Category: City Council

  • Have Mercy on the Neighbors

    Mercy, Mercy, Mercy was a surprise hit for saxophonist Cannonball Adderley in 1967. 60 years later, I think Mercy will go to #1 on the Burlingame Top 100 in 2027. What follows came in as a comment on the Democracy Dies in Daylight post about the city council candidate forum, but it’s too important and so detailed that I am making it a fresh post. I don’t know Valerie Teele, but I know people who do. Here is her complete, unedited comment with some added bolding by me and one correction as noted:

    My husband and I were in attendance at the Candidate Forum because this election really matters for district 3. I encourage everyone in the district, especially those that live around Mercy, to watch and listen by clicking the link. Now that the gym is done, Mercy is moving forward with its next phase of construction. They are about to submit (or have just submitted) for two 4 story, senior resident apartment buildings (80 units) (Ed Note: the proposal is for 160 units) and an assisted living facility to be built on the land that is called “the meadow”. This is the area down to the left of the student parking lot. This property is ill suited (that’s putting it mildly) for such a project. There are only 3 means of egress to the entirety of the Mercy property: tucked back in the corner where Hoover curves into Columbus, the gates at the intersection of Hoover and Adeline and the gates at the end of Alvarado. It is not an area that is convenient for seniors to access shopping nor services, which have been prime considerations for the 1400 units Burlingame has either built or are in development. Other projects by Mercy Housing have been on campuses that have wide open multi-lane access. This proposal simply does not make sense.

    I live on Alvarado and we have the overwhelming majority of the traffic to and from the Mercy property for school and events. Our street was not built for two way traffic with cars parked on either side of the street. It is frequent gridlock in the mornings for school drop off and again at pick up. Our family’s vehicles were sideswiped twice already since classes resumed and that now brings the total to 9. Our family is not unique with this problem. We will now see what will result from the gym being open until 10pm during the week and for both school use and public rentals until 11 on the weekends. If the proposed project is built, our street will have dramatically increased traffic at all times. Residents of the apartments, 3 shifts of employees at the nursing home, visitors, delivery and maintenance vehicles….they will ALL use our residential street.

    Getting back to the Candidates Forum, listen to how the question I posed was answered. It’s at the 39:45 minute mark.

    The current Planning Commission and Council are all inexplicably advocates of letting Mercy, a tax exempt, nonprofit religious institution, build whatever they want and do whatever they want. I can already tell from Mr. Stevenson’s answer how he will vote on the Mercy project despite the concerns of the TAX PAYING residents whom they are supposed to represent. I simply do not understand this. It’s easy to vote for something when your street or your district isn’t affected. Ms. Faber says several times that a district representative should represent all of Burlingame. I have not found that to be the case. Judging from her answer to the question, “there’s nothing we can do because housing mandates are determined by the state” (paraphrasing) , I fear she will fall in line with the rest of the officials and allow Mercy to further exacerbate a problem that could have terrible consequences for the many children and pedestrians who walk and bike on Alvarado and the adjacent streets.

    I’m not sure that Jen Faber (and others in various venues) saying there isn’t much we can do given the state housing mandates is correct here. Scott Weiner’s abusive Senate Bill SB79 has a half-mile impact zone around mass transit stops where higher density and the onerous “Builder’s Remedy” apply. Unless there is some gamesmanship with a lightly used SamTrans bus stop somewhere up the hill, the Mercy property doesn’t appear to get SB79 treatment. All of the other concerns so eloquently stated need to be addressed in full, in public with public comment.

    What I would really like to see from our city leaders is support and involvement with the 501c3 Our Neighborhood Voices. We are far from the only California city chafing under Sacramento’s harness.

  • Democracy dies in daylight

    The typical quote is “Democracy dies in darkness”. According to Gemini:

    “Democracy Dies in Darkness” is the official slogan of The Washington Post. Owner Jeff Bezos selected the phrase after hearing investigative journalist Bob Woodward, who found the line in a 2006 First Amendment judicial opinion by U.S. District Judge Damon J. Keith regarding government wiretapping and secrecy.

    Here in California, it seems democracy is slowly withering away in plain sight. Tuesday’s Candidate Forum was lightly attended to say the least. It seemed like maybe 30 people were there for an event that used to be standing room only and had overflow into the lobby. The move to “five little districts” is one thing driving the lack of interest. We only had three candidates on the dais (Andrea Pappajohn was called away). Peter Stevenson is unopposed but was invited by the League of Women Voters anyway. That left only Jen Faber and Howard Wettan to vie for the District 3 seat. All three candidates said they are elected by district but represent the whole city. But voters tend not to show up when they don’t have a vote (as with two districts this cycle) or a competitive choice (also in two districts this cycle). I just read where Newsom signed 1,000 bills this legislative cycle, but apparently this democracy-killing loophole in the law wasn’t important enough to anyone in Sac. The DJ’s Mark Simon tallied nearly half of the 52 city council seats being elected in the county have no competition. 80% of our city’s voters are disenfranchised and nobody who could do anything about it cares.

    The Forum itself was fairly mundane. Part of that is due to the format. Three minutes to introduce oneself and two minutes to conclude. One minute per question. With questions like “How would you suggest we wrest some local control back from Sacramento?”, “Do you support selling Lot L?”, and “What do you think are the Top 3 priorities for Bgame residents?”, one minute doesn’t cut it. Back when we had nine people on stage that might have been necessary, but not when there are only three. Unfortunately, the lady from the League struggled to keep track of the speaking order for three or to organize her thoughts around the twelve questions asked. That isn’t helping keep democracy vibrant. Here are Howard, Peter and Jen.

  • RIP: Jerry Deal and JoAnn Johnson Deal

    The news of former councilmember and planning commissioner Jerry Deal’s passing in June is reaching the B’game community along with the news that his wife JoAnn passed the week before he did. Jerry resigned his council seat mid-term in July 2014 as noted here. JoAnn was a long-time teacher at Franklin and moved around the elementary district offering art instruction to all the schools. The couple were a fixture on the local political, school and community event scene with a pair of smiles and quick quips that are easy to recall if you knew them at all.

    An avid fly-fisherman, Jerry moved up to Bend, OR but maintained a pied a terre in SF for years after. Via a local contact, I received this background information

    Jerry grew up in Redwood City. He went to Sequoia high, but I don’t know when he graduated. He then went to Berkeley, and he was working with an architect when he was in his third or fourth year there and I guess was doing so well that he just started getting clients and never finished the Berkeley architecture degree, but he didn’t need to finish. He was doing very well so I guess he quit in his last year.

    I think of Jerry as the “father of design review” in B’game. I recall his powerful slideshow presentation to the city council that highlighted the need photographically. There was some terrible stuff getting built. It didn’t always go smoothly as you can read in this post from 2009. He was also in the middle of the long Safeway saga. For a fun time trip, Google “Burlingame Voice” and Jerry Deal and any topic of your choosing.

    JoAnn’s obituary just showed up in the Comicle which you can read here. It notes 35 years of teaching and that she passed on July 12, 2026. I have not seen an obit for Jerry, but will add it if I find it. We shared an enthusiasm for music and wine and he showed me how to secure bottles in racks from earthquakes with a little double loop piece of fish line. Regardless of whether we agreed or not on some city issue or political slant, we were always cordial and for that I am grateful. RIP Jerry and JoAnn.

  • Of Caltrain, consultants and transit taxes

    I know a bit about premium priced consulting services that I learned over 30 years including some engagements with government agencies. When the Daily Journal headline screamed “High pay for Caltrain consultant”, I thought “How high?” Luckily the subhead read “Transit agency pays $1.4M for deputy leader, amount over three times top-paid executive director’s salary”. Wow. Is that for a one person, one year extension, not a contract with a firm staffing three or four or more consultants? That’s premium with a capital P. But it gets worse. That front page piece on July 6th came out the same day the purported million-dollar consultant, Sherry Bullock, was scheduled to present the state of the B’way grade separation to our city council.

    Thanks to a tipster, I got the word that the presentation didn’t go so well. The video is not streaming smoothly for me, but around 1:05 on this link you can start to feel the confusion and maybe a bit of desperation from the 20-year Caltrain veteran! When asked to spell out some of the arcane acronyms (and there are many) lower-priced staff had to jump in with an assist. The $1.4 mil was looming large given the newspaper was probably still in the box outside city hall. The piece is a little convoluted, but according to a later LTTE from Jeff Gee (Caltrain board and RWC councilmember) “That was a max authority to a consulting firm. Caltrain paid a quarter of that and is closing out the contract.” So perhaps we are down to $350K–that still some “max authority” for someone who is also charging overtime.

    And yet we know, because Caltrain told us, that it is on the brink of disaster. Per the DJ

    After adopting a $270 million operating budget, Caltrain is reiterating short- and long-term plans to narrow its deficit with a state loan and upcoming sales tax ballot measure — or else it could shut down entirely, leaders say.

    Cue the DJ two days later discussing the formation of some opposition to the “Connect Bay Area” 14-year duration sales tax increase.

    The measure would be the sixth transportation-dedicated sales tax in San Mateo County. Measures A, W, RR and the San Mateo County Transit District tax are administered by the county, with a portion of the state-mandated 7.25% sales tax going to local transportation efforts as well. They’re thinking, ‘well we’re getting bailed out by the government,’” said Peninsula resident Gregg Dieguez, a member of the Committee for Affordable Bay Area Transit. “They are used to spending our money, rather than reforming what they’re doing.”

    This ain’t rocket science, kids. The primary Caltrain commuter rail line spans 77.2 miles between San Francisco and Gilroy. The core corridor between San Francisco and San Jose Diridon Station is approximately 48 miles long. We not running Amtrack or the TGV here. And this is going to be a very tough election for new taxes, bond measures, and whatever else got thrown against the wall by anyone other than the Howard Jarvis people. Couple that with the fact that the B’way grade separation (remember that?) is still not close to being fully funded. The question is “are we getting what we are paying for?”

  • 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.

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