The Burlingame Voice

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.

220 Park Rd: From Post Office to Class A Space

Wednesday was the official groundbreaking ceremony for the Old Post Office property; now dubbed "220 Park Rd."  About 50-75 people turned out to hear some speeches, tour the historic lobby that is undergoing asbestos removal and watch The Claw take the first bite out of the old garage.  The long saga documented here, here and here is moving into the final chapter.  There seems to be consensus among the cognoscenti that this is the best design B'game could hope for-- it is certainly better than the last proposal.

The lobby will be partially preserved in the sense that it will be modified with three doorways where the large windows are now.  The plan is to pick up the poured concrete structure, turn it slightly and move it 100' towards the Avenew, put it on piers and move it back near the end of the project (projected to be March 2024).  We'll keep an eye out for the date since that will be a bring-your-popcorn event.  There will be underground parking and the Town Square will feature amphitheater-style seating for concerts and the like.  The Daily Journal has some of the details

The ground floor, including a portion of the existing post office, will comprise 15,000 square feet of retail and dining space. Office space above will feature terraces at each level and larger patios on the third and sixth floors. The two-level underground parking garage will have room for 275 cars and be open to the public on weekends and evenings.

Construction of the project will be handled by Sares Regis Group and Dostart Development Company, which will provide $2 million to the city for the town square development, as well as an additional $3.5 million in assorted fees to go toward affordable housing in Burlingame.

Click through if you are a subscriber so you can see the photo of Yours Truly in my chapeau and shorts along with my lovely bride in the left background.  Here is Dave Hopkins of Sares Regis, the Claw doing its thing and the official groundbreaking line-up.

Water Security: Nothing to Worry About?

The city council took up the 2020 Urban Water Management Plan last week with the hope of approving this latest five-year update.  We described the stated concerns about shortages that came up during the study session last May here.  Words like "alarming" and "worry" were in vogue back in May, but curiously absent last week as the UWMP was approved 5-0.  I had sent several comments to the council based on my reading of the draft plan where I thought some more work was wise.  We may get to all of them over time, but right now I just want to focus on the main question.  When droughts inevitably come, do we have enough water?  Apparently the various agencies involved think we do as seen in this Table 7-6 from the plan that covers the next 20 years.

These numbers are the SFPUC Regional Water System (RWS) estimates of our city's water availability if the "Save the Fish" maneuver called the Bay Delta Plan doesn't happen.  The "Save the Fish" plan is tied up in court and negotiations, so this looks like great news!  Over the next five years, if we have a dry year our availability drops 19.7% and then stays exactly the same even if the next four years are dry.  Over the long run, things look even better.  20 years from now, if we have a dry year, our availability only drops 12.6% and thankfully stays exactly the same for the next four continuously dry years.  I guess I have been worrying for no reason.  Let's move on.  The day after the council meeting, Wally from Dilbert explained why I feel better.

RIP: Rosalie O'Mahony (1930-2021)

Word of Rosalie O'Mahony's passing last Saturday filtered out to the insiders this week and made it to the Daily Journal front page yesterday.  In the DJ piece Rosalie was remembered as:

More than two decades after beginning her teaching career in the county, O’Mahony set her eyes on city policy, running for a seat on the Burlingame City Council. She won her race in 1989 and went on to serve as mayor five times before exiting the council in 2009.  Those who knew and worked with O’Mahony said she was always a fair and thoughtful policymaker who stood firmly by her decisions.

Current Burlingame Mayor Ann Keighran called O’Mahony the “queen of infrastructure,” and a “trailblazer.”  “She’s one of the few politicians that really made her decisions based on her principles rather than political expediency,” Keighran said. “She would rather fix sewers and balance finances than make any headlines.”

As I pondered her legacy over the last week, a few memories came to mind.  As Mayor Keighran noted, Rosalie paid close attention to the fixed assets of the city which I strongly supported.  She appreciated that the infrastructure was one of the core missions of the city and understood it deeply.  The quote, in her accent, was something like "You need to understand how much of the city is underground."  Her focus on the finances could sometimes cause me to disagree with her such as when she favored merging our police department with nearby cities' to save money.  That idea missed some of the nuance of local control and good local presence.  There were other areas as well and the history makes for interesting reading here.

The most vivid memory was the night of the Council vote on the original Safeway design.  Newcomers to town won't remember the long saga but they can always trip down 74 steps of memory lane in the Safeway category here.  It was a long meeting and each councilmember had invested plenty of time and energy understanding the plans.  Prior comments seemed to indicate 2 for and 2 against; it was anybody's guess how Rosalie would vote.  In the end, she voted against the poorly designed, big box, solid-blank-wall-on-Primrose proposal and Safeway went back to the drawing board with the exceptionally fine results that reflect well on the downtown to this day.

Lastly, there was always something comforting about seeing Rosalie's pale yellow Camaro toodling around town.  I'm guessing it was a '68 or '69 and it hinted of the Rosalie book being a bit different than the cover.  RIP.

A funeral mass, honoring the life of O’Mahony, will be held at 9:30 a.m. Saturday, Aug. 28, at St. Catherine’s Church. Rather than flowers, her loved ones ask that those interested in giving make donations to the St. Vincent DePaul Society or a charity of choice.

Here she is in 2006 at the annual Christmas tree lighting and parade.

Oil and gas for them, but not for us?

"Think globally, act locally" is quite the mantra.  Many local officials in B'game and our neighboring towns appear to take it to heart especially regarding saving the climate.  And then there are the contradictions like this from yesterdays WSJ.  Or dare I say the hypocrisy?  In the immortal words of the grandfather in Moonstruck, "I'm confused".  What is going on here?

Perhaps it is time to repeal the ban on natural gas hook-ups?  After all, shouldn't we take our cue from the White House?

Porch Pirates: How Many and How Often?

Like many people in B'game I am getting tired of the porch pirates taking packages at will as shown on Ring videos.  The Ring video from last night that spurred this post noted that it was the third such incident--all stolen shoes.  I guess the homeowner's size matched that of the pirate.  They were probably a ladies' size 7.

Unlike the decoy police cruisers outside of the Apple store that are starting to feel like a good place to rest your Peet's coffee cup, the "bait boxes" that BPD has used have met with some success.  Pre-pandemic I believe they were mainly applied on the Bayfront in hotel parking lots--but that is just my guess.  I think it's past time to implement some "porch pies" in the neighborhoods.  We seem to have plenty of resources to add goofy traffic excitement features and  worry about how much non-existent rainwater we can recapture on city streets; so how about we catch a few petty thieves and ignore Prop. 47 and its $950 limit to really prosecute?

This is not to fault BPD, they follow direction, it is a matter of prioritization by the city council.  Get on it, please.

B'game Water Security: The "Message is Alarming"

The City Council study session on Monday before the regular council meeting was an eye-opener for some people.  Public Works director Syed Murtuza summed it up by noting that "the message is alarming" and councilman Ricardo Ortiz followed by saying "there is lots to worry about here".  The CEO and General manager of BAWSCA, Nicole Sandkulla, along with consultant Anona Dutton from EKI led the discussion as part of the update to the B'game Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) that happens every five years.

The update is an attempt to forecast water supply and demand so we can see how secure or "reliable" our water will be.  It is more of a long-term analysis verses the short-term limits like voluntary or prescribed rationing.  One big issue is the fact that SFPUC has expressed serious doubts about the Tuolumne River ecosystem benefits of the State Water Board’s plan to keep rivers flowing enough for the salmon and now feels the need to file a lawsuit about it.  That could take years to resolve.

Here are some key points from the study session:

Total B'game water demands are projected to increase 35% from 2020 to 2045 even if we can manage to reduce per capita demand from 66 to 59 gallons per person per day.

If supplies were reduced by 45 percent, could the City meet this?  Possibly by elimination of outdoor watering and establishing reduced residential water budgets to approximately 40 gallons/person/day.  Outdoor watering is categorized as "discretionary usage", but councilwoman Emily Beach noted that our trees need watering that is far from "discretionary".  The city e-newsletter is already asking residents to water the street trees, especially the young ones.

The city could consider exploring “water-neutral” growth policies.  A "net-zero" or "water-neutral" policy would mean large-scale developments would have to go find/buy enough new water to supply their project and inject it into the system.

The bottom line (for me anyways) is that we do not have enough water right now to get through any serious run of dry years.  I was able to speak with CEO/GM Nicole Sandkulla after the meeting about overall demand for all 26 agencies in BAWSCA.  The current forecasts call for increases between .5% and 1.5% per year over the next 20 years, but do not include any future changes to land-use regulations.  And there in lies the rub.  Here is a chart from the presentation that highlights the possible shortfalls in Burlingame.

SB9 and YIMBY Carpetbaggers

The irony of the YIMBY movement is that for the most part YIMBY's don't actually have backyards--they're just jealous of other people's backyards.  Couple financial jealousy with a tinge of misplaced racism--what I have termed neo-racism--and you get political pressure to destroy single-family zoning as noted here.  A letter to the Comicle today decries this "home shaming".  I'll add it to the comment section.  But people are waking up to the threat posed by Senate Bill 9 and the YIMBY carpetbaggers.  Regular Voice reader Laura has crafted a call to action for us and asked me to share it:

Please be aware of what Sacramento is doing and how it affects our town.  Burlingame is under siege by Sacramento, large Construction Developers, and affordable housing advocates that seek to disrupt the successful balance of single family and multi-family housing that we have in our town today!  They are showing up in numbers for the Zoom City Council meetings and they are advocating for SB-9. 

SB-9 has the potential to change our town forever. In a nutshell, SB-9 rezones all parcels within single-family residential zones, to allow for the creation of up to 10 units on one residential lot, no matter how small the lot size, with NO parking requirement.  That means that your neighbor's home, could become a 10 unit building and neither you, nor your local Council could do anything about it.  SB-9 is one of dozens of similar bills, all designed to erode local control over land-use. 

Our Burlingame Community supported a General Plan revision in 2019 that allows for reasonable growth that our schools, roads, and water infrastructure can accommodate. This plan meets our State mandated housing goals. Burlingame presently has more multi-family residential units as a percentage of housing (53% compared to 47% for single family) than any other city in San Mateo County except East Palo Alto.  We are doing our part and have accomplished this with local control and balance!  Don’t let the outsiders say otherwise.  It is just not true.  

Please let your representatives know that you support your Council's local control over our city’s zoning and do not want interference from Large developers and outside housing advocates that care nothing for your quality of life, or your town.

Please voice your concern to Burlingame City Council at Council@Burlingame.org 

 

Assembly member Kevin  Mullin                                                 Senator Josh Becker

assemblymember.mullin@assembly.ca.gov 

                                                                          https://sd13.senate.ca.gov/contact

916-319-2022                                                                              (916) 651-4013

650-349-2200                                                                                (650) 212-3313

State Senior Scott Weiner 

 Senator.weiner@senate.ca.gov

916-651-4013

650-212-3313

Dividing Up the County...Again

Thanks to some hack lawyer from Malibu we are embarking on an expensive and pointless experiment to divide up the City Council and the San Mateo Unified high school district into geographic fiefdoms.  That's what the arcane state law that most think cannot be argued says; so be it.  The San Mateo County Supes are already district-based as befits a big sprawling region like the County of about 750,000 residents. With a new census about to be completed, the district lines need to be updated.  Here is the DJ reporting on the criteria for the 11 people who will work on the redistricting:

“Diversity and inclusion — those are guiding principles here in San Mateo County and those qualities are what we are looking for on this extremely important Commission,” David Canepa, president of the Board of Supervisors, said in a press release.  All applications will be forwarded to a committee formed by and composed of local chapter members of the League of Women Voters.

I can't imagine who thought the LWV was a good screening body for this job.  Their last half dozen debate moderation efforts in B'game city council elections were...underwhelming.  Some years the representative could barely read the questions properly.  The old saw about preferring the first hundred names (sometimes 2,000 names) in the Boston phone book, or in this case, the Burlingame phone book applies.

But there is more

The selection process will prioritize applicants associated with good government, civil rights, civic engagement and community groups or organizations that are active in the county, including those active in language minority communities, with the goal of forming a commission with membership that is geographically diverse and consistent with the county’s emphasis on valuing diversity, equity and inclusion, according to the county.

I'm all for good government (if the LWV and the Supes have stated criteria that one can assess for that) and geographic diversity (duh, that's the point), but what of the rest of the word soup?  How about the ability to parse the past voting data numerically?  Does an applicant know mean from median?  Can they assess the strengths and weaknesses of the census data?  I was required to fill out the Big Census Questionnaire this year and as a former market research professional I can tell you its format was sub-standard against industry norms.

Bottom Line:  The current district lines probably won't change much and it won't make much difference in who wins each seat, but the PR spin still grates on my ears.  When it comes time to do the City Council districts and the SMUSHD districts, I hope the League of Women Voters are relegated to the sidelines.