The Burlingame Voice

State home insurance slipping down the slope

While the retreat by home insurance companies in California hasn't been top of mind for Bgamers, I watch it also as a Tahoe homeowner where it is very much top of mind.  The retreat is real--the public statements from insurance companies match my anecdotal evidence from Tahoe.  The local retreat might start in Hillsborough since the fire danger is greatest there.  With the Legislative session ending tomorrow for the year, the ball is back in Insurance Commissioner Richard Lara's court.  He has to navigate the insurance industry and the "consumer watchdog" industry.  Good luck with that.  The Merc has more details:

“I have always been clear, legislation is one of many options that we have been pursuing,” Lara said. “We also are moving forward with a package of regulatory solutions that will streamline the department’s rate review process, opening it equitably to public input — not just the entrenched interests that have benefited materially from the status quo. We will continue moving forward. Together, we can create a sustainable and resilient insurance market to protect Californians, our communities and our environment.”

While consumer advocates cheered the collapse of a “half-baked bailout” of insurance companies, no deal means no relief yet for consumers, especially those living in wildfire-prone regions who either can’t find an insurer or can’t afford escalating rates. Participation in the state-sponsored, last-resort FAIR plan, intended to provide temporary basic coverage in areas insurers deemed too risky for standard policies, has doubled.

Do you care to guess who is covering the liabilities stemming from FAIR claims?

New water rules: a "budget" for all seasons

Just because it rained a lot last season doesn't mean we are out of the woods on water scarcity.  Apparently, Sacramento put in some rules five years ago that are just kicking in.  Per today's Merc piece

Dozens of California cities could be required to impose permanent water conservation measures starting in about a year — and keep them in place even when the state is not in a drought — under proposed new rules from state water regulators.  The landmark rules are required by two laws that former Gov. Jerry Brown signed in 2018 after a severe five-year drought.

Under the new rules, roughly 400 of the California’s largest cities and water districts are required to come up with a water-use budget every year beginning Jan. 1, 2025. They could eventually face fines of up to $1,000 a day — and $10,000 a day during drought emergencies — for failing to set and meet appropriate targets.

The targets will vary by community. They are based on a formula made up of three main factors: a standard of 47 gallons per person per day for indoor water use — dropping to 42 gallons by 2030; an amount for outdoor residential use that varies by community depending on regional climates; and a standard for water loss due to rates of leaks in water system pipes.

The Bay Area is considered to be doing an OK job of conserving now, apart from some East Bay communities. The first round of cuts in 2025 are not expected to hit nearby including the SF PUC where B'game gets its water.  The chart in the Merc piece appears to say SF PUC is fine as is through 2035.  That may be true if interest rates stay about 7 or 8% for years.  The Merc noted elsewhere

In fact, no apartment projects with market-rate units broke ground in Silicon Valley during the first half of 2023, according to data from CoStar, an international real estate analytics company. Compare that to the last six months of 2022, when developers started construction on at least 5,298 multifamily units in the region.

But

By 2030, the state water board estimated, only 97 agencies representing 28% of the state’s urban population would escape additional conservation requirements. Another 88 with 18% of the state’s urban population would see cutbacks of 10% to 20%, and 134 representing 19% of the state’s urban population would see required cutbacks of 20% or more.

There was more handwringing over how much building new storage or desalinization plants would cost.  We need to constantly keep Ben Franklin's advice in mind:  "When the well is dry, we know the value of water".

Civil Grand Jury bumps up against reality

It must be a slow session of the San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury if they have time to commiserate about how cities cannot track the incomes of people who occupy ADUs jammed into neighborhoods by the state housing requirement numbers.  No kidding.  Here are some of the specifics from the DJ piece titled "Civil grand jury targets cities' focus on ADUs".

Hillsborough, Woodside, Portola Valley and Atherton are leaning heavily on accessory dwelling units to address the state’s affordable housing requirements and has no way of verifying tenants' income, according to a report by the San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury issued Monday.  “For every accessory dwelling unit that gets a permit and is counted as an affordable unit, equals one fewer deed restricted affordable unit,” civil grand juror Spector said.

Of course, neither does any other city or town without a heavy investment in tenant-snooping snitches.  Even with a snitch army, how do you do it?   Here's the source of the issue:

Each jurisdiction is assigned a number of units for varied incomes: very low, low, moderate and above moderate. Most cities follow a 30-30-30-10 format, meaning 30% each for the very low to moderate income categories and 10% for above moderate. The categories are based on the county’s average median income, around $116,000 for a one-person household, according to the county.

Seldom does one see an instance of social engineering spelled out with such engineer-like specificity.  One wonders if the snoopers will want the full income $xx,xxx.yy details down to the penny?  So instead of crying time-out on the whole principle and sending the CA Department of Housing and Community Development a message to cease-and-desist, the grand jury doubles down

HCD instructed the county jurisdictions to monitor and verify ADU production and affordability at least every two years but never specified what the process should look like, according to the report.  In the report, the grand jury suggests jurisdictions stop using ADUs unless it has an effective monitoring system that verifies how they will be used.

Click through to read more of this ridiculous social engineering fiasco.  As I said, it must be a slow session at the grand jury to get this far out of their lane. 

Papan putting water in focus

Mr. Water here with a catch-up post on newly minted Assemblywoman Diane Papan's early attention to.....water.  She had a Guest Perspective in the DJ a week ago and it merits some additional coverage as we see how the proposed legislation progresses.  First and foremost, I give her kudos for focusing on something important and suitable for Sacramento to deal with.  I wish some of our other representatives had the same approach.  After the dutiful bow to climate change, we learn from her piece:

That’s why I have made water — the adequacy of supply, equitable distribution, cleanliness and availability — one of my top legislative priorities.

As such, one of my bills, Assembly Bill 753, will ensure that communities harmed by pollution receive state funding to clean up local waters. The bill reforms the State Water Board’s Cleanup and Abatement Fund to require half of these funds be dedicated to cleaning up the most polluted waterways, improving monitoring and developing community capacity so disadvantaged communities can participate fully in addressing water quality.

I'm left wondering what we have been doing with the other half all this time? 

I have also introduced two bills to help ensure reliable, affordable water supplies. Assembly Bill 754 would improve conservation planning by urban and agricultural water agencies by establishing localized conservation measures if water storage falls below specified levels. With the likelihood of more severe droughts, we need to ensure that we’re ready to conserve during times of scarcity.

I'd love to see part of these bills address the reasonableness of cities Urban Water Management Plans as I noted here back in 2021.  Some important data and forecasts just don't pass the smell test.  Having BAWSCA do a roll-up of all of the forecasts from all of its agencies would also be useful.  Next is the bow to some sort of equity

Finally, Assembly Bill 755 addresses rising water rates that are often driven by those who use the most. The bill requires urban water agencies to evaluate what new water supply investments could be avoided if the largest — often most affluent — residential users were to reduce water use. These thirsty users can require an agency to make expensive investments to develop additional water supply and infrastructure, driving up costs for all, including low-income residents and residents who already conserve. This bill can help ensure fairness, encourage conservation and tackle high water costs.

Notice the assumptions embedded.  Affluent people don't conserve, but low-income people do.  Fact-check, please.  Additionally, what expensive investments are being made to develop additional supply around here?  I guess I missed that.  There is of course the big investment to send more NorCal water to SoCal, but I doubt that is what she's talking about.  The maintenace work on the pipe from Hetch Hetchy is needed but doesn't add capacity.  I get worried when I see the word "fairness" creep into legislation.  In a lot of places, its meaning has become inverted such that unfair treatment is masquerading as fair.  Let's not have water flow down the same pipe as the unfair proposals to base electricity prices on users' income.

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.

Water ideas: Is anyone listening?

I hope no readers have been lulled into mistakenly thinking our water woes are over.  They aren't.  I have taken four months off the topic last addressed here.  That was when they were letting water out of Crystal Springs and warning people who live along the San Mateo creek.  Now a thoughtful piece in the Wall Street Journal by Edward Ring of the California Policy Center merits some mention.

With the nation’s two largest reservoirs, Lake Powell and Lake Mead, drawn down to historic lows, the seven states that use water from the Colorado River have failed to agree on how to adapt to its dwindling flow. The impasse pits California against everyone else. If California’s political leaders had the political will, they could solve the problem for every member of the Colorado River Compact by developing infrastructure to use untapped sources of water. But to do that, the state Legislature would have to stand up to a powerful environmentalist lobby that views humans as parasites and demands rationing as the only acceptable policy.

The Colorado crisis underscores California’s grotesque failure to upgrade its water infrastructure for the 21st century. Since 1980, Californians have endured five droughts, and politicians are predicting worse in the future. With groundwater aquifers dangerously depleted and access to Colorado River water imperiled, rationing won’t be enough.

There are two major projects that could unlock millions of acre-feet of new water for Californians. The first is to eliminate nutrient pollution in the San Francisco Bay, which feeds toxic algae blooms that kill aquatic life. The solution so far has been to dilute the nutrient loads in the bay by requiring massive diversions from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta—a little like flushing a toilet. But upgrading the urban wastewater-treatment facilities surrounding the bay would eliminate nutrient pollution, permitting more delta water to be directed to California’s farms and cities—a lot more water.

Another piece by CalMatters mentions that eliminating nutrient pollution is actually getting harder and more expensive:

As Californians replace their water-guzzling household appliances with more thrifty devices and let the yellow mellow before flushing, the waste stream becomes more concentrated — which could lead to higher treatment costs, more contaminants and less recycled water overall.

Notice the Law of Unintended Consequences at work?  The rest of the CalMatters piece is good for data, but basically rehashes old ideas, so back to the Ring piece:

The second major project, then, would be for Californians to build new ways to extract and store water from the delta during atmospheric river events. A new technique, already demonstrated on the Tuolumne River, creates channels in some of the delta islands so that huge perforated pipes can be installed under a gravel bed. Fish aren’t endangered by such installations. This water could be rapidly transferred to aquifers south of the delta via surface percolation and deep injection. Unused aquifer capacity in the San Joaquin Valley is conservatively estimated at more than 50 million acre feet.

We shall see if any of the "human parasites" that populate Sacramento are listening.  There's more from Edward Ring of the CPC on water here.

Recycling Scam Spreads

Two years ago I addressed the idea that our recycling program has problems because of the economics of recycling the various categories of items.  You can see the 2021 market prices here.  90% of what you and I think is being recycled isn't.  It ends up in landfill.  Now it is a bigger concern because another burden has been laid on top of our small and medium-sized businesses by the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle).  Any "dealer" which includes, but is not limited to, supermarkets, community markets, gas marts, convenience stores, liquor stores, membership bulk stores and health food stores that are more than a mile from a "convenience zone" now has to accept used bottles and cans or else.  What's the "or else"?  All dealers in an unserved zone must redeem empty beverage containers and provide consumers with California Refund Value (CRV) in-store or pay a $100 per day fee.  That 36 grand a year!

Guess which B'game business district is full of smaller retailers that sell a few bottles of water, soda or beer per day and now get the pleasure of dedicating floor space, staff time and record keeping for refunding the CRV regardless of where people bought the containers?  Yep, good old Broadway.  It's more than a mile from Mollie Stone's or the Millbrae Safeway.  There's a reason why the old pre-Covid standalone recycling center operated in the parking lot near the Millbrae Safeway.  The bottles and cans are used, dirty and attract flies, etc. so it's naturally an outdoors or separate operation.  Sorry.  The state doesn't care.  You have to wonder how long a lot of small businesses can stay afloat.

High-Cost Rail - Part 159 Costs spiral out of control...again

Dan Walters and Ralph Vartabedian, both of Calmatters.org, are on the watch over the high-cost rail boondoggle as it claims to "create" tons of jobs (Walters) and as the costs just continue to boggle the mind and veer even further from budget reality (Vartabedian).  Here's some of the numbers from the latter piece

The headline reads: New cost estimate for high-speed rail puts California bullet train $100 billion in the red.  That's "in the red" which heretofore has been my working number for the whole budget.  Now it's just the missing billions!

The latest report from the California High-Speed Rail Authority projects costs for the initial segment at $35 billion, which exceeds secured funding by $10 billion. Other segments of the system are likely to have their projected costs increase, too. The state hopes it will get more federal aid.

New cost figures issued in an update report from the California High-Speed Rail Authority show that the plan to build the 171-mile initial segment has shot up to a high of $35 billion, exceeding secured funding by $10 billion.  The cost of that partial system is now higher than the $33 billion estimate for the entire 500-mile Los Angeles to San Francisco system when voters approved a bond in 2008.  What’s worse, that full system cost is set at up to $128 billion in the update, leaving a total funding gap of more than $100 billion for politicians to ponder....The $128 billion price tag does not include cost updates for two separate segments between Palmdale and Anaheim

This nightmare is apparently lost on one UC Berkeley law professor

Ethan Elkind, who watches California transportation issues as director of the climate change program at UC Berkeley’s law school, said the mounting problems cloud the project’s future.  “It is in jeopardy,” Elkind said. “It is dicey. There is no path forward for the full Los Angeles to San Francisco system. It is important that they get something done.”

The only thing that must get done is to kill this turkey before we blow through enough money to solve tens of serious infrastructure issues.  A smarter UC Berkeley guy piles on the tale of woe

Bill Ibbs, a retired UC Berkeley civil engineer who serves on the group and has consulted on international high speed rail projects, said he is concerned about the lack of attention to engineering risks.  “They don’t directly address the hard core engineering issues,” Ibbs said, particularly the 38 miles of mountain tunnels that are planned for Southern California alone. “What are the major engineering challenges that lie in front of you and why aren’t you talking about them in this report?”

The piece goes on to question the ridership forecasts and lays out the funding morass in more detail.  Click through if you can stand it. 

Five Units on a Five Thousand Foot Lot

As I type this, the city council is going into closed session for two issues:

4. CLOSED SESSION

1. Conference with Labor Negotiators Government Code Section 54957.6
   City Designated Representatives: Human Resources Director Maria Saguisag-Sid, City Manager Lisa K. Goldman, City Attorney Michael Guina, Chief of Police Michael Matteucci, Timothy L. Davis Attorney, Finance Director Helen Yu-Scott
   Employee Organizations: AFSCME and Teamsters
2. Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing LItigation (Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1))

Yes In My Backyard v. City of Burlingame, San Mateo County Superior Court Case No. 23-CIV-00519

The YIMBYs are filing lawsuits all over the Bay Area and the state because, well, the state has handed them a cudgel and why not use it?  The Sunday Chronicle added some color that you can read about here.  I'll just grab the start and then some B'game specific bits:

Los Altos Hills resident Sasha Zbrozek is the first to admit that he is not a real estate developer.  “I’m just some random homeowner dude,” he said. “I’m not qualified to develop much.”  Yet, over the past few days, Zbrozek has become the face of the “builder’s remedy,” a fledgling movement that over the next year could transform the way housing development is approved across the Bay Area.

The builder’s remedy allows property owners to bypass most local planning and zoning rules if that city or county has failed to complete certification of a state-mandated eight-year housing plan known as a “housing element.” So far, the Bay Area is not doing too well: Only five of 109 jurisdictions had their housing plans approved by the state by the Jan. 31 deadline.

Currently, the property has a house and a pool on it, but Zbrozek has submitted two alternatives for redevelopment. One would add five townhomes and retain his current house and swimming pool. The other would require razing his house and pool and putting a 15-unit apartment building along with the five townhomes. If the larger project is approved, he will sell to an experienced builder and move.

It's nice that Mr. Zbrozek knows he's not a builder but is pretty confident he can find one to buy him out once he sets it all up.  Now onto the local comments

So far there are dozens of property owners looking at invoking the builder’s remedy, but only a few have pulled the trigger, according to Sonja Trauss, executive director of YIMBY Law, which has sued several cities for not having compliant housing elements.

Trauss said she knows of property owners in Burlingame, Fairfax, Oakland, Sausalito and Palo Alto who are likely to file applications, but that many are hesitant given that the builder’s remedy has been in effect for only two weeks.  Trauss predicted that the “sweet spot” for builder’s remedy projects will be five units on a 5,000-square-foot lot, which is the most common lot size in California. That is the scale of the projects in Burlingame and Sausalito that she expects to be filed in the coming days.

More than a year ago I suggested that the City start building a legal reserve to counter all of this destruction of R1 zoning.  It was excellent advice since it appears we are a juicier target than say Palo Alto

Meanwhile, wealthy towns such as Belvedere, in Marin, or Palo Alto have the financial resources to fight developments in court.  “The places that are most legally vulnerable are also the places where you are likely to face the longest slog in getting the project approved,” he said. “Maybe you are likely to prevail in Palo Alto, but Palo Alto is going to give you hell for a half dozen years along the way.”

I'd love to be a fly on the wall of that closed session.  There was also a piece in the DJ recently that quoted a different YIMBY attorney as saying he was living on an air mattress in an attic because he couldn't afford anything else.  Don't the YIMBY's want to pay a living wage?  If that claim is accurate, it's hard to see how he was talking about His Backyard.

What civic leadership on SB9 looks like

I was struck by the Daily Post headline shown below.  The Post columnists have been talking about the various cities in SoCal that are standing up to Sacramento on SB9--and standing up for their residents, but this is the first "news" piece I have seen from them or any other paper.  Good on 'em.  Redondo Beach, Carson, Torrance and Whittier--none of which I could find on a map if asked--filed a lawsuit against the state and AG Rob Bonta in March.  Deeper into the article we learn that

In June, the cities of Lakewood and Rancho Palos Verdes announced they had filed their own SB9 lawsuit which is similar to that filed by Redondo Beach.  The difference is that Lakewood and Redondo Beach are general law rather than charter cities, leading to slightly different legal arguments.

Double good on them.  B'game is also a general law city as noted on the city website:

The City of Burlingame was incorporated in 1908. As a General Law city, Burlingame is subject to the general laws of the State of California. The State Government code is the fundamental law of the City, specifying the powers and the form of government that will put these powers into service. This is different from a Charter City, which has more control over local municipal affairs. Charter provisions covering municipal affairs prevail over the State laws when the two are in conflict.

I would love to see B'game link up with Lakewood and RPV (which I can find on a map).  We may be at a slight disadvantage being a general law city, but there is Strength in Numbers.  It seems like a lot more important issue than some of what passes for a city council agenda.  That's what leadership looks like.