BURLINGAME - La Pinata is gone, so is Sweet Treats. Apple has moved in, as has J. Crew. The flight of small, independently owned businesses from Burlingame Avenue over the last several years has some citizens worried that the thoroughfare is on the way to becoming a soulless strip of franchise outlets and ritzy boutiques. But what can the city do? Well, it depends on who you talk to. Other cities on the Peninsula are engaged in balancing economic vitality and neighborhood character. In San Carlos, the city council is considering a moratorium on coffee shops on Laurel Street, now that a second Starbuck's Coffee has opened in the downtown area. Some business owners in South San Francisco are torn between revitalizing Grand Avenue and maintaining its store diversity. Burlingame Avenue faces a different conundrum than Laurel Street, however. While some argue that a "first wave" of chain retailers would pump up business on Laurel, Burlingame Avenue is confronted with that infamous byproduct of economic success, gentrification.
One strategy for maintaining neighborhood character has been put into effect in Los Gatos. In 2002, the Town Council voted to establish an ordinance controlling "formula" stores. National or regional retail chains with seven or more outlets must acquire a conditional use permit to move into the downtown area. The law gives the city the authority to deny a permit if it deems that the proposed business is not in harmony with the character of the neighborhood or would cause an over-concentration of one type of business. "Some would say, 'Why don't you let the market do its thing?'" said Bud Lortz, Los Gatos' community development director. The answer, Lortz said, is that "it requires a tremendous amount of work and effort to make sure that the downtown has the right mix of uses." Other cities in the state and nationwide have adopted similar measures. Calistoga does not allow formula restaurants and makes chain retailers apply for a conditional use permit. In April, the town of Nantucket, Mass., banned all chain businesses from its downtown area.
Burlingame City Planner Meg Monroe said she's concerned that these laws could amount to discrimination and put the city at risk for lawsuits. But Los Gatos Town Councilman Mike Wasserman said the town hasn't had any legal troubles with the ordinance. "We have the right to protect and preserve our community," Wasserman said. "A town or city certainly has the right to look after its own best interests." Monroe disagreed. "We couldn't make a list of businesses we didn't want in town," she said. "We'd be in court so fast our heads would spin." Karim Salma, whose firm owns the block of the Avenue that intersects with California Drive, disputes the idea that economic vitality and independent business don't mix. Of the four stores that are in the process of opening on the 1100 block of the Avenue, including the restaurant Mijana, all but one are independently owned, Salma said. The fourth, La Corneta Taqueria, is a spin-off of a San Francisco-based Mexican restaurant. As the city develops a Downtown Specific Plan over the next several months, all options are on the table, Burlingame City Councilman Russ Cohen said. He didn't rule out at a chain store ordinance. "I think anything is possible for Burlingame," Cohen said. "With this specific downtown plan that we're going to be developing in the coming months, the slate is clean."
- Written by Fiona
Too little too late... You do not here people comment on great cities by the quality of their Starbucks, or the uniqueness of their "Baby Gap".
The cities I love to visit have a chain free main street [My favorite example is Ashland, Oregon -- Main Street by Lithia Park (also a Mclaren creation) is all independently owned restaurants and stores].
I hope there is a chain store ordinance on the table... Anyways Ms. Monroe is wrong, there are plenty of ways a careful crafted ordinance could discourage litigation.
Posted by: Patrick Jensen | August 30, 2006 at 06:43 AM
Mill Valley has a conditional use permit requirement for anything over a certain size, so that the community can have a voice in the decision making process.
Posted by: | August 30, 2006 at 06:55 AM
The beginning of the article has a logical fallacy in it. Sure, La Pinata is out, but Hola moved in. Neither are chain stores. I miss Sweet Treats and Nelson's but there are no chains moving into their former locations. The contractors opened up the upper walls of the two storefronts they just started working on. If they look as good a the Mijana restaurant when done they would be a nice improvement to the Avenue.
I would counter that the real mix issue is restaurants vs. retail. We have lost retail both franchise and independent. Limiting one would only throw the retail mix into further imbalance.
Don't limit, expand out to Chapin and Howard.
The former garden center becoming an office instead of a retail store, either chain or independent did more damage to the business environment than the mythical mix of corporate and independent shops. In my limited opinion...
Posted by: fred | August 30, 2006 at 06:34 PM
Peets is interested in the most important corner building on Burlingame Avenue, according to the owner of the present business. Hope this corner would continue to stay vibrant and busy with a business that will stay open in the evenings - unlike the present Peets.
Posted by: | August 30, 2006 at 07:17 PM
I agree with Fred on this. We have too many restaurants now, and they seem to be heavy-weighted down on the California end. It used to be more heavily regulated. I even remember those poor owners of the Cakery, just begging each and every council meeting, for three ice-cream tables in their little bakery. They finally got them after about a year. I'm still unclear on how the previous table and chair 'credits' have grown far beyond what was previously there. Retail, preferably independent, would be better than restaurant row, though again, I applaud Karim for a magnificant job on his building. It has never looked better.
I, also, noticed the wall being opened up on Lorton, and was hoping that somehow those windows and openings would be new storefronts for some kind of retail. However, I noticed one name in passing, that seems to indicate that it will be a wine tasting space, which to me, is just another restaurant.
The Garden Center turning into office space is a real shame and a sham. The street has become completely dead since the closure of that business. With a "plan" for the downtown, that area could have been a new retail area, instead of real estate row.
Posted by: | August 30, 2006 at 08:14 PM
You can get glimpse of what the wine bar will be like by going to: www.nectarwinelounge.com This is the second venue for this restaurant which features wine and food pairings (in the Marina District).
Posted by: | August 31, 2006 at 12:33 AM
Don't we limit the number of restaurants in town? The problem is that our restaurants are getting bigger and bigger and gobbling up retail stores around them. How many "new" restaurants have opened recently? How many restaurants have enlarged and so eliminated the retail stores around them? Now that Lucky (could be the name because all those stores seem the same) and Chico's have gone, can restaurants move in?
We've lost a restaurant to a bank (Brothers) and we have lost a bank to retail (Wells Fargo) and we will soon be getting a stunning new retail on Primrose that will hopefully encourage Walgreens to smarten up their exterior act.
Posted by: | August 31, 2006 at 12:38 PM
can someone tell me what the definitive story is on primrose? is chicken chicken coming back to the site? what is going into the wells fargo site? i heard it was going to be an appliance store but that fell through. what about the store where the carpet store was? i am sure those places were insured so why is it taking so long to rebuild?
Posted by: | August 31, 2006 at 07:22 PM
The Walgreens and the former Wells Fargo buildings??
These buildings shouldn't even exist. The Safeway debacle (thank you Citizens for a Better? Burlingame) is by far and away the biggest problem for the business environment in town. I didn't bring it up earlier in this post because I may have stated this point a few hundred times already.
Fiona, smarten up the Walgreens building?? The only way to smarten that corner is with a bulldozer. Retail moving into the long vacant Wells Fargo building? The only retail that should be moving in there is checkstand number three.
Forget having a charette about Howard Avenue, I think it is time for an intervention. Cancel the architects and call in the therapists.
Posted by: fred | August 31, 2006 at 07:41 PM
No, Fred, that Safeway would have spelled the end of pedestrian traffic on Primrose.
As far as I know, Chicken Chicken will not be returning to their old building, but will lease the building to a large retailer. That, alone will be a major step towards reinvigorating that area. I believe that Chicken Chicken will look for a medium sized space for their restaurant, elsewhere in town.
On the restaurant "credits", I believe the credits used to stay with the business, but could be traded if the nature of one business changed to another. Now, I'm very unclear on what has transpired. Does anyone know the way the system works, now?
Posted by: | August 31, 2006 at 09:31 PM
Until we get a new Safeway, the Walgreens building will remain though I do agree with the bulldozer idea! In the meantime I am glad to see that Walgreens must have given those plastic baskets birth control pills because they have stopped multiplying on the street and they are absent from the side of the store.
Atherton Appliances will be moving into Wells Fargo and they are presently making renovations inside the building.
Now that two councilmembers have been chosen to work with Safeway, Fred what do you think they should be doing to get the new Safeway we all want?
Posted by: | August 31, 2006 at 10:36 PM
OH Fred, your mantra is wearing thin. It was Safeway NOT CBB that caused the debacle over the proposed Safeway project. Obvisously you have forgotten it was Safeway that was unwilling to entertain alternative plans for a new Safeway. It was Safeway that threatened to walk away from the table, rather that act in good faith. It was CBB that offered various alternatives, which fell on deaf ears. It was CBB that unified the community and it was those voices that spoke out before the Planning Commission Meeting. Fred, why don't you become another member of the SOLUTION team rather than the nay-sayer gaggle?
Posted by: Rich Grogan | August 31, 2006 at 10:42 PM
Fiona, I have three words for the two councilmembers working towards a new Safeway: Compromise, compromise and compromise.
Posted by: fred | August 31, 2006 at 11:28 PM
Does that work both ways?
Posted by: | August 31, 2006 at 11:33 PM
Not so much if you want a new Safeway.
Posted by: fred | August 31, 2006 at 11:50 PM
Two words come to mind that might end all of this torment.
WHOLE FOODS.
Posted by: Rich Grogan | September 02, 2006 at 12:21 AM