Category: Design Review

  • Drought 2021: Here We Go Again

    I'm still bothered by state Sen. Scott Weiner's naïve response to a water question he got during his visit to B'game almost two years ago.  When asked "where will the water come from to support all the new housing (and people) you are demanding?" his response landed squarely between "I don't know", "We should look at that" and "It's not my concern".  Two years have passed–both drought years — and we are no closer to a state-wide plan than we were then.  There's always something "more important" getting in the way and yet the development addicts seem able to press on with their demands.

    Here in B'game, the every five-year update to our Urban Water Management Plan is behind schedule.  Public works has been swamped (no pun intended) with parklets, paving projects, going green and adding traffic lights and signage.  The next update will be the first to comply with a new state mandate that it examine a five-year drought instead of only a three-year episode.  That should make for interesting reading when the first draft comes out–hopefully soon.

    In the meantime, here we go again according to the Comicle

    The state’s monthly snow survey on Tuesday will show only about 60% of average snowpack for this point in the year, the latest indication that water supplies are tightening. With the end of the stormy season approaching, forecasters don’t expect much more buildup of snow, a key component of the statewide supply that provides up to a third of California’s water.

    Urban water agencies, meanwhile, are asking customers to think twice about long showers and outdoor watering. The calls for austerity will feel familiar to many Californians who less than five years ago faced mandatory water restrictions during the 2012-2016 drought.  More importantly, the northern Sierra’s 8-Station Index, which tracks rain in the region where California gets the bulk of its water, measured only 45% of average precipitation.  While March and April could still bring rain, the heart of the wet season is over. Much of the state is now poised to have a top-10 dry year.

    As an avid skier, I can recall several Miracle Marches and even an Amazing April or two, but let's face it, the people who are trying to overbuild the Bay Area just don't care.  It's time some other leaders stepped in and called for a reset, a review, a plan and compliance.

    IMG_0802

    Update:  Yesterday a huge branch fell off a street tree at Vernon and Clarendon hitting the nearby house.  The drought is stressing trees throughout the state, so expect more of this until we prioritize trees over condos and offices.

    Fallen tree branch1

    Update:  March 24.  In today's Comicle:  "It would have to be biblical to adjust a water allocation at this point," (Karla) Nemeth (director CDWR) said, referring to the end of the winter season.

    Drought 2021

  • If You Like Your House, You Can Keep It…..

    I have been mulling over this post for a couple of months.  That is because it is so distressing.  But some things just need to be said.  When Paloma Ave. made a comment on the natural gas ban post today, it was the match that lit the fire.  Here is his/her/their comment:

    I just read in the SF Comicle that Berkeley is now discussing banning single family neighborhoods.  Didn't Berkeley start the trend to ban natural gas, which our City Council decided they should also ban?  Question to the City Council: Will you also try to ban Single Family Homes in Burlingame? After all, wouldn't that be the woke thing to do?

    I'm struck by the follow-the-lemming aspect of it all.  Jon Mays at the Daily Journal had an editorial about the follower mindset among city councils here.  Jon let these councils off easy by noting "To be clear, the following is not a judgment, but rather an observation."  Another observation, mine, would be that city councils need to stand up for their communities even if it means slinging a stone at Goliath.  Nowhere is that more important than in the protection of the neighborhoods.  Let's face it.  The housing thugs in Sacramento are Goliath and they have it in for single family housing.  It has been in the works for awhile as I noted here.  Personally, I think it is an unhealthy sign of envy, but that is a topic for another day.

    What they have already done is today's topic–Accessory Dwelling Units, or ADUs are coming to a lot near you.  The first one in my neighborhood just got into the planning queue.  But it's not a restrictive queue.  I have it from multiple informed sources that the city has minimal control over ADUs.  Sure they can dither over whether 16' or 20" height limits should be imposed, but the bottom line is Sacramento has turned the whole state into R2 zoning with no input from the public.

    Some predictions have a very high probability.  Here's one.  If your residential street has a parking problem now, expect it to get worse in five years.  City councils will have to get very smart quickly.  Maybe the ADU "granny unit", as they used to be called, really is for granny.  Maybe it's a perfect Work From Home office.  But maybe it's the AirBnB ticket that helps pay the mortgage and has no effect on local affordability.  Maybe your kid will live in it.  Maybe all of the above.  Anyway you look at it, it's more density and that has ramifications that will reveal themselves as we go.

    ADU RC DJ

      

     

  • A Chat With the New Mayor

    I had a chance to sit down with our new mayor for 2021, Ann O'Brien (Keighran) to discuss her priorities for the year.  In a normal year, City Hall would fill with people on the evening when the mayorship and vice-mayorship rotate, everyone would hear from the outgoing and incoming mayors and adjourn for cake and champagne in the lobby; where the politically active in B'game would catch-up.  I felt bad that Ann Zoomed it instead of having the live event and the cable TV broadcast, hence the socially-distanced, outdoor chat.  That's just me–she noted that this is her fourth time as mayor, so her excitement would have been muted regardless.

    O'Brien's long tenure on the council, preceded by her long tenure on the Planning Commission, and buttressed by her day job as a staffer for a County supervisor shows in her grasp of a wide range of issues.  Whether it be city finances, local business conditions, edicts coming down from Sacramento, or her main priority this year– what's happening on our own backyard — she's fluent and sensible in my opinion.  It can be enticing for any local politician to grapple with state or national issues, but when push comes to shove the job is about the local community.  Issues like our very own minimum wage, banning natural gas in new construction, or forcing rent control take a back seat to relief for our business owners, our hospitality sector and helping residents back to work.

    On the bright side, the council has recently approved funding of $500K for small business grants, purchased the parklet barriers, leveled the playing field for our hotels by implementing a TOT for short-term rentals and developed CARES debit cards to help businesses and low-income families.  These all need continuing care, feeding and tweaking.  Village Burlingame, the downtown parking garage, Top Golf and other Bayfront improvements like a park on state land speak to a stronger B'game economy.

    On the not so bright side, the housing edict from Sacramento to create a free-for-all on Accessory Dwelling Units leaves the council with little room to moderate the effects–mainly parking and backyard privacy.  Anyone who served as a Planning Commissioner would know what the effect on street parking will be from an onslaught of ADUs–and it's not like street parking has been great in town to date.  I'll bet there are very few former planning commissioners in the Assembly or State Senate.

    Similarly, the current state election laws give a lot of cover for a single private attorney to force cities to go to district elections.  I think it's misguided, counter to good government and probably detrimental to the people it is supposed to help, but that's just me.  As the census data comes available, this council will have to determine district boundaries and a new election process.  There are about 20 applicants for the city attorney position and the new hire will definitely be busy with this change.

    Kudos to Ann on her fourth turn holding the rudder to the city government.  Here's hoping it is a productive year focused squarely on local issues. 

  • San Mateo: Dodged a bullet by 43 votes

    Let's just take a moment to thank the 23,038 voters in San Mateo that put Measure Y over the top.  The details are here if you haven't been watching, but in essence it keeps the rules in place that put limits on over-development in the 105,000 resident city that is our southern neighbor.  We are intimately tied to Millbrae, H'borough and San Mateo.  This was a squeaker which is scary since it should have been a no-brainer for people who care about the quality of life on the mid-Peninsula, but at least it passed–by 43 votes.

     
     
      Candidate Name   Total Votes Percentage  
     
    		   23,038 50.05%
     
    		   22,995 49.95%

    This is reminder number 4,246 that your vote matters.

  • The Changing Face of B’game

    Today's Daily Post front page headline is "Neighborhoods under pressure".  It discusses the impending doom facing single-family housing in the state if Scott Weiner and others in Sacramento get their way with our neighborhoods.  It's almost too depressing to ponder.  But one of the things we do here at the Voice is capture B'game history as it is being made.  Here it won't drift off into forgotten oblivion like many social media sites.

    The two classic B'game "cottages" at the corner of California and Oak Grove have been in the news over the years as the long-time tenants got support from national personality Tony Robbins in an effort to stay put.  They're both gone and yet the little bungalows from a time gone by are still here–for awhile.  Right next door is where the action is since another big development has been approved as a "live/work" space.  The Daily Journal initially had the site listed incorrectly as the site of the two cottages, but has corrected the piece and noted the correction here.

    The Burlingame Planning Commission unanimously approved Monday, Sept. 28, plans to build 25 units in a live-work development at 601 California Drive.  For the development on California Drive, officials praised the five-story building intended to grant people a place to live and work under the same roof — a departure from the previous discussion, in which officials were unimpressed.  Live/work developments are designed to offer tenants a place to both run a business and make their home in the same unit. Burlingame officials have promoted the development of such projects since updating the general plan to encourage creative land use.

    When you look at the proposal, it's not obvious why this is a "live/work" development.  It's got a conference room and a gym, but other than that it just looks like a stack of multi-bedroom units.  You might think there would be ground floor professional space, art gallery space or even room for yet another nail salon, but nope.  That's probably OK since it is a street ripe for higher density.  We will just have to wait and see what happens to the two little houses that have stood on that corner for so long.  Here they are; so they aren't forgotten.

    Hatch res at Oak Grove

     

  • Density Tsunami Approaches

    We have known the tsunami of development has been approaching for several years.  The townhouses on Anson Lane have arrived for sale:

    Brand new construction in Burlingame. This 3 bedroom, 3.5 bathroom, 2 story townhome style condo is located in the brand new community The Residences @ Anson is built by D.R. Horton, America's builder. Included features, Avalon shaker style cabinets w/satin nickel door pulls, Stainless steel Jenn Air appliances, minus washer, dryer and refrigerator.   $1,903,540.

    The massive block of 268 apartments that are part of the same development on Carolan Ave. will be hitting the market soon I imagine.  I have verified with a member of the School Board that the kids in this development are zoned to Roosevelt School.

    Further north, the Planning Commission has cleared the first of three big developments.  Per the Daily Journal

    The Burlingame Planning Commission unanimously approved the plan to construct at 1766 El Camino Real a development featuring 60 residential units atop 148,000 of office space during a meeting Monday, Aug. 24. The plans will advance onto the Burlingame City Council, which will ultimately determine the fate of the development.  Officials admired the seven-story tower which will also feature a ground-floor lobby and retail center plus underground parking — differing from those who feared the development was incompatible with its surroundings.  

    “Will it change the neighborhood here? Yes. That’s the point,” said Loftis, who noted the stretch of north Burlingame has been identified by officials as an area to build additional housing and allow greater density.  He added officials recently approved a general plan update making way for the new uses, making clear the character of the area would change.

    And the next two shoes to drop are

    To advance the synergy of the emerging area, plans have been filed to build a seven-story tower nearby with 169 units at the corner of El Camino Real and Murchison Drive, and about 1 mile away a proposal was made to build 120 units in a six-story development which includes cultural art space.

    That's 349 new units in "North Burlingame".  I'm researching which school(s) these kids will be assigned to when they are all open.  In the meantime, I think we need a better name for this big new neighborhood. Any suggestions, readers?  There is also plans afoot at the Mercy property for a sizable residential development.  That one will be easy to name:  Have Mercy on Us.  That's 630 new units plus the Hower Auto development on Bayswater and whatever gets added at Mercy.  And still, "housing advocates" say it is not enough………

    Keep this view of ECR in mind as it won't look like that much longer.

    North ECR Redevelop

     

  • Green Policies Backfire Against the Coronavirus

    I had my next post outlined in my head when I read this piece in today's Wall Street Journal by a couple of podcasters that says the same thing only better:

    We really knew there was a crisis when San Francisco, which 13 years ago banned single-use plastic bags in grocery stores, would now prohibit reusable bags as part of its effort to prevent spread of the novel coronavirus.

    Plastic-bag bans aren’t the only “green” policy that has been found wanting in the real world of a pandemic. For decades environmentalists have hectored us to get out of our cars and crowd into subways and buses. “From Amsterdam to Tempe, Arizona, more and more cities are finding that eliminating cars from their streets makes people happier and healthier,” Fast Company reported in January, noting with satisfaction that in one Helsinki neighborhood, “none of the new apartments come with parking.”

    You can’t have a car-free community without high-density housing, so environmentalists have promoted apartment living and a war on suburban “sprawl.” But now those living in dense apartment buildings risk their lives by walking out the door into common spaces and shared surfaces, even before they reach the crowded, densely populated streets below. Suburban families, by contrast, are often able to maintain community connections even while socially distancing and are more likely to have additional room for their children to roam while out of school.

    Environmentalists talk a lot about “externalities,” the unintended consequences of economic decisions. The pandemic is a reminder that policy decisions have externalities too.

    Mr. McAleer and Ms. McElhinney host the podcast “The Ann & Phelim Scoop.”

    The question is will we learn anything from the COVID-19 onslaught?  Let’s face it, this will not be the last pandemic.  We’ve had H1N1, SARS, MERS, Ebola, Russian Flu, Spanish Flu and the regular flu that mutates every year, so the vaccine manufacturers are half-guessing each year.   More than one person has said to me “Face it, we will look like Manhattan in 20 years.”  Well maybe, but maybe not.  Now is the time to tell Sen. Scott Weiner—the enemy of single-family zoning—and the YIMBYS to take a hike.

  • “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.

    Hower lot

  • 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.

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