Cupertino City Council
February 21, 2023

CC 02-21-2023
Written
Communications
Oral
Communications
From: Jenny Griffin
To: City of Cupertino Planning Commission; City Clerk
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Fwd: Confusing Agenda for City Council Meeting on Feb. 21, 2022 Date: Monday, February 20, 2023 4:20:21 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

FYI. Please add to the Public Record for the Feb. 21, 2022 City Council meeting. Thank you. -------- Original Message --------
Subject: Confusing Agenda for City Council Meeting on Feb. 21, 2022 From: Jenny Griffin <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 20, 2023, 4:17 PM
To: [email protected]
CC: [email protected]
Dear City Council:

The agenda for the City Council meeting on Tuesday, February 21, 2022 is very confusing And no one seems to know what any of it means. What does "Action Calendar" mean? I have been going to City Council and other meetings in Cupertino for 23 years and I have never heard of this wording before.

So I am supposed to feel stupid because I, as a member of the public, can't figure out what the Agenda means? Why change all the wording all at once?
What is Consent Calendar now and what is Action Calendar again and why is there an Action Calendar put at the beginning of the Agenda and then some Consent Calendar items stuck After it and then two more Action Calendar items put after that and then two items Called "Informational Items" put in after that.

What is any of this supposed to mean? The agenda looks like it was set up completely irrationally.

It makes no sense at all.

Why change all the wording of the Agenda and what everything means one month into A new Council? Is this supposed to intentionally try to confuse and mislead the public, changing the names of everything, the wording, the placement and the order?I We are not off to a very good start when the public can't even figure what is on the City Council Agenda or let alone what it means.

The first rule of software programming is don't change everything all at once. Unfortunately, This is what is happening here with this City Council Agenda, everything is being changed All at once. Probably not a good plan straight out the door of this new year of 2023. Let's go Back to our old tried and true 23 old City Council Agenda. It was good enough for previous Councils and it should be enough for this new Council.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Jennifer Griffin
From: Peggy Griffin
To: Kirsten Squarcia
Cc: City Clerk; City Council
Subject: 2023-02-21 CC Agenda - contradiction
Date: Sunday, February 19, 2023 8:57:41 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hi Kirsten,
Just FYI…Because the rules keep changing I’ve read every word in the agenda and found this contradiction:

Also, “not on the agenda for discussion” is not clear to the public. It would be clearer if it specifically listed what is in this category i.e. Informational Items, etc.

Sincerely,
Peggy Griffin
From: Shankar
To: City Clerk
Subject: Requesting reconsideration of the planned illuminated freeway-oriented Public Storage sign Date: Friday, February 17, 2023 4:27:37 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hello Cupertino City Council,
I am Shankar Garikapati, a homeowner & resident of Cupertino, and I love this city.

However, I would like to express my frustration and concern with some of the recent developments regarding the planned installation of illuminated Signs by the Public Storage company. Both of my bedrooms are in the line of sight to the newly constructed public storage and to the newly approved external signage, and therefore I would be among the cohort of people most impacted by this project.

I live with my wife and young kids aged five and seven. With the new proposed lighting, I am strongly concerned about the impact to sleep and health of my family. You should be aware that “due excess or poorly timed artificial light exposure can cause a person’s circadian rhythm to be misaligned with the day-night schedule. This can throw their sleep out-of-whack and induce other concerning health impacts including worsened metabolism, weight gain, cardiovascular problems, and perhaps even an elevated cancer risk”, citing from Sleep foundation website (https://www.sleepfoundation.org/bedroomenvironment/light-and-sleep).

Given that these risks are well known, I have no doubt in my mind that all of the council members who have approved this project proposal are motivated by their personal interest in power rather than serving the interests of the community they have been elected for. I hope my letter provokes at least some of you to do the right thing and stand against corporate greed which puts profits over everything else ! I welcome you to visit my community and home during night time to check for yourself the impact it will cause to the community.

Thank you for your time,
Shankar Garikapati
From: Brenda Boyle
To: Cupertino City Manager"s Office; City Council
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: Resident request re: Regnart Creek Trail
Date: Tuesday, February 21, 2023 12:55:10 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

City of Cupertino City Council Members:

Re: RCT – Regnart Creek Trail
Dear Honorable Mayor Wei and City Council Members:

First, I would like to commend Mayor Wei on her State of the City Address. I particularly want to call attention to the statement about “we are a city united and not a city divided.” I honestly believe in the sincerity of this call for not just city council and staff, but also for the citizens of this great city.

Thank you for such focus and commitment for working toward this goal for all.

In light of this commitment, I’d like to call attention to some historic actions the City Council made to a small few of the homeowners along the trail. I believe there are 8 homes in all that selected for Precast Concrete fencing mediums. At the time this was all being discussed (approximately 2-3 years ago now) we were led to believe the City would work with those of us directly abutting the trail (i.e., we are 1 foot from property line!) to provide us with a solution to not only to mitigate any apparent risk, but also to address our concerns about expected increased noise and other issues that may arise. At that time, we were told by the Sheriff's office and council that there would be little to no risk from the trail and it’s opening however, sadly I want to make you aware if not already known, there have been two felony arrests in recent times on this trail and it’s not even officially open as of yet!
Prior council and staff worked together in concert to not bring forward a plan that included our concerns, but rather deferred our questions, refused to provide us with ample time frame for signature to a contract committing contribution for our fencing choices, while creating a “inequitable” delivery to the remaining 123-125 residents that don’t abutt the path by providing them “Free” fencing replacement and without mandatory resident contribution. Some homeowners across the creek from the path have coverage areas that far exceed our lot coverage and presumably cost the same if not more than our precast applications.

Lastly, we were also told that we could not exceed fence heights of 8 ft. and this was because it was building code. Prior City Staff told us that these codes did not apply to those of us who may want heights up to but not to exceed, 9 ft. Height of those homeowners across the creek have 8 ft., 9 inches in some cases (corner home at E Estates and Vicksburg) and additionally Homes on La Mar Court that abut the entrance to Creekside Park. Our fence heights have settled at 7.5 inches in spite of the many times we reached out to staff requesting evaluation to make our fencing at least 8+ feet high.

We are by no means trying to avert our prior signed contract commitment , but would like Council to reconsider inequitable resident contribution and instead incorporate these costs as part of this project which apparently was not adequately scoped or budgeted for. I want to thank you in advance for your time in considering our request.

Kind regards,
Rich and Brenda Boyle
19773 La Mar Drive
From: Rhoda Fry
To: City Council; City Clerk
Subject: 2/21/2021 for City Council - Oral Communications Agenda Item Date: Tuesday, February 21, 2023 12:35:27 PM
Attachments: image049.png
ATTACHMENT A RESOLUTION.PDF
ATTACHMENT B REJECTION.PDF
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear City Council,
On February 7, you made a very consequential decision about allowing giant illuminated signage facing highway 280. After reviewing the meeting online, I came to the conclusion that you were not provided the information or guidance you needed to provide an informed decision.
- Did you know that there are no illuminated signs in that proximity to the freeway or of that size facing the freeway and in direct line view of residents’ homes? - Did you know that you were only given the square-footage of the illuminated letters (they’re 4 ½ feet tall) but not the actual area of the sign? - Did you know that approval of this signage will open the door to even more residents being impacted by illuminated signage?
- Did you know that our City Planning Department rejected a much smaller replacement building in 2006 because it would cause an intensification of a non-conforming use per our General Plan and the North De Anza Specific Area?
The old Public Storage building had no freeway-facing signage. In my opinion, the applicant’s goal of advertising its business to motorists driving by at 70 or 75 miles per hour cannot justify the harm to motorist or especially residents.

Consequently, I filed for a reconsideration so that you can review the facts in a proper hearing with hopefully all of the data and guidance for you to make an informed decision.

And yes, you can vote for zero signs if signage would be against the code or the conditions of approval for the building. I followed the directions on the form provided by the City, which quotes the reconsideration ordinance. The language in that form, such as abusing power, is in the ordinance and is not my voice. I wanted you to know that because I have every intent on engaging in respectful and civil discourse.

The contents of the reconsideration is below and attached.

Sincerely,
Rhoda Fry (Cupertino Resident for 40 years)
Date: February 17, 2023
From:

Rhoda Fry (and Cupertino Residents Doe 0 – 100)
10351 San Fernando Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014-2832
[email protected]
408-529-3560

RECONSIDERATION PETITON
NOTICE: Reconsideration petitions are only accepted for adjudicatory matters that are quasi-judicial decisions by the City Council. The reconsideration petition is subject to the requirements of and must comply with section 2.08.096 of the Cupertino Municipal Code, available in the City Clerk’s office or online at http://www.amlegal.com/cupertino_ca/. Please review this form carefully and provide a detailed explanation for each item. Failure to meet the requirements of section 2.08.096 may result in rejection of the reconsideration petition.

1. Project for which you are requesting reconsideration:

Application No.: EXC-2022-003
Applicant(s) Name: David Ford, All Sign Services; Location: 20565 Valley Green Dr.; APN: 326-10-044

3. Contact information for party requesting reconsideration:

Name: Rhoda Fry (and Cupertino Residents Doe 0 – 100)
Address: 10351 San Fernando Avenue, Cupertino CA 95014-2832 Phone: 408-529-3560
Email: [email protected]

4. Date of Council meeting considering the project for which you are requesting reconsideration:

February 7, 2023
Reconsideration petitions must be filed within ten (10) calendar days of the date of the Clerk’s notice.

5. Details of grounds for reconsideration (Cupertino Municipal Code Section 2.08.096).

A petition for reconsideration must specify, in detail, each and every ground for reconsideration.

Failure to specify the particular ground(s) for reconsideration will preclude any omitted ground(s) from being raised or litigated in a subsequent judicial proceeding.

In addition, the grounds for reconsideration are limited to the criteria listed below. Failure to meet these grounds may result in rejection of the petition for reconsideration. Check all grounds that apply and provide detailed explanations of the facts supporting each ground for reconsideration (provide supporting documentation and attach additional sheets if necessary):

By this statement, all information on the City of Cupertino website pertaining to the 10/21/22 Planning Commission meeting and the 2/7/2023 City Council meeting and other documents pertaining to the Public Storage site, the General Plan, the North De Anza Boulevard Special Center plan, and the CMC are included in this document. ✔An offer of new relevant evidence which, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, could not have been produced at any earlier city hearing.

Explanation of new evidence and why it could not have been produced earlier:

The City was likely unaware of Public Storage’s updated image policies that tout that “the building is the sign.” Public Storage’s architect said in this blog post: “We had seven different types of signs,” she said. “Now, not only do we now have a consolidated sign, the new building is the sign.” https://www.publicstorage.com/blog/public-storage/public-storage-locations-get-a-new-look In spite of the following business hours, Office Hours Mon-Sun 8:00am to 7:00pm and Gate Access Hours MonSun 6:00am to 9:00pm, the Cupertino Public Storage building is illuminated 24x7. If the building is indeed the sign, it must not be illuminated 24x7. Moreover, it is much too large to have that much illumination. Interestingly, two sides of the building that are visible from the freeway are illuminated – the backside that faces offices remains dark. Additionally, the illuminated sign that faces the adjacent condominiums remains illuminated after 11pm which is a code violation. The excessive light is a public nuisance to residents.

See also EXHIBIT 1.
✔ An offer of relevant evidence which was improperly excluded at any prior city hearing.

Explain relevant evidence and how, when it was excluded at a prior hearing:

A. The council packet did not show the setting of the building within the community and how it looked from various residences/hotel or freeway at different times of day. How could the City Council make an informed decision about freeway-oriented signage without this information? Furthermore, on February 13, I spoke with Planner Martire and lamented that the proposed illuminated freeway-oriented Public Storage sign would be in a line view of many residents’ homes. He was surprised and unaware that residents would be facing the signs. If he had known, then perhaps the council would have been given more information. The proposed signs are in a direct line view of the De Anza Forge Condominiums and can be seen from the Markham Apartments and the Cupertino Hotel along with the freeway. The City Council was denied substantial evidence. Refer to EXHIBIT 1 (setting) and EXHIBIT 2 (nighttime photographs).

B. Council was not provided with detailed images or specifications of the proposed illuminated Public Storage sign along with other illuminated signage facing the freeway. In fact, there are no similarly situated properties in the City. The only illuminated sign that somewhat faces the freeway is the Cupertino Hotel. Council was not given any tools to compare the Cupertino hotel sign with the proposed Public Storage sign. Its sign is on the northbound onramp, not on the freeway. It is barely visible driving South on 280 and not at all going North. Nor does it appear to directly face dwelling units in the way that the Public Storage building does. I walked the length of the condo complex adjacent to Public Storage and climbed up to the fence-line and could not see the Cupertino Hotel sign. It is possible that residents on higher floors might have a glimpse of the sign. If council had made a site visit or had images of the Cupertino Hotel sign along with the Public Storage sign (even the one that is installed provides some insight), they would have realized that these two properties are very different and would need to be treated differently (19.104.220 C. The sign shall also be compatible with the aesthetic character of the surrounding developments and neighborhood.) Council was not provided visuals on the levels of illumination, this would have been needed to provide an informed decision on the subjective criteria in 19.104.220 (“the aesthetic appearance of signs is subjective”). When comparing the illumination between the proposed Public Storage Sign and the Cupertino Hotel Sign, there is no comparison. But the council was not provided a side-by-side comparison. Public Storage is bright white and huge and the Hotel is soothing dark blue and is of modest size. Although the proposed sign is within the foot-lamberts requirements for signage, no explanation of what it means or what it looks like was provided. A foot-lambert refers to the amount of illumination per square foot. So the bigger the signage, the more illumination it will have. Note that the applicant explained that he wants signage to be visible to motorists traveling 70 to 75 miles per hour (which is speeding in our community) past the property. (19.104.220 G. The sign's color and illumination shall not produce distraction to motorists or nearby residents.) In other words, the applicant wants motorists to be distracted by his advertising sign.

If council had gone on an appropriate site visit or been provided appropriate information, they could have made an informed decision to either not allow any illumination or even no signage.

Installed sign as viewed from adjacent condo. The
illuminated portion of the sign is reportedly 52 square feet. The illuminated portion of the freeway-facing
sign would be 165 square feet. This gives an idea as
to how bright it would be. The letters appear much
brighter than the building’s interior lighting. This photo was taken between 10:30 pm and 11:00 pm on
2/15/2023.

IMAGINE A SIGN 3X LARGER THAN THE ABOVE.

IS IT COMPARABLE TO THE CUPERTINO
HOTEL?
CUPERTINO HOTEL: This photo has been enlarged.

Otherwise you would not be able to recognize it. This
is a view of Cupertino Hotel from the on-ramp to 280
North from De Anza. On the freeway heading south,
the blue sign was sometimes hidden and other times
very subdued. I was unable to see the sign from the
condos across the freeway having walked the fence
line and even climbed up to it. It is unlikely that much of this sign is visible from the condos. Pphoto was
taken between 10:30 pm and 11pm on 2/15/2023.

C. Please bear with me on this section – it is rather long but makes a point. The council packet failed to explain that the new public storage building is an intensification of a non-conforming use within the North De Anza Boulevard Special Center. Consequently, it is even more important that the look of the building and its signage conform to adjacent uses. Resolution 19-072 describing the architectural and site approval permit included boilerplate text pertaining to signage, “c) The number, location, color, size, height, lighting and landscaping of outdoor advertising signs and structures shall minimize traffic hazards and shall positively affect the general appearance of the neighborhood and harmonize with adjacent development.” The document as a whole makes various promises that pertain to the entire building and signage, including but not limited to: (see ATTACHMENT A for the entire resolution)
·“In order to preserve design harmony between new and existing buildings and in order to preserve and enhance property values, the materials, textures and colors of new buildings should harmonize with adjacent development by being consistent or compatible with design and color schemes, and, with the future character of the neighborhood and purposes of the zone in which they are situated“ and
·“development should be designed to protect residents from noise, traffic, light and visually intrusive effects” and
·
“provide shielding to prevent spill- over light to adjoining property owners” Regarding the North De Anza Boulevard Special Center: The new building (4 stories 264K square feet per https://www.cupertino.org/our-city/departments/community-development/planning/majorprojects/public-storage ) is four times the size as the building it replaces and has 2600 units. In 2006, Public Storage proposed a new building in this same location (Application U3-2006-03, ASA-2006-05, EA2006-06. This proposed building (3 stories 155K square feet) was estimated at three times the size of the original and the Planning Department recommended against it and the Planning Commission concurred:

Public Storage is located in the North De Anza Boulevard Special Center in which self-storage is a nonconfirming use, the description of the Special Center has not changed in decades. The 2006 recommendation for rejection noted that the replacement building would be substantially inconsistent with the area and would significantly intensify the use of the site, “The proposed mini-storage facility is a non-office use that does not promote these General Plan policies for maintaining cohesive office parks and, therefore, staff believes that the project, which will significantly intensify the use of the site as a mini-storage facility by almost tripling the amount of existing mini-storage building area, will conflict with these policies. The proposed project will offer very little public and community benefit, as it is anticipated to generate a minimal amount of retail sales tax to the City for its sales of packing/boxing supplies, and is substantially inconsistent with the surrounding uses of the area that include office and multiple-family residential.” Additionally, “Staff is also concerned about the height of the proposed buildings as they will be prominently visible from Interstate 280, the new condominium development currently under construction to the east, the existing residential neighborhood to the west and the two-story office buildings occupied by Apple to the south.” The new building has 32 parking spaces and the rejected smaller building had 80 parking spaces. (https://www.cupertino.org/our-city/departments/communitydevelopment/planning/major-projects/public-storage) Because the new building is even more visible than the proposed 2006 building, its visual impacts from I-280 are greater today than they were in 2006. Consequently, every possible measure must be taken to minimize its impacts, including signage, on residents. See ATTACHMENT B for 2006 Public Storage rejection.

D. The Council was not provided information on how the signs are measured. The way the signage has been measured is deceiving. The large sign is made up of orange stripes with white lettering on top. Only the outline of the white lettering is measured in determining the sign’s size. The rest of the building is silver gray and tan. Here is the new Cupertino Public Storage building with the sign already installed that does not face the freeway.

Daytime photo from website of Cupertino
building. The sign is made up of orange
stripes with white lettering on top.
https://www.publicstorage.com/blog/publicstorage/cupertino-storage-units-reopennear-apple-campus Nighttime photo around
10:30PM as seen from
adjacent condo complex.

Sign and lights remain on
after 11pm. The words even
appear brighter than the
interior lighting. The
proposed freeway-oriented
Note that the back of the
building, which faces
Apple office buildings has
no orange rectangles.

Consequently, the orange
rectangles really do look
like signs. Also, the back
is not illuminated at night.
lettering portion of the sign is
over three times larger.

Following is an excerpt of the plan in the Planning Commission packet. A reasonable person who looks at the outlined portion of the image on the left sees an image similar to the one above: a sign made up of orange stripes with white lettering on top. The measurement of this outlined area is shown on the right. It measures about 800 square feet. The maximum signage area per CMC is 200 square feet.

Effectively, the proposed sign exceeds the 200 square-foot maximum. The measurement provided to council was the minimum circumference of the illuminated lettering; this is deceiving.

The staff had many creative options at its disposal to show the public and council the true scale of the proposed sign. Next to the right schematic, I’ve added an approximate 6-foot tall human for illustrative purposes.
✔ Proof of facts which demonstrate that the City Council proceeded without, or in excess of its, jurisdiction.

Explain facts and how those facts show that the Council operated outside its jurisdiction:

No validation from Caltrans that the proposal was compliant. ✔ Proof of facts which demonstrate that the City Council failed to provide a fair hearing.

Explain facts and how those facts demonstrate failure to provide a fair hearing:

A. The “approval authority” for Freeway Oriented signs is the Planning Commission per CMC Table

19.104.200. It is customary for Planning Commissioners to make site visits. Because the Council became the approval authority for a Planning Commission decision, they should have made a site visit in order to provide a fair hearing.

B. Council was told that the Planning Commission’s decision was not valid – but a portion of their denial was based on information in the signage CMC 19.104. The denial stated: “The location of Signs Two and Three along the north elevations of Buildings One and Two could result in a situation that is materially detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare to the community…” This would imply that the Council was not permitted to vote on the basis of public health, safety, and community welfare which is incorrect. The video meeting shows much confusion on the part of the staff and council members.

C. The council packet lacked clear instructions on what was being voted on and what criteria needed to be used for the vote. This is surprising because this was the second hearing for the sign. During the planning commission, the city attorney told the planning commission that their approval / denial of the sign was discretionary. How did that meeting go wrong and why weren’t the issues that created a de novo hearing at the council resolved? Because the council did not have an appropriate rubric, the council could not provide a fair hearing. The packet failed to explain council could vote for 0, 1 or 2 freeway-facing signs. The packet failed to provide the relatively short criteria upon which they would be voting. At a minimum, Council needed this:

19.104.050Sign Permit Application–Review Criteria.

The Approval Body shall review the sign application to ensure that the following criteria are met:

A.The proposed sign meets the requirements of this title or any special conditions imposed in the development.

B.The proposed sign's color and illumination is not in conflict with the safe flow of traffic on the City streets.

C.The sign is in conformance with the Design Criteria in Section 19.104.220.

19.104.220Design Criteria–Permanent Signs.

Although the aesthetic appearance of signs is subjective, the City recognizes that certain basic design guidelines are needed in order to maintain the City's high quality appearance. The following criteria shall be incorporated into the design of signs.

C.All signs shall be architecturally compatible and in harmony with the building with which it is principally associated, by incorporating its colors, materials, shape and design. The sign shall also be compatible with the aesthetic character of the surrounding developments and neighborhood.

E.Sign copy shall be simple and concise, without excessive description of services or products.

F.Internally illuminated signs shall not have a directly visible light source.

G. The sign's color and illumination shall not produce distraction to motorists or nearby residents.

D. The lack of clarity in the packet was further muddied by conflicting instructions from the City manager, attorney, and planner. Examples include, the attorney gave an explanation and the city manager said no, let me explain. The planner’s presentation failed to mention that the City Council had the discretion reject all freeway-oriented signs per CMC 19.104. Councilmember Chao asked whether council can uphold the planning commission decision to deny both signs and the City Manager Wu said no, but then explained that the council could deny both signs or allow one (two signs were not provided as an option). The council could not come to the same conclusion as the planning commission? The City Attorney said that the Planning Commission decision was not legally justifiable but did not describe how. The council would need to find a legally justifiable basis to deny the sign – but what were the specifics of the basis? He wound up being interrupted by the manager. Council would need to find a legally justifiable basis to deny the sign, but what would have basis be? The council could approve additional signs – but could they deny all freeway facing signs? And there are design criteria that all signs must meet – and what are they? Chao asks if staff thought there was justification to deny both signs. City manager implies no. City Attorney stated that grounds for denial is if design criteria is not met, but Council is not provided the criteria. City manager says that once you have a freeway facing sign that it is subject to planning commission’s approval. You just have to watch the video. It is just too confusing.

The planner said the sign met requirements for size and lighting but failed to spell out that there were additional criteria, some of which is subjective. After council struggled in its deliberation and were obviously confused, staff requested a break. They came back in another failed attempt to clarify instructions. The planner showed only the text of 19.104.050, not 19.104.220. The planner told council that the signage was compliant with 19.104.050 which incorporated 19.104.220, leading council members to believe that they had to vote in favor of the signage. But it was up to the council to make that determination. The City manager corrected the planner. Who is the council supposed to listen to? The attorney, the city manager, the expert planner? The three staff members did not reconcile clear direction to the council even after having called for a break. Further, the text of 19.104.220 was not shown in the packet or at the council meeting. Even after Councilmember Moore asked that 19.104.220 be displayed, it was not. Council needs clear instructions in the packet and during meetings in order to provide a fair hearing.

E. It bears repeating that the City Attorney stated that the council decision needed to be made on design criteria but staff never provided the City Council Design Criteria (CMC 19.104.220), which is relatively short.

F. Had the neighbors across the freeway been notified, the council would have received significant input from neighbors about the proposed signage. It is appropriate to extend notification when there are special circumstances that cause unexpected impacts. We know that freeway-oriented signage is special because approval authority is assigned to the planning commission instead of the Community Development Director for other signs. See EXHIBIT 3 for the types of letters they would have received – these are letters that we sent after the hearing when residents learned of council’s decision. Because of this, council was incapable of providing a fair hearing.

G. Recall, the City Council was being asked to make a decision that normally has the Planning Commission as Approval Authority. Specifically, the Planning Commission is the Approval Authority for Freeway-Oriented signs (19.104.200). Councilmember Moore, is the only councilmember with Planning Commission experience and mentions distracting spillover lighting. She asked that the short text of

19.104.220, upon which the decision would be rendered, be displayed for all councilmembers to see. It was not. She also asked for a continuation of this agenda item and gave her reasons. It was not.

Consequently, council was unable to have a fair hearing and was hampered in its ability to make an informed decision.

H. It is hard to understand the fairness of a hearing when a building that has not even received its final inspection report is considered an existing building. The original plan set did contain signage that is very similar to the current proposal.

I. The council’s lack of planning commission experience and access to the municipal code that explains the intent of the sign ordinance outlined in 19.104.010 hindered their ability to have a fair hearing. Was this intent fulfilled? The Planning Commission understood that the purpose of the sign was mainly advertising. The council did not understand how to balance the needs of the community with the desires of the business to advertise per 19.104.010.

19.104.010Purpose and Intent.

A.The purpose of the sign ordinance is to identify and enhance businesses while maintaining the aesthetic appearance of the City.

B.A good sign program will provide information to the public concerning a particular business or use and will serve the visual and aesthetic desires of the community.

C.The City has adopted this title with the intent to:

1.Provide architectural and aesthetic harmony of signs as they relate to building design and surrounding landscaping;

2.Provide regulations of sign dimensions and quantity which will allow for good visibility for the public and the needs of the business while providing for the safety of the public by minimizing distraction to the motorist and pedestrian;

3.Provide for sign regulations that will be compatible with the building, siting, and the land uses the signs are intended to identify;

4.Provide for maintenance of existing signs and a program for bringing nonconforming signs into conformance with the standards of this title as changes are made to the signs or businesses;

5.Provide procedures which will facilitate the efficient processing of sign applications; and

6.Provide design criteria which will promote attractive and effective signs for Cupertino residents, businesses, employees and visitors.
✔ Proof of facts which demonstrate that the City Council abused its discretion by:
o (a) Not preceding in a manner required by law; and/or o (b) Rendering a decision which was not supported by findings of fact; and/or
o (c) Rendering a decision in which the findings of fact were not supported by the evidence.

Explain facts and how those facts demonstrate abuse of discretion related to items (a)-(c):

When council was told that the Cupertino Hotel sign also faced the freeway, some lept to the conclusion that it was similar to the proposed Public Storage sign. As shown earlier in this document, it is not. Council relied on the assumption that the signs and locations of the signs are similar but they are not. Council decision was not supported by facts.

6. Signature(s) Rhoda Fry (and other Cupertino Residents) PS – per code, I respectfully request refund of fees. Thank You.

Please complete form, include reconsideration fee of $356.20 pursuant to Resolution No. 22-049 payable to City of Cupertino and return to the attention of the City Clerk, 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California (408) 777-3223.

Acceptance of a petition by the City Clerk is for timeliness purposes only and does not constitute a determination that the petition meets the requirements for reconsideration under section 2.08.096 of the Municipal Code. The City reserves the right to review petitions after submission and reject those that do not meet the criteria set forth in Cupertino Municipal Code Section 2.08.096.

PAYMENT PROOF
EXHIBIT 1 – Residents and Hotel Guests who will see the Illuminated Public Storage Sign EXHIBIT 2 –Existing Public Storage Sign, Cupertino Hotel Sign, Views from De Anza Forge Installed sign as viewed from adjacent condo. The
illuminated portion of the sign is reportedly 52
square feet. The illuminated portion of the freewayfacing sign would be 165 square feet. This gives an idea as to how bright it would be. The letters
appear much brighter than the building’s interior
lighting. This photo was taken between 10:30 pm
and 11:00 pm on 2/15/2023.

IMAGINE A SIGN 3X LARGER THAN THE
ABOVE. IS IT COMPARABLE TO THE
CUPERTINO HOTEL?
CUPERTINO HOTEL: This photo has been
enlarged. Otherwise you would not be able to
recognize it. This is a view of Cupertino Hotel
from the on-ramp to 280 North from De Anza. On
the Freeway heading north, it was sometimes
hidden and other times very subdued. I was unable
to see the sign from the condos across the freeway
having walked the fence line and even climbed up
to it. It is unlikely that much of this sign is visible from the condos. This photo was taken between
10:30 pm and 11:00 pm on 2/15/2023.

View from a lower unit in a De Anza Forge condo. View from a different unit in a De Anza Forge condo.

These photos were taken between 10:30 pm and
11:00 pm on 2/15/2023 at the De Anza Forge
Condominiums along the various areas that face
the freeway. The sign would be installed at the
highest point on the building. In all cases, the
photos are taken from a vantage point that is
further away from the Public Storage building than
a view from a condo.

EXHIBIT 3 – EXCERPTS LETTERS RECEIVED BY CITY CLERK/COUNCIL FROM NEIGHBORS WHO WOULD BE AFFECTED BY SIGNAGE BETWEEN 2/8 and 2/16 (names/addresses redacted) My name is Art Wodecki and I own a condo in the DeAnza Forge community (20718 Celeste Circle Cupertino CA 95014).

Please do not allow Public Storage to have illuminated signage facing the freeway until 11pm daily. This signage will be visible from my home and disrupt our quality of life. The proposed lighted sign is 165 square feet on an 800+ square-foot orange background. In October, the Planning Commission denied any signage facing the freeway per CMC 19.104; in February, the City Council ignored their decision. The City Council should have upheld the Planning Commission’s determination; there should be no sign. Alternatively, as a compromise, I am respectfully requesting that the signage have no illumination. The sign does not help prospective customers to find the building and is big enough for advertising the business during daylight hours.

I am also very concerned about highway/driving safety with that proposed illuminated sign.

Please do not allow Public Storage to have illuminated signage facing the freeway, especially if it is lit until 11pm daily. The lights from the Public Storage are already very bright in the evening. Adding large illuminated lettering onto the side of the buildings would only further increase the buildings brightness and make it an even bigger visual eyesore. Nearby residents don’t want a nightlight. It would only further increase the amount of light pollution coming inside our homes. Not to mention, it would make our homes less desirable, if we were to rent or sell it in the future.

The two newly-built, 4-story Public Storage buildings are now the first thing you see when you look out of our bedroom and living-room widows, since they are now at eye level with our condo. We bought our condo in 1985, even before the Cupertino Inn was built, when our condo still had the beautiful unobstructed views of the mountains and there were a lot more planted trees everywhere. I think around that time, the one-story Public Storage facility was originally built in Cupertino, as well. In fact, in all the 40 years that it’s been at that location, Public Storage has never had a sign facing the freeway to advertise its location, much less needed one that was illuminated. We don’t think it should be necessary for them to have one now. Due to the large size of both buildings and their trademark burnt orange and grey color, they are very hard to be missed from the freeway.

Illuminating the name of the company, so that it can further advertise its brand, at the detriment of the neighbors and the driving cars, should not be allowed. Let’s leave the bright lights and lit signs for Las Vegas and not Cupertino. The only entity benefiting from the proposed illuminated signage would be Public Storage; not the overall community. I am respectfully requesting that the signage have no illumination.

All view access to the mountains cutoff by building line.

Thank you so much for taking away what little view we had.

Photo; Feb 15, 735a
Jim
Dear City Council:

Please do not allow Public Storage to have illuminated signage facing the freeway until 11pm daily. This signage will be visible from my home and disrupt my quality of life. The proposed lighted sign is 165 square feet on an 800+ square-foot orange background.

The building has already cutoff good views of the mountains. Had it been one story lower, the tops of the mountains would be visible. Maybe it doesn’t matter to you but it mattered to me. Public Storage wins. I lose. Poor choice by allowing this.

Now to make it worse already the hallways are lighted projecting across the highway into bedroom.

Photo : 1020p, Feb 14th, 2023
Views of mountains gone.

To make matters worse, the illuminated sign will be visible from many of the condominiums at De Anza Forge. We already lost a view to the south of the mountains, there will be a large obtrusive lighted sign directly in the sight-line. This will negatively affect the value of all condominiums in the complex.

In October, the Planning Commission denied any signage facing the freeway per CMC 19.104; in February, the City Council ignored their decision. The City Council should have upheld the Planning Commission’s determination; there should be no sign.

Alternatively, as a compromise, I am respectfully requesting that the signage have no illumination. The sign does not help prospective customers to find the building and is big enough for advertising the business during daylight hours.

Furthermore, do you think this building meets the City Council’s promise made specifically for this building? Resolution 19-072 stated “In order to preserve design harmony between new and existing buildings and in order to preserve and enhance property values, the materials, textures and colors of new buildings should harmonize with adjacent development by being consistent or compatible with design and color schemes, and, with the future character of the neighborhood and purposes of the zone in which they are situated.” If the new City Council truly cares about the residents of Cupertino, please do not allow Public Storage to have an illuminated signage facing the freeway until 11pm daily. This signage would be visible from home and would disrupt our quality of life. The proposed lighted sign is 165 square feet on an orange background measuring over 800 square feet.

Would you like it if you lived here and you saw that sign each night? In October, the Planning Commission denied any signage facing the freeway per CMC 19.104. In February, the City Council ignored their decision. As a compromise, I am respectfully requesting that the signage have no illumination. The sign does not help prospective customers find the building and is large enough to advertise their business during daylight hours.

I feel this is a very reasonable request. I am not asking for the removal of the sign. Please reconsider so that the signage is not lit up when it’s dark.

Please do not allow Public Storage to have illuminated signage facing the freeway until 11pm daily. This signage will be visible from my home and disrupt my quality of life. The proposed lighted sign is 165 square feet on an 800+ square-foot orange background. In October, the Planning Commission denied any signage facing the freeway per CMC 19.104; in February, the City Council ignored their decision. The City Council should have upheld the Planning Commission’s determination; there should be no sign. Alternatively, as a compromise, I am respectfully requesting that the signage have no illumination. The sign does not help prospective customers to find the building and is big enough for advertising the business during daylight hours.

Furthermore, do you think this building meets the City Council’s promise made specifically for this building? Resolution 19-072 stated “In order to preserve design harmony between new and existing buildings and in order to preserve and enhance property values, the materials, textures and colors of new buildings should harmonize with adjacent development by being consistent or compatible with design and color schemes, and, with the future character of the neighborhood and purposes of the zone in which they are situated.” Please do not allow Public Storage to have illuminated signage facing the freeway until 11pm daily. This signage would be visible from my property. It will surely disrupt the quality of life.

The proposed lighted sign is 165 square feet on an orange background measuring over 800 square feet. In October, the Planning Commission denied any signage facing the freeway per CMC 19.104; in February, the City Council ignored their decision.

As a compromise, I am respectfully requesting that the signage have no illumination. The sign does not help prospective customers to find the building and is big enough for advertising the business during daylight hours.

Please don't allow public storage to have signage facing the freeway until 11 pm daily.

This signage would be visible from my home and would disrupt my quality of life. The proposed illuminated sign is 165 square feet with an orange background measuring over 800 square feet.

In October, the Planning Commission denied any signage facing the freeway per CMC 19.104; in February, the City Council ignored their decision. As a compromise, I am respectfully requesting that the signage have no illumination. The sign does not help prospective customers to find the building and is big enough for advertising the business during daylight hours.

Please do not allow Public Storage to have illuminated signage facing the freeway until 11pm daily. This signage would be visible from my home and would disrupt my quality of life. The proposed lighted sign is 165 square feet on an orange background measuring over 800 square feet. In October, the Planning Commission denied any signage facing the freeway per CMC 19.104; in February, the City Council ignored their decision. As a compromise, I am respectfully requesting that the signage have no illumination. The sign does not help prospective customers to find the building and is big enough for advertising the business during daylight hours.

Please do not allow Public Storage to have illuminated signage and room lighting facing the freeway until 11p.m. daily. This signage and bright room lighting showing bright orange doors is visible from my home and has been disrupting my quality of life. The proposed lighted sign is 16 square feet on an orange background measuring over 800 square feet.

In October, the Planning Commission denied any signage facing the freeway per CMC 19.104; in February, the City Council ignored their decision. As a compromise, I am respectfully requesting that the signage have no illumination and room lightening will be either shut off or significantly dimmed so that the light pollution will not cause sleep disturbance for the residents. The sign does not help prospective customers to find the building and is big enough for advertising the business during daylight hours and bright ugly room lighting is just wasting precious community electricity.

Please do not allow Public Storage to put up an enormous illuminated sign facing 280. The building, which was recently constructed, already interferes with the quality of my life since it is lit up all night long and the light goes directly into my condo on the other side of the freeway. The proposed illuminated light would only make the problem worse, especially during the summer months when windows are kept open to let cool air in (letting in also the view of a large glowing sign). Where I once had a lovely view of the mountains, I now have an ugly grey building blocking it, with the threat of an enormous illuminated Public Storage sign being place upon it. Please do not allow this to happen.

In October, the Planning Commission denied any signage facing the freeway per CMC 19.1-4, so it seems like this should not happen.

I look forward to seeing the action you take in this matter.

The newly-built Public Storage building is a problem. I live in a condominium De Anza behind Homestead Square Shopping Center, facing to Freeway 280. Recently the new building was built and the building is a total obstacle for all the residents in my neighbors. We could see the mountains over Freeway 280 but now we cannot enjoy the view. What we see through the windows is just a storage building. It's worse. The building has large windows and the corridors are lit by the light until late at night. But I have never saw a soul in the corridor. The building in front of our residence is ugly at daytime. The building with lighted windows is ugly at night. The Public Storage building is already a problem.

And now.

Please do not allow Pubic Storage to have illuminated signage facing the freeway until 11pm daily. This signage would be visible from my home and would disrupt my quality of life. The proposed lighted sign is 165 square feet on an orange background measuring over 800 square feet. In October, the Planning Commission denied any signage facing the freeway per CMC 19.104; in February, the City Council ignored their decision. As a compromise, I am respectfully requesting that the signage have no illumination. The sign does not help prospective customers to find the building and is big enough for advertising the business during daylight hours.

RESOLUTION N0. 19- 072

A RESOLUTION OF THE CUPEIZTINO CITY COUNCIL APPROVING AN

ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE APPROVAL PERMIT TO ALLOW THE

DEMOLITION OF AN EXISTING PUBLIC STORAGE FACILITY AND THE

CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW PUBLIC STORAGE FACILITY CONSISTING OF TWO (2) FOUR (4)- STORY BUILDING5 WITH BASEMENTS . 00ATED AT 20565 VALLEY GREEN DRIVE
SECTION I: PROTECT DESCRIPTIUN
Application No.: ASA- 2018- 04
Applicant: Andres Friedman
Property Owner: Storage Equities, Inc.

Location: 20565 Valley Green Drive (APN: 326- 10-044)
SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE APPROVAL PERMIT:

WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Cupertino received n application for an Architectural and Site Approval as described in Section I. of this Resolutio.n; and WHEREAS, the necessary public noi;ices have been given as required by the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the City Council has held at least one public hearing in regard to the application; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Comrnission held a public hearing on May 28, 2019 and recommended that the City Council approve the application, subject to conditions; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 ( Public Resources Code section 21000 et seq.) (" CEQA"), together with the State CEQA Guidelines( California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et seq.) ( hereinafter, " CEQA Guidelines"), the City staff has independently studied the proposed Project and has determined that the Project is exernpt frorn environmental review pursuant to the categorical exernption in CEQA Guidelines section 15332, and the exemption in CEQA Guidelines section 15183, for the reasons set forth in the staff repQrt dated May 28, 2019 and incorporated herein; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds as follows with regard to this application:

1. The proposal, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience;
i
I
I
Resolution No. 19- 072 i Page 2
i
The proposed project is a redevelopment of an existing Public Storage facility. The Yedevelopment allows for continued operation and expansion of the existing use. The project will providefor a new building design that meets new building requirements, provided high quality architecture, and I improvements in the vicinity, such as the 12 foot easement along the entire north side ofthe property for a multi- use trail. The project will also provide increase landscaping and tree canopy coverage throughout fhe site. Therefore, the proposal will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity.

2. The proposal is consistent with the purposes of Chapter 19. 134, Architectural and Site Review, of the Cupertino Municipal Code, the General Plan, and applicable specific plans, zoning ordinances, conditional use permits, exceptions, subdivision maps, or other entitlements to use which regulate the subject property including, but not limited to, adherence to the following specific criteria:
a) Abrupt changes in building scale should be avoided. A gradual transition related to height and bullc should be achieved between new and existing buildings; The proposed project complies with primary building height of45 feet listed in he General Plan:

Comrnunity Vision 2015- 2040. Further, the project is located far from existing multi- story buildings. The gradual transition related to height is completed by the use of vari us building materials, architec ural features, and setbacks that help to avoad abrupt changes in building scale and make the project compatible with any existing and ficture development( s). b) In order to preserve design harmony between new and existing buildings and i order to preserve and enhance property values, the materials, textures and colors of new buildings should harmonize with adjacent development by being consistent or compatible with design and color schemes, and, with the future character of the neighborhood and purposes of the zone in which they are situated. The location, height and materials of walls, fencing, hedges and screen planting should harmonize with adjacent development. Unsightly storage areas, utility installations and unsightly elements of parl<ing lots should be concealed. The planting of ground cover or various types of pa ements should be used to prevent dust and erosion, and the unnecessary destruction of existing healthy trees should be avoided. Lighting for development should be adequate to meet safety requirements as specified by the engineering and building departments, and provide shielding to prevent spill-over light to adjoining property owners;
The buil ing is designed in a contemporar architectural style to emulate an office building. The architectural style is consistent with the adjacent office building uses and residential building.

The location, height and materials of walls, fencing, and plantings have been designed to harmonize with adjacent structures. Utility structures and trash enclosures have been designed to have landscaping that conceals the structures from adjacent uses. The project uses various planting and ground cover materials to prevent dust and erosion, and the project is only removing Resolution No. 19- 072

trees that are in conflict with necessary improvements to accommodate the proposed project.

Additionally, where trees are proposed for removal, new trees are replacing them. Lighting for the development has been reviewed and design to minimize impacts to adjacent developmenfs by preventing spillover light to adjacent properties.
c) The number, location, color, size, height, lighting and landscaping of outdoor advertising signs and structures shall minimize traffic hazards and shall positively affect the general appearance of the neighborhood and harmonize with adjacent development; and
Signage approval is not included in this application.
d) With respect to new projects within existing residential: neighborhoods, new development should be designed to protect residents from noise, traffic, light and visually intrusive ef£ects by use of buffering, setbacl<s, landscaping, walls and other appropriate design rneasures.

The proposed project has increased front and rear setbacks from existing residential development.

The project has been designed to protect residents from noise, traffic, light and visually intrusive impacts by placing the ac ive uses more than 150 away from neighboring residential areas.

Additionally, the project has incorporated perimeter landscaping to further minimize ariy visually antrusave effer,ts to adjacent properties.

WHEREAS, on June 18, 2019, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing to receive ptxblic testimony on the Project, including the categorical exemption in CEQA Guidelines section 15332 and the exemption in CEQA Guidelines section 15183 and reviewed and considered the information contained in the staff report pertaining to the Projeet, all other pertinent docuYnents, and all written and oral statements received by the City Council at or prior to the public hearing; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that after careful consideration of the CEQA exemption memorandum, maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this resolution beginning on PAGE 3 thereof,

1. The City Council exercises its independent judgment and determxnes that the Project is exernpt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15332 and the exemption 1n CEQA Guidelines section 151$ 3. The exernption in CEQA Guidelines section 1,5332 applies to an infill development project which 1) is consistent with the applicable General Plan designation and all applicable General Plan policies, as well as the applicable Zoning designations and regulations; 2) occurs within the City limits on a site of less than 5 acres in sxze that is substantially surrounded by urban uses; 3) is located on a site that has no value for endangered, rare or threatened species; 4) would not result in any significant effects related to traffic, noise, air quality or water quality; and 5) can be adequa ely served Resolution No. 19- 072

by all required utilities and public services. The exemption in CEQA Guidelines section 15183 applies to a project that is consistent with General Plan designations and zoning for the site described in the General P1an, the potential impacts of which would be substantially mitigated by the irnposition of unitormly applied standard conditions of i approval. The General Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update, and Associated Rezoning Final Environmental Impact Report ( SCH No. 2014032007), certified by the City Council on December 4, 2014, was prepared consistent with the requirements for applicability of streamlining under CEQA Guidelines Section 15183( d)(2), and there are no environrnental effects that are peculiar to the proposed project or project site that were not analyzed in the General Plan EIR;

2. The application for an Architectural and Site Approval, Application no. ASA- 2018- 04 is hereby recommended to be approved; and
The subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this Resolution . are based are contained in the Public Hearing record concerning Application no.( s) ASA2018- 04 as set forth in the Minutes of the City . Council Meeting on June 18, 2019, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.

SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT.

1. APPROVED EXHIBITS
Ap roval recommendation is based on the plan set dated k'ebruary 4, 2019 consisting of 26 sheets labeled as, " A Redevelopment for Public Storage" labeled as Sheet 1- 26, prepared by KSP Studio and BKF; except as may be amended by conditions in this resolution.

2. ACCURACY OF PROjECT PLANS
The applicant/ property owner is responsible to v.erify all pertinent p operty data including but not limited to property boundary locations, building setbacl<s, property size, building square footage, any relevant easements and/ or construction records. Any misrepresentation of any property data may invalidate this approval and may require additional review.

3. CONCURRENT APPROVAL CONDITIONS
The conditions of approval contained in file nos. DP-2018- 03, EXC- 2018- 01, and TR-2019- 11 are concurrently enacted, and shall be applicable to this approval.

4. ANNOTATION OF THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
The conditions of approval set forth shall be incorporated into and annotated on the first page of the building plans.

Resolution No. 19- 072

5. FINAL ARCHITECTURAL DETAILS AND EXTERIOR BUILDING MATERIALS The final building exterior plan shall closely resemble the details shown on the original approved plans. The final building design and exterior treatment plans ( including but not limited to details on exterior color, materials, architectural treatments, doors, windows, lighting fixtures, and/or embellishments) shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Comrnunity Development prior to issuance of building permits and through an in-field mocic- up of colors prior to application to ensure quality and consistency. Any exterior changes determined to be substantial by the Director of C ommunity Development shall either require a modification to this permit or a new permit based on the extent of the change.

6. EAST ELEVATION
The applicant shall work with the City to neutralize the building color and materials along the eastern elevation, and sha11 rnodify the vegetation, as necessary, to improve the aesthetics of the project. The modification shall be reviewed and approved by the Directo.r of Community Development prior to the issuance of building permits.

7. MAXIMUM PARAPET HEIGHT
The proposed parapet arehitectural feature/ screen shall not exceed 37".

8. CONSULTATION WITH OTHER DEPARTMENTS
The applicant is responsible to consult with other departments and/ or agencies with regard to the proposed project for additional conditions and requirements. Any misrepresentation of any submitted data may invalidate an approval by the Community Development Depariment.

9. INDEMNIFICATION
Except as otherwise prohibited by law, the applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, and its off'icers, employees and agents ( collectively, the indernnified parties") from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against one or rnore of the indemnified parties or one or more of the indernnified parties and the appricant to attack, set aside, or void this Resolution or any permit or approval authorized hereby for the project, including ( without limitation) reimbursing the City its actual attorneys' fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation.

The applicant shall pay such attorneys' fees and costs within 30 days following receipt of invoices from City. Such attorneys' fees and costs shall include amounts paid to counsel not otherwise employed as City staff and sha11 include City Attorney tirne and overhead costs and other City staff overhead costs and any costs directly related to the litigation reasonably incurred by City.

10. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RBSERVATIONS, OR OTHER EXACTIONS i
Resolution No. 19- 072
I Page 6
The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees, dedication requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020( d) ( 1), these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations, and other exactions.

You are hereby further notified that the 90- day approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020( a), has begun. If you fail to file a protest within this 90- day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions,
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 18th day of June, 2019, by the following vote:

Vote Members of the City Council
AYES: Scharf, Chao, Paul, Sinl<s, Wi11ey
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
SIGNED:
j
Steven Scharf, Mayor Date .

Cit of Cu ertino
ATTEST:
2-- 1 q
Grace Schmidt, Ci Clerk Date

CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014

DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM
Application: U- 03, 2006-ASA- 05, 2006-EA- 062006-
Agenda Date: May 9, 2006
Applicant: Timothy Reeves, on behalf of Public Storage
Owner: Public Storage, Inc.

Location: 20565 Valley Green Drive, APN 326- 04410-
APPLICATION SUMMARIES:

USE PERMIT and ARCHITECTURAL & SITE APPROVAL to demolish an existing 53,890 square foot, single-story storage facility and construct a 155,253 square foot, three-story storage facility.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council:

1. Approval of the negative declaration, file no. EA- 062006-

2. Denial of the Use Permit, file no. U- 03, 2006-based on the model resolution.

3. Denial of the Architectural & Site Approval, file no. ASA- 05, 2006-based on the model resolution.

Project Data:

General Plan Designation:

Zoning Designation:

Specific Plan:

Site Area:

Existing Building SF:

Proposed Building SF:

Industrial/Residential
P (CG, ML, Res 4-10)
North De Anza Boulevard Special Center
130,469 square feet (2.99 acres)
53,890 square feet (to be demolished)
Building A: 74,511 square feet
Building B: 80,742 square feet
Total Building SF: 155,253 square feet
Building Coverage:

Floor Area Ratio:

Building Height:

Required Parking:

Provided Parking:

Hours of Operation (Storage):

Hours of Operation (Office):

Total Employees:

Employees at anyone time:

39.6%

1.19 43 feet maximum, 45 allowed
N/A
80 spaces
6:00 a.m. - 9:00 p.m. (same as existing hours)
9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. (same as existing hours)
5 employees
2 employees
Environmental Assessment: Negative Declaration
3-1
U- 03, 2006-ASA- 05, 2006-EA- 062006-

May 9, 2006
BACKGROUND:

Development of the site will require removal of all of the existing mini-storage buildings on the property, consisting of nine single-story buildings with an associated rental office. The project site is surrounded by Interstate 280 to the north, existing twostory office buildings and Valley Green Drive to the south, a condominium development (Oak Park Village) under construction to the east and a multiple-family residential neighborhood to the west. The site is accessed from Valley Green Drive by a 30-foot wide driveway easement that is on the adjacent properties to the south and east.

DISCUSSION:

Site Layout.

The proposed project is comprised of two three-story buildings in the center of the property. Building A is proposed to be 74,511 square feet and will include 631 storage units with an associated 1,100 square foot rental office. Building B is proposed to be 80,742 square feet with 537 rental units. Eighty parking spaces will be provided around the new buildings. Landscaping will be provided along the perimeter of the site.

The site is located within a Planned Development zoning district, which does not provide setback standards. The proposed project will have a setback of 51 feet from the northern property line (adjacent to Interstate 280), a 15 foot rear yard setback from the southern property line, a 54 foot setback from the eastern property line (that includes half of the 30-foot driveway easement) and 50 feet from the western property line adjacent to the multiple-family residential neighborhood).

Architecture and Building Materials.

The architecture of the buildings has been designed to be compatible with the Oak Park Village condominium development with respect to wall articulations, building shapes and variation of wall heights. The proposed buildings provide considerable wall articulations to break up the 370-foot wall lengths of each building.

Additionally, varying wall heights have been proposed by incorporating different roof shapes and wall heights. The buildings' heights are consistent with the adjacent threestory, 45-foot height Oak Park Village development. However, the existing two-story office buildings to the south are considerably lower, with a height of approximately 33 feet to the top of roof and 36 feet to the top of parapet.

The building materials include use of stucco EIFs ( exterior insulation and finish systems), split face concrete masonry blocks, cornice treatments and metal awnings.

The applicant is proposing to use a combination of gray, sand, and white colors for the building. Metal awnings are proposed to be painted orange to match the corporate logo color of Public Storage.
y::

U- 03, 2006-ASA- 05, 2006-EA- 062006-

May 9, 2006
Although the buildings have been designed to be compatible with the surrounding uses, staff believes they will appear industrial, with a significant amount of three-story
high wall area without windows and significant use of concrete split face masonry block units. Therefore, the proposed project wiII still appear somewhat different from the surrounding developments. The Oak Park ViIIage condominiums wiII have a significant amount of window area and will have a stucco exterior, as do the existing two-story office buildings to the south.

Staff is also concerned about the height of the proposed buildings as they will be prominently visible from Interstate 280, the new condominium development currently under construction to the east, the existing residential neighborhood to the west and the two-story office buildings occupied by Apple to the south.

Landscaping.

Existing landscaped areas include a planter area adjacent to the rental office building at the entrance to the project site, some redwood trees along the northern property line at the entrance to the site, and a five-foot landscaped area with redwood and fern pine trees. Landscape screening of the site benefits from the landscaping on adjacent properties, including eucalyptus trees in a planter area on the adjacent property to the south and mature trees planted in the Interstate 280 right- wayof-landscape area between the freeway and the project site.

The conceptual landscape plan provides enhanced landscaping, due to additional setbacks provided by the new buildings. No existing trees will be removed. The landscape plan provides for new and extended landscape planter areas around the perimeter of the site, including a 10-foot wide planter along the northern property line, a IS-foot wide planter along the southern property line, a 25-foot planter along the western property line and a 30-foot planter along the eastern property line.

Additionally, planter areas wiII be installed between parking spaces along the northern elevation of the building to accommodate new magnolia trees.

Staff finds that although the applicant is significantly increasing landscape area along the perimeter of the project site, the number of trees to be added appears minimal. If the Planning Commission recommends approval of the project, staff recommends that the Commission require additional trees on the site.

Public Art. The recently adopted General Plan requires that new projects of 50,000 square feet or more contribute 1/4 % of their construction valuation toward public art. If the Planning Commission recommends approval of the project, a condition of approval requires public art for this project.
3<3
U- 03, 2006-ASA- 05, 2006-EA- 062006-

May 9, 2006
Parking.

The City's parking ordinance does not include a parking requirement for storage facilities. As a result, a parking study was prepared by TJKM Transportation Consultants to determine the parking demands of the project. The study was based upon analysis of the entry/exit log data for the month of March and driveway counts collected during the evening peak period between 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. on a weekday.

The study was also based upon a total projected building square footage of approximately 204,000 square feet and 83 parking spaces. Since preparation of this parking study, the proposed square footage of the building was reduced to 155,253 square feet and 80 parking spaces. Staff believes that the proposed number of parking spaces will be sufficient to accommodate the use.

North De Anza Special Center
The project site is located in the North De Anza Special Center area. Per the General Plan, this area focuses on development activities including office, industrial, research and development with supporting commercial and residential uses. Developments. in this area are required to adhere to design elements by providing extensive landscape setbacks/ corridors adjacent to De Anza Boulevard. Since the site has no direct street frontage, the landscape setback/ corridor requirements do not apply.

Maintaining Cohesive Commercial Centers and Office Parks The General Plan includes policies for the maintenance of cohesive commercial centers and office parks, which encourage new development and expansion of commercial( office uses within these areas. The project site is located in an area identified as an office park.

The proposed mini-storage facility is a non-office use that does not promote these General Plan policies for maintaining cohesive office parks and, therefore, staff believes that the project, which will significantly intensify the use of the site as a mini-storage facility by almost tripling the amount of existing mini-storage building area, will conflict with these policies. The proposed project will offer very little public and community benefit, as it is anticipated to generate a minimal amount of retail sales tax to the City for its sales of packing/boxing supplies, and is substantially inconsistent with the surrounding uses of the area that include office and multiple-family residential. More importantly, the substantial intensification of this site will preclude future development of the site for future expansion of an office park, and particularly a high tech office park currently occupied by Apple.

Although the applicant has made substantial design changes to provide a design that is compatible with surrounding buildings, staff believes that the proposed project does not follow the policies for maintaining cohesive commercial/ office parks. Therefore, w
U- 03, 2006-ASA- 05, 2006-EA- 062006-

May 9, 2006
staff does not support the proposed project, particularly since these policies were developed by the recently adopted General Plan of November 2005, and recommends that the Planning Commission recommend denial of the project.

Environmental Review.

The Environmental Review Committee ( ERq reviewed this project on April 12, 1006 and recommended approval of a negative declaration for this project. Items discussed included additional landscaping to be provided on the site, staffing and hours of operation, and parking.

Enclosures:

Model Resolutions recommending Denial
Model Resolutions recommending Approval
Exhibit A: Public Storage Project Description
Exhibit B: General Plan policy for Maintaining Cohesive Commercial Centers and Office Parks
Exhibit C: Parking study prepared by TJKM Traffic Consultants dated March 20, 2006 Initial Study and ERC Recommendation
Plan Set
Submitted by: Aki Honda, Senior Planner ~
Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Development &''' G: CupertinoNT /PlanningIPDREPORT /pcUsereports/ ciddyU- 03.2006ureports/ 2006- doc 3~5
U- 032006-

CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014

MODEL RESOLUTION

OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF A USE PERMIT TO DEMOLISH AN EXISTING 53,890 SQUARE FOOT, SINGLE-STORY STORAGE FACILITY AND CONSTRUCT A 155,253

SQUARE FOOT, THREE-STORY STORAGE FACILITY ACCESSED FROM VALLEY GREEN DRIVE (pUBLIC STORAGE).

SECTION I: FINDINGS
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for a Use Permit, as described in Section II of this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held one or more public hearings on this matter; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has not met the burden of proof required to support said application; and has not satisfied the following requirements:
1) The proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general weIfare, or convenience; 2) The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Cupertino Comprehensive General Plan and the purpose of this title; and 3) The proposed development is consistent with the North De Anza Boulevard Special Center area.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:

That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, the application for Use Permit is hereby recommended for denial, subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on

That the subconcIusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this resolution are based and contained in the public hearing record concerning Application No. U- 032006-as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of May 9, 2006, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.

Jrc,
Model Resolution

U- 032006- May 9, 2006
SECTION II: PROTECT DESCRIPTION
Application No.:

Applicant:

Location:

U- 03 ( 2006-EA- 06) 2006-
Timothy Reeves (Public Storage)
20565 Valley Green Drive
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 9th day of May 2006, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

COMMISSIONERS:

COMMISSIONERS:

COMMISSIONERS:

COMMISSIONERS:

ATTEST: APPROVED:

Steve Piasecki
Director of Community Development
Marty Miller, Chairperson
Planning Commission
G: \ Planning \ PDREPORT\ RES \ 2006 \ U- 032006-res. doc 9-'7
ASA- 052006-

CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014

MODEL RESOLUTION

OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO

RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF AN ARCHITECTURE AND SITE APPROVAL TO DEMOLISH AN EXISTING 53,890 SQUARE FOOT, SINGLE-STORY STORAGE FACILITY AND CONSTRUCT A 155,253 SQUARE FOOT, THREE-STORY STORAGE FACILITY ACCESSED FROM VALLEY GREEN DRIVE (PUBLIC STORAGE).

SECTION I: FINDINGS
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for a Use Permit, as described in Section II of this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held one or more public hearings on this matter; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has not met the burden of proof required to support said application; and has not satisfied the following requirements:
1) The proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience; 2) The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Cupertino Comprehensive General Plan and the purpose of this title; and 3) The proposed development is consistent with the North De Anza Boulevard Special Center area.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:

That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, the application for Architectural and Site Approval is hereby recommended for denial, subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on Page 2 thereof; and
That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this resolution are based and contained in the public hearing record concerning Application No. ASA- 052006- as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of May 9, 2006, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. 3--' b
Model Resolution

ASA- 052006- May 9, 2006
SECTION II: PROTECT DESCRIPTION
Application No.:

Applicant:

Location:

ASA- 05 ( 2006-EA- 06) 2006-
Timothy Reeves (Public Storage)
20565 Valley Green Drive
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 9th day of May 2006, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

COMMISSIONERS:

COMMISSIONERS:

COMMISSIONERS:

COMMISSIONERS:

ATTEST:

Steve Piasecki
Director of Community Development
G: \ Planning \ PDREPORT\ RES \ 2006 \ASA- 052006-denial.doc APPROVED:

Marty Miller, Chairperson
Planning Commission
3~(
From: Kirsten Squarcia
To: Lisa Warren
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: RE: Lisa image for oral communications Feb 21 2023 City Council Date: Tuesday, February 21, 2023 4:13:25 PM
Attachments: edited MAP p 17 of Fehr and Peers Jan 2023 Main Street Shared Parking Memo_MAP Draft.pdf image002.png
image004.png
image006.png
image008.png
image010.png
image012.png
image014.png
image016.png
Hello Lisa, yes, received and I can open and share during your time to speak.

Kirsten Squarcia
City Clerk
City Manager's Office
[email protected]
(408) 777-3225
From: Lisa Warren <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2023 3:15 PM
To: Kirsten Squarcia <[email protected]>
Subject: Lisa image for oral communications Feb 21 2023 City Council CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Kirsten,
Please confirm you can open and see the attached one page.

I will ask for you to show it during oral at tonight's reg meeting.

Thanks.

Lisa

Biodiversity, the sequel
Presentation to Cupertino City Council
2/21/2023
Don Halsey
a coordinator of
Friends of Blackberry Farm Golf
Resident #2 question to CCC: (February 7 mtg)
“… what can city council do to increase biodiversity and conserve water …” Tonight, we’ll answer that question.

CCC meeting comments
• Western bluebirds throughout
• Red tail hawk near first tee
• Blue heron on rock near ninth fairway
Resident #1 comments: (bird watcher / golfer) about birds at Blackberry Farm Golf Course: (January 17 mtg)
Scholarly studies
Golf courses had more biodiversity than nearby green spaces EVERY TIME! Now let’s bring things back locally – to Blackberry Farm Trigger Warning!
Images contained in the following slides are
of cute baby animals which may cause an
emotional response in some persons
Golf Course restoration in progress for Bluebirds
Photo credit:

Chuck Handa
Photo credit:

Chuck Handa
Bluebirds:
2021 season
Photo credit:

Chuck Handa

Other wildlife
Also sighted
• bobcat
Photo credit:

Chuck Handa
Still more! Opossums are cleaners. They will catch and eat cockroaches, rats and mice – in addition to consuming dead animals of all types (also known as carrion).

If you want biodiversity, keep the golf course!
Still, we can easily have more wildlife
2021
2022
Let’s fill the ponds at the
golf course!
• Attract ducks, coots,
frogs, cattails, etc.
• Pond percolation
replenishes aquifers
thus conserves water
Stevens Creek Reservoir is at its highest storage level in years.

Major discharges
to Bay in January –
wasted water!
90% of 3000 acre – feet capacity
Years ago there were two
ponds at Blackberry Farm
Golf Course
Photo credit:

Chuck Handa
Back then, there were fox and raccoon
sightings also
Photo credit:

Chuck Handa
For the sake of wildlife, and to conserve water …
Keep the golf course.

Bring back the ponds.

Blackberry Farm Golf course is not a problem that
requires a “Natural Habitat” solution.

Famous old proverb …
If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

From: Kirsten Squarcia
To: City Clerk
Subject: FW: My slides for tonight 2/21 Oral Communications Date: Tuesday, February 21, 2023 9:30:13 PM
Attachments: Biodiversity sequel 02 trunc.pdf
image001.png
image003.png
image005.png
image007.png
image009.png
image011.png
image013.png
image015.png
Kirsten Squarcia
City Clerk
City Manager's Office
[email protected]
(408) 777-3225
From: Don Halsey <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2023 8:21 PM
To: Kirsten Squarcia <[email protected]>
Subject: My slides for tonight 2/21
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Here they are, so you can include them in the published "comments" section.

I hope you liked the baby animals. And thanks for your help.

From: Tessa Parish
To: City Clerk; City Attorney"s Office; Cupertino City Manager"s Office; City Council Subject: Recommendation for todays" meeting
Date: Tuesday, February 21, 2023 5:12:06 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Mr. Jensen and Madam City Clerk,
This storm is very strong. Power has been going out in different areas, if we lose power, I would recommend not postponing the meeting as the public on Zoom will not be able to participate.

A warning up front might be a good idea.

Best Regards,
Tessa Parish
From: JOHN KOLSKI
To: City Clerk
Cc: Pamela Wu
Subject: Fwd: Cupertino Matters: TONIGHT - City Council, Tues., Feb. 21, Special Meeting, 5:00 on City Hall, Regular 6:45 p.m.; State of the City Replay
Date: Tuesday, February 21, 2023 6:19:53 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
from: JOHN

THIS IS A CASUAL COMMUNICATION AND ALL STATEMENTS ARE MY OPINION The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the CONFIDENTIAL use of the designated addressee named above. Recipients should not file copies of this email with publicly accessible records. If you are not the designated addressee named above or the authorized agent responsible for delivering it to the designated addressee, you received this document through inadvertent error and any further review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication by you or anyone else is strictly prohibited.

CAUTION: . Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. ---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: JOHN KOLSKI <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, Feb 21, 2023 at 5:09 PM
Subject: Fwd: Cupertino Matters: TONIGHT - City Council, Tues., Feb. 21, Special Meeting, 5:00 on City Hall, Regular 6:45 p.m.; State of the City Replay To: City Council <[email protected]>, Kitty Moore <[email protected]>, Pamela Wu <[email protected]>, Jean Bedord <[email protected]>, Jean Bedord <[email protected]>, City Attorney's Office <[email protected]>

WITH ALL THE ISSUES THE PAST CITY COUNCIL AND THIS

CURRENT ONE AND STAFF HAS CAUSED IN CUPERTINO, HE

LAWSUITS, WAIST OF MONEY, GRAND JURY REPORTS,

HIRING OF TOTALLY INCOMPETENT STAFF PEOPLE AND
THE EXORBITANT WAGE STAFF GETS ...."NOW YOU THINK

YOU CAN SPEND THE PRESIDENTS MONEY TO BUILD

YOURSELVES A NEW CITY HALL SO YOU HAVE A NICER
PLACE TO WORK AND A BIGGER PLACE"

THE IDEA YOU HAVE OF A NEW CITY ALL HAD NOTHING TO

DO WITH THE EARTHQUAKE ISSUE WITH THE

EXISTING BUILDING, THAT IS JUST A EXCUSE YOU ARE
USING TO JUSTIFY WHAT YOU WANT TO DO.

WHO DO YOU PEOPLE THINK YOU ARE?

THERE ARE RESIDENCE IN THIS CITY THAT HAVE NO
INCOME , NO JOBS, FOOD OR SHELTER.
"AND YOU NEED A NEW CITY HALL"

MAYBE THE ROTARY CLUB YOU ALL ARE SO HOOKED UP
WITH SHOULD PAY FOR IT.

JOHN KOLSKI

THIS IS A CASUAL COMMUNICATION AND ALL STATEMENTS ARE MY OPINION The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the CONFIDENTIAL use of the designated addressee named above. Recipients should not file copies of this email with publicly accessible records. If you are not the designated addressee named above or the authorized agent responsible for delivering it to the designated addressee, you received this document through inadvertent error and any further review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication by you or anyone else is strictly prohibited.

CAUTION: . Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. ---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Jean Bedord <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, Feb 21, 2023 at 4:23 PM
Subject: Cupertino Matters: TONIGHT - City Council, Tues., Feb. 21, Special Meeting, 5:00 on City Hall, Regular 6:45 p.m.; State of the City Replay To: <[email protected]>
View translation in your browser
Friends,
Spring is on the way with all the flowering trees and shrubs. Hope you had an enjoyable long weekend.

An enthusiastic crowd filled the Cupertino Room at the Quinlan Center for Mayor Hung Wei’s 2023 State of the City Address on Feb. 15. Readers can watch a replay on the City of Cupertino channel on YouTube.

The recent quakes in Turkey and Syria lend more urgency to providing for the safety of Cupertino city employees and the public. Constructed in 1965, the current city hall was identified as seismically unsafe in 2005, shortly after the Library and Community Hall were built. No action was taken until a Civic Master Plan was developed in the 2011 - 2015 time frame which included options for a new / renovated city hall and a parking structure. The current building is approximately 24,000 sq. ft, but the city needs approximately 40,000 sq. ft. to meet current and future staffing needs, with about a 20% increase in population in the next decade. The purchase of the City Hall Annex adds about 5,000 sq. ft., which is still inadequate.

The city hall project repeatedly returned to council. In 2019, the Library Expansion Project was uncoupled and funded, but the parking structure and city hall projects were not approved. In 2022, a subcommittee of council members Kitty Moore and Jon Willey recommended and council approved (Wei voting nay) to approve a project to retrofit the existing building at a cost of $27.5 million, leaving the city with a 1965 building, with no increase in square footage to accommodate current and future staffing needs. The need for a parking structure identified in the Civic Master plan was ignored.

The study session before the regular council meeting is to give staff direction on whether to reconsider the Nov. 15 direction from the previous city council.

In contrast, neighboring Sunnyvale gets sleek new City Hall “Sunnyvale’s environmentally conscious and modern City Hall building is nearing completion.

The four-story, 120,000-square-foot building is expected to produce enough clean energy to power itself, and could be ready for move-in by March…
“Having that new City Hall, it ultimately represents what our city goals are in a big way,” Mayor Larry Klein told San José Spotlight. “It iconifies Sunnyvale as the heart of Silicon Valley. It creates an icon to sustainability in the fight against climate change.” Klein said consolidating into the new building will have benefits for city employees. They will be able to work more closely and efficiently, and residents will have one place to go for most city business and public meetings. “
Shouldn’t Cupertino be a leader in investing for the future rather than a laggard by retrofitting the past?
Interested in the Flint Center replacement at DeAnza community college? Join this planning event on Feb. 23 via Zoom to learn more and provide public input https://www.deanza.edu/measure-g/event-center/ Last chance to provide your views and hopes for the revitalization of Memorial Park ends Feb. 22. The survey presents three concepts: (1) Community Focus, (2) Nature Focus, and (3) Civic Focus. There are significant variations between the 3 concepts:

Relocation of an enlarged and enhanced amphitheater to the lightly used softball field (Civic Focus) with significantly improved ADA access Amount of space for events and festivals varies between the three concepts
Event lawn / enlarged deck for the Senior Center to provide ADA access to an event lawn for outdoor classes and events. (Civic focus) Unique features such as dedicated pickleball courts and age-friendly exercise areas
Some features duplicated in other city parks, i.e. nature areas and community gardens at McClellan Ranch, Blackberry Farm, certain neighborhood parks, etc. to expand access
The presentation at the Parks and Recreation Commission on Feb.

2.provides more details. The Memorial Park Specific Plan can be found on the city website at https://engagecupertino.org/memorial-park-specific-plan.

There is a 436-page report which summarizes the Site Assessment and Outreach Summary.

UPCOMING: CITY COUNCIL - Tues., Feb 21., 2023,
5:00 Special Session, 6:45 p.m. Regular Meeting
Agenda and Presentations (Note new order for the agenda) The 5:00 Special Session will Consider City Hall Renovation Project update On Nov. 15, 2022, the previous council staff directed staff to proceed with a City Hall Capital Improvement Program (CIP) project to do only a seismic upgrade and reconfiguration of the existing City Hall. Minor parking adjustments were included, but did not address the long term parking needs for the library, given the approximately 20% increase in residents in the next ten years. The cost of this retrofit would be $27.5 million, leaving the city with a 1965 building, with no increase in square footage to accommodate additional staffing needs. On January 17, 2023, a request was made to agendize reconsideration of this project. The need for a new City Hall structure was identified in 2005, after construction of the Library and Community Hall. Isn’t it time to stop “kicking the can down the road”, ignoring the liability of a seismically unsafe building? The Regular Meeting will start with a Ceremonial Matters and Presentations items: (1) Recognition of 2022 STEM Winners from the City of Cupertino who participated in the Santa Clara County 2022 Synopsys Championship Science Fair, (2) Consider a proclamation recognizing the Wafu School of Ikebana, and (3) Consider a proclamation recognizing Mrs. Fusako “Seiga” Hoyrup, a principal instructor of the Wafu School of Ikebana. Then any Postponements and Orders of the Day will be considered.

Oral Communications will follow. Note changes have been made in the procedures. There will ordinarily be a one hour limit, with a limit of 3 minutes per speaker, though the Chair may reduce the time allocated per speaker or reschedule additional speakers to the end of the meeting.

The Consent Calendar has 6 routine items, including several continued from the Feb. 7, 2023 meeting. Members of council may pull items, and members of the public may speak when the Chair asks for public comment.

Item #10 Consider approval of response to 2022 Civil Grand Jury of Santa Clara County Report entitled, “A House Divided" (continued from February 7).

The staff report was presented and public comment which strongly favored accepting the draft response, was heard at the Feb. 7 meeting. Due to time, council deliberation and a vote were continued to this meeting. The city is required to respond to the grand jury report by March 20, 2023. The city is making progress on the findings and recommendations.

Item #11 Consider (1) adopting Resolution No. 23-026 to repeal and replace Resolution No. 18-010, regarding the Legislative Review Committee; (2) establishment of an Economic Development Working Group by the City Manager; (3) amending the Cupertino Municipal Code to repeal Chapters

2.84 (Environmental Review Committee), 2.90 (Design Review Committee), and 2.96 (Economic Development Committee); to adopt Chapter 17.02 (California Environmental Quality Act), regarding local environmental review procedures; and to amend Chapters 2.32, 2.88, 9.20, 19.08, 19.12, 19.28,

19.104, and 19.124, regarding the duties of the Planning Commission, Audit Committee, and Local Assessment Committee; and (4) finding the above actions exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act These are the formal steps to implementing the streamlining the overabundance of committees and subcommittees, simplifying processes and reducing time spent by staff in procedural aspects. All subcommittees are dissolved. Key committee changes are as follows:

Elimination of the Legislative Review Committee. Originally intended to allow the city to respond to legislative issues during council recess, year round meetings failed to provide substantial value for the lobbyist expense, staff and council time.

Dissolve the Economic Development Committee governed by Brown Act restrictions of the Brown Act. Replace it with an Economic Development Working. Group with more flexibility under the direction of the Economic Development Manager. The “lame duck” city council selected members for this Brown act governed body10 days before the new council, over the objections of the public and then councilmember Wei.

Dissolve the Environment Review Committee, reassigning its responsibilities to other advisory bodies and staff.

Dissolve the Design Review Committee and reassign the
responsibilities to (1) the Planning Commission, which currently has few action items for their bimonthly meetings, and (2) administrative staff for parking and fence exceptions, ASA permits for neon lights and decorative statuary.

Implementation of recommendations of the Audit Committee to streamline reporting.

Action items will be followed by Council Reports and the City Manager Report which should be routine. Oral Communications may be continued, if needed.

Informational Items provide background information and routine reports to the council and the public, but will not be discussed.

YOU CAN EXPRESS YOUR OPINION: Readers are encouraged to speak at council meeting, either at Oral Communications on any topic, or on specific agenda items. Speakers have three minutes, and coaching is available! Readers are also encouraged to email individual council members, the council as a whole, the city manager, and the city clerk. Note that emails to city council as a whole are forwarded to the city manager, whereas emails to individual councilmembers are not. Clearly include in your subject line the topic or agenda item on which you are commenting: These become part of the public record. Contacts at CupertinoMatters.org/express-your-opinion City Manager Pamela Wu: [email protected]
City Clerk Kirsten Squarcia: [email protected]
City Council: [email protected]
Mayor Hung Wei [email protected]
Vice-Mayor Sheila Mohan [email protected]
Councilmember Liang Chao: [email protected]
Councilmember J.R. [email protected]
Councilmember Kitty Moore [email protected]
CUPERTINO COURIER: February 17, 2023
The front page photo and article on page 5 is entitled Reconnaissance for recognition: Nominations open in six categories for this year’s CREST Awards. Community briefs on page 5 are (1) City website survey, (2) Via Student Contest and (3) Blacksmithing demo. Page 8 is a previously published Mercury News article City Council addresses allegations by grand jury.. Page 12 is a previously published Mercury News article 3 pro-housing groups sue 11 cities, county: Advocates aim to force compliance with California’s homebuilding code. Cupertino is one of the cities named in the lawsuit. The sole legal notice is a public hearing on March 9, 2023 to consider FY2023-24 CDBG BMR,AHF and HSG funding allocations.

Warm regards,
Jean Bedord,
Cupertino Matters, Publisher and Editor
P.S. If you have received this from a friend and would like your own copy, go to CupertinoMatters.org to subscribe to our mailing list. If there's something you'd like to see included in Cupertino Matters, please feel free to email [email protected].

NB: Over 50 language translations of the newsletter are available by clicking on the “translate” link at the top of the newsletter, which directs users to a webpage with translation options at the upper right corner.

Copyright © 2023 Cupertino Matters, All rights reserved.

This email was sent to [email protected]
why did I get this?
unsubscribe from this listupdate subscription preferences Cupertino Matters · Stevens Creek Blvd. · Cupertino, CA 95014 · USA From: Connie Cunningham
To: City Clerk; City Council
Subject: Fwd: 23-2-21 R. Wang, Oral Communications (Evidence video from 22-3-24) Date: Tuesday, February 21, 2023 7:32:31 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Please put my Oral Communications comments in the written record. Thank you, Connie This is one email in support of my Oral Communications 23-2-21, Removal of R.

Wang from Planning Commission. It refers to Planning Commission meeting on 22-3-24.

From: Connie Cunningham <[email protected]>
Date: June 15, 2022 at 3:33:35 PM PDT
To: [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected] Cc: City Clerk Cupertino <[email protected]>
Subject: Written Communications: Planning Commission, May 24, 2022, Unacceptable Behavior
Dear Mayor Paul, Councilmembers, City Manager, Planning Commission and Planning Department:

I was unpleasantly surprised at the May 24 meeting of the Planning Commission (PC) to hear Commissioner Wang leave the agenda topic (Housing Element site inventory) to make loud, harsh criticisms of Cupertino City Staff and the consultant EMC. He spoke over 6 minutes, although asked by Assistant City Attorney Woo and Chair Scharf to stop at least two times. The City Attorney attends all PC meetings to answer questions about legality, ethics and other process matters. Even so, Commissioner Wang did not stop. Oddly, in his criticism, he left out delays caused by elected officials that impact City Staff workload and project lead-times.

Link to Commissioner Wang’s rant on May 24:
https://youtu.be/AC4wMTqW7lA?t=2147
I, also, attended the April 26 PC meeting. I heard the Chair say that the Housing Element was going to City Council next. The May 24 Staff Report clearly stated that Chair Scharf requested the May 24 meeting.
“The Planning Commission provided input on the topic at the April 26 meeting and concluded the meeting by referring the housing sites selection to the City Council for its
consideration and review.

Planning Commission Chair Scharf subsequently requested that housing sites selection be placed on the May 24, 2022 Planning Commission agenda for further discussion. …. The May 24 discussion of this item includes the same materials… at the April 26, 2022, Planning Commission meeting. (Red highlights are mine.)
For public comment, I expressed my opinion that Commissioner Wang’s conduct was unacceptable. Here is a link to my comments. https://youtu.be/AC4wMTqW7lA?t=3464
At the end of the meeting, the Commissioner came back to address this topic for another full minute, although admitting that the Commission reports to the Council, and does not direct Staff. Also, see excerpts below from Commissioner’s Handbook, 2021. * https://youtu.be/AC4wMTqW7lA?t=3861
I ask that City Council take action about Commissioner Wang’s unacceptable conduct.

Sincerely, Connie Cunningham, Resident 34 years
Housing Commission (self only)
______________
*Excerpts from the Commissioner’s Handbook, 2021, signed by Mayor Darcy Paul
<!--[if !supportLists]-->1.<!--[endif]-->Paragraph C of the Handbook: ….and commissioners should not attempt to direct or prioritize work for departments or individual staff.
<!--[if !supportLists]-->2.<!--[endif]-->Paragraph D of the Handbook:
<!--[if !supportLists]-->a.<!--[endif]-->The Chair should:
<!--[if !supportLists]-->·<!--[endif]-->Keep discussion focused on the issue at hand.
<!--[if !supportLists]-->·<!--[endif]-->Discourage overly dominant commissioners from having disproportionate
control over the discussion.
<!--[if !supportLists]-->3.
<!--[endif]-->Paragraph F of the Handbook
restates Paragraph C: Keep in mind that your appointment does not empower you to supervise or direct City staff.

My note: Although Decorum is mentioned in Paragraph I of the Commissioners Handbook, it clearly does not apply to the fact that Commissioner Wang was well outside the more important rules of attempting to direct or prioritize work of staff.
***end of letter***
From: Connie Cunningham
To: City Clerk; City Council
Subject: 23-2-21 Oral Communications, Remove R. Wang from Planning Commission Date: Tuesday, February 21, 2023 7:36:16 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Please put this email in the written record as part of my Oral Communications. This email supports my oral comments.

Begin forwarded message:

From: Connie Cunningham <[email protected]>
Date: February 21, 2023 at 3:29:53 PM PST
To: Connie Cunningham <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Today's Interaction With The Assistant City Manager Connie Cunningham
Housing Commissioner
[email protected]
From: Connie Cunningham <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, February 20, 2021 4:51 PM
To: Deborah L. Feng <[email protected]>
Subject: Fwd: Today's Interaction With The Assistant City Manager Hello Deb,
This is my response to Councilmember Liang Chao regarding the subject email originally written by the Planning Commission Chair.

Our Housing Commission had a discussion about agenda setting, but had a professional discussion with none of the issues mentioned in his email. I remain impressed with all the City Staff with whom I have had the pleasure to interact.

Best regards,
Connie
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Connie Cunningham <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, February 19, 2021 2:43 PM
To: Liang Chao
Subject: Re: Today's Interaction With The Assistant City Manager Hi Liang,
Even though I am the Chair of the Housing Commission, I can only speak for myself outside our public Housing Commission meeting. I cannot “reply all” since that would be a violation of the Brown Act. Our meeting went well on Feb 11, and I do not have any complaints or questions about agenda setting. We did have questions, but those were discussed by those in attendance, including Staff and Commissioners.

I am quite surprised at the tone of the Planning Commission email, and think it was out of line for the complaint to be copied to all Councilmembers. I cannot speak to the validity of the complaint, but will say how I think it could have been better handled. The first step would have been to discuss this with the City Manager. I firmly believe it could have been settled there. Deb Feng is an excellent manager.

Particularly difficult for me is that a straightforward issue like this could not have been handled with less apparent anger on the part of the Planning Commission.

Liang, I appreciate this opportunity to provide a response regarding this agenda setting issue in relationship to the Housing Commission. .

Stay well!
Connie
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Liang Chao <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2021 12:43:11 AM
To: Tessa Parish <[email protected]>; Sue Bose <[email protected]>; Connie Cunningham <[email protected]>; Govind Tatachari <[email protected]>; Siva Gandikota <[email protected]> Subject: Fwd: Today's Interaction With The Assistant City Manager So far... I have received no written complaint from any housing commissioner... regarding any issue on agenda setting or any clarification on what’s within the purview of your commission or not to put on the agenda for discussion.

Below is a complaint from the Planning Commission Chair for your reference.

The Council cannot help clarify any confusion on the roles of the commission, the commission chair and the staff liaison if you do not bring the issue up to the Council in writing.

Liang
Liang Chao
Vice Mayor
City Council
[email protected]
408-777-3192
From: R Wang <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2021 3:46 PM
To: Deborah L. Feng
Cc: Darcy Paul; Liang Chao; Kitty Moore; Jon Robert Willey Subject: Today's Interaction With The Assistant City Manager Hi Deb,
I just wanted to express my deep disappointment with my meeting today on setting the Planning Commission agenda. I did not appreciate the combative nature of the assistant city manager telling me that a 5G aesthetics issue was not within my purview as Chair to place on the agenda. She was very dismissive about my rights as a chair of a commission and the sanctity of the planning commission's role in relationship with the city.
5G issues, especially aesthetics fall within the general plan. The planning commission's purview is the general plan. The request to put an agenda item that requires no staff time is not at the sole discretion of the city staff to object. While we may disagree from time to time on what items are placed when, the Chair has every right to place and agenda within their purview and have it placed on the agenda for the upcoming meeting. This item is even an item on the next City Council agenda as well.

This is a formal complaint with the Assistant City Manager for being combative, dismissive, and not being focused on resident issues. I know she often speaks for you and wanted to formally let you know that I felt that meeting did not respect the position of the planning commission and the role resident's play in setting not only the city's direction and agenda but also how city commoners are treated. I hope you do not feel this way about residents, their roles on commissions, and the role of the city council.

Look forward to our meeting next week to discuss these items, and more.

R Wang
Chair, Planning Commission
[email protected]
CC 02-21-23
Item #1
City Hall
Renovation
Written
Communications
1 2/21/2023 City Council Meeting Special Meeting Item #1 City Hall Renovation Staff’s responses to questions received from councilmember are shown in italics.

Q1: It would be very confusing and misleading to the public if "actions by City Council" after the forming of the subcommittee are not included. (Chao)
Q2: How come the November 15, 2022 Council action is not included in the memo in Attachment B? For completeness, it should be included since it is a "past action" by the City Council. (Chao)
Staff responses (Q1 ad Q2): There has been no action by Council on the topic of the City Hall CIP project since the subcommittee was formed except for the 11/15/22 recommendations of the Subcommittee to the Council. The actions on the item from that meeting are included in the Staff report.

Q3: For the October 16, 2018 approval for "Archtl Services for New City Hall". I somehow cannot access the agenda item. But I wonder whether it is regarding the new City Hall at the current City Hall location or at the Vallco site, since the 2018 Council approved the Vallco project, which includes a shell of the City Hall and a shell of the Performing Art center, which is why there is also a budget adjustment on the same agenda for the Performing Art Center. (Chao)
Staff response: The IT team has been notified about the October 16, 2018 webpage missing items. The minutes from that meeting, in regards to the City Hall item state that “Sinks moved and Vaidhyanathan seconded to adopt Resolution No. 18‐102 approving a Budget Adjustment in the amended amount of $4,087,500: 1. $3,500,000 for architectural design services for a New City Hall, funded by the Capital Reserve, and: 2. $500,000 for architectural design and other services as needed for the Interim City Hall, funded by the Capital Reserve with direction to staff to explore finding lease space as a first priority, and; 3. $87,500 to add one 3‐year Limited Term Project Manager in the Department of Public Works, funded by the General Fund. The motion carried with Scharf absent.

The October 2018 meeting would have occurred after the FY18‐19 budget was approved/ratified. The FY19‐20 CIP program was discussed at the April 30th, May 13th, and June 18th, 2019 Council meetings. The notes from that meeting show that the Library project was Updated on 2‐21‐23 with newly
added responses at bottom and
correction to Q10 page 4
2 extracted from the City Hall/Civic Center projects and given priority. The final CIP book shows the “City Hall Seismic Upgrade” and “City Hall Renovation” projects were unfunded.

Q4: Please include the purchase of the City Hall Annex and its square footage, and planned usage, since it is an inclusive part of the City Hall project, as a whole. The new Councilmembers need such information in order to make informative decisions. (Chao) Staff response: The City Hall Annex is a separate project. The facility has a footprint of approximately 5000 square feet and the current plans show 28 desks. As the design progresses, the number of desks may change slightly. The property was purchased for $4.45M Q5: I could not find the "April 2022" CIP study session in April 2022 council meetings. But I found one in May 3, 2022 Council meeting. Not sure if I missed it? (Chao) Staff response: You are correct. Staff had planned to present the CIP in April, so our notes are dated “April” it was actually first heard on May 3, as you’ve noted.

Please see Amended Attachment B – City Council Timeline City Hall Project_Desk Item Q6: And please clarify that there was no option for renovation or improvement proposed in the 2022 CIP. Thus, the Council could not approve any option to only renovate and retrofit the city hall. This is important to mention since the 2021 adopted CIP project was "“City Hall and Community Hall Improvements (Programming and Feasibility)”, funded for $500,000." (Chao) Staff response: The FY 2021‐2022 CIP included a new project “City Hall and Community Hall Improvements (Programming and Feasibility)”, funded for $500,000. The FY 2022‐2023 CIP originally had a proposal to fund a New or Renovated City Hall Building, and the proposed project was name “City Hall Renovation/ Replacement and Library Parking Garage: Design and Construction”. Please see attachment Proposed “FY22‐23 CIP Projects List”.

Q7: The estimated cost of the 2015 July plan was $70M. It would be a good idea to include this information, since the entry for the November 17, 2015 Council meeting mentioned the Council was trying to reduce the cost to $40M. (Chao)
Staff response: The cost from 2015 is no longer accurate. Additionally, Staff was not able to reduce the cost effectively, following the November Council action request. 3 Q8: a. The staff report notes that the proposed $26 million renovation could meet the business needs of the city for the foreseeable future. What rough time horizon here is envisioned as the “foreseeable” future?
Staff response: The amount of space required for future growth is a topic that may require greater research. There is more than one way to do growth projections. Factors to consider:
 The effective use of space: The current workplace areas of City Hall are inefficient and can be reconfigured to improve the amount of space available for desks and meeting spaces.  Expansion: To date, we’ve acquired and are developing the 10455 Torre Avenue building as the City Hall Annex, thus increasing the area available for City Hall functions. The facility has a footprint of approximately 5000 square feet and the current plans show 28 desks. As the design progresses, the number of desks may change slightly. The property was purchased for $4.45M.
 Workplace calculations: square footage per person data. When determining the amount of space required for a workplace (a.k.a. Office), real estate professionals often use industry standards of the average square footage per person. The amount of square footage per person varies from 150 to 250 square feet per person. The “City Hall Project Subcommittee” presentation from 10/13/22 is attached. On page 38 you can see that the current headcount for Staff within the workplace area of the current City Hall amounts to approximately 170 SF/person. What is appropriate data to use for Cupertino City Hall? That depends on usage patterns and it will also need to be considered in tandem with a Telework policy. How many people will be working in City Hall on a daily basis? Using 200SF/person is a conservative approach, but must be mitigated by the Telework policy and use.  Staff and Population Growth projections: (CIP cannot opine on this, at this time).  Program: The plan to renovate the City Hall building included a program that is akin to current uses: workplace and expanded Community meeting spaces. It did not include an Auditorium or rentable event space. This would greatly affect programming requirements.  Telework Policy/Use Patterns: The Telework phenomena is relatively new and difficult to project how these usage patterns will continue in the short and/or long‐term. (The attachment is also available on the City Hall Project webpage, under “other information” tab.)
b. Is there an estimate of the change in the city’s payroll headcount on an FTE basis over the last twenty years? (Fruen)
Staff Response: please reference the following chart from the City's FY23 Budget at a Glance. 4 Q9: What is a Category IV building (as opposed to Category II)? (Mohan) Staff response:  Both refer to ASCE categories (American Society of Civil Engineers) and are also found in the Building Code[s]. In a “Risk Category IV” building, it will be available for Immediate Occupancy following a significant seismic event (BSE‐1E: having a 20% chance of occurring in 50 years), and available for Life Safety following a very significant seismic event (BSE‐2E: having a 5% chance of occurring in 50 years). The performance requirements address structural and non‐ structural elements.

A “Risk Category II” building is a typical Office Building, with the performance criteria of “Collapse Prevention” following a BSE‐2E seismic event.

Q10: Was 2005 the last time the structural systems were reviewed?  If so, by whom? (Mohan) Staff response:  Reports on the City Hall structural system were completed in 2005‐06, 2011, 2012, 2014 and 2012 2021. Please refer to the “City Hall Project” webpage for more information, Specifically, the reports are all linked in the “Structural Analysis and Building Condition Reports” tab.

Q11: I see a reference to 40,000 square feet needed for the new city hall.  This number came up in 2018.   Is it still valid and does it reflect future growth? (Mohan) 5 Staff response:  The amount of space required for future growth is a topic that may require greater research. The current building is approximately 24,000 square feet.

Here’s a link for more information on the Risk Categories. (Additional Staff responses added on 2‐21‐23)
Please also provide the pages I have from the presentation the City Hall Subcommittee received from Susan and Matt. (Moore)
Staff Response: City Clerk can include the previous attachment in written communications.

Susan did not have time to provide more accurate cost estimates on the City Hall complete teardown. Please provide more accurate numbers because that project would be at least 5 years out and the numbers were not showing that such that members of the public couldn’t understand why the remodel is cheaper. (Moore)
Staff Response: When we presented the City Hall Project Subcommittee’s recommendations to Council (11/15/22) we edited the presentations given in the subcommittee meetings. The table shared with the subcommittee (PAGE 2 of the attached, from Subcommittee meeting #5, 10/13/22) had an extra column that was deleted from the Council meeting presentation (PAGE 1 of the attached), for brevity. We realized in the Council meeting discussions that this did allow for the possibility of misinterpretation of the cost of a new City Hall project, since it’s probably true that the design phase of a New Facility would take longer than the design phase of a renovated facility. The attached PDF has additional pages that simplify the previously presented figures: Options are reduced to full Renovation, New building, and New building + 12,000 square feet. The cost escalations for each years are shown in the columns, and we’ve made the year we believe the construction could be funded in bold text. Please note that these may be optimistic projections: it has come to our attention that the Sunnyvale City Hall project construction was awarded five years after the project was approved by their Council. That may be a useful benchmark.

Larry Dean has been making it sound like the building can’t be energy efficient, net zero carbon, please have information on hand that will assure him that gutting the building and retaining the structure is better for the environment. (Moore)
Staff Response: Whether the building is new or fully renovated, the HVAC and building envelope will be fully updated. We believe both options will have very similar energy efficiency results.

MEMORANDUM – ATTACHMENT B
date January 19, 2023
Subject Timeline of City Council past Actions regarding City Hall project The following list is provided as a reference to past actions by City Council regarding the City Hall project. There have been many options presented and reviewed since 2005.

It is hoped that this list assists those who wish to understand and/or investigate the options presented and decided upon.

Noteworthy Historic milestones:
• 1965, City Hall is constructed.
• 1986, City Hall is renovated: The scope of work included a seismic retrofit to the building, and an expansion of the basement level to accommodate workplace uses.
• 2003 – 2004, Cupertino Library and Community Hall are constructed • 2005, Structural Systems/ Renovations Reviewed: While reviewing existing conditions in the service of developing a new scope of work to renovate the Council Chambers and the Public Lobby, the project design engineers discovered that mistakes were made in the structural calculations that formed the basis of the structural retrofit scope of work. The conclusion was reached by the design team and third-party reviewers (including the original building designer/engineers) that the building was not adequately structurally reinforced to withstand a significant seismic event. This structural inadequacy has been analyzed in numerous reports/studies since the original discovery (2005/6, 2011, 2012, 2014, and 2021) and the subsequent findings are consistent with the original findings
• 2011 – 2015, Civic Center Master Plan is developed, including options for a new or renovated City Hall.

Attachment B
*EDITED February 20, 2023
Significant City Council action items in the development of the City Hall project Date Topic Extracts/Summaries from Meeting Minutes
December
18, 2012
Civic Center
Master Plan
Framework
“Concurrent with the master planning effort, further
analysis of the existing City Hall building was done.

The analysis highlighted structural improvements
that should be made to bring the building into
compliance with current codes. …”
February 19,
2013
CCMP
Framework
presentation
On February 19, 2013, Council received a
presentation of the Civic Center Master Plan
Framework which laid out three very conceptual
scenarios for a master plan for the Civic Center. The
Council provided direction to further develop the
Civic Life plan of the Framework, with a process that
would include community outreach, a solution to
accommodate the demand for parking at the Civic
Center and consider financing options for realization
of the master plan.

June 2013 FY2014 CIP
approval
In June 2013, Council approved the FY 2014 CIP
budget which includes funding for the Civic Center
Master Plan project, conceptual design for a Civic
Center parking garage, and design for the expansion
of the Library story room.

March 4,
2014
Approve P+W
contract for
CCMP
CC was asked to approve contract with Perkins +
Will for $571,000 for “urban planning and
architectural design services for the Civic Center
Master Plan & Parking Garage Conceptual Design”.

The Capital Improvements Program Budget for
FY2013/14, approved by Council in June 2013,
includes four projects at the Civic Center complex.
• Civic Center Master Plan
• Civic Center - Parking Structure – Conceptual
Design
• Library - Book Drop-off Shade Canopy
• Library Story Room Expansion
April 01,
2014
Civic Center
parking
Staff reported on the completed Parking survey
which included interim parking mitigation
measures.

July 7, 2014 CCMP Study
Session
The proposed Civic Center Master Plan was
reviewed by Council.

October 21,
2014
CCMP selection
of preferred
project
At the August 19th council meeting, during the
report on the community engagement process for the
Civic Center Master plan, Council requested a highlevel feasibility study of the existing City Hall prior to determining a preferred Civic Center Master Plan.

The Council directed staff to bring forward Master
Plan alternatives and cost estimates for the following
elements:
• City Hall options including: seismic retrofits with
and without an Emergency Operations Center
(EOC), a remodel of City Hall, and a potential
new City Hall;
• Parking solutions for the existing and projected
parking deficit including under Library Field,
behind the Library, and under a potential new
City Hall;
• Library Program Room expansion options.

July 7, 2015 CCMP report
and EIR
Council adopted the Civic Center Master Plan,
which includes a new city hall with added space and
underground garage. Recommended/Approved
Action items:
a. Receive the presentation of the Civic Center
Master Plan; and then
b. Consider the Initial Study/Mitigated
Negative Declaration and adopt the
Mitigated Negative Declaration; and then
c. Adopt Resolution 15-XX approving the Civic
Center Master Plan; and
d. Provide direction to staff on next steps
toward implementation of the Civic Center
Master Plan.

August 18,
2015
Design Services,
Financing
Options
Council did not approve the $5M item to initiate
architectural design of the City Hall project. Council
asked the staff to come back with financing options.

November
17, 2015
Creative Cost
Option
requested
Council directed the staff to come back with a
creative solution to keep the cost of the City Hall
design and construction project lower than $40M.

December
10, 2015
Design Build
options
70 page memo from Staff: “Because we were not
successful in our attempts to discover a project
delivery process that could develop a $70 million
estimated cost project for less than the maximum $40
million authorized by Council, we will not be
bringing the project for further consideration unless
so directed by City Council.”
April 03,
2018
Discussion of
alternative
renovation plans
for City Hall
“There is no fiscal impact with this study session,
however if the City Council directs staff to include a
project to renovate city hall to an essential facility
standard as shown in the approved Council Work
Program, the proposed capital improvement plan for
2018-19 would include a budget for design costs of
$2.1 million, followed by a budget in 2019-20 of
approximately $18.9 million for construction
(including staff relocations, temporary facilities,
project management, contingencies, etc.”
Conducted discussion of alternative renovation
plans for city hall and provided the following
direction:
• There was not support for a city hall renovation
process.
• Directed staff to prepare a report for a charter
city process; and
• Look at other designs/general concepts for a new
city hall in the next 5-7 months; and
• Look at other potential cost saving solutions, still
preserving the new 40,000 square foot building as
the preferred alternative.

October 16,
2018
Archtl Services
for New City
Hall
Council approved the Budget Adjustment in the
Amended Amount of $3.5M for architectural design
services for a New City Hall, $500K for professional
services for an Interim City Hall, and $87,500 for a
limited term project manager in Public Works.

April 30,
2019
Civic Center
update
Council received an update and provided comments
regarding a.) City Hall Design/Delivery Strategy
including potential funding, and; b.) Library
Expansion Strategy including potential funding.

Consensus comments and direction on the City Hall
item (specifically) included:
• Decouple City Hall and Library Expansion
projects;
• Gather input from community groups and
consider additional options such as at Memorial
Park;
• Bring back more detail regarding seismic need
and what seismic improvements at the existing
City Hall would provide along and other
upgrades;
• Value engineering;
• Allocate dollars toward a building fund for longterm plan for City Hall; • Bring back options to Council.

April 2021 FY2022 CIP
study session
Council approved the FY20-21 CIP program that
included the project “City Hall and Community Hall
Improvements (Programming and Feasibility)”,
funded for $500,000.

April 2022 FY2023 CIP
study session
Council did not approve the proposal to include the
project “City Hall Renovation/ Replacement and
Library Parking Garage: Design and Construction.”
July 19, 2022 City Hall Project
Subcommittee
formed
Council motioned to appoint Councilmembers
Moore and Willey to serve on the City Hall Project
Subcommittee, and to start meeting right away. The
motion carried with Wei voting no.

Sincerely,

Susan Michael, AIA, LEED AP
Capital Improvement Programs Manager
cc: Chad Mosley, Interim Director of Public Works, and Matt Mosley, Assistant City Manager
May 03, May 17,
June 7, 2022 November 15,
2022
City Hall
Renovation
project to be
added to CIP
FY23-24
proposal
Staff to include the City Hall Renovation – including full seismic retrofit, MEP/IT, interior finishes, and layout complete refurbishment, at the level of California Building Code’s structural “Risk Category IV” for approximately
$27,500,000, as part of the fiscal year 2023-24 proposed CIP project and budget.

Sincerely,

1 2/21/2023 City Council Meeting Special Meeting Item #1 City Hall Renovation Staff’s responses to questions received from councilmember are shown in italics.

Q1: It would be very confusing and misleading to the public if "actions by City Council" after the forming of the subcommittee are not included. (Chao)
Q2: How come the November 15, 2022 Council action is not included in the memo in Attachment B? For completeness, it should be included since it is a "past action" by the City Council. (Chao)
Staff responses (Q1 ad Q2): There has been no action by Council on the topic of the City Hall CIP project since the subcommittee was formed except for the 11/15/22 recommendations of the Subcommittee to the Council. The actions on the item from that meeting are included in the Staff report.

Q3: For the October 16, 2018 approval for "Archtl Services for New City Hall". I somehow cannot access the agenda item. But I wonder whether it is regarding the new City Hall at the current City Hall location or at the Vallco site, since the 2018 Council approved the Vallco project, which includes a shell of the City Hall and a shell of the Performing Art center, which is why there is also a budget adjustment on the same agenda for the Performing Art Center. (Chao)
Staff response: The IT team has been notified about the October 16, 2018 webpage missing items. The minutes from that meeting, in regards to the City Hall item state that “Sinks moved and Vaidhyanathan seconded to adopt Resolution No. 18-102 approving a Budget Adjustment in the amended amount of $4,087,500: 1. $3,500,000 for architectural design services for a New City Hall, funded by the Capital Reserve, and: 2. $500,000 for architectural design and other services as needed for the Interim City Hall, funded by the Capital Reserve with direction to staff to explore finding lease space as a first priority, and; 3. $87,500 to add one 3-year Limited Term Project Manager in the Department of Public Works, funded by the General Fund. The motion carried with Scharf absent.

The October 2018 meeting would have occurred after the FY18-19 budget was approved/ratified. The FY19-20 CIP program was discussed at the April 30th, May 13th, and June 18th, 2019 Council meetings. The notes from that meeting show that the Library project was extracted from the City Hall/Civic Center projects and given priority. The final CIP book shows the “City Hall Seismic Upgrade” and “City Hall Renovation” projects were unfunded. 2 Q4: Please include the purchase of the City Hall Annex and its square footage, and planned usage, since it is an inclusive part of the City Hall project, as a whole. The new Councilmembers need such information in order to make informative decisions. (Chao) Staff response: The City Hall Annex is a separate project. The facility has a footprint of approximately 5000 square feet and the current plans show 28 desks. As the design progresses, the number of desks may change slightly. The property was purchased for $4.45M Q5: I could not find the "April 2022" CIP study session in April 2022 council meetings. But I found one in May 3, 2022 Council meeting. Not sure if I missed it? (Chao) Staff response: You are correct. Staff had planned to present the CIP in April, so our notes are dated “April” it was actually first heard on May 3, as you’ve noted.

Please see Amended Attachment B – City Council Timeline City Hall Project_Desk Item Q6: And please clarify that there was no option for renovation or improvement proposed in the 2022 CIP. Thus, the Council could not approve any option to only renovate and retrofit the city hall. This is important to mention since the 2021 adopted CIP project was "“City Hall and Community Hall Improvements (Programming and Feasibility)”, funded for $500,000." (Chao) Staff response: The FY 2021-2022 CIP included a new project “City Hall and Community Hall Improvements (Programming and Feasibility)”, funded for $500,000. The FY 2022-2023 CIP originally had a proposal to fund a New or Renovated City Hall Building, and the proposed project was name “City Hall Renovation/ Replacement and Library Parking Garage: Design and Construction”. Please see attachment Proposed “FY22-23 CIP Projects List”.

Q7: The estimated cost of the 2015 July plan was $70M. It would be a good idea to include this information, since the entry for the November 17, 2015 Council meeting mentioned the Council was trying to reduce the cost to $40M. (Chao)
Staff response: The cost from 2015 is no longer accurate. Additionally, Staff was not able to reduce the cost effectively, following the November Council action request.

Q8: a. The staff report notes that the proposed $26 million renovation could meet the business needs of the city for the foreseeable future. What rough time horizon here is envisioned as the “foreseeable” future?
3 Staff response: The amount of space required for future growth is a topic that may require greater research. There is more than one way to do growth projections. Factors to consider:
• The effective use of space: The current workplace areas of City Hall are inefficient and can be reconfigured to improve the amount of space available for desks and meeting spaces. • Expansion: To date, we’ve acquired and are developing the 10455 Torre Avenue building as the City Hall Annex, thus increasing the area available for City Hall functions. The facility has a footprint of approximately 5000 square feet and the current plans show 28 desks. As the design progresses, the number of desks may change slightly. The property was purchased for $4.45M.
• Workplace calculations: square footage per person data. When determining the amount of space required for a workplace (a.k.a. Office), real estate professionals often use industry standards of the average square footage per person. The amount of square footage per person varies from 150 to 250 square feet per person. The “City Hall Project Subcommittee” presentation from 10/13/22 is attached. On page 38 you can see that the current headcount for Staff within the workplace area of the current City Hall amounts to approximately 170 SF/person. What is appropriate data to use for Cupertino City Hall? That depends on usage patterns and it will also need to be considered in tandem with a Telework policy. How many people will be working in City Hall on a daily basis? Using 200SF/person is a conservative approach, but must be mitigated by the Telework policy and use. • Staff and Population Growth projections: (CIP cannot opine on this, at this time). • Program: The plan to renovate the City Hall building included a program that is akin to current uses: workplace and expanded Community meeting spaces. It did not include an Auditorium or rentable event space. This would greatly affect programming requirements. • Telework Policy/Use Patterns: The Telework phenomena is relatively new and difficult to project how these usage patterns will continue in the short and/or long-term. (The attachment is also available on the City Hall Project webpage, under “other information” tab.)
b. Is there an estimate of the change in the city’s payroll headcount on an FTE basis over the last twenty years? (Fruen)
Staff Response: please reference the following chart from the City's FY23 Budget at a Glance. 4 Q9: What is a Category IV building (as opposed to Category II)? (Mohan) Staff response: Both refer to ASCE categories (American Society of Civil Engineers) and are also found in the Building Code[s]. In a “Risk Category IV” building, it will be available for Immediate Occupancy following a significant seismic event (BSE-1E: having a 20% chance of occurring in 50 years), and available for Life Safety following a very significant seismic event (BSE-2E: having a 5% chance of occurring in 50 years). The performance requirements address structural and nonstructural elements.

A “Risk Category II” building is a typical Office Building, with the performance criteria of “Collapse Prevention” following a BSE-2E seismic event.

Q10: Was 2005 the last time the structural systems were reviewed? If so, by whom? (Mohan) Staff response: Reports on the City Hall structural system were completed in 2005-06, 2011, 2012, 2014 and 2012. Please refer to the “City Hall Project” webpage for more information, Specifically, the reports are all linked in the “Structural Analysis and Building Condition Reports” tab.

Q11: I see a reference to 40,000 square feet needed for the new city hall. This number came up in 2018. Is it still valid and does it reflect future growth? (Mohan) 5 Staff response: The amount of space required for future growth is a topic that may require greater research. The current building is approximately 24,000 square feet.

Here’s a link for more information on the Risk Categories.

Element Area SF Cost / SF
2023 Project
Total (+25% soft
costs)
2024 Project
Total (5%
escalation)
City Hall Renovation - Seismic Only, Non-Essential
Facility
24,140 $216 $6,506,635 $6,831,967
City Hall Renovation - Seismic Only, Essential Facility 24,140 $232 $7,007,540 $7,357,917 City Hall Renovation - Seismic, MEP/IT, Interior gut,
Non-Essential Facility
24,140 $807 $24,364,200 $25,582,410
City Hall Renovation - Seismic, MEP/IT, Interior gut,
Essential Facility
24,140 $868 $26,194,616 $27,504,347
City Hall Replacement, Non-Essential Facility 24,140 $804 $24,250,139 $25,462,646 City Hall Replacement, Essential Facility 24,140 $908 $27,401,918 $28,772,013 City Hall Replacement w/ Added Floor, Non-Essential
Facility
36,140 $809 $36,547,027 $38,374,378
City Hall Replacement w/ Added Floor, Essential
Facility
36,140 $914 $41,271,880 $43,335,474
City Hall Replacement w/ Added Floor + 100 spaces
Underground parking, Non-Essential Facility
70,140 $529 $46,339,451 $48,656,424
City Hall Replacement w/ Added Floor + 100 spaces
Underground parking, Essential Facility
70,140 $582 $51,064,305 $53,617,520
Funding
Cost
Estimates
page from 11/15/22 Council Mtg presentation
(FY 2025 not shown)
Element Area SF Cost / SF
Total Direct
Construction Soft Costs +25%
2023 Project
Total (+25% soft
costs)
Cost per stall
2024 Project
Total (5%
escalation)
2025 Project
Total (5%
escalation)
City Hall Renovation - Seismic Only, Non-Essential
Facility
24,140 $216 $5,205,308 $1,301,327 $6,506,635 N.A. $6,831,967 $7,173,565 City Hall Renovation - Seismic Only, Essential Facility 24,140 $232 $5,606,032 $1,401,508 $7,007,540 N.A. $7,357,917 $7,725,813 City Hall Renovation - Seismic, MEP/IT, Interior gut,
Non-Essential Facility
24,140 $807 $19,491,360 $4,872,840 $24,364,200 N.A. $25,582,410 $26,861,531 City Hall Renovation - Seismic, MEP/IT, Interior gut,
Essential Facility
24,140 $868 $20,955,693 $5,238,923 $26,194,616 N.A. $27,504,347 $28,879,564 City Hall Replacement, Non-Essential Facility 24,140 $804 $19,400,111 $4,850,028 $24,250,139 N.A. $25,462,646 $26,735,778 City Hall Replacement, Essential Facility 24,140 $908 $21,921,534 $5,480,384 $27,401,918 N.A. $28,772,013 $30,210,614 City Hall Replacement w/ Added Floor, NonEssential Facility36,140 $809 $29,237,621 $7,309,405 $36,547,027 N.A. $38,374,378 $40,293,097 City Hall Replacement w/ Added Floor, Essential
Facility
36,140 $914 $33,017,504 $8,254,376 $41,271,880 N.A. $43,335,474 $45,502,248 City Hall Replacement w/ Added Floor + 100 spaces
Underground parking, Non-Essential Facility
70,140 $529 $37,071,561 $9,267,890 $46,339,451 $463,395 $48,656,424 $51,089,245 City Hall Replacement w/ Added Floor + 100 spaces
Underground parking, Essential Facility
70,140 $582 $40,851,444 $10,212,861 $51,064,305 $510,643 $53,617,520 $56,298,396 Underground Parking (36 Stalls) below City Hall
Replacement, Essential Facility (parking only)
12,070 $230 $2,781,049 $695,262 $3,476,311 $96,564 $3,650,126 $3,832,633 City Hall Replacement w/ Added Floor + 100 spaces
Underground parking, Essential Facility (parking only)
34,000 $230 $7,833,940 $1,958,485 $9,792,425 $97,924 $10,282,046 $10,796,149 2022+ Cost Estimates from 10/13/2022 Subcommittee presentation page from 11/15/22 presentation
Element Area SF Cost / SF
Total Direct
Construction Soft Costs +25%
2023 Project
Total (+25% soft
costs)
Cost per stall
2024 Project
Total (5%
escalation)
2025 Project
Total (5%
escalation)
City Hall Renovation - Seismic Only, Non-Essential
Facility
24,140 $216 $5,205,308 $1,301,327 $6,506,635 N.A. $6,831,967 $7,173,565 City Hall Renovation - Seismic Only, Essential Facility 24,140 $232 $5,606,032 $1,401,508 $7,007,540 N.A. $7,357,917 $7,725,813 City Hall Renovation - Seismic, MEP/IT, Interior gut,
Non-Essential Facility
24,140 $807 $19,491,360 $4,872,840 $24,364,200 N.A. $25,582,410 $26,861,531 City Hall Renovation - Seismic, MEP/IT, Interior gut,
Essential Facility
24,140 $868 $20,955,693 $5,238,923 $26,194,616 N.A. $27,504,347 $28,879,564 City Hall Replacement, Non-Essential Facility 24,140 $804 $19,400,111 $4,850,028 $24,250,139 N.A. $25,462,646 $26,735,778 City Hall Replacement, Essential Facility 24,140 $908 $21,921,534 $5,480,384 $27,401,918 N.A. $28,772,013 $30,210,614 City Hall Replacement w/ Added Floor, NonEssential Facility36,140 $809 $29,237,621 $7,309,405 $36,547,027 N.A. $38,374,378 $40,293,097 City Hall Replacement w/ Added Floor, Essential
Facility
36,140 $914 $33,017,504 $8,254,376 $41,271,880 N.A. $43,335,474 $45,502,248 City Hall Replacement w/ Added Floor + 100 spaces
Underground parking, Non-Essential Facility
70,140 $529 $37,071,561 $9,267,890 $46,339,451 $463,395 $48,656,424 $51,089,245 City Hall Replacement w/ Added Floor + 100 spaces
Underground parking, Essential Facility
70,140 $582 $40,851,444 $10,212,861 $51,064,305 $510,643 $53,617,520 $56,298,396 Underground Parking (36 Stalls) below City Hall
Replacement, Essential Facility (parking only)
12,070 $230 $2,781,049 $695,262 $3,476,311 $96,564 $3,650,126 $3,832,633 City Hall Replacement w/ Added Floor + 100 spaces
Underground parking, Essential Facility (parking only)
34,000 $230 $7,833,940 $1,958,485 $9,792,425 $97,924 $10,282,046 $10,796,149 2022+ Cost Estimates 2/20/2023 clarification
RENOVATION REPLACEMENT (NEW) REPLACEMENT (NEW) + 12,000SF 2022+ Cost Estimates
Description Total Project
Budget
FY 23-24 Proposed
City Funding
FY 24-25
Projected
(5% escalation)
FY 25-26
Projected
(5% escalation)
FY 26-27
Projected
(5% escalation)
FY 27-28
Projected
(5% escalation)
TOTAL
City Hall Improvements -
RENOVATION 27,500,000 3,000,000 25,875,000 27,318,750 28,834,000 30,426,250 FY 24-25
28,875,000
City Hall Improvements -
REPLACEMENT (NEW) 28,800,000 3,000,000 27,240,000 28,752,000 30,338,880 32,006,400 FY 25-26
31,752,000
City Hall Improvements -
REPLACEMENT (NEW) +
12,000 SF 43,300,000 3,000,000 42,465,000 44,738,250 47,124,080 49,631,150 FY 26-27
50,124,080

SUNNYVALE CITY HALL FUNDED CONSTRUCTION
BEGAN
**The cost and scheduling estimates indicated here are preliminary and useful for comparisons only For reference:
2/20/2023 clarification

ATTACHMENT A
List of Proposed FY22-23 CIP Projects

PROJECT TITLE PROJECT TYPE/

COMMISSION
PROJECT DESCRIPTION FY22-23
budget
FY24-27 (w/o
escalation)
CATEGORY 1 - NEW PROJECTS - FISCAL YEAR 2022 -2023
Blackberry Farms Pools Splash Pad Parks &
Recreation
Design and construct a splash pad to replace the slide
feature at the Blackberry Farm Pools.
$ 500,000
City Hall Renovation/ Replacement
and Library Parking Garage: Design
and Construction
Facilities The full project includes Construction of both buildings, but the proposal for this fiscal year includes only the design and consulting services for the Library Parking
Garage, and Conceptual Design services for the City
Hall project. Phasing the work will address Civic Center parking needs first, with a completed evaluation and
decision on options for City Hall Renovation/
Replacement to be prepared for discussion in early
2023 in advance of the next CIP budget cycle.

The City Hall scope which includes structural upgrades, renovation of mechanical/ electrical and life-safety
infrastructure, improvements to workplace and
accessibility, and purposeful construction of the
emergency operations center (EOC). The Library
Parking garage will be a 3-story above-ground structure in the SE corner of the existing parking lot.
$ $75.6M 4,000,000
City Lighting - LED Lighting Streets &
Grounds
Implement the transition of City's streetlight
infrastructure from induction and other fixtures to LED fixtures to meet the "Dark Sky" Ordinance
requirements and reduce light pollution and energy
cost.
$ 1,300,000
De Anza Boulevard Buffered Bike
Lanes
Transportation/
Bike & Ped
Restripe De Anza Blvd to include a painted buffered
zone between the existing bike lane and the vehicle
lanes.
$ 525,000
Jollyman All Inclusive Play Area:

Adult-Assistive Bathroom Facilities
Parks &
Recreation
Design and construct a new adult-assistive bathroom
facility adjacent to the All-Inclusive Play Area.
$ 850,000
Major Recreation Facilities: Use and
Market Analysis
Parks &
Recreation
Commission a report to study the possible locations for new major recreation facilities: Aquatic, Fine Arts/
Performance and/or Recreation Facilities. Existing
recreational and arts facilities, both public and private, will be reviewed and a recommendation based on
need, available locations, and financial investments
required. The Market Analysis and Business Plan will be the first phase in the potential development of
additional recreation facilities in the City.
$ 350,000
Stocklmeir, Bryne and Blesch:

Inspection Reports and Analysis
Facilities Instigate property inspection reports and work with outside consultants to develop initial use and business strategies appropriate for the three residential
properties owned by the City.
$ 50,000

ATTACHMENT A
List of Proposed FY22-23 CIP Projects

PROJECT TITLE PROJECT TYPE/

COMMISSION
PROJECT DESCRIPTION FY22-23
budget
FY24-27 (w/o
escalation)
CATEGORY 1 - NEW PROJECTS FOR CONSIDERATION - FISCAL YEARS 2023 - 2027 ADA 2015 report
Update/Dashboard
Facilities Update the findings of the 2015 ADA self evaluation report.
$ 200,000
Blackberry Farms Golf Course
Improvements
Parks &
Recreation
BBF Golf Course Use feasibility Study is currently
underway. This project proposes to secure funding for
the outcome of that Study, to continue the work as
directed by City Council and the Community.
$ 2,500,000
Stevens Creek Blvd Separated
Bikeway, Phase 3 - Design
Transportation/
Bike & Ped
Construct a separated Class IV bike lane along Stevens
Creek Blvd, between Highway 85 and Foothill Blvd. The
scope is for design funding only.
$ 225,000
Regnart Road Improvements: Ph. 3 -
6 Streets &
Grounds
This project continues the stabilization efforts along
Regnart Road and compliments the 2017 Outfall Repair
and Slope Stabilization project and the Retaining wall
project. The 2017 Regnart Road Slope Stability Study
identified several areas along Regnart Road that exhibit poor drainage characteristics, slope stability concerns that require partial road reconstruction in order to
avoid costly road or slope failures and lengthy road
closures. Proposed improvements include additional
drainage structures, regrading/repaving the road to
drain towards the creek, slope stabilization and erosion control measures and retaining walls.
$ 2,200,000
Bollinger Road Bike Improvements Transportation/
Bike & Ped
Implement improvements as proposed in the 2021
Bollinger Road Corridor Safety Study.
$ 1,500,000
Carmen Road Bridge - Design Transportation/
Bike & Ped
Design a bicycle/pedestrian bridge across Stevens
Creek Blvd at Carmen Road.
$ 750,000
Carmen Road Bridge - Construction Transportation/
Bike & Ped
Construct a bicycle pedestrian bridge across Stevens
Creek Blvd at Carmen Road.
$ 4,500,000
Don Burnett Bridge LED Lighting
Upgrade
Streets &
Grounds
Upgrade the existing 16 architectural light fixtures to LED.
$ 150,000
Memorial Park Softball Field LED
Lighting Upgrade
Streets &
Grounds
Upgrade the existing 38 light fixtures to LED. Existing light fixtures are 4K 1000W Metal Halide bulbs.
$ 150,000
Blackberry Farm Bocce Ball Shade
Structure
Parks &
Recreation
Design and construct a new shade structure over the
player areas at the Blackberry Farm Bocce Ball Courts.
$ 125,000
Linda Vista Park Picnic Area Shade
Structure
Parks &
Recreation
Design and construct a shade structure over the
barbecue in the picnic area at Linda Vista Park.
$ 125,000
Portal Park Picnic Area Shade
Structure
Parks &
Recreation
Design and construct a shade structure over the
barbecue in the picnic area at Portal Park.
$ 125,000

ATTACHMENT A
List of Proposed FY22-23 CIP Projects

PROJECT TITLE PROJECT TYPE/

COMMISSION
PROJECT DESCRIPTION FY22-23
budget
FY24-27 (w/o
escalation)
CATEGORY 1 - NEW PROJECTS FOR CONSIDERATION - FISCAL YEARS 2023 - 2027 Jollyman Park Dog Off-Leash Area
(DOLA) Pathway
Parks &
Recreation
Design and construct a paved pathway to provide
access to the DOLA at Jollyman Park along the south
side of the park.
$ 111,000
QCC skylight renovation Facilities Replace the aging skylight with like panels and frame. 350,000 $ Memorial Park - Design &
Construction
Parks &
Recreation
Design and Construction project[s] resulting from FY22- 23 Specific Design project
TBD
Lawrence Mitty Park - Design &
Construction
Parks &
Recreation
Design and Construction project[s] resulting from FY22- 23 Master Plan project
TBD
Community Hall Improvements Facilities Design and Construction project[s] resulting from IT/AV operational upgrades required
TBD
Major Facilities [Results] -
Programming and Design
Parks &
Recreation
Major project result from the Fy22-23 study TBD
CATEGORY 2 - EXISTING PROJECTS - MULTI-YEAR FUNDING
ADA Improvements Facilities This is an ongoing program funded annually to improve accessibility at all public facilities throughout the City. $ 100,000 95,000 $
Annual Playground Replacement
(FY22-23: Creekside Tot Lot)
Parks &
Recreation
Replacement of older playground equipment that is
dated and worn, starting with Creekside (1998) and
Varian (2002) (Year 3 of 5)
$ 300,000 300,000 $
Park Amenity Improvements Parks &
Recreation
Funding for various park amenities such as benches,
hydration stations, outdoor table tennis, cornhole,
shade (structures and/or trees), dog-off-leash,
pickleball striping, etc. (Year 3 of 5)
$ 200,000 200,000 $
Street Light Installation - Annual
Infill
Streets &
Grounds
This is an ongoing program funded annually to Sesign
and install street lights on an as-needed basis.
$ 75,000 75,000 $

Meeting #5 - 10/21/2022
Topic: Funding & Summaries
City Hall Subcommittee
We recommend proceeding with the following projects:
• Full Renovation of City Hall building (Seismic, HVAC, IT, Interiors, etc.), budgeting $26M. Consider upgrading to “Essential Facility” standards ($4M). Hire consultants to perform workplace planning (to confirm growth projections), and cost analysis.
• Add parking behind Community Hall, budgeting $350,000 (scope and budget to be confirmed, will be part of existing Civic Center Parking project) • As part of CIP Program discussions for FY23-24, consider hiring Consultants to develop schedule and requirements for City Hall demobilization/mobilization strategy and communications.

CIP Program Strategy
• CDTFA Audit
• Potential for substantial short- and
long-term impacts
• Ability to fund additional CIP Projects
• Use of fund balance above the
unassigned amounts require a 3-year
payback plan both for General and
Capital Funds
• Capital Reserve has a min $5M reserve
Other Considerations
From: Liang Chao
To: Pamela Wu; City Clerk
Subject: Fwd: February 21 City Council meeting - Staff Responses to Councilmember questions Date: Tuesday, February 21, 2023 6:53:01 AM
Attachments: CC 02-21-23 Item #1 City Hall Renovation_Responses to Councilmember Questions.pdf CC 02-21-23 Item #1 City Hall Renovation Responses to Councilmember Questions Attachment Funding Costs Estimates.pdf
CC 02-21-23 Item #1 City Hall Renovation Responses to Councilmember Questions Attachment CIP Projects List.pdf
CC 02-21-23 Item #5 AP ending November 13, 2022_Responses to Councilmember Questions.pdf CC 02-21-23 Item #6 Commemorative Bench Dedication Policy_Responses to Councilmember Questions.pdf CC 02-21-23 Item #10 Civil Grand Jury Report_Responses to Councilmember Questions.pdf CC 02-21-23 Item #11 Amendments to City Committees_Responses to Councilmember Questions.pdf CC 02-21-23 Item #12 December Monthly Treasurer"s Report_Responses to Councilmember Questions.pdf CC 02-21-23 Item #1 City Hall Renovation Amended Attachment B - City Council Timeline City Hall Project_Desk Item.pdf
image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
image005.png
image006.png
image007.png
image008.png
image009.png
image010.png
(Please disregard the previous email, I accidentally hit that “arrow” to send.) I appreciate the responses and the effort taken to provide responses in a timely manner and the effort made to make all responses available to all Councilmembers and the public.

I understand the need to shorten the questions.

But some of my questions were taken out of context and the nature of the questions were changed as a result. I'd like to request that all of my emails with my original questions to be entered as written communication for this meeting to provide the original context of the questions.

Please let me know if the staff doesn't have time to find those emails and need me to find them.

Please enter this email into the written communication too.

Thanks.

Liang Chao
Council Member
City Council
[email protected]
408-777-3192
From: Kirsten Squarcia <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 20, 2023 6:45 PM
To: Department Heads <[email protected]>
Cc: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: February 21 City Council meeting - Staff Responses to Councilmember questions Dear Mayor, Vice Mayor, and Councilmembers (Bcc’d on this email), Attached are the following supplemental items for the February 21 City Council meeting. They can also be accessed with the agenda and packet here. These items will also be posted for the public.

Regards, Kirsten
Staff Responses to Councilmember questions:

CC 02-21-23 Item #1 City Hall Renovation_Responses to Councilmember Questions CC 02-21-23 Item #1 City Hall Renovation Responses to Councilmember Questions Attachment CIP Projects List
CC 02-21-23 Item #1 City Hall Renovation Responses to Councilmember Questions Attachment Funding Cost Estimates
CC 02-21-23 Item #5 AP ending November 13, 2022_Responses to Councilmember Questions CC 02-21-23 Item #6 Commemorative Bench Dedication Policy_Responses to Councilmember Questions
CC 02-21-23 Item #10 Civil Grand Jury Report_Responses to Councilmember Questions CC 02-21-23 Item #11 Amendments to City Committees_Responses to Councilmember Questions
CC 02-21-23 Item #12 December Monthly Treasurer's Report_Responses to Councilmember Questions
Desk Item:

CC 02-21-23 Item #1 City Hall Renovation Amended Attachment B - City Council Timeline City Hall Project_Desk Item
Kirsten Squarcia
City Clerk
City Manager's Office
[email protected]
(408) 777-3225
MEMORANDUM – ATTACHMENT B
date January 19, 2023
Subject Timeline of City Council past Actions regarding City Hall project The following list is provided as a reference to past actions by City Council regarding the City Hall project. There have been many options presented and reviewed since 2005.

It is hoped that this list assists those who wish to understand and/or investigate the options presented and decided upon.

Noteworthy Historic milestones:
• 1965, City Hall is constructed.
• 1986, City Hall is renovated: The scope of work included a seismic retrofit to the building, and an expansion of the basement level to accommodate workplace uses.
• 2003 – 2004, Cupertino Library and Community Hall are constructed • 2005, Structural Systems/ Renovations Reviewed: While reviewing existing conditions in the service of developing a new scope of work to renovate the Council Chambers and the Public Lobby, the project design engineers discovered that mistakes were made in the structural calculations that formed the basis of the structural retrofit scope of work. The conclusion was reached by the design team and third-party reviewers (including the original building designer/engineers) that the building was not adequately structurally reinforced to withstand a significant seismic event. This structural inadequacy has been analyzed in numerous reports/studies since the original discovery (2005/6, 2011, 2012, 2014, and 2021) and the subsequent findings are consistent with the original findings
• 2011 – 2015, Civic Center Master Plan is developed, including options for a new or renovated City Hall.

Attachment B
*EDITED February 20, 2023
Significant City Council action items in the development of the City Hall project Date Topic Extracts/Summaries from Meeting Minutes
December
18, 2012
Civic Center
Master Plan
Framework
“Concurrent with the master planning effort, further
analysis of the existing City Hall building was done.

The analysis highlighted structural improvements
that should be made to bring the building into
compliance with current codes. …”
February 19,
2013
CCMP
Framework
presentation
On February 19, 2013, Council received a
presentation of the Civic Center Master Plan
Framework which laid out three very conceptual
scenarios for a master plan for the Civic Center. The
Council provided direction to further develop the
Civic Life plan of the Framework, with a process that
would include community outreach, a solution to
accommodate the demand for parking at the Civic
Center and consider financing options for realization
of the master plan.

June 2013 FY2014 CIP
approval
In June 2013, Council approved the FY 2014 CIP
budget which includes funding for the Civic Center
Master Plan project, conceptual design for a Civic
Center parking garage, and design for the expansion
of the Library story room.

March 4,
2014
Approve P+W
contract for
CCMP
CC was asked to approve contract with Perkins +
Will for $571,000 for “urban planning and
architectural design services for the Civic Center
Master Plan & Parking Garage Conceptual Design”.

The Capital Improvements Program Budget for
FY2013/14, approved by Council in June 2013,
includes four projects at the Civic Center complex.
• Civic Center Master Plan
• Civic Center - Parking Structure – Conceptual
Design
• Library - Book Drop-off Shade Canopy
• Library Story Room Expansion
April 01,
2014
Civic Center
parking
Staff reported on the completed Parking survey
which included interim parking mitigation
measures.

July 7, 2014 CCMP Study
Session
The proposed Civic Center Master Plan was
reviewed by Council.

October 21,
2014
CCMP selection
of preferred
project
At the August 19th council meeting, during the
report on the community engagement process for the
Civic Center Master plan, Council requested a highlevel feasibility study of the existing City Hall prior to determining a preferred Civic Center Master Plan.

The Council directed staff to bring forward Master
Plan alternatives and cost estimates for the following
elements:
• City Hall options including: seismic retrofits with
and without an Emergency Operations Center
(EOC), a remodel of City Hall, and a potential
new City Hall;
• Parking solutions for the existing and projected
parking deficit including under Library Field,
behind the Library, and under a potential new
City Hall;
• Library Program Room expansion options.

July 7, 2015 CCMP report
and EIR
Council adopted the Civic Center Master Plan,
which includes a new city hall with added space and
underground garage. Recommended/Approved
Action items:
a. Receive the presentation of the Civic Center
Master Plan; and then
b. Consider the Initial Study/Mitigated
Negative Declaration and adopt the
Mitigated Negative Declaration; and then
c. Adopt Resolution 15-XX approving the Civic
Center Master Plan; and
d. Provide direction to staff on next steps
toward implementation of the Civic Center
Master Plan.

August 18,
2015
Design Services,
Financing
Options
Council did not approve the $5M item to initiate
architectural design of the City Hall project. Council
asked the staff to come back with financing options.

November
17, 2015
Creative Cost
Option
requested
Council directed the staff to come back with a
creative solution to keep the cost of the City Hall
design and construction project lower than $40M.

December
10, 2015
Design Build
options
70 page memo from Staff: “Because we were not
successful in our attempts to discover a project
delivery process that could develop a $70 million
estimated cost project for less than the maximum $40
million authorized by Council, we will not be
bringing the project for further consideration unless
so directed by City Council.”
April 03,
2018
Discussion of
alternative
renovation plans
for City Hall
“There is no fiscal impact with this study session,
however if the City Council directs staff to include a
project to renovate city hall to an essential facility
standard as shown in the approved Council Work
Program, the proposed capital improvement plan for
2018-19 would include a budget for design costs of
$2.1 million, followed by a budget in 2019-20 of
approximately $18.9 million for construction
(including staff relocations, temporary facilities,
project management, contingencies, etc.”
Conducted discussion of alternative renovation
plans for city hall and provided the following
direction:
• There was not support for a city hall renovation
process.
• Directed staff to prepare a report for a charter
city process; and
• Look at other designs/general concepts for a new
city hall in the next 5-7 months; and
• Look at other potential cost saving solutions, still
preserving the new 40,000 square foot building as
the preferred alternative.

October 16,
2018
Archtl Services
for New City
Hall
Council approved the Budget Adjustment in the
Amended Amount of $3.5M for architectural design
services for a New City Hall, $500K for professional
services for an Interim City Hall, and $87,500 for a
limited term project manager in Public Works.

April 30,
2019
Civic Center
update
Council received an update and provided comments
regarding a.) City Hall Design/Delivery Strategy
including potential funding, and; b.) Library
Expansion Strategy including potential funding.

Consensus comments and direction on the City Hall
item (specifically) included:
• Decouple City Hall and Library Expansion
projects;
• Gather input from community groups and
consider additional options such as at Memorial
Park;
• Bring back more detail regarding seismic need
and what seismic improvements at the existing
City Hall would provide along and other
upgrades;
• Value engineering;
• Allocate dollars toward a building fund for longterm plan for City Hall; • Bring back options to Council.

April 2021 FY2022 CIP
study session
Council approved the FY20-21 CIP program that
included the project “City Hall and Community Hall
Improvements (Programming and Feasibility)”,
funded for $500,000.

April 2022 FY2023 CIP
study session
Council did not approve the proposal to include the
project “City Hall Renovation/ Replacement and
Library Parking Garage: Design and Construction.”
July 19, 2022 City Hall Project
Subcommittee
formed
Council motioned to appoint Councilmembers
Moore and Willey to serve on the City Hall Project
Subcommittee, and to start meeting right away. The
motion carried with Wei voting no.

Sincerely,

Susan Michael, AIA, LEED AP
Capital Improvement Programs Manager
cc: Chad Mosley, Interim Director of Public Works, and Matt Mosley, Assistant City Manager
May 03, May 17,
June 7, 2022 November 15,
2022
City Hall
Renovation
project to be
added to CIP
FY23-24
proposal
Staff to include the City Hall Renovation – including full seismic retrofit, MEP/IT, interior finishes, and layout complete refurbishment, at the level of California Building Code’s structural “Risk Category IV” for approximately
$27,500,000, as part of the fiscal year 2023-24 proposed CIP project and budget.

Sincerely,

ATTACHMENT A
List of Proposed FY22-23 CIP Projects

PROJECT TITLE PROJECT TYPE/

COMMISSION
PROJECT DESCRIPTION FY22-23
budget
FY24-27 (w/o
escalation)
CATEGORY 1 - NEW PROJECTS - FISCAL YEAR 2022 -2023
Blackberry Farms Pools Splash Pad Parks &
Recreation
Design and construct a splash pad to replace the slide
feature at the Blackberry Farm Pools.
$ 500,000
City Hall Renovation/ Replacement
and Library Parking Garage: Design
and Construction
Facilities The full project includes Construction of both buildings, but the proposal for this fiscal year includes only the design and consulting services for the Library Parking
Garage, and Conceptual Design services for the City
Hall project. Phasing the work will address Civic Center parking needs first, with a completed evaluation and
decision on options for City Hall Renovation/
Replacement to be prepared for discussion in early
2023 in advance of the next CIP budget cycle.

The City Hall scope which includes structural upgrades, renovation of mechanical/ electrical and life-safety
infrastructure, improvements to workplace and
accessibility, and purposeful construction of the
emergency operations center (EOC). The Library
Parking garage will be a 3-story above-ground structure in the SE corner of the existing parking lot.
$ $75.6M 4,000,000
City Lighting - LED Lighting Streets &
Grounds
Implement the transition of City's streetlight
infrastructure from induction and other fixtures to LED fixtures to meet the "Dark Sky" Ordinance
requirements and reduce light pollution and energy
cost.
$ 1,300,000
De Anza Boulevard Buffered Bike
Lanes
Transportation/
Bike & Ped
Restripe De Anza Blvd to include a painted buffered
zone between the existing bike lane and the vehicle
lanes.
$ 525,000
Jollyman All Inclusive Play Area:

Adult-Assistive Bathroom Facilities
Parks &
Recreation
Design and construct a new adult-assistive bathroom
facility adjacent to the All-Inclusive Play Area.
$ 850,000
Major Recreation Facilities: Use and
Market Analysis
Parks &
Recreation
Commission a report to study the possible locations for new major recreation facilities: Aquatic, Fine Arts/
Performance and/or Recreation Facilities. Existing
recreational and arts facilities, both public and private, will be reviewed and a recommendation based on
need, available locations, and financial investments
required. The Market Analysis and Business Plan will be the first phase in the potential development of
additional recreation facilities in the City.
$ 350,000
Stocklmeir, Bryne and Blesch:

Inspection Reports and Analysis
Facilities Instigate property inspection reports and work with outside consultants to develop initial use and business strategies appropriate for the three residential
properties owned by the City.
$ 50,000

ATTACHMENT A
List of Proposed FY22-23 CIP Projects

PROJECT TITLE PROJECT TYPE/

COMMISSION
PROJECT DESCRIPTION FY22-23
budget
FY24-27 (w/o
escalation)
CATEGORY 1 - NEW PROJECTS FOR CONSIDERATION - FISCAL YEARS 2023 - 2027 ADA 2015 report
Update/Dashboard
Facilities Update the findings of the 2015 ADA self evaluation report.
$ 200,000
Blackberry Farms Golf Course
Improvements
Parks &
Recreation
BBF Golf Course Use feasibility Study is currently
underway. This project proposes to secure funding for
the outcome of that Study, to continue the work as
directed by City Council and the Community.
$ 2,500,000
Stevens Creek Blvd Separated
Bikeway, Phase 3 - Design
Transportation/
Bike & Ped
Construct a separated Class IV bike lane along Stevens
Creek Blvd, between Highway 85 and Foothill Blvd. The
scope is for design funding only.
$ 225,000
Regnart Road Improvements: Ph. 3 -
6 Streets &
Grounds
This project continues the stabilization efforts along
Regnart Road and compliments the 2017 Outfall Repair
and Slope Stabilization project and the Retaining wall
project. The 2017 Regnart Road Slope Stability Study
identified several areas along Regnart Road that exhibit poor drainage characteristics, slope stability concerns that require partial road reconstruction in order to
avoid costly road or slope failures and lengthy road
closures. Proposed improvements include additional
drainage structures, regrading/repaving the road to
drain towards the creek, slope stabilization and erosion control measures and retaining walls.
$ 2,200,000
Bollinger Road Bike Improvements Transportation/
Bike & Ped
Implement improvements as proposed in the 2021
Bollinger Road Corridor Safety Study.
$ 1,500,000
Carmen Road Bridge - Design Transportation/
Bike & Ped
Design a bicycle/pedestrian bridge across Stevens
Creek Blvd at Carmen Road.
$ 750,000
Carmen Road Bridge - Construction Transportation/
Bike & Ped
Construct a bicycle pedestrian bridge across Stevens
Creek Blvd at Carmen Road.
$ 4,500,000
Don Burnett Bridge LED Lighting
Upgrade
Streets &
Grounds
Upgrade the existing 16 architectural light fixtures to LED.
$ 150,000
Memorial Park Softball Field LED
Lighting Upgrade
Streets &
Grounds
Upgrade the existing 38 light fixtures to LED. Existing light fixtures are 4K 1000W Metal Halide bulbs.
$ 150,000
Blackberry Farm Bocce Ball Shade
Structure
Parks &
Recreation
Design and construct a new shade structure over the
player areas at the Blackberry Farm Bocce Ball Courts.
$ 125,000
Linda Vista Park Picnic Area Shade
Structure
Parks &
Recreation
Design and construct a shade structure over the
barbecue in the picnic area at Linda Vista Park.
$ 125,000
Portal Park Picnic Area Shade
Structure
Parks &
Recreation
Design and construct a shade structure over the
barbecue in the picnic area at Portal Park.
$ 125,000

ATTACHMENT A
List of Proposed FY22-23 CIP Projects

PROJECT TITLE PROJECT TYPE/

COMMISSION
PROJECT DESCRIPTION FY22-23
budget
FY24-27 (w/o
escalation)
CATEGORY 1 - NEW PROJECTS FOR CONSIDERATION - FISCAL YEARS 2023 - 2027 Jollyman Park Dog Off-Leash Area
(DOLA) Pathway
Parks &
Recreation
Design and construct a paved pathway to provide
access to the DOLA at Jollyman Park along the south
side of the park.
$ 111,000
QCC skylight renovation Facilities Replace the aging skylight with like panels and frame. 350,000 $ Memorial Park - Design &
Construction
Parks &
Recreation
Design and Construction project[s] resulting from FY22- 23 Specific Design project
TBD
Lawrence Mitty Park - Design &
Construction
Parks &
Recreation
Design and Construction project[s] resulting from FY22- 23 Master Plan project
TBD
Community Hall Improvements Facilities Design and Construction project[s] resulting from IT/AV operational upgrades required
TBD
Major Facilities [Results] -
Programming and Design
Parks &
Recreation
Major project result from the Fy22-23 study TBD
CATEGORY 2 - EXISTING PROJECTS - MULTI-YEAR FUNDING
ADA Improvements Facilities This is an ongoing program funded annually to improve accessibility at all public facilities throughout the City. $ 100,000 95,000 $
Annual Playground Replacement
(FY22-23: Creekside Tot Lot)
Parks &
Recreation
Replacement of older playground equipment that is
dated and worn, starting with Creekside (1998) and
Varian (2002) (Year 3 of 5)
$ 300,000 300,000 $
Park Amenity Improvements Parks &
Recreation
Funding for various park amenities such as benches,
hydration stations, outdoor table tennis, cornhole,
shade (structures and/or trees), dog-off-leash,
pickleball striping, etc. (Year 3 of 5)
$ 200,000 200,000 $
Street Light Installation - Annual
Infill
Streets &
Grounds
This is an ongoing program funded annually to Sesign
and install street lights on an as-needed basis.
$ 75,000 75,000 $

Element Area SF Cost / SF
2023 Project
Total (+25% soft
costs)
2024 Project
Total (5%
escalation)
City Hall Renovation - Seismic Only, Non-Essential
Facility
24,140 $216 $6,506,635 $6,831,967
City Hall Renovation - Seismic Only, Essential Facility 24,140 $232 $7,007,540 $7,357,917 City Hall Renovation - Seismic, MEP/IT, Interior gut,
Non-Essential Facility
24,140 $807 $24,364,200 $25,582,410
City Hall Renovation - Seismic, MEP/IT, Interior gut,
Essential Facility
24,140 $868 $26,194,616 $27,504,347
City Hall Replacement, Non-Essential Facility 24,140 $804 $24,250,139 $25,462,646 City Hall Replacement, Essential Facility 24,140 $908 $27,401,918 $28,772,013 City Hall Replacement w/ Added Floor, Non-Essential
Facility
36,140 $809 $36,547,027 $38,374,378
City Hall Replacement w/ Added Floor, Essential
Facility
36,140 $914 $41,271,880 $43,335,474
City Hall Replacement w/ Added Floor + 100 spaces
Underground parking, Non-Essential Facility
70,140 $529 $46,339,451 $48,656,424
City Hall Replacement w/ Added Floor + 100 spaces
Underground parking, Essential Facility
70,140 $582 $51,064,305 $53,617,520
Funding
Cost
Estimates
page from 11/15/22 Council Mtg presentation
(FY 2025 not shown)
Element Area SF Cost / SF
Total Direct
Construction Soft Costs +25%
2023 Project
Total (+25% soft
costs)
Cost per stall
2024 Project
Total (5%
escalation)
2025 Project
Total (5%
escalation)
City Hall Renovation - Seismic Only, Non-Essential
Facility
24,140 $216 $5,205,308 $1,301,327 $6,506,635 N.A. $6,831,967 $7,173,565 City Hall Renovation - Seismic Only, Essential Facility 24,140 $232 $5,606,032 $1,401,508 $7,007,540 N.A. $7,357,917 $7,725,813 City Hall Renovation - Seismic, MEP/IT, Interior gut,
Non-Essential Facility
24,140 $807 $19,491,360 $4,872,840 $24,364,200 N.A. $25,582,410 $26,861,531 City Hall Renovation - Seismic, MEP/IT, Interior gut,
Essential Facility
24,140 $868 $20,955,693 $5,238,923 $26,194,616 N.A. $27,504,347 $28,879,564 City Hall Replacement, Non-Essential Facility 24,140 $804 $19,400,111 $4,850,028 $24,250,139 N.A. $25,462,646 $26,735,778 City Hall Replacement, Essential Facility 24,140 $908 $21,921,534 $5,480,384 $27,401,918 N.A. $28,772,013 $30,210,614 City Hall Replacement w/ Added Floor, NonEssential Facility36,140 $809 $29,237,621 $7,309,405 $36,547,027 N.A. $38,374,378 $40,293,097 City Hall Replacement w/ Added Floor, Essential
Facility
36,140 $914 $33,017,504 $8,254,376 $41,271,880 N.A. $43,335,474 $45,502,248 City Hall Replacement w/ Added Floor + 100 spaces
Underground parking, Non-Essential Facility
70,140 $529 $37,071,561 $9,267,890 $46,339,451 $463,395 $48,656,424 $51,089,245 City Hall Replacement w/ Added Floor + 100 spaces
Underground parking, Essential Facility
70,140 $582 $40,851,444 $10,212,861 $51,064,305 $510,643 $53,617,520 $56,298,396 Underground Parking (36 Stalls) below City Hall
Replacement, Essential Facility (parking only)
12,070 $230 $2,781,049 $695,262 $3,476,311 $96,564 $3,650,126 $3,832,633 City Hall Replacement w/ Added Floor + 100 spaces
Underground parking, Essential Facility (parking only)
34,000 $230 $7,833,940 $1,958,485 $9,792,425 $97,924 $10,282,046 $10,796,149 2022+ Cost Estimates from 10/13/2022 Subcommittee presentation page from 11/15/22 presentation
Element Area SF Cost / SF
Total Direct
Construction Soft Costs +25%
2023 Project
Total (+25% soft
costs)
Cost per stall
2024 Project
Total (5%
escalation)
2025 Project
Total (5%
escalation)
City Hall Renovation - Seismic Only, Non-Essential
Facility
24,140 $216 $5,205,308 $1,301,327 $6,506,635 N.A. $6,831,967 $7,173,565 City Hall Renovation - Seismic Only, Essential Facility 24,140 $232 $5,606,032 $1,401,508 $7,007,540 N.A. $7,357,917 $7,725,813 City Hall Renovation - Seismic, MEP/IT, Interior gut,
Non-Essential Facility
24,140 $807 $19,491,360 $4,872,840 $24,364,200 N.A. $25,582,410 $26,861,531 City Hall Renovation - Seismic, MEP/IT, Interior gut,
Essential Facility
24,140 $868 $20,955,693 $5,238,923 $26,194,616 N.A. $27,504,347 $28,879,564 City Hall Replacement, Non-Essential Facility 24,140 $804 $19,400,111 $4,850,028 $24,250,139 N.A. $25,462,646 $26,735,778 City Hall Replacement, Essential Facility 24,140 $908 $21,921,534 $5,480,384 $27,401,918 N.A. $28,772,013 $30,210,614 City Hall Replacement w/ Added Floor, NonEssential Facility36,140 $809 $29,237,621 $7,309,405 $36,547,027 N.A. $38,374,378 $40,293,097 City Hall Replacement w/ Added Floor, Essential
Facility
36,140 $914 $33,017,504 $8,254,376 $41,271,880 N.A. $43,335,474 $45,502,248 City Hall Replacement w/ Added Floor + 100 spaces
Underground parking, Non-Essential Facility
70,140 $529 $37,071,561 $9,267,890 $46,339,451 $463,395 $48,656,424 $51,089,245 City Hall Replacement w/ Added Floor + 100 spaces
Underground parking, Essential Facility
70,140 $582 $40,851,444 $10,212,861 $51,064,305 $510,643 $53,617,520 $56,298,396 Underground Parking (36 Stalls) below City Hall
Replacement, Essential Facility (parking only)
12,070 $230 $2,781,049 $695,262 $3,476,311 $96,564 $3,650,126 $3,832,633 City Hall Replacement w/ Added Floor + 100 spaces
Underground parking, Essential Facility (parking only)
34,000 $230 $7,833,940 $1,958,485 $9,792,425 $97,924 $10,282,046 $10,796,149 2022+ Cost Estimates 2/20/2023 clarification
RENOVATION REPLACEMENT (NEW) REPLACEMENT (NEW) + 12,000SF 2022+ Cost Estimates
Description Total Project
Budget
FY 23-24 Proposed
City Funding
FY 24-25
Projected
(5% escalation)
FY 25-26
Projected
(5% escalation)
FY 26-27
Projected
(5% escalation)
FY 27-28
Projected
(5% escalation)
TOTAL
City Hall Improvements -
RENOVATION 27,500,000 3,000,000 25,875,000 27,318,750 28,834,000 30,426,250 FY 24-25
28,875,000
City Hall Improvements -
REPLACEMENT (NEW) 28,800,000 3,000,000 27,240,000 28,752,000 30,338,880 32,006,400 FY 25-26
31,752,000
City Hall Improvements -
REPLACEMENT (NEW) +
12,000 SF 43,300,000 3,000,000 42,465,000 44,738,250 47,124,080 49,631,150 FY 26-27
50,124,080

SUNNYVALE CITY HALL FUNDED CONSTRUCTION
BEGAN
**The cost and scheduling estimates indicated here are preliminary and useful for comparisons only For reference:
2/20/2023 clarification
1 2/21/2023 City Council Meeting Special Meeting Item #1 City Hall Renovation Staff’s responses to questions received from councilmember are shown in italics.

Q1: It would be very confusing and misleading to the public if "actions by City Council" after the forming of the subcommittee are not included. (Chao)
Q2: How come the November 15, 2022 Council action is not included in the memo in Attachment B? For completeness, it should be included since it is a "past action" by the City Council. (Chao)
Staff responses (Q1 ad Q2): There has been no action by Council on the topic of the City Hall CIP project since the subcommittee was formed except for the 11/15/22 recommendations of the Subcommittee to the Council. The actions on the item from that meeting are included in the Staff report.

Q3: For the October 16, 2018 approval for "Archtl Services for New City Hall". I somehow cannot access the agenda item. But I wonder whether it is regarding the new City Hall at the current City Hall location or at the Vallco site, since the 2018 Council approved the Vallco project, which includes a shell of the City Hall and a shell of the Performing Art center, which is why there is also a budget adjustment on the same agenda for the Performing Art Center. (Chao)
Staff response: The IT team has been notified about the October 16, 2018 webpage missing items. The minutes from that meeting, in regards to the City Hall item state that “Sinks moved and Vaidhyanathan seconded to adopt Resolution No. 18-102 approving a Budget Adjustment in the amended amount of $4,087,500: 1. $3,500,000 for architectural design services for a New City Hall, funded by the Capital Reserve, and: 2. $500,000 for architectural design and other services as needed for the Interim City Hall, funded by the Capital Reserve with direction to staff to explore finding lease space as a first priority, and; 3. $87,500 to add one 3-year Limited Term Project Manager in the Department of Public Works, funded by the General Fund. The motion carried with Scharf absent.

The October 2018 meeting would have occurred after the FY18-19 budget was approved/ratified. The FY19-20 CIP program was discussed at the April 30th, May 13th, and June 18th, 2019 Council meetings. The notes from that meeting show that the Library project was extracted from the City Hall/Civic Center projects and given priority. The final CIP book shows the “City Hall Seismic Upgrade” and “City Hall Renovation” projects were unfunded. 2 Q4: Please include the purchase of the City Hall Annex and its square footage, and planned usage, since it is an inclusive part of the City Hall project, as a whole. The new Councilmembers need such information in order to make informative decisions. (Chao) Staff response: The City Hall Annex is a separate project. The facility has a footprint of approximately 5000 square feet and the current plans show 28 desks. As the design progresses, the number of desks may change slightly. The property was purchased for $4.45M Q5: I could not find the "April 2022" CIP study session in April 2022 council meetings. But I found one in May 3, 2022 Council meeting. Not sure if I missed it? (Chao) Staff response: You are correct. Staff had planned to present the CIP in April, so our notes are dated “April” it was actually first heard on May 3, as you’ve noted.

Please see Amended Attachment B – City Council Timeline City Hall Project_Desk Item Q6: And please clarify that there was no option for renovation or improvement proposed in the 2022 CIP. Thus, the Council could not approve any option to only renovate and retrofit the city hall. This is important to mention since the 2021 adopted CIP project was "“City Hall and Community Hall Improvements (Programming and Feasibility)”, funded for $500,000." (Chao) Staff response: The FY 2021-2022 CIP included a new project “City Hall and Community Hall Improvements (Programming and Feasibility)”, funded for $500,000. The FY 2022-2023 CIP originally had a proposal to fund a New or Renovated City Hall Building, and the proposed project was name “City Hall Renovation/ Replacement and Library Parking Garage: Design and Construction”. Please see attachment Proposed “FY22-23 CIP Projects List”.

Q7: The estimated cost of the 2015 July plan was $70M. It would be a good idea to include this information, since the entry for the November 17, 2015 Council meeting mentioned the Council was trying to reduce the cost to $40M. (Chao)
Staff response: The cost from 2015 is no longer accurate. Additionally, Staff was not able to reduce the cost effectively, following the November Council action request.

Q8: a. The staff report notes that the proposed $26 million renovation could meet the business needs of the city for the foreseeable future. What rough time horizon here is envisioned as the “foreseeable” future?
3 Staff response: The amount of space required for future growth is a topic that may require greater research. There is more than one way to do growth projections. Factors to consider:
• The effective use of space: The current workplace areas of City Hall are inefficient and can be reconfigured to improve the amount of space available for desks and meeting spaces. • Expansion: To date, we’ve acquired and are developing the 10455 Torre Avenue building as the City Hall Annex, thus increasing the area available for City Hall functions. The facility has a footprint of approximately 5000 square feet and the current plans show 28 desks. As the design progresses, the number of desks may change slightly. The property was purchased for $4.45M.
• Workplace calculations: square footage per person data. When determining the amount of space required for a workplace (a.k.a. Office), real estate professionals often use industry standards of the average square footage per person. The amount of square footage per person varies from 150 to 250 square feet per person. The “City Hall Project Subcommittee” presentation from 10/13/22 is attached. On page 38 you can see that the current headcount for Staff within the workplace area of the current City Hall amounts to approximately 170 SF/person. What is appropriate data to use for Cupertino City Hall? That depends on usage patterns and it will also need to be considered in tandem with a Telework policy. How many people will be working in City Hall on a daily basis? Using 200SF/person is a conservative approach, but must be mitigated by the Telework policy and use. • Staff and Population Growth projections: (CIP cannot opine on this, at this time). • Program: The plan to renovate the City Hall building included a program that is akin to current uses: workplace and expanded Community meeting spaces. It did not include an Auditorium or rentable event space. This would greatly affect programming requirements. • Telework Policy/Use Patterns: The Telework phenomena is relatively new and difficult to project how these usage patterns will continue in the short and/or long-term. (The attachment is also available on the City Hall Project webpage, under “other information” tab.)
b. Is there an estimate of the change in the city’s payroll headcount on an FTE basis over the last twenty years? (Fruen)
Staff Response: please reference the following chart from the City's FY23 Budget at a Glance. 4 Q9: What is a Category IV building (as opposed to Category II)? (Mohan) Staff response: Both refer to ASCE categories (American Society of Civil Engineers) and are also found in the Building Code[s]. In a “Risk Category IV” building, it will be available for Immediate Occupancy following a significant seismic event (BSE-1E: having a 20% chance of occurring in 50 years), and available for Life Safety following a very significant seismic event (BSE-2E: having a 5% chance of occurring in 50 years). The performance requirements address structural and nonstructural elements.

A “Risk Category II” building is a typical Office Building, with the performance criteria of “Collapse Prevention” following a BSE-2E seismic event.

Q10: Was 2005 the last time the structural systems were reviewed? If so, by whom? (Mohan) Staff response: Reports on the City Hall structural system were completed in 2005-06, 2011, 2012, 2014 and 2012. Please refer to the “City Hall Project” webpage for more information, Specifically, the reports are all linked in the “Structural Analysis and Building Condition Reports” tab.

Q11: I see a reference to 40,000 square feet needed for the new city hall. This number came up in 2018. Is it still valid and does it reflect future growth? (Mohan) 5 Staff response: The amount of space required for future growth is a topic that may require greater research. The current building is approximately 24,000 square feet.

Here’s a link for more information on the Risk Categories.

Written Communications for February 21, 2021 Special City Council Agenda Item 1: City Hall Renovation • The City Hall Subcommittee assigned by Council, consisted of Councilmember Jon Willey and Councilmember Kitty Moore. The first meeting coordinated with Staff, in particular the CIP Manager and Public Works Director, was held August 2, 2022, the building was toured, need for the project discussed, and future topics and scheduling were planned as reflected in the presentation slides provided by Staff. There is also a vast amount of support documents online. • During the course of the multi-session meetings of the Subcommittee, Staff determined that moving the EOC to the new Torre Avenue City Hall Annex building would be an excellent idea, and that project is moving forward to locate 1,300 sf of EOC in that building. • The following 3 slides show the Staff Recommendation to the City Hall Subcommittee to renovate the City Hall.
• Following the 3 slides are slide decks provided by Public Works in their comprehensive review of this project.
-Councilmember Moore
Meeting #5 - 10/21/2022
Topic: Funding & Summaries
City Hall Subcommittee
We recommend proceeding with the following projects:
• Full Renovation of City Hall building (Seismic, HVAC, IT, Interiors, etc.), budgeting $26M. Consider upgrading to “Essential Facility” standards ($4M). Hire consultants to perform workplace planning (to confirm growth projections), and cost analysis.
• Add parking behind Community Hall, budgeting $350,000 (scope and budget to be confirmed, will be part of existing Civic Center Parking project) • As part of CIP Program discussions for FY23-24, consider hiring Consultants to develop schedule and requirements for City Hall demobilization/mobilization strategy and communications.

CIP Program Strategy
• CDTFA Audit
• Potential for substantial short- and
long-term impacts
• Ability to fund additional CIP Projects
• Use of fund balance above the
unassigned amounts require a 3-year
payback plan both for General and
Capital Funds
• Capital Reserve has a min $5M reserve
Other Considerations
Meeting #2 Topic: Structural Analysis
9/01/2022
City Hall Subcommittee
• SEPT. 1: Structural Analysis – Compelling reasons for the project (a.k.a. Seismic & MEP Deficiencies)
• SEPT. 22: EOC – cost drivers, location options, and
justifications
• OCT. 13: Programming – Staff & Community program
requirements in the space (a.k.a. Space Planning)
• OCT. 27: Parking – use analysis and code requirements • NOV. 10: Funding & Recommendations for Council
Upcoming Meeting Agendas
SEPTEMBER 1
Agenda
TOPIC: Structural Analysis – Compelling reasons
for the project (a.k.a. Seismic & MEP Deficiencies)

1. 2005-06 Structural Analysis: review of the1965
and 1986 design and construction

2. 2011 Structural Analysis and 2012 Essential
Facility Analysis

3. 2014 City Hall Alternates Study: Structural
Evaluation

4. 2021 Seismic Evaluation – Tier 1

5. Summary and Recommendations
2005 – 2006 Structural Analysis
1965 & 1986 Construction Documents
• 24,233 SF
• Type 5, B-2 (1hr)
• Council Chambers on
main floor, and an
open basement which
housed mechanical
and electrical
equipment
1965 Original Design & Construction
• Upgrade to Essential
Facility for EOC
• Renovation of the lower
level to accommodate
workplace
• Opened the lower level
to the excavated
exterior terrace
1986 Renovation
2005/06 Structural Analysis
determined the need for
additional shear walls,
reinforcement of the
existing shear walls, and
improvements to the roof
to lessen the loading and
strengthen the diaphragm.
2005/06 Structural Report
2011 – 2012 Reports
Examining Structural Compliance with
1985 UBC “Essential Facility” Requirements
• The loading of the upper level
was underestimated by
approximately 45 – 59%
• The loading of the lower level
was underestimated by
approximately 24%
• Overall the building’s loading
was underestimated by
approximately 34%
• The concrete is code compliant,
but steel reinforcing and
anchoring requires improvement
2011 Structural Analysis by AKH: Deficiencies
• Improvements to the shear walls:

Steels reinforcement, added
plywood, anchoring, etc.
• Add shear walls at upper level
• Remove heavy roof tiles and
improve roof diaphragm
• Improve diaphragm chord
connections by welding plates to
beam webs
• Add steel and/or carbon fiber
‘jackets’ to concrete columns
and improve column ties
2011 Structural Analysis by AKH: Remedies
• HVAC equipment and
infrastructure is 25 years past its
life time.
• HVAC system is terribly inefficient
and costly to operate. The
controls are severely outdated.
• Electrical equipment, fixtures,
main switchboard and
distribution system installed in
1965, are beyond their useful life.
• Emergency power system
requires full upgrade from 1965
system
2012 Essential Services Facility Analysis by
Perkins & Will, AKH and PAE: Deficiencies
• Structural Analysis is essentially
the same as 2011 report.
• Architectural: add one FR
partitions and smoke partitions
• Architectural: change out finishes
to be code complaint for
fire/smoke ratings
• Architectural: Roof assemblies
must be Class A. The equipment
attachments are not compliant.

The report presented four scenarios for each system’s remedies:
a. No Building Upgrade (EOC relocation)
b. Seismic Upgrade - Minimum scheme (EOC incorporation) • Shear walls & Concrete walls improvements
• Roof tile & equipment rework, with possible adjustment to roof profile • Seismic supports for HVAC equipment and ductwork
• 20% of cost for ADA upgrade
c. Infrastructure Upgrade – Moderate Scheme
• Includes all items from Seismic Upgrade
• Fire & Life Safety upgrade to meet current codes
• MEP upgrade to meet operation requirements as Essential Services Facilities • Energy efficiency improvements to HVAC and enclosure systems • Full ADA/Accessibility upgrade
d. Building Replacement
2012 Essential Services Facility Analysis by
Perkins & Will, AKH and PAE: Remedies
2014 City Hall Alternates Study
Structural Evaluation as part of the
Civic Center Master Plan
At the 8/19/2014 meeting, Council requested a high-level feasibility study of the existing City Hall prior to determining a preferred Civic Center Master Plan.

The Council directed staff to bring forward Master Plan alternatives and cost estimates for the following elements:
• City Hall options including: seismic retrofits with and without an Emergency Operations Center (EOC), a remodel of City Hall, and a potential new City Hall;
• Parking solutions for the existing and projected parking deficit including under Library Field, behind the Library, and under a potential new City Hall; • Library Program Room expansion options.
2014 Structural Analysis by Tipping Mar
Five design options were under consideration for City Hall; the first three options consider structural strengthening of the existing building.  Option A: Seismic Strengthening, non-Essential Services Facility (EOC Relocation). Includes:
• All recommendations from 2012 report. Noted that Column ‘jackets’ could be replaced with the addition of steel columns.
• Seismic improvements to non-structural elements such as suspended ceilings, partition walls, and glazing systems
 Option B: Seismic Strengthening, Essential Services Facility (EOC Incorporation). Includes:
• All structural recommendations from Option A.
• Seismic improvements to non-structural elements …to meet Essential Services Facility performance requirements
 Option C: Complete architectural remodel. Includes:
• All structural recommendations from Option A and B.
• New large light court at building’s center
2014 Structural Analysis by Tipping Mar
2021 Seismic Evaluation
Tier 1 Analysis
Two scenarios were considered:
• Scenario One: “Essential Facility” Risk Category IV, available for Immediate Occupancy following a BSE-1E seismic event, and available for Life Safety following a BSE-2E seismic event. The performance requirements address structural
and non-structural elements.
• Scenario Two: Typical Office Building, Risk Category II (EOC relocated) with the performance criteria of “Collapse
Prevention” following a BSE-2E seismic event.
2021 Structural Analysis (MME): Scenarios
Seismic Remediations required for Essential Facility (IV) occupancy:
• Improve Roof Diaphragm Shear capacity (nailing, loading) • Improve the Roof Diaphragm Collector Splice Capacity
• Improve the Anchor Bolt Connections at top of Shear Walls • Improve the Upper Floor Concrete Shear Wall Flexural Capacity and add Boundary members
Seismic Remediations required for both Essential Facility (IV) occupancy and Office Building (II) occupancy:
• Upgrade the Out of Plane Connection of Veranda Beam
• Improve the Upper Floor Concrete Shear Wall Shear Capacity 2021 Structural Analysis: Remedies
The following structural scopes require additional
evaluation to confirm the requirements, but we believe this work is also required.

Seismic Remediations required for Essential Facility (IV) occupancy:
• Ground floor Wall [Horizontal] Reinforcing at Openings • Improve Columns Reinforcement ties for Confinement
• Improve Foundation Dowels’ capacity
Seismic Remediations required for both Essential Facility (IV) occupancy and Office Building (II) occupancy:
• Add Continuous Cross Ties at Upper Floor Shear Wall
• Repair Upper Floor Concrete Shear Wall adjacent to diaphragm openings • Repair Column Splices and Girder Stirrups
2021 Structural Analysis: Remedies
Summary & Recommendations
While the focus of the reports may vary, the findings are consistent regarding the status of the structural system:
• The building relies on concrete shear walls for lateral load resistance and a combination of concrete walls and isolated concrete columns to support the gravity loads. These elements do not have sufficient ductility to resist seismic lateral displacements without sustaining significant damage.

Damage to these critical structural gravity load-resisting elements could result in collapse of the roof structure. The life safety and economic risk could be substantial.
• The building does not comply with either the Essential Services Facility requirements or [Regular Building] evaluation criteria unless a seismic strengthening is undertaken. The 2021 findings are similar to the findings in the previous reports.

Summary

1. Seismic Upgrade of the building: will trigger some
additional work, like ADA/Accessibility improvements.

2. HVAC and other Infrastructure systems: how can you not replace these systems that are 50+ years old?

3. Seismic + HVAC/Infrastructure + Accessibility/ADA work will affect over 75% of the building, which leads us to consider a full interior renovation project.

Scope of Work Scenarios
Aspects to consider
Comments & Consensus?
Meeting #3 Topic: EOC
9/22/2022
City Hall Subcommittee
• SEPT. 1: Structural Analysis – Compelling reasons for the project (a.k.a. Seismic & MEP Deficiencies)
• SEPT. 22: EOC – cost drivers, location options, and
justifications
• OCT. 13: Programming – Staff & Community program
requirements in the space (a.k.a. Space Planning)
• OCT. 27: Parking – use analysis and code requirements • NOV. 10: Funding & Recommendations for Council
Upcoming Meeting Agendas
SEPTEMBER 22
Agenda
TOPIC: EOC

1. EOC Operational overview

2. Current EOC and back-up location

3. Potential EOC locations

4. EOC cost information

1. EOC Operational Overview
EOC Orientation 2022
Emergency Operations
EOC Orientation 2022
• WHEN would we activate?
• WHO activates the EOC?
• WHERE is the EOC?
• HOW is it organized?
• HOW does the EOC function?
For
• Inter-Agency Coordination
• Executive Decision Making
• Information Collection, Evaluation, Dissemination
• Priority Setting
• Resource Management
EOC Orientation 2022
The EOC activates WHEN there is a need

EOC ACTIVATION LEVELS
1 2
3 EOC Orientation 2022
The EOC activates WHEN an incident happens
• Incident Stabilization
• Life Safety
• Protect property
• Preserve the environment
• Restore services
• Facilitate recovery
EOC Orientation 2022
EOC Orientation 2022
WHO activates the EOC?
• The Director of Emergency Services (the
City Manager) or their designee

EOC Orientation 2022
WHERE is the EOC?

Cupertino Service Center Alternate EOC
Primary
10300 Torre Ave
Cupertino, CA 95014
Alternate
10555 Mary Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
The EOC
EOC Orientation 2022

EOC Orientation 2022
• HOW is it organized?
ICS
The Incident Command System
EOC Orientation 2022
SEMS
The Standardized Emergency Management System
NIMS
The National Incident Management System
Field Response
EOC Coordination Levels
Department Operations Centers__
Partner Agencies and Stakeholders__
City Leadership __
State
Santa Clara County EOC
City of Cupertino EOC
SEMS
Standardized Emergency Management System
EOC Orientation 2022
FEMA
Training
City of Cupertino Emergency Management Training Program EOC Orientation 2022
Baselin
e
Trainin
g
• Foundational Training Available online
through FEMA
Quarter
ly
Trainin
g
• Includes DSW and EOC training
• Based on EOC position and staff interest
Quarterl
y
Exercise
s
• Tabletop and Functional Exercises
• Test plans and procedures
• Identify gaps in training or capability
Planning
Section
Operations
Section
Logistics
Section
Finance
Section
Develops plan to
accomplish objectives,
Coordinates information,
provides for contingency
and long-term planning
Develops tactics and
directs resources to
carry out the action
plan, coordinates and
executes strategy
Procures resources
needed to support the
response (staff, stuff,
supplies)
Documents, accounts
for and ensures
regulatory compliance
of response
Incident Command/ EOC Director
Field/ EOC
ICS
The Incident Command System
EOC Orientation 2022
EOC Director
Public Works Unit
Law Enforcement Branch
Fire and Rescue Unit
Damage and Safety
Assessment Unit
Care and Shelter Unit
Citizen Corps Unit
Situation Analysis Unit
Documentation Unit
Advanced Planning Unit
Resource Tracking Unit
GIS Specialist
Demobilization Unit
Technical Specialists
Telecomm/ IS Unit
Transportation Unit
Personnel/ Volunteer Unit
Supply / Procurement Unit
Facilities Unit
Operations Chief Planning and
Intelligence Chief
Logistics Chief
Coordinator
Finance and Admin
Chief
Time Keeping unit
Purchasing Unit
Recovery Unit
EOC Coordinator Safety Officer
Public Information Officer Legal Officer
Liaison Access and Functional Needs
Coordinator
EOC Orientation 2022
EOC Director
EOC Coordinator
Public Information Officer
Liaison Officer Agency Rep
Safety Officer
Legal Officer
Private Sector Coordinator
EOC Orientation 2022
Fire Rescue Unit
Law Enforcement Unit
Public Works Unit
Care & Shelter Unit
Damage / Safety
Assessment Unit
Citizen Corps Unit
EOC Orientation 2022
Planning & Intelligence Chief/Coordinator
Situation Status Unit
Resource Status / Tracking Unit
Advance Planning Unit
Documentation Unit
Demobilization Unit
GIS Unit
EOC Orientation 2022

2. Current EOC
Current Location & Service Center backup
City Hall: current EOC location
1400 square feet approximately
Service Center:
backup EOC location
675 square feet, approximately

3. Potential EOC locations

1. City Hall (current)

2. City Hall Annex

3. Service Center

4. Civic Center, New stand-alone Building

5. Community Hall

6. Quinlan

7. Senior Center

8. Library
Potential locations
City Hall EOC location
1400 square feet approximately
City Hall EOC location
1400 SQ FT current
location
24,000 SQ FT
Renovation
OR
36,000 SQ FT
New Building
Alternate location: City Hall Annex
1300 SQ FT central
area
5700 SQ FT
renovation
Alternate location:

Service Center
675 SQ FT central
area
5700 SQ FT
renovation
Alternate location: Senior Center
2950 SQ FT
Reception Hall
3500 SQ FT
renovation
Alternate location: Quinlan Community Center
4200 SQ FT
Community Room
8100 SQ FT renovation
Alternate location: Community Hall
2100 SQ FT
Community Hall
6200 SQ FT
renovation
Alternate location: Library
2800 SQ FT
Program Room
5600 SQ FT
renovation
Alternate location: Civic Center, New Building
2400 SQ FT
New Building
(two potential
locations indicated)
Comparison: Sunnyvale EOC
2200 SQ FT
EOC
6800 SQ FT
Building footprint
Public Safety Building
Size comparisons
City Hall Annex
Sunnyvale EOC
Service Center
City Hall
Shown in relative scale

4. EOC Cost Information
Cost Scenarios
Location EOC SQ
FT
BLDG
SQ FT
COST without EOC notes
City Hall - New 1200 36000 $48,000,000 $44,400,000 $3.6M differential City Hall - Renovation 1200 24000 $28,000,000 $27,000,000 $1M differential City Hall Annex 1300 5700 $4,265,000 *$3,900,000 $465K differential Serivce Center 675 2900 $1,450,000 Using $500/SF
Senior Center 2950 3500 $1,750,000 Using $500/SF
Quinlan Community
Center 4200 8100 $4,050,000 Using $500/SF
Community Hall 2100 6200 $3,100,000 Using $500/SF
Library 2800 5600 $2,800,000 Using $500/SF
Civic Center - New
building 2400 2400 $3,240,000 Using $1350/SF
Summary & Recommendations
Thank You!
9/22/2022 discussion on the Pros/Cons of various City properties as EOC locations (cost implications excluded from this table)
Location PROS CONS
[Current] City Hall • Best location for the EOC team to activate from during an event.
• Proximity to staff work locations maximizes
the usable space in large scale incidents.
• Storage of EOC supplies is easiest to plan for
in this location.
• If we keep the existing footprint of City Hall,
this area could be used for workplace or
community functions (although the EOC can
be a multi-function meeting room.
• The current generator does not power all
EOC systems.
• Portable generator parking must be planned
for.

City Hall Annex
(10455 Torre)
• Proximity to City Hall is effective location for
the EOC team to activate from during an
event.
• Storage of EOC supplies can be planned for
in this location
• Timing is good to ‘pivot’ the program for
this building while we are in the design
phase.
• Commits the long term use of the facility to
EOC and EOC related functions
• While activated as EOC, it means the Permit
Center will not be open (while this is the
Permit Center – we’d want to consider
moving Permit Center back to City Hall in
the long term)
• Portable generator parking must be planned
for.

Service Center • Storage of EOC supplies could be
accommodated in this location
• Distance to City Hall/EOC Management
team is longer.
• Compromises the other functions of the
Service Center when activated.
• This building should be considered for
significant renovation generally. Adding the
EOC begs the question of re-planning the
overall facility (and this is a much longer
process).
• Portable generator parking must be planned
for.
• The available space for the EOC would limit
the number of staff and may require a
remote option.
• The Service Center is the primary staging
location for response equipment. The
addition of the EOC to the property could
over saturate the area with response
personnel and equipment.
• The Service Center currently serves as the
backup EOC.

Civic Center, New
stand-alone
Building
• A dedicated space for Emergency
Operations.
• A standalone building would have limited
alternate uses.

Community Hall • It is a good building to invest in seismic strengthening.
• Adjacency to City Hall/EOC Management
team is very good.
• Video capabilities of the building will be
useful.
• Storage of EOC supplies would need to
remain at City Hall and carted over in the
case of an event.
• Portable generator parking must be planned
for.
- 1-
• Compromises the other functions of the
Community Hall/Council Chambers when
activated. Would need to relocate City
Council to conduct public meetings if the
EOC is activated.

Quinlan
Community
Center
• Rebuilding one side of the building is
possible.
• Storage of EOC supplies can be planned for,
in this location with some encroachment to
the existing facility.
• The large open space in the Cupertino Room
would provide enough space for staff in
large incidents.
• Additional rooms would provide briefing
areas for field staff.
• Quinlan Community Center serves as the
primary care and shelter facility after an
incident. Facilities include traditional
shelter, Temporary Evacuation Point, and
cooling and warming centers.
• Distance to City Hall/EOC Management
team is longer.
• Compromises the other functions of the
QCC, when activated.
• Portable generator parking must be planned
for.
• The main space would require the assembly
of break-out/meeting rooms within the
space, during activation
Senior Center • Rebuilding one side of the building is
possible.
• Storage of EOC supplies can be planned for,
in this location, with some encroachment to
the existing facility.
• The large open space in the Reception Hall
would provide space for staff in large
incidents.
• Senior Center serves as a care and shelter
facility after an incident. Facilities include
traditional shelter, Temporary Evacuation
Point, and cooling and warming centers.
• Distance to City Hall/EOC Management
team is longer.
• Compromises the other functions of the
Senior Center, when activated.
• Portable generator parking must be planned
for.

Library • Adjacency to City Hall/EOC Management
team is good.
• Separate entrance is helpful.
• The building is leased to SCCLD, which
presents many complications.
• Storage of EOC supplies would need to
remain at City Hall and carted over, in the
case of an event.
• Portable generator parking must be planned
for.
• It’s a new build-out and would be an
unfortunate renovation project.
• Maintenance of equipment including audio
and visual tools would be unreliable.

- 2-
Cost estimates (preliminary, rough order-of-magnitude)
Location EOC SQ
FT
BLDG
SQ FT
COST without EOC notes
City Hall - New 1200 36000 $48,000,000 $44,400,000 $3.6M differential City Hall - Renovation 1200 24000 $28,000,000 $27,000,000 $1M differential City Hall Annex 1300 5700 $4,265,000 **$3,900,000 $465K differential Service Center 675 2900 $1,450,000 Using $500/SF
Senior Center 2950 3500 $1,750,000 Using $500/SF
Quinlan Community Center 4200 8100 $4,050,000 Using $500/SF Community Hall 2100 6200 $3,100,000 Using $500/SF
Library 2800 5600 $2,800,000 Using $500/SF
Civic Center - New building 2400 2400 $3,240,000 Using $1350/SF **City funding for the project is currently $3,000,000. Soft costs and Construction costs are projected to be greater than the original estimates.
- 3-
Meeting #4 - 10/13/2022
Topics: Parking & Programming
City Hall Subcommittee
• SEPT. 1: Structural Analysis – Compelling reasons for the project (a.k.a.

Seismic & MEP Deficiencies)
• SEPT. 22: EOC – cost drivers, location options, and justifications • OCT. 13: Parking – history, use analysis and code
requirements
• OCT. 13: Programming – Staff & Community program
requirements in the space (a.k.a. Space Planning)
• OCT. 20: Funding – potential strategies
• OCT. 27: Q&A, and Recommendations for Council
Upcoming Meeting Agendas
OCTOBER 13
Agenda
TOPIC: Parking at Civic Center

1. Past Studies & Code Findings

2. 2012-2015 CCMP Parking Options

3. Cost estimates
TOPIC: City Hall Programming

1. Spatial History

2. Analysis

3. Future Proofing the Space Planning
Parking at Civic Center
Past Studies & Code Findings
• Existing conditions:
 City Hall parking: 58 spaces
 Library Parking: 166 spaces
 Onstreet parking: 104 spaces
• Parking Demand survey found that an
additional 20 – 40 spaces were needed
to meet the demand.
2012 CCMP Parking Study
• Existing conditions (presumably
unchanged):
 City Hall parking: 58 spaces
 Library Parking: 166 spaces
 Onstreet parking: 104 spaces
• Parking Demand survey found that an
additional 46 spaces were needed to
meet the demand.
2014 CCMP Parking Study
• Kimley Horn report for Library
Expansion project found that Civic
Center was deficient by 185
parking spaces, based on
demand, prior to the construction
of the Library expansion project.
• A proposed solution was a onestory parking deck over the entire surface parking area, at a cost of
approximately $3.2M. This would
net an additional 215 stalls.
2020 Library/CCMP Parking
Study
• Table 19.124.040(A) requires
one parking stall per 285 sq.
ft. of office building.
 (E) City Hall: 24,140/285 =
85 spaces
 (N) City Hall: 36,140/285 =
127 spaces
• Currently there are 84
parking spaces adjacent to
City Hall & Community Hall
2022 Zoning Code requirements for Parking
• For the Library and
Community Hall, another 360
parking spaces are required
by the zoning code, in
addition to the City Hall
requirements.
 Community Hall requires
112 spaces, and
 the Library requires 248
spaces by code.
• Currently there are 144
parking spaces in this area.
2022 Zoning Code requirements for Parking
• Parking demand studies
show that Civic Center is
deficient by approximately
185 parking spaces
• Parking requirements in the
zoning chapter of the
municipal code show that
Civic Center is deficient by
approximately 217 parking
spaces
2022 Civic Center Parking status
Parking at Civic Center
2012 – 2015 Civic Center Master Plan
Parking Options
• Three Parking Options
were shared with City
Council in December
2012 CCMP
Parking Study
2012 CCMP Parking Study
2014 CCMP framework Parking Options Summary
2014 costs: $5,300,000 total $6,700,000 total $7,000,000 total $5,300,000 total 10/21/2014 Council meeting action:
2014 CCMP framework
Parking at Civic Center
Cost Estimates
Overall
Cost
Estimates
from 2014
2014 CCMP framework
2014 CCMP framework Parking Options Summary
2014 costs: $5,300,000 total $6,700,000 total $7,000,000 total $5,300,000 total 2022 costs: $124K/space $72K/space $104K/space $90K/space Total (100) $12,422,000 Total (100) $7,200,000 Total (100) $10,450,000 Total (100) $9,000,000 2022 Cost Estimates Parking Options Summary
Element Area SF Cost / SF Total Direct
Construction
Soft Costs
+25% Project Total Cost per stall
City Hall Replacement 24,140 $804 $19,400,111 $4,850,028 $24,250,139 N.A.

City Hall Replacement w/ Added Floor 36,140 $809 $29,237,621 $7,309,405 $36,547,027 N.A.

Parking Element Area SF Cost / SF Total Direct
Construction
Soft Costs
+25% Project Total Cost per stall
Underground Parking (36 Stalls) below City Hall
Replacement
12,070 $214 $2,586,722 $646,680 $3,233,402 $89,817
Single Deck Parking Structure - City Hall (45 Stalls) 15,000 $105 $1,575,150 $393,788 $1,968,938 $43,754 Single Deck Parking Structure - Library (75 Stalls) 25,000 $105 $2,625,250 $656,313 $3,281,563 $43,754 3 Story Parking Structure - City Hall (128 Stalls) 45,000 $177 $7,956,000 $1,989,000 $9,945,000 $77,695 3 Story Parking Structure - Library (230 Stalls) 75,000 $177 $13,260,000 $3,315,000 $16,575,000 $72,065 Additional Parking Options (100 Stalls) Area SF Cost / SF Total Direct Construction
Soft Costs
+25% Project Total Cost per stall
Surface Parking 35,000 $44 $1,535,625 $383,906 $1,920,000 $19,200 Underground Parking Structure, Incl Field
Replacement
37,500 $265 $9,937,500 $2,484,375 $12,422,000 $124,220
Underground Parking Structure with Top Level
Parking
38,000 $220 $8,360,000 $2,090,000 $10,450,000 $104,500
• Adding 16 spaces behind Community Hall is minimal cost and impact ($300K approximately)
• If City Hall does not increase in size, the current parking allocation is adequate. Significant parking improvements for the Library and Community Hall are needed, however. • Having direction on the City Hall project will greatly influence the requirements for parking at Civic Center.

Parking: Summary Notes
City Hall Programming
Spatial History
1965 Original City Hall
+/- 40 seats +/- 47 seats
1986 Renovated City Hall
+/- 58 seats +/- 33 seats
City Hall: Current Floor Plans
61 seats 65 seats
City Hall Programming
Analysis
2014 Existing City Hall: Analysis
**2022 add: Lobby (& Building) lacks
adequate PUBLIC meeting rooms
2014 Existing City Hall: Analysis
2014 Existing City Hall: Analysis
2014 Existing City Hall: Analysis
2014 Existing City Hall: Analysis
**2022 add: Building lacks
adequate staff meeting rooms
2014 Existing City Hall: Analysis
2014 Existing City Hall: Analysis
2014 Existing City Hall: Analysis
City Hall: Analysis Summary
Current Flaws with the Interior:
• Many spaces are under-utilized (Chambers, Lobby)
• Many spaces are At-Capacity (workspaces)
• Workspaces are inflexible, outdated
• More meeting spaces are needed, for Community and
Staff
• Lighting and Daylighting are woefully inadequate
City Hall: Renovation Benefits
• Better Utilization of the space, more efficient and logical • Workspace that is flexible, current and reasonably
distributed
• Increased Daylighting, Improved Lighting and other interior space wellness factors can be addressed
• Improve Meeting spaces distribution, quantity and quality • Create a space that reflects the values of our City and its Residents: welcoming, beautiful, functional and inspiring City Hall Programming
Future Proofing the Space Planning
City Hall: Current Floor plans
61 seats, 9,950 sq ft 65 seats, 11,500 sq ft
**21,450 sq ft / 126 seats =
170 sq ft per person
City Hall: Planning for Growth
21,450 sq ft @ 150 sq ft per person = 143 people
21,450 sq ft @ 170 sq ft per person = 126 people
21,450 sq ft @ 175 sq ft per person = 123 people
21,450 sq ft @ 200 sq ft per person = 107 people
21,450 sq ft @ 225 sq ft per person = 95 people
21,450 sq ft @ 250 sq ft per person = 86 people
• Currently: 21,450 sq ft @ 126 seats = 170 sq ft per person • February 2022 Staff headcount for City Hall was 130 people City Hall: Workplace Planning
Current Staff headcount at City Hall: 130 people
Accounting for Population Growth:
• 10% increase: 143 people
• 20% increase: 156 people
Accounting for Telework:
• Current headcount + 10% Growth – 30% WFH = 100 people • Current headcount + 20% Growth – 20% WFH = 130 people Comments & Questions?
Meeting #5 - 10/21/2022
Topic: Funding & Summaries
City Hall Subcommittee
• SEPT. 1: Structural Analysis – Compelling reasons for the project (a.k.a.

Seismic & MEP Deficiencies)
• SEPT. 22: EOC – cost drivers, location options, and justifications • OCT. 13: Parking – history, use analysis and code requirements • OCT. 13: Programming – Staff & Community program requirements in the space (a.k.a. Space Planning)
• OCT. 21: Funding – potential strategies
• OCT. 27: Q&A, and Recommendations for Council
Upcoming Meeting Agendas
OCTOBER 21
Agenda
TOPIC: Funding

1. Concepts reviewed to date
*EOC (no discussion required)
a. Seismic Retrofit & Infrastructure
upgrades
b. Space Planning
c. Parking

2. Cost Summaries

3. Funding Options
TOPIC: Summaries

1. Concepts Reviewed to Date
a. Seismic Retrofit & Infrastructure Upgrades
Two scenarios were considered:
• Scenario One: “Essential Facility” Risk Category IV, available for Immediate Occupancy following a BSE-1E seismic event, and available for Life Safety following a BSE-2E seismic event. The performance requirements address structural
and non-structural elements.
• Scenario Two: Typical Office Building, Risk Category II (EOC relocated) with the performance criteria of “Collapse
Prevention” following a BSE-2E seismic event.
2021 Structural Analysis (MME): Scenarios
Seismic Remediations required for Essential Facility (IV) occupancy:
• Improve Roof Diaphragm Shear capacity (nailing, loading) • Improve the Roof Diaphragm Collector Splice Capacity
• Improve the Anchor Bolt Connections at top of Shear Walls • Improve the Upper Floor Concrete Shear Wall Flexural Capacity and add Boundary members
Seismic Remediations required for both Essential Facility (IV) occupancy and Office Building (II) occupancy:
• Upgrade the Out of Plane Connection of Veranda Beam
• Improve the Upper Floor Concrete Shear Wall Shear Capacity 2021 Structural Analysis: Remedies
The following structural scopes require additional
evaluation to confirm the requirements, but we believe this work is also required.

Seismic Remediations required for Essential Facility (IV) occupancy:
• Ground floor Wall [Horizontal] Reinforcing at Openings • Improve Columns Reinforcement ties for Confinement
• Improve Foundation Dowels’ capacity
Seismic Remediations required for both Essential Facility (IV) occupancy and Office Building (II) occupancy:
• Add Continuous Cross Ties at Upper Floor Shear Wall
• Repair Upper Floor Concrete Shear Wall adjacent to diaphragm openings • Repair Column Splices and Girder Stirrups
2021 Structural Analysis: Remedies
While the focus of the reports may vary, the findings are consistent regarding the status of the structural system:
• The building relies on concrete shear walls for lateral load resistance and a combination of concrete walls and isolated concrete columns to support the gravity loads. These elements do not have sufficient ductility to resist seismic lateral displacements without sustaining significant damage.

Damage to these critical structural gravity load-resisting elements could result in collapse of the roof structure. The life safety and economic risk could be substantial.
• The building does not comply with either the Essential Services Facility requirements or [Regular Building] evaluation criteria unless a seismic strengthening is undertaken. The 2021 findings are similar to the findings in the previous reports.

Summary - Structural Analysis

1. Seismic Upgrade of the building: will trigger some
additional work, like ADA/Accessibility improvements.

2. HVAC and other Infrastructure systems: how can you not replace these systems that are 50+ years old?

3. Seismic + HVAC/Infrastructure + Accessibility/ADA work will affect over 75% of the building, which leads us to consider a full interior renovation project.

4. Essential Facility (Risk Category IV) or not (Risk
Category II)?
Scope of Work Scenarios
Aspects to consider
Summary:

It is well-documented that many structural engineers
recommend that the 1965 City Hall building needs to be
seismically retrofit. The HVAC and other infrastructure systems are also well-past their useful life and require replacement. We recommend a full seismic/structural upgrade, as well as a complete reconstruction of all infrastructure systems such as HVAC and life safety systems.

Seismic Retrofit & Infrastructure Upgrades

1. Concepts Reviewed to Date
b. Space Planning/Programming
Interiors Program & Condition Summary
Current Flaws with the Interior:
• Many spaces are under-utilized (Chambers, Lobby)
• Many spaces are At-Capacity (workspaces)
• Workspaces are inflexible, outdated
• More meeting spaces are needed, for Community and
Staff
• Lighting and Daylighting are woefully inadequate
• Better Utilization of the space, more efficient and logical • Workspace that is flexible, current and reasonably
distributed
• Increased Daylighting, Improved Lighting and other interior space wellness factors can be addressed
• Improve Meeting spaces distribution, quantity and quality • Create a space that reflects the values of our City and its Residents: welcoming, beautiful, functional and inspiring Interiors: Benefits of Renovation
Current Floor plans
61 seats, 9,950 sq ft 65 seats, 11,500 sq ft
**21,450 sq ft / 126 seats =
170 sq ft per person
Space Planning: Planning for Growth
21,450 sq ft @ 150 sq ft per person = 143 people
21,450 sq ft @ 170 sq ft per person = 126 people
21,450 sq ft @ 175 sq ft per person = 123 people
21,450 sq ft @ 200 sq ft per person = 107 people
21,450 sq ft @ 225 sq ft per person = 95 people
21,450 sq ft @ 250 sq ft per person = 86 people
• Currently: 21,450 sq ft @ 126 seats = 170 sq ft per person • February 2022 Staff headcount for City Hall was 130 people Current Staff headcount at City Hall: 130 people
Move 25 occupants to City Hall Annex = 105 occupants
(does the Annex become a permanent Permit Center?)
Accounting for Population Growth:
• 10% increase: 116 people
• 20% increase: 126 people
Accounting for Telework:
• Current headcount + 10% Growth – 30% WFH = 84 people
• Current headcount + 20% Growth – 20% WFH = 105 people *** 21,450 sq. ft. / 105 people = +/- 204 sq. ft./person *** Space Planning: Planning for Growth
Summary:

We believe the current footprint of City Hall can accommodate the Staff, Council offices and support functions such as community meeting rooms, planning for 20% growth and
leveraging an efficient Telework policy that allows for 20% to be working remotely. We do not recommend the expansion of City Hall in order to address workplace overcrowding at this time.

We recommend a full interior renovation to make better use of the interior space.

Space Planning & Programming

1. Concepts Reviewed to Date
c. Parking
• Currently there are 84 parking spaces
adjacent to City Hall & Community Hall;
Zoning Code requires 85.
• Parking demand studies show that Civic
Center is deficient by approximately 185
parking spaces
• Parking requirements in the zoning chapter
of the municipal code show that Civic
Center is deficient by approximately 217
parking spaces
• A renovated City Hall without an expansion
does not require additional parking spaces.
• The addition of strategic surface parking
spaces is a cost-effective improvement.
2022 Civic Center Parking status
Proposed Parking Improvements
Summary:

Since the pandemic has disrupted the parking patterns at Civic Center, it is difficult to ascertain the present and future parking needs at Civic Center. Assuming the City Hall building will not be expanding its footprint, we recommend the immediate
implementation of new surface parking along the rear of Community Hall (+16 spaces) , and plan for future surface parking along the north edge of Library field (+21 spaces, approximately).

Parking

2. Cost Estimates
2022 Cost Estimates Parking Options Summary
Element Area SF Cost / SF Total Direct
Construction
Soft Costs
+25% Project Total Cost per stall
City Hall Replacement 24,140 $804 $19,400,111 $4,850,028 $24,250,139 N.A.

City Hall Replacement w/ Added Floor 36,140 $809 $29,237,621 $7,309,405 $36,547,027 N.A.

Parking Element Area SF Cost / SF Total Direct
Construction
Soft Costs
+25% Project Total Cost per stall
Underground Parking (36 Stalls) below City Hall
Replacement
12,070 $214 $2,586,722 $646,680 $3,233,402 $89,817
Single Deck Parking Structure - City Hall (45 Stalls) 15,000 $105 $1,575,150 $393,788 $1,968,938 $43,754 Single Deck Parking Structure - Library (75 Stalls) 25,000 $105 $2,625,250 $656,313 $3,281,563 $43,754 3 Story Parking Structure - City Hall (128 Stalls) 45,000 $177 $7,956,000 $1,989,000 $9,945,000 $77,695 3 Story Parking Structure - Library (230 Stalls) 75,000 $177 $13,260,000 $3,315,000 $16,575,000 $72,065 Additional Parking Options (100 Stalls) Area SF Cost / SF Total Direct Construction
Soft Costs
+25% Project Total Cost per stall
Surface Parking 35,000 $44 $1,535,625 $383,906 $1,920,000 $19,200 Underground Parking Structure, Incl Field
Replacement
37,500 $265 $9,937,500 $2,484,375 $12,422,000 $124,220
Underground Parking Structure with Top Level
Parking
38,000 $220 $8,360,000 $2,090,000 $10,450,000 $104,500
Element Area SF Cost / SF
Total Direct
Construction Soft Costs +25%
2023 Project
Total (+25% soft
costs)
Cost per stall
2024 Project
Total (5%
escalation)
2025 Project
Total (5%
escalation)
City Hall Renovation - Seismic Only, Non-Essential
Facility
24,140 $216 $5,205,308 $1,301,327 $6,506,635 N.A. $6,831,967 $7,173,565 City Hall Renovation - Seismic Only, Essential Facility 24,140 $232 $5,606,032 $1,401,508 $7,007,540 N.A. $7,357,917 $7,725,813 City Hall Renovation - Seismic, MEP/IT, Interior gut,
Non-Essential Facility
24,140 $807 $19,491,360 $4,872,840 $24,364,200 N.A. $25,582,410 $26,861,531 City Hall Renovation - Seismic, MEP/IT, Interior gut,
Essential Facility
24,140 $868 $20,955,693 $5,238,923 $26,194,616 N.A. $27,504,347 $28,879,564 City Hall Replacement, Non-Essential Facility 24,140 $804 $19,400,111 $4,850,028 $24,250,139 N.A. $25,462,646 $26,735,778 City Hall Replacement, Essential Facility 24,140 $908 $21,921,534 $5,480,384 $27,401,918 N.A. $28,772,013 $30,210,614 City Hall Replacement w/ Added Floor, NonEssential Facility36,140 $809 $29,237,621 $7,309,405 $36,547,027 N.A. $38,374,378 $40,293,097 City Hall Replacement w/ Added Floor, Essential
Facility
36,140 $914 $33,017,504 $8,254,376 $41,271,880 N.A. $43,335,474 $45,502,248 City Hall Replacement w/ Added Floor + 100 spaces
Underground parking, Non-Essential Facility
70,140 $529 $37,071,561 $9,267,890 $46,339,451 $463,395 $48,656,424 $51,089,245 City Hall Replacement w/ Added Floor + 100 spaces
Underground parking, Essential Facility
70,140 $582 $40,851,444 $10,212,861 $51,064,305 $510,643 $53,617,520 $56,298,396 Underground Parking (36 Stalls) below City Hall
Replacement, Essential Facility (parking only)
12,070 $230 $2,781,049 $695,262 $3,476,311 $96,564 $3,650,126 $3,832,633 City Hall Replacement w/ Added Floor + 100 spaces
Underground parking, Essential Facility (parking only)
34,000 $230 $7,833,940 $1,958,485 $9,792,425 $97,924 $10,282,046 $10,796,149 2022+ Cost Estimates

3. Funding Options
CIP Program Strategy
Currently Funded CIP Projects: Parking
Funded in
FY19-20 CIP
Program
Currently Funded CIP Projects: City Hall
Funded in
FY16-17 CIP
Program
Currently Funded CIP Projects: City Hall
Funded in
FY21-22 CIP
Program
We recommend proceeding with the following projects:
• Full Renovation of City Hall building (Seismic, HVAC, IT, Interiors, etc.), budgeting $26M. Consider upgrading to “Essential Facility” standards ($4M). Hire consultants to perform workplace planning (to confirm growth projections), and cost analysis.
• Add parking behind Community Hall, budgeting $350,000 (scope and budget to be confirmed, will be part of existing Civic Center Parking project) • As part of CIP Program discussions for FY23-24, consider hiring Consultants to develop schedule and requirements for City Hall demobilization/mobilization strategy and communications.

CIP Program Strategy
Comments & Questions?
City Hall Project Subcommittee
October 21, 2022
Funding Options
Status of Fund Balances as of Final
Adopted Budget
Project Beginning Fund Balance shows all fund
balance regardless of availability
Include ~$10M in
revenues for Vallco
Project that will be
needed to offset staff and
consultant costs covered
by fees collected over
the course of the project.

Funds Estimated
Beginning
Fund
Balance
Amended
Budget
Amended
Revenues
Estimated
Ending
Fund
Balance1
100 General
Fund
$48.0M2 $126.2M $133.4M $55.2M
420 Capital
Fund
$25.7M $30.2M $5.4M $0.9M3
429 Capital
Reserve Fund
$9.1M $0M $2.5M $11.6M
Totals $82.8M $156.5M $141.3M $67.7M
1 Ending Fund Balance = Beg Fund Balance - Amended Budget + Amended Revenues 2 Removed $10M in Vallco Revenues add remaining Unassigned GF FB + GF Capital Reserve 2 Does not account for additional $1.5M needed for the Annex Project Size Funding Options Considerations
Small
($7M)
Use of General Fund (GF) Fund
Unassigned Fund Balance (FB)
or General Fund Capital
Reserve
Would leave Capital Reserve in
GF and the Capital Fund intact
for additional future projects
Medium
($26M-44M)
Use of both GF Unassigned FB
and GF Capital Reserve
Could limit future CIPs
Large
(Over $45M)
Debt Financing Could wipe out several reserves
leaving only economic
uncertainty remaining should
the City require additional
funding. Limits future CIPs.

Funding Options
• CDTFA Audit
• Potential for substantial short- and
long-term impacts
• Ability to fund additional CIP Projects
• Use of fund balance above the
unassigned amounts require a 3-year
payback plan both for General and
Capital Funds
• Capital Reserve has a min $5M reserve
Other Considerations

From: Gauri Chawla
To: City Council; City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office Subject: City Hall Renovation + Expansion
Date: Tuesday, February 21, 2023 2:09:43 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Cupertino City Council and Staff,
I am writing with regard to item 1 on the special meeting agenda—to reconsider the last City Council’s decision to cap expenses for the City Hall renovation project. Instead of reaffirming the Nov 2022 decision from the last Council, we should reconsider the scope of the City Hall renovation. We should be looking to build a city hall and civic center that meets our needs for the next 50 years, not just a bandaid project.

Renovation of city hall has been considered since 2005, as the structure was built roughly 60 years ago with structural miscalculations. We now know that the facility has numerous issues; instead of looking at this as an issue to defuse at the cheapest cost possible, we should invest in our city, staff, and residents and use this as an opportunity to build a great facility that truly matches the greatness of Cupertino.

A successful renovation is crucial given the following deficiencies: building does not meet life safety building codes, electrical systems need full replacement, HVAC does not work, communication and data systems are dated, lack of ADA accessibility, staff lack work and meeting space, lack of natural lighting, building is energy inefficient, and there is a lack of space overall.

The prior City Council decided to opt for a cheaper seismic retrofit option, instead of making a reasonable investment in the city and its workers. Members of that Council formed a Subcommittee that found the City’s strong financial position allows for a project cost of up to $45 million, but instead decided that a “renovation project with an estimated cost of $25,600,000 can meet the business needs of the City for the foreseeable future.” We now have an opportunity to pursue a more ambitious option that truly meets the needs of our city. Therefore, I encourage the Council to redecide the Nov 2022 decision to cap costs for City Hall. This should be a long term investment, rather than a cheap fix for the short run.

Thank you,
Gauri Chawla
student email provided for educational purposes by Fremont Union HSD From: Connie Cunningham
To: City Clerk; City Council
Subject: 23-2-21 CC Study Session, City Hall Renovation + Expansion Date: Tuesday, February 21, 2023 2:48:01 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
23-2-21 CC Study Session, City Hall Renovation + Expansion Dear Mayor Wei, Vice-Mayor Mohan, Councilmembers and City Manager:

I am writing with regard to item 1 on the special meeting agenda—to reconsider the last City Council’s decision to cap expenses for the City Hall renovation project. We should be looking to build a city hall and civic center that meets our needs for the next 50 years.

We should invest in our city, staff, and residents and use this as an opportunity to build a great facility that truly matches the greatness of Cupertino.

A simple renovation would respect the safety from earthquake for people who use the building, especially Staff who are there every day. Yes, and Commissioners who will be required soon to meet in person. However, it would not resolve many other issues for a building that is 60 years old, built to serve a smaller city in 1963 with thousands fewer residents. We are literally bulging at the seams.

Needs include more work space, more meeting space, more natural lighting, ADA accessibility and an HVAC system that works.

I encourage the City to revisit the 2022 decision, and choose a long-term investment, rather than a short term repair.

As this new City Hall is reconsidered, I also urge you to think about adding native trees and plants on the property surrounding the City Hall. This will provide an example for all residents about climate change, and how each of us can be a part of the solutions. Solutions such as actions on our own properties in keeping with ideas from Cupertino's Climate Action Plan 2.0.

Sincerely,
Connie L Cunningham
Housing Commissioner (self only)
Audubon Society Member
From: Kitty Moore
To: City Clerk; Kirsten Squarcia
Subject: Item 1 Written Communications
Date: Tuesday, February 21, 2023 3:50:04 PM
Attachments: 10-16-2018 Item No. 13 New City Hall Design - Staff Report - Redline.pdf 10-16-2018 Item No. 13. New City Hall Design Process and Design of Interim City Hall Space - Presentation.pdf Pages from 10-16-2018 Searchable packet.pdf
CC 10-16-18 Item #13 Budget adjustment RFP for a new City Hall.pdf Dear City Clerk,
Please add the attachments to Agenda Item 1 today.

Thank you,
Kitty Moore

CUPERTINO
Subject

PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT

CITY HALL
10300 TORRE AVENUE• CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
TELEPHONE: ( 408) 777-3354 www.cupertino. org

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting: October 16, 2018
CC 10/16/18 Item #13
Budget Adjustment to proceed with a Request for Proposals for architectural services for a New City Hall, an Interim City Hall, and to add one 3-Year Limited Term Project Manager
Recommended Action
Staff recommends Council adopt Resolution No. 18-XXX amending FY 18/19 Operating Budget to appropriate $ 6,175,000 $6,087,500 to Public Works, as follows:

1. $ 5,500,000 for architechiral design services for a New City Hall, ftmded by the Capital Reserve, and;
2 . $ 500,000 for architech1ral design and other services as needed for the Interim City Hall, funded by the Capital Reserve, and;

3. $ 87,500 to add one 3-year Limited Term Project Manager in the Department of Public Works, hmded by the General Fund
Vallco Town Center Background
On September 19, 2018, the Cupertino City Council adopted the Valko Town Center Specific Plan including resolutions to certify the Environmental Impact Report and associated General Plan Amendments. In addition, the City Council introduced and conducted the first reading to adopt a Development Agreement ( DA) between the City and Vallco Property Owner LLC (Developer), as well as introduced and conducted the first reading for ordinances to amend the Municipal Code and the Zoning Map. On October 2, 2018, the Cupertino City Cotmcil conducted the second readings and adopted the DA and amended the Municipal Code and the Zoning Map. Although the DA will not be effective tmtil November 2, the schedule for the New City Hall and Interim City Hall designs are on a very aggressive schedule and by proceeding at this time, Requests for Proposals for both efforts will be able to be issued in November.

The DA includes a number of community benefits for the City if the Developer chooses to construct a project on the site that conforms to the Tier 2 option established in the Specific Plan. One of the community benefits included inthe Development Agreement is a one-time payment of $30,000,000 from the Developer to the City (In-Lieu Payment), or for the Developer to construct a core and warm shell building for a New City Hall, conforming to the preferred alternative from the Civic Center Master Plan (a background of the Civic Center Master Plan, and a chronology of related actions is provided as Attachment A). The City may accept the In-Lieu Payment at its discretion at any time prior to the Developer' s contracting with a general contractor for the work or commencement of construction of the New City Hall. If the City elects to receive the InLieu Payment, the Developer would pay the full amotmt prior to issuance of occupancy for the first office building. The core and warm shell will be for a 40,000 square foot, two story building, built to Essential Facility standards, including approximately 118 parking stalls one-level tmderground garage, and associated site work in the construction area.

Although the Developer's obligation under the DA for the New City Hall is to construct a core and warm shell building that has been fully designed and permitted by the City, this budget request includes a scope for the full design of the project, including the design of tenant improvements that are the City's financial and construction obligation.

Timing of Developer' s Commitment to New City Hall Construction If Developer commences construction or installation of "Project Specific Work" for the SB 35 Project, then Developer shall pay City within 30 days following City's demand therefor an amount equal to 50% of the reasonable out-of-pocket costs and expenses incurred by City in connection with the design and planning for the New City Hall, not to exceed Three Million Dollars ($3,000,000).

Project Specific Work" is defined as work that is specific to either the SB 35 Project, a Tier 1 development project, or the Tier 2 Project tmder the Development Agreement, contemplated to be work beyond the Project Neutral Work. This would most notably be work associated with a building permit, such as a fotmdation permit or other construction associated with vertical infrastructure.

Project Neutral Work", as defined inthe DA, includes demolition, rough grading, makeready utility work, offsite work, excavation and shoring, and such other work as the parties may mutually agree is Project Neutral Work.

Developer' s Scope of Work for Core and Warm Shell Building As part of the core and warm shell construction to be delivered by the Developer, the following items will be included:

Concrete one level parking garage with shotcrete walls included and furnished with code minimum fire sprinkler system, fire alarm system and lighting.

The New City Hall building will be core and shell (warm shell box) where the box will consist of building envelope and roof.

Mechanical units will be provided on the roof andwillbe stubbed into the building for distribution under tenant improvement scope performed by City.

All utilities, including fire stand pipes, will be stubbed in to the building and will be distributed as part of the tenant improvement work.

Electrical panels will be provided and electrical services will be brought from the existing transformer connection location point into the building to a location to be shown in the construction drawings.

The exterior envelope will be either wood frame with sh1cco and glass windows or metal stud framing with sh1cco and glass windows.

The building will be designed to Essential Facility seismic codes.

Store front doors will be provided. All exterior doors and hardware will be provided.

All utility connections from the existing connection points to be brought into the building to a location to be shown in the construction drawings.

The site work in the construction zone is included to have standard landscaping with irrigation and the parking lot to be asphalt, and concrete sidewalks commensurate with existing improvements. Any damage will be restored to original state.

The civil and structural portions of the building will be designed by the City to LEED Silver.

Roofing will be an industiy standard roofing material.

Roof will be designed and built to allow for solar panels to be installed by the City.

The City's obligations for the New City Hall project, as identified in the DA are the following:

City will be responsible for designing, preparing construction documents and obtaining all necessary discretionary approvals and building permits for the New City Hall.

The target budget (not including Design Deviations) for the work to be completed by the Developer for the core and warm shell New City Hall, consistent with the criteria established in the Civic Center Master Plan, assuming commencement of construction within 24 months, is Thirty One Million Dollars ($31, 000, 000) City will commence design work within 30 days following the effective date of the Development Agreement for the Tier 2 Vallco Town Center Specific Plan ( Effective Dqte). Thereafter, City will diligently proceed with any discretionary and ministerial approvals for the New City Hall, including any required architectural approvals, preparation of construction documents and permitting, including demolition, tree removal, make-ready utilities, excavation and building permits.

The City shall complete all approvals and acquire permits for the New City Hall within 21 months of the Effective Date, subject to extensions that may occur per the DA
In order to allow for Developer's timely construction of the New City Hall, City shall vacate the Existing City Hall and deliver possession of the Existing City Hall site to Developer for construction within 24 months of the Effective Date, subject to extensions that may occur per the DA
If the City does not meet the above scheduled deadline, the Developer has the option to provide the In-Lieu Payment to the City instead of constructing the New City Hall.

If Developer elects to proceed with development of the Tier 2 of the Vallco Town Center Specific Plan, the Developer shall complete the New City Hall core and shell construction and deliver a Warm Shell New City Hall to the City within thirty six ( 36) months after the date that the City provided the approved building permits and relinquished the site to the Developer.

Ifthe City's construction plans, specifications and drawings for the New City Hall deviate from the New City Hall Criteria and the deviations increase the cost to constn1ct the New City Hall, the Developer will pay the cost of the design deviations not to exceed Four Million Dollars ($4,000,000). Any design deviations that increase the New City Hall costs above the deviation cost allowance will be the responsibility of the City.

Interim City Hall
Staff will begin to monitor and assess the potential and likely cost to acquire sufficient building lease space for City Hall staff relocation for the potential 4-5 year period that the warm shell and tenant improvements are being constructed. Possibilities of moving City Hall staff to two or more lease spaces will also be considered. However, in the event that sufficient lease space will not be available when the relocation is to occur, staff will need to begin to design and estimate the cost of locating portable buildings, providing temporary utilities, and constructing parking on the Library Field. This design will need to begin early in order to be able to implement the relocation of City without delay if necessary, but the effort would be abandoned if offsite lease space is able to be acquired and the City Council directs staff to do so. More information and a cost comparison will be brought to the City Council by early spring, 2019.

City Financial Obligations for New City Hall Delivery
Along with the budget adjustments recommended in this report, the City will be responsible for either the construction of the Interim City Hall in portables on Library Field, very roughly estimated at $5 million, and the operations and maintenance of those facilities for approximately five years, or the lease cost for five years if the City is able to secure sufficient space atthe needed time. For example, if 24,000 square feet of lease space is secured at the current market rate of about $4.60/sf, then the lease will cost the City approximately $6,600,000 over the five years. Additionally for either option, the cost for staff and equipment relocations to the Interim City Hall would be necessary, as would the cost to relocate back into the New City Hall.

The City will also be responsible for tenant improvements once the Developer has completed the core and warm shell structure. Assuming $ 400-$ 500 per square foot for tenant improvements ( based on approximate rates for similar improvements in comparable buildings) to the 40,000 square foot building, the tenant improvement costs could be in the range of $16-$20 million.

Although without any plans to estimate at this time, the total cost for the project, from beginning of design w1til move-in, would be:

Design of New City Hall
Design of Interim City Hall
Construction of Interim City Hall
Construction of Tenant Improvements
City Cost Subtotal
Developer's core and warm shell
Total Project Cost
5,500,000
500,000
5,000,000
15-20,000,000
26-31 million
31 million
57-62 million
Total, all-inclusive estimate with contingencies, as presented to the City Council in February 2018, was $69,150,000. So roughly, the Developer' s construction of the core and warm shell has reduced the estimate by $ 8-13 million, on top of the $ 31 million construction that will be funded and constructed by the Developer.

There are also savings that can be expected to offset some of this cost. A study session to discuss the Citywide building condition assessment project is scheduled for November 5th. At this study session, City Hall will be described as requiring up to $13 million of expenditures over the next 10 years. These expendihires will be necessary to keep the building from failing. These expendihues would not be required upon the decision to proceed with the New City Hall project.

Although the proposed New City Hall is approximately 50% larger than the current building, future operating and maintenance cost of the building will likely be roughly similar due to many energy and water- use efficiencies, modem technologies, and an overall LEED rating of at least Silver.

Add One 3-Year Limited Term Project Manager
In order to manage this effort and ensure that schedules are met and that the designs of the Interim City Hall and the New City Hall meet the needs of the City, additional resources are necessary. One additional Project Manager is recommended to be added to the Public Works Department for a term of three years. This Project Manager may work on the City Hall projects, or they may work on more routine CIP projects to allow more experienced staff to work on the City Hall projects. The total estimate cost for this position is $525,000 for the full three years. As an alternative, staff considered bringing on a Project Manager consultant, which for one person for three years billed at approximately 250/hour would cost $1,560,000.

Schedule
Below is the schedule that would be necessary in order to meet deadlines in the DA:

Date
October 16, 2018
November 2, 2018
November 5, 2018
November 27, 2018
December 4, 2018
January 7, 2019
April 2, 2019
June 5, 2019
June 30, 2019
July 12, 2019
July 26, 2019
August 21, 2019
September 17, 2019
September 30, 2019
October 15, 2019
No.vember 15, 2019
December 4, 2019
December 30, 2019
January 2, 2020
January 7, 2020
April 30, 2020
June 30, 2020
August 2, 2020
September 1, 2020
September 15 -
October 15, 2020
November 2, 2020
April 1, 2023
August 9, 2023
May 1, 2025
if?-:f'·~··: t :' ·; ?.~',) t.it/:i_ '{ ,.

Activity
Council approves budget appropriation to conduct RFP for Design Services Effective Date of the Development Agreement
Request for Proposals for Design Services for the Interim City Hall project utilizing On -Call consultant list
Issue Design RFQ for New City Hall
Council Approval of Design Services Agreement - Interim City Hall Start Design Interim City Hall
Council Approval of Design Consultant and Study Session Review of City Hall Concepts from Civic Center Master Plan and review of Interim City Hall Options
Community Meeting No . 1
Conceptual Design Complete
Construction Documents Complete - Interim City Hall Project Building Permit Approval Interim City Hall
Advertise Interim City Hall Project
Bid Opening - Interim City Hall project
Schematic Design Complete
Award Interim City Hall project and Study Session on Schematic Design Contract Executed - Interim City Hall project
Community Meeting No. 2
Design Development Complete for City Council Review
Start Construction - Interim City Hall project
City Council Review of Design Development - Study Session Construction Documents Complete
Building Permit Approval anticipated
City Hall Approval Deadline ( ie Building Permit approvals) Interim City Complete, receive Occupancy permit
Transition staff to Interim City Hall
Current City Hall is completely vacated
Award City Hall T.I. project
City begins Tenant Improvements
City Hall Complete, Opening Ceremony
LEGEND
Interim City Hall
Deadlines identified in the Development Agreement
New City Hall
City Council Approvals/ Actions
In addition to the above schedule, there will be at least monthly progress reports provided to the City Council and the public.

Sustainability
The New City Hall, per the Civic Center Master Plan and the Valko Town Center DA, will be at least LEED Silver rated facility.

Fiscal Impact
Costs related to the approval of this item total $6.175 million dollars$6,087,500 . The City's Capital Reserve Fund 429 currently has an available ftmd balance of approximately $ 10 million dollars and is expected to end fiscal year 2018-19 with an additional $6 million dollars for a total available ftmd balance of $ 16 million dollars . As part of another Item on this agenda, Staff is also recommending to de-ftmd approximately $ 4.425 million from the approved 2018-19 Capital Improvement Program ( CIP) Budget. If approved, this would make the ftmd balance approximately $20.4 million. Staff recommends using the Capital Reserve to ftmd architectural services of $ 6 million dollars, leaving either $ 10 million dollars in available fnnd balance, or $ 14.4 million if the CIP deferrals are approved on this agenda.

The fiscal impact to add one 3-Year Limited Term Project Manager position for FY 18/19 will be $87,500. Ongoing costs will be $175,000 in FY 19/20 and FY 20/21 and $87,500 in FY 21/22, to be ftmded by the General Fund.

Prepared by: Timm Borden, Director of Public Works Department Approved for Submission by: Amy Chan, Interim City Manager Attachments:

Attachment A -Civic Center Master Plan Background
Attachment B - Draft Resolution
From: Peggy Griffin
To: City Council
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: 2023-02-21 CC Special Mtg Item1 - City Hall Renovation Date: Tuesday, February 21, 2023 3:52:13 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Please include this email in Written Communication for this agenda item.

Dear City Council and Staff,
I support the City Council’s November 15, 2022 decision to renovate the City Hall to a “Risk Category IV” for an approximate price of $27,500,000 starting in fiscal year 2023-24.

Please note that the 2015-03-10 Fehr and Peers Civic Center Analysis is 8 years old! Life and work has changed SIGNIFICANTLY since that was done. It is outdated. It also was way overboard. It proposed almost doubling the size of City Hall and it’s parking capacity. People work from home now. With the pandemic, video conferencing/meetings take place. Many of its aspects are no longer needed.

That said, renovating out City Hall would
Make it safe for our employees
Update and reconfigure work areas
Keep the cost down during a time of fiscal uncertainty
Recession
The city may loose half the sales tax it currently receives.

Costs, both taxes, fees, food, fuel, etc are increasing. Residents cannot afford paying any additional costs.

Please reaffirm the renovation of City Hall and get this started quickly! Sincerely,
Peggy Griffin
From: S B
To: City Council
Cc: City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office
Subject: 2023-02-21 CC Special Mtg Item1 - City Hall Renovation Date: Tuesday, February 21, 2023 4:11:18 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Please include this email in Written Communication for this agenda item.

Dear City Council and Staff,
I believe the previous council’s decision from November 15, 2022, to renovate the City Hall to a “Risk Category IV” for an approximate price of $27,500,000 starting in fiscal year 2023-24 is a correct and responsible decision.

It does what needs to be done - ensure the building is safe for employees, council members and visitors, updates and configures the areas that need work and keeps the cost down during uncertain economic times l
You are elected to ensure you take care of the residents needs and also to ensure our tax dollars are not wasted on frivolous spending. We dont need more parking or a larger city hall. A lot of people work from home, and with video conferencing technology it is difficult to believe we need to spend a penny more than the allocated money.

Please get started with the appropriate renovation of the City hall and dont waste time, energy or money on unnecessary projects.

Best regards
Sashi Begur
From: Liana Crabtree
To: Hung Wei; Sheila Mohan; Liang Chao; J.R. Fruen; Kitty Moore Cc: City Clerk
Subject: written communication: Council Special Meeting, Agenda Item 1, City Hall Renovation Date: Tuesday, February 21, 2023 4:59:09 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Honorable Mayor Wei, Vice Mayor Mohan, and Council Members Chao, Fruen, and Moore:

Please include this letter as written communication for the 2/21/2023 Council meeting, Agenda Item 1.

I join with others who support the City Council’s 11/15/2022 decision to renovate the City Hall to a “Risk Category IV” designation for an approximate price of $27,500,000 starting in fiscal year 2023-2024.

If Council seeks to support large capital improvement projects and jobs programs, consider prioritizing projects that satisfy human needs:
city hall seismic safety renovation (not rebuild);
permanent affordable housing;
bathrooms and under playground surface improvements for our many city parks that have no bathrooms and tanbark under playground surfaces today.

City hall needs to be safe, functional, and energy efficient. Renovation of the current city hall and of buildings purchased on Torre Ave in recent years for city administration use will meet these needs in a responsible and cost-effective manner.

Sincerely,
Liana Crabtree
Cupertino resident
CC 02-21-23
Item #5
AP ending
November 13, 2022
Written
Communications
2/21/2023 City Council Meeting Item #5 Accounts Payable for the period ending November 13, 2022
Staff’s responses to questions received from councilmember are shown in italics.

Q1: What causes an accounts payable to be missed like this? (Chao) Staff response: This item was missed primarily due to this file not showing in the two network folders where the AP registers are stored.

Q2: What is being done to prevent this in the future? Who is doing it? (Chao) Staff response: This appears to be a onetime glitch as the file reappeared subsequent to submission with the same date as all the other files. Staff who prepare these reports will be more diligent in searching beyond these folders and rerunning reports from the financial system as necessary to ensure all reports are included.

Q3: The previous Council got these Accounts Payables to finally be submitted by month regularly. Will this continue? (Chao)
Staff response: Yes, this is requirement.

Q4: Has there been a check from 2018-present? How many are still missing? (Chao) Staff response: Staff has looked back only as far as the current fiscal year. None missing from this search.

Q5: How frequently are the Accounts Payables reconciled? (Chao) Staff response: On a weekly basis.

From: Peggy Griffin
To: City Council
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: 2023-02-21 CC Mtg Consent Calendar - Please PULL ITEMS 5 and 6 Date: Sunday, February 19, 2023 5:28:37 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear City Council members,
I am requesting that you PULL Consent items:

ITEM 5 Accts Payable Nov. 13, 2022
ITEM 6 Commemorative Bench and fee waiver
I, as a member of the public, I requested that these items be pulled during the Feb. 7, 2023 CC meeting. These items were pulled prior to the rules changing and I am still interested in discussing these 2 items. I hope one of you can please request they be pulled. Thank you.

Sincerely,
Peggy Griffin
From: Liang Chao
To: Pamela Wu
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: Fwd: 2023-02-21 CC Mtg Consent Calendar - Please PULL ITEMS 5 and 6 Date: Sunday, February 19, 2023 6:24:10 PM
I'd like to pull Item 5 and Item 6, as stated.

Thanks.

Liang
Liang Chao
Council Member
City Council
[email protected]
408-777-3192
From: Peggy Griffin <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, February 19, 2023 5:28 PM
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Cc: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: 2023-02-21 CC Mtg Consent Calendar - Please PULL ITEMS 5 and 6 Dear City Council members,
I am requesting that you PULL Consent items:

ITEM 5 Accts Payable Nov. 13, 2022
ITEM 6 Commemorative Bench and fee waiver
I, as a member of the public, I requested that these items be pulled during the Feb. 7, 2023 CC meeting. These items were pulled prior to the rules changing and I am still interested in discussing these 2 items. I hope one of you can please request they be pulled. Thank you.

Sincerely,
Peggy Griffin
From: Kitty Moore
To: City Clerk; Kirsten Squarcia
Subject: Item 5 Written Communications for Today
Date: Tuesday, February 21, 2023 12:51:08 PM
Attachments: 22-056 Consulting Services Agreement for Executive Recruitment, Boucher Law.pdf Dear City Clerk,
Please include the attachment for Item 5 Written Communications.

The attachment is the contract the City made with Boucher Law, PC for Finance Manager and Public Information Officer recruitment.

Item 5, Accounts payable, includes a payment to Boucher Law, PC for a Finance Manager dated 11/04/2022. The City did not hire candidates from Boucher Law’s recruitment process.

Approximately $15,740 was paid to Boucher Law, PC for Finance Manager recruitment. Recall that Boucher Law also conducted labor negotiations under another contract with the City.

The City did not end up hiring a Finance Manager from the recruitment process, however, an employee of Boucher Law, PC began attending the Audit Committee meetings with the title of Interim Finance Manager. I believe that is what this payment is for. The employee later stopped attending the meetings.

Thank you,
Kitty Moore
Kitty Moore
Councilmember
City Council
[email protected]
(408) 777-1389
Consulting Services Agreement for Executive Recruitment, Boucher Law

PROFESSIONAL/ CONSULTING SERVICES AGREEMENT

1. PARTIES
This Agreement is made by and between the City of Cupertino, a municipal corporation (“ City”), and Boucher Law (“Contractor”), for Consulting Services Agreement for Executive Recruitment, and is effective on the last date signed below (“ Effective Date”).

2. SERVICES
Contractor agrees to provide the services and perform the tasks (“ Services”) set forth in detail in Scope of Services, attached here and incorporated as Exhibit A. Contractor further agrees to carry out its work in compliance with any applicable local, State, or Federal order regarding COVID- 19.

3. TIME OF PERFORMANCE

3.1 This Agreement begins on the Effective Date and ends on August 31, 2022 (“ Contract Time”), unless terminated earlier as provided herein. Contractor’ s Services shall begin on the effective date and shall be completed by August 31, 2022. The City’ s appropriate department head or the City Manager may extend the Contract Time through a written amendment to this Agreement, provided such extension does not include additional contract funds. Extensions requiring additional contract funds are subject to the City’s purchasing policy.

3.2 Schedule of Performance. Contractor must deliver the Services in accordance with the Schedule of Performance, attached and incorporated here Exhibit B.

3.3 Time is of the essence for the performance of all the Services. Contractor must have sufficient time, resources, and qualified staff to deliver the Services on time.

4. COMPENSATION

4.1 Maximum Compensation. City will pay Contractor for satisfactory performance of the Services an amount that will based on actual costs but that will be capped so as not to exceed 40,000.00 (“ Contract Price”), based upon the scope of services in Exhibit A and the budget and rates included in Exhibit C, Compensation attached and incorporated here. The maximum compensation includes all expenses and reimbursements and will remain in place even if Contractor’ s actual costs exceed the capped amount. No extra work or payment is permitted without prior written approval of City.

4.2 Invoices and Payments. Monthly invoices must state a description of the deliverable completed and the amount due for the preceding month. Within thirty ( 30) days of completion of Services, Contractor must submit a requisition forfinal and complete payment of costs and pending Consulting Services Agreement for Executive Recruitment, Boucher Law

claims for City approval. Failure to timely submit a complete and accurate payment requisition relieves City of any further payment or other obligations under theAgreement.

5. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR

5.1 Status. Contractor is an independent contractor and not an employee, partner, or joint venture of City. Contractor is solely responsible for the means and methods of performing the Services and for the persons hired to work under this Agreement. Contractor is not entitled to health benefits, worker’s compensation, or other benefits from the City.

5.2 Contractor’s Qualifications. Contractor warrants on behalf of itself and its subcontractors that they have the qualifications and skills to perform the Services in a competent and professional manner and according to the highest standards and best practices in the industry.

5.3 Permits and Licenses. Contractor warrants on behalf of itself and its subcontractors that they are properly licensed, registered, and/ or certified to perform the Services as required by law and have procured a City Business License, if required by the Cupertino Municipal Code.

5.4 Subcontractors. Only Contractor’ s employees are authorized to work under this Agreement. Prior written approval from City is required for any subcontractor, and the terms and conditions of this Agreement will apply to any approved subcontractor.

5.5 Tools, Materials, and Equipment. Contractor will supply all tools, materials and equipment required to perform the Services under this Agreement.

5.6 Payment of Benefits and Taxes. Contractor is solely responsible for the payment of employment taxes incurred under this Agreement and any similar federal or state taxes. Contractor and any of its employees, agents, and subcontractors shall not have any claim under this Agreement or otherwise against City for seniority, vacation time, vacation pay, sick leave, personal time off, overtime, health insurance, medical care, hospital care, insurance benefits, social security, disability, unemployment, workers compensation or employee benefits of any kind. Contractor shall be solely liable for and obligated to pay directly all applicable taxes, fees, contributions, or charges applicable to Contractor’ s business including, but not limited to, federal and state income taxes. City shall have no obligation whatsoever to pay or withhold any taxes or benefits on behalf of Contractor. Should any court, arbitrator, or administrative authority, including but not limited to the California Public Employees Retirement System (PERS), the Internal Revenue Service or the State Employment Development Division, determine that Contractor, or any of its employees, agents, or subcontractors, is an employee for any purpose, then Contractor agrees to a reduction in amounts payable under this Agreement, or to promptly remint to City any payments due by the City as a result of such determination, so that the City’s total expenses under this Agreement are not greater than they would have been had the determination not been made.

6. PROPRIETARY/CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
In performing this Agreement, Contractor may have access to private or confidential information owned or controlled by the City, which may contain proprietary or confidential details the disclosure of which to third parties may be damaging to City. Contractor shall hold in confidence all City information provided by City to Contractor and use it only to perform this Agreement.

Consulting Services Agreement for Executive Recruitment, Boucher Law

Contractor shall exercise the same standard of care to protect City information as a reasonably prudent contractor would use to protect its own proprietary data.

7. OWNERSHIP OF MATERIALS

7.1 Property Rights. Any interest (including copyright interests) of Contractor in any product, memoranda, study, report, map, plan, drawing, specification, data, record, document, or other information or work, in any medium ( collectively, “ Work Product”), prepared by Contractor in connection with this Agreement will be the exclusive property of the City upon completion of the work to be performed hereunder or upon termination of this Agreement, to the extent requested by City. In any case, no Work Product shall be shown to any third-party without prior written approval of City.

7.2 Copyright. To the extent permitted by Title 17 of the U.S. Code, all Work Product arising out of this Agreement is considered “ works for hire” and all copyrights to the Work Product will be the property of City. Alternatively, Contractor assigns to City all Work Product copyrights.

Contractor may use copies of the Work Product for promotion only with City’s written approval.

7.3 Patents and Licenses. Contractor must pay royalties or license fees required for authorized use of any third party intellectual property, including but not limited to patented, trademarked, or copyrighted intellectual property if incorporated into the Services or Work Product of this Agreement.

7.4 Re-Use of Work Product. Unless prohibited by law and without waiving any rights, City may use or modify the Work Product of Contractor or its sub- contractors prepared or created under this Agreement, to execute or implement any of the following:
a) The original Services for which Contractor was hired; b) Completion of the original Services by others;
c) Subsequent additions to the original Services; and/or d) Other City projects.

7.5 Deliverables and Format. Contractor must provide electronic and hard copies of the Work Product, on recycled paper and copied on both sides, except for one single-sided original.

8. RECORDS
Contractor must maintain complete and accurate accounting records relating to its performance in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. The records must include detailed information of Contractor’ s performance, benchmarks and deliverables, which must be available to City for review and audit. The records and supporting documents must be kept separate from other records and must be maintained for four ( 4) years from the date of City’ s final payment.

Contractor acknowledges that certain documents generated or received by Contractor in connection with the performance of this Agreement, including but not limited to correspondence between Contractor and any third party, are public records under the California Public Records Consulting Services Agreement for Executive Recruitment, Boucher Law

Act, California Government Code section 6250 et seq. Contractor shall comply with all laws regarding the retention of public records and shall make such records available to the City upon request by the City, or in such manner as the City reasonably directs that such records be provided.

9. ASSIGNMENT
Contractor shall not assign, sublease, hypothecate, or transfer this Agreement, or any interest therein, directly or indirectly, by operation of law or otherwise, without prior written consent of City. Any attempt to do so will be null and void. Any changes related to the financial control or business nature of Contractor as a legal entity is considered an assignment of the Agreement and subject to City approval, which shall not be unreasonably withheld. Control means fifty percent 50%) or more of the voting power of the business entity.

10. PUBLICITY / SIGNS
Any publicity generated by Contractor for the project under this Agreement, during the term of this Agreement and for one year thereafter, will reference the City’s contributions in making the project possible. The words “ City of Cupertino” will be displayed in all pieces of publicity, including flyers, press releases, posters, brochures, public service announcements, interviews and newspaper articles. No signs may be posted, exhibited or displayed on or about City property, except signage required by law or this Contract, without prior written approval from the City.

11. INDEMNIFICATION

11.1 To the fullest extent allowed by law, and except for losses caused by the sole and active negligence or willful misconduct of City personnel, Contractor shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless City, its City Council, boards and commissions, officers, officials, employees , agents, servants, volunteers, and consultants (“ Indemnitees”), through legal counsel acceptable to City, from and against any and all liability, damages, claims, actions, causes of action, demands, charges, losses, costs, and expenses (including attorney fees, legal costs, and expenses related to litigation and dispute resolution proceedings) of every nature, arising directly or indirectly from this Agreement or in any manner relating to any of the following:
a) Breach of contract, obligations, representations, or warranties; b) Negligent or willful acts or omissions committed during performance of theServices; c) Personal injury, property damage, or economic loss resulting from the work or performance of Contractor or its subcontractors or sub-subcontractors; d) Unauthorized use or disclosure of City’ s confidential and proprietary Information; e) Claim of infringement or violation of a U.S. patent or copyright, trade secret, trademark, or service mark or other proprietary or intellectual property rights of any third party.

11.2 Contractor must pay the costs City incurs in enforcing this provision. Contractor must accept a tender of defense upon receiving notice from City of a third-party claim. At City’s request, Contractor will assist City in the defense of a claim, dispute, or lawsuit arising out of this Agreement.

11.3 Contractor’ s duties under this section are not limited to the Contract Price, workers’ compensation payments, or the insurance or bond amounts required in the Agreement. Nothing in Consulting Services Agreement for Executive Recruitment, Boucher Law

the Agreement shall be construed to give rise to an implied right of indemnity in favor of Contractor against City or any Indemnitee.

11.4. Contractor’ s payments may be deducted or offset to cover any money the City lost due to a claim or counterclaim arising out of this Agreement, a purchase order, or other transaction.

11.5. Contractor agrees to obtain executed indemnity agreements with provisions identical to those set forth here in this Section 11 from each and every subcontractor, or any other person or entity involved by, for, with, or on behalf of Contractor in the performance of this Agreement.

Failure of City to monitor compliance with these requirements imposes no additional obligations on City and will in no way act as a waiver of any rights hereunder.

11.6. This Section 11 shall survive termination of the Agreement.

12. INSURANCE
Contractor shall comply with the Insurance Requirements, attached and incorporated here as Exhibit D, and must maintain the insurance for the duration of the Agreement, or longer as required by City. City will not execute the Agreement until City approves receipt of satisfactory certificates of insurance and endorsements evidencing the type, amount, class of operations covered, and the effective and expiration dates of coverage. Failure to comply with this provision may result in City, at its sole discretion and without notice, purchasing insurance for Contractor and deducting the costs from Contractor’ s compensation or terminating the Agreement.

13. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS

13.1 General Laws. Contractor shall comply with all local, state, and federal laws and regulations applicable to this Agreement. Contractor will promptly notify City of changes in the law or other conditions that may affect the Project or Contractor’ s ability to perform. Contractor is responsible for verifying the employment authorization of employees performing the Services, as required by the Immigration Reform and Control Act.

13.2 Labor Laws. Contractor shall comply with all labor laws applicable to this Agreement. If the Scope of Services includes a “ public works” component, Contractor is required to comply with prevailing wage laws under Labor Code Section 1720 and other labor laws.

13.3 Discrimination Laws. Contractor shall not discriminate on the basis of race, religious creed, color, ancestry, national origin, ethnicity, handicap, disability, marital status, pregnancy, age, sex, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, Acquired-Immune Deficiency Syndrome AIDS), or any other protected classification. Contractor shall comply with all anti- discrimination laws, including Government Code Sections 12900 and 11135, and Labor Code Sections 1735, 1777, and 3077. 5. Consistent with City policy prohibiting harassment and discrimination, Contractor understands that harassment and discrimination directed toward a job applicant, an employee, a City employee, or any other person, by Contractor or its employees or sub- contractors will not be tolerated. Contractor agrees to provide records and documentation to the City on request necessary to monitor compliance with this provision.

Consulting Services Agreement for Executive Recruitment, Boucher Law

13.4 Conflicts of Interest. Contractor shall comply with all conflict of interest laws applicable to this Agreement and must avoid any conflict of interest. Contractor warrants that no public official, employee, or member of a City board or commission who might have been involved in the making of this Agreement, has or will receive a direct or indirect financial interest in this Agreement, in violation of California Government Code Section 1090 et seq. Contractor may be required to file a conflict of interest form if Contractor makes certain governmental decisions or serves in a staff capacity, as defined in Section 18700 of Title 2 of the California Code of Regulations. Contractor agrees to abide by the City’ s rules governing gifts to public officials and employees.

13.5 Remedies. Any violation of Section 13 constitutes a material breach and may result in City suspending payments, requiring reimbursements or terminating this Agreement. City reserves all other rights and remedies available under the law and this Agreement, including the right to seek indemnification under Section 11 of this Agreement.

14. PROJECT COORDINATION
City Project Manager. The City assigns Kristina Alfaro as the City’s representative for all purposes under this Agreement, with authority to oversee the progress and performance of the Scope of Services. City reserves the right to substitute another Project manager at any time, and without prior notice to Contractor.

Contractor Project Manager. Subject to City approval, Contractor assigns Christopher Boucher as its single Representative for all purposes under this Agreement, with authority to oversee the progress and performance of the Scope of Services. Contractor’ s Project manager is responsible for coordinating and scheduling the Services in accordance with the Scope of Services and the Schedule of Performance. Contractor must regularly update the City’ s Project Manager about the progress with the work or any delays, as required under the Scope of Services. City written approval is required prior to substituting a new Representative.

15. ABANDONMENT OF PROJECT
City may abandon or postpone the Project or parts therefor at any time. Contractor will be compensated for satisfactory Services performed through the date of abandonment, and will be given reasonable time to assemble the work and close out the Services. With City’ s pre- approval in writing, the time spent in closing out the Services will be compensated up to a maximum of ten percent ( 10%) of the total time expended to date in the performance of the Services.

16. TERMINATION
City may terminate this Agreement for cause or without cause at any time. Contractor will be paid for satisfactory Services rendered through the date of termination, but final payment will not be made until Contractor closes out the Services and delivers the Work Product.

17. GOVERNING LAW, VENUE, AND DISPUTE RESOLUTION
This Agreement is governed by the laws of the State of California. Any lawsuits filed related to this Agreement must be filed with the Superior Court for the County of Santa Clara, State of Consulting Services Agreement for Executive Recruitment, Boucher Law

California. Contractor must comply with the claims filing requirements under the Government Code prior to filing a civil action in court. If a dispute arises, Contractor must continue to provide the Services pending resolution of the dispute. If the Parties elect arbitration, the arbitrator’s award must be supported by law and substantial evidence and include detailed written findings of law and fact.

18. ATTORNEY FEES
If City initiates legal action, files a complaint or cross- complaint, or pursues arbitration, appeal, or other proceedings to enforce its rights or a judgment in connection with this Agreement, the prevailing party will be entitled to reasonable attorney fees and costs.

19. THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARIES
There are no intended third party beneficiaries of this Agreement.

20. WAIVER
Neither acceptance of the Services nor payment thereof shall constitute a waiver of any contract provision. City’ s waiver of a breach shall not constitute waiver of another provision or breach.

21. ENTIRE AGREEMENT
This Agreement represents the full and complete understanding of every kind or nature between the Parties, and supersedes any other agreement( s) and understanding( s), either oral or written, between the Parties. Any modification of this Agreement will be effective only if in writing and signed by each Party’ s authorized representative. No verbal agreement or implied covenant will be valid to amend or abridge this Agreement. If there is any inconsistency between any term, clause, or provision of the main Agreement and any term, clause, or provision of the attachments or exhibits thereto, the terms of the main Agreement shall prevail and be controlling.

22. INSERTED PROVISIONS
Each provision and clause required by law for this Agreement is deemed to be included and will be inferred herein. Either party may request an amendment to cure mistaken insertions or omissions of required provisions. The Parties will collaborate to implement this Section, as appropriate.

23. HEADINGS
The headings in this Agreement are for convenience only, are not a part of the Agreement and in no way affect, limit, or amplify the terms or provisions of this Agreement.

24. SEVERABILITY/ PARTIAL INVALIDITY
If any term or provision of this Agreement, or their application to a particular situation, is found by the court to be void, invalid, illegal, or unenforceable, such term or provision shall remain in force and effect to the extent allowed by such ruling. All other terms and provisions of this Consulting Services Agreement for Executive Recruitment, Boucher Law