53] However, I think every school
[1:46:55] needs to be kind of addressed
[1:46:59] in given its own own and unique
[1:47:01] special situations.
[1:47:03] I don't think it's
[1:47:04] like school versus
[1:47:05] like single house
[1:47:06] like dwellings,
[1:47:07] but it's really about the
[1:47:08] community that we are building
[1:47:09] together.
[1:47:10] So I really hope the city
[1:47:11] council members do consider the
[1:47:12] residents' and neighbors' needs
[1:47:13] and like voices
[1:47:14] in today's hearing.
[1:47:15] Thank you.
[1:47:17] Thank you, Ms. Lee.
[1:47:19] Mike Brunicardi.
[1:47:28] Mr. Mayor, council members,
[1:47:30] and guests, my name is Mike
[1:47:31] Brunicardi, and I have the
[1:47:32] pleasure and honor to live at
[1:47:33] 2200 Adeline, which is at
[1:47:34] Adeline and Columbus, a half
[1:47:35] block down from the Mercy
[1:47:36] Lower Gate.
[1:47:38] Love Mercy.
[1:47:39] Beautiful school, beautiful
[1:47:40] campus, great neighbor.
[1:47:42] I'm fully supportive of them
[1:47:44] building a gymnasium.
[1:47:45] I have five grown children.
[1:47:46] They all played athletics.
[1:47:48] Two played all the way
[1:47:49] through college.
[1:47:51] And I support that
[1:47:52] wholeheartedly.
[1:47:53] New pool,
[1:47:55] that's great.
[1:47:56] I think in order for this
[1:47:57] to be successful
[1:47:58] in our neighborhood,
[1:47:59] because it is indeed unique,
[1:48:00] it has to have three specific
[1:48:01] conditions.
[1:48:03] One is that the gym
[1:48:05] in that area needs
[1:48:06] to be cleared out by 10.
[1:48:07] Secondly, there needs
[1:48:08] to be a law enforcement officer
[1:48:09] in attendance
[1:48:10] at those night events to make
[1:48:12] sure that all the rules are
[1:48:13] being followed.
[1:48:15] And third, there should be no
[1:48:17] third-party outside rentals.
[1:48:19] I can say this
[1:48:21] from experience.
[1:48:23] I was in law enforcement for
[1:48:24] 33 years.
[1:48:25] I retired from San Mateo PD
[1:48:26] in 2012.
[1:48:29] I ran operations, and we have
[1:48:31] four large high schools.
[1:48:33] I dealt specifically with
[1:48:34] Hillsdale High School, who
[1:48:36] revamped their sports and
[1:48:37] athletic areas off of 36th.
[1:48:40] And I can tell you,
[1:48:41] it was not successful.
[1:48:42] And complaints came in heavy,
[1:48:45] and it really divided the
[1:48:46] neighborhood.
[1:48:47] And that's my concern here.
[1:48:48] What the main issues were
[1:48:51] during my tenure was traffic
[1:48:53] loitering, garbage.
[1:48:54] Garbage ended up being a big
[1:48:57] concern.
[1:48:58] Parking, and all these things
[1:48:59] are really difficult
[1:49:00] to enforce.
[1:49:01] So you really have to look
[1:49:02] at the conditions and use
[1:49:04] permit in order
[1:49:05] to prohibit these sort
[1:49:06] of things to ruin the ambience
[1:49:08] of the neighborhood.
[1:49:10] Because it really is a great
[1:49:11] partnership right now,
[1:49:12] and I'd hate to see the use
[1:49:14] permit being a divider between
[1:49:15] a really great neighborhood
[1:49:18] to live and have kids in,
[1:49:20] and some minor chaos
[1:49:23] during the evening hours.
[1:49:25] Thank you.
[1:49:26] Thank you, Mr. Pernod-Carty.
[1:49:28] Anya McKissack, is that
[1:49:31] correct?
[1:49:39] My name is Anya McKissack, and
[1:49:40] I'm speaking on behalf of
[1:49:41] Mercy High School Burlingame to
[1:49:43] express our sincere
[1:49:44] appreciation
[1:49:45] for the consideration given to
[1:49:47] our recent proposal regarding
[1:49:48] gym usage.
[1:49:50] We are grateful for the
[1:49:51] planning commission, whose
[1:49:52] decision reflected a fair
[1:49:53] approach to supporting both our
[1:49:54] school and the surrounding
[1:49:55] community.
[1:49:57] We hope that the city council
[1:49:59] will uphold this well-reasoned
[1:50:00] decision.
[1:50:02] Mercy High School has long
[1:50:03] valued its place within the
[1:50:04] Burlingame community,
[1:50:06] and we remain steadfast
[1:50:08] in our commitment
[1:50:10] to being a good neighbor.
[1:50:11] Our school understands the
[1:50:13] importance of maintaining the
[1:50:14] peaceful character
[1:50:15] of our neighborhood,
[1:50:16] and we will continue
[1:50:17] to operate in a manner that
[1:50:18] respects our surroundings.
[1:50:19] But please consider our request
[1:50:20] that any conditions placed
[1:50:22] on our gym usage align with the
[1:50:24] standard practices upheld
[1:50:25] for all schools in
[1:50:27] Burlingame.
[1:50:28] Consistency in these policies
[1:50:29] ensures fairness and equity,
[1:50:31] and allows us to continue
[1:50:33] providing valuable athletic and
[1:50:35] extracurricular opportunities
[1:50:37] for myself and my fellow
[1:50:38] students.
[1:50:40] We appreciate your thoughtful
[1:50:41] deliberation on this matter,
[1:50:43] and your ongoing partnership
[1:50:44] in preserving the integrity of
[1:50:46] our neighborhood while allowing
[1:50:47] Mercy High School to thrive in
[1:50:48] the same matter as our co-ed
[1:50:50] counterparts.
[1:50:52] Thank you for your leadership
[1:50:53] and service to the Burlingame
[1:50:54] community.
[1:50:55] Thank you for the opportunity
[1:50:57] to speak.
[1:50:58] Thank you, Ms. McKesson.
[1:50:59] Valerie Teal or Teal?
[1:51:03] Teal, thank you.
[1:51:07] Hi, I'm Valerie Teal.
[1:51:09] We live at 1448 Alvarado.
[1:51:11] And I just wanna first say that
[1:51:12] my mother was Mercy class of
[1:51:14] 46, and that Brett and I were
[1:51:17] married at Cole Mansion.
[1:51:18] In fact, we bought our house
[1:51:20] partly because we could see
[1:51:21] where we got married
[1:51:22] from our kitchen window.
[1:51:25] Our concerns are not about
[1:51:29] anything other than the traffic
[1:51:30] and the noise.
[1:51:32] We fully support girls' sports,
[1:51:35] equity, them having the gym,
[1:51:37] the whole thing.
[1:51:40] But we've had an ongoing issue
[1:51:42] with traffic and noise
[1:51:43] for years,
[1:51:44] and we've brought it
[1:51:45] before the city council
[1:51:46] on many occasions.
[1:51:47] I mean, the city in general.
[1:51:49] We have every right
[1:51:50] to be concerned
[1:51:51] about the safety
[1:51:52] of the children that live
[1:51:53] on our block and the safety
[1:51:54] of the joggers, the bike
[1:51:55] riders, and the dog walkers who
[1:51:56] share our streets.
[1:51:57] The Hillside corridor speed
[1:52:00] issue has been addressed and
[1:52:01] remedied, but the traffic on
[1:52:02] Alvarado, a much narrower
[1:52:04] street, and one
[1:52:05] of the contributing factors
[1:52:07] to the dangerous intersection
[1:52:08] at Hillside and Alvarado
[1:52:10] remains a persistent problem,
[1:52:12] largely because of Mercy
[1:52:13] traffic.
[1:52:14] We have had five incidents
[1:52:17] of vehicle damage because
[1:52:19] of excessive speed and traffic,
[1:52:21] one being a wedding guest at
[1:52:23] Cole who partied a little too
[1:52:24] much, smashed into our car,
[1:52:26] and pushed it up
[1:52:27] on the sidewalk.
[1:52:29] We have to plan
[1:52:30] to leave our house around
[1:52:31] pick-up and drop-off because we
[1:52:32] can't get into and out
[1:52:33] of our driveway.
[1:52:34] We've been honked at, yelled
[1:52:35] at, just for trying to get
[1:52:36] to our house.
[1:52:37] And I want to say,
[1:52:38] it is not the student drivers.
[1:52:40] It's the parents.
[1:52:42] A child has been hit
[1:52:43] in the crosswalk.
[1:52:44] There have been several more
[1:52:45] near misses.
[1:52:46] Pets have been struck and
[1:52:47] killed.
[1:52:49] You add in the delivery trucks,
[1:52:50] the gardeners, the tree
[1:52:51] trimmers, the contractors,
[1:52:52] the garbage trucks, and it's
[1:52:53] like a video game trying
[1:52:54] to navigate down the street.
[1:52:55] But every single weekday,
[1:52:57] we have to deal with it.
[1:52:59] We're actually very reasonable
[1:53:00] people who deal
[1:53:01] with all these isolated events,
[1:53:03] but when you take it
[1:53:04] in aggregate, the traffic and
[1:53:05] noise absolutely negatively
[1:53:07] impacts the neighborhood,
[1:53:09] particularly Alvarado.
[1:53:12] Thank you, Ms. Teal.
[1:53:14] Rick Lechleitner.
[1:53:25] Hi, my name's Rick
[1:53:26] Lechleitner.
[1:53:27] I am a Sarah graduate, and I
[1:53:30] like to say I'm a graduate of
[1:53:32] Mercy or alumni of Mercy
[1:53:34] because I did go to tri-school
[1:53:35] for my senior year and got an A
[1:53:37] in art class with Sister
[1:53:38] Jean-Marie.
[1:53:43] And I'm here to fully support
[1:53:45] the gym for Mercy.
[1:53:48] My wife's an alumni also.
[1:53:50] She's on the board.
[1:53:52] Our little daughter's
[1:53:53] in fourth grade,
[1:53:54] and she's gonna be a Mercy
[1:53:55] Bear someday.
[1:53:57] But we also go to Good
[1:53:59] Shepherd right now.
[1:54:02] So I just wanted
[1:54:03] to share my experience
[1:54:04] with our gym.
[1:54:05] We're also in the Archdiocese
[1:54:06] of San Francisco.
[1:54:08] So we are a little private
[1:54:09] school.
[1:54:10] We do rentals.
[1:54:11] We have parking.
[1:54:13] We take care of the noise.
[1:54:16] All these are fair concerns,
[1:54:19] but as far as the parking goes,
[1:54:21] we have a smaller school,
[1:54:23] smaller parking lot,
[1:54:25] and we rent out our gym
[1:54:27] to leagues, other leagues
[1:54:29] around, athletic departments,
[1:54:32] sports teams.
[1:54:35] They're all very respectful,
[1:54:36] and there's always enough
[1:54:39] parking for these teams.
[1:54:41] They're always doing
[1:54:42] after school.
[1:54:43] They're coming in one
[1:54:44] at a time.
[1:54:45] There's never overflow.
[1:54:46] It always works, and I don't
[1:54:48] see it being any different
[1:54:49] for Mercy.
[1:54:50] It's not like we're gonna have
[1:54:51] 500 or 300 extra cars there
[1:54:52] at a time.
[1:54:53] So you gotta be realistic
[1:54:56] about the parking and stuff.
[1:54:58] And the rentals,
[1:54:59] they're not renting it out
[1:55:01] to these huge parties.
[1:55:04] That's for the Cole Mansion.
[1:55:05] The gym is for sports,
[1:55:06] volleyball, like you said,
[1:55:08] futsal, basketball,
[1:55:10] and we need something
[1:55:12] like that here in Burlingame
[1:55:14] and for Mercy and for the other
[1:55:15] neighbors and community.
[1:55:18] And then the noise,
[1:55:20] just real quick.
[1:55:22] I mean, the building made
[1:55:23] of brick.
[1:55:24] It's gonna have a lobby.
[1:55:25] The noise is gonna stay inside.
[1:55:26] It's probably gonna be better
[1:55:27] for noise for the community.
[1:55:28] So I say, let's go, gym,
[1:55:29] Mercy.
[1:55:30] Thank you.
[1:55:32] Thank you, Mr. Lechneitner.
[1:55:34] Lynn Israelit.
[1:55:38] She already spoke.
[1:55:40] No, she don't.
[1:55:41] She already spoke.
[1:55:42] Okay, I know, but.
[1:55:43] Yeah, so she spoke as the
[1:55:45] appellant, so she doesn't get
[1:55:49] to speak as a member
[1:55:51] of the public.
[1:55:52] Very good, okay.
[1:55:53] Anne Keegren.
[1:56:01] Good evening, Mayor and council
[1:56:02] members.
[1:56:04] I received this brochure today
[1:56:05] in the mail.
[1:56:07] We'll see.
[1:56:09] It says, I can play
[1:56:10] like the greats.
[1:56:12] The only difference is I don't
[1:56:13] have a gym.
[1:56:15] And it's a very sad statement
[1:56:17] considering Mercy was built
[1:56:19] in 1931.
[1:56:21] It provides a unique and
[1:56:23] valuable educational
[1:56:24] experience.
[1:56:25] It's an all-girl Catholic
[1:56:26] school on private property and
[1:56:28] does not rely
[1:56:29] on taxpayer money
[1:56:30] to support it.
[1:56:32] Let's not jeopardize this.
[1:56:33] I do think Mercy should have
[1:56:36] the option
[1:56:37] of third-party rentals, just
[1:56:38] like Burlingame High School.
[1:56:41] If you want to compromise
[1:56:42] with the neighbors,
[1:56:43] because they do have concerns,
[1:56:45] maybe do an evaluation after
[1:56:47] 12 to 18 months to see how it
[1:56:50] goes and then reevaluate.
[1:56:54] I understand the importance
[1:56:55] of trying to avoid parking in
[1:56:56] the neighborhood and it should
[1:56:57] be strongly encouraged.
[1:56:58] However, let me remind you,
[1:57:00] this is an issue
[1:57:02] with all the schools here in
[1:57:03] Burlingame.
[1:57:04] This is nothing unique.
[1:57:05] Mercy has approximately 390
[1:57:06] parking spaces versus the 217
[1:57:10] that is required.
[1:57:11] Let us not forget that only
[1:57:12] 360 students attend Mercy
[1:57:15] versus over 1200 students that
[1:57:17] attend Burlingame High School
[1:57:19] and they only have 217 parking
[1:57:20] spaces.
[1:57:22] Many Burlingame neighborhoods
[1:57:23] experience heavy traffic
[1:57:25] around all our schools.
[1:57:27] It may be an inconvenience.
[1:57:29] We are here
[1:57:30] to promote education, not
[1:57:32] stifle it because we do have
[1:57:33] some inconveniences.
[1:57:35] Let's not forget Mercy has been
[1:57:37] an outstanding neighbor
[1:57:38] for many years.
[1:57:39] They have allowed neighbors
[1:57:40] to enter private property,
[1:57:41] to stroll, walk their dogs and
[1:57:42] enjoy tranquil surroundings.
[1:57:44] I appreciate what Mercy has
[1:57:46] done to accommodate our
[1:57:47] community and we should strive
[1:57:49] to support them.
[1:57:51] I do live two blocks away
[1:57:52] from Mercy on Vancouver, grew
[1:57:54] up
[1:57:55] in the community and attended
[1:57:56] Mercy.
[1:57:57] I ran up the hill every morning
[1:57:59] to go to school.
[1:58:00] This school and its beautiful
[1:58:01] surroundings are assets to
[1:58:02] Burlingame.
[1:58:03] Let us preserve this asset and
[1:58:06] embrace the proposed
[1:58:07] improvements
[1:58:09] without onerous conditions.
[1:58:11] Thank you.
[1:58:12] Thank you, Ms. Kuechman.
[1:58:13] Jamie Lechneitner.
[1:58:26] Good evening,
[1:58:28] city council members.
[1:58:29] My name is Jamie Lechneitner.
[1:58:31] I'm a graduate of the class
[1:58:34] of 2002.
[1:58:35] I wore that same uniform you
[1:58:37] just saw that Isis and Anya
[1:58:39] wore and I played basketball
[1:58:41] there 23 years ago.
[1:58:43] And 23 years ago, just
[1:58:46] like today,
[1:58:47] there was no gym.
[1:58:49] My request is pretty simple.
[1:58:50] If you're going to restrict
[1:58:53] Mercy Burlingame, and I'm not
[1:58:56] suggesting that you do that,
[1:58:59] but if you're going to, then I
[1:59:01] suggest that you explore doing
[1:59:03] that for all the other schools
[1:59:05] that you would do that to.
[1:59:07] Because why should we be the
[1:59:09] exception?
[1:59:11] I don't suggest it.
[1:59:13] For the record, I do not
[1:59:14] suggest that.
[1:59:15] I think we need more gym space
[1:59:17] and we need more facilities
[1:59:18] for our kids.
[1:59:19] And my hope is that the
[1:59:21] neighbors hear us loud and
[1:59:24] clear.
[1:59:25] We are committed to being
[1:59:27] strong partners, empathetic
[1:59:29] partners, compassionate
[1:59:31] partners, and stewards
[1:59:33] of our foundress, Sister
[1:59:35] Catherine McAuley, and that's
[1:59:37] in everything we do at every
[1:59:38] level.
[1:59:39] I'm not sure if I mentioned I'm
[1:59:41] now a board member and I take
[1:59:43] that very seriously.
[1:59:45] So thank you for your
[1:59:46] consideration.
[1:59:47] I really hope you take it to
[1:59:48] heart and you understand that
[1:59:50] our hope is to, like Natalie
[1:59:52] said, is to be active stewards
[1:59:55] of community.
[1:59:57] And when anyone needs us,
[1:59:58] we're available
[1:59:59] to provide that space.
[2:00:00] Thank you.
[2:00:02] you. Thank you Ms.
[2:00:04] Lechneidner. Sandy Comarado.
[2:00:09] Mayor, while Ms. Comarado is
[2:00:12] on her way up, I'd just like
[2:00:13] to acknowledge that by 4 p.m.
[2:00:14] today we did receive a little
[2:00:16] over 60 emails that the council
[2:00:18] had time
[2:00:20] to review and that were placed
[2:00:21] in the back of the room also
[2:00:22] on our website.
[2:00:24] Thank you for that reminder.
[2:00:27] Madam Clerk, yes there were 78
[2:00:29] pages and we went
[2:00:31] through those so thank you.
[2:00:34] Dear Mayor Stianson and City
[2:00:36] Council, I've been a proud
[2:00:37] resident of Burlingame since
[2:00:38] 1972. During my time here I've
[2:00:40] attended Our Lady of Angels and
[2:00:42] Notre Dame High School while
[2:00:44] living in this wonderful city.
[2:00:46] I served as a member of the
[2:00:47] Planning Commission for the
[2:00:48] last eight years and my husband
[2:00:50] and I have constantly
[2:00:51] contributed to the community
[2:00:53] in various ways. We deeply
[2:00:56] value Burlingame and its
[2:00:58] neighborhoods having lived
[2:00:59] in different areas
[2:01:00] of the city including
[2:01:01] across the street from Our
[2:01:02] Lady of Angels. We understand
[2:01:04] the impact of traffic
[2:01:05] in the area
[2:01:06] but we embraced it as part
[2:01:07] of our community. Our children
[2:01:08] attended OLA, Sarah, Notre
[2:01:11] Dame and we served as booster
[2:01:12] presidents at Notre Dame High
[2:01:14] School supporting the school
[2:01:15] and its students. All our
[2:01:17] children went to play,
[2:01:18] all our children went on
[2:01:20] to play college sports, an
[2:01:22] experience that underscores the
[2:01:23] importance of access
[2:01:24] to facilities like a gym for
[2:01:26] student-athletes. A gymnasium
[2:01:29] is more than a school facility,
[2:01:31] it serves as a hub
[2:01:32] for the community.
[2:01:33] Like a piazza,
[2:01:35] it serves people together
[2:01:36] for sports, assemblies,
[2:01:37] performances and public events.
[2:01:38] When I graduated from OLA in
[2:01:42] 1981, I chose to attend Notre
[2:01:43] Dame High School partly because
[2:01:45] Mercy did not have a gym and I
[2:01:47] like playing basketball. The
[2:01:49] gym at OLA hosted many events
[2:01:52] I've cherished, dances,
[2:01:54] schools, sports, plays,
[2:01:56] community service
[2:01:58] for the elderly. My husband has
[2:01:59] served on the Board of Mercy
[2:02:01] from 2011 to 2013 but stepped
[2:02:02] down when our daughter began
[2:02:06] attending Notre Dame High
[2:02:08] School. Recently there's been a
[2:02:09] question about whether I should
[2:02:10] have recused myself
[2:02:12] from a discussion
[2:02:13] about this agenda item from
[2:02:14] Michael Brownrigg. As a
[2:02:16] Planning Commissioner, my focus
[2:02:17] is on improving the community.
[2:02:19] I carefully evaluate every
[2:02:21] single project in front
[2:02:22] of me, supporting some and
[2:02:24] opposing others based on their
[2:02:26] merits and the impact. I have
[2:02:29] no vested interest in this
[2:02:30] decision and derive no personal
[2:02:31] benefit from it. I want to
[2:02:33] acknowledge the positive role
[2:02:34] Mercy has played
[2:02:36] in our neighborhood
[2:02:37] over the last years. Thank you,
[2:02:40] Mr. Camarado. Brett Thiel.
[2:02:50] Good evening. I'm Brett Thiel
[2:02:52] and my wife Valerie and I have
[2:02:53] lived on Alvarado for over 20
[2:02:54] years. I'd like to start by
[2:02:57] addressing an issue that was
[2:02:58] raised by the Mercy staff and
[2:03:01] multiple Mercy students
[2:03:03] at the October 15th planning
[2:03:04] meeting we attended. The
[2:03:06] assertion that the neighbors
[2:03:07] are against women's sports
[2:03:09] absolutely untrue. While issues
[2:03:11] surrounding DEI
[2:03:13] in the national stage and in
[2:03:14] Washington of late is
[2:03:15] absolutely a concern, however,
[2:03:17] it has never been something
[2:03:19] discussed amongst the neighbors
[2:03:21] and frankly we were all shocked
[2:03:23] that it was brought up. So let
[2:03:25] me be clear,
[2:03:26] the issues we are here
[2:03:27] to discuss are 100% about
[2:03:28] traffic and noise concerns,
[2:03:29] period, full stop. I think it's
[2:03:33] fantastic that the student
[2:03:35] athletes at Mercy are getting
[2:03:37] their own gym and it's well
[2:03:38] overdue. However, any
[2:03:40] implications that the neighbors
[2:03:41] would be more amenable
[2:03:43] to extended hours
[2:03:44] for the gym's usage simply
[2:03:45] based
[2:03:46] on gender is patently false.
[2:03:48] So let's not spend any more
[2:03:50] time on this point as it's
[2:03:51] misleading and distracting from
[2:03:52] the primary concerns the
[2:03:54] neighbors have which are
[2:03:55] about traffic, parking, noise,
[2:03:56] and in particular,
[2:03:58] the not-so-upfront approval
[2:03:59] of the gym being able
[2:04:00] to be rented
[2:04:01] for non-school purposes. I'd
[2:04:05] like to share some thoughts
[2:04:06] on the proposed operating hours
[2:04:08] at the planning meeting. The
[2:04:09] Mercy proponents made the case
[2:04:10] that keeping the gym open
[2:04:11] until 10 p.m. made all the
[2:04:13] difference in whether a girl
[2:04:15] would succeed or fail. The two
[2:04:17] primary concerns raised
[2:04:18] in many letters
[2:04:19] at that meeting focused
[2:04:20] on commuting to off-site
[2:04:21] facilities and shared space,
[2:04:22] both
[2:04:24] of which would be eliminated
[2:04:25] with the on-site gym. Assuming
[2:04:26] the gym is open for six hours
[2:04:27] after school each day and is
[2:04:28] solely dedicated
[2:04:30] to each season's activities,
[2:04:34] six hours would seem more than
[2:04:36] the sufficient time for
[2:04:37] practice and league games even
[2:04:38] if we are taking into
[2:04:39] consideration multiple sports,
[2:04:41] varsity, and JV schedules,
[2:04:42] which one Mercy student said
[2:04:45] typically practice lasts
[2:04:47] around two hours. So I'm
[2:04:49] running out of time, but I
[2:04:50] appreciate this and I hope the
[2:04:52] next Kaitlyn Clark or Angel
[2:04:53] Reese comes out of Mercy.
[2:04:56] Thank you, Mr. Teal.
[2:04:57] John Schmidt.
[2:05:13] Good evening, John Schmidt,
[2:05:14] Planning Commissioner, resident
[2:05:16] 245 Chapin. I wanted
[2:05:19] to just kind of address the
[2:05:21] main thing that we that we ran
[2:05:23] into in our meeting. The third
[2:05:25] party became an issue when we
[2:05:26] started to talk about the
[2:05:29] Aquatic Center that is already
[2:05:30] a third-party renting space
[2:05:32] from them. And then as we
[2:05:34] started to talk
[2:05:36] about conditions
[2:05:37] on how we wanted
[2:05:38] to manage that,
[2:05:39] there was no talk
[2:05:40] of big parties. It was talks
[2:05:42] about aquatics and sports camps
[2:05:43] and the opportunity to use it
[2:05:47] during off hours
[2:05:48] during the summer. It seemed
[2:05:50] kind of random
[2:05:52] to say we're going to pick 20
[2:05:53] events. That's the maximum you
[2:05:55] could do when the school hasn't
[2:05:57] really worked
[2:05:58] through the programming. We
[2:06:00] felt that the school has
[2:06:01] restrictions that it has
[2:06:03] on the coal and those events,
[2:06:04] and we felt that they were
[2:06:07] already a good neighbor.
[2:06:09] They're going to manage this
[2:06:10] in a smart way,
[2:06:13] and as has been said earlier,
[2:06:15] the coal mansion is a better
[2:06:16] money maker than trying
[2:06:18] to rent out the gym. So it was
[2:06:19] never our our position to say
[2:06:23] let's make it a party room and
[2:06:25] let's have it go all year long.
[2:06:28] So I think that the idea of how
[2:06:30] much use the gym would get has
[2:06:32] been taken a largely out
[2:06:35] of proportion and
[2:06:36] for what it is we looked at.
[2:06:37] We felt that fewer restrictions
[2:06:39] would give the school a greater
[2:06:42] opportunity
[2:06:43] to use the space effectively
[2:06:44] and for the benefit
[2:06:45] of the community. Thank you.
[2:06:46] Thank you Mr. Schmidt. Peter
[2:06:48] Comaroto.
[2:07:00] I don't think we can do that.
[2:07:03] Hey, Bert McCarty, I think
[2:07:04] didn't we drag race
[2:07:05] in high school against each
[2:07:07] other maybe? I don't
[2:07:09] like bullies. I stand up
[2:07:12] to bullies and they don't like
[2:07:15] you when I do it. I was going
[2:07:17] to have a different discussion
[2:07:18] tonight and I've changed it.
[2:07:21] So I'm going to outline some
[2:07:24] other talking points because I
[2:07:26] think we're all pretty civil
[2:07:27] here. You don't need
[2:07:29] to see my bully
[2:07:30] against bully come out.
[2:07:39] When you buy a house,
[2:07:40] by the way my wife has sold
[2:07:42] over a billion dollars
[2:07:43] of real estate. Billion. A lot.
[2:07:49] When you buy a house that's
[2:07:51] near a school,
[2:07:52] there's gonna be noise.
[2:07:53] There's gonna be traffic. I'm
[2:07:55] not upset at you being upset. I
[2:07:56] get that. I get it.
[2:07:59] But you bought a house
[2:08:00] near a school. The school's
[2:08:03] gonna grow. It's gonna create
[2:08:05] some more noise over time.
[2:08:08] Behind every well-organized
[2:08:09] opposition there's a ringleader
[2:08:12] or a group. Michael
[2:08:14] Brownrigg sat
[2:08:15] on planning commission
[2:08:16] for eight years. He's also been
[2:08:17] a councilperson for 14 years.
[2:08:25] I'd like the legal counsel
[2:08:28] for the city to look at the
[2:08:30] jurisdictional rules that apply
[2:08:32] to a member of council
[2:08:34] for accusing himself to not
[2:08:35] leaving chambers and then
[2:08:37] speaking as a private citizen
[2:08:38] as the previous speaker said,
[2:08:40] optics are important. Maybe the
[2:08:43] rules allow for it, but there
[2:08:44] are ethical concerns and I'd
[2:08:49] like you to send
[2:08:50] out those rules to me and
[2:08:51] to the community please.
[2:08:53] That's an official request.
[2:09:03] I think that's where I'm going
[2:09:04] to stop. Thank you. Thank you
[2:09:06] Mr. Camarado. Joe Nesbitt.
[2:09:24] Hey Mr. Mayor. Pleasure
[2:09:25] to meet you. The only other
[2:09:26] mayor I ever met at
[2:09:27] Burlingame. She came
[2:09:28] to the house
[2:09:29] for a re-election time so I got
[2:09:30] to meet her
[2:09:31] at the time so it's a pleasure
[2:09:32] to meet you and the council
[2:09:33] members. Real quickly,
[2:09:35] I'm a neighbor. I'm not part of
[2:09:38] this big neighbor group. I
[2:09:39] don't even know if it's a big
[2:09:41] neighbor group. I'm just a guy
[2:09:42] that lives on Adeline Drive
[2:09:43] right across from Mercy High
[2:09:44] School and they have been
[2:09:46] incredible neighbors and I have
[2:09:49] this nightmare. I'll wake up
[2:09:53] and I'll see this big billboard
[2:09:55] across from my house and it'll
[2:09:56] say coming soon, Cole Mansion
[2:09:58] condos and apartments and it
[2:10:01] just scares me and then I think
[2:10:03] of Mercy High School and how
[2:10:06] well they're run and how well
[2:10:08] they should stay on forever and
[2:10:09] ever and that's why I'm telling
[2:10:11] you all to try not
[2:10:12] to put any restrictions
[2:10:13] on these guys. They have been
[2:10:14] incredible neighbors.
[2:10:16] The girls are friendly. The
[2:10:18] management is friendly.
[2:10:20] They're always looking out
[2:10:22] for the neighbors. They are not
[2:10:24] going to abuse of privilege.
[2:10:26] They're putting 25, 26, 27
[2:10:27] million dollars
[2:10:28] of their own money to improve
[2:10:30] that property and we're trying
[2:10:32] to tie their hands. They're not
[2:10:35] going to do something silly and
[2:10:36] stupid. I would say let this
[2:10:39] gym be built. Put some
[2:10:40] restrictions 10 p.m.
[2:10:43] but third-party rentals,
[2:10:44] they got to be able
[2:10:45] to do that. I mean a Catholic
[2:10:46] school needs money
[2:10:47] to exist and to continue to
[2:10:49] thrive and that's a moneymaker
[2:10:50] for them just like the Cole
[2:10:52] Mansion is and they're not
[2:10:54] going to abuse it because
[2:10:55] of the Cole Mansion and you've
[2:10:56] got a traffic department that
[2:10:58] is outstanding. They will find
[2:10:59] out solutions. I sympathize
[2:11:01] with the neighbors on El
[2:11:03] Dorado. It's worse than
[2:11:04] Adeline but there's got
[2:11:06] to be solutions for that and
[2:11:08] they'll find those solutions
[2:11:10] and one last thing,
[2:11:11] I think the Planning
[2:11:12] Commission did a great job. I
[2:11:13] was here
[2:11:14] at both meetings that went well
[2:11:15] into the night and they were
[2:11:17] very respectful, asked a lot
[2:11:19] of questions,
[2:11:20] read every email. Those are
[2:11:21] good people. Thank you. Thank
[2:11:24] You, Mr. Nesbitt.
[2:11:28] Penny Alexander.
[2:11:42] Good evening. Thank you
[2:11:43] for your time. Appreciate your
[2:11:45] support. I'm Penny Alexander,
[2:11:47] an alumni of the class of 1978
[2:11:50] from Mercy High School and I'm
[2:11:51] the chair of the Board of
[2:11:53] Directors. I had not intended
[2:11:55] to speak tonight. I felt that
[2:11:57] this was going to be important
[2:11:58] for Natalie
[2:11:59] to represent the school,
[2:12:00] to listen to our neighbors who
[2:12:02] we have worked collaboratively
[2:12:03] with over the last year or so
[2:12:05] to listen to their concerns and
[2:12:08] come together. When we were
[2:12:10] developing this project and
[2:12:11] I've been involved in this for
[2:12:12] over ten years, at that point
[2:12:16] the gymnasium was going to cost
[2:12:17] roughly eight million dollars.
[2:12:19] We are now at a point we are
[2:12:20] over 24 million dollars
[2:12:22] to build this gym. So time is
[2:12:26] of the essence. There's no
[2:12:27] getting around that. When we
[2:12:28] developed this project,
[2:12:30] rentals were never part
[2:12:31] of our decision-making
[2:12:33] at that period of time. Simply
[2:12:35] put, we are focused
[2:12:37] on a facility
[2:12:38] for our young girls
[2:12:39] to play sports and to gather
[2:12:40] and have liturgy and the like.
[2:12:44] Having said that,
[2:12:45] we appreciate the Commission's
[2:12:47] recommendations to allow
[2:12:49] for that.
[2:12:51] Period. We simply want that
[2:12:52] option. Are we going
[2:12:55] to be irresponsible
[2:12:56] with that?
[2:12:57] Absolutely not. No questions
[2:12:59] about that. We do need
[2:13:02] to move forward
[2:13:03] with this gymnasium. We
[2:13:05] appreciate your support. We
[2:13:06] think the Commission did
[2:13:09] tremendous job
[2:13:10] in studying this. Traffic,
[2:13:11] parking, and other studies have
[2:13:14] been going on
[2:13:16] for years now and we don't need
[2:13:17] to relitigate those now. I
[2:13:20] appreciate the concerns that
[2:13:22] the neighbors have. They are
[2:13:23] real. We want to work
[2:13:25] with them going forward. Thank
[2:13:27] you so much. Thank you, Ms.
[2:13:30] Alexander. Any other members
[2:13:36] of the public that would like
[2:13:37] to speak and who did not turn
[2:13:39] in a yellow card? Okay. Would
[2:13:45] that will close public comment.
[2:13:49] Just personally, I want
[2:13:50] to thank everybody.
[2:13:51] Obviously, this is a process
[2:13:54] that comes up from time
[2:13:55] to time and I want
[2:13:57] to commend the input.
[2:13:59] Regardless of what side
[2:14:01] of the equation you're on,
[2:14:03] this was part
[2:14:05] of the process that helps us
[2:14:07] from a council perspective,
[2:14:08] from a city perspective,
[2:14:09] hear the voices
[2:14:11] of everybody who is, you know,
[2:14:15] close to or interested or has a
[2:14:17] perspective on this. So, I just
[2:14:19] want to thank you
[2:14:20] for that and I thank you for
[2:14:21] your cordial and respectful
[2:14:24] input. That's not always the
[2:14:26] case. So, with that,
[2:14:27] we're going to be moved
[2:14:30] to the next part
[2:14:31] of the process,
[2:14:32] which is the appellant
[2:14:34] rebuttal. So, Mr. Brownrigg,
[2:14:36] you now can provide a rebuttal
[2:14:38] statement on final thoughts.
[2:14:41] City Clerk, please set
[2:14:42] for five minutes.
[2:14:44] Thanks very much. I want
[2:14:46] to start with an apology to
[2:14:47] Sandy Camerado, who's a fine
[2:14:48] public servant. Lynn asked me
[2:14:50] to wrap up. You know,
[2:14:52] I think you've heard a lot of
[2:14:54] testimony tonight and it's
[2:14:55] really up to you to make some
[2:14:56] decisions. I would say that if
[2:14:58] one of the conditions
[2:14:59] of approval could be that
[2:15:00] Natalie Brosen was the
[2:15:02] perpetual head of school, I
[2:15:03] think the whole neighborhood
[2:15:04] would feel a lot better. That
[2:15:06] isn't the case, obviously. The
[2:15:09] staff report does a really good
[2:15:10] job of talking about all of the
[2:15:12] issues that are not third-party
[2:15:14] rentals, so I don't, and very
[2:15:16] clearly explains why they are
[2:15:18] either taken care of or
[2:15:20] in the plans, etc.
[2:15:21] So, I don't think that's really
[2:15:23] the issue. I think it's just
[2:15:24] about third-party rentals,
[2:15:26] which was acknowledged was not
[2:15:28] part of the plan that went
[2:15:31] to the October 15th thing.
[2:15:34] So, the remaining request
[2:15:35] by neighbors that I've heard,
[2:15:36] and by the way,
[2:15:38] no matter what anyone thinks,
[2:15:39] I'm glad I made this
[2:15:40] opportunity available to the
[2:15:41] neighborhood. I know it's
[2:15:42] consumed a few hours
[2:15:44] of our time, but I think it was
[2:15:45] a conversation worth having
[2:15:46] for everybody. Pretty simple
[2:15:48] request,
[2:15:49] which is either adhere
[2:15:50] to the original recommendation
[2:15:52] of staff to not allow
[2:15:54] third-party rentals, allow
[2:15:55] Mercy to come back
[2:15:56] in a couple years and say, how
[2:15:58] about it? Let's think about it
[2:15:59] now that we see how much use
[2:16:01] the regular gym gets.
[2:16:02] Or, if you don't want
[2:16:05] to do that, then
[2:16:06] at least put some guardrails
[2:16:07] on third-party rentals. And
[2:16:08] there have been a number
[2:16:10] of different suggestions made.
[2:16:12] You could require that the
[2:16:13] third-party rentals be done
[2:16:14] earlier in the evening, say 8
[2:16:15] p.m.
[2:16:17] You could limit them to the
[2:16:18] summertime. You could limit
[2:16:20] them to sports uses and not
[2:16:21] allow just sort of general use
[2:16:22] of the gym. You might come up
[2:16:26] with other limitations. You
[2:16:28] might have a consultation
[2:16:30] provision that was
[2:16:32] in a way recommended by
[2:16:34] Mayor, former Mayor Keegran,
[2:16:35] you know,
[2:16:36] where you have a requirement
[2:16:37] to consult. I think the issue
[2:16:40] with just trusting that it will
[2:16:41] all be okay, the challenge is
[2:16:42] this is the one chance the city
[2:16:44] has
[2:16:45] to affect an actual provision
[2:16:49] for either consultation or
[2:16:50] limits. There's no reason
[2:16:52] afterwards, and that's why
[2:16:54] Cole Mansion has the limits it
[2:16:55] does, because the Cole needed
[2:16:58] permits back in 2007. So this
[2:17:02] is the chance. If you need to,
[2:17:04] if you decide
[2:17:05] to make an amendment, you have
[2:17:06] to have a finding. It seems
[2:17:08] to me it's pretty simple
[2:17:09] to justify a finding based on
[2:17:10] the conditional use permit
[2:17:11] conditions for, you know,
[2:17:12] improving public health,
[2:17:13] safety, general welfare,
[2:17:15] or convenience
[2:17:16] for your residents. You've
[2:17:17] heard a lot
[2:17:18] of testimony tonight
[2:17:19] about the convenience of not
[2:17:21] having more traffic. I
[2:17:24] appreciate the city has stepped
[2:17:25] up with respect to Alvarado and
[2:17:27] Adeline to put
[2:17:28] in some speed controls,
[2:17:30] but you've heard from a number
[2:17:31] of Alvarado residents it's
[2:17:32] still a real mess, and every
[2:17:35] incremental car that goes
[2:17:37] on that street is tough,
[2:17:40] really tough. So I appreciate
[2:17:43] you guys taking the time
[2:17:44] tonight to consider this. I
[2:17:45] appreciate listening to the
[2:17:46] neighbors. I appreciate all the
[2:17:47] points
[2:17:48] of view expressed tonight,
[2:17:50] plus and minus. The rest is up
[2:17:52] to you. Thank you. Any
[2:17:56] questions regarding the
[2:17:58] rebuttal from Mr. Brownrigg and
[2:18:00] the appellant?
[2:18:09] Seeing none, we'll move on
[2:18:10] to the applicant rebuttal.
[2:18:26] Hi, we want to thank all
[2:18:27] of our neighbors
[2:18:28] for supporting the rally that
[2:18:29] Mercy needs a gym. I just want
[2:18:31] to acknowledge that if bringing
[2:18:33] up the issue of equity in the
[2:18:35] previous relationship felt
[2:18:37] wrong to any neighbors,
[2:18:38] please know it had nothing
[2:18:39] to do with you. It's the
[2:18:40] reality of our situation. We
[2:18:41] are firm believers.
[2:18:42] If Mercy had a boys, the gym
[2:18:43] would have been built decades
[2:18:44] ago,
[2:18:45] and if the gym was built
[2:18:46] decades ago,
[2:18:47] this wouldn't be up
[2:18:48] for discussion. So for us,
[2:18:49] it always turns to equity. I
[2:18:51] know there was a comment made
[2:18:53] that we've received
[2:18:54] preferential treatment. ICS is
[2:18:55] receiving the same treatment as
[2:18:56] other schools, which is
[2:18:57] equitable and fair. I know
[2:18:59] there was a point brought up
[2:19:02] that we should have law
[2:19:03] enforcement. We do have
[2:19:04] security on campus. We did have
[2:19:07] games, water polo games and
[2:19:09] tennis matches and swim meets
[2:19:10] for decades at Mercy before
[2:19:11] sport regulations changed.
[2:19:14] Never once to my knowledge did
[2:19:16] we have any concerns,
[2:19:17] and I was a coach
[2:19:18] at that time. We also have
[2:19:19] facilities on campus from 5 6
[2:19:21] a.m.
[2:19:22] to 11 p.m. taking care of our
[2:19:23] campus. I want to clarify the
[2:19:25] gym project does not depend
[2:19:26] on Sister Mercy parking. That
[2:19:29] data is present in the
[2:19:30] Commission notes from the
[2:19:32] October meeting. While we do
[2:19:34] use overflow parking,
[2:19:35] it's used
[2:19:36] for back-to- school night,
[2:19:37] Christmas at Cole open house.
[2:19:38] We have plenty of parking,
[2:19:39] and we've had the data
[2:19:41] to prove it. Traffic and noise
[2:19:43] concerns I know continue
[2:19:45] to be an issue,
[2:19:46] and it's an issue that we share
[2:19:47] with neighbors and want
[2:19:48] to support. We do everything we
[2:19:49] can from a noise standpoint
[2:19:50] to support our neighbor
[2:19:53] in terms of traffic. Again, I
[2:19:54] know there are multiple schools
[2:19:55] in our area. There have been
[2:19:56] opportunities and
[2:19:57] recommendations that were
[2:19:59] brought up at the calming
[2:20:00] traffic committee, and for the
[2:20:01] neighbors we did not support it
[2:20:05] because we wanted to ensure
[2:20:06] that they had what they wanted,
[2:20:08] but we do know that there are
[2:20:10] other opportunities that have
[2:20:11] yet to be explored that could
[2:20:13] support park traffic concerns
[2:20:14] specifically. I appreciate all
[2:20:17] the kind words said
[2:20:19] about my leadership,
[2:20:20] and I want
[2:20:21] to acknowledge that the Board
[2:20:22] of Directors and the Sisters
[2:20:23] of Mercy have very clear
[2:20:24] expectations for the head
[2:20:25] of school position, and that
[2:20:26] the board has long-term best
[2:20:28] practices built into bylaws so
[2:20:30] that the neighbor relations are
[2:20:32] important. In fact, it is part
[2:20:34] of my annual review, that's how
[2:20:36] much external stakeholders
[2:20:37] matter to Mercy, and that would
[2:20:39] be the same as any head
[2:20:40] of school moving forward at
[2:20:41] Mercy High School. All
[2:20:44] neighbors do have access
[2:20:46] to a call line for the Mercy
[2:20:47] property, as well have access
[2:20:48] to my personal cell phone
[2:20:50] number, which some have texted
[2:20:51] at times, and then whenever
[2:20:52] there's a concern of noise, we
[2:20:53] immediately call and do a noise
[2:20:55] check, and
[2:20:57] for the most part we all are
[2:20:58] within the noise parameters,
[2:20:59] and if there's any change,
[2:21:00] we shift it immediately. One
[2:21:03] thing that has been left out of
[2:21:05] this entire conversation is
[2:21:06] respect
[2:21:07] for professional judgment.
[2:21:08] In every role, we respect the
[2:21:09] professionalism,
[2:21:10] and that's no different
[2:21:12] in education. To the best
[2:21:14] of our knowledge and research,
[2:21:17] there have been no issues
[2:21:18] in our community of Burlingame
[2:21:19] based on poor decision-making
[2:21:21] from leaders on how
[2:21:23] to use the gym, and best
[2:21:25] to our knowledge, every school
[2:21:27] in Burlingame has the ability
[2:21:29] to rent out the gym. Whether
[2:21:30] they choose to or not is up
[2:21:31] to them, but their professional
[2:21:32] judgment is given the respect
[2:21:35] that they will not do anything
[2:21:38] to harm the community. We are
[2:21:39] simply asking for the choice
[2:21:41] to use our gym as needed. As
[2:21:43] stewards of Mercy High
[2:21:44] School, that means we're
[2:21:45] steward
[2:21:46] of the present and stewards
[2:21:47] of the future. We do not know
[2:21:48] what the future holds, and to
[2:21:51] Joe's nightmare
[2:21:52] of having signs up for, you
[2:21:53] know, Cole Mansion condos,
[2:21:55] that would be a nightmare
[2:21:57] for the community. Right now,
[2:21:58] this is a historical moment
[2:22:00] for the city of Burlingame,
[2:22:01] whether you recognize it or
[2:22:02] not. I know that there can be
[2:22:03] many different ways that you
[2:22:05] can vote tonight, and the one
[2:22:06] way that you could vote could
[2:22:09] be to completely overturn the
[2:22:10] Planning Commission, and that
[2:22:12] would significantly put our
[2:22:13] project at risk because it
[2:22:14] would postpone the project.
[2:22:16] As Penny shared,
[2:22:17] our amount has increased $20
[2:22:18] million.
[2:22:21] To postpone this project six to
[2:22:23] twelve months more means that
[2:22:26] we will price ourselves out
[2:22:27] of ever building a gym. There
[2:22:29] is a tipping point
[2:22:30] in private education
[2:22:31] of how much parents are willing
[2:22:32] to pay tuition for a lack
[2:22:34] of facilities. Well, we are
[2:22:35] fine, and I want it documented
[2:22:37] a million times over, we are
[2:22:38] in strong financial state,
[2:22:39] we are nowhere near closure.
[2:22:41] Without facilities, Mercy
[2:22:43] High School will be at risk,
[2:22:45] and so I just hope that the
[2:22:47] Council will take a moment
[2:22:48] to pause to really consider
[2:22:50] that because I know
[2:22:51] at the heart, all of us,
[2:22:53] neighbors, Mercy High School,
[2:22:54] City Council, we want what's
[2:22:56] best for the city, and I know
[2:22:57] that we all share the shared
[2:22:59] mission of making sure that our
[2:23:02] community is respected and
[2:23:03] feels the compassion
[2:23:05] from one another
[2:23:06] in our partnership.
[2:23:07] At the heart of this, the
[2:23:08] neighbors and the high school
[2:23:09] want the same thing. They agree
[2:23:11] a gym is essential to Mercy
[2:23:12] High School. I believe the term
[2:23:14] rental and partnerships is
[2:23:17] being confused when we want
[2:23:18] to be able
[2:23:19] to partner and leave Mercy's
[2:23:21] future open for opportunities
[2:23:22] to ensure we are part
[2:23:23] of the history of Burlingame
[2:23:24] forever. Thank you. Thank you.
[2:23:31] So, are there any questions
[2:23:33] for the applicant on the dais
[2:23:38] that we have not covered yet?
[2:23:43] Okay, with that,
[2:23:45] we'll close the public hearing.
[2:23:49] Now is our point
[2:23:50] for deliberation and decision.
[2:23:52] Council members,
[2:23:53] we are now going to discuss and
[2:23:54] deliberate upon this matter and
[2:23:55] make our decision. Pursuant
[2:23:56] to BMC 25.98.030D, we may take
[2:24:02] the following actions related
[2:24:05] to the Planning Commission
[2:24:06] approval. 1. Affirm. 2. Affirm
[2:24:11] in part. 3. Reverse any action,
[2:24:14] determination, or decision
[2:24:16] of the Planning Commission. Or
[2:24:17] finally, 4. Adopt additional
[2:24:20] conditions of approval which
[2:24:23] may address issues of concern
[2:24:24] or other issues related
[2:24:27] to and or other than the
[2:24:29] subject of the appeal. So, our
[2:24:32] decision must be based
[2:24:34] on the finding of facts
[2:24:35] of this specific application
[2:24:37] and with that,
[2:24:38] I'll request each of us
[2:24:41] to begin the deliberation.
[2:24:42] So, would you like to start?
[2:24:46] Mayor Stevenson, may I ask a
[2:24:48] clarifying question or is that
[2:24:49] passed now for the staff?
[2:24:50] Her staff is okay. Yeah, you
[2:24:53] can. Go ahead, Council Member
[2:24:56] Pappajohn. Thank you, Mayor
[2:24:57] Stevenson. So, I may have asked
[2:24:59] this question but I just need
[2:25:01] to get this correct. May I ask
[2:25:03] Ms. LeWitt a quick question?
[2:25:07] My understanding is the City
[2:25:08] commissioned a traffic study
[2:25:09] even if there were rentals and
[2:25:13] that there was no significant
[2:25:14] impacts. Is that correct? The
[2:25:16] applicant submitted a traffic
[2:25:20] and a circulation study
[2:25:22] prepared by a third-party
[2:25:23] traffic consultant that looked
[2:25:26] at the proposal which was
[2:25:28] primarily using the gym
[2:25:30] for school activities. It did
[2:25:33] not look at the impact
[2:25:35] of third-party rentals. That's
[2:25:37] correct.
[2:25:38] Okay, thank you very much. A
[2:25:40] follow-up question
[2:25:42] for staff is the dimensions
[2:25:43] of the pool
[2:25:45] in the remodel and the addition
[2:25:46] of the gym, will it make it
[2:25:48] legal dimensions and therefore
[2:25:50] be subject to rental
[2:25:51] for swim meets
[2:25:53] during the weekends? Yes, if
[2:25:57] there's, that's already
[2:25:58] actually I believe happening
[2:26:00] on site. For water polo?
[2:26:03] For water polo.
[2:26:05] But that is existing today?
[2:26:06] The athletic center, the
[2:26:08] project is defined as both the
[2:26:09] gym and the pool. Okay, thank
[2:26:15] you. So, moving on
[2:26:17] to deliberations, would you
[2:26:19] like to start Councilmember
[2:26:20] Pappajohn? Sure, I will start.
[2:26:22] Thank you. So, first of all, I
[2:26:26] really appreciate everyone's
[2:26:28] input and comments.
[2:26:29] Clearly, this is, you know,
[2:26:33] very important topic and I just
[2:26:36] appreciate everyone's time that
[2:26:38] they've taken
[2:26:40] to express their opinions.
[2:26:45] So, I'd like to start off
[2:26:47] by saying that, you know,
[2:26:48] I've talked to several people
[2:26:50] and what I have heard is that
[2:26:52] Mercy has always been a great
[2:26:54] neighbor, that they have been
[2:26:57] respectful,
[2:26:59] they've done outreach
[2:27:01] to the neighbors, they have,
[2:27:04] you know, they're very, a very
[2:27:07] good community member and they
[2:27:08] are trustworthy. So, I also
[2:27:14] feel that it's very important
[2:27:17] to be consistent
[2:27:19] in policies that we have with
[2:27:20] other schools and treat all our
[2:27:21] schools fairly. And so,
[2:27:24] I would really lean
[2:27:28] toward being consistent to,
[2:27:30] you know, giving Mercy the
[2:27:33] opportunity
[2:27:35] to rent their gym just
[2:27:37] like BHS can. I,
[2:27:43] what I feel is that Mercy is
[2:27:46] going to use the gym
[2:27:48] for their own use, for their
[2:27:49] sports and their assemblies. I
[2:27:51] really don't see them wanting
[2:27:55] to rent it out, you know,
[2:27:58] over and above what their uses
[2:28:00] are and they're, and they want
[2:28:03] to have it also as the
[2:28:04] opportunity to help other
[2:28:06] community members. While I
[2:28:10] acknowledge that there may be
[2:28:13] additional traffic, I do feel
[2:28:15] that we can also continue
[2:28:18] to look at this further
[2:28:20] down the road. If there's
[2:28:21] issues and complaints, then I
[2:28:23] believe those could be
[2:28:25] addressed independently. Thank
[2:28:30] you.
[2:28:31] Thank you. Council Member
[2:28:33] Thayer. Yeah, I also want
[2:28:36] to thank everyone for coming
[2:28:38] and providing comment, all the
[2:28:39] neighbors and the students and
[2:28:42] everyone
[2:28:43] from the community. I do lean
[2:28:44] into the fact that
[2:28:47] for other schools, we don't
[2:28:48] have these restrictions as well
[2:28:49] placed on them. You know,
[2:28:50] I've been to events at BHS,
[2:28:51] I've been to weekend things
[2:28:53] at Sarah where I've done
[2:28:54] training, and so I do look
[2:28:57] at it from an equity lens. I do
[2:29:00] see the concerns
[2:29:02] of the neighbors, though, and,
[2:29:03] you know,
[2:29:04] it is a little bit inconsistent
[2:29:05] to have followed the timing,
[2:29:07] like the allowance of going
[2:29:09] until 10 p.m. or 11 p.m. being
[2:29:11] consistent with Cole Mansion,
[2:29:13] but then not making it
[2:29:16] consistent with the number of
[2:29:17] third party events that could
[2:29:18] take place,
[2:29:20] as I could see that both
[2:29:21] of those feed
[2:29:23] into the frequency, right, of
[2:29:24] how often events happen there,
[2:29:25] and that then feeds into the
[2:29:27] traffic and noise concerns
[2:29:29] of the neighbors. And so I am
[2:29:32] kind of thinking
[2:29:33] about that as well,
[2:29:34] as if there does need
[2:29:35] to be additional guardrails,
[2:29:36] do we lump Cole Mansion and the
[2:29:39] gym rentals
[2:29:41] in together as an aggregate,
[2:29:44] much like we're doing an
[2:29:45] aggregate for, you know,
[2:29:48] the number
[2:29:49] of visitors that can be
[2:29:50] on the site, and we're doing an
[2:29:51] aggregate the number of parking
[2:29:52] spaces that are required. So
[2:29:55] that's where my thinking is
[2:29:57] right now,
[2:30:00] and so I'm still kind of
[2:30:01] deciding exactly where my boat
[2:30:02] would lie.
[2:30:07] Vice Mayor, sorry, Council
[2:30:11] Member Colson. Thank you,
[2:30:12] thank you very much. Mr.
[2:30:13] Mayor, I just wanted
[2:30:15] to approach this kind of
[2:30:16] in a methodological way. We
[2:30:19] have, I believe, four, five
[2:30:23] requests, and I think it would
[2:30:26] maybe help the staff if we sort
[2:30:27] of kind of went through these.
[2:30:29] I think basically the audience
[2:30:31] and everyone I heard
[2:30:32] from today is dispensing
[2:30:33] with one, which is a request to
[2:30:35] protect a well-used pedestrian
[2:30:37] walkway. That seems to be,
[2:30:40] for obvious reasons,
[2:30:42] it's very hard to keep, you
[2:30:44] know, to tell a private
[2:30:46] property owner that you have to
[2:30:47] have and allow the public
[2:30:49] access to your property
[2:30:50] at all time. We don't do that
[2:30:51] for any other property in in
[2:30:54] Burlingame, so I think we can
[2:30:56] dispense
[2:30:57] with that. I believe the
[2:30:59] request to ensure a new
[2:31:01] emergency road access is not
[2:31:02] used for pedestrian access. I'm
[2:31:04] satisfied that they have met
[2:31:05] that standard,
[2:31:07] and that is fine. I'm going
[2:31:09] to skip number three, go
[2:31:11] to four, commitment
[2:31:13] to ensure 7% of all students.
[2:31:14] We've heard tonight that 10% of
[2:31:16] the students are taking
[2:31:17] shuttles, and let me tell you,
[2:31:19] as a mom who had
[2:31:20] to drive kids all around, my
[2:31:21] kids would be taking the
[2:31:22] shuttle. No one wants
[2:31:25] to drive their kids everywhere,
[2:31:26] so I am really grateful that
[2:31:28] 10%
[2:31:29] of the students are using it,
[2:31:31] and I and I do want
[2:31:32] to point out, again, as I
[2:31:34] mentioned, I lived at 2616
[2:31:35] Hale Drive, and I drove every
[2:31:37] single day for 15 years up
[2:31:38] Adeline
[2:31:39] at exactly the same time Mercy
[2:31:40] was coming down, and
[2:31:41] in general, they were very
[2:31:42] respectful, and I didn't have
[2:31:43] any problems or any problems
[2:31:44] with traffic, nor,
[2:31:47] and the only noise I heard,
[2:31:48] ironically, after 15 years
[2:31:50] of living there was the,
[2:31:52] were the pep rallies
[2:31:53] during the day, so I think it's
[2:31:54] really interesting that that's
[2:31:56] actually going to go away,
[2:31:57] and because it's going
[2:31:58] to be sequestered
[2:31:59] into the gym,
[2:32:02] and then a pledge by Mercy
[2:32:03] High School
[2:32:05] to use its best efforts
[2:32:06] to make sure guests
[2:32:07] for the new gym do not park in
[2:32:08] the neighborhood. I would also
[2:32:09] concur that in my 15 years
[2:32:11] of living literally four houses
[2:32:13] down from the entrance of
[2:32:15] Mercy off of Adeline, never
[2:32:18] once in 15 years did anyone
[2:32:21] ever park in front
[2:32:22] of my house,
[2:32:24] and I have that big island
[2:32:25] in front of me, which made it
[2:32:26] very attractive place
[2:32:27] to park, there's a lot
[2:32:29] of parking around there,
[2:32:30] and we simply just didn't have
[2:32:32] it, and I checked
[2:32:33] with all my neighbors
[2:32:34] around there, including Ms.
[2:32:36] Galler, who lived there
[2:32:37] for years, and none of us,
[2:32:38] none
[2:32:39] of us had problems there,
[2:32:40] so I would probably dispense
[2:32:41] with number five,
[2:32:44] so that takes us back
[2:32:45] to item number three,
[2:32:46] which is the ban on rentals,
[2:32:47] and interestingly,
[2:32:50] having been involved in the
[2:32:51] field rentals and policy work
[2:32:52] here in Burlingame and
[2:32:54] at the school district, you
[2:32:57] know, we as a community rent
[2:32:59] out Osberg, Franklin, Ray,
[2:33:01] Cornevaca, Washington Park, and
[2:33:02] the Community Center
[2:33:04] to almost the exact, you know,
[2:33:06] Washington Park has lights,
[2:33:07] it's almost the exact same
[2:33:09] timing, and in fact,
[2:33:10] we have numerous events, at
[2:33:12] least one that goes all night
[2:33:14] long at Washington Park, which
[2:33:16] is, you know, right
[2:33:17] in the middle
[2:33:18] of a neighborhood as well,
[2:33:19] and it's our family campout,
[2:33:20] which goes all night long,
[2:33:21] so and our Community Center is
[2:33:25] open late, it's open
[2:33:26] for events, it's open
[2:33:27] for rentals,
[2:33:28] and when I was involved
[2:33:29] in field use,
[2:33:31] the school districts are
[2:33:32] allowed to rent out to,
[2:33:34] in fact, like I know I rented
[2:33:37] the gyms when I was opening up
[2:33:40] the Burlingamer, we needed
[2:33:42] rental space until we could
[2:33:44] finalize that project, and so
[2:33:45] that, I was allowed
[2:33:47] to rent from, you know,
[2:33:50] these rentals start at 7 a.m.
[2:33:51] in the morning and, you know,
[2:33:53] they go until quite late
[2:33:55] in the evening, that was
[2:33:57] Burlingame High School, so
[2:34:01] given that that's kind of the
[2:34:02] standard and there's a lot
[2:34:04] of neighborhoods that, you
[2:34:06] know, are impacted, another
[2:34:09] school, right,
[2:34:10] I live two blocks away from
[2:34:11] Crocker and, you know, we're
[2:34:15] in the same boat,
[2:34:16] like I can't get in or out
[2:34:17] of my house up to 280,
[2:34:18] at least two times,
[2:34:20] for an hour, two times a day,
[2:34:22] and that's pretty much the only
[2:34:23] way to get up to 80, so I think
[2:34:25] we all just sort of learn
[2:34:29] to deal
[2:34:30] with these accommodations,
[2:34:32] we kind of, you know,
[2:34:33] it's part of living
[2:34:34] in a dense, dense community,
[2:34:36] so my recommendation would be
[2:34:38] to join in with my two
[2:34:39] colleagues and say that I
[2:34:42] would, I would like to allow
[2:34:45] Mercy the opportunity
[2:34:47] to explore rentals,
[2:34:48] and what I would like
[2:34:50] to do is take former Mayor
[2:34:51] Anne Keagran's suggestion that
[2:34:56] we revisit it, maybe
[2:34:58] in a year and a half,
[2:34:59] two years
[2:35:00] after the project is complete,
[2:35:02] and you've been renting, and we
[2:35:04] could revisit and just see if
[2:35:06] there needs
[2:35:07] to be any accommodation,
[2:35:08] any change in hours,
[2:35:09] and I'm looking to Natalie
[2:35:10] to see if something
[2:35:12] like that might be amenable
[2:35:13] to them, you know, put it this
[2:35:15] way, we can do that or not
[2:35:16] tonight, but I can assure you
[2:35:18] if it's abused and there's a
[2:35:19] problem, it will be back
[2:35:20] in front of this council
[2:35:22] in two years,
[2:35:24] so it doesn't really even have
[2:35:25] to be a condition,
[2:35:26] it's just sort
[2:35:28] of how things work
[2:35:30] around here. If something's not
[2:35:32] working,
[2:35:33] I can assure you everyone will
[2:35:34] complain, and we will have
[2:35:35] to revisit it. So my
[2:35:38] inclination right now would be
[2:35:40] to vote to uphold the
[2:35:44] Planning Commission's, and I
[2:35:46] just want to make a comment
[2:35:48] about our Planning
[2:35:49] Commission, the number, the
[2:35:51] Planning Commission sits up
[2:35:53] here probably longer than the
[2:35:54] City Council does,
[2:35:55] their meetings go
[2:35:56] till midnight, 1, 2 a.m., and
[2:35:58] that organization's commitment
[2:36:01] and help
[2:36:03] in brewing game has been
[2:36:06] like nothing I've ever seen,
[2:36:08] so I want to thank every single
[2:36:09] person who is on that
[2:36:10] Planning Commission and their
[2:36:11] thoughtful review of all of
[2:36:13] these applications that we
[2:36:15] receive over and over again,
[2:36:16] most
[2:36:17] of which never ever make it up
[2:36:18] to the City Council. So that
[2:36:21] would be my, I would be
[2:36:23] in consensus and collaboration
[2:36:24] with my colleagues
[2:36:26] on that recommendation,
[2:36:28] and look forward to hearing
[2:36:29] from the Mayor.
[2:36:31] Yeah, and thank you council
[2:36:32] members. Anybody who knows me
[2:36:34] knows I'm a huge supporter
[2:36:35] of the education system
[2:36:38] in our community, whether
[2:36:40] that's private or public. I
[2:36:43] think Burlingame is really a
[2:36:45] community that is principled
[2:36:48] on neighborhood schools. Most
[2:36:51] of the schools we have
[2:36:53] in here have populations around
[2:36:54] them that are walking distance,
[2:36:56] commuting distance, shuttle
[2:36:57] distance, and really I look
[2:36:59] at it from a glass-half-full
[2:37:01] standpoint rather than the
[2:37:04] opposite. What do schools add
[2:37:05] to our community? So that's
[2:37:09] where I'm coming
[2:37:11] from emotionally and in my
[2:37:12] perspective. I think schools
[2:37:14] are one of the three pillars
[2:37:16] of our city that add
[2:37:17] to the value
[2:37:19] of our life here and add
[2:37:20] to the value of all
[2:37:21] of what we do
[2:37:22] in our homes and the valuations
[2:37:23] of those as well. I do think
[2:37:27] the best way though
[2:37:30] for a community school is
[2:37:31] to engage
[2:37:33] with their neighbors. That is
[2:37:34] true for the elementary school
[2:37:36] that I was involved in heavily.
[2:37:38] I'm sure that's fairly true
[2:37:40] historically for Mercy. It
[2:37:42] sounds very much like even
[2:37:44] those who are concerned about
[2:37:45] parking or noise or these types
[2:37:47] of things have consistently
[2:37:48] said Mercy has been a great
[2:37:49] partner in our community and I
[2:37:53] would hope that that wouldn't
[2:37:55] change. I do think the
[2:37:58] methodology was important
[2:38:05] because I do think it comes
[2:38:07] down to this one provision
[2:38:08] about rental use. It's pretty
[2:38:11] clear that the space at Mercy
[2:38:13] is going
[2:38:14] to accommodate this gym. It
[2:38:15] actually may end up lowering
[2:38:16] noise that is existing today
[2:38:18] because of the movement
[2:38:20] of those activities indoors.
[2:38:23] It's certainly going
[2:38:24] to give the girls a sense
[2:38:26] of pride to be able to have
[2:38:27] their own home court and I
[2:38:29] don't think anybody in the room
[2:38:30] has articulated that they were
[2:38:32] against the gym. So I think
[2:38:34] really this comes down
[2:38:37] to the collaboration between
[2:38:39] the neighborhood and the school
[2:38:40] and how it's going to
[2:38:42] administer and stay respectful
[2:38:45] from a third-party use,
[2:38:48] from a traffic perspective,
[2:38:50] from a noise perspective. So I
[2:38:52] do take former Mayor Kegran's
[2:38:53] counsel very seriously that I
[2:38:57] think there's an opportunity
[2:38:58] to continue this dialogue,
[2:39:00] not necessarily
[2:39:01] in this context, but that there
[2:39:04] should be some degree
[2:39:05] of evaluation and some degree
[2:39:07] of understanding. How is it
[2:39:09] going? Is there something that
[2:39:10] we've learned
[2:39:11] through that that we want
[2:39:13] to either bring back
[2:39:15] to the council or figure
[2:39:16] out how you work it
[2:39:17] out as a community?
[2:39:20] Countless stories of that
[2:39:22] in where I live in Burlingame
[2:39:23] and I've heard that
[2:39:24] from many,
[2:39:25] many other neighbors
[2:39:26] over the years. And this isn't
[2:39:27] a contentious relationship
[2:39:30] with Mercy over the years,
[2:39:31] right? They've been a
[2:39:35] substantive part of the
[2:39:36] neighborhood and a good
[2:39:37] neighbor and very respectful.
[2:39:39] So I'm inclined to go with the
[2:39:43] affirmation. I'm inclined to
[2:39:45] encourage that the dialogue
[2:39:47] continue,
[2:39:49] that there is an evaluation.
[2:39:51] Certainly the onus is on Mercy
[2:39:52] to make sure they're responsive
[2:39:54] to complaints,
[2:39:55] that the public feels
[2:39:57] like they have access and input
[2:39:59] into that, because if not,
[2:40:03] it will come back
[2:40:05] to the council.
[2:40:07] But I wouldn't, I would
[2:40:08] encourage, I don't know if I
[2:40:10] would put stipulations
[2:40:11] on the decision today to
[2:40:12] actually have specific
[2:40:15] guardrails articulated,
[2:40:16] but I would like
[2:40:18] to see some encouragement
[2:40:20] about maybe in six months the
[2:40:21] community comes back and
[2:40:23] debriefs, not only the
[2:40:25] Planning Commission,
[2:40:26] but staff and council.
[2:40:28] Six months
[2:40:29] after the operation.
[2:40:30] Correct. And we're talking, I
[2:40:31] don't know what the
[2:40:32] construction cycle time is,
[2:40:34] it's probably
[2:40:35] at least a couple years, 14
[2:40:37] months,
[2:40:39] so that that would be good.
[2:40:40] Maybe in a couple years is
[2:40:42] to have that. So a question
[2:40:43] from our city council,
[2:40:46] our city attorney.
[2:40:47] Before the council goes further
[2:40:48] along, I think our Community
[2:40:51] Development Director wanted
[2:40:53] to chime in about sort
[2:40:54] of that evaluation process.
[2:40:56] Okay, please do.
[2:40:59] In collaboration
[2:41:00] with the city attorney. So
[2:41:05] conditional use permits run
[2:41:06] with the land when the council
[2:41:09] acts on it tonight,
[2:41:10] an entitlement is issued
[2:41:12] to them and that runs with,
[2:41:15] therefore they would be able
[2:41:17] to operate under the conditions
[2:41:18] that have been stipulated
[2:41:21] in the permit in perpetuity.
[2:41:24] If they are in violation
[2:41:26] of those conditions,
[2:41:27] if they haven't fulfilled them,
[2:41:30] a permit can be brought back
[2:41:32] to the City Council for
[2:41:33] revocation. A evaluation where
[2:41:35] in six months time, a year's
[2:41:38] time, we come back and discuss
[2:41:40] the conditions of approval and
[2:41:43] they've agreed and fulfilled
[2:41:44] all the requirements and say
[2:41:47] the public or there is a desire
[2:41:50] not to allow say third-party
[2:41:53] rentals, we wouldn't be able
[2:41:55] to at that time
[2:41:56] to revoke their ability
[2:41:58] to do it if they have not been
[2:41:59] in any violation
[2:42:01] of their permits. So I want
[2:42:02] to be very clear, we can
[2:42:04] absolutely have a discussion
[2:42:06] but that is limited to the
[2:42:09] parameters and conditions.
[2:42:11] Future mitigation, I mean as
[2:42:16] in like overuse, violating the
[2:42:18] 300 maximum, noise decibel,
[2:42:21] exceeding those. Correct, and
[2:42:24] discussing that. If the council
[2:42:26] desires to put parameters
[2:42:28] around third-party rentals,
[2:42:30] the time would be now
[2:42:32] to stipulate it
[2:42:33] in their conditions
[2:42:34] of approval that they need
[2:42:35] to adhere to. We could not
[2:42:37] retroactively come back in the
[2:42:39] future and then start putting
[2:42:42] further stipulations
[2:42:43] on their conditions.
[2:42:44] Understood. If there's a desire
[2:42:45] now for guardrails,
[2:42:46] this is the time. I'll go back
[2:42:50] to our council members. So I
[2:42:51] have no I have no reason
[2:42:55] to believe that Mercy will not
[2:42:56] be responsible and this is the
[2:42:58] same with every conditional
[2:43:00] permit that we not unique
[2:43:01] to this we issue. So my
[2:43:04] inclination would be to sort
[2:43:09] of fall in line
[2:43:10] with what happens with regular
[2:43:12] high schools and other schools.
[2:43:13] I also do want to point out,
[2:43:14] I don't think any of the three
[2:43:16] of you were involved,
[2:43:19] but when we were working on the
[2:43:20] community center and we were
[2:43:21] listening to the charrettes
[2:43:22] about what people wanted,
[2:43:23] you know one
[2:43:26] of the things that is most
[2:43:27] short in this city happens to
[2:43:30] be basketball space and we
[2:43:31] don't have a gym. So I'm kind
[2:43:35] of grateful that there may be a
[2:43:36] gym that's available for
[2:43:38] rentals. I know there are adult
[2:43:40] leagues that have wanted things
[2:43:42] stuff like that
[2:43:43] on the weekends. So I have just
[2:43:46] heard over and over again from
[2:43:48] the public that there's a
[2:43:50] demand for that. So I guess my
[2:43:52] my inclination would be just
[2:43:55] to carry the full
[2:43:57] recommendation of the
[2:43:59] Planning Commission as stands
[2:44:05] then. Thank you Mayor. I agree
[2:44:08] with Council Member Colson. I
[2:44:13] don't think that there's any
[2:44:14] big concern that that though
[2:44:16] that there will be misuse
[2:44:22] of the gym and of the rentals
[2:44:24] and I yeah I agree I think if
[2:44:29] we need it for if it's needed
[2:44:33] for other community uses then
[2:44:34] it should be available and
[2:44:36] again I think we should be
[2:44:37] consistent with how we treat
[2:44:39] our other schools as well.
[2:44:42] Council Member Thayer.
[2:44:43] Yeah as well I think I would I
[2:44:44] would lean in on you know
[2:44:46] Mercy being a good neighbor
[2:44:49] over the years you know running
[2:44:50] their campus appropriately. I
[2:44:52] mean hearing how much more they
[2:44:54] make from rental of Cole
[2:44:55] Mansion really does make me
[2:44:57] realize that they're going
[2:44:59] to prioritize that
[2:45:00] over the gym rental. So the
[2:45:02] likelihood they're going
[2:45:03] to have anything
[2:45:05] in the gym really late
[2:45:06] at night on the weekends is
[2:45:07] just it's much smaller because
[2:45:09] there's so many weddings and
[2:45:10] other things. I do worry if we
[2:45:14] put an extra guardrail
[2:45:15] in place that we don't have for
[2:45:19] our public schools where where
[2:45:20] they're allowed to to rent out
[2:45:21] their gym and facilities that
[2:45:22] it that it's unfair to this
[2:45:23] this private school that's been
[2:45:25] a good neighbor for us. All
[2:45:29] right can we make a motion?
[2:45:31] Would you like a motion? Well
[2:45:32] let me comment and then a
[2:45:34] motion. Yeah I you know I think
[2:45:41] there's it's difficult
[2:45:44] to put a condition on this. I
[2:45:45] think if there is an issue
[2:45:47] it'll surface in one of those
[2:45:48] parameters that's already part
[2:45:50] of this EUP which is either
[2:45:51] noise or other violations
[2:45:54] of the size
[2:45:56] of an event and these type
[2:45:57] of things. I do think Mercy is
[2:45:59] going to prioritize Cole
[2:46:01] Mansion more so than its own
[2:46:03] facility albeit you know as a
[2:46:06] city we're always short
[2:46:09] of facilities to to utilize
[2:46:11] for leagues and so forth
[2:46:12] but a lot
[2:46:13] of times they're still within
[2:46:16] the organization's control is I
[2:46:17] can set a policy around how one
[2:46:22] you know what I want to rent
[2:46:23] to as well as at what time of
[2:46:26] the day and I don't know if it
[2:46:27] necessarily needs
[2:46:28] to be legislated at this point
[2:46:31] from an extra guardrail and so
[2:46:36] I'm still inclined
[2:46:38] to move forward
[2:46:39] with the original Planning
[2:46:40] Commission's affirmation
[2:46:41] of the permit to proceed with
[2:46:44] the project and I'll ask
[2:46:46] colleagues for a motion. May I
[2:46:48] also just point out Mr. Mayor
[2:46:50] please I'm sorry through the
[2:46:53] Mayor I did look through I just
[2:46:56] because we haven't mentioned
[2:46:57] other than they came in but we
[2:46:59] did receive a very large stack
[2:47:00] and I would say it was you know
[2:47:02] 80% pro leave it as it is and
[2:47:06] 20% negative so I just add that
[2:47:10] on to what we heard this
[2:47:11] evening because the public may
[2:47:13] not have the benefit
[2:47:14] of reading all these emails.
[2:47:20] Yeah I took stock
[2:47:22] of that as well. A lot of the
[2:47:25] students which I applaud, they
[2:47:27] care, they want a place to grow
[2:47:30] and experience and leverage and
[2:47:31] so certainly acknowledge that
[2:47:34] as part of the pool
[2:47:35] of feedback not just
[2:47:36] in the room
[2:47:38] but online as well. So
[2:47:39] with that I'm going
[2:47:40] to ask colleagues
[2:47:41] for a motion. Do you like
[2:47:45] to make it? Sure I'll make a
[2:47:46] motion to uphold the Planning
[2:47:49] Commission's decision. Motion
[2:47:51] by Councilmember Pappajohn. Do
[2:47:53] I have a second? I'll second.
[2:47:58] Seconded by Councilmember
[2:48:01] Thayer. Madam City Clerk can we
[2:48:02] have a roll call please?
[2:48:03] Councilmember Thayer? Yes.
[2:48:04] Councilmember Colson? Yes.
[2:48:06] Councilmember Pappajohn? Yes.
[2:48:08] Mayor Stevenson? Yes. So thank
[2:48:14] you for everybody in this
[2:48:15] process. I know there's going
[2:48:16] to be people that are a little
[2:48:17] bit maybe disappointed about
[2:48:19] the outcome and some people
[2:48:21] that are happy about it. I will
[2:48:23] share my perspective that
[2:48:27] continue the discussions,
[2:48:28] continue to work together. If
[2:48:31] there are things that the city
[2:48:32] needs to do on other parts of
[2:48:34] making sure that traffic and
[2:48:35] other things are there we want
[2:48:37] to make sure you have an avenue
[2:48:39] to do that. I appreciate the
[2:48:41] appellate. I appreciate the
[2:48:43] applicants time and thank you
[2:48:46] for that and and thank you for
[2:48:50] the you know keeping it civil
[2:48:52] and keeping it you know
[2:48:54] constructive. There was a lot
[2:48:55] of great input
[2:48:56] on everybody and it's not lost
[2:48:57] on the council.
[2:49:00] With that I'm going to move on
[2:49:01] to item number 11. Five minute
[2:49:04] break. Okay five minute break.
[2:49:06] I was trying to get us out
[2:49:07] of here for 11. Okay five
[2:49:09] minute break.
[2:49:40] I'm going to open myself up
[2:49:42] to say no. Not only has he
[2:49:43] already heard about that,
[2:49:48] that's going to add vividly
[2:49:51] to the decision he'd like
[2:49:53] to make moving forward. That's
[2:49:55] going to add vividly. It
[2:49:57] doesn't give away my opinion
[2:49:59] to them all of a sudden saying
[2:50:00] oh I forgot what I wanted
[2:50:02] to do.
[2:50:04] So much trust.
[2:50:16] There's more laughter than not.
[2:50:40] Well thanks guys. I didn't
[2:50:41] think it would take so long.
[2:50:42] That's okay. It was a good it
[2:50:44] was a good process. No I I
[2:50:46] think I was just telling
[2:50:48] Desiree that this is going
[2:50:50] to pay dividends. There's
[2:50:51] people that are disappointed
[2:50:53] that they're on guardrails or
[2:50:54] on things but I guarantee you
[2:50:56] and that's going
[2:51:02] to pay dividends in defense
[2:51:03] of being open
[2:51:04] to community input, working
[2:51:05] with same folks that are
[2:51:06] concerned
[2:51:07] about different things. So
[2:51:08] that's well I'm not sure it's
[2:51:09] naive. It's just that you can't
[2:51:11] ever go back.
[2:51:16] Once you give it away,
[2:51:17] you can't get it back. No it's
[2:51:18] an entitlement and a mentality.
[2:51:20] But there is the violation
[2:51:23] of the case.
[2:51:24] They have parties later.
[2:51:26] They have decibels holding a
[2:51:28] party that's called a police.
[2:51:32] Three months ago.
[2:51:34] I'm going to go use the
[2:51:35] bathroom now.
[2:51:37] I'm going to go in.
[2:51:39] If you're talking
[2:51:44] about the high school level,
[2:52:21] yeah 100 percent.
[2:52:22] Like the elementary school
[2:52:25] for Burlington, you know it.
[2:52:26] It's on Howard and people treat
[2:52:28] each other like El Camino. And
[2:52:30] we put the traffic calming in.
[2:52:32] I was literally ran out into
[2:52:33] the street when a guy was going
[2:52:35] 80 in his Mustang
[2:52:36] on the roadway in the middle of
[2:52:38] the day where the kids were
[2:52:40] getting out of school. So
[2:52:42] that's not going to stop.
[2:52:44] But I don't know. Yeah it
[2:52:46] wasn't.
[2:52:48] I mean you know it's it's it's
[2:52:52] really hard and it is
[2:52:55] indisputable if everyone was
[2:52:57] okay.
[2:52:58] Like the fact there's a lot
[2:52:59] more traffic. All those kids
[2:53:01] are.
[2:53:04] Yeah they're going to have more
[2:53:05] events where they're staying
[2:53:06] rather than parting
[2:53:08] to another field. Yeah I mean
[2:53:09] maybe that's maybe there's a
[2:53:10] net out.
[2:53:14] There's a lot more activity.
[2:53:16] No one's ever said we don't
[2:53:17] want to.
[2:53:21] It's more than the question
[2:53:22] about third party and some
[2:53:23] of the other side issues.
[2:53:25] Anyway good conversation.
[2:53:28] He's not speaking in the
[2:53:29] conference.
[2:53:32] I'm not giving up so easy.
[2:53:56] All right let's go.
[2:54:19] I can't believe everyone left
[2:54:20] with this exciting topic.
[2:54:25] Okay we're going
[2:54:26] to reconvene.
[2:54:35] Okay moving on to item 11.
[2:54:38] The Broadway grade separation
[2:54:40] project update and request
[2:54:42] for City Council direction. I
[2:54:45] presume that Director Murtaza
[2:54:48] is going to lead the beginning
[2:54:50] of this discussion.
[2:54:51] So take it away. Well thank you
[2:54:53] Mr. Mayor and Council.
[2:54:54] I'll do a brief introduction
[2:54:56] and we have Caltrain team here.
[2:54:58] Rob Bernard, Capital Program
[2:54:59] Director and Navi Dhaliwal.
[2:55:03] She's a Government and
[2:55:04] Community Affairs Manager.
[2:55:06] They will walk through the
[2:55:07] presentation. I just wanted
[2:55:09] to let the City Council
[2:55:11] at large and the members of the
[2:55:12] community know that staff has
[2:55:14] been working really hard
[2:55:16] on this project for last
[2:55:17] several months especially
[2:55:19] in the context of that when we
[2:55:22] were told that the cost
[2:55:23] of this project Broadway grade
[2:55:24] separation project has
[2:55:26] skyrocketed and so staff has
[2:55:28] been working with Caltrain and
[2:55:30] Transportation Authority
[2:55:31] to look at different options to
[2:55:33] reduce the cost and what you
[2:55:35] have tonight is a number
[2:55:37] of options that have been
[2:55:39] looked at and what those costs
[2:55:41] are and one of those options
[2:55:43] include no train station and
[2:55:46] the City Council Subcommittee
[2:55:49] consisting of Mayor Stevenson
[2:55:50] and Council Member Colson have
[2:55:52] looked at these presentations
[2:55:53] before and staff has been
[2:55:55] closely working with the City
[2:55:58] Council Subcommittee to look at
[2:56:00] different options including the
[2:56:02] meeting on February 3rd earlier
[2:56:04] this year and as well as the
[2:56:05] meeting this afternoon to look
[2:56:07] at funding options. So
[2:56:09] with that I will introduce
[2:56:10] Navi Dhaliwal and Rob
[2:56:13] Bernard.
[2:56:22] Good evening Mayor Stevenson,
[2:56:23] Vice Mayor Brownrigg, esteemed
[2:56:25] Council Members, City staff and
[2:56:26] members of the Burlingame
[2:56:28] community. My name is Navi
[2:56:29] Dhaliwal and I'm Caltrain's
[2:56:31] Manager of Government
[2:56:32] Community Affairs. Tonight I am
[2:56:34] joined by my Chief of Design
[2:56:35] and Construction Robert
[2:56:36] Bernard who will be speaking
[2:56:37] later in this presentation.
[2:56:39] Thank you for the opportunity
[2:56:41] to provide this update on
[2:56:42] Caltrain's ongoing safety
[2:56:43] enhancements and our efforts
[2:56:44] to advance the Broadway
[2:56:45] Burlingame grade project.
[2:56:49] We'll be diving
[2:56:50] into current safety
[2:56:52] improvements on Caltrain
[2:56:53] focusing on both the immediate
[2:56:55] actions underway and the
[2:56:56] long-term strategies needed
[2:56:57] to upgrade and enhance safety
[2:56:58] across the system. We'll start
[2:57:00] with an overview of the
[2:57:01] background and key
[2:57:03] considerations that have shaped
[2:57:04] our approach.
[2:57:05] From there we'll walk through
[2:57:06] the cost estimates and trends
[2:57:07] highlighting how financial
[2:57:08] projections have evolved and
[2:57:10] what they mean
[2:57:11] for decision making.
[2:57:13] Next we'll explore value
[2:57:14] engineering and option analysis
[2:57:15] looking at ways to optimize
[2:57:18] safety investments while
[2:57:19] maintaining effectiveness.
[2:57:21] We'll then discuss the funding
[2:57:22] strategy, outlining potential
[2:57:24] sources and key funding
[2:57:25] challenges. Finally we'll close
[2:57:28] with next steps ensuring
[2:57:30] alignment on priorities and
[2:57:31] upcoming actions.
[2:57:33] With that let's get started.
[2:57:36] So just to touch on the recent
[2:57:38] and ongoing safety
[2:57:39] improvements. This past year
[2:57:41] Rail Sentry which is an AI
[2:57:43] solution was successfully
[2:57:45] installed at the crossing and
[2:57:47] this AI utilizes LiDAR and
[2:57:49] cameras
[2:57:50] to detect pedestrians,
[2:57:52] cyclists and cars on our tracks
[2:57:54] and alerts railroad operations
[2:57:56] to prevent a collision. This
[2:57:59] AI-based software analyzes data
[2:58:00] and alerts Caltrain dispatchers
[2:58:03] and transit police
[2:58:04] of potential risks. Data
[2:58:07] collected helps refine traffic
[2:58:08] control measures reducing
[2:58:09] congestion and improving
[2:58:11] vehicle movements
[2:58:13] near crossings. This is
[2:58:15] especially critical when
[2:58:16] talking about the Broadway
[2:58:17] Burlingame grade crossing and
[2:58:18] it's why we implemented this
[2:58:20] software here first and we're
[2:58:22] looking to implement it just
[2:58:24] down the corridor in Palo Alto
[2:58:26] at the Churchill Avenue grade
[2:58:28] crossing. Additionally we also
[2:58:30] installed new solar-powered
[2:58:32] road markers last month
[2:58:33] at the Burlingame crossing.
[2:58:35] This clearly delineates roadway
[2:58:37] boundaries to prevent vehicles
[2:58:38] from turning too far onto the
[2:58:40] tracks similar to pedestrian
[2:58:42] crossing markers enhancing
[2:58:44] visibility.
[2:58:46] Additionally we upgraded
[2:58:47] crossing surfaces in late 2024
[2:58:48] with railroad tie replacement
[2:58:49] and upgraded concrete panels.
[2:58:50] This provides a smoother
[2:58:54] surface reducing the risk
[2:58:56] of vehicles getting stuck
[2:58:57] on the tracks. Folks are
[2:59:00] definitely excited about it.
[2:59:01] Yeah just to be clear it's
[2:59:02] like when people say
[2:59:04] to me I had no idea this was
[2:59:05] on the agenda. There were 200
[2:59:06] people sitting here tonight
[2:59:08] remembering tonight. So
[2:59:12] additional enhancements coming
[2:59:13] into 2025. We're going
[2:59:14] to update the paint stripings
[2:59:15] to improve lane clarity. We're
[2:59:17] going to add new signage to
[2:59:19] better direct drivers and
[2:59:20] pedestrians. We're going to
[2:59:21] install flexible reflective
[2:59:23] delineator posts to help reduce
[2:59:24] speeds and guide drivers safely
[2:59:26] and then additionally Caltrain
[2:59:28] has been actively working with
[2:59:30] our GPS navigation systems
[2:59:32] including Google, Apple, and
[2:59:33] Waze to enhance navigation
[2:59:35] instructions preventing drivers
[2:59:36] from mistakenly stopping on
[2:59:38] tracks and that happens more
[2:59:40] than folks really like estimate
[2:59:42] and understand and so this has
[2:59:44] been a true win for Caltrain
[2:59:46] and the larger region. These
[2:59:49] ongoing efforts really
[2:59:51] demonstrate our dedication
[2:59:52] to making the crossing safer
[2:59:54] for rail passengers and the
[2:59:55] broader community in the
[2:59:56] near term.
[2:59:58] We deeply appreciate the City
[2:59:59] of Burlingame support in
[3:00:00] advancing these efforts and we
[3:00:01] recognize the the community's
[3:00:02] vested interest in ensuring a
[3:00:03] safe and efficient rail
[3:00:04] corridor.
[3:00:07] To frame today's discussion,
[3:00:09] it is important
[3:00:10] to highlight the partnership
[3:00:11] at play with respect to the
[3:00:12] Broadway-Burlingame grade
[3:00:13] separation project.
[3:00:15] Caltrain is the lead
[3:00:16] implementing agency as the
[3:00:18] project requires modifications
[3:00:19] to safety critical systems
[3:00:21] on our operating railroad.
[3:00:23] San Mateo County
[3:00:25] Transportation Authority is the
[3:00:26] funding partner.
[3:00:28] The City of Burlingame is the
[3:00:29] project sponsor, and from
[3:00:30] Caltrain's perspective, the
[3:00:32] City of Burlingame is the
[3:00:33] client.
[3:00:34] As we move forward, we are
[3:00:35] committed to ongoing
[3:00:36] collaboration not only with
[3:00:38] City Council leaders here
[3:00:39] today, staff, and the broader
[3:00:41] Burlingame community
[3:00:42] to ensure this project aligns
[3:00:44] with local needs and
[3:00:46] priorities.
[3:00:50] As many of you know, Broadway
[3:00:52] is one
[3:00:53] of the highest ranked crossings
[3:00:54] for grade separation in
[3:00:55] California.
[3:00:57] The California Public
[3:00:58] Utilities Commission designated
[3:00:59] it as a high-priority location
[3:01:01] due to safety risks,
[3:01:03] congestion, and train-vehicle
[3:01:04] conflict potential.
[3:01:06] In general, what we know is
[3:01:08] grade separations improve
[3:01:09] public safety, traffic flow,
[3:01:11] and train reliability
[3:01:12] in highly urbanized corridors
[3:01:14] like Burlingame.
[3:01:16] I want to begin by sharing just
[3:01:17] a few project goals and
[3:01:18] benefits.
[3:01:21] Grade separations aim
[3:01:22] to enhance safety by
[3:01:23] eliminating vehicle and
[3:01:24] pedestrian conflicts
[3:01:25] with trains,
[3:01:26] improve local and regional
[3:01:27] mobility, support Caltrain
[3:01:28] modernization and increase
[3:01:30] service frequencies
[3:01:31] in this region particularly,
[3:01:32] and ensure long sustainability
[3:01:35] for current electrified
[3:01:38] Caltrain service and potential
[3:01:39] high-speed rail integration.
[3:01:43] To remind the Council and
[3:01:44] members
[3:01:45] of the public here today, the
[3:01:46] project features include grade
[3:01:47] separation at Broadway
[3:01:48] with the City's 65% design,
[3:01:51] elevating Caltrain's tracks,
[3:01:53] allowing vehicles and
[3:01:54] pedestrians
[3:01:55] to pass underneath,
[3:01:56] we're envisioning a Broadway
[3:01:57] station
[3:01:58] with center boarding platforms,
[3:01:59] improving accessibility and
[3:02:00] transit connections.
[3:02:02] We wanted to maintain in this
[3:02:04] concept local access north and
[3:02:05] south of Broadway
[3:02:06] for traffic and businesses.
[3:02:08] Additionally, this project
[3:02:10] contemplated temporary
[3:02:12] two-track electrified shoe
[3:02:14] flies,
[3:02:15] ensuring continued train
[3:02:16] service during construction.
[3:02:17] We had creek locations at
[3:02:19] Easton and Sanchez Creeks
[3:02:21] necessary to accommodate this
[3:02:22] new infrastructure, and
[3:02:24] additionally bike and
[3:02:26] pedestrian connections at
[3:02:28] Cadillac Way and Carmelita
[3:02:29] Avenue.
[3:02:30] I'd like to now turn it over
[3:02:31] to Mr. Bernard, Caltrain's
[3:02:32] Chief of Design and
[3:02:33] Construction,
[3:02:34] for further discussion.
[3:02:36] Thank you.
[3:02:45] Good evening, Mayor, Vice
[3:02:47] Mayor, Council Members, Rob
[3:02:49] Bernard, Chief of Rail Design
[3:02:50] and Construction.
[3:02:51] I'd like to begin
[3:02:53] by sharing information
[3:02:55] on recent project activities.
[3:02:57] For context,
[3:02:59] as the project moved
[3:03:00] from 35% design
[3:03:01] to 65% design,
[3:03:04] three estimates were done by
[3:03:06] three separate design firms.
[3:03:09] The estimated results for all
[3:03:10] of those were very similar,
[3:03:12] but it's important to
[3:03:14] understand what they assumed.
[3:03:16] They assumed that given this
[3:03:17] project was number one on
[3:03:19] California's Public Utility
[3:03:20] Commission's priority list,
[3:03:22] that it would be funded and
[3:03:24] would get into construction
[3:03:26] in 2024.
[3:03:28] However, some of the grants
[3:03:30] that were applied for,
[3:03:31] the money was not received.
[3:03:34] Some prior approved funding was
[3:03:36] delayed.
[3:03:37] This is a complex project.
[3:03:41] There are seven bridges and
[3:03:42] structures to build.
[3:03:43] Work is near six creeks.
[3:03:45] Two creeks require relocation,
[3:03:48] and it's in an electrified
[3:03:50] operating railroad environment.
[3:03:52] And we are in a post-pandemic
[3:03:54] world where the construction
[3:03:56] market remains highly volatile.
[3:04:00] Given these unique project
[3:04:01] characteristics, risks,
[3:04:04] and the market conditions,
[3:04:06] the project team,
[3:04:07] with the help of the City and
[3:04:09] the TA and Caltrain, did an
[3:04:11] analysis to determine an
[3:04:12] optimal delivery method.
[3:04:16] Construction Manager General
[3:04:18] Contractor Delivery Method,
[3:04:20] CMGC, was selected.
[3:04:24] The benefits of this method is
[3:04:26] to provide that early
[3:04:28] contractor involvement
[3:04:30] before the drawings are
[3:04:31] at 100% design.
[3:04:33] So you don't get the 100%
[3:04:34] design and then get a price
[3:04:35] from a contractor.
[3:04:38] You get your price from the
[3:04:39] contractor while you're still
[3:04:40] doing design.
[3:04:41] This provides that commercial
[3:04:43] pricing when you're working
[3:04:44] on design and also allows you
[3:04:47] to explore contract options
[3:04:50] to support decision-making.
[3:04:53] So in October of 2023, the
[3:04:56] SMCTA board allocated funds
[3:04:59] for the CMGC contract
[3:05:02] to support this approach.
[3:05:05] As a complement to that, in
[3:05:06] December of 23, Caltrain
[3:05:09] awarded a contract with Kelly
[3:05:11] McNutt Consulting, KMC.
[3:05:15] This provides a
[3:05:17] contractor-style estimating
[3:05:18] resource for the project team.
[3:05:21] KMC provides an independent
[3:05:23] cost estimator
[3:05:24] to support the evaluation
[3:05:26] of the CMGC's price to make
[3:05:28] sure we're getting a fair price
[3:05:30] from the contractor.
[3:05:32] In February of 2024, the
[3:05:34] contract was awarded with
[3:05:36] Flatiron Herzog, a joint
[3:05:38] venture.
[3:05:40] In August of 2024, the initial
[3:05:42] commercial pricing was received
[3:05:45] from both the CMGC, Flatiron
[3:05:47] Herzog, and KMC, the owner's
[3:05:51] independent cost estimator.
[3:05:53] These range from $527 million
[3:05:56] to $590 million
[3:05:58] for construction portion
[3:05:59] of it.
[3:06:01] These were significantly higher
[3:06:03] than the prior estimates done
[3:06:05] by the design teams.
[3:06:07] With these results,
[3:06:08] the team focused
[3:06:09] on developing an understanding
[3:06:10] of what were the key cost
[3:06:14] factors that were driving this
[3:06:16] price,
[3:06:17] and what was the difference
[3:06:18] between our original estimate
[3:06:20] and these new estimates,
[3:06:21] and looking
[3:06:24] to develop alternatives
[3:06:25] to lower cost.
[3:06:27] At this time, the team did not
[3:06:28] refresh the cost estimate
[3:06:29] for the total project cost.
[3:06:32] We turned our focus
[3:06:33] on solving the problem.
[3:06:35] But at the time, we did
[3:06:36] indicate that the total project
[3:06:37] cost was going to be well
[3:06:39] in excess of $600 million.
[3:06:45] With this commercial pricing
[3:06:46] for construction being
[3:06:47] significantly higher,
[3:06:49] it was important
[3:06:50] to understand the differences
[3:06:51] between those two estimates.
[3:06:52] First of all,
[3:06:55] the design had changed.
[3:06:56] The drawings used by the design
[3:06:59] consultants were the early 65%
[3:07:02] set.
[3:07:04] That set was updated
[3:07:05] after the review comments, and
[3:07:08] the CMGC and our independent
[3:07:10] cost estimators used the
[3:07:12] updated sets.
[3:07:14] The drawings had been changed.
[3:07:15] The sizes of structural and
[3:07:17] members had increased.
[3:07:18] We added new foundation types,
[3:07:20] which increased cost
[3:07:21] significantly.
[3:07:23] Those costs were not included
[3:07:24] in the prior estimate.
[3:07:26] Also, the intended
[3:07:28] groundbreaking was delayed.
[3:07:30] The designers assumed that we'd
[3:07:33] be into construction in May
[3:07:34] of 2024.
[3:07:36] The enabling right-of-way
[3:07:37] activities and funding was not
[3:07:39] secured.
[3:07:40] So the CMGC and our independent
[3:07:42] estimators assumed construction
[3:07:45] would be two years later
[3:07:46] before we started work.
[3:07:49] There were also environmental
[3:07:50] and operational constraints.
[3:07:53] The designers assumed an
[3:07:55] aggressive 40-month
[3:07:56] construction schedule.
[3:07:58] The contractor's initial
[3:08:00] constructability review
[3:08:01] forecasted a longer duration,
[3:08:04] from 59 to 70 months.
[3:08:07] This duration was the result
[3:08:08] of a variety of things, one,
[3:08:10] the increased foundations that
[3:08:12] added to the project, the need
[3:08:14] to relocate work in creeks that
[3:08:16] had in-water work restrictions,
[3:08:19] and the available work windows
[3:08:21] in the electrified environment
[3:08:22] with the increased service that
[3:08:23] Caltrain's put out
[3:08:24] on the street.
[3:08:26] With these, the midpoint
[3:08:28] of construction moved
[3:08:30] about three years in time,
[3:08:31] adding cost.
[3:08:33] The duration got longer,
[3:08:34] adding cost for overseeing
[3:08:35] of the management
[3:08:36] of the work.
[3:08:38] And also, there was a
[3:08:39] post-pandemic bid climate.
[3:08:42] As we all know,
[3:08:43] construction costs increased,
[3:08:45] both labor costs, material
[3:08:46] costs, we have a fragile supply
[3:08:48] chain.
[3:08:50] Although escalation was
[3:08:51] estimated
[3:08:53] by the design teams, what
[3:08:54] actually happened far exceeded
[3:08:57] that from their forecast.
[3:09:04] With that, the team focused
[3:09:05] on driving for solutions based
[3:09:07] on those key cost drivers.
[3:09:08] First, the footprint.
[3:09:13] How do we make the improvements
[3:09:14] smaller?
[3:09:16] So the platform configuration
[3:09:18] that had been originally
[3:09:19] designed was a center board
[3:09:20] platform, which is what
[3:09:21] Caltrain's standard criteria
[3:09:22] is.
[3:09:24] Looked at changing it to a side
[3:09:26] platform, which narrows the
[3:09:28] overall improvement.
[3:09:31] Caltrain's design standard is
[3:09:32] for a 10-car train platform.
[3:09:35] Looked at changing that
[3:09:36] to a 7-car, make it shorter.
[3:09:40] Over the last year, we've
[3:09:42] changed our design criteria
[3:09:43] to allow the rail grade to go
[3:09:45] from 1%
[3:09:46] to 2% and allow the footprint
[3:09:49] to get smaller.
[3:09:52] We also looked at deferring the
[3:09:53] station or eliminating the
[3:09:55] station.
[3:09:57] Then we turned our focus
[3:09:58] on those structural changes,
[3:10:00] looking for alternative
[3:10:01] foundation types that still
[3:10:03] accomplish the need but
[3:10:04] at a lower cost.
[3:10:07] We also focused
[3:10:08] on temporary facilities.
[3:10:11] Is there a way
[3:10:12] to eliminate the need to build
[3:10:13] an electrified two-track shoe
[3:10:16] fly
[3:10:18] around all the improvements?
[3:10:21] Is there a way to use existing
[3:10:22] tracks as a shoe fly instead
[3:10:24] of building a temporary one?
[3:10:26] When the footprint got
[3:10:28] narrower, it allowed us to
[3:10:30] change the alignment and move
[3:10:33] the improvements over to
[3:10:34] Carolyn as opposed to
[3:10:36] over the existing tracks.
[3:10:38] That allows us to use the
[3:10:40] existing tracks as a shoe fly
[3:10:42] to save that money.
[3:10:45] We wanted
[3:10:46] to go one step farther,
[3:10:47] looking at production rates.
[3:10:50] Code does not allow work
[3:10:52] within 10 feet of the 25 kV
[3:10:55] electrified system.
[3:10:58] Our current revenue service is
[3:11:01] only four hours at night when
[3:11:03] the system is powered down.
[3:11:05] On the weekends, it's powered
[3:11:07] down
[3:11:08] for six and a half hours.
[3:11:09] That's not a lot of time
[3:11:10] to get work done.
[3:11:11] So we looked at,
[3:11:12] is there a way
[3:11:13] to isolate the work?
[3:11:15] With a single track shoe fly,
[3:11:16] putting
[3:11:18] in positive protection,
[3:11:19] a fence between where we're
[3:11:21] running trains and where the
[3:11:22] contractor is building the
[3:11:24] work, you're on your side
[3:11:25] of the fence, go to work
[3:11:27] without those restrictions
[3:11:29] to increase production rates,
[3:11:31] reduce duration,
[3:11:33] reduce cost.
[3:11:34] So we looked at turning that
[3:11:35] knob.
[3:11:37] The next thing we took a look
[3:11:39] at was schedule compression.
[3:11:41] As you heard
[3:11:42] in the prior testimony
[3:11:43] on projects, time is money.
[3:11:48] So with the use of the CMGC
[3:11:49] delivery method provides that
[3:11:52] opportunity for early work
[3:11:54] to overlap design.
[3:11:58] So the team explored how
[3:11:59] to leverage this opportunity
[3:12:00] to reduce schedule and cost,
[3:12:05] such as the early right-of-way
[3:12:06] activities
[3:12:07] to move the right-of-way off
[3:12:08] of the critical path,
[3:12:10] but also enabling work like
[3:12:12] advanced utility relocation.
[3:12:15] This project also has long lead
[3:12:17] materials
[3:12:18] for special track work.
[3:12:20] It takes about 18 months
[3:12:21] to get some of that.
[3:12:22] It also has traction power and
[3:12:24] signals.
[3:12:25] Some of those require 18 months
[3:12:27] to two years to acquire.
[3:12:28] Can we start that work early
[3:12:31] to compress the schedule?
[3:12:33] So we looked
[3:12:34] at using those tools as well.
[3:12:39] So with that toolkit
[3:12:40] of ideas, conceptual packages
[3:12:42] were developed and estimated.
[3:12:46] Note that all these costs
[3:12:48] assume that funding will be
[3:12:49] available
[3:12:51] to timely progress the work.
[3:12:52] Of course, that's uncertain,
[3:12:54] but we had to price it
[3:12:55] with that assumption
[3:12:56] for today.
[3:12:58] H1, shown here on the screen,
[3:13:01] was the original design.
[3:13:03] It's important to note that
[3:13:05] there were limited
[3:13:06] opportunities
[3:13:07] for additional VE
[3:13:09] on this package.
[3:13:10] Between January of 21 and
[3:13:13] January of 22, at the start
[3:13:15] of final design, there was a
[3:13:16] value engineering exercise
[3:13:19] for option one in order
[3:13:20] to optimize the design, and
[3:13:22] those levers had already been
[3:13:23] pulled.
[3:13:25] In terms of key considerations
[3:13:27] for this project,
[3:13:28] it still required
[3:13:29] for package one the relocation
[3:13:30] of Easton Creek, the temporary
[3:13:33] relocation of Sanchez Creek.
[3:13:34] It required extensive shoring,
[3:13:39] soil removal, backfill,
[3:13:41] increasing the cost,
[3:13:42] and complexity.
[3:13:45] It did include the design
[3:13:46] of the center board platform,
[3:13:48] which is Caltrain standard
[3:13:49] for customer experience during
[3:13:51] single track operations and
[3:13:53] also provides a wider platform
[3:13:55] for queuing and for comfort
[3:13:57] during high speed train passes.
[3:14:00] The results of that work,
[3:14:02] as noted earlier, both the
[3:14:04] contractor and our independent
[3:14:06] cost estimator, initial
[3:14:08] constructability review showed
[3:14:09] a longer duration of 59 to 70
[3:14:11] months versus the designer's
[3:14:13] 40.
[3:14:15] The two construction estimates
[3:14:17] were 527 to 590
[3:14:18] for construction portion
[3:14:20] of it.
[3:14:22] These were reconciled
[3:14:23] between the two at 577.
[3:14:26] With that, the team updated the
[3:14:28] other project costs besides
[3:14:29] construction, leading
[3:14:31] to a total project cost
[3:14:32] for package one of 889.
[3:14:41] So you heard me talk
[3:14:42] about a lot of things we tried
[3:14:43] to do to lower cost,
[3:14:44] so now I'm going to talk
[3:14:46] about the results
[3:14:47] of that effort.
[3:14:48] First is package two,
[3:14:49] which is that side platform.
[3:14:51] That makes a narrower overall
[3:14:53] footprint, less work, less
[3:14:54] time, lower cost.
[3:14:59] So with this alternative,
[3:15:01] it avoids the relocation of
[3:15:03] Easton Creek.
[3:15:04] It avoids the relocation
[3:15:05] of some of the electrified
[3:15:06] infrastructure.
[3:15:08] It enables flipping the
[3:15:10] alignment and moving this
[3:15:11] station over towards Carolin
[3:15:13] and using the existing track as
[3:15:15] a shoe fly.
[3:15:17] It allows using just a single
[3:15:20] track shoe fly.
[3:15:21] It allows for the contractor
[3:15:22] to be on his side
[3:15:23] of the fence, just go
[3:15:24] to work.
[3:15:25] It also allows the parking
[3:15:26] to move over
[3:15:29] to the west side towards
[3:15:30] California Drive, closer
[3:15:32] to downtown.
[3:15:34] It reduces environmental
[3:15:35] impacts, it reduces utility
[3:15:37] relocations,
[3:15:39] and has a smaller footprint.
[3:15:42] Now it does have some
[3:15:43] challenges.
[3:15:44] One, it's a side platform that
[3:15:45] impacts the rider experience.
[3:15:48] It will require redesign.
[3:15:49] It will require cost and money
[3:15:53] for that redesign and,
[3:15:54] of course, public outreach,
[3:15:55] which we always do.
[3:15:58] The bottom line results.
[3:16:00] It saved a year in time,
[3:16:02] which saved $147 million
[3:16:04] in cost compared to Package
[3:16:08] 1, bringing the total project
[3:16:09] to $679 million.
[3:16:18] So the next package we did was
[3:16:19] take a look
[3:16:20] at deferring the station.
[3:16:22] This is the same as Package
[3:16:23] 2, but deferring building the
[3:16:26] station itself.
[3:16:28] This, of course,
[3:16:29] further reduced cost and time.
[3:16:32] However, in terms
[3:16:33] of a challenge, the project
[3:16:34] already is environmentally
[3:16:36] cleared, and we will need to
[3:16:38] update that environmental work.
[3:16:41] This is under review from legal
[3:16:43] and environmental teams, but
[3:16:45] the early indications are
[3:16:47] positive that this item can be
[3:16:49] addressed without the
[3:16:50] additional time shown
[3:16:51] on the slide.
[3:16:52] We still have a little bit
[3:16:53] of homework to do there.
[3:16:54] We haven't got the final read
[3:16:55] from our attorneys.
[3:16:58] At the end of the day,
[3:16:59] the results
[3:17:00] of this also reduced duration
[3:17:01] by the year,
[3:17:03] saved an additional $34 million
[3:17:05] from Package 2 for a cost of
[3:17:08] $638 million.
[3:17:13] The team went one step farther.
[3:17:16] What if we do no station?
[3:17:18] What if we just instead
[3:17:21] of defer the station,
[3:17:23] let's just not build it?
[3:17:24] Let's not build the
[3:17:25] infrastructure necessary
[3:17:26] to support that.
[3:17:27] Just go up at 2%, cross over
[3:17:29] Broadway, come back down
[3:17:30] at 2%,
[3:17:32] make it as narrow as you can,
[3:17:33] get up as fast as you can, get
[3:17:35] across the road, come back
[3:17:36] down,
[3:17:38] build it as fast as you can.
[3:17:40] Of course, the key benefits
[3:17:41] to that is improved Caltrain
[3:17:43] travel times.
[3:17:45] Again, it reduces scope,
[3:17:46] reduces duration,
[3:17:47] and reduces cost.
[3:17:51] It has the same challenges as
[3:17:52] Package 3 with doing the
[3:17:54] environmental review that we
[3:17:55] still need to do the rest
[3:17:56] of that homework on.
[3:17:58] It does save that year
[3:18:01] of construction, and it saves
[3:18:02] $50 million from the Package 2
[3:18:03] version for a total cost of
[3:18:04] $615 million.
[3:18:09] This is a summary of the VE and
[3:18:11] the construction cost savings.
[3:18:13] We started out at $577 million.
[3:18:17] We did a lot of work and got
[3:18:19] down to $430 million,
[3:18:21] which is Package 2.
[3:18:23] Then we got down to Package
[3:18:24] 3, which is $396 million,
[3:18:27] and then to $380 million.
[3:18:30] These prices, of course,
[3:18:31] are again based
[3:18:32] on having the necessary funding
[3:18:34] to begin work
[3:18:35] in a timely manner.
[3:18:38] So in summary,
[3:18:39] the team created options.
[3:18:41] How do we solve this problem?
[3:18:42] These prices were not what we
[3:18:43] expected.
[3:18:46] So we found ways to reduce the
[3:18:47] duration by reducing scope.
[3:18:49] We have more work
[3:18:50] to do there.
[3:18:52] We reduced the cost
[3:18:53] in construction.
[3:18:54] Package 2 saved about 25%,
[3:18:55] $147 million.
[3:18:57] Package 3 saved about 31%,
[3:18:59] and Package 4 saved
[3:19:05] about 34%.
[3:19:06] We did a line-by-line review
[3:19:08] of all of the cost,
[3:19:09] and we welcome the City and
[3:19:10] TA's help with that, to walk
[3:19:12] through all
[3:19:14] of the costs line-by-line
[3:19:15] to make sure we're driving
[3:19:16] value
[3:19:17] for the public's money.
[3:19:20] We also did a line-by-line
[3:19:21] review
[3:19:22] of all the contingencies.
[3:19:23] For every work activity,
[3:19:24] what's the appropriate level
[3:19:25] of contingency
[3:19:26] for that risk?
[3:19:27] And welcome the City's and the
[3:19:29] TA's review of that as well.
[3:19:34] How do we make sure that we've
[3:19:35] got the right contingencies
[3:19:37] for the construction risks,
[3:19:38] project risk, and other risk
[3:19:39] of the project?
[3:19:41] With that, we generated the
[3:19:43] go-for pricing.
[3:19:44] How much money do we need going
[3:19:45] forward, plus what we spent
[3:19:46] to date,
[3:19:48] to get the total project cost?
[3:19:50] So you're going
[3:19:51] to see that total project cost
[3:19:52] in the next slide,
[3:19:53] and there are a lot of numbers
[3:19:54] on this page.
[3:19:57] So the top line is that CMGC's
[3:20:01] rough order of magnitude
[3:20:03] construction cost.
[3:20:05] I want to be mindful here.
[3:20:07] Package 2, 3, and 4 are based
[3:20:10] on conceptual designs.
[3:20:12] We have a very talented
[3:20:14] contract team, a very talented
[3:20:16] designer,
[3:20:17] and they developed kind of
[3:20:18] conceptual plans that were
[3:20:19] priced.
[3:20:20] Package 1 was a 65% plan set.
[3:20:24] Package 2, 3, and 4 were based
[3:20:26] on conceptuals,
[3:20:28] so the rough order
[3:20:29] of magnitude.
[3:20:30] So there's more work
[3:20:31] to do here.
[3:20:32] And the costs vary from $577
[3:20:33] to $380, and these vary
[3:20:36] by the scope, the level
[3:20:38] of improvements we do,
[3:20:40] and the duration
[3:20:41] of the work.
[3:20:43] How fast can the work be done,
[3:20:44] and what's the smallest
[3:20:46] footprint can be done
[3:20:47] to get the project done?
[3:20:49] The next group of lines are
[3:20:51] other project costs.
[3:20:52] The design side to get
[3:20:54] to 100% design, Caltrain's cost
[3:20:56] for management of the work,
[3:20:58] the construction management
[3:20:59] support, the right-of-way,
[3:21:01] and those vary
[3:21:03] by duration and scope from
[3:21:04] about $111 to $92 million.
[3:21:05] The next lines are for
[3:21:09] contingencies and project
[3:21:10] risks.
[3:21:12] The CMGC included in their
[3:21:14] pricing to us risk money.
[3:21:17] They included a range of $57
[3:21:19] to $35 million
[3:21:21] for the geotechnical risk.
[3:21:23] You heard me talk
[3:21:25] about the excavation, the
[3:21:26] shoring, the backfill.
[3:21:28] If we do more geotechnical,
[3:21:30] we might be able
[3:21:31] to avoid all the cost,
[3:21:32] but we didn't know yet, so they
[3:21:33] included that money as a risk
[3:21:34] element.
[3:21:36] We also included monies
[3:21:38] for escalation.
[3:21:39] We only included 3.5% because
[3:21:42] this project will have several
[3:21:43] years of a lifespan,
[3:21:45] and escalation tends
[3:21:46] to go up and down over time.
[3:21:48] So with that, we developed the
[3:21:49] go-forward pricing and expanded
[3:21:51] to date, and the bottom line
[3:21:53] there is the total project
[3:21:54] cost.
[3:21:55] We started at $889 million.
[3:21:57] We got down to $615 million.
[3:22:04] Next, I want
[3:22:05] to talk a little bit
[3:22:06] about escalation.
[3:22:09] In the next several months,
[3:22:11] a decision will be necessary.
[3:22:14] The current funding we have
[3:22:16] will be exhausted.
[3:22:18] Time is a key cost driver
[3:22:20] on large projects.
[3:22:23] We selected the CMGC
[3:22:25] construction method delivery
[3:22:26] method.
[3:22:28] This early contract involvement
[3:22:29] provides commercial pricing
[3:22:32] before the drawings are done.
[3:22:34] It also provides the
[3:22:36] opportunity
[3:22:37] to do that enabling work
[3:22:39] before the design is complete.
[3:22:41] With this known opportunity,
[3:22:44] the costs shown are based
[3:22:45] on using that tool.
[3:22:50] It shows funding the redesign
[3:22:52] of the work to get
[3:22:54] to 65% drawings.
[3:22:57] It assumes funding production
[3:22:59] of 100% drawings
[3:23:01] for that enabling work, the
[3:23:03] utilities, the track work,
[3:23:05] get those drawings to 100% so
[3:23:06] we can get them priced and get
[3:23:08] into construction.
[3:23:10] It shows funding the enabling
[3:23:11] right-of-way work
[3:23:13] to remove that from the
[3:23:14] critical path so those
[3:23:15] properties are cleared because
[3:23:17] that's where the contractor is
[3:23:18] going to go to work.
[3:23:20] It also shows seeking
[3:23:22] authorization to proceed
[3:23:23] with construction coming back
[3:23:25] in the spring of next year,
[3:23:27] asking for money to begin
[3:23:29] construction so you can
[3:23:32] mobilize and begin construction
[3:23:33] in the fall of 26.
[3:23:35] It also would include and ask
[3:23:37] next spring
[3:23:39] to complete the 100% drawings.
[3:23:43] This slide is to show even
[3:23:44] with moderate escalation
[3:23:46] at 3.5%, the bottom line there
[3:23:48] is the cheapest option at $615
[3:23:51] million.
[3:23:53] One year of delay is $22
[3:23:54] million.
[3:23:56] That's why the team said let's
[3:23:58] assume for these pricing that
[3:23:59] we're going to find a way
[3:24:01] to get the ability to go to
[3:24:03] work and find a funding
[3:24:04] strategy that would support
[3:24:06] that given this is number one
[3:24:07] in the state
[3:24:09] on the priority list.
[3:24:19] In terms
[3:24:21] of funding and expenditure,
[3:24:22] the project has received
[3:24:23] about $28.9 million
[3:24:26] from the and the city
[3:24:28] since this project began in
[3:24:29] 2017.
[3:24:32] The majority of these funds
[3:24:33] have been expended to get
[3:24:34] to this point.
[3:24:36] At the end of the calendar
[3:24:37] year, there was about $2.4
[3:24:38] million left.
[3:24:42] So we're going to be running
[3:24:43] out of capacity to continue
[3:24:45] work and a decision is needed
[3:24:46] in the coming months in order
[3:24:48] to continue on this project.
[3:24:55] So in terms of next steps,
[3:24:59] tomorrow and Thursday, we will
[3:25:01] go to the SMCTA Citizens
[3:25:03] Advisory Committee and their
[3:25:04] board, Caltrain staff, will
[3:25:05] provide a project update
[3:25:07] similar to what we're doing
[3:25:09] here today and the TA staff
[3:25:12] will seek feedback from their
[3:25:13] CAC and their board.
[3:25:15] If the region elects to
[3:25:17] continue moving this project
[3:25:19] forward, the team's
[3:25:20] recommendation would be
[3:25:22] to drive schedule
[3:25:24] to reduce cost.
[3:25:26] We've got a final design team,
[3:25:27] Mark Thomas, that's ready
[3:25:29] to go to work, knows the
[3:25:30] project well and is poised to
[3:25:33] advance that work and reuse a
[3:25:35] lot of the things that they've
[3:25:36] already done.
[3:25:37] They've already designed the
[3:25:38] intersection at Broadway.
[3:25:39] There's a lot of work there
[3:25:40] that can be reused.
[3:25:42] We've got a seasoned CMGC
[3:25:44] contractor, Flatiron Herzog,
[3:25:45] ready to go
[3:25:47] to work.
[3:25:48] I'm meeting with their vice
[3:25:49] presidents tomorrow
[3:25:51] before the CAC meeting
[3:25:52] in my office to talk
[3:25:54] about work on this project.
[3:25:56] Put forward a request
[3:25:58] for funding to move the design
[3:26:00] to 65% and 100% design
[3:26:03] for that enabling work.
[3:26:06] Find a way to do the enabling
[3:26:08] right-of-way work, update the
[3:26:09] environmental and come forward
[3:26:12] with a funding request
[3:26:13] in the spring of 26
[3:26:15] to start support construction
[3:26:17] of that enabling work
[3:26:19] in the fall of 26 and fund the
[3:26:21] 100% design.
[3:26:26] Of course, Caltrain will
[3:26:27] continue to evaluate all
[3:26:29] supplemental safety measures as
[3:26:30] part
[3:26:31] of our rail crossing program
[3:26:32] like we do up and
[3:26:33] down the alignment.
[3:26:41] So what amount
[3:26:42] of funds are necessary
[3:26:44] to do this next step?
[3:26:46] I want to be very clear.
[3:26:48] This is just essentially a
[3:26:50] placeholder.
[3:26:52] We asked the contractor, the
[3:26:54] designer,
[3:26:55] about how much it would be
[3:26:57] to advance
[3:26:58] to this next level.
[3:26:59] Of course, they didn't know
[3:27:00] which package would be
[3:27:01] selected,
[3:27:02] so there's still work
[3:27:04] to be done based
[3:27:06] on what package is selected,
[3:27:07] asking for a proposal, and then
[3:27:08] doing a line-by-line review
[3:27:09] with Caltrain, the city staff,
[3:27:12] and the TA staff,
[3:27:13] making sure we drive value
[3:27:14] to money to drive that cost
[3:27:15] down for both the contractor's
[3:27:17] proposal
[3:27:20] for the designer's proposal and
[3:27:22] Caltrain's cost.
[3:27:24] This money would support
[3:27:26] getting the updated cost
[3:27:29] from the CMGC for the 65% set
[3:27:31] and the enabling work.
[3:27:34] Because we'd be looking
[3:27:35] to issue a contract amendment
[3:27:36] to go to work,
[3:27:37] we'd be negotiating a price
[3:27:38] for that work.
[3:27:40] The designer's work I've talked
[3:27:42] about and then enabling
[3:27:43] right-of-way work.
[3:27:44] That's authorizing relocation
[3:27:46] benefit eligibility
[3:27:48] for the lease tenants on the
[3:27:50] San Mateo County Transit
[3:27:51] Authority
[3:27:52] for two parcels and,
[3:27:54] of course, the other elements
[3:27:55] that are shown.
[3:27:58] And then we'd come back
[3:27:59] for a future funding request
[3:28:01] for 100% design and the
[3:28:03] long-lead material procurement.
[3:28:11] With that being said, package
[3:28:13] 1, 2, and 3 are estimated at
[3:28:16] $679 to $615 million.
[3:28:21] With the current $28.9 million,
[3:28:24] that leaves a gap of $650 to
[3:28:27] $586 million.
[3:28:31] We did work with SMCTA staff
[3:28:34] and your staff to identify
[3:28:36] known sources and amounts
[3:28:38] of funding.
[3:28:40] All in, an additional $438
[3:28:42] million might be available.
[3:28:47] This still leaves a significant
[3:28:49] gap of $211 to $147 million.
[3:28:55] We know that this location is
[3:28:57] the highest-ranked crossing
[3:28:58] in California CPUC's list.
[3:28:59] We know that.
[3:29:01] We want to drive this project
[3:29:02] forward.
[3:29:04] Caltrain is firmly committed
[3:29:05] in order
[3:29:06] to get this project done.
[3:29:09] But with all the VEA options
[3:29:10] implemented,
[3:29:12] it's still a heavy lift
[3:29:14] to fund.
[3:29:15] And we know that the state and
[3:29:17] federal landscape remains
[3:29:19] uncertain.
[3:29:22] And we know that construction
[3:29:23] market remains volatile.
[3:29:29] We would like
[3:29:30] to thank the mayor, the vice
[3:29:31] mayor, and the council members
[3:29:34] for the opportunity
[3:29:35] to provide this update.
[3:29:37] The project evaluated that
[3:29:38] contract delivery model.
[3:29:40] We selected CMGC to get that
[3:29:42] commercial pricing now
[3:29:44] before we were done
[3:29:45] with the drawings.
[3:29:47] We knew this was a unique
[3:29:48] project with lots of risk.
[3:29:50] It had seven structures, six
[3:29:51] creeks, relocating creeks,
[3:29:52] new pedestrian
[3:29:56] under crossings,
[3:29:57] an electrified operating
[3:29:58] railroad, and a volatile
[3:29:59] post-pandemic bid market.
[3:30:00] We wanted
[3:30:01] to get contractor pricing now.
[3:30:03] We obtained that pricing
[3:30:05] before we were done
[3:30:07] with designing.
[3:30:08] And similar to many public
[3:30:09] infrastructure projects
[3:30:11] across the United States, this
[3:30:14] pricing was not what we
[3:30:15] expected.
[3:30:18] However, now we have more
[3:30:19] information
[3:30:21] to support decision-making
[3:30:23] on what to do next.
[3:30:24] I'd like to turn it back to
[3:30:26] Saiyed for that conversation.
[3:30:47] Before I go
[3:30:50] to the next steps, I would
[3:30:51] like
[3:30:54] to have the council follow up
[3:30:55] with any questions for Rob or
[3:30:56] Navi.
[3:30:59] Council members, who's got
[3:31:02] questions for Robert or Navi
[3:31:05] regarding what was presented?
[3:31:09] May I do the mayor,
[3:31:10] please?
[3:31:12] I might just say that
[3:31:15] Councilman, or Mayor Stevenson
[3:31:17] and I have had the opportunity,
[3:31:19] this is now the third time
[3:31:21] we've seen this,
[3:31:22] and we have spent
[3:31:24] over four hours asking hundreds
[3:31:25] of questions.
[3:31:27] So I would like to defer
[3:31:29] to my three colleagues to make
[3:31:32] sure you have the opportunity
[3:31:33] to answer, ask some
[3:31:34] of the same questions,
[3:31:36] and maybe hopefully even hit
[3:31:38] on something that we've missed.
[3:31:39] But I do want you to know,
[3:31:41] on your behalf, we have been
[3:31:43] asking hours and hours
[3:31:45] of questions.
[3:31:47] We are obviously disappointed.
[3:31:50] We are upset about this.
[3:31:54] This is a shock to everyone.
[3:31:56] Has ramifications and
[3:31:57] implications, and this is the
[3:32:00] first time that I've had the
[3:32:02] opportunity to see the slide
[3:32:03] that shows the casting out
[3:32:05] of costs up to 2031.
[3:32:09] A billion dollars sat on that
[3:32:12] chart.
[3:32:16] I haven't seen that before, but
[3:32:20] you can see the conundrum that
[3:32:25] we are in, in terms
[3:32:28] of advancing this project.
[3:32:30] So please, colleagues.
[3:32:35] Any initial questions?
[3:32:36] Yes, Vice Mayor.
[3:32:38] I do, but I don't feel a need
[3:32:39] to go first.
[3:32:41] Okay.
[3:32:42] Well, I mean, so one,
[3:32:44] I guess I have a question
[3:32:45] for the Mayor and
[3:32:47] Councilwoman Colson.
[3:32:48] So the questions that you've
[3:32:49] asked, were they addressed
[3:32:51] in this presentation?
[3:32:52] In other words,
[3:32:53] are the answers that you got
[3:32:54] in this presentation, or?
[3:32:57] Mr. Mayor, would you like to
[3:32:58] address that?
[3:33:00] I think there are still some
[3:33:02] unknown questions,
[3:33:03] and we gave guidance
[3:33:06] around some of the current
[3:33:07] estimates that you see,
[3:33:09] in terms of, especially in the
[3:33:11] near term, in terms
[3:33:12] of the next wave of funding
[3:33:14] to get to 65% with the redesign
[3:33:16] and what options that impacts.
[3:33:18] Because I don't think the
[3:33:20] scenario was with Caltrain, and
[3:33:23] correct me if I'm wrong, that
[3:33:25] they asked other than just a
[3:33:27] high level, what is your sense
[3:33:29] of what this is going
[3:33:30] to cost?
[3:33:32] So there's costs that are
[3:33:33] projected in that $28 million
[3:33:34] that we had questions about,
[3:33:36] and I don't know what the final
[3:33:38] answer will be on that,
[3:33:39] because there's more work
[3:33:40] to be done.
[3:33:42] In general, I think some
[3:33:45] of the questions about the
[3:33:46] value engineering certainly
[3:33:47] clarified a picture for us,
[3:33:50] in terms of what options.
[3:33:54] But there's also questions
[3:33:55] about governance,
[3:33:57] there's questions
[3:33:58] about how we drive this,
[3:33:59] how we work together
[3:34:00] to make this the exception
[3:34:01] of the surprise,
[3:34:03] rather than the rule,
[3:34:05] going forward.
[3:34:08] For other grade separations.
[3:34:09] Yeah, and I think, just
[3:34:10] to frame it, it seems
[3:34:11] to me that this evening,
[3:34:13] the decisions that we need
[3:34:14] to make are looking at, you
[3:34:16] know, options one through four.
[3:34:18] I think the mayor and I have a
[3:34:20] suggestion, along with staff,
[3:34:23] of where we're going to have
[3:34:24] to go on this,
[3:34:26] pretty obvious.
[3:34:28] It's complex, because of the
[3:34:33] transit-oriented development
[3:34:34] situation, whether that train
[3:34:36] station is there or not.
[3:34:38] We heard very loud and clear
[3:34:39] from our scoping meetings
[3:34:41] with the TOD
[3:34:43] for a specific plan for
[3:34:44] Broadway, that change is not,
[3:34:48] people are not interested
[3:34:49] in change,
[3:34:50] they don't want more dense
[3:34:51] housing, they don't want all
[3:34:52] that, and those two things
[3:34:54] interrelate, right?
[3:34:55] If we have a train station,
[3:34:57] by law,
[3:34:58] then we must zone very dense
[3:35:00] around it, without parking.
[3:35:02] So there's complexity
[3:35:04] around that, and we sorted
[3:35:05] through some
[3:35:06] of those questions.
[3:35:07] And then, I think,
[3:35:09] so that sort
[3:35:11] of is the first framing.
[3:35:12] There was a lot of,
[3:35:13] I guess what I would say is,
[3:35:15] there was a lot
[3:35:16] of conversation and sort
[3:35:17] of rehashing around, how in the
[3:35:19] world did we actually get here?
[3:35:21] So I think you can be pretty
[3:35:22] confident that we have made it
[3:35:24] very clear, the mistakes,
[3:35:26] and we've stood by our staff,
[3:35:30] who has been discussing for 10
[3:35:31] years, if not arguing
[3:35:33] vehemently, of why 10 years
[3:35:35] ago, before electrification,
[3:35:37] et cetera, we needed
[3:35:39] to have begun this project.
[3:35:40] And we were always at the top
[3:35:42] of the list, and projects below
[3:35:43] us got picked up and put on,
[3:35:45] you know, the Mateo, and every
[3:35:47] one of these projects has gone
[3:35:48] over and over and
[3:35:49] over and running.
[3:35:51] And then, there was extensive
[3:35:52] debate, even around,
[3:35:54] so that was number one, like,
[3:35:55] what are we going to build?
[3:35:56] Then number two, how come the
[3:35:57] process is so screwed up, and
[3:35:58] how do we make sure that going
[3:36:00] forward it doesn't get this
[3:36:01] out of control?
[3:36:05] And then number three is really
[3:36:06] the funding plan,
[3:36:07] and how do we put a funding
[3:36:08] plan together, even, you know,
[3:36:10] if the TA gave us every dollar
[3:36:11] that they had, we're still
[3:36:14] $147 million short on the, you
[3:36:17] know, in an environment
[3:36:19] of 25% tariffs, an environment
[3:36:21] of the Fed pulling back tons
[3:36:23] and tons of funding, it's just
[3:36:25] all getting very complicated.
[3:36:28] So to pick up on that,
[3:36:29] I'll just turn to a couple
[3:36:30] of questions.
[3:36:32] What is the funding plan?
[3:36:33] So you have to find $100, we
[3:36:34] have to find $150, $200
[3:36:36] million, where does it come
[3:36:37] from in your view?
[3:36:39] So the discussion we had
[3:36:42] earlier this afternoon was
[3:36:43] establishing an ad hoc
[3:36:44] committee
[3:36:46] with the finance folks
[3:36:47] for both Caltrain, the TA,
[3:36:48] and the city to meet
[3:36:49] on a regular cadence
[3:36:50] over the next year
[3:36:52] to develop that funding plan.
[3:36:53] You could imagine a future
[3:36:55] where there's a decision made,
[3:36:56] we'll pick a package,
[3:36:58] we're going
[3:36:59] to advance the design
[3:37:00] to get ready with the CMGC
[3:37:01] to go to work.
[3:37:02] Excuse me?
[3:37:03] We won't be able to go to work
[3:37:04] without that funding plan.
[3:37:06] So we don't have that plan,
[3:37:08] but we've talked
[3:37:09] about a structured process
[3:37:11] in order to try
[3:37:12] to drive the development
[3:37:13] of that plan.
[3:37:14] As far as I know,
[3:37:15] there's no additional sources
[3:37:16] of capital for this kind of
[3:37:18] project that wasn't available a
[3:37:19] year ago, two years ago,
[3:37:20] three years ago.
[3:37:22] There's no, I mean, certainly
[3:37:25] not the federal government
[3:37:27] hasn't created a vast new
[3:37:29] spending program, far
[3:37:30] from it.
[3:37:31] State is not in a better fiscal
[3:37:32] position than it was.
[3:37:33] So if we couldn't do it last
[3:37:34] year with a $300 million
[3:37:36] estimate where we needed 50
[3:37:39] to 60, I don't understand where
[3:37:41] you think 150 to 200 is coming
[3:37:42] from.
[3:37:45] The team doesn't have an answer
[3:37:47] for where that funding- I don't
[3:37:49] think you can get an answer.
[3:37:51] I mean, I invest for a living.
[3:37:55] I would fire you guys,
[3:37:57] honestly.
[3:37:59] This isn't, you weren't off
[3:38:02] by a little bit, you were off
[3:38:03] by a lot.
[3:38:04] And now you want this
[3:38:05] community, which I express
[3:38:08] broadly, the city of
[3:38:09] Burlingame and a lot
[3:38:10] of other people,
[3:38:11] to throw another $25 million
[3:38:15] onto the fire.
[3:38:17] I mean, I don't see what value
[3:38:18] we've got for the $25 million
[3:38:19] you've spent.
[3:38:22] If this were a startup,
[3:38:23] I wouldn't keep funding you.
[3:38:24] If this were a good idea, I'd
[3:38:26] go somewhere else.
[3:38:28] I don't see you guys
[3:38:29] delivering.
[3:38:31] I mean, I'm sorry,
[3:38:32] I'm not usually this blunt, but
[3:38:34] this upsets me.
[3:38:36] I admire the mayor and
[3:38:40] Councilwoman Colson
[3:38:41] for keeping their cool.
[3:38:42] Maybe they blew their stack in
[3:38:43] private.
[3:38:44] I think this is outrageous.
[3:38:45] And to ask the city and the
[3:38:47] community and the county and
[3:38:48] the state
[3:38:49] to keep backing your agency
[3:38:50] with this record of missing
[3:38:52] over and over again, I don't
[3:38:57] see how you stand there and
[3:38:58] say, just trust me.
[3:39:01] Give me another 10, 15, 20
[3:39:02] million, I'll figure it out.
[3:39:07] Sorry, it wasn't really a
[3:39:08] question, but you can go ahead
[3:39:10] and answer it, please do.
[3:39:15] I hear you loud and clear.
[3:39:20] When I joined Caltrain, we were
[3:39:22] doing work with low bid.
[3:39:26] These are complex projects,
[3:39:28] and I've built complex projects
[3:39:31] at over a billion dollars.
[3:39:32] And the way we do those is
[3:39:34] bring a contractor in
[3:39:36] to get contractor pricing
[3:39:38] to drive decision making.
[3:39:40] And that's not what was being
[3:39:41] done.
[3:39:42] So I said, let's change the way
[3:39:44] we deliver work.
[3:39:47] We brought on a CMGC out at
[3:39:50] Mountain View.
[3:39:51] We did it at Rangsdorf.
[3:39:53] We did it at Broadway.
[3:39:55] We're going to bring one
[3:39:56] to our council in April for
[3:39:58] Middle Avenue
[3:40:00] to bring the contractor
[3:40:01] in early
[3:40:02] to get their pricing.
[3:40:03] The pricing that we've been
[3:40:05] getting from the design
[3:40:06] professionals doesn't align
[3:40:07] with the current realities
[3:40:10] of this construction market.
[3:40:12] So coming in and changing the
[3:40:13] way we do business to get
[3:40:15] better pricing earlier than
[3:40:17] what was done before.
[3:40:20] So I hear you,
[3:40:22] and what are we doing
[3:40:23] about it?
[3:40:24] And that was changing the way
[3:40:26] we get our pricing.
[3:40:27] Now there are other projects
[3:40:29] that are earlier
[3:40:30] in their design process, in
[3:40:31] Palo Alto.
[3:40:33] We went out to the market, and
[3:40:35] we got this specialized
[3:40:36] expertise that is a contractor
[3:40:40] style estimating from Kelly
[3:40:42] McNutt, and there are other
[3:40:44] firms that do that as well,
[3:40:46] to provide that resource to
[3:40:48] Caltrain for other projects.
[3:40:49] Because you can't hire a CMGC
[3:40:52] contractor on a project
[3:40:53] in 15% design.
[3:40:55] There's no construction money
[3:40:57] yet.
[3:40:58] They're in the business
[3:40:59] of construction.
[3:41:00] So we're bringing them on and
[3:41:01] getting that commercial pricing
[3:41:03] at 15%
[3:41:04] from the contractor industry
[3:41:05] on these earlier projects to
[3:41:08] change the way we do business.
[3:41:10] But on projects that were
[3:41:12] in flight, let's bring them in
[3:41:13] to get commercial pricing,
[3:41:15] because the pricing we were
[3:41:16] getting from the design
[3:41:17] communities didn't match the
[3:41:18] realities we're getting
[3:41:20] from the construction community
[3:41:21] for pricing.
[3:41:24] So it came in and changed the
[3:41:26] way we do business.
[3:41:27] So I hear you on that,
[3:41:29] and what are we doing
[3:41:30] about it?
[3:41:33] Well, if, and sorry, but the-
[3:41:34] No, no, no, keep going,
[3:41:35] but I just want to elaborate
[3:41:37] on something you pointed out,
[3:41:38] Michael, or Councilman
[3:41:39] Brownrigg, Vice Mayor.
[3:41:41] If you don't think you can find
[3:41:42] the 200 million, and that's,
[3:41:43] if you don't think you can,
[3:41:44] if one doesn't think one can,
[3:41:47] it's like asking you to buy,
[3:41:49] to pay for an architect
[3:41:50] to design the Taj Mahal, and
[3:41:52] you know damn well you don't
[3:41:54] have the money to build the
[3:41:55] Taj Mahal.
[3:41:56] So why am I paying the
[3:41:57] architect?
[3:41:58] Who am I kidding?
[3:41:59] That's the question
[3:42:00] before the region today.
[3:42:04] With what we know now
[3:42:06] about what this project cost,
[3:42:07] we brought in a contractor,
[3:42:09] we turned over every rock,
[3:42:11] how cheap can you make it
[3:42:12] in today's ball to market?
[3:42:17] Does the region want
[3:42:18] to move forward
[3:42:19] with this project or not?
[3:42:20] That's the question.
[3:42:21] And then if they want
[3:42:23] to move forward, which one?
[3:42:25] And if that's the choice,
[3:42:27] we have a steep hill to climb
[3:42:30] in a, where the state and
[3:42:31] federal funding is uncertain,
[3:42:33] and the construction market is
[3:42:35] volatile.
[3:42:37] Do we want to take that next
[3:42:38] step or not?
[3:42:40] That's the question.
[3:42:46] Sorry, I do not want to, if
[3:42:49] Desiree or Andrea, so I just
[3:42:52] want to point out, and we have
[3:42:54] three new council people here,
[3:42:56] but Councilman Brownrigg and I,
[3:42:58] you know, I expressed great
[3:43:01] concern that this is not the
[3:43:02] first time that we've had this
[3:43:04] kind of a problem.
[3:43:06] The first time we had this
[3:43:07] problem was
[3:43:08] over the parallel station,
[3:43:09] which was going
[3:43:10] to be built right adjacent
[3:43:11] to where we're talking
[3:43:12] about grade separation.
[3:43:14] And when I asked,
[3:43:15] and we had an outpour
[3:43:17] of community dissent about
[3:43:19] building this monstrosity right
[3:43:21] in front
[3:43:22] of all these homeowners.
[3:43:23] So they all came
[3:43:25] out and we were given 24 hours
[3:43:26] to solve this problem.
[3:43:30] The most disconcerting thing
[3:43:34] that happened was we asked, so
[3:43:35] wait, you're going to build a
[3:43:36] $17 million parallel station
[3:43:38] on a location that's going
[3:43:40] to need a grade separation?
[3:43:41] And we were told
[3:43:43] in that meeting, oh, yeah,
[3:43:44] we'll just tear it
[3:43:46] down and we'll rebuild it
[3:43:48] into the new station, $17
[3:43:49] million
[3:43:50] of wasted taxpayer money, which
[3:43:53] either says you never planned
[3:43:54] to build this station ever,
[3:43:58] or you were foolish enough to
[3:44:01] think that you could build and
[3:44:03] then tear it
[3:44:04] down and waste that much money
[3:44:05] of taxpayers' money.
[3:44:07] We solved that problem, thank
[3:44:08] goodness, from our amazing
[3:44:09] staff and our lawyers and our
[3:44:11] city manager, Michael.
[3:44:12] We sat down with a map.
[3:44:14] By two feet, we put it
[3:44:15] on our own property.
[3:44:16] We signed the papers,
[3:44:17] got an MOU together in 24
[3:44:18] hours.
[3:44:19] And when did that project
[3:44:21] start?
[3:44:23] Two years later.
[3:44:25] Two years later.
[3:44:26] So these are the things that
[3:44:28] have given pause to those
[3:44:29] of us who've been working
[3:44:30] on this for a decade.
[3:44:33] And one of the reasons we don't
[3:44:35] have a lot of confidence
[3:44:37] in this, and I point out one
[3:44:40] other thing that the mayor and
[3:44:42] I discussed today with staff,
[3:44:43] and that is, for example,
[3:44:45] on the funding need,
[3:44:46] the advanced updated
[3:44:47] alternative to 65%.
[3:44:49] So thankfully, we had a former
[3:44:50] mayor, Gina Pappin,
[3:44:55] representative
[3:44:57] of MTC was there,
[3:44:58] and I think she got right
[3:44:59] to the heart of this,
[3:45:00] which was we've already spent
[3:45:02] $20 million on design.
[3:45:04] We don't throw it
[3:45:06] out and start again.
[3:45:08] You just start rebuilding.
[3:45:10] And you know, when we look
[3:45:12] here, designer,
[3:45:14] for nine months of design work
[3:45:17] by a new designer to do this,
[3:45:19] $9.3 million
[3:45:22] to design an overpass, that's a
[3:45:24] million dollars a month.
[3:45:27] The mayor calculated it, it's
[3:45:29] like 25 people full-time
[3:45:30] for nine months.
[3:45:32] Is that really what it takes
[3:45:33] to redesign this?
[3:45:35] It just cannot.
[3:45:36] So it's these numbers that just
[3:45:39] give me so much pause and
[3:45:41] concern,
[3:45:42] and are where we really dove
[3:45:44] down on a lot
[3:45:45] of these meetings.
[3:45:47] Plausibility and just,
[3:45:48] and I wholeheartedly agree
[3:45:51] with Councilman Brownrigg,
[3:45:53] it's, you know, the adage
[3:45:55] of throwing good money
[3:45:57] after bad, you know,
[3:45:58] where do you stop?
[3:46:01] So I mean, this was the level
[3:46:03] of frustration we were dealing
[3:46:04] with.
[3:46:05] At the end of the day, dealing
[3:46:07] with all this frustration,
[3:46:09] I think we have to, you know, I
[3:46:12] think you can be assured that
[3:46:15] your sort of sentiments today
[3:46:17] have been echoed profusely
[3:46:19] in many meetings, and I am
[3:46:21] grateful that you also feel the
[3:46:23] same way that we feel.
[3:46:27] Trying to get through the
[3:46:28] decision-making process today
[3:46:29] of, you know, is it one, two,
[3:46:30] three, or four, and then how
[3:46:33] do, you know, do we proceed,
[3:46:34] and, you know, there's a
[3:46:36] decision five that's not
[3:46:38] on here, which is do nothing,
[3:46:41] or just do the safety features,
[3:46:44] and then the question becomes,
[3:46:47] you know, do we keep the train
[3:46:48] station open and force them
[3:46:51] to make good
[3:46:52] on their agreement and have
[3:46:53] to stop at that train station
[3:46:54] and do the work that they had
[3:46:55] to do?
[3:46:56] Then we do have to do TOD
[3:46:57] development in that area, which
[3:46:58] I think the community should
[3:47:00] have a say in.
[3:47:02] Do they want to be able to
[3:47:03] build housing there that would
[3:47:06] have no parking because
[3:47:07] of the proximity
[3:47:08] to an operating train station?
[3:47:10] And by the way, we found out
[3:47:11] even if the train stops once a
[3:47:12] week, it's considered a train
[3:47:16] station, and it has
[3:47:18] to be TOD.
[3:47:19] Yep.
[3:47:20] So it's not a maybe, a sort of,
[3:47:22] a this or that,
[3:47:24] it's either it's open and it's
[3:47:25] TOD,
[3:47:27] and now the zoning standards
[3:47:29] set by the state apply,
[3:47:31] and no parking requirements,
[3:47:32] greater density, all these
[3:47:35] things that the neighborhood
[3:47:36] has made very clear in this
[3:47:39] planning session that we've
[3:47:41] been working on, this specific
[3:47:42] plan, that they don't want.
[3:47:44] So you can't have both,
[3:47:45] you can't have a train station,
[3:47:46] and if you have a train
[3:47:47] station, you have
[3:47:49] to have TOD.
[3:47:51] So that conversation needs
[3:47:53] to go back to the community,
[3:47:55] but, you know, option number
[3:47:57] five is you keep it as it is,
[3:47:59] they have to upgrade it
[3:48:00] to the standards required,
[3:48:02] and it stays non-grade
[3:48:03] separated, and you have a
[3:48:05] station or you don't.
[3:48:07] So, you know, these are big,
[3:48:10] important questions, and a lot
[3:48:12] of it depends
[3:48:13] on our TA meetings this week,
[3:48:14] because if the TA says we're
[3:48:15] not going to fund to give you
[3:48:17] every dollar that we have,
[3:48:20] and we don't have that, I just
[3:48:22] don't understand where we're
[3:48:23] going
[3:48:26] to have a basis or a footing.
[3:48:28] Council Member Pappajohn, did
[3:48:30] you have a question?
[3:48:32] Thank you, Mayor.
[3:48:33] So do we, I heard you say we
[3:48:36] have this placeholder where we
[3:48:37] have to spend, is it $20
[3:48:39] million or $18 million just
[3:48:41] for a placeholder, I mean.
[3:48:45] It was asking the designers,
[3:48:46] we don't know which package,
[3:48:48] but
[3:48:49] about how much would it be,
[3:48:50] realizing we will still need
[3:48:51] to figure out what scope, the
[3:48:53] duration,
[3:48:54] and get a proposal and do a lot
[3:48:56] of negotiations.
[3:48:57] So we put a number there
[3:48:58] to say, we're going to ask
[3:49:00] for money, it's
[3:49:01] about this much, we expect it
[3:49:03] to be less, but we needed
[3:49:05] at least what's the range
[3:49:07] of cost,
[3:49:08] because there would be work
[3:49:09] to redo the 65% design,
[3:49:10] but we have a lot more homework
[3:49:12] to do on that.
[3:49:14] Thank you, I mean, can we wait
[3:49:16] until we hear
[3:49:17] from the TA and other agencies,
[3:49:18] I guess it's mainly the TA,
[3:49:20] about funding before we even
[3:49:21] move forward with.
[3:49:24] I think they need
[3:49:25] to know what the funding, that
[3:49:26] tonight's meeting will help
[3:49:28] them make a decision,
[3:49:29] because if we say we're going
[3:49:32] to go to one or the other, you
[3:49:33] know, whatever our feedback is,
[3:49:34] they're going to,
[3:49:35] they'll take that into
[3:49:36] consideration.
[3:49:39] I think it would be,
[3:49:41] did you want
[3:49:42] to address that?
[3:49:43] Yeah, I wanted to prioritize
[3:49:45] the decision making for
[3:49:46] Council, is that the first
[3:49:48] question is, for Council, is do
[3:49:50] we have a project?
[3:49:52] Do we have a viable project?
[3:49:53] That's the first question.
[3:49:54] And if we do,
[3:49:56] which option do we want?
[3:49:57] And if we address those two
[3:49:58] questions,
[3:50:00] then the third question about
[3:50:01] the near-term funding need,
[3:50:03] the $20 million,
[3:50:04] we will come back
[3:50:05] to you later,
[3:50:06] because they have
[3:50:07] to do some homework
[3:50:08] about bringing that cost
[3:50:09] down further,
[3:50:10] so we'll come back to you.
[3:50:11] The first two questions are
[3:50:12] whether we have a project,
[3:50:13] and what option do we want,
[3:50:15] those are two big questions.
[3:50:21] I will say then, I think it
[3:50:24] would be irresponsible not
[3:50:26] to move forward
[3:50:28] with the project, because of
[3:50:29] the liabilities and health and
[3:50:31] safety of the public.
[3:50:33] And yeah,
[3:50:37] that's where I am open to, you
[3:50:39] know,
[3:50:40] hearing what my colleagues have
[3:50:42] to say.
[3:50:44] Do you, may I ask, Mr. Mayor,
[3:50:45] sorry, may I ask,
[3:50:47] do you have a preference
[3:50:48] of one, two, three, or four?
[3:50:50] Yeah, I'll, well,
[3:50:54] I saw the recommendation
[3:50:55] from the subcommittee,
[3:50:57] a recommendation
[3:50:58] on package four.
[3:51:00] And so, you know, I would,
[3:51:01] I know you have spent a lot
[3:51:03] of time on it, as well as the
[3:51:06] mayor, and, you know,
[3:51:08] I really appreciate that,
[3:51:09] and I would just defer
[3:51:12] to your recommendation.
[3:51:13] And I think just, you know, we
[3:51:15] can, it's simpler,
[3:51:19] we're just going
[3:51:20] to solve the problem
[3:51:21] of the grade separation, and
[3:51:22] just forego the station.
[3:51:23] I think that's the problem,
[3:51:24] the grade separation.
[3:51:26] So, I agree.
[3:51:29] Just a suggestion on process,
[3:51:31] Mr. Mayor, so I'd like,
[3:51:33] I know we all want to hear
[3:51:34] from Council Member Thayer,
[3:51:35] but before we start voting,
[3:51:36] we might have public.
[3:51:38] Yeah, that would be helpful,
[3:51:40] yeah.
[3:51:41] Thank you.
[3:51:42] Yeah.
[3:51:43] Yeah, I mean, I guess
[3:51:45] in my mind, it's a little hard
[3:51:47] for me to know, do we actually
[3:51:48] have a viable project here?
[3:51:50] I mean, just because the
[3:51:51] funding situation for all
[3:51:52] of them, it seems
[3:51:54] like it's going
[3:51:56] to be difficult.
[3:51:57] There's more than $200 million
[3:51:58] gap for all of them.
[3:52:02] I guess I'm thinking between,
[3:52:03] if I had to choose
[3:52:04] between options three and four,
[3:52:07] there was less of a gap,
[3:52:09] at least
[3:52:10] at the current numbers,
[3:52:11] it was something like $23
[3:52:13] million difference
[3:52:14] between the two,
[3:52:15] and having that option to still
[3:52:17] have the station deferred,
[3:52:19] maybe it's wishful thinking.
[3:52:21] But I do think having that
[3:52:24] station,
[3:52:26] that neighborhood where I live,
[3:52:28] we really could get a lot more
[3:52:30] people on transit, and the
[3:52:32] reason why it's not well
[3:52:33] utilized now is because it is a
[3:52:35] weekend only stop.
[3:52:39] But first and foremost
[3:52:41] for me is safety.
[3:52:42] So if we have to get rid of the
[3:52:44] station because the only thing
[3:52:45] we afford is grade separating
[3:52:47] without a station,
[3:52:48] then that's why I'm kind
[3:52:49] of thinking between options
[3:52:50] three and four.
[3:52:51] Thank you.
[3:52:53] I think a lot of what I would
[3:52:57] say has been said.
[3:52:58] I think we have a challenge
[3:53:00] structurally in the way we
[3:53:01] approach capital projects on
[3:53:03] the grade separation concept
[3:53:05] and topic.
[3:53:06] The reality is plenty
[3:53:08] of other communities on the
[3:53:09] corridor have already done
[3:53:10] their project.
[3:53:11] Where was learning
[3:53:12] from those about, you know,
[3:53:16] whether you're talking about
[3:53:17] San Bruno or South City or
[3:53:19] Belmont or, let's face it,
[3:53:20] there's no institutional
[3:53:23] knowledge being leveraged
[3:53:25] because Caltrain looks
[3:53:27] at this as a city level project
[3:53:30] in coordination rather than a
[3:53:32] responsibility of the Caltrain
[3:53:35] organization.
[3:53:37] And so the right resources
[3:53:38] aren't brought
[3:53:39] in necessarily.
[3:53:41] We don't have institutional
[3:53:42] learning.
[3:53:43] We don't leverage the fact that
[3:53:44] a contractor might bid
[3:53:45] on both projects
[3:53:46] for different communities.
[3:53:48] We go after funding
[3:53:50] at an individual city level.
[3:53:51] There's very little
[3:53:52] coordination at the Caltrain
[3:53:53] level.
[3:53:54] And it's just a disaster
[3:53:55] recipe.
[3:53:58] And so I do think there's the
[3:54:01] first question is the viability
[3:54:03] of is there a project?
[3:54:05] I think the answer is if that's
[3:54:07] yes, then the only option we
[3:54:08] have is four.
[3:54:10] Because we haven't even been
[3:54:12] able to in the previous design
[3:54:13] close the gap on full funding
[3:54:15] in the way things have been,
[3:54:16] you know, and then you put the
[3:54:21] macro climate around it, it
[3:54:22] makes it even more difficult.
[3:54:24] So I do think the idea
[3:54:30] of a station,
[3:54:33] while conceptually may look
[3:54:34] interesting,
[3:54:35] the reality is the numbers even
[3:54:36] before COVID never justified
[3:54:37] it.
[3:54:39] You know, ridership was always
[3:54:40] very low.
[3:54:41] It wasn't highly utilized.
[3:54:42] So that makes the decision
[3:54:43] about which option
[3:54:45] for me is four.
[3:54:46] Because that's the only
[3:54:49] financially realistic shot we
[3:54:50] have.
[3:54:51] But we still need to get
[3:54:52] answers on, frankly, some
[3:54:56] of the initial costs
[3:54:59] in the next several weeks
[3:55:01] to make that, you know,
[3:55:02] palatable.
[3:55:04] But go ahead.
[3:55:05] Well, just before I opine
[3:55:07] on one, two, three, or four,
[3:55:08] again,
[3:55:09] I think it would be helpful to
[3:55:10] at least see if there's anyone
[3:55:11] in the public who wants
[3:55:12] to comment.
[3:55:15] But is there an option besides
[3:55:16] Caltrain to do design work?
[3:55:18] Because this doesn't seem
[3:55:19] to be working.
[3:55:20] So that's a serious,
[3:55:22] that's not meant
[3:55:23] to be a slight,
[3:55:24] that's a serious question.
[3:55:25] Is there a way to get different
[3:55:28] engineers involved?
[3:55:34] So, this project was done
[3:55:36] in phases, and the preliminary
[3:55:39] engineering team didn't get the
[3:55:42] award for final design.
[3:55:44] Caltrain, the city,
[3:55:46] and the TA put out our RFP
[3:55:49] to design community.
[3:55:52] They jointly selected Mark
[3:55:54] Thomas
[3:55:55] to advance final design.
[3:55:57] We worked with Mark Thomas
[3:55:59] to generate the drawings, to
[3:56:01] implement the vision as we
[3:56:02] understood it.
[3:56:05] That was already in flight when
[3:56:06] I joined the team.
[3:56:08] Taking a look at this,
[3:56:10] we now have electrified
[3:56:11] service, and we increased our
[3:56:12] frequency.
[3:56:14] The construction market is
[3:56:16] highly volatile.
[3:56:18] We better go get ourselves a
[3:56:19] contractor
[3:56:20] to estimate this price,
[3:56:21] this project for us.
[3:56:24] And we got that price.
[3:56:25] It wasn't what any
[3:56:26] of us expected
[3:56:27] from what we heard from three
[3:56:28] different design firms.
[3:56:29] Those prices weren't
[3:56:31] from the one we have.
[3:56:32] They were from the prior group
[3:56:35] for that estimating.
[3:56:36] We brought on Mark Thomas
[3:56:37] to do the design for us,
[3:56:39] and then we brought
[3:56:40] on a contractor
[3:56:41] to give us a price,
[3:56:43] and it's not what we expected.
[3:56:45] So I don't think it's the
[3:56:46] design team here.
[3:56:47] It's now we've got, if we get,
[3:56:49] if the decision is made, as a
[3:56:51] region,
[3:56:52] let's advance this project.
[3:56:53] We don't know how we're going
[3:56:54] to fund it in totality,
[3:56:56] but we want
[3:56:57] to take that next step, get
[3:57:00] to 65% design, continue
[3:57:03] over this next year to try
[3:57:04] to drive costs down,
[3:57:07] and how fast can we build it,
[3:57:08] and come back, and try
[3:57:11] to find a way to want
[3:57:12] to lower the cost
[3:57:14] to lower that gap, because
[3:57:16] state and federal funding is
[3:57:17] uncertain,
[3:57:20] or let's not do the work.
[3:57:23] So I don't think it's the
[3:57:24] design team.
[3:57:29] To Vice Mayor Brownrigg's
[3:57:31] request, is there folks
[3:57:34] in the audience who are part
[3:57:36] of the public that would like
[3:57:38] to comment or share
[3:57:39] perspective?
[3:57:40] Okay.
[3:57:46] Yeah, I've got some comments.
[3:57:48] May I, before,
[3:57:49] since we only have one member
[3:57:51] of the public commenting, I
[3:57:52] would really appreciate the
[3:57:53] opportunity to hear more than
[3:57:55] three minutes, just under this
[3:57:56] particular circumstance.
[3:57:58] If he exceeds, would it be the
[3:58:00] mayor's pleasure?
[3:58:01] With colleagues,
[3:58:03] there's not a lot of, yeah,
[3:58:04] so go for it.
[3:58:05] No time.
[3:58:06] Well, I've shrunk
[3:58:07] down my one minute and 47
[3:58:09] second presentation, because I,
[3:58:14] at this point, kind of feel
[3:58:16] like I'm rearranging deck
[3:58:17] chairs on the Titanic,
[3:58:18] to use a hackneyed phrase,
[3:58:21] which I've always loved.
[3:58:22] In any event, over 100 years
[3:58:29] ago, Broadway was created as a
[3:58:31] transit village.
[3:58:35] By 1990, we had the highest
[3:58:40] ridership of any station
[3:58:42] on the line
[3:58:44] for people who did not arrive
[3:58:47] by car.
[3:58:49] The highest ridership
[3:58:50] from people walking
[3:58:51] from their homes in
[3:58:52] Hillsborough and Burlingame and
[3:58:53] their apartments off
[3:58:55] Broadway, we had the highest
[3:58:58] ridership.
[3:58:59] We had the highest ridership.
[3:59:02] Now, of course, as Caltrain cut
[3:59:03] back the service,
[3:59:04] ridership went down, and then
[3:59:05] Caltrain said, gee,
[3:59:08] we're just going
[3:59:09] to make it weekend service,
[3:59:11] because nobody rides the train
[3:59:12] anymore on Broadway.
[3:59:13] Well, they strangled
[3:59:14] Broadway, and we're still a
[3:59:19] transit village.
[3:59:22] I mean, we are a bullseye built
[3:59:24] around our train station back
[3:59:27] before the age of automobile,
[3:59:28] and we are heading towards a
[3:59:30] future where we want to have
[3:59:32] automobiles be an option,
[3:59:35] not a necessity.
[3:59:37] And in order to do that,
[3:59:39] we have to be able to walk
[3:59:40] to our station.
[3:59:41] Now, people have said
[3:59:42] in the past, gee, you know,
[3:59:44] we don't need Broadway, because
[3:59:46] you've got the Millbrae
[3:59:48] Internodal Station
[3:59:51] to the north, and you've got
[3:59:52] Burlingame Avenue
[3:59:54] to the south.
[3:59:55] Well, you know what?
[3:59:57] On a rainy March morning,
[4:00:00] you don't want to go to
[4:00:01] a hike to work seven blocks one
[4:00:04] way or another when you can
[4:00:05] just go to Broadway and hop a
[4:00:08] train as most of my father's
[4:00:11] friends did throughout the 30s,
[4:00:17] 40s, 50s, 60s, up until pretty
[4:00:20] much the train was cut back
[4:00:22] in the 90s.
[4:00:24] So even though people don't
[4:00:26] like the idea of having a
[4:00:29] Prancet protocol shoved
[4:00:31] down their throat
[4:00:33] with minimal parking and all,
[4:00:37] everybody I've spoken to on
[4:00:40] Broadway, the merchants,
[4:00:42] the business community and the
[4:00:43] Chamber of Commerce, my tenants
[4:00:47] that walk
[4:00:48] in the door and sign a lease
[4:00:50] in Burlingame want
[4:00:52] to have that station.
[4:00:54] And I think a grade separation
[4:00:57] at some point is inevitable,
[4:00:58] but if we don't have a
[4:01:01] functioning station there now
[4:01:05] and most especially
[4:01:06] at the time of construction,
[4:01:08] it's not going to happen.
[4:01:09] So I'm going to recommend that
[4:01:12] we keep our station open and
[4:01:14] that we expand the service.
[4:01:18] If that creates problems,
[4:01:22] I think that they're easier to
[4:01:24] surmount than the financial
[4:01:26] problems we're discussing right
[4:01:28] now.
[4:01:30] And we can have people walk
[4:01:32] to their train.
[4:01:35] The cool thing about the
[4:01:36] electric trains is they
[4:01:38] accelerate and decelerate much
[4:01:40] faster than the diesel electric
[4:01:42] ones,
[4:01:44] which means we can make up some
[4:01:45] of that time.
[4:01:46] So yes, even though having a
[4:01:48] functional flat station on
[4:01:51] Broadway will delay things,
[4:01:54] we'll make it up
[4:01:58] in the acceleration
[4:01:59] over the long run
[4:02:00] of the design.
[4:02:04] And this is a great opportunity
[4:02:09] to really utilize our mass
[4:02:11] transit, whether it's on a
[4:02:13] single level that we can afford
[4:02:15] now or ultimately, hopefully,
[4:02:17] on a raised level.
[4:02:20] But either way, I think all
[4:02:22] of the communities,
[4:02:24] and most especially us on
[4:02:25] Broadway, should enforce and
[4:02:28] foster having a transit
[4:02:32] village.
[4:02:33] That is the wave of the future.
[4:02:35] I mean, we've all traveled to
[4:02:37] Europe and we all know it
[4:02:38] works.
[4:02:39] And it can work for us.
[4:02:41] And it can even work for us
[4:02:42] without a grade separation
[4:02:44] for now, especially with that
[4:02:47] new fangled safety arrangement
[4:02:48] you've got there.
[4:02:49] So I say,
[4:02:53] let's open the station.
[4:02:55] Let's use the advanced safety
[4:02:57] techniques.
[4:02:59] And let's build a grade
[4:03:00] separation when we can afford
[4:03:01] it.
[4:03:03] And in the meantime, it'll all
[4:03:06] work out.
[4:03:10] Thank you for your
[4:03:11] consideration.
[4:03:13] Thank you, Ross.
[4:03:16] Good thought.
[4:03:19] So we do need to give
[4:03:21] direction.
[4:03:25] I think we maybe need to
[4:03:26] revisit where everybody is just
[4:03:28] to opine on direction
[4:03:30] for staff and for next steps.
[4:03:35] I think the question is,
[4:03:37] do we have a project?
[4:03:39] Which option, if therefore?
[4:03:41] And additional steps
[4:03:43] on near-term funding scrutiny.
[4:03:48] Question?
[4:03:49] Go ahead.
[4:03:50] This is a question for
[4:03:51] Netta.
[4:03:52] Netta, do you mind?
[4:04:03] So you've been conducting some
[4:04:05] public meetings around a
[4:04:07] transit-oriented development
[4:04:09] through the Broadway-specific
[4:04:10] plan.
[4:04:12] Can you tell me a little bit
[4:04:13] about the feedback on those?
[4:04:16] Yeah, through the workshops and
[4:04:18] the pop-ups,
[4:04:19] we've been conducting
[4:04:20] about the Broadway-specific
[4:04:23] plan, which encompasses
[4:04:25] intensifying development based
[4:04:27] on the TOC policies
[4:04:28] to streetscape, to murals,
[4:04:30] to activating.
[4:04:33] The general consensus is that
[4:04:35] the residents and even the
[4:04:37] businesses around Broadway
[4:04:39] within the specific plan area
[4:04:40] would like things
[4:04:42] to remain the same.
[4:04:43] So they don't want parking
[4:04:45] changes,
[4:04:46] they don't want development
[4:04:48] to occur, they don't want wider
[4:04:50] sidewalks.
[4:04:51] They're generally happy
[4:04:53] with the way that they are.
[4:04:54] If we continue to have a
[4:04:56] station operating there,
[4:04:59] how does that work together?
[4:05:04] Generally, the state laws and
[4:05:06] MTC's TOC policies that they
[4:05:09] are asking cities to adopt
[4:05:12] would require the existing
[4:05:16] zoning that's in place to be
[4:05:18] intensified and the FAR that
[4:05:20] manages the commercial
[4:05:23] densities
[4:05:25] to also be intensified, and
[4:05:26] then they have parameters
[4:05:28] related to parking where they
[4:05:29] are requiring not only parking
[4:05:31] minimums but parking maximums
[4:05:34] around their stations.
[4:05:37] So if the station stays open,
[4:05:41] it is virtually impossible due
[4:05:44] to state zoning for it to,
[4:05:46] I mean we would have
[4:05:49] to finish the TOD plan.
[4:05:52] How do those, can you, let's
[4:05:55] just say the station stays as
[4:05:56] it is, you know, frankly I
[4:05:58] don't think we're ever going
[4:05:59] to be able
[4:06:00] to raise a billion dollars to
[4:06:01] build an overpass and a station
[4:06:03] and whatever.
[4:06:04] And I would welcome anyone who
[4:06:07] would be willing to take
[4:06:08] on the $2,500 per parcel parcel
[4:06:10] tax that that's going to
[4:06:13] require because that would be
[4:06:14] what it would cost everyone.
[4:06:18] So if the station stayed open
[4:06:21] as it is right now, you know,
[4:06:23] and we requested it to be open
[4:06:25] five days a week so people
[4:06:27] could use the train,
[4:06:30] by law are we then mandated
[4:06:32] to proceed
[4:06:34] with the state requirements for
[4:06:36] densification and parking
[4:06:39] changes, et cetera,
[4:06:40] et cetera?
[4:06:41] So MTC's TOC policies are
[4:06:45] voluntary for cities.
[4:06:46] They don't have
[4:06:47] to adopt them.
[4:06:48] However, MTC has tied it
[4:06:51] to their OBAG funding.
[4:06:53] So whether we view that as a
[4:06:55] characteristic,
[4:06:56] they're saying you don't have
[4:06:58] to do these cities,
[4:07:00] you can voluntarily comply,
[4:07:01] however, the scale in which we
[4:07:04] are allocating our funding
[4:07:06] under OBAG is tied
[4:07:08] to cities that are complying.
[4:07:10] So you don't have to do it,
[4:07:12] but then a city would be
[4:07:14] subject to not potentially
[4:07:16] being competitive to receive
[4:07:18] funding that we receive, that
[4:07:21] Syed and his team use for
[4:07:22] transportation improvements.
[4:07:28] I have a question related
[4:07:30] to that actually.
[4:07:31] So that would be something that
[4:07:32] we would have to comply with,
[4:07:34] but I mean,
[4:07:36] those property owners would
[4:07:37] still, like those properties
[4:07:38] would still have
[4:07:39] to be developed privately.
[4:07:42] So it's not as if we could come
[4:07:43] in and mandate that the housing
[4:07:46] be built there.
[4:07:48] It would still be just an
[4:07:49] option,
[4:07:50] now a more dense option.
[4:07:51] Correct.
[4:07:52] The developer wanted to come
[4:07:54] in and do so.
[4:07:55] Yeah.
[4:07:56] The policies are just in terms
[4:07:57] of the city changing its
[4:07:59] regulatory framework.
[4:08:01] We then don't have, besides our
[4:08:03] city-owned properties that we
[4:08:05] do have there, there are
[4:08:06] several parking lots.
[4:08:09] It would be incumbent
[4:08:10] on private property owners
[4:08:12] to want
[4:08:13] to then redevelop those sites,
[4:08:14] which the city does not have
[4:08:15] control over.
[4:08:20] Sorry, go ahead, Andrew.
[4:08:22] Yes, Council Member Pappajohn.
[4:08:23] Yes, thank you, Mayor.
[4:08:26] I actually have a question,
[4:08:29] or maybe I should ask Vice
[4:08:31] Mayor if he had a question
[4:08:33] for the city development,
[4:08:36] because I have a question for
[4:08:37] Caltrain.
[4:08:38] No, I'm, no, thank you.
[4:08:39] Okay, thank you.
[4:08:41] Thank you.
[4:08:42] Yes, please.
[4:08:44] I'd like to request that
[4:08:46] Caltrain put a dedicated
[4:08:47] shuttle at the station.
[4:08:48] At least then there would be
[4:08:51] transportation
[4:08:54] to the other train stations.
[4:08:56] Would that be something
[4:08:58] possible?
[4:09:01] I would have to talk
[4:09:02] to the operations side
[4:09:03] of the house on that,
[4:09:05] but happy
[4:09:06] to take that request back to
[4:09:07] Caltrain.
[4:09:09] I know there's a shuttle that
[4:09:10] works there today, I believe,
[4:09:12] during the weekdays,
[4:09:13] makes that shuttle.
[4:09:15] Right, but I mean, at least
[4:09:16] then there's public
[4:09:17] transportation for that on
[4:09:19] Broadway, and they could get,
[4:09:21] you know.
[4:09:23] I think there is a shuttle,
[4:09:24] right?
[4:09:25] Yeah, there is a shuttle.
[4:09:26] There's an existing shuttle.
[4:09:28] There's a shuttle currently.
[4:09:29] Yeah.
[4:09:30] There's seven days a week.
[4:09:31] There's a shuttle.
[4:09:32] Okay.
[4:09:33] So, I would ask that then
[4:09:34] Caltrain could help pay
[4:09:35] for that.
[4:09:36] Yeah, I was going to address a
[4:09:37] number of questions earlier,
[4:09:38] but yes, there is a shuttle
[4:09:39] currently operates
[4:09:40] during the weekdays,
[4:09:42] morning and evening commute
[4:09:43] hours, takes the folks
[4:09:47] from the Broadway's train
[4:09:49] station parking lot to the
[4:09:51] Millbury train station,
[4:09:53] and makes several trips
[4:09:54] in the morning and
[4:09:55] in the evening as well.
[4:09:57] That can be requested of
[4:09:58] Caltrain to maintain that in
[4:10:00] the event the station does not
[4:10:02] exist in the future.
[4:10:05] I wanted to clarify a couple
[4:10:06] of things that we are speaking
[4:10:09] of the options,
[4:10:10] the four options
[4:10:11] in the context of the grade
[4:10:13] separation project,
[4:10:14] not outside of the station as
[4:10:15] it currently sits.
[4:10:19] It's only,
[4:10:20] it's the service can be there
[4:10:22] until as long as it needs to be
[4:10:24] there or as the council
[4:10:26] decides.
[4:10:28] So, currently, the weekday
[4:10:29] service is suspended only and
[4:10:30] the shuttle operates and the
[4:10:32] weekend service continues.
[4:10:33] Now, one of the challenges,
[4:10:37] suppose if the grade separation
[4:10:39] project does not happen and we
[4:10:42] ask Caltrain
[4:10:44] to have the train stop in the
[4:10:46] morning and evening hours
[4:10:48] regularly as it used
[4:10:50] to happen before.
[4:10:51] The challenge is that the
[4:10:53] current, the platform where it
[4:10:54] is located is right next
[4:10:56] to the Broadway crossing.
[4:10:59] So the train will stop
[4:11:00] in the middle of the crossing
[4:11:02] and so the traffic will come
[4:11:04] to fill.
[4:11:06] Grinding halt.
[4:11:08] Yeah, exactly.
[4:11:09] Grinding halt and more so than
[4:11:10] it currently happens, which
[4:11:12] will further exacerbate the
[4:11:13] traffic conditions.
[4:11:15] So, unless the station is moved
[4:11:17] away from that location further
[4:11:20] south, further north.
[4:11:21] So those are some
[4:11:23] of the intricacies that we need
[4:11:24] to be aware of.
[4:11:26] Yeah, can I ask, sorry, just
[4:11:28] before again we decide 1, 2,
[4:11:31] 3, 4, so first of all I have to
[4:11:35] say I have a very strong sense
[4:11:38] of fool me once, shame
[4:11:39] on you, fool me twice, shame
[4:11:40] on me.
[4:11:42] So I'm just dealing
[4:11:43] with that.
[4:11:45] But if we, whatever we select
[4:11:47] as a potential option, are we
[4:11:50] making any financial commitment
[4:11:52] in so doing?
[4:11:54] Yes, that's a question that
[4:11:57] we'll need
[4:11:59] to answer that question.
[4:12:01] So for example, typically $20
[4:12:03] million is what is being
[4:12:05] requested or what is being
[4:12:06] projected this time.
[4:12:08] And based
[4:12:10] on earlier discussion today
[4:12:12] with the City Council
[4:12:13] subcommittee, CalTrain was
[4:12:15] directed
[4:12:16] to lower that number,
[4:12:17] go back and lower that number.
[4:12:18] And when they come back
[4:12:20] with that lowered number,
[4:12:21] which we hope, then we
[4:12:24] typically, then we need
[4:12:26] to go ask for funding at the
[4:12:28] Transportation Authority.
[4:12:30] And they're just as much
[4:12:32] concerned as we are concerned
[4:12:33] about the cost.
[4:12:34] They've spent $26 million on
[4:12:36] this project and there's
[4:12:37] nothing to show for it.
[4:12:38] So they're concerned
[4:12:40] about spending more money.
[4:12:41] And typically the formula is
[4:12:45] that City pays 10% and
[4:12:46] Transportation Authority pays
[4:12:49] 90%.
[4:12:50] So that's the share of funding
[4:12:53] so far.
[4:12:54] And they can, by their policy,
[4:12:56] they can fund up to 50%
[4:12:59] of the overall project cost.
[4:13:01] But
[4:13:02] in this particular project, if
[4:13:03] they spend every penny they
[4:13:07] have in this bucket,
[4:13:08] it's still short of over $200
[4:13:11] million.
[4:13:14] So what is the financial
[4:13:16] commitment we're making if we
[4:13:17] say we want to pursue option
[4:13:19] three or four or whatever?
[4:13:21] We don't know the answer.
[4:13:23] We're committing ourselves
[4:13:24] though to a meaningful number
[4:13:26] and the TA would be putting in
[4:13:28] an even more meaningful number.
[4:13:30] Based on today's discussion,
[4:13:34] we could be looking at $2
[4:13:35] million based on the numbers
[4:13:37] that are presented today.
[4:13:39] That would be 10% of $20
[4:13:40] million.
[4:13:42] Again, we haven't gone to the
[4:13:44] Transportation Authority, we
[4:13:46] haven't asked them.
[4:13:47] So they may not agree
[4:13:49] to that and all
[4:13:52] of that will...
[4:13:54] So then this would have
[4:13:55] to come back to Council either
[4:13:57] later in March or in early
[4:13:59] April with more refined numbers
[4:14:01] and then a vote
[4:14:02] for commitment.
[4:14:03] Definitely.
[4:14:04] So tonight the Council is not
[4:14:05] making a commitment on the cost
[4:14:08] yet and tonight is which
[4:14:10] option.
[4:14:12] And then based on that,
[4:14:14] this will be presented to the
[4:14:15] Transportation Authority and
[4:14:16] then there will be a cost
[4:14:18] revision on the engineering,
[4:14:21] 65% engineering,
[4:14:22] then we'll come to Council and
[4:14:24] then ask Council direction on
[4:14:26] that and then we'll then take
[4:14:28] next steps with the
[4:14:29] Transportation Authority.
[4:14:32] So with that in mind,
[4:14:34] I'll just move to the direction
[4:14:36] I think you want to take us,
[4:14:37] Mr.
[4:14:38] Mayor, which is from my point
[4:14:40] of view, given that we're not
[4:14:42] making a financial commitment,
[4:14:44] I feel that option three, which
[4:14:46] is the one where you don't
[4:14:47] build the station
[4:14:48] but you have the option
[4:14:50] in the future
[4:14:51] to build a station, right,
[4:14:53] would be the path I would
[4:14:58] suggest following.
[4:15:00] I remain...
[4:15:01] I mean, when this comes back
[4:15:02] in terms of funding,
[4:15:05] I think you have
[4:15:06] to believe there's a way to
[4:15:07] find the gap and if you don't,
[4:15:08] then it's to me irresponsible
[4:15:09] to keep spending money.
[4:15:11] But if you ask me which one
[4:15:14] would I prefer to build, I
[4:15:15] agree that obviously the
[4:15:16] cheapest is the best,
[4:15:18] but I kind of feel
[4:15:20] like we're made to negotiate
[4:15:21] against ourselves, you know?
[4:15:23] How much more will you give?
[4:15:24] How much more will you give?
[4:15:25] And you know, anyway, so I
[4:15:28] think maintaining the
[4:15:29] optionality
[4:15:30] of having a station
[4:15:32] at this point feels worth it to
[4:15:35] me.
[4:15:36] I have a...
[4:15:38] I appreciate that perspective.
[4:15:39] I have a question,
[4:15:40] I think maybe for Robert,
[4:15:41] but also for Sayed.
[4:15:43] The material difference
[4:15:45] between option three and four,
[4:15:48] it's not so simple as three
[4:15:51] gives us, you know,
[4:15:53] gives us an option
[4:15:54] to add a station.
[4:15:55] There's material work that has
[4:15:57] to be in scope even in the
[4:15:58] initial phase and you could
[4:16:00] decide 10 years from now
[4:16:01] to add the...
[4:16:02] What is that?
[4:16:06] What makes up that component
[4:16:08] that's roughly, what, $23
[4:16:10] million difference
[4:16:12] between three and four,
[4:16:14] somewhere in there?
[4:16:15] So it is...
[4:16:17] Like you said, a wider station,
[4:16:19] does it preclude, you know,
[4:16:21] having a 2% ramp and a shorter
[4:16:22] car base
[4:16:25] to have that station?
[4:16:26] So you could imagine
[4:16:28] with option four, you go up,
[4:16:30] cross over the street and go
[4:16:32] back down.
[4:16:34] The other alternative has the
[4:16:35] space
[4:16:37] for the seven-car platforms.
[4:16:38] So you're building that
[4:16:40] seven-car platform flat and
[4:16:44] you're also accommodating a
[4:16:45] future
[4:16:47] on each side and reserving
[4:16:48] space
[4:16:49] for a future parking lot.
[4:16:51] With no station, you can go up
[4:16:53] and go back down.
[4:16:54] You don't have that implication
[4:16:55] of the future parking lot and
[4:16:57] it makes the whole footprint
[4:16:59] materially different.
[4:17:01] So there are choices.
[4:17:04] Okay.
[4:17:05] Yeah.
[4:17:06] Question?
[4:17:07] Councilmember?
[4:17:08] So the problem,
[4:17:09] the concern I have with, I
[4:17:11] mean, I think it's going
[4:17:12] to be hard enough to fill $147
[4:17:14] million gap.
[4:17:15] I don't think we can fill 250
[4:17:16] or whatever it's going
[4:17:17] to be because,
[4:17:19] and you saw the escalation.
[4:17:21] So, you know, we're talking
[4:17:22] about you build a grade
[4:17:24] separation,
[4:17:25] you potentially build a station
[4:17:26] in the future,
[4:17:27] that station's going
[4:17:28] to be an additional, you know,
[4:17:29] $800 million
[4:17:30] to add on.
[4:17:31] I mean, so then the problem,
[4:17:32] you know, sort of the issue you
[4:17:34] have here is if we direct them
[4:17:36] to build, you know,
[4:17:39] this is a one-time direction.
[4:17:41] We can't say build it, you
[4:17:44] know, with the option
[4:17:45] to put the station in down the
[4:17:46] road and then they design that
[4:17:52] now, that's what we have
[4:17:53] to build.
[4:17:56] Because we can't spend another
[4:17:58] $20 million on another design
[4:17:59] in six months or a year.
[4:18:00] So this is it.
[4:18:01] And while I love, you know,
[4:18:02] keeping the optionality
[4:18:03] of it,
[4:18:04] there is no other city that
[4:18:05] has, I mean, there is a station
[4:18:07] a quarter mile away, you know,
[4:18:09] down in Broadway and there is a
[4:18:10] shuttle that can run.
[4:18:12] I do think we can solve the
[4:18:13] circulation problems.
[4:18:15] People can go to Broadway, they
[4:18:16] can pick up the shuttle,
[4:18:17] they can go to Millbrae or they
[4:18:19] can take a shuttle over
[4:18:20] to the Burlingame, you know,
[4:18:21] Avenue.
[4:18:25] And from the talking
[4:18:26] to people that I have talked
[4:18:28] to in the neighborhood
[4:18:29] at these events and just
[4:18:31] friends of mine that live
[4:18:32] over there,
[4:18:33] the number one thing I've heard
[4:18:35] from them is the traffic is
[4:18:36] unbearable, it's dangerous and
[4:18:39] we need a great separation.
[4:18:40] And for the most part,
[4:18:42] they're willing to give up on
[4:18:44] the station because they know
[4:18:47] they can walk pretty close and
[4:18:50] pretty proximate to get
[4:18:53] to another station.
[4:18:55] And you know, I calculated it,
[4:18:59] right?
[4:19:00] So I looked and said, all
[4:19:01] right, let's just say we have
[4:19:03] a, you know, $150 million
[4:19:05] funding gap and they say
[4:19:06] to us, because this was
[4:19:08] on the table today, well,
[4:19:09] Burlingame, you are going
[4:19:10] to have to figure out where
[4:19:11] to get the $147 million.
[4:19:13] So that would be a parcel tax.
[4:19:14] Our school parcel taxes are
[4:19:17] $250 when interest rates were
[4:19:18] at 3% and 4% and they were
[4:19:26] $250 a parcel.
[4:19:28] So to get to $147 million,
[4:19:29] $150 million, $200 million,
[4:19:31] if you want to be safe,
[4:19:32] we're talking about $1,000 to
[4:19:35] $1,500 per parcel,
[4:19:36] per parcel tax.
[4:19:38] And if the city council puts
[4:19:39] that on the ballot,
[4:19:41] that's a 67% threshold.
[4:19:42] Yeah, and also the implication
[4:19:46] on the schools and competition
[4:19:47] for money.
[4:19:49] And I appreciate the math.
[4:19:51] I guess I think the whole thing
[4:19:53] is so unlikely.
[4:19:57] I mean, you know,
[4:19:58] the difference between $147
[4:20:00] million and $175 million,
[4:20:02] it's all.
[4:20:04] It's $50 million in today's
[4:20:06] dollars and extrapolates into a
[4:20:09] grander number because we're
[4:20:11] not building it today.
[4:20:12] So the Delta is $50 million
[4:20:13] today.
[4:20:17] It's $50 million today,
[4:20:19] let's call it, or even $40
[4:20:20] million, even $30 million.
[4:20:23] If we defer for 10 years,
[4:20:24] that number becomes $500
[4:20:26] million.
[4:20:27] I mean, you can just see
[4:20:28] by the exponential.
[4:20:29] So then the question becomes
[4:20:30] the reality of are we ever as a
[4:20:32] community going to be able
[4:20:33] to catch up with that?
[4:20:35] And I'm right now pragmatically
[4:20:37] looking at it like if the
[4:20:38] number one priority is safety
[4:20:41] and it's grade separation and
[4:20:43] it's safety and we can solve
[4:20:46] the transit problem through
[4:20:48] shuttle or we can solve it
[4:20:50] through, you know, the bike,
[4:20:51] you know, the one mile bike,
[4:20:53] you can get on your bike there
[4:20:54] and you can go to Broadway or
[4:20:56] you can go to wherever.
[4:20:58] And you know, then to me, I'm
[4:21:01] like, got
[4:21:03] to pick the lowest hanging
[4:21:06] fruit to be a responsible
[4:21:07] council person and prioritize
[4:21:10] the safety first and foremost.
[4:21:11] So, you know, I'm, you know,
[4:21:17] we can all, I think it's
[4:21:19] like you say, this sort
[4:21:21] of arguing against ourselves,
[4:21:22] you know,
[4:21:23] and it feels really crummy
[4:21:24] to have to do that.
[4:21:25] And it feels crummy to have
[4:21:26] to say to people, you know,
[4:21:27] you've been promised a train
[4:21:28] station for the last 20 years
[4:21:29] and say, oh my gosh,
[4:21:31] now we're not.
[4:21:32] But it also feels really crummy
[4:21:34] for a lot of people who have
[4:21:35] recently moved in here
[4:21:36] in the last 15 years, they've
[4:21:37] never had train service there
[4:21:38] and they've managed
[4:21:39] to figure it all out.
[4:21:40] Could we revitalize it?
[4:21:42] Yeah, but for, you know, $50
[4:21:44] million, I can run a lot
[4:21:46] of shuttles.
[4:21:50] Yep.
[4:21:51] Councilman.
[4:21:52] Thank you.
[4:21:53] Thank you, Mayor.
[4:21:54] Robert, may I ask a question?
[4:21:57] So if we don't, if we go
[4:22:00] without package
[4:22:02] without the train station
[4:22:04] for four,
[4:22:06] and then so that would
[4:22:08] basically save, you know,
[4:22:12] Caltrain from having
[4:22:15] to maintain the station.
[4:22:19] And I mean, it would save what
[4:22:20] 30, 40 million, would that,
[4:22:22] would you be able
[4:22:25] to put that money into, you
[4:22:27] know, help us and put that
[4:22:28] money that you're saving
[4:22:30] into the project?
[4:22:34] It's important
[4:22:36] to understand that Caltrain, as
[4:22:39] the Mayor said,
[4:22:41] this is a local project.
[4:22:43] That the money that Caltrain
[4:22:44] gets is for service.
[4:22:47] Now these improvements that get
[4:22:49] built,
[4:22:51] build a bridge that needs
[4:22:52] to be inspected every year,
[4:22:54] that needs to be maintained
[4:22:55] in perpetuity,
[4:22:57] the retaining walls need to be
[4:22:58] inspected every year and
[4:22:59] maintained in perpetuity.
[4:23:01] Although we don't pay
[4:23:02] for the capital side
[4:23:04] of the house,
[4:23:05] there's dedicated funding
[4:23:07] with the measures
[4:23:08] for grade separations
[4:23:09] for that.
[4:23:10] Caltrain operations cost does
[4:23:12] increase in perpetuity when
[4:23:14] these structures get built
[4:23:16] because they become an asset we
[4:23:17] have to maintain.
[4:23:19] And so there is,
[4:23:20] we're not paying today
[4:23:21] to build it,
[4:23:23] but we do get that obligation
[4:23:25] to continue to maintain it.
[4:23:26] That increases Caltrain's
[4:23:27] overall operating cost forever.
[4:23:29] I don't know if that helps.
[4:23:33] And Vice Mayor Brownrigg,
[4:23:35] you're right, it's $20, $23
[4:23:36] million is what they're saying
[4:23:41] the delta is today.
[4:23:47] A question, I get the idea of
[4:23:52] building a flatter platform
[4:23:54] when you have a station because
[4:23:56] you've got seven car minimum
[4:23:57] and you get people in and out
[4:23:58] of the train.
[4:24:01] Is there evidence across the
[4:24:02] U.S. where,
[4:24:04] let's say we build option four,
[4:24:06] but ten years from now we want
[4:24:07] to put a station in.
[4:24:09] Why do we have to have the
[4:24:11] train open all seven cars?
[4:24:13] Why can't it open only three
[4:24:14] cars?
[4:24:16] In the middle of the station,
[4:24:18] the pop-up, so to speak,
[4:24:20] or the adjunct,
[4:24:21] and you just allow riders
[4:24:22] in and out
[4:24:23] over those three cars.
[4:24:25] There's movement up and
[4:24:26] down the train
[4:24:27] inside the cars.
[4:24:30] It's really a question
[4:24:31] of safety and volume.
[4:24:33] And the volume never will be
[4:24:34] that great, except maybe
[4:24:36] on a giant scheme.
[4:24:37] But is that ever an option
[4:24:39] down the road?
[4:24:40] What would the provisions be
[4:24:42] to be able to say,
[4:24:43] I'm just going to put a very
[4:24:44] minimal station that's only
[4:24:46] open to three or four cars
[4:24:48] because it's flat for that
[4:24:49] level when it goes up and over
[4:24:50] on option four?
[4:24:52] We haven't looked
[4:24:53] at that option, but happy
[4:24:55] to do so.
[4:24:57] Because then that option three
[4:24:59] and four are no longer mutually
[4:25:00] separate.
[4:25:01] And I do get the aspect that
[4:25:02] from a design standpoint,
[4:25:03] we have to give you direction
[4:25:05] because you're going
[4:25:07] to go back and ask CGMG, CMGC,
[4:25:09] and all the others to say,
[4:25:10] well, you're going to be
[4:25:12] designing a seven-car station
[4:25:13] side thing, or you're going to
[4:25:15] be designing nothing other than
[4:25:17] the grade separation.
[4:25:20] And so sometimes we get mired
[4:25:21] in our own thinking
[4:25:23] about what's possible.
[4:25:25] Why isn't that something other
[4:25:28] than maybe an R or something
[4:25:29] like that?
[4:25:30] But the reality is you only
[4:25:32] have 25 people getting
[4:25:33] on the train or 50 people
[4:25:34] getting on the train.
[4:25:36] They don't need seven options.
[4:25:40] But you would be deferring the
[4:25:42] station, but building it that
[4:25:44] it could accommodate a special
[4:25:47] event or a special train that
[4:25:50] allows shorter operation with
[4:25:52] fewer doors is what you're
[4:25:53] suggesting.
[4:25:54] It's still up 10 cars.
[4:25:56] No, but what I want
[4:25:57] to make sure I understand is
[4:26:00] in the design, you'd go up and
[4:26:03] have a shorter flat section
[4:26:05] that in the future you could
[4:26:07] build a station, not today.
[4:26:09] But that way you wouldn't have
[4:26:11] to rebuild that infrastructure
[4:26:12] that would accommodate that.
[4:26:13] Right.
[4:26:14] Is that the question?
[4:26:16] Let me take a look at that.
[4:26:17] Because that would narrow that
[4:26:20] $23 million gap, theoretically,
[4:26:21] because you're going up and
[4:26:23] over faster.
[4:26:24] You have a shorter window
[4:26:25] of flat.
[4:26:27] It'd be an interesting.
[4:26:29] We haven't asked our operation
[4:26:31] folks the implications of that.
[4:26:33] I'm a builder.
[4:26:35] I don't play train operations.
[4:26:36] That's not my wheelhouse.
[4:26:38] So you'd have
[4:26:39] to ask the experts on that.
[4:26:42] About that information, it's
[4:26:46] like the station idea puts us
[4:26:49] further away.
[4:26:51] It isn't maybe as much as we
[4:26:54] think, but I don't want
[4:26:55] to come back and say a month
[4:26:57] from now after saying, you
[4:27:00] know, let's do four, and then
[4:27:01] we later decide when we really
[4:27:04] have to vote on something
[4:27:06] to say, well, let's go
[4:27:08] with three, because now we just
[4:27:09] wasted the design effort
[4:27:11] of rethinking the design
[4:27:13] for an option four.
[4:27:15] So we have this mutual
[4:27:16] exclusivity right
[4:27:17] in this window
[4:27:18] for coming back,
[4:27:19] what we would financially
[4:27:20] commit to in the near term,
[4:27:23] but we haven't done all
[4:27:25] of the options, really,
[4:27:26] when you think
[4:27:28] about station or no station.
[4:27:30] That's my view.
[4:27:31] Right now, I would push for.
[4:27:33] Can I elaborate?
[4:27:34] Yes.
[4:27:36] Go ahead.
[4:27:38] Kind of related to that, I
[4:27:40] don't know if it's been
[4:27:41] considered
[4:27:42] to essentially do option four,
[4:27:44] where you could quickly go up
[4:27:46] and over Broadway,
[4:27:48] but move the station
[4:27:49] like a quarter of a mile, say,
[4:27:51] I don't know how far, north or
[4:27:52] south, where it could be
[4:27:53] at grade.
[4:27:55] So separate the grade
[4:27:58] separation from the station.
[4:27:59] Now, it wouldn't be right at
[4:28:01] Broadway, but, you know,
[4:28:02] it might be able to be over
[4:28:03] by Lincoln or Armalita or
[4:28:04] something.
[4:28:06] Yes, there are creeks and other
[4:28:07] things, but I'm just wondering
[4:28:09] if that was considered.
[4:28:10] The initial project study
[4:28:12] report was done in 2017, and
[4:28:14] I'm not sure what were the full
[4:28:16] range of options they took
[4:28:17] for it, realizing there was a
[4:28:19] full project study report,
[4:28:21] I imagine lots
[4:28:22] of public outreach,
[4:28:24] exploring a lot of options, and
[4:28:26] I don't know whether that was
[4:28:29] one of them or not.
[4:28:30] Ron?
[4:28:31] I was just going
[4:28:32] to say it's getting late, and,
[4:28:33] you know, Councilwoman Colson
[4:28:35] makes a compelling argument
[4:28:36] that the responsible vote
[4:28:38] tonight would be
[4:28:40] for the least expensive option,
[4:28:41] because it is the most likely
[4:28:44] to be funded, and I will
[4:28:46] reluctantly join that
[4:28:48] consensus.
[4:28:49] What I really believe is that
[4:28:51] tonight is not the hard
[4:28:52] decision.
[4:28:53] The hard decision is when this
[4:28:54] comes back
[4:28:55] in six or eight or ten weeks,
[4:28:56] and we have to decide whether
[4:28:58] to spend real money,
[4:29:00] and I'll just say right now, I
[4:29:02] don't,
[4:29:04] I have real problems thinking
[4:29:05] about betting again
[4:29:08] on this enterprise,
[4:29:10] but we don't have
[4:29:11] to decide that tonight.
[4:29:13] And then we'll have more
[4:29:14] information from the TA,
[4:29:15] and we'll have an understanding
[4:29:17] of their aptitude, you know,
[4:29:20] sort of their interest in,
[4:29:24] yeah, in funding $283 million.
[4:29:27] I do appreciate, Councilwoman
[4:29:29] Thayer's sort of, you know,
[4:29:31] could we move the station?
[4:29:32] The problem
[4:29:34] with that becomes you have to,
[4:29:35] you're going to have to tear
[4:29:37] out houses on California Drive
[4:29:39] to build, you know, you'd have
[4:29:40] to have a parking lot,
[4:29:41] and you'd have to build a lot
[4:29:42] of infrastructure
[4:29:43] around the station.
[4:29:45] I'd love to say it could be,
[4:29:46] unless it's just a walking
[4:29:47] station, you'd say you have
[4:29:48] to walk to it, possibly,
[4:29:49] but I don't believe that was
[4:29:52] in the design purview, so we've
[4:29:55] never considered that.
[4:29:56] Another issue on that happened
[4:29:59] to be because of the proximity
[4:30:02] to two other stations,
[4:30:04] like if you look up and
[4:30:05] down the train corridor,
[4:30:06] most cities have one station,
[4:30:08] you know, of our size,
[4:30:10] only have one station.
[4:30:13] The allowance for Broadway, I
[4:30:16] think, as I'm understanding it,
[4:30:18] was an exception, granted
[4:30:20] like 15 years ago, sort
[4:30:23] of as a, you know,
[4:30:26] I don't know how it happened,
[4:30:29] I wasn't here, but it's
[4:30:30] essentially an unstandard
[4:30:32] situation for a station, and I
[4:30:35] mean, I would love
[4:30:39] to build a station.
[4:30:41] I mean,
[4:30:42] I'm playing the lottery every
[4:30:43] day, hoping
[4:30:44] to win the big ticket,
[4:30:45] and we can all do it and build
[4:30:46] it, and we just do it.
[4:30:47] I just know, I'm also kind
[4:30:49] of trying to deal with what the
[4:30:53] next four years are going
[4:30:54] to look like.
[4:30:55] I'm trying to be pragmatic
[4:30:56] about our chances
[4:30:58] of getting money out
[4:30:59] of the federal government,
[4:31:02] the defunding that's going
[4:31:04] to occur in the state of
[4:31:05] California, and the move away
[4:31:07] from transit money in order
[4:31:09] to probably fund Medicaid,
[4:31:12] Medicare, social services that
[4:31:14] are going to be cut
[4:31:16] by this administration,
[4:31:18] how that's going to look.
[4:31:19] These are just the,
[4:31:20] and then today we are going
[4:31:21] to have 25% tariffs go in,
[4:31:22] so I'm just trying to think
[4:31:24] about it
[4:31:25] from the standpoint of, you
[4:31:26] know, maximizing safety,
[4:31:28] minimizing cost.
[4:31:30] Those are the two variables
[4:31:32] that I'm considering the
[4:31:33] highest, and the station is,
[4:31:36] I would have, should have,
[4:31:37] loved to have had it 10 years
[4:31:39] ago, but at this point,
[4:31:41] even adding 20 or 30 or $40
[4:31:42] million just seems incredibly
[4:31:46] out of reach, but I agree,
[4:31:49] Councilman, we, or Vice
[4:31:50] Mayor, we may, I mean,
[4:31:53] there just may be, right,
[4:31:56] just a bridge, it just, you
[4:31:57] know, this was,
[4:32:00] should have happened 10 years
[4:32:01] ago, and I don't want to,
[4:32:03] I really don't want
[4:32:04] to abandon it.
[4:32:06] The reason I
[4:32:07] like option number four, too,
[4:32:08] is because I feel
[4:32:09] like we can shove it
[4:32:10] in the queue, and we can, you
[4:32:12] know, sort
[4:32:13] of make a decision of,
[4:32:15] like you say, do we want
[4:32:17] to do another $2 million,
[4:32:20] and get a sense of the TA,
[4:32:21] and then put it in the queue,
[4:32:22] and then my sort of thinking
[4:32:23] on this is,
[4:32:25] how do we fund it?
[4:32:26] It's, you know, the federal
[4:32:29] administration,
[4:32:30] the feds have just pulled back
[4:32:32] $4 billion in funding
[4:32:34] for the high-speed rail, so
[4:32:35] maybe the high-speed rail isn't
[4:32:36] really as viable as a project,
[4:32:37] so maybe we go
[4:32:38] to the state and we lobby,
[4:32:40] I was talking to a couple
[4:32:41] of assembly people today
[4:32:42] about this, could we go back
[4:32:44] and lobby the state and say,
[4:32:46] all right, you know,
[4:32:47] the bullet train,
[4:32:49] the high-speed rail is just
[4:32:50] floundering,
[4:32:51] that's really not going
[4:32:52] to happen, let's take that,
[4:32:53] those billions that were
[4:32:54] allocated to that
[4:32:55] at the state level, and bring
[4:32:56] them back and solve this
[4:32:57] corridor problem all up and
[4:32:59] down, and a coalition
[4:33:01] of elected from Morgan Hill
[4:33:03] to San Francisco could work
[4:33:08] together to help the state
[4:33:10] craft a new funding philosophy,
[4:33:11] you know, possibly,
[4:33:15] and prioritize dealing with the
[4:33:17] corridor transit right now,
[4:33:21] and then go back and for more
[4:33:23] years when there's maybe a
[4:33:24] different administration and
[4:33:25] different feeling on funding
[4:33:27] the high-speed rail.
[4:33:28] I don't know if that's
[4:33:29] practical or not,
[4:33:31] I'm just trying to use my, you
[4:33:33] know, every where
[4:33:34] with all I have to think
[4:33:35] about how to do this,
[4:33:36] and that's kind
[4:33:37] of where I'm ending up.
[4:33:39] And that's a heavy lift
[4:33:40] for us,
[4:33:42] because that means we're going
[4:33:43] to have to hire lobbyists,
[4:33:44] and we're going to have
[4:33:45] to work on all this stuff,
[4:33:46] and it's a big, big, heavy
[4:33:51] lift. I think we've gotten
[4:33:52] input from across the dais,
[4:33:55] I think to summarize the
[4:33:59] direction is option four,
[4:34:02] we need to know the scrutiny
[4:34:06] of the 20 million,
[4:34:08] and what is that real number.
[4:34:11] To Vice Mayor's point, I think
[4:34:13] the real hard decision is
[4:34:14] coming, it's not right now, and
[4:34:16] obviously there's broader
[4:34:17] concerns just in terms
[4:34:20] of the feasibility, but
[4:34:24] to be focused first
[4:34:26] on safety,
[4:34:28] which I think is uniform
[4:34:30] across the dais, is number one,
[4:34:32] I think focus on cost is
[4:34:34] obviously a close second,
[4:34:36] and the option of a station,
[4:34:39] while interesting, you know,
[4:34:44] it would be maybe nice
[4:34:45] in some respect,
[4:34:48] we can't just decide
[4:34:49] on that right now. We have
[4:34:51] to think
[4:34:52] about what we can get done
[4:34:53] for safety. High-speed rail
[4:34:55] doesn't have people dying
[4:34:56] on their tracks. They don't
[4:34:58] have accidents in their
[4:35:00] corridors or their crossings.
[4:35:02] We do,
[4:35:03] and so I think there's a lot
[4:35:05] of work that has to be done,
[4:35:07] and I did like some
[4:35:08] of the input earlier today
[4:35:09] about that joint lobbying
[4:35:10] effort,
[4:35:11] because I think it's been
[4:35:12] talked about historically,
[4:35:15] particularly at the LPMG,
[4:35:17] but never really executed on,
[4:35:20] and yet we're at a situation
[4:35:21] now where this isn't the only
[4:35:23] problem on the corridor,
[4:35:24] it's the most important, but
[4:35:25] there's other great crossings,
[4:35:27] and we need some different
[4:35:28] approach to get the confidence
[4:35:30] back that we can actually
[4:35:31] execute this, so,
[4:35:34] fair enough? Okay. Thank you.
[4:35:37] Thank you. With that,
[4:35:40] I'm just going to ask Council
[4:35:42] for future agenda items,
[4:35:45] if any. Yes. Yeah. I have one.
[4:35:51] Member Colson. So, having been
[4:35:55] in the neighborhood where the,
[4:35:57] when we had the active shooter
[4:35:58] situation at the Hillsborough
[4:35:59] Police Station, the SMC alert
[4:36:03] system was very inconsistent.
[4:36:06] Some people received alerts,
[4:36:07] some people didn't receive
[4:36:08] alerts,
[4:36:09] some people got notifications.
[4:36:11] Just sometime in the next,
[4:36:14] no high priority,
[4:36:16] but I would really love
[4:36:17] to understand a little more
[4:36:19] about that alert system and
[4:36:22] how, what the process is
[4:36:23] for dissemination, just
[4:36:25] to make sure that
[4:36:27] in the future, when there is a
[4:36:29] lockdown, everybody who needs
[4:36:30] to be informed is informed. If
[4:36:33] there's a fire, if there's an
[4:36:34] emergency and that system's
[4:36:36] working, it didn't work
[4:36:38] on this particular incident,
[4:36:40] so I just, I want
[4:36:43] to make sure we figure
[4:36:44] out why and we fix it
[4:36:47] for the future. Thank you.
[4:36:50] Yeah, I think, having been
[4:36:51] overseas and starting
[4:36:52] to get text messages
[4:36:53] from people that lived on
[4:36:54] Walnut elsewhere, they're like,
[4:36:57] where was the SMC alert? And
[4:36:58] other people were saying,
[4:36:59] I got it, and so I definitely
[4:37:01] think an update from the police
[4:37:04] department and emergency
[4:37:06] services would be valuable
[4:37:08] education, not only
[4:37:10] for the council, but maybe
[4:37:11] identify changes that we can do
[4:37:12] going forward. So, for that,
[4:37:14] we'll need
[4:37:15] to bring the county in,
[4:37:16] because it's actually the
[4:37:18] county system, not a study
[4:37:20] session, or? Anybody else
[4:37:23] with advice? So not a new item,
[4:37:25] but just, sorry, a PS to the
[4:37:26] last item. I think it would be
[4:37:28] very helpful when this comes
[4:37:31] back for our consideration,
[4:37:34] if we asked,
[4:37:35] which I think is the very,
[4:37:36] very least we could ask,
[4:37:38] but we ask the Washington,
[4:37:39] D.C. lobbyists we currently
[4:37:41] have for their assessment
[4:37:42] of money
[4:37:44] from the federal government
[4:37:46] over the next four years. I
[4:37:48] just think there's a lot
[4:37:50] of guessing going on, and there
[4:37:51] are people who know more than
[4:37:52] we do. Maybe, and another PS on
[4:37:55] that. I think when this item
[4:37:58] comes back, we really need
[4:37:59] to do a little more outreach
[4:38:01] to make sure people know it's
[4:38:03] on the agenda, so letting the
[4:38:04] Broadway bid know,
[4:38:06] letting the neighbors
[4:38:07] in that area know, putting it
[4:38:09] in the e-newsletter,
[4:38:10] this is just a huge decision,
[4:38:14] and I want to make sure we're
[4:38:15] getting a lot of,
[4:38:17] we're hearing
[4:38:18] from people. I mean,
[4:38:19] I'm talking to people,
[4:38:21] but I just think we need
[4:38:22] to make sure we put it
[4:38:24] out there. And give them, well,
[4:38:28] we don't have a lot of time.
[4:38:32] Yeah. Any agenda items? Okay.
[4:38:36] And we've got both
[4:38:37] of those noted. Appreciate
[4:38:39] that. Anybody want
[4:38:40] to end the meeting
[4:38:42] with an acknowledgment? Okay.