The Burlingame Voice

Housing Maneuvers - Part 1 Pausing the land grab

We noted that the real action County-wide and State-wide in the Fall election is in the propositions and initiatives since the candidate voting is pretty much a given.  B'game will have a real race or two, but outside our little town there is a lot of fait accompli.  But one controversial move that will not be on the ballot is the County land grab for "affordable housing".  The DJ is noting that the Supes, in their wisdom, have decided to "pause" their land grab.

Despite a poll suggesting majority voter support, San Mateo County will not be placing a measure on November ballots allowing the development of low-income housing units without voter approval, in pursuant of Article 34 of the state Constitution.  The measure, initially presented at a special meeting of the board July 22, would have provided authorization for the county and other public agencies to construct or acquire affordable rental housing for low-income residents — up to 1% of total existing housing units — without voter consideration. 

Although Chief Executive Officer Mike Callagy maintained Article 34 “has no place in this county,” he did not ask the Board of Supervisors to consider approving such a measure placement this election cycle.

One has to wonder what other bits and pieces of the state Constitution have no place in San Mateo County?  Perhaps we could get a list?  The usual blather about "racism in homeownership" and "constituent confusion" and wanting to be "collaborative" with local cities and not "usurp their authority" ensued. The reality is the November ballot is already stuffed with pork.  So much so that voters are likely to Just Say No to the whole lot.  Half Moon Bay and Millbrae led the public charge against this land grab.  Here's hoping B'game electeds did so quietly but firmly.

Trees: Toughening up the ordinance; Sacramento interferes

The B'game ordinance requiring approval to cut down a protected tree is getting an update.  The "sort-of" protected status covers all private trees in the city if they measure at least 48" in circumference when measured 54" high from natural grade.  I say "sort-of" because there are a variety of ways to get around it.  The Daily Journal piece describes some of them

Burlingame is proposing updates to its tree ordinance, including broadening appeal rights for removal decisions, offering staff discretion over plantings and replacements based on site conditions and harsher penalties for ordinance violators.

Burlingame, locally known as the ‘city of trees,’ has long prioritized its urban forest, but its current tree ordinance doesn’t follow present industry standards and isn’t an effective deterrent to intentional wrongdoing, Richard Holz, parks superintendent and city arborist, said.

Note we aren't just locally known as a "city of trees", we have been awarded Tree City USA status by the National Arbor Day Foundation each year since 1980. Tree Cities must have an active tree maintenance and replacement program. They must also have an active local board which specifically deals with arboricultural issues.  But that aside, the piece picks up on the tougher penalties

Additionally, (Assistant City Attorney Scott) Spansail proposed explicitly stating that violations of the ordinance can be prosecuted as a misdemeanor and raising fines for violators — like those who illegally remove trees — to $1,000 per violation and restitution for the tree’s appraised value, the maximum amount permitted under California law.

Sounds good until you realize Sacramento just keep inflicting more and more ways to damage local quality of life and control.  Michael Brownrigg was on it

Although the city has limited ability to deny tree removals for projects like accessory dwelling units or Senate Bill 9 housing, which have state-mandated zoning requirements, they can stipulate conditions of removal, Spansail said.  Councilmember Michael Brownrigg expressed frustrations around these state-mandated allowances and said that the proposed document was “a little too nice.”

“For one, if you want to get rid of a tree, the easiest thing in the world right now is to just say, ‘I’m going to build an ADU right where the redwood is, coincidentally, and you take it out and you never build the ADU,” he said. “You might think of a penalty if that happens.”

Unfortunately, we can think about such a penalty all we want, but it's not likely to happen.  I'm sure bully AG Rob Bonta would be sending a threatening letter to the city the minute even one ADU was stymied because of a measly old tree.  That's like reverse greenwashing.  It's 84 degrees outside as I write this at 3pm.  I'm gonna go find a shady spot under a big tree. 

Whither City Hall?

I underestimated how many people have noticed (complained?) about the possibility of a new City Hall being considered during a time of tight finances.  The Daily Journal did a piece on it a couple weeks ago and since then, it has been the second most common complaint after the California Dr. reconfiguration.  Who knew that many people are paying attention?  The DJ writes

Burlingame’s City Council is taking next steps toward a new City Hall, approving commercial real estate broker CBRE to identify commercial real estate within the city that could work for a new space.  Burlingame has been exploring options for a new City Hall location since 2023 — hiring architectural firm Group 4 Architecture for a space-needs and cost estimate and real estate advisor Keyser Marston Associates to review existing city-owned property.

But hiring a real estate advisor doesn’t mean any decisions are a “done deal,” Councilmember Michael Brownrigg emphasized at the May 6 meeting, adding that the need for a new City Hall should be better explained to the public.

By my reckoning, Michael Brownrigg has that right.  When I sat through the budget study session recently, he was the first councilor to highlight the drop in the Unassigned Fund Balance from $7.7M to zero dollars in the proposed budget.  Don't hold me to the exact number, but that was what I jotted down off the Zoom call.  Here are the details for what's next:

CBRE will look into Burlingame’s available commercial real estate, representing the city in negotiating transaction terms if the city prefers existing commercial office space, according to a staff report detailing the two-year agreement.  The brokerage group will receive a commission on any purchase or lease agreement, and will be paid $70,000 if no lease, purchase or lease-to-purchase transaction is completed, the staff report said.

From my conversations, the first thing that is needed is a statement of what is wrong with the existing facility.  Having spent a fair amount of time in there over the last 30 years, it ain't great, but it's not terrible either.  Maybe we should have made the new Rec Center a little larger.

Parklets on the chopping block?

Parklets arrived in B'game about four years ago as we noted here.  They were a good idea at the time and helped keep some of our local eateries in business.  That was then, this is now as the city council moves to reign them in.  I don't think many people believed they would still be around four years later and that the $250 per month "cleaning fee" would be insufficient to actually keep the areas around the parklet clean.  That is just one issue.  The impact on street parking, visibility for safe driving (the Rocca parklet being exhibit A) and visibility for storefronts adjacent to the parklets are also drawing council attention.  I would add one more.  The businesses that didn't cover up the orange hydro barriers are contributing to the Make Burlingame Ugly Again (MBUA) trend along with cheesy plastic bollards, floppy crosswalk signs, perpetually empty newspaper boxes, signage overkill, et al.  Add you least favorite street detritus here _____________________.  The Daily Journal is reporting on the council meeting where all of this was discussed

Originally, the parklets were a vital function of maintaining restaurant business during the COVID-19 pandemic, but they’ve become overbearing for retailers who make important contributions to the city’s sales tax, Mayor Donna Colson said. 

“I don’t want to jeopardize our balance with hard businesses and restaurants, which are also fun, but are frankly destroying the [Avenue] right in front of the restaurants,” she said. “It’s pitch black, filthy, dirty, they’re not covering the cost, we can’t keep it clean. … I think it’s just a matter of balancing it.”  Currently, 30 parklets in the Burlingame Avenue downtown and the Broadway Commercial district are occupying 63 parking spaces, with 13 extending beyond their business frontages.

The proposed new rules will likely gut the program.

Under the draft ordinance, roofs, trellises and tent shade structures will not be allowed and structural elements will not be allowed to extend beyond the top of the walls to allow for better visibility to adjacent businesses. Curb gutters must be kept unobstructed and furnishings cannot be stored in the parklet when not in use.

Without roofs, the heaters will be much less effective on cold days and diners will be much warmer on sunny lunch hours.  Moving everything out and back in each day probably will motivate restaurants to pull the parklet plug.  We will know by October when the new rules kick in.  It's fun to see the DJ use Bgame in a headline though I prefer it with the apostrophe.

August 2024 Update:  The new rules went into effect at the end of July and many parklets have been removed.  The city notes that we are down to 14 active parklets complying with the new rules.  In other news, the FLiRT variant of Covid is increasing to seriously high levels in the Bay Area at this moment.  Here is a photo of a parklet being disassembled.

 

Working at the Burlingame Library is a Special Privilege

We are one year removed from the post about the piece of toilet paper the library installed over the motto on the Living in Burlingame is a Special Privilege tapestry.  Refresh your memory with this post last April here:

People have earned the special privilege of living here.  Some few may have inherited the privilege, but that just means their parents or grandparents earned it.  If we have city employees (employees we pay!) who think differently, we need some new employees.  Any library trustee who went along with this needs to rethink their responsibilities and priorities.

As usual, the SF Comicle has unintentionally highlighted how right I was last year.  I'm thinking our B'game snowflakes need to take a rotational training program up to an EssEff library.  Six months should be sufficient.  OK, maybe we ship 'em up for a full year.  B'game can pay for their self-defense training if they complete a full year.  Sort of like the Peace Corps.

What say you Council and Trustees?  Is it time to "woke up" and remove the toilet paper ribbon?

4/16 Update:  When I saw this meme today, I immediately thought about this post.  For the "Burlingame is for everyone" and the "Burlingame for all" people who were pushing for rent control, and for the YIMBY's with law degrees but who don't actually have backyards, this one's for y'all.

Squatter zoning restrictions being studied for B'game

In a proactive effort to get ahead of the burgeoning trend of squatters taking over uninhabited residences, the Burlingame City Council has asked staff to quickly assess which sections of town should be zoned for squatting.  Staff has been asked to assess whether the zones should be patterned after the new city council districts, the elementary school districts or the zones for legal leaf blowing on a particular day of the week.  There are legal guidelines for squatters to follow as shown here:

Squatters’ rights, also known as “adverse possession”, refers to laws that allow a person to gain legal ownership of a property they have occupied without permission from the legal owner. In California, squatters can make a legal claim to own the property they are occupying after residing there continuously for 5 years. 

Squatters differ from trespassers, in that trespassers occupy a property illegally but make no claim of ownership or legal right to live there. Squatters, on the other hand, occupy the property without permission but may be able to gain legal rights if they meet the criteria for adverse possession.

With the recent arrest of a squatter at the Burlingame train station master's quarters after flying below the radar for several years, the city council felt some urgency to codify which sections of town should and should not welcome squatters.  Enhanced surveillance of the no-squat zones would preclude the 5-year window from opening.

State Senator Scott Weiner immediately attacked the proposed ordinance as "knee jerk NIMBYism of the first degree" and promised to introduce legislation in Sacramento to prevent local governments from reducing the squat-friendly housing supply in the name of fairness and equity.  Weiner did not rule out including affordable squatting requirements based on income and reduced gas and electric rates for young, first-time squatters. 

City Council: Ricardo Ortiz steps down. Now what?

B'game does not see a lot of mid-term resignations by city council members.  Mike Coffey and Jerry Deal did it, but those are the only ones I can recall.  Back then things were simpler.  We didn't have 80% voter suppression driven by the threat of a lawsuit from some lawyer from Malibu who we bent over for and went to district elections.  But before we get to that, here is Ricardo's statement as posted to his Facebook account:

Yesterday,I gave Mayor Colson my resignation letter. After 10 years as a member of our City Council, I have decided that with changes at work, it has become too difficult to fully serve the citizens of District 1 and the City at large.

 

It has been an honor serving all these years and I thank the citizens of Burlingame for trusting me. In these ten years, I have served as Mayor twice and had many regional leadership positions including Chair of the SFO Community Roundtable, Chair of the Central County Fire Board, Vice Chair of C/CAG. I have served on multiple sub-committees of which the Community Center and Broadway Grade Separation stand out.

 

This has been a very important part of my life and I am going to miss it. Mostly, I’m going to miss all the wonderful people I have worked with in Burlingame and beyond. I am proud to have served with an exceptional group of Council Members many of whom I consider my friends. Our City staff has been a big highlight. They are true gems and we are very fortunate to have their smarts and dedication. I can’t say enough about our department heads and their cordial working relationship. This is due to our strong leadership in our extraordinary City Manager. Lisa Goldman is not only brilliant, she has a keen sense of the politics involved in her job.

 

I have formed strong relationships with many of my counterparts throughout the County. I have many friends from Daly City to East Palo Alto and I will cherish the time we’ve spent together.  I will always look back at these ten years with pride in what we accomplished and nostalgia for the many relationships I’ve built. Thank you all for a great ride. Now it’s someone else’s turn.

 

Being a council member is a big responsibility so when someone realizes they can't do what they know it takes to be a full contributor; due to whatever else they have on their plate, it's the responsible thing to step down.  I thank Ricardo for his service and his honesty.  The Big Question stems from his last sentence:  Now it’s someone else’s turn.

 

Back in the day, pre-Shenkman, when we all elected every council member; the pool of appointees was the Whole City.  What to do now?  Special elections are crazy expensive and take a lot of time to queue up and execute.  Appointing a fill-out-the-term person, like John Root back in the day, is more expedient.  But should that person have reside in District 1?  Maybe we should ask Shenkman since he seems to call the shots all over California.  Just kidding.  Should the council put out a draft notice to District 1?  Hey buddy, wanna be on the city council?  What if no one volunteers?  Or worse, maybe the sole volunteer is.......ugh!    Maybe the seat would be less warm if the appointee was not from District 1 so they could not run in the next regular election?  Would Shenkman be OK with that?  All of this would have been easier if our Big Electeds (looking at Mullin, Becker, Papan, the County Supes, et al) had done something about the stupid law when he first started mailing threats to cities, school districts, fire districts and the dog catchers' electorates.

 

But here we are.  Uncharted waters.  Are they deep or too shallow for safe sailing?

EV charging ahead with preferred parking spots at Walgreens

The news is all pointing to a deceleration in EV sales as car companies' losses per EV pile up and consumers start to really question the benefits of going electric.  People who don't worry about the high initial costs or the lengthy payback (some estimates put it at 7 years) have bought their EVs already.  We are now approaching the trough of adoption while waiting for cheaper versions, longer range and more charging stations.  These trends haven't stopped B'game from going full speed ahead with 16 new charger spaces downtown.  The latest swap of fully public spaces to preferred parking for EVs in need of a boost is coming to the public lot (K) between Walgreen's and Safeway.  This is a busy lot for much of the day and early dining evening.  Per the Daily Journal piece

The City Council authorized the city manager to proceed with negotiations on a contract for Tesla to rent the parking lot space from Burlingame, although councilmembers said they’d like to see details on lease and fee rates as well as plans for signs that would delineate the chargers as usable for all electric vehicles.  Tesla has said they will pay a monthly rent of $6,000, and everything will be free to the city, including installation.

Let's go easy with the F-word (i.e. "free").  It's only "free" if $6K per month covers the lost revenue of the 19 spaces lost.  That's about $315 per month or about a dollar a day per space.  My math says these new charger spaces are far from "free".  

After Beach inquired about the leasing agreement and rental cost, Tesla Supercharger Project Developer Caitlyn Hanner said the company would require a 10-year lease minimum but could provide a rent increase of up to 3% a year.   Installation of the Tesla superchargers would create a loss of three parking spots.

Ten years with a very modest rent escalator is quite a deal.  There are about 57 spaces in Lot K now.  Three will be taken for the e-infrastructure, so about 30 percent of the lot is planned to be preferred parking for EVs.  As the DJ article notes, several council members are Tesla owners and others own other brands which these new superchargers will accommodate.  Did we just witness a conflict of interest that should have caused recusals on the vote?   Just kidding.  But it would have made a great April Fool's Day post.

Maybe the time has come to require chargers to also pay for the parking.  EVs already skirt the gas tax and they inflict more wear and tear on our roads than gas cars due to their higher weight.  I will tag the "Friends with benefits" category as well since this looks like a sweet deal for a few people and the car companies.

Contract negotiations: city staff turnover--not a lot to see here

Unless I missed it, which is possible due to some travel, the news has been quiet regarding the heated contract negotiations at City Hall.  We last covered it in October here.  There was the one-day strike back on December 4th as reported by the DJ here:

More than 100 Burlingame workers picketed in front of city hall Dec. 4 for a one-day strike based on alleged free speech violations by city management that closed down many city services, including the Community Center, the Easton Library and the finance department.  The strike is the first by Burlingame’s municipal workers since 1981.

Aside from the "free speech" claims, the more substantive claim was that low pay was causing much turnover of city staff.  As usual, I am reluctant to go along with broad statements when the actual data is easy to get.  With that in mind, a simple inquiry to the city led to the data through mid-December when I made the request:

• There were 27 CN (casual non benefited) employees who separated with the City in 2023 to current.
• There were 2 CP (Casual with PERS) employees who separated with the City in 2023 to current.
• There were 31 FT (Full Time) employees who separated with the City in 2023 to current.
• There was 1 PN (PERS non-contributory) employee who separated with the City in 2023 to current.

Is the departure of 31 full-timers a lot?  Normal?  A problem?  I'm not sure, but when you think of all the departments as listed here, it doesn't seem like a crisis.  All of these negotiations rightfully happen behind closed doors, but the public statements--mostly by the union reps--bear examination.  And now you have "the rest of the story".

Jan 30 update:  There's a bit more to the story.  I was going to use the DJ article about AI and County employees for a separate post, but commenter Timothy Hooker made such an elegant point below about operational efficiency from tech (see Jan 29) that I will just add the headline here.  Supes, please do not make promises to retain long-term headcount that is no longer needed.  Just don't, OK.

City Council: Brownrigg floats term limits

I'm not sure how widely Mayor Brownrigg sent out the e-mail below.  It's probably fairly widespread, but I spoke to a couple people who are "active" and they have not seen it, so I will go ahead and share it with Voice readers as Michael suggests at the bottom.  My comments below.

Dear friends of Burlingame civic life:

I am writing a heads up note to you about an item I put on the agenda for next Monday, December 4, which happens to be my last substantive meeting as mayor.

And before I explain more, I want to preemptively say that I FULLY understand the irony of my study item!

So my study item is whether Burlingame City Council and/or its commissions ought to have term limits going forward. Here is why I think it merits a conversation now.

When I got on Council I asked about the idea of term limits and I was told that, because the elections are at-large, all the voters get to pick who they think are the best 5 people to lead the city, and often that might be someone with a lot of experience and solid track record. After seeing how hard it was to run for re-election, I completely agreed with this point of view. It is hard to run and each election (until the most recent one), I felt I really had to earn my seat against worthy opponents.

My views changed during the last election, which was our first set of district elections (which I resisted but knew we would have to accept due to state law). In 2022 there were three Burlingame council races without a single competitor; I cannot recall any Burlingame election ever when there was not at least one credible competitor and very often several or even many competitors, creating active debates, giving the voters real choices, and making candidates earn their spot on Council.

I conclude that district elections -- which effectively cut Burlingame down from a city of 30,000 to one of 6,000 for each candidate -- significantly diminish voter choice. In the pre-District days, it usually took at least 2,500 votes to win a seat (depending on the number of candidates) and often 3,000 or more; with districts the top vote getter got 2,000 and the others around 1500 each. Had there been competitors, that number would have been much smaller, perhaps in the hundreds.

So I raise these questions now -- yes, yes, after 4 terms -- do we collectively worry about a candidate sort of "owning" a district such that opponents do not want to take the field? Are we concerned that there might not always being two people in each district who even want to run, let alone two capable people to choose between? 

I do not come into this conversation with a point of view -- I simply wanted to raise the question while I could. And while I was at it, I decided to also put on the table the question of term limits for commissioners because I can see how very hard it is for Council to vote off incumbents and yet I also see how many more applications we get when there is an actual open seat on a commission. The commissions create our city's bench strength, I think, and therefore also worthy of a conversation about term limits.

If you want to weigh in, PLEASE DO. You can send a comment to the City Clerk, you can write to the whole Council, or you can show up; sadly, you cannot call in "live" any more because of the zoom-jerks. And feel free to share with anyone else who cares about how we elect our leaders going forward. Again, I am looking forward to the conversation, I am not advocating an outcome.

If there is sufficient consensus to do something, then staff would be sent away to develop options. If the status quo emerges as the preferred alternative, well, at least I asked!

Very best,

Michael

---------------------------

It strikes me that term limits would confuse cause and effect.  The cause of the scarcity of candidates is the lousy election law Michael refers to and we covered here, here and here creating five tiny districts.  It's voter suppression pure and simple and should have caused a consortium of other small cities (<100,000) throughout the state to beg, plead, cajole or sue for exemptions.  Have Diane Papan and Josh Becker scour the halls of Sacramento for support.  It's actually not too late since we are starting to have early data on the deleterious impact.

Having said that, I go back to my suggestion when this all started.  Instead of five little districts, we could have created two (East side, West side anyone?)  And left 3 seats "at large".  Or cut the city in thirds and leave two "at large".  It's also not too late.  If the SoCal lawyer behind all of this wants to sue, let him.  We wouldn't know how it would play out unless we try.  If someone was put off by a strong district incumbent, they could run at large.  It would be more time consuming and expensive but perhaps easier to actually win.

The main problem with term limits is the loss of institutional knowledge on council.  Even ten years gone from office now, my wife still has insights from her three terms on council that I believe would take a newly elected council member years to acquire.  The de facto term limit we have now is the often-thankless nature of the job.  My sense is the number of people willing to step up to 12, 16 or 20 year stints is diminishing.  Just a guess.  Thoughts, dear readers?