Ross Bruce, realtor and a member of the task force, spoke passionately about the desirability of using this undeveloped stretch of bay front for housing. 'I would want to live there' he said.
But other voices weighed in to point out that permitting housing on the east side of 101 would create an isolated enclave that would do little for the city's economics and demand infrastructure investments that the city could not recoup from any related increase in property tax revenue.
Councilor Rosalie O'Mahoney quoted statistics of costs and revenue that indicated that the net effect would not be favorable for the city. She also pointed out that the problems that Redwood City has with the Redwood Shores neighborhood would also befall Burlingame. There the town is literally divided by 101.
During public comments former Burlingame Mayor Gloria Barton reminded everyone that the original plan, developed in 1980 had precluded housing east of 101 and had served the city very well. 'Don't fix what isn't broke' she implored.
The four contenders for city council also weighed in with their opinions. Russ Cohen said that the city should take advantage of the location of the bay front and make it a destination for both residents and visitors. Aquariums, aquatic centers, museums etc should become the anchors for a revitalized bay front.
Dan Andersen said that putting housing in the Anza Point section of the bay front area was the very antithesis of good urban planning. It is far removed from any public transit corridor and without neighborhood stores it would not be pedestrian friendly.
As Terry Nagel said, putting housing on the Bay front would only add to the parking woes of Burlingame avenue and Broadway. 'We should maximize the recreational use of this property'.
Dark horse contender Paul Prendiville was at odds with the other challengers as he supported the idea of upscale residential development on the bay front. He produced images of luxury condominiums with elegant yachts moored to private jetties. It looked more like the Hamptons than Burlingame!
The next step is for the planning commission to decide on the plan in a formal planning commission meeting, then send it on to council for final review. Will housing be back on the plan? Certainly if the developers and their professional counsel have their way!
- Written by admin
I've been talking with lots of Burlingame residents and the overwhelming sentiment appears to be: No housing on the bayfront! Previous council members had the wisdom to encourage hotels and offices to build there and we were the envy of other cities for many years because of the fat taxes we've received. We shouldn't change tactics just because the economy has temporarily tanked.
Posted by: Terry | August 22, 2003 at 05:58 AM
I'd love to see our bicycle use extended all over the city, in a safe and sound manner. People in Europe bike everywhere, not everyone drives. This could even make a dent in our parking woes.
It would be wonderful to see a recreational area on the bayfront, that ties in with both the Bay trail and the west side of the freeway. In Europe, there are little drink and snack stands along the way. It makes for a very pleasant outing.
There could be swimming, wind-surfing, fishing, canoeing. Before the freeway was built, this area was very well utilized for recreation. Now, it seems that San Mateo residents who live close to Coyote Point have most of the benefits. I'm happy for them. However, we Burlingamers are missing out on a wonderful opportunity.
Posted by: Jennifer | August 29, 2003 at 02:20 AM
I have been advocating that The Burlingame bayfront become a destination place like many other communities have made of their waterfronts. It is unclear why this has not been discussed further by Council. Bringing cultural, educational and recreational opportunities to Burlingame will undoubetedly help fill our hotels , bringing back much needed tax dollars and will give visitors and residents an enhanced experence called Burlingame.
Posted by: Russ | September 08, 2003 at 06:10 AM
As someone who started out on the Bayfront Committee, but had to leave because of other commitments, I was somewhat surprised to see residential property on the agenda again. The idea of residential property was "dropped" early on in the process. Although I was indifferent to the idea, I thought the reasons for dropping it were sound reasons.
What concerns me more than the land use, is the access to that part of Burlingame. The current access points (Millbrae, Broadway and Peninsula) are totally inefficient for ANY use. It seems to me, we need to address the access issues before ANY development issues.
By the way, as someone who commutes to the Bayfront by bicycle on a daily basis, I don't have much problem, except when stuck behind a smog choking SAMTRANS bus. An overpass with an efficient and safe bicycle lane would be a nice improvement. A pedestrian/bicycle bridge, like what Berkeley put in to connect with their bayfront, might make it more attractive to recreational users, particularly if it took you straight to the soccer fields and golf range.
Posted by: Michael | September 15, 2003 at 06:03 PM
Before anyone come up with their 2 cents, why don't we ask the Owner/Developer first? Land is not FREE, therefore a park or recreation will never be on the table.
Posted by: Bruce | September 15, 2003 at 06:44 PM
Thanks Bruce - what do the developers want to do now that they know their old proposal won't work. Some people believe the housing proposal is to get Glenborough out of a bad business decision. Is this true?
Posted by: Fiona | September 16, 2003 at 01:47 AM
Fiona, One can't make any decision until a proposal is layout on the table. Just a thought, "Mix-use" type of project might work in that area, with combinations of offices, retails, live-work or low-income housing, and recreations. But, the ugly truth is only IF the project (whatever it is) make sense $$$$ for the developer. Business decision are not made by the council...
Posted by: Bruce | September 17, 2003 at 04:29 PM
How about "killing two birds with one stone"? My modest proposal is to have Glenborough swap land sites with Safeway.
Then Glenborough can build condominiums near Burlingame's major downtown area and we don't have all the "to do" regarding a humungous store in a neighborhood of smaller shops.
Then Safeway can build its megastore out on the old drive-in lot and people from Hayward can wind-surf over here to do their grocery shopping, too.
Posted by: Gerald | September 17, 2003 at 06:57 PM
Gerald
LOL
Posted by: Bruce | September 17, 2003 at 07:19 PM