Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-01-28 City Council Agenda PacketCity Council 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. JANUARY 28, 2017 Special Meeting Art Center Auditorium 1313 Newell Road, Palo Alto 9:00 AM Agenda posted according to PAMC Section 2.04.070. Supporting materials are available in the Council Chambers on the Thursday 10 days preceding the meeting. PUBLIC COMMENT Members of the public may speak to agendized items; up to three minutes per speaker, to be determined by the presiding officer. If you wish to address the Council on any issue that is on this agenda, please complete a speaker request card located on the table at the entrance to the Council Chambers, and deliver it to the City Clerk prior to discussion of the item. You are not required to give your name on the speaker card in order to speak to the Council, but it is very helpful. TIME ESTIMATES Time estimates are provided as part of the Council's effort to manage its time at Council meetings. Listed times are estimates only and are subject to change at any time, including while the meeting is in progress. The Council reserves the right to use more or less time on any item, to change the order of items and/or to continue items to another meeting. Particular items may be heard before or after the time estimated on the agenda. This may occur in order to best manage the time at a meeting or to adapt to the participation of the public. To ensure participation in a particular item, we suggest arriving at the beginning of the meeting and remaining until the item is called. 8:30 AM Welcome: Coffee, Breakfast and Gathering 9:00 AM Call to Order 9:00 AM Mayor’s Welcome, Overview of the Day, Retreat Orientation and Discussion of Future Retreats 9:15 AM 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. 9:30 AM 1.Fiscal Year 2016 National Citizens Survey and Performance Report 10:30 AM Break 10:45 AM 2.2016 Council Workplan Performance Report 11:00 AM 3.Council Annual Priority SettingA. Process Foundation 11:45 AM Working Lunch 2 January 30, 2017 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. 12:00 PM 3. Council Annual Priority Setting (Cont.) B. Individual Nominees (Council Member Explanation) C. Action: Final Grouping into Priorities, Vote and Approval of Priorities and 2017 Key Projects 1:15 PM 4. 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. CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY AUDITOR January 28, 2017 The Honorable City Council Palo Alto, California FY 2016 Performance Report, The National Citizen Survey™, and Citizen Centric Report The Office of the City Auditor presents the 15th annual performance report for the City of Palo Alto, The National Citizen Survey™, and the Citizen Centric Report covering the fiscal year ending June 30, 2016 (FY 2016). The performance report is designed to provide information to the City Council, management, and the public to increase accountability and the transparency of City government. It contains summary information on spending, staffing, workload, and performance results for fiscal years 2007 through 2016. Chapter 1 provides citywide spending and staffing information, Chapter 2 provides citywide information based on themes and subthemes, and Chapter 3 provides information on a department‐by‐department basis. The departments provided us with data specific to their departments, and we collected financial and staffing data from various city documents and the Office of Management and Budget in the Department of Administrative Services and benchmarking data from various external sources. The National Citizen Survey™ is a collaborative effort between the National Research Center, Inc., (NRC) and the International City/County Management Association. The NRC uses a statistically valid survey methodology to gather resident opinions across a range of community issues, including the quality of the community and services provided by the local government. The report includes trends over time, comparisons by geographic subgroups, benchmarks to other communities, responses to 9 custom questions, including one open-ended question, and details about the survey methodology. The Citizen Centric Report is a four-page summary of highlights in the performance report, financial data, and an overview of our City's economic outlook. Respectfully submitted, Harriet Richardson City Auditor THIS IS AN UPDATED VERSION. UPDATES WERE MADE TO THE TEXT ON PAGE 21- TABLE 34-LINES 3, 4, AND 5 OF THE NCS. Page 2 ATTACHMENTS:  Attachment A: FY 2016 Performance Report (PDF)  Attachment B: FY 2016 National Citizen Survey (PDF)  Attachment C: FY 2016 Citizen Centric Report (PDF) Department Head: Harriet Richardson, City Auditor Page 3 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. Attachment A 1 Attachment A 2 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 Attachment A 3 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 Attachment A 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 Mobility ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 24 CHAPTER 3: DEPARTMENT DATA TABLES Citywide …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 25 Community Services ……………….………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 28 Development Services ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 32 Information Technology ………...………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 34 Library Department ………………..………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 35 Planning and Community Environment ………………………………………………………………….………………………………………… 37 Public Safety – Fire Department ……………………………………………………………………………..………………………………………… 39 Public Safety – Office of Emergency Services …………………………………………………………………………………………………… 42 Public Safety – Police Department …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 43 Public Works Department ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 46 Utilities Department ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 51 Strategic and Support Services ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 55 Office of Council‐Appointed Officers ………….………………………………………………………………………………………………… 55 Administrative Services Department ………..………………………………………………………………………………………………… 57 People Strategy and Operations Department ………...……………………………………………………………………………………… 58 Ta b l e  of  Co n t e n t s 4 Attachment A 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. 5Ch 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 1,160 1,168 1,150 1,150 1,114 1,115 1,129 1,147 1,153 1,168  0 500 1,000 1,500 FY  07 FY  08 FY  09 FY  10 FY  11 FY  12 FY  13 FY  14 FY  15 FY  16 Regular Temporary 53 . 9 57 . 3 59 . 6 56 . 6 55 . 8 54 . 4 53 . 5 55 . 5 57 . 7 60 . 1 4. 0 4. 2 3. 7 4. 5 4. 1 5. 4 3. 7 4. 7 4. 6 5. 5 26 . 1 29 . 8 28 . 3 30 . 9 34 . 2 36 . 9 37 . 7 38 . 8 40 . 2 40 . 1 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 FY 14 FY 15 FY 16 Salaries/Wages Overtime Benefits Attachment A Source of FY 2016 General Fund Revenues Source: Administrative Services Department 6Ch a p t e r  1 Ba c k g r o u n d Citywide Spending and Staffing Use of FY 2016 General Fund Dollars (shown on a budgetary basis) Source: Administrative Services Department $106,185,024 56% $29,365,580 15% $16,756,023 9% $17,802,717 9% $9,567,651 5% $11,370,919 6% Salary & Benefits Transfer to Infrastructure Allocated Charges Contract Services General Expense All Other Expenses $36,607,022  19% $30,017,856  16% $23,561,762  12% $18,316,919  9% $15,841,840  8% $22,365,679  12% $12,469,040  6% $11,575,901  6% $6,265,942  3% $8,263,089  4% 8,894,197  5% Property Taxes Sales Taxes Charges for Services Operating Transfers‐In Rental Income Transient Occupancy Tax Utility Users Tax Charges to Other Funds Documentary Transfer Tax Permits and Licenses All Other Revenues Attachment A Capital Outlay – Governmental Funds (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 Capital Expenditures –Enterprise Funds (in millions) Source: Administrative Services Department $2 1 . 6 $2 1 . 5 $2 2 . 0 $3 5 . 5 $2 9 . 2 $2 9 . 5 $3 7 . 6 $4 5 . 4 $2 4 . 7 $0 $5 $10 $15 $20 $25 $30 $35 $40 $45 $50 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 FY 14 FY 15 FY 16 $3 6 . 1 $3 6 . 2 $2 9 . 7 $2 4 . 4 $2 7 . 6 $4 0 . 7 $3 7 . 1 $2 9 . 5 $3 1 . 1 $0 $5 $10 $15 $20 $25 $30 $35 $40 $45 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 FY 14 FY 15 FY 16 5 General Fund Projects With Highest Actual Costs in FY 2016 Street Maintenance El Camino Park Restoration Sidewalk Repairs Traffic Signal and Intelligent Transportation System  Upgrade City Hall First Floor Renovations 5 Enterprise Fund Projects With Highest Actual Costs in FY 2016 Water Main Replacements Projects Wastewater Collection System Rehabilitation and  Augmentation Projects Electric Customer Connections Electric Undergrounding Projects Electric System Improvements Attachment A 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 8Ch 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  07 FY  08 FY  09 FY  10 FY  11 FY  12 FY  13 FY  14 FY  15 FY  16 Cash and investments Rate of return United States Treasury's 5‐year Average Yields  $‐  $10,000,000  $20,000,000  $30,000,000  $40,000,000 Budget Actual 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 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  Wo r k s Op e r a t i n g  Tr a n s f e r s ‐Ou t Tr a n s f e r s  to   In f r a s t r u c t r e St r a t e g i c  & Su p p o r t   Se r v i c e s Attachment A History of Average Monthly Residential Bills Source: Utilities Department 9Ch 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 $174 $193 $206 $211 $213 $230 $232 $240 $237 $255  $0 $100 $200 $300 FY  07 FY  08 FY  09 FY  10 FY  11 FY  12 FY  13 FY  14 FY  15 FY  16 Refuse Storm Drainage Wasterwater Collection Water Gas Electric User Tax $217 $217 $199 $210 $224 $228 $232 $231  $153 $140  ‐$100 $0 $100 $200 $300 FY  07 FY  08 FY  09 FY  10 FY  11 FY  12 FY  13 FY  14 FY  15 FY  16 Refuse Storm Drainage Waterwater Collection Water Gas Electric Attachment A Street Lane Miles Resurfaced Source: Public Works Department Number of Potholes Repaired and Percentage Repaired  Within 15 Days of Notification Source: Public Works Department 10Ch a p t e r  2 St e w a r d s h i p Neighborhood Preservation By the Numbers 8% Percent of the City’s total 471  lane miles resurfaced in FY 2016, which increased by  1.5% from FY 2015 1,847 Number of signs repaired or  replaced, which decreased 44%  from FY 2015 and increased  25% from FY 2007 57% Citizen Survey: Street repair  rated as “excellent” or “good” in  FY 2016,  compared to 51% in FY  2015 and benchmarked as higher  to other jurisdictions 79 2016 Pavement Condition  Index score rated as “good” in  maintaining local street and  road networks, based on a  scale of 0 to 100 Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) CY 2015 Pavement Condition Index (PCI) Ratings Source: MTC – Pavement Condition of Bay Area Jurisdictions CY 2015 1, 1 8 8 1, 9 7 7 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 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 FY  07 FY  08 FY  09 FY  10 FY  11 FY  12 FY  13 FY  14 FY  15 FY  16 Number repaired 58 67 70 72 73 76 77 78 79 *East Palo Alto Cupertino Mountain View Milpitas Santa Clara *Menlo Park Sunnyvale *Redwood City Palo Alto 32 27 23 32 29 40 36 36 31 39 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 0 10 20 30 40 50 FY  07 FY  08 FY  09 FY  10 FY  11 FY  12 FY  13 FY  14 FY  15 FY  16 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 Mateo County cities 93.5% potholes repaired within  15 days of notification in FY 2016 Attachment A 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 11Ch a p t e r  2 St e w a r d s h i p Neighborhood Preservation By the Numbers 387 Number of trees planted,  which include trees planted by  Canopy volunteers, achieving  the 250 target 20% Percent of trees trimmed to  clear power lines, under  the 25% target 77% Citizen Survey: Street cleaning  rated as “excellent” or “good”,  compared to 75% in FY 2015;  benchmarked as similar to  other jurisdictions 61% Citizen Survey: Sidewalk  maintenance rated as  “excellent” or “good”, compared  to 62% in FY 2015; benchmarked  as similar to other jurisdictions Percent of All Sweeping Routes Completed (Residential and Commercial) Source: Public Works Department 34 , 5 5 6 35 , 3 2 2 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 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 FY  07 FY  08 FY  09 FY  10 FY  11 FY  12 FY  13 FY  14 FY  15 FY  16 Total number of City‐maintained trees Number of all tree‐related services completed 93 % 90 % 92 % 88 % 92 % 90 % 93 % 95 % 10 0 % 10 0 % 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% FY  07 FY  08 FY  09 FY  10 FY  11 FY  12 FY  13 FY  14 FY  15 FY  16 98 % 88 % 86 % 78 % 83 % 82 % 95 % 79 % 68 % 92 % 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 FY  07 FY  08 FY  09 FY  10 FY  11 FY  12 FY  13 FY  14 FY  15 FY  16 Percent of temporary sidewalk repairs completed Square feet of sidewalk replaced or permanently repaired Attachment A Library Visits and Checkouts Source: Library Department Map of Library Branch Locations 12Ch a p t e r  2 St e w a r d s h i p Neighborhood Preservation By the Numbers 57,307 Number of cardholders, which  increased 8% from FY 2015 and  increased 11% from FY 2007 12,884 Total library hours open  annually, which increased 37%  from FY 2007 and 14% from FY 2015 71% Percent of Palo Alto residents  who are cardholders, which  increased 7% from FY 2015 and  increased 13% from FY 2007 2,681 Meeting room reservations,  which decreased 38% from FY 2015 Comparison of Library Checkouts Per Capita Source: California State Library Public Library Statistics 2014‐2015 22.4 20.6 20.4 20.1 17.4 16.9 15.9 15.8 Palo Alto Santa Clara Menlo Park Mountain View Sunnyvale Burlingame Redwood City Berkeley 0 400,000 800,000 1,200,000 1,600,000 2,000,000 FY  07 FY  08 FY  09 FY  10 FY  11 FY  12 FY  13 FY  14 FY  15 FY  16 Checkouts Visits Attachment A Urban Forest: Percent Pruned and Tree Line Cleared Source: Public Works Department Community Services: Parks/Land Maintained (Acres) Source: Community Services Department 13Ch a p t e r  2 St e w a r d s h i p Neighborhood Preservation By the Numbers 152,505 Visitors at Foothills Park, which  decreased 10% from FY 2015  and increased 9% from FY 2007 320 Participants in community  garden program, which  increased 3% from FY 2015  and increased 39% from FY 2007 93% Citizen Survey: Visited a  neighborhood park or City park  at least once in the last 12  months 10,744 Number of native plants in  restoration projects, which  decreased 91% from FY 2015  and decreased 23% from FY 2007 Citizen Survey: Visited a Neighborhood Park or City Park Source: 2016 National Citizen SurveyTM 48% 46% 49% 41% 42% 46% 62% 62% 63% 45% 48% 45% 50% 53% 47% 29% 32% 29% 7% 6% 6% 9% 5% 6% 9% 6% 7% FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 FY 14 FY 15 FY 16 More than once a month Once a month or less Not at all 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% FY  07 FY  08 FY  09 FY  10 FY  11 FY  12 FY  13 FY  14 FY  15 FY  16 Percent of urban forest pruned Percent of tree line cleared 181 173  31 43  11 26 5  0 100 200 Go l f  Co 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  Fa c i l i t i e s Sc h o o l  At h l e t i c  Fi e l d s Ut i l i t y  Si t e s Me d i a n  St r i p s Bu s i n e s s  Di s t r i c t s  an d Pa r k i n g  Lo t s Open Space is an  additional 4,030 acres Attachment A 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) 14Ch a p t e r  2 St e w a r d s h i p Environmental Sustainability By the Numbers 56,438 Tons of materials recycled or  composted (i.e., do not end  up in a landfill), increased 12%  from FY 2015 and decreased  1% from FY 2007 3,678,375 Green Building energy  savings per year in Kilo  British Thermal Units, which  decreased 7% from FY 2015 4,920 Number of households  participating in the Household  Hazardous Waste program, which  increased 3% from FY 2015 and  increased 3% from FY 2007 36% Percent of commercial  accounts with compostable  service, which increased  29% from FY 2015 Total Water Processed and Recycled Source: Public Works Department 0 50,000 100,000 150,000 FY  07 FY  08 FY  09 FY  10 FY  11 FY  12 FY  13 FY  14 FY  15 FY  16 Tons of materials recycled or composted Tons of waste landfilled 8, 8 5 3 8, 5 1 0 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 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 0 1,500 3,000 4,500 6,000 7,500 9,000 FY  07 FY  08 FY  09 FY  10 FY  11 FY  12 FY  13 FY  14 FY  15 FY  16 Mi l l i o n s  of  ga l l o n s  of re c y c l e d  wa t e r  de l i v e r e d Mi l l i o n s  of  ga l l o n s  pr 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  09 FY  10 FY  11 FY  12 FY  13 FY  14 FY  15 FY  16 Valuation Square feet Sq u a r e  fe e t  in  th o u s a n d s Do l l a r s  in  mi l l i o n s Note: Tons of waste landfilled will no  longer be reported after FY2015 Attachment A Water Conservation Expenditures and Savings Source: Utilities Department Electric Efficiency Program Expenditures and Savings Source: Utilities Department 15Ch a p t e r  2 St e w a r d s h i p Environmental Sustainability By the Numbers 31% Percent of qualifying renewable  electricity, including biomass,  biogas, geothermal, small  hydro facilities, solar, and wind,  which increased 21% from FY  2006 0 Metric tons of electric supply  carbon dioxide emissions in FY 2016; the carbon neutral  plan effectively eliminated all  greenhouse gas emissions from  the City’s electric supply 25 Average residential water usage  in hundred cubic feet per capita,  which decreased 17% from FY 2015 and decreased 45%  from FY 2007 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 % 0.0% 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% 2.0% $0.0 $1.0 $2.0 $3.0 $4.0 FY  09 FY  10 FY  11 FY  12 FY  13 FY  14 FY  15 FY  16 Sa v i n g s  (%  of  to t a l  sa l e s ) Ex p e n d i t u r e s  (i n  mi l l i o n s ) First‐year energy savings achieved through electric efficiency programs as a percentage of total sales Energy 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 % $0.0 $2.0 $4.0 $6.0 $8.0 FY  09 FY  10 FY  11 FY  12 FY  13 FY  14 FY  15 FY  16 0.0% 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% 2.0% Ex p e n d i t u r e s  (i n  mi l l i o n s ) Sa v i n g s  (%  of  to t a l  sa 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 % 0.0% 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% 2.0% 2.5% $0.0 $1.0 $2.0 $3.0 $4.0 FY  09 FY  10 FY  11 FY  12 FY  13 FY  14 FY  15 FY  16 Sa v i n g s  (%  of  to t a l  sa l e s ) Ex p e n d i t u r e s  (i n  mi 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) 143 Average residential gas usage  in therms per capita, which  increased by 13% from FY 2015  and decreased 25% from FY 2007 Attachment A 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 16Ch a p t e r  2 Pu b l i c  Se r v i c e Responsiveness – Public Safety Services By the Numbers 90 Number of hazardous materials  incidents, which increased 11%  from FY 2015 and increased  131% from FY 2007 89% Police Department  nonemergency calls responded  to within 45 minutes, which  remained the same as FY 2015  and decreased 2% from FY 2007 63% Percent emergency calls  dispatched within 60 seconds,  which decreased 10% from FY 2015 97% Percent of code enforcement  cases resolved within 120 days,  which increased 6% from FY 2015 and decreased 21% from  FY 2007 Police: Calls for Service and Response Time Source: Police Department 3, 9 5 1 4, 5 5 2 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 53 5 6 0:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 FY  07 FY  08 FY  09 FY  10 FY  11 FY  12 FY  13 FY  14 FY  15 FY  16 Re s p o n s e  ti m e  in  mi 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, 9 9 0 3, 0 5 9 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 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 FY  07 FY  08 FY  09 FY  10 FY  11 FY  12 FY  13 FY  14 FY  15 FY  16 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  07 FY  08 FY  09 FY  10 FY  11 FY  12 FY  13 FY  14 FY  15 FY  16 00:00 05:00 10:00 15:00 20:00 25:00 Po l i c e  Re 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) Attachment A Water Service Disruptions Source: Utilities Department Electric Service Interruptions Source: Utilities Department 17Ch a p t e r  2 Pu b l i c  Se r v i c e Responsiveness – Utility Services By the Numbers 72,765 Total number of electric, gas, and  water customer accounts Electric – 29,304 Gas – 23,467 Water – 19,994 178 more accounts than FY 2015 39 Average power outage  duration in minutes per  customer affected, same as FY 2015 286 Number of gas leaks found, 36  ground leaks and 250 meter  leaks, an increase of 15% total  from FY 2015 651 Unplanned water service  outages, which is a increase of  170% from FY 2015 Gas Service Disruptions Source: Utilities Department 48 41 28 20 33 25 25 16 17 26 0 40 80 120 160 200 0 10 20 30 40 50 FY  07 FY  08 FY  09 FY  10 FY  11 FY  12 FY  13 FY  14 FY  15 FY  16 Av g  mi n u t e s  pe r  cu s t o m e r  af f e c t e d Se r v i c e  in t e r r u p t i o n s  ov e r  on e  mi n u t e Service interruptions over 1 minute Avg minutes per customer affected 30 7 10 5 76 6 93 9 11 4 11 1 26 5 28 5 19 5 78 0 20 40 60 80 100 0 200 400 600 800 1000 FY  07 FY  08 FY  09 FY  10 FY  11 FY  12 FY  13 FY  14 FY  15 FY  16 Nu m b e r  of  un p l a n n e d  se r v i c e  di s r u p t i o n s Nu m b e r  of  cu s t o m e r s  af f e c t e d Total customers affected Number of unplanned service disruptions 78 3 37 4 23 0 29 1 92 70 95 0 94 2 24 1 65 1 0 20 40 60 80 100 0 200 400 600 800 1000 FY  07 FY  08 FY  09 FY  10 FY  11 FY  12 FY  13 FY  14 FY  15 FY  16 Nu m b e r  of  un p l a n n e d  se r v i c e  di s r u p t i o n s Nu m b e r  of  cu s t o m e r s  af f e c t e d Total customers affected Number of unplanned service disruptions Attachment A 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 18Ch a p t e r  2 Pu b l i c  Se r v i c e Responsiveness –Internal City Services By the Numbers 112 Number of claims handled by  the Office of the City Attorney  in FY 2016, which increased   13% from FY 2015 1,922 Number of purchasing  documents processed; $226.5  million in goods and services  purchased 1,074 Workers’ Compensation days  lost to work‐related illness or  injury in FY 2016, which  decreased 21% from FY 2015 44% Percent of information  technology security incidents  remediated within one day in FY 2016, which decreased 8%  from FY 2015 City Auditor: Percent of Open Recommendations Implemented Over  the Last 5 Years Source: Office of the City Auditor 92% 95% 92% 91% 93% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% FY 12 FY 13 FY 14 FY 15 FY 16 40% 42% 39% 49% 42% 43% 42% 45% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 FY 14 FY 15 FY 16 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% FY 12 FY 13 FY 14 FY 15 FY 16 Over 5 days Within 5 days Within 8 hours Within 4 hours At time of call 9,460 9,734 9,348 9,855 Attachment A Number of Participants in Teen Programs Source: Library Department Community Services and Library Volunteer Hours Sources: Community Services and Library Departments 19Ch a p t e r  2 Co m m u n i t y Community Involvement and Enrichment By the Numbers 185,574 Number of titles in library  collection, which increased  3% from FY 2015 and  increased 11% from FY 2007 2 Average business days for new  library materials to be available  for customer use, which  remained constant from FY 2015  and improved 78% from FY 2010 1,452 Number of library programs  offered, which increased 39%  from FY 2015 and increased  150% from FY 2007 53,560 Library program attendance,  which increased 19% from FY 2015 and increased 77%  from FY 2007 Community Services: Total Enrollment in Classes/Camps Source: Community Services Department 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 FY  07 FY  08 FY  09 FY  10 FY  11 FY  12 FY  13 FY  14 FY  15 FY  16 Summer Camps and Aquatics Kids (excluding camps) Adults Preschool 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 FY  08 FY  09 FY  10 FY  11 FY  12 FY  13 FY  14 FY  15 FY  16 Restorative/resource management projects Neighborhood parks Library Community Theatre Art Center 1,900 1,588 1,795 2,144 2,746 4,559 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 FY  07 FY  08 FY  09 FY  10 FY  11 FY  12 FY  13 FY  14 FY  15 FY  16 Attachment A 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 20Ch a p t e r  2 Co m m u n i t y Community Involvement and Enrichment By the Numbers 2,184 Police Department number of  animals handled, which   increased 2% from FY 2014 and  decreased 39% from FY 2007 46 Emergency Operations Center  activations/deployments,  which decreased 2% from  FY 2015 8 Police Department average  number of officers on patrol,  which has remained constant  from FY 2007 and FY 2015 234 Office of Emergency Services  presentations, training, and  exercises, which increased 21%  from FY 2015 Police: Citizen Commendations Received Source: Police Department 115 126 95 88 218 198 0 50 100 150 200 250 FY  11 FY  12 FY  13 FY  14 FY  15 FY  16 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% FY  07 FY  08 FY  09 FY  10 FY  11 FY  12 FY  13 FY  14 FY  15 FY  16 Percent of dogs received by shelter and returned to owner Percent of cats received by shelter and returned to owner 12 1 14 1 12 4 15 6 14 9 13 7 14 7 15 3 13 5 14 2 0 50 100 150 200 FY  07 FY  08 FY  09 FY  10 FY  11 FY  12 FY  13 FY  14 FY  15 FY  16 FY 15 Target: >150 Attachment A Code Enforcement: Number of New Cases Source: Planning & Community Environment Department Police: Number and Types of Cases Source: Police Department 21Ch a p t e r  2 Co m m u n i t y Safety, Health, and Well‐Being By the Numbers 35,650 Fire  public demo and  station tour participants,  which increased 24% from  FY 2015 87% Fire Department percent of  permitted hazardous materials  facilities inspected, which  decreased 2% from FY 2015 and  increased 34% from FY 2007 68 Reported crimes per 1,000  residents, which decreased 2%  from FY 2015 and decreased  11% from FY 2007 2,806 Number of fire inspections  completed, which increased  43% from FY 2015 and  increased 175% from FY 2007 Net Per Capita Expenditures: Fire, Emergency Medical  Services, and Police Source: California State Controller’s Office, U.S. Census Bureau 1,131 1,207 1,464 1,249 1,108 916 1,181 1,191 1,237 1,328 0 400 800 1200 1600 FY  07 FY  08 FY  09 FY  10 FY  11 FY  12 FY  13 FY  14 FY  15 FY  16 Theft cases closed Homicide cases closed Robbery cases closed Rape cases closed Open cases (all types) $414 $471 $512 $513 $603 $711 $729 $946 Sunnyvale Fremont San Mateo Milpitas Mountain View Santa Clara Redwood City Palo Alto Fire & EMS Police 36 9 68 4 54 5 68 0 65 2 61 8 68 4 60 9 58 6 32 7 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 FY  07 FY  08 FY  09 FY  10 FY  11 FY  12 FY  13 FY  14 FY  15 FY  16 Nu m b e r  of  ne w  ca s e s Note: Palo Alto provides ambulance services as compared to all other jurisdictions  listed which receive ambulance services through a county contractor. Attachment A 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 22Ch a p t e r  2 Co m m u n i t y Safety, Health, and Well‐Being By the Numbers 399 Traffic collisions with injury,  which increased 4% from FY 2015 and increased 37%  from FY 2007 300 Fire Department average  training hours per firefighter,  which decreased 13% from FY 2015 and increased 28%  from FY 2007 71% Percent of fires confined to the  room or area of origin, which  decreased 21% from FY 2015  and decreased 22% from FY 2007 5,356 Number of medical/rescue  incidents, which increased 2%  from FY 2015 and increased  36% from FY 2007 Police Benchmark: Expenditures Per Capita and Violent and  Property Crimes per 1,000 Residents in Calendar Year Source: California State Controller & FBI Uniform Crime Reporting Program 36 34 34 49 50 50 50 5511 3 10 9 10 9 70 61 50 48 44 0 30 60 90 120 FY  09 FY  10 FY  11 FY  12 FY  13 FY  14 FY  15 FY  16 Number of licensed paramedics Number of certified EMTs $0 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $600 0 10 20 30 40 50 Pa l o  Al t o Me n l o  Pa 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  Cl a r a Mi l p i t a s Sa n  Ma t e o Fr e m o n t Su n n y v a l e Ne t  ex p e n d i t u r e s Cr i m e s Property crimes Violent crimes Net expenditures 38 51 184 193 234 0 50 100 150 200 250 FY  12 FY  13 FY  14 FY  15 FY  16 Attachment A 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 23Ch a p t e r  2 Co m m u n i t y Completed Planning Applications in FY 2015 Source: Planning & Community Environment Department Density and Development By the Numbers 23 Average number of days to  issue 3,492 building permits,  which decreased 8% from FY 2015 and 77% from FY 2007 76 % 93 % 94 % 88 % 94 % 91 % 90 % 93 % 91 % 97 % 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% FY  07 FY  08 FY  09 FY  10 FY  11 FY  12 FY  13 FY  14 FY  15 FY  16 Percent of cases resolved within 120 days Individual  Review 44% Architectural  Review Board 19% Temporary Use &  Variances 4% Home  Improvement  Exception 4%Other 18% Conditional Use 11% 588 Number of permits routed to  all departments with on‐time  reviews, which increased 4%  from FY 2015 682 Number of permits  approved over the counter,  which increased 9% from  FY 2015 27,680 Number of inspections  completed, which decreased  11% from FY 2015 and  increased 87% from FY 2007 0 300 600 900 1200 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 FY  07 FY  08 FY  09 FY  10 FY  11 FY  12 FY  13 FY  14 FY  15 Inspections completed Building permits issued Building permit valuation Nu m b e r  of  in s p e c t i o n s  co m p l e t e d or  bu i l d i n g  pe r m i t s  is s u e d Bu i l d i n g  pe r m i t  va l u a t i o n (i n  mi l l i o n s ) Attachment A Pavement Condition Index (PCI) Ratings Source: Metropolitan Transportation Commission, reported June 2015 Shuttle and Caltrain Boardings Source: Planning & Community Environment Department and Caltrain 24Ch a p t e r  2 Co m m u n i t y Mobility By the Numbers 181,259 Number of shuttle boardings,  which increased 19% from FY 2015 and increased 7% from  FY 2007 $1.98 City’s cost per shuttle boarding,  which increased 2% from FY 2015 and decreased 1%  from FY 2007 7,751 Caltrain average weekday  boardings, which decreased  11% from FY 2015 and  increased 88% from FY 2007 59% Citizen Survey: Overall “built  environment” (including overall  design, buildings, parks, and  transportation systems),  comparing similar to other  cities. Citizen Survey: Percent Rating Ease of Transportation “Excellent” or “Good” Source: 2016 National Citizen SurveyTM 0 2,500 5,000 7,500 10,000 0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 FY  07 FY  08 FY  09 FY  10 FY  11 FY  12 FY  13 FY  14 FY  15 FY  16 City Shuttle boardings Caltrain average weekday boardings Ci t y  Sh u t t l e  Bo a r d i n g s Ca l t r a i n  av e r a g e  we e k d a y  bo a r d i n g s 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% FY  07 FY  08 FY  09 FY  10 FY  11 FY  12 FY  13 FY  14 FY  15 FY  16 Walking Bicycle travel Car travel 72 74 74 78 77 79 79 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 CY  09 CY  10 CY  11 CY  12 CY  13 CY  14 CY  15 70‐79 = “Good” 80‐100 = “Very Good‐Excellent”PC I  Ra t i n g Note: Reporting changed from 3 year annual average rating to annual rating. Attachment A 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 07 $20.1 ‐$21.6 ‐$5.9 $9.5 $25.9 $12.4 $15.8 $8.5 $12.7 $132.4 $190.3 FY 08 $21.2 ‐$24.0 ‐$6.8 $9.7 $29.4 $12.9 $17.4 $7.4 $12.9 $141.8 $215.8 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 Change from: Last year +5% +8% +5%‐11% 0% +19% +3% +8% +9%‐15% +55% +11% +1% FY 07 +21%‐+28%‐+36%‐6% +38% +15% +27%‐27% +170% +44% +25% 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, People Strategy and Operations 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 07 $328 ‐$287 ‐$95 $155 $422 $203 $257 $138 $208 $2,092 $3,100 FY 08 $342 ‐$316 ‐$110 $155 $473 $208 $279 $119 $208 $2,210 $3,471 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 $363 $160 $341 $13 $120 $134 $536 $215 $301 $94 $518 $2,798 $3,585 Change from: Last year +6% +9% +5%‐11% 0% +20% +4% +9% +10%‐14% +56% +12% +1% FY 07 +11%‐+19%‐+26%‐14% +27% +6% +17%‐32% +150% +34% +16% 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 partnership with our  community, our goal is to deliver cost‐effective services in a personal, responsive, and innovative manner. Ch a p t e r  3 Attachment A 26 AUTHORIZED STAFFING Authorized Staffing (FTE1) – General Fund Authorized Staffing (FTE1) –Other Funds Community Services Development 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 07 148 ‐128 ‐57 55 168 68 100 724 35 10 69 243 78 435 1,160 FY 08 147 ‐128 ‐56 54 169 71 108 733 35 10 69 244 78 436 1,168 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 Change from: Last year +3% +2%‐1% 0% +9% +11% 0% +1% +2% +2%‐7% +1%‐1%‐1% +33% 0% +1% FY 07 ‐4%‐‐16%‐+14%‐42%‐6%‐17%‐8%‐3%‐57% +8% +2%+10% +5% +8% +1% 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 07 1,080 80 1,160 18.9 $53.9 $4.0 $26.1 $84.0 48% 63% FY 08 1,077 91 1,168 18.8 $57.3 $4.2 $29.8 $91.3 52% 64% 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% Change from: Last year +1%+1% +1% +2%+4%+19%+1%+4%‐2%‐4% FY 07 ‐4% +58% +1%‐7%+11%+36% +56% +26% +20%‐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 Attachment A 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 07 $33.6 $335.7 $17.5 $11.0 $383.8 $28.9 $12.7 FY 08 $33.9 $351.9 $21.6 $11.2 $416.6 $36.1 $12.7 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 Change from: Last year 21% +2%‐46% +10% +3% +5% +4% FY 07 87% +48% +41% +56% +50% +8% +50% 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. Attachment A 28 Co m m u n i t y  Se 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 07 ‐$3.9 ‐‐$20.1 $328 $7.1 148.2 48.9 33% 2.4 FY 08 ‐$4.1 ‐ ‐$21.2 $342 $7.4 146.7 49.4 34% 2.4 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 $373 $7.1 142.7 65.3 46% 2.1 Change from: Last year +3% +10% +3% 17% +8% +8% +4% +3% +4% +1% 4% FY 07 ‐+42%‐‐+23% +14%‐1%‐4%+33% +13%‐11% 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 07 145 206 318 137 806 5,843 4,376 4,936 3,278 18,433 42%13% FY 08 151 253 327 143 874 5,883 4,824 4,974 3,337 19,018 43%15% 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% Change from: Last year ‐14%‐5%‐18%‐43%‐17% +3% +9%‐15%‐13%‐2%‐13%+1% FY 07 0% +26%‐49%‐53%‐22% +9%‐5%‐54%‐43%‐21% +9%+5% 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 Attachment A 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 07 139 23,117 1,845 1,195 472 ‐171 45,571 310 68,688 FY 08 147 19,811 1,107 982 407 ‐166 45,676 313 65,487 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 Change from: Last year ‐27% +26% +100% +73%+18%‐27%‐6%+1%‐18% +12% FY 07 +16% +85% +52% +381%+674%‐‐6%‐6% +4% +24% 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 Public Art 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 Number  of new  public art  installations 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 07 16,191 70,387 3,956 $345,822 6,855 1 1,805 2,532 63 1,226 FY 08 17,198 69,255 3,913 $398,052 6,900 2 2,089 2,722 85 2,689 FY 09 15,830 58,194 3,712 $264,580 8,353 2 2,054 3,300 178 2,615 FY 10 17,244 60,375 3,304 $219,000 8,618 0 2,433 6,971 208 3,978 FY 11 13,471 51,373 2,334 $164,624 6,773 2 1,889 6,614 156 3,857 FY 12 29,717 62,055 905 $193,000 14,238 4 2,575 9,701 131 3,970 FY 13 9,865 72,148 2,222 $206,998 10,472 2 2,363 10,689 136 3,575 FY 14 9,463 82,799 2,802 $156,079 8,873 6 1,935 10,696 112 3,044 FY 15 21,798 91,099 3,220 $200,912 7,386 6 2,670 13,280 122 3,178 FY 16 38,225 108,865 3,158 $259,737 6,947 8 2,991 11,530 974 3,390 Change from: Last year +75% +20%‐2%+29%‐6% +33% +12%‐13%+698%+7% FY 07 +136% +55%‐20%‐25% +1% +700% +66%+355%+1446%+177% 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. Ch a p t e r  3 Co m m u n i t y  Se r v i c e s Attachment A 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 07 140,437 11,380 14,023 76,241 $3.1 $2.5 $0.6 $43,015 FY 08 135,001 13,572 13,893 74,630 $3.2 $2.2 $0.7 ($23,487) 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) Change from: Last year ‐10%‐24%‐91% +1%‐1%+1%0%+6% FY 07 +9%‐10%‐23%‐44%‐50%‐28%‐29%‐1676% 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.  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 07 $2.7 $0.6 $0.7 $3.9 $15,042 70,769 22 150 231 FY 08 $2.9 $0.6 $0.7 $4.2 $15,931 63,212 22 180 233 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 $3.8 $0.5 $0.7 $5.0 $1,201 65,723 35 586 320 Change from: Last year ‐3%+2%+14%‐1%‐94% +38%‐5%+6%+3% FY 07 +42%‐15%+8% +28%‐92%‐7%+59%+291%+39% 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. Ch a p t e r  3 Co m m u n i t y  Se r v i c e s Attachment A 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 07 1,195 5,304 1,391 228 274 8,617 ‐36,489 $0.8 39 $1.4 FY 08 1,129 4,712 1,396 203 346 7,968 ‐32,288 $0.9 39 $1.5  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 Change from: Last year ‐53%+28% +8% +11%‐15% +3% +67%‐2% +12%‐3% +3% FY 07 ‐56%‐28% +11%‐22% +104%‐23%‐‐22% +16%‐10% +30% Ch a p t e r  3 Co m m u n i t y  Se r v i c e s Attachment A 32 De v e l o p m e n t  Se 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 07 ‐‐3,136 27 102 ‐14,822 $298.7 $4.6 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 24 391 121 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 Change from: Last year +4%+9%‐9%‐9%‐8%‐13%‐11%‐19%‐10% FY 07 ‐‐+11%‐22%‐77%‐+87% +30% +82% 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 Change from: Last year +19% +6% +14%‐102% +113%‐7%‐12% +8% +8% +4% +2% FY 07 ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 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. Attachment A 33 De v e l o p m e n t  Se r v i c e s GREEN BUILDING1 Green Building with mandatory regulations Construction debris for completed projects2 (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 Change from: Last year ‐‐57%‐19%‐42%‐59%‐48%‐7% FY 09 ‐+188%+385%+470% +1002%+717%‐ 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 FY 2014. Ch a p t e r  3 Attachment A 34 In f o r m a t i o n  Te 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 $4,9414 FY 16 $1.1 $5.7 $2.6 $2.9 $2.1 $14.4 $16.2 36.1 1,371 $4,971 Change from: Last year +83%‐15% +10% +4% +10% +5% +12% +7%‐6% +1% FY 07 ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐ 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. 4 Increase 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 8hours (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% 44% 93% Change from: Last year +9%+2%‐1%+1%‐1%‐1%‐8%+4% FY 07 ‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐ ‐ 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 Attachment A 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 07 $0.5 $1.5 $3.9 $5.9 $95 44.3 12.6 56.9 1,079 5,865 9,386 6.1 FY 08 $0.5 $1.8 $4.5 $6.8 $110 43.8 12.7 56.5 1,101 5,988 11,281 5.0 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 $129 48.0 16.8 64.8 1,027 3,358 12,884 5.0 Change from: Last year ‐39%‐10% +27% +7% +8% +7% +13% +9%‐9%‐3% +14%‐4% FY 07 +13% +55% +47% +46% +35% +8% +33% +14%‐5%‐43% +37%‐17% 1 The department attributes the fluctuation to facility closures for renovation and reopening.Li b r a r y  De 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 07 240,098 30,657 ‐‐270,755 4.41 167,008 1,414,509 23.0 5.22 88% 208,719 ‐ FY 08 241,323 33,087 4,993 ‐279,403 4.49 174,683 1,542,116 24.8 5.52 89% 200,470 ‐ 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 ‐306,1602 4.68 187,359 1,559,932 23.8 5.10 2 88% 211,270 9.53 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 3.04 100% 189,762 2.0 Change from: Last year 0%‐7% +97%‐65% +7% +8% +3%‐7%‐6%‐13% +8%+2%0% FY 07 +3% +56%‐‐+70% +57% +11%‐1%‐9%‐42% +12%‐9%‐ 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. 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 Attachment A 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  participants  in teen   library  programs (Target:  2,500) FY 07 53,099 58% 862,081 ‐57,255 52,020 149,280 11,725 580 30,221 1,900 FY 08 53,740 63% 881,520 ‐48,339 49,148 137,261 12,017 669 37,955 1,573 FY 09 54,878 63% 875,847 ‐46,419 111,2282 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 2,681 2,620 51,166 150,489 1,251 1,452 53,560 4,559 Change from: Last year +11% +7% +2%‐38%‐96% +60% +43% +9% +39% +19% +66% FY 07 +8% +13%‐4%‐‐95%‐2% +1%‐89% +150% +77% +140% 1 Programs 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. Ch a p t e r  3 Li b r a r y  De p a r t m e n t Attachment A 37 Pl a n n i n g  & Co m m u n i t y  En 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 07 $0.7 $5.2 $3.4 $0.2 $9.5 $155 $6.6 55 FY 08 $0.6 $5.2 $3.6 $0.2 $9.7 $155 $5.8 54 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 Change from: Last year +12%+22%‐‐+20%+21%+2%+11% FY 07 +97%+45%‐‐+6%‐13%‐72%‐42% 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 07 386 299 100 13.4 369 639 76% FY 08 397 257 107 12.7 684 981 93% 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% Change from: Last year ‐8%+14%‐74%+19%‐44%‐+6% FY 07 +2%+28%‐54%+37%‐11%‐+21% 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 Attachment A 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 07 27,763 $1.52 ‐517 381 FY 08 27,938 $1.55 193 103 395 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 Change from: Last year +1%‐8%‐15%+217%+8% FY 07 +4%+50%‐‐93%+28% 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 07 168,710 $2.00 4,132 105 FY 08 178,505 $1.97 4,589 114 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 7,751 243 Change from: Last year +19%+2%‐11%+115% FY 07 +7%‐1%+88%+131% 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. 38Ch a p t e r  3 Pl a n n i n g  & Co m m u n i t y  En v i r o n m e n t Attachment A 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 07 $1.6 $15.0 $2.0 $2.0 $0.9 $21.6 75,194 $287 $9.9 12,532 127.5 1.70 21% FY 08 $1.6 $16.7 $2.4 $2.3 $1.0 $24.0 75,982 $316 $9.7 12,664 128.1 1.69 18% 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 $329 $10.8 13,449 107.0 1.33 29% Change from: Last year ‐31% +2% +124% +15% +33% +1% 0% +1%‐13% 0%‐1%‐1% +5% FY 07 ‐17% +57%‐87%‐51%‐54% +23% +7% +15% +9% 7%‐16%‐22% +9% 1 Based on number of residents in the Fire Department’s expanded service area (Palo Alto and Stanford). The decrease in FY 2014 is 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  Sa 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 Attachment A 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 07 221 70% 68 2 25 ‐235 3,951 2,527 $1.9 FY 08 192 79% 43 0 25 ‐246 4,552 3,236 $2.0 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 Change from: Last year +11%‐21%‐20% 0% +7%‐9%‐13%+2%‐1% +11% FY 07 ‐32%‐22%‐82%‐100% +16%‐+28%+36% +52% +78% 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 time2 (minutes) Percent of calls responded promptly2 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 07 221 3,951 1,276 362 199 1,227 7,236 20 5:48 5:17 87%92%97% FY 08 192 4,552 1,119 401 169 1,290 7,723 21 6:48 5:24 79%93%99% 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 6:37 94%79%90% Change from: Last year +11% +2%‐3% +21% +24% +9% +4% +4% +3%+28%+2%‐3%+1% FY 07 ‐32% +36%‐18% +49%‐10% +31% +23% +23%‐12%+25%+7%‐13%‐7% 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  Sa f e t y  ‐ Fi r e Attachment A 41 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND INSPECTIONS Hazardous Materials Incidents1 Permitted facilities Permitted facilities inspected2 Percent of permitted hazardous  materials facilities inspected 2 Number of fire  inspections (Target: 850) Number of plan reviews3 FY 07 39 501 268 53% 1,021 928 FY 08 45 503 406 81% 1,277 906 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 Change from: Last year +11% +1%‐1%‐1% +43% +41% FY 07 +131%‐15% +40% +34% +175% +86% 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. Ch a p t e r  3 Pu b l i c  Sa f e t y  ‐ Fi r e Attachment A 42 Pu b l i c  Sa f e t y  – Of f i c e  of  Em e r g e n c y  Se 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  received 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 Change from: Last year ‐11%0%0%+21%‐2%‐100% FY 07 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 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). Mission:To prevent, prepare for and mitigate, respond to, and recover from all hazards. Ch a p t e r  3 Attachment A 43 Pu b l i c  Sa 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 07 $0.6 $11.1 $6.1 $3.1 $1.7 $1.0 $1.0 $1.5 $25.9 $422 $5.0 FY 08 $0.5 $13.7 $6.6 $3.3 $1.7 $0.8 $1.1 $1.7 $29.4 $473 $5.0 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 Change from: Last year +76% +1%‐2% +13% +5% +4%‐8% +1% +3% +4%‐8% FY 07 +102% +42% +20% +53% +52% +29% +44% +7% +38% +27%‐16% 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 07 168.1 2.7 93 1.52 8 30 9 142 16% 121 11 (1) FY 08 168.5 2.7 93 1.50 8 30 9 135 17% 141 20 (1) 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) Change from: Last year 0% +1% 0% +1% 0% 0% 0%‐2% +1%+5%‐86% FY 07 ‐6%‐13%‐1%‐9% 0% 0%‐33%‐4%0%+17%‐91% 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 Attachment A 44 CALLS FOR SERVICE Average response time (minutes) 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 07 60,079 2,610 96% 5:08 7:24 19:16 73% 79% 91% FY 08 58,742 2,539 96% 4:32 7:02 19:09 81% 80% 92% 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 63%5:47 8:38 21:42 63%74%89% Change from: Last year ‐10% +5%‐10%+2%0%+3%‐12%0%0% FY 06 ‐10% +4%‐33%+13% +17% +13%‐10%‐5%‐2% 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. CRIME Reported crimes Arrests Number of cases/percent of cases cleared or closed for part I crimes1,5 Part I1 (Target: <2,000) Part II2 Per 1,000  residents Per officer3 Total4 Juvenile Homicide Rape Robbery Theft  FY 07 1,855 2,815 76 50 3,059 244 0/(N/A) 2/(50%) 37/(51%) 1,092/(18%) FY 08 1,843 2,750 74 49 3,253 257 2/(100%) 3/(67%) 41/(66%) 1,161/(21%) 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 Change from: Last year +1%‐5%‐2%‐3%‐9%‐49%‐100%‐8%+48%+7% FY 07 ‐13%+3%‐11%‐3%‐2%‐75%‐+450%‐16%+18% 1 Part I crimes include homicide, rape, robbery, assault, burglary, larceny/theft, vehicle theft, and arson. 2 Part II crimes include simple assaults or attempted assaults where a weapon is not used or where serious injuries did not occur. 3 Based on authorized sworn staffing. 4 Total arrests do not include being drunk in public where suspects are taken to a sobering station, or traffic warrant arrests. 5 Clearance 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  Sa f e t y  ‐ Po l i c e Attachment A 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 07 1,257 20 291 (23%) 103 31 257 15,563 6,232 57,222 FY 08 1,122 18 324 (29%)84 42 343 19,177 6,326 50,706 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 Change from: Last year 0% +1%+4%‐7%‐8%‐31%‐30%‐19%‐9% FY 07 ‐17%‐24%+37%+13%+42%‐35%‐29%+30%‐34% 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 07 $1.0 2,990 1,773 88% 3,578 82% 18% FY 08 $1.2 3,059 1,666 91% 3,532 75% 17% 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 1,0572 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 93%2,184 50%10% Change from: Last year ‐17% +20%‐13%+5%+2%‐20%‐8% FY 07 ‐47%‐19%‐72%+5%‐39%‐32%‐8% 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  Sa f e t y  ‐ Po l i c e Attachment A 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 07 $2.2 $4.8 1,188 82% 1,475 98% 1,613,392 $1.38 $1.04 FY 08 $2.2 $5.1 1,977 78% 1,289 88% 1,616,171 $1.52 $1.12 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 Change from: Last year +20%+31% +38% +4%‐44%+24%0% +14% 0% FY 07 +53%+21% +189% +12%+25%‐6%+3% +53% +2% Pu b l i c  Wo 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 07 $2.2 14.0 34,556 164 3,409 10%30%15 FY 08 $2.3 14.0 35,322 188 6,579 18%27%9 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 Change from: Last year +2%0%+3%+27%‐26%‐4%‐8%+33% FY 07 +28%‐8%+5%+136%+88%+6%‐10%‐73% 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 Attachment A 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 07 $2.0 14.0 215 83 32.0 7% 94,620 70 FY 08 $2.1 14.6 338 112 27.0 6% 83,827 27 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 Change from: Last year ‐38% +27%+13%+13%+27% +2%‐5%+64% FY 07 ‐57%‐49%+113%+38%+22% +1%+22%+87% 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 07 $5.2 $2.5 $0.9 $7.2 $1.5 $1.8 $0.0 1.4 7.4 2.0 8.4 FY 08 $3.5 $2.2 $2.7 $8.3 $3.7 $10.9 $0.0 1.4 7.4 2.0 8.4 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 Change from: Last year +16% +9%‐23%‐72%‐55%‐31%‐14% +54%‐42%‐5% +22% FY 07 +49% +27% +496%‐34%‐43%+63%0% +275%‐43% +75% +33% 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  Wo r k s Attachment A 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 07 $5.3 $4.3 $4.5 $10.20 9.5 287,957 4 71% FY 08 $5.9 $7.1 $3.3 $10.55 9.5 157,337 80 65% 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 $7.83 $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 82% Change from: Last year +8%‐16%+42%+6%0%+21%‐54%‐1% FY 07 +30%‐4%+79% +28% +8%‐32%+1375%+11% 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 07 $17.7 $20.4 64% $13.8 54.8 8,853 100% 13.9 114 99.40% FY 08 $23.9 $31.3 64% $11.1 54.8 8,510 100% 13.9 111 99.25% 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% Change from: Last year ‐1% +1%0%‐24%‐5%‐2%0% 0%‐12%0% FY 07 +36% +13%0%‐115% +4%‐28%0%‐3% +248%0% 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  Wo r k s Attachment A 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 07 56,837 4,789 ‐‐ FY 08 52,196 4,714 ‐‐ 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% Change from: Last year +12%+3%+3%+29% FY 07 ‐1%+3%‐‐ 1 Tons of materials recycled or composted do not include self‐hauled materials by residents or businesses. 2The 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 07 $26.3 $25.1 $5.9 $21.38 34.7 59,938 93% FY 08 $29.8 $29.4 $6.3 $24.16 34.9 61,866 90% 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 ‐3 100% Change from: Last year ‐1%+7% +145%+9%‐20%‐0% FY 067 +24%+30% +41%+105%‐56%‐+7% 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. 3 Per the department, this measure will no longer be reported. Ch a p t e r  3 Pu b l i c  Wo r k s Attachment A 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 07 $6.4 $7.0 $1.4 $3.3 16.0 $11.9 79 20% FY 08 $6.8 $6.9 $1.1 $3.8 16.3 $10.8 80 25% 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% Change from: Last year +13% +1% +3%0%‐13%+13%0%+1% FY 07 +42% +23% +107% +69% +8%‐5%‐35%+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 07 1,849,600 41,920 6.8 $1,886 86% FY 08 1,650,743 42,573 7.4 $1,620 74% 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% Change from: Last year ‐14%‐6%+15%‐6%+2% FY 07 ‐34%+23%+74%+54%+6% 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  Wo r k s Attachment A 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 07 $108.7 $118.0 $10.5 $8.8 $156.4 114.0 $62.5 $64.97 $1.5 $32.73 FY 08 $112.6 $130.6 $10.2 $9.4 $145.3 111.0 $71.1 $76.84 $1.9 $34.38 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 $96.54 119.0 $78.4 $88.77 $1.8 $42.76 FY 16 $122.7 $139.4 $9.7 $11.7 $81.71 114.0 $73.4 $83.67 $1.6 $42.76 Change from: Last year ‐1% 0% +35% +2%‐15%‐4%‐6%‐6%‐11% 0% FY 07 +13% +18%‐8% +32%‐48% 0% +18% +29% +7% +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 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 Electric Supply CO23 emissions (in metric  tons) FY 07 28,684 162,405 815,721 2.65 84% 10%‐48 48 1.0 156,000 FY 08 29,024 162,680 814,695 2.62 53% 14% 0.56% 41 87 1.2 177,000 FY 09 28,527 159,899 835,784 2.52 47% 19% 0.47% 28 118 0.0 173,000 FY 10 29,430 163,098 801,990 2.53 34% 17% 0.55% 20 132 0.0 150,000 FY 11 29,708 160,318 786,201 2.47 45% 20% 0.70% 33 141 1.2 71,000 FY 12 29,545 160,604 781,960 2.45 65% 20% 1.52% 25 67 1.2 80,000 FY 13 29,299 156,411 790,430 2.36 42% 21% 0.88% 25 139 1.2 57,000 FY 14 29,338 153,190 797,594 2.32 40% 21% 0.87% 16 39 0.0 0 3 FY 15 29,065 145,284 791,559 2.17 27% 22% 0.60% 17 39 1.2 ‐ FY 16 29,304 150,112 787,045 2.26 32% 31% 0.70% 26 39 0 ‐ Change from: Last year +1% +3%‐1% +4% +5% +9% 0% +53% +2%‐100%‐ FY 07 +2%‐8%‐4%‐15%‐52% +21%‐‐46%‐18%‐400%‐ 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. 3 In FY 2014, the carbon neutral plan effectively eliminated all greenhouse gas emissions from the City’s electric supply. Mission:To provide safe, reliable, environmentally sustainable, and cost‐effective services. Ch a p t e r  3 Attachment A 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 07 $42.9 $40.0 $3.6 $3.0 $16.9 47.9 $22.3 0.69 $44.00 FY 08 $50.4 $46.2 $4.4 $3.2 $21.8 46.4 $27.2 0.82 $52.20 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 Change from: Last year ‐2%‐18%‐63% +8% +22%‐5%‐23%+2%‐10% FY 07 ‐29%‐30%‐22% +108%‐17% +10%‐63%‐39%‐24% 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 07 23,357 11,759,842 19,581,761 192 ‐18 307 56 85 FY 08 23,502 11,969,151 20,216,975 193 0.11%18 105 239 108 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 Change from: Last year 0% +12% +4% +13%+12%‐43%‐60%‐41%+33% FY 07 0%‐19%‐12%‐25%‐‐56%‐75%‐36% +194% Ch a p t e r  3 Ut i l i t i e s Attachment A 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 100 CCF 3) Average monthly  residential bill4 Total water in  CCF sold (in millions) FY 07 $26.3 $24.1 $3.9 $2.5 $21.3 44.7 $7.8 $1.32 $36.82 5.5 FY 08 $29.3 $24.9 $3.4 $2.6 $26.4 46.2 $8.4 $1.41 $41.66 5.5 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 3.81 Change from: Last year +3% +22% +99% 0 ‐11%‐7% +12% +26%+23%‐13% FY 07 +52% +75% +117% 0 ‐15% +7% +126% +260% +124%‐30% 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 07 19,726 2,807,477 2,673,126 46 ‐27 783 1%100% FY 08 19,942 2,746,980 2,779,664 44 0.72%17 374 1%100% FY 09 19,422 2,566,962 2,828,163 40 0.98%19 230 1%100% FY 10 20,134 2,415,467 2,539,818 38 1.35%25 291 2%100% FY 11 20,248 2,442,415 2,550,043 38 0.47%11 92 3%100% FY 12 20,317 2,513,595 2,549,409 38 1.09%10 70 0%100% FY 13 20,043 2,521,930 2,575,499 38 0.53%61 950 2%100% FY 14 20,037 2,496,549 2,549,766 38 0.64%50 942 0%100% FY 15 20,061 2,052,176 2,380,584 31 1.05%17 241 0%100% FY 16 19,994 1,696,383 2,113,336 25 2.33%38 651 0%100% Change from: Last year 0%‐17%‐11%‐17% +122%+124% +170% +1%0% FY 07 +1%‐40%‐21%‐45%‐+41%‐17%‐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 Attachment A 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 07 $15.7 $19.1 $7.7 $12.4 25.4 $23.48 21,789 69% 3% 152 99.00% FY 08 $16.6 $15.7 $3.6 $13.8 28.0 $23.48 21,970 40% 1% 164 99.00% 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% Change from: Last year 0% +20% +110%‐17%‐6% +9% 0% +3% +2%‐1%+3% FY 07 +9% 0%‐54%‐30% +15% +36% +1%‐5%‐2%‐38%+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 07 $2.3 $1.3 $0.0 ‐3.1 49 161 40.6 FY 08 $3.4 $1.1 $0.0 $5.0 0.7 41 173 40.6 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 Change from: Last year ‐2% +29%‐45% +13%‐22% +69%‐4% 0% FY 07 +119% +92% 0%‐99% +110% +120% +36% +4% 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 Attachment A 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 07 $1.7 $2.5 $0.9 $0.9 8.9 11.6 7.3 4.1 FY 08 $2.3 $2.7 $1.3 $0.9 12.9 11.6 8.3 4.3 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 Change from: Last year +31%+8%‐7%+1%‐11%0%0%0% FY 07 +82%+12%+11%+24%+1%‐5%‐15%+22% 1Includes figures for the Office of Sustainability, which was established as a separate office in FY 2014 and is no longer classified under the City Manager’s Office for budget purposes.  St r a t e g i c  & Su p p o r t  Se 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 Attachment A 56 St r a t e g i c  & Su p p o r t  Se 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 07 149 ‐‐ ‐42.0 ‐$78,770 FY 08 160 ‐‐ ‐73.5 ‐$149,810  FY 09 126 ‐‐ ‐3 1.5 40% $84,762  FY 10 144 ‐‐ ‐5 2.5 42% $259,560  FY 11 130 ‐‐ ‐3 1.0 39% $95,625  FY 12 112 92%‐‐5 1.7 49% $160,488  FY 13 99 95%‐‐5 1.4 42% $151,153 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%4 0.8 45% $117,186 Change from: Last year +13%0%+7%+3%0%‐20%+3%0% FY 07 ‐25%‐‐ ‐0%‐60%‐+49% 1Includes audits, the annual Performance Report, and the annual National Citizen Survey™. 2Includes 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.  Ch a p t e r  3 Attachment A 57 ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT General Fund Procurement Card2 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  issued Average days  purchase requisitions  are in queue1 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 07 $7.0 52.9 $27.5 $402.6 4.35%14,802 ‐$107.5 2,692 10,310 ‐‐ FY 08 $7.3 53.5 $26.1 $375.7 4.45%14,480 ‐$117.2 2,549 11,350 ‐‐ 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 40 $129.3 1,707 17,799 $6.8 $4.0 FY 16 $7.6 42.0 $51.6 $539.7 1.82%10,144 16 $226.5 1,922 17,799 $7.8 $4.4 Change from: Last year +7% 0% +7% +1% 0% 0%‐60% +75% +13% 0% +15% +9% FY 07 +9%‐20% +88% +34%‐3%‐31%‐+111%‐29% +73%‐‐ 1 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. 2 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  & Su p p o r t  Se 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 Attachment A 58 St r a t e g i c  & Su p p o r t  Se r v i c e s PEOPLE STRATEGY AND OPERATIONS DEPARTMENT General Fund Workers’ Compensation Operating  expenditures (in millions) Authorized  staffing (FTE) Turnover of employees  within first year1 (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 07 $2.6 15.6 7% $2,114 $1,937 $177 76 2,242 FY 08 $2.7 17.2 9% $2,684 $2,460 $224 75 1,561  FY 09 $2.7 16.0 8% $2,628 $2,145 $483 73 1,407  FY 10 $2.7 16.3 6% $2,521 $2,165 $356 71 1,506  FY 11 $2.6 16.3 8% $1,918 $1,402 $516 45 1,372 FY 12 $2.7 16.5 10% $2,843 $1,963 $880 56 1,236  FY 13 $2.9 16.6 8% $3,182 $1,713 $1,469 42 1,815 FY 14 $3.1 16.7 9% $2,088 $1,217 $871 59 1,783 FY 15 $3.3 16.7 16% $1,121 $518 $602 36 1,366 FY 16 $3.6 16.7 13% $861 $280 $582 44 1,074 Change from: Last year +9% 0%‐3%‐23%‐46%‐3% +22%‐21% FY 07 +38% +7% +7%‐59%‐86$+229%‐42%‐52% 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 Attachment A The 2016 National Citizen SurveyTM January 20, 2017 Office of the City Auditor Harriet Richardson, City Auditor Houman Boussina, Senior Performance Auditor Deniz Tunc, Performance Auditor I Attachment B THIS IS AN UPDATED VERSION. UPDATES WERE MADE TO THE TEXT ON PAGE 21- TABLE 34-LINES 3, 4, AND 5 OF THE NCS. Page intentionally left blank for two-sided printing Attachment B Office of the City Auditor EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The 2016 National Citizen Survey™ The Honorable City Council Palo Alto, California This report presents the results of the 14th 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 Beginning in 2014, we increased the number of surveys distributed to City of Palo Alto residents from 1,200 to 3,000, and we distributed the surveys within six geographic areas of the City. The larger sample size allowed us to maintain statistical validity within each of the six geographic areas, as well as in the north and south areas of the City, and report survey results for these geographic areas (see the maps on report pages 4 and 5 for a breakdown of the north and south and the six geographic areas). The margins of error for the survey results are: •Overall – plus or minus 4 percentage points •North/South – plus or minus 5 percentage points •Six geographic areas – plus or minus 10 percentage points The survey 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 25 percent in 2015. The response rate increased one percentage point, to 26 percent, in 2016. Increasing the number of surveys mailed from 1,200 to 3,000 has captured responses from more residents, despite the lower response rate. Survey Response Rate: 2003 through 2016 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Response Rate1 48% 51% 43% 42% 38% 36% 37% 36% 37% 27% 29% 27% 25% 26% Number of Responses 557 582 508 495 437 415 424 6242 427 316 337 796 721 744 1 The response rate is based on the number of surveys mailed minus the number of surveys returned by the post office as undeliverable e.g., because the housing unit was vacant. 2 1,800 surveys were mailed in 2010, which resulted in a higher number of respondents despite a slight decline in the response rate. RESULT HIGHLIGHTS Quality of Life Residents generally like living in Palo Alto: 85 percent of respondents rated the overall quality of life in Palo Alto as excellent or good, and 75 percent of respondents said it is very or somewhat likely that they would remain in Palo Alto for the next five years. However, both of these percentages have declined over time, and this is the second year that less than 90 percent of respondents rated the overall quality of life as excellent or good and the first year that less than 80 percent of respondents said that they are likely to remain in Palo Alto for the next five years. Attachment B Executive Summary: The National Citizen Survey™ ii      The average rating for all of the quality of life questions is 79 percent, primarily because only 50 percent of  respondents rated Palo Alto as an excellent or good place to retire. This is the first year that the average fell  below 80 percent, primarily because the average in area 5 declined significantly, from an average rating of  84 percent in 2015 to 69 percent in 2016.    The number of residents who said they are very or somewhat likely to remain in Palo Alto for the next five years  fell from 80 percent in 2015 to 75 percent in 2016. This is the first year that the average fell below 80 percent  and represents declines of one to ten percentage points in all of the geographic areas except area 5, which  increased six percentage points. The likelihood of residents in the six geographic areas remaining in Palo Alto for  the next five years ranged from 70 percent in area 4 to 82 percent in area 3.    The following tables show the results of the quality of life questions asked in the survey.  Overall Quality of Life in Palo Alto ‐ Percent Rating Excellent or Good      10‐year results plus baseline year:  2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2003  85% 88% 91% 91% 94% 92% 94% 93% 91% 94% 92%    Palo Alto as a Place to Live ‐ Percent Rating Excellent or Good      10‐year results plus baseline year:  2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2003  91% 92% 95% 92% 95% 94% 95% 94% 95% 96% 95%    85%89%82%92%83%86%79%76%91% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Overall North South Area 1Area 2Area 3Area 4Area 5Area 6 91%92%90%95%90%93%87%84%93% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Overall North South Area 1Area 2Area 3Area 4Area 5Area 6 Attachment B Your Neighborhood as a Place to Live - Percent Rating Excellent or Good 10-year results plus baseline year: 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2003 91% 90% 92% 91% 90% 90% 91% 90% 91% 91% 88% Palo Alto as a Place to Raise Children - Percent Rating Excellent or Good 10-year results plus baseline year: 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2003 84% 87% 93% 90% 92% 93% 93% 91% 94% 92% 90% Palo Alto as a Place to Work - Percent Rating Excellent or Good 10-year results plus baseline year: 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2003 82% 87% 86% 89% 88% 89% 87% 87% 90% 90% N/A 91%93%88%97%91%93%85%80%94% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Overall North South Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5 Area 6 84%86%82%90%84%86%81%65%88% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Overall North South Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5 Area 6 82%82%82%82%87%81%79%71%85% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Overall North South Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5 Area 6 Attachment B Palo Alto as a Place to Visit - Percent Rating Excellent or Good 10-year results plus baseline year: 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2003 72% 74% 75% N/A 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 year: 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2003 50% 52% 60% 56% 68% 68% 65% 64% 67% 61% 68% Quality of Services The NCS™ also collects residents’ opinions regarding the quality of services provided by the City of Palo Alto. Although the percentage of residents who rated the quality of Palo Alto services as excellent or good declined four percentage points from 2015 to 2016, that decline is not statistically significant and may be more representative of the fluctuations in this rating that have occurred over the years. 72%73%70%79%69%75%69%66%72% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Overall North South Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5 Area 6 50%55%46%56%46%56%43%44%55% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Overall North South Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5 Area 6 Attachment B Quality of Services Provided by the City of Palo Alto - Percent Rating Excellent or Good 10-year results plus baseline year: 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2003 81% 85% 83% 84% 88% 83% 80% 80% 85% 86% 87% Results by Facet The NCS™ collects residents’ opinions across eight facets. Although overall ratings declined in 2016 for five of the eight facets, only the decline in community engagement was statistically meaningful. Residents’ attitudes toward these facets of life in Palo Alto are generally less favorable than their attitudes toward the overall quality of life in Palo Alto, which had an average excellent/good rating of 79 percent. Survey Results by Facet Area Average Percent Rating Excellent or Good Range of Percent Rating Excellent or Good Percent Rating Essential or Very Important 2016 2015 2016 2015 2016 2015 Safety 86% 86% 69% to 97% 74% to 97% 80% 82% Natural environment 83% 83% 78% to 90% 73% to 88% 84% 81% Education and enrichment 78% 82% 39% to 91% 49% to 92% 70% 67% Recreation and wellness 74% 78% 46% to 91% 53% to 93% 65% 61% Economy 67% 69% 7% to 83% 8% to 87% 82% 78% Built environment 62% 63% 6% to 89% 8% to 91% 82% 80% Community engagement 61% 66% 40% to 79% 48% to 82% 73% 71% Mobility 57% 57% 28% to 80% 26% to 83% 80% 82% Most residents were pleased with the areas of safety and the natural environment, as shown by the 86 percent and 83 percent average ratings of excellent or good in those areas, but generally did not favorably view the economy, built environment, community engagement, and mobility facets, which all had average excellent or good ratings of less than 70 percent. The following questions had average excellent/good ratings that were 50 percent or less. Looking at the results by facet based on the number of questions in each facet produces similar results. Only Safety and the Natural Environment had more questions, 10 of 13 and 10 of 16, respectively, where the excellent or good rating was 80 percent or higher than the number of questions that rated less than 80 percent. Only one of the 26 Community Engagement questions and 3 of the 19 mobility questions had excellent or good ratings that were 80 percent or higher. 81%82%79%89%81%85%75%74%81% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Overall North South Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5 Area 6 Attachment B Questions With An Average Excellent/Good Rating of 50 Percent or Less Facet Question Excellent/Good Percentage Built environment Availability of affordable quality housing 6% Variety of housing options 17% Land use, planning, and zoning 37% Overall quality of new development 42% Community engagement Overall direction that Palo Alto is taking 40% Generally acting in the best interest of the community 44% The job Palo Alto government does at welcoming citizen involvement 44% Overall confidence in Palo Alto government 44% Treating all residents fairly 47% Economy Cost of living in Palo Alto 7% Education and enrichment Availability of affordable quality child care/preschool 39% Mobility Ease of travel by public transportation in Palo Alto 28% Traffic flow on major streets 30% Ease of public parking 33% Bus or transit services 42% Ease of travel by car in Palo Alto 44% Traffic signal timing 50% Recreation and wellness Availability of affordable quality mental health care 46% Residents’ low participation rate in certain community engagement activities means that most residents do not provide input on issues that could affect the direction of City policies. For example, respondents reported that, in the last 12 months, only: • 28 percent campaigned or advocated for an issue, cause, or candidate (was 24 percent in 2015) • 21 percent attended a local public meeting (was 22 percent in 2015) • 14 percent watched (online or on television) a local public meeting (was 18 percent in 2015) • 17 percent contacted Palo Alto elected officials (in-person, phone, email, or web) to express their opinion (was 15 percent in 2015) Some responses seem to contradict others. For example, many respondents rated the quality of code enforcement as fair or poor although they also said they had not observed any code violations. We ran a correlation analysis of the question that asked if the resident had observed a code violation and the question that asked residents to rate the quality of code enforcement. There was a week positive correlation coefficient of 0.32.1 Another example is how respondents rated the overall quality of life (85 percent rated it as excellent or good) compared to the average excellent or good rating of 67 percent for the survey as a whole, which addresses various aspects of quality of life in Palo Alto. 1 Correlation analysis shows the strength of a linear relationship between pairs of variables and is measured in terms of a correlation coefficient. A correlation coefficient of +1 indicates a perfect positive correlation, meaning that as variable A increases, variable B will increase similarly; and a correlation coefficient of -1 indicates a perfect negative correlation, meaning that as variable A decreased, variable B will decrease similarly. The relationship weakens as the correlation coefficient moves closer to 0, meaning that it is less likely that there is a linear relationship between the variables. Attachment B Changes From Last Year and Over Time Overall, ratings in the City were generally stable, with 111 questions rated similarly in 2015 and 2016. Results are generally considered similar if the ratings from one year to the next if they differ by less than five percentage points, which is statistically meaningful. Residents responded more favorably to two questions and less favorably to 22 questions in 2016 than in 2015: Survey Question 2015 2016 Percentage Point Change How safe or unsafe you feel in Palo Alto’s downtown/commercial areas after dark (very/ somewhat safe) 67% 74% +7% Street repair (excellent/good) 51% 57% +6% Availability of affordable quality health care (excellent/good) 70% 65% -5% Overall quality of business and service establishments in Palo Alto (excellent/good) 77% 72% -5% Recreation centers or facilities (excellent/good) 86% 81% -5% Emergency preparedness (services that prepare the community for natural disasters or other emergency situations) (excellent/good) 74% 69% -5% Public places where people want to spend time (excellent/good) 81% 75% -6% Attended a City-sponsored event (at least once in last 12 months) 57% 51% -6% Treating all residents fairly (excellent/good) 53% 47% -6% Availability of affordable quality mental health care (excellent/good) 53% 46% -7% Overall quality of new development in Palo Alto (excellent/good) 49% 42% -7% Opportunities to participate in community matters (excellent/good) 76% 69% -7% Opportunities to learn about City services through social media websites such as Twitter and Facebook (excellent/good) 75% 68% -7% Bus or transit services (excellent/good) 49% 42% -7% Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc.) (excellent/good) 59% 52% -7% The value of services for the taxes paid to Palo Alto (excellent/good) 65% 58% -7% How well Palo Alto government does at being honest (excellent/good) 62% 55% -7% Recommend living in Palo Alto to someone who asks (excellent/good) 80% 72% -8% Economic development (excellent/good) 69% 61% -8% The overall direction that Palo Alto is taking (excellent/good) 48% 40% -8% Overall confidence in Palo Alto government (excellent/good) 53% 44% -9% How well Palo Alto government does at generally acting in the best interest of the community (excellent/good) 53% 44% -9% Availability of affordable quality child care/preschool (excellent/good) 49% 39% -10% The job Palo Alto government does at welcoming citizen involvement (excellent/good) 61% 50% -11% Although not showing a statistically meaningful change from the prior year, residents’ opinions in several areas have improved or declined over time, which is more likely to represent real shifts in residents’ perspectives. Since 2006, the changes in responses to 39 questions have been statistically meaningful: Attachment B Areas That Improved or Declined Over Time Percent Rating Excellent or Good 2006 Rating 2016 Rating Percentage Point Change Trend Variety of library materials (excellent/good) 59% 82% +23% ↑ Neighborhood branch libraries (excellent/good) 73% 89% +16% ↑ Storm drainage (excellent/good) 61% 75% +14% ↑ Public library services (excellent/good) 78% 91% +13% ↑ Quality of services provided by the federal government (excellent/good) 33% 46% +13% ↑ Employment opportunities (excellent/good) 59% 70% +11% ↑ Street repair (excellent/good) 47% 57% +10% ↑ Sidewalk maintenance (excellent/good) 52% 61% +9% ↑ How safe or unsafe you feel in your neighborhood after dark (very/somewhat safe) 79% 87% +8% ↑ Availability of affordable quality health care (excellent/good) 57% 65% +8% ↑ Quality of services provided by state government (excellent/good) 38% 46% +8% ↑ How safe or unsafe you feel in Palo Alto’s downtown/commercial areas after dark (very/somewhat safe) 67% 74% +7% ↑ Drinking water (excellent/good) 80% 87% +7% ↑ Public information services (excellent/good) 72% 78% +6% ↑ Street lighting (excellent/good) 66% 71% +5% ↑ Sewer services (excellent/good) 83% 88% +5% ↑ Street tree maintenance (excellent/good) 66% 71% +5% ↑ Gas utility (excellent/good) 82% 87% +5% ↑ Overall image or reputation of Palo Alto (excellent/good) 91% 86% -5% ↓ Availability of affordable quality housing (excellent/good) 11% 6% -5% ↓ Traffic signal timing (excellent/good) 55% 50% -5% ↓ Garbage collection (excellent/good) 92% 87% -5% ↓ Recreational opportunities (excellent/good) 83% 77% -6% ↓ Attended a local public meeting (at least once in the last 12 months) 27% 21% -6% ↓ Quality of services provided by the City of Palo Alto (excellent/good) 87% 81% -6% ↓ Ease of walking in Palo Alto (excellent/good) 87% 80% -7% ↓ The overall quality of life in Palo Alto (excellent/good) 92% 85% -7% ↓ Palo Alto as a place to raise children (excellent/good) 92% 84% -8% ↓ Volunteered your time to some group/activity in Palo Alto (at least once in the last 12 months) 53% 45% -8% ↓ Traffic flow on major streets (excellent/good) 39% 30% -9% ↓ Sense of community (excellent/good) 66% 57% -9% ↓ Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc.) (excellent/good) 61% 52% -9% ↓ Land use, planning, and zoning (excellent/good) 50% 37% -13% ↓ Bus or transit services (excellent/good) 58% 42% -16% ↓ Ease of travel by car in Palo Alto (excellent/good) 60% 44% -16% ↓ Watched (online or television) a local public meeting (at least once in the last 12 months) 31% 14% -17% ↓ Palo Alto as a place to retire (excellent/good) 68% 50% -18% ↓ Overall quality of new development in Palo Alto (excellent/good) 62% 42% -20% ↓ Ease of travel by public transportation in Palo Alto (excellent/good) 60% 28% -32% ↓ Attachment B Comparative Results for Geographic Areas The 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 for the North and South subgroups. Percent Rating Excellent or Good (if not excellent or good, other rating indicated in parentheses) North South Overall Difference North less South Bus or transit services 51% 33% 42% 18% Ease of walking in Palo Alto 86% 75% 80% 11% Used bus, rail or other public transportation instead of driving (in last 12 months) 58% 48% 53% 10% Palo Alto as a place to retire 55% 46% 50% 9% Overall "built environment" of Palo Alto (including overall design, buildings, parks and transportation systems) 64% 55% 59% 9% Overall quality of business and service establishments in Palo Alto 76% 67% 72% 9% Vibrant downtown/commercial area 78% 69% 73% 9% Crime prevention 84% 76% 80% 8% Overall quality of life in Palo Alto 89% 82% 85% 7% Shopping opportunities 83% 77% 80% 6% Walked or biked instead of driving 90% 84% 87% 6% Your neighborhood as a place to live 93% 88% 91% 5% Visited a neighborhood or City park 90% 95% 93% -5% K-12 education 87% 93% 89% -6% Variety of library materials 78% 86% 82% -8% Opportunities to volunteer 72% 81% 77% -9% Sidewalk maintenance 55% 66% 61% -11% Used Palo Alto public libraries or their services at least once in last 12 months 67% 78% 73% -11% Opportunities to learn about City services through social media websites such as Twitter and Facebook 61% 74% 68% -13% Demographic Analysis We analyzed the survey results by demographic characteristics, with a focus on the questions related to quality of life; mobility; and the built environment, including housing; and identified some trends: • Quality of Life – There were several trends in how different demographic groups responded to the quality of life questions: ◦ Males and females similarly rated four of the five quality of life questions as excellent or good. Males rated Palo Alto as a place to work about eight percentage points higher than females. Females rated Palo Alto as a place to raise children and Palo Alto as a place to visit about six and nine percentage points, respectively, higher than males. ◦ Homeowners gave excellent or good ratings that were 6 to 18 percentage points higher than renters did for six of the quality of life questions. Homeowners and renters rated Palo Alto as a place to work similarly. ◦ Except for Palo Alto as a place to retire, residents with children living in the household gave higher percentages of excellent or good ratings for the quality of life questions than residents who did not have children living in the household. Attachment B ◦ Residents in the survey’s highest household income bracket, $300,000 or more annually, gave higher percentages of excellent or good ratings six of the seven quality of life questions than residents in the other household income brackets. ◦ 91 percent of respondents rated their neighborhood as an excellent or good place to live, but only 82 percent of respondents with household incomes of less than $50,000 and only 83 percent of respondents in the 25-34 age bracket rated their neighborhood as an excellent or good place to live. ◦ 83 percent of respondents in the 35-44 age bracket, a bracket that is more likely to have children living in the household, rated Palo Alto as an excellent or good place to raise children, compared to a range of 55 percent (18-24 age bracket) to 77 percent (45-54 age bracket) in the other age brackets. ◦ Respondents were more likely to rate Palo Alto as an excellent or good place to work if they were already working either full- or part-time for pay or were less than 65 years old. ◦ Respondents who are fully retired, 65 years or older, or lived in Palo Alto for more than 20 years were more likely than other respondents to rate Palo Alto as an excellent or good place to retire. ◦ Although not specifically a quality of life question, we also identified trends in responses related to the value of services for taxes paid to Palo Alto. Residents who have lived in Palo Alto more than 20 years gave the highest percentage of excellent or good ratings, 53 percent, than other residents. 54 percent of homeowners who responded to the question rated it excellent or good compared to 39 percent of renters. Respondents with annual household incomes of $150,000 or more rated the question as excellent or good more often than lower-income respondents. • Mobility ◦ Residents who have lived in Palo Alto for more than 20 years gave the lowest percentage of excellent or good ratings for five of the six mobility questions and the second lowest percentage for the sixth question, ease of travel by bicycle in Palo Alto. ◦ Renters gave a higher percentage of excellent or good ratings than homeowners gave for five of the six mobility questions, with a difference of four to ten percentage points. ◦ Unemployed residents gave a higher percentage of excellent or good ratings than residents who work for pay gave. In contrast, residents who work for pay were more likely to say that it is very or somewhat important for the City to focus on the overall ease of getting to places they normally have to visit. ◦ Residents’ ratings of the ease of public parking mirrored the amount of time they have lived in Palo Alto – the longer they have lived here, the less likely they were to rate it as excellent or good. Forty percent of respondents who have lived here for two to five years rated it as excellent or good. That number gradually declined, to 24 percent, for respondents who have lived here for more than 20 years. ◦ Respondents under age 65 gave higher percentages of excellent or good ratings to the questions related to ease of getting around using various modes of transportation (mode not specified, by car, using public transportation, or on a bicycle) compared to respondents age 65 or older. Although the difference was only 4 percentage points for ease of travel by public transportation, there was a 34 percentage point difference for ease of travel by car in Palo Alto. • Built Environment ◦ Although 14 percent of renters rated the variety of housing options as excellent or good compared to 19 percent of homeowners, renters gave slightly higher ratings of excellent or good, 6 percent, Attachment B compared to homeowners’ 5 percent rating, when asked about the availability of affordable quality housing. ◦ Respondents who have a household income of less than $25,000 annually gave the highest percentage of excellent or good ratings to the two housing questions – 27 percent for the variety of housing options compared to 17 percent overall, and 12 percent for availability of affordable quality housing compared to 6 percent overall. ◦ No respondents in the 18-24 age bracket gave ratings of excellent or good to either of the two housing questions. ◦ 52 percent of the respondents who have lived in Palo Alto for more than 20 years gave an excellent or good rating to the overall built environment compared to 63 percent of all other respondents. ◦ 25 percent of respondents who are fully retired, 27 percent of respondents who have lived in Palo Alto for more than 20 years, and 26 percent of respondents age 65 or older gave excellent or good ratings for the overall quality of new development in Palo Alto compared to an overall rating of 42 percent. ◦ Respondents who are retired or have lived in Palo Alto for more than 20 years were less likely to give excellent or good ratings for land use, planning, and zoning. Their ratings were 23 percent and 24 percent, respectively, compared to the overall rating of 37 percent. ◦ 74 percent of respondents who have lived in Palo Alto for five years or less and 86 percent of homeowners felt it was very or somewhat important for Palo Alto to focus on the overall built environment compared to 84 percent of those who have lived in Palo Alto for six or more years and 73 percent of renters. The survey does not ask why respondents answered the way they did. Further in-depth questioning, such as through targeted focus groups, could explain why differing opinions exist among the various subgroups. National Benchmark Comparisons When available, benchmark comparisons are shown as the last table for each question. 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 2 questions, higher on 23 questions, lower on 9 questions, and much lower on 3 questions. Attachment B Palo Alto’s Ratings Compared to Benchmark Communities Much Higher Overall opportunities for education and enrichment Employment opportunities Higher Adult educational opportunities Availability of preventive health services City parks Did not observe a code violation or other hazard in Palo Alto (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc.) 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 Made efforts to conserve water Opportunities to attend cultural/arts/music activities Overall appearance of Palo Alto Overall economic health of Palo Alto Overall feeling of safety in Palo Alto Overall image or reputation of Palo Alto Palo Alto as a place to live Palo Alto open space Preservation of natural areas such as open space, farmlands and greenbelts Shopping opportunities Street cleaning Utility billing Vibrant downtown/commercial area Yard waste pick-up Lower Ease of public parking Ease of travel by car in Palo Alto Ease of travel by public Watched (online or on television) a local public meeting transportation in Palo Alto Overall quality of new development 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 Much Lower Availability of affordable quality housing Cost of living in Palo Alto Variety of housing options CUSTOM QUESTIONS In addition to the standard survey questions, we asked 9 custom questions (14 through 22) regarding transportation, residents’ interest in converting to being “green,” and Cubberley Community Center, as well as an open-ended question regarding one improvement that the City could make to its parks, arts, or recreation activities and programs to better serve the community. Some of the transportation questions, the Cubberley question, and the open-ended question were repeat questions from last year’s survey. Transportation Palo Alto residents’ primary mode of transportation for getting around town is driving (77 percent), followed by walking (13 percent), and biking (8 percent), and riding a bus (1 percent). Other modes of transportation make up less than one percent of residents’ primary mode of transportation. As in 2015, residents cited biking and walking as the most convenient ways to get around town without a car, with 74 percent of respondents rating biking and 71 percent rating walking as “very convenient” or “somewhat convenient.” These are also residents’ preferred method for getting around town without a car when convenience is not an issue; however, walking is becomes more preferred (94 percent) than biking (75 percent). Bus, train, free shuttle, taxi, rideshare services, and carpooling were less preferred. For details, see tables 62-66 in the report. Attachment B Interest in Converting to “Green” We asked questions to assess residents’ interest in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. We asked about the likelihood that they would purchase a non-gas vehicle if they planned to buy a new one within the next two years, and we asked about their interest in converting their home heating system or major appliances (hot water heater, cooktop or stove, and clothes dryer) from natural gas or other fuels to electricity based on various levels of increases in their energy bill. There was significant overlap in how residents responded to the question about their interest in converting from a gas car to another type of energy-sourced vehicle. Although 392 respondents (71 percent) said that they were very or somewhat likely to purchase a gas car, 252 of those same respondents also said they were very or somewhat likely to purchase a hybrid, 160 were very or somewhat likely to purchase a plug-in hybrid, and 150 were very or somewhat likely to purchase an electric car. This overlap prevented us from being able to draw conclusions regarding the true likelihood that residents will convert to a non-gas vehicle. We were also unable to draw conclusions regarding residents’ true level of interest in converting their heating system or major appliances to electricity because of a lack of alignment in their responses. In all instances, the likelihood of residents being willing to convert to electricity was highest if their energy bill remained the same and declined if their energy bill would increase. However, the number of respondents who said in a preliminary question that they already had electric-powered heating systems or appliances did not match what they said in the specific questions about their interest in converting to electricity. For example, 485 respondents said in the preliminary question that their clothes dryer is powered by electricity and 146 respondents said it is powered by natural gas or other fuel, but when asked about their interest in converting to electricity, only 248 said their clothes dryer was already electric and 181 said that they would be very or somewhat likely to convert to electricity. However, based on the responses to the preliminary question, which show that almost 70 percent of respondents’ hot water heaters and home heating systems are nonelectric, those two systems could be an area for the City to focus on if they want to encourage residents to convert those to electric. Cubberley Community Center We asked residents to rate how much of a priority, if at all, various future uses of the Cubberley Community Center are to them. The City of Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Unified School District are working together on a master plan for the Cubberley Community Center to meet future community and school needs, and the results of this survey question will be considered as they develop that plan. The five priorities receiving the highest percentage of high or medium priority responses were the same as in 2015, with no statistically meaningful difference in opinions (Tables 75 and 76 in the report): Response Category Percent of High and Medium Priority Responses 2015 2016 Indoor sports and health programs 75% 74% Outdoor sports 72% 71% Senior wellness, including stroke and cardiovascular programs 69% 70% Rooms available to rent for other activities 65% 61% Education – private schools and special interest classes 61% 61% Attachment B Suggested Improvements to Parks, Arts, or Recreation Activities and Programs We asked residents to share one improvement to the City of Palo Alto’s parks, arts, or recreation activities and programs that the City could make to better serve the community. The Community Services Department will consider these responses, along with data it has already collected from other community surveys as it finalizes its long range parks, recreation, trails, and open space master plan. Slightly more than half of the respondents (397 of 744) provided ideas, which we categorized into 15 topic areas (Table 77 in the report). Adding bathrooms/restrooms to City parks remained residents’ top priority in 2016, but their other priorities changed from 2015: Response Category Number of Responses 2015 2016 Bathrooms/Restrooms 36 39 Programs and Classes – General 16 39 Dog Parks/Leash Enforcement 19 33 Park, Recreation, and Art Facilities and Amenities (other than bathrooms/restrooms) 34 32 Park Spaces (Green Space) 35 25 Information/Registration 18 22 Maintenance/Cleanliness 10 21 Parking/Transportation 17 20 Bike/Walking Path Improvements 20 16 Programs and Classes - Adult/Senior 22 15 Attachment B 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 2016 Attachment B The National Citizen Survey™ The National Citizen Survey™ © 2001-2016 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 .......................................................... 1 National Benchmark Comparisons ............................................. 8 Results Tables ......................................................................... 9 Survey Materials .................................................................... 59 Attachment B The National Citizen Survey™ 1 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 three times 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 Attachment B The National Citizen Survey™ 2 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 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, or within one of six areas. To choose the 3,000 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 (page 4 and 5) display maps of the households selected to receive the survey. Attachment B The National Citizen Survey™ 3 Survey Administration and Response Selected households received three mailings, one week apart, beginning on August 24, 2016. The first mailing was a prenotification postcard announcing the upcoming survey. The next mailing contained a letter from the City Auditor inviting the household to participate, a questionnaire and a postage-paid return envelope. The final 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. Respondents could opt to take the survey online. Completed surveys were collected over the following six weeks. About 3 percent of the 3,000 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 2,896 households that received the survey, 744 completed the survey, providing an overall response rate of 26 percent. Of the 744 completed surveys, 116 (16 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 22 percent to 36 percent. Attachment B The National Citizen Survey™ 4 Figure 1: Location of Survey Recipients – North/South Attachment B The National Citizen Survey™ 5 Figure 2: Location of Survey Recipients – Area Attachment B The National Citizen Survey™ 6 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 four percentage points around any given percent reported for the entire sample (744 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 declines to approximately plus or minus five percentage points since the number of responses for the North were 360 and for the South were 384. Further, for each of the six areas within Palo Alto, the margin of error rises to approximately plus or minus thirteen percentage points since number of responses were 115 for Area 1, 136 for Area 2, 107 for Area 3, 136 for Area 4, 55 for Area 5 and 195 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 (55). Table 1: Survey Response Rates by Area Number mailed Undeliverable Eligible Returned Response rate Overall 3000 104 2896 744 26% North 1498 65 1433 360 25% South 1502 39 1463 384 26% Area 1 325 5 320 115 36% Area 2 519 19 500 136 27% Area 3 374 1 373 107 29% Area 4 592 19 573 136 24% Area 5 256 6 250 55 22% Area 6 934 54 880 195 22% 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 then were 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. 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 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. Attachment B The National Citizen Survey™ 7 used for weighting were housing tenure (rent or own), housing unit type (attached or detached), race, ethnicity, and sex and age. The results of the weighting scheme are presented in Table 2. Table 2: Palo Alto, CA 2016 Weighting Table Characteristic Population Norm Unweighted Data Weighted Data Housing Rent home 44% 32% 43% Own home 56% 68% 57% Detached unit 57% 62% 57% Attached unit 43% 38% 43% Race and Ethnicity White 68% 69% 68% Not white 32% 31% 32% Not Hispanic 95% 97% 95% Hispanic 5% 3% 5% Sex and Age Female 52% 57% 52% Male 48% 43% 48% 18-34 years of age 22% 10% 21% 35-54 years of age 41% 29% 40% 55+ years of age 37% 61% 39% Females 18-34 10% 5% 10% Females 35-54 21% 17% 21% Females 55+ 20% 34% 21% Males 18-34 12% 5% 12% Males 35-54 20% 13% 20% Males 55+ 17% 26% 18% Areas North 50% 48% 49% South 50% 52% 51% Area 1 13% 15% 14% Area 2 19% 18% 18% Area 3 13% 14% 12% Area 4 19% 18% 20% Area 5 8% 7% 8% Area 6 29% 26% 28% 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 2016 ratings for the City of Palo Alto to the 10 previous years of survey results (going back to 2006) 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. Attachment B The National Citizen Survey™ 8 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 2015 and 2016 surveys; otherwise, the comparisons between 2015 and 2016 are noted as being “similar.” When comparing results over time, small differences (those with less than a 5 percent difference compared to 2015) 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 2015) 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 2016 generally remained stable. Of the 145 items for which comparisons were available, 120 items were rated similarly in 2015 and 2016, 23 items showed a decrease in ratings and 2 showed an increase in ratings. 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 500 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 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 2 While the percentages are reported as rounded whole numbers, meaningful differences are identified based on unrounded percentages with decimals in place. 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% Attachment B The National Citizen Survey™ 9 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; and “much higher” or “much lower” if the difference between Palo Alto’s rating and the benchmark is 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 6). Generally, a small 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 2015 and 2016 surveys; otherwise, the comparison between 2015 and 2016 are noted as being “similar.” Geographic comparisons are made for questions 1 through 13 (some questions having multiple, nonscaled 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.” Attachment B The National Citizen Survey™ 10 Question 1 Table 3: 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 49% N=356 42% N=307 8% N=61 1% N=5 0% N=2 100% N=731 Your neighborhood as a place to live 53% N=392 37% N=272 8% N=59 1% N=9 0% N=2 100% N=734 Palo Alto as a place to raise children 39% N=285 33% N=241 12% N=90 1% N=8 14% N=104 100% N=728 Palo Alto as a place to work 36% N=264 31% N=226 13% N=93 2% N=15 18% N=128 100% N=726 Palo Alto as a place to visit 32% N=232 36% N=258 21% N=150 6% N=43 6% N=42 100% N=725 Palo Alto as a place to retire 20% N=148 22% N=162 21% N=152 21% N=153 15% N=108 100% N=724 The overall quality of life in Palo Alto 37% N=271 48% N=350 13% N=96 1% N=10 0% N=1 100% N=729 Table 4: 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 49% N=356 42% N=307 8% N=61 1% N=5 100% N=730 Your neighborhood as a place to live 54% N=392 37% N=272 8% N=59 1% N=9 100% N=732 Palo Alto as a place to raise children 46% N=285 39% N=241 14% N=90 1% N=8 100% N=625 Palo Alto as a place to work 44% N=264 38% N=226 16% N=93 2% N=15 100% N=598 Palo Alto as a place to visit 34% N=232 38% N=258 22% N=150 6% N=43 100% N=683 Palo Alto as a place to retire 24% N=148 26% N=162 25% N=152 25% N=153 100% N=616 The overall quality of life in Palo Alto 37% N=271 48% N=350 13% N=96 1% N=10 100% N=728 Table 5: Question 1 - Historical Results Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good) 2016 rating compared to 2015 2003 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Palo Alto as a place to live 95% 94% 96% 95% 94% 95% 94% 95% 92% 95% 92% 91% Similar Your neighborhood as a place to live 88% 91% 91% 91% 90% 91% 90% 90% 91% 92% 90% 91% Similar Palo Alto as a place to raise children 90% 92% 92% 94% 91% 93% 93% 92% 90% 93% 87% 84% Similar Palo Alto as a place to work NA 84% 90% 90% 87% 87% 89% 88% 89% 86% 87% 82% Similar Palo Alto as a place to visit NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 75% 74% 72% Similar Palo Alto as a place to retire 62% 68% 61% 67% 64% 65% 68% 68% 56% 60% 52% 50% Similar The overall quality of life in Palo Alto 92% 92% 94% 91% 93% 94% 92% 94% 91% 91% 88% 85% Similar Attachment B The National Citizen Survey™ 11 Table 6: 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 92% 90% 95% 90% 93% 87% 84% 93% 91% Your neighborhood as a place to live 93% 88% 97% 91% 93% 85% 80% 94% 91% Palo Alto as a place to raise children 86% 82% 90% 84% 86% 81% 65% 88% 84% Palo Alto as a place to work 82% 82% 82% 87% 81% 79% 71% 85% 82% Palo Alto as a place to visit 73% 70% 79% 69% 75% 69% 66% 72% 72% Palo Alto as a place to retire 55% 46% 56% 46% 56% 43% 44% 55% 50% The overall quality of life in Palo Alto 89% 82% 92% 83% 86% 79% 76% 91% 85% Table 7: Question 1 - Benchmark Comparisons Average rating Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark Palo Alto as a place to live 80 123 353 Similar Your neighborhood as a place to live 81 38 277 Similar Palo Alto as a place to raise children 76 126 340 Similar Palo Alto as a place to work 75 15 319 Higher Palo Alto as a place to visit 66 58 187 Similar Palo Alto as a place to retire 50 265 319 Lower The overall quality of life in Palo Alto 74 153 415 Similar Question 2 Table 8: 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 49% N=356 45% N=328 6% N=43 0% N=3 0% N=0 100% N=730 Overall ease of getting to the places you usually have to visit 24% N=176 43% N=315 24% N=175 9% N=63 0% N=1 100% N=730 Quality of overall natural environment in Palo Alto 39% N=283 45% N=325 14% N=102 2% N=12 0% N=4 100% N=726 Overall "built environment" of Palo Alto (including overall design, buildings, parks and transportation systems) 17% N=126 42% N=305 32% N=232 9% N=64 0% N=3 100% N=729 Health and wellness opportunities in Palo Alto 42% N=302 37% N=271 12% N=86 2% N=14 7% N=53 100% N=726 Overall opportunities for education and enrichment 54% N=395 31% N=229 8% N=58 0% N=2 6% N=44 100% N=727 Overall economic health of Palo Alto 38% N=278 40% N=291 12% N=84 4% N=31 6% N=44 100% N=728 Sense of community 19% N=136 37% N=268 30% N=215 12% N=84 3% N=21 100% N=724 Overall image or reputation of Palo Alto 43% N=314 43% N=312 11% N=83 2% N=15 1% N=6 100% N=731 Attachment B The National Citizen Survey™ 12 Table 9: 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 49% N=356 45% N=328 6% N=43 0% N=3 100% N=730 Overall ease of getting to the places you usually have to visit 24% N=176 43% N=315 24% N=175 9% N=63 100% N=729 Quality of overall natural environment in Palo Alto 39% N=283 45% N=325 14% N=102 2% N=12 100% N=722 Overall "built environment" of Palo Alto (including overall design, buildings, parks and transportation systems) 17% N=126 42% N=305 32% N=232 9% N=64 100% N=727 Health and wellness opportunities in Palo Alto 45% N=302 40% N=271 13% N=86 2% N=14 100% N=673 Overall opportunities for education and enrichment 58% N=395 33% N=229 8% N=58 0% N=2 100% N=683 Overall economic health of Palo Alto 41% N=278 43% N=291 12% N=84 5% N=31 100% N=684 Sense of community 19% N=136 38% N=268 31% N=215 12% N=84 100% N=703 Overall image or reputation of Palo Alto 43% N=314 43% N=312 12% N=83 2% N=15 100% N=724 Table 10: Question 2 - Historical Results Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good) 2016 rating compared to 2015 2003 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Overall feeling of safety in Palo Alto NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 92% 91% 94% Similar Overall ease of getting to the places you usually have to visit NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 71% 65% 67% Similar Quality of overall natural environment in Palo Alto NA NA NA 85% 84% 84% 84% 88% 83% 88% 86% 84% Similar Overall "built environment" of Palo Alto (including overall design, buildings, parks and transportation systems) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 67% 63% 59% Similar Health and wellness opportunities in Palo Alto NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 88% 88% 85% Similar Overall opportunities for education and enrichment NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 96% 92% 91% Similar Overall economic health of Palo Alto NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 88% 86% 83% Similar Sense of community 70% 66% 70% 70% 71% 71% 75% 73% 67% 64% 60% 57% Similar Overall image or reputation of Palo Alto NA 91% 93% 92% 92% 90% 92% 92% 90% 92% 88% 86% Similar Table 11: 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 95% 92% 96% 96% 92% 90% 96% 94% 94% Overall ease of getting to the places you usually have to visit 68% 66% 63% 72% 67% 63% 50% 74% 67% Quality of overall natural environment in Palo Alto 86% 82% 91% 86% 81% 79% 73% 87% 84% Overall "built environment" of Palo Alto (including overall design, buildings, parks and transportation systems) 64% 55% 71% 61% 59% 46% 52% 64% 59% Health and wellness opportunities in Palo Alto 86% 84% 83% 90% 88% 77% 77% 89% 85% Overall opportunities for education and enrichment 90% 93% 92% 94% 94% 91% 76% 92% 91% Overall economic health of Palo Alto 84% 82% 84% 81% 87% 80% 77% 86% 83% Sense of community 57% 58% 59% 56% 72% 53% 41% 59% 57% Overall image or reputation of Palo Alto 86% 86% 93% 87% 91% 83% 78% 85% 86% Attachment B The National Citizen Survey™ 13 Table 12: Question 2 - Benchmark Comparisons Average rating Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark Overall feeling of safety in Palo Alto 81 56 263 Higher Overall ease of getting to the places you usually have to visit 61 123 183 Similar Quality of overall natural environment in Palo Alto 74 68 244 Similar Overall "built environment" of Palo Alto (including overall design, buildings, parks and transportation systems) 56 96 172 Similar Health and wellness opportunities in Palo Alto 76 19 175 Higher Overall opportunities for education and enrichment 83 3 175 Much higher Overall economic health of Palo Alto 73 23 178 Higher Sense of community 55 179 276 Similar Overall image or reputation of Palo Alto 76 56 310 Higher Question 3 Table 13: 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 36% N=261 36% N=260 16% N=117 11% N=81 1% N=6 100% N=726 Remain in Palo Alto for the next five years 54% N=396 19% N=140 12% N=85 13% N=92 2% N=16 100% N=729 Table 14: 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 36% N=261 36% N=260 16% N=117 11% N=81 100% N=720 Remain in Palo Alto for the next five years 56% N=396 20% N=140 12% N=85 13% N=92 100% N=713 Table 15: Question 3 - Historical Results Percent rating positively (e.g., very likely/somewhat likely) 2016 rating compared to 2015 2003 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Recommend Palo Alto NA NA NA 91% 90% 90% 91% 92% 89% 86% 80% 72% Lower Remain in Palo Alto NA NA NA 85% 87% 83% 87% 87% 87% 83% 80% 75% Similar Table 16: 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 75% 70% 77% 70% 79% 66% 58% 78% 72% Remain in Palo Alto for the next five years 77% 73% 77% 74% 82% 70% 75% 76% 75% Table 17: Question 3 - Benchmark Comparisons Average rating Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark Recommend living in Palo Alto to someone who asks 72 219 250 Lower Remain in Palo Alto for the next five years 75 212 242 Similar Attachment B The National Citizen Survey™ 14 Question 4 Table 18: 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=594 16% N=118 2% N=11 0% N=3 0% N=2 0% N=1 100% N=729 In Palo Alto's downtown/commercial areas during the day 68% N=494 23% N=166 6% N=43 1% N=11 0% N=1 2% N=15 100% N=730 In your neighborhood after dark 45% N=330 41% N=299 8% N=56 4% N=28 1% N=6 1% N=10 100% N=729 In Palo Alto's downtown/commercial areas after dark 30% N=220 39% N=288 16% N=114 8% N=55 2% N=13 5% N=40 100% N=730 Table 19: 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 82% N=594 16% N=118 2% N=11 0% N=3 0% N=2 100% N=728 In Palo Alto's downtown/commercial areas during the day 69% N=494 23% N=166 6% N=43 2% N=11 0% N=1 100% N=715 In your neighborhood after dark 46% N=330 42% N=299 8% N=56 4% N=28 1% N=6 100% N=719 In Palo Alto's downtown/commercial areas after dark 32% N=220 42% N=288 17% N=114 8% N=55 2% N=13 100% N=690 Table 20: Question 4 - Historical Results* Percent rating positively (e.g., very safe/somewhat safe) 2016 rating compared to 2015 2003 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 In your neighborhood during the day 97% 94% 98% 95% 95% 96% 98% 96% 97% 97% 97% 98% Similar In Palo Alto's downtown/commercial areas during the day 95% 91% 94% 96% 91% 94% 91% 92% 93% 92% 92% 92% Similar In your neighborhood after dark 83% 79% 84% 79% 78% 83% 83% 81% 72% 84% 84% 87% Similar In Palo Alto's downtown/commercial areas after dark 71% 67% 70% 66% 65% 71% 65% 71% 62% 69% 67% 74% Higher Table 21: 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% 99% 96% 98% 100% 99% 97% 98% In Palo Alto's downtown/commercial areas during the day 94% 91% 97% 89% 92% 92% 87% 94% 92% In your neighborhood after dark 87% 88% 85% 88% 88% 88% 91% 87% 87% In Palo Alto's downtown/commercial areas after dark 74% 73% 73% 74% 67% 75% 66% 78% 74% Table 22: Question 4 - Benchmark Comparisons* Average rating Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark In your neighborhood during the day 95 55 319 Similar In Palo Alto's downtown/commercial area during the day 90 101 271 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). Attachment B The National Citizen Survey™ 15 Question 5 Table 23: 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 5% N=36 25% N=182 37% N=267 33% N=237 1% N=5 100% N=727 Ease of public parking 10% N=69 23% N=164 38% N=279 28% N=201 2% N=13 100% N=727 Ease of travel by car in Palo Alto 10% N=72 34% N=246 37% N=271 18% N=131 1% N=5 100% N=725 Ease of travel by public transportation in Palo Alto 4% N=30 16% N=115 24% N=170 28% N=203 28% N=205 100% N=723 Ease of travel by bicycle in Palo Alto 24% N=173 37% N=267 17% N=126 4% N=32 17% N=125 100% N=724 Ease of walking in Palo Alto 40% N=291 39% N=283 17% N=121 3% N=19 1% N=10 100% N=725 Availability of paths and walking trails 28% N=203 45% N=325 19% N=140 3% N=23 5% N=35 100% N=726 Air quality 29% N=212 51% N=370 16% N=119 3% N=20 1% N=6 100% N=727 Cleanliness of Palo Alto 34% N=250 51% N=374 13% N=98 1% N=7 0% N=0 100% N=730 Overall appearance of Palo Alto 36% N=263 50% N=364 12% N=85 1% N=10 0% N=3 100% N=724 Public places where people want to spend time 27% N=198 45% N=328 19% N=140 5% N=33 3% N=25 100% N=724 Variety of housing options 4% N=27 13% N=91 26% N=189 52% N=376 6% N=42 100% N=725 Availability of affordable quality housing 2% N=16 3% N=22 10% N=73 77% N=559 7% N=53 100% N=722 Fitness opportunities (including exercise classes and paths or trails, etc.) 30% N=215 44% N=323 17% N=124 3% N=23 6% N=42 100% N=726 Recreational opportunities 29% N=214 44% N=318 18% N=131 4% N=26 5% N=38 100% N=726 Availability of affordable quality food 20% N=143 38% N=279 30% N=221 10% N=73 1% N=11 100% N=725 Availability of affordable quality health care 24% N=173 32% N=230 22% N=156 8% N=61 15% N=106 100% N=726 Availability of preventive health services 25% N=182 35% N=253 17% N=120 4% N=30 19% N=138 100% N=724 Availability of affordable quality mental health care 8% N=58 15% N=107 15% N=106 12% N=90 50% N=364 100% N=726 Table 24: 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 5% N=36 25% N=182 37% N=267 33% N=237 100% N=722 Ease of public parking 10% N=69 23% N=164 39% N=279 28% N=201 100% N=714 Ease of travel by car in Palo Alto 10% N=72 34% N=246 38% N=271 18% N=131 100% N=719 Ease of travel by public transportation in Palo Alto 6% N=30 22% N=115 33% N=170 39% N=203 100% N=518 Ease of travel by bicycle in Palo Alto 29% N=173 45% N=267 21% N=126 5% N=32 100% N=599 Ease of walking in Palo Alto 41% N=291 40% N=283 17% N=121 3% N=19 100% N=715 Availability of paths and walking trails 29% N=203 47% N=325 20% N=140 3% N=23 100% N=691 Air quality 29% N=212 51% N=370 16% N=119 3% N=20 100% N=721 Cleanliness of Palo Alto 34% N=250 51% N=374 13% N=98 1% N=7 100% N=730 Overall appearance of Palo Alto 36% N=263 50% N=364 12% N=85 1% N=10 100% N=722 Public places where people want to spend time 28% N=198 47% N=328 20% N=140 5% N=33 100% N=700 Variety of housing options 4% N=27 13% N=91 28% N=189 55% N=376 100% N=683 Availability of affordable quality housing 2% N=16 3% N=22 11% N=73 83% N=559 100% N=670 Fitness opportunities (including exercise classes and paths or trails, etc.) 31% N=215 47% N=323 18% N=124 3% N=23 100% N=685 Recreational opportunities 31% N=214 46% N=318 19% N=131 4% N=26 100% N=688 Availability of affordable quality food 20% N=143 39% N=279 31% N=221 10% N=73 100% N=715 Attachment B The National Citizen Survey™ 16 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 health care 28% N=173 37% N=230 25% N=156 10% N=61 100% N=620 Availability of preventive health services 31% N=182 43% N=253 20% N=120 5% N=30 100% N=585 Availability of affordable quality mental health care 16% N=58 30% N=107 29% N=106 25% N=90 100% N=362 Table 25: Question 5 - Historical Results Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good) 2016 rating compared to 2015 2003 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Traffic flow on major streets 36% 39% 45% 38% 46% 47% 40% 36% 34% 35% 31% 30% Similar Ease of public parking NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 38% 36% 33% Similar Ease of travel by car in Palo Alto 55% 60% 65% 60% 65% 66% 62% 51% 55% 52% 44% 44% Similar Ease of travel by public transportation in Palo Alto NA 60% 55% 52% 63% 62% 64% 71% 65% 36% 26% 28% Similar Ease of travel by bicycle in Palo Alto 84% 78% 84% 78% 79% 81% 77% 81% 78% 78% 77% 74% Similar Ease of walking in Palo Alto NA 87% 88% 86% 82% 85% 83% 82% 84% 84% 83% 80% Similar Availability of paths and walking trails NA NA NA 74% 75% 75% 75% 77% 71% 74% 73% 76% Similar Air quality NA 80% 79% 75% 73% 77% 77% 81% 81% 83% 81% 81% Similar Cleanliness of Palo Alto NA NA NA 88% 85% 85% 88% 86% 84% 87% 84% 86% Similar Overall appearance of Palo Alto 87% 85% 86% 89% 83% 83% 89% 89% 85% 89% 89% 87% Similar Public places where people want to spend time NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 81% 81% 75% Lower Variety of housing options NA NA NA 34% 39% 37% 37% 29% 26% 27% 20% 17% Similar Availability of affordable quality housing 6% 11% 10% 12% 17% 15% 14% 12% 13% 11% 8% 6% Similar Fitness opportunities (including exercise classes and paths or trails, etc.) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 78% 78% 79% Similar Recreational opportunities NA 83% 85% 82% 78% 80% 81% 81% 81% 77% 80% 77% Similar Availability of affordable quality food NA 62% 71% 64% NA NA 66% 68% 67% 65% 61% 59% Similar Availability of affordable quality health care NA 57% 56% 57% 63% 62% 59% 68% 62% 73% 70% 65% Lower Availability of preventive health services NA NA NA 70% 67% 67% 72% 76% 73% 82% 78% 74% Similar Availability of affordable quality mental health care NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 63% 53% 46% Lower Table 26: 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 29% 31% 25% 36% 28% 29% 27% 31% 30% Ease of public parking 30% 35% 28% 40% 32% 35% 34% 29% 33% Ease of travel by car in Palo Alto 43% 45% 39% 55% 43% 40% 36% 45% 44% Ease of travel by public transportation in Palo Alto 30% 26% 22% 21% 31% 26% 36% 33% 28% Ease of travel by bicycle in Palo Alto 72% 75% 68% 78% 75% 72% 82% 71% 74% Ease of walking in Palo Alto 86% 75% 87% 81% 79% 67% 78% 87% 80% Availability of paths and walking trails 79% 74% 86% 79% 76% 68% 78% 76% 76% Air quality 82% 80% 84% 88% 86% 68% 73% 83% 81% Cleanliness of Palo Alto 86% 85% 89% 91% 88% 79% 84% 85% 86% Overall appearance of Palo Alto 88% 86% 92% 88% 89% 81% 84% 88% 87% Public places where people want to spend time 74% 77% 76% 84% 81% 69% 65% 74% 75% Attachment B The National Citizen Survey™ 17 Percent rating "excellent" or "good" North/South Area Overall North South Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5 Area 6 Variety of housing options 17% 17% 16% 21% 14% 17% 13% 19% 17% Availability of affordable quality housing 5% 6% 4% 3% 4% 12% 4% 5% 6% Fitness opportunities (including exercise classes and paths or trails, etc.) 78% 79% 84% 77% 82% 78% 80% 76% 79% Recreational opportunities 77% 78% 74% 76% 84% 77% 73% 79% 77% Availability of affordable quality food 57% 61% 56% 52% 75% 61% 49% 60% 59% Availability of affordable quality health care 66% 64% 72% 51% 81% 65% 59% 65% 65% Availability of preventive health services 76% 72% 75% 72% 85% 66% 74% 77% 74% Availability of affordable quality mental health care 47% 45% 40% 40% 55% 45% 36% 52% 46% Table 27: Question 5 - Benchmark Comparisons Average rating Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark Traffic flow on major streets 34 282 317 Lower Ease of public parking 38 130 151 Lower Ease of travel by car in Palo Alto 45 237 268 Lower Ease of travel by public transportation in Palo Alto 31 122 154 Lower Ease of travel by bicycle in Palo Alto 66 32 263 Higher Ease of walking in Palo Alto 73 35 258 Higher Availability of paths and walking trails 67 69 276 Similar Air quality 69 93 220 Similar Cleanliness of Palo Alto 73 74 243 Similar Overall appearance of Palo Alto 74 62 320 Higher Public places where people want to spend time 66 52 166 Similar Variety of housing options 22 241 245 Much lower Availability of affordable quality housing 8 270 271 Much lower Fitness opportunities (including exercise classes and paths or trails, etc.) 69 44 167 Similar Recreational opportunities 68 64 271 Similar Availability of affordable quality food 56 139 207 Similar Availability of affordable quality health care 61 77 228 Similar Availability of preventive health services 67 28 205 Higher Availability of affordable quality mental health care 46 77 149 Similar Attachment B The National Citizen Survey™ 18 Question 6 Table 28: 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=42 12% N=90 15% N=106 14% N=99 53% N=382 100% N=720 K-12 education 39% N=282 25% N=182 6% N=42 1% N=9 29% N=206 100% N=720 Adult educational opportunities 23% N=164 34% N=243 14% N=98 2% N=14 28% N=202 100% N=721 Opportunities to attend cultural/arts/music activities 32% N=231 41% N=294 18% N=128 4% N=29 5% N=39 100% N=721 Opportunities to participate in religious or spiritual events and activities 26% N=187 27% N=193 9% N=65 2% N=11 37% N=268 100% N=723 Employment opportunities 23% N=165 30% N=217 18% N=127 5% N=33 25% N=177 100% N=719 Shopping opportunities 36% N=256 43% N=312 17% N=120 4% N=26 0% N=4 100% N=716 Cost of living in Palo Alto 2% N=14 5% N=38 25% N=175 67% N=471 1% N=10 100% N=707 Overall quality of business and service establishments in Palo Alto 22% N=161 48% N=344 24% N=172 4% N=29 2% N=17 100% N=722 Vibrant downtown/commercial areas 29% N=210 43% N=306 21% N=154 5% N=35 2% N=15 100% N=720 Overall quality of new development in Palo Alto 8% N=54 27% N=192 27% N=195 21% N=149 18% N=130 100% N=721 Opportunities to participate in social events and activities 20% N=141 40% N=286 21% N=154 4% N=32 15% N=107 100% N=719 Opportunities to volunteer 22% N=162 36% N=257 14% N=101 3% N=25 25% N=178 100% N=722 Opportunities to participate in community matters 20% N=146 32% N=231 19% N=134 5% N=35 24% N=172 100% N=717 Openness and acceptance of the community toward people of diverse backgrounds 25% N=181 40% N=289 19% N=139 6% N=43 10% N=70 100% N=722 Neighborliness of residents in Palo Alto 16% N=115 41% N=295 28% N=198 10% N=75 5% N=35 100% N=719 Openness and acceptance of the community toward lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people 22% N=158 31% N=227 13% N=91 1% N=10 33% N=236 100% N=722 Opportunities to learn about City services through social media websites such as Twitter and Facebook 12% N=87 23% N=168 12% N=87 4% N=32 48% N=347 100% N=721 Table 29: 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 13% N=42 27% N=90 32% N=106 29% N=99 100% N=337 K-12 education 55% N=282 35% N=182 8% N=42 2% N=9 100% N=514 Adult educational opportunities 32% N=164 47% N=243 19% N=98 3% N=14 100% N=520 Opportunities to attend cultural/arts/music activities 34% N=231 43% N=294 19% N=128 4% N=29 100% N=682 Opportunities to participate in religious or spiritual events and activities 41% N=187 42% N=193 14% N=65 2% N=11 100% N=456 Employment opportunities 30% N=165 40% N=217 23% N=127 6% N=33 100% N=543 Shopping opportunities 36% N=256 44% N=312 17% N=120 4% N=26 100% N=713 Cost of living in Palo Alto 2% N=14 5% N=38 25% N=175 67% N=471 100% N=698 Overall quality of business and service establishments in Palo Alto 23% N=161 49% N=344 24% N=172 4% N=29 100% N=706 Vibrant downtown/commercial areas 30% N=210 43% N=306 22% N=154 5% N=35 100% N=705 Overall quality of new development in Palo Alto 9% N=54 33% N=192 33% N=195 25% N=149 100% N=591 Opportunities to participate in social events and activities 23% N=141 47% N=286 25% N=154 5% N=32 100% N=612 Opportunities to volunteer 30% N=162 47% N=257 19% N=101 5% N=25 100% N=544 Opportunities to participate in community matters 27% N=146 42% N=231 25% N=134 6% N=35 100% N=545 Openness and acceptance of the community toward people of diverse backgrounds 28% N=181 44% N=289 21% N=139 7% N=43 100% N=652 Neighborliness of residents in Palo Alto 17% N=115 43% N=295 29% N=198 11% N=75 100% N=685 Attachment B The National Citizen Survey™ 19 Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Palo Alto as a whole: Excellent Good Fair Poor Total Openness and acceptance of the community toward lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people 33% N=158 47% N=227 19% N=91 2% N=10 100% N=487 Opportunities to learn about City services through social media websites such as Twitter and Facebook 23% N=87 45% N=168 23% N=87 9% N=32 100% N=374 Table 30: Question 6 - Historical Results* Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good) 2016 rating compared to 2015 2003 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Availability of affordable quality child care/preschool 25% 35% 26% 28% 32% 25% 35% 27% 31% 49% 49% 39% Lower K-12 education NA NA NA NA NA NA 92% 92% 94% 95% 92% 90% Similar Adult educational opportunities NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 89% 83% 78% Similar Opportunities to attend cultural/arts/music activities NA 85% 81% 79% 74% 74% 73% 77% 69% 81% 79% 77% Similar Opportunities to participate in religious or spiritual events and activities NA NA NA 82% NA NA NA 84% 75% 86% 85% 83% Similar Employment opportunities 33% 59% 61% 61% 51% 52% 56% 68% 68% 69% 66% 70% Similar Shopping opportunities NA 80% 79% 71% 70% 70% 71% 69% 73% 82% 79% 80% Similar Cost of living in Palo Alto NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 11% 8% 7% Similar Overall quality of business and service establishments in Palo Alto NA NA NA 77% 73% 75% 74% 79% 71% 79% 77% 72% Lower Vibrant downtown/commercial area NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 77% 76% 73% Similar Overall quality of new development in Palo Alto NA 62% 57% 57% 55% 53% 57% 56% 44% 51% 49% 42% Lower Opportunities to participate in social events and activities NA NA NA 80% 80% 74% 76% 74% 74% 71% 74% 70% Similar Opportunities to volunteer NA NA NA 86% 83% 81% 80% 80% 82% 83% 80% 77% Similar Opportunities to participate in community matters NA NA NA 75% 76% 76% 71% NA NA 75% 76% 69% Lower Openness and acceptance of the community toward people of diverse backgrounds 73% 75% 79% 77% 78% 79% 78% 80% 76% 76% 68% 72% Similar Neighborliness of residents in Palo Alto NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 64% 61% 60% Similar Openness and acceptance of the community toward lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 82% 82% 79% Similar Opportunities to learn about City services through social media websites such as Twitter and Facebook NA NA NA NA NA NA 63% 63% 71% 73% 75% 68% Lower Table 31: 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 37% 41% 39% 40% 51% 36% 13% 42% 39% K-12 education 87% 93% 88% 93% 97% 91% 75% 89% 90% Adult educational opportunities 79% 77% 76% 79% 82% 75% 67% 84% 78% Opportunities to attend cultural/arts/music activities 77% 77% 82% 83% 76% 72% 75% 74% 77% Opportunities to participate in religious or spiritual events and activities 82% 84% 80% 92% 83% 78% 77% 85% 83% Employment opportunities 71% 70% 70% 73% 75% 64% 70% 72% 70% Shopping opportunities 83% 77% 82% 76% 75% 77% 79% 85% 80% Cost of living in Palo Alto 7% 8% 9% 8% 5% 9% 4% 7% 7% Overall quality of business and service establishments in Palo Alto 76% 67% 77% 64% 71% 67% 66% 78% 72% Vibrant downtown/commercial area 78% 69% 77% 70% 71% 65% 76% 80% 73% Attachment B The National Citizen Survey™ 20 Percent rating "excellent" or "good" North/South Area Overall North South Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5 Area 6 Overall quality of new development in Palo Alto 43% 40% 46% 43% 46% 33% 40% 44% 42% Opportunities to participate in social events and activities 69% 70% 67% 70% 72% 68% 77% 69% 70% Opportunities to volunteer 72% 81% 64% 82% 83% 82% 68% 77% 77% Opportunities to participate in community matters 68% 70% 66% 68% 76% 70% 57% 71% 69% Openness and acceptance of the community toward people of diverse backgrounds 74% 70% 74% 74% 72% 66% 72% 74% 72% Neighborliness of residents in Palo Alto 60% 60% 64% 55% 73% 55% 60% 59% 60% Openness and acceptance of the community toward lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people 82% 77% 79% 78% 77% 76% 84% 82% 79% Opportunities to learn about City services through social media websites such as Twitter and Facebook 61% 74% 61% 72% 76% 74% 73% 58% 68% Table 32: Question 6 - Benchmark Comparisons* Average rating Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark Availability of affordable quality child care/preschool 41 187 224 Similar K-12 education 81 21 234 Higher Adult educational opportunities 69 10 156 Higher Opportunities to attend cultural/arts/music activities 69 32 261 Higher Opportunities to participate in religious or spiritual events and activities 74 31 180 Similar Employment opportunities 65 1 280 Much higher Shopping opportunities 71 25 262 Higher Cost of living in Palo Alto 14 172 174 Much lower Overall quality of business and service establishments in Palo Alto 63 58 241 Similar Vibrant downtown/commercial area 66 24 162 Higher Overall quality of new development in Palo Alto 42 209 252 Lower Opportunities to participate in social events and activities 62 58 228 Similar Opportunities to volunteer 67 62 234 Similar Opportunities to participate in community matters 63 53 243 Similar Openness and acceptance of the community toward people of diverse backgrounds 64 31 256 Similar Neighborliness of Palo Alto 55 95 167 Similar * Benchmarks were not calculated for two custom items in this question (openness toward lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people and opportunities to learn about City services through social media). Attachment B The National Citizen Survey™ 21 Question 7 Table 33: 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 Made efforts to conserve water 6% N=41 94% N=687 100% N=728 Made efforts to make your home more energy efficient 27% N=193 73% N=533 100% N=726 Observed a code violation or other hazard in Palo Alto 67% N=476 33% N=238 100% N=714 Household member was a victim of a crime in Palo Alto 91% N=658 9% N=64 100% N=722 Reported a crime to the police in Palo Alto 86% N=621 14% N=101 100% N=723 Stocked supplies in preparation for an emergency 56% N=407 44% N=318 100% N=726 Campaigned or advocated for an issue, cause or candidate 72% N=519 28% N=205 100% N=724 Contacted the City of Palo Alto (in-person, phone, email or web) for help or information 48% N=346 52% N=378 100% N=724 Contacted Palo Alto elected officials (in-person, phone, email or web) to express your opinion 83% N=601 17% N=122 100% N=723 Table 34: Question 7 - Historical Results Percent “yes” 2016 rating compared to 2015 2003 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Made efforts to conserve water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 96% 95% 94% Similar Made efforts to make your home more energy efficient NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 77% 74% 73% Similar Did NOT observe a code violation or other hazard in Palo Alto NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 70% 67% 67% Similar Household member was NOT a victim of a crime in Palo Alto NA 88% 91% 90% 89% 91% 91% 91% 94% 92% 93% 91% Similar Did NOT report a crime to the police in Palo Alto NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 87% 87% 86% Similar Stocked supplies in preparation for an emergency NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 46% 44% 44% Similar Campaigned or advocated for an issue, cause or candidate NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 27% 24% 28% Similar Contacted the City of Palo Alto (in-person, phone, email or web) for help or information NA 54% 57% 54% 58% 56% 43% 44% 49% 50% 52% 52% Similar Contacted Palo Alto elected officials (in-person, phone, email or web) to express your opinion NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 17% 15% 17% Similar Some questions were reworded in the Historical Results table to reflect the positive rating of “yes.” Table 35: 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 Made efforts to conserve water 95% 94% 99% 95% 94% 94% 97% 91% 94% Made efforts to make your home more energy efficient 77% 70% 82% 69% 70% 72% 73% 75% 73% Observed a code violation or other hazard in Palo Alto 34% 33% 39% 33% 33% 32% 37% 31% 33% Household member was a victim of a crime in Palo Alto 10% 8% 10% 11% 9% 4% 10% 10% 9% Reported a crime to the police in Palo Alto 14% 14% 16% 18% 12% 12% 11% 14% 14% Stocked supplies in preparation for an emergency 45% 43% 49% 49% 46% 35% 36% 45% 44% Campaigned or advocated for an issue, cause or candidate 33% 24% 32% 24% 28% 22% 42% 31% 28% Contacted the City of Palo Alto (in-person, phone, email or web) for help or information 53% 51% 62% 52% 53% 50% 47% 50% 52% Contacted Palo Alto elected officials (in-person, phone, email or web) to express your opinion 20% 13% 25% 13% 17% 13% 21% 17% 17% Attachment B The National Citizen Survey™ 22 Table 36: Question 7 - Benchmark Comparisons Average rating Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark Made efforts to conserve water 94 18 156 Higher Made efforts to make your home more energy efficient 73 119 157 Similar Did NOT observe a code violation or other hazard in Palo Alto 67 26 162 Higher Household member was NOT a victim of a crime 91 83 244 Similar Did NOT report a crime to the police 86 29 170 Similar Stocked supplies in preparation for an emergency 44 37 155 Similar Campaigned or advocated for an issue, cause or candidate 28 26 152 Similar Contacted Palo Alto (in-person, phone, email or web) for help or information 52 70 275 Similar Contacted Palo Alto elected officials (in-person, phone, email or web) to express your opinion 17 81 164 Similar Question 8 Table 37: 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 13% N=95 19% N=138 30% N=217 37% N=266 100% N=716 Visited a neighborhood park or City park 35% N=256 28% N=203 29% N=212 7% N=53 100% N=724 Used Palo Alto public libraries or their services 11% N=81 30% N=214 32% N=229 27% N=195 100% N=720 Participated in religious or spiritual activities in Palo Alto 5% N=35 11% N=76 16% N=112 69% N=491 100% N=713 Attended a City-sponsored event 1% N=4 6% N=40 44% N=320 49% N=356 100% N=721 Used bus, rail or other public transportation instead of driving 12% N=84 10% N=69 32% N=228 47% N=341 100% N=723 Carpooled with other adults or children instead of driving alone 15% N=111 16% N=118 25% N=177 44% N=314 100% N=719 Walked or biked instead of driving 45% N=322 25% N=178 17% N=125 13% N=93 100% N=719 Volunteered your time to some group/activity in Palo Alto 11% N=76 13% N=90 22% N=154 55% N=393 100% N=712 Participated in a club 7% N=48 12% N=85 11% N=79 70% N=504 100% N=715 Talked to or visited with your immediate neighbors 36% N=262 28% N=199 24% N=172 12% N=88 100% N=721 Done a favor for a neighbor 15% N=107 24% N=173 38% N=269 23% N=166 100% N=714 Used the City’s website to conduct business or pay bills 4% N=28 10% N=72 37% N=267 49% N=354 100% N=721 Table 38: Question 8 - Historical Results* Percent rating positively (e.g., at least once in the last 12 months) 2016 rating compared to 2015 2003 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Used Palo Alto recreation centers or their services NA 63% 67% 68% 63% 60% 60% 65% 58% 63% 65% 63% Similar Visited a neighborhood park or City park NA 93% 92% 93% 94% 94% 91% 95% 94% 91% 94% 93% Similar Used Palo Alto public libraries or their services NA 76% 79% 74% 82% 76% 74% 77% 77% 68% 76% 73% Similar Participated in religious or spiritual activities in Palo Alto NA NA NA 40% NA NA NA 40% NA 30% 30% 31% Similar Attended a City-sponsored event NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 50% 57% 51% Lower Used bus, rail or other public transportation instead of driving NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 50% 53% 53% Similar Carpooled with other adults or children instead of driving alone NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 53% 58% 56% Similar Walked or biked instead of driving NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 85% 87% 87% Similar Attachment B The National Citizen Survey™ 23 Percent rating positively (e.g., at least once in the last 12 months) 2016 rating compared to 2015 2003 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Volunteered your time to some group/activity in Palo Alto NA 53% 52% 51% 56% 51% 45% 54% 50% 40% 46% 45% Similar Participated in a club NA NA NA 34% 33% 31% 31% 38% 29% 27% 34% 30% Similar Talked to or visited with your immediate neighbors NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 91% 89% 88% Similar Done a favor for a neighbor NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 81% 76% 77% Similar Used the City’s website to conduct business or pay bills NA NA NA NA 25% 33% 35% 43% 45% 53% 51% 51% Similar Table 39: 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 59% 66% 69% 67% 67% 67% 62% 53% 63% Visited a neighborhood park or City park 90% 95% 95% 95% 90% 97% 96% 87% 93% Used Palo Alto public libraries or their services 67% 78% 72% 80% 85% 75% 62% 64% 73% Participated in religious or spiritual activities in Palo Alto 29% 33% 29% 31% 40% 29% 35% 29% 31% Attended a City-sponsored event 54% 48% 56% 54% 52% 39% 52% 53% 51% Used bus, rail or other public transportation instead of driving 58% 48% 50% 46% 44% 52% 75% 57% 53% Carpooled with other adults or children instead of driving alone 59% 54% 74% 50% 51% 61% 51% 53% 56% Walked or biked instead of driving 90% 84% 86% 86% 81% 83% 87% 93% 87% Volunteered your time to some group/activity in Palo Alto 43% 47% 48% 50% 49% 42% 41% 41% 45% Participated in a club 28% 31% 29% 28% 32% 32% 25% 29% 30% Talked to or visited with your immediate neighbors 90% 86% 89% 88% 92% 81% 95% 88% 88% Done a favor for a neighbor 77% 77% 84% 77% 84% 73% 82% 71% 77% Used the City’s website to conduct business or pay bills 54% 48% 51% 47% 44% 53% 61% 53% 51% Table 40: Question 8 - Benchmark Comparisons* Average rating Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark Used Palo Alto recreation centers or their services 63 47 210 Similar Visited a neighborhood park or City park 93 19 241 Higher Used Palo Alto public libraries or their services 73 49 211 Similar Participated in religious or spiritual activities in Palo Alto 31 158 178 Lower Attended City-sponsored event 51 98 166 Similar Used bus, rail, subway or other public transportation instead of driving 53 19 138 Much higher Carpooled with other adults or children instead of driving alone 56 13 161 Higher Walked or biked instead of driving 87 11 166 Much higher Volunteered your time to some group/activity in Palo Alto 45 80 232 Similar Participated in a club 30 86 212 Similar Talked to or visited with your immediate neighbors 88 124 162 Similar Done a favor for a neighbor 77 127 157 Similar * Benchmarks were not calculated for one custom item in this question (Used the City’s website to conduct business or pay bills). Attachment B The National Citizen Survey™ 24 Question 9 Table 41: 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=4 1% N=8 19% N=136 79% N=554 100% N=703 Watched (online or on television) a local public meeting 0% N=0 1% N=9 13% N=94 86% N=610 100% N=713 Table 42: Question 9 - Historical Results Percent rating positively (e.g., at least once in the last 12 months) 2016 rating compared to 2015 2003 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Attended a local public meeting NA 27% 26% 26% 28% 27% 27% 25% 28% 22% 22% 21% Similar Watched (online or on television) a local public meeting NA 31% 26% 26% 28% 28% 27% 21% 24% 16% 18% 14% Similar Table 43: 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 22% 20% 25% 20% 28% 17% 38% 16% 21% Watched (online or on television) a local public meeting 12% 16% 19% 17% 23% 12% 19% 8% 14% Table 44: Question 9 - Benchmark Comparisons Average rating Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark Attended a local public meeting 21 108 233 Similar Watched (online or on television) a local public meeting 14 171 197 Lower Question 10 Table 45: 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=247 35% N=252 7% N=50 2% N=15 22% N=158 100% N=723 Fire services 35% N=251 29% N=210 2% N=12 0% N=1 34% N=249 100% N=723 Ambulance or emergency medical services 30% N=214 22% N=157 2% N=11 0% N=3 46% N=330 100% N=715 Crime prevention 20% N=142 30% N=216 10% N=71 3% N=18 38% N=270 100% N=717 Fire prevention and education 17% N=123 26% N=185 6% N=46 1% N=7 50% N=355 100% N=717 Traffic enforcement 15% N=104 32% N=227 20% N=140 12% N=82 22% N=160 100% N=713 Street repair 15% N=109 37% N=268 26% N=190 14% N=99 7% N=53 100% N=719 Street cleaning 26% N=185 48% N=349 18% N=133 3% N=24 4% N=30 100% N=720 Street lighting 24% N=172 45% N=327 21% N=152 7% N=48 3% N=21 100% N=721 Sidewalk maintenance 18% N=128 41% N=290 25% N=181 12% N=89 4% N=26 100% N=714 Traffic signal timing 13% N=90 36% N=258 30% N=214 18% N=130 3% N=25 100% N=717 Bus or transit services 8% N=56 18% N=130 19% N=137 17% N=122 38% N=273 100% N=718 Garbage collection 40% N=286 43% N=310 10% N=75 2% N=12 5% N=37 100% N=721 Attachment B The National Citizen Survey™ 25 Please rate the quality of each of the following services in Palo Alto: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total Yard waste pick-up 35% N=249 36% N=255 7% N=54 1% N=5 22% N=154 100% N=718 Storm drainage 18% N=132 35% N=248 14% N=100 4% N=27 30% N=212 100% N=718 Drinking water 44% N=319 38% N=274 10% N=71 2% N=14 6% N=45 100% N=724 Sewer services 29% N=206 41% N=298 9% N=61 1% N=7 20% N=146 100% N=719 Utility billing 31% N=222 46% N=333 13% N=96 3% N=25 6% N=43 100% N=719 City parks 46% N=336 41% N=297 8% N=58 0% N=3 4% N=31 100% N=725 Recreation programs or classes 19% N=137 29% N=209 8% N=61 1% N=5 42% N=305 100% N=718 Recreation centers or facilities 21% N=152 33% N=239 10% N=71 3% N=23 32% N=229 100% N=714 Land use, planning and zoning 6% N=42 21% N=149 24% N=169 22% N=156 27% N=196 100% N=712 Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc.) 9% N=65 20% N=141 19% N=135 8% N=55 44% N=316 100% N=712 Animal control 15% N=107 26% N=186 8% N=61 4% N=27 47% N=333 100% N=714 Economic development 14% N=96 26% N=184 19% N=131 7% N=51 35% N=244 100% N=706 Public library services 45% N=326 28% N=198 6% N=41 1% N=8 20% N=147 100% N=720 Public information services 18% N=130 34% N=240 12% N=88 2% N=16 34% N=239 100% N=713 Cable television 9% N=66 20% N=139 16% N=115 11% N=76 45% N=318 100% N=714 Emergency preparedness (services that prepare the community for natural disasters or other emergency situations) 11% N=76 28% N=197 13% N=92 4% N=31 45% N=318 100% N=713 Preservation of natural areas such as open space, farmlands and greenbelts 31% N=220 36% N=260 15% N=111 3% N=25 14% N=101 100% N=717 Palo Alto open space 37% N=267 36% N=258 13% N=93 4% N=30 10% N=73 100% N=721 City-sponsored special events 15% N=107 31% N=224 15% N=105 2% N=15 37% N=260 100% N=711 Overall customer service by Palo Alto employees (police, receptionists, planners, etc.) 23% N=163 38% N=272 15% N=109 3% N=22 21% N=153 100% N=718 Neighborhood branch libraries 38% N=273 28% N=198 7% N=48 2% N=11 26% N=186 100% N=716 Your neighborhood park 45% N=325 38% N=276 9% N=67 1% N=6 6% N=47 100% N=720 Variety of library materials 30% N=216 29% N=205 11% N=76 2% N=15 29% N=205 100% N=718 Street tree maintenance 22% N=157 43% N=312 19% N=134 7% N=54 9% N=63 100% N=720 Electric utility 32% N=230 46% N=333 10% N=70 3% N=20 9% N=65 100% N=719 Gas utility 31% N=222 44% N=318 9% N=63 2% N=18 13% N=96 100% N=717 Recycling collection 42% N=300 40% N=288 12% N=83 1% N=7 6% N=43 100% N=721 City's website 13% N=97 35% N=252 21% N=147 5% N=34 26% N=187 100% N=716 Art programs and theatre 20% N=145 30% N=218 12% N=84 3% N=19 35% N=249 100% N=715 Table 46: 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=247 45% N=252 9% N=50 3% N=15 100% N=565 Fire services 53% N=251 44% N=210 3% N=12 0% N=1 100% N=474 Ambulance or emergency medical services 56% N=214 41% N=157 3% N=11 1% N=3 100% N=385 Crime prevention 32% N=142 48% N=216 16% N=71 4% N=18 100% N=447 Fire prevention and education 34% N=123 51% N=185 13% N=46 2% N=7 100% N=362 Traffic enforcement 19% N=104 41% N=227 25% N=140 15% N=82 100% N=553 Street repair 16% N=109 40% N=268 29% N=190 15% N=99 100% N=665 Street cleaning 27% N=185 51% N=349 19% N=133 3% N=24 100% N=690 Attachment B The National Citizen Survey™ 26 Please rate the quality of each of the following services in Palo Alto: Excellent Good Fair Poor Total Street lighting 25% N=172 47% N=327 22% N=152 7% N=48 100% N=700 Sidewalk maintenance 19% N=128 42% N=290 26% N=181 13% N=89 100% N=688 Traffic signal timing 13% N=90 37% N=258 31% N=214 19% N=130 100% N=692 Bus or transit services 13% N=56 29% N=130 31% N=137 27% N=122 100% N=445 Garbage collection 42% N=286 45% N=310 11% N=75 2% N=12 100% N=684 Yard waste pick-up 44% N=249 45% N=255 10% N=54 1% N=5 100% N=563 Storm drainage 26% N=132 49% N=248 20% N=100 5% N=27 100% N=506 Drinking water 47% N=319 40% N=274 10% N=71 2% N=14 100% N=678 Sewer services 36% N=206 52% N=298 11% N=61 1% N=7 100% N=573 Utility billing 33% N=222 49% N=333 14% N=96 4% N=25 100% N=676 City parks 48% N=336 43% N=297 8% N=58 0% N=3 100% N=693 Recreation programs or classes 33% N=137 51% N=209 15% N=61 1% N=5 100% N=413 Recreation centers or facilities 31% N=152 49% N=239 15% N=71 5% N=23 100% N=485 Land use, planning and zoning 8% N=42 29% N=149 33% N=169 30% N=156 100% N=516 Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc.) 16% N=65 36% N=141 34% N=135 14% N=55 100% N=396 Animal control 28% N=107 49% N=186 16% N=61 7% N=27 100% N=381 Economic development 21% N=96 40% N=184 28% N=131 11% N=51 100% N=462 Public library services 57% N=326 35% N=198 7% N=41 1% N=8 100% N=573 Public information services 27% N=130 51% N=240 19% N=88 3% N=16 100% N=474 Cable television 17% N=66 35% N=139 29% N=115 19% N=76 100% N=396 Emergency preparedness (services that prepare the community for natural disasters or other emergency situations) 19% N=76 50% N=197 23% N=92 8% N=31 100% N=396 Preservation of natural areas such as open space, farmlands and greenbelts 36% N=220 42% N=260 18% N=111 4% N=25 100% N=616 Palo Alto open space 41% N=267 40% N=258 14% N=93 5% N=30 100% N=648 City-sponsored special events 24% N=107 50% N=224 23% N=105 3% N=15 100% N=450 Overall customer service by Palo Alto employees (police, receptionists, planners, etc.) 29% N=163 48% N=272 19% N=109 4% N=22 100% N=565 Neighborhood branch libraries 51% N=273 37% N=198 9% N=48 2% N=11 100% N=531 Your neighborhood park 48% N=325 41% N=276 10% N=67 1% N=6 100% N=674 Variety of library materials 42% N=216 40% N=205 15% N=76 3% N=15 100% N=513 Street tree maintenance 24% N=157 47% N=312 20% N=134 8% N=54 100% N=657 Electric utility 35% N=230 51% N=333 11% N=70 3% N=20 100% N=654 Gas utility 36% N=222 51% N=318 10% N=63 3% N=18 100% N=621 Recycling collection 44% N=300 42% N=288 12% N=83 1% N=7 100% N=678 City's website 18% N=97 48% N=252 28% N=147 6% N=34 100% N=529 Art programs and theatre 31% N=145 47% N=218 18% N=84 4% N=19 100% N=466 Attachment B The National Citizen Survey™ 27 Table 47: Question 10 - Historical Results* Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good) 2016 rating compared to 2015 2003 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Police services 89% 87% 91% 84% 84% 87% 88% 86% 86% 87% 88% 88% Similar Fire services 96% 95% 98% 96% 95% 93% 92% 96% 93% 95% 97% 97% Similar Ambulance or emergency medical services 95% 94% 94% 95% 91% 94% 93% 96% 93% 97% 95% 96% Similar Crime prevention NA 77% 83% 74% 73% 79% 81% 74% 75% 80% 79% 80% Similar Fire prevention and education NA 84% 86% 87% 80% 79% 76% 80% 82% 85% 85% 85% Similar Traffic enforcement 64% 63% 72% 64% 61% 64% 61% 66% 64% 62% 60% 60% Similar Street repair 50% 47% 47% 47% 42% 43% 40% 42% 47% 55% 51% 57% Higher Street cleaning 75% 77% 77% 75% 73% 76% 79% 80% 76% 80% 75% 77% Similar Street lighting 67% 66% 61% 64% 64% 68% 65% 68% 66% 74% 71% 71% Similar Sidewalk maintenance 50% 53% 57% 53% 53% 51% 51% 53% 56% 62% 62% 61% Similar Traffic signal timing NA 55% 60% 56% 56% 56% 52% 47% 53% 53% 47% 50% Similar Bus or transit services 89% 58% 57% 49% 50% 45% 46% 58% 49% 57% 49% 42% Lower Garbage collection 94% 92% 91% 92% 89% 88% 89% 89% 85% 91% 87% 87% Similar Yard waste pick-up 88% 90% 93% 89% NA NA NA NA NA 90% 86% 90% Similar Storm drainage 65% 61% 59% 70% 73% 74% 74% 75% 69% 80% 71% 75% Similar Drinking water 82% 80% 79% 87% 81% 84% 86% 83% 88% 89% 88% 87% Similar Sewer services 84% 83% 83% 81% 81% 82% 84% 82% 84% 89% 88% 88% Similar Utility billing NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 84% 82% 82% Similar City parks 90% 87% 91% 89% 92% 90% 94% 91% 93% 92% 93% 91% Similar Recreation programs or classes 83% 85% 90% 87% 85% 82% 81% 87% 87% 87% 84% 84% Similar Recreation centers or facilities 77% 81% 82% 77% 80% 81% 75% 85% 80% 84% 86% 81% Lower Land use, planning and zoning 41% 50% 49% 47% 47% 49% 45% 51% 36% 43% 40% 37% Similar Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc.) 55% 61% 59% 59% 50% 53% 56% 61% 57% 62% 59% 52% Lower Animal control 79% 78% 79% 78% 78% 76% 72% 78% 76% 80% 80% 77% Similar Economic development 48% 61% 62% 63% 54% 49% 52% 67% 61% 73% 69% 61% Lower Public library services 81% 78% 81% 75% 78% 82% 83% 88% 85% 81% 91% 91% Similar Public information services 72% 72% 73% 76% 68% 67% 67% 74% 73% 79% 82% 78% Similar Cable television NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 60% 55% 52% Similar Emergency preparedness (services that prepare the community for natural disasters or other emergency situations) NA NA NA 71% 62% 59% 64% 73% 77% 70% 74% 69% Lower Preservation of natural areas such as open space, farmlands and greenbelts NA NA NA 78% 82% 78% 76% 81% 79% 80% 77% 78% Similar Palo Alto open space NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 82% 84% 81% Similar City-sponsored special events NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 75% 75% 73% Similar Overall customer service by Palo Alto employees (police, receptionists, planners, etc.) 78% 79% 79% 73% 79% 77% 76% 81% 79% 81% 74% 77% Similar Neighborhood branch libraries 58% 73% 62% 71% 75% 75% 81% 85% 80% 78% 90% 89% Similar Your neighborhood park 78% 87% 82% 86% 87% 88% 89% 92% 87% 83% 91% 89% Similar Variety of library materials 60% 59% 63% 67% 73% 75% 72% 88% 81% 88% 83% 82% Similar Street tree maintenance 62% 66% 60% 68% 72% 69% 70% 71% 66% 80% 73% 71% Similar Electric utility NA 84% 78% 85% 83% 79% 85% 84% 80% 72% 87% 86% Similar Attachment B The National Citizen Survey™ 28 Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good) 2016 rating compared to 2015 2003 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Gas utility NA 82% 74% 84% 81% 80% 82% 86% 81% 88% 88% 87% Similar Recycling collection 87% 88% 91% 90% 89% 90% 91% 86% 86% 88% 91% 87% Similar City's website NA NA NA NA 55% 73% 67% 70% 69% 88% 69% 66% Similar Art programs and theatre NA NA NA NA 79% 78% 81% 82% 82% 69% 80% 78% Similar Table 48: 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% 89% 89% 90% 82% 93% 91% 88% Fire services 97% 98% 96% 99% 97% 97% 100% 96% 97% Ambulance or emergency medical services 96% 97% 96% 96% 97% 97% 100% 95% 96% Crime prevention 84% 76% 78% 80% 81% 69% 91% 87% 80% Fire prevention and education 85% 85% 92% 86% 91% 80% 86% 82% 85% Traffic enforcement 57% 62% 48% 64% 68% 57% 56% 63% 60% Street repair 54% 59% 56% 59% 67% 53% 62% 51% 57% Street cleaning 78% 77% 78% 80% 81% 71% 79% 78% 77% Street lighting 72% 71% 73% 68% 77% 68% 77% 71% 71% Sidewalk maintenance 55% 66% 57% 69% 66% 63% 57% 54% 61% Traffic signal timing 49% 52% 46% 52% 61% 48% 39% 51% 50% Bus or transit services 51% 33% 46% 28% 41% 34% 51% 53% 42% Garbage collection 89% 85% 91% 90% 84% 82% 96% 86% 87% Yard waste pick-up 89% 90% 86% 89% 93% 89% 95% 90% 90% Storm drainage 72% 78% 68% 78% 78% 76% 90% 70% 75% Drinking water 87% 88% 93% 95% 85% 83% 94% 82% 87% Sewer services 89% 87% 93% 85% 92% 85% 93% 86% 88% Utility billing 83% 81% 80% 80% 92% 77% 83% 84% 82% City parks 90% 92% 91% 93% 96% 88% 92% 89% 91% Recreation programs or classes 84% 84% 89% 87% 88% 78% 73% 84% 84% Recreation centers or facilities 79% 82% 78% 84% 89% 76% 76% 80% 81% Land use, planning and zoning 35% 39% 40% 47% 57% 22% 40% 31% 37% Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc.) 52% 52% 43% 60% 61% 38% 51% 57% 52% Animal control 77% 77% 79% 84% 75% 71% 66% 80% 77% Economic development 57% 64% 59% 69% 62% 60% 62% 56% 61% Public library services 91% 92% 95% 94% 93% 89% 93% 89% 91% Public information services 78% 78% 76% 73% 81% 80% 91% 77% 78% Cable television 54% 50% 60% 48% 52% 50% 51% 50% 52% Emergency preparedness (services that prepare the community for natural disasters or other emergency situations) 68% 70% 65% 66% 83% 65% 86% 65% 69% Preservation of natural areas such as open space, farmlands and greenbelts 79% 77% 82% 80% 77% 78% 70% 78% 78% Palo Alto open space 83% 79% 83% 86% 77% 77% 79% 82% 81% Attachment B The National Citizen Survey™ 29 Percent rating "excellent" or "good" North/South Area Overall North South Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5 Area 6 City-sponsored special events 74% 72% 72% 73% 76% 70% 72% 76% 73% Overall customer service by Palo Alto employees (police, receptionists, planners, etc.) 78% 76% 87% 72% 81% 75% 78% 74% 77% Neighborhood branch libraries 89% 89% 88% 90% 95% 83% 94% 88% 89% Your neighborhood park 87% 91% 93% 92% 92% 89% 89% 83% 89% Variety of library materials 78% 86% 78% 94% 83% 80% 85% 76% 82% Street tree maintenance 70% 73% 64% 70% 80% 71% 70% 74% 71% Electric utility 86% 86% 92% 81% 93% 86% 89% 83% 86% Gas utility 88% 86% 93% 82% 91% 88% 91% 83% 87% Recycling collection 86% 88% 88% 89% 90% 84% 93% 83% 87% City's website 62% 69% 62% 64% 80% 65% 74% 60% 66% Art programs and theatre 81% 75% 84% 76% 77% 71% 89% 78% 78% Table 49: Question 10 - Benchmark Comparisons* Average rating Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark Police services 76 82 410 Similar Fire services 83 72 336 Similar Ambulance or emergency medical services 84 50 314 Similar Crime prevention 69 82 318 Similar Fire prevention and education 72 79 253 Similar Traffic enforcement 55 231 333 Similar Street repair 53 136 376 Similar Street cleaning 67 48 287 Higher Street lighting 63 45 285 Similar Sidewalk maintenance 55 106 292 Similar Traffic signal timing 48 120 228 Similar Bus or transit services 42 146 194 Similar Garbage collection 76 82 317 Similar Yard waste pick-up 78 16 241 Higher Storm drainage 65 56 318 Similar Drinking water 77 23 303 Higher Sewer services 74 23 293 Similar Utility billing 70 11 157 Higher City parks 80 37 299 Higher Recreation programs or classes 72 48 309 Similar Recreation centers or facilities 69 64 251 Similar Land use, planning and zoning 38 223 270 Similar Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc.) 52 144 335 Similar Animal control 66 31 305 Similar Economic development 57 74 254 Similar Attachment B The National Citizen Survey™ 30 Average rating Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark Public library services 82 37 314 Similar Public information services 67 44 256 Similar Cable television 50 88 172 Similar Emergency preparedness (services that prepare the community for natural disasters or other emergency situations) 60 99 252 Similar Preservation of natural areas such as open space, farmlands and greenbelts 70 15 231 Higher Palo Alto open space 73 9 159 Higher City-sponsored special events 65 58 188 Similar Overall customer service by Palo Alto employees (police, receptionists, planners, etc.) 67 148 334 Similar * Benchmarks were not calculated for nine custom items in this question (neighborhood branch libraries, your neighborhood park, variety of library materials, street tree maintenance, electric utility, gas utility, recycling collection, City’s website, and art programs and theatre). Question 11 Table 50: 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 29% N=213 49% N=353 17% N=121 2% N=13 4% N=28 100% N=727 The Federal Government 6% N=43 31% N=226 31% N=227 12% N=90 19% N=139 100% N=725 State Government 6% N=41 31% N=225 33% N=243 10% N=71 20% N=145 100% N=725 Table 51: 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 30% N=213 50% N=353 17% N=121 2% N=13 100% N=699 The Federal Government 7% N=43 39% N=226 39% N=227 15% N=90 100% N=585 State Government 7% N=41 39% N=225 42% N=243 12% N=71 100% N=580 Table 52: Question 11 - Historical Results Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good) 2016 rating compared to 2015 2003 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 The City of Palo Alto 87% 87% 86% 85% 80% 80% 83% 88% 84% 83% 85% 81% Similar The Federal Government 32% 33% 33% 33% 41% 43% 41% 50% 37% 48% 46% 46% Similar State Government 38% 38% 44% 34% 23% 27% 26% 41% 33% NA 47% 46% Similar Table 53: 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 82% 79% 89% 81% 85% 75% 74% 81% 81% The Federal Government 43% 48% 38% 49% 46% 49% 39% 47% 46% State Government 47% 45% 41% 39% 51% 46% 43% 51% 46% Attachment B The National Citizen Survey™ 31 Table 54: Question 11 - Benchmark Comparisons* Average rating Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark The City of Palo Alto 70 94 400 Similar The Federal Government 46 35 221 Similar * Benchmarks were not calculated for one custom item in this question (State government services). Question 12 Table 55: 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=79 37% N=264 25% N=183 9% N=62 18% N=132 100% N=720 The overall direction that Palo Alto is taking 6% N=41 29% N=209 30% N=217 22% N=156 13% N=96 100% N=719 The job Palo Alto government does at welcoming citizen involvement 9% N=63 26% N=189 23% N=163 13% N=90 30% N=214 100% N=719 Overall confidence in Palo Alto government 6% N=47 31% N=222 32% N=226 16% N=117 15% N=106 100% N=718 Generally acting in the best interest of the community 7% N=52 30% N=217 28% N=198 20% N=142 15% N=109 100% N=718 Being honest 9% N=63 30% N=216 22% N=154 10% N=74 29% N=208 100% N=715 Treating all residents fairly 7% N=49 27% N=190 23% N=165 15% N=110 28% N=202 100% N=716 Table 56: 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 13% N=79 45% N=264 31% N=183 11% N=62 100% N=589 The overall direction that Palo Alto is taking 7% N=41 34% N=209 35% N=217 25% N=156 100% N=623 The job Palo Alto government does at welcoming citizen involvement 13% N=63 37% N=189 32% N=163 18% N=90 100% N=505 Overall confidence in Palo Alto government 8% N=47 36% N=222 37% N=226 19% N=117 100% N=612 Generally acting in the best interest of the community 9% N=52 36% N=217 32% N=198 23% N=142 100% N=609 Being honest 12% N=63 43% N=216 30% N=154 15% N=74 100% N=507 Treating all residents fairly 10% N=49 37% N=190 32% N=165 21% N=110 100% N=514 Table 57: Question 12 - Historical Results Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good) 2016 rating compared to 2015 2003 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 The value of services for the taxes paid to Palo Alto NA 74% 67% 64% 58% 62% 66% 67% 66% 66% 65% 58% Lower The overall direction that Palo Alto is taking 54% 62% 57% 63% 53% 57% 55% 59% 54% 50% 48% 40% Lower The job Palo Alto government does at welcoming citizen involvement 65% 73% 68% 57% 56% 57% 57% 58% 55% 54% 61% 50% Lower Overall confidence in Palo Alto government NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 52% 53% 44% Lower Generally acting in the best interest of the community NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 54% 53% 44% Lower Being honest NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 58% 62% 55% Lower Treating all residents fairly NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 57% 53% 47% Lower Attachment B The National Citizen Survey™ 32 Table 58: 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 61% 56% 60% 60% 57% 50% 62% 63% 58% The overall direction that Palo Alto is taking 39% 41% 41% 46% 51% 30% 39% 38% 40% The job Palo Alto government does at welcoming citizen involvement 48% 52% 48% 48% 63% 48% 59% 45% 50% Overall confidence in Palo Alto government 43% 45% 37% 45% 61% 34% 51% 44% 44% Generally acting in the best interest of the community 46% 42% 47% 45% 53% 34% 51% 43% 44% Being honest 58% 52% 57% 48% 57% 53% 57% 59% 55% Treating all residents fairly 51% 43% 48% 46% 55% 34% 54% 51% 47% Table 59: Question 12 - Benchmark Comparisons Average rating Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark Value of services for the taxes paid to Palo Alto 54 141 365 Similar Overall direction that Palo Alto is taking 41 254 285 Lower Job Palo Alto government does at welcoming citizen involvement 48 167 280 Similar Overall confidence in Palo Alto government 44 119 174 Similar Generally acting in the best interest of the community 43 132 174 Similar Being honest 51 93 168 Similar Treating all residents fairly 45 121 173 Similar Question 13 Table 60: 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 46% N=327 35% N=249 15% N=111 4% N=31 100% N=717 Overall ease of getting to the places you usually have to visit 37% N=262 43% N=309 19% N=136 1% N=7 100% N=714 Quality of overall natural environment in Palo Alto 39% N=277 46% N=328 15% N=105 1% N=10 100% N=720 Overall "built environment" of Palo Alto (including overall design, buildings, parks and transportation systems) 40% N=289 42% N=302 17% N=123 0% N=3 100% N=718 Health and wellness opportunities in Palo Alto 25% N=175 41% N=292 30% N=214 5% N=33 100% N=714 Overall opportunities for education and enrichment 32% N=230 38% N=270 26% N=186 4% N=25 100% N=712 Overall economic health of Palo Alto 39% N=275 43% N=306 16% N=113 2% N=17 100% N=711 Sense of community 32% N=228 41% N=291 24% N=171 4% N=26 100% N=716 * 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 61: 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% 79% 80% 79% 88% 76% 79% 82% 80% Overall ease of getting to the places you usually have to visit 81% 79% 78% 82% 82% 75% 81% 83% 80% Attachment B The National Citizen Survey™ 33 Percent rating "essential" or "very important" North/South Area Overall North South Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5 Area 6 Quality of overall natural environment in Palo Alto 85% 83% 84% 82% 90% 79% 85% 87% 84% Overall "built environment" of Palo Alto (including overall design, buildings, parks and transportation systems) 83% 81% 81% 83% 85% 78% 80% 85% 82% Health and wellness opportunities in Palo Alto 64% 67% 60% 66% 80% 59% 57% 69% 65% Overall opportunities for education and enrichment 70% 70% 71% 68% 85% 62% 62% 73% 70% Overall economic health of Palo Alto 82% 81% 79% 88% 82% 75% 64% 89% 82% Sense of community 73% 72% 82% 76% 76% 66% 69% 70% 73% Benchmarks were not calculated for question 13 as it is nonevaluative. Questions 14 through 22 are custom questions, therefore geographic subgroup results and benchmarks were not calculated. Question 14 Table 62: Question 14 - 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 77% N=558 Walking 13% N=98 Biking 8% N=56 Bus 1% N=6 Train 0% N=3 Free shuttle 0% N=1 Taxi 0% N=0 Uber/Lyft or similar rideshare service 0% N=1 Carpooling 0% N=3 Total 100% N=726 Question 15 Table 63: Question 15 - 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=247 36% N=254 15% N=104 15% N=106 100% N=711 Biking 39% N=272 35% N=243 13% N=87 13% N=90 100% N=692 Bus 7% N=47 24% N=165 38% N=262 30% N=206 100% N=681 Train 12% N=84 31% N=212 28% N=190 29% N=198 100% N=684 Free shuttle 17% N=113 34% N=229 29% N=196 20% N=137 100% N=675 Taxi 9% N=56 28% N=185 30% N=194 33% N=218 100% N=653 Uber/Lyft or similar rideshare service 38% N=256 34% N=232 14% N=93 14% N=95 100% N=676 Carpooling 9% N=58 25% N=169 30% N=198 36% N=243 100% N=669 Attachment B The National Citizen Survey™ 34 Table 64: Question 15 - 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 rating positively (e.g., very/somewhat convenient) 2015 2016 Walking 70% 71% Biking 81% 74% Bus 39% 31% Train 46% 43% Free shuttle 56% 51% Taxi 39% 37% Uber/Lyft or similar rideshare service 68% 72% Carpooling 43% 34% Question 16 Table 65: Question 16 - Response Percentages and Number of Respondents If you did not have access to a car to get around town and convenience (based on time and proximity) was not an issue, what is your preference for each of the following methods of getting around? Prefer a lot Somewhat prefer Do not prefer Total Walking 69% N=487 25% N=175 7% N=49 100% N=711 Biking 51% N=353 24% N=164 26% N=181 100% N=698 Bus 15% N=107 35% N=242 50% N=343 100% N=692 Train 26% N=179 40% N=277 33% N=228 100% N=684 Free shuttle 36% N=251 39% N=271 25% N=175 100% N=697 Taxi 4% N=26 23% N=155 73% N=498 100% N=680 Uber/Lyft or similar rideshare service 25% N=174 37% N=254 38% N=258 100% N=687 Carpooling 13% N=87 32% N=220 55% N=378 100% N=685 Table 66: Question 16 – Historical Data If you did not have access to a car to get around town and convenience (based on time and proximity) was not an issue, what is your preference for each of the following methods of getting around? Percent rating positively (e.g., prefer a lot/somewhat prefer) 2015 2016 Walking 92% 94% Biking 76% 75% Bus 53% 50% Train 68% 66% Free shuttle 78% 75% Taxi 26% 27% Uber/Lyft or similar rideshare service 52% 62% Carpooling 52% 45% Attachment B The National Citizen Survey™ 35 Question 17 Table 67: Question 17 - Response Percentages and Number of Respondents including "Don't Know" Responses If you currently own one or more cars, what type is the one you use as your primary transportation? Percent Number Gas 77% N=535 Diesel 1% N=7 Natural gas 0% N=3 Hybrid 14% N=99 Plug-in hybrid 1% N=9 Electric 5% N=38 Fuel cell 0% N=1 Don’t know 1% N=7 Total 100% N=699 Table 68: Question 17 - Response Percentages and Number of Respondents without "Don't Know" Responses If you currently own one or more cars, what type is the one you use as your primary transportation? Percent Number Gas 77% N=535 Diesel 1% N=7 Natural gas 0% N=3 Hybrid 14% N=99 Plug-in hybrid 1% N=9 Electric 5% N=38 Fuel cell 0% N=1 Total 100% N=692 Question 18 Table 69: 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 39% N=232 27% N=160 10% N=61 17% N=100 8% N=45 100% N=598 Diesel 2% N=11 8% N=42 10% N=55 73% N=410 8% N=46 100% N=564 Natural gas 0% N=2 4% N=19 10% N=56 74% N=406 12% N=68 100% N=552 Hybrid 26% N=154 39% N=231 13% N=76 15% N=91 6% N=35 100% N=587 Plug-in hybrid 17% N=95 37% N=211 12% N=71 25% N=144 8% N=46 100% N=567 Electric 30% N=178 30% N=178 14% N=81 19% N=111 7% N=41 100% N=590 Fuel cell 1% N=8 6% N=33 12% N=69 55% N=310 25% N=143 100% N=562 Attachment B The National Citizen Survey™ 36 Table 70: 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 42% N=232 29% N=160 11% N=61 18% N=100 100% N=553 Diesel 2% N=11 8% N=42 11% N=55 79% N=410 100% N=518 Natural gas 0% N=2 4% N=19 12% N=56 84% N=406 100% N=484 Hybrid 28% N=154 42% N=231 14% N=76 16% N=91 100% N=552 Plug-in hybrid 18% N=95 41% N=211 14% N=71 28% N=144 100% N=521 Electric 32% N=178 33% N=178 15% N=81 20% N=111 100% N=549 Fuel cell 2% N=8 8% N=33 17% N=69 74% N=310 100% N=420 Question 19 Table 71: Question 19 - Response Percentages and Number of Respondents including "Don't Know" Responses Please indicate how each of the following in your household are currently powered: Electricity Natural gas or other fuel Don’t know Total Hot water heater 16% N=118 67% N=480 17% N=119 100% N=717 Home heating system 23% N=165 69% N=494 8% N=56 100% N=715 Cooktop or stove 45% N=321 53% N=379 2% N=17 100% N=718 Clothes dryer 69% N=485 21% N=146 11% N=77 100% N=707 Table 72: Question 19 - Response Percentages and Number of Respondents without "Don't Know" Responses Please indicate how each of the following in your household are currently powered: Electricity Natural gas or other fuel Total Hot water heater 20% N=118 80% N=480 100% N=598 Home heating system 25% N=165 75% N=494 100% N=659 Cooktop or stove 46% N=321 54% N=379 100% N=701 Clothes dryer 77% N=485 23% N=146 100% N=630 Question 20 Table 73: Question 20 - Response Percentages and Number of Respondents including "Don't Know" Responses The City is exploring different avenues to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. How likely or unlikely would you be to convert the following from natural gas or other fuels to electricity under the following conditions: Very likely Somewhat likely Somewhat unlikely Very unlikely Already electric Don’t know Total Hot Water Heater: If your energy bill remains the same 31% N=206 11% N=73 8% N=51 19% N=128 8% N=52 23% N=149 100% N=660 If your energy bill is raised less than 10% 12% N=76 17% N=106 16% N=101 27% N=176 7% N=43 22% N=139 100% N=641 If your energy bill is raised less than 20% 8% N=49 10% N=62 15% N=97 38% N=244 7% N=44 22% N=143 100% N=640 Home Heating System: If your energy bill remains the same 30% N=199 9% N=57 9% N=62 22% N=146 10% N=63 20% N=131 100% N=658 If your energy bill is raised less than 10% 11% N=67 14% N=90 15% N=94 32% N=206 8% N=53 20% N=127 100% N=638 If your energy bill is raised less than 20% 6% N=35 10% N=61 17% N=107 39% N=248 8% N=54 20% N=129 100% N=634 Cooktop or Stove: If your energy bill remains the same 21% N=136 4% N=28 6% N=39 31% N=205 21% N=139 16% N=108 100% N=654 Attachment B The National Citizen Survey™ 37 The City is exploring different avenues to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. How likely or unlikely would you be to convert the following from natural gas or other fuels to electricity under the following conditions: Very likely Somewhat likely Somewhat unlikely Very unlikely Already electric Don’t know Total If your energy bill is raised less than 10% 9% N=56 8% N=49 10% N=61 37% N=233 19% N=120 17% N=106 100% N=625 If your energy bill is raised less than 20% 6% N=35 5% N=32 10% N=63 43% N=270 19% N=119 17% N=107 100% N=627 Clothes Dryer: If your energy bill remains the same 21% N=135 7% N=46 4% N=25 11% N=70 38% N=248 19% N=122 100% N=646 If your energy bill is raised less than 10% 9% N=56 12% N=72 8% N=47 16% N=98 35% N=218 20% N=124 100% N=615 If your energy bill is raised less than 20% 6% N=40 7% N=42 9% N=54 22% N=133 36% N=218 21% N=127 100% N=613 Table 74: Question 20 - Response Percentages and Number of Respondents without "Don't Know" Responses The City is exploring different avenues to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. How likely or unlikely would you be to convert the following from natural gas or other fuels to electricity under the following conditions: Very likely Somewhat likely Somewhat unlikely Very unlikely Already electric Total Hot Water Heater: If your energy bill remains the same 40% N=206 14% N=73 10% N=51 25% N=128 10% N=52 100% N=511 If your energy bill is raised less than 10% 15% N=76 21% N=106 20% N=101 35% N=176 9% N=43 100% N=502 If your energy bill is raised less than 20% 10% N=49 13% N=62 20% N=97 49% N=244 9% N=44 100% N=497 Home Heating System: If your energy bill remains the same 38% N=199 11% N=57 12% N=62 28% N=146 12% N=63 100% N=527 If your energy bill is raised less than 10% 13% N=67 18% N=90 18% N=94 40% N=206 10% N=53 100% N=511 If your energy bill is raised less than 20% 7% N=35 12% N=61 21% N=107 49% N=248 11% N=54 100% N=505 Cooktop or Stove: If your energy bill remains the same 25% N=136 5% N=28 7% N=39 37% N=205 25% N=139 100% N=547 If your energy bill is raised less than 10% 11% N=56 9% N=49 12% N=61 45% N=233 23% N=120 100% N=520 If your energy bill is raised less than 20% 7% N=35 6% N=32 12% N=63 52% N=270 23% N=119 100% N=520 Clothes Dryer: If your energy bill remains the same 26% N=135 9% N=46 5% N=25 13% N=70 47% N=248 100% N=524 If your energy bill is raised less than 10% 11% N=56 15% N=72 10% N=47 20% N=98 44% N=218 100% N=491 If your energy bill is raised less than 20% 8% N=40 9% N=42 11% N=54 27% N=133 45% N=218 100% N=487 Attachment B The National Citizen Survey™ 38 Question 21 Table 75: Question 21 - Response Percentages and Number of Respondents The City of Palo Alto and Palo Alto Unified School District are working together on a master plan for the Cubberley Community Center to meet future community and school needs. Please indicate how much of a priority, if at all, each of the following community programs at Cubberley are to you. High priority Medium priority Not a priority Total Child care 27% N=186 20% N=133 53% N=358 100% N=676 Cubberley Artist Studio Program 16% N=106 35% N=234 49% N=332 100% N=673 Dance studios 15% N=102 35% N=232 50% N=337 100% N=670 Outdoor sports 38% N=253 33% N=222 29% N=197 100% N=671 Indoor sports and health programs 35% N=235 39% N=261 26% N=178 100% N=674 Senior wellness, including stroke and cardiovascular programs 31% N=206 39% N=262 30% N=202 100% N=670 Education – private schools and special interest classes 21% N=143 40% N=264 39% N=261 100% N=668 Rooms available to rent for other activities 19% N=127 42% N=282 39% N=259 100% N=668 Other 23% N=53 8% N=18 69% N=156 100% N=227 Table 76: Question 21 – Historical Data The City of Palo Alto and Palo Alto Unified School District are working together on a master plan for the Cubberley Community Center to meet future community and school needs. Please indicate how much of a priority, if at all, each of the following community programs at Cubberley are to you. Percent rating positively (e.g., high/medium priority) 2015 2016 Child care 52% 47% Cubberley Artist Studio Program 51% 51% Dance studios 56% 50% Outdoor sports 72% 71% Indoor sports and health programs 75% 74% Senior wellness, including stroke and cardiovascular programs 69% 70% Education – private schools and special interest classes 61% 61% Rooms available to rent for other activities 65% 61% Other 36% 31% For question 21, respondents could also specify an “other” answer than the presented alternatives. Out of a total of 744 completed surveys, 77 respondents wrote in “other” priorities. Respondents’ verbatim responses are in the list below. They are as written or entered on the survey and have not been edited for spelling or grammar.  3rd High School.  3rd high school.  A place to celebrating diversity of holidays.  Adult Ed program.  Adult education for P.A resident.  Adult education.  Affordable housing.  Affordable housing.  Ancillary city services.  Art gallery, art classes.  Book Sale.  Chorus (music).  Church (vineyard).  College classes like foothill.  Community College classes.  Community events (fairs, art showing, Neighborhood get togethers) food markets.  Community events to improve feeling of connection.  Community meeting space girl scouts, clubs, events, etc.  community traffic center Attachment B The National Citizen Survey™ 39  Concert Hall.  Convert campus to a PA high school again.  Create a space for a community garden.  Cubberley is really ugly, always has been-  Day training.  Dog run.  Education, education, education.  ESL.  FOPAL  Fopal  Fopal.  Friends of Palo Alto library book sales (Fopal).  Friends of Palo Alto Library sales.  Friends of the Palo Alto library.  Gym, Theater.  High School.  High School.  Higher education.  Homeless shelter safe place.  Housing.  gym facilities.  I don't have strong feelings.  I don't live near Cubberley.  Maintain tennis courts for public.  Making PAUSD Schools smaller.  May need another public school site?  Mental health  Middle school (public).  More donkeys and animals.  Music / Also some type of outreach for the growing senior population. Like neighborhood house for a group to exercise at.  Music, symphonies etc.  new high school  New public high school!  No preference.  None  part and historical association room.  PAUSD is bankrupt of ideas. Their students commit suicide. Why involve them?  Pausd school.  Please less about senior wellness or any other age group "wellness"- focus on classes, education, a lunch program, social interaction.  Programs that enhance the residential character of the community.  Provide rooms for friends of the libraries.  public high school  Public schools.  Remake foothills disabled fitness classes.  Return to school district (Pausd) for administratives to allow to PALY expand.  Santa Cruz Audubon.  Screening of movies.  Senior center.  special ed  Table Tennis/ music room.  Tennis  tennis  The big priority is for a new high school.  Theatre.  Use as a high school to decrease pressure on gunn high school to grow to absorb new students from new developments.  We need another senior center in the south of Palo Alto.  Weekend ballroom dancing.  Young professional activities Attachment B The National Citizen Survey™ 40 Question 22. Please share one improvement to the City of Palo Alto’s parks, arts, or recreation activities and programs that the City could make to better serve the community. In question 22, respondents were asked to record their opinions about improvements to parks, recreation or arts activities or programming in the above question. The verbatim responses were categorized by topic area and those topics are reported in Table 80, 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 so that. 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 744 surveys were completed by Palo Alto residents; of these 397 respondents wrote in responses for the open-ended question (417 responses are captured in the below categories as some responses were split to cover multiple topics). Table 77: Question 22 – Open-ended Responses Response Category Percent of Responses Number of Responses Parking/Transportation 5% N=20 Park Spaces (Green Space) 6% N=25 Park, Recreation, and Art Facilities and Amenities (other than bathrooms/restrooms) 8% N=32 Bathrooms/Restrooms 9% N=39 Dog Parks/Leash Enforcement 8% N=33 Programs and Classes - General 9% N=39 Programs and Classes – Adult/Senior 4% N=15 Programs and Classes – Youth 2% N=8 Information/Registration 5% N=22 Bike/Walking Path Improvements 4% N=16 Maintenance/Cleanliness 5% N=21 Pool Access/Swimming 3% N=13 Nothing/Don’t know 5% N=21 Other – Related to Community Services Department 11% N=45 Other – Not Community Services Department 17% N=68 Total 100% N=417 Parking/Transportation  Better parking.  Bridge to Bayland Park.  Easier to access parks & rec.  Enhance the opportunity to get to programs without driving.  Free shuttle in the hills.  Free transportation.  Improve weekend parking at Mitchell Park Library so patrons don't have to compete with soccer parents for parking.  More convenient transportation.  MORE DISABLED PARKING AT STERN CENTER. Attachment B The National Citizen Survey™ 41  More Free (or low-cost) shuttles to events from all neighborhoods.  More frequent and affordable transportation options.  More parking at Arasta preserve!  Parking.  Please Fix the arasreadero rd back to 2 lanes. The new lanes have caused traffic to be slow & jammed all the time. cars are stuck in a one lane road & cannot turn left further down. current plan is so inefficient.  Public transportation to get people there.  Shuttle on weekend do Foothills park.  Transportation for [illegible] elderly; wheelchairs.  Transportation.  Shuttle services.  ample parking availability. Park Spaces (Green Space)  A community garden area in mitchell park.  Acquire more park land & open space.  Expand the parks-more green space.  Finish park at the former city dump.  Increase # of parks-even small green areas.  Make more community gardens.  More community gardens.  More natural parks (less infrastructure) like Foothill Park.  More park spaces.  More parks and shaded walks!  More parks Large ones.  More parks  More parks.  More parks-in-fill with mini parks.  more trees (low water, not redwood).  More trees in parks. Current parks have few trees. E.G. Seale, Hoover, Mitchell, Greer.  More trees.  More trees.  More, bigger, better green spaces/ parks.  Native gardens.  plant wildflowers  Real grass and fields.  More shade. Attachment B The National Citizen Survey™ 42  Children's park.  More green grass-red grass. Park, Recreation, and Art Facilities and Amenities (other than bathrooms/restrooms)  Add fitness devices in parks.  Add more tennis courts.  Better fields and baseball diamonds.  Expand the facilities.  Mark pickleball courts better and create dedicated courts (more).  More benches for old people to rest.  Water Fountains.  Drinking fountains, Benches.  Drinking water.  Each park should have a lot of benches.  Maintain water fountains.  Water fountains that exist, that work, and that are clean.  add par course to the parks.  A Community art center like the cultural center only at Cubberley.  Have a new art performing theater.  open history museum.  Show hall.  Upgrade Lucie stern theatre.  Add pickle ball courts.  Available field space (for sports).  Finish renovating the golf course.  More tennis courts.  More tennis courts.  Outdoor fitness equipment, particularly for body weight strength training.  Permanent pickleball courts replacing some tennis courts.  shed for bocceballs at scott park.  Management of parks-golf course.  Remove artificial turf in cubberley soccer pitch.  Tennis courts pavement improvements.  Trash/ Recycle facilities at all park exits.  Upgrade and simplify the signage in and around the Palo Alto Baylands Preserve.  All parks should have filtered drinking water. Attachment B The National Citizen Survey™ 43 Bathrooms/Restrooms  Add toilets to neighborhood parks.  All parks should have a maintained bathroom.  Bathroom at Eleanor Pk.  Bathroom at parks.  Bathrooms at neighborhood parks.  Bathrooms in all parks!  Bathrooms in the parks.  Bathrooms.  Better toilet available - using school access.  Clean and accessible bathroom in parks that are not a magnet for homeless.  Clean working restrooms.  Lavatories.  Rest room.  Each park should have restrooms.  Each park should have restrooms.  Functioning toilets in public places.  Have Bathrooms at the parks that do not have them.  Have restrooms at parks.  Keep the restrooms at Gamble Gardens open on weekends. Provide restrooms at Bol Park.  More bathrooms (more stalls).  More bathrooms in parks we appreciate progress already made.  More public bathrooms.  More restrooms - clean, modern.  Restroom at Edith johnson park.  Public restroom at Eleanor Pardee Park.  rest room at Eleanor Park.  Rest room for all parks.  rest rooms at all parks.  rest rooms in every park.  Rest rooms in smaller parks.  rest rooms in the parks.  Restrooms at some parks open 9A till mid evening (summer) then locked.  Restrooms for every parks.  Restrooms in all parks.  Restrooms in parks.  toilet in pardee park. Attachment B The National Citizen Survey™ 44  Toilets in Eleanor Park.  Toilets in park.  Bathrooms that exist, that work, and that are clean. Dog Parks/Leash Enforcement  A dedicated set of dog runs instead of poop (and hopefully scoop) across all parks.  Add dogs to mix.  Area for dog to run.  Better enforcement of off-leash dogs in parks.  Dog area at Heritage park.  Dog Park.  Dog parks.  Dog poop bags at parks.  Doggie waste bags of all parks.  Encourage control of dogs in parks.  Enforce leasing requirements.  Enforce the "dogs must be on a leash" rule at Cubberley. Dogs owners from across the city and beyond drive to Cubberley to let their dogs run off leash.  enforcement of dog leash laws.  Expand dog parks.  Have more dog friendly places/off leash.  Make certain all dogs leashed throughout the city.  More areas where dogs can run off-leash.  More dog friendly park.  More dog park in Barron Park.  More dog parks that are clean be able to share existing parks/schools with practicing soccer or baseball teams with the dogs-we all pay taxes!  More dog parks! off-Leash.  More dog parks, Less Barking.  More dog parks.  More dog parks.  More freedom for dog leash-free space.  More off-leash dog runs.  More off-leash dog space.  More off-leash parks to dogs.  No dog parks.  Off-leash dog park (like Cuesta Park in Mountain View).  Poop bag dispensers. Attachment B The National Citizen Survey™ 45  Square or circular dog park (not rectangular as that's not good for multiple dogs) with agility/ obstacle equipment for the dogs to play on/ jump over. etc.  To create grounds for dog's training. Programs and Classes - General  Expand the programs.  Year around swim lessons.  Add more artist studies to the abbey studies program.  Cultural events.  Educational talks.  Free outdoor movies.  Free workshops in the Palo Alto Art Center.  Hold more events that bring the community together to create something, by working together as a group.  Host free art/theatre/plays/dances in park.  I would love to see the art & wine festival continue to 9 pm with music after dark.  Keep live summer music program.  More art events, concerts.  More busking opportunities.  more circus programs!  More diversity in cultures presented.  More music concerts.  More music.  More open - mic venue in town (Lucie Stern-Cubberley ) all year round invite groups easier access in town location not "Media Center".  More vibrant public events.  Music classes, drama acting classes improved.  Music in the park events.  More dance studio space  Palo Alto is a very diverse community and we would like to see some more cultural festival celebrations held in the parks to help enrich our view and to get to know our community more  Provide more art classes at the art center.  Provide more art classes at the art center.  Recreation or art events not requiring driving or parking.  There should be more cultural offerings in South Palo.  Weekend music entertainment.  Fitness encouraged community parks.  Fitness encouraged parks.  Group exesise in parks and open spases Attachment B The National Citizen Survey™ 46  More exercise @ lucie stern.  Offer free exercise classes or walking/biking groups/tours.  Organized exercise programs.  Walking nature program.  More activities more spots on rosters.  More drop in classes/activities instead of ongoing courses.  More programming in the southern half of the city.  Informal drop-on programs. Programs and Classes – Adult/Senior  Affordable art and recreation classes for adults.  Better fitness programs at senior center.  Increase senior fitness programs.  Keep the upholstery class at adult ed.  Make it senior friendly.  More activities for senior citizens.  More community programs available/of interest to adults ages 21-30  More events for young, single people.  More local activities for adults.  More opportunities for retired people to gather for fun, community building and volunteering.  More opportunities for singles over 45.  Senior activities.  Senior care.  Senior group activities.  Services to seniors living in places like lytton gardens. Programs and Classes – Youth  Low cost, accessible, children music classes.  More summer camps, activities for children K-12  Palo alto has a mental health crisis among its young people. The city should invest in youth programs that teach kids to value themselves and their friends for who they are not what they accomplish. Amazing kids feel worthless compared to others.  We desperately in need of rhythmic gymnastics classes my daughter was a licensed rhythmic gymnast in overseas and cannot find a club or classes here in Palo Alto.  Choose more arts week done by local youth, rather than spending big $ to purchase from out of region artist.  Have solar public art & teach kids about art & solar.  Daily sport program (not only just for one week) for teens during school holidays  More coaches for after-school sports (through the schools). Attachment B The National Citizen Survey™ 47 Information/Registration  A monthly calendar of what's going on with the bill.  Advertise.  Better advertisement to include more people.  Better advertising, more classes, more focus on the arts/ education community gardens, volunteer days.  Better communication about offerings  Better communication of programs to residents  Better understanding of what activities / programs etc. are offered.  Community garden access, I have been on that list for 20 years - No communications.  I just am not aware of many of the programs available.  Improve enjoy online registration!! (Horrible search capabilities).  Improve website and increase the # of classes.  Intramural sports advertised broadly.  Make volunteering as easier 1 time sign up availability.  More advertisement - I feel like there are many programs that I would enjoy if I knew about them.  More awareness of local volunteering opportunities  More publicity as to what is available.  Provide a directory of art teachers.  Scheduling system for things like tennis courts  Take neighborhood input about parks seriously.  TV explanation of what parks offer.  Use email for correspondence.  Much like the "alert" inserts with utility bills. Bike/Walking Path Improvements  A walk route.  Better bike crossing of Middlefield Rd, at the end of Palo Alto Ave.  Better jogging & walking trails near residential areas.  Execute bicycle plan to improve bicycle routes.  finally build the bicycle bridge across 101  Improve trail in foothill park.  More bike connections & facilities.  More bike lanes and paths; would like bike/pedestrian access along creeks.  More bike paths, more safer bike streets like Bryant make stop signs equal to yield signs for bikes.  More bike racks at all parks.  More hiking trails.  Need more dedicated bike paths that do not share road with cars. Attachment B The National Citizen Survey™ 48  Separate people's walking path from dogs walking areas.  very poor maintenance of the bike paths - this needs improvement and expansion  Promote walking, biking!!  More bike paths. Maintenance/Cleanliness  Better city tree trimming services - don't rush the job.  Better maintenance of grass fields  Better maintenance of tennis courts including cleaning.  Better maintenance of tennis courts- nets, surfaces, windscreens, cleaning.  Can we fix it up?  Cleaner facilities.  Cleanness.  Close grass fields to outsiders especially during the rainy months. This will reduce damage to fields & reduce injury to our kids.  Improve general up keep of parks.  Improving facilities at Baylands, Boardwalk toilets etc.  Keep it clean and safe.  Keep lawns watered.  Keep the parks upgrade.  Larger, longer safer areas to exercise work, away from traffic.  Maintain city's tennis courts - prepare & clean debris.  No Smoking in any city park. Light up Madijical bridge for (Light sun) sensitive folks.  Pickup disgarded trash  Smoke & alcohol free.  Weed and keep the parks clean.  Take better care of the Cubberley track. Trucks drive on it on wet days and create [illegible].  Paint bench @ Dartmouth park under tree. Pool Access/Swimming  Expand Rinconada pool (S).  Have longer hours for lap swimming at Rinconada - and an easier schedule to know when its open!  Help reopen betty wright swim center.  Keep Rinconada Pool for residents (PA) only.  Keep swimming pool open for lap swim longer.  Keeping pools open longer.  Large swimming pools/ kid activities.  Longer hours for Rinconada pool. Attachment B The National Citizen Survey™ 49  Many more days and hours for family swimming at Rinconada Park pools.  Provid more affordable swimming facility  Public pool in South Palo Alto.  Recreational swimming through september.  Warm water pool for therapy. Nothing/Don’t know  Can't think of one.  Do not know.  Don't have one.  Dont know.  Don't know.  Don't know.  Don't know.  Don't know.  Good now.  I can't think of anything.  I do not participate in any.  I feel lucky with what is offered now.  I really can't think of one.  No ideas occur to me.  No suggestion.  No suggestions at this time.  not sure  Parks etc. great already!  Thanks as you are doing a good job.  You guys are doing great!  Have not looked into it much aside the teen center that my son uses daily. Other – Related to Community Services Department  Build in the parks so that there is cheaper housing!!!  Don't change use of social stream community center.  Cut wastes of wasted funds.  Increase funding for Palo Alto players.  Just stated that a outreach program to try and have a home/house/building in different neighborhoods that seniors can easily get to, then exercise, socialize, eat healthy, bond and look out for one another.  Keep Bol park rural and without a dog area, athletic additions, pump track, rest rooms. Attachment B The National Citizen Survey™ 50  Keep up great program diversity.  Mental health awareness/Education.  make all parks like mitchell park (magical bridge)  Mitchel park.  Mitchell Park/ Library.  More donkeys & animals & Llamas.  Multiple rooms for friends of the library.  No improvement needed to Bol park in the Barron park neighborhood!! This is a "Country" park and some residents are trying to citify!! The park keep it "rural" !!  ORV clay in foothill park.  Please consider bringing back city staff gardeners who are on site and have the same parks under their responsibility. The parks look & feel better when they tended by the same city employee over years. The contractors do not care about the parks.  Priority for residents  Recreation.  Reduce cubberley - It is an amazing community resource and needs to be upgraded!!  Rentable/public workshop space e.g. saws, sanders, other big machines.  Sound barrier along certain parks.  Stop killing innocent bugs with traps <-- tree flies & bees. Let natural be natural and include other beings (not just humans).  The Spanish classes @ PA Adult school have been taught by the same teacher for at least 25 yrs. We need fresh blood!  Public review/ comment on city sponsored art!  Stop wasting money on art installations and use it for more useful purposes.  No more ugly sculptures.  While I love sculpture. I am not a fan of much of the sculpture.  Affordability.  Decrease cost of rec. activities.  Expand hours of operations  Longer hours @ Baylands & Safer for parked cars.  Longer hours.  Longer Hours?  Low cost options for percents camperships for summer.  Lower cost.  Make the cost of attending more reasonable for low income seniors.  More affordable accessible classes and events (music & theater, performances etc).  More cheaper option.  More free and high quality programs to serve PA residents (tax is already so high)  Offer evening hours.  Reduce cost for residents. Attachment B The National Citizen Survey™ 51  reduce cost without sacrificing quality  Reduced cost to residents.  Senior discounts as programs are too expensive.  Subsidize senior participation. Other – Not Community Services Department  A new library for our Green Acres residents.  Affordable living.  Allow buildings to rise above current heights limit (the current limit is ridiculous) and use the palo alto land on the other side of 280 to build more houses or apartments.  Better use of water.  Better traffic flow at the Mitchell Park library.  Close univ ave to cars.  Do not park under city hall; park in bay lands shuttle in.  Free shuttle (w 1:45 / school 8:00 pm) MD 12:25.  More street parking.  Need more effort to relieve rush hour congestion.  I have to drive all the way to san antonio every day too around this horriffic traffic.  Please redesign some Caltrain intersections like charleston/alma-meadow/ alma are designed that cars could be hit by train if stopped by lights personally witnessed a train hitting a truck this week at meadow/alma. We do not need such accidents/ [?] tragedies!  Too much traffic. Need something on my street otherwise a hassle.  Traffic improvements.  Traffic.  Improve (don't euthanize animals) in a new animal shelter.  Keep funding & improve the animal shelter. Long term commitment to support.  Build large apartment buildings & mixed use housing.  Mitchell park is perfectly designed to channel noise from the kids area into the 'quiet' areas. Loudest library I've ever been to. Introduce sound baffles or something. Also pls train patrons on etiquette, like not using speakerphone in the middle of the ibrary, etc.  Prevent cineArts theater (Palo Alto square) from closing.  longer library hours  Longer library hours!  Reduce price of family pass for PA YMCA.  City library.  Do not allow private interest (e.g. Castilleja School) & money trump neighborhood / community interests & the city's comprehensive plan. The city's (lack of) response is expanding community trust governance.  Eliminate police department.  Get rid of the bumps. Attachment B The National Citizen Survey™ 52  Get rid of the current Architectural Review Board -- nothing they do looks good  Get the FAA to pay attention to increased jet noise, please. Somehow!!  Got ethical people who are efficient & effective getting jobs done. Shame on the Michelle Park Library.  Build shoreline park like mountain view.  Have more language programs in schools as part of curriculum.  Library materials not well stocked. We use Los Altos library.  Library.  Low income housing for seniors.  Lowers rents.  More high - rise buildings.  More new books in the library.  Better support for homeless, more low cost housing.  Better sidewalks.  Code enforcement.  Compost smells horrible in yard waste bin. Can city provide compostable garbage bags to make the effect more clean?  Deal with homeless issue.  Eliminate the homeless.  Encourage more participation in block preparedness program.  More trash, recycling, and compost bins around the city. They should be on every street corner downtown and in the corner of all parks.  Prevent transients from monopolizing space for hours or even days. Enforce loitering and public nuisance laws.  reduce break in crime rate  Repair broken sidewalks to prevent falls.  Trash receptacles in residential areas.  I'm a usability engineer by trade. Honestly, Palo Alto has one of the worst websites I've ever seen. It is really shocking, considering we're the birthplace of Silicon Valley.  Less construction, less building, less parking lots. Less cars.  Noise abatement find alternate way to enpora leaf blewes oldinance other than reporting neighbors to police. Work with sfo to decrease airplanes flying over homes (some are flying between 12:30 and 01:10 AM again) at 6:00 am, sunday morning etc.  Okiosks w/ computers for use of public. 2) Better free shuttle service.  Other then this instruction. #22 the police dept. must be aware that majority of drivers on Palo Alto city roads are ignore to use their signals before they turn intersection or and changing lanes.  Palo Alto and historical association room.  Reduce pay+benefits of police, fire and city employees!!! They are all overpaid.  Remove RVs that people live in from being parked on El Camino real.  Remove the wires.  Stop building multistoried offices with no housing or transportation to support them.  Stop over building Palo Alto !! Now! Attachment B The National Citizen Survey™ 53  Stop the animal services killing animals! Now! They're liars! Flow man dogs & cats have been killed hundreds.  Too many people.  We need a new animal shelter. We need a no-kill shelter.  When I had a power outage. I was unable to get info from the Utilities dept.  Wider selection of materials of library (we use MV library for that reason).  Quit giving tax breaks to giant companies!  Really need to work on making housing affordable. The following are responses that were originally submitted as a single response but were separated into their respective categories above:  Clean working restrooms & Water Fountains.  Drinking fountains, Lavatories, Benches.  Drinking water & rest room.  Each park should have restrooms and a lot of benches  More shade restroom at Edith johnson park.  Water fountains and bathrooms that exist, that work, and that are clean  Please Fix the arasreadero rd back to 2 lanes. The new lanes have caused traffic to be slow & jammed all the time. cars are stuck in a one lane road & cannot turn left further down. current plan is so inefficient. I have to drive all the way to san antonio every day too around this horriffic traffic.  Expand the facilities & programs.  Add dogs to mix add par covers to the parks.  Enforce the "dogs must be on a leash" rule at Cubberley. Dogs owners from across the city and beyond drive to Cubberley to let their dogs run off leash. Take better care of the Cubberley track. Trucks drive on it on wet days and create [illegible].  More dog parks, year around swim lessons.  Poop bag dispensers, Paint bench @ Dartmouth park under tree.  More events for young, single people. Build large apartment buildings & mixed use housing.  Senior group activities & shuttle services.  More art events, concerts, bike paths.  No more ugly sculptures. More green grass-red grass.  More parks, less construction, less building, less parking lots. Less cars. Promote walking, biking!!  All parks should have a maintained bathroom. & filtered drinking water.  Increase senior fitness programs with ample parking availability. Attachment B The National Citizen Survey™ 54 Demographic Questions Table 78: Question D1 - Response Percentages and Number of Respondents How often, if at all, do you do each of the following, considering all of the times you could? Never Rarely Sometimes Usually Always Total Recycle at home 1% N=6 1% N=9 3% N=19 14% N=103 81% N=587 100% N=724 Purchase goods or services from a business located in Palo Alto 0% N=3 4% N=31 28% N=201 48% N=348 19% N=141 100% N=724 Eat at least 5 portions of fruits and vegetables a day 2% N=12 6% N=42 28% N=203 35% N=255 29% N=211 100% N=724 Participate in moderate or vigorous physical activity 1% N=9 7% N=48 25% N=184 37% N=269 30% N=214 100% N=724 Read or watch local news (via television, paper, computer, etc.) 5% N=39 13% N=92 21% N=149 28% N=199 34% N=245 100% N=725 Vote in local elections 12% N=90 4% N=32 11% N=78 13% N=95 59% N=427 100% N=723 Table 79: Question D2 - Response Percentages and Number of Respondents Would you say that in general your health is: Percent Number Excellent 33% N=236 Very good 43% N=311 Good 19% N=134 Fair 4% N=29 Poor 2% N=12 Total 100% N=722 Table 80: Question D3 - Response Percentages and Number of Respondents What impact, if any, do you think the economy will have on your family income in the next 6 months? Do you think the impact will be: Percent Number Very positive 6% N=40 Somewhat positive 21% N=149 Neutral 58% N=414 Somewhat negative 13% N=93 Very negative 3% N=20 Total 100% N=716 Table 81: Question D4 - Response Percentages and Number of Respondents What is your employment status? Percent Number Working full time for pay 54% N=393 Working part time for pay 11% N=78 Unemployed, looking for paid work 3% N=23 Unemployed, not looking for paid work 6% N=44 Fully retired 24% N=171 College student, unemployed 2% N=11 Total 100% N=721 Attachment B The National Citizen Survey™ 55 Table 82: Question D5 - Response Percentages and Number of Respondents Do you work inside the boundaries of Palo Alto? Percent Number Yes, outside the home 27% N=187 Yes, from home 12% N=85 No 60% N=410 Total 100% N=682 Table 83: Question D6 - Response Percentages and Number of Respondents How many years have you lived in Palo Alto? Percent Number Less than 2 years 15% N=109 2 to 5 years 18% N=131 6 to 10 years 14% N=99 11 to 20 years 18% N=132 More than 20 years 35% N=252 Total 100% N=722 Table 84: Question D7 - Response Percentages and Number of Respondents Which best describes the building you live in? Percent Number One family house detached from any other houses 57% N=413 Building with two or more homes (duplex, townhome, apartment or condominium) 40% N=288 Mobile home 0% N=0 Other 2% N=18 Total 100% N=719 Table 85: Question D8 - Response Percentages and Number of Respondents Is this house, apartment or mobile home... Percent Number Rented 43% N=305 Owned 57% N=402 Total 100% N=707 Attachment B The National Citizen Survey™ 56 Table 86: Question D9 - 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 $1,000 per month 12% N=82 $1,000 to $1,499 per month 7% N=49 $1,500 to $1,999 per month 9% N=62 $2,000 to $2,499 per month 9% N=62 $2,500 to $2,999 per month 9% N=59 $3,000 to $3,499 per month 10% N=66 $3,500 to $3,999 per month 7% N=46 $4,000 to $4,499 per month 6% N=39 $4,500 to $4,999 per month 5% N=32 $5,000 or more per month 28% N=194 Total 100% N=690 Table 87: Question D10 - Response Percentages and Number of Respondents Do any children 17 or under live in your household? Percent Number No 68% N=483 Yes 32% N=230 Total 100% N=712 Table 88: Question D11 - Response Percentages and Number of Respondents Are you or any other members of your household aged 65 or older? Percent Number No 68% N=490 Yes 32% N=229 Total 100% N=719 Table 89: Question D12 - 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 4% N=29 $25,000 to $49,999 5% N=35 $50,000 to $99,999 16% N=108 $100,000 to $149,999 17% N=112 $150,000 to $199,999 12% N=81 $200,000 to $249,999 11% N=72 $250,000 to $299,999 10% N=64 $300,000 or more 25% N=169 Total 100% N=669 Attachment B The National Citizen Survey™ 57 Table 90: Question D13 - Response Percentages and Number of Respondents Are you Spanish, Hispanic or Latino? Percent Number No, not Spanish, Hispanic or Latino 95% N=673 Yes, I consider myself to be Spanish, Hispanic or Latino 5% N=36 Total 100% N=709 Table 91: Question D14 - 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=7 Asian, Asian Indian or Pacific Islander 26% N=184 Black or African American 2% N=12 White 71% N=494 Other 4% N=29 Total may exceed 100% as respondents could select more than one option. Table 92: Question D15 - Response Percentages and Number of Respondents In which category is your age? Percent Number 18 to 24 years 3% N=24 25 to 34 years 18% N=127 35 to 44 years 16% N=117 45 to 54 years 23% N=167 55 to 64 years 12% N=84 65 to 74 years 12% N=83 75 years or older 15% N=110 Total 100% N=712 Table 93: Question D16 - Response Percentages and Number of Respondents What is your sex? Percent Number Female 52% N=367 Male 48% N=344 Total 100% N=711 Table 94: Question D17 - Response Percentages and Number of Respondents Do you consider a cell phone or landline your primary telephone number? Percent Number Cell 64% N=462 Land line 18% N=133 Both 18% N=127 Total 100% N=722 Attachment B The National Citizen Survey™ 58 Table 95: Question D18 - Response Percentages and Number of Respondents Do you consider yourself to be one or more of the following? (Check all that apply.) Percent Number Heterosexual 96% N=571 Lesbian 3% N=17 Gay 2% N=11 Bisexual 0% N=3 Transgender 1% N=6 Total may exceed 100% as respondents could select more than one option. Attachment B The National Citizen Survey™ 59 Survey Materials Attachment B The National Citizen Survey™ 60 Attachment B The National Citizen Survey™ 61 Attachment B The National Citizen Survey™ 62 Attachment B The National Citizen Survey™ 63 Attachment B The National Citizen Survey™ 64 Attachment B The National Citizen Survey™ 65 Attachment B The National Citizen Survey™ 66 Attachment B The National Citizen Survey™ 67 Attachment B The National Citizen Survey™ 68 Attachment B The National Citizen Survey™ 69 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. 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 Altoona city, IA......................................................... 14,541 American Canyon city, CA ......................................... 19,454 Ames city, IA ............................................................ 58,965 Andover CDP, MA ....................................................... 8,762 Ankeny city, IA ......................................................... 45,582 Ann Arbor city, MI .................................................. 113,934 Annapolis city, MD .................................................... 38,394 Apache Junction city, AZ ........................................... 35,840 Apple Valley town, CA ............................................... 69,135 Arapahoe County, CO ............................................. 572,003 Arkansas City city, AR ....................................................366 Arlington County, VA .............................................. 207,627 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 Auburn city, WA ....................................................... 70,180 Augusta CCD, GA.................................................... 134,777 Aurora city, CO ....................................................... 325,078 Austin city, TX ........................................................ 790,390 Avon town, CO ........................................................... 6,447 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 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 Beltrami County, MN ................................................. 44,442 Benbrook city, TX ..................................................... 21,234 Bend city, OR ........................................................... 76,639 Bettendorf city, IA .................................................... 33,217 Billings city, MT ...................................................... 104,170 Blaine city, MN ......................................................... 57,186 Bloomfield Hills city, MI ............................................... 3,869 Bloomington city, MN ................................................ 82,893 Blue Springs city, MO ................................................ 52,575 Boise City city, ID ................................................... 205,671 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 Brookfield city, WI.................................................... 37,920 Brookline CDP, MA ................................................... 58,732 Broomfield city, CO .................................................. 55,889 Brownsburg town, IN ............................................... 21,285 Burien city, WA ........................................................ 33,313 Burleson city, TX ...................................................... 36,690 Cabarrus County, NC ............................................... 178,011 Cambridge city, MA ................................................. 105,162 Cannon Beach city, OR ............................................... 1,690 Cañon City city, CO .................................................. 16,400 Canton city, SD .......................................................... 3,057 Cape Coral city, FL .................................................. 154,305 Cape Girardeau city, MO ........................................... 37,941 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 Casper city, WY ....................................................... 55,316 Castine town, ME ....................................................... 1,366 Castle Pines North city, CO ....................................... 10,360 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 Chambersburg borough, PA ...................................... 20,268 Chandler city, AZ .................................................... 236,123 Chandler city, TX ....................................................... 2,734 Chanhassen city, MN ................................................ 22,952 Chapel Hill town, NC ................................................ 57,233 Charlotte city, NC .................................................... 731,424 Charlotte County, FL ............................................... 159,978 Charlottesville city, VA .............................................. 43,475 Chattanooga city, TN............................................... 167,674 Chesterfield County, VA ........................................... 316,236 Chippewa Falls city, WI ............................................ 13,661 Citrus Heights city, CA .............................................. 83,301 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 Collinsville city, IL .................................................... 25,579 Columbia city, SC .................................................... 129,272 Columbia Falls city, MT ............................................... 4,688 Columbus city, WI ...................................................... 4,991 Commerce City city, CO ............................................ 45,913 Concord city, CA ..................................................... 122,067 Concord town, MA.................................................... 17,668 Coon Rapids city, MN ............................................... 61,476 Copperas Cove city, TX............................................. 32,032 Coronado city, CA .................................................... 18,912 Corvallis city, OR ...................................................... 54,462 Attachment B The National Citizen Survey™ 70 Creve Coeur city, MO ................................................ 17,833 Cross Roads town, TX ................................................. 1,563 Dacono city, CO ......................................................... 4,152 Dade City city, FL ....................................................... 6,437 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 Davenport city, IA .................................................... 99,685 Davidson town, NC ................................................... 10,944 Decatur city, GA ....................................................... 19,335 Del Mar city, CA.......................................................... 4,161 Delaware city, OH..................................................... 34,753 Delray Beach city, FL ................................................ 60,522 Denison city, TX ....................................................... 22,682 Denton city, TX ...................................................... 113,383 Denver city, CO ...................................................... 600,158 Derby city, KS .......................................................... 22,158 Des Moines city, IA ................................................. 203,433 Des Peres city, MO ..................................................... 8,373 Destin city, FL .......................................................... 12,305 Dothan city, AL......................................................... 65,496 Douglas County, CO................................................ 285,465 Dover city, NH .......................................................... 29,987 Dublin city, CA.......................................................... 46,036 Dublin city, OH ......................................................... 41,751 Duluth city, MN ........................................................ 86,265 Duncanville city, TX .................................................. 38,524 Durham city, NC ..................................................... 228,330 Durham County, NC ................................................ 267,587 Eagle town, CO .......................................................... 6,508 East Baton Rouge Parish, LA ................................... 440,171 East Grand Forks city, MN ........................................... 8,601 East Lansing city, MI................................................. 48,579 Eau Claire city, WI .................................................... 65,883 Eden Prairie city, MN ................................................ 60,797 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 city, TX ...................................................... 649,121 Elk Grove city, CA ................................................... 153,015 Elk River city, MN ..................................................... 22,974 Elko New Market city, MN ........................................... 4,110 Elmhurst city, IL ....................................................... 44,121 Encinitas city, CA ...................................................... 59,518 Englewood city, CO................................................... 30,255 Erie town, CO ........................................................... 18,135 Escambia County, FL .............................................. 297,619 Estes Park town, CO ................................................... 5,858 Fairview town, TX ....................................................... 7,248 Farmersville city, TX ................................................... 3,301 Farmington Hills city, MI ........................................... 79,740 Fayetteville city, NC ................................................ 200,564 Fishers town, IN ....................................................... 76,794 Flower Mound town, TX ............................................ 64,669 Forest Grove city, OR ................................................ 21,083 Fort Collins city, CO ................................................ 143,986 Fort Lauderdale city, FL .......................................... 165,521 Fort Smith city, AR.................................................... 86,209 Fort Worth city, TX ................................................. 741,206 Fountain Hills town, AZ ............................................. 22,489 Franklin city, TN ....................................................... 62,487 Fredericksburg city, VA ............................................. 24,286 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 Geneva city, NY ....................................................... 13,261 Georgetown city, TX ................................................. 47,400 Germantown city, TN ............................................... 38,844 Gilbert town, AZ ...................................................... 208,453 Gillette city, WY ....................................................... 29,087 Glendora city, CA ..................................................... 50,073 Glenview village, IL .................................................. 44,692 Globe city, AZ ............................................................ 7,532 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 Grand Island city, NE ............................................... 48,520 Grants Pass city, OR ................................................. 34,533 Grass Valley city, CA................................................. 12,860 Greenville city, NC .................................................... 84,554 Greenwich town, CT ................................................. 61,171 Greenwood Village city, CO ....................................... 13,925 Greer city, SC .......................................................... 25,515 Guilford County, NC ................................................ 488,406 Gunnison County, CO ............................................... 15,324 Hailey city, ID ............................................................ 7,960 Haines Borough, AK ................................................... 2,508 Hallandale Beach city, FL .......................................... 37,113 Hamilton city, OH ..................................................... 62,477 Hanover County, VA ................................................. 99,863 Harrisburg city, SD ..................................................... 4,089 Harrisonburg city, VA ............................................... 48,914 Harrisonville city, MO ............................................... 10,019 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 Holland city, MI........................................................ 33,051 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 Hudson city, OH ....................................................... 22,262 Hudson town, CO ....................................................... 2,356 Hudsonville city, MI .................................................... 7,116 Huntersville town, NC ............................................... 46,773 Hurst city, TX........................................................... 37,337 Hutchinson city, MN ................................................. 14,178 Hutto city, TX .......................................................... 14,698 Hyattsville city, MD .................................................. 17,557 Independence city, MO............................................ 116,830 Indian Trail town, NC ............................................... 33,518 Indianola city, IA...................................................... 14,782 Iowa City city, IA ..................................................... 67,862 Irving city, TX ......................................................... 216,290 Issaquah city, WA .................................................... 30,434 Jackson County, MI ................................................. 160,248 James City County, VA ............................................. 67,009 Attachment B The National Citizen Survey™ 71 Jefferson County, NY .............................................. 116,229 Johnson City city, TN ................................................ 63,152 Johnston city, IA ...................................................... 17,278 Jupiter town, FL ....................................................... 55,156 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 Kennett Square borough, PA ....................................... 6,072 Kettering city, OH ..................................................... 56,163 Key West city, FL ...................................................... 24,649 King City city, CA ...................................................... 12,874 King County, WA ................................................. 1,931,249 Kirkland city, WA ...................................................... 48,787 Kirkwood city, MO .................................................... 27,540 Knoxville city, IA ......................................................... 7,313 La Mesa city, CA ....................................................... 57,065 La Plata town, MD ...................................................... 8,753 La Porte city, TX ....................................................... 33,800 La Vista city, NE ....................................................... 15,758 Lafayette city, CO ..................................................... 24,453 Laguna Beach city, CA .............................................. 22,723 Laguna Hills city, CA ................................................. 30,344 Laguna Niguel city, CA .............................................. 62,979 Lake Forest city, IL ................................................... 19,375 Lake Oswego city, OR ............................................... 36,619 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 Lane County, OR .................................................... 351,715 Lansing city, MI ...................................................... 114,297 Laramie city, WY ...................................................... 30,816 Larimer County, CO ................................................ 299,630 Las Vegas city, NV .................................................. 583,756 Lawrence city, KS ..................................................... 87,643 Lee's Summit city, MO .............................................. 91,364 Lehi city, UT ............................................................. 47,407 Lenexa city, KS ......................................................... 48,190 Lewis County, NY ..................................................... 27,087 Lewiston city, ID ...................................................... 31,894 Lewisville city, TX ..................................................... 95,290 Libertyville village, IL ................................................ 20,315 Lincoln city, NE....................................................... 258,379 Lindsborg city, KS ....................................................... 3,458 Little Chute village, WI .............................................. 10,449 Littleton city, CO....................................................... 41,737 Livermore city, CA .................................................... 80,968 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 Altos Hills town, CA .............................................. 7,922 Louisville city, CO ..................................................... 18,376 Lynchburg city, VA.................................................... 75,568 Lynnwood city, WA ................................................... 35,836 Macomb County, MI................................................ 840,978 Manhattan Beach city, CA ......................................... 35,135 Manhattan city, KS ................................................... 52,281 Mankato city, MN...................................................... 39,309 Maple Grove city, MN ................................................ 61,567 Marshfield city, WI.................................................... 19,118 Martinez city, CA ...................................................... 35,824 Marysville city, WA ................................................... 60,020 Matthews town, NC .................................................. 27,198 McAllen city, TX ...................................................... 129,877 McDonough city, GA ................................................. 22,084 McMinnville city, OR ................................................. 32,187 Menlo Park city, CA .................................................. 32,026 Mercer Island city, WA ............................................. 22,699 Meridian charter township, MI .................................. 39,688 Meridian city, ID ...................................................... 75,092 Merriam city, KS....................................................... 11,003 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 Mission Viejo city, CA ............................................... 93,305 Modesto city, CA ..................................................... 201,165 Monterey city, CA ..................................................... 27,810 Montgomery County, VA ........................................... 94,392 Monticello city, UT...................................................... 1,972 Monument town, CO .................................................. 5,530 Mooresville town, NC ................................................ 32,711 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 Needham CDP, MA ................................................... 28,886 New Braunfels city, TX ............................................. 57,740 New Brighton city, MN .............................................. 21,456 New Hanover County, NC ........................................ 202,667 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 Nogales city, AZ ....................................................... 20,837 Norcross city, GA ....................................................... 9,116 Norfolk city, VA ....................................................... 242,803 North Port city, FL .................................................... 57,357 North Richland Hills city, TX ...................................... 63,343 Northglenn city, CO .................................................. 35,789 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 Ogdensburg city, NY ................................................ 11,128 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 Orland Park village, IL .............................................. 56,767 Oshkosh city, WI ...................................................... 66,083 Oshtemo charter township, MI .................................. 21,705 Attachment B The National Citizen Survey™ 72 Otsego County, MI ................................................... 24,164 Oviedo city, FL ......................................................... 33,342 Paducah city, KY....................................................... 25,024 Palm Beach Gardens city, FL ..................................... 48,452 Palm Coast city, FL ................................................... 75,180 Palo Alto city, CA ...................................................... 64,403 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 Pasadena city, CA ................................................... 137,122 Pasco city, WA ......................................................... 59,781 Pasco County, FL .................................................... 464,697 Pearland city, TX ...................................................... 91,252 Peoria city, AZ ........................................................ 154,065 Peoria city, IL ......................................................... 115,007 Peoria County, IL .................................................... 186,494 Pflugerville city, TX ................................................... 46,936 Phoenix city, AZ .................................................. 1,445,632 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 Plymouth city, MN .................................................... 70,576 Pocatello city, ID ...................................................... 54,255 Polk County, IA ...................................................... 430,640 Pompano Beach city, FL ............................................ 99,845 Port Orange city, FL .................................................. 56,048 Portland city, OR .................................................... 583,776 Post Falls city, ID...................................................... 27,574 Powell city, OH ......................................................... 11,500 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 Radnor township, PA ................................................ 31,531 Ramsey city, MN....................................................... 23,668 Raymond town, ME .................................................... 4,436 Raymore city, MO ..................................................... 19,206 Redmond city, WA .................................................... 54,144 Rehoboth Beach city, DE ............................................. 1,327 Reno city, NV ......................................................... 225,221 Reston CDP, VA ........................................................ 58,404 Richmond city, CA .................................................. 103,701 Richmond Heights city, MO ......................................... 8,603 Rifle city, CO .............................................................. 9,172 Rio Rancho city, NM.................................................. 87,521 River Falls city, WI .................................................... 15,000 Riverside city, CA.................................................... 303,871 Riverside city, MO ....................................................... 2,937 Roanoke County, VA ................................................. 92,376 Rochester Hills city, MI ............................................. 70,995 Rock Hill city, SC ...................................................... 66,154 Rockville city, MD ..................................................... 61,209 Rogers city, MN .......................................................... 8,597 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 Saco city, ME ........................................................... 18,482 Sahuarita town, AZ ................................................... 25,259 Salida city, CO ........................................................... 5,236 Sammamish city, WA................................................ 45,780 San Anselmo town, CA ............................................. 12,336 San Antonio city, TX ............................................. 1,327,407 San Carlos city, CA ................................................... 28,406 San Diego city, CA ............................................... 1,307,402 San Francisco city, CA ............................................. 805,235 San Jose city, CA .................................................... 945,942 San Juan County, NM .............................................. 130,044 San Marcos city, CA.................................................. 83,781 San Marcos city, TX .................................................. 44,894 San Rafael city, CA ................................................... 57,713 Sanford city, FL ........................................................ 53,570 Sangamon County, IL .............................................. 197,465 Santa Clarita city, CA ............................................... 176,320 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 Scott County, MN .................................................... 129,928 Scottsdale city, AZ .................................................. 217,385 Seaside city, CA ....................................................... 33,025 Sevierville city, TN.................................................... 14,807 Shawnee city, KS ..................................................... 62,209 Sheboygan city, WI .................................................. 49,288 Sherborn town, MA .................................................... 4,119 Shoreview city, MN .................................................. 25,043 Shorewood city, MN ................................................... 7,307 Shorewood village, IL ............................................... 15,615 Shorewood village, WI.............................................. 13,162 Sierra Vista city, AZ .................................................. 43,888 Sioux Center city, IA .................................................. 7,048 Sioux Falls city, SD .................................................. 153,888 Skokie village, IL ...................................................... 64,784 Snellville city, GA ..................................................... 18,242 South Lake Tahoe city, CA ........................................ 21,403 Southborough town, MA ............................................. 9,767 Southlake city, TX .................................................... 26,575 Spokane Valley city, WA ........................................... 89,755 Spring Hill city, KS ...................................................... 5,437 Springboro city, OH .................................................. 17,409 Springfield city, MO ................................................. 159,498 Springville city, UT ................................................... 29,466 St. Augustine city, FL ............................................... 12,975 St. Charles city, IL .................................................... 32,974 St. Cloud city, FL ...................................................... 35,183 St. Cloud city, MN .................................................... 65,842 St. Joseph city, MO .................................................. 76,780 St. Louis County, MN ............................................... 200,226 St. Louis Park city, MN.............................................. 45,250 Stallings town, NC .................................................... 13,831 State College borough, PA ........................................ 42,034 Steamboat Springs city, CO ...................................... 12,088 Sterling Heights city, MI .......................................... 129,699 Sugar Grove village, IL ............................................... 8,997 Sugar Land city, TX .................................................. 78,817 Suisun City city, CA .................................................. 28,111 Summit city, NJ........................................................ 21,457 Summit County, UT .................................................. 36,324 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 Attachment B The National Citizen Survey™ 73 Tempe city, AZ ....................................................... 161,719 Texarkana city, TX .................................................... 36,411 The Woodlands CDP, TX ........................................... 93,847 Thornton city, CO ................................................... 118,772 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 Twin Falls city, ID ..................................................... 44,125 Tyler city, TX ............................................................ 96,900 Umatilla city, OR......................................................... 6,906 University Park city, TX ............................................. 23,068 Upper Arlington city, OH ........................................... 33,771 Urbandale city, IA ..................................................... 39,463 Vail town, CO ............................................................. 5,305 Vancouver city, WA ................................................ 161,791 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 Wake Forest town, NC .............................................. 30,117 Walnut Creek city, CA ............................................... 64,173 Washington County, MN.......................................... 238,136 Washington town, NH ................................................. 1,123 Washougal city, WA .................................................. 14,095 Watauga city, TX ...................................................... 23,497 Wauwatosa city, WI .................................................. 46,396 Waverly city, IA .......................................................... 9,874 Weddington town, NC ................................................ 9,459 Wentzville city, MO................................................... 29,070 West Carrollton city, OH ........................................... 13,143 West Chester borough, PA ........................................ 18,461 West Des Moines city, IA .......................................... 56,609 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 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 Winchester city, VA .................................................. 26,203 Windsor town, CO .................................................... 18,644 Windsor town, CT .................................................... 29,044 Winnetka village, IL.................................................. 12,187 Winston-Salem city, NC ........................................... 229,617 Winter Garden city, FL .............................................. 34,568 Woodbury city, MN................................................... 61,961 Woodland city, CA .................................................... 55,468 Wrentham town, MA ................................................ 10,955 Wyandotte County, KS ............................................ 157,505 Yakima city, WA ....................................................... 91,067 York County, VA....................................................... 65,464 Yorktown town, IN ..................................................... 9,405 Yountville city, CA ...................................................... 2,933 Attachment B Table of Contents Page 1 City Organization and Information Page 2 Progress in Fiscal Year 2016 Page 3 Fiscal Year 2016 Revenues and Expenditures Page 4 What's Next? City’s Economic Outlook and Moving Forward Demographics Information FY 2014 FY 2015 Population* 65,234 65,998 Average travel time to work* 22.1 minutes 22.3 minutes Median household income* $121,465 $126,771 Median home sales price $1,810,869 $2,145,968 Number of authorized City staff 1,147 1,153 FY 2016 66,478 23.1 minutes $135,519 $2,275,635 1,168 City Organization and Information Incorporated in 1894, the City of Palo Alto covers 26 square miles and is located in the heart of Silicon Valley. Palo Alto has about 66,000 residents and the daytime population is estimated at about 127,000. Stanford University, adjacent to Palo Alto and one of the top- rated institutions of higher education in the nation, has produced much of the talent that founded successful high-tech companies in Palo Alto and Silicon Valley. The total daytime population for Palo Alto and Stanford is about 154,000. The City of Palo Alto provides a full range of municipal services, in addition to owning and operating its own utility system, including electricity, gas, water, wastewater treatment, refuse, storm drain, and fiber optics. The City also offers expanded service delivery, including fire protection service for Palo Alto and Stanford. The Regional Water Quality Control Plant serves the cities of Palo Alto, Mountain View, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Stanford, and East Palo Alto. Animal Services provides animal control services to the cities of Palo Alto, Los Altos, and Los Altos Hills, and residents from neighboring cities often use the animal spay and neuter services. City residents elect nine members to the City Council to serve staggered four-year terms. Each January, Council members elect a Mayor and Vice-Mayor. The City of Palo Alto operates under a Council-manager form of government. 1 * Figures reflect American Community Survey data ** Zillow.com The City of Palo Alto’s Values Quality Superior delivery of services Courtesy Providing service with respect and concern Efficiency Productive, effective use of resources Integrity Straightforward, honest, and fair relations Innovation Excellence in creative thought and implementation Additional information is available at the Office of the City Auditor’s website, http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/aud/default.asp The City of Palo Alto, California A Report to Our CiƟzens Attachment C Progress in Fiscal Year 2016 Themes for 2016 Themes allow users to understand the performance of cross-departmental programs or initiatives, while continuing to present information by individual departments. ► Stewardship: Financial Responsibility Neighborhood Preservation Environmental Sustainability ► Public Service: Public Safety Services Utility Services Internal City Services ► Community: Community Involvement and Enrichment Safety, Health, and Well-Being Density and Development Mobility Key Measures Additional information is available at the City of Palo Alto’s website, http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/aud/default.asp All percent ratings as “excellent/good” FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Ranking compared to other surveyed jurisdictions GENERAL COMMUNITY CHARACTERISTICS Palo Alto as a place to live 95% 92% 91% Similar Overall quality of life in Palo Alto 91% 88% 85% Similar Overall image or reputation of Palo Alto 92% 88% 86% Higher Overall appearance of Palo Alto 89% 89% 87% Higher STEWARDSHIP General Fund Operating Expenditures Per Capita (in millions) $2,412 $2,492 $2,798 Overall natural environment in Palo Alto 88% 86% 84% Similar Your neighborhood as a place to live 92% 90% 91% Similar PUBLIC SERVICE Overall confidence in Palo Alto government 52% 53% 44% Similar Overall customer service by Palo Alto employees (police, receptionists, planners, etc.) 81% 74% 77% Similar Police services 87% 88% 88% Similar Fire services 95% 97% 97% Similar COMMUNITY Overall feeling of safety in Palo Alto as “very/somewhat safe” 92% 91% 94% Higher Overall ease of getting to the places you usually have to visit 71% 65% 67% Similar Overall “built environment” of Palo Alto (including overall design, buildings, parks, and transportation systems) 67% 63% 59% Similar Openness and acceptance of the community toward people of diverse backgrounds 76% 68% 72% Similar Preservation of natural areas such as open space, farmlands, and greenbelts 80% 77% 78% Higher Opportunity to participate in community matters 75% 76% 69% Similar Opportunities to volunteer 83% 80% 77% Similar Cost of living in Palo Alto 11% 8% 7% Much lower Palo Alto as a place to visit 75% 74% 72% Similar The value of services for taxes paid to Palo Alto 66% 65% 58% Similar Services provided by Palo Alto 83% 85% 81% Similar Generally acting in the best interest of the community 54% 53% 44% Similar Economic development 73% 69% 61% Similar Sense of community 64% 60% 57% Similar 2 How We Have Progressed Attachment C The City’s Finances Revenues and Expenditures Primary Sources of General Fund Revenues Primary General Fund Expenditures Additional information is available at the City of Palo Alto’s website, http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/aud/default.asp Revenues by Source FY 2015 Actual Revenues FY 2016 Actual Revenues Property Tax $34.1 million $36.6 million Sales Tax $29.7 million $30.0 million Charges for Services $25.9 million $23.9 million Transient Occupancy Tax $16.7 million $22.4 million Rental Income $14.9 million $15.8 million Utility Users Tax $10.9 million $12.5 million Documentary Transfer Tax $10.4 million $6.3 million All Other Revenues $7.8 Million $10.4 million Permits and Licenses $7.1 million $7.9 million Total Revenues: $157.5 million $165.8 million 3 Source: FY 2016 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) Source: FY 2016 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) Expenditures by Source FY 2015 Actual Expenditures FY 2016 Actual Expenditures Public Safety $61.2 million $63.5 million Community Services $23.0 million $24.3 million Public Works $11.4 million $12.3 million Development Services $11.1 million $10.6 million Library $8.0 million $8.0 million Planning and Community Environment $7.4 million $9.1 million All Others $7.4 million $8.2 million Nondepartmental $5.6 million $5.7 million Administrative Services $3.7 million $3.5 million Total Expenditures: $138.8 million $145.2 million Attachment C What’s Next? City’s Budget and Accomplishments Palo Alto is truly a special place - a community with a rich history of entrepreneurship, with some of the world’s smartest and most creative people. With an unparalleled quality of life, there is no better place than Palo Alto to live, work, raise a family, grow a business or visit. Palo Alto continues to be a driving force in the global economy, a leader in sustainability, and the innovations developed here change the world. City Council 2016 Priorities The City Council held its annual retreat in Jan. 2016 to discuss and adopt its priorities. Each year, the Council sets its priorities giving the community a clear definition of what the City is trying to accomplish. For 2016, the Council adopted four priorities that will receive significant attention throughout the year. The 2016 Council Priorities are: The Built Environment: Housing, Parking, Livability and Mobility Infrastructure Healthy City, Healthy Community Completion of the Comprehensive Plan City of Palo Alto Budget In June 2016, the City Council adopted the Budget for Fiscal Year 2017 (July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017) in the amount of $641.8 million, which includes ongoing funding for the City’s public safety, library, parks and recreation, utility, and internal support department functions as well as improvements to our roads, facilities, and utility infrastructure. Despite the growing economy and increased tax revenues, the City continues to prudently deliver services while remaining cognizant of the City’s long-term fiscal sustainability. To enhance the quality of life for residents, City’s budget included increased resources in transportation initiatives, including additional staffing for the bicycle capital improvement projects, funding for the Transportation Management Authority, and added a permanent staff person to the Teens Programs. Further, we added staff to support major renovations to the Regional Water Quality Control Plant, while splitting costs with our partners. In addition, a Senior Engineer was added in the Recycled Water Program to help meet City and State goals for reducing the use of potable water. The City will continue the rehabilitation of streets and sidewalks and make improvements to the existing utility infrastructure. Furthermore, the City’s Utility continues to provide excellent services in the delivery of electricity, gas, and water as well as wastewater treatment and garbage and recycling collection services at competitive rates. The Office of the City Auditor is responsible for independently evaluating the City’s programs, services, and departments. For 14 years our office has issued the City’s annual Performance Report (formerly Service Efforts and Accomplishments) to supplement the City’s financial reports and statements. If you are interested in viewing the City’s complete annual performance report, please visit: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/aud/reports/accomplishments.asp About Citizen Centric Reporting The Association of Government Accountants (AGA) developed guidance on producing Citizen Centric Reporting as a method to demonstrate accountability to residents and answer the question, “Are we better off today than we were last year?” Additional details can be found at the AGA website: www.agacgfm.org (under Resources) 4 From the City Manager Attachment C ,2016 COUNCIL PRIORITIES Sorted by Color ( 1 2 ( ......... 4 DEPT. , COUNCIL LEAD PRIORITY CMO CP CSD HC 1cso IHC ICSD llN PROJECT NAME Sustainability and Climate Action Plan (S/CAP) Homeless Services I Healthy City Healthy Community Resolution ICubberley Master Plan Council Retreat OUTPUT /OUTCOME 2016 ACTION STEPS Develop world class goals and strategy 1· Produce comprehensive plan and implementation roadmaps to achieve basic and aggressive greenhouse gas to guide next generation sustainability emissions reductions with measures that are technically, financially, legally and socially feasible. efforts for City and community. • Provide findings and recommendations to Council and community. • Develop process for integration of SCAP and CompPlan • Develop 3-5 year implementation plans for specific SCAP elements Strategic alignment and investment in I Formulate options and recommendations on advancing Palo Alto's involvement regional efforts to support the unhoused. Reconvene the Healthy City Healthy • Re-convene a diverse stakeholder group Community working group to advance • Meet through-out the year to advance the Healthy Cities Healthy Community 2016 work plan: community health as defined in the 1. Create a welcome packet for new residents that orients individuals and families to the many health and Council adopted Healthy City Healthy wellness opportunities available in Palo Alto; Community Resolution. 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. I Begin the Cubberley Master Plan 1 · Joint statement on commitment process in collaboration with PAUSD • Eneaee the Community in an event at Cubberley beein the public engagement phase of the Master Plan and the community. process • Leveraee Stanford Desien School and other partners in a design thinking challenge for process design • Seek Board of Education and Council aereement on a vision, and essential elements needed in the Master Plan • Prepare a scope services and release an RFP Cubberley Master Plan design BE: Built Environment HC: Healthy City CP: Comprehensive Plan IN : Infrastructure 0 : Other PROJECT MANAGER Minka van der Zwaag Kristen O'Kane Rob de Geus DEPT. SUPPORT DS, PLN, PW UTL CSD: Rob de Geus CMOJim Keene, Ed Shikada; PCE Jeremy Dennis CSD Rob de Geus; Minka van der Zwaag, Stephanie Douglas PSO - Rumi Portillo CMO Claudia Keith; PCE - Jonathan Lait CSD Kristen O'Kane, Adam Howard, Stephanie DouglasCMO Jim Keene, PWD -Brad Eggleston I I COUNCIL RETREAT RANKING 6 4 3 5 Impact of Budget and Current Staffing on Ability to Complete BUDGET: Reduction of requested contingency may affect consultant support. May require supplement funding to complete listed tasks. STAFFING: Will depend on availability of staff from other departments Not fully budgeted or adequately resourced. Council approved additional funding to continue strategic investment to house homeless individuals in partnership with Santa Clara County in the FY 2017 budget. No specific budget is allocated for HCHC. In collaboration with HCHC stakeholder working group we completed most Actions Steps by end of the 2016 calendar year. HCHC stakeholder group will reconvene in January 2017 to plan for year ahead. Budgeted and Resourced. PAUSD and City Staff working together have drefted scope of services prepared for Cubberley Master Plan, RFP to be released February 2017. JANUARY 28, 2017 December 2016 Update I Go for Council Retreat Council adopted the S/CAP 80x30 goal in April, and the S/CAP Framework in November. Staff will return with 3 year Sustainability Implementation Plans (SIPs) in Spring 2017. OR No Go 1 2016 COUNCIL PRIORITIES Sorted by Color 0 5 6 8 9 t DEPT. LEAD ICSD ICSD/ PWD DSD IDSD CMO ITS IFIRE COUNCIL PRIORITY llN ICP IBE BE IHC PROJECT NAME OUTPUT /OUTCOME !Junior Museum & I Develop an agreement between the Friends of the Junior Museum and Zoo Zoo Project and the City of Palo Alto to rebuild the facility I Parks, Trails, Open Develop a Parks and Recreation Master Plan to guide future Space & Recreation renovations, expansions and Master Plan improvements I Seismically Update the inventory of seismically vulnerable buildings and support City Vulnerable Building Council consideration of an ordinance Ordinance with priorities and incentives and requirements for addressing hazards. construction in the Rr~, .. · ... , .... ,,.., ....... '"" prioritize all city related work in the 0-W Notification Right of Way. The tool will provide Tool 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-0-W (In the interim, continue to enhance home webpage notifications) I Fire & Rescue -Identify opportunities to reduce Community Risk community risk, especially in high risk populations (over age 65, under age Reduction 13) Council Retreat 2016 ACTION STEPS • 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. • 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. •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 • Prepare a SOW that encompasses all the needs of the different departments ; • Go through IT Governance; • Solicit bids and select a vendor; • Enter into contract with the vendor of choice; • Implement the solution that is department agnostic and displays all City Work on one site; • Continue to monitor and implement the solution. • Determine project scope; • Identify successful outcomes and community partners; • Meet with prospective consultants who have done similar projects for local hospitals; • Enter into contract with the professional services vendor of choice; • Complete study I Implement recommendations; • Continue to monitor and implement the solution. BE: Built Environment HC : Healthy City CP : Comprehensive Plan IN : Infrastructure 0 : Other I PROJECT MANAGER Rhy Halpern Kristen O'Kane George Hoyt Eric Nickel I DEPT. SUPPORT 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 CSD -Daren Anderson, Kristen O'Kane. PWD -Peter Jensen -Brad Eggleston PCE I Community Services, Police, OES,CMO COUNCIL RETREAT RANKING 3 5 2 0 1 Impact of Budget and Current Staffing on Ability to Complete New JMZ building and zoo design drafted, and agreements drafted. Agreements being reviewed by attorney s office, design being reviewed by boards and commissions. Friends of the JMZ have raised $24.SM of the $2SM fundraising goal. Master Plan Draft is complete and was unanimously endorsed by the Parks and Recreation Commission pending CEQA review. Anticipate Council approval by April 2017 Budgeted and Resourced I Not Budgeted Not Resourced Reapropriation from FY16 for study only. Consultant initiating study Feb 17 on Community Health Needs Assessment. Staffed with current EMS Chief and Admin Battalion Chief working on this as a special project for career development. JANUARY 28, 2017 December 2016 Update for Council Retreat 'Schedule to go before the Policy & Services Committee on March 14th, 2017 I Signing contract moving forward Accreditation in progress (completion planned 2nd Quarter 2017). Consultant initiating study Feb 17 on Community Health Needs Assessment.67% COMPLETED Go OR No Go 2 2016 COUNCIL PRIORITIES Sorted by Color 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 DEPT. I COUNCIL LEAD PRIORITY ITS IN IUB IBE IUB IHC IPCE IBE IPCE IBE IPCE IBE IPCE IBE O IPCE IBE PROJECT NAME Wireless Network Master Plan Assessment I Library Bike Outreach I New Americans Project ICal Train Grade Crossing/ Separation OUTPUT /OUTCOME Arrive at a Council-directed decision to work with a vendor to provide a broadband wireless support infrastructure for Public Safety and Utilities. 12 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 I newly-arrived residents will learn library functions, use, and be oriented to community [New) Undertake the analysis, outreach, and other tasks necessary to advance grade separation of Caltrain crossings in Palo Alto ongoing bicycle boulevard projects and I Bike & Pedestrian r nalize Concept Plan Line work for 23 Plan Implementation initiate final design and construction !Traffic Signal Timing ) Update traffic signal timing where needed I Paid Parking Study )Analyze parking downtown and consider paid parking alternatives I Housing: Second I Consider changes in policy and regulations to incentivize additional Dwelling units dwelling units ("granny units"). Council Retreat 2016 ACTION STEPS • 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 Received grant, Nov. 201S; Purchase/installation: May 2016; programs: July, 2016 ESL discussion groups began in 201S; outreach to community stakeholders/coordination of activities to be strengthened in 2016 [New] Retain the services of a program manager; undertake a circulation study & "context sensitive solution" public engagement process; prepare for the preliminary engineering, environmental review, and review of financing options in future years. Complete final design of Churchill Phase I, Maybell, Wilkie, Park and Bryant Extension; complete concept plans and secure approvvals for Ross, Amarillo-Moreno, Loma Verde, and Bryant update; coordinate with PW in advance of resurfacing projects for striping changes 1 • Implement adaptive traffic signal timing along San Antonio Road • Make other signal timing adjustments across the City as needed 1 · Established a stakeholder group; complete data collection; analyze issues and opportunities; present for Council direction; finalize recommendations. 1 · PTC direction and data collection; analysis of options for consideration; City Council direction; develop ordinance for consideratin. BE: Built Environment HC : Healthy City CP: Comprehensive Plan IN : Infrastructure 0 : Other PROJECT I DEPT. I COUNCIL Impact of MANAGER SUPPORT RETREAT Budget and RANKING Current Staffing on Ability to Complete OES, Utilities 1 Jenny Jordan PW 0 This is underway, with 100% completion expected by end of summer, 2016; only staff time is part of FY17 budget. RuthAnn Garcia 1 This is underway and included as part of FY17 budget; 100% implementation expected Josh Mello Matt CMO, City 7 Budgeted in the McDonald Attorney, PW proposed CIP FY17-18. Program manager has been hired allowing for progress in 2017. Chris Corrao PW, City 6 None; addressed in the Attorney, CMO proposed Cl P. I Rafael Rius I Utilities I 6 I None I Vacant I City Attorney I 3 I Staff vacancies will affect delivery of final recommendations I Elena lee I City Attorney I 2 r one JANUARY 28, 2017 December 2016 Update !Go I for Council Retreat Wireless plans are proceeding well. Staff is close to issuing RFPs for both Public Safety and Utilities wireless builds. Percentage complete: 25% I 100% completed, Nov. 2016. 100% work completed, now incorporated into regular service model.Includes beginning and advanced English as a Second Language discussion groups, an ESL book discussion club, monthly family programs about American culture, special events for the whole community to discuss/share cultural ideas. 5% complete. We retained the program manager. Now we are ready to initiate the circulation study and alternatives analysis with goal of providing Council with information for selection of a preferred alternative in early 2018. 90% complete. Final design of Churchill Phase I, Maybell, Wilkie, Park and Bryant Extension nearing completion for construction in 2017. Concept plans approved for other routes (except Loma Verde). 100% complete. Signal timing adjustments on other streets are ongoing. 90% complete. Study recommendatins will be presented to the Council in March 2017. 100% complete. PTC recommended ordinance is pending before the City Council. IOR IND Go 3 2016 COUNCIL PRIORITIES Sorted by Color DEPT. I COUNCIL LEAD PRIORITY 18 IPCE BE 19 IPCE BE PROJECT NAME IR Program review Embarcadero Road Phase II Council Retreat OUTPUT /OUTCOME 2016 ACTION STEPS Conduct an impartial review of the IR I Develop a report based on input from stakeholders; suggest updates to the guidelines and implementing process and recommend any necessary ordinance as needed; review report with the PTC & Council. changes. Design and construct traffic, I Contract award; public input and Caltrans coordination; conceptual design approval pedestrian, and bicycle improvements for Embarcadero between El Camino Real and Alma Street 20 IPCE BE Professorville Design I Complete neighborhood specific design I Reach out to stakeholders in Professorville regarding the objectives and scope of work; obtain grant funds and guidelines retain outside consultant; finalize recommendations and agendize for review by the PTC and City Council Guidelines 21 IPCE BE O IPCE BE 23 IPCE BE 24 PW BE 25 PW BE 26 PW CP CPI TMASupport Retail Preservation Ordinance (Downtown) Charleston/ Arastrad ero Corridor Project Dewatering Recycled Water (S/CAP link) Draft an Ordinance for consideration I Draft an ordinance for consideration by the PTC and the City Council by the City Council regarding siting and risks associated with plating shops of similar uses. Support efforts of the newly I Council study session and consideration of pilot funding agreement with conditions; annual survey of established Transportation commuters; oversight and support of TMA activities Management Association (TMA) aimed at reducing SOV trips downtown Support City Council Consideration of I Data collection and analysis of retail trends; outreach to stakeholders; return to Council for direction; draft Potential Modifications to Retail one or more ordinances for consideration by the PTC and Council. Protections in Downtown Preliminary design and environmental assessment for the corridor project from Fabian Way to Miranda Avenue Address public concerns regarding basement construction dewatering • Community Outreach on Landscaping Palette: 100% Complete • Coordinate with Caltrans and JPB/Caltrain: 100% Complete • Complete NEPA process: 100% Complete • Develop final design to 65% level: 0% Complete Develop new requirements for basement construction dewatering Expand recycled water use by imposing Contract with consultant for RO Feasibility Study ; 100 % Complete; contract with consultant for Recycled recycled water quality by advanced Water Strategic Planning and Groundwater Management Plan; 100 % Complete; Partner funding agreements water treatment feasibility study and with SCVWD and City of Mountain View 100 % Complete; Decide Go/No Go On Recycled Water extension to develop a recycled water strategic Research Park; 20 % Complete planning effort within North Santa Clara County BE: Built Environment HC : Healthy City CP: Comprehensive Plan IN : Infrastructure 0: Other PROJECT MANAGER Anu Shah la Vacant Hillary Vacant Jean Holly Boyd I DEPT. I SUPPORT I City Attorney PAUSD I City Attorney City Attorney City Attorney, CMO City Attorney CMO PCE Utl, Atty I I COUNCIL RETREAT RANKING 2 1 1 0 2 1 3 JANUARY 28, 2017 Impact of December 2016 Update Budget and for Council Retreat Current Staffing on Ability to Complete I !None I 100% complete. Study prepared and reviewed with the PTC. Did not review with Council, but received Council direction to prioritize Eichler Guidelines and related changes. CIP funding for 100% complete. Conceptual design construction in FY18-19 approved. Nest steps: final design, environmental review, Caltrans encroachment permit I None. I 100% complete. Guidelines adopted. Complete 100% complete Vacant position must be 1100% complete and ongoing filled to make meaningful progress Combined with citywide 1100% complete. Ordinanc is pending ordinance (above) before the City Council. (Combined with Citywide ordinance above) None None; new requirements are being implemented in pilot program, but it is too early to judge their success Water district Funding appears to be committed , but mostly not available until July 1, 2016; Other agencies are supportive, New City Staffer approved by Finance Committee for FY 2017 Completion of 65% level design expected in March 2017, with construction of first phase beginning in fall 2017. P&S Committee recommendations for 2017 construction season will be considered by Council in early 2017. Contract has been approved and work has started. Go IOR 1:: 4 2016 COUNCIL PRIORITIES Sorted by Color ( DEPT. I COUNCIL LEAD PRIORITY PROJECT NAME OUTPUT/OUTCOME 27 IPW ICP I Urban Forest Master I Continue to work with community and environmental representatives to Plan finalize the Urban Forest Masterplan while completing the implementation of the plan. 28 IPW IHC !Smoking Ban I Restrict smoking in multifamily areas and establish tobacco retailer licensing 29 IPW llN I Public Safety r reate a new facility built to Essential Services standards to house Police, 911 Building Project Dispatch, Emergency Services, Fire Admin, and the Emergency Operations Center on parking lot C-6 30 IPW llN I Downtown Parking I Finalize location, select design concept, begin preliminary design Garage 31 IPW llN I California Ave I Create a new parking garage with a Parking Garage 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 32 IPW llN I Highway 101 Select design concept and begin Pedestrian/ preliminary design for new, year-round Pedestrian/Bicycle Overcrossing Bicycle Overcrossing at Adobe Creek 33 IPW llN I Fire Station No. 3 Rebuild Fire Station No.3 at Embarcadero Road and Newell Road Replacement u Council Retreat 2016 ACTION STEPS 1.Continue to analyze funding and staffing levels necessary to implement this plan. 2. Continuing phase 1 implementation which is 75% complete. 3. Continuing phase 2 of implementation which is 75% complete. 4. Report back to council fall of 2017 to seek final adoption of the plan. Staff will begin phase 3 implementation July 2017. Multifamily Ordinance and licensing agreement to be adopted. 100 % Complete • Hire Construction Management (CM} firm to assist with project: 100% Complete • Hire Architect and begin design development and EIR: 100% Complete • Complete pre-design and schematic design phases:100% Complete • Begin design development phase: 0% Complete Return to Council for further policy direction with assistance from Planning: 100% Complete • Hire Construction Management (CM} firm to assist with project: 100% Complete • Hire Architect and begin design development and EIR: 100% Complete • Complete schematic design and select preferred configuration: 0% Complete • Select a design consultant through a Request for Proposal process by February 2016: Will be 100% Complete May2017 •Begin design in March 2016: Will be 100% Complete June 2017 • Complete development of 65% design documents: 25% Complete • Complete environmental studies and documentation: 25% Complete 1 · Begin Fire Station and temporary facility design: 100% Complete • Select location for temporary station: 100% Complete • Complete pre-design, schematic design, and design development: 7S% Complete • Hire construction management firm & begin contractor pre-qualification: 50% Complete BE: Built Environment HC : Healthy City CP: Comprehensive Plan IN : Infrastructure O : Other JANUARY 28, 2017 PROJECT I DEPT. I COUNCIL Impact of December 2016 Update I Go MANAGER SUPPORT RETREAT Budget and for Council Retreat RANKING Current Staffing IOR on Ability to Complete I !No Go Walter Passmore Development 1 Staffing levels currently I Phase 1 of implementation is Services, CMO, under evaluation. complete and phase 2 is underway. Utilities, Additional funding will be required to implement the plan fully. This will have an impact on our ability to complete this project. PD,PCE 3 Staff time not available I The multifamily unit ban has been to establish smoking adopted and licensing agreement restrictions inside with the County is signed Multifamily units. County cooperative but slow on retailer licensing for PA Matt Raschke PD, Fire, OES, 6 Budget and staffing are I Construction manager and architect and IT will be in place pending contracts have been approved. Pre- engaged in the approval of Program design work is underway. design process Manager contract Holly Boyd Planning will be 5 No funds Budgeted. Design funding budgeted in FY 2017; leading the Garage is in the IMP Contract for design and policy discussion environmental review was awarded by Council in December 2016. Matt Raschke Planning will be 5 Budget and staffing are Construction manager and architect engaged in the in place pending contracts have been approved. Pre- design process approval of Program design work is underway. Manager contract Elizabeth Ames PCE 5 None; however, Design work began in summer 2016 updated schedule and Council reviewed 15% design in begins design in June November. The design is going to and last two bullets will Boards and Commissions in early not be achieved in 2016 2017. Matt Raschke Fire, OES and IT 2 Budget and staffing are Council approved temporary location will be engaged in place pending at Geng Road. Progression of design in the design approval of Program to design development stage is process Manager contract delayed pending ARB approval. Construction is expected to begin in summer 2017. 5 2016 COUNCIL PRIORITIES Sorted by Color ( ) I DEPT. I COUNCIL , LEAD PRIORITY 34 IPW llN 35 IPW llN 36 IPW llN 37 PW IN 0 38 IPW llN 39 IPW IN PROJECT NAME !Golf Course Reconfiguration !Ventura Building Improvements I Matadero Creek Storm Water Pump Station Improvements Street Resurfacing Program IBaylands Interpretive Center Improvements Organics Facilities Plan OUTPUT /OUTCOME I Complete reconstruction of the Golf Course, including substantial regrading, new irrigation system, and environmental enhancements I Replace or upgrade the mechanical and electrical systems and provide accessibility improvements to the Ventura Community Center facility Capacity upgrade to the Matadero Creek Storm Water Pump Station, an essential element of the storm drain system serving a 1,2SO-acre watershed area Continue resurfacing streets to meet average citywide pavement condition index (PCI) score of 8S by 2019 Improvements to aging Center including Boardwalk repair feasibility study, and replacement of Center railing, decking, siding, flooring, cabinetry and doors Replace incinerators with new biosolids handling system I Council Retreat 2016 ACTION STEPS • Secure regulatory permits: 100% Complete •Award construction contract: 100% Complete • Complete 50% of project construction: 80% Complete • Complete ADA assessment of the facility: 100% Complete • Hire design firm: 100% Complete • Complete pre-design, schematic design, and design development phases: 100% Complete • Begin construction documents and apply for permits: SO% Complete • Complete project design: 100% Complete • Award construction project: 100% Complete • Complete 33% of project construction: 0% Complete • Complete paving of 70 city blocks: 100% Complete • includes 18 blocks to finish paving Middlefield and Alma with additional funding over 3 years • Complete preventive maintenance of 80 city blocks: 100% Complete • Continue frequent community outreach: 100% Complete • Raise citywide PCI score to 82: 100% Complete • Complete Boardwalk Feasibility Study: 100% Complete • Secure funding for boardwalk design and construction and complete design: 100% Complete • Complete design development for the Interpretive Center: 100% Complete • Obtain environmental and construction permits for the Interpretive Center: 100% Complete • Bid out the Interpretive Center project and begin construction: 100% Complete • Obtain approval of Dewatering Building from the ARB and the Planning Commission. 100% Complete • Complete 100% design drawings. • Prepare and issue IFB. • Select Contractor and award Contact. • Begin Construction. 40 PW IN SF Creek JPA Project Build downstream 101 Section of Flood ,. Obtain final permits from State & Feds: 100% Complete Control Project •Approve Funding Agreement (gap funding): 100% Complete 41 UTL 0 BE Customer The Utility Billing and Smart Grid systems are highly Integrated. Smart Information System I grid systems enable many alternatives Smart Grid such as the ability to offe~ time of ~se rate schedules and other information that promote energy conservation, reduce carbon emission, improve system reliability and provide real-time customer usage information. • Approve Construction Contract: 100% Complete • Begin Construction: 100% Complete • 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 BE: Built Environment HC : Healthy City CP : Comprehensive Plan IN : Infrastructure O : Other I PROJECT MANAGER Michel Jeremias Matt Raschke Michel Jeremias I Holly Boyd Elizabeth Ames Michel Jeremias Dave Yuan I DEPT. I SUPPORT C5D CSDand A50 will be engaged during the design process IUTL C5D PCE CMO, City Attorney I COUNCIL RETREAT RANKING 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 JANUARY 28, 2017 Impact of December 2016 Update I Go Budget and for Council Retreat Current Staffing IOR on Ability to Complete No Go Current budget is not Construction is approximately 40% adequate to award complete and the golf course is construction contract anticipated to reopen in November due to high bids; still 2017. not full certainty regarding regulatory permits Potential delay due to Designer is currently working on funding capital fund construction documents. budget constraints and Construction is expected to begin in staff workloads with summer 2017. post office prioritization None I Construction contract was awarded in December 2016. /None I CY 2016 work resulted in a December 2016 pavement condition index of 83. None; however, Design of the new Boardwalk is uncertainty in timing of underway. Construction of the regulatory permits and Interpretive Center improvements is short construction about 60% complete and the season could push Interpretive Center is expected to construction to fall 2017 reopen in April 2017. ARB approval completed Project proceeding on multiyear timeline The project is currently out to bid. Construction is approximate 15% complete. Project is proceeding. During a recent audit, however, an issue was encountered with water meters that points out challenges that may be encountered with concurrent implementation of electric, gas, and water meter management systems 6 .2016 COUNCIL PRIORITIES Sorted by Color 42 43 44 45 DEPT. I COUNCIL LEAD PRIORITY UTL IN IUTL IBE DSD I IBE IASD/ llN CMO PROJECT NAME Local Solar Generation Plan I Fuel Switching I Electrification I Middlefield Road Safety Study I Post Office OUTPUT /OUTCOME Council adopted the Local Solar Plan, which establishes the goal of meeting 4% of the City's energy needs from local solar by 2023 !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. I Assess safety at intersections along Middlefield Road near Menlo Park and implement needed improvements. Council Retreat 2016 ACTION STEPS • 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. • Develop Net Energy Metering Successor Program and Rates • 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 construction and remodeling projects. • Promote installation of EV supply equipment. Analyze safety after one year trial of time-of-day turn restrictions; community engagement and analysis of potential improvements; City Council direction/approval; implementation I Acquire and Renovate Downtown Post Purchase Post Office Office for City Offices Develop Funding Plan (including bridge funding at start) Begin Design for Renovation 46 ICMO IBE I Local Transportation I [Now) '''''" '"'' fuodlog ''"'"' '" l[Now) """"'"' ''"'"' '"' '""'"" " OHM• ....... ,.mtv of. '"'' fuodlog m'""" '" Nowmb .. 2016 transportation programs and Funding investments as a way to supplement the County sales tax measure 47 ICMO IBE I Business Registry pmplement phase two of the business • Enhance/ Test Upgraded Tool registry, deliver key data about • Launch Renewal Period March 1 businesses in Palo Alto, plan for • Deliver Upgraded Reports integration with other permits as • Plan for integration of other permits to launch in phase 3 phase 3 (subject to Council direction) 48 ICMO IHC !Airplane Noise I Continue to work with 1. Work through new governance structure-select committee Congresswoman Eshoo's Office, FAA, SFO Roundtable, Neighboring Cities and Sky Posse 0 BE: Built Environment HC: Healthy City CP: Comprehensive Plan IN : Infrastructure 0 : Other PROJECT MANAGER Jane Ratchye Jane Ratchye Rafael DEPT. SUPPORT PWD, OES Development Services, Sustainability Office CMO, City Attorney, PW PW, DSD, PCE DS, PLN, ATV, ASD, FD, IT City Attorney, PWD COUNCIL RETREAT RANKING 4 1 6 5 5 JANUARY 28, 2017 Impact of Budget and Current Staffing on Ability to Complete December 2016 Update I Go for Council Retreat Program manager In 2016, significant progress was recently left City, made to approve City projects under position being recruited. Palo Alto CLEAN and develop Community solar transition policy, as well as adoption program dependent on of NEM successor program. availability and timing of Community solar program will be suitable site(s). advanced in 2017, with determination of structure needed to confirm feasibility at Baylands golf course parking lot. Project funded at Preliminary evaluation of heat pump pilot/evaluation level. water heaters has been completed and planned for presentation to UAC in March 2017. EV supply equipment program is also planning rollout in Spring. Also notable that City approved carbon-neutral natural gas policy in Fall 2016. Based on experience to date, staff anticipates that near-term programs will focus on enabling greater electrification, but not mandates toward elimination of natural gas infrastructure. Funding is currently 90% complete. Council approval of proposed in the form of "pilot" safety improvements January a planning and 23,2017 transportation contingency in FY17. Funding stategy will Staff is working with USPS on three need to be developed--leases and on updating construction attention to near tern costs. Approximately 50% complete. cash flow Business Registry next phases slowed down due to departure of Economic Deve Mgr This is an ever expanding Project that appears to be taking more staff resources than we have available. OR No Go 7 2016 COUNCIL PRIORITIES Sorted by Color DEPT. COUNCIL PROJECT NAME ...... ) LEAD PRIORITY 49 CMO IN Animal Shelter PD 50 CSD CP Baylands Comprehensive Conservation Plan 51 CSD HC Project Safety Net 8 52 CSD IN Foothills Park 7.7 Acres 53 ITS IN Fiber-to-the-Premise Master Plan Assessment 0 Council Retreat OUTPUT /OUTCOME 2016 ACTION STEPS To spin off the animal shelter to a non-1. Continue negotiations with Pets in Need profit organization to have a robust 2. Take results to City Council public private partnership. 3. Begin new service model Comprehensive plan for effective • Develop conservation goals and strategies management of the Baylands by • Develop recreation goals and strategies balancing ecosystem conservation with • Create and convene a Baylands conservation advisory committee. recreation and environmental • Issue RFP; Award Bid; Create project calendar; Conduct public outreach, involve Parks and Rec Commission education opportunities. and Council. Transition Project Safety Net • Use the Collective Impact model to develop a roadmap (logic model) to accomplish PSN's specified goals and Community Collaborative to the objectives for promoting youth well-being and suicide prevention; Collective Impact framework for • Work with the City and school district to establish an executive board to provide leadership, guidance and increased effectiveness. 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 Evaluate and recommend to Council • Complete the Buckeye Creek hydrology study use of additional 7.7 acres of • After the Buckeye Creek hydrology study is completed work with the Parks and Recreation Commission to dedicated park land added to Foothills draft a recommendation for Council on how to use the 7.7 acre Park .. •Evaluate the impacts of the recommendation to Council on the Acterra Nursery lease Arrive at a Council-directed strategy • Review outside plant build estimates in Master Plan with Citizen Advisory Committee and document for Palo Alto's approach to municipal discrepancies. provided fiber-to-the-premise. • 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 BE: Built Environment HC: Healthy City CP: Comprehensive Plan IN ; Infrastructure 0: Other JANUARY 28, 2017 PROJECT DEPT. COUNCIL Impact of December 2016 Update Go MANAGER SUPPORT RETREAT Budget and for Council Retreat RANKING Current Staffing OR on Ability to Complete No Go CashAlaee ASD, CSD, ATT 2 Potential minor increase Bob Beacom or net neutral impact to FY17 budget. Ongoing long term cost savings due to reduced staff costs. Kristen O'Kane CSD: Daren 2 Funded in FY 2017 CIP. Anderson, Rich Initial public outreach to Bicknell, Lisa define scope of services Myers, Robbie complete, contract Parry award anticipated spring 2017. MaryGloner CSD Rob de 5 Budgeted and resourced Geus, Lacee through FY 2017. On Kortsen; CMO target to complete Jim Keene, Action Steps by June 30, Claudia Keith, 2017. OES Daren Anderson PWD · Brad 1 Buckeye Creek Eggleston hydrology study will be completed by August 2017. Next step will be to evaluate findings with the Parks and Recreation Commission. --Legal, Utilities, 5 This is a project that has (i) Google Fiber indefinitely Public Works, been susceptible to postponed plans to enter the Palo City Manager changing direction on Alto market. This impacted all the Office, Planning, objectives and strategy. Palo Alto co-build discussions, (ii) An Development Any significant changes RFI to indentify a build partner Services, OES in direction can impact resulted in no viable opportunity, and schedule and (iii) staff made recommendations in deliverables. CMR in Dec 16 and will come to Council on March 13, 2017 to request action on the recommendations. Percentage complete not valid until project direction identified and approved. 8 .2016 COUNCIL PRIORITIES Sorted by Color / DEPT. COUNCIL PROJECT NAME '-J LEAD PRIORITY S4 PCE BE CEQA- Transportation Analysis SS PCE BE Next RPP Implementation S6 PCE BE Parking Guidance Systems S7 PCE BE Shuttle Expansion r---., '-.) SS PCE BE Eichler Specific Guidelines S9 PCE BE Speed Survey Updates 60 PCE BE Downtown Mobility Study 61 PCE CP Downtown CAP 62 PD/ HC Means Restriction OES 0 Council Retreat OUTPUT /OUTCOME 2016 ACTION STEPS PROJECT MANAGER [New] Dialog regarding existing [New] Convene a study session with the City Council; participate in VTA's process to amend their guidelines in Rafael Rius transportation impacts analysis response to changes in State law. methodologies and thresholds and upcoming changes in CEQA significance thresholds Implement RPP in the next priority • Review applications received (March) and prioritize next RPP district Vacant neighborhoods (Evergreen Park and • Work with neighborhood stakeholders to develop program parameters Southgate) • Prepare a resolution and contract amendments for Council consideration and proceed with implementation Implement technologies that make it Complete design of parking guidance systems in tandem with wayfinding; bid construction and award contract Shahla Yazdy easier for drivers to find parking. for implementation Including Garages Expand shuttle service and implement Develop and implement a coordinated design and marketting program to include schedules, stops, vehicles, Vacant other strategies to increase ridership and the web/mobile aps; design service changes and expansions to make the shuttle more convinient for Determine strategy and form more people; public input; City Council review of staff recommendations and implementation. Prepare amendments to the IR Issue RFP and hire a design professional to manage the project; community engagement; draft document Vacant Guidelines or Eichler-specific design preparation. guidelines to address two story homes in Eichler neighborhoods Develop new speed surveys to allow Bid & award contract; conduct speed surveys; recommend adjustments to posted speed limints and Ruchika for traffic enforcement concurrent safety improvements as needed; implement desired changes. Design and implement needed RFP & consultant selection; study of existing mobility & safety challenges and opportunities; development and Jarrett mobility and safety improvements testing of alternatives; public engagement; PTC & Council review and approval and final design and downtown construction in 2017/18 Develop and Implement policy and • Complete consultant study and outline policy options; Council input/direction; prepare Comp Plan Policy Chitra code changes to update the Downtown language and code changes CAP on Non-Residential square footage This project has been broken out Track Guard Security oversight (PD) Andrew Binder & separately from the Project Safety Net Intrusion Detection System (OES) Ken Dueker Project Fencing installation (PWD) Additional means restriction efforts (CSD: PSN) BE: Built Environment HC : Healthy City CP : Comprehensive Plan IN : Infrastructure 0 : Other JANUARY 28, 2017 DEPT. COUNCIL Impact of December 2016 Update Go SUPPORT RETREAT Budget and for Council Retreat RANKING Current Staffing OR on Ability to Complete No Go City Attorney 5 No work is currenlty 10%. Study session occurrec, but VTA programmed except for process will not get underway until continued coordination late 2017 or 2018. Ultimately the City with VTA. Council will be asked to adopt a resolution updating the City's CEQA thresholds. LOS Thresholds can be maintained in the Comp Plan City Attorney, 4 Staff vacancies and 80% complete. Evergreen Park CMO follow-up work on the approved for implementation January Downtown RPP will 23, 2017. Southgate in process but affect the date of taking longer than anticipated due to program(s) delivery and staff vacancies. adoption. City Attorney, 2 None. 50% complete. Will bid construction PW, IT in mid-2017 and move to implementation. City Attorney 2 Planning phase can be 25% complete. A study was prepared completed once VTA and put on hold due to VTA's planned service changes are service changes. Council presentation understood; scheduled for March 2017. implementation of shuttle service improvements potentially eligible for Measure B funds. City Attorney Vacant position must be 10% complete. Delayed by staff filled to make vacancies. We have hired the meaningful progress consultant who is scheduled to begin work in 2017. Police 0 None 60% complete. Conducted surveys and briefed Council. Outreach and implementation to follow. City Attorney, Staff vacancies may 0% complete. Now being launched. Public Works, affect timing of the CMO study. CIP funding for construction in FY18-19. City Attorney 2 Policy discussion and 50% complete. Policy options are code changes (third being considered in the context of the bullet) will coincide with Comp Plan Update. Urgency Comp Plan Update. diminished by slow down in applications. CSD Rob De Intrusion Detection and Geus; PD Ron Fencing not budgeted. Watson; CMO Jim Keene, Claudia Keith, Ed Shikada; PWD Brad Eggleston, Holly Boyd 9 2016 COUNCIL PRIORITIES Sorted by Color ) 63 64 65 66 DEPT. LEAD IPW IPW IPW IUTL ~I 67 IPCE 68 IPCE 69 IPCE 70 PCE ~ COUNCIL PRIORITY llN llN llN llN I IBE IBE IBE BE PROJECT NAME I Newell Road/San Francisquito Creek Bridge Replacement I Sidewalk Repairs Project I Lucie Stern Mechanical & Electrical Upgrades I Second electric I transmission interconnection plan I Midtown Connector Project I Housing Micro Units I Retail Preservation Ordinance (Cal Ave) follow-up Rental Costs Council Retreat OUTPUT/OUTCOME 2016 ACTION STEPS Replacement of functionally-obsolete • Circulate draft of project Environmental Impact Report: 2S% Complete Newell Road bridge over San • Initiate project permitting: 0% Complete Francisquito Creek to provide • Complete preliminary bridge design: 0% Complete increased creek flow capacity in coordination with the San Francisquito CreekJPA I Continue sidewalk repairs to complete • Complete sidewalk program assessment to set new program goals and standards: 1S% Complete 30 year district cycle leveraging budget • Complete 30-year district cycle including sidewalk repairs in Sidewalk Replacement Districts 2S, 32 and 36: doubled per IBRC recommendations 90% Complete Rehabilitate and improve the existing Award Construction Contract: 7S% Complete building systems including fire/life safety components for Lucie Stern Community Center, the Children's Theater and the Community Theater The new 60kV line would improve the • Joint evaluation of feasibility studies with SLAC, Stanford and possibly PG&E, DOE and WAPA City's transmission service reliability • Preliminary design of the interconnection plan with potential cost savings/ • Tentative MOA with Stanford and SLAC Alternatives review • Continue to monitor PG&E and CAISO transmission activities I Evaluate the feasibility of East-West • Contract amendment; complete feasibility study; Council direction; complete concept plan & final design Bicycle and Pedestrian Connections through Midtown and design preferred options for construction l[New) Council requested a "pilot" ITBD program to encourage small units with reduced parking downtown on 3/21/16 Support City Council Consideration of •Analyze parking requirements. Potential Modifications to Retail • Analyze retail feasibility on cambridge Protections in the cal Ave area • Council direction • Develop revisions to adopted ordinance for consideration. (New] Incentives for Moderate Income TBD Housing BE: Built Environment HC : Healthy City CP : Comprehensive Plan IN : Infrastructure O : Other PROJECT MANAGER Michel Jeremias Holly Boyd Matt Raschke Tomm Marshall Josh Mello I Vacant None Assigned None Assigned DEPT. SUPPORT PCE UTL CSDwill be engaged during the construction process CMO, City Attorney, PW I City Attorney, CMO City Attorney City Attorney, CMO I COUNCIL RETREAT RANKING 1 0 0 3 4 4 4 3 JANUARY 28, 2017 Impact of Budget and Current Staffing on Ability to Complete None; however, newly required traffic count data gathering may delay the preliminary bridge design beyond the 2016 schedule None Current budget is not adequate to award construction contract due to high bids; project may be broken into phases Project partially funded, full funds dependent on Stanford University agreement Staff is prioritizing other bicycle projects at the moment I Applicant funded project December 2016 Update for Council Retreat Circulation of draft EIR has been delayed and is now expected in summer 2017, which also delays permitting and preliminary design. The 30-year district work is expected to be complete in early 2017. The sidewalk program assessment study has not been initiated due to competing project priorities. Construction of the first phase is 80% complete. Funding for the second phase (electrical and mechanical improvements for the Children's Theatre) is under consideration. Staff held meetings with Stanford staff to assist in their determination of conditions needed for the University to financially participate in the SLAC project. Staff anticipates a decision from Stanford soon, potentially Spring 2017. If Stanford chooses not to participate, staff will return to focus on PG&E alternative. 100% Council elected not to move forward based on the feasiblity study and explore Loma Verde as an alternative route; the Councy has agreed to reprogram the funds. 0% complete, although an application for a "pilot" project on the VTA lot has been filed. Funding proposed for a I 0% complete. Funding re-allocated to consultant contract in RPP programs in the FY17 budget. the FY17 budget was reallocated to RPP. This project was unfunded. Staff support is not available unless other projects are deferred. No consultant support 0% complete. Project never defined was budgeted and or resourced. development of a new program was not feasible in 2016. Go OR No Go 10 ·2016 COUNCIL PRIORITIES Sorted by Color 71 DEPT. I COUNCIL LEAD PRIORITY IPCE IBE PROJECT NAME I Parking Access/ Revenue Controls Council Retreat OUTPUT /OUTCOME 2016 ACTION STEPS I Implement garage technologies based 1 · Stakeholder input on goals and recommendation to Council on paid parking study recommendations 72 IPCE IBE I Review Office & R/D !Review and update definitions of ITBD "Office", "R&D", etc. as needed. use categories in zoning 73 IPCE IBE I Vacation Rentals [New] Adopt regulations regarding TBD short term vacation rentals in Palo Alto Ordinance 74 IPCE IBE 1c22 Zoning [New] Prepare an Ordinance adjusting TBD Amendment the allowable FAR in the C22 zoning district 75 IPCE IBE I Parking Study of Prepare a study to ensure adequate • RFP and consultant selection; data collection; review draft recommendations and prepare ordinance parking for housing approved per State Housing Types Density Bonus law 76 IPCE IBE IGeng Road Examine possible circulation rComplete circulation and parking study; develop recommendations for review by the PTC and City Council Circulation & improvements and additional parking east of 101 Embarcadero Road Parking Study 77 IPCE ICP I Build to Line Ordinance to increase setbacks on El Schedule ordinance recommended by the PTC for consideration by the City Council; include related policies Camino Real and programs in the Comp Plan Update 78 I IBE I Employment Center Added by Council at Retreat? I 79 I IHC I Focus on Service for Added by Council at Retreat? I Vulnerable Groups BE: Built Environment HC : Healthy City CP: Comprehensive Plan IN : Infrastructure 0: Other JANUARY 28, 2017 PROJECT I DEPT. I COUNCIL Impact of December 2016 Update !Go MANAGER SUPPORT RETREAT Budget and for Council Retreat RANKING Current Staffing IOR on Ability to Complete I !No Go I None Assigned r ity Attorney I 3 I Project is on hold 10% complete. Implementation will awaiting completion of occur concurrent with the paid parking study. recommendations of the paid parking study I None Assigned I City Attorney l 3 \This project was not 10% complete. Project never defined feasible with current or resourced. staff vacancies None Assigned City Attorney, 2 This project has not 10% complete. Project never defined ASD, CMO been prioritized or or resourced. resourced for implementation None Assigned City Attorney 2 None 0% complete. This will be implemented co ncurrent with or following the Comp Plan Update. None Assigned City Attorney 1 Not proposed for 0% complete. Not resourced. Purchasing funding. I None Assigned I Purchasing I 0 I Not proposed for lo% complete. Not resourced. funding. Amy City Attorney 1 This initiative is not 50% complete. PTC recommended currently staffed due to ordinance has been put on hold other Department awaiting completion of the Comp priorities. Plan Update. I I I 1 I I I I 4 11 4 • 0 0 0 TO: FROM: CITY OF PALO ALTO MEETING DATE: SUBJECT: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL BETH MINOR, CITY CLERK JANUARY 28, 2017 AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 3-COUNCIL ANNUAL PRIORITY SETTING Please find attached the following documents: 3 • City Manager Report from the January 9, 2017 City Council Meeting regarding the 2017 City Council Priority Setting and Annual Retreat • The results of the most recent Citizen Survey regarding 2017 Council Priorities. This community input was gathered via .Open City Hall and Next Door through January 25, 2017 ~ Beth Minor City Clerk 1 of 1 CITY OF PALO ALTO City of Palo Alto City Council Staff Report (ID# 7617) Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 1/9/2017 Summary Title: 2017 City Council Priority Setting and Annual Retreat Title: Policy and Services Committee Recommends the City Council Review the 2017 City Council Priority Suggestions in Preparation for the Annual Council Retreat and Direct the Mayor to Appoint Council Members to Work With the City Manager in Identifying a Facilitator for a Subsequent Retreat From: City Manager Lead Department: City Manager Recommendation: 1. Receive 2017 City Council Priorities suggestions by reviewing attached documents in preparation for the Annual Priority Setting Retreat scheduled for January 28, 2017. 2. Direct the Mayor to appoint some Council Members to work with City Manager to identify a facilitator for a second, subsequent retreat meeting focused on Council governance and effectiveness. Background On November 29, 2016 and December 14, 2016 the Policy and Services Committee discussed feedback from City Council members and the community regarding priorities for 2017. Attached are the staff reports from the meeting as well as the previously established guidelines which include the definition, purpose, and process for priority setting. Additional attachments include a table indicating feedback from Councilmembers, a potential grouping of the topics from Councilmembers, and copies of community feedback received from Open City Hall, an online civic engagement site. Discussion The Committee discussed the value of holding two retreat meetings. The first meeting, to be held on January 28, 2017, would focus on setting the 2017 Priorities. In the Committee meetings, staff reported that the feedback received from Councilmembers and the community had many similarities to the 2016 Priorities of: • The Built Environment: Housing, Parking, Livability, and Mobility • Infrastructure • Healthy City, Healthy Community City of Palo Alto Page 1 • Completion of the Comprehensive Plan 2015-2030 Update Attached to the staff report is a potential grouping of Council member feedback. In addition to continuing themes of 2016, financial stability and long term staffing were identified as possible areas of focus for the Council in 2017. The community feedback is summarized in the attached ·staff reports which, as mentioned, also align with the 2016 priorities, mainly The Built Environment. The Committee also discussed the possibility of second meeting as part of the Annual Retreat. This meeting could be scheduled in February or early March and focus on new member assimilation, governance, Council integr_ation, roles, and protocols for maximizing effectiveness. In this meeting, the Committee felt that use of an outside facilitator to support the Council discussion would be beneficial. The City Manager has been identifying potential facilitators. The Committee agreed that Council should have a role is selecting the facilitator. The Mayor could appoint some Council Members to interview and select a facilitator. Previous Priority Setting retreats have also included reviews of the City Auditor's Performance Report, the National Citizen Survey, City Council and Executive Leadership Team work plans, hot topics-strategically, and a review the City Council yearly schedule. Council may want to consider these elements in the January 28 retreat planning. Timeline The City Manager will work with the Mayor and Vice-Mayor and other CAO's as needed in further refinement of the agenda for the Annual Retreat meetings. Resources Impact There is sufficient funding in the Council contingency budget for the facilitator. Staff resources from the Executive Leadership Team and key department staff will also be required. Attachments: • Attachment A -Councilmember Feedback 2017 • Attachment B -Grouping of Councilmember Feeedback • Attachment C -Priority Setting Guidelines • Attachment D -12-14-16 Policy and Services Committee Staff Report • Attachment E -11-29-16 Policy and Services Committee Staff Report • Attachment F -Open City Hall Feedback City of Palo Alto Page2 Attachment: A -Summary of City Council Feedback -2017 Council Priorities Name Priority Area Scharff • The Built Environment: Housing, Parking, Livability, and Mobility • Infrastructure • Healthy City, Healthy Community • Completion ofthe Comprehensive Plan Update • Financial health of city Kniss • Partnering w Schools • Cubberley/ the future • (lconic)Bike bridge • Approve one{!) affordable housing project • Grade separations. New study • {Meaningful) retreat • Complete comp plan {really!) Holman • The Built Environment: Housing, Parking, Livability, and Mobility • Healthy City, Healthy Community • Long term staffing strategy {focused resource needs, sustainable funding mechanisms and planning, hiring, retention ... ) • Living up to City promises I agreements (code enforcement, traffic violations, noise violations, assessing and collecting appropriate fines, adherence to project plans and conditions of approval) Filseth • The Built Environment: Housing, Parking, Livability, and Mobility • Infrastructure • Healthy City, Healthy Community • Long Term Financial Stability Dubois • The Built Environment: Housing, Parking, Livability, and Mobility • Infrastructure • Long term staffing strategy (to include hiring, retention, pension and benefits, leveraging technology to increase efficiency) Wolbach • Housing • Transportation . • Human and Civil Rights Kou • The Built Environment: Housing, Parking, Livability, and Mobility • Infrastructure • Healthy City, Healthy Community Fine • Mobility options (for all 'users' of our city) • Housing • Smart, efficient, experimental city Tanaka • Increase City revenue by 50% without new tax increases • Underground Caltrain Page l _of 1 Attachment: B Grouping of City Council Feedback -2017 Council Priorities Priority Area Tally The Built Environment: Housing, Parking, Livability, and Mobility 9* lnfrastructu re 4 Healthy City, Healthy Community 4 Completion of the Comprehensive Plan Update 2 Financial Stability 2 Long term staffing strategy 2 Caltrain -underground and grade separation (Infrastructure?) 2 Partnering with Schools (Healthy City, Healthy Community?) 1 Cubberley Community Center (Infrastructure?) 1 Bike bridge (Infrastructure?) 1 Affordable housing project (The Built Environment?) 1 City Council Retreat 1 Living up to City promises I agreements 1 Human and Civil Rights (Healthy City, Healthy Community?) 1 Smart, efficient, experimental city 1 Increase City revenue by 50% without new tax increases 1 *A tally of feedback received from some Councilmembers that indicated Housing, Parking or Mobility as individual priorities. Staff incorporated the individual priorities into The Built Environment. See Attachment A for individual Councilmember feedback. Page 1of1 Attachment A City of Palo Alto City Council Priority Setting Guidelines Approved by City Council: October 1, 2012 Last revised: October 1, 2012 Background The City Council adopted its first Council priorities in 1986. Each year the City Council reviews it's priorities at its Annual Council Retreat. On October 1, 2012 the City Council formally adopted the definition of a council priority, and the Council's process and guidelines for selection of priorities. Definition A Council priority is defined as a topic that will receive particular, unusual and significant attention during the year. Purpose The establishment of Council priorities will assist the Council and staff to better allot and utilize time for discussion and decision making. Process 1. Three months in advance of the annual Council Retreat, staff will solicit input from the City Council on the priorities to be reviewed and considered for the following year. a. Council members may submit up to three priorities. b. Priorities should be submitted no later than December 1. c. As applicable, the City Manager will contact newly elected officials for their input by December 1. d. The City Clerk will provide timely notice to the public to submit proposed priorities by December 1. The Policy and Services Committee shall recommend to the Council which suggestions if any shall be considered at the City Council retreat. 2. Staff will collect and organize the recommended priorities into a list for Council consideration, and provide to Council no less than two weeks in advance of the retreat. 3. The J:>olicy and Services Committee, each year at its December meeting, shall make recommendations about the process that will be used at the Annual Retreat paying particular attention to the number of priorities suggested by Council members. The recommended process is to be forwarded to Council for adoption in advance of the Council retreat. Guidelines for Selection of Priorities 1. There is a goal of no more than three priorities per year. 2. Priorities generally have a three year time limit. Nov Staff Solicits Input from Council Attachment A City of Palo Alto City Council Priority Setting Schedule P&S Committee Meeting to Discuss Recommended Process Council Deadline to Submit Priorities Dec.1 Council Meeting to Consider Recommended Process Council Holds Annual Council Retreat • • • • Dec Jan Last Updated: 811712012 Feb • CITY OF PALO ALTO City Council 2017 Priorities Community Input via Open City Hall and Next Door through January 25, 2017 This is a summary list of subjects received, not listed in any particular order. The actual comments are attached. • Airplane noise • Traffic and bike safety, enforcement, parking • Infrastructure • Public transportation, increase in multimodal options • Housing, creating more, affordable, granny units • Jobs/housing balance • Social equity, community, diversity • Long term financial planning • Sensible architectural review process • Ground floor retail, development cap • Leaf Blower • Fiber to the Premise • Parking • Bikes Routes • Shuttle • Trees • Grade separation • Flood Protection 2017 Council Priorities What are the priorities you would like to see the City Council adopt for 2017? All Statements sorted chronologically As of January 25, 2017, 8:53 AM CI TY 0 F PALO ALTO Open City Haff is not a certified voting system or ballot box. As with any public comment process, participation in Open City Haff is voluntary. The statements in this record are not necessarily representative of the whole population, nor do they reflect the opinions of any government agency or elected officials. All Statements sorted chronologically As of January 25, 2017, 8:53 AM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/4065 2017 Council Priorities What are the priorities you would like to see the City Council adopt for 2017? As of January 25, 2017, 8:53 AM, this forum had: Attendees: 599 All Statements: 262 Hours of Public Comment: 13.1 This topic started on October 4, 2016, 4:04 PM. All Statements sorted chronologically As of January 25, 2017, 8:53 AM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/4065 Page 2of 65 2017 Council Priorities What are the priorities you would like to see the City Council adopt for 2017? Justine Burt in Crescent Park (unverified) January 25, 2017, 8:44 AM I would like the City of Palo Alto to pass a 15% tax on foreign buyers of homes in Palo Alto. People who buy homes here but don't live in them or rent them out are essentially taking valuable property off the market and driving up the prices for the rest of this. One year after Vancouver passed this, housing prices fell by 26%. Please see this Bloomberg article: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-09-22/foreign-buying- plummets-in-vancouver-after-new-property-tax Eli Bildner in Duveneck/ St Francis (registered) January 25, 2017, 6:44 AM I'm a Stanford graduate student and very concerned about the long-term viability of Palo Alto as a home for students. Housing prices are absolutely insane -· I'm living with a group of 8 other classmates in a house built for 5 or 6 people, and paying $8,000 a month for the privilege -with one of us living in the garage. Stanford is one of the jewels of the Bay, and a tremendous civic asset for this town. If Palo Alto becomes even more unaffordable, it will be increasingly harder for students like me to choose to be here. I'm disappointed that the city hasn't done more to date to make Palo Alto affordable for all but a small handful of the rich. There's no way that new affordable housing can do this. We need to change policy to embrace what this city can and should look like in the 21st century. I'd love to be able to stay in Palo Alto when I graduate. Many of my classmates would as well. But there's just no way we'll be able to do this unless things change. Monica Frassa in Downtown North (registered) January 24, 2017, 9:47 PM 1. Housing affordability. Supporting new projects that would increase supply/density. If more people who work in Palo Alto could afford to live here, it would also help with number 2, below. 2. Roadways and traffic. Increasing the number of bike lanes/safe areas to bike in order to decrease car traffic and parking congestion. Baq Haidri (unverified) All Statements sorted chronologically As of January 25, 2017, 8:53 AM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/4065 January 24, 2017, 7:13 PM Page 3 of65 2017 Council Priorities What are the priorities you would like to see the City Council adopt for 2017? I would like to see the council focus on housing, and not just already built housing, but consider increasing the height limit so that more units can be on the market. My personal wish is to have my parents move out here from the East Coast so they can enjoy precious time with their grandchildren in the beautiful weather. I don't think it's worthwhile to have them move out here and live far away. If Palo Alto worked to increase apartment stock with taller buildings, similar to Redwood City and Mountain View, that would be ideal. I am a Palo Alto homeowner for three years now in the Southgate neighborhood. While I understand the folks who want to maintain the residential character of Palo Alto, I don't believe that's fair to the many people who are trying to maintain their quality of life by living close to their work and their families. Please consider this when thinking about maintaining the "residential" character of the town. Name not available (unclaimed) January 24, 2017, 6:04 PM Please develop a zoning so affordable housing can be built! Name not available (unclaimed) January 24, 2017, 5:12 PM As a young person living in the city, I have been continually frustrated by the lack of housing options available to me. Doing well financially, for my age, means nothing here as housing supply has not kept up with demand. Rampant NIMBY-ism seems to stall any project of any importance. To those older folks who have 'been here for decades' and want to see Palo Alto 'go back to the way it was,' that time is passed and if PA doesn't keep up it's going to be left behind. Proximity to Stanford put Palo Alto on the map, the city needs to support those who continue to make this one of the most vibrant ecosystems in the world. Just because it's a cliche doesn't mean it isn't true: Adapt or Die. Density around transit is not an option, it's a requirement. Further discourage driving and parking downtown, and continue to go vertical along the El Camino corridor. Almost unbelievably, Redwood City has become a model of smart downtown development -it's time to follow their lead. Name not available (unclaimed) January 24, 2017, 5:00 PM Housing is a major issue in The Bay Area, especially here in Palo Alto. Our lack of action is resulting in sprawl in areas like Gilory, and incredibly long and carbon intensive commutes for those who can't afford to live here. Therefore, we should build dense apartment buildings near Caltrain stops. Additionally, to avoid additional traffic, we should not allow the developments to build parking lots for the residents, and not allow the residents of these apartments to use street parking. These new residents would not be allowed to receive parking permits, and would therefore be subject to the 2 hour parking limit. Name not available (unclaimed) All Statements sorted chronologically As of January 25, 2017, 8:53 AM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/4065 January 24, 2017, 3:54 PM Page 4 of65 2017 Council Priorities What are the priorities you would like to see the City Council adopt for 2017? Allow developers to build upward. Remove some of the zoning restrictions to ease the housing crunch. Name not available (unclaimed) January 24, 2017, 3:14 PM More than anything we need to increase shared transit, such as Bus Rapid Transit. At the same time we increase opportunities to take public transportation, we must slow down the traffic in Palo Alto. We can't walk and ride bikes safely with motorists rolling through stop signs and breaking speed limits all over town! Why aren't our police issuing tickets? Could we start a CALM PALO ALTO movement--and redefine how we move in our city? Samuel Jackson outside Palo Alto (registered) January 24, 2017, 2:58 PM I recently moved to Palo Alto as a graduate student at Stanford (MBA). I used to live in the Bay Area about 10 years ago, splitting time between San Francisco and Mountain View. Before I moved this year, I thought there would be a chance I stayed here after school. Now, I don't see how that would be possible: the city (or is that suburban village?) seems to hate young people, as measured by commitment to housing development and offering a welcome to businesses. I understand that thanks to CA propositions, people with vested interests in their property appreciation may have interests at odds with my family (young married couple with a cat). But I thought we would share an interest in a vibrant, growing community. I don't knbw that that is the case. I hope people understand that there won't be a future for Palo Alto if they act this way, and that indeed, the engine of the local economy will sputter out. Housing is now consistent with NYC pricing. So if you want to grow into that, please give me world-class museums, 24/7 stores, an incredible density of activities, and develop a real public transit system. Until then, find a way to fix housing prices, which, by the way, can only be sustainably achieved in one way: development. Palo Alto doesn't have a rich and illustrious architectur.al heritage in most places. More and better bike lanes would be nice too, especially near major roads the crossings could be made better. Even if more housing isn't mad~ available, I would hope at least that existing residents would appreciate not requiring a car as much as is the case today. I don't own one, and do my best with a bike and ZipCar, but policies like extremely large requirements for parking for developments really isn't very forward-looking. Thanks for soliciting perspectives from the public, it may also be helpful to have different policy topics people could rank or express interest around, instead of free-form statements, too. 3 Supporters Name not available (unclaimed) January 24, 2017, 2:26 PM I believe the jobs/housing imbalance and overdevelopment in general are a big problem. Making some progress on that should be a priority. The first step is to stop making the hole deeper! We need to severely restrict any further commercial development that brings in more jobs and instead focus development on housing All Statements sorted chronologically As of January 25, 2017, 8:53 AM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/4065 Page 5 of65 2017 Council Priorities What are the priorities you would like to see the City Council adopt for 2017? projects, particularly those for low and moderate income. Name not shown in Midtown/ Midtown West (registered) January 24, 2017, 2:25 PM I am a Palo Alto native in my 30s. I recently moved back with my wife and son to be near my parents and to pursue a PhD at Stanford. But unfortunately, I don't think I will be able to stay long because of the cost of living. In 2017, the City of Palo Alto should focus on creating affordable housing and expanding the availability of public transportation. 3 Supporters Name not available (unclaimed) January 24, 2017, 1 :45 PM I am a graduate student at Stanford. Given that the university has limited on-campus housing options, I will have to move next year, and am extremely concerned that I will be unable to afford housing in Palo Alto, as I do not have a car on campus. I'd appreciate if the city could prioritize more affordable housing, to make Palo Alto a more affordable place to live. Thomas Wasow in Barron Park (registered) January 24, 2017, 1:30 PM The high cost of housing eclipses all other issues in Palo Alto. It threatens our diversity, and is driving valuable community members away. Given the cost of land around here, affordable housing must necessarily be dense. The City Council should focus its efforts 'on encouraging high-density, affordable housing projects along transit routes. 5 Supporters Name not available (unclaimed) January 24, 2017, 12:26 PM -Completion of the Comprehensive Plan Update (We are over 10 years into the update, this needs to finish soon!) -Housing (Allow more ADUs, Zoning refresh for Housing on Mixed-use commercial sites -remove density limits to allow more/smaller units , allow more residential square footage on a parcel (like retail/residential zoning type) and allow greater height limits projects that provide housing. -Transportation Issues (fund the TMA, increase TOM efforts, manage parking, improve regional transit connections) Name not available (unclaimed) January 24, 2017, 12:20 PM What are the priorities you would like to see the City Council adopt for 2017? All Statements sorted chronologically As of January 25, 2017, 8:53 AM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/4065 Page6 of65 2017 Council Priorities What are the priorities you would like to see the City Council adopt for 2017? -Capping expansion of office space in Palo Alto -Expanding small dwelling units near bike paths, major thoroughfares, or public transit (small units are unlikely to house families with kids in the school district) -Investigating funding mechanisms for complete grade separation of Caltrain (tunnel or cuUcover), and replacing existing at-grade area with greenspace or bike lanes (similar to what has been done in Seoul or NYC's High Line) -Working with major employers in the area to provide additional free shuttle service throughout Palo Alto, similar to what has been done in Mtn View with Google -Instituting parking permits in more areas, and eliminating free parking in areas such as downtown to discourage driving (even $1/hr) Elizabeth Heilman in Palo Verde (unverified) January 24, 2017, 12:16 PM Dear City Council, I would like to see greater bike and pedestrian safety and easier bike/scooter/pedestrian mobility in Palo Alto. We need to lead other communities in being a walkable and bikeable community! 30 minutes to travel from University to East Charleston on Alma or Middlefield is not acceptable & takes all pleasure out of living in Palo Alto. Creating an environment for safe walking, biking and scootering will create a safer, healthier and more functional community. Also, let's keep planting our awesome city trees. Elizabeth Heilman, MD Gregory Stevens in Downtown North (registered) January 24, 2017, 12:12 PM Now that a tiny population has elected a fascist president we need to become a full Sanctuary City. 1 Supporter Jonathan Brown in Ventura (registered) January 24, 2017, 11 :57 AM -Maintain and Improve Quality of Life for taxpaying residents. Within this priority is keeping parks and other public spaces safe, clean and usable; enforcing the Municipal Code; making "Safe Routes to School" safer; and improving traffic and pedestrian infrastructure. -Sensible Growth. Within this priority, finish the comprehensive plan such that zoning decisions can be made more holistically rather than treating each project independently and separated from its surroundings. Discretionary upzoning and other density waivers should be rarer and harder to justify and obtain. -Focus on the City. Within this priority, ask how much time, effort and money is being spent by the City on things that do not directly benefit city citizens. It's great for our leaders to think big on large state, national, and global questions such as immigration, civil rights, and climate change, but we should be reluctant to take time All Statements sorted chronologically As of January 25, 2017, 8:53 AM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/4065 Page 7 of65 2017 Council Priorities What are the priorities you would like to see the City Council adopt for 2017? away from more pressing citizen concerns at City Council meetings to do so. Evan Goldin in Crescent Park (registered) January 24, 2017, 11 :56 AM There are two top priorities I think Council needs to focus on: 1) Improving traffic. Traffic just keeps getting worse, and nothing the council has done has made a meaningful impact. It's time to start putting real money behind our TMA by charging business a head tax, increasing prices on parking and charging developers of residential buildings over X stories. Get millions of dollars flowing into the TMAs, and then leverage new technology to reduce traffic. Create Lyft/Uber discounts available to anyone traveling to or from Palo Alto's business districts at peak hours. Launch new Chariot routes. Give discounts to Scoop customers and incentives to Scoop drivers. Caltrain will only get us so far. No other public transit agency can do something meaningful. It's time to tackle this ourselves. 2) In tandem with the above, we need to increase the% of people who live near their jobs or near transit, while increasing the number of housing units available in Palo Alto. More (and denser) residential construction needs to be permitted, so that my generation (who grew up in PA and now is getting priced out) can afford it, and future (and past) generations can continue to live here. Housing construction needs to at least TRY to keep pace with demand. The policies you've put in place are incredibly unfair to younger generations who can no longer afford to live in Palo Alto. 3 Supporters Name not shown in University South (registered) January 24, 2017, 11 :54 AM These are the issues that seem most pressing to me from my own and my friends' experience of Palo Alto: 1) Affordable housing. We need more housing --there are many jobs in this town and we'd actually have LESS traffic if more people could live near where they work. For example, my commute is a fifteen-minute bike ride. I don't even own a car. I don't add to the traffic/congestion/parking problems so many complain about in the same breath that they argue against adding housing. More housing doesn't equal more traffic! We also need more affordable housing for the supposedly "middle class" that can't actually afford to live here. Affordable housing for those living below the poverty line is obviously important --and seems to be getting some attention finally --but we can't overlook those who, while working in professional careers and making technically a middle-class wage, can't afford to live here. Right now it feels like we have a handful of units for those making less than the poverty level, and then the rest of the town is for the super wealthy. I'm a teacher and I want to be able to live in the area where I work --and I don't think that should be considered an unreasonable request. 2) Rent protections. For those of us renting in Palo Alto, we have very few protections in a very unstable housing market. There should be a sane policy around rent increases --it's incredibly difficult to feel like part of a community when you might at any time be effectively evicted from that community if your rent doubles. We should have sane policies around how much rent can increase year to year. Otherwise those of us living on a fixed salary/ income will never really be able to feel like this is our community, too. All Statements sorted chronologically As of January 25, 2017, 8:53 AM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/4065 Page 8 of65 2017 Council Priorities What are the priorities you would like to see the City Council adopt for 2017? 3) Transportation: We need more safe biking routes. Many intersections were clearly designed with only cars and pedestrians in mind (I'm thinking particularly of those around the Palo Alto Transit Center and Paly/ Town and Country). Thank you! 3 Supporters Name not shown in Downtown North (registered) January 24, 2017, 11 :50 AM HOUSING! Seriously. HOUSING! Why am I still having to say this? HOUSING! I'm seriously considering living out of a van. Seriously. It's that bad. I'd happily live in a 200sqft apartment if it were cheaper. But you know what? They don't exist! Because people think that a couple of airplanes overhead is more important than hard- working people getting pushed to the streets (literally, I might actually need to move into that van if rent goes any higher). 2 Supporters Shirin Sinnar in Green Acres (registered) January 24, 2017, 11 :46 AM More affordable housing. Continued support for mobile home park and low-income tenants. Vocal support for diverse local communities, including undocumented people, Muslims, and others attacked during the presidential campaign, and for community-building across ethnic, religious, socioeconomic lines. Inclusion -- reconsider Palo Alto resident-only policy in Foothills Park in a way that preserves the park sustainably without being so exclusive. 1 Supporter Kirsten Flynn in Ventura (registered) January 24, 2017, 11:43 AM I have two main priorities, lessening our cities global warming footprint, and sustaining a high quality of life for all citizens. Each individual, municipality, state and country has a place in the fight against global climate instability. Palo Alto has done great work, but should continue to see it as a priority. If not us, then whom? Right now Palo Alto works well for it's new monied class. Those with economic challenges, those in service jobs, the elderly, and many our youth are actually experiencing a decreased quality of life. There are not transportation, entertainment, housing or shopping options for these segments of the population. We need to design our city to be inclusive, supportive, and diverse. It will make a stronger and more resilient community. 1 Supporter Alexandra Acker-Lyons in Palo Verde (registered) All Statements sorted chronologically As of January 25, 2017, 8:53 AM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/4065 January 24, 2017, 11 :42 AM Page 9 of65 2017 Council Priorities What are the priorities you would like to see the City Council adopt for 2017? Please support more high-density housing and mixed-use development. I want people from all incomes and backgrounds to be able to live in Palo Alto. I also support creating additional bike and running paths (including re-examining a pat~ along Matadaro Creek). 3 Supporters Drew Dennison in Downtown North (registered) January 24, 2017, 11 :34 AM Please build more high-density housing and mixed use office buildings. I would also like to see more 4-6 story buildings in downtown and other business areas. 2 Supporters Name not shown in Midtown/ Midtown West (registered) January 24, 2017, 11 :28 AM Housing. Housing. Housing. More, denser, higher housing. Please put an end to the construction of more office space --Palo Alto has plenty of jobs! We need more places to live. Easing the restrictions on Granny and in-law units would be a great start. Build up please! Taller apartment buildings close to CalTrain. Ease parking restrictions. Palo Alto is bikable and has reasonably good public transportation options. Not every housing unit needs a parking space. 3 Supporters Name not available (unclaimed) January 15, 2017, 10:46 PM I have been a resident of Palo Alto for -14 years. I will like the Council to focus on Airplane noise as one of the top priorities. Thanks kavin sawy in Midtown/ Midtown West (registered) January 6, 2017, 8:48 PM [1] Get high-speed the Internet because developing countries have better speed ... awake up else Palo Alto won't have been many incentives to move in. [2] Allow more Internet providers to offer the Internet not just Comcast (evil company if never experience to subscribe to it.. .feel the pain] [3] Reduce airplane noise (obvious unless you need a hearing aid) [4] Traffic situation is going out of control, but more commercial occupation means more$$ to city. Common-sense goes into a back burner when it comes to government (city council small part). I don't understand people working in government (voted by us) get a brain freeze after election. Work for people not against the people. They know all the problems but never work as fast as a private company employee because taxpayer money tasted good. All Statements sorted chronologically As of January 25, 2017, 8:53 AM http://wwwpeakdemocracy.com/4065 Page 10 of65 2017 Council Priorities What are the priorities you would like to see the City Council adopt for 2017? If they don't like our criticism then resign and let other do the job or work for people not for yourself. Kevin Savvy in Midtown/ Midtown West (unverified) sad Jim Poppy in Old Palo Alto (registered) January 6, 2017, 8:40 PM January 1, 2017, 1 :06 PM Protect neighborhood quality of life. The proposed Castilleja expansion will have a massively negative impact on the neighborhood and it would institutionalize an R1 neighborhood with huge concrete structures opposite homes. If Castilleja wants to expand, they can move to a new location, like Harker school and others. Keep the enrollment at 415! The traffic during and after the 6-year construction project will impact the rest of the city. And evacuation of students and neighbors will be impossible. Don't forget what just happened in Oakland. Name not available (unclaimed) December 31, 2016, 11 :39 PM 1) Please help us with Eichler Guidelines, and IR Guidelines in general. Allow us to preserve the neighborhoods we love. 2) Please fix the airplane noise --it's hurting our property values, and our quality of life. Every 90 seconds there is a jet --I no longer enjoy working in my yard. Name not shown in Professorville (registered) December 31, 2016, 10:03 PM The continuous and excruciating jet noise needs to be significantly decreased. There are solutions that have been identified including flying over the bay instead of heavily populated residential areas. Our family has lived in Palo Alto for over fifty years and would appreciate a swift remedy to this problem that has caused numerous issues involving our health and well being. Name not shown in Community Center (registered) December 30, 2016, 5:32 PM I believe the most important issue facing the City of Palo Alto is the airplane superhighway (as others have aptly called it) over our homes. I have lived in Palo Alto for many years --drawn here to what used to be an excellent quality of life. But now, not so much. It is very stressful to hear --whether inside the house trying to enjoy a meal, listen to music or sleeping, or when outside the house --trying to enjoy a walk in the neighborhood or gardening --the never ceasing LOUD noise of the airplanes flying overhead. Not only are we constantly bombarded with an intolerable level of noise pollution, there is also significant air pollution as well. I am deeply concerned about the harm it is doing to my health and that of others in this community. I honestly feel like I'm living next to a major international airport. Palo Alto has never been that, it now is --we did not come to this All Statements sorted chronologically As of Januaiy 25, 2017, 8:53 AM http://Www.peakdemocracy.com/4065 Page 11 of65 2017 Council Priorities What are the priorities you would like to see the City Council adopt for 2017? nuisance, it came to us. I urge the City Council to take whatever steps are necessary to address this very serious issue including but not limited to supporting efforts to have air traffic rerouted over the Bay. Thank you so much for your time and consideration. Name not shown in Community Center (registered) December 30, 2016, 4:33 PM The absolute priority should be the reduction of airplane noise and associated air pollution caused by the unbearable number of planes flying over Palo Alto, including at really low altitudes. I have lived for many years in my home in Community Center and the current routing of planes --hundreds a day, starting very early in the morning and continuing non-stop throughout the night (1, 2 am in the morning) and flying very low over our homes has led to a serious issue with noise, air pollution and the quiet enjoyment of our homes. The potential harm to our health is something the Council should seriously focus on as a top priority with the goal being to have the planes re-routed over the Bay as soon as possible. Name not available (unclaimed) December 30, 2016, 8:36 AM Livability including less construction and dealing with airplane noise. Karen Porter in Duveneck/ St Francis (registered) December 29, 2016, 10:36 AM It is critical that the City work this year with the FAA, Congress, SFO/SJC and other stakeholders to greatly reduce number of jets flying at lower and lower altitudes directly over Palo Alto. Since the FAA implemented NextGen, Palo Alto has become a jet superhighway, and the associated noise and air pollution are harming our community. Name not available (unclaimed) December 28, 2016, 11 :08 AM This is a critical year for ensuring that the FAA, Congress, SFO/SJC, and other responsible authorities find an equitable solution to the increasing number of jets flying at lower and lower altitudes directly over our city. It is unfair that since the FAA adopted NextGen, Palo Alto has become a jet freeway, with the associated adverse impacts on quality of life and health. Traffic at Palo Alto airport only compounds the problem. Kim Raftery in College Terrace (registered) December 27, 2016, 9:35 AM i think the number one priority for the City of Palo Alto City Council should be decreasing airplane noise over Palo Alto. The low flying planes create noise overhead about every 2 minutes and it is impossible to get away from it, even in my house with the windows closed at 1 :00 a.m. I have lived in Palo Alto for 34 years and the quality of life since NextGen was implemented has declined enormously. Thank you for considering decreasing airplane noise over Palo Alto as a priority for 2017. Reverlv Brockwav i.n Crescent Park (unverified) Ali Statemi!hts sortecl'c'lironC!og1cally As of January 25, 2017, 8:53 AM http://www.paakdamocracy.com/4065 December 26, 2016, 2:29 PM Paga 12 of 65 2017 Council Priorities What are the priorities you would like to see the City Council adopt for 2017? With planes waking us as early as one AM, a dangerous event to try to back out of the driveway on Hamilton , and parking along City Streets making driving dangerous, it is obvious that the environment is a top priority to maintain any decent quality of life. Gridlock on the streets, plane flight paths and inadequate parking requirements need immediate additional studies. With the Facebook town coming across the freeway, our gridlock will only increase. Name not shown in Midtown/ Midtown West (registered) December 26, 2016, 2:15 PM Please continue to make airplane noise a priority. The Select Committee did not have a representative from Palo Alto and did not end up proposing a solution that would benefit Palo Alto residents. We need both short term and long term solutions to this major problem. The frequency and the noise of the airplanes has made living in midtown almost unbearable at times, and has caused a serious loss in quality of life. Being able to go outdoors and enjoy the natural beauty around us has been curtailed by the jets passing over our head one after another after another. PLEASE HELP US. Name not shown in University South (registered) Priority: Address Airplane Noise December 26, 2016, 1 :37 PM Please take a leadership role and take action, similar to the work of City Council members outside of Palo Alto, to address the airplane noise. This is a critical area for our health (e.g. sleep) and quality of life. 1 Supporter Name not shown in Barron Park (registered) December 25, 2016, 11 :16 AM Priorities: Ease traffic congestion (El Camino, between Page Mill and San Antonio Rd., has become a nightmare between 4:00 and 6:30 pm) Reduce airplane noise (current high number of flights and extreme noise they generate interfere with sleep, ability to concentrate, and quality of life) Increase moderate-income housing David Gobuty in Midtown/ Midtown West (registered) December 24, 2016, 11 :58 AM Work TIRELESSLY to cause the Federal Aviation Authority (FAA) to change flight routing to SFO away from the current path directly and low over Palo Alto, which is greatly diminishing the quality of life in this and surrounding communities. 1 Supporter Name not shown in Leland Manor/ Garland (registered) All Statements sorted chronologically As of January 25, 2017, 8:53 AM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/4065 December 23, 2016, 11 :24 PM Page 13 of65 2017 Council Priorities What are the priorities you would like to see the City Council adopt for 2017? Jet Noise. The FAA NextGen air traffic control program is focusing most flights headed to SFO on the Menlo checkpoint (near Willow Road and 101) creating a jet superhighway polluting Palo Alto, waking up Palo Altans at all hours of the night, distracting Palo Altans from their work and from enjoyment of the tranquil community we used to live in. Eliminate the jet superhighway passing directly over our homes and businesses. Raise and defocus the superhighway. Channel more flights over the bay. Establish meaningful noise control measures. Work with Congress and the FAA to reduce jet noise over Palo Alto. 1 Supporter Name not available (unclaimed) December 23, 2016, 1 :45 AM Thanks for the hard work you do for us, residents of our city. I am concerned by three things: (1) airplane noise -please continue to work to get the airplanes AND helicopters up higher and away from Palo Alto to a fair amount/shared with neighboring cities (2) drones -please make plans this year!!! for what rules there will be regarding this easily intrusive and probably really dangerous advance our society is making. I do not want them flying over sidewalks, yards (front or back). Keep them flying over streets ... but will they fly over bikes? What happens when they crash? What recourse will you put into law for me to have when I find a drone over my property? I leave this huge conundrum to you. Please keep us safe. (3) Ugly El Camino. Please raise the height limit of buildings along El Camino and insist on great architecture. This street could be a showpiece and instead is so ugly. Name not shown in Green Acres (registered) December 22, 2016, 9:40 PM No. 1 Traffic congestion and enforcement of traffic rules No. 2 Stop all construction of office space sir:ice this is what is making traffic unbearable--everyone knows this, but who will act on it? No. 3 Jet noise, which continues to degrade quality of life in Palo Alto, notwithstanding the heroic efforts of Joe Simitian and the special committee. No. 4 Discuss the jobs-housing imbalance with our neighboring cities, since the expansions of Google and Facebook will only continue to degrade the quality of all of our lives. 1 Supporter Name not available (unclaimed) December 22, 2016, 9:30 PM Stop jet noise! No more discussing and talking. Just do something NOW! ·Name not shown in Crescent Park (registered) December 22, 2016, 6:06 PM Our quality of life has suffered quite a bit in the last few years. 1.) Together with Stanford (Their dam decisions are coming very soon) and the Army Corps (and NEVER alone via only the JPA) address the restoration of the creek along with reduction of flood risk without further All Statements sorted chronologically As of January 25, 2017, 8:53 AM http·/twww.peakdemocracy.com/4065 Page 14 of65 2017 Council Priorities What are the priorities you would like to see the City Council adopt for 2017? consideration of floodwalls that are unacceptable to the community. Best if very little channel or bridge modifications from Highway 101 ·to El Camino. Best address by upstream measures. But most likely a little bit of channel work, and a little bit of diversion and a little bit upstream will be best. 2.) Support serious efforts to lessen and disperse the horrible jet noise from the recent changes in the flight paths. 3.) Stop allowing office construction until the infrastructure to address transportation is fund and in place. University Ave is a terrible mess. maurice druzin in Crescent Park (registered) December 22, 2016, 5:23 PM I have lived in Crescent Park since 1992, at 1408 Pitman avenue, my back fence is adjacent to the Community Garden.My concerns are the steady deterioration of our quality of life in the neighborhood.1 )Traffic is awful, as commuters use our streets to access University Avenue. 2)There is a huge problem with downtown workers parking in our community, usually for prolonged periods of time. 3)The aircraft noise is very disruptive ,and never seems to end.Recently, flights are passing over as late as 2 am. 4)Eleanor Pardee Park is heavily utilised.There are 2 playgrounds, a grassy area in constant use for soccer and baseball, a picnic area, and a community garden.And, the City is proposing a DOG Park?!! , and the proposed space is adjacent to(ONE INCH OF FENCING AWAY FROM) private property?! 5)The park hours and leash laws are NEVER enforced:at the recent public meeting, dog owners proudly admitted taking dogs off leash and breaking the law, and City officials in attendance were silent, which of course encourages this behaviour, and leaves me and others thinking that the city has already acceded to the vocal dog lobby, without regard to homeowners concerns and requests for alternative sites that do not abut residential property. 6)There has been a steady increase in violations of dog feces cleanup. rules, with unbagged and bagged feces left on sidewalks and front lawns. Lisa Van Dusen in Community Center (registered) December 22, 2016, 5:07 PM I hope the City's priorities will include the rerouting of air traffic. I realize that the channels for this are well beyond the city (FAA and others) but the effect This change (NextGen) has had a tremendously negative effect on the quality of life for me -one that exceeds all the other issues in the 2016 priority list or is at least equal to them all. Other priorities include: -being aggressive in achieving and/or exceeding our 80x30 Greenhouse Gas Emission goals and becoming a carbon neutral community as soon as possible -making bold changes to bike routes and transit to reduce car trips rather than adding parking spaces - perhaps charging for parking, barriers for bike lanes like near Jordan and reconsidering bike paths next to the creeks disconnected from roads entirely -addressing the unfunded and funded liabilities for the City, esp considering a deficit this year, reduced All Statements sorted chronologically As of January 25, 2017, 8:53 AM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/4065 Page 15 of65 2017 Council Priorities What are the priorities you would like to see the City Council adopt for 2017? investment returns for Calpers -this is not good and I do not hear anyone talking about this, rather just raises for the city staff. I would like to hear the solutions to the big picture -including in the Comp Plan the elements of a thriving community that we say we support, including affordable "homes" in every sense for individuals and families with a wide range of incomes, nonprofits, artists and others. -infrastructure (boring but necessary) Thank you for your service and leadership. I urge and encourage you to be bold, not timid, in how we approach our challenges. Name not available (unclaimed) December 22, 2016, 5:01 PM 1. Make it easier/cheaper to convert existing structures into cottages on oversized lots. 2. Make the FAA vary their flight paths to cut down noise over Palo Alto 3. Finish the comprehensive plan Name not available (unclaimed) December 22, 2016, 4:39 PM Do one test. Place a noise and air pollution recorder on any home in Palo Alto (Crescent Park is a prime location). Tell us how many planes *you* count, how loud they are, how low they are, and how much they pollute. Where are the tests of these kinds? Why hasn't the city of Palo Alto conducted its own test to protect its own citizens? Do one test and reveal what we already know. Do one test to validate and legitimize our complaints and our concerns. Do one test to confirm that there is a constant stream of aircraft flying low and loud over Palo Alto homes day and night, and listen to us when we say that we wake up every single day at 04:00am when the planes break the few hours of unscheduled flyover time from 02:00am to 04:00am. Do one test. Help us. Spend a day in our homes. Our quality of life has fallen precipitously due to NextGen traffic. Tell us how it is possible NextGen could happen on your watch. Tell us what concrete solutions you will execute and when, exactly, you will execute them. Laure MAZZARA in Crescent Park (registered) Please work on reducing the aircraft noise. Please continue to work on the parking problem December 22, 2016, 2:14 PM I would like to see more actions to solve the traffic congestion instead of years of planning. Name not shown in Fairmeadow (unverified) December 22, 2016, 2:06 PM Commercial aircraft overflight noise mitigation -impacting life style, sleep, and potentially house values. Name not shown in Crescent Park (registered) All Statements sorted chronologically As of January 25, 2017, 8:53 AM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/4065 December 22, 2016, 1 :32 PM Page 16 of 65 2017 Council Priorities What are the priorities you would like to see the City Council adopt for 2017? Please work on reducing the noise from jets flying to SFO. 1 Supporter john kunz in Leland Manor/ Garland (registered) 1. Airplane noise. It is awful! December 22, 2016, 10:30 AM 2. Car traffic. The root cause is that we in Palo Alto and Silicon Valley are so appealing to so many people around the nation and world. Looking historically, our living and working populations have both grown dramatically in 50 years. There is every reason to expect more of same in next 5 and 50. Council, please take a long view. Please look broadly and openly at non-car transport, density and how to collaborate with other municipalities in the Bay Area. Karen Price in Evergreen Park (registered) December 22, 2016, 10:26 AM Please make keeping affordable commercial space a top priority and install a moratorium on tearing down any more commercial buildings. We have seen much discussion about affordable retail/housing, but little if anything about commercial. Every time an older Class C building is torn down and replaced with a big Class A building, we lose valuable members of our community who can not afford the very high rent. We have already lost many therapists (physical and emotional), bodyworkers, psychiatrists, family lawyers, insurance agents, and other professionals, as well as hairdressers and other service providers. We can not replace these buildings or these people and our practices. I have been maintaining my Advanced Rolfing practice at 378 Cambridge Ave since 1979, working generations of families throughout Palo Alto and the Bay Area and doing groundbreaking research with Stanford School of Medicine. We need affordable office space to continue our work and give new generations the space to start and maintain their practices. Local professionals give much to the community in many ways. Tech companies in large buildings give nothing. The buildings themselves also offer diversity and variety to the town-seeing buildings built during many decades of the last century, rather than the last few years, is great for children as well as adults. Please install a moratorium on tearing down any more commercial buildings. 1 Supporter Name not shown in University South (registered) December 22, 2016, 9:40 AM I hope the horrible airplane noise over much of our city due to the NextGen flight paths will be a top priority. With 80+ planes a day flying at 3500 feet over our house, we have had to move out of our home due to the health issues from the relentless noise day and night. We want to return to our home and our community in Palo Alto. Our house is siiting there, as we don't want to have to sell, but we need something to happen with the FAA. The noise and pollution effects not just us, but the entire community. PLEASE stay on top of this. All Statements sorted chronologically As of January 25, 2017, 8:53 AM h ttp://www_peakdemocracy_com/4065 Page 17 of65 2017 Council Priorities What are the priorities you would like to see the City Council adopt for 2017? Start a lawsuit against the FAA if things don't change in the next 60 days, as other cities have done. 1 Supporter Name not available (unclaimed) December 22, 2016, 8:35 AM Jet noise is the most important issue we are facing in Palo Alto. It has negatively impacted how much I can enjoy being outside in my backyard or taking a stroll around town, and has often woken me up in the night or early morning, even with double pane windows. If you care at all about the residents in our city you will fight for new flight paths and higher mandatory altitudes over our homes. We need the full weight of the city to fight for us on this issue. Name not shown in Duveneck/ St Francis (registered) December 22, 2016, 8:34 AM Reducing airplane noise (flights into SFO and SJ) and reducing traffic congestion are my top concerns. Karen Gould in Crescent Park (registered) December 22, 2016, 8:10 AM PLEASE. do something about the terrifyingly loud plane noise in the middle of the night. I'm woken up EVERY SINGLE NIGHT by planes above my house. This is severely disrupting my sleep and, consequently, my health and the quality of my days. I'm miserable from this. The planes are too low and too loud. I sleep with earplugs and am still awakened. Thank you Name not available (unclaimed) December 21, 2016, 10:45 PM Please get the FAA to do something to greatly reduce jet noise back to where it was before the nightmarish NexGen. Thanks. Andy Robin, Walnut Dr, Palo Alto Ruth Wilnai in Leland Manor/ Garland (registered) December 21, 2016, 9:20 PM 1. The real estate prices are high in the sky, as a result young middle class families move out of Palo Alto. The city becomes more and more a bubble of population who is not aware of the existence of other people who can't afford this way of life. 2. Much noise and pollution around Palo Alto comes from the leaf blowers. Most of the gardeners don't use electrical blowers. They can chase one lead for several minutes with the gas blower. First, they harm themselves and then the whole neighborhood suffer. There is a law, but it is not enforced. The airplane noise should have the lowest priority on the list. Name not shown outside Palo Alto (registered) .4.11 s-tatements sorteici chronologically As of January 25, 2017, 8:53 AM http~/www.peakdemocracy.com/4065 December 21, 2016, 9:19 PM Page 18 of 65 2017 Council Priorities What are the priorities you would like to see the City Council adopt for 2017? Please continue to work on reducing the jet noise from flights into and out of SFO. The noise from these planes is loud and frequent, often waking me at early hours of the morning (e.g. 4:20am) and keeping me awake long into the night (e.g. 1am). Daytime provides no respite, either, as the flights occur every few minutes. Name not shown outside Palo Alto (registered) December 21, 2016, 8:45 PM Please continue to work towards ending the onslaught of jet noise overhead. I work at my home office and have planes roaring overhead every couple of minutes interrupting my ability to concentrate on the task at hand. We have considered moving away from our house of 17 years, if this does not get resolved soon. We live 28 miles from the nearest large airport and would never have moved here, if we had known we would be on a constant approach path for low flying aircraft. The constant noise from low flying jets has had a dramatic effect on my mental health, and the pollution generated below a narrow flight path is also a threat to the health of residents nearby. 1 Supporter Name not available (unclaimed) Jet Noise Traffic December 21, 2016, 8:39 PM Name not available (unclaimed) December 21, 2016, 6:26 PM Please do whatever is possible to decrease the noise from jets and from all low-flying aircraft of any size. It seriously affects qualify of life for many of us. Name not shown in Fairmeadow (registered) Please give high priority to reducing the alarming increase in the level of jet noise. 3 Supporters Name not available (unclaimed) December 21, 2016, 5:59 PM December 21, 2016, 5:59 PM Enough about the jet noise! We have wasted enough time, energy and city money on this already. While we put up a good fight to try to move the airplanes to other people, in the end it did not work. We need to move on. We have always lived under a flight path and frankly, it was not a problem -that is until a group of people here made it a problem. We should accept that it will go back to the way it was and focus on other, real priorities like crime, sexual assault and overcrowding. Richard Staehnke in Palo Verde (registered) All Statements sorted chronologically As of January 25, 2017, 8:53 AM http://www.peakdamocracy.com/4065 December 21, 2016, 5:46 PM Page 19 of 65 2017 Council Priorities What are the priorities you would like to see the City Council adopt for 2017? STOP THE INCESSANT JET NOISE, Day,Night,Weekdays,Weekends, 200, 300 and more everyday, roaring, whining, whooshing, dropping 1 OOO's of gallons of unspent jet fuel on our heads. All the other pet issues people like to talk about in this town are affected by this horrendous change in FAA flight plans. Protest, Sue, Threaten, Beg, I don't care just get this done PLEASE. 62 year resident who cannot believe this has been foisted on us and our elected officials aren't doing EVERYTHING POSSIBLE to protect it's citizens. 4 Supporters Bill Gargiulo in Old Palo Alto (registered) December 21, 2016, 5:44 PM Please stay focused on the terrible hijacking of our skies by the FAA. Stay focused on driving through a solution to the never ending sounds of jets decelerating over out city. 4 Supporters Name not shown in Crescent Park (registered) December 21, 2016, 5:32 PM Please make the Aircraft Noise as a key initiative to address. It is a probably the number 1 major issue for the community. 4 Supporters Mary Rodocker in Duveneck/ St Francis (registered) December 21, 2016, 5:26 PM Please address the jet noise problem for Palo Alto citizens. It affects my sleep, my ability to concentrate when .working at home, and my ability to be outdoors for gardening and other (once) pleasurable activities. This is definitely a quality of life issue. Thank you for your consideration. Mary Rodocker. 355 Iris Way. 94303 3 Supporters Name not shown in Old Palo Alto (registered) December 21, 2016, 5:21 PM I would like the City Council to make reducing jet noise a priority for this community. The low flights, especially the late at night jumbos and cargos, are extremely loud even now, in winter, when all the windows are shut tight. We have all radiant heating and no NC in our home, so there is no white noise in the house that can mask the whistle of the Airbus planes or roar of the cargo planes. 1 Supporter Jerry Chu in Duveneck/ St Francis (registered) All Statements sorted chronologically As of January 25, 2017, 8:53 AM December 21, 2016, 5:14 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/4065 Page 20 of65 2017 Council Priorities What are the priorities you would like to see the City Council adopt for 2017? The airplane noise from SFO arrival flights should continue to receive top attention by the city to find a remedy. I know and appreciate the work done by the city so far but we will need to make sure solutions acceptable to PA residents adopted by FAA and implemented ASAP, especially for those of us who live in North P.A. Green Gable/ Crescent Park area -we're getting double whammy between the SFO and PA's municipal airport. I've lived in PA for > 30 years and used to be annoyed by the noise of small airplane from the municipal airport. It turned out that's nothing compared to the noises from SFO flights! Thanks! Name not available (unclaimed) 1 ) control the jet noise . Fight the FAA 2) control the taffic jam Name not available (unclaimed) December 21, 2016, 4:30 PM December 21, 2016, 4:30 PM I am a long-time resident of the College Terrace neighborhood, and my major concern is that our quality of life has been seriously damaged in this past year by the low-flying jet planes that seem to be heading for SFO. Outdoor activities (including just sitting on our deck!) are ruined by the constant loud noise of the plane engines. I hope that the City Council will take this problem seriously and work with local and federal aviation authorities to alleviate the problem. Roger Pierno in College Terrace (registered) December 21, 2016, 4:23 PM 1. Improve traffic flow by implementing coordinated, dynamic, real time traffic light controls on all major roads in PA and coordinate this system with neighboring cities. 2. Find ways to retain spaces for small startups and to retain the few small businesses still in the city. 3. Find ways to maintain the current character and diversity of the California Avenue shopping area and prevent it from becoming another chain store/restaurant mecca like University Avenue. 4. Do not approve any new commercial or office development, housing should be the priority. 5. Start planning to retain Fry's Electronics in Palo Alto. Fry's is not only a great store for electronic devices, but it is now the only electronic component store in Palo Alto or within many miles of Palo Alto. As a maker myself and a mentor to young tinkerers and makers, I know the value of having a local store that stocks electronic components and how vital it is for curious young minds. 1 Supporter Carol Kenyon in Community Center (registered) December 21, 2016, 4: 19 PM Low, loud, frequent air plane noise has become an increasing problem in the last 2 years. This problem has become an issue of the quality of life in Palo Alto and surrounding Cities. Please direct your attention to this problem. All Statements sorted chronologically As of January 25, 2017, 8:53 AM http://www.paakdemocracy.com/4065 Page 21of65 2017 Council Priorities What are the priorities you would like to see the City Council· adopt for 2017? Thank you Carol Kenyon 3 Supporters Name not shown in Old Palo Alto (registered) Top priority for 2017? To paraphrase Bill Clinton, "It's the jet noise, stupid." 1 Supporter Name not available (unclaimed) December21, 2016, 4:12 PM December 21, 2016, 4:00 PM Please prioritize airplane noise and traffic. The planes are more frequent and lower than ever. We can barely get out of Crescent Dr.!! Dr.!! Name not available (unclaimed) December 21, 2016, 3:49 PM I would like the City Council to focus on reducing airplane noise. Name not available (unclaimed) December 21, 2016, 3:48 PM Flight noise detracts from the quality of life in Palo Alto Rod Miller in Crescent Park (registered) December 21, 2016, 3:37 PM The most significant negative changes (over the last 50 years) in my Palo Alto experience are: 1-Airplane noise. It was bad with the occasional emergency chopper heading to Stanford, but that is understandable. However in the last couple of years the noise has become extremely bothersome. Don't people open their windows when sleeping? Don't people spend time outside? Do people drown out the noise from within their house by loud music/TV? Consider this experience: One night a couple of years ago I was abruptly awakened by the noise of a very low jet aircraft approaching. An aircraft at this altitude had never happened before. In my groggy state, I concluded the only reason the aircraft was so low was that it was in trouble and that it might crash. It might crash into my house, I couldn't see its heading. I might be killed. For about 10 seconds the terror escalated as the aircraft approached. Then to my indescribable relief it passed overhead. Put yourself in that position. All your senses are telling you that you might be killed in the next 10 seconds and there is absolutely nothing you can do about it. Needless to say I was severely traumatized by that event. Since then I notice the sound of most aircraft that pass overhead. Many times the noise disrupts my train of.thought completely. This is a severe impact upon my All Statements sorted chronologically As of January 25, 2017, 8:53 AM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/4065 Page22 of 65 2017 Council Priorities What are the priorities you would like to see the City Council adopt for 2017? quality of life. 2-Liveability. I'm sure lots of people are making lots of money working Palo Alto and renting work space to those who do. It is time to tip the scales towards the well meaning long-term citizens of this city and carefully consider the amount of office space if any should be added to downtown. I'm sure many property owners will be dissatisfied and the apparent loss of their opportunity to get rich, but it's got to stop somewhere. Increasing density before adding traffic capacity is a recipe for disaster -how many people are using public transit now verus the forecasts for this date? 3-Environment. I've been an environmentalist all my life. However, I find the scope and speed of implimentation of environmental changes to be unrealistic. Yes I realize that we have to push the envelope; maybe it is OK for other cities to be more aggressive than PA. For example, really, tape over the terminals of the 1 OOs of batteries I have for recycling is nuts, how many fires have been caused by batteries being recycled? Maybe just tape the terminals of Lithium batteries. 4-Flood protection -I was flooded in 1999. I understand fixing this problem is a complex inter-jurisidictional problem. However, in the seventeen years that have gone by (while individuals at the agencies involved have gotten raises, promotions, and retired) I get a telephone warning system and the pleasure of hauling and dispersing tons of sand bags by myself but no real fix to the threat. WHERE IS THE SENSE OF URGENCY HERE? A real sense of urgency would find a way to fix this problem, no excuses. The bottom line for me is that I no longer consider Palo Alto a desirable place to live. Years ago walking to downtown was a joy. There was a real eclectic nature to the atmosphere -artists, galleries, and a true variety of stores. Now I suffer from airplane noise, the threat of being flooded every winter and the associated work to put tons of sandbags in place and then remove them (every year!), joyless traffic, greed everywhere, a downtown bereft of interesting stores, architecture, and glutted with restaurants. The positive of proximity to health care is approaching being outweighed by the negatives. 1 Supporter Doug Solomon in Leland Manor/ Garland (registered) Affordable housing, and, Reduced airplane noise 1 Supporter Name not available (unclaimed) December 21, 2016, 3:30 PM · December 21, 2016, 3:18 PM Highest priority should be to reverse the FAA NextGen action that flies 330+ jets low and loud over Palo Alto daily. Next priority should be to join the suit brought by Portola Valley residents against FAA. Next priority should be to demand a seat at the FAA metroplex round table to ensure that Palo Alto has a voice given the disproportionate impact on quality of life that 330+ daily jet overflights has brought. The city should add 3-4 viable and welcoming fenced dog areas in Palo Alto city parks. Name not availahle 'unverified) M S'tatemenls sorted Cliron01'091dtry As of January 25. 2017, 8:53 AM http:l/www.paakdemocracy.com14065 December21, 2016, 3:13 PM Page 23 of 65 2017 Council Priorities What are the priorities you would like to see the City Council adopt for 2017? I would like city council to make the reducing aircraft noise as first priority. I am a mother of a second grade student at Nixon Elementary school. I brought my daughter to campus to play a weekend and realized how many airplane go over their campus everyday and how bad the noise can be. In less than twenty minutes, there were more than 10 airplanes, all flying at very low altitude, which makes me furious and really worried. I am surprised not so many discussion about the noise over the elementary school. Our children's life has been significantly affected and I am hoping we adults can do something good for them. Name not available (unclaimed) December 21, 2016, 3: 13 PM Reduce jet noise level but don't o it at the expense of other areas impacted by noise. Name not shown in Leland Manor/ Garland (registered) December 21, 2016, 3:05 PM Changing the FAAs decision to fly all the jets to SFO over our homes instead of the bay has to be a high priority! The increasing noise -even at 4AM -is bad enough, but the added air pollution is unreasonable and unacceptable. Please consideration this a high priority! 1 Supporter Name not available (unclaimed) December 21, 2016, 3:04 PM Jet noise has been dumped onto Palo Alto from neighboring cities and they resist any form of equitable sharing. Anna Eshoo, SFO, and the FAA ignore the human health impacts from noise and emissions, and they are content to let Palo Alto suffer. The City needs to take a strong position and insist that everyone who benefits from the airports share the burden instead of letting Palo Alto (and Los Altos Hills, Menlo Parl, and East Palo Alto) be the dumping ground for all aircraft impacts. alex green in Palo Verde (registered) December 21, 2016, 3:03 PM Jet noise, road congestion, keep retail in Midtown Name not shown outside Palo Alto (registered) December 21, 2016, 3:01 PM The #1 priority of living in the Palo Alto I Stanford area must be addressing the issue of overhead airplane noise, which has multiplied tremendously in the past two years. This is affecting the quality of our lives, and the ability of our children to sleep, focus, and do homework. The persistent jet noise also has insidious effects on our (adult) health, not only through lack of sleep, but through increased blood pressure and anxiety. 1 Supporter lois shore in Duveneck/ St Francis (registered) All Statements sorted chronologically As of January 25, 2017, 8:53 AM December 18, 2016, 4:16 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/4065 Page24 of 65 2017 Council Priorities What are the priorities you would like to see the City Council adopt for 2017? I would like the Council to consider Airplane noise a top priority. The planes fly low and loud over homes and schools. 2 Supporters Ben Lenail in Crescent Park (registered) December 17, 2016, 8:06 PM I would like the City Council to focus on reducing airplane noise, making Palo Alto a "smart city" when it comes to road congestion, and opening a dog-friendly park in northern Palo Alto. 2 Supporters Name not shown in Old Palo Alto (registered) December 12, 2016, 10:42 AM Please make it a priority to retain and empower what few cultural and social assets Palo Alto still has. That is, assets that promote both cultural diversity and social interaction. In this day in age, land value is at a premium · but anything City Council can do to protect and incentivize landowners and business owners to stay in Palo Alto, the City Council should do. There is increasing pressure to limit or cap these institutions (i.e. CineArts, bowling alleys, private schools that bring diversity to our increasingly less diverse community, Avenidas, museums, etc.), please make this a priority to enable these businesses (most of which are non-profits) to not only survive, but THRIVE in our. community. Take the negative stigma away from proposed projects by sticking up for these essential parts of the community. Palo Alto has already lost so many small businesses that make the City great, I would hate to lose anymore or hurt them by imposing overbearing restrictions. In addition, make sure that with increasing ordinances added (office cap, retail "preservation"), make sure that you have the long-term vision at the forefront of the conversation. Please consider the impacts to the future beyond your term, our kid's kids, etc. If you would not want to see retail in a location where it exists, don't force a landowner to keep it because of some inflexible, arbitrary rule. If you would not put retail there if you were starting from scratch today, do not just force it, it will only end badly. And in terms of the office cap, please consider businesses that have been in Palo Alto for a long time and may need more space. What are they supposed to do? All of these must be thought out before rushing to a decision. I know you will serve the people well and best luck in your upcoming terms. - A native and grateful citizen 1 Supporter Name not shown in Crescent Park (unverified) December 11, 2016, 10:36 AM I would like to see no more office construction in the downtown area, a plan to make outbound traffic accessing 101 In evening manageable, and the preservation of professional services and retail in the downtown areas. For the latter to happen, rents need not to skyrocket. Ben Lerner in Palo Verde (registered) Council Goals for 2017: All Statements sorted chronologically As of January 25, 2017, 8:53 AM http:l/www.peakdemocracy.com/4065 December 7, 2016, 8:28 AM Page 25 of 65 201 T Council Priorities What are the priorities you would like to see the City Council adopt for 2017? 1. Create and impose a new "Eichler Zone", R1-E zoning designation for Eichler neighborhoods that preserves the architectural style of Eichler neighborhoods and maintains the current privacy of residents' indoor-outdoor spaces. This was promised when Council rejected the Royal Manor SSO petition and if done correctly will eliminate much future conflict. 2. We are being pressured to solve our jobs-housing imbalance, in large part to reduce the car traffic of commuters in-out of Palo Alto. Before we adopt any policy or zoning changes to attempt to fix this, let's get some data to understand the problem: As a priority goal, let's conduct a comprehensive study of where every working PA resident works and how they get there, and where everyone who works in PA lives and how they commute to work. This will serve to inform any policy proposals to solve our traffic, commute, and parking problems. 3. There is pressure on Palo Alto to build more housing to solve the "housing shortage", generally seen as housing prices being higher than buyers/renters are happy to pay. Before making any policy changes to attempt to "fix" this, we should establish a priority goal of understanding our housing market and what's driving the "shortage": We need to determine how many of our housing units are used as actual housing, v.s. used as offices or investment properties that aren't rented to local workers. This should inform any discussion about up- zoning to allow for more housing. It is a very real possibility that if our current housing stock were used for its intended purpose, out housing "shortage" would be less severe. Thanks for reading! Christian Pease in Evergreen Park (registered) December 6, 2016, 12:36 PM 1) Infrastructure: Repair, replace, and upgrade our basic infrastructure before, or actively in conjunction with, the addition more office space and large numbers of dense additional new housing units -get it right to begin with, please. 2) Especially: Design and implement integrated, real, and practical (not future vision(s) -for example, predicting and acting as if we know when autonomous cars will actually be on the market, in the streets, and adopted at scale) integrated/inter-modal and comprehensive transportation -including PUBLIC transportation (OK, "mobility," if you well) that is available and affordable for all who need and want it. Do this before, or actively in conjunction with the addition more office space or large numbers of dense new "car light" housing units. Just saying some area targeted for dense development, notably California Avenue, is "transportation rich," does not mean it currently is "rich" enough to effectively and seriously mitigate against a relentless traffic problem that is fast becoming gridlock. Importantly, emphasize public safety in this mix, as cars, bikes, and pedestrians must going forward share common routes and surfaces more than ever before -for example, slapping in traffic circles in narrow, over- parked streets in and of itself, without accounting for good visibility, clearance, and public safety enforcement, is simply not enough to address this obvious safety issue. 3) Especially: Make demonstrably sure that TDMs (Transportation Demand Management plans) used to All Statements sorted chronologically As of January 25, 2017, 8:53 AM http:l/www.peakdemocracy.com/4065 Page26 of 65 2017 Council Priorities What are the priorities you would like to see the City Council adopt for 2017? facilitate private real estate development are in fact enforce, accountable, and working before, or in active conjunction with, the addition of more office space and large number of dense additional new housing units - indeed, prove "car light" produced tangible benefits, don't just ignore inconvenient facts. 4) For new housing, emphasized the nurturing of long-term economic diversity in Palo Alto and do so deliberately encouraging long-time residency and involvement in our community -that would be welcoming beyond just lip-service -which means housing that is in reality "affordable" -not simply "below market," yet still, by any reasonable measure quite expensive -doing so will likely require at least some public participation - purely private real estate initiatives are not set-up for this objective, especially given the returns that are expected from very expensive land. 5) And last but not least.. .. please, work to get the FAA to stop the big time commercial airplane noise invading our homes and neighborhoods:-) Ronda Rosner in College Terrace (registered) December 5, 2016, 12:14 PM Please make it your #1 priority to reduce the aircraft noise in our city. This means following up the work of the Select Committee recommendations to ensure the FAA takes action in a timely manner. The City Council should also ensure that a representative who lives in Palo Alto be appointed to the ongoing governing group to be formed in the wake of the Select Committee, to focus on the issue of aircraft noise in our region. 2 Supporters Name not available (unclaimed) Airplane noise in Palo Alto John Eaton in Community Center (registered) December 2, 2016, 2:27 PM December 2, 2016, 12:28 PM On Sunday November 27th, after being awaken by a low jet flyover at 6:00am, I recorded 11 loud aircraft flyovers inside our home between 6:13am and 7:57am. Improve our quality of life. Please put priorities on reducing airplane traffic and noise over our neighborhoods. Community Center 4 Supporters Name not shown in Green Acres (registered) November 30, 2016, 8:34 PM A few years ago we both retired and moved from north Palo Alto to near Gunn High School. While I like this part of town, I now realize it has almost no senior citizen activities. To participate, we have to drive to downtown Palo Alto and park. I am looking forward to the next few years when Avenidas operates out of Cubberley but do All Statements sorted chronologically As of January 25, 2017, 8:53 AM http://www.peakdemocrecy.com/4065 Page27 of65 2017 Council Priorities What are the priorities you would like to see the City Council adopt for 2017? wish "satellite" senior programs could be located at the neighborhood schools or churches so we could walk and get to know more neighbors. Downtown definitely needs more parking: when I asked fundraisers for new Palo Alto History Museum about parking, they said there is none planned and everyone should walk or bike-not options for us because even the Margarite bus or Palo Alto Shuttle do not operate near us. Parking time is so limited that I have had to leave two different meetings early to avoid getting a ticket.Please help Palo Alto develop more small community centers so we don't all have to come to University Avenue. Best example is the three middle schools! Maybe we seniors could even volunteer with students! Thanks James Colton in Green Acres (unverified) November 30, 2016, 5:17 PM We have only scratched the surface on the goals for 2016 so my main point is that we should continue working on Livability (traffic, parking) and infrastructure. These areas have become problems because the city council for the last decade just wasn't able to say no to developers. This brought too many offices in Palo Alto without the ability to park, control traffic--degrading livability and infrastructure. We should also find ways for the workers of Palo Alto (Police, teachers, and other government employees) to be able to live in Palo Alto. I'm not talking granny units or putting kitchenettes in bedrooms. That only makes livability worse. I'm talking about multi-unit housing that is subsidized by the government--city, State and federal. And--very important--we must have restrictions on who lives there so it houses the residents we intend to house there and not any senior or any low-income or even any techie but rather the workers in Palo Alto that are priced out of the market. Paige Parsons in Barron Park (registered) 1.) Traffic 2.) Pedestrian and Bike Corridors 3.) Airplane noise Name not available (unclaimed) hey THOMAS LAWER in Green Acres (registered) November 30, 2016, 3:09 PM November 30, 2016, 2:26 PM November 30, 2016, 10:49 AM I would like the city council to focus on quality of life for current residents. I would like to see a moratorium on growth until there is a clear plan on how to handle traffic issues as well as school enrollment and population issues caused by the recent new development as well as a better plan on how to handle the load on our services and infrastructure of any new growth. I would like to see an overarching analysis of new developments rather than the current process where each development is looked at in isolation, which has lead to our current poor state. I would also like to see a revision in the setback and architecture for future growth. For some reason, the developments in Palo Alto seem to have the smallest setbacks and, in my opinion, the ugliest and most dated architecture. I find the projects Mountain View has built to be much better in terms of both setback All Statements sorted chronologically As of January 25, 2017, 8:53 AM http~lwww.paakdamocracy.com/4065 Paga28 of 65 2017 Council Priorities What are the priorities you would like to see the City Council adopt for 2017? and architecture, so i think it is easily possible to do better than we do. Mark Nadim in Palo Alto Hills (registered) My priorities for Palo Alto are, November 30, 2016, 9:59 AM 1. Traffic congestion relief 2. Excessive construction of office space, with under parked buildings 3. Comprehensive Plan update approval 4. Infrastructure Name not available (unclaimed) November 29, 2016, 5:02 PM Parking. All new projects should not assume they may use the surrounding area for THEIR parking lot. John Guislin in Downtown North (registered) November 29, 2016, 4:38 PM Even with a limited set of priorities, far too often nothing is accomplished in the year they are prioritized. Therefore I propose one priority for 2017: TRAFFIC. As you understand, this is a complex issue that includes safety, parking, quality of life, policing, development, and many more important issues. I see Palo Alto and the region hoping for the best but doing very little. Let's make a real investment in addressing the issue before solutions stretch even farther out of reach. 2 Supporters Phyllis Cassel in Midtown/ Midtown West (registered) November 29, 2016, 3:43 PM I want next years Council to continue with the current priorities. The most urgent is the completion of the Comp Plan. We have been working on this for far to long. It is hard to develop a good plan but at some point we must say this is the best we can do for the moment. It is time to move forward on implementation. Focusing on housing and mobility is the next most important goal. Implementation of the infrastructure plan is beginning to really show. We need to keep going while we have the income stream. I have really enjoyed the renovated building. Please keep moving on this. Name not shown in Duveneck/ St Francis (registered) November 28, 2016, 7:52 PM Airplane noise. Quality of life and ability to work has degrade considerably since March 2015 due to airplane noise. Waiting anxiously to see a grocery store in Edgewood Plaza resume operation. The store, which was part of the All Statements sorted chronologically As of January 25, 2017, 8:53 AM http1/www.peakdemocracy.com/4065 Page29 of 65 2017 Council Priorities What are the priorities you would like to see the City Council adopt for 2017? Edgewood Plaza redevelopment deal closed down after operating for one year. Richard Yankwich in Crescent Park (registered) Airplane noise, parking, infrastructure 1 Supporter Lee Christel in Midtown/ Midtown West (registered) November 28, 2016, 2:10 PM November 28, 2016, 2:01 PM (1) Continue work on reduction of aircraft noise in all ways possible. Take legal action if needed. Fund city- wide noise monitors. (2) Enforce the ban on gas leaf blowers and amend to include any blower or tool that exceeds a noise threshold. (3) Adopt at least a 2 year moratorium on expansion of office space (until traffic subsides to targeted levels). (4) Make the quality of life of residents already here the priority over expansion. (5) Close the Palo Alto Airport, or at least get rid of the noisy helicopter schools. 1 Supporter Brian Tucker in Leland Manor/ Garland (registered) November 28, 2016, 11 :54 AM While I strongly appreciate the effort that the City of Palo Alto made to help the Select Committee on Airplane Noise (this is not the official name) recently, I know that the recommendations that that committee made to our Congressional Representatives are only a first step in addressing Palo Alto's unbearable airplane noise problems. I urge that the City continue to track this problem and to urge Anna Eshoo to implement all of the recommendations, including the creation of a follow-up body to implement long-term solutions. 3 Supporters marie-jo fremont in Leland Manor/ Garland (registered) November 28, 2016, 11 :41 AM Airplane noise. The problem of airplane noise has been fully documented and recognized, and not just by the City. The Select Committee put in place by Anna Eshoo, Jackie Speier, and Sam Farr was a step in the right direction. If implemented, some of the Select Committee recommendations will help reduce the noise over Palo Alto a little. That is progress and the City's involvement in the process was critical to getting there. However, the City must continue to be involved to ensure that (1) the recommendations are indeed implemented, and (2) the big elephant in the room (e.g. the arrivals from the south) is being addressed (moving the track a little back to the historical ground track is shifting not solving the problem). 2 Supporters Name not shown in Midtown/ Midtown West (registered) All Statements sorted chronologically As of Janueiy 25, 2017, 8:53 AM http://www.peekdemocracy.com/4065 November 27, 2016, 9:33 AM Page 30 of 65 2017 Council Priorities What are the priorities you would like to see the City Council adopt for 2017? Two priorities for your list: (1) reduce jet noise and pollution (2) make a plan to address and eliminate the destructive effects of bay level rise on the community. Ronald Albrecht in Midtown/ Midtown West (registered) November 26, 2016, 12:23 AM 1. Infrastructure repair 2. Infrastructure maintenance 3. Infrastructure upgrades The first priority of the City Council is to protect and maintain the assets funded by our tax dollars. We must keep meticulous records of these assets with aging lists and maintenance schedules to avoid the need for additional taxes. Maintenance must be funded before all else. Council members must be required to schedule walks around areas being discussed in Council meetings. Aging lists need to be provided by independent firms and delivered to the Council once every two years. Nothing can top an on site inspection of assets being discussed in Council chambers --nothing. Thank you Name not available (unclaimed) Jet noise at night Electrification of Caltrain (diesel air pollution) Jeff Rosner in College Terrace (registered) November 23, 2016, 3:03 AM November 22, 2016, 10:41 PM 1. Aircraft noise; it's about the pervasiveness more than the peak noise, but the peak noise is, at times, life- altering 2. Emphasizing quality of life for residents, vs. bringing in more office buildings and filling them with commuters; encouraging retail in appropriate corridors to drive sales tax revenues, vs. continued residential developments along these corridors (e.g. condos on El Camino) 3. Comprehensive zoning review followed by a hard line on rejecting applications for variances. 2 Supporters Name not shown in Evergreen Park (unverified) November 22, 2016, 8:07 PM -Airplane noise -Resolving caltrain high speed rail for residents who will be impacted (not me personally) -Traffic and parking in our business districts; growth demands more business and employee housing -Parks and overall PA beautification, expanding dog parks and resources has been a low priority agenda item for years with no progress Lou Marzano in Duveneck/ St Francis (registered) All Statements sorted chronologically As of January 25, 2017, 8:53 AM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/4065 November 22, 2016, 3:53 PM Page 31of65 2017 Council Priorities What are the priorities you would like to see the City Council adopt for 2017? Reduce jet noise 1 Supporter Name not available (unclaimed) November 21, 2016, 8:11 PM I urge the City Council to address the problem of the intolerable number of airplanes flying over our neighborhoods at low attitudes resulting in harmful noise and air pollution. Over the past 2 years the quality of life for many Palo Alto residents has declined drastically due to the new flight paths funneled over Palo Alto. I am totally discouraged by the lack of representation Palo Alto has had to address this outrageous situation in past forums. The Select Committee results were dominated by Santa Cruz residents who voted in their own self interest. We have over 300 flights a day which fly over our house, from ·every direction and to and from every Bay Area airport. Stopping jet noise should be a top priority for the Palo Alto council in 2017. Name not available (unclaimed) November 21, 2016, 6:01 PM We must stop the terrible airplane noise over our homes at all hours of the day and night. This is too stressful. Also, we need to slow down the traffic in our neighborhoods and ticket the drivers who speed and who roll through stop signs. We aren't safe anymore! Mark Landesmann in Crescent Park (registered) November 21, 2016, 4:34 PM 1) The top priority, other than those that are part of the normal course of business, should be AIRPLANE NOISE, with specific suggestions as follows: a) Dedicate at least two full-time senior staffers to aircraft noise and pollution abatement for the City in close cooperation with its neighboring communities, which includes filing and pursuing (together with the City Attorney) administrative and legal complaints against airports, airlines, and other entities, for all violations of noise thresholds, as defined in the City's Municipal Code, and all violations of airplane toxin thresholds, as defined by the Federally-mandated National Ambient Air Quality Standards, unless the prospective defendant was entitled to said violations pursuant to Federal or State laws, rules, and orders, but especially if these violations also violate one or more of the Federal and State laws, rules, and orders (such as speed and altitude limits set forth by the FAA, EPA guidelines, and the 5th amendment to the Constitution of the United States), as determined, without bias or further implicit or explicit instruction, by the law firm the City has retained to advise it on these matters. b) Install a city-wide airplane noise and emissions monitoring system, in coordination with the SFO Roundtable, so that the City's measurements and standards can be compared to those that pertain to the fixed SFO monitoring stations furthest removed from the airport (those in Redwood City and the Marina), said Palo Alto monitoring system to be, however, managed and monitored by the City, with the results of said measurements published on the City website, allowing for retrieval of each the measurements, which exceed aforementioned All Statements sorted chronologically As of January 25, 2017, 8:53 AM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/4065 Page 32 of 65 2017 Council Priorities What are the priorities you would like to see the City Council adopt for 2017? thresholds, no later than 24 hours after they are made, but preferably in real-time, and further allowing residents to subscribe to a daily or weekly email, which provides all measurements that exceed these thresholds, with respect to one or more monitoring stations as customized by the subscriber. c) Call by majority vote of the council, for a City-wide vote, as part of the next scheduled election, proposing to amend Article 2 of the City's Charter, replacing "The city of Palo Alto, by and through its council and other officials, shall have and may exercise all powers necessary and appropriate to a municipal corporation and the general welfare of its inhabitants" with ")"he City of Palo Alto, by and through its Council and other officials, has as its primary, foremost, and binding duty to reasonably exercise all powers necessary, and available to it by law and circumstance, to safeguard the life, health, and general welfare of all of its inhabitants." d) Continue the retention of the Freytag consultants, and publish any and all findings of the consultants on the City website. e) Before expending any monies on the planned expansion of the Palo Alto Airport, hold a referendum on it, and have the noise and emissions impact on East Palo Alto schools, residential, and recreational areas --- which are immediately adjacent to it---, professionally evaluated. Set standards for gasoline usage, use of loud engines, and proximity of allowed flight paths to these areas, and of the allowed minimum altitude above Palo Alto residential areas (as per the practices of other local airports). 2 Supporters Nathaniel Sterling in Research Park (registered) November 21, 2016, 3:32 PM I urge you to take action to abate the public nuisance created by loud low-flying aircraft. Don't buy in to "the FAA made us do it" argument. No one is making the airline companies do anything. They're in it for their own profit and should be held accountable (as is SFO). If they are enjoined or held liable for their activities, they will speak and FAA will listen. 1 Supporter Name not available (unclaimed) November 21, 2016, 3:10 PM The City of Palo Alto's top priority should be restoring quiet to our community. To paraphrase would-be First Gentleman Bill Clinton, "It's the jet noise, stupid." Micheline Horstmeyer in Midtown/ Midtown West (registered) November 21, 2016, 2:43 PM END THE JET NOISE OVER OUR COMMUNITY. This is a major health and quality of life issue. It is the number one issue facing our community. The City Council must address it and REDUCE THE JET NOISE AND POLLUTION! 2 Supporters Name not shown in Community Center (registered) All Statements sorted chronologically As of January 25, 2017, 8:53 AM http://www.paakdemocracy.com/4065 November 21, 2016, 11 :07 AM Page 33 of 65 2017 Council Priorities What are the priorities you would like to see the City Council adopt for 2017? Priority one: Airplane noise has to be priority one. The constant aircraft noise has completely changed the Palo Alto noise levels. The FAA has pushed many of us indoors. While I understand decisions to move traffic over Palo Also needs to be a shared burden, it seems overnight, we have hundreds of low level aircraft setting up for their final approaches. Priority two: Traffic light improvement at Town and Country I Paly Priority three: Speed control with Embarcadero traffic. 4 Supporters Byron Bland in Ventura (registered) Air traffic noise and polution 5 Supporters Name not shown in Ventura (registered) 1. Address traffic impacts (follow Stanford's successful TOM program) 2. Renew cap on new office development November 21, 2016, 10:47 AM November 21, 2016, 10:37 AM 3. Continue work with the Select Committee to address airplane noise over Palo Alto 4. Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation Plan implementation 5. More Affordable Housing! 1 Supporter Lissy Bland in Ventura (registered) 1 . Jet noise and pollution 2. Jet noise and pollution 3. Low and moderate income housing 4. More bike paths 5. Jet noise and pollution 2 Supporters Maryanne Welton in Barron Park (registered) November 21, 2016, 10:26 AM November 21, 2016, 10:25 AM Do everything you can to protect our region from non-stop noise and pollution from NextGen flight path. I am no longer able to sleep through the night because of the loud, low flights. It's the last sound I hear at night and the first in the morning --and it goes on all day long. Continue work with Select Committee and every other approach to protecting our community and region from this change in flight path. All Statements sorted chronologically As of January 25, 2017, 8:53 AM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/4065 Page 34 of65 2017 Council Priorities What are the priorities you would like to see the City Council adopt for 201 t? 3 Supporters Name not available (unverified) November 21, 2016, 10:19 AM Noise pollution in all of its forms. Jet noise is number one. Traffic and congestion due to an imbalance in office space vs homes is number two. And the endless whine of leaf blowers is also effecting the quality of life. More fun things for kids and families to do would be apppreciated, no more "Class A" office space is necessary. Name not shown in Greenmeadow (registered) Stop jet noise over Palo Alto - a huge quality of life issue now. Traffic congestion Bike lane safety to Gunn HS 1 Supporter Daniel Lilienstein in Barron Park (registered) 1.Noise pollution abatement: -from airplanes -from construction prior to regular work hours, especially from the VA Complex 2.Caltrain grade separation 3.Traffic congestion 1 Supporter Name not shown in Ventura (registered) Stop jet noise -it's nonstop and intolerable. BMR housing. Grade separation for Caltrain. 5 Supporters Marcia Sterling in Research Park (registered) November 21, 2016_, 9:55 AM November 21, 2016, 9:01 AM November 21, 2016, 8:14 AM November 21, 2016, 7:41 AM Airplane noise over Palo Alto is our biggest priority. We used to have dinner in our backyard four or five months of the year, but it's no longer enjoyable with so many flights right over our house. We've recorded as many as 60 a day and they continue, low and loud, when we're trying to sleep at night. All Statements sorted chronologically As of January 25, 2017, 8:53 AM http /IWWW.paakdemocracy.com/4065 Page35of 65 2017 Council Priorities What are the priorities you would like to see the City Council adopt for 2017? 5 Supporters Name not shown in Crescent Park (registered) November 21, 2016, 7:16 AM 1. Jet noise -especially at night. Sleep interruptions multiple times a night ruins health, productivity, etc. It's the most toxic thing right now in this area. It would be different if Palo Alto was situated next to I under a major airport and the people who chose to live here chose to be in major flight paths but that was never the case and it isn't necessary for this to be happening. This is a serious problem that shouldn't be taking this long to resolve. 2. Infrastructure to support growth must happen FIRST before ANY MORE BUILDING. (roads, parking, etc.) 3. Residents (and the needs of residents ... lower income housing as just one example) should far out way the out of control business developmenUgrowth. 5 Supporters Name not shown in Palo Verde (registered) November 21, 2016, 6:09 AM I said "STOP JET NOISE" last year, and I will say this again this year "STOP STOP STOP JET NOISE !!!!!" 5 Supporters Name not shown in Duveneck/ St Francis (registered) Absolutely airplane noise and pollution. 4 Supporters Name not shown in Downtown North (registered) November 20, 2016, 11 :46 PM November 20, 2016, 11 :11 PM The number one priority for the City Council must be reducing the jet noise over Palo Alto. Our quality of life has been severly diminished by low and loud aircraft flying over our house 24/7. Our sleep is disrupted, and our health is being compromised. The constant jet stream is causing significant pollution & presenting a public health issue. 5 Supporters Name not shown in Barron Park (registered) November 20, 2016, 10:53 PM reduce air plane noise and subsequent pollution. especially reduce night time low flying planes. they present a health hazard by interrupting sleep. 3 Supporters Name not shown in Greenmeadow (registered) All Statements sorted chronologically As of January 25, 2017, 8:53 AM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/4065 November 20, 2016, 10:52 PM Page 36 of 65 2017 Council Priorities What are the priorities you would like to see the City Council adopt for 2017? I would set the following priorities, generally intended to strengthen neighborliness, improve diversity, and enhance our environment -subsidized housing for lower income city/school workers --ideally purchase/convert commercial for this purpose (we have too much of commercial, too little of low-cost housing) -reduced airplane noise, enhanced parks, improved shuttles, transit/bike incentives --better quality of life for all who live here -cap on office development, stronger enforcement of our asks of developers (parking, transit, public benefits, etc), higher taxes, generally more hostile environment to developers seeking to build office space, ideally encourage Palantir to move out 1 Supporter Name not shown in Community Center (registered) November 20, 2016, 10:41 PM The #1 thing I'd like the council to prioritize is reducing airplane noise. The NextGen FAA change led to a huge increase of noise -low, loud, and at all hours -over our house, to the point that my 5-year-old has nightmares about planes flying into his room. The process to get the FAA to change their policies to reduce noise over residences where possible and spread the remaining noise equitably across communities has only just begun, we have to stay engaged. While this does not impact 100% of Palo Alto households, for the approximately 1/3 of us it does impact, it is very problematic. I'd also like to see us explore ways to support housing inventory growth in Palo Alto, and to demand balanced development plans (include parking and housing when we add office space). thank you 4 Supporters Name not available (unclaimed) November 20, 2016, 10:37 PM Please help reduce jet noise --it has destroyed the peace and quiet that we've enjoyed here for 40 years! Please also stop expanding construction in the city without attendant parking and traffic planning --this overbuilding is ruining our local quality of life. Thank you. Andy Robin Ian Mallace in Midtown/ Midtown West (registered) November 20, 2016, 6:28 PM I would like the Council to join the SFO Roundtable and address the unacceptable levels of jet noise over Palo Alto. The FAA (presentations to the Select Committee on Jet Arrivals) confirmed that jet noise has been moved over Palo Alto from 2014 onwards. One route, SERFR, is an FAA procedure/controlled but the other 2 routes, Oceana and Bodega are "vectored" and under SFO/Air Traffic Control responsibility. 7 Supporters jeannie duisenberg in Community Center (registered) All Statements sorted chronologically As of January 25, 2017, 8:53 AM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/4065 November 18, 2016, 11:47 PM Page 37 of 65 2017 Council Priorities What are the priorities you would like to see the City Council adopt for 2017? Priorities: 1. Follow up on the Select Committee's airplane noise/pollution recommendations to see that Palo Alto and neighbor communities get relief from FAA's NextGen assault on our quality of life. It is no longer a pleasure to be in one's own backyard. 2. Deny projects with planned insufficient parking based on the theory that it reduces automobiles. Our transit network is neither adequate nor efficient enough to support the theory. 3. Develop housing for teachers, police, service providers and other non-tech workers---i.e. housing for the middle class. 4. Work with PAUSD to encourage parents to allow their children to walk/bike to and from schools rather than be driven, to reduce traffic. 6 Supporters Shirley Wang in Ventura (registered) 1 ) Stop the Jet Noises! 2) Reduce the traffic by shuttles 3) Clear the street by parking rules 4 Supporters Name not available (unclaimed) November 18, 2016, 7:40 PM November 18, 2016, 8:20 AM A top priority for 2017 should be the reduction of jet noise over Palo Alto. The numerous, low, daily flights are annoying, but the low and loud overnight flights disturb my sleep and impact my overall health and alertness in the mornings that follow. This MUST be dealt with. Susan Thomsen in Duveneck/ St Francis (registered) November 17, 2016, 11 :42 PM It is my hope that you will put advocating for the reduction of airplane noise in our City as a top priority. The Select Committee has done an excellent job; however, the work of alleviating the unconscionable noise above our homes in Palo Alto has just begun and needs strong advocacy from our elected representatives on the City Council. 10 Supporters Ken Powell in Barron Park (registered) November 17, 2016, 2:49 PM Please do what you can to stop or diminish the overhead noise from jets. These are mostly landing approaches to SFO. That has become a quality of life issue for those of us with residences under the flight path. All Statements sorted chronologically As of January 25, 2017, 8:53 AM hllpJtwww.peakdemocracy.com/4065 Page 38 of 65 2017 Council Priorities What are the priorities you would like to see the City Council adopt for 2017? 10 Supporters Jennifer Landesmann in Crescent Park (registered) November 16, 2016, 8:17 PM The City needs to make addressing airplane noise pollution a HIGH priority. Airplane noise interferes with the enjoyment of my home every day, pretty much any moment I'm outdoors, and airplane noise causes my sleep to be disrupted every night. Also waking me at dawn with incredibly LOUD planes as was this morning this Cargo flight -Nov 16, 05:01 :36 KZ 109 (LAX:SFO B7 48 200k, 3350ft). The cargo flights are terrible. Besides noise, air pollution is as much of a concern. 8 Supporters Name not shown in Crescent Park (registered) November 16, 2016, 5:56 PM 1. Airplane noise 2. Traffic at commute times getting to/from 101 and east bay bridges 4 Supporters Name not available (unclaimed) November 16, 2016, 5:52 PM 1, Reduce Airplane Noise. 2, Clean up the garbage along all the freeway exits and entrances of Palo Alto. 3, Replace the dead trees with new ones -there is a dead tree on Harker Ave. for over 2 years. 4, Embarcadero Road, running from east to west, the right lane exits to Town & Country should be made into Right-Turn-Only to ease the traffic. Name not available (unclaimed) November 16, 2016, 6:58 AM Jet noise is out of control. Also, who's going to really pursue a new grocery store at Edgewood plaza? Corey Baker in University Park (registered) November 15, 2016, 10:16 PM I love that Palo Alto is such a bike-friendly city. I can get almost anywhere on the bike boulevard and streets with bike lanes. Please keep working to make the city better for bikers. More and better transit to San Fran and other cities. I don't own a car now and I would love to keep it that way. More shuttles and even more stations for bayareabikes would me amazing. Expanded (and updated) caltrain. So much of this is regional. What can we do with other cities? I am so surprised that we don't do more to restrict water use in the city. Aren't we still in a drought? I'd love at · All Statements sorted chronologically As of January 25, 2017, 8:53 AM httpJ/www.peakdemocracy.com/4065 Page 39of 65 2017 Council Priorities What are the priorities you would like to see the City Council adopt for 2017? least more education around this. I'm so appreciative that the city is working toward being zero waste. There is SO MUCH work to be done. Can we do more education, ESPECIALLY in businesses, schools, and apartment buildings? Housing just seems like an impossible issue. I would actually love for the downtown to be more dense (at least for for teachers and first responders), allowing for folks to have a cultural center AND their quiet homes away from it. But that means impacts on traffic and parking. Can businesses and developers propose plans to limit car commuting when looking to set up shop? 2 Supporters Name not available (unclaimed) November 15, 2016, 9:53 PM Airplane noise has degraded the Palo Alto experience. We have lived here just over 16 years and had expected to be here forever, knowing we had to be willing to live with growth in traffic, property taxes, general costs and population. The airport noise may have changed our long term plan. I realize we are just one family and that we will not impact Palo Alto if we decide to leave, but hoping there might be a solution that can be pushed by the Council on behalf of Palo Altans. Best of luck and our support. Name not shown in Midtown/ Midtown West (registered) November 15, 2016, 9:01 PM We need more housing (and parking) to be built. There is not enough housing to keep up with demand. I personally don't notice any issues with airplane noise. 1 Supporter Name not shown in University South (registered) November 15, 2016, 8:43 PM Thank you to the Palo Alto City Council for requesting citizen input! These are some priorities I'm in favor of: -More housing (including BMR) near transit centers so more people who work in Palo Alto can live here. -Completion of proposed bike boulevards and other infrastructure (e.g. signage, sidewalk extensions) to make biking easier in Palo Alto. Preferably including grade or barrier-separated bike lanes. -Citywide fiber. -Grade separations for Caltrain (now that Measure B can help fund them). -Improve flow of traffic to parking in commercial areas. Parking availability signs? Consider making University or Cal Ave pedestrian-only. -Expansion of the Palo Alto Shuttle program. -Reaffirm our commitment to renewable energy and carbon neutrality. -Continue to protect beautiful, old-growth trees in the city. 1 Supporter Name not shown in University South (registered) All Statements sorted chronologically As of January 25, 2017, 8:53 AM http://www.peakdamocracy.com/4065 November 15, 2016, 7:49 PM Paga40 of 65 2017 Council Priorities What are the priorities you would like to see the City Council adopt for 2017? Reduce jet noise! 5 Supporters Name not available (unclaimed) Do all you can to stop the jet noise. Make sure all new downtown development can support its own parking needs Name not available (unclaimed) November 15, 2016, 7:40 PM November 15, 2016, 5:07 PM Jet noise. Safe streets for bikers and walkers. Better public transport for a cleaner, greener Palo Alto. Name not shown in Duveneck/ St Francis (registered) November 15, 2016, 4:44 PM Expand our Shuttle program -Get the high tech companies to fund it.. .. I would like to ask the city to make the big companies that have office in Palo Alto fund the shuttle program so that the city can add new routes, extend the current operating hours and add weekends to the program. This program when enacted would reduce traffic/congestion and parking issues that residents have to face every day visiting our beloved downtown or other major shopping areas. This is the least these companies can do since they have taken over our streets and parking. Pis check out Google's community shuttle program in Mountain View. 1 Supporter Adrienne Defendi in Community Center (registered) The disturbing jet noise and the constant airplane traffic above our homes. 6 Supporters Name not available (unverified) Jet Noise Grocery Store at Alma Plaza Name not available (unclaimed) Please, please, please work to reduce the jet noise! Name not shown in Crescent Park (registered) All Statements sorted chronologically As of January 25, 2017, 8:53 AM http:l/www,peakdemocracy,com/4065 November 15, 2016, 4:41 PM November 15, 2016, 4:30 PM November 15, 2016, 4:27 PM November 15, 2016, 4:27 PM Page 41of65 2017 Council Priorities What are the priorities you would like to see the City Council adopt for 2017? I live in Crescent Park, and my top priorities for the council are: 1 ) Airplane noise!!! · 2) downtown parking & traffic 2 Supporters Name not available (unclaimed) November 15, 2016, 7:40 AM I want more affordable housing for city workers and seniors, near transit hubs. micro units. Name not shown in Barron Park (registered) November 14, 2016, 5:54 PM As a long-time resident of Palo Alto I agree with all the others on this site who've singled out airplane noise as a huge threat to our quality of life. I would argue it should be the top priority of our new City Council and I urge them to make every effort to fix this as soon as possible. 4 Supporters Name not shown in Crescent Park (registered) Top priorities: 1) airplane noise pollution over our homes 2) traffic (University Ave., along with most other major arteries in town) 3) housing for our teachers, fire and police persons November 14, 2016, 4:04 PM 4) development without thinking of the long term repercussions of traffic, lack of housing and impact on the quality of life of residents 6 Supporters Bruce Crocker in Crescent Park (registered) November 14, 2016, 1:26 PM I would like to see more actionalble goals than those shown for 2016. My specific priorities in order are: 1. Solve the flooding problem at the Chaucer Street bridge. If that takes persuading individuals of the need, working iwth the federal, state, and local bureaucracy, or whatever it takes to get this solved. It is a disgrace citizens of Palo Alto, East Palo Alto, and Menlo Park are still at risk 18 years later. 2. Fix the downtown parking problem--short term with neighborhood parking for residents and guests and long term with a survey to determine how many people actually work in downtown commercial businesses (e.g. restaurants and shops) and offices, ther real percentage who commute by car to determine actual head count per square foot of space and the realistic number needing parking, and therefore how much parking is needed. Then enact policies that REQUIRE office developers to provide adequate parking for all tenants needs and guests. No more magical thinking. 3. Negotiate with Sand Hill Properties to find a grocery store for Edgewood Plaza. Higher penalties should provide them with an incentive to give Fresh Markets an incentive to negotiate better terms with prospective All Statements sorted chronologically As of January 25, 2017, 8:53 AM http://www.paakdemocracy.com/4065 Page42 of 65 2017 Council Priorities What are the priorities you would like to see the City Council adopt for 2017? new tenants. 4. Maintain the residential quality of our city with defined and limited downtown/commericial districts. 5. Operate the city with cost effective budgeting and staffing to control and reduce spending. 6. Streamline the burdensome regulatory environment for home improvement and construction in general in Palo Alto. Name not available (unclaimed) November 14, 2016, 12:35 PM Top 2 priorities -Traffic and airplane noise Name not shown in Crescent Park (unverified) November 14, 2016, 12:08 PM Traffic congestion has ruined Crescent Park. University Ave, Hamilton, E. Crescent, W. Crescent, Southwood, Edgewood, Crescent Drive have commuters lined down their streets everyday. Residents can't get in or out of their driveway. If you don't believe me, please come sit on the corner of University and Center at 5pm on a weekday. Traffic is miserable which creates unhealthy pollution in our neighborhood, noise, and parking. This is supposed to be a beautiful suburb. We moved out San Francisco and have more neighborhood traffic here! Airplane noise is ridiculous too but the only thing Palo Alto needs to focus on is less commercial real estate and less commuters in our town. Enough is enough. Palo Alto Council for 20 years have slowly let this happen to our town. The Crescent Park neighbors are started to unite to fight the city on this issue. Benafsha I in University South (registered) Hello, I would like to see the following priorities worked on during 2017: Reduce Airplane Noise Solve Residential Parking Issues Provide lower Tiered Pricing for charging electric cars at night (same as PG&E) Have a mechanism to track what is being worked on by the City of Palo Alto Thanks, Benafsha 1 Supporter MB Bieder in Downtown North (registered) November 14, 2016, 11:59 AM November 14, 2016, 10:02 AM Airplane noise and pollution must be one of the highest priorities, if not THE HIGHEST for City Council in 2017. This issue is destroying the lives of many in the community and making life unlivable. I thank you for your previous effort in hiring a consultant to get good data and recommendations. You must be more aggressive in the next year to make sure Palo Alto's voice and recommendations are heard on the local and national level. All Statements sorted chronologically As of January 25, 2017, 8:53 AM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/4065 Page43 of65 2017 Council Priorities What are the priorities you would like to see the City Council adopt for 2017? 6 Supporters Name not shown in Midtown/ Midtown West (registered) Dear City Council, November 14, 2016, 9:51 AM The top priority for the City MUST be the tremendous degradation of quality of life in Palo Alto due to the SFO and other air traffic. PALO ALTO HAS BECOME UNLIVABLE! Of course there are other quality of life issues. The residents just (re-)elected a pro-growth contingent. You MUST NOT let growth exceed the capability of the City to manage issues such as traffic, parking, noise, housing, etc. Growing business without sufficient ways to prevent clogging the few main traffic arteries and clogging our surface streets is NOT the answer. Providing more housing is terrific, but doing so without ensuring sufficient parking is a PIPE DREAM. You are WRONG to believe that people will live in housing without parking spaces. You have been WRONG before to allow business to expand without sufficient parking. You have created this problem. Don't expand it! Here are my top 5 issues you need to address: 1. Airplane noise (and pollution). 2. Quality of life (traffic, parking, housing). 3. Airplane noise (and pollution). 4. Quality of life (traffic, parking, housing). 5. Airplane noise (and pollution). Dave 2 Supporters Name not shown in Midtown/ Midtown West (registered) November 14, 2016, 7:46 AM The airplane noise has only gotten worse. If you live under the SERFR corridor, the flights now come less than two minutes apart during rush hours. We would like to see Council reaffirm that mitigation of this noise is a priority. If the Select Committee process does not yield results in a reasonable period of time, we encourage the city to pursue additional options including possible legal action. 8 Supporters Name not shown in Old Palo Alto (registered) All Statements sorted chronologically As of January 25, 2017, 8:53 AM November 13, 2016, 9:27 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/4065 Page44 of 65 2017 Council Priorities What are the priorities you would like to see the City Council adopt for 2017? healthy city--decrease airplane noise and increase altitude as well as improve traffic flow on Embarcadero and El Camino, Middlefield from University to San Antonio, Oregon Expressway, remove 2-way bike lanes (very dangerous), prohibit back in style of parking (rearing into a spot--it takes too long to park and it causes parking traffic congestions), change parking angles at Stanford Ave by the DISH so we can park going in and not reverse (this is too dangerous, it causes danger to the cyclists and also causes parking congestion). As for airplane--it's incredible how the city has been powerless in protecting its citizens sanity and peaceful living (quality of life). City staff and residents have been working hard and I am very appreciative, but there has been no improvements, it has actually gotten worse. 4 Supporters Name not shown in Crescent Park (registered) November 13, 2016, 8:30 PM Airplane noise must be a top priority! Planes are flying more frequently, every 2-3 minutes And lower, under four thousand feet. Our sleep, our quality of life Has been severely impacted Name not shown in Downtown North (registered) November 12, 2016, 11:14 PM The city is very far behind on park space that can be easily utilized. The city should create a separate fund that contains funds to purchase large tracts of available land for park space. Planning for large parcels that will become available should also be undertaken. For example the site that contains the "Frys" store is rumored to become available in a few years. This would be the perfect spot for a large park, playing fields, swimming pool or other amenities for residents. Planning and funding needs to start now if we are to provide needed park space for the city. Simplify the zoning code so that there are no exemptions for commercial developments! The outside footprint of the building should be used to determine FAR. No exemptions for stairways, closets, bathrooms, kitchens etc. Private homes have to count all covered areas and commercial developments need to be held to the same standards. Decrease FAR so that no commercial development can be larger than 2.0 for any reason. 1 Supporter Name not available (unclaimed) November 12, 2016, 12:55 PM Top priorities are #1 Less airplane noise #2 Less over crowding. Don't bring more jobs so fewer people commute here and fewer houses are needed. It is like asking people to double up on homes as we keep cramming more sardines into the sardine container. Celia Boyle in Barron Park (registered) All Statements sorted chronologically As of January 25, 2017, 8:53 AM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/4065 November 11, 2016, 11 :02 PM Page 45 of 65 2017 Council Priorities What are the priorities you would like to see the City Council adopt for 2017? Keep up the bike friendly changes which have been greatly appreciated: fix the turnstiles to allow for bike trailers, the turn stiles in the California street tunnel are ridiculously difficult to get a bike trailer through. More green sharrows marked on the roads. Please issue more tickets to all the blatant cell phone users who are driving. Enforce the leaf blowers ban. Please pass a no idling law. People idle their cars while staring at their cell phone. 1 Supporter Name not shown in Midtown/ Midtown West (registered) November 11, 2016, 11 :54 AM * Reduce airplane noise * Stop trying to build BMR housing. It's impossible to build enough to balance supply and demand. It's a bottomless pit swallowing our tax dollars. * Limit buildings to four stories everywhere in town. * Don't let builders de-water a building site unless they can reclaim the water and use it for something good like landscaping or industrial processing. 1 Supporter Name not shown in Downtown North (registered) November 10, 2016, 10:32 AM 1. Higher density and smaller units housing along transportation hubs in downtown and Cal Ave areas as a way to combat through traffic. 2. A downtown development plan for University Ave and surrounding areas for commercial, entertainment, retail, and mixed-use. 2 Supporters Name not shown in Greenmeadow (registered) Reducing airplane noise 7 Supporters John Derman in Community Center (registered) November 6, 2016, 8:28 AM November 3, 2016, 10:09 AM Grocery store in Edgewood Plaza. Amazon is planning on opening 2,000 grocery stores. Edgewood? Name not available (unclaimed) Please look into getting fiber to the home in Palo Alto. Jeff Hoel in Midtown/ Midtown West (registered) All Statements sorted chronologically As of January 25, 2017, 8:53 AM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/4065 November 2, 2016, 5:37 PM November 2, 2016, 12:24 PM Page46 of 65 2017 Council Priorities What are the priorities you would like to see the City Council adopt for 2017? Make real progress on the goal of implementing a citywide municipal fiber-to-the-premises (FTTP) network providing (at least) 1-Gbps symmetric Internet service. In 2013 and 2014, Council adopted "Technology and the Connected City" (TACC --a term for FTTP and wireless) as one of the City's priorities. In 2015, Council failed to make TACC a formal priority, after the City Manager said staff would pursue the fiber goal whether or not TACC was a formal priority. During the last few years, the City hoped Google Fiber would be good enough (even though it would not have had the advantages of a municipal network), but that option now seems to be dead. In 2017, please adopt the FTTP portion of TACC as a priority (but not the wireless part, because wireless has just been a distraction). Steven Baker in Midtown/ Midtown West (registered) November 2, 2016, 8:16 AM 1.) Build more housing and rezone for higher density where appropriate, e.g. in already dense corridors like cal ave and university ave. Consider removing the height limit in those areas. 2.) Reduce or eliminate parking requirements next to public transit but require large employeers to create a TOM (traffic demand mangement) system that ensures people are taking public transit to work, or ask those employers to pay for parking spots in parking structures. 3.) Increase bike and pedestrian infrastructure. 1 Supporter Name not available (unclaimed) November 1, 2016, 9:38 PM The biggest problems in this city right now are traffic and parking. Too much traffic and not enough parking!!!!! This hurts your local businesses because when you can't find a parking place so that you can do your shopping or eating or whatever your current desire that needs to be met you just give up and go home. I've done this which makes me angry and the business is the loser. Stan Hutchings in Old Palo Alto (registered) November 1, 2016, 6:32 PM Walking down the sidewalk on Rinconada Avenue with my granddaughter, we were enjoying the lovely fragrance of blooming star jasmine. Suddenly our noses were insulted by the combustion products of a gasoline powered leaf blower, our ears were assaulted by the screeching whine of the blower, and our eyes were watering from the dust and debris blown about. There is no reason for gasoline powered blowers in residential neighborhoods. In addition, they have been against the law for many years now. Even the lower-powered electric blowers are bad. They kick up a cloud of dust, debris, spores, pollen, etc. and have an annoying sound. For the health of our citizens, they should also be banned. We have asked our gardener to use the electric blower only for large flat areas: the driveway and the brick patio. We may ask him to use a rake or broom in the future. · Perhaps it is time to levy a fine against the gardener as well as the homeowner whose yard is blown by a All Statements sorted chronologically As of January 25, 2017, 8:53 AM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/4065 Page47 of65 2017 Council Priorities What are the priorities you would like to see the City Council adopt for 2017? gasoline powered blower. With an increase for each subsequent violation. This should quickly put an end to gasoline powered blowers, or else provide the city with another revenue stream. 2 Supporters Name not shown in Palo Verde (registered) November 1, 2016, 3:52 PM Priorities: 1. Low-to-moderate Income Housing. There is no shortage of luxury housing so ultradense luxury housing is not needed. 2. Reducing the parking deficit: increase parking required so that with a density bonus, sufficient parking is available. Survey existing senior, low and moderate income housing, as well as condominiums, apartments, independent and assisted care facilities to determine actual parking requirements before allowing projects to reduce parking requirements based on consultant's "experience" in other cities. Use real data from Palo Alto residents. We have enough existing facilities to find out what existing residents are using. Seniors do drive. The working poor does drive. For example, survey the parking used by existing SRO hotel and Sunset assisted living facility residents and workers next to the lot at University and El Camino. How many park onsite? How many park on the street? It is unlikely that a market rate apartment building would use less. 3. Ensure all zoning requirements are met, including loading zones and compatibility with neighbors before approving any new developments. Do not allow new developments to eliminate sunlight from existing buildings. Ensure daylight plane requirements are enforced. 4. Reduce traffic first -then allow new building. Infrastructure should come first, not last. 5. Parkland: Before additional housing is built, ensure there is sufficient parkland to meet Palo Alto's requirements. 1 Supporter Name not shown in Research Park (registered) November 1, 2016, 11 :51 AM 1) Continue to fight for significant reduction in SFO aircraft arrival noise from SERFR, BDEGA, and OCEANIC routes. 2) Scale back large developments that are too high, hug sidewalks, and provide inadequate parking (no offsets!). 3) Ease the building of 'granny units' on large lots. 4) Work with SCC to accelerate improvements at Arastradero/Foothill intersection 1 Supporter Joerg Rathenberg in Crescent Park (registered) October 31, 2016, 10:43 PM All Statements sorted chronologically As of January 25, 2017, 8:53 AM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/4065 Page 48of 65 2017 Council Priorities What are the priorities you would like to see the City Council adopt for 2017? The single most important issue is to stop the jet noise from SFO over Palo Alto. If you live in the 1.5 mile corridor under the flight path nothing else really matters, as it makes living here extremely undesirable, unhealthy, and will lead to more people selling their houses to foreign investors who don't care, don't live here, and have no interest in this community. You may think this is an exaggeration, but it's happening already. 3 Supporters Name not shown in Crescent Park (registered) October 31, 2016, 4:39 PM I would like to see some really imaginative thinking by the Council and Staff. After all, we are the center of innovation, next to a university known for the same. Here are some ideas: 1. A traffic plan involving a combination of remote parking, jitneys on city streets and connecting neighborhoods with commercial/shopping areas, and street closures. Included in this could be many roundabouts that would speed existing intersection traffic, and a computerized red/green light system that would be responsive to ambient traffic flow. 2. Innovative housing that uses low use space for small apartments, co-living communities, and vertical space above low commercial structures. 3. Research on solar energy generation from black-top streets; this could be a great project with Stanford. 4. Active planning in commercial areas for attractive architecture that is more integrated than the present pattern of glass and concrete inexpensive construction distributed randomly where land is available. (Town and Country is an example of this sort of idea; the new construction downtown is not. 3 Supporters Larry Kavinoky in College Terrace (registered) October 31, 2016, 4:35 PM I would like to see the city immediately increase housing in Palo Alto by finding a way to all existing granny units that are safe, even if not up to Palo Alto code, be encouraged to relieve our housing shortage and thus provide more affordable units. Palo Alto makes exceptions for zoning, height and density for all kinds of "public benefit" reasons. Lets do that type of thing now to begin to alleviate the housing shortage. Gary Gechlik outside Palo Alto (registered) October 31, 2016, 4:30 PM It is important to treat people equally and address real world needs. Right now, there is significant fire risk in the Open Space. Given the recent Loma Fire which destroyed multiple homes, Palo Alto needs to encourage defensible space management. Residents in the Open Space should be encouraged to follow Cal-Fire guidelines of 100 feet of defensible space. All Statements sorted chronologically As of January 25, 2017, 8:53 AM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/4065 Page49 of 65 2017 Council Priorities What are the priorities you would like to see the City Council adopt for 2017? More work needs to be done on social equity for families. We have to be realistic and be careful not to substitute abstract goals and a specific agenda for well established and moderated property rights. We also have to be careful to follow federal guidelines, as Palo Alto, like all municipalities often receives matching funds and federal grants. For this reason, a moderate approach by Palo Alto with a goal of service to citizens is the best approach. Anna Wichansky in Green Acres (registered) October 31, 2016, 1:38 PM 1. Decrease traffic, crowding, parking hassles. This means stop new building ASAP. The only things that should be built would be replacements for existing buildings. The reason people used to want to live in Palo Alto was because it had nice residential neighborhoods. I don't think we need another start-up or coffee place or hotel anywhere in Palo Alto. 2. Find a way to decrease the overhead plane noise. It is a reminder day in and day out of how much everything has changed in Palo Alto. No longer quiet even at night. We need to gain some traction over this problem. The big time politicians are not solving the problem; absolutely nothing has changed since they started flying NextGen flightpaths over our heads. 3. Pick up garbage all over the city. Pick it up even if it isn't the city's "jurisdiction". I'm talking about the feeder ramps and bridges to Oregon Expressway, Embarcadero, San Antonio. The same garbage has been laying there for months. If you need to work with Caltrans, do it. It reflects on our city, it's spreading to our local streets, and the city is starting to look like a garbage dump along major thoroughfares. It also fosters an I-Don't-care attitude on regular streets, which I see much more garbage around the schools and parks. If needed organize a citizen clean up day and close the access roads so we can all get out with garbage bags and get rid of this stuff. Joel Davidson in Barron Park (registered) October 31, 2016, 1:13 PM I have been waiting for many years for the city to have city wide wifi. Traffic is getting worse daily. It takes between 15 to 20 minutes to get to 101 or 280 from my house in south Palo Alto near the El Camino. 1 Supporter Sharon Dickson in University South (registered) October31, 2016, 1:10 PM Infrastructure needs to be very high priority, particularly for pedestrians and cyclists. Many streets and sidewalks still need serious repair. New lighting is inadequate for nighttime walking. The streets are lit, but the sidewalks are in shadow and present trip hazards. Sewers do not adequately drain streets during wet periods. University overpass is way overdue for renovation. Name not shown in Crescent Park (registered) All Statements sorted chronologically As of January 25, 2017. 8:53 AM http:Jtwww.peekdemocracy,com/4065 October 31, 2016, 1 :02 PM Page SO of65 2017 Council Priorities What are the priorities you would like to see the City Council adopt for 2017? The top priority for the City Council should involve addressing the erosion of the quality of life for Palo Alto residents. Palo Alto is no longer a desirable place to live. Two factors that contribute to this erosion should be addressed immediately by the City Council. First, the intolerable and incessant whine of aircraft overhead must be eliminated in order to restore any sense of peace and quality of life to our city! Second, the aggressive takeover of downtown by office buildings and developers has to be stopped. Additionally, the encroachment of employees parking into the surrounding neighborhoods has to be reversed and resident only parking implemented. Our neighborhoods are now parking lots for employees with the consequence of increased traffic and decreased safety. Greed and an aggressive type of competitiveness appear to be the city's values rather than a concern for quality of life for residents. Finally, of course, addressing the yearly threat of flooding would be welcome! 3 Supporters Valerie Stinger in Palo Verde (registered) October 31, 2016, 12:18 PM The 2016 priorities remain unfinished and important. So I wonder if process is as important as priority. I would urge the new council to focus, commit to a planning schedule. For myself, the priorities are housing and transit. How do we accommodate diversity? How do we progress to a transit system, which does not center on automobiles? 1 Supporter Sheri Furman in Midtown/ Midtown West (registered) October 31, 2016, 12:17 PM The 2016 priority "The Built Environment: Housing, Parking, Livability and Mobility" was overly broad and should be redefined into separate priorities, which would help achieve "Livability." •Transportation: Realistic TMA, require fully parked projects, residential shuttles, strict RPP programs •Housing: Below market housing, Airbnb, ADUs, redefine mixed use to favor housing over retail ·Complete the Comprehensive Plan Update and zoning updates (retain office cap, protect ground-floor retail, reduce condition use permit allowances, increase code enforcement) • Infrastructure Geri Spieler in Midtown/ Midtown West (registered) October 31, 2016, 11 :55 AM There are many issues for every community, however, for me, an issue not being well addressed is the incessant jet noise over our city. It appears with all the meetings and comments; nothing is being done. Besides being an annoying issue, it is also a health issue. We didn't have this problem several years ago, so how did the FAA get permission to do this without input from the communities that are affected most? 2 Supporters Name not available (unclaimed) All Statements sorted chronologically As of January 25, 2017, 8:53 AM October 31, 2016, 11 :40 AM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/4065 Page 51of 65 2017 Council Priorities What are the priorities you would like to see the City Council adopt for 2017? I would like to see the only development be parking garages. We have done enough building to last for a lifetime, but without the requisite parking. More development is going to make the traffic unbearable. I would also like to see the city go around and replace all of the dead trees, and trim the dead branches off of other trees. The draught has taken its toll on the trees in town. The roads could use some work too. Many roads need to be repaved. I would like to see our police department patrol the downtown area more closely. Many drivers run through stop signs. Name not shown in Palo Verde (registered) October 31, 2016, 11:17 AM Lower utilities bills. And, yes, I do think those full color flyers that come with my bill are a waste! Shelly Gordon in Green Acres (registered) October 31, 2016, 11:09 AM Consider passing an anti-idling ordinance to help reduce air pollution and improve air quality. More than 40,000 tons of carbon are emitted daily in US cities from drivers sitting in parked cars with their engines running, while texting or engaging in other activities. Turning off and starting gas-powered engines reduce gas consumption, green house gas emissions, and wear and tear on engines. Parents picking up elementary school children are the biggest offenders. Sometimes they wait 10 minutes for their children with their engines running, spewing particulate matter into the air and contributing to respiratory illness, especially asthma in children which is on the rise. Cities throughout the US have anti-idling ordinances that are effectively educating drivers on the benefits of not idling. So working models already exist, as well as a number of public relations materials to change this unconscious behavior, making it easier to implement. 3 Supporters Shannon McEntee in Evergreen Park (registered) October 31, 2016, 10:53 AM 1. We need frequent, convenient and reasonably priced transportation to SFO. Trains: we need to see a huge improvement in frequency including early morning and late nighttime trains. Buses: we need frequent buses to SFO every day, including early morning and late night. Our airport access is unforgivably poor considering our traffic and air pollution problems. PA must work with the various transportation authorities to improve this deplorable situation. 2. Reduce Noise: Our city is now so noise polluted that it's almost unbearable. Planes, street sweepers, All Statements sorted chronologically As of January 25, 2017, e·53 AM http://wwwpeakdemocracy.com/4065 Page 52 of65 2017 Council Priorities What are the priorities you would like to see the City Council adopt for 2017? garbage trucks, recycling trucks, honking cars --it NEVER stops. Begin to replace noisy vehicles with electric- powered vehicles. 3. Honking car noise: NYC has an ordinance that fines people for car honking. Most of the cars on our roads honk loudly when they lock their doors, unlock their doors, and when they hit the wrong button on their key. Solve this problem -cars don't need to honk loudly all the time. They can chirp softly. 4. Crack down on speeding cars in our neighborhoods, rolling through stop signs and ignoring red lights. We want a courteous and safe city. 5. Fix the roads that cross the train tracks so traffic doesn't have to stop every time a train goes by. Trench the tracks or trench the roads, but we must eliminate the needless delays, traffic congestion, added air pollution, and the stress associated with our inadequate road system. Will it be expensive? Yes, but we need to do it. 6. Keep making improvements to our bikeways and continue to encourage adults and children to get out of their cars and bike, walk, or use public transportation. 7. Figure out how to monitor and invoice water consumption in multi-home and multi-office buildings. In my 55- unit condo building, the HOA pays the water bills and individuals aren't held accountable for their water usage. When people have to pay, they reduce their waste. This drought is not going to end. We need to make changes to reduce water use and we need to start now. We also need to incentivize new methods to capture rainwater and greywater in order to water our trees and gardens --rather than wasting precious potable water. Name not available (unclaimed) youth mental health initiative Joe Baldwin in University South (registered) HOUSING: 1. Allow Granny units built for family members or as BMR units. October 31, 2016, 10:53 AM October 31, 2016, 10:52 AM 2. Require 25% BMR units on all housing development of 4 or more units. PARKING: 1. Require 100% parking provided for all new commercial development. 2. Raise current downtown RPP employee permit goal from zero to 1,000 with support from both Neilson Buchanan and Chamber of Commerce. 3 Supporters Bob Moss in Barron Park (registered) These are my suggestions for 2017 priorities: 1) Infrastructure 2) Long term financial planning 3) Impacts of commercial and residential development 2 Supporters Dov Shiffman in Duveneck/ St Francis (registered) All Statements sorted chronologically As of January 25, 2017, 8:53 AM http~/www.peakdemocracy.com/4065 October 31, 2016, 10:45 AM October 31, 2016, 10:42 AM Page 53 of 65 2017 Council Priorities What are the priorities you would like to see the City Council adopt for 2017? Please address aircraft noise 1 Supporter .. Steve Ludington in Palo Verde (registered) October 31, 2016, 10:36 AM Get serious about promoting cycling instead of driving. This means bike routes that are separated from auto traffic and it means spending a lot of money. 3 Supporters Darryl Fenwick in Downtown North (registered) October 31, 2016, 10:33 AM I can't believe there has not been a single statement I have noticed which has mentioned the homeless and beggars on the streets of Palo Alto. Addressing this problem is not the same as addressing affordable housing (which should also be a top priority). Almost every block on University has someone begging and homeless, and it is often the same people day after day, month after month, year after year. This is clearly something where the city could make a huge impact in someone's life. And I am surprised by the number of comments about the airplane noise, especially if they don't consider that planes that don't fly over Palo Alto necessarily fly over another city. The solution requires a regional balance and we need to be able to agree upon our fair share of plane traffic overhead. 3 Supporters Briggs Nisbet in Palo Verde (registered) October 31, 2016, 10:31 AM 1. Cumulative ambient noise in the residential neighborhoods is increasing and increasingly unhealthful. This includes nearly constant commercial jets at low altitudes overhead, leaf blowers and power tools related to tree trimming, housing construction and other activities; other types of aircraft including private planes and jets, helicopters, military aircraft; even the street cleaning vehicles approach the sound levels of overhead aircraft. 2. In South Palo Alto the amount of housing demolition and construction is increasing rapidly, adding to noise and traffic disruption and, ultimately changing the character of the neighborhoods. Small, relatively "affordable" one-story houses are being transformed into large, multi-level structures that cover most of the residential lot, in many cases loom over their next door neighbors, and radically change the landscape, including fewer and smaller trees, the addition of lawns and watering systems, and, I assume, increase energy and water use. How can the city address the issue of "affordable" housing and not consider the exchange of less-expensive exisiting housing stock for new, larger housing units that are likely twice as expensive and house the same number of people? 1 Supporter Name not available (unclaimed) All Statements sorted chronologically As of January 25, 2017, 8:53 AM October31, 2016, 10:31 AM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/4065 Page 54 of 65 2017 Council Priorities What are the priorities you would like to see the City Council adopt for 2017? The healthy community priority to include reduction of airplane noise and pollution of our environment. If the FAA does not respond to the published City of Palo Alto's recommendations, further action may be required to address this continuing threat to a healthy community. Name not available (unclaimed) October 31, 2016, 10:28 AM Airplane noice must be a priority. City shall nagotiate directly with FAA and if not favorable resolution is achieved, joint forces to prepared for legal battle with federal government Name not shown in Duveneck/ St Francis (registered) October 31, 2016, 10:15 AM The jet noise is intolerable. The frequency and volume is disrupting our lives. I cannot work at home because I can't concentrate, I get woken up multiple times a night unable to block out the noise, we don't hang out in our yard much any more every few minutes the belly of a plane is right over our heads and one can't even carry on a conversation without stopping to let the planes pass. I can't imagine the quality of the air we breathe is any good with constant jet fumes spewing at such a low altitude. It was not like this when we first moved here to Palo Alto, and I hope the City will make it a high priority to ensure the FAA creates more reasonable flight paths instead of directing a disproportionate number of flights over Palo Alto. 2 Supporters Name not available (unclaimed) October 31, 2016, 10:08 AM Continued and increased access to city services and the city council through development of mobile tech. Name not shown in College Terrace (registered) October 31, 2016, 2:41 AM 1. More Low Income and Affordable Housing and programs for all ages but specifically seniors. Leaving nobody behind. 2. More opportunities to hear each other, learn from each other, get to know each other. 3. More opportunities for local groups and neighborhoods to work with each other and guests, through temporary residencies by outside artists, scientists, and others that can help us learn and look beyond what we expect or already know and that create participatory projects to enrich the social, economical, and creative quality of our living together. 1 Supporter Amy Christel in Midtown/ Midtown West (registered) October 29, 2016, 11 :01 AM Rather than a vaguely defined topic like "Healthy City" focus on issues that contribute to ill-health in our city. Air All Statements sorted chronologically As of January 25, 2017, 8:53 AM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/4065 Page 55of 65 2017 Council Priorities What are the priorities you would like to see the City Council adopt for 2017? quality and "Soundscape" are big QOL issues. Address noise and air pollution sources with better ordinances and better enforcement; monitor aviation noise and chemical pollution from both commercial jets and General Aviation (PAO), ban leaf blowers, address horrendously noisy garbage trucks and street sweepers (invest in quieter machinery or better maintenance of current), curb train horns in overnight hours. Ban the sale of leaded avgas at PAO effective 2018, and insist that fuel vendors there offer Swift 94 (unleaded gas) as a contingency of renewed leases. Work with the FAA to reduce the overflights of GA aircraft approaching PAO and SOL over neighborhoods, and limit the training operations at PAO which force arriving/departing air traffic over residential populations. On the issue of housing, don't assume cars will not come with new housing. Require developers to provide complete parking. Re traffic and congestion: STOP the office growth. Period, no exceptions. Enough jobs. Wait 50 years for the housing to catch up. 1 Supporter Name not shown in Community Center (registered) October 27, 2016, 9:41 AM The jet noise is unbearable, quality of life has plummeted. Palo Alto will no longer be "a little gem of a city" if the noise persists and if, as expected gets worse with continued next gen implementation. Please continue your substantive support via consultants and direct support to Sky Posse Palo Alto. Get the city on the SFO roundtable. Push back on the politicians waving hands about 'not moving noise' (the noise has been moved, to us). Let's get this fixed. For us. For our neighbors. 1 Supporter Mel Kronick in Crescent Park (registered) October 22, 2016, 5:56 PM More support for mass transit, especially more capacity on Caltrain. Work with Menlo Park and Redwood City to reactivate the rail line that connects Redwood City to East Menlo Park (very near Facebook with its thousands of employees) and then on across the bay south of the Dumbarton Bridge. 1 Supporter Michelle Arden in University South (registered) October 21, 2016, 5:45 PM Please address aircraft noise as a priority for the community. In the past several years, aircraft noise has increased to the point where it significantly impacts my quality of life, and that of my family. 2 Supporters Name not available (unclaimed) All Statements sorted chronologically As of January 25, 2017, 8:53 AM October 21, 2016, 4:43 PM httpJ/www.peakdemocracy.com/4065 Page 56 of 65 2017 Council Priorities What are the priorities you would like to see the City Council adopt for 2017? The things I would most like to see the City prioritize: 1. Airplane noise 2. Airplane noise 3. Airplane noise Thank you. Margaret Clayton Name not available (unclaimed) October 21, 2016, 4:07 PM The most immediate problem I would love to see tackled is the extreme airplane noise --because of the impact on health, quality of life and likely on property values. Palo Alto is a much less pleasant and desirable place to live since airplane noise has increased and a less healthy & happy place to raise kids. For me and my family, the noise is disruptive & finding a solution is a top priority. Name not shown in University South (registered) October 21, 2016, 12:16 PM Please consider the airplane noise problem a priority for the city council. About 1 /3 of the citizens are experiencing it and the children suffer daily at school. 2 Supporters Joan Hancock in Old Palo Alto (registered) October 20, 2016, 12:58 PM As I walk around our neighborhood ... l'm saddened by the empty dark houses that are like holes in the neighborhood. I know New York and London have the same situation with out of town property investment that is held as a commodity. Could Palo Alto have an ordinance that houses have to be occupied at least half the year? Just wondering ... Joan Hancock Name not shown in Community Center (registered) October 20, 2016, 11 :42 AM The incredible increase in airplane noise over the past year must be addressed -this is a serious quality of life issue and also could affect property values. Also traffic safety (cracking down on speeding and red light running) and bicycle route safety need addressing. Fix the traffic mess at Embarcadero and Town and Country/Paly --it's no better than it was. 2 Supporters Name not shown in University Park (registered) All Statements sorted chronologically As of January 25, 2017, 8:53 AM http:J/www.peakdemocracy.com/4065 October 20, 2016, 10:34 AM Page 57 of 65 2017 Council Priorities What are the priorities you would like to see the City Council adopt for 2017? 1. Development cap in all of Palo Alto until we've solved parking and traffic issues 2. Crackdown on residential burglary/auto theft 2 Supporters Name not shown in Midtown/ Midtown West (register~d) My opinions on top 2 city priorities: 1. Funding and executing infrastructure improvements October 19, 2016, 10:14 PM 2. Public safety -apply more resources to traffic enforcement and crackdown on residential burglary/auto theft Please do not put city resources towards building more/BMR housing. It is not the responsibility of the city to ensure everyone who wants to live in PA can do so. There are lots of places I would like to live or own a home but I don't expect those cities to subsidize my ability to live there. Name not shown in Green Acres (registered) October 19, 2016, 10:10 PM By far the most important issue for me is the elimination of the constant barrage of loud, annoying, intrusive aircraft noise that has been occurring at my home since Mar. 2015. 1 Supporter Name not shown in Midtown/ Midtown West (registered) October 19, 2016, 9:23 PM Please find a way to reinstate traffic enforcement. The speeding, red-light running and stop-sign running is such a huge problem. If people thought they might get ticketed for these infractions, maybe it would help discourage it. Our streets are becoming like a free-for-all and are not safe places for bikers or pedestrians. 2 Supporters Stephen Rock in Charleston Terrace (registered) October 19, 2016, 9:17 PM Reducing single occupancy auto traffic. 1) Public Transportation should be a very high priority. Getting people to their jobs, to shopping, to entertainment. a) Much more frequent bus service and many more routes. Faster service (dedicated lanes) Perhaps follow the model of the Stanford Margarete system. bus routes to California Ave Cal Train. b) Frequent Minibuses, perhaps private, along designated routes. This is done in many countries. b) Increased Cal Train c) Coordinate with neighboring cities. e.g. route between Palo Alto and Menlo Park. 2) Shared Taxi service/minivans from Train Stations and Bus stops to work places. 3) Designated parking places for car pools (as.at Stanford). All Statements sorted chronologically As of January 25, 2017, 8:53 AM http://www.paakdamocracy.com/4065 Paga 58 of 65 2017 Council Priorities What are the priorities you would like to see the City Council adopt for 2017? 4) Designated parking for small cars. Put large vehicles on the top of the garages. 5) University Av pedestrian only. 4 Supporters Name not shown in Midtown/ Midtown West (registered) October 19, 2016, 9:15 PM Highest priority should be to reverse the FAA NextGen action that flies 330+ jets low and loud over Palo Alto daily. Next priority should be to join the suit brought by Portola Valley residents against FAA. Next priority should be to demand a seat at the FAA metroplex round table to ensure that Palo Alto has a voice given the disproportionate impact on quality of life that 330+ daily jet overflights has brought. The city should add 3-4 viable and welcoming fenced dog areas in Palo Alto city parks. 1 Supporter Angela Holman in Downtown North (registered) October 19, 2016, 8:10 PM I would like to know which, if any, of these priorities include addressing the serious housing problem in Palo Alto. Those of us who are renters have no protections against enormous rent increases, making it virtually impossible to maintain any kind of economic diversity in the area. In addition to renter protections though, I'd really like to see more of an emphasis on low-income and affordable housing development. As the cities around us continue to allow company growth to outpace housing stock, people are getting pushed further and further out and making traffic worst for everyone. Again, how will these priorities address housing needs? 1 Supporter Name not shown in University Park (registered) October 19, 2016, 5:55 PM Creating more housing needs to be a number one priority. Any way the council can change the requirements to incentivise smaller dwellings, granny units and other creative ways to increase housing should be considered. using technology to improve parking accessibility is also a worthy endeavor. 4 Supporters Name not shown in Downtown North (registered) More housing, more housing, more housing. Everything else is a distant second. 1 Supporter Rachel Croft in Southgate (registered) All Statements sorted chronologically As of January 25, 2017, 8:53 AM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/4065 October 14, 2016, 10:40 AM October 14, 2016, 9:05 AM Page 59of 65 2017 Council Priorities What are the priorities you would like to see the City Council adopt for 2017? I would like the city to take as a top priority making Palo Alto a more bike friendly place. This should include considerations for bike safety (including providing separate roadways for bikes, ensuring cars can't park near intersections, and putting better separation rails in places where bikes are near fast-moving cars like Embarcadero Caltrain underpass) and bike parking. The city should consider both adult and kid bike drivers in their plans. 4 Supporters Patama Gurin Old Palo Alto (registered) October 13, 2016, 1:32 PM Preserve ground floor retail at least two blocks off University Ave and keep California Avenue zoned for local, non-chain businesses. Better balance the needs of existing local residents with growth initiatives especially around parking and traffic concerns. 2 Supporters Hamilton Hitchings in Duveneck/ St Francis (registered) October 11, 2016, 4:19 PM 1) Complete the Comprehensive Plan Update 2) Significant progress on Infrastructure: Public Safety Building, new Parking Garages, Newell St. Bridge & Fire Stations Seismic Safety 3) Extend zoning changes to favor housing over office (extend and strengthen office cap, rezone some office to residential, TDRs for residential only, more focus on below market housing, try to save Bueno Vista, more focus on mitigating development impacts on neighbors, traffic and parking, etc ... ) Anne Gregory in Midtown/ Midtown West (registered) October 9, 2016, 11:10 PM 1. Unbearable jet noise and pollution. Everything else is is a distant second. My partner's asthma is awful now and we can't stand the noise. 2. Keep the 50 foot height limit and the office cap, and encourage Palantir to move out. ~. Ghost houses: follow Vancouver's lead and levy a large tax on real estate purchased by foreigners, and use that money to fund affordable housing for city workers only. 4. Grade separation. 5. Traffic enforcement. Speeding cut through traffic on my street, Loma Verde Ave, has made my home noisy, polluted and dangerous. 1 Supporter Name not shown in Evergreen Park (registered) October 9, 2016, 5:48 PM My highest priorities for Palo Alto center around quality of life: safety -traffic law enforcement (speed limits! stopping at stop signs) and parking (parking permits in neighborhoods near commercial areas) All Statements sorted chronologically As of January 25, 2017, 8:53 AM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/4065 Page 60 of65 2017 Council Priorities What are the priorities you would like to see the City Council adopt for 2017? 1 Supporter Irene Au in Evergreen Park (registered) October 9, 2016, 4:16 PM -Preserve quality of life for existing residents by addressing transit and parking issues. Evergreen Park in particular is suffering without an RPPP. Please implement an RPPP and commit towards a 100% phase-out of employee parking in the neighborhood within 5 years. -Commit to ground-floor retail and grow and keep local businesses in our community -Encourage businesses that help foster community and serve as gathering points for people I places of attraction; we need to serve not just one particular demographic but different places for people at different stages of life (e.g. teens, young adults, young families, middle-aged adults, seniors) -Make walking and biking around the city easy, accessible, and safe -Create a sensible architectural review process that promotes great design and aesthetics --please prevent monstrous UGLY buildings like the new development on El Camino between College Ave and Stanford Ave!!! (Does *anyone* think that yellow building with the phallus looks good?) -Reduce airplane noise 2 Supporters Michael Hodos in University South (registered) October 8, 2016, 4:27 AM Adopt the following tenet as an overarching operating principle for each and every proposal considered by City Staff and the City Council: "How will this proposed change help maintain and/or improve the quality of life for the residents of this community?" 3 Supporters Jean Libby in Community Center (registered) October 7, 2016, 9:06 AM I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Palo Alto City Council for their dedication to the community and thoughtful stewardship. This is a group statement and to each individual as well. As a low-income homeowner struggling to remain where I have lived for 50 years, I earnestly seek equitable proposals that do not devalue my property. 1 Supporter Name not shown in Crescent Park (registered) October 7, 2016, 5:46 AM Reduce the number of city staff in proportion to residents, to match the ratios of surrounding high-performing cities. Reduce the number of management layers in city staff to match the "management span of control" of surrounding high-performing cities. All Statements sorted chronologically As of January 25, 2017, 8:53 AM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/4065 Page 61of65 2017 Council Priorities What are the priorities you would like to see the City Council adopt for 2017? A staff reduction of about 30%, if done on a merit basis (not seniority), would: -Free funds to pay for improved roads, parks, and other services. -Improve staff responsiveness by reducing bureaucratic steps. -Prevent our future bankruptcy that will result from growing numbers of retired staffers on high pensions that are funded by an essentially constant number of residents. 5 Supporters Name not available (unclaimed) October 6, 2016, 8:16 PM I have asked the CAC to insert a policy in the Environment element re vehicle idling, pertaining specifically to parked cars --not idling in traffic. Idling emits about 40,000 tons of carbon daily in the US. The problem is particularly problematic at local schools, as parents and bus drivers waiting to pick up children leave their engines running and subject them to carbon monoxide which is increasing asthma, respiratory disease, heart disease and cancer. And it's completely unnecessary. Turning off the engine instead of letting it idle saves on gas, engine wear and tear and carbon emissions. I'd like to see the city pass an ordinance against idling. Fremont has incorporated an anti-idling policy in its CAP. So should Palo Alto, as a leader in green cities. Andrew Sharpe in Downtown North (registered) October 6, 2016, 7:07 PM Street repair, bicycle lanes, traffic calming on Everett, 4 way stop signs at Everett and Bryant, and Everett and High. Invest in the folks that live here and pay for these things! 1 Supporter Stephen Rosenblum in Old Palo Alto (registered) October 6, 2016, 6:47 PM Commit to achieving a carbon neutral environment as soon as possible, including transportation. As a part of this commitment, the city should make a plan o implement Mobility as a Service for all residents and workers in Palo Alto. 2 Supporters Name not available (unclaimed) October 6, 2016, 4:43 PM In a time of climate change and population growth, greater protection and sustainable use of our natural environment: our canopy, our groundwater, our streams, our air quality, our foothills and bay lands. Name not shown in Midtown/ Midtown West (registered) October 6, 2016, 4:34 PM 1. Reduce airplane noise 2. smart way to monitor water consumption. For example, monitor consumption from phone rather than looking All Statements sorted chronologically As of January 25, 2017, 8:53 AM http1/www.peekdemocracy,com/4065 Page 62 of 65 2017 Council Priorities What are the priorities you would like to see the City Council adopt for 2017? at the hard-to-get-to-outdoor meter 3 Supporters Name not shown in University South (registered) October 6, 2016, 2:38 PM Traffic enforcement for motor vehicles, bicycles, pedestrian , and special attention to heavy construction vehicles on residential streets. Public transportation that is also green, a la Marguerite; push employers to provide discounted public transit passes, and design the transit to meet the needs of the people. Conservation incorporated in all new construction and remodeling: more solar panels, etc. Cease allowing commercial building without adequate parking. The "public benefits" never seem to materialize, but the parking problems do. Name not available (unclaimed) October 6, 2016, 11:40 AM Preserving the quality of life in neighborhoods. Jane Volk-Brew in Duveneck/ St Francis (registered) October 6, 2016, 11 :39 AM 1) increased traffic enforcement on city streets, i.e., drivers who speed and/or run or disregard traffic signals; 2) Sand Hill Properties' lack of compliance with the planned community requirements of Edgewood Shopping Center; 3) noise from low flying helicopters and general aviation aircraft arriving at and departing from the Palo Alto airport; 4) noise from airplanes inbound to SFO and SJC; 5) improved street cleaning, especially in bike lanes on city streets and at the baylands. Name not shown in Leland Manor/ Garland (registered) October 6, 2016, 11 :38 AM Everyone is 'connected' to their electronic devices in their daily lives particularly in their homes. It's essentially that we keep up the infrastructure to meet the current as well as anticipate the future demands. Additionally, we currently have very limited choices, with Comcast essentially holding a monopoly albeit on a suboptimal service which is sometimes reliable. I'd like to see a city wide push towards Fiberoptic internet. It's already available throughout many condo buildings in SF and really game changing, particularly for those of us who want the flexibility to do data intensive work at home. Even for casual users, having consistent super high speed internet really is time saving, whether for school related work, doing things related to one's occupation, or just entertainment. I've seen reports of the city looking into fiber whether Google fiber or some other company. I think it's time to make a push forward and come up with a plan that can be acted upon in a short term (3-5 years go-live goal?) to make fiber available to all residents. We are in the center of Silicon Valley, a technological epicenter. Many other small cities in the midwest and elsewhere have passed us in this internet infrastructure investment. It's time for us to catch up and keep relevant to all the exciting technological activities and resources going on in the Bay area. All Statements sorted chronologically As of January 25, 2017, 8:53 AM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/4065 Page 63 of65 2017 Council Priorities What are the priorities you would like to see the City Council adopt for 2017? 1 Supporter William Brew in Duveneck/ St Francis (registered) October 6, 2016, 11 :11 AM Priorities: reduce airplane noise, solve Edgewood Shopping Center problems, stop red light and stop sign runners. Frankie Farhat in Green Acres (registered) October 6, 2016, 10:45 AM Here are my 4 priorities: -Airplane noise -Help reduce it and make sure it remains low. The current situation is unjust and untenable for those like me who now live under both the SERFR route and the hundreds of vectoring planes. -Airplane noise -Please start considering what legal ~ctions are available to the City of Palo Alto either if the select committee does not come up with recommendations or if the FAA does not implement procedures that will help us. Note that according to the city noise ordinance in Palo Alto, if I use a gas-powered leaf blower anytime during the day, or if I do construction work before Barn, after 6pm, or anytime on Sundays, I am ·punishable to up to 6 months in jail, up to $1,000 in fines or both. May I suggest that the City of Palo Alto review and update their codes and use the legal tools in their power to ensure that airspace violators are properly fined and prosecuted. Furthermore, I'd like to suggest that we start such process with the top offenders like Asiana OZ 286 and Korean Airlines KE 213 who fly low and loud, every night typically around 12:30am. -Airplane noise: study the impact on health (physical and mental), learning, and properties value. -Airplane noise: denounce publicly the impact of Nextgen on the Palo Alto community, in order to help raise awareness at the national level and grow the pressure on FAA and Congress to do something right for all of us who now live on Airport runways. 7 Supporters Name not shown in Charleston Terrace (registered) Regenerating Nature in the City 2 Supporters Glenn Fisher in Charleston Terrace (registered) October 6, 2016, 10:37 AM October 6, 2016, 10:19 AM Priority 1 : The balance between offices/jobs and residents/housing is critical. Palo Alto is flooded by people who work here but don't live here, and it contributes to congestion. At the same time, housing is expensive and the Planning Commission, Architectural Review Board and Council create a long, expensive, and time- consuming path to new construction; restrictions on in-law units limit housing choices. We need a well-thought out comprehensive plan that addresses these issues, and a council that city government that directly conform to the plan so the requirements and process are clear for everyone. We also need a way to encourage high- density housing while confronting the transportation issues and realize that cars are not going away. So related priority 1A: Clarify, codify and streamline the process of approving remodels and new construction. All Statements sorted chronologically As of January 25, 2017, 8;53 AM http~lwww.peakdemocracy.com/4065 Page 64 of 65 2017 Council Priorities What are the priorities you would like to see the City Council adopt for 2017? The current process is broken and more often (for remodels) ignored because it is so complex and expensive. Priority 2: Infrastructure. We have to replace old sewers and utilities, maintain our parks, and also our urban forest. These all have a cost and time constraints that must be addressed. 2 Supporters Name not available (unclaimed) October 6, 2016, 10:12 AM Under health and safety, I believe the airplane noise over our heads is a top priority. There are numerous studies showing that ambient noise can affect our health. Even those who claim not to notice it are affected at some subconscious level. All Statements sorted chronologically As of January 25, 2017, 8:53 AM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/4065 Page65 of65 2017 Priority Projects Saturday, January 30, 2017 Honorable Mayor and Council, Attached for your consideration is a list of 24 Priority Projects for 2017. We have assembled these in anticipation of your potential Priorities for 2017. These are excerpts from more detailed lists that included in you packet behind this letter. We have not attempted to be exact on the priority groupings. All the projects listed though seem to be defining projects that Council would see as representative of an ambitious and relevant agenda and essential to your determination that, by year's end, 2017 was a successful year. You may wish to add or modify the Projects list. Certainly, some discussion at the retreat regarding the progress and outcome expected at year's end will be important. The Council needs to help define those outcomes. We would hope that the list would be useful in your own discussions with the community and that quarterly reviews and updates with Council would occur and keep the project schedules and outcomes current. 0 The projects include some that will require active and frequent direct Council involvement. Others will require little of that (see infrastructure, for example) but the projects themselves represent results that are very important to you and the community. You will note that many of the projects overlap from one priority area of another (for example Transportation and Budget and Finance). In addition, there are many other projects and issues that we will be working on as a city this year that are not on the list. Finally, we should note that this list is much shorter than last year's work plan. This is designed to be strategic. For you to be able to truly signify what is most representative of what is most important in your priorities for the year. And for the scale to be manageable and understandable and more useful. There are 24 "projects" on this list. We are hoping that after this priority setting retreat and your active role in endorsing the projects and shaping the outcomes this will truly be the Council's Priority Work Plan for the year. And that between this weekend's retreat and the second governance effectiveness retreat in the second quarter that we can build an overall Work Plan management system to ensure that these priority projects occur, and that other issues and projects we work on, are also those most important at the next level, and realistic, and achievable. ll Page "Projects" 0 Transportation 1. Grade Separation Alternative identified 2. VTA Measure B Funds fair share 3. Downtown Parking Management decisions 4. Bike Boulevards construction 5. Shuttle funding, expansion decisions 6. Transportation Management Association {TMA) funding & maturation 0 Housing 7. Incentives and Zoning options 8. __ # Housing Units created 0 2 1 Page 0 Comprehensive Plan 9. Plan Adopted by Council Sept/Oct 2017 Sustainability/Climate Action Plan(S/CAP) 10. Strategic Implementation Plans (SIPs) adopted by Council 2nd Quarter 2017 Infrastructure 11. Public Safety Building 12. Cal Ave Parking Garage 13. Downtown Parking Garage 14. 101 Bike/Ped Bridge 15. Fire Station 3 16. Charleston/ Arastradero Corridor 17. Cubberley Community Center 3I Page Budget & Finance($) 18. Animal Shelter 19. Infrastructure Plan construction costs/debt financing 20. Stanford Fire Contract 21. Project Safety Net 22. New Revenues 23. TMA Funding (*see transportation) 24. CalPERS & Unfunded Liability Other 0 0 0 4 1 Page Transportation 2017 Rail • Rail Corridor Circulation Study • Grade Separation Alternatives Analysis • Caltrain Modernization Construction • Monitoring & Advocacy: VTA Measure B Grade Sep Program • Renew Transit Center Lease & Improve Vehicular Access • Transit Center Ped/Bike Access Transportation Funding • Monitoring & Advocacy: VTA Measure B Other Programs • Paid Parking & Permit Pricing • Project Entitlements (i.e. additional sales tax, TOT) • Nexus Study to Update Impact Fees • Stanford GUP Offset Opportunities • Other (OBAG, HSR, etc.) 0 Parking • Wayfinding & Automated Guidance System Construction • Downtown Parking Management Study: Presentation & Implementation Decisions • RPP Program Implementation: Downtown, Evergreen/Mayfield, and Southgate • Parking Garage (2) Planning & Design (see Infrastructure) Traffic Operations • Speed Survey Outreach & Implementation • Traffic Signal Timing & Coordination • Middlefield Road Traffic Safety Pilot • Neighborhood Traffic Safety & Bicycle Boulevards Construction (See Infrastructure) • Comprehensive Traffic Safety Program • Downtown Mobility & Safety Project • Embarcadero Road/El Camino Real Construction Transit • Monitoring & Advocacy: VTA Next Network & Core Connectivity Initiatives • Palo Alto Free Shuttle Funding & Possible Expansion • Monitoring & Advocacy: US 101 Hot Lanes & Transit Enhancements Transportation Demand Management • Transportation Management Association (TMA} Funding and Maturity • Stanford Research Park Coordination • Adoption & Implementation of new TOM Plan requirements in the Zoning Code incl. Tracking TOM Plans' Mandatory Reporting Other • FTA Mobility on Demand Sandbox Grant • Managers Mobility Partnership • Bicycle Plan Five-Year Review • Transportation Technology & Data Visualization SI Page Grade Separations Convene Advisory Group (Feb) Other Concurrent Activities Circulation Study (Spring) • MTC funded grade separation study Alternatives Analysis (Fall 2017) • Advocate for Measure B funds & pursue other funding sources Select Preferred Alternative (Early 2018) • Advocate for inclusion in the HSR Environmental Review & Design/Bid Documents 0 0 CEQARevlew (2018) Financing & Design Development GI Page 0 Housing 2017 Impact/In Lieu Fees (Jan) Potential Entitlements • Mike's Bikes Site (SO DU) • 901 High Street (26 DU) • Compadres Site (17 DU) • Mayfield Site {16 DU) • VTA Lot Pilot Project (60 DU) • PAH CalPark Site (4o+ DU) • Billboard Site (23 DU) • Nursery Site (TBD) •Other? ADU Ordinance & Lot Consolidation Ordinance (Feb) Other Initiatives* • Notice of Funding Availability • Vacation Rental Ordinance • Initiate Fry's Planning • City/School Collaboration • Support for Housing in the GUP & RHNA sharing for the next cycle • Measure A Implementation •Other? *Not currently resourced 0 Annual Housing Report (April) New Housing Sites &CompPlan Policies Adopted (Oct) Zoning Adjustments to Implement Comp Plan Policies Additional Housing Element Programs* • Incentives for preservation of rental cottages & duplexes (Hl.1.3) • Parking Study of Housing Types & Related Code Adjustments (H3.3.7) • Require minimum density of eight du/ac in RM-15 and consider minimum densities elsewhere (H2.1.3) • Create zoning incentives for units smaller than 900 sq. ft. (H2.1.4) • Eliminate site & design review on small housing inventory sites • Consider allowing housing only on mixed use sites through transfer of requirements between adjacent parcels (H2.2.6) • Provide incentives for extremely low, very low, and low income units beyond the inclusionary requirements (H3.1.12) • Assist local agencies and nonprofits in the development of group homes, etc. (H3.3.4) • Work with developers to pursue opportunities to convert market rate housing to affordable (H3.4.4) • Ensure the zoning code facilitates construction of housing for special needs households (H4.2.1) • Work with the San Andreas Regional Center on outreach about housing for persons with developmental disabilities (H4.2.2) *Identified for Implementation in the Housing Element for 2017 71 Page Comprehensive Plan Update 2017 January • Council review of Land Use & Transportation May • Reception for the CAC 0 March • City Council Hearing on the Supplement to the Draft EIR & Direction Regarding a "Preferred Scenario" June • City Council review of Governance and Implementation; • Referral to the PTC 0 I I April • City Council review of Natural Resources, Safety, and Business & Economics • • • Sept/Oct Receive PTC Recommendation Final Plan Adjustments EIR Certification & Adoption • PTC Report • Implementing Actions 2018 / Bl Page 0 0 Sustainability Implementation Plans Q2 Q3-Q4 > Ql ~ SIPsdevelop d ,......___ ____ __, SIPs to Council for approval SIPs implementation Summary: While the Sustainability and Climate Action Plan (S/CAP) provides overarching goals and strategies for the 2016-2030 period, the SIPs focus on the initial actions needed over the 2017-2020 period to advance those goals and build City capacity to address the actions that will be required in the 2020-2030 period. (The boxes below highlight key elements of each SIP section.) Mobility • Grow ridesharing and other mobility services • Expand bike infrastructure • Expand EV charging & transit access Water Management • Right water/Right use • Reduce consumption & lead by example • Protect creeks, bay & groundwater Regeneration & Natural Environment • Renew, restore and enhance environmental resilience • Adapt Natural Environment Plan to changing climate regimes • Manage soil and vegetation to maximize carbon sequestration Energy Efficiency & Electrification • Reduce GHG emissions and energy consumption in buildings • Use performance transparency to increase learning and accountability • Accelerate efficiency gains through new program offerings Municipal Operations • Improve energy efficiency of City buildings • Expand green purchasing policy • Embed sustainability in management systems and policy Zero Waste & Circular Economy • Improve scope and effectiveness of existing diversion programs • Study waste composition and update Zero Waste Plan • Support Extended Producer Responsibility laws to increase diversion Climate Adaptation & Resiliency • Institutionalize resilience planning • Develop sea level rise policy • Improve governance and communication on adaptation 9I Page Infrastructure 2017 Public Safety Building • Status: Design and Environmental review started in January 2017 • 2017 Goal: Complete EIR and reach 35% design • Council actions: Certify EIR in December 2017 Project complete in 2021 California Avenue Parking Garage • Status: Design and Environmental review started in January 2017 • 2017 Goal: Complete EIR and reach 35% design • Council actions: Direction on providing additional parking spaces in March 2017; Certify EIR in December 2017 Project complete in 2019 Downtown Parking Garage • Status: Design and Environmental review started in January 2017 • 2017 Goal: Circulate draft EIR and reach 35% design • Council actions: Direction on underground levels and retail in April 2017 Project complete in 2019 0 Highway 101 Bike/Pedestrian Bridge • Status: Completing 35% design for preliminary review by Boards and Commissions • 2017 Goal: Complete CEQA process and approach 65% design • Council actions: Approve CEQA document in December 2017 Project complete in 2020 Fire Station No. 3 • Status: Design completion is pending ARB approval; temporary location approved • 2017 Goal: Complete temp station construction and begin Station construction • Council actions: Award construction contract in October 2017 Project complete in 2018 Charleston/ Arastradero Corridor • Status: Nearing 65% design; environmental review complete • 2017 Goal: Complete design and begin Phase 1 construction • Council actions: Award Phase 1 construction contract in October 2017 Project complete in 2019 0 Cubberley Community Center 2017 Goals: • Continue minor repairs and roof replacements program (Auditorium, Paviion, and J Wing in 2017) • Complete Master Plan RFP process and begin Master Planning • Complete design and permitting for new athletic field restroom • Council actions: Approve Master Plan consultant contract in June 2017 Complete Master Plan in 2018 Other Projects under Construction • Golf Course Reconfiguration (reopen October 2017) • Baylands Interpretive Center (reopen May 2017) • Lucie Stern Center and Theatres (complete first phase in March 2017) • Street Resurfacing (ongoing; reach PCI of 84 at end of 2017) Other Projects in Design Phase • Baylands Boardwalk Replacement • Newell Road Bridge Replacement • Seale Park Improvements • Fire Station No. 4 (begin design in summer 2017) 10 I Page 0 lr--- tSudget & Finance 2017 Projects & Key Drivers Animal care Services Infrastructure Plan (Debt financing & construction cost rise) New Revenues CalPERs & Unfunded Liability Transportation Management Authority Funding Stanford Fire Negotiations Project Safety Net Other Factors and Trends • City Support of Non-Profits • Junior Museum and Zoo • Labor Negotiations • Recruitment and Retention • Golf Course Operations • Federal Impacts • Service Delivery Evaluations • Enterprise Resource Planning Software upgrade • Unfunded CIPs (7.7 acres foothill park, Parks Master Plan, former ITI Site/Baylands) • Proactive planning for future CalPERS impacts HI Page