The Burlingame Voice

Water: One Man's Spigot is Another Man's.....Cesspool

There are days when I think the clowns at the San Francisco Comicle should pay me to read their fish wrap.  Once in a while the thought lasts a week.  This is one of those weeks.  The "editorial board" published a piece titled "S.F.'s spigot won't run forever".  That was in last Sunday's print edition.  The online version I just linked to was titled "Don’t let a few ‘monster’ storms fool you, S.F.’s water supply is unsustainable".  You think hey, maybe the public opinion polls, La Nina, the water measurements, the grotesque over-development or the warnings from Newsom might have sunk in?  Nope.  Didn't happen.  Here's what they said

On Oct. 20, state environmental officials sent an ominous letter to the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, which supplies drinking water to the city and nearly 2 million other Bay Area residents. It read in part:  “Proposed voluntary actions by water agencies on the San Joaquin River tributaries have fallen short of needed flow and habitat improvements, and viable proposals are not being offered at this time.”

What does that mean in layman’s terms?  It means Bay Area water users are unsustainably and likely unlawfully draining the sources of our supply — and killing the habitats and wildlife that rely on those sources. And we don’t have a workable plan to fix it.

For decades, San Francisco and the Bay Area have enjoyed one of the cleanest and most reliable water supplies in the country, 85% of which comes from Hetch Hetchy. But we’ve taken that resource for granted. The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission is decades behind other California water agencies in building alternative and sustainable new water infrastructure.

You have to love the unsubstantiated use of "unlawfully".  But what to do about this impending disaster that the Comicle has just discovered?  Well?  Let's get the new SFPUC general manager--a long-time EssEff insider, Dennis Herrera-- to force the Peninsula under its thumb.  How?  Let's start with Green Envy

San Franciscans are known for being sparing with our own water usage. But many of the nearly 2 million other Bay Area residents that use Hetch Hetchy water to are not nearly as parsimonious in their usage as we are.  San Francisco should not be complicit in the extinction of several aquatic species so that Peninsula homeowners can keep their lawns green.

The same fishwrap that whines about how many Sequoias were burned in the wildfires thinks we mere Peninsulans should let our lawns die--not realizing the trees live on the lawns and drink the same irrigation.  I know, it's complicated for someone who spends their day stepping over discarded hypodermic needles and broken glass.  But wait, there's more.  The "toilet to tap" trope rolls out with a new twist.  We get to be the City's septic tank:

Water recycling for potable use presents technical and legal challenges. It generally demands pumping treated sewage into the ground, pulling it out and treating it again before delivering it to customers. The Peninsula has storage capacity for this that San Francisco largely lacks.  Demanding better water conservation from neighbors while partnering on sustainable projects will be a tough needle to thread. Thankfully, Herrera has signaled that he’s up to the challenge. San Francisco residents need him to mean it.

I love that "neighbors" part.  With neighbors like EssEff we should all be getting Dobermans and an extra lock.  With what else they are exporting we should all be getting an extra lock anyway.  SF can build luxury senior living penthouses that rent for $324,000 a year with rooftop pools, but the poop should be filtered on the Peninsula.  You should read the rest of the EssEff BeeEss in the editorial--I don't have the heart to quote all of the "outflow".

 

 

 

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.

Say Goodbye to an Old Friend

I haven't railed about any home demolitions lately since it doesn't seem to do much good.  My little patch of B'game at least requires a home historical evaluation before the claw arrives.  There is a bit of movement in that direction elsewhere in town as noted here.  And there has been at least one successful move (on Oak Grove).

Long-timers in town will recall the ruckus years ago over a nice old house on Carmelita on a big lot that was going to be demo'ed.  There was enough space on one side of the lot to add a new house and that calmed folks down.  Now a resident in the Easton Addition has passed along this photo of its demise.  Say goodbye to an old friend.

 

Turf vs. Grass: More to it than meets the eye

Millbrae is leading the way in examining whether or not artificial turf is a good residential lawn -- or not -- according to the DJ

Artificial turf may soon be illegal to install in Millbrae, at least for a period of time, with the City Council citing environmental concerns and the need to establish permanent rules surrounding the landscaping material often seen as a low maintenance and low water use alternative to real grass.

The move comes amid a worsening drought in the state leading many residents to seek alternate yard treatments that require less water. But according to experts, the environmental drawbacks of artificial turf likely outweigh the upsides. The city is now seeking a moratorium on the installation of the plastic material until permanent guidelines on its use can be researched and established.  Among concerns are increased heat, reduced water absorption and toxic runoff from disintegrating plastic — problems that could exacerbate climate issues often linked with drought. 

“You have in the case of a field … baked, sealed, compressed dirt that is completely dead underneath,” said Diana Conway, president of Safe Healthy Playing Fields, a volunteer organization that advocates against artificial turf. “That means not only is there no worm or bee activity, you have no runoff capacity, you have no water infiltration capacity, you have no carbon sink that you would have with grass.”  Additionally, artificial turf is 30% to 60% hotter than ambient temperatures on a warm sunny day, Conway said.

There is more here concerning whether or not the turf is really recyclable as claimed and whether or not Millbrae cracking down on people paving their yards will use artificial turf to try to avoid the lot paving coverage limits.  No mention of how bad it is for any trees that are nearby and thus  do not get watered properly.  As usual, the Law of Unintended Consequences kicks in.  Kudos to Millbrae for taking a look.  B'game, what say you?  Perhaps we can copy something smart?

220 Park Rd: From Post Office to Class A Space

Wednesday was the official groundbreaking ceremony for the Old Post Office property; now dubbed "220 Park Rd."  About 50-75 people turned out to hear some speeches, tour the historic lobby that is undergoing asbestos removal and watch The Claw take the first bite out of the old garage.  The long saga documented here, here and here is moving into the final chapter.  There seems to be consensus among the cognoscenti that this is the best design B'game could hope for-- it is certainly better than the last proposal.

The lobby will be partially preserved in the sense that it will be modified with three doorways where the large windows are now.  The plan is to pick up the poured concrete structure, turn it slightly and move it 100' towards the Avenew, put it on piers and move it back near the end of the project (projected to be March 2024).  We'll keep an eye out for the date since that will be a bring-your-popcorn event.  There will be underground parking and the Town Square will feature amphitheater-style seating for concerts and the like.  The Daily Journal has some of the details

The ground floor, including a portion of the existing post office, will comprise 15,000 square feet of retail and dining space. Office space above will feature terraces at each level and larger patios on the third and sixth floors. The two-level underground parking garage will have room for 275 cars and be open to the public on weekends and evenings.

Construction of the project will be handled by Sares Regis Group and Dostart Development Company, which will provide $2 million to the city for the town square development, as well as an additional $3.5 million in assorted fees to go toward affordable housing in Burlingame.

Click through if you are a subscriber so you can see the photo of Yours Truly in my chapeau and shorts along with my lovely bride in the left background.  Here is Dave Hopkins of Sares Regis, the Claw doing its thing and the official groundbreaking line-up.

"Welcome Carpetbaggers"

I'm not sure there is much more to say about SB9 and SB10 than was said in the May post titled SB 9 and YIMBY Carpetbaggers except to note that Newsom only waited two days post-recall to sign them.  You can also go to the Comical's donation tracker and see that the CALIFORNIA REAL ESTATE POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (CREPAC) - CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS was Newsom's seventh largest donor for the recall race at $1.5 million.  Can you say "For Sale By Owner"? 

Design review?  Psshawh.  Street parking?  Nah, everyone will have an e-scooter and take Lyft.  Water?  Don't get me started. The last line of the Daily Post article says "Many cities have organized against SB9, including Palo Alto, Los Altos and San Carlos."  We shall see if any real organized opposition appears.  In the meantime, mark Sept. 16th as the day we said "Goodbye single-family zoning".

 

Oil and gas for them, but not for us?

"Think globally, act locally" is quite the mantra.  Many local officials in B'game and our neighboring towns appear to take it to heart especially regarding saving the climate.  And then there are the contradictions like this from yesterdays WSJ.  Or dare I say the hypocrisy?  In the immortal words of the grandfather in Moonstruck, "I'm confused".  What is going on here?

Perhaps it is time to repeal the ban on natural gas hook-ups?  After all, shouldn't we take our cue from the White House?

My Gubernatorial Pipe Dream

Today was the last day to file papers to replace Gavin Newsom as governor of California.  I did not get my paperwork in as planned.  Ever since Arnold bested a field of 135 candidates to replace Gray Davis in 2003, I have regretted not throwing my hat in the ring.  But I was busy back then.  What could be more fun than a "gadfly" run at the governor's mansion?  More importantly, for $4,200 anyone could have their candidate's statement printed in the voter guide and mailed to all 20.9 million registered voters in the state.  That is a bargain!

I didn't get around to filing today, but I did write my candidate's statement.  Here you go:

Day 1:  I will kill the High-speed rail project saving California taxpayers $100+ billion.  Newsom knows it is the right thing to do, but cannot buck Big Labor.

Day 2:  I will redirect all available infrastructure funding to our water systems and new storage.  We cannot address housing until we have sufficient water security for the population and businesses that are already here.  Our best defense against climate change is a lot more trees that need water.

Day 3:  I will quadruple our wildfire firefighting capabilities by redirecting much of our $105 billion budget surplus to personnel and equipment.  There is no excuse for being surprised 5 years in a row and we need those trees, not the pollution from the wildfires.  It's a no-brainer.

Day 4:  I will sign an executive order guaranteeing Californians easy, cost-effective access to all sources of energy including natural gas, gas for cars, propane and nuclear power without limitation.  Existing local restrictions will be invalidated, and the existing solar credits and net metering will continue.

Day 5:  I will clear the way for single-family residential zoning to stay single-family residential zoning.  These neighborhoods are the backbone of our communities and need to be safeguarded.  There is plenty of R2 and R3 zoning to meet our near term housing needs.

Day 6:  I will issue a series of RFPs to upgrade the primitive computer systems at the EDD, the DMV, the court system and the voter registration system while recouping the $30+ billion of EDD fraud that Newsom seems to have forgotten about.

Day 7:  I will issue an executive order that reinforces cities’ and town’s rights to have at-large city council and school board elections when they have less than 100,000 residents.  Postage stamp-sized governance is not good governance.

Then I will have dinner at the French Laundry. I will pay for my own dinner and no lobbyists will be invited.  Breakfast at Alana's the next morning and then back to work.  There is plenty more to be done.  When you read that voter's guide before September 14, you know what to look for!  I appreciate the people who previewed my agenda and offered to host a coffee for me.  That and $30 million would have done the trick :-)

Saving History One Building at a Time

The city is slowly working its way towards more protections and incentives for preserving local buildings and homes that add to the amazing character of our neighborhoods.  Recently I was talking to a PG&E guy from Menlo Park who came to fix the outage on our street.  He looked up and down the street and was amazed that it was so nice since "they're tearing everything down in Menlo Park".  I said "Yep" and left it at that while feeling sorry for him.  The Draft "Chapter 25.35 - Historic Resources" is winding its way through the process and would represent an upgrade to the existing, limited code just for the central downtown Ave area found on the City website here.

We definitely need this--now more than ever as various local and state-wide forces seek to shred local character with the mistaken idea that it would help "affordability" and would come with no unintended consequences.  Wrong.

The Historic Register has eleven criteria for inclusion and "shall only occur upon request of the property owner" and if officially designated "are eligible for incentives detailed in Section 25.35.080 Preservation Incentives."  Those are the "carrots".  The Planning Commission study session last week focused on the "sticks" as described by the Daily Journal

The Burlingame Planning Commission weighed Monday, June 14, proposals which would punish any homeowner who destroyed a structure identified on the city’s historic registry.  Forcing a property owner to rebuild a replica of the destroyed historic structure or feature then ban any further construction at the site for 20 years was among the repercussions considered. No decision was made at the meeting and the issue will return for more deliberation later.

While the Planning Commission and ultimately the City Council will weigh the sticks, I like to focus on the carrots; like more flexible parking requirements when adding floor space and an extra 25% lot coverage allowance.  In addition, the 1972 Mills Act, named for former state senator James Mills of San Diego who passed away in March, offers the real carrot for regular homeowners looking to save a bit of property tax.  Realty Times notes that it "provides a way whereby owners of designated historic properties may receive significant property tax relief in return for restoring and maintaining their property."  You can click through for some of the details, but the bottom line is it is an incentive that the draft B'game code says "is often a benefit to the community as a whole and the owners of surrounding properties".  We've been in short supply of that kind of thinking lately with the onslaught of ADUs, SB 9, short-term rentals, etc. 

Housing Prices: By the Numbers

Just in case you thought the Bay Area real estate appreciation was different from the rest of the country, Zillow is here to share the data.  As always, data needs to be taken with some salt as concepts like YoY percentages and medians this or that can hide anomalies.  But the data is still the data as reported by the Comicle

The U.S. is in the middle of a record-setting boom in home values and a massive squeeze in supply. But the Bay Area has been somewhat cushioned from these effects, according to a recent Zillow report.  The report found that in the metropolitan area of San Francisco — which includes Alameda, Contra Costa, San Mateo and Marin counties — home values increased by 7.4% in April 2021 compared to the previous year.  By comparison, home values in the U.S. overall rose 11.6% over the past year. And in some regions, including Phoenix and Austin, Texas, home values soared by more than 20%.

The S.F. and San Jose metropolitan areas actually rank at the very bottom of all major metropolitan areas for home value appreciation, noted Jeff Tucker, a senior economist at Zillow.  But, he said, these trends look very different at the county level.  “The big takeaway that I’m seeing here is, the most expensive parts of the Bay and the most urban parts of the Bay have had the slowest growth rates,” Tucker said.

A lot of that has to do with The Exodus that is a year old now.  The same goes for rentals where the flood of For Rent signs around B'game has abated in months.  But prices are stable according to Zumper

Burlingame ranked as the 7th most expensive city to rent (in the Bay Area).  The price of one bedroom units remained flat at a median of $2,190, while two bedrooms also stayed stable at $3,120.

There isn't really a lot of variation from the fifth highest (Menlo Park) to the 23rd (Concord).  A ton of new units are in progress in B'game so the For Rent signage is likely here for awhile.