The Burlingame Voice

Thoroughly Modern Mayberry

The Wall Street Journal Mansion section is always a good weekend read.  This week it describes a number of new developments that go all-in towards recreating "the essence of quaint small towns" that "recreate village life".  It makes one wonder why people who already have quaint walkable neighborhoods want to screw them up with high-density housing, modern office buildings and big parking structures?

In a shift away from gated golf course communities, with their cul de sacs of Tuscan villas and Normandy castles (ed: what part of B'game does that remind you of?), these ungated developments are designed to create a strong sense of place, with neighbors, a coffee shop and the town dentist within walking distance.  Picture Andy Griffith's Mayberry with high-speed internet."

And no rent control.  A president of one of the architectural firms involved says "We are trying to bring back the DNA of towns and small cities that has been lost--in some ways it's storytelling."  What story will we be telling 20 or 30 years from now?  Will it be one of sadness as we look at the cookie-cutter James Chu designed houses sprinkled among the original bungalows, Eichlers, and Tudors of Olde Burlingame?  Will we look at the Avenue and wonder how we messed up?  I hope not.  Here are two stories being written now:  one bad, one very hopefully to be good.

Hotbed of Development

The front page of today's Daily Post has a headline "City is hotbed of development" by Emily Mibach.  The city is us - B'game.  Emily has assembled a convenient list of recently approved or proposed projects including:

556 El Camino Real, 1128-1132 Douglas Ave., 21 Park Rd., 1491-1493 Oak Grove Ave., 1509 El Camino Real, 103 El Camino Real, 1214 Donnelly Ave., 1300 Bayshore Highway, Peninsula Wellness Center at 1740 Marco Polo Way, 988 Howard Ave., 225 California Dr., 300 Airport Blvd., 1600 Trousdale Dr., 1818 Trousdale Dr., 1800 Trousdale Dr., 1008-1028 Carolan Ave. (Summerhill), 1225 Floribunda Ave., 1433 Floribunda.

That totals 18 projects including some as large as 450 new bedrooms.  Maybe Trump was right and there really isn't a drought in California?  I really have no idea where the water will come from, nor the classrooms, nor the parking spaces.  You have to love the juxtaposition of the headline with the Cheesy Deals advertisement!

You'll Miss it When it's Gone

The Daily Journal ran a piece about the incursion of tear-downs, McMansions, Taco Bells--choose your term of choice.  The only new aspects of this since my wife first ran for City Council twenty years ago are that other towns besides B'game are feeling the pain too and the Modern style of architecture has cropped up in neighborhoods.  Our own Jennifer Pfaff was quoted extensively, as she should be

In Burlingame, the crux of community concern is not so much the size of homes, as it is gradual shift away from the traditional look in neighborhoods, according to Jennifer Pfaff, president of the archives for the city’s Historical Society.  Pfaff said trends have moved in Burlingame toward building more modern homes, which has resulted in a loss of some of the city’s classic architectural style as existing properties are redeveloped.  She added the shift is especially apparent due to the relatively small property lot sizes in Burlingame, and the difference between new, modern homes sitting in near proximity to older, classic homes is clearly visible.

“It may not change if you are looking at a house by itself as a freestanding structure, it isn’t quite as serious as when you are looking at rows of houses very close together,” she said.

The effect of changing community character is cumulative, said Pfaff, which has increasingly taken hold over recent years. She said the result has become large, bold structures with flat faces toward the street which creates an almost boxy look for neighborhood where many modern homes sit together.
Requiring more setbacks toward the sides of properties, leaving additional space for trees and landscaping, would help prevent the increasingly popular aesthetic from overwhelming the community, said Pfaff.

I seriously doubt anything will be done about any aspect of this issue, but perhaps I am just jaded by history.  Anybody recall the campaign postcard that read "You'll Miss it When it's Gone"?

Teardown or remodel? It's a taxing question.

Everyone knows the trick. “Leave one wall standing” and the project is not considered a teardown, it’s categorized as a remodel. It’s simple, the owner’s want to save $$ on taxes. I get that. The problem is these projects are not remodels. Not even close. They are teardowns from the inside out. Some might say this is a loophole that cost cities, counties and states revenue. The question is: why do cities, counties and states continue to allow this to happen?

Sure I could whine about the fact there are six of these “remodeling” projects going on in my neighborhood—one next to me, one across the street from me and three behind me—all at the same time. I would not consider any of them simple remodels. I have included pics to prove my point. However, I’m not going to whine. Instead, I am going to point out that the city is losing much needed revenue, ( I have called for a teardown fee numerous times in this forum and in public.) So you can see I feel strongly about it.

Let’s consider a teardown fee, but first we have to redefine teardown from remodel and that may be a state matter. OK, Senator Jerry Hill, Assemblyman Kevin Mullen, Congresswoman Jackie Speier…you want to raise some serious dough? Consider looking into this loophole. Let’s not fall for the “leave one wall standing” BS.

Millbrae Madness

Our neighbors to the north are not acting very neighborly.  The massive project guidelines--that would cover several projects--gained slim passage per this DJ article, but even the dissenters were not focused on the best reasons to scale this back 

Following years of thorough planning and months of extensive deliberation, officials approved the policy guidelines laying the groundwork for future development in the 116-acre site near the Millbrae rail station.

Yet despite the substantial amount of the consideration that has gone into shaping the document aiming to regulate construction in the area surrounding the city’s Bay Area Rapid Transit and Caltrain station, the Millbrae City Council narrowly passed the station area plan Tuesday, Feb. 9, by a slender margin of 3-2.

This part is really rich

One of the lingering sticking points during a previous discussion by council was how the new homes and jobs slated to be built in the 116-acre site could cause enrollment growth in the Millbrae Elementary School District.

To address those concerns, city officials amended the plan to require developers proposing projects in the boundary of the station area to discuss with school officials offsetting costs the district could incur through a growing student population.

Good luck with that milque toasty language.  With 116 acres to work with and 800 residential units noted just in the first pass of plans, one would think they would require a school be built right on the parcel.  And I have seen no evidence that there is any design aesthetic alive in Millbrae.  It's also commonly felt that the BART station is out of parking space already.  Of course, there does not appear to be one drop of discussion about where the water will come from.  We still have 2 day per week restrictions on watering, right?  About the best you can say is Millbrae just keeps making B'game look better and better.

Urban Limits: Size and Design Matter

Our esteemed local scribe, John Horgan of the SM County Times (SJ Merc) has a New Year's wish we can all get behind.  In his column, John notes

With 2016 now in full flower right there in front of us, perhaps it's a good time to check off a local fab five list of things that ought to be addressed/considered over the coming months.

Here goes:

Urban limits -- The basic rule of thumb is pretty simple. If we wanted to live in San Jose or San Francisco we would have moved there. Enough with the four- and five-story residential complexes that have all of the charm of a state prison. We live in the suburbs because they are suburbs.

There are a couple projects in the works right now in dear ole B'game where, in my opinion, a little bit of the Brutalist design aesthetic appears to be creeping in. Poor Millbrae has already been encroached upon by it.  Regarding a local example, a recent letter to the Planning Commission by my highly-experienced spouse noted

988 Howard Ave. is particularly important for a number of reasons: 1) It is the gateway to the R-2 and R-1 areas of Burlingables/Lyon Hoag. 2) It directly faces and interacts with our 1894 Mission Revival Train Station which is a National Register listed building.  3) It anchors the southern corner of East Lane while the northern anchor is the Candy Store building, a beautiful 1920’s brick structure designed by Burlingame’s most  prolific architect, Colonel Norberg (designer of the Burlingame Public Library, Washington School, the Lions Club and  Candy Store buildings among many others).  4) It is one of the four corners of Burlingame Square and it is vital that the building balance the buildings on the other side of the square located between Howard Avenue and Burlingame Avenue i.e. The Candy Store, the Bank of Burlingame building and the Salma building.

I request that the Planning Commission use its design authority as delineated in the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan and direct the applicant to re-design the architecture of the project that reflects the prominent historic structures surrounding Burlingame Square.  Design direction should be given from these structures: The Mission Revival Train Station, the brick Candy Store building (AKA the Packard Dealership building), the Sullivanesque Bank of Burlingame building (currently the Straits Restaurant), The Salma Family Building (housing  Kabul restaurant), the former Photo Play theatre building (today’s Basecamp Fitness) or the former Greyhound Bus station (currently Sam’s Sandwiches).

You can check out the submission to the city as it stands today here by scrolling down to Item 8d.  A key point is "neighborhood consistency" and we ain't in San Fran, San Jose or Moscow for that matter.

 

225 California Redux

The DJ is reporting on Monday's Planning Commission meeting where the plan for a new four story retail/office building garnered better reviews

The Burlingame Planning Commission commended the new look of a mixed-use office project proposed to be built at 225 California Drive during a meeting Monday, Sept. 28.

The project returned for a second design review, after commissioners, residents and business owners identified a variety of concerns in July regarding how well the four-story building worked into the existing character of the neighborhood near the city’s Caltrain station.

But commissioners lauded a revised version of the building, which appears much more traditional in architectural style than the initial, modern design.

The engineering feat that remains to be fleshed out is

Below ground, three levels of parking are proposed to be built, which would offer a total of 130 spaces, when combined with available parking on the street level.

At least access to this deep garage is now from Highland Ave. instead of the one-way alley in the back.  It's a little hard to see in the artist's rendering but there are trees out front.

Rating Architecture

In a crowd-sourced world people can rate just about anything.  Los Altos has gone out in front by having residents rate which buildings they like and dislike.  The Daily Post covers the professional survey that offered residents the chance to rate seven new buildings in town.

Skipping the local Los Altos detail, the piece notes that satisfaction with their downtown is up 14% from three years ago.  I would bet we would find the same after the Avenew renewal.  But parking convenience is way down.  Again, probably the same in B'game.  And 51% said more office space downtown would be a bad thing vs. 39% in favor.  Again, probably the same but unless the city council decides to do some thing similar we won't know for sure.

Movin' on up

It's 11:30pm on a Monday and I have just returned from a Burlingame Planning Commission meeting. Before attending the meeting I was generally pleased with the scrutiny most of the commission members were giving the projects that came before them, until tonight, it seemed to me they were throwing in the towel on the notion of neighborhood consistency. 

I made some comments that I was concerned about second story additions being approved in neighborhoods where none existed. My contention is that there isn't anyway a monster house can fit into the consistency of a street where no monster houses exist. The answer was kind of a shrug of the collective shoulders by the commission. Paraphrasing here, "Well everyone has a right to build what they want as long as they are doing it within the rules." Well isn't one of the rules "neighborhood consistency?"

To be clear, I am not against growth or building second stories. I am against poor design. The photo attached is an example of a home that was approved tonight, one block from my house. Nothing really wrong with it, but nothing really right with it either. Same old, same old. Does it add value to the hood? Some might say it actually deters from the hood. I would be amongst the "some."

I have much more to say on the subject, but this post is rambling as it is.

Simply out, the debate will continue. As one commissioner said tonight, paraphrasing again, "Until we reduce the FAR, we're going to be approving these second story additions throughout town, no matter what the neighborhood looks or feels like.

So much for neighborhood consistency.

Musings on Ocean Beach (OB, San Diego)

My global travels often set me to thinking about B'game.  Call it homesickness perhaps.  I made the latest post about noise at SFO while I was in Tokyo a couple of weeks ago.  Tonight I am wrapping up a week in San Diego which is my second visit in six weeks.  I found a great restaurant in the Ocean Beach neighborhood of San Diego during the last visit and I just took a party of 25 back there tonight (sounding a bit like Bruce Dickinson, I know).

What struck me about the evening was not the restaurant, good as it was.  Ocean Beach (  "OB"  ) is every bit as desirable as B'game.  Arguably it is more desirable since it is on the beach, but it is also 20 minutes out of downtown San Diego (like B'game), filled with cute bungalows that cost $1.4M+ (like B'game) and in a region that is growing via the 3rd wave Internet boom, biotech and the like (like B'game).

So why are there no ugly, Hong Kong-style glass block offices, chain stores, or McMansions encroaching on the ambiance of OB?  Why are there local restaurants, clubs that actually host live bands, and antique stores and other local businesses apparently surviving just fine?  Do they have smarter City Council members who take the "long view" as espoused by Linda Lees Dwyer on this post?  Are their citizens and voters more engaged than B'game voters?  Do they have higher IQs?  Better General Plans?  I'm puzzled.  OB feels like Old Burlingame, yet it survives in 2015.  Why is that and what can we do about it?