The Burlingame Voice

SB50: Mi CASA no es tu CASA

Senate Bill 50 is the latest in a long line of bad ideas put forth by myopic politicians who cannot stand that some communities have different priorities than others.  That myopia is compounded by feelings of envy over perceived "inequality" and the self-righteous do-gooder, YIMBY mentality.  It's further compounded by politicians who have no qualms about reaching for Other People's Money (OPM).  Current case in point is Assemblyman David Chiu and his bill AB1487 that would create yet another regional agency to search for OPM to fund affordable housing.  As the SF Chronicle piece about the bill notes:

But the notion of a new agency and more taxes infuriates some city leaders who say the government is running roughshod over local control.  Residents often object to new development, saying it mars the look and feel of their communities.  The region is tightly interconnected, Chiu said, so a city council obstructing development in Burlingame puts pressure on Oakland and San Francisco. And, ultimately, the effects ripple, creating a severe economic split between homeowners and renters, and older and younger generations.

The finger-pointing at Burlingame might be because of Mayor Colson recent piece on local actions and the importance of local control which was much better thought out that anything Chiu has ever proposed.  You won't see the Burlingame reference in the on-line piece, but it was right there in the March 8 print edition.  Perhaps some editor thought better of stirring up this 'burb too much?  Here are some points from Donna Colson's Daily Journal piece:

Last month the Metropolitan Transit Commission and the Association of Bay Area Governments presented the CASA Compact, a 15-year policy package to confront the Bay Area housing shortage. The compact presents a 10-point plan for housing production, preservation and renters’ protections that was developed by a group of mainly non-elected, self-interested housing industry and policy advocates.

San Mateo County communities had no voice in the CASA Compact process. Not a single elected from San Mateo County was included on the leadership team, steering committee or technical committee which is frustrating as many small cities were already taking the initiative to craft viable housing solutions for their communities. Some cities are allowing teacher housing, others are embracing renters protections to limit gentrification, while some, like Burlingame, are updating their general plans to allow for up to 20 percent more growth near transit while protecting the character of existing single-family neighborhoods.

So where is all of this headed.  Going back to the Chronicle article:

It’s still unclear what will happen if cities refuse to build. Right now there is no real mechanism for the state to override local land-use authority. When Newsom proposed withholding transportation dollars from cities that don’t meet their housing targets, he ignited a political flame war.

It comes down to what the build-build-build politicians think they can get away with using OPM and political pressure.  Small minds like Chiu have no problem attributing their failure to manage growth to other communities, but cannot see that they are most of the problem.  Any one who thinks we can build our way out of costly housing without real restraints on commercial development doesn't understand economics or the intrinsic attractiveness of the Bay Area for businesses in our predominant industries of high-tech and biotech.  Build it and they will come, especially if the government is subsidizing the housing cost equation.  Here is the print version calling out B'game.

Our Future with Facebook

During a lovely bike ride through B'game and over the Rosalie O'Mahony bike bridge then turning south towards what was once a popular drive-in movie site, I was faced with the same spider web of steel beams we have all seen from a distance.  Here's a view of our future.

And the Oscar for most asked question in town goes to "How are all of those people going to get to work?"

Developer Fees Coming

Ronald Reagan is famous for saying “Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.”  This has been proven over and over again.  I was reminded of the quote when I read that B'game Planning Commission is recommending a "Developer Fee" for new residential development.  The DJ notes the amounts as

Under the proposal, rental developers seeking to build up to 50 units per acre would be required to pay $17 per square foot; those proposing up to 70 units per acre would be required to pay $20 per square foot; and those proposing more than 70 units per acre would be required to pay $30 per square foot. Condominium developers proposing 7 units or more would be required to pay $35 per square foot.

That last bit seems like a typo, but the point is adding some costs that could total $15 mil over the next five years for the 400-600 units that are in the "pipeline" may have the unintended consequence of slowing down development.  If it does, I'm all for it, but that ain't what the initial goal is.  What to do with $15 mil and where to do it is another political football.  While we ponder that eventuality, here is another Reagan quote: "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are “I’m from the government, and I’m here to help.”

Affordability Problems Explained

The former CEO of Cypress Semiconductor, T.J. Rodgers, has been an outspoken critic of much of what goes on it Sacramento for decades.  His latest pointed critique of brand spanking new Guv. Gavin brings some well-known statistics together in one place in reply to Gavin telling the business community I should (must?  will?) do more about affordability.

When I was CEO of Cypress Semiconductor, I chose Round Rock, Texas, over San Jose, Calif., for Cypress’s second wafer-fabrication plant, and I chose to locate our third plant in Bloomington, Minn. Other CEOs made similar decisions. Silicon Valley barely has any silicon left; there are now zero state-of-the-art wafer-fabrication plants here. We had to move because government has made Silicon Valley uncompetitive for manufacturing.

Despite boasting the second-highest gasoline tax in the U.S., California’s roads are so potholed it actually pays to buy tire insurance. California power costs around 15.7 cents a kilowatt-hour, compared with 11.2 cents in Oregon and 9.7 cents in Washington state. But even those state-regulated windfall rates aren’t enough: Pacific Gas & Electric is about to go bankrupt again.

California took in record tax revenue in 2018, beating estimates by $1 billion according to the Los Angeles Times. But Mr. Newsom demanded even more: “I want to see the [companies in Silicon] Valley step up and match our contributions,” he said.

Rodgers also invokes the dreaded NIMBYs but doesn't dwell on that aspect of the housing supply equation.  Nice to know our electricity is 62% more expensive than the State of Washington's juice.  Anyone know where you can buy good tire insurance for those trips on El Camino?

 

Parking Wishlist: 2019

It's not too late for another 2019 New Year's wish, so here goes.  To me the idea of a "Compact" parking space being any different, i.e. smaller, than any other parking space is a sad little joke.  Nobody pays any attention to the Compact markings, if they can even read them after a few months.  Their existence is a ploy to meet a parking requirement while making the parking lot more inconvenient (and occasionally expensive due to ding and paint repair) for people using the lot.  These Compact spaces fill up with SUVs and large sedans like any other space and I have never seen any enforcement.  Nor am I suggesting that the BPD or private security like Safeway has in place enforce it.  It's hopeless.  So dear city planners, let's just dump the idea and make anyone, especially the forthcoming "high-density" developers, put in real parking spaces all around.  As evidence, here is a row of "Compact" spaces at Safeway on a recent day.

Lots F and N Bulking Up to 5 Stories

The Daily Journal is reporting on the Planning Commission's approval of the affordable housing plan

Burlingame officials are pushing ahead a proposal to transform downtown surface parking lots into a new affordable housing development and parking garage.

The Burlingame Planning Commission approved the bold vision for city land during a meeting Monday, Dec. 10, moving the initiative before the City Council for final approval.

Following years of deliberation, revision and examination, officials agreed they were finally comfortable with the design of the proposal from Pacific West Communities to redevelop parking lots F and N.

Under the commission’s unanimous approval, councilmembers will soon consider the proposal to build 132 units in a five-story building at parking lot F, on Lorton Avenue, between Howard and Bayswater avenues. Of the units, 78 will be set aside as workforce housing and the remaining 54 will be reserved for seniors.

So now the issue is "which comes first, parking or housing"?

What's a Dwelling Unit?

I attended the November 19th City Council meeting to add my two cents to the discussion about the General Plan update that was on the agenda.  I will get into more about my comments about water supply adequacy and security later.  For now, let's just marvel at the sense of confusion about "dwelling units" that was on display that night by several council members.  The Daily Journal Austin Walsh piece about the meeting didn't quite capture it with this mention 

Though they stopped short of determining a suitable unit-per-acre ratio, some councilmembers shared an interest in reducing the amount of parking required in a development to accommodate more housing development.

Constructing parking can be expensive or consume space which could otherwise be used for housing in a development, and builders often seek reduced parking requirements in projects near transit stations to maximize their unit counts.  “I want to use parking to encourage affordability,” said Councilman Ricardo Ortiz.

Watching the discussion live, it was apparent to me that the basic idea that "dwelling unit" is an inadequate measure of the intensity of use of a piece of property was just starting to dawn on several council members.  That's why they "stopped short".  The General Plan update is moving in the direction of allowing 140 DU/acre in the north end of town--a proposed increase from 120 DU/acre.  Yet when presented with some photos of recent, rack-and-stack developments in Redwood City that hover around 70 DU/acre, there was sort of a stunned look on several faces.  Only then did the discussion move to the mix of studio, one-bedroom, two-bedroom, three-bedroom units in a development.  I've been espousing using bedrooms/acre for a long time, including at the Anson Apartments and Residences under construction on Carolan Ave.  Now is the time to dump DU/acre and talk about a real metric that will guide planning in the future.  It ain't DU's.

P.S.  Check out this DJ piece about the Millbrae project near the BART station with its 444 DU's for another example of the lack of transparency.

SF: The Perils of Letting Planners do the Planning

Here is another tale of future woe from EssEff via today's Chronicle:

A portion of downtown San Francisco will change dramatically with thousands of housing units, jobs — and even a public swimming pool — under a plan finally approved Tuesday by the Board of Supervisors after eight years of hearings, amendments and negotiations.

The Central SoMa plan will revamp a part of South of Market that runs from near Market Street south to Townsend Street, and from Second Street to Sixth Street. The approved plan proposes 8,800 housing units and will create a projected 31,000 jobs.

Sounds good, right?  Except for this one little bug in the ointment

Supervisor Sandra Lee Fewer was the only one to express concern about the Central SoMa plan, as it does not include a public school. But, she said, the Planning Department and the San Francisco Unified School District will hold a meeting later this month to determine how to create enough public schools to accommodate the growing population.

8,800 housing units in one neighborhood, but no plans for any incremental school capacity except to "hold a meeting".  Nice work.  But please bear in mind we are not immune from the same sort of short-term thinking.  Our school capacities are not infinite as noted here three years ago and with the various projects on-going around town, parents should be wary.

Caltrain: The Good, The Bad and The Idiotic

The Daily Journal piece on the expansion of Caltrain has something for everyone.  It paints a picture of a much larger Caltrain system

Caltrain has unveiled an exceedingly ambitious vision for the future and electrification is only the beginning.  That vision entails an up to 300 percent increase in ridership by 2040, expanded all-day service, trains arriving every 10 minutes and service extending to Monterey, to name just a few proposals.

The good news is that electrification is humming along even if the money to do it is the "fruit of a poisonous tree" like high-speed rail.

The expansion being contemplated applies to both the system and service, and it’s all predicated on electrification, the $2 billion project that will replace 80 percent of Caltrain’s current diesel fleet with electric trains traveling between San Jose and San Francisco by 2022.

I'm not sure why only 80% of the fleet will be replaced, but perhaps that will become clear over time.  The bad part of the story is that the Broadway station is still a whisper of its previous self.  It's been that way for 13 years.  I found this quote interesting in that regard

“Right now we take the philosophical viewpoint that ridership drives where we employ service, we don’t forget stations for the most part even if they don’t have vigorous ridership,” Board Member Charles Stone said. “My point is as we go forward let’s keep in mind that the demand we see may not be all the demand, that there’s pent-up demand that’s been created by the system we use right now.”

Let's hope Charles Stone is correct and perhaps one good thing to come out of the huge Anson Apartments on Carolan will be more frequent B'way service.  Now for the idiotic.  Redwood City council member Jeff Gee was not on my radar screen until this article appeared.  Here's Gee's thoughts on Caltrain expansion

“Why are we limiting our physical constraints? In other words, if we are only, in many places, limited to two tracks, what would it take to get to four tracks on the corridor?” he asked.  Gee went on to suggest the “constant tension” between the interests of 20 cities along the corridor and service will be the major sticking point moving forward. 

“What’s right for a quaint little city on the Peninsula may not be the right answer for the region and so at what point does the agency say ‘thank you very much quaint little city but this has got greater benefits to the corridor’ and how do we bridge that and how do we deal with that as an organization?” he asked.

Gee sounds like the kind of myopic "leader" who has presided over the ruination of downtown Redwood City with block after block of Soviet-style overstuffed buildings creating a soulless wasteland.  Thankfully this guy's term is up next month and he does not appear to be running for re-election.  Hopefully that means he will be leaving the Joint Powers Board as well.  If not, we may have to look to facilitate that before he does more damage to the "quaint little cities" he seems to dislike so much.  Kudos to Zachary Clark of the DJ for getting this kind of destructive thinking by a public official on the record.

 

Build, Build, Build...Then What?

As I looked at the latest overly large building rise on Howard Ave. across from the Caltrain station while waiting for the train, I had to wonder (again) how much growth the mid-Peninsula can withstand?  Travelling by train down to Palo Alto, the question became even more pressing.  It's quite stunning to see how much real estate is "in the dirt" on huge new projects right next to the Caltrain right of way.  Blocks and blocks of additional building doesn't bode well for our traffic, school capacity or water security.  To all the people saying we need a "Regional Housing Authority" to address the "housing crisis", I say we need a "Regional Infrastructure Authority" first.