Agenda packet — Palo Alto City Council, June 20, 2022 (part 2 of 5)

Attachment D

12.d
Packet Pg. 214
Resolution Amending Resolution No. 21-68 Rescinding Resolution 17-43, Declaring a Water Shortage Emergency Condition Calling for Water Use Restrictions, and Urging the County of Santa Clara to Proclaim a Local Emergency Resolution No. 22-XX RL14826 2
including reducing the maximum number of days per week the public may irrigate ornamental landscapes or lawns; and
WHEREAS, the amended and additional restrictions as stated in this Amended Resolution are necessary to conserve the limited water supply of Valley Water for the greatest public benefit with particular regard to public health, fire protection, and domestic use without threatening local land subsidence, by ensuring the conservation of water, by avoiding the waste of water, and by reducing water use in the County in a fair and equitable manner.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Directors of the Santa Clara Valley Water District hereby amends Resolution No. 21-68 (attached as Attachment 1) as follows:

1. Section 6 is replaced with:
“Calls for the public to:
• restrict outdoor watering of ornamental landscapes and lawns with potable water to no more than two days a week; and
• prioritize irrigation of established trees using low-flow irrigation over that of ornamental landscapes and lawns to reduce tree loss; and • restrict the application of potable water to outdoor landscapes in a manner that causes more than incidental runoff such that water does not flow onto adjacent property, non-irrigated areas, private and public walkways, roadways, parking lots, or structures; and
• restrict the application of water to irrigate turf and ornamental landscapes during and within 48 hours after measurable rainfall”

2. In Section 9, replace the 6
th bulleted item with:
“• Use of potable water to irrigate turf, lawns, gardens, or ornamental landscaping by means other than drip irrigation, or hand watering without quick acting positive action shut-off nozzles, on a specific schedule, for example: 1) before 9:00 a.m. and after 5:00 p.m.; or 2) selected days of the week;”

3. Add the following as Section 11:
“Calls for the County, water retailers and cities to:
• prohibit irrigation of lawns and ornamental landscaping during midday hours; and • restrict ornamental landscape and lawn irrigation within their service or jurisdictional areas to Mondays and Thursdays for odd numbered and numberless addresses and to Tuesdays and Fridays for even numbered addresses, for those that have not already adopted specific days when irrigation is permitted within their jurisdictional area.”
Supplemental Attachment 4

Page 2 of 10 ends

12.d
Packet Pg. 215
Resolution Amending Resolution No. 21-68 Rescinding Resolution 17-43, Declaring a Water Shortage Emergency Condition Calling for Water Use Restrictions, and Urging the County of Santa Clara to Proclaim a Local Emergency Resolution No. 22-XX RL14826 3

4. Add the following as Section 12:
“that Valley Water continues to pursue actions corresponding to Stage 3 of its Water Shortage Contingency Plan, including close coordination with the County, cities, retailers, large landscapers and agricultural users to implement ordinances and water use restrictions; aggressive and consistent communication efforts to request significant behavioral change of water users; and augmentation of local water supplies through transfers and withdrawals from groundwater banks.”
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Directors of the Santa Clara Valley Water District by the following vote on April 12, 2022:

AYES: Directors
NOES: Directors
ABSENT: Directors
ABSTAIN: Directors

SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT

____________________________________
JOHN L. VARELA
Chair Pro Tem, Board of Directors

ATTEST: MICHELE L. KING, CMC

__________________________________
Clerk, Board of Directors

Supplemental Attachment 4

Page 3 of 10 ends

12.d
Packet Pg. 216
Resolution Amending Resolution No. 21-68 Rescinding Resolution 17-43, Declaring a Water Shortage Emergency Condition Calling for Water Use Restrictions, and Urging the County of Santa Clara to Proclaim a Local Emergency Resolution No. 22-XX RL14826 4

EXHIBIT A

COVERSHEET

BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 21-68

No. of Pages: 6
Supplemental Attachment 4

Page 4 of 10 ends

12.d
Packet Pg. 217
Supplemental Attachment 4

Page 5 of 10 ends

12.d
Packet Pg. 218
Supplemental Attachment 4

Page 6 of 10 ends

12.d
Packet Pg. 219
Supplemental Attachment 4

Page 7 of 10 ends

12.d
Packet Pg. 220
Supplemental Attachment 4

Page 8 of 10 ends

12.d
Packet Pg. 221
Supplemental Attachment 4

Page 9 of 10 ends

12.d
Packet Pg. 222
Supplemental Attachment 4

Page 10 of 10 ends

12.d
Packet Pg. 223

City of Palo Alto (ID # 14342)
City Council Staff Report

Meeting Date: 6/20/2022 Report Type: Consent Calendar

City of Palo Alto Page 1

Title: Approval and Authorization for the City Manager to Execute Purchase Orders for Electric Distribution Transformers With Prequalified Vendors in an Amount up to $2,000,000 Annually Between FY 2022 - FY 2026 in a Total Not - to-Exceed Amount of $10,000,0 00
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Utilities

Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council: approve and authorize the City Manager or designee to execute purchase orders as recommended by the Utilities Department of up to $ 2,000,000 per fiscal year in aggregate from prequalified vendors f or the purchase of electric distribution transformers for a total not-to-exceed amount of $10,000,000 over five years for FY 2022 through FY 2026.

Executive Summary
The Utilities Department is seeking approval for a uthorization to spend up to $ 2,000,000 in aggregate per fiscal year with any of the prequalified vendors and a total not-to-exceed amount of $10,000,000 from FY2022 – FY2026 for the purchase of electric distribution transformers.

Various types of distribution transformers are used to provide electric service to customers and, when needed, orders are solicited to pre -qualified vendors for each particular type.

Transformers range in price from $1,250 for a pole top transformer to $45,000 for an underground commercial transformer. For FY 2022, staff has ordered $100,000 in transformers and is seeking authorization to process pending purchase orders for 43 additional transformers totaling $1,100,000 to $1,200,000.

Due to the supply chain shortage, the need to upgrade transformers, and extended lead times of up to 24 months, staff is immediately placing substantial transformer orders and recommends increasing the annual authorization amount from $1,000,000 to $2,000,000 for the purchase of transformers including FY 2022.

Background
The Utilities Department uses various types of electric distribution transformers (pole top, padmount, and submersible) to provide electric service to customers in Palo Alto. In order to qualify to become a City supplier, m anufacturers who supply transformers to the City must 13 Packet Pg. 224

City of Palo Alto Page 2

ensure that they comply with the City of Palo Alto transformer specifications and industry standards. In December 2021, staff solicited a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for the prequalification of transformer su ppliers and approved three manufacturers per City of Palo Alto’s Policies and Procedures 1 – 44/ASD, “Prequalification of Contractors .” This ordering process ensures that City of Palo Alto receives competitive pricing without compromising product quality, and the ability to continue providing reliable service to customers.

In November 2015 Council approved and authorized staff request for transformer expenditures up to $1,000,000 each year for five years (Staff Report #6244). Any unspent funds are returned to the Electric Fund reserves at the end of each fiscal year.

Discussion
Per the requirements of City of Palo Alto’s Policies and Procedures 1 – 44/ASD, “Prequalification of Contractors,” the Utilities Department solicited a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for the prequalification of transformer suppliers in December 2021. Staff sent the solicitation to over 400 vendors including six transformer manufacturers, and received five responses. The City’s prequalification process includes an evaluation of the following criter ia: (a) ability to meet technical specifications, (b) ability to deliver materials on time, (c) equipment reliability and quality, (d) manufacturing history, and (e) references from other utilities. As part of its review process, staff identifies any exceptions to the City’s technical specifications and determines whether those are acceptable, and also determine whether the City’s other key criteria are met. If so, the supplier is deemed qualified. If not, then the supplier is deemed not qualified to supply that particular type of transformer. Suppliers can request to become qualified at a later time and will be evaluated by the same criteria. After reviewing the information each supplier provided in its responses to the City’s prequalification question naire and supporting documentation, staff identified three manufacturers qualified for consideration of future transformer purchase orders . Approved manufacturers are identified by transformer type in the following table:

2022 Prequalified Suppliers by Transformer Type

When staff determines that transformers are needed, staff issues a Request for Quotation to the prequalified manufacturers for each particular transformer type. Staff places o rders with manufacturers based on CIP requirements, new c ustomer connections, and to replace old or failed transformers. Engineering staff reviews and evaluates a ll quotes, and issues a purchase order to the vendor offering the lowest price. Due to the current global supply chain shortages the lead time for transformer delivery ranges from 12 – 24 months. 13 Packet Pg. 225

City of Palo Alto Page 3

CPAU will be purchasing more transformers in the upcoming years because of new initiatives, projects, and replacement of existing transformers. In addition, there has been an increase in service upgrades to 40 0amp services which has reduced a portion of the existing transformer stock inventory. It is not yet known how many and what types of transformers will be ordered, or the prices that suppliers will submit, so it is conceivable that the total amount expended with any one supplier could exceed $250,000 in a single purchase. Since staff will be requesting competitive quotes from the qualified suppliers for each purchase, staff requests that Council authorize expenditures in excess of $250,000 with any one of the pre-qualified suppliers, not - to-exceed more than $2,000,000 individually or in aggregate for the following 5 years, FY202 2 - FY2026.

Timeline
The request for approval of the Pre -Qualification of Contractors and authorization to execute purchase orders is for the fiscal years beginning in FY 2022 through FY 2026.

Resource Impact
Depending on whether a transformer is needed for a customer connection, a maintenance replacement, or planned project upgrade, f unds will be available from the appropriate ele ctric budget. F or year one , funds are available in the FY 2022 Adopted Capital budget within the Electric Fund under projects EL -89028 (Electric Customer Connections), EL -98003 (Electric System Improvements) and EL-17001 (East Meadow Circles 4/12kV Convers ion). For FY 2022, staff has ordered $100,000 in transformers and is seeking authorization to process pending purchase orders for 43 additional transformers totaling $1,100,000 to $1,200,000 by June 30 th, 2022. Any unspent funds annually will be returned t o the Electric Fund reserves. Funding for the subsequent years is subject to City Council approval of the annual appropriation of funds through the annual budget process.

Policy Implications
Authorization of this purchase order limit does not represent any change to the existing policy and is consistent with existing City policies including the Council approved Utilities Strategic Plan, Strategic Objectives:

Policies and Procedures 1 – 44/ASD - Prequalification of Contractors BP1 - Ensure a reliable supply of utility resources
BP2 - Operate the utility system safely.

Stakeholder Engagement
This agreement for materials does not directly impact customers that would require community outreach. Similarly, staff requested Council approval and authorization for a similar transformer supplier prequalification in November 2015 (Staff Report #6244).

Environmental Review
13 Packet Pg. 226

City of Palo Alto Page 4

Council’s approval of the annual purchase limit for electric distribution transformers does not meet California Environmental Quality Act’s definition of “project” under Public Resources Code section 21065, and environmental review is not required. Replacement or reconstruction of existing transformers is categorically exempt from CEQA review under Public Resources Code 15302.
13 Packet Pg. 227

City of Palo Alto (ID # 14373)
City Council Staff Report

Meeting Date: 6/20/2022 Report Type: Consent Calendar

City of Palo Alto Page 1

Title: Policy and Services, Office of the City Auditor and Staff recommends that City Council Approve the Building and Permit Review Report From: City Manager
Lead Department: City Auditor

Recommended Motion
Policy & Services Committee, City Auditor and S taff recommends that City Council consider the following action:

1) Review the Building Permit Process Review report and corresponding recommendations for improvement and consent.

Executive Summary
Baker Tilly, in its capacity serving as the Office of the C ity Auditor, performed an assessment of the City's Building & Permit Process. This assessment was conducted in accordance with the FY2021 Audit Plan approved by City Council.

Through the audit activity, the Office of the City Auditor identified fifteen (15) recommendations and opportunities for improvement. Planning & Development Services concurred with each finding and has drafted action plans for each item.

The Office of City Auditor will perform periodic follow up procedures to validate that corrective actions have been implemented.

Background
Planning & Development Services (PDS) is responsible for long range planning, current planning, code enforcement, building permits, and building inspections. The chief planning official oversees long range and current planning and code enforcement, with the chief building official overseeing building inspections, plan check, and development services – which leads issuance of building permits. Both officials report to the PDS assistant director. The PDS director has direct reports that include the assistant director and departmental support functions.

14 Packet Pg. 228

City of Palo Alto Page 2

The current iteration of PDS was created from the merger of the Planning and Community Environment Department and Development Services Department during fiscal year 2020. The merger was designed to “create one cohesive unit focused on entitlements, permitting, code enforcement, and land use visioning” – per the City’s 2020 budget document. This area has been the subject of additional reorganizations over the last decade as well.

This audit focuses in particular on the building permit and inspection processes. Building permits are issued through the City’s Development Center, which was created approximately a decade ago to help centralize and better coordinate the permitting process across all City departments and provide a more ‘one stop shop’ model for residents, contractors and the like. PDS issues a number of different building permits – including for ‘minor’ smaller scale projects (direct permits) and larger projects for residential and commercial projects that require more in-depth review.

Discussion
The attached report summarizes the analysis, audit findings, and recommendations.

Timeline, Resource Impact, Policy Implications
The timeline for implementation of corrective action plans is identified within the attached report. All corrective actions are scheduled to be implemented by FY 2023.

Stakeholder Engagement
The Office of the City Auditor worked primarily with Planning & Development Services and engaged with additional stakeholders, including the City Manager’s Office and City Attorney’s Office, as necessary. In addition, the scope of services included engaging building permit applicants, as outlined in the report.

The Office of the City Auditor included an audit activity related to the adjustment in the FY2021 Audit Plan approved by City Council . The objectives of the Building Permitting Process Review are to:

(1) Identify the highest impact areas to focus the assessment (e.g., specific permit type(s), specific sub-processes, etc.)
(2) Document corresponding process(es) and evaluate for efficiency and effectiveness
(3) Benchmark operational performance against industry practices and established standards
14 Packet Pg. 229

City of Palo Alto Page 3

Environmental Review
Environmental review is not applicable to this audit activity.

Attachments:
• Attachment14.a: OCA - Building Permit Process Review (Final Draft) 14 Packet Pg. 230

1 City of Palo Alto
Office of the City Auditor
Building Permitting Process
Review
April 10, 2022

14.a
Packet Pg. 231

2 Executive Summary

Purpose of the Audit
Baker Tilly, in its capacity serving as the Office of the City Auditor, performed a review of the building permitting process in accordance with the FY2021 Audit Plan approved by City Council. The objectives of this review were to:

1) Identify the highest impact areas to focus the assessment (e.g., specific permit type(s), specific sub-processes, etc.)
2) Document corresponding process(es) and evaluate for efficiency and effectiveness 3) Benchmark operational performance against industry practices and established standards Report Highlights
Key Findings Page # Description of Finding
The lead time for a
building inspection is
approximately two weeks
from request to
inspection.
35 Lead times have been as long as 2 weeks between the time a building inspection is requested to an inspector arriving on -site. While this has improved at times during the OCA’s review, the lead times remain a consistent concern within Planning & Development Services (PDS) and for its customers. In addition, any improvements are precarious with a staff absence – whether planned or due to injury, etc. that can quickly erode any improvement to lead time. In addition, contract inspection staff, who could be utilized to help with lead times, have been difficult to obtain, particularly after the start o f the pandemic. Long lead times result in a host of compounding issues, with contractors scheduling inspections far in advance of work being completed – resulting in either inspectors arriving before work is complete or re-scheduling of appointments. This is confirmed by the examination of inspections requested – with 18% of inspections requested being cancelled.

Customers/applicants
need better information
on all aspects of the
permitting and inspection
process.
37 This finding closely relates to a number of the other observations within this report related to enhancing the customer service experience. Overall, the building permitting process would benefit from improved availability of documentation for all aspects of the permitting process, including checklists, forms and guidelines. These resources can be difficult to locate and also need updating (particularly related to the ability to submit applications on-line). In addition, customers would benefit from continued enhancements to the on-line permitting system – particularly those related to streamlining the process.

Further, the customer experience would benefit from additional training of staff and communication across departments.

PDS is operating under
an outdated initiative for
the operation of its
building permit function.
45 PDS is operating under a decade plus old strategic plan - ‘Blueprint for a New Development Center’ – which created the Development Center. While the model has helped to improve cooperation between departments and provide a one-stop-shop for applicants, this blueprint was developed prior to any permits or intake of information being done virtually. A full-fledged strategic planning process should be conducted in the near future. The OCA acknowledges a strategic planning process is a significant and lengthy undertaking; however, the City needs to be cognizant of what the building permitting process will look like in post-pandemic times to ensure alignment with process improvements, staffing, and related items.

14.a
Packet Pg. 232

3 Key Recommendations to the City Manager:
• Work towards improving inspection lead times by hiring an additional building inspector and implementing other efficiency measures • Continue efforts to enhance and improve the on-line permitting system, including availability and accuracy of guidance documents and enhancing the user interface.
• Keep future vision for the building permitting process in mind with return to more normal operations post -pandemic, particularly related to balance of in -person versus on -line permitting and how this impacts staffing, resources, etc.

14.a
Packet Pg. 233

4 Table of Contents
Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................................................... 2 Purpose of the Audit ..................................................................................................................................................... 2 Report Highlights ........................................................................................................................................................... 2 Objective ........................................................................................................................................................................... 5 Background ..................................................................................................................................................................... 5 Scope ................................................................................................................................................................................. 5 Methodology .................................................................................................................................................................... 5 Compliance Statement .................................................................................................................................................. 6 Organizational Strengths ............................................................................................................................................. 7 Overview ........................................................................................................................................................................... 8 Building Permit Data Analysis .................................................................................................................................... 9 Interviews with Staff .................................................................................................................................................... 14 Organizational Analysis ............................................................................................................................................. 21 Customer Survey ......................................................................................................................................................... 23 Building/Contractors Associations Feedback ..................................................................................................... 28 Audit Results ..................................................................................................................................................................... 33 Appendices ........................................................................................................................................................................ 53 Appendix A: Customer Survey ................................................................................................................................. 53 Appendix B: Management Response ..................................................................................................................... 67

14.a
Packet Pg. 234

5 Introduction

1 https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes-reports/reports/city-manager-reports-cmrs/2021/id-11952- [80076].pdf
Objective The objectives of the Building Permitting Process Review are to:

(1) Identify the highest impact areas to focus the assessment (e.g., specific permit type(s), specific sub-processes, etc.)
(2) Document corresponding process(es) and evaluate for efficiency and effectiveness (3) Benchmark operational performance against industry practices and established standards

Background During the FY2021 risk assessment1, the Office of the City Auditor (“OCA”) noted risk areas regarding the building permitting process. For context, permits are mandated before all construction and/or remodeling projects, with the option to file in-person at City Hall (prior to the COVID-19 restrictions) or through the Online Permit Services System.

The planning function will provide building permits based on the function's broader Comprehensive Plan 2030, compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Plan Review (a fully outsourced service) and other codes and regulations. There is also an Architecture Review Board that consults on the decision for new proposals. All of these factors are considered when making decisions regarding proposals and requests.

This may come with some potential risks, including:
• Individuals/businesses may not apply for permits or request inspections before initiating projects or the potential for delays or backlogs in providing permitting and inspection services
• Potential disagreement around the interpretation of current codes and regulations, increasing the amount of discretion necessary in decision making • Pressure on existing staff and lower overall quality with high quantities of new building proposals required for review
While these are only examples, the risk assessment identifies risks in the permitting process as higher likelihood than average. Permitting is an important function in City operations, worthy of an internal audit to ensure efficient operations and mitigated risk.

Scope The scope includes process review for key permit types in order to identify opportunities for improvement and risk mitigation.

Methodology The audit activity was conducted in four steps. The following is a description of each step of our methodology.

Step 1 – Audit Planning
This step consisted of the tasks performed to adequately plan the work necessary to address the overall audit objective and to solidify mutual understanding of the audit scope, objectives, review process, and timing between stakeholders and auditors. Tasks include:
• Gathered information to understand the environment under review • Secured agreement on the audit objectives
• Assessed the audit risk

14.a
Packet Pg. 235

6 • Wrote an audit planning memo and audit program
• Announced the initiation of the audit and conduct a kick-off meeting with key participants
Step 2 – Organizational and Business Process Analysis
This step involved executing the procedures in the audit program to gather information, interview individual process owners and participants, survey appropriate industry stakeholders, conduct focus groups and field observations, and analyze the data and information gathered in order to obtain sufficient evidence to address the agreed-upon audit objectives.

Audit procedures included, but were not limited to:
• Interviewed the appropriate internal and external stakeholders and process owners
• Narrowed focus to high risk permitting categories/types as determined through the planning process
• Administered a confidential survey of inspections process stakeholders • Reviewed the building codes, state statutes, and other applicable governance documents
• Performed test procedures and reviewed of selected supporting documents • Benchmarked operational performance against industry best practices

Step 3 – Reporting
In Step 3, the project team will perform tasks necessary to finalize audit working papers, prepare and review a draft report with the stakeholders, and submit a final audit report.

Tasks include:
• Developed findings, conclusions, and recommendations based on the supporting evidence gathered
• Validated findings with the appropriate individuals and discussed the root cause of the identified findings
• Completed supervisory review of working papers and a draft audit report • Distributed a draft audit report and conducted a closing meeting with key stakeholders
• Obtained written management responses and finalized a report • Reviewed report with members of City Council and/or the appropriate Council Committee
• Presented the final report to the City Council and/or appropriate Council Committee

Compliance
Statement
This audit activity was conducted from July 2021 to December 2021 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards, except for the requirement of an

14.a
Packet Pg. 236

7 [1] Government auditing standards require an external peer review at least once every three (3) years. The last peer review of the Palo Alto Office of the City Auditor was conducted in 2017. The Palo Alto City Council approved a contract from October 2020 through June 2022 with Baker Tilly US, LLP (Baker Tilly) and appointed Kyle O’Rourke, Principal in Baker Tilly's Public Sector practice, as City Auditor. Given the transition in the City Audit office, a peer review was not conducted in 2020 and will be conducted in the second year of Baker Tilly’s contract.
external peer review[1]. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

Organizational
Strengths
During this audit activity, we observed certain strengths of the City. Key strengths include:

Quick adaptation to a remote working environment
Prompt to make improvements when opportunities are discovered High level of expectations and work ethic among Planning & Development Services (PDS) staff

Additionally, the OCA commends the City for its response to COVID-19. In particular, we greatly admire all efforts taken to support the health and well-being of Palo Alto citizens as well as the support of essential workers during this time of heightened risk.

The Office of the City Auditor greatly appreciates the support of the Planning & Development Services Department in conducting this audit activity.

Thank you!

14.a
Packet Pg. 237

8 Detailed Analysis
Overview
Planning & Development Services (PDS) is responsible for long range planning, current planning, code enforcement, building permits, and building inspections. The chief planning official oversees long range and current planning and code enforcement, with the chief building official overseeing building inspections, plan check, and development services – which leads issuance of building permits. Both of these officials report to the PDS assistant director. The PDS director has director reports that include the assistant director and departmental support functions.

This area has been the subject of additional reorganizations over the last decade as well.

As part of this audit activity, the OCA conducted a number of different analysis approaches to help develop a well-rounded perspective of the City’s building permit and inspection processes. The following section of the report provides an overview of each approach and a summary of significant findings. • Building Permit Data Analysis – includes an overview of volume of building permits over last several years and more in depth examination of number of permits for photovoltaic projects. • Interview with Staff – includes list of interviewees from PDS and City, general questions asked, and summary of themes from interviews.
• Business Process Review – detailed analysis of the building permits process, including process flow charts. • Organizational Analysis – includes an overview of departmental structure, staffing, and technology utilized. • Customer Survey – contains list of survey questions sent to all recent applicants for a building permit and a summary of themes from responses.
• Building Industry Associations Feedback – details trade associations contacted to gain additional perspectives on the City’s building permit and inspection processes.
• Code Review and Benchmarking – includes comparison of City’s permit process with comparable cities and more detailed examination of their photovoltaic code.

14.a
Packet Pg. 238

9 Building Permit Data Analysis
The OCA examined data provided by PDS in a number of key areas, including building permit type and volume and also number of inspections requested and current status. The following offers summary tables and brief narrative to explain insights gained. This analysis helped to inform and guide our further observations and recommendations included within this report.

Overall, analysis of the provided data insights into overall volume of the permits and variability between types and how this has been impacted by the pandemic. In addition, our analysis examined how many of permits applied for involve some type of photovoltaic component – a key area of concern the City and City Council. In addition, we looked further into the number of inspections performed with more in depth analysis on inspections requested that were either cancelled by the resident/contractor or deemed not ready for inspection.

Building Permit Data
The OCA examined the number of permits submitted over the last several years to gauge what types of permits had the highest volume and examine other trends.

Total permits submitted has been impacted in recent years from a level of approximately 4,000 permits submitted annually in 2018 and 2019 – with 2020 showing just under 3,000 total permits submitted. Permits submitted has rebounded in 2021 with over 3,700 permits submitted. Demand for permits decreased in 2020 – driven largely by construction slow down due to the pandemic.

14.a
Packet Pg. 239

10 Demand for residential permits of all types far exceeded commercial permits with residential permits in the three major areas shown totaling nearly half (nearly 1,800) of all permits submitted for 2021. Commercial permits submitted totaled between 500 to 600 annually for 2018 and 2019 – but have dropped considerably with 330 submitted in 2020 and near 350 submitted for 2021.

The OCA summarized the 36 different categories of permits that PDS tracks to analyze and better display overall trends.

The following is list of these categories to align with the above graphic:

OCA Summarized Grouping Category Description Category/Construction Type Code
Resisdential - New Residential - New Single Family 101
Residential - New Two Unit Bldg 103
Residential - New 3 -4 Unit Bldg 104
Residential - New 5 units or more Bldg 105
Residential - New Mixed Use (Commercial/Residential) Bldg 107 Commercial - New Commercial - New bldg 328
Res - Elec/Mech/Plum Only Residential - Electrical/Mechanical/Plumbing only 432 Res - Remodel/Rep/Add Residential - Remodel/Repair 433
Residential - Addition and Remodel 434
Comm - Elec/Mech/Plum Only Commercial - Electrical/Mechanical/Plumbing only 435 Comm - Remodel/Rep/Add Commercial - Remodel/Repair 436
Commercial - Addition and Remodel 437
Deconst/Demo Residential - Deconstruction 644
Residential - Demolition 645
Residential - Deconstruction Garage/Carport/Accessory Bldg 646 Residential - Demolition Garage/Carport/Accessory Bldg 647 Commercial - Deconstruction 648
Commercial - Demolition 649
Commercial - Interior Non-Structural Demolition 650
Re-Roofing Re-Roofing 331
Revision Revision - Revision to Issued Building Permit 910 Direct Permit Repair Gas Leak - Direct 'Online' Permit 991 Boiler Replacement - Direct 'Online' Permit 992
Furnace Replacement - Direct 'Online' Permit 993
Re-Roofing - Direct 'Online' Permit 994
Water Heater Replacement - Direct 'Online' Permit 995
Backflow Device - Direct 'Online' Permit 996
Window Replacement - Direct 'Online' Permit 997
Re-Pipe Water Piping System - Direct 'Online' Permit 998 Other Non Bldg Structures (sign, bus shelter, etc) 329
Pool/Spa 330
Landscape 333
Use and Occupancy Only 431
Residential - Garage/Carport/Accessory Bldg 438
Building Moving/Relocation 651
Miscellaneous (Noise Exemption, Parking Pass, etc) 900

14.a
Packet Pg. 240

11 The OCA further analyzed the building permit data to examine the number of permits that were for photovoltaic (PV), solar, and heat pump projects. With the City’s Sustainability & Climate Action Plan, these projects are of particular importance to the City and its residents. As such, the OCA examined the permit submitted data to pull out this information as PV, solar, and heat pump projects can be included in a number of the categories shown above. The OCA analyzed the description from all permits issued by PDS over the last four years to aggregate the following. Up until early 2021, PDS did not have a separate flag or way of tracking photovoltaic permits issued.

In aggregating the data, the OCA made every effort possible to not double count between the categories indicated within the table. Overall volume for these types of projects continue to increase, even with pandemic related pressures that likely caused decrease in overall permit volume as discussed earlier in report. While permits related to these projects have been between 200 to near 350 permits annually – this is still less than 10% of the overall number of permits issued by PDS on an annual basis.

Inspection Data
PDS provided the OCA with the current inspection status for all inspections requested for from 2018 to 2021. The following chart shows the total number of inspections requested and performed by PDS inspectors (not other departments, i.e. Fire, Public Works, etc.). Of note, this table includes all inspections requested, regardless of ultimate status including approved, cancelled, not approved, etc.

14.a
Packet Pg. 241

12 As with permits submitted, inspections requested has also decreased since 2018, again driven by pandemic related pressures. Number of inspections for 2021 has increased slightly at just over 22,400 – but still below the 2018 level of nearly 30,000, a near 25% decrease.

The OCA further examined inspections for PDS inspectors that were requested, but were then either cancelled prior to the inspection date scheduled or deemed to be not ready for inspection once the inspector arrived.

The number of inspections requested and then cancelled totals just over 4,000 for 2021, with a approximately 800 additional scheduled inspections deemed not ready. For 2021 this totals nearly 5,000 scheduled inspections – nearly 22% of total inspections requested - that were scheduled, but did not result in an inspection being completed. Cancelled and not ready inspections for 2021 is down as compared to 2020 – where over 25% of inspections were cancelled or deemed not ready. However, 2021 is still higher on a percent basis than the 2018 level of approximately 19%. Notably, just over 5,500 inspections were cancelled or deemed not ready in 2018 as compared to approximately 4,900 in 2021, even though the number of total inspections requested in 2021 was approximately 25% less.

Themes
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
2018 2019 2020 2021
Thousands
Inspections Requested by Year

14.a
Packet Pg. 242

13 Observations from OCA’s analysis of building permit data and related information include:
• Overall permit volume decreased significantly in 2020 due to pandemic related pressures. • Permit volume is recovering in 2021
• PV and solar projects account for less than 10% of overall permits issued by PDS. • Inspections requested has seen a 25% drop from 2018 to 2021. • Inspections requested and then either cancelled or deemed not ready for inspection account for over 20% of total inspections requested in 2021.

14.a
Packet Pg. 243

14 Interviews with Staff
The OCA conducted a review of the building permitting and inspection processes through a number of interviews with key stakeholders and process owners. Staff interviews provide valuable insights into the overall process and provide the OCA with background on the inner workings of the processes. In addition, staff often provide suggestions for improvement that will benefit the overall process and ultimately the applicants and the City. The following includes general questions asked, list of those interviewed by title/function and a summary of overall themes from the interviews.

Throughout these interviews, the OCA collected observations based on themes and patterns heard in interviews. These interviews were key in terms of informing our understanding of the process and also formulating a prioritized list of key areas of concern and corresponding recommendations for improvement (as outlined later in this report).

The interviews were conducted in a conversational format to provide the interviewees with the opportunity to openly share about the process, their role in the process, and any other points of interest or concern. For consistency, we generally asked questions similar to the following:
• Where do you feel like the permitting process is the smoothest? What permitting types are the department’s bread and butter?
• What permitting types tend to cause the most customer complaints? • What permitting types tend to cause the greatest drain on internal resources? • What permitting types tend to be prone to error in the process? • Where do you face the most bottlenecks in communications? • Are there positions currently in which only one person has a key piece of knowledge? What do you do when that person is out of the office?
• How is workload distributed among your team and the department as a whole? Are there any teams who are bottlenecks due to having regularly heavy workload?
• What areas in the permitting operations feel like there may be missing reviews/approvals? Any areas in which quality assurance is an issue?
• Where might there be a lack of documentation or standardized process? • What systems are you using most often in your day to day? Do they meet your needs? • Where are their heavily manual steps in the process? Are these steps necessary to be manual?

The OCA interviewed PDS staff and other City department staff. The other City department staff interviewed include those that help staff the Development Center and/or are heavily involved in the permitting and inspection processes. In some cases – particularly with manager or above level staff in PDS, we conducted follow up interviews for clarification and further information to best inform our review.

The following is a list of staff interviewed as part of our work (the number in parentheses following a title indicates how many staff within that title we interviewed):
• Director, Planning and Development Services
• Assistant Director, Planning and Development Services • Chief Building Official
• Assistant Chief Building Official
• Current Planning Manager
• Inspection Manager
• Development Services Manager
• Building Inspector Specialist (3)
• Project Coordinator (5)
• Senior Management Analyst
• Senior Business Analyst

In addition to PDS staff, we also interviewed a number of City staff who support the building permit and inspection processes. The following is a list of staff by title interviewed as part of our work:
• Public Works Manager – Engineering
• Acting Deputy Chief – Fire Marshal (2)

14.a
Packet Pg. 244

15 • Acting Urban Forestry Manager
• Utilities Manager
• Public Works Manager – Water
• Senior Industrial Waste Investigator
• Public Works Manager – Zero Waste
• Zero Waste Coordinator
• Public Works Manager – Deconstruction

Themes

Observations from OCA’s interviews with staff include:
• Drive to continue to improve and refine OPS to improve overall process. • Desire to improve overall cycle times (i.e. time from initiating permit/inspection to completion) for all processes. • Need to provide better resources and information on-line to applicants/customers. • Need to create better internal documentation for processes to ensure consistency. • Improve communication between PDS staff and departments supporting Development Center.

14.a
Packet Pg. 245

16 Business Process Review
Detailed Permitting Process Walk Through
The OCA conducted a detailed analysis of the building permitting process with walkthrough interviews. Throughout these interviews, the OCA sought to understand the process steps, the individual(s) completing each step, nuances of the process step requiring a special process note, and risks associated with any given process step (or with a process as a whole). After conducting these interviews, the Team documented each major process step in a process flow to clearly notate additional comments on the process and associated risks.

These risks are areas in which the City can improve its overall process. Not all of these risks are immediate needs, but these represent pain points in the customer experience or inefficiencies in internal operations. Without planning to address these risks, the City may not be operating at its full capacity, nor serving its customers to the fullest potential.

A summary of specific process risks are as follows:

Process Phase Risk Notes
Pre-
Application
Even if the pre-application process is completed fully and accurately, the applicant is still required to answer additional information, complete fee payments, and submit additional uploads. However, most often the pre-application materials are lacking, meaning that there is still the “application phase” for the applicant after having submitted this information. The title of “pre-application” terminology does not properly set applicant expectations, setting applicants up for frustration.

Applicants have noted confusion over various application types if not familiar with the system. Furthermore, there are no descriptions or links to descriptions in the OPS system, so applicants would have to search separately for descriptions on Palo Alto’s website.

The OPS system requests detailed description for the pre-application, but there is no guidance as to how long this description should be or what should/should not be included. Consequentially, applicants aren’t sure if they are missing information.

Applicants are required to submit supporting documentation in the pre-application process, but the OPS system does not provide guidance regarding what documentation is needed, nor does it provide a link to find the information on the website. The documentation is also required to be in PDF format with a specific naming convention, but this is not detailed in the OPS system either. Applicants would have had to watch the video or read the instructions on the separate Palo Alto building permits website to have known about this. The Palo Alto team regularly receives incorrect document submissions because of these issues.

Pre-
Application
Review
The cloning process is the method by which the project coordinator copies and pastes information from the pre-application to the application.

This requires manual entry. If all information in the pre-application is proper, the cloning process is quick. But oftentimes pre-applications come in with improper naming conventions. As stated in the pre-application phase, there is not guidance for the applicant in the online permitting system in regards to naming conventions.

When pre-application acceptance auto generated emails are sent to applicants, oftentimes applicants consider this to be an acceptance of their application. This causes confusion for applicants who aren’t familiar with the process.

Applicants should wait for all departments to complete their review prior to receiving the necessary changes due to the limitations on OPS, but applicants will tend to make changes prematurely prior to receiving all comments from all departments.

14.a
Packet Pg. 246

17 Process Phase Risk Notes
Application
Review and
Issuance
It is common when an application is resubmitted to have new errors that didn’t exist in previous versions. This is particularly relevant in naming conventions. If naming conventions are slightly off, the project coordinator may manually make changes, but otherwise the project coordinator will push the application back to the applicant.

It is uncommon for applications to move to the issuance process on the first round. Most applications require some revisions.

14.a
Packet Pg. 247

18 Palo Alto Building Permitting Process
Applicant
Pre-Application Submission
Begins permitting
process
Calls, comes in-
person, or visits
website to begin
application
Submits Pre-
application
1 Registers for an
account with OPS
Logs in and begins
pre-application
3 Creates project
location
Creates project
details
Creates project
contact
If applicable ,
includes project
contractor
Attaches supporting
project
documentation per
guidelines on
website
Reviews pre -
application and edits
if necessary
3 2
4 1
2 A

Process Notes

1. Palo Alto provides videos and to-do lists on the website for applicants on the webpage. Additionally, there are multiple places to click to apply for a building permit, including the home page of Palo Alto’s webpage. If applicants were to arrive in-person, the process would remain the same, only with the applicant being guided by a Palo Alto employee.

2. Palo Alto employee audits the minor permit types to see if any applicants improperly use that permitting type to complete work with a broader scope.

3. For minor permitting types, applicants can receive a same-day permit without the need for Palo Alto staff touchpoints. This still goes through the OPS system, but doesn’t require the same level of review.

Risk Notes

1. Even if the pre-application process is completed to perfection, the applicant is still required to answer additional information, complete fee payments, and submit additional uploads.

However, most often the pre-application materials are lacking, meaning that there is still the “application phase” for the applicant after having submitted this information. The title of “pre- application” terminology does not properly set applicant expectations, setting applicants up for frustration.

2. Applicants have noted confusion over various application types if not familiar with the system. Furthermore, there are no descriptions or links to descriptions in the OPS system, so applicants would have to search separately for descriptions on Palo Alto’s website.

3. The OPS system requests detailed description for the pre-application, but there is no guidance as to how long this description should be or what should/should not be included.

Consequentially, the Palo Alto team receives a wide variety of responses and applicants aren’t sure if they are missing information.

4. Applicants are required to submit supporting documentation in the pre-application process, but the OPS system does not provide guidance regarding what documentation is needed, nor does it provide a link to find the information on the website. The documentation is also required to be in PDF format with a specific naming convention, but this is not detailed in the OPS system either. Applicants would have had to watch the video or read the instructions on the separate Palo Alto building permits website to have known about this. The Palo Alto team regularly receives incorrect document submissions because of these issues.

14.a
Packet Pg. 248

19 Palo Alto Building Permitting Process
Project CoordinatorRelevant
Departments
Pre-Application Review
A
Sends to all other
departments for
pre-check of pre -
application
Clarifies necessary
edits or additions to
pre-application to
applicant
Clones Pre -
Application to
formal application
with relevant
information
1 1
Pre-application
complete and
accurate?
Review pre -
application for
accuracy
Reviews pre-
application for
completeness and
accuracy
Pre-application
accurate?
Yes
No
Yes
No
Invoices Review
Fees, sending auto
generated email
Accepts pre-
application and auto
generates email
2 B
2 A

Process Notes

1. Project Coordinator sends to other departments at their discretion. The Project Coordinator may not feel it is necessary to send to other departments for a pre-check.

2. Depending on the plans submitted, some departments will require a review of the pre-application while others will not. This is determined by the project coordinator.

Risk Notes

1. The cloning process is the method by which the project coordinator copies and pastes information from the pre-application to the application. This requires manual entry. If all information in the pre-application is proper, the cloning process is quick. But oftentimes pre-applications come in with improper naming conventions. As stated in the pre-application phase, there is not guidance for the applicant in the online permitting system in regards to naming conventions.

2. When pre-application acceptance auto generated emails are sent to applicants, oftentimes applicants consider this to be an acceptance of their application. This causes confusion for applicants who aren’t familiar with the process.

14.a
Packet Pg. 249

20 Palo Alto Building Permitting Process
Project
Coordinator
Relevant
Departments Applicant
Application Review and Issuance
Pays invoice for
review fees
Routes applicable
sections of
application to send
to the appropriate
departments
1 Reviews application
for accuracy
Creates comments
with missing
information
Application
accurate?
Collects and
compiles comments
for all necessary
revisions
Auto generated
email is sent to
applicant with
compiled list of
necessary edits
Makes necessary
edits and resubmits
new packet
No
1 2
Sends invoice with
additional fees other
than review fees
3 2
Yes
Pays fee online
Sets status to
issuance and sends
automated email
End
3 B
4 Process Notes

1. Application is only set up after applicant has paid review fees

2. All fees associated with the permitting process other than the already paid review fees are included, including inspection fees, record retention fees, etc.

3. Includes all stamped and approved documents

4. Applicant may print the issued permit if desired
Risk Notes

1. Applicants should wait for all departments to complete their review prior to receiving the necessary changes due to the limitations on OPS, but applicants will tend to make changes prematurely prior to receiving all comments from all departments.

2. It is common when an application is resubmitted to have new errors that didn’t exist in previous versions. This is particularly relevant in naming conventions. If naming conventions are slightly off, the project coordinator may manually make changes, but otherwise the project coordinator will push the application back to the applicant.

3. It is uncommon for applications to move to the issuance process on the first round. Most applications require some revisions.

14.a
Packet Pg. 250

21 Organizational Analysis
The OCA examined the organizational structure and technology utilized by PDS to better understand how the department operates and identify key players in the process. History of staff serving in key roles are taken from the staff interviews and help to provide an understanding of department turnover and expertise of staff currently filling roles. The technology utilized to support the process was a further point of examination to develop an understanding of how well technology solutions that are currently in place are supporting the process.

The permitting and inspection processes for the City primarily reside under the Chief Building Official (CBO) who reports to the Assistant Director of Planning and Development Services. PDS provided the organizational chart for fiscal year 2022 – the below captures the CBO’s direct reports:

Positions reporting to the CBO are all recent hires, but with prior experience in the City, as follows:

14.a
Packet Pg. 251

22 • Inspection Manager was hired into the role after serving 6 years as a contact inspector with the City. Has been in this role as inspection manager for the last 2 years, with a number of years of experience prior to working for the City. • Development Services Manager was previously a planning manager until position was eliminated due to department restructuring, given opportunity to apply for current role. Has been in the development services manager role now for 1 ½ years – over 20 years experience with City overall nearly all in planning.
• Assistant CBO started in June 2021 and previously served for a number of years as the contracted lead plan reviewer for the City. Assistant CBO is a licensed engineer and has a number of years experience in the industry, including serving as a building official.

Items of note on the staff reporting to the CBO’s direct reports include:
• Inspection staff was significantly reduced at start of pandemic with temporary slowdown in constructions projects. As a result of slowdown, contract inspectors were let go – reducing the field inspection staff by approximately half. Recently onboarding an additional inspector – which will bring number of inspectors in field up to six total.
• Plan check staff are all contracted staff.

In terms of technical operations, PDS primarily utilizes the Accela system to support its technology needs. The Accela Civic Permitting System for tracking and monitoring permit applications and inspections and to manage the associated workflow. Accela Citizen Access is also used by PDS to drive its Online Permitting Service (OPS) for residents/contractors to apply for building permits and associated tasks and to pay fees on-line.

OPS was brought on-line after the COVID-19 pandemic required remote work and less in-person interaction. Prior to the implementation of OPS, PDS accepted on-line application for minor building permits that were issued instantly – such as boiler/furnace/water heater replacement, backflow device, re-piping water system, re-roof, repair gas leak, and window retrofit. All other permits were initiated and ultimately issued by the applicant going to the Development Center and meeting with a project coordinator.

As part of the switch to acceptance of permit applications on-line, PDS needed a way to review plans submitted by applicants as part of the building permit application process. PDS’s Accela technology consultant recommended DigEplan as the consultant knew the product well and that it would integrate with Accela.

Beginning this summer, as more in-person interactions became possible, PDS created appointments for applicants to schedule an in-person meeting with a project coordinator to assist with permit applications and related questions. These appointments are available 4 days a weeks, Monday through Thursday, with 4 appointment slots available on each day. PDS also has virtual appointment slots available five days a week as well to assist applicants. Scheduling for both in- person and virtual appointments can be done on the PDS website.

In addition, PDS utilizes the iRequest app from CityGovApps, which was implemented and customized to meet the City’s needs and replaced a prior app that had poor functionality, per PDS staff.

Themes
Observations from OCA’s organizational analysis include:
• Management under the CBO has seen a fair amount of turnover over the last several years. • A number of recent PDS hires are from within the department or contract staff supporting PDS. • Ability to quickly implement an on-line process for submitting permits that were previously done in-person/paper based.

14.a
Packet Pg. 252

23 Customer Survey
As part of our review, the OCA sent a survey to past applicants for a building permit in the City. The OCA initiated the survey to gain a first hand account from building permit applicants on their experiences with the permit and inspection processes and better understand what is working (and not). The survey asked a range of questions regarding the applicant’s role, frequency of applying, satisfaction with the permit and inspection processes, and other aspects of the process. Of the near 1,200 past applicants emailed, we received approximately 250 responses. The following offers highlights and general themes of their responses. The complete list of survey questions and summarized responses to each question are provided in Appendix A.

The following is a list of questions included in the survey:

1. What best describes your role in the permitting process?

2. What type of permit(s) did you apply for (check all that apply)?

3. When did you last apply for a permit?

4. How often do you apply for building permits?

5. Were you aware the City of Palo Alto Development Center is offering in-person appointments for assistance in submitting a building permit application? Yes or No

6. Did you use the in-person service or the on-line application process?

7. Please rank the following from highest to lowest as to where you would like to the City focus its time and resources in improving the permitting process: A.

Online permitting process; B. In-person permitting process; C. Appointment availability for in-person permitting; D. Availability of staff for questions; E.

Clarity of requirements; F. On-line resources/reference documents; G. Turnaround time from application to permit (cycle time); H, Expedited permit for additional fee

8. Please provide any other additional comments/suggestions on the above ranking.

9. What is your perception of the following areas of additional steps and requirements related to the permit application and review process? A. Tree preservation and protection; B. De-watering requirements; C. Architectural review; D. Deconstruction and demolition; E. Utilities coordination

10. Provide additional comments on your above responses

11. Please rate your overall satisfaction with the permitting process

12. What suggestions for improvement of the permitting process do you have?

13. Please rank the following from highest to lowest as to where you would like to the City focus its time and resources in improving the inspection process: A.

Wait time between request for inspection and actual inspection; B. On-site inspection visit; C. Clarity of inspector’s report/findings; D. Training/knowledge of inspectors; E. Reinspection wait time; F. Overall satisfaction with the inspection process

14. If you apply for permits in other jurisdictions, how does Palo Alto’s process compare?

15. If you have any other additional thoughts – please feel free to share.

In terms of overall satisfaction with the permitting process, responses were fairly evenly distributed between satisfied and dissatisfied. Respondents feeling slightly more positive about the permitting process narrowly outpaced those feeling slightly negative about the process – with a large number of respondents feeling neutral overall.

14.a
Packet Pg. 253

24 In addition, we asked respondents how the City’s permitting process compared to other jurisdictions where they may apply for permits. Overall, the respondents viewed the City’s permitting process as worse than average; however nearly half of respondents viewed the City’s process as comparable to better than average.

Extremely Dissatisfied, 19%
Somewhat Dissatisfied, 24%
Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied, 20%
Somewhat Satisfied,
25%
Extremely Satisfied, 12%
Overall Satisfaction with Permitting Process

14.a
Packet Pg. 254

25 The OCA also asked if respondents were aware of the in-person appointments being offered at the Development Center to answer questions on building permit questions. Well over half of respondents were not aware of these appointments.

About the same, 25%
Better than average, 22%Worse than average, 34%
Not Applicable - I only apply for
permits in Palo Alto, 19%
How does Palo Alto's Permitting Process Compare to
Other Jurisdictions?

14.a
Packet Pg. 255

26 The survey included a number of opportunities for respondents to share additional comments, thoughts, etc. The following provides a high-level summary of the general themes of these comments, based on the OCA’s examination:
• An overall lack of timeliness dominated the open-ended comments received from respondents. Comments mentioned permit process taking a significant amount of time and corresponding issues such as project delays and costs. Length of time to obtain an inspection was mentioned throughout as well. In addition, a number of comments mentioned length of time to get a response to questions, clarifications, etc. – and also a general lack of communication from the City was cited.
• Lack of clear guidelines and too much complexity was another commonly cited complaint and area of need for improvement by respondents. Frustration in being able to obtain/understand what was needed for an application was mentioned numerous times. Respondents also mentioned rules/processes being overly complex and difficult to understand, in addition to OPS being difficult/complex to navigate. • Customer service-related issues were mentioned throughout the comments as well. In addition to lack of response from staff, respondents stated that some staff were poorly equipped to answer questions and that the consistency from one staff to another in similar titles also varied widely. In addition, respondents mentioned need for better interactions with staff – citing suboptimal customer service from both project coordinators and inspectors.

In addition, the OCA examined responses based on type of permit applied for, time frame and frequency of application and other respondent characteristics to look for any correlation. Based on this examination, we found:

Yes, 41%
No, 59%
Were You Aware of Palo Alto's Development
Center offering In-person Building Permit
Application Assistance?

14.a
Packet Pg. 256

27 • For respondents seeking a solar permit, they were overall more dissatisfied with their experience – with a much higher rate of extreme dissatisfaction, in particular. In terms of comparison, these respondents also felt the City’s process was worse than other organizations where they sought permits from – but also indicated at a higher rate than all respondents that the process was overall comparable. • In terms of frequency of application, those applying for permits on a weekly basis felt the City’s process was better in comparison to other organizations – with a noticeable positive trend in favorable comparability the more a respondent issued permits with the City. This trend was also present when respondents were asked about their overall satisfaction with the permitting process, with those having more frequent issuance of permits with the City having a greater overall sense of satisfaction.
• In addition to frequency of applying, we also asked respondents when they had last applied for a permit. Respondents indicating they had applied for a permit within the last week of completing the survey were generally more dissatisfied and felt the City’s process was worse overall than other cities/jurisdictions where they had applied for a permit. However, those indicating they applied for a permit within the last month were overall more satisfied and felt the City’s process compared more favorably. This could be an indication that the process may be perceived as being somewhat difficult for those just having gone through the process, but not overlay difficult to leave a longer lasting negative perception. the negative experiences of applying for a permit was top of mind.

Themes
Observations from OCA’s customer survey include:
• Majority of respondents applied for permits multiple times per year, with approximately one-quarter of respondents applying infrequently. • Respondents skewed slightly negative in their overall perception of various aspects of the building permit process. • Key areas of concern for respondents included:
o Length of time to issue a building permit or obtain an inspection was too long o Guidance provided on-line was either lack or not clear o Customer service was often lacking – both in terms of responsiveness and helpfulness • Areas that respondents would like to see improvement of the building permit process included the online permitting process and turnaround time from application to permit.
• For the inspection process – respondents would like to see improvement in wait time between request for inspection and actual inspection. • Open ended responses focused extensively on frustration with length of process overall

14.a
Packet Pg. 257

28 Building/Contractors Associations Feedback
Overview
The OCA reached out to a number of local professional associations across building industry types to try and gather additional opinions and insights into the permit and inspection processes in the City. The following is a list of associations we contacted:
• Bay Area Building Industry Association
• Associated General Contractors, South Bay District
• American Institute of Architects – Silicon Valley Chapter • California Solar & Storage Association
Only the California Solar & Storage Association ultimately provided names for the OCA to speak with. However, responses from those individuals was extremely limited. Individuals that were willing to have correspondence with the OCA were skeptical of efforts to improve the permit and inspection process in the City and highly critical of the current process.

In addition to these associations, the OCA was also provided with contact information for other contractors. The contractors we spoke with were more willing to offer insights, but again, in general, were highly critical of the process in the City.

Themes
The following is a high-level summary of themes from these conversations:
• Long wait time for permit approval
• Inconsistency in experience and knowledge of inspection staff • Inspectors requiring additional work above and beyond what the approved project plan outlines • Requirements well above and beyond what is considered ‘best practice’ from surrounding jurisdictions • Other contractors refusing to work in Palo Alto or charging premiums for projects in City Concerns with the permit and inspection processes are also expressed in articles and reader comments from the local newspaper, Palo Alto Online , with themes similar to those expressed above and from the broader customer survey conducted by the OCA.

Photovoltaic Code Review and Benchmarking
Overview
The OCA completed research on comparable cities to understand the similarities and differences in their photovoltaic (PV) permitting requirements. The permitting process for PV projects have been a more common topic of conversation for the City for a number of reasons. Historically, the process to receive a permit for a PV project has been difficult according to interviews though many improvements have been made since. Additionally, the OCA also heard during interviews that many of the individuals or organizations applying for PV-related permitting may not have as much experience with the City’s process as experienced builders and architects applying for traditional permit types. These factors encouraged the OCA to conduct research into the PV requirements for comparable cities.

Overall, all of the comparable cities had similar requirements as the City of Palo Alto. This is likely due to each comparable city basing their requirements on State statutes. Even checklists and guides are similar between cities, including Palo Alto. One unique element of Palo Alto is their ownership of their utilities. Like other

14.a
Packet Pg. 258

29 cities, Palo Alto requires both a permit to build and to connect to the grid. However, seeing as Palo Alto owns its own utility, this could be a more efficient, collaborative approval process.

In addition, the OCA examined each of the comparable cities to look at their current practices for issuing permits and requesting inspections. Most all of the cities are handling permits electronically only and scheduling inspections via apps, website or phone. In addition, we examined their websites, including available information and on-line submission tools, to examine their practices in relation to the City of Palo Alto. In general, information in other cities was more readily available and accessible in intuitive formats.

14.a
Packet Pg. 259

30 Photovoltaic (PV) Benchmarking Summary
The OCA worked with the PDS staff to create a list of comparable cities (whether by geography, size, or both). The information below summarizes peer cities’ photovoltaic permitting process and links to their codes.

City Base of Code Similarities/Differences Notes Link to Code Palo Alto Primarily based on State statutes N/A, See Below Palo Alto Municipal Code
Los Altos Primarily based on State statutes Only one inspection is required for Los Altos residents Los Altos Municipal Code
Menlo
Park
Primarily based on State statutes Contains a clear checklist for applicants

Initial inspections are included in the new building initial building inspection, saving applicants a step
Menlo Park Municipal
Code
Mountain
View
Primarily based on State statutes City utilities are private entity, which provides less control for the city Mountain View Municipal Code
San Jose Primarily based on State statutes Has additional requirements for PV panel weight, height, load, etc. that is not required by the City of Palo Alto

Provides a clear one-pager of critical information for applicants San Jose Municipal Code
Sunnyvale Primarily based on State statutes, but
rewritten in laymen’s terms
Similar to Palo Alto in a “one-stop shop” idea, as in all permits are issued from the building department
Sunnyvale Municipal
Code

While there was discussion in interviews around the difficulty of PV permitting in particular, the difficulty is not particular to the code itself. As mentioned, the code is largely standard language taken from State statutes. If the State statutes were unnecessarily cumbersome, Palo Alto would not be in any better or worse position than any other neighboring cities.

14.a
Packet Pg. 260

31 Summary of Additional Findings from Comparable Cities In addition to the review of building code, the OCA also examined items of interest as to how the building and inspection processes are structured in the comparable cities and any significant, recent changes. The following is a summary of these findings by comparable city.

City Summary of Significant Information Source(s)
Los Altos • Building Department opened back up to public on October 18, 2021 • City requiring all plans be submitted to an email address beginning April 2021 – no hard copies accepted. • Checklists/submittal instructions readily accessible on single page of website (with reference to other depts, as necessary) –
• City uses eTRAKiT to schedule inspections

Los Altos Building Services
Menlo Park • Permits being accepted through on-line portal (through Accela), process includes a pre-application step before conversion to a building permit application.
• In-person meetings by appointment only
• No over the counter reviews available
• Number of forms, guides and FAQs readily accessible on Building Division’s home page • Expedited plan check – but not well advertised
• Inspections can be scheduled by phone or on-line via the Accela portal

Menlo Park Building
Division
Mountain
View
• Public Counter in Building Division by appointment only – schedule on-line for a 20 minute session (TimeTap program)
• Plans can be submitted electronically Monday- Friday between 8am-4pm • A number of forms and handouts available on website – several clicks to find • Inspections scheduled on-line via an Epermits page

Mountain View Building
Division
San Jose • In person appointments available, but geared to those with lack of access to internet or other technical challenges • Website includes a number of walk-throughs/checklists to detail when ‘simple’ project permits can be used, as well as other permit types
• Encourage using their sjpermits.org site by waiving portion of fees ($48) • Have expedited review for certain projects
• For fiscal year 2022 budget, reduced Development Services Imaging and Call Center intake staffing by 11 positions due to process and technology improvements. Funds re-allocated to ADU Ally program and environmental reviews.

San Jose Development
Services Permit Center

San Jose 2021-2022
Adopted Operating Budget
(see page 730)

San Jose Organizational
Charts
Sunnyvale • Permit center open to public five days a week • Plan check available in morning, by appointment
• Can submit on-line – however, website advises calling a planner to discuss project prior to filling out any forms or submitting
• On-line portal fairly rudimentary – but in check box format for type of quick permit requested includes detailed guidelines/checklist for each type – instructions not as clear for permits requiring plan check Sunnyvale Permit Center

14.a
Packet Pg. 261

32 City Summary of Significant Information Source(s)
• Inspections can also be scheduled through on-line portal

Themes
The following is a high-level summary of themes from this review:
• PV/Solar codes for comparable cities follow State statutes fairly closely. • Some comparable cities review/processes for PV/solar projects have more clear guidelines and checklists than the City of Palo Alto – which is also generally true for information available on a broader basis. • Comparable cities mostly on-line/virtual only for current permitting processes. • Comparable cities also offering in-person meetings, generally by appointment only.

14.a
Packet Pg. 262

33 Audit Results
This section summarizes the results of our analysis and offers recommendations for improvement, Of note, the recommendations provide overall suggestions for improvement for the building permit and inspections processes for all types of building permits. Initially, the OCA was tasked with examining two permit types; however, after initial analysis, the OCA determined that permits generally follow the same process regardless of type. Regardless, the OCA’s recommendations outline significant opportunities for improvement, as noted more specifically in the following.

For each observation and recommendation, we have also provided a high level assessment of potential impact for PDS of implementing the recommendation and the significance of potential barriers to implementing the recommendation. The assessments are ranked on a scale of high, medium and low – with the following serving as definitions for the ranking category:
• High: High level of impact to the organization, with a low or medium barriers to implement • Medium: Medium or high level of impact to the organization, with medium or high barriers to implement • Low: Medium or low level of impact to the organizations, with medium or high barriers to implementation

14.a
Packet Pg. 263

34 # Observation Title Summary of Observation Recommendation Impact Barriers to Improvement
Overall
Priority
1 Inspection Lead Times
The lead time for a building
inspection is approximately
two weeks from request to
inspection.

As noted by staff throughout
PDS, lead times have shown
recent improvement decreasing
from what was a 2 week wait
from request to actual inspection;
however, such improvements are
precarious with any staff absence
– whether planned or due to
injury, etc. that can quickly erode
any improvement to lead time.

According to interviews with PDS
staff, contract inspection staff
have been difficult to obtain,
particularly after the start of the
pandemic. Long lead times result
in a host of compounding issues,
with contractors scheduling
inspections far in advance of
work being completed – resulting
in either inspectors arriving
before work is complete or re-
scheduling of appointments. This
is confirmed by the Building
Permit Data Analysis section’s
examination of inspections
requested – with 18% of
inspections requested being
cancelled. Inspection lead times
were also noted as one of the top
areas for need for improvement
by building permit customers in
survey responses.

The OCA recommends hiring
additional staff and implementing
efficiency measures to improve
permitting and inspections cycle
times.

The City should make "improvement
of lead times" (i.e. the length of time
between inspection request and
actual inspection) one of the top
priorities for improvement in the
building permit and inspection
processes. A number of changes can
be implemented to help improve the
lead times, including:

1. Hire an additional Inspector to help
improve and maintain lead times. An
additional staff member would also
help support the requirement for
Inspectors to meet continuing
education requirements (100 hours
per year per inspector) and keep up
with changes in the building industry.

2. Find additional efficiencies with
current staff, including assigning
geographic areas to Inspectors to
reduce travel time and possibly
assigning inspections by specialty

3.If lead time lengths persist after
hiring of additional inspector, PDS
should renew efforts to utilize
contract inspectors to assist with
peak application times. As part of
this, PDS should expand the pool of
contract Inspectors it can rely on that
are versed in City building code or
find ways to utilize contract staff for
Inspections that are not as heavily
modified per City building code.

4. Consider third party plan review

1. High 2. Med 1. High

14.a
Packet Pg. 264

35 # Observation Title Summary of Observation Recommendation Impact Barriers to Improvement
Overall
Priority
and inspection options with
applicants paying a premium fee for
expedited review (certified by the
City, with a fees/premium price to the
applicant to ensure no cost to City,
and establish a quality assurance
process).

5. Consider the role of a lead
inspector/field supervisor to help with
training, quality control, and other
duties that would assist inspection
manager

14.a
Packet Pg. 265

36 # Observation Title Summary of Observation Recommendation Impact Barriers to Improvement
Overall
Priority
2 Customer
Service/Accessibility
Customers/applicants need
better information on all
aspects of the permitting and
inspection process.

Applications require a pre-review
(pre-application) and first review
which was noted by PDS staff as
being confusing to the applicant.

Second, many applications are
incomplete, often due to lack of
understanding by applicants as
to what information needs to be
included. This requires back and
forth between PDS and the
customer to obtain the correct
information for the application to
proceed through the review
process. Checklists, forms and
related documents can be
difficult to locate on the website
and also are organized more by
department than project/permit,
which may not be readily intuitive
for applicants. .

Survey responses confirm
difficulty to find forms and follow
what is required for an
application. Lack of clarity of the
process was mentioned by a
quarter of those leaving open
ended responses (approximately
150 respondents) third only to
need for quicker turnaround
times and need for better
customer service/responsiveness
from PDS staff.

Per PDS staff, applicants also
can be confused as to what type
The OCA recommends that PDS
takes steps to ensure that all
relevant building codes,
compliance guides, checklists,
videos and other process
requirements/documentation are
current, visible, and readily
accessible on-line.

While the City has created a number
of documents and guides to help
customers through the permitting
process, customers may not know
that those guides exist. The City
should reference all guides, videos
and other aids throughout the
process in the OPS system and in-
person. This will allow customer to
understand what reference materials
are available to aid in the process.

This is also true of documentation
impacting the process from other
departments, such as Utilities, Urban
Forestry, Public Works, etc. –
information should be presented in
multiple places on the website and in
OPS to ensure that applicants have
multiple touch points to access and
digest relevant information to help
improve the overall quality of
applications submitted and to best
inform the applicant.

In addition, PDS should develop a
‘frequently asked questions’ (FAQs)
resource on its website and widely
communicate it through various
channels to help stem some of the
questions being emailed and called in
directly to staff. This FAQ section
could also serve then as a longer

2. Med 2. Med 2. Med

14.a
Packet Pg. 266

37 # Observation Title Summary of Observation Recommendation Impact Barriers to Improvement
Overall
Priority
of inspection to request. This is
likely due to there being
incomplete guidance provided on
PDS website – particularly
related to final inspections. ––
range repository of information
regarding the permit and inspection
processes going forward.

PDS needs to examine how capacity
constraints may impact their ability to
make these improvements (and also
in Recommendations 3, 6, 7, 9 &10).

This could include repurposing of
current staff/functional titles, hiring
additional staff, and/or hiring
consultants to support efforts to
improve accessibility, functionality,
and the application process, in
general. However, PDS needs to
consider its longer-term operating
model as a part of this, i.e. on-line,
counter service or a hybrid approach
(see Recommendation #8).

14.a
Packet Pg. 267

38 # Observation Title Summary of Observation Recommendation Impact Barriers to Improvement
Overall
Priority
3 Guidance/Forms/Checklists
A number of the forms,
guidelines, and checklists
provided on PDS’s website
date from prior use of the OPS
system.

While most of the more technical
information is likely still pertinent,
information on how to submit
applications and associated
information through OPS are not,
as PDS did not intake any
applications electronically pre-
pandemic. While a large amount
of information is available on-line,
its accuracy for the change to
OPS could prove problematic for
less informed or frequent users,
in particular. ’For example, PDS’s
‘Single Family Residential
Construction Guide’ has links
throughout – more than half of
which refer back to a City web
page that no longer exists. In
addition, this document still
references the ‘in-person’
permitting process throughout,
including references to
submitting paper plans. Per city
staff, t applicants knowingly
submitting incomplete
applications and relying on PDS
staff to then outline what the
applicant needs to submit, likely
driven in part by the lack of up to
date and readily accessibly
information.

The OCA recommends modifying
OPS to incorporate relevant
information and present in more
intuitive format.

As touched on in Recommendation 2,
reference materials should be better
integrated into OPS at each relevant
stage the process. Applicants should
be able to have a hyperlink to a video
or checklist at each point in the OPS
process. For example, at each point
applicants attach documents, the
OPS system should link to resources
regarding naming conventions. This
will cut down on questions from
applicants and will provide higher
quality applications overall. If
applications are done correctly, the
City will save time on resubmittals
and rereviews, especially in regards
to naming conventions for application
files. These reference materials will
also ensure as a check for project
coordinators as well – to ensure that
similar projects are all upheld to the
same standards in terms of
documentation requested and
ultimately provided.

See the City of San Jose’s Building
Division website as an example –
including for how forms are presented
in an applicant intuitive format here

In addition, PDS should present
information in a type of decision-tree
format that is more intuitive from an
applicant’s perspective – asking
specific questions to help guide the
applicant through the process and

2. Med 2. Med 2. Med

14.a
Packet Pg. 268

39 # Observation Title Summary of Observation Recommendation Impact Barriers to Improvement
Overall
Priority
pointing applicants towards reference
materials to help answer more
commonly asked questions.

14.a
Packet Pg. 269

40 # Observation Title Summary of Observation Recommendation Impact Barriers to Improvement
Overall
Priority
4 Permitting Process as an
Applicant’s QA Step
Applicants knowingly submit
incomplete information.

Applicants oftentimes use the
permitting process as a quality
assurance check on their
application. In other words, they
may be submitting applications
with awareness that it may be
sent back with a summary of
everything that's missing. Ideally,
applicants are utilizing the
resources provided to the
applicants to send in as complete
of an application as possible.

Instead, using the permitting
process as a quality assurance
(QA) step for applicants is a
burden on City resources.

The OCA recommends to
providing better guidance
resources and rejecting any
incomplete applications.

Please refer to Recommendations #2
and #3 for details regarding providing
guidance/resources on OPS for
applicants. PDS staff need to more
proactively reject applications that are
grossly incomplete or inaccurate and
point applicants back to on-line
resources (as improved in other
recommendations in this report). This
primarily resides with the project
coordinators thoroughly reviewing
submissions (aided by better training
for consistency as mentioned in other
recommendations as well). A high
level of customer service in these
communications is necessary and
also inclusion of a reminder that
incomplete applications increase
review time for all applications.

2. Med 2. Med 2. Med

14.a
Packet Pg. 270

41 # Observation Title Summary of Observation Recommendation Impact Barriers to Improvement
Overall
Priority
5 Communications between
Project Coordinators and
Departments
Requirements for pre-
application/application plan
review and permitting are not
always clear.

Departments involved in the
building permit and plan review
processes noted inconsistencies
between Project Coordinators in
informing the departments as to
whether or not a pre-
application/application required
their review. In some interviews,
the OCA learned of departments
being pulled into the review
process much later than others.

This leads to potential delays for
the applicant, quicker turnaround
times for the department brought
late to the table, and also
potential significant costs for the
applicant if the omission impacts
inspection process requiring
significant project changes.

Departments also noted that
communication is inconsistent
depending on project
coordinator, particularly as
related to high profile or
expedited projects.

The OCA recommends improving
notification for all involved
departments of pending reviews
simultaneously at the pre-
application stage.

During the pre-application phase, all
pre-check requests should be sent to
all departments simultaneously.

Currently, this is being done manually
by the project coordinator with
guidance from an MS Excel based
workflow. Ideally, this can be
automated in OPS as a function of
the workflow. This ensures that
departments have adequate time to
review the pre-application and
provide a consistent timeline for each
pre-application. Department
deadlines should remain consistent
as well, ensuring all departments are
held to a consistent expectation for
turnaround times. Communication
protocols should also be actively
reviewed and included in developing
Standard Operating Procedures
(SOPs) as further outlined in these
recommendations. Review of SOPs
should also ensure that a complete
list of which department needs to
review what type of permit/project is
developed.

2. Med 2. Med 2. Med

14.a
Packet Pg. 271

42 # Observation Title Summary of Observation Recommendation Impact Barriers to Improvement
Overall
Priority
6 OPS Functionality
PDF forms required by OPS,
including the building permit
application, do not always
provide sufficient information
for review.

OPS provides applicants the
ability to attach PDF forms as
opposed to entering information
directly into the system, including
the actual building permit
application and other supporting
documentation/plans. Often, the
PDF forms submitted are missing
vital information. Additionally,
many applicants may not be
familiar with everything that is
required of them in these permit
applications. OPS doesn’t
provide the guidance for
applicants to ensure that each
step of the process is clear, given
their specific circumstances, or
ensure that applicants are
providing all necessary
information field-by-field.

Information on the City’s website
is segregated by department as
opposed to providing a ‘one-stop
shop’ for information that may
pertain to applying for a permit.

The OCA recommends digitizing
data collection from PDF to
directly in the OPS system to
ensure that all relevant data is
captured.

The main function of OPS at the
moment is attaching documents in a
guided process. However, the City
could strive to have OPS contain
much of the vital information in
separate fields (i.e., having the
application itself be an on-line fillable
form) to avoid errors in submissions
and resubmissions. Additionally, for
fields that need to be edited,
applicants could edit only those fields
without having to attach an entirely
new application.

2. Med 2. Med 2. Med

14.a
Packet Pg. 272

43 # Observation Title Summary of Observation Recommendation Impact Barriers to Improvement
Overall
Priority
7 Policies and Procedures
PDS does not have a shared
and consistent set of Standard
Operating Procedures (SOPs).

Many SOPs are documented via
email or team members instead
rely on institutional knowledge.

This creates the potential for
variances in applicant
experiences in regards to the
permitting and inspection
processes. Additionally, it does
not provide a living, single source
of truth on which PDS can rely
and reference and also train new
staff from.

The OCA recommends
development of a robust set of
internal standard operating
procedures and develop timeline
and process for routine review and
updates of procedures.

When developing Standard Operating
Procedures (SOPs), it is important to
view these as living documents. In
other words, SOPs should contain
the current practices, and also should
be updated and refined as PDS
learns of new and better practices in
regards to the permitting system. It is
also important that these SOPs are a
helpful guide to employees who may
be learning a new skill or process.

SOPs should be readily accessible
and available to staff throughout PDS
as a reference guide. A clear process
should also be developed in terms of
regularly updating and reviewing the
SOPs, including a process for
incorporating changes and
suggestions from staff throughout the
department. Updating of policies and
procedures will be of particular
importance to help codify
recommended process improvements
within this report.

2. Med 2. Med 2. Med

14.a
Packet Pg. 273

44 # Observation Title Summary of Observation Recommendation Impact Barriers to Improvement
Overall
Priority
8 Need for Updated Strategy
PDS is operating under an
outdated initiative for the
operation of its building permit
function.

The Development Center was
established in July 2011, as
recommended in the ‘Blueprint
for a New Development Center’
in July 2010. This plan created
the current counter service model
and was driven by a need to
increase customer satisfaction
and expedite permit issuance.

While the model has helped to
improve cooperation between
departments and provide a one-
stop-shop for applicants, the
blueprint was developed prior to
any permits or intake of
information being done virtually.

Some of the key tenants and
goals of the blueprint are still
relevant; however, consideration
should be given as to how the
digital dissemination and
availability of information could
change both the interface with
the applicants and also how
coordination between
departments actively involved in
the permitting process takes
place.

The OCA recommends PDS
develop an updated strategic plan
reflecting current realities and the
lessons-learned throughout the
pandemic.

PDS needs to develop a new
strategic plan in order to inform its
operations. A new strategic plan
should include guidance on
department structure, along with a
mission/vision statement for PDS and
include goals with associated
performance metrics. The Blueprint
was adopted over a decade ago and
while a number of the objectives
outlined within this plan remain
relevant, a ‘re-think’ of how the
Development Center and associated
processes are structured is
necessary. The need to re-fresh the
plan is of particular evidence with the
processes shifting to a much more
virtual dependent format due to the
pandemic. While the adjustment was
a heavy lift – the move to an on-line
process has seen benefits both for
applicants and staff in terms of
convenience and coordination. PDS
should build upon the switch to the
virtual application to guide its strategy
and priorities. The plan should be
done in conjunction with the City
Manager and Council to ensure
broad input and incorporation of
needs from the community –
including not only residents, but
building industry professionals as
well. This new plan should also than
serve as a roadmap for a number of
other recommendations within this

2. Med 2. Med 2. Med

14.a
Packet Pg. 274

45 # Observation Title Summary of Observation Recommendation Impact Barriers to Improvement
Overall
Priority
report – particularly those related to
staffing and structure of the
permitting and inspection processes.

In addition, the plan needs to reflect
the current initiatives of the City –
with particular attention to
photovoltaic/electrification goals.

Development of a new strategic plan
and the process to do so is a
significant time investment. As such,
OCA recommends having preliminary
conversations with the City Manager
and Council to best address shorter-
term direction and corresponding
needs, particularly related to service
delivery model and potential staffing
impacts (as previously referenced in
Recommendation #2).

14.a
Packet Pg. 275

46 # Observation Title Summary of Observation Recommendation Impact Barriers to Improvement
Overall
Priority
9 Need for Further Technology
Improvements
Technology challenges impede
plan review and permitting
processes.

A number of staff noted that
Accela/OPS is often slow and
adds wait time for their tasks
while the system re-freshes,
loads, etc. Also, it was noted that
the system is unavailable
regularly for system updates.

Some features of the software
are also suboptimal - such as the
ability to quickly bookmark and
reference plans uploaded into the
system. In addition, the DigEplan
add-on to Accela that enables
electronic plan review was done
quickly in response to the
pandemic and push to work
remotely, with some noting there
may be a better system available
to meet the City's needs. PDS
was starting a test pilot of the
DigEplan software as the need to
shift to remote work happened.

The OCA recommends that PDS
continues exploring technology
enhancements and better
platforms

PDS should continue to make strives
to improve functionality of
Accela/OPS. Efforts should be made
to coordinate system updates outside
of regular working hours to minimize
impact on staff. PDS should also
explore whether or not DigEplan is
the best solution going forward as
well - particularly related to
ability/need to bookmark plans for
ease of review. Future system needs
should be informed and aligned with
an updated strategic plan for the
permit and inspection processes to
ensure functionality and ease of
access for staff and applicants.

In addition, PDS should continue with
efforts to stream line the permitting
process by utilizing products such as
SolarAPP+. PDS is in conversations
to possibly utilize the product, and
OCA strongly encourages to move
towards implementation of
SolarAPP+ or a similar product.

2. Med 2. Med 2. Med

14.a
Packet Pg. 276

47 # Observation Title Summary of Observation Recommendation Impact Barriers to Improvement
Overall
Priority
10 Training - Project
Coordinators and Inspectors
Project Coordinator training
needs improvement.

Inspectors need time for
training.

In interviews with departments
involved in the permitting
process, the need for better
training of Project Coordinators
was mentioned several times.

Project Coordinators did not
always provide or ensure all
required information was
obtained during the intake
process for the applications. In
addition, some departments
needing to be involved in the
plan check process were not
notified promptly to ensure
adequate time for the
department's review of their area
of expertise. Also, with lags in
building inspections, City
Inspectors are more constrained
for time in their ability to
seek/attend training to keep up
with relevant trends in the
building industry.

The OCA recommends PDS create
materials to train from and
prioritize time for training.

Training of staff should flow from the
development of Standard Operating
Procedures, with the SOPs serving
as a baseline of understanding for
staff, whether project coordinators,
plan checkers, department staff,
inspectors, etc. A regular schedule
for training should be developed as
well, in order for staff to share
particular issues they have had to
address and broader sharing of
knowledge/insights in general. In
addition, a regular training should be
held that includes all staff involved in
permitting and inspection processes -
both from PDS and the other
departments supporting, to best
share information, address concerns,
establish mutual understanding, and
build a broader sense of team work.

2. Med 2. Med 2. Med

14.a
Packet Pg. 277

48 # Observation Title Summary of Observation Recommendation Impact Barriers to Improvement
Overall
Priority
11 Building Code Modifications
and Ability to Effectively
Administer
Palo Alto code modifications
increase the complexity of the
building plan review and
permitting process.

Per City and PDS staff and OCA
review, City building code
generally follows the State of
California Building Code.

However, some code
modifications unique to Palo Alto
have been added to the building
code to address specific
situations and other areas of
importance. The ability to
administer some of the
modifications to the code can be
difficult, as relayed in interviews
with PDS and particularly other
department staff and also from
applicant/customer feedback. In
addition, it was noted that the
frequency of modifications for
some portions of the code can
also make administration difficult
with trying to apply the updates
and track which version of the
code applies to permits based on
when the application was
submitted.

The OCA recommends that interim
code interim modifications are
limited as much as possible

Modifications to the building code
need to mirror the regular schedule of
updating the building code in line with
the regular cycle of updates down to
the State of California Building Code.

Any interim modifications should be
done only as necessary and if
involving a matter of serious concern
for public health, safety and general
welfare. As part of a strategic plan
update, criteria for what would trigger
making an interim modification should
be discussed with the City Manager,
PDS staff and Council to help
balance immediate need and ability
to implement/administer code
changes. Included should be
consideration for how changes will be
communicated to the public and also
contractors that may be impacted.

While additional up front time, this
communication may help offset
questions once a code change is
made.

2. Med 2. Med 2. Med

14.a
Packet Pg. 278

49 # Observation Title Summary of Observation Recommendation Impact Barriers to Improvement
Overall
Priority
12 Quality Control
Quality control processes can
be strengthened.

Managers within the permit and
inspection processes have
concerns that the volume of work
has limited their ability to conduct
quality control - particularly
related to newer and contract
staff. Inconsistencies have been
mentioned by numerous City
staff interviewed as related to
how staff in similar titles perform
their responsibilities. The lack of
time and focus on quality control
exacerbates the ability to
consistently apply City processes
and in serving
applicants/customers - and in the
relative experiences of applicants
in navigating the processes as
well. Lack of consistency
amongst staff was also
mentioned throughout the open-
ended responses from the
customer survey.

The OCA recommends PDS place
a greater emphasis on quality
control and resources to help
promote it.

As included in previous
recommendations, the development
of SOPs, guidelines, checklists, etc.
will help with quality control and
consistency amongst Project
Coordinators and Inspectors. In
addition, management needs to be
proactive in creating performance
metrics that identify potential quality
control shortcomings and have
discussions with staff who may not be
meeting these expectations.

Performance metrics need to include
those that focus more on cycle times
for various aspects of both the permit
and inspection processes. This
should include examining the length
of time from application to approval;
inspection request to scheduled time;
overall length from application to final
inspection; and other relevant time
frames – and should be done across
permit types. Routine training, as also
mentioned in prior recommendations,
will also help in terms of improving
quality control.

2. Med 2. Med 2. Med

14.a
Packet Pg. 279

50 # Observation Title Summary of Observation Recommendation Impact Barriers to Improvement
Overall
Priority
13 Staff Model - Contractor vs
City Employee
Difficulties in hiring and
retaining contract staff impede
departmental performance.

PDS has used both contract and
City staff for several key areas,
including plan review and
inspections. Due to the
pandemic, contract staff are
increasingly difficult to find and
also issues with not having the
same individual from a contract
company being available
(resulting in additional City staff
time to train, etc.). In addition it
was mentioned in a number of
interviews with City staff, that
there are continued
questions/concerns from the City
legal department about having
the same functions/roles
completed by City staff and
contractors. Also difficulty in
getting contract staff who want to
be in-person when things do
open back up. PDS management
staff have also stated a concern
of how to maintain quality control
for the work of contract staff.

The OCA recommends that PDS
develop plans to best
utilize/balance contract staff.

PDS should discuss and develop
plans for how to address its staffing
needs going forward. This should be
done in conjunction with development
of the aforementioned strategic plan
and the need for additional inspection
staff. PDS should be proactive in its
planning - particularly in relation to its
plan check staff. While the contracted
plan check staff have been fairly
stable, PDS needs to ensure that the
stability in this area continues and
also ensure quality and timeliness of
contractor's work as well.

In addition, OCA encourages PDS to
examine how its payment structure
and other requirements (including
reporting in-person) for contract staff
aligns with peer jurisdictions and how
this may impact PDS’s ability to
attract and retain contractors.

2. Med 1. High 2. Med

14.a
Packet Pg. 280

51 # Observation Title Summary of Observation Recommendation Impact Barriers to Improvement
Overall
Priority
14 Vacancies and staff turnover
Turnover in key staff positions
constrains organizational
efficiency and effectiveness.

PDS has seen a fair amount of
turnover with the Assistant CBO,
Inspection Manager, and
Development Services Manager -
all new to their roles within the
last 2 years or less. The
Development Services Manager
is new to their role as of June
2020, with their predecessor only
lasting 9 months in the role. In
addition, the lead plan checker
role is being filled by the
Assistant CBO (a role he
previously filled). Staff turnover
has placed pressure on the
processes in general and also
requires additional time from
more veteran staff to train new
staff. Delays in City hiring
process can also compound the
impacts of staff resignations.

The OCA recommends developing
a strategic hiring plan for
recruitment and retention.

PDS needs to be proactive in terms
of retaining and attracting staff -
doing so in conjunction with priorities
it identifies as part of an updated
strategic plan. A hiring plan should
also address the balance and use of
contract versus directly employed
staff to address PDS needs.

Particular consideration is needed in
terms of the ability to utilize
contractors in key areas, given
challenges related to the market for
contract staff, In addition, PDS
management should carefully
examine the requirements/needs for
particular positions in hiring,
particularly as related to project
coordinators and management
positions. PDS has hired internal
candidates for several of these roles
over recent years.

2. Med 2. Med 2. Med

14.a
Packet Pg. 281

52 # Observation Title Summary of Observation Recommendation Impact Barriers to Improvement
Overall
Priority
15 Unpermitted Work
Unpermitted building may
have increased during the
pandemic.

Concern has been expressed by
some PDS and City staff
interviewed that unpermitted
work may have increased do to
the pandemic, which may
account for some of the decrease
in permitting activity in the same
time frame (but also likely driven
by a decrease overall due from a
slow down/stoppage of work due
to the pandemic). Typically the
City has not patrolled to discover
unpermitted work, relying upon
residents reporting unpermitted
work and inspectors discovering
unpermitted work enroute to
inspections across the City.

Anecdotally, City staff stated that
unpermitted work may be 50%
higher than normal at the start of
the pandemic, but believe this
has decreased with the City
offering on-line permitting and
construction activity resuming
'normal' levels. If significant
unpermitted work may be
drastically lowering permitting
applications, the City may be at
risk for lost revenue and
improper building activities.

The OCA recommends that PDS
improve timeliness and
complexities of permit and
inspection processes to promote
compliance.

Recommendations 1, 2, 3, and 6 will
help greatly in reducing the time,
effort, and wait for
applicants/customers of the permit
and inspection processes. Some risk
of unpermitted work being performed
is offset by neighbors reporting any
unpermitted work. If the concern of
unpermitted work becomes
greater/more apparent - Inspectors
could be tasked with spending part of
their time canvassing the City while
enroute to scheduled inspections to
look for any work being done without
permits - but this may require
additional inspection staff given the
current inspection lead time.

3. Low 2. Med 3. Low

14.a
Packet Pg. 282

53 Appendices
Appendix A: Customer Survey
The following includes a complete list of the survey questions and associated options for respondents to pick from (if a multiple choice type question). Also, we have included the responses for all questions that could be readily summarized and did not allow for open ended responses.

Here is the introduction to the survey and survey questions:

The City of Palo Alto is examining its building permit process – including permit application process and inspection process – to identify areas for improvement.

As a recent applicant for a building permit, we would greatly appreciate your time in completing this short survey to help better inform this analysis and guide potential areas for improvement.

This examination is being led by the Office of the City Auditor as contracted to Baker Tilly US, LLP, an internationally-regarded advisory, tax, auditing, and assurance firm (more information here - https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/City-Auditor).

1. What best describes your role in the permitting process? a. Architect
b. Engineer
c. Commercial Contractor
d. Home Builder
e. Electrical Contractor
f. Plumbing contractor
g. HVAC Contractor
h. Solar Contractor
i. Homeowner
j. Other – please specify:

2. What type of permit(s) did you apply for (check all that apply)? a. Residential – New Building
b. Commercial - New Building
c. Pool/Spa/Landscaping
d. Solar/Battery Storage/Other Photovoltaic Project
e. Electrical/Mechanical/Plumbing only
f. Addition/Remodel/Repair
g. Garage/Carport/Accessory Bldg
h. Deconstruction
i. Demolition

14.a
Packet Pg. 283

54 j. Direct 'Online' Permit (i.e. Repair Gas Leak, Boiler/Furnace/Water Heater Replacement, Re- Roofing, Backflow Device, Window Replacement, etc.)
k. Other (if not included above)

3. When did you last apply for a permit?
a. Within the last week
b. Within the last month
c. Within the last 3 months
d. Within the last 6 months
e. Within the last year
f. More than one year plus ago

4. How often do you apply for building permits?
a. Weekly
b. Monthly
c. A few time a year
d. Annually
e. Infrequently

5. Were you aware the City of Palo Alto Development Center is offering in-person appointments for assistance in submitting a building permit application? a. Yes
b. No

6. Did you use the in-person service or the on-line application process? a. Pre-COVID, In-person/Counter service
b. Post COVID, In person, appointment
c. Online system
d. Post COVID – both in person and on-line
e. Something different – please indicate

7. Please rank the following from highest to lowest as to where you would like to the City focus its time and resources in improving the permitting process:
a. Online permitting process
b. In-person permitting process
c. Appointment availability for in-person permitting
d. Availability of staff for questions
e. Clarity of requirements
f. On-line resources/reference documents
g. Turnaround time from application to permit (cycle time) h. Expedited permit for additional fee

8. Please provide any other additional comments/suggestions on the above ranking.

14.a
Packet Pg. 284

55 9. What is your perception of the following areas of additional steps and requirements related to the permit application and review process? Very positive, Positive, Neutral, Negative, Very negative a. Tree preservation and protection
b. De-watering requirements
c. Architectural review
d. Deconstruction and demolition
e. Utilities coordination

10. Provide additional comments on your above responses

11. Please rate your overall satisfaction with the permitting process a. Extremely Satisfied
b. Somewhat Satisfied
c. Neither Satisfied or Dissatisfied
d. Somewhat Dissatisfied
e. Extremely Dissatisfied

12. What suggestions for improvement of the permitting process do you have?

13. Please rank the following from highest to lowest as to where you would like to the City focus its time and resources in improving the inspection process:
a. Wait time between request for inspection and actual inspection b. On-site inspection visit
c. Clarity of inspector’s report/findings
d. Training/knowledge of inspectors
e. Reinspection wait time
f. Overall satisfaction with the inspection process

14. If you apply for permits in other jurisdictions, how does Palo Alto’s process compare? a. Not applicable – I only apply for permits in Palo Alto b. About the same
c. Better than average
d. Worse than average
e. Additional comments:

15. If you have any other additional thoughts – please feel free to share.

The following are the results that can be readily summarized:

1. What best describes your role in the permitting process?

14.a
Packet Pg. 285

56 67
3 23 20 8 16 17 4
42 50
Choice Count
Description
Describe Role in Permitting Process

14.a
Packet Pg. 286

57 2. What type of permit(s) did you apply for (check all that apply)?

69 19 17
62 104
25 12
25 36
47 Choice Count
Type of Permits
Type(s) of Permits Applied For

14.a
Packet Pg. 287

58 3. When did you last apply for a permit?

36 41
51 59
50 13
Within the last
week
Within the last
month
Within the last 3
months
Within the last 6
months
Within the last
year
More than one
year ago
Choice Count
Reason for Applying
When Did You Apply for Permit?

14.a
Packet Pg. 288

59 4. How often do you apply for building permits?

25 47
95 18
64 Weekly Monthly A few times a year Annually Infrequently Choice Count
Frequency
How Often Do You Apply for Building Permits?

14.a
Packet Pg. 289

60 5. Were you aware the City of Palo Alto Development Center is offering in-person appointments for assistance in submitting a building permit application?

Yes, 41%
No, 59%
Were You Aware of Palo Alto's Development
Center offering In-person Building Permit
Application Assistance?

14.a
Packet Pg. 290

61 6. Did you use the in-person service or the on-line application process?

25 2
200
12 10
Pre-COVID, In-
Person/Counter
Service
During COVID, In-
Person/Counter
Service
Online System During COVID -
both in person and
on-line
Other-Please
specify
Choice Count
Service Uses
Use of In-person Service of On-line Application
Process

14.a
Packet Pg. 291

62 7. Please rank the following from highest to lowest as to where you would like to the City focus its time and resources in improving the permitting process:
a. Online permitting process
b. In-person permitting process
c. Appointment availability for in-person permitting
d. Availability of staff for questions
e. Clarity of requirements
f. On-line resources/reference documents
g. Turnaround time from application to permit (cycle time) h. Expedited permit for additional fee

Aspects of Permitting Process 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th Online permitting process 66 40 37 32 20 15 5 7
In-person permitting process 21 25 23 26 31 39 46 11
Appointment of staff for questions 3 13 29 27 39 39 44 28 Availability of staff for questions 22 28 39 46 34 37 14 2 Clarity of Requirements 32 39 27 25 36 28 26 9
On-line resources/reference documents 6 12 27 29 23 37 43 45 Turnaround time from application to permit (cycle time) 68 44 20 23 19 6 33 9 Expedited Permit for additional fee 4 21 20 14 20 21 11 111

14.a
Packet Pg. 292

63 9. What is your perception of the following areas of additional steps and requirements related to the permit application and review process?

11. Please rate your overall satisfaction with the permitting process

30 37
137
19 1821 29
171
11 9
19 51
125
30 1620
54 143
15 9
29 48
127
18 19
0 20
40 60
80 100
120
140
160
180
Very Positive Positive Neutral Negative Very Negative
Choice Count
Perception Options
Perception of Additional Permit Application Requirements Tree Presearvation and Protection
De-watering Requirements
Architectural Review
Deconstruction and Demolition
Utilities Coordination

14.a
Packet Pg. 293

64 Extremely Dissatisfied, 19%
Somewhat Dissatisfied, 24%
Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied, 20%
Somewhat Satisfied,
25%
Extremely Satisfied, 12%
Overall Satisfaction with Permitting Process

14.a
Packet Pg. 294

65 13. Please rank the following from highest to lowest as to where you would like to the City focus its time and resources in improving the inspection process:
a. Wait time between request for inspection and actual inspection b. On-site inspection visit
c. Clarity of inspector’s report/findings
d. Training/knowledge of inspectors
e. Reinspection wait time
f. Overall satisfaction with the inspection process

119
60 29
13 12
4 36
72 64
40 18
7 22
31 76
64 36
8 18 16 23
77 68
35 8
41 27 28
81 52
34 17 18 15 22
131
0 20
40 60
80 100
120
140
1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th
Choice Count
Ranking 1 Highest - 6 Lowest
City Focus of Resources to Improve Inspections
Wait time between request for inspection and actual inspection On-site inspection visit
Clarity of Inspector's report/findings
Trainings/Knowledge of Inspections
Reinspection wait time
Overall satisfaction with the inspection process

14.a
Packet Pg. 295

66 14. If you apply for permits in other jurisdictions, how does Palo Alto’s process compare?

About the same, 25%
Better than average, 22%Worse than average, 34%
Not Applicable - I only apply for
permits in Palo Alto, 19%
How does Palo Alto's Permitting Process Compare to
Other Jurisdictions?

14.a
Packet Pg. 296

67 Appendix B: Management Response
PDS provided responses to each recommendation. The OCA will perform periodic follow up to understand what actions have been taken to remediate the matters identified in this report. Results of that follow up will be communicated to the Policy & Services Committee and subsequently to City Council.

14.a
Packet Pg. 297

68 Recommendation Responsible
Department(s)
Agree, Partially Agree, or Do Not Agree
and Target Date and Corrective Action
Plan
To be completed 6 months after Council acceptance and every 6 months thereafter until all recommendations are implemented Current Status Implementation Update and
Expected Completion Date
Finding: The lead time for a building inspection is approximately two weeks from request to inspection.

Hire an additional Inspector to help improve and
maintain lead times. An additional staff member
would also help support the requirement for
Inspectors to meet continuing education
requirements (100 hours per year per inspector)
and keep up with changes in the building industry.

PDS Concurrence: Agree
Target Date: Ongoing / October 31, 2022
Action Plan:

PDS is seeking two new inspector
positions as part of the FY22-23 budget
and is currently recruiting for these two
new inspector positions using City
Manager authorized over-strength
positions.

Find additional efficiencies with current staff,
including assigning geographic areas to Inspectors
to reduce travel time and possibly assigning
inspections by specialty

PDS Concurrence: Partially Agree
Target Date: Ongoing / October 31, 2022
Action Plan:

To the extent feasible, this already
occurs. Challenges arise however
depending on the type of inspection
needed and if that requires an inspector
with a certain skill-set or specialty. It is
anticipated with the addition of two
additional inspectors and consultant
funding requested in the FY22-23
budget, combined with existing efforts to
assign inspections based on geography,
the department will be able to restore
more timely inspections schedules.

14.a
Packet Pg. 298

69 If lead time lengths persist after hiring of additional inspector, PDS should renew efforts to utilize
contract inspectors to assist with peak application
times. As part of this, PDS should expand the pool
of contract Inspectors it can rely on that are versed
in City building code or find ways to utilize contract
staff for Inspections that are not as heavily
modified per City building code.

PDS Concurrence: Agree
Target Date: October 31, 2022
Action Plan:

PDS is proactively seeking a two
additional inspectors. As part of the
FY22-23 budget, PDS is also requesting
additional consultant funds to bring in
inspectors to manage increased
workload or respond to staff absences.

Moreover, staff is reviewing its contracts
with venders to ensure Palo Alto remains
competitive with other jurisdictions.

Consider third party plan review and inspection
options with applicants paying a premium fee for
expedited review (certified by the City, with a
fees/premium price to the applicant to ensure no
cost to City, and establish a quality assurance
process).

PDS Concurrence: Partially Agree
Target Date: October 31, 2022
Action Plan:

If the above actions do not sufficiently
address the delay in inspection services,
staff will consider this recommendation
as a contingency to address continued
delays. It is worth noting this
recommendation adds some complexity
to the operation and additional staff
resources to manage which may draw
attention away from other efforts.

Consider the role of a lead inspector/field
supervisor to help with training, quality control, and
other duties that would assist inspection manager
PDS Concurrence: Agree
Target Date: March 31, 2023
Action Plan:

Staff will coordinate with Human
Resources to conduct a classification
review to evaluate the scope of work for
the position and determine the
appropriate level within the organization
structure.

14.a
Packet Pg. 299

70 Finding: Customers/applicants need better information on all aspects of the permitting and inspection process.

The OCA recommends that PDS takes steps to
ensure that all relevant building codes, compliance
guides, checklists, videos and other process
requirements/documentation are current, visible,
and readily accessible on-line.

PDS Concurrence: Agree
Target Date: Ongoing / June 30, 2023
Action Plan:

Staff will update recommended
documents, organize information
succinctly on webpage, reference
documents throughout the permitting
process and coordinate with other City
departments to do the same. The
department will also prepare a FAQ
section on the website.

Finding: A number of the forms, guidelines, and checklists provided on PDS’s website date from prior use of the OPS system.

The OCA recommends modifying OPS to
incorporate relevant information and present in
more intuitive format.

PDS Concurrence: Agree
Target Date: Ongoing / June 30, 2023
Action Plan:

Staff views this as a parallel process to
recommendation 2 and will update forms
and checklists and improve integration
with the Online Permit System. Staff is
also reviewing the workflow to submit a
pre-application/building permit and
anticipates changes to clarify processes
and make the system more integrated
and seamless from the customer’s
perspective.

The OCA recommends to providing better
guidance resources and rejecting any incomplete
applications.

PDS Concurrence: Agree
Target Date: June 30, 2023
Action Plan:

Concurrent with the prior two
recommendations, staff will improve
forms, guidelines and checklists to
improve expectations and establish clear
processes to ensure application
submittals are complete and ready for
conversion into a building permit
application.

14.a
Packet Pg. 300

71 Finding: Requirements for pre-application/application plan review and permitting are not always clear.

The OCA recommends improving notification for all
involved departments of pending reviews
simultaneously at the pre-application stage.

PDS Concurrence: Partially Agree
Target Date: Ongoing / June 30, 2023
Action Plan:

Sending notification to all involved
departments of pending pre-application
reviews adds significantly more work to
project reviewers supporting the DC.

One role of the coordinator is to vet
these issues and minimize this burden to
other plan reviewers. There currently is
no screening process for pre-
applications. Staff is also finding that it is
missing a critical touchpoint with its
customers having made this process
available online. Accordingly, staff is
exploring opportunities to require in-
person or virtual appointments on a pilot
program basis to see if this real-time
interaction can improve the quality of
submittals and result the pre-application
to a building permit application at the
meeting instead of relying on an
exchange of email messages and
uploading of application material, which
takes a long time to implement.

14.a
Packet Pg. 301

72 Finding: PDF forms required by OPS, including the building permit application, do not always provide sufficient information for review.

The OCA recommends digitizing data collection
from PDF to directly in the OPS system to ensure
that all relevant data is captured.

PDS Concurrence: Agree
Target Date: Ongoing / June 30, 2023
Action Plan:

Staff is currently having discussions
about using online, fillable forms and
integrating this information into the
Accela permitting system. This effort ties
into the other recommendations to
improve access to forms, checklists and
improve processes.

Finding: PDS does not have a shared and consistent set of Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs).

The OCA recommends development of a robust
set of internal standard operating procedures and
develop timeline and process for routine review
and updates of procedures.

PDS Concurrence: Agree
Target Date: December 31, 2023
Action Plan:

This requires considerable staff
resources and at a time when the
department will be re-examining
processes and procedures and making
substantial refinements to forms and
checklists and updates to the department
website. Staff agrees with the
recommendation but will need additional
time fulfil this request.

14.a
Packet Pg. 302

73 Finding: PDS is operating under an outdated initiative for the operation of its building permit function.

The OCA recommends PDS develop an updated
strategic plan reflecting current realities and the
lessons-learned throughout the pandemic.

PDS Concurrence: Agree
Target Date: December 31, 2025
Action Plan:

An updated strategic plan would be
helpful to guide process improvements
and would serve to recommit resources
and refine performance and service
expectations. Significant changes have
occurred since the Blueprint was
adopted and it warrants an update. The
staff resources and time needed to
properly prepare an updated strategic
plan is extensive. The department is
currently implementing several structural
and operational changes to respond to a
changed work environment, new
challenges, and adjusting its service
model to respond to challenges. Staff
anticipates an updated strategic plan can
begin in about two-years with completion
and report to Council within three years.

14.a
Packet Pg. 303

74 Finding: Technology challenges impede plan review and permitting processes.

The OCA recommends that PDS continues
exploring technology enhancements and better
platforms
PDS Concurrence: Agree
Target Date: Ongoing
Action Plan:

This is an ongoing task. The
department’s Data Analysis Team works
daily to make system upgrades and
improvements to respond to internal and
external customer needs. The
department has a request in the FY22-23
budget for an additional FTE resource to
reflect the fact that the permitting
operation requires more backend support
as it shifts to more online services.

Additionally, the department is currently
in the process of conducting a request
for proposals for an electronic plan
review system; as noted in the audit, the
department currently uses Digiplan,
which was set up on an urgent basis to
respond to the pandemic. Through the
RFP process staff will be able to
evaluate available options.

14.a
Packet Pg. 304

75 Finding: Project Coordinator training needs improvement. Inspectors need time for training.

The OCA recommends PDS create materials to
train from and prioritize time for training.

PDS Concurrence: Agree
Target Date: Ongoing/December 2023
Action Plan:

Building inspectors are allotted time for
mandatory training hours.

Project coordinators would benefit from
SOPs as recommended above and this
effort will also track with that timeline.

The project coordinator program has not
fully developed into the proactive project
manager role as envisioned in the
Blueprint and there is department
interest in seeing this through. At the
time of this audit, coordinator staff has
experienced significant disruptions to the
manner in which they provide service to
customers, communicate internally with
remote workers supporting the DC and
learn new software systems in response
to the pandemic and shift to online
services. Managers will continue to
explore training opportunities, refine and
streamline processes and prioritize
training.

14.a
Packet Pg. 305

76 Finding: Palo Alto code modifications increase the complexity of the building plan review and permitting process.

The OCA recommends that interim code interim
modifications are limited as much as possible
PDS Concurrence: Agree
Target Date: Ongoing
Action Plan:

Staff agrees that amendments to the
building code should be limited. Staff is
also unaware of any interim building
code modifications that have occurred
outside of the State-mandated cycle. The
City does tend to adopt more aggressive
green building standards than the State
mandates but these occur during the
regular adoption cycle.

The planning operation sees many code
updates including interim zoning codes
that may affect development but these
are typically Council-directed policy
initiatives or State-legislative actions.

Finding: Quality control processes can be strengthened.

The OCA recommends PDS place a greater
emphasis on quality control and resources to help
promote it.

PDS Concurrence: Agree
Target Date: June 30, 2023
Action Plan:

Many of the recommendations in this
audit will strengthen quality control.

Additional inspectors, training, SOPs and
process improvements will all help
achieve this goal. Additionally, PDS has
put forth a FY22-23 budget proposal for
additional staff and consultant resources
to further support operations and
improve processes.

The audit also recommends performance
metrics. Staff will implement these
metrics over the course of the next year
and include them in performance
evaluations for PDS staff and encourage
the same for staff supporting the DC
from other departments.

14.a
Packet Pg. 306

77 Finding: Difficulties in hiring and retaining contract staff impede departmental performance.

The OCA recommends that PDS develop plans to
best utilize/balance contract staff.

PDS Concurrence: Agree
Target Date: Ongoing / June 30, 2023
Action Plan:

The department has a strategy for its use
of consultants. Specifically, consultants
are used for plan review services and as
needed to supplement the inspection
program. Onboarding inspection
contractors requires significant training
and staff support and is typically
employed when there is a long-term
absence or vacancy.

Staff has been unable to attract any plan
review consultants to report to the
development center since the pandemic.

Accordingly, the department is seeking to
hire an inhouse plan reviewer in the
FY22-23 budget and is exploring
possible changes to consultant contracts
to make Palo Alto more competitive with
peer jurisdictions.

14.a
Packet Pg. 307

City of Palo Alto (ID # 14374)
City Council Staff Report

Meeting Date: 6/20/2022 Report Type: Consent Calendar

City of Palo Alto Page 1

Title: Consent of the Macias Gini & O’Connell’s Single Audit Report for the Year Ended June 30, 2021
From: City Manager
Lead Department: City Auditor

Recommendation
The Finance Committee, the Office of the City Auditor and Staff recommend that the City C ouncil consent to the audit reports for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2021 prepared by Macias Gini & O’Connell (“MGO”). These reports are collectively referred to as the Single Audit.

1. Independent Auditor’s Report on Internal Control Over Financial Rep orting and on Compliance and Other Matters Based on an Audit of Financial Statements in Accordance With Government Auditing Standards.

2. Independent Auditor’s Report on Compliance for Each Major Federal Program; Report on Internal Control Over Compliance; and Report on the Schedule of Federal Awards Required by the Uniform Guidance.

Discussion
At the January 24, 2022 City Council Meeting, the City Council approved the following audit reports prepared by MGO:

a) Auditor’s Report to the City Council (the “Management Letter”) b) Cable TV Franchise, Independent Auditor’s Repo rt and Statements of Franchise Revenues and Expenses for the years ended December 31, 2020 and 2019 c) Palo Alto Public Improvement Corporation (a component unit of the City of Palo Alto) Annual Financial Report for the year ended June 30, 2021 d) Regional Water Quality Control Plant, Independent Auditor’s Report and Financial Statements for the year ended June 30, 2021
e) Independent Accountant’s Report on Applying Agreed -Upon Procedures related to the Article XIII -B Appropriations (GANN) Limit for the year ende d June 30, 2021

15 Packet Pg. 308

City of Palo Alto Page 2

At that time, guidance necessary for the completion of the Single Audit had not yet been released by Federal Office of Management and Budget. The Single Audit report has since been completed, thus the recommended action within this report.

MGO reports the following within the Single Audit Report:

- Unmodified opinions as it pertains to both the Financial Statements and to Federal Awards
- No material weaknesses or significant deficiencies in internal controls over financial reporting or over major programs
- No findings or questioned costs

Stakeholder Engagement
This report has been prepared by the Office of the City Auditor in coordination with the Administrative Services Department.

Environmental Review
Environmental Review is not applicable to this activity.

Attachments:
• Attachment15.a: FY 2021 City of Palo Alto Single Audit Report 15 Packet Pg. 309

15.a
Packet Pg. 310

15.a
Packet Pg. 311
www.mgocpa.com
Macias Gini & O’Connell LLP
2121 N. California Boulevard, Suite 750
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Government Auditing Standards
Government Auditing Standards
deficiency in internal control
material weakness
significant deficiency
Government Auditing Standards

15.a
Packet Pg. 312
Government Auditing
Standards

15.a
Packet Pg. 313
www.mgocpa.com
Macias Gini & O’Connell LLP
2121 N. California Boulevard, Suite 750
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
OMB Compliance Supplement
Management’s Responsibility
Auditor’s Responsibility
Government Auditing Standards
Code of Federal Regulations Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards .

Opinion on Each Major Federal Program

15.a
Packet Pg. 314
deficiency in internal control over compliance
material weakness in internal control over compliance
significant deficiency in internal control over compliance

15.a
Packet Pg. 315

15.a
Packet Pg. 316

15.a
Packet Pg. 317

15.a
Packet Pg. 318

15.a
Packet Pg. 319

City of Palo Alto (ID # 14384)
City Council Staff Report

Meeting Date: 6/20/2022 Report Type: Consent Calendar

City of Palo Alto Page 1

Title: Approval of an Agreement Between Santa Clara Valley Water District and the City of Palo Alto for Administration and Funding of Water Conservation and Stormwater Rebate Programs for a Total -Not-to-Exceed Amount of $675,000 Over a Three Year Term Endi ng June 30, 2025 From: City Manager
Lead Department: Utilities

Recommendation
Staff recommends the Palo Alto City Council :
(1) Approve and authorize the City Manager or designee to execute the Agreement Between Santa Clara Valley Water District and the City o f Palo Alto for Administration and Funding of Water Conservation and Stormwater Rebate Programs (Agreement), comprised of $600,000 for water conservation programs and $75,000 for stormwater programs over the three -year contract term ending June 30, 2025 , for a total -not-to-exceed amount of $675,000 ; and

(2) Authorize the City Manager or designee to adjust the reimbursement amounts for the Water Conservation and Stormwater Rebate Programs, so long as the City’s total contribution does not exceed $600,000 f or water conservation programs and $75,000 for stormwater programs over the three -year contract term ending June 30, 2025 .

Executive Summary
To achieve state and local water conservation and efficiency objectives, the City of Palo Alto Utilities (CPAU) p artners with the Santa Clara Valley Water District (Valley Water) to offer a suite of conservation programs and services to Palo Alto’s residential and commercial water customers. Valley Water offers the programs in the City’s service area, and the City ad ds funding to some of the programs. The Rain Barrel Distribution Events and the Home Water Use Reports are administered by the City while Valley Water adds funding. The existing Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) governing these programs expires June 30, 20 22.

Staff recommends approval of the proposed Agreement with Valley Water for a new three - year term allowing Valley Water and the City to administer a variety of water conservation 16 Packet Pg. 320

City of Palo Alto Page 2

programs and allow the City to match funding for some of those programs, e ffectively increasing incentives for Palo Alto residents and businesses to reduce water use. Under the proposed Agreement, Palo Alto will match Valley Water -funded rebates for landscape conversion rebates, graywater systems, submeters, rain barrels, cister ns, and rain gardens resulting in higher incentives for the Palo Community . Rebates for the first three programs will be funded from the Utilities Department budget while rebates for the remaining programs will be funded by the City’s Stormwater Management Fee. In addition, Valley Water will pay 50% of the cost of Palo Alto’s Home Water Use Reports, up to $625,000.

Marketing for all water conservation programs is shared between Valley Water and the City. Implementation and administrative functions for thes e programs (e.g. , scheduling, budget tracking and invoicing, contractor oversight, customer service, and project reporting associated with program implementation) is managed by City and/or Valley Water staff, depending on the program.

Historically, these water efficiency programs administered through Valley Water have been cost effective, meaning the cost of implementation is lower than the City’s water supply cost, and this trend is expected to continue. The funding provided by Valley Water through this p artnership enables Palo Alto to receive more benefits and cost savings than would be achieved through self -administered water efficiency programs. The total not -to-exceed amount from the City is $22 5,000 per year and $675,000 over the three -year term in incentives .

Background
State requirements and Council policies have resulted in aggressive water reduction goals which are largely achieved through conservation and efficiency programs. Valley Water and Palo Alto use innovative technologies and cost -effecti ve programs to best utilize the annual water conservation operating budget.

The guiding document for water utility efficiency goals is the Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) (Staff Report #12025). The UWMP is updated every five years and outlines the long-term supply and demand -side issues and policies impacting the water utility. The UWMP also details the measures CPAU will take to reach its water reduction goals, through a series of Demand Management Measures.

For over a decade Valley Water has delivered water conservation programs to residents and businesses throughout Santa Clara County. Council ha s approved a series of MOUs, the most recent of which was Staff Report #11295 , for the delivery of water conservation and efficiency programs to the Palo alto residents and businesses. Valley Water and the City co -fund various programs and partner to promote residential and commercial sanitary fixtures, free conservation devices, indoo r and outdoor water efficiency surveys, irrigation hardware upgrades, and residential educational workshops . The first MOU was adopted by Council in 2002 (CMR 359:02). Over time, the water efficiency programs provided through the partnership 16 Packet Pg. 321

City of Palo Alto Page 3

have evolved or expanded concurrent with advancements in water -saving technologies and best practices for water efficient program delivery.

Discussion
Under the proposed Agreement, most reb ates will continue to be funded by Valley Water, with the City matching payments to customers for some programs. Palo Alto residents and businesses will be eligible to receive higher incentives than those from other water retailers in Santa Clara County fo r retrofits such as high -water use landscape conversion and custom facility process improvements for water efficiency. Mobile home parks and condominium complexes in Palo Alto will receive increased incentives for adding residential submeters.

Rebates for laundry-to-landscape gray water systems will provide a financial incentive to residents to reduce potable water landscape irrigation. The Landscape Replacement Program provides rebates for residential and commercial customers to replace high water us e landscapes with low water use landscape, and the rebate will be greater in Palo Alto due to the City’s contribution. Likewise, cost sharing will be implemented for rain barrels, cisterns, graywater systems, and rain gardens, all of which reduce reliance on pot able water while keeping pollution out of the stormwater system and, thus, the San Francisco Bay.

Tables A-1, A-2 and A -3 summarize the proposed Agreement costs and reflect funding for the cost-sharing rebate amounts for the programs.

Table A-1 Water Conservation Program Rebate Matching Amounts from Palo Alto Program CITY's Reimbursement Rates
Landscape Conversion Rebate (in
addition to VALLEY WATER rebate
$2.00 per square foot,
up to $2,000 per residential site and $20,000 per
commercial site
Large Landscape Lawn to Mulch
Rebate (in addition to VALLEY
WATER rebate)
$1.00 per square foot,
up to $1,000 per residential site and $10,000 per
commercial site
Graywater Conversion Rebate (in
addition to VALLEY WATER rebate)
$200 per site
Submeter Rebate $150 per submeter

16 Packet Pg. 322

City of Palo Alto Page 4

Table A-2 Stormwater Program Rebate Matching Amounts from Palo Alto Program CITY's Reimbursement Rates
Rain Barrel Rebate (in
addition to VALLEY WATER
rebate)
Rebate cap:
$1,000 per residential site; $5,000 per
commercial site.

Rebates may be applied to any
combination of rebate types and amounts
listed in Tables A-2 or A-3.

Cost of the rain barrel
minus VALLEY WATER’s
rebate amount, up to a
maximum of $35.

Cistern (in addition to
VALLEY WATER rebate)
$0.50 per gallon
Rain Garden (in addition to
VALLEY WATER rebate)
$1 per square foot, up to
$300 per site

Table A-3 Payments from Valley Water to Palo Alto for Rain Barrels Distributed by Palo Alto Program VALLEY WATER's Reimbursement Rates
Rain Barrel Distribution
Event Rebate (in addition to
CITY rebate)
Rebate cap:
$1,000 residential site; $5,000
commercial site.

Rebates may be applied to any
combination of rebate types and amounts
listed in Tables A-2 or A-3.

$35.00 per rain barrel

Valley Water provides access to their online application portal to City of Palo Alto residents and businesses for all the programs listed above. Valley Water administers rebates for the programs listed in Table A-1 and A-2 on behalf of both agencies and then invoices the City. The City will administer rebates for the discounts on any rain barrels, cisterns or rain gardens (listed in Table A-3), and then invoice Valley Water. These discounts are offered at Rain Barrel Distribution Events which may occur yearly or biannually.

CPAU staff also administers several water conservation programs in -house. CPAU’s Home Water Reports provide information to residents including water use and tips and programs to improve water efficiency. Through the proposed Agreement, Valley Water will reimburse CPA U for up to 50% of the cost of the program up to a maximum of $625,000.

To ensure continued and aggressive water conservation efforts, staff recommends Council approve the proposed Agreement with a maximum City funding obligation total of $22 5,000 per year and $675,000 over the three-year term. The additional funding will ensure continued momentum of the eight water efficiency programs administered by Valley Water and City though June 30, 2025. Staff further recommends that Council authorize the City Manag er or designee to adjust the City’s funding levels for the programs listed in Appendix A, so long as 16 Packet Pg. 323

City of Palo Alto Page 5

the City’s total contribution does not exceed $600,000 for water conservation programs and $75,000 for stormwater programs over the three -year contract . Table 2 shows funding amounts for the three years of the proposed Agreement by department budget.

Table 2: Proposed Agreement Funding
Department FY2023 FY2024 FY2025 Total
Utilities (Water
Fund)
$200,000 $200,000 $200,000 600,000
Public Works
(Stormwater
Management Fund)
$25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $75,000
Total $225,000 $225,000 $225,000 $675,000

Resource Impact
The funds to support year one of this proposed Agreement are available within the Utilities and Public Works Departments in the Water and Stormwater Management Funds respectively , subject to the approval of the FY 2023 Proposed Operating budget. Funding for FY 2024 and beyond is subject to City Council approval of the annual appropriation of funds through the annual budget process.

Valley Water w ill pay the City 50% of the Home Water Use Reports program cost, up to $625,000.

Implementation of the proposed conservation programs will slightly reduce the City’s water consumption, and thus reduce water revenues to the Utility but will reduce water su pply costs by a greater amount, reducing overall costs to the community. These water efficiency programs are expected to be cost -effective, meaning the cost of implementation will be lower than the water supply cost.

Policy Implications
The proposed Agr eement continues funding for water efficiency programs consistent with the 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (Staff Report #12025), the Utilities Strategic Plan, and the City’s Sustainability and Climate Action Plan Goals and Key Draft Sustainability and Climate Action Plan Goals and Key Actions . Stormwater -related programs support implementation of the Green Stormwater Infrastructure (GSI) Plan accepted by Council in May 2019 (Staff Report #9883).

In December 2018, the SWRCB adopted amendments to the Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento -San Joaquin Delta Estuary (Ba y Delta Plan Amendment) to establish water quality objectives to maintain the health of the Bay Delta ecosystem. Palo Alto 16 Packet Pg. 324

City of Palo Alto Page 6

Council expressed support for the Bay Delta Plan Amendment in its August 20, 2018 vote 1.

Water conservation programs are an important means for Palo Alto to reduce its dependence on the Tuolumne River.

Community Engagement
Community engagement occurred through the process of adopting the policies above. Palo Alto and Vall ey Water both actively market these programs though their websites, at community events, via bill inserts, other social media and newsletters.

Environmental Review
Approval of the proposed Agreement does not meet the definition of a project pursuant to Section 21065 of the California Public Resources Code, thus no e nvironmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is required and is categorically exempt from CEQA under Public Resources Code Sections 15307 (Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of Natural Resources) and 15308 (Actions b y Regulatory Agencies for Protection of the Environment). Valley Water is the lead agency with respect to programs covered by the Agreement.

Attachments:
• Attachment16.a: Attachment A: AGREEMENT FOR WATER CONSERVATION AND

STORMWATER REBATE PROGRAMS

1 https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/city-council- agendas-minutes/00-archive/2018/08-20-2018-final-ccm-minutes.pdf 16 Packet Pg. 325
6056640

1 AGREEMENT

BETWEEN

SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
AND

THE CITY OF PALO ALTO

FOR WATER CONSERVATION AND STORMWATER REBATE PROGRAMS

This agreement (AGREEMENT) is between Santa Clara Valley Water District (VALLEY WATER), an independent special district created by the California Legislature, and the City of Palo Alto (CITY). This AGREEMENT sets forth the respective roles of VALLEY WATER and the CITY related to VALLEY WATER’S residential and commercial conservation programs (VALLEY WATER PROGRAMS) and the CITY’s residential and commercial conservation and stormwater rebate programs, each identified in Appendix A (PROGRAMS AND REIMBURSEMENT RATES).

CITY and VALLEY WATER may be
referred to individually as "PARTY" or collectively as the "PARTIES" or the "PARTIES TO THIS AGREEMENT."

RECITALS

WHEREAS, the VALLEY WATER PROGRAMS provide water conservation services and rebates, including but not limited to Rain Barrel, Cistern, and Rain Garden, for properties located within the service area of the CITY (SERVICE AREA); and

WHEREAS, CITY provides home water use reports within the SERVICE AREA to educate customers about water conservation, drought, and water demand (HOME WATER USE REPORTS PROGRAM); and

WHEREAS, CITY administers a RAIN BARREL DISTRIBUTION EVENT, during which CITY residents and businesses will have opportunity to purchase rain barrels at a discount funded by rebates from both CITY and VALLEY WATER without submitting a rebate application; and

WHEREAS, the VALLEY WATER PROGRAMS and the HOME WATER USE REPORTS PROGRAM are consistent with both Parties’ Urban Water Management Planning Act requirements; and

WHEREAS, VALLEY WATER and CITY wish to collaborate to implement VALLEY WATER PROGRAMS, the HOME WATER USE REPORTS PROGRAM, and the CITY REBATE PROGRAM in the SERVICE AREA as described in this AGREEMENT.

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the recitals and mutual obligations of the Parties expressed in this AGREEMENT, VALLEY WATER and CITY agree:

16.a
Packet Pg. 326
6056640

2 AGREEMENT

1. TERM
The term of the AGREEMENT is retroactive from July 1, 2022 to June 30, 2025 (TERM), or until funds are depleted, whichever occurs first. The TERM may be extended by mutual written consent of the Parties. This AGREEMENT shall be contingent upon approval of program funding each fiscal year by the CITY’s Council and VALLEY WATER’s Board of Directors. In the event such financial contingency is not met, the implementation and enforcement of this AGREEMENT will be suspended on the first day of the fiscal year for which funding is not approved and reinstated the month following approval of the financial contingency by both agencies.

2. NOT TO EXCEED COMPENSATION

2.1. The compensation to be paid to VALLEY WATER by CITY for programs as described APPENDIX A, Table A -1, shall not exceed $200,000 per year or $600,000 over the TERM.

2.2. The compensation to be paid to VALLEY WATER by CITY for programs as described APPENDIX A, Table A-2, shall not exceed $25,000 per year or $75,000 over the TERM.

2.3. The compensation to be paid to the CITY by VALLEY WATER for the RAIN BARREL DISTRIBUTION EVENT program as described in APPENDIX A, Table A-3 shall not exceed $5,000 per year or $15,000 over the TERM.

2.4. The compensation to be paid to CITY by VALLEY WATER for the HOME WATER USE REPORTS PROGRAM shall not exceed $625,000 over the TERM.

2.5. Either Party may adjust its contribution to any of the rebate amounts for any of the programs described in APPENDIX A, so long as that Party’s total contribution for any individual program does not exceed the amounts described in Sections 2.1-

2.4, respectively.

3. RESPONSIBILITIES OF VALLEY WATER

3.1. VALLEY WATER PROGRAMS

3.1.1. Administer VALLEY WATER PROGRAMS as listed in Appendix A , Tables A-1 and A-2.

3.1.2. Invoice the CITY, approximately every six months in accordance with the CITY’s REIMBURSEMENT RATES listed in Appendix A.

3.1.2.1. Invoices shall include an attachment with VALLEY WATER PROGRAM customer information for those SERVICE AREA customers who received services during the dates of the invoice.

3.1.2.2. Customer information shall include the rebate number, invoice date, date of notice to proceed, rebate type, customer name, customer site type, customer address, area of converted landscape in square feet (if applicable), rainwater capture details (if applicable), including rain garden (roof square footage), rain barrel quantity, and cistern total gallonage, total rebate amount in dollars, total rebate amount owed by VALLEY WATER and the CITY in dollars.

16.a
Packet Pg. 327
6056640

3 3.1.2.3. In accordance with Gov. Code 6254.16, VALLEY WATER shall ensure that customer names, home addresses and utility usage data will only be made available to CITY for those customer account holders from whom VALLEY WATER has obtained written authorization for the release of information.

3.1.3. At least once per year, collect and analyze data to determine water savings for Santa Clara County and provide the results to the CITY along with CITY’s customer participation data.

3.1.4. Administer funds received from the CITY for VALLEY WATER PROGRAMS.

3.1.5. Work cooperatively with the CITY to advertise VALLEY WATER PROGRAMS to targeted customers.

3.2. RAIN BARREL DISTRIBUTION EVENT

3.2.1. Pay rebates to eligible customers in accordance with APPENDIX A, Table A-3 for distributed rain barrels.

3.2.2. Pay the CITY within thirty (30) days of receipt of an invoice from the CITY.

3.2.2.1. Parties may mutually agree to extend the deadline for payment sixty (60) days from receipt of an invoice.

3.3. HOME WATER USE REPORTS PROGRAM

3.3.1. Pay fifty percent (50%) of the cost of the CITY’s HOME WATER USE REPORTS PROGRAM up to the maximum in Section 2.4.

3.3.2. Pay the CITY within thirty (30) days of receipt of an invoice from the CITY.

3.3.2.1. Parties may mutually agree in writing to extend the deadline for payment sixty (60) days from receipt of an invoice.

4. RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE CITY

4.1. VALLEY WATER PROGRAMS

4.1.1. Identify and notify all qualified properties within the SERVICE AREA regarding the opportunity to participate in VALLEY WATER PROGRAMS.

4.1.2. Work cooperatively with VALLEY WATER to advertise VALLEY WATER PROGRAMS to targeted customers as described at
https://www.valleywater.org/watersavingsorg

4.1.3. Provide water use and other relevant customer data for customers in the SERVICE AREA to VALLEY WATER to determine water savings and the cost effectiveness of VALLEY WATER PROGRAMS, subject to the disclosure requirement in 4.1.3.1.

4.1.3.1. In accordance with Gov. Code 6254.16, customer name, home address and water usage records will only be made available to VALLEY WATER for those customer account holders from whom VALLEY WATER has obtained written authorization for the release of such information from the CITY.

4.1.4. Pay VALLEY WATER within thirty (30) days of receipt of invoice(s) from VALLEY WATER.

16.a
Packet Pg. 328
6056640

4 4.1.4.1. Parties may mutually agree in writing to extend the deadline for payment sixty (60) days from receipt of an invoice.

4.1.5. Pay VALLEY WATER the one-time retail agency licensing fee of $1,000 for access to Droplet Landscape Rebate Program application portal.

4.2. RAIN BARREL DISTRIBUTION EVENT

4.2.1. Administer the RAIN BARREL DISTRIBUTION EVENT once annually or every other year.

4.2.1.1. At the RAIN BARREL DISTRIBUTION EVENT, CITY residents and businesses will have opportunity to purchase rain barrels at a discount funded by rebates from both CITY and VALLEY WATER without submitting a rebate application.

4.2.1.2. RAIN BARREL DISTRIBUTION EVENT rebates do not count toward the maximum rebate caps per site described in Table A-2.

4.2.1.3. RAIN BARREL DISTRIBUTION EVENT will meet all of VALLEY WATER’s rain barrel rebate requirements as specified under the Landscape Rebate Program.

4.2.2. Notify VALLLY WATER a minimum of 60 days before each RAIN BARREL DISTRIBUTION EVENT.

4.2.3. Invoice Valley Water a minimum of 30 days after each RAIN BARREL DISTRIBUTION EVENT in accordance with the amounts listed in Appendix A, Table A-3.

4.2.3.1. Include an attachment to the invoice with the following information:
participating customer information, including customer name, site address, rain barrel purchase date, rain barrel quantity and size, total rebate amount in dollars, and total rebate amount owed by VALLEY WATER and the CITY in dollars.

4.2.3.2. Confirm VALLEY WATER has provided written authorization for all customer account holders whose data will be shared under this Agreement.

4.3. HOME WATER USE REPORTS PROGRAM

4.3.1. Administer the HOME WATER USE REPORTS PROGRAM, which shall include coordination with the WaterSmart software vendor (C19174648) or another vendor mutually agreed to by the Parties (VENDOR).

4.3.2. Invoice Valley Water twice per year at the rate defined in Section 3.3.1 based upon actual CITY-paid invoices for the HOME WATER USE REPORTS PROGRAM.

4.3.2.1. Include as an attachment to the invoices the HOME WATER USE REPORTS PROGRAM mailing history for the dates of the invoices.

4.3.3. Identify and notify qualifying properties within the SERVICE AREA about the HOME WATER USE REPORTS PROGRAM.

4.3.4. Collaborate with VALLEY WATER regarding developing and delivering targeted marketing through the HOME WATER USE REPORTS PROGRAM as appropriate and to the extent available through the VENDOR.

16.a
Packet Pg. 329
6056640

5 4.3.5. Collect and analyze HOME WATER USE REPORT PROGRAM data to determine water savings.

4.3.6. At least once per year, provide VALLEY WATER with cumulative water usage records and other data necessary to determine savings and cost effectiveness of the HOME WATER USE REPORTS PROGRAM.

5. HOLD HARMLESS AND LIABILITY

5.1. in lieu of and notwithstanding the pro rata risk allocation, which might otherwise be imposed between the Parties pursuant to Government Code Section 895.6, the PARTIES agree that all losses or liabilities incurred by a PARTY shall not be shared pro rata but, instead, VALLEY WATER and CITY agree that, pursuant to Government Code Section 895.4, each PARTY hereto shall fully indemnify and hold the other PARTY, their officers, Board members, Council members, employees, and agents, harmless from any claim, expense or cost, damage or liability, including that imposed for injury (as defined in Government Code Section 810.8) occurring by reason of the negligent acts or omissions or willful misconduct of the indemnifying PARTY, its officers, Board members, Council members, employees or agents, under or in connection with or arising out of any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to such PARTY under this AGREEMENT. No PARTY, nor any officer, Board member, Council member, employee or agent thereof shall be responsible for any damage or liability occurring by reason of the negligent acts or omissions or willful misconduct of the other PARTY hereto, their officers, Board members, Council members, employees, or agents, under or in connection with or arising out of any work authority or jurisdiction delegated to such other PARTY under this AGREEMENT.

5.2. The rights, duties, and obligations of the Parties as set forth above in this Hold Harmless and Liability section will survive termination, suspension, completion, and expiration of this AGREEMENT.

6. PROJECT MANAGEMENT
VALLEY WATER’s project manager is Justin Burks, Senior Water Conservation Specialist, Water Supply Planning & Conservation Unit, Telephone: (408)630-2684, e-mail: [email protected]. CITY’s project manager is Kevin Carley, Utilities Department, Resource Management Division, Telephone: 650-617-3181, email:
[email protected]. The project managers will be the points of contact with respect to program management and invoicing. By written notice to the other Party as described in Section 9, Valley Water and the CITY may designate an alternate project manager from time to time.

7. INSURANCE
Each Party shall adhere to the insurance requirements that are specified in Appendix B of this AGREEMENT.

16.a
Packet Pg. 330
6056640

6 8. DOCUMENT REVIEW
VALLEY WATER and the CITY will, upon reasonable advance written notice, make available for inspection to the other Party records, books and other documents relating to VALLEY WATER PROGRAMS, the HOME WATER USE REPORTS PROGRAM, and the RAIN BARREL DISTRIBUTION EVENT.

9. NOTICES
All notices hereunder will be given in writing and mailed, postage prepaid, by certified mail, addressed as follows:

If to VALLEY WATER: Santa Clara Valley Water District
5750 Almaden Expressway
San José, CA 95118
Attn: Justin Burks

If to CITY: Office of the City Clerk
City of Palo Alto
Post Office Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303

With a copy to the Purchasing Manager.

Either party may change such mailing or email address by notice given to the other Party as provided in this Section 9.

10. ENTIRE AGREEMENT
This Agreement, together with all exhibits referenced and attached hereto, is the entire agreement between the parties respecting the matters set forth within, and supersedes all prior negotiations or agreements between the parties, if any.

11. AMENDMENTS
The AGREEMENT may only be amended by written agreement executed by both Parties.

12. ASSIGNMENT
Neither Party is allowed to assign, sublet, or transfer this AGREEMENT or any of the rights or interests in this AGREEMENT without the written consent of the other Party.

13. SEVERABILITY
The partial or total invalidity of one or more parts of this AGREEMENT will not affect the intent or validity or remaining parts of this AGREEMENT.

14. GOVERNING LAW
This AGREEMENT is a contract under the laws of the State of California and for all purposes must be interpreted in accordance with such laws. The federal and state

16.a
Packet Pg. 331
6056640

7 courts within Santa Clara County, California shall have exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate any dispute arising out of or related to this Agreement. Each Party expressly consents to the personal jurisdiction of and venue in such courts, and service of process effected upon it by registered mail sent to the address set forth herein for each Party.

15. TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT
This AGREEMENT may be terminated by either Party hereto for any reason upon thirty (30) days written notice to the other Party.

16. SIGNATURES
The individuals executing this AGREEMENT represent and warrant that they have the legal capacity and authority to do so on behalf of their respective legal entities.

Unless otherwise prohibited by law or CITY policy, the parties agree that an electronic copy of a signed contract, or an electronically signed contract, has the same force and legal effect as a contract executed with an original ink signature.

The term “electronic copy of a signed contract” refers to a writing as set forth in Evidence Code Section 1550. The term “electronically signed contract” means a contract that is executed by applying an electronic signature using technology approved by the Parties.

17. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT.

The Parties’ approval of this Agreement is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Public Resources Code Sections 15307 (Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of Natural Resources) and 15308 (Actions by Regulatory A gencies for Protection of the Environment). VALLEY WATER is the lead agency with respect to any individual programs covered by this Agreement.

18. COUNTERPARTS
This AGREEMENT may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, and all of which taken together shall be the entire AGREEMENT.

19. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS
Each Party shall at all times in the performance of its obligations under this Agreement comply with all applicable laws as each currently exists and as may hereafter be amended.

20. WAIVER A Party’s waiver of any term, condition, covenant, or breach of any term, condition or covenant shall not be construed as a waiver of any other term, condition, or covenant or breach of any other term, condition, or covenant .

16.a
Packet Pg. 332
6056640

8 In WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this AGREEMENT as of the effective date above.

CITY OF PALO ALTO a municipal corporation

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Amy Bartell Ed Shikada
Assistant City Attorney City Manager

SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT, a Special District created by the Legislature of the State of California

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

_________________________
Rick L. Callender, Esq.

Chief Executive Officer

16.a
Packet Pg. 333
6056640

9 APPENDIX A

PROGRAMS AND REIMBURSEMENT RATES

The programs administered by VALLEY WATER AND CITY and CITY’S and VALLEY WATER’s reimbursement rates are specified below.

PARTIES will be reimbursed for the programs listed below, up to a Not-To-Exceed Amount Specified in the AGREEMENT.

Table A-1 Water Conservation Program Rebate Matching Amounts from CITY

Program CITY's Reimbursement Rates
Landscape Conversion Rebate (in
addition to VALLEY WATER
rebate)
$2.00 per square foot,
up to $2,000 per residential site and $20,000 per
commercial, industrial, institutional, and multi-
family site (5+ units)
Large Landscape Lawn to Mulch
Rebate (in addition to VALLEY
WATER rebate)
$1.00 per square foot,
up $10,000 per commercial, industrial, institutional,
and multi-family sites (5+ units)
Graywater Conversion Rebate (in
addition to VALLEY WATER
rebate)
$200 per site
Submeter Rebate (in addition to
VALLEY WATER rebate)
$150 per submeter

16.a
Packet Pg. 334
6056640

10 Table A-2 Stormwater Program Rebate Matching Amounts from CITY

Program CITY's Reimbursement Rates
Rain Barrel Rebate
(in addition to

VALLEY WATER
rebate)
Rebate cap:
$1,000 per residential site;
$5,000 per commercial site.

Rebates may be applied to any
combination of rebate types and
amounts listed in Tables A-2 or
A-3.

Cost of the rain barrel minus
VALLEY WATER’s rebate
amount, up to a maximum of
$35.

Cistern (in addition to

VALLEY WATER
rebate)
$0.50 per gallon
Rain Garden (in
addition to VALLEY
WATER rebate)
$1 per square foot, up to
$300 per site

Table A-3 Payments from VALLEY WATER for Rain Barrels Distributed by CITY Program VALLEY WATER's Reimbursement Rates
Rain Barrel

DISTRIBUTION
EVENT Rebate (in
addition to CITY
rebate)
Rebate caps do not apply

$35.00 per rain barrel.

16.a
Packet Pg. 335
6056640

11 APPENDIX B

INSURANCE

Each Party represents and warrants that, at its sole cost and expense it will maintain for the duration of the AGREEMENT insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property that may arise from, or in connection with its (and its agents, representatives’, employees’ or contractors’) performance of the services and/or operations herein and the indemnity provisions of this AGREEMENT.

A. Types of Coverage and Minimum Limits

1. Commercial General Liability: $1,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage.

2. Automobile Liability: $1,000,000 combined single limit per accident for bodily injury and property damage; and

3. Workers' Compensation and Employers Liability: Workers' Compensation limits as required by the California Labor Code and Employers Liability limits of $1,000,000 per accident; and

4. Professional Liability Errors & Omissions $1,000,000 per claim/ aggregate limit.

5. Cyber Liability Insurance $1,000,000 per claim/aggregate limit.

B. Authority to Self-Insure

The requirements of this Appendix B may be satisfied by the provision of similar coverage through a self-insurance program and such self-insurance shall be certified in writing with an “Affidavit of Insurance” upon request by the other party.

C. Contractors

Each Party shall obtain separate evidence of insurance for each contractor/consultant hired to perform any services under this Agreement.

16.a
Packet Pg. 336

City of Palo Alto (ID # 14415)
City Council Staff Report

Meeting Date: 6/20/2022 Report Type: Consent Calendar

City of Palo Alto Page 1

Title: Approval of Professional Services Contract Number C22184801 with Construction Testing Services for On -Call Construction Dewatering and Deconstruction Services in an Amount Not to Exceed $339,480 Over a 3 -year Term.

From: City Manager
Lead Department : Public Works

Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council approve and authorize the City Manager or their designee to execute Contract N umber C22184801 with Construction Testing Services , Inc. (Attachment A) , for a not to exceed amount of $113,160 per year for three years for a total amount not to exceed $339,480 for professional services for oversight and management of excavation projects requiring temporary groundwater pumping (dewatering), and to assist in implementation and support for the Deconstruction and Construction Materials Management Ordinance.

Background
Construction Dewatering
Basement construction is often required for non -residential, mixed use and multifamily residential buildings, particularly if underground parking is incl uded in the proposal.

Additionally, the high value of land and housing in Palo Alto translates into residential property owners seeking to increase their single -family homes by constructing basements. Basement construction groundwater pumping occurs when a basement is constructed in areas of shallow groundwater, typically in the neighborhoods closer to the bay or near former creek beds.

Perimeter wells are established to draw down the groundwater allowing for construction of the basement. Dewatering contin ues until enough of the house or commercial structure has been constructed to keep the basement in place.

Over the years, basement construction groundwater pumping has generated public concern in Palo Alto. Public concerns relate to the apparent wasting of water by discharging to storm drains, potential impacts on groundwater elevation and flow volume, as well as potential effects on neighboring properties, such as subsidence and cracks, and effects on trees and other landscaping. To address these concerns, Council approved new requirements in February 2016, designed to minimize and standardize the process of pumping and discharge of 17 Packet Pg. 337

City of Palo Alto Page 2

groundwater from dewater ing of below ground structures during construction ( Staff Report ID #6478). In March and December 2017, Council directed staff to make further enhancements and codify these changes in the municipal code (Staff Report ID #7633 and #8580). The 2017 changes included improving the fill station performance, monitoring actual groundwater elevation changes during dewatering, assessing impacts on nearby structures, clarifying reporting requirements, limiting the number of weeks during which a residential project may dewater, and requiring a hydrogeological study.

Public Works staff (with the assistance of a consultant) track s this information during the dewatering process. The table below is a summary of the projects requiring dewatering in the last few years. Since the more restrictive requirements went into effect in 2018, the number of non-exclusionary dewatering projects has greatly reduced.

Recent Dewatering Project Information

Year
Non-
Exclusionary
sites
Exclusionary
(Secant)
Sites
Groundwater
Pumped
(MGAL)
Water Discharged
to Storm Drain
(MGAL)
Reused
Water
(MGAL)
2019 7 1 121.0 112.6 8.4
2020 1 4 54.2 51.5 0.5*
2021 1 1 3.2 2.4 0.8
2022 0 2 TBD TBD TBD
*Some numbers may not total exactly due to inconsistencies and the changing out of flow meters through the dewatering process.

The information on dewatering project types and amount of groundwater pumped, as well as other information such as groundwater monitoring well drawdown and adjacent structure surveys is collected and assessed to inform future potential updates to the groundwater dewatering program.

Deconstruction
In June 2019, Council approved the Deconstruction and Construction Materials Management Ordinance (Deconstruction Ordinance, Ordinance 5472/PAMC Title 5, Chapter 5.24, ID#10148 ) with an effective date of July 1, 2020. The Deconstruction Ordinance applies to all residential and commercial projects undergoing a whole structure demolition requiring a building permit application for deconstruction on or after July 1, 2020. The objectives of the ordinance are to 1) increase salvage and reuse to the highest extent possible and 2) increase the amount and quality of recyclable materials for all construction and demolition projects, beginning with whole structure deconstruction projects.

Permit applicants and project teams (including homeowners, general contractors, and architects) require mu ltiple interactions at different stages of the deconstruction projects starting from when building permit applications are submitted. The Deconstruction Ordinance’s success is dependent on detailed information being provided about the ordinance and 17 Packet Pg. 338

City of Palo Alto Page 3

scheduling consultations to explain the requirements and answering questions from the applicants and their project teams.

In Fiscal Year 2021, the first year of the ordinance, the City’s Development Center received 44 building permit applications for residentia l and commercial projects that involved whole structure demolition covered under the Deconstruction Ordinance. It is estimated there will be over 60 permit applications for deconstruction projects in Fiscal Year 2022.

Discussion
Construction Dewatering
Under the stricter requirements now in place , applicants are required to submit a hydrogeological study as part of their grading permit application , as well as to construct a monitoring well for projects which require dewatering . The hydrogeological study is used to design a dewatering system that minimizes the amount of groundwater pumped, while the monitoring well is used to determine and record the depth to groundwater as the dewatering system operates. The hydrogeological study is a permit requirement whi ch requires evaluation and validation by a licensed geotechnical or hydrogeological engineer before a dewatering permit can be issued. Once a dewatering permit is issued, the project’s onsite monitoring well must be monitored , and the data recorded on a re gular basis. These tasks included in the consultant scope of services require technical expertise that City staff do not have, as well as site inspections, data collection, and data compilation and reporting which would greatly reduce available staff time needed for regular plan review, permitting, and other development related tasks. This contract is the successor to a previous contract which expired on June 6, 2021. The hydrogeological report review, monitoring, and data collection activities which were introduced in 2017 required consultant assistanc e resulting in the previous contract. Prior to the changes in 2017, dewatering program tasks were less significant and were managed by City staff. The current hydrogeological report review, monitoring, and data collection activities will continue through FY 2025.

Deconstruction
As the pandemic diminishes, the number of projects to meet the ordinance requirements will continue to increase, and additional consultant support is needed . The support in the consultant’s scope of work includes providing education and outreach material for applicants and project teams virtually and in person, conduct ing inspection and site visits at each job site, maintaining and document ing records, monitor ing compliance and project inspection results, and aggregating progress reports and associated metrics. In addition, staff need s support to research and create strategies for expanding the applicability of deconstruction methods and reuse requirements to additional projects such as renovations and partial demolition. An additional $17,815 in funding was added to the contract deconstruction tasks from the originally scoped fee to allow for more support as the program grows.

Competitive Solicitation
A request for proposals (RFP) for these projects was sent to prospective consultants and posted 17 Packet Pg. 339

City of Palo Alto Page 4

on the City’s eProcurement Platform, Planetbids, on April 7, 2022. One submittal was received for this RFP.

Summary of Solicitation Process

PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION/NUMBER

ON-CALL DEWATERING & DECONSTRUCTION
RFP # 184801
Proposed Length of Project 3 years
Number of Vendors Notified 2214
Number of Proposal Packages Downloaded 19
Total Calendar Days to Respond to Proposal 21
Public Link to Solicitation https://pbsystem.planetbids.com/portal/25569/bo/bo- detail/92798
Number of Proposals Received 1
Range of Proposal Amounts Submitted $95,345 annually

An evaluation committee consisting of representatives from Public Wo rks Engineering Services and Public Works Environmental Services reviewed the proposal. The c ommittee carefully reviewed the firm’s qualifications and proposal in response to the criteria identified in the RFP.

The committee reviewed the firm’s qualifications relative to its experience in evaluating geotechnical and hydrogeological reports, excavation, grading, and dewatering methodologies, data collection and reporting, the knowledge of deconstruction and reuse requirements, the quality of their proposed p roject approach, performance on past projects, the qualifications of the specific staff to be assigned to the project and understanding of the project’s goals.

The proposal from Construction Testing Services was selected based upon the depth and quality o f their experience with construction and deconstruction methodologies, experience with other jurisdictions including the City of Palo Alto, and the qualifications of their proposed team of staff. If this contract is not approved, staff would need to deprio ritize other tasks to focus on this work, resulting in longer Public Works plan and permit review times , delays in the deconstruction program , and reduced technical oversight of dewatering hydrogeological studies.

This contract is on the City’s professional services template, which permits the City to terminate without cause/for convenience by providing written notice to the contractor. In the event the City finds itself facing a challenging budget situation, and it is determined that City resources need to be refocused elsewhere, the City can terminate for convenience. Other options include termination due to non-appropriation of funds or amending the contract to reduce the cost, for example, by reducing the scope of work. The contract may also be tempora rily suspended by written notice of the City Manager.

Timeline
17 Packet Pg. 340

City of Palo Alto Page 5

Upon execution of this contract, consultant services as defined in the contract scope of work will be available to City staff as needed upon receipt of permit applications for projects which will require construction -related dewatering or require a building permit application for deconstruction.

Resource Impact
Funding for the dewatering portion of the contract services will be available in the Public Works Department’s Engineering Services Division within the Planning and Development Services Department General Fund FY2023 Operating Budget pending Council’s adoption of the FY2023 Budget, and dewatering permit fees will be collected to offset the budgeted expenses . The deconstruction portion of the contract services will be funded throught the Refuse Fund operating budget and is available in the FY2022 Adopted Refuse Fund Operating budget . The funding sources breakdown is summarized in the table below.

Funding Source On-Call Services
Permit Fees $73,160
Refuse Fund $40,000
Total $113,160

Stakeholder Engagement
Development of the scope of services for this project included engagement of staff from the following workgroups: Public Works Engineering Services and Environmental Services.

Policy Implications
This recommendation does not present any changes to existing City policies.

Environmental Review
This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Section 15306 of the CEQA guidelines.

Attachments:
• Attachment17.a: C22184801 CTS_PSA_Partially Executed
17 Packet Pg. 341

Professional Services
Rev. Dec.15, 2020

Page 1 of 34 ends

CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO. C22184801

AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND
CONSTRUCTION TESTING SERVICES, INC.

This Agreement for Professional Services (this “Agreement”) is entered into as of the 20th day of June, 2022 (the “Effective Date”) , by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation (“CITY”), and CONSTRUCTION TESTING SERVICES, INC., a California corporation, located at 2118 Rheem Drive, Pleasanton, CA 94588 , Department of Industrial Relations Registration Number 1000000948 (“CONSULTANT”).

The following recitals are a substantive portion of this Agreement and are fully incorporated herein by this reference:

RECITALS

A. CITY intends to manage excavation projects requiring temporary groundwater pumping and implement and support the Deconstruction and Construction Materials Management Ordinance (the “Project”) and desires to engage a c onsultant to provide on -call professional services in connection with the Project (the “Services”, as detailed more fully in Exhibit A).

B. CONSULTANT represents that it, its employees and subconsultants, if any, possess the necessary professional expertise, qualifications, and capability, and all required licenses and/or certifications to provide the Services.

C. CITY, in reliance on these representations , desires to engage CONSULTANT to provide the Services as more fully described in Exhibit A, entitled “SCOPE OF SERVICES”.

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the recitals, covenants, terms, and conditions, in this Agreement, the parties agree as follows:

SECTION 1. SCOPE OF SERVICES. CONSULTANT shall perform the Services described in Exhibit A in accordance with the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement. The performance of all Services shall be to the reasonable satisfaction of CITY.

Optional On-Call Provision (This provision only applies if checked and only applies to on-call agreements.)

CITY may elect to, but is not required to, authorize on-call Services up to the maximum compensation amoun t set forth in Section 4 (Not to Exceed Compensation).

CONSULTANT shall provide on -call Services only by advanced, written authorization from CITY as detailed in this Section. On-call Services, if any, shall be authorized by CITY, as needed, with a Task Order assigned and approved by CITY’s Project Manager, as identified in Section 13 (Project Management). Each Task Order shall be in substantially the same form as Exhibit A -1 entitled “PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TASK ORDER”.

Each Task Order shall contain a specific scope of services, schedule of performance and DocuSign Envelope ID: 08465FC2-D4E0-4181-8B68-BA3A3DD6A39A

17.a
Packet Pg. 342

Professional Services
Rev. Dec.15, 2020

Page 2 of 34 ends

maximum compensation amount, in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement.

Compensation for on-call Services shall be specified by CITY in the Task Order, based on whichever is lowest: the compensation structure set forth in Exhibit C, the hourly rates set forth in Exhibit C-1, or a negotiated lump sum.

To accept a Task Order, CONSULTANT shall sign the Task Order and return it to CITY’s Project Manager within the time specified by the Project Manager, and upon authorization by CITY (defined as counter-signature by the CITY Project Manager), the fully executed Task Order shall become part of this Agreement. The cumulative total compensation due to CONSULTANT for al l Task Orders issued under this Agreement shall not exceed the amount of compensation set forth in Section 4. CONSULTANT shall only be compensated for on -call Services performed under an authorized Task Order and only up to the maximum compensation amount set forth in Section 4. Performance of and payment for any on-call Services are subject to all requirements and restrictions in this Agreement.

SECTION 2. TERM.

The term of this Agreement shall be from the date of its full execution through June 30, 2025 unless terminated earlier pursuant to Section 19 (Termination) of this Agreement.

SECTION 3. SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE. Time is of the essence in the performance of Services under this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall complete the Services within the term of this Agreement and in accordance with the schedule set forth in Exhibit B, entitled “SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE”. Any Services for which times for performance are not specified in this Agreement shall be commenced and completed by CONSULTANT in a rea sonably prompt and timely manner based upon the circumstances and direction communicated to the CONSULTANT.

CITY’s agreement to extend the term or the schedule for performance shall not preclude recovery of damages for delay if the extension is required due to the fault of CONSULTANT.

SECTION 4. NOT TO EXCEED COMPENSATION . The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT for performance of the Services shall be based on the compensation structure detailed in Exhibit C, entitled “COMPENSATION,” including any r eimbursable expenses specified therein, and the maximum total compensation shall not exceed Three Hundred Thirty- Nine Thousand Four Hundred Eight y Dollars ($339,480). The hourly schedule of rates , if applicable, is set out in Exhibit C-1, entitled “SCHEDULE OF RATES.” Any work performed or expenses incurred for which payment would result in a total exceeding the maximum compensation set forth in this Section 4 shall be at no cost to the CITY.

SECTION 5. INVOICES. In order to request payment, CONSULTANT shall submit monthly invoices to the CITY describing the Services performed and the applicable charges (including , if applicable, an identification of personnel who performed the Services, hours worked, hourly rates, and reimbursable expenses), based upon Exhibit C or, as applicable, CONSULTANT’s schedule of rates set forth in Exhibit C-1. If applicable, the invoice shall also describe the percentage of completion of each task. The information in CONSULTANT’s invoices shall be subject to verification by CITY. CONSULTANT shall send all invoices to CITY’s Project Manager at the address specified in Section 1 3 (Project Management) below. CITY will generally process and pay invoices within thirty (30) days of receipt of an acceptable invoice.

SECTION 6. QUALIFICATIONS/STANDARD OF CARE. All Services shall be performed DocuSign Envelope ID: 08465FC2-D4E0-4181-8B68-BA3A3DD6A39A

17.a
Packet Pg. 343

Professional Services
Rev. Dec.15, 2020

Page 3 of 34 ends

by CONSULTANT or under CONSULTANT’s supervision. CONSULTANT represents that it , its employees and subcontractors, if any, possess the professional and technical personnel necessary to perform the Services required by this Agreement and that the personnel have sufficient skill and experience to perform the Services assigned to them. CONSULTANT represents that it, its employees and subcontractors, if any, have and shall maintain during the term of this Agreement all licenses, permits, qualifications, insurance and approvals of whatever nature that are legally required to perform the Services. All Services to be furnished by CONSULTANT under this Agreement shall meet the professional standard and quality that prevail among professionals in the same discipline and of similar knowledge and skill engaged in related work throughout California under the same or similar circumstances.

SECTION 7. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS . CONSULTANT shall keep itself informed of and in compliance with all federal, state and local laws, ordinances, regulations, and orders that may affect in any manner the Project or the performance of the Services or thos e engaged to perform Services under this Agreement , as amended from time to time . CONSULTANT shall procure all permits and licenses, pay all charges and fees, and give all notices required by law in the performance of the Services.

SECTION 8. ERRORS/OMISSIONS. CONSULTANT is solely responsible for costs, including, but not limited to, increases in the cost of Services , arising from or caused by CONSULTANT’s errors and omissions, including, but not limited to, the costs of corrections such errors and omissions, any change order markup costs, or costs arising from delay caused by the errors and omissions or unreasonable delay in correcting the errors and omissions.

SECTION 9. COST ESTIMATES. If this Agreement pertains to the design of a public works project, CONSULTANT shall submit estimates of probable construction costs at each phase of design submittal. If the total estimated construction cost at any s ubmittal exceeds the CITY’s stated construction budget by ten percent (10%) or more , CONSULTANT shall make recommendations to CITY for aligning the P roject design with the budget, incorporate CITY approved recommendations, and revise the design to meet the Project budget, at no additional cost to CITY.

SECTION 10. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. CONSULTANT acknowledges and agrees that CONSULTANT and any agent or employee of CONSULTANT will act as and shall be deemed at all times to be an independent contractor and shall be wholly responsible for the manner in which CONSULTANT performs the Services requested by CITY under this Agreement.

CONSULTANT and any agent or employee of CONSULTANT will not have employ ee status with CITY, nor be entitled to participate in any plans, arrangements, or distributions by CITY pertaining to or in connection with any retirement, health or other benefits that CITY may offer its employees. CONSULTANT wi ll be responsible for all obligations and payments, whether imposed by federal, state or local law, including, but not limited to, FICA, income tax withholdings, workers’ compensation, unemployment compensation, insurance, and other similar responsibilities re lated to CONSULTANT’s performance of the Services, or any agent or employee of CONSULTANT providing same. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed as creating an employment or agency relationship between CITY and CONSULTANT or any agent or employee of CONSULTANT. Any terms in this Agreement referring to direction from CITY shall be construed as providing for direction as to policy and the result of CONSULTANT’s provision of the Services only, and not as to the means by which such a result is obtained.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 08465FC2-D4E0-4181-8B68-BA3A3DD6A39A

17.a
Packet Pg. 344

Professional Services
Rev. Dec.15, 2020

Page 4 of 34 ends

SECTION 11. ASSI GNMENT. The parties agree that the expertise and experience of CONSULTANT are material considerations for this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall not assign or transfer any interest in this Agreement nor the performance of any of CONSULTANT’s obligations hereunder wit hout the prior written approval of the City Manager. Any purported assignment made without the prior written approval of the City Manager will be void and without effect. Subject to the foregoing, the covenants, terms, conditions and provisions of this Agreement will apply to, and will bind, the heirs, succes sors, executors, administrators and assignees of the parties.

SECTION 12. SUBCONTRACTING.

Option A: No Subcontractor: CONSULTANT shall not subcontract any portion of the Services to be performed under this Agreement without the prior written authorization of the City Manager or designee. In the event CONSULTANT does subcontract any portion of the work to be performed under this Agreement, CONSULTANT shall be fully responsible for all acts and omissions of subcontractors.

Option B: Subcontracts Authorized: Notwithstanding Section 11 (Assignment) above, CITY agrees that subcontractors may be used to complete the Services. The subcontractor authorized by CITY to perform work on this Project is:

Integrated Design 360, LLC, 101 Jefferson Drive, 1st Floor, Menlo Park, CA 94025

CONSULTANT shall be responsible for directing the work of any subcon tractors and for any compensation due to subcon tractors. CITY assumes no responsibility whatsoever concern ing compensation of subcontractors. CONSULTANT shall be fully responsible to CITY for all acts and omissions of subcon tractors. CONSULTANT shall change or add subcon tractors only with the prior written approval of the City Manager or designee.

SECTION 13. PROJECT MANAGEMENT. CONSULTANT will assign John Eudy, Vice President of Operations, telephone: 925 -596-4151, email: [email protected] as the CONSULTANT’s Project Manager to have supervisory responsibility for the performance, progress, and execution of the Services and represent CONSULTANT during the day -to-day performance of the Services. If circumstances cause t he substitution of the CONSULTANT’s Project Manager or any other of CONSULTANT’s key personnel for any reason, the appointment of a substitute Project Manager and the assignment of any key new or replacement personnel will be subject to the prior written a pproval of the CITY’s Project Manager. CONSULTANT, at CITY’s request, shall promptly remove CONSULTANT personnel who CITY finds do not perform the Services in an acceptable manner, are uncooperative, or present a threat to the adequate or timely completion of the Services or a threat to the safety of persons or property.

CITY’s Project Manager is Mike Nafziger, Public Works Department, Engineering Division, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301, Telephone: 650-617-3103, email [email protected]. CITY’s Project Manager will be CONSULTANT’s point of contact with respect to performance, progress and execution of the Services. CITY may designate an alternate Project Manager from time to time.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 08465FC2-D4E0-4181-8B68-BA3A3DD6A39A

17.a
Packet Pg. 345

Professional Services
Rev. Dec.15, 2020

Page 5 of 34 ends

SECTION 1 4. OWNERSHIP OF MATERIALS . All work product, including without limitation, all writings, drawings, studies, sketches, photographs, plans, reports, specifications, computations, models, recordings, data, documents, and other materials and copyright interests developed under this Agreement, in any form or media, shall be and remain the exclusive property of CITY without restriction or limitation upon their use. CONSULTANT agrees that all copyrights which arise from creation of the work product pursuant to this Agreement are vested in CITY, and CONSULTANT hereby waives and relinquishes all claims to copyright or other intelle ctual property rights in favor of CITY. Neither CONSULTANT nor its subcontractors, if any, shall make any of such work product available to any individual or organization without the prior written approval of the City Manager or designee. CONSULTANT makes no representation of the suitability of the work product for use in or application to circumstances not contemplated by the Scope of Services.

SECTION 15. AUDITS . CONSULTANT agrees to permit CITY and its authorized representatives to audit, at any reasonable time during the term of this Agreement and for four (4) years from the date of final payment, CONSULTANT’s records pertaining to matters covered by this Agreement, including without limitation records demonstrating compliance with the requirements of Section 10 (Independent Contractor). CONSULTANT further agrees to maintain and retain accurate books and records in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles for at least four (4) years after the expiration or earlier te rmination of this Agreement or the completion of any audit hereunder, whichever is later.

SECTION 16. INDEMNITY.

[Option A applies to the following design professionals pursuant to Civil Code Section 2782.8: architects; landscape architects; registered professional engineers and licensed professional land surveyors.] 16.1. To the fullest extent permitted by law, CONSULTANT shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless CITY, its Council members, officers, employees and agents (each an “Indemnified Party”) from and against any and all third party demands, claims, or liability of any nature, including death or injury to any person, property damage or any other loss, including all costs and expenses of whatever nature including attorney ’s fees, experts fees, court costs and disbursements (“Claims”) to the extent that such Claims arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of CONSULTANT, its officers, employees, agents or contractors under this Agreement, regardless of whether or not it is caused in part by an Indemnified Pa rty. CITY will reimburse CONSULTANT for the proportionate percentage of defense costs exceeding CONSULTANT’s proportionate percentage of fault as determined by the final judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction.

[Option B applies to any consultant who does not qualify as a design professional as defined in Civil Code Section 2782.8.] 16.1. To the fullest extent permitted by law, CONSULTANT shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless CITY, its Council members, officers, employees and agents (each an “Indemnified Party”) from and against any and all demands, claims, or liability of any nature, including death or injury to any person, property damage or any othe r loss, including all costs and expenses of whatever nature including attorney ’s fees, experts fees, court costs and disbursements (“Claims”) resulting from, arising out of or in any manner related to performance or nonperformance by CONSULTANT, its office rs, employees, agents or contractors under this Agreement, regardless of whether or not it is caused in part by an Indemnified Party.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 08465FC2-D4E0-4181-8B68-BA3A3DD6A39A

17.a
Packet Pg. 346

Professional Services
Rev. Dec.15, 2020

Page 6 of 34 ends

16.2. Notwithstanding the above, nothing in this Section 16 shall be construed to require CONSULTANT to indemnify an Indemnified Party from a Claim arising from the active negligence or willful misconduct of an Indemnified Party that is not contributed to by any act of, or by any omission to perform a duty imposed by law or agreement by, CONSULTANT, its officers, employees, agents or contractors under this Agreement.

16.3. The acceptance of CONSULTANT’s Services and duties by CITY shall not operate as a waiver of the right of indemnification. The provisions of this Section 16 shall survive the expiration or early termination of this Agreement.

SECTION 16.A. LIMITATION OF LIABILITY.

16.A.1. LIMITATION OF LIABILITY OF CONSULTANT.

NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER PROVISION OF THIS AGREEMENT, IN NO EVENT

SHALL CONSULTANT BE LIABLE TO CITY, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER ANY CLAIM

IS BASED ON CONTRACT OR TORT, FOR SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, INDIRECT OR

INCIDENTAL DAMAGES OR FOR ANY LOSS OF PROFIT OR LOSS OF BUSINESS BY

CITY, EVEN IF CONSULTANT HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF ANY SUCH POTENTIAL CLAIM, LOSS OR DAMAGE. EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN THE

IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING SENTENCE, IN NO EVENT SHALL THE TOTAL

AGGREGATE LIABILITY UNDER THIS AGREEMENT OF CONSULTANT TO CITY EXCEED THE DOLLAR AMOUNT PROVIDED FOR IN SECTION 4 (“NOT TO EXCEED COMPENSATION”) OF THIS AGREEMENT. CONSULTANT'S LIABILITY LIMIT SET FORTH HEREIN SHALL NOT APPLY TO (1) DAMAGES CAUSED BY CONSULTANT'S GROSS NEGLIGENCE OR WILLFUL MISCONDUCT, (2) CONSULTANT'S OBLIGATIONS TO INDEMNIFY AND DEFEND CITY PURSUANT TO SECT ION 16 (“INDEMNITY”) OF THIS AGREEMENT, (3) LIMIT CLAIMS OR GENERAL DAMAGES THAT FALL WITHIN THE INSURANCE COVERAGE OF THIS AGREEMENT, (4) STATUTORY DAMAGES, AND (5) WRONGFUL DEATH CAUSED BY CONSULTANT.

16.A.2. LIMITATION OF LIABILITY OF CITY. CITY’S P AYMENT

OBLIGATIONS UNDER THIS AGREEMENT SHALL BE LIMITED TO THE PAYMENT OF THE COMPENSATION PROVIDED FOR IN SECTION 4 (“NOT TO EXCEED COMPENSATION”) OF THIS AGREEMENT. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER

PROVISION OF THIS AGREEMENT, IN NO EVENT SHALL CITY BE LIABLE ,

REGARDLESS OF WHETHER ANY CLAIM IS BASED ON CONTRACT OR TORT, FOR

ANY SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, INDIRECT OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES,

INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, LOST PROFITS, ARISING OUT OF OR IN

CONNECTION WITH THIS AGREEMENT OR THE SERVICES PERFORMED IN CONNECTION WITH THIS AGREEMENT.

SECTION 17. WAIVERS. No waiver of a condition or nonperformance of an obligation under this Agreement is effective unless it is in writing in accordance with Section 2 9.4 of this Agreement. No delay or failure to require performance of any provision of this Agreement shall constitute a waiver of that provision as to that or any other instance. Any waiver granted shall apply solely to the specific instance expressly stated. No single or parti al exercise of any right or remedy will preclude any other or further exercise of any right or remedy.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 08465FC2-D4E0-4181-8B68-BA3A3DD6A39A

17.a
Packet Pg. 347

Professional Services
Rev. Dec.15, 2020

Page 7 of 34 ends

SECTION 18. INSURANCE.

18.1. CONSULTANT, at its sole cost and expense, shall obtain and maintain, in full force and effect during the term of this Agreement, the insurance coverage described in Exhibit D, entitled “INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS”. CONSULTANT and its contractors, if any, shall obtain a policy endorsement naming CITY as an additional insured under any general liability or automobile policy or policies.

18.2. All insurance coverage required hereunder shall be provided through carriers with AM Best’s Key Rating Guide ratings of A -:VII or higher which are licensed or authorized to transact insurance business in the State of California. Any and all contractors of CONSULTANT retained to perform Services under this Agreement will obtain and maintain, in full force and effect during the term of this Agreement, identical insurance coverage, naming CITY as an additional insured under such policies as required above.

18.3. Certificates evidencing such insurance shall be filed with CITY concurrently with the execution of this Agreement. The certificates will be subject to the approval of CITY’s Risk Manager and will contain an endorsement stating that the insurance is primary coverage and will not be canceled, or materially reduced in coverage or limits, by the insurer except after filing with the Purchasing Manager thirty (30) days ’ prior written notice of the cancellation or modification. If the insurer cancels or modifies the insurance and provides less than thirty (30) days’ notice to CONSULTANT, CONSULTANT shall provide the Purchasing Manager written notice of the cancellation or modification within two (2) business days of the CONSULTANT’s receipt of such notice. CONSULTANT shall be responsible for ensuring that current certificates evidencing the insurance are provided to CITY’s Chief Procurement Officer during the entire term of this Agreement.

18.4. The procuring of such required policy or policies of insurance will not be construed to limit CONSULTANT ’s liability hereunder nor to fulfill the indemnification provisions of this Agreement. Notwithstanding the policy or policies of insurance, CONSULTANT will be obligated for the full and total amount of any damage, injury, or loss caused by or directly arising as a result of the Services performed under this Agreement, including such damage, injury, or loss arising after the Agreement is terminated or the term has expired , except as provided in Section 16.A (Limitation of Liability) of this Agreement.

SECTION 19. TERMINATION OR SUSPENSION OF AGREEMENT OR SERVICES.

19.1. The City Manager may suspend the performance of the Services, in whole or in part, or terminate this Agreement, with or without cause, by giving ten (10) days prior written notice thereof to CONSULTANT. If CONSULTANT fails to perform any of it s material obligations under this Agreement, in addition to all other remedies provided under this Agreement or at law, the City Manager may terminate this Agreement sooner upon written notice of termination. Upon receipt of any notice of suspension or termination, CONSULTANT will discontinue its performance of the Services on the effective date in the notice of suspension or termination.

19.2. In event of suspension or termination, CONSULTANT will deliver to the DocuSign Envelope ID: 08465FC2-D4E0-4181-8B68-BA3A3DD6A39A

17.a
Packet Pg. 348

Professional Services
Rev. Dec.15, 2020

Page 8 of 34 ends

City Manager on or before the effective date in the notice of suspension or termination, any and all work product, as detailed in Section 14 (Ownership of Materials), whether or not completed, prepared by CONSULTANT or its contractors, if any, in the performance of this Agreement. Such work product is the property of CITY, as detailed in Section 14 (Ownership of Materials).

19.3. In event of suspension or termination, CONSULTANT will be paid for the Services rendered and work products delivered to CITY in accordance with the Scope of Services up to the effective date in the notice of suspension or termination; provided, however, if this Agreement is suspended or terminated on account of a default by CONSULTANT, CITY will be obligated to compensate CONSULTANT only for that portion of CONSULTAN T’s Services provided in material conformity with this Agreement as such determination is made by the City Manager acting in the reasonable exercise of his/her discretion . The following Sections will survive any expiration or termination of this Agreement: 14, 15, 16, 17, 19.2, 19.3, 19.4, 20, 25, 27, 28, 29 and 30.

19.4. No payment, partial payment, acceptance, or partial acceptance by CITY will operate as a waiver on the part of CITY of any of its rights under this Agreement, unless made in accordance with Section 17 (Waivers).

SECTION 20. NOTICES.

All notices hereunder will be given in writing and mailed, postage prepaid, by certified mail, addressed as follows:

To CITY: Office of the City Clerk
City of Palo Alto
Post Office Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303

With a copy to the Purchasing Manager

To CONSULTANT: Attention of the Project Manager at the address of CONSULTANT recited on the first page of this Agreement.

CONSULTANT shall provide written notice to CITY of any change of address.

SECTION 21. CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

21.1. In executing this Agreement, CONSULTANT covenants that it presently has no interest, and will not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, financial or otherwise, which would conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of the Services.

21.2. CONSULTANT further covenants that, in the performance of this Agreement, it will not employ subcontractors or other persons or parties having such an interest.

CONSULTANT certifies that no pers on who has or will have any financial interest under this Agreement is an officer or employee of CITY; this provision will be interpreted in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and the Government Code of the State of California, as amended from time to time . CONSULTANT agrees to notify CITY if any DocuSign Envelope ID: 08465FC2-D4E0-4181-8B68-BA3A3DD6A39A

17.a
Packet Pg. 349

Professional Services
Rev. Dec.15, 2020

Page 9 of 34 ends

conflict arises.

21.3. If the CONSULTANT meets the definition of a “Consultant” as defined by the Regulations of the Fair Political Practices Commission, CONSULTANT will file the appropriate financial disclosure documents required by the Palo Alto Municipal Code and the Political Reform Act of 1974, as amended from time to time.

SECTION 22. NONDISCRIMINATION; COMPLIANCE WITH ADA.

22.1. As set forth in Palo Alto Mun icipal Code Section 2.30.510, as amended from time to time, CONSULTANT certifies that in the performance of this Agreement, it shall not discriminate in the employment of any person due to that person’s race, skin color, gender, gender identity, age, religion, disability, national origin, ancestry, sexual orientation, pregnancy, genetic information or condition, housing status, marital status, familial status, weight or height of such person. CONSULTANT acknowledges that it has read and understands the provisions of Section

2.30.510 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code relating to Nondiscrimination Requirements and the penalties for violation thereof, and agrees to meet all requirements of Section 2.30.510 pertaining to nondiscrimination in employment.

22.2. CONSULTANT understands and agrees that pursuant to the Americans Disabilities Act (“ADA”), programs, services and other activities provided by a public entity to the public, whether directly or through a contractor or subcontractor, are required to be accessible to the disabled public. CONSULTANT will provide the Services specified in this Agreement in a manner that complies with the ADA and any other applicable federal, state and local disability rights laws and regulations, as amended from time to time. CONSULTANT will not discriminate against persons with disabilities in the provision of services, benefits or activities provided under this Agreement.

SECTION 23. ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED PURCHASING AND ZERO WASTE REQUIREMENTS. CONSULTANT shall comply with the CITY’s Environmentally Preferred Purchasing policies which are available at CITY’s Purchasing Department , hereby incorporated by reference and as amended from time to time. CONSULTANT shall comply with waste reduction, reuse, recycling and disposal requirements of CITY’s Zero Waste Program. Zero Waste best practices include , first, minimizing and reducing waste; second, reusing waste ; and, third, recycling or composting waste. In particular, C ONSULTANT shall comply with th e following Zero Waste requirements:
(a) All printed materials provided by CONSULTANT to C ITY generated from a personal computer and printer including but not limited to, proposals, quotes, invoices, reports, and public education materials, shall be double-sided and printed on a minimum of 30% or greater post-consumer content paper, unless otherwi se approved by CITY’s Project Manager. Any submitted materials printed by a professional printing company shall be a minimum of 30% or greater post-consumer material and printed with vegetable-based inks. (b) Goods purchased by C ONSULTANT on behalf of CITY shall be purchased in accordance with CITY’s Environmental Purchasing Policy including but not limited to Extended Producer Responsibility requirements for products and packaging. A copy of this policy is on file at the Purchasing Department’s office.
(c) Reusable/returnable pallets shall be taken back by CONSULTANT, at no additional cost to CITY, for reuse or recycling. CONSULTANT shall provide documentation from DocuSign Envelope ID: 08465FC2-D4E0-4181-8B68-BA3A3DD6A39A

17.a
Packet Pg. 350

Professional Services
Rev. Dec.15, 2020

Page 10 of 34 ends

the facility accepting the pallets to verify that pallets are not being disposed.

SECTION 24. COMPLIANCE WITH PALO ALTO MINIMUM WAGE ORDINANCE .

CONSULTANT shall comply with all requirements of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 4.62 (Citywide Minimum Wage), as amended from time to time. In particular, for any employee otherwise entitled to th e State minimum wage, who performs at least two (2) hours of work in a calendar week within the geographic boundaries of the City, CONSULTANT shall pay such employees no less than the minimum wage set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 4.62.030 for each hour worked within the geographic boundaries of the City of Palo Alto. In addition, CONSULTANT shall post notices regarding the Palo Alto Minimum Wage Ordinance in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 4.62.060.

SECTION 25. NON-APPROPRIATION. This Agreement is subject to the fiscal provisions of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Municipal Code , as amended from time to time. This Agreement will terminate without any penalty (a) at the end of any fiscal year in the event that funds are not appropriated for the following fiscal year, or (b) at any time within a fiscal year in the event that funds are only appropriated for a portion of the fiscal year and funds for this Agreement are no longer available. This Section shall take precedence in the event of a conflict with any other covenant, term, condition, or provision of this Agreement.

SECTION 2 6. PREVAILING WAGES AND DIR REGISTRATION FOR PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACTS.

26.1. This Project is not subject to prevailing wages and related requirements. CONSULTANT is not required to pay prevailing wages and meet related requirements under the California Labor Code and California Code of Regulations in the performance and implementation of the Project if the contract:
(1) is not a public works contract;
(2) is for a public works construction project of $25,000 or less, per California Labor Code Sections 1782(d)(1), 1725.5(f) and 1773.3(j); or (3) is for a public works alteration, demolition, repair, or maintenance project of $15,000 or less, per California Labor Code Sections 1782(d)(1), 1725.5(f) and 1773.3(j).

26.1. This Project is subject to prevailing wages and related requirements as a “public works” under California Labor Code Sections 1720 et seq. and related regulations.

CONSULTANT is required to pay general prevailing wages as defined in California Labor Code Section 1773.1 and Subchapter 3, Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations Section 16000 et seq., as amended from time to time. Pursuant to Labor Code Section 1773, the CITY has obtained the general prevailing rate of per diem wages and the general rate for holiday and overtime work in this locality for each craft, classification, or type of worker needed to execute the contract for this Project from the State of California Department of Industrial Relations (“DIR”). Copies of these rates may be obtained at the CITY’s Purchasing Department office. The general prevailing wage rates are also available at the DIR, Division of Labor Statistics and Research, web site (see e.g. http://www.dir.ca.gov/DLSR/PWD/index.htm) as amended from time to time. CONSULTANT shall post a copy of the general prevailing wage rates at all Project job DocuSign Envelope ID: 08465FC2-D4E0-4181-8B68-BA3A3DD6A39A

17.a
Packet Pg. 351

Professional Services
Rev. Dec.15, 2020

Page 11 of 34 ends

sites and shall pay the adopted prevailing wage rates as a minimum. CONSULTANT shall comply with all applicable provisions of Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1 of the California Labor Code (Labor Code Section 1720 et seq.), including but not limited to Sections 1725.5, 1771, 1771.1, 1771.4, 1773.2, 1774, 1775, 1776, 1777.5, 1782, 1810, 1813 and 1815 , and all applicable implementing regulations, including but not limited to Subchapter 3, Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations Section 16000 et seq. (8 CCR Section 16000 et seq.) , as amended from time to time. CONSULTANT shall comply with the requirements of Exhibit E , entitled “ DIR REGISTRATION FOR PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACTS”, for any contract for public works construction, alteration, demolition, repai r or maintenance , including but not limited to the obligations to register with, and furnish certified payroll records directly to, DIR.

SECTION 27. CLAIMS PROCEDURE FOR “9204 PUBLIC WORKS PROJECTS” . For purposes of this Section 27, a “9204 Public Works Project” means the erection, construction, alteration, repair, or improvement of any public structure, building, road, or other public improvement of any kind. (Cal. Pub. Cont. Code § 9204.) Per California Public Contract Code Section 9204, for Public Works Projects , certain claims procedures shall apply, as set forth in Exhibit F, entitled “Claims for Public Contract Code Section 9204 Public Works Projects”.

This Project is a 9204 Public Works Project and is required to comply with the claims procedures set forth in Exhibit F, entitled “Claims for Public Contract Code Section 9204 Public Works Projects”.

SECTION 28. CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.

28.1. In the performance of this Agreement, CONSULTANT may have access to CITY’s Confidential Information (defined below). CONSULTANT will hold Confidential Information in strict confidence, not disclose it to any third party, and will use it only for the performance of its obligations to CITY under this Agreement and for no other purpose.

CONSULTANT will maintain reasonable and appropriate administrative, technical and physical safeguards to ensure the security, confidentiality and integrity of the Confidential Information.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, CONSULTANT may disclose Confidential Information to its employees, agents and subcontractors, if any, to the extent they have a need to know in order to perform CONSULTANT’s obligations to CITY under this Agreeme nt and for no other purpose, provided that the CONSULTANT informs them of, and requires them to follow, the confidentiality and security obligations of this Agreement.

28.2. “Confidential Information” means all data, information (including without limitation “Personal Information” about a California resident as defined in Civil Code Section 1798 et seq., as amended from time to time) and materials, in any form or media, tangible or intangible, provided or otherwise made available to CONSULTANT by CITY, directly or indirectly, pursuant to this Agreement. Confidential Information excludes information that CONSULTANT can show by appropriate documentation: (i) was publicly known at the time it was provided or has subsequently become publicly known other than by a breach of this Agreement; (ii) was rightfully in CONSULTANT’s possession free of any obligation o f confidence prior to receipt of Confidential Information; (iii) is rightfully obtained by CONSULTANT from a third party without breach of any confidentiality obligation; (iv) is independently developed by employees of CONSULTANT without any use of or acce ss to the Confidential Information; or (v) CONSULTANT has written consent to disclose signed by an DocuSign Envelope ID: 08465FC2-D4E0-4181-8B68-BA3A3DD6A39A

17.a
Packet Pg. 352

Professional Services
Rev. Dec.15, 2020

Page 12 of 34 ends

authorized representative of CITY.

28.3. Notwithstanding the foregoing, CONSULTANT may disclose Confidential Information to the extent required by order o f a court of competent jurisdiction or governmental body, provided that CONSULTANT will notify CITY in writing of such order immediately upon receipt and prior to any such disclosure (unless CONSULTANT is prohibited by law from doing so), to give CITY an opportunity to oppose or otherwise respond to such order.

28.4. CONSULTANT will notify City promptly upon learning of any breach in the security of its systems or unauthorized disclosure of, or access to, Confidential Information in its possession or cont rol, and if such Confidential Information consists of Personal Information, CONSULTANT will provide information to CITY sufficient to meet the notice requirements of Civil Code Section 1798 et seq., as applicable, as amended from time to time.

28.5. Prior to or upon termination or expiration of this Agreement, CONSULTANT will honor any request from the CITY to return or securely destroy all copies of Confidential Information. All Confidential Information is and will remain the property of the CITY and not hing contained in this Agreement grants or confers any rights to such Confidential Information on CONSULTANT.

28.6. If selected in Section 30 (Exhibits), this Agreement is also subject to the terms and conditions of the Information Privacy Policy and Cybersecurity Terms and Conditions.

SECTION 29. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS.

29.1. This Agreement will be governed by California law, without regard to its conflict of law provisions.

29.2. In the event that an action is brought, the parties agree that trial of such action will be vested exclusively in the state courts of California in the County of Santa Clara, State of California.

29.3. The prevailing party in any action brought to enforce the provisions of this Agreement may recover its reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees expended in connection with that action. The prevailing party shall be entitled to recover an amount equal to the fair market value of legal services provided by attorneys employed by it as well as any attorneys’ fees paid to third parties.

29.4. This Agreement, including all exhibits, constitutes the entire and integrated agreement between the parties with respect to the subject matter of this Agreement, and supersedes all prior agreements, negotiations, representations, statements and undertakings, either oral or written. This Agreement may be amended only by a written instrument, which is signed by the authorized representatives of the parties and approved as required under Palo Alto Municipal Code, as amended from time to time.

29.5. If a court of competent jurisdiction finds or rules that any provision of this Agreement is void or unenforceable, the unaffected provisions of this Agreement will remain in full force and effect.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 08465FC2-D4E0-4181-8B68-BA3A3DD6A39A

17.a
Packet Pg. 353

Professional Services
Rev. Dec.15, 2020

Page 13 of 34 ends

29.6. In the event of a conflict between the terms of this Agreement and the exhibits hereto (per Section 30) or CONSULTANT’s proposal (if any), the Agreement shall control. In the event of a conflict between the exhibits hereto and CONSULTANT’s proposal (if any), the exhibits shall control.

29.7. The provisions of all checked boxes in this Agreement shall apply to this Agreement; the provisions of any unchecked boxes shall not apply to this Agreement.

29.8. All section headings contained in this Agreement are for convenience and reference only and are not intended to define or limit the scope of any provision of this Agreement.

29.9. This Agreement may be signed in multiple counterparts, which, when executed by the authorized representatives of the parties, shall together constitute a single binding agreement.

SECTION 30. EXHIBITS. Each of the following exhibits, if the check box for such exhibit is selected below, is hereby attached and incorporated into this Agreement by reference as though fully set forth herein:

EXHIBIT A: SCOPE OF SERVICES
EXHIBIT A-1 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TASK ORDER
EXHIBIT B: SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE
EXHIBIT C: COMPENSATION
EXHIBIT C-1: SCHEDULE OF RATES
EXHIBIT D: INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
EXHIBIT E: DIR REGISTRATION FOR PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACTS
EXHIBIT F: CLAIMS FOR PUBLIC CONTRACT CODE SECTION 9204

PUBLIC WORKS PROJECTS

THIS AGREEMENT IS NOT COMPLETE UNLESS ALL SELECTED EXHIBITS ARE ATTACHED.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 08465FC2-D4E0-4181-8B68-BA3A3DD6A39A

17.a
Packet Pg. 354

Professional Services
Rev. Dec.15, 2020

Page 14 of 34 ends

CONTRACT NO. C22184801 SIGNATURE PAGE

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have by their duly authorized representatives executed this Agreement as of the date first above written.

CITY OF PALO ALTO

____________________________
City Manager

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

__________________________
City Attorney or Designee

CONSTRUCTION TESTING SERVICES,
INC.

Officer 1

By:____________________________

Name:__________________________

Title:___________________________

Officer 2

By:_____________________________

Name:___________________________

Title:____________________________

DocuSign Envelope ID: 08465FC2-D4E0-4181-8B68-BA3A3DD6A39A Patrick Greenan, PE, President
President
Controller
Ryan Keegan, Controller

17.a
Packet Pg. 355

Professional Services
Rev. Dec.15, 2020

Page 15 of 34 ends

EXHIBIT A

SCOPE OF SERVICES

CONSULTANT will provide the Services detailed in this Exhibit A, entitled “SCOPE OF SERVICES”.

The scope of work for the on -call CONSULTANT is to assist City staff in the oversight and management of excavation projects requiring temporary groundwater pumping (dewatering), and assist in implementation and support to the Deconstruction and Constructio n Materials Management Ordinance.

CONSULTANT services consists of five tasks:

Task 1 – Dewatering Site Inspection, Data Collection, and Reporting Task 2 – Prepare a Dewatering Season End Report
Task 3 – Review Geotechnical Study and Dewatering Plans Task 4 – Deconstruction Program Implementation
Task 5 – Deconstruction Program Development Support

DEWATERING

Task 1. Site Inspection, Data Collection and Reporting

The objective of this task is to monitor the rate and volume of groundwater pumped, groundwater drawdowns, use of groundwater, and water quality, thereby assisting the CITY in managing the dewatering activities. The data collection will enable accurate re porting and oversight of dewatering activities, helping to minimize the negative effects that dewatering may potentially have on the source and receiving environments. Continuous monitoring will assure the quality and accuracy of anticipated analytical va lues during dewatering operations associated with the installed system. Communication with City Staff is necessary for success of the monitoring program.

For Sites Using Controlled Groundwater Pumping (Non-Exclusionary Technique):

1.1 Meet with City staff as needed (virtually/in person and/or field visits) to discuss initiation and completion of projects, equipment set-up and oversight, site observations and data collection and analysis.

1.2 Record and file drawdown levels at onsite monitoring locations daily during the two- week warm-up period.

1.3 Record and file flow meter data for the settling tank discharge and water fill station daily during two-week warm-up period.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 08465FC2-D4E0-4181-8B68-BA3A3DD6A39A

17.a
Packet Pg. 356

Professional Services
Rev. Dec.15, 2020

Page 16 of 34 ends

1.4 File water quality test results provided by City staff on a weekly (or less frequent) basis for the duration of the dewatering activity. Prepare data to be uploaded to City website.

1.5 Record and file flow rate and drawdown data for each site every two weeks after the two-week warm-up period.

1.6 Provide additional support as needed.

For Sites Using Groundwater Exclusionary Techniques (Cut-off or Secant Walls):

1.7 Meet with City staff as needed (virtually/in person and/or field visits) to discuss initiation and completion of projects, equipment set-up and oversight, site observations and data collection and analysis.

1.8 Record and file drawdown levels at onsite monitoring locations daily during the initial two weeks.

1.9 Record and file drawdown levels at onsite monitoring locations weekly after the first two weeks.

1.10 Record and file flow meter data for the settling tank discharge daily during two-week warm-up period.

1.11 Record and file flow rate and drawdown data for each site on a bi-weekly basis after the two-week warm-up period.

1.12 File water quality test results provided by City staff on a weekly (or less frequent) basis for the duration of the dewatering activity. Prepare data to be uploaded to City website.

1.13 Provide additional support as needed.

For All Dewatering Sites:

1.14 Throughout the dewatering season, provide dewatering summary reports for all dewatering projects to City staff as requested and/or respond to public requests for information (per direction and/or approval from City staff). The reports will include, but are not limited to, start/stop date, discharge flow rate, volume pumped, volume reused, monitoring well readings, water quality results, and onsite worker activity.

1.15 CONSULTANT may be required to provide dewatering data to the public through a web- based interface.

1.16 CONSULTANT will be required to provide and prepare water quality data in a requested table form to City staff to be shared with the public via a City website.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 08465FC2-D4E0-4181-8B68-BA3A3DD6A39A

17.a
Packet Pg. 357

Professional Services
Rev. Dec.15, 2020

Page 17 of 34 ends

1.17 CONSULTANT may be required to correspond with the public regarding dewatering inquiries.

1.18 Record the end date of each site’s dewatering operation and determine total volume pumped and volume reused.

Task 2. Dewatering Season End Report

The Dewatering Season End Report will summarize the performance of the dewatering activities construction season (typically April through October but may extend into winter months). Field parameters and monitoring data will determine if dewatering activities were sufficiently planned to minimize the volume of groundwater pumped and if data collection methods resulted in quality control and accuracy.

2.1 CONSULTANT will prepare a Dewatering Season End Report for all sites. Report shall include:
(a) Site-specific information such as dewatering start/end dates, average flow rate, total volume pumped, amount reused, water quality, and any specific issues that may have occurred at the site (such as design revision, rain delay, power outage, etc.).
(b) Type of dewatering operation used at each site such as typical well-point dewatering or cutoff wall design.
(c) Report should contain a summary of what went right, what went wrong, and “lessons learned” with suggestions for revisions for improvement for the next dewatering season.

Task 3 – Review Geotechnical Study and Dewatering Plans The CONSULTANT shall review geotechnical studies and dewatering plans to ensure site dewatering activities have been assessed for the most practical operational methodology, analytical data and procedures, and the impacts of groundwater extraction are perf ormed with reference to the City’s Dewatering Policy and Plan Guidelines . This review will be performed by a licensed Geotechnical Engineer registered in the State of California.

3.1 CONSULTANT will verify method of technical analysis used in the geotechnical study.

3.2 CONSULTANT will verify calculations and assumptions

3.3 CONSULTANT will verify results of “reasonableness” of anticipated flowrate, drawdown, and the determination of potential impacts.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 08465FC2-D4E0-4181-8B68-BA3A3DD6A39A

17.a
Packet Pg. 358

Professional Services
Rev. Dec.15, 2020

Page 18 of 34 ends

3.4 CONSULTANT will review revised geotechnical study, using points 3.1 through 3.3 above, in cases where the applicant had to stop work and perform a new study due to inconsistency between actual flow meter data in the field and anticipated flowrate state in the original geotechnical study.

3.5 CONSULTANT will provide the City with detailed review comments to bring the Geotechnical Engineering Report in compliance with City requirements.

3.6 CONSULTANT will review Dewatering Plans to ensure compliance with applicable geotechnical recommendations and City requirements.

DECONSTRUCTION

Task 4 - Deconstruction & Construction Materials Management Program Implementation

Implement the Deconstruction and Construction Material Management program in accordance with adopted local ordinance and regulations.

4.1 Attend meetings and provide education and outreach material to project applicants and contractors virtually and in person

4.2 Conduct inspections and site visits by ICC CALGreen Certified Inspectors at each job site.

4.3 Maintain and document communication records, project compliance, and inspection results.

4.4 Provide monthly and biannual progress reports and associated metrics.

Task 5 - Deconstruction and Construction Materials Management Program Support

Assist in the development and adoption of increased rigor of the local Deconstruction and Construction Materials Management regulations.

5.1 Perform technical policy research, develop written strategies, and develop a program phasing schedule for policy implementation.

5.2 Schedule, facilitate, and attend public engagement and coordination meetings with City staff before for policy implementation.

5.3 Develop educational and outreach material and execute a campaign to support community success of the policy implementation.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 08465FC2-D4E0-4181-8B68-BA3A3DD6A39A

17.a
Packet Pg. 359

Professional Services
Rev. Dec.15, 2020

Page 19 of 34 ends

EXHIBIT A-1

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TASK ORDER

CONSULTANT shall perform the Services detailed below in accordance with all the terms and conditions of the Agreement referenced in Item 1A below. All exhibits referenced in Item 8 are incorporated into this Task Order by this reference. CONSULTANT shall furnish the necessary facilities, professional, technical and supporting personnel required by this Task Order as described below.

CONTRACT NO.

OR PURCHASE ORDER REQUISITION NO. (AS APPLICABLE)

1A. MASTER AGREEMENT NO. (MAY BE SAME AS CONTRACT / P.O. NO. ABOVE):
1B. TASK ORDER NO.:

2. CONSULTANT NAME:

3. PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE: START: COMPLETION:
4 TOTAL TASK ORDER PRICE: $__________________
BALANCE REMAINING IN MASTER AGREEMENT/CONTRACT $_______________

5. BUDGET CODE_______________
COST CENTER________________
COST ELEMENT______________
WBS/CIP__________
PHASE__________

6. CITY PROJECT MANAGER’S NAME & DEPARTMENT:_____________________________________

7. DESCRIPTION OF SCOPE OF SERVICES (Attachment A)
MUST INCLUDE:
 SERVICES AND DELIVERABLES TO BE PROVIDED
 SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE
 MAXIMUM COMPENSATION AMOUNT AND RATE SCHEDULE (as applicable)  REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES, if any (with “not to exceed” amount)

8. ATTACHMENTS: A: Task Order Scope of Services B (if any): _____________________________

I hereby authorize the performance of the
work described in this Task Order.

APPROVED:

CITY OF PALO ALTO

BY:____________________________________
Name __________________________________
Title___________________________________
Date ___________________________________

I hereby acknowledge receipt and acceptance of
this Task Order and warrant that I have
authority to sign on behalf of Consultant.

APPROVED:

COMPANY NAME: ______________________

BY:____________________________________
Name __________________________________
Title___________________________________
Date ___________________________________

DocuSign Envelope ID: 08465FC2-D4E0-4181-8B68-BA3A3DD6A39A

17.a
Packet Pg. 360

Professional Services
Rev. Dec.15, 2020

Page 20 of 34 ends

EXHIBIT B

SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE
CONSULTANT shall perform the Services according to the schedule set forth in each task order.

Optional Schedule of Performance Provision for On-Call or Additional Services Agreements. (This provision only applies if checked and only applies to on-call agreements per Section 1 or agreements with Additional Services per Section 4.)

The schedule of performance shall be as provided in the approved Task Order, as detailed in Section 1 (Scope of Services) in the case of on-call Services, or as detailed in Section 4 in the case of Additional Services, provided in all cases that the schedule of performance shall fall within the term as provided in Section 2 (Term) of this Agreement.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 08465FC2-D4E0-4181-8B68-BA3A3DD6A39A

17.a
Packet Pg. 361

Professional Services
Rev. Dec.15, 2020

Page 21 of 34 ends

EXHIBIT C

COMPENSATION

CITY agrees to compensate CONSULTANT for Services performed in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, and as set forth in the budget schedule below. Compensation shall be calculated based on the rate schedule attached as Exhibit C -1 up to the not to exceed budget amount for each task set forth below.

CITY’s Project Manager may approve in writing the transfer of budget amounts between any of the tasks or categories listed below , provided that the total compensation for the Services, including any specified reimbursable expenses, and the total compensation for Additional Services (if any, per Section 4 of the Agreement) do not exceed the amounts set forth in Section 4 of this Agreement.

CONSULTANT agrees to complete all Services , any specified reimbursable expenses, and Additional Services (if any, per Section 4), within this/these amount(s). Any work performed or expenses incurred for which payment would result in a total exceeding the maximum amount of compensation set forth in this Agreement shall be at no cost to the CITY.

BUDGET SCHEDULE
TASK

NOT TO EXCEED

AMOUNT PER
YEAR
Task 1: Dewatering Site Inspection, Data Collection and Reporting (Staff Engineer) $42,000
Task 2: Prepare a Dewatering Season End Report (Principal Engineer) $7,560 Task 3: Review geotechnical Study and Dewatering Plans (Geotechnical Engineer) $23,600
Task 4: Deconstruction Program Implementation (Principal Engineer) $20,000 Task 5: Deconstruction Program Development Support (Project Manager) $20,000 Sub-total for Services (Not to Exceed Compensation) $113,160 Reimbursable Expenses (if any) $0
Total for Services and Reimbursable Expenses (Total Not to Exceed Compensation per Fiscal Year) $113,160
Total for Services and Reimbursable Expenses (Total Not to Exceed Compensation per Total Three Years) $339,480

Pricing above assumes the first fiscal year of work in 2023. Rates are subject to change based on anticipated union increases in July 2024 and July 2025. Basis of charges is outlined in C-1 Schedule of Rates.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 08465FC2-D4E0-4181-8B68-BA3A3DD6A39A

17.a
Packet Pg. 362

Professional Services
Rev. Dec.15, 2020

Page 22 of 34 ends

REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES

CONSULTANT’S ordinary business expenses , such as administrative, overhead, administrative support time/overtime, information systems, software and hardware, photocopying, telecommunications (telephone, internet), in-house printing, insurance and other ordinary business expenses, are included within the scope of payment for Services and are not reimbursable expenses hereunder.

Reimbursable expenses, if any are specified as reimbursable under this section , will be reimbursed at actual cost. The expenses (by type, e.g. travel) for which CONSULTANT will be reimbursed are: NONE up to the not-to-exceed amount of: $0.00.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 08465FC2-D4E0-4181-8B68-BA3A3DD6A39A

17.a
Packet Pg. 363

Professional Services
Rev. Dec.15, 2020

Page 23 of 34 ends

EXHIBIT C-1

SCHEDULE OF RATES

CONSULTANT’s schedule of rates is as follows:

DocuSign Envelope ID: 08465FC2-D4E0-4181-8B68-BA3A3DD6A39A

17.a
Packet Pg. 364

Professional Services
Rev. Dec.15, 2020

Page 24 of 34 ends

DocuSign Envelope ID: 08465FC2-D4E0-4181-8B68-BA3A3DD6A39A

17.a
Packet Pg. 365

Professional Services
Rev. Dec.15, 2020

Page 25 of 34 ends

DocuSign Envelope ID: 08465FC2-D4E0-4181-8B68-BA3A3DD6A39A

17.a
Packet Pg. 366

Professional Services
Rev. Dec.15, 2020

Page 26 of 34 ends

DocuSign Envelope ID: 08465FC2-D4E0-4181-8B68-BA3A3DD6A39A

17.a
Packet Pg. 367

Professional Services
Rev. Dec.15, 2020

Page 27 of 34 ends

DocuSign Envelope ID: 08465FC2-D4E0-4181-8B68-BA3A3DD6A39A

17.a
Packet Pg. 368

Professional Services
Rev. Dec.15, 2020

Page 28 of 34 ends

EXHIBIT D

INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS

CONSULTANTS TO THE CITY OF PALO ALTO (CITY), AT THEIR SOLE EXPENSE, SHALL FOR THE TERM OF THE

CONTRACT OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN INSURANCE IN THE AMOUNTS FOR THE COVERAGE SPECIFIED BELOW, AFFORDED BY COMPANIES WITH AM BEST’S KEY RATING OF A -:VII, OR HIGHER, LICENSED OR AUTHORIZED TO TRANSACT INSURANCE BUSINESS IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.

AWARD IS CONTINGENT ON COMPLIANCE WITH CITY’S INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS AS SPECIFIED HEREIN.

REQUIRED TYPE OF COVERAGE REQUIREMENT

MINIMUM LIMITS
EACH

OCCURRENCE AGGREGATE
YES
YES
WORKER’S COMPENSATION
EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY

STATUTORY

STATUTORY STATUTORY STATUTORY
YES

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

YES

AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY,

INCLUDING ALL 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

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: CONSULTANT, 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 CONSULTANT AND ITS SUBCONSULTANTS, IF ANY, BUT ALSO, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION, EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY AND PROFESSIONAL INSURANCE, NAMING AS ADDITIONAL INSUREDS CITY, ITS COUNCIL MEMBERS, OFFICERS, AGENTS, AND EMPLOYEES.

I. INSURANCE COVERAGE MUST INCLUDE:

A. A CONTRACTUAL LIABILITY ENDORSEMENT PROVIDING INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR CONSULTANT’S AGREEMENT TO INDEMNIFY CITY.

II. THE CONSULTANT MUST SUBMIT CERTIFICATES(S) OF INSURANCE EVIDENCING REQUIRED COVERAGE AT THE FOLLOWING URL: HTTPS://WWW.PLANETBIDS.COM/PORTAL/PORTAL.CFM?COMPANYID=25569

III. ENDORSEMENT PROVISIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE INSURANCE AFFORDED TO ADDITIONAL INSUREDS:

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 INSUREDS.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 08465FC2-D4E0-4181-8B68-BA3A3DD6A39A

17.a
Packet Pg. 369

Professional Services
Rev. Dec.15, 2020

Page 29 of 34 ends

B. CROSS LIABILITY

THE NAMING OF MORE THAN ONE PERSON, FIRM, OR CORPORATION AS INSURE DS 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 CONSULTANT 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 CONSULTANT SHALL PROVIDE CITY AT LEAST A TEN (10) DAY WRITTEN NOTICE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF CANCELLATION.

EVIDENCE OF INSURANCE AND OTHER RELATED NOTICES ARE REQUIRED TO BE FILED WITH THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AT THE FOLLOWING URL:

HTTPS://WWW.PLANETBIDS.COM/PORTAL/PORTAL.CFM?COMPANYID=25569

HTTP://WWW.CITYOFPALOALTO.ORG/GOV/DEPTS/ASD/PLANET_BIDS_HOW_TO.ASP

DocuSign Envelope ID: 08465FC2-D4E0-4181-8B68-BA3A3DD6A39A

17.a
Packet Pg. 370

Professional Services
Rev. Dec.15, 2020

Page 30 of 34 ends

EXHIBIT E

DIR REGISTRATION FOR PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACTS

This Exhibit shall apply only to a contract for public works construction, alteration, demolition, repair or maintenance work, CITY will not accept a bid proposal from or enter into this Agreement with CONSULTANT without proof that CONSULTANT and its listed subcontrac tors are registered with the California Department of Industrial Relations (“DIR”) to perform public work, subject to limited exceptions. City requires CONSULTANT and its listed subcontractors, if any, to comply with all applicable requirements of the California Labor Code including but not limited to Labor Code Sections 1720 through 1861, and all applicable related regulations, including but not limited to Subchapter 3, Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations Section 16000 et seq ., as amended from time to time. This Exhibit E applies in addition to the provisions of Section 26 (Prevailing Wages and DIR Registration for Public Works Contracts) of the Agreement.

CITY provides notice to CONSULTANT of the requirements of California L abor Code Section 1771.1(a), which reads:

“A contractor or subcontractor shall not be qualified to bid on, be listed in a bid proposal, subject to the requirements of Section 4104 of the Public Contract Code, or engage in the performance of any contract for public work, as defined in this chapter, unless currently registered and qualified to perform public work pursuant to Section 1725.5. It is not a violation of this section for an unregistered contractor to submit a bid that is authorized by Section 702 9.1 of the Business and Professions Code or Section 10164 or 20103.5 of the Public Contract Code, provided the contractor is registered to perform public work pursuant to Section 1725.5 at the time the contract is awarded.”

This Project is subject to comp liance monitoring and enforcement by DIR. All contractors must be registered with DIR per Labor Code Section 1725.5 in order to submit a bid. All subcontractors must also be registered with DIR. No contractor or subcontractor may be awarded a contract f or public work on a public works project unless registered with DIR. Additional information regarding public works and prevailing wage requirements is available on the DIR web site (see e.g. http://www.dir.ca.gov) as amended from time to time.

CITY gives notice to CONSULTANT and its listed subcontractors that CONSULTANT is required to post all job site notices prescribed by law or regulation.

CONSULTANT shall furnish certified payroll records directly to the Labor Commissioner (DIR) in accordance with Subchapter 3, Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations Section 16461 (8 CCR Section 16461).

CITY requires CONSULTANT and its listed subcontractors to comply with the requirements of Labor Code Section 1776, including but not limited to:

Keep accurate payroll records, showing the name, address, social security number, work classification, straight time and overtime hours worked each day and week, and the actual per diem wages paid to each journeyman, apprentice, worker, or other employee employed by, respectively, CONSULTANT and its listed subcontractors, in connection with the Project.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 08465FC2-D4E0-4181-8B68-BA3A3DD6A39A

17.a
Packet Pg. 371

Professional Services
Rev. Dec.15, 2020

Page 31 of 34 ends

The payroll records shall be verified as true and correct and shall be certified and made available for inspection at all reason able hours at the principal office of CONSULTANT and its listed subcontractors, respectively.

At the request of CITY, acting by its Project Manager, CONSULTANT and its listed subcontractors shall make the certified payroll records available for inspection or furnished upon request to the CITY Project Manager within ten (10) days of receipt of CITY’s request.

CITY requests CONSULTANT and its listed subcontractors to submit the certified payroll records to CITY’s Project Manager at the end of each week during the Project.

If the certified payroll records are not pro vided as r equired within the 10 -day period, then CONSULTANT and its listed subcontractors shall be subject to a penalty of one hundred dollars ($100.00) per calendar day, or portion thereof, for each worker, and CITY shall withhold the sum total of penalties from the progress payment(s) then due and payable to CONSULTANT.

Inform CITY’s Project Manager of the location of CONSULTANT’s and its listed subcontractors’ payroll records (street address, city and county) at the commencement of the Project, and also provide notice to CITY’s Project Manager within five (5) business days of any change of location of those payroll records.

Eight (8) hours labor constitutes a legal day’s work. CONSULTANT shall forfeit as a penalty to CITY, $25.00 for each worker employed in th e execution of the Agreement by CONSULTANT or any subcontractor for each calendar day during which such worker is required or permitted to work more than eight (8) hours in any one calendar day or forty (40) hours in any one calendar week in violation of t he provisions of the Labor Code, and in particular, Sections 1810 through 1815 thereof, except that work performed by employees of CONSULTANT or any subcontractor in excess of eight (8) hours per day, or forty (40) hours during any one week, shall be permi tted upon compensation for all hours worked in excess of eight (8) hours per day, or forty (40) hours per week, at not less than one and one -half (1&1/2) times the basic rate of pay, as provided in Section 1815.

CONSULTANT shall secure the payment of workers’ compensation to its employees as provided in Labor Code Sections 1860 and 3700 (Labor Code 1861). CONSULTANT shall sign and file with the CITY a statutorily prescribed statement acknowledging its obligation to secure the payment of workers’ compensation to its employees before beginning work (Labor Code 1861).

CONSULTANT shall post job site notices per regulation (Labor Code 1771.4(a)(2)).

CONSULTANT shall comply with the statutory requirements regarding employment of apprentices including without limitation Labor Code Section 1777.5. The statutory provisions will be enforced for penalties for failure to pay prevailing wages and for failure to comply with wage and hour laws.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 08465FC2-D4E0-4181-8B68-BA3A3DD6A39A

17.a
Packet Pg. 372

Professional Services
Rev. Dec.15, 2020

Page 32 of 34 ends

EXHIBIT F
Claims for Public Contract Code Section 9204 Public Works Projects

The provisions of this Exhibit are provided in compliance with Public Contract Code Section 9204; they provide the exclusive procedures for any claims pursuant to Public Contract Code Section 9204 related to the Services performed under this Agreement.

1. Claim Definition. “Claim” means a separate demand by the Contractor sent by registered mail or certified mail with return receipt requested, for one or more of the following:

(A) A time extension, including, without limitation, for relief from damages or penalties for delay assessed by the City.
(B) Payment by the City of money or damages arising from the Services performed by, or on behalf of, the Contractor pursuant to the Agreement and payment for which is not otherwise expressly provided or to which the Contractor is not otherwise entitled. (C) Payment of an amount that is disputed by the City.

2. Claim Process.

(A) Timing. Any Claim must be submitted to City in compliance with the requirements of this Exhibit no later than fourteen (14) days following the event or occurrence giving rise to the Claim. This time requirement is mandatory; failure to submit a Claim within fourteen (14) days will result in its being deemed waived.

(B) Submission. The Claim must be submitted to City in writing, clearly identified as a “Claim” submitted pursuant to this Exhibit, and must include reasonable documentation substantiating the Claim. The Claim must clearly identify and describe the dispute, including relevant references to applicable portions of the Agreement, and a chronology of relevant events.

Any Claim for additional payment must include a complete, itemized breakdown of all labor, materials, taxes, insurance, and subcontract, or other costs. Substantiating documentation such as payroll records, receipts, invoices, or the like, must be submitted in support of each claimed cost.

Any Claim for an extension of time or delay costs must be substantiated with schedule analysis and narrative depicting and explaining claimed time impacts.

(C) Review. Upon receipt of a Claim in compliance with this Exhibit, the City shall conduct a reasonable review of the Claim and, within a period not to exceed 45 days from receipt, shall provide the Contractor a written statement identifying what portion of the Claim is disputed and what portion is undisputed. Upon receipt of a Claim, the City and Contractor may, by mutual agreement, extend the time period provided in this paragraph 2.

(D) If City Council Approval Required. If the City needs approval from the City Council to provide the Contractor a written statement identifying the disputed portion and the undisputed portion of the Claim, and the City Council does not meet within the 45 days or within the mutually agreed to extension of time following receipt of a Claim sent by registered mail or certified mail, return receipt requested, the City shall have up to three days following the next duly publicly noticed meeting of the City Council after the 45 -day period, or extension, expires to provide the Contractor a written statement identifying the disputed portion and the undisputed portion.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 08465FC2-D4E0-4181-8B68-BA3A3DD6A39A

17.a
Packet Pg. 373

Professional Services
Rev. Dec.15, 2020

Page 33 of 34 ends

(E) Payment. Any payment due on an undisputed portion of the Claim shall be processed and made within 60 days after the City issues its written statement. If the City f ails to issue a written statement, paragraph 3, below, shall apply.

3. Disputed Claims

(A) Meet and Confer. If the Contractor disputes the City's written response, or if the City fails to respond to a Claim submitted pursuant to this Exhibit within the time prescribed, the Contractor may demand in writing an informal conference to meet and confer for settlement of the issues in dispute. Upon receipt of a demand in writing sent by registered mail or certified mail, return receipt requested, the City shal l schedule a meet and confer conference within 30 days for settlement of the dispute. Within 10 business days following the conclusion of the meet and confer conference, if the Claim or any portion of the Claim remains in dispute, the City shall provide the Contractor a written statement identifying the portion of the Claim that remains in dispute and the portion that is undisputed. Any payment due on an undisputed portion of the Claim shall be processed and made within 60 days after the City issues its written statement.

(B) Mediation. Any remaining disputed portion of the Claim, as identified by the Contractor in writing, shall be submitted to nonbinding mediation, with the City and the Contractor sharing the associated costs equally. The City and Contr actor shall mutually agree to a mediator within 10 business days after the disputed portion of the Claim has been identified in writing by the Contractor. If the parties cannot agree upon a mediator, each party shall select a mediator and those mediators shall select a qualified neutral third party to mediate the disputed portion of the Claim. Each party shall bear the fees and costs charged by its respective mediator in connection with the selection of the neutral mediator. If mediation is unsuccessful, th e parts of the Claim remaining in dispute shall be subject to any other remedies authorized by the Agreement and laws.

(i) For purposes of this paragraph 3.B, mediation includes any nonbinding process, including, but not limited to, neutral evaluation or a dispute review board, in which an independent third party or board assists the parties in dispute resolution through negotiation or by issuance of an evaluation.

Any mediation utilized shall conform to the timeframes in this section.

(ii) Unless otherwise agreed to by the City and the Contractor in writing, the mediation conducted pursuant to this section shall excuse any further obligation, if any, under Public Contract Code Section 20104.4 to mediate after litigation has been commenced.

4. City’s Failure to Respond. Failure by the City to respond to a Claim from the Contractor within the time periods described in this Exhibit or to otherwise meet the time requirements of this Exhibit shall result in the Claim being deemed rejected in its entire ty. A Claim that is denied by reason of the City's failure to have responded to a Claim, or its failure to otherwise meet the time requirements of this Exhibit, shall not constitute an adverse finding with regard to the merits of the Claim or the responsibility or qualifications of the Contractor.

5. Interest. Amounts not paid in a timely manner as required by this section shall bear interest at seven (7) percent per annum.

6. Approved Subcontractor Claims . If an approved subcontractor or a lower tier subcontractor lacks legal standing to assert a Claim against the City because privity of contract DocuSign Envelope ID: 08465FC2-D4E0-4181-8B68-BA3A3DD6A39A

17.a
Packet Pg. 374

Professional Services
Rev. Dec.15, 2020

Page 34 of 34 ends

does not exist, the Contractor may present to the City a Claim on behalf of a subcontractor or lower tier subcontractor. A subcontractor may request in writing , either on his or her own behalf or on behalf of a lower tier subcontractor, that the Contractor present a Claim for work which was performed by the subcontractor or by a lower tier subcontractor on behalf of the subcontractor.

The subcontractor requestin g that the Claim be presented to the City shall furnish reasonable documentation to support the Claim. Within 45 days of receipt of this written request, the Contractor shall notify the subcontractor in writing as to whether the Contractor presented the claim to the City and, if the Contractor did not present the claim, provide the subcontractor with a statement of the reasons for not having done so.

7. Waiver of Provisions . A waiver of the rights granted by Public Contract Code Section 9204 is void and c ontrary to public policy, provided, however, that (1) upon receipt of a Claim, the parties may mutually agree to waive, in writing, mediation and proceed directly to the commencement of a civil action or binding arbitration, as applicable; and (2) the City may prescribe reasonable change order, claim, and dispute resolution procedures and requirements in addition to the provisions of Public Contract Code Section 9204, so long as the contractual provisions do not conflict with or otherwise impair the timeframes and procedures set forth in this section.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 08465FC2-D4E0-4181-8B68-BA3A3DD6A39A

17.a
Packet Pg. 375

City of Palo Alto (ID # 14416)
City Council Staff Report

Meeting Date: 6/20/2022 Report Type: Consent Calendar

City of Palo Alto Page 1

Title: Approval of Contract No. C22184848 with Salas O'Brien Engineers, Inc., for a Total Amount Not to Exceed $110,212, for Engineering Design Services for the Municipal Service Center Lighting, Mechanical, and Electrical Improvements Project Capital Impr ovement Program Project (PF -16006) From: City Manager
Lead Department: Public Works

Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council approve and authorize the City Manager or their designee to execute Contract No. C22184848 with Salas O’Brien Engineers, Inc., for a not-to-exceed amount of $110,212 to provide design revision services for the Munici pal Service Center (MSC) Lighting, Mechanical, and Electrical Improvements Project (PF-16006). The amount includes $100,212 for basic services and $10,000 for additional services as needed, assigned by City -approved t ask order as detailed in the contract.

Background
The Municipal Service Center (MSC) is located at 3201 East Bayshore Road in Palo Alto and is occupied by numerous City departments and workgroups including Utilities (W ater, Gas, Wastewater Operations and Electric Operations), Public Works Pub lic Services (Facilities, Operations, Urban Forestry, Traffic, and Fleet), Public Works Environmental Services (Zero Waste), ASD (Warehouse), and Community Services (Parks).

The MSC site is on the bay side of East Bayshore Road and consists of three main buildings, Building A, Building B, and Building C, all of which were constructed in 1966. The buildings are low, one -and two -story tilt -up concrete structures with concrete roof framing. Building A is approximately 15,730 square feet, Building B is 23,935 square feet, and Building C is 32,720 square feet. Seismic bracing was installed on all three buildings in 1998.

Competitive Solicitation
The City and Salas O’Brien had originally entered into contract C17165053 for professional services on October 4, 2016. The award was based on competitive solicitation (RFP165053, Staff Report #723 7) and services were completed to City staff expectations in 2019. The original scope of the Salas O’Brien contract included design services for: (1) upgrades to the mechanical and electrical systems and their components servicing all three buildings that have reached the 18 Packet Pg. 376

City of Palo Alto Page 2

end of their useful life expectancy, while addressing design proficiency, energy savings, code compliance, and aesthetics; (2) renovation of the City’s Zero Waste group offices; and (3) design of structural upgrades associated with the pr oposed mechanical system, electrical system, and office renovation.

Following completion of their design in 2018, the project was formally solicited for bids and received only one bid that exceeded the construction estimate . In 2019, Council began drafting the goals and key actions for the Sustainability/Climate Action Plan (S/CAP) to initiate all projects towards net carbon zero with future installations of equipment to be electr ified rather than natural gas fueled. There was an attempt made to amend the Salas O’Brien contract to revise their design towards electrification, but due to scope questions and staffing shortages, along with the COVID -19 pandemic, the amendment to the o riginal contract never came to fruition and the term for the contract ended.

Discussion
Following completion of the original lighting, mechanical, and electrical improvements design by Salas O’Brien, it was determined that there would be a considerable future electrical load demand required at the MSC to accommodate the City ’s Sustainability and Climate Action Plan (S/CAP) proposed goals to electrify City facilities. To meet these goals, the remaining gas -fired mechanical equipment will need to be replac ed with electrically powered equipment. This future anticipated electrical demand will be accounted for as part of this agreement. In parallel with electrification of City facilities, the City fleet will also move towards Electric Vehicles (EVs) , requiring additional EV chargers and capacity at the MSC. These considerable electrical load demands require a re-evaluation of the overall electrical capacity for the facility. A redesign of the main switch gear will also be required to meet the new demands.

The most practical way to proceed and meet the City ’s electrification goals is to revise the original design to include substitution of equipment from fossil fuel to electric and re - evaluation of electrical loads to the system. Salas O'Brien has agreed to ho nor their pricing that was originally proposed prior to the COVID -19 pandemic. Staff recommends utilizing the original Consultant's design and drawings to modify the equipment. Award of a sole source contract to Salas O'Brien will result in the most effici ent and cost -effective means for design completion, as approved by the City Manager pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code section

2.30.360(b)(2) wherein competitive solicitation would be impracticable, unavailing or impossible, or would not be useful or pro duce any operational or financial advantage for the City (and given that this work was originally competitively solicited in 2016 as noted above) .

Alternatively, staff could complete a new competitive solicitation for these additional services.

However, th is would lead to delays in beginning the additional design work of at least six months and likely increased costs because Salas O’Brien has agreed to honor their rates from before the pandemic, and any other consultant would be expected to require signific ant effort to revisit the original design parameters and work. Staff does not recommend this option.

18 Packet Pg. 377

City of Palo Alto Page 3

This contract is on the City’s professional services template, which permits the City to terminate without cause/for convenience by providing written noti ce to the contractor. In the event the City finds itself facing a challenging budget situation, and it is determined that City resources need to be refocused elsewhere, the City can terminate for convenience. Other options include termination due to non-appropriation of funds or amending the contract to reduce the cost, for example, by reducing the scope of work. The contract may also be temporarily suspended by written notice of the City Manager.

Timeline
The design revision is expected to be complete b y fall 2023. Construction is expected to begin in early 2024.

Resource Impact
Funding for th e contract recommended in this report is available in the Fiscal Year 2022 Adopted Cap ital Budget in the Municipal Service Center Lighting, Mechanical, and Elec trical Improvements project (PF-16006).

Policy Implications
The proposed action is consistent with City policies.

Stakeholder Engagement
MSC staff provided input with regards to the future needs of the facility encompassing both electrification of gas -fired mechanical equipment and fleet replacement with EVs. Facility staff also provided input regarding the reliability and expansion limitations of the electrical distribution system to accommodate the aforementioned needs.

Environmental Review
This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Section 15302 of the CEQA Guidelines as “Replacement or Reconstruction of Existing Structures” and no further Environmental review is necessary. 18 Packet Pg. 378

City of Palo Alto (ID # 14419)
City Council Staff Report

Meeting Date: 6/20/2022 Report Type: Consent Calendar

City of Palo Alto Page 1

Title: Approve Contract C22184489 with Martina Entriken Not to Exceed $330,000 for a Term of Three Years to Provide a Preschool/Toddler Program From: City Manager
Lead Department: Community Services

Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council approve and authorize the City Manager to execute a contract between the City of Palo Alto and Martina Entriken in an amount not to exceed $330,000 for a preschool and toddler program offered through the City’s Recreation program for a three -year period. (A ttachment A: Preschool & Toddler Program C22184489)

Background
The Community Services Department (CSD) hosts youth programs through the yearlong recreation program. CSD strives to offer a variety of programs and services that are high quality, exciting, dynamic and inclusive to all. The classes are available through the City’s ENJOY! Catalog, as well as on the City’s website on www.cityofpaloalto.org/enjoyonline where customers can register for the class es. A preschool and toddler program has been a long -standing offering through the ENJOY! Catalog. The program is taught by an approved contractor through a three-year contract to instruct children ages 1 ½ - 4 years old. At the end of each three-year term, a competitive bid solicitation is conducted. The term of the existing contract will expire at the end of Fiscal Year 2022.

Discussion
The R equest for Proposals (RFP) for the project was posted in PlanetBids, the City’s eProcurement platform. Staff perf ormed outreach prior to the solicitation because , historically, educational services and providers are lacking within this age group. Two hundred and twenty-nine (229) vendors were notified, and the solicitation was posted for 14 days, closing on April 28, 2022. One vendor responded to the RFP , which is consistent with the procurement process completed three years ago when only one response was received. Staff is unsure of the reason for the low number of responses, however; it may be that preschools are n ot resourced sufficiently to spend the time to complete a thorough response for a formal solicitation. 19 Packet Pg. 379

City of Palo Alto Page 2

The proposal was evaluated and determined to be responsive to the criteria identified in the RFP. It maintained the same past revenue split of 60% to the contractor and 40% to the City for the three -year term of the agreement with a not to exceed amount of $330,000. The evaluation committee also felt that Martina Entriken’s written proposal made it clear that she has the extensive experience, knowledge and the background desired for the work. Martina Entriken has been a consistent , dependable contractor working for the City of Palo Alto for over 15 years. She does provide a highly sought program that incorporates all the elements required for instruction: dramatic and sensory play, art, science, math, music and literacy. Martina also incorporates field trips to nature, community, and cultural locations. Class sizes are small with 15 children enrolled and the progr am requires parent participation to create a nurturing environment and culture of learning for both the children and the adults.

Resource Impact
The Community Services Department Fiscal Year 2023 proposed budget includes funding to award the first twelve months of this contract. Funding for future years is subject to City Council approval through the annual budget process.

Stakeholder Engagement
The RFP was sent to 229 educational service providers serving the target age group.

Environmental Review
This program is not considered a Project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

Attachments:
• Attachment19.a: Attachment A: Martina Entriken, Preschool & Toddler Program; Contract C22184489
Summary of Request for Proposal
Proposal Description Preschool/Toddler Program RFP184489 Proposed Length of Project  3-year term
Number of Vendors Notified 229
Number of Proposal Packages Downloaded  7
Total Days to Respond to Proposal  14
Pre-Proposal Meeting No
Pre-Proposal Meeting Date  None
Number of Proposals Received  1
Proposal Price Range $299, 970
Public Link to Solicitation https://pbsystem.planetbids.com/portal/25569/bo/bo- detail/93139
19 Packet Pg. 380

City of Palo Alto Professional Services
Contract No. C22184489 Rev. Dec.15, 2020

Page 1 of 21 ends

CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO. C22184489

AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND MARTINA ENTRIKEN

This Agreement for Professional Services (this “Agreement”) is entered into as of the 1st day of June, 2022 (the “Effective Date”) , by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation (“CITY”), and MARTINA ENTRIKEN, a sole proprietor, located at 302 College Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94306 (“CONSULTANT”).

The following recitals are a substantive portion of this Agreement and are fully incorporated herein by this reference:

RECITALS

A. CITY intends to offer preschool/toddler programs through the City’s Community Services Department (the “Project”) and desires to engage a consultant to provide creative adventure and exploration classes in connection with the Project (the “Services”, as detailed more fully in Exhibit A).

C. CITY, in reliance on these representations, desires to engage CONSULTANT to provide the Services as more fully described in Exhibit A, entitled “SCOPE OF SERVICES”.

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the recitals, covenants, terms, and conditions, in this Agreement, the parties agree as follows:

SECTION 2. TERM.

The term of this Agreement shall be from the date of its full execution through June 30, 2025 unless terminated earlier pursuant to Section 19 (Termination) of this Agreement.

SECTION 3. SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE. Time is of the essence in the performance of Services under this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall complete the Services within the term of this Agreement and in accordance with the schedule set forth in Exhibit B, entitled “SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE”. Any Services for which times for performance are not specified in this Agreement shall be commenced and completed by CONSULTANT in a reasonably prompt and timely manner based upon the circumstances and direction communicated to the CONSULTANT.

CITY’s agreement to extend the term or the schedule for performance shall not preclude recovery of damages for delay if the extension is required due to the fault of CONSULTANT.

DocuSign Envelope ID: AED21F32-4B21-4091-98CB-3465C262EF1C

19.a
Packet Pg. 381

City of Palo Alto Professional Services
Contract No. C22184489 Rev. Dec.15, 2020

Page 2 of 21 ends

SECTION 4. NOT TO EXCEED COMPENSATION. The compe nsation to be paid to CONSULTANT for performance of the Services shall be based on the compensation structure detailed in Exhibit C, entitled “COMPENSATION,” including any reimbursable expenses specified therein, and the maximum total compensation shall not exceed Three Hundred Thousand Dollars ($300,000.00). The hourly schedule of rates, if applicable, is set out in Exhibit C-1, entitled “ SCHEDULE OF RATES.” Any work performed or expenses incurred for which payment would result in a total exceeding the maximum compensation set forth in this Section 4 shall be at no cost to the CITY.

Optional Additional Services Provision (This provision applies only if checked and a not-to-exceed compensation amount for Additional Services is allocated below under this Section 4.)

In addition to the not-to-exceed compensation specified above, CITY has set aside the not- to-exceed compensation amount of Thirty Thousand Dollars ($30,000.00) for the performance of Additional Services (as defined below). The total compensation for performance of the Services, Additional Services and any reimbursable expenses specified in Exhibit C, shall not exceed Three Hundred Thirty Thousand Dollars ($330,000.00), as detailed in Exhibit C.

“Additional Services” means any work that is determined by CITY to be necessary for the proper completion of the Project, but which is not included within the Scope of Services described at Exhibit A . CITY may elect to, but is not required to, authorize Additional Services up to the maximum amount of compensation set forth for Additional S ervices in this Section 4. CONSULTANT shall provide Additional Services only by advanced, written authorization from CITY as detailed in this Section . Additional Services , if any, shall be authorized by CITY with a Task Order assigned and authorized by CITY’s Project Manager, as identified in Section 13 (Project Management). Each Task Order shall be in substantially the same form as Exhibit A-1, entitled “PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TASK ORDER”. Each Task Order shall contain a specific scope of services, schedule of performance and maximum compensation amount, in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement. Compensation for Additional Services shall be specified by CITY in the Task Order, based on whichever is lowest: the compensation structure set forth in Exhibit C, the hourly rates set forth in Exhibit C-1, or a negotiated lump sum.

CONSULTANT shall only be compensated for Additional Services performed under an authorized Task Order and only up to the maximum amount of compensation set forth for Additional Services in this Section 4 . Performance of and payment for any Additional Services are subject to all requirements and restrictions in this Agreement.

SECTION 5. INVOICES. In order to request payment, CONSULTANT shall submit monthly DocuSign Envelope ID: AED21F32-4B21-4091-98CB-3465C262EF1C

19.a
Packet Pg. 382

City of Palo Alto Professional Services
Contract No. C22184489 Rev. Dec.15, 2020

Page 3 of 21 ends

invoices to the CITY describing the Services performed and the applicable charges (including, if applicable, an identification of personnel who performed the Services, hours worked, hourly rates, and reimbursable expenses), based upon Exhibit C or, as applicable, CONSULTANT’s schedule of rates set forth in Exhibit C-1. If applicable, the invoice shall also describe the percentage of completion of each task. The information in CONSULTANT’s invoices shall be subject to verification by CITY. CONSULTANT shall send all invoices to CITY’s Project Manager at the address specified in Section 13 (Project Management) below. CITY will generally process and pay invoices within thirty (30) days of receipt of an acceptable invoice.

SECTION 6. QUALIFICATIONS/STANDARD OF CARE. All Services shall be performed by CONSULTANT or under CONSULTANT’s supervision. CONSULTANT represents that it , its employees and subcontractors, if any, possess the professional and technical personnel necessary to perform the Services required by this Agreement and that the personnel have sufficient skill and experience to perform the Services assigned to them. CONSULTANT represents that it, its employees and subcontractors, if any, have and shall maintain during the term of this Agreement all licenses, permits, qualifications, insurance and approvals of whatever nature that are legally required to perform the Services. All Services to be furnished by CONSULTANT under this Agreement shall meet the professional standard and quality that prevail among professionals in the same discipline and of similar knowledge and skill engaged in related work throughout California under the same or similar circumstances.

SECTION 7. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS . CONSULTANT shall keep itself informed of and in compliance with all federal, state and local laws, ordinances, regulations, and orders that may affect in any manner the Project or the performance of the Services or those engaged to perform Services under this Agreement , as amended from time to time . CONSULTANT shall procure all permits and licenses, pay all charges and fees, and give all notices required by law in the performance of the Services.

SECTION 8. ERRORS/OMISSIONS. CONSULTANT is solely responsible for costs, including, but not limited to, increases in the cost of Services, arising from or caused by CONSULTANT’s errors and omissions, including, but not limited to, the costs of corrections such errors and omissions, any c hange order markup costs, or costs arising from delay caused by the errors and omissions or unreasonable delay in correcting the errors and omissions.

SECTION 9. COST ESTIMATES. If this Agreement pertains to the design of a public works project, CONSULTANT shall submit estimates of probable construction costs at each phase of design submittal. If the total estimated construction cost at any submittal exceeds the CITY’s stated con struction budget by ten percent (10%) or more , CONSULTANT shall make recommendations to CITY for aligning the P roject design with the budget, incorporate CITY approved recommendations, and revise the design to meet the Project budget, at no additional cost to CITY.

CONSULTANT and any agent or employee of CONSULTANT will not have employee status with CITY, nor be entitled to participate in any plans, arrangements, or distributions by CITY DocuSign Envelope ID: AED21F32-4B21-4091-98CB-3465C262EF1C

19.a
Packet Pg. 383

City of Palo Alto Professional Services
Contract No. C22184489 Rev. Dec.15, 2020

Page 4 of 21 ends

Palo Alto City CouncilJune 20, 2022

Palo Alto City Council
June 20, 2022