CC 10-17-2023 Item No. 7. City Hall Project_Supplemental Report
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
SUPPLEMENTAL 1
Meeting: October 17 2023
Agenda Item #7
Subject
Options for construction of a City Hall facility
Recommended Action
Direct staff to pursue conceptual development of a mixed used Public Private
Partnership for City Hall and the Sports Center properties.
Staff’s responses to questions received from councilmembers are shown in italics.
Q1: The staff report states ʺIn pursuing this direction, the assessment considered city
properties where a private use could be combined with a municipal use, thereby
creating the partnership that could make for a financially feasible project. Two
properties are of a size to make an evaluation worthwhile: City Hall (including
Community Hall) and the Sports Center. In both cases a project would involve
removing the existing facilities and constructing a mixed use facility that meets a
private development need as well as replacing the municipal need.ʺ
As far as I can remember, the Council has not ever given the direction to consider any
city property for ʺprivate useʺ or removing any ʺexisting facilitiesʺ in the past. Please
indicate on when and how this direction was given to the staff. (Councilmember Chao)
Staff response: The Staff report states the reasons for the study earlier in the report (bolded text
added for clarity): “On November 15, 2022, following the completion of work by a Council
Subcommittee on City Hall, the Council provided direction to include a retrofit project in the
Capital Improvement Program. On February 21, the Council re‐directed staff to suspend all work
on the City Hall renovation plan and to explore options for constructing a new City Hall
facility with flexible events programming space and to incorporate other potential city properties
in the analysis. Previous project review has shown that a renovation project would cost
approximately $27.5M, while a new facility would approach a cost of $80M. The revised
direction from Council seeks to identify ways to deliver a new facility as opposed to
renovating the existing facility.
The work with the consultants to generate the study on real estate strategies was a result of
trying to find ways to fund a project for City Hall Improvements.
Q2: The staff report states ʺStaff enlisted the assistance of the Cumming Group and the
Concord Group in a Go/ No Go assessment, leveraging other City propertiesʺ. Have we
signed a contract with both companies? (Councilmember Chao)
Staff response: The Concord Group is a subconsultant to the Cumming Group. Staff has initiated
a master agreement with Cumming Group.
Q3: This contract with the Cumming Group was signed on August 29 for $170,000. How
much is the contract with the Concord group and when was it signed. I understand that
consultants often start their work before a contract is signed, like the consultants for the
Housing Element and the council workshop. When did each of the consultants start
their work? How much of the contracted amount has been spent so far? An estimation is
good enough. (Councilmember Chao)
Staff response: Cumming Group submitted a proposal in early August. The team initiated
investigative work last August. The master agreement has a cap at $170,000, but the service
order executed for this project is $76,000 to develop this Go/No‐Go Assessment.
Q4: Compared with other cities, Cupertino does not own many properties for municipal
uses. Has there been any assessment done for the future needs for municipal uses, given
the fact that the draft Housing Element is required to plan at least 4600 housing units
and almost 6000 units with a required 15‐25% buffer. Thus, the total households would
increase from 20,000 to 26,000 in 8 years. (Councilmember Chao)
Staff response: Other assessments for future needs for municipal uses has not been done in recent
years.
Q5: Question from a community member: ʺWhat exact areas are considered part of the
“Civic Center”? Is it City Hall? Community Hall? Cupertino Library? Library Field?
The plaza area? Or is it all of it?ʺ (Councilmember Chao)
Staff response: The Staff Report notes that “…two properties are of a size to make an evaluation
worthwhile: City Hall (including Community Hall) and the Sports Center.” For the purposes
of this due‐diligence study only, the analysis in the report considered “City Hall” property to
include Community Hall and a portion of the Civic Center Plaza. It did not include the
Cupertino Library or Library field in the analysis.
Q6: The 2022 Council has approved a plan to renovate the City Hall, given that the city
staff is quite concerned with the safety of the City Hall. With the PPP, what would be
the timeline from planning to finding a partner etc. (Councilmember Chao)
Staff response: Page 12 of Attachment A illustrates a very high‐level timeline, and it shows that
it may take 29 to 34 months to get through Entitlements.
Q7: Has the city stopped the renovation of the City Hall annex (Torre Ave building)
completely? When was that stopped? (Councilmember Chao)
Staff response: The planning/design of the City Hall Annex work progressed through to the end
of Design Development. Before proceeding with Construction Documentation, the project team
performed an updated cost estimate, which found costs estimates to be beyond the allocated
budget. As the City has significant budget constraints and parallel work has been underway with
this agenda item, staff delayed any additional work on the Annex pending decisions that could
impact that project.
Q8: Please provide the history for how Agenda Item 7 came to be and how the scope of
the contract with Cumming came to be. Who requested the Cumming scope of work,
staff or a councilmember(s); who made the Recommended Action, staff or a
councilmember(s)? This is important because we have received an overwhelming
response and I do not understand how this came to be. (Councilmember Moore)
Staff response: As you’ve noted, the Council redirected staff to “return to Council with options
for a new city hall and civic center up to approximately 80,000 square feet including flexible
events programming space(s) suitable for events hosting up to 500 people and based primarily
upon options previously provided with the City Council at its meeting on November 15, 2022,
with alternatives for such flexible events programming space at other city¬owned
locations, to be considered as part of the City Councilʹs March 7 consideration of the Capital
Improvement Program.
The Council is looking for a viable solution to the challenge we face with the City Hall building.
Council directed Staff to “return with options” for the City Hall Improvements project, and those
options need to be self‐supporting or revenue‐generating due to our current fiscal reality. The
City does not have, and does not project to have, in‐house funding to support a significant project
like the City Hall Improvements project [whether it be a retrofit or new facility project]. Although
the approaches differ, there is commonality in the desired outcome: Cupertino is facing severe
budget reductions, yet we have aged infrastructure and facilities that need to be safe for users. It
is important that Council has all the information needed to make the sound and informed
decisions about our next steps.
Q9: How long has the City Council known that the City Hall is not seismic safe? (Wei)
The City discovered the issue in 2005 while planning for a renovation of the Lobby and Council
Chambers. This was followed by several subsequent reports confirming the structural issue.
Q10: What have the previous City Council(s) planned to fix the seismic safety issue of
the City Hall before the November 15, 2022 City Council’s decision to renovate the City
Hall and to renovate the Torre building as the Emergency Operation Center? (Wei)
Previous City Councils have started on the path of a renovated or new facility, including several
master planning efforts since the structural issue was identified in 2005. An extensive listing of
past work can be found on the project website: https://www.cupertino.org/our‐
city/departments/public‐works/capital‐improvement‐program‐projects/city‐hall‐project
Q11: Torre property Cost: 4.45 million. How much will it cost NOW to renovate the
existing City Hall? How much will it cost NOW to renovate the Torre building into
EOC? (Wei).
The cost estimates plan on a typical cost escalation of 5% per year. For example, a City Hall
renovation in 2023 costs of $27.5M would increase by 5% in 2024. The Annex budget is set at
$3M, however current design exceeds that amount and staff is working towards scope
modification to provide options.
Attachments Provided with Original Staff Report:
A. Draft Strategic Marketing and Programming Analysis Report