The Burlingame Voice

EV Chargers: On the blink in Lot Y

The bloom is off the EV market for a variety of reasons.  Unit growth is slowing dramatically.  Now that early adopters have made their purchases, the mainstream buyers' reluctance to go all-electric is hitting home hard with car companies, parts suppliers, battery factories and infrastructure players.  A number of EV start-ups will likely go bankrupt by summer according to the WSJ analysis and the big manufacturers are losing their rear bumpers on every sale.  Some to the tune of more than a $100,000 loss per sale!  Ironically, sales of high-end gas pickups and SUVs are propping up companies' EV divisions!

Range anxiety is one of the key causes of EV reluctance--and it is helping the hybrid market accordingly.  My only experience with a Tesla rental drove that anxiety home as I got about half of what the range gauge estimated.  Paying the supercharger rate wasn't dramatically cheaper than gas in the state I rented in.  Heightening range anxiety is charger malfunctions and vandalism (stealing the copper filler wire for scrap value).  Malfunctions are a national problem (estimated to be one in five) and very much a local issue as reported by the DJ this weekend:

In Burlingame’s Broadway District, continued issues with its electric vehicle charging stations are inconveniencing businesses and residents alike, Broadway Burlingame Business Improvement District president John Kevranian said.   A representative for EVgo, which owns and operates the six fast-charging electric vehicle stations located at 1133 Chula Vista Ave., confirmed that five of the six stations have likely been out of operation at times for a couple of months. One has been out of operation for weeks, she said.

Now, however, eight parking spots in the tightly packed Broadway District have become largely nonfunctional.   “This is the holiday season, too. It’s crucial these work during the holiday season. If EVgo is not going to repair them, maybe they can cover the stations, and use them as public parking,” Kevranian said.

John is on-the-money with the idea of covering a charger if it is broken so everyone could see that they can use the space.  Given they don't have meters, it would be a freebie, too. The sad part is that EVgo cannot keep chargers working that only went live in 2019, as we noted here.  The DJ piece notes that EVgo may not be complying with the city contract.  I'd say that is a safe bet, but did we negotiate any performance penalties?  Usage in Lot Y ramped up pretty slowly as we noted here, but random outages are likely to stunt future usage.  Anxiety is bad for business.

Treehugger Update: Cheap at double the price

This is a treehugger post of a different species.  Instead of celebrating our amazing City of Trees foliage as usual, we are left to decide what is the right price to cut down a mature tree.  The new ordinance is still in progress as the DJ notes

The updated draft ordinance would include increased replacement standards, according to the staff report, as well as the incentivization of native tree planting.  The city has yet to finalize a fee schedule for in-lieu fee amounts for those who do not replace removed trees, Richard Holz, parks superintendent and city arborist said, but similar fees in Sacramento are set to $325 per one inch of Diameter Standard Height of tree removed.

Those relatively high fees would cover the cost of staff time and effort to plant trees elsewhere in the city.  “It’s not meant to be punitive, this is just what the actual cost would be for our staff to establish a tree somewhere else, if you are not going to comply with the ordinance and plant a tree on your own property,” he said.

I don't think paying less than $4,000 to cut down a one-foot diameter tree and not "replacing" it is a "relatively high fee" at all.  In fact, I would like to see it be double that since I doubt $4K covers nearly all the costs of having city staff source it, transport it, plant it and track all this work just to get a 24' or 36" box tree somewhere else that doesn't replace a one to four foot wide mature tree.  And of course, one of the driving forces behind this is Sacramental authoritarianism as discussed

In previous conversations, councilmembers discussed the city’s limited ability to deny tree removals for projects like accessory dwelling units or Senate Bill 9 housing, which have state-mandated zoning requirements.

Crank up the density and cut down the neighborhood trees--remind me again about how important net-zero carbon emissions and carbon capture are.

City Hall: Assessing the structure

We touched on the move to replace our City Hall four months ago here and since then more details have been released on the state of the building.  Here are some of the key points from a presentation to the city council on Sept. 3rd.:

• City Hall was built to the seismic standards of the time (1969) - Estimate is $10M
• Mechanicals are beyond their useful life and parts availability is challenging (related asbestos issues estimated at $600K)
• ADA accessibility is an issue
• No fire sprinklers and inadequate fire alarm system
• Lighting and electrical upgrades to current standards - estimated at $1.5M
• The original roof is still on and being patched - replacement estimate $500K plus asbestos work

All of that is compounded by an estimated 20% growth in the space needed plus some better meeting room space although this could be handled by a satellite, leased office.  The five-year total is $16M and grows to $35M over the next decade.  The idea square footage would be between 6,000 and 14,000 ft² larger than the current space.

Should the city choose to do the repairs and upgrades, it estimates about three years of temporary employee relocation.  That sounds like an optimistic guess to me looking at how long everything takes.  The real challenge is how to pay for either approach (fix vs. lease vs. build).  The current central location is excellent which is an intangible that is hard to value--and harder to replace.  There's no easy answer here even if one has a fix-it mindset.

Topgolf: Is the cash cow running low on milk?

We noted the news that Callaway and Topgolf were looking to get a divorce here on the last Topgolf post.  I didn't fully catch that the financial struggles were on the Topgolf side instead of the equipment (Callaway) side, but a WSJ piece lays it all out.  The entertainment center business (i.e. the hi-tech driving range) is good--just not quite as good as it has been.  There are big hopes in City Hall that Topgolf will drive serious tax revenue allowing the city to shoot for the green with a smooth pitch and sink some long putts.  But.....

Serious golfers are reliably showing up on golf courses, spending money on their equipment and golf balls. But recreational players are no longer as keen on shelling out some $70 an hour on a driving range for fun these days.  Lately, the Topgolf business has been hit hard by slowing consumer spending. Same-venue sales fell 8% in the second quarter from a year earlier, the fourth consecutive quarter of declines. The sales drop was even worse for big-group events because of “corporate belt-tightening,” according to the company.  (Ed:  think Westin, Hyatt, Marriott).

The company initially thought that visitors to Topgolf would become newbie golfers who might seek out its products after trying them out at those venues, which carry Callaway equipment. As it turns out, hitting a few balls at a recreational driving range isn’t enough to convert people into Callaway faithful.

The steeper price tag might be one contributor: In its location in Edison, N.J., for example, it costs about $155 to reserve one bay for a two-hour session during peak hours. And that doesn’t include food or drinks. Topgolf is trying out different ways to lure customers, including variable pricing, tweaks to its promotions and adding concerts and live DJ nights.

Here's the bottom line

Topgolf itself isn’t a lousy business—it is profitable and generated a 15.5% margin on the basis of earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization last year. Its top line grew at a healthy 27% compound annual growth rate between 2021 and 2023 before the recent slowdown, and it still has a long runway of new locations. (Ed: especially our little B'game location).  It will, however, first need to prove that it can bring customers back after the first handful of visits.

Now, let's chat about those "DJ nights".  I never went to the movie nights at the old driving range during Covid, but I recall they did draw a bit of a crowd to Boringame.  What's the curfew policy these days on the Bayfront?

Top Golf: Rounding the turn?

I stopped by the Golf Center (aka the old city dump) to check on the progress of the Top Golf project.  My completely uneducated guess is they are about to round the turn.  In golf "the turn" is an expression used to denote the part of the golf course where the front nine turns into the back nine. When you've reached "the turn," you've reached the halfway point of an 18-hole golf course. So "making the turn" means leaving the front nine and moving on to the back nine.  It's been more than five years in the works as noted here.

It's an impressive build and the number of poles surprised me.  One can only hope it generates as much B'game revenue as some city elders are predicting.  The sooner the better!  Here's the view as of now.

Whither City Hall?

I underestimated how many people have noticed (complained?) about the possibility of a new City Hall being considered during a time of tight finances.  The Daily Journal did a piece on it a couple weeks ago and since then, it has been the second most common complaint after the California Dr. reconfiguration.  Who knew that many people are paying attention?  The DJ writes

Burlingame’s City Council is taking next steps toward a new City Hall, approving commercial real estate broker CBRE to identify commercial real estate within the city that could work for a new space.  Burlingame has been exploring options for a new City Hall location since 2023 — hiring architectural firm Group 4 Architecture for a space-needs and cost estimate and real estate advisor Keyser Marston Associates to review existing city-owned property.

But hiring a real estate advisor doesn’t mean any decisions are a “done deal,” Councilmember Michael Brownrigg emphasized at the May 6 meeting, adding that the need for a new City Hall should be better explained to the public.

By my reckoning, Michael Brownrigg has that right.  When I sat through the budget study session recently, he was the first councilor to highlight the drop in the Unassigned Fund Balance from $7.7M to zero dollars in the proposed budget.  Don't hold me to the exact number, but that was what I jotted down off the Zoom call.  Here are the details for what's next:

CBRE will look into Burlingame’s available commercial real estate, representing the city in negotiating transaction terms if the city prefers existing commercial office space, according to a staff report detailing the two-year agreement.  The brokerage group will receive a commission on any purchase or lease agreement, and will be paid $70,000 if no lease, purchase or lease-to-purchase transaction is completed, the staff report said.

From my conversations, the first thing that is needed is a statement of what is wrong with the existing facility.  Having spent a fair amount of time in there over the last 30 years, it ain't great, but it's not terrible either.  Maybe we should have made the new Rec Center a little larger.

Bumpingame: Taking the car out of Carmelita Ave.

One way to get people griping less about California Ave. is to roll out another project unpopular with drivers.  While the aversion to the California conversion is on-going (just mention it at the grocery store!), the multitude of new speed bumps on Carmelita east and west of ECR is jarring drivers' senses--and common sense.  A review of the accident history via the Crimegraphics tracker on the city website doesn't yield nearly enough incidents to cause speed bumps to multiply like rabbits there.  Is the city trying to take the "car" out of Carmelita Ave.?  Shall we rename it Melita Ave.--a main thoroughfare from H'borough to Bumpingame?

The Sunday SF Comicle had a front-page piece titled Drivers feel under siege with S.F. limits.  It described some senior drivers' anxiety over the navigational mazes being implemented as "improvements".  It's more than just banning cars on Market St. or so-called "Slow streets".  And it's not just in EssEff.  I like to pick up the pink Financial Times (of London) sometimes and was amazed to see a Letter to the Editor from a guy in Oakland under the headline Why the nanny state is partly to blame for US road carnage!  He writes:

Meanwhile, endless reconfiguration of America's streets and pavements by traffic engineers who dream of "Amsterdam in Santa Monica" has cluttered once open roadways with mountains of superfluous signage and millions of plastic bollards; new parking arrangement, often in the middle of the street, bicycle paths switched to different lanes every other corner; and elevated bulbs wherever possible--all designed to slow traffic under the guise of creating bike and bus-friendly streets.

The addition of all this visual noise impedes every driver's view, making it ever harder to see that bicycle or pedestrian while elevating the stress.  Alas, too many American drivers have reacted to these safety-related distractions and stressors by developing the habits of road rage.

So don't just blame the culture of freedom that Americans enjoy for the roads mayhem.  At least some fault is due to the nanny state at work, killing us softly with safety enhancements.

George P Csicsery

Zala Films, Oakland, CA, US

My guess is Mr. Csicsery has been to Bumpingame recently.  My wishlist is to take out at least half of the new speed bumps on Melita Ave. and put a moratorium on any more as well as on the cheesy plastic bollards and floppy mid-crosswalk signs that are already looking beat after just a few weeks.  Then bank the money to pay for another police officer to catch scofflaw drivers.  While we're at it, let's check what all of these "improvements" are doing to police, fire and ambulance response times.....

Hat tip to a local wag for the name Bumpingame.

EV charging ahead with preferred parking spots at Walgreens

The news is all pointing to a deceleration in EV sales as car companies' losses per EV pile up and consumers start to really question the benefits of going electric.  People who don't worry about the high initial costs or the lengthy payback (some estimates put it at 7 years) have bought their EVs already.  We are now approaching the trough of adoption while waiting for cheaper versions, longer range and more charging stations.  These trends haven't stopped B'game from going full speed ahead with 16 new charger spaces downtown.  The latest swap of fully public spaces to preferred parking for EVs in need of a boost is coming to the public lot (K) between Walgreen's and Safeway.  This is a busy lot for much of the day and early dining evening.  Per the Daily Journal piece

The City Council authorized the city manager to proceed with negotiations on a contract for Tesla to rent the parking lot space from Burlingame, although councilmembers said they’d like to see details on lease and fee rates as well as plans for signs that would delineate the chargers as usable for all electric vehicles.  Tesla has said they will pay a monthly rent of $6,000, and everything will be free to the city, including installation.

Let's go easy with the F-word (i.e. "free").  It's only "free" if $6K per month covers the lost revenue of the 19 spaces lost.  That's about $315 per month or about a dollar a day per space.  My math says these new charger spaces are far from "free".  

After Beach inquired about the leasing agreement and rental cost, Tesla Supercharger Project Developer Caitlyn Hanner said the company would require a 10-year lease minimum but could provide a rent increase of up to 3% a year.   Installation of the Tesla superchargers would create a loss of three parking spots.

Ten years with a very modest rent escalator is quite a deal.  There are about 57 spaces in Lot K now.  Three will be taken for the e-infrastructure, so about 30 percent of the lot is planned to be preferred parking for EVs.  As the DJ article notes, several council members are Tesla owners and others own other brands which these new superchargers will accommodate.  Did we just witness a conflict of interest that should have caused recusals on the vote?   Just kidding.  But it would have made a great April Fool's Day post.

Maybe the time has come to require chargers to also pay for the parking.  EVs already skirt the gas tax and they inflict more wear and tear on our roads than gas cars due to their higher weight.  I will tag the "Friends with benefits" category as well since this looks like a sweet deal for a few people and the car companies.

Contract negotiations: city staff turnover--not a lot to see here

Unless I missed it, which is possible due to some travel, the news has been quiet regarding the heated contract negotiations at City Hall.  We last covered it in October here.  There was the one-day strike back on December 4th as reported by the DJ here:

More than 100 Burlingame workers picketed in front of city hall Dec. 4 for a one-day strike based on alleged free speech violations by city management that closed down many city services, including the Community Center, the Easton Library and the finance department.  The strike is the first by Burlingame’s municipal workers since 1981.

Aside from the "free speech" claims, the more substantive claim was that low pay was causing much turnover of city staff.  As usual, I am reluctant to go along with broad statements when the actual data is easy to get.  With that in mind, a simple inquiry to the city led to the data through mid-December when I made the request:

• There were 27 CN (casual non benefited) employees who separated with the City in 2023 to current.
• There were 2 CP (Casual with PERS) employees who separated with the City in 2023 to current.
• There were 31 FT (Full Time) employees who separated with the City in 2023 to current.
• There was 1 PN (PERS non-contributory) employee who separated with the City in 2023 to current.

Is the departure of 31 full-timers a lot?  Normal?  A problem?  I'm not sure, but when you think of all the departments as listed here, it doesn't seem like a crisis.  All of these negotiations rightfully happen behind closed doors, but the public statements--mostly by the union reps--bear examination.  And now you have "the rest of the story".

Jan 30 update:  There's a bit more to the story.  I was going to use the DJ article about AI and County employees for a separate post, but commenter Timothy Hooker made such an elegant point below about operational efficiency from tech (see Jan 29) that I will just add the headline here.  Supes, please do not make promises to retain long-term headcount that is no longer needed.  Just don't, OK.

California Exodus: 2023 version

As we ease into the end of the year, it is a time to reflect on the major trends of the year and assess what they mean for the future.  The elephant in the California room is out-migration, particularly of the people who foot the California tab which is large and growing.  We touched on it in July of 2020 here.  And again in October of 2022 here.  So none of this is news--the news is what little Newsom and the Legislature are doing about it.

State budget analysts recently projected a record $68-billion deficit in the next fiscal year because of a 25% drop in personal income tax collection in 2023. Some city, county and other local taxing authorities, particularly in the San Francisco Bay Area, have also recorded revenue declines.

California is heavily dependent on high earners to meet government fiscal needs. Tax filers in the top 1% of income, earning around $1 million and above, have typically accounted for 40% to 45% of the state’s total personal income tax revenue, said Brian Uhler, deputy legislative analyst at California’s Legislative Analyst’s Office, which estimated the $68-billion budget deficit.

Moody’s Analytics economist Mark Zandi analyzed moves in and out of California for The LA Times using Equifax credit data, to zero in on the age of the movers. He found that since the pandemic in early 2020, California has lost residents in every age group, but by a significant margin the biggest net out-migration came from those 35 to 44 years old.

Pundits on the Left AND the Right (looking at you WSJ) point to restrictive building codes as a key factor, but I think it is way down the list.  In fact, I'll bet a lot of departures are due to the reverse--over-development and all the quality of life problems it brings.  Or the sense that your single-family neighborhood is threatened by the Yes In Your Backyard crew--YIYBYs.  Right behind that are the oppressive taxes on the high earners and the little tricks being played like the Death Tax that slipped through last election.  Pile on the singularly stupid things like fining stores if they don't have a "gender-neutral" toy section or outlawing gas stoves that causes ridicule from friends all over the country and you have a Perfect Storm.

As I said three and a half years ago on the first linked post, this is not likely to change any time soon.  There maybe a Black Swan event at some point but they are intrinsically unpredicted.  All we can do it keep talking/posting about it and hope the politicians wake up to reality.  When the effects of the bad policies noted here finally come home to roost, it may be too late.