The Burlingame Voice

Caltrain: Dirty little secret revealed

The Daily Post enlightened us yesterday with a frontpage piece on the railroad bridge between Menlo Park and Palo Alto that needs to be replaced ASAP.  The steel bridge is 120 years old and could crack at any time, said Rob Barnard, Caltrain's deputy chief of rail development.  The ugly part of the story is the schedule and impact on operations.  Here are some snippets from the piece:

Caltrain will get to work on designing the bridge at the end of 2024.  Caltrain will come up with a preferred method for replacing the bridge over San Francisquito Creek by 2025, Barnard said.  Steel from the bridge was sent to a lab to be analyzed for strength and composition.  The study found that the bridge is not in imminent danger of collapse, and there are no cracks.  The bridge must be replaced by 2033, and the project will take nine years in total, Barnard said.

Trains won't be able to cross the bridge during two years of construction, Barnard said.  Caltrain may have to run fleets of busses between the Palo Alto station and the Menlo Park station so people can still ride the train, he said.  The "bus bridge" would have to move hundreds of people during the peak hours, so the logistics would be very complicated, Barnard said.

Wanna bet?  This project and two years of off-the-train-on-the-bus-off-the-bus-on-the-train will kill commuter ridership.  It will be a complete mess and everyone will be back in their cars for any trip that crosses the creek.  All of the on-going electrification work and supposed faster service will not bolster ridership until 2033 as the absolute best-case scenario--and when does the best-case ever play out on these projects?  It turns out they are already holding Caltrains off the bridge when a Union Pacific freighter is coming so there aren't two trains on the bridge at the same time.  I see the finances bleeding red and another sales tax and/or bond measure on the horizon. 

Caltrain: Downtown extension trivia

I like to peruse the SF Examiner on days when the Comicle is just not funny enough.  Last Thursday was one of those days and I was not disappointed.  Front page:  "Caltrain's Downtown Extension looking for sexier name".  That's what is really important about our local train service--the name of the last 1.3 miles of tunnel in EssEff  The Joint Powers Board thinks the $4-5 Billion dollar project needs a better brand......never mind that cities up and down the Peninsula are crying for money to do grade separations like at Broadway and electrification still needs money and in view of the long crossing gate SNAFUs some control system upgrades are also in order.  On August 28th the gates were down for hours royally screwing up traffic in town.

The extension has been known as the Downtown Extension or alternatively DTX.  But Alicia John-Baptiste, president of the urban planning think tank SPUR and a TJPA board member takes the cake.  She said the name "strikes me as somewhat masculine and aggressive.  It didn't feel very inviting to me."   That, dear reader, is a quote!  Don't believe me?  Here it is.  Is "Portal" is suitably feminine?  How do we get something non-binary?  Hire a new consultant?

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?

Dine B'game: 3 top-rated choices on Opentable

I don't really know how good the Opentable surveys of diners' ratings are statistically speaking, but from the company our three B'game winners this month are in, it seems valid to me.  Last Sunday's Comicle profiled the 15 best restaurants in Palo Alto.  I doubt we will be seeing a similar piece on B'game restaurants soon, but who knows?  In the interim, the Opentable Top 10 has three from our little town.  Rocca, Cafe Figaro and Velvet 48 made the list.  It carries some cred with me mostly because the out-of-town winners included 888 Ristorante in San Carlos, Evvia in PA, and Pausa in San Mateo.  I've only been to 888 once and liked it a lot with good value for money, but Evvia and Pausa are long-term winners in my book.

Save yourself the trek to Palo Alto by giving these three B'gamers a try.  I'm a little surprised Park & Howard didn't make the list, so perhaps a bit of prodding from their wait staff can boost their results.  And Broadway Grill is on a definite upward trend as well.  Again, not sure about the statistics, but it's important to dine Burlingame when you can.

After the Flush: Another epic government fail?

I was chatting with a regular Voice reader about our various topics, readership in other cities besides B'game (he thinks they exist) and he referred to me a "Mr. Water".  I like that.  It's just a bit narrow, but certainly accurate as far as it goes.  The Comicle has provided fodder for an examination of the other end of our water system--the part after the flush.  The Chron tied its piece to the algae bloom which is interesting and at least partially correct I imagine.  Regardless, here are some tidbits to consider as Planning Commissions, City Councils, County Supes and all the other development addicts go about their business of jamming more people (and their waste) into the Bay Area:

Algae blooms need food to grow, and this one had plenty: nutrients originating in wastewater that the region’s 37 sewage plants pump into the bay.  In other words — we wouldn’t have this problem without the poop and pee of the Bay Area’s 8 million residents.

“For those of you who aren’t aware, when you flush the toilet every day, you’re flushing nutrients down,” Eileen White, executive officer of San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, said at a news conference last week. The waste arrives at the sewage plant and is treated, she explained, but those nutrients — mostly nitrogen and phosphorous — remain in the water that is discharged into the bay.  There has been no evidence of a raw sewage leak; rather, it’s the regular amount of those nutrients that have long made the bay primed for a harmful algae bloom like this one.

The regional water board has told agencies that it will probably require caps on nutrients in wastewater when their regional permit comes up for renewal in 2024. But upgrading dozens of aging treatment facilities could cost $14 billion, which would double or triple ratepayers’ water bills, White said in an interview.

There you have it.  We need another $14 billion, with a "B" that we don't have, to save the bay from ourselves.  The permit clock is ticking down and there is no real plan in place.  If you click through to the Chron article, about half-down is an interactive map of some of the wastewater treatment plants with their discharge rates and nitrogen loads of that discharge.  For example, San Mateo discharges 10.72 million gallons per day with a nitrogen load of 1,300.65 kg/day.  The B'game plant was not included on the map for some reason, but a bit of sleuthing around led to the SF Estuary Institute where we learn that B'game discharged an average of 2.8 MGD back in 2017-18.

We have built a lot of stuff since 2017 and there is a lot more coming --- and thus going.  At least the Rollins Rd. developments are close to the plant.  How many infrastructure failings will it take to stop?  Our sewer rates are already going up 32.7% by 2024, but it sounds like that may not be enough. Tell me again about "affordability".  The final kick in the teeth comes at the end of the Chronicle article

“We’re all in this together. We’re all going to have to pay for this,” Ian Wren, staff scientist at the environmental group SF Baykeeper said. “If you’re OK with that, we’re going to have a better bay.”

Actually, we are not "all in this together".  Many of us have been paying our water/sewer bills for years.  We've already passed bond measures for plants and pipes and figured out how to service them.  Let's let the YIMBYs and the developers kick in for the next round of flush capacity.

Banning Natural Gas: Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics

I sort of get it.  You're just back from the long Labor Day weekend.  The news is slow unless you want to talk about the heat and blackouts.  So what to do as a Daily Journal reporter?  Curtis Driscoll pulled out his abacus and dashed off an article about the percentages of supporters who want to ban natural gas in San Mateo.  It's an impressive show of support!

Public sentiment is in favor of more stringent reach codes in San Mateo around new construction and home renovations to eliminate gas, with most speakers at an Aug. 30 meeting supporting the city’s potential updates.

Polling at the end of the meeting following discussions found the vast majority strongly supported stricter electric reach codes around home renovations, new construction and electric vehicle infrastructure. More than 80% strongly supported requiring heat pump water heater installation for projects, including a water heater replacement in homes, requiring new pools to use electric or solar heating, and prohibiting extending the use of gas fire pits, grills and water heating in residences.

Wow!  Four out of five dentists recommend it.  Go big on Green.  Save the planet now.  I guess the message is getting through to people.  But wait!

The poll had 25 respondents of the 35 people who attended the meeting.

Now hold on.  Depending on which data source used and which iteration of some data sources, like the US Census, San Mateo has between 102,200 and 105,674 residents.  You don't have to spend 30 years in market research like I did to know that somethin' ain't right.  Were the 25 respondents self-selected by attending in the first place?  Yup.  Were they all even from San Mateo?  Dunno, but knowing how these greenie flash mobs go, I'll bet maybe half were.  Were the votes visible to all?  Did the 10 people who did not respond feel pressure to support the natural gas ban, but chose to abstain because they don't?  Good bet.  So the headline should read "Will apathy allow climate fanatics to load new costs on homeowners?"  With the meeting in question taking place virtually on Aug. 30, that is closer to the true story.

If you learned nothing from this week's events, it is that putting all of your household energy eggs in one basket is unwise.

Here is some additional information to buttress the argument about dual-sourcing your energy needs:

Birds, squirrels, balloons, Oh My.

A Labored Labor Day

Just when you thought Sacramento couldn't screw anything else up, they drop a giant -expletive deleted- on fast-food chain businesses in the state.  There's some doubt that the Gavinor will sign this legislation into law, so perhaps the 16,753 franchise locations in the state run by 5,820 franchisees won't have to start laying off entry-level workers, raising prices and closing locations that are likely to be in "low income areas" unable to patronize high-priced fast-food.  Here are some details for your Labor Day consideration:

The bill passed by the Democratic Legislature this week creates a 10-member council appointed by the Governor and state legislative leaders with nearly carte blanche authority to fix wages, benefits and working conditions at most fast-food restaurants.  The state’s $15 an hour minimum wage is already among the highest in the U.S., but the council could raise it as high as $22 next year and an additional 3.5% every year after that. It could also require that employers provide paid vacation or “protest days” off as some tech companies do.

The Service Employees International Union championed the bill because it will help extort fast-food employers. Restaurants with collective-bargaining agreements that pay 30% more than the state minimum wage are exempt from most of the council’s orders, so owners would have an incentive to surrender to the union to avoid more costly regulation and potential lawsuits by the state Labor Commissioner.

If this is such a great idea, why stop with fast-food employees of chains with more than 100 locations nationwide?  All sorts of jobs "should" have a minimum wage 50% higher than the minimum wage--it's only "fair".  But what about "affordability"?  Panda Express on the Avenue raising its prices 35-40% on top of whatever the ingredient inflation rate is running at can't be good for "affordability".  Look out In & Out and Taco Bell, if Newsom signs this someone will start Burgers99 and Burritos99 with a limit of 99 locations.  Time to "stay in your lane", Sac.

Crime: "We have no tolerance...." or do we?

I search out the Daily Post to keep an eye on points south of us since events in the larger cities like Palo Alto, Mountain View and RWC not only affect us now, but could be a forerunner of what will happen in the future here.  Yesterday's issue was disturbing.  The two top of front page headlines were "Panhandler arrested after violent spree" and "Woman charged in hijab attack".  The first article noted that a downtown Palo Alto "panhandler" was arrested after threatening or spitting on four people, including a man in his 80's who refused to give her money.  10 minutes later a similar incident and couple minutes later she grabbed a bottle off a table at a nearby cafe and threatened another person.  Then one more after that.  She was previously arrested on Jan. 22, 2021 but that was dismissed on July 1, 2021.  She was arrested this year on June 23 and August 5.

The second article describes a female transient attacking a teenager wearing a hijab in downtown Mountain View.  Two women came to her rescue and the attacker fled on a bicycle but was apprehended.  The attacker already faces a charge of brandishing a dangerous weapon on June 24, 2022.  The Santa Clara DA, Jeff Rosen, declared in the article "We have no tolerance for those whose intolerance crosses the line into criminality and violence".  Excuse me?  It doesn't seem like the actions match the words.

I had a similar sense of impending trouble on Broadway on Monday.  Someone who appeared on the edge of being out of control had taken up residence on the bench in front of Wells Fargo.  And then there is this from yesterday's DJ:

Will we learn that this guy has a history that predates August?  I hope not, but "hope is not a strategy".

Stinky Red Tide in B'game

The Chronicle is running a second story today as the "algal bloom" spreads throughout the Bay.  In yesterday's print edition there was a photo of a dead sturgeon at Coyote Point.  It was about two feet long.  The Chron notes

While scientists can’t yet pinpoint an exact cause of the bloom, which first began in late July, the fish kills are a sign that it has grown in intensity. It’s also become very noticeable, with the bay’s maroon-brown tint visible to motorists from the Bayshore Freeway or Bay Bridge and an estimated thousands of dead fish piling up near shore.

An intrepid Voice reader sent along a much better photo of the bloom on our bayfront and reiterated how much the whole thing stinks.  Check it out.

Historic Houses: Heartwarming visits happen

There are a lot of great aspects to owning an historic house--even if Burlingame is notoriously difficult to get the actual designation.  Maybe difficult is too soft a word--how about impossible unless it's the Avenue train station or the Mercy main building.  You do get to feel virtuous that you didn't let some scraper send dozens of tons of wood, shingles, pipe, wire, porcelain, brick and concrete to the dump.  Someone ought to force the tear-it-down-and-build-big YIMBY's to hand carry a few tons of that up to the Skyline landfill.

But faux "climate justice" aside, every once in a while, someone comes knocking on your door with a bit of a sheepish look on their face and says "I hate to bother you but my fill-in-the-ancestor used to live here.  I'm so happy it's still here and that you are home--can I come in?"  Now unless you know who owned your house over the years, this could be disconcerting or worse.  So if you have an old B'game house, get a house history from the Historical Society or go through the old city directories yourself and make a list.

We've done both for our 112 year-old bungalow, so when the doorbell rang this afternoon and the nice, older lady gave her great aunt's name, we knew she was legit.  The great aunt and uncle were the original owners, and we also know that from seeing the last name scrawled on some old wall timbers just as written by some long-forgotten lumber store.  What a treat.  She has some photos that go back to those days and show the house.  I cannot wait to get copies.  I'll update the post when I get them.

P.S. This is not the first time this has happened.  When you have 112 years of history, there are more than a few descendants happy to revisit their youths.

I got this photo of our house circa 1911-12 from the dear lady described above.  This is just a photo snapshot--a better scan will come later.  It's awesome to see how the house has changed so little after all these years.  What has changed is the open space to the left.  That four square bungalow was on El Camino--six or seven lots away-- and was torn down about 22 years ago.  Everybody looks happy to be in Burlingame!

PSA: Elder abuse in the County

As a favor to a long-time reader who requested such a post in order to gather ideas on what to do, I'll drift into a new area-- elder abuse, especially financial abuse.  I am also aware of a case years ago that was never pursued by law enforcement even though there was ample evidence, in my opinion.  The long-time reader writes (edited down a bit):

My parents have and are still experiencing Elder Abuse by their Caretakers. As of today, $300,000 and "counting." I have been in contact with APS, DA, Police, and much more. Jackie Speier's office at least inquired.  My Father will (probably die) of skin cancer within two weeks.  My mother is on 24/7 oxygen and has severe mental as well as other "end of life" medical problems.  Did I mention one of their caretakers made a Full Confession to the San Bruno Police- Case # SNB 2201541.  No arrests. This started 6 months ago.

Again, this is coming from a long-time reader and I have not verified any of it, but if anyone has any ideas, I am sure they would be welcome.  The last census showed 17.5% of the population in San Mateo County is over 65 and the median age has been rising just like the rest of the country.

Follow the money....out of state

Dan Walters at Calmatters.org is back on the economic case with a piece titled "California is leaking vital high-income taxpayers".  Before we go to his big picture, Calmatters also just reported the month-to-month changes:

For the second month in a row, the Golden State’s tax revenues fell short of projections: The state in July collected about $1.28 billion less than expected, largely due to lower proceeds from the personal income tax, according to a Monday report from the state Department of Finance. California in June collected about $2.4 billion less than expected.

That $97 billion dollar surplus burning a hole in Sacramento pockets could evaporate pretty quickly.  Here's some snippets from Walters' piece

Since 2010, 7.5 million people have left California while 5.9 million people have come from other states.  That gives rise to a question: Who is leaving California and why?  The Chronicle found that 39,000 San Franciscans who had filed federal tax returns for 2018 had moved out of the city before filing 2019 returns. Collectively, they took $10.6 billion in income with them while people who moved to the city during that period reported just $3.8 billion in income.

California’s top income tax rate, 13.3% on taxable incomes over $1 million, is by far the nation’s highest and when added to the top federal rate of 37% pushes the overall bite to more than 50%. Moreover, a tax overhaul during the Donald Trump presidency basically ended the ability to deduct state income taxes on federal returns.

If anything, California’s taxes on the wealthy are likely to increase. Proposition 30, a measure on the November ballot, would boost the top marginal rate to over 15%, raising money for programs to battle climate change, and another tax hike is headed for the 2024 ballot.  Income taxes account for three-quarters of California’s general fund revenues and the top 1% of California taxpayers generate nearly half of those taxes.  That’s just 150,000 taxpayers in a state of 40 million, so even a trickle of departures has a potentially huge impact on the budget.

Half of three-quarters is 37.5%.  Just saying.  The annual change in population has been trending down for 12 years, but we still need to destroy single-family residential zoning via SB9 to build more.  We are "leaking" vital taxpayers--nice phrasing from Dan.  And we are going to push more through the "leak" to fund climate change even after the Feds have just approved trillions for climate change.  All good.  Nothing to see here.  And in another slick Federal tax move, we are going to give the IRS $80 billion, but they still need to figure out what they will do with it.  Probably should have done that first.