The downtown specific area draft
plan was unveiled on Wednesday night.
A citizen’s advisory committee has
worked along side a hired planning consultant for the past two years, resulting
in a vision for downtown that capitalizes on what has worked in downtown
Burlingame so successfully for so many years. Some of the improvements
suggested are ones that recognize what’s good about downtowns in general. The
plan calls for more open space, respect for the area’s architectural and
cultural heritage, traffic calming and design guidelines that echo the
architectural details that create the current visual language of the area.
The committee has obviously wrestled
with how to increase density while keeping the character of the neighborhood.
It is clear from the design guidelines that they looked to balance the need for
growth and revitalization in some areas with the need to retain downtown’s
quaint appeal.
The draft of the plan is solid, but
I believe the unveiling of the plan went sideways. There were suggestions from
some, in particular from current and incoming council members that heights
should rise perhaps as high as seven stories in some areas of downtown. From
the conversation, one could conclude that some of these folks feel the height
should be determined by how much developers could prosper—or in their words,
how well the projects would “pencil out.”
When times are tough and city
revenues are suffering, some look for the quickest way to earn revenue for the
city. Rapid development is always the easiest answer.
A few years later, however, these
same leaders might find themselves struggling with increased demand for police
and fire service, on water, sewer, parking, and traffic. Perhaps these leaders
should play the video game “SimCity” and try to build density in a virtual city
to see the domino effect one action has on another before they practice their
theory on Burlingame?
Our bordering cities Millbrae and
San Mateo are both in the throws of increasing their density. Do we think that
their budget woes will be absolved by adding even more people to their
populations? My guess is that increased density will put an even greater strain
on their cities’ budgets.
All cities struggle with the correct
balance of growth. A remark was made that the North-end Specific Plan,
developed in a similar fashion in the early 2000s had not yet resulted in any
tangible projects and that it should be deemed a failure, while in fact,
several projects have already begun there, in the midst of a deep recession.
This plan has been in the works and studied in depth for two years
by staff, various consultants and a very diverse group of stakeholders,
including a well-versed land use attorney. The parameters on height and density
incorporated into the draft plan were indeed those presumed feasible by an
economist over a year ago.
Our quaint charm, our small town community feel,
is the draw for many visitors and residents. It is a primary economic driver.
Will these suggested increases in building heights disrupt what has been the
differentiating selling point and the envy of every other peninsula city? Are
they suggesting we cut off our nose despite our face? Are they suggesting we kill the goose that laid the golden egg?
The plan can be viewed here:
www.burlingame.org/Index.aspx?page=971
