HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-05-19 City Council Agenda PacketCITY OF PALO ALTO
CITY COUNCIL Special Meeting
Council Chambers
May 19, 2014
6:00 PM
Agenda posted according to PAMC Section 2.04.070. Supporting materials are available in the
Council Chambers on the Thursday preceding the meeting.
1 May 19, 2014
MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA
PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE.
DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Members of the public may speak to agendized items; up to three minutes per speaker, to be determined by the
presiding officer. If you wish to address the Council on any issue that is on this agenda, please complete a speaker
request card located on the table at the entrance to the Council Chambers, and deliver it to the City Clerk prior to discussion of the item. You are not required to give your name on the speaker card in order to speak to the Council, but it is very helpful.
TIME ESTIMATES
Time estimates are provided as part of the Council's effort to manage its time at Council meetings. Listed times are estimates only and are subject to change at any time, including while the meeting is in progress. The Council reserves the right to use more or less time on any item, to change the order of items and/or to continue items to
another meeting. Particular items may be heard before or after the time estimated on the agenda. This may occur
in order to best manage the time at a meeting or to adapt to the participation of the public. To ensure participation in a particular item, we suggest arriving at the beginning of the meeting and remaining until the item
is called.
HEARINGS REQUIRED BY LAW
Applications and/or appellants may have up to ten minutes at the outset of the public discussion to make their
remarks and up to three minutes for concluding remarks after other members of the public have spoken.
Closed Session 6:00-7:00 PM
Public Comments: Members of the public may speak to the Closed Session item(s); three minutes per speaker.
1. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
City Designated Representatives: City Manager and his designees
pursuant to Merit System Rules and Regulations(James Keene, Lalo
Perez, Joe Saccio, Kathryn Shen, Dania Torres Wong, Eric Nickel,
Catherine Capriles, Geo Blackshire, Melissa Tronquet, Mark Gregerson,
Nancy Nagel, Molly Stump, Walter Rossman)
Employee Organization: International Association of Fire Fighters
(IAFF), Local 1319
Authority: Government Code Section 54957.6(a)
2. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
City Designated Representatives: City Manager and his designees
pursuant to Merit System Rules and Regulations (James Keene, Lalo
Perez, Melissa Tronquet, Joe Saccio, Molly Stump, Walter Rossman,
Nancy Nagel, Dennis Burns, Mark Gregerson, Kathryn Shen, Dania
Torres Wong)
Employee Organization: Palo Alto Police Officers Association (PAPOA)
Authority: Government Code Section 54957.6(a)
Call to Order
REVISED
2 May 19, 2014
MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA
PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE.
DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS.
Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions
HEARINGS REQUIRED BY LAW: Applications and/or appellants may have up to ten minutes at the outset of the
public discussion to make their remarks and put up to three minutes for concluding remarks after other members of
the public have spoken.
OTHER AGENDA ITEMS: Public comments or testimony on agenda items other than Oral Communications shall be
limited to a maximum of three minutes per speaker.
City Manager Comments 7:00-7:10 PM
Oral Communications 7:10-7:25 PM
Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. Council reserves the right to limit the duration of
Oral Communications period to 30 minutes.
Consent Calendar 7:25-7:30 PM
Items will be voted on in one motion unless removed from the calendar by three Council Members.
3. Approval and Authorization for the City Manager to Execute an Electric
Enterprise Fund Construction Contract with Cal Electro Inc. In a Total
Not to Exceed Amount of $650,100 to Rebuild the Underground
Electric Distribution System in Areas Along Middlefield Road, San
Antonio Road and Fabian Way
4. Policy & Services Committee Recommendation to Adopt an Ordinance
Amending the Municipal Code to Change the Regular Meeting Start
Time from 7:00pm to 6:00pm; Amend the Council’s Procedures to
Reflect the 6:00pm Meeting Start Time
5a. Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Accept on
Behalf of the City of Palo Alto, a Grant of $150,000 Made by the
County of Santa Clara for the Purpose of Funding the Construction of
the Magical Bridge Playground at Mitchell Park and Adoption of the
Related Budget Amendment Ordinance
5b. The Magical Bridge Playground Design/Construction Agreement -
Between the City of Palo Alto and the Friends of the Magical Bridge;
and Adoption of a Budget Amendment Ordinance for Fiscal Year 2014
to Provide an Additional Appropriation in the Amount of $1,874,182
for the Magical Bridge Playground Capital Project (PG-12006) and
$30,000 for the Art in Public Places Capital Project (AC-86017)
6. Adoption of a Budget Amendment Ordinance in the Amount of $80,000
for the Furniture and Technology for Library Projects Capital
Improvement Project LB-11000 for a New Monument Sign, Supported
by Transfers from the Library Development Impact Fee Fund
3 May 19, 2014
MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA
PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE.
DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS.
($40,000) and Community Center Development Impact Fee Fund
($40,000)
7. SECOND READING: Adoption of an Ordinance Mandating Reporting of
Rabies Vaccinations (First Reading: May 5, 2014 PASSED: 9-0)
Action Items
Include: Reports of Committees/Commissions, Ordinances and Resolutions, Public Hearings, Reports of Officials,
Unfinished Business and Council Matters. 7:30-7:45 PM
8. Consideration of Finance Committee Referral to the Human Relations
Commission Regarding Additional Funding for Human Resource
Allocation Process Agencies (This item was continued from May 12,
2014)
7:45-8:30 PM
9. Adoption of a Resolution Calling a Special Election to Modernize the
Telecommunications Provision of the Utility Users Tax Ordinance
8:30-9:30 PM
10. Proposed Changes in Development Impact Fees: Implementation of
New Public Safety Facility and General Government Facilities Fees
Inter-Governmental Legislative Affairs 9:30-10:15 PM
11.Discussion and Recommendation on the Proposed Santa Clara County
Transportation Project Sales Tax Increase
Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements 10:15-10:30 PM
Members of the public may not speak to the item(s)
Closed Session 10:30-11:00 PM
12. CONFERENCE WITH CITY ATTORNEY-Existing Litigation
Subject: Donald Sipple, et al. v. City of Alameda, et al., Los Angeles
County Superior Court, Case Number: BC462270
Subject Authority: Government Code section 54956.9(a)
Adjournment
AMERICANS WITH DISABILITY ACT (ADA) Persons with disabilities who require auxiliary aids or services in using City facilities, services or programs or who
would like information on the City’s compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, may
contact (650) 329-2550 (Voice) 24 hours in advance.
4 May 19, 2014
MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA
PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE.
DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS.
Additional Information
Standing Committee Meetings
Infrastructure Committee Meeting, May 20, 2014
Policy and Services Committee Meeting, May 20, 2014
Finance Committee Meeting-REVISED, May 20, 2014
Schedule of Meetings
Schedule of Meetings
Tentative Agenda
Tentative Agenda
Informational Report
General Municipal Election on November 4, 2014 Informational Report
Regarding Fees and Length of Candidate Statements
2014 GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION, Tuesday, November 4, 2014
Preliminary Information
Proclamation Recognizing National Public Works Week May 18-24, 2014
Public Letters to Council
SET 1
SET 2
City of Palo Alto (ID # 4675)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 5/19/2014
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Electric Underground Rebuild and Re-conductor Project,
Phase II
Title: Approval and Authorization for the City Manager to Execute an Electric
Enterprise Fund Construction Contract with Cal Electro Inc. In a Total Not to
Exceed Amount of $650,100 to Rebuild the Underground Electric Distribution
System in Areas Along Middlefield Road, San Antonio Road and Fabian Way
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Utilities
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council:
1. Approve and authorize the City Manager to execute the attached construction contract
(see attachment A – Contract) with Cal Electro Inc. in the amount of $591,000 for the
Electric Underground Rebuild and Re-conductor Project, Phase II along and near
Middlefield Road and the Greenhouse Condominiums near Fabian Way (see attachment
C – Project Locations).
2. Authorize the City Manager or his designee to negotiate and execute one or more
change orders to the contract with Cal Electro Inc. for related, additional but
unforeseen, work which may develop during the project; the total of which shall not
exceed $59,100 (10% of the contract price).
Staff is therefore requesting a total authorized amount of $650,100 to cover the contract
amount of $591,000 plus a 10% contingency amount of $59,100.
Background
As part of its Capital Improvement Program the City of Palo Alto Utilities Department (“CPAU”)
develops projects to rebuild the electric distribution system, replacing electrical equipment that
is nearing the end of its useful life, or that has been identified, during regular inspection, as
requiring replacement. This is to prevent outages as a result of equipment failure due to age or
deterioration, ensuring safe and reliable performance of the electric system. As part of this
regular system evaluation staff identified six (6) areas for an electric system rebuild (see
Attachment C). Much of the equipment in these six identified areas was installed in the early to
City of Palo Alto Page 2
mid-1970s.
During the 2012/2013 fiscal year staff completed the engineering and construction of the
Electric Underground Rebuild and Re-conductor Project, Phase I which included portions of
area A1 (EL-09000) and all of area A9 (EL-11001).These two jobs were bundled together into
one package and put out for bid to ensure that the City receives competitive pricing and quality
service.
Discussion
This project, Phase II, involves the removal and replacement of underground electrical cable
and equipment along Middlefield Road between San Antonio Road and Oregon Expressway
(areas A7 (EL-12000) & C2 (EL-08000), and the Greenhouse Condominium complex (area A8 (EL-
11007.) The cable in these areas has been in service between 30 and 40 years, and needs to be
replaced to maintain safe and reliable service to customers. New cable will be installed and the
electric system re-designed to meet current City and industry standards.
This project includes converting primary circuits from 4,160 volts (4kV) to 12,470 volts (12kV).
Increasing the primary voltage reduces electrical system losses, standardizes requirements for
material in inventory, increases operating flexibility, and improves voltage regulation. All of
these electrical system changes are intended to reduce the number and duration of planned
and unplanned outages for customers and increase the city’s overall electric system reliability
and operational efficiency.
These projects were bundled and bid together to take advantage of the economy of scale in
order to obtain lower prices for the work. The work to be performed under this contract
includes the labor, equipment, and management of all field activities, in coordination with
CPAU Operations staff, for the removal and installation of underground electric cable,
transformers, and cable terminations. All materials to complete the project will be procured by
the City.
The following table is a summary of the bid process:
Bid Name / Number Electric Underground Cable Rebuild and Re-
conductor Project, Phase II / IFB – 153111
Proposed Length of Project 4 months
Number of Bids Mailed to Contractors 13
Number of Bids Mailed to Builder’s Exchanges 2
Total Days to Respond to Bid 21
Pre-Bid Meeting Yes
Number of Company Attendees at Pre-Bid
Meeting
10
Number of Bids Received 4*
Bid Price Range From $591,000 to $1,108,670
City of Palo Alto Page 3
* Bid summary provided in Attachment B.
Staff has reviewed all bids submitted and recommends that the bid of $591,000 submitted by
Cal Electro Inc. be accepted and that Cal Electro Inc. be declared the lowest responsible bidder
by Council. The bid amount is approximately 30% below the engineer’s estimate of $850,000
and approximately 33% below the next lowest bid. Due to the variance between the bid from
Cal Electro Inc., the next lowest bid, and staff’s estimate, City staff met with Cal Electro Inc.
representatives to confirm their understanding of the scope of work and capability to complete
the project at the bid price submitted. Cal Electro Inc. stood by their bid price and capability to
complete the work as specified. Cal Electro also sucessfully completed similar work for City of
Palo Alto in 2012 on the Hewlett Subdivision project.
Staff confirmed with the Contractor’s State License Board that the contractor has an active
license on file and also checked references supplied by the contractor for previous work
performed and found all to be satisfactory.
Timeline
Construction is scheduled to begin the week of June 9, 2014 and is to be completed within 120
days.
Resource Impact
The engineering and construction tasks for this project were planned to be completed over
multiple years. The construction portion of the project is being contracted out as there is
insufficient staff in the department to construct these projects. Funds for this capital
improvement project are available from the following approved Electric Fund budgets:
2009 – 2011 EL-08000 East Charleston 4/12 kV Conversion (C2)
2010 – 2012 EL-11007 Rebuild Greenhouse Condominium Area (A8)
2011 – 2014 EL-12000 Rebuild Underground District 12 (A7)
Policy Implications
The approval of this contract is consistent with existing city policies, including the Council
approved Utilities Strategic Plan to operate the distribution system in a cost effective manner
and to invest in utility infrastructure to deliver reliable service.
Environmental Review
This project is categorically exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), under
Public Resources Code Sec. 15301 (repair or maintenance of existing facilities), and 15302
(replacement or reconstruction of existing structures and facilities).
Attachments:
Attachment A: Contract# C14153111 (PDF)
Attachment B: Bid Summary (PDF)
Attachment C: Project Locations (PDF)
City of Palo Alto Page 4
Attachment D: Contractor Agreement Justification (PDF)
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
Contract No. C14153111
City of Palo Alto
“Electric Underground Rebuild and Re-conductor Project –
Phase II”
Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 1 Rev. January 2014
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION 1 INCORPORATION OF RECITALS AND DEFINITIONS. ......................................................... 5
1.1 Recitals. ................................................................................................................................................... 5
1.2 Definitions. ............................................................................................................................................ 5
SECTION 2 THE PROJECT. .................................................................................................................... 5
SECTION 3 THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS. ......................................................................................... 6
SECTION 4 CONTRACTOR’S DUTY. ...................................................................................................... 7
SECTION 5 PROJECT TEAM. ................................................................................................................. 7
6.1 Time Is of Essence. .............................................................................................................................. 7
6.2 Commencement of Work. ................................................................................................................ 7
6.3 Contract Time. ...................................................................................................................................... 7
6.4 Liquidated Damages. .......................................................................................................................... 8
6.4.1 Other Remedies. ....................................................................................................... 8
6.5 Adjustments to Contract Time. ....................................................................................................... 8
SECTION 7 COMPENSATION TO CONTRACTOR. ................................................................................ 8
7.1 Contract Sum. ....................................................................................................................................... 8
7.2 Full Compensation. ............................................................................................................................. 8
SECTION 8 STANDARD OF CARE. ........................................................................................................ 9
SECTION 9 INDEMNIFICATION. ........................................................................................................... 9
9.1 Hold Harmless. ..................................................................................................................................... 9
9.2 Survival. .................................................................................................................................................. 9
SECTION 10 NONDISCRIMINATION. ................................................................................................... 9
SECTION 11 INSURANCE AND BONDS. ............................................................................................... 9
SECTION 12 PROHIBITION AGAINST TRANSFERS............................................................................... 10
SECTION 13 NOTICES ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 10
13.1 Method of Notice ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………10
13.2 Notice Recipents ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….10
13.3 Change of Address. ........................................................................................................................... 11
SECTION 14 DEFAULT. ......................................................................................................................... 11
Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 2 Rev. January 2014
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
14.1 Notice of Default. .............................................................................................................................. 11
14.2 Opportunity to Cure Default. ........................................................................................................ 11
SECTION 15 CITY'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES. ...................................................................................... 11
15.1 Remedies Upon Default. ................................................................................................................. 11
15.1.1 Delete Certain Services. .......................................................................................... 12
15.1.2 Perform and Withhold. ........................................................................................... 12
15.1.3 Suspend The Construction Contract. .................................................................... 12
15.1.5 Invoke the Performance Bond. ............................................................................. 12
15.1.6 Additional Provisions. ............................................................................................. 12
15.2 Delays by Sureties. ............................................................................................................................ 12
15.3 Damages to City. ................................................................................................................................ 13
15.3.1 For Contractor's Default. ........................................................................................ 13
15.3.2 Compensation for Losses. ...................................................................................... 13
15.4 Suspension by City ............................................................................................................................ 13
15.4.1 Suspension for Convenience. .......................................................................................... 13
15.5 Termination Without Cause. ......................................................................................................... 14
15.5.1 Compensation. ......................................................................................................... 14
15.5.2 Subcontractors. ........................................................................................................ 14
15.6 Contractor’s Duties Upon Termination. ..................................................................................... 14
SECTION 16 CONTRACTOR'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES. ...................................................................... 15
16.1 Contractor’s Remedies. ................................................................................................................... 15
16.1.1 For Work Stoppage. ................................................................................................. 15
16.1.2 For City's Non-Payment. ......................................................................................... 15
16.2 Damages to Contractor. .................................................................................................................. 15
SECTION 17 ACCOUNTING RECORDS. ................................................................................................ 15
17.1 Financial Management and City Access. ................................................................................... 15
17.2 Compliance with City Requests. ................................................................................................... 16
SECTION 18 INDEPENDENT PARTIES. ................................................................................................. 16
SECTION 19 NUISANCE. ...................................................................................................................... 16
SECTION 20 PERMITS AND LICENSES. ................................................................................................ 16
SECTION 21 WAIVER. .......................................................................................................................... 16
SECTION 22 GOVERNING LAW AND VENUE....................................................................................... 16
Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 3 Rev. January 2014
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
SECTION 23 COMPLETE AGREEMENT. ................................................................................................ 17
SECTION 24 SURVIVAL OF CONTRACT. ............................................................................................... 17
SECTION 25 PREVAILING WAGES. ...................................................................................................... 17
SECTION 26 NON APPROPRIATION. ................................................................................................... 17
SECTION 27 AUTHORITY. .................................................................................................................... 17
SECTION 28 COUNTERPARTS .............................................................................................................. 18
SECTION 29 SEVERABILITY. ................................................................................................................. 18
SECTION 30 STATUTORY AND REGULATORY REFERENCES . ............................................................. 18
SECTION 31 WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CERTIFICATION. ................................................................ 18
Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 4 Rev. January 2014
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
THIS CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT entered into on May 19, 2014 (“Execution Date”) by and between the
CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation ("City"), and CAL ELECTRO, INC.,
("Contractor"), is made with reference to the following:
R E C I T A L S:
A. City is a municipal corporation duly organized and validly existing under the laws of the State of
California with the power to carry on its business as it is now being conducted under the statutes of the
State of California and the Charter of City.
B. Contractor is a California corporation duly organized and in good standing in the State of
California, Contractor’s License Number 390480. Contractor represents that it is duly licensed by the State
of California and has the background, knowledge, experience and expertise to perform the obligations set
forth in this Construction Contract.
C. On February 20, 2014, City issued an Invitation for Bids (IFB) to contractors for the Electric
Underground Rebuild and Re-conductor Project – Phase II (“Project”). In response to the IFB, Contractor
submitted a Bid.
D. City and Contractor desire to enter into this Construction Contract for the Project, and other
services as identified in the Contract Documents for the Project upon the following terms and conditions.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and undertakings hereinafter set forth
and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby
acknowledged, it is mutually agreed by and between the undersigned parties as follows:
SECTION 1 INCORPORATION OF RECITALS AND DEFINITIONS.
1.1 Recitals.
All of the recitals are incorporated herein by reference.
1.2 Definitions.
Capitalized terms shall have the meanings set forth in this Construction Contract and/or in the
General Conditions. If there is a conflict between the definitions in this Construction Contract and
in the General Conditions, the definitions in this Construction Contract shall prevail.
SECTION 2 THE PROJECT.
The Project is the Electric Underground Rebuild and Re-conductor Project – Phase II, located in Palo Alto,
CA. ("Project").
Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 5 Rev. January 2014
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
SECTION 3 THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS.
3.1 List of Documents.
The Contract Documents (sometimes collectively referred to as “Agreement” or “Bid Documents”) consist
of the following documents which are on file with the Purchasing Division and are hereby incorporated by
reference.
1) Change Orders
2) Field Orders
3) Contract
4) Bidding Addenda
5) Special Provisions
6) General Conditions
7) Project Plans and Drawings
8) Technical Specifications
9) Instructions to Bidders
10) Invitation for Bids
11) Contractor's Bid/Non-Collusion Affidavit
12) Reports listed in the Contract Documents
13) Public Works Department’s Standard Drawings and Specifications (most current version at
time of Bid)
14) Utilities Department’s Water, Gas, Wastewater, Electric Utilities Standards (most current
version at time of Bid)
15) City of Palo Alto Traffic Control Requirements
16) City of Palo Alto Truck Route Map and Regulations
17) Notice Inviting Pre-Qualification Statements, Pre-Qualification Statement, and Pre-
Qualification Checklist (if applicable)
18) Performance and Payment Bonds
3.2 Order of Precedence.
For the purposes of construing, interpreting and resolving inconsistencies between and among the
provisions of this Contract, the Contract Documents shall have the order of precedence as set forth in the
preceding section. If a claimed inconsistency cannot be resolved through the order of precedence, the City
Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 6 Rev. January 2014
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
shall have the sole power to decide which document or provision shall govern as may be in the best
interests of the City.
SECTION 4 CONTRACTOR’S DUTY.
Contractor agrees to perform all of the Work required for the Project, as specified in the Contract
Documents, all of which are fully incorporated herein. Contractor shall provide, furnish, and supply all
things necessary and incidental for the timely performance and completion of the Work, including, but not
limited to, provision of all necessary labor, materials, equipment, transportation, and utilities, unless
otherwise specified in the Contract Documents. Contractor also agrees to use its best efforts to complete
the Work in a professional and expeditious manner and to meet or exceed the performance standards
required by the Contract Documents.
SECTION 5 PROJECT TEAM.
In addition to Contractor, City has retained, or may retain, consultants and contractors to provide
professional and technical consultation for the design and construction of the Project. The Contract
requires that Contractor operate efficiently, effectively and cooperatively with City as well as all other
members of the Project Team and other contractors retained by City to construct other portions of the
Project.
SECTION 6 TIME OF COMPLETION.
6.1 Time Is of Essence.
Time is of the essence with respect to all time limits set forth in the Contract Documents.
6.2 Commencement of Work.
Contractor shall commence the Work on the date specified in City’s Notice to Proceed.
6.3 Contract Time.
Work hereunder shall begin on the date specified on the City’s Notice to Proceed and shall be
completed within 120 calendar days after the commencement date specified in City’s Notice to
Proceed.
By executing this Construction Contract, Contractor expressly waives any claim for delayed early
completion.
Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 7 Rev. January 2014
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
6.4 Liquidated Damages.
Pursuant to Government Code Section 53069.85, if Contractor fails to achieve Substantial
Completion of the entire Work within the Contract Time, including any approved extensions
thereto, City may assess liquidated damages on a daily basis for each day of Unexcused Delay in
achieving Substantial Completion, based on the amount of Five Hundred dollars ($500.00) per
day, or as otherwise specified in the Special Provisions. Liquidated damages may also be
separately assessed for failure to meet milestones specified elsewhere in the Contract
Documents, regardless of impact on the time for achieving Substantial Completion. The
assessment of liquidated damages is not a penalty but considered to be a reasonable estimate of
the amount of damages City will suffer by delay in completion of the Work. The City is entitled to
setoff the amount of liquidated damages assessed against any payments otherwise due to
Contractor, including, but not limited to, setoff against release of retention. If the total amount of
liquidated damages assessed exceeds the amount of unreleased retention, City is entitled to
recover the balance from Contractor or its sureties. Occupancy or use of the Project in whole or in
part prior to Substantial Completion, shall not operate as a waiver of City’s right to assess
liquidated damages.
6.4.1 Other Remedies.
City is entitled to any and all available legal and equitable remedies City may have where City’s
Losses are caused by any reason other than Contractor’s failure to achieve Substantial Completion
of the entire Work within the Contract Time.
6.5 Adjustments to Contract Time.
The Contract Time may only be adjusted for time extensions approved by City and memorialized
in a Change Order approved in accordance with the requirements of the Contract Documents.
SECTION 7 COMPENSATION TO CONTRACTOR.
7.1 Contract Sum.
Contractor shall be compensated for satisfactory completion of the Work in compliance with the
Contract Documents the Contract Sum of Five Hundred Ninety One Thousand Dollars
($591,000.00).
[This amount includes the Base Bid and Additive Alternates .]
7.2 Full Compensation.
The Contract Sum shall be full compensation to Contractor for all Work provided by Contractor
and, except as otherwise expressly permitted by the terms of the Contract Documents, shall cover all
Losses arising out of the nature of the Work or from the acts of the elements or any unforeseen difficulties
or obstructions which may arise or be encountered in performance of the Work until its Acceptance by
City, all risks connected with the Work, and any and all expenses incurred due to suspension or
discontinuance of the Work, except as expressly provided herein. The Contract Sum may only be adjusted
for Change Orders approved in accordance with the requirements of the Contract Documents.
Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 8 Rev. January 2014
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
SECTION 8 STANDARD OF CARE.
Contractor agrees that the Work shall be performed by qualified, experienced and well-supervised
personnel. All services performed in connection with this Construction Contract shall be performed in a
manner consistent with the standard of care under California law applicable to those who specialize in
providing such services for projects of the type, scope and complexity of the Project.
SECTION 9 INDEMNIFICATION.
9.1 Hold Harmless.
To the fullest extent allowed by law, Contractor will defend, indemnify, and hold harmless City, its
City Council, boards and commissions, officers, agents, employees, representatives and volunteers
(hereinafter individually referred to as an “Indemnitee” and collectively referred to as
"Indemnitees"), through legal counsel acceptable to City, from and against any and liability, loss,
damage, claims, expenses (including, without limitation, attorney fees, expert witness fees,
paralegal fees, and fees and costs of litigation or arbitration) (collectively, “Liability”) of every
nature arising out of or in connection with the acts or omissions of Contractor, its employees,
Subcontractors, representatives, or agents, in performing the Work or its failure to comply with
any of its obligations under the Contract, except such Liability caused by the active negligence,
sole negligence, or willful misconduct of an Indemnitee. Contractor shall pay City for any costs
City incurs to enforce this provision. Except as provided in Section 9.2 below, nothing in the
Contract Documents shall be construed to give rise to any implied right of indemnity in favor of
Contractor against City or any other Indemnitee.
Pursuant to Public Contract Code Section 9201, City shall timely notify Contractor upon receipt of
any third-party claim relating to the Contract.
9.2 Survival.
The provisions of Section 9 shall survive the termination of this Construction Contract.
SECTION 10 NONDISCRIMINATION.
As set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code section 2.30.510, Contractor certifies that in the performance of
this Agreement, it shall not discriminate in the employment of any person because of the race, skin color,
gender, age, religion, disability, national origin, ancestry, sexual orientation, housing status, marital status,
familial status, weight or height of such person. Contractor acknowledges that it has read and understands
the provisions of Section 2.30.510 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code relating to Nondiscrimination
Requirements and the penalties for violation thereof, and will comply with all requirements of Section
2.30.510 pertaining to nondiscrimination in employment.
SECTION 11 INSURANCE AND BONDS.
Within ten (10) business days following issuance of the Notice of Award, Contractor shall provide City with
evidence that it has obtained insurance and shall submit Performance and Payment Bonds satisfying all
requirements in Article 11 of the General Conditions.
Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 9 Rev. January 2014
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
SECTION 12 PROHIBITION AGAINST TRANSFERS.
City is entering into this Construction Contract in reliance upon the stated experience and qualifications of
the Contractor and its Subcontractors set forth in Contractor’s Bid. Accordingly, Contractor shall not
assign, hypothecate or transfer this Construction Contract or any interest therein directly or indirectly, by
operation of law or otherwise without the prior written consent of City. Any assignment, hypothecation or
transfer without said consent shall be null and void, and shall be deemed a substantial breach of contract
and grounds for default in addition to any other legal or equitable remedy available to the City.
The sale, assignment, transfer or other disposition of any of the issued and outstanding capital stock of
Contractor or of any general partner or joint venturer or syndicate member of Contractor, if the Contractor
is a partnership or joint venture or syndicate or co-tenancy shall result in changing the control of
Contractor, shall be construed as an assignment of this Construction Contract. Control means more than
fifty percent (50%) of the voting power of the corporation or other entity.
SECTION 13 NOTICES.
13.1 Method of Notice.
All notices, demands, requests or approvals to be given under this Construction Contract shall be given in
writing and shall be deemed served on the earlier of the following:
(i) On the date delivered if delivered personally;
(ii) On the third business day after the deposit thereof in the United States mail, postage prepaid, and
addressed as hereinafter provided;
(iii) On the date sent if sent by facsimile transmission;
(iv) On the date sent if delivered by electronic mail; or
(v) On the date it is accepted or rejected if sent by certified mail.
13.2 Notice Recipients.
All notices, demands or requests (including, without limitation, Change Order Requests and
Claims) from Contractor to City shall include the Project name and the number of this
Construction Contract and shall be addressed to City at:
To City: City of Palo Alto
City Clerk
250 Hamilton Avenue
P.O. Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Copy to: City of Palo Alto
Public Works Administration
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Attn:
AND
City of Palo Alto
Utilities Engineering
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Attn: Jim Pachikara
Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 10 Rev. January 2014
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
In addition, copies of all Claims by Contractor under this Construction Contract shall be provided
to the following:
Palo Alto City Attorney’s Office
250 Hamilton Avenue
P.O. Box 10250
Palo Alto, California 94303
All Claims shall be delivered personally or sent by certified mail.
All notices, demands, requests or approvals from City to Contractor shall be addressed to:
Cal Electro Inc.
Attn: Ernest Robert Meissner III, President
3710 Electro Way
Redding, CA 96002
13.3 Change of Address.
In advance of any change of address, Contractor shall notify City of the change of address in
writing. Each party may, by written notice only, add, delete or replace any individuals to whom
and addresses to which notice shall be provided.
SECTION 14 DEFAULT.
14.1 Notice of Default.
In the event that City determines, in its sole discretion, that Contractor has failed or refused to
perform any of the obligations set forth in the Contract Documents, or is in breach of any
provision of the Contract Documents, City may give written notice of default to Contractor in the
manner specified for the giving of notices in the Construction Contract, with a copy to
Contractor’s performance bond surety.
14.2 Opportunity to Cure Default.
Except for emergencies, Contractor shall cure any default in performance of its obligations under
the Contract Documents within two (2) Days (or such shorter time as City may reasonably require)
after receipt of written notice. However, if the breach cannot be reasonably cured within such
time, Contractor will commence to cure the breach within two (2) Days (or such shorter time as
City may reasonably require) and will diligently and continuously prosecute such cure to
completion within a reasonable time, which shall in no event be later than ten (10) Days after
receipt of such written notice.
SECTION 15 CITY'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES.
15.1 Remedies Upon Default.
If Contractor fails to cure any default of this Construction Contract within the time period set forth
above in Section 14, then City may pursue any remedies available under law or equity, including,
without limitation, the following:
Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 11 Rev. January 2014
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
15.1.1 Delete Certain Services.
City may, without terminating the Construction Contract, delete certain portions of the Work,
reserving to itself all rights to Losses related thereto.
15.1.2 Perform and Withhold.
City may, without terminating the Construction Contract, engage others to perform the Work or
portion of the Work that has not been adequately performed by Contractor and withhold the cost
thereof to City from future payments to Contractor, reserving to itself all rights to Losses related
thereto.
15.1.3 Suspend The Construction Contract.
City may, without terminating the Construction Contract and reserving to itself all rights to Losses
related thereto, suspend all or any portion of this Construction Contract for as long a period of
time as City determines, in its sole discretion, appropriate, in which event City shall have no
obligation to adjust the Contract Sum or Contract Time, and shall have no liability to Contractor
for damages if City directs Contractor to resume Work.
15.1.4 Terminate the Construction Contract for Default.
City shall have the right to terminate this Construction Contract, in whole or in part, upon the
failure of Contractor to promptly cure any default as required by Section 14. City’s election to
terminate the Construction Contract for default shall be communicated by giving Contractor a
written notice of termination in the manner specified for the giving of notices in the Construction
Contract. Any notice of termination given to Contractor by City shall be effective immediately,
unless otherwise provided therein.
15.1.5 Invoke the Performance Bond.
City may, with or without terminating the Construction Contract and reserving to itself all rights to
Losses related thereto, exercise its rights under the Performance Bond.
15.1.6 Additional Provisions.
All of City’s rights and remedies under this Construction Contract are cumulative, and shall be in
addition to those rights and remedies available in law or in equity. Designation in the Contract
Documents of certain breaches as material shall not waive the City’s authority to designate other
breaches as material nor limit City’s right to terminate the Construction Contract, or prevent the
City from terminating the Agreement for breaches that are not material. City’s determination of
whether there has been noncompliance with the Construction Contract so as to warrant exercise
by City of its rights and remedies for default under the Construction Contract, shall be binding on
all parties. No termination or action taken by City after such termination shall prejudice any other
rights or remedies of City provided by law or equity or by the Contract Documents upon such
termination; and City may proceed against Contractor to recover all liquidated damages and
Losses suffered by City.
15.2 Delays by Sureties.
Time being of the essence in the performance of the Work, if Contractor’s surety fails to arrange
for completion of the Work in accordance with the Performance Bond, within seven (7) calendar
days from the date of the notice of termination, Contractor’s surety shall be deemed to have
waived its right to complete the Work under the Contract, and City may immediately make
arrangements for the completion of the Work through use of its own forces, by hiring a
replacement contractor, or by any other means that City determines advisable under the
circumstances. Contractor and its surety shall be jointly and severally liable for any additional cost
Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 12 Rev. January 2014
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
incurred by City to complete the Work following termination. In addition, City shall have the right
to use any materials, supplies, and equipment belonging to Contractor and located at the
Worksite for the purposes of completing the remaining Work.
15.3 Damages to City.
15.3.1 For Contractor's Default.
City will be entitled to recovery of all Losses under law or equity in the event of Contractor’s
default under the Contract Documents.
15.3.2 Compensation for Losses.
In the event that City's Losses arise from Contractor’s default under the Contract Documents, City
shall be entitled to deduct the cost of such Losses from monies otherwise payable to Contractor.
If the Losses incurred by City exceed the amount payable, Contractor shall be liable to City for the
difference and shall promptly remit same to City.
15.4 Suspension by City
15.4.1 Suspension for Convenience.
City may, at any time and from time to time, without cause, order Contractor, in writing, to
suspend, delay, or interrupt the Work in whole or in part for such period of time, up to an
aggregate of fifty percent (50%) of the Contract Time. The order shall be specifically identified as
a Suspension Order by City. Upon receipt of a Suspension Order, Contractor shall, at City’s
expense, comply with the order and take all reasonable steps to minimize costs allocable to the
Work covered by the Suspension Order. During the Suspension or extension of the Suspension, if
any, City shall either cancel the Suspension Order or, by Change Order, delete the Work covered
by the Suspension Order. If a Suspension Order is canceled or expires, Contractor shall resume
and continue with the Work. A Change Order will be issued to cover any adjustments of the
Contract Sum or the Contract Time necessarily caused by such suspension. A Suspension Order
shall not be the exclusive method for City to stop the Work.
15.4.2 Suspension for Cause.
In addition to all other remedies available to City, if Contractor fails to perform or correct work in
accordance with the Contract Documents, City may immediately order the Work, or any portion
thereof, suspended until the cause for the suspension has been eliminated to City’s satisfaction.
Contractor shall not be entitled to an increase in Contract Time or Contract Price for a suspension
occasioned by Contractor’s failure to comply with the Contract Documents. City’s right to
suspend the Work shall not give rise to a duty to suspend the Work, and City’s failure to suspend
the Work shall not constitute a defense to Contractor’s failure to comply with the requirements of
the Contract Documents.
Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 13 Rev. January 2014
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
15.5 Termination Without Cause.
City may, at its sole discretion and without cause, terminate this Construction Contract in part or
in whole upon written notice to Contractor. Upon receipt of such notice, Contractor shall, at City’s
expense, comply with the notice and take all reasonable steps to minimize costs to close out and
demobilize. The compensation allowed under this Paragraph 15.5 shall be the Contractor’s sole
and exclusive compensation for such termination and Contractor waives any claim for other
compensation or Losses, including, but not limited to, loss of anticipated profits, loss of revenue,
lost opportunity, or other consequential, direct, indirect or incidental damages of any kind
resulting from termination without cause. Termination pursuant to this provision does not relieve
Contractor or its sureties from any of their obligations for Losses arising from or related to the
Work performed by Contractor.
15.5.1 Compensation.
Following such termination and within forty-five (45) Days after receipt of a billing from
Contractor seeking payment of sums authorized by this Paragraph 15.5.1, City shall pay the
following to Contractor as Contractor’s sole compensation for performance of the Work :
.1 For Work Performed. The amount of the Contract Sum allocable to the portion of the
Work properly performed by Contractor as of the date of termination, less sums previously paid to
Contractor.
.2 For Close-out Costs. Reasonable costs of Contractor and its Subcontractors:
(i) Demobilizing and
(ii) Administering the close-out of its participation in the Project (including, without
limitation, all billing and accounting functions, not including attorney or expert fees) for a
period of no longer than thirty (30) Days after receipt of the notice of termination.
.3 For Fabricated Items. Previously unpaid cost of any items delivered to the Project Site
which were fabricated for subsequent incorporation in the Work.
.4 Profit Allowance. An allowance for profit calculated as four percent (4%) of the sum of
the above items, provided Contractor can prove a likelihood that it would have made a profit if
the Construction Contract had not been terminated.
15.5.2 Subcontractors.
Contractor shall include provisions in all of its subcontracts, purchase orders and other contracts
permitting termination for convenience by Contractor on terms that are consistent with this
Construction Contract and that afford no greater rights of recovery against Contractor than are
afforded to Contractor against City under this Section.
15.6 Contractor’s Duties Upon Termination.
Upon receipt of a notice of termination for default or for convenience, Contractor shall, unless the
notice directs otherwise, do the following:
(i) Immediately discontinue the Work to the extent specified in the notice;
(ii) Place no further orders or subcontracts for materials, equipment, services or facilities,
except as may be necessary for completion of such portion of the Work that is not
discontinued;
(iii) Provide to City a description in writing, no later than fifteen (15) days after receipt of the
notice of termination, of all subcontracts, purchase orders and contracts that are
outstanding, including, without limitation, the terms of the original price, any changes,
payments, balance owing, the status of the portion of the Work covered and a copy of
Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 14 Rev. January 2014
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
the subcontract, purchase order or contract and any written changes, amendments or
modifications thereto, together with such other information as City may determine
necessary in order to decide whether to accept assignment of or request Contractor to
terminate the subcontract, purchase order or contract;
(iv) Promptly assign to City those subcontracts, purchase orders or contracts, or portions
thereof, that City elects to accept by assignment and cancel, on the most favorable terms
reasonably possible, all subcontracts, purchase orders or contracts, or portions thereof,
that City does not elect to accept by assignment; and
(v) Thereafter do only such Work as may be necessary to preserve and protect Work already
in progress and to protect materials, plants, and equipment on the Project Site or in
transit thereto.
Upon termination, whether for cause or for convenience, the provisions of the Contract
Documents remain in effect as to any Claim, indemnity obligation, warranties, guarantees,
submittals of as-built drawings, instructions, or manuals, or other such rights and obligations
arising prior to the termination date.
SECTION 16 CONTRACTOR'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES.
16.1 Contractor’s Remedies.
Contractor may terminate this Construction Contract only upon the occurrence of one of the
following:
16.1.1 For Work Stoppage.
The Work is stopped for sixty (60) consecutive Days, through no act or fault of Contractor, any
Subcontractor, or any employee or agent of Contractor or any Subcontractor, due to issuance of
an order of a court or other public authority other than City having jurisdiction or due to an act of
government, such as a declaration of a national emergency making material unavailable. This
provision shall not apply to any work stoppage resulting from the City’s issuance of a suspension
notice issued either for cause or for convenience.
16.1.2 For City's Non-Payment.
If City does not make pay Contractor undisputed sums within ninety (90) Days after receipt of
notice from Contractor, Contractor may terminate the Construction Contract (30) days following a
second notice to City of Contractor’s intention to terminate the Construction Contract.
16.2 Damages to Contractor.
In the event of termination for cause by Contractor, City shall pay Contractor the sums provided
for in Paragraph 15.5.1 above. Contractor agrees to accept such sums as its sole and exclusive
compensation and agrees to waive any claim for other compensation or Losses, including, but not
limited to, loss of anticipated profits, loss of revenue, lost opportunity, or other consequential,
direct, indirect and incidental damages, of any kind.
SECTION 17 ACCOUNTING RECORDS.
17.1 Financial Management and City Access.
Contractor shall keep full and detailed accounts and exercise such controls as may be necessary
for proper financial management under this Construction Contract in accordance with generally
accepted accounting principles and practices. City and City's accountants during normal business
hours, may inspect, audit and copy Contractor's records, books, estimates, take-offs, cost reports,
ledgers, schedules, correspondence, instructions, drawings, receipts, subcontracts, purchase
Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 15 Rev. January 2014
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
orders, vouchers, memoranda and other data relating to this Project. Contractor shall retain these
documents for a period of three (3) years after the later of (i) Final Payment or (ii) final resolution
of all Contract Disputes and other disputes, or (iii) for such longer period as may be required by
law.
17.2 Compliance with City Requests.
Contractor's compliance with any request by City pursuant to this Section 17 shall be a condition
precedent to filing or maintenance of any legal action or proceeding by Contractor against City
and to Contractor's right to receive further payments under the Contract Documents. City many
enforce Contractor’s obligation to provide access to City of its business and other records referred
to in Section 17.1 for inspection or copying by issuance of a writ or a provisional or permanent
mandatory injunction by a court of competent jurisdiction based on affidavits submitted to such
court, without the necessity of oral testimony.
SECTION 18 INDEPENDENT PARTIES.
Each party is acting in its independent capacity and not as agents, employees, partners, or joint ventures’
of the other party. City, its officers or employees shall have no control over the conduct of Contractor or
its respective agents, employees, subconsultants, or subcontractors, except as herein set forth.
SECTION 19 NUISANCE.
Contractor shall not maintain, commit, nor permit the maintenance or commission of any nuisance in
connection in the performance of services under this Construction Contract.
SECTION 20 PERMITS AND LICENSES.
Except as otherwise provided in the Special Provisions and Technical Specifications, The Contractor shall
provide, procure and pay for all licenses, permits, and fees, required by the City or other government
jurisdictions or agencies necessary to carry out and complete the Work. Payment of all costs and expenses
for such licenses, permits, and fees shall be included in one or more Bid items. No other compensation
shall be paid to the Contractor for these items or for delays caused by non-City inspectors or conditions set
forth in the licenses or permits issued by other agencies.
SECTION 21 WAIVER.
A waiver by either party of any breach of any term, covenant, or condition contained herein shall not be
deemed to be a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or any other term, covenant, or condition
contained herein, whether of the same or a different character.
SECTION 22 GOVERNING LAW AND VENUE.
This Construction Contract shall be construed in accordance with and governed by the laws of the State of
California, and venue shall be in a court of competent jurisdiction in the County of Santa Clara, and no
other place.
Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 16 Rev. January 2014
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
SECTION 23 COMPLETE AGREEMENT.
This Agreement represents the entire and integrated agreement between the parties and supersedes all
prior negotiations, representations, and contracts, either written or oral. This Agreement may be amended
only by a written instrument, which is signed by the parties.
SECTION 24 SURVIVAL OF CONTRACT.
The provisions of the Construction Contract which by their nature survive termination of the Construction
Contract or Final Completion, including, without limitation, all warranties, indemnities, payment
obligations, and City’s right to audit Contractor’s books and records, shall remain in full force and effect
after Final Completion or any termination of the Construction Contract.
SECTION 25 PREVAILING WAGES.
This Project is not subject to prevailing wages. The Contractor is not required to pay prevailing wages in
the performance and implementation of the Project, because the City, pursuant to its authority as a
chartered city, has adopted Resolution No. 5981 exempting the City from prevailing wages. The City
invokes the exemption from the state prevailing wage requirement for this Project and declares that the
Project is funded one hundred percent (100%) by the City of Palo Alto. This Project remains subject to all
other applicable provisions of the California Labor Code and regulations promulgated thereunder.
Or
The Contractor is required to pay general prevailing wages as defined in Subchapter 3, Title 8 of the
California Code of Regulations and Section 16000 et seq. and Section 1773.1 of the California Labor Code.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 1773 of the Labor Code of the State of California, the City Council has
obtained the general prevailing rate of per diem wages and the general rate for holiday and overtime work
in this locality for each craft, classification, or type of worker needed to execute the contract for this
Project from the Director of the Department of Industrial Relations. Copies of these rates may be obtained
at the Purchasing Office of the City of Palo Alto. Contractor shall provide a copy of prevailing wage rates to
any staff or subcontractor hired, and shall pay the adopted prevailing wage rates as a
minimum. Contractor shall comply with the provisions of Sections 1775, 1776, 1777.5, 1810, and 1813 of
the Labor Code.
SECTION 26 NON APPROPRIATION.
This Agreement is subject to the fiscal provisions of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto and the Palo Alto
Municipal Code. This Agreement will terminate without any penalty (a) at the end of any fiscal year in the
event that the City does not appropriate funds for the following fiscal year for this event, or (b) at any time
within a fiscal year in the event that funds are only appropriated for a portion of the fiscal year and funds
for this Construction Contract are no longer available. This section shall take precedence in the event of a
conflict with any other covenant, term, condition, or provision of this Agreement.
SECTION 27 AUTHORITY.
The individuals executing this Agreement represent and warrant that they have the legal capacity and
authority to do so on behalf of their respective legal entities.
Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 17 Rev. January 2014
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
SECTION 28 COUNTERPARTS
This Agreement may be signed in multiple counterparts, which shall, when executed by all the parties,
constitute a single binding agreement.
SECTION 29 SEVERABILITY.
In case a provision of this Construction Contract is held to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, the validity,
legality and enforceability of the remaining provisions shall not be affected.
SECTION 30 STATUTORY AND REGULATORY REFERENCES.
With respect to any amendments to any statutes or regulations referenced in these Contract Documents,
the reference is deemed to be the version in effect on the date that the Contract was awarded by City,
unless otherwise required by law.
SECTION 31 WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CERTIFICATION.
Pursuant to Labor Code Section 1861, by signing this Contract, Contractor certifies as follows: “I am aware
of the provisions of Section 3700 of the Labor Code which require every employer to be insured against
liability for workers’ compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that
code, and I will comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the Work on this
Contract.”
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Construction Contract to be executed the
date and year first above written.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
____________________________
City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________________
Senior Asst. City Attorney
CAL ELECTRO INC.
By:___________________________
Name:________________________
Title:__________________________
Date: _________________________
Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 18 Rev. January 2014
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
BID SUMMARY
3/19/2014
IFB 153111
Electric Underground Rebuild & Re‐conductor Project, Phase II
Cal Electro Three Phase Line Construction PAR Electric Construction Harris Electric
Line item 1 230,000.00$ 389,518.00$ 442,080.00$ 325,000.00$
Line item 2 149,000.00$ 221,560.00$ 243,930.00$ 265,000.00$
Line item 3 212,000.00$ 380,136.00$ 422,660.00$ 295,000.00$
Total 591,000.00$ 991,214.00$ 1,108,670.00$ 885,000.00$
This project involves the removal and replacement of underground electrical cable and
equipment along Middlefield Road between San Antonio Road and Oregon Expressway, and the
Greenhouse Condominium complex. The cable in these areas has been in service between 30
and 40 years, and needs to be replaced to maintain safe and reliable service to customers. New
cable will be installed and the electric system re-designed to meet current City and industry
standards. The labor to complete this scope of work was put together in an Invitation For Bid
(IFB) to ensure that the City receives competitive pricing. Cal Electro Inc. submitted the lowest
bid of $591,000 and City staff met with their representatives to confirm their understanding of
the scope of work and capability to complete the project.
The contractor, Cal Electro Inc., will provide the labor, equipment, and management of all field
activities, in coordination with CPAU Operations staff, for the removal and installation of
underground electric cable, transformers, and cable terminations. The contractor will also be
responsible for providing a construction schedule for approval by the CPA Project Manager and
Field Inspector. For final acceptance from the City, the contractor is required to have a third
party test all cable installed per manufacturer requirements, and to submit as-built drawings.
Contractor services for this project were planned. Current staffing levels needed for the
construction of this project prevents City staff from being able to dedicate crews to perform
this work.
An Invitation for Bid (IFP) was issued by the Purchasing Department for this work in February
2014. The IFB was out for bid for approximately two weeks, and attendance was required at a
pre-bid meeting to discuss and answer any questions about the scope of work. Part of the
evaluation process required contractors to submit references and information of similar work
experience with other Utilities within the last 3 years. Four bids were received by the City to
evaluate, and CPA staff determined that Cal Electro submitted the lowest responsible bid of
$591,000.
Cal Electro Inc. did similar work for City of Palo Alto Utilities on the Rebuild of Hewlett
Subdivision Project during the summer and fall of 2012. Cal Electro also worked on many
underground electric projects for other municipalities and utilities; including City of Anaheim,
City of Reno, City of Riverside, and PG&E.
The City of Palo Alto’s Utility Department was pleased with the performance of Cal Electro Inc.
during the last project in 2012. Prior to notifying the contractor with the City’s intent to award
the bid, City staff met with the contractor’s representatives to confirm their understanding of
the scope of work and capability to complete the project.
The term of this agreement is approximately 120 days. The Utilities Department is anticipating
this project to start the week of June 9th, 2014 and to be completed by October 10th, 2014. Staff
prepared project designs and cost estimates prior to starting the bid process. These estimates
were used to validate the contractor bids that were received.
Staff does not anticipate the need for any amendments to the agreement at this time.
None.
CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
May 19, 2014
The Honorable City Council
Palo Alto, California
Policy & Services Committee Recommendation to Adopt an Ordinance
Amending the Municipal Code to Change the Regular Meeting Start
Time from 7:00pm to 6:00pm; Amend the Council’s Procedures to
Reflect the 6:00pm Meeting Start Time
Summary
The Palo Alto Charter states that the Council shall set a time and place for its regular meetings.
(Charter, Art. III, Section 5.) For many years, the Municipal Code has provided that the regular
meeting time is the first three Mondays of each month, beginning at 7:00pm. (Palo Alto
Municipal Code section 2.04.010.) Council referred the matter of a possible 6:00pm start time
to the Policy & Services Committee, which unanimously recommended that Council amend the
Municipal Code to establish 6:00pm as the regular meeting start time. The minutes of the
Policy & Services Committee Meeting are attached hereto as Attachment A.
Recommendation
Adopt an ordinance amending the Municipal Code to provide that Council hold regular
meetings on the first three Mondays of each month beginning at 6:00pm; direct the Clerk to
amend the Council’s Procedures to reflect a regular start time of 6:00pm.
Background and Discussion
In recent years, it has been common for Council meetings to begin at 6:00pm or even earlier.
State and local law allow the Council to hold special meetings at times other than the
established regular meeting time of 7:00pm; such meetings must be noticed as “special
meetings.” (Cal. Govt. Code sections 54954, 54956; PAMC section 2.04.020; Palo Alto City
Council Procedures, section 2.4(Q), p. 13.)
During a discussion of meeting management issues at its annual retreat in February, several
Council Members raised the issue of changing the Council’s regular meeting time to 6:00pm.
Council referred the issue to the Policy and Services Committee for discussion and a
recommendation.
On April 22, 2014, the Committee considered this matter and voted unanimously to direct staff
to prepare and place on the Council’s Consent Agenda an ordinance amending the Municipal
Code to change the regular meeting start time to 6:00pm. The ordinance is attached hereto as
Attachment B.
Page 2
In addition to the Municipal Code amendment, the Council’s Procedures should be updated to
reflect the 6:00pm start time. The Clerk is hereby directed to make the following changes, as
well as any others required to reflect the new start time:
Section 2.3(A):
Regular Meetings are conducted at City Hall on the first three Monday nights of each
month, except during the Council’s annual vacation. The meetings will begin at 7:00 6:00
p.m. Regular meeting agendas must be posted in the City Plaza by the elevators no later
than 7:00 6:00 p.m. on the preceding Friday as required by the Brown Act. It is City
policy to make every effort to complete and distribute the agenda and related reports
by the preceding Wednesday. For major complex projects and
policies, the City will make every effort to distribute these reports two weeks prior to
the meeting when the item will be considered.
Section 2.4(A):
Regular Meetings Attendance Required. Council Members, the City Clerk, City Attorney,
and City Manager, along with any other city officers and department heads that have
been requested to be present, shall take their regular stations in the Council chamber at
7:00 6:00 p.m. on the first, second and third Mondays of each month, except during the
established Council vacation. The Council expects its members to attend regularly and
notify the City Clerk of any planned absences. The Council may levy fines of up to
$250.00 against Council members who willfully or negligently fail to attend meetings
Environmental Review
The Council’s regular start time is not a project requiring environmental review.
Staff Resources
This is a policy determination that has no impact on staff resources.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A - 04-22-14 Minutes (DOCX)
Attachment B - Ordinance Changing Council Meeting Start Time (PDF)
Department Head: Molly Stump, City Attorney
Page 3
Policy and Services Committee
EXCERPT MINUTES
1
Special Meeting
April 22, 2014
Chairperson Price called the meeting to order at 6:07 P.M. in the Council
Chambers, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California.
Present: Klein, Price (Chair), Schmid, Scharff
Absent:
3. Discussion and Recommendation to Council Regarding the Starting
Time for Regular Monday Council Meetings
Molly Stump, City Attorney, reported the Council referred the item to the
Policy and Services Committee (Committee). By Code the regular start time
of Council meetings was 7:00 P.M. Over the last several years, Council
meetings frequently began before 7:00 which was allowed by noticing the
meeting as a Special Meeting. There was some interest in a policy
discussion of whether the regular meeting time should be changed to 6:00
or some other time to reflect current practice. Changing the start time
would alleviate the practice of noticing Council meetings as Special Meetings.
Council Member Scharff supported changing the start time for Council
meetings, because 63 percent of Council meetings began before 7:00. It
was a disservice to tell the public meetings began at 7:00 when they often
did not begin at 7:00. By changing the start time to 6:00, Study Sessions
most likely would continue to be held at 6:00. Changing the time would
provide transparency.
Council Member Schmid believed a list of start times for the public meeting
portion of Council meetings would indicate the vast majority of start times
was 7:00. Usually a Closed Session or a Special Session, both of interest to
a limited number of people, began at 6:00. If the goal of the start time was
to indicate the opening of public business, then 7:00 was more accurate
than 6:00.
Council Member Klein agreed with Council Member Scharff. Study Sessions
were part of public business. Designating a meeting that began at 6:00 as a
Special Meeting was not logical. He would support the Staff
recommendation.
2 April 22, 2014
Herb Borock provided a brief history of Council meeting times and dates. In
the prior year, the Council instituted estimated times for Agenda Items. He
suggested the start time remain at 7:00 with Closed Sessions and Study
Sessions occurring at other times or on other days.
MOTION: Council Member Klein moved, seconded by Council Member
Scharff that the Policy and Services Committee recommend the City Council
direct Staff to prepare an Ordinance amending the Municipal Code to change
the regular City Council meeting start time to 6:00 pm.
MOTION PASSED: 4-0
Council Member Klein inquired whether the official Ordinance language
would return to the Committee.
Ms. Stump noted the language would strike the "7" in "7:00" and replace it
with "6." She recommended the Ordinance be presented to the Council.
Council Member Klein noted it would be placed on the Consent Calendar.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 7:58 P.M.
*NOT YET APPROVED*
140512 sh 0140099 1
Ordinance No. _____
Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto
Amending Section 2.04.010 (Regular Meeting) of Chapter 2.04 (Council
Organization and Procedure) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Change
the City Council Meeting Start Time from Seven p.m. to Six p.m.
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings and Declarations. The City Council finds and declares as
follows:
(a) The Palo Alto Charter states that the Council shall set a time and place for
its regular meetings. (Charter, Art. III, Section 5.) For many years, the Municipal Code has
provided that the regular meeting time is the first three Mondays of each month beginning at
seven p.m. (Palo Alto Municipal Code section 2.04.010.);
(b) In recent years, it has been common for Council meetings to begin at six
p.m. or even earlier. Such meetings are noticed as “special meetings” as required by state and
local law. (Cal. Govt. Code sections 54954, 54956; PAMC section 2.04.020; Palo Alto City
Council Procedures, section 2.4(Q), p. 13.); and
(c) Council now wishes to amend the Municipal Code to provide that the
regular meeting time be the first three Mondays of each month beginning at six p.m. Meetings
noticed for other times will be designated “special meetings.”
SECTION 2. Section 2.04.010 (Regular Meeting) of Chapter 2.04 (Council
Organization and Procedure) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
2.04.010 Definitions
(a) The council of the city shall hold regular meetings on the first three
Mondays of each month, at sevensix p.m. in the council chambers of the City Hall, 250 Hamilton
Avenue, in said city unless the council chambers shall be determined by a majority vote of the
council to be inadequate or unavailable for a meeting, in which event the council may designate
some other suitable place in the city for the conduct of the meeting. The determination to hold
the meeting at a place other than the council chambers may be made by the mayor prior to the
regular meeting date; provided, that notice of the change in place for conduct of the meeting
shall be published prior to the meeting in a newspaper of general circulation published in the
city, setting forth the reasons for the change, and a copy of the notice shall be posted on the
council chamber door for at least twenty-four hours prior to the time scheduled for the
meeting and during the meeting. If the council adjourns its meeting from the council chambers
*NOT YET APPROVED*
140512 sh 0140099 2
to another place, notice to adjourn and the new place for holding the meeting shall be posted
on the council chamber door during the time the meeting is being held.
(b) Each year, no later than the third meeting in February, the council shall
by resolution schedule its vacation for that year. The resolution shall designate the dates of this
scheduled vacation and the city clerk will give notice thereof by whatever means are deemed
appropriate. During said scheduled annual vacation, there shall be no regular meetings of the
council nor of the council standing committees, unless it is an adjourned regular meeting. The
mayor or a majority of the council may call a special meeting during the scheduled vacation if
necessary.
SECTION 3. The Council finds that the provisions of this Ordinance do not
constitute a project under the California Environmental Quality Act because it can be seen with
certainty that no significant environmental impact will occur as a result of the amended
Ordinance.
SECTION 4. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first day after the
date of its adoption.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
____________________________ ____________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
____________________________ ____________________________
City Attorney City Manager
____________________________
Director of Administrative
Services
City of Palo Alto (ID # 4782)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 5/19/2014
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Resolution and Agreement for County Park Grant
Title: Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Accept on
Behalf of the City of Palo Alto, a Grant of $150,000 Made by the County of
Santa Clara for the Purpose of Funding the Construction of the Magical
Bridge Playground at Mitchell Park and Adoption of the Related Budget
Amendment Ordinance
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Community Services
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council approve the following actions related to the Magical Bridge
Playground capital project:
1. Approve the attached Resolution (Attachment A) authorizing the City Manager to accept
on behalf of the City of Palo Alto and execute the attached funding agreement
(Attachment B), a grant in the amount of $150,000 made by the County of Santa Clara
County Park Charter Fund, for the construction of the Magical Bridge Playground and
other improvements at Mitchell Park associated with the new playground and approve
the related Budget Amendment Ordinance.
2. Adopt a Budget Amendment Ordinance (Attachment C) to increase funding for the
Magical Bridge Playground project (PE-12013) in the amount of $150,000. Also
recommended is a corresponding increase to the budgeted revenue estimate for
Revenue from Other Agencies in the Capital Improvement Fund to reflect the Santa
Clara County Parks Charter Fund grant proceeds.
Discussion
In March 2014, at the request of the Friends of the Magical Bridge, City Manager Jim Keene
appealed to Santa Clara County Supervisor and former Palo Alto Mayor Joseph Simitian for his
support of a $150,000 appropriation from the Santa Clara County Parks Charter Fund towards
the Magical Bridge project. (See also related City Manager Report #3865; Agreement with the
Friends of the Magical Bridge, Park Improvement Ordinance and Budget Amendment
Ordinance).
City of Palo Alto Page 2
In his request, City Manager Keene noted the County of Santa Clara recently used the Parks
Charter Fund to help support the construction of a similar public/private partnership: the
Rotary Children’s Garden, a project of the City of San Jose, the San Jose Rotary Club, and the
Guadalupe River Park Conservancy. Mr. Keene’s request letter urged, “We hope that the
County will join us in creating a space where families learn to play together and children grow
up in a community that values everyone equally. With your help, our region can lead the way in
inclusive play. “
Supervisor Simitian has been an ardent supporter of the Magical Bridge project. On April 14,
2014, Supervisor Simitian asked the Board to support the City’s request for funding. The
motion to authorize staff to bring forward an agreement with the City for the funding of
$150,000 from the Charter Fund passed unanimously.
Once the Resolution and authorization to execute the funding agreement are approved by the
City Council, the Board of Supervisors will take similar action to approve the County funding
agreement (Attachment B).
Resource Impact
The County’s grant of $150,000 is a contribution towards the total project design and
construction budget of $3,690,453. The grant will defray costs of the playground equipment.
As described in the Resource Impact Section of Staff report titled Magical Bridge Design and
Construction Agreement (City Manager Report #3865), two Budget Amendement Ordinances
for the magical Bridge project are recommended on the May 19th City Council Agenda. As part
of City Manager Report #3865, the acceptance and corresponding appropriation increases from
the Friends of the Magical Playground ($2,821,471) and the Metropolitan Transportation
Commission ($82,712). The BAO recommended as part of this report will accept and
appropriate the funds from the Santa Clara County Park Charter Fund in the amount of
$150,000. Since Council had already approved an appropriation of $1,000,000 to the project in
fiscal year 2012, the total appropriation amendment amount needed, between the two reports,
is $2,054,182.
As discussed in City Manager Report #3865, the maintenance of the Magical Bridge playground
will become the resposibility of the City’s Open Space, Parks and Golf Division of the
Community Services Department once completed. Annual maintenance for the playground and
amenities is estimated at $8,500.
Policy Implications
The recommendations in this report do not represent a change in City policies.
Environmental Review
The recommendation in this report does not constitute a project requiring review under the
City of Palo Alto Page 3
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Attachments:
Attachment A: Resolution Magical Bridge Final Playground County Funding (DOCX)
Attachment B - DRAFT FUNDING AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO
ALTO (DOCX)
Attachment C- CMR 4782 Magical Bridge (DOC)
*****NOT YET APPROVED*****
140514 sdl 00710396 Page 1
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
MAKING ALL NECESSARY FINDINGS PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT
CODE SECTION 25553 FOR THE APPROVAL AND TRANSFER OF
$150,000 OF COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA PARK CHARTER FUNDS TO
THE CITY OF PALO ALTO FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE MAGICAL
BRIDGE PLAYGROUND SERVING A PARK PURPOSE AND APPROVING
A FUNDING AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF PALO ALTO FOR
CONSTRUCTION OF THE MAGICAL BRIDGE PLAYGROUND
A. On or about May 19, 2014, the Council of the City of Palo Alto (the “Council”)
approved the "Agreement for the Design, Construction and Installation of Facilities and Other
Capital Improvements at Mitchell Park” (the “Agreement”), attached as Exhibit A, by and
between the City and the Friends of the Magical Bridge, LLC (the "Friends") to fund, design, and
construct a 1.28 acre children's universal access playground at Mitchell Park in Palo Alto, Santa
Clara County, California (the "Playground") for children of all abilities and with no barriers to
children of any ability.
B. On or about May 19, 2014, the Council, by the vote recorded below, adopted
this resolution (the "City Resolution"), making findings pursuant to California Government Code
Section 25551 in order to request funding from the County of Santa Clara (the “County”) in the
amount of $150,000 (the "County Funds") to construct the Playground, which is estimated to
cost approximately $2,885,424.
C. For the purpose of this resolution, the Council finds that the following provisions
of Government Code Sections 25551 through 2557, inclusive, apply to the City’s application for
aid with the County and the County’s determination to act on that application: Section 25551,
the City’s request for financial aid by the County; Section 25552, the requisites of the City
Resolution; Section 25553, the County’s determination to grant aid to the City; Section 25554,
the form of the County’s aid to the City to increase the recreational area that will benefit from
the aid; Section 25555, the County’s resolution pertaining to the issuance of the warrant for the
amount of the aid; Section 25556, the time limitation imposed on the aid provided to the City;
and Section 25557, a City report to the County board of supervisors relating to the disposition
of the County aid.
D. The “Funding Agreement by and between the City of Palo Alto and the County of
Santa Clara” (the “Funding Agreement”), attached as Exhibit B, commits the City to use any
County-approved funds for the purpose of constructing the Playground and to expend such
funds within one year from County's approval of the Funding Agreement.
E. Section 604(b) of the County's Park Charter states that the "Board of Supervisors
shall appropriate the money in the County Park Fund for the acquisition, development, or
*****NOT YET APPROVED*****
140514 sdl 00710396 Page 2
acquisition and development of real property for county park purposes and for the
maintenance and operation of county parks. At least 15% of the funds transferred from the
general fund shall be set aside and used for the acquisition of real property for county park
purposes and at least 5% used for park development for county park purposes, and the
remaining funds shall be used for county park operations."
F. The Board-approved Countywide Trails Master Plan for Santa Clara County Parks
and the Parks and Recreation Element of the County General Plan envision a County-wide
network of parks and trails that offer users a seamless recreation experience and encourages
acquisitions for such park purposes.
G. The Board wishes to aid the City in constructing the Playground which, together
with serving as a recreational facility and park experience for children, also serves and fulfills
the County’s additional park purpose of providing a transition, rest-spot, destination, and
staging area for all users of Mitchell Park (the "Park Purpose").
H. The County’s Parks and Recreation Department has determined that the funding
of the Playground through the use of the County’s Park Charter Funds would further the
County's Park Purpose goals and objectives and is consistent and in conformity with the County
Charter, the adopted Parks and Recreation Element of the County's General Plan and the
Board-approved Countywide Trails Master Plan.
I. Pursuant to the terms of the Funding Agreement, the City will comply fully with
the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") prior to the expenditure of any County Funds
for the Magical Bridge Playground.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto, by no less than a four-fifth’s vote,
does hereby RESOLVE, as follows:
SECTION 1. The City of Palo Alto hereby requests financial aid or assistance in the
amount of $150,000 from the County of Santa Clara to fund the construction of a universal-
access playground in Mitchell Park, Palo Alto, by the Friends of the Magical Bridge, LLC, which
playground will be made accessible without barriers to children of any ability who are residents
of Santa Clara County, in accordance with Government Code section 25551. Such use will
necessitate the enlargement or improvement of Mitchell Park with the construction of the
Magical Bridge Playground at a total cost of two million eight hundred eighty-five thousand four
hundred twenty-four dollars ($2,885,424.00). The City finds that the Playground project is of
general interest to the County of Santa Clara and/or the cost of maintenance of the Playground
will increase by reason of its use by residents of the County of Santa Clara who reside outside of
Palo Alto.
SECTION 2. The County’s use of the County Park Charter Funds in the exact amount
of $150,000.00 for the construction of the Magical Bridge Playground serves a Park Purpose
*****NOT YET APPROVED*****
140514 sdl 00710396 Page 3
and is consistent with the County Park Charter, the Parks and Recreation Element of the
County's General Plan and the Board-approved Countywide Trails Master Plan.
SECTION 3. The Council hereby approves (1) the Agreement for the Design,
Construction and Installation of Facilities and Other Capital Improvements at Mitchell Park with
the Friends of the Magical Bridge Playground, LLC and (2) the Funding Agreement by and
between the City of Palo Alto and the County of Santa Clara, both of which relate to the
Mitchell Park Playground and the City, the Friends and/or the County’s rights and obligations
arising under the respective agreements, and the Council authorizes the City Manager to
execute both of these agreements on behalf of the City. The City will use the financial aid of
$150,000 within one year and file a report on its use with the County’s Board of Supervisors in
accordance with Government Code section 25556 and 25557.
SECTION 4. The City finds that pursuant to Government Code section 25555 the
resolution of the County Board of Supervisors is sufficient authority for the County Auditor to
draw his warrant in favor of the City of Palo Alto for the sum of $150,000.00 from Park Charter
Funds and for proper action on the part of any County officer affected to carry out the County’s
resolution.
SECTION 5. The Council finds that the adoption of this resolution does not constitute
a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines, and
therefore, no environmental assessment is required.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
___________________________ ___________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
___________________________ ____________________________
Senior Assistant City Attorney City Manager
*****NOT YET APPROVED*****
140514 sdl 00710396 Page 4
APPROVED:
____________________________
Director of Public Works
Exhibit A - The Agreement between the City and the Friends of the Magical Bridge
Playground, LLC
Exhibit B - The Funding Agreement between the City and the County
140510 sdl 00710392 [Type text]
FUNDING AGREEMENT
BY AND BETWEEN
THE CITY OF PALO ALTO and THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
This Funding Agreement (this “Agreement”) is made and entered into by and between the
COUNTY of SANTA CLARA, a political subdivision of the State of California (the “County”),
and the CITY OF PALO ALTO (the “City”) (individually, a “Party” and, collectively, the
“Parties”).
RECITALS
WHEREAS, the City submitted a funding proposal to the County to assist with the
completion of improvements to the City of Palo Alto Magical Bridge Playground which is
comprised of 1.28 acres and is located within the City of Palo Alto’s Mitchell Park (“Mitchell
Park”), involving construction, operation and/or maintenance of a playground for children of all
ages, and is also referred to as the “Magical Bridge Playground” (the “Project”); and,
WHEREAS, the City has contracted with the Friends of the Palo Alto Parks, a 501(c)(3)
public benefit corporation (“The Friends”), to construct and complete the Project pursuant to a
contract attached to this Agreement as Exhibit 1 (“The Friends Contract”); and,
WHEREAS, by Resolution approved by four-fifths or more vote on or about _____, the
City Council for the City of Palo Alto adopted Resolution (No. _____), requesting financial
assistance from the County for the Magical Bridge Playground and finding that Mitchell Park is
a public park belonging to the City and is being used by large numbers of residents of the County
generally who are not residents of the City, and that the use by the nonresidents of the City
necessitates the enlargement or improvement or increases the cost of maintenance of the Magical
Bridge Playground (Exhibit 2—Certified Copy of Resolution); and,
WHEREAS, the Board-approved Countywide Trails Master Plan for Santa Clara County
Parks and the Parks and Recreation Element of the County General Plan envision a County-wide
network of parks and trails that offer users a seamless recreation experience and encourages
acquisitions for such park purposes (a public purpose); and,
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors, wishes to assist the City with funding (the
“County Funds”) in completing the Project which, together with serving as a playground for
children, also serves and fulfills the additional park purpose of providing a transition, rest-
spot, destination for all users of the County-supported Mitchell Park biking and walking
paths/trails which connect into the County’s network of parks and rails (collectively, the
“Park Purpose”); and,
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors has found, by four-fifths vote, that the Project will
allow for the enlargement or improvement of Mitchell Park which is of general County interest
or that the cost of maintenance is increased by reason of use by residents of the county of Santa
Clara outside of Palo Alto (Exhibit 3—County Resolution).
140510 sdl 00710392 [Type text]
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises, covenants and
conditions herein, the Parties agree, as follows:
1. The City may utilize the County Funds to construct the Project within one (1) year
from the Effective Date, and the City shall return any unspent funds at the end of
this one-year period.
2. The City shall acknowledge the County’s contribution to the Project by placing a
plaque in the Project area, identifying the County of Santa Clara Parks and
Recreation Department as a sponsor of the Project.
3. The City warrants and represents that it shall expend all County Funds in
accordance with the terms of this Agreement.
SECTION 1. PARK PURPOSES
(1) The City represents and warrants that The Friends has secured the rights from the City to
construct the Project for and on behalf of the City, and that the City will ensure that at all times
the Project is open and available to the public on an equal basis, and accessible by all members
of the public, for the Park Purpose.
(2) The Board of Supervisors reviewed the Project and determined that the Project is located
in a park setting in the County; it will be open to the public on an equal basis; it will benefit all
citizens of the County; and the Project will serve the Park Purpose.
SECTION 2. CITY RESPONSIBILITIES
The City’s expenditure of the County Funds is subject to the following conditions:
(1) Responsibility of the City. The City will ensure that The Friends shall complete the
Project, the County Funds are expended for construction of the Project within one (1) year from
the Effective Date, and the City and The Friends shall act promptly and without delay with
respect to such matters in relation to the Project in accordance with the following:
a. Comply with all laws, including but not limited to all environmental, health and
safety laws and all provisions of the public contracts code, where applicable.
b. Comply with best industry practices and manufacturer design and construction
specifications for the Project.
c. Prepare plans and specifications for the Project and construction of the Project
using qualified persons with the requisite skills and expertise to complete the Project.
140510 sdl 00710392 [Type text]
d. Prepare all environmental documents required for completion of the Project
pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, National Environmental Policy Act, and
any rules and/or regulations promulgated thereunder, where applicable.
e. Secure all approvals, permits and certifications by government agencies required
for completion of the Project, where applicable.
f. Secure performance and payment bonds in 100% of the amount of the
construction contract to assure satisfactory completion of the Project, and the payment of
laborers and suppliers of material.
g. Within one (1) year of the Effective Date, the City shall file or cause to be
filed a report to be made to the County Board of Supervisors, showing the disposition of
the County Funds.
(2) Capital Contributions by the Parties to this Agreement.
a. The City shall ensure that any funds needed in excess of the County Funds for the
completion of the Project are secured for the completion of the Project.
b. No County Funds may be used for office space, salary or administrative expenses
incidental to the Project, or for professional planning or architectural design fees, or
preconstruction services.
(3) Budget Contingency. Performance and/or payment by the County pursuant to this
Agreement is contingent upon the appropriation of sufficient funds by the County for the work
covered by this Agreement. If funding is reduced or deleted by the County for the work covered
by this Agreement, the County may, at its option and without penalty or liability, terminate this
Agreement by giving the City at least thirty (30) days’ prior notice of termination or offer an
amendment to this Agreement, indicating the reduced amount of the County Funds.
SECTION 3. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
Upon the completion of the Project’s construction, the City warrants, represents and agrees that
it, or its authorized representatives, will operate, manage and maintain the Magical Bridge
Playground for a period of at least twenty (20) consecutive years from the Effective Date, for the
Park Purpose, open to the public and for the benefit of the general public. Ongoing operation,
management and maintenance are solely the responsibility of the City acting by itself or through
its authorized representatives.
SECTION 4. COMPENSATION
(1) The County will provide the City with One Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars, Zero Cents
($150,000.00) (the “County Funds’) in exchange for the City’s compliance with all terms and
conditions of this Agreement. The City will be solely liable and responsible for managing the
expenditure and distribution of the County Funds upon its receipt from the County, including the
140510 sdl 00710392 [Type text]
full responsibility and accountability for ensuring all County Funds are expended in compliance
with this Agreement and applicable laws.
(2) The County will pay the County Funds to the City upon the issuance of the Notice to
Proceed for the construction work contemplated herein.
(3) Any County Funds not expended pursuant to the terms and conditions of this Agreement
shall be returned to the County immediately. All County Funds must be expended within one (1)
year of the Effective Date or returned to the County. In addition, if, for whatever reason, the
City is unable to ensure the completion of the construction of the Project or is unable to ensure
that the Magical Bridge Playground is operated, managed and maintained for the Park Purpose
described herein for twenty (20) consecutive years from the Effective Date, then the City shall
immediately refund to the County all the County Funds, even if such funds have already been
expended for the Project.
SECTION 5. RECORDS RETENTION AND AUDIT
(1) The City will maintain project records for audit purposes for three (3) years after
completion of the Project or until all claims are settled, whichever occurs last. All records and
data shall be available to County upon reasonable notice within five (5) working days of a
request by the County. The City shall repay the County with interest at the rate earned on the
County’s investments for any unauthorized activities disclosed by audit or inspection, including
the cost of the audit, within thirty (30) days of demand by the County.
(2) Audits may be conducted at the discretion of the Santa Clara County Parks and
Recreation Department. The audits may take one or both of two forms: (A) a walk-through
inspection of the Project and informal review of the Project records by Parks and Recreation
Department staff; or (B) a formal financial audit conducted by either the County’s staff or a
consultant. The City will be prepared for either or both types of audits. A walk-through
inspection may occur at the beginning of the Project, prior to approval of the final reimbursement
request, or at periodic intervals throughout the Project. A formal financial audit may occur as
deemed necessary by the Santa Clara County Parks and Recreation Department.
SECTION 6. INDEMNIFICATION.
The City covenants, warrants, represents and agrees that:
a. Excluding any Claims that are the direct result of the sole gross negligence or
willful misconduct of the County or the Indemnified Parties, the City shall indemnify, defend,
save and hold harmless the County and each of the County’s Board of Supervisors, employees,
officers, attorneys, agents, representatives, affiliates, contractors and subcontractors (collectively,
the “Indemnified Parties”) from, for and against any and all claims, causes of action, risks, suits,
losses, allegations, injuries, illness, death, damages and liabilities (including but not limited to
litigation costs and attorneys’ fees) (the “Claims”) relating to, or resulting from, wholly or in art,
directly or indirectly, (1) any breach of this Agreement by the City, (2) the acts or omissions of
the City or any of the City’s employees, officers, agents, representatives, contractors,
140510 sdl 00710392 [Type text]
consultants, or subcontractors (collectively, the “City Representatives’), and/or (3) the Project,
including without limitation the construction of the Project and any operation or maintenance of
the Project.
b. If any proceeding shall be brought or threatened against the County by reason of
or in connection with the events described in the preceding subparagraphs a. above, as a
condition of indemnity hereunder the County shall (if known) notify the City in writing and the
City shall assume the defense of the Indemnified Parties and the payment of all costs of
litigation. Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, the County shall have the right to employ its
own counsel and to determine its own defense of such action in any such case, but the fees and
expenses of such counsel shall be at the expense of the County unless (i) the employment of such
counsel shall have been authorized in writing by the City, or (ii) the City, after due notice of the
action, shall not have employed counsel reasonably satisfactory to the County to have charge of
such defense, in either of which events the reasonable fees and expenses of counsel for the
County shall be borne by the City. The City shall not be liable for any settlement of any such
action effected without the County’s consent, which shall not be unreasonably withheld. The
City shall not enter into any settlement without the County’s advance consent.
d. To the fullest extent permitted by law, and as a material part of the consideration
to the County for entering into this Agreement, excluding any Claims that are the direct result of
the sole gross negligence or willful misconduct of the County or the Indemnified Parties, the City
hereby forever releases the County and the Indemnified Parties from responsibility and liability
for, waives the City’s entire claim of recovery for, and assumes all risk of: (i) damage to property
or injury to persons (including death) resulting from or relating to any and all of the County
Funds, the Magical Bridge Playground, the Public or Park Purpose, the Project or Mitchell Park.
No defense, indemnification or hold harmless obligations hereunder shall relieve any insurance
carrier of its obligations under any insurance policies carried by the City or the City’s
contractors, consultants or third parties.
e. All indemnification and warranty obligations shall survive the expiration,
termination or cancellation of this Agreement. The County shall be entitled to recover its
reasonable or attorney’s and court costs incurred in enforcing these indemnification obligations.
SECTION 7. TERM OF AGREEMENT
This Agreement is effective as of the date of its full execution and shall terminate twenty (20)
years from the Effective Date, unless otherwise terminated earlier pursuant to the terms of this
Agreement. A failure to expend all of the County Funds for the construction of the Project
within one (1) year from the Effective Date shall result in the automatic termination of this
Agreement without further action or notice.
SECTION 8. NOTICES
Any notices provided herein shall be deemed received when mailed or delivered to the respective
parties addressed as follows:
140510 sdl 00710392 [Type text]
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA CITY OF PALO ALTO
INSERT City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
ATTN.: Director, Community Services
Copy to:
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
ATTN: City Clerk
SECTION 9. MISCELLANEOUS
(1) Entire Agreement. This document represents the entire agreement between the Parties
in relation to the subject matter contained herein. All prior negotiations and written and/or oral
agreements between the Parties with respect to the subject matter of the agreement are merged
into this Agreement.
(2) Amendments. This Agreement may only be amended by a written instrument signed by
authorized representatives of the Parties.
(3) Conflict of Interest. The City shall comply, and require its contractors, employees,
agents, representatives, subcontractors and consultants to comply, with all applicable (i)
requirements governing avoidance of impermissible client conflicts; and (ii) federal, state and
local conflict of interest laws and regulations including, without limitation, California
Government Code section 1090 et seq., the California Political Reform Act (California
Government Code section 87100 et seq.) and the regulations of the Fair Political Practices
Commission concerning disclosure and disqualification (2 California Code of Regulations
section 18700 et seq.). Failure to do so constitutes a material breach of this Agreement and is
grounds for immediate termination of this Agreement by the County.
a. In accepting this Agreement, the City covenants, warrants, represents and agrees
that it presently has no interest, and will not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, financial or
otherwise, which would conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of this
Agreement. The City further covenants that, in the performance of this Agreement, it will not
employ any contractor, consultant or person having such an interest. The City, including, but not
limited to, the City’s employees, contractors, subcontractors and consultants, may be subject to
the disclosure and disqualification provisions of the California Political Reform Act of 1974 (the
“Act”), that (1) requires such persons to disclose economic interests that may foreseeably be
materially affected by the work performed under this Agreement, and (2) prohibits such persons
from making or participating in making decisions that will foreseeably financially affect such
interests.
140510 sdl 00710392 [Type text]
b. If the disclosure provisions of the Political Reform Act are applicable to any
individual providing service under this Agreement, the City shall ensure that all such individuals
identified pursuant to this section understand that they are subject to the Act and shall conform to
all requirements of the Act and other applicable laws and regulations including, as required,
filing of Statements of Economic Interests within thirty (30) days of commencing any work
pursuant to this Agreement, annually by April 1, and within thirty (30) days of their termination
or cessation of work pursuant to this Agreement.
(4) Governing Law, Venue. This Agreement, and all the rights and duties of the parties
arising from or relating in any way to the subject matter of this Agreement or the transaction(s)
contemplated by it, shall be governed by, construed and enforced in accordance with the law of
the State of California (excluding any conflict of laws provisions that would refer to and apply
the substantive laws of another jurisdiction). Any suit or proceeding relating to this Agreement,
including arbitration proceedings, shall be brought only in Santa Clara County, California.
EACH OF THE PARTIES CONSENT TO THE EXCLUSIVE PERSONAL JURISDICTION
AND VENUE OF THE COURTS, STATE AND FEDERAL, LOCATED IN THE CITY OF
SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA.
(5) Assignment. No assignment of this Agreement or of any of the rights or obligations of
the City hereunder shall be valid without the prior written consent of the County, which shall not
be unreasonably withheld.
(6) Waiver. No delay or omission by either Party hereto to exercise any right occurring
upon any noncompliance or default by the other Party with respect to any of the terms of this
Agreement shall impair any such right or power or be construed to be a waiver thereof. A
waiver by either of the Parties hereto of any of the covenants, conditions or agreements to be
performed by the other shall not be construed to be a waiver of any succeeding breach thereof or
of any covenant, condition or agreement herein contained.
(7) Non-Discrimination. The City represents, warrants and agrees that it and its contractors,
consultants and representatives shall comply with all applicable Federal, State and local laws and
regulations, including Santa Clara County’s policies concerning nondiscrimination and equal
opportunity in contracting. Such laws include but are not limited to the following: Title VII of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as amended; Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990; the
Rehabilitation Act of 9173 (Sections 503 and 504); California Fair Employment and Housing
Act (Government Code sections 12900 et seq.); and California Labor Code sections 1101 and
1102. The City represents, warrants and agrees that it shall not discriminate against any
contractor, subcontractor, employee, or applicant for employment because of age, race, color,
national origin, ancestry, religion, sex/gender, sexual orientation, mental disability, physical
disability, medical condition, political beliefs, organizational affiliations, or marital status in the
recruitment, selection for training including apprenticeship, hiring, employment, utilization,
promotion, layoff, rates of pay or other forms of compensation. The City also represents,
warrants and agrees that it shall not discriminate in provision of work performed in relation to
this Agreement because of age, race, color, national origin, ancestry, religion, sex/gender, sexual
140510 sdl 00710392 [Type text]
orientation, mental disability, physical disability, medical condition, political beliefs,
organizational affiliations, or marital status.
(8) County No-Smoking Policy. The City and its employees, agents, contractors,
subcontractors and consultants, shall comply with the County’s No-Smoking Policy, as set forth
in the Board of Supervisors Policy Manual section 3.47 (as amended from time to time), which
prohibits smoking: (1) at the Santa Clara Valley Medical Center Campus and all County-owned
and operated health facilities, (2) within 30 feet surrounding County-owned buildings and leased
buildings where the County is the sole occupant, and (3) in all County vehicles.
(9) Food and Beverage Standards. Except in the event of an emergency or medical
necessity, County’s nutritional standards shall apply to any foods and/or beverages purchased by
the City with the County Funds for County-sponsored meetings or events.
(10) California Public Records Act. All documents and records provided to or made
available to the County under this Agreement become the property of the County, which is a
public agency subject to the disclosure requirements of the California Public Records Act
(“CPRA”). If the City’s proprietary information is contained in documents submitted to the
County, and the City claims that such information falls within one or more CPRA exemptions,
the City must clearly mark such information “CONFIENTIAL AND PROPRIETARY,” and
identify the specific lines containing the information. In the event of a request for such
information, the County will make reasonable efforts to provide notice to the City prior to such
disclosure. If the City contends that any documents are exempt from the CPRA and wishes to
prevent disclosure, it is required at its own cost, liability and expense to obtain a protective order,
injunctive relief or other appropriate remedy from a court of law in Santa Clara County before
the County responds to the CPRA request. If the City fails to obtain such a remedy before the
County responds to the CPRA request, the County may disclose the requested information and
shall not be liable or responsible for such disclosure.
a. The City further warrants, represents and agrees that it shall defend, indemnify
and hold the County harmless against any and all claims, actions or litigation (including but not
limited to all judgments, costs, fees, and attorney’s fees) that may result from denial by the
County of a CPRA request for any information arising from any representations, or any action
(or inaction), by the City, its contractors, consultants, employees, agents or representatives.
(11) Third Party Beneficiaries. This Agreement does not, and is not intended to, confer any
rights or remedies upon any person or entity other than the Parties. The Friends shall have no
right or claim attaching to this Agreement or to the County Funds and is not a third party
beneficiary of or to this Agreement.
(12) Relationship of the Parties. The Parties acknowledge and agree that nothing set forth in
this Agreement shall be deemed or construed to render the parties as joint venturers, partners,
agents, a joint enterprise, employer-employee, or lender-borrower. The City shall have no
authority to employ any person as employee or agent on behalf of the County for any purpose.
Neither the City nor any person using or involved in or participating in the Project or in the use
of the County Funds shall be deemed a third party beneficiary to this Agreement nor an
140510 sdl 00710392 [Type text]
employee or agent of the County, nor shall any such person represent himself or herself to others
as a third party beneficiary to this Agreement or as an employee or agent of the County.
(13) No Indemnification and Insurance by County. Nothing contained in this Agreement is
to be construed as an indemnification by the County for any loss, damage, injury or death arising
out of or caused, in whole or in part, by the County or its Board of Supervisors, officers,
executives, attorneys, employees, agents, representatives, contractors or subcontractors. Nothing
contained herein shall be construed to, and nothing shall, obligate the County to provide any
insurance, indemnity or protection for or on behalf of any third party, the Project, the County
Funds, the Magical Bridge Playground, or Mitchell Park.
(14) Subcontractors. If any obligation is performed for or on behalf of the City through a
consultant, contractor or subcontractor, the City will remain fully responsible for the
performance of all obligations under this Agreement and the City will be solely responsible for
all payments due to its contractors, consultants or subcontractors. No contract, subcontract or
other agreement entered into by the City with any third party in connection with this Agreement,
or for or in relation to the use of the County Funds, will provide for any indemnity, guarantee or
assumption of liability by, or other obligation of, the County with respect to such arrangement.
No contractor, consultant or subcontractor will be deemed a third party beneficiary for any
purposes under or to this Agreement.
(15) Nonexclusive Agreement. The City agrees that this Agreement is non-exclusive and the
County may at any time, in its sole discretion, enter into agreements with other parties for any
purpose deemed to be in the best interest of the County.
(16) Paragraph Headings. The headings and captions of the various paragraphs and
subparagraphs hereof are for convenience only, and they shall not limit, expand or otherwise
affect the construction or interpretation of this Agreement.
(17) Cumulative Remedies. The rights and remedies of the Parties, whether pursuant to this
Agreement or in accordance with law, shall be construed as cumulative, and the exercise of any
single right or remedy shall constitute neither a bar to the exercise of nor the waiver of any other
available right or remedy.
(18) Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in several counterparts, and all of such
counterparts so executed together shall be deemed to constitute one and the same agreement, and
each such counterpart shall be deemed to be an original. Facsimile or electronic signatures shall
have the same legal effect as original or manual signatures if followed by mailing of a fully
executed original to the Parties.
(19) Construction/Severability. This Agreement shall not be construed more strongly
against either Party regardless of who is more responsible for its preparation. If any provision of
this Agreement is found by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unenforceable, such
invalidity or unenforceability shall not invalidate or render unenforceable any other Party of this
Agreement, but the Agreement shall be construed as not containing the particular provision or
provisions held to be invalid or unenforceable.
140510 sdl 00710392 [Type text]
(20) Authority. Each party represents and warrants that it has executed this Agreement freely,
fully intending to be bound by the terms and provisions contained in this Agreement and that the
persons signing below are authorized to sign on each Party’s behalf.
(21) Survival. All terms and conditions that by their nature should survive termination or
expiration of this Agreement, shall so survive including but not limited to Section 4, 5, 6, 7, 8,
and 9 inclusive.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Agreement as provided
below. The “Effective Date” of this Agreement shall be the last date signed by all below.
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA: CITY OF PALO ALTO:
_____________________ _________________________
Mike Wasserman, President Name:
Board of Supervisors Title:
Date:__________________ Date:__________________
Signed and certified that a copy of this document
has been delivered by electronic or other means to
the President, Board of Supervisors.
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Lynn Regadanz, Clerk
Of the Board of Supervisors
Approved as to form and legality: Approved as to form:
______________________________ _________________________
Shirley R. Edwards Grant Kolling
Deputy County Counsel Senior Asst. City Attorney
Enclosures:
Exhibit 1—The Friends Contract
Exhibit 2—Certified Copy of City of Palo Alto Resolution No.________.
Exhibit 3—County Resolution Approving Funds.
ORDINANCE NO.xxxx
ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2014 TO
PROVIDE INCREASE THE APPROPRIATION FOR THE MAGICAL
BRIDGE PLAYGROUND PROJECT (PE-12013) BY $150,000. A
CORRESPONDING INCREASE TO THE BUDGETED ESTIMATE FOR
REVENUE FROM OTHER AGENCIES IN THE CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT FUND IS ALSO RECOMMENDED TO REFLECT
ANTICIPATED GRANT PROCEEDS FROM THE COUNTY OF SANTA
CLARA COUNTY PARK CHARTER FUND. AN APPROPRIATION
OF $335,000 TO CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT
NUMBER PE-13011, CHARLESTON/ARASTRADERO CORRIDOR
PROJECT
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ordain as follows:
SECTION 1. The Council of the City of Palo Alto finds and
determines as follows:
A. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 of Article
III of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto, the Council on
June 10, 2013 did adopt a budget for fiscal year 2014; and
B. In fiscal year 2013, the Council appropriated $250,000
for CIP Project PE-13011, Charleston/Arastradero Corridor
Project, for the design of the permanent reconfiguration
identified in the Council adopted Charleston/Arastradero
Corridor Plan. Also in fiscal year 2013, $210,505 was moved
from CIP Project PL-05002 Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Plan
to CIP Project PE-13011, Charleston/Arastradero Corridor
Project to consolidate these two projects into one projectOn
April 14, 2014 the County of Santa Clara Board of Supervisors
approved a motion authorizing staff to bring forward an
agreement with the City of Palo Alto for utilization of
$150,000 from the County’s Park Charter Fund, to be used for
the construction of the Magical Bridge Playground and other
improvements at Mitchell Park associated with the new
playground; and
C. Following a bid process, staff recommends that a
contract in the amount of $736,765 be awarded to Mark Thomas &
Company for conceptual and preliminary designs of the project;
and
D. Additional funding is also required for seven public
outreach meetings planned for FY 2014 at a cost of
approximately $5,500 per meeting; and
E. CIP Project PE-13011 has available funds of $440,368
requiring additional funding of $335,000 from the
Charleston/Arastradero Development Impact Fee Fund; and
F. City Council authorization is needed to amend the 2014
budget as hereinafter set forth.
SECTION 2. The sum of Three One Hundred ThirtyFifty-Five
Thousand Dollars ($150335,000) is hereby appropriated to CIP
Project PE-1301112013, Magical Bridge
PlaygroundCharleston/Arastradero Corridor Project.
SECTION 3. Three Hundred Thirty-Five Thousand Dollars
($335,000) is hereby transferred from the
Charleston/Arastradero Development Impact Fee FundThe estimate
for Revenue from Other Agencies is hereby increased to account
for anticipated grant funds from the Santa Clara County Park
Charter Fund.
SECTION 4. As specified in Section 2.28.080(a) of the
Palo Alto Municipal Code, a two-thirds vote of the City
Council is required to adopt this ordinance.
SECTION 4. As specified in Section 2.28.080(a) of the
Palo Alto Municipal Code, a two-thirds vote of the City
Council is required to adopt this ordinance.
SECTION 545. As provided in Section 2.04.330 of the Palo
Alto Municipal Code, this ordinance shall become effective
upon adoption.
SECTION 65. Because the construction phase will receive
state and local grant funds originating from the federal
government, the environmental assessment of the Charleston-
Arastradero Corridor Project must be conducted to comply with
both the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and
California Environmental Policy Act (CEQA). An Initial Study
and Mitigated Negative Declaration were prepared in 2004.
Mark Thomas & Company will assist staff with the preparation
of the required environmental documents. In support of the
environmental analysis, the consultant will conduct the
special technical studies as required by Caltrans for the NEPA
process.
Formatted: Body Text Indent 2, Left, Indent:Left: 0", First line: 0"
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.5", First line: 0.5"
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
_________________________
City Clerk
__________________________
Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________
Senior Assistant City
Attorney
__________________________
City Manager
__________________________
Director of Public Works
__________________________
Director of Administrative
Services
City of Palo Alto (ID # 3865)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 5/19/2014
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Magical Bridge Design/Construction Agreement
Title: The Magical Bridge Playground Design/Construction Agreement -
Between the City of Palo Alto and the Friends of the Magical Bridge; and
Adoption of a Budget Amendment Ordinance for Fiscal Year 2014 to provide
an Additional Appropriation in the Amount of $1,874,182 for the Magical
Bridge Playground capital project (PG-12006) and $30,000 for the Art in
Public Places capital project (AC-86017)
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Public Works
Recommendation
Staff and the Parks and Recreation Commission recommend that Council:
1)Adopt a Park Improvement Ordinance for the Magical Bridge Playground
Project of Park Facilities and Other improvements (Attachment A);
Staff recommends that Council:
2)Approve the Design, Construction and Funding Agreement for the Magical
Bridge Playground Project of Park Facilities and Other improvements in
Mitchell Park (Attachment B); and
3)Adopt an Ordinance Amending the Budget for Fiscal Year 2014 to provide
an additional appropriation in the amount of $1,874,182 for the Magical
Bridge Playground capital project (PG-12006) and $30,000 for the Art in
Public Places capital project (AC-86017) and to recognize a Transportation
Development Act (TDA) grant from the Metropolitan Transportation
Commission (MTC)in the amount of $82,712 and contributions from the
Friends of the Magical Bridge, LLC in the amount of $2,821,471.
(Attachment C)
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Background
In June 2007, the Friends of the Magical Bridge (Friends) founder, Olenka
Villarreal, approached staff about the need for a universally accessible children’s
playground in Palo Alto. Ms. Villarreal pointed out that playground accessibility in
Palo Alto is limited and does not accommodate persons of varying disabilities.
She mentioned that the Palo Alto Unified School District has an excellent program
for those with special needs, and that there are more than 1,500 children in Palo
Alto that have developmental, sight, hearing, balance or autistic challenges that
require special play equipment and access.Ms. Villarreal shared the stories of her
own daughter and those of other parents whose children or themselves are
unable to play at city playgrounds.
In April and July 2008, the Friends made presentations to the Parks and
Recreation Commission (PRC) on the concept of a new universally accessible
children’s playground at the southern portion of Mitchell Park. On July 22, 2008,
the PRC and staff concurred that the project would be compatible with the
Mitchell Park Master Plan and recommended to the City Council that a joint
venture between the City and Friends to construct a universally accessible
playground be adopted.
On June 20, 2011, Council approved an appropriation of $1,300,000 to fund the
Magical Bridge project CIP (PE-12013). A letter of intent between the City and the
Friends specified that $300,000 of the appropriation would be the City’s
contribution to the project for design and construction services. The remaining
$1,000,000 was intended for construction, and was to be reimbursed by the
friends following their fundraising efforts. The City’s financial contribution to the
project is capped at $300,000.
Design Process
The design process for the Magical Bridge Playground started in February of 2012
with Landscape Architect consultant, Royston Hanamoto Alley and Abey (RHAA),
in conjunction with Friends and City staff.RHAA was responsible for the initial
design of Mitchell Park in the mid 1950’s and brings many years of experience to
the project.
The following steps describe the design process:
City of Palo Alto Page 3
1.A design workshop between the Friends, City staff and RHAA (design team)
resulted in two initial playground designs incorporating playground
elements from the Friends’ compiled list of needs.
2.The initial two designs were presented at a community meeting in March
2012.The general response toward both plans was positive.
3.PRC and Architectural Review Board (ARB) study sessions for the two
designs were held in April 2012.
4.Following the community, PRC and ARB meetings, a singular conceptual
design was created, incorporating many identified needs and the public
comments received. This conceptual design served as a master plan and
vision for the site with a total project budget of approximately $4 million.
5.The conceptual design was presented to the Palo Alto Bike Advisory
Committee (PABAC)in April 2012 and to the City/School Traffic Safety
Committee in May 2012.
6.A second community meeting was held on June 2012. The design concept
was well-received at the meeting.
7.Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) approved an allocation in
Spring 2013 of $82,712 in Transportation Development Act (TDA) funds for
pathway improvements that improve access to the playground and across
the Adobe Creek Bridge.
8.After several months of fund raising,the Friends set a project budget in
May 2013 of $3.7 million for the playground.
9.A revised design meeting the $3.7 million budget was presented at a third
community meeting on March 1, 2014. The revised plan was well received.
10.The plan was presented to the PRC on March 25. All Commissioners were
in favor of the project.
11. A meeting with (PABAC) was held on April 3, 2014 to review the updated
design and discuss alternate routes for the pathway while during
construction. PABAC was very supportive of the project.
12.A Notice of Intent to circulate the initial environmental study in April 16,
2014 was posted at the Santa Clara County Recorder’s Office and the State
Clearing House.
13.An ARB meeting was held on April 17, 2014. The plan was approved with
conditions to return with additional information on the design of the
playhouse, lighting and signage.
City of Palo Alto Page 4
14.A PRC meeting was held on April 22, 2014 to review the park
improvements as part of the Park Improvement Ordinance (PIO). The
recommendation to Council to approve the PIO passed unanimously.
15.An ARB meeting was held on May 1, 2014 to discuss the treehouse,
lighting and signage. The ARB approved these elements.
Fund Raising Progress
Upon the completion of the conceptual designs in July 2012, the Friends
developed marketing materials and launched a fund raising campaign in October
2012. The Friends have been actively fund raising towards the $3.7 projected cost
of completing the project. The Friends have a combination of $3.5 million in
funding and pledges,and are close to achieving their fund raising goal. Per the
agreement between the Friends and the City; the Friends will deliver the initial
contribution of $2,500,000 to the City within 30 days of the approved agreement,
and the second contribution of $321,470 within 90 days of the approved
agreement.
In March 2014, at the request of the Friends of the Magical Bridge, City Manager
Jim Keene appealed to the Santa Clara County Supervisor and former Palo Alto
Mayor Joseph Simitian for his support of a $150,000 appropriation from the Santa
Clara County Parks Charter fund towards the Magical Bridge Project (See related
staff report 4782. The City has also been awarded a Transportation Development
Act (TDA) grant from MTC in the amount of $82,712 for pathway and bridge
improvements that will focus on renovation of the existing pedestrian/bike path
connecting Mitchell Park to Charleston Road. Improvements will address
repaving of the existing walkway and renovations to the existing bridge across
Adobe Creek that links the main portion of Mitchell Park with the area designated
for the construction of the Magical Bridge Playground. These improvements
include meeting the American Disability Act (ADA) for access to the bridge, which
the current access ramps to the bridge do not meet as well as minor repairs to the
bridge including replacement of wood planks and new handrails. The work
associated with the TDA grant will be performed by the Friends’contractor
constructing the playground and is covered in the agreement between the Friends
and the City.
Discussion
City of Palo Alto Page 5
The proposed playground design is composed of seven play zones, with each zone
focusing on a specific type of play. They include: sliding, swinging, spinning, tot-
lot, music, natural play and open play area. Defining separate zones dedicated to
one specific type of play is an important factor separating and elevating the
playgrounds design over other inclusive playgrounds that have been constructed
previously.Containing multiple pieces of play equipment,each zone allows users
of all physical and cognoscente abilities to experience that specific play activity.
Another distinct element of the playground includes areas of retreat in each play
zone. These retreats allow users to observe and gain comfort with a play activity
or to step away from the activity to calm down or rest.
Other elements of the playground that are distinct to its inclusive design goal
include: A fully accessible elevated tree walk, interactive music elements, adult
exercise opportunities, contrasting paving textures (rubberized paving and
concrete paving) and colors between walkways and play zones to clearly
demarcate each play area, defined entry points to each play zone to direct access
away from active play, play zone signage that includes braille, and a natural play
area. Play equipment used in the play zones are provided by multiple vendors
and represent the newest and most innovative inclusive products on the market.
The PRC and staff is recommending approval of the PIO (Attachment A) reflecting
these playground improvements.
Access and Bridge Design
Access to the site is provided by the Charleston Connection Corridor (pathway)
Project, a major bike path, which enters the site in the southeast corner, parallels
the existing tennis courts and crosses over Adobe Creek via an existing arched,
glue-laminated timber bridge to connect to the greater Mitchell Park. The
existing bridge approaches have slopes up to 12 percent, which exceed the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accessibility standard of 8.33 percent.In
addition, an evaluation of the existing bridge identified some deterioration of the
physical condition of the wood and steel elements of the bridge. These bridge
elements will be repaired including painting and deck replacement. New railings
and retaining walls will support the new ADA-compliant ramps leading to the
bridge from both directions. As part of the proposed project, the existing bridge
would be removed and replaced with an ADA-compliant structure should funds
City of Palo Alto Page 6
be available in the future.A secondary entrance located in the northeast corner
of the project site provides access from the adjacent private property. This
private property is currently occupied by Abilities United, who will partner with
Friends of the Magical Bridge to supervise the playground after construction.
Agreement
Staff is recommending approval of the Agreement between the Friends and the
City (Attachment B) and a BAO to fund the project (Attachment C). Staff has
worked cooperatively with the Friends to develop an agreement and right-of-
entry to provide the Friends’construction contractor exclusive access to the full
designated playground site in Mitchell Park for construction purposes. The
agreement specifies policy and procedural guidelines for the Friends of the
Magical Bridge to follow regarding design, construction, safety, liability and
payment details. The agreement follows similar successful public/private
partnership agreements that provide for authorized non-profit organizations to
manage the improvements of City facilities. Other examples of such partnerships
include the construction of the Heritage Park children’s playground, the Children’s
Theatre construction of the Magical Castle,and the renovation of the Palo Alto
Art Center.
The Friends have solicited bids from qualified and State-licensed contractors. The
selected contractor will be responsible for providing insurance and will indemnify
the City and the Friends against certain risks. The insurance required is similar to
the level of protection normally required for City public works construction
projects. The contractor will also be responsible for meeting the requirements of
the TDA grant’s prevailing wage criteria associated with the existing pathway and
bridge renovation work as outlined in the agreement. The Friends have provided
a proposed budget (Exhibit B)and construction timeline (Exhibit C) for the
project.
Once the agreement is signed and approved, and all requirements met, the
Friends will obtain the necessary building permits from the City and commence
with construction in June of 2014. The City’s Building Inspection Division will
inspect the progress of the construction in order to ensure that the project is
constructed safely and competently according to all codes and specifications. All
construction work will be coordinated with the Utility Department, local schools
and neighborhood to ensure that any impacts to infrastructure and to Mitchell
City of Palo Alto Page 7
Park access are limited. If for any reason the Friends are unable to satisfactorily
complete the project,the retained dedicated funds for the project will be used to
allow the City to complete the project according to plans.
According to the agreement, the Friends will provide the City an initial payment
for $2,500,000 before the construction begins. The Friends have the option to
provide a second payment of $321,470 to complete phase two improvements
within 90 days after Council approval of the agreement. This payment structure
provides flexibility to proceed with the project in phases while the Friends collect
the total project funding, if necessary. City staff has worked with the friends to
identify $321,470 in phase two construction work that could be excluded from
the project without significantly impacting the final playground if the Friends
were unable to complete all of the fundraising. This ensures that the City would
not be obligated to use City funds beyond the original $300,000 commitment to
complete the project in that event. In addition to the Phase one and two
payments to the City totaling $2,821,470, the Friends have purchased equipment
for the playground at a cost of $342,876. While this expense is part of the total
cost of the project, it is separate from the payments to the City and therefore is
not reflected in the CIP budget and BAO.
2014 Tentative Timeline
ARB approved project with conditions April 24
100% construction drawings/submit for permits May 8
ARB consent item for playhouse and signage May 15
MND circulation period ends May 16
Council approval of agreement, PIO, and BAO May 19
Complete ARB 14 day appeal period May 31
2nd reading of PIO, begin 30-day appeal period June 2
Friends to obtain building permits June 12
Construction start for pathway near June 12
Charleston road
Public Ceremony 11:00 am June 23
Complete Charleston Connection Corridor August 18
Complete construction of playground October/November
Resource Impact
City of Palo Alto Page 8
In fiscal year 2012 Council approved the appropriation of $1,300,000 to the
Magical Bridge project (PE-12013), with an understanding that the Friends of the
Magical Playground would be raising $1,300,000 as their contribution to the
design and construction of the project as outlined in the letter of intent.The
Friends now have commitments up to $3.5M.
The City Council had already approved the appropriation of $1,300,000 to the
project in Fiscal Year 2012. BAOs are necessary to accept and approve the
funding contribution from the Friends of the Magical Playground in the amount of
$2,821,471, the TDA grant in the amount of $82,712 and the Santa Clara County
Park Charter Funds of $150,000. The BAO amount recommended as part of this
staff report is $1,904,182. Of this amount, $1,874,182 is recommended to be
added to the Magical Bridge Playground capital project, with the remainder
($30,000) recommended to be added to the Art in Public Places capital project
(AC-86017)for public art associated with the project. It should be noted that the
BAO to recognize the Santa Clara County Park Charter Funds is included as part of
a separate staff report, also scheduled to be considered by the City Council on
May 19, 2014.
Project Costs and Funding Summary:
Itemized Breakdown of Project Costs
Design & Structural Services $323,436
Playground Construction $3,023,381
10% Contingency (design and
construction)
$334,682
TOTAL:$3,681,499
Funding
Contribution from Friends of the
Magical Bridge, 1st deposit
$2,500,000
Contribution from Friends of the
Magical Bridge, 2nd deposit
$321,471
Donated Design & Structural Services $234,475
Friends Equipment Purchase $342,876
TDA Grant $82,712
City TDA local match (from $300,000)*$49,965
Santa Clara County Park Charter funds $150,000
City of Palo Alto Page 9
TOTAL:$3,681,499
BAO Funding
Contribution from Friends of the
Magical Bridge, 1st deposit
$2,500,000
Contribution from Friends of the
Magical Bridge, 2nd deposit
$321,471
TDA Grant $82,712
Santa Clara County Park Charter funds $150,000
TOTAL CONTRIBUTED FUNDS:$3,054,183
Funds previously appropriated in the
CIP (PG-12006) for Construction
purposes
$1,000,000
TOTAL REQUESTED BAOs: $2,054,183
*The City’s funding contribution to the Magical Bridge project is $300,000. This
funding was appropriated as part of the Fiscal Year 2012 Budget. The above table
does not reflect the entire $300,000 contribution. The $300,000 contribution will
be utilized for multiple purposes,including but not limited to public art, grant
matching funds, testing, and design work, as outlined in Exhibit C of this report.
The total additional funding for this project in the amount of $2,054,183 is
recommended to be approved with two Budget Amendment Ordinances attached
to two related City Manager Reports as described in the table below.
May 19, 2014 Magical Bridge Budget Amendment Ordinances
City Manager Report #3865 (TDA and
Friends of the Magical Bridge)
$1,874,183
City Manager Report #3865 (Art in
Public Places)
$30,000
City Manager Report #4782 (Santa Clara
County Grant)
$150,000
Total BAO amounts, City Manager
Reports #3865 and #4782
$2,054,183
City of Palo Alto Page 10
The annual cost for maintaining and operating the playground is currently
estimated at $8,500.
Policy Implications
This project is consistent with the City’s approved public/private partnership
policy as a “joint partnership project.”
The proposed project is consistent with existing City policy, including Policy C-26:
To maintain and enhance existing park facilities.
Environmental Review
An Initial Study (IS) and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) were prepared for
the subject project and the documents were circulated for public review from
April 16, 2014 to May 16, 2014.These documents can be reviewed on the City’s
website at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/planningprojects.
The primary environmental issues addressed in the Initial Study include: air
quality, biologic resources, and cultural resources. A Mitigated Negative
Declaration (Attachment D)has been prepared, pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and has been recommended for Council
approval by the Director of Planning and Community Environment.The Director
will approve the Architectural Review application on May 16 which will start the
14-day appeal period. If no appeal is filed, the approval will become effective
prior to the second reading of the PIO scheduled for June 2.
Attachments:
·A -00710373 ORDN PIO Mitchell Park Magical Bridge Playground (PDF)
·B -00710337A AGMT Magical Bridge Mitchel Park Construction Agreement (PDF)
·C - Magical Bridge BAO 3865 (DOC)
·D -Magic Bridge Initial Study (PDF)
140416 dm 00710373
*NOT YET APPROVED*
1
Ordinance No. ______
Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving
and Adopting a Plan for Improvements to Mitchell Park
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. The City Council finds and declares that:
(a) Article VIII of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto and Section 22.08.005
of the Palo Alto Municipal Code require that, before any substantial building,
construction, reconstruction or development is commenced or approved, upon or with
respect to any land held by the City for park purposes, the Council shall first cause to be
prepared and by ordinance approve and adopt a plan therefore.
(b) Mitchell Park is dedicated to park, playground, and recreational space.
(c) The City intends to authorize the construction of certain park
improvements within 0.8 acres of Mitchell Park, referred to a The Magical Bridge
Playground, as shown on the Magical Bridge Landscape Improvement Plan (the “Plan”),
attached as Exhibit “A,” including:
(1) Installation of new inclusive playground and associated equipment;
(2) Installation of new accessible walkway and railings;
(3) Installation of irrigation, landscaping and trees;
(4) Installation of lighting;
(5) Installation of bike racks, benches, picnic tables and other amenities; and
(6) Installation of a prefabricated pedestrian/bike bridge
(d) The Project will be constructed in a manner as to avoid protected trees
and other sensitive natural resources, if any. In addition, the existing park uses will be
restored following the completion of construction of the Project.
(e) The Project is consistent with park and recreation purposes.
(f) The Council desires to approve the Project, described above and as more
specifically described in the attached Plan.
SECTION 2. The Council hereby approves the Plan for the construction of the
improvements at Mitchell Park, and it hereby adopts the Plan, attached hereto as
Exhibit "A,” as part of the official plan for the construction of the park improvements at
Mitchell Park.
140416 dm 00710373
SECTION 3. The Council finds that the project to construct the facilities at
Mitchell Park is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act. A draft mitigated
negative declaration was prepared and circulated on April16, 2014.
SECTION 4. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty‐first day after the
date of its adoption.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
__________________________ ____________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
__________________________ ____________________________
Senior Asst. City Attorney City Manager
____________________________
Director of Community Services
____________________________
Director of Administrative Services
140416 dm 00710373
Exhibit “A”
The Magical Bridge Landscape Improvement Plan
EXHIBIT '
--,.-.--.. -.. -,---....._ . .. -
_ .... _-
--•
---;"""""". -.. -.. -.-." "-:.:::.:::
-----=-~
Magical Bridge Playground Plan
----. _. --::..--~
-----'---
, ="-=--:.::-.:.:::::=-.-= ._---_.----------
•
--
•
--
140513 sdl 00710337B 1
AGREEMENT FOR THE DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION AND
INSTALLATION OF FACILITIES AND OTHER CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENTS AT MITCHELL PARK
This Agreement for the Design, Construction and Installation of Facilities
and Other Capital Improvements at Mitchell Park (the “Agreement”), dated, for
convenience, ______________________, 2014 (the “Effective Date”), is made and
entered into by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal
corporation (the “CITY”) and the FRIENDS OF THE MAGICAL BRIDGE, LLC, a California
limited liability company (the “FRIENDS”) (individually, a “Party” and, collectively, the
“Parties”), in reference to the following facts and circumstances:
RECITALS:
A. The CITY has designated as a city park, under Palo Alto Municipal Code
section 22.08.180, a 17.99 acre site, commonly known as Mitchell Park (the “Park”), and
a 10‐foot pathway from the Park to Charleston Road. The southwestern portion of the
Park and pathway is the proposed site of the Magical Bridge Playground and the
Charleston Road Corridor Pathway (the “Pathway”), which will be bounded by the
tennis courts, the northern approach to Adobe Creek, and the southern border of the
Park, including the Pathway, connecting the Park along a 10‐foot access easement,
terminating at Charleston Road.
B. The FRIENDS intends to benefit the CITY and the general public by
designing, constructing and installing on approximately 0.8 acre of the Park and
approximately a 0.1 acre Pathway (the “Site”) certain playground, play equipment,
slides, features, benches, tables, park amenities, pathway, signage, and accessible
crossing of Adobe Creek and associated capital improvements and structures (the
“Facilities”). The schematic description and site map of the Site is described in Exhibit
“A”. A design, construction and installation schedule for the Facilities is included in
Exhibit “B”.
C. The FRIENDS will complete 100 percent of the construction document
package to design, construct and install the Facilities at substantially its own cost and
expense. The CITY will grant to the FRIENDS an amount of funds not to exceed five
hundred thirty‐two thousand dollars ($532,000), which the FRIENDS will apply towards
the design and construction costs of the Facilities and off‐site Facilities. At a minimum,
the FRIENDS will grant to the City an amount of funds of not‐to‐exceed two million five
hundred thousand dollars ($2,500,000.00) for the completion of Phase 1 of the Facilities
and off‐site Facilities, and a not‐to‐exceed three hundred twenty‐one thousand four
hundred seventy dollars ($321,470) for the completion of Phase 2 of the Facilities and
off‐site Facilities. The itemized budget for Phases 1 and 2 is included in Exhibit “C”.
140513 sdl 00710337B 2
D. Upon the completion of the design, construction and installation of the
Facilities, the FRIENDS will deliver possession of the Site to the CITY and will transfer all
of its rights, title and interests, if any, in and to the Facilities to the CITY.
E. Pursuant to the CITY’s policy and procedures, the CITY is required to
allocate one percent (1%) of the construction costs of a CITY capital improvement
project for public art in, among other places, parks and plazas. The CITY intends to
allocate 1% of the qualifying portion of the budget for the Facilities, which shall be
deemed a capital improvement project, or thirty thousand dollars ($30,000). The CITY
intends to disburse eighty‐two thousand seven hundred twelve dollars ($82,712) of local
Transportation Development Act (“TDA”) funds to the construction the Charleston Road
Corridor Pathway Improvement Project (the “Pathway”). The City intends to disburse
$150,000 of the Santa Clara County Parks Charter Funds to the construction of the
Facilities upon completion of the Facilities.
F. The FRIENDS understand that, because the CITY is disbursing TDA funds
for the benefit of the Project, the FRIENDS are required to pay prevailing wages for any
and all labor used in connection with the construction of the Project.
IN CONSIDERATION OF the Recitals A through F, inclusive, which are
made a substantive part of this Agreement, and the following covenants, terms and
conditions, the Parties agree:
AGREEMENT:
1. PURPOSES
1.1 The Parties agree that the purposes of this Agreement are to:
(a) Grant the FRIENDS and its contractors, agents and representatives
temporary access to the Site during the Term in order that the FRIENDS may construct
and install, or cause the construction and installation of, the Facilities;
(b) Provide for the preparation by the FRIENDS, and the review and approval
by the CITY, of the FRIENDS’ plans, specifications and working drawings for the Facilities;
(c) Provide for the completion of design, construction and installation of the
Facilities and off‐site Facilities by the FRIENDS and its contractors, agents and
representatives and the granting of the CITY’s approval and acceptance of the Facilities;
and
(d) Provide for the transfer of possession of the Site and all rights, title and
interests in and to the Facilities and off‐site Facilities to the CITY upon the completion of
design, construction and installation of the Facilities.
140513 sdl 00710337B 3
1.2 In regard to the off‐site improvements relating to the Facilities, the
following will apply:
(a) Notwithstanding any provisions of this Agreement to the contrary, the
FRIENDS shall be responsible for the design, construction, installation, repair, and/or
maintenance of any underground improvements or facilities that may be required to
bring the necessary utility services to the Facilities, such as water lines, electrical service,
storm drain lines connecting to existing underground lines, or any other above ground
or underground off‐site improvements or facilities (collectively, the “Off‐Site
Improvements”) that may be required for the use of the Playground and any portion of
the Facilities, as described in Recital B above, that are constructed or installed, or
caused to be constructed or installed, by the FRIENDS at the Site. The foregoing
provision regarding the obligation of the FRIENDS with respect to the Off‐Site
Improvements takes into account that, as of the Effective Date, there may be a water
line, an electrical line, and/or a storm drain connection to and at the Site.
(b) The FRIENDS’ general contractor will collaborate and otherwise
coordinate with the CITY in re‐routing bicyclist and pedestrian access through the Site.
The Pathway improvements shall not be performed when regular school is in session.
1.3 The CITY, at its sole cost and expense, will be responsible to perform any
work of construction necessary to correct, remove, or repair any undiscovered pre‐
existing conditions.
1.4 The FRIENDS, at its sole cost and expense, will be responsible for
completing the design and construction the Off‐Site Improvements referred to in
Section 1.2(a) above.
1.5 In the event the Site is destroyed by any cause that renders the Site unfit
for the purposes described in Section 1.1 hereof, and its physical condition cannot be
repaired within one hundred eighty (180) days from the date of destruction, then either
Party may give written notice of termination of this Agreement, which will become
effective thirty (30) days after the other Party’s receipt of such notice.
1.6 Nothing in this Agreement will be construed to limit the CITY’s right to
temporarily revoke the authority of the FRIENDS or its contractors, agents and
representatives to gain access to the Site for the purposes hereof in the event of an
uncured default and breach of this Agreement by the FRIENDS or irrespective of any
breach by the FRIENDS, in the interest of the public health, safety and welfare.
2. TERM
2.1 This Agreement shall be for a term of approximately fourteen (14)
months (the “Term”), commencing upon the Effective Date, when the Parties have duly
executed and delivered this Agreement. If the completion of construction and
installation of the Facilities is delayed for any reason beyond the reasonable control of
140513 sdl 00710337B 4
the FRIENDS, then the Parties may agree, in writing, to extend the Term on a month‐to‐
month basis, in order to permit the completion of construction and installation of the
Facilities by the FRIENDS or its contractors, agents and representatives. Upon (a) the
FRIENDS’ completion of any punch‐list items within the time specified in Section 6.8.5,
(b) the CITY’s determination that the FRIENDS have achieved full completion of the
construction and installation work, and (c) the CITY’s acceptance of the Facilities by
written notice to the FRIENDS, this Agreement will expire or otherwise terminate
without notice to either Party. The Term will not extend after July 31, 2015, unless the
Parties agree, in writing.
3. USE; ACCESS TO THE SITE
3.1 Subject to all covenants, terms and conditions hereof, the CITY hereby
grants to the FRIENDS, its members, directors, officers, employees, consultants,
contractors, agents and representatives the revocable, nonexclusive right to enter the
Site for the purposes hereof. No other rights, title or interests, including, without
limitation, any estate, ownership, leasehold, easement or other property interest, in the
Site is granted or intended to be granted by the CITY to the FRIENDS by this Agreement.
4. CONSIDERATION
4.1 The FRIENDS will obtain contributions from the community to defray
substantially all of the costs and expenses of the design, construction and installation of
the Facilities, excepting only those funds which the CITY will contribute pursuant to
Recital C and Section 4.4. The contributions received by the FRIENDS will be used
exclusively to pay for the services of a project manager, any other individual whose
services are reasonably required to complete the design and construction and
installation of the Facilities, and reasonably related project costs and expenses. The
services of the foregoing individuals will be obtained by means of an informal
competitive selection process conducted by the FRIENDS. The FRIENDS will deliver all
funds and other financial contributions that it receives to the CITY, which will deposit
such funds and other contributions in a CITY fund or account and will disburse
accordingly, as described in Section 4.4. The FRIENDS will be obligated to pay any fee or
charge for utility services rendered to the FRIENDS at the Site in connection with the
Facilities’ construction and installation.
4.2 The FRIENDS also will undertake a community outreach program to
provide information to the businesses and residents in the vicinity of the Facilities,
concerning the Facilities, for the purpose of soliciting the input and support for the
Facilities and construction work and to seek ways to mitigate, to the maximum extent
possible, the loss of use of park facilities during the period of construction.
4.3 As a condition precedent to the CITY’s obligation to commence
construction and installation of the Facilities, within thirty (30) days after the Effective
Date, the FRIENDS will transfer, and inform the CITY’s Director of Administrative
140513 sdl 00710337B 5
Services that the FRIENDS have transferred, to the CITY’s account sufficient funds for the
Phase 1 construction of the Project. The FRIENDS shall transfer to the City’s account
sufficient funds to pay for the Phase 2 construction costs of the Project within ninety
(90) days after the Effective Date. The sufficient funds will be made available from funds
to be provided by the FRIENDS and from funds to be raised by the FRIENDS in the
community outreach program referred to in Section 4.2, and will be used to complete
the construction and installation of the Facilities by the FRIENDS and/or its contractors,
agents and representatives. The term “sufficient funds” referred to in this Agreement
means the completion of all actual costs of construction and installation of the
improvements, equipment, and structures that constitute the Facilities, as set forth in
the FRIENDS’ itemized budget, as set forth in Exhibit “C”. The budget will include an
additional ten percent (10%) of the estimated total amount of all actual costs of the
Facilities as a contingency to meet any unforeseen costs that may arise during the
construction and installation of the Facilities.
4.3.1 Evidence of assurance will take the following form: Evidence of the
deposit by the FRIENDS of the total amount of sufficient funds for the Facilities, as
defined herein, into the separate account maintained by the CITY with disbursements
from that account requiring the signatures of authorized representatives of the Parties
will be furnished. At such times as the FRIENDS has currently payable invoices for the
Facilities, the CITY will take the steps necessary to expedite its approval process so that
funds can be disbursed from the account maintained by the CITY, which will be
sufficient to satisfy the FRIENDS’s accounts payable. The CITY will use reasonable efforts
to process the requests for payment in a manner which permits the FRIENDS to remain
current on its obligations. The Director of Administrative Services, or designee, will be
the CITY’s representative for all purposes hereof. If this Agreement is terminated for
any reason, before the expenditure of all the funds in the CITY’s fund or account can
occur, the CITY will be entitled to all rights, titles and interests in the funds; provided,
however, the CITY will thereafter expend the funds only for the purpose of constructing
and installing the Facilities, or part thereof, that is not completed at the effective date of
termination. If any portion of the amount remains and is not disbursed following the
completion of the Facilities, the remainder will be retained by the CITY and used to
defray the costs of maintenance of the Facilities at the Site.
4.3.2 The account will be maintained in the name of the CITY in a form
reasonably acceptable to the Director of Administrative Services.
4.4 As of the Effective Date, the CITY will have established a Magical Bridge
Playground Capital Improvement Project Fund account within the Capital Improvement
Project budget for FY 2013‐14 (“CIP PE‐12013”), relating to the Facilities. Because the
CITY is required by its policy and procedures to reduce its contribution to the Facilities’
costs by the one percent for arts program expenditure, which will be used to pay for the
CITY’s contractor’s services, the CITY will reduce its contribution to the FRIENDS in an
amount not to exceed thirty thousand dollars ($30,000) to be drawn from CIP PE‐12013.
140513 sdl 00710337B 6
4.4.1 The CITY will administer and coordinate the receipt and disbursement of
these funds, which will be expended for all costs and expenses related to the
construction and installation of the Facilities at the Site. No interest on the accumulated
funds will be paid by the CITY.
4.5 The CITY will issue permits, as required, and waive the obligation of the
FRIENDS to pay any and all permit‐ and permit‐related fees and charges that are due
and payable to the CITY’s general fund with respect to the design and the construction
and installation of the Facilities at the Site and any other related work to be performed
by the FRIENDS in connection therewith; provided, however, the CITY will not waive the
obligation of the FRIENDS to pay any rate, fee or charge that is due and payable to any
of the CITY’s enterprise funds for utility services that are rendered to the FRIENDS at the
Site (other than the utility costs to be paid by the CITY pursuant to Section 1.2 with
respect to any undiscovered pre‐existing conditions or any Off‐Site Improvements).
4.6 The CITY has submitted the Magical Bridge Playground Pathway concept
plans and the environmental assessment to the CITY’s Community Services Department,
Planning and Community Environment Department and the Public Works Department
as well as to the appropriate boards and commissions, including, without limitation, the
Parks and Recreation Commission, the Architectural Review Board, and the City Council
for review and approval of the concept plans shown in Exhibit “A”.
4.7 The CITY will provide staff support, inspection and testing services and other
assistance to the FRIENDS, upon reasonable request, in connection with the 30%, 60%
and 90% design review, bid and construction documents, and submittal reviews as part
of the initiation and completion of the Facilities.
5. PLAN FOR DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION AND INSTALLATION
5.1 The CITY will review and the FRIENDS will prepare or cause to be
prepared final plans and specifications and working drawings (the “Plans”) for the
design and the construction and installation of the structures and improvements
constituting the Facilities to be located at the Site, as described in Exhibit “A”.
5.2 The FRIENDS will obtain and maintain all CITY‐issued permits and other
authorizations required for the completion of the Facilities and will furnish to the CITY
upon request during the construction and installation phases any and all financial and
non‐financial security deemed necessary and appropriate by the CITY, including, without
limitation, evidence of insurance coverage, indemnity agreement, and lien waivers; the
CITY will not require the FRIENDS to provide performance and payment bonds, provided
that the CITY has first determined pursuant to Section 4.3 that there are sufficient funds
available to complete the construction and installation of the Facilities by the FRIENDS
and its contractors, agents and representatives.
140513 sdl 00710337B 7
6. CONSTRUCTION AND INSTALLATION OF FACILITIES
6.1 The FRIENDS will commence with the design and the construction and
installation within one hundred (100) days after the Effective Date in accordance with
the construction and installation schedule, as set forth in Exhibit “B”. All submittals,
change orders, construction and installation work will be conducted in an efficient and
workmanlike manner in substantial compliance with the approved time schedule.
6.2 The FRIENDS will comply with the CITY’s regulations governing
construction noise controls and regulations governing dust control, all as set forth in the
Palo Alto Municipal Code.
6.3 The FRIENDS will be responsible to accomplish all associated work
required to complete and install the Facilities and it will be required to comply with all
conditions that are imposed on the Facilities during the CITY’s approval process.
6.4 The FRIENDS will include standard CITY requirements in all equipment
purchases and construction contracts with third parties in regard to warranties and
workmanship guarantees for the Facilities.
6.5 All contractors, subcontractors, and other personnel who will perform
the construction and installation work at the Site under contract with the FRIENDS will
obtain and maintain all current licenses required by the State of California during the
Term.
6.6 The FRIENDS will meet all requirements outlined in the Transportation
Development Agency (TDA) Grant including but not limited to the billing and payment
for grant funded portions of the project paid on a prevailing wage scale as required by
the grant agency. Invoices shall indicate eligible and ineligible project costs.
6.7 The Facilities will be constructed and installed at the Site in compliance
with the approved Plans and TDA grant requirements. Any conditions relating to the
manner, method, design and construction of the Facilities established under the CITY’s
approval process will be conditions of this Section 6.7 as if they were stated and
otherwise fully incorporated in this Agreement. Upon the completion of construction
and installation, the FRIENDS’s project manager for the Facilities will submit to the
CITY’s Manager, Open Space, Parks and Golf Division, a certificate of inspection,
verifying that the construction and installation were completed in conformance with
Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations.
6.8 For the purposes of this Agreement, the Facilities will be deemed
completed at the time all of the following have occurred:
140513 sdl 00710337B 8
6.8.1 The CITY’S landscape architect has delivered a statement, in writing, to
the CITY, stating that the Facilities have been substantially completed in accordance
with the Plans;
6.8.2 The FRIENDS has obtained all necessary CITY inspections of and approvals
for the Facilities;
6.8.3 The Parties’ representatives have inspected the Facilities, and all major
defects and incomplete items that materially impair the use of the Site in the Park have
been remedied and a “punch‐list” of minor defects has been prepared for prompt repair
and completion by the FRIENDS;
6.8.4 All trash and garbage has been removed from the Site;
6.8.5 The CITY has confirmed, in writing, that the FRIENDS has complied with
the provisions of this Section 6.8, including subsections 6.8.1 through 6.8.6, and final
acceptance by the CITY has been issued. As a condition precedent to the CITY’s
acceptance of the Facilities, the FRIENDS will complete the “punch‐list” items within a
reasonable time but by no later than thirty (30) days after the CITY has made a
preliminary determination that the Facilities is deemed completed; and
6.8.6 Concurrently with the confirmation, in writing, by the CITY to the
FRIENDS that the CITY has accepted the Facilities and the FRIENDS has made the Site
and the Playground available to the CITY for use by the public after substantial
completion of construction. The construction contract entered into between the
FRIENDS and the FRIENDS’ general contractor shall provide that the general contractor’s
guarantee shall be for the direct and immediate benefit of the FRIENDS and the CITY
jointly, and shall guarantee, in writing, that the work, materials, apparatus, equipment
and workmanship that have been performed, used, installed or otherwise incorporated
in the Facilities are free of defects, and the FRIENDS’ general contractor, at its sole cost
and expense, shall agree to repair or replace any defective work, materials, apparatus,
or equipment or workmanship which is discovered by the FRIENDS or the CITY within
one (1) year from the date of substantial completion of the Facilities.
7. MAINTENANCE AND REPAIRS
7.1 The FRIENDS, at its sole cost, will maintain the Site and the Facilities
during the Term in a clean and safe manner to the complete satisfaction of the CITY and
in compliance with all applicable laws. The FRIENDS will provide approved containers
for trash and garbage generated at the Site and arrange for their disposal. The CITY
reserves the right to enter and inspect the Site for compliance with this maintenance
requirement and applicable safety requirements. The FRIENDS will be responsible for
any damage to the Site or the Facilities that arises in connection with the construction
and installation activities at the Site. The CITY will be responsible for the pre‐existing
140513 sdl 00710337B 9
condition of any utilities at the Site at the commencement of construction and
installation in addition to the responsibilities of the CITY, as described in Section 1.3.
7.2 If the FRIENDS fail to properly maintain the Site, then the CITY may notify
the FRIENDS, in writing, of such failure. The FRIENDS will be afforded a reasonable
period of time in order to bring the Site to a clean and safe condition. The CITY, at its
option, may elect to enforce its rights and remedies, including, without limitation,
entering the Site to ensure the safety of all persons and property thereon.
7.3 The obligation of the FRIENDS to maintain and repair the Site and the
Facilities will terminate upon the CITY’s acceptance of the Facilities pursuant to Section
6.8.6. The CITY thereafter will maintain and repair the Site in accordance with the
standards, customs and practices of the CITY pertaining to its maintenance and repair of
property owned or controlled by the CITY.
8. AS‐BUILT DRAWINGS
8.1 Upon the completion of construction and installation of the Facilities, the
FRIENDS will provide the CITY’s Director of Public Works with a complete set of
electronic AutoCAD drawings and 24” by 36” 3‐mil Mylar® reproducible “as built” Plans,
reflecting the actual construction and installation of the Facilities performed or caused
to be performed by the FRIENDS at the Site pursuant to this Agreement.
9. OWNERSHIP OF FACILITIES
9.1 The FRIENDS covenants that the Facilities will be free and clear of all
liens, claims or liability for labor or materials at the time of completion of the
construction and installation thereof. The FRIENDS will execute a quitclaim deed or
other document acceptable to the CITY to reflect the transfer to the CITY of the
FRIENDS’ ownership, if any, of the Facilities and all rights, title and interests therein.
10. UTILITY SERVICE
10.1 The FRIENDS will be responsible for paying for all utility services,
including, without limitation, electric, water, and wastewater services, to be provided at
the Site, as more fully described in Exhibit “B”, which the FRIENDS requires in order to
construct and install the Facilities and the other improvements at the Site. In the
construction and installation of the Facilities and other improvements, the FRIENDS will
not cause damage to the CITY’s utilities at the Site or the Park. The FRIENDS will be liable
for the repair or replacement costs of the CITY’s utilities at the Site or the Park that are
damaged by the FRIENDS (including any person hired or used by the FRIENDS) in
connection with the construction and installation of the Facilities and other
improvements. The repair or replacement costs will be payable on demand of the CITY.
The obligations of the FRIENDS under this Section 10.1 will terminate upon the CITY’s
final acceptance of the Facilities pursuant to Section 6.8.
140513 sdl 00710337B 10
11. INSURANCE
11.1 The FRIENDS, its consultants, agents and/or general contractors, if any, at
their sole cost and expense, will obtain and maintain during the Term the insurance
coverage described in Exhibit “D”, insuring not only the FRIENDS and its consultants and
contractors, respectively, but also with the exception of workers compensation,
employer’s liability and professional liability insurance, naming the CITY as an additional
insured concerning the FRIENDS’ performance under this Agreement.
11.2 Any deductibles or self‐insured retentions must be declared to and
approved by the CITY. At the option of the CITY either: the insurer shall reduce or
eliminate such deductibles or self‐insured retentions as respects the CITY, its elected or
appointed officials, officers, employees, and volunteers; or the FRIENDS shall procure a
bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim administration
and defense expenses. The insurance shall remain in full force and effect during the
Term, commencing on the Effective Date and ending on the termination of this
Agreement. Each insurance policy required by this Agreement shall contain the
following clauses:
(a) "Each insurance policy required by this clause shall be endorsed to
state that coverage shall not be suspended, voided, canceled by
either party, reduced in coverage or in limits except after thirty
(30) days' prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt
requested, has been given to the CITY."
(b) "All rights of subrogation are hereby waived against the CITY OF
PALO ALTO and its elected and appointed officials, officers or
employees, when acting within the scope of their employment or
appointment."
(c) "The CITY OF PALO ALTO is named as a loss payee on the Facilities
and builders’ risk insurance policies described above."
(d) "The CITY OF PALO ALTO, its elected and appointed officials,
officers, employees, agents and volunteers are to be covered as
insureds as respects: liability arising out of activities performed by
or on behalf of the FRIENDS; products and completed operations
of the FRIENDS; premises owned, occupied or used by the
FRIENDS; or automobiles owned, subleased, hired or borrowed by
the FRIENDS. Except for the waiver of subrogation contained in
Section 11.4, the coverage shall contain no special limitations on
the scope of protection afforded to the CITY, its elected and
appointed officials, officers, employees, agents or volunteers."
140513 sdl 00710337B 11
(e) "For any claims related to this Agreement, the FRIENDS' insurance
coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the CITY OF PALO
ALTO, its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees,
agents and volunteers. Any insurance or self‐insurance
maintained by the CITY, its elected and appointed officials,
officers, employees, agents or volunteers shall be excess of the
FRIENDS' insurance and shall not contribute with it."
(f) "Any failure to comply with reporting or other provisions of the
policies including breaches of warranties shall not affect coverage
provided to the CITY OF PALO ALTO, its elected and appointed
officials, officers, employees, agents or volunteers."
(g) "The FRIENDS’ insurance shall apply separately to each insured
against whom a claim is made or suit is brought, except with
respect to the limits of the insurer's liability."
11.3 All insurance required of the FRIENDS, its consultants and/or general
contractors by this Agreement will be provided by insurer carriers with a current A.M.
Best's rating of not less than A‐:VII. The FRIENDS will deposit or will cause to be
deposited with the CITY, on or before the Effective Date, certificates of insurance
necessary to satisfy the CITY that these insurance provisions have been complied with,
and to keep such insurance in effect and the certificates therefor on deposit with the
CITY during the Term. If the FRIENDS does not provide evidence of coverage at least
thirty (30) days prior to the expiration of any existing insurance coverage, the CITY may
purchase such insurance coverage for not more than a six‐month period, on behalf of
and at the sole cost and expense of the FRIENDS. The CITY retains the right to review
the coverage, form, and amount of the insurance coverage required by this Agreement
and require the FRIENDS to alter the coverage, as appropriate. The CITY's requirements
shall be reasonable and shall be designed to assure protection from and against the kind
and extent of risk which exists at the time a change in insurance is required. A failure by
the FRIENDS or the FRIENDS’ general contractor to provide acceptable insurance policies
or certificates with the CITY incorporating such changes within thirty (30) days of receipt
of such notice will constitute a default under this Agreement. Such default will
constitute a material breach and shall be grounds for termination of this Agreement by
the CITY. The procuring of such required insurance will not be construed to limit the
FRIENDS’ liability hereunder or to fulfill the indemnification provision and requirements
of this Agreement. Notwithstanding the policy or policies of insurance, the FRIENDS
shall be obligated for the full and total amount of any damage, injury, or loss occurring
during the Term that is caused by the FRIENDS or its landscape architect, general
contractor, or design professionals, or connected with this Agreement or with use or
occupancy of the Site by the FRIENDS or its landscape architect, contractors, or design
professionals.
140513 sdl 00710337B 12
11.4 All rights of subrogation are hereby waived by the CITY against the
FRIENDS and its managers, members, employees, and agents when any of them is acting
on behalf of the FRIENDS in the performance of this Agreement.
12. INDEMNITY
12.1 The FRIENDS will protect, defend, indemnify and hold harmless the CITY,
its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees and representatives, from any
and all demands, claims, damage, loss or liability of any nature, including death of or
injury to persons, property damage or any other loss, caused by or arising out of the
FRIENDS’ or any of its landscape architect’s, agents’ or contractor’s negligent acts,
errors, or omissions, or willful misconduct, in the performance of or failure to perform
its obligations under this Agreement. The foregoing indemnity obligation of the Friends
shall expire and be of no further force or effect upon the confirmation, in writing, by the
CITY that the CITY has accepted the Facilities, except for any pending claims made, in
writing, that are received by the FRIENDS, the FRIENDS’ general contractor, or the CITY
prior to such acceptance.
13. WAIVER
13.1 The waiver by either Party of any breach or violation of any covenant,
term, or condition of this Agreement or of the provisions of any park improvement
ordinance or other CITY law will not be deemed to be a waiver of any such covenant,
term, condition, or ordinance or of any subsequent breach or violation of the same or
any other covenant, term, condition, or ordinance. The subsequent acceptance by
either Party of any consideration which may become due or payable hereunder will not
be deemed to be a waiver of any preceding breach or violation by the other Party of any
other covenant, term, or condition of this Agreement or any ordinance.
14. ASSIGNMENT
14.1 The FRIENDS will not assign, transfer, or convey this Agreement without
the express written approval of the CITY, and any such assignment, transfer or
conveyance without the approval of the CITY will be void and in such event, at the CITY’s
option, this Agreement may be terminated upon notice to the FRIENDS.
15. DEFAULT; REMEDIES FOR DEFAULT
15.1 Except as otherwise provided under this Agreement, should the FRIENDS
default in the performance of any covenant, term or condition contained in this
Agreement and such default is not corrected within thirty (30) days of receipt of a notice
of default from the CITY, the CITY may elect to enforce any of the following rights and
remedies: (a) terminate this Agreement and all rights of the FRIENDS and its consultants
and contractors, if any; (b) cure any default of the FRIENDS by performance of any act,
including payment of money, and the cost and expense thereof, plus all reasonable
140513 sdl 00710337B 13
administrative costs, will become immediately due and payable by the FRIENDS to the
CITY; (c) initiate an action or suit in law or equity to enjoin any acts which may be
unlawful or in violation of the rights of the CITY hereunder; or (d) pursue any other right
or remedy as may be provided in this Agreement.
15.2 In the event of a default which cannot reasonably be cured within thirty
(30) days, the FRIENDS shall have a reasonable period of time to cure the default. The
remedies given to the CITY hereunder, or by any law now or hereafter enacted, are
cumulative and the exercise of one right or remedy shall not impair the right of the CITY
to exercise any or all other remedies. In case any suit, action or proceeding to enforce
any right or exercise any remedy shall be brought or taken and then discontinued or
abandoned, then, and in every such case, the Parties will be restored to their former
positions, rights and remedies as if no such suit, action or proceedings had been brought
or taken.
16. NOTICES
16.1 All notices, requests and approvals by a Party will be given, in writing, and
delivered by personal service, the United States Postal Service, express delivery service,
or facsimile transmission, as follows:
TO CITY: City of Palo Alto
1305 Middlefield Road
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Phone: (650) 463‐4951
Fax: (650) 321‐5612
E‐Mail: Greg.Betts@CityofPaloAlto.org
ATTN: Director
COPY: City of Palo Alto
P. O. Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303
E‐mail: Brad.Eggleston@CityofPaloAlto.org
ATTN: Assistant Director
TO FRIENDS: Friends of the Magical Bridge, LLC
416 Fulton
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Phone: (650) 380‐1557
E‐mail: olenka@magicalbridge.org
ATTN: Olenka Villareal
17. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
17.1 This Agreement will be governed by and construed in accordance with
the laws of the State of California and the Charter of the City of Palo Alto and the Palo
140513 sdl 00710337B 14
Alto Municipal Code. The Parties will comply with all applicable federal, state and local
laws in the exercise of their rights and the performance of their obligations under this
Agreement.
17.2 All provisions of this Agreement, whether covenants or conditions, will be
deemed to be both covenants and conditions.
17.3 This Agreement represents the entire agreement between the Parties
and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations and contracts, written or oral.
This Agreement may be amended by an instrument, in writing, signed by the Parties.
This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which will be
an original, but all of which together will constitute one and the same instrument.
17.4 All exhibits referred to in this Agreement are by such references
incorporated in this Agreement and made a part hereof. The following exhibits are
made a part of this Agreement:
Exhibit “A” ‐ Description of the Site and Pathway improvements
Exhibit “B” ‐ Construction and Installation Schedule for the Facilities
Exhibit “C” ‐ Itemized Budget for the Facilities
Exhibit “D” ‐ Insurance Requirements
17.5 Upon request of the CITY, the FRIENDS will furnish to the CITY for its
review and approval copies of its articles of organization, operating agreement, and
other information relating to its organization status.
17.6 This Agreement is subject to the fiscal provisions of the Charter of the
City of Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Municipal Code. This provision will take precedence
in the event of a conflict with any other covenant, term or condition of this Agreement.
17.7 The Parties agree that the normal rule of construction to the effect that
any ambiguity is to be resolved against the drafting party will not be employed in the
interpretation of this Agreement or any amendment or Exhibit hereto.
//
//
//
140513 sdl 00710337B 15
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties by their duly authorized representatives have
executed this Agreement as of the Effective Date.
APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY OF PALO ALTO
______________________________ __ ________________________________
Senior Asst. City Attorney City Manager
APPROVED: FRIENDS OF THE MAGICAL BRIDGE LLC
______________________________ __ _________________________________
Director of Administrative Services Member
____________________________ __ ___________________________________
Director of Community Services Member
140513 sdl 00710337B 16
EXHIBIT “A”
DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND PATHWAY IMPROVEMENTS
PICNIC ZONE
IENCHwnHG6.
nAGl~
rlAYlOUlDlH
ntH!(: T ... IUS ON OfCOM/'OSEO
GUHITf JUItf .... CIHG 6.
SPINNING ZONE
IHTJ~CI Wi"',CIlU ~,\vlNG. SOUND
I SIGNAGI,rn,sui'tOII.l J Aeeus,.,! MEUY GO ROUND 6-
SI'1NNUOISH!'6.
Nfl lfINNU WITtI DICit t6
PlAYSKONAGf.TY •• U:IHQIfU
NUT SI'INlm o t-6,
IfTlfA'COCOON .,
ENTRANCE FEATURE
INIUAcnV! ftnn SOUND flATU!
TfNHlS COUll selUM rtAHnNG
~::g.!:~:Y':' ... ~ W!OVElHU,D 'UTUWI
r,mUC"VI scumUII/fOCAL P'OIHI 16-
UAlWA'1 uEe .... l Ufl1:V 'AVlNG
(I) TENNIJ COUtn
Hons:
I. (NlUNCE TO EACH lONE TO HAVE TACnu 'AYING. UNlQUfSOUND,VlSUAlANOllAIUIMA'OfAIftA, L =:~~=~.HIII~~:::;:'oIlJ~:N=AL
I'UYUSL
PUYfU.TUUCATEGOIlU ., H1UAT ) UNso.y 6. ACCUSIIUGItOUNOCOMI'OHfHf It-ACCUSIIU wmI J .... NS'f.
•
~
NORTH
o 5 10 20
MAGICAL BRIDGE
PLAYGROUND
140513 sdl 00710337B 17
EXHIBIT “B”
CONSTRUCTION AND INSTALLATION SCHEDULE FOR THE FACILITIES
PHASES 1 AND 2
Exhibit B
Construction Schedule ‐ Magical Bridge
June July August September October
Phase 1
Demolition
Grading
Drainage
Electrical
Masonry
Fencing & Railing
Play Surfacing
Play Equipment
Landscaping
Phase 2
Masonry
Electrical
Play Surfacing
Play Equipment
Landscaping
140513 sdl 00710337B 18
EXHIBIT “C”
ITEMIZED BUDGET FOR THE FACILITIES
PHASES 1 AND 2
Exhibit C
Magical Bridge Playground ‐ Project Budget Review
Amount
PLAYGROUND DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION COSTS (for work managed by Friends)
Design & Structural Services $323,436.00
TDA Grant work (Prevailing Wage) $132,677.00
Playground Zones
Spinning $234,739.00
Swinging $246,626.00
Slide Mound $411,852.00
Tot Area $143,449.00
Picnic $194,225.00
Music $93,767.00
Entry $132,255.00
Playhouse and Elevated Walks $618,083.00
General Site Work $815,708.00
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS: $3,346,817.00
10% CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCY:$334,681.70
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION BUDGET COSTS:$3,681,498.70
FUNDING
Donation from Friends (including equipment) $3,164,346.70
Donated Design and Structural Services $234,475.00
TDA Grant $82,712.00
CIP PE‐12013 funds (TDA matching funds) $49,965.00
County Grant Funding $150,000.00
TOTAL: $3,681,498.70
FRIEND DONATED FUNDS DEPOSITS /PURCHASES
Purchase Play equipment: $342,876.00
Deposit #1: $2,500,000.00
Deposit #2: $321,470.70
TOTAL: $3,164,346.70
CITY FUNDS Paid To Date Amount Remaining
Design Contract (RHAA revised 1/14) $160,000.00 $155,361.10 $4,638.90
Reimbursable $10,000.00 $206.10 $9,793.90
Add Services $10,000.00 $0.00 $10,000.00
TDA Match funding from CIP $49,965.00 $0.00 $49,965.00
Testing $15,000.00 $9,267.90 $5,732.10
% for Art $30,000.00 $0.00 $30,000.00
Project Costs (printing, postage etc.) $10,000.00 $3,183.26 $6,816.74
Remaining Amount $15,035.00 $0.00 $15,035.00
TOTAL: $300,000.00 $168,018.36 $131,981.64
BAO ‐ AMOUNT REQUESTED
Funding provided by the Friends $2,821,470.70
TDA Grant: $82,712.00
County Grant Funding: $150,000.00
TOTAL: $3,054,182.70
Current Amount in CIP for construction purposes: ‐$1,000,000.00
TOTAL BAO REQUESTED: $2,054,182.70
140513 sdl 00710337B 19
EXHIBIT “D”
INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
THE FRIENDS AND/OR ITS GENERAL CONTRACTOR, AT ITS SOLE EXPENSE, SHALL DURING THE
TERM OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN INSURANCE IN THE AMOUNTS FOR THE COVERAGE SPECIFIED
BELOW, AFFORDED BY COMPANIES WITH A BEST’S KEY RATING OF A-:VII, OR HIGHER,
LICENSED OR AUTHORIZED TO TRANSACT INSURANCE BUSINESS IN THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA.
COMPLIANCE WITH CITY’S INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS, AS SPECIFIED, BELOW:
I. INSURANCE COVERAGE MUST INCLUDE:
A. A PROVISION FOR A WRITTEN THIRTY-DAY ADVANCE NOTICE TO THE CITY OF A
CHANGE IN COVERAGE OR OF COVERAGE CANCELLATION; AND
B. A CONTRACTUAL LIABILITY ENDORSEMENT PROVIDING INSURANCE COVERAGE
FOR CONTRACTOR’S AGREEMENT TO INDEMNIFY CITY – SEE SECTION , SAMPLE
AGREEMENT FOR SERVICES.
II. SUBMIT CERTIFICATE(S) OF INSURANCE EVIDENCING REQUIRED COVERAGE, OR
COMPLETE THIS SECTION AND IV THROUGH V, BELOW.
A. NAME AND ADDRESS OF COMPANY AFFORDING COVERAGE (NOT AGENT OR
BROKER):
B. NAME, ADDRESS, AND PHONE NUMBER OF YOUR INSURANCE AGENT/BROKER:
REQUIRED TYPE OF COVERAGE REQUIREMENT
MINIMUM LIMITS
EACH
OCCURRENCE AGGREGATE
YES
YES
WORKER’S COMPENSATION
AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY
STATUTORY
STATUTORY
YES
COMPREHENSIVE GENERAL
LIABILITY, INCLUDING PERSONAL
INJURY, BROAD FORM PROPERTY
DAMAGE BLANKET CONTRACTUAL,
AND FIRE LEGAL LIABILITY
BODILY INJURY
PROPERTY DAMAGE
BODILY INJURY & PROPERTY DAMAGE
COMBINED.
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
YES COMPREHENSIVE AUTOMOBILE
LIABILITY, INCLUDING, OWNED,
HIRED, NON-OWNED
BODILY INJURY
- EACH PERSON
- EACH OCCURRENCE
PROPERTY DAMAGE
BODILY INJURY AND PROPERTY DAMAGE,
COMBINED
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
YES
PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY,
INCLUDING, ERRORS AND
OMISSIONS, MALPRACTICE (WHEN
APPLICABLE), AND NEGLIGENT
PERFORMANCE
ALL DAMAGES $1,000,000
YES THE CITY OF PALO ALTO IS TO BE NAMED AS AN ADDITIONAL INSURED: PROPOSER, AT ITS SOLE COST AND EXPENSE,
SHALL OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN, IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE TERM OF ANY RESULTANT
AGREEMENT, THE INSURANCE COVERAGE HEREIN DESCRIBED, INSURING NOT ONLY PROPOSER AND ITS SUBCONSULTANS,
IF ANY, BUT ALSO, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION, EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY AND PROFESSIONAL
INSURANCE, NAMING AS ADDITIONAL INSURES CITY, ITS COUNCIL MEMBERS, OFFICERS, AGENTS, AND EMPLOYEES.
140513 sdl 00710337B 20
C. POLICY NUMBER(S):
D. DEDUCTIBLE AMOUNT(S) (DEDUCTIBLE AMOUNTS IN EXCESS OF $5,000 REQUIRE
CITY’S PRIOR APPROVAL):
III. ENDORSEMENT PROVISIONS, WITH RESPECT TO THE INSURANCE AFFORDED TO
“ADDITIONAL INSURES”
A. PRIMARY COVERAGE
WITH RESPECT TO CLAIMS ARISING OUT OF THE OPERATIONS OF THE NAMED
INSURED, INSURANCE AS AFFORDED BY THIS POLICY IS PRIMARY AND IS NOT
ADDITIONAL TO OR CONTRIBUTING WITH ANY OTHER INSURANCE CARRIED BY OR
FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE ADDITIONAL INSURES.
B. CROSS LIABILITY
THE NAMING OF MORE THAN ONE PERSON, FIRM, OR CORPORATION AS INSURES
UNDER THE POLICY SHALL NOT, FOR THAT REASON ALONE, EXTINGUISH ANY
RIGHTS OF THE INSURED AGAINST ANOTHER, BUT THIS ENDORSEMENT, AND THE
NAMING OF MULTIPLE INSUREDS, SHALL NOT INCREASE THE TOTAL LIABILITY OF
THE COMPANY UNDER THIS POLICY.
C. NOTICE OF CANCELLATION
1. IF THE POLICY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE FOR ANY
REASON OTHER THAN THE NON-PAYMENT OF PREMIUM, THE ISSUING
COMPANY SHALL PROVIDE CITY AT LEAST A THIRTY (30) DAY WRITTEN
NOTICE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF CANCELLATION.
2. IF THE POLICY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE FOR THE NON-
PAYMENT OF PREMIUM, THE ISSUING COMPANY SHALL PROVIDE CITY AT
LEAST A TEN (10) DAY WRITTEN NOTICE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF
CANCELLATION.
IV. UNDERSIGNED CERTIFIES THAT THE FRIENDS’ INSURANCE COVERAGE MEETS THE ABOVE
REQUIREMENTS:
THE INFORMATION HEREIN IS CERTIFIED CORRECT BY SIGNATURE(S) BELOW.
Firm: _______________________________________________________________________
Signature: _________________________________________________________
Name: _________________________________________________________
(Print or type name)
Signature: _________________________________________________________
Name: _________________________________________________________
(Print or type name)
NOTICES SHALL BE MAILED TO:
PURCHASING AND
CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION
CITY OF PALO ALTO
P.O. BOX 10250
PALO ALTO, CA 94303.
Attachment C
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2014 TO ACCEPT A
DONATION IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $2,821,471 FROM THE
FRIENDS OF THE MAGICAL BRIDGE,LLC, AND RECOGNIZE A
TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT GRANT FROM THE
METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION IN THE TOTAL
AMOUNT OF $82,712. FINALLY, INCREASES TO THE
APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE MAGICAL BRIDGE PLAYGROUND (PG-
12006; $1,874,183) AND THE ART IN PUBLIC PLACES (AC-
86017; $30,000) CAPITAL PROJECTS ARE PROVIDED.
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ordain as
follows:
SECTION 1.The City Council of the City of Palo Alto
finds and determines as follows:
A.Pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 of Article III of
the Charter of the City of Palo Alto,the Council on June 10,2013
did adopt a budget for Fiscal Year 2014; and
B.On July 18,2011,Council approved a letter of intent
between the City and the Friends of the Magical Bridge,LLC to
begin design of the Magical Bridge Playground (CMR:1855).The letter
of intent included language capping the City’s contribution to this
project at $300,000; and
C.In Fiscal Year 2012,the City Council adopted a budget
for CIP Project PG-12006,Magical Bridge Playground
(Project),with an initial appropriation of $1,300,000 for the
design ($300,000) and construction ($1,000,000) of the project;
and
D. Pending City Council approval on May 19, 2014, the City
Council will enter into a limited-term agreement with the Friends
of the Magical Bridge,LLC (Friends)for improvements located
within Mitchell Park,including the installation of new paving,
playground equipment,playhouse,stage, water fountain,site
amenities,landscaping and other improvements consistent with the
Park Improvement Ordinance, also to be considered by the City
Council on May 19, 2014.Under the terms of the agreement, the
Friends will deposit accumulated donations for the Project of
$2,821,470 into a City-designated account.The Friends funds
are matched with the $300,000 in Capital Improvement Project funds
that Council approved for the CIP Project PG-12006 in Fiscal Year
2012 for preliminary design,project scoping and bridge assessment;
and
E.The total estimated cost of the Project is $3,681,498 which
includes all aspects of the construction outlined in the Park
Improvement Ordinance as well as donated equipment and
design/structural services.
F.The appropriation of funds for CIP Project PG-12006,
Magical Bridge Playground, is a one-time event, and in future
years maintenance and replacement costs will be included in the
Community Services Department’s budget; and
G.City Council authorization is needed to amend the
Fiscal Year 2014 budget as hereinafter set forth.
SECTION 2.Donation revenue from the Friends of the
Magical Bridge, LLC of Two Million eight hundred and twenty one
thousand, four hundred and seventy one dollars ($2,821,471)and
Transportation Development Act grant revenue from the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission in the amount of eighty
two thousand seven hundred and twelve dollars ($82,712) is hereby
received.
SECTION 3.The Magical Bridge Playground (PG-12006)
capital project is hereby increased by One Million eight
hundred and seventy four thousand one hundred and eighty
three dollars ($1,874,183), and the Art in Public Places
(AC-86017) capital project is hereby increased by Thirty
thousand dollars ($30,000).
SECTION 4.As specified in Section 2.28.080(a)of the
Palo Alto Municipal Code,a two-thirds vote of the City
Council is required to adopt this ordinance.
SECTION 5.As provided in Section 2.04.330 of the Palo
Alto Municipal Code, this ordinance shall become effective
upon adoption.
SECTION 6.The primary environmental issues addressed in the
Initial Study include: air quality, biologic resources, and
cultural resources. A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been
prepared, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA).
INTRODUCED AND
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
APPROVED:
Mayor
City Attorney
City Manager
Director, Community Services
Department
Director of Administrative
Services
Magical Bridge Playground Project Page 1 Initial Study
Magical Bridge Playground Project
Initial Study
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94303
April 2014
Magical Bridge Playground Project Page 2 Initial Study
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
City of Palo Alto
Department of Planning and Community Environment
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION .............................................................................................. 3
II. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS ................... 10
A. AESTHETICS ....................................................................................................... 12
B. AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST RESOURCES .............................................. 13
C. AIR QUALITY ...................................................................................................... 15
D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ............................................................................... 19
E. CULTURAL RESOURCES .................................................................................. 27
F. GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY .............................................................. 32
G. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ..................................................................... 35
H. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ................................................. 36
I. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY .......................................................... 38
J. LAND USE AND PLANNING ............................................................................ 42
K. MINERAL RESOURCES ..................................................................................... 44
L. NOISE .................................................................................................................... 44
M. POPULATION AND HOUSING ......................................................................... 47
N. PUBLIC SERVICES ............................................................................................. 48
O. RECREATION ...................................................................................................... 49
P. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC ................................................................ 50
Q. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS .............................................................. 53
R. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE ............................................... 55
III. SOURCE REFERENCES .............................................................................................. 57
IV. DETERMINATION ....................................................................................................... 58
Magical Bridge Playground Project Page 3 Initial Study
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Department of Planning and Community Environment
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1. PROJECT TITLE
Magical Bridge Playground Project
2. LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
City of Palo Alto
Department of Planning and Community Environment
250 Hamilton Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94303
3. CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER
Jodie Gerhardt, AICP
(650) 329-2575 jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org
4. PROJECT SPONSOR’S NAME AND ADDRESS
Elizabeth Ames
Public Works Department
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94302
(650) 329-2502
Environmental Consultant Name and Address:
LSA Associates, Inc.
157 Park Place
Point Richmond, CA 94801
(510) 236-6810
5. APPLICATION NUMBER
14PLN-00078
6. PROJECT LOCATION
The project site is located within the southeast portion of J. Pearce Mitchell Park (Mitchell Park), an
existing 21-acre City park located at 600 East Meadow Drive in the City of Palo Alto (City), Santa Clara
Magical Bridge Playground Project Page 4 Initial Study
County, California. The project area is bounded by Mitchell Park to the north and west, existing tennis
courts and Abilities United1 to the east, and Herbert Hoover Elementary School and the Universalist
Unitarian Church to the south. Figures 1 and 2 show the Regional Location and Project Site Location,
respectively.
7. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION
The project area is designated as a Public Park in the Palo Alto 1998 – 2010 Comprehensive Plan. This
land use designation includes open lands whose primary purpose is active recreation and whose character
is essentially urban.
8. ZONING
The project area is zoned PF, Public Facilities. The PF, Public Facilities district is designed to
accommodate governmental, public utility, educational, and community service or recreational facilities.
The project will not result in a change of use and does not conflict with the existing zoning.
9. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The City of Palo Alto in collaboration with the community non-profit group ‘Friends of the Magical
Bridge’ have formed a partnership to design and build a playground in Mitchell Park, an existing City of
Palo Alto park. The proposed playground is intended to be inclusive of everyone in the community,
including older adults and those with physical, visual, and hearing impairments. In July of 2011, the City
Council of Palo Alto formally signed a letter of intent with the Friends of the Magical Bridge in which the
design, construction package and bidding for the playground would be completed by January 2015.
Existing Conditions
The project site is an underutilized piece of land in the southeast corner of Mitchell Park that was
originally designated as an archery range. Adobe Creek arcs around the project site forming the western
and northern boundaries and separating the area from the remainder of the park. The southern boundary is
a chain link fence with a hedge row of mature blue gum eucalyptus trees. Three tennis courts are located
in the southeast corner of the project site. No changes to the existing tennis courts are proposed. The
proposed development area encompasses approximately 34,130 square feet (0.8 acres).2
Access to the site is provided by a major pathway that enters the site in the southeast corner, parallels the
existing tennis courts and crosses over Adobe Creek via an existing arched, glued laminated timber
(glulam)3 bridge to connect to the greater area of Mitchell Park. The existing bridge approaches have
slopes up to 12 percent, which exceed the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accessibility standard
of 8.33 percent. In addition, an evaluation of the existing bridge (EndreStudio 2012) identified some
deterioration of the physical condition of the wood and steel elements of the bridge. Overall, with the
exception of the bridge approaches, the project site is flat. As part of the proposed project, the existing
bridge would be removed and replaced with an ADA-compliant structure.
1 Abilities United is a non-profit organization that serves those with developmental and physical disabilities. 2 The total development area does not include the existing tennis courts as no changes to the courts are proposed. 3 Glued laminated timber, also called Glulam, is a type of structural timber product composed of several layers of
dimensioned timber bonded together with durable, moisture-resistant adhesives.
Project Site
San
Rafael
Cupertino
1
Woodacre
Morgan HillBoulder Creek
Bethel Island
Brentwood
Santa Cruz
SANTA CRUZ17
Ben Lomond
Felton
Gilroy
101
MONTEREY
SANBENITO
MARIN
205
80
380
680
580
580
880
280
101
101
101
101
35
84
82
92
4
1
82
85
4
San
Francisco
San Jose
Oakland
Fremont
Sunnyvale
Hayward
Concord
Berkeley
Alameda
LivermorePleasanton
SanLeandro
Union City
WalnutCreek
Daly City
RedwoodCity
SanMateo
Palo Alto
Santa Clara
Antioch
Pittsburg
Richmond
Lafayette
Danville
Newark
Martinez
SanRamon
Tracy
Campbell
ALAMEDA
CONTRA COSTA
SANMATEO
SANTA CLARA
SOURCE: StreetMap North America (2009).
I:\RHA1201\GIS\Maps\Figure1_Regional Location.mxd (8/9/2012)
FIGURE 1
Magical Bridge Playground Project
Regional Location
0510
MILES
160
P:\RHA1201\g\Figure 2_Project Site.cdr (08/08/2012)
Project Site
FIGURE 2
Project SiteSOURCE: Endes Studio, RHAA (06/06/2012)
FEET
800
N
Magical Bridge Playground Project
LEGENDLSA
¢
Magical Bridge Playground Project Page 7 Initial Study
The project site currently supports irrigated lawn, ornamental trees and shrubs, a segment of the Adobe
Creek channel with a small amount of associated riparian vegetation, and existing park infrastructure
(e.g., tennis courts, and bicycle/pedestrian paths). In addition to the eucalyptus trees bordering the site on
the south and east, the project site supports several mature stone pines, cork oaks, evergreen ash,
Raywood ash, and shrubby yews. The arborist report4 prepared for the proposed project recommends
removal of a total of twelve (12) trees including: five Italian stone pines, five blue gum eucalyptus, one
holly oak and one Raywood ash. According to the arborist report, nine of these trees have poor suitability
for preservation due to poor health or structural defects (e.g., heavy and/or bowed stems, heavy lateral
limbs, and wood decay). One eucalyptus tree would be removed at the intersection of the pathway with
the off-site path to improve sight lines. Another eucalyptus tree is recommended for removal due to its
close proximity to the tot-lot play zone.5 Although the Raywood ash is not in poor condition, it is being
suppressed by a neighboring evergreen ash, and is, therefore, recommended for removal in accordance
with good management practices. The existing windmill palms in good condition will be relocated on the
project site adjacent to the southern ramp of the bridge.
Proposed Improvements
Access. Visitors would approach the proposed playground from the north along the existing path and
bridge over the Adobe Creek concrete channel (see Figure 3). ADA improvements to the access ramps on
either side of the bridge will be performed as part of a grant project to bring the access of the bridge up to
code. The renovation of the access ramps and pathway leading to Charleston Road are all part of a
separate grant project with its own environmental review. Therefore, trail improvements are not included
as part of this proposed project. The new bridge would be a prefabricated bridge structure consisting of
metal railings with wood decking and would be designed to accommodate bicyclists and pedestrians and
be ten (10) feet wide. As proposed, the bridge would clear span Adobe Creek, eliminating the need for
construction work to be conducted within the creek channel. The bridge height would be approximately
eight (8) feet above the existing grade to allow sufficient clearance for debris during peak flow periods.
Once across the creek, visitors would either proceed on the twelve-foot wide pathway to the existing
tennis courts (to remain), or enter the playground from an elevated pathway. Additional access to the
playground would be available via the pathway at the southeast corner and from an adjacent private
property at the northeast corner of the project site. Parking would be provided by the existing Mitchell
Park parking lot, the future library parking lot, and limited on-street parking along Charleston Road
(approximately 600 feet away from the playground site). Right-of-entry agreements between the City and
the two adjacent property owners will be pursued to allow for easier access to the site during the
temporary construction phase.
Playground Improvements. The playground is divided into seven major use areas (see Figure 3). Five of
these use areas would consist of play equipment installed on resilient matting including: swinging zone,
spinning zone, sliding zone, tot-lot and music zone. The slide zone consists of a slide mound,
approximately eight feet high, connected via the elevated pathway to the main portion of the playground.
The sixth area is a picnic area located under the existing oak trees which also contains the two-story
wood playhouse located off the elevated pathway. The seventh area consists of an open turf area on the
opposite side of the main pathway outside of the main playground area and is intended to be used as an
open play or as a picnic and/or retreat area.
4 HortScience, Inc. 2014. Arborist Report, Magical Bridge Playground, Palo Alto CA. Prepared for Royston, Hanamoto, Alley and Abey,
Mill Valley, California. Prepared by HortScience, Inc. Pleasanton, California. 9 March. 5 Construction of the playground will significantly impact the root zone of the tree and it’s canopy would overhang the
playground which creates a potentially hazardous condition.
Magical Bridge Playground Project Page 8 Initial Study
Approximately 800 cubic yards of cut would be required for installation of paving, resilient matting and
play structures. This material would be used to create the slide mound, raising the grade in that area by
approximately eight feet. Existing concrete and asphalt would be removed and hauled off-site to an
appropriate disposal facility. A total of 17,268 square feet of paved surface would be installed, as follows:
Concrete (4 inches over 6-inch base rock) 9,348 square feet
Resilient Matting (over 12-inch base rock) 7,830 square feet (pervious)
Storm drainage from the proposed playground would be directed to catch basins and discharged via pipe
into the existing storm drainage system.
As described above, a total of twelve (12) existing trees would be removed and four (4) windmill palms
would be relocated on site. A total of 20 additional trees would be planted in the Park as part of the
proposed project. Pathway lighting would be installed on 10-foot poles within and surrounding the
proposed playground. Lighting would have shielding to direct light downward into the project site and
would be for security purposes not for night play.
10. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND SETTING
The project area is located at the southeast corner of an existing City park and is surrounded primarily
with existing park uses and community facilities, including tennis courts, Herbert Hoover Elementary
School, Jane Lathrop Middle School, and Fairmeadows Elementary School. Abilities United bounds the
site to the east and the Universalist Unitarian Church bounds the site to the south.
As described above, the project site currently supports irrigated lawn, ornamental trees and shrubs, a
segment of the Adobe Creek channel with a small amount of associated riparian vegetation, and existing
park infrastructure (e.g., tennis courts and bicycle/pedestrian paths). Chain link fencing will remain and is
located along the entire site perimeter, along the existing creek edge, on either side of the existing bridge
and along the existing bike path.
11. OTHER PUBLIC AGENCY APPROVALS REQUIRED
City of Palo Alto Planning Department
Santa Clara County Water District (Permit to work over the Adobe Creek)
40
P:\RHA1201\g\Figure 3_Proposed Project.cdr (4/9/2014)
Shrubs (20)
Willow Poles (10)
FIGURE 3
Proposed ProjectSOURCE: City of Palo Alto (4/9/2014)
FEET
200
N
Magical Bridge Playground Project
(11WlUOW"" •
SWING ZONE
,,. ,
LSA
¢
,.'CH'C ZONE
WOCMW._6.
IfAGl6.
~.-I'OCMe TAlUS QfI DteOMPOWl __ ....:-i6.
lUYArmlllU.1II,I "GIllIlAN .AU.~
.~~
SPINNING ZONE
IIU/UINI_06.
1 .. .....cI."ACIU ,A-, KIWOD a_AGl."' ,"_., 1
A(;ClU*._COO_ 6.
_HtI _t6. 1IfI_._DlClt6. ""'_"'''_02 NUl_III'&,
ItlIlAT COCOON II
ENTRANCE fEATUItE .. 1lUCIIYI ann _ HA!IIII
_COUIfSCI:tlllI'WftlllG
G."..I .. ' .... Il.~I'U_ _orm.AU.
.. 1tUCTI'II KlIlrIUltJPOCAt I'OIHT 16. _ ~w 1nCIAI_'._ --
",,""1'IIOIISI.~6. ""'_"'.111_021 __ .... It6.
CIIIKlMLOOI'a..U 6. DOIIIll1UDl t6.
CIIIKlMMUSIC ..... c.-u/6. '",ClIU._. ""./6.
(IJIlHNISCOUIIIJ
-, lIITUllCllOlACHJOIItIOIIA'IITACIU'._. _iOWIO.YI __ ......... _Of ....
2. .. _ lACH IOIOI.UC .. ,...,1ItM IOCONT_._ ..
AHD ......... _DlS(:_,....IItMAHDIHT_
~.~
",.'It._CArtGOIOIl .-. ,~ 6. illCCns&IG-..oC _
t'6.illCCIIII&I ................
Magical Bridge Playground Project Page 10 Initial Study
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by
the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. [A "No Impact"
answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does
not apply to projects like the one involved (e. g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No
Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general
standards (e. g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific
screening analysis).]
2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative
as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.
3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers
must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than
significant. Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be
significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made,
an EIR is required.
4) “(Mitigated) Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the
incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less
than Significant Impact.” The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how
they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17, “Earlier
Analysis,” may be cross-referenced).
5) Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect
has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (C)(3)(D). In this
case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of
and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether
such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,”
describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the
extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential
impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document
should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals
contacted should be cited in the discussion.
8) The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance.
Magical Bridge Playground Project Page 11 Initial Study
DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
The following Environmental Checklist was used to identify environmental impacts, which could occur if the
proposed project is implemented. The left-hand column in the checklist lists the source(s) for the answer to each
question. The sources cited are identified at the end of the checklist. Discussions of the basis for each answer and
a discussion of mitigation measures that are proposed to reduce potential significant impacts are included.
Magical Bridge Playground Project Page 12 Initial Study
A. AESTHETICS
Issues and Supporting Information
Resources
Would the project:
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Substantially degrade the existing visual
character or quality of the site and its
surroundings?
1,4,5,6 X
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on a
public view or view corridor?
1, 5 X
c) Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within
a state scenic highway?
1,4,5,7
X
d) Violate existing Comprehensive Plan
policies regarding visual resources?
1,2,3,5 X
e) Create a new source of substantial light or
glare which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
1,5 X
f) Substantially shadow public open space
(other than public streets and adjacent
sidewalks) between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00
p.m. from September 21 to March 21?
1,5,8 X
DISCUSSION:
The proposed playground would be located within 21-acre Mitchell Park, which is developed for active and
passive recreation uses. The project site consists of undeveloped land, with irrigated lawn, ornamental trees and
shrubs, a segment of the Adobe Creek channel, and existing park infrastructure. The project site is surrounded by
the existing park, public facilities (i.e., schools, church), and other urban development.
The proposed project includes the construction of a playground, as well as associated circulation and landscaping
improvements and replacement of the existing bridge structure over Adobe Creek. As part of the proposed
project, approximately twelve (12) mature trees on the project site would be removed with four (4) trees relocated
onsite adjacent to the southern ramp of the bridge. Approximately 20 new trees would be planted as part of the
proposed landscaping. Pathway lighting would be installed on 10-foot poles with shielding to direct light
downward into the project site. The proposed project would result in the addition of new structures within a
currently undeveloped area of Mitchell Park, resulting in changes to the existing visual character of the site.
a) Less Than Significant Impact. Development of the proposed project would result in a visual change to the
project converting an unoccupied landscaped area to an actively-used playground. However, development of
the project site as a playground would be in keeping with the overall character of Mitchell Park. Although
twelve (12) of the existing trees would be removed, nine of these trees have been determined by a certified
arborist to have poor suitability for preservation, two would be removed for safety concerns and one is
recommended for removal based on good management practices6. None of the trees proposed for removal are
considered “protected” according to the Palo Alto Municipal Code. As part of the proposed project,
approximately 20 new trees would be planted. Implementation of the proposed project would not substantially
degrade the quality or character of the project site, therefore, this impact is less than significant.
6 HortScience, Inc. 2014. Arborist Report, Magical Bridge Playground, Palo Alto CA. Prepared for Royston, Hanamoto, Alley and Abey,
Mill Valley, California. Prepared by HortScience, Inc. Pleasanton, California. 9 March.
Magical Bridge Playground Project Page 13 Initial Study
b) Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is located in a flat area within Mitchell Park, resulting in a
limited viewshed. Mature eucalyptus trees bordering the site on the south and east limit public views into the
site. According to the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan (Map L-4 Community Design Features), the
nearest major view corridor is located approximately 2,100 feet to the north on East Meadow Drive.
Proposed improvements would not include any tall structures or landscaping that would reduce, obstruct or
degrade scenic vistas or major view corridors. Therefore, the proposed project would not have a substantial
adverse effect on scenic vistas. This impact is considered less than significant.
c) No Impact. The project site is not located in the vicinity of any state scenic highway nor is it located near any
rock outcroppings or historic buildings.7 Twelve existing trees would be removed and four trees relocated on
site; however, none of these trees are considered “protected” according to the City of Palo Alto Municipal
Code. Approximately 20 new trees would be planted as part of the proposed project.
d) No Impact. The proposed playground project would meet the objectives of the City of Palo Alto
Comprehensive Plan (updated 2007) regarding visual resources, including policies protecting views of the
foothills and East Bay Hills from developed areas within the City and maintaining the City’s scale and
character. The proposed project is subject to design review by the Architectural Review Board, which will
ensure that the proposed design and landscape plan meets the City’s Architectural Review standards.
e) Less Than Significant Impact. As part of the proposed project, pathway lighting would be installed on 10-
foot poles. Each light fixture would be directed downward and away from adjoining properties and public
rights of way, so that no on-site light fixture would directly illuminate an area off the site. Therefore, the
proposed project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day
or nighttime views in the area.
f) No Impact. Under existing conditions, a shade study prepared for the project site8 indicates that the project
site does not currently experience substantial shading during the winter months. As part of the proposed
project, approximately 20 new trees would be added, 12 trees would be removed and new playground
structures would be installed. As described above, proposed improvements would not include any tall
structures or landscaping that might create substantial shading of surrounding public open space.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
B. AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST RESOURCES
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may
refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California
Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In
determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead
agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest
Legacy Assessment project; and the forest carbon measurement methodology provided in the Forest Protocols
adopted by the California Air Resources Board.
7 California Department of Transportation, 2012. California Scenic Highway Program. July. Available at:
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic_highways/scenic_hwy.htm (Accessed 28 July 2012). 8 RHAA, 2012. Magical Bridge Playground - Shade Study, Palo Alto, CA. 13 April.
Magical Bridge Playground Project Page 14 Initial Study
Issues and Supporting Information Resources
Would the project:
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland,
or Farmland of Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California
Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
1,2 X
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural
use, or a Williamson Act contract?
1,2,3 X
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public
Resources Code section 12220(g)9) or
timberland (as defined in Public Resources
Code section 452610)?
1,2 X
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion
of forest land to non-forest use?
1,2 X
e) Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
1,2 X
DISCUSSION:
The proposed playground would be located on a 1.25-acre underutilized portion of the existing 21-acre Mitchell
Park. The proposed development area would encompass approximately 0.8 acre of the project site. The project
area is designated as a Public Park in the Palo Alto 1998 – 2010 Comprehensive Plan and is zoned PF, Public
Facilities. The project site is primarily undeveloped, consisting of a turf area, ornamental trees, landscaping, and
existing park infrastructure (i.e. bike path).
a) No Impact. The project area is not located in a “Prime Farmland”, “Unique Farmland”, or “Farmland of
Statewide Importance” area, as shown on the maps prepared for the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program of the California Resources Agency. The City of Palo Alto, including the project site, is designated
as “Urban and Built-Up Land.” Urban and Built-up Land is defined as: land used for residential, industrial,
commercial, construction, institutional, public administrative purpose, railroad yards, cemeteries, airports,
golf courses, sanitary landfills, sewage treatment plants, water control structures, and other development
purposes. Highways, railroads, and other transportation facilities are also included in this category.
b) No Impact. The site is not zoned for agricultural use, and is not regulated by the Williamson Act. The project
area is located within an existing City park and would not conflict with land zoned for agricultural use or
Williamson Act contract.
9 PRC 12220(g): "Forest land" is land that can support 10-percent native tree cover of any species, including hardwoods,
under natural conditions, and that allows for management of one or more forest resources, including timber, aesthetics, fish
and wildlife, biodiversity, water quality, recreation, and other public benefits. 10 PRC 4526: "Timberland" means land, other than land owned by the federal government and land designated by the board
as experimental forest land, which is available for, and capable of, growing a crop of trees of any commercial species used to
produce lumber and other forest products, including Christmas trees. Commercial species shall be determined by the board
on a district basis after consultation with the district committees and others.
Magical Bridge Playground Project Page 15 Initial Study
c) No Impact. The site is not zoned for forest land or timberland. The project area is located within an existing
City park and would not conflict with land zoned for forest land or timberland.
d) No Impact. The project site does not currently support forest land. Therefore, implementation of the proposed
project would not result in the loss of forest land or the conversion of forest land to a non-forest use.
e) No Impact. The project site is located within an existing City park in an urbanized area and would not result
in the conversion of farmland or forest land to a non-agricultural or non-forest use.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
C. AIR QUALITY
Issues and Supporting Information Resources
Would the project:
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Conflict with or obstruct with implementation
of the applicable air quality plan (1982 Bay
Area Air Quality Plan & 2000 Clean Air Plan)?
1,5 X
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air
quality violation indicated by the following:
i. Direct and/or indirect operational
emissions that exceed the Bay Area Air
Quality Management District (BAAQMD)
criteria air pollutants of 80 pounds per day
and/or 15 tons per year for nitrogen oxides
(NO), reactive organic gases (ROG), and
fine particulate matter of less than 10
microns in diameter (PM10);
1,5,9,10 X
ii. Contribute to carbon monoxide (CO)
concentrations exceeding the State
Ambient Air Quality Standard of nine
parts per million (ppm) averaged over
eight hours or 20 ppm for one hour( as
demonstrated by CALINE4 modeling,
which would be performed when a) project
CO emissions exceed 550 pounds per day
or 100 tons per year; or b) project traffic
would impact intersections or roadway
links operating at Level of Service (LOS)
D, E or F or would cause LOS to decline to
D, E or F; or c) project would increase
traffic volumes on nearby roadways by
10% or more)?
1,5,9,10 X
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is non-attainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standard (including releasing emissions which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
1,5,9,10 X
Magical Bridge Playground Project Page 16 Initial Study
Issues and Supporting Information Resources
Would the project:
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial levels
of toxic air contaminants?
1,5,9 X
i. Probability of contracting cancer for the
Maximally Exposed Individual (MEI)
exceeds 10 in one million
1 X
ii. Ground-level concentrations of non-
carcinogenic TACs would result in a
hazard index greater than one (1) for the
MEI
1 X
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a
substantial number of people?
1 X
f) Not implement all applicable construction
emission control measures recommended in the
Bay Area Air Quality Management District
CEQA Guidelines?
1 X
DISCUSSION:
The project site is located in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin, under the jurisdiction of the Bay Area Air
Quality Management District (BAAQMD). Both the State of California (state) and the federal government have
established health-based ambient air quality standards (AAQs) for seven air pollutants, including ozone (O3),
carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), particulate matter (PM10, PM2.5), and lead.
The Bay Area exceeds the State standard for 1-hour and 8-hour ozone levels and was designated as a marginal
nonattainment area for the federal 8-hour ozone level in June 2004. The Bay Area is considered a nonattainment
area for PM2.5 at the State level and an attainment area at the federal level. The Bay Area is an unclassified area
for the federal PM10 standard and a nonattainment area at the State level. An “unclassified” designation signifies
that data does not support either an attainment or nonattainment status. The Bay Area is currently considered an
attainment area for State and federal CO standards.
a) Less Than Significant Impact. An air quality plan describes air pollution control strategies to be
implemented by a city, county, or region classified as a non-attainment area. The main purpose of an air
quality plan is to bring the area into compliance with the requirements of federal and State air quality
standards. Such plans describe air pollution control strategies to be implemented by a city, county or region.
The City of Palo Alto and the project site are located in the San Francisco Bay air basin and are within the
jurisdiction of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). The latest air quality plan, the
Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan, was developed in order to bring the region into compliance with State and
federal air quality standards. The proposed project would not require a General Plan amendment and is
therefore consistent with General Plan land use-related goals, objectives, and policies.
The Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan contains BAAQMD-wide control measures to reduce carbon monoxide
and ozone precursor emissions. The proposed project would not substantially increase regional vehicle miles
traveled (VMT) and thus, would not increase regional carbon monoxide and ozone precursor emissions.
Therefore, the proposed project is not expected to conflict with, or obstruct implementation of relevant air
quality plans.
b) Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. Air pollution emissions associated with
implementation of the proposed playground could occur over the short-term as a result of construction
Magical Bridge Playground Project Page 17 Initial Study
activities and over the long term due to vehicle trips associated with operation of the playground. These
activities could result in air quality violations in associated with: 1) construction equipment exhaust
emissions; 2) construction dust; and 3) long-term vehicular emissions. Expected sources of air pollution
resulting from the proposed project are described below.
The BAAQMD has established operation and construction screening level sizes to provide a conservative
indication of whether a project could result in a potentially significant air quality impact. At approximately
1.25 acres, the project site is well below the screening size for operations criteria air pollutants of 2,613 acres,
greenhouse gas emissions (600 acres) and construction emissions (67 acres). Therefore, construction and
operation of the playground would not be a significant source of regional air pollutants. According to the
traffic and parking study prepared for the proposed project11, the playground would generate few additional
vehicle trips and therefore, would not generate a substantial amount of daily regional emissions. Therefore,
construction and operation of the proposed playground would be less than significant.
Construction dust would affect local air quality at various times during construction of the proposed project.
The dry, windy climate of the area during the summer months creates a high potential for dust generation if
underlying souls are exposed. Clearing, grading, and earthmoving activities have a high potential to generate
dust whenever soil moisture is low and particularly when the wind is blowing.
Construction activities could result in increased dust and locally elevated levels of particulates downwind of
construction activity. Construction dust has the potential to create a nuisance at nearby properties. In addition
to nuisance effects, excess dust can increase maintenance and cleaning requirements and could adversely
affect sensitive electronic devices. Implementation of Mitigation Measure Air Quality-1, described below,
would reduce construction-related dust and emissions to a less than significant level.
c) Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. As described above in Response (b), the proposed
project site is well below the screening size for operational criteria air pollutants. Therefore, construction and
operation of the proposed playground would not be a significant source of regional air pollutants at the project
or cumulative level. Construction activities would result in increased dust and locally elevated levels of
particulates downwind of construction activity. However, implementation of Air Quality-1, described below,
would reduce construction-related impacts to a less than significant cumulative level.
d) No Impact. Sensitive receptors are facilities or land uses that include members of the population that are
particularly sensitive to the effects of air pollutants, such as young children, the elderly, and people with
illnesses. As described in Response (b) above, implementation of the proposed project is not expected to
result in a significant increase in the number of vehicle trips in the project area. Therefore, air pollutant
emissions associated with operation of the project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations.
During construction, various diesel-powered vehicles and equipment would be in use. In 1998, the California
Air Resources Board (ARB) identified particulate matter from diesel-fueled engines as a toxic air contaminant
(TAC). The ARB has completed a risk management process that identifies potential cancer risks for a range
of activities using diesel-fueled engines.12 High volume freeways, stationary diesel engines and facilities
attracting heavy and constant diesel vehicle traffic (e.g., distribution centers and truck stops) were identified
as having the highest associated risk.
11 BKF Engineers, Inc., 2014. The Magical Bridge Playground: Preliminary Parking Alternatives, Parking and Traffic Study,
and Pedestrian and Bicycle Access Plan. 10 April. 12 California Air Resources Board (ARB), 2000. Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from Diesel-
Fueled Engines and Vehicles, October.
Magical Bridge Playground Project Page 18 Initial Study
Health risks from TACs are a function of both concentration and duration of exposure. Health risk
assessments consider a 70-year exposure period. Unlike the above types of sources, construction diesel
emissions are temporary, affecting an area for a period of days or perhaps weeks. Additionally, construction-
related sources are mobile and transient in nature, and the emissions occur within the project site.
Construction of the project is expected to occur for only 6 months. Additionally, construction would occur in
various locations within the playground site, which would prevent substantial concentrations of pollutants
from impacting receptors for extended periods of time. Given the short duration of the construction project,
relative to the 70-year health risk evaluation period, sensitive receptors would not be exposed to a substantial
increase in health risk with implementation of the project. Once constructed, operation of the proposed
playground would not result in substantial pollutant concentrations. Therefore, nearby sensitive receptors
would not be exposed to substantial pollutant concentrations.
e) Less Than Significant Impact. Some objectionable odors may be generated from the operation of diesel-
powered construction equipment and/or asphalt paving during the project construction period. However, these
odors would be short-term in nature and are not anticipated to result in permanent impacts to surrounding land
uses. Long-term use of the project site as a playground is not expected to generate odors.
f) Less Than Significant Impact. As described in Response (b) above, construction of the proposed project
could result in increased dust and locally elevated levels of particulates downwind of construction activity.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure Air Quality-1, described below, would require the project contractor to
implement applicable construction emissions control measures recommended in the Bay Area Air Quality
Management District CEQA Guidelines. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures:
Air Quality-1: Consistent with guidance from the BAAQMD, the following actions shall be required of all
construction contracts and specifications for the project site:
All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads)
shall be watered two times per day.
All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered.
All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street
sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.
All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph.
All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible.
Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum
idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485
of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all
access points.
All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s
specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper
condition prior to operation.
Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the City of Palo Alto Public
Works Department regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48
hours.
Magical Bridge Playground Project Page 19 Initial Study
D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Issues and Supporting Information Resources
Would the project:
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications, on
any species identified as a candidate, sensitive,
or special status species in local or regional
plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife or
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
1,5,6,11,12,
13,14
X
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional plans,
policies, regulations, including federally
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404
of the Clean Water Act (including, but not
limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
1,5 X
c) Interfere substantially with the movement of
any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use
of native wildlife nursery sites?
1,5 X
d) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or as defined by the City of
Palo Alto’s Tree Preservation Ordinance
(Municipal Code Section 8.10)?
1,2,4,5,6,23 X
e) Conflict with any applicable Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
1,5 X
DISCUSSION:
Information in the following section was obtained during a reconnaissance-level biological survey of the project
site and its environs conducted by LSA Associates, Inc. on June 22, 2012. The purpose of the survey was to
assess current habitat conditions and to evaluate the site’s potential to support special-status plant and/or animal
species and sensitive habitats. The site-specific biological resources information gathered during the June 2012
visit was supplemented by relevant information presented in the Arborist Report for the project.13 Prior to
conducting field work, the California Natural Diversity Database14 (CNDDB) was searched for records of special-
status species within 5 miles of the site.
13 HortScience, Inc. 2014. Arborist Report, Magical Bridge Playground, Palo Alto CA. Prepared for Royston, Hanamoto, Alley and Abey,
Mill Valley, California. Prepared by HortScience, Inc. Pleasanton, California. 9 March. 14 California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2012. Query of the California Natural Diversity Database for special-status species
occurrences within 5 miles of the project site. Biogeographic Data Branch, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Sacramento. June
1, 2012.
Magical Bridge Playground Project Page 20 Initial Study
a) Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. Development of the proposed project could impact
special-status species that may occur within the project area. The following discussion describes and evaluates
significant impacts to special-status species and sensitive habitats and proposes measures that would mitigate
these impacts to a less than significant level.
Overview. The project site supports plant and wildlife species that are typically associated with urban park
settings. The project site supports irrigated lawn, ornamental trees and shrubs, a segment of the Adobe Creek
channel with a small amount of remaining riparian vegetation, and existing park infrastructure. A few ruderal
plant species were observed near the western end of the bridge, including prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola),
fennel (Foeniculum vulgare), bristly ox-tongue (Helminthotheca echioides), and broad leaf filaree (Erodium
botrys). Trees in the project area include blue gum (Eucalyptus globulus), Raywood ash (Fraxinus holotrica
'Raywood'), evergreen ash (Fraxinus uhdei), Italian stone pine (Pinus pinea), holly oak (Quercus ilex), cork
oak Quercus suber), and windmill palm (Trachycarpus fortunei).15 Understory vegetation includes English
ivy (Hedera helix), a few native coyote brush shrubs (Baccharis pilularis) and ornamental shrubs. Vegetation
observed within Adobe Creek includes willow (Salix sp.), cattail (Typha sp.), umbrella sedge (Cyperus
eragrostis), watercress (Rorippa nasturtium-aquaticum), willow herb (Epilobium sp.), rabbit’s foot grass
(Polypogon monspeliensis), fennel, bristly ox-tongue, and prickly lettuce.
Reaches of Adobe Creek support a variety of both native and introduced fish species. Native fish species
known to occur in the Adobe Creek watershed include California roach (Lavinia symmetricus), Sacramento
sucker (Catostomus occidentalis), threespine stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus), and prickly sculpin
(Cottus asper). Introduced species include common carp (Cyprinus carpio), rainwater killifish (Lucania
parva), and western mosquitofish (Gambusia affinis). The federally threatened steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus
mykiss) are considered extinct in the Adobe Creek watershed.16 Western mosquitofish was the only fish
species observed during LSA’s visit.
The soil type for the site is mapped as Urbanland-Clear Lake complex, 0 to 2 percent slopes17; however, soil
samples taken at the project site showed that sandy clay loam soils are present.18
Vegetation. The project site does not support any significant natural vegetation communities. The habitat
types on the site are urban landscaping at the park and a concrete-lined urban creek channel. Planting of the
park with non-native and ornamental trees makes the site unsuitable for special-status native plants. The value
of the park as native plant habitat is further reduced by the isolation of the park from other native plant
communities. Past and current disturbance within and around the park (e.g., landscape maintenance, mowing,
pruning) also make it unsuitable for most native plants. The reach of the Adobe Creek channel within the park
is concrete-lined and has accumulated sediment that supports limited habitat for plants.
Special-status Plant Species. As shown in Table 1, 11 potentially occurring special-status plant species were
identified at the proposed project site, but none of these species are considered to have any potential for
occurrence on the site due to a lack of suitable or natural habitat. These special-status plant species are
unlikely to occur due to the developed and/or highly-disturbed conditions present at the project site. The
upland habitat consists of primarily exotic species with no chance of special-status species occurring. Adobe
Creek and its associated vegetation would not be impacted because no construction would occur within close
15 HortScience, Inc. 2014. Arborist Report, Magical Bridge Playground, Palo Alto CA. Prepared for Royston, Hanamoto, Alley and Abey,
Mill Valley, California. Prepared by HortScience, Inc. Pleasanton, California. 9 March. 16 Leidy, R. A. 2007. Ecology, Assemblage Structure, Distribution, and Status of Fishes in Streams Tributary to the San Francisco Estuary,
California. San Francisco Estuary Institute Contribution No. 530. San Francisco Estuary Institute, Oakland, California. 17 University of California, Davis Soil Resource Laboratory. 2012. Online Soil Survey, California Soil Resource Laboratory. Accessed at
<http://casoilresource.lawr.ucdavis.edu/drupal/node/27> on July 9, 2012. 18 Soil and Plant Laboratory, Inc. 2012. Soil lab results for the Magical Bridge, Palo Alto project (Job #P17711), Report 12-103-0052.
Prepared for Royston, Hanamoto, Alley, and Abey. April 20, 2012.
Magical Bridge Playground Project Page 21 Initial Study
proximity to the creek channel. The new bridge will completely span the creek and no construction work will
occur within the creek.
Wildlife Species. The project site is located in an existing park within a developed area of the City. Although
the project site supports ornamental trees and shrubs and a vegetated concrete-lined creek channel, the dense
residential development surrounding the site provides limited habitat for native wildlife except those species
that are tolerant of human disturbance and park lighting. Wildlife observed at the project site during LSA’s
visit consists of mallard (Anas platyrhynchos), black phoebe (Sayornis nigricans), Bewick’s wren
(Thryomanes bewickii), American robin (Turdus migratorius), violet-green swallow (Tachycineta thalassina),
Brewer’s blackbird (Euphagus cyanocephalus), ring-billed gull (Larus delawarensis), Anna’s hummingbird
(Calypte anna), chestnut-backed chickadee (Poecile rufescens), American goldfinch (Carduelis tristis), house
finch (Carpodacus mexicanus), American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), house sparrow (Passer
domesticus), eastern gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), and western mosquitofish. The Adobe Creek
channel provides habitat for aquatic amphibians such as Sierran treefrog (Pseudacris sierra) and possibly
western pond turtle (Actinemys marmorata), although these species were not detected during the survey. The
creek may also provide a water source and forage for mammals such as raccoon (Procyon lotor) and opossum
(Didelphis virginianus).
Birds may nest within the trees and shrubs on and adjacent to the site. The only nesting activity observed
during the reconnaissance-level survey were violet-green swallows and house sparrows nesting within the
weep holes along the concrete-lined banks of Adobe Creek. Additionally, fledgling Bewick’s wrens were
observed just north of the site in the shrubs bordering the tennis courts.
As shown in Table 2, 12 potentially occurring special-status animal species were identified at the project site,
but these species are considered unlikely to occur due to the site’s urban setting and the lack of high quality
natural habitat. Species that are more likely to occur consist of the western pond turtle (California Species of
Special Concern) and pallid bat (California Species of Special Concern). Western pond turtles could occur
along Adobe Creek and pallid bats could roost in the large trees in the park or under the existing bridge that
spans Adobe Creek. Western pond turtles would not nest on the site due to the lack of suitable habitat along
Adobe Creek, and since no construction would occur in or in close proximity to the creek channel, no impacts
to pond turtles are anticipated. Potential impacts to roosting pallid bats are described in more detail below.
Pallid Bat and Other Bat Species. The potential for pallid bats and other bat species to roost within or
adjacent to the project site is low and the proposed project is unlikely to affect bat species. Pallid bats or other
bat species were not observed during the LSA survey, nor was any evidence of existing bat roosting sites.
Nevertheless, suitable foraging habitat for pallid bats and other bat species occurs within the project area, and
the larger trees, weep holes within the concrete-lined Adobe Creek channel, and existing bridge could provide
suitable roosting habitat.
Operation of the proposed project, including proposed pathway lighting, would not impact pallid bats or other
bat species. Construction of the proposed project could affect pallid bats and other bat species, if the bats were
to establish roosts within the project vicinity prior to the commencement of work. Implementation of
Mitigation Measure BIO-1a through 1d would reduce potential impacts to pallid bats and other bat species to
a less than significant level.
b) Less Than Significant Impact. Adobe Creek runs in a concrete-lined channel in a semi-circle along the
western boundary of the project site. This reach of the creek has accumulated sediments, which has allowed
for a limited amount of riparian vegetation to grow along the creek bottom. Although the vegetation is
limited, it provides some foraging habitat and cover for birds, amphibians, reptiles, mammals, and
invertebrates, and is considered a sensitive vegetation community. The proposed project will not directly
impact Adobe Creek. Implementation of Best Management Practices (see Section I. Hydrology and Water
Magical Bridge Playground Project Page 22 Initial Study
Quality) would ensure that indirect impacts to the channel do not occur during and after construction of the
project.
c) Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. No wildlife corridors would be adversely affected
by the proposed project. The site is surrounded by residences and buildings (i.e., all barriers to regional
wildlife movement). Wildlife species expected to occur in the area are generalists that are adept at moving
through urban landscapes. Localized wildlife movement in the area will likely continue along Adobe Creek
and across the other less developed portions of the site. The relatively limited extent of habitat loss that would
result from the project would not affect the ability of these species to move through the project site and
surrounding areas following construction of the project.
The project site provides nesting habitat for a variety of native birds. Several native birds were observed on
the site during the reconnaissance survey and could nest on the site. As described in (a) above, two native bird
species, the violet-green swallow and Bewick’s wren, were observed nesting within or near the project site.
Although house sparrows were observed nesting in the weep holes along Adobe Creek, they are a non-native
species whose nests are not protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act or California Fish and Game Code.
A total of twelve trees are proposed for removal as part of the proposed project, including: five Italian stone
pines, five blue gum eucalyptus, one holly oak and one Raywood ash. Construction activities on the site could
temporarily affect nesting birds both on and adjacent to the site if trees or vegetation containing active nests
are removed during the nesting season (February 1–August 31) or construction activities disturb nesting birds
adjacent to the project site resulting in nest abandonment or nest failure. As stated above, violet-green
swallows and Bewick’s wrens were observed nesting on or near the site. The nests and eggs of these and other
native bird species are protected under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Section 3503 of the
California Fish and Game Code. Trees and shrubs on the project site, if occupied by nesting native birds,
would be considered a wildlife nursery site under CEQA. Therefore, destruction or abandonment of an active
nest as a result of project related activities would result in direct effects to a wildlife nursery site.
Implementation of the two-part mitigation measure, BIO-2, would ensure that potential impacts to protected
native bird species, including nesting special-status bird species if present, would be reduced to a less than
significant level.
d) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project will not conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or protected or heritage trees as defined by
the City of Palo Alto’s Tree Preservation Ordinance.
The Palo Alto Municipal Code (8.10.020) defines protected trees as “any tree of the species Quercus agrifolia
(Coast Live Oak) or Quercus lobata (Valley Oak) which is eleven and one-half inches in diameter (thirty-six
inches in circumference) or more when measured four and one-half feet (fifty-four inches) above natural
grade; and any redwood tree (species Sequoia sempervirens) that is eighteen inches in diameter (fifty-seven
inches in circumference) or more when measured four and one-half feet (fifty-four inches) above natural
grade.” According to the project arborist report, no protected trees occur at the site.19 Because the trees
proposed for removal are not considered protected or designated as heritage trees, no replacement of these
trees would be required.
e) No Impact. The proposed project would not conflict with the provisions of any adopted or other approved
local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan. The City and proposed project site location are not included
within any adopted conservation plans.
19 HortScience, Inc. 2014. Arborist Report, Magical Bridge Playground, Palo Alto CA. Prepared for Royston, Hanamoto, Alley and Abey,
Mill Valley, California. Prepared by HortScience, Inc. Pleasanton, California. 9 March.
Magical Bridge Playground Project Page 23 Initial Study
Mitigation Measures:
Biology-1a: All potential roosting trees within the project site shall be surveyed for the presence of bat roosts by a
qualified biologist. The survey may entail direct inspection of the trees, bridge, or creek banks or nocturnal
surveys, and shall be conducted no more than two weeks prior to the initiation of tree/bridge removal and ground
disturbing activities. If no roosting sites are present, then the trees and existing bridge shall be removed within
two weeks following the survey.
Biology-1b: If roosting sites are present and occupied, then a qualified biologist shall determine the species of
bats present. If the bats are not found to be pallid bats or any other special-status bat species, then the bats may be
evicted from roosts that are to be removed using methods developed by a biologist experienced in bat mitigation
and exclusion plans. The biologist shall prepare an eviction plan detailing the methods of excluding bats from the
roost(s) and the methods to be used to secure the existing roost site(s) to prevent its reuse prior to removal.
Removal of the roost(s) shall only occur after the eviction plan has been approved by the California Department
of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW).
Biology-1c: Tree removal near roost trees shall be conducted without damaging the roost trees.
Biology-1d: No diesel or gas-powered equipment shall be stored or operated directly beneath a roost site.
Biology-2a: For construction activities occurring during the nesting season (February 1 through August 31), a
qualified biologist shall conduct nesting bird surveys no more than 15 days prior to tree pruning, tree removal,
ground disturbing activities, or construction activities to locate active nests on or immediately adjacent to the
project site. If construction activities are delayed, additional preconstruction surveys, at 15 day intervals, shall be
completed until construction is initiated.
Biology-2b: If nesting birds are identified on the project site, the locations of active nests shall be noted on the
construction drawings and protective measures implemented. Protective measures shall include establishment of
clearly delineated (i.e., orange construction fencing) exclusion zones around each nest site. Each exclusion zone
shall have a 300-foot radius centered on the nest tree for raptor nests and a 50-foot radius centered on the nest for
other birds. Active nest sites shall be monitored periodically throughout the nesting season to identify signs of
disturbance. These protection measures shall remain in effect until the young have left the nest and are foraging
independently or the nest is no longer active. Exclusion zones may be reduced in size, if in consultation with the
CDFW, a smaller exclusion zone is determined to adequately protect the active nest. Upon completion of
construction activities, a report detailing the results of the preconstruction surveys and monitoring shall be
prepared and submitted to the City and CDFW.
Magical Bridge Playground Project Page 24 Initial Study
Table 1: Special-Status Plant Species Occurring in the Vicinity of the Project Site
Species Statusa Habitat/Blooming Period Potential for Occurrence
Alkali milk-vetch
Astragalus tener var.
tener
1B Playas, valley and foothill grassland (adobe clay),
vernal pools/alkaline; 1-60 meters; March-June
No suitable habitat present.
Franciscan onion
Allium peninsulare var.
franciscanum
1B Cismontane woodland, valley and foothill
grassland, clay soils, often on serpentine, dry
hillsides
No suitable habitat present.
San Francisco collinsia
Collinsia multicolor
1B Closed-cone coniferous forest, coastal scrub No suitable habitat present.
Congdon’s tarplant
Centromadia parryi
ssp. congdonii
1B Grasslands in alkaline or saline soils, sometimes
described as heavy white clay; 1-230 meters;
May-October (sometimes into November)
No suitable habitat present.
Lost thistle Cirsium praeteriens 1A Habitat requirements unknown; 0-100 meters; June-July Unlikely to occur in the project site due to lack of natural habitat. The one
record from the CNDDB is from an
extinct population in Palo Alto last seen
in 1901.
Point Reyes bird’s-
beak
Cordylanthus
maritimus ssp. palustris
1B Marshes and swamps (coastal salt), usually in
coastal salt marsh with Salicornia, Distichlis,
Jaumea and Spartina; 0-10 meters; June-
October
No suitable habitat present.
Western leatherwood Dirca occidentalis 1B Broad-leafed upland forest, chaparral, closed-cone coniferous forest, cismontane woodland,
riparian woodland. Jan-Apr
No suitable habitat present.
Hoover’s button-celery
Eryngium aristulatum var. hooveri
1B Alkaline depressions, vernal pools, roadside
ditches and other wet places near the coast; 3-45 meters; July
No suitable habitat present.
Woodland woolythreads
Monolopia gracilens
1B Grassy openings in chaparral, valley and foothill grassland (serpentine), cismontane woodland,
broad-leafed upland forest, and North Coast
coniferous forest; 100-1200 meters; February-
July
No suitable habitat present.
Slender-leaved
pondweed
Potamogeton filiformis
2 Marshes, swamps, shallow and clear water of
lakes and drainage channels
Unlikely to occur in the project site due
to lack of natural habitat. The closest
known CNDDB occurrence is an 1899
record from an unknown location in
Palo Alto.
California seablite
Suaeda claifornica
FE, 1B Marshes and swamps (coastal salt); 0-15; July-
October
No suitable habitat present.
Status Codes:
FE = Federally listed as an endangered species.
List 1A = (California Rare Plant Rank) (RPR): Plants considered extinct.
List 1B = (RPR) Plants, rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere.
List 2 = (RPR) Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California but more common elsewhere.
Occurrence records are from the CNDDB (2012) unless otherwise stated.
Source: LSA Associates, Inc., 2012.
Magical Bridge Playground Project Page 25 Initial Study
Table 2: Special-Status Animal Species Occurring in the Vicinity of the Project Site
Species Statusa Habitat Potential for Occurrence within Planning
Area
Fish
Steelhead (Central California
Coast ESU)
Oncorhynchus mykiss
FT Coastal streams from Russian River
south to Aptos Creek (Santa Cruz Co.),
including streams tributary to San
Francisco and San Pablo Bays
Considered extinct in Adobe Creek.
Historically known to occur in Adobe Creek.20
Amphibians
California tiger salamander
Ambystoma californiense
FT, ST Grasslands and foothills that contain
small mammal burrows (for dry-season
retreats) and seasonal ponds and pools
(for breeding during the rainy season).
No suitable breeding habitat. Marginal upland
habitat present, but site’s location within an
urban setting precludes presence due to urban
barriers from the closest known extant
breeding site, which is approximately 3.3
miles from the site, well beyond the distance
the species is likely to travel.
California red-legged frog
Rana draytonii
FT, CSC Ponds, streams, drainages and associated
uplands; requires areas of deep, still,
and/or slow-moving water for breeding.
Not likely to occur in reach of Adobe Creek
within the site due to its disturbed condition,
lack of breeding pools, and introduction of
non-native predators, such as western
mosquitofish. No CNDDB records within
Adobe Creek. Closest known occurrence is
approximately 1.9 miles from the site in
Matadero Creek.
Western pond turtle
Actinemys marmorata
CSC Ponds, streams with deep pools,
drainages and associated uplands for egg
laying
Could pass through Adobe Creek, but no
suitable nesting or basking sites (sandy banks
and rocks) are present on the site’s reach of
the creek. Closest CNDDB occurrence is
approximately 3.3 miles from the site at Lake
Lagunita.
Reptiles
San Francisco garter snake
Thamnophis sirtalis
tetrataenia
FE, SE Freshwater marshes, ponds, and slow-
moving streams in San Mateo County
and extreme northern Santa Cruz County;
prefers dense cover and water depths of
at least 1 foot
Site does not lie within known range of this
subspecies.
Birds
White-tailed kite
Elanus leucurus
CFP Open grasslands, meadows, or marshes;
require dense-topped trees or shrubs for
nesting and perching
Suitable nesting trees present, but site’s
location within an urban park and the lack of
high quality foraging habitat likely precludes
presence. No suitable stick nests were
observed during LSA’s visit.
Northern harrier
Circus cyaneus
CSC Nests in wet meadows and marshes,
forages over open grasslands and
agricultural fields
May briefly fly over site, but not likely to
forage or nest on the site due to the lack of
suitable habitat.
Burrowing owl
Athene cunicularia
CSC Open, dry grasslands that contain
abundant ground squirrel burrows
Not likely to occur due to the lack of suitable
habitat and the site’s location within an urban
park. Known to occur north of the site at the
Palo Alto Baylands, Shoreline Regional Park,
and Moffett Federal Airfield.
Salt marsh common
yellowthroat
Geothlypis trichas sinuosa
CSC Salt, brackish, and freshwater marshes;
and riparian woodlands; nests on or near
ground in low vegetation
Low quality habitat within Adobe Creek due
to lack of cover. Known to occur in marshes
adjacent to Charleston Slough, approximately
1 mile from the site.
Alameda song sparrow
Melospiza melodia pusillula
CSC Tidal salt marshes dominated by
pickleweed; nests primarily in
No suitable habitat present. Project site is
outside of the range of this species. Known to
20 Leidy, R. A., 2007. Ecology, Assemblage Structure, Distribution, and Status of Fishes in Streams Tributary to the San Francisco Estuary,
California. San Francisco Estuary Institute Contribution No. 530. San Francisco Estuary Institute, Oakland, California.
Magical Bridge Playground Project Page 26 Initial Study
Species Statusa Habitat Potential for Occurrence within Planning
Area
pickleweed and marsh gumplant occur near the mouth of San Francisquito
Creek, approximately 2.6 miles from the site.
Tricolored blackbird
Agelaius tricolor
CSC Nests in dense vegetation near open
water; forages in grasslands and
agricultural fields.
No suitable nesting habitat present. May
briefly forage along Adobe Creek.
Mammals
Pallid bat
Antrozous pallidus
CSC A variety of open arid habitats (e.g.,
chaparral, open woodland, deserts);
primary roost sites include bridges, old
buildings, and in tree hollows and/or
bark; sometimes roost in caves and rock
crevices
May occasionally forage over the site, but no
known active roost sites in the vicinity. Could
roost under existing bridge, in the weep holes
along Adobe Creek, and/or in tree cavities, if
present.
a Status:
FE = federally endangered
FT = federally threatened
SE = State endangered
ST = State threatened
CSC = California Species of Special Concern
CFP = California Fully Protected Species
Occurrence records are from the CNDDB (2012) unless otherwise stated.
Source: LSA Associates, Inc., 2012.
Magical Bridge Playground Project Page 27 Initial Study
E. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Issues and Supporting Information Resources
Would the project:
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Directly or indirectly destroy a local cultural
resource that is recognized by City Council
resolution?
1,15 X
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to 15064.5?
1,15 X
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
1,15 X
d) Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of formal cemeteries?
1,15 X
e) Adversely affect a historic resource listed or
eligible for listing on the National and/or
California Register, or listed on the City’s
Historic Inventory?
1,15 X
f) Eliminate important examples of major periods
of California history or prehistory?
1,15 X
DISCUSSION:
LSA conducted a records search and corresponded with staff of the City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and
Community Environment to establish the baseline for cultural resources in the project area. On July 27, 2012,
LSA conducted an archival records search (NWIC file #11-1014) for the project area and a ¼-mile radius at the
Northwest Information Center (the NWIC) at Sonoma State University. The NWIC, an affiliate of the California
Historical Resources Information System, is the repository for cultural resource reports and records in Santa Clara
County.
Archival Research Results. The NWIC records search indicated that no cultural resources have been recorded in
or adjacent to the project area. Three previous studies were conducted adjacent to, or within 250 feet of, the
project area. These studies are as follows:
Cartier, Dr. Robert R., 1999. Cultural Resource Evaluation of the Sprint PCS Mitchell Park Project at 3600
Middlefield Road in the City of Palo Alto, County of Santa Clara. Archaeological Resource Management, San
Jose, California.
This study consisted of archival research, a field survey, and report of findings for a communications
tower installation project just southeast of the intersection of Middlefield Road and East Meadow Drive.
The study area was separated from the current project area by the Covenant Presbyterian Church. No
cultural resources were identified in the study area, although a prehistoric archaeological site (CA-SCL-
624) consisting of midden and dietary debris, was identified approximately 2,000 feet southwest of the
current project area.
Cartier, Robert, 1982. Cultural Resource Evaluation for a Parcel of Land at 3860 Middlefield Road in the
City of Palo Alto, County of Santa Clara of the Sprint PCS Mitchell Park Project at 3600 Middlefield Road in
the City of Palo Alto, County of Santa Clara. Archaeological Resource Management, San Jose, California.
Magical Bridge Playground Project Page 28 Initial Study
This study consisted of archival research, a field survey, and report of findings for a project involving the
construction of classrooms for a children’s facility in a parcel immediately north of the current project
area and fronting Middlefield Road. No cultural resources were identified in the study area.
Historic Resource Associates, 2005. Cultural Resources Study of the Middlefield & Meadow Dr. (Achieve
School) Project Cingular Wireless Site No. SNFCCA2074F, 3860 Middlefield Road, Palo Alto, Santa Clara
County, California 94303. Historic Resource Associates, El Dorado Hills, California.
This study consisted of archival research, a field survey, and report of findings for a project involving the
construction of a cellular telephone pole in the southwest corner of the Achieve School parking lot
(i.e., the same parcel that contained the study area for the Cartier 1982 study previously described). No
cultural resources were identified in the study area.
a) No Impact. The project area does not contain a local cultural resource that is recognized by a City Council
resolution.
b) Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The environmental setting of the project area was
conducive to Native American use and settlement prior to Euro-American incursions in the Bay Area. The
presence of prehistoric archaeological site CA-SCL-624 approximately 2,000 feet southwest of the project
area supports this assessment. However, three separate archaeological studies in the vicinity of the project
area did not identify archaeological deposits. Though unlikely, it cannot be entirely discounted that
archaeological deposits, either prehistoric or historical, could be encountered during ground-disturbing
activities. Such deposits could qualify as historical or archaeological resources under CEQA, in which case
their disturbance would constitute “material impairment” and possibly result in a significant impact.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure Cultural-1 described at the end of this section would reduce the
severity of this potential impact to a less than significant level.
c) Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. Given the nature of project construction and the
relatively shallow depth of excavation required, it is unlikely that paleontological resources would be
encountered. Though unlikely, this possibility cannot be entirely discounted. If encountered, such resources
could qualify as significant for the scientific data they contain relating to ancient life, in which case their
disturbance could possibly result in a significant impact. Implementation of Mitigation Measure Cultural-2
described at the end of this section would reduce the severity of this potential impact to a less than significant
level.
d) Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. Given the nature of the project environmental
setting prior to Euro-American contact, it is possible that human remains associated with Native American
use and habitation in the area could occur. Though unlikely, this possibility cannot be entirely discounted. If
encountered, the disturbance of such remains could possibly result in a significant impact. Implementation of
Mitigation Measure Cultural-3 described at the end of this section would reduce the severity of this potential
impact to a less than significant level.
e) No Impact. The project area is located in the southeast margin of Mitchell Park. Located at 600 East Meadow
Drive, Mitchell Park consists of a 21.4-acre park named for J. Pierce Mitchell, a 31-year Palo Alto City
Councilman, two-term Palo Alto mayor, and former Stanford professor of chemistry. The park contains a
variety of recreational and community amenities, including lawn areas, a jogging and walking path, picnic
areas, benches, tennis courts, handball courts, horseshoe pits, a multipurpose bowl, children’s play areas,
public art, and a fenced dog run. When it opened in 1957, Mitchell Park received acknowledgement as a “new
kind of park” that possessed amenities thought to appeal to a wide range of age groups. Originally, as
indicated by older park plans, many different activities were represented, including above-ground “gopher
holes” and a miniature freeway system in the tiny tot area, a circular roller skating slab, and shuffleboard,
Magical Bridge Playground Project Page 29 Initial Study
bocce, tennis, and picnicking areas. Over time, facilities became worn and infrastructure dated as funds for
updating the park were not readily provided. In the 1990s, the City provided funding to upgrade Mitchell Park
infrastructure.21
LSA did not identify any previous evaluations of Mitchell Park’s eligibility for listing in the National Register
of Historic Places (NRHP), California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), or City of Palo Alto Historic
Inventory. A recent inquiry with staff of the Department of Planning and Community Environment yielded a
determination by the City that Mitchell Park is not considered a historical resource as defined at California
Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21084.1.22
Magical Bridge. The existing bridge, an arched, glued-laminated timber bridge, has approaches whose slopes
exceed ADA accessibility standards, and also suffers from deterioration of some of its wood and steel
elements. Based on the undistinguished nature of the bridge design and its appearance as a utilitarian
structure, it does not appear to be individually eligible for the CRHR due to a lack of significance; City of
Palo Alto Historic Preservation Planner Dennis Backlund concurred with this conclusion.23 For this reason,
Magical Bridge does not appear to qualify as a historical resource as defined at California PRC Section
21084.1.
Impacts Discussion. California PRC Section 21060.5 “defines the ‘environment’ to include ‘historic
conditions’ within an area which will be affected by a proposed project.” California PRC Section 21084.1
states that a project that “may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource”
is “a project that may have a significant effect on the environment.” To assist lead agencies in assessing
whether a significant effect would occur, California PRC Section 21084.1 requires two determinations: (1)
whether a resource subject to impact qualifies as a “historical resource”; and (2) if so, whether such an impact
would cause a “substantial adverse change” in the significance of the resource.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b)(1) defines a “substantial adverse change” as “physical demolition,
destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of
an historical resource would be materially impaired.” CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b)(2) defines
“materially impaired” as occurring when a project:
Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of an historical
resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its inclusion in, or eligibility for, inclusion
in the California Register of Historical Resources; or
Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics that account for its
inclusion in a local register of historical resources pursuant to section 5020(k) of the Public Resources
Code or its identification in an historical resources survey meeting the requirements of section 5024.1(g)
of the Public Resources Code, unless the public reviewing the effects of the project establishes by a
preponderance of evidence that the resource is not historically or culturally significant; or
Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of a historical
resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its eligibility for inclusion in the California
Register of Historical Resources as determined by a lead agency for purposes of CEQA.
21 Description adapted from a profile of Mitchell Park at
<http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=114&TargetID=14>. 22 Email from Peter Jensen, ASLA, City of Palo Alto, to LSA on July 3, 2012. 23 Email from Dennis Backlund, Historic Preservation Planner, City of Palo Alto, to Amy French and Steven Turner, City of Palo Alto on
June 13, 2012.
Magical Bridge Playground Project Page 30 Initial Study
Mitchell Park has been determined not to qualify as a historical resource under CEQA by the City of Palo
Alto. Under California PRC Section 21084.1, Mitchell Park does not pass the first part of the two-part test to
determine whether a significant impact would occur. By definition, if the resource at issue is not a historical
resource, then no significant impact would occur.
Regardless of the fact that Mitchell Park does not qualify as a historical resource, the improvements proposed
as part of the proposed project are not actions that would introduce incompatible elements to the park. The
construction of a playground would introduce a compatible use to a section of Mitchell Park that has been
underutilized to this point, and would strengthen its identity as a recreationally-focused facility. The nature of
the improvements, incorporating children’s play structures in a discrete location, is peripheral to the central
portion of the park, the playing fields, the circulation network, and path lighting. Those aspects of the original
design of the park would remain intact, there would be no expansion of the park boundary beyond its past
limits, and the spatial relationship of the core park facilities would remain intact. Even if Mitchell Park had
been determined to be a historical resource, the compatibility of the proposed project with the existing park
facilities, layout, and predominant community uses would not meet the definition of “material impairment”
that characterizes a significant cultural resource impact.
f) No Impact. For the reasons described in Response (e) above, the proposed project will not have an impact on
a resource that qualifies as a historical resource under CEQA.
Mitigation Measures:
Cultural-1: If deposits of prehistoric or historical archaeological materials are encountered during project
activities, all work within 25 feet of the discovery shall be redirected until the archaeologist assesses the finds,
consults with agencies as appropriate, and makes recommendations for the treatment of the discovery. Adverse
effects on such deposits shall be avoided by project activities. If avoidance is not feasible, the archaeological
deposits shall be evaluated for their eligibility for listing in the California Register. If the deposits are not eligible,
avoidance is not necessary. If the deposits are eligible, adverse effects on the deposits shall be avoided or
mitigated.
Upon completion of the assessment, the archaeologist shall prepare a report to document the methods and results
of the assessment and to provide recommendations for the treatment of the archaeological materials discovered.
Mitigation may include excavation of the archaeological deposit in accordance with a data recovery plan (see
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3)(C)) and standard archaeological field methods and procedures;
laboratory and technical analyses of recovered archaeological materials; preparation of a report detailing the
methods, findings, and significance of the archaeological site and associated materials; and accessioning of
archaeological materials and a technical data recovery report at a curation facility. The report shall be submitted
to the City of Palo Alto and the Northwest Information Center at Sonoma State University within five calendar
days of completion of the resource assessment.
To address the possibility that archaeological materials may be discovered during project activities when an
archaeologist is not on site, the applicant shall inform its contractor(s) of the archaeological sensitivity of the
entire project site by including the following directive in contract documents:
“If prehistoric or historical archaeological deposits are discovered during project activities, all work within
25 feet of the discovery shall be redirected and a qualified archaeologist contacted to assess the situation,
consult with agencies as appropriate, and make recommendations regarding the treatment of the discovery.
Project personnel should not collect or move any archaeological materials or human remains and associated
materials. Archaeological resources can include flaked-stone tools (e.g., projectile points, knives,
choppers) or obsidian, chert, basalt, or quartzite tool making debris; bone tools; culturally darkened soil
Magical Bridge Playground Project Page 31 Initial Study
(i.e., midden soil often containing heat-affected rock, ash and charcoal, shellfish remains, faunal bones, and
cultural materials); and stone-milling equipment (e.g., mortars, pestles, handstones). Prehistoric
archaeological sites often contain human remains. Historical materials can include wood, stone, concrete, or
adobe footings, walls, and other structural remains; debris-filled wells or privies; and deposits of wood,
glass, ceramics, metal, and other refuse.”
The City of Palo Alto shall verify that the above language has been included in contract documents before
issuance of the grading permit.
Cultural-2: If paleontological resources are discovered during project activities, all work within 25 feet of the
discovery shall be redirected until the paleontological monitor has assessed the situation and made
recommendations regarding their treatment. It is recommended that adverse effects on paleontological resources
be avoided by project activities. If avoidance is not feasible, the paleontological resources shall be evaluated for
their significance. Paleontological resources are considered significant if they possess the possibility of providing
new information regarding past life forms, paleoecology, stratigraphy, and geological formation processes. If the
resources are not significant, avoidance is not necessary. If the resources are significant, they must be avoided, or
any impacts must be mitigated. Mitigation may include monitoring of project ground-disturbing activities,
recording of the fossil locality, data recovery and analysis, a technical data recovery report, and accessioning of
the fossil material and technical report to a paleontological repository. Public educational outreach may also be
appropriate.
To document compliance with the mitigation, a report of findings with an appended, itemized inventory of
specimens (as appropriate) shall be prepared and submitted to the City of Palo Alto and an appropriate repository,
such as the University of California Museum of Paleontology within 90 calendar days of completion of the
paleontological monitoring.
Cultural-3: Any human remains encountered during project ground-disturbing activities shall be treated in
accordance with California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5. The applicant shall inform its contractor(s)
of the possibility of encountering human remains by including the following directive in contract documents:
“If human remains are uncovered, work within 25 feet of the discovery shall be redirected and the County
Coroner notified immediately. At the same time, an archaeologist shall be contacted—if one is not already on
site—to assess the situation and consult with agencies as appropriate. Project personnel shall not collect or
move any human remains or associated materials. If the human remains are of Native American origin, the
Coroner must notify the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours of this identification. The
Native American Heritage Commission will identify a Native American Most Likely Descendant to inspect the
site and provide recommendations for the proper treatment of the remains and associated grave goods.”
The City of Palo Alto shall verify that the above language has been included in contract documents before issuing
the grading permit.
Upon completion of the assessment, the archaeologist shall prepare a report documenting the methods and results
and provide recommendations regarding the treatment of the human remains and any associated cultural
materials, as appropriate and in coordination with the recommendations of the Most Likely Descendent. The
report shall be submitted to the City of Palo Alto and the Northwest Information Center at Sonoma State
University.
Magical Bridge Playground Project Page 32 Initial Study
F. GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY
Issues and Supporting Information Resources
Would the project:
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk of
loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-
Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area
or based on other substantial evidence of a
known fault? Refer to Division of Mines
and Geology Special Publication 42.
1,16 X
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? 1,2 X
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
1,2, 17, 18 X
iv) Landslides? 1 X
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
1,19 X
c) Result in substantial siltation? 1,19 X
d) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the project, and potentially result in
on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
1 X
e) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in
Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994), creating substantial risks to life or
property?
1 X
f) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting
the use of septic tanks or alternative waste
water disposal systems where sewers are not
available for the disposal of waste water?
1,5 X
g) Expose people or property to major geologic
hazards that cannot be mitigated through the
use of standard engineering design and seismic
safety techniques?
1,5 X
DISCUSSION:
The project area is located in the western Diablo Range of the Coast Ranges Geomorphic Province, which
includes San Francisco Bay and the northwest-trending mountains that parallel the coast of California. In the San
Francisco Bay area, most of the Coast Ranges have developed on a basement of tectonically mixed Cretaceous
and Jurassic age (70- to 200-million years old) rocks of the Franciscan Complex. Locally younger sedimentary
and volcanic rocks cap these basement rocks. Still younger surficial deposits that reflect geologic conditions for
the last million years or so cover most of the Coast Ranges.
Magical Bridge Playground Project Page 33 Initial Study
As described in Section D. Biological Resources, the soil type for the site is mapped as Urbanland-Clear Lake
complex, 0 to 2 percent slopes24; however, soil samples taken at the project site showed that sandy clay loam soils
are present.25
According to the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, three active faults in the vicinity of the project site,
including the San Andreas Fault, the Monte Vista Fault, and Hermit Fault, as well as other fault traces around
Stanford University could produce strong ground shaking at the project site. Mitchell Park is not located within a
State-designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone.
With the exception of the existing bridge approaches, the project site is relatively flat.
a) i) Less Than Significant Impact. Surface rupture occurs when the ground surface is broken due to fault
movement during an earthquake. The location of surface rupture generally can be assumed to be along an
active or potentially active major fault trace. The site is not located within a currently designated Alquist-
Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. The nearest active fault is the San Andreas Fault. No active or potentially
active faults have been mapped at the project site; therefore, potential for fault rupture at the site is low.
However, rupture of nearby faults could result in related seismic impacts, as described below.
ii) Less Than Significant Impact. The project site and the entire San Francisco Bay Area is in a seismically
active region subject to strong seismic ground shaking. Ground shaking is a general term referring to all
aspects of motion of the earth’s surface resulting from an earthquake, and is normally the major cause of
damage in seismic events. The extent of ground-shaking is controlled by the magnitude and intensity of the
earthquake, distance from the epicenter, and local geologic conditions. As there are no structures for human
habitation associated with the proposed project, special seismic design standards are not required. Any
proposed structures (e.g., playground structures) would meet appropriate City seismic design requirements,
which include the requirements of the California Building Code (CBC). Potential impacts to future park users
during regional seismic events would be similar to existing conditions and are considered less than
significant.
iii) Less Than Significant Impact. Liquefaction is the transformation of saturated, loose, fine-grained
sediment to a fluid-like state because of earthquake shaking or other rapid loading. Soils most susceptible to
liquefaction are loose to medium dense, saturated sands, silty sands, sandy silts, non-plastic silts and gravels
with poor drainage, or those capped by or containing seams of impermeable sediment. According to the
California Geological Survey Seismic Hazard Zone Maps26, the possibility for hazard from liquefaction exists
at the project site. According to the Association of Bay Area Government’s liquefaction susceptibility
mapping27, the soil liquefaction potential on the project site is moderate. Similar to the response above,
potential impacts to future Park users due to the effects of liquefaction would be similar to existing conditions
and are considered less than significant.
iv) No Impact. The proposed project would be located on a flat site in an existing City park that is
surrounded by urban development. No landslides are located in the project vicinity and the project site is not
subject to landslides. Implementation of the proposed project would not adversely impact persons or
structures due to landslides.
24 University of California, Davis Soil Resource Laboratory. 2012. Online Soil Survey, California Soil Resource Laboratory. Accessed at
<http://casoilresource.lawr.ucdavis.edu/drupal/node/27> on July 9, 2012. 25 Soil and Plant Laboratory, Inc. 2012. Soil lab results for the Magical Bridge, Palo Alto project (Job #P17711), Report 12-103-0052.
Prepared for Royston, Hanamoto, Alley, and Abey. April 20, 2012. 26 California Geological Survey, 2006. Seismic Hazard Zone Map – Mountain View Quadrangle. Available at:
http://gmw.consrv.ca.gov/shmp/download/pdf/ozn_mview.pdf (Accessed 1 August 201). 27 Association of Bay Area Governments, 2011. Liquefaction Susceptibility Map. Available at:
http://quake.abag.ca.gov/liquefaction/ (Accessed 1 August 2012)
Magical Bridge Playground Project Page 34 Initial Study
b) Less Than Significant Impact. Construction activities have the potential to disrupt soil and cause erosion.
However, construction specifications require the preparation of a Stormwater Pollution and Prevention Plan
(SWPPP) prior to any ground disturbance activities as required by the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit (GP) for Construction (Order 2009-009-DWQ). The SWPPP
will provide the details of the erosion control measures to be applied on the project site during the
construction period, including Best Management Practices (BMPs) for erosion control that are recognized by
the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). These BMPs would include vegetation retention,
scheduling of construction during the dry season (mid-April to mid-August), seeding of temporarily disturbed
areas, and careful grading to disperse and avoid concentration of runoff. Disturbed portions of the project area
would be vegetated following construction activities.
In addition, the City requires that interim and final erosion and sedimentation control measures be identified
as part of the application for a grading permit (Municipal Code Title 16). Prior to issuance of a grading
permit, proposed erosion and sedimentation control measures would be reviewed and approved by the City.
Implementation of a SWPPP and compliance with the City’s Municipal Code would reduce potential impacts
to soil erosion or the loss of topsoil to a less than significant level.
c) Less Than Significant Impact. See Response (b).
d) Less Than Significant Impact. As described above, the potential for hazard from landslide is low and the
potential for liquefaction is moderate. The project site is not located on Karst formations and has not been
subjected to mining activities; thus, the risk of subsidence or collapse is expected to be low. The proposed
project does not include any structures for human habitation and the potential impacts related to unstable soils
for future park users would be similar to existing conditions; therefore, this impact is considered less than
significant.
e) Less Than Significant Impact. Expansion and contraction of volume can occur when expansive soils
undergo alternating cycles of wetting (swelling) and drying (shrinking). During these cycles, the volume of
the soil changes markedly. Expansive soils are common throughout Palo Alto and can cause damage to
foundations and slabs unless properly treated during construction. The CBC requires that each construction
location be evaluated to determine the appropriate treatment to eliminate soil expansion (e.g., grouting,
compaction, and replacement with a non-expansion material). Because the proposed project does not include
structures for human habitation and the project would meet appropriate City design requirements, including
the CBC, impacts associated with expansive soils are considered less than significant.
f) No Impact. Septic tanks and alternative wastewater disposal systems would not be installed on the project
site. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in impacts to soils associated with
the use of such wastewater treatment systems.
g) No Impact. Although hazards exist, development would not expose people or property to major geologic
hazards that cannot be addressed through the use of standard engineering design and seismic safety
techniques, as required by building codes. With proper engineering new development is not expected to result
in any significant adverse short or long-term impacts related to geology, soils or seismicity.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
Magical Bridge Playground Project Page 35 Initial Study
G. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Issues and Supporting Information Resources
Would the project:
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment?
1,5,9 X
b) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or
regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose
of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
1,5,9 X
DISCUSSION:
A general scientific consensus exists that global climate change is occurring caused in whole or in part by
increased emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) that keep the Earth’s surface warm by trapping heat in the
Earth’s atmosphere. While many studies show evidence of warming over the last century and predict future global
warming, the causes of such warming and its potential effects are far less certain. In its “natural” condition, the
greenhouse effect is responsible for maintaining a habitable climate on Earth, but human activity has caused
increased concentrations of these gases in the atmosphere, thereby contributing to an increase in global
temperatures.
GHGs are present in the atmosphere naturally, are released by natural sources, or formed from secondary
reactions taking place in the atmosphere. The six gases that are widely seen as the principal contributors to global
climate change are: Carbon dioxide (CO2), Methane (CH4), Nitrous oxide (N2O), Hydroflourocarbons (HFCs),
Perflourocarbons (PFCs), and Sulfur Hexaflouride (SF6).
The primary existing sources of human-caused GHGs in the project area are vehicle emissions.
a) Less Than Significant Impact. The BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, adopted in May 2012, recommend that all
GHG emissions from a project be estimated, including a project’s direct and indirect GHG emissions from
operations. Because the proposed project would not generate a significant number of new vehicle trips, the
proposed project would not cause a long-term increase in GHG emissions. GHG emissions could occur over
the short-term from construction activities, consisting primarily of emissions from equipment exhaust. Due to
the limited extent and duration of project construction, construction emissions associated with the proposed
project would be only a very small fraction of the total statewide greenhouse gas emissions released annually.
Therefore, the project would not generate significant greenhouse gas emissions.
b) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would construct a 1.25-acre playground (including a
new bridge over Adobe Creek, associated pathways, and adjacent open play/turf area) to provide an additional
recreation amenity for the public at Mitchell Park, an existing 21-acre City park. As indicated above, the
project would not generate operational GHG emissions and would not generate significant construction
greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with all the applicable local plans,
policies and regulations and would not conflict with the provisions of the City of Palo Alto Clean Air Plan,
AB 32, or any other State or regional plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of
reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
Magical Bridge Playground Project Page 36 Initial Study
H. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Note: Some of the thresholds can also be dealt with under a topic heading of Public Health and Safety if the
primary issues are related to a subject other than hazardous material use.
Issues and Supporting Information Resources
Would the project:
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routing transport, use,
or disposal of hazardous materials?
1,5 X
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
1,5 X
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous
or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or
waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
1,5 X
d) Construct a school on a property that is subject
to hazards from hazardous materials
contamination, emissions or accidental release?
1,5 X
e) Be located on a site which is included on a list
of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant
to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a
result, would it create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment?
1,20
X
f) For a project located within an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport or
public use airport, would the project result in a
safety hazard for people residing or working in
the project area?
1 X
g) For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working the
project area?
1 X
h) Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan?
1,2 X
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk
of loss, injury, or death involving wildland
fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to
urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands?
1,2 X
j) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment from existing hazardous materials
contamination by exposing future occupants or
users of the site to contamination in excess of
soil and ground water cleanup goals developed
for the site?
1,5 X
DISCUSSION:
Magical Bridge Playground Project Page 37 Initial Study
Land uses in the project area include park/open space uses, public facilities (i.e., school, church), and residential
uses. The project area is currently undeveloped and is unlikely to have any hazardous substances on site.
The project site is not on a state-listed hazardous materials clean-up site. According to the California State Water
Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Geotracker website28, twenty (20) state-listed hazardous materials clean-up
sites are located within 1,000 feet of the project site. The majority of these sites are designated as “closed”,
meaning that remediation has been completed. Only six (6) sites are currently designated as “open” indicating that
remediation and/or monitoring is ongoing. These sites are:
Advalloy, East Charleston Inc., 844 East Charleston Road, Palo Alto, CA 94303: Other Clean-up Site;
Former Ford Aerospace, 3825 Fabian Way, Palo Alto, CA 94303: Other Clean-up Site;
Private Residence, Palo Alto, CA 94303: LUST Clean-up Site;
Palo Alto 76, 835 San Antonio Road, Palo Alto, CA 94303: Other Clean-up Site;
Taube Koret Campus, 901 San Antonio Road, Palo Alto, CA 94303: Other Clean-up Site;
West Marine, 850 San Antonio Road, Palo Alto, CA 94303: Other Clean-up Site.
Groundwater flow in this area is generally north-northeast toward San Francisco Bay. All of these open sites are
located east of the project site. The proposed project is not located down gradient from these hazardous materials
sites; therefore, these hazardous sites are not expected to impact the proposed project.
a) No Impact. After project construction, no routine transport or disposal of hazardous materials would be
associated with the proposed project. While gas and diesel fuel would typically be used by construction
vehicles, Best Management Practices (BMPs) would be utilized to ensure that no construction-related fuel
hazards occur. Use, storage, transport and disposal of hazardous materials (including any hazardous wastes)
during construction activities would be performed in accordance with existing local, state, and federal
hazardous materials regulations. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not create a
significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials. This impact is considered less than significant.
b) No Impact. As described in Response (a) above, operation of the project would not require routine use of
hazardous materials; therefore, no hazards or hazardous materials impacts related to long term operation of
the project are anticipated. Construction activities would include the use of limited quantities of ordinary
equipment fuels and fluids. However, these materials would not be used in sufficient quantities to pose a
threat to human or environmental health. Such materials would be kept at construction staging areas, and
would be secured when not in use. In the unlikely event of a spill, fuels would be controlled and disposed of
in accordance with applicable regulations. Therefore, development of the proposed project would not create a
significant hazard to the public or environment. This impact is considered less than significant.
c) No Impact. Several schools are located within approximately ¼ mile of the project site, including: Herbert
Hoover Elementary School, Jane Lathrop Stanford Middle School and Fairmeadows Elementary School. As
described above, the proposed project would not use or emit large quantities of hazardous materials that
would pose a health risk to students. Therefore, this impact is considered less than significant.
28 State Water Resources Control Board, 2012. Geotracker website. Available at:
http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/map/?CMD=runreport&myaddress=600+East+Meadow+Drive%2C+palo+Alto%2C+C
A (Accessed 18 July 2012)
Magical Bridge Playground Project Page 38 Initial Study
d) No Impact. The proposed project involves construction of a playground within an existing City park. No
school would be constructed as part of the proposed project.
e) No Impact. The project site is not included on the list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5.
f) No Impact. The proposed project site is not located within an airport land use plan. The closest airport, Palo
Alto Airport is located approximately 2.5 miles to the north. Therefore, the proposed project would not result
in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area.
g) No Impact. The project site is not in the vicinity of a private airstrip. Therefore, implementation of the
proposed project would not expose persons to airport-related hazards.
h) No Impact. Middlefield Road and East Charleston Road, located east and south of the project site
respectively, are designated primary evacuation routes. However, the project site is not located immediately
adjacent to either of these two routes nor would the proposed project impair or interfere with these evacuation
routes.
i) No Impact. The project site is located within an existing City park in an urbanized area and is not located
within or near the wildland fire danger area. Therefore, the project would not expose people or structures to
significant loss, injury, or death from wildfires beyond the existing conditions.
j) No Impact. As described above, the proposed project is minor in scope and does not involve the use, creation
or transportation of hazardous materials. The project site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites
and hazardous sites in the vicinity of the project site are not anticipated to affect the proposed project.
Therefore, the proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment from
existing or future hazardous materials contamination.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
I. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Issues and Supporting Information Resources
Would the project:
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements?
1,2,5 X
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge such that there would be a net deficit
in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
groundwater table level (e.g., the production
rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to
a level which would not support existing land
uses or planned uses for which permits have
been granted)?
2 X
Magical Bridge Playground Project Page 39 Initial Study
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern
of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a
manner which would result in substantial
erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
1,5 X
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern
of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river, or
substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result
in flooding on- or off-site?
1,5 X
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted
runoff?
1,5 X
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 1,5 X
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard
area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard
Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or
other flood hazard delineation map?
2
X
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area
structures which would impede or redirect
flood flows?
2 X
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk
of loss, injury or death involve flooding,
including flooding as a result of the failure of a
levee or dam or being located within a 100-year
flood hazard area?
2, X
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
2,21 X
k) Result in stream bank instability? 1,5 X
DISCUSSION:
The primary watercourse in the project vicinity is Adobe Creek, a northward-flowing stream originating on Black
Mountain in Santa Clara County and draining to San Francisco Bay. As described in Section D. Biology, Adobe
Creek runs in a concrete-lined channel in a semi-circle along the western and northern boundary of the project
site.
The San Francisco Bay RWQCB is responsible for administering and enforcing the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit program to manage and monitor point and nonpoint source pollution.
NPDES stormwater permits are required for projects that disturb more than 5 acres of land. Individual
stormwater permits are required for urban areas with populations greater than 100,000 and self-implemented
general NPDES permits are required for most industrial facilities and for construction sites exceeding 1 acre of
land. The City of Palo Alto Municipal Code (Chapter 16.11 Stormwater Pollution Prevention) and the City’s
Urban Runoff Management Plan also require erosion and sediment controls for construction projects with more
than 1 acre of disturbance.
The general NPDES stormwater permits for general industrial and construction activities require an applicant to
file a public notice of intent (NOI) with the applicable RWQCB to discharge stormwater and prepare and
implement a storm water pollution and prevention plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP includes a site map, description of
stormwater discharge activities, and best management practices that would be employed to prevent water
pollution. The SWPPP for general construction activity permits must describe Best Management Practices
Magical Bridge Playground Project Page 40 Initial Study
(BMPs) that would be used to control soil erosion and discharges of other construction-related pollutants that
could contaminate nearby water resources. The BMPs include measures guiding the management and operation
of construction sites to control and minimize the potential contribution of pollutants to storm runoff from these
areas. These measures address procedures for controlling erosion and sedimentation and managing all aspects of
the construction process to ensure control of potential water pollution sources.
The project site is not located within the 100-year floodplain (i.e., an area in which there is a one percent chance
per annum of a one hundred-year storm event) according to maps published by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) (2009). According to the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan 1998-2010,
flooding is contained within the Adobe Creek channel.
a) Less Than Significant Impact. Construction and operation of the proposed playground would result in an
increase in stormwater runoff and erosion and associated discharge of additional sediment and/or other
pollutants. These impacts are described in further detail below.
Construction-Period Impacts. Disturbance during construction would result in erosion and associated
discharge of additional sediment and/or other pollutants. To address potential erosion and water quality
effects during construction, the proposed project shall incorporate Best Management Practices to control
sedimentation and runoff. These measures would be consistent with the application for a stormwater permit
from the RWQCB as mandated for projects in which one acre or more of disturbance would occur. City
compliance with the NPDES Permit is mandated by State and federal laws and new construction projects are
required to comply with storm water general permits. As required under the NPDES, construction sites over
one acre that do not qualify for a waiver must prepare and implement a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP). The SWPPP is required to include BMPs to reduce potential impacts to surface water quality
through the construction and life of the project and must adhere to the following requirements:
The SWPPP shall include measures to avoid creating contaminants, minimize the release of contaminants,
and water quality control measures to minimize contaminants from entering surface water or percolating
into the ground.
The water quality control measures shall address both construction and operation periods.
Fluvial erosion and water pollution related to construction shall be controlled by a construction water
pollution control program that shall be filed with the appropriate agency and kept current throughout any
site development phase.
The water pollution prevention program shall include BMPs, as appropriate, given the specific
circumstances of the site and project.
The SWPPP shall be submitted for review and approval to the RWQCB.
A spill prevention and countermeasure plan shall be incorporated into the SWPPP.
Adherence to these requirements would prevent substantial impacts to water quality; therefore construction-
related impacts to water quality would be less than significant.
Operational (Post-Construction) Impacts. Development of the proposed project would result in an increase in
impervious surface area (approximately 9,348 square feet/0.2 acre) and an associated increase in the rate and
volume of runoff from the site. The proposed project would include catch basins to capture runoff into the
existing storm drainage system. Therefore, operational impacts to water discharge requirements are
considered less than significant.
Magical Bridge Playground Project Page 41 Initial Study
b) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies
or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge as it would not draw on groundwater as a source of water
supply. The proposed project would result in an increase in impervious surface area (approximately 9,348
square feet). However, the majority of the project site would remain pervious allowing water to infiltrate into
the groundwater. Therefore, this impact is considered less than significant.
c) Less Than Significant Impact. The existing drainage pattern at the project site would not be substantially
altered, as drainage would occur via the existing drainage system. The course of Adobe Creek would not be
altered. Therefore, this impact is considered less than significant.
d) Less Than Significant Impact. As stated above, the project would not substantially alter the drainage pattern
of the project site, or alter the course of a stream or a river. Development of the proposed project would result
in a small increase in stormwater runoff due to increased soil compaction and construction of impervious
surfaces. Stormwater runoff from the proposed project would be directed to the existing storm drainage
system. However, the project includes elements to trap and filter runoff prior to discharge. Therefore, the
project would not substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff, which would result in flooding
on- or off-site. This impact is considered less than significant.
e) Less Than Significant Impact. See Response (d).
f) Less Than Significant Impact. See Response (a).
g) No Impact. No housing units are proposed as part of the project.
.
h) No Impact. As part of the proposed project, the existing bridge over Adobe Creek would be replaced with a
new bridge structure. The proposed bridge would clear span Adobe Creek at a height of the current bridge
approximately five feet above the existing grade to allow sufficient clearance for debris flow during peak flow
periods. The proposed project would not place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures that would
impede or redirect flows. Therefore, no impacts related to flood hazards would occur.
i) No Impact. The proposed project site is not located in the inundation area for any levee or dam in the project
vicinity (ABAG 1995). As described above, the proposed project would not be located within the 100-year
floodplain. The proposed bridge would be constructed at sufficient elevation to allow for clearance during
peak flow periods. Therefore, the proposed project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk
or loss, injury or death involving flooding. No impact would occur.
j) No Impact. According to the California Geological Survey Tsunami Inundation Map,29 the project site is not
located in a tsunami inundation area. Therefore, no impacts related to seiche and tsunami would occur.
Mudflows are associated with hilly terrain, and the project area is flat; therefore, there are no impacts
associated with mudflows.
k) No Impact. As described in Response (h) above, the proposed bridge would clear span Adobe Creek,
eliminating the need for construction work to be conducted within the creek channel.
29 California Geological Survey, California Emergency Management Agency and University of Southern California, 2009.
Tsunami Inundation Map for Emergency Planning, State of California, County of Santa Clara, Mountain View Quadrangle.
31 July. Available at:
http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/geologic_hazards/Tsunami/Inundation_Maps/SantaClara/Documents/Tsunami_Inundati
on_MountainView_Quad_SantaClara.pdf (accessed on July 31, 2012).
Magical Bridge Playground Project Page 42 Initial Study
Mitigation Measures: None Required
J. LAND USE AND PLANNING
Issues and Supporting Information Resources
Would the project:
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Physically divide an established community? 1,5 X
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan,
policy, or regulation of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project (including, but not
limited to the general plan, specific plan, local
coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted
for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
1,2,3,4,5 X
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat
conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan?
1,2 X
d) Substantially adversely change the type or
intensity of existing or planned land use in the
area?
1,5 X
e) Be incompatible with adjacent land uses or with
the general character of the surrounding area,
including density and building height?
1,5 X
f) Conflict with established residential,
recreational, educational, religious, or scientific
uses of an area?
1,5 X
g) Convert prime farmland, unique farmland, or
farmland of statewide importance (farmland) to
non-agricultural use?
1,2,3 X
DISCUSSION:
The proposed project would construct an approximately 22,000 square-foot playground within the boundaries of
the existing Mitchell Park. Mitchell Park is located within the City of Palo Alto and is subject to the land use and
zoning designations of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and relevant portions of the Palo Alto Municipal Code.
Mitchell Park is located at 600 East Meadow Drive. Land uses surrounding the project site include the existing
park, public facilities (i.e., school, church) and residential uses.
The City of Palo Alto Land Use Map designates the site as Public Parks defined as open lands with the primary
purpose of active recreation and with an urban character. The Palo Alto Municipal Code specifies that the parcel
is zoned Public Facilities (PF), which provides areas for governmental, public, utility, educational, and
community service or recreational facilities.
The proposed project for a playground within the existing community park is an allowable land use according to
the land use and zoning designations for the project site and the proposed project would not require a change to
the land use or zoning designations that apply. The proposed project would not conflict with applicable General
Plan land use designations or City zoning standards.
a) No Impact. The physical division of an established community typically refers to the construction of a
physical feature (such as an interstate highway or railroad tracks) or removal of a means of access (such as a
local road or bridge) that would impair mobility within an existing community, or between a community and
Magical Bridge Playground Project Page 43 Initial Study
outlying areas. The proposed project would provide for a playground within the boundaries of the existing
Mitchell Park. The proposed project would not physically divide an established community
b) No Impact. According to the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan 1998-2010, the project site has a land
use designation of Public Parks. The City of Palo Alto Municipal Code specifies that the parcel is zoned
Public Facilities (PF), which allows public parks as a permitted use. Therefore, the proposed project would
not conflict with applicable City of Palo Alto land use designations or zoning standards.
The City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and relevant sections of the City of Palo Alto Municipal Code
outline relevant policies and regulations applicable to the proposed project, including policies to preserve
visual, cultural, and natural resources and to protect the health and safety of the citizens of Palo Alto.
Consistent with the goals and policies of these relevant planning documents, the project has been designed to
minimize impacts to natural resources, particularly existing trees and Adobe Creek. Where potentially
significant environmental impacts have been identified in this Initial Study, they have been mitigated to a less
than significant impact with the implementation of appropriate mitigation measures. Therefore, the proposed
project is determined to be consistent with applicable land use plans, policies and regulations.
c) No Impact. The proposed project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation
Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation
plan.
d) No Impact. The proposed project would construct a playground within an existing City park. Although
construction of the proposed playground may increase the use of Mitchell Park, such an incremental increase
in use is not expected to be substantial. Therefore, the proposed project would not substantially adversely
change the type or intensity of use in the project area.
e) No Impact. The proposed project would not change the existing use of the site for a public park. Therefore,
the proposed project would not be incompatible with adjacent land uses. Proposed improvements would not
include any tall structures or landscaping that would be incompatible with the general character of the
surrounding area.
f) No Impact. The proposed playground would enhance the use of the project site for recreation. The proposed
project would not conflict with established residential, recreational, educational, religious or scientific uses of
the area.
g) No Impact. As described in Section B, the project area is not located in a “Prime Farmland”, “Unique
Farmland”, or “Farmland of Statewide Importance” area, as shown on the maps prepared for the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency. Therefore, the proposed project
would not convert prime farmland, unique farmland, or farmland of statewide importance to non-agricultural
use.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
Magical Bridge Playground Project Page 44 Initial Study
K. MINERAL RESOURCES
Issues and Supporting Information Resources
Would the project:
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to the
region and the residents of the state?
1,2 X
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-
important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific plan
or other land use plan?
1,2 X
DISCUSSION:
The City of Palo Alto has been classified by the California Department of Conservation (DOC), Division of
Mines and Geology (DMG) as a Mineral Resource Zone 1 (MRZ-1). This designation signifies that there are
no aggregate resources in the area. The DMG has not classified the City for other resources. The 1998-2010
Comprehensive Plan does not indicated that there are locally or regionally valuable mineral resources within
the City of Palo Alto.
a) No Impact. The development of the proposed playground would not create an adverse impact on locally
or regionally-significant mineral resources. The City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan does not identify
any mineral resource locations in the vicinity of the proposed project.
b) No Impact. See response (a) above.
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
L. NOISE
Issues and Supporting Information Resources
Would the project:
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise
levels in excess of standards established in the
local general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other agencies?
1,2,22 X
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of
excessive ground borne vibrations or ground
borne noise levels?
1,2,22 X
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels
existing without the project?
1,2,22 X
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the project?
1,2,22 X
e) For a project located within an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, would the project expose people
1,2 X
Magical Bridge Playground Project Page 45 Initial Study
Issues and Supporting Information Resources
Would the project:
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
1,2 X
g) Cause the average 24 hour noise level (Ldn) to
increase by 5.0 decibels (dB) or more in an
existing residential area, even if the Ldn would
remain below 60 dB?
1 X
h) Cause the Ldn to increase by 3.0 dB or more in
an existing residential area, thereby causing the
Ldn in the area to exceed 60 dB?
1 X
i) Cause an increase of 3.0 dB or more in an
existing residential area where the Ldn
currently exceeds 60 dB?
1 X
j) Result in indoor noise levels for residential
development to exceed an Ldn of 45 dB? 1 X
k) Result in instantaneous noise levels of greater
than 50 dB in bedrooms or 55 dB in other
rooms in areas with an exterior Ldn of 60 dB or
greater?
1 X
l) Generate construction noise exceeding the
daytime background Leq at sensitive receptors
by 10 dBA or more?
1,22 X
DISCUSSION:
Noise is usually defined as unwanted sound. Noise consists of any sound that may produce physiological or
psychological damage and/or interfere with communication, work, rest, recreation, or sleep. Several noise
measurement scales exist that are used to describe noise in a particular location. A decibel (dB) is a unit of
measurement that indicates the relative intensity of a sound. The 0 point on the dB scale is based on the lowest
sound level that the healthy, unimpaired human ear can detect. Changes of 3.0 dB or less are only perceptible in
laboratory environments. Audible increases in noise levels generally refer to a change of 3.0 dB or more, as this
level has been found to be barely perceptible to the human ear in outdoor environments. Sound levels in dB are
calculated on a logarithmic basis. An increase of 10 dB represents a 10-fold increase in acoustic energy, while 20
dB is 100 times more intense, and 30 dB is 1,000 times more intense. Each 10 dB increase in sound level is
perceived as approximately a doubling of loudness. Sound intensity is normally measured through the A-weighted
sound level (dBA). This scale gives greater weight to the frequencies of sound to which the human ear is most
sensitive.
The primary existing noise source in the project area is vehicle traffic, including cars, trucks, buses, and
motorcycles. The level of vehicular noise generally varies with the volume of traffic, the number of trucks or
buses, the speed of traffic, and the distance from the roadway.
The proposed playground would be located within the existing Mitchell Park, which is developed for active and
passive recreation use. Residential neighborhoods and public facilities border the park along most of its boundary.
The proposed playground would be located in an underutilized portion of the park that is bounded by Adobe
Magical Bridge Playground Project Page 46 Initial Study
Creek, existing tennis courts and a row of eucalyptus trees that blocks the direct line of sight from the majority of
the project area to nearby sensitive receptors.
a) Less Than Significant Impact. The long-term operational and short-term construction noise impacts of the
proposed project are described below.
Long-Term Operational Impacts. Use of the proposed playground would not result in an increase in noise
levels. Noise sources associated with recreation use, such as human voices or barking dogs would not be loud
enough to disturb sensitive receptors in the project vicinity and would be similar to what is experienced with
existing use of Mitchell Park.
Short-Term (Construction) Impacts. Construction of the proposed project would require excavation and
earthwork activities that could generate noise levels that exceed established thresholds. Although these
activities could result in infrequent periods of high noise, this noise would not be sustained and would occur
only during the temporary construction period (approximately 9 months). No pile driving or other
construction activity that would generate very high noise levels or ground borne vibration would occur within
the project site.
According to the City’s Noise Ordinance (City of Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 9.10) construction
activities may be conducted between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on weekdays and between 9:00 a.m. and 6:00
p.m. on Saturdays. Construction on Sundays and holidays is prohibited. The Noise Ordinance also limits the
noise level of construction equipment. All development, including construction activities, must comply with
the City’s Noise Ordinance (Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 9.10), which restricts the timing and overall
noise levels associated with construction activity. Short-term temporary construction activities that comply
with the Noise Ordinance would result in less than significant impacts.
b) Less Than Significant Impact. Development of the proposed project would not result in excessive ground
borne vibration or noise levels. Relatively minor vibrations may occur from the use of trucks or other
construction equipment used for excavation and earthwork activity. However, this ground borne condition
from such equipment would be relatively minor, intermittent, short-term, and restricted to daytime hours.
c) Less Than Significant Impact. As described in Response (a), operational noise associated with
implementation of the proposed project (including traffic, participant and spectator noise, and maintenance
noise sources) would be similar to existing noise levels in the project vicinity. Therefore, there would not be a
substantial permanent increase in noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project.
d) Less Than Significant Impact. Construction of the proposed project would require the use of construction
equipment and would generate temporary periodic increases in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the
project site. However, these noise levels would occur in association with excavation and earthwork activities
and would be intermittent and short term. Compliance with the City of Palo Alto Noise Ordinance would
ensure noise impacts associated with construction would be less than significant.
e) No Impact. The project site is not located within an airport land use plan, or within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport. The proposed project site is not located within an airport land use plan. The
closest airport, Palo Alto Airport is located approximately 2.5 miles to the north. Therefore, the proposed
project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels.
f) No Impact. The proposed project is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip.
g) Less Than Significant Impact. See response (a) above.
Magical Bridge Playground Project Page 47 Initial Study
h) Less Than Significant Impact. See response (a) above.
i) Less Than Significant Impact. See response (a) above.
j) Less Than Significant Impact. See response (a) above.
k) Less Than Significant Impact. See response (a) above.
l) Less Than Significant Impact. See response (a) above.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
M. POPULATION AND HOUSING
Issues and Supporting Information Resources
Would the project:
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Induce substantial population growth in an
area, either directly (for example, by proposing
new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for
example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
1 X
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
1 X
c) Displace substantial numbers of people,
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
1 X
d) Create a substantial imbalance between
employed residents and jobs?
1 X
e) Cumulatively exceed regional or local
population projections?
1 X
DISCUSSION:
The proposed project involves construction of a playground within an existing City park. Land uses in the vicinity
of the project site include park uses and other public facilities, including Hoover Elementary School. The park is
surrounded by urban development.
a) No Impact. The proposed project would improve the project site with a playground. No new housing,
commercial, or industrial space would be developed as part of the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed
project would not directly or indirectly induce substantial population growth.
b) No Impact. The proposed project is located on an underutilized piece of land within an existing City park. No
housing would be displaced as a result of the proposed project.
c) No Impact. See response (b) above.
Magical Bridge Playground Project Page 48 Initial Study
d) No Impact. The proposed project would improve the project site with a playground. No new housing,
commercial, or industrial space would be developed as part of the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed
project would not create a substantial imbalance between employed residents and jobs.
e) No Impact. See response (a) above.
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
N. PUBLIC SERVICES
Issues and Supporting Information Resources
Would the project:
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Would the project result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision of
new or physically altered governmental facilities,
need for new or physically altered governmental
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times
or other performance objectives for any of the
public services:
a) Fire protection? 1 X
b) Police protection? 1 X
c) Schools? 1 X
d) Parks? 1 X
e) Other public facilities? 1 X
DISCUSSION:
The proposed project involves construction of a playground within an existing City park. The project site is
located within the City of Palo Alto and surrounded by urban development.
Fire protection services within the City are provided by the Palo Alto Fire Department, which operates eight fire
stations throughout the City and one station on the Stanford campus. The nearest fire station to the project site is
located at 3600 Middlefield Road. Police protection services are provided by the Palo Alto Police Department,
located adjacent to City Hall at 275 Forest Avenue.
The Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) operates the City’s public schools, including one preschool,
eleven elementary schools, two middle schools, two high schools, a continuation school, an adult school, the
Lucile Salter Packard Children’s Hospital school and a summer school. As outlined in the project description,
several schools are located in the vicinity of the project site, including: Herbert Hoover Elementary School, Jane
Lathrop Stanford Middle School and Fairmeadows Elementary School.
The City owns and operates 29 neighborhood and district parks totaling approximately 190 acres. The project site
is located within the existing Mitchell Park. Mitchell Park is a 21-acre City park that provides opportunities for
active recreation, including picnic areas, tennis courts, handball courts, horseshoe pits, children’s play areas,
jogging/walking path, and a fenced dog run.
Magical Bridge Playground Project Page 49 Initial Study
a) Less Than Significant Impact. Implementation of the proposed project would improve the site for use as a
playground to serve the City of Palo Alto. Use of the site would increase as a result of proposed
improvements. However, visitors to the site are anticipated to come primarily from local neighborhoods,
those people generally reside within walking or biking distance of the project site and those who already use
the park. Because the proposed project would not increase the population in the area, impacts associated with
an increased demand for fire protection services are considered less than significant.
b) Less Than Significant Impact. Implementation of the proposed project would improve the site for use as a
playground to serve the City of Palo Alto. Use of the site would increase as a result of proposed
improvements. However, visitors to the site are anticipated to come primarily from local neighborhoods,
those people generally reside within walking or biking distance of the project site and those who already use
the park. Because the proposed project would not increase the population in the area, impacts associated with
an increased demand for police protection services are considered less than significant.
c) No Impact. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in any local or regional population
increase. Therefore, the project would not require construction of new schools, or result in schools exceeding
their capacities.
d) No Impact. The proposed project would improve the project site for use as a playground, providing am
additional recreation amenity within an existing City park. While implementation of the proposed project may
increase the use of Mitchell Park, no additional demand for construction of new parks or park facilities would
be generated as a result of the proposed project.
e) No Impact. The proposed project would improve the project site as a playground within an existing City
park. It would not result in impacts to other public facilities.
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
O. RECREATION
Issues and Supporting Information Resources
Would the project:
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Would the project increase the use of
existing neighborhood and regional parks or
other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
1 X
b) Does the project include recreational
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
1 X
DISCUSSION:
The proposed project involves construction of a playground within an existing City park and would contribute to
alleviating recreation needs in this area of Palo Alto.
Magical Bridge Playground Project Page 50 Initial Study
a) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would create a new, recreation facility within a
currently undeveloped portion of the existing Mitchell Park. With the addition of this new facility, use of
Mitchell Park would likely increase. However, it is not anticipated that the incremental increase in use would
result in or accelerate a physical deterioration of the existing park. Therefore, this impact is considered less
than significant.
b) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would improve an existing underutilized parcel of land
within Mitchell Park with various playground amenities, pathways and landscaping. The intent of the master
plan process, beginning with documentation of existing conditions and the involvement of the public, is to
minimize adverse physical effects on the environment. Potential adverse effects on the environment related to
the development of proposed playground facilities have been evaluated in this Initial Study. Implementation
of the mitigation measures described in this Initial Study would reduce potentially adverse physical
environmental impacts to less than significant levels.
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
P. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
Issues and Supporting Information Resources
Would the project:
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Exceed the capacity of the existing
circulation system, based on an applicable
measure of effectiveness (as designated in a
general plan policy, ordinance, etc.), taking
into account all relevant components of the
circulation system, including but not limited
to intersections, streets, highways and
freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and
mass transit?
1,5,10 X
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion
management program, including but not
limited to level of service standards and
travel demand measures, or other standards
established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads or
highways?
1,5,10 X
c) Result in change in air traffic patterns,
including either an increase in traffic levels
or a change in location that results in
substantial safety risks?
1,5 X
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
1,5 X
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? 1,5 X
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? 1,5,10 X
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or
programs supporting alternative
1,2,5 X
Magical Bridge Playground Project Page 51 Initial Study
transportation (e.g., pedestrian, transit &
bicycle facilities)?
h) Cause a local (City of Palo Alto) intersection
to deteriorate below Level of Service (LOS)
D and cause an increase in the average
stopped delay for the critical movements by
four seconds or more and the critical
volume/capacity ratio (V/C) value to increase
by 0.01 or more?
1,5,10 X
i) Cause a local intersection already operating at
LOS E or F to deteriorate in the average
stopped delay for the critical movements by
four seconds or more?
1,5,10 X
j) Cause a regional intersection to deteriorate
from an LOS E or better to LOS F or cause
critical movement delay at such an
intersection already operating at LOS F to
increase by four seconds or more and the
critical V/C value to increase by 0.01 or
more?
1,5,10 X
k) Cause a freeway segment to operate at LOS F
or contribute traffic in excess of 1% of
segment capacity to a freeway segment
already operating at LOS F?
1,5,10 X
l) Cause any change in traffic that would
increase the Traffic Infusion on Residential
Environment (TIRE) index by 0.1 or more?
1,5,10 X
m) Cause queuing impacts based on a
comparative analysis between the design
queue length and the available queue storage
capacity? Queuing impacts include, but are
not limited to, spillback queues at project
access locations; queues at turn lanes at
intersections that block through traffic;
queues at lane drops; queues at one
intersection that extend back to impact other
intersections, and spillback queues on ramps.
1,5,10 X
n) Impede the development or function of
planned pedestrian or bicycle facilities?
1,5 X
o) Impede the operation of a transit system as a
result of congestion?
1,5 X
p) Create an operational safety hazard? 1,5 X
DISCUSSION:
Information in the following section is summarized from the traffic and parking study prepared for the proposed
project.30 The study included review of: 1) general level of magnitude vehicle trip generation; 2) parking
alternatives; and 3) access and routes. The proposed playground is intended to be fully inclusive for everyone in
the community including older adults and the approximately 1,500 children in the City of Palo Alto with special
needs. The proposed project would be designed to encourage pedestrian and bicycle travel to the playground from
the existing park, surrounding public facilities, and adjacent residential neighborhoods. Parking for the proposed
30 BKF Engineers, Inc., 2014. The Magical Bridge Playground: Preliminary Parking Alternatives, Parking and Traffic Study,
and Pedestrian and Bicycle Access Plan. 10 April.
Magical Bridge Playground Project Page 52 Initial Study
playground would be accommodated by the existing Mitchell Park parking lot, the future library parking lot, and
limited on-street parking on Charleston.
a) Less Than Significant Impact. According to the parking and traffic study, the additional vehicular traffic
and parking demands resulting from the proposed playground would be relatively small based on the
following: 1) Many users of the playground either drive, walk or bike to Mitchell Park; 2) Many users of the
playground may already be using Mitchell Park and would not generate unique trips; and 3) Park use
generally occurs during weekends and weekday non-peak hours. Therefore, the trip generation for the
proposed project would not be significant enough to degrade the level of service (LOS) of nearby
intersections.
b) Less Than Significant Impact. As the Congestion Management Agency (CMA) for Santa Clara County, the
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) is responsible for establishing, implementing and
monitoring the County’s Congestion Management Program (CMP). Through its implementation of the CMP,
the VTA works to ensure that roadways operate at acceptable levels of service and reviews development
proposals to ensure that transportation impacts are minimized. As described in Response (a), the trip
generation for the proposed project would be negligible. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict
with the Santa Clara County CMP.
c) No Impact. The project site is not in proximity to an airport and would have no impact on air traffic patterns.
d) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would be designed and constructed in conformance
with all applicable City standards. The uses proposed in the Master Plan would be consistent with the existing
uses of Mitchell Park and surrounding development. As a result, the design of the proposed project would not
increase hazards.
e) No Impact. The proposed project would provide access from the north via an existing path, and the new
bridge over Adobe Creek, from the southeast via an existing bike path, and from the northeast via the adjacent
private property. No new vehicular access points are proposed as part of the project. Proposed access routes
would be designed consistent with City standards so as not to impede emergency access to the site. In
addition, the project would not include any features that would obstruct normal emergency vehicle travel on
nearby streets.
g) Less Than Significant Impact. As described above, the additional parking demands from the proposed
playground would be relatively small and could be accommodated by existing parking available in the project
area (i.e., the existing Mitchell Park lot, future library parking lot, on-street parking). According to the City of
Palo Alto Municipal Code, the City of Palo Alto does not have established vehicle parking requirements for
public facilities (i.e., parks). Because the proposed project is focused on accessibility, available accessible
parking was reviewed.31 The closest existing accessible parking (two spaces, including one van space) is
located in the Mitchell Park parking lot. The accessible spaces are at the southern end of the parking lot and
are the closest parking spaces to the park project (approximately 450-feet away). The City of Palo Alto
requires bicycle parking for recreational centers and facilities, including parks. The proposed project would
provide approximately 10 inverted U-racks (or similar) for bicycle parking consistent with City of Palo Alto
standards. Therefore, parking generation for the proposed project would not adversely impact available
parking in the project area or result in inadequate parking capacity.
g) Less Than Significant Impact. A pedestrian and bicycle analysis was included in the traffic and parking
study to evaluate potential access routes and internal circulation for pedestrians and bicyclists. The analysis
31 BKF Engineers, Inc., 2014. The Magical Bridge Playground: Preliminary Parking Alternatives, Parking and Traffic Study,
and Pedestrian and Bicycle Access Plan. 10 April.
Magical Bridge Playground Project Page 53 Initial Study
concluded that there are few limitations to pedestrian and bicycle access. Class II bike lanes and sidewalks
surround the project site on Charleston, Middlefield and East Meadow Drive and numerous paths are located
within Mitchell Park that provide access to the project site. The proposed project would improve the site as a
playground with the intent that a mix of users would drive, walk or bike to the project site. Pathway
improvements are proposed to enhance pedestrian and bicycle access, and improve ADA accessibility to the
project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
supporting alternative transportation.
h) Less Than Significant Impact. See Response (a).
i) Less Than Significant Impact. See Response (a).
j) Less Than Significant Impact. See Response (a).
k) Less Than Significant Impact. See Response (a).
l) Less Than Significant Impact. See Response (a).
m) Less Than Significant Impact. See Response (a).
n) Less Than Significant Impact. See Response (g).
o) Less Than Significant Impact. See Response (a).
p) Less Than Significant Impact. See Response (a) and (d).
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
Q. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Issues and Supporting Information Resources
Would the project:
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of
the applicable Regional Water Quality
Control Board?
1,5 X
b) Require or result in the construction of new
water or wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
1,5 X
c) Require or result in the construction of new
storm water drainage facilities or expansion
of existing facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant environmental
effects?
1,5 X
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to
serve the project from existing entitlements
and resources, or are new or expanded
1,5 X
Magical Bridge Playground Project Page 54 Initial Study
Issues and Supporting Information Resources
Would the project:
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
entitlements needed?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider which serves or may
serve the project that it has inadequate
capacity to serve the project’s projected
demand in addition to the provider’s existing
commitments?
1,5 X
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient
permitted capacity to accommodate the
project’s solid waste disposal needs?
1,5 X
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes
and regulations related to solid waste?
1,5 X
h) Result in a substantial physical deterioration
of a public facility due to increased use as a
result of the project?
1,5 X
DISCUSSION:
The proposed Magical Bridge Playground is located within an urbanized area within the City of Palo Alto.
Utilities and services exist or are available through local City services, GreenWaste (solid waste removal), and
other providers.
a) No Impact. Playground visitors would be directed to existing restrooms within Mitchell Park. The increased
use of the park generated by the proposed playground may generate an increase in wastewater. However, such
an increase would be minimal and would not result in the violation of water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements. Therefore, this impact is less than significant.
.
b) No Impact. The proposed project would not require water or wastewater treatment as no potable water and/or
toilets would be provided as part of proposed improvements. Playground users would be directed to the
existing water fountain and restrooms within Mitchell Park. Some water may be needed during construction
(e.g., dust control) and during maintenance of the proposed playground. However, such an increase in water
demand would be minimal and would not require the construction of new wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities. Therefore, this impact is considered less than significant.
c) No Impact. The proposed project would not result in significant changes to stormwater drainage. It does not
include substantial amounts of paving or other impervious surfaces. The proposed project would not result in
an increase in stormwater runoff, erosion or sedimentation on- or off-site.
d) No Impact. See Response (b) above.
e) No Impact. See Response (b) above.
f) No Impact. The proposed project could generate limited quantities of solid waste associated with use of the
proposed playground. The existing Mitchell Park includes trash cans and recycling receptacles to collect solid
waste. Because the amount of solid waste generated by the proposed playground would be minimal relative to
the amount of waste generated currently in Mitchell Park, solid waste disposal facilities would not be affected
by development of the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project would be served by a landfill with
sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the proposed project’s solid waste disposal needs.
Magical Bridge Playground Project Page 55 Initial Study
g) No Impact. The proposed project would promote recycling on-site. Receptacles for recyclable waste would
be provided as part of proposed improvements. The City of Palo Alto currently complies with federal, state,
and local statutes related to solid waste recycling. These programs would continue with implementation of the
proposed project.
h) No Impact. As described previously, implementation of the proposed playground may result in an increase in
the use of Mitchell Park. However, is not anticipated that the incremental increase in use would cause a
substantial physical deterioration of Mitchell Park to occur or be accelerated.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
R. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Issues and Supporting Information Resources
Would the project:
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Does the project have the potential to
degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the
range of a rare or endangered plant or animal
or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
1,2,3,4,5,6,
11,12,15
X
b) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable”
means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past projects,
the effects of other current projects, and the
effects of probable future projects)?
1 X
c) Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
1,5 X
DISCUSSION:
a) Less Than Significant Impact. As described in the sections above, all environmental effects were
determined to be less than significant or reduced below levels of significance with mitigation. The proposed
project would result in the development of a playground that could affect the environment. Implementation of
the mitigation measures recommended in this Initial Study would ensure that construction and operation of
the proposed project would not substantially degrade the quality of the environment; reduce the habitat,
population, or range of a plant or animal species; or eliminate important examples of California history or
prehistory.
Magical Bridge Playground Project Page 56 Initial Study
b) Less Than Significant Impact. The impacts of the proposed project are individually limited and not
cumulatively considerable. The proposed project would result in development of a playground within an
existing City park to serve the existing residents of the City of Palo Alto. All environmental impacts that
could occur as a result of the proposed project would be reduced to less than significant levels through
implementation of the mitigation measures recommended in this Initial Study. The proposed project would
not generate a significant amount of greenhouse gas emissions and would therefore not result in a
cumulatively considerable impact to global climate change
c) No Impact. As described in this Initial Study, the implementation of the proposed project could result in
temporary air quality, hazardous materials, and noise impacts during the construction period and could expose
people to risks associated with geologic hazards. Implementation of the recommended mitigation measures
and compliance with City construction standards and practices would ensure that the proposed project would
not result in environmental effects that could cause substantial adverse effects on human beings.
Magical Bridge Playground Project Page 57 Initial Study
SOURCE REFERENCES
1. Knowledge of the site and the proposed project
2. Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, 1998-2010
3. Palo Alto Municipal Code, Title 18 – Zoning Ordinance
4. Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual, Municipal Code Chapter 8.10.030, June 2001
5. Project Plans
6. Arborist Report (HortScience, Inc. 2014)
7. Magical Bridge Playground Shade Study (RHAA 2012)
8. California Scenic Highway Program
9. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines, June 2010
10. Preliminary Parking Alternatives, Parking and Traffic Study (BKF Engineers, 2014)
11. California Natural Diversity Database (CDFW, 2012)
12. San Francisco Estuary Fish Study (R.A. Leidy, 2007)
13. Online Soil Survey (California Soil Resource Laboratory, 2012)
14. Soil Lab Results for the Magical Bridge (Soil and Plant Laboratory, 2012)
15. California Historical Resources Information System
16. Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
17. California Geological Survey Seismic Hazard Zone Map – Mountain View Quadrangle
18. Association of Bay Area Governments Liquefaction Susceptibility Map
19. Palo Alto Municipal Code, Title 16 – Building Regulations
20. State Water Resources Control Board Geotracker website
21. California Geological Survey Tsunami Inundation Map
22. Palo Alto Municipal Code, Section 9.10-Noise Ordinance
23. Evaluation of the existing bridge (EndreStudio, 2012)
ATTACHMENTS
A. Arborist Report
B. Preliminary Parking Alternatives, Parking and Traffic Study
C. Soil Lab Results
Magical Bridge Playground Project Page 58 Initial Study
DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the
project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
X
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or
“potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one
effect: 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal
standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis
as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required,
but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately
in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and
(b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the
proposed project, nothing further is required.
___________________________________ _________________________
Project Planner Date
City of Palo Alto (ID # 4599)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 5/19/2014
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Library and Art Center Monument Sign
Title: Adoption of a Budget Amendment Ordinance in the Amount of $80,000
for the Furniture and Technology for Library Projects Capital Improvement
Project LB-11000 for a New Monument Sign, Supported by Transfers from the
Library Development Impact Fee Fund ($40,000) and Community Center
Development Impact Fee Fund ($40,000)
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Public Works
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council:
1.Adopt the attached Budget Amendment Ordinance (BAO) (Attachment A) in
the amount of $80,000 to increase the Furniture and Technology for Library
Projects capital project (LB-11000) to allow for the design and construction
of a combined monument sign for the Library and Art Center at the
Intersection of Embarcadero and Newell Road, supported by transfers from
the Library Development Impact Fee Fund ($40,000) and Community
Center Development Impact Fee Fund ($40,000).
Background
The Palo Alto Art Center building and Rinconada Library (formerly named Main
Library) have shared a campus on Newell Road since 1958. Construction for the
renovated Rinconada Library started in June of 2013, and the hardscape design
features a “connector” between the Art Center and Library to create a more
integrated campus. Existing and proposed exterior signage along Newell Road
clearly label the Art Center and Rinconada Library’s location, but there is a lack of
signage on Embarcadero Road. There are currently two public art pieces (one
permanent and one temporary) and exterior signs near this intersection, but no
City of Palo Alto Page 2
shared monument that visually marks the presence of the campus. This presents a
wonderful opportunity to extend the goal of unifying the Rinconada Library and
Art Center campus on the highly visible Embarcadero Road corridor.
Discussion
A visually strong monument sign will identify the location of both the Rinconada
Library and the Art Center along the major Embarcadero Road thoroughfare. In
addition to highlighting the location of the campus, the sign can be used to
display banners with temporary program information for the Rinconada Library
and Art Center. The sign may reference the role of the facilities and/or its users
through its design. It will adhere to the Architectural Review Board’s (ARB’s)
signage requirements and may require exceptions based on its ultimate design.
For instance, the Palo Alto Municipal Code limits the sign height to three feet, but
the proposed sign location may require it to be slightly higher for visibility.
Potential use of the space with the sign is showcased in Attachment B. The
project will begin with formal application to the ARB. Once a design is selected
and approved, the sign will be fabricated and installed by a specialty sign
contractor. The project must begin very soon to allow installation of the sign to
occur prior to the opening of the renovated Rinconada Library in December 2014.
Resource Impact
Funds are recommended to be added to the Furniture and Technology for Library
Projects capital project with approval of this BAO to pay for design, construction,
and materials costs for a monument sign for a total project budget of $80,000
($40,000 from the Library Development Impact Fee Fund and $40,000 from the
Community Center Development Impact Fee Fund). Sufficient funds are available
in the two development impact Fee funds.
Policy Implications
The construction of a visually attractive sign for the purpose of promoting the
Library and Art Center is consistent with City policies and furthers the goals of
Policy C-19 of the Community Services element of the Comprehensive Plan in that
the sign enhances the two facilities by helping the public locate them.
Environmental Review
Pursuant to the requirement of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA), the project is categorically exempt from CEQA, per Section 15311,
City of Palo Alto Page 3
Accessory Structures.
Timeline
Construction and installation of the sign is expected to occur during Fall 2014
with a target completion date before the public opening of the renovated
Rinconada Library.
Attachments:
·A -Monument Sign BAO (DOC)
·B -Renderings of Proposed Concept Designs(PDF)
ORDINANCE NO.xxxx
ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2014 TO
INCREASE THE FURNITURE AND TECHNOLOGY FOR LIBRARY
PROJECTS CAPITAL PROJECT (LB-11000) IN THE CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT FUND BY $80,000,SUPPORTED BY TRANSFERS
FROM THE LIBRARY DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE FUND
($40,000) AND COMMUNITY CENTER DEVELOPMENT IMPACT
FEE FUND ($40,000)TO THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND.
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ordain as follows:
SECTION 1. The Council of the City of Palo Alto finds and
determines as follows:
A. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 of Article
III of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto, the Council on
June 10, 2013 did adopt a budget for fiscal year 2014; and
B.and the Palo Alto Art Center building and Rinconada
Library (formerly named Main Library) have shared a campus on
Newell Road since 1958. Construction of the renovated
Rinconada Library started in June of 2013, and the hardscape
design features a “connector” between the Art Center and
Library to create a more integrated campus; and
C. Existing and proposed exterior signage along Newell
Road clearly label the Art Center and Rinconada Library’s
location, but there is no signage on Embarcadero Road;and
D. There are currently two public art pieces and
exterior signs near the intersection, but no shared monument
that visually marks the presence of the campus; and
E. Staff had determined that a visually strong monument
sign will identify the location of both the Rinconada Library
and the Art Center along the major Embarcadero Road
thoroughfare. The sign could also be used to display banners
with temporary program information for the Rinconada Library
and Art Center; and
F. Construction and installation of the sign is expected
to occur during fall 2014, with a target completion date
before the public opening of the renovated Rinconada Library.
SECTION 2.The sum of Eighty Thousand Dollars ($80,000)
is hereby appropriated to CIP Project LB-11000,Furniture and
Technology for Library Projects
SECTION 3.Forty Thousand Dollars ($40,000)is hereby
transferred from the Library Development Impact Fee Fund and
Forty Thousand Dollars ($40,000)is hereby transferred from
the Community Center Development Impact Fee Fund.
SECTION 4. As provided in Section 2.04.330 of the Palo
Alto Municipal Code, this ordinance shall become effective
upon adoption.
SECTION 5.Per the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), this project is
categorically exempt from CEQA, per Section 15311, Accessory
Structures.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
_________________________
City Clerk
__________________________
Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________
Senior Assistant City
Attorney
__________________________
City Manager
__________________________
Director of Public Works
__________________________
Director of Administrative
Services
Attachment C
Other Variations
City of Palo Alto (ID # 4781)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 5/19/2014
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Approval of Municipal Code Ordinance Mandating Reporting
of Rabies Vaccinations
Title: SECOND READING: Adoption of an Ordinance Mandating Reporting of
Rabies Vaccinations (First Reading: May 5, 2014 PASSED: 9-0)
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Police
Attached are the materials relating to the second reading of the Ordinance Mandating Rabies
Vaccinations passed by Council on Monday, May 5, 2014. The attached materials are: (1) the
final ordinance; (2) the Staff Report of May 5, 2014; and (3) the “At Places” Memo of May 5,
2014.
Please note that the “At Places” Memo of May 5, 2014 noted the following: The ordinance was
not attached to the original staff report, and the title on the original staff report was also
corrected in the “At Places” packet.
On second reading, the materials include the following information (previously noted in the “At
Places” Memo):
1. The final ordinance reads as follows:
Section 6.16.101
VETERINARIAN RESPONSIBILITIES
Every licensed veterinarian in the City of Palo Alto who vaccinates or causes or directs to
be vaccinated any dog, residing in the City of Palo alto, with anti-rabies vaccine shall
certify that such animal has been vaccinated. Every veterinarian shall submit to Palo
Alto Animal Services as the licensing authority, a copy of the anti-rabies vaccination
certificate, within ten (10) days of the beginning of each month, for any dog which
he/she vaccinates or directs to be vaccinated with the anti-rabies vaccine during the
previous month. An Animal Control Officer or Superintendent of Animal Services or
designee shall have the right to inspect records of rabies vaccinations during the
City of Palo Alto Page 2
veterinarian’s normal business hours.”
2. In addition, the title to the Staff Report should have read as follows:
“Recommending Approval of a Municipal Code Ordinance Mandating Reporting of
Rabies Vaccinations.”
Attachments:
ATTACHMENT A - Ordinance (PDF)
ATTACHMENT B - Original Staff Report ID# 4593 (PDF)
ATTACHMENT C - At Places 050514 (PDF)
*NOT YET APPROVED*
1
140508 sh 0170006
ORDINANCE NO. _____
Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adding Section
6.16.101 to Chapter 6 (Dogs) of Title 6 (Animals) to Mandate
Reporting of Rabies Vaccinations
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings and Declarations. The City Council finds and declares as
follows:
(a) The California Animal Care of Health Services mandates that all counties have
a rabies control program through Title 17 of the Health Code;
(b) Rabies control is primarily achieved through dog and cat immunization and
licensing. Since the 1970s, Palo Alto City ordinance Section 6.16.020 has
required that every person owning or having custody of a dog over four
months of age be rabies‐immunized and licensed;
(c) Currently, Palo Alto is the only City in Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties
that does not mandate rabies vaccination reporting from its veterinarians;
(d) Comparisons with other cities’ and counties’ license compliance rates shows
a marked increase in compliance rates and increased revenues for
jurisdictions that have implemented mandatory rabies vaccination reporting;
and
(e) A mandatory reporting requirement will likely increase rabies immunization
compliance rates in Palo Alto.
SECTION 2. Section 6.16.101 is hereby added to Chapter 6 (Dogs) of Title 6
(Animals) of the Palo Alto Municipal code to read as follows:
“Section 6.16.101
VETERINARIAN RESPONSIBILITIES
Every licensed veterinarian in the City of Palo Alto who vaccinates or causes or
directs to be vaccinated any dog, residing in the City of Palo Alto, with anti‐rabies
vaccine shall certify that such animal has been vaccinated. Every veterinarian shall
submit to Palo Alto Animal Services as the licensing authority, a copy of the anti‐
rabies vaccination certificate, within ten (10) days of the beginning of each month,
for any dog which he/she vaccinates or directs to be vaccinated with the anti‐rabies
vaccine during the previous month. An Animal Control Officer or Superintendent of
*NOT YET APPROVED*
2
140508 sh 0170006
Animal Services or designee shall have the right to inspect records of rabies
vaccinations during the veterinarian’s normal business hours.”
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
____________________________ ____________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
____________________________ ____________________________
City Attorney City Manager
____________________________
Director of Animal Services
City of Palo Alto (ID # 4593)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 5/5/2014
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Amend Municipal Code - Mand Reporting of Rabies Vaccines
Title: Approval of Municipal Code Amendment to Mandate Reporting of
Rabies Vaccinations
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Police
Recommendation
Staff recommends the Council amend Section 6.16.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code related
to licensing of animals to add a section mandating reporting of rabies vaccinations
Discussion
The California Animal Care of Health Services mandates through Title 17 of the Health Code
that all counties provide for a rabies control program. Rabies control is primarily achieved
through dog and cat immunization and licensing. Since the 1970s, Palo Alto City ordinance
Section 6.16.020 has required that every person owning or having custody of a dog over four
months of age be rabies immunized and licensed. Currently, residents generally comply with
these requirements voluntarily or after being cited for a violation of the City ordinance. City
licenses can be purchased at the shelter or by mail; in addition, the City is in the initial stages of
making online licensing available.
Since FY 2013, the Palo Alto Animal Shelter has made a concerted effort to increase licensing
compliance in Palo Alto, as well as in other cities served through the regional animal control
contract, Los Altos and Los Altos Hills. These efforts have been successful, as FY 14 dog licensing
revenues are anticipated to be 267% higher than fiscal year 2012 totals. The success of these
efforts is attributable to increased compliance activity by Animal Services staff through more
aggressive enforcement and utilizing similar ordinances in Los Altos and Los Altos Hills.
Currently, Palo Alto is the only City in Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties that does not
mandate rabies vaccination reporting from its veterinarians. Comparisons with other cities’ and
counties’ license compliance rates show a marked increase in compliance rates and increased
revenues for jurisdictions that have implemented mandatory rabies vaccination reporting.
Resource Impact
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Estimating the potential increase in licensing revenue is difficult because the current
compliance rate is unknown and only estimable. After implementation of the ordinance, staff
will monitor whether this municipal code change contributes to a higher licensing revenue and
incorporate any such increase into future budgets.
Policy Implications
The agreement will result in no policy impact.
Environmental Review
Review under the California Environmental Quality Act is not required.
City of Palo Alto (ID # 4803)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 5/19/2014
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Consideration of Finance Committee Referral to the HRC
Title: Consideration of Finance Committee Referral to the Human Relations
Commission Regarding Additional Funding for Human Resource Allocation
Process Agencies (This item was continued from May 12, 2014)
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Community Services
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that Council consider the recommendation by the Finance Committee at
their meeting on April 15, 2014 that the Human Relations Commission (HRC) re-visit
potential funding for underfunded, new, and emerging needs for agencies within the
Human Services Resource Allocation Process for FY15 in an amount up to $200,000.
Background
At the April 15, 2014 Finance Committee Meeting, staff presented the Human Services
Resource Allocation Process (HSRAP) FY 2015 budget request (see Attachment A). HSRAP
contracts run on either a two- year (14 agencies) or six-year (2 agencies) funding cycle;
FY2015 is mid-contract cycle for all agencies. For the 14 agencies on a two-year cycle, this
recommendation would impact the second year of their two-year cycle.
Staff recommends that Council review the issue and make a policy recommendation prior
to staff and the HRC reviewing a potential additional funding plan. If Council support is
unclear, staff and the HRC could dedicate considerable time exploring potential funding
plans, unintentionally raising funding expectations on the part of the agencies that could be
unwarranted if Council would not consider expanding funding.
The following is the Finance Committee recommendation:
“The Finance Committee recommends that the Human Relations Commission
review the funded agencies in Human Services Resource Allocation Process
to identify the most critical needs that were requested and unable to be
allocated for Fiscal Year 2015, not to exceed the amount initially requested
City of Palo Alto Page 2
by those agencies with the following guidelines: 1) include any critical and
new and emerging needs that the Human Relations Commission has
identified, as well as critical needs that were identified previously but unable
to be allocated in the previous budget cycle; and 2) not to exceed the
additional $200,000 that was requested in aggregate that was not funded at
the beginning of the prior two-year cycle. “
The amount included in the motion ($200,000) was selected as it was the difference
between the amount requested in FY2014 by the fourteen agencies with two-year
contracts and the amount received, which was based on the amount of funding available.
Staff asked the Finance Committee for clarification on the effect of the motion on Avenidas
and Palo Alto Community Child Care, the two agencies on a six-year cycle, as those agencies
have requested to be removed from the HSRAP process and the item is up for Council
review on May 12, 2014. Chair Berman noted the Committee would have clarification on
PACCC and Avenidas prior to discussing the Community Services Department budget,
which at the time of the Finance Committee meeting was scheduled for May 20, 2014. At
the Council meeting on May 20, 2014, a recommendation was passed to remove PACCC and
Avenidas from the HSRAP process.
Resource Impact
If Council decides to provide one-time funding for the HSRAP program, staff recommends
using the City Council contingency ($250,000) in FY15. If Council approves ongoing
funding, then staff recommends using the Budget Stabilization Reserve as a one-time
source of funding; staff will incorporate the ongoing increase into future budgets. The
process timing may not allow for discussion during the proposed budget meetings, but this
transaction can be approved after budget adoption as well. In addition, the Council has the
option of recommending a specific amount and asking staff and the HRC to return with
detailed recommendations.
Attachments:
ATTACHMENT A - STAFF REPORT # 4617NEW (PDF)
ATTACHMENT B - Excerpt - 04-15-2014 FC transcript (DOCX)
FINANCE COMMITTEE
EXCERPT - FINAL MINUTES
Page 1 of 13
Special Meeting
Tuesday, April 15, 2014
3. Human Services Resource Allocation Process (HSRAP) Contract Renewal
for FY 2015.
Minka Van Der Zwaag, Community Services Manager reported the Council
approved Human Services Resource Allocation Process (HSRAP) funding for
Fiscal Year (FY) 2014 and approved funding in concept for FY 2015 in the
same amount. The FY 2014 HSRAP allocation included a 7.1 percent
increase which was distributed in equal proportions to all HSRAP grantees.
HSRAP executed six-year contracts with Palo Alto Community Child Care
(PACCC) and Avenidas and two-year contracts with other agencies.
Agencies under six-year contracts had a historical relationship with the City
and provided services identified in the Comprehensive Plan. Agencies under
two-year contracts traditionally provided critical services identified in the
Human Relations Commission's (HRC) annual priority setting process. A
biannual funding program allowed the HRC, Finance Committee
(Committee), and the Council to incorporate new agencies to meet emerging
needs. The HRC recommended to the Policy and Services Committee that
Avenidas and PACCC remain a part of HSRAP. The Policy and Services
Committee recommended PACCC and Avenidas become direct services
contractors. The Council was going to consider this issue on May 12, 2014.
The Outlet Program, an outreach program to lesbian, gay, bisexual, and
transgender (LGBT) youth, was now a part of Adolescent Counseling
Services. All grantees met performance indicators and were good stewards
of funds. The HRC visited HSRAP agencies to understand the services being
provided. Stepping Stones and Dream Catchers, tutoring programs for low-
income youth, and Vista Center for the Blind and Visually Impaired were new
agencies that received HSRAP funding in FY 2014. The HRC conducted a
detailed Human Services Needs Assessment in 2011 and was currently
working on a supplement. The HSRAP Budget for FY 2015 was the same as
the FY 2014 Budget. If the Council acted to remove PACCC and Avenidas
from HSRAP, then Staff needed to issue a Request for Proposal (RFP) to seek
providers for senior services and child care.
Jo Jaros, Vista Center for the Blind and Visually Impaired served more than
50 senior citizens in Palo Alto in FY 2014. Vista Center utilized HSRAP
funding to provide daily living skill services, orientation and mobility
services, counseling, and support groups.
FINAL MINUTES
Dawn Wilcox, Vista Center for the Blind and Visually Impaired was able to
maintain her nursing license because of services she obtained at Vista
Center. She now volunteered as Coordinator of the Health Library at Vista
Center. More and more residents needed the services provided by Vista
Center.
Georgia Bacil, Senior Adults Legal Assistance (SALA) Directing Attorney
provided free civil legal services to senior citizens throughout Santa Clara
County (County). HSRAP funding allowed SALA to double the number of
appointments scheduled in Palo Alto.
Karen Anselmo, Community Technology Alliance (CTA) Director of
Operations indicated CTA provided technology solutions to issues of
homelessness and poverty. HSRAP funding supported three programs, one
of which was community voice mail. CTA was exploring a pilot program to
design a mobile service specifically for homeless and low-income
populations.
Council Member Burt asked if the new program was intended to be cellular,
wireless, or both.
Ms. Anselmo indicated it was mobile phone technology.
Council Member Burt clarified that use of a wireless network did not incur
fees for the user.
Ms. Anselmo said she would provide information at a later time.
Eileen Richardson, Downtown Streets Team and Peninsula Healthcare
Connection advised that the Downtown Streets Team won an award from
MetLife for its partnership with the Palo Alto Police Department and the Palo
Alto Business Improvement District. Peninsula Healthcare Connection
merged with New Directions in 2013.
Council Member Holman requested Staff provide reasons for the HRC
recommending PACCC and Avenidas to remain a part of HSRAP and the
reasons the Policy and Services Committee voted against that.
Chair Berman indicated the issue was not a part of the Agenda Item under
discussion.
Ms. Van Der Zwaag clarified that the Council would consider the issue in May
2014. Proposed allocations included funding for Avenidas and PACCC.
Chair Berman did not believe it was appropriate for the Committee to
discuss policy issues.
FINAL MINUTES
Council Member Holman inquired about the anticipated Budget for FY 2015.
Lalo Perez, Director of Administrative Services and Chief Financial Officer
reported Staff was still preparing the Proposed Budget.
Council Member Holman requested a rough estimate.
Mr. Perez believed the Budget would be in the range of $170 million.
Council Member Holman noted the City did not commit one percent of its
Budget to HSRAP funding and wanted HSRAP funding to reach that level.
She inquired about the process to introduce a new nonprofit agency.
Ms. Van Der Zwaag reported new agencies could submit applications at the
beginning of the next cycle. In the fall of 2014, Staff was going to release
an RFP for FY 2016. In her experience, agencies were not added in the
second year of the funding cycle.
Council Member Holman seemed to recall from her service as liaison to the
HRC that some organizations were removed from HSRAP.
Ms. Van Der Zwaag advised that more agencies applied for funding than
HSRAP could fund. To add new agencies, funding for existing agencies had
to be reduced. In her experience with HSRAP, agencies continued to receive
funding in new cycles unless they missed a deadline in the application
process.
Council Member Holman wished to provide the name of an agency for
consideration for HSRAP funding.
Ms. Van Der Zwaag indicated Staff provided names of agencies to the
Purchasing Department when the RFP was issued.
Council Member Holman suggested Staff include Fresh Lifetimes for Youth
(FLY).
Vice Mayor Kniss asked if the suggestion of agencies was appropriate under
the Agenda Item.
Mr. Perez suggested the Committee only provide the names of agencies for
inclusion in the RFP process.
Council Member Holman reported FLY was a new nonprofit agency that
worked to break the crime/violence/incarceration cycle for teens.
Ms. Van Der Zwaag was familiar with FLY.
FINAL MINUTES
Council Member Holman reiterated that HSRAP funding should total one
percent of the City's Budget.
Council Member Burt recalled that HSRAP funding had not contained
inflationary increases and had actually decreased since 2003.
Ms. Van Der Zwaag reported the Council policy to include a Consumer Price
Index (CPI) increase for HSRAP grantees was temporarily suspended in
2003. In 2007 and again in 2009, HSRAP funding was reduced.
Council Member Burt was not able to recall a reason for suspension of the
CPI increase, and inquired about the reason for the suspension becoming
permanent.
Mr. Perez did not have the complete history; however, he believed the
impact of pensions not being fully funded resulted in an overall decrease in
the City's Budget.
Council Member Burt noted the Budget for FY 2015 would be approximately
$170 million, and inquired about the total Budget amount in FY 2003.
Mr. Perez said he could provide that information shortly.
Council Member Burt referenced Ms. Van Der Zwaag's comments regarding
the HRC's process to identify needs. Staff anticipated Budget surpluses for
the next several years. He was concerned that input from the HRC would
lag behind the Committee's consideration of additional HSRAP funding in FY
2015. The Committee was able to use a placeholder amount without
identifying the allocation of HSRAP funding. He asked if Staff had additional
ideas.
Mr. Perez suggested the Committee place HSRAP funding in the parking lot
during the Budget process. The Committee was able to discuss HSRAP
funding during the Community Services Department Budget review or at
wrap-up night.
Council Member Burt inquired whether the HRC would be able to provide
information to the Committee within that timeframe.
Ms. Van Der Zwaag felt the HRC could complete its supplemental report if
they knew there was an opportunity for increased funding.
Mr. Perez recalled that in 2013 the HRC was tasked with determining HSRAP
allocations prior to the final adoption of the Budget.
FINAL MINUTES
Council Member Burt advised that the Committee could not provide an
explicit allocation under the current Agenda Item, but could request the HRC
provide recommendations early in the Budget process.
Mr. Perez added that the Committee could utilize funds from the Council
Contingency Fund for HSRAP funding when discussing the Proposed Budget.
Past Committees provided one-time funding from the Council Contingency
Fund.
Council Member Burt believed the Committee was ready to institutionalize
funding for HSRAP because of anticipated surpluses and prior discussions.
Mr. Perez indicated the FY 2003 Budget totaled $114,950,000.
Council Member Burt stated at that time HSRAP funding was greater than
one percent of the total Budget. It was a possibility for the Committee to
consider creating some type of reserve fund to assure level HSRAP funding
in times of economic downturns. He also understood the Food Closet could
be in jeopardy with its funding.
Ms. Van Der Zwaag requested Mr. Dah of InnVision Shelter Network to
respond to Council Member Burt's comment.
Philip Dah reported the Food Closet served two bags of groceries twice a
week to homeless and low-income people in Palo Alto. The budget for the
Food Closet was $41,300 and HSRAP provided only $12,000.
Council Member Burt suggested the HRC review funding for and needs of the
Food Closet.
Mr. Perez noted the Adopted Budget in FY 2004 included HSRAP funding of
$1,318,853. Proposed funding for HSRAP in FY 2015 was almost the same
as in the Adopted Budget for FY 2005.
Council Member Burt remarked that it was important for the Committee to
consider how HSRAP services integrated with other elements of City
programs and the ability of the recipients to access services. He inquired
whether proposed shuttle routes would meet the needs of clients served by
HSRAP funding.
Ms. Van Der Zwaag indicated neither HSRAP Staff nor the HRC was involved
in the creation of new routes.
FINAL MINUTES
Jaime Rodriguez, Chief Transportation Official indicated routes were created
in conjunction with public input at community meetings. In preparing the
first Needs Assessment, the HRC talked with the Planning and Transportation
Commission regarding concerns that transportation was a baseline need with
key gaps. The new routes encompassed many senior centers.
Council Member Burt recalled Staff stating to the Council that the routes
were conceptual. Earlier in the day Council Members received information
which indicated proposed routes. He was not sure those routes would meet
a variety of needs.
Vice Mayor Kniss remarked that Staff did not mention the interaction of
HSRAP funding with other funding sources or the agencies' rationales for
their requests.
Ms. Van Der Zwaag reported that agencies provided specific scopes of
service and specific information about the percentage of agency funding
requested from the City. Agencies also indicated the percentage of funding
received from government agencies, in-kind services, donations, etc.
Review of that type of information was part of the HRC's recommendation
process. The HRC did not want City funding to be a major source for
agencies.
Vice Mayor Kniss was curious as to how the one percent of total Budget
amount was determined.
Ms. Van Der Zwaag indicated it was a conceptual amount.
Vice Mayor Kniss asked if the one percent amount was subjective rather
than objective.
Ms. Van Der Zwaag answered yes. Some cities provided a percentage of
their overall budgets to agencies. The HRC viewed that as a model for its
requests for funding.
Vice Mayor Kniss noted many HSRAP agencies received funding from the
County as well as the City. There needed to be an objective means to
determine the appropriate amount of funding for HSRAP.
Mr. Perez commented that the Committee should note the difference in
budget sizes between Palo Alto and other cities. Palo Alto provided non-
typical business activities, such as utilities. Staff discussed whether one
percent was the correct amount to consider, given the Budget differences.
FINAL MINUTES
Vice Mayor Kniss hoped the reports clearly demonstrated why the HRC
selected certain amounts.
Ms. Van Der Zwaag offered to include the information in the Staff Report to
the Council.
Vice Mayor Kniss wanted background information for the current funding
cycle.
Ms. Van Der Zwaag explained that in the past, the mid-cycle Item was
informational.
Chair Berman suggested HSRAP information presented at the beginning of
each cycle be included in the mid-cycle report. He concurred with Council
Member Burt's suggestion of a reserve fund for HSRAP. He inquired whether
the HRC lacked sufficient resources to complete the supplemental Needs
Assessment.
Ms. Van Der Zwaag reported that in 2010 the HRC had the services of an
intern who prepared demographic information and researched data.
Chair Berman asked if a small amount of funding would assist with
completion of the supplemental Needs Assessment.
Ms. Van Der Zwaag indicated the HRC conducted one-on-one contact with
agencies, with the possibility of a full Needs Assessment in the next few
years. At the current time, the HRC felt they could perform the smaller
review.
Chair Berman recommended Commissions approach the Council if they
needed a few thousand dollars for professional assistance. With respect to
shuttle routes, the Transportation Department needed a comprehensive
discussion with other departments to receive input.
Council Member Burt inquired whether the Committee could request that the
Transportation Department engage fully with the Community Services
Department regarding needs.
Mr. Perez suggested the Committee provide direction to Staff in the Budget
hearing for the Planning Department.
Council Member Burt expressed concern that plans would be set by the time
Budget hearings were held.
Mr. Perez reported Staff could hold internal discussions without specific
direction.
FINAL MINUTES
Council Member Burt wanted Staff to reconsider routes before the process
had advanced.
MOTION: Chair Berman moved, seconded by Council Member Burt to
recommend to the City Council that:
1. The funding allocation as recommended by the Council for the
2013-2015 Human Services Resource Allocation funding period be
included in the Fiscal Year 2015 Human Services contract budget;
2. The City Manager or his designee be authorized to execute year two
of separate two-year contracts with fourteen agencies as was
approved in June 2013; and
3. The City Manager or his designee be authorized to execute year five
of separate six-year contracts with Avenidas and Palo Alto
Community Child Care.
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER to request that Human Relations Commission
evaluate supplemental or increases for funding for Fiscal Year 2015 and
bring to the Finance Committee as soon as possible.
Council Member Holman asked if the Committee should utilize the parking
lot approach to consider additional funding.
Chair Berman explained that HRC information would be presented to the
Committee which determined whether to move HSRAP funding to the
parking lot in order to understand the overall Budget.
Council Member Burt clarified that if the HRC did not have ample opportunity
to complete the process at the commencement of the Budget process, then
the parking lot would give the HRC three to four weeks to complete it. The
HRC needed to begin work now so that they could provide a
recommendation by the end of the Budget process.
Vice Mayor Kniss asked if the intent of the Motion was to provide additional
funds for HSRAP.
Chair Berman stated the intent was to approve amounts contained in the
original contracts and to inquire whether the HRC would propose increased
funding and provide a report on possibly increasing funding. The Committee
was not advocating a funding increase, but it was open to the concept if the
HRC had a logical recommendation.
FINAL MINUTES
Vice Mayor Kniss remarked that the Committee was indicating there might
be additional funds available for HSRAP. She inquired whether additional
funding could be $200,000-$300,000.
Chair Berman was not setting any amount.
Vice Mayor Kniss wanted to understand the process being discussed.
Ms. Van Der Zwaag did not believe the intent of the Motion was to invite
other nonprofit agencies to apply for additional funding. Through the
supplemental Needs Assessment, the HRC held specific conversations with
current grantees regarding new and emerging needs or urgent budget
shortfalls. The HRC presented those needs to the Committee, and the
Committee determined whether to allocate additional funding on a one-time
basis or an ongoing basis to address those needs.
Council Member Burt referenced the difference between an agency's request
at the beginning of the two-year cycle and the amount allocated.
Vice Mayor Kniss felt allocations were made based on specific reasons. She
asked if the Motion was indicating that the Committee could reassess the
situation now that there could be additional funds available.
Council Member Burt responded yes.
Vice Mayor Kniss asked how the Committee would assess that.
Council Member Burt inquired whether Vice Mayor Kniss meant assess the
amount of funds to allocate or how funds would be spent.
Vice Mayor Kniss answered either way. For example, Abilities United
requested $53,000 and received $40,000.
Council Member Burt clarified that the Committee would utilize the usual
process. The HRC provided funding recommendations and the Committee
deviated from HRC recommendations only if they found an unusual reason to
do so. The Committee did not normally review each agency's funding.
Vice Mayor Kniss inquired about the criteria utilized to make a decision.
Council Member Burt stated the criteria was the HRC's recommendations.
Vice Mayor Kniss indicated the Committee had the HRC's recommendations.
Council Member Burt clarified that the City could not fully fund those
recommendations. The HRC had to review specific programs.
FINAL MINUTES
Vice Mayor Kniss asked if the HRC already did that.
Council Member Burt responded yes, but the HRC would update their
recommendations. He suspected the HRC would update information and
make specific recommendations.
Vice Mayor Kniss needed to know the amount of money and whether the
Committee was telling the HRC additional funds were available.
Chair Berman asked if Vice Mayor Kniss was suggesting some sort of cap.
Vice Mayor Kniss needed to know the amount of funds. The Motion
appeared to be requesting the HRC review allocations to agencies and
determine whether some agencies should receive additional funding. She
expressed concern that all agencies would compete for the additional funds.
Mr. Perez reported that prior Committees provided parameters either as a
percentage or a specific amount.
Chair Berman inquired whether Vice Mayor Kniss wished to offer parameters.
Vice Mayor Kniss did not wish to do so as any additional funding was not
known.
Chair Berman did not want to spend the entire Budget surplus, as funds
were needed for infrastructure projects.
Vice Mayor Kniss asked if Chair Berman would increase allocations to the
amounts requested if each agency could justify additional funding.
Chair Berman replied no.
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER that the Human Relations Commission review the
funded agencies in Human Services Resource Allocation Process to identify
most critical needs that were requested and unable to be allocated for Fiscal
Year 2015, not to exceed the amount initially requested by those agencies.
Council Member Burt explained that the difference between amounts
allocated and amounts requested was the high-end parameter. The Motion
asked the HRC to review each program to determine the most critical unmet
needs.
Ms. Van Der Zwaag believed the original request and the original scope of
service could be different from new and emerging needs. As the Motion
stated, it seemed to include only the former.
FINAL MINUTES
Council Member Burt felt the HRC should review new and emerging needs as
well as previously identified needs without funding.
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER to: 1) include any critical and new and emerging
needs that the Human Relations Commission has identified, as well as critical
needs that were identified previously but unable to be allocated in the
previous budget cycle; and 2) not to exceed the additional $200,000 that
was requested in aggregate that was not funded at the beginning of the
prior two-year cycle.
Vice Mayor Kniss inquired whether the Committee was willing to allocate a
maximum of $200,000.
Council Member Burt was willing to consider allocating a maximum of
$200,000.
Vice Mayor Kniss said she could support that but was very uncomfortable
with an open-ended direction.
Mr. Perez advised "consider" was an important word that needed to be part
of the Motion as the Committee had not seen the Proposed Budget.
Ms. Van Der Zwaag suggested the effect of the Motion on PACCC and
Avenidas if they were removed from HSRAP could be discussed at a future
meeting.
Chair Berman inquired whether the Council's consideration of removing
PACCC and Avenidas from HSRAP would occur prior to the Committee's
review of the Item in the Budget process.
Mr. Perez indicated Committee review of the Community Services
Department Budget was scheduled for May 20, 2014 and wrap-up was
scheduled for May 29, 2014.
Chair Berman noted the Committee would have clarification on PACCC and
Avenidas prior to discussing the Budget.
Council Member Burt suggested the Committee request HRC place additional
funding in two categories, highest and second highest priorities.
Ms. Van Der Zwaag commented that the HRC often provided multiple options
for Committee and Council consideration.
Council Member Holman understood the Motion requested the HRC identify
emerging needs not funded in the prior cycle up to requested amounts. She
FINAL MINUTES
inquired whether funding not allocated to one agency could be transferred to
another agency. For example, Dream Catchers requested $55,000 and
received $8,000. She asked if the Committee could shift some of the
difference, $47,000, to InnVision for example.
Council Member Burt stated the additional amount was aggregate. The
Motion allowed the HRC to use its discretion in the recommendations
regarding application of total dollars.
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER to allow the Human Relations Commission to use
their discretion in the recommendation on how the total dollars will be
applied.
Chair Berman supported increasing HSRAP funding, but was unsure whether
to support the full amount of $200,000. He requested Staff ensure the HRC
of the understanding that $200,000 was the high end.
Vice Mayor Kniss requested a restatement of the Motion.
Kimberly Lunt, Administrative Associate III, reviewed the Motion and
incorporated language.
Vice Mayor Kniss wanted the record to reflect that the Committee was not
guaranteeing additional HSRAP funding.
Ms. Van Der Zwaag clarified that the HRC would review current agencies
and/or new needs identified in the supplemental Needs Assessment. The
total dollar amount was not to exceed $200,000. If additional funds were
less than $200,000, then the Committee was able to reduce HRC
recommendations by a percentage. The HRC had discretion to bring to the
Committee's attention either additional distribution among current grantees
or new Items.
Council Member Burt indicated the HRC was free to make recommendations
for new needs that they felt were more important than other previously
requested needs.
Ms. Van Der Zwaag reiterated that the HRC would have flexibility to reduce a
current allocation so the total amount did not exceed $200,000.
Council Member Burt did not believe HRC recommendations would exceed
$200,000.
FINAL MINUTES
Chair Berman clarified that the Motion allowed the HRC to allocate the
$47,000 difference between amount requested and amount allocated for
Dream Catchers to Dream Catchers or to other agencies.
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER that in looking at the revised allocation provided
by the Human Relations Commission, that it [the report] be provided in a
two-tier recommendation.
Chair Berman asked if the HRC usually provided a prioritization of
recommendations.
Ms. Van Der Zwaag reported the HRC usually provided multiple
recommendations when Commissioners did not agree. If Commissioners
were in complete agreement, the HRC provided only one funding
recommendation.
Council Member Burt advised that the Committee preferred HRC
recommendations be provided in two tiers of priorities.
MOTION PASSED: 4-0
CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
May 19, 2014
The Honorable City Council
Palo Alto, California
Adoption of a Resolution Calling a Special Election to Modernize the
Telecommunications Provision of the Utility Users Tax Ordinance
Recommendation
Staff recommends the City Council adopt the Resolution Calling a Special Election to Modernize the
Telecommunications Provision of the Utility Users Tax Ordinance and Eliminate the Discount Tax Rate
for a Small Number of Commercial Customers Who Use Large Volumes of Water, Gas and Electric
Utilities (Attachment A).
As the Council has not yet given policy direction on whether to eliminate the large volume discount
provision that applies to gas, electric and water services staff has included this modification as an
optional provision for Council’s consideration.
Background
The voters approved Palo Alto’s Utility Users Tax (UUT) in 1987. This general tax applies to electricity,
gas, water and telephone service. There have been no amendments to the ordinance since 1987. The
UUT represents 7 percent or $11.0 million of the City’s FY 2014 general fund revenue. As a general tax it
is a vital element in the funding of city services. The telecommunications portion of total UUT revenue is
$2.8 million or nearly 2 percent of general fund revenue.
In past years, the City Attorney’s office has recommended that the City modernize its UUT. UUT
modernization was also raised at the Infrastructure Committee and staff was directed to return to the
full Council for discussion on whether to place a UUT modernization measure on the upcoming
November ballot.
On March 24, the Council conducted a hearing on proposed amendments to the telecommunications
portion of the UUT. A copy of the Staff Report is attached as Attachment B. The amendments would
modernize the existing UUT ordinance to clarify that it is intended to apply to all electronic
communication technologies such as wireless phones and VOIP, not just traditional land lines. Current
federal law prohibits cities from taxing internet services and the proposed ordinance exempts such
service. In addition, the staff report discussed eliminating the large volume user discount which
currently applies to gas, electric and water services.
At the March 24 hearing, Council directed staff to further explore two issues. First, Council asked staff to
prepare a financial analysis of a .25 discount in telecommunications tax. Second, Council directed staff
Page 2
to reach out to the large volume customers and make sure they were aware of the proposal to eliminate
the discount.
Discussion
In recent years, many cities have modernized their UUT ordinances by voter approval to reflect the
migration from traditional landline telephone use to new electronic communication technologies, such
as wireless and VOIP.
In California, approximately 150 cities and 4 counties have UUT’s. In recent years, approximately 40
percent of these cities/counties have modernized their ordinances by voter approval. In Santa Clara
County many cities have either modernized their UUT ordinances in the past five years or are currently
considering doing so.
Utility Users Tax rates range from 1% to 11%. The particular utilities to which the tax is applied vary. In
some cities different rates apply to residential versus commercial users. The most common rate (the
mode) is 5%, applied broadly among many types of utilities. The average rate (mean) is 5.5% with a
standard deviation of 2.1%. Palo Alto’s UUT rate is 5%, with a lower tiered rate for high volume users.
Because most large cities have UUTs, half of California residents and a majority of businesses pay a
utility users tax. A recent article by Michael Coleman providing further background on UUT trends is
included as Attachment C.
Most wireless carriers are currently charging a pass through telecommunications tax to telephone users
and remitting it to the City. Thus these amendments are not expected to result in significant changes to
a customer’s bill nor are they expected to result in significant revenue increases for the City.
Nevertheless, staff believes these amendments are warranted to protect the existing tax revenue as
technologies continue to advance.
Tax Rate
In recent years, many cities have paired a UUT modernization with a modest rate reduction (generally
ranging from .2% to 1%). As modernization changes have the potential of expanding the tax base, a
modest rate reduction tends to have little impact on the overall revenue. Of the 75 modernization
measures that have gone to the voters in the past 10 years, only 5 have failed. One involved a
modernization coupled with a rate reduction and 4 involved a modernization with no rate reduction.
(See Attachment C.)
If the Council were to reduce the telecommunications tax rate from 5% to 4.75% or by 0.25% (one
quarter percent), the lost revenue annually is approximately $140,000. Over a period of 10 years the
loss is estimated at $1.4 million. A rate reduction from 5% to 4.875% or by 0.125% (one-eighth percent)
would yield a $70,000 loss in revenue or $700,000 in lost revenue over 10 years. This lost revenue will
likely be offset over time through new revenues anticipated by the modernization changes.
Page 3
Whether to adjust the rate is a policy matter for Council to determine.
Large Volume Discount
Council asked for more outreach on the proposal to eliminate the existing UUT tax discount for large
volume commercial users of electricity, gas and water. This discount can be viewed as contrary to
current city goals of energy conservation.
If the large volume discount is eliminated, staff estimates an annual UUT revenue gain of approximately
$550,000. Over 10 years, this elimination would yield approximately $5.5 million. There are currently 9
“large” users who are receiving the discount, all of whom are commercial/institutional entities.
At Council’s direction, staff did outreach with 9 large volume users. Key account representatives in
Utilities delivered a written message to each of the large volume users which notified them of a
potential elimination of the UUT discount their firms are currently receiving. These messages included
key staff contacts within the City of Palo Alto to address any questions or concerns the companies may
have. The key account contacts in each of the firms ensured that the communication would be relayed
to the appropriate people within their organizations. There were no significant, negative reactions to
the proposed elimination by the facility managers contacted, or to any of the key City staff listed in the
messages.
Timeline
If the Council elects to move forward with a general tax, staff recommends a timeline that is
coordinated with the Transient Occupancy Tax proposal.
Resource Impact
The proposed telecommunications modernization ordinance is not anticipated to result in additional
revenues, but rather is expected to preserve the existing revenue levels. As presented in the Fiscal Year
2015-2024 General Fund Long Range Financial Forecast, the telephone UUT is expected to rise
marginally.
FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018
$3.15 million $3.16 million $3.19 million $3.23 million $3.28 million
As described in this report, if the large volume discount is eliminated, staff estimates an annual UUT
revenue gain of approximately $550,000. There are currently 9 “large” users who are receiving the
discount.
Page 4
Per the latest estimate from the County Registrar of Voters, adding this ballot measure to the November
2014 General Election ballot will cost approximately $66,000. The funding for such a measure is
included in the Fiscal Year 2015 Proposed Budget.
Environmental Review
This is a fiscal measure and not a project for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A: Proposed Resolution Calling UUT Election and UUT Ordinance (PDF)
Attachment B: March 24 Staff Report (without attachments)
Attachment C: Background Information on UUT Trends (PDF)
Department Head: Molly Stump, City Attorney
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A: Resolution Calling Special Election on UUT and Large Volume Discount
(PDF)
Attachment B: March 24 Staff Report (PDF)
Attachment C: Background Information on UUT Trends (PDF)
Department Head: Molly Stump, City Attorney
Page 5
NOT YET APPROVED
Resolution No. ______
Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Calling a Special Election for
November 4, 2014 for Submittal to the Qualified Electors of the City a
Measure Related to the Utility Users Tax
R E C I T A L S
A. The City’s long term economic health is dependent on a diverse revenue base.
B. Since 1987 the residents of the City of Palo Alto have paid a utility user tax on
telephone communications services.
C. The telecommunications portion of the total UUT revenue is $2.8 million annually
or nearly 2 percent of general fund revenue.
D. Telephone communication advances over the past two decades mean that the City
must update its utility users tax to match today’s technology, including definitions for new
telecommunications technologies.
E. Updating the existing outdated utility users tax on telecommunications services
with [no change to /a modest reduction of the] existing rate will ensure that taxpayers are
treated the same regardless of the type of technology used.
F. The telecommunications users tax component of the utility users tax is an
important revenue source and preserving that revenue will ensure that the City can preserve
essential City services including fire protection, rapid emergency response and crime
prevention, library hours and services, maintenance of City parks, playgrounds and athletic
fields and continue to provide the programs that residents expect and deserve.
G. The measure will safeguard local revenues already being received for local needs
and this money cannot be taken away by the State.
H. The UUT discount for large volume commercial users of electricity, gas and water is
contrary to current city goals of energy conservation.
I. A proposed ordinance, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as
Attachment “A” (the “Ordinance”), would modernize the telecommunications portion of the
UUT and eliminate the large volume utility tax discount for gas, electric and water.
K. Pursuant to Government Code Section 53724 and Election Code Section 9222, the
City Council desires to submit the Ordinance to the voters of the City at the Election.
1
140512 jb 0131201
NOT YET APPROVED
NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto hereby RESOLVES as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. The City Council finds and determines that each of the findings
set forth above are true and correct.
SECTION 2. General Tax Proposal. The City Council proposes to impose the general tax
set forth in the Ordinance and to present this proposal to the voters on November 4,
2014. The proposed type of tax, the rate of the tax, and the method of tax collection are as set
forth in the Ordinance.
SECTION 3. Special Election. The City Council hereby calls a special municipal election
on Tuesday, November 4, 2014. Pursuant to Elections Code Section 9222, the City Council
hereby submits the Ordinance to the voters at the Election and orders the following question to
be submitted to the voters at the Election:
This question requires the approval of a majority of those casting votes.
SECTION 4. Adoption of Measure. The measure to be submitted to the voters is
attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference.
SECTION 5. Notice of Election. Notice of the time and place of holding the election is
hereby given, and the City Clerk is authorized, instructed and directed to give further or
additional notice of the election, in time, form and manner as required by law.
SECTION 6. Impartial Analysis. Pursuant to California Elections Code Section 9280, the
City Council hereby directs the City Clerk to transmit a copy of the measure to the City
Attorney. The City Attorney shall prepare an impartial analysis of the measure, not to exceed
500 words in length, showing the effect of the measure on the existing law and the operation of
the measure, and transmit such impartial analysis to the City Clerk on or before August 19,
2014.
SECTION 7. Ballot Arguments. Pursuant to Elections Code Section 9286 et. seq., August
12, 2014 at 5:30 p.m. shall be the deadline for submission of arguments in favor of, and
arguments against, any local measures on the ballot. If more than one argument for and/or
Without increasing the tax rate residents and businesses
currently pay, shall the City of Palo Alto adopt an ordinance
to update its Utility Users Tax (which helps fund basic City
services and projects) to ensure equal treatment of
taxpayers regardless of telecommunications technology
used and eliminate a discounted tax rate paid by a small
number of commercial large users of gas, electric and water
services?
YES
NO
2
140512 jb 0131201
NOT YET APPROVED
against is received, the priorities established by Elections Code Section 9287 shall control.
SECTION 8. Rebuttal Arguments. The provisions of Elections Code Section 9285
shall control the submission of any rebuttal arguments. The deadline for filing rebuttal
arguments shall be August 19, 2014 at 5:30 p.m.
SECTION 9. Consolidation Request. The Council of the City of Palo Alto requests the
governing body of any other political subdivision, or any officers otherwise authorized by law,
to partially or completely consolidate such elections and the City Council consents to such
consolidation. The Council requests the Board of Supervisors of Santa Clara County to include
on the ballots and sample ballots, all qualified measures submitted by the City Council to be
ratified by the qualified electors of the City of Palo Alto.
SECTION 10. Request for County Services. Pursuant to Section 10002 of the California
Elections Code, the Council of the City of Palo Alto hereby requests the Board of Supervisors of
Santa Clara County to permit the Registrar of Voters to render services to the City of Palo Alto
relating to the conduct of Palo Alto’s General Municipal and Special Elections which are called
to be held on Tuesday, November 4, 2014. The services shall be of the type normally performed
by the Registrar of Voters in assisting the clerks of municipalities in the conduct of elections
including, but not limited to, checking registrations, mailing ballots, hiring election officers and
arranging for polling places, receiving absentee voter ballot applications, mailing and receiving
absent voter ballots and opening and counting same, providing and distributing election
supplies, and furnishing voting machines.
SECTION 11. Transmittal of Resolution. The City Clerk is hereby directed to submit
forthwith a certified copy of this resolution to the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors and
to the Registrar of Voters.
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
3
140512 jb 0131201
NOT YET APPROVED
SECTION 12. Exemption from CEQA. The City Council finds that this resolution is not a
project under Section 21065 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSENTIONS:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
_____________________________ ______________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: ______________________________
City Manager
_____________________________
Senior Asst. City Attorney ______________________________
Director of Administrative
Services
4
140512 jb 0131201
ATTACHMENT A
Ordinance No. _____
Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 2.35
of Title 2 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Relating to the Utility Users Tax
The People of the City of Palo Alto do ordain as follows:
SECTION 1. Chapter 2.35 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended by
amending Chapter 2.35 as follows:
Chapter 2.35
UTILITY USERS TAX
2.35.010 Short title.
2.35.020 Tax imposed.
2.35.030 Disposition of tax revenue.
2.35.040 Definitions.
2.35.050 Constitutional exemption.
2.35.060 Electricity users tax.
2.35.070 Gas users tax.
2.35.080 Water users tax.
2.35.090 Telephonecommunications users tax.
2.35.100 Tax rate for high volume service users.
2.35.110 Council authorization to suspend collection of a portion of tax for limited
periods of time.
2.35.120 Collection of tax.
2.35.130 Reporting and remitting.
2.35.140 Penalty for delinquency.
2.35.150 Records.
2.35.160 Failure to pay tax - Administrative remedy.
2.35.170 Actions to collect.
2.35.180 Administrative rules, regulations and agreements.
2.35.190 Refunds.
2.35.200 Bundling Taxable Items with Nontaxable Items.
2.35.010 Short title.
This chapter shall be known as the "Utility Users Tax."
(Ord. 3781 § 1 (part), 1987)
2.35.020 Tax imposed.
There is established and imposed, commencing on the effective date of the ordinance
codified in this chapter, a utility users tax at the rate set forth in this chapter.
(Ord. 3781 § 1 (part), 1987)
2.35.030 Disposition of tax revenue.
140210 jb 0131177 Rev. May 10, 2014
ATTACHMENT A
The tax imposed by this chapter is for the purpose of raising revenues for the general
governmental purposes of the city. All of the proceeds from the tax imposed by this chapter
shall be placed in the city's general fund.
(Ord. 3781 § 1 (part), 1987)
2.35.040 Definitions.
(a) Except where context otherwise requires, the definitions given in this section govern the
construction of this chapter:
(1) "City" means the city of Palo Alto.
(2) "Month" means a calendar month.
(3) "Person" means any natural person, firm, association, joint venture, joint stock company,
partnership of any kind, club, Massachusetts business or common law trust or society,
organization, corporation (foreign and domestic), business trust of any kind, or the manager,
lessee, agent, servant, officer or employee of any of them.
(4) "Service supplier" means a person required to collect and remit a tax imposed by this
chapter and includes the city's utilities department with respect to a tax imposed on the use of
gas, electricity and water and any telephone corporation with respect to the tax imposed on
the use of telephone services.
(5) "Service user" means a person required to pay a tax imposed by this chapter.
(6) "Utility tax year" means the period beginning on the effective date of the ordinance
codified in this chapter and ending June 30, 1988, for the initial utility tax year. Thereafter, the
utility tax year shall be the twelve-month period beginning July 1st and ending June 30th of the
next succeeding calendar year.
(7) "Telephone corporation" means the same as defined in Section 234 of the Public Utilities
Code of the state.
(Ord. 3781 § 1 (part), 1987)
2.35.050 Constitutional exemption.
Nothing in this chapter shall be construed as imposing a tax upon the city of Palo Alto or any
other person if imposition of such tax upon that person would be in violation of the
Constitution of the United States or that of the state of California or any other statute or
regulation that applies to charter cities. The City may adopt an administrative policy to
implement this provision.
(Ord. 3781 § 1 (part), 1987)
2.35.060 Electricity users tax.
(a) There is imposed a tax upon every person in the city using electricity in the city. The tax
imposed by this section shall be at the rate of five percent of the charges to a service user made
for such electricity by a service supplier, except as provided in Section 2.35.100. Said tax shall
be paid by the person paying for such electricity.
140210 jb 0131177 Rev. May 10, 2014
ATTACHMENT A
(b) "Charges," as used in this section, shall include charges made for metered energy and
charges for service, including customer charges, service charges, standby charges, charges for
temporary services, demand charges, and annual and monthly charges.
(c) As used in this section, the term "using electricity" shall not be construed to mean the
storage of such electricity by a person in a battery owned or possessed by him for use in an
automobile or other machinery or device apart from the premises upon which the electricity
was received; provided, however, that the term shall include the receiving of such electricity for
the purpose of using it in the charging of batteries; nor shall the term include the mere
transmission or receiving of such electricity by a governmental agency at a point within the city
for resale.
(Ord. 3781 § 1 (part), 1987)
2.35.070 Gas users tax.
(a) There is imposed a tax upon every person in the city using gas in the city which is
delivered through mains or pipes. The tax imposed by this section shall be at the rate of five
percent of the charges to a service user made for such gas by a service supplier, except as
provided in Section 2.35.100. Said tax shall be paid by the person paying for such gas.
(b) "Charges," as used in this section, shall include charges made for metered gas and
charges for service, including customer charges, service charges, demand charges, standby
charges, charges for temporary service, and annual and monthly charges.
(c) There shall be excluded from the base on which the tax imposed in this section is
computed charges made for gas which is to be resold and delivered through mains or pipes and
charges made for gas to be used in the generation of electrical energy by a governmental
agency.
(Ord. 3781 § 1 (part), 1987)
2.35.080 Water users tax.
(a) There is imposed a tax upon every person in the city using water which is delivered
through mains or pipes in the city. The tax imposed by this section shall be at the rate of five
percent of the charges to a service user made for such water by a service supplier, except as
provided in Section 2.35.100. Said tax shall be paid by the person paying for such water.
(b) "Charges," as used in this section, shall include charges for metered water and charges
for service, including customer charges, service charges, standby charges, charges for
temporary service, and annual and monthly charges.
(c) There shall be excluded from the base on which the tax imposed in this section is
computed charges made for water which is to be resold and delivered through mains or pipes
and charges made for water used in the generation of electrical energy by a governmental
agency.
(Ord. 3781 § 1 (part), 1987)
140210 jb 0131177 Rev. May 10, 2014
ATTACHMENT A
2.35.090 Telecommunicationsphone users tax.
(a) There is imposed a tax upon every person in the city, using intrastate telephone
communication services in the city, other than a telephone corporation. The tax imposed by
this section shall be at the rate of five percent of the charges made to a service user for such
services by a service supplier and shall be paid by the person paying for such services.
(b) As used in this section, the term "charges" shall not include charges for services paid for
by inserting coins in a coin-operated telephone except that where such coin-operated services
are furnished for a guaranteed amount, the amounts paid under such guarantee plus any fixed
monthly or other periodic charge shall be included in the base for computing the amount of tax
due; nor shall the term "telephone communications services" include land mobile services or
maritime mobile services as defined in Section 2.1 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal
Regulations, or any amendment or replacement thereof.
(c) The telephone users tax imposed by this section is intended to, and does, apply to all
charges billed to a telephone account having a situs in the city, irrespective of whether a
particular communication service originates and/or terminates within the city. The situs shall be
the service address, if known; otherwise the billing address.
(d) The term "telephone communication services" means refers to that service which
provides access to a telephone system and the privilege of telephonic quality communication
with substantially all persons having telephone stations which are part of such telephone
system. The term "telephone communication services" also refers to that service which
provides access to a telephone system for data and/or video to the extent permitted by law.
the transmission, conveyance, or routing of voice, data, audio, video, or any other information
or signals to a point, or between or among points, whatever the technology used, including, but
not limited to, traditional telephone service, mobile telecommunications service, and
broadband service (e.g., digital subscriber line (DSL), fiber optic, coaxial cable, and wireless
broadband, including Wi-Fi, WiMAX, and Wireless MESH) to the extent not prohibited by
Federal and/or State law, now or in the future. "Telephone communication services" includes
transmission, conveyance, or routing in which computer processing applications are used to act
on the form, code or protocol of the content for purposes of transmission, conveyance or
routing without regard to whether such service is referred to as voice over internet protocol
(VoIP) services or is classified by the Federal Communications Commission as enhanced or value
added, and includes video and/or data service that is functionally integrated with "telephone
communication services."
(e) The tax imposed by this section applies to all telephone communication services however
charged or billed, including, but not limited to prepaid services, post-paid services, 800 services
(or any other toll-free numbers), or 900 services.
(f) The tax imposed by this section applies to ancillary telephone communication services,
which are those services that enable or enhance access to telephone communication services.
Ancillary telephone communication services include, but are not limited to, charges for
connection, reconnection, termination, movement, or change of telephone communication
140210 jb 0131177 Rev. May 10, 2014
ATTACHMENT A
services; detailed billing; central office and custom calling features (including but not limited to
call waiting, call forwarding, caller identification and three-way calling); voice mail and other
messaging services; directory assistance; access and line charges; local number portability
charges; text and instant messaging; and conference calls.
(g) “Mobile telecommunication service” means commercial mobile radio service, as defined
in Section 20.3 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations and as set forth in the Mobile
Telecommunications Sourcing Act (4 U.S.C. Section 124) and the regulations thereunder.
(h) “Place of primary use” means the street address representative of where the customer's
use of the telephone communications service primarily occurs, which must be the residential
street address or the primary business street address of the customer.
(i) “Service address” means either (1) the location of the service user’s telephone
communication equipment from which the communication originates or terminates, regardless
of where the communication is billed or paid; or (2) if the location of the equipment is unknown
(e.g., mobile telecommunication service or VoIP service), the service address means the
location of the service user's place of primary use; or (3) for prepaid telephone communication
service “service address” means the point of sale of the services where the point of sale is
within the city, or if unknown, the known address of the service user (e.g., billing address or
location associated with the service number), which locations shall be presumed to be the place
of primary use.
(j) There is a rebuttable presumption that a telephone communication service, which is billed
to a billing or service address in the city, is used, in whole or in part, within the city's
boundaries, and such service is subject to taxation under this section. There is also a rebuttable
presumption that a prepaid telephone communication service sold within the city is primarily
used, in whole or in part, within the city and is therefore subject to taxation under this section.
If the billing address of the service user is different from the service address, the service
address of the service user shall be used for purposes of imposing the tax. As used in this
section, the term "charges" shall include the value of any other services, credits, property of
every kind or nature, or other consideration provided by the service user in exchange for the
telephone communication service.
(c) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a) of this section, the tax imposed under
this section shall not be imposed upon any persons for using intrastate telephone
communication services to the extent that the amounts paid for such services are exempt from
or not subject to the tax imposed under Division 2, Part 20 of the California Revenue and
Taxation Code, or the tax imposed under Section 4251 of the Internal Revenue Code, any
amendment or any replacement thereof.
(Ord. 3781 § 1 (part), 1987)
2.35.100 Tax rate for high volume service users.
(a) The tax rate imposed on electricity, gas and water users in Sections 2.35.060, 2.35.070
and 2.35.080 respectively shall be three percent on all utility charges to a service user
exceeding the cumulative amount of $800,000.00 for water, gas and electricity or any
140210 jb 0131177 Rev. May 10, 2014
ATTACHMENT A
combination thereof during any utility tax year and shall be two percent of the amount of utility
charges exceeding the cumulative amount of $2,400,000.00 for water, gas or electricity or any
combination thereof during any utility tax year.
(b) Commencing on July 1, 1988, and every July 1st thereafter, the director of finance shall
annually adjust the three percent and two percent tax rate thresholds specified in subsection
(a) of this section by the annual change in the Consumer Price Index, All Urban Consumers, for
the San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose Metropolitan Area published by the Bureau of Labor
Statistics or any replacement index published by said Bureau ("Index") for the preceding year as
illustrated by the following formula:
NT = T (A) / (B)
NT = New threshold for the upcoming utility tax year
T = Current threshold
A = The Index for April preceding the upcoming utility tax year
B = The Index for the previous April.
For example, on July 1, 1988, the thresholds shall be adjusted by multiplying them by the
April, 1988, Index divided by the April, 1987, Index.
(c) Where any person can establish to the satisfaction of the director of finance that be is a
person responsible for the payment of one or more taxes under this chapter, he may aggregate
charges for gas, electricity or water or any combination thereof for purposes of determining the
application of the reduced rate pursuant to this section. The city manager shall develop and
publish written regulations for determining which person(s) is a service user for the purposes of
implementing the lower rates authorized by this section. Such regulations may be amended
from time to time.
(Ord. 3781 § 1 (part), 1987)
2.35.110 Council authorization to suspend collection of a portion of tax for limited periods of
time.
The city council may from time to time determine to collect less than the five percent tax
imposed by Sections 2.35.060, 2.35.070, 2.35.080 and 2.35.090 from all service users and may
suspend a portion of the maximum rates by passage of an ordinance stating:
(a) The council's intention to suspend collection of a portion of said tax;
(b) The duration of the suspension, which in no event shall exceed one year;
(c) The exact portion of the tax, collection of which is being suspended.
This rate suspension shall apply to all service users across the board and shall be in effect for
one year from the effective date of said ordinance.
(Ord. 3781 § 1 (part), 1987)
2.35.120 Collection of tax.
(a) Every service supplier shall collect the amount of tax imposed by this chapter from the
service user.
140210 jb 0131177 Rev. May 10, 2014
ATTACHMENT A
(b) The tax shall be collected insofar as practicable at the same time as, and along with, the
collection of charges made in accordance with the regular billing practice of the service
supplier. Except in those cases where a service user pays the full amount of said charges but
does not pay any portion of a tax imposed by this chapter, or where a service user has notified
a service supplier that he is refusing to pay a tax imposed by this chapter which said service
supplier is required to collect, if the amount paid by a service user is less than the full amount
of the charge and tax which has accrued for the billing period, a proportionate share of both
the charge and tax shall be deemed to have been paid.
(c) The duty to collect the tax from a service user shall commence thirty days after the
effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter. If a person receives more than one
billing, one or more being for a different period than another, the duty to collect shall arise
separately for each billing period.
(Ord. 3781 § 1 (part), 1987)
2.35.130 Reporting and remitting.
Each service supplier, shall, on or before the last day of each month, make a return to the
director of finance, on forms provided by him, stating the amount of taxes billed by the service
supplier during the preceding month. At the time the return is filed, the full amount of the tax
collected shall be remitted to the director of finance. The director of finance may require
further information in the return. Returns and remittances are due immediately upon cessation
of business for any reason.
(Ord. 3781 § 1 (part), 1987)
2.35.140 Penalty for delinquency.
(a) Taxes collected from a service user which are not remitted to the tax administrator on or
before the due dates provided in this chapter are delinquent.
(b) Penalties for delinquency in remittance of any tax collected or any deficiency in
remittance, shall attach and be paid by the person required to collect and remit at the
rate of ten percent of the total tax collected or imposed herein.
(c) The director of finance shall have power to impose additional penalties upon persons
required to collect and remit taxes under the provisions of this chapter for fraud or
negligence in reporting or remitting at the rate of ten percent of the amount of the tax
collected or as recomputed by the director of finance.
(d) Every penalty imposed under the provisions of this section shall become a part of the tax
required to be remitted.
(Ord. 3781 § 1 (part), 1987)
140210 jb 0131177 Rev. May 10, 2014
ATTACHMENT A
2.35.150 Records.
It shall be the duty of every service supplier required to collect and remit to the city any tax
imposed by this chapter to keep and preserve, for a period of three years, all records as may be
necessary to determine the amount of such tax as such service supplier may have been
required to collect and remit to the city, which records the director of finance shall have the
right to inspect at all reasonable times.
(Ord. 3781 § 1 (part), 1987)
2.35.160 Failure to pay tax - Administrative remedy.
Whenever the director of finance determines that a service user has deliberately withheld the
amount of the tax owed by him from the amounts remitted to a service supplier, or that a
service user has failed to pay the amount of the tax for a period or four or more billing periods,
or whenever the director of finance deems it in the best interest of the city, he shall relieve the
service supplier of the obligation to collect taxes due under this chapter from certain named
service users for specified billing periods. The director of finance shall notify the service user
that he has assumed responsibility to collect the taxes due for the stated periods and demand
payment of such taxes. The notice shall be served on the service user by handing it to him
personally or by deposit of the notice in the United States mail, postage prepaid thereon,
addressed to the service user at the address to which billing was made by the service supplier,
or, should the service user have changed his address, to his last known address. If a service user
fails to remit the tax to the director of finance within fifteen days from the date of the service
of the notice upon him, which shall be the date of mailing if service is not accomplished in
person, a penalty of twenty-five percent of the amount of the tax set forth in the notice shall be
imposed, but not less than $5.00. The penalty shall become part of the tax herein required to
be paid.
(Ord. 3781 § 1 (part), 1987)
2.35.170 Actions to collect.
Any tax required to be paid by a service user under the provisions of this chapter shall be a
debt owed by the service user to the city. Any such tax collected from a service user which has
not been remitted to the director of finance shall be deemed a debt owed to the city by the
person required to collect and remit. Any person owing money to the city under the provisions
of this chapter shall be liable to an action brought in the name of the city for the recovery of
such amount including applicable penalties and attorneys' fees.
(Ord. 3781 § 1 (part), 1987)
2.35.180 Administrative rules, regulations and agreements.
The city manager has the authority to adopt rules and regulations not inconsistent with the
provisions of this chapter for the purpose of carrying out and enforcing the payment, collection
and remittance of any tax herein imposed, and the city manager may also make administrative
agreements to vary the strict requirements of this chapter so that the collection of any tax
imposed herein may be made in conformance with the billing procedures of a particular service
140210 jb 0131177 Rev. May 10, 2014
ATTACHMENT A
supplier so long as the overall results of such agreements result in collection of the tax in
conformance with the general purpose and scope of this chapter. A copy of such rules and
regulations and a copy of any such agreement shall be on file and available for public
examination in the office of the city clerk. Failure or refusal to comply with any such rules,
regulations or agreements promulgated under this section shall be deemed a violation of this
chapter.
(Ord. 3781 § 1 (part), 1987)
2.35.190 Refunds.
(a) Claim Required. Prior to seeking judicial relief with respect to a dispute regarding
whether the amount of any tax has been overpaid, paid more than once or erroneously
or illegally collected or received by the city under this chapter, an aggrieved taxpayer, fee
payer, service supplier, service user or any other person must comply with the provisions
of section 2.28.230 of this code.
(b) Service Suppliers. A service supplier may claim a refund or take as credit against taxes
collected and remitted, the amount overpaid, paid more than once, or erroneously or illegally
collected or received when it is established in a manner prescribed by the director of finance
that the service user from whom the tax has been collected did not owe the tax; provided,
however, that neither a refund nor a credit shall be allowed unless the amount of the tax so
collected has either been refunded to the service user or credited to charges subsequently
payable by the service user to the service supplier.
(Ord. 5078 § 5, 2010: Ord. 3781 § 1 (part), 1987)
2.35.200 Bundling Taxable Items with Nontaxable Items.
If any nontaxable charges are combined with and not separately stated from taxable service
charges on the customer’s bill or invoice of a service supplier, the combined charges are subject
to tax unless the service supplier identifies, by reasonable and verifiable standards, the portions
of the combined charges that are nontaxable and taxable through the service supplier’s books
and records kept in the regular course of business, and in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles, and not created and maintained for tax purposes. If the service supplier
offers a combination of taxable and non-taxable services, and the charges are separately stated,
then for taxation purposes, the values assigned the taxable and non-taxable services shall be
based on its books and records kept in the regular course of business and in accordance with
generally accepted accounting principles, and not created and maintained for tax purposes. The
service supplier has the burden of proving the proper valuation and apportionment of taxable
and non-taxable charges.
SECTION 2. General Tax. Proceeds of the tax imposed by this Ordinance shall be
deposited in the general fund of the City and shall be available for any legal purpose.
SECTION 3. Amendment or Repeal. The City Council may repeal Chapter 2.35 of the
Palo Alto Municipal Code or amend that Chapter without a vote of the people except that any
140210 jb 0131177 Rev. May 10, 2014
ATTACHMENT A
amendment to Chapter 2.35 that increases the amount or rate of tax due from any Person
beyond the inflation-adjusted amounts and rates authorized by this Ordinance may not take
effect unless approved by a vote of the people.
SECTION 4. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or
portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unenforceable by a court of
competent jurisdiction, the remaining portions of this Ordinance shall nonetheless remain in
full force and effect. The people hereby declare that they would have adopted each section,
subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance, irrespective of the fact that
any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions of this
Ordinance be declared invalid or unenforceable.
SECTION 5. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be effective only if approved by a
majority of the voters and shall go into effect immediately after the vote is declared by the City
Council and the duty of service providers to collect the tax shall commence as provided in
California Public Utilities Code Section 799.
SECTION 6. Execution. The Mayor is hereby authorized to attest to the adoption of
this Ordinance by the voters of the City by signing where indicated below.
I hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED by
the People of the City of Palo Alto voting on the 4th day of November, 2014.
ATTEST:
__________________________ ___________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED
___________________________ ___________________________
Senior Asst. City Attorney City Manager
___________________________
Director of Administrative
Services
140210 jb 0131177 Rev. May 10, 2014
CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
March 24, 2014
The Honorable City Council
Palo Alto, California
Council Direction on Whether to Submit Utility Users Tax
Modernization Ordinance to Voters in November 2014 Election
Recommendation
Staff recommends the City Council direct staff to bring to Council an amendment to the Utility
User Tax to modernize the telecommunication provision. A copy of a proposed ordinance
addressing telecommunication modernization is included as Attachment A.
In addition, staff requests direction on whether to include in the UUT amendment an
adjustment to the large volume discount provision that applies to gas, electric and water
services.
Background
The voters approved Palo Alto’s Utility Users Tax (UUT) in 1987. This general tax applies to
electricity, gas, water and telephone service. There have been no amendments to the
ordinance since 1987. The UUT represents 7 percent or $11.0 million of the City’s FY 2014
general fund revenue. As a general tax it is a vital element in the funding of city services. The
telecommunications portion of total UUT revenue is $2.8 million or nearly 2 percent of general
fund revenue. Below is a chart showing FY 2014 UUT budgeted revenue compared to the
general fund’s other revenues.
Page 2
In recent years, many cities have modernized their UUT ordinances by voter approval to reflect
the migration from traditional landline telephone use to new electronic communication
technologies, such as wireless and VOIP.
In California, approximately 150 cities and 4 counties have UUT’s. In recent years,
approximately 40 percent of these cities/counties have modernized their ordinances by voter
approval. In Santa Clara County many cities have either modernized their UUT ordinances in
the past five years or are currently considering doing so.
Utility Users Tax rates range from 1% to 11%. The particular utilities to which the tax is applied
vary. In some cities different rates apply to residential versus commercial users. The most
common rate (the mode) is 5%, applied broadly among many types of utilities. The average rate
(mean) is 5.5% with a standard deviation of 2.1%. Palo Alto’s UUT rate is 5%, with a lower
tiered rate for high volume users. Because most large cities have UUTs, half of California
residents and a majority of businesses pay a utility users tax.
A recent article by Michael Coleman providing further background on UUT trends is included as
Attachment B.
In past years, the City Attorney’s office has recommended that the City modernize its UUT.
UUT modernization was also raised at the Infrastructure Committee and staff was directed to
return to the full Council for discussion on whether to place a UUT modernization measure on
the upcoming November ballot.
Page 3
Discussion
Telecommunication Modernization Improvements
Staff recommends the following amendments to the Telephone Tax. Note that these
amendments adjust the language of the ordinance to clarify and protect its intended scope now
and into the future. Based on historical tax receipts and our understanding of the accounting
practices of telephone service providers, staff believes that most telephone users (including
smart phone users) are already paying UUT on the majority of telephone related services they
use. For this reason, the typical telephone user likely will not experience an increase in taxes if
these amendments are adopted.
Removal of Exemptions
The City’s current UUT ordinance contains certain exemptions that are relics of earlier landline
telephone- based systems and no longer relevant or legally required (Palo Alto Municipal Code
Section 2.35.090). Like many older ordinances, the City’s current ordinance does not apply to
charges that are exempt from the Federal Excise Tax and California’s 911 Surcharge. The
ordinance also exempts “land mobile services or maritime mobile services” and it does not
apply to telephone corporations. These restrictions are not legally required and could
dramatically reduce the amount of tax the City collects by limiting the tax primarily to local
calls. The proposed amendment would eliminate these exemptions.
The most important change contained in the proposed ordinance would eliminate the
exemption for charges not subject to the Federal Excise Tax. The Federal Excise Tax (FET)
provision used to be very common and is still found in many telephone user tax ordinances. It
is a relic of previous times when charges for non-local telephone calls were based on the
distance of the call. The FET states that it applies to “local telephone service,” “toll telephone
service,” and “teletypewriter exchange service.” (26 U.S.C. Section 4251.) Starting in 2005, a
series of federal appellate court decisions held that the FET only applies to local calls and non-
local calls in which the charges are based on both time and distance. As time and distance
billing is a now an outdated billing practice, many cities with ordinances tied to the FET have
eliminated this provision.
Extension to Interstate and International Calls
Currently the City’s telephone user tax only applies to intrastate telephone calls (i.e., calls
placed within California). Although interstate and international telephone calls generally
account for only 15% of all phone charges, this restriction is unnecessary. Again it is a relic from
the days when interstate and international calls were treated substantially differently from
intrastate calls and were much more expensive.
Modernize Definition of Telecommunications
Telecommunications technology is changing rapidly, and Proposition 218’s requirement that
modifications to a tax must be approved by the voters makes it difficult for a tax to keep up
with these changes. The proposed ordinance updates the definition of telephone
communications services to include all forms of electronic communication that currently exist.
Page 4
Staff also recommends that the modernization include a provision for new technologies that
may develop in the future.
Note that local taxation of internet related services is currently an evolving area. Under the
federal Internet Tax Freedom Act, “internet access” is not taxable by cities, but under Section
1105 of the Act, as amended in 2007, VOIP is not considered an "internet access." The Internet
Tax Freedom Act expires in November 2014, though there are two pending bills which would
extend its terms. The proposed ordinance exempts services that are otherwise exempt under
federal or state law.
Bundling Provision
The proposed ordinance includes a new “bundling” provision. This would provide that if taxable
and non-taxable charges are combined in a bill and cannot be easily differentiated, then the tax
applies to all of the charges. This prevents service providers from trying to hide taxable charges
behind nontaxable charges.
Large Volume Discount
In addition, the overall UUT structure provides a discount for large volume commercial users of
electricity, gas and water. This discount can be viewed as contrary to current city goals of
energy conservation. Whether to maintain, reduce or eliminate the large user discount is a
policy matter for Council to determine. Note that in the recently approved Stanford University
Medical Center Development Agreement, Stanford agreed to eliminate the lower tiered rates
for all electric, gas and water charges associated with the new buildings. This concession was in
line with the overall conservation goals of the hospital projects.
If the large volume discount is eliminated, staff estimates an annual UUT revenue gain of
approximately $550,000. There are currently 9 “large” users who are receiving the discount, all
of whom are commercial/institutional entities.
Tax Rate
In recent years, many cities have paired a UUT modernization with a modest rate reduction
(generally ranging from .2% to 1%). As modernization changes have the potential of expanding
the tax base, a modest rate reduction tends to have little impact on the overall revenue. Of the
75 modernization measures that have gone to the voters in the past 10 years, only 5 have
failed. One involved a modernization coupled with a rate reduction and 4 involved a
modernization with no rate reduction. (See Attachment B.)
Whether to adjust the rate is a policy matter for Council to determine.
Voter Approval of Ordinance Changes
Palo Alto’s UUT is a general tax. This is consistent with the approach used by the great majority
of California jurisdictions with UUT. An amended UUT ordinance could be either a general tax
(which must be placed on a general municipal election and is adopted by a simple majority) or a
Page 5
special tax restricted to the purpose stated in the measure (any election, two-thirds required
for approval). Staff recommends maintaining the UUT as a general tax.
Timeline
If the Council elects to move forward with a general tax, staff recommends a timeline that is
coordinated with the Transient Occupancy Tax proposal.
Resource Impact
The proposed telecommunications modernization ordinance is not anticipated to result in
additional revenues, but rather is expected to preserve the existing revenue levels. As
presented in the Long Range Financial Forecast for Fiscal Years 2013 through 2023, the
telephone UUT is expected to rise marginally.
FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018
$3.15 million $3.16 million $3.19 million $3.23 million $3.28 million
As described in this report, if the large volume discount is eliminated, staff estimates an annual
UUT revenue gain of approximately $550,000. There are currently 9 “large” users who are
receiving the discount.
Per the latest estimate from the County Registrar of Voters, adding this ballot measure to the
November 2014 General Election ballot will cost approximately $66,000. If the City Council
approves this ballot measure, the funding for the measure will be included in the FY 2015
Proposed Budget.
Environmental Review
This is a fiscal measure and not a project for purposes of the California Environmental Quality
Act.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A: Proposed UUT Ordinance (PDF)
Attachment B: Background Information on UUT Trends (PDF)
Department Head: Molly Stump, City Attorney
CaliforniaCityFinance.com August 2013
The California Local Government Finance Almanac
Utility User Tax Facts
The Utility User Tax (UUT) may be
imposed by a city on the consumption of
utility services, including (but not limited
to) electricity, gas, water, sewer,
telephone (including cell phone and long
distance), sanitation and cable television.1
The rate of the tax and the use of its
revenues are determined by the local
agency. A UUT may be imposed as a
special tax, earmarked for a specific
purpose, or a general tax to be used for a
variety of municipal service needs at the
discretion of the city council. The tax is
levied by the city, collected by the utility
as a part of its regular billing procedure,
and then remitted to the city. Statewide,
city and county utility user taxes generate about $2 billion per year.
Voter Approval is Now Required to Levy a New or Increased UUT
Most of the 154 cities and 4 counties2
with UUTs adopted the taxes by vote of the
city council (or in the case of a county UUT,
the County Board of Supervisors) prior to
1986. 345Generally, taxes imposed since then
require voter approval. The Constitution
(Article XIIIC) requires 2/3 voter approval for
any new or increased special tax. A special tax
is dedicated to a specific purpose. A new or
increased general tax requires majority voter
approval.
Currently, all UUTs are general taxes
except two. In June 2003, voters in the City of
1 Authority: General law cities: Government Code § 37100.5; Calif Constitution Article XI § 5 (“municipal affairs”)
2 The City/County of San Francisco is counted here as a county, not a city.
3 No UUT on telecom in Azusa, Buena Park, Pacifica, Scotts Valley.
4 Irvine charges commercial only.
5 Irvine, Alhambra commercial only.
2217 Isle Royale Lane • Davis, CA • 95616-6616 • Tel: 530.758.3952
Cities2 Counties2 Total
State
Population
covered
Number with UUT 154 4 158 50%
Telephone UUTs 146 4 150 49%
3
Intrastate 146 4 150 49%
4
Interstate 114 4 118 41%
International 110 4 114 44%
Wireless 126 3 129 44%
Electricity 153 4 157 49%
5
Gas 153 4 157 49%
Cable TV 86 1 87 20%
Water 83 1 84 21%
4
Sewer 13 1 14 4%
Garbage 10 0 10 1%
Cities and Counties With UUTs
UUT Facts – 2 – rev August 2013
CaliforniaCityFinance.Com
Desert Hot Springs approved a UUT which dedicates 50% of the proceeds to resolving the
city’s bankruptcy related debt.6 In June 2010, voters in the City of Mammoth Lakes approved
the extension of the cities sun-setting UUT but earmarking it for “mobility, recreation, and arts
and culture.” Ironically, that city later filed for bankruptcy facing a massive court judgment
from a land use dispute.
The UUT is Vital to Funding Essential Municipal Services
City Utility User Tax rates range from 1% to 11%. The particular utilities to which the tax
is applied varies. In some cities different rates apply to residential versus commercial users.
The most common rate (the mode) is 5%, applied broadly among many types of utilities. The
average rate (mean) is 5.5% with a standard deviation of 2.1%. Because most large cities have
UUTs, half of California residents and a majority of businesses pay a utility user tax.
The UUT is a vital element in the funding of critical city services. On average, the UUT
provides 15% of general purpose (i.e. non-earmarked) revenue in cities that levy it. In some
cities, the UUT provides as much as 1/3 of the general fund (Holtville, Compton, Richmond).
UUT revenues most commonly fund police, fire, parks, library, and long-range land use
planning services – and related support services (e.g. accounting, payroll, personnel,
information systems, etc.).
Counties Also Levy UUTs
A county may levy a UUT on the consumption of electricity, gas, water, sewer, telephone,
telegraph and cable television services in the unincorporated area.7 Four (4) of the 58
counties levy a UUT (Alameda, Los Angeles, Sacramento, and San Francisco).
6 In 2009, those voters increased the tax to 7%.
7 Revenue and Taxation Code Section 7284.2 et seq.
2
6
22
17
42
26
14 15
2
10
2
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
>0 to 1% >1% to
2%
>2% to
3%
>3% to
4%
>4% to
5%
>5% to
6%
>6% to
7%
>7% to
8%
>8% to
9%
>9% to
10%
>10% to
11%
#
o
f
C
i
t
i
e
s
&
C
o
u
n
t
i
e
s
Rate
California Utility User Tax Rates as of 8/1/2013
UUT Facts – 3 – rev August 2013
CaliforniaCityFinance.Com
Some UUTs Result From State Cuts to City Funds
Many city UUT levies and increases have resulted from cuts to city revenues by the state.
In 1992, facing massive deficits in the state budget, the Legislature and Governor began the
annual transfer of billions of dollars of property tax revenue from cities, counties and special
districts to K-14 schools, allowing the state to reduce its general fund spending on education.
Cities and counties, who depend substantially on sales tax and property tax revenues for
discretionary income, were already experiencing the same recessionary effects as the state.
These property tax shifts, using a mechanism called the “Educational Revenue Augmentation
Fund” (ERAF), continue today. In FY 2008-09 the annual property tax shift totals $7.5 billion
including over $1.2 billion from cities.8
City property tax revenue, a top source of general purpose revenue for most, was cut
from at least 9% and 24% on average. Cities responded by cutting services, deferring
infrastructure maintenance, relying more heavily on debt financing, paring down reserves,
more aggressively pursuing sales tax generators, and raising taxes and assessments. Within a
few years of the beginning of the ERAF property tax shifts, more than fifty (50+) cities
increased an existing or levied a new UUT.
Discretionary Revenues and Spending
Typical Full Service City
8 For more information on ERAF, see http://www.californiacityfinance.com/#ERAF
UUT Facts – 4 – rev August 2013
CaliforniaCityFinance.Com
UUTs on Telecommunications
The application of utility user taxes to certain telephone services has been a topic of
substantial legal and legislative turmoil due to changes in technology and federal law.
UUTs and the FET
Many Utility User Taxes in California include reference to the Federal Excise Tax
(“FET”)9 commonly limiting the application of the utility user taxes to charges that are
“subject to” the FET. Telephone calls which are not charged based on both time and
distance — such as those paid by coin in phone booths — are exempt from the FET. By
reference, these types of calls are also exempt from some local UUT ordinances. Many cell
phone bills are based upon a package which provides a mix of local and long-distance
calling for a flat rate.
In 2007, several federal courts and the IRS ruled that telephone service packages
which provide a mix of local and long-distance calling for a flat rate or a fixed fee are based
on neither time nor distance and are therefore not subject to the FET.10 The IRS
subsequently adopted a regulation incorporating these rulings.11 That meant that if a city
wished to continue to impose its UUT on cell phone or other telephone calls which are not
charged on both time and distance, it must amend its ordinance to remove the reference
to this exemption to the FET.
A number of cities have amended their UUT ordinances to clarify that they did not
wish to adopt the IRS’ new practice, but rather wished to continue to impose their UUTs as
they had historically been imposed (i.e. on charges based on time or distance). At the time
of this writing, several localities are challenging the right of local taxing authorities to
amend their ordinances without voter approval, or to continue to collect this revenue
without amendment. The lawsuits argue that an amendment to an ordinance to bring it
into conformity with the FET ruling is an “increase” subject to voter approval under
Proposition 218.
UUTs and the MTSA
Prior to the adoption of the Mobile Telecommunications Sourcing Act of 2000
(MTSA)12 by Congress, cellular carriers had argued that the federal Constitution forbade
the application of a utility user tax to telephone calls which neither originated nor
terminated within the taxing agency. The MTSA expanded the permissible nexus for
taxation to all cellular telephone charges for accounts with a primary place of use in the
jurisdiction. However, carriers have argued in the courts that the California State
9 42 U.S.C. §§ 4251 et seq.
10 IRS Notice 2006-50
11 Revenue Bulletin 2007-5 Section 10
12 4 U.S.C. §§ 116 et seq.
UUT Facts – 5 – rev August 2013
CaliforniaCityFinance.Com
Constitution Article XIIIC prohibits cities and counties from applying the MTSA nexus rules
without voter approval.13
As a result of these events, doubt has been cast over the application of some
outdated local UUT ordinances to certain types of telephone service. Proposition 218
requires voter approval of any change in the “methodology” by which a tax is
administered if the change increases the amount of the tax paid by the taxpayer.14 Many
agencies that rely on UUTs on telephony have successfully sought voter approval of an
updated ordinance that reflects the realities of the modern telecommunications industry.
Recent Voter Approval Record
From June 2002 through June 2013 there were 173 utility user tax measures placed
before voters by cities and counties. Just three of these were county measures. Proposals for
new or increased UUTs did not fare well: Just 20 of 66 proposals passed.
• Eight of these new/increase proposals were framed as two-thirds vote special taxes
dedicated to police/fire (3) or streets (1); just two passed. Both were in Desert Hot
Springs: June 2003 new 5% rate, May 2009 an increase to 7%.
• Ten attempted an “a/b” advisory vote strategy, proposing a majority-vote general tax
with a second companion “advisory measure” regarding the specific use of the funds.
Five of the ten passed. Of the 19 majority vote UUT general tax increase measures, just
two passed (Rialto in June 2003, Menlo Park in November 2006).
13 Verizon Wireless v. Los Angeles, No. B185373, AB Cellular LA, LLC dba AT&T Wireless v.
City of Los Angeles, 150 Cal.App.4th 747 (2007)
14 Gov. Code § 53750(h)
Utility User Tax Measures (increase or expand) June 2002 - June 2013
Cities and counties
Pass, 12
Pass, 6
Pass, 2
Pass, 18
Pass, 11
Pass, 28
Pass, 42
Fail, 36
Fail, 4
Fail, 6
Fail, 3
Fail, 4
Fail
1
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
General Tax New/Incr.
General Tax w/Advisory
Special Tax (2/3)
Continuation
Ratification (La Habra)
Modernize/SameRate
Modernize / Reduce
UUT Facts – 6 – rev August 2013
CaliforniaCityFinance.Com
But voters were more accepting of UUTs already in place. Among the 21 measures to
continue existing UUTs beyond a sunset date, 18 passed. All 11 measures which asked voters
to ratify existing taxes following the 1991 La Habra decision upholding the validity of
Proposition 62’s majority vote requirement on general law cities passed.
Over the last decade, an increasing number of cities with UUTs have gone to their voters
to modernize their ordinances to assure applicability to new technologies (e.g wireless,
internet-based, etc.) and billing methods (e.g. flat rate, etc.). In some cases, the measures
have proposed small reductions in the UUT rate. All but five of the 75 measures passed.
During this period there were also 14 referenda placed on the ballot by citizens
concerning UUTs. All seven measures to repeal a local UUT failed and four out of the five
measures to reduce local UUTs failed. Voters in Greenfield (Monterey County) voted to reduce
their UUT from 6% to 3% in November 2002. A referendum to restrict the use of UUT
revenues to law enforcement services passed in Seaside (Monterey County) in November
2002, but a similar measure failed in Stockton in March 2003.
mc
City of Palo Alto (ID # 4805)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 5/19/2014
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Proposed Changes in Development Impact Fees
Title: Proposed Changes in Development Impact Fees: Implementation of
New Public Safety Facility and General Government Facilities Fees
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Administrative Services
RECOMMENDATION
The Finance Committee and Staff recommend that the Council review and approve the
recommended new Public Safety Facility and General Government Facility impact fees at 75
percent of the maximum allowable level and direct staff to draft implementing ordinances.
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION
On May 6, 2014 the Finance Committee passed by a vote of 3 to 1 the following motion:
MOTION: Vice Mayor Kniss moved, seconded by Chair Berman that the Finance
Committee recommend the City Council review the Development Impact Fee (DIF)
Justification Study prepared by David Taussig & Associates and approve the
recommended new Public Safety Facility and General Government Facility impact fees
at 75 percent of the maximum allowable level.
The information presented to Finance Committee that evening may be found in Attachment A.
Please note the following corrections and additions to CMR #4697 (Attachment A), as
requested by the Finance Committee and initiated by staff.
I. Correction: Page 5, Paragraph 1 of Staff Report #4697 should be replaced with the following
paragraph (changes underlined):
Council members may note that Public Safety Building (PSB) needs are listed at $57
million. Staff acknowledges that there are discussions underway regarding earmarking
new hotel revenues for the PSB, and that the needs list above excludes such funds. Staff
proposes that for now Council consider that need unfunded, and when the City Council
approves the funding for the PSB – if it is finalized before the new fees are
City of Palo Alto Page 2
implemented-- the resulting fee can be recalculated and reduced to reflect the
offsetting revenue source.
II. Clarification Regarding Source of Palo Alto Jobs Data: Finance Committee members were
concerned about the recommended fees’ allocation between residential and non-residential
properties. Specifically, there was concern that the jobs data used in the calculations might be
unreliable. For example, the data (packet page 20) assumed 93,295 employees in Palo Alto at
present, whereas there are other estimates as high as 120,000. Finance Committee members
wanted greater detail on where the numbers were derived, given the fact that the City does not
have a Business License Tax or Registry Fee.
It was understood that Planning and Community Environment (PCE) staff had provided
demographic information which had taken into account Association of Bay Area Government’s
data along with PCE staff’s knowledge of Palo Alto trends. However, staff received further
clarification regarding the specific source of the jobs data used in DTA’s calculations.
According to PCE staff:
Most jurisdictions, including ABAG, rely on a Census product called Longitudinal
Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD) which is currently the best available information
on where, type and number of jobs for smaller geographic areas such as Palo Alto (as
opposed to Metropolitan Statistical Areas such as San Jose, Oakland, and San Francisco).
LEHD is updated annually and the latest data set is for the year 2011. According to the
LEHD web site, the LEHD program “is part of the Center for Economic Studies at the U.S.
Census Bureau. The LEHD program produces new, cost effective, public-use information
combining federal, state and Census Bureau data on employers and employees...”
Staff concludes that these sources are credible and therefore adequate as a basis for DTA’s
calculations, until such time as employment data are gathered via a Business Registry Fee.
III. Clarification Regarding Fee Split Between Residential and Nonresidential: Finance
Committee members were also concerned that the fee levels were unfairly balanced between
residential and nonresidential uses, with residential developments paying more than their fair
share, and nonresidential development paying less than theirs.
According to DTA, their fee calculations are based on a standard industry assumption that each
employee counts as 50% of a “person served,” since employees tend to demand fewer City
services than residents. Moreover, this convention determines the fee levels only; when looking
at expected revenues, the split is close to 50-50. Specifically, DTA projects 51.2% of the
revenues from each of the two new fees to come from non-residential development; 48.8% of
the new fee revenues will come from residential development.
City of Palo Alto Page 3
IV. Reformulation of Table Comparing Benchmarked City Fees with Palo Alto’s: Based on Finance
Committee members’ feedback, the tables on page 4 of CMR #4697 (packet page 6) should be
replaced with the following table:
V. Correction in table showing current DIF Fund Balances: The table found on page 5 of the
CMR (Packet page 7) should read as follows (correction underlined):
City of Palo Alto Page 4
The following table summarizes the fund balances for the City’s existing impact fees as of June
30, 2013:
Fee Bal. June 30, 2013
(Thous. of $$)
Commitments &
Encumbrances
(Thous. of $$)
Net Funds
Available
(Thous. of $$)
Parks 1,626 10 1,616
Community Centers 5,396 15 5,381
Libraries 680 3 678
Residential Housing in-Lieu 14,935 10,306 4,630
Commercial Housing In-Lieu 10,017 6,448 3,569
Parkland Dedication 2,057 6 2,051
Citywide Transportation 3,149 8 3,141
Water & Wastewater 2,225 0 2,225
Charleston/Arastradero 572 3 569
Stanford Research Park/El Camino 3,847 0 3,847
San Antonio/West Bayshore 829 0 829
University Ave. Parking Assessment
District
661 3 658
Staff recommends that some of the net funds listed above be dedicated to relevant
infrastructure needs. Specific fund allocations are included in the Proposed FY 2015 Budget.
The remaining information in Attachment A is still valid and may be used to inform your
discussion.
Attachments:
Attachment A: CMR # 4697 from May 6, 2014 Finance Committee with Attachments
(PDF)
Attachment B: Excerpt Minutes from May 6, 2014 Finance Committee Meeting (PDF)
City of Palo Alto (ID # 4697)
Finance Committee Staff Report
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 5/6/2014
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Proposed Changes in Development Impact Fees
Title: Proposed Changes in Development Impact Fees: Implementation of
New Public Safety Facility and General Government Facilities Fees
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Administrative Services
RECOMMENDATION
Staff requests that the Finance Committee review and discuss the attached “Development
Impact Fee Justification Study” prepared by David Taussig & Associates (DTA) (see Attachment
A). The report presents proposed maximum fee levels for a new Public Safety Facility Impact
Fee and for a new General Government Facilities Impact Fee.
Through this process, the Committee and the City Council may determine the following: (a)
whether to levy each of the proposed new fees, (b) at what level to set the fee(s), up to and
including the maximum allowable fee, and (c) what if any exemptions should be included.
MOTION
The Finance Committee has reviewed the Development Impact Fee (DIF) Justification Study
prepared by David Taussig & Associates and recommends that the Council review the report
and approve the recommended new Public Safety Facility and General Government Facility
impact fees at 75 percent of the maximum allowable level.
BACKGROUND
Staff presented to the Finance Committee on November 5, 2013 a list of anticipated Project
Needs throughout the City between now and 2035. Staff then presented the list along with
additional information requested by the Finance Committee to the City Council on March 3,
2014.
Council approved the Project Needs List that evening, so the consultant was able to proceed
with calculating the recommended maximum fee levels for certain areas.
Process for Developing the Project Needs List:
City of Palo Alto Page 2
For several months before the November 5, 2013 Finance Committee meeting, staff assembled
an extensive list of projected capital needs for the following categories: Transportation, Public
Safety, General Government Facilities, Parks and Recreation, and Libraries. The Administrative
Services Department and DTA consulted with City staff of all relevant departments, the IBRC
report and the follow-up discussions with the Council Infrastructure Committee, and the
Proposed and Adopted CIP Budgets for Fiscal Year 2014. Staff also conducted a series of inter-
department meetings to discuss the draft list of projects and any new developments—such as
changes in funding or changed cost estimates-- that may have arisen in the intervening weeks.
It is important to note that the evaluation of the City’s housing impact fees is not included in
DTA’s current contract scope, but is included as a program under the Updated Housing
Element, recently adopted by City Council.
The list was limited by the following criteria: each project must be “non-speculative” – that is,
seriously considered, not just a nice-to-have; have a useful life of over 5 years, and have all
offsetting revenues deducted. In addition, given the built-out nature of the City, only a small
percentage of the cost of the projects could be allocated to new development.
For example, staff’s list of unfunded projected needs for Parks added up to $39 million. Given
the Association of Bay Area Governments’ and Planning and Community Environment staff’s
projected population growth rates, in the next 20 years about 15% of the City’s parks users will
be brought in by new development. The remaining 85% will be “existing users.” Therefore only
15% or about $6 million of those costs could be allocated to the development impact fee. That
$6 million is already largely covered by the Parks fee at its current level. The remaining $33
million would have to be funded by the General Fund or by “existing users.” That raises the bar
quite high for the amount of funding needed to justify a new or increased fee.
In advance of the November meeting with the Finance Committee, DTA determined that the
total project needs for Parks and Recreation (at $39 million) and Libraries (at $0.3 million)
would not merit an increase in current fees. In fact, the current fee levels should be adequate
to fund the new list of needs along with the needs anticipated at the last Impact Fee update.
As a result, staff presented Council with a proposed list of projects in the remaining categories:
Transportation, Public Safety facilities and General Government facilities.
After the Council Meeting on March 3, DTA determined that the Transportation-related project
needs, totaling $91.2 million, also would be adequately met by the fees already in place. That
left General Government facilities and Public Safety Facilities as the two fee opportunities DTA
analyzed in its Fee Justification Study.
The following table shows all the categories of fees currently in place in Palo Alto, which ones
were included in the Benchmarking study, and which ones were included in the fee updates,
and if they were not, when they are expected to be updated.
City of Palo Alto Page 3
DTA completed this draft fee recommendation report on April 15. Staff has had the
opportunity to review the recommendations and consider them in relation to total impact fees
currently in place and the impact to prospective developers.
Note that DTA had completed earlier a benchmarking study of Development Impact Fees (DIFs)
in neighboring communities. (See Attachment F.) The following chart summarizes the
benchmark information with and without the proposed new fees for Palo Alto.
City of Palo Alto Page 4
The chart above shows that Palo Alto’s total DIFs are quite a bit higher than the average of the
other benchmarked cities. However, taken as a percentage of home prices within the cities, the
comparison is more reasonable. The following chart shows the total fees – including the
potential new fees - by category as a percentage of average single-family home sale price.
The City of Palo’s current DIFs are outlined in Attachment B. Developments may be exempt
from all or some impact fees, depending upon the intended use. For instance, 100% affordable
housing projects (not a mix of market rate and below market rate) are exempt from current
impact fees, as are home remodels or expansions. (Planning and Community Environment is
considering whether that exemption needs to be tightened.) Attachment C shows the
exempted groups for each of the current fees. Staff recommends that Council maintain the
same general exemptions for the new fees.
Note that an earlier version of the Current Impact Fees provided to Council on March 3, 2014
contained an inaccuracy: for Parkland Dedication Fees, it indicated that the fees applied only to
“Residential Subdivisions of over 50 parcels.” In fact, the statute indicates that the required
parkland per unit applies to all residential development, but the in-lieu fees are available only
to subdivisions of less than 50 parcels. The version in Attachment B includes the corrected text.
The Needs List (see Attachment E), approved by Council on March 3 2014, identifies the City’s
projected capital needs through 2035 within the selected categories. As discussed above, this
list is a pared-down version of a more extensive review conducted by staff of all the DIF
City of Palo Alto Page 5
categories: Transportation, Public Safety, General Government Facilities, Parks and Recreation,
and Libraries.
Council members may note that Public Safety Building (PSB) needs are listed at $57 million.
Staff acknowledges that there are discussions underway regarding earmarking a proposed 2
percent Transient Occupancy Tax increase as a revenue stream for the PSB, and that the needs
list above excludes such funds. Staff proposes that for now Council consider that need
unfunded, and when the City Council approves the funding for the PSB – if it is finalized before
the new fees are implemented-- the resulting fee can be recalculated and reduced to reflect the
offsetting revenue source.
RESOURCE IMPACT
Development Impact Fees provide funding for capital improvements to mitigate the impacts of
new development in the community. The revenues received each year vary based on the
amount of development (both residential and non-residential) occurring in Palo Alto during that
timeframe. Recommended changes to the fees will be presented to Council for approval in
future meetings.
DTA’s analysis projected revenue impacts over the next 20 years, assuming maximum fee
levels, of $22.6 million for Public Safety facilities and $13.1 million for General Government
facilities, for a total of $35.6 million. If Council sets the fees at 75 percent of maximum,
combined revenues would be in the $27 million range. Actual revenues will vary depending on
the specific fee levels approved by Council as well as with year-by-year development activity.
The following table summarizes the fund balances for the City’s existing impact fees as of June
30, 2013:
Fee Bal. June 30, 2013
(Thous. of $$)
Commitments &
Encumbrances
(Thous. of $$)
Net Funds
Available
(Thous. of $$)
Parks 1,626 10 1,616
Community Centers 5,396 15 5,381
Libraries 680 3 678
Residential Housing in-Lieu 14,935 10,306 4,630
Commercial Housing In-Lieu 10,017 6,448 3,569
Parkland Dedication 2,057 6 2,051
Citywide Transportation 3,149 8 3,141
Water & Wastewater 2,225 0 2,225
Charleston/Arastradero 572 3 569
Stanford Research Park/El Camino 3,847 0 3,847
San Antonio/West Bayshore 829 0 829
University Ave. Parking Assessment
District
660,852 2,891 657,961
City of Palo Alto Page 6
Staff recommends that some of the net funds listed above be dedicated to relevant
infrastructure needs. Specific fund allocations will be included in the Proposed FY 2015 Budget.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
Council has the authority to charge new development for its relative share of the cost of
specific public facilities, as calculated based on a Nexus Study. Council also has the authority,
for policy reasons, to restructure fees based on articulated City policies. The information
provided in this report allows Council to take the next step towards re-evaluating and adjusting
the City’s Development Impact Fees.
Attachments:
Attachment A: Draft Development Impact Fee Justification Study by David Taussig &
Assoc. (PDF)
Attachment B: Current Development Impact Fees (PDF)
Attachment C: Current Exemptions from Palo Alto Development Impact Fees (DOCX)
Attachment D: Excerpt Minutes from City Council meeting of March 3, 2014 (PDF)
Attachment E: Public Facilities Needs List (PDF)
Attachment F: Charts from Benchmarking Study (DOCX)
B.
C.
DRAFT
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE
JUSTIFICATION STUDY
CITY OF PALO ALTO
APRIL 29,2014
Prepared by:
DAVID TAUSSIG &ASSOCIATES,INC.
2250 HYDE STREET,5TH FLOOR
SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA 94109
(800)969-4382
ASSOCIATES,INC.
Public Finance
Public Private Partnerships
Urban Economics
TAUSSIG
Newport Beach
San Francisco
Riverside
Fresno
Chicago, Illinois
Dallas, Texas
DAVID
&
City of Palo Alto TOC
Development Impact Fee Justification Study April 29, 2014
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...............................................................................................................1
SECTION I.INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................3
SECTION II.LEGAL REQUIREMENTS TO JUSTIFY DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES ..................4
SECTION III.DEMOGRAPHICS ................................................................................................8
SECTION IV.THE NEEDS LIST...............................................................................................12
SECTION V.METHODOLOGY USED TO CALCULATE FEES ...................................................15
A.PUBLIC SAFETY FACILITIES......................................................................................................17
B.GENERAL GOVERNMENT FACILITIES .........................................................................................22
SECTION VI.SUMMARY OF FEES..........................................................................................25
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A:FEE DERIVATION WORKSHEETS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Development Impact Fee Justification Study April 29, 2014
In order to adequately plan for new development and identify the public facilities and costs
associated with mitigating the direct and cumulative impacts of new development, David
Taussig & Associates, Inc. (“DTA”) was retained by the City of Palo Alto (the “City”) to prepare
an AB 1600 Fee Justification Study (the “Fee Study”) for specific categories of public
improvements not currently covered by the City’s Fee Program. The Fee Study is intended to
comply with Section 66000 et. seq.of the Government Code, which was enacted by the State
of California in 1987, by identifying additional public facilities required by new development
(“Future Facilities”) and determining the level of fees that may be imposed to pay the costs of
the Future Facilities.Fee amounts have been determined that will finance Public Safety and
General Government facilities at levels identified by the various City departments as being
necessary to meet the needs of new development through buildout in 2035.The Future
Facilities and associated construction costs are identified in the Needs List, which is included
in Section IV of the Fee Study.A description of the methodology used to calculate the fees is
included in Section V.All new development may be required to pay its “fair share”of the cost
of the new infrastructure through the development fee program.
ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT
Section I of this report provides an introduction to the Fee Study including a brief description
of City surroundings, and background information on development fee financing.Section II
provides an overview of the legal requirements for implementing and imposing the fee
amounts identified in the Fee Study.Section III includes a discussion of projected new
development and demand variables such as future population and employment, assuming
current growth trends in housing, commercial, and industrial development extrapolated
through buildout in 2035.Projections of future development are based on data provided by
the City and the City’s 2007 Comprehensive Plan.1 Section IV includes a description of the
Needs List, which identifies the facilities needed to serve new development through buildout
in 2035 that are eligible for funding by the impact fees.The Needs List provides the total
estimated facilities costs, offsetting revenues, net costs to the City,and costs allocated to new
development for all facilities listed in the Needs List.This list is a compilation of projects and
costs identified by various City departments.Section V discusses the findings required under
the Mitigation Fee Act and requirements necessary to be satisfied when establishing,
increasing,or imposing a fee as a condition of new development, and satisfies the nexus
requirements for each facility included as part of this study.Section V also contains the
description of the methodology used to determine the fees for all facility types.Finally,Section
VI includes a summary of the proposed fees justified by this Fee Study.Appendix A includes
the calculations used to determine the various fee levels.
IMPACT FEE SUMMARY
The total fee amounts required to finance new development’s share of the costs of facilities
identified in the Needs List are summarized in Table ES-1 below.Fees within this Fee Study
reflect the maximum fee levels that may be imposed on new development.
1 City of Palo Alto, Comprehensive Plan (1998) and Comprehensive Plan Amendment (in progress).
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
City of Palo Alto Page 2Development Impact Fee Justification Study April 29, 2014
TABLE ES-1
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE SUMMARY
EXEMPTIONS
California Government Code permits fee exemptions for affordable housing and senior
housing at the discretion of local jurisdictions.Such fee exemptions are a policy matter that
should be based on the consideration of the greater public good provided by the use exempted
from the fee.
SECTION I: INTRODUCTION
City of Palo Alto Page 3
Development Impact Fee Justification Study April 29, 2014
Part of the San Francisco Metropolitan Area,the City of Palo Alto (“City”or “Palo Alto”)is
located approximately 35 miles south of San Francisco within the County of Santa Clara.
Named after the coastal redwood tree that grows along San Francisquito Creek, the City is
more than 100 years old,encompassing an area roughly the size of 26 square miles and
boasting approximately 30,000 housing units, more than 65,000 residents, and over 90,000
jobs.Yet despite the City’s mature and largely developed nature, the presence of excellent
schools, the world’s finest employment centers and job creators, and high quality of life marks
across the board, make the City incredibly attractive to new residential and non-residential
development and re-development. For instance, the average homes sales price recorded in
the City in February 2014 was nearly $2.0 million.
Thus, in order to adequately plan for new development and identify the public facilities and
costs associated with mitigating the direct and cumulative impacts of new development, David
Taussig & Associates, Inc.(“DTA”) was retained by the City to prepare an AB 1600 Fee
Justification Study (the “Fee Study”)for specific categories of public improvements not
currently covered by the City’s Fee Program. Impact fees are calculated here using updated
information on development and City facilities. Moreover, the methods used to calculate
impact fees in this study are intended to satisfy all legal requirements governing such fees,
including provisions of the U. S. Constitution, the California Constitution, and the California
Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code Sections 66000 et.seq.).Impact fees calculated in this
report are intended to complement the City’s existing impact fees.
More specifically, the Fee Study is intended to comply with Section 66000 et.seq.of the
Government Code, which was enacted by the State of California in 1987, by identifying
additional public facilities required by new development (“Future Facilities”) and determining
the level of fees that may be imposed to pay the costs of the Future Facilities.Fee amounts
have been determined that will finance facilities at levels identified by the various City
departments as deemed necessary to meet the needs of new development.The Future
Facilities and associated construction costs are identified in the Needs List, which is included
in Section IV of the Fee Study.All new development may be required to pay its “fair share”of
the cost of the new infrastructure through the development fee program.
The fees are calculated to fund the cost of facilities needed to meet the needs of new
development.The steps followed in the Fee Study include:
1.Demographic Assumptions:Identify future growth that represents the
increased demand for facilities.
2.Facility Needs and Costs:Identify the amount of public facilities required to
support the new development and the costs of such facilities.Facilities costs
and the Needs List are discussed in Section IV.
3.Cost Allocation:Allocate costs per equivalent dwelling unit.
4.Fee Schedule:Calculate the fee per residential unit or per non-residential
square foot.
SECTION II: LEGAL REQUIREMENTS TO
JUSTIFY DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
City of Palo Alto Page 4Development Impact Fee Justification Study April 29, 2014
The levy of impact fees is one authorized method of financing the public facilities necessary
to mitigate the impacts of new development.A fee is “a monetary exaction, other than a tax
or special assessment, which is charged by a local agency to the applicant in connection with
approval of a development project for the purpose of defraying all or a portion of the cost of
public facilities related to the development project...”(California Government Code, Section
66000).A fee may be levied for each type of capital improvement required for new
development, with the payment of the fee typically occurring prior to the beginning of
construction of a dwelling unit or non-residential building.Fees are often levied at final map
recordation, issuance of a certificate of occupancy, or more commonly, at building permit
issuance.However, Assembly Bill (“AB”) 2604 (Torrico) which was signed into law in August
2008, encourages public agencies to defer the collection of fees until close of escrow to an
end user in an attempt to assist California’s troubled building industry.
AB 1600, which created Section 66000 et.seq.of the Government Code was enacted by the
State of California in 1987.
In 2006, Government Code Section 66001 was amended to clarify that a fee cannot include
costs attributable to existing deficiencies, but can fund costs used to maintain the existing
level of service (“LOS”)or meet an adopted level of service that is consistent with the general
plan.
Section 66000 et seq.of the Government Code thus requires that all public agencies satisfy
the following requirements when establishing, increasing,or imposing a fee as a condition of
new development:
1.Identify the purpose of the fee.(Government Code Section 66001(a)(1))
2.Identify the use to which the fee will be put.(Government Code Section
66001(a)(2))
3.Determine that there is a reasonable relationship between the fee’s use and the
type of development on which the fee is to be imposed.(Government Code Section
66001(a)(3))
4.Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the public
facility and the type of development project on which the fee is to be imposed.
(Government Code Section 66001(a)(4))
5.Discuss how there is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and
the cost of the public facility or portion of the public facility attributable to the
development on which the fee is imposed.
This section presents each of these items as they relate to the imposition of the proposed
fees in the City of Palo Alto.
SECTION II: LEGAL REQUIREMENTS TO
JUSTIFY DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
City of Palo Alto Page 5Development Impact Fee Justification Study April 29, 2014
A.PURPOSE OF THE FEE (GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66001(A)(1))
New residential and non-residential development within the City will generate
additional residents and employees who will require additional public facilities.Land
for these facilities will have to be acquired and public facilities and equipment will have
to be expanded, constructed,or purchased to meet this increased demand.
The Fee Study has been prepared in response to the projected direct and cumulative
effect of future development.Each new development will contribute to the need for
new public facilities.Without future development many of the new public facilities on
the Needs List would not be necessary as the existing facilities are generally adequate
for the City’s present population.In instances where facilities would be built regardless
of new development, the costs of such facilities have been allocated to new and
existing development based on their respective level of benefit.
The proposed impact fee will be charged to all future development, irrespective of
location, within the City.Even future “in-fill”development projects contribute to
impacts on public facilities because they are an interactive component of a much
greater universe of development located throughout the City of Palo Alto.First, the
property owners and/or the tenants associated with any new development in the City
can be expected to place additional demands on Palo Alto’s facilities funded by the
fee.Second, these property owners and tenants are dependent on and, in fact, may
not have chosen to utilize their development, except for residential, retail,employment,
and recreational opportunities located nearby on other existing and future
development.Third, the availability of residents, employees, and customers
throughout the City has a growth-inducing impact without which some of the “in-fill”
development would not occur.As a result, all development projects within Palo Alto
contribute to the cumulative impacts of development.
The impact fees will be used for the acquisition, installation, and construction of public
facilities identified on the Needs Lists to mitigate the direct and cumulative impacts of
new development within the City.
B.THE USE TO WHICH THE FEE IS TO BE PUT (GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66001(A)(2))
The fee will be used for the acquisition, installation, and construction of the public
facilities identified on the Needs Lists, included in Section IV of the Fee Study and other
appropriate costs to mitigate the direct and cumulative impacts of new development
in the City.The fee will provide a source of revenue to Palo Alto to allow for the
acquisition, installation, and construction of public facilities, which in turn will both
preserve the quality of life in the City and protect the health, safety, and welfare of the
existing and future residents and employees.
SECTION II: LEGAL REQUIREMENTS TO
JUSTIFY DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
City of Palo Alto Page 6Development Impact Fee Justification Study April 29, 2014
C.DETERMINE THAT THERE IS A REASONABLE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE FEE’S USE AND THE TYPE OF
DEVELOPMENT PROJECT UPON WHICH THE FEE IS IMPOSED (BENEFIT RELATIONSHIP)(GOVERNMENT
CODE SECTION 66001(A)(3))
As discussed in Section A above, it is the projected direct and cumulative effect of
future development that has prompted the preparation of the Fee Study.Each
development will contribute to the need for new public facilities.Without future
development,the City would have no need to construct many of the public facilities on
the Needs List.For all other facilities, the costs have been allocated to both existing
and new development based on their level of benefit.Even future “in-fill”development
projects, which may be adjacent to existing facilities, further burden existing public
facilities.Consequently, all new development within Palo Alto,irrespective of location,
contributes to the direct and cumulative impacts of development on public facilities
and creates the need for new facilities to accommodate growth.
The fees will be expended for the acquisition, installation, and construction of the
public facilities identified on the Needs List and other authorized uses, as that is the
purpose for which the fee is collected.As previously stated, all new development
creates either a direct impact on public facilities or contributes to the cumulative
impact on public facilities.Moreover, this impact is generally equalized among all
types of development because it is the increased demands for public facilities created
by the future residents and employees that create the impact upon existing facilities.
For the aforementioned reasons, new development benefits from the acquisition,
construction, and installation of the facilities on the Needs Lists.
D.DETERMINE HOW THERE IS A REASONABLE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE NEED FOR THE PUBLIC FACILITY
AND THE TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT PROJECT UPON WHICH THE FEE IS IMPOSED (IMPACT RELATIONSHIP)
(GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66001(A)(4))
As previously stated, all new development within the City, irrespective of location,
contributes to the direct and cumulative impacts of development on public facilities
and creates the need for new facilities to accommodate growth.Without future
development, many of the facilities on the Needs Lists would not be necessary.For
certain other facilities, the costs have been allocated to both existing and new
development based on their level of benefit.
For the reasons presented herein, there is a reasonable relationship between the need
for the public facilities included on the Needs List and all new development within Palo
Alto.
SECTION II: LEGAL REQUIREMENTS TO
JUSTIFY DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
City of Palo Alto Page 7Development Impact Fee Justification Study April 29, 2014
E.THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE AMOUNT OF THE FEE AND THE COST OF THE PUBLIC FACILITIES
ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE DEVELOPMENT UPON WHICH THE FEE IS IMPOSED (“ROUGH PROPORTIONALITY”
RELATIONSHIP)(GOVERNMENT CODE 66001(A)
As set forth above, all new development within the City impacts public facilities.
Moreover, each individual development project and its related increase in population
and/or employment, along with the cumulative impacts of all development in Palo Alto,
will adversely impact existing facilities.Thus, imposition of the fee to finance the
facilities on the Needs Lists is an efficient, practical, and equitable method of
permitting development to proceed in a responsible manner.
New development impacts facilities directly and cumulatively.In fact, without any
future development, the acquisition, construction, and/or installation of many of the
facilities on the Needs Lists would not be necessary as existing City facilities are
generally adequate.Even new development located adjacent to existing facilities will
utilize and benefit from facilities on the Needs List.
The proposed fee amounts are roughly proportional to the impacts resulting from new
development based on the analyses contained in Section V.Thus there is a reasonable
relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the facilities.
SECTION III: DEMOGRAPHICS
City of Palo Alto Page 8
Development Impact Fee Justification Study April 29, 2014
In order to determine the public facilities needed to serve new development as well as
establish fee amounts to fund such facilities, the City provided DTA with projections of future
population and development within Palo Alto.DTA categorized developable residential land
uses as Single Family and Multi-Family.Developable non-residential land uses within the
City’s commercial, office,and industrial zones are categorized as Commercial,
Office/Institutional,and Industrial respectively. Additional details are included in the table
below.Based on these designations, DTA established fees for the following five (5)land use
categories to acknowledge the difference in impacts resulting from various land uses and to
make the resulting fee program implementable.
LAND USE
CLASSIFICATION
FOR FEE STUDY
DEFINITION
Single Family Includes single family detached homes
Multi-Family
Includes buildings with attached residential units including apartments, town
homes, condominiums, and all other residential units not classified as Single
Family Detached
Commercial
Includes, but is not limited to, buildings used as the following:
Retail
Service-oriented business activities
Department stores, discount stores, furniture/appliance outlets, home
improvement centers
Entertainment centers
Sub-regional and regional shopping centers
Office/Institutional
Includes, but is not limited to, buildings used as the following:
Business/professional office
Professional medical offices and hospitals
Schools
Industrial
Includes, but is not limited to, buildings used as the following:
Light manufacturing, warehouse/distribution, wholesaling;
Large-scale warehouse retail
Service commercial activities
Public uses, arterial roadways and freeways providing automobile and public
transit access
Automobile dealerships
Support commercial services
The City of Palo Alto’s Comprehensive Plan1 (the “Comprehensive Plan”)demographics were
used as estimates of the number of housing units and nonresidential building square feet to
be built in the City.In addition, the Comprehensive Plan was used to project the additional
population generated from new development.However, Comprehensive Plan Update data
was also reviewed in light of projections prepared by the Association of Bay Area Governments
(“ABAG”).
1 City of Palo Alto, Comprehensive Plan (1998).See also Comprehensive Plan Amendment (in progress).
SECTION III: DEMOGRAPHICS
City of Palo Alto Page 9Development Impact Fee Justification Study April 29, 2014
Notably, DTA attempted to utilize metrics (e.g. average household size) that standardized
existing demographics with the projections found in the Comprehensive Plan.
Future residents and employees will create additional demand for facilities that existing public
facilities cannot accommodate.In order to accommodate new development in an orderly
manner, while maintaining the current quality of life in the City, the facilities on the Needs List
(Section IV), as reviewed and approved by the City Council on March 3, 2014,will need to be
constructed.For those facilities that are needed to mitigate demand from new development,
facility costs have been allocated to new development only.In those instances when it has
been determined that the new facilities will serve both existing and new development, facility
costs have been allocated based on proportionate benefit (see Equivalent Dwelling Unit
discussion in Section V).
The following sections summarize the existing and future development figures that were used
in calculating the impact fees.
1.EXISTING POPULATION FOR LAND USE CATEGORIES
According to information provided by the City of Palo Alto, and generally confirmed by
the California Employment Development Department –Demographic Research Unit,
there are 17,614 existing Single Family units and 10,843 existing Multi-Family units
within the City.
DTA has used the following demographic information provided by the City of Palo Alto
and the Comprehensive Plan which assume resident-per-unit factors of 2.68 and 2.12
per Single Family unit and Multi-Family unit, respectively.Therefore, the City
population is generally comprised of 70,193 residents living in 28,457 Single Family
and Multi-Family homes.
Table 1 below summarizes the existing demographics for the residential land uses.
TABLE 1
CITY OF PALO ALTO
ESTIMATED EXISTING RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
DTA has also utilized the following non-residential demographic information provided
by the City of Palo Alto which assumes existing City non-residential land uses utilize
employees-per-thousand-square-foot factors of 3.00, 2,50 and 1.00 employees per
1,000 building square feet of Commercial, Office/Institutional, and Industrial,
SECTION III: DEMOGRAPHICS
City of Palo Alto Page 10Development Impact Fee Justification Study April 29, 2014
respectively.This results in 11,662 existing Commercial employees,63,534 existing
Office/Institutional employees, and 18,099 existing Industrial City employees,as
shown in Table 2 below.Each of these figures are generally confirmed by data from
the Association of Bay Area Governments (“ABAG”) and the U.S. Census Bureau.
Importantly,for many of the facilities considered in this Fee Study,EDUs are calculated
based on the number of residents or employees (“Persons Served”)generated by each
land use class.“Persons Served”equal Residents plus 50% of Employees,and is a
customary industry practice designed to capture the reduced levels of service
demanded by employees.For existing Persons Served estimates, please reference
Table 2 below.
TABLE 2
CITY OF PALO ALTO
ESTIMATED EXISTING NON-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
1 Persons served equal Residents plus 50% of employees.
2.FUTURE POPULATION FOR NEW LAND USE CATEGORIES (2035)
According to information provided by the City of Palo Alto,and confirmed by ABAG,
there are projected to be an additional 6,839 Single Family units and 3,331 Multi-
Family units within the City-wide area at 2035, the time horizon utilized for this Fee
Study.
DTA has used the following demographic information provided by the City of Palo Alto
which assumes future resident-per-unit factors of 2.68 and 2.12 per Single Family unit
and Multi-Family unit, respectively. This results in an additional 10,170 residents living
in 4,123 Single Family and Multi-Family homes within the City.
Table 3 on the following page summarizes the future demographics for the residential
land uses.
TABLE 3
CITY OF PALO ALTO
FUTURE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
SECTION III: DEMOGRAPHICS
City of Palo Alto Page 11Development Impact Fee Justification Study April 29, 2014
In terms of non-residential property, Palo Alto expects to generate 21,428 future jobs,
which can be broken down into 2,679 jobs relating to Commercial development,
14,592 jobs for Office/Institutional development, and 4,157 jobs for Industrial
development within the City.
The City of Palo Alto provided the projected employment discussed above, which
results in estimated employees-per-thousand-square-foot factors of 3.00,2,50,and
1.00 employees per 1,000 building square feet of Commercial, Office/Institutional,
and Industrial, respectively,as shown in Table 4 below.
Again,for many of the facilities considered in this Fee Study, EDUs are calculated
based on the number of residents or employees (“Persons Served”)generated by each
land use class.“Persons Served”equal Residents plus 50% of Employees,and is a
customary industry practice designed to capture the reduced levels of service
demanded by employees.For future Persons Served estimates, please reference
Table 4 below.
TABLE 4
CITY OF PALO ALTO
FUTURE NON-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
1 Persons served equal Residents plus 50% of employees.
Importantly, the land use categories that have been discussed above are consistent
with (i) growth projections prepared by the City for the Comprehensive Plan, and (ii)
land uses generally included in other development impact fee programs of the City.
3.EQUIVALENT DWELLING UNIT (EDU)PROJECTIONS
Equivalent Dwelling Units (“EDU”) are a means of quantifying different land uses in
terms of their equivalence to a residential dwelling unit, where equivalence is
measured in terms of potential infrastructure use or benefit for each type of public
facility.Since nearly all of the facilities proposed to be financed by the levy of impact
fees will serve both residential and non-residential property, DTA projected the number
of future EDUs based on the number of residents or employees generated by each land
use class.For other facilities, different measures, such as number of trips, more
accurately represent the benefit provided to each land use type.The EDU projections
for each facility are shown in the fee derivation worksheets in Appendix A.
SECTION IV: THE NEEDS LIST
City of Palo Alto Page 12
Development Impact Fee Justification Study April 29, 2014
Identification of the facilities to be financed is a critical component of any development impact
fee program.In the broadest sense,the purpose of impact fees is to protect the public health,
safety, and general welfare by providing for adequate public facilities.“Public Facilities”per
Government Code Section 66000 includes “public improvements and community amenities.”
Government Code Section 66000 requires the identification of those facilities for which
impact fees are going to be used as the key financing mechanism.Identification of the
facilities may be made in an applicable general or specific plan, other public documents, or
by reference to a Capital Improvement Program (“CIP”).
DTA has worked closely with City staff to develop the list of facilities to be included in the Fee
Study (“the Needs List”).Additionally, the Needs List was reviewed and approved by the City
Council on March 3, 2014 at a public hearing.For purposes of the City’s fee program, the
Needs List is intended to be the official public document identifying the facilities eligible to be
financed, in whole or in part, through the levy of a development impact fee on new
development within Palo Alto.The Needs List is organized by facility element (or type) and
includes a cost section consisting of six (6)columns, which are defined in Table 5 below:
TABLE 5
CITY OF PALO ALTO
NEEDS LIST
EXPLANATION OF COST SECTION
Column Title Contents Source
Total Cost for Facility
The total estimated facility cost including
engineering, design, construction, land
acquisition, and equipment (as applicable)
City
Offsetting Revenues
to New & Existing
Development
Share of Total Offsetting Revenues
allocated to new and existing development City
Net Cost to City
The difference between the Total Cost and
the Offsetting Revenues (column 1 plus
column 2)
Calculated by DTA
Percent of Cost
Allocated to New
Development
Net Cost Allocated to New Development
based on New Development’s Share of
Facilities
Calculated by DTA
Net Cost Allocated to
New Development
The Net Cost to City Multiplied by the
Percentage Cost Allocated to New
Development
Calculated by DTA
Policy Background or
Objective
Identifies policy source or rationale for
facility need
City Council or
Comprehensive Plan
SECTION IV: THE NEEDS LIST
City of Palo Alto Page 13Development Impact Fee Justification Study April 29, 2014
DTA surveyed City staff on required facilities needed to serve new development as a starting
point for its fee calculations.As part of the survey, DTA conducted extensive research with
City departments such as Planning, Public Works, Parks & Recreation, Library, Transportation,
etc.,and then narrowed the focus to those facility needs that were deemed most timely and
prudent to include in the Fee Study.More specifically, the survey included the project
description, justification, public benefit, estimated costs, and project financing for each
proposed facility.Through regular discussions between DTA and City staff, the Needs List has
gone through multiple series of revisions to fine-tune the needs, costs, and methodologies
used in allocating the costs for each facility.For purposes of the fee program, it was
determined that a planning horizon through 2035 would be appropriate.Importantly,
escalations in project construction costs could be included in future fee increases that would
need to be approved by the Palo Alto City Council.
The final Needs List is shown on the following page.
SECTION IV: THE NEEDS LIST
City of Palo Alto Page 14Development Impact Fee Justification Study April 29, 2014
SECTION V: METHODOLOGY USED TO
CALCULATE FEES
City of Palo Alto Page 15
Development Impact Fee Justification Study April 29, 2014
Pursuant to the nexus requirements of Government Code 66000, a local agency is required
to “determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the
cost of the public facility or portion of the public facility attributable to the development on
which the fee is imposed.”It is impossible to precisely determine the impact that a specific
new residential unit, commercial project, or industrial development will have on existing
facilities.Additionally, predicting future residents’or employees’specific behavioral patterns,
park and transportation, and health and welfare requirements is extremely difficult, and would
involve numerous assumptions that are subject to substantial variation.Recognizing these
limitations, the Legislature drafted AB 1600 to specifically require that a “reasonable”
relationship be determined, not a direct cause and effect relationship.
There are many methods or ways of calculating fees, but they are all based on determining
the cost of needed improvements and assigning those costs equitably to various types of
development.Each of the fee calculations employs the concept of an Equivalent Dwelling
Unit (“EDU”) or Equivalent Benefit Unit (“EBU”)to allocate benefit among the five (5)land use
classes.EDUs are a means of quantifying different land uses in terms of their equivalence to
a residential dwelling unit, where equivalence is measured in terms of potential infrastructure
use or benefit for each type of public facility.For many of the facilities considered in this Fee
Study, EDUs are calculated based on the number of residents or employees (“Persons
Served”)generated by each land use class.For other facilities, different measures, such as
number of trips, more accurately represent the benefit provided to each land use class.Table
6 below shows total existing and projected EDUs or EBUs by facility type.
Notably,“Persons Served”equal Residents plus 50% of Employees,and is a customary
industry practice designed to capture the reduced levels of service demanded by employees.
TABLE 6
CITY OF PALO ALTO
CITY EQUIVALENT DWELLING UNITS
The following sections present the reasonable relationship for benefit, impact,and rough
proportionality tests for each fee element (i.e.,public safety and general government) and the
analysis undertaken to apportion costs for each type of facility on the Needs List.More
detailed fee calculation worksheets for each type of facility are included in Appendix A.
Importantly, since the level of service (“LOS”)being requested for new development by City
department heads is above the existing service level for certain types of facility, the cost of
the new facilities has been carefully apportioned between existing and new development in
the following manner:
SECTION V: METHODOLOGY USED TO
CALCULATE FEES
City of Palo Alto Page 16Development Impact Fee Justification Study April 29, 2014
1.New development was assigned 100% of the cost for a LOS that is
equivalent to the existing LOS within the City.
2.The cost of the incremental difference between the new, higher LOS being
requested by the City and the existing LOS was then allocated between existing
development and new development, based on the relative number of equivalent
dwelling units (“EDUs”) assigned to existing development and new development.
SECTION V: METHODOLOGY USED TO
CALCULATE FEES
City of Palo Alto Page 17Development Impact Fee Justification Study April 29, 2014
A.PUBLIC SAFETY FACILITIES
The Public Safety element includes those facilities used by the City to protect life and
property. In order to serve new development through buildout in 2035, the City
identified the need for two (2)new fire stations. One (1)of the two (2)fire stations,
and the equipment required to service this fire station, is needed to serve new
development almost exclusively and will be funded 100% by new development, while
the other fire station will serve both new and existing development.Thus, the cost of
the incremental difference between the new, higher LOS being requested by the City
and the existing LOS has been allocated between existing development and new
development, based on the relative number of EDUs assigned to existing development
and new development.
Additionally, there is a need for other facilities,public safety specialty vehicles,and
training stations to serve both existing and projected development.Therefore, the
costs of these facilities have been allocated between existing development and new
development based on their percentage of build out EDUs.
TABLE 7
PUBLIC SAFETY FACILITIES ELEMENT
Identify Purpose of Fee Public Safety Facilities
Identify Use of Fee Construction,acquisition and/or upgrade
of Police and Fire Facilities and equipment
Demonstrate how there is
a reasonable relationship
between the need for the
public facility, the use of
the fee, and the type of
development project on
which the fee is imposed
New residential and non-residential
development will generate additional
residents and employees who will require
additional service calls increasing the
need for trained Police and Fire personnel.
Buildings and vehicles used to provide
these services will have to be expanded,
constructed,or purchased to meet this
increased demand.Thus a reasonable
relationship exists between the need for
Public Safety facilities and the impact of
residential and non-residential
development.The Public Safety fees
collected from new development will be
used exclusively for public safety
purposes.
SECTION V: METHODOLOGY USED TO
CALCULATE FEES
City of Palo Alto Page 18Development Impact Fee Justification Study April 29, 2014
Table 8 below identifies the facilities proposed to be funded in whole or in part with
the collection of Public Safety fees.Costs are based on estimates provided by the City.
TABLE 8
PUBLIC SAFETY FACILITIES
FACILITY COSTS
Calculation Methodology
Fee amounts for this element were calculated for both residential and non-residential
land uses as detailed in Appendix A.Each land use classification was assigned an EDU
factor which was derived from the number of Persons Served, which again is defined
as the persons per household (for residential units)and 50% of the number of
employees per 1,000 building square feet of each category of non-residential
development.
Public Safety Building Improvements
According to the City,it has been determined that this facility is needed to serve
new development.Currently,this proposed facility is operating at an
appropriate and acceptable level of service; therefore,the costs of facilities
have been allocated to new development and existing development based on
their percentage of their expected facility usage at build out.Consequently,
84.81%of the costs will be allocated to existing development and 15.19% of
the costs will be allocated to new development.
SECTION V: METHODOLOGY USED TO
CALCULATE FEES
City of Palo Alto Page 19Development Impact Fee Justification Study April 29, 2014
TABLE 9
PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING IMPROVEMENT
COST ALLOCATION SUMMARY
Fire Station Improvements
According to the City,it has been determined that these facilities are needed to
serve new development.Currently, these facilities are generally operating at
an appropriate and acceptable level of service, though less so than many of the
other public safety facilities and improvements; therefore,the costs of facilities
have been allocated to new development and existing development based on
their percentage of their expected facility usage at build out.Consequently,
46.85% of the costs will be allocated to existing development and 53.15% of
the costs will be allocated to new development.
TABLE 10
FIRE STATION IMPROVEMENTS
COST ALLOCATION SUMMARY
Public Safety Vehicles
According to the City,it has been determined that these facilities are needed to
serve new development.Currently, these facilities are generally operating at
an appropriate and acceptable level of service; therefore,the costs of facilities
have been allocated to new development and existing development based on
their percentage of their expected facility usage at build out.Consequently,
69.63% of the costs will be allocated to existing development and 30.37% of
the costs will be allocated to new development.
SECTION V: METHODOLOGY USED TO
CALCULATE FEES
City of Palo Alto Page 20Development Impact Fee Justification Study April 29, 2014
TABLE 11
PUBLIC SAFETY VEHICLES
COST ALLOCATION SUMMARY
Public Safety Training Tower Modernization
According to the City,it has been determined that this facility modernization is
needed to serve new development.Currently,this facility is operating at an
appropriate and acceptable level of service; therefore,the costs of facilities
have been allocated to new development and existing development based on
their percentage of their expected facility usage at build out.Consequently,
84.81% of the costs will be allocated to existing development and 15.19% of
the costs will be allocated to new development.
TABLE 12
PUBLIC SAFETY TRAINING TOWER MODERNIZATION
COST ALLOCATION SUMMARY
Fee Amounts
Table 13 presents a summary of the derivation of EDUs, fee amounts,and the costs
financed by fees for the Public Safety Facilities on the Needs List.The details of the
fee calculation are presented in Appendix A.
SECTION V: METHODOLOGY USED TO
CALCULATE FEES
City of Palo Alto Page 21Development Impact Fee Justification Study April 29, 2014
TABLE 13
PUBLIC SAFETY FACILITIES
FEE DERIVATION SUMMARY
Based on the development projections in Appendix A, the fee amounts presented in
Table 13 will finance 23.47% of the net costs of the Public Safety Facilities identified
on the Needs List.The remaining 76.53% of the net costs of facilities will be funded
through other sources.
SECTION V: METHODOLOGY USED TO
CALCULATE FEES
City of Palo Alto Page 22Development Impact Fee Justification Study April 29, 2014
B.GENERAL GOVERNMENT FACILITIES
The General Government Facilities Element includes those facilities used by the City
to provide basic governmental services and public facilities maintenance services,
exclusive of public safety.
TABLE 14
GENERAL GOVERNMENT FACILITIES
Identify Purpose of Fee General Government Service Facilities
Identify Use of Fee Modernization of City Office and Building Improvements and
Replacement of Municipal Services Center.
Demonstrate how
there is a reasonable
relationship between
the need for the public
facility, the use of the
fee, and the type of
development project
on which the fee is
imposed
New residential and non-residential development in the City
will generate additional residents and employees who will
increase the demand for services,including municipal services
and general government functions.Population and growth has
a direct impact on the need for government services and
facilities, thus a reasonable relationship exists between new
development and government facilities, which will have to be
acquired to meet the increased demand.Fees collected from
new development will be used exclusively for the City
Government Service Facilities on the Needs List.
TABLE 15
GENERAL GOVERNMENT
FACILITIES COST
SECTION V: METHODOLOGY USED TO
CALCULATE FEES
City of Palo Alto Page 23Development Impact Fee Justification Study April 29, 2014
Calculation Methodology
Fee amounts for this element were calculated for both residential and non-residential
land uses as detailed in Appendix A.Each land use classification was assigned an EDU
factor which was derived from the number of Persons Served, which again is defined
as the persons per household (for residential units)and 50% of the number of
employees per 1,000 building square feet of each category of non-residential
development.
CITY OFFICE AND BUILDING IMPROVEMENTS
According to the City,it has been determined that these facilities are needed to
serve new development.Currently, these facilities are operating at an
appropriate and acceptable level of service; therefore,the costs of facilities
have been allocated to new development and existing development based on
their percentage of their expected facility usage at build out.Consequently,
84.81% of the costs will be allocated to existing development and 15.19% of
the costs will be allocated to new development as presented in Table 16 below.
TABLE 16
CITY OFFICE AND BUILDING IMPROVEMENTS
COST ALLOCATION SUMMARY
Municipal Services Center Replacement
According to the City,it has been determined that these facilities are needed to
serve new development.Currently, these facilities are operating at an
appropriate and acceptable level of service; therefore,the costs of facilities
have been allocated to new development and existing development based on
their percentage of their expected facility usage at build out.Consequently,
84.81% of the costs will be allocated to existing development and 15.19% of
the costs will be allocated to new development as presented in Table 17 below.
SECTION V: METHODOLOGY USED TO
CALCULATE FEES
City of Palo Alto Page 24Development Impact Fee Justification Study April 29, 2014
TABLE 17
MUNICIPAL SERVICES CENTER REPLACEMENT
COST ALLOCATION SUMMARY
Fee Amounts
Table 18 presents a summary of the derivation of EDUs, fee amounts and the costs
financed by fees for the general government facilities on the Needs List.The details
of the fee calculation are presented in Appendix A.
TABLE 18
GENERAL GOVERNMENT FACILITIES
FEE DERIVATION SUMMARY
Based on the development projections in Appendix A, the fee amounts presented in
Table 18 will finance 15.19% of the net costs of the General Government Facilities
identified on the Needs List.The remaining 84.81% of the net costs of facilities will be
funded through other sources.
SECTION VI: SUMMARY OF FEES
City of Palo Alto Page 25
Development Impact Fee Justification Study April 29, 2014
The total fee amounts to finance new development’s share of the costs of facilities in the
Needs Lists are summarized in Tables 19 & 20 below.
TABLE 19
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE SUMMARY
TABLE 20
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE SUMMARY
http://localhost/resources/home/Clients/Palo Alto/AB 1600 -2012/AB 1600 Update/DIFReport DRAFT v.8.docx
Appendix A
Fee Derivation Worksheets
I. Inventory of Existing Facilities
Facility Type Quantity Facility Units
Public Safety Building (Replacement)0 Square Feet
Fire Stations (Modernized)5 Integrated Facility
Vehicles (Van, Trucks, Engines, Ambulances)18 No. of Vehicles
Training Tower (Modernized)0 Integrated Facility
Public Safety Facilities NA NA
II. Existing EDU Calculation
[a][d]
Number of [b][c]Total
Units/Persons Served per Unit/EDUs per Unit/Number of EDUs
Land Use Type Non-Res. 1,000 SF 1,000 Non-Res. SF Per 1,000 Non-Res. SF [a]*[c]
Single Family Residential 17,614 2.68 1.00 17,614
Multi Family Residential 10,843 2.12 0.79 8,577
Commercial 3,887 1.50 0.56 2,176
Office/Institutional 25,414 1.25 0.47 11,853
Industrial 18,099 0.50 0.19 3,377
Total 43,597
III. Existing Facility Standard
Quantity
Facility Type Quantity Facility Units per 1,000 EDU's
Public Safety Building (Replacement)0 Square Feet 0
Fire Stations (Modernized)5 Integrated Facility 0.11
Vehicles (Van, Trucks, Engines, Ambulances)18 No. of Vehicles 0.41
Training Tower (Modernized)0 Integrated Facility 0
Public Safety Facilities NA NA NA
IV. Future EDU Calculation
[a][b][d]
Number of Residents per Unit/[c]Total
Units/Employees per EDUs per Number of EDUs
Land Use Type Non-Res. 1,000 SF [1]Non-Res. 1,000 SF [2]Unit/per 1,000 Non-Res. SF [a]*[c]
Single Family Residential 2,552 2.68 1.00 2,552
Multi Family Residential 1,571 2.12 0.80 1,257
Commercial 893 1.50 0.56 500
Office/Institutional 5,837 1.25 0.47 2,722
Industrial 4,157 0.50 0.19 776
Total 7,807
V. Proposed Inventory, Cost, and Service Standard
Quantity
Facility Type Quantity Facility Units Facility Cost per 1,000 EDU's
Public Safety Building (Replacement)44,850 Square Feet $57,000,000 5,745.17
Fire Stations (Modernized)2 Integrated Facility $14,200,000 0.26
Vehicles (Van, Trucks, Engines, Ambulances)18 No. of Vehicles $17,000,000 2.31
Training Tower (Modernized)1 Integrated Facility $8,000,000 0.13
Offsetting Revenues $0
Total Cost of Public Safety Facilities $96,200,000
VI. Allocation of Public Safety Facilities to Existing & New Development (based on total EDUs)
A.1 Public Safety Building Improvements
[a][b][c][d][e][f][g]
Existing Total Future SF Allocated 100%Proposed Service SF per EDU SF Beyond Existing Total Proposed
SF Per EDU's To New Development [3]Standard Per Beyond Existing Service Standard [4] New SF
1,000 EDU's [a]*[b]1,000 EDU's [d]-[a][b]*[e][c]+[f]
0.00 7,806.55 0.00 5,745.17 5,745.17 44,850.00 44,850.00
City of Palo Alto
Public Safety Fee Calculation
A - 1
City of Palo Alto
Public Safety Fee Calculation
A.2 SF Beyond Existing Service Standard Split Between New and Existing, plus Facility Units allocated 100% to New Development
Facility Units Split Facility Units
Number of Percentage of Total Between New and Existing Allocated 100% To Total Facility Units
Facility Type EDU's EDU's Development New Development Allocated
Existing 43,597 84.81%38,038.73 NA 38,038.73
New Development 7,807 15.19%6,811.27 0.00 6,811.27
Total 51,404 100.00%44,850.00 44,850.00
A.3 Cost Allocated Between Existing and New Development
Total Number of Percentage of
Facility Type SF Cost Allocated Facility Cost
Existing 38,039 84.81%$48,343,543New Development 6,811 15.19%$8,656,457
Total 44,850 100.00%$57,000,000
B.1 Fire Station Improvements
[a][b][c][d][e][f][g]
Existing Total Future Facility Units Allocated 100%Proposed Service Facility Units per EDU Facility Units Beyond Total Proposed
Facility Units Per EDU's To New Development [3]Standard Per Beyond Existing Existing Service Standard [4]New Facility Units1,000 EDU's [a]*[b]1,000 EDU's [d]-[a][b]*[e][c]+[f]
0.11 7,806.55 0.90 0.26 0.14 1.10 2.00
B.2 Facility Units Beyond Existing Service Standard Split Between New and Existing, plus Facility Units allocated 100% to New Development
Facility Units Split Facility Units
Number of Percentage of Total Between New and Existing Allocated 100% To Total Facility Units
Facility Type EDU's EDU's Development New Development Allocated
Existing 43,597 84.81%0.94 NA 0.94 New Development 7,807 15.19%0.17 0.90 1.06
Total 51,404 100.00%1.10 2.00
B.3 Cost Allocated Between Existing and New Development
Total Number of Percentage of
Facility Type New Facility Units Cost Allocated Facility Cost
Existing 0.94 46.85%$6,652,177New Development 1.06 53.15%$7,547,823
Total 2.00 100.00%$14,200,000
C.1 Public Safety Vehicles
[a][b][c][d][e][f][g]
Existing Total Future Facility Units Allocated 100%Proposed Service Facility Units per EDU Facility Units Beyond Total Proposed
Facility Units Per EDU's To New Development [3]Standard Per Beyond Existing Existing Service Standard [4]New Facility Units1,000 EDU's [a]*[b]1,000 EDU's [d]-[a][b]*[e][c]+[f]
0.41 7,806.55 3.22 2.31 1.89 14.78 18.00
C.2 Facility Units Beyond Existing Service Standard Split Between New and Existing, plus Facility Units allocated 100% to New Development
Facility Units Split Facility Units
Number of Percentage of Total Between New and Existing Allocated 100% To Total Facility Units
Facility Type EDU's EDU's Development New Development Allocated
Existing 43,597 84.81%12.53 NA 12.53
New Development 7,807 15.19%2.24 3.22 5.47
Total 51,404 100.00%14.78 18.00
A - 2
City of Palo Alto
Public Safety Fee Calculation
C.3 Cost Allocated Between Existing and New Development
Total Number of Percentage of
Facility Type Facility Units Cost Allocated Facility Cost
Existing 12.53 69.63%$11,836,499
New Development 5.47 30.37%$5,163,501
Total 18.00 100.00%$17,000,000
D.1 Public Safety Training Tower (Modernized)
[a][b][c][d][e][f][g]
Existing Total Future Facility Units Allocated 100%Proposed Service Facility Units per EDU Facility Units Beyond Total Proposed
Facility Units Per EDU's To New Development [3]Standard Per Beyond Existing Existing Service Standard [4]New Facility Units
1,000 EDU's [a]*[b]1,000 EDU's [d]-[a][b]*[e][c]+[f]
0.00 7,806.55 0.00 0.13 0.13 1.00 1.00
D.2 Facility Units Beyond Existing Service Standard Split Between New and Existing, plus Facility Units allocated 100% to New Development
Facility Units Split Facility Units
Number of Percentage of Total Between New and Existing Allocated 100% To Total Facility Units
Facility Type EDU's EDU's Development New Development Allocated
Existing 43,597 84.81%0.85 NA 0.85
New Development 7,807 15.19%0.15 0.00 0.15
Total 51,404 100.00%1.00 1.00
D.3 Cost Allocated Between Existing and New Development
Total Number of Percentage of
Facility Type Facility Units Cost Allocated Facility Cost
Existing 0.85 84.81%$6,785,059
New Development 0.15 15.19%$1,214,941
Total 1.00 100.00%$8,000,000
Section Cost Allocated Total Cost Per
VI Facility Type to New Development Future EDU's EDU
E.1 Public Safety Facilities $22,582,723 7,807 $2,892.79
Offsetting Revenues $0 7,807 $0.00
Total $22,582,723 $2,892.79
VIII. Development Impact Fee per Unit or per 1,000 Non-Res. SF
EDUs Per Fees Per Number of Units/Cost Financed by
Land Use Type Unit/1,000 Non-Res. SF Unit/1,000 Non-Res. SF Non-Res. 1,000 SF DIF
Single Family Residential 1.00 $2,893 2,552 $7,382,429
Multi Family Residential 0.80 $2,314 1,571 $3,635,639
Commercial 0.56 $1,619 893 $1,445,601
Office/Institutional 0.47 $1,349 5,837 $7,875,517
Industrial 0.19 $540 4,157 $2,243,537
Total Allocated to New Development $22,582,723
Outside Funding Responsibility $73,617,277
Total Cost of Public Safety Facilities $96,200,000
Notes:
[1] Expected Housing Units based on data provided by the City of Palo Alto's Planning Department, confirmed by ABAG.
[2] Average Household Size Based on information obtained from the California Department of Finance (2013), City, and U.S. Census Bureau.
[3] Allocates 100% to new development square feet or equipment necessary to fund existing service standard for new residents.
[4] Denotes proposed service standard in excess to that currently provided to existing residents.
VII. Summary Cost Data
A - 3
I. Inventory of Existing Facilities
Facility Type Quantity Facility Units
City Office & Building Improvements (Modernized)0 Square Feet
Municipal Services Center Replacement 0 Square Feet
City Office & Building Improvements NA NA
II. Existing EDU Calculation
[a][d]
Number of [b][c]Total
Units/Persons Served per Unit/EDUs per Unit/Number of EDUs
Land Use Type Non-Res. 1,000 SF 1,000 Non-Res. SF Per 1,000 Non-Res. SF [a]*[c]
Single Family Residential 17,614 2.68 1.00 17,614
Multi Family Residential 10,843 2.12 0.79 8,577
Commercial 3,887 1.50 0.56 2,176
Office/Institutional 25,414 1.25 0.47 11,853
Industrial 18,099 0.50 0.19 3,377
Total 43,597
III. Existing Facility Standard
Quantity
Facility Type Quantity Facility Units per 1,000 EDU's
City Office & Building Improvements (Modernized)0 Square Feet 0
Municipal Services Center Replacement 0 Square Feet 0
City Office & Building Improvements NA NA NA
IV. Future EDU Calculation
[a][b][d]
Number of Residents per Unit/[c]Total
Units/Employees per EDUs per Number of EDUs
Land Use Type Non-Res. 1,000 SF [1]Non-Res. 1,000 SF [2]Unit/per 1,000 Non-Res. SF [a]*[c]
Single Family Residential 2,552 2.68 1.00 2,552
Multi Family Residential 1,571 2.12 0.80 1,257
Commercial 893 1.50 0.56 500
Office/Institutional 5,837 1.25 0.47 2,722
Industrial 4,157 0.50 0.19 776
Total 7,807
V. Proposed Inventory, Cost, and Service Standard
Quantity
Facility Type Quantity Facility Units Facility Cost per 1,000 EDU's
City Office & Building Improvements (Modernized)21,481 Square Feet $25,556,000 2,751.66
Municipal Services Center Replacement 83,000 Square Feet $60,450,000 10,632.09
Offsetting Revenues $0
Total Cost of General Government Facilities $86,006,000
VI. Allocation of General Government Facilities to Existing & New Development (based on total EDUs)
A.1 City Office & Building Improvements
[a][b][c][d][e][f][g]
Existing Total Future SF Allocated 100%Proposed Service SF per EDU SF Beyond Existing Total Proposed
SF Per EDU's To New Development [3]Standard Per Beyond Existing Service Standard [4] New SF
1,000 EDU's [a]*[b]1,000 EDU's [d]-[a][b]*[e][c]+[f]
0.00 7,806.55 0.00 2,751.66 2,751.66 21,481.00 21,481.00
A.2 SF Beyond Existing Service Standard Split Between New and Existing, plus SF allocated 100% to New Development
Facility Units Split Facility Units
Number of Percentage of Total Between New and Existing Allocated 100% To Total Facility Units
Facility Type EDU's EDU's Development New Development Allocated
Existing 43,597 84.81%18,218.73 NA 18,218.73
New Development 7,807 15.19%3,262.27 0.00 3,262.27
Total 51,404 100.00%21,481.00 21,481.00
City of Palo Alto
General Government Fee Calculation
A - 4
City of Palo Alto
General Government Fee Calculation
A.3 Cost Allocated Between Existing and New Development
Total Number of Percentage of
Facility Type SF Cost Allocated Facility Cost
Existing 18,218.73 84.81%$21,674,870
New Development 3,262.27 15.19%$3,881,130
Total 21,481.00 100.00%$25,556,000
B.1 Municipal Services Center Replacement
[a][b][c][d][e][f][g]
Existing Total Future SF Allocated 100%Proposed Service SF per EDU SF Beyond Existing Total Proposed
SF Per EDU's To New Development [3]Standard Per Beyond Existing Service Standard [4] New SF
1,000 EDU's [a]*[b]1,000 EDU's [d]-[a][b]*[e][c]+[f]
0.00 7,806.55 0.00 10,632.09 10,632.09 83,000.00 83,000.00
B.2 Facility Units Beyond Existing Service Standard Split Between New and Existing, plus SF allocated 100% to New Development
Facility Units Split Facility Units
Number of Percentage of Total Between New and Existing Allocated 100% To Total Facility Units
Facility Type EDU's EDU's Development New Development Allocated
Existing 43,597 84.81%70,394.98 NA 70,394.98
New Development 7,807 15.19%12,605.02 0.00 12,605.02
Total 51,404 100.00%83,000.00 83,000.00
B.3 Cost Allocated Between Existing and New Development
Total Number of Percentage of
Facility Type New Facility Units Cost Allocated Facility Cost
Existing 70,394.98 84.81%$51,269,599
New Development 12,605.02 15.19%$9,180,401
Total 83,000.00 100.00%$60,450,000
Section Cost Allocated Total Cost Per
VI Facility Type to New Development Future EDU's EDU
C.1 City Office & Building Improvements $13,061,531 7,807 $1,673.15
Offsetting Revenues $0 7,807 $0.00
Total $13,061,531 $1,673.15
VIII. Development Impact Fee per Unit or per 1,000 Non-Res. SF
EDUs Per Fees Per Number of Units/Cost Financed by
Land Use Type Unit/1,000 Non-Res. SF Unit/1,000 Non-Res. SF Non-Res. 1,000 SF DIF
Single Family Residential 1.00 $1,673 2,552 $4,269,893
Multi Family Residential 0.80 $1,339 1,571 $2,102,803
Commercial 0.56 $936 893 $836,116
Office/Institutional 0.47 $780 5,837 $4,555,089
Industrial 0.19 $312 4,157 $1,297,630
Total Allocated to New Development $13,061,531
Outside Funding Responsibility $72,944,469
Total Cost of General Government Facilities $86,006,000
Notes:
[1] Expected Housing Units based on data provided by the City of Palo Alto's Planning Department, confirmed by ABAG.
[2] Average Household Size Based on information obtained from the California Department of Finance (2013), City, and U.S. Census Bureau.
[3] Allocates 100% to new development square feet or equipment necessary to fund existing service standard for new residents.
[4] Denotes proposed service standard in excess to that currently provided to existing residents.
VII. Summary Cost Data
A - 5
Existing EDU Calculation
Service Factor (Residents and Employees)
Residents per Unit**/
Number of Persons Served per EDUs per Unit/Total
Land Use Type Persons Served *1,000 Non-Res. SF per 1,000 Non-Res. SF Number of EDUs
Single Family Residential 47,206 2.68 1.00 17,614
Multi Family Residential 22,987 2.12 0.80 8,674
Commercial 5,831 1.50 0.56 2,176
Office/Institutional 31,767 1.25 0.47 11,853
Industrial 9,050 0.50 0.19 3,377
Total 116,840 43,694
* Source: David Taussig & Associates; City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts (American Community Survey).
** Persons Served = Residents plus 50% of Employees, customary industry practice designed to capture the reduced levels of service demanded by employees.
Future EDU Calculation
Service Factor (Future Residents and Employees)
Residents per Unit**/
Number of Persons Served per EDUs per Unit/Total
Land Use Type Persons Served *1,000 Non-Res. SF per 1,000 Non-Res. SF Number of EDUs
Single Family Residential 6,839 2.68 1.00 2,552
Multi Family Residential 3,331 2.12 0.80 1,257
Commercial 1,339 1.50 0.56 500
Office/Institutional 7,296 1.25 0.47 2,722
Industrial 2,079 0.50 0.19 776
Total 20,884 7,807
* Source: David Taussig & Associates; City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts (American Community Survey).
** Persons Served = Residents plus 50% of Employees, customary industry practice designed to capture the reduced levels of service demanded by employees.
City of Palo Alto
EBU & EDU Calculation Year to Build-Out (2035)
A - 6
Public Finance
Public Private Partnerships
Urban Economics
2250 Hyde Street
5th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94109
Phone (800) 969-4382
City of Palo Alto Development Impact Fees
As per FY 2014 Adopted Municipal Fee Schedule page 17-3, with revisions
Type of Project Parks Community Centers Libraries Housing
Total Fees (NIC
Transp.)Transportation
Residential - New Homes Only*
Single family < 3,000 sq. feet $10,638/residence $2,758/residence $963/residence EXEMPT $14,359/res.
$3,197 per net new
PM peak hr trip
Single family >3,000 sq. feet $15,885/residence $4,129/residence $1,434/residence EXEMPT $21,448/res.
$3,197 per net new
PM peak hr trip
Multi-family </= 900 sq. feet $3,521/unit $916/unit $316/unit EXEMPT $4,753/unit
$3,197 per net new
PM peak hr trip
Multi-family >900 sq. feet $6,963/unit $1,815/unit $565/unit EXEMPT $9,343/unit
$3,197 per net new
PM peak hr trip
Non-residential
Commercial/Industrial
$4,517 per 1,000 sq ft
or fraction thereof
$255 per 1,000 sq ft or
fraction thereof
$243 per 1,000 sq ft or
fraction thereof
$18.89 per sq
ft
$23.89 per net
new sq ft
$3,197 per net new
PM peak hr trip
Hotel/Motel
$2,043 per 1,000 sq ft
or fraction thereof
$115 per 1,000 sq ft or
fraction thereof
$102 per 1,000 sq ft or
fraction thereof
$18.89 per sq
ft
$21.15 per net
new sq ft
$3,197 per net new
PM peak hr trip
Residential Subdivisions
Single-family
Multi-family
Special Zones Traffic Impact Fee
Stanford Research Park/El Camino Real CS
Zone
$11.08 per net new sq
ft
San Antonio/West Bayshore Area $2.28 per sq ft
Charleston/Arastradero Commercial $0.34 per sq ft
Charleston/Arastradero Residential $1,168 per unit
Parking in-lieu fee for Downtown
Assessment District
$60,750 per parking
space
Notes: "Single-family" is defined as a single dwelling unit that does not share a common wall with another dwelling unit
**In-Lieu Parkland Dedication Fee is an option only for projects of < 50 parcels.
Fee Category
Parkland Dedication Fee**
*Square footage refers to living area, not lot size.
531 sq ft of parkland/unit or $58,366/unit in-lieu fee
366 sq ft of parkland/unit or $40,187/unit in-lieu fee
Attachment C
ACTION ITEMS
8. From Finance Committee Review of Development Impact Fees: List of
Public Facilities Capital Needs.
Lalo Perez, Administrative Services Director and Chief Financial Officer,
indicated Staff was asked to review Development Impact Fees (DIF).
Information was introduced at the Finance Committee a few months prior.
Nathan Perez, Vice President of David Taussig and Associates (DTA),
reported DIF were not taxes, special assessments, or user fees. DIF could
not be used to cover ongoing operations, maintenance costs, and the like.
Per AB 1600, DIF were an attempt to allow municipalities to recover their
fair share from new development. DIF had a nexus requirement and could
not be arbitrary. DIF required a great deal of demographic research and
costing of projected facilities throughout the timeframe of the Nexus Study
update. The current study covered the timeframe through 2035. Previously
the City asked DTA to provide a comparative survey of DIF for peer
communities to Palo Alto. There were not many peer communities to Palo
Alto. Sometimes information was difficult to obtain, because staff in other
cities were not always helpful. Per the Finance Committee's request, DTA
reviewed DIF as a percentage of average home sales price. With the $1.5
million average home price in December 2013, Palo Alto was in line with
other cities on the Peninsula. DTA recommended updating the Citywide
transportation fee, adding a public safety fee for the Public Safety Building,
and adding a general government fee for larger municipal offices and capital improvements. DTA sought the Council's approval of the needs list.
Following Council approval of the needs list, DTA would calculate fee levels
and then prepare a draft and/or final Nexus Study for review. If the final
study reflected updates to fees, they would be incorporated via City
Ordinance and could be a source for additional revenue in the future.
Mr. Lalo Perez noted the Infrastructure Committee was working on funding
for infrastructure projects. Some of the numbers on the needs list would not
align to the infrastructure item later in the Agenda. Staff requested the
Council focus on the list itself. The cost and funding sources would be
updated as decisions were made. The needs list contained more projects
than the infrastructure project list, because the Infrastructure Committee
was considering projects that were not fundable with existing City funds. Staff compiled the needs list beginning with projects that were currently in
the Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The needs list was a snapshot in
time for projects likely to be undertaken. Staff initially had an effective date
of July 1. It became evident in Finance Committee discussions that Staff
needed more time to review the project list. The Finance Committee
questioned why the water, sewer and storm drain fee connections seemed to
Page 9 of 31
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 03/03/14
be higher than surrounding benchmarked cities. In 2008, the Council
approved an increase in fees be phased in over three years based upon a fee
analysis. The resetting of that fee was based on a complete analysis of the
total cost including projected needs for infrastructure. The City provided an
exemption for residential remodeling. The Finance Committee also
questioned the possibility of changing the residential remodeling exemption.
Council Member Burt, Chair of the Finance Committee in 2013, reported the
Finance Committee recommended the topic be an action item in order to
provide adequate transparency and additional opportunity for public
participation and Council comment. Three main areas dominated the
Finance Committee's discussion: 1) whether the transportation fee was
adequate; 2) why the wastewater fee was higher than surrounding cities;
and 3) should the City have a public safety or fire fee. The Finance
Committee did not want to limit Council discussion to those three topics.
Vice Mayor Kniss requested the Finance Committee's determination as to
why the City did not have a public safety or fire fee.
Council Member Burt stated the Finance Committee did not make a
determination.
Vice Mayor Kniss asked why the City did not have a public safety or fire fee.
Council Member Burt noted the Finance Committee discussed that.
Vice Mayor Kniss wanted to know what would be required for the City to
develop a public safety or fire fee. The City was always searching for ways
to augment revenue.
Mr. Nathan Perez needed the Council's approval of the needs list in order to
develop fees. DTA would then utilize demographic information and cost to
arrive at estimated fees. To calculate a fee, the costs in any given category
were divided by generally the number of dwelling units projected over the
horizon of the fee update.
Vice Mayor Kniss felt the Council first should determine whether or not the
City needed such a fee. She understood Council Member Burt wanted
Council feedback. She wanted to know what the Council needed to do to get
a policy on the table and then to decide whether or not to implement a fee.
Mr. Lalo Perez referenced Attachment A of DTA's report, Item B Public Safety
facilities. The first item was the Public Safety Building (PSB). At the time
that the listing was compiled, the Council had multiple options for funding a PSB. Once the Council made decisions regarding a funding source, the $57
million amount in the table could change to $0. A fully funded project could Page 10 of 31
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 03/03/14
not be contained in the needs list. As the Council made decisions, Staff
could calculate an amount for a potential fee.
Council Member Scharff asked if DTA would recommend changes to fee
amounts based on the Nexus Study.
Mr. Nathan Perez explained that consultants typically did not recommend
new fees that were less than existing fees. The Council retained the
authority to charge less than the existing fee amount.
Council Member Scharff noted the City's park fee was substantially less than
park fees charged in other cities. He inquired whether the Nexus Study
would suggest the maximum park fee the City could charge.
Mr. Nathan Perez reported the Nexus Study would utilize the costs noted in
Attachment A divided by demographic numbers to calculate a projected fee
moving forward. Park fees were omitted from the list because he
understood that park fees would not be increased based upon total costs.
Mr. Lalo Perez explained that most of the projects identified for parks was
funded through the CIP. The net cost for identified park projects was very
low. Community Services and Public Works Departments were
approximately one year away from completing a Master Plan for parks;
therefore Staff did not have a full picture of parks needs.
Council Member Scharff did not believe Staff was ready to move forward
with the study. He asked why a purchase of land for parks was not included
in the needs list.
Mr. Nathan Perez surveyed every City department for a list of projects. The threshold for needs for parks would not result in a higher fee.
Council Member Scharff felt there were many needs for parks over the next
30 years. He was not comfortable moving forward on that basis.
Mr. Nathan Perez reported the parks list of projects was inclusive, but the
ultimate cost of the facilities on that list would not be great enough to
increase the fee.
Council Member Scharff asked if the list contained all the facilities, including
additional parks, that could possibly be needed. Staff presented information
before completing the Master Plan for parks.
Mr. Lalo Perez noted the Council in the future could consider any fees that
were not adjusted at the current time and have the Master Plan as a source.
Page 11 of 31
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 03/03/14
If the Council delayed its decision, it could lose the opportunity of adjusting
other fees at the current time.
Council Member Scharff asked if the Council could carve out the parks fee
and return to it in the future.
Mr. Nathan Perez answered yes. Parks could be omitted at the current time
and the fee would remain the same. DTA could either add new categories or
increase other categories as applicable.
Council Member Scharff reiterated that the parks fee would remain in place
and the Council could review it at a later time.
Mr. Keene indicated the Council typically reviewed DIF every two to four
years. Staff could perform the review more often if the Council directed
them to do so.
Council Member Scharff asked why Cubberley was not included in the needs
list.
Mr. Lalo Perez reported the needs for Cubberley were not fully known.
Council Member Scharff stated the amount for a PSB was not known, and
asked how that discussion was different from Cubberley.
Mr. Lalo Perez explained that the review of DIF had been delayed because of
the number of pending decisions. At the current time, the Council was more
likely to make a decision regarding the PSB than Cubberley. Cubberley
needed a great deal of negotiation and discussion. To include Cubberley in
the needs list, Staff needed a degree of certainty that a project would occur.
Council Member Scharff inquired whether the needs list was a vision for the community through 2035 or simply a list of projects that needed a funding
source. He did not see a consistent methodology.
Mr. Keene commented that the goal was to set a fee that was applied in a
given year to a new construction project. The Council could adjust fees each
year. Nothing precluded the Council from marginally adjusting one area
without reviewing all areas.
Mr. Nathan Perez noted the recommendations considered the total cost per
category. Given the lack of dollars in some categories, DTA determined that
updates could be better discussed at a later time.
Mr. Keene reported the needs list did not contain all definite unfunded
capital needs or community facilities. The Council could set a policy
Page 12 of 31
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 03/03/14
direction to add those needs. At the same time, DIF were practically applied
when a building permit was obtained. If the Council delayed adjustments on
recommended categories to obtain information for all categories, then the
City would lose revenue from increased fees for recommended categories.
Moving forward on some categories was in the City's best interests even if
the Council acknowledged it needed additional information for other
categories.
Council Member Scharff understood the City Manager suggested reviewing
DIF more frequently. He asked if more projects should be contained in the
needs list even though they could be removed from the list by November
2014.
Mr. Lalo Perez acknowledged that Staff should have given the Council the
full list of areas considered so the Council could appreciate the extensive
review. The full list for parks and recreation facilities contained 33 items
totaling a net cost of $57 million and included $6 million for athletic fields at
the Golf Course, $11 million for a City gymnasium, Cubberley field
restrooms, Cubberley roof replacement, Cubberley mechanical and electrical
upgrades, and Cubberley tennis courts. Even after including those dollar
figures, the analysis determined that an increased fee was not warranted.
Council Member Scharff stated rates did not necessarily decrease.
Mr. Nathan Perez responded correct. The Council retained authority to
charge less.
Council Member Scharff asked if the City was forced to lower the rate because cost amounts were insufficient to maintain the current fee amount.
Mr. Nathan Perez replied no.
Council Member Scharff inquired whether legally the Council was required to
reduce an existing fee.
Mr. Nathan Perez indicated the law did not specifically state that. City
departments did an excellent job of reviewing projects. He did not
encourage benchmarking or finding a certain number that would result in
increased DIF. Staff developed a list of needs that did not meet the
threshold to increase rates. It could happen in a few years, at which time
the rates could be updated.
Council Member Scharff inquired whether a decision was made on the three
issued mentioned at the Finance Committee meeting.
Page 13 of 31
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 03/03/14
Mr. Nathan Perez remarked that if the Council chose to eliminate big-ticket
items from the list, then they would be removed from the list prior to
calculating fees.
Council Member Scharff added that some big-ticket items needed to be
added to the list prior to calculating fees. Council Member Burt mentioned a
transportation fee, a wastewater fee, and a public safety fee. The question
was whether they would be included in the study to determine a fee.
Mr. Lalo Perez reported a transportation fee would be studied because the
net cost of many of the projects was relatively stable. Several projects,
especially the PSB, might be eliminated resulting in a low amount of costs
and a smaller fee. The Council should proceed with consideration of a
transportation fee until it made the final decisions on those projects. The
general government facilities fee could proceed, because MSC funding
sources were unclear.
Council Member Scharff asked why the MSC with an approximate cost of
$300 million was not included in the list.
Mr. Lalo Perez Staff explained that the dollar amount was not reliable and
was part of the CIP process.
Council Member Holman noted that parking impact fees were not included on
the list to be increased and had not been updated since 1989. The in-lieu
parking fee for Downtown development was updated in 1995 and
recommended for update. She asked why those were not included on the
list.
Mr. Nathan Perez agreed that those fees may need to be updated. Zonal
fees were outside the scope of DTA's contract.
Mr. Lalo Perez explained that Staff was reviewing fees in manageable groups
and would continue the process with all fees.
Council Member Holman stated the definition of home demolition needed to
be changed, because of the exemption from impact fees and the lack of
proper assessment for property taxes. She inquired about the number of
projects that were more than 50 parcels in reference to page 87, Residential
Subdivisions of Over 50 Parcels.
Mr. Lalo Perez did not have an answer but would report back.
Council Member Holman felt the number should be lower, certainly not 50 as
she could not think of a single project over 50 parcels. She asked if a California Avenue in-lieu fee was outside the scope of the presentation.
Page 14 of 31
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 03/03/14
Mr. Lalo Perez answered yes.
Council Member Holman concurred with Council Member Scharff's comments
regarding parks. She inquired whether Staff presented the impact fee to the
Parks and Recreation Commission for consideration.
Mr. Lalo Perez replied no. That had not been a part of the process.
Council Member Holman suggested Staff not be married to process. The
chart was all based on residential information.
Mr. Keene noted non-residential, commercial and industrial could be found in
the middle of the chart.
Council Member Holman had nothing to compare non-residential information
to as the chart was not provided in the packet. It was important to know
how Palo Alto tracked with other communities.
Mr. Lalo Perez would include that information in future Staff Reports.
Council Member Holman inquired whether Staff could provide that
information when the item returned to the Council.
Mr. Nathan Perez replied yes.
Council Member Holman noted the Staff Report did not contain the chart
referenced in the Finance Committee Minutes, which made it difficult to
follow the discussion. The chart appeared to be misleading because it
included the sewer hookup fee in the water, sewer, and storm drain fee.
Mr. Nathan Perez could reflect it either way. It was an outlier in otherwise
consistent data.
Council Member Holman felt it should at least have a footnote.
Mr. Lalo Perez indicated each agency within Santa Clara County set fees in
different manners.
Mr. Nathan Perez reported the comparison was difficult because Palo Alto
suggested a larger water main diameter than other cities. Each city had
different requirements that had to be considered in a comparison.
Council Member Holman was unsure whether commercial and industrial was
lower than residential.
Mr. Nathan Perez would provide that data. Palo Alto was relatively lower
compared to peer communities on the non-residential side. Page 15 of 31
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 03/03/14
Council Member Klein inquired about the amount of money collected and the
length of time required to collect sufficient funds to construct a PSB.
Mr. Nathan Perez did not believe the City would collect sufficient funding
over the timeframe of the study. Fees would assist with funding but would
not solely fund a $57 million project. The cost of the project had to be
allocated between existing and new development. Using 25 percent for new
development, the fee would finance a maximum of $15 million.
Council Member Klein inquired about the source of 25 percent.
Mr. Nathan Perez explained that 25 percent was an approximation for
discussion. It generally considered existing versus future demographics.
Council Member Klein assumed that new construction, both commercial and
residential, would result in 1-2 percent of existing stock.
Mr. Nathan Perez concurred. Palo Alto was largely built out. The Nexus
Study could result in a figure closer to 15-20 percent.
Council Member Klein clarified that 15-20 percent was over the 20-year
period. Utilizing gross numbers, the most a fee devoted to the PSB would
generate was 20 percent of the cost over 20 years.
Mr. Nathan Perez agreed.
Council Member Klein calculated the present value to be a quarter of that or
5 percent. That fee would generate only a few million of the needed $57
million.
Mr. Nathan Perez concurred.
Council Member Klein inquired about the amount of funds collected from DIF.
Mr. Lalo Perez did not have a cumulative total, but the transportation fee
collected $600,000 and the wastewater fee collected $1.3 million.
Council Member Klein asked about the time period over which those
collections spanned.
Mr. Lalo Perez reported funds had to be utilized within a five-year period.
Council Member Klein noted the report was delivered to Staff in May 2012,
and asked why Staff delayed presenting it to the Council for 22 months.
Page 16 of 31
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 03/03/14
Mr. Lalo Perez indicated the lack of a Budget Director prevented the project
from being a high priority for Staff.
Council Member Klein believed the City had cost itself money because the
project was not presented sooner.
Mr. Lalo Perez agreed there could have been a loss of revenue on the
transportation side. He did not know whether Staff would have had a good
inventory of projects if the project was presented sooner.
Council Member Klein inquired whether Staff could have hired a temporary
person with sufficient skills to shepherd the project.
Mr. Lalo Perez explained that such a person would need a certain amount of
internal knowledge to navigate the multitude of departments and personnel
to obtain data.
Council Member Price recalled Mr. Nathan Perez's comments regarding cities
not being forthcoming with information. She inquired whether the various
city categories in the chart of comparative survey results was a true picture
of all fees.
Mr. Nathan Perez reported it was a true picture except for the City of Santa
Clara.
Council Member Price felt the information contained significant gaps, and
asked if Mr. Nathan Perez was comfortable with the information.
Mr. Nathan Perez replied yes.
Council Member Price asked if the information was complete.
Mr. Nathan Perez responded yes. Affordable housing was the one category that was charged incredibly differently across all cities. The affordable
housing category was sometimes difficult to equalize on a per unit basis.
Council Member Price concurred with other comments regarding adding
Cubberley to the list. This was a phased approach to DIF, because the
Council was attempting to determine a logical and proper methodology. She
inquired whether Mr. Nathan Perez's experience included situations where
DIF contained automatic Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA).
Mr. Nathan Perez reported that was quite common.
Mr. Lalo Perez added that COLA was utilized when fees were below 100
percent. The Council policy was not to set some fees at 100 percent. The
Page 17 of 31
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 03/03/14
Council was concerned about total impacts to projects. That was the reason
Staff did not mention use of an inflator.
Council Member Price asked if Staff considered cumulative impacts rather
than built-in adjustments for each category.
Mr. Lalo Perez indicated that was the Finance Committee's focus.
Council Member Price suggested Staff include more clarification points in the
chart. In facility costs or estimated facility costs, Staff should note the
baseline year. She inquired whether Mr. Nathan Perez was aware of the
Council's sensitivity to projected rates of growth promulgated by different
agencies.
Mr. Nathan Perez answered yes.
Council Member Price asked if his assumptions were consistent with Council
policies.
Mr. Nathan Perez replied yes.
Mayor Shepherd indicated the impact fees were for a new unit of housing.
She viewed the project as an effort to capture brand new fire stations and
police stations. There was a parks policy which Staff followed.
MOTION: Mayor Shepherd moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Kniss to
approve the Development Impact Fee (DIF) Project Needs List prior to
having the City’s consultant prepare the quantitative analyses and narratives
needed to update some categories of the City’s Development Impact Fees.
Mayor Shepherd expected the discussion would evolve and recognized that
the Council would need to make decisions regarding infrastructure.
Vice Mayor Kniss agreed the discussion would continue. Staff asked the
Council to approve a particular recommendation.
Council Member Burt noted the Committee reviewed DIF in early November
2013. Since that time, the Council had moved forward with infrastructure
projects. The Finance Committee was interested in vetting thoroughly a
number of major areas. Because of changes over the last five months,
returning the item to the Finance Committee for an update could be
appropriate.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Council Member Burt moved, seconded by Council
Member Scharff to return this item to the Finance Committee to be re-
evaluated.
Page 18 of 31
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 03/03/14
Council Member Burt reiterated that a number of projects had changed since
the Finance Committee reviewed DIF. Returning the item to the Finance
Committee would not require a great deal of Staff time. He wished to move
the item forward rapidly and integrate the study with changes made in
infrastructure planning.
Council Member Scharff felt a more thorough vetting by the Finance
Committee would be productive and would save time.
Mr. Keene reported returning the item to the Finance Committee would
require some direction to Staff. Staff and DTA could continue with the
rational nexus component. Staff could work more quickly with clear
direction from the Council about specific gaps in the capital facilities needs
plan.
Council Member Klein was aghast that the Finance Committee would require
six months to vet the item. He requested Council Member Burt amend the
Substitute Motion to indicate the Finance Committee would provide a
recommendation to the Council, hopefully on the Consent Calendar, within
60 days.
Council Member Burt felt 90 days would be reasonable.
Council Member Klein wished the Finance Committee would complete its
review prior to beginning Budget hearings. Perhaps the Finance Committee
could provide a recommendation by May 15, 2014.
Council Member Burt requested the City Manager comment.
Council Member Klein suggested the Finance Committee would have more work than Staff would have in vetting the item.
Council Member Burt noted Staff needed to reflect changes made by the
Infrastructure Committee, input from the Finance Committee, and input
from the Council discussion.
Council Member Klein agreed to the item returning to the Council in three
months, by the Council's first meeting in June.
Council Member Burt concurred. The item might be imperfect at that time,
but it would be more contemporary.
Council Member Scharff preferred to wait for work to be complete than to
have imperfect information. He questioned whether the item should return
on the Consent Calendar.
Page 19 of 31
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 03/03/14
Council Member Klein indicated a return on the Consent Calendar was only a
hope. He wanted to see an item returned to the Council by the first meeting
in June 2014.
Mr. Keene explained that if the Finance Committee identified other capital
facility objectives, then that would require a rigorous analysis by Staff.
Projects should not be driven by a desire to set a new fee. The same Staff
would be working on this item and the Budget.
Council Member Scharff would agree to the Finance Committee hearing the
item in May 2014. The Finance Committee could decide it was not ready for
the Council at that time. He did want the Finance Committee to hear the
item prior to beginning the Budget.
Council Member Klein expressed concern that the item had already been
delayed two years as that cost the City money.
Council Member Scharff felt acting too quickly could also cost the City
money.
Council Member Klein believed if the Finance Committee did not finish the
item prior to beginning Budget hearings, then it would have a good excuse
not to work on it.
INCORPORATED INTO THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION WITH THE
CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to direct Staff to bring this
back to the Council on Consent Calendar, contingent on a unanimous vote
by the Finance Committee, and to return to the Council by the first meeting
in June 2014 with whatever portion is ready.
Council Member Holman requested Staff answer questions such as the
meaning of residential subdivision of over 50 parcels. She inquired about
the basis for Mr. Nathan Perez stating commercial impact fees appeared to
be low compared to other communities. She suggested the Finance
Committee complete as much work as soon as possible and then determine
whether a second phase of work was needed.
Mayor Shepherd indicated the Finance Committee would have to make that
determination.
Council Member Burt agreed with the Finance Committee having the
discretion to bring some or all of the item to the Council at the same time.
The item would return on the Consent Calendar only if there was unanimous
approval by the Finance Committee.
Page 20 of 31
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 03/03/14
Council Member Schmid agreed with many of Council Member Scharff's
comments. The Council was assessing DIF by utilizing the current CIP.
Using the CIP allowed the Council to determine the real expenditure for the
range of infrastructure needs at a point in time. The Council should not
chase itself by going back to the Finance Committee and removing some
items. The goal was to get a picture at one point time and use that as a
framework.
Council Member Price inquired whether Staff had sufficient information and
guidance to make some progress on this item, to make changes.
Mr. Keene reported if the work at the Finance Committee was anything like
the current discussion, Staff would not return for a long time. The
Amendment to the Substitute Motion was important. Staff did not provide a
meaningful response about the amount of work needed for this item. Staff
work needed to be contained if the Council wanted action at the current time
or in three months. The Council would have to settle for something less
than all the topics mentioned during the Council discussion. To do the work
correctly, Staff would need additional involvement from the Planning
Department, which was involved in many other Council projects.
Council Member Berman indicated Council Member Schmid's comments were
profound in that the Council could be chasing itself in trying to find the
perfect list of projects. He inquired whether the Finance Committee would
remove projects that were on the infrastructure list and maybe add projects
that had not been identified.
Mr. Lalo Perez stated that was his understanding. Staff would focus on the
three areas in their recommendation, rather than everything else.
Council Member Berman asked if the PSB would be removed from the list if
the Council decided to fully fund it regardless of the item returning to the
Finance Committee.
Mr. Lalo Perez answered yes.
Council Member Berman asked when the analysis would be completed if the
item was not returned to the Finance Committee.
Mr. Nathan Perez reported the goal would be to provide estimated fees for
the categories discussed to Staff within a month, and then to review those
fees with the Finance Committee or the Council. He wished to provide fee
levels as soon as possible.
Council Member Berman inquired whether projects contingent upon a
community vote would remain on the list. Page 21 of 31
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 03/03/14
Mr. Nathan Perez responded yes.
Council Member Berman would support the Motion, because the information
was sufficient.
Mr. Nathan Perez added that if the PSB were removed in two months, he
would have to redo everything because the PSB was such a large project.
Council Member Klein would not support the Substitute Motion because of
the language regarding the Finance Committee providing whatever portion
was ready.
Mayor Shepherd would not support the Substitute Motion. Council Member
Schmid articulated the situation well. The changes the Council made with
regard to infrastructure would be reflected in the list without returning the
item to the Finance Committee for review.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION AS AMENDED FAILED: 3-6 Burt, Holman, Scharff
yes
MOTION PASSED: 8-1 Holman no
Council Member Holman inquired when Staff could provide requested
information regarding fees.
Mayor Shepherd indicated Staff could provide the information outside the
Council meeting due to the lack of time. She inquired whether the Council
would have sufficient time to address Agenda Item Number 10, naming the
Main Library.
Mr. Keene announced naming of the Main Library would be continued to a
date uncertain.
MOTION: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Kniss to
discuss Agenda Item No. 11 prior to Agenda Item Number 9.
MOTION PASSED: 7-2 Schmid, Shepherd no
Mr. Keene requested a time check-in at 10:00 P.M. to determine whether
Staff could be excused from the meeting.
11. Infrastructure Project and Funding Plan.
Richard Hackmann, Management Analyst, recalled that the Infrastructure
Committee met three times since the item was last before the Council on
December 9, 2013. The Infrastructure Committee recommended the Council
Page 22 of 31
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 03/03/14
{1}{2}{3}
Facility Name Total Cost for
Facility
Off-setting
Revenues Net Cost to City
A. PUBLIC SAFETY FACILITIES
1. Police Facilities
1 Public Safety Building ("PSB") - Replace (44,850 square feet)$57,000,000 $0 $57,000,000
Subtotal $57,000,000 $0 $57,000,000
2. Fire Facilities
2 Fire Station 3 (Rinconada Park - built 1948) - Replace $6,700,000 $0 $6,700,000
3 Fire Station 4 (Meadow/Middlefield - built 1953) - Replace $7,500,000 $0 $7,500,000
5 BC Van (x 2)$200,000 $0 $200,000
6 Fire Trucks (x 2)$2,000,000 $0 $2,000,000
7 Type III Engine (x 2)$800,000 $0 $800,000
8 Training Tower & Related Land Acquisition $8,000,000 $0 $8,000,000
9 Type I Engine (x 8) - 2024 $4,200,000 $0 $4,200,000
10 Ambulances (x 4) - 2022-2025 $1,300,000 $0 $1,300,000
11 Vehicles (Van, Trucks, Engines, Ambulances)$8,500,000 $0 $8,500,000
Subtotal $39,200,000 $0 $39,200,000
12 Pubic Safety Revenues not yet Committed $0 $0
TOTAL PUBLIC SAFETY FACILITIES $96,200,000 $0 $96,200,000
1 Information Technology Upgrades $750,000 ($75,000)$675,000
2 Buildings Systems Improvements $6,300,000 ($100,000)$6,200,000
3 Civic Center Plaza Deck $16,000,000 $0 $16,000,000
4 Municipal Services Center Improvements (through 2020) $ 1,991,000 $0 $1,991,000
5 Municipal Services Center - Replace (after 2020)$93,000,000 ($32,550,000)$60,450,000
6 Ventura Buildings Improvements $690,000 $0 $690,000
7 General Government Revenues not yet Committed $0 $0
TOTAL GENERAL GOVERNMENT FACILITIES 118,731,000$ (32,725,000)$ 86,006,000$
GRAND TOTAL $214,931,000 -$32,725,000 $182,206,000
B. GENERAL GOVERNMENT FACILITIES (COMMUNITY CENTER, INFORMATION TECHONOLOGY,
PUBLIC ART, ETC.)
ATTACHMENT E
CITY OF PALO ALTO DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE PROGRAM
PUBLIC FACILITIES NEEDS LIST THROUGH 2035
1
Attachment F
Attachment F
Attachment F
Finance Committee
EXCERPT Minutes
1
Special Meeting
Tuesday, May 6, 2014
Chair Berman called the meeting to order at 8:17 P.M. in the Council
Chambers, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California.
Present: Berman (Chair), Burt, Holman, Kniss
Absent:
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None
AGENDA ITEMS
1. Proposed Changes in Development Impact Fees: Implementation of New Public Safety Facility and General Government Facilities Fees.
MOTION: Vice Mayor Kniss moved, seconded by Chair Berman that the
Finance Committee recommend the City Council review the Development
Impact Fee (DIF) Justification Study prepared by David Taussig & Associates
and approve the recommended new Public Safety Facility and General
Government Facility impact fees at 75 percent of the maximum allowable
level.
AMENDMENT: Council Member Holman moved, seconded by Council
Member xx to split the residential and non-residential impact fees to 50/50
from 60/40.
AMENDMENT FAILED DUE TO LACK OF SECOND
MOTION PASSED: 3-1 Holman no
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 10:28 P.M.
City of Palo Alto (ID # 4814)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Inter-Governmental Legislative Affairs Meeting Date: 5/19/2014
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Santa Clara County Transportation Sales Tax
Title: Discussion and Recommendation on the Proposed Santa Clara County
Transportation Project Sales Tax Increase
From: City Manager
Lead Department: City Manager
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council discuss the potential County Sales Tax for transportation
measure being promoted by the Silicon Valley leadership Group (SVLG) and provide
direction to staff on what, if any, action should be taken.
Background
For a number of years the Silicon Valley Leadership Group (SVLG) has explored a
transportation tax initiative to improve and expand existing transportation infrastructure
in Santa Clara County.
On April 24, 2014 the Silicon Valley Business Journal published an article titled Poll finds
73% would support new sales tax to fund transportation projects in Silicon Valley. In
this article, SVLG CEO Carl Guardino referenced exceptionally high polling figures and
stated that due to these high results the SVLG may accelerate its push for a Santa Clara
County transportation tax initiative from a November 2016 election to a November 2014
election (which is less than six months away). Even more crucial is that little time
would be available for City and public input into the design of a measure, given the
deadline for submission of any ballot initiative is less than three months away.
According to the article, “The Leadership Group tested both a hypothetical ballot
question and more specific questions about particular types of transit improvements in
order to capture voter sentiment.”
The article went on to give a brief rundown of the findings:
73% of 600 likely Santa Clara County voters support the idea of a 30-year,
quarter cent ($0.25) sales tax increase to fund transportation improvements to
City of Palo Alto Page 2
area roads and some public rail services.
67% support phase two of a planned BART extension from San Jose's Berryessa
district to downtown San Jose and the City of Santa Clara
73% support increased Caltrain commuter rail service from Gilroy to Palo Alto
87% support street maintenance and pothole repairs in Santa Clara county's 15
cities
82% support easing congestion on all eight county expressways
88% support improved safety for walking and biking near schools
86% support increased transit service for seniors and the disabled
Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) light rail and bus systems, including a planned
bus rapid transit system, were absent from the transportation funding possibilities in
the poll. In the article, Guardino said the survey was proposed by a SVLG working
group and is by no means set in stone. Also, Guardino said that the group has not
decided whether it will undertake a 2014 campaign.
This item has been placed on the Council agenda for Council discussion, due to the
potentially accelerated timeframe for a tax Measure (2014?) and the need for a Council
position or commentary on the measure. It is expected that Council Members may
have more information than staff does at this moment, so the staff report is minimal at
this time.
Some of the issues of concern include the adequacy of funding for CalTrain in any
proposal; fair share treatment for Palo Alto and North County cities; funding for transit
and other alternative modes that benefit Palo Alto and promote and protect our local
economy and community livability; and the impact on the City’s future sales tax funding
flexibility.