HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 12-16-2025 Item No. 11 City Hall Improvments Project_Written CommunicationsCC 12-16-2025
#11
City Hall Improvements
Project
Written Communications
From:Santosh Rao
To:City Council; Tina Kapoor; City Clerk; Chad Mosley; Jimmy Tan, P.E.; Benjamin Fu; Public Comments
Subject:Continue City Hall Agenda Item Pending ASCE 41 and Peer Seismic Review
Date:Sunday, December 14, 2025 6:55:23 AM
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.
[Writing on behalf of myself only as a Cupertino resident]
Subject: Request to Continue City Hall Item Pending ASCE 41 and Peer Seismic Review
Dear City Council,
I respectfully request that the City Hall item be continued until a complete and comparable
ASCE 41 based assessment and peer review are first provided.
ASCE 41 is the nationally recognised standard for evaluating the seismic safety of existing
buildings. It distinguishes clearly between Immediate Occupancy, Life Safety, and Collapse
Prevention performance levels. To date, the City has not publicly disclosed which ASCE 41
performance level was assumed, nor whether the existing building fails Life Safety or merely
falls short of Immediate Occupancy.
This distinction matters. Across the Bay Area, cities with mid century city halls similar to
Cupertino’s have generally accepted Life Safety performance, pursued targeted upgrades, and
continued occupancy.
The need for Risk Category IV has not been clearly justified. Most administrative buildings
operate under Risk Category II, with Risk Category IV reserved for facilities that must remain
fully operational immediately following a major earthquake. Council has not been shown why
City Hall, as currently staffed and used, requires this designation.
It is also unclear whether Public Works staff at the service yard, who are directly responsible
for post earthquake response and recovery, are afforded the same level of seismic protection as
City Hall staff. If continuity of operations is the stated objective, this disparity requires
explanation. Much of City Hall staffing appears clerical, while Public Works personnel
perform essential field operations.
For these reasons, I urge Council to continue this item and direct staff to first provide:
1. The ASCE 41 evaluation and the performance level assumed.
2. Confirmation of whether the existing City Hall meets Life Safety.
3. A justification for Risk Category IV versus Risk Category II.
4. A comparison of seismic standards applied to City Hall and the Public Works service
yard.
5. A peer analysis of neighboring city halls, including cost and extent of retrofit decisions,
risk level chosen and comparable scope of work considered or deferred.
These matters go directly to proportionality, credibility, and fiscal responsibility. They should
be addressed before any irreversible commitment is made.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
San Rao (writing on behalf of myself only as a Cupertino resident)