Agenda packet, special meeting — San Mateo City Council, October 20, 2025

CITY OF SAN MATEO
City Council Special Meeting
October 20, 2025
5:30 PM
City Hall Council Chamber
Entrance is on O’Farrell Street

COUNCIL MEMBERS
Robert Newsom Jr.

Adam Loraine
Nicole Fernandez
Danielle Cwirko-Godycki
Lisa Diaz Nash

AMENDED AGENDA

THIS MEETING CAN BE ATTENDED IN PERSON OR REMOTE BY JOINING ZOOM – SEE CODES BELOW.

PUBLIC COMMENTS WILL BE ACCEPTED BOTH IN PERSON AND REMOTELY .

SEE END OF AGENDA FOR OPTIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO PARTICIPATE IN THE MEETING.

To join via Zoom – click here:

October 20, 2025
To join via telephone: (408) 638-0968
Webinar ID: 852 7540 4713 Passcode: 872196
Agenda Amended on 10/17: Item 1, Attachment 1

CALL TO ORDER
Roll Call
AB 2449 Requests and Consideration for Meeting Participation by Teleconference due to Just Cause or Emergency Circumstances

STUDY SESSION
The public will have an opportunity to comment during the consideration of this item.

1. Citywide Facilities Condition Assessment – Informational Receive an overview of the Citywide Comprehensive Facilities Condition Assessment and provide feedback and direction on next steps.

CEQA: This council action in receiving an informational update on the status of City facilities and providing feedback is exempt from CEQA, because it involves only planning or feasibility studies for possible future actions which the City has not approved, adopted, or funded. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15262.)

ADJOURNMENT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AGENDAS:

Agendas and material are posted on the City’s website on the Friday preceding each Council Meeting and can be viewed on the City's website at
www.cityofsanmateo.org
. Any supplemental material distributed to the Council after the posting of the agenda will be made part of the official record.

WATCHING A MEETING ON TV:

City Council meetings are broadcast live on Comcast/channel 27, Wave/channel 26, or AT&T/channel 99.

1 of 46

For transmission problems during the broadcast, please call (650) 522-7099. For all other broadcast comments, call (650) 522-7040, Monday-Friday, 8 a.m. - 5 p.m.

WATCHING A MEETING ON A COMPUTER:

There are three ways to stream.
1) Public Meeting Portal
www.cityofsanmateo.org/publicmeetings
2) City YouTube channel and stream it on YouTube:
http://youtube.com/CityofSanMateo
3) Watch TV live stream:
https://www.cityofsanmateo.org/193/Channel-San-Mateo-Live-Stream

PUBLIC COMMENTS/REQUEST TO SPEAK
Prior to the Meeting
Send comments to:
[email protected]
until 4 p.m. the day of the meeting.

During the meeting
By Zoom:

Click the link at the top of the agenda and you’ll be added to the meeting. All attendees are muted by default. When the item of interest is open for consideration, select the “Raise Your Hand” icon and you will be called on at the appropriate time.

By telephone:

Call (408) 638-0968 and enter the conference ID found at the top of the meeting agenda. When the item of interest is open for consideration, select *9 to raise your hand. When called upon, press *6 to unmute, state your name and provide your comments.

In Person:

At the meeting complete a “Request to Speak” form. Organized Group and Presentations: Up to five (5) minutes for a group presentation, with as many speakers as can be accommodated within that time allowance. To qualify for a group presentation, all individuals associated with the presentation must be clearly identified and confirmed as in attendance at the meeting. Presentation materials must be submitted to [email protected] one (1) business day in advance of the meeting.

ACCESSIBILITY:

In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and to ensure meaningful access for all participants, including those with limited English proficiency, individuals requiring special accommodations or language assistance to participate in this meeting may contact the City Clerk’s Office at (650) 522-7040 or [email protected] . Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting.

2 of 46

CITY OF SAN MATEO
6 0
4 1

CITY OF SAN MATEO
Agenda Report
City Hall
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo CA 94403
www.cityofsanmateo.org
Agenda Number: 1 Section Name: STUDY SESSION Account Number: 82-4681 File ID: 25-10490 TO: City Council
FROM: Alex Khojikian, City Manager
PREPARED BY: Public Works Department
MEETING DATE: October 20, 2025
SUBJECT:

Citywide Facilities Condition Assessment – Informational RECOMMENDATION:

Receive an overview of the Citywide Comprehensive Facilities Condition Assessment and provide feedback and direction on next steps.

BACKGROUND:

The City owns and manages a diverse portfolio of over one hundred buildings, which vary significantly in type, age, size, and physical condition. To ensure responsible stewardship of these assets and optimize the use of available resources, the Facilities and Fleet Services Division of the Public Works Department established an initiative to develop a comprehensive, Citywide maintenance and capital improvement program. This initiative includes evaluating each facility on an individual basis, identifying physical deficiencies, and prioritizing needed repairs or upgrades using a systematic, data-driven approach.

In Fiscal Year 2024–25, the City retained ELS Architecture and Urban Design (ELS) to conduct property condition assessments across a portion of the City’s building inventory, with the primary goal to provide a clear understanding of each facility’s physical health and support long-term asset management decisions through accurate data.

ELS conducted evaluations using both destructive and non-destructive methods to observe and document the physical conditions of City facilities. Their scope of work included inspections of structural elements, roofing systems, and mechanical, electrical, and plumbing (MEP) infrastructure, as well as site-specific factors such as accessibility and general wear and tear. Each facility's assessment culminated in a detailed report that included:
Identification of critical physical and design deficiencies Recommendations for modernization and capital improvement projects Preventative maintenance plans to prolong the useful life of building systems Probable cost estimates to address identified issues
A prioritization framework to guide future budgeting and scheduling The Assessment Process
The City initially identified ninety-seven (97) occupiable properties for evaluation. These ranged from large civic facilities to smaller assets such as restrooms within public parks. During the preliminary review, ELS and City staff determined that thirty-seven (37) of these properties would be excluded from the assessment for one or more of the following reasons:
The facility is currently under construction or already undergoing an assessment The facility was recently constructed and shows no significant signs of deterioration The facility is too small or minor to justify a full condition assessment

3 of 46

CITY OF SAN MATEO
6 0
4 1
Sixty (60) of the remaining facilities were divided into two groups:
Group A: Detailed Assessments (10 buildings)
These facilities were identified as high priority due to their size, complexity, or observed condition. They underwent in-depth feasibility studies, which included complete structural reviews, comprehensive MEP assessments, and detailed examinations of site-specific issues such as water intrusion, age-related degradation, code compliance, and accessibility challenges. These detailed reports help guide decisions about major capital investments or potential facility overhauls. As part of this process, the City also provided outreach to facility leaseholders to inform and support their operational needs. Group B: Visual Assessments (50 buildings)
These buildings were suitable for a less intensive visual inspection, focusing on identifying surface-level deficiencies that could inform a rough order of magnitude (ROM) cost estimate for improvements. While not as exhaustive as Group A, these assessments provide sufficient data to support budgeting and medium-term planning.

The aforementioned thirty-seven (37) facilities constitute Group C.

Findings and Prioritization
To facilitate the budgeting and implementation of recommended improvements, ELS classified all identified building needs into three priority categories:
Priority 1 – Immediate/Code-Required & Functionally Necessary Improvements These items address immediate health and safety risks or critical functional deficiencies. They require prompt attention and are typically necessary to keep facilities operational and code compliant. Priority 2 – Recommended/Mid-Term Improvements
These issues are not immediately critical but are recommended to enhance operational efficiency, extend system life, or improve occupant experience. These may also include upgrades that, while not mandated, align with best practices or sustainability goals.
Priority 3 – Long-Term/Discretionary Improvements
These items reflect desired enhancements that are not time sensitive. They may include aesthetic upgrades, non- essential modernization, or features that improve the user experience but are not critical to building function.

The ELS assessments estimate the construction costs, including escalation to 2030 (as an assumed mid-point of construction) and some markup/contingency. The grand total for all Priority 1, 2, and 3 improvements outlined in the assessment is $243 million, with Priority 1 improvements totaling $77 million, Priority 2 improvements totaling $160 million, and Priority 3 improvements totaling $6 million. It should be noted, however, that these numbers only reflect the cost of construction related to the known improvements and the current Building Code requirements. The true cost would need to include the soft costs for the project, such as design and construction management, as well as other improvements related to site design, utilities, and any subsequent updates to the Building Code. On several recent projects, the cost to fully deliver projects was as much as 50% more. Based on this, the cost of all Priority improvements could be as high as $367 million.

Attachment 1 provides a tabular summary of each of the 60 facilities evaluated and ELS’s construction cost estimates for addressing the three categories of Priority improvements. The following sections summarize key findings at a subset of community-facing or operationally significant Group A and B facilities. The listing of rounds in the attachment refer to the assessment process groupings of investigation rounds.

Summary of Key Findings at Group A Facilities
Lakeshore Recreation Center - circa 1968
This facility has been used for childcare since 2008 and is showing significant deterioration and structural deficiencies that compromise its continued viability. The building’s exterior has been heavily impacted by age and prolonged weather exposure, leading to damage in key wood components such as trellises, guardrails, fascia boards, trim, utility doors, and

4 of 46

CITY OF SAN MATEO
6 0
4 1
siding. These elements show advanced signs of dry rot, warping, cracking, and peeling paint. In addition to surface-level issues, the building suffers from underlying structural deficiencies, including compromised framing in some areas and signs of foundational settling that may affect long-term stability and safety. The building relies on aging mechanical systems, single-pane windows, inadequate room signage, the absence of a fire suppression system, and original plumbing and lighting fixtures that fall short of current code requirements and the functional needs of a childcare facility. The Lakeshore Recreation Center is currently closed due to these conditions. Its operations have been temporarily relocated to Shoreview Recreation Center while staff determines this location’s long-term viability.

Fire Station 27 – circa 1971
This station’s issues stem from worn materials due to weather and age, including deteriorated terracotta roof fascia tiles, dry rot, cracked and worn wood fascia boards, and deteriorating wood exit doors and frames, with some exterior doors being hollow core wood. On the interior, there are cracked concrete floors, damaged wood casework and doors, single- pane aluminum windows, dated toilet and shower stalls, lack of access ladders, and inadequate signage. Additional work would involve strengthening structural components to ensure that this facility, given its level of significance, meets current Life Safety Structural Performance standards.

Marina and Hillsdale Branch Libraries – circa 1965
The concerns at the Hillsdale Library are related to exterior wood deterioration such as dry rot, cracking, and peeling paint due to age and weather exposure. Improvements such as replacing single-pane wood windows with dual-pane systems, updating original mechanical and plumbing systems over twenty years old, and upgrading all light fixtures to meet current Energy Code standards would enhance functionality and efficiency. Meanwhile, the Marina Library is currently under construction to address a range of structural deficiencies, including foundational upgrades and seismic reinforcements.

These improvements are part of a broader effort to modernize the facility, ensure compliance with current building codes, and provide an accessible, and welcoming environment that better supports the needs of the community.

Shoreview Recreation Center – circa 1968
The facility is currently being used for childcare and has several structural and maintenance challenges, including a sinking structural slab, water intrusion from aging heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment or roof penetrations. External concerns are related to deteriorating wood, such as dry rot. Upgrades such as replacing wood single-pane windows with energy-efficient dual-pane systems, installing fire sprinklers, and updating outdated mechanical, plumbing, and lighting systems are recommended to improve efficiency and code compliance.

Central Park Recreation Center – circa 1965
This facility is used to provide meals and a community space for the senior population, programming in the evenings, special events and rentals. The building exhibits worn materials due to weather and age, including water intrusion, dry rot, and termite damage. Interior wear includes water intrusion and scratched wood floors from daily use. Recent roof improvements have been made to address some of these issues; however, upgrades such as replacing the HVAC system and replacing single-pane aluminum windows with dual-pane systems are needed to improve efficiency and bring the building up to current codes.

Beresford Recreation Center and Park Facilities (Garden Center, Rose Room, Change Building) - circa 1966 to 1975 The Beresford Recreation Center and its associated park facilities face a range of significant maintenance and structural challenges, including water intrusion, dry rot, termites, rodents, and building settlement that has impacted doors and foundational stability. The Beresford Garden Center and Rose Room, which are currently leased for private use, also present ongoing challenges due to their aging infrastructure and the limitations imposed by third-party lease arrangements, which complicate scheduling, usage, and maintenance responsibilities. Staff met with the third-party lease holders in advance of this Council meeting to inform them of the facility assessment findings.

5 of 46

CITY OF SAN MATEO
6 0
4 1
Senior Center – circa 1988
The Senior Center is facing significant infrastructure issues that mirror many of the challenges at the Beresford Recreation Center. Much of its mechanical, electrical and plumbing (MEP) equipment is original and in need of replacement, while low lighting levels further limit the building’s efficiency and usability. One particular concern is the ongoing structural settlement, estimated at approximately ¼ inch per year, which has required facilities staff to repeatedly grind down exterior concrete to keep egress doors operational.

Joinville Swim Center – circa 1968
A structural analysis at the swim center indicates that the facility is vulnerable to significant damage in a seismic event, with recommended retrofits needed to address these concerns. The facility’s mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems are outdated and have exceeded their useful life, necessitating major replacements with energy-efficient alternatives. The pool systems are also non-compliant with current building codes where both pools are commingled, plumbing velocities exceed code limits, and significant leaks are present. Notably, there is an untraceable leak beneath the pool, which may indicate underlying structural failure, and further investigation could compromise the shell, rendering the pool unusable for the immediate future. Remedying these issues require full replacement of mechanical and chemical systems, replastering, deck and gutter replacement, new piping, and ADA-accessible entry features.

Martin Luther King Community and Swim Center (MLK) – circa 1968 The recreation center needs upgrades to meet current building, accessibility, safety, and operational standards, presenting an opportunity to incorporate a Resilience Center that better serves the community. Significant deficiencies have been identified throughout the center, including non-compliant locker rooms lacking accessible fixtures, outdated mechanical and electrical systems, aging structural components with seismic vulnerabilities, and non-compliance with the most current ADA and California Building Code standards in the pool areas. The pool systems are problematic where the main and training pools are commingled, plumbing systems are undersized, filtration and circulation equipment are beyond their lifespan, and turnover rates are non-compliant. A complete renovation is recommended, including reconfiguring locker rooms, expanding the pool equipment room by 525 square feet, upgrading mechanical, electrical, and plumbing (MEP) systems to all-electric, and replacing both pools’ infrastructure and deck.

Trinta Park Restroom Building – circa 1976
The building's heavily painted exterior shows significant wear, with damaged doors, deteriorated door frames, broken planters, worn aluminum windows, and aging roof shingles. Water intrusion is a concern in restrooms, where the interior slab is lower than the exterior paving at doorways. Inside, restrooms have severely worn and damaged concrete floors, while entryways and the concession stand show signs of dirt buildup. In the concession area, cabinets and countertops are damaged and misaligned, and the existing wood service doors require replacement. The original mechanical systems and plumbing fixtures exist beyond their useful lifespan.

Summary of Key Findings at Group B Facilities
Central Park Tennis Garage – circa 1964
This concrete facility features one hundred and twenty underground parking spaces with tennis and pickleball courts on the roof. Recent inspections revealed substantial structural issues, including girder damage, column cracking, spalling, and significant movement at the perimeter piers, primarily due to decades of moisture exposure. In 2024, improvements were made beneath the tennis courts, concrete repairs were carried out throughout the structure, and eleven structural posts were installed at the garage level to preserve the structure for the short-term.

6 of 46

CITY OF SAN MATEO
6 0
4 1
Central Parking Garage – circa 1964
The assessment of the parking garage identifies significant maintenance needs, including cleaning and repainting, repairing damage to stucco finishes and brick veneer panels, replacing rusted doors and frames, and addressing damaged signage.

Water intrusion in stairwells, the lack of accessible pedestrian ramps, and malfunctioning floor drains should be addressed.

Structural concerns such as cracked concrete on parking levels and ramps, rusted metal structures at ramps and stairs, and deteriorated metal guardrails further underscore the urgency of repairs. In 2025, improvements were made to the existing roof membrane to maintain its integrity for the short-term. 2nd& El Camino Garage – circa 1973
The five-and-a-half-story parking garage includes approximately 300 parking stalls, two stair towers, and an elevator.

Several deficiencies have been identified, including gaps in railings, inadequate vehicular impact protection, deteriorating stair conditions, concrete spalling, poor drainage, and a lack of comprehensive waterproofing throughout the structure.

Recent structural repairs, combined with planned ongoing maintenance, are expected to extend the service life of the garage until 2034. The elevator controls upgrade project in 2025 ensures improved reliability, enhanced user safety, and compliance with current accessibility and building code standards.

City Hall – circa 1954
The facility has a number of issues including inadequate MEP systems, inefficient space distribution, conflicting building systems, an inadequately sized backup generator, lack of fire suppression in parts of the building, and an outdated fire alarm system. Proposed improvements include relocating staff from leased office space within City Plaza to City Hall and optimizing space for greater efficiency. However, given these challenges and the facility’s limitations, there remains a long- term interest in relocating City Hall to a centralized, downtown location.

Corporation Yard – circa 1942
A comprehensive inspection of multiple municipal facilities including the Streets Department, Sewer Department, Field Maintenance and Sign Shops, shelter structures, and various office and break areas, revealed widespread maintenance needs impacting both daily operations and emergency readiness. These issues include deteriorating exterior materials, as well as interior concerns like outdated or non-compliant ADA features, ventilation deficiencies, and damaged structural components. Functional, but aging facilities such as restrooms, locker rooms, break areas, and offices require cleaning, repainting, flooring repairs, door and window replacements, and updated signage to meet code requirements. The condition of these facilities directly affects staff efficiency, safety, and the City’s ability to respond swiftly during emergencies, underscoring the critical importance of these buildings to overall operations.

Park Restrooms
As part of an ongoing, multi-phase Capital Improvement Program (CIP) to enhance park restrooms, the City has completed five of ten planned phases to date. Recent improvements span across various parks, focusing on repairing and refinishing worn wood surfaces, replacing corroded or damaged fixtures, and ensuring ADA compliance through updated signage and accessibility features. Upcoming phases include upgrades to the restrooms at Harborview Park, Ryder Park, Seal Point Park, Mariners Island Park, Fiesta Meadows Park, Beresford Park Change Building, Laurelwood Park, Paddock Park, and Bay Meadows Park. The City continues to implement these phased improvements to modernize and maintain restroom facilities in alignment with long-term park infrastructure goals.

Potential Approaches for Improvements
In Spring 2025 the City Council established a Capital Reserve fund of $25 million which was set aside from City General Fund Reserves for infrastructure projects, which can be used for all City infrastructure, including streets, utilities, and City owned facilities. The following approaches to addressing the overall facility needs consider ways in which those funds can

7 of 46

CITY OF SAN MATEO
6 0
4 1
be strategically deployed.

Approach 1 – Status Quo
Otherwise known as “deferred maintenance,” this involves continuing with routine maintenance using currently budgeted funds to address a limited number of Group A - Priority 1 items without resolving underlying deficiencies. In general, the City has been allocating approximately $4 million per year from the General Fund for the overall Capital Improvement Program, some of which typically goes to facility needs. While helpful for addressing critical issues, over time, this practice can lead to accelerated facility deterioration, and structural failures, safety risks, and ultimately, facility closures and higher costs.

Approach 2 – Extend Useful Life of Priority Facilities
This approach goes beyond the Status Quo approach to address Priority deficiencies identified through the Facility Assessments at key City facilities with like-for-like improvements. Some portion of the City’s $25 million capital reserve could be directed toward a prioritized subset of City facilities to extend their useful lives.

Recognizing the City does not have sufficient resources to address all facility needs in all Priority Categories, this approach would target City investment toward specific facilities to initiate pre-construction activities (further investigation, planning, and design). Additional funding would ultimately be required to fully improve these facilities, such as through additional capital reserve funds, securing external grants or philanthropic sources, or through a future revenue measure.

Approach 3 – Strategic Redevelopment of Priority Facilities This approach, similar to Approach 2, focuses on addressing Priority deficiencies at key City facilities, but includes assessing the feasibility of redeveloping certain existing facilities to create new, purpose-built spaces that more effectively meet current and anticipated needs of the community. Some portion of the City’s $25 million capital reserve may serve as seed funding to support this strategy, complementing existing grant sources and enhancing the City’s ability to secure additional funding. The following facilities are identified for potential redevelopment consideration. Lakeshore Recreation Center: Addressing critical issues at the Lakeshore Recreation Center could restore the building's usability, constructing a purpose-built childcare facility may offer greater long-term value through improved functionality and cost efficiency. The City already received $1.8 million in 2025 for childcare improvements and have funds from the childcare development fee to support this effort. MLK Center: Supplemental funding supports existing Council-appropriated funds and federal grant funding to advance the visioning and development of a resiliency center. The City appropriated $200,000 in December 2024 to start a community engagement and visioning process and received an $850,000 federal earmark in 2024 (expires in 2032) toward this goal.
Fire Station 27: Redevelopment of Fire Station 27 is ultimately necessary to create a modern facility that meets current and future needs, enhances safety and efficiency, and complies with modern codes. Joinville Swim Center: Current challenges provide an opportunity to assess the future of this facility, including options for restoration or expansion, potential property redevelopment, and the possible consolidation of services with the nearby Shoreview Recreation Center.

Approach 4 – Citywide Operational/Programmatic Assessment This approach incorporates further analysis of certain City facilities in terms of condition, functional utilization, and future needs, with the objective of identifying opportunities for consolidation. The findings would inform recommendations regarding potential facility closures and the possible disposition of underutilized properties or the redevelopment and utilization of existing properties. Some portion of the Capital Reserve could be directed toward initiating these additional studies to provide further information to support future Council direction. For example:

The close proximity and complementary programming of the Senior Center, Beresford Recreation Center and Garden Center present a strategic opportunity to consolidate the locations into a single, modernized multigenerational facility. Seniors primarily use the Senior Center during the day, while Beresford serves children

8 of 46

CITY OF SAN MATEO
6 0
4 1
and youth in the afternoons and evenings. By integrating these services into one purpose-built facility with adaptable spaces, the City can better meet the diverse needs of its community, improve operational efficiency, reduce long-term maintenance costs, and maximize the use of shared amenities throughout the day. On the east side of the City, the future of Shoreview Recreation Center should be considered in coordination with the nearby Joinville Swim Center to ensure a cohesive and cost-effective strategy. Joinville is facing significant deficiencies, including potential structural failure of the pool and non-compliance with current codes. When combined with the demand for recreation space in the east and central districts, such as Shoreview and MLK, the scale of investment required presents an opportunity to reimagine both Joinville and Shoreview as modern, code- compliant, and resilient community assets. A comprehensive study of both sites will help guide their transformation into long-term, high-quality facilities that meet evolving community needs. To support long-term strategic planning that aligns community needs with downtown development objectives, a comprehensive downtown parking garage assessment that incorporates the best-use study findings for the Central Park Tennis Garage and the rehabilitated 2nd and El Camino Real Garage (which has an extended life after recent significant structural improvements but will ultimately need significant additional investment), the aging Central Parking Garage discussed above, as well as the Transit Center Garage, Main Street Garage, and Kiku Garage. The goal would be to evaluate options for redevelopment, replacement, or alternative uses to ensure the parking infrastructure effectively meets future community and development needs in conjunction with developing the Downtown Area Plan.
Corporation Yard: Given the size of the Corporation Yard, there is potential for it to be redeveloped in a more efficient manner that improves operational and emergency response functions with a portion of the property dedicated for other uses. To evaluate these and other options, a best-use study is underway for the Corporation Yard.

Funding Needs and Options
As described above, the overall need for addressing all Priority issues identified at Group A and B facilities ranges from $113 million in construction costs alone to $170 million with soft costs or $243 million to $367 million with Group C included. This far exceeds the City’s available resources to address in any reasonable timeframe. The City’s current maintenance program addresses critical facility issues, but conditions are such that certain facilities, such as Lakeshore Recreation Center, are facing closure. The vast majority of the City’s facilities detailed above were constructed prior to 1970, meaning they are 55-plus years old and reaching the end of their useful lives without significant reinvestment.

General Fund Support: The City currently allocates approximately $4 million annually from the General Fund to capital projects, including facility projects. This level of investment allows for the bare minimum maintenance and upgrade program. Staff has increased their efforts to address more significant facility upgrade needs, such as recent roof replacements, but is only able to address the most critical life/safety needs to keep facilities operational.

Capital Reserve: As discussed previously, Council did establish a $25 million Capital Reserve that is a source of funding to address a portion of the overall needs. Staff recommends this be viewed as a source of funding that can serve as a “down payment” on required improvements. If Council supports use of a portion of the Capital Reserve toward any of the above approaches for priority facilities, staff will bring subsequent recommendations for Council consideration as part of the next five-year Capital Improvement Program (e.g., how much money directed to which facility for what purpose) this upcoming spring.

Revenue Sources: The City has certain revenue sources that can also support facility upgrades, including park impact fees

9 of 46

CITY OF SAN MATEO
6 0
4 1
(variable depending on development) and parking revenue (not enough to address facility upgrade costs such as what is needed at parking garages). Ultimately, the City will likely need to pursue a dedicated revenue measure such as a General Obligation Bond to address its overall facility needs, as was previously discussed with Council in August 2025 and for which opinion research results will be presented to the City Council in January 2026.

Grant Opportunities: Staff, in coordination with the City’s grant writing consultant California Public Policy Group (CPPG), has reviewed several potential funding sources to support the City’s efforts to address facility improvement and modernization needs. All of the opportunities will require the City to strategically leverage existing capital improvement reserve funds to compete for external funding opportunities.

Several state and federal programs could support high-priority projects, particularly those addressing life-safety, resiliency, and community service needs. Projects such as Fire Station 27, the corporation yard, and the transformation of MLK into a resiliency center align well with current federal and state grant priorities. Facilities supporting childcare, such as the Lakeshore Recreation Center, would be good to request for federal earmarks. Emergency and resiliency centers, like MLK, would be an excellent choice for earmarks as well, although more would likely need to be done to develop projects further before the cost and viability are better understood.

Other opportunities include exploring low-interest loan programs through the Federal I-Bank for general facility improvements, potential climate bond community resilience center funding, state earmarks depending on the future fiscal climate, and partnerships through economic-development grants where permanent job creation or federal agency co- location can be demonstrated. CPPG and City advocates will continue to monitor emerging programs and coordinate with staff to develop viable opportunities.

In regard to City staffing resources, to deliver the City’s capital project needs, the City hired a consulting firm who is currently conducting an organizational assessment of the City’s Public Works Capital Improvement Project Division to provide recommendations on how best to approach staffing resources and streamlined processes to help efficiently and effectively deliver on future capital projects. Staff will share the recommendations with the City Council once the Organizational Assessment is finalized and complete.

Future Study Sessions
Several of the forthcoming best-use studies are intended to be used to help analyze certain facilities and will warrant discussions on improving operational efficiency and reducing long-term maintenance costs. Potential focused study session topics include:
Downtown Parking Garages and City Hall: Evaluate the long-term role of downtown parking structures within the context of urban development, evolving transportation needs, and land use planning. Explore options for modernizing or relocating City Hall to better support civic operations, enhance accessibility, and improve space utilization.
Aquatic and Recreation Centers: Develop a comprehensive strategy for sustaining and modernizing the City’s aquatic infrastructure to meet safety standards, programming needs, and community expectations. Reassess the City's portfolio of recreation centers to better align facility offerings with evolving community needs, demographic trends, and geographic equity.
Corporation Yard: Assess the long-term viability and operational efficiency of the City’s Corporation Yard, which houses essential maintenance and emergency response functions.

Next Steps
Staff requests City Council feedback on:
Does Council have a preference for pursuing one or more (or a blend) of the proposed approaches (1-4) to

10 of 46

CITY OF SAN MATEO
6 0
4 1
pursuing facility improvements?
Does Council agree with staff’s proposal to schedule future study sessions regarding downtown parking and City Hall, Aquatic and Recreation Centers, and the City’s corporation yard? BUDGET IMPACT:

There is no direct budget impact for this study session; however, the overall needs total in the $116-$367 million range depending on level of Priority issues being addressed, for which the City does not have adequate funds to cover. There could be additional cost if the City Council decides to pursue new facilities. In addition, the longer improvements are deferred, the more expensive improvements will be and more likely facilities may need to be shut down. Ultimately, a future dedicated revenue measure, such as a General Obligation Bond, is likely necessary to address the comprehensive facility upgrade needs throughout the City.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

This council action in receiving an informational update on the status of City facilities and providing feedback is exempt from CEQA, because it involves only planning or feasibility studies for possible future actions which the City has not approved, adopted, or funded. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15262.)

NOTICE PROVIDED
All meeting noticing requirements were met.

ATTACHMENTS
Att1 – Facilities Condition Assessment Construction Costs Summary

STAFF CONTACT
Matt Fabry, Public Works Director
[email protected]
(650) 522-7309
James O’Connell, Deputy Public Works Director
[email protected]
(650) 522-7304
Steve Wu, Facilities & Fleet Services Manager
[email protected]
(650) 522-7345

11 of 46

12 of 46

San Mateo Facilities Assessment
San Mateo, CA Project # 24-01633.00
Feasibility Assessment 10/16/25
Direct Costs
Including
Markups
MOC* Escalation
to MOC
Escalation
Cost
Direct Costs
Including Markups
and Escalation
Direct Costs
Including Markups MOC* Escalation to
MOC
Escalation
Cost
Direct Costs
Including Markups
and Escalation
Direct Costs
Including
Markups
MOC* Escalation
to MOC
Escalation
Cost
Direct Costs
Including Markups
and Escalation
Priority 3Priority 2Priority 1
Building
San Mateo Facilities Assessment Cost by Priority
Total Estimated Construction Costs
Area
Group B Round 1
11-20 Central Park 10,775 $1,793,407 2030 32.77% $587,674 $2,381,080 $964,206 2030 32.77% $315,956 $1,280,162 21 Martin Luther King Park 625 $94,790 2030 32.77% $31,061 $125,851 $52,022 2030 32.77% $17,047 $69,069 22 Harborview Park 675 $152,800 2030 32.77% $50,070 $202,871 $52,274 2030 32.77% $17,129 $69,403 23 Ryder Park 675 $197,372 2030 32.77% $64,676 $262,048 $54,394 2030 32.77% $17,824 $72,219 24-27 Seal Point Park 2,750 $511,797 2030 32.77% $167,709 $679,506 $125,267 2030 32.77% $41,048 $166,316 28 Joinville 1,400 $57,579 2030 32.77% $18,868 $76,446 $73,383 2030 32.77% $24,047 $97,429 29-31
Aquatic Park - Boat House and Restrooms 3,675 $843,742 2030 32.77% $276,482 $1,120,224 $172,001 2030 32.77% $56,362 $228,363 32 Mariners Island Park 225 $73,383 2030 32.77% $24,047 $97,429 $21,971 2030 32.77% $7,200 $29,171 33 Los Prados Park 1,100 $194,592 2030 32.77% $63,765 $258,356 $4,501 2030 32.77% $1,475 $5,976 34 Bay Meadows Park 200 $74,649 2030 32.77% $24,461 $99,111 $16,692 2030 32.77% $5,470 $22,162 35 Fiesta Meadows Park 225 $104,593 2030 32.77% $34,274 $138,866 $42,417 2030 32.77% $13,899 $56,316 36 Indian Springs Park 625 $87,390 2030 32.77% $28,636 $116,026 $2,670 2030 32.77% $875 $3,545 37 Laurelwood park 900 $172,300 2030 32.77% $56,460 $228,760 $52,380 2030 32.77% $17,164 $69,545 Group B Round 2
38 Golf Course Restroom 3rd Hole 200 $95,861 2030 32.77% $31,412 $127,274 $43,676 2030 32.77% $14,312 $57,988 39 Golf Course Restroom & Concession 9th Hole 700 $178,900 2030 32.77% $58,623 $237,524 $104,577 2030 32.77% $34,268 $138,845 40 Gold Course Maintenance Shed 5,400 $362,815 2030 32.77% $118,889 $481,705 $821,267 2030 32.77% $269,117 $1,090,384 $23,192 2030 32.77% $7,60 0 $30,792 41 Old Fire Station 25 3,600 $436,722 2030 32.77% $143,107 $579,829 $676,279 2030 32.77% $221,607 $897,887 $161,123 2030 32.77% $52,798 $213,921 42 Fire Station 23 Hose Tower 1,600 $9,881 2030 32.77% $3,238 $13,119 $197,472 2030 32.77% $64,709 $262,181 $58,004 2030 32.77% $19,007 $77,012 43 Lakeshore Restrooms 875 $44,266 2030 32.77% $14,505 $58,772 $112,628 2030 32.77% $36,907 $149,535 $36,924 2030 32.77% $12,099 $49,024 44 Corp Yard - Mobile Admin / Compliance 1,920 $280,408 2030 32.77% $91,886 $372,294 $167,487 2030 32.77% $54,883 $222,371 45 Corp Yard - Facilities Warehouse 7,600 $470,043 2030 32.77% $154,026 $624,070 $596,651 2030 32.77% $195,514 $792,166 46 Corp Yard - Parks Shelter 4,000 $407,216 2030 32.77% $133,439 $540,655 $171,598 2030 32.77% $56,230 $227,828 $4,967 2030 32.77% $1,628 $6,595 47 Corp Yard - Parks Warehouse 5,000 $319,808 2030 32.77% $104,797 $424,605 $429,077 2030 32.77% $140,602 $569,680 48 Corp Yard - Street Shelter 4,000 $516,247 2030 32.77% $169,167 $685,414 $220,281 2030 32.77% $72,183 $292,464 49 Corp Yard - Sign Shop 2,475 $164,936 2030 32.77% $54,047 $218,984 $176,653 2030 32.77% $57,887 $234,539 50 Corp Yard - Admin / Auto / Carpenters 12,075 $951,869 2030 32.77% $311,914 $1,263,783 $1,432,811 2030 32.77% $469,512 $1,902,322 Group B Round 3
51 Central Parking Garage 149,200 $6,126,223 2030 32.77% $2,007,475 $8,133,698 $3,545,799 2030 32.77% $1,161,907 $4,707,706 52 Beresford Restroom Bocce 264 $111,337 2030 32.77% $36,483 $147,820 $23,227 2030 32.77% $7,611 $30,838 53 Beresford Restroom 264 $129,091 2030 32.77% $42,301 $171,392 $35,548 2030 32.77% $11,649 $47,196 54 Beresford Picnic Shelter 1,500 $45,316 2030 32.77% $14,849 $60,165 $90,952 2030 32.77% $29,804 $120,756 55 Beresford Garden Center 3,450 $1,239,261 2030 32.77% $406,088 $1,645,349 $692,586 2030 32.77% $226,951 $919,537 $436,193 2030 32.77% $142,93 4 $579,127 56 Beresford Rose Room 1,600 $392,552 2030 32.77% $128,634 $521,185 $204,917 2030 32.77% $67,148 $272,066 $183,819 2030 32.77% $60,235 $244,054 57 Beresford Change Building 3,850 $408,750 2030 32.77% $133,942 $542,692 $293,032 2030 32.77% $96,022 $389,054 $120,766 2030 32.77% $39,573 $16 0,340 58 Shoreview Picnic Shelter 900 $11,443 2030 32.77% $3,750 $15,193 $48,499 2030 32.77% $15,892 $64,391 59 Shoreview Shed 216 $3,296 2030 32.77% $1,080 $4,376 $47,833 2030 32.77% $15,674 $63,508 60 City Hall 38,652 $4,928,130 2030 32.77% $1,614,877 $6,543,007 $6,570,840 2031 32.77% $2,153,264 $8,724,104 $4,928,130 2030 32.77% $1,614,948 $6,543,149 Total 273,191.00 $21,992,767 $29,199,481 $18,337,870 $24,347,022 $5,953,120 $7,904,013 Group C Facilities - 36 Total $82,164,830 $109,090,244

13 of 46

14 of 46

Facilities Condition
Assessment
Public Works Department
Parks & Recreation Department
ELS Architecture & Urban Design

15 of 46

Council Direction
• Does Council have a preference for pursuing one or more of the proposed approaches (1-4), or a combination of them, to guide facility improvements?
• Does Council agree with staff's proposal to schedule future study sessions regarding downtown parking and City Hall, Aquatic and Recreation Centers, and the City's Corporation Yard?
2 16 of 46

Facilities by District
3 17 of 46

Types of Facilities
4 18 of 46

Maintenance Activities
5 19 of 46

100+ BUILDINGS
97 OCCUPIABLE UNOCCUPIABLE
Group A
10 Group B
50 Group C
37 Facility Breakdown
6 20 of 46

Group A Buildings
• Larger Size
• Higher Complexity
• Observed Conditions
• In-depth Feasibility Studies
• Structural Assessments
• MEP Assessments
• Code Compliance
• Accessibility Reviews
Lakeshore Recreation Center (circa 1968)
Fire Station 27 (circa 1971)
Joinville Swim Center (circa 1968)
Martin Luther King Community &
Swim Center (circa 1968)
Beresford Recreation Center (circa 1966)
Central Recreation Center (circa 1965)
Hillsdale Branch Library (circa 1965)
Senior Center (circa 1988)
Shoreview Recreation Center (circa 1968)
Trinta Park Restroom Building (circa 1976)
7 21 of 46

• Reduced Level of
Deterioration
• Visual Inspection Central Park Tennis Garage (circa 1964) Central Parking Garage (circa 1964)
2nd & El Camino Garage (circa 1973)
City Hall (circa 1954)
Corporation Yard (circa 1942)
Park Restrooms
Group B Buildings
8 22 of 46

Overview
Rec Centers: Beresford, Central,
Lakeshore, Senior Center, Shoreview
MLK
Swim Centers: Joinville, MLK
Community
Fire Stations: 26 & 27
Hillsdale Library
Trinta Park Restroom and Concessions
Transit Center Bridge

1. Aging Infrastructure
• Buildings 30–60+ years old with worn structural, roofing, and finish materials.
• Moisture damage, dry rot, and general deterioration common throughout.

2. Water & Drainage Problems
• Roof leaks, poor site drainage, and missing rain leaders causing rot and settlement.
• Deferred waterproofing and sealant maintenance worsening conditions.

3. Accessibility Deficiencies
• Non-compliant doors, restrooms, corridors, absent braille signage and accessible parking spaces.

4. Outdated Building Systems
• Aging plumbing, electrical, and HVAC equipment at end of life. • Inefficient fixtures and lighting not meeting current code.

5. Code & Safety Gaps
• Seismic and electrical upgrades needed to meet current standards. • Limited emergency lighting and outdated safety controls.

6. Deferred Exterior Upkeep
• Peeling paint, cracked concrete, corroded railings, and overgrown vegetation.

7. Energy Efficiency Opportunities
• Need for LED lighting, dimming controls, and improved insulation. 9

23 of 46

Evaluation Criteria
Priority 1 – Immediate / Critical Repairs
These items address life-safety concerns, active water intrusion, structural deficiencies, and code compliance issues that pose an immediate risk to occupants or could result in significant deterioration if not corrected promptly.

Priority 2 – Near-Term / Major Upgrades
These improvements are recommended to be undertaken following completion of Priority 1 repairs. They address aging infrastructure, energy efficiency, system modernization, and functional deficiencies that, while not critical, will significantly improve building performance and longevity.

Priority 3 – Long-Term / Deferred Enhancements
These items include non-critical upgrades and aesthetic or programmatic improvements that enhance usability, appearance, and operational efficiency. They can be scheduled as part of future capital improvements or as funding becomes available. 10 24 of 46

Lakeshore Rec Center
Architectural
• Replace exterior wood walkway, decks, stairs, guardrails, and trellis elements
• Repair or replace damaged siding, trim, fascia, and exterior doors
• Inspect roof; replace wood shingles
Structural
• Building does not meet Collapse Prevention Structural Performance; risks: wall splitting, sheathing separation, foundation settlement, diaphragm distortion, and non-
structural damage
• Recommendation: perform ASCE 41 Tier 2 evaluation and retrofit
11 25 of 46

Lakeshore Rec Center
Mechanical
• Commission existing furnaces F1 & F2; replace F3 with heat- pump fan coil tied to existing ductwork
• Add rooftop fan coils/heat pumps for meeting and club rooms Plumbing
• Commission gas water heater; add thermostatic mixing valves (≤120 °F)
• Replace drinking fountain, kitchen/lavatory faucets, angle stops, and mop-sink fixtures
Electrical
• Replace/upgrade disconnect switches with heavy-duty fused, corrosion-resistant models
• Add (4) new fused disconnects for proposed fan coils
• Provide power to new electronic faucets and flush valves from panels A/B
12 26 of 46

Fire Station 27 Architectural
• Repair dry-rot and weather-worn exposed wood columns
and roof fascia
• Renovate toilet & shower rooms; add accessible toilet and showers.

Structural
• Building does not meet Life Safety / Immediate Occupancy standards; risks: wall splitting, connection loosening, drift, and localized settlement. ~53 years old; seismic codes now stricter
• Recommendation: perform ASCE 41 Tier 2 evaluation and retrofit
Mechanical
• Replace all unit heaters and add one new; replace furnaces with heat-pump packaged units and thermostats
• Replace exhaust and kitchen hood fans; relocate vents to meet CMC 502.2
13 27 of 46

Fire Station 27
Plumbing
• Add thermostatic mixing valves (≤ 120 °F) per CPC 407.3 / 408.3.2
• Replace faucets, valves, shower heads, and mop-sink fixtures with efficient, self-closing electronic models.

Electrical & Lighting
• Replace outdated ATS (100 A); service and commission
generator
• Install new panelboards with copper bussing, 100 % neutral, main breaker, and 22 kAIC rating
• Provide LED lighting with 0-10 V dimming, occupancy & daylight sensors, and emergency battery packs.
• Add heavy-duty fused disconnects, corrosion-resistant switches, and (4) maintenance receptacles on roof units • Provide power to all new mechanical & plumbing equipment 14 28 of 46

Joinville Swim Center
Accessibility & Code Compliance
• Verify and correct accessible routes, door clearances, and level landings.
• Add accessible shower in Men’s Locker Room; ensure all fixtures and mirrors meet CBC dimensions.
• Install automatic door operators at locker room exits and add braille signage.

City & User Priorities
• Upgrade pools and systems (highest priority).
• Convert to all-electric heating per City sustainability goals. • Add family/gender-neutral changing room.
• Support year-round operation with efficient mechanical systems and expanded programming capacity.
15 29 of 46

Joinville Swim Center
Structural
• Retrofit to strengthen ties between wood framing and
masonry walls; repair deteriorated framing.

Mechanical & Electrical
• Replace gas-fired heaters with heat pumps; add
mechanical make-up air and ventilation.

Pool Systems
• Replace all pool mechanical equipment, piping, and
gutters; re-plaster pools.
• Correct comingled pool water and undersized piping to meet code.
16 30 of 46

MLK Swim and Community
Drainage Improvements:
• Redirect roof drains away from deck; replace settled courtyard paving and add drains to prevent flooding.

Resilience Upgrades:
• Enable facility use during emergencies: electric water heating, gym space for 30–40 cots, meal service area, portable toilets/showers.

Create internal connection from Community Center to locker rooms for shared showers.

Energy & Sustainability:
• Convert all pool and space heating to all-electric systems per City policy.
• Support year-round operation with efficient pool mechanical systems.
17 31 of 46

MLK Swim and Community
Structural:
• Tier 1 analysis indicates significant seismic risk; anchor masonry walls, reinforce roof/wall connections.

Mechanical, Electrical & Plumbing:
• Replace aging HVAC with new electric systems; assess and replace ductwork.

Pool Systems:
• Replace outdated mechanical and piping; re-plaster pools and replace gutter system.

Roof Repairs:
• Address ongoing leaks and trapped moisture in roof
assembly.
18 32 of 46

Shoreview Rec Center
Architectural & Structural:
• Assess and repair foundation settlement, sloping floors, and structural damage
• Replace deteriorated exterior beams, concrete exit stair, wood fences, utility enclosures, and landscape wood headers. • Address rodent/pest entry points; repair cracked walls, vinyl flooring, skylight, and door hardware.
• Repair foundation-related cracks and settlement.

Mechanical & Plumbing:
• Replace rooftop and inline exhaust fans, relief vents, and thermostats.

Electrical & Lighting:
• Add emergency lighting battery packs and upgrade disconnect switches to NEMA 3R heavy-duty fused models.
19 33 of 46

20 Beresford Rec Center
Priority 1 – Immediate Repairs
• Repair damaged fencing, gates, doors, shingles, and water- damaged areas
• Repair slab and plaster cracks; repaint interior/exterior finishes • Improve site drainage on south side
Structural
• Building does not meet Collapse Prevention level; risks include wall splitting, sheathing separation, and foundation
settlement. Built under outdated seismic codes (~58 years old).

Perform ASCE 41 Tier 2 evaluation and retrofit
Mechanical, Electrical & Plumbing
• Replace Assembly Room HVAC with rooftop heat pump unit; commission remaining rooftop units
• Replace all exhaust fans and radiant ceiling panels with efficient split systems

34 of 46

21 Senior Center
Accessibility & Code Compliance:
• Provide van-accessible parking (1 per 6 accessible spaces).

Structural:
• Perform geotechnical investigation on settlement.
• Replace deteriorated window sills and retrofit building to meet Collapse Prevention Structural Performance.
• ASCE 41 Tier 2 evaluation recommended.

Mechanical & Plumbing:
• Replace all 35-year-old equipment; improve access.

Electrical & Lighting:
• Replace switchboard, MCC, transformers, and disconnect switches with high-efficiency, code-compliant equipment.

35 of 46

22 City Hall
Fire, Life & Safety:
• Upgrade Fire Alarm System
• Expand fire suppression system
Mechanical & Plumbing:
• Replace all 25-year-old equipment
Electrical:
• Replace existing 25-year-old generator
Space Utilization:
• Re-assess existing spaces and uses
• Relocate staff from leased offices to City Hall

36 of 46

2nd & El Camino Garage
Improvements in 2018
• Replaced stairs in-kind at both locations
Improvements in 2024
• Replaced structural tendons within major structural
beams
• Repaired concrete spalling and cracking throughout
• Installed structural fiberglass at transition beams
throughout
• Installed steel reinforcement beams at stairwell locations Improvements in 2025
• Installed new elevator control system
Future
• Perform annual assessments to track seasonal movement 23 37 of 46

Aquatic Park
Group B
• Park Restrooms
• Seal Point Facilities
• Aquatic Park Facilities
• Golf Course
• Corp Yard Facilities
• Old Fire Station 25
• Fire Station 23 Tower
• Central Parking Garage
• Beresford Park
Facilities
• Shoreview Park
Facilities
• City Hall
Central
Parking
Garage
Beresford Garden
Center
City Hall
Old Fire
Station 25
Corp Yard
Facilities
Warehouse
Corp Yard
Admin
MLK Park
Joinville Park
Los Prados Park
Indian Springs Park
24 38 of 46

Group C
Fire Station 21
Fire Station 23
Fire Station 24
Fire Station 25
Fire Station 26
Police Headquarters
Corp Yard – Streets & Traffic
Corp Yard – Shop & Vehicle
Corp Yard – Facilities Office Trailer
Corp Yard – Purchasing & Warehouse
Corp Yard – Parks and Maintenance
Central Park Tennis Garage
Shoreview Park Maintenance Shed
Martin Luther King Equipment Shed
Golf Course Temporary Cart Barn
Golf Course Clubhouse
Main Library
Marina Branch Library
Casanova Park Restroom
Indian Springs Park Restroom
Main Street Garage/Retail Spaces
Transit Center Garage/Tenant Spaces
2nd and El Camino Garage
Flores Garden Parking Garage
Kiku Parking Garage
Vendome Hotel Property
Public Safety & Essential Facilities – Fire stations, Police HQ, and Corp Yard buildings must remain operational during emergencies and meet stricter seismic and life-safety standards.

Aging Infrastructure – Many facilities date from the 1960s–1980s with major deferred maintenance and systems beyond service life.

Complex Building Systems – Libraries, Police HQ, and the Golf Clubhouse have specialized HVAC, IT, and public-use systems.

Large Facilities– High total square footage and increases repair costs such as parking garages.

Structural & Seismic Retrofits – Required upgrades to meet current codes are among the most cost-intensive improvements.

Without full study, repairs were put under Priority 2.
25 39 of 46

Estimated Cost of Group A – Priority 1 projects
• Hard Costs Only
• Escalation to 2030
• Costs by Priority
26 40 of 46

Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3
Direct Hard
Costs
Escalated Hard
Costs
Direct Hard
Costs
Escalated Hard
Costs
Direct Hard
Costs
Escalated Hard
Costs
Group A $41,039,934 $54,423,572 $10,844,325 $14,380,795 $3,276,358 $4,344,820 Group B $21,2992,767 $29,199,481 $18,337,870 $24,347,022 $5,953,120 $7,904,013 Group C $82,164,830 $109,090,244
Total $63,032,701 $83,623,053 $111,347,025 $147,818,061 $9,229,478 $12,248,833 Total Project Estimated Costs
Total All Projects, Direct Hard Costs: $183,609,204
Total All Projects, Escalated Costs: $243,689,946
Total All Projects including Soft Costs: $367,000,000
27 41 of 46

Potential Approaches for Improvements
Approach 1 – Status Quo
Continue with deferred maintenance.

Approach 2 – Extend Useful Life of Priority Facilities
Address priority deficiencies with like-for-like improvements.

Approach 3 – Strategic Redevelopment of Priority Facilities Address priority deficiencies at key facilities with options for redevelopment.

Approach 4 – Citywide Operational/Programmatic Assessment Further analysis and assessments.
28 42 of 46

Funding Needs
• General Fund Support
• Capital Reserve
• Revenue Sources
• Grant Opportunities
• Other (State & Federal programs, low-interest loan programs, partnerships, etc.) Staffing Resources
• Organizational Assessment for Capital Improvement project delivery underway • Results will be shared with Council when finalized
Future Study Sessions
• Downtown Parking Garages and City Hall
• Aquatic and Recreation Centers
• Corporation Yard
29 43 of 46

Thank You
31 45 of 46

32 46 of 46

San Mateo City CouncilOctober 20, 2025

San Mateo City Council
October 20, 2025