Dedicated to Empowering and Informing the Burlingame Community

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.

City Hall purchase Instagram post

 

Posted in , , , , , , , ,

11 responses to “City Hall Moving Around the Corner?”

  1. Mom

    I hope we don’t end up with another lousy Crestmoor deal right downtown. The city should not be in the rental or developer business. Stick to the knitting please.

  2. Deep Throat- Follow the “lost” $40 Million

    Crestmoor deal..
    Deep Throat would state, “Follow the Money.
    The SMUHSD’s $125 million deal with DR Horton was “cancelled” in July (not August) 2021.
    (This period is shady- SMUHSD Board President Robert Griffin is an enabler and there is nothing published on the “deal” in this time.)
    The $85 million deal SummerHill Homes was disclosed on August 26, 2021
    As the deal came to escrow, SummerHill then SOLD the Crestmoor property to Toll Brothers (sale upon escrow) for an “undisclosed amount. (more than $85 million)
    A junior reporter could find the property transfer from SummerHill to Toll Brothers and find out “just how much” Summerhill Homes made for NEVER BUILDING A SINGLE HOME!
    What is the amount of a “finders fee” would be paid to DR Horton to cancel the $125 million deal once it was known the SMUHSD was both desperate and crooked?
    DCG Strategies Company received a $1.3 million payout for selling Crestmoor at a $40 million discount. Who else “got paid”?
    Deep Throat says… “follow the money”
    July -August 2021 are the months of scandal in the SMUHSD-

  3. Joanne Bennett

    They need to keep the land the current city hall sits on and rebuild/remodel. Once that land is gone they will never ever be able to replace it. The City of San Mateo once had their city hall downtown. The only building that exist from the original civic center is the old firehouse on Ellsworth. Several years ago there was some talk about bringing city hall back to downtown. That idea quickly fell flat. A 1960’s apartment building, Mills Square Apts. sits in its place. Burlingame is building plenty of housing all over the place. Preserve that land!

  4. Timothy Hooker

    Interesting building. Have clients in that building. How many parking spaces?

  5. Joe

    It’s a done deal as predicted. The city newsletter didn’t mention if it was unanimous or not. I did a quick walk through the garage space. There are 33 spots at ground level and notably more in the below ground level. I’d estimate 75 total. Here’s the official word:
    At the City Council meeting on February 18, 2025, the City Council authorized the City Manager to negotiate and execute a Lease Agreement, Purchase and Sale Agreement, and Tenant Improvement Agreement for 1440 Chapin Avenue to serve as the new City Hall. These agreements are subject to additional due diligence.
    After execution of the agreements, the City will begin tenant improvements on the space and will not move into 1440 Chapin until at least August 1, 2026. The City will then lease 26,522 square feet of the building before purchasing the building on or before June 30, 2027, for a price of $34,500,000.
    The new City Hall is less than two blocks from the current City Hall and will provide ample office space for the City’s current staffing levels, as well as room for expansion. Additionally, once the City completes the purchase of the building, the City will receive rent revenue from existing tenants. The new City Hall will include a one-stop-shop service counter, where residents can apply for permits, pay fees, and talk to staff from multiple departments. Residents and business community members will have access to additional parking spaces when visiting the new City Hall, which is also in walking distance to Caltrain and multiple SamTrans routes.

  6. resident

    The Daily Journal says it was unanimous.

  7. Handle Bard

    Of course it was.

  8. Timothy Hooker

    Thanks Joe….

  9. Katherine Gerster

    I strongly agree with Joanne Bennet’s comment above – thank you, Joanne! It would be so much better for the community if the current site were kept and a new building was erected there.
    Obviously the expense would be much greater, but a city hall is such a crucial building – the location and the architecture set the tone for the whole community. Look at Redwood City – its city hall is arguably its most beautiful and architecturally significant building. Just a few years ago, we supported a new, beautiful community center, and I think we could muster similar enthusiasm and support for a city hall we could proud of.
    I’ve spent a lot of time in 1440 Chapin (Pure Barre member here) and I’m so disappointed by the idea of that building housing city hall. While it’s near the downtown, the location is awkward and inconvenient, there’s no green space, and frankly, it’s just a random ugly office building. Burlingame is better than that, and we can do better than that!

  10. Grace

    I attended the workshop yesterday to “Help Shape the Future of Your City Hall Site.” As I suspected, based on the biased survey the city circulated about potential reuse, I feel that the decision has already been made: they plan to tear everything down.

    City Manager Goldman gave the presentation and quickly dismissed any possibility of reusing even the distinctive circular City Council chamber with its beautiful copper roof. Her reasoning was that it would be too costly since all of the building’s electrical systems are located at the far end of the building; but no cost was presented.

    What struck me most was how little appreciation there seemed to be for the building’s historic and architectural value. City Hall was designed by William Whifler, a prominent local architect, and it remains one of the finest examples of mid-century modern architecture on the Peninsula. The entire structure gently curves around both the site and the intersection, fostering a symbolic sense of community and visually complementing the Library to form a cohesive civic complex; I get the most prudent financial decision might be to move City Hall, but it would be nice to keep this feeling alive.

    I also understand that the best reuse might not be civic since the new recreation center provides plenty of public meeting space. But when I suggested preserving the council chamber and adapting it for commercial use, Lisa balked. She said the site isn’t zoned for commercial activity and that rezoning would constitute illegal spot zoning. I mentioned a few approaches I’ve personally used elsewhere, such as a conditional use permit for adaptive reuse when preserving a historic structure serves a public benefit. I even showed an example of a round historic building successfully reused as part of a restaurant, where the kitchen and restrooms are located on the ground floor of an adjacent 7 story condo complex to minimize costs while maintaining the building’s appearance.

    Still, it was clear that there was little interest in thinking creatively or considering alternatives. Ironically, most of the speakers at the workshop mentioned the building’s historic value. Yet when Mayor Stevenson didn’t even know that City Hall was built in 1970 (he thought it was built in the 50s), it became clear that history isn’t a priority.

    Lisa appears to be running the process, supported by a public relations firm hired to collect “community input” through a biased survey that avoids real discussion of preservation. They had pretty renderings of what could be done to the site but failed to even have a preliminary historic survey done so all the options could be presented fairly; a complete waste of taxpayer money. Sadly, it seems that none of the decision-makers currently involved have either the knowledge of, or desire for, historic preservation and only want to be able to say that they did do public outreach, so we cannot later complain.

  11. JP

    Thank you for this assessment of the meeting. I worry that the city will just sell it off in the name of more housing in the densest part of town. Green space should be the priority. The idea that the round section could be repurposed is great.

Leave a Reply

RECENT COMMENTS

RECENT POSTS

CATEGORIES

ABOUT THE VOICE

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.

COPYRIGHT NOTICE

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