Renewal Around the Avenew?

The San Mateo Daily Journal gives a quick snapshot of the on-going discussion about fostering development in the B'game Avenue downtown area.

Nineteen development companies submitted plans for turning parking lots in downtown Burlingame into revenue producers. Although not yet made public, plans were discussed by city staff and a subcommittee of the council and ranked.

On Tuesday, the council is expected to have property negotiations with two companies — Equity Residential, a real estate investment trust based in Chicago, and Grosvenor, an international property development, investment and fund — regarding three downtown parking lots: E, F and N.

Similar to the leafblower controversy, the first question is really "What problem are we trying to solve?"  In this case there are a couple of options but not everyone agrees on which get priority.  Is it more sort-of-transit-oriented housing that counts on Caltrain still being around?  Is it a larger tax base?  Is it being proactive for when, or really "if", the Post Office goes up for sale?  A bit of clarity may come during the public part of this discussion.

Comments

[holyroller @hotwire.com]

This sounds like a very dangerous path to travel.
If HSR goes into the pot, the value, and cost vs. benefit is completely thrown out the window.
Be very careful.
For example-
HSR will take away all parking from California Dr.
The viable option remaining is 5-6 story parking lots spread through out Broadway/Burlingame Ave shopping districts.

[Joe]

Here's a nice recap of the Downtown Streetscape effort from Heather Murtagh at the Daily Journal:

http://www.smdailyjournal.com/article_preview.php?id=226912&title=Changes in works for Burlingame Avenue

The rub is the part about "As proposed, funding would come from a number of sources — $7 million in city money from water and sewer enterprise funds, state gas tax and measure A funds, grants and capital improvement funds; and revenue from creating an assessment district and increasing parking meter rates."

[holyroller @hotwire.com]

I do not understand how the "Mega Corparations" that do business on Burlingame Ave do not fund/donate to the entire project. City of Burlingame Business Licence fees,Apple, Gap,Panda, Bev-Mo, Star Bucks, Peets,PacBell,are @$150.00 per year.
I know, I know, they pay sales tax.
However, "they are" a part of community.

[Joe]

A preview of coming attractions tomorrow night from the Daily Journal:

Giving downtown Burlingame a pedestrian-friendly facelift comes with a $15.9 million price tag, a cost that could be covered through a combination of city funds, parking rates and money raised through assessing property owners.

On Monday, the Burlingame City Council will hold a public hearing to consider forming an assessment district for downtown Burlingame Avenue streetscape improvements. If approved, the assessment would raise $335,787 annually, for up to 30 years, for a total of $4.475 million.

Weighted ballots were sent via certified mail to all property owners April 5. Ballots are weighted based on the assessment amount of the parcel. Fifty ballots were mailed. When the staff report was released May 21, half of the ballots had been received. To complete the formation, the council must review ballots and determine if a majority is in opposition. If the weighted vote has more opposition, the city cannot create an assessment district. If that’s not the case, the city can consider forming the district.

Previously, the council approved changing the parking time limits and rates in the area of Burlingame Avenue in downtown.

Raising $450,000 annually, the option to raise parking rates will allow the city to put smart meters on Burlingame Avenue but not in the rest of downtown. The increased rate provides the income needed to cover some streetscape improvements.

The plan calls for a 25 cent increase to the cost of hourly parking in the core of downtown and smaller increases in the surrounding areas. The original proposal, which went before the council in February, called for extending the hours people would need to pay to park to include 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. The most recent approval does not extend the later hours.

The council meets 7 p.m. Monday, May 21 at City Hall, 501 Primrose Road.

[alittlebird]

I just don't understand why people visiting Burlingame presently have to pay more for parking than in any other city on the peninsula and now the council is wanting to raise the rates and extend the time for which payment would be needed. And you wonder why people chose not to shop here? It gets more and more ridiculous all the time.
Shop Burlingame? NO WAY.

[hillsider]

The prevailing wisdom is the Hillsborough hill people who HAVE to park on the avenue don't care if it's 25 or 50 or 100 cents an hour. And that is probably accurate. If you are paying $50 for makeup at Sephora a $2 parking fee doesn't matter.

I'm not saying I agree with it. Just that it is the reality of today's Burlingame.

[jennifer]

At tonight's Council meeting, votes were tallied by the elected City Clerk-

31 weighted, valid ballots were returned, comprised of the following:

56.32% in favor
43.68% against

[fred]

Letter: Burlingame Avenue ‘improvements’
May 24, 2012, 05:00 AM Letter

Editor,

The Burlingame Avenue project is beyond ridiculous! Does the City Council really think that more people will come to shop/dine because the streets are wider with larger trees and hanging baskets of flowers? (“Burlingame assessment district moves ahead” in the May 23 edition of the Daily Journal).

Aside from the plan’s complete absurdity, what do the merchants think about it? I have followed this story since it’s ill-fated inception. I have not heard anything about business owners on the Avenue. Construction and congestion will be a detriment to their operations. I wouldn’t be surprised if some establishments close.

I have spoken to a traffic enforcement officer who said that many of his colleagues and police see this project as a parking/traffic disaster waiting to happen. Why create an already challenging situation by removing angled parking? Most people do not know how to parallel park in easy spots. Imagine the chaos this change would create!

Instead of pursuing this quixotic plan, why doesn’t the city of Burlingame focus on bringing businesses to the Avenue? To create a shopping destination, the first step is to fill the many vacancies with shops that people will patronize.

Siobhan Canterbury
San Carlos

[alittlebird]

Here! Here! Siobhan Canterbury. You are so right on.

[fred]

I am really amazed how the city council wants to mess up this downtown in multiple ways. Taking the parking on Burlingame Ave, taking two parking lots that support Burlingame Ave for a mixed-use monstrosity, rumors of trying to turn California Drive into one-lane traffic, insanely high parking rates and nevermind what they do to new businesses that want to open up in Burlingame (what's up with the Little Star pizza place?).

I used to joke about buliding a moat around this town, but they seem to do everything short of putting up signs that give directions to downtown San Mateo.

[fred]

crickets

[old guy]

You have said it all. I agree. This is what we get when we elect development dependent councilors