The Burlingame Voice

The "Build our way to affordability" Fantasy

The City makes certain announcements on NextDoor and then responds to some of the comments people add.  I don't know who writes the responses or how they are vetted by other City staff or even if they are vetted.  It's probably time to find out though.  In response to the announcement about Stage 2 water restrictions that we noted here, the comments were very pointed.  People jabbed at overdevelopment leading to crazy traffic, water restrictions and a lack of respect for the people who "worked our nails to the bone" to afford to live here.  The official city response?

These are good points. Our city is in a state with cyclical droughts so once one drought cycle ends the next one is just around the corner. At the same time, California has a housing shortage and state laws require local governments to adequately plan to meet existing and projected housing needs. If housing development were to stop, not only would this be against state mandates, but it would make our city unaffordable in the long-term. We have heard from residents and businesses that they are concerned about their family members, co-workers, and neighbors who can no longer afford to live in the community. We also hear that local businesses, schools, and service providers are struggling to hire and retain people. Building more affordable housing is a solution to these challenges that may be affecting your neighbor down the street. Additionally, while our population has increased steadily our water consumption is lower now than it was ten years ago which shows that conservation and innovations in water efficiency works. For the data, see our 2020 Urban Water Management Plan available at www.burlingame.org/water.

That answer feels tone-deaf to me.  First, it's non-responsive to the water question and raised the additional issue of how much more water we can squeeze from the stone after what has already been done in the last ten years.  The Law of Diminishing Returns is in play and there are consequences to the flora and fauna in town.  Second, the state mandates that drive the building craze have not been vetted properly according to the state auditor or tested in court.  But most disturbing is this fantasy that we can outbuild the global demand for living in the Bay Area, on the mid-Peninsula and especially in Burlingame!  It's a dangerous fantasy and the disregard for the quality of life for those who are already here after "working their nails to the bone" is palpable.  Has the City heard from those residents and businesses as well?

B'gamers' Incomes up 34.3%

I love statistics and I love them even more when they are stack ranked.  So the Sunday Comicle article titled "Here’s where median household incomes increased the most in the Bay Area during the last decade" drew me in immediately as I wondered how they came up with these statistics and where B'game landed.  The answer to the first question is

The data set comes from the U.S. Census Bureau’s five-year American Community Surveys for 2015 and 2020, and included places in the Bay Area with at least 20,000 residents.

That is interesting because I was selected this time around to fill out the full "ACS" as part of the census.  It was a chore due to its length, but as I recall it used pretty wide ranges to gauge income.  So averaging them all together across any given town and reporting it down to tenths of a percent seems a bit overly precise.  It's not like the IRS came up with the number.  But wait, there's more.  Burlingame's 34.3% increase over the last five years came in eighth and landed just below EssEff, but

San Francisco’s median household pay increase fell short of East Palo Alto’s increase of 47%, partly driven by the historically economically disadvantaged city’s proximity to the Meta, formerly Facebook, headquarters (Ed:  Hey, we got one of those too). That increase was more than any other place in the Bay Area during the last decade despite the city’s population barely increasing, as median incomes soared from the $56,000 range to more than $80,000 annually.

“It’s gentrification,” said Stephen Levy, director of the Center for Continuing Study of the California Economy. As Meta and other tech companies expanded their sprawling campuses on the peninsula and in the South Bay, “The people who lived (in East Palo Alto) who had been relatively poor got a chance to sell their homes for a whole lot of money” to people who could afford them, he said, driving up income levels.

Is Levy saying "gentrification" isn't the bad word some people claim it to be?  Sounds like it.  More caveats came from Sonoma State econ professor Robert Eyler who said

where he lives in Petaluma, which was third from the bottom of the entire list of the list in terms of income growth, has both a somewhat transitory population and an already-high median income for the Bay Area, possibly leaving it with less room to grow.

So describing the growth rate without knowing the baseline numbers from 2015 only tells half the story--or less.  You will probably hear our 34.3% number bandied about for better or worse, so now you have "the rest of the story".

North End tsunami still coming hard and fast

We noted that a Density Tsunami Approaches eighteen months ago here.  One of the elements was the old Peninsula Museum of Art space at 1766 ECR on the north end.  The original, approved plan fell through and a new developer is back with an eight-story all residential proposal that is getting positive vibrations from the Planning Commission according to the Daily Journal piece:

A proposed eight-story north Burlingame apartment building with 311 units received a mostly positive review from the city’s Planning Commission this week, advancing the plans to replace a vacant building at 1766 El Camino Real.  The project would include 37 studio units, 137 one-bedroom units, 120 two-bedroom units and 17 three-bedroom units.  The (22) affordable units would be provided in exchange for the building’s density exceeding that otherwise allowed by the city, per the state’s density bonus law. The law in this case allows the developer to add 72 units on top of the maximum allowed by local zoning.

That seems like a deal.  I'll do the math here.  That mixture equals 465 bedrooms and a bunch of baths.  Then we read

The 504,000-square-foot project would occupy a 1.7-acre parcel, with a partially below ground two-story parking garage providing 319 spots.

Just by chance I was talking to a neighbor of the Summerhill development now known as the Anson Apartments on Carolan who recalled how the neighbors were told there would be no overflow parking problems.  Well, that hasn't played out too well.  The single-family neighborhood around Toyon, Linden, Azalea, etc is apparently learning differently to their distress.

But it's not just parking.  One wonders if the parents and future parents of kids at Franklin school are paying attention?  Is BSD paying attention to this and all the other projects moving forward in Buildingame?  Does anyone know of a portable classroom company I can buy stock in?  Let's all keep these hulking monsters in mind when we are told to skip a few showers and stop watering our lawns.  I choose not to participate in the Collective Amnesia.  Here's a rendering of the proposed building that some seem to think is Eichler-esque.

Park Rd. Progress

We have always tracked major developments in town here at the Voice.  The Safeway project even has its own category on the right frame.  So the two huge projects in "Buildingame" on Park Rd. -  the old Post Office Sares Regis project and the subsidized housing project merit some recorded history.  The former is well into the dirt and digging for the underground parking should start soon.  The latter is rising like a behemoth behind the single story spaces on Howard.  Who knew those three blocks between Howard and Bayswater would epitomize Buildingame with the new parking structure and the subsidized housing project.  Three years from now we will look back at what once was.

Water Security: Collective Amnesia

I often believe that the media, the politicians and the staff at various government agencies suffer from some sort of collective amnesia.  Articles get written.  Ordinance get voted on and projects get approved.  Agency staffers stick their fingers in the wind and decide to keep their mouths shut even when they know better.  I could use the SF Comicle from this past week as an example since they let one of their journalists write another lengthy article about our drought

The California Department of Water Resources announced Friday that it expects to provide just 5% of the water requested by project contractors in the coming year. The allocation is down from the 15% it was planning to deliver at the start of January, before a record two-month dry spell set in and shattered hope of a quick end to the drought.  “We are continuing with a series of actions to balance the needs of endangered species, water supply conservation and water deliveries for millions of Californians,” said Karla Nemeth, director of the Department of Water Resources, in a statement. “While we had hoped for more rain and snow, DWR has been preparing for a third consecutive year of drought since October.”

While elsewhere in the Chon fishwrap, it simultaneously rambled on and on about 1,000s of new units on Treasure Island and which SF Supe is or isn't in favor of massive new development in which neighborhood (looking at you, Sunset).  And closer to home, we see the same collective amnesia.  The Daily Journal ran a similar state level water piece, probably off the same press release, and another one zeroing in on the Peninsula.  Of course, it was offset by an adjacent piece about Foster City following the housing lemmings off the drought cliff.

San Mateo, South San Francisco and San Carlos residents could soon be allowed to water landscaping only two days per week, the California Water Service announced Wednesday.  The water provider said customers in its Bayshore District, which serves roughly 200,000 people in San Mateo County, will enter “stage 2” of the agency’s tiered water conservation plan in light of worsening drought conditions.

Ken Jenkins, chief water resource sustainability officer, said the decision was made based on growing water use and dwindling snowpacks and reservoir levels as the region’s experienced consecutive dry months amid its rainy season. He said in January the district saw an 8.4% increase in water use over the same month in 2020, and February’s numbers are expected to yield similar results.

This collective amnesia sets in when politicians, staffers and the media just "ignore the man behind the curtain" on RHNA housing "requirements from on high", then demonize almond and rice farmers, carefully avoid talking about local salmon and generally just rubber stamp whatever edict comes along "despite concerns".  I can't really blame the chief water resource sustainability officer for a "duck and cover" pronouncement about the effect while ignoring the cause.  But is anybody really washing their car without a nozzle?  Is anybody watering their lawn without also watering their trees?  Trees good, right?  Yes, trees good for the climate.  There are 41 million Californians living in what is essentially an arid zone.  Do we really think getting to 42, 43 or 44 million is a good idea?

 

 

RHNA: How state law will mess up the County

The Daily Journal did a good job of summarizing the latest turn of the crank on "Regional Housing Needs Allocations" (Rhna) so let's just reiterate the numbers for future reference:

At the heart of state housing laws is the Regional Housing Needs Allocation, or RHNA, which assigns housing growth to jurisdictions in eight-year cycles. While the law is nothing new, the upcoming cycle’s numbers (the sixth cycle in the law’s history) are larger than ever before and nearly three times those for the county’s current cycle.

Cities in San Mateo County will need to plan for a combined 44,800 new homes to be built over the next eight years.  With roughly 269,000 units of housing in the county and 2.8 people per home on average, the new housing could usher in upwards of 131,000 people, more growth than the county’s seen over the last 35 years. Combined with unincorporated land, the county’s total allocation for new homes is more than 47,000.

(Michael Lane, a state policy director with nonprofit public policy organization SPUR) said the big jump is "because of recent state legislation requiring new allocations be based on a more stringent look at housing affordability, job growth and vacancy rates.

“If they do fall behind, SB 35 will kick in. Hopefully that will speed up housing growth and bring some of those cities into compliance,” said Dylan Casey, executive director of the California Renters Legal Advocacy and Education Fund, or CaRLA.  Senate Bill 35, a law that became enforceable at the beginning of the year, removed cities’ abilities to deny projects that contain below-market-rate units if goals are not being met.

So there you have it.  "If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail."  If all you look at is "housing affordability, job growth and vacancy rates" then you come up with these ridiculous demands, backed by multiple state laws, that will further mess up the County.

And in other news today in the SF Chronicle titled "Feds’ Central Valley Project expects to send no water to most California farms this year, little to cities" we are reminded yet again that

After an extraordinarily dry start to the year, the federal government announced Wednesday that most farms in California will likely receive no water from the state’s biggest reservoirs in 2022, the latest fallout from drought and a blow to an agricultural industry already crippled by tight supplies. Cities and towns, meanwhile, will get just a fraction of the water they requested.

Municipal agencies that receive federal water, which include suppliers in the Bay Area, are projected to get just 25% of what they asked for in 2022. This includes Contra Costa Water District and Santa Clara Valley Water District, which serves the city of San Jose. Last year, most urban customers got about half of what they wanted.

While San Mateo County isn't as reliant on the Feds for our water, the steady downward drip from 50% to 25% to whatever in Silicon Valley is completely predictable across the state.  "If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail."  If you are stuck in a big hole, stop digging.

More than one way to get an ADU

It looks like Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) are all the rage in town now that the rules have been relaxed.  I'm still of the opinion that most of them will end up as work-from-home offices or the traditional in-law units for family members to get them out of the house proper, but so be it.  You can build one from scratch, buy a manufactured one that needs to be assembled or you can go for the whole, complete enchilada--shrink-wrapped.  If you go with the enchilada and do not have backyard access, then another option is to lift it up and pop it down in the back where you want it.

I missed the money shot of this unit in the air since it took a day or more to position the crane on the street and whatever else was needed, but you can see the strap that held the ADU as it was hoisted over the main house into the backyard.  Quite an operation---coming to a lot near you.

 

Nice House: I'm gonna miss this one

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

 

 

Planning for a Rollicking Rollins Rd.

I’m very excited by the impending housing growth in North Burlingame that will end up bringing “thousands of new homes” to the Rollins Rd. industrial section of town.  The amount of planning that went into this decision by state and county officials, the City Council, the Planning Commission and city staff is impressive.  Here are the details:

Water:   I know the decision makers have a grasp on our dire water situation because they said so back in May  calling it “alarming”.  They also know the SFPUC cannot be trusted to keep the Peninsula’s water interests front-of-mind regardless of whatever “contract” we have with them, so the negotiations with the state to gain access to Bayfront land for our new desalinization plant (instead of a park) are to be complemented.  Desalinized drinking water is about ten times as expensive as water agencies buy now due to the energy costs.  Then there is the cost of getting rid of the brine, but the free land access will help the economics.  The new water tank on Rollins will ensure reliable water for the new neighborhood.

Outflow:  In the spirit of “what goes in, must come out”, the city study on sewage treatment capacity at the Bayfront plant will probably find a need for additional capacity, but we can be sure that raising the sewer rates to pay for it will be easy as we just saw this year.  Burlingame is a welcoming community, so higher rates will be fine with the public.

Power:  The decision makers’ extensive negotiations with PG&E to get it to strengthen the Burlingame grid are to be complemented.  Not only will the grid improvements supply the new desalinization plant’s load, but it will also ensure grid stability for the rest of the city.  Generous state and federal funding for new solar panels on the new construction and some existing Rollins Rd. buildings will help; as will a brand new grid-based battery facility.  Whoever got that big grant should get a promotion.  The natural gas pipes should be fine since there won’t be any natural gas allowed.

Schools:  Given the thousands of new homes coming, it was prescient of the city council to snap up a large parcel on Rollins Rd. and sign a long-term, low-cost lease with the Burlingame School District.  This will enable BSD to build a new school serving North Burlingame Eastside students.  The parcel may be large enough to also build a BIS Annex to cut down on car traffic to BIS.  I expect that the next school bond measure to pay for it all will pass easily as Burlingame is a welcoming community.

Traffic:  As we consider the extensive traffic study conducted as part of the General Plan update, it is gratifying to see that the Broadway grade separation project is now fully funded and we are ready to start The Big B'game Dig in 2022.  As today's SF Comicle notes:

The intersection of Caltrain and Broadway in Burlingame has the ignominious distinction of being the street-level train crossing most in need of fixing in the state, based on a calculation that factors in number of accidents, disruptions to local traffic and other overall safety concerns.  The busy crossing serves demand from trains, vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists, a hectic mix that has resulted in 11 car-train collisions in the past five years, a number of near misses and some fatal accidents. It has also caused considerable traffic backups: The crossing gate is currently down about an hour per day, and the city estimates that will rise to nearly three hours per day by 2040.

The project should go fast as most of them do; and be completed in time to help ease the load on Millbrae Ave. and Rollins Rd. for the new North Burlingame residents.  Luckily, the city’s negotiations with Caltrain were also successful in getting the Broadway station to reopen.  That will make a big difference for local traffic through the B'way intersection over the next 10 years.

Of course, Rollins Rd. isn't the only part of town with strong growth so all of these impending improvements will benefit the whole town.  That's why Burlingame is a welcoming community.

I admit I was initially skeptical about a huge new residential section at the north end of town.  It seemed like many of the growing pains would be intractable problems, but with a lot of diligent work everything appears to be on track.  Many people are to be complemented.

The CA exodus is real, so why do we need SB 10?

There are plenty of people who foolishly believe we can build our way out of the so-called "housing crisis".  Dense development hasn't caused lower housing costs anywhere in the world--in fact, many of the densest locations are also the costliest.  And when the other quality of life components and job prospects are as good as the Bay Area, one would have to be extra foolish to try to out-build the demand and further diminish the quality of life.  But Sacramento has foisted SB 9 and SB 10 on us anyway.  Most of them couldn't get through Econ 101, but that is where we are at.

The Burlingame City Council will discuss what to do about SB 10 tomorrow night.  The Staff Report is super thin on SB 10:

SB 10. California Senate Bill (SB) 10 allows (but does not require) local agencies to adopt an ordinance to allow up to 10 dwelling units on any parcel if the parcel is within a transit-rich area or urban infill site. (Ed:  pretty much all of B'game).

The General Plan Update has already provided a range of multiunit residential and mixed use land use districts with a wide range of residential densities, and the Zoning Ordinance Update underway will provide refined development standards for the corresponding zoning districts.

Staff requests direction from the City Council on whether to pursue zoning allowed by SB 10.  Whereas SB 9-compliant zoning is required, municipalities may choose to adopt (or not adopt) SB 10-compliant zoning.

And the report claims that neither SB 9 or SB 10 will have any fiscal impact!  It might be time to double-check the thinking on that since residential property taxes never cover the cost of providing city services--never mind the costs to the school district that is pretty much out of real estate.

But let's look a little deeper courtesy of last Sunday's Mercury News piece with the sub-head "In an area noted for its booming economy, stunning weather and natural beauty, a majority feel their quality of life is in decline".  The Silicon Valley Leadership Group and the Bay Area News Group commissioned a survey by Embold Research to dig into this and it's not pretty.

In a foreboding breakthrough, for the first time since the poll began posing the question in 2018 a solid majority -- 56% -- said they expect to leave the Bay Area in the next few years...a similar majority said the region is headed in the wrong direction.  In the survey of 1,610 registered voters, 71% said the Bay Area's quality of life has declined in the last five years.

Two problems topped the list of increased concern being "serious or very serious"?  Drought (+41%) and Water Supply (+32%).  I'm glad to know I'm not alone on this.  The cost of housing was still the highest overall at 92% but only up 6%.  What if even half of the half of people that are considering leaving do so?  Even if it is only 10% that would be significant.   B'game has a huge amount of new housing already approved, in design and "in-the-dirt".  Maybe we should see how that all plays out?  I hope the council's direction to staff on SB 10 is a brisk, clear "forgetaboutit" so they can get back to ensuring our public safety, water supply, small business vitality, economic health and quality of life.