The Burlingame Voice

Postal Reactions

Over the past week, I have had two in-depth conversations with long-time locals about the future of the Post Office.  One conversation was at a gathering of B'gamer parents, some of whom had not seen each for awhile.  When the topic of putting 120 residential units on top of retail on the Post Office lot came up the reaction ranged from incredulous to "postal".  One long-time couple even said that might be the final straw that would cause them to leave town.......

The other conversation was with someone who is much more of an insider and very versed on the issue.  We discussed the need for more city revenue (mostly to support pensions), the range of locations that could support this type of development, whether residential ever covers its costs and how a developer could respect the historic nature of the building (or not).  This insider and I have a fundamental disagreement about whether residential ever covers its costs, but there was an interesting twist.  This person admitted that they were not including school costs.

I grew up in Massachusetts where the school budget was part of the city budget and the city had a lot more control and responsibility than we do here in California.  I am constantly surprised by people who think the city has any control over school funding and such here.  (BTW, Keep that in mind as City Council candidates talk about "supporting the schools).  We ended up agreeing to disagree, but I still wonder how many people have thought through where 120 units' kids would go to school.  I doubt Washington and McKinley can handle anywhere near that many children.  Are we looking at a major bond issue to buy and build from scratch?  And if so, where?  You can see how even reopening Hoover School has more issues than at first appearance.

My conclusions:  the City elders have seriously underestimated John Q. Burlingamer's negative reaction to the Grosvenor proposal and the Law of Unintended Consequences will not be voided on this issue.

For Sale: B'game Post Office

The much anticipated sales offer of the B'game Post Office has come to pass.  We've been tracking the issues like its historic status here, the Council's request to not encumber it via historic restrictions here and Grosvenor's possible proposed project here.  Today's DJ article notes:

Wigdel said the length of time the selling process takes will depend on the buyer and how many bids the U.S. Postal Service receives.

“We have to do due diligence to make sure everything is in order,” Wigdel said. “We want this to happen as quickly as possible, but we don’t want to speculate.”

There is one known possible buyer. Grosvenor, an international property development, investment and fund management group, put forward a mixed-use project using lot E — located between Lorton Avenue, Park Road, Burlingame Avenue and Howard Avenue — and the adjacent post office. Burlingame Public Works Director Syed Murtuza said the company has expressed interest in buying the post office property as well.

The concept Grosvenor put forward for the lot space includes 100 residential units, 35,000 square feet of retail and/or restaurant space and 125 residential parking spaces, according to a city staff report.

I'm sure the restrictions on what can and cannot be torn down on the site will come out eventually, it will just take some digging.

Don't Take the Baby's Candy!

Buried in the middle of a Daily Journal article with a headline about free parking is perhaps the biggest news-no-one-knows-about in B'game and it has nothing to do with free parking.  In fact it's more like the opposite--how to ruin the parking situation downtown.  The City Council is considering an Exclusive Negotiation Agreement with Grosvenor USA Ltd. to enable the developer to assess how to build on Parking Lot E and the Post Office site.

The concept, which encompasses the post office land, includes an “urban village” with 100 residential units, 35,000 square feet of retail and/or restaurant space and 125 residential parking spaces.

Let's put aside what a bad idea this whole thing is because there is nothing "village-like" about it.  Not only do we already have the choicest "village" on the whole Peninsula, but we have yet to feel the impact of the Peninsula Ave. monster complex that San Mateo has foisted right onto B'game's border.

Aside from that problem, the idea of an exclusive negotiation agreement ("ENA") is just bad business practice especially when the "good faith money" the developer would put up to get this boon is refundable.  The circumstances that would trigger a refund are Grosvenor not buying the Post Office, the environmental assessment not working out, or Grosvenor deciding in 30 days that the project is "infeasible".

Topping that one-sided aspect is the idea of a "market delay" in Section 3.2.4 of the proposed agreement.  That says two quarters of 3% decline in the SF-San Mateo-RWC Housing Price Index would add time to the 18 month exclusive period.  Now with local real estate booming that is unlikely--but interest rates are on the rise and the Fed is getting less predictible with every Ben Bernanke speech.  The 10-year Treasury yield is up 85 basis points since early May.  But isn't that the kind of risk a developer should bear for exclusivity?

My next concern is the real kicker.  On page 11 of the agreement, it states

At this time, it is not known which, if any, elements of the Post Office structure maybe considered historic resources under CEQA.

That smacks of gamesmanship.  One need only go back to the Feb. 28th post here on the Voice to read that Criterion A and C for the National Register apply and that the Spanish Eclectic architecture and the interior are "remarkably well-preserved" --better than 90% of the other historic post offices in the country.  Has this train already left the station?  And if so, who's driving it?

 

Dear Feds-- Please Ignore Us

Monday's City Council vote to try to skirt additional protections for the historically significant downtown Post Office building was quite disappointing.  As the Daily Journal writes

Most of the Burlingame City Council wants the sale of the downtown post office to be free of federal historical preservation requirements that can tie local control with the exception of Councilwoman Cathy Baylock, who disagreed.

During its meeting Monday, the council voted 4-1 to send a letter to the U.S. Postal Service requesting that preservation covenants not be added as a requirement of sale for the property at 220 Park Road. Doing so, the majority said, would tie local control and the historical considerations would be covered under the California Environmental Quality Act. Baylock, on the other hand, said the practice is customary and could act as an extra form of protection for a historical aspect of Burlingame’s downtown.

Let's hope the Feds do what the Feds do best in this case--ignore the letter.  Either of the "Top Two" proposals on the table would mangle the downtown as we know it and may not past muster on any sort of preservation of the building.

Post Office "Remarkably Well Preserved"

There is big news about the main B'game Post Office on Park Rd.  Its future has been in doubt due to the financial condition of the Postal Service that is leading to elimination of Saturday delivery in August among other actions.  But the local site has special characteristics that may (should!) affect what can be done with the building.  The news is that a Historical Structure Report prepared by Tetra Tech, Inc. in Oakland has determined that the Post Office is eligible for National Register of Historical Places status on two different criteria:

Criterion A: The Burlingame Main Post Office is significant under Criterion A for its association with the New Deal-era public works programs and policies under the significant theme of Politics/Government, as defined in

National Register Bulletin 13: How to Apply the National Register Criteria to Post Office.

Criterion C: This property is significant under Criterion C within the historic context and significant historic theme of Politics/Government. The property embodies distinctive characteristics of a post office designed and constructed between 1930 and 1942 in plan, structure, design, and ornamentation. The Burlingame Main Post Office contains many distinctive elements of its type — post offices constructed between 1930 and 1942 by the federal government, as exemplified by the standard interior spatial arrangement, and high-quality materials and workmanship.

The report notes the building's Spanish Eclectic architecture, but is especially glowing about the interior: 

The interior of the post office has been remarkably well preserved. Though many post offices retain "high style" interior features such as marble wainscoting, few remain as unaltered as this one. Original bank-teller style service windows have been retained in contrast to the usual policy, which replaced these windows at most post offices with open counters for service decades ago. Most post offices have also replaced the original post office boxes, but Burlingame retains the originals, which match the metal trim so prominent in the lobby. Details like metal-trimmed bulletin boards, the service desks discussed above, and even pen holders have all survived the post office’s 71 years of use.

Most of us already knew this was a building with special original features and a warm, bronzed feel about it that reminds one of a time before post offices started to feel like a Kinko's...a time when the postal eagle flew proudly.

Watching Millbrae's Example

I found today's Daily Journal article titled "Alleged Shoddy Construction Brings Lawsuits" interesting to B'gamers for two reasons.  First, I constantly hear comments about how rigorous the single-family residential building inspections can be in B'game during construction.  100+ units appear to be a different story.  Second, we could easily be looking at one or more projects like this on the Post Office site or nearby.  So this excerpt about the Millbrae big condo projects' inspections caught my eye

Two Millbrae condominium developers with units between $599,000 to $1.28 million recently faced lawsuits over shoddy construction that includes severe structural issues, water damage and cracking — and although city inspectors signed off on the projects, they are immune from legal action.

The two developments each have more than 100 units along El Camino Real — 88 Broadway and Park Broadway. With Peninsula housing demand growing, land at a premium and a regional goal of transit-oriented multi-unit development, such housing is becoming more popular but can lead to a series of legal tangles once problems are revealed in time. While one group was able to reach a settlement, mediation continues for the other. But there may be a trend in the need to seek lawsuits.

Building up comes with different challenges than single-family homes. California has building codes, most recently adopted in 2010, regulating anything built in the state. Cities that have issued building permits are charged with inspecting the buildings to meet those codes. However, the employees and the city are immune from legal action if problems are found with that construction.

Millbrae officials declined to comment on the requirements of building inspectors. Neighboring cities also declined to comment about the requirements of their inspectors. Experts say the challenge appears to be the inability to really watch over every detail on such large projects. Ultimately, California law puts the need to fix problems to the developer. Developers are also given a chance to address the issues under California law and must be invited to mediation before legal proceedings can really begin. Mediation has become a clearly defined process.

Something to think about as we perhaps will looking at something of this scale in our downtown

 

Parking Hunt - Where or If?

From the City's e-News we get this reminder about tomorrow's meeting

The City is in the process of studying the feasibility of various options to address the parking needs of the Downtown Burlingame Avenue business district. The City is interested in obtaining residents and other stakeholders input in the Study. This is an opportunity for Burlingame residents to review options of potential sites to build a future downtown parking structure. The Burlingame City Council has requested staff to explore options and make recommendations concerning the preferred location of a new parking structure that might be built to meet increased parking needs in the downtown business district.

The meeting is tomorrow (Tuesday) in the Lane Room at the main library from 6-8 pm.  Let's hope someone suggests that the perceived need for a parking structure is way overblown and that will all that is possibly changing downtown at the Post Office and elsewhere, this is premature at best.

Is Burlingame's post office historic? If so, what can be done?

FREE Online Forum - Historic Post Office Closures

 

Thursday, November 8, 2012

12:00-1:00 PM

 

California Preservation Foundation, National Trust for Historic Preservation, and the Los Angeles Conservancy are offering a FREE online forum.

 

Due to deep budget deficits, the U.S. Postal Service plans to close, relocate, or downsize numerous post offices throughout the country.  Many of California’s Historic Post Offices will be impacted by this and some have already been affected.  The process for the sale of post offices has been confusing and unclear. Hear about what has occurred to date across the country and the process for closure and relocation and how you and your organization can get involved.  Also, hear about lessons learned from recent Post Offices closures in California.

 

This online forum is free and open to the public.  The format will include a presentation by the National Trust for Historic Preservation, California Preservation Foundation, and the Los Angeles Conservancy followed by time for questions and answers.  If you have a specific question to submit ahead of time, please email it to Jennifer Gates at  [email protected].

 

Registration is FREE so sign up now!

 

For additional information or questions please contact California Preservation Foundation at

[email protected] or call 415-495-0349.

Here and There - Part 1 Greenwich, Conn.

When I'm travelling I often like to compare my environs with B'game.  So I spent the afternoon reacquainting myself with Greenwich Avenue in Greenwich, CT.  Greenwich is a bit more upscale than B'game, but if Hillsborough had not seceded years ago our combined demographics would be pretty close--and Hill People do think of the Avenew as their downtown.

Greenwich Avenue has a lot of similarities to our Avenue.  An old, even historic, train stop anchors one end and the other end goes up hill to very, very pricey residential neighborhoods.  It has the obligatory new Apple store, Sephora, Talbots, Lululemon, various upscale womens' clothing stores and nice restaurants.  It also had a very traditional post office sitting on pricey real estate shown here

This location was closed in March and moved off the Avenue to a much less expensive, leased location a couple blocks away.  Here is the new post office

It will be interesting to watch what happens to their old post office since Greenwich has had a Historic District around its Avenue since 1989.  The Greenwich Times noted the sale in 2011 for $15 million and reported

There is no shortage of rumors about what would move into the space. Some observers speculated high-end retailers Bergdorf Goodman or Neiman Marcus would take over, but no plans are listed in the sale contract.  A preservation covenant is attached to the sale of the building, which is listed on the National Register of Historic Places.

The new owners must preserve the building's neoclassical facade to ensure it is still eligible to be listed on the National Register. The Connecticut Historic PresRead more:ervation and Museum Division would have to approve any changes to historic features of the property.

Looks like we are more similar to Greenwich than I thought when I started my visit this afternoon!

Postal Backtrack

The Wall Street Journal edition of May 10th describes some of the backlash agains the USPS move to close 3,700 rural post offices and 223 mail-sorting plants (like the one on Rollins Rd).  The report states that "the United States Postal Service on Wednesday backed away from its plan to close as many as 3,700 rural post offices starting next week".  Unfortunately our downtown post office is NOT in that category and, in fact, the City has received word from David Rouse, the realty asset manager, that our PO "will be actively marketed within the next 30-45 days".  Apparently the thirty day window for additional comment after the April 16th Public Meeting has been tossed in the dead letter file as this notice was dated May 2nd.

The Journal goes on to note

The (U.S.) Senate two weeks ago approved a bill that would trigger early retirement for as many as 100,000 postal workers, put off closing post offices and distribution centers for two years, and continue Saturday mail delivery.  Another bill is pending in the House.

That tells me, it's time to slow down on the sale of the Primrose Post Office as well.  Support for that idea comes also from a Letter to the Editor in the same edition of the WSJ.  A Paul Dickson from South Carolina writes about an earlier article

The Journal ignores the most important reason for the Postal Service's financial troubles: a $5.5 billion annual mandate to prefund 75 years of future retirees health benefits in just 10 years.  This onerous requirement, unmatched by any entity in the private sector or government, is responsible for more than 80% of the Postal Service's debt.  But for this pre-funding mandate, the Postal Service would have posted a profit of $700 million from 2007-2010 and a $200 million profit in the first quarter of this fiscal year.

No one is more interested in getting government and pseudo government agencies' pension and health costs back under control than I am.  You can read about this here, here and here.  But if Mr. Aiken's numbers are correct, this may be too fast and certainly jeopardizes downtown B'game for very poor reasons.