The Burlingame Voice

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.  

  

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.

Changes to Lyon-Hoag

We've been following the oncoming future of the Lyon-Hoag neighborhood for quite some time including here and here.  This might be the section of town undergoing the most change--at least until the up-zoning in the North end happens.  Regardless of how long the changes have been in the making, it's still a shock to many.  I needed a tow recently and the tow truck driver who has been doing that job for almost 30 years couldn't believe that Hower Auto had closed and that the Datsunville building had been sold and was likely closing.  At least Washington School is getting some new permanent classrooms as the population of kids is likely to jump once again with all of the development coming.

And don't expect the pressure to subside.  Beyond Facebook and the crazy CASA Compact is another wave of price pressure from the next wave of Bay Area IPOs.  The Wall Street Journal notes

Friday’s strong public-market debut of ride-hailing company Lyft Inc., now valued at roughly $30 billion, is expected to kick off a rush of massive IPOs that include competitor Uber and digital-imaging company Pinterest, supplying the Bay Area with possibly thousands of new millionaires.  What sets this IPO season apart from previous offerings is the sheer volume of workers expected to benefit from the bonanza and its impact on the Bay Area, already strained by a growing class divide fueled by the years-long tech boom.

One early Uber employee, who is currently living in a rental apartment with their spouse and sold about half of their shares during an internal sale, said they had been eyeing single-family homes in the city. But that even with a budget of $4 million to $5 million, they didn’t feel they could manage carrying costs and private school for their future children. They are now looking at homes in San Francisco’s suburbs farther south.

The eternal question is whether B'game and our neighboring towns will end up as an expanse of offices, housing and restaurants and nail salons with little in the way of small services like independent auto repair, mom and pop retail, entertainment venues or anything unique from any other suburbia?  Plenty of B'gamers fear the worst about that homogenization and the traffic with the most common question today being "If you decide to go, where would you go?" not generating a satisfactory answer very often.  Here's the Washington addition and the last view of Hower.

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.”

Jobs > Housing

The Daily Post blessed us with an article about the trees that couldn't find the forest if they had a compass, Google maps and a dozen Boy Scouts.  The headline was "Area adds far less housing than jobs:  14,900 new homes for 52,700 workers".  The thoughtful response to such a headline is a) Apples are not oranges and b) Where the heck is the water going to come from for that many people?   If you wanted to add a c) and d) go for schools and police/fire, but let's just focus on a) and b).

Unfortunately I cannot make fun of the journalist because the article has no byline.  But let's just enjoy the confusion shown by the second paragraph:

The number of new housing units, mostly apartments and condominiums, was much less than the 52,700 new jobs estimated by the California Employment Development Department to have been added in the nine-county Bay Area last year.

The next sentence begins with "the imbalance....".  Umm.  What imbalance?  Who says that is an imbalance?  Who knows how many of the new jobs went to existing Bay Area residents?  Or how many of the new arrivals found space in existing dwellings?  Is that 3.5:1 ratio a problem?  Who even knows if either of the figures are correct?  I'm not sure I have any confidence in any local agency to get within +/- 20% of the actual numbers.

Better to ask, "If we essentially created a brand new city of 15,000 homes, where is the water going to come from to service those homes?"  But that is not politically correct in today's supposedly environmentally and socially conscious mindset.  Kind of sad what passes for reporting these days.

"Housing Advocates" Please Go Away

I am thoroughly sick and tired of the so-called housing advocates trying to pressure every City decision to add more housing.  In yesterday's Daily Journal we get two more examples.  First, the piece on redeveloping a piece of Bayfront land that is sitting mostly idle is on the docket for a meeting tonight with the State Lands Commission and the city and residents

State officials received an application from H&Q Asia Pacific in 2016 to develop a new hotel and park at the site, prompting a neighbor of the property to offer an alternative proposal to preserve the land as open space.

SPHERE Institute, a public policy research firm headquartered in the area east of Highway 101 along the city’s Bayfront, expressed an interest in leading the financing campaign to preserve the wetlands which exist on the property.

Housing advocates have also called for the site to be built into a residential development.

Really?  These clowns have no idea what it would take in city time, energy and expense to support ANY housing on the Bayfront.  There is no school, no police patrol to speak of (I know, I've done a drive-along with BPD), fire/ambulance coverage takes a lot of effort and will never be great without a new station that will never happen, and the weather sucks for the most part.  Just stop already!  Then this little gem of an idea pops up in the Rec Center article in the same edition

Under the direction from councilmembers, the architect will craft new designs and bring the issue back for further consideration in June.

While design revisions were considered, housing advocates suggested developing some residential units on top of the facility as a means of combating the city’s affordability crisis.

Stop already.  It's a Rec Center, not public housing.  The whole community is wondering where the heck the parking is going to come from for the recreation part and these clowns want to add housing?  Unbelievable.  We have a huge amount of housing already "in the dirt".  That's enough until all the other support services figure out how to handle the influx that has already been approved.   Oh, and just for good measure, we are back in a drought situation regardless of how much rain we get this week. 

A Time for Leadership

Last Wednesday's Daily Journal covered the proposed office development on the parking lot next to the Avenue train station.

Burlingame officials offered largely positive reviews to plans for a large office building proposed adjacent to the downtown train station, despite concerns the project may worsen the city’s transportation struggles.  The Burlingame Planning Commission unanimously agreed to push forward the proposed redevelopment of a car lot at 250 California Drive into a four-story office building.

The revealing part of the article and the meeting was in the quotes

Before voting in favor of the proposal and making it clear he supported the developer’s interest, (commission chair Peter) Gum shared development criticism he commonly receives from residents.

“What I hear on the street is please stop building and please stop the traffic congestion,” said Gum, according to video of the Monday, Feb. 12, meeting.

Gum acknowledged though the commission is required to consider projects according to the city’s zoning code, which allows for redevelopment of the property, so he voted in favor. He also made his preference for the site clear.

“I would suggest building nothing there, or keep it significantly smaller,” said Gum.  “It overpowers the most important building we have, which is the downtown train station,” said Gum.

So even Planning commissioners who hear the concerns--and there are lots of them--and seem to agree with them, apparently feel powerless to do anything to rein in over-development.  The public is not happy.  Last weekend I got talking to someone I had never met before and who had no idea who I was nor had she ever heard of the Voice.  The first sentence out of her mouth after hearing that I also lived in Burlingame was "Can you believe that building?"  Of course, she was talking about the monster on California Dr. across from this new proposed office building.

It's time for some leadership from the City Council.  If there are no zoning code terms in place to slow things down then it's time to enact them.  I'm not talking about spot re-zoning targeting an individual project--that is clearly illegal.  We need a general change.  It needs to address height, mass, trees (or lack thereof) and water availability.  We're well into drought conditions but no one seems to think that is a problem until restrictions are imposed.  With the Summerhill project now in progress and several more well along, it's time to take a breath, take stock and slow down.  Here is the Carolan Ave. claw as a visual reminder of what is already approved.

Growth by the numbers

This Saturday, the Burlingame City Council will hold a study session where discussions regarding Burlingame's housing concerns will be on the table. According to the city's own estimates, housing projects that have been approved and some that are in the pipeline will add more than 500 units to our current housing stock. All of these units are in multi-dwelling buildings. If you have never been to one of these meetings, I guarantee you will find it interesting. It's a bit less formal than a council meeting, but not much, but you will hopefully hear the council opine in a more open environment.

The question imho, is this growth "smart growth" or just "growth to meet the state's mandatory numbers?" Another question is regarding affordable housing. Is this a response to those who claim we need it or is there some science behind it?

The session begins at 9am and will be held in the Lane Room at the Burlingame Library. The agenda is here.

The Booming Economy

In Burlingame, (and along the entire Peninsula,) commercial enterprises and multi-residential, mixed-use communities are rapidly rising toward the skies like giant beanstalks.

Typically, traffic and parking concerns are discussed and local leaders put policies in place to mitigate those concerns and studies are done to ensure there are no negative impacts.

However, one impact of rapid development that almost never gets addressed is the literal booming, banging, buzzing and blasting of said progress.

The source of the pile driving that begins each day at the crack of 8am and continues, like water torture, all day, everyday until 6pm emanates from the 802,837 square foot Burlingame Point, a massive project on the former drive-in movie site that has been in some form of development for years. The project, according to its project manager, requires at least 2000 piles to be driven. Why did no one associated with this project over the course of all those years anticipate the disruption this could cause on residents just across form the projects location and nearby hotels and businesses like Virgin America and others?

Cities have ordinances in place to regulate decibel levels on house parties and leaf blowers but pile driving, deep-well drilling, jack-hammering, earth moving, grading, grinding and the constant beep, beep, beeping of trucks backing up are not regulated in any way.

Our once quite suburbs are no longer places of relaxation in bucolic backyard hammocks, napping to the chirping of finches. We live now in a place where we realize the wake-up calls of bulldozers and backhoes.

Some might say, grin and bear it. It will come to end with the 2000^th pile driven.

Caltrain has just announce that their electrification/modernization project will begin shortly with 24 hour per day work along the railroad tracks. The 290 unit Summerhill project slated for Carolan Drive has not yet begun, the 260,000 square feet SFO Tech Center just got the thumbs up from Burlingame’s planning commission and there are many other numerous multi-story office and mixed use projects, not to mention the continuing demolition of two-bedroom homes into five-bedroom, six-bath open concept, mini-mansions that will continue to hum along well after the Burlingame Point project has been completed years from now.

I am not here to debate the merits of the current building boom.

Burlingame’s general plan allows for development that is concentrated on the east side. I am not here to debate the merits of the general plan either. When development happens in an aggressive and rapid pace in a concentrated area it becomes problematic.

My hope is that the noise from our booming economy becomes an issue that gets the same devoted attention in the environmental review process that other impacts of development get today.

My hope is that our elected officials, (who live primarily on the West side of town, away from the daily “grind,”) understand the burden on those who live on the East side of town.

I simply suggest we get ahead of the curve and address the noise issue now before we are tortured by it over and over again.