Why I am voting NO on N

With all due respect, City Hall has done a wonderful job of supporting Crestmoor Canyon against PG&E, but at the same time, they completely ignored the residents of Huntington Ave East! Many years ago when City Hall decided to pave over Huntington, they totally alienated the residents of Huntington Ave East (Tanforan Ave southward) from the rest of San Bruno! To this day, you can see the partially covered old Huntington right underneath - even the stop sign and lane markers are still visible on the pavement. What about the trashed-out space under I-380? Will the Transit Corridor Plan (TCP) alleviate their misery? I think not!

Now imagine a new seven story high-rise mega-structure in front of this blight? Currently, the southernmost tip of Herman is the only ingress/egress for Tanforan east residents. This is between I-380 and the proposed seven story high-rise.
Note: The sun rises from the east, rotates to south, and sets in the west. So this seven story building will block the sun and make the area under I-380 even darker than before.... all day, every day! Before Measure N was even put on the ballot, I wanted to see a physical land use model constructed, with a solar and wind study. I suggested to SB planning to create a new entrance/exit on Huntington for them. The Bike & Pedestrian Advisory Committee submitted a proposal for a bike ingress/egress on Huntington, But funding was rejected.

Secondly, when I biked eastward on San Bruno Ave towards I-101 overpass, I noticed the first street was very awkward to enter from the west. The last street (7th Ave) is also very dangerous, and now has barriers allowing exit only. FlySFO.com claims McDonnell Road offer good bicycle access with a marked route into the airport beginning at San Bruno Avenue from the north. But San Bruno Ave is currently a four lane truck route to/from I-101 with no room for bike lanes. It is therefore not convenient, healthy, or safe for bicyclists. What is shocking is the conceptual drawings on Measure N brochures retain four auto lanes on San Bruno Ave, and it even shows bicycles on San Bruno Ave, even though bike lanes can not be accommodated unless there are lane reductions. However, TCP suggests lane reductions, but the images promoted to the public do not reflect this - no consistency! This caused me to question whether Measure N was crafted in haste?

I suggested bike tracks (protected bike lanes) and a reduction in lanes from two each way to one + turn lane, but SB planning said the streets are too short to accommodate a center turn lane. Nevertheless, imagine if you live here? But now, there are five story commercial buildings at the gateway to your home! How do you get into the streets when the number of practical entrances has been reduced to four three, or even two? Even with new above ground parking, entrances can not be on San Bruno Ave - drivers will have to go into the avenues to access garage. Do you expect drivers to turn in middle of San Bruno Ave during commute periods?

Moreover, even if Measure N allows above grade parking, it doesn’t determine exactly where they should be built, and it can’t force existing property owners to build one (San Bruno city officials said they will not exercise eminent domain). When an owner is calculating maximum return on investment, do you think he’ll want to build a garage? Garages are usually built to hold the property until higher value development opportunities arise. Given planning department’s concern about traffic build-up, it is probably not advisable to have a garage on every property facing SB Ave, especially on 2nd or 7th Ave. There needs to be a public garage somewhere in the middle - 3rd, 4th, or 5th Ave. Which property owner will be stuck with the garage - the first to build or the last to build? Should you vote for Measure N and just pray these issues will be resolved sometime in the future?

Despite intent of Measure N to implement the TCP, neither Measure N nor TCP addresses the above issues in their economic revitalization plan. As a member of San Bruno’s Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Committee, my opinions in no way reflect my high regards for the people of City Hall. However, I do not believe City Hall did a careful enough site analysis before promoting the TCP. I can not in good conscience support a measure that might worsen the quality of life for the most vulnerable residents of our city - the one’s with the least amount of voice.

Below is the only consideration City Hall had for Huntington Ave:

Huntington Avenue: Streetscape Beautification, Bike/Pedestrian Links
The Plan strategy for Huntington Avenue is to preserve the existing residential character* while taking advantage of development opportunities around the Caltrain and BART stations, where a Transit Oriented Development (TOD) overlay zone is proposed to allow increased intensity of uses and building heights to accommodate retail, office and higher density housing. The northern half of Huntington Avenue, where residential uses are not permitted due to the 70 decibels airport noise contour, is designated for a mix of commercial and office uses. The southern half of Huntington Avenue is designated for a mix of uses that includes medium-density housing. A key development site across the street from the BART parking garage is identified as potentially suitable for a new hotel. The proposed design guidelines for Huntington Avenue are intended to encourage streetscape improvements and traffic calming measures, including roundabouts, to create a pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly corridor to the Caltrain station.

*(Preserve the existing residential character??? The neighborhood is blighted!)

PLEASE VOTE NO ON MEASURE N