The Burlingame Voice

Death...Oops... Trains and Taxes

Since affordability is such a hot topic these days we should examine each and every effort to degrade our affordability.  Gas taxes.  Highway 101 fees.  Natural gas bans in new buildings--or at least so far only new buildings--so we can spend oodles on electricity.  School bonds and parcel taxes.  More bonds for affordable housing.  A sliver for the Rec Center.  I'll bet some of the regular Voice commenters can remember some that I am missing.  So here are the latest two-- a slice for the train and a big bite on commercial property which is to say a big bite on brick and mortar retail.  Amazon must be thrilled.

"Nimby's" Win One

I am enjoying the gnashing of teeth I hear from the SF Comicle and various other development addicts and so-called affordable housing advocates over the recent court ruling in favor of the city of San Mateo and its well-established building code.  Judge George Miram is leading the race for Person of the Year as the Daily Journal reported

An effort to take legal action against San Mateo for the City Council’s decision to reject a proposal to build a 10-unit condominium building off El Camino Real in 2018 hit a stumbling block earlier this month when a judge ruled the city did not violate the Housing Accountability Act when the council denied the project’s approval based on height differences between properties.

City Attorney Shawn Mason has alleged the city’s decision regarding the project near El Camino Real and West Santa Inez Avenue is defensible because the proposed development objectively violated the city’s multi-family design guidelines aimed at smoothing height differences between properties with transitional features, such as setbacks.

“This court finds that the city of San Mateo is a charter city whose charter fully incorporates the home rule doctrine and that the approval of the instant residential housing project is an appropriate exercise of municipal affairs,” wrote Miram in the denial. “Furthermore, this court finds that to the HAA is unenforceable to the extent the HAA conflicts with or purports to disregard otherwise enforceable portions of the city’s Municipal Code regarding review of housing development projects.”

That ruling has set off a firestorm of criticism from the housing fascists who want the biggest, cheapest, densest buildings built the fasted wherever some developer can acquire a lot.  The Gavinor is apparently one of them now along with all of the usual suspects.  The SF Comicle followed up its "news" piece titled "Ruling may undercut law on housing: Judge says San Mateo can ignore California statute" with an editorial today that starts and ends with some gibberish about "objective standards" that show a crisis--one that they help manufacture with a steady stream of name-calling, narrowly-edited statistics and a refusal to admit the basic economics of bad policies like rent control.  And yes, I do realize I am fighting fire with fire on the name-calling.  Bottom Line:  We should be thankful there is at least one judge willing to reinforce the obvious and stand up for local control.

P.S. If Laura's comment on the Lyon Hoag Emergency post is accurate (I have no reason to doubt her) and the developer has scratched that approved project at Bayswater and Myrtle  perhaps the development addicts will realize over-in-filling the Peninsula is even more complicated than they think.  Anyone care to speculate on whether the latest rent control statewide law or the return of even more stringent ones next election may have played into the decision?  Here's the now empty Hower Auto lot.

Fall Treehugger Post: Pear's Best Year

For my Fall treehugger post, let's revisit my pear tree to see how it is finishing the best pear season in memory.  You will recall the crop photo here.  The tree yielded at least two dozen pears this year net of what the squirrels got to before me.  And after a couple of days of ripening in a brown paper bag, they were delicious.  Oddly enough the pear leaves have held on longer than a lot of other species this year and turned a lovely yellow.  For the Fall post, we usually enjoy our ginkos, Japanese maples and Chinese pistaches that are all over town, but the 2019 post goes to the pear.

School Bond Vote on the Horizon

Since I had heard the phone survey was making the rounds in town a few months ago, this piece in the Daily Journal about BSD thinking about going out for a vote in the spring election was expected. 

Beyond determining whether to call the election, officials must also decide the breadth of the measure as trustees are faced with three cost options — $120 million, $100 million or $97 million, according to a district report.

Earlier survey results showed 66% of voters would support a bond taxing property owners $25 per $100,000 of assessed property value, while 61% of voters would support a bond taxing $30 per $100,000 of assessed value. Both surveys greater than the 55% threshold required for the tax to pass.

We talked about the impact of development in town three years ago when the last bond was approved and noted the difference between B'game and my hometown in Massachusetts where the school budget is part of the city budget so there is more Couincil consideration given to school capacity among other things school-related.  The realization that we may have an issue here is slowly coming into focus:

Citing anticipated housing development throughout the city brought by loosened development regulations, board President Mark Intrieri has said revenue generated by the potential bond could finance acquisition of land to build a new campus.

Compounding capacity concerns held by officials is district enrollment continuing to tick up organically as officials have noted a trend apart from many other school districts which have seen student population dip over recent years.  A district report illustrated Burlingame schools have taken on almost 200 additional students over the past few years, pushing overall enrollment to 3,511 students.

If floated and approved, the bond would be the district’s second in recent years, as voters in 2016 approved Measure M, a $56 million bond largely designed to update and renovate aging campuses.

I'm guessing the bulk of that $56 million went to Hoover and the Washington addition as I think the McKinley addition was earlier.  The DJ notes that the high school district (SMUSHD) is having the same discussion and considering the same spring election for its bond.  I'm not sure I agree with the thinking expressed by BSD folks that two school bond measures on the same ballot is not a cause for concern (if you want them to pass).

Staffing Up Locally for the U.S. Census

After a recent conversation with an old B'game friend of mine, I got a real kick out of this Wall Street Journal article titled "Who Will Be the First American Counted in the Census":

TOKSOOK BAY, ALASKA — In this tiny coastal village, five leaders of the Nunakauyarmiut tribe huddled around a table one recent evening to make a decision: Who will be the first person counted in America for the 2020 census?  They wanted to pick the oldest resident of this 659-person fishing outpost. Two of them, Alois Lincoln and Lizzie Chimiugak, both seemed to be 89 years old—but the records aren’t exactly clear on their birthdates. 

In the coming decennial count, the government will ask most Americans to respond online for the first time, starting shortly before Census Day on April 1. The count really kicks off in January, however, in remote parts of Alaska—where internet is spotty and some homes lack addresses. There, census takers must count every household by hand.

Alaska starts early because residents are more likely to be home during winter’s peak, and frozen terrain is easier to cross than the mushy ground of spring. On Jan. 21, specially trained enumerators with paper and pencils (because ink can freeze) will start knocking on tens of thousands of doors.

Those conditions make helping out with the 2020 Census in San Mateo County look like a piece of cake.  My friend, Pat Belding, is also a recent retiree in search of ways to contribute and has taken a position as a Recruiter Assistant with the local census organization.  So I'm helping him out with some free advertising--the only kind we do here at the Voice.  There are several types of jobs available locally including clerks ($24/hr), enumerators like those described in the Alaska article ($30/hr) who verify addresses and help people fill out the forms and some supervisor jobs ($33/hr).  Paid training is included both on-line and two Saturday sessions conducted locally.

If you know someone who is over 18, a citizen with no criminal record who wants flexible work of between 25 and 40 hours per week for eight weeks at a time (renewable) and likes to get out in the neighborhoods, this is a great way to help out the Federal government.  It takes them awhile to process applications, so don't wait because you think the census is a long ways in the future.  In government time, February to June 2020 is just around the corner.  Apply on-line at 2020census.gov/jobs.

Kudos to Pat for taking on this important recruiting role in an economy with 2.3% unemployment!

B'game (and H'borough) Are #9 in Real Estate Value

Remember the days when a healthy and growing real estate market was viewed as a good thing?  Before the envy merchants started hogging the headlines?  Me too.  So let's just note that 94010 is healthy and growing.  The Chronicle piece on Bay Area median prices puts our burg and the one "up the hill" that we share 94010 with at #9 in the Bay Area and #19 in the nation.  The median price thus far in 2019 was $2.63 million and the article notes we get a boost from the H'borough prices, but from what I've seen many sections of B'game are on par with sections of H'borough as people appreciate the walkability and bikeability of being close in.  But somethings don't just go up all the time though.

Although the Bay Area continues to dominate the PropertyShark rankings, it hasn’t been immune to a slowdown in housing prices. Of the 46 Bay Area ZIP codes that were on its list both this year and last, 25 went down in price, 19 went up and two were unchanged, according to a Chronicle analysis.  In a separate report issued Monday, the California Association of Realtors noted that the Bay Area has posted year-over-year price declines for nine consecutive months and 10 of the last 11.

Linking two rankings together we can also look to the San Francisco magazine annual Top 100 realtor rankings by sales where B'game is well-represented:

1            Stanley Lo        $304M

8            Phil Chen            $169M

30            Raziel Ungar        $100M

38            Jim Arbeed        $93M

39            Sandy Camaroto    $93M

67            Mike Bohnert        $72M

There is no telling what 2020 will bring, but with interest rates staying quite low, but not dropping from here and demand up, up, up the real question remains "Where will the water come from to supply all the new construction?"

 

SFO Noise: Will Development Make It Worse?

I attended my first Airport Roundtable Ground Based Noise subcommittee meeting today.  The group is composed of council members representing B'game, Millbrae and H'borough along with SFO employees, consultants, a County of San Mateo facilitator, a staff member from Supe Dave Pine's office and the ex-United pilot who is advising Jackie Speier on the problems we are having with horrid SFO take-off noise.  Things move slowly in government and this subcommittee is no exception--and when (if) they come up with any recommendations those will still need to slog through the full Airport Roundtable and eventually to some conclusion directed to SFO.

The discussion wended its way through the various noise measurements that are already recorded and how to add analysis of the low-frequency rumbling take-off noise that is keeping people awake starting at 10:30 pm and extending to 3 am on some nights.  Let's be clear--this is a community health threat that is much more immediate than much of what passes for environmental concerns in politics today.  I was encouraged by our rep, councilman Ricardo Ortiz, who has heard from locals that are clearly impacted.  And by Millbrae council woman Ann Schneider who is hearing back-blast noise in her kitchen which looks out directly on the new SFO hotel.  This latest addition to the SFO monolith may be a contributing factor to our discomfort.

SFO consultants HMMH have been tasked with assessing the recorded noise history from April 2013 and April and September 2014 since those are key dates when runways were reconfigured--another possible contributing factor to our discomfort.  The firm is also using a noise profiling application called SoundPLAN to try to figure out the give and take--the inputs and outputs-- of the noise that is degrading our quality of life in the mid-Peninsula.  It involves profiling the jet engine back blast, the terrain in our towns, the buildings that may be reflecting the noise and even the possibility that groves of trees might attenuate the noise.  Councilwoman Schneider provided a laundry list of the future construction in Millbrae around the BART station and that is when the light-bulb when on for councilman Al Royse from Hillsborough.  I'm paraphrasing, but Al's fresh insight was essentially "you mean to say that all of these new, high-rise, transit-oriented-development buildings might actually increase the diffusion of runway noise in our communities?"  Bingo.  Al gets today's prize for putting 2 and 2 together and coming up with 4.

What we really need is a greater sense of urgency from everyone involved.  As I type this at 11:35 pm the low-frequency back blast noise is bad.  I could pull out the thesaurus and find a stronger synonym, but I'm sticking with "bad".  Here is today's subcommittee meeting.

 

High-Cost Rail - Part 149 Diesel or Electric?

Our last chapter in the high-cost rail saga involved delays costing tons of money and painted a glum picture of waste here.  The SacBee is reporting on an Assembly Transportation Committee meeting in Fresno yesterday where several assembly members posed overly-logical questions and offered alternative approaches to the Gavinor's Merced to Bakersfield all-electric white elephant.  That needs another $4.8 billion--likely much more. Here are two different views of where to spend more money.

Assembly Member Laura Friedman, D-Burbank, gave voice to rumblings among legislators that some of that money may be better spent on improvements that will ultimately be needed for high-speed rail in other parts of the state.  She discounted what rail authority CEO Brian Kelly and others described as the value of completing Merced-Bakersfield as a fully electrified high-speed line to demonstrate that it can be done.  Instead, she said it is more important to invest in segments in more populated areas that can demonstrate value by increasing ridership significantly over existing levels.

She's talking about LA-Anaheim-San Diego or even the LA-Vegas route that is being discussed.  The other change of direction idea involves sticking with diesel!

Daniel Curtin, a member of the Rail Authority board since 2015 and a Sacramento resident, advocated for a different way of thinking among his board colleagues that includes acceptance of incremental improvements in train service through the Valley with 125-mph diesel trains running on the new line now under construction, rather than spending billions more on electrification and new trains.

“The question not being addressed is simply this: is it better to ride a 170-mph train from Bakersfield to Merced and then have to get off and wait for a different train … if your destination is San Jose or Sacramento?” Curtin said. “Or is it better to have a one-seat ride through the Central Valley from Bakersfield to Merced then on to San Jose or Sacramento on a 125-mph train? … The one-seat ride is always the answer, always.“

The bottom line is the same--we've burned through billions of dollars, taken a lot of private property, there is no plan to get to the population centers either technically or financially and no business plan to ever make back what has been spent.  But plunge ahead we must according to the governor.

The Other Burlingame....Kansas

I got a great trip report from local B'gamer Linda Yelnick about her recent visit to Burlingame, Kansas.  The other town named for Anson is about 28 miles southwest of Topeka.  Linda prepped for her visit by contacting the Burlingame (KS) Historical Preservation Society and letting them know she would be visiting so that when she arrived she got the classic friendly mid-western reception.  Linda and her son discovered a number of interesting things about this little town of 934 people from Carolyn Strohm of the BHPS.

The other Burlingame was originally a coal mining town named Council City and is one of the oldest communities in Kansas being founded in 1854 before Kansas was a state.  Anson Burlingame passed through four years later in 1858 and gave an anti-slavery speech that impressed the folks enough to rename the town after him.  Anson never lived in either town named for him.  B'game, KS is known as the place where "rail meets trail" as the Santa Fe rail and Santa Fe trail cross there.

Linda was impressed by the small-town feel where the main street is about two blocks long and everything is closed on Sundays unless the restaurant owner decides to open and make a meal for a visitor as he did for Linda and her son.  The street is quite wide so that the ox caravans of old could make a U-turn downtown.  As Carolyn Strohm told Linda "everybody knows everybody and we feel safe and secure".  Old timers in 94010 remember something similar.  The old Lincoln school building that dates from 1902 has been re-purposed into a impressive historical museum.  Oddly enough, the school mascot is the Burlingame Bearcat!  San Mateans cannot be happy about that.

The other Burlingame also has a prominent citizen named Jerry Hill who is most famous for award-winning kettle corn.  The two Jerry's have been in touch and kettle corn was exchanged.  The next time I see our Jerry I will ask him what he sent out to their Jerry.  Check out the entry sign to Burlingame, KS 66413.  Plenty of room to grow there.

BHS Student Brings it Home

With the election in the rear view mirror, we can get back to regular issues.  The Daily Journal has a nice write-up on BHS student Jeffery Chen

The Burlingame High School senior won first place in the Breakthrough Junior Challenge, receiving a $250,000 college scholarship, $50,000 for his science teacher and $100,000 science lab for his school.  Chen, 17, won the international competition Sunday, Nov. 3, with a three-minute educational video he created about neutrino astronomy, which tracks cosmic events through the capture of galactic particles.

And with the new science learning space to be built at his school, Chen said he is hopeful to inspire other Burlingame High School students to push the boundaries of their imaginations too.

This is a welcome antidote to the recent disappointing news about graffiti at BHS and the subsequent arrest of a local young man.  Kudos to Chen.  You can click through to his video here and while you are there check out all of the local B'game background - the Bayfront, the BHS lawn, and the train station at sunset. 

Beach and Colson are victorious

After 30 years in the forecasting business (albeit in tech, not politics) I was pleased to see that my pre-election prediction was pretty much on the nose.  I believed that the top 2 would be razor close and the differential for third position would be 1,000 votes.  I only have a few witnesses to my call, but who cares?  Here are the 9:30 pm results from this year's city council election which are virtually identical to the 8:05 pm results.  I expect very little change when the last few votes are counted.  UPDATE:  Nov. 19 Semi-official results added below:

                                            Election Night                    Nov. 19 Semi-Official

Emily Beach          3,165        38.64%                4.045        38.28%

Donna Colson        3,042        37.13%                3,830        36.24%

Mike Dunham         1,985        24.23%                2,693        25.48%

As I noted here when I endorsed Colson and Beach after interviewing all three candidates, having an election is a very important community event.  Letting incumbents walk in for another term unopposed without engaging the community is not healthy.  So Mike Dunham gets another tip of the hat for taking on the challenge.  He did fairly well all considered; riding his team's community activism, the usual undercurrent of "throw the bums out" and a decent amount of fundraising.  He raised $22K and spent $15K which begs the question of what else might have added to his total aside from walking neighborhoods and making phone calls?  As of two weeks ago Colson had spent $21.7K and Beach spent $26K and there were no last minute pushes so this really (really!) was not about the money.

Texting with Mike tonight for his thoughts on the race, here is what he had to add

From a policy point of view, one thing that was very apparent talking to voters is that almost no one is happy about the new Facebook campus coming to Burlingame, and I suspect that the full consequences of the Council's dramatic upzoning of the Bayfront for purely commercial development are going to be similarly unpopular. The Burlingame Point project was able to get its approvals during the wake of a recession, but will the next several large office projects bringing thousands of jobs and zero homes to the city sail through as easily? In my mind, what happens to the Bayfront in the next 5-10 years is by far the most important set of decisions for the future of Burlingame and whether we can hold onto any of our rapidly disappearing middle class.

In the end, Beach and Colson had track records, organizations and deep community roots that are the cornerstones of successful local campaigns.  Kudos to both and we will see if the challenger's sentiments weave their way into the discussions in City Hall.

Bond Disclosures and Sea Level Rise

As I was reading yesterday's WSJ article about coastal cities decrying the impending sea level rise on one hand and essentially ignoring the risk in their municipal bond disclosures, I flashed on the B'game bayfront and the bonds we are about to issue for the Rec Center rebuild.  The Journal article notes

The Government Accountability Institute undertook a yearlong study of 40 major cities to find out if mayors’ apocalyptic projections about climate risks are factored into the interest rates on the municipal bonds their cities issue. The results revealed a gulf between the words municipal leaders speak and the disclosures cities make. There was no statistically significant difference in the interest rates for bonds issued by cities in high-risk locations for climate-change devastation versus those issued by low-risk cities.

The study also found scant mention of climate change in bond disclosure documents. The disclosure statements of the 20 at-risk cities totaled 4,361 pages. Phrases like “climate change” and “sea-level rise” appeared fewer than 100 times across all 20 at-risk cities in the context of the issues addressed in this study. Further, 12 out of the 20 disclosures for at-risk cities did not mention climate language in the same context.

When they got to discussing Oakland, it felt very close to home indeed since our sea level is their sea level

Worse, “by 2050, a ‘100-year flood’ in the Oakland vicinity is expected to occur on average once every 2.3 years and by 2100 to occur 44 times per year or almost once per week.” The lawsuit added that “Oakland is projected to have up to 66 inches of sea level rise by 2100.” The city alleged this would “imminently threaten Oakland’s sewer system” and harm property with a “total replacement cost of between $22 and $38 billion.”

Contrast that detailed, dramatic language with Oakland’s bland, measured 2017 bond risk disclosure to investors: “The City is unable to predict when seismic events, fires or other natural events, such as sea rise or other impacts of climate change or flooding from a major storm, could occur, when they may occur, and, if any such events occur, whether they will have a material adverse effect on the business operations or financial condition of the City or the local economy.”

That looks like an "oopsy" to me.  Which is it?  Is Oakland 30 years from disaster on a semi-annual basis which for a major port city would be a financial Titanic or are they unable to predict any of this?  We will have to have our local bond expert(s) weigh in on the B'game disclosures of same.