The Burlingame Voice

The Ups and Downs of Downtown Parking

Just a couple of blocks separate the largest additions to downtown parking we have seen in more than a generation.  The public lot between Lorton and Highland, just south of Howard is rising briskly while the underground parking at the old Hower Auto lot at Bayswater and Myrtle and the one next to the Dairy Boy mural dive deep into subterranean B'game.  With parklets here to stay, the public lot should prove to be popular even if it is further from the Avenue than most people are accustomed to walking.  The two deep digs for new construction have me scratching my head a bit.  I thought the building code called for only going down as far as the water table, but it looks like that restriction has fallen quietly by the wayside.  It's probably a victim of the extreme pressure for more development- residential and commercial.  When this latest drought is over it will be interesting to see how downtown drainage is affected.

A Tale of Two Parklets

I talked about how I believe parklets (taking over some parking spaces, but leaving the roadway open) are a better solution for saving restaurants than the wholesale street closures here.  Now that some restaurants outside of the Burlingame Avenue Autonomous Zone (BAAZ) are jumping on the parklet idea, we can start to compare approaches.  Chatting about it with a few locals, the idea seems to be popular since it is seven days a week and can be done nicely.  Our Michelin-starred Rasa seems to have done the best local design so far.

But check out the effort by Moody's in Truckee!  All of the restaurants along Commercial Row are using the raised platform approach, but Moody's has upped the game with amazing lighting, curtains, heaters and loudspeakers.

Using the ugly orange hydro-barriers on all three sides instead of just the on-coming traffic side seems like a B'game-only approach--San Mateo doesn't require it.  B'game restaurants will hopefully make continuous improvements since these will likely be with us at least til the rains start.

Bay Area Exodus? How Big? How Long?

A lot of the fire, heat and policy-making on the Peninsula lately has  been driven by the belief that we will be adding more of...well, everything.  Except perhaps affordable, local entertainment.  Rent control.  Affordable housing.  Mass transit.  High density.  Subsidized X, Y, Z and back to A.  ADU's.  UBI.  Free lunch.  What if it's all just BeeEss?

You can find polls and surveys to support or contradict any position you choose.  But you can't deny the fact of open market pricing.  Not the engineered, subsidized, hidden-cost stuff like renewable energy.  I'm talking the "walk into a place of business and get a price quote" response.

Here's the "walk-in" price that caught my eye this week.  A friend of a friend is moving to Portland.  I know, I know--really? Now?  He's got remote work status until..... who knows when.  She can transplant her practice anywhere.  All that aside, the cost to rent a truck to move your stuff yourself to Portland today is $2,500.  The price to rent the same truck in Portland to drive to the Bay Area is.......wait for it, $300.  If I gave you my special 20 minute How-to-Negotiate class, I'll bet you could get them to pay you $300 to bring the truck back for them.  It would cover gas, lunch and the Golden Gate bridge toll.

Will the exodus continue?  Yes.  Will it last more than a couple years?  Maybe.  Will it reverse within the next five?  Doubtful.  I'm glad I'm not all-in on a high-density, all-electric$$, bird cage with a minuscule courtyard, 6' x 6' elevators and no balcony that I will need to sell for $650,000 to break even.  The old saying "don't fight the Fed" only applies if you have to get in the ring.

Tweaking The BAAZ, Creating The BRAZ

Tomorrow night the City Council will consider making some changes to the Burlingame Ave Autonomous Zone (the BAAZ).  We're just finishing the third weekend of the BAAZ so Council will be looking to extend it to the end of September and add parklets on the side streets.  Back in May when the original plan surfaced, I had several concerns: impact on non-restaurant businesses, non-BAAZ restaurants, parking, handicap access and the cost.  It appears I was prescient since the proposed tweaks start to address some of these, especially the fairness issue. Non-BAAZ restaurants that want a parklet on Primrose, Park, Lorton, Howard, and Chapin would get permanent ones (meaning seven days a week) since they are too expensive to put in and take out often.  The parklets would be created using heavy duty industrial plastic hydro-barriers -- the ugly orange blocks.  San Mateo went the parklet route but only uses the hydro-barriers on the on-coming traffic side as shown below (upper right).  I hope we do the same.

To further address fairness to our "other" downtown, the one that often feels under appreciated by the City, the BRAZ is under consideration -- the BRoadway Autonomous Zone.  It involves Saturday-Sunday closure of Broadway between Chula Vista and Capuchino -- the three middle blocks; attempting to leave some traffic circulation since, you know, it's a 101 exit.  Anecdotally, the Broadway restaurants took a bit of a beating the last two weekends--akin to the non-BAAZ restaurants.  One non-BAAZer used the word "disaster" when I asked how it went the first weekend.

As to parking, the Staff Report notes

In addition to the previously estimated loss of parking on Burlingame Avenue of approximately 150 to 160 parking spaces when the street is closed on the weekends, the creation of parklets will result in a parking loss of up to approximately 60 to 70 spaces on side streets in the downtown area on both weekdays and weekends.

Approximately 50 to 60 parking spaces would become unavailable on weekends if the City Council approves the temporary weekend closure of Broadway. As with the Burlingame Avenue commercial district, there are nearby parking facilities on either side of Broadway, but parking will become tight on busy weekends.

I might suggest putting a cover over most of the EV charging stations in Lot Y so GV's (gas vehicles) can use them because we know EV usage has been quite low. 

Now the costs:

Staff estimates the cost of setting up and removing the street closure on Broadway to be similar to Burlingame Avenue, which is estimated at approximately $10,000 to $12,000 per month. Additionally, staff estimates the cost of renting and setting up barriers to create parklets is $20,000 to $30,000 per month. Regarding loss of parking revenue, staff estimates the overall loss is approximately $20,000 to $30,000 per month. The overall total fiscal impact of the pilot program is estimated to range from $60,000 to $80,000 per month. The actual figure may vary and will be determined after the completion of the pilot program.

We may have our very own Summer of Love.  Like the original one in '67, it would be fun but comes with a price.

Close the Avenue? Not So Fast

I was hoping this idea of closing Burlingame Ave. to all cars would quietly disappear as things slowly re-open and people get used to mingling a bit.  But the City has apparently asked merchants for their opinions so it's an active idea and we have a Guest Perspective in today's Daily Journal that espouses the closure.  The author comes from a great B'game family and has done a stint on the Planning Commission, but he might have benefited from serving on Traffic, Safety and Parking instead.  I'm sort of glad he broached the topic.  Here's bit of that piece

With summer weather approaching and business attendance at an all-time low, now is an incredible, once-in-a-generation time to experiment with what  Burlingame Avenue could be like if it were more pedestrian-oriented, and less vehicle-dependent.

The city needs to take strong actions to make sure the heart of its downtown, its restaurants and bars, are positioned as well as possible to succeed in a prolonged sure-to-be-tough environment. The best way the city can do this, in my opinion, is to allow them to operate at normal capacity (while adhering to strict distancing guidelines), through the expansion of temporary seating zones. Of course, the only way to accomplish this would be to follow the example set by Oakland and numerous other cities, and close Burlingame Avenue to cars.

There's an old debate tactic called the Straw Man argument that says you refute an argument that your opponent hasn't actually made.  A corollary to that is to refute one argument and omit the others.  That's what is going on in this piece:

Now, the obvious contrarian opinion is that there won’t be enough parking (a particularly Burlingame classic!). Well, my response would be: Good! Let’s finally put our environmental policy and action where our mouths are and create paths for people to safely travel, and park, via bicycle.

Allow me to note some better arguments against a full closure.  First, there are many other businesses on the Avenue besides restaurants.  All of them rely on out-of-towners and B'gamers who live far away and won't walk or bike to their stores.  Convenient parking may be over rated by some store owners, but it's not a non-issue.  Some of them sell (or would like to sell) more product than one can easily carry for blocks.  Second, what about the disabled customers?  We have handicap spaces for a reason and it's a good one.  No "TSPoon" commissioner would ever think of taking them all out, but a full closure does exactly that.  Third, it seems unfair to advantage some restaurants at the expense of others not on the Avenue.  Should Park & Howard, Narin, Coconut Bay, Stella Osteria, Il Fornaio, et al just figure it out themselves?  I don't think so.  How about Broadway?  I won't play Straw Man and suggest we close all of downtown, but fair would be fair.  Fourth, police and fire access is still required and required fast.  How do you do that with tables and diners in the street?  Lastly, the realpolitik of the City's situation is a major budget problem as noted here.  We are definitely better off than many cities, but with the hotel tax and sales taxes taking a major hit, the revenue from the meters should not be ignored.  As the City seems intent on giving away money, perhaps taking some in would be wise.

So what to do?  Doing nothing is anathema to government.  We've seen that across the board during the corona crisis.  Here's a middle position that might work for restaurants all over town.  The space in front of the restaurant can become a parklet.  I broached the idea eight years ago here.  As you can read from 2012 it got no attention--not one comment, but now might be the time.  Parklets are big in EssEff and a few sprouted in San Mateo.  One space (10' x 20' if memory serves) could hold 2 four tops.  Turned twice a night, that would be 16 more diners.  Added to sidewalk dining, it would help.  Closing the whole street is unfair, may be unsafe and likely costly.

More Parking: Perhaps You Missed It?

When you walk or bike around town you get a good, current view of things that are happening--or not happening.  I shouldn't be surprised when people spout off on one of the other local social media sites about what the city should or shouldn't do--only to be told that they are already doing it because it has been in the works for years!  The absolute biggest case in point is the huge parking structure being built between Lorton Ave and Highland Ave. just south of Howard Ave.  I get it, they're sheltering-in-place, but really?  Before you put fingers to keyboard maybe you should get your mask and walk around downtown for the first time in six or eight months.

When someone tells you we should shut down Burlingame Ave. for the restaurant trade to survive, that is debatable position.  We'll get to that another time.  But when some know-nothing says we can't do that because there isn't enough parking downtown and the city should build more someday, well, ta da.  Do try to get out more.

Green Policies Backfire Against the Coronavirus

I had my next post outlined in my head when I read this piece in today's Wall Street Journal by a couple of podcasters that says the same thing only better:

We really knew there was a crisis when San Francisco, which 13 years ago banned single-use plastic bags in grocery stores, would now prohibit reusable bags as part of its effort to prevent spread of the novel coronavirus.

Plastic-bag bans aren’t the only “green” policy that has been found wanting in the real world of a pandemic. For decades environmentalists have hectored us to get out of our cars and crowd into subways and buses. “From Amsterdam to Tempe, Arizona, more and more cities are finding that eliminating cars from their streets makes people happier and healthier,” Fast Company reported in January, noting with satisfaction that in one Helsinki neighborhood, “none of the new apartments come with parking.”

You can’t have a car-free community without high-density housing, so environmentalists have promoted apartment living and a war on suburban “sprawl.” But now those living in dense apartment buildings risk their lives by walking out the door into common spaces and shared surfaces, even before they reach the crowded, densely populated streets below. Suburban families, by contrast, are often able to maintain community connections even while socially distancing and are more likely to have additional room for their children to roam while out of school.

Environmentalists talk a lot about “externalities,” the unintended consequences of economic decisions. The pandemic is a reminder that policy decisions have externalities too.

Mr. McAleer and Ms. McElhinney host the podcast “The Ann & Phelim Scoop.”

The question is will we learn anything from the COVID-19 onslaught?  Let’s face it, this will not be the last pandemic.  We’ve had H1N1, SARS, MERS, Ebola, Russian Flu, Spanish Flu and the regular flu that mutates every year, so the vaccine manufacturers are half-guessing each year.   More than one person has said to me “Face it, we will look like Manhattan in 20 years.”  Well maybe, but maybe not.  Now is the time to tell Sen. Scott Weiner—the enemy of single-family zoning—and the YIMBYS to take a hike.

B'game on the Ave. Success

I want to take a moment to acknowledge that the long-running, name-changing "Burlingame on the Avenue" festival continues to show out of towners how great B'game really is.  Sunday was packed and you could feel the energy.  Band stands on both ends of the Avenew and the main one in the middle.  The Kidzone seemed larger than in the past.  Even with the Burlingame Breeze up at mid-day people and their dogs were enjoying themselves immensely.

Kudos to the Chamber of Commerce for a job well done.  My only question/suggestion is why stop at 5pm on Saturday.  I walked over for dinner around 6 pm and it was still light out and there were plenty of people around.  The Ave. is still closed down with the booths, but wouldn't running one more band until 6:30 or so bring some end-of-day focus and energy and a few more dinner bills?

Here's the SF Banjo Band doing that old-timey thang.

SB50: The 'Drop Zone' in B'game

Yesterday's SF Chronicle piece "SF supervisors oppose Wiener's new housing-near-transit bill, but there's wiggle room" captures some of the many concerns about SB50.  We started the discussion here noting that another SF politician, David Chiu, decided it was good politics to point fingers at Burlingame.  One SF Supervisor, Vallie Brown, joined the "ruin other people's backyard" movement by saying “We need bold proposals, and not just here. We need to have the rest of the Bay Area and California get into gear around housing".  Talk about exceeding one's authority.  But most of the SF supervisors appear ready to vote for a resolution opposed to SB50.  Now if only our own San Mateo County supervisors had as much backbone.  But so far they haven't demonstrated it.  Today's Comicle editorial tries to paint even the SF supervisors as some sort of "reactionary" body--good luck with that laughable assertion:

In the long fight to keep California’s wealthy, homogeneous, exclusive suburbs just the way they are, Palo Alto and Beverly Hills have an ally they might not have expected: San Francisco.  The city’s Board of Supervisors — thanks to its purportedly progressive faction, no less — is poised to reiterate its reactionary resistance to legislation that would legalize higher-density residential development near mass transit amid a crushing housing shortage.

For many locals the threat is still abstract, so here is a map showing the affected sections of B'game should SB50 become law--I call it the SB50 Drop Zone

Lest you think it is bad enough that some hack politicians from the city who cannot even manage their own streets in a first-world fashion want to co-opt approval of development in more than half of B'game; the last part of SB50 says a city that is "employment rich" can't stop development anywhere in town.  Don't get too comfortable up in the hills.  Our City Council has taken a clear stance against SB50 and should be encouraged as they have been by two letters in today's Daily Journal here and here.  To buttress their good instincts, they should consider starting a legal reserve fund since this is likely to end up in court if it passes in Sacramento.  It might also be time to reconsider whether SamTrans should be allowed to operate on our section of El Camino Real.  That sounds crazy to say about a state highway, but it's not any crazier than Weiner, Chiu and Brown telling us we have to build five-story tall high-density housing everywhere in town.

Sweating in B'game

The prevailing wisdom is that retail is struggling on the Avenew, on Broadway and elsewhere in town.  Examples include the demise of Books, Inc. and Anthropologie--not exactly Mom and Pop operations that still couldn't cut it here.  But exercise is a booming business in retail areas.  The Comicle touched on this in January as people were thinking about New Year's resolutions and I'm addressing it as bathing suit season approaches.  The Comicle noted

A city retail study in February found that traditional retail growth has slowed but fitness providers and restaurants are still eager to expand. Across the Bay Area, 53 fitness leases were signed in the past three years.  Being near, or even in the same building, as housing and office uses is deliberate. “It’s really about convenience and daily need,” said Weinhaus. “People are coming to us day in and day out.”  Gyms and fitness centers can thrive in upper floors and basements, where traditional retailers might struggle, said Helen Bulwik, a veteran retail consultant and senior partner at the Newport Board Group.  “You can kind of stick a gym anywhere. It’s kind of like Starbucks.”  “We haven’t really been able to find a new location in the city in a long time,” said Frank Napolitano, president of 24 Hour Fitness. “Dense downtown cores tend to have the boutique-type operators. They don’t need as much space.”

Here in B'game we have an ever expanding menu of choices from old school full-service gyms like Primetime on Rollins Rd. or Being Yoga in the B'game Plaza to specialized set-up like Pilates ProWorks on B'way to the very one-on-one approach using a personal trainer such as B-Fit on Park Rd.  I've been a client at B-Fit for two years and can vouch for the one-on-one approach as a great way to get pushed into shape and strength.  In the middle of the spectrum are Basecamp (Dethrone) on California in the old Route 66 building and the newest, Barry's Bootcamp on Howard.  Locals are curious about Barry's after watching a complete renovation of what was just an old Quonset Hut that housed the Bacci Food Center in the 1950's.  I gave Barry's a try and really enjoyed the Red Room where the workout alternates between treadmill and floor/weight/band exercises.  Not so sure about the name in view of the Fifty Shades of Grey reference, but the music and the instructor kept it from being too painful.  The building itself has been completely transformed keeping large skylights and adding showers and a juice bar.  B'gamers have a full range of choices and price points so there really is no excuse for not sweating in Burlingame.  Here's the new Barry's