The Burlingame Voice

If You Like Your House, You Can Keep It.....

I have been mulling over this post for a couple of months.  That is because it is so distressing.  But some things just need to be said.  When Paloma Ave. made a comment on the natural gas ban post today, it was the match that lit the fire.  Here is his/her/their comment:

I just read in the SF Comicle that Berkeley is now discussing banning single family neighborhoods.  Didn't Berkeley start the trend to ban natural gas, which our City Council decided they should also ban?  Question to the City Council: Will you also try to ban Single Family Homes in Burlingame? After all, wouldn't that be the woke thing to do?

I'm struck by the follow-the-lemming aspect of it all.  Jon Mays at the Daily Journal had an editorial about the follower mindset among city councils here.  Jon let these councils off easy by noting "To be clear, the following is not a judgment, but rather an observation."  Another observation, mine, would be that city councils need to stand up for their communities even if it means slinging a stone at Goliath.  Nowhere is that more important than in the protection of the neighborhoods.  Let's face it.  The housing thugs in Sacramento are Goliath and they have it in for single family housing.  It has been in the works for awhile as I noted here.  Personally, I think it is an unhealthy sign of envy, but that is a topic for another day.

What they have already done is today's topic--Accessory Dwelling Units, or ADUs are coming to a lot near you.  The first one in my neighborhood just got into the planning queue.  But it's not a restrictive queue.  I have it from multiple informed sources that the city has minimal control over ADUs.  Sure they can dither over whether 16' or 20" height limits should be imposed, but the bottom line is Sacramento has turned the whole state into R2 zoning with no input from the public.

Some predictions have a very high probability.  Here's one.  If your residential street has a parking problem now, expect it to get worse in five years.  City councils will have to get very smart quickly.  Maybe the ADU "granny unit", as they used to be called, really is for granny.  Maybe it's a perfect Work From Home office.  But maybe it's the AirBnB ticket that helps pay the mortgage and has no effect on local affordability.  Maybe your kid will live in it.  Maybe all of the above.  Anyway you look at it, it's more density and that has ramifications that will reveal themselves as we go.

  

 

Peninsula Ave. - A Fix in Search of a Problem

It more than four years since the last flurry of activity on the City of San Mateo's plans for the Peninsula Ave. interchange, as we noted here.  There wasn't much support from regular people for the plan then and I doubt there is much more now, but they just keep trying.  Per the city--San Mateo, not B'game:

We are proposing to relocate the existing U.S. Hwy 101 southbound on- and off-ramps from East Poplar Avenue to Peninsula Avenue in order to create a single, full-access interchange at Peninsula Avenue and Airport Boulevard. This would improve safety and traffic operations as well as reduce most typical travel times within the Peninsula Avenue interchange area for residents of both San Mateo and Burlingame.

Lots of eminent domain takings are needed for such a giant maneuver and the "improvements" in safety and traffic operations seem quite speculative to me.  As I noted here almost four years ago, the slight changes at Poplar Ave. have worked wonders for improving that 101 on/off ramp.  Simplifying it with a bit of median strip and fencing and voila.  Now they want to close it?  What's up with that?

San Mateo will make its pitch on-line next Wednesday, Jan. 27th at 6pm.  You can register to get the link sent to you here and there are a lot of links to other official documents.  If you live in the Lyon-Hoag neighborhood this is practically a mandatory meeting.

Natural Gas vs. Electric: Pay Up

It's never too late to repeal the B'game ban on natural gas in new construction--unless a contractor has already started the build.  We hashed over the issue in February here.  Whether such a ban does any actual climate good and what it might cost (in a cost/benefit sense) is important.  This week the Wall Street Journal carried two letters to the editor that bear on the question:

Regarding Allysia Finley’s op-ed “Now We’re Cooking With Gas. But Tomorrow?” (Dec. 17): Forbidding natural-gas connections in new buildings ensures that more, not less, natural gas will be consumed to meet the new demand for electricity. Similarly, government mandates for electric vehicles, space heating and cooking will increase the total amount of natural gas burned.

Natural gas consumed as a fuel to heat or cook is more than 90% efficient, while electricity produced from natural gas is at best 60% efficient. This means that boiling a pot of water on an electric stove uses 150% as much natural gas as a gas stove. This is before any consideration is given to the inefficiencies of induction heating or losses in transmission.  On the other hand, if all U.S. homes were required to burn natural gas for space heating and cooking, the total amount of natural gas consumed nationwide would probably decline, with the added benefit of increasing the proportion of U.S. energy sourced from renewables. Unintended consequences can be a cruel mistress.

Richard Varner, Wichita, KS

California’s efforts to curb natural-gas use can be devastating to low-income households. The top rate for electricity is more than 40 cents per kilowatt hour, which equates to nearly $12 per therm of heat. Natural gas, by contrast, costs about $2.50 a therm. This means that it costs more than four times as much to cook your dinner, dry your clothes or heat your bath water with electricity than with gas. You can get a somewhat better deal using a heat pump (at a cost of several thousand dollars) to heat your house; the electricity for this costs only twice as much as the gas for a furnace. Many people involved with California real estate are aware of this. Unfortunately, few of them are in government.

Robert A. Saunders, Rohnert Park, Calif.

On the earlier thread a commenter made a good point that I had not considered.  The B'game ban is a "reach code" that supposedly only affects new construction.  But over the long-haul, with about 150 other California towns doing similar things, how long before qualified technicians, replacement parts and replacement units become harder to find and most costly?  Not long, I bet.

San Mateo: Dodged a bullet by 43 votes

Let's just take a moment to thank the 23,038 voters in San Mateo that put Measure Y over the top.  The details are here if you haven't been watching, but in essence it keeps the rules in place that put limits on over-development in the 105,000 resident city that is our southern neighbor.  We are intimately tied to Millbrae, H'borough and San Mateo.  This was a squeaker which is scary since it should have been a no-brainer for people who care about the quality of life on the mid-Peninsula, but at least it passed--by 43 votes.

 City of San Mateo, Measure Y (Majority Approval Required)

(VOTE FOR 1)

 

 

	Candidate Name		Total Votes	Percentage
	YES		23,038	50.05%
	NO		22,995	49.95%

This is reminder number 4,246 that your vote matters.

The Changing Face of B'game

Today's Daily Post front page headline is "Neighborhoods under pressure".  It discusses the impending doom facing single-family housing in the state if Scott Weiner and others in Sacramento get their way with our neighborhoods.  It's almost too depressing to ponder.  But one of the things we do here at the Voice is capture B'game history as it is being made.  Here it won't drift off into forgotten oblivion like many social media sites.

The two classic B'game "cottages" at the corner of California and Oak Grove have been in the news over the years as the long-time tenants got support from national personality Tony Robbins in an effort to stay put.  They're both gone and yet the little bungalows from a time gone by are still here--for awhile.  Right next door is where the action is since another big development has been approved as a "live/work" space.  The Daily Journal initially had the site listed incorrectly as the site of the two cottages, but has corrected the piece and noted the correction here.

The Burlingame Planning Commission unanimously approved Monday, Sept. 28, plans to build 25 units in a live-work development at 601 California Drive.  For the development on California Drive, officials praised the five-story building intended to grant people a place to live and work under the same roof — a departure from the previous discussion, in which officials were unimpressed.  Live/work developments are designed to offer tenants a place to both run a business and make their home in the same unit. Burlingame officials have promoted the development of such projects since updating the general plan to encourage creative land use.

When you look at the proposal, it's not obvious why this is a "live/work" development.  It's got a conference room and a gym, but other than that it just looks like a stack of multi-bedroom units.  You might think there would be ground floor professional space, art gallery space or even room for yet another nail salon, but nope.  That's probably OK since it is a street ripe for higher density.  We will just have to wait and see what happens to the two little houses that have stood on that corner for so long.  Here they are; so they aren't forgotten.

 

Maiming Prop. 13: Not Just OPM

OPM is "Other People's Money".  As Election Day approaches, we are faced with a major threat to Proposition 13.  Newsom and our likely-State Senator Josh Becker have both come out in favor of the "split roll" to start raising taxed on commercial property valued above $3 million.  Not sure where in the Bay Area you might find any commercial property worth less than $3 million, but that is the number Prop. 15 authors have chosen.  We touched on some of the ramifications for small businesses on NNN leases here.

The Sunday Chronicle editorial endorsing Ann Ravel for State Senate in San Jose let this slip through in an attempt to appear balanced

Fearless is a word that keeps coming up in characterizing Ravel’s professional life.

It was evident in our editorial board interview in which she brought up her disagreement with us on Proposition 15, which would change the landmark Proposition 13 of 1978 to tax commercial property at market value. Her critique was detailed and grounded in the reality facing small businesses within her district. She also pointed to the costly burden it would impose on county assessors.   We may not agree with Ravel on that issue, but we appreciate the diligence she applies to issues.

Ya gotta love that last sentence. Translation:  We cannot dispute that she has thought this out better than we have, but we're gonna stick to our guns no matter what.

A better paper, the Orange County Register had this to say on Sunday

Proposition 15 would impose higher property taxes on commercial and industrial properties in California of up to $12 billion annually. That cost would be imposed on every Costco, Walmart, Safeway, gas station and shopping mall in California as well as the 80 percent of small businesses that lease their property. Only those who are economically illiterate would think that those costs would not be passed along to consumers in the form of higher prices.

As destructive as the radically increased cost of living that Proposition 15 would impose on consumer/taxpayers is, it pales in comparison to the larger threat that 15 poses to homeowners. Specifically, proponents and supporters of split roll have made it clear that coming after commercial property is but the first step in their incremental destruction of Proposition 13 in its entirety – including the protections it affords to homeowners.

You can click through to read the history lesson on who has said they are coming after residential property next.  If you think this is just about OPM, you are wrong.

Rare Historic Success in Bgame

Saving historic buildings in Burlingame is a tough row to hoe.  We have lost so many and saved so few that when one is saved we should rejoice.  And so we shall regarding the Murphy house.  The Daily Journal did a piece on the house a week ago, but I wanted to wait for photos of the actual move until posting about it.

One of Burlingame’s oldest houses is about to get a new home — again.  The Murphy House at 1128 Douglas Ave. is slated next week to be moved about a half a mile away to a location on Oak Grove Avenue as part of a team effort to preserve a piece of the city’s history.

The house is slated to begin being moved Thursday, Sept. 17, to make way for the construction of a five-story apartment complex, which officials approved in 2017. But noting the historic relevance of the site’s current structure, the development team agreed to relocate and preserve it elsewhere....it will mark the second time that the house has been moved. It was first relocated in 1914 from its original location on Burlingame Avenue, when it was displaced to make space for the downtown business district to bloom.

Note the DJ article has the address off by one--it's really across the street at 524 Oak Grove which was an empty lot.  We'll all enjoy seeing the house put back together as it was cut in half for the move.  Here are a couple pics of it crossing the Caltrain tracks last night around 10 pm.  It was a tight fit getting under the tree branch too.  Nice work all around!

Density Tsunami Approaches

We have known the tsunami of development has been approaching for several years.  The townhouses on Anson Lane have arrived for sale:

Brand new construction in Burlingame. This 3 bedroom, 3.5 bathroom, 2 story townhome style condo is located in the brand new community The Residences @ Anson is built by D.R. Horton, America's builder. Included features, Avalon shaker style cabinets w/satin nickel door pulls, Stainless steel Jenn Air appliances, minus washer, dryer and refrigerator.   $1,903,540.

The massive block of 268 apartments that are part of the same development on Carolan Ave. will be hitting the market soon I imagine.  I have verified with a member of the School Board that the kids in this development are zoned to Roosevelt School.

Further north, the Planning Commission has cleared the first of three big developments.  Per the Daily Journal

The Burlingame Planning Commission unanimously approved the plan to construct at 1766 El Camino Real a development featuring 60 residential units atop 148,000 of office space during a meeting Monday, Aug. 24. The plans will advance onto the Burlingame City Council, which will ultimately determine the fate of the development.  Officials admired the seven-story tower which will also feature a ground-floor lobby and retail center plus underground parking — differing from those who feared the development was incompatible with its surroundings.  

“Will it change the neighborhood here? Yes. That’s the point,” said Loftis, who noted the stretch of north Burlingame has been identified by officials as an area to build additional housing and allow greater density.  He added officials recently approved a general plan update making way for the new uses, making clear the character of the area would change.

And the next two shoes to drop are

To advance the synergy of the emerging area, plans have been filed to build a seven-story tower nearby with 169 units at the corner of El Camino Real and Murchison Drive, and about 1 mile away a proposal was made to build 120 units in a six-story development which includes cultural art space.

That's 349 new units in "North Burlingame".  I'm researching which school(s) these kids will be assigned to when they are all open.  In the meantime, I think we need a better name for this big new neighborhood. Any suggestions, readers?  There is also plans afoot at the Mercy property for a sizable residential development.  That one will be easy to name:  Have Mercy on Us.  That's 630 new units plus the Hower Auto development on Bayswater and whatever gets added at Mercy.  And still, "housing advocates" say it is not enough.........

Keep this view of ECR in mind as it won't look like that much longer.

 

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.