The Burlingame Voice

Desalinized Water: Somebody does something right for a change

Mr. Water here with a bit of good news for a change.  Good news has been in short supply--the well is running very dry, but this week another faceless state bureaucracy did something right for a change.  Here is a bit of the SF Comicle piece about the approval sans all the environment justice equity BS:

A desalination plant proposed for the drought-fatigued Monterey Peninsula was approved Thursday night by the California Coastal Commission.  In the end, the Coastal Commission’s governing board decided that the benefit of a new water supply outweighed the proposal’s downsides.

With a Firm Grip on the Obvious, we read

“It’s clear: I think we’ve heard it over and over again (that) a drought-resistant water supply is necessary,” said commissioner Meagan Harmon, who was on the winning side of the board’s 8-2 vote.

Building on Old Ben Franklin's wisdom; “When the well is dry we know the value of water”

The main sticking point with the proposal was the expense. While Cal Am declined to provide The Chronicle clarity on the plant’s price tag, the company said the investment would require raising customer bills about 50%, from an average $102 per household monthly to about $150.

Of course, some (much?) of that cost may be because of environmental design parameters that will provide a good test case for even more desalinization plants in the future

Instead of using pipes to collect seawater, which puts fish at risk of being sucked up, water would be drawn from wells beneath the floor of the Monterey Bay. Also, the residual brine produced in the desalination process would be treated before being released back into the ocean, preventing the potentially toxic material from harming marine life.

Bayfront: And the beat goes on, and the beat goes on

I didn't have the heart to post on the 1.5 million square foot development on Old Bayshore that is moving ahead.  I think it's centered at the old Gulliver's location.  That's a lot of development pressure on our infrastructure and traffic, but it's not alone.  Here is the Red Roof Inn redevelopment being discussed in the DJ

A proposed bioscience building on the Burlingame Bayfront can be reduced in height from 226 feet, which would be the tallest in the city, but by how much and when is still being decided, the developer told the Planning Commission.

The building is being proposed at the site of the current Red Roof Inn, at 777 Airport Blvd., and commissioners previously had issues with not only its height, but its massing and public amenities.  “Again, we are trading this height limit for public benefit,” Michael Gaul, chair of the Planning Commission, said.

The developing architect, M. Arthur Gensler & Associates Inc. responded to the commission’s height concerns with a 32-foot reduction if their building is approved by January 2023 for a concrete structure, totaling its height to 194 feet. If the developers do not get it approved by this January they will revert to a steel structured building, thus only reducing the building by 14 feet. It would then reach 212 feet making it the second tallest building on the Bayfront by a foot.

This one is also near the wastewater plant and will contribute mightily.  It will be all-electric so expect the grid to be impacted.  And of course, I would be remiss if I did not mention our water situation as shown in the latest Urban Water Management Plan.  What could go wrong?

After the Flush: Another epic government fail?

I was chatting with a regular Voice reader about our various topics, readership in other cities besides B'game (he thinks they exist) and he referred to me a "Mr. Water".  I like that.  It's just a bit narrow, but certainly accurate as far as it goes.  The Comicle has provided fodder for an examination of the other end of our water system--the part after the flush.  The Chron tied its piece to the algae bloom which is interesting and at least partially correct I imagine.  Regardless, here are some tidbits to consider as Planning Commissions, City Councils, County Supes and all the other development addicts go about their business of jamming more people (and their waste) into the Bay Area:

Algae blooms need food to grow, and this one had plenty: nutrients originating in wastewater that the region’s 37 sewage plants pump into the bay.  In other words — we wouldn’t have this problem without the poop and pee of the Bay Area’s 8 million residents.

“For those of you who aren’t aware, when you flush the toilet every day, you’re flushing nutrients down,” Eileen White, executive officer of San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, said at a news conference last week. The waste arrives at the sewage plant and is treated, she explained, but those nutrients — mostly nitrogen and phosphorous — remain in the water that is discharged into the bay.  There has been no evidence of a raw sewage leak; rather, it’s the regular amount of those nutrients that have long made the bay primed for a harmful algae bloom like this one.

The regional water board has told agencies that it will probably require caps on nutrients in wastewater when their regional permit comes up for renewal in 2024. But upgrading dozens of aging treatment facilities could cost $14 billion, which would double or triple ratepayers’ water bills, White said in an interview.

There you have it.  We need another $14 billion, with a "B" that we don't have, to save the bay from ourselves.  The permit clock is ticking down and there is no real plan in place.  If you click through to the Chron article, about half-down is an interactive map of some of the wastewater treatment plants with their discharge rates and nitrogen loads of that discharge.  For example, San Mateo discharges 10.72 million gallons per day with a nitrogen load of 1,300.65 kg/day.  The B'game plant was not included on the map for some reason, but a bit of sleuthing around led to the SF Estuary Institute where we learn that B'game discharged an average of 2.8 MGD back in 2017-18.

We have built a lot of stuff since 2017 and there is a lot more coming --- and thus going.  At least the Rollins Rd. developments are close to the plant.  How many infrastructure failings will it take to stop?  Our sewer rates are already going up 32.7% by 2024, but it sounds like that may not be enough. Tell me again about "affordability".  The final kick in the teeth comes at the end of the Chronicle article

“We’re all in this together. We’re all going to have to pay for this,” Ian Wren, staff scientist at the environmental group SF Baykeeper said. “If you’re OK with that, we’re going to have a better bay.”

Actually, we are not "all in this together".  Many of us have been paying our water/sewer bills for years.  We've already passed bond measures for plants and pipes and figured out how to service them.  Let's let the YIMBYs and the developers kick in for the next round of flush capacity.

RIP: Sea level rise parcel tax

Let's take a moment to reflect on the demise, at least for now, of the County parcel tax that was aimed at funding to protect from sea level rise.  As the Daily Journal reported:

A parcel tax measure meant to back San Mateo County’s climate initiatives won’t appear on the November ballot after officials realized economic uncertainty was causing low polling support for the measure.

“A lot of this is a reflection of where we are with the economy — rising gas prices, inflation, the possibility of a recession. I think people are really concerned,” County Manager Mike Callagy said. “We really hope that someday we’ll be able to bring this back around in better times because these are situations that are not going to get better and are only going to get worse.”

While the Daily Post dug a little deeper and stated it bluntly under the headline "County tax didn't stand a chance;  Poll data shows it would have failed by 11 points".  The Post noted

The tax would have cost property owners 5 cents per square foot annually.  For the owner of a 2,000 square-foot-home, the tax would have cost $100 per year.  Poll respondents did express interest in some of the ideas behind the tax--primarily around reducing the impacts of drought by recycling water and reducing flammable brush.

Translation:  Hey County, please worry about things that are right here, right now and not something that may or may not happen 50 years from now.  Oh, and do it within the huge budget you have now.

Today's Chron has a long piece on "graywater" that you can get from recycling what comes out of the washing machine and your shower.

The technology isn’t new — greywater systems have been around for decades. But experts note that California, a state long familiar with extreme drought, still doesn’t have statewide incentives for people to install systems that can save thousands of gallons of water each year for a family of four.  On a local level, incentives are not robust in the Bay Area either. Santa Clara County offers a $400 rebate through Valley Water, San Francisco offers $225, Contra Costa County and the East Bay Municipal District each offer up to $50, and other counties and water districts offer none at all.

Another benefit: Using greywater means people can continue to grow plants and trees in their yard — which can provide food and shade and support wildlife — rather than ripping them out in the face of water restrictions, advocates said.  But while greywater has been shown to save both water and money, advocates and experts note that it’s faced a number of challenges to more widespread adoption over the years.

It goes on to discuss the permit process and costs, the lack of experienced installers, whether the water utilities really want us to do it and a general lack of public awareness -- all things the County could actually work on within the bounds of its current budget and staff.  In the meantime, we have a little respite from yet another parcel tax.

Local real estate update - The Ups & Downs

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

On the assessed property value side, the DJ is reporting

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

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

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

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

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

You knew where that was headed, right?

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?

Water restrictions move to Stage 2

Here's the latest addition to the I Told You So file.  B'game is joining the movement to Stage 2 water restrictions while simultaneously approving ever more new construction--residential and commercial.  The DJ reports that

The City Council adopted the restrictions following a call from state water regulators for local suppliers to enact plans preparing for impending water shortages.  The rules, effective June 10, prohibit “residential and commercial landscapes” from being watered more than two days per week, and between 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. Washing vehicles is also banned, except for with recycled water.

I'm not sure where you are going to get "recycled water" with enough pressure behind it to actually wash a car, but good luck.  Here's the big red flag for future restrictions

Meanwhile, Hetch Hetchy, the reservoir that supplies water to 2.7 million people in San Francisco, Santa Clara, Alameda and San Mateo counties, is expected to be full heading into the dry season next year despite below-average snowpack levels, according to the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, the agency that owns and operates the system. The question is how much of the water will be available, as negotiations continue that could partially divert it to ecosystems and fisheries in the Bay-Delta, among other uses.

Burlingame Public Works Director Syed Murtuza noted “There will be a lot of staff time dedicated to this effort to conduct inspection, do outreach and respond to complaints.”

It might be good to come up with an answer to the question "Why are we building all this new 'stuff'?" as staff conducts inspections and does outreach.  And we probably should understand why we are going to underwater our trees when the city Urban Water Management Plan tells us there isn't going to be much of a problem even in a five-year drought.

June 17 update.  You probably got a postcard from the city yesterday about the annual water quality report:  www.burlingame.org/waterquality.  Did you notice the license plate on the sweet '68 Camaro?  SAVEH2O   LOL.

A Guy Can Dream, Can't He?

May 11th update--Water usage is up.  Maybe people don't take the drought seriously because all they see around them is new construction and approvals for even more?

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.