Dedicated to Empowering and Informing the Burlingame Community

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.

Posted in , ,

6 responses to “City Hall: Assessing the structure”

  1. Joanne

    Whatever the City decides to do they should not give up that location. They will NEVER get it back.
    San Mateo once had their city hall in their downtown and there was some talk of bringing it back to downtown. Trying to get that space back now is impossible.

  2. Cassandra

    Stay put.
    Fix it.
    More meeting space? Walk across the street to the library’s Lane Room.

  3. Timothy Hooker

    Did we get several estimates on removing asbestos I wonder. That number seems very high based on the sq footage.
    They say:
    The average cost to remove asbestos from commercial buildings typically ranges from $5 to $20 per square foot, depending on several factors. These factors include:
    Extent of contamination:
    Larger buildings or those with more widespread asbestos may cost more to clean up.
    Location of asbestos:
    Asbestos in hard-to-reach areas, such as pipes or ceilings, may increase costs.
    Local regulations: Some areas have stricter regulations for asbestos removal, which can drive up costs.
    Disposal fees: The cost of safely disposing of asbestos can vary based on location and waste management fees.
    On average, a complete asbestos abatement project for a commercial building can cost anywhere from $15,000 to $30,000 or more, depending on the size of the building and the extent of the asbestos contamination.
    For larger buildings or complex projects, costs can rise significantly. It’s recommended to get several quotes from licensed professionals for a more accurate estimate.

  4. Grace

    Am I the only one seeing the hypocrisy in Colson’s Opinion piece in the Daily Journal today? https://www.smdailyjournal.com/opinion/guest_perspectives/demolition-meets-democracy/article_e6bc66d2-fadb-47c5-8940-05c565945c12.html?_gl=1*vrp3ol*_up*MQ..*_ga*MTg2OTYzNTQwLjE3NzI0NzY2Mzg.*_ga_4T2EB147B8*czE3NzI0NzY2MzckbzEkZzAkdDE3NzI0Nzg2MTQkajYwJGwwJGgw

  5. Cathy Baylock

    I am grateful Donna Colson has written this op-ed advocating for transparency and public input regarding the design for the new White House ballroom. Contrarily, The City of Burlingame is to be commended for initiating a process to assess the historic significance of our existing City Hall, something the Trump administration did not do before demolishing the east wing. Hopefully, the Capital Planning board will rectify this at their meeting March 5th. All we ask is that an appropriate project is approved that respects the White House including elements of its size and architecture. Thank you to the National Trust and Donna’s leadership on this board for holding the administration accountable. It’s not too late to alter the project as currently conceived that will not diminish the White House, the international symbol of our country’s government.

  6. Jennifer Pfaff

    Agree completely. Many thanks to Donna on both counts.

Leave a Reply


The Burlingame Voice is dedicated to informing and empowering the Burlingame community.  Our blog is a public forum for the discussion of issues that relate to Burlingame, California.  Opinions posted on the Burlingame Voice are those of the poster and commenter and not necessarily the opinion of the Editorial Board.  Comments are subject to the Terms of Use.


All content subject to Copyright 2003-2026

Discover more from The Burlingame Voice

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading