The Burlingame Voice

Fighting with firefighters

As one of the two or three most critical public services in town, the Fire Department merits our attention when things aren't going well--or at least don't appear to be going well--internally.  The Daily Journal above-the-fold headline 'No confidence' in Central County Fire Chief Bruce Barron certainly caught my eye.  I had been thinking about the Fire Department before this piece since there was an earlier piece about the condition of several stations and the admin building on Rollins Rd.  If you recall my fantasy post about keeping the horses in front of the carts regarding East side development of "thousands of new homes" here, I meant to include the idea of a new fire station somewhere on that side of the railroad tracks in the fantasy.  The DJ noted a report about the need a couple weeks ago

A consultant for the Central County Fire Department Chief wants to reopen station 36 on the eastside of Burlingame as the city plans for commercial and residential development, and concerns are growing over a staffing shortage that could eventually affect service.

Both Millbrae and Burlingame have planned to redevelop Rollins Road and the eastside into a mixed-use neighborhood, providing thousands of homes and commercial development but the rapid growth concerns Fire Chief Bruce Barron, who told the City Council of the recommendation to reopen station 36, which is being used as an administration building, during a meeting Wednesday, July 5.

It's hard to argue with the conclusion when you see the amount of over-development going on.  Now in the midst of this comes the firefighter union's lopsided vote of 'no confidence' in the chief

In June, 85% of the Teamsters 856 Central County Firefighters Union members voted no confidence in Barron’s ability to lead, asking for his immediate removal. The notice was delivered to Lisa Goldman, Burlingame’s city manager and the Central County Fire Department’s chief administrative officer. Shortly after, Barron announced his retirement in October. He has been chief since 2019. But the union members are saying it’s not good enough and want him out immediately.

Aside from the personnel issues now being aired in public, some of this has to do with the move to three-on-a-truck that happened more than a decade ago.  I had a front row seat to that move since my wife was in office and on the contract negotiating team at the time.  Memory is a little foggy now, but I seem to recall it wasn't as cut-and-dry as this note postulates.

The department staffs only three firefighters per fire engine when the National Fire Protection Association recommends four person staffing per engine as the standard practice, according to a presentation facilitated by Barron to the Burlingame City Council in July.

If you spend any time around town, you have seen the impact of the dual roles CCFD have when it comes to emergency medical care for what are now called "mental health crises".  You see the truck, the three firefighters, typically a police car and eventually an ambulance.  That is the three-is-enough scenario, unlike the full-blown fires when four-is-way-better kicks in.

The issue is whether this is a temporary tempest-in-a-teapot that will be resolved either way by October?  In my managerial experience, some people get wound up when their "open and honest" input is met with similarly open and direct responses.  As you can read in the articles, the next chief will have a lot on their operational and strategic planning/financing plate so the sooner we get on with it the better.

Trade: Leaf blowers for furnaces and stoves?

Leaf blowers are back on the council's radar and there is at least one regular Voice reader who will be thrilled to hear it.  The DJ reports

Burlingame officials are exploring how to ban gas leaf blowers in the next few years, and are looking into incentive and rebate programs to help commercial landscapers adjust.

The city passed an ordinance regulating when leaf blowers can be used, after receiving noise complaints from residents in 2012. The ordinance outlined that leaf blowers needed to be certified by the city’s Public Works Department and are capped at 65 decibels. The city later determined certifying leaf blowers wasn’t feasible and it stopped enforcing it. A state law will be in effect January 2024 to ban the sale of new leaf blowers, according to a staff report.

However, Mayor Michael Brownrigg said the law doesn’t consider the use of previously owned leaf blowers.  “They are not only highly polluting but highly robust and easily repaired, so they aren’t going anywhere unless we make them go away,” Brownrigg said.

I bold-faced the "wasn't feasible".  I'm not even sure it has proven feasible to restrict which day of the week gardeners can garden.  But that never stopped some from trying even more regulations.  Here's the wrinkly dollar bills

An electric backpack leaf blower costs about $2,500 and a gas leaf blower costs around $600, according to the report.

To do a full day's work, throw in a couple of extra batteries and perhaps an extra charger to get them replenished overnight and you're probably closer to $3,500 (and rising as battery materials go up).  Daily cycling of batteries comes with a lot of wear and tear too.  This is going to cost someone a good chunk of money, but it pales in comparison to what it would cost everyone to change out their natural gas stoves and furnaces.  At least the neighborhoods will be a little quieter.

Water Rates: Drip, drip, water torture

The SF Comicle is giving us the unfortunate preview of coming water rate increases.  Reporter Kurtis Alexander's piece titled "Storms replenished California’s reservoirs. So why are Bay Area water bills about to soar?" brings the bad news into focus:

The SFPUC, which directly serves nearly 900,000 people in San Francisco (Ed: and most of the Peninsula including B'game), is scheduled to vote on its higher water and sewer rates Tuesday. Under the proposal, both the fixed base rate and the amount charged for the volume of water used, or discharged in the case of wastewater, will rise, resulting in an average 8.3% annual increase over three years for single-family households...or a cumulative 27% increase.

“We get this question a lot: Why raise rates if we have this abundance of water?” said Christopher Tritto, a spokesperson for EBMUD. “Well, what we’re really paying for is all of the infrastructure to store the water, to transport it to the Bay Area and to distribute it. … The water we get from the rain and snow is essentially free.” 

“Even with these proposed rate increases, our services are a tremendous value,” said John Coté, spokesperson for the SFPUC. “One gallon of our world-class tap water would cost only 2 cents, while a gallon of bottled water costs $1.79 on average. Our services are also competitive with our peers.”  The agency did not raise rates last year. Over the previous four years, rates rose an average of 8% annually.

Get your calculator or spreadsheet out, add in the coming sewer rate increases we wrote about in October 2021 here and revise household budget accordingly.  The other front-page article in today's Chronicle was about the impending transit system "doom loop" being nearer than believed.  The sad thing is anyone could see that the "doom loop" started the day we went into Covid lockdown; when the managements of all these systems stuck their head in the sand and stuck out their hands for $4.5 billion of federal "aid" to keep empty trains and buses running.  Now they want more even though BART ridership, for example, is still 60% down from pre-Covid.

If the trade-off is water system reliability vs. 95% empty SamTrans buses running up and down El Camino--and it might just be given the $31.5 billion and growing budget deficit--I'll take water reliability for $500, Alex.

Housing policy: Some thoughtful ideas

We have some thoughtful council members here in Ole B'game.  I don't always agree with their priorities or their approaches, but in the case of Mayor Brownrigg and Vice Mayor Colson, there is recent evidence of thoughtful housing proposals.  For the moment, let's put aside whether or not there is a "housing crisis", whether or not the local population will return to positive growth, whether or not the RHNA numbers driving policy (and the Big Stick from Rob Bonta) are reasonable and just look at the Brownrigg/Colson proposals as shown in a recent Guest Perspective in the Daily Journal.  I will boil them down a bit or you can click through for all of it:

1.  Sacramento could waive capital gains taxes for property owners who sell land to affordable housing developers.

2.  The state could streamline eminent domain for housing on underutilized parcels and then subsidize a city’s acquisitions.

3.  The state should help market-rate builders include more affordable housing units with tax rebates or direct cash subsidies.

4.  Faster than cities can create affordable units, we are losing even more “naturally affordable” units in older buildings when they get sold.  Indeed, the state does not even count a deed-restricted preserved affordable unit toward a city’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation requirements. That has to change.

5. The state’s housing targets seek a 15% increase in Bay Area housing. Punitive and prescriptive state housing mandates should be waived for cities issuing building permits exceeding a 10% increase in units.

6.  Water allowances should be prioritized for cities that undergo a 10% increase in actual occupied housing units. (see the post directly below)

7.  Infrastructure spending should be directed to communities that are getting housing built.

8.  And for social mobility, let’s reward cities that create more affordable family units (two bedrooms or more). 

Number 2, easier eminent domain, is the only one that raises a "Hell no" from me.  That is just replacing one big authoritarian stick with another.  Missing is my number 9:  introduce a pause in commercial development to give the housing market time to catch up.  That is really the only feasible way to bring back some balance without demolishing single-family zoning and quality of life while overstressing our infrastructure.  All of the others "just take money" that the state doesn't have.

91% of 390 Trees is a Lot of Trees

Last night's big confab with Caltrans and city officials regarding the El Camino Real renewal project was eye-opening for a lot of people.  Probably not regular Voice readers since we have discussed it in 2021 here and here.  The most eye-opening statement made last night was during the Q&A when Caltrans was asked how many of the giant Eucs were scheduled to be cut down.  The answer was "about 9% will remain".  There are about 390 of the historic ones in the 3-mile stretch.

The other way to phrase that is 91% of 390 Eucs will be taken out.  That's 355 giant trees.  Buried in the details of compacted soil, broken sidewalks, retaining walls, sight triangles, sulfur fungus, poor trimming around the power lines, etc is the lead:  355 eucalyptus trees are history--well, we thought they were historic since the grove is listed on the National Register of Historic Places, but really they're just history.  There will be 35 survivors who will stand in testament to their fallen brethren and to the ECR that once was.

There were a number of long-time B'gamers there and one that I had not seen in at least 6 or 7 years came over after the Q&A and asked the Big Questions.  He asked "how many people know about this?  And what are they gonna do when they find out?"  I've been asking myself the same question.  Another knowledgeable long-time local has asked 30 people if they are aware of the tree situation over the last few days.  General awareness is close to nil. 

This project has been in the works for years.  Maybe Caltrans and the city hasn't had a good idea of how many trees would have to go, but they do now.  In the interest of transparency, shouldn't the city send out the short, to-the-point notice that this is coming?  You bet.  Then wait for the outrage to arrive.

I'll double back with more on the proceedings soon.  There were numerous displays and a tabletop exercise looking at the Hillside and Bayswater intersections with measurements, planning tools and tree options.  In the meantime, here is Mayor Brownrigg introducing the B'gamers who are on the ECR task force with some Caltrans people seated behind.

Business Licenses: X misses the mark

Now that you have your ballot, you see that you have only one B'game-specific vote to cast--to increase (or not) the B'game business license fees.  (District 5ers also have a city council non-race to vote in since Rachel Cyr withdrew, but after the ballots were set.)  I'm of mixed mind on Measure X, and not because of a reflexive dislike of tax/fee increases although I do have that too.  I get that licenses have been $100/yr for every business forever, but I think the city missed the mark at the high-end of the tax schedule.  You won't find it anywhere but on the city site here, so I will retype the proposed schedule:

            Gross receipts of the business                    Annual license fee

           < $250K                                                        $200

            $250K to $1M                                                $300

            > $1M                                                           $750

That's it.   You can gross $1.25M or $125M and you pay the same amount.  Or $1.25B, looking at you Meta/Facebook/Oculus.  Not sure why there isn't a $20M or $40M level with a good-sized number attached to it.  Many cities take a percentage of gross receipts--I'm not in favor of that, but shouldn't some of the big companies adding crushing density and traffic to our town pay more than $750?

The other aspect of the measure that needs mentioning is the last bit of text which reads "....until ended by voters, requiring audits and all funds staying in Burlingame".  Sounds innocuous enough, but the Oct. 10 Daily Post ran a frontpage article titled "Ballot wording called misleading".  It describes a Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury report that calls out several ballot measures' language that may be misleading:

That included phrases such as "until ended by voters," which falsely implies that the measure includes a way for voters to repeal it later, the grand jury said.  The grand jury report, released on Friday, pointed to other deceptive "tricks and tactics" used in ballot questions, such as adding the feel-good phrases like "all funds spent locally".

Whooops.  Measure X is two-for-two.  We shall see if anyone decides to use the Santa Clara findings to challenge the result here in B'game.

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.

Calpers: Losses pile up and cities pay up

Watching the performance of the state's pension manager, CalPers, isn't quite like watching paint dry, but close.  It is the largest pension fund in the country--and it has to be given how poorly the state is run up in Sacramento.  While it may seem arcane and far away, here is the WSJ's take on why we should watch:

The California Public Employees’ Retirement System returned minus 6.1% for the year ended June 30, the fund said Wednesday.   A multiyear downturn could be costly for states, towns and school systems around the country and by extension their residents, leading them to squeeze money from workers, taxpayers or other government services.  Calpers’ stock portfolio returned minus 13.1%, while bonds returned minus 14.5%, the pension fund said.  (Ed:  Private equity made up some of the loss but relying on it is tricky as valuations are being written down left and right.)

The lackluster return will mean California towns, counties and school districts will face higher annual pension contributions during their 2024 or 2025 fiscal year.  U.S. state and local pension funds have accumulated hundreds of billions of dollars since the last financial crisis in 2008, thanks to blockbuster returns from an 11-year bull market. Last year, huge gains in public and private equity markets drove median returns to nearly 27%, a 30-year record.

Some states also topped up their pension coffers with tax revenues from the stimulus-fueled Covid-19 recovery.  But all of those gains have been outpaced by the growth in the cost of the benefits that state and local governments have promised.

We shall see what the impact on the city budget is going forward.  We have been holding on pretty well -- you can look here for the last update from March.  I'll get around to addressing the move to raise local business tax rates in a bit, but Calpers' performance this year highlights the variability and risk associated with being tied so closely to the state.

Local real estate update - The Ups & Downs

Two tidbits of B'game real estate news came in today from Zumper and the County assessor's office.  First the Zumper rental update shows B'game in the middle of the pack at $2,300 for a one-bedroom--up 1.82% year-over-year.  Two-bedrooms were a bit of a surprise with average rent off 11.6% at $2,830.  That's the only noticeable decline of all 20 cities surveyed.  Not sure what is going on, but the wave of For Rent signs on El Camino has subsided a bit yet there are still many available.  It's a good thing we don't have rent control.

On the assessed property value side, the DJ is reporting

San Mateo County’s property assessment roll increased year over year by $22.2 billion, or 8.34%, to a record high of over $288 billion in assessed value, San Mateo County Assessor Mark Church announced Tuesday.  San Carlos had an increase of 12.64%, South San Francisco was up 12.53%, Burlingame saw a hike of 10.77%, Millbrae increased 9.43% and East Palo Alto was up 9.29%.

The property tax revenue generated is approximately 1% of the annual property assessment roll and this year will increase to $2.88 billion. Approximately 45% of the revenue will go to schools within the county, 25% to the county, 18% to cities, 10% to special districts and 2% to former redevelopment agencies.

One factor in the growth of the San Mateo County secured roll is new commercial development. In all, 64.6 million square feet of new construction are expected to be completed in the county over the next six to eight years. A total of 9.12 million square feet are under construction, 13.9 million square feet have planning approval, and 41.6 million square feet are under review. Approximately 17 million square feet of new construction have been completed in the last five years, according to the Assessor’s Office.

That puts numbers to our collective amnesia about the drought.  And who knows, a lot of this new real estate may be underwater as John Horgan notes in his column:

According to Dave Pine, chair of the OneShoreline Board of Directors and a member of the county’s Board of Supervisors, projects to counter climate change along the shore could take decades to finish.  And, even then, they might not be enough to ward off the worst aspects of what could be coming. “This will take generations,” he predicted.  To that end, OneShoreline and the county are examining the need for an ultralong-term parcel tax to help to finance the myriad construction efforts under discussion.

You knew where that was headed, right?

Minimum Wage: San Mateo backpedals hard

There is plenty of herd mentality in city councils up and down the Peninsula as the hue and cry to "Do Something" drowns out common sense.  The herd mentality can trample on all sorts of issues.  Think back about two years when this happened

On September 21, 2020, the Burlingame City Council adopted an ordinance to establish a minimum wage of $15.00 per hour for all Burlingame businesses beginning January 1, 2021.  On January 1, 2022 and every year thereafter, the minimum wage will be adjusted based on Consumer Price Index (CPI) percentage increases. A negative CPI will not lower the minimum wage. There are no exceptions for tipped employees.

That has led B'game to a planned January 1, 2023 minimum wage of $15.60+ 2022 CPI.  We won't know the final CPI kicker for another 6 months, but figure it will be 7+%.  Now San Mateo is preemptively backpedaling hard on their formula as noted in the DJ

To help small businesses coming out of the pandemic struggling with rising costs, San Mateo’s City Council will cap its current minimum wage amid rising inflation.  At its June 20 meeting, a council majority recommended setting a Consumer Price Index cap at 3.5% for its minimum wage.  The current minimum wage is $16.20 an hour. The council cited the need to help struggling businesses stay afloat, guard against inflation and provide long-term budget stability.  Cities use CPI because it is predictable for employers and workers and keeps pace with the rising cost of living.

Someone should tell Janet Yellen about the CPI's predictability.  Here is the herd mentality on full display in San Mateo

Mayor Rick Bonilla disagreed with the council majority on a 3.5% cap, calling it too low and suggesting higher rates of around 5%. Bonilla noted minimum wage workers are most affected by a CPI cap and have the most challenging time.  “The businesses will take care of themselves. The workers don’t have any other way. There’s nobody else to help them.” Bonilla said. “It’s us. If we don’t, nobody else will.”

Translation:  I get to pick the winners and losers in my city and consequences be damned.  San Mateo's website does not mention if Bonilla has ever signed the front of a paycheck.

Here's the math on a 7% jump in B'game.  $16.70/hr - no ifs, ands, or buts.  Happy Independence Day.