HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 6959
City of Palo Alto (ID # 6959)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 6/20/2016
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Remittance of Funds Back to Friends of Magical Bridge and
Approval of Cooperation Agreement
Title: Approval of Cooperation and Support Agreement with Friends of the
Magical Bridge Playground and Authorization to Remit $38,302 in Remaining
Funds to the Friends for Playground Services and Activities
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Community Services
Recommendation
Staff recommends Council:
1) Approve a Mutual Cooperation and Support Agreement between the City of Palo
Alto and the Friends of the Magical Bridge Playground for maintenance, repair,
and programming needs at the Magical Bridge playground
2) Authorize staff to remit $38,302 back to the Friends of the Magical Bridge
Playground for Playground services and activities.
Background
In 2011 the City and Friends of the Magical Bridge, LLC (Friends) established a letter of
intent to plan initial funding for the design and construction of the Magical Bridge
playground. During 2012 and 2013, two designs and public outreach for the
playground resulted in a higher budget for completion of the project to be fundraised
by the Friends. Subsequently, in 2014, the City and Friends entered into an agreement
for design, construction, and installation of the playground. (Attachment A, CMR ID#
3865) Contained within the agreement is a stipulation of any remaining funds after
project completion be retained by the City to defray the cost of maintenance.
(Attachment B, Design/Construction Agreement Section 4.3.1)
Discussion
The Magical Bridge playground has been open for one year and held its anniversary in
April 2016. During this time, they playground has been a regional daily draw with
exceptional visitation resulting in maintenance, repairs, and replacement needs funded
by both remaining funds in the playground construction contract and with City Parks
operating budget.
City of Palo Alto Page 2
The Friends are now asking for $38,302 in remaining funds provided by the Friends to
the City to be returned to the Friends instead of retained for future use towards
maintenance. Both the Community Services Department and Public Works Department
have concluded it is in the interest of all parties to remit the funds back to the Friends
for the purpose of supporting Playground services and activities. Upon remittance, the
Friends will use the remaining $38,302 towards playground monitoring services,
programs and special events at the Magical Bridge Playground.
An example of an important new program the Friends have started is the Magical Bridge
Ambassador program. This program recruits youth and teens to be official playground
monitors with Magical Bridge t-shirts to help people of different abilities use the
playground. The playground is extremely popular with people of all abilities and
frequently there are many more able visitors than disabled. An unintended result has
been at times individuals with a disability are not able to access specially designed play
equipment due the many other visitors using the play equipment. The Magical Bridge
Ambassador program aims to educate youth and teens to actively be on the lookout for
people who may need a helping hand in getting access to play equipment and further
invites all visitors to increase their awareness of the variety of people of different
abilities using the playground. This program has already helped many people have a
positive experience visiting the Magical Bridge Playground.
The Friends have also built a robust adult volunteer program to help manage the large
number of people visiting the playground. The volunteers help clean the playground
and identify maintenance issues needing to be resolved. In addition, the Friends are
coordinating Friday evening concerts in the playground for families to enjoy throughout
the summer. The Friday evening concerts are very popular, well attended, and the
Friends coordinate the entire event series.
As staff considered the Friends’ request to return the surplus funds, staff concluded the
donors would likely prefer the funds be returned to the Friends for the programs and
support services they are providing rather than be used for playground maintenance.
While applying the funds towards the maintenance costs of the new playground are an
appropriate use of the surplus funds raised by the Friends, staff believe the
contributions the Friends are making on an ongoing basis to support the playground
monitoring services and providing programs and events are equally valuable and a
better use of the funds raised by Friends.
Going forward, the Community Services Department and the Friends have established a
Mutual Cooperation and Support Agreement (Attachment C, Mutual Agreement) to
address maintenance, repair, and programming needs at the Magical Bridge
playground. The agreement stipulates the City will fund and perform maintenance and
repairs, while the Friends will fund and provide playground monitoring services,
programming and events.
City of Palo Alto Page 3
Timeline
June 20, 2016 – Council approval to remit funds to the Friends and
commencement of Mutual Cooperation and Support Agreement
July 2016 – Remaining funds remitted to the Friends
Resource Impact
This authorization returns $38,302 to the Friends that would otherwise have been used
for playground maintenance, to now be used by the Friends for playground monitoring
services, programs and events. With a mutual cooperation and support agreement in
place, going forward the City and Friends have mutually beneficial and defined roles
where by the City will fund and perform maintenance and repairs to the playground and
the Friends will fund and manage monitoring services, programming and events at the
playground. The funds are included in CIP PE-12013.
Attachments:
Attachment A: CMR ID# 3865 - Agreement w-Friends of Magical Bridge (PDF)
Attachment B: Design/Construction Agreement w-Friends of Magical Bridge (PDF)
Attachment C: Agreement with Friends of Magical Bridge Playground (RTF)
Attachment C: Agreement with Friends of Magical Bridge Playground (RTF)
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)
140416dm00710373
*NOTYETAPPROVED*
1
OrdinanceNo.______
OrdinanceoftheCounciloftheCityofPaloAltoApproving
andAdoptingaPlanforImprovementstoMitchellPark
TheCounciloftheCityofPaloAltodoesORDAINasfollows:
SECTION1.Findings.TheCityCouncilfindsanddeclaresthat:
(a)ArticleVIIIoftheCharteroftheCityofPaloAltoandSection22.08.005
ofthePaloAltoMunicipalCoderequirethat,beforeanysubstantialbuilding,
construction,reconstructionordevelopmentiscommencedorapproved,uponorwith
respecttoanylandheldbytheCityforparkpurposes,theCouncilshallfirstcausetobe
preparedandbyordinanceapproveandadoptaplantherefore.
(b)MitchellParkisdedicatedtopark,playground,andrecreationalspace.
(c)TheCityintendstoauthorizetheconstructionofcertainpark
improvementswithin0.8acresofMitchellPark,referredtoaTheMagicalBridge
Playground,asshownontheMagicalBridgeLandscapeImprovementPlan(the“Plan”),
attachedasExhibit“A,”including:
(1)Installationofnewinclusiveplaygroundandassociatedequipment;
(2)Installationofnewaccessiblewalkwayandrailings;
(3)Installationofirrigation,landscapingandtrees;
(4)Installationoflighting;
(5)Installationofbikeracks,benches,picnictablesandotheramenities;and
(6)Installationofaprefabricatedpedestrian/bikebridge
(d)TheProjectwillbeconstructedinamannerastoavoidprotectedtrees
andothersensitivenaturalresources,ifany.Inaddition,theexistingparkuseswillbe
restoredfollowingthecompletionofconstructionoftheProject.
(e)TheProjectisconsistentwithparkandrecreationpurposes.
(f)TheCouncildesirestoapprovetheProject,describedaboveandasmore
specificallydescribedintheattachedPlan.
SECTION2.TheCouncilherebyapprovesthePlanfortheconstructionofthe
improvementsatMitchellPark,anditherebyadoptsthePlan,attachedheretoas
Exhibit"A,”aspartoftheofficialplanfortheconstructionoftheparkimprovementsat
MitchellPark.
Attachment A
140416dm00710373
SECTION3.TheCouncilfindsthattheprojecttoconstructthefacilitiesat
MitchellParkissubjecttotheCaliforniaEnvironmentalQualityAct.Adraftmitigated
negativedeclarationwaspreparedandcirculatedonApril16,2014.
SECTION4.ThisordinanceshallbeeffectiveonthethirtyͲfirstdayafterthe
dateofitsadoption.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
______________________________________________________
CityClerkMayor
APPROVEDASTOFORM: APPROVED:
______________________________________________________
SeniorAsst.CityAttorney CityManager
____________________________
DirectorofCommunityServices
____________________________
DirectorofAdministrativeServices
140416dm00710373
Exhibit“A”
TheMagicalBridgeLandscapeImprovementPlan
140513 sdl 00710337B 1
AGREEMENTFORTHEDESIGN,CONSTRUCTIONAND
INSTALLATIONOFFACILITIESANDOTHERCAPITAL
IMPROVEMENTSATMITCHELLPARK
ThisAgreementfortheDesign,ConstructionandInstallationofFacilities
andOtherCapitalImprovementsatMitchellPark(the“Agreement”),dated,for
convenience,______________________,2014(the“EffectiveDate”),ismadeand
enteredintobyandbetweentheCITYOFPALOALTO,aCaliforniacharteredmunicipal
corporation(the“CITY”)andtheFRIENDSOFTHEMAGICALBRIDGE,LLC,aCalifornia
limitedliabilitycompany(the“FRIENDS”)(individually,a“Party”and,collectively,the
“Parties”),inreferencetothefollowingfactsandcircumstances:
RECITALS:
A.TheCITYhasdesignatedasacitypark,underPaloAltoMunicipalCode
section22.08.180,a17.99acresite,commonlyknownasMitchellPark(the“Park”),and
a10ͲfootpathwayfromtheParktoCharlestonRoad.Thesouthwesternportionofthe
ParkandpathwayistheproposedsiteoftheMagicalBridgePlaygroundandthe
CharlestonRoadCorridorPathway(the“Pathway”),whichwillbeboundedbythe
tenniscourts,thenorthernapproachtoAdobeCreek,andthesouthernborderofthe
Park,includingthePathway,connectingtheParkalonga10Ͳfootaccesseasement,
terminatingatCharlestonRoad.
B.TheFRIENDSintendstobenefittheCITYandthegeneralpublicby
designing,constructingandinstallingonapproximately0.8acreoftheParkand
approximatelya0.1acrePathway(the“Site”)certainplayground,playequipment,
slides,features,benches,tables,parkamenities,pathway,signage,andaccessible
crossingofAdobeCreekandassociatedcapitalimprovementsandstructures(the
“Facilities”).TheschematicdescriptionandsitemapoftheSiteisdescribedinExhibit
“A”.Adesign,constructionandinstallationschedulefortheFacilitiesisincludedin
Exhibit“B”.
C.TheFRIENDSwillcomplete100percentoftheconstructiondocument
packagetodesign,constructandinstalltheFacilitiesatsubstantiallyitsowncostand
expense.TheCITYwillgranttotheFRIENDSanamountoffundsnottoexceedfive
hundredthirtyͲtwothousanddollars($532,000),whichtheFRIENDSwillapplytowards
thedesignandconstructioncostsoftheFacilitiesandoffͲsiteFacilities.Ataminimum,
theFRIENDSwillgranttotheCityanamountoffundsofnotͲtoͲexceedtwomillionfive
hundredthousanddollars($2,500,000.00)forthecompletionofPhase1oftheFacilities
andoffͲsiteFacilities,andanotͲtoͲexceedthreehundredtwentyͲonethousandfour
hundredseventydollars($321,470)forthecompletionofPhase2oftheFacilitiesand
offͲsiteFacilities.TheitemizedbudgetforPhases1and2isincludedinExhibit“C”.
Attachment B
140513 sdl 00710337B 2
D. Uponthecompletionofthedesign,constructionandinstallationofthe
Facilities,theFRIENDSwilldeliverpossessionoftheSitetotheCITYandwilltransferall
ofitsrights,titleandinterests,ifany,inandtotheFacilitiestotheCITY.
E.PursuanttotheCITY’spolicyandprocedures,theCITYisrequiredto
allocateonepercent(1%)oftheconstructioncostsofaCITYcapitalimprovement
projectforpublicartin,amongotherplaces,parksandplazas.TheCITYintendsto
allocate1%ofthequalifyingportionofthebudgetfortheFacilities,whichshallbe
deemedacapitalimprovementproject,orthirtythousanddollars($30,000).TheCITY
intendstodisburseeightyͲtwothousandsevenhundredtwelvedollars($82,712)oflocal
TransportationDevelopmentAct(“TDA”)fundstotheconstructiontheCharlestonRoad
CorridorPathwayImprovementProject(the“Pathway”).TheCityintendstodisburse
$150,000oftheSantaClaraCountyParksCharterFundstotheconstructionofthe
FacilitiesuponcompletionoftheFacilities.
F.TheFRIENDSunderstandthat,becausetheCITYisdisbursingTDAfunds
forthebenefitoftheProject,theFRIENDSarerequiredtopayprevailingwagesforany
andalllaborusedinconnectionwiththeconstructionoftheProject.
INCONSIDERATIONOFtheRecitalsAthroughF,inclusive,whichare
madeasubstantivepartofthisAgreement,andthefollowingcovenants,termsand
conditions,thePartiesagree:
AGREEMENT:
1. PURPOSES
1.1ThePartiesagreethatthepurposesofthisAgreementareto:
(a)GranttheFRIENDSanditscontractors,agentsandrepresentatives
temporaryaccesstotheSiteduringtheTerminorderthattheFRIENDSmayconstruct
andinstall,orcausetheconstructionandinstallationof,theFacilities;
(b)ProvideforthepreparationbytheFRIENDS,andthereviewandapproval
bytheCITY,oftheFRIENDS’plans,specificationsandworkingdrawingsfortheFacilities;
(c)Provideforthecompletionofdesign,constructionandinstallationofthe
FacilitiesandoffͲsiteFacilitiesbytheFRIENDSanditscontractors,agentsand
representativesandthegrantingoftheCITY’sapprovalandacceptanceoftheFacilities;
and
(d)ProvideforthetransferofpossessionoftheSiteandallrights,titleand
interestsinandtotheFacilitiesandoffͲsiteFacilitiestotheCITYuponthecompletionof
design,constructionandinstallationoftheFacilities.
140513 sdl 00710337B 3
1.2InregardtotheoffͲsiteimprovementsrelatingtotheFacilities,the
followingwillapply:
(a)NotwithstandinganyprovisionsofthisAgreementtothecontrary,the
FRIENDSshallberesponsibleforthedesign,construction,installation,repair,and/or
maintenanceofanyundergroundimprovementsorfacilitiesthatmayberequiredto
bringthenecessaryutilityservicestotheFacilities,suchaswaterlines,electricalservice,
stormdrainlinesconnectingtoexistingundergroundlines,oranyotheraboveground
orundergroundoffͲsiteimprovementsorfacilities(collectively,the“OffͲSite
Improvements”)thatmayberequiredfortheuseofthePlaygroundandanyportionof
theFacilities,asdescribedinRecitalBabove,thatareconstructedorinstalled,or
causedtobeconstructedorinstalled,bytheFRIENDSattheSite.Theforegoing
provisionregardingtheobligationoftheFRIENDSwithrespecttotheOffͲSite
Improvementstakesintoaccountthat,asoftheEffectiveDate,theremaybeawater
line,anelectricalline,and/orastormdrainconnectiontoandattheSite.
(b)TheFRIENDS’generalcontractorwillcollaborateandotherwise
coordinatewiththeCITYinreͲroutingbicyclistandpedestrianaccessthroughtheSite.
ThePathwayimprovementsshallnotbeperformedwhenregularschoolisinsession.
1.3TheCITY,atitssolecostandexpense,willberesponsibletoperformany
workofconstructionnecessarytocorrect,remove,orrepairanyundiscoveredpreͲ
existingconditions.
1.4TheFRIENDS,atitssolecostandexpense,willberesponsiblefor
completingthedesignandconstructiontheOffͲSiteImprovementsreferredtoin
Section1.2(a)above.
1.5IntheeventtheSiteisdestroyedbyanycausethatrenderstheSiteunfit
forthepurposesdescribedinSection1.1hereof,anditsphysicalconditioncannotbe
repairedwithinonehundredeighty(180)daysfromthedateofdestruction,theneither
PartymaygivewrittennoticeofterminationofthisAgreement,whichwillbecome
effectivethirty(30)daysaftertheotherParty’sreceiptofsuchnotice.
1.6NothinginthisAgreementwillbeconstruedtolimittheCITY’srightto
temporarilyrevoketheauthorityoftheFRIENDSoritscontractors,agentsand
representativestogainaccesstotheSiteforthepurposeshereofintheeventofan
uncureddefaultandbreachofthisAgreementbytheFRIENDSorirrespectiveofany
breachbytheFRIENDS,intheinterestofthepublichealth,safetyandwelfare.
2. TERM
2.1ThisAgreementshallbeforatermofapproximatelyfourteen(14)
months(the“Term”),commencingupontheEffectiveDate,whenthePartieshaveduly
executedanddeliveredthisAgreement.Ifthecompletionofconstructionand
installationoftheFacilitiesisdelayedforanyreasonbeyondthereasonablecontrolof
140513 sdl 00710337B 4
theFRIENDS,thenthePartiesmayagree,inwriting,toextendtheTermonamonthͲtoͲ
monthbasis,inordertopermitthecompletionofconstructionandinstallationofthe
FacilitiesbytheFRIENDSoritscontractors,agentsandrepresentatives.Upon(a)the
FRIENDS’completionofanypunchͲlistitemswithinthetimespecifiedinSection6.8.5,
(b)theCITY’sdeterminationthattheFRIENDShaveachievedfullcompletionofthe
constructionandinstallationwork,and(c)theCITY’sacceptanceoftheFacilitiesby
writtennoticetotheFRIENDS,thisAgreementwillexpireorotherwiseterminate
withoutnoticetoeitherParty.TheTermwillnotextendafterJuly31,2015,unlessthe
Partiesagree,inwriting.
3. USE;ACCESSTOTHESITE
3.1Subjecttoallcovenants,termsandconditionshereof,theCITYhereby
grantstotheFRIENDS,itsmembers,directors,officers,employees,consultants,
contractors,agentsandrepresentativestherevocable,nonexclusiverighttoenterthe
Siteforthepurposeshereof.Nootherrights,titleorinterests,including,without
limitation,anyestate,ownership,leasehold,easementorotherpropertyinterest,inthe
SiteisgrantedorintendedtobegrantedbytheCITYtotheFRIENDSbythisAgreement.
4.CONSIDERATION
4.1TheFRIENDSwillobtaincontributionsfromthecommunitytodefray
substantiallyallofthecostsandexpensesofthedesign,constructionandinstallationof
theFacilities,exceptingonlythosefundswhichtheCITYwillcontributepursuantto
RecitalCandSection4.4.ThecontributionsreceivedbytheFRIENDSwillbeused
exclusivelytopayfortheservicesofaprojectmanager,anyotherindividualwhose
servicesarereasonablyrequiredtocompletethedesignandconstructionand
installationoftheFacilities,andreasonablyrelatedprojectcostsandexpenses.The
servicesoftheforegoingindividualswillbeobtainedbymeansofaninformal
competitiveselectionprocessconductedbytheFRIENDS.TheFRIENDSwilldeliverall
fundsandotherfinancialcontributionsthatitreceivestotheCITY,whichwilldeposit
suchfundsandothercontributionsinaCITYfundoraccountandwilldisburse
accordingly,asdescribedinSection4.4.TheFRIENDSwillbeobligatedtopayanyfeeor
chargeforutilityservicesrenderedtotheFRIENDSattheSiteinconnectionwiththe
Facilities’constructionandinstallation.
4.2TheFRIENDSalsowillundertakeacommunityoutreachprogramto
provideinformationtothebusinessesandresidentsinthevicinityoftheFacilities,
concerningtheFacilities,forthepurposeofsolicitingtheinputandsupportforthe
Facilitiesandconstructionworkandtoseekwaystomitigate,tothemaximumextent
possible,thelossofuseofparkfacilitiesduringtheperiodofconstruction.
4.3AsaconditionprecedenttotheCITY’sobligationtocommence
constructionandinstallationoftheFacilities,withinthirty(30)daysaftertheEffective
Date,theFRIENDSwilltransfer,andinformtheCITY’sDirectorofAdministrative
140513 sdl 00710337B 5
ServicesthattheFRIENDShavetransferred,totheCITY’saccountsufficientfundsforthe
Phase1constructionoftheProject.TheFRIENDSshalltransfertotheCity’saccount
sufficientfundstopayforthePhase2constructioncostsoftheProjectwithinninety
(90)daysaftertheEffectiveDate.Thesufficientfundswillbemadeavailablefromfunds
tobeprovidedbytheFRIENDSandfromfundstoberaisedbytheFRIENDSinthe
communityoutreachprogramreferredtoinSection4.2,andwillbeusedtocomplete
theconstructionandinstallationoftheFacilitiesbytheFRIENDSand/oritscontractors,
agentsandrepresentatives.Theterm“sufficientfunds”referredtointhisAgreement
meansthecompletionofallactualcostsofconstructionandinstallationofthe
improvements,equipment,andstructuresthatconstitutetheFacilities,assetforthin
theFRIENDS’itemizedbudget,assetforthinExhibit“C”.Thebudgetwillincludean
additionaltenpercent(10%)oftheestimatedtotalamountofallactualcostsofthe
Facilitiesasacontingencytomeetanyunforeseencoststhatmayariseduringthe
constructionandinstallationoftheFacilities.
4.3.1Evidenceofassurancewilltakethefollowingform:Evidenceofthe
depositbytheFRIENDSofthetotalamountofsufficientfundsfortheFacilities,as
definedherein,intotheseparateaccountmaintainedbytheCITYwithdisbursements
fromthataccountrequiringthesignaturesofauthorizedrepresentativesoftheParties
willbefurnished.AtsuchtimesastheFRIENDShascurrentlypayableinvoicesforthe
Facilities,theCITYwilltakethestepsnecessarytoexpediteitsapprovalprocesssothat
fundscanbedisbursedfromtheaccountmaintainedbytheCITY,whichwillbe
sufficienttosatisfytheFRIENDS’saccountspayable.TheCITYwillusereasonableefforts
toprocesstherequestsforpaymentinamannerwhichpermitstheFRIENDStoremain
currentonitsobligations.TheDirectorofAdministrativeServices,ordesignee,willbe
theCITY’srepresentativeforallpurposeshereof.IfthisAgreementisterminatedfor
anyreason,beforetheexpenditureofallthefundsintheCITY’sfundoraccountcan
occur,theCITYwillbeentitledtoallrights,titlesandinterestsinthefunds;provided,
however,theCITYwillthereafterexpendthefundsonlyforthepurposeofconstructing
andinstallingtheFacilities,orpartthereof,thatisnotcompletedattheeffectivedateof
termination.Ifanyportionoftheamountremainsandisnotdisbursedfollowingthe
completionoftheFacilities,theremainderwillberetainedbytheCITYandusedto
defraythecostsofmaintenanceoftheFacilitiesattheSite.
4.3.2TheaccountwillbemaintainedinthenameoftheCITYinaform
reasonablyacceptabletotheDirectorofAdministrativeServices.
4.4AsoftheEffectiveDate,theCITYwillhaveestablishedaMagicalBridge
PlaygroundCapitalImprovementProjectFundaccountwithintheCapitalImprovement
ProjectbudgetforFY2013Ͳ14(“CIPPEͲ12013”),relatingtotheFacilities.Becausethe
CITYisrequiredbyitspolicyandprocedurestoreduceitscontributiontotheFacilities’
costsbytheonepercentforartsprogramexpenditure,whichwillbeusedtopayforthe
CITY’scontractor’sservices,theCITYwillreduceitscontributiontotheFRIENDSinan
amountnottoexceedthirtythousanddollars($30,000)tobedrawnfromCIPPEͲ12013.
140513 sdl 00710337B 6
4.4.1TheCITYwilladministerandcoordinatethereceiptanddisbursementof
thesefunds,whichwillbeexpendedforallcostsandexpensesrelatedtothe
constructionandinstallationoftheFacilitiesattheSite.Nointerestontheaccumulated
fundswillbepaidbytheCITY.
4.5TheCITYwillissuepermits,asrequired,andwaivetheobligationofthe
FRIENDStopayanyandallpermitͲandpermitͲrelatedfeesandchargesthataredue
andpayabletotheCITY’sgeneralfundwithrespecttothedesignandtheconstruction
andinstallationoftheFacilitiesattheSiteandanyotherrelatedworktobeperformed
bytheFRIENDSinconnectiontherewith;provided,however,theCITYwillnotwaivethe
obligationoftheFRIENDStopayanyrate,feeorchargethatisdueandpayabletoany
oftheCITY’senterprisefundsforutilityservicesthatarerenderedtotheFRIENDSatthe
Site(otherthantheutilitycoststobepaidbytheCITYpursuanttoSection1.2with
respecttoanyundiscoveredpreͲexistingconditionsoranyOffͲSiteImprovements).
4.6TheCITYhassubmittedtheMagicalBridgePlaygroundPathwayconcept
plansandtheenvironmentalassessmenttotheCITY’sCommunityServicesDepartment,
PlanningandCommunityEnvironmentDepartmentandthePublicWorksDepartment
aswellastotheappropriateboardsandcommissions,including,withoutlimitation,the
ParksandRecreationCommission,theArchitecturalReviewBoard,andtheCityCouncil
forreviewandapprovaloftheconceptplansshowninExhibit“A”.
4.7TheCITYwillprovidestaffsupport,inspectionandtestingservicesandother
assistancetotheFRIENDS,uponreasonablerequest,inconnectionwiththe30%,60%
and90%designreview,bidandconstructiondocuments,andsubmittalreviewsaspart
oftheinitiationandcompletionoftheFacilities.
5.PLANFORDESIGN,CONSTRUCTIONANDINSTALLATION
5.1TheCITYwillreviewandtheFRIENDSwillprepareorcausetobe
preparedfinalplansandspecificationsandworkingdrawings(the“Plans”)forthe
designandtheconstructionandinstallationofthestructuresandimprovements
constitutingtheFacilitiestobelocatedattheSite,asdescribedinExhibit“A”.
5.2TheFRIENDSwillobtainandmaintainallCITYͲissuedpermitsandother
authorizationsrequiredforthecompletionoftheFacilitiesandwillfurnishtotheCITY
uponrequestduringtheconstructionandinstallationphasesanyandallfinancialand
nonͲfinancialsecuritydeemednecessaryandappropriatebytheCITY,including,without
limitation,evidenceofinsurancecoverage,indemnityagreement,andlienwaivers;the
CITYwillnotrequiretheFRIENDStoprovideperformanceandpaymentbonds,provided
thattheCITYhasfirstdeterminedpursuanttoSection4.3thattherearesufficientfunds
availabletocompletetheconstructionandinstallationoftheFacilitiesbytheFRIENDS
anditscontractors,agentsandrepresentatives.
140513 sdl 00710337B 7
6.CONSTRUCTIONANDINSTALLATIONOFFACILITIES
6.1TheFRIENDSwillcommencewiththedesignandtheconstructionand
installationwithinonehundred(100)daysaftertheEffectiveDateinaccordancewith
theconstructionandinstallationschedule,assetforthinExhibit“B”.Allsubmittals,
changeorders,constructionandinstallationworkwillbeconductedinanefficientand
workmanlikemannerinsubstantialcompliancewiththeapprovedtimeschedule.
6.2TheFRIENDSwillcomplywiththeCITY’sregulationsgoverning
constructionnoisecontrolsandregulationsgoverningdustcontrol,allassetforthinthe
PaloAltoMunicipalCode.
6.3TheFRIENDSwillberesponsibletoaccomplishallassociatedwork
requiredtocompleteandinstalltheFacilitiesanditwillberequiredtocomplywithall
conditionsthatareimposedontheFacilitiesduringtheCITY’sapprovalprocess.
6.4TheFRIENDSwillincludestandardCITYrequirementsinallequipment
purchasesandconstructioncontractswiththirdpartiesinregardtowarrantiesand
workmanshipguaranteesfortheFacilities.
6.5Allcontractors,subcontractors,andotherpersonnelwhowillperform
theconstructionandinstallationworkattheSiteundercontractwiththeFRIENDSwill
obtainandmaintainallcurrentlicensesrequiredbytheStateofCaliforniaduringthe
Term.
6.6TheFRIENDSwillmeetallrequirementsoutlinedintheTransportation
DevelopmentAgency(TDA)Grantincludingbutnotlimitedtothebillingandpayment
forgrantfundedportionsoftheprojectpaidonaprevailingwagescaleasrequiredby
thegrantagency.Invoicesshallindicateeligibleandineligibleprojectcosts.
6.7TheFacilitieswillbeconstructedandinstalledattheSiteincompliance
withtheapprovedPlansandTDAgrantrequirements.Anyconditionsrelatingtothe
manner,method,designandconstructionoftheFacilitiesestablishedundertheCITY’s
approvalprocesswillbeconditionsofthisSection6.7asiftheywerestatedand
otherwisefullyincorporatedinthisAgreement.Uponthecompletionofconstruction
andinstallation,theFRIENDS’sprojectmanagerfortheFacilitieswillsubmittothe
CITY’sManager,OpenSpace,ParksandGolfDivision,acertificateofinspection,
verifyingthattheconstructionandinstallationwerecompletedinconformancewith
Title24oftheCaliforniaCodeofRegulations.
6.8ForthepurposesofthisAgreement,theFacilitieswillbedeemed
completedatthetimeallofthefollowinghaveoccurred:
140513 sdl 00710337B 8
6.8.1TheCITY’Slandscapearchitecthasdeliveredastatement,inwriting,to
theCITY,statingthattheFacilitieshavebeensubstantiallycompletedinaccordance
withthePlans;
6.8.2TheFRIENDShasobtainedallnecessaryCITYinspectionsofandapprovals
fortheFacilities;
6.8.3TheParties’representativeshaveinspectedtheFacilities,andallmajor
defectsandincompleteitemsthatmateriallyimpairtheuseoftheSiteintheParkhave
beenremediedanda“punchͲlist”ofminordefectshasbeenpreparedforpromptrepair
andcompletionbytheFRIENDS;
6.8.4AlltrashandgarbagehasbeenremovedfromtheSite;
6.8.5TheCITYhasconfirmed,inwriting,thattheFRIENDShascompliedwith
theprovisionsofthisSection6.8,includingsubsections6.8.1through6.8.6,andfinal
acceptancebytheCITYhasbeenissued.AsaconditionprecedenttotheCITY’s
acceptanceoftheFacilities,theFRIENDSwillcompletethe“punchͲlist”itemswithina
reasonabletimebutbynolaterthanthirty(30)daysaftertheCITYhasmadea
preliminarydeterminationthattheFacilitiesisdeemedcompleted;and
6.8.6Concurrentlywiththeconfirmation,inwriting,bytheCITYtothe
FRIENDSthattheCITYhasacceptedtheFacilitiesandtheFRIENDShasmadetheSite
andthePlaygroundavailabletotheCITYforusebythepublicaftersubstantial
completionofconstruction.Theconstructioncontractenteredintobetweenthe
FRIENDSandtheFRIENDS’generalcontractorshallprovidethatthegeneralcontractor’s
guaranteeshallbeforthedirectandimmediatebenefitoftheFRIENDSandtheCITY
jointly,andshallguarantee,inwriting,thatthework,materials,apparatus,equipment
andworkmanshipthathavebeenperformed,used,installedorotherwiseincorporated
intheFacilitiesarefreeofdefects,andtheFRIENDS’generalcontractor,atitssolecost
andexpense,shallagreetorepairorreplaceanydefectivework,materials,apparatus,
orequipmentorworkmanshipwhichisdiscoveredbytheFRIENDSortheCITYwithin
one(1)yearfromthedateofsubstantialcompletionoftheFacilities.
7.MAINTENANCEANDREPAIRS
7.1TheFRIENDS,atitssolecost,willmaintaintheSiteandtheFacilities
duringtheTerminacleanandsafemannertothecompletesatisfactionoftheCITYand
incompliancewithallapplicablelaws.TheFRIENDSwillprovideapprovedcontainers
fortrashandgarbagegeneratedattheSiteandarrangefortheirdisposal.TheCITY
reservestherighttoenterandinspecttheSiteforcompliancewiththismaintenance
requirementandapplicablesafetyrequirements.TheFRIENDSwillberesponsiblefor
anydamagetotheSiteortheFacilitiesthatarisesinconnectionwiththeconstruction
andinstallationactivitiesattheSite.TheCITYwillberesponsibleforthepreͲexisting
140513 sdl 00710337B 9
conditionofanyutilitiesattheSiteatthecommencementofconstructionand
installationinadditiontotheresponsibilitiesoftheCITY,asdescribedinSection1.3.
7.2IftheFRIENDSfailtoproperlymaintaintheSite,thentheCITYmaynotify
theFRIENDS,inwriting,ofsuchfailure.TheFRIENDSwillbeaffordedareasonable
periodoftimeinordertobringtheSitetoacleanandsafecondition.TheCITY,atits
option,mayelecttoenforceitsrightsandremedies,including,withoutlimitation,
enteringtheSitetoensurethesafetyofallpersonsandpropertythereon.
7.3TheobligationoftheFRIENDStomaintainandrepairtheSiteandthe
FacilitieswillterminateupontheCITY’sacceptanceoftheFacilitiespursuanttoSection
6.8.6.TheCITYthereafterwillmaintainandrepairtheSiteinaccordancewiththe
standards,customsandpracticesoftheCITYpertainingtoitsmaintenanceandrepairof
propertyownedorcontrolledbytheCITY.
8.ASͲBUILTDRAWINGS
8.1UponthecompletionofconstructionandinstallationoftheFacilities,the
FRIENDSwillprovidetheCITY’sDirectorofPublicWorkswithacompletesetof
electronicAutoCADdrawingsand24”by36”3ͲmilMylar®reproducible“asbuilt”Plans,
reflectingtheactualconstructionandinstallationoftheFacilitiesperformedorcaused
tobeperformedbytheFRIENDSattheSitepursuanttothisAgreement.
9.OWNERSHIPOFFACILITIES
9.1TheFRIENDScovenantsthattheFacilitieswillbefreeandclearofall
liens,claimsorliabilityforlaborormaterialsatthetimeofcompletionofthe
constructionandinstallationthereof.TheFRIENDSwillexecuteaquitclaimdeedor
otherdocumentacceptabletotheCITYtoreflectthetransfertotheCITYofthe
FRIENDS’ownership,ifany,oftheFacilitiesandallrights,titleandintereststherein.
10.UTILITYSERVICE
10.1TheFRIENDSwillberesponsibleforpayingforallutilityservices,
including,withoutlimitation,electric,water,andwastewaterservices,tobeprovidedat
theSite,asmorefullydescribedinExhibit“B”,whichtheFRIENDSrequiresinorderto
constructandinstalltheFacilitiesandtheotherimprovementsattheSite.Inthe
constructionandinstallationoftheFacilitiesandotherimprovements,theFRIENDSwill
notcausedamagetotheCITY’sutilitiesattheSiteorthePark.TheFRIENDSwillbeliable
fortherepairorreplacementcostsoftheCITY’sutilitiesattheSiteortheParkthatare
damagedbytheFRIENDS(includinganypersonhiredorusedbytheFRIENDS)in
connectionwiththeconstructionandinstallationoftheFacilitiesandother
improvements.TherepairorreplacementcostswillbepayableondemandoftheCITY.
TheobligationsoftheFRIENDSunderthisSection10.1willterminateupontheCITY’s
finalacceptanceoftheFacilitiespursuanttoSection6.8.
140513 sdl 00710337B 10
11.INSURANCE
11.1TheFRIENDS,itsconsultants,agentsand/orgeneralcontractors,ifany,at
theirsolecostandexpense,willobtainandmaintainduringtheTermtheinsurance
coveragedescribedinExhibit“D”,insuringnotonlytheFRIENDSanditsconsultantsand
contractors,respectively,butalsowiththeexceptionofworkerscompensation,
employer’sliabilityandprofessionalliabilityinsurance,namingtheCITYasanadditional
insuredconcerningtheFRIENDS’performanceunderthisAgreement.
11.2AnydeductiblesorselfͲinsuredretentionsmustbedeclaredtoand
approvedbytheCITY.AttheoptionoftheCITYeither:theinsurershallreduceor
eliminatesuchdeductiblesorselfͲinsuredretentionsasrespectstheCITY,itselectedor
appointedofficials,officers,employees,andvolunteers;ortheFRIENDSshallprocurea
bondguaranteeingpaymentoflossesandrelatedinvestigations,claimadministration
anddefenseexpenses.Theinsuranceshallremaininfullforceandeffectduringthe
Term,commencingontheEffectiveDateandendingontheterminationofthis
Agreement.EachinsurancepolicyrequiredbythisAgreementshallcontainthe
followingclauses:
(a) "Eachinsurancepolicyrequiredbythisclauseshallbeendorsedto
statethatcoverageshallnotbesuspended,voided,canceledby
eitherparty,reducedincoverageorinlimitsexceptafterthirty
(30)days'priorwrittennoticebycertifiedmail,returnreceipt
requested,hasbeengiventotheCITY."
(b) "AllrightsofsubrogationareherebywaivedagainsttheCITYOF
PALOALTOanditselectedandappointedofficials,officersor
employees,whenactingwithinthescopeoftheiremploymentor
appointment."
(c)"TheCITYOFPALOALTOisnamedasalosspayeeontheFacilities
andbuilders’riskinsurancepoliciesdescribedabove."
(d) "TheCITYOFPALOALTO,itselectedandappointedofficials,
officers,employees,agentsandvolunteersaretobecoveredas
insuredsasrespects:liabilityarisingoutofactivitiesperformedby
oronbehalfoftheFRIENDS;productsandcompletedoperations
oftheFRIENDS;premisesowned,occupiedorusedbythe
FRIENDS;orautomobilesowned,subleased,hiredorborrowedby
theFRIENDS.Exceptforthewaiverofsubrogationcontainedin
Section11.4,thecoverageshallcontainnospeciallimitationson
thescopeofprotectionaffordedtotheCITY,itselectedand
appointedofficials,officers,employees,agentsorvolunteers."
140513 sdl 00710337B 11
(e) "ForanyclaimsrelatedtothisAgreement,theFRIENDS'insurance
coverageshallbeprimaryinsuranceasrespectstheCITYOFPALO
ALTO,itselectedandappointedofficials,officers,employees,
agentsandvolunteers.AnyinsuranceorselfͲinsurance
maintainedbytheCITY,itselectedandappointedofficials,
officers,employees,agentsorvolunteersshallbeexcessofthe
FRIENDS'insuranceandshallnotcontributewithit."
(f) "Anyfailuretocomplywithreportingorotherprovisionsofthe
policiesincludingbreachesofwarrantiesshallnotaffectcoverage
providedtotheCITYOFPALOALTO,itselectedandappointed
officials,officers,employees,agentsorvolunteers."
(g) "TheFRIENDS’insuranceshallapplyseparatelytoeachinsured
againstwhomaclaimismadeorsuitisbrought,exceptwith
respecttothelimitsoftheinsurer'sliability."
11.3AllinsurancerequiredoftheFRIENDS,itsconsultantsand/orgeneral
contractorsbythisAgreementwillbeprovidedbyinsurercarrierswithacurrentA.M.
Best'sratingofnotlessthanAͲ:VII.TheFRIENDSwilldepositorwillcausetobe
depositedwiththeCITY,onorbeforetheEffectiveDate,certificatesofinsurance
necessarytosatisfytheCITYthattheseinsuranceprovisionshavebeencompliedwith,
andtokeepsuchinsuranceineffectandthecertificatesthereforondepositwiththe
CITYduringtheTerm.IftheFRIENDSdoesnotprovideevidenceofcoverageatleast
thirty(30)dayspriortotheexpirationofanyexistinginsurancecoverage,theCITYmay
purchasesuchinsurancecoveragefornotmorethanasixͲmonthperiod,onbehalfof
andatthesolecostandexpenseoftheFRIENDS.TheCITYretainstherighttoreview
thecoverage,form,andamountoftheinsurancecoveragerequiredbythisAgreement
andrequiretheFRIENDStoalterthecoverage,asappropriate.TheCITY'srequirements
shallbereasonableandshallbedesignedtoassureprotectionfromandagainstthekind
andextentofriskwhichexistsatthetimeachangeininsuranceisrequired.Afailureby
theFRIENDSortheFRIENDS’generalcontractortoprovideacceptableinsurancepolicies
orcertificateswiththeCITYincorporatingsuchchangeswithinthirty(30)daysofreceipt
ofsuchnoticewillconstituteadefaultunderthisAgreement.Suchdefaultwill
constituteamaterialbreachandshallbegroundsforterminationofthisAgreementby
theCITY.Theprocuringofsuchrequiredinsurancewillnotbeconstruedtolimitthe
FRIENDS’liabilityhereunderortofulfilltheindemnificationprovisionandrequirements
ofthisAgreement.Notwithstandingthepolicyorpoliciesofinsurance,theFRIENDS
shallbeobligatedforthefullandtotalamountofanydamage,injury,orlossoccurring
duringtheTermthatiscausedbytheFRIENDSoritslandscapearchitect,general
contractor,ordesignprofessionals,orconnectedwiththisAgreementorwithuseor
occupancyoftheSitebytheFRIENDSoritslandscapearchitect,contractors,ordesign
professionals.
140513 sdl 00710337B 12
11.4AllrightsofsubrogationareherebywaivedbytheCITYagainstthe
FRIENDSanditsmanagers,members,employees,andagentswhenanyofthemisacting
onbehalfoftheFRIENDSintheperformanceofthisAgreement.
12.INDEMNITY
12.1TheFRIENDSwillprotect,defend,indemnifyandholdharmlesstheCITY,
itselectedandappointedofficials,officers,employeesandrepresentatives,fromany
andalldemands,claims,damage,lossorliabilityofanynature,includingdeathofor
injurytopersons,propertydamageoranyotherloss,causedbyorarisingoutofthe
FRIENDS’oranyofitslandscapearchitect’s,agents’orcontractor’snegligentacts,
errors,oromissions,orwillfulmisconduct,intheperformanceoforfailuretoperform
itsobligationsunderthisAgreement.TheforegoingindemnityobligationoftheFriends
shallexpireandbeofnofurtherforceoreffectupontheconfirmation,inwriting,bythe
CITYthattheCITYhasacceptedtheFacilities,exceptforanypendingclaimsmade,in
writing,thatarereceivedbytheFRIENDS,theFRIENDS’generalcontractor,ortheCITY
priortosuchacceptance.
13. WAIVER
13.1ThewaiverbyeitherPartyofanybreachorviolationofanycovenant,
term,orconditionofthisAgreementoroftheprovisionsofanyparkimprovement
ordinanceorotherCITYlawwillnotbedeemedtobeawaiverofanysuchcovenant,
term,condition,orordinanceorofanysubsequentbreachorviolationofthesameor
anyothercovenant,term,condition,orordinance.Thesubsequentacceptanceby
eitherPartyofanyconsiderationwhichmaybecomedueorpayablehereunderwillnot
bedeemedtobeawaiverofanyprecedingbreachorviolationbytheotherPartyofany
othercovenant,term,orconditionofthisAgreementoranyordinance.
14. ASSIGNMENT
14.1TheFRIENDSwillnotassign,transfer,orconveythisAgreementwithout
theexpresswrittenapprovaloftheCITY,andanysuchassignment,transferor
conveyancewithouttheapprovaloftheCITYwillbevoidandinsuchevent,attheCITY’s
option,thisAgreementmaybeterminateduponnoticetotheFRIENDS.
15. DEFAULT;REMEDIESFORDEFAULT
15.1ExceptasotherwiseprovidedunderthisAgreement,shouldtheFRIENDS
defaultintheperformanceofanycovenant,termorconditioncontainedinthis
Agreementandsuchdefaultisnotcorrectedwithinthirty(30)daysofreceiptofanotice
ofdefaultfromtheCITY,theCITYmayelecttoenforceanyofthefollowingrightsand
remedies:(a)terminatethisAgreementandallrightsoftheFRIENDSanditsconsultants
andcontractors,ifany;(b)cureanydefaultoftheFRIENDSbyperformanceofanyact,
includingpaymentofmoney,andthecostandexpensethereof,plusallreasonable
140513 sdl 00710337B 13
administrativecosts,willbecomeimmediatelydueandpayablebytheFRIENDStothe
CITY;(c)initiateanactionorsuitinlaworequitytoenjoinanyactswhichmaybe
unlawfulorinviolationoftherightsoftheCITYhereunder;or(d)pursueanyotherright
orremedyasmaybeprovidedinthisAgreement.
15.2Intheeventofadefaultwhichcannotreasonablybecuredwithinthirty
(30)days,theFRIENDSshallhaveareasonableperiodoftimetocurethedefault.The
remediesgiventotheCITYhereunder,orbyanylawnoworhereafterenacted,are
cumulativeandtheexerciseofonerightorremedyshallnotimpairtherightoftheCITY
toexerciseanyorallotherremedies.Incaseanysuit,actionorproceedingtoenforce
anyrightorexerciseanyremedyshallbebroughtortakenandthendiscontinuedor
abandoned,then,andineverysuchcase,thePartieswillberestoredtotheirformer
positions,rightsandremediesasifnosuchsuit,actionorproceedingshadbeenbrought
ortaken.
16.NOTICES
16.1Allnotices,requestsandapprovalsbyaPartywillbegiven,inwriting,and
deliveredbypersonalservice,theUnitedStatesPostalService,expressdeliveryservice,
orfacsimiletransmission,asfollows:
TOCITY:CityofPaloAlto
1305MiddlefieldRoad
PaloAlto,CA94301
Phone:(650)463Ͳ4951
Fax:(650)321Ͳ5612
EͲMail:Greg.Betts@CityofPaloAlto.org
ATTN:Director
COPY:CityofPaloAlto
P.O.Box10250
PaloAlto,CA94303
EͲmail:Brad.Eggleston@CityofPaloAlto.org
ATTN:AssistantDirector
TOFRIENDS:FriendsoftheMagicalBridge,LLC
416Fulton
PaloAlto,CA94301
Phone:(650)380Ͳ1557
EͲmail:olenka@magicalbridge.org
ATTN:OlenkaVillareal
17.MISCELLANEOUSPROVISIONS
17.1ThisAgreementwillbegovernedbyandconstruedinaccordancewith
thelawsoftheStateofCaliforniaandtheCharteroftheCityofPaloAltoandthePalo
140513 sdl 00710337B 14
AltoMunicipalCode.ThePartieswillcomplywithallapplicablefederal,stateandlocal
lawsintheexerciseoftheirrightsandtheperformanceoftheirobligationsunderthis
Agreement.
17.2AllprovisionsofthisAgreement,whethercovenantsorconditions,willbe
deemedtobebothcovenantsandconditions.
17.3ThisAgreementrepresentstheentireagreementbetweentheParties
andsupersedesallpriornegotiations,representationsandcontracts,writtenororal.
ThisAgreementmaybeamendedbyaninstrument,inwriting,signedbytheParties.
ThisAgreementmaybeexecutedinanynumberofcounterparts,eachofwhichwillbe
anoriginal,butallofwhichtogetherwillconstituteoneandthesameinstrument.
17.4AllexhibitsreferredtointhisAgreementarebysuchreferences
incorporatedinthisAgreementandmadeaparthereof.Thefollowingexhibitsare
madeapartofthisAgreement:
Exhibit“A”ͲDescriptionoftheSiteandPathwayimprovements
Exhibit“B”ͲConstructionandInstallationSchedulefortheFacilities
Exhibit“C”ͲItemizedBudgetfortheFacilities
Exhibit“D”ͲInsuranceRequirements
17.5UponrequestoftheCITY,theFRIENDSwillfurnishtotheCITYforits
reviewandapprovalcopiesofitsarticlesoforganization,operatingagreement,and
otherinformationrelatingtoitsorganizationstatus.
17.6ThisAgreementissubjecttothefiscalprovisionsoftheCharterofthe
CityofPaloAltoandthePaloAltoMunicipalCode.Thisprovisionwilltakeprecedence
intheeventofaconflictwithanyothercovenant,termorconditionofthisAgreement.
17.7ThePartiesagreethatthenormalruleofconstructiontotheeffectthat
anyambiguityistoberesolvedagainstthedraftingpartywillnotbeemployedinthe
interpretationofthisAgreementoranyamendmentorExhibithereto.
//
//
//
140513 sdl 00710337B 15
INWITNESSWHEREOF,thePartiesbytheirdulyauthorizedrepresentativeshave
executedthisAgreementasoftheEffectiveDate.
APPROVEDASTOFORM: CITYOFPALOALTO
________________________________________________________________
SeniorAsst.CityAttorney CityManager
APPROVED:FRIENDSOFTHEMAGICALBRIDGELLC
_________________________________________________________________
DirectorofAdministrativeServicesMember
_________________________________________________________________
DirectorofCommunityServicesMember
140513 sdl 00710337B 16
EXHIBIT“A”
DESCRIPTIONOFTHESITEANDPATHWAYIMPROVEMENTS
140513 sdl 00710337B 17
EXHIBIT“B”
CONSTRUCTIONANDINSTALLATIONSCHEDULEFORTHEFACILITIES
PHASES1AND2
Ex
h
i
b
i
t
B
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
Sc
h
e
d
u
l
e
Ͳ
Ma
g
i
c
a
l
Br
i
d
g
e
Ju
n
e
Ju
l
y
Au
g
u
s
t
Se
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
Ph
a
s
e
1
De
m
o
l
i
t
i
o
n
Gr
a
d
i
n
g
Dr
a
i
n
a
g
e
El
e
c
t
r
i
c
a
l
Ma
s
o
n
r
y
Fe
n
c
i
n
g
&Ra
i
l
i
n
g
Pl
a
y
Su
r
f
a
c
i
n
g
Pl
a
y
Eq
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
La
n
d
s
c
a
p
i
n
g
Ph
a
s
e
2
Ma
s
o
n
r
y
El
e
c
t
r
i
c
a
l
Pl
a
y
Su
r
f
a
c
i
n
g
Pl
a
y
Eq
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
La
n
d
s
c
a
p
i
n
g
140513 sdl 00710337B 18
EXHIBIT“C”
ITEMIZEDBUDGETFORTHEFACILITIES
PHASES1AND2
ExhibitC
MagicalBridgePlaygroundͲProjectBudgetReview
Amount
PLAYGROUNDDESIGN&CONSTRUCTIONCOSTS(forworkmanagedbyFriends)
Design&StructuralServices$323,436.00
TDAGrantwork(PrevailingWage) $132,677.00
PlaygroundZones
Spinning $234,739.00
Swinging$246,626.00
SlideMound$411,852.00
TotArea $143,449.00
Picnic$194,225.00
Music$93,767.00
Entry$132,255.00
PlayhouseandElevatedWalks $618,083.00
GeneralSiteWork$815,708.00
TOTALCONSTRUCTIONCOSTS:$3,346,817.00
10%CONSTRUCTIONCONTINGENCY:$334,681.70
TOTALCONSTRUCTIONBUDGETCOSTS:$3,681,498.70
FUNDING
DonationfromFriends(includingequipment) $3,164,346.70
DonatedDesignandStructuralServices $234,475.00
TDAGrant $82,712.00
CIPPEͲ12013funds(TDAmatchingfunds) $49,965.00
CountyGrantFunding $150,000.00
TOTAL:$3,681,498.70
FRIENDDONATEDFUNDSDEPOSITS/PURCHASES
PurchasePlayequipment:$342,876.00
Deposit#1: $2,500,000.00
Deposit#2: $321,470.70
TOTAL:$3,164,346.70
CITYFUNDSPaidToDateAmountRemaining
DesignContract(RHAArevised1/14) $160,000.00 $155,361.10 $4,638.90
Reimbursable$10,000.00 $206.10 $9,793.90
AddServices$10,000.00 $0.00 $10,000.00
TDAMatchfundingfromCIP $49,965.00 $0.00 $49,965.00
Testing $15,000.00 $9,267.90 $5,732.10
%forArt$30,000.00 $0.00 $30,000.00
ProjectCosts(printing,postageetc.)$10,000.00 $3,183.26 $6,816.74
RemainingAmount$15,035.00 $0.00 $15,035.00
TOTAL:$300,000.00 $168,018.36 $131,981.64
BAOͲAMOUNTREQUESTED
FundingprovidedbytheFriends $2,821,470.70
TDAGrant: $82,712.00
CountyGrantFunding: $150,000.00
TOTAL:$3,054,182.70
CurrentAmountinCIPforconstructionpurposes:Ͳ$1,000,000.00
TOTALBAOREQUESTED:$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
Attachment D
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
SAN
BENITO
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
San
Leandro
Union City
Walnut
Creek
Daly
City
Redwood
City
San
Mateo
Palo Alto
Santa Clara
Antioch
Pittsburg
Richmond
Lafayette
Danville
Newark
Martinez
San
Ramon
Tracy
Campbell
ALAMEDA
CONTRA COSTA
SAN
MATEO
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
16
0
P:
\
R
H
A
1
2
0
1
\
g
\
F
i
g
u
r
e
2
_
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
S
i
t
e
.
c
d
r
(
0
8
/
0
8
/
2
0
1
2
)
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
S
i
t
e
FI
G
U
R
E
2
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
S
i
t
e
SO
U
R
C
E
:
E
n
d
e
s
S
t
u
d
i
o
,
R
H
A
A
(
0
6
/
0
6
/
2
0
1
2
)
FE
E
T
80
0N
Ma
g
i
c
a
l
B
r
i
d
g
e
P
l
a
y
g
r
o
u
n
d
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
LE
G
E
N
D
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
x City of Palo Alto Planning Department
x Santa Clara County Water District (Permit to work over the Adobe Creek)
'
(
)
*
!+
)
,
*
,
-
.
/
%
%
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?
1X
f) Not implement all applicable construction
emission control measures recommended in the
Bay Area Air Quality Management District
CEQA Guidelines?
1X
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:
x All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads)
shall be watered two times per day.
x All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered.
x 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.
x All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph.
x All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible.
x 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.
x 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.
x 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 leatherwoodDirca 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.
Woodlandwoolythreads
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:
x 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.
x 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.
x 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:
x 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
x 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
x 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?
1X
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?
1X
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:
x Advalloy, East Charleston Inc., 844 East Charleston Road, Palo Alto, CA 94303: Other Clean-up Site;
x Former Ford Aerospace, 3825 Fabian Way, Palo Alto, CA 94303: Other Clean-up Site;
x Private Residence, Palo Alto, CA 94303: LUST Clean-up Site;
x Palo Alto 76, 835 San Antonio Road, Palo Alto, CA 94303: Other Clean-up Site;
x Taube Koret Campus, 901 San Antonio Road, Palo Alto, CA 94303: Other Clean-up Site;
x 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:
x 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.
x The water quality control measures shall address both construction and operation periods.
x 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.
x The water pollution prevention program shall include BMPs, as appropriate, given the specific
circumstances of the site and project.
x The SWPPP shall be submitted for review and approval to the RWQCB.
x 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?
1X
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?
1X
i) Cause an increase of 3.0 dB or more in an
existing residential area where the Ldn
currently exceeds 60 dB?
1X
j) Result in indoor noise levels for residential
development to exceed an Ldn of 45 dB? 1X
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?
1X
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)?
1X
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
1X
c) Displace substantial numbers of people,
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
1X
d) Create a substantial imbalance between
employed residents and jobs?
1X
e) Cumulatively exceed regional or local
population projections?
1X
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
140513 sdl 00710337B 1
AGREEMENTFORTHEDESIGN,CONSTRUCTIONAND
INSTALLATIONOFFACILITIESANDOTHERCAPITAL
IMPROVEMENTSATMITCHELLPARK
ThisAgreementfortheDesign,ConstructionandInstallationofFacilities
andOtherCapitalImprovementsatMitchellPark(the“Agreement”),dated,for
convenience,______________________,2014(the“EffectiveDate”),ismadeand
enteredintobyandbetweentheCITYOFPALOALTO,aCaliforniacharteredmunicipal
corporation(the“CITY”)andtheFRIENDSOFTHEMAGICALBRIDGE,LLC,aCalifornia
limitedliabilitycompany(the“FRIENDS”)(individually,a“Party”and,collectively,the
“Parties”),inreferencetothefollowingfactsandcircumstances:
RECITALS:
A.TheCITYhasdesignatedasacitypark,underPaloAltoMunicipalCode
section22.08.180,a17.99acresite,commonlyknownasMitchellPark(the“Park”),and
a10ͲfootpathwayfromtheParktoCharlestonRoad.Thesouthwesternportionofthe
ParkandpathwayistheproposedsiteoftheMagicalBridgePlaygroundandthe
CharlestonRoadCorridorPathway(the“Pathway”),whichwillbeboundedbythe
tenniscourts,thenorthernapproachtoAdobeCreek,andthesouthernborderofthe
Park,includingthePathway,connectingtheParkalonga10Ͳfootaccesseasement,
terminatingatCharlestonRoad.
B.TheFRIENDSintendstobenefittheCITYandthegeneralpublicby
designing,constructingandinstallingonapproximately0.8acreoftheParkand
approximatelya0.1acrePathway(the“Site”)certainplayground,playequipment,
slides,features,benches,tables,parkamenities,pathway,signage,andaccessible
crossingofAdobeCreekandassociatedcapitalimprovementsandstructures(the
“Facilities”).TheschematicdescriptionandsitemapoftheSiteisdescribedinExhibit
“A”.Adesign,constructionandinstallationschedulefortheFacilitiesisincludedin
Exhibit“B”.
C.TheFRIENDSwillcomplete100percentoftheconstructiondocument
packagetodesign,constructandinstalltheFacilitiesatsubstantiallyitsowncostand
expense.TheCITYwillgranttotheFRIENDSanamountoffundsnottoexceedfive
hundredthirtyͲtwothousanddollars($532,000),whichtheFRIENDSwillapplytowards
thedesignandconstructioncostsoftheFacilitiesandoffͲsiteFacilities.Ataminimum,
theFRIENDSwillgranttotheCityanamountoffundsofnotͲtoͲexceedtwomillionfive
hundredthousanddollars($2,500,000.00)forthecompletionofPhase1oftheFacilities
andoffͲsiteFacilities,andanotͲtoͲexceedthreehundredtwentyͲonethousandfour
hundredseventydollars($321,470)forthecompletionofPhase2oftheFacilitiesand
offͲsiteFacilities.TheitemizedbudgetforPhases1and2isincludedinExhibit“C”.
140513 sdl 00710337B 2
D. Uponthecompletionofthedesign,constructionandinstallationofthe
Facilities,theFRIENDSwilldeliverpossessionoftheSitetotheCITYandwilltransferall
ofitsrights,titleandinterests,ifany,inandtotheFacilitiestotheCITY.
E.PursuanttotheCITY’spolicyandprocedures,theCITYisrequiredto
allocateonepercent(1%)oftheconstructioncostsofaCITYcapitalimprovement
projectforpublicartin,amongotherplaces,parksandplazas.TheCITYintendsto
allocate1%ofthequalifyingportionofthebudgetfortheFacilities,whichshallbe
deemedacapitalimprovementproject,orthirtythousanddollars($30,000).TheCITY
intendstodisburseeightyͲtwothousandsevenhundredtwelvedollars($82,712)oflocal
TransportationDevelopmentAct(“TDA”)fundstotheconstructiontheCharlestonRoad
CorridorPathwayImprovementProject(the“Pathway”).TheCityintendstodisburse
$150,000oftheSantaClaraCountyParksCharterFundstotheconstructionofthe
FacilitiesuponcompletionoftheFacilities.
F.TheFRIENDSunderstandthat,becausetheCITYisdisbursingTDAfunds
forthebenefitoftheProject,theFRIENDSarerequiredtopayprevailingwagesforany
andalllaborusedinconnectionwiththeconstructionoftheProject.
INCONSIDERATIONOFtheRecitalsAthroughF,inclusive,whichare
madeasubstantivepartofthisAgreement,andthefollowingcovenants,termsand
conditions,thePartiesagree:
AGREEMENT:
1. PURPOSES
1.1ThePartiesagreethatthepurposesofthisAgreementareto:
(a)GranttheFRIENDSanditscontractors,agentsandrepresentatives
temporaryaccesstotheSiteduringtheTerminorderthattheFRIENDSmayconstruct
andinstall,orcausetheconstructionandinstallationof,theFacilities;
(b)ProvideforthepreparationbytheFRIENDS,andthereviewandapproval
bytheCITY,oftheFRIENDS’plans,specificationsandworkingdrawingsfortheFacilities;
(c)Provideforthecompletionofdesign,constructionandinstallationofthe
FacilitiesandoffͲsiteFacilitiesbytheFRIENDSanditscontractors,agentsand
representativesandthegrantingoftheCITY’sapprovalandacceptanceoftheFacilities;
and
(d)ProvideforthetransferofpossessionoftheSiteandallrights,titleand
interestsinandtotheFacilitiesandoffͲsiteFacilitiestotheCITYuponthecompletionof
design,constructionandinstallationoftheFacilities.
140513 sdl 00710337B 3
1.2InregardtotheoffͲsiteimprovementsrelatingtotheFacilities,the
followingwillapply:
(a)NotwithstandinganyprovisionsofthisAgreementtothecontrary,the
FRIENDSshallberesponsibleforthedesign,construction,installation,repair,and/or
maintenanceofanyundergroundimprovementsorfacilitiesthatmayberequiredto
bringthenecessaryutilityservicestotheFacilities,suchaswaterlines,electricalservice,
stormdrainlinesconnectingtoexistingundergroundlines,oranyotheraboveground
orundergroundoffͲsiteimprovementsorfacilities(collectively,the“OffͲSite
Improvements”)thatmayberequiredfortheuseofthePlaygroundandanyportionof
theFacilities,asdescribedinRecitalBabove,thatareconstructedorinstalled,or
causedtobeconstructedorinstalled,bytheFRIENDSattheSite.Theforegoing
provisionregardingtheobligationoftheFRIENDSwithrespecttotheOffͲSite
Improvementstakesintoaccountthat,asoftheEffectiveDate,theremaybeawater
line,anelectricalline,and/orastormdrainconnectiontoandattheSite.
(b)TheFRIENDS’generalcontractorwillcollaborateandotherwise
coordinatewiththeCITYinreͲroutingbicyclistandpedestrianaccessthroughtheSite.
ThePathwayimprovementsshallnotbeperformedwhenregularschoolisinsession.
1.3TheCITY,atitssolecostandexpense,willberesponsibletoperformany
workofconstructionnecessarytocorrect,remove,orrepairanyundiscoveredpreͲ
existingconditions.
1.4TheFRIENDS,atitssolecostandexpense,willberesponsiblefor
completingthedesignandconstructiontheOffͲSiteImprovementsreferredtoin
Section1.2(a)above.
1.5IntheeventtheSiteisdestroyedbyanycausethatrenderstheSiteunfit
forthepurposesdescribedinSection1.1hereof,anditsphysicalconditioncannotbe
repairedwithinonehundredeighty(180)daysfromthedateofdestruction,theneither
PartymaygivewrittennoticeofterminationofthisAgreement,whichwillbecome
effectivethirty(30)daysaftertheotherParty’sreceiptofsuchnotice.
1.6NothinginthisAgreementwillbeconstruedtolimittheCITY’srightto
temporarilyrevoketheauthorityoftheFRIENDSoritscontractors,agentsand
representativestogainaccesstotheSiteforthepurposeshereofintheeventofan
uncureddefaultandbreachofthisAgreementbytheFRIENDSorirrespectiveofany
breachbytheFRIENDS,intheinterestofthepublichealth,safetyandwelfare.
2. TERM
2.1ThisAgreementshallbeforatermofapproximatelyfourteen(14)
months(the“Term”),commencingupontheEffectiveDate,whenthePartieshaveduly
executedanddeliveredthisAgreement.Ifthecompletionofconstructionand
installationoftheFacilitiesisdelayedforanyreasonbeyondthereasonablecontrolof
140513 sdl 00710337B 4
theFRIENDS,thenthePartiesmayagree,inwriting,toextendtheTermonamonthͲtoͲ
monthbasis,inordertopermitthecompletionofconstructionandinstallationofthe
FacilitiesbytheFRIENDSoritscontractors,agentsandrepresentatives.Upon(a)the
FRIENDS’completionofanypunchͲlistitemswithinthetimespecifiedinSection6.8.5,
(b)theCITY’sdeterminationthattheFRIENDShaveachievedfullcompletionofthe
constructionandinstallationwork,and(c)theCITY’sacceptanceoftheFacilitiesby
writtennoticetotheFRIENDS,thisAgreementwillexpireorotherwiseterminate
withoutnoticetoeitherParty.TheTermwillnotextendafterJuly31,2015,unlessthe
Partiesagree,inwriting.
3. USE;ACCESSTOTHESITE
3.1Subjecttoallcovenants,termsandconditionshereof,theCITYhereby
grantstotheFRIENDS,itsmembers,directors,officers,employees,consultants,
contractors,agentsandrepresentativestherevocable,nonexclusiverighttoenterthe
Siteforthepurposeshereof.Nootherrights,titleorinterests,including,without
limitation,anyestate,ownership,leasehold,easementorotherpropertyinterest,inthe
SiteisgrantedorintendedtobegrantedbytheCITYtotheFRIENDSbythisAgreement.
4.CONSIDERATION
4.1TheFRIENDSwillobtaincontributionsfromthecommunitytodefray
substantiallyallofthecostsandexpensesofthedesign,constructionandinstallationof
theFacilities,exceptingonlythosefundswhichtheCITYwillcontributepursuantto
RecitalCandSection4.4.ThecontributionsreceivedbytheFRIENDSwillbeused
exclusivelytopayfortheservicesofaprojectmanager,anyotherindividualwhose
servicesarereasonablyrequiredtocompletethedesignandconstructionand
installationoftheFacilities,andreasonablyrelatedprojectcostsandexpenses.The
servicesoftheforegoingindividualswillbeobtainedbymeansofaninformal
competitiveselectionprocessconductedbytheFRIENDS.TheFRIENDSwilldeliverall
fundsandotherfinancialcontributionsthatitreceivestotheCITY,whichwilldeposit
suchfundsandothercontributionsinaCITYfundoraccountandwilldisburse
accordingly,asdescribedinSection4.4.TheFRIENDSwillbeobligatedtopayanyfeeor
chargeforutilityservicesrenderedtotheFRIENDSattheSiteinconnectionwiththe
Facilities’constructionandinstallation.
4.2TheFRIENDSalsowillundertakeacommunityoutreachprogramto
provideinformationtothebusinessesandresidentsinthevicinityoftheFacilities,
concerningtheFacilities,forthepurposeofsolicitingtheinputandsupportforthe
Facilitiesandconstructionworkandtoseekwaystomitigate,tothemaximumextent
possible,thelossofuseofparkfacilitiesduringtheperiodofconstruction.
4.3AsaconditionprecedenttotheCITY’sobligationtocommence
constructionandinstallationoftheFacilities,withinthirty(30)daysaftertheEffective
Date,theFRIENDSwilltransfer,andinformtheCITY’sDirectorofAdministrative
140513 sdl 00710337B 5
ServicesthattheFRIENDShavetransferred,totheCITY’saccountsufficientfundsforthe
Phase1constructionoftheProject.TheFRIENDSshalltransfertotheCity’saccount
sufficientfundstopayforthePhase2constructioncostsoftheProjectwithinninety
(90)daysaftertheEffectiveDate.Thesufficientfundswillbemadeavailablefromfunds
tobeprovidedbytheFRIENDSandfromfundstoberaisedbytheFRIENDSinthe
communityoutreachprogramreferredtoinSection4.2,andwillbeusedtocomplete
theconstructionandinstallationoftheFacilitiesbytheFRIENDSand/oritscontractors,
agentsandrepresentatives.Theterm“sufficientfunds”referredtointhisAgreement
meansthecompletionofallactualcostsofconstructionandinstallationofthe
improvements,equipment,andstructuresthatconstitutetheFacilities,assetforthin
theFRIENDS’itemizedbudget,assetforthinExhibit“C”.Thebudgetwillincludean
additionaltenpercent(10%)oftheestimatedtotalamountofallactualcostsofthe
Facilitiesasacontingencytomeetanyunforeseencoststhatmayariseduringthe
constructionandinstallationoftheFacilities.
4.3.1Evidenceofassurancewilltakethefollowingform:Evidenceofthe
depositbytheFRIENDSofthetotalamountofsufficientfundsfortheFacilities,as
definedherein,intotheseparateaccountmaintainedbytheCITYwithdisbursements
fromthataccountrequiringthesignaturesofauthorizedrepresentativesoftheParties
willbefurnished.AtsuchtimesastheFRIENDShascurrentlypayableinvoicesforthe
Facilities,theCITYwilltakethestepsnecessarytoexpediteitsapprovalprocesssothat
fundscanbedisbursedfromtheaccountmaintainedbytheCITY,whichwillbe
sufficienttosatisfytheFRIENDS’saccountspayable.TheCITYwillusereasonableefforts
toprocesstherequestsforpaymentinamannerwhichpermitstheFRIENDStoremain
currentonitsobligations.TheDirectorofAdministrativeServices,ordesignee,willbe
theCITY’srepresentativeforallpurposeshereof.IfthisAgreementisterminatedfor
anyreason,beforetheexpenditureofallthefundsintheCITY’sfundoraccountcan
occur,theCITYwillbeentitledtoallrights,titlesandinterestsinthefunds;provided,
however,theCITYwillthereafterexpendthefundsonlyforthepurposeofconstructing
andinstallingtheFacilities,orpartthereof,thatisnotcompletedattheeffectivedateof
termination.Ifanyportionoftheamountremainsandisnotdisbursedfollowingthe
completionoftheFacilities,theremainderwillberetainedbytheCITYandusedto
defraythecostsofmaintenanceoftheFacilitiesattheSite.
4.3.2TheaccountwillbemaintainedinthenameoftheCITYinaform
reasonablyacceptabletotheDirectorofAdministrativeServices.
4.4AsoftheEffectiveDate,theCITYwillhaveestablishedaMagicalBridge
PlaygroundCapitalImprovementProjectFundaccountwithintheCapitalImprovement
ProjectbudgetforFY2013Ͳ14(“CIPPEͲ12013”),relatingtotheFacilities.Becausethe
CITYisrequiredbyitspolicyandprocedurestoreduceitscontributiontotheFacilities’
costsbytheonepercentforartsprogramexpenditure,whichwillbeusedtopayforthe
CITY’scontractor’sservices,theCITYwillreduceitscontributiontotheFRIENDSinan
amountnottoexceedthirtythousanddollars($30,000)tobedrawnfromCIPPEͲ12013.
140513 sdl 00710337B 6
4.4.1TheCITYwilladministerandcoordinatethereceiptanddisbursementof
thesefunds,whichwillbeexpendedforallcostsandexpensesrelatedtothe
constructionandinstallationoftheFacilitiesattheSite.Nointerestontheaccumulated
fundswillbepaidbytheCITY.
4.5TheCITYwillissuepermits,asrequired,andwaivetheobligationofthe
FRIENDStopayanyandallpermitͲandpermitͲrelatedfeesandchargesthataredue
andpayabletotheCITY’sgeneralfundwithrespecttothedesignandtheconstruction
andinstallationoftheFacilitiesattheSiteandanyotherrelatedworktobeperformed
bytheFRIENDSinconnectiontherewith;provided,however,theCITYwillnotwaivethe
obligationoftheFRIENDStopayanyrate,feeorchargethatisdueandpayabletoany
oftheCITY’senterprisefundsforutilityservicesthatarerenderedtotheFRIENDSatthe
Site(otherthantheutilitycoststobepaidbytheCITYpursuanttoSection1.2with
respecttoanyundiscoveredpreͲexistingconditionsoranyOffͲSiteImprovements).
4.6TheCITYhassubmittedtheMagicalBridgePlaygroundPathwayconcept
plansandtheenvironmentalassessmenttotheCITY’sCommunityServicesDepartment,
PlanningandCommunityEnvironmentDepartmentandthePublicWorksDepartment
aswellastotheappropriateboardsandcommissions,including,withoutlimitation,the
ParksandRecreationCommission,theArchitecturalReviewBoard,andtheCityCouncil
forreviewandapprovaloftheconceptplansshowninExhibit“A”.
4.7TheCITYwillprovidestaffsupport,inspectionandtestingservicesandother
assistancetotheFRIENDS,uponreasonablerequest,inconnectionwiththe30%,60%
and90%designreview,bidandconstructiondocuments,andsubmittalreviewsaspart
oftheinitiationandcompletionoftheFacilities.
5.PLANFORDESIGN,CONSTRUCTIONANDINSTALLATION
5.1TheCITYwillreviewandtheFRIENDSwillprepareorcausetobe
preparedfinalplansandspecificationsandworkingdrawings(the“Plans”)forthe
designandtheconstructionandinstallationofthestructuresandimprovements
constitutingtheFacilitiestobelocatedattheSite,asdescribedinExhibit“A”.
5.2TheFRIENDSwillobtainandmaintainallCITYͲissuedpermitsandother
authorizationsrequiredforthecompletionoftheFacilitiesandwillfurnishtotheCITY
uponrequestduringtheconstructionandinstallationphasesanyandallfinancialand
nonͲfinancialsecuritydeemednecessaryandappropriatebytheCITY,including,without
limitation,evidenceofinsurancecoverage,indemnityagreement,andlienwaivers;the
CITYwillnotrequiretheFRIENDStoprovideperformanceandpaymentbonds,provided
thattheCITYhasfirstdeterminedpursuanttoSection4.3thattherearesufficientfunds
availabletocompletetheconstructionandinstallationoftheFacilitiesbytheFRIENDS
anditscontractors,agentsandrepresentatives.
140513 sdl 00710337B 7
6.CONSTRUCTIONANDINSTALLATIONOFFACILITIES
6.1TheFRIENDSwillcommencewiththedesignandtheconstructionand
installationwithinonehundred(100)daysaftertheEffectiveDateinaccordancewith
theconstructionandinstallationschedule,assetforthinExhibit“B”.Allsubmittals,
changeorders,constructionandinstallationworkwillbeconductedinanefficientand
workmanlikemannerinsubstantialcompliancewiththeapprovedtimeschedule.
6.2TheFRIENDSwillcomplywiththeCITY’sregulationsgoverning
constructionnoisecontrolsandregulationsgoverningdustcontrol,allassetforthinthe
PaloAltoMunicipalCode.
6.3TheFRIENDSwillberesponsibletoaccomplishallassociatedwork
requiredtocompleteandinstalltheFacilitiesanditwillberequiredtocomplywithall
conditionsthatareimposedontheFacilitiesduringtheCITY’sapprovalprocess.
6.4TheFRIENDSwillincludestandardCITYrequirementsinallequipment
purchasesandconstructioncontractswiththirdpartiesinregardtowarrantiesand
workmanshipguaranteesfortheFacilities.
6.5Allcontractors,subcontractors,andotherpersonnelwhowillperform
theconstructionandinstallationworkattheSiteundercontractwiththeFRIENDSwill
obtainandmaintainallcurrentlicensesrequiredbytheStateofCaliforniaduringthe
Term.
6.6TheFRIENDSwillmeetallrequirementsoutlinedintheTransportation
DevelopmentAgency(TDA)Grantincludingbutnotlimitedtothebillingandpayment
forgrantfundedportionsoftheprojectpaidonaprevailingwagescaleasrequiredby
thegrantagency.Invoicesshallindicateeligibleandineligibleprojectcosts.
6.7TheFacilitieswillbeconstructedandinstalledattheSiteincompliance
withtheapprovedPlansandTDAgrantrequirements.Anyconditionsrelatingtothe
manner,method,designandconstructionoftheFacilitiesestablishedundertheCITY’s
approvalprocesswillbeconditionsofthisSection6.7asiftheywerestatedand
otherwisefullyincorporatedinthisAgreement.Uponthecompletionofconstruction
andinstallation,theFRIENDS’sprojectmanagerfortheFacilitieswillsubmittothe
CITY’sManager,OpenSpace,ParksandGolfDivision,acertificateofinspection,
verifyingthattheconstructionandinstallationwerecompletedinconformancewith
Title24oftheCaliforniaCodeofRegulations.
6.8ForthepurposesofthisAgreement,theFacilitieswillbedeemed
completedatthetimeallofthefollowinghaveoccurred:
140513 sdl 00710337B 8
6.8.1TheCITY’Slandscapearchitecthasdeliveredastatement,inwriting,to
theCITY,statingthattheFacilitieshavebeensubstantiallycompletedinaccordance
withthePlans;
6.8.2TheFRIENDShasobtainedallnecessaryCITYinspectionsofandapprovals
fortheFacilities;
6.8.3TheParties’representativeshaveinspectedtheFacilities,andallmajor
defectsandincompleteitemsthatmateriallyimpairtheuseoftheSiteintheParkhave
beenremediedanda“punchͲlist”ofminordefectshasbeenpreparedforpromptrepair
andcompletionbytheFRIENDS;
6.8.4AlltrashandgarbagehasbeenremovedfromtheSite;
6.8.5TheCITYhasconfirmed,inwriting,thattheFRIENDShascompliedwith
theprovisionsofthisSection6.8,includingsubsections6.8.1through6.8.6,andfinal
acceptancebytheCITYhasbeenissued.AsaconditionprecedenttotheCITY’s
acceptanceoftheFacilities,theFRIENDSwillcompletethe“punchͲlist”itemswithina
reasonabletimebutbynolaterthanthirty(30)daysaftertheCITYhasmadea
preliminarydeterminationthattheFacilitiesisdeemedcompleted;and
6.8.6Concurrentlywiththeconfirmation,inwriting,bytheCITYtothe
FRIENDSthattheCITYhasacceptedtheFacilitiesandtheFRIENDShasmadetheSite
andthePlaygroundavailabletotheCITYforusebythepublicaftersubstantial
completionofconstruction.Theconstructioncontractenteredintobetweenthe
FRIENDSandtheFRIENDS’generalcontractorshallprovidethatthegeneralcontractor’s
guaranteeshallbeforthedirectandimmediatebenefitoftheFRIENDSandtheCITY
jointly,andshallguarantee,inwriting,thatthework,materials,apparatus,equipment
andworkmanshipthathavebeenperformed,used,installedorotherwiseincorporated
intheFacilitiesarefreeofdefects,andtheFRIENDS’generalcontractor,atitssolecost
andexpense,shallagreetorepairorreplaceanydefectivework,materials,apparatus,
orequipmentorworkmanshipwhichisdiscoveredbytheFRIENDSortheCITYwithin
one(1)yearfromthedateofsubstantialcompletionoftheFacilities.
7.MAINTENANCEANDREPAIRS
7.1TheFRIENDS,atitssolecost,willmaintaintheSiteandtheFacilities
duringtheTerminacleanandsafemannertothecompletesatisfactionoftheCITYand
incompliancewithallapplicablelaws.TheFRIENDSwillprovideapprovedcontainers
fortrashandgarbagegeneratedattheSiteandarrangefortheirdisposal.TheCITY
reservestherighttoenterandinspecttheSiteforcompliancewiththismaintenance
requirementandapplicablesafetyrequirements.TheFRIENDSwillberesponsiblefor
anydamagetotheSiteortheFacilitiesthatarisesinconnectionwiththeconstruction
andinstallationactivitiesattheSite.TheCITYwillberesponsibleforthepreͲexisting
140513 sdl 00710337B 9
conditionofanyutilitiesattheSiteatthecommencementofconstructionand
installationinadditiontotheresponsibilitiesoftheCITY,asdescribedinSection1.3.
7.2IftheFRIENDSfailtoproperlymaintaintheSite,thentheCITYmaynotify
theFRIENDS,inwriting,ofsuchfailure.TheFRIENDSwillbeaffordedareasonable
periodoftimeinordertobringtheSitetoacleanandsafecondition.TheCITY,atits
option,mayelecttoenforceitsrightsandremedies,including,withoutlimitation,
enteringtheSitetoensurethesafetyofallpersonsandpropertythereon.
7.3TheobligationoftheFRIENDStomaintainandrepairtheSiteandthe
FacilitieswillterminateupontheCITY’sacceptanceoftheFacilitiespursuanttoSection
6.8.6.TheCITYthereafterwillmaintainandrepairtheSiteinaccordancewiththe
standards,customsandpracticesoftheCITYpertainingtoitsmaintenanceandrepairof
propertyownedorcontrolledbytheCITY.
8.ASͲBUILTDRAWINGS
8.1UponthecompletionofconstructionandinstallationoftheFacilities,the
FRIENDSwillprovidetheCITY’sDirectorofPublicWorkswithacompletesetof
electronicAutoCADdrawingsand24”by36”3ͲmilMylar®reproducible“asbuilt”Plans,
reflectingtheactualconstructionandinstallationoftheFacilitiesperformedorcaused
tobeperformedbytheFRIENDSattheSitepursuanttothisAgreement.
9.OWNERSHIPOFFACILITIES
9.1TheFRIENDScovenantsthattheFacilitieswillbefreeandclearofall
liens,claimsorliabilityforlaborormaterialsatthetimeofcompletionofthe
constructionandinstallationthereof.TheFRIENDSwillexecuteaquitclaimdeedor
otherdocumentacceptabletotheCITYtoreflectthetransfertotheCITYofthe
FRIENDS’ownership,ifany,oftheFacilitiesandallrights,titleandintereststherein.
10.UTILITYSERVICE
10.1TheFRIENDSwillberesponsibleforpayingforallutilityservices,
including,withoutlimitation,electric,water,andwastewaterservices,tobeprovidedat
theSite,asmorefullydescribedinExhibit“B”,whichtheFRIENDSrequiresinorderto
constructandinstalltheFacilitiesandtheotherimprovementsattheSite.Inthe
constructionandinstallationoftheFacilitiesandotherimprovements,theFRIENDSwill
notcausedamagetotheCITY’sutilitiesattheSiteorthePark.TheFRIENDSwillbeliable
fortherepairorreplacementcostsoftheCITY’sutilitiesattheSiteortheParkthatare
damagedbytheFRIENDS(includinganypersonhiredorusedbytheFRIENDS)in
connectionwiththeconstructionandinstallationoftheFacilitiesandother
improvements.TherepairorreplacementcostswillbepayableondemandoftheCITY.
TheobligationsoftheFRIENDSunderthisSection10.1willterminateupontheCITY’s
finalacceptanceoftheFacilitiespursuanttoSection6.8.
140513 sdl 00710337B 10
11.INSURANCE
11.1TheFRIENDS,itsconsultants,agentsand/orgeneralcontractors,ifany,at
theirsolecostandexpense,willobtainandmaintainduringtheTermtheinsurance
coveragedescribedinExhibit“D”,insuringnotonlytheFRIENDSanditsconsultantsand
contractors,respectively,butalsowiththeexceptionofworkerscompensation,
employer’sliabilityandprofessionalliabilityinsurance,namingtheCITYasanadditional
insuredconcerningtheFRIENDS’performanceunderthisAgreement.
11.2AnydeductiblesorselfͲinsuredretentionsmustbedeclaredtoand
approvedbytheCITY.AttheoptionoftheCITYeither:theinsurershallreduceor
eliminatesuchdeductiblesorselfͲinsuredretentionsasrespectstheCITY,itselectedor
appointedofficials,officers,employees,andvolunteers;ortheFRIENDSshallprocurea
bondguaranteeingpaymentoflossesandrelatedinvestigations,claimadministration
anddefenseexpenses.Theinsuranceshallremaininfullforceandeffectduringthe
Term,commencingontheEffectiveDateandendingontheterminationofthis
Agreement.EachinsurancepolicyrequiredbythisAgreementshallcontainthe
followingclauses:
(a) "Eachinsurancepolicyrequiredbythisclauseshallbeendorsedto
statethatcoverageshallnotbesuspended,voided,canceledby
eitherparty,reducedincoverageorinlimitsexceptafterthirty
(30)days'priorwrittennoticebycertifiedmail,returnreceipt
requested,hasbeengiventotheCITY."
(b) "AllrightsofsubrogationareherebywaivedagainsttheCITYOF
PALOALTOanditselectedandappointedofficials,officersor
employees,whenactingwithinthescopeoftheiremploymentor
appointment."
(c)"TheCITYOFPALOALTOisnamedasalosspayeeontheFacilities
andbuilders’riskinsurancepoliciesdescribedabove."
(d) "TheCITYOFPALOALTO,itselectedandappointedofficials,
officers,employees,agentsandvolunteersaretobecoveredas
insuredsasrespects:liabilityarisingoutofactivitiesperformedby
oronbehalfoftheFRIENDS;productsandcompletedoperations
oftheFRIENDS;premisesowned,occupiedorusedbythe
FRIENDS;orautomobilesowned,subleased,hiredorborrowedby
theFRIENDS.Exceptforthewaiverofsubrogationcontainedin
Section11.4,thecoverageshallcontainnospeciallimitationson
thescopeofprotectionaffordedtotheCITY,itselectedand
appointedofficials,officers,employees,agentsorvolunteers."
140513 sdl 00710337B 11
(e) "ForanyclaimsrelatedtothisAgreement,theFRIENDS'insurance
coverageshallbeprimaryinsuranceasrespectstheCITYOFPALO
ALTO,itselectedandappointedofficials,officers,employees,
agentsandvolunteers.AnyinsuranceorselfͲinsurance
maintainedbytheCITY,itselectedandappointedofficials,
officers,employees,agentsorvolunteersshallbeexcessofthe
FRIENDS'insuranceandshallnotcontributewithit."
(f) "Anyfailuretocomplywithreportingorotherprovisionsofthe
policiesincludingbreachesofwarrantiesshallnotaffectcoverage
providedtotheCITYOFPALOALTO,itselectedandappointed
officials,officers,employees,agentsorvolunteers."
(g) "TheFRIENDS’insuranceshallapplyseparatelytoeachinsured
againstwhomaclaimismadeorsuitisbrought,exceptwith
respecttothelimitsoftheinsurer'sliability."
11.3AllinsurancerequiredoftheFRIENDS,itsconsultantsand/orgeneral
contractorsbythisAgreementwillbeprovidedbyinsurercarrierswithacurrentA.M.
Best'sratingofnotlessthanAͲ:VII.TheFRIENDSwilldepositorwillcausetobe
depositedwiththeCITY,onorbeforetheEffectiveDate,certificatesofinsurance
necessarytosatisfytheCITYthattheseinsuranceprovisionshavebeencompliedwith,
andtokeepsuchinsuranceineffectandthecertificatesthereforondepositwiththe
CITYduringtheTerm.IftheFRIENDSdoesnotprovideevidenceofcoverageatleast
thirty(30)dayspriortotheexpirationofanyexistinginsurancecoverage,theCITYmay
purchasesuchinsurancecoveragefornotmorethanasixͲmonthperiod,onbehalfof
andatthesolecostandexpenseoftheFRIENDS.TheCITYretainstherighttoreview
thecoverage,form,andamountoftheinsurancecoveragerequiredbythisAgreement
andrequiretheFRIENDStoalterthecoverage,asappropriate.TheCITY'srequirements
shallbereasonableandshallbedesignedtoassureprotectionfromandagainstthekind
andextentofriskwhichexistsatthetimeachangeininsuranceisrequired.Afailureby
theFRIENDSortheFRIENDS’generalcontractortoprovideacceptableinsurancepolicies
orcertificateswiththeCITYincorporatingsuchchangeswithinthirty(30)daysofreceipt
ofsuchnoticewillconstituteadefaultunderthisAgreement.Suchdefaultwill
constituteamaterialbreachandshallbegroundsforterminationofthisAgreementby
theCITY.Theprocuringofsuchrequiredinsurancewillnotbeconstruedtolimitthe
FRIENDS’liabilityhereunderortofulfilltheindemnificationprovisionandrequirements
ofthisAgreement.Notwithstandingthepolicyorpoliciesofinsurance,theFRIENDS
shallbeobligatedforthefullandtotalamountofanydamage,injury,orlossoccurring
duringtheTermthatiscausedbytheFRIENDSoritslandscapearchitect,general
contractor,ordesignprofessionals,orconnectedwiththisAgreementorwithuseor
occupancyoftheSitebytheFRIENDSoritslandscapearchitect,contractors,ordesign
professionals.
140513 sdl 00710337B 12
11.4AllrightsofsubrogationareherebywaivedbytheCITYagainstthe
FRIENDSanditsmanagers,members,employees,andagentswhenanyofthemisacting
onbehalfoftheFRIENDSintheperformanceofthisAgreement.
12.INDEMNITY
12.1TheFRIENDSwillprotect,defend,indemnifyandholdharmlesstheCITY,
itselectedandappointedofficials,officers,employeesandrepresentatives,fromany
andalldemands,claims,damage,lossorliabilityofanynature,includingdeathofor
injurytopersons,propertydamageoranyotherloss,causedbyorarisingoutofthe
FRIENDS’oranyofitslandscapearchitect’s,agents’orcontractor’snegligentacts,
errors,oromissions,orwillfulmisconduct,intheperformanceoforfailuretoperform
itsobligationsunderthisAgreement.TheforegoingindemnityobligationoftheFriends
shallexpireandbeofnofurtherforceoreffectupontheconfirmation,inwriting,bythe
CITYthattheCITYhasacceptedtheFacilities,exceptforanypendingclaimsmade,in
writing,thatarereceivedbytheFRIENDS,theFRIENDS’generalcontractor,ortheCITY
priortosuchacceptance.
13. WAIVER
13.1ThewaiverbyeitherPartyofanybreachorviolationofanycovenant,
term,orconditionofthisAgreementoroftheprovisionsofanyparkimprovement
ordinanceorotherCITYlawwillnotbedeemedtobeawaiverofanysuchcovenant,
term,condition,orordinanceorofanysubsequentbreachorviolationofthesameor
anyothercovenant,term,condition,orordinance.Thesubsequentacceptanceby
eitherPartyofanyconsiderationwhichmaybecomedueorpayablehereunderwillnot
bedeemedtobeawaiverofanyprecedingbreachorviolationbytheotherPartyofany
othercovenant,term,orconditionofthisAgreementoranyordinance.
14. ASSIGNMENT
14.1TheFRIENDSwillnotassign,transfer,orconveythisAgreementwithout
theexpresswrittenapprovaloftheCITY,andanysuchassignment,transferor
conveyancewithouttheapprovaloftheCITYwillbevoidandinsuchevent,attheCITY’s
option,thisAgreementmaybeterminateduponnoticetotheFRIENDS.
15. DEFAULT;REMEDIESFORDEFAULT
15.1ExceptasotherwiseprovidedunderthisAgreement,shouldtheFRIENDS
defaultintheperformanceofanycovenant,termorconditioncontainedinthis
Agreementandsuchdefaultisnotcorrectedwithinthirty(30)daysofreceiptofanotice
ofdefaultfromtheCITY,theCITYmayelecttoenforceanyofthefollowingrightsand
remedies:(a)terminatethisAgreementandallrightsoftheFRIENDSanditsconsultants
andcontractors,ifany;(b)cureanydefaultoftheFRIENDSbyperformanceofanyact,
includingpaymentofmoney,andthecostandexpensethereof,plusallreasonable
140513 sdl 00710337B 13
administrativecosts,willbecomeimmediatelydueandpayablebytheFRIENDStothe
CITY;(c)initiateanactionorsuitinlaworequitytoenjoinanyactswhichmaybe
unlawfulorinviolationoftherightsoftheCITYhereunder;or(d)pursueanyotherright
orremedyasmaybeprovidedinthisAgreement.
15.2Intheeventofadefaultwhichcannotreasonablybecuredwithinthirty
(30)days,theFRIENDSshallhaveareasonableperiodoftimetocurethedefault.The
remediesgiventotheCITYhereunder,orbyanylawnoworhereafterenacted,are
cumulativeandtheexerciseofonerightorremedyshallnotimpairtherightoftheCITY
toexerciseanyorallotherremedies.Incaseanysuit,actionorproceedingtoenforce
anyrightorexerciseanyremedyshallbebroughtortakenandthendiscontinuedor
abandoned,then,andineverysuchcase,thePartieswillberestoredtotheirformer
positions,rightsandremediesasifnosuchsuit,actionorproceedingshadbeenbrought
ortaken.
16.NOTICES
16.1Allnotices,requestsandapprovalsbyaPartywillbegiven,inwriting,and
deliveredbypersonalservice,theUnitedStatesPostalService,expressdeliveryservice,
orfacsimiletransmission,asfollows:
TOCITY:CityofPaloAlto
1305MiddlefieldRoad
PaloAlto,CA94301
Phone:(650)463Ͳ4951
Fax:(650)321Ͳ5612
EͲMail:Greg.Betts@CityofPaloAlto.org
ATTN:Director
COPY:CityofPaloAlto
P.O.Box10250
PaloAlto,CA94303
EͲmail:Brad.Eggleston@CityofPaloAlto.org
ATTN:AssistantDirector
TOFRIENDS:FriendsoftheMagicalBridge,LLC
416Fulton
PaloAlto,CA94301
Phone:(650)380Ͳ1557
EͲmail:olenka@magicalbridge.org
ATTN:OlenkaVillareal
17.MISCELLANEOUSPROVISIONS
17.1ThisAgreementwillbegovernedbyandconstruedinaccordancewith
thelawsoftheStateofCaliforniaandtheCharteroftheCityofPaloAltoandthePalo
140513 sdl 00710337B 14
AltoMunicipalCode.ThePartieswillcomplywithallapplicablefederal,stateandlocal
lawsintheexerciseoftheirrightsandtheperformanceoftheirobligationsunderthis
Agreement.
17.2AllprovisionsofthisAgreement,whethercovenantsorconditions,willbe
deemedtobebothcovenantsandconditions.
17.3ThisAgreementrepresentstheentireagreementbetweentheParties
andsupersedesallpriornegotiations,representationsandcontracts,writtenororal.
ThisAgreementmaybeamendedbyaninstrument,inwriting,signedbytheParties.
ThisAgreementmaybeexecutedinanynumberofcounterparts,eachofwhichwillbe
anoriginal,butallofwhichtogetherwillconstituteoneandthesameinstrument.
17.4AllexhibitsreferredtointhisAgreementarebysuchreferences
incorporatedinthisAgreementandmadeaparthereof.Thefollowingexhibitsare
madeapartofthisAgreement:
Exhibit“A”ͲDescriptionoftheSiteandPathwayimprovements
Exhibit“B”ͲConstructionandInstallationSchedulefortheFacilities
Exhibit“C”ͲItemizedBudgetfortheFacilities
Exhibit“D”ͲInsuranceRequirements
17.5UponrequestoftheCITY,theFRIENDSwillfurnishtotheCITYforits
reviewandapprovalcopiesofitsarticlesoforganization,operatingagreement,and
otherinformationrelatingtoitsorganizationstatus.
17.6ThisAgreementissubjecttothefiscalprovisionsoftheCharterofthe
CityofPaloAltoandthePaloAltoMunicipalCode.Thisprovisionwilltakeprecedence
intheeventofaconflictwithanyothercovenant,termorconditionofthisAgreement.
17.7ThePartiesagreethatthenormalruleofconstructiontotheeffectthat
anyambiguityistoberesolvedagainstthedraftingpartywillnotbeemployedinthe
interpretationofthisAgreementoranyamendmentorExhibithereto.
//
//
//
140513 sdl 00710337B 15
INWITNESSWHEREOF,thePartiesbytheirdulyauthorizedrepresentativeshave
executedthisAgreementasoftheEffectiveDate.
APPROVEDASTOFORM: CITYOFPALOALTO
________________________________________________________________
SeniorAsst.CityAttorney CityManager
APPROVED:FRIENDSOFTHEMAGICALBRIDGELLC
_________________________________________________________________
DirectorofAdministrativeServicesMember
_________________________________________________________________
DirectorofCommunityServicesMember
Page 1
MUTUAL COOPERATION AND SUPPORT AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND FRIENDS OF THE MAGICAL
BRIDGE PLAYGROUND
This Mutual Cooperation and Support Agreement (the "Agreement") is entered into as
of June 13, 2016 (the "Effective Date"), by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California
chartered municipal corporation (the "CITY") and FRIENDS OF THE MAGICAL BRIDGE
PLAYGROUND, a California public benefit nonprofit corporation (“FMBP”) (each, a “Party,” and
collectively, the “Parties”), in reference to the following facts and circumstances:
RECITALS
A.The CITY's recreation services are provided through the Recreation Services Division of the
CITY's Department of Community Services (the "Division").
B.The expansion and improvement of the CITY's recreation services, with the assistance of
private individuals and organizations, will result in greater public benefit to be derived
from such services.
C.FMBP, a Section 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization, was founded in 2008 as a community
organization to work in partnership with the City of Palo Alto, with the initial goal of raising
funds to build and support a universally accessible playground.
D.With construction of the Magical Bridge Playground complete and open to the
public, the Parties intend foster an ongoing collaboration to serve visitors to the Magical Bridge
Playground and enhance the user experience.
E.The collaboration is supported initially through the remittance of $38,302 from the
City to FMBP for FMBP to provide playground monitoring services, programs, and special events
at the Magical Bridge Playground in Palo Alto. These funds were raised by FMBP from donors to
support design, construction and maintenance of the Playground.
AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of Recitals A through E, which are made a
substantive part of this Agreement, and the following mutual agreement, covenants, terms and
conditions, the Parties agree:
SECTION 1.TERM; TERMINATION
1.1 The term of this Agreement commences as of the Effective Date (the “Term”), and it will
continue until this Agreement is terminated by a Party upon notice delivered to the other
Page 2
Party.
1.2 A Party may suspend or terminate this Agreement, with or without cause, by giving thirty
(30) days' prior written notice to the other Party.
SECTION 2.PURPOSE OF AGREEMENT
2.1 The Parties have entered into this Agreement in order to strengthen the City and
FMBP’s collaboration to serve the youth and teen population in Palo Alto. During the Term,
FMBP will continue to function as a private and independent organization.
SECTION 3.RESPONSIBILITIES OF FMBP
3.1 FMBP Programs and Services will include:
3.1.1 Summer concert series: FMBP will organize, staff, and manage children’s
summer series events at the Magical Bridge Playground, Levy-Huey stage. FMBP shall:
•Obtain General Liability insurance prior to each event per the
requirements in Attachment A.
•Produce and distribute marketing materials to promote the events
•Include CITY logo on all marketing and promotional materials, including
recognition that CITY is a co-sponsor.
•Contact Greenwaste at 650-493-4894 to request Greenwaste
trash/recycling/compost bins for the event. Request should be one week in
advance.
•Remove from the park all trash and belongings left behind at the event.
•Notify parks maintenance staff at (650) 496-6910:
Immediately to report damage or maintenance needs that pose a safety
hazard; or within 24 hours to report damage or maintenance needs that
does not pose a safety hazard.
•Complete fingerprint background check for all staff and volunteers who
work at the events according to the City’s most current Fingerprint
Policy.
3.1.2 Summer Interns: FMBP may hire summer interns to assist with events and other tasks
associated with the Magical Bridge Playground. FMBP shall:
•Hire teens preferably residing in or attending school in Palo Alto
•Complete fingerprint background check for all interns.
3.1.3 FMBP Ambassadors: FMBP may recruit ambassadors to monitor the Friends of the Magical
Bridge playground during periods of peak usage. FMBP shall:
•Utilize youth and teens residing in or attending school in Palo Alto
•Complete fingerprint background check for any volunteers above the
age of fourteen according to the City’s most current Fingerprint Policy
Page 3
3.1.4 FMBP will provide funding for all FMBP program and services inclusive of both
direct and indirect expenses.
3.2 The Board of FMBP will represent FMBP for all purposes under this Agreement.
FMBP’s Executive Director shall supervise the progress and execution of this Agreement.
3.3 The City will remit $38,302.10 back to FMBP for FMBP to provide playground
monitoring services, programs, and special events. The sources of the funds are from funds
raised by FMBP towards the design, construction, and maintenance of the Magical Bridge
Playground. FMBP is responsible for ensuring that use of the funds complies with any
conditions placed on the funds by donors.
SECTION 4.RESPONSIBILITIES OF CITY
4.1 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 takes
responsibility to maintain the park and the Magical Bridge Playground which will include:
Cleaning the playground every day (trash removal and loose litter clean-up)
Wipe-down cleaning of play equipment once per month
Steam cleaning of sidewalks and play area quarterly
Inspections of the playground by a certified playground safety inspector
once per week.
Requests for playground maintenance by the FMBP will be directed to City
Parks Operations of the Community Services Department. Repair and
maintenance of the playground and the play equipment will be performed
on a reasonable schedule.
Maintenance practices will be periodically re-evaluated and adjusted as
necessary.
SECTION 5.ASSIGNMENT
5.1 Each Party will give personal attention to the faithful performance of this
Agreement and shall not assign, transfer, convey, or otherwise dispose of this Agreement or
any right, title or interest in or to the same or any part thereof without the prior written
consent of the other Party, and then only subject to such terms and conditions as the other
Party may require. The consent to one assignment shall not be deemed to be the consent to
any subsequent assignments. Any assignment without such approval shall be void and, at the
option of the other Party, shall terminate this Agreement and any license or privilege granted
herein. This Agreement and any interest herein shall not be assignable by operation of law
without the prior written consent of the other Party.
Page 4
SECTION 6.NOTICES
6.1 All notices hereunder shall be given in writing and mailed, postage prepaid, by
certified mail, addressed as follows:
To CITY:Office of the City Clerk
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Copy to:Director of Community Services Department
1305 Middlefield Road
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Copy to:President of the FMBP
654 Gilman Street
Palo Alto, CA 94301
SECTION 7.INDEMNITY
7.1 CITY's Indemnity.The CITY agrees to protect, indemnify, hold harmless and
defend FMBP, its officers, agents and employees, from and against any and all claims, loss,
liability, demands, damages, costs, expenses or attorneys' fees caused by or arising out of the
CITY's, its officers', agents', subcontractors' or employees' negligent acts, errors, or omissions,
or willful misconduct, or conduct for which the law imposes strict liability on the CITY in the
performance or nonperformance of the terms of this Agreement, except for such loss or
damage caused by the sole or concurrent negligence or willful misconduct of FMBP; and (ii) as
expressly provided under Subsections 7.2.1 hereof.
7.2 FMBP's Indemnity. FMBP agrees to protect, indemnify, hold harmless and
defend the CITY, its officers, agents and employees, from and against any and all claims, loss,
liability, demands, damages, costs, expenses or attorneys' fees caused by or arising out of
FMBP's, its officers', agents', subcontractors', or employees' negligent acts, errors, or
omissions, or willful misconduct, or conduct for which the law imposes strict liability on FMBP
in the performance or nonperformance of the terms of this Agreement, except for such loss or
damage caused by the sole or concurrent negligence or willful misconduct of the CITY and
subject to the provisions of Subsection 7.2.1.
7.2.1 Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Parties agree that FMBP has no
obligation under this Agreement to indemnify the CITY against any claims, loss, liability,
demands, damages, costs, expenses or attorneys' fees caused by or arising out of the CITY
events, activities or services that may be or are assisted or supported by any FMBP funds.
SECTION 8.MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
Page 5
8.1 FMBP will comply with all applicable federal, California and local laws, ordinances and
directives insofar as those pertain to FMBP’ performance under this Agreement.
8.2 FMBP will permit the CITY, including the City Auditor and the Director of Administrative
Services, or any duly authorized representatives thereof, to, at any reasonable time during the
term of this Agreement, have access to and the right to examine, or have examined, all of
FMBP's records, including its financial records. The CITY's right under this Section 14 shall
include the right to audit, examine and copy such records. FMBP further agrees to permit the
CITY to audit, or have audited, for three (3) years thereafter, all of FMBP's records pertaining to
matters covered by this Agreement. FMBP accordingly agrees to maintain such records for at
least three (3) years following the termination of this Agreement for any reason.
8.3 The terms, covenants, and conditions of this Agreement shall apply to, and shall
bind, the heirs, successors, executors, administrators, assigns, and subcontractors of both
parties.
8.4 The waiver by either party of any breach or violation of any term, covenant, or
condition of this Agreement or of any provision, ordinance, or law shall not be deemed to be a
waiver of any other term, covenant, condition, ordinance, or law or of any subsequent breach
or violation of the same or of any other term, covenant, condition, ordinance, or law.
8.5 The prevailing party in any action brought to enforce the terms of this
Agreement or arising out of this Agreement may recover its reasonable costs and attorneys'
fees expended in connection with such an action from the other party.
8.6 FMBP shall not, in the performance of this Agreement, discriminate in the
employment of any person on the basis 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.
8.7 This document represents the entire and integrated agreement between the
CITY and FMBP and it supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, and agreements,
either written or oral, including the above-referenced cash handling services agreement
between the parties, dated October 2, 1991, and the hold harmless agreement between the
parties related to such cash handling services, dated September 30, 1991. This document may
be amended only by written instrument, signed by the parties
8.8 This Agreement is governed by the laws of the State of California.
8.9 FMBP represents and warrants that it is a duly organized, validly existing
nonprofit public benefit corporation in good standing under the laws of the State of California.
Page 6
Page 7
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the
Effective Date.
CITY OF PALO ALTO PALO FRIENDS OF THE MAGICAL BRIDGE
PLAYGROUND
By:
City Manager Its:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:By:
Senior Asst. City Attorney
APPROVED:
Its:
Director of Administrative Services
Director of Community Services