A 2015 San Carlos bond measure was aimed at purchasing some 23 acres at the hilly site of the former Black Mountain Spring Water Company property for a price of $86 million so it could be preserved as open space. It would have cost the average homeowner about $118 in annual property taxes. The idea, at the time, was that the property was for sale and this was a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to buy and preserve such substantial open space acreage.
Alas, it was not meant to be. Voters put the kabosh on the idea and Measure V garnered less than 40 percent of the vote though it needed two-thirds to pass.
And here we are today with two separate proposals for housing on the site. They are 68 three-story townhomes in 14 clusters and another aims to have 60 residential units in a mix of condominiums and single-family homes. They are being proposed by two different developers. In floating Measure V, proponents stated that up to 100 homes could be constructed at the property, now 128 are being proposed.
While some who believe that all housing is good housing might cheer such proposals, others who are catching wind of them are not so keen. In fact, a recent Planning Commission meeting netted the usual concerns that such developments tend to generate: traffic, congestion, parking, density, character, hillside stability, noise and impact on local schools. These are all valid concerns to be brought up during a typical public planning process and it will be interesting to see how they might be addressed in an environmental study.
Opponents of Measure V said the cost was too high and there was a lack of specificity in the ballot language on how much maintenance of the property would cost. Now, here for all to assess is the alternative to the city’s proposed purchase.
There has been much hullaballoo about the Flintstone House in Hillsborough as of late. When reporter Anna Schuessler first told me about the lawsuit early in the morning on March 14, I knew we had to move on the story since it would have large interest.
I didn’t quite realize how large. But it’s been pretty large, with publications around the globe picking up the story. In this age of quirky tales holding more interest than larger more pressing and sober issues, it makes total sense. However, I think the story and its interest has been skewed into something that is actually not quite right.
The story boils down to the town wanting the homeowner to get the proper permits for work that was done. If the homeowner gets the permits, there is no lawsuit, and thus, no story. However, the story was perceived to be about a unique bit of free expression and the town’s fuddy-duddy neighbors saying it’s all too much. The rallying cry became “Save the Flintstone House!” But a careful read of the lawsuit, and our story, reveals there are no neighbors who are concerned by the unique statues or the architecture or the orange and purple paint job. That, is all, secondary. The primary concern is that work was done without the proper permits, and anyone who knows anything about cities and towns around here knows they take their permiting pretty seriously. There is no actual threat to the Flintstone House aside from that some dinosaur statues may have to be anchored and some other improvements made with proper permits. Essentially, it must be brought up to code.
What has resulted from this story is that the Flintstone House has gotten significant publicity, and for something that is rented out for parties or visitors, that can go a long way.
Count me in as one of the detractors to Assembly Bill 161, authored by Assemblyman Phil Ting, D-San Francisco. The legislation seeks to make emailed receipts the default as a way to eliminate paper waste caused by super long receipts.
The legislation is targeting drug stores known for their long receipts with coupons for days. Why not just target that if it’s such a problem? Most normal receipts are fine. Additionally, there is a movement toward emailed receipts anyway, so it’s just a matter of time before it happens.
I for one like to check my purchases with a paper receipt and don’t want to give my email to random stores in lieu of that. I get enough random email as it is. Besides, is this actually a problem? How much hassle would this be for retailers to switch out their equipment? Quite a bit I’m sure. How much waste is created by receipts? In the large scope of things, not much.
In the words of former governor Jerry Brown, “Not every human problem deserves a law.”
Jon Mays is the editor in chief of the Daily Journal. He can be reached at jon@smdailyjournal.com. Follow Jon on Twitter @jonmays.
(2) comments
As far as I can tell, there are three proposed arguments against the Flintstone house property improvements: 1. Public Safety; 2. Permitting Process Hygiene; 3. Perceived Artistic Merit vs. Nuisance.
In your article, you argue that it's a reasonable expectation of a municipality adhering evenly to procedure and within their rights. That would be understandable if it were actually true.
The public safety issue makes no sense, despite comments on prior articles related to this matter. There are no properties downhill from them. You would need magical powers to teleport the dinosaurs anywhere of danger to anyone else, even if they weren't anchored at all.
The permitting process sanctity makes no sense either. Fang asked for permits retroactively. She was denied, based on clear technicalities (on paper) -- things like inaccurate property drawings and similar non-material aspects. Permitting is meant to exist to protect for safety issues (e.g., code) or other material impacts to neighbors. But she was denied the permit for other reasons. You can't have it both ways and say you must request a permit, but if you do (after the fact), we'll deny you anyway, for reasons which have nothing to do with why permits should be procured.
That leaves reason #3. I believe neighbors say that the visual isn't a problem for them and they haven't complained. This house is nearly on a cul-de-sac, at the edge of the canyon. So who is it really bothering?
Everything about this matter points to the municipality of Hillsborough holding to its process under the cover of integrity, safety and due process, but without the underpinnings. They lead to this conclusion themselves, by referring to the property as a "nuissance". Everything about the situation supports the belief that the town and its lawyer are really thinking "how dare she break ranks without asking us"? They don't like the appearance and chaff at the idea that they didn't have their veto moment. I suspect there is no amount of reasonable adjustments she could make that would be acceptable, short of tearing it down and starting again, when they would say "no". This reeks of censorship of taste, using the weaponizing of permitting.
And it's a farce. I drive around Hillsborough and see all sorts of personalized decoration. There is a giant zebra-stripes painted camel in the FRONT yard of a home on Parrott. It's lovely, by the way.
The reasons why this story have gone national are (A) Flinstones are an icon series of bygone days; and (B) people can see it for what it is - an uptight municipality over-reaching.
Hillsborough has already lost in the court of public opinion. I give strong odds they will lose in actual court as well. And the irony is that this notoriety can't possibly be helping property values, which is the underlying factor, isn't it? Hey Hillsborough residents, how do you like your property taxes being spent on this malicious, specious legal action?
I'm pretty excited about the San Carlos Dragonfly proposal because it adds curated hiking trails through the area. They are going above and beyond to take care of our environment and this is so much better than what could have happened. These are homes for people not monsters. People had a chance to buy this property but they said no. I'm ok with this project. A rich person will buy that house and perhaps I'll be able to afford their old house. All the neighbors to Black Mtn will enjoy increased property values, IF they thought open space would have been a better investment... they had a vote & said no.
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who make comments.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Anyone violating these rules will be issued a warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be revoked.