Dedicated to Empowering and Informing the Burlingame Community

Broadway Focus

Heather's article in th Daily Journal today:

Broadway focus of forum

Visions of a walking downtown area and restoring public transportation were the focus of the first Burlingame City Council candidates' forum Thursday. The council has four of its five seats up for grabs and eight of the nine candidates shared their thoughts with the city in the first of three forums to be held before the Nov. 8 election. Don Lembi and Russ Cohen are both running for the two-year seat vacated by Mike Coffey, who resigned this summer, while the other seven candidates are vying for the three open four-year seats. Lembi was not at the forum because of a family emergency.

Last month, Caltrain service through the Broadway station was cut back to weekend-only service. Almost all of the candidates said they had spoken up against the reduction of the Broadway Caltrain station schedule. The station was closed because of low ridership. Incumbent Rosalie O'Mahony said the current council worked valiantly to keep the station open and passed money in the June budget earmarked for the restoration of the Broadway station platforms. Many candidates, like Cohen, John Root, Gene Condon and Dan Andersen, said the fight to reopen the station would be a difficult one. This is a time where we as a community need to come together. This is the sort of thing you don't see coming and is slowly creeping up,? Condon said. While most the candidates agreed the reopening of the Broadway station should be a priority, how to handle the Broadway retail area brought up some different ideas.

Planning Commissioner Ann Keighran said the key to making it work is a balance between the small independent stores and national stores. Keighran would like to see the various boards overseeing planning within the city and downtown areas to come together and work toward a common goal. Vice Mayor Cathy Baylock brought up property tax abatements made available to owners of historical buildings. We need to think outside the box. I think there should be a balance of stores but mom and pop stores need to have a fighting chance,? Baylock said.

Paul Prendiville said the city should think about subdividing buildings and putting in businesses that followed more of the current market trends. Root said the main problem occurs because the city has an old overall plan. We've got to get with the program and get ahead of these things instead of always reacting,? Root said.

Sticking with the plan idea, Cohen said looking at what other cities have done would be a way to figure out how to get the Burlingame downtown plan right. He suggested it would be better to have national stores on the outskirts of downtown, giving prime location to the smaller stores. But since the set up downtown already doesn't accommodate this idea, Cohen suggested limiting store sizes. O'Mahony, however, said she would be against forcing property owners to a set given area.

Discussion of downtown brought up ideas on making better use of the side streets like Howard Avenue in downtown and create a walking environment on Broadway. We need to find ways to move pedestrians down the side streets. When more residents will walk to shops we can address the economic feasibility,? Andersen said

– Written by Fiona

Posted in

92 responses to “Broadway Focus”

  1. just looking

    I was disgusted by Rosalie’s answer to the Floor Area Ratio question. She can’t seem to remember that the FAR was made way back when NO ONE considered actually building to the limit. Now that every spec builder in a 100 mile radius wants to go to the limit and beyond, she can’t figure out that it should be reduced to give the city more control. She’s SO out of date!

  2. Hiram

    Nice to read the story about the Nielsen’s and their Copenhagen Bakery. I’ve heard, though, that thanks to a friendship with the building owner, the “rent” on that property is much lower than the normal rental fees on Burlingame Avenue. Apparently, thanks to the kindness of the property owner, we have a gem of a locally-owned place on Burlingame Ave.
    What will happen, though, if the rent suddenly becomes similar to 2005 rates?

  3. james

    Hey Ricardo–why did Rosalie give money to Condon and Anderson?

  4. Jan

    Ricardo, I’d like to know why Rosalie is supporting Condon and Anderson as well. She is fast losing credibility with people like me, who have long thought she was a hard-working public servant.

  5. Republican II

    Fred, I think we are talking past each other. I do NOT want Burlingame to look like Tahoe — one thing after another strung along traffic-jammed roads and no street life. Tahoe is an example of a beautiful setting in danger of being ruined with NOT enough planning or zoning. Nor do I want Burlingame to look like Carmel –one main tourist street without much “real life” activity (unless, of course, your “real life” is as an artist, Fred, which I doubt). State Street in Santa Barbara has everything. Street life, ethnic restaurants, chain restaurants, movie theatres, a museum, tourists, attorneys, doctors and business people having lunch on their way back from their offices nearby. It’s real living and really mixed and really lively. We have some of this already, but it could be better.
    Bruce, from your prior posts I wouldn’t have pegged you as a “Smart Growth” guy and I appreciate your including the list of items that are included in the term “Smart Growth” –just remember that quite a few of them would involve some measure of “telling a landlord what to do with his castle.” I bet Santa Barbara has very strict architectural guidelines as well as use permits, etc. and it doesn’t look like it’s hurt their businesses one bit. In fact, several fairly new retailers are springing forth from State Street (Territory Ahead, Anthropologie, Big Dog all have headquarters in Santa Barbara, I think). I reallly think we should look at what Santa Barbara has done. They are a shining success story.

  6. Anonymous

    Absolutely, Rep II. Santa Barbara has been the center of many a CBB conversation for several years, starting with an exquisite spanish style Ralph’s grocery store (big, too) that popped up around the time of our own Safeway debate. Spanish tiles, a fountain, etc. etc. I still have shots that a friend took of the place from back then. It isn’t mixed use, but I find it extremely attractive.

    As far as I know, the town we see today was created after some kind of calamity (earthquake or fire?) Anyhow, it was “designed” in the 20’s by some famous architect, and I’m sure that all new development must adhere to the plan and design. Another plus is that parking is more on the outskirts. I’m sure Fiona will have plenty to add, she visits there a lot.

    They also have very classy store signs, bike racks, newsstands and lamps, all the little details that make a big difference. Trees and plants all over, and lots of outside eating (smart, with that weather.) But we have to remember that they are a tourist destination, too, therefore probably have lots of TOT money, etc. to boot. Anyhow, it is a stunning town, lots to be learned from that one. If the Burlingame Improvement Committee ever starts meeting again regularly, you should come join the group. We (residents and shop owners) can determine the look and feel of our own downtown, it shouldn’t happen by accident or default.

  7. Anonymous

    Santa Barbara is really a gem – and so is San Luis Obispo (my favorite). Both town who really know how to do it. I know they are both college towns (a plus?!) but they are both full of excitement and energy with no cardboard-covered store windows. They have little “surprise” alleys or plazas which you suddenly come upon. Most with seating, some with a little statue or two but places where you can just sit! And for free! The trees in parts of SLO downtown and SB are spectacular and if you are lucky enough to go to SLO around lunch time, a band playing under the trees with the Mission across the way.

    Last time I was in SLO, there was an historic home advertised which stated LOUD and CLEAR that for a million bucks you could buy a home that was part of – wait for it – the Mills Act. Wish I had had time to check it out.

    Love the parking in Santa Barbara – none on State State – but in parking structures that are nice enough to look like upscale apartments. Their chains (in particular Macy’s, Nordstoms and bookstores) are beautifully integrated between the smaller more eclectic mix of stores. And unlike, Burlingame, the streets have irrigation to take care of their beautiful trees and flower boxes, etc. SB has very tasteful newspaper racks, garbage cans and seating. Something that for Burlingame should be a no-brainer! Although when newspaper racks were bought up in the BIC meetings, first amendment rights seemed to be the issue so we have a long ways to go!

    And if you want to see a downtown that nurtures their “historicness”, go to Paso Robles. I liked the little tiles in the sidewalk which residents can “buy”. They even have a brochure that tells you which buildings are “historic”. Can you imagine that in Burlingame?! Oh my God!

    We will never be a Santa Barbara or a San Luis Obispo, but they have got it right and there must be some lessons we could learn from them.

  8. Rep II

    Oh come on, Fiona. Dream big! We can be a Santa Barbara or a San Luis Osbispo….why not?

  9. Anonymous

    Do you think it is possible even when something like tidying up our newsracks becomes a “first amendment issue”?! And getting a few palm trees near the station is more complicated than it should be?

    Let’s dream big!!

  10. Rep II

    So who is raising the “first amendment” issues? Is it possible that these people will be replaced on City Council?

  11. fred

    Do they attack and deride council members and businesses in Santa Barbara the same way they do in Burlingame? Or are their specks of sand found only on their beautiful beaches?

    Obviously Dan Andersen is not a CBB candidate – speck of sand – nice one Fiona.

  12. Ricardo Ortiz

    Rich-

    FAR- Using your lot as an example: According to public records, your lot is 5,500 SF. It also states that you have a detached garage and it looks like you might be on a corner. Under current Regulations, you would be allowed .32 x 5,500+900 SF or 2,660 SF. This includes the garage, basement and accessory buildings?. At 2,660SF, this hardly seems like a monster? size when you subtract the garage. What did you have in mind for a new limit?

  13. Jen

    Hi Ricardo,
    Not to interrupt your message to Rich (and I am not familiar with his lot, or his house) but let me tell you about my allowable FAR.

    I live on a 5,000 sq. ft. lot, that currently has a 2100 sq. ft. house on it (that we enlarged a decade ago), and a 200 sq. ft. garage. The remaining garden is lovely, but very, very small. If I chose to max this house out, I could according to code, add 600 sq ft more to the house, and replace my garage with a 400 sq. ft. one. My math is surely not as good as yours or Rosalie’s so bear with me. I believe that makes an additional 800sq. ft. more of coverage than what we currently have.

    I can tell you, that such a structure would be a monster on this little lot, and a horrible burden on my neighbors, regardless of design review or not. These numbers look fine on paper, until you look at the real street, lot, houses and neighboring houses. We chose not to wreck our lot, or our neighborhood by maxing out. We plan on staying here and I care how it looks.

    A developer often doesn’t currently care if he ruins the street or the environment of his neighbors because he’s not going to live in that house or interact with his neighbors. This is the problem, and has been the problem for years. Design Review has shifted bulk around, but it is simply shifted, not gone, and ends up affecting somebody else. A generous FAR will contiinue to be maxed out by developers seeking a profit.

    The construction of new 4 and 5 bedroom homes is now the norm in Burlingame and it isn’t because people are having more children. If each lot in this town were meant to accomodate a huge home, the size of which I have just described, the lot sizes wouldn’t have been plotted out on this small scale (50X100, or 120) created nearly a century ago.

    Just my Opinion.

  14. Ricardo Ortiz

    I’m sorry. I read it wrong. You would be allowed an additonal 350SF for your garage if in fact yours is detached. Still seems OK to me. Do you know how we compare to other cities in the area?

  15. Ricardo Ortiz

    Hi Jen.

    I was hoping I added correctly so as not to embarrass my Prof. I am courious what is being proposed and how we compare to other cities. Do you know??? I don’t have the exact numbers but I remember my house being up there in the FAR. I hardly feel like I live in a mansion. 3 br 21/2 ba with a small family room. I simply don’t feel my house is unreasonable for my lot but drive by and tell me what you think. I’ll look up the numbers to be sure.

  16. Jen

    Several years ago I researched this. I’d need to go into research mode again to see what changes (if any) have happened in neighboring cities.

  17. Ricardo Ortiz

    From a few days ago. What are the proposals on the table and who on council or running is backing them?

    Rich-

    FAR- Using your lot as an example: According to public records, your lot is 5,500 SF. It also states that you have a detached garage and it looks like you might be on a corner. Under current Regulations, you would be allowed .32 x 5,500+900 SF or 2,660 SF. This includes the garage, basement and accessory buildings?. At 2,660SF, this hardly seems like a monster? size when you subtract the garage. What did you have in mind for a new limit?

  18. Jen

    Ricardo, again, not to interrupt, but as far as I know, there are no issues on the table regarding the FAR. Ours remains very generous. I don’t imagine your 3/2 is a monster. They usually were not. I’m talking 5/4’s which are most commonly built by developers.

    I know you are very busy now, but at some point, you may want to call a couple of cities, like PA, or others that have small, narrow lots, and see how they have tried to mitigate these problems. I did it a number of years ago, and probably have the notes somewhere, but they may need to be updated.

  19. Anonymous

    Hi Jen.

    I have done a little research and haven’t found any FAR requirements. Not everyone has them. I still have a bit more to do.

    My concern is with the comments of how disappointed some of the bloggers were about Rosalie’s unequivocal “no” when Rich asked that question at the forum. I went and did some research and found our current limits to be reasonable. They would have to be very small rooms to fit a 5/4 and a garage in 2,600 SF home. Oviously you and I disagree but I am courious where the question came from. Again, if we are not pleased with our current limits, what are you proposing. If we have and idea, then maybe a debate can begin. Otherwise we are just dissapointed without knowing why. I’ll let you know what I find out about our neighbors.

  20. Jen

    Hi J. roc.

    Which cities don’t have a FAR or the equivalent. I don’t remember that, perhaps some coastal towns like Pacifica, which is a mess. I doubt they even have design review.

    I do know that certain areas of Burlingame Hills are actually part of the County, and have a far larger FAR, also they allow multiple houses on the same lot. Perhaps you didn’t understand my point on the lot sizes. I made a calculation for my own lot, (5000sq. ft. lot). The house allowed would be 2700, and the detached garage 400. I hope Ricardo checked my math. For this lot, that’s a lot of house. Now, this lot size is the smallest lot size in Burlingame, except for the substandard ones, which for some odd reason get allowances on side setbacks (giving an even more crowded look).

    The lots the developers go after are often the 6000 sq. ft. ones, and they put houses on them that are 5/4’s. This is what you are referring to. These are mainly over in the Easton Addition. When I’m more awake I’ll do the math for you, or you can do it yourself. When a 6000 sq. ft. lot is maxed, it is a huge house. I think around 3200, plus the 400sq. ft. garage I believe. Please someone correct me if I’ve miscalculated. That is a big structure in any case.

    As far as solutions, when I researched this, I found various equations. Some cities that just have flat percentage rates (like a flat tax), and there are other solutions. If this becomes a hot item again, we’d need to look around at other places for what works. It came up because it was a question at the first candidates’ forum, and Rosalie ended up having to answer if she would consider reducing the current FAR. Her answer was “no”, and that is why we are talking about it here.

  21. Jen

    By the way, I’m having trouble finding my original post about the Garden Center, so I’ll have to put the info here. I have found out the following information.

    If reports are true that the new owner paid $6 million for the Garden center, then their taxes would be $60,000+ per year. Burlingame receives about 10% of that amount or $6000. If their taxes were reduced to $30,000 per year, Burlingame would receive $3000. So for $3000/year loss of taxes, perhaps the owners could build something besides offices which, I learned, bring no tax revenue.

    A retail or restaurant business would generate quite a bit of sales tax each year which would more than compensate for the property taxes forgone. It’s something to think about, in any case.

  22. Jen

    See, I cannot remove the “was” from my thread. Is it possible to offer quick fixes?

  23. Anonymous

    Done! The webmaster is putting together a new HOW TO to make it easier to start new threads and improve the system. Give him time – he is out earning a living at the moment but he is working on it!

  24. Jen

    For some reason, it’s not letting me post anymore. Anyhow, I’ll have to post the question here…..

    I notice that a bunch of private investors have managed to save Keplers Book Store in MP. I wonder if our residents would have the wherewithall to pull off something like that, here? Or are we too complacent, like with the Broadway train station?

  25. Anonymous

    I’m very pleased about Kepler’s Books coming back. I think it’s important to note that Menlo Park City Councilwoman Kelly Fergusson was also instrumental in gathering public support throughout the county. I know I received several e-mails from her and that was the first I knew of Kepler’s being in trouble. This kind of local leadership is what we should consider when we’re voting for our own City Council in November.

  26. Resident

    I was hoping our own Chamber was going to get aggressive and make a play for Kepler’s to come here. But that would require someone in the Chamber doing something, so alas, it didn’t happen.

  27. Ricardo Ortiz

    Rich- I finally found the appraisal with my home’s measurements and I exceed the Max FAR. I guess I live in one of those monsters they talk about. I think in all fairness to Rosalie, we should ask all the other candidates what you asked her: Do you support a reduction of the maximum allowable FAR? Then we can take a look at the FAR’s of each one to see if they live what they preach. I never did hear from you as to who was proposing anything on this issue?

    By the way, someone pointed you out at assembly at OLA and I remember you helping my son Andres last year when he fell and hit his head. Thank you.

  28. Jen

    Hi Ricardo, it’s hard to imagine that with a 3/2, you exceed the allowable FAR. Those must be quite large rooms, or perhaps you have a couple dens and a very large family room? Still, I’ll trust your math, it’s surely better than mine.

    Yes, it would have been nice to hear answers to the same question by some of the other candidates, particularly because all of us, who are familiar with Rosalie, knew what she would say. That is an area where she has never wavered.

    At the moment, this subject has taken a backseat to many others. I remember a time, when it was so important, and so controversial, that we had a moritorium on new buildings until something could be hammered out. Do you remember that? Eventually, the current design review was developed and certainly the house designs have improved, but relationships between neighbors, and developers could certainly be better, and Rosalie acknowledged this. To me, that means this issue is not yet resolved completely.

    What I do hear about a lot, at some meetings where I happened to have been present, is talk about lack of green space. Also talk about the pros and cons of basements (I admit, I no longer know if they are allowed or not.) Shrinking gardens happen because the FAR has been maxed out. This does indeed affect neighbors and their private space, and has more to do with community values than anything else. We spend more and more time indoors, whether in the house, or working, so the value of the green space, for some, has gone down.

    You can see this in some of these new developments. So little green is devoted to a home, yet people still purchase them. In a town like ours, if enough people shrink their gardens and grow their houses, it has a cumulative affect over years that cannot be easily measured until it is too late. It is the same pattern that we talked about in our downtown thread. A few chains are great anchors, but the culmulative affect of too many is only felt when you’ve reached a certain point and lost the little spaces that make a place more unique. Anyhow, I digress……..

  29. Ricardo Ortiz

    Jen-Many issues here. I feel FAR should be left alone and issues of too much bulk should be addressed by architechtural review. It seems to be what others do. The developer-neighbor issues should not be attached to this discussion. They are real and perhaps we need to come up with a contract to be signed by the developer where they agree to specific actions that they need to take to mitigate their impact on their neighbors. A house across the street from us was just finished and there was very little disruption. They kept the site clean and provided all of us with numbers to call for concerns. As to grenery, even my “monster” has what I feel is nice landscaping. Small but green. Sorry for beating a dead horse but I actually spent some time looking up numbers and wanted to share.

  30. Jen

    Thanks, Ricardo.

  31. Resident

    In continuing discussions on development (and maybe a new topic?), I keep hearing housing on the Bayfront come up (although not by anyone currently on planning commission nor any of the incumbent City Council members running for re-election). Housing on the Bayfront doesn’t make sense to me and I’m looking for someone to justify why they think it makes sense at all.

    Notion is this — all land should be used for its highest potential value. In downtowns that’s commercial use (and historically in big cities and more recently in smaller towns such as Burlingame, commercial with residential above, so called mixed-use). In residential neighborhoods, the highest allowable use that residents will accept is more housing, so that’s all we can build there. Vacant lots and/or parking lots (not multi-story parking structures, but ground level lots) are at the bottom of the spectrum — that is why where land prices are high (NYC, Hong Kong, Tokyo, etc.) you’ll rarely see a ground level parking lot.

    So now we get to the Bayfront’s offices and hotels. Office space in the new millenium is currently junk — drive from South City to San Jose and you’ll see close to 1 in 5 building along the 101 vacant. Hotels, while cartainly not at capacity are a significant source of revenue for the city and represent a much higher revenue source per square foot than does housing. Now I’m thinking about the long term — building housing along the Bayfront would into perpetuity put a comparably low value on that land versus the high value associated with hotels and the correlated occupancy tax. Additionally, it would burden the city with significant one time AND ongoing costs: new streets, new sewers, new sidewalks, new trees, new fire station, new library branch, new school. So – on a purely financial basis, can someone help me to understand the rationale for doing this, especially given that previous planning commissions and city councils have all approved specific plans that don’t put housing out there.

  32. Motives

    Sometimes the rationale is a very “personal” one versus “public”. Often times its developers and contractors builders who are pushing these agendas.

  33. Jen

    You are right about that. I also see all these hotels that are pretty empty, and wonder what would happen if parts were rehabed into (for example) housing for seniors. In this case, seniors may not need to drive, a van would do, thus no big traffic impacts.

    This debate is happening in several cities, including SF and NY, where condos are being considered in parts of hotels. This wouldn’t ruin the bay with more housing being built, and is really reuse of extant structures, something I personally like.

  34. Ray Park

    The streets are already there, the sewers are already there. Trees??? Fire station, School?? This location would be closer to schools and libraries than many in the hills. Police and fire already cover that area so it becomes only about occupancy tax revenues vs. no tax revenues which is a very valid argument. Is there a hotel proposed for the area? My understanding was that there has never been a proposal for a Hotel. Now in the absence of a hotel, if we are comparing a Biotech business with few sales tax revenue opportunities, why not housing?

  35. Resident

    I think I was misunderstood. Yes, building re-use /conversion to senior housing would reduce traffic impact (assuming non-driving seniors) versus new construction, but my concern is with the negative impact to TOT revenues. Hotels & businesses are the highest potential revenue sources for that land, and I believe that any reduced use wouldn’t maximize city revenues.

  36. Resident

    “Why not look at housing because nobody has come to us with a hotel proposal today?” Well – because I think the city of Burlingame is going to be around past the end of today, meaning that you don’t give up valuable land for housing because no proposal is pending today. The space next to Chicken Chicken is empty now + nobody wants to move in today. Same story.

    With economic recovery, and potential Virgin airline hub location in SF (or did they decide to hub at LAX?) we’ll see increased hotel demand in that area, but agree that for now, it’s waiting for that demand to come. Problem with housing is that once it’s housing, you can’t turn it into a hotel once the economy picks up again.

  37. Ray Park

    Good point about the future but my guess is that that land will be developed one way or another within a few years. I just don’t see that sitting empty for many years waiting for a hotel to come along. I agree that a hotel should be the first choice but short of that, housing should remain an option.

  38. Ray Park

    HEY!!! What about a hotel with luxury condos. This might make the project happen because of the housing element but would provide the tax revenues we clamor for. A new version of mixed use.

  39. Jen

    I do agree with resident about not constructing new housing on the Bay. There are still plenty of areas closer to town, where there is already housing and services. When we run out of space elsewhere, (and I wonder if I’ll be around then) well, it’s a new ballgame. But again, to me, it’s sprawling.

    I was talking about rehab of hotels for condos., just very small scale, because that balance of TOT is a problem. But have our hotels ever been 70-80% full, does anyone know? Maybe we really don’t need all those hotel rooms, even in good times.

    For brand-new projects, (as opposed to rehab projects) I’d still prefer a biotech, where we could possibly negotiate for more Bay access.

  40. Resident

    Jen –

    I believe I was looking at data that showed Burlingame hotel occupancy between 80% and 90% generally for the period up to 2001, but now we’re closer to 70%. But I’m just trying to remember those numbers off the top of my head — let me see if I can dig up the actuals.

    I think I also saw a story that said we’re also seeing further TOT decline because hotels booked through Expedia and other consolidators aren’t correctly passing TOT to the cities in which the hotels are specifically located pp i.e. if I paid for my hotel room through Expedia, the money goes to Hyatt corporate (not Hyatt Burlingame) based in whoknowswhere, USA, and those moneys aren’t making their way back to Burlingame in TOT tax payments. I believe (although I’m not completely sure) that there is litigation pending on this matter. Something to ask Jesus or Larry. Jesus may be easier, as I’m sure even bringing up the question would somehow violate Larry’s favorite question stopper, the infamous Brown Act.

  41. Resident

    Ray – Genius! I like your idea. That is something I might be able to get behind. Addresses my TOT issues + we get the double bonus of property taxes on top of it! Other component to consider is hotel on bottom (or wherever, just work with me here), condos on top, AND rental units in-between. The rental units would allow the hotel to balance hotel versus apartments depending on the economy. With hotel occupancy rates currently sagging, units would be apartments. When hotel occupancy rates trend upwards, apartments could be converted to hotel rooms. You could probably get a developer behind this idea even with relatively low hotel occupancy rates since it’d be offset by condo sales.

  42. Jen

    Yes, this was what I was referring to above. The condo transitions are picking up attention all over, but not without controversy, perhaps because of TOT. Thanks for those figures, resident. I am very surprised at how full these hotels were, good for us. 70 isn’t great, but respectable. Maybe turn 25% into housing, and that will keep the remaining 75% in higher demand, so Expedia won’t rip us off!

Leave a Reply

RECENT COMMENTS

RECENT POSTS

CATEGORIES

ABOUT THE VOICE

The Burlingame Voice is dedicated to informing and empowering the Burlingame community.  Our blog is a public forum for the discussion of issues that relate to Burlingame, California.  Opinions posted on the Burlingame Voice are those of the poster and commenter and not necessarily the opinion of the Editorial Board.  Comments are subject to the Terms of Use.

COPYRIGHT NOTICE

All content subject to Copyright 2003-2026

Discover more from The Burlingame Voice

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading