The Burlingame Voice

City Council: Five Little Districts

Today each of us has five city councilmembers that are responsible and responsive to each of us.  That is about to end as a lawyer from Malibu is exploiting an arcane state election law to force the city to go to district-based seats.  You will soon have only one city councilmember who has the electoral need to respond to your concerns.  Get over it.  State officials like Kevin Mullin (our assemblyman) are good with criticizing B'game for following state law on campaign donation limits, but apparently can't be bothered to change state law to maintain our individual voting power at the status quo.  That feels like real work.  Get over it.

How to make the best of a terrible situation?  Hire a consultant, of course.  And so we have.  He's come up with three possible maps of districts that attempt to define: 

1. relatively equal population size
2. contiguous - districts should not hop/jump (like gerrymandered ones)
3. maintain "communities of interest"  (these are undefined, but you can assume it is not model-train hobbyists or your yoga classmates)
4. follow city/county/local government lines
5. keeps districts compact in both appearance and function

You can find maps A, B and C at the city sites I have linked to by letter.  Bear in mind there is no indication of which lots are residential (i.e. have voters) and which are commercial, industrial or city or school-owned (i.e. no voters) so the geographic size is not the best indicator.  And yes, B'game owns part of the bay--someday voters may live there too if we keep heading to "Buildingame" (hat tip Rob Adams).  Perhaps Mrs. Winchester and her house boat, The Ark, will return.

There are three proposals with five districts each, so 15 possible districts that range in size from 6,082 to 6,510.  Of course, the long running differences in voter turnout are not considered.  For example, 20 years ago in the 2001 election, we had 23 precincts plus absentee voting that 15% of voters used then.  The voter turnout varied from 12% in Ray Park/Murchison and 15% in Floribunda/Oak Grove to 36% Lincoln School/Devereaux and 38% in Howard/Rollins.  That is a 3:1 swing according to Old Math!  So running in different districts will carry different challenges.

The consultant's work goes to great length to assess the ethnic make-up of each of the 15 possible designs-- Latino, Asian, Black and "Other".  Those Others seem to be everywhere.  You have to wonder what happens if no one wants to run in one of the districts?  That would be funny!

The city is very interested in your comments so have at it here.  The council will be discussing it this Monday, Nov. 1st and probably well beyond that.  We live in interesting times.  December 16th update:  Here is the map that has been selected-- Map D.

City Council: Rai$e A$ Much A$ You Need at $4,900/head

Nobody has watched the city council campaign contributions over the last 20+ years as much as I have, unless maybe they were on the ballot themselves.  Even then, I doubt it.  Back in 2007, B'game-specific limits were imposed.  That was the Dark Ages of fundraising.  These days you can raise a boatload of "outside" money, meaning from outside of B'game, by getting on one or the other social media platforms and begging.  It has already happened here.  So why the archaic limits?  You could ask "why any limits at all?" but let's save that for another day.  In the meantime, as the DJ is reporting:

In a split vote, the Burlingame City Council this week opted to increase campaign contribution limits from $719.93 to $4,900, scrapping the lower citywide limit and defaulting to the state rule allowing larger contributions from individuals and organizations.

The local rule, established in 2007, had set a $500 limit for individuals and $1,000 for organizations, numbers that have been adjusted upward to account for inflation over time. The most recent cap for organizations was $1,439.87. In the beginning of this year, a state rule went into effect limiting contributions to $4,900 from both individuals and organizations in cities or counties that had not previously set stricter rules.

We don't see all that many split-votes unlike the Olde Days in town.  But in this case, I love this logic.  It may be twisted, but B'gamers are not the ones doing the twisting:

“I think people should be able to raise within the limits of the state,” Councilmember Donna Colson said. “The state has told us what to do around housing, the state has told us what to do around transit, sea level rise, lots of things, so why wouldn’t we comply also with the state regarding the elections.”

I will get to the nuances of the soon-to-be-implemented district council elections next week, but in the meantime rai$e what you think you need and maybe a bit more because the dark money from outside B'game is waiting to pounce--particularly the YIMBYs.

The CA exodus is real, so why do we need SB 10?

There are plenty of people who foolishly believe we can build our way out of the so-called "housing crisis".  Dense development hasn't caused lower housing costs anywhere in the world--in fact, many of the densest locations are also the costliest.  And when the other quality of life components and job prospects are as good as the Bay Area, one would have to be extra foolish to try to out-build the demand and further diminish the quality of life.  But Sacramento has foisted SB 9 and SB 10 on us anyway.  Most of them couldn't get through Econ 101, but that is where we are at.

The Burlingame City Council will discuss what to do about SB 10 tomorrow night.  The Staff Report is super thin on SB 10:

SB 10. California Senate Bill (SB) 10 allows (but does not require) local agencies to adopt an ordinance to allow up to 10 dwelling units on any parcel if the parcel is within a transit-rich area or urban infill site. (Ed:  pretty much all of B'game).

The General Plan Update has already provided a range of multiunit residential and mixed use land use districts with a wide range of residential densities, and the Zoning Ordinance Update underway will provide refined development standards for the corresponding zoning districts.

Staff requests direction from the City Council on whether to pursue zoning allowed by SB 10.  Whereas SB 9-compliant zoning is required, municipalities may choose to adopt (or not adopt) SB 10-compliant zoning.

And the report claims that neither SB 9 or SB 10 will have any fiscal impact!  It might be time to double-check the thinking on that since residential property taxes never cover the cost of providing city services--never mind the costs to the school district that is pretty much out of real estate.

But let's look a little deeper courtesy of last Sunday's Mercury News piece with the sub-head "In an area noted for its booming economy, stunning weather and natural beauty, a majority feel their quality of life is in decline".  The Silicon Valley Leadership Group and the Bay Area News Group commissioned a survey by Embold Research to dig into this and it's not pretty.

In a foreboding breakthrough, for the first time since the poll began posing the question in 2018 a solid majority -- 56% -- said they expect to leave the Bay Area in the next few years...a similar majority said the region is headed in the wrong direction.  In the survey of 1,610 registered voters, 71% said the Bay Area's quality of life has declined in the last five years.

Two problems topped the list of increased concern being "serious or very serious"?  Drought (+41%) and Water Supply (+32%).  I'm glad to know I'm not alone on this.  The cost of housing was still the highest overall at 92% but only up 6%.  What if even half of the half of people that are considering leaving do so?  Even if it is only 10% that would be significant.   B'game has a huge amount of new housing already approved, in design and "in-the-dirt".  Maybe we should see how that all plays out?  I hope the council's direction to staff on SB 10 is a brisk, clear "forgetaboutit" so they can get back to ensuring our public safety, water supply, small business vitality, economic health and quality of life.

Gas Power: Throwing the Baby out with the Bath Water

The old saying "Don't throw the baby out with the bath water" seems appropriate for the latest climate edict out of Sacramento courtesy of Assemblyman Marc Berman from the "leafy suburb" of Menlo Park.  Newsom signed AB1346 that outlaws the sale (but not the use) of "off-road" gasoline engines by 2024; or later if the California air police deem it necessary.  The Wall Street Journal offers some helpful points to understanding this latest maneuver

As an Assembly bill analysis notes, “for commercial uses, there is very little market for zero-emission equipment as today’s technology is relatively expensive and requires multiple batteries and/or frequent recharging and replacement” and “may be inadequate even if money is no object, particularly when used in rural areas without convenient access to recharging.”  No market? No matter. Sacramento will dictate a new one by banning the old one.

Banning sales of new small-combustion engines in tools “could have a few unintended consequences,” the analysis added. For instance, it could “lead to prolonged use of older, dirtier engines,” and the “purchase of non-compliant engines out of state for use in California.”  Home Depot stores in Tijuana and Reno no doubt will appreciate the sales boost.

Even better is this hidden gem

You won’t read this in other newspapers, but many Democrats who represent working-class communities are starting to worry that the state’s environmental policies are driving up the cost of living for minority communities.  Notably, about one in five Democrats in the Assembly and a third in the Senate from mostly lower- and middle-income districts abstained or voted against the bill.

"Abstaining" is the classic legislative ploy to avoid responsibility.  No one can say you voted against it.  There are plenty of people, including some long time readers of the Voice, who will applaud the move against gas leaf blowers.  I'm ok with that too; except for the $30 million of taxpayer money that is allocated to subsidizing the shift.  The "baby in the bathwater" is the fact that the bill includes gas-powered generators!  Talk about an absolutely idiotic ban.  Generators are flying off the shelves due to unreliable electricity.  Generac, the largest vendor in the U.S., has an enormous backlog -- its company stock is up more than 400% since January 2020.

I don't own a generator.  I've been meaning to buy one for years, but my move to solar that went quite well now has me planning a battery back-up as Phase 2 of the project.  I'm fortunate that I can afford the project with a little planning.  For most people, an $800-1,300 generator with no installation costs is a reasonable choice--or was.

SFO Runway Noise: Legislation Needs a Push

I called Jackie Speier's office a couple of months ago to ask what was the progress on the various airport noise bills she introduced last congressional session.  Read about them from 2019 here.  When I spoke to the staffer-in-the-know I learned that the bills had expired and needed to be reintroduced for this House session.  That has finally happened.  The press release is here.  Here are some snips pertinent to us close by and more affected by the engine run-up noise than the overhead flight noise:

“For years, constituents have lived with the scourge of airport noise. One sleepless night after another takes a significant toll on an individual’s physical health, mental health and emotional well-being.” Rep. Speier said. “This year we finally received the results of the long-anticipated FAA Neighborhood Environmental Survey, which showed what so many already knew to be true: residents are annoyed by airplane noise levels far lower than the FAA uses for its current minimum standards. 

I can totally agree with that.  Unfortunately these two bit of proposed legislation, while better than nothing, are pretty limited:

Serious Noise Reduction Efforts Act (SNORE) Act, H.R. 4931: Establishes a program at San Francisco International Airport (SFO) to noise insulate 200+ homes per year in specific areas or provide financial support to the cities impacted by noise.

Restore Everyone’s Sleep Tonight (REST) Act, H.R. 4929: Allows airports, at their option, to impose a curfew, under specified circumstances, at any time between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m.

I'm not in favor of giving SFO the option on a curfew.  They (the City of SF) are about the Benjamins so why put in a curfew?  But this one shows a way forward on Burlingame's main problem (and Millbrae and Hillsborough too)

Low-frequency Energetic Acoustics and Vibrations Exasperate (LEAVE) Act, H.R. 4926: As an airplane leaves from an airport, its takeoff generates significant amounts of ground-based low-frequency noise and vibration impacting residents in the vicinity. The bill would lead to the establishment of standards and remedies related to ground-based noise (GBN).

Now the trick is to rally the House of Representatives to actually move these forward and to find sponsors in the Senate to do the same.  Maybe our three congresspersons can take a page out of the Manchin/Sinema playbook?  Time to play some hardball on the infrastructure bills since the Townhall meeting at Skyline college was three years ago.  Yes, three years ago and last night was every bit as loud and unhealthy as 2018.

Sewer Rates: Running Uphill

There are very few city services as important to keep functioning as our sewer system.  The city has just sent out the proposed new rates that will cover about $22 million of improvements at the Treatment Facility and $12 million of improvements to pipes and pumps.  The proposed rates are stratified by type of user and "based on a 3-year average of water use from bills between January - April."   The theory being that what-comes-in-must-go-out except for irrigation and that is minimized in the winter months.  The Single Family Residences & Duplexes rates per 1,000 gallons of water used are:

Current Rate                    2022 Proposed                    2023 Proposed                2024 Proposed

$12.25                                $13.58                                $14.91                            $16.25

Thus the increases off of today's baseline are:

                                            10.9%                                21.7%                              32.7% 

The city notice uses an example of a typical single-family home using 8,200 gallons every two months (that's the billing cycle).  Doing the math, that means an increase of $196.80 per year by 2024.  That is an average--your mileage may vary, but it appears to be a fait accompli since the means of protesting it are by writing to the city and seeing if "a majority of parcels" do the same.  Not gonna happen.  I'll bet a majority of the property owners didn't even open the mailer.  Keep all of this in mind as you do the laundry, shower and do whatever between January and April.

 

Say Goodbye to an Old Friend

I haven't railed about any home demolitions lately since it doesn't seem to do much good.  My little patch of B'game at least requires a home historical evaluation before the claw arrives.  There is a bit of movement in that direction elsewhere in town as noted here.  And there has been at least one successful move (on Oak Grove).

Long-timers in town will recall the ruckus years ago over a nice old house on Carmelita on a big lot that was going to be demo'ed.  There was enough space on one side of the lot to add a new house and that calmed folks down.  Now a resident in the Easton Addition has passed along this photo of its demise.  Say goodbye to an old friend.

 

Turf vs. Grass: More to it than meets the eye

Millbrae is leading the way in examining whether or not artificial turf is a good residential lawn -- or not -- according to the DJ

Artificial turf may soon be illegal to install in Millbrae, at least for a period of time, with the City Council citing environmental concerns and the need to establish permanent rules surrounding the landscaping material often seen as a low maintenance and low water use alternative to real grass.

The move comes amid a worsening drought in the state leading many residents to seek alternate yard treatments that require less water. But according to experts, the environmental drawbacks of artificial turf likely outweigh the upsides. The city is now seeking a moratorium on the installation of the plastic material until permanent guidelines on its use can be researched and established.  Among concerns are increased heat, reduced water absorption and toxic runoff from disintegrating plastic — problems that could exacerbate climate issues often linked with drought. 

“You have in the case of a field … baked, sealed, compressed dirt that is completely dead underneath,” said Diana Conway, president of Safe Healthy Playing Fields, a volunteer organization that advocates against artificial turf. “That means not only is there no worm or bee activity, you have no runoff capacity, you have no water infiltration capacity, you have no carbon sink that you would have with grass.”  Additionally, artificial turf is 30% to 60% hotter than ambient temperatures on a warm sunny day, Conway said.

There is more here concerning whether or not the turf is really recyclable as claimed and whether or not Millbrae cracking down on people paving their yards will use artificial turf to try to avoid the lot paving coverage limits.  No mention of how bad it is for any trees that are nearby and thus  do not get watered properly.  As usual, the Law of Unintended Consequences kicks in.  Kudos to Millbrae for taking a look.  B'game, what say you?  Perhaps we can copy something smart?