Loading...
CC Exhibit 07-07-2015 Item #11 Civic Center Master Plan Andrea Sanders CC 7Item 11 From: Karen B. Guerin Sent: Tuesday,July 07, 2015 3:21 PM To: City Clerk Subject: FW: New City Hall ExIQ, AV W AV 013 IT Emma -----Original Message----- From: Edna Cate [mailto:ednacate@aol.com] Sent:Tuesday,July 07, 2015 2:57 PM To: City Council Subject: New City Hall I absolutely disagree with the possible plan to build a new city hall. Why on earth is it a good idea to spend so much `money on a new city hall. That money should be spent on making absolutely safe bike strips around schools. Bring the bike paths up to sidewalk height. Edna Cate Sent from my iPad 1 11 V Andrea Sanders From: Karen B. Guerin Sent: Tuesday,July 07, 2015 3:22 PM To: City Clerk Subject: FW: Big NO To New Civic Center From: lethe [mailto:clethe@gmail.com] Sent:Tuesday,July 07, 2015 2:50 PM To: City Council Subject: Big NO To New Civic Center Cupertino city council members, As a Cupertino resident, I vote NO to the plan of a new civic center. The building probably needs some upgrades and remodeling. However, a rebuilding costs 50+million is unnecessary and big waste. Please focus on Vallco Mall rezoning and stand on the resident's side. Thank you! Chen i Andrea Sanders From: Karen B. Guerin Sent: Tuesday,July 07, 2015 3:23 PM To: City Clerk Subject: FW:Civic Center Master Plan From:scottahughes@comcast.net [mailto:scotta-hughes@comcast.net] Sent:Tuesday,July 07, 2015 2:06 PM To: Rod Sinks; Barry Chang; Gilbert Wong; Savita Vaidhyanathan; Darcy Paul Cc:scottahughe's@comcast.net Subject: Civic Center Master Plan Hello Council Members, I am writing to you today regarding the Civic Center Master Plan. I admit that_I have not been involved in the entire process but based on the mailer I received last week I have spent a fair amount of time reviewing the material available on the City's website. Although the project looks very exciting by itself, I am very concerned about the financial impact. I had hoped that this was an oversight on my part and that City Staff could provide me with the information needed to alleviate my concerns and therefore avoid writing to you and/or-having to come speak tonight. Unfortunately, this is not the case. I understand that there are procedures to be followed but I am curious why it seems the City is this far along without providing complete transparency on the potential funding sources,,impacts, etc? I doubt that I am the only resident who is frustrated that we are in this position again. Based on the lack of key information availability to public, I ask that you consider proceeding as follows; - Do not adopt any of the proposals in the Staff Report Direct staff to provide a summarized and detailed analysis of the financial sourcing related items; • Provide some historical perspective of other large projects done by the City in the past 15 years and compare them to this project. Existing Library, Mary Ave Bridge, etc. The key point being how much did the city actually spend on each and from where did that money come from (reserves, taxes, etc.) as I assume.that much of the Library cost was funded by the, county/library tax and the Bridge from transportation grants. Explain the sourcing strategy for the costs of this project; is the entire $68 million coming from the City's reserve fund? If so, what is the projected balance of this reserve fund now and for the next 5 years? If not, how is it being financed? • Regardless of financing strategy, what other projects will suffer based on the City spending this much on this one project? Will this delay the implementation of recommendations from the Stevens Creek Trail Working Team which are due before the end of this year? Will this delay the consideration of Class 1 Bike Paths which will hopefully be available for review next year? In closing, I do not think I am the only resident with these concerns. There was already some in the public input but that was dismissed as not relevant to tonight's meeting; how is it not relevant to. be fiscally responsible? Many of us don't understand why projects need to get so far along before the tough financial questions get asked and the answers are made available to the public. Is this project r really 1 Ox more expensive than any publicly funded project in Cupertino's history? If so, then wouldn't it be better to be honest with the public and tell us this up front, in writing, in advance of posting hundreds of pages of information for us to review. More importantly, is this the right time for Cupertino to be spending this much money on this one project or would it be more prudent to delay/reconsider and keep our reserve fund robust in preparation for projects with more ROI and/or to.help ride through the next financial downturn? Regards, Scott z Andrea Sanders From: Ann Stevenson <AnnStevenson@POBOX.com> Sent: Tuesday,July 07, 2015 11:09 AM To: Rod Sinks; Barry Chang; Darcy Paul; Savita Vaidhyanathan; Gilbert Wong Cc: -Nidhi Mathur;City Clerk Subject: Memo from the Library Commission re:the Cupertino Library Story Room Attachments: CC Memo_LibraryCommExpansion-2015.pdf Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Categories: City Clerk Dear Mayor Sinks, Vice-Mayor Chang and Council Members Paul, Vaidhyanathan and Wong, Attached please find a memo from the Library Commission with a recommendation for your consideration regarding the proposed options for a Library Story Room. We appreciate the support you have consistently provided to the Cupertino Library and the challengi-ng decisions you are being asked to make and want you to know we will be supportive about decisions affecting the Cupertino Library and the rest of the Cupertino community. Warm regards, Ann Stevenson Library Commission . OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE•CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3202 C U P E RT I N O (408)777-3220•FAX(408)777-3109 To: Mayor Rod Sinks and Cupertino City Council Members Barry Chang, Darcy Paul, Savita Vaidhyanathan and Gilbert Wong From: Cupertino Library Commissioners Chair Annie Ho and Commissioners Rose Grymes, Gopal Kumarappan, Jerry Liu, and Ann Stevenson Date: July 7, 2015 Subject: Support and Recommendations for the proposed Library Program Room The Library Commission is appreciative of_the long-standing and ongoing support of the Cupertino Library by the-City Council. Katy.Jensen,the Capital Improvement Program Manager for Cupertino, has presented the Library Commission with four proposals for the Library Program.Room. The summary below lists some of the pros and cons, some of which were included in the proposal. After discussion at the Library Commission meetings, we recommend the Council members give strong consideration to this option for the following reasons: Option#4 • It has the advantage of multiple space.use as the room can be split into 2 program areas. • It provides storage space for program equipment and extra seating. • There are excellent furniture options to increase the flexibility of use of.this space. • Regular library users could use it when there are no programs scheduled. • It doesn't displace anything else,thereby avoiding additional construction costs. • It leaves the current Children's Story Room intact. Our:evaluation of the other options describes some of their limitations: v Option#1 • There would be more traffic through the children's area,.and children's librarians prefer to minimize traffic through that-area. Therefore, it is the least desirable option in addition to the con's described in the proposal. Option#2 • Although there is some advantage and it would be a good space for programs, the library would lose shelving space and the employee break room. • Most likely.there would be additional costs to construct a new employee break room. Option#3 • The outdoor space is useful for noise control in that parents can take children out there and students and adults can meet in that area. c • It would displace the children's and teen's garden sites, which was awarded Honorable Mention in the 2015 Sustainability category by the Urban Libraries Council. With any of the options that City Council mayselect after its deliberations, the Library Conunission would be pleased to assist City Council and City Staff by helping lead a community needs assessment in cooperation with the Library Staff to further outline and develop needs and practical elements important to implementing the Library expansion element of the Project. Andrea Sanders From: Karen B. Guerin Sent: Tuesday,July 07, 2015 8:51 AM To: City Clerk Subject: FW: Mitigated Negative Declaration From: Dominic Kyrie [mailto:dominic@hsys.com] Sent: Monday,July 06,2015 10:03 PM To: CivicCenterMP; City Council Cc:Jonathan Ferrante Subject: Mitigated Negative Declaration Ms.Jensen: I have your notice of public hearing to be held on July 7.That letter hides the needless destruction of 80 healthy trees behind big words, "Mitigated Negative Declaration". Cupertino residents who request removal of nuisance trees that cause ongoing property damage are told that the city's policy is to not remove healthy trees, and not even given an opportunity to "mitigate". If Cupertino were not so hypocritical,the city would make a more concerted effort to build around the 80 healthy trees. Or,move them if they are so precious. Instead, 80 healthy trees are to be brutally destroyed, while mere replacement is deemed adequate remediation. I would think the city could do much;much more for these 80 trees, even if their destruction is unavoidable. For example, our city's corporate partners would likely be'delighted to sponsor and commission a poetry writing contest for our school children, and 80 of the best poems extolling the virtues of trees could be engraved on plaques to be placed at the location of each and every destroyed tree, whether on pavement,grass, floor or wall--if the.city really cares about the individual trees that provide shade for our children, grace our civic center, and convert our exhaled carbon dioxide back into oxygen in support of our lives even as we conspire to destroy theirs. Past patterns and practices of intimidation by city government officials preclude my attendance at forums such as this public hearing, hence this message is my formal comment. In the past, I have been visited by belligerent and officious city employees, lied to about arborists' practice, and had a legitimate.claim for compensation for damages incurred by the city tree denied, with added veiled threats saying that I could be charged for attorneys'fees should I name the city in court actions. You (Cupertino)should comply with the same rules that you impose on residents. Have the intellectual honesty to admit of your hypocrisy. In summary, I disapprove of the destruction of 80 healthy trees,and I condemn hypocrisy in city government whereby requests-for removal of nuisance trees are flatly denied. Moreover, if you really care about trees, hold a poetry writing contest and have plaques engraved, as described above. Yours truly, Dominic Kyrie 18850 Ti Iso n Ave. 1 Andrea Sanders From: Alok Singhania (H) <alok@singhania.org> Sent: Monday,July 06, 2015 10:53 PM To: Savita Vaidhyanathan Cc: Alok Singhania (H) Subject: New City Hall I believe there is a public hearing to discuss a new civic center master plan that will create a new city hall and an extension for the library.Why does a city of the size of Cupertino that is unlit to grow to a very large city needs a new city hall? Unfortunately I can't make it to the meeting tomorrow to voice my opposition, I strongly object to the new city hall unless somehow the city can prove that it is absolutely necessary and without the Cupertino is likely to suffer greatly.Aren't better usage of these funds? Andrea Sanders From: Alok"Singhania (H) <alok@singhania.org> Sent: Monday,July'06, 2015 10:52 PM To: Gilbert Wong Cc: Alok Singhania (H) Subject: New City hall I believe there is a public hearing to discuss a new civic center master plan that will create a new city hall and an extension for the library.Why does a city of the size of Cupertino that is unlit to grow to a very large city needs a new city hall? Unfortunately I can't make it to the meeting tomorrow to voice my opposition, I strongly object to the new city hall unless somehow the city can prove that it is absolutely necessary and without the Cupertino is likely to suffer greatly.Aren't better usage of these funds? r 1 Andrea Sanders From: Alok Singhania (H) <alok@singhania.org> Sent: Monday,July 06, 2015 10:52 PM To: Barry Chang Cc: Alok Singhania (H) Subject: New City Hall I believe there is a public hearing to discuss a new civic center master plan that will create a new city hall and an extension for the Iibrary.,Why does a city of the size of Cupertino that is unlit to grow to a very barge city needs a new city hall? Unfortunately I can't make it to the meeting tomorrow to voice my opposition, I strongly object to the new city hall unless somehow the city can prove that it is absolutely necessary and without the Cupertino is likely to suffer greatly.Aren't better usage of these funds? 1 Andrea Sanders From: Alok Singhania (H) <alok@singhania.org> Sent: - Monday,July 06, 2015 10:52 PM To: Rod Sinks Cc: Alok Singhania (H) Subject: New City Hall I believe there is a public hearing to discuss a new civic center master plan that will create a new city hall and an extension for the library.Why does a`city of the size of Cupertino that is unlit to grow to a very large city needs a new city hall? Unfortunately I can't make it to the meeting tomorrow to voice my opposition, I strongly object to the new city hall unless somehow the city can prove that it is absolutely necessary and without the Cupertino is likely to suffer greatly:Aren't better usage of these funds? . 1 Andrea Sanders From: Karen B. Guerin Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 2015 8:06 AM To: City Clerk Subject: FW: New City Hall -----Original Message----- From:Alok Singhania (H) [mailto:alok@singhania.org] Sent: Monday,July 06, 2015 10:53 PM To: Darcy Paul Cc: Alok Singhania (H) Subject: New City Hall I believe there is a public hearing to discuss a new civic center master plan that will create a new city hall and an extension for the library. Why does a city of the size of Cupertino that is unlit to grow to a very large city needs a new city hall? Unfortunately I can't make it to the meeting tomorrow to voice my opposition, I strongly object to the new city hall unless somehow the city can prove that it is absolutely necessary and without the Cupertino is likely to suffer greatly.Aren't better usage of these funds? Andrea Sanders From: Andrea Sanders Sent: Tuesday,July 07, 2015 8:13 AM To: Karen B. Guerin Cc: City Clerk Subject: RE: Civic Center Master Plan From: Brkezzat@aol.com [mailto:Brkezzat@aol.com] Sent: Monday,July 06, 20158:31 PM To: City Council Cc: City Clerk Subject:Civic Center Master Plan Dear Mayor Sinks and Council Members, I am writing to address the new Civic Center Master Plan. This plan seems to be driven by everything other than what residents want. There is seemingly little desire by the city to build a city hall complex that is attractive or within the city's budget or does not eliminate green space and trees. In addition,the city seems to have become stridently authoritarian when dealing with residents. The buildings in the current city/library'complex area'are traditional in nature. They seem to be either Mediterranean or Eichleresque; based on the renderings there appears to be'no attempt to have the proposed civic center fit into the surrounding area. The proposed city hall is ghastly; residents in the neighborhood need appeal-to the tax assessor for lower rates to compensate for looking at the monstrosity across the street. Did the city have an architectural ugly dog contest and this was the winner? Secondly, how can the city afford this $54 million dollar folly?The city moved'$30 million from one fund to another fund giving the illusion the city budget is $119 million, when in fact it has an annual budget of$89 million—less than half the cost of proposed city hall. How will this be financed? How many 40 year bonds will be floated for.this?The City does not have enough money to address traffic issues or the increase of crime, but there is enough for a new city hall? My street lacks a speed limit sign because of budget limitations,there has been an increase in residential burglaries of 22% in the last six months if I understood Captain Sung's presentation correctly, and there has been an armed robbery in Cupertino, but the city has the money for this monument to hubris? Why is there a drive in Cupertino to obliterate every tree, every blade of grass, any green space at all? We are consistently told that Cupertino is built out, but more building is always on the agenda. We are told trees the marked for death will.be replaced with new trees; since it takes roughly ten years minimum for trees to grow significantly, this seems to be a poor second. 68 more parking spaces and less land for the playing field at the library—does anyone notice the soccer and cricket.games there? More parking spaces do not build a community. Finally, like many citizens I am offended by the tone the city is taking with its residents. My last issue with the Civic Center Master Plan is the City's disclaimer "If you challenge the action of the City Council in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else has raised at the public hearing described in 1 this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Cupertino at, or prior to, the public hearing." What exactly does this mean? Is this attempt to limit the amount of dissent because the City does not want to hear our objections? Is it a coercive and preemptive attempt to discourage people from seeking legal redress? Or does it mean the City suspects there may serious issues with the plans that the City may or may not be aware of, and wants to be given a pass before they materialize or are discovered? Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Brooke Ezzat 2 Andrea Sanders From: Karen B. Guerin Sent: Monday,July 06, 2015 10:49 AM To: City Clerk Subject: FW: civic center master plan From: Prakash Sripathy [mailto:prakash.sripathy@gmail.com] Sent:Saturday,July 04, 2015 6:56 PM To: City Council Subject: civic center master plan Greetings to Council members. Received on the mailer the plan for new civic center and library extension. While we really liked the plan, it is extremely concerning that we are going to fund it through debt financing. We went through rough patch during the 2008 financial crisis, including reduced library hours. We should be learning from our past and save for rainy day.We see a pattern of government/spend becoming bigger, asking for measure approvals again and again to fund it. We do not see any value add for the residents other than some cosmetic extension to library and needed parking space. We do not have to rebuild civic center to address this. If we continue to convert the once beautiful orchard city into concrete jungle with busy traffic and a high debt loaded one, there will be less desire for residents to stick around nor would be a place to seek for future residents.Hope this council will continue to listen to the residents that elect them. Incidentally, there isn't link or means for bringing concerns for any of these initiatives in our city website. This would be helpful for folks that can't attend the 7th July meeting. Would appreciate your help in facilitating this. Thanks, Prakash Sripathy i Y Andrea Sanders From: Karen B. Guerin Sent: Tuesday,July 07, 2015 5:08 PM To: City Clerk Subject: FW: opposing the proposed new Civic Center Master Plan costing more than $50 Million. From: Mousumi Halder [mailto:mouhalder@yahoo.com] Sent:Tuesday,July 07, 2015 4:41 PM To: City Council; Rod Sinks; Barry Chang; Gilbert Wong;Savita Vaidhyanathan; Darcy Paul Subject: opposing the proposed new Civic Center Master Plan costing more than$50 Million. The Honorable councilman and councilwoman Cupertino City Hall 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino,CA am a proud resident of Cupertino for almost 20 years. I have never_felt that our city needed a new civic center.) have been in the civic center for only once in my almost 20 years of residency(and that was quite recently) and I am still amazed and proud of it . I DO NOT see any reason to propose a new civic center-at all. But I feel shame when I see how a lot of our elementary and middle schools don't have enough restrooms and drinking water fountain and have remained in same condition as they were 20 years before. I feel shame when all the classrooms are flooded by students and there are no nice classrooms for seating. I do not remember that our elementary and middle schools's gyms and playgrounds renovated within 20 years. I feel shame when I see my city seem limited by the money the city is willing to spend to solve traffic and safety'issues around our schools but has little hesitation to spend tens of millions on a new City Hall!!! I strongly oppose the proposal of the project to replace the existing City Hall with a new 2 story City Hall with our tax dollars. am requesting for all city council members, please STOP this proposal. You have so many more important things to do and improve our city rather than execute this lavish project. Please DO NOT shame us further; make us proud as a citizen and resident: Thank you, Regards, Mousumi Halder 7688 Rainbow Drive, Cupertino,CA 1 n Andrea Sanders To: Kirsten Squarcia Subject: RE: From a registered voter and Cupertino resident:I am strongly against the city hall rebuild project. t3From: Caila.n Shen fmailto:shencailan@gmail.com] - Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 2015 7:12 PM To: City Council Cc: City Clerk Subject: From a registered voter and Cupertino resident: I am strongly against the city hall rebuild project. Cupertino City Council Member, I am strongly against the city hall rebuild project. The tax money needs to be spent on more important issues relating to the quality of most Cupertino residents'life. • The tax money is more needed to mitigate the local traffic issue. • The tax money is also more needed to solve the funding issue of our local schools. Cupertino residents do not want to waste$53 million to rebuild a city hall. Please spend the tax dollar responsibly. Name:Cailan Shen - 1 �c 7 -7 S- _r4e^lu dr r CUPERTINO CITY HALL: DESIGNING FOR SEISMIC RESILIENCE EX111BIT Building Codes and Design Practice • Minimum code standards roughly equivalent to USRC three-star safety rating S Minimum standards set to achieve only life safety,preventing fatalities • Reoccupancy potential or cost of repair not addressed or affected • Value engineering to optimize building design (removing redundancies from structural system) can result in a building that sustains significant damage and is not economically reparable. USRC Seismic Rating System. • Gives building owners and users opportunity to set desired levels of building performance • Delivers information on a building's expected safety(allowing occupants to leave, without fatality or injury), damage (repair/replacement cost), and recovery(time to regain basic function) • Aims to ingrain seismic resilience into building design calculus • Based on national building standards and audited to prevent the manipulation of results w y USRC BuRding. Ratings.* Dimensions and Definitions 3aTff1JNP,,The .. - . people in the • . o get out . . . avoid bodor loss rating is required in all buildingevatuations. Injuries and blocking atexet paths unlilkeliy:Expected performance results in conditions unlikely to cause injuries or to keep people from exiting the building. Serious Injuries unlikelly:Expected performance results in conditions that are unlikely to cause serious injuries. e. Loss of Rife unilikelly:Expected performance results in conditions that are unlikely to cause toss of life. Loss of Rife possibie in iso4ated iocat5ons:Expected performance results in conditions associated with partial collapse or falling objects,which have.a potential to cause loss of life at some locations within or around the building. Loss of We Rikelly in the badidiing:Expected performance results in conditions associated with building collapse, which has a high potential to cause death within or around the building. ®am age as a percentage of • s overall replacement • includingstructural,architectural,mechanical, electrical andplumbing,sYstems. does note-damage caused by s and gas pipes or • damage. Minimal damage:Repair Cost likely less than 5%of building replacement cost. `r. Modeirate damage:Repair Cost likely less than 10%of building replacement cost. SOgnificant damage:Repair Cost likely less than 20%of building replacement cost. Substantiae damage:Repair Cost likely less than 40%of building replacement cost. ere damage:Repair Cost likely greaterthan 40%of buildingreplacement cost.�erM 1-419-705 a�EM, fafl MWAn estim ate• e carry out -e, •to remove major §afo�(hazards and obstacles to regain occupancy and use of -buildiIng,but e s -itto its full intended functions. Within hours to days The expected performance will likely result in people being able to quickly re-enter-and resume use of the building from immediately to a few days;excluding external factors. Within days to weeks:The expected performance may result in delay of minimum operational use for days to weeks,excluding external factors. '..,� f ithiln weeks to months'.The expected performance may result in delay of minimum operational use for weeks to months,excluding external factors. Within rn,onth.s to a year.,Expected performance may result in delay of minimum operational use for months to a year. M.ore than one,year:Expected performance may result in delay of minimum operational use for at,least one year or more. Please refer to the disclaimers in the full version of Dimensions and Definitions at:http://www.usrc.org/lrating-definitions TIPPINGProject:2015,078-Cupertino Civic Center-Phase I Author:carlson STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS Date:7/1/2015 12:19:31 PM Approximated USRC Ratings for Cupertino City Hall Scenerios USRC Rating Categories Building Scenarios Earthquake Safety Repair Cost Time to Regain Level Basic Function Existing Building DBE- Moderate No Seismic Retrofit MCE- Severe Existing Building DBE- Moderate No Seismic Retrofit Roof Tile Replacement Only MCE- Severe Project A Existing City Hall DBE- Moderate w/ Life Safety Retrofit MCE- Severe - - Project B -Existing City Hall DBE- Moderate w/ Immediate Occupancy Retrofit Includes EOC MCE- Severe Project C Existing City Hall w/ Complete DBE- Moderate -�- Remodel and Immediate Occupancy Retrofit MCE- Severe Project D.1 New City Hall Designed for DBE- Moderate ` ` Immediate Occupancy and Including EOC (Added MCE- Severe Project D.2 New City Hall Designed for DBE- Moderate Immediate Occupancy and Including EOC (Base MCE- Severe 1906 SHATTUCK AVENUE I BERKELEY, CA 94704 Approximated USRC Ratings for Cupertino City Hall Scenerios 510 549-1906 www.TiPPiNGSTRucruRAL.coM Approximated USRC Ratings for Cupertino City Hall Scenerios:1 of 1 CC 07-07-15 Item#11 Civic Center Master Plan ry , i +e i 1wo 01. _ + T rr: ,A kM e1 July 7,2015 City of Cupertino Civic Center Master Plan CC 07-07-15 Item#11 Presentation Agenda • Recommendations • Environmental Analysis Summary • Master Plan • Recommended Actions • Next Steps • Questions July 7,2015 City of Cupertino 2 Civic Center Master Pian CC 07-07-15 Item#11 Recommendations Recommended Actions: 1. Receive this presentation of the Civic Center Master Plan; 2. Consider the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration; 3. Adopt Resolution approving the Civic Center Master Plan; 4. Provide direction to staff on next steps toward implementation of the Civic Center Master Plan. July 7,2015 City of Cupertino 3 Civic Center Master Plan CC 07-07-15 Item#11 Environmental Analysis Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration Prepared by David J. Powers & Associates July 7,2015 City of Cupertino 4 CC 07-07-15 Item#11 Civic Center Master Plan Environmental Analysis Summary of Project Impacts: — implementation of the Cupertino Civic Center Master Plan would not result in any significant, adverse environmental impacts. — Standard mitigation measures would be implemented for the following environmental topics: • Biological Resources • Cultural Resources • Geology and Soils • Hazards and Hazardous Materials • Noise and Vibration July 7,2015 City of Cupertino 5 Civic Center Master Plan CC 07-07-15 Item#11 Master Plan Presentation Presented by Perkins+Will July 7,2015 City of Cupertino 6 Civic Center Master Plan CC 07-07-15 Item#11 Recommendations � . Staff recommends that the City Council take the following actions: • Consider the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration; • Adopt the Resolution approving the Civic Center Master Plan; Provide direction to staff on next steps toward implementation of the Civic Center Master Plan. July 7,2015 City of Cupertino 1 Civic Center Master Plan CC 07-07-15 Item#11 Next Steps Subject to the approval of the Civic Center Master Plan, Utilizing currently appropriated funding, do the following: • Prepare a Financing Plan for implementation of the Civic Center Master Plan; • Prepare final design and construction documents for a Library Field Parking Lot; • Develop design through construction documents for a Library Program Room Expansion; • Develop architectural programming, conceptual design, and schematic design for a new city hall; • Report status updates to Council and obtain Council approval for designs at critical decision points. July 7,2015 City of Cupertino 2 s CIVIC CENTER MASTER PLAN CONCEPTUAL CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE 2015 2016 2017 2018 Sep 00 NCH Dec Jr. Feb Mr W� May X+ jury Aug Sep Od Na Dec * Fet Mar AF« Mr, June July Aug Sect CYt Naw 0e Jr FCC Mar Ani May Jvn :��.y A4,MWIts 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 Of OA 10 11 12 13 14 15 18 17 11 18 20 21 22 23 24 25 25 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 SURFACE PARKING LOT • LIBRARY EXPANSION+ SITE IMPROVEMENT CITY HALL+SITE IMPROVEMENT f �a 8" U MEETINGS City(Sono Meetings(7J Parking Lot Luray Lbrry City Kali City Hall City Hail City Hall Meenng Mtg 1 Mtg 2 Mtg 1 Mtg 2 Mtg 3 Mtg 4 PERKINS : �July 7th,2015 TIPPING � 1a �lCW PAE WI LL CIVIC CENTER MASTER PLAN CONCEPTUAL CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE Work accomplished with current funds 2015 2016 2017 2018 Sep Od Na De Jr Fit Ms Apia Mai hrx M Aug Sept Oct Nw CNr. Jac Feb Mr Alta Mat An X* Aug Sep Od Nm DK Jac Fet Mr Aw. Mq k;m Juy MONTM8 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 01 09 10 It 12 13 14 15 1$ 17 is 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 X 27 2d Z? 3r' 3t 32 33 34 2 SURFACE PARKING LOT LIBRARY EXPANSION+ SITE IMPROVEMENT CITY HALL+SITE IMPROVEMENT • =MEN*d e (Q Y U� I MEETINGS �Ouncit Meetings:7, U0 Q 0 0 0 00 00 Parking LW Ubrary Library City Hall City Hall City Hai: Cay Kao MeaIqg Mtg t Mtg 2 Mtg" Mtg 2 Mtg 3 Mtg 4 Decision Point July 7th,2015 TIPPING q �, WALKER PJnil.c P E R K I N 5 PAE FEHR PEERS � PDC � �, WILL s CIVIC CENTER MASTER PLAN CONCEPTUAL CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE Work accomplished withi Further work with current funds I committed Private Funds 2015 12016 ( 2017 2018 Sept W NN DecI Jar Get Mr Ali May kov M IAug Sept Oct NN Dec Jr Pet Mar " May Jaw! July W8 SW Oct NN Dec Jae Feb Mar We Na, June ,. VWNS Ot o2 M a M S V 01 09 10 tt 17 13 11 15 11 17 if 19 20 21 21 23 N 25 25 27 21 29 3D 71 32 33 34 55 mimm",41 SURFACE PARKING LOT L-- L--------------- LIBRARY EXPANSION+ SITE IMPROVEMENT CITY HAIL+SITE IMPROVEMENT cg U MEETINGS ;tty Council Meetings(7) © Q 0 Parking Lot Library Library City Hall City Hall City Hale City Hall Meerng Mtg I Mtg 2 Mtg 1 Mtg 2 Mtg 3 Mtg d Decision Decision Point Point July 7th,2015 TIPPING®CpnsViton,3 WA.,,U.,:E.RPAE FEHR PEERS . WI L L ' 1 1 t" :. AL . .. 9 0-1 , N , 4 u� f 1� r, ,r r �6 L L9� #r A �p yam. x AGENDA WHY WE ARE HERE TODAY? w July 7, 2015 BRIEF RECAP OF THE CCMP PROCESS THE MASTER PLAN & ALTERNATIVE FINANCING STRATEGIES CIVIC CENTER MASTER PLAN 07-07-15 Ilam ai i WHY WE ARE HERE TODAY? WE ARE HERE TO UPDATE YOU ON THE CIVIC CENTER MASTER PLAN AND SEEK YOUR APPROVAL ON THE MASTER PLAN DOCUMENT AND ITS ASSOCIATED ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY. �. ren 2015 �...... ., riarixo 3cnc rrxe vrFaS � •..o. wc'd�::"°" racxixJuly 07-07-15 Item #11 CIVIC CENTER MASTER PLANT 07-07-15 Item #11 CCMP (gaM•Eti4 flwtt• �. . . � , 2012 CIVIC CENTER MASTER PLAN STUDY CHALLENGES: • � �� • library Growth and Popularity +�+!• �� • Parking Challenges • City Hall inefficiencies in community service and resiliency ar<lStVMRAtA rnrn rrfnrltiltn<, k f.rrMtM far rllvra OUR GOAL: Solve the challenges of today without compromising the vision and opportunities for the future. r.. A.. ...RAS 1NYtTe:A.'w••xM 'e.9. IrM-- `•J r.t GSONtKfD t ,. CIVIC LIFE FRAMEWORK PLAN:DECEMBER 2012 July 7th,2015 TIPPING PAE F FHR PFFrf'1 WALKER DC(a:Dauakaalo P E R K I N S ��rr Consortium W I L L CIVIC CENTER MASTER PLAN 07-07-15 Item #11 COMMUNITY (APRIL/MAY 2014) F C A w..vw++�+.fy,•:c�yrr�t�r+rxrvicu+,ctir u+y '�` - �..srys raMncl:.c�es WiK•➢'•u�boeirrhs Awe on Maeoetm«+:s uo M,pc+t b4aRmMk{rq,.. i' •s. s - w. welcome1 Imagine Cdpertiko M I Welcome' a •our • to gather of Cupertino residents regarding our cNic center infrastructure and d[_r ideas Your input is valuaUle and w0 guide future planning Ac a Topics Jain rhr dlvu<urxr nn VAspirations for Cupertino Civic Center•City Mall F y air, . t" What wouldyou like to se y cowMt gut r fr°>t updates to City Hall?(cho( apply) v W are orated to tce o us crr✓s o+,ire tx-a tome t; uuxxtxxeter�gnr�uc we t�W parr t:egrt•. Read More EARTH DAY EVENT STAKEHOLDER MEETING ONLINE FEEDBACK July 7th,2015 ® TIPPING u PAE F FHR PEERS WALKER PDC�Zc °'kms P E R K I N 5 t WILL CIVIC CENTER MASTER PLAN 07-07-15 Item #11 COMMUNITY (JULY 2014) w u ur "�, "°�°9�lob►kx�g .u k x.Cq✓¢toi.w.'! �•� t J ro �— %; Ai July 7th,2015 TIPPING u' I F H F; PF r kti A�� WALKIEp ( waKa P E R K I N S PA E .�T PDC��C.,.. + W I L L CIVIC CENTER MASTER PLAN 07-07-15 Item #11 CITY HALL SCENARIOS STUDIED EXISTING CITY HALL SCENARIOS NEW CITY HALLNew City Hall+EOC SCENARIOS New City Hall+ i Council July 7th,2015 ® TIPPING `PAE F H k PFFRS FALKER PDC�°" 0`� P E R K I N S PDC*) ccxr orcn,� + W I L L CIVIC CENTER MASTER PLAN 07-07-15 Item #11 EXISTING BUILDING ASSESSMENT MECHANICAL • Mechanical systems are unreliable and inefficient; • Collocated mechanical equipments violate current codes; • Maintenance cost of systems can be greatly reduced. ELECTRICAL • Electrical system is inefficient; • Current electrical loads have exceeded generator capacities, causing unreliable service; • Electrical fixtures are not energy efficient as required to meet current codes; 4 Systems maintenance costs can be greatly reduced. PLUMBING • Existing piping infrastructure and plumbing fixtures need to be upgraded. ARCHITECTURAL IMPLICATIONS * Current building is operating • Current facility does not meet requirements to house an EOC; inefficiently at$3.63/SF-yr&106 • Accessibility modifications are needed throughout the building; kBTU/SF-yr(vs$1.00/SF-yr&25 • Public service interface is compromised; kBTU/SF-yr for new buildings). • Current building space is insufficient for current staffing, accommodating no room for growth. July 7th,2015 a� TIPPING ! w�cEw P„a;cp,�J11P P F R K I N 5 ®o. ! PA FFHR PFFRS ., PDCc«, �„ W1 L L CIVIC CENTER MASTER PLAN 07-07-15 Item #11 STRUCTURAL TERMS EXPLAINED Seismic/ Life Safety • Life safety criteria implies significant damage to structure and non structural systems; • Facility relocation and downtime is anticipated; • Repairs may be costly or infeasible. Immediate Occupancy • Prescriptive code criteria for Immediate Occupancy implies stronger structure; • Does not explicitly assure performance goals, relies on structural damage to absorb seismic energy; • May require costly repairs and facility downtime following major earthquake. Performance Based (Immediate Occupancy/ Fully Operational) • Performance based to provide tailored structure that meets seismic resiliency goals; • Explicit and quantified performance metrics for risk and life-cycle cost assessment; Effective use of currently available technology (seismic isolation, viscous damping) to meet long term goals July 7th,2015 ®q TIPPING wwucEw `PuaicCka — P E R K I N S PAE FFHR `PFFRS PDC* orcnm + WI L L ***** injuries'adbteckingofexi<oata74. 7,4�tf teM, 44 -suniikeiytocauseinjuries CIVIC CENTER MASTER PLAN or to keep people from exiting the buiiding, STRUCTURALRATING *'**' Serious injuries unlikely:Expected perfom^ance results in conditions that are unlikely to cause serious inJurier. Loss of life unlikely:Expected performance results in conditions that are urlikely to cause loss of life. ** Loss of Ufe possible In isolated locat3onc Expected performance results in conditions associated with partial se collapnr fatting objects,which have a potential to cause loss of life at some locations within or around the building. US Resiliency Couneil (U S R C) Building Ratings Loss of Life likely in the building:Expected performance results in conditions associated with building collapse, which has a high potential to cause death within or around the building. REPAIR COST:Carnage electrical and plumbing systems.It does not include damage caused by brea�'s,'Ieiks in water and gas pipes or contents damage. • Gives building owners and users opportunity to set ** * Minimal damage:Repair Cost likely less than 50h of building replacement cost. desired levels of building performance; **** Moderate damage:Repair Cost likely less than 10%of building replacement cost. Delivers information on a building's expected safety — — (allowing occupants to leave, without fatality or --- *** Significant damage:Repair Cost likely less than 20wu of building replacement cost. injury), damage (repair/replacement cost), and substantial damage:Repair Cost likely less than 40°x,of building replacement cost. recovery (time to regain basic function); * severe damage:Repair Cost likely greater than 40%of building replacement cost. Aims to ingrain seismic resilience into building designTIME TO RE GAIN BASIC FUNCTION:An estimate of the MINIMU IA timefra mc-to carry out sufficient repairs and to remove chat.or - --- ---- ---- -- -- - - - calculus; safety hazards and obstacles to regain occupancy and use of the building,but not necessan ly restore it to its full intended functions, • Based on national building standards and audited to ***** Within hours to days:T he expected performance will likely result in people being able to quickly re-enter and resume use of the building from immediately to a few days,excluding external factors. prevent the manipulation of results. **** Within days to weelus:The expected performance may result in delay of mi nimum operational use for weeks,excluding external factors. Withinweeks to months:The expected performance may result in delay of minimum operational use for weeks to months,exc luding external factors. Within months to a year.Expected performance may result in delay of minimum operational use for months to a year. July 7th,20155 * Mon than one year.Expected performance may result in delay of minimum operational use for at least one year or more CIVIC CENTER MASTER PLAN 07-07-15 Item #11 APPROXIMATED USRC RATING FOR HALL EARTHQUAKE SAFETY REPAIR COST TIME TO REGAIN LEVEL BASIC FUNCTIONS EXISTING BUILDING' DBE-MODERATE -NO SEISMIC-RETRO MCE-SEVERE EXIST"'""' STING""'t DBE-MODERATE ROOF TILE REPLACEMENT MCE-SEVERE EXISTING BUILDING DBE-MODERATE LIFE SAFETY RETROFI MCE-SEVERE EXISTING BUILDING DBE-MODERATE ** IMMEDIATE OCCUPANCY WIEO MCE-SEVERE EXISTII DBE-MODERATE COMPLETE REMODEL MCE-SEVERE NEW CITY HALL W/EOC DBE-MODERATE IMMEDIATE OCCUPANCY ADDED RESILIENCE MCE-SEVERE **** **** ** ** NEW CITY HALL W/EOC ' DBE MODERATE * **** -IMMEDIATE OCCUPANCY+,; MCE-SEVERE BASEfSOlATEOs- CIVIC CENTER MASTER PLAN 07-07-15 Item #11 POTENTIAL CCMP ALTERNATIVES PROGRAMCITY HALL SCENARIOS LIBRARY STRUCTURED . Under Librar Field Lt Expand Library Under Librar Field Expand Library Behind Libra -below Undertibrarrifield Expandt;brary 8ehindtibra -below Pt Underiibrary Field P2 Behind Library-above y Lt Expandtibrary D New Cit HaN P3 Behind Library-below +EQC P4 New Buitdin Basement Pt Under Librar Field L2 Ex.Community Hall P2 Behindtibrary-above P3 Behind Library-below ENew City Hall+EOC L2 Ex.Community Hal! P4 NewBuildin Basement +Council Chambers P4 New BuifllJuly 7th,2015 TIPPING Basement ' .� - .: SCENARIOSCIVIC CENTER MASTER PLAN 07-07-15 Item #11 EVALUATION OF POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVES CITY HALL PROGRAM Under Librar Field tt Expand library Behindlibra -below Undertibrar field Expand Library Behind Librar-above Behind Library-below Under Library Field XiS Expand Literary P2 °�ehindLibrar-above Complete Remodel P3 Behindtibrar-below -F immediate occu alae �,eac ,,, pt Under Library field P2 Behind Library-above D New City Ha1i+EOG t1 Expandtibrary .lf P3 Behindtibrary-below F4 New Building Basement Pt UndertibraryFietd L2 Ex.Community Hall p2 Behind Library-above P3 Behind Library-below New C1t Hall+EQC P4 NewBuildin Basement L2 Ex.Community Hatl +Council Chambers P4 NewBuildin Basement July 7th,2015 TIPPING ibd • ' .. CIVIC CENTER MASTER PLAN 07-07-15 Item #11 CITY COUNCIL PREFERRED MASTER PLAN (OCT. 2014) INew City HallLl Expand LibraryOka �WrMgrnpnn- M11114111111101 40,000 sf NEW CITY LIBRARY HALL BUILDING: EXPANSION: with Eoc Expanded for 13C person - 4 m " 4 PARKING: .I f BELOW CITY HALL 118 Spaces f-7 6, x P c `e� July 7th,2015 TIPPING �' I F H F NF R5 �: WALKER �Pa���n PERK! N S 07-07-15 Item #11 THE MASTER PLAN ALTERNATIVE II e CIVIC CENTER MASTER PLAN 07-07-15 Item #11 THE MASTER PLAN NEW 40K GSF CITY HALL 441 t • PROGRAM ROOM ----"-___ w L . . . . BASEMENT EXPANSION '4 x (130 seats) PARKING (118 spaces) Optional additional surface parking would allow the Library expansion to be implemented before the City Hall expansion.It also facilitates on-site traffic circulation during the construction of the City Hall and basement parking. July 7th,2015 TIPPING pAE FEHk PEERS WALKER PDC*C,,,,,,tisortia P E R W i N L gi CIVIC CENTER MASTER PLAN . ,r. a 07-07-15 Item #11 p A TK MA1z r u r. m �• w y p...^ 7 7-g000d rc,P A < , , Y r r M ,1 , 2, 4 , July 7th,2015 ® TIPPING �� PAE I FHR IIFFRS WALKER FrUC �k>m P E R K I NS t W I L L 18 CIVIC CENTER MASTER PLAN 07-07-15 Item #11 LIBRARY EXPANSION SCENARIOS STUDIED '' 4 4 4,� ►` # 1w ' ; -r July 7th,2015 ® TIPPING n"`PAE E FH P PFFRS TALKER MC*=grhak— P E R W I N L CIVIC CENTER MASTER PLAN 07-07-15 Item #11 LIBRARY EXPANSION130-SEAT PROGRAM ROOM 0 RE Pv�Nv� r Ajojj'jjjjj"",p11"1pp'- .4 , SOUTH ENTRY COURTYARD .r t PROGRAM ROOM EXPANSION LIBRARY PARKING LOT V July 7th,2015 TIPPING li"` FFHR PFFR.) �r WALKER _''UOnSC1)Fa10[$J@ PER K I L L PA E ` 'ca surteu r }W I L L } CIVIC CENTER MASTER PLAN 07-07-15 Item #11 LIBRARYEXPANSI130-SEAT PROGRAM ROOM mmC SOUTH ENTRY 1 - COURTYARD ; LIBRARY COURTYARD 1:T r MEMORIAL GROVE i 1 PROGRAM ROOM i n EXPANSION I - - 1 Jul 7th,2015 TIPPING FFHR '"PEERS wEw �C�, P E R K I N S 2 ����Fubl�c Dlaio�� Y PA E «>...,., L.c«uort,um +W I L L 07-07-15 Item #11" M .. g , k 7 r Y d .. d v. yp � T k July 7th,2015 TIPPING 1 - vuaKnaio P E R K i N S ®�o,u PAE FF.HR PEERS ti WALKER PDCcorssortkm 2` +W I L L CIVIC CENTER MASTER PLAN 07-07-15 Item #11 NEWCITY HALL 40,000 GROSS SQUARE FEET 10,200 GSF community-serving space 29,800 GSF city administrative space bE�71�NG YEFTLVG AEET�YH".a�kEETnV1G YEN T•nr PNE c iuNCTION !i 10,200 S F .;�'.•�C ci Eg • ; •._�.ss33 J - SOMA ILJ LI"YJM RIPUBLIC `\.yu +auu�,uuY EMPLOY EE V� LOUNGE CITY OFFICES SOW r1N• FIRST FLOOR PLAN SECOND FLOOR PLAN July 7th,2015 TIPPING PA i F H R PFFRS WALKER PDC f P F R K I NS CIVIC CENTER MASTER PLAN 07-07-15 Item #11 NEW CITY HALL 40,000 GROSS SQUARE FEET Li z w Q W �Yfl�;5 - �itY OFFICE$ u1fF CITYOFFtCES oCITY HALL PARKING LOT ~ COMMUNITY/MEETINGROOM CITY OFFICES SERAM CITYOFFICE BASEMENT PARKING 0 5 7 5 :i0 CITY HALL EAST-WEST SECTION July 7th,2015 TIPPING w �� _ P E R K I N S DAE FFHR "PFFRS ,— 11 + w I L L CIVIC CENTER MASTER PLAN 07-07-15 Item #11 REDUCED-SCALE ALTERNATIVE STORY ROOM EXPANSION NEW 30-35K GSF (100 seats/70 seat increase) CITY HALL Y g „ BASEMENT r PARKING (77 spaces) t Optional additional surface parking would allow the Library expansion to be implemented before the City Hall expansion.It also facilitates on-site traffic circulation during the construction of the City Hall and basement parking. July 7th,2015 ® TIPPING WALKER PDC r, P E R K I N S PA E •�►•. w i l l CIVIC CENTER MASTER PLAN 07-07-15 Item #11 PATHS TO IMPLEMENTATION PHASE 2 or 3 r__________ Library expansion 01. Library Field PHASE 1 Add parking PHASE 2 or 3---- New City Hall PHASE 4 with basement parking Remove parkine&restore field July 7th,2015 ® TIPPING fig,PAENh !>f WALKER �._ P F R K I N 5 I F W I L L CIVIC CENTER MASTER PLAN 07-07-15 Item #11 ROUGH ORDER OF MAGNITUDE COSTS NEW CITY HAIL LIBRARY EXPANSION ADDITIONAL SITE TOTAL COST CITY HALL PROGRAM PROJECT COST PROGRAM ROOM PROJECT COST SURFACE PARKING IMPROVEMENT ) CITY HALL(40,000 GSF)+ EAST WING EXPANSION I BASEMENT PARKING56,200,000 (130 seats) $5,400,000 $1,100,000 $5,400,000 $68,100,000 8 spaces) L EAST WING EXPANSION $5,400,000 $1,100,000 $5,400,000 $63,000,000 CITY HALL(35,000 GSF)+ (130s BASEMENT PARKING '51,100,000 WEST WING EXPANSIpN (77 spaces) $4,700,000 $1,100,000 $5,400,000 $62,300,000 (t00seats) CITY HAIL(30,000 GSF)+ BASEMENT PARKING >46,000,000 WEST WING EXPANSION $4,700,000 $1,100,000 $5,400,000 $51,200,000 (77 spaces) (100 seats) July 7th,2015 ® TIPPING PPAE FFHR—PFFRS ` WALKER �C�v�a P E R W I N S CIVIC CENTER MASTER PLAN 07-07-15 Item #11 FINANCING S POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES • City General Fund Contributions • Certificate of Participation (COP) Financing • County Library District lease or other payments • Private Funds(e.g. Friends of Library, Community Benefit Funds) • Federal & State Programs EVALUATED, NOT CONSIDERED LIKELY SOURCES • Public Private Partnerships • Mello Roos Special Taxes/AssessmentDistrict July 7th,2015 TIPPING46PAE FFHR PFFRS V ww w PDC*'C'Ornso Sun, PER K I N 5 r 1 EA:M!, It � 07-07-15 Item #11 4,r--jrl tolw . t' 4010 L C LL ENTER MASTER r'LAN I w - u„ A _ w x n . V CITY OF CUPERTINO PER K I NS JULY 7, 2015 TIPPING PA f F H R PFFR, WALKER