The Burlingame Voice

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.

Gas Power: Throwing the Baby out with the Bath Water

The old saying "Don't throw the baby out with the bath water" seems appropriate for the latest climate edict out of Sacramento courtesy of Assemblyman Marc Berman from the "leafy suburb" of Menlo Park.  Newsom signed AB1346 that outlaws the sale (but not the use) of "off-road" gasoline engines by 2024; or later if the California air police deem it necessary.  The Wall Street Journal offers some helpful points to understanding this latest maneuver

As an Assembly bill analysis notes, “for commercial uses, there is very little market for zero-emission equipment as today’s technology is relatively expensive and requires multiple batteries and/or frequent recharging and replacement” and “may be inadequate even if money is no object, particularly when used in rural areas without convenient access to recharging.”  No market? No matter. Sacramento will dictate a new one by banning the old one.

Banning sales of new small-combustion engines in tools “could have a few unintended consequences,” the analysis added. For instance, it could “lead to prolonged use of older, dirtier engines,” and the “purchase of non-compliant engines out of state for use in California.”  Home Depot stores in Tijuana and Reno no doubt will appreciate the sales boost.

Even better is this hidden gem

You won’t read this in other newspapers, but many Democrats who represent working-class communities are starting to worry that the state’s environmental policies are driving up the cost of living for minority communities.  Notably, about one in five Democrats in the Assembly and a third in the Senate from mostly lower- and middle-income districts abstained or voted against the bill.

"Abstaining" is the classic legislative ploy to avoid responsibility.  No one can say you voted against it.  There are plenty of people, including some long time readers of the Voice, who will applaud the move against gas leaf blowers.  I'm ok with that too; except for the $30 million of taxpayer money that is allocated to subsidizing the shift.  The "baby in the bathwater" is the fact that the bill includes gas-powered generators!  Talk about an absolutely idiotic ban.  Generators are flying off the shelves due to unreliable electricity.  Generac, the largest vendor in the U.S., has an enormous backlog -- its company stock is up more than 400% since January 2020.

I don't own a generator.  I've been meaning to buy one for years, but my move to solar that went quite well now has me planning a battery back-up as Phase 2 of the project.  I'm fortunate that I can afford the project with a little planning.  For most people, an $800-1,300 generator with no installation costs is a reasonable choice--or was.

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?

ECR: The Renewal Project Goes off the Rails

This is a tough post for me to write.  That's why it has taken me two weeks to write it since the Caltrans virtual meeting about the El Camino Real Roadway Renewal project on July 14th.  I really want to see some things fixed on ECR as noted here, here here and here.  But sometimes the cure can be worse than the illness and from what I heard, this is one of those times.  The virtual meeting had numerous presenters each with their own piece of the project, but the overarching view was obscured by bureaucracy and over-regulation along with some over-engineering.  We heard about this "once in a generation project" which is an understatement--a generation is 20-30 years--and while the project may take half of that to complete (certainly more than the 2 years stated), we will be living with the results for much longer---if it happens.

Caltrans presented three options:  the No Build alternative, the Roadway rehab without undergrounding the utilities and the Roadway rehab with undergrounding.  At least the horrendous "road diet" option reducing regular users to one lane in each direction with a center turn lane and all sorts of other goodies for people who don't actually drive on ECR is "not viable".  The good news ends there, because once the anti-eucalyptus forces start drooling over the two Roadway rehab options, we are headed for a dramatic changes that will take years to recover.  PG&E and the city council want the utilities underground.  I'm still not sure why when you consider the historic, nationally-registered eucalyptus grove will be a casualty of that move.  The renderings of what a denuded ECR would look like were all "20 years post-build" and even after 20 years still looked like a sad shell of the canopy we have now.  One astute questioner noted that they drive south on ECR every weekday morning and there are several months of the year when the sun is directly in the eyes of drivers.  Only the towering eucs make for a partial sun shield that surely makes for safer driving and pedestrian crossings.  Been there, experienced that.  And it's not just sun blindness--remember this incident?

Given how long it took to take out just one eucalyptus at Howard Ave. a couple years ago (about a week), we could be faced with a year or more of horrific traffic closures as there are 390 of them in the tree rows.  The claim is that only 3% of them are in "good condition".  And yet they go on year after year with minimal incidents.  It seems like selective replacement as we have been doing is better than a wholesale removal and replacement with 7 to 14' trees.

As for the rough sidewalks pushed up by tree roots, one of the Caltrans personnel finally said what I have been thinking for years-- why not just "bridge over slightly raised roots".  It is apparently allowed and would work in the places that are not too bad.  Throw in some serious digging at the 4 or 5 known flooding areas to clear roots and debris and rebuild the drains and you have what I would call a "Light Build alternative".  Public comment can be made at www.ElCaminoRealProject.com until next Monday, August 2nd.  I'm not sure it will do much good at this point, but a light build is all we need.

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 :-)

Koonin - Part 1 "Unsettled" is Required Reading

I've just finished reading the most important climate change book available today.  Steven Koonin's Unsettled addresses "what climate science tells us, what it doesn't, and why it matters".  Koonin was a professor at CalTech for 30 years, provost for 10 of those years, chief scientist at BP focused on renewable energy technologies, Undersecretary for Science at the Department of Energy in the Obama Administration and is now a professor at NYU.

His book uses available data from many government and academic sources and applies his cross-functional knowledge in physics, computer modelling, statistics, climate science, etc to understand what the data tells us--and more importantly, what it doesn't tell us.  Over 14 chapters, his analysis is devastating to "The Science" that our politicians and climate activists claim is all settled.  By eliminating the cherry picking of data that occurs via selecting narrow windows of time or geography, adding the statistical confidence intervals to measurements that get headlines and noting the counterbalancing effects of some forms of emissions Koonin shows that the media (and some unscrupulous academics and government agencies) are misleading the public.

The book is technical as it must be, but he has written it for the general public so it's very readable if you have some basic knowledge of chemistry, physics and math--mostly statistics.  I've listed this post as Part 1 because I plan to serialize some parts of the book.  Here in B'game we have banned natural gas in new construction, begun worrying about sea level rise, promoted electric cars and issued warnings about all sorts of natural disasters supposedly related to climate change.  Before we get too far into these restrictions and expenses wouldn't it be good to know more about how human activity is really affecting the climate.

Going Solar: And hoping it ends up worth it

Some so-called environmentalists talk the talk, but when it comes to walking the walk they are mostly hot air.  I fall into the category of doing what you can as it makes practical sense.  I've been gauging the practicality of going to rooftop solar on my house for a couple of years and finally decided to get an expert opinion to strengthen the analysis.  By word of mouth, I learned about local Burlingame solar guy Steve Pariani.  He's really local; born and raised here and lives in town.  His company is Solar Pro Energy Systems.  After giving him my electricity usage and having him use satellite imagery to assess my roof's solar capacity, it appears to be a reasonable investment--not great like buying some Reddit-hyped stock, but OK.  Unless the "equity police" in Sacramento and the monopoly utilities misguidedly screw things up.

I have a clear southern exposure--very few trees on that side--and a decent amount of square footage.  There is room for 25 panels that would generate 8.5 KW for a one-year total of 12,871 kWh--the equivalent of driving 10,000 fewer miles per year!  As with any big investment--and this is definitely a big one--there are risks.  Steve has walked me through the technology and I don't find that to be much of a risk.  But with hacks like Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez of San Diego pushing bills like AB 1139 to make the investment LESS attractive, you never know.  You would think with all of the growing pains on the California grid and the pressure to move to even more electricity usage (banning natural gas, EVs, etc) nobody would mind some Californians putting up major capital investments to generate additional juice, but you would be wrong.  Here is one example that Calmatters published.  AB 1139 died last week at the deadline, but you can bet the woman behind the idea to make Uber and Lyft drivers full-time employees (which many of them didn't even want) will be back next session.  The tougher battle may be with the CPUC.  As the California Solar & Storage Association (CALSSA) writes about the threat to Net Energy Metering

Whether we are talking AB 1139 or the IOU NEM-3 proposals, the utilities are trying to outright kill rooftop solar and storage in California, protect their monopoly, and grab more profits for themselves. It doesn’t matter the forum; the impact of the attack are the same: kill rooftop solar in the country's number one market.
 
The CPUC NEM fight is going to be harder to win politically for several reasons. First, it takes place at a little-known state agency with limited opportunity for public engagement. Second, there are only five decision makers at the CPUC, all political appointees, and, unlike in the state legislature, none have stepped forward (yet) to champion distributed generation. And third, if the utilities "own" the legislature, getting the Speaker, the Chair of Energy Committee, and the Chair of Appropriations Committee to back AB 1139, just think of how much they have captured the CPUC.

I'm going for it and hoping the sun shines brightly and the Legislature and/or the CPUC don't screw it up.  Common sense is in short supply these days which makes my decision much more of a gamble than I would prefer.  So much for real environmentalism.  Here's local small businessman Steve Pariani.

 

Wildfires and Sacramento Grifters

Anyone have a relative who is constantly asking for a "little loan" but drives a nicer car than you do?  I don't--except for my state Assembly, Senate and Governor.  Wildfires are a long-term problem in the state that have been ignored by our electeds for years--maybe decades.  It's easier to blame PG&E and the Feds than to do anything about it.

You might ask "why should we B'gamers care?"  I can think of two reasons.  First, with 20 of my neighboring Tahoe homeowners, I spent the morning clearing brush, pine needles and dead wood from the area around our Tahoe homes.  20 of us filled a 15 yard and a 5 yard dumpster in a couple hours and there is more to be done.  We cleared a space about the size of a single B'game lot--maybe two.  While we were cutting and raking it all up, my thoughts were on Mills Canyon and the vast expanses of Hillsborough that look like a fiery disaster-in-waiting.  It's easy to think about the Oakland Hills or Sonoma and say "it won't happen here" but don't bet on it.

The second reason to care is the grifters from Sacramento are dipping into in our pockets again.  The state has a $75 Billion, with a "B" surplus this year and another $25 Billion with a "B" injection from the Feds for "Covid relief", but get this; as reported in today's Comicle--the grifters are pushing

Among the bills being advocated by the fire-focused senators is SB45, which would place a $5.6 billion bond before voters next year.

Really?  None of these geniuses can figure out that sending "tax rebate" money to Californians who didn't pay any state taxes in the first place while mortgaging the state's future with new bonds that we could easily finance now just out of current "surpluses" is a bad proposition?  Really?  

Electric Cars: Not So Fast

Someday I will probably buy an electric vehicle (EV).  Most of us probably will because we will be forced to via government policies--overt and covert.  The overt policies are moves like mandating tight emissions standards, rebates and credits and the like.  The covert policies slip in as dedicated parking spaces or stopping new gas stations from being built.  But the switch over won't happen anytime soon as the AP reported awhile back with this article: America’s gas-fueled vehicles imperil Biden’s climate goals

In a rare display of data analysis the reporter gets to the bottom line conclusion that some of the big headline goals from politicians like Biden and Newsom are just not feasible.

For President Joe Biden to reach his ambitious goal of slashing America’s greenhouse gas emissions in half by 2030, huge reductions would have to come from somewhere other than one of the worst culprits: auto tailpipes.

That’s because there are just too many gas-powered passenger vehicles in the United States — roughly 279 million — to replace them in less than a decade, experts say. In a typical year, automakers sell about 17 million vehicles nationwide. Even if every one of the new ones were electric, it would take more than 16 years to replace the whole fleet.  What’s more, vehicles now remain on America’s roads for an average of nearly 12 years before they’re scrapped, which means that gas-fueled vehicles will predominate for many years to come.

Last year, fewer than 2% of new vehicles sold in the United States were fully electric.  To increase sales of electric vehicles, the administration plans to spend $15 billion to build a half-million charging stations by 2030, as well as offer unspecified tax credits and rebates to cut the cost.  Swapping the entire fleet of gas burners for electric vehicles could take even longer than 20 years. Todd Campau, associate director of automotive for IHS Markit, estimates that the number of mostly gas-powered vehicles on U.S. roads, will keep growing — to 284 million by 2025.  “If half of new cars sold around the world in 2035 are zero-emission vehicles, 70% of the vehicles on roads will still be burning gasoline or diesel,” the report said.

There are other fun factoids about the real, achievable pace of change to EVs, their batteries and other energy uses for those interested in clicking through to read them.  The other half of the story, that is not part of this article is how gasoline is a by-product of refining petroleum for benzene and other chemicals which will still happen because they are still needed in millions of products, including aspirin and other drugs.  Gas vehicles become a smaller portion of the fleet, but gas is still being produced and that equals a bargain at the pump and a tougher sell for EVs.  

Natural Gas vs. Electric: Pay Up

It's never too late to repeal the B'game ban on natural gas in new construction--unless a contractor has already started the build.  We hashed over the issue in February here.  Whether such a ban does any actual climate good and what it might cost (in a cost/benefit sense) is important.  This week the Wall Street Journal carried two letters to the editor that bear on the question:

Regarding Allysia Finley’s op-ed “Now We’re Cooking With Gas. But Tomorrow?” (Dec. 17): Forbidding natural-gas connections in new buildings ensures that more, not less, natural gas will be consumed to meet the new demand for electricity. Similarly, government mandates for electric vehicles, space heating and cooking will increase the total amount of natural gas burned.

Natural gas consumed as a fuel to heat or cook is more than 90% efficient, while electricity produced from natural gas is at best 60% efficient. This means that boiling a pot of water on an electric stove uses 150% as much natural gas as a gas stove. This is before any consideration is given to the inefficiencies of induction heating or losses in transmission.  On the other hand, if all U.S. homes were required to burn natural gas for space heating and cooking, the total amount of natural gas consumed nationwide would probably decline, with the added benefit of increasing the proportion of U.S. energy sourced from renewables. Unintended consequences can be a cruel mistress.

Richard Varner, Wichita, KS

California’s efforts to curb natural-gas use can be devastating to low-income households. The top rate for electricity is more than 40 cents per kilowatt hour, which equates to nearly $12 per therm of heat. Natural gas, by contrast, costs about $2.50 a therm. This means that it costs more than four times as much to cook your dinner, dry your clothes or heat your bath water with electricity than with gas. You can get a somewhat better deal using a heat pump (at a cost of several thousand dollars) to heat your house; the electricity for this costs only twice as much as the gas for a furnace. Many people involved with California real estate are aware of this. Unfortunately, few of them are in government.

Robert A. Saunders, Rohnert Park, Calif.

On the earlier thread a commenter made a good point that I had not considered.  The B'game ban is a "reach code" that supposedly only affects new construction.  But over the long-haul, with about 150 other California towns doing similar things, how long before qualified technicians, replacement parts and replacement units become harder to find and most costly?  Not long, I bet.