The Burlingame Voice

Watching the Planning Commission

This past Monday's Planning Commission meeting was the first one to be broadcast on television the way the City Council meetings are broadcast.  The recorded video all lives in an archive on the City website here.

This is progress!  Kudos to the City for further opening access!

Killing the Golden Goose?

I don't know Belmont city councilmember Coralin Feierbach.  We may have met on the hotel chicken council circuit, but I absolutely love the piece she wrote in the Daily Journal about the over-development being rammed down the Peninsula's throats by a bunch of bureaucrats with control over our money.  Here is a pretty lengthy excerpt.  Please do click through this link and read the whole thing.

This is in response to the May 1 article in the Daily Journal, “What is Plan Bay Area? Region Adopting Strategy for Future Growth.” The article states that San Mateo plans to add 10,000 new housing units by 2040. To paraphrase futurist Paul Saffo when he spoke before the Council of Cities 10 years ago, San Mateo County is in the process of loving itself to death.

Peninsula cities are continually inundated by pro-growth voices from the San Mateo County Economic Development Association, the Association of Bay Area Governments, building trade unions, developers and Realtors, “building more new housing” proponents, state legislators and their lobbyists and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission.

If it were only voices, that would be one thing. But now the deck is being stacked so if cities don’t build more housing then grant money may not available for road or other infrastructure improvements. In the post-Proposition 13 era, property taxes on housing units have not been sufficient to pay for all city services, including infrastructure maintenance, used by residential property owners. So adding more housing comes at a cost to cities’ infrastructures — a cost that is not funded by state or regional agencies.

ABAG issues mandates for each city for a number of additional housing units they must enable via zoning increases. These mandates have so far not been enforced, but proposed state legislation may soon change that. The very qualities that attracted us to Belmont are threatened.

Will local cities be forced to convert suburban single-family neighborhoods to urban multi-family condos and apartments? Will we be forced to sell our open space to developers to make up for sales tax money the state can potentially deny us? Will we be forced to build high-rise apartment buildings and condos along the “transportation corridor” as ABAG and MTC wants, destroying the view of the Bay for many Belmont households?

......

Belmont has about 350 acres of open space. Previous and present councils made that happen with strength, courage and conviction. Yes, there will be some new development in downtown Belmont on El Camino Real but not the kind of massive development some cities like Millbrae, Redwood City and San Bruno have generated and San Mateo is about to generate. Massive housing is not a sustainable solution. New Belmont development will be done with care and with consideration of long-term sustainability, consultation with residents and in cooperation with neighboring cities as well.

We moved to the San Mateo Peninsula because it was suburban, not urban. Yet outside agencies continually pressure us to urbanize. It’s time for our voices to be heard in Sacramento. Let us not die of a thousand cuts.

Right on, Coralin.  I'll go a step further and suggest that the Peninsula city councils need to band together in a similar fashion to the PCC group that formed to stop the high-cost rail monstrosity.  This group should get themselves a good lawyer and start now on prying the grant money, tax money and any other funding source away from the likes of ABAG and the MTC.

Robust Real Estate

Local realtor Raziel Ungar published his 2012 Market Review over the weekend.  It contained a bunch of interesting factoids about the local market including a neighborhood-by-neighborhood analysis of how many and for how much properties were sold.  I found these three 2012 factoids interesting

About 40% of homes sold under their final asking price (although typically not by much).  That apprears to have changed since last year as more over-asking offers are discussed.

Wells Fargo did nearly 3 in every 10 home loans in Burlingame, while First Republic Bank was second with about 1 in every 10 home loans.

Burlingables(near Washington Park and BHS) and Burlingame Grove (north of B'way between the train tracks and El Camino) topped the price-per-square foot at $708 and $706!  Perhaps high-speed rail hasn't penetrated the local mindset even now?

You can see the rest of it at Raziel's website here.

Tesla Rolling onto Rollins Rd.

The topic of Tesla moving its Norcal sales and service center to Edwards CT off Rollins Rd. came up at the joint Planning Commission-City Council meeting a few weeks ago, but with all the hubbub about historic properties, I forgot to post about the Tesla tax dispute.  The Daily Journal piece covered it in advance of Monday's Planning meeting about the permit.  The issue is

Burlingame’s position is it should get tax revenue since the sales take place in its city, said Meeker. On the other hand, Tesla’s model has been to pay the tax to wherever the car is delivered, Mefford wrote in a January letter to the city. For example, if a San Mateo resident orders a car and, once completed, the car is delivered to his or her home, then that city would get the sales tax. One of the conditions of the permit’s approval, as suggested by staff, is that Burlingame would get the tax revenue from sales from this site.

I'm not sure the taxation part of this is a Planning issue, but they have to start somewhere.  I also don't see any easy way to "split the baby" on this nor is state law likely to be very clear.  One this is clear.  If you want high-performance electic wheels, Tesla is the way to go because Fisker laid off 150 of its last 200 employees last week.  They are apparently going down with $190 million of our taxpayer dollars.  So this could be real money.  As one local auto veteran says, "bring yer wife and yer pink slip to Burlingame"!

I have seen both cars on the streets of B'game.  Here is a Fisker on Park Ave.

and the Tesla

Seeking CEQA Assurances

Today's San Mateo County Times has an article about the "reform" of CEQA.  The essence of it is that the move to "reform" or "modernize" the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) that dates to 1970 is losing some steam.  If true, this would be a good thing.  When you read "reform" or "modernize" in this context, think "gut".  The piece quotes Abigail Okrent of the Planning and Conservation League as saying

"We know businesses have complaints, but CEQA is by far not the primary thing getting in the way of development".

That's a huge generalization, but the article then goes on to describe some small time lawsuit between two gas stations in San Jose, but manages to avoid mentioning Gov. Moonbeam wants to gut CEQA so he can push High-cost Rail faster.  It also describes how the construction unions use CEQA against developers.  I have followed CEQA for more than a decade and haven't seen that happen, but it's worth searching for.

Our very own state Sen. Jerry Hill has taken over the reins on this from departed Sen. Michael Rubio of High-cost rail infamy who left to work for Chevron.  Jerry's campaign website notes he has a 100% rating from the League of Conservation Voters.  Here's hoping Jerry walks carefully on this one.  Just don't take any advice from ABAG (see next post).

Housing "Quotas"

The front page article in this weekend's Daily Post about Palo Alto losing its appeal on its so-called "housing quota" reminded me that this same farce affects B'game.  The Association of Bay Area Governments, known as ABAG, issues poorly grounded growth forecasts for Bay Area population, then uses those forecasts to dictate how much housing each city needs to add.  In Paly's case it is 2,179 new units over the next decade!  Paly Mayor Greg Scharff is quoted saying "Most people think it's too much housing for our community."  Indeed, and the rest aren't thinking.

The stick that goes along with this dictatorial move is the authority to pass out federal transportation funds.  In B'game's case, they want us to add 800 units over the next decade!  Yikes.  Here's hoping B'game and the rest of the Peninsula continue to ignore ABAG.  Where are the Greens on this one?

Historic Confusion

I was struck by the contrast between the SRO Historical Society meeting about Eichlers on Thursday night (see next post) and the Joint City Council-Planning Commission meeting on Saturday morning.  Thursday night more than 100 residents showed up to learn about the history of the Eichlers up in Mills Estate.  Saturday morning in the very same Lane Room, Russ and I were the only regular residents to show up to hear staff, council members and planning commissioners discuss a historic properties ordinance.

The annual joint meeting is the one time each year when a free-flowing dialog between the three groups of public servants happens.  There is no voting, just giving of direction to staff and the Planning Commission.  I was also struck by how many council members still appear (and some even admit) to being confused about the basics of a historic properties list in B'game.  Many cities and towns in California already have them, there are lots of sample ordinances--two were provided on Saturday.  And yet the sum total of the guidance was "Start small in the downtown, mostly commercial district and make it voluntary and simple".  Also, the Planning Commission should oversee it.  That's all good, but after almost a decade of thinking about it, an hour of discussion and all the work on the Downtown Plan as well as the news swirling around CEQA and Gov. Moonbeam's attempts to gut that state law, you would think there would be more clarity and direction.

I'll revisit why a voluntary, simple, residential option would be good for residents' tax bills and for the integrity of the neighborhoods another time.  My guess is plenty of the crowd on Thursday would agree even if it does apply to them or their house!

Here's the Staff, the Planning Commission (one absent) and the Council this past Saturday:

Post Office "Remarkably Well Preserved"

There is big news about the main B'game Post Office on Park Rd.  Its future has been in doubt due to the financial condition of the Postal Service that is leading to elimination of Saturday delivery in August among other actions.  But the local site has special characteristics that may (should!) affect what can be done with the building.  The news is that a Historical Structure Report prepared by Tetra Tech, Inc. in Oakland has determined that the Post Office is eligible for National Register of Historical Places status on two different criteria:

Criterion A: The Burlingame Main Post Office is significant under Criterion A for its association with the New Deal-era public works programs and policies under the significant theme of Politics/Government, as defined in

National Register Bulletin 13: How to Apply the National Register Criteria to Post Office.

Criterion C: This property is significant under Criterion C within the historic context and significant historic theme of Politics/Government. The property embodies distinctive characteristics of a post office designed and constructed between 1930 and 1942 in plan, structure, design, and ornamentation. The Burlingame Main Post Office contains many distinctive elements of its type — post offices constructed between 1930 and 1942 by the federal government, as exemplified by the standard interior spatial arrangement, and high-quality materials and workmanship.

The report notes the building's Spanish Eclectic architecture, but is especially glowing about the interior: 

The interior of the post office has been remarkably well preserved. Though many post offices retain "high style" interior features such as marble wainscoting, few remain as unaltered as this one. Original bank-teller style service windows have been retained in contrast to the usual policy, which replaced these windows at most post offices with open counters for service decades ago. Most post offices have also replaced the original post office boxes, but Burlingame retains the originals, which match the metal trim so prominent in the lobby. Details like metal-trimmed bulletin boards, the service desks discussed above, and even pen holders have all survived the post office’s 71 years of use.

Most of us already knew this was a building with special original features and a warm, bronzed feel about it that reminds one of a time before post offices started to feel like a Kinko's...a time when the postal eagle flew proudly.

Dog park in Washington Park?

This Saturday, there will be a meeting at the Recreation Center regarding the proposal that dogs be allowed off leash for extended periods of time. Currently they are allowed off leash hours during morning hours and the discussion as I understand it will be centered around whether evening hours should be afforded local dogs and thei owners.

Preliminar research indates to me that Washington park does not possess a single attribute that a dog park is suggested to have in any fundamental way to ensure success for both dogs and their owners.

Consider attending if you feel as I do.

Details:

Location: Burlingame Rec Center

Time: 10am-12noon

Date: Saturday, February 23

Watching Millbrae's Example

I found today's Daily Journal article titled "Alleged Shoddy Construction Brings Lawsuits" interesting to B'gamers for two reasons.  First, I constantly hear comments about how rigorous the single-family residential building inspections can be in B'game during construction.  100+ units appear to be a different story.  Second, we could easily be looking at one or more projects like this on the Post Office site or nearby.  So this excerpt about the Millbrae big condo projects' inspections caught my eye

Two Millbrae condominium developers with units between $599,000 to $1.28 million recently faced lawsuits over shoddy construction that includes severe structural issues, water damage and cracking — and although city inspectors signed off on the projects, they are immune from legal action.

The two developments each have more than 100 units along El Camino Real — 88 Broadway and Park Broadway. With Peninsula housing demand growing, land at a premium and a regional goal of transit-oriented multi-unit development, such housing is becoming more popular but can lead to a series of legal tangles once problems are revealed in time. While one group was able to reach a settlement, mediation continues for the other. But there may be a trend in the need to seek lawsuits.

Building up comes with different challenges than single-family homes. California has building codes, most recently adopted in 2010, regulating anything built in the state. Cities that have issued building permits are charged with inspecting the buildings to meet those codes. However, the employees and the city are immune from legal action if problems are found with that construction.

Millbrae officials declined to comment on the requirements of building inspectors. Neighboring cities also declined to comment about the requirements of their inspectors. Experts say the challenge appears to be the inability to really watch over every detail on such large projects. Ultimately, California law puts the need to fix problems to the developer. Developers are also given a chance to address the issues under California law and must be invited to mediation before legal proceedings can really begin. Mediation has become a clearly defined process.

Something to think about as we perhaps will looking at something of this scale in our downtown