HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 12-16-2025 Item No. 11 City Hall Improvement Project_Supplemental ReportCC 12-16-2025
#11
City Hall Improvements
Project
Supplemental Report
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
CITY HALL
10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3354
CUPERTINO.GOV
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
SUPPLEMENTAL 1
Meeting: December 16, 2025
Agenda Item # 11
Subject
Determine City Hall Improvements project scope and resources, approve budget
modification in the amount of $54,000,000 and authorize design-build delivery methods.
Recommended Action
For the Capital Improvement Programs (CIP) City Hall Improvements project (Project),
1.Approve the proposed scope of the Project:
a.Risk Category IV Renovation of Structural System
b.Maintain Current Footprint: Reconfigure Interior, no vertical or
horizontal expansion
c.No Parking Expansion
d.Upgrades to Infrastructure and Accessibility
2.Adopt Resolution No. 25-XXX approving Budget Modification No. 2425-425,
increasing appropriations by $54,000,000 in the Capital Improvement Fund for
the Project (420-99-250);
3.Authorize the City Manager to undertake a design-build project delivery method
for the Project;
4.Adopt Resolution No. 25-XXX approving the procurement of a design-build
contract for the Project.
Staff’s responses to questions received from councilmember are shown in italics.
Q1: Could you please answer questions raised here?
Specify which ASCE 41 performance level was assumed, or 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.
Staff response:
The City has conducted a professional seismic evaluation of the existing City Hall building. The
analyses were prepared by licensed structural engineers and were performed in accordance with
applicable industry standards, including ASCE 07-05 and ASCE 41, which are nationally
recognized for evaluating the seismic performance of existing buildings. The structural analyses
are available for review here: https://www.cupertino.gov/Your-City/Departments/Public-
Works/Capital-Improvement-Programs-Projects/City-Hall-Project
City Council directed staff to proceed with Risk Category IV, given the differential in cost
between category II and IV was minimal. This reflects the City’s desire for City Hall to remain
usable and functional following a major seismic event so that essential governance and public-
facing services can continue when the community most needs them. Administrative buildings are
typically categorized as Risk Category II, however, it is not uncommon for primary civic facilities
to adopt a higher standard due to continuity-of-operations goals.
The service center building is a one-story, wood-frame structure, which performs differently in
seismic events than a multi-story concrete building. Wood-frame, single-story structures are
inherently lighter, more flexible, and far less likely to experience catastrophic collapse. These
differences reflect a technical application of engineering principles rather than differing levels of
concern for safety.
Attachments Provided with Original Staff Report:
A – Draft Resolution_Budget Modification
B – Draft Resolution_Design Build project
C – 2025 Cost Estimates_City Hall
D – 2022 Cost Estimates_City Hall
Attachments Provided with Supplemental 1:
N/A