Category: Design Review

  • Poll: 70% say Bay Area quality of life has declined

    When I read headlines like 7 in 10 residents say the region’s quality of life is getting worse, I think about how bad the roads have become (looking at you, El Camino), how poorly many government agencies are being run, how much traffic there is, how we are losing control of our local voting and zoning, and public safety.  School quality, water security, utility costs—the list is long.  Having spent years in market research, I know a poll can be tweaked in any number of ways from who gets polled to how the questions and multiple-choice answers are phrased to who does the analysis of the results.  The Merc reported on the latest public sentiment here.  It notes

    According to the poll, 70% of registered voters said the Bay Area’s quality of life has worsened over the past five years, while just 13% said it has improved. Seventeen percent said it’s stayed the same.

    A whopping 46% of respondents said they were likely to leave the Bay Area in the next few years, with two-thirds of those citing high housing costs as the main reason to consider a move. During the pandemic, people fleeing the region contributed to a 3% population drop, though that exodus has since slowed.  When asked to select ways the region might best be improved, respondents’ top choice at 39% was building more affordable housing.

    Of course, that means 61% chose something other than to jam more people into the Bay Area.  See how the reporting can spin the story?  If the other choices had overlap to split the responses, 39% starts to look big.

    Homeowners in the poll (note, that percentage is not revealed) also said the state’s home insurance meltdown is hitting their finances. Fifty-two percent said their home insurance premiums have increased significantly, 22% said they have avoided using their home insurance policy out of fear of cancellation or rising rates, 12% said they’ve had a difficult time finding an insurer to write them a policy and 8% said an insurer had canceled a policy.

    Insurance has been slipping down a slippery slope for years with no real solution from the state. And many renters don't realize their rent is tied to the insurance on their apartment.  Then there is this bit of Sacramental hand-waving following on the heels of even more restrictions on drilling.  When you leave the state the gas prices are almost unreal—unreal low.

    To prevent spikes in gas prices, state lawmakers are now considering a plan from Gov. Gavin Newsom to force oil refiners to keep minimum fuel reserves, though doing so likely wouldn’t lower overall prices at the pump.

    The piece finishes off by describing some people who think Silicon Valley giants are "villains" who have "lost their moral compass".  I can't understand where that is coming from or what it has to do with the quality of life in the Bay Area.  At least the piece noted huge support for Prop. 36 to get the organized theft back under control and remove the locked plastic doors protecting shampoo and deodorant.  The big question remains how many people we should jam into the Peninsula?  The RHNA requirements are nonsense, but they are driving down the quality of life for long-time residents who look at things like this on the north end and wonder "why"?  That's the B'game police building in the front.

    Monster building over PD

  • New Category: Sacramento Stupidity….on story poles

    I have been meaning to add a "Sacramento Stupidity" category for some time.  One could argue that it is overlap with what goes into a few other existing categories like "State level issues", "High Speed Rail", etc.  But somethings are just so stupid they need a category of their own and I have finally found the one to take the proverbial cake.  The Merc is reporting:

    Los Gatos eases story pole restrictions for new developments

    Story poles may help Los Gatos residents get a sense of how much space new developments will occupy, but the state told town officials that requiring the poles may keep new housing from being built in town.

    After receiving word from the state’s department of Housing and Community Development that the town’s story pole policy “poses a constraint to the construction of new housing” and could therefore impede approval of its Housing Element, the Los Gatos Town Council in a split vote approved easing the requirements.  Poles won’t be required for projects over 55 feet tall, and signage will be allowed in lieu of story poles for certain residential projects.

    Outcry from residents who saw story poles go up on the North 40 property led to the developers filing a lawsuit in 2016 after council rejected plans for the first phase of the development in East Los Gatos.

    This could easily be an April Fool's Day post, but it isn't.  In a recent email, the GovernforCalifornia.org team discussed the mind-boggling budget deficit the state has just one year after having a massive surplus, by noting the state should:

    Reduce the number of Executive Branch employees, which has risen under Mr. Newsom to 252,000, or 6.47 employees per 1000 population, from 212,000, or 5.37 employees per 1000 population, in Governor Brown's last year of office. Matching Mr. Brown's number of employees per 1000 population would eliminate 43,000 positions.

    If you are wondering how the state has time to chase after towns about their story-pole policies, there is your answer.  Welcome to the new Sacramento Stupidity category–I fear it will be a busy one.

  • Connecting the Density Dots

    Sometimes connecting the dots is hard–other times it's pretty easy.  Last week's connection was pretty easy.  The Chronicle ran two pieces on density, but no one there connected the dots so let's do it here.  The front page piece was "Density" cited in canceled policies".  It noted property insurers consider two flavors of density–how closely packed together houses are and how many policies any one insurer has in an area.  Both are causing the insurance crisis in California to spiral up.  Insurers don't like the risk of a fire in one house jumping to its neighbors.  And they realize multi-family means multi-kitchen, etc.  So "you're canceled".

    Two pages later there was a headline "Court rules lawmakers can override local housing limits"–to force more, you got it, density.

    Limits on housing density approved by local voters can be overridden by lawmakers, a California appeals court ruled, upholding legislation that was intended to encourage construction of small apartment buildings.  The law, SB10 by state Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, allows city and county governments to authorize new housing with up to 10 units in some urban areas, including those near transit, without conducting environmental studies.

    “The housing shortage is a matter of statewide concern,” and SB10 is “reasonably related to addressing that concern,” Justice Brian Hoffstadt said in Thursday’ 3-0 ruling, which upheld a judge’s decision.Hoffstadt cited previous legislation aimed at addressing the shortage of affordable housing, starting with a 1965 law that required local governments to adopt long-term plans to promote adequate housing.

    You read that right.  This has been an issue since 1965.  Why?  Because it's always going to be an issue.  You cannot outbuild the global demand to live in the Bay Area–unless you make it notably less livable vis a vis water, traffic, grid stability, crime, street parking, et al.  Those are symptoms of density.  Some stupid judge can't change that, and neither can the legislature.  If you live next to a project that is building three, four or five units on a 5,000 square foot lot and you lose your insurance coverage, will you have a cause of action?  Against whom?  The state?  Good luck with that.

    And if you are thinking insurers can't or won't cancel you, think again.  No explanation required.  They could easily use housing density as the deciding factor in where to reduce their policy density.  The Law of Unintended Consequences will not be denied.

    Desnity cancels you

  • Five Units on a Five Thousand Foot Lot

    As I type this, the city council is going into closed session for two issues:

    1. CLOSED SESSION
    1. Conference with Labor Negotiators Government Code Section 54957.6
      City Designated Representatives: Human Resources Director Maria Saguisag-Sid, City Manager Lisa K. Goldman, City Attorney Michael Guina, Chief of Police Michael Matteucci, Timothy L. Davis Attorney, Finance Director Helen Yu-Scott
      Employee Organizations: AFSCME and Teamsters
    2. Conference with Legal Counsel – Existing LItigation (Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1))

    Yes In My Backyard v. City of Burlingame, San Mateo County Superior Court Case No. 23-CIV-00519

    The YIMBYs are filing lawsuits all over the Bay Area and the state because, well, the state has handed them a cudgel and why not use it?  The Sunday Chronicle added some color that you can read about here.  I'll just grab the start and then some B'game specific bits:

    Los Altos Hills resident Sasha Zbrozek is the first to admit that he is not a real estate developer.  “I’m just some random homeowner dude,” he said. “I’m not qualified to develop much.”  Yet, over the past few days, Zbrozek has become the face of the “builder’s remedy,” a fledgling movement that over the next year could transform the way housing development is approved across the Bay Area.

    The builder’s remedy allows property owners to bypass most local planning and zoning rules if that city or county has failed to complete certification of a state-mandated eight-year housing plan known as a “housing element.” So far, the Bay Area is not doing too well: Only five of 109 jurisdictions had their housing plans approved by the state by the Jan. 31 deadline.

    Currently, the property has a house and a pool on it, but Zbrozek has submitted two alternatives for redevelopment. One would add five townhomes and retain his current house and swimming pool. The other would require razing his house and pool and putting a 15-unit apartment building along with the five townhomes. If the larger project is approved, he will sell to an experienced builder and move.

    It's nice that Mr. Zbrozek knows he's not a builder but is pretty confident he can find one to buy him out once he sets it all up.  Now onto the local comments

    So far there are dozens of property owners looking at invoking the builder’s remedy, but only a few have pulled the trigger, according to Sonja Trauss, executive director of YIMBY Law, which has sued several cities for not having compliant housing elements.

    Trauss said she knows of property owners in Burlingame, Fairfax, Oakland, Sausalito and Palo Alto who are likely to file applications, but that many are hesitant given that the builder’s remedy has been in effect for only two weeks.  Trauss predicted that the “sweet spot” for builder’s remedy projects will be five units on a 5,000-square-foot lot, which is the most common lot size in California. That is the scale of the projects in Burlingame and Sausalito that she expects to be filed in the coming days.

    More than a year ago I suggested that the City start building a legal reserve to counter all of this destruction of R1 zoning.  It was excellent advice since it appears we are a juicier target than say Palo Alto

    Meanwhile, wealthy towns such as Belvedere, in Marin, or Palo Alto have the financial resources to fight developments in court.  “The places that are most legally vulnerable are also the places where you are likely to face the longest slog in getting the project approved,” he said. “Maybe you are likely to prevail in Palo Alto, but Palo Alto is going to give you hell for a half dozen years along the way.”

    I'd love to be a fly on the wall of that closed session.  There was also a piece in the DJ recently that quoted a different YIMBY attorney as saying he was living on an air mattress in an attic because he couldn't afford anything else.  Don't the YIMBY's want to pay a living wage?  If that claim is accurate, it's hard to see how he was talking about His Backyard.

  • Natural Gas: Follow the science?

    We must take note of the national kerfuffle about gas stoves that has been boiling over this week.  It's totally pertinent to B'game because our last city council bought into the climate hype and instituted a "reach code" such that new construction can't have any natural gas–not just stoves, but water heaters, furnaces, and barbeques.  No gas for you!  Now the Feds are making similar noises and then backtracking as the WSJ notes

    A Biden appointee on the Consumer Product Safety Commission explicitly threatened to ban gas stoves based on dubious evidence of public-health harm. “This is a hidden hazard,” said commissioner Richard Trumka Jr. “Any option is on the table. Products that can’t be made safe can be banned.”  After withering public criticism, including by Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin, the CPSC Chairman denied any plan to ban, and the White House said President Biden also doesn’t want to ban gas stoves. But that’s cold comfort given that the climate left does want to ban them, and progressive cities and states are doing it.

    One might ask what is the science behind gas phobia?  Well, today the SF Chronicle actually let a letter to the editor slip through that is pretty clear on the science:

    There has lately been a lot of concern about gas ranges and how they can harm indoor air quality, but some of this is too fast and too furious.  As an active researcher in indoor air quality, there can be no doubt that gas cooking produces nitrogen dioxide and that this is bad for respiratory health but the level of concern is far higher than the data show the situation actually warrants. 

    Cooking is likely the most polluting thing done in homes. It produces lots of contaminants, regardless of the heat source. Switching to electric may not make the sum total significantly better.  The solution that works regardless of the type of cooking is using your range hood when cooking. Range hoods have been required in California for a long time. Studies have not shown that there would be any significant difference in net harm between gas and electric cooking if you actually use range hoods when cooking.

    Max Sherman, retired senior scientist, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

    I'll bet if you were one of the 2.4 million PG&E customers that lost power over the last two weeks you were thankful you had a gas stove and some matches even if your range hood or downdraft vent didn't work.  Open a window and enjoy a cup of tea or a bowl of soup.

  • Bayfront: And the beat goes on, and the beat goes on

    I didn't have the heart to post on the 1.5 million square foot development on Old Bayshore that is moving ahead.  I think it's centered at the old Gulliver's location.  That's a lot of development pressure on our infrastructure and traffic, but it's not alone.  Here is the Red Roof Inn redevelopment being discussed in the DJ

    A proposed bioscience building on the Burlingame Bayfront can be reduced in height from 226 feet, which would be the tallest in the city, but by how much and when is still being decided, the developer told the Planning Commission.

    The building is being proposed at the site of the current Red Roof Inn, at 777 Airport Blvd., and commissioners previously had issues with not only its height, but its massing and public amenities.  “Again, we are trading this height limit for public benefit,” Michael Gaul, chair of the Planning Commission, said.

    The developing architect, M. Arthur Gensler & Associates Inc. responded to the commission’s height concerns with a 32-foot reduction if their building is approved by January 2023 for a concrete structure, totaling its height to 194 feet. If the developers do not get it approved by this January they will revert to a steel structured building, thus only reducing the building by 14 feet. It would then reach 212 feet making it the second tallest building on the Bayfront by a foot.

    This one is also near the wastewater plant and will contribute mightily.  It will be all-electric so expect the grid to be impacted.  And of course, I would be remiss if I did not mention our water situation as shown in the latest Urban Water Management Plan.  What could go wrong?

    Table 7_6 crop

  • Nice House: I’m gonna miss this one

    I was taken by surprise on my dog walk this week.  I usually go a bit further than Costa Rica Ave., but with the rain and all we cut it short.  I saw the dumpster first and thought it might be a clean up.  But alas, this delightful house got scraped.  I'm gonna miss this one.  Luckily Google Maps still had a street view photo of it, but it will live on here at the Voice much, much longer than on Google…………..

    112 Costa Rica_1221 gone1

     

     

  • 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.

  • “Welcome Carpetbaggers”

    I'm not sure there is much more to say about SB9 and SB10 than was said in the May post titled SB 9 and YIMBY Carpetbaggers except to note that Newsom only waited two days post-recall to sign them.  You can also go to the Comical's donation tracker and see that the CALIFORNIA REAL ESTATE POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (CREPAC) – CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS was Newsom's seventh largest donor for the recall race at $1.5 million.  Can you say "For Sale By Owner"? 

    Design review?  Psshawh.  Street parking?  Nah, everyone will have an e-scooter and take Lyft.  Water?  Don't get me started. The last line of the Daily Post article says "Many cities have organized against SB9, including Palo Alto, Los Altos and San Carlos."  We shall see if any real organized opposition appears.  In the meantime, mark Sept. 16th as the day we said "Goodbye single-family zoning".

    Goodby SFR3

     

  • Saving History One Building at a Time

    The city is slowly working its way towards more protections and incentives for preserving local buildings and homes that add to the amazing character of our neighborhoods.  Recently I was talking to a PG&E guy from Menlo Park who came to fix the outage on our street.  He looked up and down the street and was amazed that it was so nice since "they're tearing everything down in Menlo Park".  I said "Yep" and left it at that while feeling sorry for him.  The Draft "Chapter 25.35 – Historic Resources" is winding its way through the process and would represent an upgrade to the existing, limited code just for the central downtown Ave area found on the City website here.

    We definitely need this–now more than ever as various local and state-wide forces seek to shred local character with the mistaken idea that it would help "affordability" and would come with no unintended consequences.  Wrong.

    The Historic Register has eleven criteria for inclusion and "shall only occur upon request of the property owner" and if officially designated "are eligible for incentives detailed in Section 25.35.080 Preservation Incentives."  Those are the "carrots".  The Planning Commission study session last week focused on the "sticks" as described by the Daily Journal

    The Burlingame Planning Commission weighed Monday, June 14, proposals which would punish any homeowner who destroyed a structure identified on the city’s historic registry.  Forcing a property owner to rebuild a replica of the destroyed historic structure or feature then ban any further construction at the site for 20 years was among the repercussions considered. No decision was made at the meeting and the issue will return for more deliberation later.

    While the Planning Commission and ultimately the City Council will weigh the sticks, I like to focus on the carrots; like more flexible parking requirements when adding floor space and an extra 25% lot coverage allowance.  In addition, the 1972 Mills Act, named for former state senator James Mills of San Diego who passed away in March, offers the real carrot for regular homeowners looking to save a bit of property tax.  Realty Times notes that it "provides a way whereby owners of designated historic properties may receive significant property tax relief in return for restoring and maintaining their property."  You can click through for some of the details, but the bottom line is it is an incentive that the draft B'game code says "is often a benefit to the community as a whole and the owners of surrounding properties".  We've been in short supply of that kind of thinking lately with the onslaught of ADUs, SB 9, short-term rentals, etc. 

The Burlingame Voice

Dedicated to Empowering and Informing the Burlingame Community

RECENT COMMENTS

RECENT POSTS

CATEGORIES

ABOUT THE VOICE

The Burlingame Voice is dedicated to informing and empowering the Burlingame community.  Our blog is a public forum for the discussion of issues that relate to Burlingame, California.  Opinions posted on the Burlingame Voice are those of the poster and commenter and not necessarily the opinion of the Editorial Board.  Comments are subject to the Terms of Use.

COPYRIGHT NOTICE

All content subject to Copyright 2003-2026