Category: City Council

  • City Council: At least District 3 will be competitive

    The news that council member Michael Brownrigg will not seek re-election in the Fall was made official this week. Voice readers were not surprised as we wrote that more than a month ago, when Michael told me he would make the announcement at the April 6th city council meeting as noted here on the Town Square post. Apparently, that didn’t happen until now as the Daily Journal picked it up yesterday and is highlighting two candidates who will seek the D3 seat. At least we will have one race. We shall see if anyone files to compete with Andrea Pappajohn (D1) or Peter Stevenson (D5) who are both up for re-election on Nov. 3rd.

    The two D3 candidates, Jen Faber and Howard Wettan, are starting earlier than usual driven by the open seat. I know both candidates having met with both one-on-one for more than an hour to talk over local issues as they explored running. Jen Faber and her work with BCE was profiled here and I didn’t write up Howard after we met. Here are a few early thoughts on an early-starting race:

    The move to Five Little Districts we discussed in 2021 here continue to do city governance no favors. In a small city of a shade over 30,000 people, it makes no sense to carve it up in little pieces. First, it takes away 4 of the 5 votes residents used to have. As we are seeing this time around, it also diminishes good candidates’ opportunities to win a seat. Jen and Howard are both strong candidates and, in my opinion, would be uber competitive in a city-wide race against the incumbents up for re-election. But they are corralled into competing just against each other.

    In the meantime, it is quite possible we will have no competitive election in one or both of D1 and D5. Is there really that much difference in issues between little districts? Does anyone feel better represented? I know locals who kind of pay attention and still don’t know who “their” councilmember is. Having to vote every four years instead of every two doesn’t help voter engagement. Nor does it do much for candidate engagement–nobody is knocking on doors outside of their little district.

    Both D3 candidates are strong. Both are committed to B’game. Both have assembled solid endorsements. Both will be sufficiently funded (about the only benefit of little districts is the savings on postage). We shall see how the candidate forums play out and whether people see a clear issues-based choice or vote on person knowledge. At least we will have one race.

    P.S. Michael was appointed to the Planning Commission in 2001–more like 25 years of service, not 16. 

  • Sobering up in Burlingame instead of San Mateo

    We have not had a Guest Author on the Voice in quite awhile, but when San Matean David Long asked me why I had not weighed in on the “sobering center” controversy I asked him to pen his perspective for us. I wasn’t really paying attention to the issue when it was in San Mateo and he has, as you will read here. The DJ had a piece two days ago that noted

    San Mateo County will purchase a $13 million Burlingame property to hopefully open up a sobering station as soon as possible, house the Pride Center and provide an option for a treatment facility, with supervisor approval Tuesday. The property of more than 2 acres at 818-828 Mahler Road was the former site of First Chance, a 14-bed sobering center operated by since-closed nonprofit StarVista.

    Since First Chance closed, individuals who get arrested for driving under the influence are brought to county jail, rather than a station that promotes wellness and provides offenders with resources and opportunities to rehabilitate. It costs double the amount to house a DUI offender in a county correctional facility than a sobering center.

    Here is David’s perspective on the switch from central San Mateo to Mahler Rd.:

    San Mateo County’s proposed sobering and treatment center at 101 N. El Camino Real has felt like an experiment in how many bad land-use decisions could be shoe-horned into an already congested corridor. 

    • Dense residential neighborhood? Check. 
    • Multiple schools and daycares nearby? Check. 
    • Dense senior housing within walking distance? Check. 
    • Breakneck traffic at a pockmarked El Camino intersection seemingly designed by bumper-car enthusiasts? Absolutely. 

    And yet somehow, this was presented as the “best” location for a large detox and treatment facility projected to generate up to 17,000 annual client trips with 24/7 intake activity?  Thankfully, cooler heads prevailed.

    On Tuesday, the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to purchase the former sobering center property on Mahler Road in Burlingame for $13 million. Only a single speaker opposed the purchase. Even the Burlingame City Council – never mistaken for a drum circle – gave Mahler Road unusually ‘high’ marks at its 4/20 meeting. Why? Because Mahler Road makes sense. 

    At two acres, it’s a large parcel in a light industrial and emerging biotech corridor with sparse nearby housing. It sits just one mile from Highway 101 and three miles from Mills-Peninsula Medical Center. Most importantly, it has a long, proven history as a sobering center serving San Mateo County. The Mahler sobering component is expected to open within six months. By comparison, the 101 ECR proposal likely faced a three-to-five-year runway filled with entitlement battles, lawsuits, redesigns, and enough public hostility to power a small city. 

    Burlingame’s Supervisor Jackie Speier deserves enormous credit for recognizing the broader potential of the Mahler site. In addition to treatment services, discussions have included a future home for the San Mateo County Pride Center – which has been without a permanent location since 2024 – as well as possible housing for essential service workers increasingly priced out of the communities they serve.

    Which makes San Mateo’s Supervisor Noelia Corzo’s continued attachment to the 101 ECR location all the more puzzling. This debacle echoes her divisive performance during COVID while serving as SMFCSD’s school board President, where her stubbornness and delays reopening San Mateo public schools were epic. Her tone-deaf obstinacy has triggered a June primary write-in candidate (Taso Zografos) and a recall effort (you heard it here first). 

    At some point, leadership means recognizing when a better option has emerged. Corzo’s four Supervisor colleagues did exactly that. They listened to residents, looked at operational realities, and pivoted toward a faster, cheaper, and far less divisive solution. 

    These are important services that our families, friends and neighbors need ASAP. The Mahler location delivers services quickly and in a location that is well suited for this use. Only time will tell, but San Mateo County appears to be getting this right. 

    David Long is a San Mateo Park resident who continues to view the failed 1909 Burlingame annexation effort of his neighborhood as one of local history’s great missed opportunities.

    —————

    With all the fuss about commercial properties not turning over and thus never being revalued per Prop. 13, my hope is that even if the County did get a deal at $13 million, I hope they are paying full property taxes on the purchase. We shall see how the Broadway overpass handles another 17,000 trips per year. And yes, San Mateo Park would have made a great addition to South B’game. Thanks, David.  I happened by 818 Mahler and snapped this photo. The building really looks like it needs some love.

  • Water Rate$: Feel the tip of the nozzle

    I knew what was coming when I opened this morning’s Comicle and saw the front-page headline: “S.F. water and sewer rates may rise in July.” As an avid water-watcher and a firm believer in the phrase “when EssEff sneezes, B’game gets a cold” I knew it wasn’t just S.F. rates they were talking about. And indeed, going to the Comicle website to grab a couple of snippets delivered a much more accurate headline: “San Francisco is about to hike up water rates — and much of the Bay Area will feel it” And feel it we will.

    San Francisco is planning to sharply raise water and sewer rates over the coming decade, beginning with a nearly 25% projected bump in residential bills over the next two years, as the growing cost of maintaining the city’s waterworks comes due. This summer, the average single-family household bill for combined water and sewer service will increase from $171 a month to $189 a month, and next summer it will rise to $212 a month, according to estimates in the rate-hike proposal scheduled for approval next week. Officials expect that utility rates will continue to climb through at least 2036, though at varying levels.

    We are a wholesale customer of SFPUC and the Hetch Hetchy feed for most of our water which you can read about from my tour last year here. If they go up, we go up.

    The SFPUC’s water, in addition to serving San Francisco, goes to about two dozen wholesalers in San Mateo, Santa Clara and Alameda counties. The water rate for these suppliers is set to increase 7.4% this summer, compared to a 2.3% rise last year. 

    After the Comicle covered the improvements needed in the city, our shared part was revealed

    Smaller, yet significant outlays are going toward water supply projects, including repairs to the 19-mile Mountain Tunnel and replacement of the century-old Moccasin Penstocks, both of which are in the Sierra Nevada and are critical for San Francisco’s long-distance water deliveries.

    All this infrastructure costs money, but some groups think SFPUC is spending too much

    At least two environmental groups are calling on the SFPUC to go further. The Sierra Club’s San Francisco Bay chapter and the Yosemite Rivers Alliance, formerly Tuolumne River Trust, want the agency to re-evaluate its water supply needs, believing the city has long overestimated its demand and consequently overbuilt its infrastructure. The Yosemite Rivers Alliance and Sierra Club have asked the SFPUC to downgrade a worst-case water scenario that it plans for — a severe drought lasting roughly 8 years — arguing that this event is highly improbable and requires amassing too much water.

    But we know from our own Urban Water Management Plan flaws that just because they say they are planning for an 8-year drought doesn’t mean anything real is happening–even over a 5-year scenario. I won’t retype the real story but rather just point you to the infamous Table 7-6 described here. We are creeping up on the deadline for the every-five-years revision, and we have a new Public Works director so we shall see if 7-6 gets a real update. Either way, our checkbooks will be lighter soon for at least the next 10 years……

  • Town Square: Postal bliss

    About 300 community members came together under a clear blue sky last week for the ribbon-cutting at our new Town Square. It’s a long story which you can revisit via the Post Office category here from the groundbreaking in 2021 all the way back to 2012. I thought Mayor Michael Brownrigg delivered an outstanding speech and Michael kindly gave me his detailed notes to excerpt here. Here are some very lightly edited highlights of that speech.

    The history of Burlingame last 50 years is history of parking lots: buying and leveling our bowling alley, the old City Hall, and others to build parking lots to compete with malls. 15 years ago, with our downtown sagging, we realized it was not parking, it was vitality and activity that mattered. And those parking lots – bought as a way to enhance Burlingame — now looked a lot like underutilized assets.

    In 2008/9, in the heart of the Great Recession, our city leaders challenged our community, let’s reimagine our downtown. Over the course of a couple of years and many, many meetings, a vision arose. It was the product of robust input from groups like Citizens for a Better Burlingame and the downtown BID, Planning Commission, community leaders, etc.

    We now see so many fruits from that 2010 Downtown Plan: affordable housing, creative and efficient parking, expanding energy and retail over to Howard, enhancing Burlingame Avenue with wide sidewalks and more pedestrian amenities. And today, the cherry on top, our new Town Square.

    There are so many people to thank. Neighbors like the Salmas and the Karps and the owners of Yves De Lorme, who have consistently leaned in. Other business owners like Janet and Carl Martin who worked hard to make Safeway a better project way back when and who care deeply about the entire fabric of our downtown. Safeway was the first salvo by Burlingame in terms of imagining a more pedestrian friendly, community oriented and vital downtown. And a shout out to Stanley Lo, who helped control the Post Office site after it was put on the market and then helped sell the site to a group of people who could honor the history and imagine the future, and to Dave Hopkins, a co-conspirator at Sares Regis without whose courage this project might never have materialized.

    Michael Brownrigg

    Burlingame Mayor (2026)

    On the occasion of the opening of the Town Square, April 2, 2026

    As I said, this is just an excerpt, and he thanked many more people before turning the podium over several other speakers. Hopefully this Instagram video will load properly for a taste of the proceedings. The story about moving the Post Office over the downtown culvert and then back is one for the ages and I can’t wait for the restaurant that is the last remaining bit of the project.

    Michael told me last week that he would use last night’s city council meeting to publicly affirm what we have been hearing for a sometime–that he would not seek re-election this time around. He leaves quite a service legacy having been appointed to the Planning Commission in 2001 and joining the city council in 2009. As we have seen with other long-serving commissioners and council members, their institutional knowledge is incredibly valuable in subsequent projects. And they still get button-holed in the grocery aisle long after they are out of office. Congrats, sir.

  • Foster City: A caution warning to the wise

    Having spent several decades providing technology advice to companies and agencies large and small, I have long harbored concerns about small municipalities’ IT security and stability. The threats just get stronger every year and small cities with small IT staffs and budgets struggle to keep up in the best of times. That chicken came home to roost in Foster City this week as the SF Comicle reports:

    Foster City officials said Friday that a ransomware attack was “widely impacting” municipal services, and that city leaders planned to issue a state of emergency in an effort to marshal assistance and funding from outside agencies. 

    Officials said in a statement that while emergency services like 911 were “functional and unaffected,” information and services that rely on the city’s computer network would likely be inaccessible Friday. City Hall remained open to the public Friday, although officials said “limited services” were available there. 

    “Out of an abundance of caution, those who have done business with the City of Foster City are encouraged to change their personal passwords and take measures to protect their personal data,” the city said.

    I’m not sure what “personal data” the City of Burlingame might have on us aside from an email address if you subscribe to getting council or commission agendas sent to you. Same goes for the alertcrimegraphics feed. They would hold emails you sent to staff or electeds (at their official addresses), but you can’t “change” that. There’s one’s water bill which makes for a dull read. Local business owners probably have a deeper data profile. In any case, this breach and the ransomware demand are a word to the wise. There are a variety of low-to-high-cost consultants and auditors out there and one would hope city staff are availing themselves of knowledgeable advice. Fifty or a hundred grand every couple of years is money well spent.

  • Pedestrian Safety: A Twofer

    I was meaning to write this post even before I saw the article in today’s SF Comicle about Ayden Fang’s parents filing suit over his tragic passing on Donnelly Ave. We covered it here back in August of last year.

    Yesterday I was nearly hit while crossing in a crosswalk–twice. Twice in one day! A twofer. And neither incident happened at the most dangerous intersection in my neighborhood, but rather at other, less busy spots. One driver had her right turn signal on as I was crossing at the opposite corner and magically decided to go straight–straight at me. After I stopped mid-street and waved my arms and yelled, I got the hands-clasped-in-prayer move. It was in front of St. Catherine’s after all.

    The second incident happened in front of Ike’s while it was still light out thanks to Daylight Savings Time. I have no idea what this driver was looking at, but it wasn’t me. Again, with the waving arms and yelling, but not even a clasped-hand motion this time. We really, really need more cops on the street beat writing tickets. Moments later another driver pulls a three-point turn in the middle of Primrose in front of a BPD cruiser–and the cop just kept on going. Now maybe they had something more urgent to deal with right then. I hope so.

    The Fang lawsuit notes “The lawsuit argued that the city has a history of ignoring pedestrian safety, noting that the pedestrian fatality rate is three to four times higher than the per-capita national annual average.” I’ll be curious to examine that statistic and whether it includes incidents like the malicious plowing down of some local kids, but either way we have a problem. And it is likely to be an expensive problem.

  • Clutching pearls over License Plate Readers

    At least ten Peninsula cities and the Sheriff’s department have installed Flock license plate readers, including ours. The recent report in the Daily Post that several federal agencies were able to access Mountain View’s plate data has that city council and Woodside’s council “unnerved”. It makes for a good headline, but when you read the actual piece, it appears that ATF, GSA and two Air Force bases were able to access photos due to a configuration error by Mountain View.

    I don’t know about GSA or the USAF, but if ATF was looking for a particular plate I for one would like them to have that ability. The Mountain View PD and, I’m sure others, told their council they would have strict privacy protocols in place to prevent access, but what privacy does a vehicle have on public streets? Reading the pearl clutching headlines brought back vivid memories of our own B’game incident that used LPRs to find an attempted kidnapping suspect who tried to grab a woman a couple blocks from my house. You can remind yourself here, but the snippet from November 2024 noted

    The victim screamed for help as another vehicle passed which startled the suspect, causing him to flee the scene. A nearby witness heard the commotion and observed the suspect’s vehicle speeding away. This witness was able to provide a partial license plate number. Further investigation utilizing local Automated License Plate Reader cameras yielded photographs of the suspect vehicle and a complete license plate.

    The suspect was arrested in Belmont four hours later. Last week in San Jose

    A man who recently tried to rob a San Jose bank by handing the teller a handwritten note demanding money was arrested within an hour, authorities said. Police said victims and witnesses provided officers with descriptions of a suspect and potential vehicle, and within about seven minutes of the initial call, officers in the SJPD Real Time Intelligence Center found the car and were getting updates through the city’s system of surveillance cameras.

    I’m often disappointed at how slowly the Wheels of Justice turn after an arrest. Some cases that look open-and-shut take years. Let’s not gum up the Wheels on our streets at the arrest phase. If a city wants to tighten access security by outside agencies, just get the configuration right.

  • SFO: Palo Alto doing our job for us

    The Palo Alto Daily Post continues to lead the way in local news coverage of the harder-hitting variety. Today’s edition was no exception with their headline “City fights expansion of airport“. At first, I thought the San Carlos airport was seeking some expansion approvals, but no–Paly is going after SFO! Apparently SFO wants to add a new terminal and up to 13 new gates and thinks they have done a proper EIR. News to me. Have we heard any of this from the city of B’game? Any e-newsletters from Papan? Is Becker “creating change” in our dealings with SF? Nada. Paly has lawyered up via a January 23rd letter to the SF Supes. Their hot button is final approach noise, but we are sympatico about the general noise issue. Is there a Go Fund Me page that our city council can contribute to?

    Click on the SFO Airport Voice category on the right frame here. You will see that SFO is a crappy neighbor and like most crappy neighbors, just doesn’t care. “We bring a lot of money to SF and the Bay Area economy so you suburban plebes can just deal with the runway noise and loss of sleep”. 13 more gates? Too bad. 3 am engine testing? Gotta do it to keep the money flowing. I hope the Concerned Residents of Palo Alto keep the pressure up. Somebody has to.

  • Smaller state districts? Sure, why not?

    Even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while and so it was this week with the SF Comicle Open Forum column. Under the title State needs to expand Legislature, some SF attorney made the case that we need smaller Assembly and State Senate districts leading to more elected members. I seldom think we need more politicians, but he makes an interesting point.

    California has fewer legislators per capita than any other state. The Assembly has 80 seats and the Senate 40, figures established in the 1879 Constitution and left unchanged even as the population grew from under 1 million to nearly 40 million.

    Today, a single state senator represents more people than live in South Dakota. Districts of this scale make competitive elections the exception rather than the rule. Reaching such a vast number of residents requires money, name recognition and organizational infrastructure that challengers rarely have. The mechanics of campaigning tilt toward incumbents and the dominant party. A UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies poll in 2022 found that a majority of respondents believed the state was headed in the wrong direction. That same year, almost every legislator seeking reelection kept their seat.

    Geography adds a separate problem. When a district stretches across counties and communities, minority-party voters in suburban and exurban areas are often lost in electorates so large that their preferences barely register. We saw the consequences of this dynamic in 2024 when Republicans won nearly 41% of the Assembly vote but secured only 25% of the seats.

    The true irony of all this is that the Legislature foisted five tiny little city council districts on us at the local level. Back in 2021, with a push by a SoCal lawyer, we lost citywide council elections thus we each lost four of our five votes. Some people lost all five of their votes when no candidate stepped up to run. Similar micro-districting happened to school boards, water districts, et al. But not in Sacramento. Maybe it’s time, but the self-preservation force is strong for the status quo.

  • Natural Gas Gets a Reprieve?

    This is an interesting month in the climate wars with Bill Gates issuing a statement that basically said “nevermind” after years of haranguing us, eight miles of rainforest cut down for a climate conference in Brazil and some of our local governments trying to keep their all-electric “reach codes” on life support. Per the DJ:

    After some legal hiccups, cities throughout the region, including San Mateo, are revisiting policies that incentivize use of electric appliances and penalize reliance on gas infrastructure in homes and buildings.

    That “legal hiccup” was the Ninth Circuit eviscerating Berkeley’s overreach on natural gas. Our neighboring city to the south is reacting with a revision that

    Would require single-family homes, duplexes, townhomes and commercial buildings to install either a heat pump or higher-efficiency air conditioner at the time the original AC unit needs replacement.  The potential reach code would also require the addition of electric infrastructure when certain types of renovations are already underway.

    Then San Mateo broached a “scoring” system to award points to homeowners for choosing various electric-only options. You would not be wrong to compare that to the CCP’s Social Credit system. At least one councilor has a glimmer of understanding about complexity (i.e. staff time) and costs although it apparently didn’t deter her from plunging ahead.

    This is already going to be really complicated to understand, but it’s also an opportunity to really bring our community along because with a number of the other reach codes, there have been real cost issues associated with them, where people thinking the cost was going to be X, and the cost ends up being X plus 50%,” Councilmember Lisa Diaz Nash said.

    Here are a few of the costs that get us to X + 50% —or way more–2X, 3X?. Things have gotten even more expensive than when I wrote that five years ago. Some day I would love to see the DJ or the Daily Post survey council members up and down the Peninsula (and County supes) to see if any of them are all-electric. Aside from new construction, I’ll be it’s very very few.

The Burlingame Voice

Dedicated to Empowering and Informing the Burlingame Community

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