The Burlingame Voice

Brutalism in Burlingame

Empty buildings in B'game make me nervous.  I envision the Claw showing up some day and the whole structure being gone in a couple of days.  Many of the replacements are sterile.  It happens all over town in both commercial and residential areas.  That's why I got nervous after seeing our only local Brutalist building appearing to be empty.  It sits at 1825 Magnolia behind The Trousdale and Burlingame Plaza.  Borrowing from Wikipedia, we learn:

Brutalist architecture is an architectural style that emerged during the 1950s in the United Kingdom, among the reconstruction projects of the post-war era.  Brutalist buildings are characterized by minimalist constructions that showcase the bare building materials and structural elements over decorative design. The style commonly makes use of exposed, unpainted concrete or brick, angular geometric shapes and a predominantly monochrome colour palette; other materials, such as steel, timber, and glass, are also featured.

Descending from the modernist movement, brutalism is said to be a reaction against the nostalgia of architecture in the 1940s. Derived from the Swedish phrase nybrutalism, the term "new brutalism" was first used by British architects Alison and Peter Smithson for their pioneering approach to design.  In the United Kingdom, brutalism was featured in the design of utilitarian, low-cost social housing influenced by socialist principles and soon spread to other regions around the world, while being echoed by similar styles like in Eastern Europe.

Brutalism has been polarizing historically; specific buildings, as well as the movement as a whole, have drawn a range of criticism (often being described as "cold"). There are often public-led campaigns to demolish brutalist buildings. Some people are favorable to the style and in the United Kingdom some buildings have been preserved.

I asked around a bit and some think it was built as the Teachers Association headquarters (now a few blocks away) and was later a bank.  The good news is that rather than being empty, an on-line search shows it is owned by the Dharma Realm Buddhist Association, also known as "The City of Ten Thousand Buddhas, which is based in Ukiah.  The parking lot must be chained when not in use.  I think the building is oddly cool and worth taking a moment or two to appreciate.  Here is it

Podcast: Mark Lucchesi and I talk B'game (#103)

I'm honored that B'game podcaster Mark "Mark at the Mic" Lucchesi asked me back for another episode of Burlingame - It's a Small Town.  Over the course of about an hour we covered numerous topics that will be familiar to regular Voice readers and some new stuff too.  If you want to invest the time, around cocktail hour is recommended, then settle in with your favorite beverage and listen to the "Voice of the Voice".  The link to Episode #103 is here.

Thanks again, Mark.  He has me queued up for another one in a few months since there is always something to talk about in our Small Town^TM.

City Hall Moving Around the Corner?

We covered the shortcomings of the historic City Hall here last September when the search for alternatives started.  As we noted then, a central downtown location is an intangible that is hard to value and harder to replace. Right on cue, staff is recommending a move around the corner to 1440 Chapin Ave--across the street from Mollie Stone's.  The move would involve two phases--a leased period followed by a purchase of the building and inheriting some of the existing tenants.  Per the Staff Report

Pursuant to the Lease and Purchase Agreements, the City is required to purchase the building by June 30, 2027, for a price of $34,500,000. After the building is purchased, the City plans to retain existing tenants in office suites not occupied by the City, which will serve as a source of revenue for the City and offset some or all of the costs associated with purchasing 1440 Chapin. Revenue is estimated to be $1,656,000 per year from rental income.

The city as a landlord could also extend to "the opportunity to collaborate with other public agencies, if they would like to lease space in the new City Hall."  The plan is up for discussion at tomorrow night's city council meeting and as these things go, I would think the deal is basically done.  Enough ground has been laid and there are enough short-tenured councilmembers that staff's say-so will suffice.  We don't have a Rosalie O'Mahony to issue a caution that would prevail.

The real question is what of the current City Hall property?  The DJ piece raised the question, but the answer is "we'll figure that out later"

Nearly 10 years ago, Burlingame had weighed the possibility of developing housing at the current City Hall site, though (Mayor Peter) Stevenson said conversation around the fate of the old building would be held at a future date.

Engaged locals are already worried about the open space in front of city hall.  The holiday tree lighting is a classic B'game community event.  The pressure to flip it to a developer who would "stack and pack" it with a mix of "affordable housing" will be high.  Is there enough backbone to resist it and make the best use of the aging facility possible?  Are there potential tenants who don't need Class A space?  What about those "other public agencies"?  There is also a decent amount of parking on the site so if a Return to Office move is afoot for city staff, those spaces are a short, healthy walk to 1440 Chapin.  We shall see.  An eagle-eyed reader sent me the Instagram post about tomorrow's meeting.  I didn't know the city was posting there.

 

Wildfires, Insurance rates, Fuel management & Defensible space

A nice heavy rainy day in B'game is the perfect time to reflect on Not Forgetting about our wildfire risk.  Almost three years ago we covered the Emerald Hills fire here.  Then came Pacific Palisades and Altadena which has pushed FAIR into the red and will cost all of us a pretty penny in insurance increases.  It's one thing to write State Farm or Farmer's a bigger check, it's quite another to lose your home.

The risks are multi-dimensional.  How good is our fuel management, particularly up the hill with our neighbors?  The state is updating the high-risk maps as part of Newsom's latest revelation that the 5 foot "Zone 0" area next to dwellings needs to be clear of fuel.  One has to wonder where he's been for the last five or ten years?  You can get a sense of the Hillsborough high-risk area here.  Swapping email with the CCFD Chief, I learned

In Hillsborough, the town conducts fuel management on town owned parcels and we have an extensive Wildland Urban Interface inspection program. Inspections are conducted annually and education and enforcement is applied according to the situation.

I know from friends that there have been non-renewals and big increases in insurance rates up there.  The insurers have reportedly also used drones to find private parcels that are at high-risk from lack of fuel maintenance and some of that information may even be informing their rates for the neighbors.  "It takes a village".

Our water supply is another aspect of preparation.  Swapping email with Public Works, I learned

We tap SFPUC system near Magnolia/Trousdale and use its static head to a point near BIS on Trousdale, and from there it is pumped to the Mills Reservoir.  From there, it gets gravity fed to Sky View Reservoir, which then serves the hillside area below.  On the south side of the City, we pump the water to the Hillside Reservoir located next to the Fire Station 35, which then serves the water to the zone that is above and outside of the SFPUC aqueduct zone.  We have four other SFPUC turnouts that we tap into to serve the remaining parts of the City primarily by gravity.  Hillsborough has a separate system outside of Burlingame, much of their water supply is pumped to their hills and then served to the residents unlike Burlingame.

A bit more research is in order for the layperson to follow the plumbing described above.  It's also a fair question to wonder how up to date the various parts are right now.  I asked about how we go about flushing the hydrants?  It was a pretty common thing to see when I was a kid, but I can't recall seeing it in B'game.  I've must have missed it since Public Works states

Burlingame has proactively invested in a robust capital improvement program to modernize its aging water infrastructure over the past few decades. This includes replacing several miles of water mains and upgrading older fire hydrants with newer models and adding new fire hydrants if needed. These efforts have not only enhanced the City’s water capacity but have also significantly improved fire protection. The hydrant flushing program is active and we rotate the program throughout the City based on water quality parameters.  The public may see more at some times than others as needed based on our water quality requirements.

The bottom line is B'game is not one of the eight cities in San Mateo County at the highest risk as shown here.  We have a lot of infrastructure.  We have maintenance plans.  My discussions with a concerned H'borough resident lead me to continue to believe our biggest risk stems from big private parcels up there that may not be on top of fuel management.  With all of the eucs up there, the effort described in the Merc about the work at East Bay Parks is something to aspire to here.

East Bay Parks has nearly quadrupled its fuel reduction staff in the past five years to take on the Herculean task of bringing the forest back into order, including the addition of Fuels Reduction Coordinator Givonne Law.

“Eucalyptus is notorious for being a very difficult-to-handle tree. Not only is it very heavy, but there’s generally huge accumulations,” Law said. “A lot of machinery operators out there will see a project like this and will just walk away.”

Law’s task was to thin the forest from more than 750 eucalyptus stems per acre to 150 stems per acre. Her aim, she said, was not to eliminate eucalyptus — despite their oily, flammable properties — but to reconstitute the balance of the forest to allow less dangerous trees such as bay and oak to reestablish themselves.

That works out to about one stem per 300 square feet--a 17 x 17 foot area.  A drive through H'borough will easily show areas with more density than that.

Putting Two and Two Together on our "Crisis"

It is one thing to believe someone cannot put two and two together and get four.  It's another to see them demonstrate it in front of 300 people in a hotel ballroom.  Last week the Burlingame/SFO Chamber of Commerce held its annual meeting at the Hyatt and added something new--a panel discussion with three local politicians.  The panel, moderated by City Manager Lisa Goldman, included B'game mayor Peter Stevenson, Diane Papan's District director David Burruto and San Mateo County Supervisor David Canepa.  Each had an opportunity for an opening remark.

Canepa started enthusiastically by highlighting how he travels all over the country and the world and people constantly tell him how much they love San Mateo County.  How lucky we are to live here and how many of them would like to do the same.  And it's more than just our fabulous weather.  It was a glowing opener and something many of us also experience, especially if we get more specific and mention B'game.  Canepa then proceeded to talk about our "housing crisis" and how we need to build a lot more affordable housing, so people and businesses stop leaving the county.  The notion that we cannot outbuild the global demand to live here that he just described never actually occurred to him.  It was remarkable.  It would have been great to ask, "exactly how much new, affordable housing we should build?"  5,000 units?  Should we accommodate a doubling of the county population (about another 750,000 people?) Should we triple it?  Should we perhaps address some of the other areas that go into the total cost of home ownership--some of which he might actually be able to do something about?  Should it all be "stack and pack" cellblock designs so it will be "affordable"?  That would have been fun.

Given it was only a 20-minute talk, Lisa Goldman only got to ask one additional question out of a big pile submitted by the audience.  She did a quick tally and determined that about half were asking about the Broadway grade separation.  All three panelists responded.  I listened closely.  There was mention of "close coordination", "better communication" between agencies, "making it a priority" and the challenge of working around "electrified Caltrain".  In other words, five minutes of bobbing and weaving because there is no viable plan to deal with the new, bigger cost estimate.

Here's the panel at work.  Lunch was good.

Total Cost of Homeownership: Not just the cost of the house

For all the talk about our "housing crisis", there is little media or politician discussion about what makes housing expensive here or many, many other places.  The build-our-way-out of it people, like the YIMBYs, just focus on the four walls.  As the letter writer below noted, it's tiresome.  It's also myopic.  The WSJ chimes in today with a piece titled "Insurance and Taxes Now Cost More Than Mortgages for Many Homeowners: Ballooning expenses rewrite the math of homeownership".  The piece zeroes in on home insurance, flood/fire insurance, property taxes and home repair costs and shows

These ballooning expenses are rewriting the math of homeownership. In September, 32% of the average single-family mortgage payment went to property taxes and home insurance, the highest rate ever for data going back to 2014, according to Intercontinental Exchange.  For a small but increasing share of households, the burden is far more significant. In five major metro areas—Rochester and Syracuse, N.Y.; Omaha, Neb.; New Orleans and Miami—at least a quarter of borrowers spend more than half their monthly mortgage payment on taxes and insurance, according to ICE. 

These metro areas have high property taxes or pricey home insurance relative to typical home costs, or both.  Nationwide, taxes and insurance make up more than half of the monthly mortgage payment for 9% of single-family mortgages. That is up from less than 4% at the end of 2014. 

Left out of the equation because of how the study gathered data are the other costs--electricity, natural gas, garbage, sewer/water and bond measures for schools and anything else the politicians can dream up (looking at you Caltrain and sea level rise).  A major variable will always be interest rates, but all of these other factors just pile on and increases get waved through regularly.

One could even argue the YIMBY mentality will make it all worse.  More grid, more water, more sewage treatment, more classrooms, more, more, more.  Decarbonize your house in the next 10 years?  That won't be easy or cheap as we noted here.  Looking at all of the costs in total reveals the real story--not the faddish one.

Pushing back on the YIMBYs

From the "broken clock is right twice a day" file comes this Letter to the Editor of the SF Comicle.  Somehow the editors let this one slip through the cracks and into print.  I don't know the woman or the organization, but she hits pretty much every button right on the nose:

YIMBY housing fantasies won’t work in California. Here’s the reality

Regarding “There’s no protecting California values without building more housing” (Open Forum, SFChronicle.com, Dec 13): The steady drumbeat of op-ed pieces from SPUR and YIMBY housing advocates is tiresome. Many Californians disagree with them.  Urban density and infill housing are supposed to remedy suburban sprawl. But urban density, in practice, simply creates overcrowded streets, with motorists circling in search of rare parking.   Infill comes at the expense of historic buildings and districts, which are often demolished. A classic example is the enormous apartment buildings planned for the former California College of the Arts campus in Oakland.

Transit-oriented development? This fantasy assumes that public transportation is a fixed utility. Many bus lines that once served our communities have been cut.  How many voters will oppose a tax to support BART because of the agency’s plans to put apartments in its parking lots? How many people have quit taking BART because there is no secure place to park near the stations?

The SPUR and YIMBY people want Soviet-style apartment blocks wherever they can be crammed in, extinguishing every vestige of charm from neighborhoods.  It’s time for the state to stop forcing draconian “density bonus” and “builder’s remedy” laws on neighborhoods that want to retain some breathing room.

Amelia Marshall

Board member, Oakland Heritage Alliance

Amen, Amelia.  Look no further than our latest Cellblock at One Adrian Ct.  It may not extinguish any charm in the neighborhood since it sits next to a Public Storage business, but you can bet it will raise traffic thru the Worst Intersection in the State and put pressure on all sorts of public services.  Did the grid get any major upgrade?  School capacity?  Did we hire another police officer for traffic enforcement?  Anything thing else listed here?  Keep up the good work, Ms. Marshall.  You are far from alone.

Measure GG: Some clarifications

The second school parcel tax, GG, that is on this ballot is a) a little confusing and b) a tough decision in the current economic climate.  Having said that, some clarification is in order.  On another post, a commenter asked, "I just read in John Horgan’s column that the school tax GG “can be increased or decreased, depending on fiscal circumstances.”  Can this be true!?

I made an inquiry to one of the measure's supporters who provided the exact language in question:

The Board will determine, on an annual basis, the amount of the levy for the following fiscal year, up to the maximum allowable rate shown above. If, in any given year, the Board elects to levy an amount less than the maximum allowable rate, it may, in subsequent years, levy the maximum allowable rate.

I take that to mean if the Board decided on a lower levy in one year, the levy the following year could go back up, but still not exceed the maximum allowable rate.  The essential part of that rate is:

The tax, at the uniform rate of $0.14 per square foot of building improvements per year, capped at $2,500 per parcel per year for 8 years.

The other confusing wrinkle is this 8-year tax overlaps the last parcel tax (Measure L that you see on the property tax bill you just got in the mail) for the next three years--i.e. two taxes for three years, then just the GG version for five more.  The reason for that is the district has to budget out three years and the state funding is erratic and mostly erratic not in our favor.

Voting for Measure GG may be a tough call for some property owners who are struggling with insurance increases, energy cost increases, building material cost increases, labor cost increases, the SALT tax cap, the three state bond measures also on the ballot and who knows what else.  As usual, I consider that all of the GG revenue stays in town and has to go straight into classroom resources.  That's your decision framework.

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.

Poll: 70% say Bay Area quality of life has declined

When I read headlines like 7 in 10 residents say the region’s quality of life is getting worse, I think about how bad the roads have become (looking at you, El Camino), how poorly many government agencies are being run, how much traffic there is, how we are losing control of our local voting and zoning, and public safety.  School quality, water security, utility costs---the list is long.  Having spent years in market research, I know a poll can be tweaked in any number of ways from who gets polled to how the questions and multiple-choice answers are phrased to who does the analysis of the results.  The Merc reported on the latest public sentiment here.  It notes

According to the poll, 70% of registered voters said the Bay Area’s quality of life has worsened over the past five years, while just 13% said it has improved. Seventeen percent said it’s stayed the same.

A whopping 46% of respondents said they were likely to leave the Bay Area in the next few years, with two-thirds of those citing high housing costs as the main reason to consider a move. During the pandemic, people fleeing the region contributed to a 3% population drop, though that exodus has since slowed.  When asked to select ways the region might best be improved, respondents’ top choice at 39% was building more affordable housing.

Of course, that means 61% chose something other than to jam more people into the Bay Area.  See how the reporting can spin the story?  If the other choices had overlap to split the responses, 39% starts to look big.

Homeowners in the poll (note, that percentage is not revealed) also said the state’s home insurance meltdown is hitting their finances. Fifty-two percent said their home insurance premiums have increased significantly, 22% said they have avoided using their home insurance policy out of fear of cancellation or rising rates, 12% said they’ve had a difficult time finding an insurer to write them a policy and 8% said an insurer had canceled a policy.

Insurance has been slipping down a slippery slope for years with no real solution from the state. And many renters don't realize their rent is tied to the insurance on their apartment.  Then there is this bit of Sacramental hand-waving following on the heels of even more restrictions on drilling.  When you leave the state the gas prices are almost unreal---unreal low.

To prevent spikes in gas prices, state lawmakers are now considering a plan from Gov. Gavin Newsom to force oil refiners to keep minimum fuel reserves, though doing so likely wouldn’t lower overall prices at the pump.

The piece finishes off by describing some people who think Silicon Valley giants are "villains" who have "lost their moral compass".  I can't understand where that is coming from or what it has to do with the quality of life in the Bay Area.  At least the piece noted huge support for Prop. 36 to get the organized theft back under control and remove the locked plastic doors protecting shampoo and deodorant.  The big question remains how many people we should jam into the Peninsula?  The RHNA requirements are nonsense, but they are driving down the quality of life for long-time residents who look at things like this on the north end and wonder "why"?  That's the B'game police building in the front.