CC 01-25-02 Archives
CUPERTINO
AGENDA
Cupertino City Council, Regular Adjourned Meeting
10300 Torre Avenue, City HaH Council Chamber
Friday, January 25, 2002
9:00 a.m.
9:00 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the
Council on any matter not on the agenda. Speakers are limited to three
minutes. In most cases, State law will prohibit the Council bom making
any decisions with respect to a matter not listed on the agenda.
STAFF REPORTS
1. Report on bids, reject all bids and authorize re-bid o~r the yearly
maintenance contract for Blackb~,y Farm Golf Course
Maintenance, Project No. 2001-08.
STUDY SESSION
2. Review of Sports Center project.
12:00 LUNCH
12:30 CONTINUATION OF GOAL-SETTING STUDY SESSION OF 1/18
In conference room C/D
4:00 ADJOURNMENT
City Hall
10300 Torres Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
CffY OF
CUPE INO
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
Summary
AGENDA ITEM NO I AGENDA DATE: January 2S, 2002
SUBJECT AND ISSUE
Report on bids, recommendation to reject ail bids and authorize re-bid of the yearly maintenance
contract for Blackbeny Farm Golf Course Maintenance, Project No. 2001-08.
BACKGROUND
When Blackb~,.~' Fa,v was acquired by the city, it was agreed that the city would hire the
existing maintenance staff as city employees. Since that time, the course and its infrastructure
have aged and regulations regarding the use of herbicides and pesticides have changed. Staffwill
be addressing the infra.shacture issues during the Blackbwty Farm Master Plan process, but
operational improvements can be made now to improve the level of maintenance of the course.
Options considered for improving maintenance of the course included: hiring an in-house turf
management expert, using the Public Works turf crew, and contracting for golf course
maintenance.
Specifications were prepared a contract with a speciaity maintenance contractor and thc cost of
the work under the contract was estimated to be $185,000. This was approximately $27,000 less
than the current operational cost if the work continued to be performed by City staff. However,
besides the potential for saving money, our primary reason for considering the option of
contracting the work is to improve the level of maintenance with a specialty contractor.
Staff displaced by the maintenance contract has been reassigned to existing vacant positions in
the Public Works Dep~utu,ent Service Center. Except for the reassignment, there are no impacts
on City staffing or to the cost of current operations. Pursuant to the MOU with OE3, a 4S-day
written notice of the intent to contract out golf course maintenance was sent on Oct. 1, 2001 and
staff subsequently met with Union representatives on the reassignment of staff.
Prfnted on Recycled Paper
Blackben~ FaiLrt Golf Course Maintenance, Project No. 2001-08
January 22, 2002
Page 2 of 2
DISCUSSION
Bids for contract maintenance at Blackberry Fa, m Golf Course were opened on January 15, 2002
and the following is a summary of the bids received:
Bidder Base Bid
Int. Nail. GoffMaintenance, Inc. $ 235,608
Environmental Golf $192,917
Spot Water Management $186,600
Engineers Estimate $185,000
The low bidder, Spot Water Management, presented a bid document that had some minor
irregularities regarding the listing of subcontractors. Staff, in reviewing this minor irregularity
and discussing it with the contractor does believe that this irregularity contributed to any unfair
competitive advantage for the low bidder and can therefore be waived.
In addition, subsequent to the bid opening, a letter of protest was received from Environmental
Golf, the second lowest bidder (copy attached). Staff has reviewed the letter and believes that
most of the representations in it do not have merit nor does the City have significant exposure to
the threat of court action by this bidder. However, in reviewing the process, the concern raised by
the protest about the award criteria is sufficiently confusing that when combined with the matter
of the low bid irregularity, staff believes that the best course of action would be to simply reject
all bids and immediately re-bid the project with amended language to eliminate any possible
confusion or misinterpretation of the award criteria.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Reject all bids and authorize re-bid of the yearly maintenance contract for Blackberry Farm Golf
Course Maintenance, Project No. 2001-08.
Submitted b~..
Ralph A. Quall~, Jr. Therese Ambrosi Smith
Dir~tor of Public Worl~ Dir~tor of Parl~ and R~'~ation
Approved for submission:
David W. Irmap~ ..
City Manager
ENVIRONMENTAL GOLF
January 16, 2001
Mr. Ralph A. Qualls, Jr.
Director of Public Works
CityHall
City of Cupertino
10300 Tone Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014-3255
RE: Protest of Bid on Blackberry Farm Golf Course Maintenance Project, Number 2001-08
Bid Opening January 15, 2002 at 2:00 P.M.
Dear Mr. Qualls:
Our Company, Environmental Golf, Inc. (EGI), attended the mandatory pre-bid conference held Monday,
January 7, 2002, at 10:00 A.M., at the Retreat Center--all as required by the bid documents.
Furthermore, we received and acknowledged Addendum No. 1.
The second page of the "B. Bid Documents Notice to Contractors", states as follows:
"Awards, if any, will be made to the responsible bidder whose pwposal
is most advantageous to the City."
'~'he City of Cupertino reserves the right to award the contract to any
qualified bidder based on the proposal that is most edvantageous to the City."
At the pre-bid meeting, the statement was made to all bidders present that "following opening of the
proposals, interviews would be held between the City and the selected bidders on January 17, 2002."
The above-quoted language from the bid documents clearly mean.~ that this job is going to be procured by
turning in a proposal for a negotiated procurement.
We therefore took the City at its word and prepared a pwposal based on the City's representations and our
belief that the amount of our pwposal would be discussed after submission and could be modified, if
necessary, at the inteawiews to.be held on January 17~.
Preparing a proposal for review and discussion is much different than preparing a hard dOllar'bid for a job
to be awarded to the lowest dollar bidder on competitive bidding pwcedures. There was nothing in the
bid documents which indicated that this job would be awarded based strictly on low bid, and we were
never told that until after it was too late and bids were in.
24121 VENTURA BOULEVARD · CALABASA$. CA 91302 · 818.223.$$00 · FAX lmlim.$91.3012
Mr. Ralph Quails, Jr.
Page 2 of 3
January 16, 2002
However, our representative was told after the bids were received, in no uncertain t¢~ms, that the job
would be awarded strictly on lowest dollar bid, and we were told that we were not the lowest bidder.
This is extremely unfair to our Company who, in good faith, prepared for a negotiated procurement based
upon the specific representations of the City through its procurement docl~ments and oral statements at the
pre-bid, as discussed above.
Furthermore, we were told that the low bidder was "Spot Water Management", whose principal is Andy
Slack, a sole proprietor. In looking at his proposal, it contains many inconsistencies and indicates to us
that Mr. Stack's qualifications and work history are suspect.
Under his qualifications, he claims 20+ years, in part under the name Mike Basile, Golf Course
Superintendent. How does Mike Basile, as a golf course superintendent, give experience to Andy Slack
as the sole proprietor of Spot Water Management?
Sierra Pacific Turf Supply was also listed for Andy Slack's experience. As its name states, Si~xa Pacific
Turf Supply is a supplier. As far as we know, Sierra Pacific does not maintain any golf courses.
We hereby protest his bid on the grounds that it is being awarded as a "hard dollar bid", advertised under
an invitation to bid, which stated it was a negotiated procurement. This put our Company at an unfair
disadvantage, and we would have prepared a much tighter bid had we known the City's true intentions,
which had never been communicated to us until a/ter bid opening. We believe we could have beat Spot
Water Management's bid had we known the City's true intentions (as his bid was only $500 per month
lower than ours, an annual variance of less than 4%).
We further protest the City's stated intention to award this job to Spot Water Management under the
premise that they represent themselves as having the most advantageous proposal to the City when their
qualifications and work experience pale in comparison to EGI's, and the cost variance is as minimal as
less than 4% be.~een our bids.
Therefore, we make these alternative requests:
1. Proceed with the interview process and award the job as advertised, to the qualified bidder
based on the proposal that is most advantageous to the City;, or,
2. Reject Spot Water Management's bid on the grounds that they are not a qualified bidder as
required by the bid documents and award the job to Environmental Golf, Inc. as the lowest,
responsive and oualified bidder; or,
3. Reject all bids and re-advertise the procurement under the method that you really want,
either hard bid or negotiated procurement, being careful to make sure that the bid
documents are clear and not contradictory. Make sure that the selected process is properly
followed.
Mr. Ralph A. Q~,~ll,~ Sr.
Page 3 of 3
Sanuary 16, 2002
We are confident that if you follow Choice #1 above, that you will come to the conclusion that we are the
qualified bidder that has submitted the proposal most advantageous to the City. We listed that choice first
in fairness to all the bidders, so that they can try to convince the City representative of their position.
If Choice #1, 2 or 3 is not followed, but in~tead the City elects to award the job to any bidder other than
Environmental Golf on the current record as it is, we will have no choice but to seek relief in a court of
law by way of an Injunction or Writ of Mandate, because we believe that the course being taken by the
City until now is illegal.
We stand ready, willing and able to perform the work for the City and should be given the award.
Very truly yours,
Corporate Coumel
WNC:m!
cc: Michael Chang, City Council Member
Sandra James, City Council Member
Chuck Killian, City Attorney
Patrick Kwok, City Council Member
Richard Lowenthal, Mayor
Carmen M. Lynaugh
Terry McGuire
Michael O'Dowd
Dolly Sandoval, City Council Member
~icupertinobidprote. st
CUPEI~TINO
Parks And Recreation
Programs Provided At No Cost To The Community
Nature Proaramminq
· Outdoor education programs at McClellan Ranch Park
· Visits to elementary school classrooms for natural history/environmental education
programs
· Saturday museum programs for families
· Programs for scouts and other youth groups
· Teacher training programs to assist in developing curriculum tied to McClellan
Ranch field trips
Youth Programmina
· Playgrounds - we currently offer an eight-week free drop-in program at four
playground sites: Monta Vista, Memorial, CreeksJde and Portal. This program is
offered Mon-Thurs, 1:30-4:30 p.m. (Staff will be asking for funding to acd an
additional site in 2002/2003 fiscal year due to high enrollment at the cu'rent sites
($18,105).
· Teen Drop-In - This program is offered on Wednesday evenings, 6-7:3C p.m. during
eight weeks of summer. Supervision and organized activities are provided.
· Almost Anything Goes - this is a special event that is a family BBQ and evening of
entertainment that is offered to participants/family who take part in our summer
camps. ($3,000)
· Noontime Program - This lunchtime program is offered at elementary schools and
middle schools in Cupertino. Recreation leaders provide organized activities of
games and crafts during lunch. ($29,800)
· Special Recreation - This program is for disabled teens/young adults and meets
once a week. We do charge a fee, but it is partially subsidized at approximately 50
percent.
· Mobile skate park
Blackberry Farm
· Free admission to the park to all Cupertino residents on Cupertino Day. This year's
date is Saturday, May 11; approximately $9,800.
Cultural Art Proqramminq
· Shakespeare in the Park - Nine performances in August each year witl' a $20,000
budget
· Summer Concert Series - Seven to eight performances June, July and August with
a $6,000 budget
· Community Tree Lighting - One day in December with a budget of $1,500
· Art in the Park - One day in June with a $500 budget
· 4th of July - with an approximate budget of $80,000
Parks And Recreation Department
Programs Provided At No Cost To The Community
January 18, 2002
Page 2 of 3
SI3ecial Events Fee Waivers
· Iranian Federated Women's club (IFWC) fundraiser; $1,400 waived
· IFWC 5th annual arts and cultural event; $3,690 waived
IFWC 6th annual arts and cultural event; $6,380 waived
· Cherry Blossom Festival; $10,670 waived
· Moon Festival; $8,415 waived
· Oktoberfest; $1,895 waived
· Ikebana Flower Show; $12,000 waived
· Art and Wine Festival; $2,310 waived
Non-SI3ecial Events Fee Waivers
· Pacific Scribes; $134
· Optimist Club; $100
· Employment Development Department Tax Branch; $80
· Fremont Union High School District; approximately; $100
Senior Center Pro.clrammin.cl
- Drol3-in Activities
· Book Review
· Card Playing
· Progressive Bridge
· Lively Monday Discussions
· Mahjongg Free Play
· Monthly Movies
· Needlecraft
· New member orientation
· Ping Pong
· Poetry Corner
· Rhythmaires Band
· Drop-in Tennis
- Services
· Legal assistance
· Health Insurance Counseling
· Case manager
· Drop-in consultations with case manager
· Housing consultations
· Blood pressure checks
· Bereavement support
· Caregiver support
Parks And Recreation Department
Programs Provided At No Cost To The Community
January 18, 2002
Page 3 of 3
- Senior Center Classes
· Citizenship Class
· ESL Conversation
· English Conversation
- Fremont Adult Education
· Advanced Conv./Search the News
· Senior Survival English (Basic)
· Senior Survival English (Int.)
- De Anza Colle.cle
· Carl Jech's Class
· Choraliers
· Elements of Drawing
· Hiking/natural History of Bay Area
· Theatre Arts for Seniors
· Painting - Oil & Acrylic
· Nutrition for Healthy Lifestyle
· Senior Issues for Today
· Symphony & Concerto
· TV Production
- UI3coming Events
· Movie: Children of Heaven - Jan. 8
· In Home Support Workshop - Jan. 15
· Caregivers Workshop- Jan. 16
· Piano Dedication- Jan. 19
· Arioso Trio - Jan. 28
· Valentine Party - Feb. 11
· Chinese New Year Celebration - Feb. 28
mp
g:~arks and recreation adminVree progrems.doc
¢o° I
CUPERTINO
SPORTS
CENTER
Assessment of Existing Facilities
and
Recommendations for Renovation and/or Expansion
Report Prepared by:
BSA Architects
350 Padflc Avenue
San Francisco, CA 941 ! 1
(415) 781-1526
October 30, 2000
With AddMonai Input from:
Dasse Design - Structural Engineers
tqechanical Design Studio - lqechanical Engineers
Zeiger Engineers - Electrical Engineers
Davis Langdon Adamson - Consicdcdon Cost Estimators
CUPERTINO SPORTS CENTER BSA ARCHITECTS
Assessment Report October 30, 2000
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction
2. Description of Facilities
Existing Facility Diagram
3. Descriptions of Options 1, 2 and 3 Diagrams of Options 1 and 2
4. Existin~ Conditions Re~ort
BSA Architects
5. Accessibility Repor~ BSA Architects
6. Accessibility Worksheets BSA Architects
7. S~'uctural Assessment Dasse Design
8. Mechanical Assessment
Mechanical Design Studio
9. Electrical Assessment Zeiger Engineers
l 0. Cost Assess~ent
Davis Langdon Adamson
11. Conclusions
Transmittal
Date: November 15, 2000 From: Mark Schatz
To: Bob Rizzo ~e:
c/o Don McCarthy Project
10185 North Stelling Project No.:
Cupertino, CA 95014 cc
Quantity ! Drawing No. Dated Description
6 ; Oct. 30, 2000 Cupertino Sport Center - Assessment of Existing
=, Facilities and Recommendations for Renovation
; and/or Expansion
[] Mail [] California Ovemight [] Messenger [] Fed,ral Express []
Cor/ultents:
Please find enclosed 5 bound sets and 1 unbound set.
Architecture 1045 Sansome Street, Suite 206 tel 415.788.6606
Intedom San Francisco, California 94111 fax 415.788.6650
, Urban Design architectsOfieldpaoli.com www.fieldpaoli.com
Cupertino Sports Center
Assessment of Existing Conditions and Recommended Options
BSA Architects
October 30, 2000 ~
Introduction
The exi~a;~ Cupertino Sports Center was originally, constructed in 1976 as th~ De Anza
Racquet Club, a private tennl.q and social club with racquetball and limited illness
facilities.
In 1990, the city bought the facility and turned it into a public racquet/sports facility for
which they charge fees. It has been a success in term~ ofte,nls, but is otherwise limited
by the conditions of the facility.
The building has approximately 15,000 square feet of area on two levels, with the entry ' ' '
from parking being at around the midpoint between the two levels. The tennis courts are
below the parking level. There is also a small swimming pool, which has a fabric all-
weather enclosure, and is used plimarily for lessons. The building is situated in Memorial
Park, which now also houses the Quinlan Community Center and the new Senior Center.
Several years ago, a proposal was put forward to tear the building down and build a new
center on this site. However, the costs appeared to be considerable, and the council had
other priorities like the senior center and proposed library.
This new report has been prepared at the request of Bob Rizzo and the City of Cupertino,
in an effort to dete~-,ine the best course of action for improving this facility.
In all of the studies which we have done, we have looked at three alternatives for the
potential improvement of the facility.
1. Option 1 - Sei~,,i¢, mechanical, electrical and ADA upgrade only. The intent is to
bring the building up to code for structure and accessibility, but simply to upgrade
the existing systems based on their current configurations for mechanical, electrical
and plumbing.
2. Option 2 - Sei-qmlc and ADA upgrade, upgrade of machanical and electrical
systems, expansion of the existing exterior deck, and interior renovation to make
the center a more viable sports and illness facility.
3. Option 3 - Demolish the existing building and replace it With a new, 10,000 square
foot building.
This report CoI~tsins the following sections. In each section, we have done an assessment
of the existing facilities, and mede recommendations as to thc scope of work required for
options I and 2. In the case of option 3, the existi~ facility would be demolished, so no
renovation would be required.
· Arcbi~cl'ur~l Assessment of Existing Facilities
· Accessibility Review per ADA and California Title 24
· Structural Assesmuent ~
· Mechanical Assessment
· Electrical Assessment
· Proposed Improvements fOr Options 1 and 2
· Construction and Project Cost Estimates
Please note that we did not have any reports done on the existing utilities serving the
buildinl~, nor on the conditions of the landscaping and irrigation at the site. Should the
city decide to proceed with one of the courses of action described herein, we would
recommend au~omenting this study with assessmenis of those systems as well.
The cost estimates are based on the scope of work otltllned in the report on]y, with
contingencies for escalation and design. The project budget also includes a 10%
conslruction chAnie order contingency for renovation or a 5% change order contingency
for new construclio~
Cupertino Sports Center
Assessment of Existing Conditions and Recommended Options
BSA Ar&itects
October ~0, 200O
Conclusion
The preceding report has presented an assessment of the existing conditions and outlined
three poss~le approaches for the upgrading of the Cupertino Sports Center. The scope of
the assessments included architectural, ADA, structural, mechanical end electrical. It did
not include any surveys on existing utility services or lendscaping.
In each of those p~cx)rts, we have presented, as Option 1, a proposed minimal scope of
renovation that would be required in order to bring the facility up to current code
sUmaArds for seismic and ADA issues. Key ADA considerations include providing
access to the main entry by means of a new ramp, providing access between the two
floors by means of a new elevator, and providing accessible washroom facilities on both
floors including showers in the locker moms.
For Option 2, we have diagrammed a potential renovation scheme which incorporates all
of these upgrades, but additionally modifies the building in order for it to better serve the
needs of the community. One of the complicating factors of this alternative is that it ·
requires substantial mechanical and plumbing work in order to bring the facility up to
code in those areas as well. This work would not be required if we were just doing the
seismic/ADA upgrade.
For Option 3, which has not been illustrated, but merely described as an alternative, we
propose to demolish the existing building, and co~/~act a new, smaller facility on the
site. The smaller size would be possible through elirnlnstlon or,he racquetball courts,
which are currently a large part of the existing buiMing.
With all three Ol~Ons, there are also improvements to be considered at the tennis courts,
pool and pool en~'y bulld;,~;. For purposes of this study, we have included the cost of
fully replacin~ the pool entry with option 3, and a cost for renovation with the other two
options. This ]tem can be broken out of the cost if desired.
Based upon the ~nfotumtion in these sm~rnary assessments, our cost esfimafin_~ consultant
has prepared a conslruction cost analysis for each. Based upon that information, we
prepared an overall project cost comparison sheet
To summarize that sheet, the estimated con~uuction and project costs for the three
alternatives are as follows:
Option 1 Option 2 Option 3
Sei~midADA Upgrade Renovation of Existing Demolition / New Building
x Est. Cor~traction Cost
$1,194,000 $2,152,000 $2,473,000
Est. Project Cost
$1,545,590 $2,741,557 $3,018,643
Based upon these costs, we would make the following recommenda~on5:
1. The structural concerto are quite real, and the building, in its current configuration,
is not in full compliance with.current building codes. We feel this work is critical,
and if you choose to keep the existing building, it needs to be done.
2. The ADA issues are also very important, and need to be addressed. IN particular,
the issues of access to the main entry and between the two levels of the building.
3. Should only limited funding be available at this time, we would recommend that the
City proceed with Option 1 to perform the necessary upgrades to bring the building
up to code for seismic and ADA. However, we do not feel that this is money wisely
spent, because the building will still be deficient in terms of meeting the projected
needs, and the mechanical and ele~trlcal issues will not be adequately adcl~ssed.
4. Between the two other options, we feel the best choice for the City would be to tear
down the existing building and construct a new facility from scratch. In doing this,
the center will no longer have to adapt their programs to the spaces available, but
will rather have the opportunity to design the spaces around the desired activities.
As a specific example, even in its proposed location in option 2, the aerobics room
solution is a compromised one due to the existence of the central concrete wall, and
the issues of providing accessible entry with different floor levels. Also, the locker
room toilct areas need to be completely re-built, but they will be shoehorned into the
available space, rather than designed in the most efficient and accessible manner.
5. We recogni~,e that there still is a substantial cost differential (approximately 10°,4)
between options 2 and 3. However, we believe that in terms of long term
maintenance end operating costs, this difference will be erased over a matter ofjnst a
few years.
CUPERTINO 8PORT8 CENTER
BUDGET WOPKSH~
COMPARISON OF OPTIONS 1, 2 and 3
BSA ARCHITECTS - NOVEMBER 8. 2000
OPTION I: OPTION 2: OP'TION 3:
' ~ TOTAL
FOUNDATIONS
BUILDING SHELL
INTERIORS
EQUIPMENT & SPECIALTIES
PLUMBING
HVAC
ELEC, LIGHTING & COMMUNICATIONS
FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEMS
SITE PREPARATION
PAVING & LANDSCAPING
UTILITIES (ASSUMES NO CHANGES)
SUB-TOTAL - DIRECT COSTS
GENERAL CONDITIONS o 12~
OVERHEAD & PROFIT - 7%
PLANNED CONSTRUCTION COST
DESIGN CONTINGENCY- 15%
ESCALATION TO JUNE 2001 - 3%
S t,009,000 $ 1,H7,000 S 2,200,000
TENNIS COURT IMPROVEMENTS
POOL ENTRY BUILDING
SW1MMING POOL MODIFICATIONS
$ 1B~,OQO $ 185,000 $
·
ARCHITECTURE & ENGINEERING - 12%
ALLO~NANCE FOR REIMBURSABLES
GEOTECHNICAL
SURVEYS
· SPECIAL TESTS & INSPECTIONS - 2%
PLAN CHECK & UTIUITY FEES :..~
Note: these are estimates, need numben
PLANNING :- ;.::
BUILDING ~.~;:: ~'!
Page1 of 2
FIRE DEPARTMENT
...,.,~..
WATER & 8EWER '.:~~
~S & E~O~I~L ' :.~:~.0~- ;~~ .~~
~ . , ..... .,~.~<.~.:-
..... ~. t...~. '~.~~%?:'~: S 207,1, ~, 349,357~~ S 396,993
MOVAB~ FURNISHINGS (n~ in~ed)
FI~ESS EQU~ME~ {n~ ind--)
~E~EPHO~E S~
SOUND SY~EM (n~ n~uded) ,
.
N~ ~N~. C~NGE ORDER ALL~-
R .OV.T,O.
CONSULTANT ~ SEaWCES
m~_~.~~~ ~:.~:~..~'~. $ 129.4~ '~~ $ 2~,200 S 133,650
Page 2 of 2
OPTION 2
9. The controls for the tennis court lights need to be automatic (astronomical time
dock) and via contac~ors. Thc use of the breakers as switches has cause the
operation some headaches with the controls and possible fa/lures.
10. The removal of the kitchen and bar would require the un~,! lighting changes in
the area to suit the use of the renovated space. Provide for the connection ora
new elevator. Provide for new lighting in area Which will now be utilized as a
meeting room.
11. The replacement of any mechanical units as dictated by the mechanical survey
will require that they be reconnected.
12. The tennis court lights would need to be replaced with new units to bring the
lights levels up to thc recreational and tournament level play.
13. The site parking lot lighting is minimum at the perlm~ter of the site and additional
units or replacement of the existing is suggested. This would provide a more
secure place for night-time use.
14. The exterior lighting around the swimming pool is non ex/stent. To provide for a
secure and safe operation at night. We would suggest additional lighting around
the perimeter of the tented pool.
15. Additional lighting at the porch area overlooking Tennis Court number 1.
16. A fire alarm system needs to be in.~alled along with the ADA strobes in public
spaces.
17. New lighting and receptacles for the Cardiovascular Fitness area where the former
dining room was. Pwvide for the connection of treadmills, stair-steppers, etc.
1 $. Revised the men's and women's locker room to replace the former spa with a
storage room.
19. Revise the lighting and receptacle layout for the Child Watch area fi.om the
former "Acceleration Fitness Room". Possible relocation of the new panel
installed in the new Child Watch area.
If you have any further questions regarding the above options, please don't hesitate to
give me a call.
Sincerely,
Oscar T. Louie, P.E.
Vice President
RECEP110N
RACQUET RECEPTION
COURT f3 ~E~
SWIMMING NEN'S WOklEN'S KITCHEN
POOL/ JJACUTZ~ JACUZZI
(~)sc~.E:SINGLE.~ LINE DIAGRAM
PROJECT: CUPERTINO SPORT~ CENTER
10/30/00 2:23 PM CUPERTINO SPORTS CENTER cup sports - zeiger 3.xls
Description of Space Area Lighting NC Misc Totals
Sports Center 15000 30000 75000 120000
Tennis Court Lights 77000 77000
Parking Lot Lights 4270 4270
Jacuzzi pumps 8528 8528
Swimming pool pumps 4264 4264
Handicap Lift 1470 1470
Dumb waiter 4773 4773
Walk in Refrigerator 1500 1500
Total Estimated-load 221805
Service at 2771480 volts three phase four wire 267
Cupertino Sports Center
Electrical Report
\
Guideline~ for Work Related to Options 1 and 2
Zeiger Engineers
October B0, 2000
In reference to thc Cupertino Sports Center, the foUowing is thc evaluations on the
impact due to the various Options:
OPTION 1
1. The controls for the tennis court lights need to be automatic (astronomical time
clock) and via conmctors. The use of the breakers as switches has cause the
operation some headaches with the controls and possible failures.
2. The removal of the kitchen and bar would require the.usual lighting changes in
the area to suit the use of the renovated space.
3. The replacement of any mechanical units as dictated by the mechanical survey
will require that they be reconnected.
4. The tennis colLrt lights would need to be replaced with new units to bring the
lights levels up to the recreational and tournament level play.
5. The site parking lot lighting is minimum at the perimeter oftbe site and additional
units or replacement of the existing is sugses~i. This would provide a more
secure place for night-time use.
6. The exterior lighting around the swimming pool is non existent. To provide for a
secure and safe operation at night. We would suggest additional lighting around
the perimeter of the tented pool.
7. A fire alarm system needs to be installed along with the ADA strobes in public
8. Revised the men's and women's locker room to replace the fmuier spa with a
storage room.
J,77ereise Room 2 x 2 recessed n;ne cell baffled 2 l-rap fluorescent units.
Sac~i Area 1 x 4 wet labeled surface mounted 2 lamp fluorescent
units.
Shower Stalls Wet labeled surface mounted compact fluorescent unit
Locker Room 2 x 4 recessed lay-in fluorescent fixtures.
Enclosed Swimming
Pool Wet labeled four foot 2 lamp fluorescent unit.
All the exit passageways had self-contained battery ~mits for emergency egress.
The exterior building has recessed lights within the overhangs around the building
exterior balcony/deck area. The parking lot had the simple shoe box units providing
minimum lighting l~vels within the lot and entry offthe street. They appear to be a
Ruud unit with two per pole (approximately 20-25 foot poles). The drawings call for a
single 250 watt metal halide unit. The lighting within the tennis courts are done with
twin ] 000 watt metal halide area units. The configurations are as shown on the
drawings. We feel thc lighting does not meet the Illuminating Engineers Society's
(lES) stan~_ard for tennis court (both recreational play and Professional) although the
site tennis pro felt that it was acceptable. The controls for the tennis court lights are
non existent and they are currently be turned on manually using the breakers as
switches. If the breakers were not switch rated (identified as SWD), this would not be
according to code. I believe that these breakers do not meet these criteria. We wold
suggest that lighting contactors be installed between the breakers to the lighting.
Whereby the contactors would be control via time switehcs to provide the lighting
controls neccssa~ for thc operation of the tennis court lights. It was also noted that the
exterior area surrounding the enclosed-tented swilnmlng pool is not well lit during the
operating hours afar sunset. We would suggest that additional exterior lights be added
to provide security and safety around the facility.
The site has only monitoring of the flow and tamper on the sprinklers and an exterior
bell for notification. The site does not have a complete fire alarm system with pull
stations at the exits, horn/strobes in public areas for notification, or strobes in the
public batlu'ooms.
The load calculations for the site would suggest that the service is adequate for the
current demand but would need to be reevaluated for the proposed new building. The
estimated required service for the existing facility would require a minimmn of 400
amps at 277/480 volts three phase four wire.
If you have any further questions on the above project please don't hesitate to give me
a call.
Sincerely,
Oscar T Louie, P.E.
Vice President
The e.'ciscin~ AC-1 s~cem servini~ the ~ntry lobby""d a~tion
shouM be convez-,ed ~o z'v'VT ~ wiTh separate sub-~one c~npe~
For ezch o£The r2~-ee oF~ces znd one for the ~ lob~ / z~cep~on ~
office ~ ~ ~xer f~ (desc~b~ un~ ~e 1.) ~e n~
co~er~ room ~d pro~ the zd~on~ coo~ ~p~
~ Mo~ o~ ~ ~ d~rk ~d~ ~ co~on ~o
w~ need ~o be r~lec~.
~ descn~oed ~or Akera~e ~o.
~'~ ~work chzn~ in The men
the rm~l p~-,i~ion hTout in the~
2. Plumb~n~
new work men~oned under .~kem~r~ve No. 1 and in ad~ion..
l~emov~l of The ~ plumb~n~ ~'m~es, floor dr~;~ · and asso~ia~ecl
for The e-~-Gn~ M~chen.
c. Kemoval of the exis',ing spa pl,~bin$ s-ys~ems.
3. Fire Protection:
New head loca~ions/reloca~ons required by',.he remodel due ~o
~n/~on ch~n~es.
Pz~ 8 of 8
'ON O)OP,,IS N915)0 'H~)tN ~N(ILt :[~ 000~ '6([ 'i30
Cupertino Sports .Center
Electrical Report
Assessment of Existing Conditions
Z~iger Engin~'s
October 30, 2000
The existing building was surveyed on ~ 4~ of October. The building has a 400-stop
three-phase four-wire 277/480 volt system. The service is provided via an on site pad
mounted PG & E transformer located just north of the north entrance to the building.
The Pacific Bell telephone service is from a s~,.et box on Stevens Creek Blvd. The
main meter switchboard is located at a mid level below the upper level of the Center.
The service is step down via a 150 kva ~u~ansfom~er. All primary and secondary wirinZ
for the transformer is via enclosed wireway. It is noted that the secondary feeds are
utilizing the tap rule since it is running unprotected from the transformer's secondary
lugs to the main breaker in the panel behind the reception area. The conductors
nmoAng to the 277/480 volt panel, also behind the reception area is utilizing the tap rule
for it is unprotected to the buss. Please see attached single line and panel board
schedules.
The Jazzercise Room was noted to be air-conditioned and the thermostats were set
fairly low. The room was very chilly when not in use but the unit would still be
running throughout the day. I would suggest having this programmed for times of
operation. I did not notice any ventilation or e:thnust sys~ern for the existing or former
racquet ball courts but am informed that they are on the roof and operational.
The interior lighting of the building was lit with both fluorescent and incandescent
fixtures. The existing recessed incandescent fixtures around the kitchen and bar area
should be replaced, if possible in the new remodel if possible. The following is the
lighting noticed at the individual rooms.
Room Lighting
Game Room Pendant continuous rows of baffled four foot one lamp
fluorescent fixtures (total length of sixteen feet)
Racquet Ball Courts Three continuous rows of six eight foot 2 lamp
fluorescent fixtures.
Exercise Room and
Circulation Corridor 2 x 4 recessed lay-in fluorescent fixtures.
2- The Imilcling is fully sprinklered.
\
III. Ne'~ Cons~ction Alteraatives:
A. Alternative No. 1:
1. I'~AC:
Add one ~4' ton duale~s split-system he~t pump for the
pr/v~te office on the upper level.
b. The rar4uabdl court / phonily ~her~py studio A C- 2 sl~'t=m should
be convened to a Variable 'volume and Temperature ~ system
wid~ the adcllrJoa of electrlc~y oper~l mb-zone dampers for each of
r. he t-wo remaining cour~ and t-~o to ~ree sul~-zone dampers for the
various separate areas within r.h~ physical ~erapy s~uctio.
c. The men's locker room acldition ~,hich is sera'ed by the adjacmt wei~t
room AC-6 unk should be dlscormec~ed from that unit {or its dr
reduced)' to eliminate overcobling in the locker room md provld~
needed additional capac~D' to the'~'eight room. This ~ould involv~ the
addition of air ourler~ and assodzr~d duc~ork in the w~igl~ room and
an e~ension of the current locker room AG-3 syrcem ducr~ork to the
men's locker room r. be~ waa pr~'ious~- served by AC-6.
d. The men's and womerl's locker room AC-3 s.vs~em should also be
convened in~o a VV*r mb-zone system v~ith a tol~l of ~ sub-zone
dampers in or~r to provld~ separate eonr. rols for e~-h locker room md
provide addition sept-ate control for the area tha* w~s previously
set=ed by AC4 which is an exterior ~pa~e as opposed to the res~
locker rooms which are sr. rlctly im~rlor.
e. All AC milt rl~rmos~urs and assod~ed bypzs~ rimers should be
reloc~d to 4'-0' AFl:. ~o m~.-~ curr~nx ~¢¢_~sibili~ r~cluir~ments.
£ A duc~ motmtecl smol~ de~ector should be ~clecl in the rscq~bdl
c~un/ph~iczl th~Zl~ studio A C,-I supply duc~ w provide mwmafic
shutoff in ~ of smoke.
· g. An exhau.~ fsn with assochr~l wall louver should be co~g~ed w be
a¢ld~cl for the exist/n~ lower level electrical room which has rear, al
ventilag, on (~hls is optional up~rad~).
Pag~ 6 oF 8
i 'd . i 8'ON 0!0n!s 91S30 'H3::IVI Wdl[: 000l'6l'130
2. Plumbing:
a. Ne~ plumbing ~.x~-ures md/or ~o~d e~ ~ ~
req~ for ~e~ ha~g a~b~ upg~des. ~ two
Re~c~ pr=s~ ~ow ~ shoed be ~d to ~ cold
~ m~p co~e~o~'to bo~ m~'s ~d women's spa
c. Moa ~o al of ~e ~S ~e pi~ ~ ~e ~g shoed be
~pl~ed in~u~g ~e ~ dab pip~g om ~e lower 1~1.
Ad~on~ ~d~ slab d~o~on/pi~ ~p~n~ may be ~
to ~ ~* ~der slab le~ at ~e wo~'s ~p~
e. ~eplacement o[ ~y ~-~g~d ~ng shower h~es w~e n~
· ~ need ~o be added ~o ~e ~ower hea~.
5. Fire Pro~e~ow
No new work is req~ed ~der ~is ~emadve betide ~e ye ~o
n~' p~on or room ~a~e
B. ~ag~ No. 2;
1. ~AC:
~ n~ ~ork m~fioned ~d~ ~t~a~ve No. 1 ~ ~e fo~o~g
conv~ ~ · n~ c~ ~. ~ room ~o~ ~so
· s~ec~ ~m ~ ~jac~t ~g room A~ ~n~ ~
bei~ ~n~ ~to a ~~ fi~e~ room
~e ~g ~or co~ room ~o~d be ~o~ ~ ~e
~ lobby md a~on A~I ~t..
c. Fire d~npers ~re indicated on r. he ori~n~l dr~4n$~ for ~e d~
pea~o~ at ~e b~om of ~e ~h~ w~d o~ 1~ md
whe~ d~ ~er ~o= or ~ ~ low~ le~
however th~' ~o~d n~ n~ to ~ up~ ~ ei~e~o
~t~zdves due ~o the ~ o~the ~es ~ m;~im~.
B. Pl~b~g:
1. Dome~c Cold Wa~ ~upply:
· e p~mm ~ ~e b~S ~o ~0pi. ~e cold ~ ~n ~p~
is repo~ ~o ~ mosdy copper ~ ~ g~d con~gon. ~e ~ no
hck oF p~ con~o~ mpo~
b. Cold wa~er come.om ~ b~ ~e m~'s ~d ~om~% ~ ~ems
o~y have ~d~d ch~ vdv~ ~e~ of ~u~ pre~ b~ flow
pr~;en~ ~ req~d by code.
2. Hot Water $upply:
There ~e ~wo S6 g~o~l~9 ~H ~ed hot w~ter heat~
men.cd room on the lo~ le~. ~e he~ ~e
ye~ old md ~ppear ~ good con~fion. The hot wezer
pipes is repo~d to be mosfl~ ~pp~ ~d ~ ~ood ~u~on. There
~e no ~om of ~quet~ flow or h~ of caped~
3. ~ Suppl~
a, ~e b~gh~ · 1-~4' ~n~ pr~e supply ~om ~e ~ ~
W~ ~d Ven~ Pip~:
~e lower l~el ~d ~ite m~y ~ to d~
pe~.
b. Sev~ se~o~ ofthe upp~l~ c~ ~n ~e ~p~$ wM~ s~
· e ~ h~d ~o ~ ~ d~ ~o ~ co~on. ~ ~ l~
~ ~pipe ~o n~d~ ~o be ~l~d b~me
Parc 4
' i F&O .
% ~. _.~'0~ OIO~!~ ~.~ '~3]~ ~Ot:~ 000~'6~'130
c. There is an under slab leek (from an unkno-~a so~rce) ~,hich
periodicdly so~ks the carpet in the lower level corridor adjacent ~o the
sunken hot ~uh in the womeWs locker room.
5. Storm Piping:
There are no repons of any problems with the roo/drains
r~;,,~ater leaders ~ se~e the'tier roof v, hlch covers most oi the
buflcting.
6. Spa sy~ems:
The heating hot water, eMorine sad ~ilr. ration systems {or both the
men's and women's hot mbs appear in good ~o adettu.~e condition with
several o{ their components havi~ been replaced within the last
y~ars.
7. Plumbing Fixtures:
A.U restroom mci locker ~oom lavatori~ are cou~w.r motm~d ~es and
are not ADA compIism except the one in the upper level rest, room
which was provided ~s p~rt of an accessibility upgrade se~'erd years
-~ Iii O.
b. Urinals and war~r closets are all wall hun§, h~-e flush v~lves ~ncl appear
to be in iood condition and.MIA compliant, however th*ir mounting
height may need to be ad~ecI.
There ~re e total of two (one on each le~el) slnsh ,,~k drinkin$
£ountains in the building which are no~ ADA compliant.
cl. Four oi the eight shower mixing wives and shower heads in the men's
locker room have been recently replaced with low flow/ADA
· compliant types (however their mounting hdghu should be checked).
The remaining -,~lves ~nd showerheads in the men's locker room
~ell ~s those in the women's are older/non-compliant ~nd some are
inoperative due to m~; ko~dhs. All shower control v~lves should be
verified it they are of the pr~mre b~mclng type.
F/r~ Sprinlder~'.
1. The buB~l;,,~ is served by e decllcetecl 4' £re sex-ice/rom the street wi~h · pos~
indicawr v~k,e and Fire Deparunent con=action. This pipe reduces to a
inside the lower l~el e~-c mechmlcal room where there is · flo'~ switch with an
exterior mounted alarm bell for e~ch ofthe wo zones.
Page ~ of 8
9 ',~ ~t~8 '0~ 0!00i$ N9I$90 'HD3;~ ~{.90t :5 000~ '6~ '190
I. ~'po$~:
Thc ?m'9os~
2. Minor
con, don.
T~;~ re~ is b~ on the o~ 19~ ~AC ~ ~ sp~ ~ ~d ~ ~o~
obse~dons
H. Deep, on o~ ~ S~e~
A. ~AC:
~e. The ~o~ ~ m~t~ ~or~ is ~so ~ mo~y go~ con~on
~d ~ ~ r~o~ed to have b~ ~ed ~g reroo~ ~ ye~.
~ A~I~ 5 zo~ ~d s~e upper 1~] ~ lobby, a~fion
._ o~e~, ~t~or
~t~or/~efior ~ ~i probl~s.
b. A~2
~~ ~ ~e 2 ~~ c~h ~o~ ~oo ~ ~
· ~o~ for ~e ~y ~o ~ lom~ed ~ ~e adjac~ ~ted~
prob~
P~c 2 oF8
g 'd 5~ 'ON Ol0nlS NglS3O 'H3~I ~d60:C. 000~ '6l 'DO
ope~e zdequ~el~ *i~ no ~po~s of ~
e. A~5 ~ ~ or 4 ~o~ md ~ ~e ~robi~ mom on ~e upper l~l.
T~s s~ ~ reposed to opem~ ~7 ~d ~e ~ no
compl~.
f. AC-~ ~ 5 to~ md se~ ~e no~h ~o~e w~ght room ~ p~ of
· e m~'s loch~ mom on ~e low~ l~d wM~ ~
mcqu~b~ ~. ~ wd~t roomb reposed m become~oo
d~-~ ~e ~ ~d~e m~'s lock~ room edison ~s ~ys so
cold ~he~ k is n~r ~ed.
2. ~er ~ems:
The ~e ~z~ ~ ~d ~p~ cool~ for ~e e~
whi~ is no lon~ ~d ~ bo~ ~b~doned on ~e tool
b. The mol mo~ed g~ ~ ~ for ~e re~ooms ~d locker
roo~ epp~ zo be in zd~uzte con~on.
c. ~e e~xln~ ele~ic~ room on ~e low~ lev~ con*o~s
~form~ w~ c~ produce z ~ide~ble ~o~t of he~
e~ed~ly when ~y lo~e~ ~e~ ~ o~y · ~t o~ M~ ~d low
lou~ ~ ~e p~ of ~ble ~or do~ ~or ~ room w~ ~ not
zde~te for ~ z 1~ ~ormer. ~o~c~y
repo~d ~ ~M~ ~m g~ ~ ~g~ ~
mo~te/~ 5'~ able ~hg floor. ~ ~l
~e ~ to be mo~ a~ 4~ above ~ed floor.
b. A~2 is ~;,~ ~ ~ mo~d ~oke d~e~or req~ed by
mecb-~;~ code m ~ut ~he ~t ~ wh~ ~oke
mpply d~
CUPERTINO SPORTS CENTER
21111 STEVENS CllF. EK BLVD. '
CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
REVIEW OF EXISTING'
MECHANICAL SYSTEMS FOR
PROPOSED RENOVATION
M.~CHANICAL DF. SIGN STUDIO
:~3~0 CL~ON RD., SD'ITIi 3
CONCOILD, CA ~)~517
OCTOB~_..K :~0, 2000
P~3e 1
'ON 010~15 N91530 'H~3~ ~1860:5 000[ '6~ '130
E-19 Active Fault Near-Source Zones
TI~ map I~ Inlended lo be used In ~rt~uncflon with
the 1997 Unifmm Building Coda, Tables 16-S a~d 16-T E-19
:., California Deparlment of Consefvallon
Divlaim ~ Mim~ and Geology
. \ .............. 15 km
,, ~ ~ Kilometers
DASSE DESIGN, INC.
.... ~ I~RO,'lEclr L. __¢~-------~'--~-- PAGE ...........
..... ,Y_ZL_~ ....... .,~ ..........
~. -: ...... ~ ''~ .... '" :'-~'' !
R~ I~. ~&T~,~ _73!: ............
....
.... I' . ~
~ - ~- . .... . .....~ .... ~....~-? .
-'' ~ I . , I I ~ I I I
--.:.. = .... : .~ .... ~ .... r ...... ~ .... ~ ...... .r~L.~t'~- ~l~-.
; .~ ~. , . . · . ~ ,~ ~ I~ .
.... ~ I [ ' : · ' ; Il I1 l'
[ ~ ! I I I ] [ i II I I : I1 i : I ; ] ~ il l
i--]- I i T I l:i ......... [ [ : I - ~ ~}~'~j~':~-- ~:'~F ~ ' ~ ~'' '"il ~ }~ 1
--: ....... ~ "~ ' ~ :~; ' ~i ~"fl"'ll ~ i~ -[~>'~.'
~i ..... ; .......... ; ..... ~---~ ..... ~r~ ~ ........ ~'-' ~ 'r~"~
· · ! Ir ,F ,Itl Ir 'F jr · .r t
[ ~ . l.. [ '..... I... ~. : ~! . . ~ ~ ~ ' ..
~ , ~ ! . t ~ I ' : ' e ~ : _i._.
I ~ [ : '
: i
_l~l__~ .... ;~ ...... .......... ~ ..... ~ ~--[I ~ : ,_l~ .....! .......
i , 'J& : Ik I& I& ia Ik I:'
,_= ........ [ I ' "
i : . : ,: L~. · : ,: : [
__a___~ ........ . ...... ~ .....l_ , , ,. ~,
.. ~ t ,. , . : ~ ~ I I ill: -!'-~'
7.0 BUILDING DEMOLITION AND REPLACEMENT
7.1 The existing structure would be demolished under this alternative. A new
replacement structure of approximately 10,000 square feet would house similar
functions, although without the racquetball courts, x
7.2 The most economical shactural solution is likely to be a one-story building
with wood roof fl'smin..o supported on wood stud walls or wood or steel posts and
beams. New continuous footings would be required at the new bearing walls,
shear walls, and perimeter walls. New posts would require pad footings.
7.3 It is possible that some savings could be reAliT~l in the reuse of areas of
the existing slab-on-grade and some of the existing concrete pad footings. The
design team may also investigate the feasibility of preserving the lower portion of
some of the tilt-up panels in order to minimiTe foundation work.
8.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
8.1 Except as noted in Section 4.3, our ~view of the aCractural drawings indicates the
building shactural systems appear to meet the gravity, wind and seismic load
requirements of the 1997 UBC.
8.2 If the building is expected to continue in service, we recommend thc seismic
deficiencies identified in Section 4.3 be corrected in accordance with the seismic
strengthening concepts presented in Section 5.
8.3 Changes in use proposed for the structure appear to be feasible, with the exception
of installing a weight room on the second floor. Specific requirements are listed
in Section 6.
8.4 The construction of a replacement slructure has been pwposed. Section 7
provides recommendations for consideration in developing an economical design
for this option.
9.0 DOCUlV~NTS REVIEWED
9.1 Slrucmml Drawings S1-S9, by Donald B. Rush, Structural Engineer, Orinda, CA.,
dated 5-18-77. This is not the as-built set.
9.2 Architectural drawings Al-A17 by Goes, CJuthrle, and Associates, Menlo Park,
California, Dated 8/2/77.
10.0 LIMITATIONS AND DISCLAIM~R
lO
The scope of this invesligalion was to focus on those elements of the ~hacture considered
to be most important, most frequently overlooked and most representative of ~ general
design and cor~Uacted quality. Users of this report must accept the fact ihat deficiencies
may exist in the ~hucture that were not observed in this evaluation. Our services have
consisted of providing professional opinions, conclusions, and recommendations based
on generally accepted -hactural engineering principles and practices.
11
5. Tilt-up wall panel details do not show vertical reinforcing
on panel centerllnes. If the contractor constructed the panels with the
horizontal bars on the centerlines and the verticals off center, as the details
suggest, all of the north-sou& walls which arc not adjacent to thc second
floor would be over-stressed for code-specified out-of-plane seismic loads.
It is our opinion that the conlractor is likely to have located the verticals on
the wall center line as is the standard of practice for tilt-up wall
construction. We recommend that this be verified by locating cut bars in
the vertical and horizontal edges of openings that have been made in some
of the walls of former racquetball courts; some removal of paint will be
required. Out-of-plane wall failure has been observed in earthq,,*kes, but
us~sIly due to inadequate anchorage at the roof diaphrs? of tall walls.
5.0 PROPOSED SEISMIC STRENGTI/F. NING: LIMITED RENOVATION
· $.1 Strengthening measures to mitigate the seismic deficiencies identified in Section
4.3 are described below and noted in plan on Figures 1 and 2.
5.2 Roof-Level Strengthening: New hold-down anchors are required at all
perimeter concrete walls. These should be located at four-foot intervals and
should be connected to through-bolts with bearing plates on the exterior of&e
wall. Additionally, the interior conc~te walls on lines B and C require this
bracing. Bracing of east-west walls requires the addition of new wood blocks
nailed and connecting metal straps. New crosstics are required at interior walls on
lines 2, 3, and 4, as well as east-west across the building between lines A and B.
Re-roofing of&ese areas is entailed.
Additionally, connections between collector elements require
strengthening. Because of the variation in required capacity and the variety of
methods employed in the original construction, a number of different
strengthening methods are necessary.
$.3 Second Floor: New hold-down anchors are required at all perimeter
concrete walls. These should be located at four-foot intervals and should be
connected to through-bolts wi& bearing pla~ on the exterior of the wall. Hold-
down anchors connecting to existing joists require the addition of a 2x6 sister
block bolted to the joist so th_si the anchor is bolted through 3½ inches of wood.
Crosstie siraps are required east-west across the building between lines A and B.
The presence of collector ties at the north ends of walls on lines 2 and 3
must be verified. If they are not present, they must be added.. Collector ties must
be stren.athened on lines A and B.
5.4 The framing in the aerobics room should be investigated and its adequacy
verified; ~is will entail the removal of ceiling finishes below. The presence of
new footings at locations where new openings _hsd been made in the tilt-up walls
should be verified either through obtsining construction decrements for the
modification, or by removing floor 6nlshes in order to expose any joint in the
6.0 PROPOSED SEISMIC STRENGTHENING: RENOVATION AND USE CHANGE
6.1 Strenff&enlng and other measures described in S~ct~on 5 are also required for this
O]:~cion.
.6.2 It is recommended that prior to the development of this option an
agr~ment be re, ac&cd with thc building d~paiiment as to whether thc wood wof
and floor frami~ need to comply with tho current allowable values in the building
code. These allowable values have been reduced from those of previous codes
based on the cpmlity of lumber currently available. It is our op'mion that the
smictural members represent the higher-q~mlity lumber of the time of conslruction
and have served adequately for several years. Nevertheless, some builalng
ck'pa~huents have required upgrading of floor and roof systems based on current
allowable values when a cbsnge of occupancy has occurred.
6.3 The proposed change ofnse of the second floor dining mom to a weight
room would r~qulre a substantial structural upgrade of the area Both the plywood
decking and the joists (at the longer spans) would require strengthenlr~g. The
. proposed change of use of the second floor dining room to a fitness room would
require strengthening of the plywood. This could be done by laying another layer
of 3/4' plywood over the existing layer.
6.4 The proposed conversion of two racquetball courts might entail the
removal of a concrete wall (which already has openings). This removal would not
compromise the seismic strength of the structure as long as the anchorages of roof
and floor coilector elements to the remaining walls parallel to this one are
strengthened for the additional load; suoh strengthening is required to address the
deficiencies described in Section 5.
6.5 The conslruction of a new deck extension would likely follow the general
layout of the previous deck. Joist sizes used appear to be adequate.
6.6 The proposed new elevator entails typical framing opening details: the
addition of headers, and of supporting beams sistered to existing joists; these are
likely to be glue-laminated beams. The elevator will also require a new concrete
elevator pit. The existing slab will have to be cut, and the new concrete
construction doweled into the existing slab.
and C). These openings have been reinforced with steel plates and channels bolted to the
remaining portions of the walls. No information was available on whether footings were
added under the new ends of these openings.
4.0 FINDINGS
4.1 General
Thc $hactural deign was likely governed by the 1976 edition of the Uniform
Building Code (UBC). The current governing Code in the city of Cupertino is the
1997 UBC. Si?ificant differences between the 1976 UBC and the 1997 UBC
which affect the findings and conclusions of this study are:
1. The seismic base shear force is increased by 14% due to the close
proximity of the site to the San Andreas and Monte Vista Faults.
2. An increase in the required strength of wall anchorages to
roof and floor diaphr%~n.~ and an added penalty for anchorages employing
shallow expansion anchors.
3. An amplification of seismic loads for certain critical
elements to provide a safety factor against their failure.
4. A reduction in the allowable bending ~hess of deep wood
members.
4.2 C-rarity Framing
1. Design loads for the .-h-cture are not listed on the reviewed
documents and no calculations were available. All determinations in this
section were based on independent calculations using current building
code requirements and allowable stresses, together with ev~eering
judgment.
2. Roof $oists and Beams: The roof framing members appear to be adequate
for code minimum roof live loads when compared to thc allowable stresses
from the 1976 UBC, which were in effect at the time of the original
cor~--haction. Using the 1997 UBC allowable stresses, the 4x10 roof joists
appear to be overstressed for code gravity loads by 50%.
3. The typical joist flaming at the second floor appears to be adequate for
code minimum live loads for assembly areas with movable seating (100
psf) when compared to the allowable stresses from the 1976 UBC. Using
the 1997 UBC allowable -~hesses, the 2x14 joists appear to be overstressed
for code gravity loads by 60%
4. Columns, posts, and stud walls appear adequate to support code minimum
gravity loads.
5. The ground floor slab construction is common practice for light load
functions and appears to have performed adequately to date. Footings
under wall panels appear to have adequate capacity for gravity loads.
Insufficient info~mation was available to determine whether footings had
been added where new openings had been made in the tilt-up walls.
6. Insufficient information was available to assess the
adequacy of new framing at the aerobics room.
4.3 Lateral Force Resisting System
1. The site is in an active seisuiic zone, as can be seen from the attached area
seismicity map. The nearest known active faults and their distances to the
site are:
Monte Vista-Shannon Fault 3.5 km
San Andreas Fault 8.5 km
Hayward Fault (South) 19.0
It is reasonable to assume the building will be subjected to strong ground
shaking from a moderate to major earthq,,,ke at least once during the
remaining life of the building.
2. The building lateral system is generally well conceived with shear walls
adequately distributed throughout the building, and is generally adequately
detailed. Except as noted below, the lateral force resisting system appears
adequate to resist 1997 UBC seismic forces.
3. Concrete wall panels have insufficient anchorage to the roof and second-
floor diaphragms. Existing wall anchors, subdiaphragms, and crossties
lack the capacity to transfer wall panel forces into the supporting
diaphragms in the direction perpendicular to the wood purlins at the roof
level.
4. Collector and tie element splices do not appear to have the
capacity to resist the amplified loads specified in the 1997 UBC. Under
the 1976 UBC, these elements were typically designed for the same force
level as the primary laterai-load-resisting members. The later editions of
the UBC contain a substantiai safety factor against failure of these
elements. Collector ties may be missing at two locations at the second
floor.
2. Tilt-up wall panels may lack om-of-plane strength. The
location of relnt~orcemcnt in these walls should be dete,,'.'.;,~ed accora;ng to
recommli~ndlition~ ill Sli~tion 4.3.
3. Collector and tic element splices do not appear to have the
capacity to resist the amplified loads specified in the 1997 UBC. Collector
ties are insufficiently detailed and may be missing at two locations at the
second floor.
4. The roof fr~mlng joists appear to be adequate for code
minimum roof live loads, when compared to the allowable stresses from
the 1976 UBC, but not those of the 1997 UBC, for which they are
overstressed by 50%.
$. The typical joist fr~mlng at the second floor appears to be
adequate for code mi~imllln live loads for asse~-~ibly areas with movable
seating, when compared to the allowable stresses from the 1976 UBC, but
not those of the 1997 UBC, for which they are overstressed by 60%.
Based on this cvaluafion, the following assessments of the three proposed sche,,-,es were
made:
1. Strengthening of the identified seismic deficiencies as
described in Section 5 is recommended if the building is renovated to
continue in service. This includes strengthc~ng of all concrete wall
anchorages and their associated subdiaphragms at the roof and second-
floor diaphragms, as well as the strengthening of collector and other
seismic ties in the roof and floor flaming.
2. Ii'there is to be a change in usc as proposed,
recommendations made in Section 6 should be followed. This includes
the stretlgthenlng described in Section 5. Changes in use proposed for the
structure appear to be feasible, with the exception of installing a weight
room on the second floor. Apparent gravity-load deficiencies need to be
reviewed with the building deps, h~ent before developing this option.
3. Th~ d~nolilion and rcplac~mont of tho building has also been proposed.
· P~co~nm~vd=tlons ma~ in S~tion 7 should b~ consid~vxl in tho d~volopment of this option in order to
mi~imi2~ thc COSt.
4
2.0 INTRODUCTION
An evaluation of the Cupertino Sports Center was conducted in order to info~,-,-, decisions
about the long-t~m use of the facility. This evaluation was used as the basis for
developing concepO~n! desi~ms for two alternative proposals for the building. The first is
a limited renovation to bring the facility into subs~nntlal compliance with the current
building code; this proposal is addressed in Sections $. The second is proposed
renovation which includes a cb~%oe in use of several spaces; this proposal is ad. dressed in
Sections 6. A third proposal, in which the building is to be demolished and replaced with
a new 10,000 s~sn~-foot facility, is also discussed in general terms in Section 7.
The smactural evaluation consisted ora wslk-through, a qualitative appraisal of'the plnns
and details, and ]imlted independent structural calculations. The scope of the review was
not to verify every member and detail, but to focus on those elements of the sm~ture
determined to be most important, most frequently overlooked, and most vzpresentafiv¢ of
the general design and constructed quality.
3.0 BUILDING DESCRIPTION
The Sports Center is a 15,000 square-foot, two-story concrete, tilt-up panel structure
constructed in 1978. Building structural elements are of wood, steel and concrete.
The roof framing consists of 4x12 and 4x10 purlin.~ spaced at four-foot intervals
supporting 3/4-inch tongue-and-groove plywood. These are supported by the concrete
tilt-up walls and on long-spanning glue-laminated beams, which span from pilasters in
the tilt-up walls to concrete columns.
The second-floor framing consists of 2xl 4 joists spaced at 1 &inch intervals supporting
3/4-inch tongue-and-groove plywood. These are supported on the tilt-up walls, on wood-
stud walls, and on engineered lumber (micro-lam and glue-laminated beams). The beams
bear on wood and steel posts or are supported by the tilt-up walls. Additionally, a new
floor was added in one of the racquetball courts; no information on the construction of
this floor was available.
The ground floor is a five-inch reinforced concrete slab on grade. Foundations consist of
spread footings under posts and columns, as well as under ends, comers, and panel joinis
of tilt-up walls. Tilt-up panels are connected to the slab-on-grade by means of cast-in-
place pour strip with reinforcing dowels. Continuous footings are present under wood-
stud bearing walls.
The six-inch concrete panels are anchored to both the roof and second floor diaphragms,
except at the racquetball courts, where there is no second floor; anchorages consist of
expansion anchors. The level of grade ranges from just below the lb'st floor level on the
north side to just below the second-floor level on the south, where the panels also act as
retaining walls. Openings have been cut in three of the concrete tilt-up panels (lines 4, 5, ..
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No.
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3
2.0 INTRODUCTION 4
3.0 BurfDING DESCRIPTION 4
4.0 FI~DIN'GS 4
5.0 PROPOSED SEISMIC STRENG~G: LIMITED RENOVATION 6
6.0 PROPOSED SEISMIC STRENGTHENING: RENOVATION AND USE
CHANGE 6
7.0 BUILDING DEMOLITION AND REPLACEMENT 6
8.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 6
9.0 DOCU1VIENTS REVIEWED 7
10.0 LIMITATIONS AND DISCLAIMER 7
LIST OF FIGURES
Area Seismicity Map
Figure 1: Roof Strengthening Diagram
Figure 2: Second Floor Strellgthenlng Diagram
1.0 KXECUTIVE SUMMARY
An evaluation of the Cupertino Sports Center was conducted in order w inform decisions
about the long-term use of the facility. This evaluation was used as the basis for
developing conceptual desi?s for two alternative proposals for the building. The first is
a ]imited renovation W bring the facility into substantial compliance with the current
building eode's seismic requkea~ents. The second is a proposed renovation which
includes a change in use of several spaces, and which would necessitate bring U% facility
into compliance with the current building code's gravity as well as seismic requirements.
A third proposal, in which the building is to be demolished and replaced with a new
structure of approximately 10,000 square feet, is also discussed briefly.
The sWactural evaluat/on consisted of a walk-through,'a qnslitatlve appraisal of the plans
and details, and l'united independent stroctmal calculations. The scope of the review was
not to verify eve~ member and detail, but to focus on those elements of the su'ucture
determined to be most important, most frequently overlooked, and most representative of
the general design and conahacted qn,llty.
The Sports Center is a 15,000 sq-nre-foot, two-story concrete, t/It-up panel structure
constructed in 1978. The governing bufldin$ code at the time of the original cor~.-troct/on
was the 1976 Uniform Building Code COBC). The code in force at the time of the
proposed renovation and expansion will likely be the 1997 UBC. Significant differences
between the 1976 UBC and the 1997 UBC which impact the findings of this study are:
1. An increase in the code seismic base shear force due to the proximity of
the San Andreas and Monte Vista Faults.
2. An increase in the required strength of wall anchorages to roof and floor
diaphragms and an added penalty for anchorages employing shallow
expansion anchors.
3. An amplification of seismic loads for certain critical elements to provide a
safety factor against their failure.
4. A reduction in the allowable bending stress of deep wood members.
Except as noted in Section 4.3, our review of the a'uttctural drawings indicates the
building shuctural systems appear to meet the gravity, wind and seismic load
requirements of the 1997 UBC. Those deficiencies include the following:
1. Concrete wall panels have in.m~cient anchorage to the roof and second-
floor diaphragms. Existing ~mchors, subdiaphragms, and crossties lack the
capacity to hansfer wall panel forces into the supporting diaphra~t-~s in the
direction perpendicular to the wood joists or purlins.
Urinals:
162 - Urinal fixture is not accessible model (14" deep r~in_)
I63 - Installation does not meet requirements (17" high)
I64 - Does not meet clear space requirements (30" x 48")
I65 - Flush handle is not on accessible side ~
Showers:
I66 - No accessible shower is provided
167 - Threshold does not meet 1/2" max. proi'de
I68 - Accessible shower does not meet space requirememts
I69 - Faucet type or iustallalion is not accessible
I70 - Does not contain accessible folding seat
All Showers:
I71 - Faucet and accessories do not meet requirements
I72 - Doors or Panels are not safety or swing inward
Accessories - General:
I73 - Accessories are not installed according to requirements (40" max.)
I74 - Grab bars are not installed or installed incorrectly (33" max.)
Interior Surfaces - Toilet Facilities:
I75 - Floor surfaces are not smooth, hard and non-absorbant to 5" up wall
I76 - Walls within compartment are not non-absorbant to 48" up wall
· Special Use Conditions
Accessibility requirements will need to be accessed as program is defmed
Kitchens:
S 1 - Commercial Kitchens are to be accessible rooms but equipment may not need to be
accessible as Job Description may not allow for I-I/C employee.
Accessible Transient Lodging:
S2 - Revised accessibility requirements may be used for units.
Restaurants and Cafeterias (Dining, Banquet and Bar Facilities~:
S3 - Back Bars may not need to be accessible as Job Description may not allow for H/C
employee.
Stages:
S4 - Drop off of stage is not an accessible point. Access must be provided elsewhere.
STRUCTURAI. EVAI,UATION OF
CUPERTINO SPORTS CENTER
21111 Stevens Creek Blvd.
Cupertino, California
~or
BSA Architects
San Francisco, CA
by
DASSE Design, Inc.
33 New Montgomery St. #850
San Francisco, California 94105
DASSE Design Project No. 00B228
October 27, 2000
· RAM~S (INTERIOR)
L20 - Ramp docs not meet mi~. width (44")
I21 - Ramp exceeds max. rise (hl2)
I22 - Top lana~ng does not meet mln size (60"x60")
I23 - Bottom landing does not meet min. size (60'~x72'')
124 - Required intermediate landings not provided (60'k60")
(72" win where ramp turns more than 30 degrees)
Encroachment of Doors onto Ramps:
125 - Door swings reduce width to less than 42"
(or more than 3" less than required width)
Rainy Handrails:
126 - Required handrails not provided.
I2.? - Handrails extensions not provided.
12g - Handrail material or installation incorrect.
I29 - 6" curb or guard not provided
· STAIRS (INTERIOR)
I30 - Stair does not meet min. width (44")
I31 - Stair exceeds max. rise per nm or has open risers
I32 - Stair does not provide contrasting color treads top and bottom
Landings:
I33 - Top landing does not meet rain, size (44"x width)
I34 - Bottom landing does not meet mb1. size (44"x width)
I35 - Required intermediate landings not provided (4A"x width)
Railings:
I36 - Required handrails not provided.
I37 - Handrails extensions not provided.
I38 o Handrail material or installation incorrecL
I39 - Required intermediate railings no! provided (88" max.)
Signal, e:
I39 - Required enclosed stair signage no! prodded
· ACCESSORIT. S
See projection note in Corridors
Water Fountains (Drinking):
I40 - Not located in alcove (18" x 32'') or wing vOalls or textured
I41 - Not front accessible
I42 - Does no! meet accessible profile (27" clear)
Telephones:
I43 - Alcove enlrance not min_ width (30'')
144 - Operation higher than ma~ height (54" front 48" side)
· SANITARY FACILITIES
I45 - Restrooms on accessible floors are not accessible
I46 - Separate accessible facilities not provided where required.
Identification Svmbois:
I47 - Room Identification and Accessible Toilet signage not provided
Multiple Accommodation Toilets:
I48 - 60" circle manuevering space not provided
I49 - 44" access to all accessible fixtures and doorways is not provided
I50 - Stall layout does not meet requirements
Single Accommodation Toilets:
I51 - 60" circle manuevering space not provided
152 - 28" min. between lavatory & toilet not maintained
Toilets:
153 - Toilet f'm-ture is not accessible model (17"-19"high)
I54 - Installation does not meet requirements
I55 - Does not meet clear space requirements (30" x 48")
156 - Flush handle is not on accessible side
Lavatories:
I57 - Lavatory fixture is not accessible model (17" min. depth)
I58 - Installation does not meet requirements (34" high w/29" clear)
159 - Does not meet clear space requirements (30" x 48")
160 - Faucet is not an accessible model
I61 - Insulated wrap for hot supply and drain not provided
· ( XTEmOR)
E21 - Ramp does not me~t mi,~ ~d~ (48" ~00, ~'~300 ~.)
g~2 - ~p ~ ~. ~ss ~ope of (2%)
~3 - ~p ~e~ m~. ~ (1:12)
~4 - Top ]snding does not me~ min_ s~ (60"x60'~
B2S - Top l~d~E ex~ ~. slo~ of (2%)
E26 - Bosom I~E d~s not m~ mln~ s~ (60"x72~)
E27 - BoOm l~g exes ~. slo~ of(2%)
~8 - R~ ~[m~te ~ not pw~d~ (60"x60'~
Bncm~t of Doo~ onW ~ps:
E29 - Door ~Es ~u~ ~d~ W less ~n 42"
(or mo~ ~ 3.5" less ~ req~d ~d~)
~p H~ls:
E30 - R~ ~ls not ~d~.
E31 - H~ls exte~io~ not ~ded.
E32 - H~I ~ or ~on ~t.
E33 - 6" c~b or ~ not ~ovid~
· STA~WAYS ~~OR)
E34 - S~ does not m~t m~n, ~d~ (36" <50, ~'~50
E35 - S~ exc~ m~. Hse ~ ~ or ~ o~n
E36 - S~r does not ~de ~n~g color ~ds
~dings:
E37 - Top l~d~g does not meet ~n. si~ (min. ~d~)
E38 - Top l~ng exceeds ~. slo~ of (2%)
E39 - Bosom l~&ng does not m~ min~ s~ (~. ~d~)
E40 - BoRom l~g excee& m~. slope of (2%)
E41 - ~u~d int~iate l~n~ not provided (m~. ~d&)
~l~s:
~2 - Req~d ~s not prodded.
~3 - ~b ~o~ not ~d~.
~ - H~I ~ or ~on
~5 - Req~ ~te, ue&a~ ~ not ~ded (88" m~.)
· ENTRANCES
E46 - Primary entry not accessible
E47 - Accessible entrances do not pwvide S~lnbol of Accessibility
E48 - Directional si?-~ to entrances not provided
· DOORS
II - Accessible door does not min. size (3'0" x 6'8'9
I2 - Bottom of door does not provide 10" ---~ooth surface
Door Hardware:
I3 - Doors exceed rns~. effort for operation
I4 - Exit doors are not operable without key or lrainin§.
15 - Opening hardware is not mounted at correct height (34"-36")
I6 - Hardware is not accessible
Clear Space at Doors:
I7 - Clear space on pull side not provided (24" ext. 18" int.)
I8 - Clear space on push side where latch and closer not provided (12")
19 - Required clear space not provided
I10 - Threshold is not accessible type or grade differences too great.
· CIRCULATION
I11 - Overhead obstructions greater than 4" within 6'-8" high
112 - Protruding objects do not meet requirements for identification
I13 - Thresholds or floor transitions do not meet 1/2" max. profile
Corridors:
I14 - Corridor does not meet ynin, width (44")
IlS - Obstructions re~Ulct corridor to less than 36"
I16 - 48" not provided for 90 degree turns
Aisles
117 - Aisle does not meet min. width (42")
Si~mage:
I18 - Room identification signage is not provided or is non-conforming
I19 - Directional signage not provided or is non-conforming
CUPERTINO SPORTS CENTER BSA ARC~-UTECTS
Accessibility Report- Worksheet Legend Oetober 30, 2000
PARKING
P 1 - No accessible spaces indicated
P2 - Path of ixavel not accessible ~
Site Entrance Sim~age:
P3 - No parking entry sign
P4 - Location or content of sign incorrect
Single Parking Space Desio'n:
P5 - Requir~ parking space not provided
P6 - Parking space not of correct dimension
P7 - Access aisle not of correct dimension
Double Parking Svace Design:
PS - Required parking space not provided
P9 - Parking space not of correct dimension
P10 - Access aisle not of correct dimension
Van Accessible Parking Space Design:
P11 - Required parking space not provided
P12 - Parking space not of correct dimension
P13 - Access aisle not of correct dimension
Parking Soace Si~na~e:
P14 - Required signage not present
P15 - Signage not correct
Striping:
P16 - Required striping not present
P 17 - Striping not correct color
P18 - Striping not correct layout
Parking Bumpers:
P 19 - Required bumpers not present
P20 - Bumpers incorrectly placed
· SIDEWALKS
E1 - Walk does not meet min. width (48")
E2 - Does not have level area each 400'
E3 - Exceeds max. cross slope (2%)
E4 - Exceeds max. rise (1:20) '
Curb Ramps:
E5 - Required curb ramp not present
E6 - Ramp grades incorrect
E7 - Ramp layout incorrect
E8 - Truncated domes not present
Curb Cut Ramps:
E9 - Required curb cut ramp not present
E 10 - Curb cut ramp grades incorrect
E11 - Curb cut ramp layout incorrect
E12 - Truncated domes not present
· WALKS
El3 - Walk does not meet min. width (48")
El4 - Does not have level area each 400'
E15 - Exceeds max. cross slope (2%)
El6 - Exceeds max. rise (1:20)
Landings at Doors:
E17 - Required level landing at doors not provided
E18 - Landing exceeds max. slope of (2%)
Hazards:
E19 - Abrupt changes in level exceeding 4" at edges
E20 - Path of travel has excessive grade changes or hazards
:
$. CAS£WORK
The existing front desk do~ not ~m ~ibl~ ~ ~m ~si~ ~ ~r side. A ~y ~1~
pa~on d~ ~H ~ n~e~ ~e of ~e n~ to ~ om a~ fo~. A ~ ~p~ ~ side
w~on ~1 n~ m ~ ~~ ~ ~11 ~ ~ m ~ ~t ~d ~. ~ ~ ~ a
n~ ~t ~ c~~
te b~l~g o~.
C~ h 1~ ~ ~ ~ ~k ~s~le ~i~. ~e~ ~o~d ~ d~o~ ~d
~plac~ ~ n~. ~ ~ ~ ~d ~ nd ~uid ~ ~ad ~ ~ ~sibl~ !o~
~ ~ prodded ~ complint ~.
6. STAIRS, RAMPS AND ELEVATORS
There is no elevator within this building. This would be an appropriate addition to the building.
An exterior lift has been added to serve as access between the upper and lower levels of the building. It
requires that the user leave the building, use the exterior lift, and reenter at a secondmT door at the exercise
room downstairs. An interior elevator or li~ would be a more acceptable solution. This would have to be
negotiated with a building official and is dependant on the amount of improvements pFOpOSad.
There are no ramps within this building (see floors).
There are two stairs within this building. One is an open stair between communicating floors. The other is
an enclosed stairway with one direct exiting door at bottom as well as access from both flocks.
Both have had some modifications to their railings to conform to access~llity requirements but both would
be considered non-conforming to current codes. Widths, landings and tread configuration appear to be
acceptable but railings and door conditions are non-compliant. If these stairs are to remain; they will require
substantial revisions to the r~illngs to meet codes.
Contrasting color treads are provided at top and bottom of each mn but not enough coutrast is provided
Required clear space for landings is compromised by doors in several locations (see doors). This will
require some reconfiguration of the door locations.
7. MISCE~OUS
Drinking fountains are provided throughout facility. Thr~ fixtures appear to be compliant fixtures but are
not installed within a niche or protected as required by code. Three ofthase need, at a minimlall, to provide
required prot~c~on as p~r code.
Public telephones ate provided near restrooms on upper floor. One of these needs to be an ac_~_ss~le
insmlladou. No TDD devices are required in this facility.
~ Exhibition Tennis
-- 'Court
~ ' No Accessible
· Viewing Area
------ Racquet Club Building
There is another re;nor oxir from the exercise room to the tennis facilities similar to the exit above. This
route is an access~le route.
3. DECK
Ac, c~ss to the deck i~xvia the accessible lift and the main hall in the building. All access appears to be
~ompiiant
4. DOORS
The exit doors from this building s~'m to be compliant They vary in ~ and hardware. Sewral threshold
conditions er~ non-compliant but can be corrected.
The entry doors are heavy and the closer mechanism appears to be too stiff for accessibility compliance.
The threshold is not an accessible model. It appears that these doors could be made compliant.
5. STAIRS, RAMPS AND ELEVATORS
The entry mir is in good condition with generous proportions and landings. Concrete stairs and walks
throughout the site are generally in good condition. The ramp down to the electrical room is in good
condition but is very steep and results in a drainage condition at the bottom that would be dangerous if it
ever clogged.
The stairs down from the deck to centercourt have been modified to comply with accessibility requirements.
The wood stair appears to be compliant but the railing at the concrete stair is not.
The lift at the front of the building has bccn installed as a retrofit and does provide access to all levels. It
functions well with brief stops indicating appropriate floor level stops but is not automated to stop correctly.
This device would be more functional if it wcrc indoors.
The railing conditions at the upper two levels conflict with the required clear space at the doors to the lift.
The threshold at thc bottom level does not appear to be a conforming threshold or ramp.
E. RACQUET CLUB BUILDING - INTERIOR
Main entry doors need to have closers adjusted or new closers to meet required maximum force. Threshold
condition would need to be modified. Exit hardware would need to be I~placcd.
An ADO device would be appropriate if this were to be an access~le entrance.
There is sufficient space within foyer and adequate clear space is provided at doors (see doors).
2. DOORS
There is a great deal of variation on door type, size and hardware installation throughout the inter/ors. Most
are sized correctly end could be modified to be compliant but the cost for even these minor revisions to
thresholds and hardware may indicate that replacement would be a bert. er option.
There ara several doors'tha~ are not of adequam size such as storage at meeting room, toilei at pro shop,
storage at bar, lower level storage, racquetball courts and saunas (see worksheets). These doors will have w
be replaced with compliant doors.
Tbere are several door conditions that lack adequate flOOr space as required by code. These include foyer
door, required exiting doors to and out of enclosed s~airway, enlrie, s to both looker rooms, exit doors at
bottom of open stab'way, entry to woman's resiroom, storage at bar, kitchen, laundry room, woraen's
showers and saunas (see worksheets). These doors will have to be relocated and/or modifications made to
the layout to create compliant conditions. Many of these doors should be replaced.
3. FLOORS
Floor Finishes throughout facility are compliant. Several threshold and lrnn-~ition details are problematic.
The raised floor in the aerobics room does not have proper Iransition details. The raised floor in the
physical therapy rooms is accessed via a sloped floor that is not compliant. A fully compliant ramp
installation with railings would be required. Many threshold and lransition details need to be rephoed.
Raised floors in racquetball courts will need to be addressed if converted to other uses.
4. RESTROOMS AND LOCKER ROOMS
The small restroom adjacent to the pro shop is non-compllaut and could not be modified to be compliant
without complete reconfignrafion and addition of more space. This toilet room should be abandoned.
The restrooms at the upper level have been modified for limited compliance. The men's is close to having
the required space but is not techil/cally compliant. It has one less fixture than original design. The women's
is far from compliant and the layout is not easily adjusted. These rooms could be reconfigured to provide
compliance but would result in a further reduction of fixtures. These reslrooms would need to be expanded
and completely reconfigured to provide adequate compliant and normal fixtures for the building. Additional
restroom facilities may need to be added elsewhere if fixture counts are reduced.
Access to the looker rooms is non-compliant (see doors). Several locker bays will need to be removed to
provide clear space for access through facility. Some partitions will need to be modified as well.
The restrooms within the locker rooms are substantially non-compliant and cannot be modified to be so
without substantial reconfiguration. It would also require either elimination of fixtures or additional space to
provide current fixture count. Additional reslroom facilities may need to be added elsewhere if fixture
counts are reduced.
Saunas are not accessible and would require substantial modification and additional space to make them so.
Spas do not provide access and would require a lift to do so. These lwo items may be negotiated with
building official but could bring potential legal Irouble to owner in future if not made acces~'ble.
CUPERTINO SPORTS CENTER BSA ARCHITECTS
Accessibility RepoFt October 30, 2000
We have analyzed the facilities with respect to current Title 24 accessibility code issues and thc Federal
Americans with Disabilities Act legislation. AEain we report on both site and buildinS access issues in a
seneral report ~d provide more detail at exceptional conditions. We provide worksheets showinl2 specific
violations keyed'to a building plan and site plan.
A. SITE
1. SITE ENTRY
The site bas no accessible mute from the public right-of-way, l'nere should be an accessible route
· driveways at the city sidewalk and accessthle routes onto the site tom the bus stop on Stevens Creek Blvd.
and from the city sidewalk in each direction of Iravel.
These mutes should provide access to all facilities on site including the tennis facilities, aq,_,~n_'c facilities
and the racquet club building. These routes need to meet all requiremonts of ADA and Title 114. They
should be the primary access system For the site and lead to the primary entry to each facility.
2. PARKING AREA
There are adequate accessible parking stalls throuEhout the facility but they do not appear to be located at
appropriate facility entries. Several spaces are located near a secondary entry to the tennis courts but do not
have an accessible route to that entry. This entry is not an accessible entry. There is a non-compliant curb
ramp and ramp to a non-compliant ~ate condition. If this entry is to be a primary entry to the tennis
facilities, significant changes will need to 5e made.
The other accessible spaces are located correctly relative to accessible entries to the aquatic facilities, tennis
facilities and racquet club building. The curb ramp at the aquatic facility is non-compliant and the drop off
zone is not of sufficient size.
The entry to the racquet club building is not an nccess~le ontry. The upper floor entry is al~ly $'
above the parking area. There is no ramp and only a stair for access. The stslr lacks approved railing
configuration. The enmy door is a non-compliant door system.
An accessible lilt has been added for access to both the building and the sunken tennis courts. This liR does
provide access to all levels of the facility but ce~ni,~ty does so as an afterthought. The accessible building
entry requires the user to bypass the main entry and detour around the building to a secondary deck door.
This route does not bring the user in to the entzy lobby and bypasses the reception area.
B. SWIM FACILITIES
1. ENTRY BUILDING
The entry to the facility is compliant as there is no door and adequate width. The reception desk does not
provide the area required for public access and staff use.
The locker room and restroom building is non-conforming for area and space configuration requirements.
This facility will require complete reco~on so it is not worth menfiouin~ specific fixture and ~ni_~h
deficiencies.
2. POOL
\
The pool appears to lack a conforming lift device. Otherwise, access to the pool appears to be sufficient,
C. TENNIS FACILITIES
1. CENTER COURT
Access to the court is either via the tiff near the racquet club building or the rear parking lot entry that is
non-compliant (see parking ares comments). There ere bleachers provided in this area but no acces~"ol¢
stations are provided in good viewing areas. The ends of the aisles are not considered adequate ,md block
exitways. Railings in bleachers appear to be nen-complient.
2. STANDARD COURTS
Access to the courts adjacent to the aquatic center is only hindered by the 6" drop into the courts. This issue
can be negotiated with the building official.
Access to the courts adjacent to the racquet club building is either via the lift near the racquet club building
or the rear parking lot entry that is non-compliant (see parking area comments). There are several courts
that are alongside elevated viewing areas and some require climbing steps for access. These courts are non-
compliant as players and viewers are required to use these stairs, it may be that these raised viewing areas
should be lowered to ~rade and made accessible. Other solutions require a ramp or lift. This may be
negotiated with the building official.
D. RACQUET CLUB BUILDING - EXTERIOR
Existing accessible ,ratty is via lift and through secondary door at deck. (see parking area comments).
Stairway is p~vicled to front door but railings are not compliant.
2. EXITS
Exit from enclosed stuir is out to a sunken walkway near the building ent~. This is a non-compliant exit
system as steps are used to get up to grade. There appears to be sufficient space to employ the use of a
compliant ramp for this purpose. This would lead to ,m access~la route to the public right-of-way. (see
site).
Another exit is near the bottom of the open stair. This exits leads to the tennis facilities end would be
considered a safe distence from the building for rescue. This route is an accessible route.
The lift at the front oftbe building has been installed as a tet3ofit and does provide aocess to nll levels. It
functions well with brief stops indicating appropriate floor level stops but is not automated to stop correctly.
This device would be more fimctional if it were indoors.
E. RACQUET~CLUB BUH.F)ING - INFERIOR
1. FLO01~
Carpeted floors fltroughout mos~ public areas are in fair condition. Depending on mount of
r~onfiguration and mnovetion, these may need to be replaced. Carpet floors in offices and exercise
room are in good condition and could remain if configuration does not change.
Ceramic tile floors in restrooms, showers and elsewhere will need to be replaced u substantial
· reconfiguration will be necessary to make facility code compliant These floors are only in fair
condition and are not worth trying to preserve.
Wood floor in a~obics room is in good condition but ha~sitions to adjacent floors need to be xm, ised.
This is a raised floor and creates threshold problems at adjacent floors. Wood floors in racquetball
courts are a full step up fxom hall and will require substantial modification for accessibility. The floors
are in good condition but would need to be refinished to remove ~tdFing for other uses. It rna), be best
to remove these floors to eliminate the step where other uses are proposed.
The kitchen has a sloped concrete slab floor with epoxy finish. This room will most likely be
completely demolished and reconfigured. This floor will have to be demolished and replaced for new
HSeS.
2. WALLS
Exterior wails are concrete and appear to be in good condition. Interior partitions appear to be wood
flame and there is no indication of any problems.
Most interior finishes are gypsum board with fairly heavy texture. This will make for fairly easy
modification. Any new finishes will have to match existing textures or all ~Jsting walls can bo sanded
and skim coated for alternative finishes.
Ceramic tile finishes in reslrooms, showers and elsewhere will need to be replaced es substantial
reconfiguration will be necessary to make facility code compliant. These finishes are quite fl~t,,d and
only in fair condition and are not worth trying to preserve. This may involve some demolition of slabs
to reconfigure plumbing and establish slopes to drain locations.
Upstairs restrooms have RFP wall panels, which could remain if there is no reconfiguration. These
restrooms finishes are very utilitarian.
3. CEILINGS
The main hall has a simple painted exposed beam ceilln_~ wilh exposed doctwork and suspond~ light
fixtures. This is in fair condition but not a particularly attractive ceiling. There is a system of decorative
trelliswork elsewhere on the upper floor public ames which partially conceals exposed structure,
ductwork, conduit and piping. This system is creative bu~ not worth r~n~.~ if much reconfigurstion is
required.
The renudnder of the upper floor including offices, meeting room, restrooms and aerobics have simple
2x2 and 2x4 suspended acoustic panel ceiling.
The kitcken has a ~m~ board ceiling with surface lighting and some exposed ductwork. This room
will mns~ likely be completely demolished end reconfigured.
4. DOORS
Most of the intm~r doors are flush wood veneer doo~ ia hollow mc,~l .~u,es Most of thene are in
good condition but are finished with dark stain. They will at least need to be refinished. The hardware
is inconsistent and some may need to be replaced for ADA compliance and uniformity.
5. WINDOWS
The~ are several interior windows including viewin~ windows to racquetball courts. These are hollow
metal fzames and are ia good condition but, dependin~ on the remodel of the facility, may need to be
removed or rel~
6. CASEWORK
There is very little interior uim and should not be considered much of a factor.
The existing front desk does not meet needs oftbe facility ~rom staffside and visitor side. ADA
requirements alone make it obsolete.
The bar is quite dated and of questionable utility. It would require substantial overhaul that may
necessitate its removal or replacement.
Casework in locker rooms and restrooms are in fair to poor condition and will need to be reconfigured
for a variety of reasons. These should be demolished end replaced with new. Lockers are in good
condition and could be retained. Dark wood finish may not be desirable.
7. STALR. S, RAMPS AND ELEVATORS
There is no elevator within this building. This would be an appropriate addition to the building.
There ~ ilo ~ ~ thi~ huildlng.
There are two mits within this building. One is an open stair between commanicafing floors. The other
is an enclosed stairway with one direct exiting door at bntmm ss well as access from both floors.
Both have had same modifications to their rai]iags to conform to accessibility requirements but both
would be co~sidared non-conforming to current codes. Widths, landings and Ireed configuration appear
to be acceptable but railings and door conditions are non-compliant If these mirs are to rerosin; they
will require some revisions to meet codes.
CUPERTINO SPORTS CENTER BSA ARC1]ITECTS
Existing Conditions Report October 30, 2000
We have reviewed the conditions of the overall site, perk/nE areas, swim f~cilifies, te,~ie court facilities,
and racquet club building. We present a Eeneral overview report for each of these srens end break down
into s~ecific conditions for more detail end exceptions to the overall analysis.
A. SITE
1. SITB ENTRY
The exi$i;ng sidewalks, curbcuts end driveways are in good condition but do not provide a graceful
pedestrian access to the site or buildings. Any improvements to this ~acn should consider incorporeti~
more significmu public cnW.
2. PARKING ARF_~
The existing parking area is in good condition with a few exceptions. Several locations show raised and
broken curbs and deformed pavement as a resuh oflree root growth. Minor repairs could address ~is issue
Drainage system appears to be successful. The trash enclosure is in need of renovation but appears to be
functional.
B. SWIM FACILITIES
1. ENTRY BUILDING
The existing buildin~ while it has met the neeth of the user to date, was a poorly conceived, temporary
structure. It is not aging well and does not present a c~mlity cn~,y to tho facility. Ill its ~ configuration
it will not provide the users adequate service in the future. The structure either needs replacement or
substantial reconfiguration and renovation. Thc level of improvements necessary may necessitate its
replacement.
2. POOL
The pool appears, to be a typical exterior installation, which has been enclosed by en all-weather tmn
structure. The pool appears to be in good shape and the structure serviceable. Summa, tl.,.e use of the pool
seems to be compromised by lack of adequate ventilation.
C. TENNIS FACILITIES
1. CENTER COURT
The condition oftbe court appears to be excellent. The configuration is good with ample bleacher space end
views from the deck. The bleachers are older but are in good condition. Hendrall system is utili~u'ien
galvanized pipe rail but is serviee~_ble. Fencing and gates are in good condition.
2. STANDARD COURTS
The condition of thc courts appears to be excellent. Walk-ways to and around courts are in good condition
with no obvious settlement or cracking, Fencing and gates are in good condition.
D. RACQUET CLUB BUILDING - EXTERIOR
1. ROOF
The main roof is fiat and was not accessible. There were no obvious signs of water intrusion or overflow so
it appears that the waterproofing and dr~i-,ge systems are serviceable. A qualified roofing inspector should
be consulted for a more detailed report.
The low tile roofs at the enmy and at the deck appear to be in very good condition. Again, a complete
inspection by a qualified roofing inspector should be made to determine if the subah,,te and membrane are
in good condition. Gutters and downspouts are in good condition but may need some minor repairs.
2. WALLS
Concrete walls do not show any signs of settlement or cracking. Finish is in good condition. Exterior lrim is
in good condition with minimal signs of warping or splitting..
3. WINDOWS
Standard windows are minimal. They are single glazed with aluminum frames and appear to be in fair
condition. Windows may need to be replaced fit. he building does not perform to the current energy
efficiency requirements or if new uses require different window sizes or locations.
The storefront system is still in good condition. This is the bulk of the glazing in the building and is on both
upper and lower levels facing center court.
4. DOORS
The exterior doors in the building are in fair condition, with panic hardware end closers. There are a wide
variety of door types and hardware configurations with varying conditions. The entry doors are in good
condition and are salvageable fi.the paneled look is desired. There has been ADO (Automatic Door
Operator) upgrades to two doors in storefront systems. These seem to operate well but have the appearance
of relrofit installations.
5. STAIRS, RAMPS AND ELEVATORS
The enlry stair is in good condition with generous proportions and lendings. Concrete stairs and walks
throughout the site are generally in good condition. The ramp down to the electrical room is in good
condition but is very steep and results in a drainage condition at the bottom that would be dangerous if it
ever clogged.
The wood stairs from the deck are in fair condition, The railing configuration has been altered to meet ADA
but looks like an afterthought.
I1~' ~"' '-
HALLWA'/
~LE: I/4" = 1' ~: P~
CUPERTINO SPORTS CENTER
FITneSS EQUI~4EI'IT FL~LN.
FIT~SS FACUT"
put in a new restroom. The floor should be carpeted, with vinyl wall covering
on the walls. The front "office' area would be retained, or rebuilt with new
g. The other two racqu~thall courts would remain in this use.
h'
Thc current fitness center would be convened as a full free weights area, with
an exten.~on o~the robber floor.
\
i. The outdoor deck would be extended to its o~igimd configuration for viewini
ofmmis.
"grandfather" agreement with the building depakhuent), and recon6guring the
showers and wilets. A sketch is attached showing one option for this.
c. Some of the locker bays themselves will have to he revised in order to msi~tain
an accessible path oflravel through the locker rooms.
a, It is proposed that the bar be removed in its entirety, with that space opened up
into the adjacent dining area in this option The floor finish would have to be
redone to be carpet to match the adjacent area.
b. The kitchen is to be abandoned. As such, we recommend removal of all of the
existing equipment except for the ice machine. In this option, this room would
be used for storage or other non-public use.
c. The roof was recently redone, and is in good condition. The only work that will
be required is around any changes to the mechanical system.
All structural, mechanical and electrical improvements are outlined in the respective
sections of this report. In addition, more detail on accessibility issues such as signage,
door hardware and drinking fountains is in the accessibility survey.
CUpertino Sports Center
Option 2 - Scope of Work
For this option, we need to look at how the existing building could not only be brought up
to code and viability, but also how it could potentially be renovated in order to better
accommodate the desired programs. Seismic, mechanical, elecll'ical and ADA upgrades
are still required. Each of those sections of this r~port outlines the required work for
option 2.
Some spec/ftc points relating to this option are listed below.
The new ramp and elevator and modifications to the stairs that are called out
for option 1 would also occur in this scheme.
b. The revisions to the toilet rooms and locker room.~ would also be incorporated
in this option.
c. The main area on the upper level is the original dining room and bar. The
plan calls for converting this area into a cardiovascular fitness center. The
free weights area will remain on the lower level. A layout of the proposed
equipment in this area is attached in this report. This has structural and
electrical ramifications.
d. The existing aerobics room will be converted to be a stretching room, keeping
the mirrors. Because the existing wood floor is raised, and getting an
accessible threshold isn't possible for the height oftbe floor, we would
recommend replacing this with a cushioned vinyl sports floor. We used this
material at the gymnasim in the Rosevillc Sports Center with great success.
An example of an applicable product is Taraflex.
c. The existing kitchen area and bar will come out completely. The bar area will
become part of the cardiovascular fitness center, and the kitchen will be
convened into a meeting room with all new finishes including carpet on the
floor and vinyl wall covering on the walls. This will also require replacing the
existing doors.
e. We have proposed remodeling the existing meeting room into a new tennis
office and storage room off the front entry.
f. The whole entry counter will need to be remodeled in order to make it
accessible from both the staff and patron aides.
e. At the lower level, the first two original racquetball courts, which are now
used for the Acceleration program, would be remodeled into an aerobics
studio. Per the structural report, additional portions of the concrete cross wall
can come out, to make the room more open. Again, we would recommend
changing the floor from wood to a cushioned vinyl sports floor. Mirrors and
ballet barres should be added along one long wall, and both doors will need to
be replaced in wider openings with accessible hardware.
f. The third racquetball court will be converted to a mom for drop in child care.
This won't be a licensed use, as we cannot get two separate exits, nor can we
LO~F..R T .~-~-~,,L FITNESS ROOM
z
LOC~
Cupertino Sports Center
Option 1 - Scope of WOrk
Sei-~mic, mecbsn!cal, electrical and ADA upgrade only. The intent is to bring the
building up to code for siructure and ac~,es~bflity, but simply to upgrade the existing
systems based on their correntconfigurations for mechanical, electrical and plumbing. In
this scermrio, all of the spaces would remain in their current configuration, with uses to
remnin as they are today.
Detailed descriptions of the scope of work required for each of these areas is included in
the assessment reports. However, we are outlining a few of the major architectural
improvements in this seetion.
1. Accessible entry
a. The parking lot needs to be re.-hlped to locate the accessible parking spaces near
the bottom of the proposed new ramp up to the main entry.
b. A new cast in place concrete ramp with psinted galvanized metal handrails is to
be added from the parking lot up to the top landing of the existing stairs. This
will provide an accessible path of travel to the main entry.
c. We think that the existing lit should be retsined to provide an accessible path of
exit from the two levels of the building and from the upper level deck.
2. Internal Circulation
a. The stairs a_nd rails will need to be modified to meet accessibility requirements.
b. A new elevator should be installed, and can be located in the approximate
location of the existing dumb-waiter. This is a two stop hydrolic elevator with
2,500 lb. Capacity. This is necessar~ to provide a mcsns of accessible
circulation between the two levels of the building. The equipment room would
be on the lower level.
c. Some door openings, particularly into the locker rooms will need to be widened.
d. The raised floors in the aerobics and "acceleration" rooms do not have accessible
thresholds. This will require some difficult transitions should these floors
remain. One reoommendation (which we've proposed in option 2) is to replace
the raised wood floors with new cushioned vinyl "sports floors".
3. Toiles and Locker Rooms
a. The upstairs public toilets need to be adapted to be fully accessible.
b. The downstairs locker room shower and toilet facilities need to be substantially
renovated to provide accessibility. We have proposed eliminating the spas,
maintaining the saunas in their curr~t conditions (which will require a
,~ ~, ;.'T~ri' . ....
SPA TOILE~
~.N'S LOCK~.R ROOM
.~I~.OBICS ROOM
LOUNGE/DINING & BAR.
MAIN ENTRY STAIR
EXIT STAIR FROM BALCONY
VIEW TO TENNIS COURT
DECK
PARK~G & RN'TP,.Y
~/PPC.P- L~Yr:.L · ~Y** IJ"TJI, J6-
CUPERTINO SPORTS CENTER BSA ARCHITECTS
Assessment Report October 30, 2000
FACILITIES
\
· Overall Site
The site borders roadways on two sides and two adjacent developments within the block.
There is vehicular access from both roadways with the parking area contiguous between thcm.
There are sidewalks on both roadways and a bus stop adjacent to the Stevens Creek entry. Both
drives are potential pedestrian enlries with the primary entry being off Stevens Creek Blvd.
· Parldug Areas
Parking is provided for both the tennis facilities and adjacent swim facilities in the center
of the site. All facilities are entered directly from this parking area.
· Swim Facilities
The pool is accessed through a reception and locker room building. The pool itself is
housed in a fabric all weather enclosure.
· Tennis Facilities
The tennis facilities are entered either directly offofthe parking areas or through the
racquet club building. There are courts on each side of thc parking area. There is one center court
with bleachers and several standard courts directly adjacent to the racquet club building. These
are sunken to the lower floor level and are not easily accessible from the parking area.
· Racquet Club Building
This is a split-level configuration with a lower level below the level of the parking area
and an upper level above. The entry is up exterior stairs to the upper level for reception and
access to the deck. Access to the adjacent, tennis courts is at the lower level or down exterior
stairs from the deck. Emergency exiting is from the lower level with exterior stairs up to adjacent
grade.
The upper level has the main hall, kitchen, aerobics, meeting room, staff offices and
restrooms. The lower level has the locker rooms, fitness center, staff service areas, and
racquetball courts. Two courts have been converted into a physical therapy center.
CUPERTINO SPORTS CENTER
2 Court Gymnasium
Low Hilth
Table Tennis - Open G~m
Av~. No. of Sessions per Week 10 10
Av~. No. of Weaks per Year 50 50
Avg. No. of Participants per Session 6 8
Av~. Fee per Participant $$.00 S5.00
Subtotal Revenue $15.000 $20.000
Table Tennis - Lea&,uea
Avg. No. of Leagues 4 5
ArR. No. Teams per League S 8
Avg. No. of Seasons per Year 4 4
Av~. Fee Per Team per Season $40 $40
Subtotnl Rovenue $5, ! 20 S6,400
Table Tennte - Round Robin
Av~ No. of Sessions per Weak 5 5
Av~. No. of Weeks per Year 50 50
Av~. No. of Participants per Session 8 I0
Av~ Fee per Participant $7.00 $7.00
Subtotal Revenue $14.000 S 17,500
Table Tennis - Tournaments
Avp~ No. of Tournments per Year 3 3
Avs. No. of Participants per Tournament 30 40
Avg. Entry Fee per Participant S20.00 $20.00
Subtotal Revenue $1.800 S2,400
Badminton - Lea&*ue8
Av~. No. of Leques 2 3
Ava. No. Teams per Lea~e 8 8
Avg. No. of Seasons per Year 4 4
· ' Av~ Fee Per Team per Season S80 S80
Subtotal Revenue 85,120 87,680
02001 Tim -qpofl8 t'"-q - ' Group ll~A)I I
CUPERTINO SPORTS. CENTER
2 Court Gymnasium
Low Hir, h
Youth Leagues
AVg. No. of Leagues 3 3
Avg. No. Teams per League 6 8
Avg. No. of Seasons per Year 4 4
Avg. Fee Per Team per Season $175 $175
Subtotal Revenue S12,600 S16.800
Open Gym
AVg. No. of Sessions per Week (2 hours) I0 l0
Avg. No. of Weeks per Year 50 50
Avg. No. of ParUcipants per Session 8 12
Avg. Fee per Participant $5.00 $5.00
Subtotal Revenue S20,000 $30,000
Open ~ - Youth Only
Avg. No. or Sessions per Week 3 3
Avg. No. of Weeks per Yesr 50 50
Av~ No. of Participants per Session 10 12
AvE. Fee per Participant $3.00 $3.00
Subtotal Revenue 84.500 S5,400
Group Exerclne
Avg. No. of Classes per Week 10 10
Avg. No. or Weeks per year 50 50
Avg. No. of ParUcipants per Class 12 14
Avg. Fee per Participant $5.00 $5.00
Subtotal Revenue ~30.O00 S35,000
AddlUonal pintoes
AV~ NO. or Palms per Year 15 20
Av~ Fee per Participant $350 $350
SumoUd Revenue $5.250 $7.000
Special Eventa (Coneertefl~nn~tmenta/Communtt~ Use)
Avg. No. o! Rentals per Year 5 7 ,.
AvB. Fee per Participant $750 $750
Subtotal Revenue 83.750 85.250
I Total Potential Revenue 8153.020 8203.250 I .:.
02001 The 8ports P-~Ii - ' Group !1/9/01 3
City of Cupertino ~
Sports Center
Fiscal Trends
'' 6130195 6130196 6i3019~ .... 6-/30198-61-:~)~99'-'"~0/00 ..... 6-/3-O-i~)i-
Operating Revenue:
Ch;~r_g_es for Service $342,551 ....~_52-9,974 .$'-7-~.1_".i'~_-5_'-_g_- $8!' 1_,8:! :1-.' ':.. :$~:~i_5'.-5.'_7 i..'-.$_'-9-'.6.:31~-8.~_ ";::'_~._~_2.-2.,:4~
Other 0 .............. 0 .............. _0 ................. 0 ....... 5_6.,8_.0_0 ..... _61_,0.0_9- ...... 62,_523_.
T~i~I Operating. Re_.v_enu_~ ......._3~_2,5.-51' ..... _52_9,9__7_4 ....... 721.~359 ....81_1..,_-91~ ....... _85__9,357 1,024,289 984,946
Operating Expenses: .......................................................................................................
-S-al-a~:ie$'-a~ ~i -b~ n~fi~S ........ '~-0'i'i';1-:36 ........ -97~3(:~ ........ ~-;~i~-(~ ....... ~':~'~i-~ .... ~-'i',507 ..... '~4~?Z69 .... -1-4~;~-5~
M_'~ter!~!S and' S~pJ~es_' ...........~9;~ ........... -~;~)-_~.-_ :. ~..'_.:_~3_:_53_~--~:~-~_~_~;-_g_5.~_. · ._ 8_.8,_04_1 . 12-9~_?08 ..... ~._2_~687-
~tmCtU_a.! s__e _w_ice_s_ ............ '.'.i ._ ;1~.~ ,.-_-5 i_ 0_' ..... _31_6_,3_~.8. ..... 388,483 446,968 635,096 670,313 591,511
D__e_pmc_i..a_!!o_n' 13,565 18,661 _18;_9_32 ...... 1~7.,_5~_8 ........ _:16,3_7._5. 5,500 805
T°tal°perat-ir~g-E'-x.p'e--~e-s-'' '. ...... ~3_-.~_,_~.'i.i.._~,3_8.?.._s!~,_=J-9..-70-7;0~_3_ ..... -9-9!,0.!._9 ...... ~ _5 _5 ; .2 ~ _o .... _~_9o_;_s.~
0perati~g !~co_me (!0~_Si ............. -~.-2-i0'33 ..... 2~,5~' ~---1.~_~,_~_~' ...... ¥1~,"~-8- ......... ~2~,662 68,999 124,286
Non-operating:
-J-r~t~re-si-inc(~e' ............. ~_~...._ '.'_"i.. ~-_..__~.i'~_ ~.~' .i-ii~--.ii i'.iii_._'~' 0 '--i_-.'. _--_~, _50_3_- ~i.' '-'-'_~_~_~ _~__~_i.._2.4 ~:~, ..... ~i~§§-8 .... ~,~'~
Other 0 0 250 -303 0 0 0
..... f~i~! no__n_;~p_e[~!i,'~ .......... .. _.i_i_-_;..i;'.- ~'~ .......... i..'~ ""~_-_.F~7__~3~;_.i_'?i._2~'~--~--"~;!;2_'~.i;.-_i;"~;_~'i-~_ _~'_~.~
_O_p_e. ra!i~_g' T.r_an_s_f_ers.!_n__(9.~!) ................ _o ........ ~,6_2_6.__---4_o.,0~ ........ ..__~_.°__..ii"ii-~51_~__~_'-.'--__-._o_'i.'i~'-i-_- ....... 0
'r~etained 'E~i:~i~g$ ............................................................................................... -$-3-~'~
Sports Center Alternatives
January 24, 2002
Alternative t - Do Nothin_~
Action: None
Risk: Legal Liability for violation of Court Order for ADA upgrades
Cost: Unknown but probably not 0
Benefit: Unknown
Practicality: None
Alternative 2 - Demolish and Landscar~e
Action: Demo exiting structure and landscape the site
Risk: None
Cost: $400,000
Benefit: ADA problem solved at minimum cost to City
Practicality: Unlikely that community would consider this acceptable
Alternative 3 - Mitiaate ADA deficiencies
Action: Design and Construct ADA improvements
Risk: Encountering unforeseen structural code conditions
Cost: $500~000 & a facility program with little flexibility and Iow
functionality
Benefit: ADA compliance liability mitigated
Practicality: High
DRAFT
Alternative 4 - Demo & Build 2,000 sf Tennis/Teen Center
Action: Demo 10,000 sf facility and landscape 8,000 sf of site, Design and
Construct a new 2,000 sf facility for Tennis and Teen Center
Risk: None from ADA non-compliance
cost: $1,000,000
Benefit: ADA issues go away, Tennis is preserved, an up to date Teen
Center is provided
Practicality: High
Alternative 5 - Miti~3ate all ADA deficiencies & u~)~3rade
Code deficiencies (BSA 1}
^ction: Design & Construct ADA improvements and
Risk: Code deficiencies may ripple into extensive work
Cost: $1 ~700~000j building is moderately improved 1977 structure
Benef'~: ADA issues go away, public is safer than before
Practicality: Moderate to Low
Alternative 6 - Renovate Buildina & Miti;3ate all ADA &
Code deficiencies (BSA 2)
Action: Completely renovate the existing structure, f'~x ADA issues and
bring all building systems up to current code
Risk: community programs cannot be fully met
Cost: $3j000~000j building is a brand new 1977 style facility
Benefit: Slightly less expensive than building a new facility
Practicality: Moderate to Low
DRAFT
Alternative 7 - Demo existin¢~ structure and build brand
new 10,000 sf facility (BSA 3)
Action: Demo existing structure, design & construct new building
Risk: community programs cannot be fully met
Cost: $3,500,000~ building is too small for adequate community
programs
Bener~: Budget is available, allows program change, allows altemate site
consideration
Practicality: High
Alternative 8 - Demo existina structure and build brand
new 15,000 sf facility (BSA 3 + 5.000 sf)
Action: Completely renovate the existing structure, fix ADA issues and
bring all building systems up to current code
Risk: community programs cannot be fully met
Cost: $4,400,000,
Benefit: Budget is approved, flexible program, up to date design, and allows
alternate site consideration
Practicality: Very High
DRAFT
RACQUETBALL -PRIVATE BUSINESSES
How Miles and Time Operating Hours
Bminem/nddFem/pbone many from Sports Cost to use &
marts Center (per Year Businem Opened
Yahoo Maps)
Cul~tino Spore Center 2 · Day pass $7 residents/S 10 nonresidents · M-F 6am-10pm
2111StevemCrsekBIvd. · $55 l-monthmembership · s-sgam-4pm
777-3160 · $99 3-month membership
· $350 l-year membership · Opened 1972
Supmne Court Athletic 7 4.3 miles · $510 year · M-F 5am-I l:30pm
Club 10 minutes · S/S 7em-7pm
415N. Mathilda Ave.
Sunnyvale · Opened 1973
739-1250
Club One Royal Coum 8 4.4 miles · Day use $20/persou- access to whole facilit~ · M-F 5em- 1 Ipm
400 Saratoga Ave. 10 minutes · Buying minimum of 10 day passes - $14/per pass · S-S 7nm-gpm
San Jose · One-time enroll $395
259-1010 · Month-to-month $83 · Opened 1999 (previously
· Corporate accounts with cities of San Jose & Santa Clara - Royal Courts)
$95 to enroll and $5$/moflth
Decathlon Club 2 7.2 miles · Enroll $1,100 · M-F 5em-I Ipm
3250 Central Expressway 14 minutes · Month-to-month S158 · S-S 7am-iOpm
Santa Clara · Fitness only $123/mo
738-8743 · Opened 1976
YMCA - Central 4 8.6 miles · Free use of facilities to all YMCA members · M-F 5:30em-I Opm
1717 The Alameda 14 minutes · No day passes · Sat. 6:30am-7:30pm
San Jose · 18-27 year olds $32/month & · Sun. 8em-7:30pm
298-1717 · $59 to enroll
· 28 & older $52/month Nonprime time for Seniors:
· $99 to anroli · M-F 8-12,1:30-4:30; all
· Seniors using facilities in nonprime time $38/m0; $59 to hours on weekends
enroll
· Opened 1959
South Bay Athletic Club 3 14.2 miles · $249 initiation fee · M-F 5am-I Opm
271 Houret Dr 21 minutes · $49 month-to-month · S/S 8am-6pm
Milpitas
946-0600 · Opened 1979
Sch0eber*s 6 18.3 miles · $274 enrollment · M-F 6:30am-10:30pm
7012 Realm Drive 24 minutes · $29 month-to-month · S-S 7:30am-IOpm
San Jose
629-3333 · Opened 1975
' CUPERTINO SPORTS CENTER
Option Youth Room, Table Tennis, Climbing Wall,
Skatepark and Tennis Courts
Revenue Potential
Youth Game Room $25.000
Table Tennis Facility $72.500
Climbing Wall $92.500
Skateboard Park $28.000
Tennis Court Rentals $98.000
Snacks/Sodas $! 1.000
Lii*etlme Tennis $570.000
Total PotenUal Revenue $897.000
Probable OperaUng Costs '
Full-Time Employee ~Vages and Benefits $127,750
Part-Time Employee Wa~es and Benefits $177.000
Commodities $12.000
Operating Supplies. Maintenance & Repair $236.500
Utilities and Insurance $40.000
Lit*crime Tennis $487.500
Total Probable OperaUng Costs $1.080.750
Cost Recovery Potential
Cost Recovery Potential 83%
Annual Subsidy ($183.750)
O2002 The Sports Management Group 1/24/02 I
Sports Center History
DATE DISCUSSION LroB. ~>~5 ~ ~-A~ccn_~_ ~-- ~ .
April 21, 1989 P&R department receives letter regarding Application 32-U-88 for a
"De Anza Recreational Vehicle Park" and the project's impact on
Memorial Park.
June 12, 1989 Planning Dept. report to Planning Commission on 32-U-88. Staff was
unable to recommend approval due to perceived inconsistency with
the General Plan. Application was recommended for denial.
August 7, 1989 CC-Receives offer to sell the De Anza Racquet Club to the city
February 5, 1990 CC -Agreement for the acquisition of real property adopted -
Resolution 8044
April 1, 1990 Certificates of Participation issued for Memorial Park Expansion
Project.
DATE DISCUSSION
April 20, 1992 CC-Staff report regarding Notice of Intention to Circulate a Petition
for selling the SC site and rezoning it, and put on ballot a me~ure to
purchase other open space. CC requested staffto prepare fiscaland
bond information regarding potential impact of the issues dealtwith
on the initiative petition. The legal impact would be addressed if the
initiative was certified. It was not successful
June 12, 1994 Letter from Don Bearden to P&R director stating that the SC did
not have wheelchair access and that the public building did not
meet ADA requirements.
May 29, 1996 CC-P&R director reviewed ADA improvements.
January 10, 2000 CC-Alternatives for the Sports Center building reviewed. Council
agreed that the building should be demolished and a new sports
center constructed.
May 15, 2000 CC-Council approved the staff recommendation regarding
composition of the Sports Center Building Design Advisory
Committee
DATE DISCUSSION
December 6, 2000 Cupertino Sports Center Design Advisory Committee meets for the
first time.
February 21, 2001 Cupertino Sports Center Design Advisory Committee concluded
work and disbanded. Recommendation that "The facility be
rebuilt with no loss of existing recreation opportunity, and with
an eye toward expansion to serve a growing community."
April, 2001 PRC-Staff report given and public comment on possible mixed
use of site taken. PRC recommendation -Do not sell off any
portion of site. Consider including rental space with an attemptto
attract recreational-type businesses.
May 3,2001 PRC-Continuation of report on options. Public input taken. PRC
recommended that the Council consider a Teen Center with the
Sports Center, and with a skate park at the Sports Center site or some
other appropriate site in Memorial Park.
DATE DISCUSSION
October 15, 2001 CC-Councilmember Chang stated that he attended a community
meeting that included tennis enthusiasts, young people wanting a
skate park anywhere in the city and others who wanted a permanent
table tennis and badminton facility.
November 15, 2001 PRC-Public comments taken on programming options. PRC
recommends options that exclude impact on tennis courts.
November 19, 2001 CC-Council expectation restated that they wanted the Teen
Commission's input on anything having to do with youth and teens,
including the SC
DATE DISCUSSION
December 3, 2001 Teen Commission receives staff report on SC programming and take~
public comment. Teen Commission acts to recommend programming
option that includes game room area, climbing wall, and teen ara,
and take out two tennis courts and light remaining courts to make up
capacity.
December 6, 2001 PRC-Receives Teen Commission recommendations, takes public
comments.
December 17, 2001 CC-Review of Parks and Recreation Commission and Teen
Commission recommendations for SC programming.
DATE DISCUSSION
May 23, 2001 CC-CC unanimously agreed that SC should be rebuilt.
May 30, 2001 CC-5-year CIP draft revision reviewed, which included SC.
June 18, 2001 CC-Adoption of CIP for 2001-2002, which included Sports
Center.
September 6, 2001 PRC-Staff receives first report by The Sports Management Group on
analysis of sports programming.
September 17, 2001 CC-Council requested the Teen Commission's input and offer their
perspective on SC.
September 20, 2001 PRC-Workshop for PRC to refine program analysis process and
develop agenda for public workshop on October 11.
October 11, 2001 Public workshop held at Quinlan Community Center.
Parks and Recreation Cost
Recovery
· Total adopted budget for P&R 2001/2002
$6.458M
· Total revenue $4.975M
· Cost Recovery- 77%
Fiscal Trends
City of Cupertino
Park and Recreation Department
Fiscal Trends
6/30195 6130/96 6/30197 6/30198 6/30/99 6/30/00 6/30/01
-Operating i-(evenue:
General Fund n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Blackberry i-arm 1,116,98/ 1,231,068 1,44'/,380 1,348,590 1,484,05'/ 1,596,295 1,740,038
Sports Center 342,551 529,974 724,112 822,080 884,081 1,061,28/ 999,302
-S~iiSi:-'Center 326,301 275';'5if5 354,78/ 394,584 352,794 49'6~-4-00 ................ 3-f6~'358'
Recreation Programs 536,238 1,011,086 1,194,953 1,193,200 1,423,285 1,609,164 1,628,91[
2,322,017 3,04/,673 3,721,232 3,758,454 4,144,21'/ 4,763,146 4,684,615
Operating Expenditures:
General i-und 1,004,116 1,045,300 1,121,666 1,164,822 1,363,410 1,536,152 1,714,484
Blackberry i-afro 1,059,691 1,00'/';~11~5 1,125,46'/ 1,453,379 1,221,219 1,363,327 1,489,50'/
Sports Center 364,584 504,387 618,219 '/0/,023 881,019 955,290 860,660
Senior Center 344,'/12 246,298 342,534 381,860 355,171 438,201 406,586
Recreation i-'rogmms 63'/,436 941,891 938,539 99/,639 1,208,084 1,310,88'/ 1,368,141
...... 3,410,539 3,745,861 4,146,425 4,'/04,723 5,028,903 5,603,857 5,899,3'[8
General i-und Subsidy 1,088,462 698,188 425,193 946,269 884,686 840,711 1,214,763
% self supporting 68.09% 81.36% 89.'/5% /9.89% 82.41% 85.00% 79.41%
Average city cost recovery is 5 5%
Real Estate Analysis
Keyser Marston Options Analysis
Public Use Private Use Parking Spaces
· 17 Tennis Courts
Scheme A · 10,000 SF Club Commercial Space 115 to 120
· 1 Pool (10.000 square feet)
· 17 Tennis Courts Commercial Space '.='
Scheme B · 10.000 SF Club (10,000 square feet, .115 to 120 · '~''
· 1 Pool 2 sto~es) '.'
· 15 Tennis Courts
· 2 Tennis Courts on 20 Townhouses ".. ·
Scheme C Club Roof (1,400 square feet, 100 to 110 '
· 10.000 SF Club 1 cargarage ea.)
....?.:: · · 17 Tennis Courts 13 Townhouses
Scheme D · 10,000 SF Club 12 Townhouses above Club 80
· 1 Pool (1.400 square feet,
: I car garage ea.)
17 Tennis Courts, 10,000 SF Club
1 Pool, 10,000 SF commercial space,
115 to 120 parking spaces~
17 Tennis courts, 10,000 SF.Club'
1 Pool, 10,000 SF, commercial space,
2 stories, 115-120 park..ing spaces
O
15 Tennis Courts, 2 Tennis Courts on Club Roof,
10,000 SF Club, 1 Pool, 20 Townhouses (1,400 SF,
1 car garage each, 100-110 parking spaces
/x~lllltl]llltl~ttltl~
17 Tennis Courts, 10,000 SF Club, 1 Pool, o- _ -~....--~
13 Townhouses, 12 Townhouses above ~ '
Club, 80 parking spaces _~e~ ~ ~~
Summary of Options for the
Sports Center and
Other Parks and Recreation CIP's
Sports Cost Comments
Center
Options
Address only $1.7 M The Sports Center Committee and the Parks
code issues and Recreation Commission did not
......................... recommend this option.
Remodel $3.6 M The Sports Center Committee and the Parks
and Recreation Commission did not
recommend this option.
Rebuild as $4.4 M This is the recommended option.
Sports Center
_only ...........
Rebuild with $5.5 to$4 million plus teen center costs (see items 3
a teen center $7 M & 4 in teen center table above).
Rebuild with $4.4 M It is expected that $2 to 3 million would be
housing minus generated if a portion of the site was sold off
$2-3 M for townhouse development.
Rebuild Was not recommended by the financial
w/office consultant.
space
Teen Center Cost Comments
Options
Quinlan Center $50,000 The budget is to furnish the space currently occupied by
CCS in the Quinlan Center for teens. The building is already
up to code.
Blue Pheasant $100,000 This is a gross estimate, as we have no idea what
modifications would need to be made to the building to
retrofit it for a teen center, and/or bring it up to code.
2na floor of $3M + Based on $300/sq. ft. this option would add $3 million to the
Sports Center Sports cost of the Sports Center (see Sports Center options below).
(10,000 sq. ft.) Center
2na floor of $1,5M + Based on a 5,000 sq. ft. teen center developed in conjunction
Sports Center Sports with the Sports Center.
(5,000 sq. ft.) Center
Do nothing -0o Continue to operate teen programming without a separate
teen center. No construction necessary.
Skate Park Cost Comments
Options
Compaq Site $900,000 Need to finalize lease. Cost is greater due to the need to
construct rest;room and extend utilities to the site.
Construct in a $375,000 This option has been abandoned due to neighborhood
neighborhood concerns, however, the cost of constructing in a
park neighborhood park are low given the availability of
restrooms and park buildings.
Church property $415,000 We would need to work an agreement out with the church
for use of the property; additional funds ($40,000) are
included in this budget for the renovation of the clubhouse
currently on site.
Construct in $625,000 The preferred location in Memorial Park is the existing
Memorial Park group picnic area. The cost includes the cost to relocate the
picnic area to a spot on the lake.
Table Tennis Clubs
in Northern California
Table Age of Play Schedule Co- Membership Tourna- 5hat 5hare How
Tennis Members Sponsored Fees merits e' with what m~ny
Club Spec sports tables
(Site e?
Name)
Concord 7-80+ Su, Mo, Tu, Th, 3-5 hours No Adults Yes Yes Basketball, Up to
(Pleasant 150 $3 O/yr., badminton, 14, high
Hill Jr. members juniors under volleyball quality
Academy) 22 $15, tables
families $40.
Daily: adults
$5, junior $2,
nonmembers
pay additional
$2
Daly City 7-85+ Fri 6-10 pm, Su 10 am - 6 pm Yes Yearly $140, Yes Yes Basketball 12 -
(War 6 mos $80, and other high
Memorial 3 mos $45 -- gym sports quality
Comm. plus $6 per tables.
Ctr.) play Club
owns
10&
bought
2
F.M. 7-80 Every Tu, every other Thu, every Sa and Yes Daily $2 No Yes Basketball, 6 - high
Smith 52 Su, adults only Mo, Tu, Thu Noon -2:30 Yearly $60 dance, quality
Oakland members adults only Karate, tables
(F.M cooking
Smith
Rec. Ctr.)
Table Age of Play Schedule ¢o- Membership Tourna- Shat Share How
Tennis Members Sponsored Fees ments e with what many
Club Spac sports tables
(Site e?
Name)
Fresno 7 - Adult Thu, 7 - 10 Yes Yearly $25 Yes, 3-4 Yes Basketball, 8 - high
(Holmes Sun, 5 - l0 17 and under yr., entry indoor quality
Play- Tournaments held on Sa free fee soccer, tables
ground group
Gym) games,
badminton
Hercules 8-70+ Fri 7-11, Sa 10-4 (has pro coach) Yes City No Yes Judo, dance 3 - high
(Ohlone membership: quality
Comm. $20/yr. tables
Center) playing fee
adults: 20
games for
$30, 13-17
$15, 12 and
under $10
Palo Alto 7 - Adults Foothill College - Jan-Mar: Fri 8 pm- yes Family: Yes - Yes Foothill - Foothill
(Cubberly 200+ midnight, Sa 5 pm -midnight, Su 1:30 - $300/yr, local and gym with -4
Center & members $ pm Apr-Dec Fri 6 pm-midnight, Sa 5 $175/6 mos interna- basketball, Mitehel
Mitchell pm-midnight, Su 1:30-8 pm Adult: tional volleyball, 1- 12
Park Mitchell Park Comm. Ca'. -Jan-Mar: Tu $150/yr, $90/6 etc
Comm. 9 pm-midnight, Thu 6 pm-midnight mos. Mitchell high
Ctr.) Apr-Dec Tu 9 pm-midnight, Thu 6 pm - Jr: $75/year, Park - quality
midnight $45 6/mos dances, tables
Jr. Training: comm..
$225/year, mtgs.,
$160/6 mos. aerobics
· Tctble Age of Play Schedule ~o- Membership Tourna- Shar Share How
Tennis Members Sponsored Fees merits · with what many
Club Spac sports tables
(Site e?
Name)
Sac-Rec Adult M-F 7:30-12:30 pm, Sat. 1:30-6:30 pm No $15 month Yes, Yes Karate, 5 - high
(SuRer every Fri volleyball, quality
Middle theater
School
Gym)
San Jose Adult Tu and Thu, 6:50-10:50 pm Yes $20/semester 1 per No, None 4 - high
State (college semester fully quality
University students) dedi-
(Student cated
Union)
Santa %80+ Tu and Thu, 7-11 pm No No Yes Yes, Community 7 - high
Cruz membership, hall quality
(CPDES $5 to play
Hall
basement)
Santa Ail ages Mo 6-I0 pm, Thu 7-10 pm Unknown $3 per play Yes Yes Yes - 12 -
Rosa basketball high
(Mountain quality
Shadows
Middle
School)
Range of Options
· December 17, 2001 recommendation
· Fimess and gymnasium option
· 2-Court Stand-alone gym
· Youth Room/Table Tennis/Climbing Wall/
Skate Park
December 17 Option
· 3 800 SF fimess, aerobics room, child watch
room, teen lounge (Climbing wall as an
alternate-bid item)
· $4.4 M capital cost
· Year 3 ~ Youth game room annual subsidy
- $3,000
· Year 3 ~ Climbing wall to generate $38,000
annually
Fimess and Gymnasium Option
· 3,800 SF fimess
· Aerobics room
· Child watch room
· Gymnasium
· Loss of two (2) tennis courts
· Year 3 annual subsidy $25,500
· $6M- capital cost
2-Court Stand-Alone Gymnasium
· Accommodates multi-use including: table
tennis, badminton, basketball, volleyball,
exercise and open gym.
· Year 3 cost $125,000
· $2.5M- capital cost
Youth Room/Table Tennis/
Climbing Wall/Skate Park
· Cost to construct - $3.5M
· Annual subsidy with skate park fee -
$183,750
· Annual subsidy with free skate park -
$211,750
Vision Statement
"That the facility be
rebuilt with no. loss
of existing
recreation
opportunity,
and with an eye
CLP[I INO toward expansion to
serve
a growing
community"
10300 ToFFe Avenue Cu~*tino, CA 95014 (408) 252*4505
Summary
I~I]LT'PIfllD. 22 l,~Fflr.-J~ n~-il 20. lq,92
Cupertino Sports Center Improvement Plans
The Cupertino Tennis Club Position
Januar-y 25, 2002
Introduction
· The Cupertino Tennis Club appreciates the opportunity to
serve as one of the city's largest co-sponsored activities.
· We look forward to active participation in planning the
rebuilding of the Sports Center.
· The CTC continues to endorse the City's decision as
developed by Parks and Recreation Department &
Commission to:
- Rebuild the Cupertino Sports Center
- Ensure no loss in Tennis capacity
· The Tennis facility is a unique resource that must be
protected and developed.
Cupertino Tennis Club (CTC) (((~')]
Position
· The present CSC is now an excellent facility that pays for
itself and provides first class services. It should be
maintained and improved:
- Increase the utility of the current compliment of 17 courts at their
present location
- Light the 5 unlit courts presently in place.
- Add 2 courts by replacing the stadium
- Add elevated viewing area for courts
- Add Baby sitting services and facilities
· Fitness programs should be maintained.
Cupertino Tennis Club (CTC) (((~))
Position (continued)
· The present number of lockers could be reduced by ~2/3.
· Tennis Training Programs are essential. Lifetime Tennis
trains ~ 600 persons each week.
· Parks and Recreation Department's program is
phenomenally successful! It addresses the needs of a
broad cross section of our community.
· We look forward to working with the city to find a way to
maximize these Tennis programs and of the facilities
during construction.
Recommendations
· Replace existing building with a high quality structure
· Provide space to support current activities
· Provide room for --25% growth to accommodate increasing
Tennis use resulting from our robust training programs.
Conclusion
· The Cupertino Tennis Club appreciates the opportunity to
present our views.
· We look forward to active participation in planning the
rebuilding of the Sports Center.
· The Tennis facility is a unique resource that must be
protected and developed.
CITY OF
CU pERugINO PARKS AND RECREATION ADMINISTRATION
STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item Number ~ Agenda Date: December 17, 2001
SUBJECT
Programming for the new Cupertino Sports Center
RRCOMM~.NDAT!ON.
That the existing Sports Center be rebuilt to include the following:
· 3,800 sq. ft. fitness room
· aerobics room
· child watch room
· lounge area with ping-pong and pool tables
· climbing wall
It is also recommended that a parmership with Fremont Union High School Di~hlct be explored
to provide for ~able tennis, recreational b~kethall, bacl~inton, and other sports within the new
field house being constructed at Cupertino High School. It is further recommended that
memberships in private racquet clubs be secured for those racquetball/handball players, currently
holding memberships at the Cupertino Sports Center, to compensate for the loss of courts at the
Sports Center.
The Parks and Recreation Commission acknowledged that a community gymnasium was needed
and recommended that it be designed for a second phase, but further recommended that it be
core,acted without displacing tennis courts at the Sports Center site. C-iven the cost to put
parking in a structure or to put tennis courts above podium parking, staff concluded that
con~Uueting a gymnasium at another location would be a more financially feasible option. The
Fremont Union High School Di-hlet staffhas expressed interest in a possible joint-uso facility at
the Cupertino High School site. The option will be discussed further in this staff report.
Svecifie reeommendations to the City Council from reviewina commissions:
Parks and Recreation Commission - The Parks and Recreation Commission recommended
3,800 sq. ft. of fitness space with aerobics room, child watch facility, and with construction of a
gymnasium in a future phase. The commission recommended that no tennis courts be displaced
from the Sports Canter site.
P~n~ on RetyPed Pa~er
Sports Center Programming
Staff Report to City Council
December 17, 2001
Page 2 of 7
Teen Commission - The Teen Commission recommended that the new Sports Center be
designed to include a game room area, a climbing wall and lounge area with couches. They
recommended that no more than two tennis courts be displaced to accomplish this. If courts are
displaced, light a sufficient number of tennis courts to provide equivalent capacity.
The Teen Commission expressed concern for the elimination of racquetball/handball from the
Sports Center, and although they did not formally recommend it as part of the program for the
new building, members felt that some provisions should be-made for racquetball/handball
players.
When the issue of the skate park at the Sports Center site came up, the Teen Commission
dete~,~ined that too much tennis would be displaced by the addition of a skate facility and,
therefore; did not recommend the construction of a skate park at this site. The executive director
of the YMCA has expressed an interest in working cooperatively with the city to provide a skate
park.
BACKGROUND
Existinf Conditions:
The Cupertino Sports Center was originally conslructed in 1976 as the De Anza Racquet Club, a
private tennis and social club with racquetball and limited fitness facilities. In 1990, the city
bought the facility and turned it into a public racquet/sports facility as an enterprise operation. It
has been a success in terms of tennis, but it is other~vise limited by the utility of the facility. The
program hs.~ an 800-member base and operates with no General Fund subsidy.
The existing building has approximately 15,000 sq. fi of area on two levels. The enlry is fi'om the
parking lot at the midpoint between the two levels; tennis courts are below the parking level.
There is a small swimming pool with a fabric, all-weather enclosure that is rented to a private
company that offers swimming instruction. The pool area is not included as a part of this project.
The existing building also has 1,500 sq. ft. of cardio/weight equipment, an aerobics room with a
wooden floor, a meeting room, and locker rooms with hot tubs and saunas. There are
administrative offices for Lifetime Tennis (a business) and city staff, and space is rented on the
lower level to private u~inem/physical therapists. Utilizing a combination of public programs and
private rentals has made it possible to nm the center without tax support. While the primary goal
of recon~uucting the facility is to provide improved community service in a facility that is code
.compliant, revenue generation also needs to be considered.
Surrounding the building are eighteen tennis courts (of which 11 are lit) and 132 parking spaces.
The entire site is 6.2 acres.
Sports Center Programming
Staff Report to City Council
December 17, 2001
Page 3 of 7
The executive summary of the architects report on the existing facility is attached. The full report
entitled, Cupertino Sports Center Assessment of Existin~ Facilities and Recommendations for
Renovation and/or Exlmnsion, dated October 30, 2000, is available upon request and covers the
structural, mechanical, electrical, and constracfion costs for rehabilitating the building. The
architect will be in attendance at the council meeting to answer any questions the council may
have regarding the utility of the existing structure.
Public participation proi~rammimz phase:
October 11 Public Workshop:
The community was invited to participate in a programming workshop on October 11, 2001,
through regular meeting noticing, an article in the Cupertino Scene, and 6,000 direct-mall
postcards to individ-Rls who were or had been (in the last two years) pass holders at the Sports
Center or participants in other fitness programs offered by the Parks and Recreation Depa~auent.
We notified neighbors and special interest groups, such as the YMCA, De Av-a Cupertino
Aquatics, and Lifetime Tennis. Staff from the Cornerstone Project did some outreach to teens.
There were about eight teens in att~tt,,ce.
ARer the background presentation, attendees were asked to participate in three group exercises.
The following is a description of the exercises and the community input received.
Exercise IA
The participants were asked what additional indoor or outdoor facilities should be considered in
the future if facilities could be sited anywhere in Cupertino. The groups were asked to list the
facilities in priority order. The top three responses were: tennis courts (10 groups responding), a
skate park (10 groups responding), a gymn,-~ium (9 groups responding), and a teen center with
lounge, pool hall and gym (4 groups responding). There were 16 other facilities mentioned
receiving three or fewer responses; a complete summary of the responses received is attached to
this report.
Exercise lB
Participants were asked the following question, "Which of the spaces recommended in exercise
lA are appropriate for the Sports Center site?"
The following summarizes the responses: tennis courts (11 groups responding), enlarged timess
area (9 groups responding), table tmmis (5 groups responding). There were 17 other suggestions
receiving three or fewer group respondents. The full list of responses is attached.
Exercise 2
Participants were given a "Build a Center" exercise. The objective was to belp the public
understand the cost of various spaces and what could be accomplished within budget. Each of the
Sports Center Pwgramming
StaffReport to City Council
December 17, 2001
Page 4 of 7
potential components of the center were identified either as revenue generators or expenses, and
the respondents balanced the cost to build a particular component of the facility against perceived
community need and its revenue generating potential. A complete sununary of exercise 2 is also
attached.
Exercise 3
The participants were asked to complete the following sentence, ",4 successful rebuilding of the
~]~orts Center would achieve the following objectives." The following is a list of all responses,
in no particular order:
· Mnlntnln current tennis facilities and reservation system by pwviding longer weekend hours.
· Continue hosting and serving the large amounts of tennis players/students.
· Install lights and backboards to existing tennis courts.
· Program lessons for all ages and abilities.
· Provide teen/youth center, with activities to meet their needs, such as a youth lounge, game
wom~ and skate park.
· Design a facility to be visually appealing, clean and accessible.
· Pwvide gym space that meets the needs of various sports, such as basketball, volleyball and
racquetball.
· Plan as a self-supporting facility or with sound financial feasibility.
· Impwve and expand fitness center.
· Benefit the community by serving all se/~ents of thc population.
· Provide access for all ages and income levels.
· Reopen the snack bar.
· Provide a recreational fac'flity not currently available in the city.
· Enlarge bathrooms with showers and lockets.
· Offer childcare and play areas for children.
· Remodel the building while keeping current spaces.
· Maintain current parking spaces.
· Allow opportunity for future expansion.
At the conclusion of the workshop, the participants were asked to share their comments and
suggestions by filling out a comment sheet. The comments received are attached for your
information.' Also attached is correspondence received regarding pro~I1Lrl~mlng at the facility.
Analysis:
After the meeting, stn~ met with the consultnnts and, nfter reviewing the meeting notes, directed
the consultants to analy~e the following options: O. nformation regarding income nnd expenses
for each of'these options is attached.) The Parks and Recreation nnd Teen Cop~mlssions t~viewed -
these options in separ~__t_e meetings.
gports Center Pro~ninl
StaffRepon to City Council
December 17, 2001
PaEe $ of 7
Option A - wslntain the current pro/ramming in a new build/nE. This option was analyzed for
those that like what they have now and don't want the pwgram to change. This option includes
racquetball and the spas.
Option B - this option was analyzed for ils revenue potential and includes erdarged aewbics and'
fitness spaces with a child watch area. It does not include racquetball or a spa, as the demand for
these components is minimal.
Option C - addresses more of the needs identified from community input, as it includes a
community gynmasium in a future phase. In this option, the facility would be desilp~ed with
future expansion in wind. The financial analysis showed thai after locker rooms and
sdmini.siration areas are consW~_cted for the Spor~s Center, the addition of a Eyrn doesn't add
much to the operatin~ expense. A ID'm would provide for enhanced community proEramming.
The current budget is insufficient for consiruction of the community ~mnasium, but it can be
planned as a second phase.
Thc basic budget assumptions that were used for the financial pm forma are also attached.
Review By Parks And Recr~tion A~d Tecn Commissions:
The Parks and Recreation and Teen Commissions took additional public comnlent, and their
recommendations were stated at the beginning of this report. The final staff recommendation was
drafted to incorporate as much of what was heard f~om the community and commissions as
possible, while recommending a program for a facility that can be built within budget.
The Recommended Project:
The core of the building project, those spaces that will att~ the g~eatest number of pass holders
and support revenue generation include:
· 3,800 sq. it. fitness room
· aerobics room
· child watch area
These clements are analyzed in the Option B pro fo, ma, attached. The architect is exploring ways
to add a lounge a~a/game room to the project and perhaps a climbing wall as an alternate bid
item. Pro forma for these activities, as well as a racquetball/hsndball court, have also been
It is further recommended that a parmershlp be explored with Fremont Union High School
District so that community use can be facilitated in a field house scheduled to be co~h,~..'-q~i at
Cupertino High School. District and city stairs have met to discuss a joint-use agreement that
will ultimately be presented to both governing boards. City staff believes that a $50,000 addition
Sports Center Programming
StaffRepon to City Council
December 17, 2001
Page 6 of 7
to the building planned by Fremont Union High School District could accommodate storage for
12 table tennis tables and other equipment that can be used after hours by the community.
Fremont Union High School District is also interested in renovating the pool at Cupertino High
School while field house construction is underway, but is approximately $400,000 short of the
capital amount needed to complete the project. This $400,000 presents about ten years of pool
rent; if the city could advance the rent to the school district, it is possible that the pool
renovation, field house con.~ixaction, and locker room renovation could be completed at once.
This would be the most cost-effective way to implement the project, and would pwvide the best
service to the community. This pwposal will be forthcoming from both staffs in the near future.
It is further recommended that membership in private racquet clubs be secured for those
racquetball/handball players currently holding memberships at the Cupertino Sports Center to
compensate for the loss of courts at the Sports Center.
· Staffhas been in contact with representatives of the racquetball/handball community and is
aware of their concern for the loss of two courts at the Sports Center. Originally, staff thought
that it might be possible to add racquetball into the project design and bid it as an alternative bid
item. Staff explained to the mcquctball players that if bids on the Sports Center came in
sufficiently low to allow construction of a racquetball court, then City Council would have the
option of including it in the project at the time of award of the cor~l~aetion contract. There was
understandable concern by players that this could result in a complete loss of racquetball at the
Sports Center if the bids were not low enough. Consequently, staffdid some research into what
the private sector might be able to provide and how we might be able to facilitate membership in
a private club for those patrons that would be displaced with the new building.
Attached is a summary of private courts available in the area. There are a total of 15 courts
within 4.4 miles (10 minutes travel time) of the Cupertino Sports Center.
One business we contacted (Club One Royal Courts) has eight courts available and would work
to set up a Cupertino City account so that we might facilitate membership for our displaced
racquetball/handball players. Of course, we would approach other businesses to see where we
might get the best deal should the City Council determine that this is the best route to take.
SUMbIARY
Staff believes that implementing the recommendations outlined above will meet the needs of the
greatest number of residents possible, while maintaining the facility as a successful enterprise
operation.
Eports Center Pro~ramming
StaffRcpon to City Council
December 17, 2001
Page 7 of 7
NEXT STEPS
Following City Council approval of the program for the new building, staff' will work with the
architect on a scope of work and will return to the City Council for award of consultant contract -
for architectural services. At that time, staff and the architect will prepare a schedule of public
meetings/work shops for sports facility design, so that interested members of the community will
have an opportunity to fully participate.
SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED FOR SUBMISSION
TO CITY COUNCIL:
Therese Ambrosi Smith, Director David Knapp, City Manager
Parks and Recreation
Cupertino Sports Center
Executive Summary
BSA Architects
December 6, 2000
.4. Introduction
1. The ~xisting Cupertino Sports Center was originally consUuct~ in 1976 as the
De ~,~ Racquet Club, a private tennis and social club with racquetball and
· limited fitness facilities.
2. Ia 1990, the city bo,,ght the facility and turned it into a public racquet/sports
facility for which they charge fees. It b*, been a success in l~m< oftennia but
is otherwise ilmlf.~l by the conaitio~ of the facility.
3. The building has approxim*tely 15,000 scpm,~ feet of area on two levels, with
the entry from patlci,,S being at around the midpoint between the two levels.
The tennis courts are below the parking level. There is also a small swinu~i,~$
pool, which has a fabric all-weather enclosure, and is used primarily for lessons.
4. The building is situated in Memorial Park, which now also houses the Quinlan
Community Cente~ and the new Senior Center.
B. Assessments of the F.Y~_~ting Facility
1. Architectural,~.qs~q~m~t of~-xisting Facilities
a. 1/~vi~ of existing finisbes and conditions- most of thc facility is in fair to
good condition, but some of the finishes would need to be modified if
spaces ar~ to be reused for different purposes. Th~ pool enuy building is in
poor condition.
b. Iaput from staff on the corrent utilization of spaces - option 2 below
2. Accessibility R~i~w per ADA and Celffornia Title 24
b. Access between the two leyels of the building is r~quir~ end the best
solution would be an in2rior elevator
c. Other areas oftbe buila;n~ nmi subs~tJ~! work to become fully :
acc~ible including the loc~ room toilets and showers, door hardware,
s~$e, some door widths mi thresholds end cascwo~
3. Structural Assessment
a. The builrlin2 was constructed in 1978, based on the 1976 Unifo, tu Buildinl~
Code. There have been changes in the current 1997 code which would
require modifications to the facility in order to make it compliant.
b. Specific issues include increasing the anchorat~e of the wood floors to the
concrete wall panels, bracin~ interior concrete walls, replacing some ,of the
exis~,~g frs~ini at the second floor and roof, and addinl~ anchors and
4. Mec. hsni~'~l AsSeSSment
brins it up ~o code, incl,,~i,~2 modiflhns some of ~ ducting, movinl~
thennosi~ and timers and addin~ one more heat pump nnit.
b. Plumbin~ is more involved, as all of the bathrooms will need to be
substang~y morllt~d to meet accessibility codes. In addition, much of the
pipin~ will need to be replaced. There is also a slab leak under tbe
5. Electrical Asse~-~.,~ent
a. The exis~ elecirical service is adequate, and only minor
are required to meet code.
b. It has bean recommenrled that a number of the liF, bting fixt-dres be replaced.
c. Additional extcrior liF, hlinl~ was also ~,ommended for security reasons. In
addition, modifications to the controls for the ~,~is court li~,htin~ are
d. A fire alarm system will.need to be added.
6. Site work - landscap~ and t~illiies - not included in this study
C. Alternative approaches to renovaiton or replacement
1. Option 1 -. Sei~..llC, mechanical, el~h~cal and ADA upsrade only. The intent
is to brin~ the buildin~ up to code for structure and accesm'bility, but simply to
upsrade the ~ system-~ based on their ctn-reut configurations for
.mechanical, ele~hical and plumbing.
· 2.Option 2 - S~i~ic and ADA up~ade, upgrade of mechanical and elecirical
s,ys~ms, exp~-~on oftbe ~ ex. or deck. and interior renovation to
make the center a more viable spo~ and fitness facility.
3. Option 3 - Demolish tbe existin~ buildin~ and replace it with a new, 10,000
D. Over~ll Project Cost Estimat~ - includes improvements at tennis courts, pool
and pool entry buildins
Option 1 Option 2 Option 3
Seismic/ADA Upgrade Renovation of Existing Demolition / New Building
Est. Consm~ion Cost
$1,194,000 $2,1 $2,000 $2,473,000
Est. Proieci Cost
$1,545,$90 $2,741,557 $3,018,643
E. Recommendations
1. The slmcmzal concerns are quite r~al, and the building, in its current
confiluration, is not in full compliance with curvet building codes. We feel
this work is critical, and if you choose to keep the existing building, it needs to
be done.
2. The ADA issues are also very important, and need to be addressed. In
pal~icular, the issues of access to the main entry and between the two levels of
the building.
-3. Should only limited funding be available at this time, we would recommend that
the City proceed with Option 1 to perform the necessary up~les to bring the
building up to code for sei,,,,ic and ADA. However, we do not feel that ~his is
money wisely spent, because the building will still be deficient in terms of
meeting the projected r,~.ads, and the mechsnlcal and electrical issues will not be
adequately addressed.
4. Between the two other options, we feel the best choice for the City would be to
tear down the existing building and construct a new facility from scratch. In
doing this, the center will no longer have to adapt their programs to the spaces
available, but will rather h,,v~ the opport-u~ity m design the spaces around the
d.es~ activiiies. As a specific example, even in its proposed localion in option
2, the aerobics room solulion is a compromi-,~xi one due to the existence of the
central concrete wall, and the issues of providing accessible entry with different
floor levels. Also, the locker room toilet az~as need to be completely re-built,
but they will be shoehorned into the available space, rather than designed in the
most efficient and accessible
5. We ~cognize that there still is a substantial cost diffel~nlial
10~) between options 2 and 3. However, we believe ~l~st inte~n-~ oflong term "
msi~te,,s,~ and operating costs, iris difference will be erased over a ma~ter of
just a few yea~s.
CUPERTINO SPORTS CENTER
BUDGET WORKSHEET
COMPARISON OF OPTIONS 1.2 and 3
BSA ARCHITECTS. NOVEMBER 8, 2000
OPTION 1: OPTION 2: OPTION 3:
FOUNDATIONS
BUILDING SHELL
INTERIORS
EQUIPMENT & SPECIALTIES
PLUMBING
ELED, MGHTING & COMMUNICATIONS
FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEMS
SITE PREPARATION
PAVING & LANDSCAPING
UTILITIES (ASSUMES NO CHANGES)
SUB-TOTAL - DIRECT COSTS
GENERAL CONDITIONS - 12~
OVERHEAD & PROFIT - 7%
PLANNED CONSTRUCTION COST
DESIGN CONTINGENCY- 15%
ESCALATION TO JUNE 2001 - 3%
Btl=[l[l]l'~dt,,l=l~llIql $ 1,00~,OOQ $ t,IST,000 $ 2,200,000
TI==NNIS COURT IMPROVEMENT~
POOL ENTRY BUILDING
SWIMMING POOL MODIFICATIONS
$ 'lBr,,O00 $ 186,000 $ 273,00O
ARCHITECTURE & ENGINEERING - 1:2%
ALLOWANCE FOR REIMBURSABLES
GEOTECHNICAL
SURVEYS :
· SPECIAL. TESTS & INSPECTIONS - 2%
PLAN CHECK & U'TIUITY FEES
PLANNING
BUILDING ':
FIRE DEPARTMENT
w^~;. & SEWE.
'~.=.:.:~.~0~- $ '~.'~ ',:~o;~'
~S & ELE~I~L $' ?,~;~Q;~ ': .... ;~'::~ ..... '
· .~.~ ~'A.."~ ~: ~ ~q- "~ ..,~ ";::"~':':~" ~*~ ,,~.,.*:~: *-
...~ .,~
~~ :~~ .~. ..... ,.,..~..
M~ABLE ~RNISHINGS (not in~ud~)
O~R FURNISHINGS (nM include)
F~E~ EGUIPME~ (not in~ud~)
TELEPHONE ~S~M '~$'
SECURI~
SOUND SY~M (n~ in~)
COMPU~RS (n~
NEW CON~T. CHANGE ORDER ALLOW - $%
RENOVATION CHANGE ORDER ALLOW- 10%
CONSULTANT EXTRA SERVICES
S 12~,400 S 225,200 S 133AS0
., · .-.?.~.. ,..
~,,.:~..~..~ ~-... ....
~ ~ Exit1 bition Tennts
-- Cour~
----.- No Accessible
V'iew~ ng Ama
t_O W'~R, L..'E VP.:,~ op-rloH 3..
... .. I"~l&' ~'
Public Meeting Notes
Public Meeting ill October I I. 2001
I~Xercise #1A
The participants were asked the following question:
"' As ~e city plans for ~be future, are ~bere addi~ional indoor or outdoor [acilities that
should be considered?. Please list In priority order.
The follmvlng table summarizes their responses.
Future FaclllUes · Group Responses
Tennis Courts (lighted and well maintained) 10
Skate Park 10
Gymnasium 9
Teen Center with Lounge. Pool Hall & Gym 4
Driving Range 3
Fitness Center (enlarged area) 3
Volleyball / Badminton 2.
Ping Pon{ 2
Pool 2
Game Room / Pool HaH 2
Running / Walking Trail
MseUng Rooms l
Climbing Wall !
Child Care 1
Children Play Area 1
Riding Academy 1
MulU Purpose Center
Small Lap Pool 1
Additional Tennis Courts
Indoor Pool 1
~ moat frequently cited spaces that the public would like to see in future inciliUes .'.
were a skate park and il~hted and well maintained tennis courts. Other popular spaces
included a ~ymnasinm and teen center.
Spo rts Management
CUPEI~TINO ,SPORTS CENTER
Public Meeting Notes
Public Itleetln~ ill October 1 I. 2001
i~ercise # lB
The parUcipants were asked the following question:
Which of Ute above spaces do you ~hlnk are appropriate for the Sports Center Sit~
The following table summarizes their responses.
FaclliUe8 Appropriate for the Sports Center Group Responses
Tennis Courts (tennis backboards) 11
Fitness (enlarged area) 9
Table Tennis 5
Locker Room and Showers 3
Gymnasium 3
Skate Park 3 '
Aerobics 3
Handball / Racquetball Courts 2
Indoor Pool 2
MeeUng and Social Rooms 2
Children's Play Area 1
Child Care 1
Snack Bar i
Game Room 1
Lap Pool 1
Tennis Vlewin~ Area !
Climbin~ Wall 1
Indoor Pool 1
~lennt~n Bike Trails 1
Scholarship for Low Income Families !
The most frequently cited prop*am Sl~ the public believed would be appropriate for
the Sports Center site are tennis courts od an emrp~d fitness center. ;
I II
Spo rts Management
CUPERTINO SPORTS CENTER
Public Meeting Notes
Public Meeting #I October I I, 2001
~Xerclse #2
The parUcipantS were ~iven a Build-A-Center exercise. The objective el' the exercise was
to assist the public in prioriUzing spaces to be included in the Sports Center with a
budget of $2,329,000.
First~ thc public v/as provided a handout lisUng potential space options, the gross and
net square footages of each space opUon, the allocaUon of project costs, the net revenue
each space could potenUally generate, and the estimated number of participants each
space can accommodate. The net revenue for each space opUon ~vas represented
metaphorically by images of pi~,~y banks. Each pi~y bank represented one point which
equaled a posiUve flow of revenue. A broken pip~y bank represented a ne~aUve point
which equaled a subsidized cost.
The participants were asked the following:
Please list ~be preferred space components for your center. Indicate ~e space
companonL size and cost associated t~tb j/our choice. The space component options
are at~ached. A square footage and cos~ allocation is listed for ~he bu/ldln~ ~eneral
support spaces.
The follow,ne table lists the prefe~ed space components o! the ~roups.
Space Components Gross Square Footnge Group Responses
Aerobics Room & Storage 10
Flfaess Center 12
OpUon 1 6.685 0
OpUon 2 5.540 2
OpUon 3 4,185 7
Rmess/MuiU-Pu~pose Room 3.000 2
F'lmess Room 3.000 1
Child Watch Room & Stornge -- 8
Cllmbl~ Wall & Storage 3
8pa (Mon*s & Women's) 3
Racquetball Courts (2) 3
Racquetball Court (1 court) 1
GAme Room 2
Snack Bar 800 1
Tennis Viewing Balcony 1.000 1
Gymnasium & 8toroge 0
The most froquenUy cited space components were the aerobics room. fitness center
(opUon 3) and a child watch room. A ciimbin~ wail. men's and women's spas and
ra~quethaii court were aim preferred by several o! &be p, roups.
Spo rts Management
6 I ! I II -...
NEW SPORTS CENTER PROGRAMMING
Comments received from attendina public at the October 11 Workshop:
· Publish the budget information as early as possible.
· Do not allow a few people to domirmte thc discussion - everyone's opinion needs to be
respected.
· All 18 courts should be lighted.
· Reopen the snack bar.
· KBep the #l tennis CO~"t.
· This is a tennis facility; tennis and skateboarding arc not compatible.
· If neeessary, raise annual dues.
· The Cupertino tennis center should be rebuilt in the same way that it exists today.
· This is not a place to put a skateboard park.
· Parking needs to be considered without adding more spaces to the facility.
· Skateboard Park should be located at a teen center, not a sports center.
· Disappointed in the way the meeting was led and organized; there was very little logical
flow.
· Demand for permanent table tennis facilities.
· This process led us to think it was pre-biased to the wishes of Parks and Recreation
management.
· Nice to see commRRity involvement, I would like to hear the outcome of the results.
· Cupertino needs a skateboard park; tennis courts are empty.
· Skateboards are presently boarding at Safeway. If there were a skate park, it would be
busy every day.
· Don't waste money on consultants; in.qtead use the money on the project itself.
· Offer earlier hours (7 ~m. on Saturday and Sunday mowings).
· Great meeting.
· I felt horrible that I had convinced kids to come to this forum. They were bullied! They
saw people behave just like we are always telling them not to.
Pro.am OpUons Comparison
................................................................. ............................ ..................................
3,~f FIm~8. Aembl~ R~m.
2.725sr FI~s. Ae~cs R~m. 3.8~s~ Fit,s. Aerobics R~m. Child WaSh
2 hcque~all Courm. 8pa Child WaSh Fu~ G~naslum
~nu~ $1,233,250 $1.398,5~ $1.~i.5~
~ene~* ~1.534,~0 $1.615,500 $1,746.250
~t R~ ~.4~ 87~ 86~
~n~l 8u~l~~ (S3~.7~) ($217,~) ($244,750)
~r 2 C~;
~n~s $1,273,673 $1.544,540
~* $1.587.396 $1.670,485 $1.801,260
~t ~ 8~ O~ 9f~
~uel SnOW~ ($313.723) ($125.~5) ($153.1~)
~u~ $1.315.~9 $1.712.548 $1,832.81 I
~* $1,642.915 $1.~27.627 $1.858,372
~ Re~ 8~ 9~
~nual 8u~i~' ($327.~6) ($15.079) ($25,561 )
· A building deprecla~ion fund Is nog Included In ghe operating exl~en~es. A sef.aside
o[ 3~ of cons~rucflons ~osL~ would require a $132.000 annual commlgmenl
Nofe f FoMla ma~ have a roundM~ ermr of ~ ~l. O00
.... 02001 The 8po~ Managemen& Group I I/1¥01 · I
O~tON A: 2,725sf Fitness Room, Aerobics Room, 2 Racquetball Courts and Spa
Year ! Over~ew
Revenue Potential Low Average High
Pans Sales and Daily Admissions
Daily Drop-in S37.000 $45.500 $54.000
Annual Passes $342.500 $347.250 $3§2.000 *
Pro,'ams. Rentals and Clns~es
Aerobics Room $24.000 $29.500 $35.000
Pimess Center $5.000 $6.000 $7.000
R~c Bucks $10.000 $10.000 $10.000
Rentals $6.000 $7.000 $6.000
SnacluV~les $27.000 $28.000 $29.000
Teonts Instruction $760.000 $760.000 $760.000
Total Potential Revenue $1.211.500 $1.233.250 $1.255.000
Probable OperaUng Costs Low Average High
Full-Time Employee Wa~es and Benefits $275,500 $303.750 $332,000
Part-Time Employee Wages and Benefits $101,000 $104,500 $108,000
Contract Services $69.000 S75,500 $62,000
CommodiUes, Marketing Computer $107.500 $112,250 $117.000
OperaOng Supplies. Maintenance & Repair Sl 93.000 $203.000 $213.000
UtiliUes and Insurance ~65.000 $70.000 $75,000
Fixed Acquisition Fund S15,000 $! 5,000 $! 5.000
Lifetime Tennis Contract $650,000 $650.000 $650.000
Total Probable OpeesUn~ Cnst~ $1,476,000 Sl,534,000 $1,592,000
CO~t Recovery Potential Low Average Hi~
Cost Recovery Potential 76% 80~ 85%
Annual Subsidy (.S_380,.__5~0) ($300,750) ($221,000)
02ooI The 8pmu Umuqmmmt Group ! !~)~ 2 ~.
CUPERTINO SPORTS CENTER
3 Year ProjecUonB: Option ^
ProbaMe Operauq
OperaUq i
Year Personnel Utilities l!lxpeases I Lifetime Tennis Total
1 S408.250 $70.000 $405.750 S650.000 ~ $1,534.000
2 $425,528 S72.100 S413.768 $676.000 $1.587.396 -
3 $443.606 $74.263 $422,006 $703.040 $1.642.915
Potential Revenues
Pro~ Tennis
Year Drop-in Pans Sales Rentals/Misc. Instruction Total
1 ~45,500 S347.250 $80,500 S760.000 $1.233.250
2 S43.225 $357.668 S82.380 $790.400 $1.273.673
3 $41.064 $368,398 S84.432 S822.016 $1.315.909
Year Percent Subsidy*
1 80.4% -$300.750
2 80.2% -$313.724
3 80.1% -$327.006
~ote ~ Fotals may hat~ a rouadl~ error o~ ~: $1.O~O
02001 Tile 8ports i"~% ' Group 11/9A)1 3 ':.
OPTION B: 3,800or Fitness Room, Aerobics Room, Ch!!d Watch Room
Year l Overview
Revenue Pot~nUal Low Average Hi~
Pnn8 Salea and DsIly AmnMsions
Dally Drop-in $49,000 S57.500 S66.000
Annual Passes $420,000 $425.000 S430.000
Prosmns. RenUds nd Classes
Aerobics ~om $24.000 $29.5O0 S35.000
Child Watch I~om $59.000 $6!.000 S63.000
Fimess Center S14,000 S15.5OO $~ 7.0O0
Rec Bucks $10,000 $10.000 $10.000
Rentals ~.000. $7.000 S8.000
Snacks~odes S32.000 $33.000 $34.000
Tennis InstrucUon $78O,000 S760.000 S760.000
ToU~ PotenUel Revenue $1.374.000 $1,398,500 S1.423,000
l:)Fobable OperaUn8 Costs Low Average Hllb
Full-Time Employee W~ees end Benefiu S275.~ $~3.7~ ~32.~
Pert-Time Empl~ Wa~s and Benefl~ $1~.~ Sl 82.~ $186.~
~n=acr ~ce8 $71.~ $77.~ $~.~
~mm~iUes. Ma~U~ ~m~r $109,~ $114.2~ Sl 19.~
O~q Suppli~. Main~n~ & ~ir $193,~ S203.~ S213.~
O~li~ nnd innra~ ~5,~ S70.~ S75.~
P~ ~isi~ Fund Sl 5,~ S 15.~ S 15.~
~feGme Tp~nis ~t ~,~ ~,~
T~ ~hble O~ ~ 81,557,~ Sl.615,5~ $1.674.~
Cost Reoovery PotenUal Lov Average
Oost Recowr~ Potential
Annual Subsld~ ..... (8300.000) ($217.000) ($134.000)
02001 ~ Sports r'n% - t Group 11/WO! 4 ::
CUPERTINO SPORTS CENTER
3 Year Projections: Option B
Probable OperaUn~ Cost~
OperaUng
Year Personnel UUIitles Expeases LlfeUme Tennis Total
1 $485,750 $70,000 $409,750 $650,000 $1.615,500
2 $504.578 $72,100 $417.807 $676.000 $1.670,485 -
3 $524.237 $74.263 $426.087 $703.040 $1.727.627
PotenUal Revenues
Pro~rams/ Tennis
Year Drop-In Pass Sales Rentals/Misc. lnstruotion Total
I S57.500 $425.080 $156.000 $760.000 Sl.398.500
2 $54,625 $539.750 $159.765 $790,400 $1,544.540
3 $51,894 $674,688 S163,950 $822,016 $1,712,548
Potential Cost Recovery
Year Percent Subsidy*
1 86.6% -$217.000
2 92.5% -$125.945
3 99.1% -$15,080
Not~ ~ Totals may hav~ ~ roundin~ grror ot~: $I.000
02001 ~he ,qpor~ M~nmee~eot Group 1 I/0/01
OPTION C: 3.8OOsf Fitness Room. Aerobics Room. _i~_J!d Watch Room, Future Gym
Revenue Potential Low Averat~e High
Pass Sales and Daily Admissions
Daily Drop*In S49.000 $57.500 $66.000
Annual Passes $353.0O0 S355.500 $358.000
Pro,rams. Rentals and Cla88es
Aerobics Room $24.000 S29.500 $35.000
Child Watch Room $59.0O0 S61.000 S63.000
Fitness ~enter $14.000 Sl 5.500 $17.000
Gymnasium $153.000 $I 78.000 $203.000
Rec Bucks $10,O00 $10.O00 $10,0O0
Rentals $6.000 $7.000 SS,000
Snacks~Sedas S32.000 S33.O00 S34.000
Tennis Instruction S685.000 $685.0O0 $685.O00
Total Potential Revenue S1,385.000 Sl.432.000 $1.479.000
Probable Operating Costs Lov; Average High
Full-Time Employee Wa~es and Benefits $275.500 S303.750 S332.000
Part-Time Employee Wa~es and Benefits S218.500 $224.750 $231.000
~ontract Services $71.000 $77.500 $84.000
~ommoditles. Marketing. Computer S109.500 $114.250 S119.000
Operating Supplies. Maintenance & Repair $283.000 $301.000 S310.000
Utilities and Insurance $I 15.000 $125.000 $ i 35.000
Fixed Acquisition Fund $15.000 S 15.000 Sl 5.000
Lifetime Tennis Contract $585.000 S585.000 $585.000
Total Probable Operating Costs Sl.672.500 Sl.746.250 Sl.820.000
Cost Recovery Potential Low Averap~, Hip, it
Cost Recovery Potential 76% 82% 88%
Annual Subsidy ($~1.3. 5.000) ($314.250) ($193.500)
02001 'llmSpm~t" ~E - tGroup 11~1)1 6
CUPERTINO SPORTS CENTER
3 Year ProjecUons: OpUo~ C
Probable Operatin~ Costs ,
Opcratin~ I
Year Personnel Utilities Expenses Lifetime Tennis: Total
I $528,500 $125.000 $507,750 $585,000 I $I.746.250
2 $548,183 S128.749 $515,948 $608,400 i $1.801.280
3 $568,714 $132,613 $524.309 $632.736 I $1,858.372
Pote, nU~! Reveaues
Pro,earns/ 'i~qnnim
Year Drop-in Pass Sales Rentals/Misc. Instruction Total
1 $57.500 $425.000 S334,000 $685.000 $1.501,500
2 $54,625 $539,750 $341,325 $712,400 J $1,648.100
3 $51,894 $690,880 $349.141 $740.896
!
PotcnUal Cost Recovery
Year Pcrceat Subsidy*
I 86.0% *$244.750
2 91.5% -$153.180 [
I
3 98.666 -$25.561
Note ~ : Total~ may bav~ a roundin~ error o[.~ $I,000
:..
02001 The Spoils t '-,~qA t Group IWW01 7
CUPEI~TINO SPORTS CENTER
ADD ALTERNATE 1: (1) Racquetball ~ourt
Revenue Potential Low Average High
Annual Passes $2,000 $2.500
ProRrams $14.000 $16,000 $18.000
Total Potential Revenue $16,000 $18,500 $21,000
Probable Operating Cost8 Low Average . High
Commodities $1.000 Si,000 $1.000
Operating Supplies, Maintenance & Repair $7,000 $7,250 $7,500
Utilities $4,500 $5,000 $5,500
Total Probable Operating Coste $12,500 $13,250 $14,000
Cost Recover~ Potential Low Average High
COSt Recovery Potential l i 496 14096 168%
Annual Subsidy $2,000 $5,250 $8,500
Assumptions
Revenue, s
1) 4 to 5 additional residant passes sold
2) 2 te 3 additional non-resident passes sold
3} Average of 3.5 re. servaUon per day
02001 The Sports Manafement Group "
CUPERTINO SPORTS CENTER
ADD ALTERNATE 2: Youth Game Room
Revenue PotenUal ~ow Average High
Daily Drop-In $8,000 $8.500 $9,000
Annual Passes $15.000 $16.500 $18.000
Snacks/Sodas $3,000 $3.500 $4.000 ·
Total Potential Revenue $26,000 $28,500 $31,000 .
Probable Operating Costs Low Average High
Commodities $2,500 $2,500 $2,500
Operating Supplies, Maintenance & Repair; $19,500 $21,500 $23.500
Utilities $7,000 $7.500 $8,000
Total Probable Operatin~ Costs $29,000 $31,500 $34,000
Cost Recovery Potential Low Avera/ie High
Cost Recovery Potential 76% 90% 107%
Annual Subsidy ($8,000) ($3,000) $2,000
Assumptions
Revenues
1) 400 te 500 annual memberships sold m residents at $35 each
2) 10 to 15 annual memberships sold to non-residents at $50 each
3) 50 ~o 60 drop-ins per week at $3.00 each
02001 The Sports Manas~ment Group 1/0/00 2
CUPERTINO SPORTS CENTER
ADD ALTERNATE 3: Climbin~ Wall
Revenue Potential Low Average High
Pass Sales and Daily A&,nisoions
Daily Drop-In $16,000 $18.500 $ 21.000
Annual Passes $6.000 $7,000 $8,000'
Classes and Lessons $33,000 $41,500 $50.000
Rentals and Special Events $4.000 $5,000 $6,000
Total Potential Revenue $94.000 $111.500 $! 29,000
Probable Operating Costs Low Average High
Part-Time Employee Wages and Benefits $30,000 $31,000 $32.000
Contract Services $25,000 $26,250 $27.500
Commodities. Marketing,' Computer $3.000 $3,000 $3,000
Operating Supplies, Maintenance & Repair $8.500 $9,000 $9.500
Utilities and Insurance $4,000 $4,250 $4,500
Total Probable Operating Costa $70,500 $73,500 $76,500
Cost Recovery Potential Low Average High
Cost Recovery PotenUal 12396 15296 18395
Annual Subsidy $17.500 $38.000 $58,500
Assumptions
P. cvesue8
1) 10 to 15 annual passes sold to residents
2) 5 annual passes sold to non-residents
3) 40 ta 50 drop-ins per week
1) The climbing wall will be open tot high climbing 6 hours a day Monday through Friday;
4 hours on Saturdays; and, 3 hours on Sundays. During these hours the wall will be
staffed with Climbing Wall Attendants.
2) Climbing Wall Instructors are paid $50 per hour.
02001 The Sports Manapmlent Group 12/12./01 3
Pro Forma Assumptions
1. Salaries · Salaries and benefits have been provided by the City of
Cupertino
· Wages and benefit costs will be projected for all full-time
staff necessary for operation and maintenance of the center.
No indirect overhead costs incurred by the city will be
charged to the center's budget.
2. Benefits Employee benefits are calculated at 35% of gross annual salary
for full-time employees and 7.5% for part-time employees.
3. Overtime Employee overtime will be calculated at 1% of all annual full-
time salaries.
4. Existing Positions The following list of staff is existing and will remain in the
center:
· Recreation Coordinator 1
· Building/Maintenance Attendant 1
· Front Desk Attendants 8-12
· Fitness Room Attendants 3
· Public Works Maintenance Worker 1
5. New Positions The following list ofstaffis new full-time staff:
· Fitness and Wellness Coordinator l
· Building Maintenance Technician 1
· Administrative Assistant I
· Service Center Clerk 1
6. Instructors Classes and lessons will be taught by contract instructors. Costs
for these instructors will be calculated as follows:
· Fitness/Aerobics Instructors $35/hr
· Yoga Instructors $40/hr
· Martial Arts Instructors $50/hr
· Specialty Instructors $$0/hr
7. Uniforms Center employees will be required to wear a staff shirt with
center identification. An allocation of gg0/year/part-time
employee and $SO0/year/full-time employee has been made.
8. Telecommunications The actual cost of telecommunications will be charged to the
center's budget. An estimate of $3S/month/line for 10 to 12
lines has been made.
9. Pagers/Radios Pagers and radios have been estimated at $1 O/month for 2
pagers.
10. Cell Phones Cell phones have been estimated at $70/month/phone for 2
phones.
11. Memberships, Dues, Costs include subscriptions to a variety of magazines and have
and Subscriptions been estimated at $600/year. Costs also include an annual
membership to IHRSA, which has been estimated at
$1,200/year.
New Sports Center
Pro Fo.ua Assumptions
December 17, 2001
Page 2 of 3
12. Training General training of employees includes equipment training, CPR
and First Aid, training seminars, training textbooks, and
certification training where required. Costs have been calculated
at $600/new employee/year. $ to 6 new employees/year has been
estimated.
13. Travel Costs associated with the attendance of conferences, training
programs, seminars, etc. Expenses have been estimated at 2% of
annual full-time salaries.
14. Office Supplies General office supplies for staff, copier, paper for flyers,
computer supplies, etc. have been estimated to range between
$425 to SOO/month.
l $. Postage General postage costs for administrative purposes. Postage has
(Administrative) been estimated to range between $250 to
16. Postage (Marketing) Postage for bulk mailings of newsletters, brochures, etc. Postage
has been included in overall costs for marketing.
17. Program Supplies Miscellaneous supplies purchased for programs and events,
merchandise, recreation equipment for checkout and promotions
and special events. Supplies lave been estimated at 3 to 5% of
classes and programs gross revenue.
18. Bank Charges Based on City of Cupertino's fees charged by bank md/or credit
card companies for electronic fund transfers and/or credit card
payments. Fees have been estimated at 1.6% of 75% of the gross
revenues from the sale of annual passes and 1,6% of90% oftbe
gross revenues from tennis sales.
19. Refunds and Monies returned to patrons for class registration cancellations,
Reimbursables membership cancellations, etc. Refunds have been estimated at
2% of gross revenues of annual pass sales.
20. Building Repairs and Annual repairs to building such as broken windows, damaged
Maintenance walls or lockers, and graffiti removal, carpet cleaning, and
windows. Repairs have been estimated to a range of $2,000 to
$2~2S0/month.
21. Janitorial Supplies Consumable supplies including locker room soap, body
shampoos (showers), cleaning supplies, and janitorial equipment
used for custodial purposes. Costs for supplies have been
included in the janitorial contract costs.
22. Parts and Replacement parts and small tools used for equipment and
Miscellaneous building repair and maintenance. Parts have been estimated to
Supplies range between $500 to 600/month.
23. Major Equipment Annual repairs to major equipment such as fimess equipment.
Repair and Repairs lave been estimated to range between $500 to
Maintenance 600/month.
24. Landscape and Landscaping and other outside grounds maintenance, including
Grounds parking lots and sidewalks will be performed by Public Works,
Maintenance but will be charged to the center's operating budget. An
allocation of $60,000/year has been made as requested by the
city.
New Sports Center
Pro Forma Assumptions
December 17, 2001
Page 3 of 3
25. Contractual Services Contractual service agreements for copy machines, HVAC
systems, contracted training groups, pay phones, etc. Per year
estimates have been made as follows:
· HVAC $3,000
· Alarm $700
· Spa $4,500
· Elevator TBD
· Fitness Equipment $9,000-11,000
26. Computer Annual maintenance agreements and supplies for computers.
Maintenance and Agreements and supplies have been estimated at
Supplies $300/computer/year.
27. Computer Annual set-aside fund for the replacement and renewal of center's
Replacement Fund computer equipment. Set-aside has been allocated at $7,000 to
10,000/year.
28. Software Service Service agreement for reception counter software program,
Agreement including but not limited to rental scheduling, membership
tracking, class scheduling, accounting. Existing sol, ware service
agreement costs approximately $2,000/year.
29. Software Purchases Software purchases and upgrade costs have been estimated to
and Upgrades range between $50 to 100/month.
30. Marketing and Printing costs represent aggressive advertising and marketing to
Promotions promote overall facility use, program attendance, and general
information. This includes printing costs related to class program
flyers, facility brochures, comment cards, fee rate cards, and
special promotional advertising media. Costs have been estimated
at $3,000/month.
31. Building Utilities Building utility costs (water, gas, electricity) have been estimated
at $65,000 to 75,000/year as requested by the city.
32. Insurance The City of Cupertino is self-insured.
33. Facility Maintenance All facility maintenance during hours of operation will be
performed by full-time and part-time staff listed within the
expense budget. For major custodial work that must be performed
overnight, the center will use a contractual overnight cleaning
company. This contractual service has been estimated to range
between $45,000 to 50,000/year as requested by the city.
34. Fixed Assets Fund for the replacement of major facility equipment such as
Acquisition Fund fimess equipment. Estimated at 10% of projected initial
equipment purclmae cost.
mp
CiTY OF
C U !' E I IN O PARKS AND RECREATION ADMINISTRATION
MEMORANDUM
DATE: Jaouary 25, 2001
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Therese Ambrosi Smith, Direct~~. ,, ,~
Parks and Recreation Deparunefit
TOPIC: SPORTS CENTER BACKGROUND INFORMATION
I have summarized over a decade of history into just a few pages Attached please fmd:
A condensed Sports Center History
· Analysis by Tim Kelly and Michael Sigala, Keyser Marston Associates, Inc., regarding
public/private partnerships for reconstruction oft.he Cupertino Sports Center including:
1. Residential townhonses (20-25 units)
2. Office, retail or restaurant commercial space (10,000 sq. ff.)
3. Conference center
4. Office space (10,000 sq. ff.) developed and owned by the City
· Summary of Options for the Sports Center and other Parks and Recreation CIP's considered
in 2001-02 CIP review
· Recent correspondence received regarding the structural analysis of the building and the
structural engineer's response
· Summary of table tennis Clubs in Northern California
· Cupertino Courier Articles:
1. Sports Center revamp will comply with ADA, April 28, 1999
2. Recreation takes different tums in city, Measure K fails to ~et two-thirds vote in ~eneral
election, November 16, 1988
· Aerial photograph showing the Sports Center site and surrounding lan.d use
I realize that this history is condensed, but we can review any aspect of the project in detail
during the workshop.
Printed on Recycled Paper
SPORTS CENTER HISTORY
CC - City Council
PRC - Parks and Recreation Commission
SC - Sports Center
DATE DISCUSSION
April 21, 1989 P&R department receives letter regarding Application 32-U-88 for a
"De Anza Recreational Vehicle Park" and the project's impact on
Memorial Park.
June 12, 1989 Planning Dept. report to Planning Commission on 32-U-88. Staffwas
unable to recommend approval due to perceived inconsistency with the
General Plan. Application was reeommanded for denial.
August 7, 1989 CC-Receives offer to sell the De Anza Racquet Club to the city
February 5, 1990 CC -Agreement for the acquisition of real property adopted -
Resolution 8044
April 1, 1990 Certificates of Participation issued for Memorial Park Expansion
Project.
April 20, 1992 CC-Staff report regarding Notice of Intention to Circulate a Petition
for selling the SC site and rezoning it, and put on ballot a measure to
purchase other open space. CC requested staff to prepare fiscal and
bond info.f~ation regarding potential impact of the issues dealt with on
the initiative petition. The legal impact would be addressed if the
initiative was certified. It was not successful
June 12, 1994 Letter from Don Bearden to P&R director stating that the SC did not
have wheelchair access and that the public building did not meet ADA
requirements.
May 29, 1996 CC-P&R director reviewed ADA improvements.
January 10, 2000 CC-Alternatives for the Sports Center building reviewed. Council
agreed that the building should be demolished and a new sports center
constructed.
May 15, 2000 CC-Council approved the staff recommendation regarding composition
of the Sports Center Building Design Advisory Committee
December 6, 2000 Cupertino Sports Center Design Advisory Committee meets for the
first time.
February 21, 2001 Cupertino Sports Center Design Advisory Committee concluded work
and disbanded. Recommendation that "The facility be rebuilt with no
loss of existing recreation opportunity, and with an eye toward
expansion to serve a growing community."
April, 2001 PRC-Staff report given and public comment on possible mixed use of
site taken. PRC recommendation - Do not sell off any portion of site.
Consider including rental space with an attempt to attract recreational-
type businesses.
Sports Center History
January 25, 2001
Page 2 of 2
DATE DISCUSSION
May 3, 2001 PRC-Continuation of report on options. Public input taken. PRC
recommended that the Council consider a Teen Center with the Sports
Center, and with a skate park at the Sports Center site or some other
appropriate site in Memorial Park.
May 23, 2001 CC-CC unanimously agreed that SC should be rebuilt.
May 30, 2001 CC-5-year CIP ~ revision reviewed, which included SC.
June 18, 2001 CC-Adoption of CIP for 2001-2002, which included Sports Center.
September 6, 2001 PRC-Staffreceives first report by The Sports Management Group on
analysis of sports programming.
September 17, 2001 CC-Council requested the Teen Commission's input and offer their
perspective on SC.
September 20, 2001 PRC-Workshop for PRC to re/me program analysis process and
develop agenda for public workshop on October 11.
October 1 l, 2001 Public workshop held at Quinlan Community Center.
October 15, 2001 CC-Councilmember Chang stated that he attended a community
meeting that included tennis enthusiasts, young people wanting a skate
park anywhere in the city and others who wanted a permanent table
tennis and badminton facility.
November 15, 2001 PRC-Public comments taken on programming options. PRC
recommends options that exclude impact on tennis courts.
November 19, 2001 CC-Council expectation restated that they wanted the Teen
Commission's input on anything having to do with youth and teens,
including the SC
December 3, 2001 Teen Commission receives staff report on SC programming and takes
public comment. Teen Commission acts to recommend programming
option that includes game room area, climbing wall, and teen area, and
take out two tennis courts and light remaining courts to make up
capacity.
December 6, 2001 PRC-Receives Teen Commission recommendations, takes public
comments.
December 17, 2001 CC-Review of Parks and Recreation Commission and Teen
Commission recommendations for SC programming.
mp
· KEYSER MARSTON ASSOCIATES INC.
REAL ESTATE
PHONE: 4]S / ~t9E-}0$0 ]#FIASTIUCTUnE FINANCE
$4# FE,~tlCI$CO
A. Jerry Keyser
Timothy C. Kelly
Kate Earle Funk
Debbie M. Kern
-. Robert J. Wetmort
Los Angeles
Calvin E. 14olli;. I1
Kathleen
J&n~s &. Rnbe
MEMORANDUM Peul c.
Gre[ory D. Soo-14oo
Sun Diefe
To: Therese Ambmsi Smith O,.~d a. Trimble
Director of Park and Recreation
City of Cupeffino
From: Tim Kelly and Michael Sigala
Date: April 13, 2001
Subject: Cupertino Sports Center
The purpose of this memo is to assist the City of Cupertino analyze public-private financing
options for the reconstruction of the Cupertino Sports Center. Specifically, the City is
interested in accommodating an additional private sector use on the site that will generate a
sufficient level of capital to help fund the reconstruction. KMA's assignment is to recommend
the private sector land use that maximizes funding to the City's project. The proposed private
uses are as follows:
1. Residential Townhouses (20 to 25 units)
2. Office, Retail or Restaurant Commercial Space (10,000 sq. ft.)
3. Conference Center
4. Office Space (10,000 sq. ft.) developed and owned by the City
To perform this assignment, KMA relied upon its experience in the area and on market
research performed during March 2001. Further, this assignment was conducted with a
couple of primary inputs ('givens') as outlined by City sta~.
· The estimated cost to fund the proposed Sports center reconstruction is $4 million, of
which the City has set aside approximately $1.7 million.
11413.001~)04-001: ms
To: Therese Ambrosi Smith, Director of Parks and Recreation April 13, 2001
Subject: Cupertino Sports Center Page 2
· The proposed private sector uses are limited to the site constraints detailed in
Schemes A thru E developed by Field Paoli Architects and Planners dated February 7,
2001. These alternatives contain a minimum level of public programming of 17 tennis
courts, one pool, and a 10,000 square foot clubhouse (please see summary of
alternatives on page 6).
Overall, the market support for new private development is excellent due to the:
· Strong local economy
· High auto accessibility along Stevens Creek Blvd. and via nearby highways
· Proximity to other major destination points such as De Anza College
· Strong surrounding demographics and particularly high household income levels
However, to a[bact private capital, the private sector will require that a separate legal parcel,
capable of financing, be created. For commercial development, the parcel will need to be
located at the comer of Stevens Creek Blvd. and Stelling Rd. and have sufficient land area to
be self-parked.
Private Land Use Value Determinations
The value determinations contained in this section (for 1, 2, and 3) assume that real property
on the Sports Center site to be used by the pdvate sector will be conveyed on a "fee simple'
basis. It is our understanding that securing private funding through a ground lease
arrangement is also under consideration by the City. This approach, a ground lease, will not
work for townhouses and also can be a constraint in maximizing value for a commercial
parcel.
The following is a summary of the proposed private uses, estimated value to the City, and
comments regarding constraints to the proposed uses. The City alternative to develop and
· own an office building is reviewed as number 4.
1. Residential Townhouses Estimated Value Range: $2 to $3 Million
Schemes C, D and E of the Field Paoli concept altematives outline the development of 20, 25,
and 22 attached townhouses, respectfully, on the eastern portion of the site where a parking
lot is currently located. The townhouse units are approximately 1,400 square feet and contain
a one-car garage.
KMA's value estimate of $2 to $3 million (for Schemes C and E) is based upon comparable
land sales in the South Peninsula area where land values show ranges of $100,000 to
$140,000 per unit, similar in size to the proposed units.
11:.' . 301~004.-00t: ms
To: Therese Ambrosi Smith, Director of Parks and RecreationApril 13, 2001
Subject: Cupertino Sports Center Page 3
The townhouses in Schemes C and E are cleady separated from the other uses on the site
whereas Schemes D shows 12 of the 25 townhouses above the clubhouse. This approach,
townhouses above a public structure, is not recommendable as it complicates the
development process and financing, and complicates townhouse ownership.
Additional site planning is necessary to better understand how housing might be implemented
and the possible alternative site concepts.
2. Commercial Space Estimated Value Range: $1 Million
Schemes A and B of the Field Paoli concept alternatives outline a 10,000 square foot
commercial building that cat~ be used for office, retail or a restaurant.
The value to the City for this type of use is estimated to be in the range of $1 million.
A successful com.mercial development will require a well-delineated site plan placing the
commercial use at the highly accessible comer of Stevens Creek Blvd. and Stelling Rd. This
location will also allow for the commercial use to establish its own identity, and viability,
independent of the Sports Center.
Again, shared parking between the commercial use and the Sports Center has the potential to
be problematic unless dedicated parking with effective regulation is ensured. The fee simple
transfer of land, including space for parking, for this private use will help prevent this potential
parking dilemma.
3. Conference Center Estimated Value: Nominal
A conference center on the Sports Center site was not part of the Field Paoli alternatives but
wes reviewed at the request of City staff.
Conference centers are typically privately developed in conjunction with a hotel. Freestanding
conference centers are typically publicly financed because the revenue potential is not
sufficient to support both operating expenses and capital costs. Therefore, a conference
canter is not recommended.
4. Office Space Developed and Owned by the City
It is our understanding that development of a 10,000 square foot offica building by the City is
also under consideration. Considering income to the City from this option should be
approached with caution and is not recommended by KMA at this time, when compared to the
other options under consideration, until more information is known.
11413.001~004-001; n~
To: Therese Ambrosi Smith, Director of Parks and Recreation April 13, 2001
Subject: Cupertino Sports Center Page 4
For example, the ability of the City to finance against such an income stream is subject to the
credit of the tenant and the length of the lease. If the City is unable to secure a long-term
credit lease, the ability to bond against the income stream will be more difficult.
If the commercial portion of the project is to be bond financed, the commercial portion may
require taxable bonds. Taxable bonds carry a higher interest rate, on average about two
points higher than tax-exempt bonds.
Lastly, and as outlined in the pdvate commercial space section above (2), the site layout and
building characteristics need to be designed with close attention to those characteristics that
maximize the potential for occupancy and rents, such as the development of a high quality
freestanding building with adequate parking, separated from the other uses on the site.
In summary, more information is needed before financing using this option is considered.
Recommendation
At this time, KMA recommends a public-private financing option that includes the development
of attached residential townhouses (with a fee simple land transfer). This use will generate the
highest order of magnitude value range of approximately $2 to $3 million.
KMA's value estimate presumes the development of market rate for-sale townhouses to
maximize land value. Apartments will not support as high a value given the options presented
by Field Paoli. Also, the inclusion of price-restricted units will decrease the supported land
value.
Below are a few recommendations that the City may consider as they proceed in this process.
These recommendations will also help maximize the amount of private sector funding for the
reconstruction project.
1. Site planning and design analysis. As you are aware, there are several outstanding
programmatic issues to resolve related to the co-existence of new housing and a
Sports Center. Actual placement of townhouses within the site, shared parking for
tenants and guests, and a possible reduction of one or more of the tennis courts are a
couple of areas in need of further development.
2. Pretest housing concept with developers as you go through the process. The sale of
city owned property is ultimately dependent upon the level of developer interest. Unit
sizes, parking, and amenities are a couple of arees where engaging the private
development community, sooner rather than later, would be beneficial.
11413.031~004-001; ms
To: Therese Ambrosi Smith, Director of Parks and Recreation April 13, 2001
Subject: Cupertino ~ports Center Page 5
3. Fully entitle the housing portion of the site prior to the sale offering. After the City has a
better understanding of the specifications for a new housing development, a fully
entitled property, including variances, special use permits and environmental
clearances should be guaranteed to the buyer.
11413.001~,-001: ms
To: Therese Ambrosi Smith, Director of Parks and Recreation April 13, 2001
Subject: Cupertino Sports Center Page 6
Summary of Field Paoli Site Alternatives
Public Use Private Use I Parking Spaces
· 17 Tennis Courts
Scheme A · 10,000 SF 'Club Commercial Space 115 to 120
· 1 Pool (10,000 square feet)
· 17 Tennis Courts Commercial Space
Scheme B · 10,000 SF Club (10,000 square feet, 115 to 120
· 1 Pool 2 stories)
· 15 Tennis Courts
· 2 Tennis Courts on 20 Townhouses
Scheme C Club Roof (1,400 square feet, 100 to 110
· 10,000 SF Club 1 car garage ea.)
· 1 Pool
· 17 Tennis Courts 13 Townhouses
Scheme D · 10,000 SF Club 12 Townhouses above Club 80
· 1 P0ol (1,400 square feet,
I car garage ea.)
· 15 Tennis Courts
· 1 to 2 Tennis Courts 22 Townhouses
Scheme E on Club Roof (1,400 square feet, 55
· 10,000 SF Club 1 car garage ea.)
· 1 Pool
11413.001~)04-001; ms
SUMMARY OF OPTIONS FOR THE SPORTS CENTER AND
OTHER PARKS AND RECREATION CIP'S
CONSIDERED IN 200'1-02 CIP REVIEW
Sports Center Cost Comments
Options
1. Do nothing $100,000 Close building if code compliance issues warrant. Building
could be closed and tennis program operated firom a portable
building. $100,000 is for the cost ora portable building and
accessible restroom.
2. Address only $1.7 The Sports Center Committee and the Parks and Recreation
code million Commission did not recommend this option.
compliance
issues
3. Remodel $3.6 The Sports Center Committee and the Parks and Recreation
million Commission did not recommend this option.
4. Rebuild as $4.4 This is the recommended option.
Sports Center million
only
5. Rebuild with a $5.5 to $7 $4 million plus teen center costs (see items 3 & 4 in teen
teen center million center table above).
6. Rebuild with $4.4 It is expected that $2 to 3 million would be generated if a
housing million portion of the site was sold off for townhouse development.
minus $2-
3 million
7. Rebuild Was not recommended by the financial consultant.
w/office space
Teen Center Cost Comments
Options
1. Quinlan $50,000 The budget is to furnish the space currently occupied by CCS
Center in the Quinlan Center for teens.
2. Blue Pheasant $100,000 This is a gross estimate, as we have no idea what
modifications would need to be made to the building to retrofit
it for a teen center, and/or bring it up to code.
3. 2'd floor of $3,000,000 Based on $300/sq. ft. this option would add $3 million to the
Sports Center + Sports cost of the Sports Center (see Sports Center options below).
(10,000 sq. ft.) Center
4. 2na floor of $1,500,000 Based on a 5,000 sq. ft. teen center developed in conjunction
Sports Center + Sports with the Sports Center.
(5,000 sq. ft.) Center
5. Do nothing -0- Continue to operate teen programming without a separate teen
center. No conslxuction necessary.
Skate Park Cost Comments
Options
1. Compaq Site $900,000 Need to finalize lease. Cost is greater due to the need to
construct restroom and extend utilities to the site.
2. Construct in a $375,000 This option has been abandoned due to neighborhood concerns,
neighborhood however, the cost of constructing in a neighborhood park are
park low given the availability of restrooms and park buildings.
3. Church $415,000 We would need to work an agreement out with the church for
property use of the property; additional funds ($40,000) are included in
this budget for the renovation of the clubhouse currently on
site.
4. Construct in $625,000 The preferred location in Memorial Park is the existing group
Memorial picnic area. The cost includes the cost to relocate the picnic
Park area to a spot on the lake.
5. Sports Center $375,000 No additional restrooms would need to be constructed.
site
g:%pm'ks and rccrcation admin~sports center~O01 cip.doc
NORTHERN CALIFORNIA TABLE TENNI5 CLUB5
Concord 7-80+ Su, Mo, Tu, ~, 3-5 ho~s No Adults S30/yr., Yes Yes B~ketball, Up to
(Pleat 150 j~o~ ~der ba~inton, 14, ~
Hill Jr. mem~rs 22 $15, voll~l qu~ity
Academy) f~ilies $40. ~bles
D~ly: ad. ts
$5, j~ior $2,
nomem~
pay additio~
$2
Daly Ci~ 7-85+ Fri 6-10 pm, Su 10 ~ - 6 pm Yes Ye~ly $140, Yes Yes B~ketball 12 -
(W~ 6 mos $80, ~d o~er high
Memori~ 3 mos $45 -- g~ s~Rs quality
Co~. plus $6 per tables.
Cfi,) play Club
o~s 10
~ ei~
~ught 2
F.M. 7-80 Eve~ Tu, eve~ other ~u, ev~ Sa Yes D~ly $2 No Yes B~et~ll, 6 - high
S~ 52 md gu, add~ oily Mo, Tu, ~u N~n Y~ly $60 ~, quali~
O~md mem~ -2:30 ~flm oily Kmate, tables
(F.M eook~g
Smi~ ~e.
c~.)
Northern California Table Tennis Clubs
,Tonuory 2002 - Page 3 of 4
e~.~ .~* ~. .... ~..,. ~,~ ~..i~ ........ ~ ............. ~ ...~-. .......... ,.~..~.~.~.=~;~= ~ ~ .......~...~......-~ ..................... ~.~ ................ ..~.~ ............ ~ ...... ~ ~"~'.~.~"~:~:~"..." '~ ............ ~=:~:: :~' :~:...~
_. ......................... ~ ...... ......~ ...................... ~....,.. ~ .......... - ,. ~ .. . .......t.~ ....... , ...-.... .................. *' ................. ;" ............... '""':' ' ............. *"~ ....
. .,~ .... ~ ............. ~,~ .................. . .......... ~ ...................,, ~ .... ¢~ ...... ~ ...... ~..
.... ~ ............ ,,'",' ........ ~"!.*.'¢ ~' · ~ ,z¢ ~'~ '~."~'~ ...... '""~;"~'"';~'"~"~ '~"~' '~'"'"*" "~'" '
¢ , ............~, ........... ~, .... . .~ . ~., ~ ....... ,~ . . ........... ........ ._ ~¢.;~...,....~......~ _- ........ ,..,.~.,...~.....
Fresno 7 - Adult Thu, 7 - 10 Yes felly $~5 les, 3-4 Yes Basketball, 8 - hish
¢obes S~, 5 - 10 17 ~d under ~., en~ indoor quality
Play- To~en~ held on Sa ~ fee soc~r, ~bles
~d ~oup
~m) gmes,
ba~nton
Hercules 8-70+ Ffi 7-I 1, Sa 10~ (~ pro co~h) Yes Ci~ No Yes Judo, dan~ 3 - high
(O~one members~p: quali~
Co~. $20/yr. tables
Center) playing fee
M~: 20
g~es for $30,
13-17515, 12
~d ~d~ $10
P~o Alto 7- Adults Foo~ll College - J~-~: Ffi 8 pm- yes F~ly: Yes - Yes Foo~ill - Foo~ll
(Cubkrly 200+ mi~i~t, Sa 5 pm - mi~gh~ Su 1:30 $300/yr, 1~ ~d ~m with - 4
Center & mem~rs - 8 pm Apr-Dec Ffi 6 pm-mi~t, Sa $175/6 mos intema- b~ketball, Mitchell
Mi~hell 5 pm-mi~ght, Su 1:30-8 pm Adult: tio~ volley~ll, - 12
P~k Mitchell P~k Co~. C~.- J~-M~: $150/~, $90/6 etc
Co~. Tu 9 pm-~dnight, ~u 6 pm-mi~ght mos.' Mitchell high
C~.) Apr-Dec Tu 9 pm-~i~t, ~u 6 pm Jr: $75/ye~, P~k- qu~i~
- ~ight $45 6/mos dances, tables
Jr. Tr~ng: comm..
$225/ye~, mtgs.,
$160/6 mos. aerobics
Northern California Table Tennis Clubs
January 2002 - Page 3 of 4
,,, ~. ~~: ~..~,~: ~.~ ................ ~,:.~,~m~ ............ ~..~....,~ ............................ ~ ~.~..4~.:.~,.~,.~?:~,?~ :~n~s~. ~:~:s~;~:. :?~a~:~t~:~· :~:.:.~.:.~
...... · , ...... ~ .. ~ · .......=.: . .... ~.. . .......,:~ .:::.~.,~.~.:.:,, :.=.,. ~ ,:,~:~..~:~ , ~ .. ~ ..... m :.:. ~.~,- ..... ~ .............................. ~:-:..~ ......................... ~: ~' E ' · ..... ~ :~' .'
~,.. ...... ~ .... ,~... ....... .~ .., ...... ~,.~.~.~,. ........ ~ ................. ~..~.. ~.,.
Sac-R~ Adult M-F 7:30-12:30 pm, Sm. 1:30-6:30 pm No ;15 momh Yes, Yes ~ate, 5 -high
(Su~er eve~ F~ volleyball, quality
Middle ~eater'
School
S~ Jo~ Ad~t Tu ~d ~u, 6:50-10:50 pm Yes $20/semeaer 1 p~ No, None 4 - high
Sm~ (college mmeaer ~lly quali~
U~vemi~ smdm~) dedi-
(Student cated
U~on)
S~ C~ 7-8~ Tu ~d ~ 7-11 pm No No Yes Yes, Co~i~ 7 - ~
(CPDES memb~ship, h~l q~ity
H~I $5 to play
bmemmt)
S~m Rosa ~1 ~es Mo 6-10 pm, Thu 7-10 pm U~o~ $3 ~ play Yes Yes Yes - 12 -
~o~n b~ketb~l high
S~ows q~li~
~ddle
School)
g:~ md ~on ~min~lo ~nis~le ~nnis giub.d~ ~4/02
Northern California Table Tennis Clubs
~Tanuary 2002 - Page 3 of 4
Notes:
o:o The USA Table Tennis Organization sanctions all clubs researched in this report.
°.-. Each club stated they used high quality, professional tables with an approximate cost of $900. Dennis Davis, from the Palo Alto club,
uses Andro portable tables that can be folded up and laid out by a single person. They take up approximately 1/3 less space than other
professional portable tables when stored. Other clubs use Butterfly and/or Stiga professional tables, which take two people to fold up
or lay out.
Shoni Aki, officer of the USA Table Tennis organization made the following recommendations:
Butterfly tables (courts) are considered top of the line and costly at about $900 each. He recommended Harvard tables for general all-
purpose games. Prices for these tables range from $200 to $350 each. The USA Table Tennis organization approves Harvard tables.
Tables should be a minimum of %" in thickness. Professional tables are considered "used" after five days of play. They are available
at considerable discounted rates following sanctioned tournaments.
The American Table Tennis Association has changed the specifications of table tennis ball specifications from'38mm last year to
40mm this year. Ball colors should be yellow, orange, or white. Balls with a two star rating are adequate for recreation; balls with a
three star rating are for professional games.
Rackets should be made of inverted robber.
Recommended that members can be requested to provide their own rackets and balls.
It was recommended that players be ranked to play on "better tables" to avoid damage to tables due to inexperience or outbursts of
temperament.
mp
Cupertino Courier
April 28, 1999
.,.Sports Center' revamp
'..will.' comply with:ADA
'A visit to Cup~ri~no's Sports .i wer~going:t0'have.;~he'SportsCenter
Contex/s a simple and ordinary occur- a__eee_ssible by the beginning of January
rence for most residents, but for Donald 1995, Bearden said,
Bearden, it's virtually impossible."To "I kept sending them .letters and
get to the clubhouse, you have to get to.' e~aits w/ing to get in touch with my-
the main entrance. And to rear. h ' the body that would listen to me, and I kept
front desk, there are about.a hnlf dozen '.getting the $nm~. response, which was,
steps," said B .earden, a paraplegia "In 'We're looking into it,' 'B~e, nsaid."I
order to get to the othe~ nre~, you have just got tired of it after four, five yeatx So
~ to §o though the [n~nin entrance]." far nothing has been done about it, and I
In the beginning of the year, know in the last few years they haw
Bearden's lawyer filed a lawsuit against added fndlitie$ to the complex~weight
the dry se. eking an order to require the rooms, aerobics rooms--stuff like that."
centermeetAmerica~withDirmbilitie$ In 1996, the fitness room was
· ~xt (ADA) standartk Bearden is also expanded by 50 percent.
seeking $25,000 to cover his legal f~-- i · Beard~n,'a Cupertino resident for
and the violation of his c/vii figh~ seven yea~ has wanted to ur~ the ten-
Although Bearden is seeking ter's'farJlitie~-and partic/pate in the
monetary resfitufion~ that is not. his activities.
main objective. "My main objective is . ~'I'm very a;~tive," Bearden said.
to have the city have the complex play wheelchair basketball and te, nni.~"
comply with ADA," he said. Be, arden has not identified specif-
. Due 'to pending 'litigation, Steve i¢ areas of the center as noncompliant
Dowling, the dty's dir~__:or of parks and with the ADA becaur~ not all 'of the
recreation, said he could not discuss the. ' center has been accessible to him.
particulars of Be, arden's cam ~ "It.'s k/nd of funny, because they do
"I'ean say the dty Of Cupertino i have' wheelchair parking spa~-~"
has a very hggressive program, roi Beardensaid.~.Idon'tlmow.whytheynm
retrofitting fadlitie,$ for ADA compli- there, because there's no way for [people
ance and the Sports Center is the last in wheeldmir$l to get to the front desk. I
one,..w~'re coming t6," Dowling said. think the parking spaces they have are
The.architectural plans for the. ten- just for show. It ~doesn't make re, n$~ I
ovation .of'the Sports Cent& will be. i..think th,$y just /vant to make people
submitted to the Planning Department think wbeeldmi~ ate wel0onie, but I
by mid-May. The.aw. hitects are having don't think it% /here for anything."
their engineers review the necessary Still, some arena of. the Sports
elevator and mechanical modifications 'i Center have already been renovated
before the plans .are complete., to.meetADA standards, Dowlingsaid.
Following the plan check,'the city will The: swimming pool was made
put the construction contract up for bid. 'ADA n___~e~_~$ible a year and a half a$o.
"If all goes well in the bidding ' Ramps and. a portable lift for the pool
proce~ we will begin construction in were installed.
August:' Dow!ing said. Cun~tly, the' Sports Center does
The c/ty'$ .plnn-~ create improved. ~___eeommodate people in wheddmirs, but
access to both the. upper and lower lev- they must call in advance, Dowling said.
eh of the building, including ~mps and. 'Once th~ ~nter is contacted by a
anelevator, After'timt work is complete, . per~.n needing wheele, hair access, a
the dry will modify the downstairs Sporls Center staff member meel$ the
bathroom and facilities for children, resident at a gate between the touma-
-. Beardcn has been trying since ment tennis'~ourt and the. rest of.the
1994 to get the c/fy and renovate the ~otu~ .That ~lte l'~nin~ tilllod~d dtlr-
center .to'make it accessible to peoplo ing the visiLThe pem0n hns ~---~ to the
with disabiliti~." low~ level of th~ c~nter, which includes'
Initially, city officials said they the fitness, shower nnd lot, kef area~ .
CUPERTINO COURIER 11/16/88
[ M asure K'falls short
bond measur, for recreation
spacc-~cause i~ the elect~n ~'~
"The people~ave spoken
in ~ ~ d ~ ~." The tisulu of that survey
~'t~a~~ it~'m~r~t
~ ~" ~ ~ ~e ~"
~'t~~ ~.~ ~ ~ ~ city ~ a
~a~~
~ ~ ~ ~'t ~ "l~ya~l~-
~ K ~ ~ ~ way
dedicat3~ fees at the Seven
"l think p~o~la Sot In
meHure was very specific,"
~~ ~y~ and that wty its present use
DESIGN INC.
8TFIUO RAL F..Nb NEF S
33 New Morttgomery gbeet, 6ul~e 660 · 6in Fran~aco, · C~. O4~S
415/2~0 · F~ 416/243.~66 · W~ ~~ · E~ DAS~AS~
January 23, 2002
Mark Schatz
BSA Arohite~s
350 P~ific Aveauc
San FLa~cisoo, California 94111
Project: Cupertino Spore Center
Structural Ass~ssmeat
DASSt/Dcsii~n Project # 00B228xl
Subject: ,Clmificmfions in P. csponsc to Forwazded Memo
I have re~iwd the aUached m.-.m_o r~din8 ow mpon on the Cupertino Sports Center. I
have r,~viewed the comments as described in the m~mo; unfoftun.t~-ly, I have not
xeceived Mr. Rush's memo, so I can only respond to the issues as they were s,,mmarized.
Below ar~ my/~po ,~s to the poi~ raised, in italics. It ~ that on many of the
technical issues tlwr~ is li~le disa/re.~m~t. I hope this memo clarifies the issues for you.
Yours italy,
lhda~l Sa~lli
Memo from l)enbe East to Terry Greene
Rmceived via emll mtttchment JImury 9,
Donald l~ch IS the st~ucturul en~ne~ For the ori~in.l duign of the Do Anza Racquet Club in 10??. He
was located on the web workin~ ~r RKI International, as a current member of the ~qorthem Calffomls
stm'~e. We met 0u January 7, 2002, to discuss his review of the ~,.+- end his comments to the"Cupertino
Spore Cealef Assessmenl~ of l~xisfin~ Facl 'h~s and Reco,,~m,,,~fl,,~, fbi' Renovation and/or ExlMnsion''
rel)Ot~ prepared by BSA Architects, October 30, 2000. This n~l:~Zt wa~ m-d- avm'lable f~om the Sports
Center Design Advisory C~mmtttee. Dasse Des/?: Inc. peepm~l the report's input as structural eagineers
for BSA.
The following respective ~mments were made by Mr. Donald Patsh durln8 our mcofin~:
1. BSA's October ~t0. 2000 ltepm~ is not en "assmsmestf' or bufld~ evaluation as titled, but a
~port umk'ms bufld'm~ co~e comparir~s which can be misle~'~,ag in infbnnath~
T~ report ~mmm'i~e~ the ~rn~ural ~ork a~oc~ed with three proposals/or the ~ort~
Cemer: a limited upgrade, a change of use, and a demolttioo-and-replacement scheme.
Discus~on of building-code requiremems i~ central to th~ purpos& The
~ulnerabill~y o/the ~O*uct~e ts ~dre~od to the report tn terr~ o/required retrofit.
2. The City's Buihlln~ Dcpamnen~ gnvc rcccat confirmation that structural up~radins of the
Cupertino Sports Cante~ was not mandatory, and only voluntary. The~ is no code requimnent to bring
die building to cuffem code. The building is not seucumdly code deflcienL
The Bugdtn$ Department may not re~tre that all of the code defcienc/es of the Center
be corrected as part eta limited ~oluntary se/$m/c t~o~'ade. Our recommend~ions for
the limited.renovation (Section $. O) do not include mtdre~ng apparent code deficiencies
such as tho~e re~ulttng from change~ lo vwod allo~able strerse$. ~ewrthele~, with
re~poct w the current, go, erring code, the srn~cture i~ defcient in ~ real ~en~e and ~ome
d~gree of.retroft ~ recommended. F~cifcally, the ~ren~t~ntng of ~all panel
conoe¢~ons to the roof a~d o/collector spltces, ar desrrlbed tn Sectton 4.3 o/our report,
should be considered as necessary.
3. Structund upgrading of the Sports Centor is volmUary _ _vy-~-~_ _.':_'~ tim Six,ts Cenm' Bufldin~ "is not
suucturally deficient'*. 1~e buil,4l~_* is not subject ~o partial or complete latium.
St~#ctural upgradtng ~ vohmtary because it has ~ot been mandated and ~o change iff
or major alteration h~ bee~ planned YYe da not believe tt~f the ~r~cture i~ likely to
collapse withaut t~ modi. fications. Howe~er, failure or collapse o/a ~all panel durtn~
moderate to ~ewre earth~luake i~ a po~ibili~.
4. Dasse'sRepo~Seotlon4-9-~., Uroofjoistsma~,beovers[ressed"isnot¢~,.~-L SeeD. lq~sh's
Memo d~ed 1/8/02
UMng current allowable stre~se~, the jotrts ~re owrz~re~eR We have stetted that we do
not consider t~s to be a true over~tre.~ (see Section 5.~). However. ~e haw
recommem~ed that p~,tor ~0 dectdtng on the chan~-o)~ase optior~ an agreement be
reached wit~ the B~ild~g Department that upgrade of thiz frumi~g will m,t be re~irev~
as this wo~ld represent a large tncrease in the rtructural cast.
M~mo dasd 1/8/02.
See the discu$~fon of j~ot~ 5.
6. Iu review of thc I~ujkiing c,~c,,l~lo,~, Mr. ~--,k stated ~ho building b worth up~adi~ md would
make recemme~dations m upgrading. No fiuthet; l'~,,.al ~ ~ ~
limited re~o~t.
~r ~rt ~ ~. Collector elements ~q~t s~tnghtn~g ~ soer~ l~o~.
i~icated (~t t~ ~esence sh~M be
~ report is ac~. iII ~talh on s~et S~ oft~ ~d ~n~ in~c~ t~t
the ho~om~ re~ng ~ on the ~11 ~terlt~, r~r t~ t~ v~c~, w~ch ~
~co~e~d t~ t~ ~ ~ settled ~ the ,im~le ~d~ of ~ some ~i~
where one of t~e ~ls ~ been cut in order to see wh~ t~ ver~cal ~s ~
locked
~n~rc~ ~rs ~ be comider~d tn order to ~eelu~ the need for t~ough bolts;
do~s which cl~ the ~.
12. Substant~ mctural upgrade of tim dlni~g room area for a weight room is not valid. Tim second
floor as design~l will accommocl.,t," 4~ pieces of fitne4s weight equipment nt 410 lbs each. See D. Ru.sh'$
Memo dated i/9/02.
Our report is accurate. ~" p~ood ir not ~u, fficient for weight-room loadin~ and flOor
joirt~ in some ztmra will require grmgthening, lge do not recommend changing the gse
to a weight room contingent on a ~ptctflc arrangzm~nt of a limited number of tterns, as
one cannot ~xptct that a structural engineer will bt consulttd before any tquipmtnt is
moved or ~dded. ~'t tl~rtfore r~comm~nd that btfor~ th~ .~ac¢ ir converted to thir use
the floor ln~ upgraded to an ar$tmbly-load capacity of.tO0 pounds per square foot.
13. Ballpark ~timm of th~ ~onmuc'fion c-am for ~mi¢ ul~rada work i$ $200,O0O (+/- 20%).
,~ COSt tstimatt was done based on our r~troflt r~¢ommtndattons. ~hat zst'lmatt can bt
updated for c'ttrrent costs.
la. l~altg~k mlimm for ~uummtl e~ a~l dmila f~ a~w ~i~afie up,,ada w~ i~ $20.0o0.
3?o comment.
· ' Therese Ambrosi Smith
Front: Linda Lagergren
~811t: VVednesday, January 23, 2002 4:15 PM
To: Thereee Ambrosi Smith; David Knapp
Subject: F~. racquetball courts
..... Original Message .....
From: Russ Tuck [mailto:tuck@pluris.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2002 3:57 PM
To: rlowenthal@cupertino.org; mchang@cupertino.org; pkwok@cupertino.org;
sjames@cupertino.org; dsandoval@cupertino.org
Subject: racquetball courts
Dear members of the Cupertino City Council,
I enjoy playing racquetball regularly at the Sports Center. I hope you
will keep racquetball in your plans as you prepare for the future. It
is a nice asset for the city, its residents, and its employers.
Russ
David Knapp
From: denise east [;]east7~¥ahoo.cem]
Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2002 9:01 AM
To: davek~cupertino.org
Subject: Unnecessary Demolition of Sports Center
Dear City Manager Dave Knapp,
Please see the below letter sent to the Mayor in
regards to the unnecessary demolition of the existing
Cupertino Sports Center.
Thank you.
Denise East
CUPERTINO RACQUETBALL/HANDBALL ASSOCIATION
10635 Johnson Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
Tel: (408) 255-1163
e-mail: deast7@yahoo.com
January 22, 2002
Hon. Richard Lowenthal, Mayor
Cupertino City Hall
10300 Torte Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
Subject: Unnecessary Demolition of the Cupertino
Sports Center
Dear Mayor Lowenthal,
I have worked in the construction management industry
as a field engineer for over twenty-four years, solely
on public works infrastructure projects and buildings.
A Cupertino Courier news article on July 18, 2001,
claimed the Cupertino Sports Center building to be
seismically unsafe. In passing conversation with
Sports Center members, this misunderstanding is shared
by many others who believe that the City must tear
down the building because of its seismic deficiencies.
Demolition of the existing Cupertino Sports Center
building because of structural deficiencies is totally
unfounded.
Public funds allocated for the Sports Center should
not be wasted on the demolition of a viable and
valuable structure.
Mr. Donald Rush is the structural engineer for the
original design of the De Anza Racquet Club in 1977.
He is located on the web at www.seaonc.org, working
for RKI International, as a current member of the
Structural Engineers Association of Northern
California. Per my inquiry, Mr. Rush has retrieved
the De Anza Racquet Club structural calculations from
storage. We met on January 7, 2002, to discuss his
review of the building calculations and his coments
to the October 30, 2000 written report 'Cupertino
Sports Center Assessment of Existing Facilities and
-' Recommendations for Renovation and/or Expansion"
prepared by BSA Architects. Passe Design, Inc. had
prepared the report's Chapter 7, ~Structural
Assessment" for BSA.
The following important information and comments were
provided by Mr. Donald Rush during our January
meeting:
1. BSA's October 30, 2000 Report is not an
~assessment" or a building evaluation as titled, bu= a
report making building code comparisons which can be
misleading in information. Building codes will change
because of advancement in knowledge and technology;
nevertheless, these code changes do not of themselves
make any building designed under previous standards
any less serviceable.
2. The City's Building Department gave Mr. Rush
confirmation that the Cupertino Sports Center is not
required to make any s~ructural upgrading. There are
no S~ate or City code requirements to upgrade the
building to current code. The building is not
structurally code deficient.
3. Structural upgrading of the Sports Center is not
required because the Sports Center Building ~is not
structurally deficient". The building is NOT subject
to partial or complete failure.
4. BSA's Report Section 4.2.2, ~roof joists may be
overstresse~' is not correct. See D. Rush's Memo
dated 1/8/02, per Attachment la.
5. BSA's Report Section 4.2.3, ~2nd floor joists may
be overstresseW' is not correct. See D. Rush's Memo
dated 1/8/02, per Attachment la.
6. In review of the building calculations, Mr. Rush
stated the building is worth upgrading and he could
provide the City with his reoommendations and
detailing for structural upgrading. No further,
formal evaluation is required.
7. The structural foundation Of the Sports Center
building does no= require any upgrading.
8. Regarding BSA's Report Section 4.3.3, additional
anchorage of the concrete wall panels to the roof and
2nd floor would be recommended for a seismic upgrade.
9. BSA's Report Section 4.3.4 is not correct~ the
existing collector and tie element splices have good
capacity ~o resist 1997 UBC ~m~lified loads. These
elements do not require upgrading. Collector ties at
the two locations at the 2nd Floor are not lacking.
10. BSA's Report Section 4.3.5 is not correct~ the
tilt-up wall panels are not overstressed and are not
subject to out-of-plane wall failure.
11. Per BSA's Report Section 5.3, 2nd Floor seismic
upgrade with exposed ~hrough-bolts would be an
unnecessary eyesore. Mr. Rush reco~ends the use of
epoxy bolts. BSA's Report Section 5.3, Par. 2, is
incorrect as discussed in the above Item No. 9.
12. Substantial structural upgrade of the dining room
area for a weight room is not valid and not required.
The second floor as designed will.e~sily accommodate
45 pieces of fitness weigh~ equipment a~ 410 lbs each.
See D. Rush's Memo dated 1/9/02, per attachmen~ 2a.
13. Estimate of the construction costs for seismic
upgrade work is approximately $200,000 (+/- 20%).
14. Estimate for RKI International's structural
calculations and details for new seismic upgrade work
is approximately $20,000.
The Cupertino Courier news article of July 18, 2001,
also claimed tha~ the City was very vulnerable' to
potential ADA lawsuits. Although ADAcompliant issues
are recognized and being addressed, an alarmist
attitude over ADA compliance is viewed by many, and is
an unfounded reason to demolish the Spor=s Center
building. The United States Justice Department's
website, www.usdoj.cov, provides the following
pertinent information regarding myths and facts about
the ~Americans with Disabilities Act" (see Attachment
A).
In Suma~ary:
1. The ADA law requires that public accommodations
remove architectural barriers in existing facilities
when it is ~readily achievable", i.e. it can be
done ~without much difficulty or expense".
2. ADA requires all government programs, not all
government buildings to be accessible. 'Program
accessibilit~' does not require a local government to
do anything that would result in an undue financial or
achninistrative burden. Not every building, nor each
par~ of every building needs to be accessible.
Structural modifications are required only when there
is no alternative available for providing program
access. For example, in a town library that has an
inaccessible second floor, no elevator is needed if it
provides 'program accessibility~ for persons using
wheelchairs by having staff retrieve books.
3. Federal tax incentives are available to help meet
the cost of ADA compliance.
Public funds allocated to the City's Sports Center can
be wisely used for new 'fitness equipment, additional
sport activities, and new health ~m~rovament sessions
in the now vacant 2000 sq ft ~dining area", the vacant
2400 sq foot ~Accelerated Sports' converted court
area, and the vacant 600 sq ft 'kitchen/bar area".
Thank you for your review of all the above information
and attachments.
Sincerely,
Denise East
Racquetball/Handball Association, Vice President
Cc: Cupertino City Council N~m~ers
City Manager ..
City Architect
City Attorney
City Public Works Director
Attachment A
From the UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT.OF JUSTICE WEBSITE @
WWW.USDOJ.GOV
MYTHS AND FACTS ABOUT THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES
ACT
MYTH: ADA suits are flooding the courts.
FACT: The ADA has resulted in a surprisingly small
number of lawsuits -- only about 650 nationwide in
five years. That's tiny compared to the 6 million
businesses; 666,000 public and private employers; and
80,000 units of state and local government that must
comply.
MYTH: The ADA is rigid and requires businesses to
spend lots of money to'make their existing facilities
accessible. FACT: The ADA is based on common sense. It
recognizes that altering existing structures is more
costly than making new construction accessible. The
law _only_ requires that public accommodations {e.g.
stores, banks, hotels, and restaurants) remove
architectural barriers in existing facilities when it
is "readily achievable", i.e., it can be done "without
much difficulty or expense." Inexpensive, easy steps
to take include ramping one step; installing a
bathroom grab bar; lowering a paper towel dispenser;
rearranging furniture; installing offset hinges to
widen a doorway; or painting new lines to create an
accessible parking space.
MYTH: The government thinks ever~hing is readily
achievable.
FACT: Not true. Often it may not be readily achievable
to remove a barrier -- especially in older structures.
Let's say a small business is located above ground.
Installing an elevator would not, most likely, be
readily achievable -- and there may not be enough room
to build a ramp -- or the business may not be
profitable enough to build a ramp. In these
circumstances, the ADA would allow a business to
simply provide curbside service to persons with
disabilities.
MYTH: The ADA requires businesses to remove barriers
overnight.
FACT: Businesses are only required to do what is
readily achievable at that time. A sm~%l business may
find that installing a ramp is not readily achievable
this year, but if profits {mprove it will be readily
achievable next year. Businesses are encouraged to
evaluate their facilities and develop a long-termplan
for barrier removal that is co_~_~ensurate with their
resources.
MYTH: Restaurants must provide menus in braille.
FACT: Not true. Waiters can read the menu to blind
customers.
MYTH: The ADA requires extensive re,ovation of all
state and local government buildings to make them
accessible.
FACT: The ADA requires all government _programs_, not
all government _buildings_, to be accessible. "Program
accessibility" is a very flexible requirement and does
not require a local government to do anything that
would result in an undue financial or administrative
burden. Local governments have been subject to this
requirement for many years under the Rehabilitation
Act of 1973. Not every building, nor each part of
every building needs to be accessible, Structural
modifications are required only when there is no
alternative available for providing program access.
Let's say a town library has an inaccessible second
floor. No elevator is needed if it provides "program
accessibility# for persons using wheelchairs by having
staff retrieve books.
MYTH: Sign language interpreters are required
everywhere.
FACT: The ADA only requires that effective
communication not exclude people with disabilities --
which in many situations means providing written
materials or exchanging notes. The law does not
require any measure that would cause an undue
financial or administrative burden.
MYTH: The ADA forces business and government to spend
lots of money hiring unqualified people.
FACT: No unqualified job applicant or employee with a
disability can claim employment discrimination under
the ADA. Employees must meet all the requirements of
the job and perform the essential functions of the job
with or without reasonable accomnodation. No
accommodation must be provided if it would result in
an undue hardship on the
MYTH: Acco~nodating workers with disabilities costs
too much.
FACT: Reasonable acconunodation is usually far less
expensive than many people think. In most cases, an
appropriate reasonable accommodation can be mede
without difficulty and at little or no cost. A recent
study commissioned by Sears indicates that of the 436
reasonable acco~modations provided by the company
between 1978 and 1992, 69% cost nothing, 28% cost less
than $1,000, and only 3% cost more than $1,000.
MYTH: The government is no help.when it comes to
paying for accessibility.
FACT: Not so. Federal tax incentives are available to
help meet the cost of ADA compliance.
MYTH: Businesses must pay large fines when they
violate the ADA.
FACT: Courts may levy civil penalties only in cases
brought by the Justice Department, not private
litigants. The Department only seeks such penalties
when the violation is substantial and the business has
· 'shown bad faith.in failing to cnmply. Bad faith can
..take many forms, including hostile acts against people
with disabilities, a long-term failure even to inquire
into what the ADA. requires, or sustained resistance to
voluntary compliance. The Department also considers a
business~ size and resources in determining whether
civil penalties are appropriate. Civil penalties may
not be assessed in cases against state or local
governments or employers. ..
MYTH: The Justice Department sues first and asks
~uestions later. FACT; The primary goal of 'the
Department's enforcement program is to increase
voluntary compliance through technical assistance and
negotiation. Under existing rules, the Department may
not file a lawsuit unless it has first tried to settle
the dispute through negotiations -- which is why most
every complaint settles.
MYTH: The Justice Department never files suits.
FACT: The Department has been party to 20 suits under
the ADA. Although it tries extensively to promote
voluntary compliance, the Department will take legal
action when entities continue to resist complying with
the law.
MYTH: Many ADA cases involve frivolous issues.
FACT: The Justice Department's enforcement of the ADA
has been fair and rooted in co;non sense. The
overwhelming n~jority of the complaints received by
the Justice Department have merit. Our focus is on
fundamental issues related to access to goods and
services that are basic to peoplets lives. We have
avoided pursuing fringe and frivolous issues and will
continue to do so.
MYTH: Everyone claims to be covered under the ADA.
FACT: The definition of "individual with a disability"
is fraught with conditions and must be applied on a
case-by-case basis.
MYTH: The ADA protects people who are overweight.
FACT: Just being overweight is not enough.
Modifications in policies only must be made if they
are _reasonable_ and do not fundamentally alter the
nature of the program or service provided. The
Department has received only a handful of complaints
about obesity.
MYTH: The ADA is being misused by people with "bad
backs" and "emotional problems."
FACT: Trivial complaints do not make it through the
system. And many cla;m- filed by individuals with such
conditions are not trivial. There are people with
severe depression or people with a history of
alcoholism who are judged by their ~m~loyers, not on
the basis of their abilities, but rather upon
stereotypes and fears that employers associate with
their conditions.
FAX
Attachment t.a - D. Rush Memo of 1/8/02
Attachment 2a -D. Rush Memo of 1/9/02
· Do You Yahoo!?
· Send FREE video'emails in Yahoo! Mail!
http://promo.yahoo.com/video~ail/
CUPERTINO RACQU ETBALi,/tlANDB&LL A&g)CIATION
10635 Johnson Aveaue
Cupe~no, CA 95014
Tel: (408) 255-1163
e-maih deutT(~shoo.com
Jsnuary 22, 2002
Ho~. Richerd Lov~nthal, Mayor
Cupertino City Hall
10300 Torm Avenus
Cup~ino, CA 95014
Subject: Uaneommy Demolition of the Cu~rtino Spor~ Cenmr
Dear Mayor Lovmathai,
i Imve worked in the onnstruction man~mcnt indusu~ as a field en;inenr for over twanty-four yea~,
solely on public works infrssUuotu~ proj~'ts and buildings. ^ Cupertino Courier onws article on Jul),
! 8, 2001, claimed the Cupertino Spore Center buiidin8 to be seismically unsafe. In 9aseins conversation
with Sports Conter mmnbars, this misunderstandinB i~ shared by many others who believe that the City
must tear down the bufldfns bennuse of'its seismic d~ciencies. Demolition of the e~istin~ Culmtino
Sports Center buildin~ because of structural deficiencies is totally unfounded.
Mr. Donald Rush is the smictural 8n~inKr for the orisinai desi~ of the De An~ Racquet Club in 1977.
He is located on the w~b at w~vw.seaone.o~, woridnE for RKI Intemstioonl, as ~ ourront member of the
Sttu~uml Engine, s Association or'Northern California. Per my inqui~, Mr. l~ush hu relieved the De
Anza Rac~lU~t Club structural calculations from storage. We m~ on January ?, 2002, to discuss his
rovi4w oftl~ buildins calculations and his ~omments to th~ October 30, 2000 WTitten mpurt "Cupertino
Sports Cenm' Assessment of Existing FKilities and RKomrnrnda~ions for Renovation and/or Expansion'
Ix~-pared by BSA A~hitects. Duse Design, Inc. had prepared the report's Cimpm* ?, "S~ructural
Assessment" for BSA. ~
The followin~ lmpcn~nt information and commen~s w~ provided by Mr. Do,Id Push during our
January meeting:
i. BSA's O~tober30, 2000 l~port is not an "usussment' or ~ buildins evaluation as titlad, but a rupurt
makin~ buildin~ cQde ~mnp~isons which ~an tm misl~adins in information. Buildins ~ will
chenp Ix~canse of advancement in knowi~d~ and t~.hnoiOlD'~ nuvot~hetess, th~s~ r, oc~ dmnBas do
not of themselves mako any butidin~ desEgn~d under Ix~vious slanderds an)' less servironble.
2. The City's Building D~ent ~eve Mr. Rush onnfirmation dmt the Cupertino Sport~ Center is not
ruclu!md to ond~ any stmotural up~mdJns~. The~ a~ no Stm or C~ ~ requimndms m upltad~
the bulidin~ to ~uTent ondo. The buildins is not stn~turally ~odo doflcie, nt.
3. -qtruoturfd upsmdins of thc Six)ns Cantor is not required because tho $porU Canter Building "is not
stmomrally dofioiant#. Tho building is NOT sub. inet to partial or complote
4. BSA's Report Seetlon 4.2.2, "roof joists may be ovcrstresasd" is not corroot. Soo D. gush's Memo
dated I/8/02, per Atteohment
5. BSA's Report Section 4.2.3, "2~ flcorjoim may be ovmtmssed" is not correet. See D. gush's
Memo dated I/~/02, per Atta~hmont la.
6. In review of tho building oaloulations, Mr. Rush stated the buildlng:is worth up~radln~ and bu could
provJdo the C:it~ with his reoommendations and detailing for struoturul upsreding, No ~%rther, fbrmal
ovaluation is roquired.
7, The struomml ~oundation of the Spore Center building does not requiro any upJmtding,
8. Rqptrding BSA's Report geotion 4.3,3, mtditional anohoraao of'tbe concrete wall punels to die toni'
and 2:~ floor would be ruoommandod For a seismio uppzdo.
9. BSA*s Report Seetion 4.3.4 is not cozT~t; the existing collector and tin olement splices lava ~ood
oapaoi~, to rmsis~ 1~.9~7 UBG amplified loads. These elements do not require upilredinS. Golleet~
ties at tho two Iooations m ~e 2~d Floor are not lacking.
10. BSA's Repu~ Sootion 4.3.S is not oorreor4 tho tilt-up wall punols are not overstrsesod and urn not
subject to ont-of'-plane wall Failure.
I 1. Per BSA's Report Sootion 5.3, 2nd Floor seismic upgrade with exjxtsed dtroush-bolts would be an
unnec~_~ oyuore. Mr. Rush r~ommends tim uso oF opoxy bolts. BSA's Report Sootlnn 5.3,
Par. 2, is inoorreot as disoussed in the abovo Itmn No. 9,
12. Substantial structural upirede of tho dining room ama for a weight room is not valid and not roquired.
Tho socond floor as dasisned will easily ftcoommodate 45 pieces ot'fitness woiiht equipment at 410
lbs eech. See D, Rush*s Memo dated I/9/02, per atuiohment 2L
13. Estimate of'tho omutmotlnn costs for seismic uppudo work is approximately $200,000 (+/- 20%).
14. Estimate for RKI lntoflmtianal's struotuml ~aloulttions and details ~r new seismic uplp'mb work is
approximately $20,000.
The Cupertino GourJor news aftiolo of'July 18, 2001, also olaimed that the Ci~ wes very vulnerable to
petantial ADA lawsuits. Altl~ ADA oompllant inuas m r~co~nized and bolng addreued, an
alarmist mitude over ADA oomplianoe is viewed by many, and is an untbonded rmuon to domolish tho
Sports Gunter buiidlnl. Tho Unbud States Justioo Dolmrtmont's webeite, www.ued~j.oov, provides tho
~oliowin$ pertinent inFormatiou roaardJng myths and hots about the "Amerioans with Dimlbilitlat
(see Attsohment A).
In Summary:
I., ..,The ADA law requires that public *_.~emmodatlons removo architeotuml ben4m~ in existins.
Famhties when it 1! "rudlly aohievablo", i.e. it mm be done "without muoh diffloult~ or Oxlxmsr.
2. ADA requimz nil Sove,#,.ot prolimms, not all liovernmant Imildinp to be anomsiblo. #Propum
aoceuibility# does not require a Ional ~ovemmant to do n.vthlnfz that would result in mi undue
financial or administrative burden. Not every buildlni, nor each pert of'every buiMins nseda to
be ac~e#ible. Suucturul modifications ar~ r~quir~d only when thoro is no altsmative available
fc~ ptovidin$ prosram ms. For e~smpIc, in a town librar~ that has tm ina~ceasiMe second
floor, no elovator is nsedod If it ~iovides "propam a~.essibilit}," for persmu usins:wheolchirs
by havins staff t~riev~ books.
3. F~lt~d tix inoontivw m avdlsble to help moot tho oost of'ADA oomplianoo.
Tlumk you for your review of all the above information nd aUa~hnunts.
-.
~H-24--2Be2 12:16 AM
Atbiebmmit A
FrOm the UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE WEBSITE ~ M~YW. USDOJ.GOV
MYTHS AND fACTS ABOUT THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT
MYTH: ADA mb ant floodba the coum,
FACT: Tho ADA hi resulted in · tut~risinlly stall number orlswAuiu - onb, about 6s0 n~ionwide in five years.
Th~o tiny mxupemd to the 6 million busineues; 666,000 public and pdvst~ empbyet~ and 80,000 unb o4'smt~
and ~ So.~.. · ~fmt must ~amply.
MYTH: The ADA is rjr, id and requires businesses m spend lois of'mouLT m make ~beir ~xistins feellkles iccenJbit
FACT: Tho ADA is hnd on cmnmou roue. It recosnim dar sltorhs ui~ structmu is mom ~iy tiun
makins now m)mtruction tceeuibk. The hw _on)y. r~quJres that public _-_ _?~un_ odaliom (o,S. store, banks,
and remumnts) remove m:hkmurid berrial Jn exbtJns fb~lib when it b ~udily m:hievsble", i.e., it mm be done
~vidmut mdt dJfl%-u~ or expense.* Inexpemjve, easy raps to rake include mmpin8 one stop: iusttllb~ ·
bmhmom stub bar;, Iow~nI · pq~r towel di,pemer; rearransinS hmitm~; inmllinl other hhsu to widen u
doorway; or pibtbS now lb to crease in I~ceuible perkins sp8~.
MY'TH: The Savolll~ent tMBh ~ is readily acbbvable.
FACT: Not u~e. Of~ it mw not be reidfl~ f. bJrable to rmnove a barrier- espoohdly in ~ ~ ~ ~
a mudl businou k Iommd al)ore lround. Insudlh~ n olevator would nok mogt IJkdy, be rmKHJy schkvlbk - ~
tbwe mq, not bo enoush room lo tmiid i rmnp-- or d~e bmtnm msy not be profiulbb euoulh m him s ~. h
~mn ciK~,...o,~Cek rite ADA woukl allow a bLmJnm to simpJy pmvido curbside serv~e to penons widJ
dbsbilkieL
MYTH: The ADA T~quim businesses to remove berlin
PA~r: hinm sru only required to do what is rudily uhievlbio et ~h~ time. A small businen may find
huud]ins · romp ii nat rlmdily ichJevable thb year, but if profits improve k will be tudll), achievable next
Businenes ar~ eaeourqed to evah~ the~ FucllMu nd develop tt Ions-mm plm for bgrbr rmmoval thst is
~ommensurate with their ruources.
MY'I~: Rmtsumnts must ~,-G~,Jde menus in brtllk.
FACT:. Not true. WaRm aah reed the meou to blind mmomm.
MYTH: The ADA requires extensive mOVL*iOn oFall Sm0 nd local Sovernmm buJldinp to make ~bem
accusJbk,
FAC'~. The ADA requm -ti 8ovenment_mosruns.., not ~Jl Sovomment_buUdtnp_, to b uemibio. "Prolmm
a~emJbility' is · yen/flexible r~quJrallent I/Id doll not requiro · Ioetl Sovernment to do m34hiz~ timt wuuld mum
h tm undue flnm~hl or mbnJn~,,,~;~e burden, t.ocal Io**,M,mm have been subJm ~o ~hk requirement tror mn),
y~ms under dm £-L -'-IP~*~on A~t of' 1973. Not every buJMJn& nor uch ptm of every Imlldinl n~e~_; to be
ueeuib~ Smlaturul ,,,odiflc6tk,,~ m raquired only whal Itun k no nltem~ive nvlikblo rot pmvidinl prolmm
m Left sq, a town Iilnry Imm Jntocessible second floor. No elm rm needed if it provides ~m~mn
8cceurolltt~ fbr perum u~ wbeeiduim by ~ mfr mu. leve boob.
MYTH: Sip ~ inm'immn are required everywhe~
FACT:. The ADA ooly require ~hat effm:tiv, communh:stton nm ~colu~ people w,*(h dimbiliti# - whleh h nuny
situ~s memu ix~vMInl wrltum mmm'hk or exchlneins notu. 'rlJe Jaw does no~ rmluJr~ any musur~ that would
arno n undue bold or edminkntive Imrdm.
MYTH: ~ ADX fixes blnm End Sovermumt to spad lots or money hirb~ unqualified people.
FA~T: No unqudffbd Job npp~eent or employ# with I dimd)ility un d~i~ empk~/meat dba'imhsdoa undsr the
ADA. Em~ must meet dl 1he roquimmenu of dm job and peff'orm 1be emntJd ~ of'tho Job wMI ar
without reuauble ne~mmnodslkm. No u'"ccmnu,~-dc,q mum be provided If'it would ruult in un unduo lurdship
the
12'-16
MYTH: A~onmmod~ woe~,ou with disabilities costs too much.
FACT: Rmmueble an~ommndation is usually far I~ss ~xpensive than many I~ople think. In moat r.~ an.
appmp~ maaonabM a~ommo~qtloq can be mad~ without di~culty and at Itttin ce no onet. A ~t study
~nonhshmed by Sm~ hdimm that of the 436 reasonable accommodations provided by ~e company between
197! and 1992, 69~ ~t nolhin[. 28% cost less ~ $1,000, and only 3% Gost more ~Mn S !,000.
MYTH: Th0 80d~m~l is ~0 help whe~ Jt oomas to psyinS for uccessibility.
FACT: Not no. Pedml tax incentives are availeble to balp meet ~he ~ost of ADA compliance.
IdYTl4: Bualnmso must pay leqe fines when they violate the ADA.
FACT: CO,tis snny levy civil p~alt~us only In cases bmusht by the Justice t:MpoFtmmt, n~ iFivme iitipnls. Tbe
I~ only seeks such p~nalti# when the violation is submntinl and the bueinnas has shown bed fidth h
fallinS 10 comply. [hal fallb can lake rainy forms, incJudJnS hostile ms apinst people with diasbili~lej, a iong.4em
failuru ovon to Inquire into what b ADA requlrso. OF suminM ~asistance to voluntar~ compliance..The I:lepeflment
also coMkbrs a Iminm' 8tss and ~ in deu~mininm whether civil ponaltins are appt~. Civil pmmifiu
n"d~ not be asasuod in oases qalnm stm or local Sovmunents oF employm.
~ The Jusdeo I~sarnnom sues first and nks .q. uestions imf. FACT: ~ prJmar~ r, onl or,be .1~_ .?snfa
Ai~.,~nt p~smn is to Jnc~asas volumn~ ~omplnmce thmush mchnleal assimueo and ne~. Utdm'
existins rubs, tbe Deparunent n~, not file a inwsuit unless Rims first tried to asttle tho dispute ~o~sh negotletimu
MYTN: The Justice t~uruuont nev~ flh suiu.
FACT: The I~ ho8 beeo pef~y to 20 suits onder the ADA. Althousb Jt ~ en~enalval~ to jrmn~s
voluetm'y compliance, the I:)t~- n~: %! will talin leSal mion when entitias ~ontJnue to rum uemplyJns wJtb Ibe law.
MYTN: Many ADA mare involve ~volons issues.
FAr~'~T: The JasCo K'-r m,,~.A~s anfm~mnent oftbe ADA his ~_-~-~ fnir trod rontnd in uemmon oon~. 'tbe
ovgwholmins msdoFfty of the onmplahts m~jved by the Ju~e t:Mpmmem have me~ Our fonue is on
hndamenud iuuas relmd to aocen to sonds end servloas thst are basic to ~_-,~p_ le's lives. We Imve avoided punuin8
fTinp md frivolous issues md will continue to do so.
MYTH: ~-ve~3~ee claims m be cove~d under the ADA.
FAC~. Tbe definMon of'individual wi~h a disability~ Is fi. aright with conditions and must bo applied on t ~mo-by-
MYTH: The ADA p~M~8. _,~_; · who aro ovet~eigl~t.
FACT: Jul bebl8 ove~ is no~ onou~ Mndlflcetlem in polJGias only must be made if d~oy nr~ _reasonable_
and do stat fondamonMly ~ ~he natur~ of~he projmn ot service prove_._. Tho l~,.Y m,.at has _~.~"__~wd only a
beMhl of annplalnu about obu[ty.
ldYTI4: Tho ADA 18 beh8 misused by ~ with "bad bceks" and "notional problems." ::
FACT: Trivial amlpininu do not nmko it dL'u~h the sy~nn. And many ~hlnu filed by individuali w~ me,,h
oondllbm are no~ lrivleL There aru people with severe dslsrasslen or IMOPin with t hbem7 of alce4mlimn who n
Judpd by tbeir mploye~ not on tbe besis of ~heJr abilith, but rather upon sterontypso and fern dmt employm
m~m wi~h M ma~om.
FAX
Attsdnmsut la - I}. Rush Memo of
Attadmont h-.IX RmlJ Mtaso of
3~H--24-2~2 X2:X7 A~
a&n~O9-O~ 03:I~P RKZ ln:e.n~onal 510 4~ 1747 P.O1
International ,,,,.
rAmil~ Wimm,. ko. I~-, 0~,...~747
FAX TRANSMITTAL
NUIIBIR OF PAOES IN ~ ~.,,1JIIK ~ ~ Ad, Ii '1
DATE: Me. 2OW
TO: C,~nlmidMKI CM
FAX NUMBER: (4o8) 2~6.7o~e
PILE NUMBE~
~JBJE~I': Fltrm~ Equl~w)t
ATTENTION: Dlni# EMt
FIK:)M: Dg,'mld Ru~h
IpMaxi~mtMy 410 F~d. emch, tJnffo~¥ poll~ioned on me #QQnCl floor, il well wltNn
(:O~w WILL NO?' BI IMIL~
iF AiL PA~PJ NOT REGBVED GOUTAGT lENDER AT ~.4E~-1748
F
Consolidatod CMICSI
NumbaiorPeP(s2: ~
hu: l~a PR~: Cup~o S~ Cn~r incl~g u~ ~
~ C~ ~..
~ hh ~ In~a~nnJ FAX : O~J~r M~I · ~ ~li~
Cop~ for Files, Specification Sections, Cross Rcfet'ences:
~ ~i
Cost [bqum
I'mmnd
Chq.
Weight F, quipm~t on 2nd Floor
Ploue a~e ttlached sketoh showinS flmess w~i~ht equil=nut and WOOl; scenario nmmpment on'the 2nd Floor orb
SM Center, Could it pouibly work?
Thanlt );ouo
~RN--24--2BB2 12:XB R~
Commericai Fitness Equipment
Smndm'd Stock Weight: 210 lbs ~'~ t~o~'r M I~P..t.'~ ~JSE~
Optionul Welder: 310 lbs, or
410 lbs
LeS Pr~__:: ~6"W x 75"L x
Ab IVlechine: 42"W x 46"I. x 62"H
Torso Machinc: 62" H x S4"I. x 48"W
Ch~ Machine: $O"W x 43"L x 62"H
I
I;..¥ '
.Tl~lH-24-2ee2 12.-18 i~1,1 r
Jan-OO-O~ I~:C)SP RK:Z 'znterrP-t.,Iofl&'l 510 482 1747 P.Ol
RKI Int rnMionM
Cone~iflflO EfloiMIm, tag. Pm ~ 1747
M~.~IO~LTI~
~ i aOrNdt~ calm ~u in .lhe ~oMMIIty M ~ .~.. ~. i ~ ._f~At_..~r thil t,~. dile iM
na~ inliCtljil~ nor do I wmt, to Dehorn ~Kqv.~ in dmM~ .mmmanm ~nd! b.u.s riBad ny
~ i4owqwir. I will re, rower yo~.r two ,vquelte in very general tm're&
RIOedJng Ihe itlole in tho Cwwtino CmJMr, ~le etllenent '~ode glafi~l~t buiidnO', v~
IplG'lMI, hiiilxcdotMynomeinlngnoro'edll~lty. AlliqLlliyJ ~-
k~ ~ and tec~ UJ lmee d~moo do n~ of II~_.,._Mv_ meke.e~/Uuadlng
h Ihl WI Mr .4~)J. m JJeyond my eKpMtile, i will nM aonmlenl m lille IllUlL
.x~Blin~ brain0 u~flO .,Jffmt cnd~ dlowaliB .b~.~e~ I would queMion the aoOL~y Of lelr
IOldnlgeMy, mdlaefllW~'Mmldlx.~, ~&- laOnNl~lllMIhlOi'lginlidillgn
h~ 1/8/~00~ Numberofpep(I): c~-
PROJECT: Cupertino SpoFts Center includins ~ova' I~ner
TO Cemlmq
DonaM Rush RKI lnternstionnl F~X . ~ OVe~niSht Mai! I i Hud Delivery
Copy for Ffl~s, Specification Sections, Cron References:
8;Oe. Ne~lO~: A, C, P riMS:
Cast b ~ I SlllMl I AnOWlfl00 AuUlofllltiOrl
~ Clan~ ~ I Field Inou~-~lofl I ~ RJquoot
Ove~h~sscd Joists
BSA P.,~mn of 10/30/2000
I bolievo you statod that DlUO*s opinion on tho roof and sooom:l floorjolm appearing over~ pot the attadiod
Section 4.2, waa inoorrect, and that ourrent lumbor 8rade standards are mueh lower than lwefl~ five years ago.
Please on]finn.
jl~H-24-2ee2 12;19
mui C.): Theme openings have been reinforced with mci plates end cha~s bolted to the
remmml~ portiom of the we{Is, lqo informntion was available on whether
added under the new ends of these openk~.
4.0 F/NDING$ ·
~ structu~ design was likely governed ~y the .1976 adirlon oft] te Uniform
Building Code (DBC). The current governing code in the city of'."~-gno is the
1997 UBC. Significant cliffem~as between th~ 1976 UBC and t~ 1997 UBC
which effect the findin~ end conclu~ion~ offal, ~ ate:
1. The seimnic base shear force is inc~ased by 14% due to th; close
proximz~ of the site to the San Andre~ and ~ Vim I aniu.
2. An increue in the requital strong~ of wall enchomaes to
roof and floor dlnphra~ms and an added pmalty for anchm ~gas employing
slMlow expression anchors.
3. An mnplificadon of sn!_,~i_ 'o loads for certat t ~ritioal
elemmtm to provide a safo~y factor Malntt their f~ilure.
4. A reduction in the ~llowablc bead{~.a ~'ems ~f deep wood
1. Demign loads for ti~ mucun~ are no~ listed ~m the reviewed
decummts and no calculations were available. All detormination~ in this
section were besed on independent calculations umin~ curr~ building
2. P, oo~Joim and Beams: Tbe roof framing members appesr ~o be adequate
for code minimum roof live loads when competed to tl~
from tbe 1976 UBC, which w=e in ef~ct at thc time of tbe oHsinal
conmmtction. Using the 1997 UBC allowable mu'mesas, th~ ~xl0 roofJoim
~ appear to be overstremscd for code {rarity loads by 30~.
3. Th~ Upical Joist frt,,,{_,,{ at thc second floor appem's to be a.4equate for
code minimum live load~ for assembly e~eam with movable ~atin{ (100
'pet) when competed to the allowable sU~me~ ~,~, the 1976 UBC. Usin{
~ the 1997 UBC allowable stre~ the 2x14 joism appeor to me av~t,~od
_
Co solidatod CM/CSI
Nmber orpqo(s): ~
bM: 1/8/2002 PROJECT: Cupertino Sporu Center includin8 cover letmr
TO Comptn%
Donald Rush RIO International '~ FAX i OverniBht Mail Hand Delivery
Copy for Files, Specification Scot&OhS, Cross l~ferences:
Sl~;. 8o~tioJw: A.C. P filos:
Corn Pvt~Oos~ 88t~m # . Submittal ~ All~wm~o Au~hor~otJ0n
Cost RNuaet 9uflu~g d~ RFI # lflnl~atmfl Request
~ ~ O~lor f I:bld iflltructkm # Aooe~ R~oo~ ~
Cupertino Courier News Anicle, July 2001
Sports Center
Attached is & copy of'the n~ws article, dated July 18, 2o01, from the Cupertino Courier, whioh sires some
unoniightenad oomments on the Sports Center. The article describes the buildin6 as "code defloiont", built before
"seismic safety", and as a strueture that does not m~et "seismic".
Those f&lsc accusition$ are most likely opinions generated ~tom a high degree of'misundemanding; I will be
contacting the Cupertino Courier's K~vin Fftyle to find his source of information.
Your comments to the article are appreciated.
Thank ~u.
J~N--24--2Be2 12-'2~
CoverSMry ............
cupemm~ Sportl Ci~er
~ ~ ~me
. . , -~. .... ' She~
.
~mmunit~
An~al A~ aM WI~
F~lvel
~emo~l
Time Out?
Ho~,~lture
~e ~-0~ I~ flfl~r has been yield
~ ~ a ~n and 8 hindranm
By K~IN PA~E
~1 Wml ~m~M m
~e n~ h~ pmj~ ~ ~e ~ ~
~ U a milline amid ~e ~'s n~ a ~t
~at ~s ~ ~ mon~ ~ ~e n~ h~. L~m, ~..,~..
For ~, ~e ~e~ent ~ ~~
pfi~ ~~ ~t 1o~ ~ ~nt ~fio~
~H-24-2ae2 12=21 ~
coacemins ~-~Caleped access end seismic safer7
were bi place.
The city's $ovemmeat sees the matter differeatly. It
has long held the ~oal of creetin~ a Satherin~ plece
for the eommunity end believes the sports center acts
ss e 12y component in estsbl~sbln$ one ermmd
Memorial Perk To~her with the new senior center,
the park, and ~he ~dnl~_n Center, the sports facih'ty
congregate and recreate, accordia~ ~o cit~
This oomes at a cost, hm~-v~, The cit3, has already
settled one lawsuit over the buildins's lack of
eomp!~nce with regulations related to the Americans
WVd~ I)ieaM]ltlm A~t of ~99o,
A ~m'~le~ie Ca1~'d~o z~dent ~ecl t~e city ~ ~999
to ~ez~e aoemm'bility for the ~dleapped. A~ ~
that ellows · wheelchair to ~o from the mere lobby to
the t~n~s courts,
Thoush these ~mgrovements were mede to increase
accessibility ~or h~tn~e~pl~d members, the ~'ucture
still does not meet either seismic or accessibility, l~or
those reeso~._; the cit~ views the center es e major
thr~t of liti~6on,
" ~ bk
htto:/Iw~v.aetroaot Ive.~,t/i)apers/cupert Ino.cour lar/07., 18.01/oovar-0129... 1/5/~002
JRN--24-2882 12:$B ~
bo _-~'__~_-ibla. Structurul modifications fire n~quir~d only when ther~ is no ,.tt~.n~ive avmlhible
for providins proi3'mn .ccess. For example, in · town lib.u'~ ~ has ,n in.ccenib · -~-'~d
flooF0 no oJevamr is noodad if it provides "proL, rum acceuibili~" FOF persons usin$ whoelchiirs
b~ having mfl'rmrieve boob.
2. Fedml mx incentives .re nveihbla to bolp meet the cost ot'AD,~ complhn~e.
mM", f~e v~a~t 2400 q fo~t "A_~__~raal Spom"
"l:itckM4ar sro".
Th~k you for your ~view or'ill :hc above infom~ion ,~d aL~:hmen~s.
Sine,ely.
R~quetl~l/I-haclb~l A~ociition, Vic~ President
cc: Cupertino ¢i~ Counoii M~mbors
Ci~7 ~
City ^r~hlt~'t
Cit7 Attornoy
City Public Works l)ire~or
.q
Cupertino City Council Goals Session
January 18, 2002
Council Survey
Long Range 1. Get people walking and 1. Increase mount of affordable I. Ongoing Goal: Financial status 1. Bring reserve back to at least 1. Employment - Addressing
Goals gathering in Cupertino through housing particularly for and constant "temperature" of $20 million, changing needs and improving
some small town community teachers, officers, classified, budget in view of uncertain services
retail, trails, and community etc. economic time. Constantly 2. Reduce traffic congestion.
gathering places. These evaluate capital 2. Affordable Housing review
community-gathering places 2. Expand city/schools 3. Support development of and policy
should include nightlife and partnerships, restorative justice, 2. General Plan review & update Compaq property through
should oppcal to people of all NAB, facilities expansion, (this will inherently address partnership and mix use 3. Community building
ethnicifies and ages. housing housing, transportation, concept.
environment, retail, parks, etc.)
2. Be a youth-friendly 3. Transportation issues including 4. Redevelop Blackberry Farm.
community. MABB, shuttle service, tri- 3. Library / Civic Center project:
school area, calming Keep in on time / on budget & 5. Ensure capital projects such
3. Increase the acceptance and continue to refine & define as library expansion,
social integration Of and by our design Sports Center are
immigrants, comPleted on time and
4. Continue focus on teen/youth within budget.
4. Create a stronger retail business issues - i.e. Teen Commission,
base. Permanent Skate Park, Job 6. Preserve open space, hillside
Fair, Teen Website, potential and urbanization
5. Have a housing stock for Teen Center, etc.
people that work in Cupertino. 7. Promote walkable
5. As/If Town Center project community, more trails
forward, determine the Town and downtown concept
Center vision & bring
community along. 8. Provide more affordable
housing for seniors,
6. Continue emphasis on teachers and law
"walkable city" & trails enforcement officers.
systems.
9. Support mix use in
development and smart
growth concept.
Page 1 of $
Cupertino City Council Goals Session
January 18, 2002
Council Survey
7. Improve/Increase I0. Reduce "tall buildings" in
communication avenues with residential area and focus
community, redevelopment along
Stevens Creek / De Anza
corridors.
11. Create more open space and
parks in areas (Rancho R.)
where they are inadequate.
Short Term I. Keep a strong financial base. 1. Finance 1. Come to consensus on Sports 1. Resolve parking and traffic 1. Sports Center Pr6gram mix
Goals · Pass UUT extension Center use/project & budget, congestion in the Monta Vista
2. Create a vision for how to · Get city/property tax school areas by working 2. Senior Center Services
develop community-gathering issue corrected 2. Establish 24/7 Sheriff's Dept. closely with the school
places. · Capital projects budget presence at City Hall. district. 3. Teen Commission selection
firm process
3. Make progress on trails. 2. Environment 3. Mary Ave. redesign / budget / 2. Closely scrutinize city's
4. Help our youth feel valued · Weekly recycling implementation, policies to adhere strictly to
city codes/ordinances by
now. 3. Emergency Prep. - CERT, Em. 4. Continue to work on a granting less exceptions,
prep, NAB in neighborhood pe~a~anent location for reduce construction of
5. Re-create a strong relationship Skatepark (Compaq still best "Monster homes" in small
with the school districts. 4. Tech/Community Dev. - location), lots, protect privacy of
neighborhood e-mail program neighbors.
6. Create effective housing 5. Continue to build stronger
assistance programs, relationships with educational 3. Expedite
institutions. (Good work on revitalization/redevelopment
tennis courts.) of Vallco Fashion Park.
Page 2 of 5
Cupertino City Council Goals Session
January 18, 2002
Council Survey
6. Complete & open "Heart of 4. Improve cultural diversity and
the City" affordable housing understanding.
project.
5. Reduce truck traffic in the
foothills, working closely
with the county and
BAAQMD to reduce noise,
dust and traffic pollution from
quarries.
6. Promote harmony among city
council members and support
council actions; improve
communication among .~..~.
council members by working
together, respect each other's
views and opinions.
7. Set pr/ofity for capital
projects based on community
needs and available funding
(do not spend more than what
we can afford.)
8. Promote intercultural
understanding including
Lunar New Year celebration
as one of the city sponsored
cultural events.
Page 3 of 5
Cupertino City Council Goals Session
January 18, 2002
Council Survey
9. Provide adequate funding for
street maintenance and flood
control.
10. Consider formation of senior
commission.
1 i. Consider all options in Sports
Center project, seek input
from residents even though
we may have to deter
decision, consider Return In
Investment, innovative
i~mance and partnership with
developers.
Operational 1. Fiscally sound management- 1. Benchmark Cupertino 1. Complete design / 1. Move toward automation in
Goals meet the budget expenditures vs. surrounding implementation of 4 Seasons city services.
communities by function, Park so it will coincide with
2. Build the library on time and category, opening of hotel. 2. Streamline city process using
on budget, one stop approach e.g. permit,
2. Review/implement audit 2. Opening / management of online application.
3. Make progress on trails: recommendations, mobile skate park.
Develop the Saratoga/San 3. Improve city operations
Tomas trail. Find the funding 3. Enhance customer service. 3. Tax extension (Measure M) for through automation and staff
for the Mary Ave. POC. Finish Library and additional funding, efficiency
the Stevens Creek Trail 4. Assess commercial/retail
feasibility plan. business needs of residents.
Page 4 of 5
Cupertino City Council Goals Session
January 18, 2002
Council Survey
4. Develop effective housing 4. Continue to work on 4. Promote city staff upward
assistance prom ams. Redevelopment Agency / promotion or promotion from
Valico issues, within by providing more
5. Evaluate everything we do for training in preparation for
how it contributes to building 5. "Action Items" which will advancement.
community, implement above goals.
5. Set performance goals for city
6. Continue to refine, expand and manager and department heads
upgrade communications tools e.g. management staff
/ resources to better reflective of community it
communicate with community, serves.
6. Streamline BMR process and
criteria for equity and fairness.
7. Promote citizen volunteer
work/citizen participation
through recognitions.
8. Increase traffic calming and
public safety awareness and
emergency preparedness.
Page 5 of 5
City Council Goals 2001 - 2002
I Project Goal I Status I Comments
1. Library Council approved Conceptual Council review of completed schematics for
~' Conceptual Design Approval to Council (10/01) Design 9/19/01 and preliminary Library and Civic Center project expected in
~ Financing mechanism in place (6/02) schematic design 10/12/01. March 2002.
Financing concept approved by Election to extend utility users tax 15 years
Council 8/01/01; debt refinancing 3/5/02.
scheduled for 9/02.
$5 million from sale of surplus property needed
over next 2 years.
~ Automated Checkout - Install and Market (12/01) Three automated checkout machines
were installed on 1/08/02.
We are working with library staff on
marketing plan.
2. Trails Plan The SCT feasibility study is approx. The review of the draft feasibility study with the
~ Stevens Creek Trail 3 months behind schedule due to the Parks and Recreation Commission is scheduled
· Feasibility study (1/02) addition of numerous neighborhood for 2/7/02
· CEQA (1/02) review/input meetings. March is the
· Funding Plan (1/02) expected completion date for the Construction is currently unfunded.
study and CEQA review.
~ Implement San Tomas/Saratoga Creek Plan Streets completed 9/01 Note: San Tomas Aquino Saratoga Creek trail
· Street segment, signs and striping (9/01) Bridge and Trail Design 1/02 property agreements have been developed with
· Bridge and creek segment, through Barrington Bid and award in 4/02 San Jose Water and SC County, and will be
neighborhood (1/02) Construction begins 6/02 approved prior to construction in 6/02.
Proposed design will increase cost estimate by
~ Support county-wide adoption of DeAnza Trail Final feasibility study accepted by $250,000 but is a much better project with
· Feasibility study for Union Pacific Trail Council 10/15/01. Council referred additional landscaping and a better trail
study to BPAC for resolution of alignment. However this improvement is not
(11/01)
follow-up issues. BPAC review 1/17 funded.
with final council review in
February.
Page 1 of 7 Council Goals- update Jan. 2002
City Council Goals 2001 - 2002
[ Project Goal Status [ Comments
3. Youth Issues Compaq included skate park as part Other youth issues addressed:
~' Skateboard Park of development application which is Cornerstone Youth Conference & upcoming
· Finalize Compaq agreement, if applicable on hold pending merger with H.P. Youth Justice Summit
· Design facility Staff is getting proposals from
· Complete construction documents vendors for mobile skate park Mobile skate park will begin operating in March.
· Award construction contract equipment.
· Complete construction Marc Auerbach volunteered to work with teens
· to develop a website. Teen website to be
~' Teen Center launched 2/02.
· Investigate formation of a youth council Teen Commissioners appointed on
(10/01) 10/15/01.
4. Pursue "Downtown" Development Opportunities
~' VALLCO Fashion Park ("Plaza Cupertino") Teachers and Jacobs are not in City Attorney, Planning staff and RDA attorney
Redevelopment accord with development plans for Nicole Murphy have reached preliminary teii~s
· Negotiate the financial agreement with the Vallco. to settle the BALA lawsuit. The Settlement
property owners Agreement to go to Council on 1/22/02.
· Process the development application(s) when
filed The Jacobs Group is exploring possibility of
another developer's taking over the
redevelopment of the center.
Staffinfotuaed Compaq we would not support up
~ Compaq Office Campus and Residential Applicant met with Council on to 750,000 square feet ofoffico on the Compaq
· Applicant to submit request for General Plan 6/11/01 to receive input on latest property. Applicant asked to proceed with the
Amendment plan. GPA anyway. Staffis waiting for applicant to
· Process the development application and EIR schedule the request.
if authorized by Council Discussed with Compaq - 8/01
· Pursue sales office as part of the agreement
Page 2 of 7 Council Goals- update Jan. 2002
City Council Goals 2001 - 2002
I Project Goal I Status ] Comments
Villa Serra Residential Housing Element amendment Prometheus is preparing conceptual drawings for
* Applicant to submit request for General Plan proposes 50 units per acre on the high density residential on the Villa Serra site.
Amendment ' Villa Serra site.
· Process application if authorized by Council
City Center Apax/ments and Hotel Foundation p~.~ifit issued and Appeal of design details was upheld by Council
· Plan check construction drawings construction is underway. 11/19/01 with conditions approving a revised set
of plans. Applicants have submitted building
· Monitor construction for compliance with Staff is monitoring construction, plans consistent with the revised plan set.
approvals
5. Street Safety - Walkable Community
~' Ensure that "walkable city" concept is present in All development projects are Orion Lane and Rodrigues Avenue included
all City development/redevelopment projects reviewed to enhance walkability. Regnart Creek trail sesaients. Imperial Avenue
included Bubb to Imperial trail. City Center and
P.J. Mulligan's included public access through
the development.
6. Diversity
)~ Continue to offer opportunities and programs to The Cinema at Sundown Numerous new programs have been offered in
address the needs of our diverse community international fihn and music series the past six months from international lunches at
was offered in September. This will the Senior Center to the Asian vegetable project
be an ongoing program, at McClellan Ranch. Senior Center membership
~' Establish a multi-cultural festival (9/01) grew from 1500 to 2200 following the opening;
City support for 5Cs pwgram$ and there was considerable outreach producing a
ethnic festivals is ongoing, diversity of the new members.
~' Use existing staff for translation needs
Established a children's story exchange program Completed children's story City staffare providing translation and
with our friendship city exchange program - Summer 2001 interpretation services for publications md
resident service requests.
Page 3 of 7 Council Goals -update Jan. 2002
City Council Goals 2001 - 2002
I Project Goal I Status I Comments I
7. Economic Development
~ Encourage healthy environment for retail growth Ongoing Retail/restaurants approved at City Center,
Marketplace, The Oaks, and Vallco (Todai)
~' Add revenue enhancement incentive policy Major projects include an economic The General Plan update will consider policies
assessment of potential revenue encouraging active commercial uses such as
component of review for new development generation possibilities (e.g. bookstores, coffee shops and restaurants.
Compaq sales tax office)
1~ Evaluate transit/transportation implications of General Plan circulation element
economic development strategy will evaluate transportation
implications of new development.
8. General Plan
)~ The draft element was sent to The Housing Element is completed.
1~ Housing Element Administrative Draft (8/01) State HCD in 7/01 and approved
~ Housing Element Planning Commission and City 10/01.
Council hearings (9/01-11/01) 1~ Council adopted the new housing Staffheld GP orientation meetings with PC,
)~ General Plan Administrative DraR (2/02) element on 10/15/01. P&IL BPAC, Housing Committee, the business
1~ Planning Commission hearings (4/02)
}~ City Council heatings (5/02) ~ General Plan amendment is in community and held a general community
}~ Adopt plan (6/02) preparation, meeting.
Staff is currently reviewing major GP concepts
with the PC and preparing drafts of the GP
elements.
9. Public Safety Monta Vista Safe Routes Project Safe Routes To School Program completed
1~ Review traffic safety issues completed 11/01 12/02. Resubmitting application for Cupertino
· Safe mutes to school program (Ivlonta Vista Pedestrian Trans Plan to BPAC High area 3/02.
9/01) and (Cupertino High Schools TBD) 11/01, to Council 12/01
· Review traffic safety for pedestrians Final Pedestrian Transportation Plan
to BPAC and Council 3/02.
· Identify sign obstruction from trees/shrubs
Page 4 of 7 Council Goals - updnte Jan. 2002
City Council Goals 2001 - 2002
Project Goal [ Status I Comments
In 2001, we started seven more programs than
Continue emphasis on Neighborhood Watch and In 2001, set up ten new
Disaster Preparedness Neighborhood Watch Programs end any other city in the County (except San Jose).
supported two existing, active
programs.
To date, 25 CERT programs have
· Continue expanding of the CERT program been presented. The last two classes
had 45 participants.
The CERT program has been
expanded from 2 to 5 CERT classes
per year and 3 Kaleidoscope classes
for kids. Additional programs
include 3 school outreach career
days, monthly meetings with School
· Evaluate methods for communicating Reps/PTA & parent volunteers for
(electwnically and in writing) to non-English emergency preparedness; rourine
speaking population regarding crime EOC drills, and expansion on
prevention community events including the
Health & Safety fair.
· Expand volunteer pwgram Ongoing expansion of volunteer
programs with Leadership
Cupertino, TLT, CERT and
Neighborhood Watch.
Sheriff's volunteer program in
Cupertino has begun.
Five volunteers work on the
Neighborhood Watch program
exclusively. E-mail system to
Neighborhood Watch participants
was activated.
Page 5 of 7 Council Goals - update Jan. 2002
City Council Goals 2001 - 2002
] Project Goal ] Stares I Comments
10. ,4ffordable Housing The Housing Element increased the Thc BMR increase is under review by the
} Provide housing opportunities for Cupertino BMR requirement from 10% to Housing Committee to target affordable housing
workers 15%, and identified sites for an opportunities for public service workers, such as
additional'2,300 housing units, teachers and firefighters.
1~. Teacher housing assistance programs
· Work with school district to develop teacher City/District ad hoc committee On Nov. 5, 2001, Chris Block of the Santa Clara
housing assistance program (11/01) reviewing public sector housing County Housing Trust addressed the ad hoc
programs, school district/city staff committee regarding
applicability of their First-Time Homebuyers
CCS project and groundbreaking Pro,ams to Cupertino teachers and other public
)~ CCS Affordable Housing Project was held on 10/25/01. Tax exempt service workers.
· Review building plans for 24 units (7/01) bonds have been issued and
· Evaluate funding options construction is underway.
· Issue Tax-exempt bond financing
11. ,4nnexation
1~ Garden Gate Garden Gate residents voted on Approximately 70 people attended a "Welcome
11/6/01 to join the City of to Cupertino" reception held on Saturday
· Hold annexation hearing (7/01) Cupertino. January 12, 2002, at the Quinlan Community
· Hold election if25% protests are filed Center.
· Complete annexation (10/01)
)~ Monta Vista Monta Vista annexation pweess will
· Annex pockets using island annexation be evaluated in Winter/Spring 2002.
procedures (6/02)
)~ Creston
· ~,nnex individual contiguous parcels when Lot by lot Creston annexations are
redevelopment occurs un-going when major redevelopment
of a homo is proposed.
Page 6 of 7 Council Goals - update Jan. 2002
City Council Goals 2001 - 2002
Project Goal I Status ] Comments
12. Sports Center Building Strategy On schedule. Program delivered to the Council 12/01. Council
~' Consultant agreement to Council (12/01). requested a workshop to bring new members up
1' Conceptual design approval to Council (4/02) to speed. Workshop scheduled for 1/25/02.
13. Four Seasons Corner and Intersection "Gateway"
>' Feb/March 2002: Complete design concept. On schedule. Staffmet with Landscape Architect Paul Lettieri
~' March/April 2002: Rcwiew of preliminary plans on January 26, 2002, to review des!gn concepts.
by Fine Arts Commission, Parks & Recreation Staff to meet with Verona Apartments and"'
Commission and approval by City Council. Cypress Hotel construction managers in January
1~ April: Prepare construction drawings and bid 2002 to coordinate schedule.
1~ April/May 2002: City Council award bid for Staffwill meet with Landscape Architect Paul
construction. Lettieri on Sanuary 30, 2002, to review
1~ May/$une 2002: Remove conslruction equipment.
1~ June 2002: Begin construction, preliminary de, sign.
1~ September 2002: Complete substantial
construction coordinated with Cypress Hotel
opening.
1~ 2003: Complete final construction coordinated
with Verona Apartments completion.
Page 7 of 7 Council Goals - upda~ Jan. 2002
Major Capital Improvement Projects 2001 - 2002
I Project Goal Status I Comments
1. Portal Park Renovation Public input last spring; construction
documents ready for bidding.
Funding for the Portal project is
from the 2000 park bond. Holding
the bidding of the Portal
improvements to bid it with the
Wilson project.
2. YVilson Park Renovation
At the time the CIP was adopted in
July, there was no funding for the
Wilson Park renovation. Since then,
staff obtained grant money and the
P&R Commission has begun
working with the neighborhood to
determine what should be done. To
save money, staff will bid both
Wilson and Portal renovations at the
same time to attract more bidders
and to save mobilization and
administrative costs on the project. It
is expected that both projects will
bid mid winter.
Page 1 of 8 Major Capital Improvement Projects - update Jan. 2002
Major Capital Improvement Projects' 2001 - 2002
3. Blackberry Farm Master Plan Project Received proposals for the project Staffwill prepare the master plan in-house with
and selected the most qualified firm. assistance from consultants. The first Parks and
The finn submitted a scope of work Recreation Commission workshop is scheduled
and fee proposal of $335,000. for 2/21/02.
Negotiations brought the amount to
$200,000 but that was still twice the No funds are available for implementation.
budgeted amount. We could not
bring the cost into line with thc
budget.
4. Mary Avenue Crosswalk ~Parking at Senior Project under design to enhance the Workshop on project scope and design criteria
Center pedestrian environment with new held with City Council on 12/17/01.
pedestrian crossing at entrance to
Senior Center, landscaped medians, Funding not available for additional scope of
and revised traffic striping, improvements.
Pedestrian crossing to be raised with
special paving treatment and pave-
meat warning lights. Additional
diagonal parking on east side of
Mary Avenue adjacent to Glenbrook
Apts. and portion of parking
restricted to 3 hours during the day
to increase parking opportunities for
visitors to the Senior Center and
Memorial Park. Design Completion
4/02, Bid and Award 6/02, Project
Complete 9/02
Page 2 of 8 Major Capital Improvement Projects - update )an. 2002
Major Capital Improvement Projects 2001 - 2002
] Project Goal I Status I Comments I
5. Mary ~4venue Bicycle Pedestrian Footbridge Feasibility Study completed and Current estimate is $6M which represents a
accepted by BPAC 10/18/01. $3.5M shortfall. Staff will be finding ways to get
Council review and acceptance additional money from VTA, County,
12/15/01 Sunnyvale, etc. There is no funding identified for
the approximate $600,000 local match.
Next Steps: Staff to prepare
schedule and funding Neighborhood opposition has diminished but
recommendations and report back to still exists in some measure.
Council in early 2002.
6. Bollinger Road Widening- Calabasas Creek $oint Project with Santa Clara Because of delay, and to accommodate
Flood Control
Valley Water District (SCVWD) prope~ies in the interim on north side of
Bollinger, a minor floodwall has been designe~l
Total construction project is and built ahead of rainy season (replacing the
approximately $1,200,000 (City need for sandbags).
share is $243K)
Cupertino is lead for the design.
SCVWD is lead for construction
because most of the work is in the
channel, not the street.
Environmental review due 8/02
7. Stevens Canyon Roadlmprovements Bid opening on 10/30/01 There are still some minor fights of entry on
County property yet to be resolved.
Bid awarded by Council 11/19/01.
Page 3 of 8 Major Capital Improvement Projects - update Jan. 2002
Major Capital Improvement Projects 2001 - 2002
I Project Goal I Status I Comments
8. Major Street Maintenance and Pavement Program This year the pavement improvement program was the most aggressive in the past ten
years. By combining some slurry seal funds that did not get accomplished in the
previous year and getting the VTA to combine two years allocation of pavement funds
along with some additional funds from VTA carryover monies, we accumulated
$1,700,000 for maintenance management (compared to approximately $800,000 last
year and less in previous years).
FY- 1999-2000
Last year the paving included the overlay of Foothill Boulevard from Stevens Creek to
1-280 which was in bad shape primarily because of the quarry tracks. The FY 2000
program was approximately 25 lanes miles of slurry seal and four lane miles of
pavement reconstruction.
FY2000-2001
This year was a very aggressive street maintenance program pursued by the department
which included 35 lane miles of slurry seal and the complete repaving of 22 lane miles
of city streets. The De Anza and Prospect segments were accomplished by aggressively
urging San Jose and Saratoga to enter into coop agreements with the city for their
portion of the street which we accomplished with our contract (San Jose and Saratoga's
work is an additional $305,000 in their cities done by our contractor). In effect we
accomplished almost $2,000,000 in street improvements, $1,700,000 in Cupertino and
$300,000 in the other cities on our border.
The effect of this effort was to completely eliminate the annual backlog of street
maintenance needs identified by our pavement management program for this fiscal year.
Page 4 of 8 Major Capital Improvement Projects - update Jan. 2002
Major Capital Improvement'Projects 2001 - 2002
I Project Goal I Status I Comments I
9. Sidewalk, Curb and Gutter Repair Program This is a very popular program with Every year we engage the services of a concrete
residents. Many cities require contractor (we are in the third year of a three-
residents to repair their own year contract with Talley Constmction) to do
damaged concrete or share some concrete sidewalk, curb and guRer and driveway
portion. (City pays 50%, property approach repair this activity in the past has be~a
owner pays 50%) while Cupertino at approximately $500,000 of contract work.
pays 100% of the repair costs which, Repairs include sidewalk grinding or
with major damage can be up to replacement for tree root damage and curb
$2,000 per property, repair.
Because of the Rancho annexation
and other areas of need, we have
aggressively pursued a higher level
of activity which was funded by ~:
Council at my request in the 2001-
2002 operating budget for Streets
Division. We have increased the
activity from $545,000 to $745,000.
Additionally we successfully
negotiated the third year contract
amendment with Tally with very
little increase in unit prices which
effectively increases our effort now
underway by almost 40%. The
average repair costs vary from $500
to $2,000 per residential property
with a median cost of about $650.
This increases our service to over
300 additional residences this year.
Page $ of 8 Major Capital Improvement Projects- update Jan. 2002
Major Capital Improvement Projects 2001 - 2002
I Project Goal I Status I Comments
10. Tra~c Calming Traffic calming is the evaluation of street and traffic conditions (mainly residential)
where improvements can be added to at, ets to reduce the speed and volume of traffic in
residential areas. These improvements include everything from speed bumps (small) to
speed humps (larger) as well as other traffic slowing or diversionary devices. The
diversionary devices (diverters) vary from simple traffic "chokers" on either side of a
street narrowing the street width to discourage speeding, to actual closures (such as the
gates at Pscifica and Torte).
Speed bumps are the most common and may be initiated by a two-thirds signature
petition from the residents (or tenants) on a street segment. There are 21 street segments
in Cupertino with speed bumps with another six petitions for bumps reCeived since July.
There are, additionally another 25 locations that have some fo, m of traffic restrictions
imposed upon them (such as the round_about on Portal. About half of those were
neighborhood requests by petition. The balance were conditions of development or
master plan requirements imposed by the staff in conditions of development or master
plan requirements imposed by the staff in accordance with Council goals to improve
neighborhood traffic safety and walk ability.
Page 6 of 8 Major Capital Improvement Projects - update lan. 2002
Major Capital Improvement Projects 2001 - 2002
I Project Goal I Status I Comments
11. Surplus Property Sales/Inventory of Surplus Oak Valley Properties
Properties At this time, the following tasks have been completed to prepare for the sale of the Oak
Valley properties:
· Ordered and received preliminary title reports from Fidelity National Title
Company
· Ordered and received appraisal reports
· Set a suggested minimum bid price
· Completed notice (first right of refusal to make offer) to public entities;
60-day period ended Sept. 21, 2001 with no interest from the public
entities to purchase properties.
The auction process will begin in January with the auction taking place at the second
Council meeting in March (Monday, March 18, 2002). The current appraised value of
the three properties is approximately $4 million to $5 million. We will set a minimum
bid somewhere in that range. It takes approximately 60 days to accomplish the followring
city-related tasks, depending on how council meetings fall within the process. ~..
Stocklmeir and Simms
Appraisal Research Corporation is currently preparing appraisal reports and we should
be ready by the first of 2002.
12. Capital Improvement Program Monitoring System The CIP database (Monitoring) As a management tool, it provides a centralized
program was initiated after Council data repository for project information, allowing
adopted the current complete form a project manager to monitor schedules, project
of the CIP in June. The project progress and keep track of budgets. It also allows
consultant and staff began work at for"read-only" access by others (initially within
the end of August and it is expected the City network but ultimately as link to the city
that the prototype monitoring system website) to monitor and acquire info.~lation on
will be in the database and on the the status of any CIP project.
local area network in January 2002.
Page 7 of 8 Major Capital Improvement Projects - update Jan. 2002
Major Capital Improvement Projects 2001 - 2002
121. ¢ityHallLobby/¢onferenceRoon~Remodeling We have ~u¢¢¢s~fully bid the job in Work will begin ~ Conf~nee Room A ~d ~en
~ mn~ac~ (mnf. Room A, pme~ to ~e ~bby md Conf~nee R~m C.
} ~, pmj~t will ~ish ~ce Room A ~bby md Co~mee R~m C). Ei~ A or C ~11 article wh~
~d ~ish Conf~n~ R~m C~ ~to one ~e bids for core.etlon ~d &e closed for ~cfion. A~ess ~u~ ~d
co~ce ~m ~ ~d ~ish ~e Ci~ H~I bids for p~e of ~s~gs, ~e lobby ~I1 be m~nt~n~ ~ ~1 ~es d~ng
lobby, fixes ~d ~uipm~t ~e ~1 ~n wor~ng horn. ~e new ~fion ~tion ~11 be
&e $3~,~ budget. (We ~mplete before ~e old one is d~oli~.
el~ Co~. R~m B ~ we will be only ~o Co~cil me~ngs ~t o~
~uld s~y wi~ &e $3~,000. d~ng ~e cons~ction ~od ~ ~ to m~mize
· e imp~t on &e public ~d ~sitors.
Scheme:
Co~. ~. C: Feb-M~ 2002
Co~. ~. A: J~-Feb 2002
~bby: Feb M~ 2002
Page 8 of 8 Major Capital Improvement Projects - update Jan. 2002
PETITION
(January 2002)
To the Honorable Mayor and Council Members for the City of Cupertino, California. We the undersignecl.~'esidents of Cupertino,
respectfully request, in the event our Sports Center is either upgraded or rebuilt, that the 2 Racquetball/Handball courts be
retained. This petition is being presented to you, not only in an effort to save these facilities for the currant membership, but as
an investment in the future quality of life for our children.
NAME (Please Print) CUPERTINO ADDRESS SIGNATURE
~-~.- ~' ~~ ~'~ ...... :.~ x-
PETITION
(January 2002)
To the Honorable Mayor and Council Members for the City of Cupertino, California. We the undersigned residents of Cupertino,
respectfully request, in the event our Sports Center Is either upgraded or rebuilt, that the 2 Racquetball/Handball courts be
retained. This petition is being presented to you, not only in an effort to save these facilities for the current membership, but as
an investment in the future quality of life for our children.
NAME (Please PHnt) CUPERTINO ADDRESS SIGNATURE
PETITION
~ .... (January 2002)
To the Honorable Mayor and Council Members for the City of Cupertino, California. We the undersigned residents of CuperUno,
respectfully request, In the event our Sports Center Is either upgraded or rebuilt, that the 2 Racquetball/Handball courts be
retained. This petition is being presented to you, not only in an effort to save these facilities for the current membership, but as
an ~nvestment in the future quality of life for our children. -
NAME (Please Print) CUPERTINO ADDRESS SIGNATURE
PETITION
(January 2002)
To the Honorable Mayor and Council Members for the City of Cupertino, California. We the undersigned residents of Cupertino,
respectfully request, in the event our Sports Center is either upgraded or rebuilt, that the 2 Racquetball/Handball courts be
retained. This petition is being presented to you, not only in an effort to save these facilities for the current membership, but as
an Investment In the future quality of life for our children.
NAME (Please Print) CUPERTINO ADDRESS SIGNATURE
· PETITION
(danuary 2002)
To the Honorable Mayor and Council Members for the City of Cupertino, California. Wa the undersigned residents of Cupertino,
respectfully request, in the event our Sports Center is either upgraded or rebuilt, that the 2 RacquetballlHandball courts be
retained. This petition is being presented to you, not only In an effort to save these facilities for the current membership, but as
an investment in the future quality of life for our children.
NAME (Please Print) CUPERTINO ADDRESS SIGNATURE
/~ L.~ ?r~? 0~~ ~ go,,,,~ ~.
j'
PETITION
(January 2002)
To the Honorable Mayor and Council Members for the City of Cupertino, California. We the undersigned.~esidents of Cupertino,
respectfully request, in the event our Sports Center is either upgraded or rebuilt, that the 2 Racquetball/Handball courts be
retained. This petition is being presented to you, not only in an effort to save these facilities for the current membership, but as
an investment in the future quality of life for our children.
NAME (Please Print) CUPERTINO ADDRESS SIGNATURE -
PETITION
.._ , (January 2002)
To the Honorable Mayor and Council Members for the CRy of Cupertino, California. We the undersigned residents of
Cupertino, respectfully request, in the event our Sports Center is either upgraded or rebuilt, that the 2 Racquetl~all/Handbell
courts be retained. This petition is being presented to you, not only in an effort to save these facilities for the current
membership, but as an Investment in the future quality of life for our childran.
NAME (Please Print) CUPERTINO ADDRESS SIGNATURE