The Burlingame Voice

Cooling center in Burlingame

We live an an unsettling time where nothing is the way we expect. Yesterday and today we've broken temperature records for this time of year. In year's past however those of us who are not blessed with air conditioning or swimming holes could rely on cooling centers like the public library. ( Why our library could not be open as a cooling center even with today's challenges is a sore point with me, but I don't want to rant and rave today, it's simply too hot.) What I would rather do is remind everyone that there is a reliable cooling center in Burlingame that is always open and can easily accommodate social distancing. It's our extensive bay front. I took my lawn chair and a cooler and went there on both days. The cooling effect was not as great as a dip in a cold pool or not akin to being surrounded by cool air from the AC, but it was a respite of sorts and somehow looking at the water in the bay had the intended cooling effect. At some points along the bay front trail there were, like me, those who just wanted to enjoy the breeze and the view, others could be seen in the water and on the beach, yes a beach in Burlingame--not a particularly pretty one,(the scene reminded me of something from behind the iron curtain,) but yeah it was a beach and it was giving pleasure to a number of people. In short, in these strange times, we can rely on something, small as it is. Consider this a positive public service reminder that we who live in Burlingame can enjoy the bay anytime we want and it's right in our own backyards.  

Bay Area Exodus? How Big? How Long?

A lot of the fire, heat and policy-making on the Peninsula lately has  been driven by the belief that we will be adding more of...well, everything.  Except perhaps affordable, local entertainment.  Rent control.  Affordable housing.  Mass transit.  High density.  Subsidized X, Y, Z and back to A.  ADU's.  UBI.  Free lunch.  What if it's all just BeeEss?

You can find polls and surveys to support or contradict any position you choose.  But you can't deny the fact of open market pricing.  Not the engineered, subsidized, hidden-cost stuff like renewable energy.  I'm talking the "walk into a place of business and get a price quote" response.

Here's the "walk-in" price that caught my eye this week.  A friend of a friend is moving to Portland.  I know, I know--really? Now?  He's got remote work status until..... who knows when.  She can transplant her practice anywhere.  All that aside, the cost to rent a truck to move your stuff yourself to Portland today is $2,500.  The price to rent the same truck in Portland to drive to the Bay Area is.......wait for it, $300.  If I gave you my special 20 minute How-to-Negotiate class, I'll bet you could get them to pay you $300 to bring the truck back for them.  It would cover gas, lunch and the Golden Gate bridge toll.

Will the exodus continue?  Yes.  Will it last more than a couple years?  Maybe.  Will it reverse within the next five?  Doubtful.  I'm glad I'm not all-in on a high-density, all-electric$$, bird cage with a minuscule courtyard, 6' x 6' elevators and no balcony that I will need to sell for $650,000 to break even.  The old saying "don't fight the Fed" only applies if you have to get in the ring.

Plenty of SF Office Space Available

If you are like me, B'game is the center of your universe.  It's also pretty much the geographic center of the "Bay Area".  I use the quotation marks because "Bay Area" sometimes refers to some pretty distant places--all the way to the Delta.  But from where we sit, the two biggest commercial centers-  EssEff and Silicon Valley--bookend us precisely.  The Wall Street Journal is keeping an eye on commercial space in both places and the headline is San Francisco's Office Market Cools as Startups Retreat.  Here are a couple of data points

For the past decade, San Francisco has outshined Silicon Valley in attracting new technology firms, entrepreneurs and younger employees, who tend to prefer the city’s lifestyle and attractions to the suburbs.  (Note:  we shall see how long that lasts)

Now, that trend shows signs of reversing. Office demand has been falling in both markets, as the coronavirus pandemic, slowing economy and the early success of work from home have caused firms to reconsider office use. But San Francisco landlords have suffered more than their Silicon Valley counterparts in nearby cities such as Palo Alto, Menlo Park and Santa Clara.

Commercial real-estate firm CBRE Group Inc. said the volume of tenants looking for space has fallen about 56% in San Francisco, compared with about 32% in Silicon Valley, between the end of February and the end of May.  San Francisco now has the highest sublease availability in the country, with about 30% of the available space in the city being listed by tenants, according to data firm CoStar Inc.  “It’s likely sublease space will continue to flood the market in the year ahead,” CoStar said in a report.

The piece goes on to make the point that Silicon Valley is more stable due to less reliance on startups and more on larger companies with better balance sheets.  My limited chats with people working for Valley companies jives with the market chatter that says "Hey, this working at home thing is pretty good".  I think the trend is solid and will result in some changes to the B'game residential profile.  More on that in the coming week. 

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.

Bayfront Prediction - 48 Inches of Rise?

The SF Chronicle broke up the pandemic news with a front page piece about the local effects of sea level rise.

The study was led by the Bay Conservation and Development Commission, which released its first detailed look at sea level rise in 2007. But the autonomous state agency was joined in this effort by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and the Bay Area Regional Collaborative. Caltrans funded most of the $1.2 million study, which bears the unwieldy title, “Adapting to Rising Tides Bay Area: Regional Sea Level Rise Vulnerability and Adaptation Study.”

The full report analyzes scenarios for 10 different extremes of “total water levels,” a term that would apply to straightforward higher tides — day in and day out — as well as storm surges layered on top of higher tides. They range from 12 to 108 inches.  But much of the emphasis is on a raised water level of 48 inches, a number that corresponds to the “likely” amount of sea level rise forecast in the Bay Area for 2120 by the California Ocean Protection Council.

This part caught my eye as we are enjoying a slightly quieter SFO although two nights ago was still quite bad

The findings go beyond large-scale numbers to highlight specific aspects of the approaching threat to how the region functions.

• Runways at San Francisco and Oakland airports would be largely under water.

It's fun to wander around the internet looking at various studies.  This one is pretty short and leads to the factoid that

The current sea level rise is 3 mm/year.  The data from the past can also be used for future projections, using a so-called semi-empirical model calibrated with the historically observed relationship between temperature and sea level. With the new data, this results in a projected increase in the 21st century of 24-131 cm, depending on our emissions and thus on the extent of global warming.

Keep in mind, the highest-water mark of 131cm is 51 inches or close to the "most likely" 48 inch rise in the Bay Area study.  You will have to decide if using the highest prediction is an April Fool's joke or not.

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.

Beach and Colson are victorious

After 30 years in the forecasting business (albeit in tech, not politics) I was pleased to see that my pre-election prediction was pretty much on the nose.  I believed that the top 2 would be razor close and the differential for third position would be 1,000 votes.  I only have a few witnesses to my call, but who cares?  Here are the 9:30 pm results from this year's city council election which are virtually identical to the 8:05 pm results.  I expect very little change when the last few votes are counted.  UPDATE:  Nov. 19 Semi-official results added below:

                                            Election Night                    Nov. 19 Semi-Official

Emily Beach          3,165        38.64%                4.045        38.28%

Donna Colson        3,042        37.13%                3,830        36.24%

Mike Dunham         1,985        24.23%                2,693        25.48%

As I noted here when I endorsed Colson and Beach after interviewing all three candidates, having an election is a very important community event.  Letting incumbents walk in for another term unopposed without engaging the community is not healthy.  So Mike Dunham gets another tip of the hat for taking on the challenge.  He did fairly well all considered; riding his team's community activism, the usual undercurrent of "throw the bums out" and a decent amount of fundraising.  He raised $22K and spent $15K which begs the question of what else might have added to his total aside from walking neighborhoods and making phone calls?  As of two weeks ago Colson had spent $21.7K and Beach spent $26K and there were no last minute pushes so this really (really!) was not about the money.

Texting with Mike tonight for his thoughts on the race, here is what he had to add

From a policy point of view, one thing that was very apparent talking to voters is that almost no one is happy about the new Facebook campus coming to Burlingame, and I suspect that the full consequences of the Council's dramatic upzoning of the Bayfront for purely commercial development are going to be similarly unpopular. The Burlingame Point project was able to get its approvals during the wake of a recession, but will the next several large office projects bringing thousands of jobs and zero homes to the city sail through as easily? In my mind, what happens to the Bayfront in the next 5-10 years is by far the most important set of decisions for the future of Burlingame and whether we can hold onto any of our rapidly disappearing middle class.

In the end, Beach and Colson had track records, organizations and deep community roots that are the cornerstones of successful local campaigns.  Kudos to both and we will see if the challenger's sentiments weave their way into the discussions in City Hall.

Bond Disclosures and Sea Level Rise

As I was reading yesterday's WSJ article about coastal cities decrying the impending sea level rise on one hand and essentially ignoring the risk in their municipal bond disclosures, I flashed on the B'game bayfront and the bonds we are about to issue for the Rec Center rebuild.  The Journal article notes

The Government Accountability Institute undertook a yearlong study of 40 major cities to find out if mayors’ apocalyptic projections about climate risks are factored into the interest rates on the municipal bonds their cities issue. The results revealed a gulf between the words municipal leaders speak and the disclosures cities make. There was no statistically significant difference in the interest rates for bonds issued by cities in high-risk locations for climate-change devastation versus those issued by low-risk cities.

The study also found scant mention of climate change in bond disclosure documents. The disclosure statements of the 20 at-risk cities totaled 4,361 pages. Phrases like “climate change” and “sea-level rise” appeared fewer than 100 times across all 20 at-risk cities in the context of the issues addressed in this study. Further, 12 out of the 20 disclosures for at-risk cities did not mention climate language in the same context.

When they got to discussing Oakland, it felt very close to home indeed since our sea level is their sea level

Worse, “by 2050, a ‘100-year flood’ in the Oakland vicinity is expected to occur on average once every 2.3 years and by 2100 to occur 44 times per year or almost once per week.” The lawsuit added that “Oakland is projected to have up to 66 inches of sea level rise by 2100.” The city alleged this would “imminently threaten Oakland’s sewer system” and harm property with a “total replacement cost of between $22 and $38 billion.”

Contrast that detailed, dramatic language with Oakland’s bland, measured 2017 bond risk disclosure to investors: “The City is unable to predict when seismic events, fires or other natural events, such as sea rise or other impacts of climate change or flooding from a major storm, could occur, when they may occur, and, if any such events occur, whether they will have a material adverse effect on the business operations or financial condition of the City or the local economy.”

That looks like an "oopsy" to me.  Which is it?  Is Oakland 30 years from disaster on a semi-annual basis which for a major port city would be a financial Titanic or are they unable to predict any of this?  We will have to have our local bond expert(s) weigh in on the B'game disclosures of same.

Election 2019: Vote Colson and Beach

It is important that we have elections at the local level.  Candidates, incumbents and challengers alike, need to have the forum and walking around time to make their case to the public and for the public to provide input in a way that doesn't happen as much in non-election periods.  So challenger Mike Dunham is to be commended for throwing his hat in the ring against two strong incumbents--Donna Colson and Emily Beach.  He had to know it would be an uphill climb from the start, but as far as I can see he has mounted a credible campaign knocking on doors, doing debates and getting his points of view known.  While this race isn't as crowded as in the past as Russ noted here, it's still a race.

I have had one-on-one interviews with all three candidates and took copious notes at the Candidates' Night on Sept. 18th.  I discussed one issue that had a difference of opinion between the incumbents and challengers - pot dispensaries in town here.  But clearly the big area of difference is housing in town -- how much, how "affordable", how soon and where it should be built.  Ten of the twenty questions at the Candidates' Night were housing related.  If I boil it all down, the difference is that the incumbents believe they have enacted enough change via the General Plan update setting guidelines for 3,000 new units, the Lot F&N project, and developer fees to grow our housing stock as fast as is feasible.  The challenger, Mike Dunham, believes not enough is being done (e.g. "cities have failed to do their jobs") and the job:housing ratio is way out of balance; he believes it should be 1.5:1.  He said he would be fine with us not building anything on the Bayfront, but now that the General Plan has opened Pandora's Bayfront box we should also be adding housing on the Bayfront.

No regular Voice reader will be surprised to hear that I'm less enamored with adding housing than even the two incumbents.  I foresee issues with school classroom capacity, police and fire responsiveness, traffic congestion, and water supply reliability.  There are probably other deleterious impacts, but that is enough for now.  Mike Dunham has some positions that could ameliorate the problems-- adding a "head tax" on large employers adding more employees, building dense mixed-use projects downtown that he believes millennials like better, rent control, and making more street parking subject to residential parking permits.  He also suggested acknowledging that sea-level rise on the Bayfront is inevitable so we should just plan on abandoning some of that property in forty years since defending the turf will be too expensive.  In my opinion, some of these would work better than others and some are just plain counter-productive, but the issue is whether any will ever really happen?

I have to balance all of that with the incumbents' track records.  The city is pretty well run fiscally, decisions are transparent (which was not always the case 20+ years ago on the city council) and Colson and Beach are certainly approachable, available and energetic.  They also comport themselves in a professional manner.  One of the reasons I wait to make my recommendations is to see if other information becomes available, and a commenter on the first election post brought to our attention a May 2018 post by Mike Dunham that fails the professionalism criteria in my opinion.  Mike chose to have "no comment" on it when I asked him about it which is his prerogative, but when in office a politician has to own his or her actions.

When all is said and done, I will be voting for the two incumbents.  We collectively know a lot more about them than we did four years ago and both Donna and Emily have demonstrated commendable skills and energy in office.  I'm very glad we have had a wide-ranging debate over the last several months to reinforce my perspective.  You have two more weeks to register your opinion at the ballot box.

Election Issues: Pot Dispensaries; Yea or Nay?

At the City Council candidates' forum that Russ reminisced about here, there were 20 questions asked of all three candidates.  One benefit of having a small slate is that every candidate responded to every question.  I'm working through the themes of the night with an eye toward the questions that illuminated differences between the candidates.  That is not as easy as it might sound.  One question that elicited a different response from the incumbents and the challenger was #9 about having marijuana dispensaries in town (specifically at the Bayfront) although I think the questioner really meant the industrial section of Rollins Rd rather than the Bayfront.  The potential city revenue was also mentioned in the question.

Both incumbents, Emily Beach and Donna Colson, put pot dispensaries pretty far down their list of priorities and thought we should "go slow".  Mayor Colson noted the use of pot among high school students already and that Rollins/Bayshore is soon to be a new, residential neighborhood.  The challenger, Mike Dunham, took a different approach.  He noted that he didn't think of it as a revenue issue, but rather that since 63% of B'gamers had voted to legalize it then it should be allowed to be dispensed.  He also noted the preponderance of 40-60 year olds using it for chronic pain.  Since the forum, Mike Dunham and I have had a one-to-one interview and the issue came up again--this time in the context of the eternal question "What do we do about Broadway?"  Mike's thinking is that a dispensary on B'way would drive traffic and benefit all of the merchants and restaurants on the street.

As luck would have it, the day before my interview with Mike Dunham I was a guest of the CEO and the Chief Strategy Officer of Caliva for a tour of the San Jose facility where they grow, package and sell/distribute all sorts of THC and CBD products.  I worked with both individuals in the tech industry for years and now they are onto something entirely different that I found eye-opening.  I'll just mention a couple of points pertinent to the Burlingame question of allowing or disallowing a dispensary.  First, it very well could be a revenue issue.  Caliva is one of the very top sales tax payers in San Jose--and SJ is big town.  At the candidate forum, question 19 asked about "affordability" and the continually escalating sales taxes (like Measure I that we addressed here).  There are more taxes coming from the state, the county and the schools on every ballot.  So the money does matter.

The foot traffic into Caliva was continuous while I was there at midday.  The CEO indicated they get between up to 1000 walk-ins per day even though they make more than 1,000 deliveries per day.  That last point is also pertinent to the B'game decision.  B'gamers already have delivery options from Caliva or Eaze among others, but a retail space allows for an informed sales staff to help particularly with the CBD wellness, pain relief, anxiety relief side of the story.  CVS was offering some CBD oils in store, but that relationship was quelled by the feds and CVS customers did not have the benefit of an informed sales staff there anyway.  The issue of a dispensary in town, yea or nay?, probably isn't enough to swing one's city council vote either way, but it does show some of the thinking of the three candidates.  Here is the Caliva location in an industrial section next to a recycling facility in San Jose.