HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-08-26 City Council EmailsFrom:Aram James
To:Ed Lauing; Josh Becker; Templeton, Cari; Supervisor Susan Ellenberg; Henry Etzkowitz; Zelkha, Mila; CeciliaTaylor; Sally Lieber; Supervisor Otto Lee; district1@bos.sccgov.org; Raymond Goins; Karen Holman; TomDuBois; DuJuan Green; dennis burns; Kaloma Smith; Human Relations Commission; Shikada, Ed;editor@paweekly.com; Palo Alto Free Press; Bains, Paul; ParkRec Commission; keith@keithforcouncil.com; DoriaSumma; Patricia.Guerrero@jud.ca.gov
Cc:Council, City; Jeff Moore; Jeff Rosen; Sean Allen; Raj Jayadev; Gardener, Liz; Lotus Fong; Linda Jolley;
Reifschneider, James; Binder, Andrew; kenneth.Binder@shf.sccgov.org; Roberta Ahlquist; Robert. Jonsen; Dave
Price; Emily Mibach; Braden Cartwright
Subject:https://url.usb.m.mimecastprotect.com/s/CcvuCQAx1WcLR8ytxfJuJ0NIl?domain=d374oxlv7wyffd.cloudfront.net
Date:Sunday, August 25, 2024 7:22:09 PM
City
Palo Alto 67,973 1,314 $229,044,984 $3,370 36%
If you were running a business, you wouldn't be dazzled by "artsy saloon" concepts and you
wouldn't be paying high-priced consultants to solve basic city problems.
Respectfully, Pat Marriott
Processes" (page 34).
Video (0:12:18-0:26:12)https://midpenmedia.org/policy-services-committee-38-1132022/Nobody mentioned "Procurement Processes." The MOTION named seven Task Orders, none of which was "Procurement Processes."
(So maybe this 2023 Annual Audit Plan is not the plan Ms. Murdock was referring to.)
Mike Chimera, an Audit Manager for Baker Tilly, will be presenting our audit findings and recommendations. Thank you, Mike.
0:11:11:
###. Slide 1 -- Introduction
Mike Chimera: Thanks, Kate. Good evening, everybody. As Kate mentioned, I'm Mike Chimera. I'm the manager within Baker Tilly'sPublic Sector Risk Advisory Practice. I will be presenting the procurement process review audit results. But first, I would like to start by
thanking the departments and the City staff for their cooperation during the audit.
0:11:38:
###. Slide 2 -- Objectives
For this audit, we were tasked to complete four objectives. The first objective was to determine whether a needs assessment, budgeting,
solicitation, and vendor selection processes are efficient and effective. Our second key objective was to determine whether theprocurement process was sufficient in terms of internal control activities such as review and segregation of duties. Third, we were taskedto determine whether technology was effective and appropriate. And, last, we were to determine and identify any efficiency or
effectiveness improvements.
0:12:22:
###. Slide 3 -- Finding 1: Supporting Documentation for Contract Award
Our first finding came from supporting documentation for contract awards. The OCA requests that a comprehensive population of
contract awards and solicitations within the period of FY '21 and FY '23. After selecting a sample of 50, we determined that 6 contractswere missing supporting evidence in comparison to the municipal code, resulting in compliance deficiencies. Our recommendation is toput forth a check list attached to awards that could enhance the transparency and efficiency of the procurement process, which could
ensure that all the necessary documentation is consistently maintained and easily accessible.
0:13:09:
###. Slide 4 -- Finding 2: Purchasing Manual
Our second finding was in relation to the Purchasing Manual. We noted that there were inconsistencies within the Purchasing Manual.
Such as: The Table of Contents were missing. There were some outdated and inconsistently labeled chapters. And -- as well as missing
appendices. Our recommendation is simply to update and review the chapters timely, to make sure that they are accurately reflecting thecurrent processes. As well as remain consistent title chapters and appendices.
0:13:45:
###. Slide 5 -- Finding 3: Needs Assessment and Market Analysis
Our third finding relates to the needs assessment and market analysis. When assessing needs and performing the market analysis,there was no formal process in place. Risks exist when potential over- or underestimate for needs, inadequate specifications, and
potentially insufficient goods or services. With that said, our recommendation for the City is to integrate standardized needs assessment
and market analysis procedures, and then document within the Purchasing Manual. This would include that the Purchasing Divisionwould obtain appropriate documentation and enhance their review and store with contract award evidence.
0:14:37:
###. Slide 6 -- Finding 4: Vendor Record Creation
Our last -- Our fourth and last finding is vendor record creation. The OCA evaluated the use of technology, which the City's ERP system,SAP. And it was noted that during walkthroughs that it was an option that vendors can be created and be duplicated. We obtained avendor listing, and noted that -- 28 instances where duplicate vendors existed. Which could result in risks of duplicate payments or
paying incorrect vendors. We did note, though, that there is a compensating control. Potentially, the City personnel ** to make sure thatvendors don't exist when creating new ones. However, there is the possibility of the inherent risk exists, which results in a finding. Ourrecommendation for this is to determine if SAP, the ERP team can maybe implement application controls. If not, we recommend
reviewing the vendor listing annually and remove any duplicates, or vendors that no longer exist.
0:15:50:
###. Slide 9 -- QUESTIONS -- Note: skipped slides 7 and 8.
And now, I'll pose this time for any questions.
0:15:56:
Chair Kou: Thank you, Mr. Chimera. I will go to the public first. Public comment on this item.
0:16:09:
City Clerk: We have no requests to speak on this item.
0:16:11:
Chair Kou: Thank you, Madam Clerk. Council Member Tanaka.
0:16:16:
Council Member Tanaka: Can you start with someone else first?
0:16:17:
Chair Kou: Oh. OK. Oh, is this -- I'm sorry. That's another name. Council Member Lythcott-Haims.
0:16:23:
Council Member Lythcott-Haims: Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to thank our new City Auditor, Ms. Murdock, for this presentation. And a little bit of a belated welcome to the work of the City of Palo Alto. And thank you, Mr. Chimera, for that presentation. I want to
thank our City staff as well. I have a number of questions. I'm just going to go through them in the order in which I wrote my questions
down, which I hope makes sense.
My first question, Mr. Chimera -- or whomever is best capable of responding to this -- My first question is, do we have any vacancies in
our Procurement Department? And, if not, do we feel that the size of the office, as it stands, is what it should be, based on what we knowof comparable cities, comparable in budget size and staff size and scope of work?
0:17:26:
City Auditor Murdock: Well, I can take that question. So, I think that's a great question. Unfortunately, it was really outside the scope of
this audit. This audit was a design controls audit. So, it was really to see, you know, if the right processes were in place, and how well
those processes were being controlled. But we weren't looking, actually, at staffing levels as part of the scope for this audit. Thedepartment may have some input on that.
0:17:57:
CFO Lai: May I? Lauren Lai, the CFO for the City. We have currently one vacancy, a Senior Buyer position, supporting the Utility
Divisions. And that recruitment is underway.
0:18:09:
Council Member Lythcott-Haims: Thank you. I suppose I'm asking because later on we get to the point where departments are reallytaking over responsibilities that our Auditor recommends be handled more centrally. So, it begs the question, do we have the capacity tohandle it in a more central fashion by the Procurement Department? Or is it best handled in this distributed fashion, as is currently the
practice?
0:18:31:
CFO Lai: Um. So, I think I want to break that up into two segments. One is, the City is continuing to seek innovations by way oftechnology. And, looking at our Rules, Regulations, and Procedures, to continue to streamline and incorporate best practices, so we cancentralize function where it needs to be, and then decentralize it where it's optimal, such as program managers overseeing their
programs, and sometimes contract administration as well. So, that's our first and foremost approach in solving this. And then, certainly,looking at the staffing level as to whether or not adding staffing makes sense, to centralize certain things, versus having them live in thedepartments. So, we are sensitive to that. But we want to first look at some best practices, and leverage technology more, and then look
at staffing accordingly. And so, we wanted to explain that.
0:19:21:
Council Member Lythcott-Haims: Thank you, Ms. Lai. In the best practices section, although there isn't a recommendation that followsfrom that section, the way there is in response to each of the audit result findings, I do note that there is a forward-thinking valueembedded into best practices that procurement officers must have at hand a wide range of source selection materials in order to be able
to meet agencies' needs, understand market conditions for every procurement, understand the scope of the marketplace. All of this
contemplates work that is ongoing, regardless of, really, the bids, or the solicitations that are coming. And I wonder -- It feels thatproactivity is required, rather than reactivity response when a department says, hey, we need to buy some stuff. And I wonder if the City-- if Baker Tilly feels, as they assessed our City's work in this limited regard, would you say that we are bringing that appropriate balance
of proactivity versus reactivity in responsiveness? Or are you actually urging us -- I'm trying to read between the lines -- are you urgingus to be more proactive in creating the conditions under which the procurement activities can be most efficient, effective, compliant?
0:20:56:
City Auditor Murdock: Mike, is this something you can speak to? [pause] Or I can also handle this. You know, this audit was done priorto my joining Baker Tilly. So, I don't want to do too much speculating here about what was found. I think, you know, we do like to point
out best practices, and provide that guidance. But, again, I think the scoping of this audit really focused on those controls. I think thispotentially could be a future audit. Right? Looking more at some of that performance, and answering some of those questions. But Idon't -- you know, I don't know that we gathered information that would really answer the question that you're asking.
0:21:47:
Council Member Lythcott-Haims: OK. Understood. Um. With regard to the checklist that appears to be missing, when it comes to the
City's forms, the documentation for a contract award, finding one, there clearly were some checklists missing in a few contracts. Andthen, you recommend a NEW checklist be created. And I'm wondering if that new checklist -- whose name I have forgotten -- is thecomprehensive, overall checklist for all procurement transactions? Or is it one of many, to supplement what is already in place? Or does
it become the overarching checklist, under which everything else hangs?
0:22:34:
Mike Chimera: ** Oh, I'm sorry, Kate.
0:22:37:
City Auditor Murdock: No, go ahead.
0:22:39:
Mike Chimera: I was just going to say, that IS the more overarching checklist, to ensure that all the documentation that's necessary forretention is retained.
0:22:50:
Council Member Lythcott-Haims: Thank you.
0:22:52:
CFO Lai: May I speak to -- Would you like me to speak -- Is it OK? If I may --
0:22:55:
Council Member Lythcott-Haims: Yes. Thank you.
0:22:57:
CFO Lai: OK. I want to the being proactive versus reactive. I spent a lot of time with staff in prepping for tonight. I was pleased to hearthat in the last couple of years, we have moved toward streamlining some of our procurement. And there's still some improvement yet to
be done. In particular, we have integrated OpenGov as a procurement platform. And it enables us to reach more vendors.
### Apparently, before 05-18-23, the City used PlanetBids.
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Administrative-Services/Bid-Opportunities
But I think, importantly, also, is the intake process, that will create a better internal experience. All these forms that we process right noware burdensome. And, as noted, sometimes they get missed. And so, with a technology like OpenGov eProcurement, the intake will be
automated, and more robust and streamlined. So, that is what we are integrating and working with IT and also the City Attorney's office -
- is to improve these forms. But also integrate them in an intake technology system. And so, that's our hope there. And that's whatwe're working towards. We have a couple of departments that are piloting it already, and helping us fine-tune that. But the idea is notonly to improve the forms, but then, also, how do we automate and streamline that process for our internal customers.
0:24:11:
Council Member Lythcott-Haims: Got it. Thank you. Turning to finding number 2 on the Purchasing Manual. Much is said about the factthat we lack a procedure for processing a design-build contract. So, I find myself thinking -- Somewhere in the report, it says that thesecontracts happen once a year. Leaving the impression that they're either all-at-once -- one time a year -- or not very frequent at all. But,
nevertheless, they seem significant. So, my questions here surround -- any idea why we haven't had design-build in the normal process,
along with everything else? And what percentage of our total contracts in a year are design-build? So that we can have a sense of theimpact of this particular category being missing from the normal process. Sorry. From the City's Purchasing Manual. It's notdocumented in the City's Purchasing Manual, and appears to be sort of happening off on a side, on its own.
0:25:13:
CFO Lai: So, let me make sure I understand the question. The question is, why it's not in the Purchasing Manual? And then, the
frequency and how representative it is, as a number of transactions per year relative to all the other transactions. So, as duly noted fromthe auditors, the Manual does omit this section. And so, I think, you know, it's absence is just an oversight, and a lack of frequency. Theupdate of that Manual is underway right now. The City Purchasing Office has already updated it. It's been in review with the City
Attorney's Office. And it's coming back to us. So, I think that's just a matter of it being omitted, and nothing more than that. As noted inthe report, it happens about once a year. So, it's fairly infrequent. Out of all of our transactions, based on the budget, we have about
1,500 transactions a year, that we process in the Purchasing team.
0:26:13:
Council Member Lythcott-Haims: And so, I couldn't tell if design-build was literally one contract out of 1,500 or if it's a category that -- itdoes happen once a year, but there are number of them that happen at that time of year.
0:26:23:
CFO Lai: Oh. One.
0:26:26:
Council Member Lythcott-Haims: OK. Got it. So, the City Auditor finding, this problem is sort of like finding a needle in a haystack.
There's one contract a year that has a different name, and hadn't made it into the manual. OK. That makes me feel better, actually. Thank you. Finding 3, needs assessment and market analysis. Um. I'm noting that -- The Auditor has noted that the PurchasingDepartment is not part of the needs assessment and market analysis process in the way they would like. And they're urging that upon
us. My question is, why? Why has the Purchasing Department not been a part of this? And do we have any concerns about this
happening perhaps elsewhere in the City? I realize this is outside of the scope of the Auditor's concern. But from your perspective, Ms.Lai, the Auditor seems to feel that Purchasing should be a part of these sort of more proactive processes. Needs assessment andmarket analysis -- the lack of it -- leads to the larger concern about are we not doing all of that proactive, forward thinking, not just in
Purchasing -- in Procurement -- but elsewhere..
0:27:44:
CFO Lai: Sure. And I think this was one where we partially agree, partly because, I think, it is being done now, informally, in thedepartments. And then, some of the -- is being done in the Purchasing function, through the Request for Information [RFI] or the Request
for Proposal [RFP]. If we break up the two -- a needs assessment and a market assessment. A needs assessment oftentimes is
centralized within the department. And the reason is, if you tell the Police Chief that Purchasing is going to determine if the PoliceDepartment needs bulletproof vests, I don't think the Police Chief would like that. So, I think that's an example where if we break up theassessment between a needs as- -- the results between a needs assessment and a market assessment. The needs assessment is often
done by the department, because the department will say, we need the bulletproof vest. We need this vehicle. Right? And often, it'sdriven by the budget as well. The budget also provides that control. But oftentimes, it's the department that assesses the needs. Right? Then the market assessments. As mentioned in the report, some markets are clearly defined, and the department can survey and
determine who's in those markets. Technology is a good example. However, there's certain markets -- services is a good example --
where we may not know who is in the market. And therefore, it comes to the Purchasing Department, to do the solicitation, eitherinformally or formally, to do the market analysis. Right? So, that's where the partnership really is. I don't think all of it should live withinthe department. And all of it shouldn't live within Purchasing as well. It's the collaboration. As mentioned in the report, we find that what
is being done now is adequate. And formalizing it and centralizing it in the Purchasing Department would make it, actually, moreburdensome for the department, and will add more time. At the end of the day, what we have to account for to the taxpayer is, is thatadditional time and due diligence worth it? In our mind, right now, no. Because the departments are doing their part well, in collaboration
with what Purchasing does well. And we don't really want to centralize it and create more burden for the departments.
0:30:02:
Council Member Lythcott-Haims: So, I appreciate that that's the City's perspective. And I think, now, the question for Ms. Murdock andMr. Chimera is, given that your job is to audit our practices vis a vis best practices and industry standards, does our City's interest inhaving more of a -- let's call it a decentralized approach here, leaving more authority with the individual departments -- you know, is that
something you can abide, when you get a partial agreement on something like that? Does that put us at odds with cities you would
consider to be, you know, gold standard in this regard? Is this a response that feels acceptable to you? And, forgive me, I'm -- I've notstudied procurement before. And so, I don't mean to imply anybody's doing anything improper. But, as a matter of a third party Auditor, I
would like to know what your assessment is of this interest in this more of a decentralized. Because it seems from your report that you
would prefer that these functions be held at the level of the Purchasing Division.
0:31:12:
City Auditor Murdock: Yeah. So, I guess what -- So -- And not to sound like a broken record. You know, this audit was performed priorto my arrival. And the findings and recommendations are all prior to my involvement. I think what I would think with an audit like this is,
we're looking for consistency of practice. So, I think we're -- our interest is -- even it if remains decentralized, having guidance for
departments to follow, so when you're doing a needs assessment, you're all approaching it from the same -- you know, going through thesame process, considering the same criteria. So, I think, having guidance there -- Mike may be able to answer -- you know, it's notclear to me from the report how consistent across departments that needs assessment that is being done -- is, you know, how consistent
that is. How robust that is. So, I guess my feeling would be that we'd like to see, you know, some guidance that perhaps comes from thePurchasing Department. Not that the Purchasing Department would -- um -- be tasked with that function on the behalf of the department,but at least giving them that guidance.
0:32:27:
CFO Lai:: Can I also add -- In the SAP, the departments enter the purchase requisition. So, someone within the department will enter a
request to buy something. And then, someone in the department at a managerial level will also review that request. Hence the needsassessment. So, there is two tiers within the department, as well, for that needs review. So, I just wanted to add that as well, as a part ofthe due diligence. I am apprehensive about trying to standardize across the City, given how complex and broad we are, and deep we
are, any needs assessment with criterias. I think that will create a lot of burden, to try to come up with some sort of standard that is going
to be effective across our City's. But I do want to share that the requisition process, which is a request to buy something, does have dual
authority: one at the entry level, and a manager-supervisor of some sort within that department before it's released for us to actuallymove forward with purchasing.
0:33:34:
Council Member Lythcott-Haims: Thank you. And my final question -- very simple math question. We've been notified that our vendor
record creation process sometimes results in duplicate vendors, because of limitations to SAP. We have 28 instances of the samevendor included. I know staff might say some of those are different addresses. So, it's not an actual du- -- It's not an error. There's noway to add the second address -- the different receiving address, you know, without creating a new entry. How many of these were
actual errors? And what percentage are they of the overall vendors we have in the system?
0:34:19:
CFO Lai: We're not familiar with that. So, is the Auditor able to look at your work papers, to answer this question?
0:34:28:
City Auditor Murdock: We can certainly look into that and get back to you with the answer to that question. Unless -- does Mike -- Mike,do you have that?
0:34:36:
Mike Chimera: I can look into it. I don't have it at the moment.
0:34:40:
Council Member Lythcott-Haims: It seemed to be enough concern to warrant its own findings. So, I would love to know the answer to
that, when you get a chance. Thank you. And that's it for me.
0:34:49:
Chair Kou: Thank you. Great questions. Council Member Tanaka.
0:34:53:
Council Member Tanaka: Yeah. Thank you. Thank you guys for your work. I -- Probably of all the audits, I think this one is by far themost important. You know, if you look at the chunk of budget that goes through Procurement, most of it does. So, I think it's critical,
actually. And it's important that it's done well. So, I really wanted to thank the team for doing this. And I -- In looking at this, I thoughtyou guys covered a lot of really good topics. But some of the things I didn't see covered, and ones that I -- you know, I'm particularlyinterested in is, you know -- You know, on the Consent Calendar, I look at these quite a bit. And have you guys looked at, or
benchmarked, like how we're doing in terms of getting bids on our projects? Like, if we look at, you know, the different things that we try
to buy, you know, is it usually just a single bid? Do we get multiple bids? No bids? Have you guys looked at that, and just benchmarkedagainst other cities?
0:35:58:
City Auditor Murdock: I don't believe that that was part of the scope of this audit. So, I don't know if Mike has further insight on that. But,
again, if you look at the objectives that were laid out for this audit, it's very much looking at the design of controls. Um. I think what
you're asking, I would put more in, you know, the performance audit sort of category. And that's certainly something that we can look atfor future audit work. But I don't believe that that is something that we looked at with this audit.
0:36:29:
Council Member Tanaka: I think this is really important, because when I look at the Consent Calendar items, a lot of times, it's a single
bid, or no bids. And then someone does a direct award. And, you know, I don't think any of us would buy the way the City buys, in that -- You know, like, when I buy something, I -- you know, I get at least two bids, if not three bids, and then some more, depending on what itis. And the bigger the purchase item, the more bids I'll get. And that's -- If you don't shop around, it's really hard to get a good price.
Usually, the price will be very high. And so -- But, ironically, in the City, like, no matter how bid the purchase is, a lot of times, it's only a
single bid, or no bids. And we've even had vendors come to Council and complain about this, where -- You know, the example I bring upis, you know, we had -- we were replacing the pipelines down in downtown, and, I think, in the original RFP, we said, oh, you have tocome out and do it on weekends and holidays and all that stuff.
### Does Council Member Tanaka mean that the RFP required working on weekends and holidays in addition to workdays?
### By the way, is there a way for ordinary members of the public, like me, to search for, access, and read the City's RFIs, RFPs, and
IFBs? If so, I could see what this particular RFP said about working on weekends and holidays.
We got basically no bids. And the City then turned around and did a direct award to Ranger Pipeline, where they took out the provision of
having to work weekends and holidays and all that kind of stuff. And then, the person who -- the other vendor who was going to bid on itbut didn't because of the holiday provision said, hey, this is not fair. This is a different contract. And they spoke at City Council. And youcan watch a recording of this.
### See this 01-22-18 video of the item (5:00:20-5:52:07):
https://midpenmedia.org/city-council-149-2/Also, see my TRANSCRIPT & COMMENTS (pages 2-30)https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/utilities-advisory-commission/archived-
agenda-and-minutes/agendas-and-minutes-2018/02-07-2018-meeting/public-letters-to-the-uac.pdfAt 5:48:02, David Levisay, owner of Daleo, spoke to Council about the unfairness.
### Also, see the City's transcript of the meeting (pages 95-113).https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/city-council-agendas-minutes/00-archive/2018/01-22-2018-final-ccm-transcript.pdf
And so, I'm just worried -- I mean, I think the stuff you guys talked about is great. But the biggest issue I see with City is a lack of bids. Right? I think a lot of times, the criteria for the contract is so onerous that people just don't bid. And then, the City has the right, then, todo a direct award, under different terms. And I think that doesn't lead to the most efficient procurement process. But I think that's the
crux of the issue right now -- is really the fact that we don't get multiple bids. We don't really shop around. Even for contracts that are,you know, tens of millions -- if not bigger. And I think that's why -- You know, like, also -- You know, of course, there's inflation andstuff. But if we don't shop around, it's hard to expect good prices. So, I would really like to see this on future audits. Because is probably
the biggest knob we could turn, especially if the auditing department is -- just the sheer lack of bids that we get on our RFPs.
0:38:50:
Chair Kou: And, Council Member Tanaka, you know, I think Ms. Murdock is actually gathering information for the annual citywide riskassessment for FY '25, and that might be a good time to add that to the plan. ** we have a chat with her.
0:39:10:
Council Member Tanaka: Yeah. So, if you could do that, that would be great. Just because, you know, this is the people's money. Andwe should -- if we're going to buy a bunch of stuff, we should buy it the way we would buy it. If I was buying a car, I wouldn't just go to the
first car dealer I see and buy it. I would shop around, you know, check -- you know, check the websites and try to see where I could get agood deal. Now, this -- You know, $10K, then OK. Maybe you don't have to shop around too much. But if it's like double-digit millions, Iwould expect some diligence. I would expect that we shop around quite a bit. But, a lot of times, the bids we -- you know, we're -- it's
like, we got to approve this right now, because we need tomorrow, and our backs are against the wall. And it's really hard to get a gooddeal like that. Right? I mean, we know, when we need to get stuff, we shouldn't wait until the last minute to put the bid out there, andthen have no choice, if, you know, the vendors don't work out. So, I think this is critically important to our City. And I -- I mean, I look at
how we buy stuff, and I personally don't buy stuff like this way. I don't know if my colleagues do either. I don't know if anyone does. For
this size of -- you know, relative size of bids, or contracts that we procure. And I would really look at it, how it compares to other cities. Right? To see, you know, is this standard? Do other cities don't shop around either? I don't know. I doubt it. I hope not. Becausethat's not a good use of the people's money.
0:40:24:
And then, you know, the other thing that I think it would be really interesting to know is, how often do we pick the lowest bids? Because,
a lot of times when I look at the staff reports, it doesn't say. Right? It doesn't say this is the lowest bid. Right? Sometimes, it doesn'teven give the range. We have no idea. Sometimes, we don't know if it has -- if there WERE other bids.
0:40:41:
City Attorney Stump: Excuse me, Madam Chair, and Council Member Tanaka. We have wanted off of the topic of the agenda. This is --
0:40:47:
Council Member Tanaka: This is procurement process. That's what it says on the title here.
0:40:49:
City Attorney Stump: It's the procurement process AUDIT. Which was defined. And you're introducing new ideas. So, the Chair iscorrect that those would be --
0:40:58:
Council Member Tanaka: Can you show me where it restricts what I said, please?
0:41:03:
City Attorney Stump: OK. The Brown Act requires that you stick to the agenda topic. So, at some point, Madam Chair, you'll want to --
0:41:09:
Council Member Tanaka: It's on the agenda. It's on the agenda. So, point it to me where it doesn't say on the agenda and I'll get off of
it. But otherwise, I -- It says "procurement audit process." Right?
0:41:17:
Chair Kou: And there might be a scope. You know. So, --
0:41:20:
Council Member Tanaka: So, show it to me.
0:41:20
Chair Kou: I don't know of anybody -- if they can even answer --
0:41:24:
City Attorney Stump: There's a document that is here for your review, to receive this document. And you're introducing new ideas, thatyou would like the Auditor to explore. So, that can be mentioned briefly. Those are future agenda items. But they're not on the agenda
tonight for full discussion.
0:41:40:
Council Member Tanaka: Well, the topic -- Let's see. OK. The action item says, "Office of City Auditor Presentation of ProcurementProcess Audit Review." Does it not say that? And does it say that I can't talk about audit-related topics?
0:42:00:
City Attorney Stump: Council Member, I'm not going to get in an argument with you. The "audit" has a --
0:42:04:
Council Member Tanaka: You're challenging me, though. So, I'm challenging you back.
0:42:06:
City Attorney Stump: I'm --
0:42:07:
Council Member Tanaka: If you have proof, if you could say that I'm not allowed to talk about procurement process? Show me.
0:42:11:
City Attorney Stump: So, I've given you some advice. I'm going to stop now. And the meeting can --
0:42:15:
Council Member Tanaka: OK. I'm going to keep going though0:42:17:
Chair Kou: If I may, I think that we have to look at also the executive summary and the purpose of the audit. And it has four bullet points,stating the purpose of that. And I think they have audited those.
0:42:32:
Council Member Tanaka: OK. So, let's read the first one. "Determine whether needs assessment, budgeting, solicitation, and vendor
selection processes are efficient, effective, and transparent to ensure value for money and fair competition." That's literally what I'mtalking about right now. So, City Attorney, tell me why that's not in scope.
0:42:52:
City Attorney Stump: Council Member, I've given you my comments. I'm done. **
0:42:56:
Council Member Tanaka: I think you should be done, because it is on-topic.
0:42:58:
Chair Kou: Excuse me. I don't think that warrants it. We are trying to stay within the scope. If you want to go on, go on. But I don't think
you'll get any responses, because it's outside of their scope, and they won't have answers for you.
0:43:08:
Council Member Tanaka: It's Item 1 on the Executive Summary.
### Technically, the staff report doesn't have an Executive Summary. The quote is item 1 of the Discussion section.
### By the way, it's an outrage that the City's website doesn't give me a way to get a URL for the staff report. I can download the bits,but I can't cite a link to the document.
0:43:11:
Chair Kou: They won't have answers for you, I'm just saying. So, if you want to continue on that track, --
0:43:17:
Council Member Tanaka: OK. I will. So, um, OK. And then, I think the other thing that I think is important is that -- Correct me if I'mwrong, but I think the City needs to report any gifts, lunches, dinners, trips paid by vendors, etc. Right? So, at one point in time -- Thiswas before your guys' time, but we had a CIO who, you know, took trips to Bali and Tahiti and Maui -- all these fancy places. And -- It
was reported in the papers -- he actually eventually resigned.
###https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2018/11/21/palo-altos-chief-information-officer-to-depart/
But I guess -- Do you guys look at the reporting of those kind of things, and compare it against who gets the awards?
0:44:04:
City Auditor Murdock: So, again, I think that that would have been, you know, differently scoped out. And I think this really was lookingat what controls were in place, how the process itself was designed. But, you know, we certainly -- I'm definitely taking notes of your
comments, and we'll definitely consider this as a possible area to explore for the next audit. The next Audit Plan. Excuse me.
0:44:31:
Council Member Tanaka: OK. I hope you will. And then, do you guys look at -- or did you guys look at the staff reports, to see, youknow, the efficacy of the staff report transparency of the staff report to the procurement process, in terms of how many bids there were,
why there were no other bids, direct awards, and things like that?
0:44:57:
City Auditor Murdock: Mike, are you able to speak to that?
0:45:00
Mike Chimera: As part of our compliance testing, it was included. The information that we received. We did receive all that information.
0:45:11:
Council Member Tanaka: So, you did receive the information? And you did look at it?
0:45:14:
Mike Chimera: Correct.
0:45:15:
Council Member Tanaka: OK. And what was your conclusion as you looked at the staff reports, versus what actually happened?
0:45:23:
Mike Chimera: Transparency appeared reasonable, with our test and our attribute testing.
0:45:29:
Council Member Tanaka: OK. So, if a staff report doesn't say how many bids there were, or what the range of bids were, or whether thelow bid was selected, in your mind, that's a good audit -- that's a good staff report?
0:45:41:
Mike Chimera: Well, no. Essentially those are two different things, I think. But in terms of the number of bids, if those weren't covered inthe staff report, those weren't within our testing attributes that we had.
0:45:57:
Council Member Tanaka: OK. Well, maybe it should be. Because, um, you know, all we could do, as Council members is look at what's
reported to us. And, you know, we have a chance to ask questions of staff, but we only have one shot. And if they don't ask -- I mean, ifthey don't answer, which sometimes happens, then we don't have a chance to do the people's work. Right? To make sure that it was
done efficiently. And so, you know, maybe next time around -- probably this time around, you should actually look at that. Right? 'Cause
to me, this is like a key piece of information. Like, you know, I want to make sure that we just didn't pick the first person that came by. Iwant to make sure that we shopped around. And if we don't know, like, how many bids there are -- right? -- or whether the high or low
bid was selected -- I mean, it's hard to know, like, was sufficient -- did sufficient shopping around happen? I don't know if you think that's
relevant or not, but to me, it's incredibly relevant. I don't know if the City Auditor has thoughts on this. But I think -- For me to hear thatyou think not saying how many bids we got, whether we got the high or low bid, is OK if you have it on a staff report, to me, isinexcusable.
0:47:11:
City Auditor Murdock: Is that something that management would like to speak to?
0:47:18:
CFO Lai: I'm sorry. Is there a question?
0:47:21:
Council Member Tanaka: No. This is actually a question for the Auditor. Which is, a lot of times on the staff reports to Council, um, youknow, back to Executive Summary item 1, which says "transparent." Right? Transparent. You would think that you should -- that the
staff should disclose how many bids there were on an RFQ -- or RFP. And that, ah, you know, we should know where did it fall? Was it
a high bid? Low bid? Midrange? What was it? And, you know, I hear Mike here say, oh, that's OK, they don't disclose it. And I'mthinking, how can it be OK? That doesn't make sense to me. Right? Not if you're trying to be transparent. I mean, I -- You know, whenI'm trying to get a tree trimmer -- Right? And the first thing my wife asks me is how many bids did you get? Right? And what was the
high bid or low bid? It's not an esoteric procurement question. It's like a question anyone would ask when they're buying something. Right? When you're buying a car, you know, you ask, well, how much was it compared to the other dealers? Right? I mean, it's anatural question to ask. And yet, it's often not on the staff reports. And I find it's just very incredibly frustrating.
0:48:35:
City Auditor Murdock: It appears that we did look at the number of bids. As part of our testing. I don't know that we looked at that
specific question, of whether or not that information is provided via the staff report. So, it's hard for me to really comment on, you know,the decisions that get made for what is included in those reports.
0:48:57:
Chair Kou: And, again, I just want to remind that this was not within the scope of this task.
0:49:01:
Council Member Tanaka: I disagree. Because I see it right here on the Executive Summary. Right there. Item 1: "Determine" the
"needs assessment, budgeting, solicitation, and vendor selection processes are efficient, effective, and transparent to ensure value formoney and fair competition."
0:49:17:
Chair Kou: Yeah. Council Member Tanaka, I'm saying that it's not within where they had reviewed. And, as Ms. Murdock had said, thiswas done prior to her coming on board. But, the think is, it wasn't within that task order's scope. And so, it might not have gone as far as
what you want So, you can question them. But they are not going to have the answers for you.
0:49:39:
Council Member Tanaka: Well, the audit might be lacking. But I think --
0:49:41:
Chair Kou: Well, they're going to answer as best as they can. And I'm just saying that the challenging that you're conducting -- I don'tthink they deserve that.
0:49:52:
Council Member Tanaka: Well, I --
0:49:52:
Chair Kou: Since they really didn't look into it.
0:49:54:
Council Member Tanaka: Well, you know, I understand that maybe the Auditor herself wasn't here, but her organization was. And if thisaudit wasn't good, she should have -- maybe not present it -- maybe she should have done more work on it. I don't know. But I guessmy point, though, is, you know, I've been at this for almost eight years, and I, you know -- despite, you know, being very diplomatic about
it for years, I don't see improvement. And I just see staff do the same thing over and over again. Like, don't know the number of bids,don't know if it's the high bid, don't know if it's the low bid, don't know why we're not getting any other bids. Right? It just seems like, um,you know, for billion dollar budget, when we have double-digit, triple-digit million type contracts, to get a sole bid, only bid. And
sometimes it's got to be procured tomorrow, otherwise we have no janitorial service the next day. It's just ridiculous.
0:50:41:
Chair Kou: Well, I guess you can speak to Ms. Murdock about what you'd like to see in FY '25's Risk Assessment Report. And whatkinds of audits there are. But I'm not seeing this going anywhere. So, I'm going to ask for a motion, to move this along, that it has beenreceived. [pause] Then I'll move the motion to move this to -- as -- Is that what you're asking us for -- to -- for it to be received?
0:51:17:
City Auditor Murdock: I believe we're looking for approval of the audit.
0:51:21:
Chair Kou: I'll move the approval of the -- I'm sorry, let me get back to this -- I'll move the approv- -- to recommend the approval to City
Council the Procurement Process Review Audit. [pause] I'll need a second, if -- to move that for approval. And if it's not approved, then--
0:51:55:
Council Member Lythcott-Haims: I actually have a technical question before seconding. Is that all right?
0:51:58:
Chair Kou: That's fine.
0:51:59:
Council Member Lythcott-Haims: So, I am also concerned about the extent to which we seem to have one bid, no bids. I appreciateCouncil Member Tanaka's concern. And my technical question is -- So, going forward, what is the right way for us to convey this requestto our City Auditor that this IS something we would like? Again, being -- These two are the veterans, serving eight years. This is -- I'm in
year 2. And so, I'm still adjusting to the appropriate procedure for things. So, I would love to know, is this about creating a new task
order for the Auditor? Or would it behoove us for me to see if the maker would accept an amendment where we ask that this extra piececome back to us within a certain reasonable period of time? I think it's my procedural question.
0:53:04:
Chair Kou: So, let me first withdraw my motion. And we'll have Ms. Murdock answer the question, and also provide a suggestion.
0:53:13:
City Auditor Murdock: Sure. So, right now, we are conducting the Risk Assessment for FY '24, which then culminates in formulation of
the FY '25 Audit Plan. And so, that process involves us interviewing all the Council members. We also, you know, interview all theexecutive leadership team. And so, we compile a list of risks, though I would say that this is a competitive bidding process risk that'sbeen raised tonight. Um. And then, from that list, we will narrow that down to, you know, four or five audits that you would like to see
done in the next fiscal year. We're looking to start that fiscal year in January.
### I suppose this means that work on the FY '25 Audit Plan will start in January.
[pause] So, that Audit Plan will come before you likely in October. Or actually in November, I believe, is when we'll be bringing the newAudit Plan before you for approval.
0:54:13:
Chair Kou: And the process that you're conducting, Ms. Murdock, is that you're meeting with -- Are you meeting with each of the Council
members, to have a short discussion about what they would like to see in the Audit Plan? For --
0:54:26:
City Auditor Murdock: Yeah.
0:54:27:
Chair Kou: Yeah. And -- Which is -- And I think that she's scheduling that.
0:54:36:
City Auditor Mordock: Yes. We've had several of the meetings already. And are continuing to schedule those meetings. So, I'm happyto reach out again, to see if there are additional conversations that need to be had.
0:54:49:
Chair Kou: The title of the task that you had mentioned -- um -- perhaps that helps with directing what they're going to be doing. Unlike
what this audit is. So, let's get pretty clear about what it is that we're asking as an audit. Thank you. Does that work for you, CouncilMember Tanaka? Getting it more narrowed, so that --
0:55:21:
Council Member Tanaka: Hmm. So, you know, my fear is, I just don't know when this is going to happen. Because I've been talkingabout -- You know. You've been on Council with me for a while, too. So, you know I've been talking about this for years. Right? And,
really, no improvement. So, I don't know if this will get addressed ever. I feel like there's actually a lot of pushback to even do this. Eventhough this is clearly stated as an agenda topic tonight. Despite what the City Attorney says.
0:55:48:
Chair Kou: Yeah.
0:55:48:
Council Member Tanaka: You know. I mean, the other thing I'd like to see here is that, you know, we have these renewals. But there's
never anything in the staff report that ever talks about the performance of the contract. So, we get these contract approvals where, youknow, like, if I was going to renew a contract with someone, I would want to know how were those services rendered? Was it a good job,bad job, terrible job, you know, excellent job? But a lot of times, it's silence on that. And so, when I read this, you know, purpose of the
audit, Item 1: "Determine whether" the "needs assessment, budgeting, solicitation, and vendor selection processes are efficient,
effective, and transparent" you know "to ensure value for money...." Value for money. Right? That's what we're talking about, is valuefor money, tonight. "and fair competition." I just wonder, you know. This seems like such a big miss. How could we not -- You know, Ihear Mike talk about -- we looked at the staff report, we thought it was OK not to have the bids in there. I'm just -- That just flips me out
here. I don't understand how that's even reasonable.
0:56:47:
Chair Kou: Ms. Lai, and then Council Member Lythcott-Haims.
0:56:50:
CFO Lai: There were three areas of concerns raised in the last 15 minutes, I just wanted to inform the Committee and the public on. One was, are we following through on solicitation? Right? Two is, are the agenda reports transparent with our bid process and bid
results? And three is, receipts of gifts inappropriately by members of staff who would be a part of the selection process? I think those
are concerns, and I want to speak to them.
0:57:25:
One, we don't skip a solicitation process unless there's -- um -- the exemption is warranted. The exemptions are delineated in the City'sMuni Code and our Rules and Regulations.
### For example, Ordinance 5494 (approved 7-0 by Council on 03-16-20 and 7-0 on Consent on 04-06-20).https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/city-clerk/ordinances/ordinances-1909-to-present/ordinances-by-number/ord-5494.pdf?t=66843.63
(Which I found by Googling "site:cityofpaloalto.org 'rules and regulations' 'solicitation process' exemption".)Section 2.30.360 of the Municipal Code is about "Exemptions from competitive solicitation requirements."
### 04-06-20 Staff report (12 pages):https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/agendas-minutes-reports/reports/city-manager-reports-cmrs/year-archive/2020/mini-packet-76045.pdf?t=53342.14
### 03-16-20 video (2:08:21-2:22:22)
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/agendas-minutes-reports/reports/city-manager-reports-cmrs/year-archive/2020/mini-packet-76045.pdf?t=53342.14
There is a form by which staff completes a Request for Exemption for Solicitation that's approved by many individuals in theorganization. So, we go through the solicitation process. And there's a report that we submit to Council that indicates the transactionsthat were exempt from solicitation.
0:58:00:
I think the second concern is, are the solicitations being summarized in the agenda report? I'm looking at an agenda report right now in
June. It's for construction of a dog park.
### On Council's 06-17-24 agenda,
https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=14311
there was an Item 12 (Consent) for "Approval of Construction Contract Number C24190081 with Marina Landscape, Inc. in the AmountNot-to-exceed $338,459 for Dog Park Installation and Renovation Project PG-18001...."
### The City's website does not provide a URL for the staff report, but the bits can be downloaded.
The table indicates the summary of invitations for bid.
### This table (Table 1, which is on page 3) has a line item, "Number of Company Attendees at the Pre-Bid Meeting." It might also beinteresting to know how many potential bidders these attendees represented. (This particular example didn't have a pre-bid meeting.
Does the City has a policy about when there should be one?)
The length of the solicitation being opened,
### Is CFO Lai referring to the "Proposed Length of Project" line item? It says "53," but it doesn't specify units. I'm guessing maybecalendar days.
### Perhaps CFO Lai was referring to the bidding period, which in this case was 16 days. (It was not in Table 1, but nearby.)
how many businesses downloaded the Request for Proposal,
### IFB, actually.
the number of bids that came back. It's very transparent.
### One anecdote is not enough.
### Here's another staff report example (which I found by Googling "site:cityofpaloalto.org 'builder's exchanges' "). (Note that THIS
example DOES have a URL.)https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/public-works/engineering-services/webpages/street-maintenance-program/staff-report-2403-2708-fy24-pm.pdf
It also has a Table 1, but its line items are somewhat different, and appear in a somewhat different order. Wouldn't it be great if therewere pre-defined template that could be cut-and-pasted into each applicable staff report, so that the line items could be standardized?
### By the way, the Builders' Exchange of Santa Clara County
https://bxscco.com/puts the apostrophe after the "s". (It's an Exchange of Builders.)
So, I wanted to make that known, for those who might be watching tonight. We do include that in the agenda report.
0:58:38:
And last, but not least, concerns about gifts to employees. We do submit a report to the Council on significant gifts and donations to theCity. That report is forthcoming in September, to provide that transparency.
0:58:52:
So, I wanted to make comments on those three concerns, because we take them very seriously.
0:59:01:
Chair Kou: Council Member Lythcott-Haims.
0:59:03:
Council Member Lythcott-Haims: Thank you, Ms. Lai. I appreciate your pointing out the staff report from June and the chart. I canpicture the chart in the staff reports, I think. What I'm hearing from Council Member Tanaka -- don't let me put words in your mouth,colleague -- is that to some extent there seems to be a very low number of bids that are reported. And that feels concerning. And given
the Auditor reminding us how critical it is that we have a robust process that allows us to do the needs assessment, analyze the market,
you know, get the opportunity to the right prospective bidders, it then becomes concerning if we discover that there's a very small numberof bidders. And if that starts to happen a lot, it calls into question, you know, are we putting our net in the right body of water? Or, that'sprobably not the right metaphor. But -- So, I do share a curiosity, and a concern about, you know, how are we really faring in that
process?
1:00:07:
CFO Lai: May I comment on that? 'Cause I share that, too. One of the advantages of shifting to the OpenGov eProcurement platform istheir network of vendors that are registered with them. So, the prior platform that we were on wasn't reaching as many vendors. We
haven't been able to kind of see if that made a significant improvement. But I hear what your concern is. Is three bids really optimal?
And so, part of what we need to do, in streamlining the process for everybody, internally as well, is, once we publish this to the world,how can we optimize the number of responses? And so, that is certainly an area that we can look into optimizing as well, but, certainlyfor us, it was shifting to a platform where there was more vendor membership that will see our publication as a start. So, we did that in
the last couple of years. And then, partly, is, you know, on some of these key significant ones, with staff having the bandwidth andfollowing up and seeing how could we have gotten more bids. Right? That would require a little bit more work.
1:01:13:
Council Member Lythcott-Haims: And I will add that -- thank you for that -- I will add that I assumed, in just looking at how this agendaitem was titled, that we would be covering this subject matter in this audit. So, like Council Member Tanaka, I was surprised that this did
not turn out to be something that came up in the audit. That said, I want to be very practical. As our new Auditor has said, she's new,and this was conducted before she got here. And Mr. Chimera is the connection. And we're in this bridge period. And I don't think it'suseful tonight to try to force the delivery of something that simply isn't here. And, knowing that we have this new process that is about to
be underway, I think the best we can do -- and ought to do -- is ensure that if this concern is held by enough Council members, that it
does become one of the four or five things that make it into the Audit Plan for the coming year. We're having a pretty robust discussion
tonight about this. And I hope our fellow Council members will read the minutes, and understand what this particular concern is. It -- Ijust feel, as a practical matter, we've got an item in front of us that we should approve. And try to ensure -- try to prove to those whohave been here a long time -- that, no, no, no, this time, it's going to be asked and answered.
1:02:50:
Chair Kou: Thank you for reiterating the opportunity. Council Member Tanaka.
1:02:54:
Council Member Tanaka: I just wanted to respond to staff's rebuttal to my arguments. So, it's great that you pointed out the dog park. That's great. And you probably know this, even though you haven't been here as long as some others. But I'm kind of famous for votingno on Consent items. And I usually -- every meeting, I vote, you know, between one to three items every single meeting. And, for me,
it's an automatic no if that staff report doesn't have a, you know, number of bids, tell me the major bids. In fact, every -- you probablydon't listen to it, between the Consent topic -- very few people do -- but I tell, orally, every single meeting, why I'm voting no on it. And,you know, about 90 percent of the reason why is that very reason. It might have been a great -- A lot of times, I'll say, I support. It's a
great idea. But I don't know how many bids there are. I don't know what -- was it the high bid or low bid? And so, it's an automatic no for
me. Because I don't think I am doing the work of the people if I don't challenge some things. Right? If I -- If I were to buy somethingmyself, especially a big ticket item, and I don't shop around, I wouldn't do it. You know. I don't think I could justify it to my family. Mostpeople wouldn't do it. Most people wouldn't buy a house, buying the very first house they see. They go look a couple houses. Maybe
three houses. Maybe four houses. Maybe ten houses. Right? But, for us, we are buying these major, big ticket items, and we -- onebid. And it's like -- what? I mean, it's not right for the people. And we complain about rising construction costs. I get that. But some of itis on us. Right? If we don't shop around, if we don't get multiple bids. So, it's great that you pointed out one project that you actually did
get multiple bids. You actually put it in the staff report. But what about -- you know, I'm seven and a half years now into this -- What
about all the other meetings that I talked about it? You know. The 1-3 items -- in fact, it's an automatic no for me. Even if it's the world'sgreatest thing, I'll vote no on it if it's not disclosed. So, you could go back and look at all the meetings, 'cause there's one to three every
single meeting.
### Council Member Tanaka could save the City Auditor some time (and the people some money) by recommending several instancesthat are good examples of what he's trying to fix.
### At the 06-17-24 Council meeting,https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=14311there were 24 Consent items. Council Member Tanaka voted no on items 9, 11, 17, 19, 23, and 24, but for a variety of reasons. Are
there better examples than these?
Except for last week. Last Monday. I didn't vote no on that. And the reason I didn't vote no in it, because we didn't have that issue. But
every time we have this issue -- it's a persistent issue, that's been going on for almost a decade. Right? Maybe even before I was here. And I realize that people would think that the City is rich, and we're flush with money. But we lost money last year. We're losing moneythis year. We're going to lose money for the next three years. And yet, we don't -- I just feel we can't pick ourselves off the floor for this
procurement process. And I don't get a chance to talk about this much because it's not on the agenda. But tonight -- It IS on the agenda
tonight. Despite what the City Attorney says. It's absolutely on the agenda. Despite what the Chair says, it's absolutely on the agenda. And so, I'm going to talk about it. And I'm not happy with it. I'm very disappointed. I pushed for it for years. You know, unfortunately, Iwon't be able to see it through. But, hopefully, someone else on Council will take it on. But it's -- it's a gross negligence. And I'd expect
hopefully the Auditor will pick this up and push on it, because this is the Auditor's job, to make sure that the people are getting value. Right? You have it on your -- purpose of the audit, number 1. Right? I read it three or four times already. And it's clearly what I'mtalking about right now. Right? it's "value for money and fair competition." And that's not happening right now. Especially on larger
items. And it's not happening every single Council meeting. Except for last Monday. There was no issue. I didn't vote no on any of
those. But, anyway, so, when you point out just one item that it did have it, that is like cherry picking. And it's totally missing the boat. And I'd hope that you could back and watch some of the YouTube videos of my no votes. Right?
### I have the impression that the "official" videos of Palo Alto city government meetings are available at the Midpeninsula MediaCenter.https://midpenmedia.org/category/government/city-of-palo-alto/
(These videos have links that allow you to click to the specific agenda item of interest.) (Occasionally, the City website's index of
agendas and minutes pages will cite a YouTube video, rather than the Midpeninsula Media Center video. I don't know why that is.)
Because it's pretty much -- I mean, these people know it, because -- If they listen, they probably tune it out at this point. But, you know,
this is one of the most important jobs that we have as elected members, is to represent the people, and make sure the people get valuefor their money. And I just don't think that's what's happening right now. So, I'd like to hear from, you know, after all my ranting here, ifthe Auditor could talk about how are we going to change this? How is it going to change from what's been going on for at least the past
seven and a half years?
1:07:11:
City Auditor Murdock: So, again, I think, when you look at the scope of the audit -- and I do appreciate that that first bullet talks aboutvalue for money -- I think that the overall scoping of the audit really was more on the compliance side. And it was really looking at thedesign of controls. And so, you know, one of the efforts that I'm looking to make for the next FY '25 Audit Plan is to make it much more
performance audit focused. And part of that effort is reducing the number of audits. I think when I looked at the number of hours thatwere allotted for this audit, there's no way, in the amount of hours that we had, that we could have done the kind of analysis that youwere talking about.
### If I'm looking at the right document (on page 34)
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/3/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/policy-and-services-committee/2022/20221103/20221103ppssm-amended.pdfthe "Procurement Processes" task was allocated 350 estimated hours, or $61,550.
So, I think that is part of it, is -- As we approached this -- right? -- we initially looked at the design of the controls. And we didn't havemuch more in OUR budget to look beyond that. So, I think, you know, certainly it sounds like there some issues with scoping. And
perhaps the former Auditor did not fully understand what was being requested by Council in performing this audit. I can't really speak tothat. But I certainly hear your concerns. And I think we definitely are looking to make, you know, strides in looking more at performanceas we move forward.
1:08:30:
Council Member Tanaka: So, can you tell us, what do you need to do an audit that's worthwhile, that will actually change what's going on
on our procurement?
1:08:39:
City Auditor Murdock: So, I think, you know, as Council Member Lythcott-Haims mentioned, I think really dialing in on -- and also CouncilMember Kou -- really dialing in on what specifically we want to look at. Is it the bidding process itself? Is it how that information is beingcommunicated to Council? Um. I mean, we can definitely dive into various areas there. But I think making sure that we're -- we have
the questions that you want answered in mind as we write that scope is important.
1:09:16:
Council Member Tanaka: OK. Um. I mean, is it possible for you to go back and put together a proposal and bring it to us, at some point,where it covers this topic? Because it's, in my mind, one of the biggest problems of the City. And it's just never addressed, unfortunately.
1:09:32:
City Auditor Murdock: I'm definitely adding to this list for your consideration for the next FY Audit Plan.
1:09:38:
Council Member Tanaka: OK. Because I would actually support it. And if you, you know, needed a lot of hours for it, I would totally get
it, because I think this would -- if this -- Probably one thing we could do in the City, this is one thing that would make a big impact, interms of what we could do. And certain people.
1:09:56:
Chair Kou: OK. So -- um -- I'm glad you got that off your chest.
1:10:01;
Council Member Tanaka: Well, you know, I've been talking about this for eight years. Right? You know, hearing me every meeting,
talking about it. So, this is MY thing. Right? This is what I talk about every meeting. Right? When there's like no bids on that thing. So,please do look at the other prior Council meetings -- video YouTubes.
### Again, Midpeninsula Media Center has the official videos.
https://midpenmedia.org/category/government/city-of-palo-alto/
You could hear me talk about it, like, again and again.
1:10:17:
Chair Kou: Thank you. All right. So, we can move this Item number 1 on procurement audit. So, anyone want to make a motion?
1:10:29:
Council Member Lythcott-Haims: I MOVE to accept the City Auditor presentation of the procurement process review audit.
1:10:37:
Chair Kou: And to recommend to Council.
1:10:38:
Council Member Lythcott-Haims: And to recommend that Council approve it. And to recommend that Council approve it.
1:10:46:
Chair Kou: I'll SECOND it. Madam Clerk, if you'll take the vote, please.
1:10:50:
City Clerk: Council Member Tanaka.
1:10:52:
Council Member Tanaka: Actually, I had my light on to speak to the motion.
1:10:56:
City Clerk: Madam Chair, you also need to go to public comment. Oh, did you need -- OK. Just double-checking. Thanks.
1:11:05:
Chair Kou: OK. Council Member Tanaka, speaking to the motion.
1:11:08:
Council Member Tanaka: I want to ask the Auditor, is there anything that you need to have in this motion that would help you bringforward a proposal that will truly bring competitive bidding to the City?
1:11:21:
City Auditor Murdock: Again, we are undergoing the risk assessment process right now. So, I will definitely be reaching out to all three of
you to get your input.
1:11:30:
Council Member Tanaka: OK. So, that -- I guess the answer is no, then.
1:11:32:
City Auditor Murdock: I'm good.
1:11:38:
Chair Kou: And I think we're ready to take the vote, Madam Clerk.
1:11:40:
City Clerk: I'll just note that there are no requests to speak on this item.
1:11:44:
Chair Kou: OK. Thank you.
1:11:46:
City Clerk: Council Member Tanaka.
1:11:47:
Council Member Tanaka: No.
1:11:49:
City Clerk: Council Member Lythcott-Haims.
1:11:50:
Council Member Lythcott-Haims: Yes.
1:11:51:
City Clerk: Council Member Kou.
1:11:52:
Chair Kou: Yes.
1:11:53:
City Clerk: Motion carries.
1:11:59:
Chair Kou: Thank you, Ms. Lai and David.
END
Greer Road
From:Rice, Danille
To:Council, City; Shikada, Ed
Cc:Executive Leadership Team; City Mgr; Clerk, City
Subject:City Council Bundle_August 23
Date:Friday, August 23, 2024 6:36:57 PM
Attachments:image001.pngMiddlefield traffic complaint.msgFW New City policy or vandalism.msgFW Uncontrolled (unsafe) intersections along Suggested Routes to school.msgRE Pre-Approved Parklets User Guide!.msgRE Uncontrolled (unsafe) intersections along Suggested Routes to school.msgFW Human Relations Commission Report.msgRE 4 AM Sound Permit for this Wednesday.msgRE Brycer fees for fire prevention reports.msgFW Water flowing down East Meadow Drive near Fairmeadow and JLS Schools.msg
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
On behalf of City Manager Ed Shikada, please see the attached staff responses to emails
received in the City.Council inbox through August 23.
Respectfully,
Danille
Danille RiceAdministrative AssistantCity Manager’s Office|Human Resources(650) 329-2229 | danille.rice@cityofpaloalto.orgwww.cityofpaloalto.org
<alumnipresident@stanford.edu>, bballpod <bballpod@aol.com>,<bearwithme1016@att.net>, fred beyerlein <fmbeyerlein@sbcglobal.net>, Leodies Buchanan
<leodiesbuchanan@yahoo.com>, boardmembers <boardmembers@hsr.ca.gov>, DavidBalakian <davidbalakian@sbcglobal.net>, beachrides <beachrides@sbcglobal.net>, Cathy
Lewis <catllewis@gmail.com>, city.council <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>,<cramirez.electriclab133@gmail.com>, <carloslawnservice14@gmail.com>, Doug Vagim
<dvagim@gmail.com>, dennisbalakian <dennisbalakian@sbcglobal.net>,<dallen1212@gmail.com>, <eappel@stanford.edu>, Scott Wilkinson
<grinellelake@yahoo.com>, <George.Rutherford@ucsf.edu>,<Gabriel.Ramirez@fresno.gov>, huidentalsanmateo <huidentalsanmateo@gmail.com>,
hennessy <hennessy@stanford.edu>, Irv Weissman <irv@stanford.edu>, Sally Thiessen<sally.thiessen.jb7t@statefarm.com>, Joel Stiner <jastiner@gmail.com>, jerry ruopoli
<jrwiseguy7@gmail.com>, <karkazianjewelers@gmail.com>, kfsndesk<kfsndesk@abc.com>, <MY77FJ@gmail.com>, <margaret-sasaki@live.com>,
<maverickbruno@sbcglobal.net>, <merazroofinginc@att.net>, Mayor <mayor@fresno.gov>,Mark Standriff <mark.standriff@fresno.gov>, nick yovino <npyovino@gmail.com>,
<news@fresnobee.com>, newsdesk <newsdesk@ksee.com>, <russ@topperjewelers.com>,Steve Wayte <steve4liberty@gmail.com>, terry <terry@terrynagel.com>, tsheehan
<tsheehan@fresnobee.com>, <vallesR1969@att.net>, <yicui@stanford.edu>
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>Date: Sun, Aug 18, 2024 at 5:18 PM
Subject: Fwd: Xpeng G6 arriving in Australia. Don't miss this.To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Sunday, August 18, 2024
To all, including to Mary Barra and Elon Musk: The new Xpeng G6, soon arriving inAustralia.
A new Chinese EV arriving in Australia in October. Electric Viking is really excited about
it: Don't miss this: This vid has the slider at the beginning: This Chinese EV is an eye-opener! The Xpeng G6:
Xpeng's G6 DESTROYS the Tesla Model Y in Australia in nearly every way
(youtube.com)
Convert the Aussie dollar to US. He gives prices in Aussie dollars. Current exchange
rate is $1US= 1.5 Aussie dollars. So, 60,000 Australian is US$40,000, still a chunk of change.They would sell here but not take the market by storm, but they might way outsell the Tesla
Model Y if they are a lot better.
Xpeng's G6 DESTROYS the Tesla Model Y in Australia in nearly every way(youtube.com)
A different Chinese EV maker, BYD, has been shopping for a site to build a plant in
Mexico. There has been talk in Washington that the US will ban or impose huge tariffs onChinese vehicles made in Mexico. IOW, deny these to American consumers, the suckers. Just
kick us around on this as well. That kicking ability is pretty well developed among theAmerican people too, and we have the ability to kick scumbag politicians out of office who
take bribes to screw us over. If these Chinese EVs are great, we want them available here andwithout any big, or little, tariffs. Trump should pledge no tariffs on Chinese cars made in
Mexico. He should pledge no damage to Social Security and Medicare too. Without those heis going to lose. He says no taxes on Social Security. That won't matter if Social Security is
gone.
Xpeng's G6 DESTROYS the Tesla Model Y in Australia in nearly every way(youtube.com)
I hope Xpeng too is shopping for a factory site in Mexico. If Elon wants to get rich, he'll
have to match this vehicle and at its price. The all new Tesla Model Y is coming sometime in2025. Maybe delay that to give it the features this G6 has. This would outsell even the
revamped the Model Y if it's better.
Watch this more than once. I see new stuff every time I watch it. He mumbles and says ithas a "tire repair kit" in it. Had to hear that 3X.
Tesla should bring a few of these into the US to test and examine. So should GM.
BTW, the Biden administration totally bungled the roll-out of a huge EV charging network.
They had the money to do it. K. Harris was onboard to raise the alarm about that and did not.Probably some people with rich, Nazi affirmative action jobs screwed that up. We'll get a lot
more of that if she gets elected. They put some EV chargers in four states, ones with bigelectoral college votes, states like Ohio.
Now an addition to the original email: The XPeng G9:
Here is the larger Xpeng G9, coming middle of 2025, to Australia at least. We need itavailable in the USA: They should build a factory in Mexico, as BYD is doing. Here it isreviewed by a German, obwahl hier er spricht Inglish. Notice beide Beinen von die Madchen
in der recht stuhl. He really likes this car and opens it up on the Autobahn.
VW have now put $700 million into Xpeng: THAT'S a big deal. VW is that impressedwith the electric drive system in the Xpengs.
Why VW invests $700 million in this! XPeng G9 electric SUV REVIEW (youtube.com)
Here the Xpeng G9 is reviewed by an American in China. American English:
The XPeng G9 Isn't A Porsche, But It's Still Very Good (youtube.com)
Another good discussion of the XPeng G9:
This Chinese EV Will Change Your Mind - XPeng G9 (youtube.com)
Hier ist mehr: Electric Viking. Salesman here is not very knowledgeable. Get what youcan out of this: Xpeng should get going on building a plant in Mexico:
Why the Xpeng G9 is the best selling large Electric car in Europe (youtube.com)
L. William Harding
Fresno, Ca.
It's unclear how Vector Control can legally justify this upcoming spraying with normal
confirmed mosquito activity and an unconfirmed death. One thing does appear pretty clear.
That is, if ACA-16 passes soon, this would almost certainly be illegal.
As far as I can tell, your planned spraying may be an illegal activity. It is unjustified and
unethical at a minimum.
I have attached spec sheets on the chemicals involved and have copied persons at
organizations that I believe will be interested in this matter.
I hope to learn that the spraying is cancelled...because it is clearly unjustified.
Sincerely,
Kim Martin
From:Tavera, Samuel
To:Council, City
Subject:Parklet Encroachment (281 University Avenue)
Date:Thursday, August 22, 2024 4:47:13 PM
Attachments:Parklet Encroachment 281 University Avenue.pdf
image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
image006.png
image007.png
Greetings Council Members,
Please find the attached letter from Sand Hill Property Company regarding a Parklet on
281 University Avenue. Thank you!
Samuel Tavera
Administrative Associate III
Office of the City Clerk
P: 650.329.2882
E: Samuel.Tavera@cityofpaloalto.org
www.cityofpaloalto.org
Heat Pump Water Heater Program Update
As of:8/8 6/27 6/6 5/2 4/4
HPWH full-service interest list signups 1108 1009 991 970 878
Site assessment agreements (SAA)
sent 1108 1009 991 970 878
Signed SAAs 895 824 805 776 696
Completed site assessments 795 754 727 679 615
Installations
Total Full Service HPWHs installed 310 280 267 243 226
Total DIY HPWH installed 91 83 77 68 68
Total HPWHs installed 401 363 344 311 294
Target Installations 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000
Monthly Installation Rate
Monthly Installation Rate 38 19 33 17 13
Target Monthly Installation Rate 83 83 83 83 83
Weekly Photos
FFF Aug 16 Pictures: https://photos.app.goo.gl/mkTKbfWzSgjDABmy5
What We Are Reading/Watching/Listening to:
Planet Critical (podcast) with climate-corruption journalist Rachel Donald: https://music.youtube.com/playlist?
list=PL9fwSCB4W5gsPemwntzrkGKzxLGN1PoTy
Latest episode guest Matt Huber: https://music.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL9fwSCB4W5gsPemwntzrkGKzxLGN1PoTy
The Great Simplification with Nate Hagens (podcast): https://www.thegreatsimplification.com/
Latest episode – guest Johan Rockstrom: https://music.youtube.com/watch?v=JaboF3vAsZs
Follow Fridays For Future Palo Alto:
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/fridaysforfuture paloalto/
Twitter: https://twitter.com/Fri4Future_PA
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@FridaysForFuturePaloAlto
Email notifications of FFF Palo Alto events: https://mailchi.mp/c8c130127345/join-fridays-for-future-palo-alto
You are receiving this email because you have expressed an interest in supporting climate action in Palo Alto. If you no longer wish
to receive these emails, please let me know.
Matt Schlegel
Organizer
Fridays For Future Palo Alto
Cell: 650-924-8923
Email: Palo-Alto@FridaysForFutureUSA.org
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/fridaysforfuture_paloalto/
Twitter: https://twitter.com/Fri4Future PA
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCMGKrv ADB5k7HPK9FJO Hw
Green Mic Web: https://www.greenmic.org
FFF Web: https://fridaysforfutureusa.org/local-groups/palo-alto/
Email List: https://mailchi.mp/c8c130127345/join-fridays-for-future-palo-alto
Randall Weingarten, MD (Retired)
Palo Alto, CA.
August 2024
PALO ALTO FIRE DEPARTMENT
3300 PAGE MILL RD
LOS ALTOS HILLS, CA 94022
July 15, 2024
Dear Service Provider,
The Palo Alto Fire Department instituted a new process for service providers who inspect and test fire
protection systems. Effective 8/15/2024 all compliant and non-compliant fire protection systems test
reports are required to be sent to the Palo Alto Fire Department electronically by your respective
organization via The Compliance Engine’s online system at www.thecomplianceengine.com.
The Palo Alto Fire Department is dedicated to delivering 100% compliance with our adopted Fire Code.
This web-based service will aggregate, track, and streamline the collection of compliance data of our
jurisdiction’s systems. Property owners will receive timely proactive notifications of their testing
requirements, and the Palo Alto Fire Department will gain the ability to better mitigate the risk in our
community by improving public safety to our citizens.
All service providers who inspect or test fire protection systems within Palo Alto Fire Department’s
jurisdiction are required to register and submit all test, inspection, and service reports via The
Compliance Engine. All reports must be submitted in accordance with the testing schedule and
requirements outlined in our adopted fire code.
Benefits to you:
• Increases market opportunity and demand for your fire protection services
• Ensures all reports arrive, affording you the ability to track our department’s follow up
• Enhances maintenance revenue and timeliness of deficiency corrections
• Improves customer retention with renewal notifications identifying you as company of record
• Minimizes non licensed contractors from working in your market
This proven process requires the service provider pay a nominal filing fee at the time of submittal. There
is no fee to register your company with The Compliance Engine. Once registered, pricing is viewable
under the AHJ icon in The Compliance Engine. If you are a licensed fire protection system contractor and
are not currently registered with BRYCER, please do so at www.thecomplianceengine.com.
We look forward to partnering with you to better protect and serve our community. We are confident
this will benefit us ALL.
Sincerely,
Tamara Jasso
Fire Marshal
650.329.2329
tamara.jasso@cityofpaloalto.org
Thank you,Laura Granka & family
Churchill Ave
On Tue, Aug 20, 2024 at 9:30 AM Laura Granka <laura.granka@gmail.com> wrote:Dear City Council and Transportation Staff,
Below is my comment in advance of Aug 20 Rail committee meeting:
Quiet Zones. Thank you for sharing the quiet zone study results, and for the Transportation
Staff recommendation to move forward with quiet zones along the Palo Alto rail corridor.On behalf of myself, family, and neighbors, we strongly support the quiet zone as a
significant quality of life improvement, and hope that city council agrees and supportspursuit of this initiative.
Wayside horns. I see that wayside horns were also mentioned for consideration, though I'm
currently unsure how these would positively impact the community and high school. Giventhat wayside horns have to be directed towards oncoming traffic, would they be directed
towards both Churchill Ave and Alma St traffic, doubling the noise for us near theintersection? And how many times do wayside horns have to blare? Would it be the same as
for an oncoming train (2 long, 2 short)? If all of this is necessary, these could actually bemore bothersome for the high school (especially during track / football practice), as well as
our community.
Churchill signal. I still notice this signal mistriggering (in fact, just now this morning)without an oncoming train. Would it be possible to give a verbal update in the meeting (I
rewatch all of these sessions) about when Caltrain anticipates a fix for this still faulty signal?
Thank you very much for all you do! Best,
Laura Granka and family
Under Ms. Kovic’s leadership, the Media Center is positioned to become a hub of community
engagement, connection, and digital media production, focusing on the concerns of the Mid-peninsula community. Cable Access centers, like local news presses, are among the last
bastions of local origination content creation. Midpen Media is proud to reflect the values,issues, and faces of the people who live and work in the Bay Area’s Midpeninsula.
For more information about Ms. Kovic's appointment, contact Scott Van Duyne, Board
President (boardpresident@midpenmedia.org). For more information about the Media Center,contact Biana Kovic, Executive Director (biana.kovic@midpenmedia.org).
The Midpeninsula Community Media Center (“Midpen Media,” “The Media Center”) is a
501c3 not-for-profit company serving the communities of Palo Alto, East Palo Alto, MenloPark, Atherton, Stanford, and beyond. Its mission is to encourage and support community
engagement, facilitate free speech, inspire expression, and reflect our local cultural diversityby providing high-quality media resources and training to members of our community.
From:Deborah Goldeen
To:Council, City
Cc:City Mgr
Subject:Human Relations Commission Report
Date:Wednesday, August 21, 2024 11:54:50 AM
Thank you for your concern about the intrusion of hate speech and hate crimes into the Palo Alto community. Being
a national/social media issue means there isn’t much the city can do about it. Many of the recommendations fromthe City of Palo Alto HRC seemed to me to be “security theater.” People being what they are, security theater doeshelp. There, are, however, three suggestions from “The Palo Alto Jewish Community” in the report, #’s 4,8 and 9,that I think would make a real difference.
#4 is a media campaign by the city to address mis/disinformation. #8 is a Day of Unity - this is not just about Arabsand Jews. #9 is a requirement that all recommendations, proposals, speakers and resources are reviewed forcompliance with federal, state and city laws/ordinances.
I hope that the city will not officially adopt the provided definitions of Anti-Palestinian racism and Islamophobia.This would mean not adopting the definition of antisemitism as well. Of the myriad forms that using a particularethnic, religious, cultural or national group as an excuse to vent their spleen on another human takes, antisemitism isin a class by itself. But the underlying problem with both is the fact that we do not have hate speech legislation. Thisis a national problem, outside the purview of the council.
Complicating this issue also is the fact that it’s MAGA types that are targeting Muslims, but it’s Muslims who aretargeting the Jews. Why is that a problem? All targeting is not equal.For every Jew on the planet, there are1,300,000 Muslims. Jews still outnumber Muslims in the US, but only barely and not in Santa Clara County.
As for feeling safe in Palo Alto, as a Jew, I no longer feel safe anywhere outside of Israel. There is a fundamentalist,extremist faction of Islam - that I know as The Muslim Brotherhood. These people believe that to create the rightconditions for heaven on earth, they first have to kill every, single Jew. These extremists now control forty-sevencountries. They number in the tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions. Thanks to Saudi oil money, they are verywell funded and they have been immigrating into the US in large numbers.
What would make me feel safe? If the mainstream Muslim community took a public stance condemning the beliefsand activities of the extremist/Jihadists and declared their intent to stand by the Jewish community. If anyone oncouncil wants to put that bee in their bonnet, I’d be much obliged.
Deborah Goldeen
PS - Back in the day, address of residence and phone number were required on all resident communications withcouncil and city staff. I never got the memo that is no longer required nor that my emails, communications whichare, as evidenced by the HRC report, a matter of public record. I am appalled and horrified that my email, my homeaddress and my phone number were published as part of an HRC report on the contentious topicofArab/Islamic/Israeli/Jewish hate crimes/relations. The fact that my email, address and phone number were notremoved from that report is a perfect example of the spectacular stupidity that municipal government is capable of.You profess to care about the safety of residents, yet this oversight has made me, personally, even less safe.Needless to say, going forward, my address and phone number will not be included in my e-mails.
On Fri, Aug 16, 2024 at 6:28 PM Star-Lack, Sylvia <Sylvia.Star-Lack@cityofpaloalto.org>
wrote:
Hi Patricia,
Thank you for your email messages. Due to staff being on vacation, I am providing this
partial response to you regarding our Safe Routes to School program. I’ll have more for you
next week when critical staff return to the office. Thanks for your patience with me.
Suggested Routes to School
One of your recent email messages included your understanding that routes on our
Suggested School Route maps are guaranteed to be safe. The Safe Routes to School
movement is nationwide, with many cities producing school route maps. No city can
guarantee safety for road users, but cities can select suggested routes that may have lower
traffic, slower speeds, good sightlines, crossing guards, and other elements that make them
more appropriate than other routes for schoolchildren to walk and bike to school. Even so,
our maps include the following text:
The Palo Alto Safe Routes to School Partnership encourages parents to walk or bike
with students and use this mapping tool to explore options for commuting from home
to school. Parents are responsible for choosing the most appropriate route based on
their knowledge of conditions on the route between home and school and the
experience level of their child.
Sharing Feedback
I wanted to make you aware of several channels we encourage residents to use to share
road safety feedback and get involved in promoting safer commuting.
The City/School Transportation Safety Committee (CSTSC) is comprised of community
members, City of Palo Alto staff, and Palo Alto Unified School District staff who serve in an
advisory capacity to the City Manager and the Superintendent on matters relating to school
traffic safety for students. Members of the public are welcome to attend the monthly
meetings. Meetings are typically held the fourth Thursday of the month. Meeting
information can be found on the Safe Routes to School Main Page. If you are interested in
getting on the City School Traffic Safety Committee meeting agenda, please email us at
saferoutes@cityofpaloalto.org.
You can also reach out to the Palo Verde PTA Transportation Safety Representative (TSR),
who can work with you to educate parents at your school regarding safer driving behavior
and safer walking and biking practices for students (such as how to navigate uncontrolled
intersections). While engineering improvements are an element of our Safe Routes to
School program, there are five other elements that work together to support safer school
commutes: Education, Encouragement, Engagement, Evaluation, and Equity. Working with
your school’s TSR to help encourage more biking and walking to school will reduce the
number of cars in and around the school, reducing risk to everyone using the adjacent
roads.
Additionally, as I mentioned in my prior email, the City is also working on two Council
priority planning documents to improve roadway safety that will benefit vulnerable road
users: the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan Update and the Safe Streets for All
Safety Action Plan. Council will have an opportunity to review and approve these documents
and the policies and programs contained therein in the coming months. Community
engagement opportunities and feedback sessions on these planning initiatives at standing
committee meetings (CSTSC, Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee, and Planning and
Transportation Commission) are also forthcoming, so please watch the committee and
Council agendas and the project websites for events and meetings where you can provide
your input.
I will get back to you regarding the other items you raised next week. Thanks, again, for your
patience, and have a good weekend!
-Sylvia
From: Patricia Judge Tamrazi <tamrazi.law@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2024 11:31 AM
To: Star-Lack, Sylvia <Sylvia.Star-Lack@CityofPaloAlto.org>
Cc: Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; City Mgr <CityMgr@cityofpaloalto.org>; Safe
Routes <SafeRoutes@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Transportation <Transportation@CityofPaloAlto.org>;
City Attorney <city.attorney@CityofPaloAlto.org>
Thank you again for trying to help. I do appreciate you.
With kind regards,
Trish
Trish Tamrazi
Concerned Palo Alto Homeowner
State Bar No. 279541
650-385-8479Tamrazi.Law@gmail.com
On Thu, Aug 15, 2024 at 11:12 AM Star-Lack, Sylvia <Sylvia.Star-Lack@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote:
Hi Ms. Tamrazi,
I am working on a response to your email messages and will get back to you soon. If there
is a good time to call you, please let me know.
Thanks!
-Sylvia
From: Patricia Judge Tamrazi <tamrazi.law@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2024 10:00 AM
To: Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>
Cc: City Mgr <CityMgr@cityofpaloalto.org>; Safe Routes <SafeRoutes@CityofPaloAlto.org>;
Transportation <Transportation@CityofPaloAlto.org>; City Attorney
<city.attorney@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Star-Lack, Sylvia <Sylvia.Star-Lack@CityofPaloAlto.org>
Subject: Re: Uncontrolled (unsafe) intersections along "Suggested Routes" to school
(3) The law: the City has heightened duty of care and is actively breaching thatduty.
Many of us here in Palo Alto trust our City. When the City designates "Safe Routes toSchool" - we expect them to be safe for students. When the City designates a "BicycleBoulevard" - we expect it to be safe for bikers. Yet, these designated routes are glaringlyunsafe!
I believe, further, that this heightened expectation is supported by common law. I believethat by designating these routes, the City has legally created a heightened duty of care. My understanding is that the City has been on notice for years of these dangerousshortcomings, yet has not responded.
Analogous would be the special duty imposed on landowners to invitees: the City of PaloAlto has, by designating these routes, made students going to school on its "Safe Routesto School" and bicyclists on its "Bicycle Boulevard" invitees of the streets on theseroutes. An invitee is owed the highest duty of care. Park goers, for example, are publicinvitees. The landowner has a duty to take reasonable care to prevent injuries to anyinvitee on their premises. This includes a requirement to frequently inspect the land toensure that it is safe. So - to actively ignore resident concerns and calls to make theseroutes actually safe - absolutely breaches the City's duty of care.
I look forward to hearing back on how we can work together to improve safety here inPalo Alto!
With kind regards,
Trish Tamrazi
Concerned Palo Alto Homeowner
State Bar No. 279541650-385-8479Tamrazi.Law@gmail.com
On Tue, Aug 13, 2024 at 9:55 AM Patricia Judge Tamrazi <tamrazi.law@gmail.com>wrote:
Dear Sylvia,
Thank you for your email. The necessary engineering has already been completed - allthat needs to be done is to add stop signs at the uncontrolled intersections, such thatthey are in line with the rest of the intersections. Could that be done, please?
School starts at Palo Verde Thursday. We cannot in good conscience call this a SafeRoute to School as is! This is an easy fix!
Let's please, together, review the 7 intersections on Greer between Loma Verde andLouis, which you reference in your email below. Your characterization of them is notaccurate.
1. Loma Verde: 4-way stop.2. Kenneth 1: 2-way stop (stop signs on Kenneth).3. Thomas 1: 2-way stop (stop signs on Greer).4. Janice 1: UNCONTROLLED INTERSECTION.5. Thomas 2: UNCONTROLLED INTERSECTION.6. Kenneth 2: 3-way stop.7. Janice 2: UNCONTROLLED INTERSECTION.
We do need engineering to do a study - it's already been done, I'm sure - and thenecessary traffic control was simply overlooked, it seems.
Engineering already decided traffic control is needed on Thomas 1, so it is alsoneeded on Thomas 2.
There is no difference between the Thomas / Greer and Janice / Greerintersections. Engineering already decided traffic control is needed on Thomas 1,so it is also needed on Janice 1 and Janice 2.
Please could you do the following to protect Palo Alto's children using this Safe Routeto school?
1. Add a stop sign at Janice 1.
2. Add a stop sign at Thomas 2.
3. Add a stop sign at Janice 2.
Please let me know your thoughts? I'm hoping to see those stop signs go in this week!
Thanks so much!
Trish Tamrazi
Palo Alto Homeowner
On Wed, Aug 7, 2024 at 10:43 PM Star-Lack, Sylvia <Sylvia.Star-Lack@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote:
Hi Ms. Tamrazi,
Thank you for your email. I am so sorry to hear about your son’s recent experience,and I am glad that you reached out to see what can be done. If you would like me to
call you about this issue, please share your phone number and a good time to call.
I live just off of Greer Road, near Colorado, and my children biked down Greer pastJanice to get to JLS Middle School, so I am aware of the cross streets along Greer.
I’m also an avid cyclist who bikes down Greer at least weekly to reach destinationsbeyond the Greer/Louis intersection. Finally, I oversee the City’s Safe Routes to
School team, our forthcoming Safe Streets for All Safety Action Plan, and the updateof our Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan, so I am working to improve our
streets for everyone, particularly children and vulnerable road users.
The California DMV manual says the following about intersections:
Intersections
An intersection is any place where one road meets another road.
Controlled intersections have signs or traffic signal lights. Uncontrolled
and blind intersections do not. Before entering an intersection, look
left, right, and ahead to check for vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians.
Be prepared to slow down and stop if necessary. Pedestrians always
have the right-of-way. Here are some right-of-way rules atintersections:
· Without STOP or YIELD signs: The vehicle that arrives to
the intersection first has the right-of-way. However, if a vehicle,
pedestrian, or bicyclist gets to the intersection at the same time
as you, give the right-of-way to the vehicle, pedestrian, or
bicyclist on your right. If you approach a stop sign and there is a
stop sign on all four corners, stop first and proceed as above.
· T intersections without STOP or YIELD signs: Vehicles,
bicyclists, and pedestrians on the through road (continuing to go
straight) have the right-of-way.
Notably, some of the cross streets of Greer south of Loma Verde are T intersections.Of the 7 intersections on Greer between Loma Verde and Louis, four of them are Tintersections where Greer, as the through road, has the right-of-way. Janice does nothave a T intersection with Greer, so drivers and cyclists should follow the procedurein the first bullet above, giving right-of-way to the first vehicle to arrive at theintersection.
As you know, a 311 ticket has been opened, and one of our transportation engineerswill evaluate the intersection for appropriate signage. Stop signs are placed accordingto a standard analysis conducted by our engineers. It can take some time for theengineers to gather the data needed for this analysis, and the outcome will be shared
in 311.
Since you care about school route safety, I wanted to let you know about Cityprograms and initiatives where you can engage further to support vulnerable road
users. I will also share your email with the teams working on these efforts:
Our Safe Routes to School program relies on parents at each school tovolunteer as Transportation Safety Representatives (TSRs). You can contact
the Palo Verde TSR (check with the PTA for this year’s TSR) to see how youcan be on the team to help educate and encourage students and parents at your
school on how to walk, bike, and drive more safely in the neighborhood. TSRsalso come to monthly City/School Transportation Safety Committee meetings
to work collaboratively with School District and City staff on road safetyitems.
The City began development of a Safe Streets for All Safety Action Plan in the
middle of 2023. A draft plan will be available for public review this fall beforea final draft is adopted by Council in late 2024 or early 2025.
The City is currently updating its existing 2012 Bicycle and Pedestrian
Transportation Plan (BPTP) to reflect current community needs and desires,consider recent trends in cycling and bicycle technology (such as e-bikes), and
address changes in bicycle and pedestrian planning and design. This summerand early fall we are developing a priority projects list and discussing the
City’s entire bicycle network, so it’s a great time to follow along and getinvolved. Look for public engagement opportunities this fall. We anticipate the
final draft of the BPTP Update will be available in early 2025 for a summer2025 City Council adoption. You can learn more on the project webpage.
And finally, a round-up of what Santa Clara County cities are doing to improve road
safety can be found here.
If you have additional questions about roadway safety, please let me know.
-Sylvia
now, but which remain unfixed.
On the Suggested Route to Palo Verde Elementary along Greer, there are a number ofuncontrolled intersections, for example, where Janice feeds into Greer (both sides ofJanice).
My 8 year old son and a car almost collided yesterday at the intersection of Janiceand Greer, near Louis, due to the uncontrolled intersection there. He was going downGreer on his bike and, thankfully, due to others' advocacy on unsafe intersections inPalo Alto, we noticed in mid-July (3 years into our crossing that intersection) that theintersection is uncontrolled and unsafe - therefore, he treats it as having a stop signnow. It was only for that reason that he and the car did not collide (the car turningfrom Janice to Greer did not stop and the driver looked very confused as she movedthrough the intersection - rightfully so!).
These uncontrolled intersections put too much responsibility on those travelingthrough the intersection and are particularly dangerous for people not familiar withthe area (as with the car yesterday). Residents and visitors should be able to trust thatthere are sufficient traffic signs, especially in a well-funded and technologicallyadvanced city such as Palo Alto. At the moment, there are not!! (For example, Ihave seen self-driving cars blow through these intersections which lack proper trafficcontrol.)
I flagged this issue of uncontrolled intersections on Greer Rd. toTransportation@cityofpaloalto.org back on July 19, but never received a substantiveresponse - I emailed back on July 22 that a ticket was started on PaloAlto311 (ID15716138). I also flagged this issue on 311 yesterday, again, after my son wouldhave been hit by the car, had he followed the City's traffic signs.
Many elementary aged children walk along Greer to school - many unaccompaniedby adults. Could you please address this before school begins?
Thank you,
Trish Tamrazi, Palo Alto homeowner
your support.
Please feel free to reach out with any questions,
Thank you!
Stacey Ashlund
- Gun Violence Prevention chair, League of Women Voters Palo Alto- Be SMART co-chair for SF Peninsula region
- Moms Demand Action volunteer
Thank you!
Stacey Ashlund
- Gun Violence Prevention chair, League of Women Voters Palo Alto
- Be SMART co-chair for SF Peninsula region- Moms Demand Action volunteer
about the planned bike lane along El Camino Real. Justine from the Palo Alto TransportationManagement Association (TMA) will be there to tell us about the project and explain howyou can get involved in the TMA's commuter survey. RSVP here, or just show up on the day!
At our monthly meeting on Tuesday, Aug 27, 6 – 7pm, Alison from SV@Home will tell usabout why the Bay Area affordable housing bond measure measure was pulled from theballot and give an update on efforts to get Proposition 5 across the line. For more informationand to RSVP, click here!
Call to Action
We are currently assembling a list of Palo Alto residents who support our work to add to ourwebsite. Do you currently live in Palo Alto? If you do, can we add you as a supporter? Eitherfill out this short form or email Claire at pafcommunitybuilder@gmail.com, confirming yourneighborhood and the spelling of your name.
Check out the 90+ Palo Alto residents who have already added their name as supporters.
We should pursue full quiet zones, but I think the evaluation and adoption of appropriatesafety measures that actually improve safety rather than just check boxes will take time. Thecost of noise is high - and it makes sense to install these as soon as possible.
Thank you for your consideration.
Elizabth Alexis
their parklet continues to have structures above the enclosure in front of 281 University, as shown inthe current photographs attached as Exhibit C and is out of compliance with the City’s PermanentParklet Program. Additionally, the parklet does not appear to meet the minimum setbackrequirements between the parklet and travel lane required per the Guidelines.
We do not consent to the encroachment of any existing or future structures, including withoutlimitation any roofs, booths, platforms, barriers, rails, or other structures or improvements, into the281 University Avenue area fronting on our building. We respectfully request that the City require
removal of the existing parklet encroachments into the frontage of our property prior to Miniso’sexpected opening in October 2024.
Sincerely,
Jason Villarreal
Chief Operating Officer
& Head of Asset Management
2600 El Camino Real, Suite 410
Palo Alto, CA 94306
T:(650) 344-1500
F:(650) 344-0652
www.shpco.com
SHP Westshore, LLC.
2600 El Camino Real Suite 410 Palo Alto, CA 94306
August 20th, 2024
Office of the City Clerk: City Hall, 7th Floor
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Email: City.Council@cityofpaloalto.org
Mr. Brad Eggleston
Director of Public Works
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Email: Brad.Eggleston@cityofpaloalto.org
RE: Parklet Encroachment at 281 University Avenue
Honorable Council Members and Staff:
SHP Westshore, LLC is the owner of the property at 281 University Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94306. Miniso Winky
Store Holdings LLC (dba “Miniso”) is the tenant of the property and expects to open its retail business at the
Premises in October 2024.
We respectfully request that the City take immediate action consistent with the City’s Permanent Parklet Program
and Parklet Guidelines updated June 10, 2024 (“Guidelines”) to require removal of the portion of the structures in
the parklet area that encroach into the storefront area of our property at 281 University Avenue.
At our property at 281 University, the parklet installed by the Local Union 271 restaurant encroaches into the area
fronting on our property. The encroachment has a serious adverse effect on our property and business and needs to
be removed for the following reasons:
Visibility to the store front from both the sidewalk and from passing traffic in the street are significantly
impaired. Minso needs unrestricted sight lines to the storefront so that merchandise can be properly
displayed to potential customers. The business address is required to be visible from the street and not
obstructed by the parklet and associated materials for fire safety reasons per the Section III(2) of the
Guidelines.
The parklet reduces the number of available parking spaces in front of the store.
Parklets were authorized by the City as an emergency measure in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
The health and safety justifications for parklets no longer exist, as indoor dining is both legal and safe.
There is certainly no health and safety need for the adjacent parklet to encroach into the frontage of our
building at 281 University to the detriment of our retail tenant.
During its tenancy, the prior tenant Restoration Hardware, also requested removal of the parklet in front of
281 University indicating that the parklet clearly impacted RH’s business in its letter to the City dated
October 24, 2022, a copy attached as Exhibit A.
Furthermore, Local Union 271’s parklet is not in compliance with the requirements of the City’s Permanent Parklet
Program. Specifically, per Section VI. No. 12 of the City’s Parklet Guidelines, the applicant is required to obtain a
letter of consent for any parklet that has a structure above the enclosure that is not in front of the applicant’s
storefront. In our letter to Local Union 271 dated January 23, 2024, we notified Local Union 271 that we would not
consent to the parklet in front of our storefront, parking spaces or parking lane fronting 281 University and would
SHP Westshore, LLC.
2600 El Camino Real Suite 410 Palo Alto, CA 94306
not complete the Neighbor Acknowledgement Form for Parklets. A copy of this letter, sent to the City as well, is
attached as Exhibit B.
Despite this notice to Local Union 271 over 7 months ago and the requirements of the Guidelines, their parklet
continues to have structures above the enclosure in front of 281 University, as shown in the current photographs
attached as Exhibit C and is out of compliance with the City’s Permanent Parklet Program. Additionally, the parklet
does not appear to meet the minimum setback requirements between the parklet and travel lane required per the
Guidelines.
We do not consent to the encroachment of any existing or future structures, including without limitation any roofs,
booths, platforms, barriers, rails, or other structures or improvements, into the 281 University Avenue area fronting
on our building. We respectfully request that the City require removal of the existing parklet encroachments into the
frontage of our property prior to Miniso’s expected opening in October, 2024.
Sincerely,
Jason Villarreal
Chief Operating Officer
& Head of Asset Management, Residential
2600 El Camino Real, Suite 410
Palo Alto, CA 94306
T:(650) 344-1500
F:(650) 344-0652
www.shpco.com
cc: John R. Shenk
Mr. Steve Sinchek
pweicips@cityofpaloalto.org
October 24, 2022
VIA EMAIL
Palo Alto City Council
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, California 94301
RE: Removal of Parklet Encroaching in Front of 281 University
Dear Palo Alto City Council:
We write to request the immediate removal of the temporary parklet that was erected and
encroaches in front of the Restoration Hardware (“RH”) store located at 281 University Avenue, Palo
Alto. The parklet was meant to be temporary, initially erected by 271 Local Union to address the
extremely unusual circumstances prompted by the COVID-19 pandemic, which had a significant impact
on in-store dining and patronage. The Parklet Standards and Requirements provide that “The temporary
parklet program allows Palo Altans to more safely enjoy local establishments in an environment that, due
to being outdoors, decreases the risk of spreading COVID-19. The parklets also provide an amenity for
businesses that may help them continue operations.” The impact of the pandemic on business operations
in Palo Alto, specifically, the University Avenue neighborhood, has settled, if not completely resolved,
and while the need for the temporary parklets can continue outside of their own facility at the discretion
of the dining outlet, there is no justification for any of the parklet to encroach on neighboring businesses,
which have also been impacted, and make it worse for them.
The parklet clearly impacts RH’s business as the parklet extends in front of the RH street side
windows, restricting and blocking the view of the storefront, which displays furniture and other
merchandise to customers. Further, the parklet occupies two parking spots located directly in front of the
store, which also impacts the ability of customers to patronize the store. With the holiday season
approaching, it is essential that RH be able to display merchandise and advertise to the general public.
Any prior permission granted by RH to erect the parklet was given under the clear premise that
this was a temporary measure, designed to assist eating and drinking businesses such as cafes, restaurants,
and retail food establishments through a crisis that no longer exists. RH cooperated with the temporary
parklet program and has been a good neighbor to the University Avenue community and consented to the
temporary parklet program to assist its fellow commercial neighbors. RH now requests that the portion of
the parklet that encroaches in front of the 281 University Avenue location, including the parking spaces,
be removed. Thank you for your attention to this request.
Very truly yours,
Steve Rouman
Senior Vice President, Real Estate
CC: Steve Sinchek
Exhibit A
2600 El Camino Real Suite 410 Palo Alto, CA 94306
January 23rd, 2024
Mr. Steve Sinchek
Local Union 271
271 University Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94306
RE: NOTIFICATION OF NON-CONSENT OF PARKLET LOCATED IN FRONT OF 281
UNIVERSITY STOREFRONT
Mr. Sinchek:
As you know, we are the ground floor tenant and property owner of 281 University Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94306
(“281 University”). Per Section VI. No. 12—Letter(s) of Consent of the Palo Alto Permanent Parklet Program,
included below, please use this letter as notice of our non-consent to Local Union 271’s parklet in front of our
storefront, parking spaces or parking lane fronting 281 University and notice that we will not complete the
“Neighbor Acknowledgement Form for Parklets”. We do not consent to a parklet installation of any kind in front
of 281 University and do not support any such parklet application. As a reminder, without the consent of
neighboring tenants, you as the parklet sponsor are responsible for the removal of any structure of the parklet permit
that extends in front of our frontage within 90 days, which area is required to be cleaned and restored to its condition
prior to the installation of such parklet.
Section VI.
12. Letter(s) of Consent – A parklet applicant must get a letter of consent from the neighboring ground‐floor
tenant(s) if the applicant’s parklet has any structure above the enclosure (e.g., sidewall, roof, trellis) that is not in
front of the applicant’s storefront (see Appendix A). a. Parklet sponsor must obtain an up‐to‐date letter of
consent for any future license renewals as requested by Public Works during future permit renewal processes. i.
If a parklet sponsor cannot obtain an up‐to‐date letter of consent, or if parklet occupancy is not in accordance
with the terms of any applicable law, these regulations, and/or any permit requirement, the parklet sponsor is
responsible for the removal of any structure of the parklet permit extending into a neighboring frontage within
90 days.
Please confirm the receipt of this notice of non-consent by return mail or via email and we appreciate your time and
compliance.
Sincerely,
Jason Villarreal
Chief Operating Officer
& Head of Asset Management, Residential
2600 El Camino Real, Suite 410
Palo Alto, CA 94306
T:(650) 344-1500
F:(650) 344-0652
Cc: pweicips@cityofpaloalto.org
Exhibit B
281 University Avenue, Palo Alto, CA
Exhibit C
281 University Avenue, Palo Alto, CA – view of parklet in front of Building.
From:Henry Etzkowitz
To:provost@stanford.edu; Whitney McNair; Council, City; Shikada, Ed; Terry Beaubois
Subject:Greenly, go high! An affordable housing inspiration atop Stanford Shopping Center Garages
Date:Monday, August 19, 2024 9:56:00 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of openingattachments and clicking on links.
Sent from my iPhone
Sent from my iPhone
Sent from my iPhone
From:Deborah Goldeen
To:Council, City
Subject:The Palo Alto Way?
Date:Monday, August 19, 2024 7:36:39 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking
on links.
Where people got the idea that there is/was a “Palo Alto Way” I have no idea. This is nonsense. There never was
such a thing.
There is “The HP Way,” but that’s corporate policy.