Growth by the numbers

This Saturday, the Burlingame City Council will hold a study session where discussions regarding Burlingame's housing concerns will be on the table. According to the city's own estimates, housing projects that have been approved and some that are in the pipeline will add more than 500 units to our current housing stock. All of these units are in multi-dwelling buildings. If you have never been to one of these meetings, I guarantee you will find it interesting. It's a bit less formal than a council meeting, but not much, but you will hopefully hear the council opine in a more open environment.

The question imho, is this growth "smart growth" or just "growth to meet the state's mandatory numbers?" Another question is regarding affordable housing. Is this a response to those who claim we need it or is there some science behind it?

The session begins at 9am and will be held in the Lane Room at the Burlingame Library. The agenda is here.

Comments

[Account Deleted]

Also interesting to see the agenda item re: the proposed allocation of Measure I (recently passed sales tax). In particular, the new community center is estimated to cost a minimum of $40 million. The proposal is to float $30 million of debt to pay for it. The debt service cost for $30 million is $2 million. Measure I sales tax was originally expected to raise $2 million annually, but is now projected to bring in $1.75 million annually. The city is proposing allocating $1 million of this Measure I revenue to finance half of the bond issue, and dedicate $1 million from the general fund (really, the same pot) to finance the other half. The other portion of the total $40 million project cost would be covered by using funds from the Capital improvements reserve.

[Account Deleted]

Addendum: Meant ANNUAL debt service cost for $30 million (rec center bond issuance) is $2 million.

[Dingy El Camino Real]

One of the best ways for Burlingame and other California cities that are mandated to add hundreds of new residential units, per the ruling party in Sac, is to replace the dilapidated and poorly constructed apartment buildings on El Camino with new apartment buildings with higher, more efficient density that are more environmentally friendly (current may have lead, asbestos, mold, VOCs), more attractive and more profitable with a higher property tax base.

And, these new apartment buildings often require...15-25% below market units.

[KRN-]

What about the issues to the north and south?

Millbrae is about to approve a monster construction project that will clog up resources and will cause external/spillover impact on Burlingame.

https://www.smdailyjournal.com/news/local/millbrae-station-project-draws-community-ire/article_f00f6358-0190-11e8-a734-6f2b5bdb2c6b.html

[Cassandra]

Money for police and potholes goes to the Rec. Center- as I prophecies.

[HMB]

People forget about all the apt buildings in Millbrae that were torn down to building the Bart station. The sudden drop in the school population sent the district into a panic and they literally took out ads to entice families in San Bruno to transfer their kids to Millbrae school district.

[HMB]

Rec Center building is a hazard -- it is full of mold. Plus you can smell the gas leaking from the kitchen. It needs to be torn down.

[hollyroller]

I agree.
Tear that building down and improve the Beautiful Washington Park.

[Bruce Dickinson]

No one is saying don't tear down the old Rec center. Bruce Dickinson and many other smart folks are saying: build something in its place at a reasonable cost that provides moderately better utility. $15 million to $20 million dollars tops. We're building a Rec center for crying out loud, not the Ritz Carlton Burlingame! Overground parking, slightly larger size than is there currently, keeping a simple design that blends into the surroundings versus a "hey everyone, look at this" architecture will get you there. $1,100+ per square foot for the current proposal is preposterous, not to mention $2 million dollars in debt service!?!?

Guys sorry to break it to you, but The City Of Trees does not contain money trees. Time to get Fiscally responsible with a capital "F"!

[Jennifer]

For some reason, I cannot find a link to this article online, perhaps someone else can figure it out-- In today's SJ Merc, front page news, the following:

"Cities, Counties Fail to OK Housing", and it is followed by two "lists" of all the cities and counties who failed to reach their various RHNA allocations during the 8-year cycle.

The reason I am calling attention to this article is this line: "Report shows 97 percent in state not meeting market rate, affordable goals".

So one wonders about the magical 3% -- who actually made the cut: Foster City, Hillsborough, San Anselmo and Beverly Hills. No joke. I cannot find the RHNA allocations posted anywhere, and the SM County Housing Authority phone line was still closed at 10:30, even though their recording indicates they are open at 8am.

Another surprise, Millbrae, with all of their housing projects, also didn't make the cut, and are on the list that contains cities that not only didn't produce enough "affordable" housing, but also not enough "market rate" housing. Burlingame at least made that cut.

So maybe the fault is not with the 97% of the cities themselves, most of which I can only surmise would like to maintain some kind of local control over their individual character, but with the ridiculous, one-size-fits-all system designed for big cities-- oh, and I forgot to mention, not even San Francisco made the cut on the "affordable" end.

Someone named Matt Schwartz, CEO of California Housing Partnership, based in San Francisco (of course), suggested that there should be a "penalty" in the way of withholding transportation funding for cities not in compliance.

Are these people insane? We don't have any public transportation in the first place, and that's one of the biggest problems with this whole "build more and more" concept.

[Bruce Dickinson]

Jen-baby, here's the article. Bruce Dickinson will have more thoughts on this later:'

https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/02/01/housing-shortage-new-report-shows-how-california-cities-and-counties-stack-up/

[Meeeee]

Jen baby LOL. BD you crack me up

[Jennifer]

John Horgan - SJ Mercury News:
"So far, the Villagers Haven't Brandished Pitchforks"...

Will there be a tipping point? That question, as it relates to the stunning development boom in San Mateo County 58 million square feet either under construction or in the local pipeline has been much on the mind of your devoted Mercury News correspondent.

As announcements of new and massive projects proliferate, you have to wonder when (if) residents and others will organize to object in any concerted way. So far, the available evidence of any such uprising by the rank-and-file is scant or utterly non-existent.

Certainly, there have been some scattered complaints, the occasional outburst at a planning commission or city council gathering, an angry letter to the editor or two, but nothing of real consequence.

The villagers brandishing pitchforks have yet to make an aggressive, concerted appearance on the Peninsula’s policy-making stage, although the first glimmering of such displeasure may be brewing in San Mateo as interest in maintaining strict building height limits in certain areas gains some steam.

As a result, government officials with authority in these weighty matters,along with real estate interests, labor representatives, money lenders and their allies, have been able to operate in rather unobstructed fashion, for
the most part.

Some projects have been modified, others have been delayed, but, in the end, the agents of suburban change have been getting their way without significant resistance.

There has been a strong feeling that residents who oppose at least some aspects of this avalanche of construction have lost their collective voice. The push for more and more office buildings and apartments and condominiums seems to have overwhelmed the citizenry.

Then again, perhaps we are in a new environment here in which voters actually approve of what’s occurring. If that’s the case, more power to them. They will get what they desire, no matter how much those changes alter the
character of their hometowns.

The urbanization of the Peninsula may be preferred today. But that seems counter-intuitive. This area was created as an antidote to city life. The single-family home remains a cherished goal (if a very expensive one indeed) for an awful lot of people.

Current construction, though, does not address that need. Instead, the aim is multiple living units on the same footprint. Witness what’s happening along, or near, El Camino Real and the Caltrain route for examples of the
“new” San Mateo County.

These rows of monoliths are designed to address our housing crunch, spurred by new office buildings and the obvious need to find places for those workers to live. It’s a non-stop carousel.

In the process, the Peninsula’s one-time charm, at least in the flatlands, is slowly being lost. I have a hunch that, once that tipping point is reached, it will be much too late.

We will miss what he had when it’s gone. But does anyone really care? It’s not a matter of NIMBYism so much as it is preserving what’s important and unique.

https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/02/07/horgan-so-far-the-villagers-havent-brandished-pitchforks/

[Laura]

I know I care and have tried but all I keep getting told is that Sacramento is making us do this! I don't think the Cities really care what the residents think and I don't think they care that they are destroying their own towns. They only care that they are doing Governor Browns bidding as a good party member, doesn't question their party leader's demands.