Dedicated to Empowering and Informing the Burlingame Community

Rec Center – Same Story, Different Day

At Fred's insistence, here is a fresh post on the Rec Center design plan from the latest Daily Journal article.  I still don't see anything new except the conceptual drawing (click through to see it) and the off-hand comments from four council members — two of whom choose to ignore all the community input to date that the architects used.  For example

Councilman Michael Brownrigg said he felt the proposed designs were uninspired, and encouraged the architect to take a more creative approach.  Brownrigg suggested the building styles looked dull, which is likley a byproduct of crowdsourcing design suggestions.

“When you have a bunch of people it always comes down to the lowest common denominator. You can’t expect something really interesting to come out of the democratic process” he said. “I just find this boring.”

He said the building in many ways looked too similar to some school buildings in Burlingame, and suggested the planners draw inspiration from the architecture found on Burlingame Avenue for a more creative and interesting vision.

I guess the concept of neighborhood consistency goes out the window.  I also wonder where the desire for an interesting vision was when the Soviet-style "The Trousdale" was in front of the council–and had funding?

The bottom line is still the same as it was back in September or January 2013.  And I'm still pondering which model of Ferrari to not buy.  Will B'gamers go for a parcel tax for this?  Maybe the community outreach should first answer that question to the tune of $15, $20, $25 or the original $30 million estimate.

Posted in

35 responses to “Rec Center – Same Story, Different Day”

  1. Bruce Dickinson

    Well, well, well, look who got into the taste making business all of a sudden? Yes, the Burlingame City Council of all bodies. With the Rec Center, for the first time we don’t see the brick-and-glass modern architecture that has infiltrated Burlingame like a cancer and here we have something that harkens to the high school and Burlingame train station, and now we have Association of International Architects chiming in all of a sudden! Is it just me, or does this Bruce Dickinson detect something is amiss, particularly given the scathing comments from Nagel and Brownrigg? So what gives? Is this a case of OPM versus YOM? Let me elaborate, if you will.
    When it’s OPM, or Other People’s Money, namely developers proposing projects who grease the paws, of various governmental bodies, ya know what I mean? allowing council members to conveniently look away, count the tax dollars, and reserve the criticism for other stuff where they know they don’t have much downside. In the case of YOM or Your Own Money, when you gotta spend it (or in this case the money doesn’t really exist, as it were), the bar is higher all of a sudden. C’mom guys, do you have to make it so obvious? Sometimes I think government thinks they’re always dealing with an electorate that is a bag of hammers! Or is it that an outside architectural firm, not one of the local Burlingame ones, is doing the work the issue? Who knows, quite frankly, it doesn’t matter but the scrutiny and comments seem like a double standard to me. Bruce Dickinson loves the comment that the problem is from ‘crowdsourcing or democracy” as opposed to a single source (aka ‘dictatorship’ ya know what I mean)? Well I hope that view isn’t reflective of YOUR OWN OFFICE, buddy! where you were democratically elected and people expect you to act as a representative! One would think given Brownriggs diplo- background, he should know better than to say this.
    Like I said earlier and as mentioned by Joe and several others that unilateral architecture, rubber stamped by our own City Council, including the property on California, that Which Wich building, the senior facility, the new monster on Carolan, some of the condos near Trousdale is where there should have been a lot more scrutiny. All we heard there was crickets chirping followed by a rubber stamp hitting the approval documents.
    Call my intelligence insulted!!!

  2. hollyroller@hotwire.com

    The need for a new Rec Center is without a doubt a reckless waste of time and energy from all City of Burlingame employees.
    Considering the amount of new homes/condos, business parks being put forward those corporations will have plenty of need, and recourses to provide the same and more than a City of Burlingame Dept could ever provide.
    Plus, The lack of interference from the City Council regarding management and fees for the people who will live and work there.
    I am always surprised and disappointed that this ridiculous concept of spending 7-8 Million Dollars to create a Recreation Center come up again and again.

  3. Lorne

    If I understand correctly, the total estimated cost for this project is closer to $30 million, if not slightly above. The estimate for constructing the proposed building is $15.2 million, and in addition to this, $9 million to $10.5 million is estimated for parking accommodation and relocating the playgrounds, as well as another $7.7 million to $8.2 million for “soft costs.”

  4. Lorne

    And just a bit more detail about the meeting for what it’s worth, as I attended it:
    In addition to staff and all five Council members, former Mayor/Council member Cathy Baylock and Park and Rec commissioner/City Council candidate Donna Colson participated. Both sit on the Community Center Master Plan Citizens Advisory Council (“CAC”) along with Council members Keighran and Ortiz.
    I’m fairly certain the other three Council candidates were not there (not surprising, given the meeting occurred when many people are on summer vacation); that said, Emily Beach’s husband was in attendance taking notes.
    Here is a list of the current CAC members (I requested this list directly from the Park and Rec department, as I couldn’t find it anywhere on the city’s website):
    Ann Keighran, Ariana Ebing, Carolyn Tang, Cathy Baylock, Dawn Merkes, Donna Colson, Erik Winkler, Janet Martin, Jeff Londer, Jennifer Pfaff, Laura Hesselgren, Mary Hunt, Julie Baird, Margaret Glomstad, Karen Hager, Ricardo Ortiz, Vance Stoner and William Loftis.

  5. Bruce Dickinson

    Aha!! there you have it! Bruce Dickinson knew something was weird about the out of no-where architectural critiques from Nagel and Brownrigg on this project, when they rubber stamp other odes to poop projects all over the city without batting an eye. Look who wasn’t on the CAC design team (in contrast to Keighran and Ortiz who were there with other community members). Talk about sulking party-poopers.
    Guys, seriously, the city council position is practically a volunteer job, so really, stop acting like 8 year olds and throwing tantrums in the public space. You’re not getting paid for it and not really helping anyone except your eggshell egos. It makes you look bad, and quite frankly explains quite a few things about the decision making, or lack thereof, of those council members. Leave the intra-council bickering for your own time and allow the community to have a voice on the over-priced community rec area and stop wasting our time on senseless debate, put on your big boy pants and start critiquing the architecture that everybody hates. Bruce Dickinson needs to lecture you on how to behave then maybe you can graduate from diapers to big boy (or girl) pants. I may be an old man, but I know a thing or two about being successful and how to cultivate consumer opinions. Let me give you a hint: what you’re doing isn’t the secret sauce, ya know what I mean? The community’s voices are ones you should be embracing and if you have meaningful content to contribute, then join that group and demonstrate some talent.
    Guys, seriously, grow up!!

  6. HMB

    Anything would be better than that crap building that’s there now. The room that is used for piano lessons has got to have walls full of mold — it absolutely reeks of mildew. And it’s amazing the building hasn’t blown up — from the smell there’s clearly a gas leak in the kitchen. I’m surprised the folks that work in that building haven’t started suing for health problems from being exposed to all the noxious smells. I could care less whether the building is distinguished or not, but there needs to be some serious work done.

  7. Laura

    You are so right HMB. The current rec center has portions that are structurally unsound, has employees packed into every possible space and the smell of gas from the kitchen is strong. This is suppose to be our number one evacuation center in case of a disaster. If there is a dance, wedding or something else going on at that time, it may well be our number one rescue sight! We desperately need a new center and one just has to walk through the building to realize that!
    I find it laughable that certain Councilmen/women state that the lack of vision they see in this project, comes from too much community input. Are you kidding me? Yes, the CAC did go to the Community to get their thoughts and input on the Center. They held meeting after meeting, went to every possible group or event being held in Burlingame and tried to get as much input as possible when coming up with the design. From that input, the architects came up with five different designs which were narrowed down to four, then three and then two. All with community input and not with just the members of the CAC. They took into consideration the parking concerns of the neighbors, the concerns of mother’s with children playing in the park, the tennis players, senior citizens and the list goes on and on. I find it laughable that Council feels this way and laughable that they’d rather have their vision in the Community Center than the Communities!

  8. Peter Garrison

    Power to the People! Allez mes enfants!

  9. Lorne

    Still remain unconvinced as to whether we need a tear-down, as opposed to making improvements to what we already have (analogous to a lot of well-functioning, older homes in Burlingame, to which improvements have been made over time). Either way, my biggest concern with this project is how the tax structure will play out for residents. If this is paid for via general obligation bonds, newer home/property owners will get totally hosed – as they’ll end up paying the majority of the cost/tax (due to the assessed value tax structure inherent with general obligation bonds).

  10. Lorne

    And just as a quick add on, I don’t believe the link to the SM Daily Journal article in Joe’s original post above works. Here’s the correct link:
    http://www.smdailyjournal.com/articles/lnews/2015-08-24/officials-scrutinize-community-center-plan-financial-and-design-concerns-plague-proposed-project-in-burlingame/1776425148944

  11. Jennifer

    Lorne, three years ago, I was with you, 300%. Then I got “the tour”. Have you had one? The building is a hodge podge of add-ons and make-dos and it has served this community really, really well for a long, long time. BUT we are so short on rental space in this city for large and small functions, and could be offering many more (and different) types of classes to the community. To do that by retrofitting this structure would probably be good money after bad, and I’m the type who would save a nice, old house, because the substance is often very good. However, this is not the case with the Recreation Center.
    Living nearby, I can tell you that parking is really an issue and it overflows into all the neighboring streets, so a garage of some sort is a necessary part of the project. If you see how the classes function (and many teachers and other volunteer class leaders have been there for decades) you can see how constrained they are in a number of ways, down to bare-bone basics like heat and air conditioning not functioning properly. The kitchen smells of gas most of the time. Yes, almost everything can be fixed but for how long do you patch stuff together?
    There will surely be watchful community eyes with regard to staff offices, etc., because if these are over the top, this community will lose faith in the whole project, and it will never garner enough support and necessary funding, no matter what that mechanism will be.

  12. Joe

    Thanks for the heads up on the link. It is now fixed.

  13. j. mir

    My requirements for the new rec center.
    1) make it attractive
    2) make it look like an asset to the community
    3) give it 15 rooms. 10 small 5 large
    4) 50 parking spaces
    That’s it. That’s all needed. What is so complicated about it.
    We spent 10 years building a grocery store. Please please PLEASE people, let us not spend another 10 years building a new (and badly needed) rec center.

  14. Jennifer

    We spent maybe 4 years (tops) building a grocery store, and 6 years waiting around for Safeway, with several breaks in between.

  15. Russ

    No need for a bond to fund the rec center. With all the new development going on, all the council needs to do is ask those developers for “public benefits.” Other cities do this as a matter of routine. If each developer kicked in a few million dollars apiece for every project, we would have this thing funded in no time with no tax payer dollars.
    Here’s another way, “Teardown Tax.” For every house that’s torn down, institute a fee of $25K that goes directly into the rec center enterprise fund. Again, no tax payer dollars, but rather private funds.
    Here’s another: Sell naming rights: Call it the Benioff, Ellison, Zuckerberg, Gates, Tesla, Twitter, VirginAmerica, fill in the blank, Center for Recreation and community Excellence.”
    And the last one: The Bruce Dickenson writes Burlingame a big check.

  16. Balance is everything.

    Most buildings are not built to last forever, especially not with ever changing building codes, and especially not in our neck of the woods with the potential for large earthquakes.
    So, if one of the main rationales for addressing the community center is for seismic and hazardous materials issues (and lots of public schools and other gov’t buildings still have asbestos ceiling tiles, etc simply painted over) – then tearing down the community center and starting over definitely makes the most sense.
    And gov’t buildings like the community center were built to be utilitarian, just like our particular downtown Post Office (unlike San Mateo’s, Palo Alto’s, etc)…
    “Bond, James Bond” ahh the intrigue and mystery and ‘politics’ of running a small city. Not really.
    Actually, it should be common sense to use fiscal responsibility in running an organization and a community that intends to be fiscally healthy…forever, right?
    Do we really need a “sustainability manager”, or should we just try to keep sustainability in mind and save on the salary and the forever benefits? Really, who thinks that this was a good hire?
    A new community center is probably the MOST worthy capital expenditure project, but no family, no organization, no company can do all of its ideal capital projects, all at once, can they?
    Why are we talking about city hall and Howard Ave Streetscape expansion and the community center?
    Some regimes just believe that its OK to spend-spend-spend, build-build-build now-now-now to fuel construction and labor contracts (who really only care about themselves), and disregard the position it will put the community in, in the future – let alone if a major earthquake does eventually strike our area – then Burlingame would be sunk.
    Russ, mix used projects that include significant retail and apartments can fund community centers as part of the project (like the Post Office project offering a public grassy park on the roof). Here’s a great example being considered in Cupertino: http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20150828005630/en/Complete-Transformation-Mixed-Use-Town-Center-30-Acre-Park
    Naming rights can help to boost BCEs annual funds for schools, if only we had the 49ners or Giants considering the Bayshore area.
    My friends and frienemies who own Burlingame Ave won’t like me saying this (again), but ultimately California needs both much more fiscal responsibility and also to re-work Prop 13, so that commercial property owners who get a new lease that’s…double…the former value then get reassessed and have to pay more property tax off the *leased value*, not off the value from 20-30-40 years ago with Prop 13 limitation escalations.
    No question, the Dems know how to come up with new taxes everywhere (they’ll pushing to introduce a Prop 13 re-do in 2018,
    http://www.latimes.com/local/politics/la-me-prop-13-20150610-story
    …it’s the fiscal responsibility that they ditch during their annual (or perhaps weekly) Burning Man LSD/Ecstasy trips.
    Balance is everything.

  17. hollyroller@hotwire.com

    How about increasing Green Space, instead of car space?
    I recall people wanting to tear down the Rec Center, and the Park Dept. Yard, and improve/expand Washington Park.
    There is plenty of room for both facilities in other parts of Burlingame.
    Neither should be in a “setting” such as it is.
    That is a NO Brainer to me.

  18. Joe

    In the interest of keeping this post up to date, especially with specific costs, I am reposting Lorne’s comment from another thread here:
    I submitted the following letter which appeared in the Daily Post earlier this week:
    Dear Editor:
    A major issue facing Burlingame is how to address approximately $100 million of unfunded infrastructure projects, including a possible new community center.
    Indeed, the question of how to fund a new community center was posed during a recent City Council candidates forum.
    However, different cost estimates — $15 million and $40 million — were cited by two council candidates.
    I subsequently confirmed the estimated cost with Burlingame Parks and Recreation Director Margaret Glomstad. She confirmed $15 million refers to the current estimated cost of the new building, itself. However, the new building cannot be constructed without necessary site work, which includes relocation of the current playground and creating dedicated parking.
    The current estimated cost of this site work is between $8.9 million to $10.5 million.
    Additionally, estimated “soft costs” for the project total between $7.7 million to $8.2 million. Thus, the total current estimated cost of the new community center is approximately $32 million to $34 million.
    However, the parks and recreation director also indicated these estimates do not include the cost of a temporary facility while the new building is being constructed.
    And should the city need to issue voter-approved bonds to finance the entire project, these estimates do not include bond interest, which a new tax would also need to cover.
    Assuming an average 20-year bond maturity and 4% interest rate, interest could conceivably add another $15 million to $20 million to the cost.
    Thus, the total cost could be closer to $50 million.

  19. Lorne

    Looks like the city is aiming for a bond/tax ballot measure in November, given the Council study session this coming Monday:
    https://docs.google.com/gview?url=http%3A%2F%2Fburlingameca.legistar1.com%2Fburlingameca%2Fmeetings%2F2016%2F2%2F1040_A_City_Council_16-02-29_Meeting_Agenda.pdf&embedded=true

  20. Lorne

    Daily Post (Palo Alto, CA)
    City considering rec center bonds
    Published: March 1, 2016
    Burlingame City Council is looking at a plan to use bonds to renovate the city’s antiquated recreational center, Councilman Ricardo Ortiz told the Post. Ortiz said the overall cost of rebuilding the rec center, located at 850 Burlingame Ave., will be between $37 million and $47 million. The bond proposal could go before the city’s voters this year or next, he said.
    City Council held a study session yesterday to look at when and how the council should propose a series of financial measures to the center, Ortiz told said.
    “It was not a discussion about if, but about when and how we will do this,” he said, adding that the council had over the past couple of years looked at a number of potential projects to work on before making the rec center the top priority. Ortiz said the center was seismically unsafe.
    The city will use bonds in order to fund the project and will take the proposal to the voters either this year or next year, but Ortiz was not sure exactly when that would happen.
    “We haven’t decided yet,” he said. “The study session was looking at the strategy of how to do this.”
    If the council chooses to take the proposal for bonds to the voters next year, it would mean a smaller voter turnout and the council needs to weigh the benefits of waiting until 2017 or bring it to the ballot this year, a presidential election, when the voter turnout will be at its largest.

  21. Joe

    Thanks, Lorne. I saw the article in print. Where did you find it online?

  22. Lorne

    Here you go, Joe: http://nl.newsbank.com/sites/sfdb/
    Here’s another article which appeared in today’s SM Daily Journal in case anyone missed it:
    http://www.smdailyjournal.com/articles/lnews/2016-03-02/burlingame-officials-examine-a-variety-of-potential-tax-measures-initiative-could-be-spent-toward-large-capital-improvement-projects/1776425159370
    I realize things are constantly in flux (which now includes adding Hoover School vicinity street safety as a major priority, obviously), but I’m a bit confounded as to why there doesn’t appear to be more consensus of the Council’s priorities beyond the rec center – particularly given the 2014 survey based on the public’s input; the public’s “very critical” top 5 priorities were (in descending order):
    1) Downtown Parking Garage
    2) Bayview Park
    3) Downtown Streetscape (I guess this can be now be removed from the list)
    4) Community Center
    5) Fire Station Improvements
    Here’s the corresponding staff report, with the rest of the rankings, for reference; see the table starting on page 2:
    https://www.scribd.com/doc/239538682/Burlingame-Unfunded-Infrastructure-Funding-and-Tax-Options
    Also, with regard to the rec center, aren’t we still in the process of working on a final design (and my understanding is it will still not have a gym, like the current rec center)? Furthermore, exactly how much extra revenue is expected to be generated from event rentals? And what would be the incremental ongoing expenses of operating the new center (above and beyond the current rec center’s operating expenses)?

  23. Lorne

    FYI, it appears the current estimate for a new rec center, as currently envisioned/designed, has risen to $51.5-$56.7 million (see link below to staff report for this coming Monday’s Council study session). The city is exploring two options/modifications to bring the overall project cost down; this would entail additional consulting/design work costing between $50,000-$100,000.
    https://www.scribd.com/document/374064940/Burlingame-Community-Center-Updated-Cost-Estimates

  24. Cassandra

    B-Game’s HSR.

  25. Bruce Dickinson

    As the poster above mentioned, Bruce Dickinson thinks this Rec Center is spiraling out of control as I presciently predicted when the first discussions were held on this a few years back. We are now up to $2,200 per square foot for a new rec center!!!
    Why do you need all this wrangling, debate and committees? Even under the various options, the most obvious and easy decision isn’t even highlighted. Just keep the existing playground footprint, the existing tennis courts, keep the existing parking, the existing rec center footprint but make it larger by going two stories? As mentioned many times before, this comes out to $20-25 million dollars tops.
    No need to reinvent the wheel. We know the Rec Center is seismically unsafe, so replace it and make it larger by building up. There is no need to build a whole new town here.
    Finally what people don’t even mention is that the existing space is rather inefficient in usage such the courtyard that is rendered redundant by having all this outdoor space in the park. Make more efficient use of the footprint and building up will increase the space and everything can function pretty much as it already does, which is fine even if you have to walk a block away to park your car.

  26. hollyroller

    This “Concept” at this time is absolutely ridiculous.
    There is plenty of land-owned by us, City of Burlingame available to build a Recreation Center out at the Bay Front.
    Please look at what Redwood City, Foster City, and San Mateo, has done with developing their Bay Fronts.
    The ‘Shoe Horning” of building a City of Burlingame Recreation Center in a densely populated residential area, Long Term Medical Facilities as well as the congestion of a Railway, and the Downtown Business district, there really is NO WAY a Viable “Government” financed Recreation Center should be considered.
    What is wrong with our current City Elders?
    I bet Dollars to Doughnuts, the City of Burlingame Elders are not aware of Monies being spent on putting this ridiculous waste of time.
    Lets ask every single Elder what their position is.
    Mr. Dickenson, can you use your influence/clout to ask for a response so we can put this to rest?
    Kind Regards,
    Holly

  27. Laura

    Putting the rec center on the Bay is a ridiculous idea. Then no one would be able to walk or ride a bike to it. Summer camp wouldn’t be able to walk to the pool, baseball fields, tennis courts etc. The location is great and it should not be changed.
    Bruce, I live near the rec center and where do you propose people park if you go up but not down to park cars. To double the size and not provide adequate parking is unacceptable to the Lyon Hoag neighborhood. The proposed hall plans to seat up to 300 people and to have that hall with no parking, puts an undue burden on the neighborhood. People are not going to walk a block to an event. They are going to park all over the neighborhood as it’s closer.
    Construction costs are up all over the Bay. Of course they are as we have bulldozed every warehouse office combo development all over the Peninsula and replaced it or are in the process of replacing it with offices. We have shoved our electricians, plumbers, cabinet makers, concrete plants out to the valley and we are paying for that. The cost is not just the rec center it also includes soft costs to have a place for employees to work and to run programs while under construction. You then need to add 30% for union contractors and every year we wait, the costs go up.

  28. Cassandra

    The rec center could be a $50 million babysitting service.
    Language classes, art classes, knitting classes can be had at community college.
    Instead of “recreating” how about if we have the kids create something? Instead of a rec center how about a trade school in Washington Park? How about having the kids go out on the bayfront and start building a berm that will protect the city from the rising sea level?
    How about giving each citizen a cut of the $50 million and they can spend it however they want on recreation?

  29. Bruce Dickinson

    Laura, Bruce Dickinson understands exactly what you mean, however, I should explain my point of view a more clear: I do not believe that making the Rec center 50% greater in square footage (let alone doubling) will result in a significantly greater need for parking, because a greater need for parking is based on higher utilization of the center. Is there really this huge expansion of Burlingame community events where capacity is an issue? I thought the issue was seismic safety and that the current size was fine for a community of 30k people. Maybe it will be used more for 300 person gatherings, though not sure how different that is from today (where it is used for some school fundraisers with as many people).
    If parking is such a huge issue in the neighborhood, then build a new rec center with the SAME square footage as the existing one. Will be $15 million dollars tops and that way all can be placated and it’s even cheaper!
    I can just say from my personal experience, Bruce Dickinson has felt completely comfortable driving my Ferrari to the Rec Center parking on the street and walking on over to the Rec building or Washington Park. Rarely do I have to more than one block, and yes, sometimes it may be in a spot in front of the house in the adjacent neighborhood. If it’s acceptable now, it will be acceptable with a similarly-sized Rec center or a Rec center that has the same utilization as today.

  30. hollyroller

    It is unfortunate that business, homeowners/renters, have not commented on this very important Civic Investment.
    Hiring an “Outside” Consulting Community Development Corporation, of which there are Hundreds now in the Bay Area, should be invested in.
    The results should then be published on a Community Web site, such as BV.
    I believe this project is a Folly completely based on the Ego of the City Manager, and Park and Recreation Director (neither of who live in Burlingame) continue to seek a “Limelight” to justify their embarrassingly Wage/Benefit package’s.
    I am all for employees to get the most they can.
    Nevertheless, between the two of them- City Manager and Park and Recreation Director, their combined pay packages are over $1.8 Million a year.
    I am not complaining. Just amazed.

  31. time for a diaper change…the voters will never do it.

    As someone who’s family and kids grew up for many years renting out the Rec Center for birthday parties (sometimes catered by Roti), having my daughter attend ballet classes there, and my son’s karate, baseball at the fields, my children learning to swing and climb and make friends on the playground, watching as a huge tree collapsed in high wind towards the rose bushes luckily in safety, enjoying the new bocce courts with my son, perhaps now apologetic about my wonderful cigar that I enjoyed while playing, and volunteering regularly for the Lincoln Dads Club driven Lobsterfest…
    …I have some perspective on the Community Center amenity.
    As much as I admire Michael Brownrigg for being a smart, well educated and well spoken guy…did he really say the following?
    “When you have a bunch of people it always comes down to the lowest common denominator. You can’t expect something really interesting to come out of the democratic process” he said. “I just find this boring.”
    I mean, I see how the lowest common denominator is not the best solution for a community, but that’s brutal. Has he taken to regular pot smoking now that it’s ‘legal’?
    As the same guy that advised me under his breath to criticize the free health care for life for you and your partner after only 5 years of service to the city if you retire after 50 years of age, which led to a gun-point assault against me (where I was knocked unconscious by the attacker’s bottle and cut in the face)…I now find his perspective just so spoiled-brat, don’t you?
    Giving a competitor advice that you probably knew would result in perhaps violent attacks was unethical and wrong, don’t you agree, sir?
    It sure is much easier to finance a major construction project if a public-private partnership is part of the design, whereby concessionaires have contracts that get bidded out periodically.
    As I suggested a few years ago, Active Sports, founded by the founders of ClubSport health clubs, are now opening new Active Sport health clubs and also has experience designing and building and running public/private Community Centers. I believe that the founder, Jill Kinney, lives in Belvedere, CA, so she’s local and ultra knowledgeable and proven.
    Michael, you know well that seeking input from the community is part of the essential role of the city council. However, the analysis paralysis of too many Bay Area city councils is really just vanity and hubris.
    Back to the Community Center, perhaps the town should consult an expert on public-private community center development and listen to the community to guide the ultimate outcome that THEY want. https://activesportsclubs.com/about/

  32. Laura

    First Holy, our Park Director is one of the best I’ve dealt with. The things she has done and the ideas she has come up with for events that cost very little but time, are amazing. I can assure you, she is not “building” a rec center to feed her ego. She is there most days, early in the morning till late in the evening and dedicates a tremendous amount of time to the City. Plus, the Community, businesses, homeowners and renters have had input for a year on this project. Of course they have commented and of course their comments have been heard.
    Bruce, the current Rec center, if built the same way, does not meet current codes for parking. If not underground, they would need to take more park space for asphalt. There is no public parking on site, except as you said, in front of someone’s home. You don’t think those residents deserve to be able to have a guest or themselves park in front of their own home? Often times, those that surround the rec center are forced to park blocks away as you,arriving at the Rec center for a class or event, are parked there. Bet you can park in front of your home?
    Last but not least, yes Michael’s comments were unfortunate. However, in his defense on this as I usually don’t agree with him on much, having been on this committee, I was very disappointed in the way the project looked that was presented to the Council. It did look like a school and it was quite boring. Looking at it from the park, was amazing and what people had asked for. From the street, a school. He was trying to get a more interesting look but was concerned about time and did not want it to drag on for another year.

  33. hollyroller

    Thank you Laura.
    I will look at things from a different perspective for a while.
    Wasn’t Mr. Brownrigg in the Diplomatic Corp at one time?

  34. Bruce Dickinson

    Laura, yes I understand your perspective. Living in Burlingame Park, Bruce Dickinson can rarely park one of my cars in front of my house (other than the driveway and garage) as so many people park Burlingame Ave and the nearby Pershing Park. Unfortunately it is a fact of life in this City and agree, it’s not ideal and it ain’t gettin’ better now that parking incentives are geared toward fewer spaces with multi family housing as well as smaller spaces are allowed for compact cars, as an incentive to builders.
    As an aside, for those who may be wondering, my vast car collection is housed in a special facility in Burlingame.

  35. Lorne

    Measure I sales tax, which is being used in large part to help fund the new rec center, goes into effect this Sunday, April 1. It’s actually a sales and USE tax – which means online purchases of goods delivered to/consumed in Burlingame are theoretically subject to the tax, as well (i.e., Amazon). See the actual ordinance, sections 10.060 and 10.070 (on the 7th page of this 13 page PDF):
    https://www.smcacre.org/sites/main/files/file-attachments/burlingame_resolutionmeasurefulltext_0.pdf

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