Category: Schools

  • 30 Ingold Rd. To Get 298 Units

    I'll bet not one in a hundred B'gamers know where Ingold Rd. is.  I didn't.  It's a small street off Rollins just over the train tracks from the Police station, a little south of Guittard Chocolates–which many B'gamers can locate.  When Ingold get a seven story building with 298 residential units built on it you will notice it.  The Daily Journal reports

    The Burlingame Planning Commission gave glowing reviews to the 298-unit proposal at 30 Ingold Road from Summerhill Apartment Communities, during a meeting Monday, April 27.  The discussion marked the first formal examination of the planned seven-story building — which if built would be one of the largest housing developments in Burlingame over recent years.

    Officials are optimistic the area is primed for development due to its proximity to the Millbrae joint Caltrain and BART station.  To that end, Loftis said he believed the project will catalyze further construction on and around Rollins Road.  “I would be disappointed and shocked if there wasn’t something else out there that doesn’t tie into this,” he said.

    Well, I would be disappointed and shocked if the Planning Commission and the City approve anymore monster buildings prior to completing the 5-year update to the Urban Water Management Plan and figuring out where all of the kids in these new buildings are going to go to school.  Exactly which elementary school district is the northern part of Rollins Rd. in?  How much room does it have?  And does any planning commissioner care?  I doubt it.

    IMG_9842

  • School Bonds…And Then There Were 3

    For the first time in more than 20+ years, I've been contemplating whether or not to support a B'game school bond measure (Measure O) and the SMUSHD Measure L.  Over the last 20+ years it's been a no-brainer to vote "yes" and to further support the schools with donations and charity auction donations and bids.  Parcel taxes and bonds for the local schools are the most local taxation we have and local is good.  In reading the full text of Measure O, my concern was the last bullet point on the Project List 

    Workforce housing to increase accessibility for District employees to quality, affordable housing

    I decided to check in with Superintendent Maggie MacIsaac about any housing plans and she brought Board member Davina Drabkin into the conversation.  Davina and I had a good conversation about the pressures the district is feeling to retain staff including credentialed staff in key areas like math.  Here are a couple things that came out of that discussion

    • There is no pre-allocated portion of the $97 million for housing.
    • There are a number of models being tried elsewhere (subsidies, partners, build to suit, etc)
    • The Board included the language in order to be able to spend money on studying the issue
    • Unlike some Districts, B'game doesn't have land available for any sort of build project and is unlikely to be able to buy it

    As a former analyst, I also want to look at the metrics that might point to the severity of the problem, so Maggie was kind enough to provide the teacher turnover (not counting retirements which don't fit the problem) over the last 12 years which are

    • Year        % Certified Staff Turnover
    • 2007/2008             8.7%
    • 08/09                    4.4
    • 09/10                    10.6
    • 10/11                    9.8
    • 11/12                    7.6
    • 12/13                    14.4
    • 13/14                    12.2
    • 14/15                    15.1
    • 15/16                    13.8
    • 16/17                    16.6
    • 17/18                    12.25
    • 18/19                    13.3   

    There are a lot of factors that go into teacher turnover, but you can say there is a slight upward trend to the data.  There are also a number of non-District-driven projects that might address the housing issue– the city project on Lots F&N, the stunning amount of building going on it town with affordable unit components, and the possibilities of additional teacher compensation that might not involve millions of dollars of debt.  Of course, the stunning amount of building will only exacerbate the school budget problem. The real challenge for Measure O and L is that a state Proposition, crazily listed as 13 that I'll just call the New Prop. 13, is also on the ballot for $15 billion.  As the Chronicle reported today

    The largest school bond in state history, at $15 billion, is going to voters in March as supporters try to put a dent in a $100 billion backlog of failing boiler rooms, leaky roofs and new construction projects needed at K-12 schools and universities.

    Proposition 13 — unrelated to the same-numbered 1978 tax measure — was placed on the ballot by the Legislature with bipartisan support.

    Supporters, which include the education establishment as well as the construction industry, would allocate $9 billion to K-12 schools, $4 billion for California’s public universities and $2 billion for community colleges.

    The prospect of voter fatigue is very real– I am hearing it all over town.  So I'm still contemplating how I will vote, but I feel a little better having some information that I didn't have before.  Hopefully you are too.          

  • Arrivederci Fattoria e Mare

    For some in town the Fattoria e Mare property will always be the "Velvet Turtle".  Visitors often ask me "What was the name of that restaurant right by the freeway and Broadway"?  But those days are long gone as will be Fattoria e Mare after a six year run — another relic that provided memories, music and comraderie.  In it's place:

    The Hanover Company is proposing a six-story building replacing the restaurant and adjacent parking garage and tennis court. The development would include 35 studio apartments, 74 one-bedroom apartments, 38 two-bedroom units and three three-bedroom units. Of the 150 units, 15 would be set aside at a moderate rate.

    The project would also provide 195 parking spaces, 175 of which would be accommodated through a stacking system while six would be provided in tandem spaces and 14 would be standard spots. Most of the parking would be in an underground garage.

    Parking concerns were raised at the Planning Commission session along with neighborhood compatibility of a six-story building.  But it passed 4-2.  There's no indication of discussion about where the kids from Anson Apartments (Summerhill), the Adrian Rd. development and now this Hanover project will go.  Hanover adds 194 bedrooms to the mix.

    I'm also wondering which of these Big Four projects (counting the delayed Howard Ave. at Bayswater project) will trigger any major additions to the projected water deficit in town for a three-year drought.  The five year old Urban Water Management Study predicted on page 72  that supply available to Burlingame in multiple dry years is estimated to be reduced to 1,628 MG (year 1) and 1,376 MG (years 2 and 3).  I'm still hunting for why is a third consecutive year is estimated to be the same as the second consecutive year.  Table 6-4 shows demand exceeding supply in such a multi-year drought situation by 21% in 2020 and 30% if it occurs in 2040.  But these estimates predate the latest building boom here and in the rest of the SFPUC water service area.  And that is only for a three year drought.  At least the revision to these plans that is due this year includes a new 8 1/2 year drought scenario.  I'm betting the numbers will be scary to environmentalists and people who drink water.

  • School Funding: Newsom’s Next Budget

    There is a group called Govern For California (GFC) that keeps an eagle eye on where state monies go–and suffice it to say they often point out poor trade-offs and poor policies regarding expenditures.  I like the group a lot and rely on their assessments of various buckets of spending.  School funding is going to be a hot topic in B'game over the next two months as Measure O is on the ballot hoping to raise $97 million in bond money for school facilities and teacher housing.  Before we get into that, here is GFC's latest comments on the Gavinor's 2020-2021 budget proposal

    K-12. At $84 billion, Proposition 98 spending is nearly 70 percent greater than ten years ago and total K-12 spending will exceed $100 billion this year on nearly six million students but student performance has not materially improved and many school districts are in fiscal distress despite record revenues. The causes predate Governor Newsom's tenure but still we are disappointed the governor proposes only to modify bureaucratic Local Control and Accountability Plan (LCAP) forms and to boost training dollars rather than to enact bold reforms that would enable school districts to manage workforces and budgets for the benefit of students.

    90 percent of California's public schools are operated by public employees under an Education Code written by elected officials who have been heavily influenced by public employee unions since 1975. When combined with the centralization of school funding in Sacramento following the passages of Proposition 13 in 1978 and Proposition 98 in 1988, one result has been central control that runs schools chiefly for the benefit of those unions instead of students.

    Also, the Governor's Budget doesn't address easily fixable fiscal distress in school districts such as Sacramento City where, despite record revenues, young teachers are currently being laid off in part because — believe it or not — that district is unnecessarily diverting money from classrooms to subsidize out-of-pocket health costs for retired employees, including retirees covered by Medicare or eligible for Obamacare or new state subsidies for middle-class Californians enacted last year.

    The rough numbers of $100 billion divided by 6 million means spending is about $16,600 per student.  There are multiple sources for state-by-state spending and they vary quite a bit from source to source, so I wouldn't take any of them to the bank for comparison purposes, but they mostly show California in the middle of the pack.  The last Superintendent election didn't go as I had hoped so I'm not sure there will be any progress on most of these allocation issues any time soon.  In the meantime, we can ponder the best way forward for our excellent Burlingame schools, especially with all of the residential construction going on.

  • Santa, I Want a Swimming Pool

    Another long-running B'game saga is coming to a conclusion in the next two weeks as the BHS pool is ready for swimsuits.  Here is your personal invite to the Grand Opening courtesy of the Trustees:

    Be among the first to dive in when the San Mateo Union High School District and City of Burlingame celebrate the Grand Re-opening of the Burlingame High School Aquatic Center: 

    Wednesday, January 8 at 5 p.m.

    Burlingame High School 

     With strong financial support and through a partnership with the City of Burlingame, the San Mateo Union High School District has just completed renovation of the Burlingame High Pool including a new shell, deck and substantial sustainability upgrades.

    It's likely to be chilly at 5pm in two weeks, but go for it anyway.  You can click through to here for what it looked like in January and this is what $6.4 million can do

    BHS pool reno

  • School Bond Vote on the Horizon

    Since I had heard the phone survey was making the rounds in town a few months ago, this piece in the Daily Journal about BSD thinking about going out for a vote in the spring election was expected. 

    Beyond determining whether to call the election, officials must also decide the breadth of the measure as trustees are faced with three cost options — $120 million, $100 million or $97 million, according to a district report.

    Earlier survey results showed 66% of voters would support a bond taxing property owners $25 per $100,000 of assessed property value, while 61% of voters would support a bond taxing $30 per $100,000 of assessed value. Both surveys greater than the 55% threshold required for the tax to pass.

    We talked about the impact of development in town three years ago when the last bond was approved and noted the difference between B'game and my hometown in Massachusetts where the school budget is part of the city budget so there is more Couincil consideration given to school capacity among other things school-related.  The realization that we may have an issue here is slowly coming into focus:

    Citing anticipated housing development throughout the city brought by loosened development regulations, board President Mark Intrieri has said revenue generated by the potential bond could finance acquisition of land to build a new campus.

    Compounding capacity concerns held by officials is district enrollment continuing to tick up organically as officials have noted a trend apart from many other school districts which have seen student population dip over recent years.  A district report illustrated Burlingame schools have taken on almost 200 additional students over the past few years, pushing overall enrollment to 3,511 students.

    If floated and approved, the bond would be the district’s second in recent years, as voters in 2016 approved Measure M, a $56 million bond largely designed to update and renovate aging campuses.

    I'm guessing the bulk of that $56 million went to Hoover and the Washington addition as I think the McKinley addition was earlier.  The DJ notes that the high school district (SMUSHD) is having the same discussion and considering the same spring election for its bond.  I'm not sure I agree with the thinking expressed by BSD folks that two school bond measures on the same ballot is not a cause for concern (if you want them to pass).

  • BHS Student Brings it Home

    With the election in the rear view mirror, we can get back to regular issues.  The Daily Journal has a nice write-up on BHS student Jeffery Chen

    The Burlingame High School senior won first place in the Breakthrough Junior Challenge, receiving a $250,000 college scholarship, $50,000 for his science teacher and $100,000 science lab for his school.  Chen, 17, won the international competition Sunday, Nov. 3, with a three-minute educational video he created about neutrino astronomy, which tracks cosmic events through the capture of galactic particles.

    And with the new science learning space to be built at his school, Chen said he is hopeful to inspire other Burlingame High School students to push the boundaries of their imaginations too.

    This is a welcome antidote to the recent disappointing news about graffiti at BHS and the subsequent arrest of a local young man.  Kudos to Chen.  You can click through to his video here and while you are there check out all of the local B'game background – the Bayfront, the BHS lawn, and the train station at sunset. 

  • Hoover: When an Island Isn’t.

    I happened to drive past the nicely upgraded Hoover School recently.  As the elementary kids start thinking about returning to class, pedestrian (and vehicle) safety will be on people's minds.  Hoover has a bit of a past in this regard which you can read about here from two and a half years ago.

    What caught my eye as year 3 is about to start at Hoover were the tire tracks on the roundabout island right in front.  It seems odd to me that there would be an island that is so easy to drive over.  What's the point really?  Does it engender some false sense of security?  Is it a challenge for thrill-seekers?  Or is it just a poor design?  Seems like if you are going to put in an island, it should really be an island instead of a little sand bar.

    IMG_8451

  • Living Next to 101 and SFO

    I originally missed this big item on the Planning Commission agenda and in the Daily Journal piece.  

    Burlingame officials praised the initial designs of a 265-unit, mixed-use project expected to be the first sizable development constructed in a newly-planned neighborhood.  Burlingame planning commissioners shared their support for the residential and commercial proposal by Summerhill Apartment Communities on the corner of Adrian Court and Adrian Road, according to video of the meeting Monday, May 13.

    The project comprised of two, seven-story towers is likely to be the first housing development in the area around Rollins Road, where officials are seeking to build a new residential hub a short distance from the Millbrae train station.

    For people (like me) steeped in the history of the telecommunications industry, One Adrian Ct. is an historic property being the first "Technical Operating Center" or TOC for the original SP Telecom network that grew out of the Southern Pacific railroad right of way and evolved into Sprint.  The microwave tower is still on site that provided the original transmission facilities that were later replaced by fiber optics.  More importantly, I have to wonder who is looking at the bigger picture.  The DJ goes on to note

    Most of the feedback was similarly positive, but some maintained reservations. One nearby property owner said he feared the traffic and congestion likely invited by the development.

    The initial design with 333 bedrooms includes 315 parking spaces so it is "under-parked" like most recent designs but that figure gives you some sense of the traffic from the residents.  You have to wonder what the impact will be on the very busy intersection that has the In-and-Out burger shack along with other traffic generators.  Another question that should be addressed is which elementary school will the kids go to?  Franklin or Lincoln?  The residents will also get a front-row seat to the runway noise from SFO–maybe this is the noise barrier the rest of us have been longing for?   Yes, I'm being sarcastic.

  • Part 4 — BHS Politics in the Classroom

    We have been following the long-running story of Mr. Nelson's transfer from the BHS faculty to the Aragon faculty for some time.  Here are three prior posts (Parents Uniting for Nelson Parts 1, 2, and 3) here, here and here.  There is extensive commentary on each that would take you an hour or more to catch up on, but in the interest of not having to scroll through it all to see the latest (a platform "feature" that I really dislike), here is Part 4.  I'll quote KRN's comment that reignited the political angle of the issue

    Since my Involuntary Transfer from BHS, the enrollment in AP Government and AP Economics has dropped from 188 students to 124 students.  A loss of 64 seniors which translates to two full sections! (BHS WASC Report)  I know, it was the conservative students who were threatened in class and left on their own.

    I would love a link to that report since that sort of reduction in AP Anything is cause for concern.  He goes on to elaborate at someone's request by noting (and I have edited it down and added some emphasis and links)

    There is (and has been) a real fear of grade and college admissions retaliation by BHS teachers against students and/or families who dared to challenge the "reign of error." (citation to a former closet conservative at BHS)

    When high school students are put down, shamed, or threatened because they hold a conservative and/or right wing political position on a school campus by teachers, then there is a problem. Students and parents should not live in fear of immature teacher retaliation for any reason.

    Tax dollars support all political positions in a high school classroom.

    Students have the right to hold and articulate positions conservative positions on: Rent Control, Minimum Wage, Unions, Immigration, Right to Arms, and a variety of other issues that are in opposition to a majority of students (and faculty) at BHS.

    I get that names of students cannot be named – certainly not here and hopefully not elsewhere.  I also worry that the longer Mr. Nelson is gone from BHS the less pressure there is to have him return as parents who do not know him replace those that do.  He was an asset to my kids' education and as you could see from the news article in Part 2, there are plenty of other students and parents who feel the same.  Playing a waiting game is not really playing and certainly doesn't provide a good example to kids.

The Burlingame Voice

Dedicated to Empowering and Informing the Burlingame Community

RECENT COMMENTS

RECENT POSTS

CATEGORIES

ABOUT THE VOICE

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.

COPYRIGHT NOTICE

All content subject to Copyright 2003-2026