The Burlingame Voice

No election. No debate. One overview.

It’s been quite a while since I’ve posted here. I’ve been busy, or maybe nothing has motivated me to put together a post?  But having attended last night’s candidates forum at the Burlingame Woman’s Club featuring candidates Michael Brownrigg, Ricardo Ortiz and Peter Stevenson, I feel the urge to render an opinion. Let me get right to it. I was “disappointed.”

First, I was discouraged at the size of the crowd attending to listen to the candidates. It was a shadow of the size of the crowd that attended such forums in the past. The engagement of the crowd was underwhelming as well. The questions asked were few and not tough enough.

Most importantly, I was let down that all three candidates were running unopposed. This too is a far cry from the crowded fields we’ve seen in the  past here in Burlingame.

Alright, let’s not dwell on the past and focus on the present. I will be naming names here as I believe the readership has a right to know. I will most likely be an equal opportunity offender in this regard.

I’ll try to react to the questions and answers given.

First up, The answer Council member Ortiz gave regarding public safety and growth was weak at best. In short, he stated that the council has not been asked to increase the number of patrol personnel, so by inference, there is no need to increase the number of individuals on the BPD. Wait? What? Does he not see the increase in petty crime, car break-ins, porch pirates, catalytic converter thefts? Does the council need to be asked to increase staffing? Really? The question was trying to tie growth and development to a need to increase the force. In my opinion, there is a lack of patrol in our neighborhoods, there is no substation on the bayfront where massive development is slated ( and the crime rate is higher due to the transient nature of the area) and both Ortiz and Brownrigg are not concerned? This outlook has me concerned.

Bothered by the comments from both candidate Council member Brownrigg and first-time candidate Stevenson when discussing growth. Both agreed with one another that Burlingame can no longer be a quaint bedroom community to San Francisco, it’s simply no longer possible, according to them. I, for one, want council members that recognize that the beauty of our community has always been its quaint, smalltown community feel. If this notion is disregarded than the fabric of the community is at risk. I want council members to protect this town, not just add and support what seems like unbridled growth. Did I say disappointing?

Brownrigg also said that studies have shown that Burlingame can handle more growth and that we still have capacity for even more density.  Someone asked regarding the issue of growth, “When is enough, enough?” All candidates didn’t really know how to answer this question. To me this is a red flag moment. Isn’t this one of the biggest issues facing Burlingame today? Council member Ortiz made a convoluted comment that more density is actually making our property values even higher. Not sure I understand that logic, so I won’t dwell on this point.

From my perspective, there is much more density in the pipeline than I ever imagined when I moved here over 27 years ago. Reminder there are seven, eight, nine and ten story buildings ready for approval right now. I’ve said it here on The Voice years ago that Burlingame will be unrecognizable and sadly, it is coming true faster than I thought.

Simply put, there didn’t seem to be any real concern over growth from any of the candidates. In fact, there seemed to be a satisfaction that the revenue generated by growth is worth it. This gives me great cause for concern. On the east side of town, District 5, I would have thought candidate Stevenson would have a stronger position as much of the development has a direct effect on District 5. ( District 5 not only represents the residential neighborhoods on the east side of Burlingame, it also encompasses the bayfront.)

There was some justification that growth comes with benefits like open space like what is planned for the massive downtown development that is being constructed at the downtown post office site for example. Concerts, gathering spots, places to play chess were mentioned specifically by Council member Brownrigg. The notion of closing Burlingame Avenue to vehicular traffic was also mentioned. I would suggest that all three candidates talk to experts like those with the Project for Public Spaces to gather bonified expert opinions before rendering their so-called expert opinion on open space and street closures. These are issues have unintended consequences and that again will change the fabric of Burlingame and should be taken seriously before any decisions are made. Covid has made the talk of street closures a popular topic. Perhaps I will opine on this subject in a separate post as it is a complex issue that much of time is oversimplified. Proceed with caution, I say.

Finally, there was a topic upon which I actually agreed with an answer. The topic of Broadway was on the docket and Council member Ortiz eluded to the fact that property owners bore some responsibility for the look and feel of the street having lacked the pride of ownership of their respective storefronts. It’s not simply just a streetscape improvement issue. I would add that no one seems to have the institutional memory that Broadway improvements actually happened well before the improvements to Burlingame Avenue. New bulb outs were built that included seating capacity, the old Magnolia trees were removed and brand-new trees were planted and new sidewalks were poured. Granted those improvements are now about 20 years old, but what is the schedule for wholesale streetscape improvements anyway? Seems to me that based on Burlingame Avenue and nearby downtown’s, infrastructure improvements generally happen about once a century.

One observation. All three candidates seemed to agree with one another on all the issues presented. Where is the independent thinking? Where are the strong perspectives? Where’s the debate? Is this what we have to look forward to—four years of, ”I concur, I agree, good point, well said?” Good lord.

So, there you have it. My take on the forum was disappointment all the way around.

As forum moderator Renaldo Pasquali accurately stated, it was nice to hear from the candidates, but in the end there really is no election. All the candidates are running unopposed. Perhaps there should be a new rule? If there are uncontested district races at the time of final candidate filing, or a candidate who has filed pulls out of the race, the filing deadline should be extended so that candidates who might have been considering running have another moment in time to consider throwing their names into the hat so that elections aren’t a wasted exercise. Just a thought.

Odd night in B'game

Maybe it's Jupiter and Mars running across the night sky together--or not -- but there was some odd stuff happening in B'game tonight.  First, I was picking up food on the Avenew at about 8:15 PM when a flash mob of kids on bikes rolled down the Avenew.  150 or 200 kids on bicycles popping wheelies and playing music headed towards El Camino in a pack.  Fun until it's not.  The restaurant owner I was patronizing had never seen that before.

Then we were sitting outside eating said take-out and for no apparent weather-related reason, SFO went into the rare "Reverse Operation" mode.  Commercial airliners, one after another, approached low, northbound right over El Camino, banged a hard-right at the Millbrae border and were landing on 1L and 1R.  I've seen it before when the winds get strange, but it was a pretty nice, calm evening in B'game.  Sept. 28th--make a note.

"Mill housing" for B'game teachers?

Bad ideas tend to spread here in the Bay Area especially when the time horizon for revealing the flaws is years away.  "Mill housing" was a common approach to subsidizing employees' rents especially back in Massachusetts (my home state) in the 1800's.  Now we have the idea that the B'game School District can and should build subsidized housing for teachers.  A sample of 31% of BSD employees found plenty of interest in subsidized housing.  And why not?  You can find lots of support for subsidized anything when you are using OPM.  That doesn't make it a good idea.  The Daily Journal piece doesn't get to any of the flaws--just the cheerleading:

Workforce housing could be one of Burlingame School District’s next big projects but only if community members show support for financially backing the initiative, school board trustees agreed during a meeting last week.

Three sites were identified as being potentially feasible for housing, the 0.3-acre district office site at 1825 Trousdale Drive, a 2.8-acre lot of land between Burlingame Intermediate School and Franklin Elementary and a 4.5-acre undeveloped hillside above Hoover Elementary.  But after further review, only the first two would be developable, Jennings said, noting that the hillside plot is greatly sloped and has access constraints.  (Ed:  that's an understatement). Despite the substantial lot size differences between the Trousdale and BIS sites, Jennings said both could only welcome a 22-unit project.

At the Trousdale site, Jennings said units would be incorporated into a six-story apartment building with underground parking. Initial estimates show the development could cost the district more than $17.8 million.  Alternatively, about $15 million would be needed to develop 12 townhomes and a two-floor flat stacked apartment building with 10 units at the BIS housing site. That configuration would maximize the land use while adhering to single-family zoning policies in the residential neighborhood.

Funny how endangered the concept of "single-family zoning" has become in such a short time.  You can click through to the whole article if you want to read about the various funding options--none of which are realistic.  Instead, let's ask a few basic questions.  Why isn't the giant subsidized housing project wrapped in black netting on Park Rd. enough to handle the less-tenured teachers?  I thought that was the motivation.  Or we could take the view of this resident (whom I don't know) in a letter to the DJ:

Instead, let’s focus on ensuring district employees are paid enough to live here (if they choose) at market rate. They deserve the autonomy to make their own living choices. Let’s pay them a much better rate and stay out of the housing business.

Esther Kim,  Burlingame

Good idea especially with the Inflation Production Act about to kick in and construction and/or financing costs skyrocketing.  The Fed will make those million-dollar estimates look small soon.  Does the District really want to get into the prevailing wage debate?  Are they remotely capable of managing this without more high-priced consultants on board?  Heck, the election campaign to raise the funding probably costs more than it takes to assist a lot of teachers for a couple of years.  The last time I looked at the data (in 2020) it wasn't clear that staff turnover was much worse than it's been for the prior decade.

Lastly, what new wrinkles would school-subsidized housing add to school administration?  Who are the lucky 22?  If you remove an underperforming teacher, are you also making them homeless?  Who's got the huevos to do that?  Who is doing income verification?  Does a significant other's income count?  What about summer income?  Do we think all teachers sit by the pool all summer?  Is it ever smart to do what EssEff does?  I doubt it.  How about working on student achievement and figuring out where we will put all the new students in town while staying out of the housing business. 

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.