The Burlingame Voice

El Camino "Renewal"

You probably got the glossy mailer announcing the El Camino Real Renewal meeting next Tuesday and it just arrived in the e-newsletter as well.  I can't make it, but I did get a chance to sit down with Mayor Emily Beach and our resident tree expert, Jennifer Pfaff, recently to discuss the project at length.  Here is the official announcement:

Caltrans is hosting an open house to discuss the El Camino Real Roadway Renewal Project on Tuesday, January 28, at the Burlingame Recreation Center from 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.

The project area stretches three miles, between East Santa Inez Avenue and Millbrae Avenue, and encompasses some of the most challenging pavement, vegetation, sidewalk, utility, drainage, and safety issues. This stretch of El Camino Real is also lined with heritage tree rows that are listed on the National Register of Historic Places. 

Caltrans will share information about potential improvements to drainage, landscaping, sidewalk safety, ADA compliance, and rehabilitation of pavement. Learn more about the project by visiting www.elcaminorealproject.com.

During my meeting with the mayor we discussed things like the amount of money held in reserve for this major project ($110 million), the downward trend in the replacement rate of the trees (there were 750 in the 1970's and we are down to about 500 now) and the various CalTrans construction standards that may or may not be required for this project.  There are some trade-offs that will have to be made since full-CalTrans specifications can be in conflict with the Blue Gum Euc grove's historic status.  Things like the distance from street corners and poles, the distance between trees and the irrigation plans have to be negotiable.  The types of trees that would replace the Eucs is also on the table.

I'll leave the details to the experts like Jennifer and to those who conduct this first public meeting.  Let's just say it will be a controversial and yet hopefully collegial meeting. 

Arrivederci Fattoria e Mare

For some in town the Fattoria e Mare property will always be the "Velvet Turtle".  Visitors often ask me "What was the name of that restaurant right by the freeway and Broadway"?  But those days are long gone as will be Fattoria e Mare after a six year run -- another relic that provided memories, music and comraderie.  In it's place:

The Hanover Company is proposing a six-story building replacing the restaurant and adjacent parking garage and tennis court. The development would include 35 studio apartments, 74 one-bedroom apartments, 38 two-bedroom units and three three-bedroom units. Of the 150 units, 15 would be set aside at a moderate rate.

The project would also provide 195 parking spaces, 175 of which would be accommodated through a stacking system while six would be provided in tandem spaces and 14 would be standard spots. Most of the parking would be in an underground garage.

Parking concerns were raised at the Planning Commission session along with neighborhood compatibility of a six-story building.  But it passed 4-2.  There's no indication of discussion about where the kids from Anson Apartments (Summerhill), the Adrian Rd. development and now this Hanover project will go.  Hanover adds 194 bedrooms to the mix.

I'm also wondering which of these Big Four projects (counting the delayed Howard Ave. at Bayswater project) will trigger any major additions to the projected water deficit in town for a three-year drought.  The five year old Urban Water Management Study predicted on page 72  that supply available to Burlingame in multiple dry years is estimated to be reduced to 1,628 MG (year 1) and 1,376 MG (years 2 and 3).  I'm still hunting for why is a third consecutive year is estimated to be the same as the second consecutive year.  Table 6-4 shows demand exceeding supply in such a multi-year drought situation by 21% in 2020 and 30% if it occurs in 2040.  But these estimates predate the latest building boom here and in the rest of the SFPUC water service area.  And that is only for a three year drought.  At least the revision to these plans that is due this year includes a new 8 1/2 year drought scenario.  I'm betting the numbers will be scary to environmentalists and people who drink water.

"Nimby's" Win One

I am enjoying the gnashing of teeth I hear from the SF Comicle and various other development addicts and so-called affordable housing advocates over the recent court ruling in favor of the city of San Mateo and its well-established building code.  Judge George Miram is leading the race for Person of the Year as the Daily Journal reported

An effort to take legal action against San Mateo for the City Council’s decision to reject a proposal to build a 10-unit condominium building off El Camino Real in 2018 hit a stumbling block earlier this month when a judge ruled the city did not violate the Housing Accountability Act when the council denied the project’s approval based on height differences between properties.

City Attorney Shawn Mason has alleged the city’s decision regarding the project near El Camino Real and West Santa Inez Avenue is defensible because the proposed development objectively violated the city’s multi-family design guidelines aimed at smoothing height differences between properties with transitional features, such as setbacks.

“This court finds that the city of San Mateo is a charter city whose charter fully incorporates the home rule doctrine and that the approval of the instant residential housing project is an appropriate exercise of municipal affairs,” wrote Miram in the denial. “Furthermore, this court finds that to the HAA is unenforceable to the extent the HAA conflicts with or purports to disregard otherwise enforceable portions of the city’s Municipal Code regarding review of housing development projects.”

That ruling has set off a firestorm of criticism from the housing fascists who want the biggest, cheapest, densest buildings built the fasted wherever some developer can acquire a lot.  The Gavinor is apparently one of them now along with all of the usual suspects.  The SF Comicle followed up its "news" piece titled "Ruling may undercut law on housing: Judge says San Mateo can ignore California statute" with an editorial today that starts and ends with some gibberish about "objective standards" that show a crisis--one that they help manufacture with a steady stream of name-calling, narrowly-edited statistics and a refusal to admit the basic economics of bad policies like rent control.  And yes, I do realize I am fighting fire with fire on the name-calling.  Bottom Line:  We should be thankful there is at least one judge willing to reinforce the obvious and stand up for local control.

P.S. If Laura's comment on the Lyon Hoag Emergency post is accurate (I have no reason to doubt her) and the developer has scratched that approved project at Bayswater and Myrtle  perhaps the development addicts will realize over-in-filling the Peninsula is even more complicated than they think.  Anyone care to speculate on whether the latest rent control statewide law or the return of even more stringent ones next election may have played into the decision?  Here's the now empty Hower Auto lot.

NIMBYs and YIMBYs

The Daily Post is digging into the state senate candidates views with some panache -- or is it just cheeky reporting?  I like that they have sent out questionnaires to all five candidates and are writing articles based on the answers.  Jerry Hill's seat is an important one and we need a strong rep for the Peninsula to sit in it.  Here are two recent front page headlines

Stopping Scott Weiner's progressive fascist fantasy called SB50 is a top priority.  Per the Post article, Lieber and Masur "were more accepting of SB50 than the other three, but would have some amendments".  Masur has two "amendments" regarding some grace period for cities and getting rid of the sub-600,000 county population exemption.  The latter should be obvious to anyone.  Why exempt the counties with the cheapest land costs and hence the cheapest cost to build?  Duh.

The other three, Annie Oliva of Millbrae, Michael Brownrigg of dear ole Burlingame and Josh Becker of Menlo Park apparently were less supportive of SB50 in their answers to the Post.  They were also pretty clear in their answers to the last question in the survey, "Simply -- do you identify as a YIMBY or a NIMBY?"  Again, Leiber and Masur owned up to being YIMBY's while the other three walked down the middle line.  So in my view this is a three horse race--the YIMBY's should run in SF since things are working so well up there.

A letter writer from Palo Alto took the Post to task for asking "such a reductive question that encourages lazy, black and white thinking about complex issues".  I can sympathize a little with his concern, but we did get a clear "yes" on the YIMBY question, so we learned which candidates to give a clear "no" on.  Thus the question had some value.  Kudos to the Post for digging in.  We have a couple of months to go before election day, so keep it up! Correction: Just VIsiting caught me confusing the timing of the Council race with the State Senate race.  Primary in March, election next November (see his comments for good insight).

Three Thoughts From Altitude

I had a lovely long stay in Tahoe this past week.  It's as good or better than in the winter even for an avid skier like me.  My wife and I hiked, golfed, friends have a boat that they shared and so one.  It's a great part of California.  As I rolled "down the hill" yesterday, three thoughts came to mind:

1.  Somehow a series of little towns and ski areas manage to put on more live music in a week than we see in B'game in a month or more.  It's sort of embarrassing.  I hear talk of "community" all the time in the Bay Area and yet Tahoe manages to quadruple the quality community time with seemingly little effort and great results.

2.  The livability problems in San Francisco are doing serious, probably permanent harm to its reputation as a world-class city.  The Wall Street Journal is one name-brand news source talking about the problems.  For example, this weekend it noted

The website RealtyHop.com dubs San Francisco “the doo-doo capital of the U.S.” They noted that the city’s poop reports almost tripled between 2011 and 2017.  The problem draws attention because the poop increasingly comes not from dogs but from humans.  There are myriad causes at work, no doubt. But there was no “defecation crisis”—a term usually associated with rural India—in the 1930s, even with unemployment at 25%, vagabonds roaming the country, and shantytowns and “Hoovervilles” springing up everywhere. Today’s homeless and the hobos of the Great Depression are different in many ways. 

In California at least, one is struck by the contrast between the fastidious attention paid to the social duty of scooping up and disposing of dog feces, and the rather more paralyzed and guilty reaction to the plague of human feces. The former is treated as a moral imperative among the enlightened—and the thin plastic bags used as the means to this moral end have so far escaped the fate of plastic straws, well on their way to being outlawed as an environmental outrage. Even social-justice warriors don’t consider it their personal duty, however, to tidy up after their fellow human beings on the streets.

For us locals that is hardly news, but what is news is that elsewhere in California (like Tahoe) long time nearby visitors to EssEff have stopped visiting.  We were paired up with a lovely older woman on the golf course who only waited until the second hole to note that she and her husband used to come to SF every month for 40 years for "dinner and a show" or museums and such.  No more.  One wonders how bad it has to get before the laissez-faire mindset gets whacked on the side of the head?

3.  Who's in charge of infrastructure?  It took three hours to drive from Tahoe City (on the North shore) to Berkeley-- about 190 miles.  That's pretty much the usual time without winter weather.  Then it takes more than an hour to go the last 37 miles to Burlingame on a sunny weekend afternoon with the Giants out of town.  Where are the environmentalists decrying the air pollution of thousands of cars idling in traffic?  Where are the transit officials with new ideas?  Where are the housing advocates smart enough to see the cart might be in front of the horse?  Did all of the urban planner decamp for Boise or Spokane?  Just wondering.  

  

Ferrying Commuters to B'game?

A letter to the Daily Journal reminded me of a longstanding discussion about having ferry service to the B'game Bayfront.  A local resident named Orhan Kurt writes:

Regarding the idea of ferry terminals, my friends and I here in Burlingame are shocked to watch as Foster City aggressively pushes to be the regional hub and to be part of the upcoming Water Emergency Transportation Authority (WETA) study (June 17 edition of the Daily Journal).

Why does Burlingame wait on the sidelines? A regional hub should be right next to SFO.  Burlingame has officially recognized the need and accepted the ferry hub concept for Burlingame as was approved in the latest general plan. So where is the follow-up Burlingame?  Our own general plan consultants have encouraged us to connect the rail and SFO to the ferry system.

This seems like a) a no-brainer to decide to do and b) pretty easy given what we already have at the Bayfront right next to the Facebook/Oculus complex under construction.  Check out this landing option that used to house The Sherman.  Mr. Kurt may be expanding on what the General Plan says deep on page 154

M-4.8  Water-Based Transportation

Consider emerging water-based transportation options to improve multimodal access options to the Bayfront.  [AC, SO}

But he's on the right track, or is it tack?

Scott Weiner Comes to Burlingame

Two weeks after state senator Scott Weiner’s visit to Burlingame I am still marveling at how smoothly he can speak out of both sides of his mouth in a single meeting.  Weiner was invited to the Lane Room by Thrive which is a consortium of non-profit organizations.  He was invited to discuss the problems non-profits are having retaining staff as the cost of housing rises.  Weiner’s Senate Bill 50, discussed here and here, appeared to be popular with some in the audience of about 60 people.

In an interview by Samaritan House CEO, Bart Charlow, Weiner comes off as a tall, skinny, somewhat geeky attorney with a heart of gold.  He’s a man on a valiant mission.  Yet I saw in him a streak of progressive fascism interested only in consolidating power in Sacramento by any means necessary.  After describing the “carnage” that is happening in California and is “hollowing out even the middle class”, he excoriated the “No Growth” people for “adopting progressive talking points” such as “we need to build only affordable housing”.  He believes that will never happen without market-rate housing to subsidize it, but others think differently.  To him, it is better to demolish the concept of R1 zoning in the six most populous counties in the state via SB50 thus hurting the middle class homeowners who rely on their single-family homes as their largest investment.  Weiner’s claim that “this is not about getting rid of single-family homes” rang hollow after he said “single-family homes are a ban on affordable housing”.

When asked about SB50 excluding less populous counties, particularly Marin County, Weiner spoke “bluntly” about needing to do that to get the bill through a Senate committee headed by a Marin senator.  So much for principles of “fairness” that one hears so much about from progressives.

When asked about the housing quotas cities have been given (known as the RHNA formula), Weiner complained about how the formula has been gamed by some cities and two-thirds of cities don’t meet their low-income targets.  It didn’t seem to occur to him that perhaps that state-imposed process should be fixed by the state Legislature.  Better to scrap the whole idea of city zoning and let anyone build anything anywhere.  Nice leadership.

Someone other than me asked Weiner where all the water will come from?  He responded that “we have a structural deficiency” on water infrastructure and then made the ridiculous claim that “building housing doesn’t drive population growth” or water consumption.  He really said that.  After the obligatory comments on low-flow toilets and water reuse (“we are way behind Australia and Israel”), one was left to wonder how he would keep the middle-class in California without consuming more water.  It must be nice to live in the fairyland of the state senate and not have to worry about fixing “structural deficiencies” before plunging ahead with massive growth laws.

When asked about the impact that AirBnB and VRBO have on permanent rental housing and whether something should be done to limit those businesses, Weiner magically turned into a private property rights advocate.  He didn’t even seem embarrassed by the switch.  He then proceeded to say that “cities have ample tools to ban or restrict” AirBnB, yet he’s quite comfortable completely overriding these same cities’ zoning ordinances.  I almost had to admire such blatant hypocrisy spilling out in a single meeting.

The most revealing comment of the 90-minute session was buried in one of Weiner’s asides about Area Median Income (AMI) ranges and which income range was most “deserving” of subsidies.  He noted that this was a problem until we tackle “the long-term project to realign our capitalist society and socialize housing”.  There you have it.

Living Next to 101 and SFO

I originally missed this big item on the Planning Commission agenda and in the Daily Journal piece.  

Burlingame officials praised the initial designs of a 265-unit, mixed-use project expected to be the first sizable development constructed in a newly-planned neighborhood.  Burlingame planning commissioners shared their support for the residential and commercial proposal by Summerhill Apartment Communities on the corner of Adrian Court and Adrian Road, according to video of the meeting Monday, May 13.

The project comprised of two, seven-story towers is likely to be the first housing development in the area around Rollins Road, where officials are seeking to build a new residential hub a short distance from the Millbrae train station.

For people (like me) steeped in the history of the telecommunications industry, One Adrian Ct. is an historic property being the first "Technical Operating Center" or TOC for the original SP Telecom network that grew out of the Southern Pacific railroad right of way and evolved into Sprint.  The microwave tower is still on site that provided the original transmission facilities that were later replaced by fiber optics.  More importantly, I have to wonder who is looking at the bigger picture.  The DJ goes on to note

Most of the feedback was similarly positive, but some maintained reservations. One nearby property owner said he feared the traffic and congestion likely invited by the development.

The initial design with 333 bedrooms includes 315 parking spaces so it is "under-parked" like most recent designs but that figure gives you some sense of the traffic from the residents.  You have to wonder what the impact will be on the very busy intersection that has the In-and-Out burger shack along with other traffic generators.  Another question that should be addressed is which elementary school will the kids go to?  Franklin or Lincoln?  The residents will also get a front-row seat to the runway noise from SFO--maybe this is the noise barrier the rest of us have been longing for?   Yes, I'm being sarcastic.

Planning Climate Action in B'game

The climate action planning continues in B'game.  Here are some of the tangible activities courtesy of the Daily Journal reporting on the Joint Council-Planning Commission meeting last month:

Officials are crafting the proposal in an effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions over the coming two decades through improved mobility routes, more efficient development practices, natural resource conservation and more.  Among the most notable programs and practices identified to cut greenhouse gas emissions are:

• implementing a transportation demand management plan
• establishing a complete streets network
• adopting more efficient construction management
• becoming more energy efficient and
• supporting Peninsula Clean Energy

We will have to see just how tangible these become in the face of potential mass over-development driven by Senate Bill 50 (if it becomes law).

SB50: Some Legal Background

As Senate Bill 50 winds its way out of committee heading for a vote in the Senate the mayor of Menlo Park, Ray Mueller, who is also an attorney provided a short history of zoning law and precedent to the Daily Post this week.  I'll just trim it down to the key points here

In many ways SB50 is the history of zoning and land-use regulation come full circle and turned on its head.  In 1926, the U.S. Supreme Court, in it landmark decision Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., for the first time validated a local jurisdiction's comprehensive land-use zoning controls.  The case involved a village in Ohio, Euclid, developing local zoning ordinances in an attempt to prevent industrial Cleveland from growing into and subsuming Euclid and changing the character of the village.  In this case, the Supreme Court upheld Euclid's zoning ordinance, finding it was not an unreasonable extension of the village's police power and did not have the character of arbitrariness, and thus was not unconstitutional.  How ironic is it then, that a legislator from a big city in California drafted SB50 to use state pre-emption to forcefully impose zoning rules to push character changing density into the suburbs.

The Euclid case was the beginning of nearly a century of land-use law in the U.S. and California that was premised on the foundation that local jurisdictions were vested with the power to regulate land use within their boundaries.

For close to a century in California, when a family picked a jurisdiction in which to make the biggest financial investment in their lives, their home, it was premised on the belief that they did so in a framework of property rights vested in an expectation they would participate in a locally elected representative government that controlled the land-use destiny of that jurisdiction: from its downtown, to its parks and open space, to it schools and fire stations, to the character of the street of the home that family purchased and children played on.

Very well put, Mr. Mueller.  Our own mayor, Donna Colson, was quoted in the DJ yesterday predicting that "I think we will waste a lot of money on lawyers".  I agree.  With the wide, ugly grasp of SB50 there should be no problem coming up with a 20-city war chest to fight this as far as needed.  Would it be a waste of taxpayer money?  Sure, but it would also be necessary.  It's time to start that reserve fund in the budget.  We will have a long memory of those politicians who attempt to jam this down our throats.