Dedicated to Empowering and Informing the Burlingame Community

Whoops. It’s July 1st, not April 1st. I am just wishfully rewriting the Daily Journal’s Monday headline that read “New housing sees decline throughout the Peninsula“. In the online edition, the angst gets turned up a notch with the headline “New housing on the Peninsula has plummeted“. Readers are treated to some data about completed unit numbers declining in San Mateo, Redwood City and South San Francisco. Same in Foster City and EPA. No mention of B’game probably because we keep building, building, building. Some pithy quotes follow:

“No one wants to do ground-up multifamily right now,” said Stephen Couig, founder of Center Street Lending, which provides financing to projects throughout the country, including the Bay Area. “It’s pure economics. The cost to build has completely outrun what it will bear in rent and what it will bear in sales,” Mounir Kardosh, owner and founder of San Mateo-based Nazareth Enterprises, said.

Between May 2025 to May 2026, countywide rents increased by 6% to $3,368 across all unit types, according to data from Zumper and Apartment List. That’s still not enough growth for lenders to underwrite loans for multiunit housing due to stubbornly high inflation, keeping interest rates and 10-year treasury yields elevated.

A recent report from the San Francisco Controllers Office analyzed costs for different development scenarios. The findings showed that none of them would be financially feasible if they adhered to the city’s inclusionary zoning policies — rules requiring market-rate projects to have a certain amount of affordable units — which are also in place throughout the Peninsula. Each model was “significantly worse than the same models in the 2023 study,” the April 2026 report said.

Well, “worse” is a value judgement, but more immediately perhaps this respite will lead to the realization that the premise is wrong and getting “wronger” each year. Trying to jam “stack and pack” housing as in-fill on super desirable, pricy land with the “inclusionary” handcuffs and insufficient parking on developers won’t fly. Oddly enough, the same DJ front page has a Calmatters piece about California Forever–the billionaire-funded shiny new city targeted for Suisun City. Going back to the Nazareth guy:

“From the bank’s perspective, why would they lend to me?” Kardosh said. “They could lend to someone in Waco, Texas, instead. They’re not chasing for projects.”

Or at least Suisun City. How about the Sacramento crowd green lights California Forever and retires the fake RHNA numbers that are at the root of the disconnect between economic reality, neighborhood security and planners trying to maintain some sense of a city or town’s character? That would be a fair deal.

Posted in , ,

5 responses to “Neighborhoods see respite throughout the Peninsula”

  1. Phinancier

    We may be the exception to the rule for the reasons Bruce Dickenson and Grace mentioned on the other post. An extra 300 bucks a square may make projects pencil out in Burlingame where they wouldn’t elsewhere. So we are double penalized for having a delightful city with good schools and amenities. The nicer the town the bigger the risk.

  2. Paloma Ave

    A small house on my street recently listed at 1.798, just sold for 2.340. That works out to 2294 a square foot!

  3. Bruce Dickinson

    Yes agree, as mentioned above, the premium rent that can be charged in Burlingame probably still makes these projects viable, but Bruce Dickinson thinks it is far less compelling today vs pre-Covid. Joe, I know you’ve been adeptly articulating these issues for years, and while it may take time, all the problems are now coming home to roost. Leave it to government to really muck things up, California-style!

    Cities like Burlingame really did bear the brunt of the nonsense. Because of the RHNA, cities like Burlingame give other places like Portola Valley, Hillsborough, Atherton a free ride because we take the housing allocation that they don’t take as part of the ABAG “negotiations” that occur. And if we don’t take it, because we’re a small city, California threatens to sue the city for not “complying” thereby rendering the cost of a successful litigation challenge to be prohibitive. Bruce Dickinson would be in big favor of a consortium of like-minded cities, eg a Burlingame, San Mateo, Belmont, San Carlos, Menlo Park etc focused on quality of life (especially as pertains to housing that we don’t necessarily need given we are already 52% multifamily) and tired of having to subsidize free ridership of other cities or counties for that matter (eg Marin).

    The State is learning the hard way that you can’t really force economics that don’t make sense! Someone will have to pay!

  4. Joe

    More government mucking it up, California-style from the Comicle:

    In a dramatic move, California housing officials have ruled that Brisbane is no longer in compliance with state housing laws, a determination that strips the small city south of San Francisco of its local land-use control and makes it ineligible for certain state funds. Baylands, a 660-acre redevelopment that could eventually create more than 2,000 homes, straddles the San Francisco-Brisbane border, also accounts for about 50% of the city’s low-income housing goals.

    With the ruling that it is no longer in compliance with state housing element law, Brisbane is now subject to the “builder’s remedy,” which strips local governments of their power to reject housing projects, allowing developers to bypass local zoning and general plan rules.

    The redevelopment, which includes the former Schlage Lock manufacturing facility, is slated to include nearly 4,000 homes, 6.5 million square feet of commercial space, 90 acres of solar panels and 140 acres of parks.

    The city said the project includes an extraordinarily complex set of requirements, including approval of a landfill closure and site remediation plan, as well as coordination with the California High-Speed Rail Authority regarding its planned Light Maintenance Facility.
    ———————————
    Sure, now just turn it over to whatever “builder” can come forward with a “remedy”. What a mess. 4,000 homes and 6.5M ft2 of commercial—water, grid, schools, police and fire? Just wiggle your nose, Brisbane.

  5. The Feds just passed a bill to help this out, as described in the Guy Lion article here:
    https://medium.com/@gaetanlion/can-the-road-to-housing-act-resolve-the-housing-supply-crisis-25cc513b549d?source=friends_link&sk=ca11052a36f2c197f98d3e0262dc52e5
    However, part of that article points out: there is no housing crisis – and justifies that statement.

Leave a Reply


The Burlingame Voice is dedicated to informing and empowering the Burlingame community.  Our blog is a public forum for the discussion of issues that relate to Burlingame, California.  Opinions posted on the Burlingame Voice are those of the poster and commenter and not necessarily the opinion of the Editorial Board.  Comments are subject to the Terms of Use.


All content subject to Copyright 2003-2026

Discover more from The Burlingame Voice

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading