The Burlingame Voice

Bayfront: Hotels or Life Sciences...just not housing

You could argue that the Covid pandemic is drawing to a close as we approach herd immunity and with it we will see a return to business and leisure travel.  With that a return of the hotel TOT that has been one of the Golden Geese keeping B'game flush would be in the cards.  Or not.  Maybe Zoom and work at home will take a serious dent out of travel.  For now though at least one erstwhile hotel developer on the Bayfront wants the freedom to build differently to attract life sciences tenants.  As this piece in the DJ notes, the Planning Commission is somewhat amenable as are some city councilors.

With the pandemic interrupting the travel and hospitality industries, Burlingame officials are considering introducing the life sciences industry into an area historically preserved for hotels and light industry.  But they balanced those perspectives against an expectation that developers proposing life science buildings would be obligated to supplement their plans with an attractive package of community benefits.

Under the proposal, buildings reserved for tenants in the life sciences industries could be allowed to build a floor-area ratio up to 3.0 — a significant spike from the current standard of 0.75 floor-area ratio for every building in the area other than hotels.

And while support for the vision was broad during a challenging time in the travel and hospitality industry, officials also made clear they continued to prefer development of hotels along the Bayshore.

Noting that hotel tax has been one of the city’s primary sources of income when the economy was thriving, Councilman Michael Brownrigg said he favored preserving incentives for future hotel construction.

TOT has traditionally been about 38% of total city revenues in normal times as noted here back in 2016.  Nobody is suggesting tearing down existing hotels to change the usage, meaning that revenue stream should rebound, but may not reach the percentages of the past.  But the most interesting aspect of the proposal didn't make it into the DJ article.  I have it on good authority that life sciences companies need.....wait for it.....natural gas for their labs.  One source at Genentech called it a "deal killer".  Can the green councilors put aside their one-year old ban and grant a variance?   If one gets it, then the next one is entitled as well.  And if a company can get a variance for a big installation, will you be able to get one for a small installation?

Economic Lesson for Rent Controllers

I was having a chat with a friend who owns two rental units last week and has been doing some regular maintenance.  He told me generally the same thing that the Wall Street Journal has crisply quantified

Prices are surging for the raw materials used to build American homes.  Lumber, one of the biggest costs in home-building after land and labor, has never been more expensive and is more than twice the typical price for this time of year. Crude oil, a starting point for paint, drain pipe, roof shingles and flooring, has shot up more than 80% since October. Copper, which carries water and electricity throughout houses, costs about a third more than it did in the autumn.

Prices for granite, insulation, concrete blocks and common brick have all pushed to records in 2021, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistic’s producer-price index, which measures the change in prices that producers receive for their output. Drywall and ceramic tiles are short of records but have also climbed.

Building supply chains weren’t prepared when Americans began swarming model homes and Home Depots in April. Sawmills and factories shut down like most other workplaces early in the lockdown.  Suppliers never caught up. Now building permits for residential construction are being issued at their highest rate since 2006.

Can you imagine if B'game had passed rent control?  There would be deferred maintenance all over town.  You have to wonder how the neighboring towns that did (looking at you, Mountain View) will view the creeping neglect that has to occur when prices go up 80%, double, or a third on key materials.  The Law of Unintended Consequences isn't an economic law, but it should be.  I'm unclear on how the Fed can say they don't expect inflation to hit soon.  Oh, and gas is right behind.  "In California, the most expensive market, average prices stand at $3.88, according to AAA."

Are Neo-racists Attacking Burlingame?

I’m coming around to the idea that there may well be some racists in Burlingame and elsewhere on the Peninsula.  I know it’s hard to believe.  But when you see people judging other people’s motivations, actions or, in the case of city council members, their votes; based on the color of their skin it is hard to avoid the conclusion that they are racists.  This is not the commonly held view of what it is to be a racist.  But when one uses false charges of racism as a cudgel to get one’s way on things that have nothing to do with race one is, well…..a racist.  Let’s call them “neo-racists”.

Cue Daily Journal columnist Mark Simon who felt the need to take the B’game city council and particularly the mayor to task for reacting negatively to a comment at a county Asian Pacific Islander Caucus panel discussion:

One of the panelists, Nicole Fernandez, former chair of the county Democratic Party and now district director for state Sen. Josh Becker, noted that district elections had a significant impact on the election of nonwhites to local city councils. Fernandez eagerly anticipated the implementation of district elections in other cities, including Burlingame, which has begun that process, and which she described as one of the “NIMBYest cities” here in god’s country.

Blending charges of racism and NIMBYism is well…. neo-racist.   Hearing it from a staffer’s mouth for our own state senator (newly elected to replace Jerry Hill) is not a good sign at the start of Becker’s term.  I expect B’game should get an apology from his office for Fernandez' fact-free and neo-racist accusation.  Maybe it’s even time for a new district director that isn’t a neo-racist and doesn’t denigrate whole towns in her boss’ district.

In his Daily Journal column, Mark Simon goes on with this confused bit of rhetoric

Of course, the term NIMBY encompasses much more than housing and a lengthy and vigorous debate can be held on the topic of inclusiveness in Burlingame, or any other city in the county.

Really?  Do tell.  I though NIMBYism was about local development.  Regular readers know that I believe Burlingame, the mid-Peninsula and, in fact, the whole core of the Bay Area are already over-built for our current infrastructure.  Call me a NIMBY, I don’t care.  I haven't exactly been in the majority in town.  I am one although I consider the whole core Bay Area as “my backyard” and so should you.  With more than 1,000 units of housing in B’game approved and in the works over the last couple of years, I would like B’game to take a breather.  Let’s see how this much growth plays out.  There are a bunch of good reasons for a pause if anyone cares to look past the end of their nose.  But why bring race and “inclusiveness” into the discussion unless one is, well…. a neo-racist busy judging whole towns full of people one doesn’t know by their skin colors?

For the Glass House File:  It is easy to toss around the NIMBY label when one lives up in the winding backstreets of Emerald Hills or Farm Hills in Redwood City in a single-family zoned neighborhood on a 9,000 square foot lot like Mark Simon.  “NIMBY” comes easily to your keyboard when you live nowhere near where a spec builder is likely to buy the small house next door and jam in a four-plex or two.  The people on 5,000 square foot lots in Lyon-Hoag, Burlingame Terrace or Burlingame Village near commercial districts and transit feel very differently and it has nothing to do with race. 

Checklist:  How to tell if you are this new strain of NEO-RACIST:

--You think single-family residential zoning is racist.

--You think local parcel taxes to fund local schools are racist.

--You think voting for each of your city council members is racist.

--You think “leafy suburb” is a code word for a racist neighborhood.

--Heck, you think “suburb” is code for a racist neighborhood.

Look in the mirror.  “Crisis nearly of its own making” indeed.

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!