The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2019-02-02 City Council Agenda PacketCity Council Annual Retreat 1 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. Saturday, February 2, 2019 Special Meeting City Hall Community Meeting Room 9:00 AM Agenda posted according to PAMC Section 2.04.070. Supporting materials are available in the Council Chambers on the Thursday 11 days preceding the meeting. 8:30 AM Coffee and Light Breakfast 9:00 AM Roll Call Mayor’s Welcome, Overview of the Day, and Retreat Orientation 9:15 AM 1.Fiscal Year (FY) 2018 National Citizen Survey™ 10:15 AM 2.Discussion of 2018 Council Priorities (Transportation, Housing, Budget and Finance, and Grade Separation) and Selection of 2019 Council Priorities and Discussion and Definition of the 2019 Priorities With Greater Specificity e.g. Sub-bullets, Outcomes, Milestones, Key Performance Indicators Working Lunch 12:15 PM 3.Discussion of Council Procedures and Protocols as They Pertain to Meeting Management and Participation in Local and Regional Boards Including Council Member Responsibilities 1:30 PM Oral Communications Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. Council reserves the right to limit the duration of Oral Communications period to 30 minutes. 2:00 PM Wrap-up and Next Steps ADJOURNMENT AMERICANS WITH DISABILITY ACT (ADA) Persons with disabilities who require auxiliary aids or services in using City facilities, services or programs or who would like information on the City’s compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, may contact (650) 329-2550 (Voice) 24 hours in advance. REVISED MEMO FROM DuBois OUR MISSION: The government of the City of Palo Alto exists to promote and sustain a superior quality of life in Palo Alto. In partnership with our community, our goal is to deliver cost-effective services in a personal, responsive, and innovative manner. 2 3 Chapter 2 Themes and Subthemes Stewardship Financial Responsibility Environmental Sustainability Neighborhood Preservation Public Service Emergency Services Utility Services Internal City Services Community Safety, Health, and Well Being Mobility Density and Development Community Involvement 4 Performance Measure Title Graphic Benchmark or Performance Measure Title Graphic Performance Measure Title Graphic By the Numbers Workload Indicator Workload Indicator Workload Indicator Workload Indicator CHAPTER 1: BACKGROUND Citywide Spending and Staffing ……………………………………………….………………………………………………………………………… 5 CHAPTER 2: THEMES AND SUBTHEMES Stewardship Financial Responsibility ………………………………………………………………………………………………………….……………………… 8 Neighborhood Preservation ………………..…………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 10 Environmental Sustainability ……..…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 14 Public Service Public Safety Service Responsiveness ……………..……………………………………………………………………………………………… 16 Utility Service Responsiveness …………………..…………………………………………………………………………………………………… 17 Internal City Service Responsiveness …………….………………………………………………………………………………………………… 18 Community Community Involvement and Enrichment ………….…………………………………………………………………………………………… 19 Safety, Health, and Well-Being …….………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 21 Density and Development ..…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 23 CHAPTER 3: DEPARTMENT DATA TABLES Citywide …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 24 Community Services ……………….………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 27 Development Services ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 31 Information Technology ………...………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 33 Library Department ………………..………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 34 Planning and Community Environment ………………………………………………………………….………………………………………… 36 Public Safety – Fire Department ……………………………………………………………………………..………………………………………… 38 Public Safety – Office of Emergency Services …………………………………………………………………………………………………… 41 Public Safety – Police Department …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 42 Public Works Department ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 45 Utilities Department ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 50 Strategic and Support Services ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 54 Office of Council-Appointed Officers ………….………………………………………………………………………………………………… 54 Administrative Services Department ………..………………………………………………………………………………………………… 56 Human Resources Department ………...…………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 57 Ta b l e o f C o n t e n t s 5 Authorized Staffing Source: Administrative Services Department Organizational Chart Palo Alto residents elect nine members to the City Council. Council Members serve staggered four-year terms. The Council appoints a number of boards and commissions, and each January, the Council elects a new Mayor and Vice-Mayor. Palo Alto is a charter city, operating under a council/manager form of government. The City Council appoints the City Manager, City Attorney, City Auditor, and City Clerk. 6Ch a p t e r 1 Ba c k g r o u n d Citywide Spending and Staffing General Fund Employee Costs (in millions) Source: Administrative Services Department 1,150 1,150 1,114 1,115 1,129 1,147 1,153 1,168 1,179 1,179 0 500 1,000 1,500 FY 0 9 FY 1 0 FY 1 1 FY 1 2 FY 1 3 FY 1 4 FY 1 5 FY 1 6 FY 1 7 FY 1 8 Regular Temporary 59 . 6 56 . 6 55 . 8 54 . 4 53 . 5 55 . 5 57 . 7 60 . 1 64 . 5 66 . 0 3. 7 4. 5 4. 1 5. 4 3. 7 4. 7 4. 6 5. 5 6. 1 6. 6 28 . 3 30 . 9 34 . 2 36 . 9 37 . 7 38 . 8 40 . 2 40 . 1 45 . 0 48 . 2 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 FY 14 FY 15 FY 16 FY 17 FY 18 Salaries/Wages Overtime Benefits Note: In January 2019, Council will reduce from 9 members to 7 members. Source of FY 2018 General Fund Revenues (in millions) Source: Administrative Services Department 7Ch a p t e r 1 Ba c k g r o u n d Citywide Spending and Staffing Use of FY 2018 General Fund Dollars (shown on a budgetary basis, in millions) Source: Administrative Services Department $125.6 60% $25.0 12% $19.0 9% $17.9 8% $11.9 6%$11.0 5% Salary & Benefits Transfer to Infrastructure Contract Services Allocated Charges $42.8 24% $31.1 17% $26.8 15% $24.9 14% $15.9 9% $15.4 8% $9.2 5% $8.6 5%$5.3 3% Property Taxes Sales Taxes Charges for Services Transient Occupancy Tax Rental Income Utility Users Tax Documentary Transfer Tax Permits and Licenses All Other Revenues Capital Outlay – Governmental Funds (in millions) Source: Administrative Services Department 8Ch a p t e r 1 Ba c k g r o u n d Citywide Spending and Staffing Capital Expenditures – Enterprise Funds (in millions) Source: Administrative Services Department $2 1 . 5 $2 2 . 0 $3 5 . 5 $2 9 . 2 $2 9 . 5 $3 7 . 6 $4 5 . 4 $2 4 . 7 $4 0 . 1 $4 1 . 6 $0 $5 $10 $15 $20 $25 $30 $35 $40 $45 $50 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 FY 14 FY 15 FY 16 FY 17 FY 18 $3 6 . 2 $2 9 . 7 $2 4 . 4 $2 7 . 6 $4 0 . 7 $3 7 . 1 $2 9 . 5 $3 1 . 1 $2 8 . 8 $4 6 . 0 $0 $5 $10 $15 $20 $25 $30 $35 $40 $45 $50 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 FY 14 FY 15 FY 16 FY 17 FY 18 5 General Fund Projects With Highest Actual Costs in FY 2018 Street Maintenance Sidewalk Repairs Golf Reconfiguration & Baylands Athletic Center Improvements: Soil Imports Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Implementation Firestation No. 3 Replacement 5 Enterprise Fund Projects With Highest Actual Costs in FY 2018 Airport Apron Reconstruction Dewatering and Loadout Facility Matadero Creek Storm Water Pump Station and Trunk Line Improvements Water Main Replacements Plant Equipment Replacements Cash and Investments and Rate of Return Source: Administrative Services Department Citywide Operating Expenditures Budget to Actual by Department Source: Office of Management and Budget 9Ch a p t e r 2 St e w a r d s h i p Financial Responsibility Utility Average Purchase Costs (per unit) Source: Utilities Department 0.0% 1.0% 2.0% 3.0% 4.0% 5.0% 6.0% $0 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $600 FY 0 9 FY 1 0 FY 1 1 FY 1 2 FY 1 3 FY 1 4 FY 1 5 FY 1 6 FY 1 7 FY 1 8 Cash and investments Rate of return United States Treasury's 5-year Average Yields Co m m u n i t y Se r v i c e s De v e l o p m e n t Se r v i c e s Fi r e $- $10,000,000 $20,000,000 $30,000,000 $40,000,000 Budget Actual Li b r a r y No n d e p a r t m e n t a l OE S PC E Po l i c e Pu b l i c W o r k s Op e r a t i n g T r a n s f e r s - O u t Tr a n s f e r s to I n f r a - st r u c t u r e St r a t e g i c & S u p p o r t Se r v i c e s History of Average Monthly Residential Bills Source: Utilities Department 10Ch a p t e r 2 St e w a r d s h i p Financial Responsibility Utility Fund Reserves (in millions) Source: Administrative Services Department $206 $211 $213 $230 $232 $240 $237 $255 $272 $286 $0 $100 $200 $300 $400 FY 0 9 FY 1 0 FY 1 1 FY 1 2 FY 1 3 FY 1 4 FY 1 5 FY 1 6 FY 1 7 FY 1 8 Refuse Storm Drainage Wasterwater Collection Water Gas Electric User Tax $199 $210 $224 $228 $232 $231 $153 $140 $139 $104 -$100 $0 $100 $200 $300 FY 0 9 FY 1 0 FY 1 1 FY 1 2 FY 1 3 FY 1 4 FY 1 5 FY 1 6 FY 1 7 FY 1 8 Refuse Storm Drainage Wastewater Collection Water Gas Electric Street Lane Miles Resurfaced Source: Public Works Department Number of Potholes Repaired and Percentage Repaired Within 15 Days of Notification Source: Public Works Department 11Ch a p t e r 2 St e w a r d s h i p Neighborhood Preservation By the Numbers 7% Percent of the City’s total 471 lane miles resurfaced in FY 2018, which decreased by 1% from FY 2017 1,367 Number of signs repaired or replaced, which decreased 42% from FY 2017 and increased 6% from FY 2009 46% Citizen Survey: Street repair rated as “excellent” or “good” in FY 2018, compared to 55% in FY 2017 and benchmarked as lower than other jurisdictions 83 Pavement Condition Index score rated as “Very Good - Excellent” in maintaining local street and road networks, based on a scale of 0 to 100 Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) CY 2017 Three-Year Average Pavement Condition Index (PCI) Ratings Source: http://www.vitalsigns.mtc.ca.gov/street-pavement-condition 3, 7 2 7 3, 1 4 9 2, 9 8 6 3, 0 4 7 2, 7 2 6 3, 4 1 8 2, 4 8 7 3, 4 3 5 3, 4 4 9 2, 8 3 5 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 FY 0 9 FY 1 0 FY 1 1 FY 1 2 FY 1 3 FY 1 4 FY 1 5 FY 1 6 FY 1 7 FY 1 8 66 72 73 74 74 76 76 76 83 *East Palo Alto Mountain View *Menlo Park Milpitas Santa Clara Cupertino Sunnyvale *Redwood City Palo Alto 23 32 29 40 36 36 31 39 39 31 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 0 10 20 30 40 50 FY 0 9 FY 1 0 FY 1 1 FY 1 2 FY 1 3 FY 1 4 FY 1 5 FY 1 6 FY 1 7 FY 1 8 Street lane miles resurfaced % of street lane miles resurfaced PCI Rating Scale:0-24 25-49 50-59 Failed Poor At Risk 60-69 70-79 80-100 Fair Good Very Good - Excellent •San MateoCounty cities 80% potholes repaired within 15 days of notification in FY 2018 Sidewalk Replaced or Permanently Repaired and Percentage of Temporary Sidewalk Repairs Completed Within 15 Days of Initial Inspection Source: Public Works Department Trees Maintained and Serviced Source: Public Works Department 12Ch a p t e r 2 St e w a r d s h i p Neighborhood Preservation By the Numbers 411 Number of trees planted, which include trees planted by Canopy volunteers, achieving the 250 target 39% Percent of trees trimmed to clear power lines, over the 25% target 72% Citizen Survey: Street cleaning rated as “excellent” or “good”, compared to 78% in FY 2017; benchmarked as lower than other jurisdictions 61% Citizen Survey: Sidewalk maintenance rated as “excellent” or “good”, compared to 65% in FY 2017; benchmarked as similar to other jurisdictions Percent of All Sweeping Routes Completed (Residential and Commercial) Source: Public Works Department 35 , 2 5 5 35 , 4 7 2 33 , 1 4 6 35 , 3 2 4 35 , 3 8 3 35 , 3 8 6 35 , 2 8 1 36 , 3 8 1 36 , 8 6 3 36 , 3 7 8 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 FY 0 9 FY 1 0 FY 1 1 FY 1 2 FY 1 3 FY 1 4 FY 1 5 FY 1 6 FY 1 7 FY 1 8 Total number of City-maintained trees Number of all tree-related services completed 92 % 88 % 92 % 90 % 93 % 95 % 10 0 % 10 0 % 10 0 % 10 0 % 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% FY 0 9 FY 1 0 FY 1 1 FY 1 2 FY 1 3 FY 1 4 FY 1 5 FY 1 6 FY 1 7 FY 1 8 86 % 78 % 83 % 82 % 95 % 79 % 68 % 92 % 81 % 85 % 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 FY 0 9 FY 1 0 FY 1 1 FY 1 2 FY 1 3 FY 1 4 FY 1 5 FY 1 6 FY 1 7 FY 1 8 Percent of temporary sidewalk repairs completed Square feet of sidewalk replaced or permanently repaired Library Visits and Checkouts Source: Library Department Map of Library Branch Locations 13Ch a p t e r 2 St e w a r d s h i p Neighborhood Preservation By the Numbers 56,159 Number of cardholders, which increased 3% from FY 2017 and increased 2% from FY 2009 13,520 Total library hours open annually, which is the same from FY 2017 and increased 14% from FY 2009 74% Percent of Palo Alto residents who are cardholders, which decreased 6% from FY 2017 and increased 11% from FY 2009 14,155 Meeting room reservations, which increased 1% from FY 2017 Comparison of Library Checkouts Per Capita Source: California State Library Public Library Statistics 2016-2017 22.2 22.1 17.8 17.4 16.9 16.1 14.5 12.9 Palo Alto Santa Clara Burlingame Menlo Park Mountain View Berkeley Sunnyvale Redwood City 0 400,000 800,000 1,200,000 1,600,000 2,000,000 FY 0 9 FY 1 0 FY 1 1 FY 1 2 FY 1 3 FY 1 4 FY 1 5 FY 1 6 FY 1 7 FY 1 8 Checkouts Visits Urban Forest: Percent Pruned and Tree Line Cleared Source: Public Works Department Community Services: Parks/Land Maintained (Acres) Source: Community Services Department 14Ch a p t e r 2 St e w a r d s h i p Neighborhood Preservation By the Numbers 150,191 Visitors at Foothills Park, which decreased 1% from FY 2017 and increased 11% from FY 2009 350 Participants in community garden program, which increased 10% from FY 2017 and increased 47% from FY 2009 65% Citizen Survey: Residents used Palo Alto recreation centers or their services at least once in the last 12 months 11,164 Number of native plants in restoration projects, which increased 43% from FY 2017 and decreased 6% from FY 2009 Citizen Survey: Visited a Neighborhood Park or City Park Source: 2018 National Citizen SurveyTM 46% 49% 41% 42% 46% 62% 62% 63% 61% 64% 48% 45% 50% 53% 47% 29% 32% 29% 30% 29% 6% 6% 9% 5% 6% 9% 6% 7% 9% 6% FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 FY 14 FY 15 FY 16 FY 17 FY 18 More than once a month Once a month or less Not at all 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% FY 0 9 FY 1 0 FY 1 1 FY 1 2 FY 1 3 FY 1 4 FY 1 5 FY 1 6 FY 1 7 FY 1 8 Percent of urban forest pruned Percent of tree line cleared 181 153 31 41 11 26 5 0 100 200 Go l f C o u r s e Ur b a n / N e i g h b o r h o o d Pa r k s Ci t y F a c i l i t i e s Sc h o o l A t h l e t i c F i e l d s Ut i l i t y S i t e s Me d i a n S t r i p s Bu s i n e s s D i s t r i c t s a n d Pa r k i n g L o t s Open Space is an additional 4,030 acres Green Building with Mandatory Regulations Source: Development Services Department Tons of Waste Landfilled and Tons of Materials Recycled or Composted (excluding self-hauled) Sources: Public Works Department, California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) 15Ch a p t e r 2 St e w a r d s h i p Environmental Sustainability By the Numbers 57,744 Tons of materials recycled or composted (i.e., do not end up in a landfill), decreased 5% from FY 2017 and increased 16% from FY 2009 603,682 Green Building energy savings per year in Kilo British Thermal Units, which decreased 61% from FY 2017 5,814 Number of households participating in the Household Hazardous Waste program, which increased 4% from FY 2017 and increased 21% from FY 2009 97% Percent of commercial accounts with compostable service, which increased 45% from FY 2017 Total Water Processed and Recycled Source: Public Works Department 0 50,000 100,000 150,000 FY 0 9 FY 1 0 FY 1 1 FY 1 2 FY 1 3 FY 1 4 FY 1 5 FY 1 6 FY 1 7 FY 1 8 Tons of materials recycled or composted Tons of waste landfilled 7, 9 5 8 8, 1 8 4 8, 6 5 2 8, 1 3 0 7, 5 4 6 7, 1 8 6 6, 5 1 2 6, 3 8 7 7, 1 7 6 6, 4 6 4 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 0 1,500 3,000 4,500 6,000 7,500 9,000 FY 0 9 FY 1 0 FY 1 1 FY 1 2 FY 1 3 FY 1 4 FY 1 5 FY 1 6 FY 1 7 FY 1 8 Mi l l i o n s o f g a l l o n s o f re c y c l e d w a t e r d e l i v e r e d Mi l l i o n s o f g a l l o n s p r o c e s s e d Millions of gallons processed Millions of gallons of recycled water delivered 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 $0 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $600 $700 FY 0 9 FY 1 0 FY 1 1 FY 1 2 FY 1 3 FY 1 4 FY 1 5 FY 1 6 FY 1 7 FY 1 8 Valuation Square feet Sq u a r e f e e t i n t h o u s a n d s Do l l a r s i n m i l l i o n s Note: Tons of waste landfilled will no longer be reported after FY2015 Water Conservation Expenditures and Savings Source: Utilities Department Electric Efficiency Program Expenditures and Savings Source: Utilities Department 16Ch a p t e r 2 St e w a r d s h i p Environmental Sustainability By the Numbers 63% Percent of qualifying renewable electricity, which increased 12% from FY 2017 and increased 44% from FY 2009 0 Metric tons of electric supply carbon dioxide emissions; the carbon neutral plan effectively eliminated all greenhouse gas emissions from the City’s electric supply 31 Average residential water usage in hundred cubic feet per capita, which increased 12% from FY 2017 and decreased 22% from FY 2009 Gas Energy Efficiency Program Expenditures Savings Source: Utilities Department 0. 5 % 0. 6 % 0. 7 % 1. 5 % 0. 9 % 0. 9 % 0. 9 % 0. 7 % 0. 1 % 0. 8 % 0.0% 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% 2.0% $0.0 $1.0 $2.0 $3.0 $4.0 FY 0 9 FY 1 0 FY 1 1 FY 1 2 FY 1 3 FY 1 4 FY 1 5 FY 1 6 FY 1 7 FY 1 8 Sa v i n g s ( % o f t o t a l s a l e s ) Ex p e n d i t u r e s ( i n m i l l i o n s ) First-year energy savings achieved through electric efficiency programs as a percentage of total salesEnergy conservation/efficiency program expenditures (in millions) 0. 2 8 % 0. 4 0 % 0. 5 5 % 0. 7 3 % 1. 3 9 % 1. 3 4 % 0. 9 0 % 1. 0 1 % 0. 4 2 % 0. 8 8 % $0.0 $2.0 $4.0 $6.0 $8.0 FY 0 9 FY 1 0 FY 1 1 FY 1 2 FY 1 3 FY 1 4 FY 1 5 FY 1 6 FY 1 7 FY 1 8 0.0% 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% 2.0% Ex p e n d i t u r e s ( i n m i l l i o n s ) Sa v i n g s ( % o f t o t a l s a l e s ) First-year gas savings achieved through gas efficiency programs as a percentage of total sales Gas energy conservation/efficiency program expenditures (in millions) 1. 0 % 1. 4 % 0. 5 % 1. 1 % 0. 5 % 0. 6 % 1. 1 % 2. 3 % 0. 9 % 1. 1 % 0.0% 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% 2.0% 2.5% $0.0 $1.0 $2.0 $3.0 $4.0 FY 0 9 FY 1 0 FY 1 1 FY 1 2 FY 1 3 FY 1 4 FY 1 5 FY 1 6 FY 1 7 FY 1 8 Sa v i n g s ( % o f t o t a l s a l e s ) Ex p e n d i t u r e s ( i n m i l l i o n s ) First-year water savings achieved through efficiency programs as a percentage of total sales Water efficiency program expenditures (in millions) 153 Average residential gas usage in thermsper capita, which decreased by 1% from FY 2017 and decreased 11% from FY 2009 Animal Services: Number of Palo Alto Live Calls Responded to Within 45 Minutes Source: Police Department Fire: Number of Medical/Rescue Incidents to Response Time Source: Police Department 17Ch a p t e r 2 Pu b l i c S e r v i c e Responsiveness – Public Safety Services By the Numbers 95 Number of hazardous materials incidents, which increased 46% from FY 2017 and increased 138% from FY 2009 86% Police Department nonemergency calls responded to within 45 minutes, which decreased 3% from FY 2017 and decreased 6% from FY 2009 82% Percent emergency calls dispatched within 60 seconds, which increased 2% from FY 2017 and decreased 12% from FY 2009 90% Percent of code enforcement cases resolved within 120 days, which increased 7% from FY 2017 and decreased 4% from FY 2009 Police: Calls for Service and Response Time Source: Police Department 4, 5 0 9 4, 4 3 2 4, 5 2 1 4, 5 8 4 4, 7 1 2 4, 7 5 7 5, 2 7 0 5, 3 5 6 5, 5 6 7 5, 4 2 1 0:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 FY 0 9 FY 1 0 FY 1 1 FY 1 2 FY 1 3 FY 1 4 FY 1 5 FY 1 6 FY 1 7 FY 1 8 Re s p o n s e t i m e i n m i n u t e s In c i d e n t s Number of medical/rescue incidents Average response time for medical/rescue calls 2, 8 7 3 2, 6 9 2 2, 8 0 4 3, 0 5 1 2, 9 0 9 2, 3 9 8 20 1 3 24 2 1 16 7 4 17 3 7 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 FY 0 9 FY 1 0 FY 1 1 FY 1 2 FY 1 3 FY 1 4 FY 1 5 FY 1 6 FY 1 7 FY 1 8 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Number of Palo Alto animal services calls Percent Palo Alto live animal calls for service responded to within 45 minutes 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 FY 0 9 FY 1 0 FY 1 1 FY 1 2 FY 1 3 FY 1 4 FY 1 5 FY 1 6 FY 1 7 FY 1 8 00:00 05:00 10:00 15:00 20:00 25:00 Po l i c e R e s p o n s e s Mi n u t e s Total nonemergency calls Total emergency calls Total urgent calls Avg emergency response (minutes) Avg urgent response (minutes)Avg nonemergency response (minutes) Water Service Disruptions Source: Utilities Department Electric Service Interruptions Source: Utilities Department 18Ch a p t e r 2 Pu b l i c S e r v i c e Responsiveness – Utility Services By the Numbers 72,870 Total number of electric, gas, and water customer accounts Electric – 29,475 Gas – 23,395 Water – 20,000 596 less accounts than FY 2017 33 Average power outage duration in minutes per customer affected, which decreased 48% from FY 2017 and decreased 72% from FY 2009 264 Number of gas leaks found, 44 ground leaks and 220 meter leaks, which increased 24% from FY 2017 and decreased 44% from FY 2009 417 Unplanned water service outages, which decreased 12% from FY 2017 and increased 81% from FY 2009 Gas Service Disruptions Source: Utilities Department 28 20 33 25 25 16 17 26 42 33 0 40 80 120 160 200 0 10 20 30 40 50 FY 0 9 FY 1 0 FY 1 1 FY 1 2 FY 1 3 FY 1 4 FY 1 5 FY 1 6 FY 1 7 FY 1 8 Av g m i n u t e s p e r c u s t o m e r a f f e c t e d Se r v i c e i n t e r r u p t i o n s o v e r o n e m i n u t e Service interruptions over 1 minute Avg minutes per customer affected 76 6 93 9 11 4 11 1 26 5 28 5 19 5 78 71 13 6 0 20 40 60 80 100 0 200 400 600 800 1000 FY 0 9 FY 1 0 FY 1 1 FY 1 2 FY 1 3 FY 1 4 FY 1 5 FY 1 6 FY 1 7 FY 1 8 Nu m b e r o f u n p l a n n e d s e r v i c e d i s r u p t i o n s Nu m b e r o f c u s t o m e r s a f f e c t e d Total customers affected Number of unplanned service disruptions 23 0 29 1 92 70 95 0 94 2 24 1 65 1 47 3 41 7 0 20 40 60 80 100 0 200 400 600 800 1000 FY 0 9 FY 1 0 FY 1 1 FY 1 2 FY 1 3 FY 1 4 FY 1 5 FY 1 6 FY 1 7 FY 1 8 Nu m b e r o f u n p l a n n e d s e r v i c e d i s r u p t i o n s Nu m b e r o f c u s t o m e r s a f f e c t e d Total customers affected Number of unplanned service disruptions Information Technology: Percent of Service Desk Requests Resolved Source: Information Technology Department City Attorney: Percent of Claims Resolved Within 45 Days of Filing Source: Office of the City Attorney 19Ch a p t e r 2 Pu b l i c S e r v i c e Responsiveness – Internal City Services By the Numbers 84 Number of claims handled by the Office of the City Attorney in FY 2018, which decreased 10% from FY 2017 and decreased 33% from FY 2009 2,624 Number of purchasing documents processed; $150.9 million in goods and services purchased 1,120 Workers’ Compensation days lost to work-related illness or injury, which decreased 4% from FY 2017 and decreased 20% from FY 2009 45% Percent of information technology security incidents remediated within one day, which increased 10% from FY 2017 City Auditor: Percent of Open Recommendations Implemented Over the Last 5 Years Source: Office of the City Auditor 92% 95% 92% 91% 93% 96% 98%0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% FY 12 FY 13 FY 14 FY 15 FY 16 FY 17 FY 18 40% 42% 39% 49% 42% 43% 42% 45% 52% 52%0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 FY 14 FY 15 FY 16 FY 17 FY 18 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% FY 12 FY 13 FY 14 FY 15 FY 16 FY 17 FY 18 Over 5 days Within 5 days Within 8 hours Within 4 hours At time of call 9,460 9,734 9,348 9,855 Library: Number of Participants in Teen Programs Source: Library Department Community Services and Library Volunteer Hours Sources: Community Services and Library Departments 20Ch a p t e r 2 Co m m u n i t y Community Involvement and Enrichment By the Numbers 495,664 Number of titles in library collection, which increased 11% from FY 2017 and increased 61% from FY 2009 2 Average business days for new library materials to be available for customer use, which remained constant from FY 2017 1,713 Number of library programs offered, which decreased 11% from FY 2017 and increased 207% from FY 2009 62,204 Library program attendance, which decreased 16% from FY 2017 and increased 70% from FY 2009 Community Services: Total Enrollment in Classes/Camps Source: Community Services Department 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 FY 0 9 FY 1 0 FY 1 1 FY 1 2 FY 1 3 FY 1 4 FY 1 5 FY 1 6 FY 1 7 FY 1 8 Summer Camps and Aquatics Kids (excluding camps) Adults Preschool 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 FY 0 8 FY 0 9 FY 1 0 FY 1 1 FY 1 2 FY 1 3 FY 1 4 FY 1 5 FY 1 6 FY 1 7 FY 1 8 Restorative/resource management projects Neighborhood parks Library Community Theatre Art Center 1,588 1,795 2,144 2,746 6,059 5,663 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 FY 0 9 FY 1 0 FY 1 1 FY 1 2 FY 1 3 FY 1 4 FY 1 5 FY 1 6 FY 1 7 FY 1 8 Animal Services: Percent of Cats and Dogs Recovered and Returned to Owner Source: Police Department Fire: Safety Presentations, Including Demonstrations and Fire Station Tours Source: Fire Department 21Ch a p t e r 2 Co m m u n i t y Community Involvement and Enrichment By the Numbers 2,077 Police Department number of animals handled, which decreased 6% from FY 2017 and decreased 39% from FY 2009 62 Emergency Operations Center activations/deployments, which increased 68% from FY 2017 8 Police Department average number of officers on patrol, which has remained constant from FY 2009 and FY 2017 216 Office of Emergency Services presentations, training, and exercises, which increased 19% from FY 2017 Police: Citizen Commendations Received Source: Police Department 115 126 95 88 218 198 105 117 0 50 100 150 200 250 FY 1 1 FY 1 2 FY 1 3 FY 1 4 FY 1 5 FY 1 6 FY 1 7 FY 1 8 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% FY 0 9 FY 1 0 FY 1 1 FY 1 2 FY 1 3 FY 1 4 FY 1 5 FY 1 6 FY 1 7 FY 1 8 Percent of dogs received by shelter and returned to owner Percent of cats received by shelter and returned to owner 12 4 15 6 14 9 13 7 14 7 15 3 13 5 14 2 12 1 13 6 0 50 100 150 200 FY 0 9 FY 1 0 FY 1 1 FY 1 2 FY 1 3 FY 1 4 FY 1 5 FY 1 6 FY 1 7 FY 1 8 FY 17 Target: >150 Code Enforcement: Number of New Cases Source: Planning & Community Environment Department Police: Number and Types of Cases Source: Police Department 22Ch a p t e r 2 Co m m u n i t y Safety, Health, and Well-Being By the Numbers 3,590 Number of ambulance transports, which decreased 4% from FY 2017 and increased 8% from FY 2009 66% Fire Department percent of permitted hazardous materials facilities inspected, which increased 3% from FY 2017 and increased 10% from FY 2009 65 Reported crimes per 1,000 residents, which decreased 4% from FY 2017 9,581 Number of fire inspections completed, which increased 75% from FY 2017 and increased 832% from FY 2009 Fire: Number and Types of Calls for Service Source: Fire Department 1,464 1,249 1,108 916 1,181 1,191 1,237 1,328 1,396 1,389 0 400 800 1,200 1,600 FY 0 9 FY 1 0 FY 1 1 FY 1 2 FY 1 3 FY 1 4 FY 1 5 FY 1 6 FY 1 7 FY 1 8 Theft cases closed Homicide cases closed Robbery cases closed Rape cases closed Open cases (all types) 54 5 68 0 65 2 61 8 68 4 60 9 58 6 32 7 76 6 85 3 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 FY 0 9 FY 1 0 FY 1 1 FY 1 2 FY 1 3 FY 1 4 FY 1 5 FY 1 6 FY 1 7 FY 1 8 Nu m b e r o f n e w c a s e s 0 2,500 5,000 7,500 10,000 FY 0 9 FY 1 0 FY 1 1 FY 1 2 FY 1 3 FY 1 4 FY 1 5 FY 1 6 FY 1 7 FY 1 8 Medical/Rescue Other False Alarms Service Calls Hazardous Condition Fire 7,549 7,468 7,555 7,796 7,904 7,829 8,548 8,882 9,056 8,973 Office of Emergency Services: Presentations, Training Sessions, and Exercises Source: Office of Emergency Services Fire: Number of Licensed Paramedics & Certified Emergency Medical Technicians Source: Fire Department 23Ch a p t e r 2 Co m m u n i t y Safety, Health, and Well-Being By the Numbers 424 Traffic collisions with injury, which increased 7% from FY 2017 and increased 14% from FY 2009 300 Fire Department average training hours per firefighter, which decreased 3% from FY 2017 and increased 35% from FY 2009 77% Percent of fires confined to the room or area of origin, which decreased 2% from FY 2017 and increased 14% from FY 2009 5,421 Number of medical/rescue incidents, which decreased 3% from FY 2017 and increased 20% from FY 2009 Police Benchmark: Violent and Property Crimes per 1,000 Residents in Calendar Year Source: FBI Uniform Crime Reporting Program 36 34 34 49 50 50 50 55 48 4011 3 10 9 10 9 70 61 50 48 44 40 40 0 30 60 90 120 FY 0 9 FY 1 0 FY 1 1 FY 1 2 FY 1 3 FY 1 4 FY 1 5 FY 1 6 FY 1 7 FY 1 8 Number of licensed paramedics Number of certified EMTs 0 10 20 30 Pa l o A l t o Me n l o P a r k Re d w o o d Ci t y Mo u n t a i n Vi e w Sa n t a C l a r a Mi l p i t a s Sa n M a t e o Fr e m o n t Su n n y v a l e Cr i m e s Property crimes Violent crimes 38 51 184 193 234 182 216 0 50 100 150 200 250 FY 1 2 FY 1 3 FY 1 4 FY 1 5 FY 1 6 FY 1 7 FY 1 8 Percent of Code Enforcement Cases Closed and Resolved Within 120 Days Source: Planning & Community Environment Department Inspections, Building Permits Issued and Valuation Source: Development Services Department 24Ch a p t e r 2 Co m m u n i t y Citizen Survey: Percent Rating Ease of Transportation “Excellent” or “Good” Source: 2017 National Citizen SurveyTM Density and Development By the Numbers 32 Average number of days to issue 3,105 building permits, which increased 7% from FY 2017 and decreased 60% from FY 2009 94 % 88 % 94 % 91 % 90 % 93 % 91 % 97 % 83 % 90 % 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% FY 0 9 FY 1 0 FY 1 1 FY 1 2 FY 1 3 FY 1 4 FY 1 5 FY 1 6 FY 1 7 FY 1 8 Percent of cases resolved within 120 days 62% Citizen Survey: Overall “built environment” (including overall design, buildings, parks, and transportation systems), comparing as similar to other cities. 600 Number of permits approved over the counter, which increased 3% from FY 2017 26,886 Number of inspections completed, which decreased 16% from FY 2017 and increased 18% from FY 2009 0 300 600 900 1200 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 FY 0 9 FY 1 0 FY 1 1 FY 1 2 FY 1 3 FY 1 4 FY 1 5 FY 1 6 FY 1 7 FY 1 8 Inspections completed Building permits issued Building permit valuation Nu m b e r o f i n s p e c t i o n s c o m p l e t e d or b u i l d i n g p e r m i t s i s s u e d Bu i l d i n g p e r m i t v a l u a t i o n (i n m i l l i o n s ) 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% FY 0 9 FY 1 0 FY 1 1 FY 1 2 FY 1 3 FY 1 4 FY 1 5 FY 1 6 FY 1 7 FY 1 8 Walking Bicycle travel Car travel 25 OVERALL OPERATING EXPENDITURES General Fund (in millions) Community Services Development Services Fire1 Office of Emergency Services1 Library Planning and Community Environment Police Public Works Strategic and Support Services2 Non- departmental3 Operating transfers out4 Total Enterprise funds (in millions) FY 09 $21.1 - $23.4 - $6.2 $9.9 $28.2 $12.9 $16.4 $6.8 $15.8 $140.8 $229.0 FY 10 $20.5 - $27.7 - $6.4 $9.4 $28.8 $12.5 $18.1 $8.7 $14.6 $146.9 $218.6 FY 11 $20.1 - $28.7 - $6.5 $9.6 $31.0 $13.1 $15.9 $7.9 $11.0 $143.7 $214.0 FY 12 $20.9 - $28.8 $0.6 $7.1 $10.3 $33.6 $13.2 $17.8 $7.7 $22.1 $162.1 $219.6 FY 13 $21.5 - $27.3 $0.8 $6.9 $12.0 $32.2 $13.1 $17.4 $7.8 $25.1 $164.1 $220.5 FY 14 $22.6 - $28.2 $0.9 $7.3 $13.3 $33.3 $13.2 $18.3 $8.4 $18.8 $164.3 $226.5 FY 15 $23.0 $9.9 5 $26.2 $1.2 $8.0 $7.4 $34.6 $13.3 $18.4 $7.3 $22.3 $171.5 $236.7 FY 16 $24.3 $10.7 $27.6 $1.0 $8.0 $8.9 $35.7 $14.3 $20.0 $6.2 $34.5 $191.0 $238.3 FY 17 $25.2 $11.0 $31.5 $1.0 $9.0 $8.7 $39.2 $16.7 $19.5 $6.4 $31.8 $199.5 $243.0 FY 18 $27.1 $12.0 $33.6 $1.0 $9.1 $7.9 $40.0 $18.4 $21.0 $6.4 $29.5 $206.1 $248.3 Change from: Last year +8% +9% +7% 0% +1% -9% +2% +10% +8% 0% -7% +3% +2% FY 09 +28% - +44% - +47% -20% +42% +43% +28% -6% +87% +46% +8% 1 Office of Emergency Services (OES) was established as a separate department in FY 2012. FY 2012 data for the Fire Department was restated to remove OES figures. 2 Includes Offices of Council-Appointed Officers, Administrative Services Department, Human Resources Department, and City Council. 3 Includes revenue and expenditure appropriations not related to a specific department or function that typically benefit the City as a whole (e.g., Cubberley lease payments to Palo Alto Unified School District). May also include estimated provisions or placeholders for certain revenues and expenditures that can be one time or ongoing. 4 Funds transferred to the Capital Projects, Debt Service, and Technology Internal Service Funds annually. 5 In FY 2015, Development Services fully transitioned to its own department. Expenditures were formerly classified under the Fire, Planning and Community Environment, and Public Works departments. Ci t y w i d e OPERATING EXPENDITURES PER CAPITA General Fund (in millions) Community Services Development Services Fire 1 Office of Emergency Services1 Library Planning and Community Environment Police Public Works Strategic and Support Services2 Non- departmental3 Operating transfers out4 Total Enterprise funds (in millions) FY 09 $333 - $303 - $98 $156 $445 $203 $258 $108 $249 $2,152 $3,607 FY 10 $318 - $355 - $99 $145 $448 $195 $282 $136 $227 $2,206 $3,397 FY 11 $309 - $365 - $100 $147 $478 $202 $244 $122 $170 $2,138 $3,300 FY 12 $319 - $364 $8 $108 $158 $514 $202 $271 $118 $338 $2,399 $3,355 FY 13 $324 - $340 $9 $104 $181 $485 $198 $263 $117 $378 $2,400 $3,322 FY 14 $342 - $353 $12 $111 $201 $505 $200 $277 $127 $285 $2,412 $3,430 FY 15 $344 $148 $325 $15 $119 $111 $516 $198 $274 $109 $333 $2,492 $3,535 FY 16 $365 $160 $341 $13 $120 $134 $536 $215 $301 $94 $518 $2,798 $3,585 FY 17 $378 $165 $390 $12 $134 $130 $588 $250 $292 $96 $476 $2,912 $3,647 FY 18 $404 $179 $501 $14 $136 $117 $595 $274 $314 $95 $440 $3,068 $3,696 Change from: Last year +7% +8% +28% +17% +1% -10% +1% +10% +8% -1% -8% +5% +1% FY 09 +21% - +65% - +39% -25% +34% +35% +22% -12% +77% +43% +2% 1 Adjusted for the expanded service area (Palo Alto and Stanford). Office of Emergency Services (OES) was established as a separate department in FY 2012. FY 2012 data for the Fire Department was restated to remove OES figures. 2,3,4 As footnoted above. Mission:The government of the City of Palo Alto exists to promote and sustain a superior quality of life in Palo Alto. In partnershipwith our community, our goal is to deliver cost-effective services in a personal, responsive, and innovative manner. Ch a p t e r 3 26 AUTHORIZED STAFFING Authorized Staffing (FTE1) – General Fund Authorized Staffing (FTE 1) – Other Funds Community Services Develop- ment Services Fire Office of Emergency Services Library Planning and Community Environment Police Public Works Strategic and Support Services2 Subtotal Refuse Storm Drainage Wastewater Treatment Electric, Gas, Water, Wastewater Collection, and Fiber Optics Other 3 Subtotal Total FY 09 146 - 128 - 57 54 170 71 102 727 35 10 70 235 74 423 1,150 FY 10 146 - 127 - 55 50 167 65 95 705 38 10 70 252 77 446 1,151 FY 11 124 - 125 - 52 47 161 60 89 657 38 10 70 263 76 457 1,114 FY 12 123 - 125 2 54 46 161 57 87 655 38 9 71 263 78 459 1,114 FY 13 126 - 120 3 58 53 157 59 90 667 26 10 71 269 85 462 1,129 FY 14 134 - 121 3 57 54 158 60 87 674 22 11 70 272 99 473 1,147 FY 15 138 42 4 108 3 59 29 158 56 91 684 16 10 71 272 100 469 1,153 FY 16 143 43 107 3 65 32 158 56 92 700 15 10 70 268 104 468 1,168 FY 17 144 40 109 3 64 33 158 58 92 702 16 10 73 269 103 477 1,179 FY 18 145 40 109 3 64 32 162 57 92 700 16 14 71 268 105 479 1,179 Change from: Last year +1% 0% 0% 0% 0% -3% +3% -2% 0% 0% 0% +40% -3% 0% +2% 0% 0% FY 09 -1% - -15% - +12% -41% -5% -20% -10% -4% -54% +40% +1% +14% +42% +13% +3% 1 Includes authorized temporary and hourly positions and allocated departmental administration. 2 Includes Offices of Council-Appointed Officers, Administrative Services Department, and People Strategy and Operations Department. 3 Includes the Technology and other Internal Service Funds, Airport Fund, Capital Projects Fund, and Special Revenue Funds. 4 In FY 2015, the City fully established the Development Services Department by transferring development activity related positions, salaries and benefits costs, and non-salary expenditures from the Planning and Community Environment, Public Works, and Fire departments to the Development Services Department. Authorized Staffing (FTE) - Citywide General Fund Employee Costs Regular Temporary TOTAL Per 1,000 residents Salaries and wages1 (in millions) Overtime (in millions) Employee benefits (in millions) TOTAL (in millions) Employee benefits rate2 As a percent of total General Fund expenditures FY 09 1,076 74 1,150 18.1 $59.6 $3.7 $28.3 $91.6 48% 65% FY 10 1,055 95 1,150 17.9 $56.6 $4.5 $30.9 $92.1 55% 63% FY 11 1,019 95 1,114 17.2 $55.8 $4.1 $34.2 $94.2 61% 66% FY 12 1,017 98 1,115 17.0 $54.4 $5.4 $36.9 $96.7 68% 60% FY 13 1,015 114 1,129 17.0 $53.5 $3.7 $37.7 $94.9 71% 58% FY 14 1,020 126 1,147 17.4 $55.5 $4.7 $38.8 $98.9 70% 60% FY 15 1,028 125 1,153 17.2 $57.7 $4.6 $40.2 $102.5 70% 60% FY 16 1,042 126 1,168 17.6 $60.1 $5.5 $40.6 $106.2 68% 56% FY 17 1,054 125 1,179 17.7 $64.5 $6.1 $45.0 $115.6 70% 58% FY 18 1,059 120 1,179 17.6 $66.0 $6.6 $48.2 $120.8 73% 59% Change from: Last year 0% -4% 0% -1% +2% +8% +7% +4%+25% -6% FY 09 -2% +62% +3% -3% +11% +78% +70% +32%+3% -7% 1 Does not include overtime. 2 “Employee benefits rate” is General Fund employee benefits as a percent of General Fund salaries and wages, excluding overtime. Ch a p t e r 3 Ci t y w i d e 27 CAPITAL SPENDING Governmental Funds (in millions) Enterprise Funds (in millions) Assigned for capital projects1 Net general capital assets Capital outlay Depreciation Net capital assets Capital expenditures Depreciation FY 09 $24.8 $364.3 $21.5 $9.6 $426.1 $36.2 $13.6 FY 10 $23.9 $376.0 $22.0 $14.4 $450.3 $29.7 $15.3 FY 11 $19.4 $393.4 $35.5 $14.4 $465.7 $24.4 $15.9 FY 12 $32.4 $413.2 $29.2 $16.4 $490.0 $27.6 $16.7 FY 13 $45.4 $428.9 $29.5 $15.9 $522.3 $40.7 $17.6 FY 14 $54.8 $452.6 $37.6 $13.8 $545.5 $37.1 $17.5 FY 15 $52.2 $485.2 $45.4 $15.6 $558.5 $29.5 $18.4 FY 16 $63.1 $496.0 $24.7 $17.1 $576.8 $31.1 $19.2 FY 17 $63.2 $522.5 $40.1 $17.9 $595.2 $28.8 $19.5 FY 18 $68.3 $547.7 $41.6 $18.9 $636.7 $46.0 $20.2 Change from: Last year +8% +5% +4% +6% +7% +60% +4% FY 09 +175% +50% +93% +97% +49% +27% +49% Ch a p t e r 3 Ci t y w i d e 1 Previously “Infrastructure reserves,” which is no longer shown in the City’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. 28 Co m m u n i t y S e r v i c e s DEPARTMENTWIDE Operating Expenditures (in millions)1 Authorized Staffing (FTE) Administration and Human Services Arts and Sciences Open Space, Parks, and Golf Recreation Services Total 2 CSD expenditures per capita Total revenues3 (in millions) Total Temporary Temporary as a percent of total Per 1,000 residents FY 09 $3.9 $4.6 $6.5 $6.3 $21.2 $333 $7.1 145.9 49.4 34% 2.3 FY 10 $4.2 $4.6 $5.8 $5.8 $20.5 $319 $7.3 146.4 52.1 36% 2.3 FY 11 $4.2 $4.5 $5.7 $5.7 $20.1 $310 $7.2 123.8 49.3 40% 1.9 FY 12 $2.9 $4.6 $8.2 $5.2 $20.9 $319 $6.8 123.5 48.7 39% 1.9 FY 13 $3.1 $4.5 $8.7 $5.1 $21.6 $325 $7.3 125.5 51.8 41% 1.9 FY 14 $3.5 $4.9 $9.0 $5.1 $22.5 $341 $6.9 133.5 59.2 44% 2.0 FY 15 $3.8 $5.0 $8.9 $5.3 $23.0 $344 $6.8 138.3 62.5 45% 2.1 FY 16 $3.9 $5.6 $9.2 $6.2 $24.8 $365 $7.1 142.7 65.3 46% 2.1 FY 17 $4.2 $5.8 $8.9 $6.3 $25.4 $378 $6.0 144.4 65.9 46% 2.2 FY 18 $4.2 $5.5 $10.4 $6.3 $27.1 $404 $6.3 145.0 66.3 46% 2.2 Change from: Last year +0% -5% +17% +0% +7% +7% +5% +0% +1% +0% +0% FY 09 +8% +20% +60% +0% +28% +21% -11% -1% +34% +12% -4% 1 Comparable numbers for some years were not available in the City’s Operating Budgets due to reorganizations. 2 The amount reflects total operating expenditures for the department, including the expenditures of all operating divisions. 3 Revenues include rental revenue generated at the Cubberley Community Center that is passed through to the Palo Alto Unified School District per the City’s agreement with the school district. DEPARTMENTWIDE CLASSES Total number of classes/camps offered1 Total enrollment 1 Summer Camps and Aquatics Kids (excluding camps) Adults Preschool Total Summer Camps and Aquatics Kids (excluding camps) Adults Preschool Total (Target: 16,400) Percent of class registrations online (Target: 57%) Percent of class registrants who are nonresidents FY 09 160 315 349 161 985 6,010 4,272 4,288 3,038 17,608 45% 13% FY 10 162 308 325 153 948 5,974 4,373 4,190 2,829 17,366 55% 14% FY 11 163 290 283 142 878 5,730 4,052 3,618 2,435 15,835 52% 14% FY 12 155 279 203 148 785 5,259 4,136 2,688 2,667 14,750 51% 12% FY 13 152 235 258 139 784 5,670 3,962 2,461 2,155 14,248 54% 12% FY 14 170 301 202 143 816 6,210 4,028 2,274 2,135 14,647 55% 14% FY 15 169 275 197 115 756 6,169 3,837 2,676 2,140 14,822 64% 17% FY 16 145 260 161 65 631 6,368 4,179 2,280 1,861 14,494 51% 18% FY 17 149 274 267 95 785 5,110 4,137 2,718 1,814 14,213 62% 21% FY 18 209 363 258 98 928 3,868 5,094 2,530 1,745 13,783 59% 19% Change from: Last year +40% +32% -3% +3% +18% -24% +23% -7% -4% -3% -3% -2% FY 09 +31% +15% -26% -39% -6% -36% +19% -41% -43% -22% +14% +6% 1 Types of classes offered include arts, sports, swim lessons, nature and outdoors, and recreation. Mission:To engage individuals and families in creating a strong and healthy community through parks, recreation, social services, arts, and sciences. Ch a p t e r 3 29 ARTS AND SCIENCES DIVISION – PERFORMING ARTS Children's Theatre Community Theatre Total (Children's and Community Theatres) Number of performances1 Attendance at performances Participants in performances and programs Enrollment in music and dance classes2 Enrollment in theatre classes, camps, and workshops3 Outside funding Number of performances Attendance at performances Number of performances Attendance at performances FY 09 134 14,786 534 964 334 - 159 46,609 293 61,395 FY 10 153 24,983 555 980 1,436 - 174 44,221 327 69,204 FY 11 165 27,345 1,334 847 1,475 - 175 44,014 340 71,359 FY 12 160 27,907 1,087 941 1,987 $99,310 175 45,635 335 73,542 FY 13 173 25,675 1,220 1,131 1,824 $54,390 184 45,966 357 71,641 FY 14 150 31,337 1,360 2,037 2,148 $113,950 108 41,858 258 73,195 FY 15 222 33,926 1,401 3,323 3,092 $153,973 172 42,126 394 76,052 FY 16 161 42,742 2,800 5,751 3,655 $108,950 161 42,719 322 85,461 FY 17 171 46,387 3,109 7,589 4,857 $120,384 171 43,607 342 89,994 FY 18 160 42,540 2,438 8,026 5,138 $138,437 160 44,362 320 86,902 Change from: Last year -6% -8% -22% +6% +6% +15% -6% +2% -6% -3% FY 09 +19% +188% +357% +733% +1438% - +1% -5% +9% +42% 1 The increase in FY 2015 is due to expanded education programs, Friends of the Palo Alto Children’s Theatre partnering presentations, Teen Arts Council performances, and additional student matinees. 2 One program started offering classes on a drop-in basis in FY 2013. The enrollment for this program was calculated by dividing the number of drop-in participants by eight, which is a typical number of classes offered per registration. The department attributes the increase to an expansion of classes taught at schools. 3 The department attributes the increase to a shift in emphasis from performance to education to promote a philosophy of life-long skills. ARTS AND SCIENCES DIVISION - MUSEUMS Art Center1 Junior Museum & Zoo Science Interpretation Exhibition visitors2 Total attendance (users) Enrollment in art classes, camps, and workshops (adults and children) Outside funding for visual arts programs Attendance at Project LOOK! and outreach Enrollment in Junior Museum classes and camps Estimated number of children participating in school outreach programs Number of Arastradero, Baylands, & Foothill outreach classes for school-age children Enrollment in open space interpretive classes FY 09 15,830 58,194 3,712 $264,580 8,353 2,054 3,300 178 2,615 FY 10 17,244 60,375 3,304 $219,000 8,618 2,433 6,971 208 3,978 FY 11 13,471 51,373 2,334 $164,624 6,773 1,889 6,614 156 3,857 FY 12 29,717 62,055 905 $193,000 14,238 2,575 9,701 131 3,970 FY 13 9,865 72,148 2,222 $206,998 10,472 2,363 10,689 136 3,575 FY 14 9,463 82,799 2,802 $156,079 8,873 1,935 10,696 112 3,044 FY 15 21,798 91,099 3,220 $200,912 7,386 2,670 13,280 122 3,178 FY 16 38,225 108,865 3,158 $259,737 6,947 2,991 11,530 121 3 3,390 FY 17 36,052 282,200 3,563 $376,532 7,407 2,693 13,472 73 1,971 FY 18 28,668 235,100 3,901 $333,107 8,280 2,618 13,063 77 2,079 Change from: Last year -20% -17% +9% -12% +12% -3% -3% +5% +5% FY 09 +81% +304% +5% +26% -1% +27% +296% -57% -20% 1 The Art Center closed to the public for renovation from May 2011 through October 2012, which accounts for some of the decreases in FY 2011 and FY 2012. Some of the increases in FY 2012 are due to “On the Road” installations and outreach programs in the community. 2 Exhibition visitors include estimated On the Road art installation visitors. 3 FY 2016 figure was restated. Decrease in outreach classes resulted from the closure of the Baylands Interpretive Center from Fall 2016 to April 2017.Ch a p t e r 3 Co m m u n i t y S e r v i c e s 30 OPEN SPACE, PARKS, AND GOLF DIVISION – OPEN SPACE AND GOLF Open Space Golf Visitors at Foothills Park Volunteer hours for restorative/resource management projects1 Number of native plants in restoration projects2 Number of rounds of golf Golf Course revenue (in millions) Golf Course operating expenditures (in millions) Golf course debt service (in millions) Net revenue/ (cost) FY 09 135,110 16,169 11,934 72,170 $3.0 $2.4 $0.7 ($326,010) FY 10 149,298 16,655 11,303 69,791 $3.0 $2.3 $0.6 $76,146 FY 11 181,911 16,235 27,655 67,381 $2.8 $2.0 $0.7 $166,017 FY 12 171,413 16,142 23,737 65,653 $2.7 $1.9 $0.6 $271,503 FY 13 205,507 15,551 46,933 60,153 $2.5 $2.1 $0.4 ($18,179) FY 14 198,814 17,196 63,206 46,527 $1.8 $1.9 $0.4 ($579,000) FY 15 169,653 13,445 118,390 42,048 $1.6 $1.8 $0.4 ($638,000) FY 16 152,505 10,206 10,744 42,573 $1.6 $1.8 $0.4 ($678,000) FY 17 151,580 13,460 7,826 - $0.3 $0.9 $0.4 ($105,500) FY 18 150,191 13,745 11,164 6,790 $0.8 $2.2 $0.4 ($1,880,000) Change from: Last year -1% +2% +43% - +167% +144% 0% +1682% FY 09 +11% -15% -6% -91% -73% -8% -43% +477% 1 Includes activities through collaborative partnerships with nonprofit groups such as Save the Bay, and community service hours by court-referred volunteers. 2 The increase is due to the completion of raised planting beds for the propagation of grasses to be used in the Oro Loma Sanitary District’s horizontal levee construction project. Ch a p t e r 3 Co m m u n i t y S e r v i c e s ARTS AND SCIENCES DIVISION - MUSEUMS Public Art Number of public art projects installed (Permanent; Temporary; Private Development) Number of public art projects in progress (Permanent; Temporary; Private Development) Total revenue generated by the private development ordinance Number of special events produced by the Public Art Program Number of portable artworks added to the City public art collection FY 09 2 3 - - 3 FY 10 1 2 - - 3 FY 11 0 4 - - 17 FY 12 0 5 - - 1 FY 13 1 7 - - 2 FY 14 6 19 $60,402 2 3 FY 15 7 16 $110,485 11 2 FY 16 5 27 $141,205 6 6 FY 17 10 23 $351,808 2 1 FY 18 5 27 $22,543 4 1 Change from: Last year -50% +17% -94% +100% +0% FY 09 +150% +800% - - -67% 31 RECREATION SERVICES DIVISION Enrollment in Recreational Classes Cubberley Community Center Dance Recreation Middle school sports Therapeutics Private tennis lessons Total Aquatics Lap and Recreational Pool Visits Hours rented Hourly rental revenue (in millions) Number of lease holders Lease revenue (in millions) FY 09 1,075 3,750 1,393 153 444 7,081 - 34,874 $1.0 37 $1.4 FY 10 972 3,726 1,309 180 460 6,906 - 35,268 $0.9 41 $1.6 FY 11 889 3,613 1,310 178 362 6,580 - 30,878 $0.9 48 $1.6 FY 12 886 3,532 1,455 135 240 6,444 - 29,282 $0.8 33 $1.6 FY 13 1,000 2,776 1,479 167 339 5,928 - 29,207 $0.9 33 $1.6 FY 14 1,130 2,449 1,443 112 457 5,787 - 28,086 $0.8 32 $1.7 FY 15 1,120 2,977 1,427 159 661 6,417 34,431 29,209 $0.8 36 $1.7 FY 16 527 3,805 1,538 177 559 6,606 57,525 28,559 $0.9 35 $1.8 FY 17 719 3,515 1,446 104 755 6,539 53,015 30,756 $1.1 29 $1.7 FY 18 491 4,221 1,367 138 567 6,784 63,182 33,309 $1.1 29 $1.5 Change from: Last year -32% +20% -5% +33% -25% +4% +19% +8% 0% +0% -12% FY 09 -54% +13% -2% -10% +28% -4% - -4% +10% -22% +7% Ch a p t e r 3 Co m m u n i t y S e r v i c e s OPEN SPACE, PARKS, AND GOLF DIVISION – PARKS AND LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE Maintenance Expenditures Parks and landscape maintenance (in millions) Athletic fields in City parks (in millions) Athletic fields on school district sites1 (in millions) Total (in millions) Per acre2 Total hours of athletic field usage Number of permits issued for special events Volunteer hours for neighborhood parks Participants in community gardening program FY 09 $3.0 $0.7 $0.7 $4.4 $16,940 45,762 35 212 238 FY 10 $3.0 $0.5 $0.6 $4.1 $15,413 41,705 12 260 238 FY 11 $3.2 $0.4 $0.5 $4.1 $15,286 42,687 25 927 260 FY 12 $3.5 $0.4 $0.6 $4.5 $16,425 44,226 27 1,120 292 FY 13 $3.8 $0.4 $0.6 $4.8 $17,563 N/A 3 47 637 292 FY 14 $4.0 $0.4 $0.6 $5.0 $18,244 N/A 3 36 638 292 FY 15 $3.9 $0.5 $0.7 $5.1 $18,593 47,504 37 551 310 FY 16 $3.9 $0.5 $0.7 $5.1 $10,994 65,723 36 586 320 FY 17 $4.3 $0.5 $0.8 $5.6 $20,713 71,431 29 1,151 318 FY 18 $4.5 $0.5 $0.8 $5.8 $21,655 65,443 17 2,049 350 Change from: Last year +5% +0% +0% +4% +5% -8% -41% +78% +10% FY 09 +50% -29% +14% +32% +28% +43% -51% +867% +47% 1 Palo Alto Unified School District partially reimburses the City for maintenance costs for the school district sites. 2 Per Acre calculation changed in FY2016 to include 4,030 acres of Open Space. 3 According to the department, this measure was not accurately tracked during FY 2013 or FY 2014. 32 De v e l o p m e n t S e r v i c e s BUILDING Average days Number of permits routed to all departments with on-time reviews Number of permits approved over the counter Number of building permits issued First response to plan checks Issuance of building permits (Target: 30) Permit issuance to final inspection for projects up to $500,000 (Target: 135) Number of inspections completed Valuation of construction for issued permits (in millions) Building permit revenue (in millions) FY 08 292 - 3,046 23 80 - 22,820 $358.9 $4.2 FY 09 230 394 2,543 31 63 123 17,945 $172.1 $3.6 FY 10 218 326 2,847 30 44 162 15,194 $191.2 $4.0 FY 11 371 532 3,559 35 47 109 16,858 $251.1 $5.6 FY 12 345 644 3,320 22 38 127 18,778 $467.9 $6.8 FY 13 470 602 3,682 24 39 1 121 24,548 $574.7 $10.1 FY 14 550 557 3,624 23 27 139 31,002 $336.1 $9.3 FY 15 567 628 3,844 23 25 156 31,000 $479.8 $9.4 FY 16 588 682 3,492 21 23 136 27,680 $387.3 $8.4 FY 17 576 585 2,970 27 30 169 32,015 $366.7 $8.9 FY 18 485 600 3,105 27 32 185 26,886 $493.7 $9.3 Change from: Last year -16% +3% +5% +0% +7% +9% -16% +35% +4% FY 09 +66% - +2% +17% -60% - +18% +38% +121% 1 Prior year correction by the Department. Mission:To provide citizens, business owners, developers, and applicants reliable and predictable expectations in the review, permitting, and inspection of development projects that meet the municipal and building code requirements to safeguard the health, safety, property, and public welfare while working collaboratively with other departments in the City. Ch a p t e r 3 DEPARTMENTWIDE1 Operating Expenditures (in millions) Administration Building Fire GIS Green Building Planning Public Works Total Expenditures per capita Revenue (in millions) Authorized staffing (FTE) FY 15 $2.0 $4.3 $1.7 $0.1 $0.2 $0.7 $1.0 $9.9 $148 $12.1 42 FY 16 $2.4 $4.5 $1.9 ($0.0) $0.3 $0.6 $0.9 $10.7 $160 $12.3 43 FY 17 $2.1 $5.0 $2.1 $0.0 $0.4 $0.7 $0.7 $11.0 $165 $11.9 40 FY 18 $2.4 $5.5 $2.1 $0.0 $0.4 $0.6 $0.9 $12.0 $179 $16.3 40 Change from: Last year +14% +10% +0% - +0% -14% +29% +9% +8% +37% +0% FY 09 - - - - - - - - - - - 1 In FY 2014, Development Services transitioned to its own department. The FY 2015 Operating Budget document fully established the Development Services Department by transferring development activity related positions, salaries and benefits costs, and non-salary expenditures from the Planning and Community Environment, Public Works, and Fire departments to the Development Services Department. 33 De v e l o p m e n t S e r v i c e s GREEN BUILDING1 Green Building with mandatory regulations Construction debris for completed projects 2 (in tons) Green Building permit applications processed Valuation Square feet Salvaged Recycled Disposed to landfill Energy savings per year3 (in kBtu) FY 09 341 $80,412,694 666,500 67 3,503 575 - FY 10 556 $81,238,249 774,482 69 9,050 1,393 - FY 11 961 $187,725,366 1,249,748 13,004 34,590 4,020 - FY 12 887 $543,237,137 1,342,448 23,617 45,478 5,015 - FY 13 1,037 $569,451,035 2,441,575 9,408 44,221 3,955 1,922,532 FY 14 04 $349,128,085 3,432,025 7,186 38,381 5,421 3,141,510 FY 15 04 $537,328,177 3,982,320 656 93,392 9,067 3,958,713 FY 16 04 $231,633,489 3,230,939 382 38,609 4,698 3,678,375 FY 17 04 $185,281,638 2,170,845 848 46,094 4,273 1,531,108 FY 18 04 $192,512,150 2,566,957 704 55,084 4,888 603,682 Change from: Last year +0% +4% +18% -17% +20% +14% -61% FY 09 -99% +139% +285% +951% +1472% +750% - 1 The Green Building Program was established in FY 2009,and prior year data is not available. 2 For projects requiring either a demolition permit or a building permit with a valuation over $25,000. The Department reports that due to staffing turnover and reorganization, the data may not be complete. Variances may also be due, in part, to a few large projects and a lower minimum reporting requirement for green building projects. 3 Reported in Kilo British Thermal Units. According to the Department, data prior to FY 2013 is either unavailable or inaccurate due to insufficient tracking resulting from staffing changes. 4 Green Building permit applications were no longer processed separately; they became part of the regular plan check process in FY2014. Ch a p t e r 3 34 In f o r m a t i o n T e c h n o l o g y DEPARTMENTWIDE1 Operating Expenditures (in millions) Information Technology Project Services IT Operations Enterprise Systems Office of the Chief Information Officer Capital Improvement Program2 Total Revenue (in millions) Authorized staffing (FTE) Number of workstations IT expenditures per workstation FY 12 $2.5 $3.0 $1.8 $1.5 $0.8 $9.6 $13.4 34.2 1,100 $4,658 FY 13 $1.7 $3.8 $1.9 $2.5 $3.4 3 $13.3 $17.5 36.7 1,118 $4,548 FY 14 $1.1 $4.6 $2.6 $4.0 $2.0 $14.3 $13.1 34.2 1,286 $4,491 FY 15 $0.6 $6.7 $2.3 $2.8 $1.3 $13.8 $14.5 33.7 1,454 $5,226 4 FY 16 $1.1 $5.7 $2.6 $2.9 $2.1 $14.4 $16.2 36.1 1,371 $4,703 FY 17 $1.2 $5.9 $3.1 $2.9 $1.1 $14.2 $16.3 36.1 1,421 $4,983 FY 18 $2.5 $6.8 $3.1 $2.6 $2.1 $17.1 $16.3 37.1 1,325 $7,018 Change from: Last year +108% +15% +0% -10% +91% +20% +0% +3% -7% +41% FY 09 - - - - - - - - - - 1 The Information Technology (IT) Department was established in 2012. Data prior to FY 2012 is generally not available or applicable for comparison. 2 Consistent with the City’s operating budget, Capital Improvement Program (CIP) expenditures are included as operating expenditures for this department. 3 The increase in FY 2013 is due to an increased number of projects, including the upgrade of the City’s telephone system and the replacement of desktop computers with laptops. 4Increase in workstation costs due to Office 365 licensing, additional City technology contracts and the increased use of temporary staffing. Percent of service desk requests resolved:1 City Staff Survey Number of service desk requests At time of call (Target: 34%) Within 4 hours (Target: 26%) Within 8 hours (Target 9%) Within 5 days (Target: 26%) Over 5 days (Target: 5%) Percent of security incidents remediated within 1 day Percent rating IT services as “excellent” (Target: 90%) FY 12 9,460 33% 26% 5% 24% 12% - 95% FY 13 9,734 31% 22% 5% 25% 16% 50% 87% FY 14 9,348 31% 21% 5% 26% 17% 28% 2 94% FY 15 9,855 31% 23% 5% 29% 12% 52% 89% FY 16 10,748 33% 22% 6% 28% 11% 47% 93% FY 17 8,750 30% 23% 6% 28% 14% 35% 92% FY 18 8,224 28% 25% 6% 29% 13% 45% 93% Change from: Last year -6% -2% +2% +0% +1% -1% +10% +1% FY 09 - - - - - - - - 1 Percentages reported in each category do not include service desk requests resolved in any other category. 2 The Department implemented more security incident detection solutions, which resulted in an increase in recorded security incidents and complexity of issues. Mission:To provide innovative technology solutions that support City departments in delivering quality services to the community. Ch a p t e r 3 35 DEPARTMENTWIDE Operating Expenditures (in millions) Authorized Staffing (FTE) Administration Collections and Technical Services Public Services Total Library expenditures per capita Regular Temporary/ hourly TOTAL Number of residents per library FTE Volunteer hours Total hours open annually1 FTE per 1,000 hours open FY 09 $0.4 $1.8 $4.0 $6.2 $98 43.8 13.4 57.2 1,110 5,953 11,822 4.8 FY 10 $0.6 $1.8 $4.0 $6.4 $99 42.2 12.8 55.0 1,169 5,564 9,904 5.6 FY 11 $1.0 $1.6 $3.9 $6.5 $100 41.3 10.4 51.7 1,255 5,209 8,855 5.8 FY 12 $1.2 $1.7 $4.2 $7.1 $108 41.3 14.8 56.1 1,166 6,552 11,142 5.0 FY 13 $1.0 $1.8 $4.1 $6.9 $104 41.8 16.7 58.5 1,135 5,514 11,327 5.2 FY 14 $0.9 $2.3 $4.1 $7.3 $111 41.8 14.7 56.5 1,168 3,607 11,277 5.0 FY 15 $1.0 $2.5 $4.5 $8.0 $119 44.7 14.8 59.5 1,126 3,447 11,334 5.2 FY 16 $0.6 $2.3 $5.7 $8.6 $120 48.0 16.8 64.8 1,027 3,358 12,884 5.0 FY 17 $1.2 $2.5 $5.3 $9.0 $134 48.5 15.1 63.6 1,048 3,417 13,520 4.7 FY 18 $1.2 $2.6 $5.4 $9.1 $136 48.5 15.1 63.6 1,056 3,880 13,520 5.0 Change from: Last year +0% +4% +2% +1% +1% +0% +0% +0% +1% +14% +0% +6% FY 09 +200% +44% +35% +47% +39% +11% +13% +11% -5% -35% +14% +4% 1 The department attributes the fluctuation to facility closures for renovation and reopening.Li b r a r y D e p a r t m e n t COLLECTIONS AND TECHNICAL SERVICES Number of items in collection Checkouts Book volumes Media items eBook & eMusic items Other formats1 TOTAL Per capita Total number of titles in collection Total (Target: 1,480,000) Per capita Average per item (Target: 4.23) Percent of first time checkouts completed on self- check machines Number of items on hold Average number of business days for new materials to be available for customer use (Target: 2.0) FY 09 246,554 35,506 11,675 - 293,735 4.63 185,718 1,633,955 25.7 5.56 90% 218,073 - FY 10 247,273 37,567 13,827 - 298,667 4.64 189,828 1,624,785 25.2 5.44 90% 216,719 9.0 FY 11 254,392 40,461 19,248 - 314,101 4.84 193,070 1,476,648 22.8 4.70 91% 198,574 8.0 FY 12 251,476 41,017 13,667 - 306,160 2 4.68 187,359 1,559,932 23.8 5.10 2 88% 211,270 9.5 3 FY 13 215,416 41,440 20,893 - 277,749 4.19 157,594 1,512,975 22.8 5.45 87% 204,581 4.0 FY 14 235,372 47,080 58,968 4 19,683 361,103 2 5.472 173,905 1,364,872 20.4 3.78 2 88% 197,444 2.0 FY 15 247,088 51,178 73,793 57,401 429,460 6.41 180,074 1,499,406 22.4 3.49 92% 186,834 2.0 FY 16 248,319 47,727 145,165 20,081 461,292 6.94 185,874 1,400,926 21.1 3.04 88% 189,762 2.0 FY 17 249,735 49,350 92,117 36,346 427,548 6.41 489,600 5 1,524,614 22.9 3.76 88% 201,340 2.0 FY 18 254,678 48,830 97,154 72,233 472,895 7.04 495,664 1,538,118 22.9 3.20 90% 213,295 2.0 Change from: Last year +2% -1% +84% +99% +11% +10% -90% +1% +0% -15% +2% +6% +0% FY 09 +3% +38% +1351% - +61% +52% +167% -6% -11% -42% +0% -2% - 1 Other formats include digital items such as emagazines, streaming movies, and Discover & Go museum passes. 2 Prior year correction. 3 Estimate. According to the Department, this metric was not consistently monitored in FY 2012 due to staff transitions, including a new division head. 4 The department attributes the increase to the addition of a new ebook resource. 5 The department attributes the increase to including newspaper clippings/citations. Mission:To connect and strengthen our diverse community through knowledge, resources, and opportunities. We inspire and nurture innovation, discovery, and delight. Ch a p t e r 3 36 PUBLIC SERVICES Programs1 Total number of cardholders Percent of Palo Alto residents who are cardholders Library visits Meeting room reservations (Target: 3,400) Total number of reference questions Total number of online database sessions Number of internet sessions Number of laptop checkouts Total offered Total attendance Number of library teen programs (Target: 2,500) FY 09 54,878 63% 875,847 - 46,419 111,228 2 145,143 12,290 558 36,582 1,588 FY 10 51,969 61% 851,037 - 55,322 150,895 2 134,053 9,720 485 35,455 1,906 FY 11 53,246 64% 776,994 - 53,538 51,111 111,076 5,279 425 24,092 1,795 FY 12 60,283 69% 843,981 846 43,269 42,179 112,910 4,829 598 30,916 2,211 FY 13 51,007 61% 827,171 1,223 43,476 31,041 70,195 3,662 745 40,405 2,144 FY 14 46,950 58% 678,181 1,027 34,060 35,872 114,520 1,672 801 37,971 1,188 FY 15 51,792 64% 810,962 4,339 73,580 31,953 104,878 1,147 1,048 44,892 2,746 FY 16 57,307 71% 831,206 9,943 32,084 51,166 150,489 1,251 1,452 53,560 4,559 FY 17 54,676 80% 1,031,054 12,434 34,294 305,111 3 149,962 1,559 1,914 74,299 6,059 FY 18 56,159 74% 1,045,282 14,155 33,020 213,920 146,567 1,713 1,713 62,204 5,663 Change from: Last year +3% -8% +1% +14% -4% -93% -2% +10% -11% -16% -7% FY 09 +2% +17% +19% - -29% -81% +1% -86% +207% +70% +257% 1Programs include planned events for the public that promote reading, support school readiness and education, and encourage life-long learning. Many programs are sponsored by the Friends of the Palo Alto Library. New buildings, program spaces and additional service hours allow more programming opportunities for all ages; teens are a special target audience emphasized based on City Council annual goals and the library strategic plan. 2 The department attributes the increase to enhanced outreach activities targeting teachers and students to promote databases to schools. 3 CA State Library changed its methodology for counting certain statistics, including online database sessions. Ch a p t e r 3 Li b r a r y D e p a r t m e n t 37 Pl a n n i n g & C o m m u n i t y E n v i r o n m e n t DEPARTMENTWIDE Operating Expenditures (in millions) Administration Planning & Transportation Building 1 Economic Development2 Total Expenditures per capita Revenue (in millions) Authorized staffing (FTE) FY 09 $0.2 $5.7 $3.5 $0.4 $9.9 $156 $5.1 54 FY 10 $0.6 $5.5 $2.9 $0.4 $9.4 $146 $5.5 50 FY 11 $0.9 $5.1 $3.3 $0.3 $9.6 $147 $7.5 47 FY 12 $0.9 $5.2 $4.2 - $10.3 $158 $9.3 47 FY 13 $1.1 $5.8 $5.2 - $12.0 $182 $12.6 53 FY 14 $1.1 $6.4 $5.8 - $13.3 $201 $11.4 54 FY 15 $1.2 $6.2 $0.1 - $7.4 $111 $1.8 29 FY 16 $1.4 $7.6 - - $8.9 $134 $1.8 32 FY 17 $1.8 $6.8 $0.0 - $8.8 $130 $3.0 33 FY 18 $1.9 $5.9 $0.1 -$7.9 $118 $3.1 32 Change from: Last year +6% -13% +100% - -10% -9% +3% -3% FY 09 +850% +4% -97% - -20% -24% -39% -41% 1 Prior to FY 2015, Building was part of the Development Services division of the Planning and Community Environment Department. Effective FY 2015, Development Services became its own department. During the transition, some Building expenses were erroneously associated with Planning and Community Environment. FY 2015 information is shown here for consistency with the City’s financial records. 2 In FY 2012, Economic Development was moved to the City Manager’s Office. CURRENT PLANNING & CODE ENFORCEMENT Code Enforcement Planning applications received Planning applications completed Architectural Review Board applications completed Average weeks to complete staff-level applications Number of new cases Number of reinspections Percent of cases resolved within 120 days FY 09 312 273 130 10.7 545 1,065 94% FY 10 329 226 130 12.5 680 1,156 88% FY 11 359 238 121 10.4 652 1,228 94% FY 12 325 204 101 12.5 618 1,120 91% FY 13 490 307 148 12.5 684 1,240 90% FY 14 487 310 170 14.9 609 1,398 93% FY 15 425 335 174 15.4 586 1,242 91% FY 16 393 383 46 18.4 327 - 97% FY 17 349 365 19 9.8 766 - 83% FY 18 376 376 24 9.0 853 - 90% Change from: Last year +8% +3% +26% -8% +11% - +7% FY 09 +21% +38% -82% -16% +57% - -4% Mission:To provide the Council and community with creative guidance on, and effective implementation of, land use development, planning, transportation, housing, and environmental policies, and plans and programs that maintain and enhance the City as a safe, vital, and attractive community. Ch a p t e r 3 ADVANCE PLANNING Number of residential units Median price of a single family home in Palo Alto (in millions) Estimated new jobs (job losses) resulting from projects approved during the year1 Number of new housing units approved Cumulative number of below market rate (BMR) units FY 09 28,291 $1.40 (58) 36 395 FY 10 28,445 $1.37 662 86 434 FY 11 28,257 $1.52 2,144 47 434 FY 12 28,380 $1.74 760 93 434 FY 13 28,457 $1.99 142 2 434 FY 14 28,546 $2.04 (580) 311 449 FY 15 28,674 $2.47 399 12 449 FY 16 28,919 $2.28 341 38 487 FY 17 29,124 $2.54 432 15 565 FY 18 29,189 $2.85 24 102 587 Change from: Last year +0% +12% -94% +580% +4% FY 09 +3% +104% -141% +183% +49% 1 Job losses are assumed when commercial uses are replaced with residential units. TRANSPORTATION City shuttle boardings1 City’s cost per shuttle boarding Caltrain average weekday boardings Average number of employees participating in the City commute program2 FY 09 136,511 $2.61 4,407 124 FY 10 137,825 $2.65 4,359 113 FY 11 118,455 $1.82 4,923 92 FY 12 140,321 $1.46 5,730 93 FY 13 133,703 $1.50 6,763 99 FY 14 134,362 $1.49 7,564 114 FY 15 152,571 3 $1.95 8,750 113 FY 16 181,259 $1.98 9,052 243 FY 17 152,261 $2.56 9,072 307 FY 18 - 4 -4 9,457 - 4 Change from: Last year - - +4% - FY 09 - - +115% - 1 Starting FY 15, a new East Palo Alto route is included. 2 Includes participants in the Caltrain Go Pass pilot program, which began in April 2014. 3 Reflects a disruption in Caltrain shuttle service (on the Embarcadero route) for two months in 2015. 4 Information not available. 38Ch a p t e r 3 Pl a n n i n g & C o m m u n i t y E n v i r o n m e n t DEPARTMENTWIDE Operating Expenditures (millions) Authorized Staffing Administration Emergency response Environmental and fire safety Training and personnel management Records and information Total Resident population of area served1 Expenditures per resident served Revenue (in millions) Resident population served per fire station1,4 Total (FTE) Per 1,000 residents served Overtime as a percent of regular salaries FY 09 $0.4 $17.4 $2.3 $2.3 $1.0 $23.4 77,305 $303 $11.0 12,884 127.7 1.65 16% FY 10 $2.3 $19.3 $2.5 $2.6 $1.0 $27.7 78,161 $355 $10.6 13,027 126.5 1.62 26% FY 11 $1.6 $20.8 $2.6 $2.7 $1.0 $28.7 78,662 $365 $12.0 13,110 125.1 1.59 21% FY 122 $1.7 $20.9 $2.4 $2.8 $1.0 $28.8 79,252 $364 $13.7 13,209 125.2 1.58 37% FY 13 $1.9 $22.5 $1.7 $0.8 $0.3 $27.3 80,127 $340 $12.4 3 13,355 120.3 1.50 19% FY 14 $1.9 $23.3 $1.7 $0.9 $0.3 $28.2 79,838 $353 $12.0 3 13,306 120.8 1.51 27% FY 15 $2.0 $22.9 $0.1 $0.9 $0.3 $26.2 80,474 $325 $12.3 13,412 108.0 1.34 24% FY 16 $1.4 $23.5 $0.3 $1.0 $0.4 $26.5 80,691 $341 $10.8 13,449 107.0 1.33 29% FY 17 $1.8 $27.6 $0.2 $1.6 $0.3 $31.5 80,862 $390 $9.9 13,477 109.0 1.35 31% FY 18 $1.9 $29.3 $0.2 $1.9 $0.3 $33.6 82,455 $407 $11.1 13,743 109.2 1.63 35% Change from: Last year +6% +6% +0% +19% +0% +7% +2% +4% +12% +2% +0% +21%+4% FY 09 +375% +68% -91% -17% -70% +44% +7% +34% +1% +7% -14% -1%+19% 1 Based on number of residents in the Fire Department’s expanded service area (Palo Alto and Stanford). The decrease in FY 2014is due to a change in data source from the California Department of Finance to the City Manager’s Official City Data Set based on the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey. 2 Office of Emergency Services (OES) was established as a separate department in FY 2012. FY 2012 data was restated to remove OES figures. 3 The department attributes the decline to lower contract revenues from Stanford University. 4 Calculation is based on six fire stations, and does not include Station 8 (Foothills Park, operated during the summer months when fire danger is high). 39 Pu b l i c S a f e t y - Fi r e Mission:To serve and safeguard the community from the impacts of fires, medical emergencies, environmental emergencies, and natural disasters by providing the highest level of service through action, innovation, and investing in education, training, and prevention. We will actively participate in our community, serving as role models who preserve and enhance the quality of life. We will effectively and efficiently utilize all of the necessary resources at our command to provide a product deemed outstanding by our citizens. Pride, the pursuit of excellence, and commitment to public service is of paramount importance. Ch a p t e r 3 SUPPRESSION, FIRE SAFETY, AND EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES Suppression and Fire Safety Emergency Medical Services Fire incidents Percent of fires confined to the room or area of origin1 (Target: 90%) Number of residential structure fires Number of fire deaths Fire response vehicles2 Fire safety presentations, including demonstrations and fire station tours Average training hours per firefighter Medical/rescue incidents Number of ambulance transports Ambulance revenue (in millions) FY 09 239 63% 20 0 25 - 223 4,509 3,331 $2.1 FY 10 182 56% 11 0 29 - 213 4,432 2,991 $2.2 FY 11 165 38% 14 0 30 115 287 4,521 3,005 $2.3 FY 12 186 50% 16 0 29 126 313 4,584 3,220 $2.8 FY 13 150 44% 18 0 27 95 315 4,712 3,523 $3.0 FY 14 150 63% 15 2 27 88 315 4,757 3,648 $2.9 FY 15 135 92% 15 0 27 218 346 5,270 3,862 $3.0 FY 16 150 71% 12 0 29 198 300 5,356 3,842 $3.4 FY 17 155 79% 10 0 29 105 310 5,570 3,735 $3.1 FY 18 189 77% 9 0 29 117 300 5,421 3,590 $3.0 Change from: Last year +22% -3% -10% +0% +0% +11% -3% -3% -4% -3% FY 09 -21% +22% -55% +0% +16% - +35% +20% +8% +43% 1 Includes fires in other jurisdictions responded to as part of the City’s aid agreements. The department indicated that these figures will be restated in the future to exclude fires in other communities to more accurately measure progress toward its target of 90%, which is for Palo Alto fires only. The department defines containment of structure fires as those incidents in which fire is suppressed and does not spread beyond the involved area upon firefighter arrival. 2 Includes ambulances, fire apparatus, hazardous materials, and mutual-aid vehicles. 40 CALLS FOR SERVICE Calls for service Average response time 2 (minutes) Percent of calls responded promptly 2 Fire Medical/ rescue False alarms Service calls Hazardous condition Other 1 TOTAL Average number of calls per day Fire calls (Target: 6:00) Medical/rescue calls (Target: 6:00) Fire emergencies within 8 minutes (Target: 90%) Emergency medical requests within 8 minutes (Target: 90%) Paramedic calls within 12 minutes3 (Target: 90%) FY 09 239 4,509 1,065 328 165 1,243 7,549 21 6:39 5:37 78% 91% 99% FY 10 182 4,432 1,013 444 151 1,246 7,468 20 7:05 5:29 90% 93% 99% FY 11 165 4,521 1,005 406 182 1,276 7,555 21 6:23 5:35 83% 91% 99% FY 12 186 4,584 1,095 466 216 1,249 7,796 21 7:00 5:36 81% 91% 99% FY 13 150 4,712 1,091 440 194 1,317 7,904 22 6:31 5:35 82% 91% 99% FY 14 150 4,757 1,044 396 207 1,275 7,829 21 6:01 5:42 86% 90% 98% FY 15 135 5,270 1,078 448 145 1,472 8,548 23 4:57 5:11 92% 82% 89% FY 16 150 5,356 1,046 541 180 1,609 8,882 24 5:06 5:12 89% 91% 99% FY 17 155 5,567 1,231 503 175 1,411 9,153 32 5:32 4:50 89% 95% 99% FY 18 182 5,421 1,248 492 155 1,475 8,981 25 5:22 4:28 89% 94% 99% Change from: Last year +17% -3% +1% -2% -11% +5% -2% -22% -3% -8%+0% -1% +0% FY 09 -24% +20% +17% +50% -6% +19% +19% +19% -19% -20%+11% +3% +0% 1 “Other” calls include alarm testing, station tours, training incidents, cancelled calls, and good intent calls (i.e., a person genuinely believes there is an actual emergency when it is not an emergency). 2 Response time is from receipt of 911 call to arrival on scene; does not include cancelled enroute, not-completed incidents, or mutual-aid calls. 3 Includes non-City ambulance responses. Ch a p t e r 3 Pu b l i c S a f e t y - Fi r e 41 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND INSPECTIONS Hazardous Materials Incidents1 Permitted facilities Permitted facilities inspected 2 Percent of permitted hazardous materials facilities inspected 2 Number of fire inspections (Target: 850) Number of plan reviews 3 FY 09 40 509 286 56% 1,028 841 FY 10 26 510 126 25% 1,526 851 FY 11 66 484 237 49% 1,807 1,169 FY 12 82 485 40 8% 1,654 1,336 FY 13 79 455 133 29% 2,069 1,396 FY 14 73 393 132 34% 1,741 1,319 FY 15 81 425 377 89% 1,964 1,227 FY 16 90 428 374 87% 2,806 1,724 FY 17 65 563 353 63% 5,476 4 1,863 FY 18 95 462 306 66%9,581 1,838 Change from: Last year +46% -18% -13% +5% -83% -1% FY 09 +138% -9% +7% +18% +832% +119% 1 Involve flammable gas or liquid, chemical release or spill, or chemical release reaction or toxic condition. Also known as CBRNE (Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, and Explosives). 2 The method for calculating the number of inspections was changed in FY 2010 to avoid over counting. Prior-year numbers are higher than they would be under the revised method. The department attributes the FY 2012 decrease to temporary staffing shortages. 3 Does not include over-the-counter building permit reviews. 4 The method for calculating the number of fire inspections changed in FY 2017.The department now uses a more detailed feature within the tracking system, Acella, which categorizes inspections by type and location. Previous calculations were counted by location only, therefore were potentially underreported if there were multiple inspections at a single location. Ch a p t e r 3 Pu b l i c S a f e t y - Fi r e 42 Pu b l i c S a f e t y – Of f i c e o f E m e r g e n c y S e r v i c e s DEPARTMENTWIDE1 Operating expenditures (in millions) Revenues (in millions) Authorized staffing (FTE) Presentations, training sessions, and exercises (Target: 50) Emergency Operations Center activations/ deployments2 Grant contributions received3 FY 12 $0.60 $0.16 4.0 38 27 $139,300 FY 13 $0.75 $0.14 3.5 51 48 $24,530 FY 14 $0.93 $0.09 3.5 184 26 $13,986 FY 15 $1.17 $0.09 3.5 193 47 $24,500 FY 16 $1.04 $0.09 3.5 234 46 $0 FY 17 $0.98 $0.09 3.5 182 37 $0 FY 18 $0.97 $0.10 3.5 216 62 $7,800 Change from: Last year -1% +11% +0% +19% +68% +100% FY 09 +62% -38% -13% +468% +130% -94% 1 The Office of Emergency Services (OES) was expanded and reorganized in 2011. Data prior to FY 2012 is generally not available or applicable. In FY 2012 and FY 2013, the City classified OES under the Fire Department for budget purposes. 2Includes unplanned (emergency) and planned events involving the Emergency Operations Center, Mobile Emergency Operations Center, and Incident Command Post activations and deployments (e.g., December 2012 flood, Stanford football games, VIP/dignitary visits). 3Santa Clara County has eliminated the block grants to Cities. Mission:To prevent, prepare for and mitigate, respond to, and recover from all hazards. Ch a p t e r 3 43 Pu b l i c S a f e t y - Po l i c e DEPARTMENTWIDE Operating Expenditures (in millions) Administration Field Services Technical Services Investigations and Crime Prevention Traffic Services Parking Services Police Personnel Services Animal Services Total Expenditures per resident Revenue (in millions) FY 09 $0.4 $13.6 $5.0 $3.7 $1.8 $1.1 $1.0 $1.7 $28.2 $445 $4.6 FY 10 $0.1 $13.1 $6.6 $3.4 $2.0 $1.1 $1.0 $1.7 $28.8 $448 $4.9 FY 11 $0.2 $14.4 $6.8 $3.5 $2.2 $1.1 $1.1 $1.7 $31.0 $478 $4.4 FY 12 $0.8 $14.9 $7.7 $3.7 $2.5 $1.2 $1.1 $1.8 $33.6 $514 $4.3 FY 13 $0.6 $15.0 $7.5 $3.5 $1.5 $1.2 $1.2 $1.7 $32.2 $485 $4.8 FY 14 $0.6 $16.0 $7.1 $3.3 $2.5 $1.1 $1.4 $1.3 $33.3 $505 $3.7 FY 15 $0.7 $15.6 $7.4 $4.2 $2.4 $1.2 $1.5 $1.6 $34.6 $516 $4.5 FY 16 $1.2 $15.7 $7.3 $4.7 $2.6 $1.2 $1.4 $1.6 $35.7 $536 $4.1 FY 17 $1.4 $19.4 $8.3 $4.5 $1.4 $1.4 $1.3 $1.6 $39.2 $588 $4.1 FY 18 $1.3 $20.1 $8.4 $4.7 $1.0 $1.5 $1.4 $1.6 $40.0 $595 $4.4 Change from: Last year -7% +4% +1% +4% -29% +7% +8% +0% +2% +1% +7% FY 09 +225% +48% +68% +27% -44% +36% +40% -6% +42% +34% -4% STAFFING, EQUIPMENT, AND TRAINING Authorized Staffing (FTE) Total Per 1,000 residents Number of police officers Police officers per 1,000 residents Average number of officers on patrol1 Number of patrol vehicles Number of motorcycles Training hours per officer2 (Target: 145) Overtime as a percent of regular salaries Citizen commendations received (Target: >150) Citizen complaints filed (sustained) FY 09 169.5 2.7 93 1.46 8 30 9 141 14% 124 14 (3) FY 10 166.8 2.6 92 1.43 8 30 9 168 12% 156 11 (3) FY 11 161.1 2.5 91 1.40 8 30 9 123 12% 149 7 (0) FY 12 160.8 2.5 91 1.39 8 30 9 178 13% 137 1 (0) FY 13 157.2 2.4 91 1.37 8 30 9 134 14% 147 3 (2) FY 14 158.1 2.4 92 1.39 8 30 9 177 14% 153 4 (2) FY 15 157.6 2.4 92 1.37 8 30 6 139 15% 135 7 (1) FY 16 158.4 2.4 92 1.38 8 30 6 136 16% 142 1 (0) FY 17 158.4 2.4 92 1.38 8 25 4 90 15% 121 2 (1) FY 18 158.4 2.4 92 1.38 8 25 4 117 17% 136 3 (1) Change from: Last year +0% +0% +0% +0% +0% +0% +0% +30% +2% +12% +50% (0%) FY 09 -7% -11% -1% -5% +0% -17% -56% -17% +3% +10%-79% (0%) 1Does not include traffic motor officers. 2Does not include the academy. Mission:To proudly serve and protect the public with respect and integrity. Ch a p t e r 3 44 CALLS FOR SERVICE Average response time (minutes)3 Percent of calls responded promptly Police Department Total1 (Target: 55,000) False alarms Percent emergency calls dispatched within 60 seconds Emergency calls (Target: 5:00) Urgent calls (Target: 8:00) Nonemergency calls (Target: 45:00) Emergency calls within 6 minutes (Target: 90%) Urgent calls within 10 minutes (Target: 90%) Nonemergency calls within 45 minutes FY 09 53,275 2,501 94% 4:43 7:05 18:35 81% 82% 92% FY 10 55,860 2,491 95% 4:44 6:53 18:32 78% 83% 92% FY 11 52,159 2,254 93% 4:28 6:51 18:26 78% 83% 92% FY 12 51,086 2,263 92% 4:28 6:56 19:29 78% 83% 91% FY 13 54,628 2,601 91% 4:57 6:57 18:55 75% 83% 92% FY 14 58,559 2,450 77% 5:34 1 7:571 20:552 72% 77% 90% FY 15 59,795 2,595 73% 5:40 8:38 21:07 75% 74% 89% FY 16 53,870 2,722 80% 5:47 8:38 21:42 63% 74% 89% FY 17 53,901 2,835 80% 5:39 8:33 21:54 67% 74% 89% FY 18 55,480 2,557 82% 5:10 8:39 23:36 70% 72% 86% Change from: Last year +3% -10% +2% -9% +1% +8% +3% -2% -3% FY 09 +4% +2% -12% +10% +22% +27% -11% -10% -6% 1 Includes self-initiated calls. 2 The department attributes the increase to a methodology change from a call being “received” after the information was entered in the old Computer-Aided Dispatch (CAD) system to when a dispatcher begins entering the information into the new system. 3 Response times have been impacted by Department vacancies. Since 2015, due to vacancies, the Department has been unable to staff a Traffic team with motorcycles. Combined with increased traffic, response times have been impacted negatively especially for injuries and accident calls. CRIME Reported crimes Arrests Number of cases/percent of cases cleared or closed for part I crimes 1,5 Part I1 (Target: <2,000) Part II 2 Per 1,000 residents Per officer 3 Total4 Juvenile Homicide Rape Robbery Theft FY 09 1,880 2,235 65 44 2,612 230 1/(100%) 7/(29%) 42/(31%) 1,414/(20%) FY 10 1,595 2,257 60 42 2,451 222 1/(100%) 9/(33%) 30/(53%) 1,209/(22%) FY 11 1,424 2,208 56 40 2,288 197 0/(N/A) 3/(0%) 42/(36%) 1,063/(20%) FY 12 1,277 2,295 55 39 2,212 170 0/(N/A) 4/(50%) 19/(68%) 893/(19%) FY 13 1,592 2,399 60 44 2,274 115 0/(N/A) 3/(67%) 35/(66%) 1,143/(10%) FY 14 1,540 2,557 62 45 2,589 116 0/(N/A) 4/(75%) 27/(63%) 1,160/(11%) FY 15 1,595 3,050 69 50 3,273 119 2/(100%) 12/(67%) 21/(67%) 1,202/(11%) FY 16 1,613 2,889 68 49 2,988 61 0/(100%) 11(100%) 31/(77%) 1,286(12%)+1 FY 17 1,672 2,579 68 46 2,745 114 1/(100%) 6/(83%) 28/(89%) 1,365/(8%) FY 18 1,764 2,674 65 47 2,678 89 0/(100%) 8/(75%) 41/(73%) 1,283/(7%) Change from: Last year +6% +4% -4% +2% -2% -22% -100% +33% +46% -6% FY 09 -6% +20% +0% +7% +3% -61% -100% +14% -2% -9% 1Part I crimes include homicide, rape, robbery, assault, burglary, larceny/theft, vehicle theft, and arson. 2Part II crimes include simple assaults or attempted assaults where a weapon is not used or where serious injuries did not occur. 3Based on authorized sworn staffing. 4Total arrests do not include being drunk in public where suspects are taken to a sobering station, or traffic warrant arrests. 5Clearance rates (percentages) include cases resolved with or without arrests as of June 2014,but may not reconcile with Department of Justice figures due to differing definitions and timing differences.Ch a p t e r 3 Pu b l i c S a f e t y - Po l i c e 45 TRAFFIC AND PARKING CONTROL Traffic collisions Citations issued Total Per 1,000 residents With injury (Target: <375) (percent of total) Bicycle/pedestrian Alcohol related DUI Arrests Traffic stops Traffic Parking FY 09 1,040 16 371 (36%) 108 37 192 14,152 5,766 49,996 FY 10 1,006 16 368 (37%) 81 29 181 13,344 7,520 42,591 FY 11 1,061 16 429 (40%) 127 38 140 12,534 7,077 40,426 FY 12 1,032 16 379 (37%) 123 42 164 10,651 7,505 41,875 FY 13 1,126 17 411 (37%) 127 43 144 12,306 8,842 43,877 FY 14 1,129 17 424 (38%) 139 47 206 16,006 12,244 36,551 FY 15 1,035 15 382 (37%) 125 48 239 15,659 10,039 41,412 FY 16 1,040 16 399 (38%) 116 44 166 11,024 8,094 37,624 FY 17 955 14 395 (41%) 108 36 119 12,348 5,583 33,661 FY 18 1,005 15 424(42%) 129 34 112 10,615 6,488 37,441 Change from: Last year +5% +7% +7% +19% -6% -6% -14% +16% +11% FY 09 -3% -6% +14% +19% -8% -42% -25% +13% -25% ANIMAL SERVICES Animal service calls Revenue (in millions) Palo Alto Regional 1 Percent of Palo Alto live calls responded to within 45 minutes (Target: 93%) Number of animals handled Percent of dogs received by shelter and returned to owner Percent of cats received by shelter and returned to owner FY 09 $1.0 2,873 1,690 90% 3,422 70% 11% FY 10 $1.4 2,692 1,602 90% 3,147 75% 10% FY 11 $1.0 2,804 1,814 88% 3,323 68% 20% FY 12 $1.0 3,051 1,793 91% 3,379 69% 14% FY 13 $1.3 2,909 1,057 2 90% 2,675 65% 17% FY 14 $0.4 2,398 695 91% 2,480 68% 10% FY 15 $0.7 2,013 566 88% 2,143 70% 18% FY 16 $0.6 2,421 490 89% 2,184 50% 10% FY 17 $0.6 1,674 415 89% 2,211 48% 11% FY 18 $0.5 1,737 426 86% 2,077 69% 12% Change from: Last year -17% +4% +3% -3% -6% +21% +1% FY 09 -50% -40% -75% -4% -39% -1% +1% 1Includes calls from the City of Los Altos and Los Altos Hills. 2The decline beginning in FY 2013 is due to the City of Mountain View terminating its contract with Palo Alto Animal Services in November 2012. Ch a p t e r 3 Pu b l i c S a f e t y - Po l i c e 46 PUBLIC SERVICES – STREETS, SIDEWALKS, AND FACILITIES Operating Expenditures (in millions) Streets Sidewalks Facilities Streets City facilities Number of potholes repaired Percent of potholes repaired within 15 days of notification Number of signs repaired or replaced Percent of temporary repairs completed within 15 days of initial inspection Total square feet of facilities maintained Maintenance cost per square foot Custodial cost per square foot FY 09 $2.3 $5.7 3,727 80% 1,292 86% 1,616,171 $1.62 $1.19 FY 10 $2.3 $5.5 3,149 86% 2,250 78% 1,617,101 $1.75 $1.18 FY 11 $2.4 $5.6 2,986 81% 1,780 83% 1,617,101 $1.70 $1.16 FY 12 $2.5 $5.5 3,047 81% 2,439 82% 1,608,137 $1.74 $1.14 FY 13 $2.7 $5.4 2,726 83% 2,450 95% 1,608,119 $1.88 $1.08 FY 14 $2.6 $5.1 3,418 75% 2,613 79% 1,611,432 $1.89 $1.08 FY 15 $2.8 $4.5 2,487 90% 3,294 68% 1,656,280 $1.85 $1.06 FY 16 $3.3 $5.9 3,435 94% 1,847 92% 1,657,480 $2.11 $1.06 FY 17 $3.7 $6.4 3,449 85% 2,351 81% 1,660,832 $2.11 $1.06 FY 18 $3.8 $7.7 2,835 80%1,367 85%1,659,028 $2.21 $2.11 Change from: Last year +3% +20% -18% -6% -42% 4% +0% +5% +99% FY 09 +65% +35% -24% +0% +6% -1% +3% +36% +77% Pu b l i c W o r k s PUBLIC SERVICES – TREES Operating expenditures (in millions) Authorized staffing1 (FTE) Total number of City-maintained trees2 Number of trees planted3 (Target: 250) Number of all tree-related services completed4 (Target: 6,000) Percent of urban forest pruned Percent of total tree line cleared (Target: 25%) Number of tree- related electrical service disruptions FY 09 $2.1 14.0 35,255 250 6,618 18% 33% 5 FY 10 $2.3 14.0 35,472 201 6,094 18% 27% 4 FY 11 $2.6 14.0 33,146 150 5,045 15% 26% 8 FY 12 $2.4 12.9 35,324 143 5,527 16% 28% 4 FY 13 $2.3 13.3 35,383 245 6,931 17% 41% 3 FY 14 $2.6 13.3 35,386 148 5,055 12% 37% 7 FY 15 $2.7 12.9 35,281 305 8,639 20% 28% 3 FY 16 $2.8 12.9 36,381 387 6,405 16% 20% 4 FY 17 $4.2 10.2 36,863 319 11,800 30% 40% 10 FY 18 $4.2 10.3 36,378 411 9,447 24% 39% 8 Change from: Last year +0% +1% -1% +29% -20% -6% -1% -20% FY 09 +100% -26% +3% +64% +43% +6% +6% +60% 1 For the General Fund only. 2 FY 2011 was the first year since 1989 that the trees were officially counted; numbers prior to FY 2011 were estimated. 3 Includes trees planted by Canopy volunteers. 4 Excludes trees trimmed to clear power lines. Mission:To provide efficient, cost effective, and environmentally sensitive operations for construction, maintenance, and management of Palo Alto streets, sidewalks, parking lots, facilities, and parks; ensure continuous operation of our Regional Water Quality Control Plant, City fleet, and storm drain system; provide maintenance, replacement and utility line clearing services for the City’s urban forest; provide efficient and cost effective garbage collection; to promote reuse and recycling to minimize waste; and to ensure timely support to other City departments and the private development community in the area of engineering services. Ch a p t e r 3 47 ENGINEERING SERVICES Number of private development permits issued1 Operating expenditures (in millions) Authorized staffing (FTE) Total (Target: 250) Per FTE (Target: 77) Lane miles resurfaced Percent of lane miles resurfaced Square feet of sidewalk replaced or permanently repaired2 Number of ADA3 ramps installed FY 09 $2.2 14.6 304 101 23.0 5% 56,909 21 FY 10 $1.6 10.0 321 107 32.4 7% 54,602 22 FY 11 $1.5 9.2 375 125 28.9 6% 71,174 23 FY 12 $1.6 9.2 411 103 40.0 9% 72,787 45 FY 13 $1.4 9.7 454 114 36.3 8% 82,118 56 FY 14 $1.7 10.4 412 103 35.6 8% 74,051 42 FY 15 $1.4 5.8 406 102 30.7 7% 120,776 80 FY 16 $0.8 7.4 459 115 39.0 8% 115,293 131 FY 17 $1.3 3.2 334 104 39.0 8% 17,275 64 FY 18 $1.3 3.8 379 100 31.0 7% 38,557 82 Change from: Last year +0% +19% +13% -4% -21% -1% +123% +28% FY 09 -41% -74% +25% -1% +35% +2% -32% +290% 1 Includes permits for street work, encroachment, and excavation and grading. 2 Includes both in-house and contracted work. 3 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires that accessibility to sidewalks of buildings and facilities be provided to individuals with disabilities. Capital Expenditures1 – General Fund (in millions) Capital Expenditures 1 – Enterprise Funds (in millions) Capital Authorized Staffing (FTE) 2 Streets (Target: $3.8) Sidewalks Parks Facilities (Target: $16.9) Storm Drainage Wastewater Treatment Refuse Streets Sidewalks Parks Structures FY 09 $4.5 $2.1 $1.9 $10.8 $5.4 $9.2 $0.7 1.4 7.1 2.0 9.2 FY 10 $4.0 $1.9 $3.3 $10.1 $1.1 $6.0 $0.2 2.9 7.1 2.7 11.4 FY 11 $5.5 $1.9 $1.4 $25.5 $1.1 $3.1 $0.2 3.0 6.9 1.6 10.0 FY 12 $4.0 $2.0 $1.2 $21.5 $1.9 $1.5 $0.7 3.0 7.0 1.6 10.4 FY 13 $8.4 $2.2 $1.7 $15.2 $2.6 $2.9 $0.5 3.0 7.4 1.6 12.0 FY 14 $7.5 $2.6 $2.2 $21.7 $1.4 $2.7 $1.7 3.2 7.1 3.7 11.3 FY 15 $6.7 $2.9 $6.6 $16.9 $1.8 $4.2 $2.2 3.4 7.3 3.7 9.1 FY 16 $7.7 $3.1 $5.1 $4.7 $0.8 $2.9 $1.9 5.3 4.3 3.5 11.1 FY 17 $10.0 $2.4 $12.7 $9.3 $4.1 $1.7 $0.2 6.5 4.3 3.0 10.5 FY 18 $11.1 $2.6 $5.3 $12.2 $5.2 $14.1 $0.0 6.0 3.9 3.0 10.5 Change from: Last year +11% +8% -58% +31% +27% +729% -100% -8% -9% +0% +0% FY 09 +147% +24% +179% +13% -4% +53% -100% +329% -45% +50% +14% 1 Capital expenditures include direct labor, materials, supplies, and contractual services; overhead is not included. 2 Budgeted number; actual FTEs at year-end may differ. Ch a p t e r 3 Pu b l i c W o r k s 48 STORM DRAINAGE Operating revenues (in millions) Operating expenditures1 (in millions) Reserves (in millions) Average monthly residential bill Authorized staffing (FTE) Feet of storm drain pipelines cleaned (Target: 100,000) Calls for assistance with storm drains2 Percent of industrial/ commercial sites in compliance with storm water regulations (Target: 80%) FY 09 $5.8 $7.5 $1.2 $10.95 9.5 107,223 44 70% FY 10 $5.8 $3.9 $2.7 $10.95 9.5 86,174 119 81% FY 11 $6.3 $3.5 $5.0 $11.23 9.5 129,590 45 81% FY 12 $6.1 $4.3 $6.5 $11.40 9.5 157,398 18 89% FY 13 $6.2 $5.9 $6.2 $11.73 9.6 159,202 32 87% FY 14 $6.4 $4.2 $7.8 3 $11.99 10.6 173,185 35 79% FY 15 $6.4 $4.9 $5.6 $12.30 10.2 161,895 129 83% FY 16 $6.9 $4.2 $8.0 $13.03 10.3 196,519 59 83% FY 17 $6.9 $4.6 $6.0 $13.02 10.2 157,853 78 85% FY 18 $7.1 $4.4 $1.0 $13.65 13.6 188,249 21 92% Change from: Last year +3% -4% -83% +5% +33% +19% -73% +7% FY 09 +22% -41% -17% +25% +43% +76% -52% +22% 1 Consistent with the City’s operating budgets, capital improvement program (CIP) expenditures are included as operating expenditures for this department. 2 Estimated. WASTEWATER TREATMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE Wastewater Treatment Fund Regional Water Quality Control Plant Watershed Protection Operating revenues (in millions) Operating expenditures1 (in millions) Percent of operating expenditures reimbursed by other jurisdictions Reserves (in millions) Authorized staffing (FTE) Millions of gallons processed2 (Target: 8,200) Fish toxicity test – percent survival (Target: 100%) Authorized staffing (FTE) Inspections of industrial/ commercial sites3 Percent of wastewater treatment discharge tests in compliance (Target: 99%) FY 09 $29.1 $39.3 63% $12.9 54.3 7,958 100% 13.7 250 98.90% FY 10 $17.6 $22.4 62% $11.8 54.3 8,184 100% 13.7 300 98.82% FY 11 $20.9 $20.5 61% $15.8 55.5 8,652 100% 13.7 295 99.00% FY 12 $22.8 $19.8 60% $18.0 55.0 8,130 100% 14.6 300 99.27% FY 13 $21.9 $20.8 63% $18.9 55.5 7,546 100% 14.6 362 99.80% FY 14 $18.8 $21.2 61% $14.7 4 55.6 7,186 100% 13.8 443 99.70% FY 15 $24.4 $22.8 64% ($2.8) 59.7 6,512 100% 13.5 450 99.40% FY 16 $24.0 $23.1 64% ($2.1) 56.8 6,387 100% 13.5 397 99.67% FY 17 $23.9 $23.8 62% ($0.4) 57.3 7,176 100% 13.8 301 100.00% FY 18 $27.7 $23.7 63% ($15.0) 57.2 6,464 100% 11.6 406 100.00% Change from: Last year +16% +0% +1% +3650% +0% -10% +0% -16% +35% +0% FY 09 -5% -40% +0% +16% +5% -19% +0% -15% +62%+1% 1 Consistent with the City’s operating budgets, capital improvement program (CIP) expenditures are included as operating expenditures for this department. 2 Includes gallons processed for all cities served by Palo Alto’s Regional Water Quality Control Plant. 3 Prior to 2009, only automotive sites were reported. Beginning in 2009, inspections reported include industrial, automotive, and food service facilities. 4 Includes $5.5 million of rate stabilization reserve.Ch a p t e r 3 Pu b l i c W o r k s 49 Tons of materials recycled or composted1 Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) participation – number of households (Target: 4,430) Percent of households with mini-can garbage service (20 gallon cart) (Target: 33%) Commercial accounts with compostable service2 (Target: 36%) FY 09 49,911 4,817 - - FY 10 48,811 4,710 21% 21% FY 11 56,586 4,876 25% 14% FY 12 51,725 4,355 29% 13% FY 13 47,941 4,409 32% 15% FY 14 49,594 4,878 33% 26% FY 15 50,546 4,767 35% 28% FY 16 56,438 4,920 38% 36% FY 17 60,582 5,594 40% 52% FY 18 57,744 5,814 42% 97% Change from: Last year -5% +4% +2% +45% FY 09 +16% +21% - - 1 Tons of materials recycled or composted do not include self-hauled materials by residents or businesses. 2 The new compostable service began in July 2009. The Department reports that the FY 2011 decrease was due to customers stopping their service after too much garbage was found in compostable containers and the FY 2014 increase is mainly due to more outreach by GreenWaste and more accounts enrolling in the program. REFUSE/ZERO WASTE Operating Revenues (in millions) Operating Expenditures1 (in millions) Reserves Monthly Residential Bill (32 gallon container) Authorized Staffing (FTE) Total tons of waste landfilled2 Percent of all sweeping routes completed (residential and commercial) FY 09 $30.0 $35.5 $0.8 $26.58 35.3 68,228 92% FY 10 $29.2 $31.4 ($1.4) $31.00 38.0 48,955 88% FY 11 $31.6 $31.0 ($0.7) $32.40 38.0 38,524 92% FY 12 $31.6 $32.4 ($1.6) $36.33 37.6 43,947 90% FY 13 $31.5 $29.7 ($0.2) $41.54 26.5 45,411 93% FY 14 $30.8 $30.1 $0.4 3 $41.54 22.0 47,088 95% FY 15 $32.9 $30.3 $1.4 $40.14 18.9 43,730 100% FY 16 $32.6 $32.6 $3.5 $43.75 15.2 - 4 100% FY 17 $34.2 $30.8 $6.7 $47.69 15.7 - 4 100% FY 18 $35.1 $28.5 $10.2 $50.07 15.7 -4 100% Change from: Last year +3% -7% +52% +5% +0% - +0% FY 09 +17% -20% +1175% +88% -56% - +8% 1 Consistent with the City’s operating budgets, capital improvement program (CIP) expenditures are included as operating expenditures for this department. 2 Reflects all waste landfilled in the previous calendar year, as reported by the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). 3 Includes -$1.6 million of rate stabilization reserve. 4 Per the department, this measure will no longer be reported. Ch a p t e r 3 Pu b l i c W o r k s 50 CITY VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT Expenditures Operating revenues (in millions) Operating expenditures (in millions) Replacements and additions (in millions) Operations and maintenance (in millions) Authorized staffing (FTE) Current value of vehicle and equipment (in millions) Number of alternative fuel vehicles (Target: 67) Percent of nonemergency vehicles using alternative fuels or technologies (Target: 26%) FY 09 $8.8 $14.8 $8.7 $4.3 16.2 $10.0 75 25% FY 10 $7.8 $7.5 $0.8 $4.0 16.0 $11.2 74 24% FY 11 $8.1 $6.8 $1.5 $3.1 16.6 $10.8 63 24% FY 12 $8.1 $8.7 $1.6 $3.5 17.0 $10.0 60 25% FY 13 $8.0 $8.0 $1.6 $4.2 18.2 $9.0 57 23% FY 14 $7.8 $7.5 $2.8 $4.7 18.2 $8.5 61 25% FY 15 $8.0 $8.5 $2.9 $5.6 19.9 $10.0 51 26% FY 16 $9.1 $8.6 $3.0 $5.6 17.3 $11.2 51 27% FY 17 $9.7 $10.5 $5.0 $5.5 17.3 $11.8 51 33% FY 18 $9.9 $11.0 $5.3 $5.7 17.3 $16.5 51 32% Change from: Last year +2% +5% +6% +4% +0% +40% +0% -1% FY 09 +13% -26% -39% +33% +7% +65% -32% +7% Light-duty vehicles Total miles traveled Median mileage Median age Maintenance cost per vehicle1 Percent of scheduled preventive maintenance performed within five business days of original schedule FY 09 1,615,771 44,784 8.0 $2,123 94% FY 10 1,474,747 47,040 8.7 $1,836 93% FY 11 1,447,816 47,252 8.8 $2,279 98% FY 12 1,503,063 50,345 9.7 $2,168 98% FY 13 1,382,375 52,488 9.7 $2,177 97% FY 14 1,409,342 57,721 10.7 $2,733 92% FY 15 1,406,980 54,630 10.3 $3,083 90% FY 16 1,213,613 51,421 11.8 $2,900 92% FY 17 1,104,906 51,137 10.3 $3,317 90% FY 18 1,102,402 45,994 9.0 $3,077 91% Change from: Last year -0% -10% -13% -7% +1% FY 09 -32% +3% +13% +45% -3% 1 Does not include fuel or accident repairs; includes maintenance costs for 30 police patrol cars. Ch a p t e r 3 Pu b l i c W o r k s 51 Ut i l i t i e s ELECTRIC Operating revenues (in millions) Operating expenditures1 (in millions) Capital expenditures2 (in millions) General Fund transfers (in millions) Electric Fund reserves (in millions) Authorized staffing (FTE) Electricity purchases (in millions) Average purchase cost (per megawatt hour) Energy Conservation/ Efficiency Program expenditures (in millions) Average monthly residential bill3 FY 09 $129.9 $139.7 $5.5 $9.7 $129.4 107.0 $82.3 $83.34 $2.1 $38.87 FY 10 $130.7 $126.4 $7.5 $11.5 $133.4 109.0 $68.7 $74.11 $2.7 $42.76 FY 11 $125.9 $116.5 $7.3 $11.2 $142.7 107.0 $61.2 $64.01 $2.7 $42.76 FY 12 $123.1 $118.3 $6.4 $11.6 $147.3 108.9 $58.7 $65.00 $3.2 $42.76 FY 13 $125.3 $124.5 $10.4 $11.8 $143.3 109.6 $61.3 $69.15 $2.6 $42.76 FY 14 $126.1 $128.8 $7.7 $11.2 $140.5 112.9 $68.8 $77.84 $2.6 $42.76 FY 15 $123.7 $138.9 $7.2 $11.4 $96.5 119.0 $78.4 $88.77 $1.8 $42.76 FY 16 $122.7 $139.4 $9.7 $11.7 $81.7 114.0 $73.4 $83.67 $1.6 $42.76 FY 17 $142.0 $144.4 $5.8 $12.0 $76.6 113.0 $80.5 $71.85 $3.3 $46.79 FY 18 $157.1 $150.9 $6.2 $12.9 $58.3 111.2 $94.7 $98.90 $2.8 $55.14 Change from: Last year +11% +5% +7% +8% -24% -2% +18% +37% -15% +18% FY 09 +21% +8% +13% +33% -55% +4% +15% +18% +33% +42% 1 Consistent with the City’s operating budgets, capital improvement program (CIP) expenditures are included as operating expenditures for this department. 2 Capital expenditures include direct labor, materials, supplies, and contractual services. 3 Electric comparisons based on recent residential median data: 365 kilowatt-hour (kWh)/month in summer (May-October), 453 kWh/month in winter (November-April). Prior years were restated to more accurately reflect a monthly utility bill. Does not include 5 percent utility users tax. 4 Reduction of reserves resulted from the implementation of GASB Statement No. 68, as described in the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report period ended June 30, 2014. Electric consumption (in MWH1) Percent power content Number of customer accounts Residential Commercial and other Average residential usage per capita Renewable large hydro facilities Qualifying renewables2 Electric savings achieved annually through efficiency programs (% of total sales) Electric service interruptions over 1 minute in duration Average outage duration per customer affected (Target: <60 minutes) Circuit miles under- grounded during the year FY 09 28,527 159,899 835,784 2.52 47% 19% 0.47% 28 118 0.0 FY 10 29,430 163,098 801,990 2.53 34% 17% 0.55% 20 132 0.0 FY 11 29,708 160,318 786,201 2.47 45% 20% 0.70% 33 141 1.2 FY 12 29,545 160,604 781,960 2.45 65% 20% 1.52% 25 67 1.2 FY 13 29,299 156,411 790,430 2.36 42% 21% 0.88% 25 139 1.2 FY 14 29,338 153,190 797,594 2.32 40% 21% 0.87% 16 16 0.0 FY 15 29,065 145,284 791,559 2.17 27% 22% 0.60% 17 44 1.2 FY 16 29,304 150,112 787,045 2.26 32% 31% 0.70% 26 39 0.0 FY 17 29,616 148,986 768,701 2.24 40% 51% 0.07% 42 64 0.7 FY 18 29,475 149,526 750,470 2.22 37% 63% 0.82% 33 33 0.0 Change from: Last year -0% +0% -2% -1% -8% +12% +.75% -21% -48% +0% FY 09 +3% -6% -10% -12% -21% +44% +.35% +18% -72% +0% 1 Megawatt hours. 2 Includes biomass, biogas, geothermal, small hydro facilities (not large hydro), solar, and wind. The City Council established a target of 33% renewable power by 2015. Mission:To provide safe, reliable, environmentally sustainable, and cost-effective services. Ch a p t e r 3 52 GAS Operating revenues (in millions) Operating expenditures1 (in millions) Capital expenditures2 (in millions) General Fund transfers (in millions) Gas Fund reserves (in millions) Authorized staffing (FTE) Gas purchases (in millions) Average purchase cost (per therm) Average monthly residential bill3 FY 09 $49.5 $44.4 $4.5 $3.3 $26.4 48.4 $25.1 $0.80 $56.60 FY 10 $46.8 $43.0 $5.1 $5.4 $29.6 49.0 $22.5 $0.71 $51.03 FY 11 $50.4 $45.7 $2.0 $5.3 $34.4 54.3 $21.5 $0.65 $51.03 FY 12 $50.9 $48.7 $5.1 $6.0 $36.2 52.3 $16.2 $0.53 $51.03 FY 13 $35.6 $38.1 $5.0 $6.0 $32.0 53.3 $13.5 $0.45 $37.50 FY 14 $36.6 $39.9 $9.4 $5.8 $28.3 53.4 $14.3 $0.49 $39.89 FY 15 $31.2 $34.4 $7.5 $5.7 $11.5 4 55.4 $10.5 $0.41 $37.39 FY 16 $30.7 $28.1 $2.8 $6.2 $14.0 52.5 $8.1 $0.42 $33.64 FY 17 $36.9 $33.3 $1.8 $6.7 $16.5 52.2 $12.6 $0.43 $33.64 FY 18 $36.5 $32.2 $2.6 $6.7 $8.7 53.9 $12.9 $0.40 $39.16 Change from: Last year -1% -3% +44% +0% -47% +3% +2% -7% +16% FY 09 -26% -27% -42% +103% -67% +11% -49% -50% -31% 1 Consistent with the City’s operating budgets, capital improvement program (CIP) expenditures are included as operating expenditures for this department. 2 Capital expenditures include direct labor, materials, supplies, and contractual services. 3 Gas comparisons based on recent residential median data: 18 therms/month in summer (April-October), 54 therms/month in winter (November-March). Commodity prices switched to market rate in FY 2013. Prior years were restated to more accurately reflect a monthly utility bill. Does not include 5 percent utility users tax. 4 Reduction of reserves resulted from the implementation of GASB Statement No. 68, as described in the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report period ended June 30, 2014. Gas consumption (in therms) Unplanned service outages Number of leaks found Number of customer accounts Residential Commercial and other Average residential usage per capita Natural gas savings achieved annually through efficiency programs (% of total sales) Number Total customers affected Ground leaks Meter leaks FY 09 23,090 11,003,088 19,579,877 173 0.28% 46 766 210 265 FY 10 23,724 11,394,712 19,350,424 177 0.40% 58 939 196 355 FY 11 23,816 11,476,609 19,436,897 177 0.55% 22 114 124 166 FY 12 23,915 11,522,999 18,460,195 176 0.73% 35 111 95 257 FY 13 23,659 10,834,793 18,066,040 163 1.40% 65 265 91 279 FY 14 23,592 10,253,776 17,862,866 155 1.34% 49 285 102 300 FY 15 23,461 8,537,754 16,522,430 127 0.90% 14 195 61 188 FY 16 23,467 9,535,377 17,183,260 143 1.01% 8 78 36 250 FY 17 23,637 10,233,669 18,073,040 154 0.42% 5 71 32 181 FY 18 23,395 10,261,276 18,052,939 153 0.88% 12 136 44 220 Change from: Last year -1% +0% +0% -1% +.46% +140% +92% +38% +22% FY 09 +1% -7% -8% -12% +.60% -74% -82% -79% -17% Ch a p t e r 3 Ut i l i t i e s 53 WATER Operating revenues (in millions) Operating expenditures1 (in millions) Capital expenditures2 (in millions) General Fund transfers (in millions) Water Fund reserves (in millions) Authorized staffing (FTE) Water purchases (in millions) Average purchase costs (per 100CCF3) Average monthly residential bill4 Total water in CCF sold (in millions) FY 09 $29.5 $28.9 $4.9 $2.7 $26.6 47.7 $8.4 $1.46 $42.97 5.4 FY 10 $28.8 $30.5 $7.1 $0.1 $28.7 46.8 $9.1 $1.70 $43.89 5.0 FY 11 $28.4 $31.8 $7.6 $0.0 $25.5 46.9 $10.7 $1.99 $43.89 5.0 FY 12 $33.8 $41.6 $9.7 $0.0 $23.1 46.4 $14.9 $2.74 $53.62 5.1 FY 13 $40.5 $47.7 $15.3 $0.0 $34.2 49.0 $16.6 $3.03 $62.16 5.1 FY 14 $42.8 $38.4 $9.8 $0.0 $37.1 48.2 $15.7 $3.33 $67.35 5.0 FY 15 $38.6 $34.5 $4.2 $0.0 $27.5 5 51.1 $15.7 $3.77 $67.35 4.4 FY 16 $39.8 $42.1 $8.4 $0.0 $24.5 47.7 $17.6 $4.75 $82.51 3.8 FY 17 $45.3 $38.6 $3.7 $0.0 $28.8 48.7 $20.1 $5.08 $87.24 4.1 FY 18 $45.8 $38.6 $7.1 $0.0 $25.7 47.0 $22.0 $4.89 $84.27 5.0 Change from: Last year +1% +0% +92% ++0% -11% -3% +9% -4% -3% +22% FY 09 +55% +34% +45% -100% -3% -1% +162% +235% +96% -7% 1 Consistent with the City’s operating budgets, capital improvement program (CIP) expenditures are included as operating expenditures for this department. 2 Capital expenditures include direct labor, materials, supplies, and contractual services. 3 CCF = hundred cubic feet. 4 Water comparisons based on recent residential median data: 9 CCF/month. Prior years were restated to more accurately reflect a monthly utility bill. Does not include 5 percent utility users tax. 5 Reduction of reserves resulted from the implementation of GASB Statement No. 68, as described in the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report period ended June 30, 2014. Water consumption (in CCF1) Unplanned service outages Number of customer accounts Residential Commercial and other2 Average residential usage per capita Water savings achieved through efficiency programs (% of total sales) Number Total customers affected Percent of miles of water mains replaced Water quality compliance with all required CA Department of Health and Environmental Protection Agency testing FY 09 19,422 2,566,962 2,828,163 40 0.98% 19 230 1.0% 100% FY 10 20,134 2,415,467 2,539,818 38 1.35% 25 291 2.0% 100% FY 11 20,248 2,442,415 2,550,043 38 0.47% 11 92 3.0% 100% FY 12 20,317 2,513,595 2,549,409 38 1.09% 10 70 0.0% 100% FY 13 20,043 2,521,930 2,575,499 38 0.53% 61 950 2.0% 100% FY 14 20,037 2,496,549 2,549,766 38 0.64% 50 942 0.1% 100% FY 15 20,061 2,052,176 2,380,584 31 0.91% 17 241 0.0% 100% FY 16 19,994 1,696,383 2,113,336 25 1.96% 38 651 0.7% 100% FY 17 20,213 1,856,879 2,238,014 28 1.40% 18 473 0.2% 100% FY 18 20,000 2,120,588 2,509,305 31 1.07% 19 417 1.1% 100% Change from: Last year -1% +14% +12% +11% -.33% +6% -12% +.9% +0% FY 09 +3% -17% -11% -23% +.09% +0% +81% +.1% +0% 1 CCF = hundred cubic feet. 2 Includes commercial, industrial research, and City facilities. Ch a p t e r 3 Ut i l i t i e s 54 WASTEWATER COLLECTION Operating revenues (in millions) Operating expenditures1 (in millions) Capital expenditures2 (in millions) Wastewater Collection Fund reserves (in millions) Authorized staffing (FTE) Average monthly residential bill3 Number of customer accounts Percent miles of mains cleaned/ treated Percent miles of sewer lines replaced Number of sewage overflows Percent sewage spills and line blockage responses within 2 hours FY 09 $15.5 $15.0 $2.9 $14.1 25.5 $23.48 22,210 44% 1% 277 100.00% FY 10 $15.9 $13.4 $2.8 $16.6 26.1 $24.65 22,231 66% 2% 348 100.00% FY 11 $16.1 $15.5 $2.6 $17.1 28.5 $24.65 22,320 75% 2% 332 100.00% FY 12 $15.8 $16.8 $1.7 $16.8 29.7 $27.91 22,421 63% 0% 131 96.18% FY 13 $17.6 $17.4 $3.6 $16.4 30.0 $29.31 22,152 65% 2% 129 99.22% FY 14 $17.0 $16.7 $3.9 $16.6 30.2 $29.31 22,105 54% 3% 105 98.09% FY 15 $17.1 $16.0 $1.7 $10.5 4 31.0 $29.31 21,990 61% 0% 96 96.85% FY 16 $17.2 $19.1 $3.5 $8.7 29.0 $31.95 22,016 64% 2% 95 100.00% FY 17 $18.8 $24.4 $8.7 $2.6 29.3 $34.83 22,216 61% 1% 100 94.00% FY 18 $17.9 $15.1 $2.2 $0.2 29.2 $34.83 21,979 61% 0.2% 73 99.00% Change from: Last year -5% -38% -75% -92% +0% +0% -1% +0% -80% -27% +5% FY 09 +15% +1% -24% -99% +15% +48% -1% +39% -80% -74%-1% 1 Consistent with the City’s operating budgets, capital improvement program (CIP) expenditures are included as operating expenditures for this department. 2 Capital expenditures include direct labor, materials, supplies, and contractual services. 3 Wastewater comparisons are for a residential dwelling unit. Rates are not metered. 4 Reduction of reserves resulted from the implementation of GASB Statement No. 68, as described in the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report period ended June 30, 2014. FIBER OPTICS Operating revenues (in millions) Operating expenditures1 (in millions) Capital expenditures2 (in millions) Fiber Optics Fund reserves (in millions) Authorized staffing (FTE) Number of customer accounts Number of service connections Backbone fiber miles FY 09 $3.8 $1.5 $0.0 $6.4 6.0 47 178 40.6 FY 10 $3.6 $1.4 $0.1 $10.2 5.5 47 196 40.6 FY 11 $3.7 $1.9 $0.4 $11.9 7.7 59 189 40.6 FY 12 $4.1 $1.8 $0.6 $14.3 7.4 59 199 40.6 FY 13 $4.7 $1.5 $0.4 $17.0 7.3 72 205 40.6 FY 14 $4.9 $2.0 $0.5 $19.9 7.2 75 230 40.6 FY 15 $5.0 $2.0 $0.4 $21.2 8.4 64 228 42.1 FY 16 $5.0 $2.6 $0.6 $23.9 6.5 108 219 42.1 FY 17 $5.1 $2.4 $0.4 $26.0 7.3 110 228 43.0 FY 18 $4.9 $2.3 $0.7 $27.1 7.6 9 198 48.0 Change from: Last year -4% -4% +75% +4% +4% -92% -13% +12% FY 09 +29% +53% +100% +323% +27% -81% +11% +18% 1 Consistent with the City’s operating budgets, capital improvement program (CIP) expenditures are included as operating expenditures for this department. 2 Capital expenditures include direct labor, materials, supplies, and contractual services. Ch a p t e r 3 Ut i l i t i e s 55 OFFICES OF COUNCIL-APPOINTED OFFICERS General Fund Operating Expenditures (in millions) General Fund Authorized Staffing (FTE) City Manager’s Office1 City Attorney’s Office City Clerk’s Office City Auditor’s Office City Manager’s Office1 City Attorney’s Office City Clerk’s Office City Auditor’s Office FY 09 $2.0 $2.5 $1.1 $0.8 11.8 11.6 7.4 4.3 FY 10 $2.3 $2.6 $1.5 $1.0 11.0 11.6 7.2 4.3 FY 11 $2.3 $2.3 $1.2 $1.0 9.9 10.1 7.2 4.8 FY 12 $2.5 $2.8 $1.5 $0.9 11.1 9.0 7.2 4.3 FY 13 $2.5 $2.4 $1.3 $1.0 10.1 9.0 7.2 4.5 FY 14 $2.9 $2.6 $1.1 $1.0 9.6 9.0 6.2 4.5 FY 15 $2.9 $2.6 $1.1 $1.1 10.1 11.0 6.2 4.5 FY 16 $3.1 $2.8 $1.0 $1.1 9.0 11.0 6.2 5.0 FY 17 $2.4 $3.2 $1.0 $1.2 11.3 11.0 6.2 5.0 FY 18 $3.2 $3.3 $1.2 $1.2 12.2 11.0 6.2 5.0 Change from: Last year +33% +3% +20% +0% +8% +0% +0% +0% FY 09 +60% +32% +9% +50% +3% -5% -16% +16% 1 Includes figures for the Office of Sustainability, which was established as a separate office in FY 2014and is no longer classified under the City Manager’s Office for budget purposes. St r a t e g i c & S u p p o r t S e r v i c e s Missions: City Manager: Provides leadership and professional management to the City government in service to City Council policies, priorities and the community’s civic values. City Attorney: To serve Palo Alto and its policymakers by providing legal representation of the highest quality. City Auditor: To promote an honest, efficient, effective, and fully accountable City government. City Clerk: To provide excellent service to the public, City staff, and the City Council through personal assistance and the use of information technologies; to provide timely and accessible service in response to all inquiries and requests for public information and records; to provide resources through web pages to enable the public to research public information independently. Administration of elections, records management, and the legislative process are all key processes handled by the department. Ch a p t e r 3 56 St r a t e g i c & S u p p o r t S e r v i c e s City Attorney City Clerk City Auditor Number of claims handled Percent of claims resolved within 45 days of filing (Target: 90%) Percent of Action Minutes that are released within one week of the City Council meeting (Target: 90%) Percentage of Public Records Requests responded to within the required ten days (Target: 100%) Number of major work products issued1 Number of major work products issued2 per audit staff Percent of open audit recommendations implemented over the last five years (Target: 75%) Sales and use tax revenue recoveries2 FY 09 126 - - - 3 1.5 40% $84,762 FY 10 144 - - - 5 2.5 42% $135,118 FY 11 130 - - - 3 1.0 39% $24,014 FY 12 112 92% - - 5 1.7 49% $111,253 FY 13 99 95% - - 5 1.4 42% $130,760 FY 14 78 92% 95% 90% 4 1.3 43% $168,916 FY 15 99 93% 90% 95% 4 1.0 42% $116,973 FY 16 112 93% 97% 98% 5 3 1.03 45% $59,551 FY 17 93 96% 95% 96% 8 1.7 52% $380,290 FY 18 84 98% 96% 99% 6 1.3 52% $271,528 Change from: Last year -10% +2% +1% +3% -25% -24% +0% -29% FY 09 -33% -- -+100% -13% +12% +220% 1 Includes audits, the annual Performance Report, and the annual National Citizen Survey™. 2 Includes other nonrecurring revenues from transient occupancy tax, alternative fuel tax credit, and/or unclaimed property in fiscal years 2005 through 2007 and fiscal years 2010 through 2013. 3 Corrections were made to FY 2016 figures due to a miscalculation of the number of work products issued. The number of major work products issued changed from 4 to 5 and the number of major work products per staff changed from 0.8 to 1.0. Ch a p t e r 3 57 ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT General Fund Procurement Card 3 Operating expenditures (in millions) Authorized staffing (FTE) Budget stabilization reserve (in millions) Cash and investments (in millions) Rate of return on investments (Target: 2.10%) Number of accounts payable checks issued1 Average days purchase requisitions are in queue2 Value of goods and services purchased (in millions) Number of purchasing documents processed Number of transactions Total value (in millions) Total lease payments received (in millions) FY 09 $7.0 50.6 $24.7 $353.4 4.42%14,436 - $132.0 2,577 12,665 - - FY 10 $7.9 44.2 $27.4 $462.4 3.96%12,609 - $112.5 2,314 12,089 - - FY 11 $6.3 40.2 $31.4 $471.6 3.34%13,680 - $149.8 2,322 13,547 - - FY 12 $7.0 41.3 $28.1 $502.3 2.59%10,966 - $137.0 2,232 15,256 - - FY 13 $7.0 42.5 $30.4 $527.9 2.46%10,466 38 $152.5 1,945 18,985 - $3.4 FY 14 $7.1 41.5 $35.1 $541.2 2.21%10,270 30 $136.6 2,047 17,885 $6.2 $3.4 FY 15 $7.1 42.2 $48.2 $534.6 1.95%10,158 25 $129.3 1,707 17,799 $6.8 $4.0 FY 16 $7.6 42.0 $51.6 $539.7 1.82%10,144 15 $226.5 1,922 20,696 $7.8 $4.4 FY 17 $7.4 42.3 $48.1 $532.1 1.82%10,301 28 $121.6 2,566 19,085 $8.1 $4.0 FY 18 $7.7 40.5 $52.8 $522.3 1.98%10,332 22 $150.9 2,624 20,873 $9.2 $4.3 Change from: Last year +4% -4% +10% -2% +9% +0% -21% +24% +2% +9% +14% +8% FY 09 +10% -20% +114% +48% -55% -28% - +14% +2% +65% - - 1 ACH implementation will occur in FY 2018. 2 The estimated average number of days purchase requisitions remain in queue after the initiating department releases them. The Administrative Services Department started tracking this measure in May 2013. The time to convert purchase requisitions to purchase orders may very significantly depending on procurement requirements and complexity. 3 The department’s goal is to increase procurement card expenditures to $7 million per year to take advantage of the revenue the City receives through rebate. St r a t e g i c & S u p p o r t S e r v i c e s Mission:To provide proactive financial and analytical support to City departments and decision makers, and to safeguard and facilitate the optimal use of City resources. Ch a p t e r 3 58 St r a t e g i c & S u p p o r t S e r v i c e s HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT General Fund Workers’ Compensation Operating expenditures (in millions) Authorized staffing (FTE) Turnover of employees within first year 1 (Target: 1%) Estimated cost incurred2 (in thousands) Claims Paid2 (in thousands) Estimated costs outstanding2 (in thousands) Number of claims filed with days away from work3 Days lost to work- related illness or injury4 FY 09 $2.7 16.0 8% $2,625 $2,351 $274 73 1,407 FY 10 $2.7 16.3 6% $2,858 $2,324 $534 71 1,506 FY 11 $2.6 16.3 10% $1,837 $1,673 $164 45 1,372 FY 12 $2.7 16.5 8% $2,507 $2,312 $195 56 1,236 FY 13 $2.9 16.6 9% $5,393 $2,830 $2,563 43 1,815 FY 14 $3.1 16.7 16% $2,088 $1,217 $871 64 1,783 FY 15 $3.3 16.7 16% $1,527 $1,109 $418 43 1,366 FY 16 $3.6 16.7 13% $1,237 $823 $414 56 1,074 FY 17 $3.3 17.4 8% $1,018 $548 $470 42 1,168 FY 18 $3.5 17.2 9% $1,515 $603 $912 44 1,120 Change from: Last year +6% -1% +1% +49% +10% +94% +5% -4% FY 09 +30% +8% +1% -42% -74% +233% -40% -20% 1In FY 2013, the City’s probation period was extended from six months to one year. 2 Estimates of claim costs incurred during each fiscal year, and associated costs paid and outstanding as of June 30, 2015. Costs are expected to increase as claims develop. Prior-year costs were updated to reflect current costs as of June 30, 2015. 3 Restated to reflect the number of claims filed during each fiscal year that resulted in days away from work as of June 30, 2015.Numbers may increase as claims develop. 4 Based on calendar days. Federal requirements limit each claim to 180 days. Mission:To recruit, develop, and retain a diverse, well-qualified and professional workforce that reflects the high standards of the community we serve, and to lead City departments in positive employee relations, talent management, succession planning, and employee engagement. Ch a p t e r 3 The 2018 National Citizen SurveyTM January 8, 2019 Office of the City Auditor Harriet Richardson, City Auditor Houman Boussina, Senior Performance Auditor Yuki Matsuura, Performance Auditor Page intentionally left blank for two-sided printing Office of the City Auditor ● 250 Hamilton Avenue, 7th Floor ● Palo Alto, CA 94301 ● 650.329.2667 Copies of the full report are available on the Office of the City Auditor website at: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/aud/reports/accomplishments/default.asp Office of the City Auditor EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The 2018 National Citizen Survey™ The Honorable City Council Palo Alto, California This report presents the results of the 16th annual National Citizen Survey™ (NCS™) for the City of Palo Alto. We contract with the National Research Center to conduct the statistically valid NCS™, which gathers resident opinions across a range of community issues, including the quality of the community and City-provided services. BACKGROUND The City of Palo Alto began contracting with the National Research Center (NRC) in 2003 to conduct the statistically valid NCS™. The NRC began distributing the survey in 2011 in a manner that would maintain statistical validity citywide as well as within the north and south areas of Palo Alto, and began distributing the survey in 2014 to maintain statistical validity citywide, in the north and south areas, and in six geographic areas of the City (see the maps on report pages 6 and 7 for a breakdown of the north and south and the six geographic areas). The 2018 survey results have a confidence level of 95 percent, but varying margins of error based on the number of responses by geographic area:  Citywide – plus or minus 3 percentage points  North/South – plus or minus 5 percentage points  Six geographic areas – plus or minus 11 percentage points Over time, we increased the number of households receiving the survey because the response rate has declined gradually since we conducted the first survey in 2003, from a high of 51 percent in 2004, to a low of 21 percent in 2017 and 2018. Increasing the number of households helps ensure a statistically reliable response rate based on Palo Alto’s population. In 2018, we shortened the survey by deleting questions that departments identified either as not important to them for managing their performance or as ones where quantitative results are available through another source, as well as demographic questions that are not used for weighting or analyzing the results. The table below shows the trends in response rates since we began conducting the survey in 2003. Survey Response Rate: 2003 through 2016 2003-2006 2007-2009 2010 2011-2013 2014-2017 2018 Number of Surveys Mailed 1,200 1,200 1,800 1,200 3,000 4,500 Number of Responses 495 - 582 415 - 437 624 316 - 427 614 -796 889 Response Rate* 42% - 51% 37% - 38% 36% 27% - 37% 21% -27% 21% * The response rate is based on the number of surveys mailed minus the number of undeliverable surveys returned by the post office (e.g., because the housing unit was vacant). RESULTS HIGHLIGHTS Quality of Life – Ratings have declined and vary by area The ratings for all quality of life questions (survey question 1) declined from one to five percentage points, except for “Palo Alto as a place to retire,” which declined 11 percentage points compared to the 2017 survey. Except for “Your neighborhood as a place to live,” the ratings for all the quality of life questions have gradually declined over the last four to five years and in 2018 received the lowest percentages of “excellent” or “good “ratings since Palo Alto began conducting the survey in 2003. For the fourth consecutive year, less than 90 percent of respondents Executive Summary: The 2018 National Citizen Survey™ ii rated the overall quality of life as “excellent” or “good.” Despite that, most respondents, 78 percent, said they are “very” or “somewhat likely” to remain in Palo Alto for the next five years (survey question 3). However, that percentage has also gradually declined since 2011-2013. In each of those years, 87 percent of respondents were “likely" or “somewhat likely” to remain in Palo Alto for the next five years. The average rating for all quality of life questions is 76 percent, compared to 80 percent in 2017. The averages were statistically different by geographic subgroups, ranging from a high of 83 percent in Area 3 to a low of 70 percent in Area 4. Both the North and South and Areas 2, 4, 5, and 6 had average ratings of less than 80 percent in 2018, compared to only the South and Areas 4 and 5 in 2017. Reviewing responses to the individual subquestions within Questions 2 through 12 of the survey can provide insight into the types of issues that have caused residents to reduce their ratings on the quality of life questions over the last several years. The following tables show survey results for the quality of life questions for the ten most recent years and two baseline years (2003 and 2008).1 Overall Quality of Life in Palo Alto - Percent Rating “Excellent” or “Good” 4 10-year results plus baseline years of 2003 and 2008: 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2003 84% 89% 85% 88% 91% 91% 94% 92% 94% 93% 91% 92% Palo Alto as a Place to Live - Percent Rating “Excellent” or “Good” 10-year results plus baseline years of 2003 and 2008: 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2003 89% 91% 91% 92% 95% 92% 95% 94% 95% 94% 95% 95% 1 N/A in the historical data means the question was not asked in that particular year. 84%87%80%88%82%88%73%83%89% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Overall North South Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5 Area 6 89%91%88%93%84%94%88%90%90% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Overall North South Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5 Area 6 Executive Summary: The 2018 National Citizen Survey™ iii Your Neighborhood as a Place to Live - Percent Rating “Excellent” or “Good” 10-year results plus baseline years of 2003 and 2008: 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2003 90% 91% 91% 90% 92% 91% 90% 90% 91% 90% 91% 88% Palo Alto as a Place to Raise Children - Percent Rating “Excellent” or “Good” 10-year results plus baseline years of 2003 and 2008: 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2003 82% 84% 84% 87% 93% 90% 92% 93% 93% 91% 94% 90% Palo Alto as a Place to Work - Percent Rating “Excellent” or “Good” 10-year results plus baseline years of 2003 and 2008: 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2003 80% 82% 82% 87% 86% 89% 88% 89% 87% 87% 90% N/A 90%92%88%93%89%92%83%92%92% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Overall North South Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5 Area 6 82%80%83%88%86%89%77%80%75% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Overall North South Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5 Area 6 80%81%79%84%77%86%78%82%79% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Overall North South Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5 Area 6 Executive Summary: The 2018 National Citizen Survey™ iv Palo Alto as a Place to Visit - Percent Rating “Excellent” or “Good” 10-year results plus baseline years of 2003 and 2008: 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2003 68% 71% 72% 74% 75% N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Palo Alto as a Place to Retire - Percent Rating “Excellent” or “Good” 10-year results plus baseline years of 2003 and 2008: 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2003 40% 51% 50% 52% 60% 56% 68% 68% 65% 64% 67% 68% Quality of Services and Overall Direction That Palo Alto Is Taking The NCS™ also collects residents’ opinions regarding the overall quality of City services and the overall direction that the City is taking. Responses to these two questions and the quality of life questions can affect how likely it is that respondents expect to remain in Palo Alto for the next five years. The percentage of respondents who rated the quality of Palo Alto services and the overall direction that Palo Alto is taking as “excellent” or “good” both decreased, from 86 percent in 2017 to 82 percent in 2018, and from 45 percent in 2017 to 42 percent in 2018, respectively. Neither change was statistically significant; however, responses to both questions have fluctuated over time, with overall statistically significant declines in residents’ perspectives. Similarly, the likelihood of respondents remaining in Palo Alto for the next five years has fluctuated over time, with an overall statistically significant decrease in the percentage of respondents who are likely to remain in Palo Alto. The tables below show the survey results for the ten most recent years and two baseline years (2003 and 2008) for quality of City services, direction that Palo Alto is taking, and likelihood of remaining in Palo Alto.2 2 N/A in the historical data means the question was not asked in that particular year. 68%66%70%78%71%81%61%55%64% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Overall North South Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5 Area 6 40%44%37%48%40%48%27%30%47% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Overall North South Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5 Area 6 Executive Summary: The 2018 National Citizen Survey™ v Quality of Services Provided by the City of Palo Alto - Percent Rating “Excellent” or “Good” 10-year results plus baseline years of 2003 and 2008: 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2003 82% 86% 81% 85% 83% 84% 88% 83% 80% 80% 85% 87% Overall Direction That Palo Alto Is Taking - Percent Rating “Excellent” or “Good” 10-year results plus baseline years of 2003 and 2008: 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2003 42% 45% 40% 48% 50% 54% 59% 55% 57% 53% 63% 54% Likely to Remain in Palo Alto for Next Five Years - Percent Rating “Very” or “Somewhat Likely” 10-year results plus baseline years of 2003 and 2008: 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2003 78% 76% 75% 80% 83% 87% 87% 87% 83% 87% 85% N/A 82%84%80%86%84%82% 75%85%82% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Overall North South Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5 Area 6 42%42%42%51%43%48%37%35%41% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Overall North South Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5 Area 6 78%75%82%83%82%86%78%74%71% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Overall North South Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5 Area 6 Executive Summary: The 2018 National Citizen Survey™ vi The tables above show that residents in Area 4 gave statistically lower ratings for most of the quality of life questions, were less satisfied with the quality of City services and direction that the City is taking, and are less likely to remain in Palo Alto for the next five years.3 In contrast, respondents in Areas 1 and 3 tended to give the highest percentage of “excellent” or “good” ratings to those questions and are more likely to remain in Palo Alto for the next five years than residents in the other geographic areas. These responses could indicate a need for City staff and elected officials to engage more proactively with residents in Area 4 to better understand the reasons for their statistically lower ratings for these questions. Results by Facet The NCS™ collects residents’ opinions across eight facets. The average number of residents who rated services as “excellent” or “good” declined in all eight facets, from one to seven percentage points. The declines are statistically meaningful for the education and enrichment and the built environment facets when compared with the 2017 ratings. Most respondents were pleased with the safety and natural environment facets, which had average “excellent” or “good” ratings of 80 percent or higher and no individual questions with an “excellent” or “good” rating of less than 70 percent. Respondents did not view the other facets as favorably, and particularly the economy, community engagement, and mobility facets, which each had an “excellent” or “good” rating of more than 80 percent for only one question. The following table shows the average ratings of “excellent” or “good” for each facet, with a four-year comparison and the questions that rated the lowest and highest in each facet. Survey Results by Facet With Prior-Year Comparisons* Area Average Percent Rating Facet as “Excellent” or “Good” 2018 Range of “Excellent” or “Good” Ratings (Low to High) 2018 2017 2016 2015 Safety 85% 87% 86% 86% Low: 73%, City-run animal shelter High: 94%, Fire services Natural environment 82% 86% 83% 83% Low: 72%, Street tree maintenance High: 87%, Quality of overall natural environment in Palo Alto and drinking water Recreation and wellness 75% 76% 74% 78% Low: 38%, Availability of affordable quality mental health care High: 91%, City parks Education and enrichment 74% 81% 78% 82% Low: 37%, Availability of affordable quality child care/preschool High: 91%, K-12 education Economy 66% 68% 67% 69% Low: 8%, Cost of living in Palo Alto High: 80%, Palo Alto as a place to work Community engagement 64% 66% 61% 66% Low: 42%, Overall direction that Palo Alto is taking High: 85%, Opportunities to learn about City services through social media Built environment 61% 68% 62% 63% Low: 5%, Availability of affordable quality housing High: 94%, Reliability of utility services Mobility 54% 58% 57% 57% Low: 22%, Ease of travel by public transportation High: 83%, Ease of walking in Palo Alto * 2015 was the first year that we analyzed the results by facet. The facets with the overall average ratings of less than 80 percent included one or more questions that received “excellent” or “good” ratings of less than 50 percent. The following table shows the survey questions that 3 See map on page 7 of the Report of Results for a list of neighborhoods in each geographic area. Executive Summary: The 2018 National Citizen Survey™ vii received those low ratings, along with prior-year comparisons. No questions that rated 50 percent or less in 2017 improved to more than 50 percent in 2018, and most of the questions that rated 50 percent or less in 2017 had lower ratings in 2018. Questions With an Average “Excellent/Good” Rating of 50 Percent or Less and Prior-Year Comparisons Facet Question “Excellent/Good” Percentage 2018 2017 2016 2015 Recreation and Wellness Availability of affordable quality mental health care 38% 52% 46% 53% Education and enrichment Availability of affordable quality child care/ preschool 37% 47% 39% 49% Economy Cost of living in Palo Alto 8% 8% 7% 8% Community engagement Overall direction that Palo Alto is taking 42% 45% 40% 48% Overall confidence in Palo Alto government 46% 49% 44% 53% Generally acting in the best interest of the community 45% 51% 44% 53% Built environment Availability of affordable quality housing 5% 6% 6% 8% Variety of housing options 13% 18% 17% 20% Land use, planning, and zoning 39% 40% 37% 40% Building and planning application processes 44% N/A N/A N/A Overall quality of new development in Palo Alto 46% 50% 42% 49% Mobility Ease of travel by public transportation in Palo Alto 22% 29% 28% 26% Traffic flow on major streets 28% 33% 30% 31% Ease of public parking 34% 32% 33% 36% Ease of travel by car in Palo Alto 45% 42% 44% 44% Traffic signal timing 45% 49% 50% 47% Street repair 46% 55% 57% 51% Residents continue to have low participate rates in certain community engagement activities, which means that most residents do not provide input on issues that could affect the direction of City policies. The following table compares respondents’ participation during the most recent four years for four key community engagement activities. Community Engagement Facet Question 2018 2017 2016 2015 Watched (online or on television) a local public meeting 12% 16% 14% 18% Contacted Palo Alto elected officials (in-person, phone, email, or web) to express their opinion 21% 20% 17% 15% Attended a local public meeting 25% 24% 21% 22% Contacted the City of Palo Alto (in-person, phone, email, or web) for help or information 46% 50% 52% 52% There were also notable differences in the level of community engagement between residents of North Palo Alto and those in South Palo Alto: 52 percent of respondents in North Palo Alto said they had contacted the City compared to 41 percent of respondents in South Palo Alto, and 24 percent of respondents in North Palo Alto said they had contacted elected officials compared to 17 percent in South Palo Alto. In contrast, respondents in South Palo Alto were more likely to attend a local public meeting, with 27 percent of respondents saying they had attended one in the past year compared to 23 percent of respondents in North Palo Alto. At 12 percent each, respondents in both North and South Palo Alto were equally likely to watch a local public meeting online Executive Summary: The 2018 National Citizen Survey™ viii or on television in the past year. However, the percentage of respondents who watch a local public meeting has gradually declined over the past several years, from 24 percent in 2013 to 12 percent in 2018. Changes From Last Year and Over Time Overall, ratings for questions 1-12 (i.e., standardized questions) were generally stable from 2017 to 2018, with 81 questions rated similarly in both years. Results are generally considered similar if the ratings from one year to the next differ by five or fewer percentage points.4 Residents’ responses were less favorable to 25 questions and were not more favorable to any questions in 2018 than in 2017, as shown in the table below. Responses That Declined More than 5 Percent in Past Year Question (percent rating “excellent” or “good” unless otherwise noted) 2018 2017 Percentage Point Change Overall quality of life in Palo Alto 84% 89% -5% Variety of housing options 13% 18% -5% Treating all residents fairly 51% 56% -5% Feeling of safety in Palo Alto’s downtown/commercial areas after dark (very/somewhat safe) 69% 75% -6% Recreational opportunities 75% 81% -6% Opportunities to participate in community matters 68% 74% -6% Street cleaning 72% 78% -6% Recreation programs or classes 81% 87% -6% Art programs and theater 76% 82% -6% Palo Alto government generally acting in the best interest of the community) 45% 51% -6% Ease of travel by public transportation in Palo Alto 22% 29% -7% Opportunities to attend cultural/arts/music activities 74% 81% -7% Opportunities to participate in social events and activities 65% 72% -7% Traffic enforcement 53% 60% -7% Overall customer service by Palo Alto employees (police, receptionists, planners, etc.) 77% 84% -7% City’s website 65% 72% -7% Quality of services provided by state government 46% 54% -8% Opportunities to learn about City services through social media websites such as Twitter and Facebook 67% 76% -9% Street repair 46% 55% -9% City-run animal shelter 73% 82% -9% Storm drainage 71% 81% -10% Availability of affordable quality child care/preschool 37% 47% -10% Palo Alto as a place to retire 40% 51% -11% Availability of affordable quality mental health care 38% 52% -12% Used the City’s website to conduct business or pay bills (frequency) 41% 54% -13% Although not showing a statistically meaningful change from 2017, residents’ opinions in several areas have improved or declined over time, which is more likely to represent real shifts in residents’ perspectives. Since 2008, the responses to 52 questions had statistically meaningful changes – responses improved for 12 questions and declined for 40 questions. The following table shows the questions that had response changes of five or more percentage points since 2008. Of note is that the number of areas where ratings improved over time has 4 Rounding results in some questions having a statistically significant change although the change is shown as five percentage points. Executive Summary: The 2018 National Citizen Survey™ ix declined, from 18 in 2016 and 19 in 2017 to 13 in 2018, while the number of areas where ratings declined over time has increased, from 21 in 2016 and 25 in 2017 to 39 in 2018. The table below shows the changes in ratings over time. Responses That Improved or Declined More Than 5 Percent Over Time (percent rating “excellent” or “good” unless otherwise noted) 2018 Rating 2008 Rating Percentage Point Change Trend Variety of library materials 88% 67% +21% ↑ Used the City’s website to conduct business or pay bills in the last 12 months (yes)a 41% 25% +16% ↑ Employment opportunities 73% 61% +12% ↑ Quality of services provided by state government 46% 34% +12% ↑ Availability of affordable quality child care/preschool 37% 28% +11% ↑ City’s websitea 65% 55% +10% ↑ Shopping opportunities 79% 71% +8% ↑ Sidewalk maintenance 61% 53% +8% ↑ How safe you feel in your neighborhood after dark (very/somewhat safe) 86% 79% +7% ↑ Carpooled with other adults or children instead of driving alone in the last 12 months (yes)b 60% 53% +7% ↑ Police services 89% 84% +5% ↑ Recreation centers or facilities 82% 77% +5% ↑ Overall “built environment” of Palo Altob 62% 67% -5% ↓ Openness and acceptance of the community toward people of diverse backgrounds 72% 77% -5% ↓ Opportunities to attend cultural/arts/music activities 74% 79% -5% ↓ Overall confidence in Palo Alto governmentb 46% 52% -6% ↓ Treating all residents fairlyb 51% 57% -6% ↓ Value of services for the taxes paid to Palo Alto 58% 64% -6% ↓ Vibrant downtown/commercial areasb 71% 77% -6% ↓ Recreation programs or classes 81% 87% -6% ↓ Availability of affordable quality housing 5% 12% -7% ↓ Did NOT observe a code violation or other hazard in Palo Alto (yes)b, c 63% 70% -7% ↓ Opportunities to participate in community matters 68% 75% -7% ↓ Palo Alto as a place to visitb 68% 75% -7% ↓ Recreational opportunities 75% 82% -7% ↓ Remain in Palo Alto for the next five years (very/somewhat likely) 78% 85% -7% ↓ Overall quality of life in Palo Alto 84% 91% -7% ↓ Traffic flow on major streets 28% 36% -8% ↓ Land use, planning and zoning 39% 47% -8% ↓ Overall ease of getting to the places you usually have to visit 63% 71% -8% ↓ Palo Alto as a place to raise children 82% 94% -8% ↓ Generally acting in the best interest of the communityb 45% 54% -9% ↓ Overall image or reputation of Palo Alto 83% 92% -9% ↓ Participated in religious or spiritual activities in Palo Alto during the last 12 months (yes) 30% 40% -10% ↓ Palo Alto as a place to work 80% 90% -10% ↓ Traffic signal timing 45% 56% -11% ↓ Overall quality of new development in Palo Alto 46% 57% -11% ↓ Traffic enforcement 53% 64% -11% ↓ Executive Summary: The 2018 National Citizen Survey™ x Responses That Improved or Declined More Than 5 Percent Over Time (percent rating “excellent” or “good” unless otherwise noted) 2018 Rating 2008 Rating Percentage Point Change Trend Overall economic health of Palo Alto 77% 88% -11% ↓ Contacted the City of Palo Alto for help or information (yes) 46% 58% -12% ↓ Adult educational opportunitiesb 77% 89% -12% ↓ Watched a local public meeting in the last 12 months (yes) 12% 26% -14% ↓ Ease of travel by car in Palo Alto 45% 60% -15% ↓ Opportunities to participate in social events and activities 65% 80% -15% ↓ Palo Alto as a place to live 80% 95% -15% ↓ Sense of community 52% 70% -18% ↓ Recommend living in Palo Alto to someone who asks (very/somewhat likely) 73% 91% -18% ↓ Variety of housing options 13% 34% -21% ↓ Overall direction that Palo Alto is taking 42% 63% -21% ↓ Availability of affordable quality mental health careb 38% 63% -25% ↓ Palo Alto as a place to retire 40% 67% -27% ↓ Ease of travel by public transportation in Palo Alto 22% 52% -30% ↓ a Comparison is with 2009, which is the first year the question was asked. b Comparison is with 2014, which is the first year the question was asked. c A decrease in the rating is considered an improvement for this question. Comparative Results for Geographic Areas Statistically significant variances in the combined “excellent” and “good” responses between the North and South subgroups, as well as for the six area subgroups, are shaded grey in the report. The following table shows the statistically significant variances between the North and South subgroups. Responses With Significant Differences Between North and South Palo Alto (percent rating “excellent” or “good” unless otherwise noted) North South Difference North less South Used bus, rail or other public transportation instead of driving in past 12 months (yes) 59% 45% +14% Contacted the City of Palo Alto for help or information in the past 12 months (yes) 52% 41% +11% Overall quality of new development in Palo Alto 50% 41% +9% Overall economic health of Palo Alto 81% 73% +8% Overall quality of life in Palo Alto 87% 80% +7% Ease of walking in Palo Alto 87% 80% +7% Public information services (Police/public safety) 81% 74% +7% Opportunities to participate in community matters 72% 65% +7% Value of services for the taxes paid to Palo Alto 62% 55% +7% Contacted Palo Alto elected officials in the past 12 months to express your opinion (yes) 24% 17% +7% Walked or biked instead of driving in past 12 months (yes) 91% 85% +6% Your neighborhood as a place to live 92% 88% +4% Talked to or visited with your immediate neighbors in past 12 months (yes) 92% 88% +4% Did NOT report a crime to police in the past 12 months (yes) 84% 89% -5% Remain in Palo Alto for the next five years (yes) 75% 82% -7% Recommend Palo Alto’s libraries to friends 88% 95% -7% Important for Palo Alto community to focus on faster notification systems (online, mobile or email) for Utilities billing issues, efficiency tips, outage information) (essential/very important) 39% 50% -11% Used Palo Alto public libraries or their services in past 12 months (yes) 71% 85% -14% Executive Summary: The 2018 National Citizen Survey™ xi National Benchmark Comparisons When available, benchmark comparisons are shown as the last table for each of the survey’s standard questions. The average rating column shows the City’s rating converted to a 100-point scale. The rank column shows the City’s rank among communities that asked a similar question. The comparison to benchmark column shows “similar” if Palo Alto’s average rating within the standard range of 10 points of the benchmark communities, “higher” or “lower” if Palo Alto’s average rating is greater than the standard range, and “much higher” or “much lower” if Palo Alto’s average rating differs by more than twice the standard range. Palo Alto rated much higher than the benchmark communities on 1 question, higher on 14 questions, lower on 9 questions, and much lower on 3 questions:  The one question that rated “much higher” also rated much higher in each of the last three years, but one to four more questions also rated much higher in each of the previous years.  In the “higher” category, 11 of the 14 questions also rated higher in the previous three years, and the other three questions rated higher in two of the previous three years. However, the number of questions rating higher than benchmark communities has declined over time, from 27 in 2015, 23 in 2016, and 33 in 2017, to 14 in 2018.  Four of the nine questions in the “lower” category also rated lower in the previous three years, four rated lower in one or two of the previous three years, and the question, “availability of affordable quality child care/preschool” is new to the list.  All three questions that rated “much lower” than the benchmark communities were the same three questions that rated “much lower” in each of the previous three years. The following table shows how questions differed from the benchmark communities. Palo Alto’s Ratings Compared to Benchmark Communities Much Higher Employment opportunities Higher Adult educational opportunities City parks Drinking water Ease of travel by bicycle in Palo Alto Ease of walking in Palo Alto Health and wellness opportunities in Palo Alto K-12 education Opportunities to attend cultural/arts/music activities Overall economic health of Palo Alto Overall image or reputation of Palo Alto Palo Alto as a place to work Palo Alto open space Shopping opportunities Vibrant downtown/commercial area Lower Availability of affordable quality child care/preschool Ease of public parking Ease of travel by car in Palo Alto Ease of travel by public transportation in Palo Alto Overall direction that Palo Alto is taking Palo Alto as a place to retire Recommend living in Palo Alto to someone who asks Traffic flow on major streets Watched (online or on television) a local public meeting Much Lower Availability of affordability of quality housing Cost of living in Palo Alto Variety of housing options Executive Summary: The 2018 National Citizen Survey™ xii Demographic Analysis We analyzed the survey results by demographic characteristics, with a focus on the questions related to quality of life; as well as mobility and the built environment, which were the two facets with the lowest average percentages of “excellent” and “good” ratings, and identified some trends:  Quality of Life – There were several trends in how different demographic groups responded to the quality of life questions: ◦ Except for “Palo Alto as a place to retire, respondents in the 25- to 34-year old age bracket gave the lowest ratings of “excellent” or “good” to the quality of life questions, with differences of up to 17 percentage points for “Palo Alto as a place to live,” 14 percentage points for “your neighborhood as a place to live,” 37 percentage points for “Palo Alto as a place to raise children,” 11 percentage points for “Palo Alto as a place to work,” 15 percentage points for “Palo Alto as a place to visit,” 33 percentage points for “Palo Alto as a place to retire,” and 10 percentage points for “overall quality of life in Palo Alto.” ◦ Although only 40 percent of respondents rated “Palo Alto as a place to retire” as “excellent” or “good,” certain demographic groups gave statistically higher ratings. For example, 60 percent of respondents who are fully retired, 48 percent of respondents who have lived in Palo Alto for 11 or more years, 50 percent of respondents who own their home, and 51 percent of respondents who do not have children age 17 or younger living in the home rated the question as “excellent” and “good.” ◦ Homeowners and renters rated Palo Alto as a place to live and work similarly, but a much higher percentage of homeowners than renters to gave “excellent” or “good” ratings for the other quality of life questions. The most notable differences between homeowners and renters were “Palo Alto as a place to raise children,” (79 percent of vs. 61 percent), “Palo Alto as a place to retire,” (45 percent vs. 29 percent), and “overall quality of life in Palo Alto,” (86 percent vs. 78 percent), respectively. ◦ Respondents with children age 17 or younger living in the household viewed “Palo Alto as a place to raise children” much more favorably than respondents without children, with “excellent” or “good” ratings of 86 percent and 69 percent, respectively. ◦ Although not specifically a quality of life question, we also identified trends in whether a respondent was “very” or “somewhat likely” to remain in Palo Alto for the next five years. The likelihood increased with age, whether the respondent owned or rented their home, and how long the respondent has lived in Palo Alto. Responses ranged from a low of 35 percent for respondents up to age 34 to a high of 93 percent for respondents who are 75 years or older, 93 percent for homeowners compared to 66 percent for renters, and 90 percent for respondents who have lived in Palo Alto for 11 or more years compared to 69 percent for respondents who have lived here for less than two years. Respondents were also more likely to say they would remain in Palo Alto if they had lower levels of household expenses, but the likelihood decreased as household expenses became a higher percentage of the respondents’ income. However, when we analyzed the household expenses in conjunction with household income, we identified some instances where a respondent’s household expenses could not be supported by the lower income level reported, indicating that some respondents likely misreported one or both of those elements.  Built Environment and Mobility ◦ Overall, “excellent” and “good” ratings for the built environment were low. However, more than any other factor, how long respondents have lived in Palo Alto affected their views on the built environment and mobility, with those who have lived here for 20 or more years giving the lowest ratings and those who have lived here for less than two years giving the highest ratings. The Executive Summary: The 2018 National Citizen Survey™ xiii following table show examples of “excellent” and “good ratings by those who have lived here for 20 or more years compared with those who have lived here for less than two years. Comparison of Responses for Built Environment Questions Survey Question “Excellent/Good” Ratings by Respondents Who Have Lived in Palo Alto for 20+ Years “Excellent/Good” Ratings by Respondents Who Have Lived in Palo Alto Less Than 2 Years Overall built environment 58% 70% Overall quality of new development 38% 60% Land use, planning, and zoning 33% 68% Ease of getting to places you usually have to visit 54% 69% Traffic flow on major streets 20% 46% Ease of parking 26% 51% Ease of transportation by car 32% 63% Ease of travel by public transportation 20% 36% ◦ Although all respondents rated the variety of housing options and availability of affordable quality housing low, respondents who own their home gave higher ratings of “excellent” or “good” (18 percent and 7 percent, respectively) for the variety of housing options and availability of affordable quality housing than renters gave (7 percent and 2 percent, respectively). The survey does not ask respondents to explain their answers. Further in-depth questioning, such as through targeted focus groups, could explain why differing opinions exist among the various demographic groups. CUSTOM QUESTIONS In addition to the standard survey questions, we asked five multiple-choice custom questions (14 through 18) regarding residents’ satisfaction with Palo Alto-owned utility services and modes of transportation. Some of these questions were repeat questions from prior years. Utilities Respondents are highly satisfied with the reliability of utility services, but are much less satisfied with the costs. 94 percent of respondents’ rated reliability as “excellent” or “good.” Questions related to cost and the percentages of “excellent” and “good” ratings were: “affordability of utility services” and “working hard to keep utilities prices competitive,” both 59 percent; “community value received from the City owning and operating its own municipal utility services,” 79 percent; and “value of all services Palo Alto Utilities provides for the price you pay,” 62 percent. For details, see tables 63-66 in the report. Transportation Driving (77 percent) continues to be Palo Alto residents’ primary mode of transportation for getting around town, followed by walking (11 percent) and biking (10 percent). Other modes of transportation make up less than three percent of residents’ primary mode of transportation. A much higher percentage of South Palo Alto respondents rely on driving as their primary mode of getting around town - 60 percent of respondents in South Palo Alto who said driving was their primary mode of transportation compared with 40 percent of respondents in North Palo Alto. In contrast, respondents in North Palo Alto who cited walking or biking as their primary mode of transportation were much more likely to use those modes than respondents in South Palo Alto, with percentages of 78 percent vs. 22 percent for walking and 68 percent vs. 21 percent for biking. For details, see tables 71-73 in the report. Executive Summary: The 2018 National Citizen Survey™ xiv In 2018, rideshare services (83 percent) became the most convenient choice of transportation if respondents did not have access to a car, followed by biking (77 percent) and walking (69 percent). The increase in rideshare services for convenience is significant. In previous years, rideshare services rated much lower on the convenience scale, with only 52 percent of respondents in 2015, 62 percent in 2016, and 66 percent in 2017 saying that rideshare services were “very” or “somewhat convenient.” In contrast, walking, or riding the bus, train, or free shuttle all declined significantly as convenient modes of transportation when not having access to a car: 23 percent (walking), 19 percent (bus or train), and 28 percent (shuttle) fewer respondents cited these modes as “very” or “somewhat convenient” in 2018 compared to 2017. Biking as an alternate mode of transportation remained similar, in the 76 to 77 percent range each year from 2015 through 2018. For details, see tables 74-76 in the report. For the third year, we asked residents who planned to purchase a new car within the next two years, what the likelihood would be of it being a gas vs. nongas-fueled vehicle. The most common response (71 percent) was that it would be a hybrid vehicle. The percentage is consistent with prior years, but for the first time, was a higher percentage than gas-fueled vehicles. Electric vehicles (67 percent) ranked second and gas-fueled (66 percent) ranked third. For details, see tables 77-80 in the report. Open-ended Questions We asked two open-ended questions. Although we asked respondents to provide one item for each question, many respondents cited more than one issue. We separated those comments into the individual issues to better categorize them. The complete list of comments is available in the report, The National Citizen Survey™ Open- ended Responses. The first question was, “As a resident of Palo Alto, what one change could the City make that would make you happier? This was a repeat question from 2017 and 2014. As in previous years, traffic, housing, and development (other than housing) topped respondents’ list of concerns, but traffic and housing reversed places as the number one and number two concerns. The second open-ended question was, “As a resident of Palo Alto, what one thing the City does well and would want to maintain?” There is some overlap between what some respondents identified as concerns that should be addressed and others identified as things the City does well, but the positive comments generally outnumbered the needs- improvement comments for the same issue. For example, 14 (2 percent) and 8 (1 percent) of respondents who provided comments listed issues related to safety and sense of community, respectively, as areas needing improvement, but 75 (12 percent) and 66 (10 percent) other respondents identified those as areas where the City performs well. The tables below summarize the main topics identified in the responses to each question. The first table compares concerns that respondents cited this year with those from previous years in which we asked the same question. Executive Summary: The 2018 National Citizen Survey™ xv “As a resident of Palo Alto, what one change could the City make that would make you happier?” Response Category 2018 2017 2014 Percent of Comments Number of Comments Percent of Comments Number of Comments Percent of Comments Number of Comments Traffic concerns 23% 148 15% 224 14% 76 Housing (amount, affordability/cost of living) 21% 138 25% 369 21% 113 Development (other than housing) 10% 62 12% 183 17% 93 General government operations 8% 54 7% 99 6% 34 Improvements for walking and biking 5% 34 2% 32 4% 24 Public transportation 5% 32 5% 77 3% 17 Parking concerns 4% 28 5% 79 7% 41 Other/Nothing 4% 28 8% 115 7% 40 Lower taxes and/or utility costs 4% 25 2% 23 3% 17 Reduce noise 3% 18 2% 23 2% 9 Safety 2% 14 2% 33 4% 21 Parks and recreation amenities/services 2% 11 2% 26 2% 13 Electric utilities and amenities 2% 11 N/A* N/A* N/A* N/A* Address homelessness 1% 9 1% 15 1% 6 Retail/shopping options 1% 9 3% 39 2% 10 Sense of community/community activities 1% 8 4% 56 1% 8 Downtown improvements 1% 8 1% 16 1% 6 Code enforcement 1% 5 1% 15 1% 3 Schools 1% 5 2% 27 1% 7 Beautification N/A N/A 2% 26 2% 9 Total 100% 647 100% 1,477 100% 547 * N/A means the category was not separately tracked in those years. The second open-ended question was, “As a resident of Palo Alto, what one thing the City does well and would want to maintain?” “As a resident of Palo Alto, what one thing do you believe the City does well and would want to maintain?” Response Category Percent of Comments Number of Comments Parks, open space, and natural environment 23% 142 Safety services 12% 75 Library 11% 68 Sense of community, community activities, and recreation 10% 66 Utilities 10% 60 Schools and education 8% 53 Don’t know/nothing, negative comments, additional improvements 4% 28 Balancing residential and commercial growth 4% 25 Cleanliness of community 3% 18 Ability to give input and communication with government 3% 16 Ease of bicycle travel 2% 14 General City services 2% 13 Street maintenance 2% 13 Government/leadership 2% 12 Everything/great place to live 2% 12 Public transportation 1% 8 Other 1% 7 Total 100% 630 Executive Summary: The 2018 National Citizen Survey™ xvi Page intentionally left blank for two-sided printing 2955 Valmont Road Suite 300 777 North Capitol Street NE Suite 500 Boulder, Colorado 80301 Washington, DC 20002 n-r-c.com • 303-444-7863 icma.org • 800-745-8780 Palo Alto, CA Report of Results 2018 The National Citizen Survey™ The National Citizen Survey™ © 2001-2018 National Research Center, Inc. The NCS™ is presented by NRC in collaboration with ICMA. NRC is a charter member of the AAPOR Transparency Initiative, providing clear disclosure of our sound and ethical survey research practices. Contents Detailed Survey Methods .......................................................... 3 National Benchmark Comparisons ........................................... 10 Results Tables ....................................................................... 11 Survey Materials .................................................................... 52 The National Citizen Survey™ 3 Detailed Survey Methods The National Citizen Survey™ (The NCS™) is a collaborative effort between National Research Center, Inc. (NRC) and the International City/County Management Association (ICMA). The National Citizen Survey (The NCS™), conducted by National Research Center, Inc., was developed to provide communities an accurate, affordable and easy way to assess and interpret resident opinion about important local topics. Standardization of common questions and survey methods provide the rigor to assure valid results, and each community has enough flexibility to construct a customized version of The NCS. The survey and its administration are standardized to assure high quality research methods and directly comparable results across The NCS communities. Results offer insight into residents’ perspectives about the community as a whole, including local amenities, services, public trust, resident participation, and other aspects of the community in order to support budgeting, land use and strategic planning, and communication with residents. Resident demographic characteristics permit comparison to the Census and American Community Survey estimates, as well as comparison of results for different subgroups of residents. The City of Palo Alto funded this research. Please contact Harriet Richardson, City Auditor, City of Palo Alto, at Harriet.Richardson@CityofPaloAlto.org, if you have any questions about the survey. Survey Validity The question of survey validity has two parts: 1) how can a community be confident that the results from those who completed the questionnaire are representative of the results that would have been obtained had the survey been administered to the entire population? and 2) how closely do the perspectives recorded on the survey reflect what residents really believe or do? To answer the first question, the best survey research practices were used for the resources spent to ensure that the results from the survey respondents reflect the opinions of residents in the entire community. These practices include:  Using a mail-out/mail-back methodology, which typically gets a higher response rate than phone for the same dollars spent. A higher response rate lessens the worry that those who did not respond are different than those who did respond.  Selecting households at random within the community to receive the survey to ensure that the households selected to receive the survey are representative of the larger community.  Over-sampling multifamily housing units to improve response from hard-to-reach, lower income or younger apartment dwellers.  Selecting the respondent within the household using an unbiased sampling procedure; in this case, the “birthday method.” The cover letter included an instruction requesting that the respondent in the household be the adult (18 years old or older) who most recently had a birthday, irrespective of year of birth.  Contacting potential respondents twice to encourage response from people who may have different opinions or habits than those who would respond with only a single prompt.  Inviting response in a compelling manner (using appropriate letterhead/logos and a signature of a visible leader) to appeal to recipients’ sense of civic responsibility.  Providing a preaddressed, postage-paid return envelope.  Weighting the results to reflect the demographics of the population. The answer to the second question about how closely the perspectives recorded on the survey reflect what residents really believe or do is more complex. Resident responses to surveys are influenced by a variety of factors. For questions about service quality, residents’ expectations for service quality play a role, as well as the “objective” quality of the service provided, the way the resident perceives the entire community (that is, the context in which the service is provided), the scale on which the resident is asked to record his or her opinion and, of course, the opinion itself that a resident holds about the service. Similarly, a resident’s report of certain The National Citizen Survey™ 4 behaviors is colored by what he or she believes is the socially desirable response (e.g., reporting tolerant behaviors toward “oppressed groups,” likelihood of voting for a tax increase for services to poor people, use of alternative modes of travel to work besides the single occupancy vehicle), his or her memory of the actual behavior (if it is not a question speculating about future actions, like a vote), his or her confidence that he or she can be honest without suffering any negative consequences (thus the need for anonymity), as well as the actual behavior itself. How closely survey results come to recording the way a person really feels or behaves often is measured by the coincidence of reported behavior with observed current behavior (e.g., driving habits), reported intentions to behave with observed future behavior (e.g., voting choices), or reported opinions about current community quality with objective characteristics of the community (e.g., feelings of safety correlated with rates of crime). There is a body of scientific literature that has investigated the relationship between reported behaviors and actual behaviors. Well-conducted surveys, by and large, do capture true respondent behaviors or intentions to act with great accuracy. Predictions of voting outcomes tend to be quite accurate using survey research, as do reported behaviors that are not about highly sensitive issues (e.g., family abuse or other illegal or morally sanctioned activities). For self-reports about highly sensitive issues, statistical adjustments can be made to correct for the respondents’ tendency to report what they think the “correct” response should be. Research on the correlation of resident opinion about service quality and “objective” ratings of service quality vary, with some showing stronger relationships than others. NRC’s own research has demonstrated that residents who report the lowest ratings of street repair live in communities with objectively worse street conditions than those who report high ratings of street repair (based on road quality, delay in street repair, number of road repair employees). Similarly, the lowest rated fire services appear to be “objectively” worse than the highest rated fire services (expenditures per capita, response time, “professional” status of firefighters, breadth of services, and training provided). Resident opinion commonly reflects objective performance data but is an important measure on its own. NRC principals have written, “If you collect trash three times a day but residents think that your trash haul is lousy, you still have a problem.” Survey Sampling “Sampling” refers to the method by which households were chosen to receive the survey. All households within the City of Palo Alto were eligible to participate in the survey. A list of all households within the zip codes serving Palo Alto was purchased from Go-Dog Direct based on updated listings from the United States Postal Service. Since some of the zip codes that serve the City of Palo Alto households may also serve addresses that lie outside of the community, the exact geographic location of each housing unit was compared to community boundaries using the most current municipal boundary file (updated on a quarterly basis) and addresses located outside of the City of Palo Alto boundaries were removed from consideration. Each address identified as being within City boundaries was further identified as being located in North or South Palo Alto, and within one of six areas. To choose the 4,500 survey recipients, a systematic sampling method was applied to the list of households previously screened for geographic location. Systematic sampling is a procedure whereby a complete list of all possible households is culled, selecting every N th one, giving each eligible household a known probability of selection, until the appropriate number of households is selected. Multifamily housing units were over sampled, as residents of this type of housing typically respond at lower rates to surveys than do those in single-family housing units. In general, because of the random sampling techniques used, the displayed sampling density will closely mirror the overall housing unit density (which may be different from the population density). While the theory of probability assumes no bias in selection, there may be some minor variations in practice (meaning, an area with only 15 percent of the housing units might be sampled at an actual rate that is slightly above or below that). Figure 1 and Figure 2 (pages 4 and 5) display maps of the households selected to receive the survey. The National Citizen Survey™ 5 Survey Administration and Response Selected households received two mailings, one week apart, beginning on August 6, 2018. The first mailing contained a letter from the City Auditor inviting the household to participate, a questionnaire, and a postage-paid return envelope. The second mailing contained a reminder letter, another survey, and a postage-paid return envelope. The second cover letter asked those who had not completed the survey to do so and those who had already done so to refrain from turning in another survey. The survey was available in only English. Respondents could opt to take the survey online. Completed surveys were collected over the following seven weeks. About 4 percent of the 4,500 surveys mailed were returned because the housing unit was vacant or the postal service was unable to deliver the survey as addressed. Of the remaining 4,308 households that received the survey, 889 completed the survey, providing an overall response rate of 21 percent. Of the 889 completed surveys, 186 (21 percent) were completed online. Additionally, responses were tracked by location in Palo Alto (north or south) and by six subareas, as shown in the maps below. Response rates by area ranged from 17 percent to 27 percent. The National Citizen Survey™ 6 Figure 1: Location of Survey Recipients – North/South The National Citizen Survey™ 7 Figure 2: Location of Survey Recipients – Area The National Citizen Survey™ 8 Confidence Intervals It is customary to describe the precision of estimates made from surveys by a “level of confidence” and accompanying “confidence interval” (or margin of error). A traditional level of confidence, and the one used here, is 95 percent. The 95 percent level of confidence can be any size and quantifies the sampling error or imprecision of the survey results because some residents’ opinions are relied on to estimate all residents’ opinions.1 The margin of error or confidence interval for the City of Palo Alto survey is no greater than plus or minus three percentage points around any given percent reported for the entire sample (889 completed surveys). For subgroups of responses, the margin of error increases because the number of responses for the subgroup is smaller. For subgroups of approximately 100 respondents, the margin of error is plus or minus 10 percentage points. For the North and South, the margin of error rises to approximately plus or minus five percentage points since the number of responses for the North were 409 and for the South were 480. Further, for each of the six areas within Palo Alto, the margin of error rises to approximately plus or minus 11 percentage points since number of responses were 124 for Area 1, 175 for Area 2, 133 for Area 3, 170 for Area 4, 80 for Area 5 and 207 for Area 6. The margin of error for the six areas within Palo Alto is based off the smallest number of returned surveys per area; thus margin of error was calculated using the number of returned surveys from Area 5 (80). Table 1: Survey Response Rates Number mailed Undeliverable Eligible Returned Response rate Overall 4,500 192 4,308 889 21% North 2,170 136 2,034 409 20% South 2,330 56 2,274 480 21% Area 1 474 22 452 124 27% Area 2 809 18 791 175 22% Area 3 558 5 553 133 24% Area 4 933 30 903 170 19% Area 5 481 28 453 80 18% Area 6 1,245 89 1,156 207 18% Survey Processing (Data Entry) Upon receipt, completed surveys were assigned a unique identification number. Additionally, each survey was reviewed and “cleaned” as necessary. For example, a question may have asked a respondent to pick two items out of a list of five, but the respondent checked three; in this case, NRC would use protocols to randomly choose two of the three selected items for inclusion in the dataset. All surveys were then entered twice into an electronic dataset; any discrepancies were resolved by comparing to the original survey form. Range checks, checks for duplicate submissions, as well as other forms of quality control were also performed. 1 A 95 percent level of confidence indicates that for every 100 random samples of this many residents, 95 of the confidence intervals created will include the “true” population response. This theory is applied in practice to mean that the “true” perspective of the target population lies within the confidence interval created for a single survey. For example, if 75 percent of residents rate a service as “excellent” or “good,” then the 4 percent margin of error (for the 95 percent level of confidence) indicates that the range of likely responses for the entire community is between 71 percent and 79 percent. This source of uncertainty is called sampling error. In addition to sampling error, other sources of error may affect any survey, including the nonresponse of residents with opinions different from survey responders. Though standardized on The NCS, on other surveys, differences in question wording, order, translation and data entry, as examples, can lead to somewhat varying results. The National Citizen Survey™ 9 NRC used SurveyGizmo, a web-based survey and analytics platform, to collect the online survey data. Use of an online system means all collected data are entered into the dataset when the respondents submit the surveys. Skip patterns are programmed into the system so respondents are automatically “skipped” to the appropriate question based on the individual responses being given. Online programming also allows for more rigid control of the data format, making extensive data cleaning unnecessary. A series of quality control checks were also performed in order to ensure the integrity of the web data. Steps may include and not be limited to reviewing the data for clusters of repeat IP addresses and time stamps (indicating duplicate responses) and removing empty submissions (questionnaires submitted with no questions answered). Survey Data Weighting The demographic characteristics of the survey sample were compared to those found in the 2010 Census and American Community Survey estimates for adults in the City of Palo Alto. The primary objective of weighting survey data is to make the survey sample reflective of the larger population of the community. The characteristics used for weighting were housing tenure (rent or own), housing unit type (attached or detached), race, and sex and age. The results of the weighting scheme are presented in Table 2. Table 2: Palo Alto, CA 2018 Weighting Table Characteristic 2010 Census Unweighted Data Weighted Data Housing Rent home 44% 29% 42% Own home 56% 71% 58% Detached unit* 57% 64% 58% Attached unit* 43% 36% 42% Race and Ethnicity White 68% 68% 68% Not white 32% 32% 32% Not Hispanic 95% 97% 95% Hispanic 5% 3% 5% Sex and Age Female 52% 52% 51% Male 48% 48% 49% 18-34 years of age 22% 8% 21% 35-54 years of age 41% 29% 40% 55+ years of age 37% 63% 39% Females 18-34 10% 5% 10% Females 35-54 21% 16% 20% Females 55+ 20% 31% 21% Males 18-34 12% 4% 12% Males 35-54 20% 13% 19% Males 55+ 17% 31% 18% Areas North 47% 46% 47% South 53% 54% 53% Area 1 13% 14% 12% Area 2 20% 20% 19% Area 3 13% 15% 14% Area 4 20% 19% 19% Area 5 9% 9% 10% Area 6 25% 23% 25% * American Community Survey 2011 5-year estimates The National Citizen Survey™ 10 Survey Data Analysis and Reporting The survey dataset was analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). For the most part, the percentages presented in the reports represent the “percent positive.” The percent positive is the combination of the top two most positive response options (i.e., “excellent” and “good,” “very safe” and “somewhat safe,” “essential” and “very important,” etc.), or, in the case of resident behaviors/participation, the percent positive represents the proportion of respondents indicating “yes” or participating in an activity at least once a month. Trends over Time Trend tables display trends over time, comparing the 2018 ratings for the City of Palo Alto to the 10 previous years of survey results (going back to 2008) and displaying 2003 data, the year when surveying started. Trend data for Palo Alto represent important comparison data and should be examined for improvements or declines. Deviations from stable trends over time, especially, represent opportunities for understanding how local policies, programs or public information may have affected residents’ opinions. Meaningful differences between survey years have been noted within the following tables as being “higher” or “lower” if the differences are greater than approximately five percentage points2 between the 2018 and 2017 surveys; otherwise, the comparisons between 2018 and 2017 are noted as being “similar.” When comparing results over time, small differences (those with less than a 5 percent difference compared to 2017) are more likely to be due to random variation (attributable to chance over real change), while larger differences (those greater than 5 percent compared to 2017) may be due to a real shift in resident perspective. However, it is often wise to continue to monitor results over a longer period of time to rule out random variation due to chance in the sampling process. Sometimes small changes in question wording can explain changes in results as well. Overall, ratings in Palo Alto for 2018 generally remained stable. Of the 106 items for which comparisons were available, 81 items were rated similarly in 2018 and 2017 and 25 items showed a decrease in ratings; none of the items increased in ratings. These counts are based on trend data for questions 1 through 12 and do not include trend data for any custom questions (14 through 20). Geographic Comparisons The geographic comparison tables on the following pages display differences in opinion of survey respondents by North or South location in Palo Alto and by six areas. Responses in these tables show only the proportion of respondents giving a certain answer; for example, the percent of respondents who rated the quality of life as “excellent” or “good,” or the percent of respondents who attended a public meeting more than once a month. ANOVA and chi-square tests of significance were applied to these comparisons of survey questions. A “p-value” of 0.05 or less indicates that there is less than a 5 percent probability that differences observed between areas are due to chance; or in other words, a greater than 95 percent probability that the differences observed are “real.” Where differences were statistically significant, they have been shaded grey. National Benchmark Comparisons Comparison Data NRC’s database of comparative resident opinion is comprised of resident perspectives gathered in surveys from over 600 communities whose residents evaluated the same kinds of topics as The National Citizen Survey™. The surveys gathered for NRC’s database include data from communities that have conducted The NCS, as well as citizen surveys unaffiliated with NRC. The comparison evaluations are from the most recent survey completed in 2 While the percentages are reported as rounded whole numbers, meaningful differences are identified based on unrounded percentages with decimals in place. The National Citizen Survey™ 11 each community; most communities conduct surveys every year or in alternating years. NRC adds the latest results quickly upon survey completion, keeping the benchmark data fresh and relevant, and the comparisons are to jurisdictions that have conducted a survey within the last five years. The communities in the database represent a wide geographic and population range. The City of Palo Alto chose to have comparisons made to the entire database. Interpreting the Results Ratings are compared for standard items in questions 1 through 12 when there are at least five communities in which a similar question was asked. Where comparisons are available, four columns are provided in the table. The first column is Palo Alto’s average rating, converted to a 100-point scale. The second column is the rank assigned to Palo Alto’s rating among communities where a similar question was asked. The third column is the number of communities that asked a similar question. The final column shows the comparison of Palo Alto’s rating to the benchmark. In that final column, Palo Alto’s results are noted as being “higher” than the benchmark, “lower” than the benchmark, or “similar” to the benchmark, meaning that the average rating given by Palo Alto residents is statistically similar to or different (greater or lesser) than the benchmark. More extreme differences are noted as “much higher” or “much lower.” A rating is considered “similar” if it is within the standard range of 10 points; “higher” or “lower” if the difference between Palo Alto’s rating and the benchmark is greater than the standard range but less than twice the standard range; and “much higher” or “much lower” if the difference between Palo Alto’s rating and the benchmark is higher or lower by more than twice the standard range. Where benchmark ratings were not available, “NA” indicates that this information is not applicable. Results Tables The following pages contain results for each question on the survey, the first set of results includes the “don’t know” responses, followed by results excluding the “don’t know” responses (where “don’t know” was an option), trends over time and geographic comparisons. For the questions in the survey where respondents could answer “don’t know,” the proportion of respondents giving this reply were not included for the comparisons over time and by geography. In other words, these tables display the responses from respondents who had an opinion about a specific item. For the basic frequencies, the percent of respondents giving a particular response is shown followed by the number of respondents (denoted with “N=”); the number of respondents is specific to each item, based on the actual number of responses received for the question or question item and based on the weighted data (weighted responses are rounded to the nearest whole number and may not exactly add up to the total number of responses; for more information on weighting, please see Survey Data Weighting, page 9). Generally, a small 3 New England (CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, VT) Middle Atlantic (NJ, NY, PA) East North Central (IL, IN, MI, OH, WI) West North Central (IA, KS, MN, MO, NE, ND, SD) South Atlantic (DE, FL, GA, MD, NC, SC, VA, WV) East South Central (AL, KY, MS, TN) West South Central (AK, LA, OK, TX) Mountain (AZ, CO, ID, MT, NV, NM, UT, WY) Pacific (AK, CA, HI, OR, WA) Table 3: Benchmark Database Characteristics Region3 Percent New England 3% Middle Atlantic 5% East North Central 15% West North Central 13% South Atlantic 22% East South Central 3% West South Central 7% Mountain 16% Pacific 16% Population Percent Less than 10,000 10% 10,000 to 24,999 22% 25,000 to 49,999 23% 50,000 to 99,999 22% 100,000 or more 23% The National Citizen Survey™ 12 portion of respondents select “don’t know” for most survey items and, inevitably, some items have a larger “don’t know” percentage. Comparing responses to a set of items on the same scale can be misleading when the “don’t know” responses have been included. If two items have disparate “don’t know” percentages (2 percent versus 17 percent, for example), any apparent similarities or differences across the remaining response options may disappear once the “don’t know” responses are removed. Tables displaying trend data appear for standard questions (1 through 13) and for custom questions only for the years in which the questions were asked. Meaningful differences between survey years have been noted within the following tables as being “higher” or “lower” if the differences are greater than approximately five percentage points between the 2018 and 2017 surveys; otherwise, the comparison between 2018 and 2017 are noted as being “similar.” Geographic comparisons are made for questions 1 through 18 (some questions having multiple, non-scaled responses are not included). ANOVA and chi-square tests of significance were applied to these comparisons of survey questions. A “p-value” of 0.05 or less indicates that there is less than a 5 percent probability that differences observed between area are due to chance; or in other words, a greater than 95 percent probability that the differences observed are “real.” Where differences were statistically significant, they have been shaded grey. The shading represents statistical significance for each question individually, which may differ question by question because the number of responses varied, as some residents may have skipped or answered “don’t know. The National Citizen Survey™ 13 Question 1 Table 4: Question 1 - Response Percentages and Number of Respondents including "Don't Know" Responses Please rate each of the following aspects of quality of life in Palo Alto: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total Palo Alto as a place to live 42% N=370 48% N=420 9% N=81 1% N=12 0% N=1 100% N=883 Your neighborhood as a place to live 48% N=422 42% N=369 8% N=73 2% N=17 0% N=2 100% N=882 Palo Alto as a place to raise children 34% N=297 38% N=333 13% N=118 3% N=24 12% N=107 100% N=878 Palo Alto as a place to work 31% N=268 36% N=311 13% N=112 4% N=31 17% N=153 100% N=875 Palo Alto as a place to visit 25% N=213 38% N=333 23% N=198 7% N=58 8% N=67 100% N=870 Palo Alto as a place to retire 16% N=143 18% N=153 22% N=192 28% N=247 15% N=134 100% N=868 The overall quality of life in Palo Alto 30% N=263 54% N=472 14% N=127 2% N=17 0% N=1 100% N=879 Table 5: Question 1 - Response Percentages and Number of Respondents without "Don't Know" Responses Please rate each of the following aspects of quality of life in Palo Alto: Excellent Good Fair Poor Total Palo Alto as a place to live 42% N=370 48% N=420 9% N=81 1% N=12 100% N=883 Your neighborhood as a place to live 48% N=422 42% N=369 8% N=73 2% N=17 100% N=881 Palo Alto as a place to raise children 38% N=297 43% N=333 15% N=118 3% N=24 100% N=771 Palo Alto as a place to work 37% N=268 43% N=311 16% N=112 4% N=31 100% N=722 Palo Alto as a place to visit 27% N=213 42% N=333 25% N=198 7% N=58 100% N=803 Palo Alto as a place to retire 19% N=143 21% N=153 26% N=192 34% N=247 100% N=735 The overall quality of life in Palo Alto 30% N=263 54% N=472 14% N=127 2% N=17 100% N=879 Table 6: Question 1 - Historical Results Please rate each of the following aspects of quality of life in Palo Alto: Percent positive 2018 rating compared to 2017 2003 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Palo Alto as a place to live 95% 95% 94% 95% 94% 95% 92% 95% 92% 91% 91% 89% Similar Your neighborhood as a place to live 88% 91% 90% 91% 90% 90% 91% 92% 90% 91% 91% 90% Similar Palo Alto as a place to raise children 90% 94% 91% 93% 93% 92% 90% 93% 87% 84% 84% 82% Similar Palo Alto as a place to work NA 90% 87% 87% 89% 88% 89% 86% 87% 82% 82% 80% Similar Palo Alto as a place to visit NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 75% 74% 72% 71% 68% Similar Palo Alto as a place to retire 62% 67% 64% 65% 68% 68% 56% 60% 52% 50% 51% 40% Lower The overall quality of life in Palo Alto 92% 91% 93% 94% 92% 94% 91% 91% 88% 85% 89% 84% Lower Table 7: Question 1 - Geographic Subgroup Results Percent rating "excellent" or "good" North/South Area Overall North South Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5 Area 6 Palo Alto as a place to live 91% 88% 93% 84% 94% 88% 90% 90% 89% Your neighborhood as a place to live 92% 88% 93% 89% 92% 83% 92% 92% 90% Palo Alto as a place to raise children 80% 83% 88% 86% 89% 77% 80% 75% 82% Palo Alto as a place to work 81% 79% 84% 77% 86% 78% 82% 79% 80% Palo Alto as a place to visit 66% 70% 78% 71% 81% 61% 55% 64% 68% Palo Alto as a place to retire 44% 37% 48% 40% 48% 27% 30% 47% 40% The overall quality of life in Palo Alto 87% 80% 88% 82% 88% 73% 83% 89% 84% The National Citizen Survey™ 14 Table 8: Question 1 - Benchmark Comparisons City of Palo Alto rating Rank Number of jurisdictions for comparison Comparison to benchmark Palo Alto as a place to live 77 160 382 Similar Your neighborhood as a place to live 79 73 305 Similar Palo Alto as a place to raise children 72 183 371 Similar Palo Alto as a place to work 71 42 351 Higher Palo Alto as a place to visit 62 115 267 Similar Palo Alto as a place to retire 42 322 346 Lower The overall quality of life in Palo Alto 71 197 444 Similar Question 2 Table 9: Question 2 - Response Percentages and Number of Respondents including "Don't Know" Responses Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Palo Alto as a whole: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total Overall feeling of safety in Palo Alto 46% N=409 45% N=399 8% N=69 1% N=7 0% N=0 100% N=884 Overall ease of getting to the places you usually have to visit 20% N=172 43% N=378 28% N=245 9% N=81 0% N=4 100% N=880 Quality of overall natural environment in Palo Alto 39% N=339 48% N=420 12% N=105 1% N=10 0% N=3 100% N=877 Overall "built environment" of Palo Alto (including overall design, buildings, parks and transportation systems) 14% N=122 48% N=422 30% N=262 8% N=69 1% N=6 100% N=881 Health and wellness opportunities in Palo Alto 38% N=337 42% N=368 13% N=116 2% N=18 4% N=37 100% N=875 Overall economic health of Palo Alto 36% N=316 37% N=324 15% N=130 7% N=60 6% N=50 100% N=881 Sense of community 13% N=118 37% N=328 35% N=310 12% N=105 2% N=14 100% N=874 Overall image or reputation of Palo Alto 37% N=329 44% N=391 15% N=134 2% N=16 1% N=12 100% N=882 Table 10: Question 2 - Response Percentages and Number of Respondents without "Don't Know" Responses Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Palo Alto as a whole: Excellent Good Fair Poor Total Overall feeling of safety in Palo Alto 46% N=409 45% N=399 8% N=69 1% N=7 100% N=884 Overall ease of getting to the places you usually have to visit 20% N=172 43% N=378 28% N=245 9% N=81 100% N=876 Quality of overall natural environment in Palo Alto 39% N=339 48% N=420 12% N=105 1% N=10 100% N=873 Overall "built environment" of Palo Alto (including overall design, buildings, parks and transportation systems) 14% N=122 48% N=422 30% N=262 8% N=69 100% N=875 Health and wellness opportunities in Palo Alto 40% N=337 44% N=368 14% N=116 2% N=18 100% N=839 Overall economic health of Palo Alto 38% N=316 39% N=324 16% N=130 7% N=60 100% N=831 Sense of community 14% N=118 38% N=328 36% N=310 12% N=105 100% N=860 Overall image or reputation of Palo Alto 38% N=329 45% N=391 15% N=134 2% N=16 100% N=870 The National Citizen Survey™ 15 Table 11: Question 2 - Historical Results Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Palo Alto as a whole: Percent positive 2018 rating compared to 2017 2003 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Overall feeling of safety in Palo Alto NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 92% 91% 94% 94% 91% Similar Overall ease of getting to the places you usually have to visit NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 71% 65% 67% 64% 63% Similar Quality of overall natural environment in Palo Alto NA 85% 84% 84% 84% 88% 83% 88% 86% 84% 89% 87% Similar Overall "built environment" of Palo Alto (including overall design, buildings, parks and transportation systems) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 67% 63% 59% 65% 62% Similar Health and wellness opportunities in Palo Alto NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 88% 88% 85% 88% 84% Similar Overall economic health of Palo Alto NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 88% 86% 83% 82% 77% Similar Sense of community 70% 70% 71% 71% 75% 73% 67% 64% 60% 57% 56% 52% Similar Overall image or reputation of Palo Alto NA 92% 92% 90% 92% 92% 90% 92% 88% 86% 86% 83% Similar Table 12: Question 2 - Geographic Subgroup Results Percent rating "excellent" or "good" North/South Area Overall North South Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5 Area 6 Overall feeling of safety in Palo Alto 91% 92% 86% 94% 92% 89% 94% 92% 91% Overall ease of getting to the places you usually have to visit 63% 62% 63% 63% 69% 56% 64% 64% 63% Quality of overall natural environment in Palo Alto 88% 85% 94% 88% 85% 83% 77% 91% 87% Overall "built environment" of Palo Alto (including overall design, buildings, parks and transportation systems) 62% 62% 73% 63% 67% 58% 55% 60% 62% Health and wellness opportunities in Palo Alto 86% 82% 91% 81% 84% 82% 84% 84% 84% Overall economic health of Palo Alto 81% 73% 90% 72% 73% 74% 78% 78% 77% Sense of community 54% 50% 64% 47% 58% 48% 58% 47% 52% Overall image or reputation of Palo Alto 83% 83% 87% 79% 83% 87% 75% 84% 83% Table 13: Question 2 - Benchmark Comparisons City of Palo Alto rating Rank Number of jurisdictions for comparison Comparison to benchmark Overall feeling of safety in Palo Alto 79 84 341 Similar Overall ease of getting to the places you usually have to visit 58 202 258 Similar Quality of overall natural environment in Palo Alto 75 71 270 Similar Overall "built environment" of Palo Alto (including overall design, buildings, parks and transportation systems) 56 132 247 Similar Health and wellness opportunities in Palo Alto 74 30 248 Higher Overall economic health of Palo Alto 69 50 253 Higher Sense of community 51 230 305 Similar Overall image or reputation of Palo Alto 73 79 342 Higher The National Citizen Survey™ 16 Question 3 Table 14: Question 3 - Response Percentages and Number of Respondents including "Don't Know" Responses Please indicate how likely or unlikely you are to do each of the following: Very likely Somewhat likely Somewhat unlikely Very unlikely Don't know Total Recommend living in Palo Alto to someone who asks 29% N=258 43% N=380 15% N=135 11% N=101 1% N=7 100% N=882 Remain in Palo Alto for the next five years 50% N=440 26% N=230 12% N=103 9% N=83 3% N=23 100% N=879 Recommend Palo Alto's libraries to friends 59% N=517 22% N=190 4% N=35 3% N=26 13% N=110 100% N=878 Table 15: Question 3 - Response Percentages and Number of Respondents without "Don't Know" Responses Please indicate how likely or unlikely you are to do each of the following: Very likely Somewhat likely Somewhat unlikely Very unlikely Total Recommend living in Palo Alto to someone who asks 30% N=258 43% N=380 15% N=135 12% N=101 100% N=874 Remain in Palo Alto for the next five years 51% N=440 27% N=230 12% N=103 10% N=83 100% N=856 Recommend Palo Alto's libraries to friends 67% N=517 25% N=190 5% N=35 3% N=26 100% N=768 Table 16: Question 3 - Historical Results Please indicate how likely or unlikely you are to do each of the following: Percent positive 2018 rating compared to 2017 2003 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Recommend living in Palo Alto to someone who asks NA 91% 90% 90% 91% 92% 89% 86% 80% 72% 75% 73% Similar Remain in Palo Alto for the next five years NA 85% 87% 83% 87% 87% 87% 83% 80% 75% 76% 78% Similar Recommend Palo Alto’s libraries to friends NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 91% 92% Similar Table 17: Question 3 - Geographic Subgroup Results Percent rating "very likely" or "somewhat likely" North/South Area Overall North South Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5 Area 6 Recommend living in Palo Alto to someone who asks 73% 73% 75% 73% 78% 69% 72% 73% 73% Remain in Palo Alto for the next five years 75% 82% 83% 82% 86% 78% 74% 71% 78% Recommend Palo Alto's libraries to friends 88% 95% 90% 96% 96% 93% 87% 88% 92% Table 18: Question 3 - Benchmark Comparisons City of Palo Alto rating Rank Number of jurisdictions for comparison Comparison to benchmark Recommend living in Palo Alto to someone who asks 73 247 281 Lower Remain in Palo Alto for the next five years 78 224 273 Similar * A benchmark was not calculated for Recommend Palo Alto's libraries to friends. Question 4 Table 19: Question 4 - Response Percentages and Number of Respondents including "Don't Know" Responses Please rate how safe or unsafe you feel: Very safe Somewhat safe Neither safe nor unsafe Somewhat unsafe Very unsafe Don't know Total In your neighborhood during the day 81% N=714 17% N=146 1% N=11 1% N=8 0% N=2 0% N=2 100% N=883 In Palo Alto's downtown/commercial areas during the day 63% N=554 28% N=242 5% N=47 3% N=23 0% N=3 1% N=11 100% N=881 In your neighborhood after dark 44% N=388 41% N=358 8% N=68 5% N=42 1% N=13 1% N=11 100% N=881 In Palo Alto's downtown/commercial areas after dark 28% N=243 38% N=334 16% N=138 10% N=85 4% N=35 5% N=46 100% N=880 The National Citizen Survey™ 17 Table 20: Question 4 - Response Percentages and Number of Respondents without "Don't Know" Responses Please rate how safe or unsafe you feel: Very safe Somewhat safe Neither safe nor unsafe Somewhat unsafe Very unsafe Total In your neighborhood during the day 81% N=714 17% N=146 1% N=11 1% N=8 0% N=2 100% N=881 In Palo Alto's downtown/commercial areas during the day 64% N=554 28% N=242 5% N=47 3% N=23 0% N=3 100% N=869 In your neighborhood after dark 45% N=388 41% N=358 8% N=68 5% N=42 2% N=13 100% N=870 In Palo Alto's downtown/commercial areas after dark 29% N=243 40% N=334 17% N=138 10% N=85 4% N=35 100% N=834 Table 21: Question 4 - Historical Results* Please rate how safe or unsafe you feel: Percent positive 2018 rating compared to 2017 2003 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 In your neighborhood during the day 97% 95% 95% 96% 98% 96% 97% 97% 97% 98% 98% 98% Similar In Palo Alto's downtown/commercial areas during the day 95% 96% 91% 94% 91% 92% 93% 92% 92% 92% 93% 92% Similar In your neighborhood after dark 83% 79% 78% 83% 83% 81% 72% 84% 84% 87% 89% 86% Similar In Palo Alto’s downtown/commercial areas after dark 71% 66% 65% 71% 65% 71% 62% 69% 67% 74% 75% 69% Lower Table 22: Question 4 - Geographic Subgroup Results Percent rating "very safe" or "somewhat safe" North/South Area Overall North South Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5 Area 6 In your neighborhood during the day 98% 98% 98% 97% 98% 98% 97% 97% 98% In Palo Alto's downtown/commercial areas during the day 92% 91% 92% 93% 90% 90% 88% 94% 92% In your neighborhood after dark 85% 87% 86% 87% 86% 87% 89% 83% 86% In Palo Alto's downtown/commercial areas after dark 72% 67% 69% 66% 65% 70% 69% 73% 69% Table 23: Question 4 - Benchmark Comparisons* City of Palo Alto rating Rank Number of jurisdictions for comparison Comparison to benchmark In your neighborhood during the day 94 74 348 Similar In Palo Alto's downtown/commercial areas during the day 88 134 308 Similar * Benchmarks were not calculated for two custom items in this question (Safety in your neighborhood after dark and in Palo Alto’s downtown/commercial areas after dark). The National Citizen Survey™ 18 Question 5 Table 24: Question 5 - Response Percentages and Number of Respondents including "Don't Know" Responses Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Palo Alto as a whole: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total Traffic flow on major streets 2% N=21 26% N=224 39% N=341 33% N=288 0% N=3 100% N=878 Ease of public parking 6% N=53 27% N=240 39% N=347 25% N=225 2% N=16 100% N=881 Ease of travel by car in Palo Alto 7% N=61 37% N=321 36% N=311 19% N=165 2% N=15 100% N=873 Ease of travel by public transportation in Palo Alto 3% N=26 13% N=111 24% N=208 32% N=279 28% N=248 100% N=872 Ease of travel by bicycle in Palo Alto 22% N=197 41% N=361 19% N=164 3% N=29 14% N=126 100% N=876 Ease of walking in Palo Alto 33% N=288 49% N=430 13% N=117 3% N=26 2% N=14 100% N=876 Availability of paths and walking trails 24% N=211 45% N=390 20% N=176 5% N=47 6% N=51 100% N=874 Variety of housing options 3% N=22 9% N=82 28% N=249 51% N=449 8% N=73 100% N=876 Availability of affordable quality housing 2% N=20 2% N=20 9% N=76 77% N=675 9% N=82 100% N=873 Fitness opportunities (including exercise classes and paths or trails, etc.) 26% N=224 44% N=386 21% N=184 3% N=25 7% N=57 100% N=877 Recreational opportunities 25% N=221 46% N=398 21% N=184 2% N=22 5% N=46 100% N=872 Availability of affordable quality mental health care 5% N=45 11% N=99 13% N=115 14% N=123 57% N=499 100% N=881 Table 25: Question 5 - Response Percentages and Number of Respondents without "Don't Know" Responses Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Palo Alto as a whole: Excellent Good Fair Poor Total Traffic flow on major streets 2% N=21 26% N=224 39% N=341 33% N=288 100% N=874 Ease of public parking 6% N=53 28% N=240 40% N=347 26% N=225 100% N=865 Ease of travel by car in Palo Alto 7% N=61 37% N=321 36% N=311 19% N=165 100% N=859 Ease of travel by public transportation in Palo Alto 4% N=26 18% N=111 33% N=208 45% N=279 100% N=624 Ease of travel by bicycle in Palo Alto 26% N=197 48% N=361 22% N=164 4% N=29 100% N=750 Ease of walking in Palo Alto 33% N=288 50% N=430 14% N=117 3% N=26 100% N=861 Availability of paths and walking trails 26% N=211 47% N=390 21% N=176 6% N=47 100% N=823 Variety of housing options 3% N=22 10% N=82 31% N=249 56% N=449 100% N=803 Availability of affordable quality housing 3% N=20 3% N=20 10% N=76 85% N=675 100% N=791 Fitness opportunities (including exercise classes and paths or trails, etc.) 27% N=224 47% N=386 22% N=184 3% N=25 100% N=819 Recreational opportunities 27% N=221 48% N=398 22% N=184 3% N=22 100% N=826 Availability of affordable quality mental health care 12% N=45 26% N=99 30% N=115 32% N=123 100% N=382 The National Citizen Survey™ 19 Table 26: Question 5 - Historical Results Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Palo Alto as a whole: Percent positive 2018 rating compared to 2017 2003 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Traffic flow on major streets 36% 38% 46% 47% 40% 36% 34% 35% 31% 30% 33% 28% Similar Ease of public parking NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 38% 36% 33% 32% 34% Similar Ease of travel by car in Palo Alto 55% 60% 65% 66% 62% 51% 55% 52% 44% 44% 42% 45% Similar Ease of travel by public transportation in Palo Alto NA 52% 63% 62% 64% 71% 65% 36% 26% 28% 29% 22% Lower Ease of travel by bicycle in Palo Alto 84% 78% 79% 81% 77% 81% 78% 78% 77% 74% 78% 74% Similar Ease of walking in Palo Alto NA 86% 82% 85% 83% 82% 84% 84% 83% 80% 86% 83% Similar Availability of paths and walking trails NA 74% 75% 75% 75% 77% 71% 74% 73% 76% 77% 73% Similar Variety of housing options NA 34% 39% 37% 37% 29% 26% 27% 20% 17% 18% 13% Lower Availability of affordable quality housing 6% 12% 17% 15% 14% 12% 13% 11% 8% 6% 6% 5% Similar Fitness opportunities (including exercise classes and paths or trails, etc.) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 78% 78% 79% 78% 74% Similar Recreational opportunities NA 82% 78% 80% 81% 81% 81% 77% 80% 77% 81% 75% Lower Availability of affordable quality mental health care NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 63% 53% 46% 52% 38% Lower Table 27: Question 5 - Geographic Subgroup Results Percent rating "excellent" or "good" North/South Area Overall North South Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5 Area 6 Traffic flow on major streets 25% 30% 27% 33% 30% 27% 25% 26% 28% Ease of public parking 34% 34% 33% 31% 37% 34% 35% 34% 34% Ease of travel by car in Palo Alto 45% 44% 49% 47% 43% 42% 46% 43% 45% Ease of travel by public transportation in Palo Alto 23% 21% 26% 20% 26% 18% 24% 21% 22% Ease of travel by bicycle in Palo Alto 75% 74% 74% 73% 79% 72% 78% 74% 74% Ease of walking in Palo Alto 87% 80% 90% 81% 89% 74% 79% 88% 83% Availability of paths and walking trails 76% 70% 80% 69% 81% 65% 75% 74% 73% Variety of housing options 12% 14% 14% 16% 17% 11% 13% 10% 13% Availability of affordable quality housing 4% 6% 4% 8% 7% 5% 4% 3% 5% Fitness opportunities (including exercise classes and paths or trails, etc.) 73% 75% 77% 78% 81% 69% 75% 71% 74% Recreational opportunities 77% 74% 80% 75% 79% 69% 75% 75% 75% Availability of affordable quality mental health care 36% 39% 39% 42% 44% 35% 46% 29% 38% The National Citizen Survey™ 20 Table 28: Question 5 - Benchmark Comparisons City of Palo Alto rating Rank Number of jurisdictions for comparison Comparison to benchmark Traffic flow on major streets 32 297 334 Lower Ease of public parking 38 181 216 Lower Ease of travel by car in Palo Alto 44 266 298 Lower Ease of travel by public transportation in Palo Alto 27 178 217 Lower Ease of travel by bicycle in Palo Alto 66 34 298 Higher Ease of walking in Palo Alto 71 47 298 Higher Availability of paths and walking trails 64 107 310 Similar Variety of housing options 20 265 273 Much lower Availability of affordable quality housing 7 296 296 Much lower Fitness opportunities (including exercise classes and paths or trails, etc.) 66 84 238 Similar Recreational opportunities 66 86 289 Similar Availability of affordable quality mental health care 39 157 218 Similar Question 6 Table 29: Question 6 - Response Percentages and Number of Respondents including "Don't Know" Responses Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Palo Alto as a whole: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total Availability of affordable quality child care/preschool 6% N=54 13% N=117 16% N=136 18% N=156 47% N=406 100% N=869 K-12 education 38% N=333 29% N=250 5% N=46 1% N=11 27% N=231 100% N=870 Adult educational opportunities 21% N=187 34% N=299 14% N=119 3% N=22 28% N=244 100% N=871 Opportunities to attend cultural/arts/music activities 27% N=233 40% N=347 19% N=166 4% N=34 10% N=83 100% N=864 Employment opportunities 21% N=185 35% N=305 15% N=129 6% N=48 23% N=203 100% N=870 Shopping opportunities 35% N=307 43% N=373 16% N=143 4% N=35 1% N=9 100% N=867 Cost of living in Palo Alto 2% N=14 6% N=54 21% N=181 70% N=610 1% N=10 100% N=870 Vibrant downtown/commercial areas 18% N=153 51% N=441 23% N=197 5% N=41 4% N=33 100% N=865 Overall quality of new development in Palo Alto 6% N=55 30% N=263 28% N=247 15% N=131 20% N=173 100% N=869 Opportunities to participate in social events and activities 15% N=127 43% N=374 26% N=228 5% N=44 11% N=94 100% N=867 Opportunities to participate in community matters 17% N=150 42% N=364 23% N=198 5% N=44 12% N=104 100% N=860 Openness and acceptance of the community toward people of diverse backgrounds 22% N=191 44% N=381 19% N=169 6% N=54 8% N=73 100% N=868 Opportunities to learn about City services through social media websites such as Twitter and Facebook 10% N=84 25% N=217 14% N=119 3% N=29 48% N=415 100% N=864 The National Citizen Survey™ 21 Table 30: Question 6 - Response Percentages and Number of Respondents without "Don't Know" Responses Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Palo Alto as a whole: Excellent Good Fair Poor Total Availability of affordable quality child care/preschool 12% N=54 25% N=117 29% N=136 34% N=156 100% N=463 K-12 education 52% N=333 39% N=250 7% N=46 2% N=11 100% N=640 Adult educational opportunities 30% N=187 48% N=299 19% N=119 4% N=22 100% N=627 Opportunities to attend cultural/arts/music activities 30% N=233 44% N=347 21% N=166 4% N=34 100% N=781 Employment opportunities 28% N=185 46% N=305 19% N=129 7% N=48 100% N=667 Shopping opportunities 36% N=307 44% N=373 17% N=143 4% N=35 100% N=858 Cost of living in Palo Alto 2% N=14 6% N=54 21% N=181 71% N=610 100% N=860 Vibrant downtown/commercial areas 18% N=153 53% N=441 24% N=197 5% N=41 100% N=832 Overall quality of new development in Palo Alto 8% N=55 38% N=263 35% N=247 19% N=131 100% N=696 Opportunities to participate in social events and activities 16% N=127 48% N=374 30% N=228 6% N=44 100% N=773 Opportunities to participate in community matters 20% N=150 48% N=364 26% N=198 6% N=44 100% N=756 Openness and acceptance of the community toward people of diverse backgrounds 24% N=191 48% N=381 21% N=169 7% N=54 100% N=794 Opportunities to learn about City services through social media websites such as Twitter and Facebook 19% N=84 48% N=217 26% N=119 6% N=29 100% N=449 Table 31: Question 6 - Historical Results* Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Palo Alto as a whole: Percent positive 2018 rating compared to 2017 2003 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Availability of affordable quality child care/preschool 25% 28% 32% 25% 35% 27% 31% 49% 49% 39% 47% 37% Lower K-12 education NA NA NA NA 92% 92% 94% 95% 92% 90% 91% 91% Similar Adult educational opportunities NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 89% 83% 78% 82% 77% Similar Opportunities to attend cultural/arts/music activities NA 79% 74% 74% 73% 77% 69% 81% 79% 77% 81% 74% Lower Employment opportunities 33% 61% 51% 52% 56% 68% 68% 69% 66% 70% 74% 73% Similar Shopping opportunities NA 71% 70% 70% 71% 69% 73% 82% 79% 80% 82% 79% Similar Cost of living in Palo Alto NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 11% 8% 7% 8% 8% Similar Vibrant downtown/commercial areas NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 77% 76% 73% 73% 71% Similar Overall quality of new development in Palo Alto NA 57% 55% 53% 57% 56% 44% 51% 49% 42% 50% 46% Similar Opportunities to participate in social events and activities NA 80% 80% 74% 76% 74% 74% 71% 74% 70% 72% 65% Lower Opportunities to participate in community matters NA 75% 76% 76% 71% NA NA 75% 76% 69% 74% 68% Lower Openness and acceptance of the community toward people of diverse backgrounds 73% 77% 78% 79% 78% 80% 76% 76% 68% 72% 72% 72% Similar Opportunities to learn about City services through social media websites such as Twitter and Facebook NA NA NA NA 63% 63% 71% 73% 75% 68% 76% 67% Lower The National Citizen Survey™ 22 Table 32: Question 6 - Geographic Subgroup Results Percent rating "excellent" or "good" North/South Area Overall North South Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5 Area 6 Availability of affordable quality child care/preschool 38% 36% 56% 37% 33% 37% 32% 29% 37% K-12 education 90% 92% 91% 90% 95% 91% 87% 91% 91% Adult educational opportunities 78% 77% 86% 74% 85% 75% 71% 75% 77% Opportunities to attend cultural/arts/music activities 75% 74% 86% 72% 75% 76% 64% 73% 74% Employment opportunities 74% 73% 81% 69% 76% 76% 73% 70% 73% Shopping opportunities 82% 77% 80% 77% 77% 77% 79% 84% 79% Cost of living in Palo Alto 7% 8% 10% 7% 11% 8% 8% 5% 8% Vibrant downtown/commercial areas 72% 70% 80% 67% 75% 71% 65% 72% 71% Overall quality of new development in Palo Alto 50% 41% 59% 37% 55% 38% 36% 51% 46% Opportunities to participate in social events and activities 67% 63% 72% 60% 69% 61% 60% 68% 65% Opportunities to participate in community matters 72% 65% 78% 64% 69% 62% 61% 72% 68% Openness and acceptance of the community toward people of diverse backgrounds 70% 73% 81% 74% 77% 70% 63% 69% 72% Opportunities to learn about City services through social media websites such as Twitter and Facebook 65% 70% 75% 70% 73% 67% 63% 60% 67% Table 33: Question 6 - Benchmark Comparisons* City of Palo Alto rating Rank Number of jurisdictions for comparison Comparison to benchmark Availability of affordable quality child care/preschool 38 215 248 Lower K-12 education 80 31 264 Higher Adult educational opportunities 68 22 227 Higher Opportunities to attend cultural/arts/music activities 67 51 288 Higher Employment opportunities 65 6 302 Much higher Shopping opportunities 70 29 289 Higher Cost of living in Palo Alto 13 246 250 Much lower Vibrant downtown/commercial area 62 48 230 Higher Overall quality of new development in Palo Alto 45 224 285 Similar Opportunities to participate in social events and activities 59 107 257 Similar Opportunities to participate in community matters 61 93 269 Similar Openness and acceptance of the community toward people of diverse backgrounds 63 43 286 Similar * Benchmarks were not calculated for one custom item in this question (opportunities to learn about City services through social media websites such as Twitter and Facebook). The National Citizen Survey™ 23 Question 7 Table 34: Question 7 - Response Percentages and Number of Respondents Please indicate whether or not you have done each of the following in the last 12 months. No Yes Total Observed a code violation or other hazard in Palo Alto 63% N=548 37% N=318 100% N=866 Household member was a victim of a crime in Palo Alto 93% N=803 7% N=65 100% N=868 Reported a crime to the police in Palo Alto 87% N=754 13% N=116 100% N=869 Contacted the City of Palo Alto (in-person, phone, email or web) for help or information 54% N=466 46% N=402 100% N=868 Contacted Palo Alto elected officials (in-person, phone, email or web) to express your opinion 79% N=682 21% N=177 100% N=859 Stocked 14 days’ worth of supplies in case of a major disaster where you have no electricity, water, internet, and telephone service 74% N=641 26% N=227 100% N=869 * This question did not have a “don’t know” option; therefore, there is not a table for “Response Percentages and Number of Respondents without “Don’t Know” Responses. Table 35: Question 7 - Historical Results Please indicate whether or not you have done each of the following in the last 12 months. Percent positive 2018 rating compared to 2017 2003 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Did NOT observe a code violation or other hazard in Palo Alto NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 70% 67% 67% 62% 63% Similar Was NOT the victim of a crime in Palo Alto NA 90% 89% 91% 91% 91% 94% 92% 93% 91% 90% 93% Similar Did NOT report a crime to the police in Palo Alto NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 87% 87% 86% 85% 87% Similar Contacted the City of Palo Alto (in-person, phone, email or web) for help or information NA 54% 58% 56% 43% 44% 49% 50% 52% 52% 50% 46% Similar Contacted Palo Alto elected officials (in-person, phone, email or web) to express your opinion NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 17% 15% 17% 20% 21% Similar Some questions were reworded in the Historical Results table to reflect the positive rating of 'yes.'* Trend data are not included for one custom item in this question (stocked 14 days’ worth of supplies in case of a major disaster where you have no electricity, water, internet, and telephone service) because this is the first year the question was asked. Table 36: Question 7 - Geographic Subgroup Results Percent "yes" North/South Area Overall North South Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5 Area 6 Observed a code violation or other hazard in Palo Alto 39% 34% 45% 37% 31% 35% 35% 38% 37% Household member was a victim of a crime in Palo Alto 8% 7% 6% 8% 6% 6% 10% 8% 7% Reported a crime to the police in Palo Alto 16% 11% 15% 11% 9% 12% 12% 18% 13% Contacted the City of Palo Alto (in-person, phone, email or web) for help or information 52% 41% 60% 39% 36% 46% 44% 52% 46% Contacted Palo Alto elected officials (in-person, phone, email or web) to express your opinion 24% 17% 23% 14% 18% 20% 22% 26% 21% Stocked 14 days’ worth of supplies in case of a major disaster where you have no electricity, water, internet, and telephone service 26% 27% 30% 27% 26% 26% 20% 26% 26% The National Citizen Survey™ 24 Table 37: Question 7 - Benchmark Comparisons City of Palo Alto rating Rank Number of jurisdictions for comparison Comparison to benchmark Did NOT observe a code violation or other hazard in Palo Alto 63 58 234 Similar Household member was NOT a victim of a crime 93 65 266 Similar Did NOT report a crime to the police 87 38 245 Similar Contacted Palo Alto (in-person, phone, email or web) for help or information 46 139 315 Similar Contacted Palo Alto elected officials (in-person, phone, email or web) to express your opinion 21 72 237 Similar * Benchmarks were not calculated for one custom item in this question (stocked 14 days’ worth of supplies in case of a major disaster where you have no electricity, water, internet, and telephone service) Question 8 Table 38: Question 8 - Response Percentages and Number of Respondents In the last 12 months, about how many times, if at all, have you or other household members done each of the following in Palo Alto? 2 times a week or more 2-4 times a month Once a month or less Not at all Total Used Palo Alto recreation centers or their services 15% N=125 19% N=161 32% N=274 35% N=303 100% N=864 Visited a neighborhood park or City park 32% N=280 32% N=279 29% N=257 6% N=55 100% N=871 Used Palo Alto public libraries or their services 15% N=129 31% N=271 32% N=280 22% N=188 100% N=868 Participated in religious or spiritual activities in Palo Alto 6% N=55 12% N=100 12% N=103 70% N=614 100% N=872 Attended a City-sponsored event 1% N=12 6% N=48 45% N=391 48% N=411 100% N=862 Used bus, rail or other public transportation instead of driving 11% N=95 12% N=106 29% N=250 48% N=418 100% N=868 Carpooled with other adults or children instead of driving alone 17% N=147 20% N=178 22% N=192 40% N=351 100% N=868 Walked or biked instead of driving 46% N=400 24% N=206 18% N=155 12% N=104 100% N=865 Volunteered your time to some group/activity in Palo Alto 10% N=88 16% N=139 21% N=182 53% N=461 100% N=869 Participated in a club 8% N=70 10% N=85 14% N=117 69% N=592 100% N=863 Talked to or visited with your immediate neighbors 36% N=317 31% N=267 23% N=202 10% N=86 100% N=873 Done a favor for a neighbor 15% N=129 24% N=213 40% N=350 20% N=178 100% N=870 Used the City’s website to conduct business or pay bills 3% N=30 7% N=57 31% N=267 59% N=511 100% N=866 Used the Utilities website to conduct business or pay bills 3% N=29 8% N=66 43% N=370 46% N=401 100% N=866 * This question did not have a “don’t know” option; therefore, there is not a table for “Response Percentages and Number of Respondents without “Don’t Know” Responses. The National Citizen Survey™ 25 Table 39: Question 8 - Historical Results* In the last 12 months, about how many times, if at all, have you or other household members done each of the following in Palo Alto? Percent positive 2018 rating compared to 2017 2003 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Used Palo Alto recreation centers or their services NA 68% 63% 60% 60% 65% 58% 63% 65% 63% 63% 65% Similar Visited a neighborhood park or City park NA 93% 94% 94% 91% 95% 94% 91% 94% 93% 91% 94% Similar Used Palo Alto public libraries or their services NA 74% 82% 76% 74% 77% 77% 68% 76% 73% 75% 78% Similar Participated in religious or spiritual activities in Palo Alto NA 40% NA NA NA 40% NA 30% 30% 31% 30% 30% Similar Attended a City-sponsored event NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 50% 57% 51% 55% 52% Similar Used bus, rail or other public transportation instead of driving NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 50% 53% 53% 51% 52% Similar Carpooled with other adults or children instead of driving alone NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 53% 58% 56% 58% 60% Similar Walked or biked instead of driving NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 85% 87% 87% 84% 88% Similar Volunteered your time to some group/activity in Palo Alto NA 51% 56% 51% 45% 54% 50% 40% 46% 45% 47% 47% Similar Participated in a club NA 34% 33% 31% 31% 38% 29% 27% 34% 30% 29% 31% Similar Talked to or visited with your immediate neighbors NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 91% 89% 88% 92% 90% Similar Done a favor for a neighbor NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 81% 76% 77% 77% 80% Similar Used the City’s website to conduct business or pay bills NA NA 25% 33% 35% 43% 45% 53% 51% 51% 54% 41% Much lower * Trend data are not included for one custom item in this question (used the Utilities website to conduct business or pay bills) because this is the first year the question was asked. Table 40: Question 8 - Geographic Subgroup Results Percent who had done the activity at least once North/South Area Overall North South Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5 Area 6 Used Palo Alto recreation centers or their services 65% 65% 71% 67% 67% 60% 68% 61% 65% Visited a neighborhood park or City park 93% 94% 94% 94% 95% 92% 99% 91% 94% Used Palo Alto public libraries or their services 71% 85% 81% 87% 85% 82% 77% 64% 78% Participated in religious or spiritual activities in Palo Alto 27% 32% 33% 26% 33% 37% 28% 24% 30% Attended a City-sponsored event 54% 51% 63% 50% 55% 49% 62% 47% 52% Used bus, rail or other public transportation instead of driving 59% 45% 39% 43% 52% 42% 69% 65% 52% Carpooled with other adults or children instead of driving alone 60% 60% 55% 61% 62% 56% 60% 62% 60% Walked or biked instead of driving 91% 85% 87% 89% 81% 84% 97% 91% 88% Volunteered your time to some group/activity in Palo Alto 49% 45% 45% 41% 47% 49% 45% 52% 47% Participated in a club 31% 32% 36% 29% 32% 35% 25% 31% 31% Talked to or visited with your immediate neighbors 92% 88% 94% 85% 96% 86% 95% 90% 90% Done a favor for a neighbor 81% 79% 87% 77% 84% 77% 81% 78% 80% Used the City's website to conduct business or pay bills 41% 41% 45% 38% 43% 43% 39% 39% 41% Used the Utilities website to conduct business or pay bills 51% 56% 54% 48% 61% 59% 57% 49% 54% The National Citizen Survey™ 26 Table 41: Question 8 - Benchmark Comparisons* City of Palo Alto rating Rank Number of jurisdictions for comparison Comparison to benchmark Used Palo Alto recreation centers or their services 65 44 234 Similar Visited a neighborhood park or City park 94 14 263 Higher Used Palo Alto public libraries or their services 78 12 239 Higher Participated in religious or spiritual activities in Palo Alto 30 180 197 Lower Attended City-sponsored event 52 143 241 Similar Used bus, rail or other public transportation instead of driving 52 31 198 Much higher Carpooled with other adults or children instead of driving alone 60 10 232 Higher Walked or biked instead of driving 88 7 241 Much higher Volunteered your time to some group/activity in Palo Alto 47 72 258 Similar Participated in a club 31 65 237 Similar Talked to or visited with your immediate neighbors 90 146 236 Similar Done a favor for a neighbor 80 157 231 Similar * Benchmarks were not calculated for two custom items in this question (used the City's website to conduct business or pay bills and used the Utilities website to conduct business or pay bills). Question 9 Table 42: Question 9 - Response Percentages and Number of Respondents Thinking about local public meetings (of local elected officials like City Council or County Commissioners, advisory boards, town halls, HOA, neighborhood watch, etc.), in the last 12 months, about how many times, if at all, have you or other household members attended or watched a local public meeting? 2 times a week or more 2-4 times a month Once a month or less Not at all Total Attended a local public meeting 1% N=5 2% N=18 22% N=195 75% N=651 100% N=868 Watched (online or on television) a local public meeting 1% N=6 2% N=15 9% N=82 88% N=763 100% N=865 Table 43: Question 9 - Historical Results Thinking about local public meetings (of local elected officials like City Council or County Commissioners, advisory boards, town halls, HOA, neighborhood watch, etc.), in the last 12 months, about how many times, if at all, have you or other household members attended or watched a local public meeting? Percent positive 2018 rating compared to 2017 2003 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Attended a local public meeting NA 26% 28% 27% 27% 25% 28% 22% 22% 21% 24% 25% Similar Watched a local public meeting NA 26% 28% 28% 27% 21% 24% 16% 18% 14% 16% 12% Similar Table 44: Question 9 - Geographic Subgroup Results Percent who had done the activity at least once North/South Area Overall North South Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5 Area 6 Attended a local public meeting 23% 27% 26% 24% 28% 28% 18% 24% 25% Watched (online or on television) a local public meeting 12% 12% 14% 8% 20% 10% 11% 11% 12% Table 45: Question 9 - Benchmark Comparisons City of Palo Alto rating Rank Number of jurisdictions for comparison Comparison to benchmark Attended a local public meeting 25 70 257 Similar Watched (online or on television) a local public meeting 12 206 224 Lower The National Citizen Survey™ 27 Question 10 Table 46: Question 10 - Response Percentages and Number of Respondents including "Don't Know" Responses Please rate the quality of each of the following services in Palo Alto: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total Police services 34% N=290 35% N=297 7% N=57 2% N=19 23% N=192 100% N=854 Fire services 37% N=317 25% N=214 3% N=29 0% N=2 34% N=293 100% N=855 Ambulance or emergency medical services 32% N=275 21% N=179 4% N=32 0% N=2 43% N=367 100% N=856 Crime prevention 19% N=166 30% N=260 11% N=95 3% N=25 36% N=309 100% N=854 Fire prevention and education 17% N=147 25% N=207 7% N=58 1% N=12 50% N=422 100% N=845 Traffic enforcement 12% N=104 30% N=257 25% N=210 12% N=106 20% N=172 100% N=849 Street repair 10% N=88 34% N=289 33% N=287 17% N=148 5% N=45 100% N=856 Street cleaning 25% N=213 44% N=375 22% N=184 5% N=42 5% N=42 100% N=856 Sidewalk maintenance 16% N=135 42% N=359 28% N=239 9% N=74 6% N=48 100% N=855 Traffic signal timing 10% N=81 34% N=294 33% N=281 20% N=171 3% N=28 100% N=855 Storm drainage 13% N=114 43% N=363 19% N=158 4% N=38 21% N=174 100% N=847 Drinking water 45% N=385 38% N=328 10% N=87 2% N=18 4% N=38 100% N=857 Sewer services 28% N=237 38% N=324 10% N=87 2% N=15 22% N=186 100% N=849 City parks 47% N=401 41% N=345 7% N=62 1% N=9 4% N=33 100% N=851 Recreation programs or classes 19% N=163 31% N=264 10% N=84 2% N=14 39% N=330 100% N=854 Recreation centers or facilities 20% N=169 36% N=304 10% N=83 2% N=19 32% N=266 100% N=842 Land use, planning and zoning 5% N=41 24% N=201 26% N=223 19% N=162 26% N=216 100% N=843 Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc.) 7% N=60 27% N=228 18% N=152 10% N=86 38% N=317 100% N=843 Animal control 13% N=115 32% N=274 12% N=99 4% N=31 39% N=334 100% N=853 Palo Alto open space 33% N=283 37% N=315 13% N=110 1% N=12 15% N=129 100% N=848 City-sponsored special events 11% N=92 35% N=296 12% N=101 2% N=14 40% N=339 100% N=843 Overall customer service by Palo Alto employees (police, receptionists, planners, etc.) 21% N=180 38% N=317 14% N=121 3% N=24 24% N=202 100% N=845 Variety of library materials 34% N=288 34% N=292 7% N=62 2% N=16 23% N=191 100% N=849 Street tree maintenance 24% N=200 43% N=358 20% N=171 5% N=45 8% N=68 100% N=842 Electric utility 32% N=268 44% N=373 13% N=110 2% N=18 9% N=80 100% N=849 Gas utility 31% N=263 41% N=349 11% N=97 2% N=19 14% N=119 100% N=848 City's website 13% N=109 34% N=290 21% N=174 5% N=41 27% N=228 100% N=841 Art programs and theatre 20% N=172 29% N=245 13% N=113 3% N=22 35% N=292 100% N=844 City-run animal shelter 10% N=88 16% N=134 8% N=65 2% N=17 64% N=541 100% N=845 Refuse collection (garbage, recycling, yard waste, and e-waste) 37% N=315 42% N=354 12% N=99 3% N=22 7% N=61 100% N=851 Building and planning application processing services 5% N=44 13% N=113 14% N=114 10% N=85 58% N=485 100% N=841 Library facilities 46% N=393 31% N=261 5% N=46 1% N=11 16% N=138 100% N=849 Utility payment options 30% N=257 40% N=341 11% N=90 2% N=14 18% N=152 100% N=854 Public information services (Police/public safety) 19% N=162 35% N=295 14% N=118 2% N=17 30% N=258 100% N=850 Public information services (non-Police/public safety) 17% N=141 32% N=274 14% N=120 2% N=17 35% N=296 100% N=848 The National Citizen Survey™ 28 Table 47: Question 10 - Response Percentages and Number of Respondents without "Don't Know" Responses Please rate the quality of each of the following services in Palo Alto: Excellent Good Fair Poor Total Police services 44% N=290 45% N=297 9% N=57 3% N=19 100% N=662 Fire services 56% N=317 38% N=214 5% N=29 0% N=2 100% N=562 Ambulance or emergency medical services 56% N=275 37% N=179 7% N=32 0% N=2 100% N=489 Crime prevention 30% N=166 48% N=260 17% N=95 5% N=25 100% N=546 Fire prevention and education 35% N=147 49% N=207 14% N=58 3% N=12 100% N=424 Traffic enforcement 15% N=104 38% N=257 31% N=210 16% N=106 100% N=677 Street repair 11% N=88 36% N=289 35% N=287 18% N=148 100% N=811 Street cleaning 26% N=213 46% N=375 23% N=184 5% N=42 100% N=814 Sidewalk maintenance 17% N=135 45% N=359 30% N=239 9% N=74 100% N=807 Traffic signal timing 10% N=81 35% N=294 34% N=281 21% N=171 100% N=827 Storm drainage 17% N=114 54% N=363 23% N=158 6% N=38 100% N=673 Drinking water 47% N=385 40% N=328 11% N=87 2% N=18 100% N=818 Sewer services 36% N=237 49% N=324 13% N=87 2% N=15 100% N=663 City parks 49% N=401 42% N=345 8% N=62 1% N=9 100% N=818 Recreation programs or classes 31% N=163 50% N=264 16% N=84 3% N=14 100% N=524 Recreation centers or facilities 29% N=169 53% N=304 14% N=83 3% N=19 100% N=575 Land use, planning and zoning 7% N=41 32% N=201 36% N=223 26% N=162 100% N=628 Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc.) 11% N=60 43% N=228 29% N=152 16% N=86 100% N=527 Animal control 22% N=115 53% N=274 19% N=99 6% N=31 100% N=519 Palo Alto open space 39% N=283 44% N=315 15% N=110 2% N=12 100% N=719 City-sponsored special events 18% N=92 59% N=296 20% N=101 3% N=14 100% N=504 Overall customer service by Palo Alto employees (police, receptionists, planners, etc.) 28% N=180 49% N=317 19% N=121 4% N=24 100% N=643 Variety of library materials 44% N=288 44% N=292 9% N=62 2% N=16 100% N=658 Street tree maintenance 26% N=200 46% N=358 22% N=171 6% N=45 100% N=775 Electric utility 35% N=268 49% N=373 14% N=110 2% N=18 100% N=770 Gas utility 36% N=263 48% N=349 13% N=97 3% N=19 100% N=729 City's website 18% N=109 47% N=290 28% N=174 7% N=41 100% N=613 Art programs and theatre 31% N=172 44% N=245 20% N=113 4% N=22 100% N=552 City-run animal shelter 29% N=88 44% N=134 21% N=65 6% N=17 100% N=305 Refuse collection (garbage, recycling, yard waste, and e-waste) 40% N=315 45% N=354 13% N=99 3% N=22 100% N=790 Building and planning application processing services 12% N=44 32% N=113 32% N=114 24% N=85 100% N=356 Library facilities 55% N=393 37% N=261 6% N=46 2% N=11 100% N=711 Utility payment options 37% N=257 49% N=341 13% N=90 2% N=14 100% N=701 Public information services (Police/public safety) 27% N=162 50% N=295 20% N=118 3% N=17 100% N=591 Public information services (non-Police/public safety) 26% N=141 50% N=274 22% N=120 3% N=17 100% N=552 The National Citizen Survey™ 29 Table 48: Question 10 - Historical Results* Please rate the quality of each of the following services in Palo Alto: Percent positive 2018 rating compared to 2017 2003 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Police services 89% 84% 84% 87% 88% 86% 86% 87% 88% 88% 93% 89% Similar Fire services 96% 96% 95% 93% 92% 96% 93% 95% 97% 97% 97% 94% Similar Ambulance or emergency medical services 95% 95% 91% 94% 93% 96% 93% 97% 95% 96% 96% 93% Similar Crime prevention NA 74% 73% 79% 81% 74% 75% 80% 79% 80% 81% 78% Similar Fire prevention and education NA 87% 80% 79% 76% 80% 82% 85% 85% 85% 87% 84% Similar Traffic enforcement 64% 64% 61% 64% 61% 66% 64% 62% 60% 60% 60% 53% Lower Street repair 50% 47% 42% 43% 40% 42% 47% 55% 51% 57% 55% 46% Lower Street cleaning 75% 75% 73% 76% 79% 80% 76% 80% 75% 77% 78% 72% Lower Sidewalk maintenance 50% 53% 53% 51% 51% 53% 56% 62% 62% 61% 65% 61% Similar Traffic signal timing NA 56% 56% 56% 52% 47% 53% 53% 47% 50% 49% 45% Similar Storm drainage 65% 70% 73% 74% 74% 75% 69% 80% 71% 75% 81% 71% Lower Drinking water 82% 87% 81% 84% 86% 83% 88% 89% 88% 87% 88% 87% Similar Sewer services 84% 81% 81% 82% 84% 82% 84% 89% 88% 88% 88% 85% Similar City parks 90% 89% 92% 90% 94% 91% 93% 92% 93% 91% 94% 91% Similar Recreation programs or classes 83% 87% 85% 82% 81% 87% 87% 87% 84% 84% 87% 81% Lower Recreation centers or facilities 77% 77% 80% 81% 75% 85% 80% 84% 86% 81% 86% 82% Similar Land use, planning and zoning 41% 47% 47% 49% 45% 51% 36% 43% 40% 37% 40% 39% Similar Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc.) 55% 59% 50% 53% 56% 61% 57% 62% 59% 52% 56% 55% Similar Animal control 79% 78% 78% 76% 72% 78% 76% 80% 80% 77% 80% 75% Similar Palo Alto open space NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 82% 84% 81% 86% 83% Similar City-sponsored special events NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 75% 75% 73% 75% 77% Similar Overall customer service by Palo Alto employees (police, receptionists, planners, etc.) 78% 73% 79% 77% 76% 81% 79% 81% 74% 77% 84% 77% Lower Variety of library materials 60% 67% 73% 75% 72% 88% 81% 88% 83% 82% 86% 88% Similar Street tree maintenance 62% 68% 72% 69% 70% 71% 66% 80% 73% 71% 75% 72% Similar Electric utility NA 85% 83% 79% 85% 84% 80% 72% 87% 86% 87% 83% Similar Gas utility NA 84% 81% 80% 82% 86% 81% 88% 88% 87% 89% 84% Similar City's website NA NA 55% 73% 67% 70% 69% 88% 69% 66% 72% 65% Lower Art programs and theatre NA NA 79% 78% 81% 82% 82% 69% 80% 78% 82% 76% Lower City-run animal shelter NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 82% 73% Lower * Trend data are not included for 6 custom items in this question (refuse collection, building and planning application processing services, library facilities, utility payment options and both police and non-police/public safety related public information services) because this was the first year these questions were asked. The National Citizen Survey™ 30 Table 49: Question 10 - Geographic Subgroup Results Percent rating "excellent" or "good" North/South Area Overall North South Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5 Area 6 Police services 90% 87% 93% 90% 92% 81% 86% 90% 89% Fire services 95% 94% 95% 95% 97% 91% 88% 97% 94% Ambulance or emergency medical services 93% 93% 93% 94% 93% 93% 86% 94% 93% Crime prevention 76% 80% 69% 81% 83% 76% 85% 77% 78% Fire prevention and education 86% 82% 82% 82% 79% 85% 85% 89% 84% Traffic enforcement 50% 56% 39% 55% 57% 58% 54% 53% 53% Street repair 44% 49% 50% 57% 48% 41% 37% 44% 46% Street cleaning 74% 70% 75% 77% 70% 64% 65% 78% 72% Sidewalk maintenance 59% 63% 59% 69% 62% 58% 54% 61% 61% Traffic signal timing 45% 46% 48% 52% 45% 39% 44% 44% 45% Storm drainage 69% 72% 71% 76% 74% 66% 65% 70% 71% Drinking water 86% 89% 87% 90% 88% 88% 79% 87% 87% Sewer services 86% 83% 88% 79% 85% 87% 77% 89% 85% City parks 93% 90% 95% 90% 92% 89% 89% 93% 91% Recreation programs or classes 82% 81% 87% 80% 85% 79% 81% 79% 81% Recreation centers or facilities 80% 84% 81% 82% 91% 81% 82% 79% 82% Land use, planning and zoning 40% 38% 44% 43% 39% 31% 33% 40% 39% Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc.) 54% 55% 50% 49% 60% 59% 43% 60% 55% Animal control 76% 74% 77% 76% 74% 73% 70% 77% 75% Palo Alto open space 85% 82% 91% 80% 86% 81% 78% 85% 83% City-sponsored special events 80% 75% 81% 72% 80% 75% 75% 80% 77% Overall customer service by Palo Alto employees (police, receptionists, planners, etc.) 77% 78% 81% 79% 79% 76% 77% 74% 77% Variety of library materials 90% 87% 92% 86% 92% 84% 83% 92% 88% Street tree maintenance 71% 73% 73% 75% 72% 71% 69% 71% 72% Electric utility 83% 84% 85% 81% 86% 85% 82% 82% 83% Gas utility 83% 85% 87% 83% 86% 86% 80% 82% 84% City's website 65% 65% 78% 67% 71% 59% 50% 64% 65% Art programs and theatre 79% 73% 90% 78% 71% 70% 56% 81% 76% City-run animal shelter 75% 71% 87% 70% 74% 72% 39% 81% 73% Refuse collection (garbage, recycling, yard waste, and e-waste) 86% 84% 90% 81% 87% 84% 81% 86% 85% Building and planning application processing services 44% 45% 44% 50% 49% 39% 44% 42% 44% Library facilities 92% 92% 94% 92% 94% 91% 90% 91% 92% Utility payment options 87% 84% 89% 77% 88% 88% 90% 84% 85% Public information services (Police/public safety) 81% 74% 84% 75% 77% 72% 82% 78% 77% Public information services (non-Police/public safety) 78% 73% 84% 75% 75% 67% 81% 74% 75% The National Citizen Survey™ 31 Table 50: Question 10 - Benchmark Comparisons* City of Palo Alto rating Rank Number of jurisdictions for comparison Comparison to benchmark Police services 77 95 453 Similar Fire services 84 83 379 Similar Ambulance or emergency medical services 83 62 341 Similar Crime prevention 68 108 355 Similar Fire prevention and education 72 90 277 Similar Traffic enforcement 51 285 364 Similar Street repair 46 197 381 Similar Street cleaning 64 64 317 Similar Sidewalk maintenance 56 93 315 Similar Traffic signal timing 45 178 258 Similar Storm drainage 61 132 345 Similar Drinking water 77 20 308 Higher Sewer services 73 47 314 Similar City parks 80 37 318 Higher Recreation programs or classes 70 62 318 Similar Recreation centers or facilities 69 58 271 Similar Land use, planning and zoning 40 231 294 Similar Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc.) 50 167 380 Similar Animal control 64 67 335 Similar Palo Alto open space 74 10 227 Higher City-sponsored special events 64 90 272 Similar Overall customer service by Palo Alto employees (police, receptionists, planners, etc.) 67 135 372 Similar * Benchmarks were not calculated for 13 custom items in this question (variety of library materials, street tree maintenance, electric utility, gas utility, City's website, art programs and theatre, City-run animal shelter, refuse collection, building and planning application processing services, library facilities, utility payment options and both police and non-police/public safety related public information services). Question 11 Table 51: Question 11 - Response Percentages and Number of Respondents including "Don't Know" Responses Overall, how would you rate the quality of the services provided by each of the following? Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total The City of Palo Alto 27% N=229 50% N=431 15% N=130 2% N=17 5% N=46 100% N=854 The Federal Government 4% N=37 23% N=194 35% N=301 20% N=168 18% N=151 100% N=852 State Government 5% N=42 33% N=283 32% N=275 13% N=107 17% N=141 100% N=848 Table 52: Question 11 - Response Percentages and Number of Respondents without "Don't Know" Responses Overall, how would you rate the quality of the services provided by each of the following? Excellent Good Fair Poor Total The City of Palo Alto 28% N=229 53% N=431 16% N=130 2% N=17 100% N=807 The Federal Government 5% N=37 28% N=194 43% N=301 24% N=168 100% N=700 State Government 6% N=42 40% N=283 39% N=275 15% N=107 100% N=707 The National Citizen Survey™ 32 Table 53: Question 11 - Historical Results Overall, how would you rate the quality of the services provided by each of the following? Percent positive 2018 rating compared to 2017 2003 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 The City of Palo Alto 87% 85% 80% 80% 83% 88% 84% 83% 85% 81% 86% 82% Similar The Federal Government 32% 33% 41% 43% 41% 50% 37% 48% 46% 46% 36% 33% Similar State Government 38% 34% 23% 27% 26% 41% 33% NA 47% 46% 54% 46% Lower Table 54: Question 11 - Geographic Subgroup Results Percent rating "excellent" or "good" North/South Area Overall North South Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5 Area 6 The City of Palo Alto 84% 80% 86% 84% 82% 75% 85% 82% 82% The Federal Government 33% 33% 35% 30% 36% 33% 26% 36% 33% State Government 49% 43% 46% 46% 50% 36% 49% 50% 46% Table 55: Question 11 - Benchmark Comparisons* City of Palo Alto rating Rank Number of jurisdictions for comparison Comparison to benchmark Services provided by the City of Palo Alto 69 99 420 Similar Services provided by the Federal Government 38 187 245 Similar * Benchmarks were not calculated for one custom item in this question (State government services). Question 12 Table 56: Question 12 - Response Percentages and Number of Respondents including "Don't Know" Responses Please rate the following categories of Palo Alto government performance: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total The value of services for the taxes paid to Palo Alto 11% N=98 38% N=326 25% N=218 10% N=85 15% N=128 100% N=855 The overall direction that Palo Alto is taking 5% N=43 32% N=276 29% N=246 22% N=189 12% N=102 100% N=856 The job Palo Alto government does at welcoming citizen involvement 9% N=74 31% N=261 22% N=187 9% N=80 30% N=253 100% N=855 Overall confidence in Palo Alto government 6% N=52 34% N=292 33% N=278 15% N=129 12% N=105 100% N=856 Generally acting in the best interest of the community 8% N=72 32% N=270 31% N=266 17% N=144 12% N=103 100% N=855 Being honest 11% N=91 32% N=272 23% N=200 9% N=79 25% N=213 100% N=855 Treating all residents fairly 9% N=77 31% N=264 24% N=204 15% N=126 21% N=183 100% N=855 Table 57: Question 12 - Response Percentages and Number of Respondents without "Don't Know" Responses Please rate the following categories of Palo Alto government performance: Excellent Good Fair Poor Total The value of services for the taxes paid to Palo Alto 14% N=98 45% N=326 30% N=218 12% N=85 100% N=727 The overall direction that Palo Alto is taking 6% N=43 37% N=276 33% N=246 25% N=189 100% N=753 The job Palo Alto government does at welcoming citizen involvement 12% N=74 43% N=261 31% N=187 13% N=80 100% N=602 Overall confidence in Palo Alto government 7% N=52 39% N=292 37% N=278 17% N=129 100% N=752 Generally acting in the best interest of the community 10% N=72 36% N=270 35% N=266 19% N=144 100% N=752 Being honest 14% N=91 42% N=272 31% N=200 12% N=79 100% N=642 Treating all residents fairly 11% N=77 39% N=264 30% N=204 19% N=126 100% N=671 The National Citizen Survey™ 33 Table 58: Question 12 - Historical Results Please rate the following categories of Palo Alto government performance: Percent positive 2018 rating compared to 2017 2003 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 The value of services for the taxes paid to Palo Alto NA 64% 58% 62% 66% 67% 66% 66% 65% 58% 61% 58% Similar The overall direction that Palo Alto is taking 54% 63% 53% 57% 55% 59% 54% 50% 48% 40% 45% 42% Similar The job Palo Alto government does at welcoming citizen involvement 65% 57% 56% 57% 57% 58% 55% 54% 61% 50% 56% 56% Similar Overall confidence in Palo Alto government NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 52% 53% 44% 49% 46% Similar Generally acting in the best interest of the community NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 54% 53% 44% 51% 45% Lower Being honest NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 58% 62% 55% 61% 56% Similar Treating all residents fairly NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 57% 53% 47% 56% 51% Lower Table 59: Question 12 - Geographic Subgroup Results Percent rating "excellent" or "good" North/South Area Overall North South Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5 Area 6 The value of services for the taxes paid to Palo Alto 62% 55% 61% 57% 53% 54% 57% 65% 58% The overall direction that Palo Alto is taking 42% 42% 51% 43% 48% 37% 35% 41% 42% The job Palo Alto government does at welcoming citizen involvement 59% 53% 63% 55% 57% 49% 65% 54% 56% Overall confidence in Palo Alto government 48% 44% 51% 42% 47% 43% 48% 47% 46% Generally acting in the best interest of the community 49% 42% 47% 43% 47% 37% 45% 52% 45% Being honest 60% 53% 58% 60% 50% 49% 54% 64% 56% Treating all residents fairly 54% 48% 57% 51% 52% 42% 55% 52% 51% Table 60: Question 12 - Benchmark Comparisons City of Palo Alto rating Rank Number of jurisdictions for comparison Comparison to benchmark Value of services for the taxes paid to Palo Alto 53 138 395 Similar Overall direction that Palo Alto is taking 41 273 309 Lower Job Palo Alto government does at welcoming citizen involvement 52 134 315 Similar Overall confidence in Palo Alto government 45 172 253 Similar Generally acting in the best interest of the community 45 188 253 Similar Being honest 53 131 245 Similar Treating all residents fairly 48 161 250 Similar The National Citizen Survey™ 34 Question 13 Table 61: Question 13 - Response Percentages and Number of Respondents Please rate how important, if at all, you think it is for the Palo Alto community to focus on each of the following in the coming two years: Essential Very important Somewhat important Not at all important Total Overall feeling of safety in Palo Alto 48% N=415 33% N=284 17% N=143 2% N=17 100% N=860 Overall ease of getting to the places you usually have to visit 39% N=332 45% N=388 15% N=124 1% N=9 100% N=853 Quality of overall natural environment in Palo Alto 38% N=321 41% N=349 20% N=169 2% N=16 100% N=854 Overall "built environment" of Palo Alto (including overall design, buildings, parks and transportation systems) 37% N=316 41% N=351 19% N=163 2% N=19 100% N=850 Reducing community greenhouse gas emissions 29% N=249 35% N=293 26% N=224 10% N=81 100% N=848 Increasing local solar generation capacity within city boundaries 23% N=197 32% N=270 33% N=282 12% N=98 100% N=847 Increasing electric storage capacity within city boundaries 20% N=167 30% N=252 37% N=310 13% N=105 100% N=834 Faster notification systems (online, mobile or email) for Utilities billing issues, efficiency tips, outage information) 13% N=113 31% N=266 37% N=312 18% N=155 100% N=846 Faster notification systems (online, mobile or email) for public safety issues 26% N=224 37% N=312 28% N=233 9% N=79 100% N=848 * This question did not have a “don’t know” option; therefore, there is not a table for “Response Percentages and Number of Respondents without “Don’t Know” Responses. Table 62: Question 13 - Geographic Subgroup Results Percent rating "essential" or "very important" North/South Area Overall North South Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5 Area 6 Overall feeling of safety in Palo Alto 81% 82% 86% 83% 88% 77% 78% 79% 81% Overall ease of getting to the places you usually have to visit 83% 85% 80% 84% 88% 84% 93% 81% 84% Quality of overall natural environment in Palo Alto 80% 77% 80% 75% 83% 75% 78% 80% 78% Overall "built environment" of Palo Alto (including overall design, buildings, parks and transportation systems) 79% 78% 82% 80% 82% 72% 74% 81% 78% Reducing community greenhouse gas emissions 61% 67% 58% 63% 71% 68% 65% 60% 64% Increasing local solar generation capacity within city boundaries 54% 57% 51% 52% 63% 57% 63% 51% 55% Increasing electric storage capacity within city boundaries 49% 51% 46% 50% 57% 48% 57% 47% 50% Faster notification systems (online, mobile or email) for Utilities billing issues, efficiency tips, outage information) 39% 50% 40% 48% 55% 47% 43% 38% 45% Faster notification systems (online, mobile or email) for public safety issues 60% 66% 71% 64% 74% 62% 63% 54% 63% Benchmarks were not calculated for question 13 as it is non-evaluative. The National Citizen Survey™ 35 Question 14 Table 63: Question 14 - Response Percentages and Number of Respondents including "Don't Know" Responses Please rate the following as they relate to Palo Alto Utilities' services: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total Reliability of utility services 57% N=488 34% N=290 6% N=49 0% N=2 3% N=28 100% N=857 Affordability of utility services 18% N=151 38% N=322 27% N=228 12% N=102 6% N=52 100% N=855 Community value received from the City owning and operating its own municipal utility services 29% N=248 32% N=274 12% N=103 4% N=34 22% N=188 100% N=848 Utilities online customer self-service features 18% N=148 29% N=243 10% N=81 3% N=27 41% N=341 100% N=840 Providing opportunities for energy and water efficiency at home or business 16% N=134 37% N=313 13% N=109 5% N=38 30% N=250 100% N=845 Working hard to keep utilities prices competitive 15% N=128 27% N=228 17% N=145 12% N=103 28% N=238 100% N=842 Value of all the services Palo Alto Utilities provides for the price you pay 19% N=157 34% N=291 23% N=196 10% N=84 14% N=118 100% N=846 Ease of obtaining information or performing a transaction through the City’s website 15% N=127 23% N=192 18% N=150 6% N=53 38% N=321 100% N=843 Value of Palo Alto Utilities’ customer communications 16% N=137 32% N=271 17% N=144 3% N=29 31% N=259 100% N=840 Ease of contacting Utilities department staff 18% N=154 29% N=244 12% N=99 4% N=32 37% N=313 100% N=841 Speed of response after contacting Utilities department staff 17% N=144 29% N=240 11% N=95 3% N=23 40% N=339 100% N=841 Table 64: Question 14 - Response Percentages and Number of Respondents without "Don't Know" Responses Please rate the following as they relate to Palo Alto Utilities' services: Excellent Good Fair Poor Total Reliability of utility services 59% N=488 35% N=290 6% N=49 0% N=2 100% N=829 Affordability of utility services 19% N=151 40% N=322 28% N=228 13% N=102 100% N=803 Community value received from the City owning and operating its own municipal utility services 38% N=248 42% N=274 16% N=103 5% N=34 100% N=660 Utilities online customer self-service features 30% N=148 49% N=243 16% N=81 5% N=27 100% N=499 Providing opportunities for energy and water efficiency at home or business 23% N=134 53% N=313 18% N=109 6% N=38 100% N=594 Working hard to keep utilities prices competitive 21% N=128 38% N=228 24% N=145 17% N=103 100% N=604 Value of all the services Palo Alto Utilities provides for the price you pay 22% N=157 40% N=291 27% N=196 11% N=84 100% N=728 Ease of obtaining information or performing a transaction through the City’s website 24% N=127 37% N=192 29% N=150 10% N=53 100% N=522 Value of Palo Alto Utilities’ customer communications 24% N=137 47% N=271 25% N=144 5% N=29 100% N=581 Ease of contacting Utilities department staff 29% N=154 46% N=244 19% N=99 6% N=32 100% N=529 Speed of response after contacting Utilities department staff 29% N=144 48% N=240 19% N=95 5% N=23 100% N=503 The National Citizen Survey™ 36 Table 65: Question 14 - Historical Results Please rate the following as they relate to Palo Alto Utilities' services: Percent positive 2018 rating compared to 2017 2017 2018 Reliability of utility services 96% 94% Similar Affordability of utility services 64% 59% Similar Community value received from the City owning and operating its own municipal utility services 81% 79% Similar Providing opportunities for energy and water efficiency at home or business 83% 75% Lower Working hard to keep utilities prices competitive 63% 59% Similar Value of all the services Palo Alto Utilities provides for the price you pay 68% 62% Lower Ease of obtaining information or performing a transaction through the City’s website 65% 61% Similar Value of Palo Alto Utilities’ customer communications 76% 70% Lower * Trend data are not included for 3 custom items in this question (utilities online customer self-service features, east of contacting Utilities department staff, and speed of response after contacting Utilities department staff) because this was the first year these questions were asked. Only one year of historical data is available for the other questions. Table 66: Question 14 - Geographic Subgroup Results Percent rating "excellent" or "good" North/South Area Overall North South Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5 Area 6 Reliability of utility services 93% 95% 98% 93% 96% 96% 91% 91% 94% Affordability of utility services 60% 58% 63% 55% 59% 60% 66% 56% 59% Community value received from the City owning and operating its own municipal utility services 78% 80% 79% 77% 82% 84% 79% 75% 79% Utilities online customer self-service features 80% 77% 82% 74% 83% 76% 84% 76% 78% Providing opportunities for energy and water efficiency at home or business 77% 74% 78% 77% 75% 71% 76% 76% 75% Working hard to keep utilities prices competitive 59% 59% 59% 61% 59% 56% 65% 56% 59% Value of all the services Palo Alto Utilities provides for the price you pay 62% 61% 62% 64% 60% 60% 65% 60% 62% Ease of obtaining information or performing a transaction through the City’s website 65% 58% 67% 55% 55% 63% 70% 61% 61% Value of Palo Alto Utilities’ customer communications 74% 67% 78% 68% 66% 67% 69% 74% 70% Ease of contacting Utilities department staff 75% 75% 74% 71% 75% 80% 63% 82% 75% Speed of response after contacting Utilities department staff 73% 79% 75% 75% 83% 80% 65% 77% 76% Question 15 Table 67: Question 15 - Response Percentages and Number of Respondents including "Don't Know" Responses In a typical week, how likely are you to: Very likely Somewhat likely Somewhat unlikely Very unlikely Don't know Total Participate in organized group activities (such as clubs, sports teams volunteer your time, attend church/temple) 32% N=273 22% N=184 13% N=112 30% N=251 4% N=30 100% N=850 Spend quality time with local friends, family, and/or neighbors 60% N=511 27% N=234 8% N=66 4% N=36 1% N=5 100% N=852 Table 68: Question 15 - Response Percentages and Number of Respondents without "Don't Know" Responses In a typical week, how likely are you to: Very likely Somewhat likely Somewhat unlikely Very unlikely Total Participate in organized group activities (such as clubs, sports teams volunteer your time, attend church/temple) 33% N=273 22% N=184 14% N=112 31% N=251 100% N=820 Spend quality time with local friends, family, and/or neighbors 60% N=511 28% N=234 8% N=66 4% N=36 100% N=847 The National Citizen Survey™ 37 Table 69: Question 15 - Historical Results In a typical week, how likely are you to: Percent positive (e.g., very/somewhat likely 2018 rating compared to 2017 2017 2018 Participate in organized group activities (such as clubs, sports teams volunteer your time, attend church/temple) 52% 56% Similar Spend quality time with local friends, family, and/or neighbors 85% 88% Similar Table 70: Question 15 - Geographic Subgroup Results Percent rating "very" or "somewhat" likely North/South Area Overall North South Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5 Area 6 Participate in organized group activities (such as clubs, sports teams volunteer your time, attend church/temple) 56% 56% 54% 54% 54% 58% 56% 56% 56% Spend quality time with local friends, family, and/or neighbors 89% 87% 90% 87% 91% 84% 86% 90% 88% Question 16 Table 71: Question 16 - Response Percentages and Number of Respondents What mode of transportation do you use most for your typical daily needs for getting around town? Percent Number Driving 76% N=649 Walking 11% N=95 Biking 10% N=89 Bus 0% N=2 Train 1% N=7 Free shuttle 1% N=5 Taxi 0% N=0 Uber/Lyft or similar rideshare service 0% N=3 Carpooling 0% N=2 Total 100% N=852 Table 72: Question 16 - Historical Results What mode of transportation do you use most for your typical daily needs for getting around town? Percent selecting each response 2018 rating compared to 2017 2016 2017 2018 Driving 77% 73% 76% Similar Walking 13% 13% 11% Similar Biking 8% 11% 10% Similar Bus 1% 1% 0% Similar Train 0% 1% 1% Similar Free shuttle 00% 0% 1% Similar Taxi 0% 0% 0% Similar Uber/Lyft or similar rideshare service 0% 1% 0% Similar Carpooling % 0% 0% Similar The National Citizen Survey™ 38 Table 73: Question 16 - Geographic Subgroup Results What mode of transportation do you use most for your typical daily needs for getting around town? North/South Area Overall North South Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5 Area 6 Driving 40% 60% 14% 22% 16% 21% 9% 18% 100% Walking 78% 22% 4% 7% 6% 9% 17% 58% 100% Biking 68% 32% 10% 11% 10% 10% 13% 45% 100% Bus 49% 51% 0% 0% 30% 21% 0% 49% 100% Train 64% 36% 0% 21% 0% 15% 0% 64% 100% Free shuttle 68% 32% 0% 0% 0% 32% 0% 68% 100% Taxi 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Uber/Lyft or similar rideshare service 70% 30% 20% 0% 30% 0% 0% 50% 100% Carpooling 69% 31% 31% 31% 0% 0% 0% 39% 100% *Significance not tested. Question 17 Table 74: Question 17 - Response Percentages and Number of Respondents If you did not have access to a car for your usual daily transportation around town, how convenient (based on time and proximity) would you consider each of the following methods of getting around? Very convenient Somewhat convenient Somewhat inconvenient Very inconvenient Total Walking 35% N=290 34% N=277 19% N=161 12% N=99 100% N=827 Biking 45% N=359 33% N=262 11% N=88 12% N=94 100% N=803 Bus 7% N=56 26% N=205 39% N=310 28% N=222 100% N=793 Train 11% N=90 30% N=240 30% N=244 28% N=228 100% N=802 Free shuttle 13% N=99 33% N=251 33% N=256 21% N=162 100% N=768 Taxi 7% N=54 28% N=215 31% N=236 34% N=255 100% N=759 Uber/Lyft or similar rideshare service 48% N=383 35% N=284 12% N=93 5% N=44 100% N=804 Carpooling 8% N=60 26% N=198 32% N=247 35% N=268 100% N=773 Table 75: Question 17 - Historical Results If you did not have access to a car for your usual daily transportation around town, how convenient (based on time and proximity) would you consider each of the following methods of getting around? Percent positive (e.g., very/somewhat convenient) 2018 rating compared to 2017 2015 2016 2017 2018 Walking 92% 94% 92% 69% Much lower Biking 76% 75% 75% 77% Similar Bus 53% 50% 52% 33% Lower Train 68% 66% 60% 41% Lower Free shuttle 78% 75% 74% 46% Much lower Taxi 26% 27% 24% 35% Higher Uber/Lyft or similar rideshare service 52% 62% 66% 83% Higher Carpooling 52% 45% 49% 33% Lower The National Citizen Survey™ 39 Table 76: Question 17 - Geographic Subgroup Results Percent rating "very" or "somewhat" convenient North/South Area Overall North South Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5 Area 6 Walking 82% 57% 75% 68% 56% 47% 77% 86% 69% Biking 82% 73% 80% 78% 76% 68% 86% 80% 77% Bus 31% 35% 24% 35% 36% 33% 47% 29% 33% Train 49% 34% 32% 36% 33% 34% 53% 54% 41% Free shuttle 49% 43% 51% 48% 49% 33% 49% 48% 46% Taxi 35% 36% 36% 39% 32% 36% 33% 35% 35% Uber/Lyft or similar rideshare service 85% 81% 80% 77% 84% 84% 83% 88% 83% Carpooling 32% 35% 28% 29% 34% 41% 44% 30% 33% Question 18 Table 77: Question 18 - Response Percentages and Number of Respondents including "Don't Know" Responses If you plan to purchase a new car within the next two years, what is the likelihood of it being: Very likely Somewhat likely Somewhat unlikely Very unlikely Don't know Total Gas 34% N=239 27% N=188 13% N=91 19% N=129 7% N=46 100% N=693 Diesel 1% N=8 4% N=28 8% N=52 76% N=506 10% N=69 100% N=664 Natural gas 1% N=5 4% N=28 8% N=54 74% N=490 13% N=87 100% N=664 Hybrid 27% N=190 38% N=267 13% N=91 14% N=99 7% N=50 100% N=697 Plug-in hybrid 23% N=156 34% N=230 15% N=101 19% N=132 10% N=65 100% N=685 Electric 31% N=217 31% N=213 14% N=101 16% N=110 8% N=54 100% N=695 Fuel cell 3% N=18 6% N=39 14% N=92 53% N=354 24% N=163 100% N=665 Table 78: Question 18 - Response Percentages and Number of Respondents without "Don't Know" Responses If you plan to purchase a new car within the next two years, what is the likelihood of it being: Very likely Somewhat likely Somewhat unlikely Very unlikely Total Gas 37% N=239 29% N=188 14% N=91 20% N=129 100% N=647 Diesel 1% N=8 5% N=28 9% N=52 85% N=506 100% N=595 Natural gas 1% N=5 5% N=28 9% N=54 85% N=490 100% N=577 Hybrid 29% N=190 41% N=267 14% N=91 15% N=99 100% N=647 Plug-in hybrid 25% N=156 37% N=230 16% N=101 21% N=132 100% N=619 Electric 34% N=217 33% N=213 16% N=101 17% N=110 100% N=641 Fuel cell 4% N=18 8% N=39 18% N=92 70% N=354 100% N=503 The National Citizen Survey™ 40 Table 79: Question 18 - Historical Results If you plan to purchase a new car within the next two years, what is the likelihood of it being: Percent rating positively (e.g., very/somewhat likely) 2018 rating compared to 2017 2016 2017 2018 Gas 71% 71% 66% Similar Diesel 10% 5% 6% Similar Natural gas 4% 5% 6% Similar Hybrid 70% 71% 71% Similar Plug-in hybrid 59% 62% 62% Similar Electric 65% 71% 67% Similar Fuel cell 10% 14% 11% Similar Table 80: Question 18 - Geographic Subgroup Results Percent rating "very" or "somewhat" likely North/South Area Overall North South Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5 Area 6 Gas 66% 66% 63% 71% 56% 68% 53% 73% 66% Diesel 5% 7% 2% 14% 1% 5% 4% 7% 6% Natural gas 4% 7% 0% 7% 3% 8% 9% 5% 6% Hybrid 67% 74% 69% 73% 80% 71% 70% 64% 71% Plug-in hybrid 55% 69% 67% 70% 68% 68% 58% 49% 62% Electric 66% 69% 73% 73% 63% 68% 66% 62% 67% Fuel cell 7% 14% 8% 14% 13% 17% 8% 7% 11% The National Citizen Survey™ 41 Question 19. As a resident of Palo Alto, what one change could the City make that would make you happier? In question 19, respondents were asked to write in their own words, what one change the City could make that would make them happier. The verbatim responses were categorized by topic area and those topics are reported in Table 81, with the number and percent of responses given in each category. Some comments from residents covered more than a single topic. We separated the comments and put them under their relevant categories and also listed the verbatim comment at the end of this section. Results from the open-ended question are best understood by reviewing the frequencies that summarize responses as well as the actual verbatim responses themselves. A total of 899 surveys were completed by Palo Alto residents; of these, 583 respondents wrote responses for the open-ended question (552 comments are captured in the below categories as some responses were split to cover multiple topics). Table 81: Question 19 – Open-ended Responses Response Category Percent of Comments Number of Comments Traffic concerns (road condition, limited parking, traffic congestion, traffic enforcement, etc.) 20% N=113 Affordability (housing, cost of living) 18% N=99 Improvements for walking and biking 7% N=36 Housing (amount) 7% N=39 General government operation improvements 7% N=40 Limit growth and development (concerns about density) 6% N=33 Public transportation improvements 4% N=23 Lower taxes and/or utility costs 4% N=20 Parking concerns 3% N=18 Encourage development and improve aspects (design, etc.) 3% N=16 Improve sense of community and increase number of community activities 2% N=13 Improvements to parks and recreation amenities/services 2% N=10 Safety (reduced crime, police officer conduct) 2% N=12 Reduce noise 2% N=12 Downtown improvements 2% N=9 Improve code enforcement 1% N=3 Address homelessness 1% N=8 Schools (address budget concerns, higher quality, more programs) 1% N=5 Improvements to retail/shopping options 1% N=8 Electric utilities and amenities 1% N=8 Other 5% N=27 Total 100% N=552 To review the written in responses, please see The NCS Open-ended Responses - Palo Alto 2018 under separate cover. The National Citizen Survey™ 42 Question 20. As a resident of Palo Alto, what one thing do you believe the City does well and would want to maintain? In question 20, respondents were asked to consider the overall direction that Palo Alto is taking and write in their own words, what one change the City could make to better act in the interest of the community. The verbatim responses were categorized by topic area and those topics are reported in Table 82, with the number and percent of responses given in each category. Some comments from residents covered more than a single topic. We separated the comments and put them under their relevant categories and also listed the verbatim comment at the end of this section. Results from the open-ended question are best understood by reviewing the frequencies that summarize responses as well as the actual verbatim responses themselves. A total of 889 surveys were completed by Palo Alto residents; of these, 527 respondents wrote responses for the open-ended questions (500 comments are captured in the below categories as some responses that covered multiple topics were split). Table 82: Question 20 – Open-ended Responses Response Category Percent of Comments Number of Comments Parks and recreation activities 18% N=91 Safety services 13% N=67 Natural environment and related services 11% N=53 Library 10% N=50 Sense of community/activities 9% N=45 Schools and education 8% N=39 Non-safety related City services 7% N=37 Balancing residential and commercial growth 4% N=20 Ease of bicycle travel 3% N=15 Ability to give input and communication with government 3% N=14 Street maintenance 3% N=17 Negative comment/additional improvements 3% N=15 Cleanliness of community 2% N=10 Public transportation 2% N=10 Government/leadership 1% N=7 Everything/great place to live 1% N=6 Other 1% N=5 Total 100% N=500 To review the written in responses, please see The NCS Open-ended Responses - Palo Alto 2018 under separate cover. The National Citizen Survey™ 43 Demographic Questions Table 83: Question D1 - Response Percentages and Number of Respondents What is your employment status? Percent Number Working full time for pay 59% N=508 Working part time for pay 11% N=96 Unemployed, looking for paid work 1% N=11 Unemployed, not looking for paid work 4% N=37 Fully retired 23% N=195 College student, unemployed 1% N=11 Total 100% N=857 Table 84: Question D2 - Response Percentages and Number of Respondents Do you work inside the boundaries of Palo Alto? Percent Number Yes, outside the home 31% N=255 Yes, from home 15% N=120 No 54% N=442 Total 100% N=818 Table 85: Question D3 - Response Percentages and Number of Respondents How many years have you lived in Palo Alto? Percent Number Less than 2 years 12% N=100 2 to 5 years 16% N=139 6 to 10 years 16% N=136 11 to 20 years 21% N=184 More than 20 years 35% N=299 Total 100% N=859 Table 86: Question D4 - Response Percentages and Number of Respondents Which best describes the building you live in? Percent Number One family house detached from any other houses 58% N=497 Building with two or more homes (duplex, townhome, apartment or condominium) 40% N=349 Mobile home 0% N=1 Other 2% N=15 Total 100% N=861 Table 87: Question D5 - Response Percentages and Number of Respondents Is this house, apartment or mobile home... Percent Number Rented 42% N=360 Owned 58% N=489 Total 100% N=849 The National Citizen Survey™ 44 Table 88: Question D6 - Response Percentages and Number of Respondents About how much is your monthly housing cost for the place you live (including rent, mortgage payment, property tax, property insurance and homeowners' association (HOA) fees)? Percent Number Less than $500 per month 5% N=40 Less than $1,000 per month 5% N=40 $1,000 to $1,499 per month 5% N=43 $1,500 to $1,999 per month 6% N=48 $2,000 to $2,499 per month 8% N=66 $2,500 to $2,999 per month 11% N=88 $3,000 to $3,499 per month 13% N=105 $3,500 to $3,999 per month 8% N=68 $4,000 to $4,499 per month 6% N=48 $4,500 to $4,999 per month 3% N=21 $5,000 to $5,499 per month 7% N=59 $5,500 to $5,999 per month 4% N=34 $6,000 to $6,499 per month 4% N=31 $6,500 to $6,999 per month 2% N=19 $7,000 to $7,499 per month 2% N=16 $7,500 to $7,999 per month 2% N=15 $8,000 to $8,499 per month 1% N=10 $8,500 to $8,999 per month 1% N=7 $9,000 to $9,499 per month 1% N=11 $9,500 to $9,999 per month 1% N=6 $10,000 or more per month 5% N=38 Total 100% N=812 Table 89: Question D7 - Response Percentages and Number of Respondents Do any children 17 or under live in your household? Percent Number No 63% N=540 Yes 37% N=315 Total 100% N=854 Table 90: Question D8 - Response Percentages and Number of Respondents Are you or any other members of your household aged 65 or older? Percent Number No 69% N=587 Yes 31% N=266 Total 100% N=854 The National Citizen Survey™ 45 Table 91: Question D9 - Response Percentages and Number of Respondents How much do you anticipate your household's total income before taxes will be for the current year? (Please include in your total income money from all sources for all persons living in your household.) Percent Number Less than $25,000 3% N=26 $25,000 to $49,999 6% N=45 $50,000 to $99,999 13% N=104 $100,000 to $149,999 13% N=100 $150,000 to $199,999 12% N=94 $200,000 to $249,999 11% N=87 $250,000 to $299,999 10% N=75 $300,000 to $349,999 7% N=51 $350,000 to $399,999 5% N=36 $400,000 to $449,999 4% N=32 $450,000 to $499,999 3% N=24 $500,000 or more 12% N=96 Total 100% N=769 Table 92: Question D10 - Response Percentages and Number of Respondents Are you Spanish, Hispanic or Latino? Percent Number No, not Spanish, Hispanic or Latino 95% N=804 Yes, I consider myself to be Spanish, Hispanic or Latino 5% N=40 Total 100% N=844 Table 93: Question D11 - Response Percentages and Number of Respondents What is your race? (Mark one or more races to indicate what race(s) you consider yourself to be.) Percent Number American Indian or Alaskan Native 1% N=6 Asian, Asian Indian or Pacific Islander 26% N=220 Black or African American 1% N=8 White 71% N=588 Other 5% N=40 Total may exceed 100% as respondents could select more than one option. Table 94: Question D12 - Response Percentages and Number of Respondents In which category is your age? Percent Number 18 to 24 years 2% N=15 25 to 34 years 20% N=165 35 to 44 years 13% N=106 45 to 54 years 27% N=230 55 to 64 years 13% N=109 65 to 74 years 12% N=101 75 years or older 14% N=118 Total 100% N=843 The National Citizen Survey™ 46 Table 95: Question D13 - Response Percentages and Number of Respondents What is your sex? Percent Number Female 51% N=429 Male 49% N=407 Total 100% N=836 The National Citizen Survey™ 47 Communities included in national comparisons The communities included in Palo Alto’s comparisons are listed on the following pages along with their population according to the 2010 Census. Adams County, CO ................................................. 441,603 Airway Heights city, WA .............................................. 6,114 Albany city, OR ......................................................... 50,158 Albemarle County, VA ............................................... 98,970 Albert Lea city, MN ................................................... 18,016 Alexandria city, VA.................................................. 139,966 Algonquin village, IL ................................................. 30,046 Aliso Viejo city, CA .................................................... 47,823 American Canyon city, CA ......................................... 19,454 Ames city, IA ............................................................ 58,965 Ankeny city, IA ......................................................... 45,582 Ann Arbor city, MI .................................................. 113,934 Apache Junction city, AZ ........................................... 35,840 Arapahoe County, CO ............................................. 572,003 Arkansas City city, AR .................................................... 366 Arlington city, TX .................................................... 365,438 Arvada city, CO ...................................................... 106,433 Asheville city, NC ...................................................... 83,393 Ashland city, OR ....................................................... 20,078 Ashland town, MA..................................................... 16,593 Ashland town, VA ....................................................... 7,225 Aspen city, CO ............................................................ 6,658 Athens-Clarke County, GA, ...................................... 115,452 Auburn city, AL ......................................................... 53,380 Augusta CCD, GA.................................................... 134,777 Aurora city, CO ....................................................... 325,078 Austin city, TX ........................................................ 790,390 Avon town, CO ........................................................... 6,447 Avon town, IN .......................................................... 12,446 Avondale city, AZ ...................................................... 76,238 Azusa city, CA .......................................................... 46,361 Bainbridge Island city, WA ........................................ 23,025 Baltimore city, MD .................................................. 620,961 Bartonville town, TX ................................................... 1,469 Battle Creek city, MI ................................................. 52,347 Bay City city, MI ....................................................... 34,932 Bay Village city, OH .................................................. 15,651 Baytown city, TX ...................................................... 71,802 Bedford city, TX ....................................................... 46,979 Bedford town, MA ..................................................... 13,320 Bellevue city, WA .................................................... 122,363 Bellingham city, WA .................................................. 80,885 Benbrook city, TX ..................................................... 21,234 Bend city, OR ........................................................... 76,639 Bethlehem township, PA ........................................... 23,730 Bettendorf city, IA .................................................... 33,217 Billings city, MT ...................................................... 104,170 Bloomington city, IN ................................................. 80,405 Bloomington city, MN ................................................ 82,893 Blue Springs city, MO ................................................ 52,575 Boise City city, ID ................................................... 205,671 Bonner Springs city, KS ............................................... 7,314 Boone County, KY................................................... 118,811 Boulder city, CO ....................................................... 97,385 Bowling Green city, KY .............................................. 58,067 Bozeman city, MT ..................................................... 37,280 Brentwood city, MO .................................................... 8,055 Brentwood city, TN ................................................... 37,060 Brighton city, CO ...................................................... 33,352 Brighton city, MI ......................................................... 7,444 Bristol city, TN .......................................................... 26,702 Broken Arrow city, OK .............................................. 98,850 Brookline CDP, MA ................................................... 58,732 Brooklyn Center city, MN .......................................... 30,104 Brooklyn city, OH ..................................................... 11,169 Broomfield city, CO .................................................. 55,889 Brownsburg town, IN ............................................... 21,285 Buffalo Grove village, IL ........................................... 41,496 Burlingame city, CA .................................................. 28,806 Cabarrus County, NC ............................................... 178,011 Cambridge city, MA ................................................. 105,162 Canandaigua city, NY ............................................... 10,545 Cannon Beach city, OR ............................................... 1,690 Cañon City city, CO .................................................. 16,400 Canton city, SD .......................................................... 3,057 Cape Coral city, FL .................................................. 154,305 Carlisle borough, PA ................................................. 18,682 Carlsbad city, CA ..................................................... 105,328 Carroll city, IA .......................................................... 10,103 Cartersville city, GA .................................................. 19,731 Cary town, NC ........................................................ 135,234 Castine town, ME ....................................................... 1,366 Castle Rock town, CO ............................................... 48,231 Cedar Hill city, TX .................................................... 45,028 Cedar Rapids city, IA ............................................... 126,326 Celina city, TX ............................................................ 6,028 Centennial city, CO.................................................. 100,377 Chandler city, AZ .................................................... 236,123 Chandler city, TX ....................................................... 2,734 Chanhassen city, MN ................................................ 22,952 Chapel Hill town, NC ................................................ 57,233 Chardon city, OH ....................................................... 5,148 Charles County, MD ................................................ 146,551 Charlotte city, NC .................................................... 731,424 Charlotte County, FL ............................................... 159,978 Charlottesville city, VA .............................................. 43,475 Chattanooga city, TN............................................... 167,674 Chautauqua town, NY ................................................ 4,464 Chesterfield County, VA ........................................... 316,236 Clackamas County, OR ............................................ 375,992 Clarendon Hills village, IL ........................................... 8,427 Clayton city, MO ...................................................... 15,939 Clearwater city, FL .................................................. 107,685 Cleveland Heights city, OH ....................................... 46,121 Clinton city, SC .......................................................... 8,490 Clive city, IA ............................................................ 15,447 Clovis city, CA .......................................................... 95,631 College Park city, MD ............................................... 30,413 College Station city, TX ............................................ 93,857 Colleyville city, TX .................................................... 22,807 Columbia city, MO ................................................... 108,500 Columbia city, SC .................................................... 129,272 Columbia Falls city, MT ............................................... 4,688 Commerce City city, CO ............................................ 45,913 Concord city, CA ..................................................... 122,067 Concord town, MA.................................................... 17,668 Conshohocken borough, PA ........................................ 7,833 Coolidge city, AZ ...................................................... 11,825 Coon Rapids city, MN ............................................... 61,476 Copperas Cove city, TX............................................. 32,032 Coral Springs city, FL............................................... 121,096 Coronado city, CA .................................................... 18,912 The National Citizen Survey™ 48 Corvallis city, OR ...................................................... 54,462 Cottonwood Heights city, UT ..................................... 33,433 Creve Coeur city, MO ................................................ 17,833 Cupertino city, CA ..................................................... 58,302 Dacono city, CO ......................................................... 4,152 Dakota County, MN ................................................ 398,552 Dallas city, OR .......................................................... 14,583 Dallas city, TX ..................................................... 1,197,816 Danville city, KY ....................................................... 16,218 Dardenne Prairie city, MO ......................................... 11,494 Darien city, IL .......................................................... 22,086 Davenport city, FL ...................................................... 2,888 Davidson town, NC ................................................... 10,944 Dayton city, OH ...................................................... 141,527 Dayton town, WY .......................................................... 757 Dearborn city, MI ..................................................... 98,153 Decatur city, GA ....................................................... 19,335 Del Mar city, CA.......................................................... 4,161 DeLand city, FL ........................................................ 27,031 Delaware city, OH..................................................... 34,753 Denison city, TX ....................................................... 22,682 Denton city, TX ...................................................... 113,383 Denver city, CO ...................................................... 600,158 Des Moines city, IA ................................................. 203,433 Des Peres city, MO ..................................................... 8,373 Destin city, FL .......................................................... 12,305 Dover city, NH .......................................................... 29,987 Dublin city, CA.......................................................... 46,036 Dublin city, OH ......................................................... 41,751 Duluth city, MN ........................................................ 86,265 Durham city, NC ..................................................... 228,330 Durham County, NC ................................................ 267,587 Dyer town, IN .......................................................... 16,390 Eagan city, MN ......................................................... 64,206 Eagle Mountain city, UT ............................................ 21,415 Eagle town, CO .......................................................... 6,508 Eau Claire city, WI .................................................... 65,883 Eden Prairie city, MN ................................................ 60,797 Eden town, VT ........................................................... 1,323 Edgerton city, KS ........................................................ 1,671 Edgewater city, CO ..................................................... 5,170 Edina city, MN .......................................................... 47,941 Edmond city, OK....................................................... 81,405 Edmonds city, WA .................................................... 39,709 El Cerrito city, CA ..................................................... 23,549 El Dorado County, CA ............................................. 181,058 El Paso de Robles (Paso Robles) city, CA .................... 29,793 Elk Grove city, CA ................................................... 153,015 Elko New Market city, MN ........................................... 4,110 Elmhurst city, IL ....................................................... 44,121 Englewood city, CO .................................................. 30,255 Erie town, CO ........................................................... 18,135 Escambia County, FL .............................................. 297,619 Estes Park town, CO ................................................... 5,858 Euclid city, OH .......................................................... 48,920 Fairview town, TX ....................................................... 7,248 Farmers Branch city, TX ............................................ 28,616 Farmersville city, TX ................................................... 3,301 Farmington Hills city, MI ........................................... 79,740 Farmington town, CT ................................................ 25,340 Fayetteville city, NC ................................................ 200,564 Fernandina Beach city, FL ......................................... 11,487 Flagstaff city, AZ ...................................................... 65,870 Flower Mound town, TX ............................................ 64,669 Forest Grove city, OR ................................................ 21,083 Fort Collins city, CO ................................................ 143,986 Franklin city, TN ....................................................... 62,487 Frederick town, CO .................................................... 8,679 Fremont city, CA ..................................................... 214,089 Friendswood city, TX ................................................ 35,805 Fruita city, CO .......................................................... 12,646 Gahanna city, OH ..................................................... 33,248 Gaithersburg city, MD ............................................... 59,933 Galveston city, TX .................................................... 47,743 Gardner city, KS ....................................................... 19,123 Georgetown city, TX ................................................. 47,400 Germantown city, TN ............................................... 38,844 Gilbert town, AZ ...................................................... 208,453 Gillette city, WY ....................................................... 29,087 Glen Ellyn village, IL ................................................. 27,450 Glendora city, CA ..................................................... 50,073 Glenview village, IL .................................................. 44,692 Golden city, CO ........................................................ 18,867 Golden Valley city, MN .............................................. 20,371 Goodyear city, AZ .................................................... 65,275 Grafton village, WI ................................................... 11,459 Grand Blanc city, MI ................................................... 8,276 Grants Pass city, OR ................................................. 34,533 Grass Valley city, CA ................................................ 12,860 Greeley city, CO ....................................................... 92,889 Greenville city, NC .................................................... 84,554 Greenwich town, CT ................................................. 61,171 Greenwood Village city, CO ....................................... 13,925 Greer city, SC .......................................................... 25,515 Gunnison County, CO ............................................... 15,324 Haltom City city, TX ................................................. 42,409 Hamilton city, OH ..................................................... 62,477 Hamilton town, MA .................................................... 7,764 Hampton city, VA .................................................... 137,436 Hanover County, VA ................................................. 99,863 Harrisburg city, SD ..................................................... 4,089 Harrisonburg city, VA ............................................... 48,914 Harrisonville city, MO ............................................... 10,019 Hastings city, MN ..................................................... 22,172 Hayward city, CA .................................................... 144,186 Henderson city, NV ................................................. 257,729 Herndon town, VA .................................................... 23,292 High Point city, NC .................................................. 104,371 Highland Park city, IL ............................................... 29,763 Highlands Ranch CDP, CO ........................................ 96,713 Homer Glen village, IL .............................................. 24,220 Honolulu County, HI ................................................ 953,207 Hooksett town, NH ................................................... 13,451 Hopkins city, MN ...................................................... 17,591 Hopkinton town, MA ................................................. 14,925 Hoquiam city, WA ...................................................... 8,726 Horry County, SC .................................................... 269,291 Howard village, WI ................................................... 17,399 Hudson town, CO ....................................................... 2,356 Huntley village, IL .................................................... 24,291 Hurst city, TX ........................................................... 37,337 Hutchinson city, MN ................................................. 14,178 Hutto city, TX .......................................................... 14,698 Independence city, MO............................................ 116,830 Indianola city, IA ..................................................... 14,782 Indio city, CA ........................................................... 76,036 Iowa City city, IA ..................................................... 67,862 Irving city, TX ......................................................... 216,290 Issaquah city, WA .................................................... 30,434 Jackson city, MO ...................................................... 13,758 Jackson County, MI ................................................. 160,248 James City County, VA ............................................. 67,009 Jefferson County, NY ............................................... 116,229 Jefferson Parish, LA ................................................ 432,552 The National Citizen Survey™ 49 Johnson City city, TN ................................................ 63,152 Johnston city, IA ...................................................... 17,278 Jupiter town, FL ....................................................... 55,156 Kalamazoo city, MI ................................................... 74,262 Kansas City city, KS ................................................ 145,786 Kansas City city, MO ............................................... 459,787 Keizer city, OR.......................................................... 36,478 Kenmore city, WA ..................................................... 20,460 Kennedale city, TX ...................................................... 6,763 Kent city, WA ........................................................... 92,411 Kerrville city, TX ....................................................... 22,347 Kettering city, OH ..................................................... 56,163 Key West city, FL ...................................................... 24,649 King City city, CA ...................................................... 12,874 Kirkland city, WA ...................................................... 48,787 Kirkwood city, MO .................................................... 27,540 Knoxville city, IA ......................................................... 7,313 La Plata town, MD ...................................................... 8,753 La Vista city, NE ....................................................... 15,758 Laguna Niguel city, CA .............................................. 62,979 Lake Forest city, IL ................................................... 19,375 Lake in the Hills village, IL ........................................ 28,965 Lake Stevens city, WA .............................................. 28,069 Lake Worth city, FL ................................................... 34,910 Lake Zurich village, IL ............................................... 19,631 Lakeville city, MN...................................................... 55,954 Lakewood city, CO .................................................. 142,980 Lakewood city, WA ................................................... 58,163 Lancaster County, SC ................................................ 76,652 Lane County, OR .................................................... 351,715 Lansing city, MI ...................................................... 114,297 Laramie city, WY ...................................................... 30,816 Larimer County, CO ................................................ 299,630 Las Cruces city, NM .................................................. 97,618 Las Vegas city, NM ................................................... 13,753 Lawrence city, KS ..................................................... 87,643 Lawrenceville city, GA ............................................... 28,546 Lee's Summit city, MO .............................................. 91,364 Lehi city, UT ............................................................. 47,407 Lenexa city, KS ......................................................... 48,190 Lewisville city, TX ..................................................... 95,290 Lewisville town, NC ................................................... 12,639 Libertyville village, IL ................................................ 20,315 Lincolnwood village, IL .............................................. 12,590 Lindsborg city, KS ....................................................... 3,458 Little Chute village, WI .............................................. 10,449 Littleton city, CO....................................................... 41,737 Livermore city, CA .................................................... 80,968 Lombard village, IL ................................................... 43,165 Lone Tree city, CO .................................................... 10,218 Long Grove village, IL ................................................. 8,043 Longmont city, CO .................................................... 86,270 Longview city, TX ..................................................... 80,455 Lonsdale city, MN ....................................................... 3,674 Los Alamos County, NM ............................................ 17,950 Los Altos Hills town, CA .............................................. 7,922 Louisville city, CO ..................................................... 18,376 Lower Merion township, PA ....................................... 57,825 Lynchburg city, VA.................................................... 75,568 Lynnwood city, WA ................................................... 35,836 Macomb County, MI................................................ 840,978 Manassas city, VA ..................................................... 37,821 Manhattan Beach city, CA ......................................... 35,135 Manhattan city, KS ................................................... 52,281 Mankato city, MN ...................................................... 39,309 Maple Grove city, MN ................................................ 61,567 Maplewood city, MN ................................................. 38,018 Maricopa County, AZ ............................................ 3,817,117 Marion city, IA ......................................................... 34,768 Mariposa County, CA ................................................ 18,251 Marshfield city, WI ................................................... 19,118 Martinez city, CA ...................................................... 35,824 Marysville city, WA ................................................... 60,020 Matthews town, NC .................................................. 27,198 Maui County, HI ...................................................... 154,834 McAllen city, TX ...................................................... 129,877 McKinney city, TX.................................................... 131,117 McMinnville city, OR ................................................. 32,187 Menlo Park city, CA .................................................. 32,026 Menomonee Falls village, WI .................................... 35,626 Mercer Island city, WA ............................................. 22,699 Meridian charter township, MI .................................. 39,688 Meridian city, ID ...................................................... 75,092 Merriam city, KS....................................................... 11,003 Mesa city, AZ .......................................................... 439,041 Mesa County, CO .................................................... 146,723 Miami Beach city, FL ................................................ 87,779 Miami city, FL ......................................................... 399,457 Middleton city, WI .................................................... 17,442 Midland city, MI ....................................................... 41,863 Milford city, DE .......................................................... 9,559 Milton city, GA ......................................................... 32,661 Minneapolis city, MN ............................................... 382,578 Minnetrista city, MN ................................................... 6,384 Missouri City city, TX ................................................ 67,358 Modesto city, CA ..................................................... 201,165 Monroe city, MI........................................................ 20,733 Monterey city, CA ..................................................... 27,810 Montgomery city, MN ................................................. 2,956 Montgomery County, MD ......................................... 971,777 Monticello city, UT ..................................................... 1,972 Montrose city, CO .................................................... 19,132 Monument town, CO .................................................. 5,530 Moraga town, CA ..................................................... 16,016 Morristown city, TN .................................................. 29,137 Morrisville town, NC ................................................. 18,576 Morro Bay city, CA ................................................... 10,234 Mountain Village town, CO .......................................... 1,320 Mountlake Terrace city, WA ...................................... 19,909 Murphy city, TX ....................................................... 17,708 Naperville city, IL .................................................... 141,853 Napoleon city, OH ...................................................... 8,749 Nederland city, TX ................................................... 17,547 Needham CDP, MA ................................................... 28,886 Nevada City city, CA ................................................... 3,068 Nevada County, CA .................................................. 98,764 New Braunfels city, TX ............................................. 57,740 New Brighton city, MN .............................................. 21,456 New Hope city, MN .................................................. 20,339 New Orleans city, LA ............................................... 343,829 New Smyrna Beach city, FL ...................................... 22,464 New Ulm city, MN .................................................... 13,522 Newberg city, OR ..................................................... 22,068 Newport city, RI ....................................................... 24,672 Newport News city, VA ............................................ 180,719 Newton city, IA ........................................................ 15,254 Noblesville city, IN ................................................... 51,969 Norcross city, GA ....................................................... 9,116 Norfolk city, NE ........................................................ 24,210 Norfolk city, VA ....................................................... 242,803 North Mankato city, MN ............................................ 13,394 North Port city, FL .................................................... 57,357 North Richland Hills city, TX ...................................... 63,343 North Yarmouth town, ME .......................................... 3,565 The National Citizen Survey™ 50 Novato city, CA ........................................................ 51,904 Novi city, MI ............................................................. 55,224 O'Fallon city, IL ........................................................ 28,281 O'Fallon city, MO ...................................................... 79,329 Oak Park village, IL .................................................. 51,878 Oakland city, CA ..................................................... 390,724 Oakley city, CA ......................................................... 35,432 Oklahoma City city, OK ........................................... 579,999 Olathe city, KS ....................................................... 125,872 Old Town city, ME ...................................................... 7,840 Olmsted County, MN ............................................... 144,248 Olympia city, WA ...................................................... 46,478 Orange village, OH ..................................................... 3,323 Orland Park village, IL .............................................. 56,767 Oshkosh city, WI ...................................................... 66,083 Oshtemo charter township, MI .................................. 21,705 Oswego village, IL .................................................... 30,355 Ottawa County, MI ................................................. 263,801 Overland Park city, KS ............................................ 173,372 Paducah city, KY....................................................... 25,024 Palm Beach Gardens city, FL ..................................... 48,452 Palm Coast city, FL ................................................... 75,180 Palo Alto city, CA ...................................................... 64,403 Palos Verdes Estates city, CA..................................... 13,438 Papillion city, NE ....................................................... 18,894 Paradise Valley town, AZ ........................................... 12,820 Park City city, UT ........................................................ 7,558 Parker town, CO ....................................................... 45,297 Parkland city, FL ....................................................... 23,962 Pasco city, WA ......................................................... 59,781 Pasco County, FL .................................................... 464,697 Payette city, ID .......................................................... 7,433 Pearland city, TX ...................................................... 91,252 Peoria city, AZ ........................................................ 154,065 Peoria city, IL ......................................................... 115,007 Pflugerville city, TX ................................................... 46,936 Pinehurst village, NC ................................................. 13,124 Piqua city, OH .......................................................... 20,522 Pitkin County, CO ..................................................... 17,148 Plano city, TX ......................................................... 259,841 Platte City city, MO ..................................................... 4,691 Pleasant Hill city, IA .................................................... 8,785 Pleasanton city, CA ................................................... 70,285 Polk County, IA ...................................................... 430,640 Pompano Beach city, FL ............................................ 99,845 Port Orange city, FL .................................................. 56,048 Port St. Lucie city, FL .............................................. 164,603 Portland city, OR .................................................... 583,776 Powell city, OH ......................................................... 11,500 Powhatan County, VA ............................................... 28,046 Prince William County, VA ....................................... 402,002 Prior Lake city, MN ................................................... 22,796 Pueblo city, CO ....................................................... 106,595 Purcellville town, VA ................................................... 7,727 Queen Creek town, AZ .............................................. 26,361 Raleigh city, NC ...................................................... 403,892 Ramsey city, MN....................................................... 23,668 Raymond town, ME .................................................... 4,436 Raymore city, MO ..................................................... 19,206 Redmond city, OR .................................................... 26,215 Redmond city, WA .................................................... 54,144 Redwood City city, CA ............................................... 76,815 Reno city, NV ......................................................... 225,221 Reston CDP, VA ........................................................ 58,404 Richland city, WA ..................................................... 48,058 Richmond city, CA .................................................. 103,701 Richmond Heights city, MO ......................................... 8,603 Rio Rancho city, NM ................................................. 87,521 River Falls city, WI ................................................... 15,000 Riverside city, CA .................................................... 303,871 Roanoke city, VA ...................................................... 97,032 Roanoke County, VA ................................................ 92,376 Rochester Hills city, MI ............................................. 70,995 Rock Hill city, SC ...................................................... 66,154 Rockville city, MD ..................................................... 61,209 Roeland Park city, KS ................................................. 6,731 Rogers city, MN ......................................................... 8,597 Rohnert Park city, CA ............................................... 40,971 Rolla city, MO .......................................................... 19,559 Roselle village, IL ..................................................... 22,763 Rosemount city, MN ................................................. 21,874 Rosenberg city, TX ................................................... 30,618 Roseville city, MN ..................................................... 33,660 Round Rock city, TX ................................................. 99,887 Royal Oak city, MI .................................................... 57,236 Royal Palm Beach village, FL ..................................... 34,140 Sacramento city, CA ................................................ 466,488 Sahuarita town, AZ .................................................. 25,259 Sammamish city, WA ............................................... 45,780 San Anselmo town, CA ............................................. 12,336 San Diego city, CA ............................................... 1,307,402 San Francisco city, CA ............................................. 805,235 San Jose city, CA .................................................... 945,942 San Marcos city, CA ................................................. 83,781 San Marcos city, TX .................................................. 44,894 San Rafael city, CA ................................................... 57,713 Sangamon County, IL .............................................. 197,465 Santa Fe city, NM ..................................................... 67,947 Santa Fe County, NM .............................................. 144,170 Santa Monica city, CA ............................................... 89,736 Sarasota County, FL ................................................ 379,448 Savage city, MN ....................................................... 26,911 Schaumburg village, IL ............................................. 74,227 Schertz city, TX ........................................................ 31,465 Scott County, MN .................................................... 129,928 Scottsdale city, AZ .................................................. 217,385 Sedona city, AZ ........................................................ 10,031 Sevierville city, TN ................................................... 14,807 Shakopee city, MN ................................................... 37,076 Sharonville city, OH .................................................. 13,560 Shawnee city, KS ..................................................... 62,209 Shawnee city, OK ..................................................... 29,857 Sherborn town, MA .................................................... 4,119 Shoreline city, WA .................................................... 53,007 Shoreview city, MN .................................................. 25,043 Shorewood village, IL ............................................... 15,615 Shorewood village, WI ............................................. 13,162 Sierra Vista city, AZ .................................................. 43,888 Silverton city, OR ....................................................... 9,222 Sioux Center city, IA .................................................. 7,048 Sioux Falls city, SD .................................................. 153,888 Skokie village, IL ...................................................... 64,784 Snoqualmie city, WA ................................................ 10,670 Snowmass Village town, CO ........................................ 2,826 Somerset town, MA .................................................. 18,165 South Jordan city, UT ............................................... 50,418 South Lake Tahoe city, CA ........................................ 21,403 Southlake city, TX .................................................... 26,575 Spearfish city, SD ..................................................... 10,494 Spring Hill city, KS ...................................................... 5,437 Springfield city, MO ................................................. 159,498 Springville city, UT ................................................... 29,466 St. Augustine city, FL ............................................... 12,975 St. Charles city, IL .................................................... 32,974 The National Citizen Survey™ 51 St. Cloud city, FL ...................................................... 35,183 St. Joseph city, MO ................................................... 76,780 St. Joseph town, WI ................................................... 3,842 St. Louis County, MN .............................................. 200,226 State College borough, PA ......................................... 42,034 Steamboat Springs city, CO ....................................... 12,088 Sugar Grove village, IL................................................ 8,997 Sugar Land city, TX .................................................. 78,817 Suisun City city, CA ................................................... 28,111 Summit County, UT .................................................. 36,324 Summit village, IL..................................................... 11,054 Sunnyvale city, CA .................................................. 140,081 Surprise city, AZ ..................................................... 117,517 Suwanee city, GA ..................................................... 15,355 Tacoma city, WA .................................................... 198,397 Takoma Park city, MD ............................................... 16,715 Tamarac city, FL ....................................................... 60,427 Temecula city, CA ................................................... 100,097 Tempe city, AZ ....................................................... 161,719 Temple city, TX ........................................................ 66,102 Texarkana city, TX .................................................... 36,411 The Woodlands CDP, TX ........................................... 93,847 Thousand Oaks city, CA .......................................... 126,683 Tigard city, OR ......................................................... 48,035 Tracy city, CA ........................................................... 82,922 Trinidad CCD, CO ..................................................... 12,017 Tualatin city, OR ....................................................... 26,054 Tulsa city, OK ......................................................... 391,906 Tustin city, CA .......................................................... 75,540 Twin Falls city, ID ..................................................... 44,125 Unalaska city, AK ........................................................ 4,376 University Heights city, OH ........................................ 13,539 University Park city, TX ............................................. 23,068 Upper Arlington city, OH ........................................... 33,771 Urbandale city, IA ..................................................... 39,463 Vail town, CO ............................................................. 5,305 Ventura CCD, CA .................................................... 111,889 Vernon Hills village, IL .............................................. 25,113 Vestavia Hills city, AL ................................................ 34,033 Victoria city, MN ......................................................... 7,345 Vienna town, VA ....................................................... 15,687 Virginia Beach city, VA ............................................ 437,994 Walnut Creek city, CA ............................................... 64,173 Warrensburg city, MO ............................................... 18,838 Washington County, MN ......................................... 238,136 Washington town, NH ................................................. 1,123 Washoe County, NV ................................................ 421,407 Washougal city, WA .................................................. 14,095 Wauwatosa city, WI .................................................. 46,396 Waverly city, IA .......................................................... 9,874 Wentzville city, MO ................................................... 29,070 West Carrollton city, OH ............................................ 13,143 Western Springs village, IL ........................................ 12,975 Westerville city, OH .................................................. 36,120 Westlake town, TX......................................................... 992 Westminster city, CO .............................................. 106,114 Weston town, MA ..................................................... 11,261 Wheat Ridge city, CO ................................................ 30,166 White House city, TN ................................................ 10,255 Wichita city, KS ...................................................... 382,368 Williamsburg city, VA ................................................ 14,068 Willowbrook village, IL ................................................ 8,540 Wilmington city, NC ................................................ 106,476 Wilsonville city, OR ................................................... 19,509 Windsor town, CO .................................................... 18,644 Windsor town, CT ..................................................... 29,044 Winnetka village, IL .................................................. 12,187 Winter Garden city, FL .............................................. 34,568 Woodbury city, MN................................................... 61,961 Woodinville city, WA ................................................. 10,938 Woodland city, CA .................................................... 55,468 Wyandotte County, KS ............................................ 157,505 Yakima city, WA ....................................................... 91,067 York County, VA....................................................... 65,464 Yorktown town, IN ..................................................... 9,405 Yorkville city, IL ....................................................... 16,921 Yountville city, CA ...................................................... 2,933 The National Citizen Survey™ 52 Survey Materials 2955 Valmont Road Suite 300 777 North Capitol Street NE Suite 500 Boulder, Colorado 80301 Washington, DC 20002 n-r-c.com • 303-444-7863 icma.org • 800-745-8780 Palo Alto, CA Open-ended Responses 2018 The National Citizen Survey™ The National Citizen Survey™ © 2001-2018 National Research Center, Inc. The NCS™ is presented by NRC in collaboration with ICMA. NRC is a charter member of the AAPOR Transparency Initiative, providing clear disclosure of our sound and ethical survey research practices. Contents Question 19 ............................................................................. 1 Question 20 ........................................................................... 17 The National Citizen Survey™ 1 Question 19 As a resident of Palo Alto, what one change could the City make that would make you happier? In question 19, respondents were asked to write in their own words, what one change the City could make that would make them happier. The responses were categorized by topic area and those topics are reported in Table 1, with the number and percent of responses given in each category. Because some comments from residents covered more than a single topic, we separated the comments and put them under their relevant categories. A total of 899 surveys were completed by Palo Alto residents; of these, 580 respondents wrote responses for the open-ended question (647 comments are captured in the below categories as some responses were split to cover multiple topics). Table 1: Question 19 – Open-ended Responses Response Category Percent of Comments Number of Comments Traffic concerns 23% N=148 Housing (amount, affordability/cost of living) 21% N=138 Development (other than housing) 10% N=62 General government operations 8% N=54 Improvements for walking and biking 5% N=34 Public transportation 5% N=32 Parking concerns 4% N=28 Other/Nothing 4% N=28 Lower taxes and/or utility costs 4% N=25 Reduce noise 3% N=18 Safety 2% N=14 Parks and recreation amenities/services 2% N=11 Electric utilities and amenities 2% N=11 Address homelessness 1% N=9 Retail/shopping options 1% N=9 Sense of community/community activities 1% N=8 Downtown improvements 1% N=8 Code enforcement 1% N=5 Schools 1% N=5 Total 100% N=647 Traffic concerns  Add left turn signal@ Middlefield & Montrose.  Ban bicycles on Alma between University & San Antonio.  Better coordinate lights on big roads such as Sand Hill, Embarcadero- unless it is meant to be that way!  Better enforcement of traffic laws. People speed through neighborhoods and ignore stop signs if other cars are not at the intersection.  Better paved street.  Better road paving and traffic signs.  Better speed limit control on major arteries/roads  Better traffic flow on busy streets, better public transportation.  Better traffic flow.  Better traffic management.  Better traffic planning - road diets, contended curbs, unclaimed bike lanes are really not well thought out- seem to be ideas someone's taken from elsewhere and don't apply here well!  Change back Ross Rd.  Check with residents before installation of traffic calming.  Commute traffic is bad.  Coordinate traffic lights - simplify cost bay commute. The National Citizen Survey™ 2  Coordinate traffic signals better;.  Coordinate traffic signals on El Camino/ Embarcadero.  Coordinating traffic lights.  Cramp down on high use of disabled stickers.  Cut it out with all the so-called traffic ''improvements''.  Deal with traffic on University/ protect vehicles from break ins even work cooperatively with Stanford in well- lit downtown locations.  Do away with all merging lanes on Charleston/ Arastradero.  Do away with death traps on Ross road.  Do something about the traffic on our streets.  Ease of crossing trains tracks.  Ease traffic congestion on local neighborhood streets.  Eliminate one of the red lights in front of Paly on Embarcadero.  Eliminate the back up of traffic down University which then pours into Crescent park neighborhood.  Enforce speed limits or neighborhood streets & better time the lights @ Woodland/ University.  Enforce traffic laws in neighborhood for cars and bikes and bring public transportation for neighborhoods.  Fewer cars on the streets.  Fix road surfaces.  Fix Ross Road- Revert the "bump outs"- Close Ross Road like Bryant.  Fix the road asap- traffic is terrible esp. for a small city. Badly designed roads, school sign merging lanes. Get better engineers.  Fix the traffic jam during rush hours.  Fix the traffic lights in University Ave to improve traffic flow.  Fix traffic @ Paly/ Town & Country/ El Camino.  Fix traffic issues, congestion in & out of town in morning & evening.  Get rid of the extend sidewalk on Louis & Ross road; the road is too narrow! The traffic circles are an accident waiting to happen!  Get street repairs done quickly!  Holes on road.  Improve the traffic.  Improve traffic especially during "rush hour"!  Improve traffic flow.  Improve traffic flow on University Ave.  Improve traffic flow.  Improve traffic flows.  Improve traffic.  Improve traffic.  Improve traffic.  Improve traffic.  Improve traffic.  Improve traffic.  Improving ease of exit out of Arbor Real Community to El Camino. Current system makes it sometimes impossible. Traffic lights? Do not block signs?  Keep streets open! Reduce construction detours, road narrowing etc.  Keep the residential streets in good repair- many are in disrepair. Clear away obscuring greenery from stop signs.  Less traffic.  Less traffic lights.  Less traffic on San Antonio Rd.  Less traffic.  Less traffic. The National Citizen Survey™ 3  Less traffic.  Less traffic.  Less traffic.  Less traffic.  Less traffic!!!  Lower traffic congestion.  Make Sherman and Ash a 4 way stop!!!  Monitor traffic speed- esp. Middlefield.  More driving lanes.  More street maintenance.  More through roads- expressways.  More traffic enforcement.  Pave holes on the road.  Pay attention to neighborhood residents with regards to traffic patterns & needs. The city transportation department ignores citizen input.  Please synchronize stop light = Oregon, Middlefield, Alma.  Put a stop sign on Channing, at Cowper.  Quit putting in those stupid, wasteful roundabouts!  Realistic traffic plans & implementation.  Re-do narrowing of Ross Rd - more dangerous now.  Reduce city traffic- esp. University Ave to 101, stop flow going through neighborhoods. Open downtown to more walking/ driving less cars!  Reduce new traffic light installation.  Reduce traffic & ease of getting around the city.  Reduce traffic congestion on major streets.  Reduce traffic congestion, improve signal timing, remove silly barriers.  Reduce traffic congestion.  Reduce traffic!!  Reduce traffic, reduce traffic.  Reduce traffic.  Reduce traffic.  Reduce traffic.  Reduce traffic.  Reduce traffic.  Reducing traffic congestion.  Relieve gridlock traffic.  Remedy Ross road traffic changes harming bikers.  Remove any potholes.  Remove meadow roundabout that blocks fire/ ambulance access to my house. More than I bike around town previously!  Remove the ugly detours at the end of some of the streets. It sure was not money spent well. They are an eye sore, very poor planning.  Remove traffic calming throughout the city- very dangerous right now.  Remove white barrier posts on Middle-field- causes traffic jams & fix traffic lights by Town & County & PALY.  Repair individuals, roads.  Repair streets.  Repave some of streets out of repair.  Repaving the streets.  Restore 4 lanes on Arastradero corridor from San Antonio Rd to Foothill Expwy.  Re-time traffic lights.  Road repair. The National Citizen Survey™ 4  Road repair.  See more roundabouts at intersections to replace stop sign.  Significantly boost traffic enforcement, so many speed (10-30 mph increase speed limit) on, e.g. Alma, foothills expressway.  Smoother flowing traffic.  Solve traffic congestion.  Speed limit enforcement 35mp zone drivers push to 60+ mph.  Spend tax payer money on fixing roads, not on bump outs and roundabouts and street art.  Stop "fancy" road blocks near schools, restricted lane directions.  Stop blocking roads- no traffic calming!  Stop crazy driving in Palo Alto.  Stop extravagant spending on traffic quieting. A lot of money wasted on Ross Road for nothing.  Stop making street changes that make it harder to travel.  Stop putting barriers/ sounds on neighborhood streets.  Synchronize lights on major arteries.  Synchronize stoplights- esp. Westbound Lytton & Eastbound Hamilton.  Synchronize traffic lights, do away with bulb outs and speed bumps etc.  Synchronize traffic lights.  The roads.  The transportation dept. is deploying too much street "furniture". Stop it.  Timing of lights on Alma St. given train schedules.  Tons of people think the 2- way stops on Bryant St are 4-way stops and it's very dangerous. We need better signage & enforcement between University & Palo Alto Ave on Bryant.  Too much traffic.  Traffic.  Traffic.  Traffic control.  Traffic controlled diversion programs.  Traffic dept. is badly out of control w/ expensive & useless projects.  Traffic enforcement.  Traffic flow is our biggest problems & the train crossings are the biggest impediment to traffic flow. This must be fixed & not with overhead tracks!  Traffic flow.  Traffic improvement.  Traffic is horrible & so is the way people drive!  Traffic lights on El Camino, between Page Mill Rd & Charleston, are not well synced during weekday afternoon rush hours (around 5:30 pm). Takes more than 15 mins. to get through.  Traffic problems fixed now.  Try to route auto traffic around not thru the city.  Turn Alma into 25 mph only - the whole road.  Undo the street bulb-outs/ changes on Ross Road.  University Ave, traffic.  Use cameras to catch dangerous drivers.  Work on traffic flow! Smart lights on Sand Hill Rd! Housing (amount, affordability/cost of living)  A lot more housing.  Add rent control.  Affordable housing.  Affordable housing.  Affordable housing. The National Citizen Survey™ 5  Affordable housing.  Affordable housing.  Affordable housing.  Affordable housing.  Affordable housing.  Affordable housing.  Affordable housing  Affordable housing (below market rate is still far too expensive).  Affordable housing by increasing supply.  Affordable housing for middle class  Affordable housing programs.  Affordable housing! Prices are out of control and it's a shame that children who grew up here will not be able to live here.  Affordable housing, less Stanford property in College Terrace.  Allow building of infill housing, affordable housing, taller structures.  Allow more housing to be developed, especially close to transit.  Approve and build a lot more housing.  Approve much more affordable housing.  ARB and city review of new or expanded homes.  Avoid dense housing. I didn't move here to live in a congested & crowded city.  Build additional housing.  Better housing than commercial spaces.  Better infill housing (affordable).  Build affordable housing. Stop building office buildings.  Build more affordable housing.  Building more affordable, better senior communities.  Cheaper accommodation.  Cheaper housing- can't afford to live here much longer as a renter!  Cheaper housing.  Cheaper housing.  Control housing cost.  Correct: too many workers; little affordable housing.  Cost of buying a home.  Cost of living is very, very expensive for people not working in tech.  Diverse housing options that are affordable.  Don't price out the old residents or mom & pop business.  Driving more housing affordability.  Ease up on construction of more affordable housing.  Encourage affordable housing.  Figure out affordable housing options so families can stay here and people don't need to live in RVs/motor homes or spend almost all income on housing.  Fix the housing situation. We're one rent increase away of having to move- and we're both professionals.  Focus on "affordability" - in housing, restaurants, shops, store in the mall, and more, everything (excl. Stanford shop center) is geared to "very high end marks".  Focus on providing affordable housing.  Greater diversity of housing (affordable) options. Address plane noise.  Have affordable housing for people working minimum wage.  Have more affordable housing.  Have more low income units.  High density housing at or along transportation hubs & route- development of public transportation.  Housing, The National Citizen Survey™ 6  Housing price too high, all kinds of service people hard to survive.  I need a place to live that is high quality under $800 k.  If you put rent control because some of us don't work for big companies and we don't earn a lot of money.  Improve affordable housing stocks.  Improve job/ housing balance.  Increase affordable house.  Increase affordable housing for working families & seniors.  Increase affordable housing options (not just low-income).  Increase affordable housing.  Increase the amount of affordable housing.  Increasing affordability. It is too expensive to live here.  Less expensive to live.  Less single family homes; more apartments, condos, etc. More affordable.  Limit purchases of residential properties by non-citizens!! and non-occupants!!  Low apt. rental.  Low income housing affordable housing!  Low income housing.  Lower cost of living.  Lower cost of living.  Lower housing prices.  Lower rent rates; expensive to live in area.  Lower rent.  Lower rent.  Lower rental price.  Lower the housing (purchase/ rent) price down.  Lowering living costs.  Make housing more affordable!  Make housing available to all.  Make it easier to build more and large housing. It is too damn expensive here.  Make it more affordable.  Make it more difficult to take down old homes & buildings and replace them with modern ones.  Make multi-unit reasonably priced housing.  Making retired life in Palo Alto more affordable.  More affordable.  More affordable housing.  More affordable housing.  More affordable housing and apt.  More affordable housing for families with kids (2 bed or more) for under $3000.  More affordable housing for young families working in essential services in city i.e. teachers!!!  More affordable housing to retain workers.  More and dense housing.  More apartments.  More homeless housing.  More housing!  More housing.  More housing.  More housing for low duel modest income persons. (Change zoning to allow construction of more apartments).  More housing, lower prices.  More low cost housing.  More reasonable cost of living. The National Citizen Survey™ 7  More secluded residential areas.  More variety of housing types, style, prices, density - LEED and high performance buildup.  Multi generational neighborhoods - more options for seniors with local connections.  No low income housing.  People should not be allowed to buy houses and tear down, then not leave any yard.  Protection of low-cost housing i.e. President hotel.  Put constraints on development of housing, except for providing low cost housing.  Put some money behind housing for lower/middle class people  Quality, affordable, family housing is scarce. Also limit the amount of very large new houses older communities, e.g. Eichler.  Reasonable housing rent cost.  Reduce price of housing.  Reasonable property values and rent.  Reduce traffic so that we can start to think about adding more housing.  Rent control and more low income housing.  Rent control law.  Rent control.  Rent control.  Rent control/ affordable housing for working class & working professionals.  Requires two-car garages in new houses, especially 2-story houses.  See more affordable housing for low-income residents of Palo Alto.  Senior-affordable housing.  Slow down multi-unit housing.  Some type of rent control or incentive for landlords to maintain their properties w/o raising rent even more. So many people I know are afraid to ask landlord to fix basic needs.  Stop allowing huge developments of housing.  Stop approving the building of huge houses that don't fit the neighborhood, especially when you have to drain the ground water.  Stop building high density housing. The city is too congested!  Stop construction of new housing.  Stop McMansions!  Stop overbuilding (high density housing).  Stop overpriced rentals!  Subsidize housing for teachers and city employees.  Support for more housing.  Taller apartment buildings near train stations/transit hubs with lower rental prices.  To reduce housing cost.  Wish I could afford to stay here permanently - Purchase a home. Development (other than housing)  Adopt a no-growth policy - or its character and value will be lost.  Aesthetics of urban environment (building design).  Allow more development- businesses, retail, & effective transportation - it's hard/ time-consuming to drive from one part of town to another.  Avoid "planned developments" which circumvent zoning requirements for parking, setbacks, landscaping, density & heights.  Better planning and coordination of construction - utilities, streets, building projects (commercial).  Create long range architectural vision & limit growth to ease traffic.  Curtail all the development!  Do a better job of managing growth. The National Citizen Survey™ 8  Doing something with the Birge Clark bldg. on Homer at Bryant. Don't allow construction projects that affect driving on parallel streets at the same time.  Ease of new development (too long, too costly).  Expedite building permits.  For real sustainable living I think building height restrictions need to be seriously reconsidered.  Halt all development - No growth.  Keep it from densifying: construction at VA hospital causes light pollution, growth at Stanford shopping ctr.  Less building codes.  Less construction e.g. road, housing.  Less construction of ugly buildings.  Less construction traffic.  Less construction work.  Less empty commercial units downtown.  Less high rise bldg.  Less large business/ protection of small business.  Less office development.  Limit expansion of commercial space.  Limit height of buildings.  Limit new business construction.  Limit the amount of R & D and office space. Do not allow residential footprint to exceed 60% of lot size.  Limit the mega man here.  Lower density development.  Moratorium on new construction.  More density to motivate better use of public transit.  Much less new office space.  New development needs to be realistic.  New office & apt. buildings should have greater setbacks & more open/green space.  No Verizon cell towers.  Palo alto has become about as dense as it can be already!  Please don't build and expand commercial capabilities, hotels, offices anymore!  Quit all the building - Traffic is horrendous.  Quit urbanizing the area we don't need building to the sidewalk.  Reduce big offices downtown; parking is harder, and great shops being pushed out because of real-estate $.  Reduce commercial development.  Reduce population growth. Make Palo Alto fabulous again.  Reduce the high density housing and office developments - the road infrastructure cannot handle this! The quality of life has significantly declined in last 10 years.  Reduce the rate of development of office buildings.  Reduction of new construction in downtown area with attendant traffic slow-downs.  Slow down building business offices, concentrate residential.  Slow down commercial development.  Slow down office building development and the organization of the city. Palo Alto does not have and cannot build the infrastructure to sustain it.  Speed by decision making for planning new development both business & residential.  Stop all of the office development - the traffic is awful, and rents are way too expensive.  Stop allowing huge developments of businesses.  Stop allowing office building construction. Palo Alto should remain residential.  Stop building office buildings! Stop incessant building in favor of developers to determinant of neighborhood q.o.l.  Stop building! Don't charge so much fees!!!  Stop development. There are too many people, too many cars, & not enough roads. The National Citizen Survey™ 9  Stop new growth.  Stop over-building!  Stop the high rise bldg.  Too much office space, commercial rents exorbitant - no diversity in retailing anymore. Bland corporate chains galore. Too much building overall.  Too congested w/ buildings.  Ugly new building.  Urban planning! No more hideous, ugly commercial buildings that are cold, unwelcoming, and poorly designed exteriors! General government operations  2 city council members did not divulge until after the election that they took developer $. They should resign. They make our city government seem corrupt.  Actually follow community input when it is asked for.  Address Palo Alto employee retirement plan liability.  Allow dispensaries (420).  Attitude adjustment for city council - working for good of community - not special interests or prejudices.  Better expense control.  Better way of communicating with city officials, access to resources!  Change councilman.  Change to a republican majority & city council.  City in decline - crime, lousy roads, no traffic enforcement, non-stop construction, high cost of housing and on and on.  City planning is too slow and costly.  Control the budget to allow more city services.  Coordinate with state & federal government to reduce the income gap.  Decrease money spent on pensions - at least acknowledge the enormous amount.  Doing surveys like this locally, perhaps with Stanford Grad students instead of costly consultants.  Don't waste tax payer money: For example; change PA school name (waste many for politic correctness).  Fiscal responsibility.  Focus on improving basic amenities, less on virtue signaling.  Get off CalPERS; put employees on 401 k.  Get rid of city manager & look to community for impact Re: decisions.  Getting unbiased elected officials.  Greater citizen participation in community decisions.  If citizens bring informal concerns to city/ council. Pay Attention! and act, i.e. RVs- El Camino, beggars downtown traffic terrors - University, Embarcadero.  If you did not pay own such high retirement payments we might not have so many increases in P.A's living expenses.  Improve notification calls to include cellphones/ texts (safety; outages).  Improve weed abatement on city property.  In addition to soliciting community feedback the city could actually consider the feedback given.  Less moralizing and virtue signaling (e.g. banning smoking, locally "green" spending).  Less wasteful spending like Ross Rd bike path.  More efficiency & cost effectiveness of city funds.  More tree maintenance.  Need to listen to and treat all residents the same. Not in their best interest.  No garbage trucks at 4:30 am.  No more basements permits!!! "Wastes so much water" negative impact on surrounding properties.  No more new council entity.  Not be so militant on recycling/ garbage/ zero waste rules. The National Citizen Survey™ 10  Pay attention to needs of renters; stop pandering to homeowners.  Planning commission would be removed and new commissioner.  Public announcement system to reach more citizens with concerns.  Quit wasting money. Quit incessant building. Traffic is outrageous. City council makes very bad decisions.  Reduce expenses, especially pension liability.  Reduce the liability for city employee pensions.  Spend less money on unhelpful road reconfiguration.  Spend less money on useless staff- use the public art projects.  Stop charging for ambulance service. It's operated by city employees paid by taxes, & object to paying for it twice, it's no more special than police, fire or utilities service.  Stop over paying upper city management.  Stop people from buying property here in Palo Alto that they are just leaving empty (investments). US Citizens should have 1st dibs on property.  Stop subsidizing "clean cars" at taxpayer's expense. New police.  Strict control of marijuana use.  Take further steps to ensure council members and candidates decline and make transparent potential conflicts of interests.  Team with Stanford University instead of using it as a piggy bank.  The city should focus on core services and stop spending resources on running our own utilities.  To understand everyone's perspective/ opinion.  Trim the trees away from house! Improvements for walking and biking  A pedestrian & bike bridge over 101 to get to the Bay Shore trail, close to the correct overpass.  Better & more opportunities to cross Alma & train tracks on a bike.  Better bike infrastructure, curbed bike lanes like in Denmark.  Bike Blvd project is too costly & not effective.  Bike lane on El Camino.  Build real separate bicycle paths, like palm drive Stanford.  Change back all recently making narrow at the road. I don't believe it will be safer for car driver nor biker.  Change the new bike lanes - very dangerous.  Continue with bike network plan & slowing growth.  Don't undertake major projects like Ross Rd bike Blvd without telling residents what the plans are and allowing for feedback. I won't bike there anymore, feels too dangerous.  Easier to bike; more community.  Educate adult bicyclists about rules, require lights on bikes.  Educate people/ kids how to use the new bike lanes on Ross & roundabouts.  Get rid of the new bike road around Ross/Louis, utterly ridiculous.  Make city more bicycle- pedestrian friendly.  Make University Ave pedestrian only!  More bike boulevards.  More bike friendly routes.  More bike friendly street.  More bike lanes colored with green.  More bike lanes downtown.  More bike lanes.  More sidewalks in the Barron park neighborhood.  More sidewalks.  Paint bike lanes; bulbs/ roundabouts are horrible/ dangerous in bikes.  Remove the bike Blvd changes along Louis and Ross. They are a hazard not a benefit.  Safer bike paths (more separation from cars and/ or separate paths). The National Citizen Survey™ 11  Safer bike paths at Embarcadero & El Camino.  Safer bike routes in downtown/ Addison zone.  Separate bike and walking paths in parks.  The city could add a lot more bike lanes and bike paths (just for bikes) so that biking around Palo Alto would be much easier and safer.  Walker friendly.  Wider sidewalks & better bike lanes in Midtown. Educate everyone that pedestrians have the right of way on sidewalks!  Work with Menlo Park, Mountain View & Stanford to create longer distance continuous bicycle routes. Public transportation  BART transportation will make me very happy! Access to San Francisco and other places becomes easy!!!  Better bus service.  Better bus transportation.  Better public transit.  Better public transit!  Better public transportation.  Better public transportation with Palo Alto.  Better public transportation.  Better transportation for seniors.  Cancel the high speed rail.  Convenient transportation one could count on.  Give better access to South PA - Shuttle, separated rail/ bike-ped crossing.  Good mass transit: light rail, collective taxis (regulated).  Grade separation at Caltrain.  Have more public transportation.  Having Caltrain & high speed rail tracks in trench.  Improve public transportation, i.e., more convenient, more frequent, more routes, more hours.  Improve the public transportation system.  Keep the bullet train off Caltrain tracks.  Make the bus stop more visible & informable!  More easily accessible mass transit - free + pay.  More frequent bus service, weekend shuttle service.  More services for residents with disabilities.  More shuttles (free).  Public transportation.  Public transportation.  Public transportation.  Put the train in a tunnel! Do not allow a raised track!  Regional public transit.  Transportation for seniors.  Transportation infrastructure.  Tunnel the train. Parking concerns  Better/ longer parking downtown.  Better parking!  Build on parking structure.  Currently hard to drive in right hand lane of El Camino because of RVs.  Deal effectively with the parking problem.  Downtown parking garages. The National Citizen Survey™ 12  Eliminate on-street parking of RVs.  Eliminate the crescent park permit parking program. The poor Duveneck/St. Francis residents who were forced into this don't have large enough overhangs or garages so we have to pay to park at our own home & get a ticket if we forget to put up the pass.  Ensure garages in houses are used to park cars & not as additional storage.  Increase parking availability in the Downtown area.  Leave the resident alone, not imposing own house sidewalk parking fee.  Limited parking - Seldom go to university area.  Make downtown parking more convenient.  Make more parking space available in downtown.  Make the parking passes in my neighborhood easier to obtain by improving the services of the parking permit contractor now used.  More parking downtown.  More parking downtown.  Parking downtown.  Parking meters.  Parking off of University Ave.  Provide more parking. For people who work in restaurants, doctor's offices etc., having to move cars every 2 hours is a hassle and stress-producing. Palo Alto is a suburb - people cannot bike from so far away (where they can afford to live). It is hard for those workers, makes it hard for restaurants and stores to get workers, and expensive for residents. I appreciate the transistor bike to work - but that method is not working.  Realistic parking plans & implementation.  Rely on market mechanism for parking. Colored zones are horrible.  Residents should get 4 annual parking (neighborhood) permits for free.  Solve the RV parking along El Camino real/ Stanford area problem.  Stop parking RV everywhere. Best service to Palo Alto.  Streets need to be wide enough to fit parked cars & driving lanes and there needs to be enough parking.  The RV parking situation. Other/Nothing  A less high tech community - more intellect. University town.  Accept that we are an affluent community & stop trying to be all things to all people.  Address climate change more vigorously through prioritizing affordable housing & public transit to significantly reduce the obligatory commutes of so many into/out of Palo Alto.  Annual country sewage cleaning.  Can think of any.  Changes in real estate laws, prevent wealthy foreigners non citizens buying property, rent control. Tax companies higher, send to schools.  Cheap, ignorant politics, news manipulation, hire professionals and not "artisans" and hired from the rank jerks.  Control dogs.  Cut down tennis shoes over power lines.  Enforce CUPs - in my neighborhood it is Castilleja School which has been the offender.  Everything seems so elitist & money driven.  Expedite flooding mitigation.  Find ways to reduce distance on Hetch Hetchy water.  Free junk pickup more than 1x.  Get rid of pets in need.  Get rid of Su Hong restaurant [illegible, but appears to be something about smoke by the door].  It's all good, leave well enough alone.  Keep the animal shelter. The National Citizen Survey™ 13  Maintain a politically neutral position on all topics detailed in this survey. Those who are center or right are excluded and underground.  Make the natural environment more beautiful.  More economically diverse population.  No comments.  None.  Nothing comes to mind.  Put a larger cap on number of new jobs allowed in city.  Re-plant the pine trees on San Antonio Avenue.  Returning garbage box on Cowper & Churchill.  We like Palo Alto. Lower taxes and/or utility costs  Fairness of tax base for property taxes.  Carbon tax.  Charge less for utilities.  Cheaper utilities.  Improve water quality.  Lower overall taxes.  Lower property tax & utilities bills.  Lower property taxes.  Lower tax.  Lower taxes.  Lower taxes.  Lower taxes & utilities cost.  Lower utilities charges considerably. Too many add-ons "fees" on each item.  Lower utility bill.  Lower utility prices instead of raising continually.  Lower utilities rates.  Lower utility rates!  Lower utility rates, specially water.  Make property tax fair - don't penalize new owners.  Make utilities way cheaper.  Prop 13 is unfair.  Property tax deduction.  Property taxes too high.  Reduce tax.  Reduced taxes. Reduce noise  Airplane Noise! Re-route for equal sharing w/other cities.  Be proactive to reduce airline noise.  Change street cleaning hours on California Ave. Street cleaning happens at night and it is very loud. Clean by evening or early morning.  Get rid of airplane noise.  I want the trailer homes to move out of Juana Briones Park outlets. It causes excessive nightly noise & a lot of street garbage.  Leaf blower ban.  Less airplane noise.  Limit noise (gardeners, construction).  Make progress on reducing aircraft noise & traffic overhead. The National Citizen Survey™ 14  Please work harder & more effectively to reduce airplane traffic to SFO.  Quiet freeway.  Reduce airplane noise.  Reduce the noise in the neighborhood.  Reduce train noise - esp. horns at crossings.  Stop, or lower greatly, the noise caused by low flying, large airplanes over Palo Alto!  Trash pick-up after 7 am. Every Monday I begin my week with loud pneumatic truck noises that begin at 6:10 am - 6:40 am. I could scream!!!  Work to reduce airplane noise - our house is in a flight path.  Work with adjacent cities & FAA to reduce air traffic noise. Safety  Better training for police in encounters with mental health problems.  Crack down on the thieves who have found their way here.  I am afraid of the police instead of feeling safe.  Keep the crime rate low; keep Palo Alto safe!  Law enforcement.  Make Boulware park in Ventura a safe place. It has bad people in it every day (drugs, alcohol).  Make the city safer.  More police.  More safety.  Safety is a huge issue.  Safety.  Tougher clamp down on criminal coming to P.A. from E.P.A.  Train the police better to not use bias (their own).  Transit center does not feel safe at 2-4 am. Parks and recreation amenities/services  Activity for elderly.  Add dedicated pickleball courts.  Build roller skate rink like the Redwood Roller Rink in Redwood City, build more parks.  Creating more youth programs.  Have social events for adults.  It's best to have some artistic activities, such as drama, music and painting.  Make the flow of creeks (Adobe, Matadero) thru our parks more attractive.  More activities for kids (poles, structure, courses).  More evening classes for adults.  Outdoor movies in a park.  Provide some kind of indoor space for children that is good for play dates & birthday parties. Electric utilities and amenities  Fiber optic cable to our neighborhood.  1) Underground electrical lines. 2) Good & fine wifi.  All electric wire go underground!  All more fuel cell stations.  Begin to bury electrical service - it is so ugly and can be dangerous (transmission lines).  Better computer speeds.  Continue the free charge point stations around town.  Get another 99-year contract for buying and selling electric power.  Get more cell towers. So frustrating to not have good connection at home.  Install second plug in/hybrid outlets with low income apartment units. The National Citizen Survey™ 15  South Palo Alto needs underground utilities on East meadow & Charleston. East meadow from Middlefield to Alma especially. Address Homelessness  Aggressive homeless in commercial districts make my family feel unsafe.  Eliminate vehicle dwellers and homeless downtown.  Establish area & services for homeless & motor home people - stop ticketing motor homes.  Get rid of campers on of El Camino; put regulations in place to limit "ghost houses".  Help homeless men, women and children.  Makes plans for the homeless.  Provide help for homeless & those living in RV's.  Solutions for homeless in downtown area.  Solving the homeless problem in Downtown & California St. Retail/shopping options  Encourage retail.  Have a big Safeway.  Less small restaurants serving on sidewalks, more unique quality retail on University, no dogs in grocery stores, no pan handling.  More gift and clothing stores/shops.  Open more affordable restaurants.  Protect established businesses. Keep my favorite restaurants from closing.  Stop allowing chain stores on University Ave.  Stop pricing out retail in favor of office space.  Try to hold on to shops and services that can't afford the ever increasing and exorbitant rent. Sense of community/community activities  Engagement opportunities with immediate neighbors. Like play street programs.  Events for social community. Mountain View city gives many festivals for its residents.  More activities to develop community.  More community involvement, there is a lack of "heart", too robotic, people concentrate on their jobs, $$, and acquire material things.  More diversity of people & more real neighborly connections.  More festivals, concerts with neighbors.  More programs like those offered by Redwood City (music, movies, etc.).  Treat all citizens alike & all neighborhoods alike. Downtown improvements  Focusing on building up downtown (University Ave) to be more college student friendly.  Get rid of so much business offices in downtown especially PALANTIR.  Incentivize small businesses to stay downtown - useful businesses.  Prefer non-chain businesses on University & California Ave's.  Restrict the "computerization" of downtown. It feels like an extension of all those firms. Support small businesses to allow them to thrive. Palo Alto is losing its soul.  Revitalize midtown shopping area - make it like Town & Country.  Stop the takeover of downtown by corporations & greedy landlords.  Zoning reform - make downtown a downtown, not a corporate campus. Code enforcement  All residents maintaining property. The National Citizen Survey™ 16  Better code enforcement.  Change zoning laws.  Greater enforcement of abandoned vehicles and code violations.  Less strict instruction on removing time. Schools and education  Better governance of our schools. School board is a mess.  Charge differently for those using educ./ public school services and those who don't.  Have public schools that are less stressful to help our teens be kids still & enjoy life.  If middle schools have more homework the children could prepare better for high school.  Public school busing! The National Citizen Survey™ 17 Question 20 As a resident of Palo Alto, what one thing do you believe the City does well and would want to maintain? In question 20, respondents were asked to consider the overall direction that Palo Alto is taking and write in their own words, what one thing the City does well and would want to maintain. The responses were categorized by topic area and those topics are reported in Table 2, with the number and percent of responses given in each category. Because some comments from residents covered more than a single topic, we separated the comments and put them under their relevant categories. A total of 889 surveys were completed by Palo Alto residents; of these, 528respondents wrote responses for the open-ended question (628 comments are captured in the below categories as some responses that covered multiple topics were split). Table 2: Question 20 – Open-ended Responses Response Category Percent of Comments Number of Comments Parks, open space, and natural environment 23% N=142 Safety services 12% N=75 Library 11% N=68 Sense of community, community activities, and recreation 10% N=66 Utilities 10% N=60 Schools and education 8% N=53 Don’t know/nothing, negative comments, additional improvements 4% N=28 Balancing residential and commercial growth 4% N=25 Cleanliness of community 3% N=18 Ability to give input and communication with government 3% N=16 Ease of bicycle travel 2% N=14 General City services 2% N=13 Street maintenance 2% N=13 Government/leadership 2% N=12 Everything/great place to live 2% N=12 Public transportation 1% N=8 Other 1% N=7 Total 100% N=630 Parks, open space, and natural environment  Beautiful green spaces, plant life, natural environment.  Beautiful landscaping.  Beautiful trees.  City owned trees.  Good quality of overall nature environment in Palo Alto.  City parks and services.  City parks.  City parks.  Community parks!  Excellent job of parks, trees.  Foothill & Baylands parks, other parks.  Foothill park.  Foothills park.  Great park distribution.  Great parks!  Great parks which benefit everyone.  "Green''.  Green area, trees.  Green energy. The National Citizen Survey™ 18  Green spaces.  Green spaces.  Greenhouse gas elimination.  I like they put in a baseball court in a downtown park & hope they maintain it & continue to add similar amenities.  I love the parks, recreational activities.  It is physically lovely- green, clean. Keep it up.  It's beautiful!  Its maintenance of green spaces & the tidiness of the city in general.  Keep foothill park.  Keep parks.  Keep open space.  Keep up the tree trimming.  Keeping city green and beautiful.  Keeping the city "green".  Landscaping.  Love the parks & trails.  Lovely parks.  Maintain existing parks & their bathrooms.  Maintain over trees.  Maintain parks.  Maintaining city trees.  Maintaining city trees, parks.  Maintaining the parks.  Maintaining trees.  Maintenance of city trees next to sidewalk.  Natural beauty - great parks.  Nature centers.  Open space.  Open space (parks).  Open space and parks.  Open space is good.  Open spaces, parks.  Our parks!!  Palo Alto does a good job maintaining trees and planting new ones.  Park & recreation.  Park maintenance.  Park services.  Parks.  Parks.  Parks.  Parks.  Parks.  Parks.  Parks.  Parks.  Parks.  Parks.  Parks.  Parks.  Parks. The National Citizen Survey™ 19  Parks.  Parks.  Parks.  Parks.  Parks.  Parks.  Parks.  Parks.  Parks.  Parks.  Parks.  Parks.  Parks.  Parks.  Parks & open space.  Parks & open spaces.  Parks & rec.  Parks & recreation areas, very well kept/beautiful.  Parks & recreation.  Parks & recreation.  Parks and open space.  Parks and recreation.  Parks and recreations.  Parks are awesome.  Parks are critical.  Parks are great.  Parks are great.  Parks especially magical bridge type design.  Parks in neighborhoods.  Parks like Foothills & Rinconada.  Parks maintenance.  Parks w/ lots of tennis courts, fields, swimming, outdoor spaces.  Parks, bike lanes.  Parks, Foothills Park.  Parks, greenspace.  Parks, open space.  Parks/ open space.  Parks, open space, trees!  Parks, outdoors space.  Preservation of open space & parks and city street tress! Tree lined streets are fabulous!! Oregon's median is terrific. Greenery!!  Preserving open space.  Public parks.  Public space, park maintenance.  Providing parks and open space.  Street trees/ natural landscaping.  Support for parks.  Supporting parks & open space.  The amount of parks, keep them!!  The park system and new golf course are nice.  The parks. The National Citizen Survey™ 20  The parks are awesome!  The tree!!  The trees.  The trees.  The tree canopy.  Their parks are welcoming and very enjoyable.  They do a good job maintaining parks. I think each park should have restrooms!  They do a good job maintaining trees and parks.  Tree canopy.  Tree care and city parks.  Tree care in residential areas.  Tree lined streets.  Tree maintenance.  Tree maintenance.  Tree maintenance.  Tree maintenance.  Trees.  Trees & park maintenance.  Trees and parks.  Trees!! Parks!  Walking trails.  Wonderful parks.  Urban canopy. Safety services  Ability to walk and ride bikes safely.  Ambulance services.  City services - police, etc.  Community safety.  Continual good policing.  Emergency response.  Emergency service vehicles response.  Emergency services.  Enhance safety by good service from police and other public department.  Ensure safety of neighborhood.  Excellent police department.  Excellent public safety, police & fire.  Fast police response to calls. (Also fire services).  Fast response for emergencies.  Fire & police are the best.  Fire & Police service.  Fire, police.  Focus in safety.  For dept. 911 excellent emergency response for falling down at home.  Good policing of emergency operations in general.  Great police officers, emergency preparedness & great response time when contacting police.  It feels safe and it feels clean.  Keeping the city safe.  Keeping this city a safe place to live.  Law & order.  Low crime rate. The National Citizen Survey™ 21  Overall feel very safe.  Owning its own paramedic services.  Palo Alto is very safe.  Police.  Police firefighters.  Police/ fire.  Police/ fire emergency services.  Police, fire services.  Police & fire makes me happy.  Police & fire services.  Police and Fire.  Police and fire services.  Police outreach.  Police oversight & fire dept.  Police safety.  Police services.  Police services.  Policing and safety, traffic.  Provide a safe environment for all walks of life.  Public emergency services (Police, Fire, EMs).  Public safety is excellent.  Public safety - Police & Fire.  Public safety.  Public safety.  Respond to emergencies.  Safe & clean.  Safe place.  Safety.  Safety.  Safety.  Safety.  Safety.  Safety.  Safety.  Safety.  Safety.  Safety.  Safety.  Safety.  Safety.  Safety.  Safety & cleanliness.  Safety for its residents.  Safety monitoring.  Security.  Security.  Supporting the police.  The city is really good at maintaining public safety. Nice work!  The police. The National Citizen Survey™ 22 Library  All library facilities!!  Excellent job of libraries.  Excellent library system.  Good utility systems.  Great libraries which benefit everyone.  Great libraries!  Great library.  I'm very proud of libraries in Palo Alto.  Keep libraries.  Libraries.  Libraries.  Libraries.  Libraries.  Libraries.  Libraries.  Libraries.  Libraries.  Libraries.  Libraries.  Libraries.  Libraries.  Libraries.  Libraries.  Libraries.  Libraries.  Libraries.  Libraries.  Libraries.  Libraries.  Libraries.  Libraries.  Libraries.  Libraries.  Libraries.  Libraries.  Libraries.  Libraries.  Libraries!!  Libraries, although the library tax funds it.  Libraries are great.  Libraries are great.  Libraries are great!  Libraries, catering for the under privilege.  Libraries - service & environment  Library.  Library.  Library.  Library.  Library.  Library and activity. The National Citizen Survey™ 23  Library-digital books.  Library services.  Library services.  Library system.  Love the libraries!  Lovely libraries.  Maintain library facilities.  Mitchell Park library is excellent.  Providing easy excess to state of the art well stocked libraries.  Public spaces like libraries.  Resources for the new Mitchell park library.  Summer reading program.  Support for libraries.  The amount of libraries, keep them!!  The libraries.  The libraries are great.  The library system is phenomenal and benefits all ages.  Their libraries are welcoming and very enjoyable. Sense of community, community activities, and recreation  Art center.  Art centers.  Being diverse.  Children's activities, art center!  Children's programs, love the theater.  Community activities: Art, music, street fairs.  Community alliance.  Community centers.  Community feel, through that is Shrinky in the 20 years we've lived here.  Community garden.  Community services.  Concerts.  Cultural opportunities.  Diversity.  Diversity.  Diversity - adding downtown entertainment, music please.  Diversity and accepting differences in culture, etc.  Diversity of population.  Downtown events like PA fest of Arts & World Music day.  Excellent classes at art & community centers & libraries!  Excellent community resources - libraries, parks, open spaces, etc.  Facilities for children (playgrounds, libraries, zoo, children's theater).  Farmers markets.  Good image.  Great arts programs which benefit everyone.  Great community services.  Happy with city of Palo Alto disabled rec. program (Omega Clubs).  I agree with those trying to keep Palo Alto a suburb, and not another Manhattan.  I love the recreational activities.  Institutions that directly improve the quality of life of residents. Anything that demonstrates that residents are the priority and not Stanford or corporations. The National Citizen Survey™ 24  It's even handed diversity. Many kinds of people treated equally.  Love the fairs!  Maintain community facilities.  Maintain diversity & eliminate implicit bias.  Offers lots of cultural/ arts opportunities, (via classes, activities, events, exhibits, concerts etc).  Open and welcoming environment.  Overall opportunities for recreation.  Outdoor recreation.  Palo alto still feels like a community. I like to keep access to my neighborhood dense housing would be bad.  Participating in community events.  People treated respectfully.  Public activities.  Public space maintenance.  Recreation.  Recreation.  Recreation.  Recreation.  Recreation!!  Recreation/classes.  Recreational activities i.e., children's museum, zoo, theater  Recreational facilities.  Reputation.  Resident quality.  Sense of community.  Sense of community; diversity.  Sense of community seen in farmer's market, many parade, local sports, etc.  Sense of community, of town, not city; of sincerely trying to run P.A. well for its residents.  Sense of community through investment in community concern/ programs.  Sense of social awareness.  Sense of style, community, neighborhoods.  Services.  Sponsor the music events in public streets & parks.  The amount of tennis courts, keep them!!  The farmers market on Cal Ave on Sunday go bigger!!  The free summer concerts, but please more than back to Tuesday.  The senior center. Utilities  City owned utilities.  City owned utilities.  City run utility services.  City services - utilities, etc.  Clean water, utilities.  Composting & recycling.  Electric & gas utilities are well run.  Energy costs low, alternative energy incentives.  Garbage collection.  Garbage collection & street sweeping.  Garbage collection service.  Garbage, recycle & police response.  Good utility systems. The National Citizen Survey™ 25  Good utilities.  Good water.  Green energy options.  Happy with city of Palo Alto utilities  I love not paying & waiting for PG&E, keep the utilities! Recycling & hazardous waste for households.  Keep utility rates low.  Maintaining Palo Alto owned utilities.  Owing its own utilities.  Private utilities.  Promoting zero waste policy.  Provide utilities.  Public utilities.  Quality & reliability as utility service.  Recycle drop off.  Recycle program.  Recycling.  Recycling/ compost pick up.  Reliability of utility service.  Renewable energy.  Sanitation station in Summerville.  The utilities.  Unique environmentally sustainable utilities program.  Utilities.  Utilities.  Utilities.  Utilities.  Utilities.  Utilities.  Utilities.  Utilities.  Utilities.  Utilities.  Utilities.  Utilities.  Utilities.  Utilities.  Utilities.  Utilities.  Utilities.  Utilities.  Utilities.  Utility function.  Utilities service.  Utility services.  Waste disposal.  Waste water/having waste collection & treatment.  Waste/ recycling/ compost system. Schools and education  Adult education.  Compensate teachers well so our kids will benefit from good teachers. The National Citizen Survey™ 26  Education!  Education.  Education.  Education.  Educational facilities.  Education opportunities; create sense of community among residents.  Elementary education.  Emphasis on strong public schools.  Excellent education system.  Excellent public schools.  Excellent public schools.  Excellent school.  Excellent schools.  Good education.  Good schools.  Good schools.  Good schools.  Great public school education.  Great schools.  High quality of education.  I want Palo Alto to maintain high standard of Education in local schools.  Love the schools!  Maintaining the quality of the K-12 public education in our city.  Overall opportunities for learning.  Public education.  Public school quality.  Public schools.  Public schools.  Public schools.  Quality of education.  Quality of the schools.  School district excellence.  School quality.  School system.  Schools!!  Schools.  Schools.  Schools.  Schools.  Schools.  Schools.  Schools.  School district.  Schools (But) need help with housing for teachers.  Schools.  Schools.  Schools.  Schools.  Support schools.  Support schools.  The public school system. The National Citizen Survey™ 27 Don't know/nothing, negative comment, additional improvements  Can't think of anything. Big disappointment.  Collecting its taxes! Garbage controls.  Destroy the traffic "calming" concrete - this makes drivers furious.  Don't know.  Don't know.  Don't really know.  In North Palo Alto, there is a need for small supermarket easy to reach by free shuttle.  Just moved here.  Maintaining an image of Palo Alto that is much better than it is in actuality.  N/A  N/A  Nada.  No comments.  None.  Not much.  Nothing.  Nothing.  Nothing comes to mind.  Nothing: City run by government rip off artist.  Over the past few years I have been very disappointed in their decisions, so I can't think of a good thing!  Right now I am very disappointed in PA leadership in parking, affordable housing, plans for crossing on tracks.  Synchronization of traffic lights.  The streets need alot of work everywhere potholes.  The trees are not trimmed well and in our area they are all diseased. What they do well - are coffee breaks - with little trimming to show at the end of day.  They do well in deceiving Palo Alto residents; they should cease and desist.  They need know bad signs, the roads and sidewalks [illegible].  Wasting money on outrageous employee salaries & benefits.  Would be good to have agreeable consensus. Balancing residential and commercial growth  Balancing development and pricing.  Building permit to restrict the expansion & residential and commercial building.  Controlling building density: not building up, maintaining open space.  Development retail.  Green building.  Height restriction on buildings & limits on high-density buildings.  Keep low density residential district.  Keep low density.  Keep reasonable population density, reasonable parking ratio, trees, plants safe.  Keep the city quiet and not crowded.  Limit new housing development to keep our property value growing.  Lowering housing price.  Maintain the business to residential ratio.  Maintain the overall structure of the city.  Manage intense business development (need to protect residences).  Moderation of growths to manageable level.  Mountain view offers easier shopping, eating options.  Not going along with a lot of high density housing. The National Citizen Survey™ 28  Opportunity for innovation and growth.  Restricting office expansion, but should restrict even further.  Single family homes.  Soft height limit.  Technology centric industry focus to maintain competitive city.  The restrictions on tall buildings.  Trying to balance growth, housing, traffic. Cleanliness of community  City maintenance.  Clean city.  Clean streets.  Cleanliness.  Cleanliness.  Cleanliness, safety, open safe.  Downtown street team helping homeless & keeping streets clean.  General services of maintenance & help when needed.  Keeping the city clean.  Keep the city clean and maintain the parks.  Keeping the city clean, inviting & presentable.  Keeping the city clean, safe, green, and accepting community.  Overall city maintenance.  Overall cleanliness, maintenance of city.  Street cleaning.  Street cleanliness.  The city is generally well-maintained; appearance, roads, utilities, etc.  The cleanliness of the city. Ability to give input and communication with government  Accessibility to city offices.  Allows citizens to express views (both relevant issues & frequent complainers).  Citizen involvement.  Citizen involvement.  Citizen participation.  Communication.  Communication & transparency.  Communication to residents.  Communication with the public.  Communications.  Connecting with citizens.  Good communication regarding events/ happenings/ news in the city.  Good communication, use of next door app.  Great job informing citizens of using issues and town halls via mail.  Next door neighbor in line.  Phone notification. Ease of bicycle travel  Actually, lots of things, but the effort to make traveling through and across town without a car is good. Bikes, walking, shuttle etc. Shuttle needs to have stops closer to homes.  Bicycle paths and lanes.  Bicycle streets. The National Citizen Survey™ 29  Bike Blvd.  Bike lanes.  Bike lanes.  Bike paths improving it.  Bike routes & safety.  Bikes!  Ease of bicycling around town.  I love the progress we are making on bike boulevards.  More safe biking roads.  My family loves the bike infrastructure here. Palo Alto has made cyclists out of us! Thank you!!  Well maintained bike trails. General City services  All community services, strong govt. and staff.  Free parking in downtown. Don't charge for parking.  Having good websites like "open gov."  Maintain the fiscal health of Palo Alto.  Parking convenience for local workers.  Parking in downtown area.  Provide essential services.  Public services. Including input from community.  Public services (police, fire, utilities, waste collection, waste treatment).  Public services, such as library & recreation.  Services provided by the city staff- everyone is always very helpful!  Services: utilities, emergency services, library.  Stanford cooperation. Street maintenance  Care of Infrastructure - Thanks.  Excellent job of road maintenance.  Good street repair & masses of trees living them.  Handicap curbs.  Maintenance of road.  Quality of streets/ roads/ sidewalks.  Roads.  Roads.  Street maintenance.  Street maintenance.  Street maintenance (trees/ roads).  Street sweep, street lights.  The streets are in perfect condition and clean. Government/leadership  Constant upgrading.  Fighting ABAG.  Great customer service.  High moral character except for XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX who is one of the most corrupt/ dishonest people we've had in the last 30 years in Palo Alto.  I think the city honestly tries to put the citizens first.  Maintaining the preferred status.  Open city council meetings. The National Citizen Survey™ 30  Reliable governance.  Remain next to Stanford/ I have the impression that the level of civic involvement is good.  Strategic planning.  Town council & elected officials.  Work with Stanford University as a world-class institution. Everything/great place to live  A pleasant place to live.  As it is.  Is fine.  Just about everything else - so far.  Keep doing what the city does normally.  Nice City.  Ok - maybe be just keep it up?  Small town feel of this city.  So far everything is OK and keep the low income housing.  So far so good!  Yes.  Yes. Public transportation  Bus transportation system. User friendly. Presently very inadequate.  Buses are good.  Easy to access public transportation.  Encourages good practice in transportation.  Free cross town shuttle.  Public transportation.  Trains and public transportation.  Transport. Other  Employment of city area people in city jobs.  Job opportunity great.  Kids friendly.  Medical facilities.  Not focus on Chinese-American or India-American.  The weather is fantastic.  The weather. 7DEOHRI&RQWHQWV 3DJH &LW\2UJDQL]DWLRQDQG ,QIRUPDWLRQ 3DJH 3URJUHVVLQ)LVFDO <HDU 3DJH )LVFDO<HDU 5HYHQXHVDQG ([SHQGLWXUHV 3DJH :KDW V1H[W" &LW\¶V(FRQRPLF 2XWORRNDQG0RYLQJ )RUZDUG 'HPRJUDSKLFV,QIRUPDWLRQ )< )< 3RSXODWLRQ $YHUDJHWUDYHOWLPHWRZRUN PLQXWHV PLQXWHV 0HGLDQKRXVHKROGLQFRPH 0HGLDQKRPHVDOHVSULFH 1XPEHURIDXWKRUL]HG&LW\VWDII )< PLQXWHV &LW\2UJDQL]DWLRQDQG,QIRUPDWLRQ ,QFRUSRUDWHGLQWKH&LW\RI3DOR$OWRFRYHUVVTXDUHPLOHVDQGLVORFDWHGLQWKH KHDUWRI6LOLFRQ9DOOH\3DOR$OWRKDVDERXWUHVLGHQWVDQGWKHGD\WLPHSRSXODWLRQLV HVWLPDWHGDWDERXW6WDQIRUG8QLYHUVLW\DGMDFHQWWR3DOR$OWRDQGRQHRIWKHWRS- UDWHGLQVWLWXWLRQVRIKLJKHUHGXFDWLRQLQWKHQDWLRQKDVSURGXFHGPXFKRIWKHWDOHQWWKDW IRXQGHGVXFFHVVIXOKLJK-WHFKFRPSDQLHVLQ3DOR$OWRDQG6LOLFRQ9DOOH\7KHWRWDOGD\WLPH SRSXODWLRQIRU3DOR$OWRDQG6WDQIRUGLVDERXW 7KH&LW\RI3DOR$OWRSURYLGHVDIXOOUDQJHRIPXQLFLSDOVHUYLFHVLQDGGLWLRQWRRZQLQJDQG RSHUDWLQJLWVRZQXWLOLW\V\VWHPLQFOXGLQJHOHFWULFLW\JDVZDWHUZDVWHZDWHUWUHDWPHQW UHIXVHVWRUPGUDLQDQGILEHURSWLFV7KH&LW\DOVRRIIHUVH[SDQGHGVHUYLFHGHOLYHU\ LQFOXGLQJILUHSURWHFWLRQVHUYLFHIRU3DOR$OWRDQG6WDQIRUG7KH5HJLRQDO:DWHU4XDOLW\ &RQWURO3ODQWVHUYHVWKHFLWLHVRI3DOR$OWR0RXQWDLQ9LHZ/RV$OWRV/RV$OWRV+LOOV 6WDQIRUGDQG(DVW3DOR$OWR$QLPDO6HUYLFHVSURYLGHVDQLPDOFRQWUROVHUYLFHVWRWKHFLWLHV RI3DOR$OWR/RV$OWRVDQG/RV$OWRV+LOOVDQGUHVLGHQWVIURPQHLJKERULQJFLWLHVRIWHQXVH WKHDQLPDOVSD\DQGQHXWHUVHUYLFHV &LW\UHVLGHQWVHOHFWQLQHPHPEHUVWRWKH&LW\&RXQFLOWRVHUYHVWDJJHUHGIRXU-\HDUWHUPV (DFK-DQXDU\&RXQFLOPHPEHUVHOHFWD0D\RUDQG9LFH-0D\RU7KH&LW\RI3DOR$OWR RSHUDWHVXQGHUD&RXQFLO-PDQDJHUIRUPRIJRYHUQPHQW )LJXUHVUHIOHFW$PHULFDQ&RPPXQLW\6XUYH\GDWD =LOORZFRP 7KH&LW\RI 3DOR$OWR¶V9DOXHV 4XDOLW\ 6XSHULRUGHOLYHU\RIVHUYLFHV &RXUWHV\ 3URYLGLQJVHUYLFHZLWKUHVSHFW DQGFRQFHUQ (IILFLHQF\ 3URGXFWLYHHIIHFWLYHXVHRI UHVRXUFHV ,QWHJULW\ 6WUDLJKWIRUZDUGKRQHVWDQGIDLU UHODWLRQV ,QQRYDWLRQ ([FHOOHQFHLQFUHDWLYHWKRXJKW DQGLPSOHPHQWDWLRQ $GGLWLRQDOLQIRUPDWLRQLVDYDLODEOHDWWKH2IILFHRIWKH&LW\$XGLWRU¶VZHEVLWHKWWSZZZFLW\RISDORDOWRRUJJRYGHSWVDXGGHIDXOWDVS dŚĞŝƚǇŽĨ WĂůŽůƚŽ͕ĂůŝĨŽƌŶŝĂ ZĞƉŽƌƚƚŽKƵƌŝƟǌĞŶƐ &zϮϬϭϴ )LQDQFH 3HUIRUPDQFH *HQHUDO)XQGLQ)LVFDO<HDU 6RXUFHVRI*HQHUDO)XQG5HYHQXHV 0LOOLRQV .H\3HUIRUPDQFH0HDVXUHV-1DWLRQDO&LWL]HQ6XUYH\5HVXOWV $GGLWLRQDOLQIRUPDWLRQLVDYDLODEOHDWWKH&LW\RI3DOR$OWR¶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¶VZHEVLWHKWWSZZZFLW\RISDORDOWRRUJJRYGHSWVDXGGHIDXOWDVS 6RXUFH)<&RPSUHKHQVLYH$QQXDO)LQDQFLDO5HSRUW&$)5 6RXUFHVRI(QWHUSULVH)XQGV([SHQVHV 0LOOLRQV )< )< 5DQNLQJ &RPSDUHGWR 2WKHU 6XUYH\HG -XULVGLFWLRQV 3HUFHQW &KDQJH)URP 3ULRU<HDU *(1(5$/87,/,7,(66(59,&(6 5HOLDELOLW\RIXWLOLW\VHUYLFHV 6LPLODU - $IIRUGDELOLW\RIXWLOLW\VHUYLFHV 6LPLODU - 9DOXHUHFHLYHGIURPWKH&LW\RZQLQJDQGRSHUDWLQJLWV RZQPXQLFLSDOXWLOLW\VHUYLFHV 6LPLODU - 9DOXHRI3DOR$OWR8WLOLWLHV¶FXVWRPHUFRPPXQLFDWLRQV 6LPLODU - :RUNLQJKDUGWRNHHSXWLOLWLHVSULFHVFRPSHWLWLYH 6LPLODU - 3URYLGLQJRSSRUWXQLWLHVIRUHQHUJ\DQGZDWHUHIILFLHQF\ DWKRPHRUEXVLQHVV /RZHU - 9DOXHRIDOOWKHVHUYLFHV3DOR$OWR8WLOLWLHVSURYLGHVIRU WKHSULFH\RXSD\ /RZHU - :KDW¶V1H[W" &LW\¶V%XGJHWDQG$FFRPSOLVKPHQWVLQ)LVFDO<HDU 7KH&LW\RI3DOR$OWRGLVWLQJXLVKHVLWVHOILQPDQ\ZD\V–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· +RXVLQJ · %XGJHWDQG)LQDQFH · 7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ · 5DLO*UDGH6HSDUDWLRQ &LW\RI3DOR$OWR%XGJHW ,Q-XQHWKH&LW\&RXQFLODGRSWHGWKHEXGJHWIRU)LVFDO<HDU-XO\WKURXJK-XQHLQWKHDPRXQW RIPLOOLRQZKLFKLQFOXGHVRQJRLQJIXQGLQJIRUWKH&LW\¶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¶VIXWXUHLQWUDQVSRUWDWLRQLQIUDVWUXFWXUHDQG VHUYLFHVLQFOXGLQJUDLOJUDGHVHSDUDWLRQDQGDGRSWLRQRIWKH&LW\¶V,QIUDVWUXFWXUH3ODQ,QDGGLWLRQDVSDUWRIWKHORRNWRZDUG WKHIXWXUHWKH&LW\&RXQFLOKDVGLUHFWHGVWDIIWRUHGXFH*HQHUDO)XQGH[SHQVHVDVSDUWRIDQRQJRLQJHIIRUWWRDGGUHVV SHQVLRQREOLJDWLRQV7KLVZRUNZLOOFRQWLQXHDVZHEHJLQWRSODQIRUWKHEXGJHWWKLVVSULQJDQGEDODQFHUHYHQXHV H[SHQVHVDQGWKHGHOLYHU\RIKLJKTXDOLW\VHUYLFHVWRRXUFRPPXQLW\ 7KH2IILFHRIWKH&LW\$XGLWRULVUHVSRQVLEOHIRULQGHSHQGHQWO\HYDOXDWLQJWKH&LW\¶VSURJUDPVVHUYLFHVDQGGHSDUWPHQWV)RU\HDUVRXU RIILFHKDVLVVXHGWKH&LW\¶VDQQXDO3HUIRUPDQFH5HSRUWIRUPHUO\6HUYLFH(IIRUWVDQG$FFRPSOLVKPHQWVWRVXSSOHPHQWWKH&LW\¶VILQDQFLDO UHSRUWVDQGVWDWHPHQWV,I\RXDUHLQWHUHVWHGLQYLHZLQJWKH&LW\¶VFRPSOHWHDQQXDOSHUIRUPDQFHUHSRUWSOHDVHYLVLW KWWSZZZFLW\RISDORDOWRRUJJRYGHSWVDXGUHSRUWVDFFRPSOLVKPHQWVDVS $ERXW&LWL]HQ&HQWULF5HSRUWLQJ 7KH$VVRFLDWLRQRI*RYHUQPHQW$FFRXQWDQWV$*$GHYHORSHGJXLGDQFHRQSURGXFLQJ&LWL]HQ&HQWULF5HSRUWLQJDVDZD\WRGHPRQVWUDWH DFFRXQWDELOLW\WRUHVLGHQWVDQGDQVZHUWKHTXHVWLRQ³$UHZHEHWWHURIIWRGD\WKDQZHZHUHODVW\HDU"´$GGLWLRQDOGHWDLOVFDQEHIRXQGDWWKH$*$ZHEVLWHZZZDJDFJIPRUJXQGHU5HVRXUFHV )URPWKH&LW\0DQDJHU Dear Fellow Council Members, I regret I can not join you at the retreat Saturday - I have business travel and will be on a plane. While a letter is a poor substitute for being present all day, I do want to provide a few comments on the recent survey of our citizens, our priorities for 2019, the 2019 Work Plan for non-priority items, and Council Protocols. CITIZENS SURVEY There remains a treasure trove of insights in this statistically representative survey, the highest quality data we have each year. We also continue to see negative trends over several years including distrust of local government Several issues arise repeatedly - traffic flow, signal timing, ability to park, affordable housing and workplace housing. Residents support preserving our single family neighborhoods and increasing below market affordable housing. I believe we must also take steps this year to address RV parking and create a managed program to help people get off the streets. 2019 PRIORITIES In terms of priorities, our own rules encourage us to have a single priority for only 3 years in a row and to limit ourselves to 3 priorities. This discipline is good and doesn’t mean we don’t work on other things - simply that three areas receive special focus from Council. Two of 2018 Priorities have been on the list for more than 3 years - parking and housing. With our recent actions, I believe we have laid the policy groundwork to implement the housing goals set in the Comp Plan and staff knows they need to refine our parking programs. believe we should remove both of them from our Council priorities for 2019. I would support making housing an Emeritus Priority if you all feel it need to remain. My priorities for 2019 are: 1. Traffic flow and Grade Separations, with an eye to congestion relief 2. Groundwork for a Business Tax for the General Fund on the ballot in 2020 3. Holistic focus on Ventura Neighborhood 4. Cubberley Community Center design and funding plan 1. Traffic flow and Grade Separations, with an eye to congestion relief Transportation issues remain a very clear issue in the Citizens Survey. Transportation concerns center around mobility, congestion, circulation. I don’t believe people are necessarily saying we should eliminate cars. I strongly disagree with prescribing that solution as the priority. I do support minimizing single occupancy commuter traffic. Instead, I think it’s high time that added some explicit focus on vehicle circulation - improving the flow of our arterials by prioritizing vehicle flow on these key routes through our street network. Doing so will improve on of the largest problems as confirmed by years of data from our citizens. We need to stop narrowing and slowing these key arterials, which simply pushes traffic on to local streets. Instead of traffic calming we are road enraging. 2. Groundwork for a Business Tax for the General Fund on the ballot in 2020 We need to start now to do the work to place a significant business tax on the ballot in 2020. Other parts of the state and the country provide examples for us on a significant tax that could be used for Transportation, housing and the general fund. We need to determine the form of the tax, do polling, and reach out to the community. With San Francisco taxing business at 20X peninsula cities (Palo Alto is currently at $0 business tax) and New York at 40X the peninsula average, we need to ensure that everyone in a democratic community is supporting that community. 3. Holistic focus on Ventura Neighborhood As one of the most affordable neighborhoods in the city, Ventura is facing a lot of change in the North Ventura Plan and changes along El Camino. We have the possibility of expanding park land and the threat of wide scale displacement of our residents. Making Ventura a Council priority will let make sure we are striking the right policy balance for this important neighborhood. 4. Cubberley Community Center design and funding plan In a similar vein to the opportunity the large Fry’s site presents for housing, Cubberley represents the last large community space. Our planning process is proceeding well, but the Cubberley lease expiration is fast approaching. Cubberley deserves extra Council attention this year to make sure we complete the planning, get agreement with the School district, and get a funding plan in place. 2019 Work Plan In 2015 and 2016, Council received a detailed City Work plan for the year which was reviewed at the retreat. This was incredibly useful and is a practice we should bring back! In 2016, we had a mid-year retreat and check-in on the work plan. This helped Council understand the vast majority of work, including everyday processes that takes up the bulk of staff’s time. It enabled the Council to discuss relative priorities with the City Manager and to understand overloads on particular departments. This is in no way a suggestion that Council delve into the details of Administration or Management. I believe the chart above is very useful for all of us to keep in mind. But discussing the workplan does help Council and Staff work together with better shared understanding of everything being worked on. I strongly urge Ed and his team to revisit this process and reinstitute during 2019. I’ve attached the 2015 and 2016 Workplans as examples. Council Protocols Each year at the retreat there are many suggestions at making Council more efficient. I strongly urge the Policy and Service Committee to take up suggestions starting with the discussion at P&S at the end of 2018 and that we try some of these ideas. I do believe as elected officials we have an obligation to do the people’s work, and that one of us may be more expert in some areas than the others so I do not think we should have strict time limits on Council. But suggestions such as displaying the amount of time each of us has talked would be useful as a feedback mechanism. In terms of supporting the Council workload with fewer Council members - we should consider formalizing the Council Comments portion of the agenda to have quick status updates on activities from these boards so all Council members can be more aware of issues, enabling us to ensure coverage at critical meetings if an assigned Councilmember can not attend a particular regional or local meeting. With fewer of us on Council, I also think we should insure the additional boards and commissions we serve on need are evenly distributed amongst all Council members to spread the workload. Recognizing that the Mayor and Vice Mayor have additional time obligations from those offices, the workload among the remaining Councilmembers for 2019 is NOT equitably distributed with 4 members on nine(9) or more committees and one member only supporting four(4). I hope this is discussed. Conclusion Please consider my comments throughout your discussions. To quote many (but surprisingly, not Mark Twain to whom it's often attributed - Google it), “I would have made this shorter, but I didn’t have the time.” I hope you have a productive day and I look forward to reviewing the output of your efforts. Best, Tom DuBois Palo Alto City Council 1/30/2019 COUNCIL PRIORITY PROJECT NAME DESCRIPTION 2015 TASKS DEPT PROJECT MANAGER SCALE*URGENCY*Rank (By Staff Person) BE Individual Review (IR) Program Review Conduct an impartial review of the IR process and recommend any necessary changes. Gather input from stakeholders Retain impartial expert to conduct a peer review Work with stakeholders to develop suggested updates to the guidelines and implementing ordinance Review guidelines with the PTC & City Council Prepare and draft ordinance for review with the PTC and City Council P&CE Amy BE Build to Line Eliminate the Build to Line requirement in some areas and adjust in others. Bring forward recommendations of the ARB and PTC to the City Council for consideration P&CE Amy IN Public Safety Building Project Create a new facility built to Essential Services standards to house Police,911 Dispatch,Emergency Services,Fire Admin, and the Emergency Operations Center  Create CIP and funding from Infrastructure Plan.  Evaluate potential sites.  Selection and Council approval of site location.  Hire Architect and begin design development and EIR. PW Brad IN Cubberley Community Center Begin maintenance and planning in accordance with new city/school district lease  Begin Master Plan study in collaboration with school district.  Complete deferred roof replacements at Wings M and P.  Assess other maintenance needs and begin addressing short term items. PW Brad BE PC Zoning Reform Support City Council Consideration of Reforms to the PC Zoning Process. Draft an Ordinance for consideration by the PTC and City Council. Concurrently revise prescreening procedures. P&CE Consuelo IN Foothills Park 7.7 Acres  Dedicated as Parkland - August 18, 2014  Tours and Public Meetings - October 2014.  Parks and Recreation Commission Discussion - Jan/Feb 2015.  Next Steps: - See Commission recommendation February 2015 - Bring recommendation to Council April 2015 Daren IN Utility Meter Replacement Program Install meters to serve new customers. Replace end-of-life meters. Evaluate and expand advanced meter program to improve service reliability. UTIL Dean IN Sewer Lateral Cleanout & Replacement Continue to provide sewer connections to serve new customers. Replace existing connections due to: - Redevelopment - Erosion - Tree root intrusion - Ground Movement - Third-party excavation damage UTIL Dean/Tomm IN Utility Substation Improvements Continue to provide high level of service reliability by: - Replacing deteriorated equipment. - Repairing storm damaged equipment. - Performing maintenance. UTIL Dean/Tomm IN El Camino Park Project Restoration of El Camino Park following the Emergency Water Reservoir Project with new amenities including athletic fields and lighting,restroom,parking lot,and bike path  Construction begins February and scheduled to end October 2015.  Park reopens November 2015. PW Elizabeth IN Baylands Interpretive Center Improvements Improvements to aging Center including Boardwalk repair feasibility study,and replacement of Center railing, decking, siding, flooring, cabinetry and doors Complete Boardwalk Feasibility Study. Select consultant to begin concept development and design for the building improvements. PW Elizabeth Major Effort Modest Effort Almost Done Major Effort Modest Effort Almost Done Major Effort Modest Effort Almost Done Major Effort Modest Effort Almost Done Major Effort Modest Effort Almost Done Major Effort Modest Effort Almost Done Major Effort Modest Effort Almost Done Major Effort Modest Effort Almost Done Major Effort Modest Effort Almost Done Major Effort Modest Effort Almost Done Major Effort Modest Effort Almost Done High Medium Low High Medium Low High Medium Low High Medium Low High Medium Low High Medium Low High Medium Low High Medium Low High Medium Low High Medium Low High Medium Low Original Doc: Feb 17 2015 BE: Built Environment HC : Healthy City CP : Comprehensive Plan IN : Infrastructure O : Other Page 1 COUNCIL PRIORITY PROJECT NAME DESCRIPTION 2015 TASKS DEPT PROJECT MANAGER SCALE*URGENCY*Rank (By Staff Person) BE Highway 101 Pedestrian/Bicyc le Overcrossing at Adobe Creek Select design concept and begin preliminary design for new, year-round Pedestrian/Bicycle Overcrossing Presentation of three designs and design selection - February. Contract with design firm to develop selected bridge concept - Spring. Complete environmental assessment. PW Elizabeth CP Sustainability and Climate Action Plan Develop world class goals and strategy to guide next generation sustainability efforts for City and community.  Produce comprehensive plan and implementation roadmaps to achieve basic and aggressive greenhouse gas emissions reductions - with measures that are technically, financially, legally and socially feasible.  Provide findings and recommendations to Council and community.  Align City policies and operating practices with sustainability goals.  Launch visual dashboard of timely sustainability performance data for staff, Council and community.  Develop Mobility as a Service pilot to evaluate impacts of "car-free" services on congestion, parking demand and emissions. CTYMGR Gil CP Comp. Plan Update Prepare an update to the City’s governing land use plan based on significant public input and conduct concurrent environmental review of cumulative impacts to the Year 2030. U se the summit to recruit volunteers for work sessions needed to finalize draft goals, policies and programs.  Work with the Leadership group to plan and convene a "summit" for a community discussion of issues and choices. P&CE Hillary CP Coordinated Area Plan for Fry's Site Prepare a detailed plan for the 15-acre Fry’s site through a community-based planning process.  City Council review of a draft scope of work & discussion of grant funding.  Selection of consultant.  Formation of an Advisory Committee.  Initiation of data collection and analysis task. P&CE Hillary CP Annual Limit on Office/R&D or Alternate Growth Management Support a discussion by the City Council regarding ways to meter the pace of office/R&D development and gather input as part of the Comp. Plan Update.  Seek Council direction - February 9, 2015.  Define and analyze approaches for consideration with the Comp. Plan Update.  Develop interim actions for stakeholder input and Council consideration. P&CE Hillary BE CPI – Related Zoning Ordinance Draft an Ordinance for consideration by the City Council regarding siting and risks associated with plating shops of similar uses. Return to the City Council for amendment of the consultant contract and further direction Neighborhood Outreach Amortization Study Draft an Ordinance for consideration by the PTC and the City Council P&CE Hillary BE Retail Preservation Ordinance (Downtown) Support City Council Consideration of Potential Modifications to Retail Protections in Downtown. Data collection and analysis of retail trends Outreach to stakeholders Return to City Council for direction Draft one or more ordinances for consideration by the PTC and the City Council Hillary BE Sidewalk Repairs Project Continue sidewalk repairs to complete 30 year district cycle leveraging budget doubled per IBRC recommendations Complete sidewalk program assessment to set new program goals and standards. Complete sidewalk repairs in Sidewalk Replacement Districts 32,33 and 34. PW Holly Major Effort Modest Effort Almost Done Major Effort Modest Effort Almost Done Major Effort Modest Effort Almost Done Major Effort Modest Effort Almost Done Major Effort Modest Effort Almost Done Major Effort Modest Effort Almost Done Major Effort Modest Effort Almost Done Major Effort Modest Effort Almost Done High Medium Low High Medium Low High Medium Low High Medium Low High Medium Low High Medium Low High Medium Low High Medium Low Original Doc: Feb 17 2015 BE: Built Environment HC : Healthy City CP : Comprehensive Plan IN : Infrastructure O : Other Page 2 COUNCIL PRIORITY PROJECT NAME DESCRIPTION 2015 TASKS DEPT PROJECT MANAGER SCALE*URGENCY*Rank (By Staff Person) BE Street Resurfacing Program Continue resurfacing streets to meet average citywide pavement condition index (PCI) score of 85 by 2019 Complete paving of 50 city blocks - includes first 14 blocks to finish paving Middlefield and Alma with additional funding over 3 years Complete preventive maintenance of 80 city blocks Continue frequent community outreach Raise citywide PCI score to 80 PW Holly BE Charleston/Aras tradero Corridor Project Preliminary design and environmental assessment for the corridor project from Fabian Way to Miranda Avenue Community Outreach. Finalize concept plan line. Coordinate with Caltrans and JPB/Caltrain. Complete environmental assessment. PW Holly IN Cal Ave Streetscape Completion in March 2015.P&CE Jaime BE Bike & Pedestrian Plan Implementation Finalize Concept Plan Line work for 23 ongoing bicycle boulevard projects Conduct community outreach and obtain PTC recommendations and City Council approval. Complete design of Churchill Avenue Enhanced Bikeway project. Complete construction of Matadero Ave Bicycle Blvd Phase 1 Improvements Complete construction of Maybell Ave Bicycle Blvd Phase 1 Improvements P&CE Jaime BE Traffic Signal Modernization Upgrade the City’s traffic signals to improve their reliability and functionality. Project Implementation Improve organizational capacity for ongoing operation and adjustments as needed P&CE Jaime BE Embarcadero Road Improve traffic operations on the segment of Embarcadero Road between Alma and El Camino Real. Award bid for Phase One construction (signal consolidation at Town and Country) Complete Phase One construction Initiate planning and design of Phase Two including agency consultation and community input P&CE Jaime BE Parking Capacity Projects Increase the off street parking spaces available to serve employees and visitors. Complete preliminary design and of analysis of satellite parking concept Assist Public Works with development of a scope of work for garage design Support contract award for design P&CE Jaime IN Organics Facilities Plan Replace incinerators with new biosolids handling system Sludge dewatering and truck loadout facility - Commence work on final design - Commence and complete CEQA - Apply for low-interest rate state construction loan Complete preliminary design of anaerobic digester facility Jamie BE Parking Guidance System and Garage Access/Revenue Controls Implement garage technologies that make it easier for drivers to access parking garages. Contract with vendors Complete design Stakeholder outreach ARB review and approvals Bid construction P&CE Jessica BE Parking Garage “Wayfinding” Replace and enhance signage so that drivers can find parking, building in capacity for changeable messages where appropriate (i.e. parking guidance systems). Complete preliminary design Community outreach ARB review and approvals Bid construction P&CE Jessica Major Effort Modest EffortAlmost Done Major Effort Modest Effort Almost Done Major Effort Modest Effort Almost Done Major Effort Modest Effort Almost Done Major Effort Modest Effort Almost Done Major Effort Modest Effort Almost Done Major Effort Modest Effort Almost Done Major Effort Modest Effort Almost Done Major Effort Modest Effort Almost Done Major Effort Modest Effort Almost Done High MediumLow High Medium Low High Medium Low High Medium Low High Medium Low High Medium Low High Medium Low High Medium Low High Medium Low High Medium Low Original Doc: Feb 17 2015 BE: Built Environment HC : Healthy City CP : Comprehensive Plan IN : Infrastructure O : Other Page 3 COUNCIL PRIORITY PROJECT NAME DESCRIPTION 2015 TASKS DEPT PROJECT MANAGER SCALE*URGENCY*Rank (By Staff Person) BE Downtown Parking Management Study Analyze the issues and opportunities associated with establishing paid parking Downtown. Engage an expert to analyze potential impacts and revenue, needed infrastructure, and effects on parking demand and traffic patterns P&CE Jessica BE Retail Preservation Ordinance (Cal Ave) Support City Council Consideration of Potential Modifications to Retail Protections in the Cal. Ave. area. Outreach to stakeholders and data collection regarding existing uses Return to City Council for direction Draft one or more ordinances for consideration by the PTC and the City Council P&CE Jonathan BE Annual Code Clean-Up Undertake an annual review of code interpretations and needed zoning code (clean-up) changes. Work with the City Attorney to identify needed technical corrections and clarifications Present an ordinance for consideration by the PTC and the City Council P&CE Jonathan BE Telecom Ordinance Support the City Attorney’s office project to update the City’s Telecom Ordinance to reflect recent Federal rule making. Work with the City Attorney to develop a memo summarizing the new federal wireless law and recommending that the wireless facilities co-location initiative be abandoned for now. Prepare a staff report and draft ordinance for consideration by the City Council P&CE Jonathan Lait / Cara Silver IN Fire Station No. 3 Replacement Rebuild Fire Station No.3 at Embarcadero Road and Newell Road  Create CIP and funding from Infrastructure Plan.  Hire Construction Management firm.  Hire Architect.  Begin Fire Station and temporary facility design. PW Matt IN Lucie Stern Mechanical & Electrical Upgrades Rehabilitate and improve the existing building systems including fire/life safety components for Lucie Stern Community Center,the Children’s Theater and the Community Theater  Obtain building permits.  Issue invitation for bids to construct the project.  Construct the upgrades while coordinating with existing building users.  Begin Fire Station and temporary facility design. PW Matt BE Downtown Parking Garage Finalize location,select design concept,begin preliminary design Return to Council with draft Scope of Work for RFP. Create CIP with funding from Infrastructure Plan and hire architect to begin design process. PW Matt BE Professorville Design Guidelines Complete neighborhood specific guidelines.Reach out to stakeholders in Professorville regarding the objectives and scope of the work. Finalize recommendations and agendize for review by the PTC and City Council. Matt? BE Vacation Rental Ordinance (also Home Occupations) Support the City Council’s consideration of an ordinance regulating vacation rentals in residential zoning districts. Study Session in March 2015 Prepare a summary of options and seek public input Draft an ordinance for the PTC and Council’s consideration Molly BE Parking Exemption Ordinance Support City Council consideration of changes to the list of available parking exemptions in the City’s Zoning Ordinance. Prepare a Draft Ordinance for review and discussion Consideration by the PTC and the City Council Molly? CP Parks, Trails, Open Space & Recreation Master Plan Develop a Parks and Recreation Master Plan to guide future renovations, expansions and improvements  Complete the community based master planning process.  Develop Master Plan report and present to community.  Adoption of the Master Plan in Winter 2015. PW Peter Jensen Major Effort Modest Effort Almost Done Major Effort Modest Effort Almost Done Major Effort Modest Effort Almost Done Major Effort Modest Effort Almost Done Major Effort Modest Effort Almost Done Major Effort Modest Effort Almost Done Major Effort Modest Effort Almost Done Major Effort Modest Effort Almost Done Major Effort Modest Effort Almost Done Major Effort Modest Effort Almost Done Major Effort Modest Effort Almost Done High Medium Low High Medium Low High Medium Low High Medium Low High Medium Low High Medium Low High Medium Low High Medium Low High Medium Low High Medium Low High Medium Low Original Doc: Feb 17 2015 BE: Built Environment HC : Healthy City CP : Comprehensive Plan IN : Infrastructure O : Other Page 4 COUNCIL PRIORITY PROJECT NAME DESCRIPTION 2015 TASKS DEPT PROJECT MANAGER SCALE*URGENCY*Rank (By Staff Person) BE Seismically Vulnerable Building Ordinance Update the inventory of seismically vulnerable buildings and support City Council consideration of an ordinance with priorities and incentives and requirements for addressing hazards. Update inventory of vulnerable buildings and categorize by construction type and occupancy Research best practices related to prioritization and model ordinances City Council check-in Outreach to property owners and stakeholders Begin drafting ordinance for review by the City Council DSC Peter Pirnejad IN Junior Museum & Zoo Project LOI - Approved by Council 11/14. City initiating EIR. Negotiations on a P/P Partnership between the City and Friends begin in February (inc. CSD, PSO, ASD, CAO Staff). Friends have pledges of $15M of a $30+M for capital campaign. Return to Council with draft agreement between JMZ Friends and City by December 2015. Rhy IN Byxbee Park – Landfill Capping and Trail Construction Completion of landfill capping and new trail construction in advance of larger Council Infrastructure Plan Byxbee Park project  First 29 acres capped to be opened in early 2015.  Final 22 acres to be capped during 2015 and opened to the public soon afterward.  Trails constructed along with the cap.  Other features (signage, benches, vegetative islands) to be constructed in late 2015/early 2016. Ron BE Shuttle Expansion Expand shuttle service and implement other strategies to increase shuttle ridership. Obtain private sector support and launch 4th Shuttle Route in PA Increase frequency of service on the Crosstown route Bring Automated Vehicle Location (AVL) technology to the existing fleet; Develop and implement a coordinated design and marketing program to include schedules, stops, vehicles, and the web site Initiate discussion of alternatives to the shuttle for the future P&CE Ruchika BE Speed Survey Updates Develop new speed surveys along residential arterial streets to allow for traffic enforcement. Conduct speed surveys Adjust posted speed limits as needed Consider concurrent safety improvements as needed P&CE Ruchika BE Midtown Connector Project Phase 1 study to evaluate East-West Bicycle and Pedestrian Connection through Midtown. Form New Citizens Advisory Committee CAC to develop project content to be shared with the public regarding project alignment options P&CE Shahla BE Business Registry Implement an easy to use, online business registry tool and deliver key data about businesses in Palo Alto Build/ integrate/ test tool Launch tool Inform/educate Business Community Deliver reports Plan for phase 2 CTYMGR Thomas BE NOFA Make the city’s affordable housing funds available for the renovation or construction of deed-restricted affordable housing. Issue an updated notice of funding availability. Review proposals. Recommend tentative awards to the City Council. Analyze proposed projects submitted for City review and funding. Support project approvals and funding commitment by the City Council. P&CE Tim BE Housing Impact Fee Update Support the City Council’s review and adjustment of the City’s impact fee program for affordable housing. Receive and review Draft Nexus study Presentation to Finance Committee for direction on desired fee changes Consideration of ordinance changes and updated fees by the City Council P&CE Tim Major Effort Modest Effort Almost Done Major Effort Modest Effort Almost Done Major Effort Modest Effort Almost Done Major Effort Modest Effort Almost Done Major Effort Modest Effort Almost Done Major Effort Modest Effort Almost Done Major Effort Modest Effort Almost Done Major Effort Modest Effort Almost Done Major Effort Modest Effort Almost Done High Medium Low High Medium Low High Medium Low High Medium Low High Medium Low High Medium Low High Medium Low High Medium Low High Medium Low Original Doc: Feb 17 2015 BE: Built Environment HC : Healthy City CP : Comprehensive Plan IN : Infrastructure O : Other Page 5 COUNCIL PRIORITY PROJECT NAME DESCRIPTION 2015 TASKS DEPT PROJECT MANAGER SCALE*URGENCY*Rank (By Staff Person) BE Lot Consolidation Ordinance for Small Housing Sites Begin implementation of the City’s adopted housing element by initiating discussion of a lot consolidation ordinance. Planning and Transportation Commission study session Data collections and Analysis of Options Outreach to Stakeholders in preparation for ordinance development in 2016 P&CE Tim BE Fiber-to-the- Premise Master Plan Assessment Perform assessment to evaluate the feasibility of building out a citywide Fiber-to-the-Premise (FTTP) Network in Palo Alto. Obtain Council approval to award contract to telecom consulting firm to work with staff to develop plan Assess City infrastructure (e.g. PROW, poles and conduit) and conduct engineering study to support citywide FTTP network deployment Define network build costs, network technical requirements and design, assess potential business models and evaluate prospective service offerings Provide findings and recommendations to Council for citywide FTTP deployment and ask for direction ITS Todd BE Wireless Network Master Plan Assessment Perform assessment to evaluate the feasibility of building out a citywide Wireless Network in Palo Alto. Obtain Council approval to award contract to telecom consulting firm to work with staff to develop plan Evaluate Wi-Fi connectivity for general public and businesses Conduct assessment to determine need for wireless solutions for public safety, field-based City staff and other mobile government applications. Provide findings and recommendation to Council for Wi-Fi and/or other wireless solutions and ask for direction ITS Todd IN Utilities Infrastructure Replacement & Improvement Continue replacement of aging infrastructure on Water, Gas, Wastewater and Electric Utilities Electric Undergrounding. Gas Main Replacement. Water Main Replacement. Seismic Water System Improvement. Wastewater Collection System Augmentation. UTIL Tomm IN Electric Utility System Improvements Continue to increase system capacity for load growth Continue to increase system capacity for load growth by: - Replacing deteriorated equipment. - Repairing storm damaged equipment. - Performing maintenance. UTIL Tomm Major Effort Modest Effort Almost Done Major Effort Modest Effort Almost Done Major Effort Modest Effort Almost Done Major Effort Modest Effort Almost Done Major Effort Modest Effort Almost Done Major EffortModest EffortAlmost Done High Medium Low High Medium Low High Medium Low High Medium Low High Medium Low HighMediumLow Original Doc: Feb 17 2015 BE: Built Environment HC : Healthy City CP : Comprehensive Plan IN : Infrastructure O : Other Page 6 2016 Council Priorities ELT MASTER WORK PLAN (January 25, 2016) 2016 PHASE 1 12 BE Adopt New Building Codes with local amendments Every three years cities are required to adopt the new building codes and incorporate local amendments in the process. The new ordinance is adopted in 2016 and takes affect January 1, 2017 • Community outreach and engagement events to hear from stakeholders • Technical advisory meetings to determine how the priorities in the outreach are described and enforced in the code • Prepare a cost effectiveness study for energy code updates • Take finished produce to Policy and Services followed by City Council for two readings DS Peter Pirnejad 100% 13 BE Create a Enterprise Fund to Ensure Development is Cost Recoverable In an effort to ensure private development is cost recoverable and Development Services can scale according to market demand and minimize any impacts to the General Fund the department is pursuing a fee study and partitioning the department from the General Fund. • The department needs to complete a fee study • These fees are dependent on the time other departments are spending on development review and inspections • Fees need to be audited and adjusted to account for an appropriate amount of time to complete work • The operation needs to be run with tight controls to ensure our expenditures do not exceed our revenues. DS Peter Pirnejad 100% 19 Reorganization Continue with organizational resource redeployment and reorganization Fire OMB 20 Accreditation: Performance measurement & management Measure and report departmental performance, identify and implement opportunities for improvements and efficiency Fire 21 Regional Fire Dispatch Complete analysis and implementation steps to create a regional fire dispatch center with Mountain View, County Fire and San Jose Fire Police, OMB, City Manager's Office 22 Succession Planning & Management Implement plan to replace multiple senior members and officers. Includes internal training, external peer-to-peer opportunities, ride-alongs, conferences, Executive Fire Officer Program Fire OMB, City Manager's Office 54 N Citizens Academy Improve Community Outreach 1.) Design Curriculm 2.) Announce 3.) Offer Classes PD Zach Perron 100% 55 N Active Shooter Improve Response to Active shooter incidents integrating a joint response with fire 1.) Design Curriculm 2.) Schedule Training 3.) Evaluate PD April Wagner Fire 100% 1/31/20191:13 PM BE: Built Environment HC : Healthy City CP : Comprehensive Plan IN : Infrastructure O : Other Page 1 2016 Council Priorities ELT MASTER WORK PLAN (January 25, 2016) 2016 PHASE 1 12 BE Adopt New Building Codes with local amendments Every three years cities are required to adopt the new building codes and incorporate local amendments in the process. The new ordinance is adopted in 2016 and takes affect January 1, 2017 • Community outreach and engagement events to hear from stakeholders • Technical advisory meetings to determine how the priorities in the outreach are described and enforced in the code • Prepare a cost effectiveness study for energy code updates • Take finished produce to Policy and Services followed by City Council for two readings DS Peter Pirnejad 100% 56 N Police Study An evaluation of the efficiency of police operations by an outside entity (California Commission on Peace Officers Standards and Training) 1.) Coordinate with POST 2.) Schedule vistis 3.) Provide Data 4.) Receive Report PD Dennis Burns City Manager 50% 57 Y Animal Services Management Contract with an organization to manage the operations of the Animal Services Division 1.) Go through the RFP 2.) Evaluate Proposals 3.) Select organization 4.) Sign Contract PD Bob Beacom City Manager 75% 58 N Labor Negotiations Complete MOA with Police Officers Association 1.) Continue negotiations 2.) come to agreement 3.) sign MOA PD Dennis Burns Human Resources, City Attorney 100% 59 N Recruitment and Retention Develop and implement strategies 1.) Brainstorming 2.) identify feasible strategies 3.) implement strategies PD April Wagner Human Resources, City Attorney 60 Labor Negotiations Complete MOA negotiations with IAFF L1319 PSO Fire, City Manager's Office, OMB 61 Affordable Care Act- 2015 employee reporting Provide employees with 1095 C forms by March 2016, in compliance with IRS rules; submit report to IRS by May 2016 1.Submit employee data to third-party vendor; 2.review for accuracy; 3. draft employee informational letter; 4. distribute forms to employees;5.submit IRS report PSO Sandra Blanch SAP consultant;25% 62 Wellness Support Healthy City/Healthy Community initiative Beta test various classes, seminars promoting physical and emotional well being and work life balance PSO Cash Alaee PSO staff 10% 63 NeoGov Onboarding implementation Streamlining New Hire Onboarding 1.Scan NEO forms;2.Create workflow;3.Review w/PSO team; 4. create written instructions; 5. create presentation PSO Sandra Blanch Frank Lee; SAP consultant 10% 64 Labor Negotiations Negotiate MOAs with IAFF, PAPOA, PMA, SEIU Ongoing negotiations PSO Natalie Korthamar contract Chief Negotiator ;Frank Lee;Maria Patino 65 Docusign implementation complete CalPERS medical report integration between SAP to CalPERS eliminating duplicate entry processes currently required 1.work with Docusign vendor; 2. review with PSO and Payroll staff;3. create written instructions;4.create training presentation PSO Sandra Blanch Angelica Jimenez;Molly Boyes;Grace Castor 66 SAP Process Improvements Complete CalPERS medical report integration between SAP to CalPERS eliminating duplicate entry processes 1.SAP consultant completing functional spec;2.meet with SAP Functional team to review project needs; 3.discuss programming resources;4.Complete testing PSO Sandra Blanch SAP consultant; SAP Functional team 67 Training Schedule Spring Ethics training 1. Notify employees regarding training dates;2. Ensure attendance PSO Elizabeth Egli 1/31/20191:13 PM BE: Built Environment HC : Healthy City CP : Comprehensive Plan IN : Infrastructure O : Other Page 2 2016 Council Priorities ELT MASTER WORK PLAN (January 25, 2016) 2016 PHASE 1 12 BE Adopt New Building Codes with local amendments Every three years cities are required to adopt the new building codes and incorporate local amendments in the process. The new ordinance is adopted in 2016 and takes affect January 1, 2017 • Community outreach and engagement events to hear from stakeholders • Technical advisory meetings to determine how the priorities in the outreach are described and enforced in the code • Prepare a cost effectiveness study for energy code updates • Take finished produce to Policy and Services followed by City Council for two readings DS Peter Pirnejad 100% COUNCIL PRIORITY PROJECT OUTPUT/OUTCOME 2016 ACTION STEPS DEPT. LEAD PROJECT MANAGER DEPT. SUPPORT PROJECT % COMPLETED AT YEAR END EXPECTED DATE OF COMPLETION COUNCIL RANKING ELT NOTES/ COMMENTS 1 O Performance Management 1) Updated performance measures for all departments 2) Plan for using Questica performance management module to produce annual performance report that includes updated measures Meet with each department to: 1) review existing measures and identify those that should continue to be used 2) identify new measures linked to department mission and Council priorities 3) identify data sources for new measures AUD 1) Auditor's Office 2) City Manager's Office Harriet Richardson All departments (point of contact to be identified for each department) 100%Immediate (performance goal for Harriet for 2016) 2 BE Business Registry Implement phase two of the business registry, deliver key data about businesses in Palo Alto, plan for integration with other permits Enhance/ Test Upgraded Tool, --Launch Renewal Period March 1, -- Deliver Upgraded Reports, --Plan for integration of other permits to launch in phase 3 CMO T. Fehrenbach DS, PLN, ATY, ASD, FD, IT 100% 3 IN Foothills Park 7.7 Acres Evaluate and recommend to Council use of additional 7.7 acres of dedicated park land added to Foothills Park.. 1. Complete the Buckeye Creek hydrology study 2. After the Buckeye Creek hydrology study is completed work with the Parks and Recreation Commission to draft a recommendation for Council on how to use the 7.7 acre 3. Evaluate the impacts of the recommendation to Council on the Acterra Nursery lease CSD Daren Anderson PWD - Brad Eggleston 75% 4 IN Junior Museum & Zoo Project Develop an agreement between the Friends of the Junior Museum and Zoo and the City of Palo Alto to rebuild the facility 1. Complete the design of the new center 2. Draft a construction agreement for Council consideration. 3. Complete CEQA requirements. 4. Complete a draft operating agreement with pro forma reflecting the public private partnership for Council consideration. CSD Rhy Halpern, CSD - Rob de Geus, John Aikin; ASD - Lalo Perez, Steve Guagliardo; PLN- Amy French, Chitra Moitra ; PW-Brad Eggleston, Elizabeth Ames; Attorneys - Molly Stump, Clare Gibson 100% 1/31/20191:13 PM BE: Built Environment HC : Healthy City CP : Comprehensive Plan IN : Infrastructure O : Other Page 3 2016 Council Priorities ELT MASTER WORK PLAN (January 25, 2016) 2016 PHASE 1 12 BE Adopt New Building Codes with local amendments Every three years cities are required to adopt the new building codes and incorporate local amendments in the process. The new ordinance is adopted in 2016 and takes affect January 1, 2017 • Community outreach and engagement events to hear from stakeholders • Technical advisory meetings to determine how the priorities in the outreach are described and enforced in the code • Prepare a cost effectiveness study for energy code updates • Take finished produce to Policy and Services followed by City Council for two readings DS Peter Pirnejad 100% 5 IN Cubberley Master Plan Begin the Cubberley Master Plan process in collaboration with PAUSD and the community. 1. Joint statement on committment 2. Engage the Community in an event at Cubberley begin the public engagement phase of the Master Plan process 3. Leverage Stanford Design School and other partners in a design thinking challenge for proces design 4. Seek Board of Education and Council agreement on a vision, and essential elements needed in the Master Plan 5. Prepare a scope services and release an RFP Cubberley Master Plan design CSD Kristen O'Kane CSD Rob de Geus, Adam Howard, Stephanie Douglas CMO Jim Keene, Tom Fehrenbach PWD - Brad Eggleston 100% 6 HC Healthy City Healthy Community Resolution Reconvene the Healthy City Healthy Community working group to advance community health as defined in the Council adopted Healthy City Healthy Community Resolution. • Re-convene a diverse stakeholder group • Meet through-out the year to advance the Healthy Cities Healthy Community 2016 work plan: 1. Create a welcome packet for new residents that orients individuals and families to the many health and wellness opportunities available in Palo Alto; 2. Include Healthy City/Healthy Community goals, policies and programs in the Comprehensive Plan Update; 3. Advance specific and safe Bike/Pedestrian Plan projects; 4. Implement a City of Palo Alto Employee Health and Wellness Initiative; 5. In partnership with the business community, coordinate a forum for local businesses to share and learn about workplace health and wellness best practices and encourage the adoption of similar employee health and wellness initiatives; 6. In partnership with community partners, coordinate an annual Health Fair that promotes community health and wellbeing; 7. In partnership with community partners, establish specific metrics to measure progress. CSD Rob de Geus CSD Lacee Kortsen; Minka van der Zwaag, Stephanie Douglas PSO - Rumi Portillo CMO Claudia Keith; PCE - Jonathan Lait TBD 1/31/20191:13 PM BE: Built Environment HC : Healthy City CP : Comprehensive Plan IN : Infrastructure O : Other Page 4 2016 Council Priorities ELT MASTER WORK PLAN (January 25, 2016) 2016 PHASE 1 12 BE Adopt New Building Codes with local amendments Every three years cities are required to adopt the new building codes and incorporate local amendments in the process. The new ordinance is adopted in 2016 and takes affect January 1, 2017 • Community outreach and engagement events to hear from stakeholders • Technical advisory meetings to determine how the priorities in the outreach are described and enforced in the code • Prepare a cost effectiveness study for energy code updates • Take finished produce to Policy and Services followed by City Council for two readings DS Peter Pirnejad 100% 7 HC Homeless Services Strategic alignment and investment in regional efforts to support the unhoused. 1. Formulate options and recommendations on advancing Palo Alto's involvement CSD Minka van der Zwaag CSD: Rob de Geus CMO Jim Keene, Ed Shikada; PCE Jeremy Dennis 100% 8 HC Baylands Comprehensive Conservation Plan Comprehensive plan for effective management of the Baylands by balancing ecosystem conservation with recreation and environmental education opportunities. 1. Develop conservation goals and strategies 2. Develop recreation goals and strategies 3. Create and convene a Baylands conservation advisory committee. Issue RFP; Award Bid; Create project calendar; Conduct public outreach, involve Parks and Rec Commission and Council. CSD Kristen O'Kane CSD: Daren Anderson, Rich Bicknell, Lisa Myers, Robbie Parry 25% 9 CP Parks, Trails, Open Space & Recreation Master Plan Develop a Parks and Recreation Master Plan to guide future renovations, expansions and improvements 1. Develop and Prioritize Project and Program Opportunities: Preparation of recommendations; identification of capital projects, needed renovations and other improvements; and prioritization of projects into an implementation timeline of short (5-year), medium (15- year) and long-term (20-year) ranges. 2. Plan Review and Adoption: Public, Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC), and Council review; and Council approval process to adopt the plan. CSD / PWD Rob de Geus CSD - Daren Anderson, Kristen O'Kane. PWD - Peter Jensen - Brad Eggleston 100% 11 BE Seismically Vulnerable Building Ordinance Update the inventory of seismically vulnerable buildings and support City Council consideration of an ordinance with priorities and incentives and requirements for addressing hazards. Update inventory of vulnerable buildings and categorize by construction type and occupancy Research best practices related to prioritization and model ordinances City Council check-in Outreach to property owners and stakeholders Begin drafting ordinance for review by the City Council DS Peter Pirnejad 50% 1/31/20191:13 PM BE: Built Environment HC : Healthy City CP : Comprehensive Plan IN : Infrastructure O : Other Page 5 2016 Council Priorities ELT MASTER WORK PLAN (January 25, 2016) 2016 PHASE 1 12 BE Adopt New Building Codes with local amendments Every three years cities are required to adopt the new building codes and incorporate local amendments in the process. The new ordinance is adopted in 2016 and takes affect January 1, 2017 • Community outreach and engagement events to hear from stakeholders • Technical advisory meetings to determine how the priorities in the outreach are described and enforced in the code • Prepare a cost effectiveness study for energy code updates • Take finished produce to Policy and Services followed by City Council for two readings DS Peter Pirnejad 100% 14 BE Develop and Employment an Energy Efficency Building Code that considers goals of reaching Zero Energy and Carbon Buildings. Develop a Energy Code that focuses on energy efficiency and prepares for the ultimate State goal of developing all buildings to be energy neutral over the course of a year • Engage with a multi-stakeholder engagement event that draws opinions & perspectives from experts in the development industry • Incorporate these & other changing state requirements to ensure our code is able to reflect these requirements in clear & enforceable language • Prepare adequate cost effectiveness study to comply with California Energy Commission • Take findings to Policy and Services and two readings to the City Council • Take findings to Policy and Services and two readings to the City Council DS Peter Pirnejad 100% 15 BE Business Registry Implement an easy to use, online business registry tool and deliver key data about businesses in Palo Alto Build/ integrate/ test tool Launch tool Inform/educate Business Community Deliver reports Plan for phase 2 and 3 DS Tommy / Peter 100% 1/31/20191:13 PM BE: Built Environment HC : Healthy City CP : Comprehensive Plan IN : Infrastructure O : Other Page 6 2016 Council Priorities ELT MASTER WORK PLAN (January 25, 2016) 2016 PHASE 1 12 BE Adopt New Building Codes with local amendments Every three years cities are required to adopt the new building codes and incorporate local amendments in the process. The new ordinance is adopted in 2016 and takes affect January 1, 2017 • Community outreach and engagement events to hear from stakeholders • Technical advisory meetings to determine how the priorities in the outreach are described and enforced in the code • Prepare a cost effectiveness study for energy code updates • Take finished produce to Policy and Services followed by City Council for two readings DS Peter Pirnejad 100% 16 BE Electrification Work Plan (Phase I of II) Explore potential building code changes as part of the evaluation and technical feasibility of implementing electrification projects and programs. 1) Study the feasibility of including heat pump water heaters (HPWH) installations as part of the Calgreen Tier 1 and Tier 2 elective or pre--requisite criteria ; 2) Study the feasibility of including heat pump space heating installations as part of Calgreen Tier 1 and Tier 2 elective or pre--requisite criteria; 3) Study the feasibility of requiring sufficient electrical panel capacity and outlets to accommodate the electrification of the house in the future; 4) Study and seek permission from the California Energy Commission (CEC) to remove certain requirements that impeded electrification (such as a case--by--case cost effectiveness analysis) to permit installation of heat--pump based heating appliances; 5) Work with other interested parties to lobby CEC to consider carbon content (in addition to energy efficiency) of building energy systems when updating building energy codes for the 2019 code update cycle (effective 2020); 6) Explore potential scenarios for an expedited permitting program for projects pursing electrification; and 7) Identify resources required to administer an expedited permit program for projects pursuing electrification. DS Peter Pirnejad 100% 17 BE Construction in the Right of Way Notification Tool Develop a tool that is able to track and prioritize all city related work in the Right of Way. The tool will provide notice to neighbors as well as commuters by showing all related work on a map. The goal is to direct citizens to one map that will track all work in the R-O-W 1) Prepare a SOW that encompases all the needs of the different departments ; 2) Go through IT Governance; 3) Solicit bids and select a vendor; 4) Enter into contract with the vendor of choise; 5) Implement the solution that is department agnostic and displays all City Work on one site; 5) Continue to monitor and implement the solution. DS/CM Peter Pirnejad / Ed Shikada 90% 18 Stanford Fire Contract Update Fire Contract with Stanford Fire City Attorney, OMB 1/31/20191:13 PM BE: Built Environment HC : Healthy City CP : Comprehensive Plan IN : Infrastructure O : Other Page 7 2016 Council Priorities ELT MASTER WORK PLAN (January 25, 2016) 2016 PHASE 1 12 BE Adopt New Building Codes with local amendments Every three years cities are required to adopt the new building codes and incorporate local amendments in the process. The new ordinance is adopted in 2016 and takes affect January 1, 2017 • Community outreach and engagement events to hear from stakeholders • Technical advisory meetings to determine how the priorities in the outreach are described and enforced in the code • Prepare a cost effectiveness study for energy code updates • Take finished produce to Policy and Services followed by City Council for two readings DS Peter Pirnejad 100% 23 HC Community Risk Reduction Identify opportunities to reduce community risk, especially in high risk populations (over age 65, under age 13) Fire 24 IN Fiber-to-the- Premise Master Plan Assessment Arrive at a Council-directed strategy for Palo Alto's approach to municipal provided fiber-to-the- premise. • Review outside plant build estimates in Master Plan with Citizen Advisory Committee and document discrepancies. • Co-build discussion with Third Parties (GF and AT&T) • Develop “Dig Once” Ordinance • Develop and issue Request for Information (RFI) to explore municipally-owned and public-private partnership models for FTTP • Evaluation of RFI responses • Bring recommendation to City Council on co-build and City partnership options • Dependent on City Council direction, begin planning City fiber deployment ITS Todd Legal, Utilities, Public Works, City Manager Office, Planning, Development Services, OES 25 BE Wireless Network Master Plan Assessment Arrive at a Council-directed decision to work with a vendor to provide a broadband wireless support infrastructure for Public Safety and Utilities. • Update citywide wireless network scenarios with 20-year forecasts • Develop cost estimate and fiber backhaul information to expand wireless access in unserved City facilities and retail areas; develop RFP • Issue RFP for dedicated wireless communications for Public Safety and Utilities • Evaluate RFP responses • Bring recommendation to City Council on provider for Public Safety and Utilities wireless • Dependent on City Council, engage vendor on Public Safety and Utilities wireless build ITS Todd Legal, Utilities, Public Works, City Manager Office, Planning, Development Services, OES 26 CP CP Update Develop world class policy framework to guide City and community decision making to the year 2030. CAC review and recommendation for all elements. City Council review of CAC work and direction on key issues. Draft EIR and responses to comments. IS THERE ANY MORE TO ADD HERE? PCE Jeremy City Attorney, CSD, OES, CMO 85%2017 BE READY TO TALK NEXT PHASE 1/31/20191:13 PM BE: Built Environment HC : Healthy City CP : Comprehensive Plan IN : Infrastructure O : Other Page 8 2016 Council Priorities ELT MASTER WORK PLAN (January 25, 2016) 2016 PHASE 1 12 BE Adopt New Building Codes with local amendments Every three years cities are required to adopt the new building codes and incorporate local amendments in the process. The new ordinance is adopted in 2016 and takes affect January 1, 2017 • Community outreach and engagement events to hear from stakeholders • Technical advisory meetings to determine how the priorities in the outreach are described and enforced in the code • Prepare a cost effectiveness study for energy code updates • Take finished produce to Policy and Services followed by City Council for two readings DS Peter Pirnejad 100% 27 BE Housing Impact Fee Update Adopt and implement updated impact fees to fund affordable housing. Present Nexus study and fee recommendations to the Finance Committee. Consideration of Ordinance by the City Council. PCE Eloiza City Attorney, ASD 100%2016 28 BE Second Dwelling units Consider changes in policy and regulations to incentivize additional dwelling units ("granny units"). PTC direction and data collection. Analysis of options for consideration. City Council direction. Develop ordinance for consideration. PCE Chitra City Attorney 75%2017 29 CP Housing Element Implementation Part I • Consider elimination of sites on San Antonio/S El Camino & replacement with higher densities on existing sites or the addition of new sites (in the Comp Plan process) • Consider code changes to encourage more, smaller units (in the Comp Plan process) • Consider small lot consolidation incentives • Consider TDR program to encourage higher densities in appropriate areas • Encourage/support regional establishment of coordinated shared housing program Council direction re: sites and programs. Develop draft ordinance(s) for public input and PTC/Council review PCE Jeremy City Attorney 75%2017 30 BE Retail Preservation Ordinance (Cal Ave) followup Support City Council Consideration of Potential Modifications to Retail Protections in the Cal. Ave. area. Analyze parking requirements. Analyze retail feasibility on Cambridge Council direction Develop revisions to adopted ordinance for consideration. PCE TBD City Attorney 100%2016 31 BE Retail Preservation Ordinance (Downtown) Support City Council Consideration of Potential Modifications to Retail Protections in Downtown. Data collection and analysis of retail trends Outreach to stakeholders Return to City Council for direction Draft one or more ordinances for consideration by the PTC and the City Council PCE Chitra City Attorney CMO 5%2017 1/31/20191:13 PM BE: Built Environment HC : Healthy City CP : Comprehensive Plan IN : Infrastructure O : Other Page 9 2016 Council Priorities ELT MASTER WORK PLAN (January 25, 2016) 2016 PHASE 1 12 BE Adopt New Building Codes with local amendments Every three years cities are required to adopt the new building codes and incorporate local amendments in the process. The new ordinance is adopted in 2016 and takes affect January 1, 2017 • Community outreach and engagement events to hear from stakeholders • Technical advisory meetings to determine how the priorities in the outreach are described and enforced in the code • Prepare a cost effectiveness study for energy code updates • Take finished produce to Policy and Services followed by City Council for two readings DS Peter Pirnejad 100% 32 BE Ground Floor Retail Protection (Other Commercial Districts) Evaluate other protections/changes needed to preserve GF retail outside of Downtown and Cal. Ave. Outreach to stakeholders and property owners Analysis of issues and alternatives Council direction Prepare ordinance for consideration by PTC and CC PCE TBD City Attorney CMO 5%2017 33 CP Downtown CAP Develop and Implement policy and code changes to update the Downtown CAP on Non-Residential square footage Complete consultant study and outline policy options. Council input/direction Prepare Comp. Plan policy language and code changes. PCE Jeremy City Attorney 85%2017 34 BE Review use categories in zoning Review and update definitions of "Office", "R&D", etc. as needed. PTC work sessions Public input Council direction Prepare Ordinance to make changes. PCE Amy City Attorney 85%2017 35 BE IR Program review Conduct an impartial review of the IR process and recommend any necessary changes. Develop report based on input from stakeholders Suggest updates to the guidelines and implementing ordinance as needed Review guidelines with the PTC & City Council Prepare and draft ordinance for review with the PTC and City Council PCE Jeremy City Attorney 100%2016 36 BE Annual Code Update Undertake an annual review of code interpretations and needed zoning code (clean- up) changes. Work with the City Attorney to identify needed technical corrections and clarifications Present an ordinance for consideration by the PTC and the City Council PCE Amy City Attorney 100%2016 37 BE CPI Draft an Ordinance for consideration by the City Council regarding siting and risks associated with plating shops of similar uses. Draft an Ordinance for consideration by the PTC and the City Council PCE Hillary City Attorney 100%2016 38 BE Bike & Pedestrian Plan Implementation Finalize Concept Plan Line work for 23 ongoing bicycle boulevard projects and initiate final design and construction Complete final design and initiate construction of Churchill Phase I, Maybell, Wilkie, Park, and Bryant Extension Complete concept plans and secure approvals for Ross, Amarillo-Moreno, Loma Verde, Bryant Update Coordinate with PW in advance of resurfacing projects for striping changes PCE Sarah PW 45%2020 45% OF WHAT? THIS PHASE? ENTIRE PROJECT? 1/31/20191:13 PM BE: Built Environment HC : Healthy City CP : Comprehensive Plan IN : Infrastructure O : Other Page 10 2016 Council Priorities ELT MASTER WORK PLAN (January 25, 2016) 2016 PHASE 1 12 BE Adopt New Building Codes with local amendments Every three years cities are required to adopt the new building codes and incorporate local amendments in the process. The new ordinance is adopted in 2016 and takes affect January 1, 2017 • Community outreach and engagement events to hear from stakeholders • Technical advisory meetings to determine how the priorities in the outreach are described and enforced in the code • Prepare a cost effectiveness study for energy code updates • Take finished produce to Policy and Services followed by City Council for two readings DS Peter Pirnejad 100% 39 BE Shuttle Expansion Expand shuttle service and implement other strategies to increase ridership Determine strategy and form Develop and implement a coordinated design and marketing program to include schedules, stops, vehicles, and the web/mobile aps Design service changes and expansions to make the shuttle more convenient for more people Public input City Council review of staff recommendations Implementation PCE Ruchika City Attorney 80%2017 40 BE Parking Guidance Systems Implement technologies that make it easier for drivers to find parking Complete design of parking guidance systems in tandem with wayfinding Bid construction and award contract PCE Sue-Ellen City Attorney, PW 50%2017 50% OF THIS PHASE? 41 BE Access/ Revenue Controls Implement garage technologies based on paid parking study recommendations Stakeholder input on goals and deletions Recommendation to Council Final design and implementation PCE Jessica City Attorney 25%2018 25% OF THIS PHASE? 42 BE Parking Garage Wayfinding Replace and enhance signs so that drivers can find parking, building in capacity for changeable messages where appropriate (i.e. parking guidance systems) Bid construction City Council award of contract implementation PCE Sue-Ellen City Attorney, PW 100%2016 100% OF THIS PHASE? 43 BE Paid Parking Study Analyze parking downtown and consider paid parking alternatives Establish a stakeholder group Complete data collection Analyze issues and opportunities Present for Council direction Finalize recommendations PCE Jessica City Attorney 90%2017 90% OF THIS PHASE? 44 BE Traffic Signal Timing Update traffic signal timing where needed Implement adaptive traffic signal timing along San Antonio Road Make other adjustments across the City as needed PCE TBD Utilities 50%2017 50% OF THIS PHASE? 45 BE Speed Survey Updates Develop new speed surveys to allow for traffic enforcement Bid and award contract Conduct surveys Recommend adjustments to posted speed limits and concurrent safety improvements as needed Implement desired changes PCE Ruchika Police 80%2017 80% OF THIS PHASE? 46 BE Embarcadero Road Phase II Design and construct traffic, pedestrian, and bicycle improvements for Embarcadero between El Camino Real and Alma Street Contract Award Public input and Caltrans Coordination Conceptual Design Approvals PCE Shahla PAUSD 25%2018 25% OF THIS PHASE? 1/31/20191:13 PM BE: Built Environment HC : Healthy City CP : Comprehensive Plan IN : Infrastructure O : Other Page 11 2016 Council Priorities ELT MASTER WORK PLAN (January 25, 2016) 2016 PHASE 1 12 BE Adopt New Building Codes with local amendments Every three years cities are required to adopt the new building codes and incorporate local amendments in the process. The new ordinance is adopted in 2016 and takes affect January 1, 2017 • Community outreach and engagement events to hear from stakeholders • Technical advisory meetings to determine how the priorities in the outreach are described and enforced in the code • Prepare a cost effectiveness study for energy code updates • Take finished produce to Policy and Services followed by City Council for two readings DS Peter Pirnejad 100% 47 BE Midtown Connector Project Evaluate the feasibility of East-West Bicycle and Pedestrian Connections through Midtown and design preferred options for construction Contract amendment Complete feasibility study Council direction Complete concept plan line & final design PCE Sarah 50%2017 48 BE Next RPP Implementation Implement RPP in the next priority neighborhood Review applications received (March) and prioritize next RPP district Work with neighborhood stakeholders to develop program parameters Prepare a resolution and contract amendments for Council consideration Implementation PCE Sue-Ellen City Attorney 100%2016 49 BE Quarry Road Pedestrian & Bicycle Improvements Design and implement pedestrian and bike improvements connecting the Transit Center to SUMC Award design contract Complete Design Bid and award construction contract PCE Shahla Purchasing Public Works City Attorney CSD 80%2017 50 BE Geng Road Circulation & Embarcadero Road Parking Study Examine possible circulation improvements and additional parking east of 101 Complete circulation and parking Study Develop recommendations for review by PTC and City Council PCE Josh Purchasing 100%2016 51 BE Mobility App or "wallet" along the lines of "MAAS" Explore development of an App to make transportation more convenient RFP Consultant selection and data collection Review draft with stakeholders Review with PTC and City Council Build App if feasible PCE Jessica Sustainability Purchasing HR 50%2018 52 BE Parking Study of Housing Types Prepare a study to ensure adequate parking for housing approved per State Density Bonus law RFP and Consultant Selection Data collection Review draft recommendations and prepare Ordinance PCE TBD City Attorney Purchasing 50%2018 53 BE Professorville Design Guidelines Complete neighborhood specific design guidelines • Reach out to stakeholders in Professorville regarding the objectives and scope of the work. • Obtain grant funds and retain outside consultant. • Finalize recommendations and agendize for review by the PTC and City Council. PCE Matt City Attorney 100%2016 1/31/20191:13 PM BE: Built Environment HC : Healthy City CP : Comprehensive Plan IN : Infrastructure O : Other Page 12 2016 Council Priorities ELT MASTER WORK PLAN (January 25, 2016) 2016 PHASE 1 12 BE Adopt New Building Codes with local amendments Every three years cities are required to adopt the new building codes and incorporate local amendments in the process. The new ordinance is adopted in 2016 and takes affect January 1, 2017 • Community outreach and engagement events to hear from stakeholders • Technical advisory meetings to determine how the priorities in the outreach are described and enforced in the code • Prepare a cost effectiveness study for energy code updates • Take finished produce to Policy and Services followed by City Council for two readings DS Peter Pirnejad 100% 68 Y Public Safety Building Continue to work with Public Works and Architects on new Public Safety Buildings 1.) Contract with Construction Management Company 2.) EIR Process 3.) Select Architect 4.) Design Building PW Patty Lum Public Works, City Manager, OES 5% 69 CP Parks, Trails, Open Space & Recreation Master Plan Develop a Parks and Recreation Master Plan to guide future renovations, expansions and improvements • Prioritize potential project and program ideas • Draft Master Plan report • Community, commission and council review of report • Adoption of Master Plan in December 2016 PW Peter Jensen 70 IN Public Safety Building Project Create a new facility built to Essential Services standards to house Police, 911 Dispatch, Emergency Services, Fire Admin, and the Emergency Operations Center on parking lot C-6 • Hire Construction Management (CM) firm to assist with project. • Hire Architect and begin design development and EIR. • Complete pre-design and schematic design phases. • Begin design development phase. PW Brad PD, Fire, OES, and IT will be engaged in the design process 40% 71 IN California Ave Parking Garage Create a new parking garage with a retail element on existing surface parking lot C-7 to create at least 150 additional parking stalls and replace parking to be lost by siting the PSB on the adjacent parking lot • Hire Construction Management (CM) firm to assist with project. • Hire Architect and begin design development and EIR. • Complete schematic design and select preferred configuration. PW Matt Planning will be engaged in the design process 2% 72 IN Fire Station No. 3 Replacement Rebuild Fire Station No.3 at Embarcadero Road and Newell Road • Begin Fire Station and temporary facility design. • Select location for temporary station. • Complete pre-design, schematic design, and design development • Hire construction management firm & begin contractor pre-qualification PW Matt Fire, OES and IT will be engaged in the design process 7% 73 IN Lucie Stern Mechanical & Electrical Upgrades Rehabilitate and improve the existing building systems including fire/life safety components for Lucie Stern Community Center, the Children’s Theater and the Community Theater Obtain building permits. Issue invitation for bids to construct the project. Construct the upgrades while coordinating with existing building users. PW Matt CSD will be engaged during the construction process 25% 74 IN Ventura Building Improvements Replace or upgrade the mechanical and electrical systems and provide accessibility improvements to the Ventura Community Center facility Complete ADA assessment of the facility Hire design firm Complete pre-design, schematic design, and design development phases • Begin construction documents and apply for permits PW Matt CSD and ASD will be engaged during the design process 2% 1/31/20191:13 PM BE: Built Environment HC : Healthy City CP : Comprehensive Plan IN : Infrastructure O : Other Page 13 2016 Council Priorities ELT MASTER WORK PLAN (January 25, 2016) 2016 PHASE 1 12 BE Adopt New Building Codes with local amendments Every three years cities are required to adopt the new building codes and incorporate local amendments in the process. The new ordinance is adopted in 2016 and takes affect January 1, 2017 • Community outreach and engagement events to hear from stakeholders • Technical advisory meetings to determine how the priorities in the outreach are described and enforced in the code • Prepare a cost effectiveness study for energy code updates • Take finished produce to Policy and Services followed by City Council for two readings DS Peter Pirnejad 100% 75 IN Baylands Interpretive Center Improvements Improvements to aging Center including Boardwalk repair feasibility study, and replacement of Center railing, decking, siding, flooring, cabinetry and doors • Complete Boardwalk Feasibility Study. • Secure funding for boardwalk design and construction and complete design • Complete design development for the Interpretive Center • Obtain environmental and construction permits for the Interpretive Center • Bid out the Interpretive Center project and begin construction. PW Elizabeth 76 IN Matadero Creek Storm Water Pump Station Improvements Capacity upgrade to the Matadero Creek Storm Water Pump Station, an essential element of the storm drain system serving a 1,250-acre watershed area • Complete project design. • Award construction project. • Complete 33% of project construction. PW Joe 20% 77 IN Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course Reconfiguration Complete reconstruction of the Golf Course, including substantial regrading, new irrigation system, and environmental enhancements • Secure regulatory permits. • Award construction contract. • Complete 50% of project construction. PW Joe 33% 78 IN Newell Road/San Francisquito Creek Bridge Replacement Replacement of functionally-obsolete Newell Road bridge over San Francisquito Creek to provide increased creek flow capacity in coordination with the San Francisquto Creek JPA • Circulate draft of project Environmental Impact Report. • Initiate project permitting. • Complete preliminary bridge design. PW Joe 20% 79 BE Sidewalk Repairs Project Continue sidewalk repairs to complete 30 year district cycle leveraging budget doubled per IBRC recommendations Complete sidewalk program assessment to set new program goals and standards. Complete 30-year disctrict cycle including sidewalk repairs in Sidewalk Replacement Districts 25, 32 and 36 PW Holly 1/31/20191:13 PM BE: Built Environment HC : Healthy City CP : Comprehensive Plan IN : Infrastructure O : Other Page 14 2016 Council Priorities ELT MASTER WORK PLAN (January 25, 2016) 2016 PHASE 1 12 BE Adopt New Building Codes with local amendments Every three years cities are required to adopt the new building codes and incorporate local amendments in the process. The new ordinance is adopted in 2016 and takes affect January 1, 2017 • Community outreach and engagement events to hear from stakeholders • Technical advisory meetings to determine how the priorities in the outreach are described and enforced in the code • Prepare a cost effectiveness study for energy code updates • Take finished produce to Policy and Services followed by City Council for two readings DS Peter Pirnejad 100% 80 BE Street Resurfacing Program Continue resurfacing streets to meet average citywide pavement condition index (PCI) score of 85 by 2019 Complete paving of 70 city blocks - includes 18 blocks to finish paving Middlefield and Alma with additional funding over 3 years Complete preventive maintenance of 80 city blocks Continue frequent community outreach Raise citywide PCI score to 82 PW Holly 81 IN Organics Facilities Plan Replace incinerators with new biosolids handling system PW Jamie 82 IN Cubberley Community Center Begin maintenance and planning in accordance with new city/school district lease Begin Master Plan study in collaboration with school district. Complete deferred roof replacements at Wings M and P. Assess other maintenance needs and begin addressing short term items. PW Brad 83 BE Downtown Parking Garage Finalize location, select design concept, begin preliminary design • Return to Council for further policy direction with assistance from Planning PW Matt Planning will be leading the policy discussion 2% 84 BE Highway 101 Pedestrian/Bicyc le Overcrossing at Adobe Creek Select design concept and begin preliminary design for new, year-round Pedestrian/Bicycle Overcrossing • Select a design consultant through a Request for Proposal process by February 2016. • Begin design in March 2016. • Complete development of 65% design documents. • Complete environmental studies and documentation. PW Elizabeth 85 BE Charleston/Arast radero Corridor Project Preliminary design and environmental assessment for the corridor project from Fabian Way to Miranda Avenue Community Outreach on Landscaping Palette Coordinate with Caltrans and JPB/Caltrain Complete NEPA process Develop final design to 65% level PW Holly 40% 86 HC Smoking Ban Restrict smoking in mulitfamily areas and expand area restricting e-cigarettes in area that smoking ban currently exists Community Outreach. Adopt ordinance. Coordinate with County. PW Kirsten 87 CP Recycled Water Initiate RO Feasibility Study and Recycled Water Strategic Planning effort to increase recycled water use within North Santa Clara County Contract with consultant for RO Feasbility Study ; contract with conultant for Recycled Wate Strategic Planning and Groundwater Management Plan; Partner funding agreeements with SCVWD and City of Mountain View PW Karin 1/31/20191:13 PM BE: Built Environment HC : Healthy City CP : Comprehensive Plan IN : Infrastructure O : Other Page 15 2016 Council Priorities ELT MASTER WORK PLAN (January 25, 2016) 2016 PHASE 1 12 BE Adopt New Building Codes with local amendments Every three years cities are required to adopt the new building codes and incorporate local amendments in the process. The new ordinance is adopted in 2016 and takes affect January 1, 2017 • Community outreach and engagement events to hear from stakeholders • Technical advisory meetings to determine how the priorities in the outreach are described and enforced in the code • Prepare a cost effectiveness study for energy code updates • Take finished produce to Policy and Services followed by City Council for two readings DS Peter Pirnejad 100% 88 O Dewatering Address public concerns regarding basement construction dewatering Develop new requirements for basement construction dewatering PW Phil 89 IN Golf Course Reconfiguration Project Redesign and construct the municipal golf course.1. Design new course 2. Obtain permits 3. Issue construction RFP 4. Award Bid 5. Start Construction PWD Joe Teresi CSD: Rob de Geus, Kristen O'Kane, Daren Anderson PWD: Brad Eggleston 50-100% 90 HC Project Safety Net Transition Project Safety Net Community Collaborative to the Collective Impact framework for increased effectiveness. 1. Use the Collective Impact model to develop a roadmap (logic model) to accomplish PSN’s specified goals and objectives for promoting youth well-being and suicide prevention; 2. Work with the City and school district to establish an executive board to provide leadership, guidance and support for PSN’s mission; 3. Create an expert team to develop a shared data collection system, build overall capacity, and facilitate communication and collaboration; 4. Set up a mechanism to elevate, support and measure youth voice within the PSN Community Collaborative leadership and the work of suicide prevention and youth well-being in the community; 5. Evaluate and recommend a fiscal agent for PSN, either the creation of a separate 501c(3) tax exempt organization, or through an established nonprofit agency to serve as a “backbone” organization for PSN. 6. Develop funding plan and participation CSD Mary Gloner CSD Lacee Kortsen; CMO Jim Keene, Claudia Keith 75% 91 BE Second electric transmission interconnection plan development and implementation The new 60kV line would improve the City's transmission service reliability with potential cost savings * Joint evaluation of feasibility studies with SLAC, Stanford and possibly PG&E, DOE and WAPA * Preliminary design of the interconnection plan * Tentative MOA with Stanford and SLAC * Continue to monitor PG&E and CAISO transmission activities UTL Tomm Marshall, Debbie Lloyd 1/31/20191:13 PM BE: Built Environment HC : Healthy City CP : Comprehensive Plan IN : Infrastructure O : Other Page 16 2016 Council Priorities ELT MASTER WORK PLAN (January 25, 2016) 2016 PHASE 1 12 BE Adopt New Building Codes with local amendments Every three years cities are required to adopt the new building codes and incorporate local amendments in the process. The new ordinance is adopted in 2016 and takes affect January 1, 2017 • Community outreach and engagement events to hear from stakeholders • Technical advisory meetings to determine how the priorities in the outreach are described and enforced in the code • Prepare a cost effectiveness study for energy code updates • Take finished produce to Policy and Services followed by City Council for two readings DS Peter Pirnejad 100% 92 BE Customer Information System / Smart Grid The Utility Billing and Smart Grid systems are highly integrated. Smart grid systems enable many alternatives such as the ability to offer time of use rate schedules and other information that promote energy conservation, reduce carbon emission, improve system reliablity and provide real-time customer usage information. * Develop billing system specifications in parallel with City's ERP system * Select vendor and implement new billing system * Develop meter data management specifications * Evaluate advanced meter infrastructure for electric, gas and water UTL Tom Auzenne, Dave Yuan, Shiva Swaminathan 93 BE Fuel Switching / Electrification Evaluate potential electrification programs and incentives for the community to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by replacing the use of natural gas and gasoline with electricity for building appliances and vehicles. * Implement a pilot program for heat pump water heaters in existing homes to determine cost-effectiveness and identify obstacles to installation. * Provide resources to homeowners to convert existing homes to all-electric homes. * Evaluate retail electric rate schedule for home electrification. * Explore building code changes for new constuction and remodeling projects. *Promote installation of EV supply equipment. UTL Jane Ratchye, Aimee Bailey, Shiva Swaminathan Development Services, Sustainability Office 94 BE Construction/ Street Disruption Notifications (Led by others) Implement system for public notice of current and upcoming street construction and other disruptions UTL PWD, DS 95 IN Crossbore Inspection Program Check privately-owned sewer lines to ensure that there are no natural gas lines accidentally crossbored through them *Continue video inspection of customer sewer lines *Remind customers to call City first to verify there are no crossbores before clearing sewer line UTL Dean Batchelor, Robert Item 96 BE Implement the Local Solar Plan to increase local renewable generation Council adopted the Local Solar Plan, which establishes the goal of meeting 4% of the City’s energy needs from local solar by 2023 *Launch community solar program to allow those who wish to access solar energy, but don’t have adequate on-site access. *Develop a solar donation program. *Continue Palo Alto CLEAN program. UTL Jane Ratchye, Aimee Bailey, Lindsay Joye PWD 1/31/20191:13 PM BE: Built Environment HC : Healthy City CP : Comprehensive Plan IN : Infrastructure O : Other Page 17 2016 Council Priorities ELT MASTER WORK PLAN (January 25, 2016) 2016 PHASE 1 12 BE Adopt New Building Codes with local amendments Every three years cities are required to adopt the new building codes and incorporate local amendments in the process. The new ordinance is adopted in 2016 and takes affect January 1, 2017 • Community outreach and engagement events to hear from stakeholders • Technical advisory meetings to determine how the priorities in the outreach are described and enforced in the code • Prepare a cost effectiveness study for energy code updates • Take finished produce to Policy and Services followed by City Council for two readings DS Peter Pirnejad 100% 97 IN Utilities Infrastructure Replacement & Improvement Continue replacement of aging infrastructure on Water, Gas, Wastewater and Electric Utilities *Electric Undergrounding Replacement. *Overhead to Underground Conversion. *Gas Main Replacement. *Water Main Replacement. *Seismic Water System Improvement. *Wastewater Collection System Augmentation. UTL Tomm Marshall, Dean Batchelor 98 IN Recycling Water Facilities Expand the recycled water facility to Stanford Research Park where the largest concentration of customers with irrigation needs exist within the City. *Pursue project funding *Develop Financial/Business Plan *Coordinate with evaluation of alternatives such as indirect and direct potable reuse and potable and nonpotable groundwater use UTL Jane Ratchy, Lena Perkins PWD 99 BE Google Fiber / AT&T Gigapower Provide ubiquitious gigabit-class broadband access to all premises in a competitive marketplace. *CEQA Deterimination *Master Agreement for pole attachments *Master Encroachment agreement for PROW *Cost Recovery agreement UTL Dave Yuan, Tomm Marshall, Jim Fleming, Dean Batchelor ATTY, PWD. IT 1/31/20191:13 PM BE: Built Environment HC : Healthy City CP : Comprehensive Plan IN : Infrastructure O : Other Page 18 2016 Council Priorities ELT MASTER WORK PLAN (January 27, 2016) 2016 Phase 1 COUNCIL PRIORITY PROJECT OUTPUT/OUTCOME 2016 ACTION STEPS DEPT. LEAD COUNCIL RANKING COMMENT 1 CP CP Update Develop world class policy framework to guide City and community decision making to the year 2030. • CAC review and recommendation for all elements. • City Council review of CAC work and direction on key issues. • Draft EIR and responses to comments. (see schedule) PCE 1 Data needed, get EIR on track. 2 CP Downtown CAP Develop and Implement policy and code changes to update the Downtown CAP on Non-Residential square footage • Complete consultant study and outline policy options. • C o u n c i l i n p u t / d i r e c t i o n • Prepare Comp. Plan policy language and code changes. PCE Med Part of 1 3 CP Housing Element Implementation Part I • Consider elimination of sites on San Antonio/S El Camino & replacement with higher densities on existing sites or the addition of new sites (in the Comp Plan process) • Consider code changes to encourage more, smaller units (in the Comp Plan process) • Consider small lot consolidation incentives • Consider TDR program to encourage higher densities in appropriate areas • Encourage/support regional establishment of coordinated shared housing program • Council direction re: sites and programs. • Develop draft ordinance(s) for public input and PTC/Council review PCE Med Part of 1 4 CP Parks, Trails, Open Space & Recreation Master Plan Develop a Parks and Recreation Master Plan to guide future renovations, expansions and improvements • Develop and Prioritize Project and Program Opportunities: Preparation of recommendations; identification of capital projects, needed renovations and other improvements; and prioritization of projects into an implementation timeline of short (5-year), medium (15- year) and long-term (20-year) ranges. • Plan Review and Adoption: Public, Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC), and Council review; and Council approval process to adopt the plan. CSD/PWD Med - ongoing 5 CP Baylands Comprehensive Conservation Plan Comprehensive plan for effective management of the Baylands by balancing ecosystem conservation with recreation and environmental education opportunities. • Develop conservation goals and strategies • Develop recreation goals and strategies • Create and convene a Baylands conservation advisory committee. • Issue RFP; Award Bid; Create project calendar; Conduct public outreach, involve Parks and Rec Commission and Council. CSD Low 6 CP Sustainability and Climate Action Plan (S/CAP) Develop world class goals and strategy to guide next generation sustainability efforts for City and community. Produce comprehensive plan and implementation roadmaps to achieve basic and aggressive greenhouse gas emissions reductions with measures that are technically, financially, legally and socially feasible. Provide findings and recommendations to Council and community. CMO Med Need to scope this work, focus it - publish SCAP, focus implementation COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BE: Built Environment HC : Healthy City CP : Comprehensive Plan IN : Infrastructure O : Other 2016 Council Priorities ELT MASTER WORK PLAN (January 27, 2016) 2016 Phase 1 COUNCIL PRIORITY PROJECT OUTPUT/OUTCOME 2016 ACTION STEPS DEPT. LEAD COUNCIL RANKING COMMENT 7 CP Recycled Water (S/CAP link) Expand recycled water use by imposing recycled water quality by advanced water treatment feasibility study and develop a recycled water strategic planning effort within North Santa Clara County Contract with consultant for RO Feasbility Study ; contract with consultant for Recycled Water Strategic Planning and Groundwater Management Plan; Partner funding agreeements with SCVWD and City of Mountain View; Decide Go/No Go On Recycled Water extension to Research Park PW Med 8 BE Downtown Parking Garage Finalize location, select design concept, begin preliminary design Return to Council for further policy direction with assistance from Planning PW 5 9 BE Parking Access/ Revenue Controls Implement garage technologies based on paid parking study recommendations • Stakeholder input on goals and deletions • Recommendation to Council PCE Med Need to see options 10 BE Next RPP Implementation Implement RPP in the next priority neighborhood • Review applications received (March) and prioritize next RPP district • Work with neighborhood stakeholders to develop program parameters • Prepare a resolution and contract amendments for Council consideration • Implementation PCE 3 Need quick rollout program. Look to redwood city, fast implementation 11 BE Paid Parking Study Analyze parking downtown and consider paid parking alternatives • Establish a stakeholder group • Complete data collection • Analyze issues and opportunities • Present for Council direction • Finalize recommendations PCE Med 12 BE Parking Guidance Systems Implement technologies that make it easier for drivers to find parking. Including Garages • Complete design of parking guidance systems in tandem with wayfinding • Bid construction and award contract & Implementation PCE lo 13 BE Parking Study of Housing Types Prepare a study to ensure adequate parking for housing approved per State Density Bonus law • RFP and Consultant Selection • Data collection • Review draft recommendations and prepare Ordinance PCE lo 14 BE Bike & Pedestrian Plan Implementation Finalize Concept Plan Line work for 23 ongoing bicycle boulevard projects and initiate final design and construction • Complete final design and initiate construction of Churchill Phase I, Maybell, Wilkie, Park, and Bryant Extension • Complete concept plans and secure approvals for Ross, Amarillo- Moreno, Loma Verde, Bryant Update • Coordinate with PW in advance of resurfacing projects for striping changes PCE med Scope it, spread work out so staff can handle other things as well 15 BE Quarry Road Pedestrian & Bicycle Improvements Design and implement pedestrian and bike improvements connecting the Transit Center to SUMC • Award design contract • Complete Design • Bid and award construction contract PCE Lo Outsource this to Stanford? BUILT ENVIRONMENT BE: Built Environment HC : Healthy City CP : Comprehensive Plan IN : Infrastructure O : Other 2016 Council Priorities ELT MASTER WORK PLAN (January 27, 2016) 2016 Phase 1 COUNCIL PRIORITY PROJECT OUTPUT/OUTCOME 2016 ACTION STEPS DEPT. LEAD COUNCIL RANKING COMMENT 16 BE Library Bike Outreach 2 bike repair stations installed, outreach bicycle w/trailer purchased & in use (Bike PALS), safe routes to libraries map completed, training/programs as part of Summer Reading Program Received grant, Nov. 2015; Purchase/installation: May 2016; programs: July, 2016 LIB Lo 17 BE Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Project Preliminary design and environmental assessment for the corridor project from Fabian Way to Miranda Avenue • Community Outreach on Landscaping Palette • Coordinate with Caltrans and JPB/Caltrain • Complete NEPA process • Develop final design to 65% level PW Med 18 BE Embarcadero Road Phase II Design and construct traffic, pedestrian, and bicycle improvements for Embarcadero between El Camino Real and Alma Street • C o n t r a c t A w a r d • Public input and Caltrans Coordination • Conceptual Design Approvals PCE Med 19 BE Geng Road Circulation & Embarcadero Road Parking Study Examine possible circulation improvements and additional parking east of 101 • Complete circulation and parking Study • Develop recommendations for review by PTC and City Council PCE Lo 20 BE Midtown Connector Project Evaluate the feasibility of East-West Bicycle and Pedestrian Connections through Midtown and design preferred options for construction • Contract amendment • Complete feasibility study • Council direction • Complete concept plan line & final design PCE 10 Listen to community, move forward 21 BE Speed Survey Updates Develop new speed surveys to allow for traffic enforcement • Bid and award contract • Conduct surveys • Recommend adjustments to posted speed limits and concurrent safety improvements as needed • Implement desired changes PCE Med 22 BE Traffic Signal Timing Update traffic signal timing where needed • Implement adaptive traffic signal timing along San Antonio Road • Make other adjustments across the City as needed PCE 4 23 BE Shuttle Expansion Expand shuttle service and implement other strategies to increase ridership Determine strategy and form Develop and implement a coordinated design and marketing program to include schedules, stops, vehicles, and the web/mobile aps PCE Lo I'm not convinced we should be investing in shuttles vs Uber/Lyft 24 BE Mobility App or "wallet" along the lines of "MAAS" Explore development of an App to make transportation more convenient • R F P • Consultant selection and data collection • Review draft with stakeholders • Review with PTC and City Council • Build App if feasible PCE Med Incent market 25 BE Review Office & R/D use categories in zoning Review and update definitions of "Office", "R&D", etc. as needed. • PTC work sessions • Public input • Council direction • Prepare Ordinance to make changes. PCE Med High priority is focusing on where we want employment caenters and how large 26 BE Retail Preservation Ordinance (Downtown) Support City Council Consideration of Potential Modifications to Retail Protections in Downtown. • Data collection and analysis of retail trends • Outreach to stakeholders • Return to City Council for direction • Draft one or more ordinances for consideration by the PTC and the City Council PCE 12 Mirror Cal Ave? BE: Built Environment HC : Healthy City CP : Comprehensive Plan IN : Infrastructure O : Other 2016 Council Priorities ELT MASTER WORK PLAN (January 27, 2016) 2016 Phase 1 COUNCIL PRIORITY PROJECT OUTPUT/OUTCOME 2016 ACTION STEPS DEPT. LEAD COUNCIL RANKING COMMENT 27 BE Retail Preservation Ordinance (Cal Ave) followup Support City Council Consideration of Potential Modifications to Retail Protections in the Cal Ave area • Analyze parking requirements. • Analyze retail feasibility on Cambridge • Council direction • Develop revisions to adopted ordinance for consideration. PCE Lo Leave in effect until issues 28 BE Ground Floor Retail Protection (Other Commercial Districts) Evaluate other protections/changes needed to preserve GF retail outside of Downtown and Cal. Ave. • Outreach to stakeholders and property owners • Analysis of issues and alternatives • Council direction • Prepare ordinance for consideration by PTC and CC PCE 3 Reword - need conomic development 29 BE Annual (Land Use) Code Update Undertake an annual review of code interpretations and needed zoning code (clean-up) changes. • Work with the City Attorney to identify needed technical corrections and clarifications • Present an ordinance for consideration by the PTC and the City Council PCE 7 2 phases - early follow up and then 2nd round 30 BE Housing Impact Fee Update Adopt and implement updated impact fees to fund affordable housing. • Present Nexus study and fee recommendations to the Finance Committee. • Consideration of Ordinance by the City Council. PCE Med 31 BE Housing: Second Dwelling units Consider changes in policy and regulations to incentivize additional dwelling units ("granny units"). • PTC direction and data collection. • Analysis of options for consideration. • City Council direction. • Develop ordinance for consideration. PCE Lo Not signficiant source 32 BE Professorville Design Guidelines Complete neighborhood specific design guidelines • Reach out to stakeholders in Professorville regarding the objectives and scope of the work. • Obtain grant funds and retain outside consultant. • Finalize recommendations and agendize for review by the PTC and City Council. PCE Med 33 BE IR Program review Conduct an impartial review of the IR process and recommend any necessary changes. • Develop report based on input from stakeholders • Suggest updates to the guidelines and implementing ordinance as needed • Review guidelines with the PTC & City Council • Prepare and draft ordinance for review with the PTC and City Council PCE 3 34 BE Seismically Vulnerable Building Ordinance Update the inventory of seismically vulnerable buildings and support City Council consideration of an ordinance with priorities and incentives and requirements for addressing hazards. • Update inventory of vulnerable buildings and categorize by construction type and occupancy • Research best practices related to prioritization and model ordinances • City Council check-in • Outreach to property owners and stakeholders • Begin drafting ordinance for review by the City Council DSD 15 BE: Built Environment HC : Healthy City CP : Comprehensive Plan IN : Infrastructure O : Other 2016 Council Priorities ELT MASTER WORK PLAN (January 27, 2016) 2016 Phase 1 COUNCIL PRIORITY PROJECT OUTPUT/OUTCOME 2016 ACTION STEPS DEPT. LEAD COUNCIL RANKING COMMENT 35 BE Sidewalk Repairs Project Continue sidewalk repairs to complete 30 year district cycle leveraging budget doubled per IBRC recommendations • Complete sidewalk program assessment to set new program goals and standards. • Complete 30-year disctrict cycle including sidewalk repairs in Sidewalk Replacement Districts 25, 32 and 36 PW Med 36 BE Street Resurfacing Program Continue resurfacing streets to meet average citywide pavement condition index (PCI) score of 85 by 2019 • Complete paving of 70 city blocks - includes 18 blocks to finish paving Middlefield and Alma with additional funding over 3 years • Complete preventive maintenance of 80 city blocks • Continue frequent community outreach • Raise citywide PCI score to 82 PW Lo Continue as is to reach goal 37 BE Fuel Switching / Electrification Evaluate potential electrification programs and incentives for the community to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by replacing the use of natural gas and gasoline with electricity for building appliances and vehicles. • Implement a pilot program for heat pump water heaters in existing homes to determine cost-effectiveness and identify obstacles to installation. • Provide resources to homeowners to convert existing homes to all- electric homes. • Evaluate retail electric rate schedule for home electrification. • Explore building code changes for new constuction and remodeling projects. • Promote installation of EV supply equipment. UTL/DSD Med Carbon tax - get others to do the work 38 BE Energy Efficency Building Code toward Zero Energy and Carbon Buildings. Develop an Energy Code that focuses on energy efficiency and prepares for the ultimate State goal of developing buildings to be energy neutral • Engage with a multi-stakeholder engagement event that draws opinions & perspectives from experts in the development industry • Incorporate these & other changing state requirements to ensure our code is able to reflect these requirements in clear & enforceable language • Prepare adequate cost effectiveness study to comply with California Energy Commission • City Council Adoption DSD Med 39 BE Dewatering Address public concerns regarding basement construction dewatering Develop new requirements for basement construction dewatering PW 20 40 BE Customer Information System / Smart Grid The Utility Billing and Smart Grid systems are highly integrated. Smart grid systems enable many alternatives such as the ability to offer time of use rate schedules and other information that promote energy conservation, reduce carbon emission, improve system reliablity and provide real-time customer usage information. • Develop billing system specifications in parallel with City's ERP system • Select vendor and implement new billing system • Develop meter data management specifications • Evaluate advanced meter infrastructure for electric, gas and water UTL 22 Private partner, need to hire 41 BE CPI Draft an Ordinance for consideration by the City Council regarding siting and risks associated with plating shops of similar uses. Draft an Ordinance for consideration by the PTC and the City Council PCE Med BE: Built Environment HC : Healthy City CP : Comprehensive Plan IN : Infrastructure O : Other 2016 Council Priorities ELT MASTER WORK PLAN (January 27, 2016) 2016 Phase 1 COUNCIL PRIORITY PROJECT OUTPUT/OUTCOME 2016 ACTION STEPS DEPT. LEAD COUNCIL RANKING COMMENT 42 BE Business Registry Implement phase two of the business registry, deliver key data about businesses in Palo Alto, plan for integration with other permits as phase 3 (subject to Council direction) • Enhance/ Test Upgraded Tool • Launch Renewal Period March 1 • Deliver Upgraded Reports • Plan for integration of other permits to launch in phase 3 CMO 8 Need access to data 43 IN Public Safety Building Project Create a new facility built to Essential Services standards to house Police, 911 Dispatch, Emergency Services, Fire Admin, and the Emergency Operations Center on parking lot C-6 • Hire Construction Management (CM) firm to assist with project. • Hire Architect and begin design development and EIR. • Complete pre-design and schematic design phases. • Begin design development phase. PW 21 Lo council, high implementation 44 IN Fire Station No. 3 Replacement Rebuild Fire Station No.3 at Embarcadero Road and Newell Road • Begin Fire Station and temporary facility design. • Select location for temporary station. • Complete pre-design, schematic design, and design development • Hire construction management firm & begin contractor pre- qualification PW 22 Lo council, high implementation 45 IN Fiber-to-the-Premise Master Plan Assessment Arrive at a Council-directed strategy for Palo Alto's approach to municipal provided fiber-to-the-premise. • Review outside plant build estimates in Master Plan with Citizen Advisory Committee and document discrepancies. • Co-build discussion with Third Parties (GF and AT&T) • Develop “Dig Once” Ordinance • Develop and issue Request for Information (RFI) to explore municipally-owned and public-private partnership models for FTTP • Evaluation of RFI responses • Bring recommendation to City Council on co-build and City partnership options • Dependent on City Council direction, begin planning City fiber deployment ITS 2 Focus and prioritize 46 IN Cubberley Master Plan Begin the Cubberley Master Plan process in collaboration with PAUSD and the community. • Joint statement on committment • Engage the Community in an event at Cubberley begin the public engagement phase of the Master Plan process • Leverage Stanford Design School and other partners in a design thinking challenge for process design • Seek Board of Education and Council agreement on a vision, and essential elements needed in the Master Plan • Prepare a scope services and release an RFP Cubberley Master Plan design CSD 3 Critical to start 47 IN California Ave Parking Garage Create a new parking garage with a retail element on existing surface parking lot C-7 to create at least 150 additional parking stalls and replace parking to be lost by siting the PSB on the adjacent parking lot • Hire Construction Management (CM) firm to assist with project. • Hire Architect and begin design development and EIR. • Complete schematic design and select preferred configuration. PW 4 Critical to start INFRASTRUCTURE BE: Built Environment HC : Healthy City CP : Comprehensive Plan IN : Infrastructure O : Other 2016 Council Priorities ELT MASTER WORK PLAN (January 27, 2016) 2016 Phase 1 COUNCIL PRIORITY PROJECT OUTPUT/OUTCOME 2016 ACTION STEPS DEPT. LEAD COUNCIL RANKING COMMENT 48 IN Baylands Interpretive Center Improvements Improvements to aging Center including Boardwalk repair feasibility study, and replacement of Center railing, decking, siding, flooring, cabinetry and doors • Complete Boardwalk Feasibility Study. • Secure funding for boardwalk design and construction and complete design • Complete design development for the Interpretive Center • Obtain environmental and construction permits for the Interpretive Center • Bid out the Interpretive Center project and begin construction. PW 17 Community desire 49 IN Foothills Park 7.7 Acres Evaluate and recommend to Council use of additional 7.7 acres of dedicated park land added to Foothills Park.. • Complete the Buckeye Creek hydrology study • After the Buckeye Creek hydrology study is completed work with the Parks and Recreation Commission to draft a recommendation for Council on how to use the 7.7 acre • Evaluate the impacts of the recommendation to Council on the Acterra Nursery lease CSD Med 50 BE Construction in the R-O- W Notification Tool Develop a tool that is able to track and prioritize all city related work in the Right of Way. The tool will provide notice to neighbors as well as commuters by showing all related work on a map. The goal is to direct citizens to one map that will track all work in the R-O-W (In the interim, contnue to enhance home webpage notifications) • Prepare a SOW that encompases all the needs of the different departments ; • Go through IT Governance; • Solicit bids and select a vendor; • Enter into contract with the vendor of choise; • Implement the solution that is department agnostic and displays all City Work on one site; • Continue to monitor and implement the solution. DSD/CMO/ITS Lo Private partnership 51 IN Highway 101 Pedestrian/Bicycle Overcrossing at Adobe Creek Select design concept and begin preliminary design for new, year-round Pedestrian/Bicycle Overcrossing • Select a design consultant through a Request for Proposal process by February 2016. • Begin design in March 2016. • Complete development of 65% design documents. • Complete environmental studies and documentation. PW Med 52 IN Golf Course Reconfiguration Complete reconstruction of the Golf Course, including substantial regrading, new irrigation system, and environmental enhancements • Secure regulatory permits. • Award construction contract. • Complete 50% of project construction. PW 11 Nede to get this running again BE: Built Environment HC : Healthy City CP : Comprehensive Plan IN : Infrastructure O : Other 2016 Council Priorities ELT MASTER WORK PLAN (January 27, 2016) 2016 Phase 1 COUNCIL PRIORITY PROJECT OUTPUT/OUTCOME 2016 ACTION STEPS DEPT. LEAD COUNCIL RANKING COMMENT 53 IN Wireless Network Master Plan Assessment Arrive at a Council-directed decision to work with a vendor to provide a broadband wireless support infrastructure for Public Safety and Utilities. • Update citywide wireless network scenarios with 20-year forecasts • Develop cost estimate and fiber backhaul information to expand wireless access in unserved City facilities and retail areas; develop RFP • Issue RFP for dedicated wireless communications for Public Safety and Utilities • Evaluate RFP responses • Bring recommendation to City Council on provider for Public Safety and Utilities wireless • Dependent on City Council, engage vendor on Public Safety and Utilities wireless build ITS Lo After Fiber - stop work 54 IN Ventura Building Improvements Replace or upgrade the mechanical and electrical systems and provide accessibility improvements to the Ventura Community Center facility • Complete ADA assessment of the facility • Hire design firm • Complete pre-design, schematic design, and design development phases • Begin construction documents and apply for permits PW Med 55 IN Second electric transmission interconnection plan The new 60kV line would improve the City's transmission service reliability with potential cost savings/ Alternatives review • Joint evaluation of feasibility studies with SLAC, Stanford and possibly PG&E, DOE and WAPA • Preliminary design of the interconnection plan • Tentative MOA with Stanford and SLAC • Continue to monitor PG&E and CAISO transmission activities UTL Lo Move forward as course of work 56 IN Organics Facilities Plan Replace incinerators with new biosolids handling system • Obtain approval of Dewatering Building from the ARB and the Planning Commission. • Complete 100% design drawings. • Prepare and issue IFB. • Select Contractor and award Contact. • Begin Construction. PW 13 57 IN Newell Road/San Francisquito Creek Bridge Replacement Replacement of functionally-obsolete Newell Road bridge over San Francisquito Creek to provide increased creek flow capacity in coordination with the San Francisquto Creek JPA • Circulate draft of project Environmental Impact Report. • Initiate project permitting. • Complete preliminary bridge design. PW 6 58 IN Matadero Creek Storm Water Pump Station Improvements Capacity upgrade to the Matadero Creek Storm Water Pump Station, an essential element of the storm drain system serving a 1,250-acre watershed area • Complete project design. • Award construction project. • Complete 33% of project construction. PW Med 59 IN Lucie Stern Mechanical & Electrical Upgrades Rehabilitate and improve the existing building systems including fire/life safety components for Lucie Stern Community Center, the Children’s Theater and the Community Theater • Obtain building permits. • Issue invitation for bids to construct the project. • Construct the upgrades while coordinating with existing building users. PW Med BE: Built Environment HC : Healthy City CP : Comprehensive Plan IN : Infrastructure O : Other 2016 Council Priorities ELT MASTER WORK PLAN (January 27, 2016) 2016 Phase 1 COUNCIL PRIORITY PROJECT OUTPUT/OUTCOME 2016 ACTION STEPS DEPT. LEAD COUNCIL RANKING COMMENT 60 IN Junior Museum & Zoo Project Develop an agreement between the Friends of the Junior Museum and Zoo and the City of Palo Alto to rebuild the facility • Complete the design of the new center • Draft a construction agreement for Council consideration. • Complete CEQA requirements. • Complete a draft operating agreement with pro forma reflecting the public private partnership for Council consideration. CSD Med Cubberley planning 61 IN Local Solar Generation Plan Council adopted the Local Solar Plan, which establishes the goal of meeting 4% of the City’s energy needs from local solar by 2023 • Launch community solar program to allow those who wish to access solar energy, but don’t have adequate on-site access. • Develop a solar donation program. • Continue Palo Alto CLEAN program. UTL Med 62 HC Airplane Noise Continue to work with Congresswoman Eshoo's Office, FAA, SFO Roundtable, Neighboring Cities and Sky Posse • Onboard techinical consultant • Work with mentioned groups through mitigation process described in FAA Initiative. CMO 8 63 HC Healthy City Healthy Community Resolution Reconvene the Healthy City Healthy Community working group to advance community health as defined in the Council adopted Healthy City Healthy Community Resolution. • Re-convene a diverse stakeholder group • Meet through-out the year to advance the Healthy Cities Healthy Community 2016 work plan: 1. Create a welcome packet for new residents that orients individuals and families to the many health and wellness opportunities available in Palo Alto; 2. Include Healthy City/Healthy Community goals, policies and programs in the Comprehensive Plan Update; 3. Advance specific and safe Bike/Pedestrian Plan projects; 4. Implement a City of Palo Alto Employee Health and Wellness Initiative; 5. In partnership with the business community, coordinate a forum for local businesses to share and learn about workplace health and wellness best practices and encourage the adoption of similar employee health and wellness initiatives; 6. In partnership with community partners, coordinate an annual Health Fair that promotes community health and wellbeing; 7. In partnership with community partners, establish specific metrics to measure progress CSD Lo Value vs priority - scope and monitor staff time. HEALTHY CITY, HEALTH COMMUNITY BE: Built Environment HC : Healthy City CP : Comprehensive Plan IN : Infrastructure O : Other 2016 Council Priorities ELT MASTER WORK PLAN (January 27, 2016) 2016 Phase 1 COUNCIL PRIORITY PROJECT OUTPUT/OUTCOME 2016 ACTION STEPS DEPT. LEAD COUNCIL RANKING COMMENT 64 HC Project Safety Net Transition Project Safety Net Community Collaborative to the Collective Impact framework for increased effectiveness. • Use the Collective Impact model to develop a roadmap (logic model) to accomplish PSN’s specified goals and objectives for promoting youth well-being and suicide prevention; • Work with the City and school district to establish an executive board to provide leadership, guidance and support for PSN’s mission; • Create an expert team to develop a shared data collection system, build overall capacity, and facilitate communication and collaboration; • Set up a mechanism to elevate, support and measure youth voice within the PSN Community Collaborative leadership and the work of suicide prevention and youth well-being in the community; • Evaluate and recommend a fiscal agent for PSN, either the creation of a separate 501c(3) tax exempt organization, or through an established nonprofit agency to serve as a “backbone” organization for PSN. • Develop funding plan and participation CSD 6 Critical year, get it going right 65 HC Homeless Services Strategic alignment and investment in regional efforts to support the unhoused. Formulate options and recommendations on advancing Palo Alto's involvement CSD 19 Need to make progress 66 HC Smoking Ban Restrict smoking in mulitfamily areas and expand area restricting e-cigarettes in area that smoking ban currently exists • Community Outreach • Adopt ordinance • Coordinate with County PW Med 67 HC New Americans Project newly-arrived residents will learn library functions,use,and be oriented to community ESL discussion groups began in 2015; outreach to community stakeholders/coordination of activities to be strengthened in 2016 LIB Lo 68 HC Fire & Rescue - Community Risk Reduction Identify opportunities to reduce community risk, especially in high risk populations (over age 65, under age 13) FIRE Lo 69 O Neighborhood Engagement Implement recommendations of Colleagues Memo dated 4/20/15 expanding engagement with neighborhood associations. 1) Update Co-Sponsorship Agreement; 2) meeting with neighborhood leaders, to further discuss development of the City’s Neighborhood Engagement initiative, including association definition, support models, communication, conflict resolution, ombudsman concept, City’s website and social media for neighborhoods. 3) Schedule 2016 Town Halls CMO 24 Continue Hiring Updates OTHER BE: Built Environment HC : Healthy City CP : Comprehensive Plan IN : Infrastructure O : Other 2016 Council Priorities ELT MASTER WORK PLAN (January 27, 2016) 2016 Phase 1 COUNCIL PRIORITY PROJECT OUTPUT/OUTCOME 2016 ACTION STEPS DEPT. LEAD COUNCIL RANKING COMMENT Train 8 Employment Center density 2 BE: Built Environment HC : Healthy City CP : Comprehensive Plan IN : Infrastructure O : Other City of Palo Alto (ID # 10036) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 2/2/2019 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Palo Alto City Council Retreat - 2019 Council Priorities Title: Palo Alto City Council Retreat - 2019 Council Priorities From: City Manager Lead Department: City Manager Recommendation Staff recommends Council discuss and consider selection of 2019 Council Priorities. Background Attached to this report is the 2012 Council-approved Priority Setting Guidelines (Attachment A). Per the 2012 Council approved guidelines; a priority is defined as a topic that will receive particular, unusual and significant attention during the year. Additionally, there is a goal of no more than three priorities per year and they generally have a three-year time limit. The process outlined in Attachment A was established by Council several years ago, including the role of the Policy & Services (P&S) Committee. The 2018 priorities were: •Transportation •Housing •Budget and Finance (create an infrastructure funding plan) •Grade Separation (choose preferred alternative by end of the year) See Attachment A for the Council priorities for the past 5 years. Discussion On January 14, 2019, the City Council was asked to forward their ideas for 2019 priorities. The feedback received indicated Council generally supports carrying over the 2018 priorities for 2019 in similar form. While the City made substantial progress on the 2018 priorities, as will be seen in the 2018 Year in Review Presentation, each of the 2018 priorities remain very relevant and will require special attention in 2019. Even though the 2018 priorities will continue to be very important during the year ahead, #2 City of Palo Alto Page 2 Council also shared ideas for possible other priorities for discussion, and they are summarized below: - Redevelopment of Cubberley (2 Council members mentioned this one) - Business Tax (2 Council members mentioned this one) - Human/community services - Ventura Neighborhood - Cubberley Community plan and funding - Code Enforcement - Fiscal strength - Broadband In addition, each year staff invites online suggestions from the public. On January 14, 2019, the City posted the question, “What are the priorities you would like to see the City Council adopt for 2019?” to its Open City Hall online civic engagement site to solicit input and feedback from the community. As of January 29, 2019 450 individuals had visited the site and 285 individuals posted responses (Attachment C). Among the frequent public responses were airplane noise and transportation concerns; comments on transportation ranged from traffic, parking, public transit and regional transportation planning. Also included were a significant number of comments to include equity and inclusion with gender equality being mentioned numerous times. Affordable housing and rent control were also themes along with Rail grade separation and the environment and sustainability. Consistent with last year, the Council’s retreat agenda enables consideration of greater specificity to its priorities, e.g. sub-bullets, outcomes, milestones, and key performance indicators. Should the Council decide to set specific goals for the year, it may be appropriate for staff to develop work plans to achieve these goals and return for subsequent Council review and approval. In 2018, for example, the Council set a specific goal of selecting a preferred rail grade separation alternative by the end of the year. While community engagement on this topic remains ongoing, this goal enabled staff to organize work and stakeholder involvement based on this stated City goal. It is often said that goals should be SMART: Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant, and Time-based. These dimensions may assist in framing Council discussion of any specific goals for 2019. Attachments: • Council Priorities 2013 to 2018 • Community Feedback - 2019 Council Priorities Council Priorities History 2018: Transportation Housing Budget and Finance (create an infrastructure funding plan) Grade Separation (choose preferred alternative by end of year) 2017: Transportation Housing Infrastructure Healthy City, Healthy Community Budget and Finance 2016: The Built Environment: Housing, Parking, Livability, and Mobility Infrastructure Healthy City, Healthy Community Completion of the Comprehensive Plan 2015-2030 Update 2015: The Built Environment: Multi-modal transportation, parking and livability Infrastructure Strategy and Implementation Healthy City, Healthy Community Completion of the Comprehensive Plan update with increased focus from Council 2014: Comprehensive planning and action on land use and transportation: The Built Environment, Transportation, Mobility, Parking and Livability Infrastructure Strategy and Funding Technology and the Connected City 2013: The Future of Downtown and California Avenue: Urban Design, Transportation, Parking, and Livability Infrastructure Strategy and Funding Technology and the Connected City 1 | www.opentownhall.com/7130 Created with OpenGov | January 29, 2019, 2:42 PM 2019 City Council Priorities January 29, 2019, 2:42 PM Contents i.Summary of registered statements 2 ii.Individual registered statements 3 Summary Of Registered Statements As of January 29, 2019, 2:42 PM, this forum had:Topic Start Attendees:450 January 14, 2019, 9:34 PM Registered Statements:189 Hours of Public Comment:14.3 2 | www.opentownhall.com/7130 Created with OpenGov | January 29, 2019, 2:42 PM 2019 City Council Priorities What are the priorities you would like to see the City Council adopt for 2019? Individual Registered Statements Name not shown in Midtown/ Midtown West January 16, 2019, 9:28 AM Ordinance against car dwelling Jared Bernstein in University South January 16, 2019, 9:29 AM First: Housing. We need more dense housing near trains and on El Camino. Second: Trains go into a trench please. Bill Fitch in Evergreen Park January 16, 2019, 9:39 AM I agree with Jared. Housing first, trench if affordable Sue Dinwiddie in Duveneck/ St Francis January 16, 2019, 9:43 AM I think the top priorities for the city for 2019 should be 1. Traffic gridlock and inadequate public transportation 2. Railroad grade separations 3. Over development of offices downtown and at California Avenue 4. Parking 5. Housing Name not shown outside Palo Alto January 16, 2019, 9:52 AM The climate crisis is accelerating. Being a carbon neutral city (mitigation) and preparing for climate impacts (adaptation) should be highest priorities (fire, floods, drought, water supply, sea level rise, urban forest, etc. ). Improved regional transportation systems for biking, walking and transit should be third priority (also supports mitigation and quality of life). Jim Poppy in Old Palo Alto January 16, 2019, 9:58 AM Code Enforcement was voted down as a priority last year and remains woefully inadequate. Castilleja School's CUP allows them "5 major events" per year, and they now have over 100 events a year plus summer camp. It would be easy to enforce the CUP but The City has turned a blind eye, providing Castilleja with highly preferential treatment over the years, started with the gifting of part of Melville Ave back in the 1990s. The City has never said NO to their requests and they have systematically and intentionally violated their CUP by adding events. Name not shown in Greenmeadow January 16, 2019, 9:59 AM Airplane noise Name not shown in Greenmeadow January 16, 2019, 10:09 AM Permanent city-owned homes that can be used by city workers vs. a stipend for a home. Those opting to live elsewhere could be given the amount that we rent out that house for as an alternative. Then as housing costs grow, we will not have to pay increasing costs, while losing the value of the money spent. Pensions for city workers that are more moderate. Any pension is going to help a retiree extend their savings, but to continue anything near their wage seems outlandish, unsustainable, and short sighted in terms of budgeting. And it increases resentment towards those with pensions. Pensions are good, but should not be nearly as high as the salaries people got when showing up for 3 | www.opentownhall.com/7130 Created with OpenGov | January 29, 2019, 2:42 PM 2019 City Council Priorities What are the priorities you would like to see the City Council adopt for 2019? work daily. We pay high salaries, and workers have some obligation to save, pay down their house, etc. Retirement. I met a city librarian who was working part- time. In her (I think mid-) 50's, she realized if she retired, she'd make as much as if she continued to work part-time--I believe she said her retirement was based on full-time despite her only working part-time. So she retired. Not only was her part-time job going to allow a full-time based retirement, but she was apparently covered for all of most of her healthcare for life, along w/a spouse and any dependent children. This story is likely not a perfect recap, but I believe it's close and if more people realized this, I believe citizens would be quite upset at how city workers are paid, long- run. Perhaps this and other issues could be resolved by giving these decisions to independent boards made up of accountants, citizens, & others that don't have to answer to fellow city workers or city council members. The current system seems to allow more salary increases, benefits that are unsustainable, and more, because of the incenstual and dependent relationships between the parties that would have to approve changes. Offering some of the under-used property on large city- owned properties under lease arrangements. Allow local businesses to lock in their rental/owning space costs by building their own businesses and future legacies, with a time cap. Much like Stanford and the Queen, these properties would eventually revert to the city, meaning as cost grow, the city would get short term income without inputting any money--the buildings could be owned and built by the 'tenant'--while maintaining the city's lands for possible future use or income. This could be a huge help to local businesses that are be driven out by soaring rents, while simultaneously helping the city, long run. Use some of this land to build city-owned & managed housing for city workers who stay in the area. As rental only, the housing stock would be permanent. Incentivizing Stanford to build a research housing area for seniors, where current homeowners could transition from their single-family homes, without having to leave their hometown. If it was done correctly, it could be a big draw, an exciting and comfortable place to live independently, with continuous care options, and great access to resources both in town and on campus. This would allow Stanford to study aging, allow the seniors to have a mix of exposure to people of different ages, be less isolated, be exposed to education & cultural opportunities, social lives, while freeing up homes for new working families with children in the neighborhoods. It could become a model community for aging adults, an opportunity for Stanford to lead on the topic of aging well in America, and so much more. Name not shown in Charleston Terrace January 16, 2019, 10:45 AM 1. Traffic. Please apply some common sense solutions to mitigate choke points during commute hours. For example, the three traffic lights in close proximity on Embarcadero between Paly-Town&Country-El Camino is a mess at high commute times. My kids go to Paly and I am grateful for attempts to keep them safe crossing the street, but the current situation is a mess. Consider eliminating the eastern most light in favor of using the existing bike/pedestrian path of the overpass. 2. Budget & Finance. Ensure the city is on a sound financial footing long term without looming un-funded pension obligations. Eric Seedman in Southgate January 16, 2019, 11:01 AM 1. Grade crossings 2. Code enforcement Karen Price in College Terrace January 16, 2019, 11:18 AM 4 | www.opentownhall.com/7130 Created with OpenGov | January 29, 2019, 2:42 PM 2019 City Council Priorities What are the priorities you would like to see the City Council adopt for 2019? While affordable housing and sensible rent control are extremely important, I feel the biggest priority is overdevelopment of large office buildings in the Calif Ave area and downtown. This contributes in great part to traffic and parking congestion, lack of community, and escalating the housing/jobs imbalance. Please leave the few remaining "older" smaller office buildings for self employed professionals such as myself and for generations to come who will happily serve the community as I have for over 40 years while renting both residential and commercial. Karen Price College Terrace and California Ave Name not shown in Barron Park January 16, 2019, 11:33 AM In order to reduce local traffic it is necessary to incentivize the opening of a substantial grocery store in the Barron Park area. It is ridiculous to keep building more and more housing for more and more people with no place nearby to shop for food and other necessities. Crossing the railroad tracks is not a safe long term option. Nor is driving miles up and down massively crowded El Camino. Spas and juice bars next to the trailor park do not count as needed retail nor do the few little shops and coffee houses in the area. Your priority is to provide walkable neighborhoods for less cars on the road. Ronald Hodges in Midtown/ Midtown West January 16, 2019, 2:34 PM Transportation - Raise the speed limit on Middlefield south of Colorado to a reasonable level (e.g. 30 mph or maybe 35 mph south of Loma Verde) and ENFORCE it with speeding tickets. It is nerve-wracking to enter Middlefield from our complex's underground parking with cars passing at 35+ mph. Cancel the "improvements" to the bike boulevards on Bryant St. and elsewhere. They are safe as is. I object to having bulb-outs force me at 12 mph on my bike into car traffic going 25 mph or greater. Name not shown in Charleston Terrace January 16, 2019, 2:34 PM My requests are to focus on the following: 1. Please enact (stricter?) regulations that prevent RVs, oversized vehicles, and vans with trailers from parking all over city streets for multiple days. These have become free living places, and while I understand that Palo Alto is an expensive city to live in, these RVs are causing traffic problems (blind spots that make seeing other cars and pedestrians difficult and too narrow roadways. There are some trailers up on blocks that are obviously not being moved, and other vans and trailers such as the multiple vehicles/trailers/motorcycles on Acacia Avenue that are owned by a single gentleman, that are taking up parking space for tax-paying residents and business patrons. I've also seen jugs of gasoline being stored in these vans and trailers, which is a safety hazard. (There are plenty of services that folks living in these RVs and vans can utilize for assistance.) 2. Please increase traffic enforcement. Moving up to 1.5 full-time enforcement personnel in 2018 was a great first step. Much more enforcement is needed particularly for moving violations because people have become accustomed to there being no enforcement in Palo Alto. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to communicate our wishes. Name not shown in College Terrace January 16, 2019, 2:48 PM The City had a large city wide meeting on traffic but it is not one of the four items you mention. Perhaps the City meeting itself was the solution. Also quality of life is not mentioned, although it often comes up in discussions as an important priority. Thank you maurice druzin in Crescent Park January 16, 2019, 3:14 PM I would recommend that affordable housing be top of the 5 | www.opentownhall.com/7130 Created with OpenGov | January 29, 2019, 2:42 PM 2019 City Council Priorities What are the priorities you would like to see the City Council adopt for 2019? list. It is depressing to see the lines of RVs parked on El Camino and spilling over to other areas of Palo Alto. Name not shown in Leland Manor/ Garland January 16, 2019, 3:24 PM No more road diets, no more bollards that impede traffic flow. Get rid of Cool Blocks which is a waste of money sand triplicates current efforts. Stop treating Palo Alto Forward like it's part of government. Get out of ABAG and the MTA. I'm tired of paying commuters to over-run us. Name not shown in Duveneck/ St Francis January 16, 2019, 3:28 PM Hi, I would really like to see Palo Alto develop more bike routes that are separated from automobile traffic via physical barriers. Even if the barrier is a line of parked cars (some cities have swapped bike lanes with curb-side parking row so that parked cars separate the bike lane from the regular traffic lane). So much safer than a line of paint. Given our weather, we will have many more families biking around if hey felt safer. Ken Joye in Ventura January 16, 2019, 3:32 PM reduce jobs:housing imbalance promote affordable housing (low income + missing middle) address climate change (promote transportation other than single occupancy auto trips) NVCAP mitigations Name not shown in Midtown/ Midtown West January 16, 2019, 4:20 PM Revert some of the extreme measures of the bike blvd installations. like the roundabouts and the narrowed Louis Rd. I still observe dangerous behaviors or close call at those locations from time to time. Name not shown in Crescent Park January 16, 2019, 4:39 PM Dear honorable city council members, Please bring back effective enforcement for the ban on gas-powered leaf blowers. I have worked at home for many years and am now retired, and the blowers significantly lower our quality of life. I used to thrive on spending time in my garden, which was an essential stress-reliever for me and brought much peace and serenity. Now I rarely garden anymore, or even enjoy going out into my yard because of the frequent noise of the blowers. This is a big loss to me, and I can't plan on when I can have peace and quiet in my yard. As a result of my avoiding the noise and so neglecting my yard, someone (probably a neighbor whom I had asked not to have his gardeners use gas blowers) reported me for a code violation about the plants along the street strip in front of our house. So I had to go out and weed and prune while the blowers blasted with impunity. That didn't feel fair at all. I've talked to neighbors, and made reports on 311 many times, but it seems to have made little difference. All four of my family members have asthma, and the particulates in the air don't help. The gas fumes are also noxious. I understand that gas blowers are one of the worst causes of air pollution, and I urge you to lower Palo Alto's carbon footprint by effectively enforcing the ban. It worked quite well when there was the phone line where Oscar, and before him, Stephanie(?) took reports and then issued warnings and tickets. I think the ticket should be way higher, such as $300 for a first offense so the gardeners have financial incentive to use alternatives. I also request that violators be cited by police officers (or whoever cites them) by actively looking for them, as opposed to going by a complaint-only system. I also recommend a buy-back/exchange program so gardeners can turn in gas blowers for electric blowers, brooms and rakes. That would help support them in using quieter, greener alternatives in a positive and supportive way. Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. 6 | www.opentownhall.com/7130 Created with OpenGov | January 29, 2019, 2:42 PM 2019 City Council Priorities What are the priorities you would like to see the City Council adopt for 2019? Name not shown in University South January 16, 2019, 4:49 PM In the area of transportation I would like to see sufficient resources allocated to the Downtown Residential Preferential Program (RPP) such that the program can be managed as it was intended, namely to distribute non- resident parking permits equally throughout Zones 1-8 and within each zone. At the current time there are a number of blocks within the zones immediately adjacent to the Downtown area that are often fully parked throughout workweek. Not only is this not in keeping with with original intent of the program, it is unfair to those residents whose neighborhoods are so impacted. While this unfortunate situation could be remedied relatively easily without significant additional cost or resources (e.g. by simply creating sub-zones within the affected neighborhoods) to date staff has shown no interest in addressing this issue. Carol Kersten in College Terrace January 16, 2019, 5:19 PM A big concern I believe we should all have is preparing for next year’s fire season. Disturbing articles have appeared stating that the same thing that happened with the Camp fire could happen in Palo Alto. I recommend an individual or a task force identify steps we can take to minimize fire danger (e.g. removing brush in the Santa Cruz mountains and other related areas, perhaps by bringing in herds of goats etc.) It would devastate us all if a similar fire occurred here. Thank you. Carol Name not shown in Green Acres January 16, 2019, 5:34 PM Highest priority is to address the housing/jobs inbalance. Yes, housing needs to be added, but we also need to stop job growth, to get us down from the 3:1 ratio of jobs to housing. Note, I didn't say 'slow' job growth, I really think it should be stopped. No new businesses. In the downtown and CA street areas, as restaurants/retailers decide to close shop, replace them with 'like' businesses with the same number of potential employees. Growth is not always a good thing. I also think that as Stanford expands, it needs to add housing and schools to support 100% all new employees and their families. No additional city commuting for the new Stanford employees - they live, work, shop on Stanford land. Almost as if Stanford was it's own city, isolated from Palo Alto Name not shown in Downtown North January 16, 2019, 6:39 PM I would like to see the city council establish a maximum population number for the city. A number that can not be exceeded due to the adverse effects on quality of life to existing residents. I believe we are already at that number. Further I think there should be no more addition of any job producing business since we can't house the people here. Also this city is over 100 acres behind on the urban park space that is called for in the comprehensive plan for our population and no more people should be added until this deficit is fixed. Lastly, I want our elected officials to defy any state laws that exceed our zoning, density, height or parking laws, rather than accede to them. And I expect them to sue the state government in court for usurping local government control of a sovereign city if the state tries to impose them. Name not shown in Fairmeadow January 16, 2019, 7:16 PM 2019 Priorities: 1) Rein in the budget: Too much money has been promised on pensions in the past and it is time to be fiscally responsible. 2) Save the students: City should work with PAUSD to ensure our children get the proper educational and mental support and have a warm and caring environment to learn. Ensure that the kids do not have to cross the train tracks every day. We have had enough suicides for a few lifetimes, and need to solve the grade separation problem now. 7 | www.opentownhall.com/7130 Created with OpenGov | January 29, 2019, 2:42 PM 2019 City Council Priorities What are the priorities you would like to see the City Council adopt for 2019? 3) Promote housing upgrades: Abolish the Individual Review process and remove archaic guidelines that are used by neighborhood bullies to promote hate and waste unnecessary taxpayers money. Simplify the code and allow all residents to build to their FAR without review. This will improve the Quality of Life in Palo Alto for thousands of residents who paid millions of dollars for poor quality and broken down houses and then get hamstrung by the city's processes. It is time to align the city policies with California law. Hamilton Hitchings in Duveneck/ St Francis January 16, 2019, 9:23 PM 1) Infrastructure - move full speed ahead on infrastructure especially the Public Safety Building and California Garage. 2) Transportation - spend money wisely to maximize reduction of single occupancy car trips without negative impacts of poorly designed projects like Ross Road Bike Boulevard. Require all new buildings to full mitigate their increased traffic impact. 3) Housing - support housing projects for those with 80% or lower local median income and stop developer upzoning that does not support this. Also, put the teeth back in the office cap to support housing and reducing the jobs/housing imbalance. 4) Balanced budget and reduce unfunded pension liability Name not shown in Green Acres January 16, 2019, 9:30 PM My top priority is elimination of intrusive airplane noise Virginia Smedberg in Old Palo Alto January 16, 2019, 10:45 PM Transportation and Housing are inter-related and need to be considered together! If people can afford to live here they won't have to commute. If we insist that new buildings (all kinds - residential and business) include appropriate quantities of parking spaces, others won't take up parking spaces that residents need. Frankie Farhat in Green Acres January 16, 2019, 10:47 PM Thank you for giving us the opportunity to make suggestions - Airplane noise. We need to find a way to give a voice to the Palo Alto residents. We are the city with the highest noise impact since the FAA came up with the Nextgen route changes and we are stuck between SJC and SFO. Yet, we are not represented on any of their roundtables or any key organizations discussing about airplane noise. How easy it must be SJC and SFO to dump all the noise over our heads while we are kept voiceless! - Reduce spending. The level of taxes is getting too high. The city needs to do their work intelligently and cut their own costs, not come up with a new tax idea every time they come up with a new project idea. I am sure you will find a lot of wasted tax money if you look just a little bit. If you want to do a new project, do it so that it does not increase our overall taxes. It is even better if it lowers them. Name not shown in Community Center January 17, 2019, 8:20 AM Keeping the affordable rental housing the city already has. The city is overlooking the take over of apartment buildings for commercial purposes and tear down of rental housing and outrageous rent increases that put the city further behind on the goal of providing affordable housing. KEEP THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING WE ALREADY HAVE. Ralph Levine in College Terrace January 17, 2019, 10:00 AM I would like at least annual updates on the "fiber to the home/neighborhood/or something project." I would have liked the Council's discussion of Verizon's use of utility poles to include discussion of the inevitable requests from other cell phone carriers. I thought that at a minimum Verizon should have been required to place the equipment underground for those areas that were not in flood zones or constrained by storm-drain channels or trees. 8 | www.opentownhall.com/7130 Created with OpenGov | January 29, 2019, 2:42 PM 2019 City Council Priorities What are the priorities you would like to see the City Council adopt for 2019? I want to thank Council members for the time they spend in their service to the city. Name not shown in Midtown/ Midtown West January 17, 2019, 11:20 AM Sound pollution. Airplanes. “We are the city with the highest noise impact since the FAA came up with the Nextgen route changes and we are stuck between SJC and SFO. Yet, we are not represented on any of their roundtables/key organizations discussing airplane noise. How ironic => SJC/SFO dumping all the jet noise over our heads while we are kept” noiseless. Blowers. You passed it. Enforce it. ‘Nough said. Traffic No more jobs. Which also means no more office buildings. Direct staff to look at how much office space has been/or is in process of being created in Palo Alto since 2015. You will see direct correlation to traffic snarls, calls for housing, PAUSD class size woes. No more housing. Stop. Just. Stop. Affordable housing when land is at a premium is a myth. Remove the horrific bike “boulevard” mistakes. Did anyone ever figure out why the mocked up round-about @ Amarillo/Greer ended up deemed “not possible” by city staff when those road dimensions are similar to ones installed (Moreno/Ross, E. Meadow/Ross)? Reason = resident outrage. Guess what? We’re still raging. Change the default state of the traffic light @ E. Meadow/Waverly from red to green except during school transit hours. Climate change => the desire to preserve gas used to regain momentum after stopping here @ 11 p.m. Eliminating the Eastern-most traffic signal on Embarcadero @ PALY light in favor of using the existing bike/pedestrian path of the overpass. Cityscape Ordinance against car dwelling. If council is gutless on this front, empower city resident volunteers w/ an online platform used to upload photos of each vehicle they cite each in their neighborhood w/ a tax citation equivalent to the hotel occupancy tax rate. Trench the trains. Per ARB recommendation, require all cel providers (not just Verizon) to underground their equipment. Eliminate power poles. Finalize realize what was promised years ago to underground power lines. “Provide annual updates on fiber.” Integrity Abide your own rules. How is it the city can cut down 34 protected redwoods when it wants to build it’s own infrastructure but prohibits a resident to do likewise? To describe the Ross Rd. bike fiasco as a “boulevard” was/is a lie that appealed to resident’s understanding of Bryant. It is not a boulevard. It is a collection of road furniture that uses cyclist to slow traffic. It doesn’t solve any problem. It creates problems. Once again, South Palo Alto bears the brunt of the experiment while North Palo Alto, for the moment, remains unscathed. Name not shown in Crescent Park January 17, 2019, 4:01 PM Infrastructure: Move forward as quickly as possible with the construction of the new Public Safety Headquarters building. Spend funds to repave roads that are heavily traveled and that really need it (i.e., 700 block Channing), rather than small back alleys that are only traversed by a few residents (see Whitman Ct.) Traffic: Stop spending exorbitant sums on so-called bicycle improvement projects. The streets are for the most part fine as they are. If you want to enhance safety for cyclists, make them share the road safely by adhering to the requirements of the Vehicle Code. Get rid of the pedestrian light at Paly, synchronize the signals at T&C and Emb/ECR. Increase the size of the Police Department's traffic team. Housing: Stop acting like we're in a contest with neighboring cities to see who is building the most, or their "fair share", of housing. We are overbuilt, and setting arbitrary or artificial numbers of new units per year is a politically-correct move that sounds good but ignores the reality set by the market. We are not Mt. View or Redwood City or Menlo Park or Atherton or Los Altos. These communities, like ours, have their own unique characters. If we want Palo Alto to just blend in to be a part of one single homogenous metropolitan area then fine, keep on building apartment complexes up and down El Camino and anywhere else you can fit them. But I think we should resist efforts by the state legislature and/or other regional bodies to take away our ability to set our own zoning regulations; such issues should remain within the purview 9 | www.opentownhall.com/7130 Created with OpenGov | January 29, 2019, 2:42 PM 2019 City Council Priorities What are the priorities you would like to see the City Council adopt for 2019? of locally elected councils. We should not be forced by others who do not live here to take measures that impact our quality of life or change the character of our community. Development: I agree with those who say that enough is enough. The city council needs to learn to just say no to developers. Let's pause and take a breath, rather than continue to race forward with the approval of more and larger development projects. We also need to recognize that each proposed project is different; evaluate each on its merits, use common sense, and then decide whether the proposal enhances our community or will do damage. And don't cave to hard-ball playing developers who threaten to sue the city if they don't get their way. I say tell them to "bring it", and let's see where the chips land. Name not shown outside Palo Alto January 17, 2019, 8:58 PM Thank you for giving us the opportunity to make suggestions - Airplane noise. We need to find a way to give a voice to the Palo Alto residents. We are the city with the highest noise impact since the FAA came up with the Nextgen route changes and we are stuck between SJC and SFO. Yet, we are not represented on any of their roundtables or any key organizations discussing airplane noise. How easy it must be SJC and SFO to dump all the noise over our heads while we are kept voiceless! Palo Alto needs to make this issue a priority and invest the time necessary to resolve this ongoing problem for all residents. Patrick Ye in College Terrace January 17, 2019, 10:49 PM For me (and most likely also for people my age), HOUSING is the most important issue. The high cost of rent, the difficulty of finding a place within a reasonable budget, and the sheer unaffordability of owning a home in Palo Alto (and the surrounding area) is a source of stress for me as a young professional. I can't imagine how difficult it must be for young families to live anything close to a financially secure life here. I would like to see more residential development, using urban planning principles to minimize vehicle traffic (i.e. denser housing near transit, schools, workplaces, shops). I think multiunit housing for young families should be among the types of housing prioritized. Also, there seems to be a systemic underproduction of housing units year after year, so I wonder if residential development rules could be relaxed and/or incentives put in place to encourage more housing construction. I read some of the other statements, and there are a number of people opposed to residential development. I understand their concerns about denser housing potentially negatively impacting their quality of life (e.g. traffic, more crowded schools). First, there are ways to minimize these negative effects with smart urban planning so that we can maintain Palo Alto’s high quality of life that we all appreciate. Secondly, I feel that opposing residential development inherently excludes a swath of our community from living in Palo Alto, e.g. teachers, doctors, police officers, etc who otherwise can't afford to live here. These people and their families are just as important (if not among the most important) to our community; why should they be forced to commute in from Santa Cruz / East Bay / Central Valley? Interestingly, I think this housing crisis is a man-made problem; we are where we are today because of previous policy choices. The good news is that citizens and the city can fix this problem! My hope is that Palo Alto can be part of a housing solution so that all members of the community can avoid financial stress and call Palo Alto their home. Nathan Szajnberg in Greenmeadow January 18, 2019, 10:37 AM Please , Please, carefully review finances and projected expenses including pension obligations. And publicize this. We are concerned that decisions are being pressed for matters like railroad crossings (at huge costs) that don't take into account education or housing or infrastructure, let alone realistic budgeting. We are particularly concerned about future pension obligations. We would particularly like to see a decrease in real estate taxes, particularly for older residents. Nathan Szajnberg M. D. and Yikun Wu, Ph.D. 10 | www.opentownhall.com/7130 Created with OpenGov | January 29, 2019, 2:42 PM 2019 City Council Priorities What are the priorities you would like to see the City Council adopt for 2019? Name not shown in University South January 18, 2019, 11:41 AM Please support transportation projects that incentivize and promote alternative modes of transportation (walking, biking, shuttles) to make it easier and safer for people choose alternatives to single rider car trips. jason matlof in Old Palo Alto January 18, 2019, 12:27 PM Our 2019 priorities should start with finishing our 2018 priorities - namely completion of research and Council commitment to optimal grade separation solutions to meet the the imminent challenges presented by rail electrification that will occur in two short years from now. Rail electrification and grade separation are the biggest infrastructure challenges to face Palo Alto in 100 years, and it will only be exacerbated if Stanford is allowed to pursue further development of another 6 million square feet of development. Current Council progress is delayed and there is currently no substantial research or resource commitment by City Staff or consultants to any grade separation options [or improvements to existing grade separated intersections] for the entire 2.5-mile stretch of rail between Oregon Expressway and Menlo Park. We need action now to prepare for rail electrification and imminent gridlock of our roadways. In addition to the good research and solutions being pursued for South Palo Alto, we need to commit immediately to research the traffic impacts, financial costs and construction impacts of solutions that: - Will resolve the existing traffic capacity bottlenecks at Embarcadero Road underpass, which will get dramatically worse; - Ensure equal or greater capacity north through Palo Alto Avenue; and - Resolve ancillary traffic problems that feed into this network, including pedestrian/bike safety at Palo Alto H.S., protected turning signals between Embarcadero and Alma Road; etcetera. Please do not move onto other priorities until we have resolved this hundred-year infrastructure crisis. Name not shown in College Terrace January 18, 2019, 1:08 PM Please make aircraft noise at least one of the top four priorities for the city this coming year, along with housing, transportation and parking. As a long-time resident I know first-hand what a terrible impact this issue has had on quality of life. Aircraft need to fly at higher altitudes over the city, as they did in the past, and use the space over the bay for landing approaches to reduce noise pollution and disruption to residents. In March it will be fully SIX years since the NextGen program was rolled out and we need to make more progress towards resolving this issue! Name not shown in Ventura January 18, 2019, 6:41 PM Housing and transportation. We need higher-density housing throughout Palo Alto. Single-family residences are insufficient for the population density here, and so we should remove height-limits and build as tall as we can. Apartments, condos, townhomes, etc. should all be built as much as possible. Likewise, existing transportation is vastly insufficient. We should be prioritizing grade separation in Palo Alto, while simultaneously figuring out how we can have high-throughput east/west service, where Caltrain doesn't serve. (Extending VTA lightrail, or BART, are logical options being considered in Mt View in North Bayshore already.) Name not shown in Old Palo Alto January 19, 2019, 5:56 AM Our 2019 priorities should start with finishing our 2018 priorities - namely completion of research and Council commitment to optimal grade separation solutions to meet the the imminent challenges presented by rail electrification that will occur in two short years from now. Rail electrification and grade separation are the biggest infrastructure challenges to face Palo Alto in 100 years, and it will only be exacerbated if Stanford is allowed to 11 | www.opentownhall.com/7130 Created with OpenGov | January 29, 2019, 2:42 PM 2019 City Council Priorities What are the priorities you would like to see the City Council adopt for 2019? pursue further development of another 6 million square feet of development. Current Council progress is delayed and there is currently no substantial research or resource commitment by City Staff or consultants to any grade separation options [or improvements to existing grade separated intersections] for the entire 2.5-mile stretch of rail between Oregon Expressway and Menlo Park. We need action now to prepare for rail electrification and imminent gridlock of our roadways !! In addition, we need to commit immediately to research the traffic impacts, financial costs and construction impacts of solutions that: - Will resolve the existing traffic capacity bottlenecks at Embarcadero Road underpass, which will get dramatically worse; - Ensure equal or greater capacity north through Palo Alto Avenue; and - Resolve ancillary traffic problems that feed into this network, including pedestrian/bike safety at Palo Alto H.S., protected turning signals between Embarcadero and Alma Road; eccetera. Please do not move onto other priorities until we have resolved this hundred-year infrastructure crisis. Thank You Name not shown in Old Palo Alto January 19, 2019, 2:03 PM I would urge that city council adopt finalizing rail grade separation options for study and execution as soon as possible in 2019 as number one priority for this coming year. 2018 saw us miss our deadline of narrowing to options with the rail grade separation project. Caltrain continues their inexorable march towards electrification and the ultimate doubling of trains down our tracks during peak hours. They are still on track to do this in 3-4 years. We are way behind our own estimated 10 year schedule of implementing grade separation solutions across Palo Alto. If we started today, we would still have 6-7 years of pain (ie. "red zone") when construction was in progress and rail crossings are closed during peak hours, causing numerous traffic snarls across the City, as well as danger to our students who need to cross the tracks to get to school. The longer we delay, the longer that period of pain extends, to a maximum of 10 years, assuming our construction estimates are even accurate. Our community should not be subjected to this pain for that additional 3 years if we have the power to affect that! This year, the City of Palo Alto must throw the majority of our resources towards completing this project and if need be, engage external resources like consultants to help take up the slack where current resources need support. This rail grade separation project is the largest infrastructure project Palo Alto has ever faced. It also stands to affect all residents of our city with severe negative impact in the short term. We need to get this project defined and approved, and on track as soon as possible and without further delays. Name not shown outside Palo Alto January 20, 2019, 8:40 AM Please consider adding objectionable, intrusive jet noise to your 2019 list of objectives. Jennifer Landesmann in Crescent Park January 20, 2019, 8:53 AM 1) Please give reducing AIRPLANE NOISE significant attention in 2019. Your leadership is necessary to stop SFO, SJC, OAK using Palo Alto for their highly profitable capacity expansions and related noise dumping. Expected "growth" at SFO alone is 2-3 % BUT when the number of SFO operations *declined* in 2014, this was accompanied by an exponential amount of SFO operations and noise over Palo Alto. "Growth" at 2-3 % which results in exponential (200-300% more) noise over Palo Alto is not growth - it's dumping in areas that were not meant to be airport industrial dumping grounds. Over 20 neighborhoods in Palo Alto got hit by this disaster in 2014 (noise + droppings of partially burn jet fuel). What the City experiences every day must be a priority - especially when our environment is threatened by health hazards from airplane noise. See the landmark study by Columbia University school of Public Health https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6121545 / The Columbia study is of just ONE flight path. Palo Alto has 12 | www.opentownhall.com/7130 Created with OpenGov | January 29, 2019, 2:42 PM 2019 City Council Priorities What are the priorities you would like to see the City Council adopt for 2019? three major flight paths from SFO landings and other impacts from San Jose and Oakland noise, converging over the City. Council you need to make NOISE! (a lot of noise) and do everything in your power to ensure that FAA does not violate federal statutes to protect the environment which IF even moderately followed (instead of abused) could help construct a path to address noise and emissions concerns. There is also regional work that the community entered into in good faith with an FAA Initiative to address noise concerns since 2014 , but affected communities are not being treated fairly at this point. Council, you cannot help fix this by being quiet about it, you need to make it visible and clear that you care. 2) Protect the schools. Regarding Stanford development, car traffic, maintaining neighborhood safety and the health costs to families from airplane noise. Youth, and families is crucial to give significant attention to. 3) Protect people's health and SLEEP. Night Noise from from giant airplanes overflying Palo Alto at lower and lower altitudes is particularly harmful because of low frequency noise that goes through walls and bones. Name not shown outside Palo Alto January 20, 2019, 9:40 AM Airplane noise. Airplane noise. Airplane noise. Stepheny McGraw in Palo Verde January 20, 2019, 9:41 AM We need to work with surrounding cities, counties and most importantly -- corporations -- for regional solutions to transportation, housing and jet noise overhead. Denser housing is no more a solution than denser traffic. Not everyone who wants to live in Palo Alto can or should -- denser housing ruins the quality of life for all. Instead, we should look at regional partnerships for housing with Google, Facebook and such, much as Microsoft has forged in Seattle. Why haven't we been asking for their cooperation and financial support as yet? Finally, if we get a handle on the traffic and housing problems, the rail grade separation -- which should be kicked down the road -- will fall into place with our overall plan for infrastructure improvement. Name not shown in Community Center January 20, 2019, 9:44 AM Please, please, let's get some action on reducing airplane noise. It's just not right that 30 years after buying our home we find ourselves directly under a busy flight path. Two excellent first steps would be leaning on the Airbus 3xx planes to implement the wing changes that will stop their super-whiney noise; and getting the late-night flights (especially the 74x flights) to take a different route into SFO given that there are no late-night flights arriving from the East Coast (i.e., air traffic control should be simplified). Please, please work with other cities to have a large, unified voice so that Palo Alto isn't a small or ignored input to the SFO roundtable. PLEASE. Thanks! Name not shown in Charleston Terrace January 20, 2019, 10:32 AM Fix the insane airplane noise problem! Loud planes go overhead almost 24 hours a day making it impossible to sit outside or leave windows open. They interrupt sleep. They interfere with conversations. Some planes fly so low, we can almost pass drinks to the passengers. Apart from the unacceptable noise, if one of those planes has an accident or engine failure, there is a high probability it will crash in a populated area. It's time our City Council did something to fix this. Name not shown in Crescent Park January 20, 2019, 11:27 AM Top four priorities are the same I submitted last year and have only worsened rather than improved. #1 STOP the incessant airplane noise that degrades quality of life in Palo Alto, interrupts sleep and increases stress! #2 Alleviate the constant gridlock and traffic congestion that has diminished safety for us all. #3 STOP the commercial development until the city can figure out traffic and 13 | www.opentownhall.com/7130 Created with OpenGov | January 29, 2019, 2:42 PM 2019 City Council Priorities What are the priorities you would like to see the City Council adopt for 2019? housing and infrastructure that is sustainable. Finally, FIX the Pope-Chaucer bridge situation that increases the likelihood of flooding our neighborhood! Name not shown outside Palo Alto January 20, 2019, 11:49 AM Reducing airplane noise over Palo Alto, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills neighborhoods is very important to our children's mental & physical health. Name not shown in Midtown/ Midtown West January 20, 2019, 12:01 PM My top priorities for the City Council for 2019 1. Improved flood prevention 2. Reduced pension liabilities 3. Reduced airplane noise SAMUEL Pearl in Barron Park January 20, 2019, 12:24 PM Please help reduce the devastating jet noise that has been ever present over Palo Alto since 2014 secondary to the Nexgen FAA Satellite landing system. Thank you. Sam and Leslie Pearl Karen P in Duveneck/ St Francis January 20, 2019, 12:59 PM My main issue impacting health and quality of life is jet noise/emissions. The city needs to make up for failing to act in prior years -- fight the FAA and SFO/SJC, joining with other affected cities when possible and on its own when necessary. If there was fairness in the skies, Palo Alto would be a pretty darn nice place to live. Scott Kilner in Leland Manor/ Garland January 20, 2019, 3:45 PM Dear City Council Members and Staff: During the coming year, I would like the Council to make the continuing severe problem of aircraft overflight noise a high priority. I recognize that solutions to this plague lie primarily with the FAA and Federal Government. However, local and regional authorities must continue to make their voices heard in pressing the FAA for positive action. I very much hope that Palo Alto will work closely and aggressively with other affected Bay Area communities to present a united front toward Washington. Sincerely, Scott Kilner Leland Manor Rod Miller in Crescent Park January 20, 2019, 9:29 PM What, don't any of you go outside in a residential area? If you did you would realize the incredible disturbance EVERY FIVE MINUTES or less caused by a noisy airliner 24/7. Are you aware that over the last five years AT LEAST 7,500,000 noise complaints have been filed via the app StopNoise.jet. 7,500,000! 7,500,000!! If the well being of Palo Altans is important to this should bother you a lot. In my opinion this is more important than traffic because it affects the entire residential area of the city 24/7 whereas traffic is mostly a temporary annoyance that can be planned around to minimize impact on trips. Please put this high on your list of priorities! OK, how did I come up with 7,500,000? Number or complaints per day times number of days per year times number of years. From the stopnoise.jet app, 5000 approximates the number of complaints per day, I used 300 days per year to simplify the arithmetic, and 5 years. 5000 X 300 X 5 = 7,500,000. A more realistic number of days per year of 360 gives a total of 9,000,000!!!!! Name not shown 14 | www.opentownhall.com/7130 Created with OpenGov | January 29, 2019, 2:42 PM 2019 City Council Priorities What are the priorities you would like to see the City Council adopt for 2019? in Crescent Park January 20, 2019, 10:24 PM I am woken up EVERY night from the super loud airplane noise. Sometimes I feel shaking because the planes fly so low right above my house. This has been affecting my health, and causing emotional distress. Something must be done about this! Thank you. Ann Yu in Leland Manor/ Garland January 20, 2019, 11:36 PM We just moved to Palo Alto and have immediately been impacted by the airplane noise, which occurs approx. 2-3 min daily. While outside with our daughter, we can barely hear each other in conversation and the noise is the first thing we wake to in the morning. I did a search on airplane noise in the area and learned of the rerouting from the FAA of planes flying mainly through Palo Alto. I would appreciate this being a concern to address for the community as it impacts not only our health but our children's health. Name not shown in Evergreen Park January 21, 2019, 10:27 AM (1) Housing crisis! I have lived in Palo Alto since 2016. I experience the impacts of the lack of housing personally, but luckily have enough good luck that I have the means to live here -- albeit in not so great housing stock -- as a renter. But every day, wherever I am here, I see those who are not so fortunate, who are struggling; and every day, I see the negative impacts in their indirect effects, when it's seeing someone forced to commute from hours away, etc... Palo Alto needs more housing, it needs more density, and it needs more mixed use and transit / transportation oriented development, in order to help the environment, the traffic, the people, and so on. Can there be better fine tuning of other things? Sure. But mostly... more housing. Get Stanford to build more. Get others to build more. Remove parking requirements (but do more to discourage cars). Stop doing so much to subsidize or enforce low density. (December actions a good start). I don't know all the best policy levers, but, do whatever you can; if you don't, anything vibrant about Palo Alto will keep dying and withering. Palo Alto should not have more expensive housing (and in some cases it seems land!) than Manhattan, but it does, thanks to poor choices. Let's not keep making them. Certainly, all of this needs to be done with good urban planning, and forethought, but it is not acceptable for people within the community to block others in the way that they seem to feel entitled. I live here; why is my quality of life less important than someone else's? The attitude from one commenter, who writes "Not everyone who wants to live in Palo Alto can or should" shows just how insane this has become. Denser housing actually fixes quite a lot of problems. Complain about traffic? Well, make things walkable. Concerned about the climate? Denser housing is more efficient. Care about schools? Maybe with denser housing, teachers could actually live here. This is really the #1 through #10 issue for me about life here. For those who 'won the lottery' and have lived here as homeowners for a long time -- you may be happy with your home price appreciation, but if you don't do something, even at the expense potentially of home values, the future of this place and its surroundings will be strangled. SPUR's "Future Scenarios for the Bay Area" gives an interesting window that helps explain just the consequences of the path we're on; I recommend a read. BTW fine with workers here; offices are not the problem. Lack of housing is the problem. Just use the office space rules however as a way to get more housing or other improvements; force mixed use projects, force bike lanes, whatever. (2) Transportation Transportation and housing can't really be separated, but, it's hugely important to think about. Transit in the city is not great, but doesn't have to; although the Bay Area is a patchwork quilt of county and city and all manner of agency mess, Palo Alto can still think through its challenges holistically and try to double down more on bike lanes (PROTECTED bike lanes too), on access to transport, and so on. Don't let NIMBYism stop bike lanes. Put in more! More roundabouts (if thoughtful), which are good for safety. Bike Boulevards are great. Slower speeds and more enforcement. More room for pedestrians. Less parking for cars. More e-bikes or shared dockless vehicles, but well 15 | www.opentownhall.com/7130 Created with OpenGov | January 29, 2019, 2:42 PM 2019 City Council Priorities What are the priorities you would like to see the City Council adopt for 2019? governed (the weather here is perfect for them). Again, whatever it takes to help meet climate goals, get people out of cars, and change how things work. Some people will not be happy. I might not even be happy all the time. But you gotta make change and progress here. Also, the El Camino 'grand boulevard' stuff -- has been waiting and waiting and waiting for decade(s). Let's get it going. (3) Rail Grade Separation Basically, use this as a good opportunity to help with [1] and [2]. [4] Airplane Noise -- *not* an issue (for me at least -- just one report) I have never had any issues with airplane noise, and not just at home. I have been all throughout Palo Alto at different times of day, car, bike, walking; never had any issues. Down by the baylands... no issue. Over in the hills... nope. Down by the highway... well, yes, noise from *cars*. So on. I am sure that it is a real issue for some people, reading the comments, but I just wanted to write to say that I completely have no issues with regards to airplane noise. Not writing it off as a problem for some, but I don't know whether the subset of people who have particular issues, may be over-represented on these messages. (5) Housing Yep, housing again. Name not shown in Greenmeadow January 21, 2019, 10:47 AM The incessant noise from air traffic has diminished our quality of life in Palo Alto to a very significant degree. It is time for the city to prioritize reduction of the noise and work more diligently with the FAA and all other relevant agencies. Please place air traffic noise at the top of your list of priorities for the city; it's long overdue. Name not shown in Ventura January 21, 2019, 3:52 PM Reduction of the airplane noise and air pollution daily bombarding Palo Alto should be the #1 priority of its City Council in 2019. The excessive, incessant (all hours of the day and night!) sound and air pollution caused by low- flying air traffic routed over our community continues to negatively impact our physical and mental health. Please, make this your highest priority issue in 2019! Name not shown in Midtown/ Midtown West January 21, 2019, 7:05 PM I would like the City Council to continue to address the Jet Noise pollution over Palo Alto. We have been subjected to Jet Noise for over 4 years now with no resolution in sight. This is a major factor in reducing the quality of life in Palo Alto. Thanks for your support. Name not shown in Midtown/ Midtown West January 21, 2019, 7:23 PM 1. Stop terrible airplane noise. 2. Make biking safer for Paly high school kids around Churchill and Alma intersection. Currently, it’s unsafe. Name not shown in Green Acres January 21, 2019, 9:41 PM The City has to address the issue of airplane noise over Palo Alto asap. This issue has been neglected for too long with no improvement. Please make this is a priority in 2019. Ken Horowitz in University Park January 22, 2019, 12:24 PM Healthy Cities, Health Communities needs to go back on the list of priorities That includes Project Safety Net which promotes youth well being and mental health Also working with Santa Clara County Public Health Department to promote healthy practices 16 | www.opentownhall.com/7130 Created with OpenGov | January 29, 2019, 2:42 PM 2019 City Council Priorities What are the priorities you would like to see the City Council adopt for 2019? including reducing sugar consumption. The City Council should have initiated in 2016 a soda tax similar to that passed by residents in Berkeley, Oakland, and San Francisco. Hopefully, there will be a statewide ballot measure in 2020 which the City Council will support enthusiastically Jeff Hoel in Midtown/ Midtown West January 22, 2019, 12:45 PM I propose that one of the City's priorities for 2019 be to make progress on deploying a citywide municipal fiber-to- the-premises (FTTP) network in Palo Alto. I'm not saying that citywide municipal FTTP is more important than, say, Council's 2018 priorities. But I am saying that the City would work on Transportation, Housing, Budget & Finance, and Rail Grade Separation whether or not Council picked them as official priorities. For Council members who need a reminder of why citywide municipal FTTP has become a necessity, I recommend reading Susan Crawford's new book, "Fiber: The Coming Tech Revolution -- And Why America Might Miss It." Our national strategy of leaving FTTP to an essentially unregulated "free market" of the private-sector telecom incumbents has resulted in internet service that is slower, less reliable, and more expensive than internet service in many other nations. Trump's FCC has done away with the net neutrality rules adopted during the Obama administration. But we really need net neutrality. It's not rocket science. There are 216 municipal FTTP networks in the U.S. -- and counting. On 09-28-15, Council Member Burt estimated (back-of- the-envelope) that City residents and businesses could save $10 million per year if the City had citywide municipal FTTP. Isn't that worth doing something about? Crawford dedicates her book to "scrappy cities." Palo Alto needs to become a scrappy city. Name not shown in Barron Park January 22, 2019, 5:51 PM Please continue to work for the reduction of airplane noise. It is unforgiveably intrusive during the day, and it becomes positively unhealthy at night. It is impossible to sleep with airplanes frequently screaming overhead after 10:00 pm. Also, please continue to work on traffic amelioration issues. Name not shown in Midtown/ Midtown West January 22, 2019, 6:01 PM Eliminating commercial aircraft noise over Palo Alto sky is extremely important for me. Midtown Resident L. David Baron in University Park January 22, 2019, 6:28 PM (1) Work to address the crisis-level housing shortage in the Bay Area. This is a region-wide problem, but Palo Alto should set an example by doing more than its share, rather than the less-than-its-share that every Bay Area city is currently doing. This means allowing substantially denser development in some areas; I think the best areas to do this are downtown and California Avenue. Many of the existing (lovely) residential buildings downtown (e.g., around Forest and Gilman) are many times denser than what the zoning law allows today. New buildings like these, and somewhat denser still, should again be allowed in Palo Alto. To meet Governor Newsom's goal of 3.5 million housing units by 2025, the Bay Area should probably build 1.5 million of those (a little more than its share by population, given its strong economy relative to the rest of California), and within that Palo Alto (which is about 1% of the Bay Area's population) should be looking at building 15,000 new housing units by 2025, or perhaps a bit more (say, 20,000 to 25,000) given that (a) our proximity to good transit means development in Palo Alto is far better for the environment than development further out and (b) the history of zoning being used as an exclusionary policy. This is the reasonable result of breaking down housing goals that are needed to address the current shortage, and it requires substantial changes to zoning in Palo Alto. This is critical for the future of our economy (where many 17 | www.opentownhall.com/7130 Created with OpenGov | January 29, 2019, 2:42 PM 2019 City Council Priorities What are the priorities you would like to see the City Council adopt for 2019? industries, and also two-career families spread across different industries, depend on large agglomerations of people) and for the environment (where denser housing is substantially better for the environment due to reduced costs of transportation and climate control). (2) work to deal with grade separation which is necessary for Caltrain modernization (and BART-like service on the Caltrain corridor, which should be a medium-to-long-term goal) and for CAHSR running down the peninsula (which I support, since we should have more transport by long distance trains so we can have fewer airplanes, also important for the environment in the long term). I'd also support the comment on fiber-to-the-premises made by Jeff Hoel, although I think it's a lower priority than the above. I'll note that I'm not that concerned about airplane noise other than the occasional older-model 747 coming over (e.g., the Korean Air cargo flight that comes in from LAX a little after midnight). I'm much more concerned about noise from motorcycles, trucks, and loud cars. Kerry Yarkin in Midtown/ Midtown West January 23, 2019, 7:33 AM Airplane Noise. It is time to stop writing letters to the FAA. Make the legal case! Stand up for your citizens and fight for clean and quiet skies which we had 2014(and before),before the takeover of our skies by SFO,FAA, and powerful lobbyist/Corporate interests. You are our representatives, do your job. Name not shown in Midtown/ Midtown West January 23, 2019, 2:36 PM Airplane Noise continues to have a negative impact on our quality of life. I can only assume as it worsens that it will also impact the value of our homes. It is not fair that the FAA can unilaterally decide to put an airplane super- highway over our houses. We need to fight back and roll- back this change. Please consider legal action, not just being complacent with being on a committee. This is a very high priority for me and my family. Name not shown in Barron Park January 23, 2019, 3:35 PM For several years now several major areas of the city have been plagued with noise from low flying commercial aircraft at all times of the day and night. To date nothing has been done to address this except by private groups in the community who have single handedly been trying to resolve these issues. Hopefully with the new board of supervisors attention and pressure on federal groups can be made finally. Other cities in other states have gotten this resolved but not Palo Alto. The residents of Palo Alto have to continually keep stepping up to the table to prove there is a problem. As on many other issues, we are supposed to carry the burden to get something done. Name not shown in University Park January 23, 2019, 7:39 PM Please continue to work to address the housing shortages in the bay area. Slight increases in the allowed density, especially near caltrain stops and major retail districts (University ave and Cal Ave), would be extremely helpful without causing major disruption to the general shape and feeling of the broader Palo Alto community. Name not shown in Crescent Park January 23, 2019, 9:05 PM Please keep the downtown Cap in place. Do not add to the congestion and parking problems by authorizing more office construction. Please address the parking and traffic problems that exist throughout the city. Please establish somewhere for small businesses to find space. Currently they are outpriced in terms of affordable rental space due to the superior resources of financial services and hi tech companies. Jere King in Barron Park January 24, 2019, 8:42 AM 18 | www.opentownhall.com/7130 Created with OpenGov | January 29, 2019, 2:42 PM 2019 City Council Priorities What are the priorities you would like to see the City Council adopt for 2019? 1. Affordable Housing 2. The Changing Demographic in Palo Alto's Population & Its Implications 3. Our Schools (including learning how to thrive with Stanford University and other private institutions) 4. The Mental Health and Wellness of Our Citizens (especially children through young adults) Name not shown in Palo Verde January 24, 2019, 9:28 AM Please select a viaduct for the train because it is the least disruptive and most cost effective alternative. Name not shown in Barron Park January 24, 2019, 9:29 AM El Camino traffic as well the surface of the road is closing in on being a disaster. Red light runners, large potholes, going 3 miles from south Palo Alto to downtown takes 10 minutes longer from 6 years ago almost anytime of day. Read about Highrise buildings' topped with a patio can be considered Open Space as a mitigation for the developer. If this is true; it is a shameful direction to consider. Name not shown in University South January 24, 2019, 9:39 AM Palo Alto employees retirement should be via 401k instead of via pensions beginning with new employees Tom McCalmont outside Palo Alto January 24, 2019, 12:02 PM Palo Alto should prioritize housing #1. The situation has simply become untenable. Our neighborhoods have changed to the point that only the rich can afford to live here. Teachers, police officers, firefighters, retail clerks can no longer afford to live in our city and must commute in every day. This is one reason transportation has become such a challenge, so we won't solve the transportation problem until we address the housing crisis. Mountain View has done such a better job than we have of developing a variety of mixed use housing that includes apartments, townhouses, condos, and single-family homes. A secondary priority should be resolving the grade crossing issue quickly so that we can take advantage of available federal and state funds before the deadlines run out. Council has been needlessly dithering on this issue. We may need to close Churchill and E. Meadow to afford the trenching and upgrades necessary at Charleston, Embarcadero, and University. But that would be a good tradeoff with the least objectionable impacts to local residents in the Churchill and Meadow neighborhoods and would not require eminent domain seizing of anyone's residence. Susan Thomsen in Duveneck/ St Francis January 24, 2019, 12:41 PM You have heard from me before and I am beginning to sound like a broken record, but the quality of my life has been impacted greatly by the constant airplanes flying over our house and neighborhood as we are right under the NextGen airplane freeway. There is no escape day or night unless we get away from this toxic environment which we now do more frequently as a result of the airplane noise. I appreciate the work that you have done in the past, but so far there has been no change. I implore you to put REDUCING AIRPLANE NOISE and pollution at the top of your priority list for 2019. With it our city is not healthy! Name not shown in Greenmeadow January 24, 2019, 12:45 PM My top priorities for the city are, in order: 1. Climate-friendly policies and utilities (even if it costs more) 2. Fiscal soundness (esp pensions) 3. Cap office development (prefer none) 4. Resolve the train issue 5. Reduce airplane noise 19 | www.opentownhall.com/7130 Created with OpenGov | January 29, 2019, 2:42 PM 2019 City Council Priorities What are the priorities you would like to see the City Council adopt for 2019? Steve Bisset in Crescent Park January 24, 2019, 1:13 PM Stop all growth in jobs headcount, in all of Palo Alto, immediately and permanently. Not slow growth, not a moratorium, but a permanent cap at the current level. Growth in jobs defeats all of our efforts to improve the jobs/housing imbalance, traffic, parking, infrastructure, etc. There is zero benefit to adding office space and jobs, except to those who profit directly. All of the impacts on the community are negative, so why approve even one more expansion? Yes, a cap on office space will cause companies to move jobs elsewhere as they succeed and exceed our office capacity. That's healthy. It will preserve Palo Alto's unique value as a center for innovation, by continually opening up office space for startups and by maintaining our innovation culture and focus. It's OK to replace buildings with better ones that have the same employee headcount, or to trade headcount reductions in one Palo Alto location for increases in another Palo Alto location. Name not shown in Crescent Park January 24, 2019, 2:41 PM 1. Stop job growth until there has been real improvement in the jobs/housing imbalance, traffic and parking. When there is an imbalance in the supply and demand, for Palo Alto, I would like to see first a decrease of the supply in job head count. 2. jet noise 3. low income housing along El Camino. Name not shown in Midtown/ Midtown West January 24, 2019, 4:50 PM - Limitations on new office construction - Retain excellence of Palo Alto schools - Limit growth of Palo Alto Name not shown outside Palo Alto January 24, 2019, 5:23 PM Work with other Bay Area cities to challenge CASA and all the regional mandates it supports, e.g., SB50. We must retain local control. - Stop all new office construction. - Convert office/commercial zones to housing. - Protect R1 communities. Julie O'Grady in Community Center January 24, 2019, 8:55 PM Please be sure to discuss Gender Equality during your offsite. It is critical that Palo Alto is one of the California cities that leads the way and efforts for equality. I'd like this to be one of your top of mind priorities for 2019. Since last year it took several months for the City Council even to discuss the Human Relations Commission recommendations before another year goes by I'd like to see a Gender Equality Task Force set up to provide a gender analysis of City operations. Let's look at gender inequalities within Palo Alto and empower people to address the issues. I'd like to see residents, experts, and employee and community stakeholders included in this Task Force. I would think the Council would welcome the opportunity to move forward with this priority as it makes a huge statement about our forward-thinking and inclusiveness in our community. I would like to see Palo Alto become a CEDAW City (Convention to Eliminate All Forms of Discrimination Against Women). Why not lead by example? Name not shown in Duveneck/ St Francis 20 | www.opentownhall.com/7130 Created with OpenGov | January 29, 2019, 2:42 PM 2019 City Council Priorities What are the priorities you would like to see the City Council adopt for 2019? January 24, 2019, 8:57 PM Grade Separation is our top priority for the coming year. Becoming a CEDAW city so we can analyze our gender balance in City governance and administration really needs to happen this year, though it doesn't need to take up a lot of time. It's not exciting or sexy work, but it is vital to ensure that our City government is truly representative. Name not shown in Palo Verde January 24, 2019, 9:02 PM Please make Gender Equality a top City priority, by: 1) make Palo Alto a CEDAW City by establishing a Gender Equality Task Force charged with conducting a gender analysis of City operations. 2) Support Castilleja (with their programs, and development plans) so that more girls can benefit from a high-quality, empowering Education. Name not shown in Midtown/ Midtown West January 24, 2019, 9:16 PM we desperately need affordable housing for our teachers, policeman, and middle income people. we also need to do something about the traffic and the congestion. Name not shown in Old Palo Alto January 25, 2019, 12:30 AM Please make GENDER EQUALITY one of Palo Alto City Council's priorities for 2019. This is a very important topic for our city and future generations. Thank you. Zoe Mount in Midtown/ Midtown West January 25, 2019, 7:23 AM Please make CEDAW a priority-- 13 months is long enough for Palo Alto to be sitting on its hands about this important issue! Name not shown in Old Palo Alto January 25, 2019, 9:38 AM Two Priorities: 1) IMPROVE QUALITY OF LIFE FOR CURRENT RESIDENTS: -Only approve development proposals that are guaranteed NOT to make traffic worse than it already is -Allow people to park in front of their own homes. Implement RPP proposals in a timely fashion -No ugly and potentially dangerous cell towers near residents' homes -Enforce existing code -Implement some type of pulse survey to quickly and easily solicit input from residents on controversial or major decisions and act consistent with the majority wishes 2) ENSURE FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY -Spend a LOT less money in areas that aren't critical to residents, ensuring full transparency and appropriate debate on big ticket items. When in doubt, use pulse survey (e.g., if most residents would be upset about spending the money, don't do it). -Solicit help from citizens on issues that are important but where city resources are limited (e.g., allow them to donate time, money, and/or ideas) Darlene Yaplee in University South January 25, 2019, 11:29 AM Thank you for the sustained efforts and resolve to address the airplane noise problem by Council and Staff. 2019 is expected to be an active year such as: the December FAA Update next steps, GBAS plans and new South Bay Roundtable. We look forward to your engagement with Citizens, neighboring Cities, the FAA, Congressional members, and Airplane Roundtables to further mitigate the airplane noise experienced by the community. 21 | www.opentownhall.com/7130 Created with OpenGov | January 29, 2019, 2:42 PM 2019 City Council Priorities What are the priorities you would like to see the City Council adopt for 2019? Name not shown in Community Center January 25, 2019, 11:30 AM So I think High speed rail should be fought with every fiber of the city's being - it's really going to ruin a large portion of Palo Alto, was basically a total lie as it was voted on by the population at a significantly lower price level and is quickly becoming as big a joke as the bridge to nowhere in Alaska - Nationally famous as a boondoggle. Traffic is very important - there seems to be serious problems whenever the dumbarton backs up. More accountability for when Developers break rules. Name not shown in Crescent Park January 25, 2019, 11:44 AM Traffic is completely out of hand, and has been for FAR too long!! Specifically, University avenue and nearby parallel arteries (some days it's bumper to bumper on University Ave. from Guinda to 101 starting at about 2:30 or 3:00 pm). We live on University, and some days it takes us 30 mins (!!!) to get to our driveway when we're less than a mile away. We've even had to park a few blocks away and walk to our house on days when it's really bad. The traffic is also hindering our daughter's ability to get to/from school, and often times feels unsafe. This is completely unacceptable and infuriating, especially considering what we pay in property taxes. Also, the amount of constuction going on throughout the city is staggering and a significant inconvenience. It seems one can't go two blocks in any direction in Palo Alto without coming across a construction site, with construction vehicles littering, and often clogging, the streets. Prime example is the Zuckerberg construction project. This is on my daughter's route to school, and just about every day we are stopped at the site due to construction vehicles manuevering and blocking the road at Hamilton Avenue. Thank you for your consideration and I'm confident, with the new makeup of the council, that something will finally get done. Name not shown outside Palo Alto January 25, 2019, 11:45 AM Better bike safety and crossings for school going children on Embarcadero (especially Greer and Embarcadero cross section that serves one elementary school Duveneck and middle school Greene). Promote Gender Equality in pay and culture in businesses in Palo Alto. Respectful, cohesive and inclusive culture for girls growing up in schools and colleges in Palo Alto. Dana Tom in Crescent Park January 25, 2019, 1:02 PM Please make Gender Equality one of our city's priorities. There have been countless reminders in the last year that our society has work to do on this issue. Thank you. Helen Young in Palo Verde January 25, 2019, 1:42 PM Gender equity was not a priority for the Palo Alto City Council last year, and it took from February until October for the Council to vote to accept the Palo Alto HRC recommendation that Palo Alto enact an ordinance establishing a body to do a gender analysis in the city, based on the principles of the UN Convention for the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). The Council sent the HRC recommendation to committee for further study. Let’s make gender equity a priority, move steadily forward and make Palo Alto a true CEDAW city! Name not shown outside Palo Alto January 25, 2019, 2:41 PM A top priority for the City Council in 2019 should be advancing equality, especially gender equity. The City Council has the opportunity to move forward on this extremely relevant issue with help from the community; many groups and organizations are available to help design and implement the Gender Analysis necessary to identify our strengths and where we can improve. It is about transparency and fairness, and it behooves the City of Palo Alto to take a leadership role to make the city a CEDAW 22 | www.opentownhall.com/7130 Created with OpenGov | January 29, 2019, 2:42 PM 2019 City Council Priorities What are the priorities you would like to see the City Council adopt for 2019? City! Name not shown in Duveneck/ St Francis January 25, 2019, 2:56 PM Housing development, affordability, and transportation to encourage a dynamic (and family friendly!) Palo Alto. Curb the NIMBYism of those that are settled and well taken care of already. Please plan for long-term and sustainable growth. The Bay Area needs to work together to continue to ensure the diversity and dynamism of these cities we love and live in remain. Patricia Jones in Crescent Park January 25, 2019, 4:44 PM Top priorities for City Council for 2019 should be: (1) Traffic Mitigation (2) Parking Name not shown in Palo Verde January 25, 2019, 7:00 PM The available transportation , especially when people cannot drive is a disaster. A city like Palo Alto should have a better transportation plan on a regular basis and especially be organized to have a reasonable transportation for people who cannot drive. I think it would be nice to also have some sense of community in the city which is nonexistent at this time. The recent allowance for building big private homes has contributed to the lack of attention to what is going on in the neighborhood. Also, with all the money invested by the city in changing and narrowing the streets where cars and bicycles are riding on the same area- there should be more inspection about the bicycle riders obeying the laws so they can be seen especially in the evenings and night. It has become dangerous to drive in the dark when the bicycle riders do not wear the correct gear [ lights etc...] which is required by law. Allen Akin in Professorville January 25, 2019, 7:38 PM Stable city finances are the most important, because without them none of the other priorities can be addressed. Transportation is next, because without it the jobs/housing imbalance and many quality-of-life issues can't be addressed. The jobs/housing imbalance is next, because it drives so many of our lesser problems. Note that this is not the same as housing alone. Quality of life (encompassing environmental issues, open space, aesthetics of the built environment) is next. Name not shown in Duveneck/ St Francis January 25, 2019, 11:09 PM 1)- City’s pension and fiscal obligations, 2)- airplane noise 3)- traffic and transportation nightmare and finally 4)- Affordable housing. lois shore in Duveneck/ St Francis January 25, 2019, 11:26 PM I am very concerned about the low and loud air traffic over my home and the JLS Middle School where i work. I was hoping that we would have made some progress on lessening the traffic. Betsy Rosoff in Crescent Park January 26, 2019, 9:10 AM Airplane noise has significant quality of life impact for my family. Thank you for your strides in the area but I urge you to do more this year. Name not shown outside Palo Alto January 26, 2019, 10:02 AM 23 | www.opentownhall.com/7130 Created with OpenGov | January 29, 2019, 2:42 PM 2019 City Council Priorities What are the priorities you would like to see the City Council adopt for 2019? I live in the area affected by jet traffic noise and you need to focus on this problem : airplane noise needs significant attention this year. I know that there is a new Santa Clara round table regarding the consequence of the intense traffic above our head... both the Select Committee and SFO's new landing system (GBAS) follow up, and being prepared with legal options.A Select Committee Chair's transmittal letter summarized the six month work with FAA to address noise brought about in 2014. It was noted that the committee did not “rank order” their recommendations. Several recommendations are important and we advocated with Rep Eshoo and FAA, for the following as HIGH priorities, - Assess alternative waypoints to reduce concentration - including an approach for southern arrivals to use the full length of the Bay - Eliminate low altitude night flights - Create the successor organization to the Select Committee Eliminating low altitude night traffic should be the easiest task for FAA because there is no traffic congestion at night. Assessments of alternatives using the right tools is also long overdue. New concerns have also developed since the Select Committee. As we go forward, much of what we need is within the power of local and regional officials to help accomplish. Please note that over 20 Palo Alto neighborhoods are affected [I live in Redwood city] - low and loud night flights are a serious problem. It's urgent that PACC step up and speak up for the health and well being of thousands of residents. Thanks to improve the life quality in our beautiful neighborhood! Name not shown in Midtown/ Midtown West January 26, 2019, 10:23 AM i'd like to see us do much more, and sooner, to zero-out the pollution we create. can't we electrify every city vehicle? put solar panels on every city building? etc. if that's too much for now, then let's move in those directions - announce these things as goals, set up pilot programs, start small today and then scale up without procrastination. there are many ways palo alto can drastically reduce pollution - AND deal with the more popular issues such as: - increase the palo alto shuttle service x100 to reduce traffic - ban gasoline cars [with exceptions] to reduce ambient noise on certain days or designated areas [i.e., holidays or univ ave] - publicize the palo alto utility pollution reduction advice/help line; they are very helpful/knowledgeable - use your/staff imagination pollution kills; let's stop creating more of it! [for the nimby's: our weather future forecast is for more smog/smoke-filled days, is that really what you want?] Name not shown in Greenmeadow January 26, 2019, 10:47 AM Please address the ever-increasing SFO/SJO jet noise over our area. SJO flights are increasingly a huge problem on top of the already-excessive SFO overflight noise and pollution. On rainy days, SJO flights are measured at between 2000 to 3000 feet over my house (according to the stop.jet.noise app) almost every 1 minute and thus is deafening to witness. Please hold the FAA and regional air management accountable to fixing this egregious issue for our quality of life and health. Name not shown in Crescent Park January 26, 2019, 11:02 AM The airplane noise and pollution from airplanes flying low over Palo Alto is a significant issue and needs city attention. Thank you for working on solving this problem. jeannie duisenberg in Community Center January 26, 2019, 11:21 AM I would like the City to keep focused on the airplane noise problem and participate vigorously in regional plans to ameliorate the problem. Low and loud planes presumably on their way to SFO anytime of day or night have seriously degraded quality of life in Palo Alto. If the City doesn't 24 | www.opentownhall.com/7130 Created with OpenGov | January 29, 2019, 2:42 PM 2019 City Council Priorities What are the priorities you would like to see the City Council adopt for 2019? keep up the pressure, we will lose out on the efforts to alter flight paths and get to an acceptable solution. Please don't take your eye off this ball. Name not shown in Duveneck/ St Francis January 26, 2019, 11:39 AM Teacher retention and training Affordable housing Address traffic problems Growth not to exceed city's ability to handle it City Financial Stability Fred Krefetz in Downtown North January 26, 2019, 12:08 PM I urge you and the city counsel to address as a high priority the terrible problem since 2014 of excessive jet noise over Palo Alto. I’m a long time resident in the Downtown North neighborhood and have been continually disturbed by the FAA’s implementation of new approach and landing procedures for SFO. This, combined with SJC jet noise, planes approaching San Bruno airport and helicopters accessing Stanford Hospital has made Palo Alto a very unpleasant place to live. Please do everything possible to fix this serious problem for our community. Than you, Fred Krefetz 225 Emerson St. Name not shown in Midtown/ Midtown West January 26, 2019, 12:21 PM 1. Jet Noise - I can't say it any better than dozens of others have. We have been putting up with this for 4 years now and nothing has been done. It is intolerable. 2. Large per head business tax to deal with impacts commuters are causing. No more jobs/office growth. 3. Local control - fight CASA 4. Grade crossing - please get it done sooner rather than later 5. City funded housing for police, fire, teachers, other city employees. Use money from business tax above. 6. Traffic enforcement Name not shown in Midtown/ Midtown West January 26, 2019, 1:03 PM My main concern about remaining in Palo Alto is the growing noise level: * Airplanes overhead -- low-altitude approaches to SFO and San Carlos * Loud motorcycles on Oregon Expresssway * Police and ambulance sirens at all hours of day and night I'm also alarmed at the prospect of having a thousand new kids in Palo Alto schools from the Stanford expansion, with Stanford University under no obligation to contribute taxes to the support the school system. Mary Rodocker in Duveneck/ St Francis January 26, 2019, 1:26 PM I wish for the City Council to make airplane noise a high priority. Noise pollution is real and harmful. I am distressed that in spite of efforts to address this problem, the FAA has done little to alleviate it. Roberta Ahlquist in University Park January 26, 2019, 2:59 PM Representing Women's International League for Peace & Freedom, Peninsula Branch Low-income Housing Committee, we seek housing for our service sector workers, shelter for those who are homeless in our city, a commitment to actions for gender, racial and socio- economic equity, housing for teachers, local rent stabilization, a freeze on demolition of BMR rental housing until replacement housing is built, using available city land such as Cubberley for below market rate housing, zoning and policies that support tenants and tenants rights, and 25 | www.opentownhall.com/7130 Created with OpenGov | January 29, 2019, 2:42 PM 2019 City Council Priorities What are the priorities you would like to see the City Council adopt for 2019? continuing pressure on Stanford to build housing for its workers and students before office/lab development. Sincerely, Roberta Ahlquist Name not shown in Charleston Terrace January 26, 2019, 3:31 PM I'd like to see the city council adopt for: 1. Airplane noise - I feel it's right above my roof. Sometimes I couldn't help myself thinking: is the plane gonna crash into my home? It harms health and increases stress level. 2. Stanford General Use Permit - I wish to see our community will have a mutually beneficial relationship with Stanford University. Frankly speaking, Stanford hasn't done much for this community; probably even put the neighborhood kids on disadvantage - it seems only Stanford faculty's kids are admitted; and now Stanford expects PAUSD to absorb students for the next 17 years who will reside on Stanford lands that do not pay property taxes, such as rental housing - then our classroom sizes will have to increase, staff/teachers will have to be laid off, and school programs suspended due to lack of funding. Name not shown in Midtown/ Midtown West January 26, 2019, 6:12 PM Hello, Please, please, make airplane noise a priority. Not just planes into SFO and San Carlos, but also planes into SJC when in "reverse". When the weather gets stormy SJC bound airplanes land from the north instead of the south (the usual), and then they fly above Palo Alto at altitudes of 2,000-3,000 feet (vs. planes headed to SFO at 4,000 feet). All are horrible, but SJC bound planes even more. We are talking about commercial jet, such as B737s and A320s, but sometimes even bigger airplanes such as B787s, smack above us in Midtown at 2 to 3,000 feet! Even crossing SFO bound planes! Very loud, very polluting, potentially unsafe. Please, make airplane noise in general your priority. Our street would be dead quiet if it wasn't for airplane noise, day and night. We are thinking of moving just because of it. It so affects quality of life negatively. It will soon affect property values as well, i.e. your property tax revenues. If quality of life in Palo Alto is taking a nose dive (no pun intended), it may be largely because of commercial jet airplane noise above us, both SFO and SJC traffic. Christopher Cocca in Crescent Park January 26, 2019, 7:06 PM Hi; Palo Alto, like most of the country, is not taking climate change seriously. I am frustrated that the new buildings at Palo Alto High School were build without solar panels. Putting solar panels on all new buildings is an easy win. We need to build more housing near transit, increase bike lanes, work to convert fossil fuel appliances to electricity, and transition from a car-based city to a people-based city. By adopting mixed use zoning, we could have people live, work and shop in the same areas. This will enable a more pedestrian friendly city. MB Bieder in Downtown North January 26, 2019, 7:29 PM Airplane noise is the most significant problem for this city. Three routes converge over our homes and now the planes are 1-2 minutes apart at peak times. Four years or more have past since the vast increase in planes and changing of the routes over us. Our concerns are not being address and we have gotten NO relief. For Palo Alto to be livable again, council must put airplane noise as its highest priority and do everything possible to force the FAA and congress to solve this problem. Ken Novak in Community Center January 27, 2019, 12:16 AM The Beneficial electrification (BE) program deserves city support. Introducing utility tariffed on-bill financing will cost the city government almost nothing, while generating investments in our buildings today, energy savings for years into the future -- and big reductions of greenhouse gases in the process. 26 | www.opentownhall.com/7130 Created with OpenGov | January 29, 2019, 2:42 PM 2019 City Council Priorities What are the priorities you would like to see the City Council adopt for 2019? marie-jo fremont in Leland Manor/ Garland January 27, 2019, 9:11 AM Continue all efforts to address airplane noise and emissions because the problem continues to affect the quality of life and health of many Palo Alto residents in their homes, workplaces, churches, schools, and parks on a daily basis (including at night). Pursue all avenues (local and national, individually or with other cities) and all options (collaboration, legislation, and litigation) to ensure that solutions are implemented. Thank you for keeping up the fight. Michael Fischer in Charleston Terrace January 27, 2019, 10:13 AM 1. Jet aircraft noise affects over 20 Palo Alto neighborhoods - low and loud night flights are a serious problem. It's urgent that PACC step up and speak up for the health and well being of thousands of residents. 2. Rail grade separations - Get it done!!! - Why does San Jose get a tunnel for BART and Palo Alto is less important? 3. Transportation - road diets only worsen problems that were created by the lack of housing-jobs balance 4. Housing Cherrill Spencer in Barron Park January 27, 2019, 10:19 AM Dear City Council Discrimination against women in many areas of life does not happen as obviously as it did 20-30 years ago, but it continues to happen and I am grateful that last year’s Council directed your Policy and Services Committee to work on a gender analysis of City operations. Please provide sufficient resources to your staff and that committee so they can carry out the analysis which we hope will lead to removing gender inequalities within the city workforce and will remove any gender inequalities in services the City provides to its population. Let’s make Palo Alto a model of gender equality. Cherrill Spencer, resident of Barron Park. Nancy Neff in Palo Verde January 27, 2019, 12:50 PM Climate change is the #1 issue. The next generation will see catastrophes that are unimaginable to us. Palo Alto has the wealth and smarts to be a model sustainable city. Let's do it. "What if it's a big hoax and we create a better world for nothing?" Brilliant cartoon, Joel Pett. Cameron Sunde in University South January 27, 2019, 1:41 PM Gender equality is an important issue - and the City Council should make it a priority in 2019. John Koval in Old Palo Alto January 27, 2019, 3:36 PM Focus on CPA actionable goals(don't waste time musing over traffic/rents hypothetically by building close to jobs as people change jobs often, unless forced to move at job change, public transit are regional issues, not CPA). - Smooth Traffic Flow through Palo Alto. Don’t impede traffic by narrowing streets/placing obstacles that make it more dangerous for drivers, bicyclists and pedestrians. - Put the train in a tunnel/trench like modern cities around the world. Do not close main arteries, inmpeding traffic in order to add 15% more trains each day(electrification + HSR). Leverage Stanford and large businesses to pay for it, they will benefit most. On-grade or viaduct is unsightly and noisy(think BART) and most susceptible to terrorism, vandalism and suicides. - Give Palo Alto a voice in the discussions and efforts to reduce airplane noise. We have become the convenient dumping ground for noise and pollution of 60%+ flights arriving at SFO. Select Committee failed, we need a new approach. 27 | www.opentownhall.com/7130 Created with OpenGov | January 29, 2019, 2:42 PM 2019 City Council Priorities What are the priorities you would like to see the City Council adopt for 2019? Kristen Podulka in Greenmeadow January 27, 2019, 6:20 PM I believe gender equality should be a top priority for Palo Alto City Council in 2019. Women need equal representation on the council itself, as well in both public and corporate employment. There needs to be a concerted effort and designated budget by our city to bridge the gender gap. Especially because of the male-dominated tech companies in our city. Please put this as a top priority for 2019! “Women’s rights are human rights!!” Name not shown in Evergreen Park January 27, 2019, 6:23 PM There is a vocal and I am sure well-intentioned group that is urging people to ask the City Council to prioritize analysis of gender discrimination in the city in 2019. Respectfully, I strongly oppose this position. I believe that local government should focus its attention and resources on locally pressing issues, and not attempt to re-create at the city level any kind of bureaucracy to address broad social concerns that are more appropriate to state or federal levels if government involvement is called for. Even “just a reporting” mandate would require deciding how to gather information, gathering and interpreting it, oversight of the project, writing and publishing reports, and dealing with challenges or other legal issues. Please don’t spend city time or resources on this redundant topic. Laura Lockyear in Charleston Meadows January 27, 2019, 6:39 PM Please make gender equality a priority Thank you! Annette Isaacson in Midtown/ Midtown West January 27, 2019, 6:43 PM The two issues I would like the City to make priorities are Climate Change and Affordable Housing. If we don't address climate change more aggressively, life is going to be so much worse for future generations. We owe it to our children and grandchildren to leave them a livable world. I want more affordable housing so non tech workers can afford to live here and not commute from Morgan Hill. (I wish my kids were able to live here, but Palo Alto has become a city where only rich people can afford houses.) Peter Brende in Charleston Meadows January 27, 2019, 6:47 PM Jet Noise: Continue to push for mitigations to the overhead jet noise. It's increased to an unacceptable level in the past couple of years and the SFO landing approaches are unfairly concentrated over our city and neighboring towns. Housing density: please be transparent and consistent in the zoning policies and exemptions. Don't grant height exemptions for new condo complexes. It's fairer to increase the height limit uniformly across the entire city. Paul Heft in Midtown/ Midtown West January 27, 2019, 6:50 PM Climate action should be the top priority, since the IPCC said action is urgent and the effects will be so severe. Stephen Rosenblum in Old Palo Alto January 27, 2019, 6:54 PM Climate change is the most serious problem affecting our planet over the next decade and we must take concrete action to reduce carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to prevent it. This requires us to not only stop burning fossil fuels but to actually sequester carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. The city should undertake suitable programs to achieve this aim. Debbie Mytels 28 | www.opentownhall.com/7130 Created with OpenGov | January 29, 2019, 2:42 PM 2019 City Council Priorities What are the priorities you would like to see the City Council adopt for 2019? in Midtown/ Midtown West January 27, 2019, 6:56 PM The Council should choose climate change as a priority this year. Climate change is affecting our city NOW -- you merely need to consider how badly people who have asthma were afflicted by the two weeks of terrible smoke due to the Camp fire in No. California to know that it is affecting us here in Palo Alto -- not to mention the deteriorating conditions all over the planet. A priority focus on climate change would also relate to our housing crisis, since without adequate housing here in our city, we are forcing people who work here to hit the highways and create more carbon emissions. We need to complete and IMPLEMENT Palo Alto's Climate Action Plan. Please don't ignore this topic: make it a city priority for the year ahead. Name not shown in Barron Park January 27, 2019, 7:04 PM My wife and I are residents of Barron Park. We strongly feel that airplane noise should be one of the top priorities for Council in 2019. It impacts our health, our quality of life and our local property values. Good efforts were made by Joe Simitian and the Roundtable in past years but there has been no improvement. SFO and the FAA have not been responsive so now it is imperative that Palo Alto itself takes direct action. Airplane noise is a growing threat to our community. Mark Grossman in Old Palo Alto January 27, 2019, 7:07 PM Acting to address climate change should be a major priority. City Council has already adopted a sustainability plan and begun to implement small pieces of it, but more can and must be done. Scientists have just warned that to avoid catastrophic environmental impacts we must reduce planetary carbon emissions to zero in 12 years. For Palo Alto that means finding ways to draw down natural gas- fired heaters and kitchens in all buildings, transitioning to electric transportation, and taking other local measures. Carl Thomsen in Duveneck/ St Francis January 27, 2019, 7:49 PM Airplane noise and related health impacts should be a top priority of Palo Alto in 2019. The constant noise is difficult to fully describe but, believe me, it is a constant problem inside the house, makes it unbearable to be in the back yard and wakes me up early in the morning (and in the middle of the night). The frequency and noise level continues to increase. It impacts our health, our quality of life and our local property values. While there were well intentioned efforts by Joe Simitian and the Select Committee in past years, there has been no improvement. SFO and the FAA have not been responsive. It is incumbent upon Palo Alto to take action and work to mitigate this problem. Kerah Cottrell in Midtown/ Midtown West January 27, 2019, 8:11 PM It's time to make gender equality a top priority. Thank you. George Campbell in Midtown/ Midtown West January 27, 2019, 8:18 PM I would like the City Council to focus on the following for 2019: 1. Increased affordable housing 2. Traffic and transportation options 3. Fiscal responsibility Thank you. Tom Kabat outside Palo Alto January 27, 2019, 9:20 PM I participated on the city's Technical Advisory Committee looking at the feasibility of adopting an energy Reach Code to require carbon free new construction. The city's consultant found that all electric (gas-free) construction saves life cycle costs and saves construction costs (costs less than building with gas pipes and exhaust stacks). I 29 | www.opentownhall.com/7130 Created with OpenGov | January 29, 2019, 2:42 PM 2019 City Council Priorities What are the priorities you would like to see the City Council adopt for 2019? think cities have a fiduciary responsibility to implement gas-free Reach Codes to prevent the habitual construction of obsolete gas powered buildings that will very soon need to be expensively retrofitted in order to preserve the climate. Don Jackson in University South January 27, 2019, 9:25 PM I propose that one of the City’s priorities for 2019 be to begin actively working to deploy a citywide municipal fiber-to-the-premises (FTTP) network in Palo Alto. The recurring battles over Net Neutrality and Privacy are a direct consequence of outsourcing our Internet access to third-party corporations, that subsequently seek to maximize the return on their investment for their shareholders (which is, after all, their fiduciary responsibility). The obvious solution is to invest in, and become the owners of, our own Internet access infrastructure. Fiber-To-The-Premises is a "natural monopoly", and as such, it is imperative that it be owned by the people it serves. Existing commercially available Internet access service to Palo Alto residents from companies like Comcast and AT&T do not, and will never, provide the following crucial capabilities: High (Gigabit+) speeds Symmetric service Privacy Non-discriminatory access/usage Support for offering services/applications to the Internet There are hundreds of municipal FTTP networks across the US, and is disappointing and embarassing that Palo Alto, one of the premier centers of innovation and entrepreneurship is not among them, particularly given the City's longstanding municipal utilities service. I urge Council (and staff) to read the recent book "Fiber, The Coming Tech Revolution—and Why America Might Miss It" by Susan Crawford (https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300228502/fiber ) (available at Amazon) Prerana Jayakumar in Midtown/ Midtown West January 27, 2019, 9:36 PM Please make climate change a priority for this year - let's make some REAL change in terms of reducing the effects of transportation (better/wider/more frequent public transit), switching fully to carbon-neutral utilities, electrifying as much as possible (so that they can run on renewable power), allowing wider graywater (and even blackwater) use, and other areas related to climate change. Please do this for the sake of our communities and our children! Name not shown in Leland Manor/ Garland January 27, 2019, 9:40 PM GENDER EQUALITY...Please! Housing...please! Sanctuary for immigrants...please! Thank you Deborah Martin in Leland Manor/ Garland January 27, 2019, 11:44 PM The City Council should follow the recommendations of the Human Relations Commission and establish a Gender Equality Task Force. This Task Force should conduct a gender analysis of City operations. That would be a good start to make sure we are on the right path to secure gender equality in our city. Deborah Martin 30 | www.opentownhall.com/7130 Created with OpenGov | January 29, 2019, 2:42 PM 2019 City Council Priorities What are the priorities you would like to see the City Council adopt for 2019? Name not shown in Midtown/ Midtown West January 28, 2019, 5:17 AM Gender equality Housing affordability Name not shown in Barron Park January 28, 2019, 9:05 AM One of our top priorities for 2019 should be meeting our climate goals! Palo Alto has adopted a strong climate goal of 80% reduction by 2030, but we will not meet this goal unless it is a priority and both policy and funding for programs follows. The updates coming from science are dire. We don't have any more time to wait. Palo Alto has much to lose with sea level rise and other climate impacts. Palo Alto can meet it's climate goals and set an example for other cities - paving the way to safer and healthier future. The other priority should be housing. The gentrification happening all over the bay area and crazy housing costs are due to the simple fact that cities are approving new projects that will bring jobs without equivalent housing. As a native, this is not the environment I grew up with and not the world I want to live in where lower income people are forced out of their homes and the area because of a poor jobs/housing imbalance. This did not happen by chance, this happened because cities across the Bay Area are not being responsible in providing a jobs/housing balance. Palo Alto should place a priority on adding new transit oriented housing and be a leader in voicing the need for a Bay Area wide plan to address this issue and create a more just and fair Bay Area community. Name not shown in Midtown/ Midtown West January 28, 2019, 9:16 AM I agree David, spending $29 million on our short-term car parking need is my money that can be used more wisely for alternative transportation. Yes, let’s make other means of transport easier to use and car use and parking less so. Here’s a better use of $29 million. Our City can buy a huge number of electric scooters and distribute them throughout the city. Riding a scooter means moving a person is accomplished with a 20 lb scooter and small amount of electricity, rather than a 3000 lb car and all the gas and carbon pollution emitted into the air we breath. Not sure how this works? Head over to San Jose State University and see electric scooters in large numbers throughout campus. City Counsel members, you are a smart group. Make a better decision with our money! Briggs Nisbet in Palo Verde January 28, 2019, 9:40 AM Jet Noise. Increasing number of flights to and from San Jose airport that fly less than 2000ft over south Palo Alto neighborhoods, concentrated flights into SFO across Palo Alto at 5000ft, loud night flights after 1am and before 5am, lack of representation on SFO roundtable, failure of FAA to provide noise data or environmental review of flight path concentrations, and failure of FAA to address residents' and community's complaints and concerns in a timely manner. Bill Gargiulo in Old Palo Alto January 28, 2019, 10:37 AM Priorities: 1) Safety - We need to be able to walk to downtown at night without the fear of getting mugged. Let's leverage some of the great technology we are helping to create and make our streets safe again. 2) Airplane noise / pollution - I did not buy my house near an airport but feel like I now live on an active runway. It will only get worse. I am very disappointed that this change occurred without us knowing about it or putting up a fight to stop but concentrating all of the traffic over PA is unacceptable. 3) Traffic - More parking on edge of city and more free shuttles to move workers downtown (both Cal ave and 31 | www.opentownhall.com/7130 Created with OpenGov | January 29, 2019, 2:42 PM 2019 City Council Priorities What are the priorities you would like to see the City Council adopt for 2019? University). Steven Atneosen in Greenmeadow January 28, 2019, 10:54 AM Please prioritize the following for 2019: 1) Sustainable housing for all socioeconomic groups that mimic successful communities such as New York City; Oslo, Norway, et al. 2) Mobility planning that favors mass transit and bicycle/pedestrian commuting. 3) Climate change initiatives that relate to the growth of the community 4) Enforcement of laws that support the above - especially against individual passenger cars and businesses that serve the community Many thanks, Steven Atneosen Laura Prentiss in Old Palo Alto January 28, 2019, 10:56 AM I would like to see gender equality be a priority for the City of Palo Alto, Name not shown in Old Palo Alto January 28, 2019, 11:00 AM I would like our city government to make gender and racial equity a priority in 2019. There is really no excuse for us to have a lack of diversity. It will make for a better city. Name not shown outside Palo Alto January 28, 2019, 11:24 AM The most important priority for the City Council this year must be to eliminate aircraft noise that has ruined the peace and quiet of the city and neighboring areas. When we moved here, Palo Alto was not the "landing strip" for the airport and today, it is. We have had enough of this endless, intrusive, unhealthy and neighborhood-destroying noise. Its time for the City Council to step up, do its job and fight for Palo Alto and have the FAA remove NextGen - and the aircraft noise and pollution - over heavily populated areas such as the Bay Area. Name not shown in Crescent Park January 28, 2019, 11:35 AM 1) Castilleja has put forth a responsible and reasonable proposal that preserves neighborhood quality of life, removing traffic and parking from neighborhood streets through stringent traffic demand management, locating parking, drop off and deliveries below grade, and strict enforcement and accountability measures. The physical campus will not "expand" - the above ground square footage remains the same. 2) Castilleja is an asset to the community - national reputation for quality education of girls, deep community engagement, important educational option in a community of outstanding schools. 3) Castilleja has the support of hundreds of Palo Alto citizens - 630 have actively demonstrated that support by posting lawn signs, signing supporter list, and/or writing emails to City Council. James F. Cook in College Terrace January 28, 2019, 1:50 PM Traffic Diversity of opinions Rail crossings (including safety of pedestrians and bicycles) Climate change (see Carbon Free Palo Alto’s comments) Undergrounding remaining utilities Bret Andersen in Palo Verde January 28, 2019, 2:51 PM Use climate friendly strategies to seize the new opportunities our main challenges create, to save public 32 | www.opentownhall.com/7130 Created with OpenGov | January 29, 2019, 2:42 PM 2019 City Council Priorities What are the priorities you would like to see the City Council adopt for 2019? and private money and to improve quality of life: 1) Traffic & Parking - we now have many mobility alternatives to driving alone which is the main driver of peak parking and congestion problems. The Palo Alto Transportation Management Association is showing the way and has made significant progress already. 2) Housing - we must prioritize permitting dense, small, transit oriented, all-electric housing that is accessible to service workers, reduces the need to drive alone, improves air quality and costs less to build and operate and requires less city infrastructure. 3) Make it easy for residents to replace natural gas devices in their homes with clean electric equivalents that are healthier, safer, higher functioning, cheaper to operate. They will add flexibility and manageable resources to our growing renewable electricity grid. We all need to recognize that natural gas is a bad financial, civic and environmental choice as a source of energy. 4) Carefully question further decades long City investment in soon-to-be stranded assets like parking ramps and new gas hookups and upgrades to the natural gas network. We can and must find much more cost effective and beneficial alternatives to the "business as usual" approach. Council already adopted in 2016 the goal to reduce GHG emissions in Palo Alto by 80% by 2030 - lets take it seriously with a 2019 priority to get our transportation, housing and energy programs and budgets on the right track! Name not shown in Downtown North January 28, 2019, 3:26 PM Gender Equality. Affordable Housing. Environmental Protections. Name not shown in Midtown/ Midtown West January 28, 2019, 3:29 PM Please make gender equality a priority in 2019. With everything going across our country, with #metoo and #timesup, and with everything happening here closer to home with the toxic "bro-culture" in Silicon Valley and Dr. Ford's recent testimony, we know that gender inequalities exist within our City. Its time that the City take a concerted effort to address it and to set an example for others. Human Rights are important issues too and we can't afford to miss this opportunity to address it. By making it a Council Priority in 2019, it doesn't take away time for other priorities like Housing and Traffic, rather by taking quick action on it, you will help leverage resources (both time, money and expertise) that exist in the community to do this important work, requiring only minimal commitment from the City, while freeing up the City to work on other issues. Make gender equality a priority, by authorizing a gender analysis, and let's mobilize the community to get this work done, so that more can be done with less and so that we can address this important issue while also working on others too. Name not shown in Crescent Park January 28, 2019, 3:34 PM I hope that the city will make INCLUSION a priority for the city of Palo Alto. There are NO city camps for children and young adults with disabilities in the ENJOY catalog. There are no afterschool programs for kids with disabilities. What about programming at the libraries? The only playground that is truly inclusive is Magical Bridge -- why aren't ALL our playgrounds welcoming of everyone. Why aren't all our playgrounds built like Magical Bridge -- which is so busy ALL the time. The city needs to do better for EVERYONE, including the 1-in-4 of us living with a disability. Thank you for listening. Name not shown in Evergreen Park January 28, 2019, 3:37 PM I, like so many others, believe that gender equality is fundamental to effective governance. It will strengthen the foundation for representative decisions going forward. Leah Russin in College Terrace January 28, 2019, 4:53 PM I believe Palo Alto must get serious about housing, traffic 33 | www.opentownhall.com/7130 Created with OpenGov | January 29, 2019, 2:42 PM 2019 City Council Priorities What are the priorities you would like to see the City Council adopt for 2019? and non-car travel, commitment to sustainability, and gender equity. We are the heart of Silicon Valley. If we aren’t leading on these issues, we’re doing it wrong. Paling Alto must step up and assess whether we treat women and LGBTQ+ equitably, whether we are doing all we can to get people out of their cars, and also must make a serious commitment to building more housing. The train will make all these problems more difficult - making sure our community isn’t bisected by an impassible rail is essential. For this reason I do not support a complete closure of Churchill. I urge you above all to listen to the community. Neighborhood town halls are a small start. Keep working on it. Elizabeth Beheler in Charleston Meadows January 28, 2019, 5:03 PM I am hopeful that CEDAW will be on the list of goals for the Council to enact this year. We are a progressive and educated community and should be an example of gender equality for cities to affect overall gender parity in leadership and economy. The women of Palo Alto are great examples of how hard women work, how much we care about our community, what we can achieve, but also how far we still have to go to reach true equality. Thank you. Pierre Schwob in Evergreen Park January 28, 2019, 5:14 PM I am writing further to the viewing of On The Basis Of Sex, kindly organized by Steven Lee, Palo Alto Human Relations Commissioner. If most in the theater were like me, there shouldn't have been a single dry eye in the auditorium. I am grateful that both my children could be with me for this. Current events (including Justice Bader Ginsburg's recent health incident) make the need for Justices of her caliber and philosophy all the more actual. But this effort should also be local. As a straight Caucasian male, I have suffered only very little discrimination but for the ignorant bigotry I experienced in school and military service due to my half- Jewish parentage. This, in addition to my instinctive revulsion to sectarianism, fanaticism and dogmatism, and Lee's efforts entreat me to ask the City Council to fully endorse gender equality and justice. This shouldn't be a hard call to make and I urge you to fully support Lee's recommendations. Prameela Bartholomeusz in Barron Park January 28, 2019, 5:22 PM It is no longer acceptable that gender equality is an issue not given the attention that it deserves & worse, ignored. Palo Alto City Council must make Palo Alto a CEDAW City by establishing a Gender Equality Task Force - NOW! This is critical to measure and assess gender inequities and comprehensively and systematically address them. Make addressing gender inequality a priority! In lieu of moving this issue continually to the end of your list of priorities time & time again, invite us to assist. Many of us in Palo Alto are more than committed to extending this assist. Name not shown in Barron Park January 28, 2019, 5:35 PM Housing affordability (especially for low and lower income residents and workers) and gender equality (becoming a CEDAW city) are the priorities I hope the council will focus on. Name not shown in University South January 28, 2019, 5:46 PM The city needs to focus on enabling more and better options for faster internet access to Palo Altans. It's embarrassing that Comcast is the only option most residents have for consistent internet speeds above 50 Gbps downstream. And there are no options today for reasonable upstream bandwidth or data use! You can't even install two Nest cameras uploading at 4k resolutions to keep our homes and city safe, without hitting Comcast's paltry (1TB) data cap. 34 | www.opentownhall.com/7130 Created with OpenGov | January 29, 2019, 2:42 PM 2019 City Council Priorities What are the priorities you would like to see the City Council adopt for 2019? The city needs to ensure there aren't roadblocks to Verizon, AT&T, and other providers deploying 5G internet throughout the city. (While of course, ensuring they do it in not-super-ugly way.) Ideally, the city should push forward with a municipally owned fiber to the premises (FTTP) deployment. The fiber itself is a natural monopoly and needs to be owned by the city to make sense over the long term. Name not shown in Charleston Meadows January 28, 2019, 5:55 PM Gender Equality/CEDAW initiative - HRC passed a resolution to address gender disparities, but nothing has been done yet Jean-marc mommessin in Fairmeadow January 28, 2019, 6:23 PM Dear City Council, The constant night train horn is a serious issue. The trains ring the horn at 11pm, 1am, 3am, 5am..this wakes us up every time. Solutions to this problem exist. For instance, Atherton found a solution and it was pretty much no cost. Can we please adopt measure to solve this. and eliminate this sound pollution. Please let me know how i can contribute to solving this? Should i start a petition? Bruce Hodge in Palo Verde January 28, 2019, 6:52 PM Taking concrete robust steps to deal with climate change should be a major priority. We badly need Council leadership for this issue. The clock is ticking... Stephanie Martinson in Charleston Meadows January 28, 2019, 7:20 PM Dear City Council, I would like to encourage our Palo Alto City Council to consider our LGBTQ members when working on the 2019 priorities for our city; specifically when we think of our trans community members relative to housing and citywide events. There are likely many more areas. Please consider, there are NO Federal Protections for transgender Americans. You can lose your job or be denied housing. Participation in civil society, such as serving on a jury is not guaranteed or protected ....and there is no recourse. Their suicide rate is 50% vs. just 3% in the general population. Given that 1 in 5 transgender youth will drop out of school by 12th grade due to harassment and incidents of violence, these community members of often underemployed and/or homeless. These statistics are symptoms of our society's dehumanizing transgender Americans. The current federal administration's platform is producing a normative and systemic disrespect for, and non acceptance of our LGBTQ Americans. While I know that many of our community leadership is very supportive of our LGBTQ members,, showing respect and creating inclusive, thoughtful policies relative to these members would make a huge impact and statement. Thank you in advance for this consideration. Name not shown in Barron Park January 28, 2019, 7:41 PM Of course, we should treat everybody the same. The only difference may be their real qualifications for the job. If they fill the requirments, they need to be considered just as anyone else who is qualified. Maybe more than one person should be in on reviewing a resume. It may be hard for a person to be as fair as they could be. Missing out on a perfectly qualified person could be a loss for all involved. Name not shown in Barron Park 35 | www.opentownhall.com/7130 Created with OpenGov | January 29, 2019, 2:42 PM 2019 City Council Priorities What are the priorities you would like to see the City Council adopt for 2019? January 28, 2019, 8:32 PM Please add CEDAW to the list of goals for the Council to enact this year. Palo Alto should be an example of gender equality for cities to affect overall gender parity in leadership and economy. In addition, AFFORDABLE housing and homelessness should also be priorities Hilary Glann in Barron Park January 28, 2019, 9:05 PM While there are many important issues in the City, we have to make climate action a top priority, because without addressing climate change, all other priorities will become irrelevant within most of our lifetimes, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. We need to focus on what we, as citizens of this planet, can do to right now to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (hint: there's a lot we all can do!). Our climate change focus includes permitting dense, small, transit-oriented housing that is affordable for low and middle income workers, which also helps address a major social and economic imbalance in our community. it includes prioritizing transit solutions to reduce single occupancy vehicles and making sure our transit works well for all. While I agree with many of the priorities stated by other residents, bending the curve on climate change must be a core mission of our government, locally and at the state level. David Coale in Barron Park January 28, 2019, 9:06 PM Climate change should be the city’s top priority. With the city using climate change as a lens to view all other city projects and priorities we will get better and more cost effective solutions to our traffic, parking, and housing problems. Addressing climate change is called out in the Sustainability Implantation Plane and the Comp plan, both of which have been ignored when convenient by the council. Please make climate change a top priority so that we do not saddle our children and grandchildren with a carbon debt that can never be repaid. Palo Alto must lead the way. Name not shown in Crescent Park January 28, 2019, 9:15 PM Stable finances and traffic issues are crucial, yet continuing commitment to the quality of life issue of airplane noise is a very high priority. We urge you to continue and expand engagement with the South Bay Roundtable, Congressional Representatives and especially the FAA to reduce the negative environmental impact of jet aircraft landing at SFO over our homes. Sallie and Jay Whaley Becky Sanders in Ventura January 28, 2019, 9:16 PM 1. Build housing for our most vulnerable in a way that makes sense (see my postscript!) 2. Make sure NVCAP is a success by incorporating meaningful community input in the design as opposed to extracting the rubber stamp from the Working Group members who are residents 3. Acquire more parkland in underserved areas — namely the AT&T lot in Ventura 4. Get on top of Rail by somehow getting someone (staff, elected or appointed) to track all the moving parts that are going into the decision process. When some of the local transit agencies make decisions, it’s important that Council not only see it coming, but actually give input and have influence. 5. Fix the staffing issues downtown which will help us with things like getting 311 working; make sure Ed is set up for success Thank you for seeking our input! Good luck this year! Appreciate all you electeds giving up your free time to do this! Thanks Staff for making things happen for us. P.S Some ideas re housing... just in case you are wondering... *Preserve a moratorium/cap on office development; de- 36 | www.opentownhall.com/7130 Created with OpenGov | January 29, 2019, 2:42 PM 2019 City Council Priorities What are the priorities you would like to see the City Council adopt for 2019? incentivize office growth and *Acknowledge that folks that can afford market rate housing will probably be okay no matter what you do, so don’t worry about them too much this year. *Build more below market rate housing and affordable rate housing at 80% or less AMI We know AMI is defined as 120% AMI but let’s keep it lower to protect our most vulnerable *Incentivize 80% or less AMI housing by throwing your quiver of incentives at them. *Please do not trade away community amenities in order to build housing for the rich. *Don't lose sight of our livable Palo Alto - so as new projects come on line, let's study the impacts on the people that already live here in addition to welcoming new neighbors. Richard Leder in Barron Park January 28, 2019, 9:26 PM I wish to emphasize that Palo Alto should provide both local, state and national leadership by furthering the cause of gender equality in our city thru enlightened policies, guidance and practices. Steven Lee’s thoughtful, advance showing of “On the Basis of Sex” last month was a great start. This up-to-date film is a superb cinematic telling of Ruth Bader Ginsberg’s rise to prominence through a carefully planned and superbly executed legal strategy to advance gender equality under the law. It certainly brought home to me the essential truth that many if not most social change starts small and local, and sometimes in unexpected or opportunistic ways. Such is an opportunity here in Palo Alto. Both ensuring and advancing the EQUAL rights of women (which really only started in the 20th century with movements for voting rights) are large and hugely important streams in the great American democratic project of ensuring and advancing equality of ALL people under the law. Thank you, Steven Lee, for keeping gender equality high on the Palo Alto priority list where it deserves to be in the 21st century. Thanks for engaging many of our residents in your agenda by showing the Ginsberg film and by insisting that our great city can do this NOW with it’s own policies, guidance and practices. Lead by example! Name not shown in Evergreen Park January 28, 2019, 9:27 PM 1. Develop a set of measures of quality of life that can be monitored and standards that can be adhered to. Such a list might include measures of congestion on streets, number of acres of park and open space, amount and quality of public transportaton, etc. 2. Infrastructure needed to maintain a quality of life in Palo Alto as we add potentially thousands of new residents. E.g., Peers Park in Evergreen Park is a lovely park, but is it sufficient if we add thousands of new residents in dense, multifamily, multi-story buildings along California Ave.? Stop ignoring the effects on infrastructure and start planning realistically for them. These include libraries, schools, parks, recreation facilities. 3. Work with Sky Posse to reduce airplane noise. Airplane noise has had a significant, negative effect on the quality of life. Try being outside in your garden during summer evenings and trying to carry on a conversation. Try sleeping beyond 4 a.m. when the weather calls for open windows. 4. Develop processes to involve residents in the decision making process early so that they can contribute to the formation of solutions. Do not keep residents in the dark -- working only with other "stakeholders" who aren't even Palo Alto residents -- so that they can only come to Council to complain when recommendations are finally made public. This is a terribly inefficient and unfair way to govern. If we have to develop campaign finance limitations in order to limit the effect of outside interests on elections and on subsequent Council decisions, then so be it. Tired of developers who live in Los Altos having a greater say about how Palo Alto operates than residents who live here. Andy Poggio in Midtown/ Midtown West January 28, 2019, 9:34 PM For 2019, a priority for the Palo Alto City Council should be 37 | www.opentownhall.com/7130 Created with OpenGov | January 29, 2019, 2:42 PM 2019 City Council Priorities What are the priorities you would like to see the City Council adopt for 2019? Fiber To The Premises (FTTP) for our city. There are many reasons to make this a priority (among them to satisfy community demand, meet increasing data needs, and attract and retain businesses). We have several means at our disposal to fund FTTP (among them the City Fiber Fund, the Calaveras Funds, installation fees, and bonds). We want to keep Palo Alto on the leading edge -- FTTP is one of the few means at our disposal to do just that. Katherine Causey in University Park January 28, 2019, 9:44 PM I would like to see City Council prioritize equality in 2019, right now we've taken a lot of actions in our school district to prioritize equality it only makes sense that we match those efforts in our community. Taking steps to prioritize equality will strengthen us economically and make us a more attractive city on the peninsula and an annual analysis (or analysis every few years) on how discrimination/harassment is occurring in the community would give us a foundation to take steps toward a more inclusive community. Stacey Ashlund in Barron Park January 28, 2019, 10:27 PM Palo Alto City Council : please make Gender Equality one of our priorities this year - full stop. Star Teachout in Barron Park January 28, 2019, 10:31 PM In random order!.... 1. We need more meaningful places for our teens to go, with at least 2 more youth centers besides the Mitchell Park teen center. Barron Park would be a great location as there isn't anything on the south west side of the city, and I would imagine having something closer to midtown would also be desirable. These places might have ping pong/pool tables, card/game rooms, perhaps some snacks, opportunities for live music, perhaps job boards, etc. Enlist some teens to help develop some ideas, and look at some of the German models for youth centers as well. These could bring our community closer, reduce the isolation from internet/phone use, and reduce car trips for entertainment. They need to be more human, and not over- regulated. 2. Along with number one I would like to see the city share its school resources more with the community. There are many communities which open up the school pools, basketball courts, and fields to let kids use them in the summer. There could be some small fees if needed. Many families cannot afford to join the Eichler Club, Foothills Tennis Club, or YMCA. It seems there are too many assumptions of affluence. 3. Climate Change--we've done some good things but we need to do more. Could we have the city promote and facilitate roof-top solar water systems for homes [perhaps offer an incentive]. Could the city expand its solar generation by purchasing and installing solar on willing homeowners who get free/reduced utilities while generating extra for the city? Could we drastically reduce the fees for ADUs while seeking to limit car parking/trips? Could we rethink some of our bus routes such that people could get to Midtown from Barron Park, or from the el Camino 22 bus line to side streets more easily. Could we have some regular forums for ways we can all reduce our footprint, including food choices, product consumption, travel, and water use. And could we apply this filter to our commercial sector as well as our residential one? I have suggested including data on utility bills of the the lowest utility consuming household [with their permission] for others to compare their own consumption against. We need to compare ourselves with others doing a better job so we can all improve. 4. Any programs to get more people biking. It is so odd to have such an educated community which continues to drive so much despite emissions being a significant contribution to climate change. 5. Do we have enough services for elderly who are living at home, possibly alone? Thanks for asking. Olenka Villarreal in Crescent Park January 28, 2019, 10:37 PM 38 | www.opentownhall.com/7130 Created with OpenGov | January 29, 2019, 2:42 PM 2019 City Council Priorities What are the priorities you would like to see the City Council adopt for 2019? Assuming Palo Alto lines up with national statistics, every 4th resident here has a visible or invisible disability. As a parent who thoroughly benefited from various programs, camps and music classes with my older daughter, I have yet to find any city-run service which my other daughter can take part in. Ava, who is now 16, spends her (long!) summer months and weekends going to Target, Lemo’s Farm and the SF Zoo while I private pay for various sitters to keep her busy while I work. Other neighboring cities have adaptive recreation programs, camps and many services which underscore the importance of each member of their community. I invite Palo Alto to please include everyone’s needs in creating programs, camps and activities. If you need a helping hand doing so, your friends from Magical Bridge Foundation would be happy to help. You wouldn’t only be serving those who have the disability, but would be serving their entire family. Name not shown in College Terrace January 28, 2019, 10:45 PM I want one thing for Palo Alto -- I want us to share space. To share physical space, to share space with other genders, backgrounds in City government, in the tech companies, in our community, to cultivate a sharing spirit. Housing: Want us to allow more small housing in R-1, tiny homes, allow RVs, shared housing, 2 kitchens, dividing a big home into 2 flats, whatever we can do to alleviate the intense stress people feel in how much they pay and how far they commute. Gender Equality: make sure gender equality is important. Public Space: Protect and grow public space for our community. Do not allow tech companies to take over any retail, expand retail/resto zones especially Cal Ave could extend several streets. Mora Oommen in Palo Verde January 28, 2019, 10:46 PM I’m writing to ask for city authorization to do a gender analysis and make Gender Equality a priority for 2019. Name not shown in Fairmeadow January 28, 2019, 11:46 PM Night train noise is definitely affecting our quality of life in Midtown Palo Alto. The commercial train horn at night is so loud that our entire family is regularly awaken in the middle of the night. The city of Palo Alto should makes a priority to create a tunnel to reduce noise nuisance and increase safety for the residents. I understand that the cost is high but it is a measure to take now for future generations. IdaRose Sylvester outside Palo Alto January 28, 2019, 11:51 PM Palo Alto City Council : please make Gender Equality one of your priorities this year. We need to make Gender Equality a priority in the Bay Area, and I vow to work with you and other cities for the greatest impact. IdaRose Sylvester, Mountain View Human Relations Commission. 39 | www.opentownhall.com/7130 Created with OpenGov | January 29, 2019, 2:42 PM 2019 City Council Priorities What are the priorities you would like to see the City Council adopt for 2019? City of Palo Alto (ID # 10039) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 2/2/2019 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Council Retreat Discussion on Council Procedures and Protocols Title: Council Retreat Discussion on Council Procedures and Protocols as They Pertain to Meeting Management and Participation in Local and Regional Boards Including Council Member Responsibilities From: City Manager Lead Department: City Manager Background The City Council Procedures and Protocols Handbook describes the way the Palo Alto City Council does its business and is a directional guide. At its October 29, 2018 meeting, the City Council made basic amendments to conform to the City Council’s reduction to seven members. The Council also referred to Policy & Services additional discretionary changes to the Municipal Code and/or Procedures and Protocols. Discussion For the purpose of the Council Retreat, staff recommends that the discussion focus on two topics: (a) Councilmember participation with local and regional boards, and (b) Council meeting management. With respect to councilmember participation with local and regional boards, the following attachments are provided: A – 2019 Councilmember Board and Commission Assignments B – Excerpt from the Council Procedures and Protocols Handbook, Protocols Section 2.4 Conduct with Palo Alto Boards and Commissions Now that 2019 councilmember assignments have been set, the City Council may wish to review and clarify its expectations for involvement with the various board and commissions, in particular given there are two fewer councilmembers to cover these assignments. As reflected in Attachment B, the only guidance currently provided regarding the council’s level of involvement is in Paragraph G: “Maintain an Active Liaison Relationship. Appointed Council City of Palo Alto Page 2 liaisons or alternates are encouraged to attend all regularly scheduled meetings of their assigned Board or Commission.” In light of fewer councilmembers to cover these assignments, the Council may wish to consider whether additional guidance should be stated: a. In addition to (or in place of) encouraging attendance, Boards and Commission chairs could be invited to meet periodically with Council liaisons. b. Palo Alto Organizations could be invited to meet periodically with Council liaisons, and/or provide an annual written update on activities. c. Council liaisons could be invited to provide verbal updates on their liaison assignments at Council meetings under Council Member Questions, Comments, and Announcements. d. Staff could coordinate periodic updates on Regional Organizations to Council with the assigned Council liaison. With respect to Council meeting management, the following attachments are provided: C – Minutes from the November 13, 2018 Policy & Services Committee Meeting D – Excerpt from the Council Procedures and Protocols Handbook, Procedures Section 2 Council Meeting and Agenda Guidelines The Policy and Services Committee discussed the Council Procedures and Protocols at the November 13, 2018 Policy and Services meeting and unanimously approved direction to Staff to finish the previous suggested revisions to the 2015 Procedures and Protocols and bring the updated document to Council for discussion, early in 2019 bring a discussion to Policy and Services Committee regarding Council assignments due to the reduction from 9 to 7 Council Members. Now that the Council has conducted a few meetings with seven members, Staff agendized Meeting Management at the Council’s retreat in order to provide councilmembers with the opportunity to discuss any suggestions for meeting management. A few specific suggestions have been noted: a. Staff could provide additional time tracking to keep the Council informed of how long an item is being discussed, and pace relative to the scheduled agenda. b. Additional public notice could be provided to reinforce that Oral Communications on issues not on the agenda will be limited to 30 minutes, with additional communications heard after scheduled items. City of Palo Alto Page 3 Council feedback on these and other suggestions will be incorporated into a comprehensive draft of the Council Procedures and Protocols Handbook, for review by the Policies and Services Committee. Attachments: • Att A - 2019 Board-Committee Assignments • Att B - Council Protocols Section 2.4 • Att C - Policy & Services Committee 11-13-18 Minutes • Att D - Council Procedures Section 2 2019 Council Member AssignmentsCormackDuBoisFilsethFineKnissKouTanakaCOMMENTSCITY/SCHOOL LIAISON COMMITTEE X XThird Thursday of each month at 8:00 am at School District COUNCIL/CAO COMMITTEE XX X Scheduled as needed FINANCE COMMITTEE XX (ch) X First & Third Tuesdays of each month at 7:00 pm P&S COMMITTEE X (ch)XXSecond Tuesday of each month at 7:00 pm RAIL COMMITTEE (Committee of Whole)XX(recused)X (ch)(recused)X X Wednesdays at 8:00 am -- as required HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD X First & Third Wednesday of each month at 8:30 am HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION X Second Thursday of each month at 7:00 pm LIBRARY ADVISORY COMMISSION X Fourth Thursday of every other month at 7:00 pm PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION X Fourth Tuesday of each month at 7:00 pm PUBLIC ART COMMISSION X Third Thursday of each month at 7:00 pm UTILITIES ADVISORY COMMISSION (alt) X First Wednesday of every month at 7:00 pm COUNCIL COMMITTEES BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS 1 2019 Council Member AssignmentsCormackDuBoisFilsethFineKnissKouTanakaCOMMENTSBUSINESS ASSOC. OF CA. AVE X Meets Thursday on varied weeks of the month; time and location are under change CHAMBER OF COMMERCE- X Meets frist Wednesday at noon, location announced before each meeting. PA DOWNTOWN BUSINESS & PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION (BID) X Board meets on the 2nd Wednesday each month, 9:00 am - typically 90 mins. Boston Private Bank, 420 Cowper Avenue ART CENTER FOUNDATION X The 3rd Wednesday of each month. Alternating 8:00 am and 4:30 pm with no meetings in August. Jan. 9am / Feb. 4:30pm / Mar. 9am… AVENIDAS X The Board meets 6 times a year: odd numbered months, 2nd Wednesday, 11:30-1:30 NEIGHBORS ABROAD X Second Wednesday each month at 7:30 p.m. FRIENDS OF JR. MUSEUM & ZOO X Board meets on the 2nd Thursday of each month at 9:00 am LYTTON GARDENS X The Board of Directors meets on the fourth Thursday in January, March, May, August, and October. PALO ALTO COMMUNITY CHILD CARE X Fourth Wed. 5:30-7:30 pm, they would like the Liaison to attend one or two meetings per year and perhaps one less formal meeting with the Executive Director early in the year PALO ALTO HOUSING CORP X Meetings are held quarterly (the 4th Wednesday) at 7:30 am in the CCR. PA / STANFORD CITIZEN CORPS COUNCIL (E_Prep) X At-large/Council liaison to various community based efforts SILICON VALLEY BOARD OF REALTORS X Meets every other Wednesday at 8:30 am in Los Gatos YOUTH LIAISON X Project Safety Net (PSN) and Youth Council PALO ALTO ORGANIZATIONS (CITY & LOCAL) 2 2019 Council Member AssignmentsCormackDuBoisFilsethFineKnissKouTanakaCOMMENTSTMA LIAISON X VTA BOARD X VTA - POLICY ADVISORY COMMITTEE X The board meets on the second Thursday of each month at 4:00 pm in San Jose. CALTRAIN POLICY MAKER COM. (LPMG)X Meets the 4th Thursday each month at 6:00 pm in San Carlos VTA GRAND BLVD TASK FORCE X Meets Quarterly at 10:00 am (locations vary) ASSOCIATION OF BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS (ABAG)- DELEGATE X Meets the 3rd Thursday Every other Month at 7:00 pm in Oakland SANTA CLARA COUNTY CITIES ASSOCIATION (1) and LEGISLATIVE ACTION COMMITTEE (2) X (board) (alt LAC)X (LAC) (1) = Meets 1st Wednesday each month at 3:30 in San Jose and (2) = Scheduled as needed LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES - PENINSULA DIVISION (alt) X Meets at 6:00 pm the 4th Thursday of Feb May Aug and Oct STA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT COMMISSION X Meets quarterly Jan., April, July, Oct. on Wed.'s at noon, undetermined which week of the month they meet. Bay Area Water Supply & Conservation Agency BAWSCA X 3rd Thursday of every other month 7PM SAN FRANCISQUITO CREEK JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY (alt) X Meets the 4th Thursday each month at 4:00 pm locations rotate, This also requires an alternate. JOINT PA/SCVWD WATER RECYCLING COMM (alt) X (ch) 2 from Palo Alto REGIONAL ORGANIZATIONS (1) 3 2019 Council Member AssignmentsCormackDuBoisFilsethFineKnissKouTanakaCOMMENTSAd hoc Comm on South Flow Arrivals X Ad hoc Committee for 120 days beginning the end of 2017 SFO AIRPORT ROUNDTABLE LIAISON X Meets Quarterly at 10:00 am (locations vary) NORTHERN CALIFORNIA POWER AGENCY (NCPA) (alt) (1) NCPA Committee meeting meets at 8:30 am each month. (2) Executive Board meets the 4th Thursday each month at 9:30 am. (3) L&R meets quarterly with varied time and loactions REGIONAL ORGANIZATIONS (2) 4 Excerpt from City Council Procedures and Protocols Handbook (Protocols Section 2 - Council Conduct) 2.4 - Conduct with Palo Alto Boards and Commissions The City has established several Boards and Commissions as a means of gathering more community input. Citizens who serve on Boards and Commissions become more involved in government and serve as advisors to the City Council. They are a valuable resource to the City’s leadership and should be treated with appreciation and respect. Council Members serve as liaisons to Boards and Commissions, according to appointments made by the Mayor, and in this role are expected to represent the full Council in providing guidance on Council processes or actions to the Board or Commission. Refrain from speaking for the full Council on matters for which the full council has not yet taken a policy position. In other instances, Council Members may attend Board or Commission meetings as individuals, and should follow these protocols: A. If Attending a Board or Commission Meeting, Identify Your Comments as Personal Views or Opinions. Council Members may attend any Board or Commission meeting, which are always open to any member of the public. Any public comments by a Council Member at a Board or Commission meeting, when that Council Member is not the liaison to the Board or Commission should make a point to clearly state it is an individual opinion and not a representation of the feelings of the entire City Council. B. Refrain from Lobbying Board and Commission Members. It is inappropriate for a Council Member to contact a Board or Commission member to lobby on behalf of an individual, business, or developer, or to advocate a particular policy perspective. It is acceptable for Council Members to contact Board or Commission members in order to clarify a position taken by the Board or Commission. C. Remember that Boards and Commissions are Advisory to the Council as a Whole, not as Individual Council Members. The City Council appoints individuals to serve on Boards and Commissions, and it is the responsibility of Boards and Commissions to follow policy established by the Council. Council Members should not feel they have the power or right to unduly influence Board and Commission members. A Board and Commission appointment should not be used as a political reward. D. Concerns about an Individual Board or Commission Member Should be Pursued with Tact. If a Council Member has concerns with a particular Board or Commission member fulfilling his or her roles and responsibilities and is comfortable in talking with that individual privately, the Council Member should do so. Alternatively, or if the problem is not resolved, the Council Member should consult with the Mayor, who may address the issue to the Council as appropriate. E. Be Respectful of Diverse Opinions. A primary role of Boards and Commissions is to represent many points of view in the community and to provide the Council with advice based on a full spectrum of concerns and perspectives. Council Members may have a closer working relationship with some individuals serving on Boards and Commissions, but must be fair to and respectful of all citizens serving on Boards and Commissions. F. Keep Political Support Away from Public Forums. Board and Commission members may offer political support to a Council Member, but not in a public forum while conducting official duties. Conversely, Council Members may support Board and Commission members who are running for office, but not in an official forum in their capacity as a Council Member. G. Maintain an Active Liaison Relationship. Appointed Council liaisons or alternates are encouraged to attend all regularly scheduled meetings of their assigned Board or Commission. MINUTES - Policy and Servces Com. November 13, 2018 - Item # 3 Page 10 of 16 Policy and Services Committee Final Minutes 11/13/18 3.Review Council Procedures and Protocols. Rob de Geus, Deputy City Manager started off by stating that the last time the procedures and protocols were thoroughly looked at was back in 2015. Staff’s recommendation was to have the Policy and Services Committee (Committee) review and comment on the previous discussion that City Council (Council) had. Then Staff would review the Committee’s comments and present a new draft to the Council in the beginning of 2019. Jim Keene, City Manager articulated that the protocols and procedures were constantly changing with each new City Council that was elected. He explained that the in-depth discussion that happened in 2015 was never formally adopted. He suggested that the Council and the Committee have more discussions on procedures and protocols instead of just an annual review. He cautioned the Committee about thinking about pushing for implementation of any changes made to the procedures and protocols until the new City Council was sworn in. Molly Stump, City Attorney advised that the expectations for new procedures and protocols should be clear. Chair Fine noted that there were two main issues and one was that residents of Palo Alto were not happy with the efficiency of the Council and the engagement process between Council and residents. The other issue was that the procedures and protocols were guidelines and it was up to the City MINUTES Page 11 of 16 Policy and Services Committee Final Minutes 11/13/18 Council to enforce them. Staff’s time was directly impacted by how the City Council’s meetings functioned and he wanted to make sure that the Committee realized that before they made their comments. He suggested that the new 2019 City Council review the standing City Council Committees and Regional Assignments. Council Member Wolbach agreed that the Committee should make very clear recommendations to the new 2019 City Council. He suggested the Committee review the time for public speakers, how many members it took to pull an item from the Consent Calendar, clarification on how a City Council Member calls in remotely to a meeting, time restrictions for items on meetings that run past 10:00 P.M., and review the Regional Assignments and City Council Committees. In terms of public speaker time, he wanted to encourage the public to group up and have a spokesperson present their case to the Council. Council Member DuBois advised that the City Council appoint non-City Council Members for some of the local Boards. He asked Staff how they determine which rules to use if the 2015 strategy was never adopted. Ms. Stump explained that some of the old rules were inconsistent with the Brown Act and so the 2015 rules were being applied for consistency. Council Member DuBois wanted to allow conference calling or video calls for City Council Members who were in remote locations and it should not be limited geographically. He agreed that pulling items from the Consent Calendar was a topic that needed to be discussed. He wanted to see what other Cities did that had a small City Council. He wanted clarification and alignment on the rules for the Council’s appointed Boards and Commissions. He wanted to review the swearing in date after an election. Ms. Stump interjected to state that the City’s Charter had a rule on when elected officials would be sworn in and a change to that rule would require a Charter Amendment change. She added that swearing in new City Council Members did not have to happen at a meeting, it could be done privately. Council Member DuBois inquired if the Council could make the Charter Amendment. Ms. Stump confirmed that Council could propose a Charter Amendment. In terms of General Municipal Elections, it had no impact on organized labor. MINUTES Page 12 of 16 Policy and Services Committee Final Minutes 11/13/18 Council Member Holman agreed that a discussion should happen in terms of the time limit for public speakers. She did not want the time limit to be less than 2-minutes. She did not want to have City Council Members making significant changes to projects without having those ideas vetted before the meeting. Ms. Stump commented that the Brown Act did not allow City Council Members to propose new topics or suggestions at meetings unless there was proper public noticing was done before hand. She cautioned Council Member Holman that there were major challenges to limiting Council Members from bringing forward new topics during a meeting. Council Member Holman restated that she wanted City Council Members to limit their opinions if it would make a significant change to a project. Those opinions needed to be thoroughly presented to the City Council in a Staff report with all documentation before it could be discussed. Ms. Stump advised that the City Council and the Committee needed to make rules that the majority was in agreement with. Mr. Keene added that Council Member Holman’s concern was appropriate and noteworthy but could not be resolved in one meeting. Council Member Holman noted that in terms of the number of City Council Members it took to pull an item from the Consent Calendar it should be reduced to two instead of three. She wanted to discuss the guidelines and standards on how an item was placed on the Consent Calendar. She stated that if a City Council Member was going to vote no on a Consent Calendar item, they should be given the option to speak to their no vote after voting. She wanted more guidelines for Study Sessions. She wanted a review of the Council Appointed Officer (CAO) Committee roles, limitation, and expanse. She requested that there be clarification on the election of Mayor and Vice Mayor was a Brown Act action and on how those positions were elected. In terms of the role of the Mayor participating in meetings, those needed to be strengthened, and that the Mayor must be fluent in parliamentary procedures. All quasi-judicial items should be indicated on agendas and there should be some training for all Boards and Commissions on parliamentary procedures. She proposed more work be shifted from the Finance Committee to the Policy and Services Committee to help balance out the work load. MINUTES Page 13 of 16 Policy and Services Committee Final Minutes 11/13/18 Chair Fine articulated that 3-minutes for a public speaker was reasonable and to avoid 1-minute at all costs. In addition, there should be clear wording written on the public speaker cards stating how much time was allotted when there were large groups of speakers. He agreed that some guidelines or criteria should be used to determine what items go on the Consent Calendar. He wanted to leave the procedure that three City Council Members where needed to pull an item from the Consent Calendar. He suggested to add language that the review of City Council’s policy and procedures be optional every year and not mandatory. He agreed with Council Member Dubois that video calling would be best when a City Council Member was in a remote location. He concurred that a limit should be maintained on how many times a year a City Council Member could call in. He wanted to remove the language that the site where the City Council Member was calling from should be compliant with the Americans Disability Act. He agreed with Council Member Wolbach that there should be a check in during City Council meetings at 10 or 10:30 P.M. to determine if a new action item should be taken up at such a late hour. He wanted to revise the language stating that each City Council Members have 1-hour to ask questions about an item. In terms of Council Committee votes, he recommended that an item that did not receive unanimous vote should have the Mayor and Vice Mayors discretion to be put on the Consent Calendar or be an action item. He wanted to try a clock that tracked how long each City Council Member talked in 2019. In terms of Calling the Question, he wanted to know if it was possible to move that to a simple majority instead of a 2/3s majority. Ms. Stump clarified that the rule was modeled after Robert’s Rules. Chair Fine wanted clarification on when a City Council Member was supposed to notify Staff or the Mayor about pulling an item from the Consent Calendar. He agreed with City Council Member Holman that there should be a discussion about if a City Council Member should speak to their no vote on Consent Calendar items. Mr. Keene cautioned that if a City Council Member were allowed to speak to their no vote, then a discussion and debate could quickly take place among the City Council about that item. Ms. Stump added there was tension between Staff and City Council when a City Council Member does not give notice to Staff that they want to pull an item from the Consent Calendar. MINUTES Page 14 of 16 Policy and Services Committee Final Minutes 11/13/18 Chair Fine asked for more definition on Study Sessions. He wanted to limit the behavior of addressing public speakers outside of the public comment period unless the Chair has identified them and told them to come to the microphone to speak. Mr. Keene restated that he understood that the Committee wanted the item to come to the new Council in 2019. Council Member Holman proposed that the Policy and Services Committee review the City Council Committees and Regional Assignments. Council Member Wolbach disclosed that it was a good idea to have the protocols be City Council Member to City Council Member and the procedures were the public to City Council Members interactions. He was in support of changing the number of City Council Members that were needed to pull an item from the Consent Calendar and letting a City Council Member who voted no to speak. He believed that it was appropriate for a Council Member to voice significant changes to a project if it was within the agenized item. He recommended that the Mayor, Vice Mayor, City Manager, and the City Clerk review the City Council’s Committees and Regional Assignments at the start of each year. He recommended that when speaker times were limited to 1-minute, he wanted to still allow groups of five or more speakers to speak for 10-minutes. Council Member DuBois restated that any City Council Member can put a consent item on as an action item and make any action item a consent Item. Mr. Keene clarified that any City Council Member could put an item on the Consent Calendar. By doing it that way there were many City Council Member’s requesting to put the same item on the Consent Calendar but with different wording. Council Member DuBois suggested that City Council Members should be given more responsibility and the City Council Member were to live up to those responsibilities. In terms of a significant change to a project he suggested that there be a process that less than a majority could trigger the continuation of an item. In regards to the City Council Member with the highest vote become Mayor, he thought that was an interesting idea. He felt strongly that a Committee’s vote on an item that was not unanimous should go to the City Council for discussion. He liked the idea that each City Council Member have their own clock. He agreed that if an item was on the Consent Calendar that it made sense to speak after the vote. He stated that the MINUTES Page 15 of 16 Policy and Services Committee Final Minutes 11/13/18 review of City Council Committees and Regional Assignments should be discussed by the Policy and Services Committee but the Mayor would appoint who were on those City Council Committees. Council Member Holman emphasized that it was part of agenda management and not just about how many people showed up that determined how long public speakers could talk. She articulated that City Council Members should never pull anything off the Consent Calendar that was an appeal. She was not in favor of limiting City Council Members to a specific time in which they could talk. Council Member Wolbach was not in favor of having a minority of City Council Members to force an item to be continued. He was in favor of having a non-binding clock for each City Council Member. MOTION: Council Member Fine moved, seconded by Council Member Wolbach to direct Staff to finish the previous suggested revisions to the 2015 Procedures and Protocols and bring the updated document to Council for discussion, including comments made by the Committee tonight; and early in 2019 bring a discussion to Policy and Services Committee regarding Council assignments due to the reduction from 9 to 7 Council Members. Council Member Holman asked Chair Fine for clarification on what he meant by thinning out the 2015 revisions of the procedures and protocols. Chair Fine commented that he wanted the document to be cleaned up and remove any redundant items. Mr. Keene interjected that Chair Fine meant that it should not be content based but just clarity. MOTION PASSED: 4-0 Mr. Keene advised that agenda management was key to having a successful meeting. He believed that the Mayor should have some training on how to run a successful City Council meeting and shaping the agendas. He did not agree with reducing the number of people needed to pull an item from the Consent Calendar to two people. He advised to set an advanced deadline for City Council Members to notify Staff that they wanted to pull an item from the Consent Calendar. In terms of significant changes made to Staff’s recommendations, City Council Members needed to know the ramifications to Staff when those major changes were being suggested. MINUTES Page 16 of 16 Policy and Services Committee Final Minutes 11/13/18 Council Member Holman suggested that Staff reports should include a recommended action by the City Council, two alternatives, and all three should list the pros and cons of those actions. Future Meetings and Agendas Mr. Rob de Geus, Deputy City Manager announced that December 11, 2018 was the date for the next meeting. ADJOURNMENT: Meeting adjourned at 9:26 P.M. 1 Excerpt from Council Policies & Procedures SECTION 2 – COUNCIL MEETING & AGENDA GUIDELINES 2.1 - Policy It is the policy of the Council to establish and follow a regular format for meeting agendas. 2.2 – Purpose The purpose of these guidelines is to facilitate the orderly and efficient conduct of Council business. This purpose recognizes the value of establishing a community understanding of meeting procedures so that broad public participation is encouraged. This purpose also recognizes that Council Members must have a common approach to the discussion and debate of City business so that meetings are both streamlined and thorough. 2.3 - Summary of Guidelines The City Council generally conducts four different kinds of meetings. These are Regular Meetings, Special Meetings, Study Sessions, and Closed Sessions. A. Regular Meetings are conducted at City Hall on the first three Monday nights of each month, except during the Council’s annual vacation. The meetings are scheduled to begin at 6:00 p.m. Regular meeting agendas must be posted in the City Plaza by the elevators no later than 7:00 p.m. on the preceding Friday ng as required by the Brown Act. It is City policy to make every effort to complete and distribute the agenda and related reports by the preceding Thursday, eleven days prior to the meeting. Once the agenda is posted, it shall also be uploaded to the City Council web page for use by the public. It is City policy to make every effort to complete and distribute the agenda and related reports by the Thursday, eleven days prior to the meeting. B. Special Meetings are “special” because the Mayor or Council can call them on a minimum of 24 hours notice, or are held on a different day of the week, at a different time or different locationSpecial meetings need not be held at City Hall, as long as the alternate location is within the City. The Council makes every effort to provide notice well in advance of 24 hours, especially when the special meeting is for the purpose of conducting a Study Session. C. Study Sessions are meetings during which the Council receives information about City business in an informal setting. The informal study session setting is intended to encourage in-depth discussion and detailed questioning and brainstorming by Council on issues of significant interest, including City policy matters, zoning applications, and major public works projects. The Council may discuss the material freely without following formal rules of parliamentary procedure. Staff may be directed to bring matters back for future Council consideration as no action can be taken at a study session. Public comments on study session items may be received together with oral communications immediately following the session or may be heard during discussion of the item as determined by the Mayor. The Decorum rules still apply to the behavior of the Council and public. D. Closed Sessions can be part of regular or special meetings. Closed sessions are the only kind of Council meeting that the public cannot attend. State law allows closed sessions to discuss pending litigation, employment issues, real estate negotiations 2 and certain other matters. Members of the public are permitted to make public comments on closed session matters. The Council must make a public report after the session when certain kinds of actions are taken. These are guidelines, not rules. The Council intends that City staff and Council Members will follow these guidelines. However, these guidelines should not be used in a way that leads to inefficiency, unfairness, or the promotion of form over substance. State law establishes a variety of mandatory meeting rules the City must follow in order to assure open and public government, regardless of unusual situations and consequences. 2.4 - General Requirements A. Regular Meetings Attendance Required. Council Members, the City Clerk, City Attorney, and City Manager, along with any other city officers and department heads that have been requested to be present, shall take their regular stations in the Council chamber at 6:00 p.m. on the first, second and third Mondays of each month, except during the established Council vacation.i The Mayor will ensure that during each regular meeting there will be one 5 minute break.The Council expects its members to attend regularly and notify the City Clerk of any planned absences. The Council may levy fines of up to $250.00 against Council members who willfully or negligently fail to attend meetings.ii B. Telephonic Attendance Of Council Members At Council Meetings The City Council Procedures provisions concerning Telephonic Attendance shall apply to City Council members. Requests by Council Members to attend a Council meeting via telephonic appearance are actively discouraged. Telephonic attendance shall be permitted not more than 3 times a year in extraordinary events such as a medical, family or similar event requiring a Council Member’s absence. In addition, at least a quorum of the Council must participate from a location within the City (Government Code Section 54953(b)(3)). If these two threshold requirements are met, the Council Member who will be appearing telephonically must ensure that: • The meeting agenda identifies the teleconference location and is posted at that location in an area that is accessible and visible 24 hours a day for at least 5 days prior to the meeting. • The teleconference location is open and fully accessible to the public, and fully accessible under the Americans with Disabilities Act, throughout the entire meeting. These requirements apply to private residences, hotel rooms, and similar facilities, all of which must remain fully open and accessible throughout the meeting, without requiring identification or registration. • The teleconference technology used is open and fully accessible to all members of the public, including those with disabilities. • Members of the public who attend the meeting at the teleconference location have the same opportunity to address the Council from the 3 remote location that they would if they were present in Council Chambers. • The teleconference location must not require an admission fee or any payment for attendance. If the Council Member determines that any or all of these requirements cannot be met, he or she shall not participate in the meeting via teleconference. Approved Teleconference Guidelines for Council Members: • 5 days written notice must be given by the Council Member to the City Clerk’s office; the notice must include the address at which the teleconferenced meeting will occur, the address the Council packet should be mailed to, who is to initiate the phone call to establish the teleconference connection, and the phone number of the teleconference location. If cellular telephones are used to participate in teleconferenced meetings then Council members need to ensure speaker phone option is functioning. • The Council Member is responsible for posting the Council agenda in the remote location, or having the agenda posted by somebody at the location and confirming that posting has occurred. The City Clerk will assist, if necessary, by emailing, faxing or mailing the agenda to whatever address or fax number the Council Member requests; however, it is the Council Member’s responsibility to ensure that the agenda arrives and is posted. If the Council Member will need the assistance of the City Clerk in delivery of the agenda, the fax number or address must be included in the one-week advance written notice above. • The Council Member must ensure that the location will be publicly accessible while the meeting is in progress. • The Council Member must state at the beginning of the Council meeting that the 72-hour posting requirement was met at the location and that the location is publicly accessible, and must describe the location. Furthermore, the City Clerk will provide Council with a quarterly report detailing the telephone charges associated with teleconferenced meetings. C. Items Considered After 10:30 p.m. The City Council makes every effort to end its meetings before 11:00 p.m. The Council also generally does not take up new matters after 10:30 p.m. Before 10:00 p.m. the Council will decide and announce whether it will begin consideration of any agenda items after 10:30 and, if so, which specific items will be taken up. D. Late Submittal of Correspondence or Other Information Related to Planning Applications. In order to allow for adequate Staff review and analysis, and to ensure public access to information, all plans, correspondence, and other documents supporting planning applications being heard by the City Council must be submitted to staff not later than noon five working days prior to the release of the Council Agenda Packet. If any 4 correspondence or other information is submitted after this deadline to Council Members or staff, and Staff determines additional review is needed Staff will reschedule the item for a future Council meeting. If a Council member receives planning application materials from a project applicant he or she shall notify the City Clerk and the City Manager as soon as possible. There are no restrictions on the rights of applicants or others to comment or respond to information contained within the Staff Report. At the meeting the City Council may determine whether to continue or refer the item to the appropriate Board and/or Commission if significant changes to a project or significant new information become known. Nothing in this statement is intended to restrict the rights of applicants or other interested parties to respond to information contained in or attached to a Staff Report. *For all purposes, applicant also refers to applicant agent. E. Agenda Order City Council agendas will be prepared by the City Clerk and presented to the City Council in the order described below. It is the Council’s policy to hear the major items of business first at each meeting, to the extent possible. The City Manager, with prior approval of the Mayor, is authorized to designate upon the agenda of the Council, and the City Clerk shall publish in the agenda digest, items that shall be taken up first or at a specific time during the course of the meeting.iii The City Council may take matters up out of order upon approval by a majority vote of those present: 1) Roll Call 2) Study Session/Closed Session 3) Special orders of the day 4) City Manager Comments 5) Oral communications, including oral communications related to any study session that began immediately before the regular meeting 6) Approval of minutes 7) Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions 8) Consent calendar Items may be placed upon the consent calendar by any council-appointed officer whenever, in such officer's judgment, such items are expected to be routinely approved without discussion or debate. The consent calendar shall be voted upon as one item. 9) Action Items 10) Inter-Governmental Legislative Affairs F. Council Questions & Comment Consent Calendar: No discussion or debate shall be permitted upon items upon the consent calendar; however, any Council Member may request that his or her vote be recorded as a "no" or "not participating" due to a specified conflict of interest on any individual item. Council Members may also explain their "no" votes at the end of the Consent Calendar, with a 3 minute time limit for non-appeal items and 5 minutes for appeal item for each Council Member. Council Members may also submit statements in writing to the City Clerk before action is taken. The City Clerk shall preserve and make available such written statements in a manner consistent with the 5 Brown Act and shall assure that the minutes of the meeting make reference to the existence and location of such written statements. G. Public Comment Members of the public wishing to speak to items on the Consent Calendar will have the option of testimony prior to adoption of the Consent Calendar. H. Council Requests to Remove Item Three Council Members may request that an item be removed from the consent calendar prior to and following the public comment period on the agenda. The City Manager’s office should be advised whenever possible, in writing, of a request for removal no later than noon the Sunday before the meeting. I. Hearing of Removed Items Removed items will be heard in the meeting, depending upon the number of speakers and the anticipated length of the items that have been officially scheduled for discussion on a particular evening. The Mayor will decide when during the meeting any removed items will be heard. J. Consent Calendar Categories The consent calendar portion is the section where administrative and non- controversial shall be presented. Mayor and City Manager should be sensitive to high dollar value items and consider placing those items in the action agenda section. The consent section is presented in 5 categories in the following order: 1) Ordinances and Resolutions The following ordinances and resolutions may appear on a consent calendar: • Second Reading (passage and adoption) of Ordinances. • a resolution which are ceremonial in nature. • Ordinances or resolutions that implement a prior Council policy direction in the manner contemplated by the Council's previous actions, in the Adopted Budget (including the Capital Improvement Program and especially in the department key plans); and the Council Top Priority Workplan, among other sources.. • Budget amendment ordinances that accept funding such as grants or gifts, provided Council has previously approved the activity or program. • Resolutions approving funding applications, such as grants or loans, provided that the program or activity has been previously approved by Council. 2) Administrative Matters Including Contracts, Appointments, Approval of Applications, and Any Other Matter. The titles of administrative matters need not be read. An administrative matter may be placed on the consent calendar if it is: • An action that is merely the administrative execution of previous Council direction. The Council direction and vote will be quoted in the staff report accompanying the item. 6 • Contracts for which the subject or scope of work has been previously reviewed by the City Council. • A contract for goods, general services, professional services, public works projects, dark fiber licensing contracts or wholesale commodities, purchases, as outlined in the Purchasing Ordinance, provided such contracts represent the customary and usual business of the department as included in the Adopted Budget. Examples include: routine maintenance contracts, annual audit agreement; software and hardware support agreements, janitorial services, copier agreements or postage machine agreements. • Rejection of bids. • Designation of heritage trees. • Designation of historic building at the request of the property owner if there are no unusual policy ramifications. • Approval of funding applications, such as grants or loans, provided that Council has previously approved the general program or activity. • Formal initiation, for consideration at a later date, of a zoning code amendment or review process, such as preliminary review. • Status report required by law for fee administration. • Cancellation of meetings or scheduling of special meeting. 3) Request to Refer Items to Any Council Standing Committee, Committee, Board, Commission or Council Appointed Officer. The consent calendar includes matters for which staff is merely seeking Council approval of a referral to a Council standing committee or other City official, advisory board or commission. This does not preclude staff from making referrals to the standing committees. Staff uses such referrals in order to expedite the business of the full Council, since its agenda is so full. Discussion of a complex issue by another body, provides an opportunity for public input and extended discussion by the members of the body. The full Council is then able to benefit from the minutes of that discussion when the item comes back to the Council for final approval. This practice also allows the City/School Liaison Committee to consider items of interest to both agencies without having to go through the formality of a Council agenda referral. 4) Items Recommended for Approval if the Committee Unanimously Recommends Placement on the Consent Calendar, Unless Otherwise Recommended by the Committee, Mayor, City Attorney or City Manager. 5) Items Recommended for Approval, and for Placement on the Consent Calendar, by any Council-Appointed Boards and Commissions, Provided that Other Public Hearing Requirements are Not in Effect. 7 K. Colleagues Memo’s Any three Council Members may bring forward a colleague memo on any topic to be considered by the entire Council. Three Council Members are required to place such a memo on the agenda, reflective of the Council procedure requiring a motion and a second for consideration of a motion by the Council. Up to four Council Members may sign a colleague memo. The City Attorney recommends that the colleague memo be limited to three Council Members in order to avoid the potential of a Brown Act issue. Prior to preparing a colleague memo, Council Members will consult with the City Manager to determine whether the City Manager is or is not able to address the issues as part of his/her operational authority and within current budgeted resources. Colleague’s memos should have a section that identifies any potential staffing or fiscal impacts of the contemplated action. This section will be drafted by the City Manager. Council Members shall provide a copy of the proposed memo to the City Manager or appropriate senior staff prior to finalization. Completed Council colleagues memos shall be provided to the City Clerk’s staff by noon on the Tuesday 11 days prior to the Council meeting that the memo is intended to be agendized, to provide time for the City Clerk to process for the Council packet. The City Council will not take action on the night that a colleague memo is introduced if it has any implications for staff resources or current work priorities which are not addressed in the memo. The Council will discuss the colleague memo and then direct the City Manager to agendize the matter for Council action within two meetings, allowing City staff time to prepare a summary of staffing and resource impacts. Action may be taken immediately by the Council on colleague memos where there are no resource or staffing implications or where these are fully outlined in the colleagues memo. The Brown Act requires that the public be fully informed of the potential action by the Council via the Agenda 72 hours before a scheduled Council meeting. In order to satisfy the Brown Act requirements, the Council should consult with the City Attorney to ensure that the proposed title to the colleague memo contains all actions that the Council Members want completed on the night of the Council review. L. Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements The purpose of this agenda item is to allow Council to question staff briefly on matters upon which Council has taken action or given direction, make general comments as a reference to staff on factual matters of community concern, or make brief announcements in a manner consistent with Government Code section 54952.2. New assignments will not be given nor will major policy issues be discussed or considered. To the extent possible, Council will confer with staff before raising matters of _________ nature under this agenda item. This agenda item will generally be limited to 15 minutes in length and the public may not speak to matters discussed; M. Closed Sessions N. Adjournment O. Rescheduling Agenda Items 8 When the Council is unable to complete its agenda the remaining business will generally be rescheduled as follows. Nothing in this section shall be deemed to supersede or conflict with state law. 1) Meeting Adjourned Sine Die When a regular meeting is adjourned sine die (without a day), all unfinished items will be listed under unfinished business on the next regular Council meeting agenda; except, that where deemed necessary, the City Clerk, with the City Manager's concurrence, may place those business items in a different order on the agenda. 2) Meeting Adjourned to Date Certain When a regular meeting is adjourned to another regular meeting night, all unfinished items will be listed in their original order after roll call on the agenda of such designated regular meeting. 3) Continued Items When an item on the agenda is continued to a subsequent meeting, such item will be listed under unfinished business on such agenda unless the Council by majority vote chooses to place such item in a different location on such agenda or unless the City Clerk, with the City Manager's concurrence, deems it necessary to place such item at a different location on such agenda. P. Adding New Items to the Agenda No matters other than those on the agenda shall be finally acted upon by the Council. However, emergency actions (as defined in Government Code section 54956.5) and matters upon which there is a lawful need to take immediate action (as defined in Government Code section 54954.2) may, with the consent of two-thirds, or all members present if less than two-thirds are present, be considered and acted upon by the Council. Q. Special Meetings Special meetings may be called by the Mayor or City Council by providing a minimum of 24-hours posted notice in the manner required by state law. To the greatest extent possible, special meetings called for other than regular meeting days should be scheduled by a majority of the Council present and voting at a regular meeting.iv Unlike regular meetings, there are no circumstances that permit the City Council to add new items to a special meeting agenda or notice. R. Study Sessions Study sessions are meetings during which the Council receives information about City business in an informal setting. 1) Time Special study sessions will be held as needed. 2) No Formal Rules Study sessions are intended to be conducive to in-depth factual presentations by City staff and detailed questioning and brainstorming by Council. The Council may discuss the material freely without following formal rules of parliamentary procedure, and the Mayor shall have discretion to determine 9 the appropriate process for conducting the study session, including when public comment and oral communications will be heard. 3) Public Participation. The general rules of decorum apply. 4) No Final Action Staff may be directed to bring matters back for Council consideration at future meetings, as no action can be taken. S. Closed Sessions Closed sessions are the only kind of Council meeting that the public cannot observe. State law allows closed sessions to discuss pending litigation, employment issues, real estate negotiations and certain other matters. To the greatest extent possible, the City Attorney and City Clerk shall use standardized agenda descriptions that are consistent with Government Code section 54954.5. Special closed sessions will be scheduled before or after regular or special Council meetings to the extent possible and appropriate. Closed sessions may be scheduled during a regular or special Council meeting, but this is discouraged by Council; The City Council will take a vote to go into Closed Session prior to closed session beginning. 1) Announcements Before Closed Sessions The Mayor/City Clerk shall announce the item or items to be considered in closed session by reference to the appropriate agenda number or letter, or in an alternate form that shall be provided by the City Attorney. 2) Public Comments Members of the public are permitted to make public comments on closed session matters. The City Clerk shall be present in the open session to record Council attendance and any statements made during oral communications or by the Council. 3) Attendance The City Manager and City Attorney, or their designees, shall attend closed sessions unless it is necessary to excuse them. Only such additional staff shall attend as are necessary and then only if the legal privileges of confidentiality obtained in an executive session are not waived. 4) Public Reports State Law and a Palo Alto initiative require the Council to make a public report after a closed session when certain kinds of actions are taken.v Reports from closed sessions shall be made by the Mayor, the Vice Mayor in the Mayor's absence, or such other City representative as designated by the Council or its committees. Such designated person is the only individual authorized to make public statements concerning the closed session. It is the policy of the City Council to inform the public of action taken in closed session to the greatest extent possible. It is recognized, however, that the need for confidentiality is inherent in closed sessions and that certain matters if revealed may be a detriment to the results desired. The Council shall publicly report: (a) any decision to appoint, employ, or dismiss a public employee and the roll call vote thereon at its next public meeting, (b) actions 10 related to litigation and the roll call vote on such actions, unless the report would, in the written opinion of the City Attorney for specifically stated reasons, clearly jeopardize the city’s ability to effectuate service of process on one or more unserved parties or impair the city’s ability to resolve the matter through negotiation, mediation or other form of settlement. Notwithstanding the City Attorney's written opinion, the Council may under any circumstance, by majority vote, determine that it is in the City's best interests to disclose actions taken in closed session related to litigation. The public report shall be given as soon as possible, but no later than the next regular meeting, and shall include the vote or abstention of every member present. The City Attorney’s written opinion shall be made public, along with any action taken and any vote thereon, as soon as any litigation is concluded. The City Attorney shall record any action and vote upon such forms as the City Attorney may deem desirable. 5) No Minutes No minutes of closed sessions shall be kept. The City Attorney shall record the information necessary to comply with state law and the Palo Alto initiative. 6) Confidentiality No person in attendance at a closed session may disclose the substance or effect of any matter discussed during the session.vi T. Motions, Debate & Voting 1) Policy It is the policy of the Council to follow simplified rules of parliamentary procedure for motions, debate and voting. These rules focus on the types of motions the Council can debate and when those motions are properly used. 2) Purpose The purpose of these rules to facilitate orderly and thorough discussion and debate of Council business. These rules shall not be applied or used to create strategic advantage or unjust results. 3) Summary of Rules Palo Alto does not follow Roberts Rules of Order. See the Summary Table below. U. Motions A motion is a formal proposal by a Council Member asking that the Council take a specified action. A motion must receive a second before the Council can consider a matter. Matters returning to the Council with unanimous approval from a standing committee will be introduced without a motion if directed by the committee. Motions may be provided to the City Clerk in advance of the City Council meeting so that the Clerk can post the motion on the screen for community and Council members thus saving transcription time. 1) Types of Motions There are two kinds of motions. These are the “main” motion and any secondary motions. Only one main motion can be considered at a time. 11 2) Procedure: • Get the Floor A Council Member must receive the permission of the Mayor (or other presiding officer) before making a motion. • State the Motion A motion is made by a Council Member (the “maker”) stating his or her proposal. Longer proposals can be written and may be in the form of a resolution. • Second Required Any other Council Member (including the presiding officer) who supports the proposal (or who simply wishes it to be considered) may “second” the motion without first being recognized. A motion to raise a question of personal privilege does not require a second. • Motion Restated The Mayor should restate the motion for the record, particularly if it is long or complex. • Lack of a Second If there is no second stated immediately, the Mayor should ask whether there is a second. If no Council Member seconds the motion the matter will not be considered. • Discussion The maker shall be the first Council Member recognized to speak on the motion if it receives a second. Generally Council Members will speak only once with respect to a motion. If the Mayor or Council permits any Council Member to speak more than once on a motion, all Council Members shall receive the same privilege. • Secondary Motions Secondary motions may be made by a Council Member upon getting the floor. • Action After discussion is complete the Council will vote on the motion under consideration. 3) Precedence of Motions When a motion is before the Council, no new main motion shall be entertained. The Council recognizes the following secondary motions which may be considered while a main motion is pending. These motions shall have precedence in the order listed below. This means that a secondary motion that is higher on the list will be considered ahead of a pending secondary motion that is lower on the list: • Fix the time to which to adjourn; • Adjourn; 12 • Take a recess; • Raise a question of privilege; • Lay on the table; • Previous question (close debate); • Limit or extend limits of debate; • Motion to continue to a certain time; • Refer to committee; • Amend or substitute; 4) Secondary Motions Defined The purpose of the allowed secondary motions is summarized in the following text and table. • Fix the time to which to adjourn This motion sets a time for continuation of the meeting. It requires a second, is amendable and is debatable only as to the time to which the meeting is adjourned. • Adjourn This motion ends the meeting or adjourns it to another time. It requires a second and is not debatable except to set the time to which the meeting is adjourned, if applicable. A motion to adjourn shall be in order at any time, except as follows: (a) when repeated without intervening business or discussion; (b) when made as an interruption of a member while speaking; (c) when the previous question has been ordered; and (d) while a vote is being taken. • Take a recess This motion interrupts the meeting temporarily. It is amendable, but is not debatable. • Raise a question of personal privilege This motion allows a Council Member to address the Council on a question of personal privilege and shall be limited to cases in which the Council Member's integrity, character or motives are questioned, or when the welfare of the Council is concerned. The maker of the motion may interrupt another speaker if the presiding officer recognizes the "privilege." The motion does not require a second, is not amendable and is not debatable. • Lay on the table This motion is used to interrupt business for more urgent business. A motion to lay on the table requires a second, is not amendable and is not debatable. It shall preclude all amendments or debate of the subject under consideration. If the motion prevails, and the subject is tabled, the matter must be reagendized in the future if further consideration is to be given to the matter. • Previous question This motion “calls the question” by closing debate on the pending motion. A motion for previous question requires a second, is not debatable and is not amendable. It applies to all previous motions on 13 the subject unless otherwise specified by the maker of the motion. If motion for previous question fails, debate is reopened; if motion for previous question passes, then vote on the pending motion. A motion for previous question requires a two-thirds vote of those Council Members present and voting. • Limit or extend debate This motion limits or extends the time for the Council or any Council Member to debate a motion. It requires a second, is amendable and is not debatable. The motion requires a two-thirds vote of those Council Members present and voting. • Continue to a certain time This motion continues a matter to another, specified time. It requires a second, is amendable and is debatable as to propriety of postponement and time set. • Refer to a city agency, body, committee, board, commission or officer This motion sends a subject to another city agency, body, committee, board, commission or officer for further study and report back to Council, at which time subject is fully debated. It requires a second, is amendable, and is debatable only as to the propriety of referring. The substance of the subject being referred shall not be discussed at the time the motion to refer is made. • Amend or substitute This motion changes or reverses the main motion. It requires a second, is amendable, and is debatable only when the motion to which it applies is debatable. A motion to amend an amendment is in order, but one to amend an amendment to an amendment is not. An amendment modifying a motion is in order but an amendment raising an independent question or one that is not germane to the main motion shall not be in order. Amendments take precedence over the main motion and the motion to postpone indefinitely. Motion Description 2nd Required Debatable Amendable 2/3 Vote Fix the time to which to adjourn Sets a next date and time for continuation of the meeting X Only as to time to which the meeting is adjourned X Adjourn Sets time to adjourn. Not in order if (a) repeated without intervening business (b) made as an interruption of a member while speaking; (c) the previous question has been ordered; and (d) while a vote is being taken X Only to set the time to which the meeting is adjourned Take a recess Purpose is to interrupt the meeting X X Raise a question of privilege Lay on the table Interrupts business for more urgent business X Previous question (close debate or “call the question”) Closes debate on pending motion X X Limit or extend limits of debate Purpose is to limit or extend debate X X X Motion to continue to a certain time Continues the matter to another, specified time X X X Refer to committee Sends subject to another city agency, body, committee, board, commission or officer for further study and report back to council, at which time subject is fully debated X Only as to propriety of referring, not substance of referral X Amend or substitute Modifies (or reverses course of) proposed action. Cannot raise independent question. Can amend an amendment, but no further X Only if underlying motion is debatable X City Council Protocols and Procedures Handbook ________________________________________________________________ 15 V. Debate and Voting 1) Presiding officer to state motion The presiding officer shall assure that all motions are clearly stated before allowing debate to begin. The presiding officer may restate the motion or may direct the City Clerk to restate the motion before allowing debate to begin. The presiding officer shall restate the motion or direct the City Clerk to restate the motion prior to voting. 2) Presiding officer may debate and vote The presiding officer may move, second and debate from the chair, subject only to such limitations of debate as are by these rules imposed on all Council Members. The presiding officer shall not be deprived of any of the rights and privileges of a Council Member. 3) Division of question If the question contains two or more divisible propositions, each of which is capable of standing as a complete proposition if the others are removed, the presiding officer may, and upon request of a member shall, divide the same. The presiding officer's determination shall be appealable by any Council Member. 4) Withdrawal of motion A motion may not be withdrawn by the maker without the consent of the Council Member seconding it. 5) Change of vote Council Members may change their votes before the next item on the agenda is called. 6) Voting On the passage of every motion, the vote shall be taken by voice or roll call or electronic voting device and entered in full upon the record. 7) Silence constitutes affirmative vote Council Members who are silent during a voice vote shall have their vote recorded as an affirmative vote, except when individual Council Members have stated in advance that they will not be voting. 8) Failure to vote It is the responsibility of every Council Member to vote unless disqualified for cause accepted by the Council or by opinion of the City Attorney. No Council Member can be compelled to vote. 9) Abstaining from vote Council Members should only abstain if they are not sufficiently informed about an item, e.g. when there was a prior hearing and they were unable to view the prior meeting before the current meeting. In the event of an abstention the abstainer in effect, City Council Protocols and Procedures Handbook ________________________________________________________________ 16 "consents" that a majority of the quorum of the Council Members present may act for him or her. 10) Not participating A Council Member who disqualifies him or herself pursuant to the Political Reform Act of 1974 because of any financial interest shall disclose the nature of the conflict and may not participate in the discussion or the vote. A Council Member may otherwise disqualify him or herself due to personal bias or the appearance of impropriety. 11) Tie votes Tie votes may be reconsidered during the time permitted by these rules on motion by any member of the Council voting aye or nay during the original vote. Before a motion is made on the next item on the agenda, any member of the Council may make a motion to continue the matter to another date. Any continuance hereunder shall suspend the running of any time in which action of the City Council is required by law. Nothing herein shall be construed to prevent any Council Member from agendizing a matter that resulted in a tie vote for a subsequent meeting. 12) Motion to reconsider A motion to reconsider any action taken by the Council may be made only during the meeting or adjourned meeting thereof when the action was taken. A motion to reconsider requires a second, is debatable and is not amendable. The motion must be made by one of the prevailing side, but may be seconded by any Council Member. A motion to reconsider may be made at any time and shall have precedence over all other motions, or while a Council Member has the floor, providing that no vested rights are impaired. The purpose of reconsideration is to bring back the matter for review. If a motion to reconsider fails, it may not itself be reconsidered. Reconsideration may not be moved more than once on the same motion. Nothing herein shall be construed to prevent any Council Member from making a motion to rescind such action at a subsequent meeting of the Council. 13) Appeal from the decision of presiding officer When the rules are silent, the presiding officer shall decide all questions of order, subject to appeal by a Council Member. When in doubt, the presiding officer may submit the question to the Council, in which case a majority vote shall prevail. Any decision or ruling of the presiding officer may be appealed by request of any member. The presiding officer shall call for a roll call or electronic voting device vote to determine if the presiding officer's ruling shall be upheld. If said vote passes or results in a tie vote, the presiding officer's ruling shall stand. If said vote fails, the decision or ruling of the presiding officer is reversed. 14) Getting the floor; improper references to be avoided Every Council Member desiring to speak shall address the chair and, upon recognition by the presiding officer, every Council Member shall be confined to the question under debate, avoiding all indecorous language and personal attacks. City Council Protocols and Procedures Handbook ________________________________________________________________ 17 15) Interruptions Except for being called to order, a Council Member once recognized, shall not be interrupted when speaking, except as otherwise provided for in these rules. A Council Member called to order while speaking shall cease speaking until the question or order is determined, and, if in order, said Council Member shall be permitted to proceed. W. Quasi-Judicial/Planned Community Hearings Policy It is the policy of the Council to assure that the due process rights of all persons are protected during City hearings. A “quasi-judicial” hearing is a hearing that requires a higher level of procedural due process because of the potential impact on life, liberty or property. Usually, quasi-judicial/planned community hearings involve a single parcel of land and apply facts and evidence in the context of existing law. Findings must be stated to explain the evidentiary basis for the Council’s decision. Purpose These rules are intended to assure that City Council decision making on quasi- judicial/planned community matters is based upon facts and evidence known to all parties and to support the role of Boards and Commissions in making independent recommendations to Council. General Requirements For purposes of this Section IV, a Quasi-Judicial or Planned Community Development Project subject to these rules is a formulated plan to go forward with a particular project or development. 1) Quasi-Judicial/Planned Community Proceedings Defined Quasi-judicial/planned community proceedings subject to these procedural rules include hearings involving the following matters: • Conditional Use Permits • Variances • Home Improvement Exceptions • Design Enhancement Exceptions • Subdivisions, other than final map approvals • Architectural Review • Assessment protest hearings • Other matters as determined by the City Attorney • Appeals related to any of the above • Environmental Review relating to any of the above City Council Protocols and Procedures Handbook ________________________________________________________________ 18 2) Restrictions on Council Communications Outside of Quasi-Judicial and Planned Community Zone Hearings It is the policy of the Council to discourage the gathering and submission of information by Council Members outside of any noticed public meeting, prior to final recommendations by the Architectural Review Board or Planning & Transportation Commission. The following procedural guidelines are intended to implement this policy, but shall not be construed to create any remedy or right of action. 3) Identification of Quasi-Judicial/Planned Community Matters The City Attorney, in conjunction with the City Clerk and City Manager, will identify agenda items involving quasi-judicial/planned community decisions on both the tentative and regular Council agendas. This identification is intended to inform the Council, interested parties, and the public that this policy will apply to the item. 4) Council to Track Contacts Council Members will use their best efforts to track contacts pertaining to such identified quasi-judicial/planned community decision items. Contacts include conversations, meetings, site visits, mailings, or presentations during which substantial factual information about the item is gathered by or submitted to the Council Member. 5) Disclosure When the item is presented to the Council for hearing, Council Members will disclose any contacts which have significantly influenced their preliminary views or opinions about the item. The disclosure may be oral or written, and should explain the substance of the contact so that other Council Members, interested parties, and the public will have an opportunity to become apprised of the factors influencing the Council's decision and to attempt to controvert or rebut any such factor during the hearing. Disclosure alone will not be deemed sufficient basis for a request to continue the item. A contact or the disclosure of a contact shall not be deemed grounds for disqualification of a Council Member from participation in a quasi-judicial/planned community decision unless the Council Member determines that the nature of the contact is such that it is not possible for the Council Member to reach an impartial decision on the item. 6) No Contacts after Hearings Following closure of the hearing, and prior to a final decision, Council Members will refrain from any contacts pertaining to the item, other than clarifying questions directed to City staff. 7) Written Findings Required On any matter for which state law or City ordinance requires the preparation of written findings, the staff report and other materials submitted on the matter will contain findings proposed for adoption by the Council. Any motion directly or impliedly rejecting the proposed findings must include a statement of alternative or modified findings or a direction that the matter under consideration be continued for a reasonable period of City Council Protocols and Procedures Handbook ________________________________________________________________ 19 time in order for staff to prepare a new set of proposed findings consistent with the evidence which has been presented and the decision which is anticipated. 8) Rules of Evidence Council hearings need not be conducted according to formal rules of evidence. Any relevant evidence may be considered if it is the sort of evidence upon which responsible persons rely in the conduct of serious affairs. The presiding officer may exclude irrelevant or redundant testimony and may make such other rulings as may be necessary for the orderly conduct of the proceedings while ensuring basic fairness and full consideration of the issues involved. Evidentiary objections shall be deemed waived unless made in a timely fashion before the Council. 9) Burden of Proof The applicant and appellant shall bear the burden of proof on all aspects of the action or relief they seek. The person with the burden of proof must offer evidence to the Council to support his or her position. 10) Council Members Who are Absent During Part of a Hearing A Council Member who is absent from any portion of a hearing conducted by the Council may vote on the matter provided that he or she has watched or listened to a video or radio broadcast, or video or audio recording, of the entire portion of the hearing from which he or she was absent and if she or he has examined all of the exhibits presented during the portion of the hearing from which he or she was absent and states for the record before voting that the Council Member deems himself or herself to be as familiar with the record and with the evidence presented at the hearing as he or she would have been had he or she personally attended the entire hearing. 11) Appeals Appeals to the Council shall be conducted de novo, meaning that new evidence and arguments may be presented and considered. All matters in the record before any other City board, commission or official shall be part of the record before the Council. *For all purposes, applicant also refers to applicant agent. X. Standing Committees City Council Protocols and Procedures Handbook ________________________________________________________________ 20 Policy It is the policy of the Council to use standing committees in open and public meetings to study City business in greater depth than what is possible in the time allotted for Council meetings. Purpose These rules are intended to enhance public participation and committee meetings so that the best possible decisions can be made for Palo Alto. General Requirements Council standing committees shall be subject to the following procedural rules: 1) Quorum A majority of the committee membership shall constitute a quorum. 2) Referrals Only the Council or City Manager shall make referrals to the standing committees. Referrals will generally be directed to only one of the standing committees. Items may be withdrawn from the committee and taken up for consideration by the Council at any Council meeting with the consent of a majority of the Council, and subject to any applicable noticing or agenda posting requirements. Council members who submit matters to the Council which are referred to a standing committee may appear before the standing committee to which the referral has been made in order to speak as proponents of the matter. Standing committee meetings during which such referrals may be considered shall be noticed as Council meetings for the purpose of enabling the standing committee to discuss and consider the matter with a quorum of the Council present. 3) Function of committees The purpose and intent of committee meetings is to provide for more thorough and detailed discussion and study of prospective or current Council agenda items with a full and complete airing of all sentiments and expressions of opinion on city problems by both the Council and the public, to the end that Council action will be expedited. Actions of the committee shall be advisory recommendations only. 4) Minutes The City Clerk shall be responsible for the preparation and distribution to the Council of the minutes of standing committee meetings. The minutes for these meetings shall be Action minutes which reflect the motions made during these meetings. The minutes shall be delivered to all Council Members before the Council meeting at which the committee's recommendations are to be discussed. 5) Report of committee City Council Protocols and Procedures Handbook ________________________________________________________________ 21 The minutes of each committee meeting shall serve as the report to the Council. Any member may write a separate report. 6) Agenda The chairperson of each standing committee shall work with staff to prepare the agenda for committee meetings, the sequence of study being, within reasonable limits of practicality, the same as the sequence of referral. 7) Public Participation Public comment on agenda items will be limited to a maximum of five minutes per speaker, or any alternate time limit specified by the presiding officer. 8) Conduct of standing committee meetings The chairperson of each committee may conduct meetings with as much informality as is consistent with Council procedural rules, which shall also be in effect during committee meetings. The views of interested private citizens may be heard in committee meetings, but in no case shall a committee meeting be used as a substitute for public hearings required by law. 9) Oral Communications Opportunities for oral communications shall be provided in the same manner as Council meetings. Y. Ad Hoc Committees and Committee as a Whole Policy The Council may use Ad Hoc Committees or the Committee as a Whole on a limited basis where necessary to study City business in greater depth than what is possible in the time allotted for Council and Standing Committee meetings. Purpose These rules are intended to clarify the distinctions between Standing, Ad Hoc Committees, and the Committee as a Whole and to set up guidelines for creation of Ad Hoc Committees and the Committee as a Whole. General Requirements Council Ad Hoc Committees and the Committee as a Whole shall be subject to the following procedural rules: 1) Definition of Ad Hoc Committee An Ad Hoc Committee is an advisory committee composed solely of less than a quorum of members of the Council. The work of an Ad Hoc Committee is limited to a single finite purpose. By contrast, a Standing Committee has continuing subject matter jurisdiction extending for a lengthy time period and/or a meeting schedule fixed by charter, ordinance, resolution, or formal action of the Council. City Council Protocols and Procedures Handbook ________________________________________________________________ 22 2) Definition of Committee as a Whole A Committee as a Whole is a committee composed of the entire City Council. The work of the Committee as a Whole is limited to a single finite purpose. 3) Brown Act Ad Hoc Committees do not constitute legislative bodies and are not subject to the requirements of the Brown Act. The Committee as a Whole is subject to the Brown Act. 4) Appointment The Mayor or the City Council may appoint four or less members of the Council to serve on an Ad Hoc Committee. In contrast, only the Council and not the Mayor alone can create a Standing Committee. The Mayor will publicly announce any Ad Hoc Committee created by him or her, its membership and stated purpose and posted on the City Council website. The City Manager shall prepare a report to Council about the anticipated time commitment required for staff to assist the Ad Hoc Committee. 5) Duration Ad Hoc Committees are created for a finite period of time. If an Ad Hoc Committee does not complete its task by the end of the calendar year, it shall not continue unless reappointed by the new Mayor in the following year. 6) Members Ad Hoc Committees shall consist of less than a quorum of Council members only, and shall not include any other persons such as members of other legislative bodies. 7) Reporting Ad Hoc Committees shall report their recommendations to the Council no less than once per quarter in writing or orally. Any Council Member may during the COUNCIL MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS request that an updated Ad Hoc Committee report be placed on the next meeting’s agenda. 8) Termination of Ad Hoc Committee by Majority of Council A majority of the Council may vote to terminate any Ad Hoc Committee following placement of the issue on an agenda. 9) Conclusion A public announcement shall be made any time the Ad Hoc Committee has concluded its work and/or upon dissolution. 2.5 - Election of Mayor Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 2.04.060 governs the election of the Mayor. Nominations for Mayor may be made by any individual Council Member and do not require a second. City Council Protocols and Procedures Handbook ________________________________________________________________ 23 i Palo Alto Municipal Code, § 2.04.010(b). ii Palo Alto Municipal Code, § 2.04.050(a). v Palo Alto Municipal Code, § 2.04.070(c) iv Palo Alto Municipal Code, § 2.04.020. v Palo Alto Municipal Code, § 2.04.030. vi Palo Alto Municipal Code, § 2.04.040.