Municipal Services Building
Facility Assessment & Options to Proceed
April 29, 2025
Government Code
Section 54957.5
SB 343 Item
Agenda: 04/29/2025
SPECIAL CC
BACKGROUND
2 1970s
• Central Fire Station located at 201
Baden
• Aging facility (built 1948)
• Insufficient space for fire admin staff,
apparatus, and tools/supplies
• Fire Dept adds 3rd firefighter to each
engine co
• Additional reserve apparatus, tools,
and disaster supplies
• Police Dept headquartered at 315
Maple
• Cramped and inadequate for modern
law enforcement operations
1974
•Measure G - $4.5 million
Public Safety Building general
obligation bond measure
•Proposed financing for
construction of a new 81,000
SF public safety complex at
Grand & Chestnut
•Required 2/3 majority
approval from voters
•Narrowly failed
BACKGROUND
3 1978
•Purchased 33
Arroyo
•Building
retrofitted to
include City
offices and
temporarily
house Fire
Station 63
1979
•MSB
substantially
remodeled for
Parks &
Recreation
and Police
1981
•Police Dept
headquarters
relocated to
the MSB
BACKGROUND
4 2005
•Fire Administration
moved from the
MSB to 480 N.
Canal, freeing up
additional office
space for the
police department
2010
•Fire Department
received FEMA
grant to
rehabilitate,
modernize,
seismically stabilize,
and remediate
Station 63
•Grant funded work
was restricted to
the station's original
footprint
2015
•City Council
decision to vacate
MSB and West
Orange Library
•Relocate Library,
Parks & Recreation,
Police Department,
and Fire Station 63
to new facilities
BACKGROUND
5 2021
• Council discussed MSB
redevelopment options
• Market rate residential
• Fully affordable
residential
• Joint development
with Buri Buri Shopping
Center
• Council approved
purchase of 71
Camaritas for relocation
of Station 63
• Council allocates
funding for station
design
2022
• Police Department
headquarters relocated
to 1 Chestnut
2023
• Library | Parks and
Recreation Center
opens
• The MSB site was included in the 2015-2023
and 2023-2031 Housing Elements
Opportunity Sites list as a potential location
for mixed-income housing
• Inclusion in this list does not require the City
to develop the site for housing and no
direction has been given by Council to do
so
• Over the past several years, the City has
received public comment asking to
preserve the building and reopen it
MSB LISTED AS A HOUSING ELEMENT OPPORTUNITY SITE
6 • In August 2024, Council directed staff to prepare:
• A facility condition assessment to inform a cost estimate for reopening the MSB • A list of alternative Housing Element Opportunity Sites to inform whether to amend the Housing Element to remove the MSB
• The following presentation includes:
• Results of a facility condition assessment, seismic study, construction cost estimates, operating expense analysis, environmental monitoring results, and identified alternative Housing Element Opportunity Sites
• Three options to proceed that staff recommend Council consider and provide direction on
PURPOSE OF TODAY'S MEETING
7 Seismic Study
MSB Seismic Study
9 Purpose
•Determine if MSB meets current seismic standards for
public and essential facilities
Key Findings
•MSB does not meet current seismic standards
•Significant seismic deficiencies
•Major damage or collapse possible in strong
earthquake
MSB Seismic Study
10 Potential Seismic Deficiencies
• Weak wall-to-floor/roof connections
• Insufficient wall and diaphragm strength
• Discontinuous shear walls between floors
• Vulnerable exterior concrete panels
Estimated Costs for Seismic Upgrade
• Risk Category II (Offices): $5.6M
• Risk Category III (Assembly Uses): $6.5M
• Risk Category IV (Emergency Services): $7.6M
MSB Seismic Study
11 Options
•Voluntary seismic upgrade
•Use the building “as is”, but;
•No guarantee of performance in
a major earthquake
Facility Condition
Assessment Overview
Expert Consultant Team
• City contracted with Group4 for
independent project
management.
• Group4 subcontracted with
Bureau Veritas to conduct
inspection services.
• TBD Consultants retained for
cost estimate review.
MSB Facility Condition Assessment
13 Overview
• Bureau Veritas
began inspection for
assessment in 2024.
• Based on visual assessment.
• Review of architectural, MEP,
and fire/life safety systems.
• Assessment resulted in report,
with cost estimating performed
by TBD Consultants.
MSB Facility Condition Assessment
14 Summary of Findings
• Based on current costs, facility
has a current replacement
value of $142M to replace inkind with new facility.
• Years 0 -10 capital
improvement costs valued at
$41.4M.
• In years 0 – 20: grows $44.5M
(2025 dollars) or $52.6M
(escalated per year).
MSB Facility Condition Assessment
15 Cost Estimate Assumptions
• Public / gathering space on the
former Recreation portion of the
building.
• Office or other tenant use at PD
half of facility. Potentially
phased into unknown date in
future.
• Fire to remain until a new station
is constructed.
• Included full category IV seismic
upgrade cost.
MSB Facility Condition Assessment
16 Example Findings of Deficiencies
• New roof: $3.3M
• Plumbing: $3.6M
• Fire suppression: $1.4M
• Fire alarm system: $1M
• HVAC + ducting: $3.7M
• Electrical systems: $5M
• Low voltage: $2.5M
MSB Facility Condition Assessment
17 Bureau Veritas
Full Renovation
Cost Estimate
Full Renovation with Structural Upgrade
19 • Construction cost: $44.5M
• Plus contingency: $13.3M
• Total: $57.8M
• Seismic (voluntary): $7.6M
• Plus seismic: $65.4M
Group4 | Full Renovation
with Structural Upgrade
Cost Estimate
Full Renovation with Structural Upgrade
21 voluntary
22 Full Renovation with Structural Upgrade
Minus seismic / structural: $65 million
Group4 | Partial
Renovation
Recreation Wing Only
Cost Estimate
Partial Renovation – Recreation Wing
24 25
Partial Renovation – Recreation Wing
Operations and
Maintenance
Recreation Wing Only
Operations and Maintenance
27 Assumptions
• The City would only operate the
former Recreation Wing of the
facility.
• Additional costs if the former Police
Department was occupied by City
programs, offices, or tenant.
• P&R classes operate M-F, 9:00 a.m.
– 5:00 p.m.
• Facility rentals on weekends.
• Some fees for classes may be
necessary to sustain programs.
Operations and Maintenance
28 Minimum Additional / New Staffing
• Recreation Coordinator: 1 FTE
• Administrative Assistant: 1 FTE
• Instructor (hourly): 2.5 FTE
• Rec Leader – Classes (hourly): 2.0 FTE
• Rec Leader – Rentals (hourly): 0.80 FTE
• Custodian (Day Shift): 1 FTE
• Custodian (Swing Shift): 1 FTE
• Senior Custodian: As needed
Operations and Maintenance
29 Expenditures + Revenues
• On-going Supplies and Services:
$253,425 per year (includes
$180,000 utilities)
• On-going Personnel Costs:
$884,537 per year
• One-time Supplies and Services
Startup Costs: $90,000
• Revenue: ~$170,000 - $300,000
per year
Environmental
Investigation
History
• 2021 Environmental Site Assessment Phase 1 --> indicated need for Phase 2
• 2022 ESA Phase 2 --> indicated need for further testing • 2023 & 2024 ongoing monitoring of sub foundation slab soil vapor monitoring
Environmental Investigation
31 Findings
• Benzene, likely from underground
storage tank from former automotive
use
• PCE, likely from former My Cleaners
next door
• Benzene & PCE above residential
thresholds
• PCE, at some points in time, above
commercial thresholds
Environmental Investigation
32 Implications for the MSB
• No hazards to current or past occupants
• Ongoing monitoring recommended whether the building is occupied, or not
• Remediation and ongoing monitoring plan will be needed if the site is redeveloped
Environmental Investigation
33 Alternate Housing Element
Opportunity Sites
• Removing the MSB site
from the Housing Element
will require a Stateapproved amendment
• Removing the site will not
alter what can be
done --> Council can
choose to redevelop or
not
• Alternate sites are
available, but have some
hurdles
Alternate Housing Element Opportunity Sites
35 What are we looking for in a site?
• Publicly owned with agency approval or indication they intend to develop the site for housing
• Located in a high resource area (not clustered Downtown or along 101) • Able to accommodate at least 150 units
Alternate Housing Element Opportunity Sites
36 Alternate Housing Element Opportunity Sites
37 Site Name Address Est. Acreage Est. # of Units CEQA Action Estimated Costs Municipal Services Building 33 Arroyo Dr 1.87 150 Consistent with General Plan EIR W. Orange Library (Closed) 840 W Orange Avenue 1.54 58 Requires CEQA Analysis ~ $100,000 San Mateo Co. Courthouse APN 011302280 1.20 26 Consistent with General Plan EIR - 999 Grand Ave 1.60 35
1024 Mission Road 2.54 56
117
SSF BART - Parking Areas 1600 El Camino Real (Parking
Structure) 6.00 480 Consistent with General Plan EIR ~ $50,000 1500 El Camino Real (fronts Mission) 2.60 208
688
Foxridge School (Closed) 257 Longford Drive 23.00 506 Consistent with General Plan EIR - Skyline Blvd Open Space No Address - Open Space 13.50 297 Requires CEQA Analysis ~ $100,000 Options to Proceed
• Pause all discussion of the MSB
for a period of 2 to 3 years
while the City's budget position
stabilizes
• Reopen
• Two options to proceed
• Redevelopment
• Housing Element Alternate Sites
Options to Proceed
39 Option 1: Reopen
Recreation Wing &
Operate
Program
• City-operated community center
• Open Mon – Fri, 9 am – 5 pm
• 20 hours of programming/day
• Facility rentals, as available
Next Steps
• Assess demand for services and
programming
• Identify funding sources /
balance other funding needs
• Impact fees
• Measure W revenue
• General Fund reserve
Option 1: Reopen Rec Wing & Operate
41 Cost
• $29 million over 10 years (capital)
• $1.1 million annually (operations)
Option 2: Reopen
Recreation Wing and
Lease
Cost
• $29 million over 10 years (capital), or as can be reduced in the form of a tenant improvement credit
Potential Lease Revenue
Option 2: Reopen Rec Wing & Lease
43 Next Steps
• Assess demand for tenants (unsuccessful RFP for West Orange Library) • Engage qualified broker to market the site broadly
• Identify funding sources / balance other funding needs • Impact fees
• Measure W revenue
• General Fund reserve
Option 2: Reopen Rec Wing & Lease
44 Option 3: Explore Site
Redevelopment
Program
• Flexible, to be determined by City
Council
Next Steps
• Engage economic consultant
to test various development
scenarios
• Return to Council for feedback
to inform a Request for
Qualifications
• Issue RFQ
Option 3: Explore Site Redevelopment
46 Cost (if Affordable)
• Free/discounted land
• $5 - $10 million housing funds loan
Price (if Market Rate)
• Approximately $5 million
Housing Element
Amendment
• Staff does not recommend amending the
Housing Element to replace the MSB as a
Housing Opportunity site
• Not one site that has it all – no easy swap
• Process is costly, time consuming, and
largely symbolic
• The action could jeopardize the City's
standing with the State
Housing Element Amendment
48 Conclusion
• Like many other Bay Area communities, the City is
experiencing a structural deficit
• Operating new assets – like the Aquatic Center – will necessitate expenditure reductions and potentially drawing upon reserves
• City would need to consider reduction in City services to accommodate budget impact of reopening the MSB
Conclusion
50 • Staff is seeking direction on whether to:
• Pause discussion of the MSB for a period of time (2-3 years) • Reopen the MSB and operate it as a City facility
• Reopen the MSB and lease the facility
• Redevelop the site
Conclusion
51 Municipal Services Building
Facility Assessment & Options to Proceed
City of South San Francisco
QUESTIONS?