HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-05-17 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 ON THE CITY’S WEBSITE.
Monday, May 17, 2021
Special Meeting
5:00 PM
Agenda posted according to PAMC Section 2.04.070. Supporting materials are available in
the Council Chambers on the Thursday 11 days preceding the meeting.
***BY VIRTUAL TELECONFERENCE ONLY***
CLICK HERE TO JOIN Meeting ID: 362 027 238 Phone:1(669)900-6833
Pursuant to the provisions of California Governor’s Executive Order N-29-20, issued
on March 17, 2020, to prevent the spread of Covid-19, this meeting will be held
by virtual teleconference only, with no physical location. The meeting will be
broadcast on Cable TV Channel 26, live on YouTube at
https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto, and Midpen Media Center at
https://midpenmedia.org. Members of the public who wish to participate by
computer or phone can find the instructions at the end of this agenda. To
ensure participation in a particular item, we suggest calling in or connecting online
15 minutes before the item you wish to speak on.
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. Public comment may be addressed to the full City Council via email at
City.Council@cityofpaloalto.org.
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.
HEARINGS REQUIRED BY LAW
Applicants and/or appellants may have up to ten minutes at the outset of the public discussion to make their
remarks and up to three minutes for concluding remarks after other members of the public have spoken.
Call to Order
Special Orders of the Day 5:00-5:15 PM
1.Presentation by La Comida
Study Session 5:15-6:15 PM
2.Presentation by Polco/NRC of the City of Palo Alto Community Survey
Report Results
REVISED
Memo
Presentation
Presentation
2 May 17, 2021
MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFT ER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA
PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION ON THE CITY’S WEBSITE.
Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions
Oral Communications 6:15-6:30 PM
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.
Minutes Approval 6:30-6:35 PM
3.Approval of Action Minutes for the April 26 and May 3, 2021 City
Council Meetings
Consent Calendar 6:35-6:40 PM
Items will be voted on in one motion unless removed from the calendar by three Council Members.
4.Approval of Amendment Number 4 to Contract Number C18172676
With Dixon Resources to Extend the Term to June 2022 With no
Additional Costs for the Downtown Parking Study
5.Approval of a Professional Services Agreement With CAD Masters, Inc.
for Ongoing Support, Maintenance, Development, and Enhancement of
the Geospatial Design and Asset Management System for the Utilities
Department in an Amount of $390,000 per Year, for a Total Not -to-
Exceed Amount of $1,950,000 for up to Five Years
6.Adoption of a Resolution Making Required Findings in Support of the
City's Grant Application for the State Transportation Development Act
Article 3 Funds to Update the City's Bicycle and Pedestrian
Transportation Plan
7.Adoption of a: 1) Resolution Waiving the Business Registration Fee fo r
Fiscal Year 2022, if Completed on Time, and Extending the due Date to
July 15, 2021; 2) Resolution Declaring an Intention to Temporarily
Suspend the Levy of Assessment Against Businesses Within the
Downtown Business Improvement District (BID) for Fiscal Year 2022,
and Setting a Public Hearing on the Proposed Temporary Suspension
for June 1, 2021; and 3) Approval of the Rei mbursement of any
Business Registration Fees and BID Assessments Already Paid in 2021
8.SECOND READING: Finance Committee Recommends City Council
Approve Park, Community Center, and Library Development Impact
Fee Justification Study; Adjustments to Park, Community Center, and
Library Development Impact Fees; Adopt the Ordinance Updating Park
Land In Lieu fee; and Direct Staff to Implement the Impact Fee
Updates With the Fiscal Year 2022 Budget (Continued From March 8,
2021) (FIRST READING: April 12, 2021 PASSED: 6-1 Tanaka no)
Q&A
Q&A
3 May 17, 2021
MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFT ER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA
PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION ON THE CITY’S WEBSITE.
City Manager Comments 6:40-6:50 PM
Action Items
Include: Reports of Committees/Commissions, Ordinances and Resolutions, Public Hearings, Reports of Officials,
Unfinished Business and Council Matters.
7:00-7:15 PM
9.PUBLIC HEARING: Adoption of a Resolution Confirming the Weed
Abatement Report and Ordering the Cost of Abatement to be a Special
Assessment on the Respective Properties Described Therein
7:15-7:30 PM
10.Approval of a Construction Contract With C. Overaa & Co. in the Total
Amount of $15,123,900, and Three Amendments to Existing
Agreements With: 1) Stanford University, 2) East Palo Alto Sanitary
District, and 3) Mountain View and Los Altos, for the Primary
Sedimentation Tanks Rehabilitation and Equipment Room Electrical
Upgrade Project (WQ-14003) at the Regional Water Quality Control
Plant; Adoption of a Resolution Revising and Superseding Resolution
Number 9667, Establishing Pledged Sources of Revenue for
Repayment of State Revolving Fund Loan; and Adoption of a
Resolution Authorizing an Installment Sale Agreement With the
California State Water Resources Control Board for Financing the
Design and Construction of the Primary Sedimentation Tanks
Rehabilitation and Equipment Room Electrical Upgrade Project
7:30-9:00 PM
11.Continued Discussion of the Fiscal Year 2022 Budget
Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements
Members of the public may not speak to the item(s)
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.
FY 2022 Proposed
Operating Budget
FY 2022 Proposed
Capital Budget
Closed Session
12.CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
City Designated Representatives: City Manager and his designees Pursuant to
Merit System Rules and Regulations (Ed Shikada, Rumi Portillo, Molly Stump,
Kiely Nose, Bob Jonsen, Geo Blackshire, Dean Batchelor, Nick Raisch)
Employee Organizations: Service Employees International Union, (SEIU) Local
521; Service Employees International Union, (SEIU) Local 521, Hourly Unit; Palo
Alto Police Officers Association (PAPOA); Palo Alto Fire Chiefs’ Association (FCA)
and Employee Organization: International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF),
Local 1319; Palo Alto Police Manager’s Association (PAPMA); Utilities Management
and Professional Association of Palo Alto (UMPAPA);
Authority: Government Code Section 54957.6(a)
9:00-10:00 P.M.
Memo
Presentation
Presentation
Roth
Memo
Public
Comment
4 May 17, 2021
MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFT ER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA
PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION ON THE CITY’S WEBSITE.
Additional Information
Standing Committee Meetings
Finance Committee Meeting Cancellation May 18, 2021
City/School Liaison Committee Meeting May 20, 2021
Schedule of Meetings
Schedule of Meetings
Public Letters to Council
Set 1 Set 2
5 May 17, 2021
MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFT ER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA
PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION ON THE CITY’S WEBSITE.
Public Comment Instructions
Members of the Public may provide public comments to teleconference
meetings via email, teleconference, or by phone.
1. Written public comments may be submitted by email to
city.council@cityofpaloalto.org.
2. Spoken public comments using a computer will be accepted
through the teleconference meeting. To address the Council, click on
the link below to access a Zoom-based meeting. Please read the
following instructions carefully.
A. You may download the Zoom client or connect to the meeting in -
browser. If using your browser, make sure you are using a
current, up-to-date browser: Chrome 30+, Firefox 27+,
Microsoft Edge 12+, Safari 7+. Certain functionality may be
disabled in older browsers including Internet Explorer.
B. You may be asked to enter an email address and name. We
request that you identify yourself by name as this will be visible
online and will be used to notify you that it is your turn to speak.
C. When you wish to speak on an Agenda Item, click on “raise
hand.” The Clerk will activate and unmute speakers in turn.
Speakers will be notified shortly before they are called to speak.
D. When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted.
E. A timer will be shown on the computer to help keep track of your
comments.
3. Spoken public comments using a smart phone will be accepted
through the teleconference meeting. To address the Council, download
the Zoom application onto your phone from the Apple App Store or
Google Play Store and enter the Meeting ID below. Please follow the
instructions B-E above.
4. Spoken public comments using a phone use the telephone number
listed below. When you wish to speak on an agenda item hit *9 on
your phone so we know that you wish to speak. You will be asked to
provide your first and last name before addressing the Council. You
will be advised how long you have to speak. When called please limit
your remarks to the agenda item and time limit allotted.
CLICK HERE TO JOIN Meeting ID: 362 027 238 Phone:1(669)900-6833
City of Palo Alto (ID # 12270)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Study Session Meeting Date: 5/17/2021
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Presentation of the Annual Community Survey Results
Title: Presentation by Polco/NRC of the City of Palo Alto Community Survey
Report of Results
From: City Manager
Lead Department: City Manager
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council receive the Community Survey Report of Results
for the City of Palo Alto Annual Community Survey by Polco/National Research Center,
Inc. (NRC).
Background
As described in the report, the survey was conducted starting on December 21, 2020
and responses were collected over seven weeks. Palo Alto has been surveying residents
since the first survey in 2003. The survey report shares the survey results with some
historical comparison. Also included in the report are the postcards sent to potential
survey takers.
Discussion
Polco/NRC will present the survey results to the City Council and discuss the results
with the City Council. This information is used for some performance metrics in the
annual budget process and also as one point of information f or resident feedback on
City services.
In the Fiscal Year (FY) 2021-2022 budget process, there is a recommendation to
conduct the survey biennially (every other year) as a cost saving measure. This
information is included in the FY 2022 Proposed Budget document on page 157.
Stakeholder Engagement
As shared in the survey results report, Polco/NRC ensured a statistically significant
sample of the Palo Alto community was included in the survey.
Attachments:
• Palo Alto Community Survey 2021 Report of Results
Prepared by:
The City of Palo Alto, CA
Community Survey Report of Results
2021
Attachment A
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
CONTENTS
Detailed Survey Methods ........................................................................................................................................... 3
National Benchmark Comparisons .......................................................................................................................... 12
Key Findings ............................................................................................................................................................... 14
Results Tables ............................................................................................................................................................ 16
Verbatim Responses to Open-ended Survey Questions ...................................................................................... 65
Question 17: As a resident of Palo Alto, what one change could the City make that would make
you happier? ....................................................................................................................................................... 65
Question 18: As a resident of Palo A lto, what one thing do you believe the City does well and
would want to maintain? ................................................................................................................................. 82
Responses to Open-Participation, Community-Wide Survey .............................................................................. 95
Question 17: As a resident of Palo Alto, what one change could the City make that would make
you happier? ..................................................................................................................................................... 115
Question 18: As a resident of Palo Alto, what one thing do you believe the City does well and
would want to maintain? ............................................................................................................................... 119
Communities included in national comparisons ................................................................................................. 122
Survey Materials ...................................................................................................................................................... 125
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
3
DETAILED SURVEY METHODS
Survey Information
The 2021 Palo Alto Community Survey was developed and conducted by Polco/National Research Center,
Inc. (NRC). 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,
and geographic location allows comparison of results for different subgroups of residents. The City of Palo
Alto funded this research. Please contact Chantal Cotton Gaines, Deputy City Manager, City of Palo Alto, at
chantal.gaines@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 multi-family housing units to improve response from hard-to-reach respondents.
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 pre-addressed, 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
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
4
opinion and, of course, the opinion, itself, that a resident holds about the service. Similarly a resident’s
report of certain 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.”
Selecting Survey Recipients
“Sampling” refers to the method by which households were chosen to receive the survey. All households
within the City of Palo Alto were eligible to participate in the survey. A list of all households within the zip
codes serving Palo Alto was purchased from Go-Dog Direct based on updated listings from the United
States Postal Service. Since some of the zip codes that serve 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 Palo Alto boundaries were removed from consideration. Each address
identified as being within City boundaries was further identified as being located in North or South Palo
Alto, and within one of six areas.
To choose the 3,600 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 Nth one, giving each eligible household a known
probability of selection, until the appropriate number of households is selected. Multi-family housing units
were selected at a higher rate as residents of this type of housing typically respond at lower rates to surveys
than do those in single-family housing units. Figure 1 displays a map of the households selected to receive
the survey. 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).
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
5
While the theory of probability assumes no bias in selection, there may be some minor variations in practice
(meaning, an area with only 15% of the housing units might be selected at an actual rate that is slightly
above or below that).
An individual within each household was selected using the birthday method. The birthday method selects
a person within the household by asking the “person whose birthday has most recently passed” to complete
the questionnaire. The underlying assumption in this method is that day of birth has no relationship to the
way people respond to surveys. This instruction was contained in the cover letter accompanying the
questionnaire.
In addition to the scientific, random selection of households, a link to an online “opt-in” survey was
publicized and posted to the City of Palo Alto website. This opt-in survey was identical to the scientific
survey and open to all City residents. (The data presented in this report exclude the opt-in survey data.
These data can be found in the Supplemental Online Survey Results provided under separate cover.)
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
6
FIGURE 1: LOCATION OF SURVEY RECIPIENTS BY AREA
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
7
FIGURE 2: LOCATION OF SURVEY RECIPIENTS BY NORTH/SOUTH
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
8
Survey Administration and Response
Selected households received mailings beginning on December 21, 2020. For 1,800 households, the first
mailing was a postcard announcing the upcoming survey with a link to complete the survey online. The
next mailing contained a letter from the City Manager 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. For the remaining 1,800
households, the first mailing was a postcard with a link to complete the survey online, followed one week
later by a reminder postcard with a link to the survey. The second postcard also asked respondents not to
complete the survey a second time.
The survey was available in English. All mailings included a URL through which the residents could choose
to respond online. Completed surveys were collected over seven weeks. The online “opt-in” survey became
available to all residents on January 25, 2021 and remained open for two weeks.
About 4% of the 3,600 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 3,440 households that received the
survey, 768 completed the survey, providing an overall response rate of 22%. Of the 768 completed surveys,
530 were completed online. Additionally, responses were tracked by geographic subarea; response rates by
area ranged from 17% to 35%. The response rates were/was calculated using AAPOR’s response rate #21 for
mailed surveys of unnamed persons. Additionally, 157 residents completed the online opt-in survey.
Confidence Inte rvals
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.2
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 (768 completed surveys).
For subgroups of responses, the margin of error increases because the number of responses for the subgroup
is smaller. For subgroups of approximately 100 respondents, the margin of error is plus or minus 10
percentage points. For the North and South, the margin of error rises to approximately plus or minus five
percentage points since the number of responses for the North were 378 and for the South were 390. Further,
1 See AAPOR’s Standard Definitions for more information:
http://www.aapor.org/Standards-Ethics/Standard-Definitions-(1).aspx
2 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 i n practice to mean that the “true”
perspective of the target population lies within the confidence interval created for a single survey. For example, i f 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. Differences in question wording, order, translation
and data entry, as examples, can lead to somewhat varying results.
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
9
for each of the six areas within Palo Alto, the margin of error rises to approximately plus or minus 11
percentage points since number of responses were 136 for Area 1, 139 for Area 2, 106 for Area 3, 140 for Area
4, 80 for Area 5 and 167 for Area 6. The margin of error for the six areas within Palo Alto is based off the
smallest number of returned surveys per area; thus margin of error was calculated using the number of
returned surveys from Area 5 (80).
TABLE 1: SURVEY RESPONSE RATES
Number mailed Undeliverable Eligible Returned Response rate
Overall 3,600 160 3,440 768 22%
North 1,762 89 1,673 378 23%
South 1,838 71 1,767 390 22%
Area 1 393 4 389 136 35%
Area 2 665 20 645 139 22%
Area 3 437 3 434 106 24%
Area 4 717 48 669 140 21%
Area 5 349 17 332 80 24%
Area 6 1039 68 971 167 17%
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 in
comparison to the original survey form. Range checks as well as other forms of quality control were also
performed.
NRC uses Polco, an online public engagement tool designed primarily for local governments, to collect
online survey data. The Polco platform includes many features of online survey tools, but also includes
elements tailored to the civic environment. For example, like NRC’s mailed surveys, surveys on Polco are
presented with the City name, logo (or other image) and a description, so residents understand who is
asking for input and why. Optionally, Polco can also verify respondents with local public data to ensure
respondents are residents or voters. More generally, an advantage of online programming and data
gathering is that it allows for more rigid control of the data format, making extensive data cleaning
unnecessary.
Survey Data Weighting
Upon completion of data collection for both the scientific (probability) and nonscientific open participation
online opt-in (non-probability) surveys, the demographics of each dataset were separately compared to
those found in the 2010 Census and 2017 American Community Survey estimates for adults in the City of
Palo Alto. The primary objective of weighting survey data is to make the survey respondents reflective of
the larger population of the community. Both survey datasets were weighted independently to best match
the Census. The characteristics used for weighting were housing tenure (rent or own), housing unit type
(attached or detached), sex, and age. No adjustments were made for design effects. Results for the opt-in
survey can be found beginning on page 95.
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
10
TABLE 2: PALO ALTO, CA 2020 WEIGHTING TABLE
Characteristic Population Norm Unweighted Data Weighted Data
Housing
Rent home 45% 29% 45%
Own home 55% 71% 55%
Detached unit* 58% 70% 58%
Attached unit* 42% 30% 42%
Race and Ethnicity
White 68% 68% 65%
Not white 32% 32% 35%
Not Hispanic 95% 97% 95%
Hispanic 5% 3% 5%
Sex and Age
Female 52% 51% 51%
Male 48% 49% 49%
18-34 years of age 22% 8% 22%
35-54 years of age 41% 31% 41%
55+ years of age 37% 62% 37%
Females 18-34 10% 4% 10%
Females 35-54 21% 14% 21%
Females 55+ 20% 34% 20%
Males 18-34 12% 4% 12%
Males 35-54 20% 16% 20%
Males 55+ 17% 29% 17%
Area
Area 1 13% 18% 15%
Area 2 19% 18% 18%
Area 3 13% 14% 13%
Area 4 19% 18% 19%
Area 5 9% 10% 11%
Area 6 27% 22% 23%
North/South
North 49% 49% 49%
South 51% 51% 51%
* U.S. Census Bureau ACS 2017 5-year estimates
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
11
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.
On many of the questions in the survey respondents may answer “don’t know.” The proportion of
respondents giving this reply is shown in the full set of responses included in Appendix A. However, these
responses have been removed from the analyses presented in the reports. In other words, the tables and
graphs display the responses from respondents who had an opinion about a specific item. When a table for a
question that only permitted a single response does not total to exactly 100%, it is due to the common
practice of percentages being rounded to the nearest whole number.
Trends over Time
Trend tables display trends over time, comparing the 2021 ratings for the City of Palo Alto to the 10
previous iterations of survey results (going back to 2009) and displaying 2003 data, the year when surveying
started.
Trend data for Palo Alto represent important comparison data and should be examined for improvements
or declines. Deviations from stable trends over time, especially, represent opportunities for understanding
how local policies, programs or public information may have affected residents’ opinions.
Meaningful differences between survey years have been noted within the following tables as being “higher”
or “lower” if the differences are greater than approximately five percentage points3 between the 2021 and
2018 surveys; otherwise, the comparisons between 2021 and 2018 are noted as being “similar.” When
comparing results over time, small differences (those with less than a 5 percent difference compared to 2018)
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 2018) 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.
3 While the percentages are reported as rounded whole numbers, meaningful differences are identified based on unrounded
percentages with decimals in place.
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
12
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 the six geographic subareas. Responses have
been summarized to 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 participated in an activity at least once. It should be noted that when a table that does include all
responses (not a single number) for a question that only permitted a single response does not total to exactly
100%, it is due to the common practice of percentages being rounded to the nearest whole number.
The subgroup comparison tables contain the crosstabulations of survey questions by geographic area. Chi-
square or ANOVA tests of significance were applied to these breakdowns of survey questions. A “p-value”
of 0.05 or less indicates that there is less than a 5% probability that differences observed between groups are
due to chance; or in other words, a greater than 95% probability that the differences observed in the selected
categories of the sample represent “real” differences among those populations. As subgroups vary in size
and each group (and each comparison to another group) has a unique margin of error, statistical testing is
used to determine whether differences between subgroups are statistically significant.
Each column in the following tables is labeled with a letter for each subgroup being compared. The
“Overall” column, which shows the ratings for all respondents, also has a column designation of “(A)”, but
no statistical tests were done for the overall rating.
For each pair of subgroup ratings within a row (a single question item) that has a statistically significant
difference, an uppercase letter denoting significance is shown in the cell with the larger column proportion.
The letter denotes the subgroup with the smaller column proportion from which it is statistically different.
Subgroups that have no uppercase letter denotation in their column and that are also not referred to in any
other column were not statistically different.
NATIONAL BENCHMA RK COMPA RISONS
Comparison Data
NRC’s database of comparative resident opinion is comprised of resident perspectives gathered in surveys
from over 600 communities whose residents evaluated the same kinds of topics as on the Palo Alto
Community Survey. The surveys gathered for NRC’s database include data from communities that have
been conducted by NRC, 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.
Interpre ting the Results
Ratings are compared for standard items in questions 1 through 12 when there are at least five communities
in which a similar question was asked. Where comparisons are available, four columns are provided in the
table. The first column is Palo Alto’s average rating, converted to a 100-point scale. The second column is the
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
13
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.
Although responses to many of the evaluative questions were made on a four-point scale with 1
representing the best rating and 4 the worst, the benchmarks are calculated on a common scale where 0 is
the worst possible rating and 100 is the best possible rating.
In that final column, Palo Alto’s results are noted as being “higher” than the benchmark, “lower” than the
benchmark, or “similar” to the benchmark, meaning that the average rating given by Palo Alto residents is
statistically similar to or different (greater or lesser) than the benchmark. More extreme differences are noted
as “much higher” or “much lower.” A rating is considered “similar” if it is within the standard range of 10
points; “higher” or “lower” if the difference between Palo Alto’s rating and the benchmark is greater than
the standard range but less than twice the standard range; and “much higher” or “much lower” if the
difference between Palo Alto’s rating and the benchmark is higher or lower by more than twice the standard
range. Where benchmark ratings were not available, “NA” indicates that this information is not applicable
(these were questions specific to Palo Alto and not asked in other communities).
The 100-point scale is not a percent. It is a conversion of responses to an average rating. Each response
option is assigned a value that is used in calculating the average score. For example, “very good”= 100,
“good”= 75, “neither good nor bad”= 50, “bad”= 25, and “very bad”= 0. If everyone reported “very good,”
then the average rating would be 100 on the 100-point scale. Likewise, if all respondents gave a “very bad”
rating, the result would be 0 on the 100-point scale. If half the respondents gave a score of “very good” and
half gave a score of “very bad,” the average would be 50, in the middle of the scale (like the center post of a
teeter totter) or “neither good nor bad.” An example of how to convert survey frequencies into an average
rating appears below.
TABLE 3: EXAMPLE OF CONVERTING RESPONSES TO THE 100-POINT SCALE
How do you rate the community as a place to live?
Response
option
Total with
“don’t
know”
Step1: Remove
“don’t know”
responses
Total without
“don’t know”
Step 2:
Assign scale
values
Step 3:
Multiply % by
scale value
Step 4: Sum to
calculate average
rating
Very good 15% =15÷(100-2)= 15.3% 100 =15.3% x 100 = 15.3
Good 53% =53÷(100-2)= 54.1% 75 =54.1% x 75 = 40.6
Neither good
nor bad 26% =26÷(100-2)= 26.5% 50 =26.5% x 50 = 13.3
Bad 3% =3÷(100-2)= 3.1% 25 =3.1% x 25 = 0.8
Very bad 0% =0÷(100-2)= 0% 0 =0% x 0 = 0
Don’t know 2% --
Total 100% 100% 70
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
14
KEY FINDINGS
Palo Alto residents continue to rate the community positively.
About 9 in 10 residents gave excellent or good ratings to the city as a place to live and their neighborhood
as a place to live, while about 8 in 10 gave positive marks to the overall quality of life in the city, Palo Alto
as a place to raise children, and the city as a place to work. Seven in 10 were pleased with Palo Alto as a
place to visit and half of residents gave favorable scores to the city as a place to retire. About three-quarters
planned to remain in Palo Alto for the next five years. All of these ratings were similar to those given in
other communities across the nation and similar to ratings given in 2018 except for place to retire, which
was higher than the benchmark and improved from 2018 to 2021.
The local economy garners strong ratings, but affordability is an issue.
About 8 in 10 residents gave favorable marks to the overall quality of business and service establishments
in the city. Three-quarters of survey respondents gave positive ratings to shopping opportunities in Palo
Alto, while roughly 7 in 10 were pleased with employment opportunities and the vibrancy of the city’s
downtown/commercial areas. Two-thirds awarded high scores to the city’s variety of business and service
establishments. Where benchmark comparisons and trends over time were available, these aspects tended
to be rated higher than or similar to national averages and also similar to 2018 ratings.
However, as in past years, affordability-related measures, such as cost of living (6% excellent or good) and
availability of affordable quality housing (9%), while similar to Palo Alto’s 2018 ratings, were much lower
than the benchmark comparisons. It is noteworthy, however, that the rating for variety of housing options,
while lower than the benchmark, improved over time (13% in 2018 versus 27% in 2021). When asked to
write in their own words what one change the City could make that would make them happier, 19% of
those who wrote in a comment made a remark related to housing (the amount, type, and/or affordability);
this was the most frequently-mentioned topic area.
Mobility and transportation are features of the community, and attitudes toward alternative
transportation have shifted more positively in recent years.
About 8 in 10 respondents or more positively rated the ease of walking in Palo Alto, ease of travel by
bicycle, and street cleaning, while at least 7 in 10 gave high scores to ease of travel by car and the
availability of paths and walking trails. Six in 10 were pleased with ease of public parking, traffic
enforcement, traffic signal timing, street repair, and sidewalk maintenance. Many traffic and street-related
ratings improved from 2018 to 2021, though it is likely that the lockdowns and reduction in traffic
congestion associated with the COVID-19 pandemic may have at least partially affected these ratings.
Further, ratings for ease of travel by bicycle, ease of travel by walking, and street cleaning were higher than
national averages.
Palo Alto residents were more likely than those who lived elsewhere to have used public transportation
instead of driving or to have walked or biked instead of driving. Also, when asked about the level of
convenience of different transportation methods if they did not have a car available, Palo Alto residents
were more likely in 2021 than in 2018 to rate walking and biking as convenient methods of getting around.
Respondents in 2021 were also more likely to purchase an electric car, and less likely to purchase a gas-
powered car, in the next two years than in 2018.
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
15
Ratings for some utility-related aspects have improved since 2018.
About 9 in 10 residents gave positive marks to the reliability of utility services in Palo Alto and 8 in 10 or
more awarded favorable scores to: the community value received from the City owning and operating its
own municipal utility services, utilities online customer self-service features, providing opportunities for
energy and water efficiency at home or business, value of Palo Alto Utilities’ customer communications,
ease of contacting Utilities department staff, and speed of response after contacting Utilities department
staff. Five of the 11 individual aspects of utility services included in this question saw improved ratings
from 2018 to 2021; the remaining 6 aspects were similar to the previous survey results. Further, more than
8 in 10 residents gave positive marks to utility payment options, drinking water, and storm water
management (the latter rating also increased from 2018 to 2021).
Educational opportunities for children and adults are another community asset.
About 90% of survey respondents gave excellent or good ratings to K-12 education, and about 8 in 10 were
pleased with adult educational opportunities. Both of these ratings were higher than the national
benchmarks and adult educational opportunities increased from 2018 to 2021. Eight in 10 residents gave
high scores to art programs and theater (for which a benchmark comparison was not available) and this
rating also increased since 2018. More than 9 in 10 residents favorably rated library facilities, which was
similar to 2018. The rating for availability of affordable quality child care/preschool, at 44% positive, was
similar to the national average and also improved since the previous survey iteration. Finally, in an open-
ended question that asked respondents to write in what they thought the City does well, 10% made a
comment related to the library and another 8% remarked on schools and education.
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
16
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). 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 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 2021 and 2018 surveys;
otherwise, the comparison between 2021 and 2018 are noted as being “similar.”
Geographic comparisons are made for questions 1 through 16 (some questions having multiple, non-scaled
responses are not included). Chi-square or ANOVA tests of significance were applied to these breakdowns
of survey questions. A “p-value” of 0.05 or less indicates that there is less than a 5% probability that
differences observed between groups are due to chance; or in other words, a greater than 95% probability
that the differences observed in the selected categories of the sample represent “real” differences among
those populations. As subgroups vary in size and each group (and each comparison to another group) has a
unique margin of error, statistical testing is used to determine whether differences between subgroups are
statistically significant.
Each column in the following tables is labeled with a letter for each subgroup being compared. The
“Overall” column, which shows the ratings for all respondents, also has a column designation of “(A)”, but
no statistical tests were done for the overall rating.
For each pair of subgroup ratings within a row (a single question item) that has a statistically significant
difference, an upper case letter denoting significance is shown in the cell with the larger column proportion.
The letter denotes the subgroup with the smaller column proportion from which it is statistically different.
Subgroups that have no upper case letter denotation in their column and that are also not referred to in any
other column were not statistically different.
For example, in Table 7 on page 18, respondents in North Palo Alto (A) gave significantly higher ratings to
their neighborhood as a place to live than respondents in South Palo Alto (B), as denoted by the “B” listed in
the cell of the ratings for North Palo Alto. The neighborhood rating in Area 6 (F) also was significantly
higher than those of Areas 1, 2, 3 and 4 (A, B, C, and D) (as indicated by the “A B C D” in the rating for Area
6).
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
17
QUESTION 1
TABLE 4: QUESTION 1 - RESPONSE PERCENTAGES AND NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS INCLUDING "DON'T KNOW" RESPONSES
Please rate each of the following aspects of quality of life in Palo
Alto: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total
Palo Alto as a place to live 44% N=334 44% N=337 11% N=83 1% N=5 1% N=4 100% N=763
Your neighborhood as a place to live 48% N=361 41% N=306 10% N=75 2% N=11 0% N=3 100% N=756
Palo Alto as a place to raise children 36% N=276 31% N=239 11% N=83 4% N=28 17% N=132 100% N=758
Palo Alto as a place to work 30% N=222 37% N=275 11% N=86 3% N=20 19% N=145 100% N=748
Palo Alto as a place to visit 25% N=189 41% N=308 23% N=171 5% N=40 6% N=47 100% N=755
Palo Alto as a place to retire 18% N=139 23% N=178 19% N=146 20% N=152 19% N=142 100% N=757
The overall quality of life in Palo Alto 31% N=235 53% N=400 14% N=104 2% N=14 1% N=6 100% N=760
TABLE 5: QUESTION 1 - RESPONSE PERCENTAGES AND NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS WITHOUT "DON'T KNOW" RESPONSES
Please rate each of the following aspects of quality of life in Palo Alto: Excellent Good Fair Poor Total
Palo Alto as a place to live 44% N=334 44% N=337 11% N=83 1% N=5 100% N=759
Your neighborhood as a place to live 48% N=361 41% N=306 10% N=75 2% N=11 100% N=753
Palo Alto as a place to raise children 44% N=276 38% N=239 13% N=83 4% N=28 100% N=626
Palo Alto as a place to work 37% N=222 46% N=275 14% N=86 3% N=20 100% N=603
Palo Alto as a place to visit 27% N=189 43% N=308 24% N=171 6% N=40 100% N=708
Palo Alto as a place to retire 23% N=139 29% N=178 24% N=146 25% N=152 100% N=614
The overall quality of life in Palo Alto 31% N=235 53% N=400 14% N=104 2% N=14 100% N=754
TABLE 6: QUESTION 1 - HISTORICAL RESULTS
Please rate each of the following aspects of
quality of life in Palo Alto:
Percent positive 2021 rating
compared to 2018 2003 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2021
Palo Alto as a place to live 95% 94% 95% 94% 95% 92% 95% 92% 91% 91% 89% 88% Similar
Your neighborhood as a place to live 88% 90% 91% 90% 90% 91% 92% 90% 91% 91% 90% 89% Similar
Palo Alto as a place to raise children 90% 91% 93% 93% 92% 90% 93% 87% 84% 84% 82% 82% Similar
Palo Alto as a place to work NA 87% 87% 89% 88% 89% 86% 87% 82% 82% 80% 82% Similar
Palo Alto as a place to visit NA NA NA NA NA NA 75% 74% 72% 71% 68% 70% Similar
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
18
Please rate each of the following aspects of
quality of life in Palo Alto:
Percent positive 2021 rating
compared to 2018 2003 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2021
Palo Alto as a place to retire 62% 64% 65% 68% 68% 56% 60% 52% 50% 51% 40% 52% Higher
The overall quality of life in Palo Alto 92% 91% 93% 94% 92% 94% 91% 91% 88% 85% 89% 84% Similar
TABLE 7: QUESTION 1 - GEOGRAPHIC SUBGROUP RESULTS
Percent rating "excellent" or "good"
North/South Area Overall
North South Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5 Area 6
(A) (A) (B) (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F)
Palo Alto as a place to live
89% 88% 91% 86% 89% 89% 82% 92%
E
88%
Your neighborhood as a place to live
93%
B
85% 86% 85% 86% 83% 93%
D
97%
A B C D
89%
Palo Alto as a place to raise children 80% 84% 79% 82% 87% 83% 78% 84% 82%
Palo Alto as a place to work 83% 82% 86% 82% 75% 84% 79% 84% 82%
Palo Alto as a place to visit
73% 68% 78%
D
68% 69% 66% 77% 68% 70%
Palo Alto as a place to retire
56%
B
47% 57%
E
47% 52% 45% 40% 63%
B D E
52%
The overall quality of life in Palo Alto
86% 83% 84% 81% 85% 82% 81% 90%
B E
84%
TABLE 8: QUESTION 1 - BENCHMARK COMPARISONS
City of Palo Alto rating Rank Number of jurisdictions for comparison Comparison to benchmark
Palo Alto as a place to live 77 158 388 Similar
Your neighborhood as a place to live 78 92 321 Similar
Palo Alto as a place to raise children 74 174 385 Similar
Palo Alto as a place to work 72 41 369 Higher
Palo Alto as a place to visit 64 118 304 Similar
Palo Alto as a place to retire 50 289 369 Similar
The overall quality of life in Palo Alto 71 191 444 Similar
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
19
QUESTION 2
TABLE 9: QUESTION 2 - RESPONSE PERCENTAGES AND NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS INCLUDING "DON'T KNOW" RESPONSES
Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Palo
Alto as a whole: Excellent Good Fair Poor
Don't
know Total
Overall "built environment" of Palo Alto (including overall design,
buildings, parks and transportation systems) 19% N=144 56% N=427 18% N=134 6% N=44 2% N=12 100% N=760
Overall feeling of safety in Palo Alto 44% N=333 42% N=322 12% N=87 2% N=13 0% N=4 100% N=759
Overall quality of natural environment in Palo Alto 41% N=308 49% N=375 8% N=63 1% N=10 0% N=4 100% N=760
Overall health and wellness opportunities in Palo Alto 39% N=297 43% N=325 10% N=75 2% N=13 6% N=48 100% N=758
Residents' connection and engagement with their community 15% N=113 42% N=320 24% N=179 11% N=87 8% N=58 100% N=757
TABLE 10: QUESTION 2 - RESPONSE PERCENTAGES AND NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS WITHOUT "DON'T KNOW" RESPONSES
Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Palo Alto as a whole: Excellent Good Fair Poor Total
Overall "built environment" of Palo Alto (including overall design, buildings, parks and
transportation systems) 19% N=144 57% N=427 18% N=134 6% N=44 100% N=748
Overall feeling of safety in Palo Alto 44% N=333 43% N=322 12% N=87 2% N=13 100% N=756
Overall quality of natural environment in Palo Alto 41% N=308 50% N=375 8% N=63 1% N=10 100% N=756
Overall health and wellness opportunities in Palo Alto 42% N=297 46% N=325 11% N=75 2% N=13 100% N=710
Residents' connection and engagement with their community 16% N=113 46% N=320 26% N=179 12% N=87 100% N=698
TABLE 11: QUESTION 2 - HISTORICAL RESULTS
Please rate each of the following characteristics as
they relate to Palo Alto as a whole:
Percent positive 2021 rating
compared to
2018 2003 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2021
Overall "built environment" of Palo Alto (including
overall design, buildings, parks and transportat ion
systems) NA NA NA NA NA NA 67% 63% 59% 65% 62% 76% Higher
Overall feeling of safety in Palo Alto NA NA NA NA NA NA 92% 91% 94% 94% 91% 87% Similar
Overall quality of natural environment in Palo Alto NA 84% 84% 84% 88% 83% 88% 86% 84% 89% 87% 90% Similar
Health and wellness opportunities in Palo Alto NA NA NA NA NA NA 88% 88% 85% 88% 84% 88% Similar
*“Residents' connection and engagement with their community” was a new question in 2021.
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
20
TABLE 12: QUESTION 2 - GEOGRAPHIC SUBGROUP RESULTS
Percent rating "excellent" or "good"
North/South Area Overall
North South
Area
1
Area
2
Area
3
Area
4
Area
5
Area
6
(A) (A) (B) (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F)
Overall "built environment" of Palo Alto (including overall design, buildings, parks and
transportation systems)
79% 74% 75% 78%
D
77% 67% 77% 83%
D
76%
Overall feeling of safety in Palo Alto 86% 87% 83% 88% 85% 88% 87% 88% 87%
Overall quality of natural environment in Palo Alto 90% 91% 88% 88% 91% 92% 90% 91% 90%
Overall health and wellness opportunities in Palo Alto 87% 88% 88% 84% 89% 89% 83% 90% 88%
Residents' connection and engagement with their community
62% 62% 69% 60% 71%
D
57% 62% 58% 62%
TABLE 13: QUESTION 2 - BENCHMARK COMPARISONS
City of Palo Alto
rating Rank
Number of jurisdictions for
comparison
Comparison to
benchmark
Overall "built environment" of Palo Alto (including overall design, buildings, parks
and transportation systems) 63 62 281 Similar
Overall feeling of safety in Palo Alto 76 118 366 Similar
Overall quality of natural environment in Palo Alto 77 60 292 Similar
Overall health and wellness opportunities in Palo Alto 76 22 284 Higher
Residents' connection and engagement with their community 55 27 57 Similar
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
21
QUESTION 3
TABLE 14: QUESTION 3 - RESPONSE PERCENTAGES AND NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS INCLUDING "DON'T KNOW" RESPONSES
Please indicate how likely or unlikely you are to do each of
the following: Very likely
Somewhat
likely
Somewhat
unlikely
Very
unlikely Don't know Total
Recommend living in Palo Alto to someone who asks 36% N=272 37% N=280 16% N=125 9% N=71 2% N=13 100% N=761
Remain in Palo Alto for the next five years 46% N=348 29% N=224 10% N=74 12% N=90 3% N=24 100% N=761
Recommend Palo Alto’s libraries to friends 51% N=388 25% N=191 4% N=34 3% N=21 17% N=131 100% N=764
TABLE 15: QUESTION 3 - RESPONSE PERCENTAGES AND NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS WITHOUT "DON'T KNOW" RESPONSES
Please indicate how likely or unlikely you are to do each of the following: Very likely Somewhat likely Somewhat unlikely Very unlikely Total
Recommend living in Palo Alto to someone who asks 36% N=272 37% N=280 17% N=125 10% N=71 100% N=748
Remain in Palo Alto for the next five years 47% N=348 30% N=224 10% N=74 12% N=90 100% N=737
Recommend Palo Alto’s libraries to friends 61% N=388 30% N=191 5% N=34 3% N=21 100% N=633
TABLE 16: QUESTION 3 - HISTORICAL RESULTS
Please indicate how likely or unlikely you are
to do each of the following:
Percent positive 2021 rating
compared to 2018 2003 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2021
Recommend living in Palo Alto to someone who
asks NA 90% 90% 91% 92% 89% 86% 80% 72% 75% 73% 74% Similar
Remain in Palo Alto for the next five years NA 87% 83% 87% 87% 87% 83% 80% 75% 76% 78% 78% Similar
Recommend Palo Alto’s libraries to friends NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 91% 92% 91% Similar
TABLE 17: QUESTION 3 - GEOGRAPHIC SUBGROUP RESULTS
Percent rating "very likely" or "somewhat likely"
North/South Area Overall
North South Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5 Area 6
(A) (A) (B) (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F)
Recommend living in Palo Alto to someone who asks 73% 75% 75% 77% 74% 73% 69% 74% 74%
Remain in Palo Alto for the next five years 79% 77% 80% 79% 80% 72% 79% 78% 78%
Recommend Palo Alto’s libraries to friends 92% 91% 89% 91%
96%
D 87% 92%
95%
D 91%
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
22
TABLE 18: QUESTION 3 - BENCHMARK COMPARISONS
City of Palo Alto rating Rank Number of jurisdictions for comparison Comparison to benchmark
Recommend living in Palo Alto to someone who asks 74 256 300 Lower
Remain in Palo Alto for the next five years 78 243 293 Similar
*A benchmark comparison was not available for ''Recommend Palo Alto’s libraries to friends''.
QUESTION 4
TABLE 19: QUESTION 4 - RESPONSE PERCENTAGES AND NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS INCLUDING "DON'T KNOW" RESPONSES
Please rate the job you feel the Palo Alto community does at each
of the following. Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total
Making all residents feel welcome 13% N=100 39% N=294 27% N=201 10% N=74 12% N=91 100% N=760
Attracting people from diverse backgrounds 18% N=133 29% N=219 22% N=163 21% N=156 12% N=87 100% N=758
Valuing/respecting residents from diverse backgrounds 20% N=150 38% N=288 21% N=155 11% N=85 10% N=78 100% N=756
Taking care of vulnerable residents (elderly, disabled, homeless, etc.) 10% N=74 25% N=190 23% N=176 16% N=117 26% N=196 100% N=754
TABLE 20: QUESTION 4 - RESPONSE PERCENTAGES AND NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS WITHOUT "DON'T KNOW" RESPONSES
Please rate the job you feel the Palo Alto community does at each of the followi ng. Excellent Good Fair Poor Total
Making all residents feel welcome 15% N=100 44% N=294 30% N=201 11% N=74 100% N=669
Attracting people from diverse backgrounds 20% N=133 33% N=219 24% N=163 23% N=156 100% N=670
Valuing/respecting residents from diverse backgrounds 22% N=150 42% N=288 23% N=155 13% N=85 100% N=678
Taking care of vulnerable residents (elderly, disabled, homeless, etc.) 13% N=74 34% N=190 32% N=176 21% N=117 100% N=558
There are no trend data available for Question 4 as this was a new question on the 2021 survey.
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
23
TABLE 21: QUESTION 4 - 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
(A) (A) (B) (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F)
Making all residents feel welcome
52% 65%
A
59%
F
59%
F
74%
A B E F
64%
F
57% 46% 59%
Attracting people from diverse backgrounds
46% 58%
A
53% 57%
F
64%
E F
54% 47% 43% 52%
Valuing/respecting residents from diverse backgrounds
61% 68% 61% 66% 79%
A D E F
61% 59% 63% 65%
Taking care of vulnerable residents (elderly, disabled, homeless, etc.)
45% 49% 43% 50% 57%
D
42% 50% 46% 47%
TABLE 22: QUESTION 4 - BENCHMARK COMPARISONS
City of Palo Alto rating Rank Number of jurisdictions for comparison Comparison to benchmark
Making all residents feel welcome 54 48 57 Similar
Attracting people from diverse backgrounds 50 44 57 Similar
Valuing/respecting residents from diverse backgrounds 58 31 57 Similar
Taking care of vulnerable residents 47 46 57 Similar
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
Overall quality of business and service establishments in Palo Alto 28% N=210 55% N=415 13% N=95 2% N=17 3% N=22 100% N=759
Variety of business and service establishments in Palo Alto 19% N=146 46% N=348 25% N=189 8% N=60 2% N=14 100% N=758
Vibrancy of downtown/commercial area 24% N=183 45% N=342 22% N=168 5% N=37 4% N=27 100% N=757
Employment opportunities 16% N=120 31% N=238 15% N=115 8% N=57 30% N=227 100% N=757
Shopping opportunities 30% N=226 47% N=357 17% N=127 5% N=35 1% N=10 100% N=754
Cost of living in Palo Alto 0% N=3 6% N=42 24% N=185 68% N=518 1% N=10 100% N=758
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
24
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 image or reputation of Palo Alto 32% N=241 45% N=337 18% N=135 4% N=29 2% N=13 100% N=755
Traffic flow on major streets 8% N=60 40% N=306 35% N=265 15% N=117 1% N=11 100% N=759
Ease of public parking 13% N=99 44% N=335 29% N=222 11% N=83 2% N=18 100% N=757
Ease of travel by car in Palo Alto 20% N=151 48% N=364 22% N=170 7% N=55 2% N=18 100% N=758
Ease of travel by public transportation in Palo Alto 4% N=32 16% N=119 21% N=160 26% N=194 33% N=250 100% N=755
Ease of travel by bicycle in Palo Alto 30% N=229 39% N=294 15% N=113 3% N=24 13% N=95 100% N=756
Ease of walking in Palo Alto 45% N=339 41% N=309 11% N=86 2% N=15 1% N=8 100% N=757
Variety of housing options 5% N=35 19% N=146 31% N=230 34% N=259 11% N=82 100% N=753
Availability of affordable quality housing 2% N=18 6% N=42 14% N=108 64% N=483 14% N=109 100% N=759
Overall quality of new development in Palo Alto 6% N=43 21% N=160 25% N=192 18% N=138 29% N=222 100% N=755
Availability of paths and walking trails 28% N=215 45% N=338 19% N=141 5% N=38 3% N=24 100% N=756
Fitness opportunities (including exercise classes and paths or trails,
etc.)
26% N=202 45% N=344 16% N=123 3% N=26 9% N=66 100% N=761
Recreational opportunities 25% N=188 47% N=359 18% N=140 3% N=20 7% N=51 100% N=757
Availability of affordable quality mental health care 4% N=34 12% N=88 10% N=73 11% N=85 63% N=477 100% N=757
Opportunities to attend cultural/arts/music activities 22% N=169 39% N=298 18% N=134 8% N=60 13% N=99 100% N=760
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
Overall quality of business and service establishments in Palo Alto 28% N=210 56% N=415 13% N=95 2% N=17 100% N=737
Variety of business and service establishments in Palo Alto 20% N=146 47% N=348 25% N=189 8% N=60 100% N=743
Vibrancy of downtown/commercial area 25% N=183 47% N=342 23% N=168 5% N=37 100% N=730
Employment opportunities 23% N=120 45% N=238 22% N=115 11% N=57 100% N=530
Shopping opportunities 30% N=226 48% N=357 17% N=127 5% N=35 100% N=744
Cost of living in Palo Alto 0% N=3 6% N=42 25% N=185 69% N=518 100% N=748
Overall image or reputation of Palo Alto 33% N=241 45% N=337 18% N=135 4% N=29 100% N=742
Traffic flow on major streets 8% N=60 41% N=306 35% N=265 16% N=117 100% N=748
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
25
Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Palo Alto as a
whole: Excellent Good Fair Poor Total
Ease of public parking 13% N=99 45% N=335 30% N=222 11% N=83 100% N=739
Ease of travel by car in Palo Alto 20% N=151 49% N=364 23% N=170 7% N=55 100% N=740
Ease of travel by public transportation in Palo Alto 6% N=32 24% N=119 32% N=160 38% N=194 100% N=505
Ease of travel by bicycle in Palo Alto 35% N=229 45% N=294 17% N=113 4% N=24 100% N=660
Ease of walking in Palo Alto 45% N=339 41% N=309 12% N=86 2% N=15 100% N=749
Variety of housing options 5% N=35 22% N=146 34% N=230 39% N=259 100% N=671
Availability of affordable quality housing 3% N=18 6% N=42 17% N=108 74% N=483 100% N=650
Overall quality of new development in Palo Alto 8% N=43 30% N=160 36% N=192 26% N=138 100% N=533
Availability of paths and walking trails 29% N=215 46% N=338 19% N=141 5% N=38 100% N=732
Fitness opportunities (including exercise classes and paths or trails, etc.) 29% N=202 50% N=344 18% N=123 4% N=26 100% N=695
Recreational opportunities 27% N=188 51% N=359 20% N=140 3% N=20 100% N=706
Availability of affordable quality mental health care 12% N=34 31% N=88 26% N=73 30% N=85 100% N=280
Opportunities to attend cultural/arts/music activities 26% N=169 45% N=298 20% N=134 9% N=60 100% N=662
TABLE 25: QUESTION 5 - HISTORICAL RESULTS
Please rate each of the following characteristics
as they relate to Palo Alto as a whole:
Percent positive 2021 rating
compared to 2018 2003 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2021
Vibrancy of downtown/commercial areas NA NA NA NA NA NA 77% 76% 73% 73% 71% 72% Similar
Employment opportunities 33% 51% 52% 56% 68% 68% 69% 66% 70% 74% 73% 68% Similar
Shopping opportunities NA 70% 70% 71% 69% 73% 82% 79% 80% 82% 79% 78% Similar
Cost of living in Palo Alto NA NA NA NA NA NA 11% 8% 7% 8% 8% 6% Similar
Overall image or reputation of Palo Alto NA 92% 90% 92% 92% 90% 92% 88% 86% 86% 83% 78% Similar
Traffic flow on major streets 36% 38% 46% 47% 40% 36% 34% 35% 31% 30% 33% 49% Higher
Ease of public parking NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 38% 36% 33% 32% 59% Higher
Ease of travel by car in Palo Alto 55% 60% 65% 66% 62% 51% 55% 52% 44% 44% 42% 70% Higher
Ease of travel by public transportation in Palo Alto NA 52% 63% 62% 64% 71% 65% 36% 26% 28% 29% 30% Similar
Ease of travel by bicycle in Palo Alto 84% 79% 81% 77% 81% 78% 78% 77% 74% 78% 74% 79% Similar
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
26
Please rate each of the following characteristics
as they relate to Palo Alto as a whole:
Percent positive 2021 rating
compared to 2018 2003 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2021
Ease of walking in Palo Alto NA 82% 85% 83% 82% 84% 84% 83% 80% 86% 83% 86% Similar
Variety of housing options NA 39% 37% 37% 29% 26% 27% 20% 17% 18% 13% 27% Higher
Availability of affordable quality housing 6% 17% 15% 14% 12% 13% 11% 8% 6% 6% 5% 9% Similar
Overall quality of new development in Palo Alto NA 57% 55% 53% 57% 56% 44% 51% 49% 42% 50% 38% Lower
Availability of paths and walking trails NA 74% 75% 75% 75% 77% 71% 74% 73% 76% 77% 76% Similar
Fitness opportunities (including exercise classes
and paths or trails, etc.) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 78% 78% 79% 78% 79% Similar
Recreational opportunities NA 78% 80% 81% 81% 81% 77% 80% 77% 81% 75% 77% Similar
Availability of affordable quality mental health
care NA NA NA NA NA NA 63% 53% 46% 52% 38% 44% Higher
Opportunities to attend cultural/arts/music
activities NA 74% 74% 73% 77% 69% 81% 79% 77% 81% 74% 71% Similar
*Overall quality and variety of business and service establishments in Palo Alto were new items on the 2021 survey.
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
(A) (A) (B) (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F)
Overall quality of business and service establishments in Palo Alto
84% 86% 79% 90%
A D
90%
A D
79% 84% 86% 85%
Variety of business and service establishments in Palo Alto
66% 67% 60% 73%
A D
66% 61% 66% 70% 66%
Vibrancy of downtown/commercial area
70% 74% 69% 77%
E
70% 73% 64% 74% 72%
Employment opportunities 70% 66% 74% 63% 69% 65% 69% 67% 68%
Shopping opportunities
77% 80% 73% 85%
A C
72% 79% 82% 78% 78%
Cost of living in Palo Alto
5% 7% 6% 10%
E
6% 5% 3% 6% 6%
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
27
Percent rating "excellent" or "good"
North/South Area Overall
North South Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5 Area 6
(A) (A) (B) (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F)
Overall image or reputation of Palo Alto
76% 80% 80% 76% 75% 87%
B C E F
74% 74% 78%
Traffic flow on major streets 50% 48% 43% 55% 43% 45% 53% 52% 49%
Ease of public parking 60% 58% 58% 65% 53% 55% 64% 59% 59%
Ease of travel by car in Palo Alto 68% 71% 65% 74% 70% 69% 69% 69% 70%
Ease of travel by public transportation in Palo Alto 31% 29% 29% 29% 33% 27% 27% 33% 30%
Ease of travel by bicycle in Palo Alto
78% 80% 77% 78% 90%
A B D E
76% 74% 81% 79%
Ease of walking in Palo Alto
91%
B
83% 90%
D
86%
D
88%
D
75% 86%
D
94%
B D
86%
Variety of housing options
25% 29% 19% 30% 30% 27% 22% 30%
A
27%
Availability of affordable quality housing
6% 12%
A
6% 8% 12% 15%
A F
9% 6% 9%
Overall quality of new development in Palo Alto 38% 38% 34% 33% 43% 40% 38% 42% 38%
Availability of paths and walking trails 73% 78% 69% 69% 81%
A B
84%
A B F
81%
B
72% 76%
Fitness opportunities (including exercise classes and paths or trails, etc.) 75% 82%
A
75% 79% 81% 86%
A F
83%
F
71% 79%
Recreational opportunities
74% 80%
A
78% 86%
D F
82%
F
74% 77% 71% 77%
Availability of affordable quality mental health care
43% 44% 47% 38% 40% 51%
E
29% 51%
E
44%
Opportunities to attend cultural/arts/music activities
69% 72% 79%
D F
76%
D F
80%
D F
62% 70% 64% 71%
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
28
TABLE 27: QUESTION 5 - BENCHMARK COMPARISONS
City of Palo Alto
rating Rank
Number of jurisdictions for
comparison
Comparison to
benchmark
Overall quality of business and service establishments in Palo
Alto 70 23 289 Higher
Variety of business and service establishments in Palo Alto 59 24 56 Similar
Vibrancy of downtown/commercial area 64 49 267 Higher
Employment opportunities 60 25 321 Higher
Shopping opportunities 68 36 307 Higher
Cost of living in Palo Alto 12 280 284 Much lower
Overall image or reputation of Palo Alto 69 125 358 Similar
Traffic flow on major streets 47 169 344 Similar
Ease of public parking 54 128 254 Similar
Ease of travel by car in Palo Alto 61 151 320 Similar
Ease of travel by public transportation in Palo Alto 33 178 257 Similar
Ease of travel by bicycle in Palo Alto 70 16 320 Much higher
Ease of walking in Palo Alto 77 22 321 Higher
Variety of housing options 31 263 294 Lower
Availability of affordable quality housing 13 309 318 Much lower
Overall quality of new development in Palo Alto 40 266 306 Lower
Availability of paths and walking trails 67 111 322 Similar
Fitness opportunities 68 91 272 Similar
Recreational opportunities 67 93 306 Similar
Availability of affordable quality mental health care 42 160 257 Similar
Opportunities to attend cultural/arts/music activities 62 88 305 Similar
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
29
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 childcare/preschool 7% N=54 14% N=108 15% N=111 12% N=93 51% N=389 100% N=755
K-12 education 36% N=270 26% N=198 6% N=44 1% N=7 31% N=235 100% N=754
Adult educational opportunities 20% N=148 32% N=242 9% N=65 2% N=17 37% N=277 100% N=748
Opportunities to participate in social events and activities 14% N=102 34% N=254 22% N=165 7% N=50 24% N=177 100% N=748
Openness and acceptance of the community toward people of
diverse backgrounds 17% N=128 32% N=241 22% N=166 12% N=90 16% N=121 100% N=745
Opportunities to learn about City services through social media
websites such as Twitter and Facebook 9% N=69 28% N=213 13% N=99 2% N=17 47% N=352 100% N=750
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 childcare/preschool 15% N=54 30% N=108 30% N=111 25% N=93 100% N=366
K-12 education 52% N=270 38% N=198 9% N=44 1% N=7 100% N=519
Adult educational opportunities 31% N=148 51% N=242 14% N=65 4% N=17 100% N=471
Opportunities to participate in social events and activities 18% N=102 45% N=254 29% N=165 9% N=50 100% N=571
Openness and acceptance of the community toward people of diverse backgrounds 20% N=128 39% N=241 27% N=166 14% N=90 100% N=624
Opportunities to learn about City services through social media websites such as
Twitter and Facebook 17% N=69 54% N=213 25% N=99 4% N=17 100% N=398
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
30
TABLE 30: QUESTION 6 - HISTORICAL RESULTS
Please rate each of the following characteristics
as they relate to Palo Alto as a whole:
Percent positive 2021 rating
compared to
2018 2003 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2021
Availability of affordable quality child
care/preschool 25% 32% 25% 35% 27% 31% 49% 49% 39% 47% 37% 44% Higher
K-12 education NA NA NA 92% 92% 94% 95% 92% 90% 91% 91% 90% Similar
Adult educational opportunities NA NA NA NA NA NA 89% 83% 78% 82% 77% 83% Higher
Opportunities to participate in social events and
activities NA 80% 74% 76% 74% 74% 71% 74% 70% 72% 65% 62% Similar
Openness and acceptance of the community
toward people of diverse backgrounds 73% 78% 79% 78% 80% 76% 76% 68% 72% 72% 72% 59% Lower
Opportunities to learn about City services through
social media websites such as Twitter and
Facebook NA NA NA 63% 63% 71% 73% 75% 68% 76% 67% 71% Similar
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
(A) (A) (B) (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F)
Availability of affordable quality childcare/preschool
38% 49%
A
42% 52%
E
49%
E
44% 25% 45%
E
44%
K-12 education
91% 90% 90% 92%
D
93%
D
84% 88% 93%
D
90%
Adult educational opportunities 84% 82% 83% 85% 77% 82% 77% 87% 83%
Opportunities to participate in social events and activities
62% 63% 65% 66%
D
71%
D
53% 65% 58% 62%
Openness and acceptance of the community toward people of diverse backgrounds
52% 65%
A
62%
F
64%
F
71%
E F
62%
F
50% 48% 59%
Opportunities to learn about City services through social media websites such as
Twitter and Facebook
73% 69% 83%
B E
65% 72% 72% 65% 70% 71%
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
31
TABLE 32: QUESTION 6 - BENCHMARK COMPARISONS*
City of Palo Alto
rating Rank
Number of jurisdictions for
comparison
Comparison to
benchmark
Availability of affordable quality child care/preschool 45 183 277 Similar
K-12 education 80 32 282 Higher
Adult educational opportunities 70 13 264 Higher
Opportunities to participate in social events and activities 57 138 282 Similar
Opportunities to participate in community matters 60 118 290 Similar
Openness and acceptance of the community toward people of diverse
backgrounds 55 168 311 Similar
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
Used Palo Alto recreation centers or their services 61% N=455 39% N=295 100% N=750
Visited a neighborhood park or City park 6% N=46 94% N=704 100% N=751
Used Palo Alto public libraries or their services 38% N=281 62% N=467 100% N=748
Participated in religious or spiritual activities in Palo Alto 76% N=573 24% N=178 100% N=751
Attended a City-sponsored event 70% N=522 30% N=223 100% N=745
Participated in a club 83% N=618 17% N=130 100% N=747
Talked to or visited with your immediate neighbors 12% N=88 88% N=665 100% N=753
Contacted Palo Alto elected officials (in-person, phone, email or web) to express your opinion 75% N=562 25% N=182 100% N=744
Attended a local public meeting (of local elected officials like City Council or County Commissioners, advisory boards,
town halls, HOA, neighborhood watch, etc.) 74% N=551 26% N=196 100% N=747
Watched (online or on television) a local public meeting 71% N=531 29% N=215 100% N=746
Volunteered your time to some group/activity in Palo Alto 63% N=470 37% N=280 100% N=750
Walked or biked instead of driving 14% N=104 86% N=647 100% N=751
Observed a code violation or other hazard in Palo Alto (weeds, abandoned buildi ngs, etc.) 60% N=450 40% N=296 100% N=745
Household member was a victim of a crime in Palo Alto 86% N=647 14% N=104 100% N=751
Reported a crime to the police in Palo Alto 79% N=593 21% N=156 100% N=749
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
32
Please indicate whether or not you have done each of the following in the last 12 months. No Yes Total
Stocked 14 days’ worth of supplies in case of a major disaster where you have no electricity, water, internet, or
telephone service 51% N=382 49% N=368 100% N=750
*This question did not have a “don’t know” option.
TABLE 34: QUESTION 7 - HISTORICAL RESULTS*
Please indicate whether or not you have done each
of the following in the last 12 months (percent
“yes”).
Percent positive 2021 rating
compared to
2018 2003 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2021
Used Palo Alto recreation centers or their services NA 63% 60% 60% 65% 58% 63% 65% 63% 63% 65% 39% Lower
Visited a neighborhood park or City park NA 94% 94% 91% 95% 94% 91% 94% 93% 91% 94% 94% Similar
Used Palo Alto public libraries or their services NA 82% 76% 74% 77% 77% 68% 76% 73% 75% 78% 62% Lower
Participated in religious or spiritual activities in Palo
Alto NA NA NA NA 40% NA 30% 30% 31% 30% 30% 24% Lower
Attended a City-sponsored event NA NA NA NA NA NA 50% 57% 51% 55% 52% 30% Lower
Participated in a club NA 33% 31% 31% 38% 29% 27% 34% 30% 29% 31% 17% Lower
Talked to or visited with your immediate neighbors NA NA NA NA NA NA 91% 89% 88% 92% 90% 88% Similar
Contacted Palo Alto elected officials (in -person,
phone, email or web) to express your opinion NA NA NA NA NA NA 17% 15% 17% 20% 21% 25% Similar
Attended a local public meeting (of local elected
officials like City Council or County Commissioners,
advisory boards, town halls, HOA, neighborhood
watch, etc.) NA 28% 27% 27% 25% 28% 22% 22% 21% 24% 25% 26% Similar
Watched (online or on television) a local public
meeting NA 28% 28% 27% 21% 24% 16% 18% 14% 16% 12% 29% Higher
Volunteered your time to some group/activity in
Palo Alto NA 56% 51% 45% 54% 50% 40% 46% 45% 47% 47% 37% Lower
Walked or biked instead of driving NA NA NA NA NA NA 85% 87% 87% 84% 88% 86% Similar
Did NOT observe a code violation or other hazard in
Palo Alto NA NA NA NA NA NA 70% 67% 67% 62% 63% 60% Similar
Household member was NOT the victim of a crime in
Palo Alto NA 89% 91% 91% 91% 94% 92% 93% 91% 90% 93% 86% Lower
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
33
Please indicate whether or not you have done each
of the following in the last 12 months (percent
“yes”).
Percent positive 2021 rating
compared to
2018 2003 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2021
Did NOT report a crime to the police in Palo Alto NA NA NA NA NA NA 87% 87% 86% 85% 87% 79% Lower
Stocked 14 days’ worth of supplies in case of a major
disaster where you have no electricity, water,
internet, and telephone service NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 26% 49% Higher
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
(A)
(A) (B) (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F)
Used Palo Alto recreation centers or their services
36% 42% 47%
F
47%
D F
46%
F
35% 34% 31% 39%
Visited a neighborhood park or City park
92% 96%
A
95%
F
97%
F
95%
F
95%
F
96%
F
88% 94%
Used Palo Alto public libraries or their services
54% 70%
A
65%
F
72%
E F
74%
E F
65%
F
56% 48% 62%
Participated in religious or spiritual activities in Palo Alto 22% 25% 25% 21% 30% 26% 18% 22% 24%
Attended a City-sponsored event
31% 29% 39%
D F
35%
D
37%
D
17% 31%
D
26% 30%
Participated in a club
19% 16% 18% 19% 17% 11% 12% 24%
D E
17%
Talked to or visited with your immediate neighbors
89% 88% 94%
D E
91%
D
91%
D
81% 83% 89%
D
88%
Done a favor for a neighbor
79% 78% 84%
D
75% 88%
B D F
73% 76% 76% 78%
Used the City’s website to conduct business or pay bills
57% 50% 54% 54% 43% 51% 59%
C
58%
C
53%
Used the Utilities website to conduct business or pay bills 68% 71% 72% 72% 67% 72% 74% 62% 69%
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
34
Percent "yes"
North/South Area Overall
North South Area
1
Area
2
Area
3
Area
4
Area
5
Area
6
(A)
(A) (B) (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F)
Contacted the City of Palo Alto (in-person, phone, email or web) for help or information
55% 55% 64%
D F
60% 56% 50% 56% 50% 55%
Contacted Palo Alto elected officials (in-person, phone, email or web) to express your
opinion
25% 24% 23% 24% 24% 24% 26% 26% 25%
Attended a local public meeting (of local elected officials like City Council or County
Commissioners, advisory boards, town halls, HOA, neighborhood watch, etc.)
25% 27% 29% 30% 36%
D F
21% 27% 21% 26%
Watched (online or on television) a local public meeting
25% 33%
A
26% 36%
F
37%
F
27% 24% 24% 29%
Volunteered your time to some group/activity in Palo Alto 36% 39% 38% 43% 40% 34% 34% 36% 37%
Voted in your most recent local election
81% 84% 88%
F
84% 80% 86% 79% 79% 83%
Used bus, rail, subway, or other public transportation instead of driving
39%
B
30% 30% 23% 31% 37%
B
40%
B
44%
A B C
34%
Carpooled with other adults or children instead of driving alone 40% 42% 43% 45% 45% 38% 38% 38% 41%
Walked or biked instead of driving
86% 86% 88% 91%
D
86% 82% 85% 86% 86%
Observed a code violation or other hazard in Palo Alto (weeds, abandoned buildings,
etc.)
40% 40% 42% 46%
D
39% 34% 41% 37% 40%
Household member was a victim of a crime in Palo Alto
15% 13% 11% 16% 15% 9% 15% 17%
D
14%
Reported a crime to the police in Palo Alto
20% 22% 13% 26%
A
16% 22% 24% 21% 21%
Stocked 14 days’ worth of supplies in case of a major disaster where you have no
electricity, water, internet, or telephone service
51% 47% 54%
E
43% 51% 51%
E
37% 55%
B E
49%
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
35
TABLE 36: QUESTION 7 - BENCHMARK COMPARISONS
City of Palo Alto
rating Rank
Number of jurisdictions for
comparison
Comparison to
benchmark
Contacted Palo Alto for help or information 55 42 343 Similar
Contacted Palo Alto elected officials to express your opinion 25 38 275 Similar
Attended a local public meeting 26 57 281 Similar
Watched (online or on television) a local public meeting 29 59 252 Similar
Volunteered your time to some group/activity in Palo Alto 37 132 283 Similar
Voted in your most recent local election 83 20 59 Similar
Used bus, rail, subway, or other public transportation instead of
driving 34 58 236 Higher
Carpooled with other adults or children instead of driving alone 41 140 269 Similar
Walked or biked instead of driving 86 9 276 Much higher
QUESTION 8
TABLE 37: QUESTION 8 - RESPONSE PERCENTAGES AND NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS
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 8% N=59 39% N=292 33% N=246 8% N=62 12% N=91 100% N=751
The overall direction that Palo Alto is taking 4% N=30 30% N=227 34% N=255 17% N=130 14% N=105 100% N=746
The job Palo Alto government does at welcoming resident
involvement 7% N=54 29% N=215 22% N=166 13% N=95 29% N=218 100% N=747
Overall confidence in Palo Alto government 6% N=45 37% N=278 31% N=232 14% N=107 11% N=84 100% N=747
Generally acting in the best interest of the community 7% N=55 37% N=273 31% N=229 14% N=101 12% N=90 100% N=747
Being honest 8% N=61 32% N=239 23% N=171 10% N=77 27% N=200 100% N=747
Being open and transparent to the public 8% N=59 31% N=230 25% N=187 13% N=98 23% N=168 100% N=743
Informing residents about issues facing the community 10% N=75 35% N=261 26% N=195 10% N=78 18% N=136 100% N=745
Treating all residents fairly 10% N=77 30% N=220 18% N=133 13% N=94 30% N=221 100% N=745
Treating residents with respect 15% N=109 38% N=283 19% N=138 7% N=55 21% N=158 100% N=743
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
36
TABLE 38: QUESTION 8 - 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 9% N=59 44% N=292 37% N=246 9% N=62 100% N=660
The overall direction that Palo Alto is taking 5% N=30 35% N=227 40% N=255 20% N=130 100% N=641
The job Palo Alto government does at welcoming resident involvement 10% N=54 41% N=215 31% N=166 18% N=95 100% N=529
Overall confidence in Palo Alto government 7% N=45 42% N=278 35% N=232 16% N=107 100% N=663
Generally acting in the best interest of the community 8% N=55 42% N=273 35% N=229 15% N=101 100% N=658
Being honest 11% N=61 44% N=239 31% N=171 14% N=77 100% N=547
Being open and transparent to the public 10% N=59 40% N=230 33% N=187 17% N=98 100% N=575
Informing residents about issues facing the community 12% N=75 43% N=261 32% N=195 13% N=78 100% N=608
Treating all residents fairly 15% N=77 42% N=220 25% N=133 18% N=94 100% N=525
Treating residents with respect 19% N=109 48% N=283 24% N=138 9% N=55 100% N=585
TABLE 39: QUESTION 8 - HISTORICAL RESULTS
Please rate the following categories of Palo
Alto government performance:
Percent positive 2021 rating
compared to 2018 2003 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2021
The value of services for the taxes paid to Palo
Alto NA 58% 62% 66% 67% 66% 66% 65% 58% 61% 58% 53%
Similar
The overall direction that Palo Alto is taking 54% 53% 57% 55% 59% 54% 50% 48% 40% 45% 42% 40% Similar
The job Palo Alto government does at
welcoming resident involvement 65% 56% 57% 57% 58% 55% 54% 61% 50% 56% 56% 51%
Similar
Overall confidence in Palo Alto government NA NA NA NA NA NA 52% 53% 44% 49% 46% 49% Similar
Generally acting in the best interest of the
community NA NA NA NA NA NA 54% 53% 44% 51% 45% 50%
Similar
Being honest NA NA NA NA NA NA 58% 62% 55% 61% 56% 55% Similar
Treating all residents fairly NA NA NA NA NA NA 57% 53% 47% 56% 51% 57% Higher
“Being open and transparent to the public”, “informing residents about issues facing the community”, and “treating residents with respect” were new items in 2021.
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
37
TABLE 40: QUESTION 8 - GEOGRAPHIC SUBGROUP RESULTS
Percent "excellent" or "good".
North/South Area Overall
North South Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5 Area 6 (A)
(A) (B) (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F)
The value of services for the taxes paid to Palo Alto 56% 51% 55% 52% 55% 47% 55% 57% 53%
The overall direction that Palo Alto is taking
38% 42% 32% 48%
A D
40% 36% 39% 43% 40%
The job Palo Alto government does at welcoming resident involvement
52% 50% 51% 54% 56%
D
41% 46% 57%
D
51%
Overall confidence in Palo Alto government
49% 49% 40% 57%
A D
52%
D
36% 52%
D
55%
A D
49%
Generally acting in the best interest of the community 50% 50% 45% 50% 50% 48% 52% 53% 50%
Being honest 55% 54% 55% 58% 56% 49% 54% 58% 55%
Being open and transparent to the public 50% 51% 47% 53% 53% 46% 48% 54% 50%
Informing residents about issues facing the community 55% 55% 58% 59% 59% 48% 48% 58% 55%
Treating all residents fairly
60% 54% 54% 53% 59% 52% 55% 66%
D
57%
Treating residents with respect 71% 64% 70% 63% 64% 63% 69% 72% 67%
TABLE 41: QUESTION 8 - BENCHMARK COMPARISONS
City of Palo Alto
rating Rank
Number of jurisdictions for
comparison
Comparison to
benchmark
The value of services for the taxes paid to Palo Alto 51 182 395 Similar
The overall direction that Palo Alto is taking 41 293 332 Lower
The job Palo Alto government does at welcoming resident involvement 48 201 333 Similar
Overall confidence in Palo Alto government 46 184 288 Similar
Generally acting in the best interest of the community 48 200 290 Similar
Being honest 51 174 282 Similar
Being open and transparent to th e public 48 36 58 Similar
Informing residents about issues facing the community 52 29 62 Similar
Treating all residents fairly 51 165 286 Similar
Treating residents with respect 59 31 57 Similar
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
38
QUESTION 9
TABLE 42: QUESTION 9 - RESPONSE PERCENTAGES AND NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS
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 18% N=135 51% N=383 21% N=154 5% N=36 5% N=38 100% N=746
The State Government 8% N=57 39% N=293 31% N=230 12% N=90 10% N=76 100% N=747
The Federal Government 2% N=16 22% N=164 36% N=266 29% N=217 11% N=83 100% N=747
TABLE 43: QUESTION 9 - 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 19% N=135 54% N=383 22% N=154 5% N=36 100% N=708
The State Government 8% N=57 44% N=293 34% N=230 13% N=90 100% N=671
The Federal Government 2% N=16 25% N=164 40% N=266 33% N=217 100% N=664
TABLE 44: QUESTION 9 - HISTORICAL RESULTS
Overall, how would you rate the quality of the
services provided by each of the following?
Percent positive 2021 rating
compared to 2018 2003 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2021
The City of Palo Alto 87% 80% 80% 83% 88% 84% 83% 85% 81% 86% 82% 73% Lower
State Government 38% 23% 27% 26% 41% 33% NA 47% 46% 54% 46% 52% Higher
The Federal Government 32% 41% 43% 41% 50% 37% 48% 46% 46% 36% 33% 27% Lower
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
39
TABLE 45: QUESTION 9 - GEOGRAPHIC SUBGROUP RESULTS
Percent "excellent" or "good"
North/South Area Overall
North South Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5 Area 6
(A) (A) (B) (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F)
The City of Palo Alto
73% 73% 74% 73% 80%
E
69% 66% 76% 73%
The State Government
55% 50% 46% 50% 47% 51% 53% 62%
A B C
52%
The Federal Government
30% 24% 24% 25% 29% 20% 25% 37%
A B D
27%
TABLE 46: QUESTION 9 - BENCHMARK COMPARISONS
City of Palo Alto rating Rank Number of jurisdictions for comparison Comparison to benchmark
Quality of services provided by the City of Palo Alto 62 226 407 Similar
Quality of services provided by the Federal Government 32 265 269 Similar
*A benchmark comparison was not available for “the State Government”.
QUESTION 10
TABLE 47: 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
Traffic enforcement 11% N=84 45% N=331 20% N=143 10% N=75 14% N=100 100% N=734
Traffic signal timing 10% N=72 47% N=350 26% N=191 13% N=97 4% N=31 100% N=741
Street repair 11% N=80 44% N=324 30% N=222 14% N=102 2% N=14 100% N=742
Street cleaning 26% N=196 55% N=407 13% N=99 3% N=25 2% N=15 100% N=743
Street tree maintenance 22% N=167 49% N=365 19% N=145 4% N=31 5% N=39 100% N=746
Sidewalk maintenance 15% N=111 45% N=339 25% N=186 10% N=77 5% N=35 100% N=748
Land use, planning, and zoning 7% N=54 23% N=172 26% N=196 20% N=147 23% N=173 100% N=741
Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned b uildings, etc.) 6% N=47 27% N=201 20% N=148 11% N=84 35% N=257 100% N=736
Preservation of natural areas (open space, farmlands, and
greenbelts) 34% N=249 42% N=314 12% N=87 4% N=31 8% N=61 100% N=741
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
40
Please rate the quality of each of the following services in Palo
Alto: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total
Building and planning application processing services 5% N=34 16% N=120 14% N=102 13% N=99 52% N=385 100% N=739
Affordable high-speed internet access 9% N=64 23% N=172 23% N=169 26% N=196 19% N=143 100% N=743
Electric utility 30% N=220 43% N=323 18% N=134 4% N=29 5% N=38 100% N=744
Gas utility 26% N=194 44% N=326 16% N=121 3% N=22 11% N=83 100% N=746
Utility payment options 33% N=245 45% N=333 12% N=88 1% N=10 9% N=65 100% N=741
Drinking water 45% N=339 40% N=300 9% N=70 2% N=18 2% N=18 100% N=746
Sewer services 30% N=223 46% N=343 10% N=71 1% N=10 13% N=94 100% N=741
Storm water management (storm drainage, dams, levees, etc.) 21% N=154 46% N=340 12% N=85 3% N=19 19% N=141 100% N=739
Refuse collection (garbage, recycling, yard waste, and e-waste) 39% N=291 44% N=332 11% N=85 1% N=11 4% N=27 100% N=745
Police services 23% N=173 41% N=309 15% N=109 4% N=31 17% N=124 100% N=746
Crime prevention 17% N=127 35% N=261 21% N=153 5% N=40 22% N=160 100% N=741
Animal control 18% N=134 34% N=255 9% N=71 2% N=14 36% N=271 100% N=745
Ambulance or emergency medical services 22% N=164 27% N=198 3% N=25 0% N=3 47% N=348 100% N=738
Fire services 30% N=220 29% N=217 4% N=27 0% N=2 37% N=273 100% N=739
Fire prevention and education 17% N=122 29% N=211 7% N=49 3% N=24 45% N=331 100% N=736
Palo Alto open space 40% N=293 39% N=290 9% N=69 4% N=29 8% N=59 100% N=739
City parks 47% N=343 42% N=313 8% N=59 1% N=9 2% N=13 100% N=738
Recreation programs or classes 20% N=150 33% N=241 9% N=69 2% N=11 36% N=264 100% N=735
Recreation centers or facilities 21% N=151 37% N=267 11% N=79 2% N=14 30% N=218 100% N=729
Public library services (e.g., hold requests, storytimes, teen events,
bookclubs) 42% N=312 28% N=204 5% N=36 2% N=11 24% N=174 100% N=738
Library facilities (buildings, computer equipment, accessibility) 42% N=313 30% N=218 4% N=27 1% N=10 23% N=169 100% N=736
Variety of library materials (books, e-books, streaming, databases,
audiobooks) 37% N=272 29% N=217 9% N=67 2% N=14 23% N=168 100% N=738
Art programs and theater 23% N=166 32% N=237 8% N=62 3% N=25 33% N=245 100% N=734
City-sponsored special events 11% N=79 29% N=214 12% N=87 4% N=27 45% N=330 100% N=737
City website (cityofpaloalto.org) 14% N=106 41% N=300 21% N=152 5% N=34 19% N=143 100% N=736
Public information services (Police/public safety) 12% N=90 40% N=296 16% N=119 2% N=18 29% N=211 100% N=733
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
41
Please rate the quality of each of the following services in Palo
Alto: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total
Public information services (non-Police/public safety) 11% N=84 40% N=291 14% N=106 2% N=18 32% N=236 100% N=735
Overall customer service by Palo Alto employees (police,
receptionists, planners, etc.) 19% N=140 44% N=320 15% N=106 2% N=13 21% N=150 100% N=728
TABLE 48: 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
Traffic enforcement 13% N=84 52% N=331 23% N=143 12% N=75 100% N=634
Traffic signal timing 10% N=72 49% N=350 27% N=191 14% N=97 100% N=710
Street repair 11% N=80 44% N=324 30% N=222 14% N=102 100% N=728
Street cleaning 27% N=196 56% N=407 14% N=99 3% N=25 100% N=728
Street tree maintenance 24% N=167 52% N=365 20% N=145 4% N=31 100% N=708
Sidewalk maintenance 16% N=111 47% N=339 26% N=186 11% N=77 100% N=713
Land use, planning, and zoning 9% N=54 30% N=172 34% N=196 26% N=147 100% N=568
Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc.) 10% N=47 42% N=201 31% N=148 17% N=84 100% N=479
Preservation of natural areas (open space, farmlands, and greenbelts) 37% N=249 46% N=314 13% N=87 5% N=31 100% N=681
Building and planning application processing services 10% N=34 34% N=120 29% N=102 28% N=99 100% N=354
Affordable high-speed internet access 11% N=64 29% N=172 28% N=169 33% N=196 100% N=600
Electric utility 31% N=220 46% N=323 19% N=134 4% N=29 100% N=706
Gas utility 29% N=194 49% N=326 18% N=121 3% N=22 100% N=663
Utility payment options 36% N=245 49% N=333 13% N=88 1% N=10 100% N=676
Drinking water 47% N=339 41% N=300 10% N=70 3% N=18 100% N=727
Sewer services 34% N=223 53% N=343 11% N=71 2% N=10 100% N=647
Storm water management (storm drainage, dams, levees, etc.) 26% N=154 57% N=340 14% N=85 3% N=19 100% N=598
Refuse collection (garbage, recycling, yard waste, and e-waste) 40% N=291 46% N=332 12% N=85 2% N=11 100% N=719
Police services 28% N=173 50% N=309 18% N=109 5% N=31 100% N=622
Crime prevention 22% N=127 45% N=261 26% N=153 7% N=40 100% N=581
Animal control 28% N=134 54% N=255 15% N=71 3% N=14 100% N=474
Ambulance or emergency medical services 42% N=164 51% N=198 6% N=25 1% N=3 100% N=390
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
42
Please rate the quality of each of the following services in Palo Alto: Excellent Good Fair Poor Total
Fire services 47% N=220 47% N=217 6% N=27 0% N=2 100% N=466
Fire prevention and education 30% N=122 52% N=211 12% N=49 6% N=24 100% N=405
Palo Alto open space 43% N=293 43% N=290 10% N=69 4% N=29 100% N=681
City parks 47% N=343 43% N=313 8% N=59 1% N=9 100% N=724
Recreation programs or classes 32% N=150 51% N=241 15% N=69 2% N=11 100% N=472
Recreation centers or facilities 30% N=151 52% N=267 15% N=79 3% N=14 100% N=511
Public library services (e.g., hold requests, storytimes, teen events, bookclubs) 55% N=312 36% N=204 6% N=36 2% N=11 100% N=563
Library facilities (buildings, computer equipment, accessibility) 55% N=313 38% N=218 5% N=27 2% N=10 100% N=568
Variety of library materials (books, e-books, streaming, databases, audiobooks) 48% N=272 38% N=217 12% N=67 3% N=14 100% N=570
Art programs and theater 34% N=166 48% N=237 13% N=62 5% N=25 100% N=489
City-sponsored special events 19% N=79 53% N=214 21% N=87 7% N=27 100% N=407
City website (cityofpaloalto.org) 18% N=106 51% N=300 26% N=152 6% N=34 100% N=593
Public information services (Police/public safety) 17% N=90 57% N=296 23% N=119 3% N=18 100% N=522
Public information services (non-Police/public safety) 17% N=84 58% N=291 21% N=106 4% N=18 100% N=499
Overall customer service by Palo Alto employees (police, receptionists, planners, etc.) 24% N=140 55% N=320 18% N=106 2% N=13 100% N=578
TABLE 49: QUESTION 10 - HISTORICAL RESULTS*
Please rate the quality of each of the following
services in Palo Alto:
Percent positive 2021 rating
compared to 2018 2003 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2021
Traffic enforcement 64% 61% 64% 61% 66% 64% 62% 60% 60% 60% 53% 65% Higher
Traffic signal timing NA 56% 56% 52% 47% 53% 53% 47% 50% 49% 45% 59% Higher
Street repair 50% 42% 43% 40% 42% 47% 55% 51% 57% 55% 46% 56% Higher
Street cleaning 75% 73% 76% 79% 80% 76% 80% 75% 77% 78% 72% 83% Higher
Street tree maintenance 62% 72% 69% 70% 71% 66% 80% 73% 71% 75% 72% 75% Similar
Sidewalk maintenance 50% 53% 51% 51% 53% 56% 62% 62% 61% 65% 61% 63% Similar
Land use, planning and zoning 41% 47% 49% 45% 51% 36% 43% 40% 37% 40% 39% 40% Similar
Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings,
etc.) 55% 50% 53% 56% 61% 57% 62% 59% 52% 56% 55% 52% Similar
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
43
Please rate the quality of each of the following
services in Palo Alto:
Percent positive 2021 rating
compared to 2018 2003 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2021
Building and planning application processing
services NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 44% 43% Similar
Electric utility NA 83% 79% 85% 84% 80% 72% 87% 86% 87% 83% 77% Lower
Gas utility NA 81% 80% 82% 86% 81% 88% 88% 87% 89% 84% 78% Lower
Utility payment options NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 85% 86% Similar
Drinking water 82% 81% 84% 86% 83% 88% 89% 88% 87% 88% 87% 88% Similar
Sewer services 84% 81% 82% 84% 82% 84% 89% 88% 88% 88% 85% 87% Similar
Storm water management (storm drainage,
dams, levees, etc.) 65% 73% 74% 74% 75% 69% 80% 71% 75% 81% 71% 83% Higher
Refuse collection (garbage, recycling, yard waste,
and e-waste) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 85% 87% Similar
Police services 89% 84% 87% 88% 86% 86% 87% 88% 88% 93% 89% 78% Lower
Crime prevention NA 73% 79% 81% 74% 75% 80% 79% 80% 81% 78% 67% Lower
Animal control 79% 78% 76% 72% 78% 76% 80% 80% 77% 80% 75% 82% Higher
Ambulance or emergency medical services 95% 91% 94% 93% 96% 93% 97% 95% 96% 96% 93% 93% Similar
Fire services 96% 95% 93% 92% 96% 93% 95% 97% 97% 97% 94% 94% Similar
Fire prevention and education NA 80% 79% 76% 80% 82% 85% 85% 85% 87% 84% 82% Similar
Palo Alto open space NA NA NA NA NA NA 82% 84% 81% 86% 83% 86% Similar
City parks 90% 92% 90% 94% 91% 93% 92% 93% 91% 94% 91% 91% Similar
Recreation programs or classes 83% 85% 82% 81% 87% 87% 87% 84% 84% 87% 81% 83% Similar
Recreation centers or facilities 77% 80% 81% 75% 85% 80% 84% 86% 81% 86% 82% 82% Similar
Library facilities (buildings, computer equipment,
accessibility) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 92% 94% Similar
Variety of library materials (b ooks, e-books,
streaming, databases, audiobooks) 60% 73% 75% 72% 88% 81% 88% 83% 82% 86% 88% 86% Similar
Art programs and theater NA 79% 78% 81% 82% 82% 69% 80% 78% 82% 76% 82% Higher
City-sponsored special events NA NA NA NA NA NA 75% 75% 73% 75% 77% 72% Similar
City website (cityofpaloalto.org) NA 55% 73% 67% 70% 69% 88% 69% 66% 72% 65% 69% Similar
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
44
Please rate the quality of each of the following
services in Palo Alto:
Percent positive 2021 rating
compared to 2018 2003 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2021
Public information services (Police/public safety) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 77% 74% Similar
Public information services (non-Police/public
safety) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 75% 75% Similar
Overall customer service by Palo Alto employees
(police, receptionists, planners, etc.) 78% 79% 77% 76% 81% 79% 81% 74% 77% 84% 77% 79% Similar
* Trend data are not included for three items in this question (preservation of natural areas, affordable high-speed internet access, and public library services) because
this was the first year these questions were asked.
TABLE 50: 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
(A)
(A) (B) (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F)
Traffic enforcement 67% 64% 60% 62% 61% 68% 73% 68% 65%
Traffic signal timing
60% 59% 53% 58% 69%
A D
53% 59% 65%
A D
59%
Street repair
57% 54% 49% 60%
D
67%
A D
39% 60%
D
61%
A D
56%
Street cleaning
85% 81% 81% 83% 84% 75% 86%
D
87%
D
83%
Street tree maintenance
74% 76% 70% 76% 84%
A D
71% 76% 76% 75%
Sidewalk maintenance
61% 66% 52% 65%
A
70%
A
62% 66% 64%
A
63%
Land use, planning, and zoning
41% 38% 38% 40% 44% 32% 35% 47%
D
40%
Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc.) 54% 50% 49% 48% 58% 45% 55% 57% 52%
Preservation of natural areas (open space, farmlands, and greenbelts)
86%
B
80% 86%
B
76% 85% 80% 86% 86%
B
83%
Building and planning application processing services
44% 43% 31% 38% 58%
A B D
38% 45% 52%
A
43%
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
45
Percent rating "excellent" or "good"
North/South Area Overall
North South Area
1
Area
2
Area
3
Area
4
Area
5
Area
6
(A)
(A) (B) (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F)
Affordable high-speed internet access 41% 38% 36% 39% 35% 39% 39% 45% 39%
Electric utility 79% 75% 76% 75% 73% 76% 75% 83% 77%
Gas utility 79% 78% 77% 80% 76% 77% 73% 84% 78%
Utility payment options 87% 84% 86% 82% 84% 86% 86% 89% 86%
Drinking water 88% 88% 91% 89% 91% 84% 84% 89% 88%
Sewer services 87% 88% 86% 88% 88% 86% 86% 89% 87%
Storm water management (storm drainage, dams, levees, etc.) 83% 83% 79% 83% 87% 77% 81% 87% 83%
Refuse collection (garbage, recycling, yard waste, and e-waste)
87% 86% 87% 82% 91%
B
87% 90% 85% 87%
Police services
79% 76% 75% 78% 81% 70% 81% 81%
D
78%
Crime prevention
69% 65% 62% 67% 70% 59% 71% 74%
D
67%
Animal control
81% 83% 77% 84% 86% 79% 73% 90%
A D E
82%
Ambulance or emergency medical services
95% 91% 92% 89% 97%
D
87% 91% 99%
B D
93%
Fire services 96% 92% 94% 90% 97% 91% 95% 96% 94%
Fire prevention and education
85% 79% 82% 74% 84% 82% 85% 88%
B
82%
Palo Alto open space 87% 84% 88% 85% 85% 82% 88% 87% 86%
City parks 91% 90% 91% 93% 87% 89% 92% 91% 91%
Recreation programs or classes
86% 81% 81% 83%
D
88%
D
72% 87%
D
89%
D
83%
Recreation centers or facilities
84% 80% 80% 80% 87%
D
72% 84% 88%
D
82%
Public library services (e.g., hold requests, storytimes, teen events, bookclubs)
91% 92% 89% 93% 96%
D
87% 91% 93% 92%
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
46
Percent rating "excellent" or "good"
North/South Area Overall
North South Area
1
Area
2
Area
3
Area
4
Area
5
Area
6
(A)
(A) (B) (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F)
Library facilities (buildings, computer equipment, accessibility) 93% 94% 94% 96% 96% 90% 92% 94% 94%
Variety of library materials (books, e-books, streaming, databases, audiobooks)
85% 86% 94%
E F
86% 89% 84% 78% 82% 86%
Art programs and theater
83% 82% 88%
D
81% 94%
B D E
73% 78% 82% 82%
City-sponsored special events
76% 69% 77%
D
68% 78%
D
62% 75% 75% 72%
City website (cityofpaloalto.org)
66% 71% 68% 61% 81%
B E F
75%
B
62% 66% 69%
Public information services (Police/public safety)
70% 77% 74% 71% 83%
E
79% 66% 71% 74%
Public information services (non-Police/public safety) 75% 75% 77% 70% 78% 77% 71% 77% 75%
Overall customer service by Palo Alto employees (police, receptionists, planners,
etc.)
79% 80% 80% 76% 86%
E
79% 70% 82% 79%
TABLE 51: QUESTION 10 - BENCHMARK COMPARISONS
City of Palo Alto rating Rank Number of jurisdictions for comparison Comparison to benchmark
Traffic enforcement 56 221 369 Similar
Traffic signal timing 52 97 281 Similar
Street repair 51 125 363 Similar
Street cleaning 69 33 322 Higher
Sidewalk maintenance 56 112 319 Similar
Land use, planning, and zoning 41 225 310 Similar
Code enforcement 48 178 377 Similar
Preservation of natural areas 72 13 270 Higher
Affordable high-speed internet access 39 48 54 Similar
Utility payment options 73 6 252 Higher
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
47
City of Palo Alto rating Rank Number of jurisdictions for comparison Comparison to benchmark
Drinking water 77 25 314 Higher
Sewer services 73 46 316 Similar
Storm water management 68 40 341 Higher
Police services 67 286 433 Similar
Crime prevention 61 217 364 Similar
Animal control 69 23 332 Higher
Ambulance or emergency medical services 78 158 336 Similar
Fire services 80 164 374 Similar
Fire prevention and education 69 148 297 Similar
Palo Alto open space 75 8 260 Higher
City parks 79 51 322 Similar
Recreation programs or classes 71 57 326 Similar
Recreation centers or facilities 70 56 293 Similar
Overall customer service by Palo Alto employees 67 166 385 Similar
*Benchmark comparisons were not available for a number of items in this question.
QUESTION 11
TABLE 52: QUESTION 11 - RESPONSE PERCENTAGES AND NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS INCLUDING "DON'T KNOW" RESPONSES
Please rate the following as they relate to Palo Alto Utilities’
services: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total
Reliability of utility services 52% N=381 38% N=277 6% N=46 1% N=5 3% N=25 100% N=735
Affordability of utility services 16% N=119 39% N=284 28% N=208 12% N=87 5% N=35 100% N=734
Community value received from the City owning and operating its
own municipal utility services 31% N=232 36% N=263 9% N=67 4% N=27 20% N=147 100% N=737
Utilities online customer self-service features 24% N=178 37% N=269 9% N=65 1% N=9 28% N=206 100% N=727
Providing opportunities for energy and water efficiency at home or
business 21% N=154 36% N=263 12% N=85 3% N=22 28% N=209 100% N=733
Working hard to keep utilities prices competitive 13% N=98 27% N=201 15% N=113 9% N=66 35% N=255 100% N=733
Value of all the services Palo Alto Utilities provides for the price you
pay 19% N=138 38% N=280 24% N=177 5% N=39 14% N=102 100% N=735
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
48
Please rate the following as they relate to Palo Alto Utilities’
services: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total
Ease of obtaining information or performing a transaction through
the City’s website 16% N=113 36% N=263 16% N=117 4% N=28 29% N=208 100% N=729
Value of Palo Alto Utilities’ customer communications 20% N=147 42% N=309 13% N=94 2% N=18 22% N=163 100% N=731
Ease of contacting Utilities department staff 21% N=155 34% N=252 9% N=67 2% N=13 34% N=248 100% N=735
Speed of response after contacting Utilities department staff 21% N=155 31% N=225 9% N=64 2% N=14 38% N=277 100% N=734
TABLE 53: QUESTION 11 - RESPONSE PERCENTAGES AND NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS WITHOUT "DON'T KNOW" RESPONSES
Please rate the following as they relate to Palo Alto Utilities’ services: Excellent Good Fair Poor Total
Reliability of utility services 54% N=381 39% N=277 7% N=46 1% N=5 100% N=710
Affordability of utility services 17% N=119 41% N=284 30% N=208 12% N=87 100% N=699
Community value received from the City owning and operating its own municipal utility
services 39% N=232 45% N=263 11% N=67 5% N=27 100% N=589
Utilities online customer self-service features 34% N=178 52% N=269 13% N=65 2% N=9 100% N=521
Providing opportunities for energy and water efficiency at home or business 29% N=154 50% N=263 16% N=85 4% N=22 100% N=524
Working hard to keep utilities prices competitive 20% N=98 42% N=201 24% N=113 14% N=66 100% N=479
Value of all the services Palo Alto Utilities provides for the price you pay 22% N=138 44% N=280 28% N=177 6% N=39 100% N=633
Ease of obtaining information or performing a transaction through the City’s website 22% N=113 51% N=263 22% N=117 5% N=28 100% N=521
Value of Palo Alto Utilities’ customer communications 26% N=147 54% N=309 17% N=94 3% N=18 100% N=568
Ease of contacting Utilities department staff 32% N=155 52% N=252 14% N=67 3% N=13 100% N=487
Speed of response after contacting Utilities department sta ff 34% N=155 49% N=225 14% N=64 3% N=14 100% N=457
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
49
TABLE 54: QUESTION 11 - HISTORICAL RESULTS
Please rate the following as they relate to Palo Alto Utilities' services:
Percent positive
2021 rating compared to 2018 2017 2018 2021
Reliability of utility services 96% 94% 93% Similar
Affordability of utility services 64% 59% 58% Similar
Community value received from the City owning and operating its own municipal utility services 81% 79% 84% Similar
Utilities online customer self-service features NA 78% 86% Higher
Providing opportunities for energy and water efficiency at home or business 83% 75% 80% Similar
Working hard to keep utilities prices competitive 63% 59% 62% Similar
Value of all the services Palo Alto Utilities provides for the price you pay 68% 62% 66% Similar
Ease of obtaining information or performing a transaction through the City’s website 65% 61% 72% Higher
Value of Palo Alto Utilities’ customer communications 76% 70% 80% Higher
Ease of contacting Utilities department staff NA 75% 84% Higher
Speed of response after contacting Utilities department staff NA 76% 83% Higher
TABLE 55: 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
(A)
(A) (B) (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F)
Reliability of utility services
95% 91% 95%
D
90% 98%
B D
87% 93% 95%
D
93%
Affordability of utility services
55% 60% 45% 57% 62%
A
62%
A
59%
A
61%
A
58%
Community value received from the City owning and operating its own municipal
utility services
86% 82% 79% 81% 89%
D
78% 90%
D
90%
A D
84%
Utilities online customer self-service features
87% 85% 79% 89%
A D
88% 78% 85% 94%
A D
86%
Providing opportunities for energy and water efficiency at home or business
80% 79% 66% 75% 86%
A
78%
A
80%
A
91%
A B D
80%
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
50
Percent rating "excellent" or "good"
North/South Area Overall
North South Area
1
Area
2
Area
3
Area
4
Area
5
Area
6
(A)
(A) (B) (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F)
Working hard to keep utilities prices competitive
60% 65% 57% 61% 74%
A
62% 63% 61% 62%
Value of all the services Palo Alto Utilities provides for the price you pay
62% 69%
A
53% 68%
A
71%
A
70%
A
68% 66%
A
66%
Ease of obtaining information or performing a transaction through the City’s website 69% 75% 63% 72% 77% 76% 73% 71% 72%
Value of Palo Alto Utilities' customer communications
80% 80% 74% 76% 88%
A
79% 78% 88%
A B
80%
Ease of contacting Utilities department staff
84% 83% 78% 86% 84% 79% 86% 90%
A D
84%
Speed of response after contacting Utilities department staff 83% 83% 77% 82% 87% 80% 86% 89% 83%
There are no benchmark data available for Question 11 as this question is unique to Palo Alto.
QUESTION 12
TABLE 56: QUESTION 12 - 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 “built environment” of Palo Alto (including overall design , buildings,
parks and transportation systems) 40% N=285 41% N=288 17% N=119 2% N=16 100% N=709
Overall economic health of Palo Alto 44% N=321 41% N=294 14% N=100 1% N=11 100% N=726
Overall feeling of safety in Palo Alto 52% N=381 30% N=222 15% N=106 3% N=20 100% N=730
Overall quality of natural environment in Palo Alto 43% N=316 42% N=303 14% N=103 1% N=5 100% N=728
Overall health and wellness opportunities in Palo Alto 28% N=202 39% N=279 27% N=197 6% N=46 100% N=725
Overall opportunities for education, culture and the arts 30% N=214 40% N=291 26% N=185 4% N=32 100% N=722
Residents' connection and engagement with their community 19% N=138 47% N=334 32% N=227 2% N=18 100% N=717
Reducing community greenhouse gas emissions 34% N=244 33% N=242 25% N=179 8% N=60 100% N=725
Increasing local solar generation capacity within city boundaries 30% N=217 31% N=225 29% N=207 10% N=69 100% N=718
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
51
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
Increasing electric storage capacity within city boundaries 26% N=185 35% N=248 30% N=214 9% N=67 100% N=713
Faster notification systems (online, mobile or email) for Utilities billing
issues, efficiency tips, outage information 18% N=129 29% N=206 41% N=297 12% N=89 100% N=721
Faster notification systems (online, mobile or email) for public safety issues 28% N=205 36% N=256 29% N=210 7% N=49 100% N=720
*This question did not have a “don’t know” option.
TABLE 57: 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
(A)
(A) (B) (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F)
Overall "built environment" of Palo Alto (including overall design, buildings, parks and
transportation systems)
81% 81% 81% 88%
D
80% 73% 86%
D
80% 81%
Overall economic health of Palo Alto 84% 86% 87% 85% 85% 86% 87% 81% 85%
Overall feeling of safety in Palo Alto
79% 86%
A
85%
E
83% 91%
E F
85%
E
74% 79% 83%
Overall quality of natural environment in Palo Alto 85% 85% 82% 88% 83% 84% 88% 86% 85%
Overall health and wellness opportunities in Palo Alto 66% 67% 62% 69% 69% 63% 68% 67% 66%
Overall opportunities for education, culture and the arts 69% 71% 67% 73% 71% 67% 76% 68% 70%
Residents' connection and engagement with their community
61% 70%
A
63% 68% 67% 74%
F
63% 59% 66%
Reducing community greenhouse gas emissions 67% 67% 62% 72% 61% 65% 71% 69% 67%
Increasing local solar generation capacity within city boundaries
63% 60% 50% 60% 59% 59% 71%
A
69%
A
62%
Increasing electric storage capacity within city boundaries
62% 60% 52% 62% 55% 60% 69%
A
66%
A
61%
Faster notification systems (online, mobile or email) for Utilities billing issues, efficiency
tips, outage information
40% 52%
A
42% 53%
F
42% 58%
A C F
48% 35% 46%
Faster notification systems (online, mobile or email) for public safety issues
60% 68%
A
63% 67% 67% 70%
F
64% 56% 64%
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
52
TABLE 58: QUESTION 12 - BENCHMARK COMPARISONS
City of Palo Alto
rating Rank
Number of jurisdictions for
comparison
Comparison to
benchmark
Overall "built environment" of Palo Alto (including overall design, buildings, parks
and transportation systems) 73 39 264 Similar
Overall economic health of Palo Alto 76 214 264 Similar
Overall feeling of safety in Palo Alto 77 216 264 Similar
Overall quality of natural environment in Palo Alto 76 63 264 Similar
Overall health and wellness opportunities in Palo Alto 63 219 263 Similar
Overall opportunities for education, culture, and the arts 65 217 264 Similar
Residents' connection and engagement with their community 61 253 264 Lower
*Benchmark comparisons were not available for a number of items in this question as these were unique to Palo Alto..
QUESTION 13
TABLE 59: QUESTION 13 - RESPONSE PERCENTAGES AND NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS INCLUDING "DON'T KNOW" RESPONSES
In a typical week, how likely are you to: Very likely
Somewhat
likely
Somewhat
unlikely Very unlikely
Don't
know Total
Participate in organized group activities (such as clubs, sports
teams, volunteer your time, attend church/temple) 24% N=172 22% N=160 18% N=131 34% N=250 2% N=18 100% N=731
Spend quality time with local friends, family, and/or neighbors 51% N=373 29% N=212 7% N=54 10% N=75 2% N=17 100% N=730
TABLE 60: QUESTION 13 - RESPONSE PERCENTAGES AND NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS WITHOUT "DON'T KNOW" RESPONSES
In a typical week, how likely are you to: Very likely
Somewhat
likely
Somewhat
unlikely Very unlikely Total
Participate in organized group activities (such as clubs, sports teams, volunteer
your time, attend church/temple) 24% N=172 22% N=160 18% N=131 35% N=250 100% N=713
Spend quality time with local friends, family, and/or neighbors 52% N=373 30% N=212 8% N=54 11% N=75 100% N=713
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
53
TABLE 61: QUESTION 13 - HISTORICAL RESULTS
In a typical week, how likely are you to:
Percent positive (e.g.,
very/somewhat likely) 2021 rating compared
to 2018 2017 2018 2021
Participate in organized group activities (such as clubs, sports teams volunteer your time, attend
church/temple) 52% 56% 47% Lower
Spend quality time with local friends, family, and/or neighbors 85% 88% 82% Lower
TABLE 62: QUESTION 13 - 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
(A)
(A) (B) (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F)
Participate in organized group activities (such a s clubs, sports teams, volunteer your
time, attend church/temple)
43% 50% 52%
F
48% 49% 53%
E F
38% 39% 47%
Spend quality time with local friends, family, and/or neighbors
80% 83% 83% 84% 89%
D
79% 78% 80% 82%
There are no benchmark data available for Q uestion 13 as this question is unique to Palo Alto.
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
54
QUESTION 14
TABLE 63: 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 71% N=520
Walking 14% N=106
Biking 13% N=98
Bus 1% N=5
Train 0% N=0
Free shuttle 0% N=3
Taxi 0% N=0
Uber/Lyft or similar rideshare service 0% N=3
Carpooling 0% N=2
Total 100% N=737
TABLE 64: QUESTION 14 - HISTORICAL RESULTS
What mode of transportation do you use most for your typical daily needs for getting around
town?
Percent selecting each response 2021 rating compared to
2018 2016 2017 2018 2021
Driving 77% 73% 76% 71% Similar
Walking 13% 13% 11% 14% Similar
Biking 8% 11% 10% 13% Similar
Bus 1% 1% 0% 1% Similar
Train 0% 1% 1% 0% Similar
Free shuttle 0% 0% 1% 0% Similar
Taxi 0% 0% 0% 0% Similar
Uber/Lyft or similar rideshare service 0% 1% 0% 0% Similar
Carpooling 0% 0% 0% 0% Similar
There are no benchmark data available for Question 14 as this question is unique to Palo Alto.
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
55
QUESTION 15
TABLE 65: 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 39% N=276 37% N=262 12% N=86 11% N=80 100% N=704
Biking 50% N=347 33% N=227 7% N=50 10% N=68 100% N=693
Bus 8% N=56 24% N=163 34% N=225 34% N=226 100% N=671
Train 13% N=87 26% N=176 30% N=201 32% N=213 100% N=676
Free shuttle 15% N=94 31% N=198 31% N=201 23% N=150 100% N=643
Taxi 7% N=45 23% N=147 29% N=186 41% N=268 100% N=646
Uber/Lyft or similar rideshare service 43% N=291 34% N=232 12% N=85 10% N=71 100% N=678
Carpooling 6% N=41 20% N=128 34% N=225 40% N=262 100% N=657
*This question did not have a “don’t know” option.
TABLE 66: 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 positive (e.g., very/somewhat convenient)
2021 rating
compared to 2018 2015 2016 2017 2018 2021
Walking 92% 94% 92% 69% 76% Higher
Biking 76% 75% 75% 77% 83% Higher
Bus 53% 50% 52% 33% 33% Similar
Train 68% 66% 60% 41% 39% Similar
Free shuttle 78% 75% 74% 46% 45% Similar
Taxi 26% 27% 24% 35% 30% Similar
Uber/Lyft or similar rideshare service 52% 62% 66% 83% 77% Lower
Carpooling 52% 45% 49% 33% 26% Lower
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
56
TABLE 67: QUESTION 15 - GEOGRAPHIC SUBGROUP RESULTS
Percent rating "very" or "somewhat" likely
North/South Area Overall
North South Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5 Area 6 (A)
(A) (B) (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F)
Walking
82%
B
71% 78%
D
79%
D
68% 66% 84%
C D
82%
C D
76%
Biking 83% 83% 79% 84% 82% 83% 89% 81% 83%
Bus 30%
35% 23% 31% 31% 42%
A
32% 33% 33%
Train 39% 38% 38% 38% 33% 43% 33% 42% 39%
Free shuttle 48% 43% 51% 44% 43% 41% 39% 51% 45%
Taxi 27%
32% 30% 28% 29% 39%
F
31% 23% 30%
Uber/Lyft or similar rideshare service 78%
76% 85%
B E
68% 77% 84%
B E
70% 78%
B
77%
Carpooling 23%
28% 28% 28%
E
33%
E
25% 14% 25% 26%
QUESTION 16
TABLE 68: QUESTION 16 - RESPONSE PERCENTAGES AND NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS WITH "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 26% N=150 28% N=163 14% N=83 31% N=176 100% N=572
Diesel 1% N=7 3% N=17 6% N=32 90% N=495 100% N=551
Natural gas 2% N=9 2% N=10 8% N=43 88% N=456 100% N=518
Hybrid 31% N=181 38% N=224 13% N=77 17% N=101 100% N=583
Plug-in hybrid 21% N=117 39% N=215 15% N=83 24% N=133 100% N=549
Electric 46% N=274 30% N=180 11% N=66 13% N=75 100% N=596
Fuel cell 2% N=10 12% N=53 15% N=65 71% N=308 100% N=436
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
57
TABLE 69: QUESTION 16 - 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 26% N=150 28% N=163 14% N=83 31% N=176 100% N=572
Diesel 1% N=7 3% N=17 6% N=32 90% N=495 100% N=551
Natural gas 2% N=9 2% N=10 8% N=43 88% N=456 100% N=518
Hybrid 31% N=181 38% N=224 13% N=77 17% N=101 100% N=583
Plug-in hybrid 21% N=117 39% N=215 15% N=83 24% N=133 100% N=549
Electric 46% N=274 30% N=180 11% N=66 13% N=75 100% N=596
Fuel cell 2% N=10 12% N=53 15% N=65 71% N=308 100% N=436
TABLE 70: QUESTION 16 - HISTORICAL RESULTS
If you plan to purchase a new car within the next two years, what is the likelihood of it being:
Percent rating positively (e.g.,
very/somewhat likely) 2021 rating compared to
2018 2016 2017 2018 2021
Gas 71% 71% 66% 55% Lower
Diesel 10% 5% 6% 4% Similar
Natural gas 4% 5% 6% 4% Similar
Hybrid 70% 71% 71% 69% Similar
Plug-in hybrid 59% 62% 62% 61% Similar
Electric 65% 71% 67% 76% Higher
Fuel cell 10% 14% 11% 14% Similar
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
58
TABLE 71: QUESTION 16 - GEOGRAPHIC SUBGROUP RESULTS
Percent rating "very" or "somewhat" likely
North/South Area Overall
North South Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5 Area 6
(A) (A) (B) (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F)
Gas 54% 55% 62% 61% 50% 53% 47% 54% 55%
Diesel 1%
7%
A 1%
8%
A E F 5%
6%
E 0% 2% 4%
Natural gas 3% 4% 3% 3% 6% 4% 1% 4% 4%
Hybrid 70% 69% 64% 74% 64% 66%
84%
A C D F 66% 69%
Plug-in hybrid 57% 64% 59%
69%
F 55% 64% 61% 54% 61%
Electric 76% 76%
87%
C E F 80% 71% 75% 71% 73% 76%
Fuel cell 11% 17% 9% 15% 18% 19% 17% 10% 14%
QUESTION 17
TABLE 72: QUESTION 17 - RESPONSE PERCENTAGES AND NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS
As a resident of Palo Alto, what one change could the City make that would make you happier? Percent Number
Housing (amount, type, affordability/cost of living) 19% N=117
Street conditions and traffic concerns 11% N=65
General government operations 7% N=41
Development (other than housing) 6% N=35
Safety, crime, policing and law enforcement 6% N=34
Parks and recreation amenities/services 6% N=36
City services, utilities and amenities 5% N=30
Address homelessness 4% N=24
Sense of community/community activities 4% N=27
Improvements for walking and biking 3% N=17
Public transportation 3% N=19
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
59
As a resident of Palo Alto, what one change could the City make that would make you happier? Percent Number
Lower taxes and/or utility costs 3% N=16
Local businesses, retail/shopping options 3% N=18
Downtown improvements 2% N=10
Permits, code/ordinance enforcement 2% N=15
Schools, programs for children 2% N=10
Overall appearance, cleanliness, upkeep 2% N=14
Parking concerns 1% N=9
Reduce noise 1% N=9
Other 6% N=34
Nothing/Don't know 3% N=21
Total 100% N=601
QUESTION 18
TABLE 73: QUESTION 18 - RESPONSE PERCENTAGES AND NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS
As a resident of Palo Alto, what one thing do you believe the City does well and would wan t to maintain? Percent Number
Parks, open space, and natural environment 26% N=152
Safety services 10% N=57
Library 10% N=58
Utilities 8% N=45
Schools and education 8% N=48
Sense of community, community activities, and recreation 5% N=28
Cleanliness of community 4% N=23
Ability to give input and communication with government 4% N=21
General City services 4% N=25
Street maintenance 3% N=16
Ease of bicycle travel 2% N=10
Government/leadership 2% N=10
Everything/great place to live 2% N=9
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
60
As a resident of Palo Alto, what one thing do you believe the City does well and would wan t to maintain? Percent Number
Downtown area 2% N=12
Other 6% N=36
Don’t know/nothing, negative comments, additional improvements 8% N=45
Total 100% N=595
DEMOGRAPHIC Q UESTIONS
TABLE 74: QUESTION D1 - 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 7% N=51
Somewhat positive 20% N=145
Neutral 54% N=400
Somewhat negative 15% N=107
Very negative 4% N=31
Total 100% N=735
TABLE 75: QUESTION D2 - RESPONSE PERCENTAGES AND NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS
What is your employment status? Percent Number
Working full time for pay 59% N=442
Working part time for pay 9% N=65
Unemployed, looking for paid work 6% N=45
Unemployed, not looking for paid work 5% N=35
Fully retired 19% N=145
College student, unemployed 2% N=13
Total 100% N=745
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
61
TABLE 76: QUESTION D3 - RESPONSE PERCENTAGES AND NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS
Do you work inside the boundaries of Palo Alto? Percent Number
Yes, outside the home 18% N=130
Yes, from home 45% N=321
No 37% N=269
Total 100% N=720
TABLE 77: QUESTION D4 - RESPONSE PERCENTAGES AND NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS
How many years have you lived in Palo Alto? Percent Number
Less than 2 years 15% N=116
2 to 5 years 15% N=110
6 to 10 years 16% N=121
11 to 20 years 19% N=141
More than 20 years 35% N=265
Total 100% N=751
TABLE 78: QUESTION D5 - RESPONSE PERCENTAGES AND NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS
Which best describes the building you live in? Percent Number
One family house detached from any other houses 58% N=434
Building with two or more homes (duplex, townhome, apartment or condominium) 40% N=300
Mobile home 0% N=1
Other 2% N=16
Total 100% N=750
TABLE 79: QUESTION D6 - RESPONSE PERCENTAGES AND NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS
Do you rent or own your home? Percent Number
Rent 45% N=335
Own 55% N=414
Total 100% N=749
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
62
TABLE 80: QUESTION D7 - RESPONSE PERCENTAGES AND NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS
About how much is your monthly housing cost for the place you
live (including rent, mortgage payment, p roperty tax, property
insurance and homeowners' association (HOA) fees)? Percent Number
Less than $500 per month 3% N=23
$500 to $999 per month 3% N=22
$1,000 to $1,499 per month 6% N=43
$1,500 to $1,999 per month 6% N=42
$2,000 to $2,499 per month 12% N=82
$2,500 to $2,999 per month 10% N=75
$3,000 to $3,499 per month 11% N=78
$3,500 to $3,999 per month 7% N=48
$4,000 to $4,499 per month 6% N=43
$4,500 to $4,999 per month 5% N=36
$5,000 to $5,499 per month 5% N=36
$5,500 to $5,999 per month 4% N=30
$6,000 to $6,499 per month 5% N=35
$6,500 to $6,999 per month 2% N=13
$7,000 to $7,499 per month 3% N=18
$7,500 to $7,999 per month 1% N=6
$8,000 to $8,499 per month 2% N=15
$8,500 to $8,999 per month 1% N=7
$9,000 to $9,499 per month 1% N=9
$9,500 to $9,999 per month 1% N=7
$10,000 or more per month 6% N=45
Total 100% N=715
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
63
TABLE 81: QUESTION D8 - RESPONSE PERCENTAGES AND NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS
Do any children 17 or under live in your household? Percent Number
No 65% N=487
Yes 35% N=257
Total 100% N=744
TABLE 82: QUESTION D9 - RESPONSE PERCENTAGES AND NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS
Are you or any other members of your household aged 65 or older? Percent Number
No 69% N=516
Yes 31% N=230
Total 100% N=746
TABLE 83: QUESTION D10 - 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=25
$25,000 to $49,999 4% N=30
$50,000 to $74,999 15% N=100
$75,000 to $99,999 15% N=99
$100,000 to $149,999 11% N=74
$150,000 to $199,999 8% N=56
$200,000 to $249,999 7% N=48
$250,000 to $299,999 7% N=46
$300,000 to $349,999 6% N=44
$350,000 to $399,999 3% N=21
$400,000 to $449,999 2% N=14
$450,000 to $499,999 18% N=120
$500,000 or more 0% N=0
Total 100% N=677
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
64
TABLE 84: QUESTION D11 - RESPONSE PERCENTAGES AND NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS
Are you Spanish, Hispanic or Latino? Percent Number
No, not Spanish, Hispanic or Latino 95% N=696
Yes, I consider myself to be Spanish, Hispanic or Latino 5% N=40
TABLE 85: QUESTION D12 - 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=11
Asian, Asian Indian or Pacific Islander 27% N=200
Black or African American 2% N=18
White 69% N=504
Other 4% N=30
Total may equal more than 100% as respondents could select more than one option.
TABLE 86: QUESTION D13 - RESPONSE PERCENTAGES AND NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS
In which category is your age? Percent Number
18 to 24 years 2% N=15
25 to 34 years 20% N=144
35 to 44 years 15% N=112
45 to 54 years 26% N=191
55 to 64 years 13% N=93
65 to 74 years 11% N=81
75 years or older 13% N=98
Total 100% N=735
TABLE 87: QUESTION D14 - RESPONSE PERCENTAGES AND NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS
What is your gender? Percent Number
Female 51% N=373
Male 49% N=360
Identify in another way 1% N=4
Total 100% N=737
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
65
VERBATIM RESPONSES TO OPEN -ENDED SURVEY QUESTION S
Following are verbatim responses to the open-ended question on the survey. Because these
responses were written by survey participants, they are presented here in verbatim form, including
any typographical, grammar or other mistakes. The responses are grouped by category and are in
alphabetical order.
Question 17: As a resid ent of Palo Alto, what one change co uld the City
make that would make you happier?
H OUSING (AMOUNT , TYPE , AFFORDABILITY /COST OF LIVING )
• "ghost" homes Limit/Eliminate unoccupied "investment" homes.
• Add more low=income housing
• Affordability is a challenge. More affordable housing.
• affordable housing
• Affordable housing and a fair economy.
• affordable housing for my children that have left
• affordable housing for the elderly (we need grandparents to stay local, or be able to move here to be near
our children)
• AFFORDABLE HOUSING! End single-family zoning, increase density. We are becoming a "luxury item" and
losing the spirit of Palo Alto. I am 45. I have lived here my whole life. The Palo Alto I know and love is
disappearing. People my age cannot afford to live here unless they are extraordinarily wealthy, This is
rapidly changing the demographics of our city. Letting more people in will not ruin our city; keeping them
out will. We are going to atrophy.
• Affordable housing.
• Affordable housing.
• Affordable housing.
• AFFORDABLE QUALITY HOUSING.
• Allow massive MULTI-home residential projects close to mass transit.
• Allow more housing development
• Approve more diversity in housing, e.g.,condos or apartments in single family neighborhoods.
• Better rent price.
• Better transit, BUILD MORE APARTMENTS AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING. BUILD, BUILD, BUILD. Prices are
outrageous.
• Build high rise housing
• Build housing that is affordable for the median person and reduce commercial development that just sits
empty for years
• Build more affordable housing and create incentives for racially integrated housing throughout Palo Alto.
• Build more affordable housing so that people who work here can live here.
• Build more housing of all kinds, to ensure a dynamic, vibrant, and inclusive community. This is th e single
thing that would also address more of the concerns above (e.g., climate, more community feel, more arts,
so on). When I rated the community as being less -than-welcoming, it is in this dimension that I most mean
it... policies which have led to, persist, and exacerbate the housing crisis -- and Palo Alto's cowardice to do
its fair share and then some -- are the single worst part of this community.
• Build more housing! Affordable housing will give us a more diverse and vibrant city. The idea that it will
somehow ruin what we have is silly - it's just current property owners being greedy to protect what was
already a hugely lucky windfall for them.
• Build more housing.
• Build more medium to low-end housing.
• Build much more housing, build denser housing (and higher buildings)
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
66
• Building of more affordable housing
• Cancel the President Hotel decision. It's better in housing!
• Change R-1 zoning to allow multi-family units like duplexes and quadraplexes.
• Cooperate with regional entities to solve housing and transportation problems. This would require
streamlining the "Palo Alto process." Endless discussion about development and hijacking of housing
development, as we witnessed when the Barron Park neighborhood association mounted a coup against
building senior housing in the neighborhood should not be allowed to stand. I live in Barron Park, by the
way, and campaigned for the senior housing project. Talking with people door to door, it seemed to me
that we are becoming a city that, through it's development decisions , discourages age and income
diversity. Transportation is the other issue. Regional solutions to developing public transportation options
should be a number one priority. We should have integrated systems for getting around the Bay Area.
Sitting in traffic for three hours to get to the East Bay or an hour to get to San Jose, is ridiculous. If it
weren't so inconvenient, people would take trains and buses to get around. Santa Clara County and San
Mateo County have been hold outs in raising the taxes needed for sane regional transportation. Fifty years
and counting.
• Cost of living
• Cost of living decrease.
• Cost of living.
• Create actual affordable housing. Reduce school administrators pay. Rethink the rushed and poorly
considered opening of Foothills park and chastise mayor Fine for his ignorant and lazy comments about it
just being "growing pains". Remove all of the extremely dangerous concrete struc tures that restrict streets
while claiming to promote bike friendly roadways! And fire whoever came up with tha t terrible idea to
waste money on such a project! Enforce the ban on gas powered leaf blowers. Prevent constructions trucks
and equipment from clogging residential streets and creating unsafe environments for kids, bikes and
pedestrians. Build a gas station and a decent grocery store in mid-town. Stop Stanford from doing
whatever they want without investing in the community. Remember that not every one around here makes
$500,000 a year.
• decrease cost of living! ha!
• Decrease rent (pipe dream, I know). It is very expensive to live here.
• Different zoning to allow more construction of houses/lower cost of housing.
• Don't change zoning regulations as they relate to single-family housing
• Ending single family zoning
• facilitate building more housing / zoning for more housing
• Find ways to increase low & middle income housing. Duplexes in single family neighborhoods should be
okayed. The Stanford housing off Calif Avenue is a great example of duplexes fitting right in.
• Focusing on affordable housing production.
• Have a way for young families to afford to live here. Without people from many generations the City is
truly lacking and could die out.
• Help reduce the cost of living
• Help with cost of living
• Hold landlords accountable (for, e.g., conducting construction without permits). Stop letting landlords
treat tenants like cash flow, e.g. make all rental communities "co-ops" of sorts by granting tenants
collective power against landlords through local ordinances. Institute more stringent rent control (no more
than inflation + 1% annually).
• Increase housing but not all on San Antonia. How about some in North Palo Alto?
• Increase the supply of affordable housing. End police racism and violence.
• Increase the the low cost housing and build up along El Camino with multiuse bui ldings to allow more
residents with jobs in the lower and middle class to live where they work.
• increased affordable housing
• LARGE INCREASE IN AFFORDABLE HOUSING (LOW INCOME).
• Limit developers from adding more residences because it makes traffic a nightma re.
• Limit high density housing and fix broken traffic light timing.
• Limit multi family home building - there is not more room
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
67
• LIMITED AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
• Long-range development plan (including affordable housing) for Calif Ave to "Ventura" (Fry's site)
• low income housing
• LOW RENT.
• Lower Cost of living.
• Lower cost of living.
• Lower housing prices
• lower rent
• Lower rent
• Lower rent
• Make affordable housing a reality.
• More abundant and more diverse housing options.
• More affordable cost of living - rent etc
• More affordable high-density housing complexes.
• More affordable housing
• More affordable housing
• more affordable housing
• more affordable housing
• More affordable housing
• More affordable housing
• more affordable housing and more recreation opportunities for families like mini gold, bowling, etc.
• More affordable housing for all - teachers, firemen, police, secretaries, etc. A secondary item would be
there are still too many traffic signals that don't have responsive sensors so you end up waiting 2-3 minutes
for the green turn light even though there's no traffic coming from the other way.
• More affordable housing for middle class
• More affordable housing for middle-income people.
• More affordable housing options
• More affordable housing options.
• more affordable housing or rent control
• More affordable housing so wet can own a house in Palo Alto
• More affordable housing, more property tax equity
• More affordable housing.
• More attention to those of us who are not tech magnates / members of the 1%. Those of us who are lower
income workers, including public servants, who can barely afford very low quality rental housing. Who are
left out because of the upper-class orientation of this city. Who increasingly feel like we are outsiders
unwelcome in this city. The number of motor homes and cars with people living in them are even stronger
evidence of the failure of this city to look after ALL of our community . What a change from the years when
Palo Alto at least tried to care for those of us who are not part of the high-tech/ 1% orientation of this city
now. what a shame
• More houses below $2 million
• More housing - possibly mixed use.
• More housing affordability.
• More Housing Opportunities.
• More Housing!
• More low and middle income housing
• More low-moderate housing. Multi story housing near transit.
• Prices are out of control!!!
• Protect renters by capping what predatory landlords can charge.
• PROVIDE LOW-COST HOUSING FOR LOW-INCOME PEOPLE WHO SERVE US.
• provide more housing in each pricing class
• Provide truly affordable housing for low paid workers
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
68
• Purchase our homes and give residents the right to live there as long as we wish, subject to conditions such
as basic maintenance of the home. Money should move in a healthy economy and not get stuck in real
estate!
• Put a stronger effort in providing more affordable housing.
• Quality single-family housing availability and home ownership affordability, including taxes
• Raised height limits along ECR to facilitate housing.
• Reduce cost of living by at least 50%
• Reduce the cost of property! Palo Alto house properties are too high and pricing younger families out of
the market. Student numbers have been decreasing over the years as families struggle with the cost of rent
and are unable to afford to buy a house. Please put some serious research into this area. We would love to
stay in Palo Alto indefinitely but it is a big financial worry.
• Reduce the rate of commercial construction
• Rent control- service discount.
• Rent is too high.
• Rental property oversight and improvement of rental housing standard of livi ng. I've rented houses in
(midtown) Palo Alto with mold issues seeping through walls, rat issues in attic with furnace in attic, central
heating issues (which they suggested to use space heaters throughout the house instead), sewer line issues
(old lines that they don't want to repair from house to city connection) - and every single landlord, even
with the advice of licensed property manager, is resistant to fix the issue to acceptable standard of living.
The landlords don't want to spend money to repair o r maintain a property to an acceptable living standard,
so instead of taking them to mediation/court, I've moved to a nother houses in Palo Alto. These are houses
that are renting for $5000+ a month, built in the 1950's/1960's era - and the owners don't want to fix them
to a reasonable standard of living. What are the long term costs to Palo Alto residents when children i nhale
mold, inhale rat excrement in the furnace system, and the showers back up with grey water from toilets?
City of Palo Alto allows the market to set prices for rental without any standard of living oversight - and
allow owner/landlords to rent properties that are subpar.
• Stop allowing for mega homes to invade neighborhoods.
• Stop building high density multifamily residents.
• Stop Building housing. It's gotten too crowded!
• Stop increasing population density of the city by allowing more housing that is not single family. I bought
into Palo Alto because it is primarily single family zoning
• support and pursue broader range of housing and transpo rt options
• The toughest thing about Palo Alto is the cost of living.
• Tons more housing of all types
• Truly affordable housing for low to very low income people and families.
• Upzoning and encouraging more housing development
• Would like to see Palo Alto offer more affordable housing (e.g., apartment rentals that people earning less
than six- or seven-figure salaries can afford or that aren't simply new "luxury apartment homes.")
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
69
S TREET CONDITIONS AND TRAFFIC CONCERNS
• Address traffic issues on Lytton Ave - introduce traffic calming on Lytton & Waverley.
• Adjust the very strange signal timing in the traffic corridors.
• Adjust traffic light on Oregon expwy/ page mill road for more efficient timing
• Better ability to merger/ cross Arastradero Rd from side streets / especially during the school year!
• Better handling of heavy traffic on El Camino Real
• better road maintenance
• better roadways
• Better street Conditions.
• better upkeep of streets and sidewalks
• Control Speeding car better enforcement.
• Coordinate traffic signals
• Enact a 3 ton truck limit on residential arterials ( University Ave, Embarcadero, Churchill, Middlefield)
• enforce speed limits on streets
• Engineer traffic flow better, esp with new high density housing
• Fix Caltrain and traffic issues making traffic problems.
• Fix the 25 mph speed limit on main streets: either enforce the limit or raise it
• Fix the main roads
• Fix the potholes on El Camino the trash up on the freeways.
• Fix the streets and sidewalks. They both are in great disrepair. Very dangerous for bike rs and walkers.
Allow a few grocers to have more sq ft so they can be competitive.
• Fix traffic and the road surfaces on El Camino
• Fix traffic on university road from Sand Hill-101.
• Get rid of the failed roundabouts which endanger our children who bike or walk to school. Huge waste of
taxpayer money. A majority of city residents oppose them, and the city council didn't listen!
• i wanna get over the highway, 101, but I can't find how to get to the other side
• improve light timing, close Cal Ave to car traffic and make it a pedestrian lane permanently, limit
nonresident access to Foothill Park (only issue a certain number of permits)
• Improve roads
• Improve the roads - or get CalTrans to. El Camino is a nightmare! Build some affordable housing for our
teachers, city workers, etc.
• Improve the streets.
• Improve the traffic safety, traffic flows, and criminal prevention methods.
• Improve traffic safety by attention to traffic lights and bik e pathways
• Increase my driving opportunities.
• Just one?! enforced local speed limits and safety for walking at night/alone
• Keep cal ave closed to traffic forever
• less traffic (due to less businesses and residents)
• Less traffic congestion (without Covid reduction)
• Less traffic from non-residents.
• Less traffic, fewer cars. Forever. For a hundred reasons. Thank you.
• Manage traffic on Alma-safer left turns.
• More roundabouts add speed bumps on certain streets where people speed (eg. Hamilton Ave), close
University Ave to redirect traffic.
• Pave the streets!!!!
• Post-COVID, reducing traffic overall.
• Reduce car traffic on Embarcadero Road - its a safety issue for cars backing off from homes situated on
Embarcadero, and also affects air quality, noise levels and overall quality of life.
• Reduce car traffic.
• Reduce drive through, speeding traffic
• Reduce the non-covid-era traffic congestion/noise in PA.
• reduce traffic
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
70
• reduce traffic clogging on University Ave in afternoon-evening weekdays
• Reduce unnecessary road signs, traffic lights, or islands in residential area.
• Reduce/make safer traffic (by stopping dense housing, increasing work at home).
• Remove all the traffic cones at Middle Field and Seale. Lots of accidents - Dumb idea!
• Remove the "small traffic circles" that were recently installed (such as the one at Ross Road and East
Meadows). They are dangerous to drivers and bicyclists.
• Remove the roundabouts along Ross. It was a waste of money and made the road more dangerous than
before.
• Repair the roads.
• Residential street speed enforcement. People using WAZE to avoid stoplights race down our s treet
(Webster near Oregon) at rush hour endangering anyone walking across the street or pulling out of their
driveway.
• Ross Road should be a auto friendly street.
• Signs and Road improvement.
• Slow drivers down in all residential areas.
• Slow traffic down on my street (Channing Ave).
• solve the traffic problem
• stop sign enforcement, speed limit enforcement
• The conditions of our roads and streets is pretty sorry.
• traffic control
• Traffic control when schools are open people drive too fast.
• Traffic enforcement
• Traffic mitigation and appropriate Development growth
• traffic patterns to improve the safety of pedestrians and bicyclists while preserving residential streets
G ENERAL GOVERNMENT O PERATIONS
• Better handling of COVID safety protocol.
• City council stop meeting behind closed doors.
• city council truly listen to the residents, not just say" collect feedback" but never take the feedback
seriously.
• Ease of city council to listen and take action from citizens
• ELECT THE MAYOR by popular vote!!!!!
• fewer members of local government
• Fiscal responsibility & transparency
• Getting well qualifies persons to run the city..
• Give some sense of confidence that the city govt will spend $$ responsibility. I hear little confidence that
dollars, such no hotel tax increase, for example, will be spent in any way that will benefit the city overall.
• Greater speed and effectiveness in processing issues and making decisions
• Have a city council that can make up their minds in a timely manner.
• I am happy with the cleanliness and surrounding beauty of Palo Alto. However, at some point, there is a
diminishing return on efforts. How can community boards and commissions justify spending weeks of
consideration and then 4+ hours of time debating whether someone should be allowed to build a
basement where there is an old growth tree in their yard? There are other ways of solving a problem - eg.
require the owner to sponsor planting 20-30 new trees in Palo Alto for potentially removing the old growth
tree. The amount of time spent by the community fixated on a black and white solution translates directly
into cost. Our community and commissions can spend time on more critical life altering issues such as
how to ensure health and wellness, public transport, or fiber to the home. My family and I are US citizens
who have lived around the world including the UK, Australia, and Hong Kon g. No where else have I seen
such a dysfunctional approach (where one small special interest group can commandeer so much
time/energy/ cost) to managing a community for the broader good.
• I feel as if the City treats its citizens as impediments to their operations.
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
71
• I want city council make the decisions based on the P.A residents' opinion, n ot on option of Carts Council
only!
• IMPROVE WEBSITE SEARCH FUNCTION.
• Increased concern for disabled, homeless, elderly, and low-income community members in city-wide
policies and programs; consulting such individuals on their needs when making any/all city -wide policies
and programs, as well as consulting them on existing policies and programs
• Less debates on various options (ex: Caltrain grade separation, Castilleja school expansion) and faster
decision process.
• Less decisions made behind closed doors
• LESS IDENTITY POLITICS.
• less regulations on homes/businesses; schools are not as good as "hyped" especially middle-school;
affordable home prices
• Make decisions in a more rational and timely manner using the best factual data available and not try to
solve every problem residents bring to the City. Bring closure on matters unlike the instantly of some of
the rail crossing decision making processes and the process used for the Castilleja CUP. Signs up for and
against a decision for years simply divide the community. Delays are a way for particularly the Council to
avoid a decision and placed the blame on others. Enough already!!!
• Make decisions on the wellbeing of the residents, not political pressure.
• Managing budget/spending
• more responsive planning department.
• Open discussions, no closed sessions.
• Reduce pay of city manager.
• Reduce percentage of budget spent on retirement benefits
• Reduce unnecessary city spending and the large number of full-time employees, to save money for
emergencies like the current pandemic.
• Remove the bureaucratic firewall from the City's website that prevent s one from talking to a public official
about a complaint or request for service!
• Replace building/permit staff with competent and helpful employees.
• Replace the current City Manger via an open, wide, and competitive search.
• Serve the current residents, rather than pursuing broader political agendas
• Set out a vision or plan for the City - what are our priorities and how do we get there. Also, allowing for
areas/spaces that are more family and kid friendly and less geared towards corporate or retirees. The p arks
are amazing but without bathrooms or nearby cafes they leave families without a place to really meet up
(in non-Covid times) and spend a day.
• shorter council meetings
• spend tax money wisely, especially on education
• Stop wasting money on un-needed and fiscally irresponsible projects
• Take action and not dither eg. Electrification of Caltrain, hybrid learning, etc. we need more leadership,
essentially listen to others make a decision and then explain the decision based on the inputs. For example
a trench or tunnel for Caltrain will be very expensive (no way to fund) so present the viable options don't
waste time.
• The city council needs to work together for the common good. Cut out the long meetings, prioritize goals,
and get things done. More affordable housing, traffic control, transparency.
• transparency/accountability
• Transparent Council business and mindful of citizen concerns'
• using tax money better
D EVELOPMENT (OTHER THAN HOUSING )
• City needs to get in front of upcoming changes to commercial use of existing and new buildings. The old
model of forced retail spaces is probably not what we need for the future.
• Create a citizen-focused development plan for the Fry's location that includes an abundance of affordable
housing, gardens, and community meeting paints connected by pedestrian + bike paths.
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
72
• Create more pro-development sections in the city. Large office/mixed use.
• Discourage growth of large companies within the city: they can expand elsewhere.
• Encourage density along El Camino Real. Tall buildings and mass transportation = mini Manhattan.
• Less building of huge new developments like what is happening along San Antonio.
• Less commercial development
• Less dense development
• Less high density construction
• Less office space (address jobs/housing imbalance).
• Less tall buildings.
• Limit development
• Limit growth so we do not become even more congested
• limit new office space with all the traffic, housing, etc. issues that it creates
• No more "improvements" like the horrible Charleston Corridor.
• no more new businesses, no more dense housing and Less Traffic
• NOT TO OVER-BUILD
• Please focus on balance in new construction- Don't make El Camino Road a city scape of extra tall
buildings.
• reduce density problem
• reduce expansion of Stanford University due to high traffic on surface streets
• reduce what buildout looks like....a lot.
• Spend less money on building and construction, and move that money to spend on people and making the
city affordable for non-tech professionals.
• Stop building ADUs in residential neighborhoods where there really isn't enough space. Limit development.
• stop building and focus on long term residents needs
• STOP BUILDING MORE AND MORE OFFICE SPACE.
• Stop building multi-story buildings - Lower utility build and water charges.
• STOP building offices and rezone office land to accommodate affordable housing.
• Stop building on top of the side walk. Hard to enjoy the natural environment when a tall wall towers above
the sidewalk.
• Stop building ugly high rise buildings in Ventura/ South Palo Alto. Also there i s no sense of architectural
unity or style. It feels like Developers are paying the city council to get what they want. Also need another
public pool.
• Stop catering to big developers
• stop new businesses from opening in Palo Alto as there is already inadequate parking and housing for
employees.
• Stop Over developing!!!
• Stop overbuilding!!!!!
• Stop overbuilding, control traffic congestion.
• Stop the overbuilding in P.A.
S AFETY , CRIM E , POLICING AND LAW ENFORCEMENT
• 1 - Stop bike theft rings! I've had at least five bikes stolen from downtown / Cal Av over the years. 2 -
Affordable housing / better support to vulnerable citizens
• Better crime prevention. Too much theft.
• Better lighting at night.
• Crime is a big problem. Lots of car break ins and too many housebreak ins and street robberies.
• Deal with burglaries better
• Do something about the increase in bulgaries
• Friendlier police force.
• Friendlier police.
• Having the police follow up with minor crime reports (theft, break-ins, ...). They couldn't care less.
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
73
• I want to see the city make more big changes to address policing concerns citizens voiced this past
summer. Also still disgruntled by Ed's 10-day shutdown announcement - changes should be made to
prevent such future actions.
• I would rework the Police budget so more resources are available for mental health services.
• Implement changes to hold police accountable (mandatory bodycams, longer training periods of 2+years,
focus on reduction of use of force) to the public and set an example of how to do so for other
small/medium sized cities.
• Improve the safety of our neighborhood
• Increase police presence
• Increasing safty level
• less crime
• Make PA safer.
• make Palo Alto a safe place to live
• More frequent Peace Officers patrolling neighborhoods for safety.
• More police presence in Downtown areas.
• No more racial profiling by police.
• Reduce property crimes, car break-ins.
• Reduce property crimes, Car break-ins.
• Reduce property crimes, car break-ins.
• safe neighborhood
• Safer place. (We lost a lot of packages, mails and bikes in 2020)
• Safer/less crime
• safety
• Safety
• Safety
• Security camera installation
• Solve bike theft problem. 3 bikes (locked) stolen my main transportation!!!
• STOP the crime, vandalism, theft, prowlers, robberies, break-ins. I am unlikely to install security cameras on
my property because the police can't or won't arrest anyone.
• train police how to interact with people who are mentally ill
P ARKS AND RECREATION AMENITIES /SERVICES
• 1. Not make unilateral decisions about Foothills Park. This issue should of been put on ballot and voted by
community. 2. Palo Alto is top heavy in management and staff is well compensated, yet they constantly
hire outside auditors to help make decisions. 3. Seems to be a disconnect if you have to ask residents
feedback (this survey) on how they feel about Palo Alto.
• Cancel the opening of foothill park opening to the public. Put back only to PA Residence. I cannot get in
park since opening to public. I am resident since "86". PA Residents should not have to pay to get into
Foothill Park.
• Close foothill park back to residents only.
• Close Foothill Park to non-residents
• Close Foothill Park to non-residents
• Close Foothills Park to non-residents (Palo Alto spent the $ to purchase the land years ago and pays for
maintenance). I shouldn't have to wait in line, make a reservation, get closed out, or pay a fee to use the
park. Very unfair. Second item: improve code enforcement; in particular, faster response time.
• close Foothills Park to outsiders
• Enforcing leash and pick up rules in parks
• EXCLUSIVE RESIDENT USE OF FOOTHILLS PARK.
• FOOTHILLS PARK - HOW I WISH ITS NOT FOR PUBLIC.
• Get Foothill park back
• Guarantee access to Foothills Park on the weekend and every day. I already cannot go to Arastradero
Preserve and Byxbee Park, because there is no parking. Now I can't go to Foothills Park on a weekend
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
74
middle of the day either. I am saddened that a park that I love and have visited many times, is now not
available to me, yet I pay taxes to support it. It seems unfair, and I feel betrayed by the City Council for
giving in to the lawsuit demands.
• Include more California native plants in city parks designs
• Keep Foothill Park resident only
• keep Foothills Park for Palo Alto residents only
• KEEP FOOTHILLS PARK FOR POLO ALTO RESIDENTS ONLY.
• Keep masses out of Park.
• Keep the Foothill Park residents only.
• Limit Foothills park residents on weekends.
• Make Foothills Park be for Palo Alto residents only
• More green areas.
• More off leash dog areas
• More parks
• More space for dogs to be off leash.
• More tennis courts
• open the park and open the public toilet with covid-care
• Please restrict non palo alto citizen's access to foothill park or come up with a method to guarantee palo
alto citizen's access to foothill park all the time as before.
• Put Foothill Park back to the way it was
• Reclaim control of Foothill Park
• Re-close Foothills Park to non-residents. It's turned into a mob scene, parking is jammed so frequently that
PA residents (who paid for it and still pay 100% of maintenance & fire protection) can't use it anymore.
• Recreation options.
• Resident only foothill park/Safe environment/Stanford Univ. is not your enemy. They are helping PA
• RESTORING FOOTHILLS PARK TO PALO ALTANS.
• Revise the recent change to Foothill Park, to allow only a certain number of public visitors per day. The
park and nature preserve will be ruined if there is unlimited access and use by the general public. Numbers
have been through the roof already, and that's not fair to the animals and nature that call the park home. If
the city must allow the public, then some sensible rules should be put in place to put the health and well-
being of Foothill Park first.
• Stop fighting about FOOTHILLS park-get it open to all. Pretty gross & petty.
• tennis court and swimming pool
C ITY SERVICES , UTILITIES AND AMENITIES
• Buildout Fiber to the Premises (FTTP)
• Center for information to be available
• Change the library hold & pick up process implemented since covid. The four step process - place hold, get
notice of hold ready, schedule appt, pick up books - is onerous and prevents us from actually being able to
get books
• City Owned Fiber Internet
• City-owned fiber to the home
• city-owned last mile Internet hookups
• City-wide fiber internet. Bury the overhead powerlines.
• Deliver affordable fiber to all multi-family dwellings. Honestly, I can't believe that we don't have this
already given Palo Alto's role in technology. I would vote for ANY candidate for City Council who promised
to make this a top priority.
• Enforce mandatory removal of cars from street on "street cleaning days". To o many cars parked forever
on street and city does not tow during street cleaning so street cleaning cleans the center of the street and
does NOTHING for leaves & ... in gutter. Tow cars parked in the way of street cleaners! (Protect R1!)
• Free or low-cost of high speed internet access
• Gigabit internet
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
75
• HAVING A FUNCTIONING RECYCLING CENTER.
• I use SCC Libraty in Los Altos. Locatate a library satellite near Gunn High School. There was once one at
old Terman School now Fletcher
• Internet speed could be greatly improved. Affordable housing.
• Less blackout, reliable electricity
• Make life easier for elderly males-On call or scheduled city cab service-
• More city jobs and apprentice programs.
• Move our libraries system into Santa Clara county libraries system.
• Municipal Fiber Broadband
• Open the animal shelter for shots and surgeries.
• Pay more attention to taxpayer funded services. They are paid for by taxpayers
• Pick up compost materials and trash at our driveway (have to take them down to the cul-de-sac now).
• Promote affordable fast internet to home
• Remove 5G cell towers and deny further 5G permits.
• Re-open library
• Restore AA access to Lucie Stern Community center.
• SUPPORT THE CREATION OF A PALO ALTO MUSEUM.
• Trim my city trees
• Underground our electric lines.
• UTILITY CITY OWNED INTERNET FIBRE PRICED <$60/MCH.
A DDRESS HOMELESSNESS
• A plan for the Homeless/campers on El Camino
• Address the parked RV trailers so many communities have gone bad and we are headed there.
• Better services for the homeless and unhoused
• Care for homeless
• Do not allow people to sleep in their RVs and leave trash in front of my house!!!!
• During this COVID period we are seeing an increase in the number of homeless in our downtown as well as
an increase in those living in campers and cars. This is heartbreaking and certainly needs to addressed for
the safety of all.
• Enforce the 72 hour Parking limit on major roads like El Camino. Remove the RVs that is becoming a dire
situation and creating encampments near residential neighborhood. This is creating safety and hazard
issues along with crime. Discouraging shopping and use of commercial business. . Please engage Stanford
University-and take action otherwise this will threaten the vibrancy of Palo Alto. This will start driving out
residences. We are looking to leave because the city and police are not willing to protect the
neighborhoods and. Enforce the laws. Crime is increasing.
• Enforce the ban on RVs/trailers/sleeping on the streets!
• Fewer homeless people in the streets.
• Find compassionate solutions for the homeless population
• Finding solutions for homelessness (including RVs on streets)
• Get rid of all the RV Trailers taking over the neighborhood!
• Get the people living in RVs on economy Housing!!!
• Global solution to homeless problem.
• helping the homeless more
• Homeless people issues (especially along El Camino)
• Housing for homeless.
• I respect fiscal responsibility/also very very upset w/ the unsanitary conditions of vehicle dwellers on El
Camino. Shut it down.
• I would like to see the homeless taken care of and off the streets and RV's off the El Camino
• Less homeless people in parks meant for children.
• relocate homeless RV's
• Remove Campers along El Camino, bikers don't belong on sidewalks.
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
76
• Remove motorhomes and trailers parked on city streets
• Too man RV's Parking in the streets.
S ENSE OF COMMUNITY /COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES
• Community - lots of self isolated people that are motivated by self interest and not being neighborly. We
should consider having neighborhood programs and fostering community initiatives (eg food drives,
charitable giving, community improvement) to bring neighborhoods more common sense of purpose and
responsibility to each other
• Create more opportunities for community connection & welcome diversity.
• Diversity
• Diversity of the residents
• Diversity.
• I would like to see more connectivity within the community.
• Improve community engagement among neighbors
• Increase the economic diversity of the population
• LESS ELITIST.
• less old, white, 'we're rich and snobby' pretentious attitude
• Lost more/ improve quality of city-sponsored events, like the chili festival.
• Make it welcoming people from diverse background
• More community building among the people.
• more community events to get to know neighbors
• more community events with notification of them
• more cultural diversity
• more cultural institutions and events
• more diversity and affordable housing
• More inclusive and outgoing - seems like city govt is a tight, small club; ditto for school parent
organizations; police not very friendly for a relatively small an d safe city; relatively few options for public
arts and activities, etc.
• More music concerts in the park & theatre(musical).
• More things to do
• newcomer groups
• Organize a volunteer event to plant trees after the wild fires or around Palo Alto city limits
• Overcome NIMBYism and be more welcoming to a greater range of residents, including supporting more
housing development
• Palo Alto feels elitist to me. Increase diversity.
• Quality street entertainment.
• WHEN A CITY TREE NEEDS REPLACEMENT, ALLOW RESIDENT CHOICES.
I MPR OVEMENTS FOR WALKING AND BIKI NG
• better "highspeed" bike commute options. Today if i want to ride to work I hit stop sign after stop sigh OR I
have to ride on busy "expressway" streets with cars moving 60mph+. I'd like an efficient corridor that
keeps cyclists safe and separated (somewhat) from motor vehicles and provides for more efficient bike
travel. If this were available I would ride to work far more often (like daily, whether permitting)
• better repair of sidewalks
• Better support of safe, nondriving forms of transportation.
• Bike lanes on El Camino Real- Norv's.
• BIKE ROUTES WITHOUT CAR TRAFFIC, E.G ALONG CREEKS. REPLACE DIESEL CALTRAIN W/ "GREEN GOAT"
ELECTRIC LOCOMOTIVE UNTIL RAIL IS ELECTRIFIED.
• bike trail
• EASIER COMMUTE FOR PEOPLE WHO DON NOT OWN A CAR.
• easier to report trouble spots, including sidewalks that need repair
• Enforcing rules of the road for bicycles. It is not being done.
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
77
• Fix Sidewalks.
• Keep in mind that not everyone in this town is 30/40 years old and able to walk/bike everywhere. You
don't have to be that much older (especially by the 50s) for hip, knee and other joint issues to kick in -
especially if you've been athletic in younger years. I see a lot of decisions which presume that residents are
capable of walking long distances when that is often not the case - without being defined as "disabled".
• More bike lanes would be wonderful.
• More bike paths.
• More bike routes
• More paved sidewalks! The neighborhood we live in (Green Acres, north of Juan Briones Elementary
school) does not have enough paved sidewalks. I think there's plenty of space to install paved sidewalks in
this neighborhood, and that would benefit the quality of life greatly.
• Repair crumbling sidewalks
• Stop prioritizing adult bicyclists and the street obstructions they demand.
P UBLIC TRANSPORTATION
• Better in town public transportation.
• Better public transportation
• Better transportation options for those who cannot drive in particular, but for all residents too so as to
reduce single occupancy driving.
• Connect Cal train to bus service or increase parking. Male bullet train all the time every hour.
• Continues train service to SF
• Do a better job with public transportation.
• Expand free shuttle for high school students
• Have consistent scheduling for free shuttle; focus to affordability to live in Palo Alto.
• having a very usable bus system
• Make products market and bus service nearly my senior apartment building.
• More Bus stops near Residence.
• More buses. There are places you can only get to by car. I think that everyone sho uld be able to take a bus
and get to where they want to go with only a little walkings.
• More convenient FREE shuttles.
• More convenient public transportation
• Provide a way for workers to enter and exit the city without the use of cars.
• Public transportation.
• put the train underground
• Transportation options for Seniors
• Underground the trains
L OWER TAXES AND /OR UTILITY COSTS
• Affordability.
• Change electrical pricing so partially electric homes pay less than natural gas homes. So, add an electric
appliance and pay less per kWh of electricity.
• I've lived in Palo Alto over thirty years and for me the escalating seasonal cost of utilities clearly should be
curtailed as should the number of workers in the public utility system.
• Lower property tax
• lower tax
• Lower tax
• Lower utility bills; especially when you live on a fixed income.
• Lower utility rates, especially water
• payless in utilities and keep the library and foothill parks only Palo alto residents
• Reduce Local Property Taxes
• Reduce property taxes
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
78
• Reduce Property Taxes to offset elevated property valuations. The property taxes are the sole reason for us
considering moving.
• Reduce taxes
• reduce the property taxes
• reduce the utility bill
• We should not pay for all utilities.
L OCAL BUSINESSES , RETAIL /SHOPP ING OPTIONS
• Allow a private gym establishment like Equinox to open
• Attract more business or keep them in Palo Alto
• Better live music venues, bring back outdoor dining.
• Bring back and support more small businesses (Cal Ave, Downtown) to the downtown areas, for
shopping/restaurants, services. etc. On Cal Ave I still miss Cho's dumplings, the Village Arts Stationary
store, the photography store - it is so much more bland now with fitness, chains, and hair salons.
• Bring back shopping: gift shops, boutiques, bakery, etc. Clean sidewalks, create charm, etc.
• Bring more arts, theater productions, etc.
• Clean up of Camino ugly business.
• improve the look and feel and variety of businesses in south palo alto on el camino
• Keep things that have history and character like Stanford Theatre Frys.
• Make it easy for opening small stores.
• More music venues downtown that are not just jazz/classical. Need Americana/folk/roots music.
• more restaurants
• More retail businesses and affordable housing for city workers and teachers
• Open the businesses on university and allow dining at the parklets. The vibrancy of our town and economic
health is at stake!
• Refocus on local, unique small businesses & less building.
• Return shopping-less restaurants-create charm! Clean sidewalks.
• Supermarket/s, less riding bikes in downtown and more convenient parking.
• Supporting our independent restaurants and retailers to get back downtown vibrancy.
D OWNTOWN IMPROVEMENTS
• A city less spread out, with a downtown rich in places of art and cultural events
• Allowing business in downtown to have tables on streets again
• Close off down town to traffic. Wash the sidewalks and remove homeless
• close university ave and California ave to car traffic
• Closing Downtown & Cal Ave for restaurants and better retail. Bike only streets to/from schools
• I'd love more pedestrian spaces (e.g. closing Cal Ave and Univ Ave to cars permanently)
• Keep retail on the ground floor of downtown!
• Keep the city clean and businesses vibrant. The open streets program on Cal Ave and University Ave was
good. Make it permanent. Many of the questions in this survey were hard to answer since most of the
services ( library, arts, recreation, etc) were closed due to the COVID res trictions.
• Keep University Ave and California Ave vehicle free, there's a much nicer feeling to be able to walk, eat
outside and socialize.
• Make University Ave a walking promenade (no cars)
P ERMITS , CODE /ORDINANCE ENFORCEMENT
• Easier permits, more places allowed for night time astronomy in parks/ open spaces. Also stop package
theft!
• Enforce leaf blower ordinances.
• Enforce the gas blower ban
• Faster permit approvals.
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
79
• Fix insane building code and permit process, and the horrendous anti-business and anti-development
atmosphere. You pretend to be green and progressive, but low income or minorities must drive 50 miles to
work here and can't dream of living here. Don't do stupid "affordable housing," just let people build, run
businesses here. If that leads to traffic and parking, heck the more incentive to use public/bike. Maintain
focus on safety, don't let a crime spiral start. Fix disastrous 10 year wait for airport hangars! Triple the
rents, incent the people using it for storage and dead planes to leave. You get a lot of money, airport gets
more functional. Win win!
• For the city to enforce codes on residential construction
• I wish that Palo Alto would enforce its gas leaf blower ordinance. It impedes my family's quality of life to
be surrounded by gas leaf blowers -- I hear them in my home office, when I am out walking, when I go
biking with my children, etc. The noise is intolerable, and the air is not healthy to b reathe when they are
blowing in my area. Palo Alto has had a law banning gas blowers for the last 15 years, and if it would just
enforce the law, it would hugely improve the quality of life in Palo Alto. It would also advance Palo Alto's
goals of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. As I understand it, Palo Alto issued just 1 warning and 1
citation for gas blowers in the entire city all of last year, despite hundreds o f complaints. Enforcement is
virtually non-existent. I do not understand why Palo Alto does not enforce the laws that it passes.
• Make code enforcement of leaf blowers, residential AND COMMERCIAL, along with construction hours and
after hours noise issues, more of a priority and make it easier for a citizens' complaints to be addressed.
Who really should a citizen contact in order for their complaint to be taken care of? Police dept. or Code
Enforcement office? Along with this, when large commercial proj ects are being built close to an adjoining
neighborhood, as an example, within the Stanford Research Park, there should be more awareness made
as to the resulting impact of that project upon that neighborhood! The neighborhood should have a voice!
For example, SandHill Properties promised the adjoining neighbors along Matadero Ave, the creation of a
berm or buffer for the impact of their new building, at 3251 Hanover, upon those n eighbors. After
construction started, they eliminated the creation of a berm. This is so typical of SandHill. As you can see,
I am very frustrated with the lack of code enforcement by the city. I live close to the Stanford Research
Park. Should I really think that a code enforcement officer will address a noise or leaf blower issue after
hours? Say on a Sunday or at 11:30 at night?
• Make it easier to get rid of California Land Oak Trees.
• Planning for remodeling be more flexible.
• SIMPLIFY PERMITTING AND BUILDING REPAIR PROCESS
• Streamline & speed up the building permitting process
• Streamline building/ remodeling reviews.
• Streamline the permit process so that people can fix up these old house.
• The building department needs to offer a way to help people with building requirements and issues. They
are very difficult to work with; I have had issues with different projects over the years and find it difficult to
get answers from the City.
S CHOOLS , PROGRAMS FOR CHILDREN
• (1)Better run public schools and more recreational opportunity for youth (2) address the homeless
problem
• (Bring Children back to school)
• A better variety of programs for kids rent prices.
• After school care to be more affordable.
• For k-12 school - Raise tax on Corporations and lower tax on residents to attract more lower income and
diverse residents.
• Improve rigor of PAUSD academics.
• In-person Education for kids.
• Invest in local public education.
• Invest more in K-12 education
• more public service for children like public preschools, sports and arts programs.
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
80
O VERALL APPEARANCE , CLEANLINESS , UPKEEP
• Build beautiful buildings.
• Clean the sidewalks, curbs-so much garbage.
• Clean up the freeway entrance trash.
• cleaner streets (more control on parking violations), trees maintenance, less traffic, less restau rants, more
convenient stores. Palo Alto can not claim its reputation otherwi se.
• Enforce cleaning around RV park on streets.
• Improving the maintainance and aesthetics of streets and public landscaping bordering streets. In many
cases, this relates to affordable housing issues. e.g. remove RVs camped on El Camino and other city
streets by offering other solutions.
• Keep clean Streets & sidewalks/house all homeless!
• More efficient tree care
• more trees
• More trees in mid to south Palo Alto
• Replace various street trees with magnolias and redwoods
• some trees died in the community garden and removed, please plant more trees
• Stop allowing such ugly architecture
• Tree and sidewalk upkeep.
P ARKING CONCERNS
• free up the need of permit parking
• Make downtown parking easier
• MAKE PARKING AVAILABLE TO WORKERS.
• Make the parking situation easier/less costly for low income workers. When we are in a drought actually
fine people who are still watering their lawns too frequently.
• More downtown parking.
• More parking downtown
• more public parking
• New buildings need adequate parking. Townhouse parking crowds our streets.
• Public residential parking is a mess-very limited availability.
R EDUCE NOISE
• Airplane noise: there are way too many planes flying over the city, which not only mak ing the outdoor
activities not as pleasant as they should be, but also making people distracted even indoor.
• better noise restrictions (e.g. loud motorcycles and cars)
• FIX THE AIRPLANE NOISE OVER CRESCENT PARK! It has been years and there has been a lot of
handwringing, but we still get woken up by commercial airliners EVERY NIGHT that fly at 3000 ft directly
over our houses.
• Less aircraft noise once the Pandemic subsides and traffic increases. I have lived here for for over 40 years
and the aircraft noise had become difficult to take. The City Council paints the picture that they have no
control over the path and that's weak. We used to be a city that depended on the ability to get on an
airplane and see our associates/customers on a moment's notice and the shift is radical, so most of the
travel has been curtailed.
• Less noise - I live right next to Emhazades - it's quite noisy.
• quieter
• reduce air traffic - it's gotten terrible (before COVID) and the one thing that is likely to make me move away
from Palo Alto
• reduce the environmental noises, such as new constructions,.
• reduce the noise of Caltrain horns at signal crossings
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
81
O THER
• Allow Castilleja to modernize their campus.
• Approve the Castilleja project! This has lasted FAR too long, and the school has demonstrated its ability to
mitigate all impacts.
• At 88yrs old my health prevents most activities.
• change political climate from flaming liberal to conservative.
• Create a more cooperative relationship with east Palo alto to raise their standard of living an d the appeal
of the "east side".
• Expected Vaccine distribution.
• Fewer people.
• Financial support for pets in need - as promised!
• force new jobs to leave and reverse the trend of increasing population density
• Give me work.
• Improve quality of public art.
• Improve the livability of palo alto
• living wages for those of us who earn less than $100.000 a year
• MORE SURVEYS!
• NEGOTIATE LESS LOW FLYING AIRCRAFT TO SFO.
• OPEN UP!!!
• Reduce Black & Hispanic racial biases-increase really affordable public housing
• Reduction in size of city state-and [?].
• Return to self-sufficient town('70s'), QUIT A BAG!
• Settle train crossings question.
• shorter surveys and better sidewalks
• Talk about the high pension costs that are driving out other spending.
• The art commission needs to choose more art and less idiotic things.
• Vaccinate all of us ASAP against COVID-19.
• Weird to say, I am new to the area. I would suggest tires for bike programs and diversity.
• Why are you conducting this survey in a Pandemic about getting together and services wh en we are at
home sheltered?
• Work on eliminating staff at huge pensions.
N OTHING /D ON’T KNOW
• na
• No change needed.
• Don't know.
• Maintain status quo.
• Don't know.
• I have loved living here the past 12 years downtown. You do a great job!
• NO IDEA.
• To old to thinging this.
• None
• N.A.
• Difficult to answer
• I guess I am happy enough.
• Appreciate all we have
• You are doing great I have no suggestions at this time
• Stay afloat-- I know this year has been hard in so many ways, including financially.
• No idea
• Don't know
• I have only lived here 2 weeks, so I can't really say. People seem friendly and op en to international people
(I am a US citizen, though I have lived abroad for 10 yrs)
• nothing
• no ideal
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
82
Question 18: As a resident of Palo Alto, what one thing do you believe the
City does well and would want to maintain?
P ARKS , OPEN SPACE , AND NATURAL ENV IRONMENT
• *PARKS !!*
• Access to local parks.
• beautiful parks and wonderful libraries
• Cares for trees.
• City has nice parks, definitely keep that up
• City Park System with variety of recreation possibilities.
• city parks and activities
• City Parks and increased investment in libraries to broaden their offerings
• CITY PARKS.
• CITY PARKS-BETTER UP-KEEP NEEDED.
• Cleanliness of the streets of Palo Alto.
• Emphasize parks and open spaces--with the caveat that protecting the Foothills preserve needs to be
significantly improved now that it is broadly open
• enviroment
• Environment
• excellent parks
• Excellent parks and open spaces
• Focus on the environment
• Foothill Park
• Foothills Park a real gem and should carefully opened up to others with a plan to minimize damage from
overuse
• General greenery and outdoor spaces like parks
• Good attention to the natural environment.
• Good maintenance of landscape and trees in general. Good city utilities management not for getting good
schools.
• Good parks
• Good parks.
• Great neighborhood parks!
• Great outdoor spaces -- parks, trails, and foothills
• Green environment of Palo Alto- Parks, paths and street trees
• green environment, nice and safe neighborhood
• Green space
• Green space and trees
• Green trees.
• I like the development of the pollinator gardens over the last few years. I helped plant on Guinda St. and by
the library. I hope you continue to support this program.
• I like the parks
• I love our network of parks. I am happy we hav e our own utility company. This was a difficult survey to
respond to, given that we've been in SIP for 10 months!
• It is wonderful that we work so hard to protect the trees, both street trees and heritage trees. Our urban
forest is the thing I like most about Palo Alto, and it really makes Palo Alto unique.
• It's parks & libraries.
• It's parks are amazing and the weekly refuse collections are also great, keep up the great work!
• Keep city parks clean, repaired and change more for non-residents to foothill park.
• keep up the parks
• LOTS OF GREEN.
• love our open space (baylands, pearson, foothill) and trails; wish there were more!
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
83
• Lovely parks and open spaces. I hope Palo Alto is able to cap visi tors to Foothill park at a low level (e.g.
only what is supported by the parking lots and NOT parking along the roadsides) now that it is open to al l.
• Maintain parks
• Maintain parks and recreations areas.
• Maintain the open spaces
• Maintain the parks and the bike paths, this allows for the opportunities to use your bike to go t o different
things.
• Maintaining all the parks and libraries
• Maintaining and promoting its parks and open spaces
• Maintaining green spaces
• maintaining preserves - especially Foothill Park, Byxbee park, Aratstradero
• Maintaining the # of parks and library services.
• Maintains Trees. This survey was way too long! Sheesh!
• Maintenance of local trees
• Maintenance of public parks
• Natural Environment.
• Natural preserves.
• Nature preservation
• Open & green spaces.
• Open natural space
• open space and natural environment
• Open space preservation
• Open space, Parks, Libraries.
• Open space/parks/libraries/schools.
• Open spaces
• Open spaces & parks are beautiful. Libraries are amazing. Organized garbage pick up is so good compared
to other towns we've lived in.
• Open Spaces, Parks, etc.
• Outdoor recreation opportunities and venues (parks, open spaces, bike-friendly routes)
• overall appearance of greenery along streets and parks
• PARK ACCESS.
• Park and open space
• Park and open space.
• park maintenance
• park services
• Parks
• Parks
• parks
• Parks
• Parks
• parks
• parks
• Parks
• Parks
• Parks & open space.
• Parks & Recreation
• Parks & recreation including libraries.
• Parks and biking friendly.
• Parks and Libraries
• Parks and libraries
• Parks and libraries are top notch
• Parks and natural environment are well maintained.
• Parks and nature
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
84
• Parks and Open Space
• Parks and open space.
• Parks and open spaces
• Parks and open spaces for hiking & biking etc.
• Parks and Rec department does a good job. The city needs to put some more money into maintaining
Rinconada Pool though.
• Parks and Rec is great.
• Parks and Recreation
• Parks and recreation
• Parks and recreation.
• Parks and street trees. Free downtown and CA Ave parking.
• PARKS ARE BEAUTIFUL.
• parks are clean, well maintained and nice
• parks are nice
• Parks are nice and clean.
• Parks are well maintained. (Though we need a better system for managing time on tennis courts). Also love
feeling safe and knowing we have a great police force.
• PARKS WITHIN NEIGHBORHOODS.
• Parks!
• Parks!
• Parks, open space, safe biking
• Parks, open spaces, baylands, etc
• Parks, open spaces, landscaping, walking paths and bike lanes.
• Parks, Playground.
• Parks, recreational services, environment.
• Parks, sidewalks, and environment
• Parks.
• Parks.
• Parks.
• PARKS.
• Parks.
• Parks.
• Parks. We need to have parks and open spaces.
• Personally, I am delighted that Foothill Park is FINALLY open to non -resident people. Also that Buena Vista
mobile home park is still in Palo Alto.
• PICKLEBALL COURTS AT MITCHELL PARK.
• pleasant environment, e.g. parks, trees,
• Preserving and maintaining natural spaces
• Preserving trees.
• Protecting and restoring green spaces and natural environments.
• quality of parks and green spaces
• Quality of the parks.
• Really nice parks, public safety
• reserve the nature
• Taking care of our trees.
• Taking care of parks
• Tennis courts
• The city does a great job at maintaining our parks, trees and natural env ironment. These are all key to Palo
Alto's culture and natural beauty.
• The excellent park and library services.
• The open spaces are very good.
• the parks and open nature areas
• the parks are outstanding and very important
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
85
• The parks are typically well maintained
• The parks.
• The street trees
• The trees are greenery.
• The trees.
• Tree maintenance
• Trees
• Trees, Natural settings - Love F.H park, mad parking there and Bayshore is lousy.
• Upload and maintain-it's "built environment". Very good at trees too!!
• urban forest
• Variety & quality of parks.
• Well cared for parks.
S AFETY SERVICES
• AMBULANCE SERVICE.
• Beautiful environment
• CERT
• Community safety.
• Crime control
• crime control
• Emergency preparedness: police and fire work very well w volunteers
• emergency services
• Emergency services.
• Ensure safety
• Excellent police fire protection & best sanitation crew in the country.
• feeling of safety in palo alto
• feeling of safety, cleanliness of the city, community feeling
• feels safe.
• fire department.
• Its natural environment
• Keep the city safe and beautiful
• keeping crime rate low
• Keeping the community safe.
• Maintains the parks nicely
• palo alto citizen's safety
• Palo Alto Fire and Police Departments are both excellent
• peace
• PEACE & ORDER.
• Police & fire dept.
• Police and safety! Thank You!
• Police force
• Police Force - Yeah.
• POLICE PRESENCE & FUNDING.
• police response time
• Police support
• Policing seems pretty good
• Providing a safe place to live.
• public safety (fire and police)
• Public safety quality (police, fire etc)
• PUBLIC SAFETY SERVICES.
• Public safety, (fire and police), street tree program
• Public Safety.
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
86
• Public safety. We feel safe here and want to continue to do so.
• Safe community
• Safe neighborhoods
• safe, active environment
• safety
• safety
• safety
• safety
• safety
• Safety
• Safety
• safety - crime
• Safety - Police and Fire
• Safety.
• Safety.
• Safety.
• safety.
• Taking care of natural preserves
• The police.
L IBRARY
• good libraries and art programs
• Great Paramedic Service
• Great schools, good resources, good community of people.
• I LOVE our local libraries and use them very frequently
• I love the library system.
• Its libraries
• libraries
• Libraries
• Libraries
• libraries
• libraries
• libraries
• Libraries
• Libraries
• Libraries
• Libraries
• libraries
• libraries (although access during COVID-19 is challenging)
• Libraries and city recreation services
• Libraries are phenomenal!! Thank You. Create a citizen-focused development plan for the Fry's location
that includes an abundance of affordable housing gardens.
• Libraries, EMT, Police.
• Libraries, parks and schools
• libraries, parks.
• Libraries, Rec. dept., Utility billing, Street cleaning, Parks.
• LIBRARIES, SCHOOLS K-12 MODERATE GROWTH.
• Libraries.
• Libraries.
• LIBRARIES.
• Libraries.
• Libraries.
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
87
• Libraries.
• Library
• Library
• Library
• Library and art center
• Library and park services
• Library and parks are important public services.
• Library and rec dept services
• Library services are very good
• Library services; fire safety
• Library service--though it's limited right now & somewhat difficult to access. If we may have 2 things to
mention, the other would be that the City continue with its weekly updates re. Covid pandemic....info is
always read in our household.
• Library system
• Library system, all branches open
• LIBRARY!
• Library, parks, schools
• Library, schools, parks, activity programs.
• Maintain libraries and parks
• neighborhood library branches; clean parks; good walking & biking around town
• Our Libraries.
• Planting and maintaining trees
• Safety
• The libraries are very good!
• the library
• The library and park systems are fantastic here.
• The library is pretty great. More affordable camp options.
• The library system has been excellent in adapting during COVID-19
• The public libraries are outstanding. We also look forward to the re-opening of the Junior Museum and
Zoo.
• Vibrant, diverse library services.
U TILITIES
• City owned utilities
• City services such as utilities and parks
• City utilities and parks/natural areas
• City Utilities.
• City utility services
• Close to my job and the water and the utility is good.
• General services (i.e., Palo Alto Utilities, fire/police, medical)
• Good public utilities
• Good public utilities and maintenance of roads/sidewalks.
• Good utilities and public safety.
• Having their own utility company with sustainable options
• I admire our ability to utilize 100% renewable resources for electricity
• It's great that the city owns and operate the utilities, and keeping the cost low.
• It's own utility company.
• Keep Palo Alto utilities.
• Manage utilities.
• Owning utilities.
• Palo Alto Utilities service is doing well.
• Provide utilities and garbage collection.
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
88
• public utilities are good, but need better/universal high speed internet
• Public utilities.
• Utilities
• utilities
• utilities
• Utilities and cultural opportunities
• UTILITIES AND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT.
• Utilities and recreation services
• UTILITIES AND SERVICES.
• Utilities are a good value. Overpayments should be returned to residents.
• Utilities are done pretty well
• utilities are excellent
• Utilities management.
• Utilities work quite well.
• Utilities! Libraries!
• Utilities, public safety
• Utilities.
• Utilities. FIBER PLEASE
• Utilities. Schools.
• Utility Dept.
• Utility independence from PG&E
• Utility service and responses.
• Utility services
• Utility services
• UTILITY SERVICES & PUBLIC SAFETY (POLICE & FIRE).
• Utility services. The infrastructure nobody notices until it breaks.
S CHOOLS AND EDUCAT ION
• education
• Education
• Education quality.
• Education.
• Education. Excellent teachers and curriculum
• Educational system
• Excellence in educational opportunities for all ages
• Good schools
• good schools
• Good schools.
• Great schools and public facilities including parks and libraries
• Great Schools.
• Great schools.
• Great services for children! I love the Palo Alto libraries, the Junior museum, the recreational programs,
and the various parks and open spaces. Palo Alto provides great services for kids!
• I love the schools. Thank you!
• It's schools and adult educational programs.
• K-12 Education
• k-12 Schooling
• Maintain school system quality
• Public education
• Public education and public library services are critical
• Public education.
• Public facilities (schools, libraries, and parks).
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
89
• Public school quality
• public schools
• Public Schools.
• Quality of public schools. We have been very happy with elementary and middle schools so far!
• Quality of schools( when in person)
• Quality schools
• school district
• School education/bring children back to school.
• Schools
• Schools
• Schools
• Schools, Libraries.
• Schools, Libraries.
• Schools, parks.
• Schools, parks.
• Schools.
• Schools..
• Schools/education opportunities.
• Supporting education.
• The educational values.
• The city does schools and utilities very well.
• The elementary schools are great!
• The public schools. The quality of education at Pally is by far the most valuable public service.
• The quality of residential neighbours and education.
• The schools.
S ENSE OF COMMUNITY , COM MUNITY ACTIVITIES , AND REC REATION
• Recreation [?] and opportunities.
• Activities for children K-12 focus of our children. Good Job.
• Friendly Atmosphere.
• Palo Alto offers great Arts & Culture opportunities.
• Farmers markets.
• Resend street art was interesting and encouraging to young participants.
• Neighborhood involvement.
• You have wonderful classes and community recreation.
• Arts and culture, Parks.
• Farmers Market.
• access to various recreational centers and parks
• cultural and art activities..
• Lucie Stern community center and all the activities/classes/theater shows that happen in that complex.
• Rents out space at Cubberley for a variety of activities and programs.
• The downtown Saturday market is often one of the highlights of my week
• The City's approach to pickleball has been great.
• Diversity of residential population is welcomed.
• A feeling of community-- maybe it's just here in Midtown, but when there's no COVID, I love waving at my
neighbors, having block parties, etc.
• I appreciate the city's efforts to provide opportunities for involvement for people of all ages in civic,
cultural, and recreational life.
• Recreation Programs
• diversity and cultur
• Cultural events
• Clean up days.
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
90
• Affording excellent recreational and civic opportunities
• community in general
• Arts and art lesson opportunities
• Recreational facilities
• farmers markets
C LEANLINESS OF COMMUNITY
• clean and neat streets.
• clean and safe
• Clean green environment friendly and safe.
• Clean streets
• clean streets
• Clean streets and town.
• Clean streets.
• cleaning up street garbage
• Cleanliness, police service and fire stations
• General cleanliness, the safety of the community.
• keep the street clean
• Keeping city clean
• Keeping our city clean & free from trash.
• keeping the neighborhood parks clean and safe.
• Keeping the streets & sidewalks clean. It's a very clean & well kept city with very few exceptions.
• Keeping things tidy.
• maintaining a clean, safe, walkable community
• Overall, the city is clean.
• Quiet and clean environment.
• The city does a good job with keeping it clean
• The cleanliness of the environment
• The parks & streets are super clean! Great job!
• Trash and litter pick up.
A BILITY TO GIVE INPUT AND COMMUNICATION WITH GOVERNMENT
• Adequate info on what's going on in city govt from local papers and news like PA Weekly and PA Online.
• Asking residents to participate in council meetings
• attending to feedback if residents
• Communicate to residents
• Communicate what is happening with utilities, recycling, etc.
• Communication as well as opportunities to participate in local governmental issues, education, cultural
events and the arts.
• Communication with citizens
• Community engagement.
• community surveys
• engagement of residents
• engaging residents
• Good job being organized and communicating information
• High standards in accepting community input without slowing down the process.
• Informs citizenry.
• listening to residents ideas/suggestions
• Listens to residents
• Open Government/ Public Safety.
• Providing useful information re public services, etc.
• Response to community member inquiries. It is excellent.
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
91
• Sharing/notifying City's decision/directions immediately. I believe the transparency around public services
is the key to the trustful community.
• SURVEYS.
G ENERAL C ITY SERVICES
• Animal Shelter and services (Pets in need now).
• basic city services
• Basic city services work pretty well.
• Cit services.
• DRINKING WATER.
• Drinking/tap water is absolutely amazing
• Excellent recycle programs and education (best at early elementary and high school level)
• Garbage Collection
• Good water quality
• Its recycling program is top-notch.
• Most services that are needed on a daily basis.
• municipal services are good
• Over all city services
• Palo Alto has a good animal services division. Support this to the fullest extent possible
• Public services and amenities
• Public works
• Quality service
• Recycle program.
• Recycling
• Recycling Waste Removal.
• The city government does an excellent job of managing services (utilities, trash, street cleaning, library).
• The extra pick up on garbage day
• Waste management and recycling.
• water quality
• Weekly garbage, recycling and compost pickups and street sweeping.
S TREET MAINTENANCE
• A luxury to have street sweepers, maintaining parks except for Foothill Park now due to increased usage.
• cleaning streets and fast emergencies.
• Maintenance of city streets.
• Maintenance of streets, parks, grocery.
• Our streets are well maintained and and the natural surrounding, trees, and city parks are beautiful.
• Parking downtown being free and accessible, maintenance of city streets.
• Road maintenance
• Street and park upkeep, utilities availability, solar deployment
• street cleaning
• STREET CLEANING.
• Street cleanliness.
• Street maintenance and cleaning
• Street maintenance and services, utilities excellent.
• street pavement
• street sweeping
• Streets Cleanness.
E ASE OF BICYCLE TRAVEL
• Access to Bike paths is easiest.
• bike paths, roads, and boulevards, love that
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
92
• Bike routes
• Bike-ability. It makes this a great place to live, please keep that up!
• Biking infrastructure
• City is very bikeable
• good biking environment
• Keep developing bike boulevards
• Maintaining bike lanes all over the city
• The city is very bike friendly so I ride my bike to work and to do much of my grocery shopping.
G OVERNMENT /LEADERSHIP
• ARCHITECTURE BOARD.
• City is well run
• Code enforcement by at least one employee-he was good.
• Excellent customer service from City staff and utility rates.
• Excellent staff response to residents.
• In the past, the city did a great job of looking ahead - city-owned utility which seems to be much better
than PG&E, designing the libraries, parks, recreational facilities; and creating vibrant retail/restaurant
areas. I'd like to see that continued forward-thinking continue. We already seem behind in an area like
fiber internet - which is not critical infrastructure. Undergrounding utilities has also disappeared - after
some areas of the city benefited from it, and to the detriment of the areas that didn't. We need to keep
pushing forward on initiatives that are designed to improve the city - and lead surrounding communities
rather than follow. That also includes thinking creatively to incorporate affordable housing.
• Response to service requests.
• Responsiveness to significant issues
• The city works hard to resolve issues.
• Transparency
E VERYTHING /GREAT PLACE TO LIVE
• All is good
• Balanced Lifestyle, regarding Parks, recreational sidewalks, downtown. I like Palo Alto and I do not where
else to reside at this time.
• City has succeeded overall in creating a great place to live.
• City is doing well in building restrictions, public safety, and utilities services. Green/natural reservation and
environmental protection are also necessary to maintain well.
• everything
• Everything is fine just the way it is.
• I think the city does the majority of things fairly well.
• I would not want to live anywhere else.
• Lots of people want to live here. Keep up those qualities - many are intangibles. Some examples - Good
schools, single family zoning, nice people, safe.
D OWNTOWN AREA
• downtown atmosphere
• DOWNTOWN CHARM.
• downtowns (of course, pre-pandemic)
• Free downtown parking and expand
• Good planning, nice downtown
• I like downtown.
• I think the City has a vibrant downtown, beautiful open space, and offers fantastic educational
opportunities.
• Keep the vibrancy of downtown - which will be a challenge post-COVID
• Maintains downtown.
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
93
• Supporting downtown businesses, both Downtown and Midtown.
• Thriving commercial area/business/ downtown clean city, nice parks, great schools.
• vibrant downtown for residents
O THER
• All the ones I marked essential
• As someone who had to learn survey design.... this survey was suboptimal
• available parking
• Buena Vista mobile home park.
• Built environment.
• Closing down University to allow the businesses the numbers of tables outdoors while we avoid indoor
dining
• Closing the streets to cars for walking and restaurants has been a real positive in 2020. I'd like to see this
continue.
• Economy.
• Good balance in quality fo life
• Green electricity
• green energy
• Healthy environment.
• I don't think I can answer that. Palo Alto has a lot of really smart people who are unwilling to compromise
because they know they know best. Our motto is, "Why shouldn't the perfect be the enemy of the good."
• Investing in community, forward thinking, anticipating future needs.
• Landscaping.
• Local newspaper Local TV Stations.
• One thing the city has done is to turn Palo Alto into a version of CANYON LANDS- But I would not care to
see it get any worse- Used to be able to see something other than tall buildings - Now the Cemetery is the
only place from which I can see the evening fog roll in-----
• Peace & quiet environment.
• Planning to replace "at grade" train crossings with safe crossings for cars, bikes and pedestrians.
• Presents well to the outside world
• Progressive outlook to protect the environment
• Protection of historic buildings- Keep this strong and make it strong!
• Providing special services and opportunity for senior citizens safety with COVID 19
• Quality employment opportunities and open space.
• Reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
• residential and public area hygiene
• Service to community
• Support for aging in place
• support of recycling and trend toward more sustainable society
• The development center, the responsiveness of planners.
• Traffic is well organized, schools are strong point, city utilities well organ ized, number of parks is plentiful.
• Working towards a long-term solution to the Chaucer-Pope bridge
D ON’T KNOW /NOTHING , NEGATIVE COMMENTS , ADDITIONAL IMPROVEMENTS
• Avoid rapid growth.
• better traffic flow management -- traffic circles in major and lesser intersections
• CONTINUE & EXPAND ELECTRIC TRANSPORTATION, EG E-BIKES.
• continue improving traffic flow
• Continue to invest in renewable, environmentally friendly energy.
• Don't know.
• Electing 'yes' folks to run the city...
• facilitate recycle programs and keep nature spaces
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
94
• focusing on keeping Palo Alto a safe place to walk around and have a family.
• Homeless services. We need to maintain what we do--Opportunity Center, Downtown Streets--and also
INCREASE--go back to our roots. We used to have a number of residen tial hotels and really try to include
and welcome our homeless citizens.
• I am sick of this city. At this time nothing. The city is refusing to support the police department and enforce
laws. Homelessness is the biggest issue right now.
• I don't know.
• Keep buildings low.
• Keep focusing on keeping city accessible by bikes, and other non-driving modes of transportation.
• Keep foothill for residents
• Keep Foothill park for residents only.
• Keep homeless population down.
• Keep neighborhoods walkable.
• Keeping utilities as inexpensive as possible
• Keeps the city feeling like a first rate community.
• less focus on business development; more attention to residential issues
• Make the City-Wide Garage Sale an annual event!
• More pedestrian and bicycle safety outreach, education, infrastructure and encouragement.
• na
• No additional subsidized rental units to ensure a safe environment. Exceptions for elderly & disabled!
• No idea.
• NO IDEA.
• no ideal
• None
• not mush comes to mind
• Not Sure.
• Nothing
• Nothing
• Nothing.
• Nothing. Will leave the state when have funds!
• overgrown vegetation from homeowner on to the sidewalk
• Please keep tree maintenance and urban canopy preservation top priority. My hometown of Newark, CA
has almost a complete lack of trees in the city and every time I visit, it feels like an utterly dismal place.
Trees really, really do make a difference!
• Police and Fire services are essential, focus on that for a change
• Recycling. I think Palo Alto needs to revive a method to collect aseptic items and styrofoam, even if th ey
don't recycle it, they could contract with other external recyclers
• Support and increase funding for public safety
• Support the parks and rec resources
• The City Counsel (sp?) certainly does very well at discussing and debating a subject to the point of d ragging
out decisions for months. I guess that is a good thing? yes/no?
• The importance of maintaining the overall beauty of our foothills and residential areas when it comes to
any new commercial and new residential construction.
• They used to provide fair priced utilities. What went wrong?
• Things are ok.
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
95
RESPONSES TO OPEN-PARTICIPATION, COMMUNITY-WIDE SURVEY
About the Open -Participation Online Survey
After the data collection period for the random-sample, mail-based survey was underway, the City
made available a web-based survey to its residents through a link on the City’s website and on social
media. Visitors to the site were able to complete the survey from January 25 - February 8, 2021 and
157 surveys were received. This report contains the results of this opt-in administration of the web-
based survey. These data were not collected through a random sample and it is unknown who in the
community was aware of the survey; therefore, a level of confidence in the representativeness of the
sample cannot be estimated. However, to reduce bias where possible, these data were weighted to
match the demographic characteristics of the 2010 Census and 2017 American Community Survey
estimates for adults in the City of Palo Alto. The results of the weighting scheme for the opt-in
survey are presented in the following table.
TABLE 88: PALO ALTO, CA 2021 WEIGHTING TABLE
Characteristic Population Norm Unweighted Data Weighted Data
Housing
Rent home 45% 20% 40%
Own home 55% 80% 60%
Detached unit* 58% 82% 63%
Attached unit* 42% 18% 37%
Race and Ethnicity
White 68% 77% 74%
Not white 32% 23% 26%
Not Hispanic 95% 95% 95%
Hispanic 5% 5% 5%
Sex and Age
Female 52% 65% 53%
Male 48% 35% 47%
18-34 years of age 22% 4% 17%
35-54 years of age 41% 29% 43%
55+ years of age 37% 67% 40%
Females 18-34 10% 2% 8%
Females 35-54 21% 21% 23%
Females 55+ 20% 42% 22%
Males 18-34 12% 2% 9%
Males 35-54 20% 7% 20%
Males 55+ 17% 26% 18%
* U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 2017 5-year estimates
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
96
Results Tables
TABLE 89: 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 22% N=34 62% N=97 15% N=24 1% N=2 0% N=0 100% N=157
Your neighborhood as a place to live 32% N=50 52% N=82 13% N=21 2% N=3 0% N=0 100% N=157
Palo Alto as a place to raise children 30% N=47 35% N=55 15% N=24 11% N=18 8% N=13 100% N=156
Palo Alto as a place to work 15% N=24 40% N=63 14% N=21 6% N=10 25% N=39 100% N=157
Palo Alto as a place to visit 11% N=17 40% N=63 38% N=60 6% N=10 5% N=7 100% N=157
Palo Alto as a place to retire 13% N=21 23% N=36 26% N=41 24% N=37 13% N=21 100% N=155
The overall quality of life in Palo Alto 13% N=21 63% N=98 18% N=28 5% N=8 1% N=1 100% N=156
TABLE 90: 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 22% N=34 62% N=97 15% N=24 1% N=2 100% N=156
Your neighborhood as a place to live 32% N=50 52% N=82 14% N=21 2% N=3 100% N=157
Palo Alto as a place to raise children 33% N=47 38% N=55 17% N=24 12% N=18 100% N=143
Palo Alto as a place to work 20% N=24 54% N=63 18% N=21 8% N=10 100% N=118
Palo Alto as a place to visit 11% N=17 42% N=63 40% N=60 6% N=10 100% N=150
Palo Alto as a place to retire 15% N=21 27% N=36 30% N=41 27% N=37 100% N=134
The overall quality of life in Palo Alto 13% N=21 63% N=98 18% N=28 5% N=8 100% N=155
TABLE 91: 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 "built environment" of Palo Alto (including overall design, buildings,
parks and transportation systems) 16% N=25 38% N=60 33% N=51 13% N=20 0% N=0 100% N=157
Overall feeling of safety in Palo Alto 29% N=46 56% N=87 14% N=21 1% N=2 0% N=0 100% N=156
Overall quality of natural environment in Palo Alto 29% N=46 60% N=94 6% N=9 5% N=7 0% N=0 100% N=157
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
97
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 health and wellness opportunities in Palo Alto 26% N=40 56% N=88 13% N=20 3% N=5 1% N=2 100% N=157
Residents' connection and engagement with their community 6% N=10 42% N=65 41% N=64 11% N=17 0% N=0 100% N=156
TABLE 92: 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 "built environment" of Palo Alto (including overall design, buildings, parks and
transportation systems) 16% N=25 38% N=60 33% N=51 13% N=20 100% N=157
Overall feeling of safety in Palo Alto 29% N=46 56% N=87 14% N=21 1% N=2 100% N=156
Overall quality of natural environment in Palo Alto 29% N=46 60% N=94 6% N=9 5% N=7 100% N=156
Overall health and wellness opportunities in Palo Alto 26% N=40 57% N=88 13% N=20 4% N=5 100% N=154
Residents' connection and engagement with their community 6% N=10 42% N=65 41% N=64 11% N=17 100% N=156
TABLE 93: 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 23% N=35 41% N=65 21% N=33 15% N=24 0% N=0 100% N=157
Remain in Palo Alto for the next five years 41% N=65 27% N=42 15% N=23 14% N=21 4% N=6 100% N=157
Recommend Palo Alto’s libraries to friends 60% N=94 21% N=32 8% N=12 3% N=5 8% N=13 100% N=157
TABLE 94: 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 23% N=35 41% N=65 21% N=33 15% N=24 100% N=157
Remain in Palo Alto for the next five years 43% N=65 28% N=42 15% N=23 14% N=21 100% N=151
Recommend Palo Alto’s libraries to friends 65% N=94 22% N=32 8% N=12 4% N=5 100% N=143
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
98
TABLE 95: QUESTION 4 - RESPONSE PERCENTAGES AND NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS INCLUDING "DON'T KNOW" RESPONSES
Please rate the job you feel the Palo Alto community does at ea ch of the
following. Excellent Good Fair Poor
Don't
know Total
Making all residents feel welcome 14% N=23 31% N=49 20% N=32 30% N=47 5% N=7 100% N=157
Attracting people from diverse backgrounds 15% N=23 23% N=35 22% N=34 35% N=55 5% N=8 100% N=156
Valuing/respecting residents from diverse backgrounds 16% N=25 28% N=44 27% N=42 23% N=36 6% N=10 100% N=157
Taking care of vulnerable residents (elderly, disabled, homeless, etc.) 4% N=6 23% N=36 37% N=58 28% N=44 8% N=13 100% N=157
TABLE 96: QUESTION 4 - RESPONSE PERCENTAGES AND NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS WITHOUT "DON'T KNOW" RESPONSES
Please rate the job you feel the Palo Alto community does at each of the following. Excellent Good Fair Poor Total
Making all residents feel welcome 15% N=23 32% N=49 21% N=32 31% N=47 100% N=150
Attracting people from diverse backgrounds 16% N=23 24% N=35 23% N=34 37% N=55 100% N=148
Valuing/respecting residents from diverse backgrounds 17% N=25 30% N=44 29% N=42 24% N=36 100% N=147
Taking care of vulnerable residents (elderly, disabled, homeless, etc.) 4% N=6 25% N=36 40% N=58 30% N=44 100% N=144
TABLE 97: 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
Overall quality of business and service establishments in Palo Alto 18% N=28 56% N=88 24% N=38 1% N=1 1% N=2 100% N=157
Variety of business and service establishments in Palo Alto 15% N=23 31% N=49 43% N=67 10% N=15 1% N=1 100% N=156
Vibrancy of downtown/commercial area 10% N=16 42% N=65 33% N=52 13% N=21 2% N=2 100% N=157
Employment opportunities 19% N=30 33% N=51 23% N=37 7% N=11 18% N=28 100% N=156
Shopping opportunities 16% N=25 51% N=79 21% N=32 8% N=13 4% N=6 100% N=155
Cost of living in Palo Alto 0% N=1 3% N=5 23% N=36 74% N=115 0% N=0 100% N=156
Overall image or reputation of Palo Alto 20% N=32 35% N=56 33% N=52 9% N=15 1% N=2 100% N=157
Ease of travel by bicycle in Palo Alto 29% N=45 33% N=51 20% N=30 11% N=17 7% N=10 100% N=155
Ease of walking in Palo Alto 34% N=53 46% N=71 16% N=26 4% N=6 0% N=0 100% N=156
Variety of housing options 2% N=3 18% N=28 30% N=46 47% N=73 4% N=7 100% N=157
Availability of affordable quality housing 1% N=2 8% N=13 11% N=18 73% N=114 6% N=9 100% N=156
Recreational opportunities 18% N=28 60% N=94 18% N=28 2% N=4 3% N=4 100% N=157
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
99
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 mental health care 2% N=3 14% N=22 15% N=24 19% N=30 50% N=78 100% N=156
Opportunities to attend cultural/arts/music activities 17% N=26 41% N=64 23% N=35 14% N=21 6% N=9 100% N=156
TABLE 98: QUESTION 5 - RESPONSE PERCENTAGES AND NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS WITHOUT "DON'T KNOW" RESP ONSES
Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Palo Alto as a whole: Excellent Good Fair Poor Total
Overall quality of business and service establishments in Palo Alto 18% N=28 57% N=88 25% N=38 1% N=1 100% N=156
Variety of business and service establishments in Palo Alto 15% N=23 32% N=49 44% N=67 10% N=15 100% N=155
Vibrancy of downtown/commercial area 11% N=16 42% N=65 34% N=52 13% N=21 100% N=154
Employment opportunities 23% N=30 40% N=51 28% N=37 8% N=11 100% N=128
Shopping opportunities 17% N=25 53% N=79 21% N=32 9% N=13 100% N=149
Cost of living in Palo Alto 0% N=1 3% N=5 23% N=36 74% N=115 100% N=156
Overall image or reputation of Palo Alto 21% N=32 36% N=56 34% N=52 9% N=15 100% N=155
Ease of travel by bicycle in Palo Alto 31% N=45 35% N=51 21% N=30 12% N=17 100% N=144
Ease of walking in Palo Alto 34% N=53 46% N=71 16% N=26 4% N=6 100% N=156
Variety of housing options 2% N=3 18% N=28 31% N=46 49% N=73 100% N=150
Availability of affordable quality housing 1% N=2 9% N=13 12% N=18 78% N=114 100% N=147
Recreational opportunities 18% N=28 61% N=94 18% N=28 2% N=4 100% N=153
Availability of affordable quality mental health care 3% N=3 28% N=22 30% N=24 39% N=30 100% N=78
Opportunities to attend cultural/arts/music activities 18% N=26 44% N=64 24% N=35 14% N=21 100% N=147
TABLE 99: 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 childcare/preschool 5% N=7 9% N=15 27% N=43 25% N=40 33% N=52 100% N=157
K-12 education 41% N=63 33% N=51 7% N=11 3% N=5 16% N=24 100% N=154
Adult educational opportunities 16% N=24 39% N=59 16% N=24 3% N=5 27% N=41 100% N=153
Opportunities to participate in social events and activities 9% N=14 41% N=63 36% N=56 7% N=11 8% N=12 100% N=156
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
100
Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Palo Alto
as a whole: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total
Openness and acceptance of the community toward people of diverse
backgrounds 15% N=24 28% N=44 20% N=32 30% N=47 6% N=9 100% N=156
Opportunities to learn about City services through social media websites
such as Twitter and Facebook 9% N=14 44% N=68 17% N=27 3% N=5 27% N=43 100% N=156
TABLE 100: 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 childcare/preschool 7% N=7 14% N=15 41% N=43 38% N=40 100% N=105
K-12 education 48% N=63 39% N=51 9% N=11 4% N=5 100% N=130
Adult educational opportunities 22% N=24 53% N=59 21% N=24 4% N=5 100% N=112
Opportunities to participate in social events and activities 10% N=14 44% N=63 39% N=56 7% N=11 100% N=144
Openness and acceptance of the community toward people of diverse backgrounds 16% N=24 30% N=44 22% N=32 32% N=47 100% N=147
Opportunities to learn about City services through social media websites such as Twi tter
and Facebook 12% N=14 60% N=68 24% N=27 4% N=5 100% N=114
TABLE 101: QUESTION 7 - RESPONSE PERCENTAGES AND NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS WITHOUT "DON'T KNOW" RESPONSES
Please indicate whether or not you have done each of the followin g in the last 12 months. No Yes Total
Used Palo Alto recreation centers or their services 65% N=101 35% N=55 100% N=157
Visited a neighborhood park or City park 6% N=9 94% N=148 100% N=157
Used Palo Alto public libraries or their services 33% N=53 67% N=105 100% N=157
Participated in religious or spiritual activities in Palo Alto 81% N=125 19% N=30 100% N=155
Attended a City-sponsored event 54% N=84 46% N=73 100% N=156
Participated in a club 75% N=118 25% N=39 100% N=157
Talked to or visited with your immediate neighbors 9% N=15 91% N=142 100% N=157
Contacted Palo Alto elected officials (in-person, phone, email or web) to express your opinion 51% N=79 49% N=76 100% N=155
Attended a local public meeting (of local elected officials like City Council or County Commissioners, advisory boards,
town halls, HOA, neighborhood watch, etc.) 50% N=78 50% N=79 100% N=157
Watched (online or on television) a local public meeting 41% N=64 59% N=93 100% N=157
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
101
Please indicate whether or not you have done each of the followin g in the last 12 months. No Yes Total
Volunteered your time to some group/activity in Palo Alto 49% N=77 51% N=80 100% N=157
Walked or biked instead of driving 10% N=16 90% N=141 100% N=157
Observed a code violation or other hazard in Palo Alto (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc.) 43% N=67 57% N=90 100% N=157
Household member was a victim of a crime in Palo Alto 90% N=142 10% N=16 100% N=157
Reported a crime to the police in Palo Alto 84% N=131 16% N=25 100% N=156
Stocked 14 days’ worth of supplies in case of a major disaster where you have no electricity, water, internet, or
telephone service 36% N=57 64% N=100 100% N=157
*This question did not have a "don't know" option.
TABLE 102: QUESTION 8 - RESPONSE PERCENTAGES AND NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS
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 4% N=6 40% N=63 29% N=46 18% N=28 9% N=14 100% N=157
The overall direction that Palo Alto is taking 5% N=8 21% N=33 34% N=53 32% N=50 7% N=11 100% N=155
The job Palo Alto government does at welcoming resident involvement 6% N=10 39% N=62 19% N=30 22% N=35 13% N=20 100% N=157
Overall confidence in Palo Alto government 5% N=8 32% N=49 28% N=44 33% N=52 2% N=3 100% N=157
Generally acting in the best interest of the community 3% N=5 38% N=60 25% N=39 28% N=44 6% N=10 100% N=157
Being honest 8% N=13 32% N=50 25% N=40 19% N=29 15% N=24 100% N=157
Being open and transparent to the public 6% N=9 29% N=46 37% N=58 21% N=33 7% N=11 100% N=157
Informing residents about issues facing the community 12% N=19 35% N=56 33% N=51 15% N=23 5% N=7 100% N=157
Treating all residents fairly 10% N=16 23% N=36 21% N=32 29% N=46 16% N=26 100% N=157
Treating residents with respect 12% N=19 32% N=50 25% N=39 19% N=29 12% N=19 100% N=156
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
102
TABLE 103: QUESTION 8 - 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 5% N=6 44% N=63 32% N=46 19% N=28 100% N=143
The overall direction that Palo Alto is taking 6% N=8 23% N=33 37% N=53 35% N=50 100% N=144
The job Palo Alto government does at welcoming resident involvement 7% N=10 45% N=62 22% N=30 25% N=35 100% N=137
Overall confidence in Palo Alto government 5% N=8 32% N=49 29% N=44 34% N=52 100% N=154
Generally acting in the best interest of the community 4% N=5 40% N=60 26% N=39 30% N=44 100% N=148
Being honest 10% N=13 38% N=50 30% N=40 22% N=29 100% N=133
Being open and transparent to the public 6% N=9 31% N=46 40% N=58 23% N=33 100% N=146
Informing residents about issues facing the community 13% N=19 37% N=56 35% N=51 15% N=23 100% N=149
Treating all residents fairly 12% N=16 28% N=36 25% N=32 35% N=46 100% N=131
Treating residents with respect 14% N=19 36% N=50 29% N=39 21% N=29 100% N=137
TABLE 104: QUESTION 9 - RESPONSE PERCENTAGES AND NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS
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 12% N=19 52% N=81 27% N=43 8% N=12 1% N=1 100% N=157
The State Government 3% N=5 43% N=67 27% N=42 20% N=32 7% N=11 100% N=157
The Federal Government 0% N=0 27% N=42 38% N=58 28% N=44 7% N=11 100% N=154
TABLE 105: QUESTION 9 - 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 12% N=19 52% N=81 28% N=43 8% N=12 100% N=156
The State Government 3% N=5 46% N=67 29% N=42 22% N=32 100% N=146
The Federal Government 0% N=0 29% N=42 40% N=58 30% N=44 100% N=143
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
103
TABLE 106: 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
Traffic enforcement 6% N=10 34% N=53 23% N=36 23% N=37 13% N=21 100% N=157
Traffic signal timing 10% N=15 36% N=56 34% N=54 18% N=28 3% N=4 100% N=157
Street repair 12% N=19 28% N=44 39% N=61 20% N=32 0% N=0 100% N=156
Street cleaning 27% N=42 49% N=78 16% N=24 6% N=9 2% N=4 100% N=157
Street tree maintenance 26% N=41 49% N=76 12% N=20 10% N=15 3% N=5 100% N=157
Sidewalk maintenance 15% N=23 38% N=60 31% N=49 14% N=21 2% N=4 100% N=157
Land use, planning, and zoning 4% N=7 15% N=23 26% N=41 41% N=65 13% N=21 100% N=157
Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc.) 7% N=11 23% N=36 20% N=31 20% N=31 31% N=48 100% N=156
Preservation of natural areas (open space, farmlands, and greenbelts) 27% N=43 37% N=58 18% N=28 13% N=20 4% N=7 100% N=156
Building and planning application processing services 1% N=2 12% N=19 17% N=27 16% N=24 54% N=85 100% N=156
Affordable high-speed internet access 9% N=15 12% N=19 20% N=31 40% N=62 19% N=29 100% N=157
Electric utility 23% N=37 47% N=74 19% N=29 5% N=7 6% N=10 100% N=157
Gas utility 22% N=35 47% N=73 16% N=24 4% N=7 11% N=17 100% N=157
Utility payment options 34% N=53 46% N=72 10% N=16 1% N=2 9% N=14 100% N=157
Drinking water 51% N=80 37% N=58 8% N=12 0% N=0 4% N=7 100% N=157
Sewer services 27% N=43 45% N=71 10% N=16 1% N=1 17% N=26 100% N=156
Storm water management (storm drainage, dams, levees, etc.) 26% N=40 44% N=67 14% N=21 5% N=7 11% N=17 100% N=153
Refuse collection (garbage, recycling, yard waste, and e-waste) 37% N=59 44% N=69 14% N=21 2% N=4 3% N=5 100% N=157
Police services 13% N=20 38% N=59 20% N=32 12% N=19 17% N=27 100% N=157
Crime prevention 12% N=19 36% N=56 22% N=34 13% N=21 17% N=27 100% N=157
Animal control 22% N=34 29% N=45 4% N=7 6% N=9 40% N=62 100% N=157
Ambulance or emergency medical services 13% N=20 32% N=50 1% N=1 0% N=0 54% N=84 100% N=156
Fire services 25% N=39 35% N=55 1% N=2 0% N=0 39% N=60 100% N=156
Fire prevention and education 15% N=24 23% N=36 7% N=11 1% N=1 55% N=86 100% N=157
Palo Alto open space 35% N=55 39% N=61 10% N=16 13% N=20 3% N=4 100% N=157
City parks 39% N=61 49% N=77 8% N=13 3% N=5 0% N=0 100% N=156
Recreation programs or classes 12% N=19 37% N=58 12% N=19 0% N=1 38% N=60 100% N=157
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
104
Please rate the quality of each of the following services in Palo Alto: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total
Recreation centers or facilities 10% N=16 40% N=61 15% N=24 2% N=3 33% N=51 100% N=153
Public library services (e.g., hold requests, storytimes, teen events,
bookclubs) 50% N=78 30% N=46 1% N=2 2% N=3 17% N=26 100% N=155
Library facilities (buildings, computer equipment, accessibility) 51% N=78 32% N=49 2% N=3 0% N=1 15% N=23 100% N=153
Variety of library materials (books, e-books, streaming, databases,
audiobooks) 43% N=68 36% N=56 5% N=8 2% N=3 14% N=22 100% N=157
Art programs and theater 19% N=30 34% N=53 7% N=11 1% N=1 39% N=61 100% N=155
City-sponsored special events 8% N=13 32% N=50 21% N=32 2% N=3 37% N=58 100% N=156
City website (cityofpaloalto.org) 7% N=12 38% N=60 37% N=58 8% N=13 9% N=13 100% N=156
Public information services (Police/public safety) 8% N=12 39% N=60 28% N=43 5% N=7 20% N=31 100% N=154
Public information services (non-Police/public safety) 6% N=9 38% N=58 30% N=45 4% N=6 22% N=34 100% N=153
Overall customer service by Palo Alto employees (police, receptionists,
planners, etc.) 9% N=15 41% N=64 19% N=29 6% N=9 25% N=39 100% N=155
TABLE 107: 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
Traffic enforcement 7% N=10 39% N=53 26% N=36 27% N=37 100% N=136
Traffic signal timing 10% N=15 37% N=56 35% N=54 18% N=28 100% N=153
Street repair 12% N=19 28% N=44 39% N=61 20% N=32 100% N=156
Street cleaning 27% N=42 51% N=78 16% N=24 6% N=9 100% N=153
Street tree maintenance 27% N=41 50% N=76 13% N=20 10% N=15 100% N=152
Sidewalk maintenance 15% N=23 39% N=60 32% N=49 14% N=21 100% N=153
Land use, planning, and zoning 5% N=7 17% N=23 30% N=41 47% N=65 100% N=136
Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc.) 10% N=11 33% N=36 28% N=31 29% N=31 100% N=108
Preservation of natural areas (open space, farmlands, and greenbelts) 29% N=43 39% N=58 19% N=28 14% N=20 100% N=149
Building and planning application processing services 2% N=2 26% N=19 38% N=27 34% N=24 100% N=72
Affordable high-speed internet access 12% N=15 15% N=19 24% N=31 49% N=62 100% N=127
Electric utility 25% N=37 50% N=74 20% N=29 5% N=7 100% N=148
Gas utility 25% N=35 53% N=73 18% N=24 5% N=7 100% N=139
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
105
Please rate the quality of each of the following services in Palo Alto: Excellent Good Fair Poor Total
Utility payment options 37% N=53 50% N=72 11% N=16 1% N=2 100% N=143
Drinking water 53% N=80 39% N=58 8% N=12 0% N=0 100% N=150
Sewer services 33% N=43 54% N=71 12% N=16 1% N=1 100% N=130
Storm water management (storm drainage, dams, levees, etc.) 30% N=40 50% N=67 16% N=21 5% N=7 100% N=136
Refuse collection (garbage, recycling, yard waste, and e-waste) 39% N=59 45% N=69 14% N=21 2% N=4 100% N=152
Police services 15% N=20 46% N=59 25% N=32 15% N=19 100% N=130
Crime prevention 15% N=19 43% N=56 26% N=34 16% N=21 100% N=130
Animal control 36% N=34 48% N=45 7% N=7 9% N=9 100% N=94
Ambulance or emergency medical services 29% N=20 70% N=50 1% N=1 0% N=0 100% N=72
Fire services 40% N=39 58% N=55 2% N=2 0% N=0 100% N=96
Fire prevention and education 33% N=24 50% N=36 15% N=11 2% N=1 100% N=71
Palo Alto open space 36% N=55 40% N=61 10% N=16 13% N=20 100% N=152
City parks 39% N=61 49% N=77 8% N=13 3% N=5 100% N=156
Recreation programs or classes 20% N=19 60% N=58 20% N=19 1% N=1 100% N=97
Recreation centers or facilities 15% N=16 59% N=61 23% N=24 3% N=3 100% N=103
Public library services (e.g., hold requests, storytimes, teen even ts, bookclubs) 61% N=78 36% N=46 2% N=2 2% N=3 100% N=129
Library facilities (buildings, computer equipment, accessibility) 60% N=78 37% N=49 2% N=3 0% N=1 100% N=131
Variety of library materials (books, e-books, streaming, databases, audiobooks) 50% N=68 42% N=56 6% N=8 2% N=3 100% N=135
Art programs and theater 31% N=30 56% N=53 11% N=11 1% N=1 100% N=95
City-sponsored special events 13% N=13 51% N=50 33% N=32 3% N=3 100% N=98
City website (cityofpaloalto.org) 8% N=12 42% N=60 41% N=58 9% N=13 100% N=142
Public information services (Police/public safety) 10% N=12 49% N=60 35% N=43 6% N=7 100% N=122
Public information services (non-Police/public safety) 8% N=9 49% N=58 38% N=45 5% N=6 100% N=119
Overall customer service by Palo Alto employees (police, receptionists, planners, etc.) 13% N=15 55% N=64 25% N=29 7% N=9 100% N=117
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
106
TABLE 108: QUESTION 11 - RESPONSE PERCENTAGES AND NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS INCLUDING "DON'T KNOW" RESPONSES
Please rate the following as they relate to Palo Alto Utilities’ services: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total
Reliability of utility services 56% N=87 30% N=47 10% N=16 0% N=1 4% N=5 100% N=157
Affordability of utility services 13% N=21 35% N=54 28% N=44 13% N=20 11% N=18 100% N=157
Community value received from the City owning and operating its own
municipal utility services 37% N=58 24% N=37 17% N=26 7% N=11 15% N=24 100% N=155
Utilities online customer self-service features 19% N=30 32% N=49 10% N=16 4% N=6 35% N=55 100% N=155
Providing opportunities for energy and water efficiency at home or
business 21% N=32 31% N=48 8% N=13 6% N=9 34% N=53 100% N=155
Working hard to keep utilities prices competitive 12% N=18 19% N=29 22% N=34 12% N=19 35% N=55 100% N=154
Value of all the services Palo Alto Utilities provides for the price you pay 15% N=24 38% N=58 21% N=32 10% N=15 16% N=25 100% N=155
Ease of obtaining information or performing a transaction through the
City’s website 13% N=20 25% N=38 26% N=40 7% N=10 29% N=45 100% N=154
Value of Palo Alto Utilities’ customer communications 16% N=24 35% N=54 13% N=20 11% N=16 25% N=39 100% N=154
Ease of contacting Utilities department staff 19% N=30 22% N=35 13% N=20 3% N=5 42% N=65 100% N=155
Speed of response after contacting Utilities department staff 16% N=25 22% N=34 13% N=20 3% N=5 46% N=71 100% N=155
TABLE 109: QUESTION 11 - RESPONSE PERCENTAGES AND NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS WITHOUT "DON'T KNOW" RESPONSES
Please rate the following as they relate to Palo Alto Utilities’ services: Excellent Good Fair Poor Total
Reliability of utility services 58% N=87 31% N=47 10% N=16 0% N=1 100% N=151
Affordability of utility services 15% N=21 39% N=54 32% N=44 14% N=20 100% N=139
Community value received from the City owning and operating its own municipal utility
services 44% N=58 28% N=37 20% N=26 8% N=11 100% N=132
Utilities online customer self-service features 30% N=30 49% N=49 15% N=16 6% N=6 100% N=100
Providing opportunities for energy and water efficiency at home or business 32% N=32 47% N=48 12% N=13 8% N=9 100% N=102
Working hard to keep utilities prices competitive 18% N=18 29% N=29 34% N=34 19% N=19 100% N=100
Value of all the services Palo Alto Utilities provides for the price you pay 18% N=24 45% N=58 25% N=32 12% N=15 100% N=130
Ease of obtaining information or performing a transaction through the City’s website 19% N=20 35% N=38 37% N=40 9% N=10 100% N=109
Value of Palo Alto Utilities’ customer communications 21% N=24 47% N=54 17% N=20 14% N=16 100% N=115
Ease of contacting Utilities department staff 33% N=30 39% N=35 23% N=20 6% N=5 100% N=90
Speed of response after contacting Utilities department staff 30% N=25 40% N=34 24% N=20 6% N=5 100% N=84
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
107
TABLE 110: QUESTION 12 - 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 “built environment” of Palo Alto (including overall design, buildings,
parks and transportation systems) 55% N=86 36% N=56 7% N=11 3% N=4 100% N=157
Overall economic health of Palo Alto 37% N=58 43% N=68 14% N=21 6% N=9 100% N=157
Overall feeling of safety in Palo Alto 44% N=69 36% N=56 14% N=22 7% N=10 100% N=157
Overall quality of natural environment in Palo Alto 43% N=67 40% N=62 17% N=27 0% N=0 100% N=157
Overall health and wellness opportunities in Palo Alto 15% N=24 44% N=69 33% N=51 8% N=13 100% N=156
Overall opportunities for education, culture and the arts 25% N=38 37% N=58 33% N=51 6% N=9 100% N=156
Residents' connection and engagement with their community 27% N=41 34% N=53 34% N=53 6% N=9 100% N=155
Reducing community greenhouse gas emissions 41% N=64 33% N=51 17% N=26 9% N=14 100% N=155
Increasing local solar generation capacity within city boundaries 30% N=46 19% N=29 37% N=57 14% N=21 100% N=154
Increasing electric storage capacity within city boundaries 26% N=40 23% N=35 36% N=56 16% N=24 100% N=156
Faster notification systems (online, mobile or email) for Utilities billing issues,
efficiency tips, outage information 15% N=23 19% N=29 49% N=77 17% N=26 100% N=156
Faster notification systems (online, mobile or email) for public safety issues 27% N=42 29% N=44 33% N=51 12% N=18 100% N=155
* This question did not have a “don’t know” option.
TABLE 111: QUESTION 13 - RESPONSE PERCENTAGES AND NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS INCLUDING "DON'T KNOW" RESPONSES
In a typical week, how likely are you to: Very likely
Somewhat
likely
Somewhat
unlikely
Very
unlikely
Don't
know Total
Participate in organized group activities (such as clubs, sports teams,
volunteer your time, attend church/temple) 33% N=51 27% N=41 13% N=21 24% N=38 4% N=6 100% N=157
Spend quality time with local friends, family, and/or neighbors 55% N=87 24% N=38 10% N=16 8% N=13 2% N=3 100% N=157
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
108
TABLE 112: QUESTION 13 - RESPONSE PERCENTAGES AND NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS WITHOUT "DON'T KNOW" RE SPONSES
In a typical week, how likely are you to: Very likely
Somewhat
likely
Somewhat
unlikely
Very
unlikely Total
Participate in organized group activities (such as clubs, sports teams, volunteer
your time, attend church/temple) 34% N=51 27% N=41 14% N=21 25% N=38 100% N=151
Spend quality time with local friends, family, and/or neighbors 56% N=87 25% N=38 10% N=16 9% N=13 100% N=154
TABLE 113: 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 60% N=95
Walking 20% N=31
Biking 20% N=31
Bus 0% N=0
Train 0% N=0
Free shuttle 0% N=0
Taxi 0% N=0
Uber/Lyft or similar rideshare service 0% N=0
Carpooling 0% N=0
Total 100% N=157
* This question did not have a “don’t know” option.
TABLE 114: QUESTION 15 - RESPONSE PERCENTAGES AND NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS
In a typical week, how likely are you to: Very convenient Somewhat convenient Somewhat inconvenient Very inconvenient Total
Walking 32% N=49 38% N=58 20% N=31 9% N=13 100% N=151
Biking 58% N=86 27% N=40 7% N=10 9% N=13 100% N=149
Bus 2% N=3 21% N=31 28% N=41 49% N=72 100% N=147
Train 7% N=11 33% N=48 15% N=22 45% N=66 100% N=147
Free shuttle 8% N=11 28% N=39 32% N=45 32% N=46 100% N=142
Taxi 7% N=9 14% N=19 35% N=49 44% N=62 100% N=139
Uber/Lyft or similar rideshare service 38% N=56 33% N=48 18% N=27 10% N=15 100% N=147
Carpooling 9% N=13 14% N=20 25% N=36 52% N=76 100% N=145
* This question did not have a “don’t know” option.
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
109
TABLE 115: QUESTION 16 - RESPONSE PERCENTAGES AND NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS WITH "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 23% N=30 13% N=17 17% N=22 47% N=60 100% N=130
Diesel 1% N=1 0% N=1 1% N=2 98% N=127 100% N=130
Natural gas 0% N=0 5% N=6 2% N=3 92% N=115 100% N=124
Hybrid 22% N=29 31% N=40 16% N=21 30% N=39 100% N=129
Plug-in hybrid 17% N=22 41% N=53 14% N=18 28% N=37 100% N=130
Electric 39% N=53 35% N=48 11% N=14 15% N=20 100% N=135
Fuel cell 1% N=1 9% N=11 13% N=15 77% N=87 100% N=113
TABLE 116: QUESTION 16 - 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 23% N=30 13% N=17 17% N=22 47% N=60 100% N=130
Diesel 1% N=1 0% N=1 1% N=2 98% N=127 100% N=130
Natural gas 0% N=0 5% N=6 2% N=3 92% N=115 100% N=124
Hybrid 22% N=29 31% N=40 16% N=21 30% N=39 100% N=129
Plug-in hybrid 17% N=22 41% N=53 14% N=18 28% N=37 100% N=130
Electric 39% N=53 35% N=48 11% N=14 15% N=20 100% N=135
Fuel cell 1% N=1 9% N=11 13% N=15 77% N=87 100% N=113
TABLE 117: QUESTION D1 - 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 3% N=5
Somewhat positive 20% N=32
Neutral 54% N=86
Somewhat negative 20% N=32
Very negative 2% N=3
Total 100% N=157
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
110
TABLE 118: QUESTION D2 - RESPONSE PERCENTAGES AND NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS
What is your employment status? Percent Number
Working full time for pay 50% N=78
Working part time for pay 14% N=21
Unemployed, looking for paid work 8% N=12
Unemployed, not looking for paid work 7% N=11
Fully retired 20% N=30
College student, unemployed 2% N=4
Total 100% N=155
TABLE 119: QUESTION D3 - RESPONSE PERCENTAGES AND NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS
Do you work inside the boundaries of Palo Alto? Percent Number
Yes, outside the home 9% N=14
Yes, from home 53% N=78
No 38% N=56
Total 100% N=148
TABLE 120: QUESTION D4 - RESPONSE PERCENTAGES AND NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS
How many years have you lived in Palo Alto? Percent Number
Less than 2 years 10% N=16
2 to 5 years 11% N=17
6 to 10 years 16% N=24
11 to 20 years 23% N=35
More than 20 years 41% N=63
Total 100% N=156
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
111
TABLE 121: QUESTION D5 - RESPONSE PERCENTAGES AND NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS
Which best describes the building you live in? Percent Number
One family house detached from any other houses 63% N=99
Building with two or more homes (duplex, townhome, apartment or condominium) 32% N=50
Mobile home 0% N=0
Other 5% N=8
Total 100% N=157
TABLE 122: QUESTION D6 - RESPONSE PERCENTAGES AND NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS
Do you rent or own your home? Percent Number
Rent 40% N=63
Own 60% N=94
Total 100% N=156
TABLE 123: QUESTION D7 - RESPONSE PERCENTAGES AND NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS
About how much is your monthly housing cost for the place you live (including rent, mortgage payment, property tax, property insurance and
homeowners' association (HOA) fees)? Percent Number
Less than $500 per month 2% N=3
$500 to $999 per month 5% N=7
$1,000 to $1,499 per month 9% N=13
$1,500 to $1,999 per month 8% N=11
$2,000 to $2,499 per month 6% N=9
$2,500 to $2,999 per month 8% N=11
$3,000 to $3,499 per month 14% N=20
$3,500 to $3,999 per month 7% N=10
$4,000 to $4,499 per month 13% N=18
$4,500 to $4,999 per month 2% N=3
$4,500 to $4,999 per month 8% N=11
$5,500 to $5,999 per month 2% N=2
$6,000 to $6,499 per month 2% N=3
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
112
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
$6,500 to $6,999 per month 0% N=0
$7,000 to $7,499 per month 1% N=2
$7,500 to $7,999 per month 2% N=3
$8,000 to $8,499 per month 0% N=1
$8,500 to $8,999 per month 3% N=5
$9,000 to $9,499 per month 0% N=0
$9,500 to $9,999 per month 0% N=0
$10,000 or more per month 7% N=9
Total 100% N=142
TABLE 124: QUESTION D8 - RESPONSE PERCENTAGES AND NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS
Do any children 17 or under live in your household? Percent Number
No 52% N=79
Yes 48% N=75
Total 100% N=154
TABLE 125: QUESTION D9 - RESPONSE PERCENTAGES AND NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS
Are you or any other members of your household aged 65 or older? Percent Number
No 73% N=113
Yes 27% N=41
Total 100% N=154
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
113
TABLE 126: QUESTION D10 - 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 1% N=1
$25,000 to $49,999 3% N=4
$50,000 to $74,999 14% N=19
$75,000 to $99,999 12% N=16
$100,000 to $149,999 17% N=23
$150,000 to $199,999 5% N=6
$200,000 to $249,999 8% N=11
$250,000 to $299,999 5% N=7
$300,000 to $349,999 7% N=9
$350,000 to $399,999 11% N=15
$400,000 to $449,999 1% N=1
$450,000 to $499,999 19% N=26
$500,000 or more 0% N=0
Total 100% N=138
TABLE 127: QUESTION D11 - RESPONSE PERCENTAGES AND NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS
Are you Spanish, Hispanic or Latino? Percent Number
No, not Spanish, Hispanic or Latino 95% N=146
Yes, I consider myself to be Spanish, Hispanic or Latino 5% N=8
Total may exceed 100% as respondents could select more than one option.
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
114
TABLE 128: QUESTION D12 - 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 0% N=0
Asian, Asian Indian or Pacific Islander 19% N=30
Black or African American 0% N=0
White 79% N=121
Other 8% N=11
Total 100% N=153
TABLE 129: QUESTION D13 - RESPONSE PERCENTAGES AND NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS
In which category is your age? Percent Number
18 to 24 years 6% N=9
25 to 34 years 11% N=17
35 to 44 years 18% N=27
45 to 54 years 25% N=38
55 to 64 years 17% N=26
65 to 74 years 14% N=21
75 years or older 8% N=13
Total 100% N=152
TABLE 130: QUESTION D14 - RESPONSE PERCENTAGES AND NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS
What is your gender? Percent Number
Female 52% N=79
Male 46% N=70
Identify in another way 1% N=2
Total 100% N=152
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
115
VERBATIM RESPONSES TO OPEN-ENDED S URVEY Q UESTIONS
The following pages contain the respondents’ verbatim responses as entered in the web survey and have not
been edited for spelling or grammar. Responses have been organized by alphabetical order.
Question 17: As a resident of Palo Alto, what one change could the City make
that would make yo u happier?
• 1) Creating a public bank which is authorized by the state.
• 1) make streets safer for bicylists but not like Ross Rd debacle. 2) enforce laws for reckless/dangerous bicycle
riders
• A clear plan to create housing capacity in areas which can absorb said, not based on opportunistic developer
preferences.
• A risk-free way to report racial discrimination, threats, and harrassment.
• Add a surcharge tax to foreign buyers of residential properties, like Vancouver did in 2016. Foreign buyers have
driven home prices to untenable levels. It causes a ripple effect on all housing c osts and makes people less likely to
invest in the community because they are renters.
• Address airplane noise impacts
• Affordable housing . Do not support 'residentialists'.
• allow denser and taller buildings everywhere, but particularly near downtown, Cal Ave, and San Antonio.
• Allow residents whose utilities are paid by their landlord to have access to utility info during an outage by phone. As
is, you are asked for your individual account info before you can progress to outage info. If you don't have an
individual account, you're done. PLEASE FIX THIS ASAP.
• Allow the downtown restaurants to maintain their outdoor dining (in the parking spots) even after the pandemic
ends. This really livens up the atmosphere of downtown
• Assist small, local businesses in their recovery
• atesImprove housing opportunities, especially low and moderate
• Attention to property crime.
• Attract more businesses to city to further development.
• become transparent and honest
• Being more careful with our money, instead of spending it on, for example, new Utilities marketing materials
• Better management of the homeless/mental health/public drinking issues, especially around parks.
• Better paved streets, especially for biking, overall poor compared to other places i have biked
• better public transportation options
• Better road maintenance
• better street maintenance
• Better traffic management. Timed lights.
• bring back public cross-town shuttle, get VTA to bring back 88 bus to Gunn High School, make the home remodeling
process/permitting streamlined, reduce management in the library staff
• bring the level of services back to what it was 25-30 years ago. Since that won't happen, get all city employees off
of the pension system and into 401k's like the rest of us.
• Build a variety of housing types throughout the city. All I see is huge, multimillion houses getting built and it makes
me feel like I have no future.
• build more affordable housing
• build more affordable housing. Increase density in single family areas.
• Build the new Police Department over on California. We have waited too long.
• Canceling parking zones and permits
• Challenge and win against MTC/ABAG housing mandate!! Even 6,000 units is ridiculous...it will ruin ou r city as we
know it.
• cheaper electricity and gas prices
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
116
• Close Cal Ave to cars. Open restaurant outdoor dining ASAP. Clean up trash on El Camino by university and put a
parking ban to discourage overnight parking.
• Close streets to cars. Just bikes and buses.
• Crime related to theft
• Cut taxes and fire the school board
• Deal with overhead plane flights after midnight!!!
• Deal with the homeless people wandering the streets of downtown Palo Alto. Possibly help them find housing, or
make it illegal for homeless to loiter on the streets. I currently don't feel safe walking downtown in the early
morning or late evening.
• Deal with traffic issues
• eliminate the horrendously loud airplane noise
• Encourage and build affordable housing
• encourage more interactions among neighbors, including those with diverse backgrounds
• Encourage more solar by allowing Tesla to install their free solar panels. Not everybody has thousands of dollars to
spend.
• enforce parking rules near the trailer park in my neighborhood and put the electrical lines underground
• Enforce the gas powered leaf blower ban!!
• Fewer multi-story buildings;less crowded Foothills Park
• Figuring out a solution to prevent overcrowding at Foothills Park now that no residents are allowed in
• Fix non resident parking on Chabot terrace .
• Focus on the business of running the city: budget, planning, public safety, etc. not trying to weigh in on all of the
world's social problems.
• For most of my shopping I go to either Mountain View or Redwood City. I wish there were shops do wntown I could
actually patronize for clothing, gardening, pet care, crafts, sewing, appliance repair, thrift stores.
• Fulfill its obligations with respect to building more low-cost housing as dictated by the state rules
• Get rid of rats
• Get rid of the car campers on ECR
• Get rid of the RVs on El Camino and other streets
• Grade separation at rail crossings
• Have 2nd and 3rd stories set back in more built-up areas so you don't create "concrete" canyons
• Have a plan for the City to build affordable housing along transportation corridors and as infill housing.
• Have more flexible development standards to really provide options for affordable housing.
• Help the homeless and build apartments in appropriate areas that are genuinely affordable for low -income people
• Housing projects that actually met resident needs without big giveaways to developers.
• I don't know.
• If emergency personnel who work here actually live here. (That, and more dedicated pickleball courts)
• improve communications and engagement with residents
• Improve police behavior with people of color
• Improve walking and bikeability along entire length of El Camino Real
• Increase objective limits on development, particularly office development.
• Inforce traffic laws such as red light running and speeding
• Invest fully in bicycle and other clean transportation methods and routes
• Just say "no" to ABAG. Reinstate traffic/motorcycle police and the full police budget.
• Keep more outdoor dining options (car free streets?) after pandemic
• Keep the pedestrian zones on University and California at the very least during the weekends
• Less local government drama.
• less office, code enforcement, better building design, transparent govt
• Listen to residents first, then real estate developers
• Lots and lots more affordable housing
• Lower utility costs to the consumer
• Maintain the Quality of the K-12 school system. Too many intolerant, angry parents not understanding Covid-19,
and Public Health Issues.
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
117
• Make Foothills Park / Preserver accessible to the residents of the City, who have bee n and are paying for it. It is not
accessible now due to the City's plea bargain against the residents' collective wishes.
• Make it affordable to buy a house
• Make it more welcoming to families. It doesn't appear families are even on your mind. The may fete parade a
parade for little kids has no actual activities. When the parade ends, everyone leaves. The art and wine festival?
Almost nothing for kids. There are no fun places for kids to go, other than parks. Look at San Carlos and Mountain
View they have a number of family friendly activities and event centers. Closing downtown s treets is a start. It
*almost* makes Pali alto feel like a community. But what can you do to make it more inviting for families?
• Make it safer to walk the sidewalks (no bike riding/skateboards) and cross the streets and enforce and apply noise
codes to city workers downtown.
• Make sure more housing is being built. Affordable housing in particular
• Make the city safe please. With all the burglaries and crimes, I no longer feel safe t o enjoy my life here.
• Moratorium on office development. Rezone commercial for housing.
• More affordable housing
• more affordable housing
• more affordable housing and OPEN schools
• More affordable housing and services
• More after school sport options for middle school kids
• More attractive affordable housing for families and single working professionals to encourage more economic and
racial diversity in Palo Alto
• More community activities,
• more diversity
• More diversity training/inclusion initiatives; affordable housing
• More economic diversity
• More focus on community services and less on housing and environment
• More help for the elderly
• More housing
• More housing for low-middle income earners. So we can house our essential workers in the community and reduce
car trips
• More incentives for energy saving - solar, rain water collection, etc.
• More mid size housing opportunities
• More multifamily homes
• More open space
• More parking near the trails or a regular (like 15 min intervals) shuttle to them.
• More pools for lap swimming
• More protection for trees. Currently, a permit is required for cutting down four species of trees. I would like this
protection broadened to any tree with greater than a 16 inch trunk diameter.
• More routes for safe biking
• Planning department being more respectful and representative of residents instead of representing developers.
• Please close University Ave to through traffic and open it back up to pedestrians. Downtown was so much nicer
with this. Also, California ave, but first choice is University if I had to pick.
• Please make the traffic lights smarter. Also ensure that there are 2 lights at the crosswalk perpendicular to each
other as I have narrowly escaped being hit by a car countless number of times, when I am crossing the road at nigh t
by both oncoming traffic and traffic that is behind me. Its as if they do n ot see me even though I have flashing night
lights on me. Please make a stop sign on the crosswalk between Seale and Newell as its a major artery and
Middlefield and Seale instead of Yield sign
• Provide more affordable housing
• Provide more staffing for code enforcement issues
• Provide Municipal Broadband/Fiber Internet to residents and busineses
• Put in Dip signs at the corner of Middlefield Road and Lincoln. Or do away with the dip and put in drains to the new
largely unused storm drain that runs under Lincoln. At that intersection, every tree and the school sign has been hit,
a light pole and a nearby power pole have been destroyed, and there have been at least a dozen accidents in the
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
118
last few years, many of them with injuries. And right next to an elementa ry school!And ban wood fires, especially in
fire places! They make it very unpleasant to air one's home or go for walks. Dryer sheets, too.
• Put in turn signal in traffic lite 100 ft from our house on Middlefield
• Put together detailed plans with metrics on how we are going to effectively electrify our homes
• Quit referring to apts . as Homes. They are apts. Quit allowing ugly apt. bldgs. with flat roofs. Quit building office
bldgs. and use the property for REAL PARKS. Stop Stanford from buying homes and taking them off of the market.
quit allowing realtors to overprice this junk for people who have never been anywhere in their life and think this is
ok. This place is hilarious!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
• Reallocating the police budget to stuff that actually helps people.
• Rebate increase for EVs
• Reduce arrogance of city staff
• Reduce bicycle and other theft, burglaries.
• Reduce size of government
• Reduce the train noise and ground shaking along the train tracks.
• Regulate public access to Foothills park (maybe ask for an entrance fee)
• Remove the circles at intersections on bike routes.
• Remove the homeless and criminals
• Reopen libraries
• Restore Fry's Electronics or a similar store to Palo Alto. That was a real loss to experimenters and hams.B
• Restrict Foothills Park to Palo Alto residents.
• Schools that actually addressed my child's needs rather than shovel him toward the school -to-prison pipeline.
• Shorten the planning process.
• stabilize revenue with expenses
• Stop adding offices and instead convert existing ones into true affordable housing
• Stop allowing the building of high rises with inadequate parking along El Camino.
• Stop building housing! Pay more attention to the stretch of El Camino between Charleston Rd and Hansen Way.
Close the Glass Slipper, it's an eyesore. We have so many run down buildings in this area. I grew up here and am fed
up with attention on beautifying other areas except here.
• STOP giving away our land to rich private interests like Castilleja and Stanford. Invest in US. We need HOUSING.
• stop holding up Neighborhood Traffic Safety and Bicycle Boulevard phase 2
• STOP making the city more dense in both housing and commercial development!
• Stop upzoning R-1 neighborhoods and increasing density
• Streamline permit process
• Support economic diversity
• take airplane noise more seriously
• The motor homes parked between the residential and commercial area in my yellow district
• There continue to be homeless in the local parks and downtown area. Particularly Mitchell Park. I would feel safer if
the city could offer resources to assist.
• Traffic enforcement for drivers to observe speed limits, stop signs, and red lights.
• Transportation
• Try to bring the price of housing and housing related costs down.
• Vibrant downtown areas, Attract more millennials, Improve internet bandwidth
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
119
Question 18: As a resident of Palo Alto, what one thing do you believe the City
does well and would want to maintain?
• ?
• 1) Libraries
• A well functioning public utility.
• Access and quality of open spaces
• Access to city council meetings - public comment, videos
• Although quality of selection has deteriorated, library services are excellent.
• Animal services
• basic services
• Beautiful parks and open spaces
• Bike lanes
• Bike paths and safety
• Bin collection and distribution
• Builds awareness on climate change
• cannot think of any one thing in particular
• can't think of anything
• Chief Jonsen has my support. Police and utility notifications are already fast, so don't need to be "faster" as asked
above. Tree and park maintenance are excellent.
• Child and youth activities - kids library, theatre, etc.
• Children's Theatre
• City employees (not including the City Council, for clarity) based on my interactions are experts in their field who
are dedicated to public service. We need to retain them and thank them.
• City governement and city staff are generally professional and thoughtful, and want to "do the right thing"
• City-owned utilitilies
• Climate Saving Programs
• Communication
• Communication newsletters
• Communication of events, opportunities, news
• Communication on Facebook is excellent and in different languages. Very impressed
• communication, utilities
• community outreach
• Continue dedication to address climate change
• decent website
• Education
• Education! We have phenomenal schools.
• Electric and gas utilities
• Emergency medical
• Emphases on schools and community
• enabling alternative modes of transportation--particularly biking and walking
• EV infrastructure. Add EV infrastructure on remodel.
• Fire and ambulance services
• Fire dept
• Firefighters, police officers an d first responsders
• Foothill Park
• good education
• Good schools - this is questionable at the moment though.
• Good schools overall
• great recycling of all materials in the blue bins
• Great schools
• Green waste. Utilities (so much better than PG&E)
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
120
• Hard to say just one. Probably the ease of access to city staff whether sidewalks, utilities, whatever
• Having libraries open many hours with good online access and easy holds and borrowing from other libraries
• high standards for education
• I can't pick just one thing. Palo Alto a good place to live.
• improving biking services
• Keep encouraging bicycling
• Keep the city clean
• Keep the nice neighborhoods and parks clean and safe and free of RVS --> please extend that to all the
neighborhoods, i.e., Venture. Boulware Park has drinking and drugs on a daily basis. How is that safe for me and my
child? Whenever we visit ANY other park, there is no sign of this type of behavior. Please be consiste nt and make
the park close to my house safe for me and my child.
• Keep up the quality of parks and open spaces.
• Keeping the city clean and safe.
• Kids programming - we need more
• Leading the way in electrifying our city and ensuring energy & water security
• libraries
• Libraries
• Libraries
• Libraries
• Libraries
• Libraries and parks
• Library and community services are comprehensive and excellent.
• Library System
• Local parks
• Lots of space for parks
• maintain single family neighborhoods, do not turn it into NYC --no tall buildings, preserve all historic buildings, stop
ugly modern bldgs
• Maintain the parks and walk sidewalks
• Maintain the suburban neighborhoods, good schools, and quality of life that drew most of us here in the first place
• Maintaining an environment that is conducive to raising a family.
• Maintaining our public parks
• Maintenance of playgrounds
• Municipal services
• N/A
• Offering the Free Shuttle service
• Open Areas, Parks, Trails & Bike Paths
• Open space
• our own utility district
• Our parks are beautiful.
• Our parks.
• Our utility has great people working on important things.
• Outstanding parks, walkable neighborhoods with diverse business districts and a lot of trees. I do believe this is at
risk as bookstores, toy stores, and stationery stores are pushed out of town and replaced by ultra high-end shops
and offices.
• Overall quality of life....low density housing....libraries....trees.....streets.....minimize traffic thru city.
• Palo Alto Unified School District!!
• Palo Alto Utilities.
• Parks and bike routes
• Parks and open spaces
• Parks and open spaces and in particular the opening of all of them to the public.
• Parks.
• Playgrounds are maintained well
• Police and Emergency Services
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
121
• provides a wide range of services that appeal to all ages and interest
• providing all the utilities under one umbrella, and focusing on sustainable power sources
• public safety
• public school
• Public utilities and incentives to get off natural gas.
• Public Utilities. Excellent foresight and planning in the past. Some what shortsighted about the total life cycle costs
of solar and wind going forward. You don't want to follow the German model and path down that rabbit hole.
• Quality of parks and utilities
• Quality of schools
• Really great trees and tree maintenance
• Recreation opportunities
• Reduce, reuse, recycle
• Relative diversity, cultural opportunities, nature
• Reliability of utilities
• Run a public utility
• Running our own utility system
• Safe Routes to School program
• Safety
• Schools
• Street sweeping
• Streets and park maintenance
• Strong arts departments, libraries.
• Support for community arts programs.
• The 311 service
• The city literally does nothing well other than tax the poor and subsidize the rich, and I want that to end.
• The library and library related services are very good.
• the library system
• The library, community center, and parks are fantastic. The utility service is excellent.
• The Mitchell Park Library
• The number of rec activities you offer and the public spaces (libraries, communities centers) are great. So ar e the
many bike lanes and bike boulevards.
• The Palo Alto Art Center and its programs
• The politeness of most of the City workers even when customers are ratty
• the public libraries
• The quality and safety of our parks and libraries
• They are pretty good at code enforcement once a complaint is made.
• Trash/Recycling is always excellent.
• Tree maintenance does a great job
• Utilities
• utilities and parks
• Utilities are reliable and high quality
• Utilities!
• Utilities, owning them and running them. Do not sell out ev er.
• utility service as is, staffs are excellent.
• Utility services
• Water and utilities
• We operate our own utilities company, which provides us with lower-cost energy. However, the energy costs have
gone up considerably in the last 10 years or so.
• We're lucky to have our own Utility
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
122
COMMUNITIES INCLUDED IN NATIONAL COMPARISONS
The communities included in the Palo Alto comparisons are listed on the following pages along with their
population according to the 2017 American Community Survey.
Adams County, CO .................... 487,850
Airway Heights city, WA ................ 8,017
Albany city, OR ............................ 52,007
Albemarle County, VA ............... 105,105
Albert Lea city, MN...................... 17,716
Alexandria city, VA .................... 154,710
Allegan County, MI .................... 114,145
American Canyon city, CA ........... 20,341
Ankeny city, IA............................. 56,237
Ann Arbor city, MI ..................... 119,303
Apache Junction city, AZ ............. 38,452
Arapahoe County, CO ................ 626,612
Arlington city, TX ....................... 388,225
Arvada city, CO .......................... 115,320
Asheville city, NC ......................... 89,318
Ashland city, OR .......................... 20,733
Ashland town, MA ....................... 17,478
Ashland town, VA .......................... 7,554
Aspen city, CO ............................... 7,097
Athens-Clarke County, GA ......... 122,292
Auburn city, AL ............................ 61,462
Aurora city, CO .......................... 357,323
Austin city, TX ............................ 916,906
Avon town, CO .............................. 6,503
Avon town, IN ............................. 16,479
Avondale city, AZ ......................... 81,590
Azusa city, CA .............................. 49,029
Bainbridge Island city, WA .......... 23,689
Baltimore city, MD .................... 619,796
Baltimore County, MD............... 828,637
Basehor city, KS ............................. 5,401
Batavia city, IL ............................. 26,499
Battle Creek city, MI .................... 51,505
Bay Village city, OH ..................... 15,426
Baytown city, TX .......................... 76,205
Beaumont city, CA ....................... 43,641
Bellingham city, WA .................... 85,388
Bend city, OR ............................... 87,167
Bethlehem township, PA ............. 23,800
Bettendorf city, IA ....................... 35,293
Billings city, MT ......................... 109,082
Bloomington city, IN .................... 83,636
Bloomington city, MN ................. 85,417
Boise City city, ID ....................... 220,859
Bonner Springs city, KS .................. 7,644
Boulder city, CO ........................ 106,271
Bowling Green city, KY ................ 64,302
Bozeman city, MT ........................ 43,132
Brookline CDP, MA ...................... 59,246
Brooklyn Center city, MN ............ 30,885
Brooklyn city, OH ........................ 10,891
Broomfield city, CO ..................... 64,283
Brownsburg town, IN .................. 24,625
Buffalo Grove village, IL ............... 41,551
Burlingame city, CA ..................... 30,401
Cabarrus County, NC ................. 196,716
Cambridge city, MA ................... 110,893
Canandaigua city, NY ................... 10,402
Cannon Beach city, OR .................. 1,517
Cañon City city, CO ...................... 16,298
Cape Coral city, FL ..................... 173,679
Carlsbad city, CA ....................... 113,147
Cartersville city, GA ..................... 20,235
Cary town, NC ........................... 159,715
Castle Rock town, CO .................. 57,274
Cedar Hill city, TX ........................ 48,149
Cedar Park city, TX ...................... 70,010
Cedar Rapids city, IA ................. 130,330
Celina city, TX ................................ 7,910
Centennial city, CO .................... 108,448
Chandler city, TX ........................... 2,896
Chanhassen city, MN .................. 25,108
Chapel Hill town, NC ................... 59,234
Chardon city, OH ........................... 5,166
Charles County, MD .................. 156,021
Charlotte County, FL ................. 173,236
Charlottesville city, VA ................ 46,487
Chattanooga city, TN................. 176,291
Chautauqua town, NY ................... 4,362
Chesterfield County, VA ............ 335,594
Clayton city, MO ......................... 16,214
Clearwater city, FL .................... 112,794
Clinton city, SC .............................. 8,538
Clive city, IA................................. 17,134
Clovis city, CA ............................ 104,411
College Park city, MD .................. 32,186
College Station city, TX.............. 107,445
Colleyville city, TX ....................... 25,557
Collinsville city, IL ........................ 24,767
Columbia city, MO .................... 118,620
Commerce City city, CO .............. 52,905
Conshohocken borough, PA .......... 7,985
Coolidge city, AZ ......................... 12,221
Coon Rapids city, MN .................. 62,342
Coral Springs city, FL ................. 130,110
Coronado city, CA ....................... 24,053
Corvallis city, OR ......................... 56,224
Cottonwood Heights city, UT ...... 34,214
Coventry Lake CDP, CT .................. 2,932
Coventry town, CT ...................... 12,458
Cupertino city, CA ....................... 60,687
Dacono city, CO ............................. 4,929
Dakota County, MN .................. 414,655
Dallas city, OR ............................. 15,413
Dallas city, TX ......................... 1,300,122
Danvers town, MA ...................... 27,527
Danville city, KY ........................... 16,657
Darien city, IL .............................. 22,206
Davidson town, NC...................... 12,325
Dayton city, OH ......................... 140,939
Dayton town, WY ............................. 815
Dearborn city, MI ........................ 95,295
Decatur city, GA .......................... 22,022
DeLand city, FL ............................ 30,315
Delaware city, OH ....................... 38,193
Denison city, TX .......................... 23,342
Denton city, TX .......................... 131,097
Denver city, CO ......................... 678,467
Des Moines city, IA.................... 214,778
Des Peres city, MO ........................ 8,536
Destin city, FL ...............................13,421
Dothan city, AL ............................67,784
Dover city, NH ..............................30,901
Dublin city, CA .............................57,022
Dublin city, OH .............................44,442
Duluth city, MN ...........................86,066
Durham city, NC ......................... 257,232
Durham County, NC ................... 300,865
Dyer town, IN ...............................16,077
Eagan city, MN .............................66,102
Eagle Mountain city, UT ...............27,773
Eau Claire city, WI ........................67,945
Eden Prairie city, MN ...................63,660
Eden town, VT ...............................1,254
Edgewater city, CO ........................5,299
Edina city, MN .............................50,603
Edmond city, OK ..........................89,769
Edmonds city, WA ........................41,309
El Cerrito city, CA .........................24,982
El Paso de Robles (Paso
Robles) city, CA .....................31,409
Elbert County, CO ........................24,553
Elgin city, IL ................................ 112,628
Elk Grove city, CA ....................... 166,228
Elmhurst city, IL ...........................46,139
Englewood city, CO ......................33,155
Erie town, CO ...............................22,019
Escambia County, FL .................. 309,924
Estes Park town, CO .......................6,248
Euclid city, OH ..............................47,698
Farmers Branch city, TX ...............33,808
Farmersville city, TX .......................3,440
Farmington Hills city, MI ..............81,235
Fate city, TX .................................10,339
Fayetteville city, GA .....................17,069
Fayetteville city, NC ................... 210,324
Ferguson township, PA ................18,837
Fernandina Beach city, FL ............11,957
Flower Mound town, TX ..............71,575
Forest Grove city, OR ...................23,554
Fort Collins city, CO .................... 159,150
Franklin city, TN ...........................72,990
Frederick town, CO ......................11,397
Fremont city, CA ........................ 230,964
Frisco town, CO ..............................2,977
Fruita city, CO ..............................13,039
Gahanna city, OH .........................34,691
Gaithersburg city, MD ..................67,417
Galveston city, TX ........................49,706
Gardner city, KS ...........................21,059
Germantown city, TN ...................39,230
Gilbert town, AZ......................... 232,176
Gillette city, WY ...........................31,783
Glen Ellyn village, IL .....................27,983
Glendora city, CA .........................51,891
Glenview village, IL ......................47,066
Golden city, CO ............................20,365
Golden Valley city, MN ................21,208
Goodyear city, AZ ........................74,953
Grafton village, WI .......................11,576
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
123
Grand Rapids city, MI ................ 195,355
Grand Traverse County, MI ......... 91,222
Greeley city, CO ......................... 100,760
Greenville city, NC ....................... 90,347
Greer city, SC ............................... 28,587
Gulf Breeze city, FL ........................ 6,251
Gunnison County, CO .................. 16,215
Haltom City city, TX ..................... 44,059
Hamilton city, OH ........................ 62,216
Hamilton town, MA ....................... 7,991
Hampton city, VA ...................... 136,255
Hanover County, VA .................. 103,218
Harrisburg city, SD ......................... 5,429
Hastings city, MN ........................ 22,620
Henderson city, NV ................... 284,817
High Point city, NC..................... 109,849
Highland Park city, IL ................... 29,796
Highlands Ranch CDP, CO .......... 105,264
Homer Glen village, IL ................. 24,403
Honolulu County, HI .................. 990,060
Hopkinton town, MA ................... 16,720
Hoquiam city, WA ......................... 8,416
Horry County, SC ....................... 310,186
Hudson town, CO .......................... 1,709
Huntley village, IL ........................ 26,265
Huntsville city, TX ........................ 40,727
Hutchinson city, MN .................... 13,836
Hutto city, TX............................... 22,644
Hyattsville city, MD ..................... 18,225
Independence city, IA .................... 6,013
Independence city, MO ............. 117,369
Indio city, CA ............................... 86,867
Iowa City city, IA .......................... 73,415
Issaquah city, WA ........................ 35,629
Jackson city, MO ......................... 14,690
Jackson County, MI ................... 158,989
Jefferson Parish, LA ................... 437,038
Jerome city, ID............................. 11,306
Johnson City city, TN ................... 65,598
Johnston city, IA .......................... 20,172
Jupiter town, FL ........................... 62,373
Kalamazoo city, MI ...................... 75,833
Kansas City city, KS .................... 151,042
Kansas City city, MO .................. 476,974
Kent city, WA............................. 126,561
Kerrville city, TX ........................... 22,931
Key West city, FL ......................... 25,316
King City city, CA ......................... 13,721
Kingman city, AZ .......................... 28,855
Kirkland city, WA ......................... 86,772
Kirkwood city, MO ....................... 27,659
La Mesa city, CA .......................... 59,479
La Plata town, MD ......................... 9,160
La Vista city, NE ........................... 17,062
Lake Forest city, IL ....................... 18,931
Lake in the Hills village, IL ............ 28,908
Lake Zurich village, IL .................. 19,983
Lakeville city, MN ........................ 61,056
Lakewood city, CO ..................... 151,411
Lakewood city, WA ...................... 59,102
Lancaster County, SC ................... 86,544
Laramie city, WY.......................... 32,104
Larimer County, CO ................... 330,976
Las Cruces city, NM ................... 101,014
Las Vegas city, NM ...................... 13,445
Las Vegas city, NV...................... 621,662
Lawrence city, KS ........................ 93,954
Lawrenceville city, GA ................. 29,287
Lehi city, UT ................................ 58,351
Lenexa city, KS ............................ 52,030
Lewisville city, TX ...................... 103,638
Libertyville village, IL ................... 20,504
Lincolnwood village, IL ................ 12,637
Lindsborg city, KS .......................... 3,313
Little Chute village, WI ................ 11,006
Littleton city, CO ......................... 45,848
Livermore city, CA ....................... 88,232
Lombard village, IL ...................... 43,776
Lone Tree city, CO ....................... 13,430
Long Grove village, IL .................... 7,980
Longmont city, CO....................... 91,730
Lonsdale city, MN ......................... 3,850
Los Alamos County, NM .............. 18,031
Los Altos Hills town, CA ................. 8,490
Loudoun County, VA ................. 374,558
Louisville city, CO ........................ 20,319
Lower Merion township, PA........ 58,500
Lynchburg city, VA ...................... 79,237
Lynnwood city, WA ..................... 37,242
Manassas city, VA ....................... 41,379
Manhattan Beach city, CA ........... 35,698
Manhattan city, KS ...................... 55,427
Mankato city, MN ....................... 41,241
Maple Grove city, MN ................. 68,362
Maplewood city, MN .................. 40,127
Maricopa County, AZ ............. 4,155,501
Marin County, CA ...................... 260,814
Marion city, IA............................. 38,014
Mariposa County, CA .................. 17,658
Marshalltown city, IA .................. 27,440
Marshfield city, WI ...................... 18,326
Martinez city, CA ......................... 37,902
Marysville city, WA ..................... 66,178
Maui County, HI ........................ 164,094
McKinney city, TX ...................... 164,760
McMinnville city, OR ................... 33,211
Mecklenburg County, NC ....... 1,034,290
Menlo Park city, CA ..................... 33,661
Menomonee Falls village, WI ...... 36,411
Mercer Island city, WA ................ 24,768
Meridian charter township, MI ... 41,903
Merriam city, KS .......................... 11,259
Mesa city, AZ ............................. 479,317
Mesquite city, TX ...................... 144,118
Miami city, FL ............................ 443,007
Middleton city, WI ...................... 18,951
Middletown town, RI .................. 16,100
Milford city, DE ........................... 10,645
Milton city, GA ............................ 37,556
Minneapolis city, MN ................ 411,452
Minnetrista city, MN ..................... 7,187
Missoula County, MT ................ 114,231
Missouri City city, TX ................... 72,688
Moline city, IL.............................. 42,644
Monroe city, MI .......................... 20,128
Montgomery city, MN ................... 2,921
Montgomery County, MD ...... 1,039,198
Monticello city, UT ........................ 2,599
Montrose city, CO ....................... 18,918
Moorpark city, CA ....................... 36,060
Moraga town, CA ........................ 17,231
Morristown city, TN .................... 29,446
Morrisville town, NC ....................23,873
Morro Bay city, CA .......................10,568
Moscow city, ID ...........................24,833
Mountlake Terrace city, WA ........20,922
Murphy city, TX ............................20,361
Naperville city, IL ....................... 146,431
Napoleon city, OH ..........................8,646
Needham CDP, MA ......................30,429
Nevada City city, CA .......................3,112
Nevada County, CA ......................98,838
New Braunfels city, TX .................70,317
New Brighton city, MN ................22,440
New Concord village, OH ...............2,561
New Hope city, MN ......................20,909
Newport city, RI ...........................24,745
Newport News city, VA .............. 180,775
Newton city, IA ............................15,085
Niles village, IL .............................29,823
Noblesville city, IN .......................59,807
Norcross city, GA .........................16,474
Norfolk city, NE ............................24,352
North Mankato city, MN ..............13,583
North Port city, FL ........................62,542
North Yarmouth town, ME ............3,714
Northglenn city, CO .....................38,473
Novato city, CA ............................55,378
Novi city, MI .................................58,835
O'Fallon city, IL ............................29,095
Oak Park village, IL .......................52,229
Oakdale city, MN .........................27,972
Oklahoma City city, OK .............. 629,191
Olmsted County, MN ................. 151,685
Orland Park village, IL ..................59,161
Orleans Parish, LA ...................... 388,182
Oshkosh city, WI ..........................66,649
Oswego village, IL ........................33,759
Overland Park city, KS ................ 186,147
Paducah city, KY ...........................24,879
Palm Beach Gardens city, FL ........53,119
Palm Coast city, FL .......................82,356
Palo Alto city, CA..........................67,082
Palos Verdes Estates city, CA .......13,591
Panama City Beach city, FL ..........12,461
Papillion city, NE ..........................19,478
Paradise Valley town, AZ .............13,961
Park City city, UT ............................8,167
Parker town, CO...........................51,125
Pasco city, WA .............................70,607
Pasco County, FL ........................ 498,136
Payette city, ID ...............................7,366
Pearland city, TX ........................ 113,693
Peoria city, IL ............................. 115,424
Pflugerville city, TX ......................58,013
Philadelphia city, PA ............... 1,569,657
Pinehurst village, NC ....................15,580
Piqua city, OH ..............................20,793
Pitkin County, CO .........................17,747
Plano city, TX ............................. 281,566
Platte City city, MO ........................4,867
Pleasant Hill city, IA .......................9,608
Pleasanton city, CA ......................79,341
Plymouth city, MN .......................76,258
Port Orange city, FL .....................60,315
Port St. Lucie city, FL .................. 178,778
Portage city, MI ...........................48,072
Portland city, OR ........................ 630,331
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
124
Powell city, OH ............................ 12,658
Powhatan County, VA ................. 28,364
Prairie Village city, KS .................. 21,932
Pueblo city, CO .......................... 109,122
Purcellville town, VA ..................... 9,217
Queen Creek town, AZ ................ 33,298
Raleigh city, NC ......................... 449,477
Ramsey city, MN ......................... 25,853
Raymore city, MO ....................... 20,358
Redmond city, OR ....................... 28,492
Redmond city, WA ...................... 60,712
Redwood City city, CA ................. 84,368
Reno city, NV ............................. 239,732
Richfield city, MN ........................ 35,993
Richland city, WA ........................ 53,991
Richmond city, CA ..................... 108,853
Richmond Heights city, MO ........... 8,466
Rio Rancho city, NM .................... 93,317
River Falls city, WI ....................... 15,256
Riverside city, CA ....................... 321,570
Roanoke city, VA ......................... 99,572
Roanoke County, VA.................... 93,419
Rochester city, NY ..................... 209,463
Rock Hill city, SC .......................... 70,764
Rockville city, MD ........................ 66,420
Roeland Park city, KS ..................... 6,810
Rohnert Park city, CA .................. 42,305
Rolla city, MO .............................. 20,013
Rosemount city, MN ................... 23,474
Rosenberg city, TX ....................... 35,867
Roseville city, MN ........................ 35,624
Round Rock city, TX ................... 116,369
Royal Palm Beach village, FL ........ 37,665
Sacramento city, CA .................. 489,650
Sahuarita town, AZ ...................... 28,257
Sammamish city, WA .................. 62,877
San Carlos city, CA ....................... 29,954
San Diego city, CA .................. 1,390,966
San Francisco city, CA ................ 864,263
San Jose city, CA ..................... 1,023,031
San Marcos city, TX ..................... 59,935
Sangamon County, IL ................. 198,134
Santa Fe city, NM ........................ 82,980
Santa Fe County, NM ................ 147,514
Savage city, MN ........................... 30,011
Schaumburg village, IL ................. 74,427
Schertz city, TX ............................ 38,199
Scott County, MN ...................... 141,463
Scottsdale city, AZ ..................... 239,283
Sedona city, AZ ........................... 10,246
Sevierville city, TN ....................... 16,387
Shakopee city, MN ...................... 40,024
Shawnee city, KS ......................... 64,840
Shawnee city, OK ........................ 30,974
Shoreline city, WA ....................... 55,431
Shoreview city, MN ..................... 26,432
Shorewood village, IL .................. 16,809
Sierra Vista city, AZ ..................... 43,585
Silverton city, OR ........................... 9,757
Sioux Falls city, SD ..................... 170,401
Skokie village, IL .......................... 64,773
Snoqualmie city, WA ................... 12,944
Snowmass Village town, CO .......... 2,827
Somerset town, MA .................... 18,257
South Bend city, IN.................... 101,928
South Jordan city, UT .................. 65,523
South Portland city, ME .............. 25,431
Southlake city, TX ........................ 30,090
Spearfish city, SD ........................ 11,300
Springville city, UT....................... 32,319
St. Augustine city, FL ................... 13,952
St. Charles city, IL ........................ 32,730
St. Cloud city, MN ....................... 67,093
St. Croix County, WI .................... 87,142
St. Joseph city, MO...................... 76,819
St. Louis County, MN ................. 200,294
St. Lucie County, FL ................... 298,763
State College borough, PA .......... 42,224
Steamboat Springs city, CO ......... 12,520
Sugar Land city, TX ...................... 86,886
Suisun City city, CA ...................... 29,280
Summit County, UT ..................... 39,731
Sunnyvale city, CA ..................... 151,565
Surprise city, AZ ........................ 129,534
Suwanee city, GA ........................ 18,655
Tacoma city, WA ....................... 207,280
Takoma Park city, MD ................. 17,643
Tempe city, AZ .......................... 178,339
Temple city, TX ............................ 71,795
Texarkana city, TX ....................... 37,222
The Woodlands CDP, TX ............ 109,608
Thousand Oaks city, CA ............. 128,909
Tigard city, OR ............................. 51,355
Tinley Park village, IL ................... 57,107
Tracy city, CA .............................. 87,613
Trinidad CCD, CO ......................... 10,819
Tualatin city, OR .......................... 27,135
Tulsa city, OK............................. 401,352
Tustin city, CA ..............................80,007
Twin Falls city, ID .........................47,340
Unalaska city, AK ...........................4,809
University Heights city, OH ..........13,201
University Park city, TX ................24,692
Urbandale city, IA ........................42,222
Vail town, CO .................................5,425
Vernon Hills village, IL ..................26,084
Victoria city, MN ............................8,679
Vienna town, VA ..........................16,474
Virginia Beach city, VA ............... 450,057
Walnut Creek city, CA ..................68,516
Warrensburg city, MO .................19,890
Washington County, MN ........... 250,979
Washoe County, NV ................... 445,551
Waunakee village, WI ..................13,284
Wauwatosa city, WI .....................47,687
Wentzville city, MO .....................35,768
West Bend city, WI ......................31,656
West Carrollton city, OH ..............12,963
West Chester township, OH.........62,804
West Des Moines city, IA .............62,999
Western Springs village, IL ...........13,187
Westerville city, OH .....................38,604
Westlake town, TX .........................1,006
Westminster city, CO ................. 111,895
Westminster city, MD ..................18,557
Wheat Ridge city, CO ...................31,162
White House city, TN ...................11,107
Wichita city, KS .......................... 389,054
Williamsburg city, VA ...................14,817
Willowbrook village, IL ...................8,598
Wilmington city, NC ................... 115,261
Wilsonville city, OR ......................22,789
Windsor town, CO .......................23,386
Windsor town, CT ........................29,037
Winter Garden city, FL .................40,799
Woodbury city, MN .....................67,648
Woodinville city, WA ...................11,675
Wyandotte County, KS ............... 163,227
Wyoming city, MI .........................75,124
Yakima city, WA ...........................93,182
York County, VA ...........................67,196
Yorktown town, IN .......................11,200
Yorkville city, IL ............................18,691
Yountville city, CA ..........................2,978
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
125
SURVEY MATERIALS
The following pages contain copies of the survey materials sent to randomly selected households within the
City of Palo Alto.
1 of 1
TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: ED SHIKADA, CITY MANAGER
AGENDA DATE: MAY 17, 2021
SUBJECT: ITEM NUMBER 2 – STUDY SESSION – PRESENTATION BY POLCO/NRC OF
THE CITY OF PALO ALTO COMMUNITY SURVEY RESULTS
Subsequent to the printing of the report for the National Community Survey, Polco/NRC added
an additional table for the historical trends for Question 12 (Table 57 on page 51). No other
changes were made to the report. The updated survey results report is attached to this At-
Places Memo.
_________________________
Ed Shikada
City Manager
2
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4349E292-849D-469B-AB22-6624AF8E03BD
Prepared by:
The City of Palo Alto, CA
Community Survey Report of Results
2021
May 13, 2021 Revise
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4349E292-849D-469B-AB22-6624AF8E03BD
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
CONTENTS
Detailed Survey Methods ........................................................................................................................................... 3
National Benchmark Comparisons .......................................................................................................................... 12
Key Findings ............................................................................................................................................................... 14
Results Tables ............................................................................................................................................................ 16
Verbatim Responses to Open-ended Survey Questions ...................................................................................... 67
Question 17: As a resident of Palo Alto, what one change could the City make that would make
you happier? ....................................................................................................................................................... 67
Question 18: As a resident of Palo Alto, what one thing do you believe the City does well and
would want to maintain? ................................................................................................................................. 84
Responses to Open-Participation, Community-Wide Survey .............................................................................. 97
Question 17: As a resident of Palo Alto, what one change could the City make that woul d make
you happier? ..................................................................................................................................................... 117
Question 18: As a resident of Palo Alto, what one thing do you believe the City does well and
would want to ma intain? ............................................................................................................................... 121
Communities included in national comparisons ................................................................................................. 124
Survey Materials ...................................................................................................................................................... 127
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4349E292-849D-469B-AB22-6624AF8E03BD
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
3
DETAILED SURVEY METHODS
Survey Information
The 2021 Palo Alto Community Survey was developed and conducted by Polco/National Research Center,
Inc. (NRC). 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,
and geographic location allows comparison of results for different subgroups of residents. The City of Palo
Alto funded this research. Please contact Chantal Cotton Gaines, Deputy City Manager, City of Palo Alto, at
chantal.gaines@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 multi-family housing units to improve response from hard-to-reach respondents.
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 pre-addressed, 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
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4349E292-849D-469B-AB22-6624AF8E03BD
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
4
opinion and, of course, the opinion, itself, that a resident holds about the service. Similarly a resident’s
report of certain 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.”
Selecting Survey Recipients
“Sampling” refers to the method by which households were chosen to receive the survey. All households
within the City of Palo Alto were eligible to participate in the survey. A list of all households within the zip
codes serving Palo Alto was purchased from Go-Dog Direct based on updated listings from the United
States Postal Service. Since some of the zip codes that serve 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 Palo Alto boundaries were removed from consideration. Each address
identified as being within City boundaries was further identified as being located in North or South Palo
Alto, and within one of six areas.
To choose the 3,600 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 Nth one, giving each eligible household a known
probability of selection, until the appropriate number of households is selected. Multi-family housing units
were selected at a higher rate as residents of this type of housing typically respond at lower rates to surveys
than do those in single-family housing units. Figure 1 displays a map of the households selected to receive
the survey. 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).
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4349E292-849D-469B-AB22-6624AF8E03BD
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
5
While the theory of probability assumes no bias in selection, there may be some minor variations in practice
(meaning, an area with only 15% of the housing units might be selected at an actual rate that is slightly
above or below that).
An individual within each household was selected using the birthday method. The birthday method selects
a person within the household by asking the “person whose birthday has most recently passed” to complete
the questionnaire. The underlying assumption in this method is that day of birth has no relationship to the
way people respond to surveys. This instruction was contained in the cover letter accompanying the
questionnaire.
In addition to the scientific, random selection of households, a link to an online “opt-in” survey was
publicized and posted to the City of Palo Alto website. This opt-in survey was identical to the scientific
survey and open to all City residents. (The data presented in this report exclude the opt-in survey data.
These data can be found in the Supplemental Online Survey Results provided under separate cover.)
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4349E292-849D-469B-AB22-6624AF8E03BD
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
6
FIGURE 1: LOCATION OF SURVEY RECIPIENTS BY AREA
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4349E292-849D-469B-AB22-6624AF8E03BD
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
7
FIGURE 2: LOCATION OF SURVEY RECIPIENTS BY NORTH/SOUTH
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4349E292-849D-469B-AB22-6624AF8E03BD
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
8
Survey Administration and Response
Selected households received mailings beginning on December 21, 2020. For 1,800 households, the first
mailing was a postcard announcing the upcoming survey with a link to complete the survey online. The
next mailing contained a letter from the City Manager 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. For the remaining 1,800
households, the first mailing was a postcard with a link to complete the survey online, followed one week
later by a reminder postcard with a link to the survey. The second postcard also asked respondents not to
complete the survey a second time.
The survey was available in English. All mailings included a URL through which the residents could choose
to respond online. Completed surveys were collected over seven weeks. The online “opt-in” survey became
available to all residents on January 25, 2021 and remained open for two weeks.
About 4% of the 3,600 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 3,440 households that received the
survey, 768 completed the survey, providing an overall response rate of 22%. Of the 768 completed surveys,
530 were completed online. Additionally, responses were tracked by geographic subarea; response rates by
area ranged from 17% to 35%. The response rates were/was calculated using AAPOR’s response rate #21 for
mailed surveys of unnamed persons. Additionally, 157 residents completed the online opt-in survey.
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.2
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 (768 completed surveys).
For subgroups of responses, the margin of error increases because the number of responses for the subgroup
is smaller. For subgroups of approximately 100 respondents, the margin of error is plus or minus 10
percentage points. For the North and South, the margin of error rises to approximately plus or minus five
percentage points since the number of responses for the North were 378 and for the South were 390. Further,
1 See AAPOR’s Standard Definitions for more information:
http://www.aapor.org/Standards-Ethics/Standard-Definitions-(1).aspx
2 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. Differences in question wording, order, translation
and data entry, as examples, can lead to somewhat varying results.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4349E292-849D-469B-AB22-6624AF8E03BD
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
9
for each of the six areas within Palo Alto, the margin of error rises to approximately plus or minus 11
percentage points since number of responses were 136 for Area 1, 139 for Area 2, 106 for Area 3, 140 for Area
4, 80 for Area 5 and 167 for Area 6. The margin of error for the six areas within Palo Alto is based off the
smallest number of returned surveys per area; thus margin of error was calculated using the number of
returned surveys from Area 5 (80).
TABLE 1: SURVEY RESPONSE RATES
Number mailed Undeliverable Eligible Returned Response rate
Overall 3,600 160 3,440 768 22%
North 1,762 89 1,673 378 23%
South 1,838 71 1,767 390 22%
Area 1 393 4 389 136 35%
Area 2 665 20 645 139 22%
Area 3 437 3 434 106 24%
Area 4 717 48 669 140 21%
Area 5 349 17 332 80 24%
Area 6 1039 68 971 167 17%
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 in
comparison to the original survey form. Range checks as well as other forms of quality control were also
performed.
NRC uses Polco, an online public engagement tool designed primarily for local governments, to collect
online survey data. The Polco platform includes many features of online survey tools, but also includes
elements tailored to the civic environment. For example, like NRC’s mailed surveys, surveys on Polco are
presented with the City name, logo (or other image) and a description, so residents understand who is
asking for input and why. Optionally, Polco can also verify respondents with local public data to ensure
respondents are residents or voters. More generally, an advantage of online programming and data
gathering is that it allows for more rigid control of the data format, making extensive data cleaning
unnecessary.
Survey Data Weighting
Upon completion of data collection for both the scientific (probability) and nonscientific open participation
online opt-in (non-probability) surveys, the demographics of each dataset were separately compared to
those found in the 2010 Census and 2017 American Community Survey estimates for adults in the City of
Palo Alto. The primary objective of weighting survey data is to make the survey respondents reflective of
the larger population of the community. Both survey datasets were weighted independently to best match
the Census. The characteristics used for weighting were housing tenure (rent or own), housing unit type
(attached or detached), sex, and age. No adjustments were made for design effects. Results for the opt-in
survey can be found beginning on page 97.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4349E292-849D-469B-AB22-6624AF8E03BD
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
10
TABLE 2: PALO ALTO, CA 2020 WEIGHTING TABLE
Characteristic Population Norm Unweighted Data Weighted Data
Housing
Rent home 45% 29% 45%
Own home 55% 71% 55%
Detached unit* 58% 70% 58%
Attached unit* 42% 30% 42%
Race and Ethnicity
White 68% 68% 65%
Not white 32% 32% 35%
Not Hispanic 95% 97% 95%
Hispanic 5% 3% 5%
Sex and Age
Female 52% 51% 51%
Male 48% 49% 49%
18-34 years of age 22% 8% 22%
35-54 years of age 41% 31% 41%
55+ years of age 37% 62% 37%
Females 18-34 10% 4% 10%
Females 35-54 21% 14% 21%
Females 55+ 20% 34% 20%
Males 18-34 12% 4% 12%
Males 35-54 20% 16% 20%
Males 55+ 17% 29% 17%
Area
Area 1 13% 18% 15%
Area 2 19% 18% 18%
Area 3 13% 14% 13%
Area 4 19% 18% 19%
Area 5 9% 10% 11%
Area 6 27% 22% 23%
North/South
North 49% 49% 49%
South 51% 51% 51%
* U.S. Census Bureau ACS 2017 5-year estimates
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4349E292-849D-469B-AB22-6624AF8E03BD
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
11
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.
On many of the questions in the survey respondents may answer “don’t know.” The proportion of
respondents giving this reply is shown in the full set of responses included in Appendix A. However, these
responses have been removed from the analyses presented in the reports. In other words, the tables and
graphs display the responses from respondents who had an opinion about a specific item. When a table for a
question that only permitted a single response does not total to exactly 100%, it is due to the common
practice of percentages being rounded to the nearest whole number.
Trends over Time
Trend tables display trends over time, comparing the 2021 ratings for the City of Palo Alto to the 10
previous iterations of survey results (going back to 2009) and displaying 2003 data, the year when surveying
started.
Trend data for Palo Alto represent important comparison data and should be examined for improvements
or declines. Deviations from stable trends over time, especially, represent opportunities for understanding
how local policies, programs or public information may have affected residents’ opinions.
Meaningful differences between survey years have been noted within the following tables as being “higher”
or “lower” if the differences are greater than approximately five percentage points3 between the 2021 and
2018 surveys; otherwise, the comparisons between 2021 and 2018 are noted as being “similar.” When
comparing results over time, small differences (those with less than a 5 percent difference compared to 2018)
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 2018) 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.
3 While the percentages are reported as rounded whole numbers, meaningful differences are identified based on un rounded
percentages with decimals in place.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4349E292-849D-469B-AB22-6624AF8E03BD
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
12
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 the six geographic subareas. Responses have
been summarized to 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 participated in an activity at least once. It should be noted that when a table that does include all
responses (not a single number) for a question that only permitted a single response does not total to exactly
100%, it is due to the common practice of percentages being rounded to the nearest whole number.
The subgroup comparison tables contain the crosstabulations of survey questions by geographic area. Chi-
square or ANOVA tests of significance were applied to these breakdowns of survey questions. A “p-value”
of 0.05 or less indicates that there is less than a 5% probability that differences observed between groups are
due to chance; or in other words, a greater than 95% probability that the differences observed in the selected
categories of the sample represent “real” differences among those populations. As subgroups vary in size
and each group (and each comparison to another group) has a unique margin of error, statistical testing is
used to determine whether differences between subgroups are statistically significant.
Each column in the following tables is labeled with a letter for each subgroup being compared. The
“Overall” column, which shows the ratings for all respondents, also has a column designation of “(A)”, but
no statistical tests were done for the overall rating.
For each pair of subgroup ratings within a row (a single question item) that has a statistically significant
difference, an uppercase letter denoting significance is shown in the cell with the larger column proportion.
The letter denotes the subgroup with the smaller column proportion from which it is statistically different.
Subgroups that have no uppercase letter denotation in their column and that are also not referred to in any
other column were not statistically different.
NATIONAL BENCHMARK COMPARISONS
Comparison Data
NRC’s database of comparative resident opinion is comprised of resident perspectives gathered in surveys
from over 600 communities whose residents evaluated the same kinds of topics as on the Palo Alto
Community Survey. The surveys gathered for NRC’s database include data from communities that have
been conducted by NRC, 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 Res ults
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
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4349E292-849D-469B-AB22-6624AF8E03BD
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
13
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.
Although responses to many of the evaluative questions were made on a four-point scale with 1
representing the best rating and 4 the worst, the benchmarks are calculated on a common scale where 0 is
the worst possible rating and 100 is the best possible rating.
In that final column, Palo Alto’s results are noted as being “higher” than the benchmark, “lower” than the
benchmark, or “similar” to the benchmark, meaning that the average rating given by Palo Alto residents is
statistically similar to or different (greater or lesser) than the benchmark. More extreme differences are noted
as “much higher” or “much lower.” A rating is considered “similar” if it is within the standard range of 10
points; “higher” or “lower” if the difference between Palo Alto’s rating and the benchmark is greater than
the standard range but less than twice the standard range; and “much higher” or “much lower” if the
difference between Palo Alto’s rating and the benchmark is higher or lower by more than twice the standard
range. Where benchmark ratings were not available, “NA” indicates that this information is not applicable
(these were questions specific to Palo Alto and not asked in other communities).
The 100-point scale is not a percent. It is a conversion of responses to an average rating. Each response
option is assigned a value that is used in calculating the average score. For example, “very good”= 100,
“good”= 75, “neither good nor bad”= 50, “bad”= 25, and “very bad”= 0. If everyone reported “very good,”
then the average rating would be 100 on the 100-point scale. Likewise, if all respondents gave a “very bad”
rating, the result would be 0 on the 100-point scale. If half the respondents gave a score of “very good” and
half gave a score of “very bad,” the average would be 50, in the middle of the scale (like the center post of a
teeter totter) or “neither good nor bad.” An example of how to convert survey frequencies into an average
rating appears below.
TABLE 3: EXAMPLE OF CONVERTING RESPONSES TO THE 100-POINT SCALE
How do you rate the community as a place to live?
Response
option
Total with
“don’t
know”
Step1: Remove
“don’t know”
responses
Total without
“don’t know”
Step 2:
Assign scale
values
Step 3:
Multiply % by
scale value
Step 4: Sum to
calculate average
rating
Very good 15% =15÷(100-2)= 15.3% 100 =15.3% x 100 = 15.3
Good 53% =53÷(100-2)= 54.1% 75 =54.1% x 75 = 40.6
Neither good
nor bad 26% =26÷(100-2)= 26.5% 50 =26.5% x 50 = 13.3
Bad 3% =3÷(100-2)= 3.1% 25 =3.1% x 25 = 0.8
Very bad 0% =0÷(100-2)= 0% 0 =0% x 0 = 0
Don’t know 2% --
Total 100% 100% 70
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4349E292-849D-469B-AB22-6624AF8E03BD
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
14
KEY FINDINGS
Palo Alto residents continue to rate the community positively.
About 9 in 10 residents gave excellent or good ratings to the city as a place to live and their neighborhood
as a place to live, while about 8 in 10 gave positive marks to the overall quality of life in the city, Palo Alto
as a place to raise children, and the city as a place to work. Seven in 10 were pleased with Palo Alto as a
place to visit and half of residents gave favorable scores to the city as a place to retire. About three-quarters
planned to remain in Palo Alto for the next five years. All of these ratings were similar to those given in
other communities across the nation and similar to ratings given in 2018 except for place to retire, which
was higher than the benchmark and improved from 2018 to 2021.
The local economy garners strong ratings, but affordability is an issue.
About 8 in 10 residents gave favorable marks to the overall quality of business and service establishments
in the city. Three-quarters of survey respondents gave positive ratings to shopping opportunities in Palo
Alto, while roughly 7 in 10 were pleased with employment opportunities and the vibrancy of the city’s
downtown/commercial areas. Two-thirds awarded high scores to the city’s variety of business and service
establishments. Where benchmark comparisons and trends over time were available, these aspects tended
to be rated higher than or similar to national averages and also similar to 2018 ratings.
However, as in past years, affordability-related measures, such as cost of living (6% excellent or good) and
availability of affordable quality housing (9%), while similar to Palo Alto’s 2018 ratings, were much lower
than the benchmark comparisons. It is noteworthy, however, that the rating for variety of housing options,
while lower than the benchmark, improved over time (13% in 2018 versus 27% in 2021). When asked to
write in their own words what one change the City could make that would make them happier, 19% of
those who wrote in a comment made a remark related to housing (the amount, type, and/or affordability);
this was the most frequently-mentioned topic area.
Mobility and transportation are features of the community, and attitudes toward alternative
transportation have shifted more positively in recent years.
About 8 in 10 respondents or more positively rated the ease of walking in Palo Alto, ease of travel by
bicycle, and street cleaning, while at least 7 in 10 gave high scores to ease of travel by car and the
availability of paths and walking trails. Six in 10 were pleased with ease of public parking, traffic
enforcement, traffic signal timing, street repair, and sidewalk maintenance. Many traffic and street-related
ratings improved from 2018 to 2021, though it is likely that the lockdowns and reduction in traffic
congestion associated with the COVID-19 pandemic may have at least partially affected these ratings.
Further, ratings for ease of travel by bicycle, ease of travel by walking, and street cleaning were higher than
national averages.
Palo Alto residents were more likely than those who lived elsewhere to have used public transportation
instead of driving or to have walked or biked instead of driving. Also, when asked about the level of
convenience of different transportation methods if they did not have a car available, Palo Alto residents
were more likely in 2021 than in 2018 to rate walking and biking as convenient methods of getting around.
Respondents in 2021 were also more likely to purchase an electric car, and less likely to purchase a gas-
powered car, in the next two years than in 2018.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4349E292-849D-469B-AB22-6624AF8E03BD
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
15
Ratings for some utility-related aspects have improved since 2018.
About 9 in 10 residents gave positive marks to the reliability of utility services in Palo Alto and 8 in 10 or
more awarded favorable scores to: the community value received from the City owning and operating its
own municipal utility services, utilities online customer self-service features, providing opportunities for
energy and water efficiency at home or business, value of Palo Alto Utilities’ customer communications,
ease of contacting Utilities department staff, and speed of response after contacting Utilities department
staff. Five of the 11 individual aspects of utility services included in this question saw improved ratings
from 2018 to 2021; the remaining 6 aspects were similar to the previous survey results. Further, more than
8 in 10 residents gave positive marks to utility payment options, drinking water, and storm water
management (the latter rating also increased from 2018 to 2021).
Educational opportunities for children and adults are another community asset.
About 90% of survey respondents gave excellent or good ratings to K-12 education, and about 8 in 10 were
pleased with adult educational opportunities. Both of these ratings were higher than the national
benchmarks and adult educational opportunities increased from 2018 to 2021. Eight in 10 residents gave
high scores to art programs and theater (for which a benchmark comparison was not available) and this
rating also increased since 2018. More than 9 in 10 residents favorably rated library facilities, which was
similar to 2018. The rating for availability of affordable quality child care/preschool, at 44% positive, was
similar to the national average and also improved since the previous survey iteration. Finally, in an open-
ended question that asked respondents to write in what they thought the City does well, 10% made a
comment related to the library and another 8% remarked on schools and education.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4349E292-849D-469B-AB22-6624AF8E03BD
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
16
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). 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 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 2021 and 2018 surveys;
otherwise, the comparison between 2021 and 2018 are noted as being “similar.”
Geographic comparisons are made for questions 1 through 16 (some questions having multiple, non-scaled
responses are not included). Chi-square or ANOVA tests of significance were applied to these breakdowns
of survey questions. A “p-value” of 0.05 or less indicates that there is less than a 5% probability that
differences observed between groups are due to chance; or in other words, a greater than 95% probability
that the differences observed in the selected categories of the sample represent “real” differences among
those populations. As subgroups vary in size and each group (and each comparison to another group) has a
unique margin of error, statistical testing is used to determine whether differences between subgroups are
statistically significant.
Each column in the following tables is labeled with a letter for each subgroup being compared. The
“Overall” column, which shows the ratings for all respondents, also has a column designation of “(A)”, but
no statistical tests were done for the overall rating.
For each pair of subgroup ratings within a row (a single question item) that has a statistically significant
difference, an upper case letter denoting significance is shown in the cell with the larger column proportion.
The letter denotes the subgroup with the smaller column proportion from which it is statistically different.
Subgroups that have no upper case letter denotation in their column and that are also not referred to in any
other column were not statistically different.
For example, in Table 7 on page 18, respondents in North Palo Alto (A) gave significantly higher ratings to
their neighborhood as a place to live than respondents in South Palo Alto (B), as denoted by the “B” listed in
the cell of the ratings for North Palo Alto. The neighborhood rating in Area 6 (F) also was significantly
higher than those of Areas 1, 2, 3 and 4 (A, B, C, and D) (as indicated by the “A B C D” in the rating for Area
6).
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4349E292-849D-469B-AB22-6624AF8E03BD
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
17
QUESTION 1
TABLE 4: QUESTION 1 - RESPONSE PERCENTAGES AND NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS INCLUDING "DON'T KNOW" RESPONSES
Please rate each of the following aspects of quality of life in Palo
Alto: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total
Palo Alto as a place to live 44% N=334 44% N=337 11% N=83 1% N=5 1% N=4 100% N=763
Your neighborhood as a place to live 48% N=361 41% N=306 10% N=75 2% N=11 0% N=3 100% N=756
Palo Alto as a place to raise children 36% N=276 31% N=239 11% N=83 4% N=28 17% N=132 100% N=758
Palo Alto as a place to work 30% N=222 37% N=275 11% N=86 3% N=20 19% N=145 100% N=748
Palo Alto as a place to visit 25% N=189 41% N=308 23% N=171 5% N=40 6% N=47 100% N=755
Palo Alto as a place to retire 18% N=139 23% N=178 19% N=146 20% N=152 19% N=142 100% N=757
The overall quality of life in Palo Alto 31% N=235 53% N=400 14% N=104 2% N=14 1% N=6 100% N=760
TABLE 5: QUESTION 1 - RESPONSE PERCENTAGES AND NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS WITHOUT "DON'T KNOW" RESPONSES
Please rate each of the following aspects of quality of life in Palo Alto: Excellent Good Fair Poor Total
Palo Alto as a place to live 44% N=334 44% N=337 11% N=83 1% N=5 100% N=759
Your neighborhood as a place to live 48% N=361 41% N=306 10% N=75 2% N=11 100% N=753
Palo Alto as a place to raise children 44% N=276 38% N=239 13% N=83 4% N=28 100% N=626
Palo Alto as a place to work 37% N=222 46% N=275 14% N=86 3% N=20 100% N=603
Palo Alto as a place to visit 27% N=189 43% N=308 24% N=171 6% N=40 100% N=708
Palo Alto as a place to retire 23% N=139 29% N=178 24% N=146 25% N=152 100% N=614
The overall quality of life in Palo Alto 31% N=235 53% N=400 14% N=104 2% N=14 100% N=754
TABLE 6: QUESTION 1 - HISTORICAL RESULTS
Please rate each of the following aspects of
quality of life in Palo Alto:
Percent positive 2021 rating
compared to 2018 2003 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2021
Palo Alto as a place to live 95% 94% 95% 94% 95% 92% 95% 92% 91% 91% 89% 88% Similar
Your neighborhood as a place to live 88% 90% 91% 90% 90% 91% 92% 90% 91% 91% 90% 89% Similar
Palo Alto as a place to raise children 90% 91% 93% 93% 92% 90% 93% 87% 84% 84% 82% 82% Similar
Palo Alto as a place to work NA 87% 87% 89% 88% 89% 86% 87% 82% 82% 80% 82% Similar
Palo Alto as a place to visit NA NA NA NA NA NA 75% 74% 72% 71% 68% 70% Similar
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4349E292-849D-469B-AB22-6624AF8E03BD
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
18
Please rate each of the following aspects of
quality of life in Palo Alto:
Percent positive 2021 rating
compared to 2018 2003 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2021
Palo Alto as a place to retire 62% 64% 65% 68% 68% 56% 60% 52% 50% 51% 40% 52% Higher
The overall quality of life in Palo Alto 92% 91% 93% 94% 92% 94% 91% 91% 88% 85% 89% 84% Similar
TABLE 7: QUESTION 1 - GEOGRAPHIC SUBGROUP RESULTS
Percent rating "excellent" or "good"
North/South Area Overall
North South Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5 Area 6
(A) (A) (B) (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F)
Palo Alto as a place to live
89% 88% 91% 86% 89% 89% 82% 92%
E
88%
Your neighborhood as a place to live
93%
B
85% 86% 85% 86% 83% 93%
D
97%
A B C D
89%
Palo Alto as a place to raise children 80% 84% 79% 82% 87% 83% 78% 84% 82%
Palo Alto as a place to work 83% 82% 86% 82% 75% 84% 79% 84% 82%
Palo Alto as a place to visit
73% 68% 78%
D
68% 69% 66% 77% 68% 70%
Palo Alto as a place to retire
56%
B
47% 57%
E
47% 52% 45% 40% 63%
B D E
52%
The overall quality of life in Palo Alto
86% 83% 84% 81% 85% 82% 81% 90%
B E
84%
TABLE 8: QUESTION 1 - BENCHMARK COMPARISONS
City of Palo Alto rating Rank Number of jurisdictions for comparison Comparison to benchmark
Palo Alto as a place to live 77 158 388 Similar
Your neighborhood as a place to live 78 92 321 Similar
Palo Alto as a place to raise children 74 174 385 Similar
Palo Alto as a place to work 72 41 369 Higher
Palo Alto as a place to visit 64 118 304 Similar
Palo Alto as a place to retire 50 289 369 Similar
The overall quality of life in Palo Alto 71 191 444 Similar
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4349E292-849D-469B-AB22-6624AF8E03BD
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
19
QUEST ION 2
TABLE 9: QUESTION 2 - RESPONSE PERCENTAGES AND NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS INCLUDING "DON'T KNOW" RESPONSES
Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Palo
Alto as a whole: Excellent Good Fair Poor
Don't
know Total
Overall "built environment" of Palo Alto (including overall design,
buildings, parks and transportation systems) 19% N=144 56% N=427 18% N=134 6% N=44 2% N=12 100% N=760
Overall feeling of safety in Palo Alto 44% N=333 42% N=322 12% N=87 2% N=13 0% N=4 100% N=759
Overall quality of natural environment in Palo Alto 41% N=308 49% N=375 8% N=63 1% N=10 0% N=4 100% N=760
Overall health and wellness opportunities in Palo Alto 39% N=297 43% N=325 10% N=75 2% N=13 6% N=48 100% N=758
Residents' connection and engagement with their community 15% N=113 42% N=320 24% N=179 11% N=87 8% N=58 100% N=757
TABLE 10: QUESTION 2 - RESPONSE PERCENTAGES AND NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS WITHOUT "DON'T KNOW" RESPONSES
Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Palo Alto as a whole: Excellent Good Fair Poor Total
Overall "built environment" of Palo Alto (including overall design, buildings, parks and
transportation systems) 19% N=144 57% N=427 18% N=134 6% N=44 100% N=748
Overall feeling of safety in Palo Alto 44% N=333 43% N=322 12% N=87 2% N=13 100% N=756
Overall quality of natural environment in Palo Alto 41% N=308 50% N=375 8% N=63 1% N=10 100% N=756
Overall health and wellness opportunities in Palo Alto 42% N=297 46% N=325 11% N=75 2% N=13 100% N=710
Residents' connection and engagement with their community 16% N=113 46% N=320 26% N=179 12% N=87 100% N=698
TABLE 11: QUESTION 2 - HISTORICAL RESULTS
Please rate each of the following characteristics as
they relate to Palo Alto as a whole:
Percent positive 2021 rating
compared to
2018 2003 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2021
Overall "built environment" of Palo Alto (including
overall design, buildings, parks and transportation
systems) NA NA NA NA NA NA 67% 63% 59% 65% 62% 76% Higher
Overall feeling of safety in Palo Alto NA NA NA NA NA NA 92% 91% 94% 94% 91% 87% Similar
Overall quality of natural environment in Palo Alto NA 84% 84% 84% 88% 83% 88% 86% 84% 89% 87% 90% Similar
Health and wellness opportunities in Palo Alto NA NA NA NA NA NA 88% 88% 85% 88% 84% 88% Similar
*“Residents' connection and engagement with their community” was a new question in 2021.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4349E292-849D-469B-AB22-6624AF8E03BD
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
20
TABLE 12: QUESTION 2 - GEOGRAPHIC SUBGROUP RESULTS
Percent rating "excellent" or "good"
North/South Area Overall
North South
Area
1
Area
2
Area
3
Area
4
Area
5
Area
6
(A) (A) (B) (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F)
Overall "built environment" of Palo Alto (including overall design, buildings, parks and
transportation systems)
79% 74% 75% 78%
D
77% 67% 77% 83%
D
76%
Overall feeling of safety in Palo Alto 86% 87% 83% 88% 85% 88% 87% 88% 87%
Overall quality of natural environment in Palo Alto 90% 91% 88% 88% 91% 92% 90% 91% 90%
Overall health and wellness opportunities in Palo Alto 87% 88% 88% 84% 89% 89% 83% 90% 88%
Residents' connection and engagement with their community
62% 62% 69% 60% 71%
D
57% 62% 58% 62%
TABLE 13: QUESTION 2 - BENCHMARK COMPARISONS
City of Palo Alto
rating Rank
Number of jurisdictions for
comparison
Comparison to
benchmark
Overall "built environment" of Palo Alto (including overall design, buildings, parks
and transportation systems) 63 62 281 Similar
Overall feeling of safety in Palo Alto 76 118 366 Similar
Overall quality of natural environment in Palo Alto 77 60 292 Similar
Overall health and wellness opportunities in Palo Alto 76 22 284 Higher
Residents' connection and engagement with their community 55 27 57 Similar
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4349E292-849D-469B-AB22-6624AF8E03BD
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
21
QUESTION 3
TABLE 14: QUESTION 3 - RESPONSE PERCENTAGES AND NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS INCLUDING "DON'T KNOW" RESPONSES
Please indicate how likely or unlikely you are to do each of
the following: Very likely
Somewhat
likely
Somewhat
unlikely
Very
unlikely Don't know Total
Recommend living in Palo Alto to someone who asks 36% N=272 37% N=280 16% N=125 9% N=71 2% N=13 100% N=761
Remain in Palo Alto for the next five years 46% N=348 29% N=224 10% N=74 12% N=90 3% N=24 100% N=761
Recommend Palo Alto’s libraries to friends 51% N=388 25% N=191 4% N=34 3% N=21 17% N=131 100% N=764
TABLE 15: QUESTION 3 - RESPONSE PERCENTAGES AND NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS WITHOUT "DON'T KNOW" RESPONSES
Please indicate how likely or unlikely you are to do each of the following: Very likely Somewhat likely Somewhat unlikely Very unlikely Total
Recommend living in Palo Alto to someone who asks 36% N=272 37% N=280 17% N=125 10% N=71 100% N=748
Remain in Palo Alto for the next five years 47% N=348 30% N=224 10% N=74 12% N=90 100% N=737
Recommend Palo Alto’s libraries to friends 61% N=388 30% N=191 5% N=34 3% N=21 100% N=633
TABLE 16: QUESTION 3 - HISTORICAL RESULTS
Please indicate how likely or unlikely you are
to do each of the following:
Percent positive 2021 rating
compared to 2018 2003 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2021
Recommend living in Palo Alto to someone who
asks NA 90% 90% 91% 92% 89% 86% 80% 72% 75% 73% 74% Similar
Remain in Palo Alto for the next five years NA 87% 83% 87% 87% 87% 83% 80% 75% 76% 78% 78% Similar
Recommend Palo Alto’s libraries to friends NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 91% 92% 91% Similar
TABLE 17: QUESTION 3 - GEOGRAPHIC SUBGROUP RESULTS
Percent rating "very likely" or "somewhat likely"
North/South Area Overall
North South Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5 Area 6
(A) (A) (B) (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F)
Recommend living in Palo Alto to someone who asks 73% 75% 75% 77% 74% 73% 69% 74% 74%
Remain in Palo Alto for the next five years 79% 77% 80% 79% 80% 72% 79% 78% 78%
Recommend Palo Alto’s libraries to friends 92% 91% 89% 91%
96%
D 87% 92%
95%
D 91%
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4349E292-849D-469B-AB22-6624AF8E03BD
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
22
TABLE 18: QUESTION 3 - BENCHMARK COMPARISONS
City of Palo Alto rating Rank Number of jurisdictions for comparison Comparison to benchmark
Recommend living in Palo Alto to someone who asks 74 256 300 Lower
Remain in Palo Alto for the next five years 78 243 293 Similar
*A benchmark comparison was not available for ''Recommend Palo Alto’s libraries to friends''.
QUESTION 4
TABLE 19: QUESTION 4 - RESPONSE PERCENTAGES AND NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS INCLUDING "DON'T KNOW" RESPONSES
Please rate the job you feel the Palo Alto community does at each
of the following. Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total
Making all residents feel welcome 13% N=100 39% N=294 27% N=201 10% N=74 12% N=91 100% N=760
Attracting people from diverse backgrounds 18% N=133 29% N=219 22% N=163 21% N=156 12% N=87 100% N=758
Valuing/respecting residents from diverse backgrounds 20% N=150 38% N=288 21% N=155 11% N=85 10% N=78 100% N=756
Taking care of vulnerable residents (elderly, disabled, homeless, etc.) 10% N=74 25% N=190 23% N=176 16% N=117 26% N=196 100% N=754
TABLE 20: QUESTION 4 - RESPONSE PERCENTAGES AND NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS WITHOUT "DON'T KNOW" RESPONSES
Please rate the job you feel the Palo Alto community does at each of the following. Excellent Good Fair Poor Total
Making all residents feel welcome 15% N=100 44% N=294 30% N=201 11% N=74 100% N=669
Attracting people from diverse backgrounds 20% N=133 33% N=219 24% N=163 23% N=156 100% N=670
Valuing/respecting residents from diverse backgrounds 22% N=150 42% N=288 23% N=155 13% N=85 100% N=678
Taking care of vulnerable residents (elderly, disabled, homeless, etc.) 13% N=74 34% N=190 32% N=176 21% N=117 100% N=558
There are no trend data available for Question 4 as this was a new question on the 2021 survey.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4349E292-849D-469B-AB22-6624AF8E03BD
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
23
TABLE 21: QUESTION 4 - 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
(A) (A) (B) (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F)
Making all residents feel welcome
52% 65%
A
59%
F
59%
F
74%
A B E F
64%
F
57% 46% 59%
Attracting people from diverse backgrounds
46% 58%
A
53% 57%
F
64%
E F
54% 47% 43% 52%
Valuing/respecting residents from diverse backgrounds
61% 68% 61% 66% 79%
A D E F
61% 59% 63% 65%
Taking care of vulnerable residents (elderly, disabled, homeless, etc.)
45% 49% 43% 50% 57%
D
42% 50% 46% 47%
TABLE 22: QUESTION 4 - BENCHMARK COMPARISONS
City of Palo Alto rating Rank Number of jurisdictions for comparison Comparison to benchmark
Making all residents feel welcome 54 48 57 Similar
Attracting people from diverse backgrounds 50 44 57 Similar
Valuing/respecting residents from diverse backgrounds 58 31 57 Similar
Taking care of vulnerable residents 47 46 57 Similar
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
Overall quality of business and service establishments in Palo Alto 28% N=210 55% N=415 13% N=95 2% N=17 3% N=22 100% N=759
Variety of business and service establishments in Palo Alto 19% N=146 46% N=348 25% N=189 8% N=60 2% N=14 100% N=758
Vibrancy of downtown/commercial area 24% N=183 45% N=342 22% N=168 5% N=37 4% N=27 100% N=757
Employment opportunities 16% N=120 31% N=238 15% N=115 8% N=57 30% N=227 100% N=757
Shopping opportunities 30% N=226 47% N=357 17% N=127 5% N=35 1% N=10 100% N=754
Cost of living in Palo Alto 0% N=3 6% N=42 24% N=185 68% N=518 1% N=10 100% N=758
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4349E292-849D-469B-AB22-6624AF8E03BD
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
24
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 image or reputation of Palo Alto 32% N=241 45% N=337 18% N=135 4% N=29 2% N=13 100% N=755
Traffic flow on major streets 8% N=60 40% N=306 35% N=265 15% N=117 1% N=11 100% N=759
Ease of public parking 13% N=99 44% N=335 29% N=222 11% N=83 2% N=18 100% N=757
Ease of travel by car in Palo Alto 20% N=151 48% N=364 22% N=170 7% N=55 2% N=18 100% N=758
Ease of travel by public transportation in Palo Alto 4% N=32 16% N=119 21% N=160 26% N=194 33% N=250 100% N=755
Ease of travel by bicycle in Palo Alto 30% N=229 39% N=294 15% N=113 3% N=24 13% N=95 100% N=756
Ease of walking in Palo Alto 45% N=339 41% N=309 11% N=86 2% N=15 1% N=8 100% N=757
Variety of housing options 5% N=35 19% N=146 31% N=230 34% N=259 11% N=82 100% N=753
Availability of affordable quality housing 2% N=18 6% N=42 14% N=108 64% N=483 14% N=109 100% N=759
Overall quality of new development in Palo Alto 6% N=43 21% N=160 25% N=192 18% N=138 29% N=222 100% N=755
Availability of paths and walking trails 28% N=215 45% N=338 19% N=141 5% N=38 3% N=24 100% N=756
Fitness opportunities (including exercise classes and paths or trails,
etc.)
26% N=202 45% N=344 16% N=123 3% N=26 9% N=66 100% N=761
Recreational opportunities 25% N=188 47% N=359 18% N=140 3% N=20 7% N=51 100% N=757
Availability of affordable quality mental health care 4% N=34 12% N=88 10% N=73 11% N=85 63% N=477 100% N=757
Opportunities to attend cultural/arts/music activities 22% N=169 39% N=298 18% N=134 8% N=60 13% N=99 100% N=760
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
Overall quality of business and service establishments in Palo Alto 28% N=210 56% N=415 13% N=95 2% N=17 100% N=737
Variety of business and service establishments in Palo Alto 20% N=146 47% N=348 25% N=189 8% N=60 100% N=743
Vibrancy of downtown/commercial area 25% N=183 47% N=342 23% N=168 5% N=37 100% N=730
Employment opportunities 23% N=120 45% N=238 22% N=115 11% N=57 100% N=530
Shopping opportunities 30% N=226 48% N=357 17% N=127 5% N=35 100% N=744
Cost of living in Palo Alto 0% N=3 6% N=42 25% N=185 69% N=518 100% N=748
Overall image or reputation of Palo Alto 33% N=241 45% N=337 18% N=135 4% N=29 100% N=742
Traffic flow on major streets 8% N=60 41% N=306 35% N=265 16% N=117 100% N=748
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4349E292-849D-469B-AB22-6624AF8E03BD
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
25
Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Palo Alto as a
whole: Excellent Good Fair Poor Total
Ease of public parking 13% N=99 45% N=335 30% N=222 11% N=83 100% N=739
Ease of travel by car in Palo Alto 20% N=151 49% N=364 23% N=170 7% N=55 100% N=740
Ease of travel by public transportation in Palo Alto 6% N=32 24% N=119 32% N=160 38% N=194 100% N=505
Ease of travel by bicycle in Palo Alto 35% N=229 45% N=294 17% N=113 4% N=24 100% N=660
Ease of walking in Palo Alto 45% N=339 41% N=309 12% N=86 2% N=15 100% N=749
Variety of housing options 5% N=35 22% N=146 34% N=230 39% N=259 100% N=671
Availability of affordable quality housing 3% N=18 6% N=42 17% N=108 74% N=483 100% N=650
Overall quality of new development in Palo Alto 8% N=43 30% N=160 36% N=192 26% N=138 100% N=533
Availability of paths and walking trails 29% N=215 46% N=338 19% N=141 5% N=38 100% N=732
Fitness opportunities (including exercise classes and paths or tra ils, etc.) 29% N=202 50% N=344 18% N=123 4% N=26 100% N=695
Recreational opportunities 27% N=188 51% N=359 20% N=140 3% N=20 100% N=706
Availability of affordable quality mental health care 12% N=34 31% N=88 26% N=73 30% N=85 100% N=280
Opportunities to attend cultural/arts/music activities 26% N=169 45% N=298 20% N=134 9% N=60 100% N=662
TABLE 25: QUESTION 5 - HISTORICAL RESULTS
Please rate each of the following characteristics
as they relate to Palo Alto as a whole:
Percent positive 2021 rating
compared to 2018 2003 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2021
Vibrancy of downtown/commercial areas NA NA NA NA NA NA 77% 76% 73% 73% 71% 72% Similar
Employment opportunities 33% 51% 52% 56% 68% 68% 69% 66% 70% 74% 73% 68% Similar
Shopping opportunities NA 70% 70% 71% 69% 73% 82% 79% 80% 82% 79% 78% Similar
Cost of living in Palo Alto NA NA NA NA NA NA 11% 8% 7% 8% 8% 6% Similar
Overall image or reputation of Palo Alto NA 92% 90% 92% 92% 90% 92% 88% 86% 86% 83% 78% Similar
Traffic flow on major streets 36% 38% 46% 47% 40% 36% 34% 35% 31% 30% 33% 49% Higher
Ease of public parking NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 38% 36% 33% 32% 59% Higher
Ease of travel by car in Palo Alto 55% 60% 65% 66% 62% 51% 55% 52% 44% 44% 42% 70% Higher
Ease of travel by public transportation in Palo Alto NA 52% 63% 62% 64% 71% 65% 36% 26% 28% 29% 30% Similar
Ease of travel by bicycle in Palo Alto 84% 79% 81% 77% 81% 78% 78% 77% 74% 78% 74% 79% Similar
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4349E292-849D-469B-AB22-6624AF8E03BD
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
26
Please rate each of the following characteristics
as they relate to Palo Alto as a whole:
Percent positive 2021 rating
compared to 2018 2003 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2021
Ease of walking in Palo Alto NA 82% 85% 83% 82% 84% 84% 83% 80% 86% 83% 86% Similar
Variety of housing options NA 39% 37% 37% 29% 26% 27% 20% 17% 18% 13% 27% Higher
Availability of affordable quality housing 6% 17% 15% 14% 12% 13% 11% 8% 6% 6% 5% 9% Similar
Overall quality of new development in Palo Alto NA 57% 55% 53% 57% 56% 44% 51% 49% 42% 50% 38% Lower
Availability of paths and walking trails NA 74% 75% 75% 75% 77% 71% 74% 73% 76% 77% 76% Similar
Fitness opportunities (including exercise classes
and paths or trails, etc.) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 78% 78% 79% 78% 79% Similar
Recreational opportunities NA 78% 80% 81% 81% 81% 77% 80% 77% 81% 75% 77% Similar
Availability of affordable quality mental health
care NA NA NA NA NA NA 63% 53% 46% 52% 38% 44% Higher
Opportunities to attend cultural/arts/music
activities NA 74% 74% 73% 77% 69% 81% 79% 77% 81% 74% 71% Similar
*Overall quality and variety of business and service establishments in Palo Alto were new items on the 2021 survey.
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
(A) (A) (B) (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F)
Overall quality of business and service establishments in Palo Alto
84% 86% 79% 90%
A D
90%
A D
79% 84% 86% 85%
Variety of business and service establishments in Palo Alto
66% 67% 60% 73%
A D
66% 61% 66% 70% 66%
Vibrancy of downtown/commercial area
70% 74% 69% 77%
E
70% 73% 64% 74% 72%
Employment opportunities 70% 66% 74% 63% 69% 65% 69% 67% 68%
Shopping opportunities
77% 80% 73% 85%
A C
72% 79% 82% 78% 78%
Cost of living in Palo Alto
5% 7% 6% 10%
E
6% 5% 3% 6% 6%
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4349E292-849D-469B-AB22-6624AF8E03BD
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
27
Percent rating "excellent" or "good"
North/South Area Overall
North South Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5 Area 6
(A) (A) (B) (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F)
Overall image or reputation of Palo Alto
76% 80% 80% 76% 75% 87%
B C E F
74% 74% 78%
Traffic flow on major streets 50% 48% 43% 55% 43% 45% 53% 52% 49%
Ease of public parking 60% 58% 58% 65% 53% 55% 64% 59% 59%
Ease of travel by car in Palo Alto 68% 71% 65% 74% 70% 69% 69% 69% 70%
Ease of travel by public transportation in Palo Alto 31% 29% 29% 29% 33% 27% 27% 33% 30%
Ease of travel by bicycle in Palo Alto
78% 80% 77% 78% 90%
A B D E
76% 74% 81% 79%
Ease of walking in Palo Alto
91%
B
83% 90%
D
86%
D
88%
D
75% 86%
D
94%
B D
86%
Variety of housing options
25% 29% 19% 30% 30% 27% 22% 30%
A
27%
Availability of affordable quality housing
6% 12%
A
6% 8% 12% 15%
A F
9% 6% 9%
Overall quality of new development in Palo Alto 38% 38% 34% 33% 43% 40% 38% 42% 38%
Availability of paths and walking trails 73% 78% 69% 69% 81%
A B
84%
A B F
81%
B
72% 76%
Fitness opportunities (including exercise classes and paths or trails, etc.) 75% 82%
A
75% 79% 81% 86%
A F
83%
F
71% 79%
Recreational opportunities
74% 80%
A
78% 86%
D F
82%
F
74% 77% 71% 77%
Availability of affordable quality mental health care
43% 44% 47% 38% 40% 51%
E
29% 51%
E
44%
Opportunities to attend cultural/arts/music activities
69% 72% 79%
D F
76%
D F
80%
D F
62% 70% 64% 71%
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4349E292-849D-469B-AB22-6624AF8E03BD
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
28
TABLE 27: QUESTION 5 - BENCHMARK COMPARISONS
City of Palo Alto
rating Rank
Number of jurisdictions for
comparison
Comparison to
benchmark
Overall quality of business and service establishments in Palo
Alto 70 23 289 Higher
Variety of business and service establishments in Palo Alto 59 24 56 Similar
Vibrancy of downtown/commercial area 64 49 267 Higher
Employment opportunities 60 25 321 Higher
Shopping opportunities 68 36 307 Higher
Cost of living in Palo Alto 12 280 284 Much lower
Overall image or reputation of Palo Alto 69 125 358 Similar
Traffic flow on major streets 47 169 344 Similar
Ease of public parking 54 128 254 Similar
Ease of travel by car in Palo Alto 61 151 320 Similar
Ease of travel by public transportation in Palo Alto 33 178 257 Similar
Ease of travel by bicycle in Palo Alto 70 16 320 Much higher
Ease of walking in Palo Alto 77 22 321 Higher
Variety of housing options 31 263 294 Lower
Availability of affordable quality housing 13 309 318 Much lower
Overall quality of new development in Palo Alto 40 266 306 Lower
Availability of paths and walking trails 67 111 322 Similar
Fitness opportunities 68 91 272 Similar
Recreational opportunities 67 93 306 Similar
Availability of affordable quality mental health care 42 160 257 Similar
Opportunities to attend cultural/arts/music activities 62 88 305 Similar
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4349E292-849D-469B-AB22-6624AF8E03BD
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
29
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 childcare/preschool 7% N=54 14% N=108 15% N=111 12% N=93 51% N=389 100% N=755
K-12 education 36% N=270 26% N=198 6% N=44 1% N=7 31% N=235 100% N=754
Adult educational opportunities 20% N=148 32% N=242 9% N=65 2% N=17 37% N=277 100% N=748
Opportunities to participate in social events and activities 14% N=102 34% N=254 22% N=165 7% N=50 24% N=177 100% N=748
Openness and acceptance of the community toward people of
diverse backgrounds 17% N=128 32% N=241 22% N=166 12% N=90 16% N=121 100% N=745
Opportunities to learn about City services through social media
websites such as Twitter and Facebook 9% N=69 28% N=213 13% N=99 2% N=17 47% N=352 100% N=750
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 childcare/preschool 15% N=54 30% N=108 30% N=111 25% N=93 100% N=366
K-12 education 52% N=270 38% N=198 9% N=44 1% N=7 100% N=519
Adult educational opportunities 31% N=148 51% N=242 14% N=65 4% N=17 100% N=471
Opportunities to participate in social events and activities 18% N=102 45% N=254 29% N=165 9% N=50 100% N=571
Openness and acceptance of the community toward people of diverse backgrounds 20% N=128 39% N=241 27% N=166 14% N=90 100% N=624
Opportunities to learn about City services through social media websites such as
Twitter and Facebook 17% N=69 54% N=213 25% N=99 4% N=17 100% N=398
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4349E292-849D-469B-AB22-6624AF8E03BD
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
30
TABLE 30: QUESTION 6 - HISTORICAL RESULTS
Please rate each of the following characteristics
as they relate to Palo Alto as a whole:
Percent positive 2021 rating
compared to
2018 2003 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2021
Availability of affordable quality child
care/preschool 25% 32% 25% 35% 27% 31% 49% 49% 39% 47% 37% 44% Higher
K-12 education NA NA NA 92% 92% 94% 95% 92% 90% 91% 91% 90% Similar
Adult educational opportunities NA NA NA NA NA NA 89% 83% 78% 82% 77% 83% Higher
Opportunities to participate in social events and
activities NA 80% 74% 76% 74% 74% 71% 74% 70% 72% 65% 62% Similar
Openness and acceptance of the community
toward people of diverse backgrounds 73% 78% 79% 78% 80% 76% 76% 68% 72% 72% 72% 59% Lower
Opportunities to learn about City services through
social media websites such as Twitter and
Facebook NA NA NA 63% 63% 71% 73% 75% 68% 76% 67% 71% Similar
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
(A) (A) (B) (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F)
Availability of affordable quality childcare/preschool
38% 49%
A
42% 52%
E
49%
E
44% 25% 45%
E
44%
K-12 education
91% 90% 90% 92%
D
93%
D
84% 88% 93%
D
90%
Adult educational opportunities 84% 82% 83% 85% 77% 82% 77% 87% 83%
Opportunities to participate in social events and activities
62% 63% 65% 66%
D
71%
D
53% 65% 58% 62%
Openness and acceptance of the community toward people of diverse backgrounds
52% 65%
A
62%
F
64%
F
71%
E F
62%
F
50% 48% 59%
Opportunities to learn about City services through social media websites such as
Twitter and Facebook
73% 69% 83%
B E
65% 72% 72% 65% 70% 71%
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4349E292-849D-469B-AB22-6624AF8E03BD
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
31
TABLE 32: QUESTION 6 - BENCHMARK COMPARISONS*
City of Palo Alto
rating Rank
Number of jurisdictions for
comparison
Comparison to
benchmark
Availability of affordable quality child care/preschool 45 183 277 Similar
K-12 education 80 32 282 Higher
Adult educational opportunities 70 13 264 Higher
Opportunities to participate in social events and activities 57 138 282 Similar
Opportunities to participate in community matters 60 118 290 Similar
Openness and acceptance of the community toward people of diverse
backgrounds 55 168 311 Similar
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
Used Palo Alto recreation centers or their services 61% N=455 39% N=295 100% N=750
Visited a neighborhood park or City park 6% N=46 94% N=704 100% N=751
Used Palo Alto public libraries or their services 38% N=281 62% N=467 100% N=748
Participated in religious or spiritual activities in Palo Alto 76% N=573 24% N=178 100% N=751
Attended a City-sponsored event 70% N=522 30% N=223 100% N=745
Participated in a club 83% N=618 17% N=130 100% N=747
Talked to or visited with your immediate neighbors 12% N=88 88% N=665 100% N=753
Contacted Palo Alto elected officials (in-person, phone, email or web) to express your opinion 75% N=562 25% N=182 100% N=744
Attended a local public meeting (of local elected officials like City Council or County Commissioners, a dvisory boards,
town halls, HOA, neighborhood watch, etc.) 74% N=551 26% N=196 100% N=747
Watched (online or on television) a local public meeting 71% N=531 29% N=215 100% N=746
Volunteered your time to some group/activity in Palo Alto 63% N=470 37% N=280 100% N=750
Walked or biked instead of driving 14% N=104 86% N=647 100% N=751
Observed a code violation or other hazard in Palo Alto (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc.) 60% N=450 40% N=296 100% N=745
Household member was a victim of a crime in Palo Alto 86% N=647 14% N=104 100% N=751
Reported a crime to the police in Palo Alto 79% N=593 21% N=156 100% N=749
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4349E292-849D-469B-AB22-6624AF8E03BD
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
32
Please indicate whether or not you have done each of the following in the last 12 months. No Yes Total
Stocked 14 days’ worth of supplies in case of a major disaster where you have no electricity, water, internet, or
telephone service 51% N=382 49% N=368 100% N=750
*This question did not have a “don’t know” option.
TABLE 34: QUESTION 7 - HISTORICAL RESULTS*
Please indicate whether or not you have done each
of the following in the last 12 months (percent
“yes”).
Percent positive 2021 rating
compared to
2018 2003 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2021
Used Palo Alto recreation centers or their services NA 63% 60% 60% 65% 58% 63% 65% 63% 63% 65% 39% Lower
Visited a neighborhood park or City park NA 94% 94% 91% 95% 94% 91% 94% 93% 91% 94% 94% Similar
Used Palo Alto public libraries or their services NA 82% 76% 74% 77% 77% 68% 76% 73% 75% 78% 62% Lower
Participated in religious or spiritual activities in Palo
Alto NA NA NA NA 40% NA 30% 30% 31% 30% 30% 24% Lower
Attended a City-sponsored event NA NA NA NA NA NA 50% 57% 51% 55% 52% 30% Lower
Participated in a club NA 33% 31% 31% 38% 29% 27% 34% 30% 29% 31% 17% Lower
Talked to or visited with your immediate neighbors NA NA NA NA NA NA 91% 89% 88% 92% 90% 88% Similar
Contacted Palo Alto elected officials (in -person,
phone, email or web) to express your opinion NA NA NA NA NA NA 17% 15% 17% 20% 21% 25% Similar
Attended a local public meeting (of local elected
officials like City Council or County Commissioners ,
advisory boards, town halls, HOA, neighborhood
watch, etc.) NA 28% 27% 27% 25% 28% 22% 22% 21% 24% 25% 26% Similar
Watched (online or on television) a local public
meeting NA 28% 28% 27% 21% 24% 16% 18% 14% 16% 12% 29% Higher
Volunteered your time to some group/activity in
Palo Alto NA 56% 51% 45% 54% 50% 40% 46% 45% 47% 47% 37% Lower
Walked or biked instead of driving NA NA NA NA NA NA 85% 87% 87% 84% 88% 86% Similar
Did NOT observe a code violation or other hazard in
Palo Alto NA NA NA NA NA NA 70% 67% 67% 62% 63% 60% Similar
Household member was NOT the victim of a crime in
Palo Alto NA 89% 91% 91% 91% 94% 92% 93% 91% 90% 93% 86% Lower
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4349E292-849D-469B-AB22-6624AF8E03BD
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
33
Please indicate whether or not you have done each
of the following in the last 12 months (percent
“yes”).
Percent positive 2021 rating
compared to
2018 2003 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2021
Did NOT report a crime to the police in Palo Alto NA NA NA NA NA NA 87% 87% 86% 85% 87% 79% Lower
Stocked 14 days’ worth of supplies in case of a major
disaster where you have no electricity, water,
internet, and telephone service NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 26% 49% Higher
Some questions were reworded in the Historical Results table to reflect the positive ratin g 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
(A)
(A) (B) (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F)
Used Palo Alto recreation centers or their services
36% 42% 47%
F
47%
D F
46%
F
35% 34% 31% 39%
Visited a neighborhood park or City park
92% 96%
A
95%
F
97%
F
95%
F
95%
F
96%
F
88% 94%
Used Palo Alto public libraries or their services
54% 70%
A
65%
F
72%
E F
74%
E F
65%
F
56% 48% 62%
Participated in religious or spiritual activities in Palo Alto 22% 25% 25% 21% 30% 26% 18% 22% 24%
Attended a City-sponsored event
31% 29% 39%
D F
35%
D
37%
D
17% 31%
D
26% 30%
Participated in a club
19% 16% 18% 19% 17% 11% 12% 24%
D E
17%
Talked to or visited with your immediate neighbors
89% 88% 94%
D E
91%
D
91%
D
81% 83% 89%
D
88%
Done a favor for a neighbor
79% 78% 84%
D
75% 88%
B D F
73% 76% 76% 78%
Used the City’s website to conduct business or pay bills
57% 50% 54% 54% 43% 51% 59%
C
58%
C
53%
Used the Utilities website to conduct business or pay bills 68% 71% 72% 72% 67% 72% 74% 62% 69%
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4349E292-849D-469B-AB22-6624AF8E03BD
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
34
Percent "yes"
North/South Area Overall
North South Area
1
Area
2
Area
3
Area
4
Area
5
Area
6
(A)
(A) (B) (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F)
Contacted the City of Palo Alto (in-person, phone, email or web) for help or information
55% 55% 64%
D F
60% 56% 50% 56% 50% 55%
Contacted Palo Alto elected officials (in-person, phone, email or web) to express your
opinion
25% 24% 23% 24% 24% 24% 26% 26% 25%
Attended a local public meeting (of local elected officials like City Council or County
Commissioners, advisory boards, town halls, HOA, neighborhood watch , etc.)
25% 27% 29% 30% 36%
D F
21% 27% 21% 26%
Watched (online or on television) a local public meeting
25% 33%
A
26% 36%
F
37%
F
27% 24% 24% 29%
Volunteered your time to some group/activity in Palo Alto 36% 39% 38% 43% 40% 34% 34% 36% 37%
Voted in your most recent local election
81% 84% 88%
F
84% 80% 86% 79% 79% 83%
Used bus, rail, subway, or other public transportation instead of driving
39%
B
30% 30% 23% 31% 37%
B
40%
B
44%
A B C
34%
Carpooled with other adults or children instead of driving alone 40% 42% 43% 45% 45% 38% 38% 38% 41%
Walked or biked instead of driving
86% 86% 88% 91%
D
86% 82% 85% 86% 86%
Observed a code violation or other hazard in Palo Alto (weeds, abandoned buildings,
etc.)
40% 40% 42% 46%
D
39% 34% 41% 37% 40%
Household member was a victim of a crime in Palo Alto
15% 13% 11% 16% 15% 9% 15% 17%
D
14%
Reported a crime to the police in Palo Alto
20% 22% 13% 26%
A
16% 22% 24% 21% 21%
Stocked 14 days’ worth of supplies in case of a major disaster where you have no
electricity, water, internet, or telephone service
51% 47% 54%
E
43% 51% 51%
E
37% 55%
B E
49%
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4349E292-849D-469B-AB22-6624AF8E03BD
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
35
TABLE 36: QUESTION 7 - BENCHMARK COMPARISONS
City of Palo Alto
rating Rank
Number of jurisdictions for
comparison
Comparison to
benchmark
Contacted Palo Alto for help or information 55 42 343 Similar
Contacted Palo Alto elected officials to express your opinion 25 38 275 Similar
Attended a local public meeting 26 57 281 Similar
Watched (online or on television) a local public meeting 29 59 252 Similar
Volunteered your time to some group/activity in Palo Alto 37 132 283 Similar
Voted in your most recent local election 83 20 59 Similar
Used bus, rail, subway, or other public transportation instead of
driving 34 58 236 Higher
Carpooled with other adults or children instead of driving alone 41 140 269 Similar
Walked or biked instead of driving 86 9 276 Much higher
QUESTION 8
TABLE 37: QUESTION 8 - RESPONSE PERCENTAGES AND NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS
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 8% N=59 39% N=292 33% N=246 8% N=62 12% N=91 100% N=751
The overall direction that Palo Alto is taking 4% N=30 30% N=227 34% N=255 17% N=130 14% N=105 100% N=746
The job Palo Alto government does at welcoming resident
involvement 7% N=54 29% N=215 22% N=166 13% N=95 29% N=218 100% N=747
Overall confidence in Palo Alto government 6% N=45 37% N=278 31% N=232 14% N=107 11% N=84 100% N=747
Generally acting in the best interest of the community 7% N=55 37% N=273 31% N=229 14% N=101 12% N=90 100% N=747
Being honest 8% N=61 32% N=239 23% N=171 10% N=77 27% N=200 100% N=747
Being open and transparent to the public 8% N=59 31% N=230 25% N=187 13% N=98 23% N=168 100% N=743
Informing residents about issues facing the community 10% N=75 35% N=261 26% N=195 10% N=78 18% N=136 100% N=745
Treating all residents fairly 10% N=77 30% N=220 18% N=133 13% N=94 30% N=221 100% N=745
Treating residents with respect 15% N=109 38% N=283 19% N=138 7% N=55 21% N=158 100% N=743
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4349E292-849D-469B-AB22-6624AF8E03BD
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
36
TABLE 38: QUESTION 8 - 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 9% N=59 44% N=292 37% N=246 9% N=62 100% N=660
The overall direction that Palo Alto is taking 5% N=30 35% N=227 40% N=255 20% N=130 100% N=641
The job Palo Alto government does at welcoming resident involvement 10% N=54 41% N=215 31% N=166 18% N=95 100% N=529
Overall confidence in Palo Alto government 7% N=45 42% N=278 35% N=232 16% N=107 100% N=663
Generally acting in the best interest of the community 8% N=55 42% N=273 35% N=229 15% N=101 100% N=658
Being honest 11% N=61 44% N=239 31% N=171 14% N=77 100% N=547
Being open and transparent to the public 10% N=59 40% N=230 33% N=187 17% N=98 100% N=575
Informing residents about issues facing the community 12% N=75 43% N=261 32% N=195 13% N=78 100% N=608
Treating all residents fairly 15% N=77 42% N=220 25% N=133 18% N=94 100% N=525
Treating residents with respect 19% N=109 48% N=283 24% N=138 9% N=55 100% N=585
TABLE 39: QUESTION 8 - HISTORICAL RESULTS
Please rate the following categories of Palo
Alto government performance:
Percent positive 2021 rating
compared to 2018 2003 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2021
The value of services for the taxes paid to Palo
Alto NA 58% 62% 66% 67% 66% 66% 65% 58% 61% 58% 53%
Similar
The overall direction that Palo Alto is taking 54% 53% 57% 55% 59% 54% 50% 48% 40% 45% 42% 40% Similar
The job Palo Alto government does at
welcoming resident involvement 65% 56% 57% 57% 58% 55% 54% 61% 50% 56% 56% 51%
Similar
Overall confidence in Palo Alto government NA NA NA NA NA NA 52% 53% 44% 49% 46% 49% Similar
Generally acting in the best interest of the
community NA NA NA NA NA NA 54% 53% 44% 51% 45% 50%
Similar
Being honest NA NA NA NA NA NA 58% 62% 55% 61% 56% 55% Similar
Treating all residents fairly NA NA NA NA NA NA 57% 53% 47% 56% 51% 57% Higher
“Being open and transparent to the public”, “informing residents about issues facing the community”, and “treating residents with respect” were new items in 2021.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4349E292-849D-469B-AB22-6624AF8E03BD
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
37
TABLE 40: QUESTION 8 - GEOGRAPHIC SUBGROUP RESULTS
Percent "excellent" or "good".
North/South Area Overall
North South Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5 Area 6 (A)
(A) (B) (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F)
The value of services for the taxes paid to Palo Alto 56% 51% 55% 52% 55% 47% 55% 57% 53%
The overall direction that Palo Alto is taking
38% 42% 32% 48%
A D
40% 36% 39% 43% 40%
The job Palo Alto government does at welcoming res ident involvement
52% 50% 51% 54% 56%
D
41% 46% 57%
D
51%
Overall confidence in Palo Alto government
49% 49% 40% 57%
A D
52%
D
36% 52%
D
55%
A D
49%
Generally acting in the best interest of the community 50% 50% 45% 50% 50% 48% 52% 53% 50%
Being honest 55% 54% 55% 58% 56% 49% 54% 58% 55%
Being open and transparent to the public 50% 51% 47% 53% 53% 46% 48% 54% 50%
Informing residents about issues facing the community 55% 55% 58% 59% 59% 48% 48% 58% 55%
Treating all residents fairly
60% 54% 54% 53% 59% 52% 55% 66%
D
57%
Treating residents with respect 71% 64% 70% 63% 64% 63% 69% 72% 67%
TABLE 41: QUESTION 8 - BENCHMARK COMPARISONS
City of Palo Alto
rating Rank
Number of jurisdictions for
comparison
Comparison to
benchmark
The value of services for the taxes paid to Palo Alto 51 182 395 Similar
The overall direction that Palo Alto is taking 41 293 332 Lower
The job Palo Alto government does at welcoming resident involvement 48 201 333 Similar
Overall confidence in Palo Alto government 46 184 288 Similar
Generally acting in the best interest of the community 48 200 290 Similar
Being honest 51 174 282 Similar
Being open and transparent to the public 48 36 58 Similar
Informing residents about issues facing the community 52 29 62 Similar
Treating all residents fairly 51 165 286 Similar
Treating residents with respect 59 31 57 Similar
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4349E292-849D-469B-AB22-6624AF8E03BD
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
38
QUESTION 9
TABLE 42: QUESTION 9 - RESPONSE PERCENTAGES AND NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS
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 18% N=135 51% N=383 21% N=154 5% N=36 5% N=38 100% N=746
The State Government 8% N=57 39% N=293 31% N=230 12% N=90 10% N=76 100% N=747
The Federal Government 2% N=16 22% N=164 36% N=266 29% N=217 11% N=83 100% N=747
TABLE 43: QUESTION 9 - RESPONSE PERCENTAGES AND NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS WITHOUT "DON'T KNOW" RESPONSES
Overall, how would you rate the quality of the se rvices provided by each of the
following? Excellent Good Fair Poor Total
The City of Palo Alto 19% N=135 54% N=383 22% N=154 5% N=36 100% N=708
The State Government 8% N=57 44% N=293 34% N=230 13% N=90 100% N=671
The Federal Government 2% N=16 25% N=164 40% N=266 33% N=217 100% N=664
TABLE 44: QUESTION 9 - HISTORICAL RESULTS
Overall, how would you rate the quality of the
services provided by each of the following?
Percent positive 2021 rating
compared to 2018 2003 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2021
The City of Palo Alto 87% 80% 80% 83% 88% 84% 83% 85% 81% 86% 82% 73% Lower
State Government 38% 23% 27% 26% 41% 33% NA 47% 46% 54% 46% 52% Higher
The Federal Government 32% 41% 43% 41% 50% 37% 48% 46% 46% 36% 33% 27% Lower
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4349E292-849D-469B-AB22-6624AF8E03BD
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
39
TABLE 45: QUESTION 9 - GEOGRAPHIC SUBGROUP RESULTS
Percent "excellent" or "good"
North/South Area Overall
North South Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5 Area 6
(A) (A) (B) (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F)
The City of Palo Alto
73% 73% 74% 73% 80%
E
69% 66% 76% 73%
The State Government
55% 50% 46% 50% 47% 51% 53% 62%
A B C
52%
The Federal Government
30% 24% 24% 25% 29% 20% 25% 37%
A B D
27%
TABLE 46: QUESTION 9 - BENCHMARK COMPARISONS
City of Palo Alto rating Rank Number of jurisdictions for comparison Comparison to benchmark
Quality of services provided by the City of Palo Alto 62 226 407 Similar
Quality of services provided by the Federal Government 32 265 269 Similar
*A benchmark comparison was not available for “the State Government”.
QUESTION 10
TABLE 47: 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
Traffic enforcement 11% N=84 45% N=331 20% N=143 10% N=75 14% N=100 100% N=734
Traffic signal timing 10% N=72 47% N=350 26% N=191 13% N=97 4% N=31 100% N=741
Street repair 11% N=80 44% N=324 30% N=222 14% N=102 2% N=14 100% N=742
Street cleaning 26% N=196 55% N=407 13% N=99 3% N=25 2% N=15 100% N=743
Street tree maintenance 22% N=167 49% N=365 19% N=145 4% N=31 5% N=39 100% N=746
Sidewalk maintenance 15% N=111 45% N=339 25% N=186 10% N=77 5% N=35 100% N=748
Land use, planning, and zoning 7% N=54 23% N=172 26% N=196 20% N=147 23% N=173 100% N=741
Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc.) 6% N=47 27% N=201 20% N=148 11% N=84 35% N=257 100% N=736
Preservation of natural areas (open space, farmlands, and
greenbelts) 34% N=249 42% N=314 12% N=87 4% N=31 8% N=61 100% N=741
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4349E292-849D-469B-AB22-6624AF8E03BD
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
40
Please rate the quality of each of the following services in Palo
Alto: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total
Building and planning application processing services 5% N=34 16% N=120 14% N=102 13% N=99 52% N=385 100% N=739
Affordable high-speed internet access 9% N=64 23% N=172 23% N=169 26% N=196 19% N=143 100% N=743
Electric utility 30% N=220 43% N=323 18% N=134 4% N=29 5% N=38 100% N=744
Gas utility 26% N=194 44% N=326 16% N=121 3% N=22 11% N=83 100% N=746
Utility payment options 33% N=245 45% N=333 12% N=88 1% N=10 9% N=65 100% N=741
Drinking water 45% N=339 40% N=300 9% N=70 2% N=18 2% N=18 100% N=746
Sewer services 30% N=223 46% N=343 10% N=71 1% N=10 13% N=94 100% N=741
Storm water management (storm drainage, dams, levees, etc.) 21% N=154 46% N=340 12% N=85 3% N=19 19% N=141 100% N=739
Refuse collection (garbage, recycling, yard waste, and e-waste) 39% N=291 44% N=332 11% N=85 1% N=11 4% N=27 100% N=745
Police services 23% N=173 41% N=309 15% N=109 4% N=31 17% N=124 100% N=746
Crime prevention 17% N=127 35% N=261 21% N=153 5% N=40 22% N=160 100% N=741
Animal control 18% N=134 34% N=255 9% N=71 2% N=14 36% N=271 100% N=745
Ambulance or emergency medical services 22% N=164 27% N=198 3% N=25 0% N=3 47% N=348 100% N=738
Fire services 30% N=220 29% N=217 4% N=27 0% N=2 37% N=273 100% N=739
Fire prevention and education 17% N=122 29% N=211 7% N=49 3% N=24 45% N=331 100% N=736
Palo Alto open space 40% N=293 39% N=290 9% N=69 4% N=29 8% N=59 100% N=739
City parks 47% N=343 42% N=313 8% N=59 1% N=9 2% N=13 100% N=738
Recreation programs or classes 20% N=150 33% N=241 9% N=69 2% N=11 36% N=264 100% N=735
Recreation centers or facilities 21% N=151 37% N=267 11% N=79 2% N=14 30% N=218 100% N=729
Public library services (e.g., hold requests, storytimes, teen events,
bookclubs) 42% N=312 28% N=204 5% N=36 2% N=11 24% N=174 100% N=738
Library facilities (buildings, computer equipment, accessibility) 42% N=313 30% N=218 4% N=27 1% N=10 23% N=169 100% N=736
Variety of library materials (books, e-books, streaming, databases,
audiobooks) 37% N=272 29% N=217 9% N=67 2% N=14 23% N=168 100% N=738
Art programs and theater 23% N=166 32% N=237 8% N=62 3% N=25 33% N=245 100% N=734
City-sponsored special events 11% N=79 29% N=214 12% N=87 4% N=27 45% N=330 100% N=737
City website (cityofpaloalto.org) 14% N=106 41% N=300 21% N=152 5% N=34 19% N=143 100% N=736
Public information services (Police/public safety) 12% N=90 40% N=296 16% N=119 2% N=18 29% N=211 100% N=733
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4349E292-849D-469B-AB22-6624AF8E03BD
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
41
Please rate the quality of each of the following services in Palo
Alto: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total
Public information services (non-Police/public safety) 11% N=84 40% N=291 14% N=106 2% N=18 32% N=236 100% N=735
Overall customer service by Palo Alto employees (police,
receptionists, planners, etc.) 19% N=140 44% N=320 15% N=106 2% N=13 21% N=150 100% N=728
TABLE 48: 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
Traffic enforcement 13% N=84 52% N=331 23% N=143 12% N=75 100% N=634
Traffic signal timing 10% N=72 49% N=350 27% N=191 14% N=97 100% N=710
Street repair 11% N=80 44% N=324 30% N=222 14% N=102 100% N=728
Street cleaning 27% N=196 56% N=407 14% N=99 3% N=25 100% N=728
Street tree maintenance 24% N=167 52% N=365 20% N=145 4% N=31 100% N=708
Sidewalk maintenance 16% N=111 47% N=339 26% N=186 11% N=77 100% N=713
Land use, planning, and zoning 9% N=54 30% N=172 34% N=196 26% N=147 100% N=568
Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc.) 10% N=47 42% N=201 31% N=148 17% N=84 100% N=479
Preservation of natural areas (open space, farmlands, and greenbelts) 37% N=249 46% N=314 13% N=87 5% N=31 100% N=681
Building and planning application processing services 10% N=34 34% N=120 29% N=102 28% N=99 100% N=354
Affordable high-speed internet access 11% N=64 29% N=172 28% N=169 33% N=196 100% N=600
Electric utility 31% N=220 46% N=323 19% N=134 4% N=29 100% N=706
Gas utility 29% N=194 49% N=326 18% N=121 3% N=22 100% N=663
Utility payment options 36% N=245 49% N=333 13% N=88 1% N=10 100% N=676
Drinking water 47% N=339 41% N=300 10% N=70 3% N=18 100% N=727
Sewer services 34% N=223 53% N=343 11% N=71 2% N=10 100% N=647
Storm water management (storm drainage, dams, levees, etc.) 26% N=154 57% N=340 14% N=85 3% N=19 100% N=598
Refuse collection (garbage, recycling, yard waste, and e-waste) 40% N=291 46% N=332 12% N=85 2% N=11 100% N=719
Police services 28% N=173 50% N=309 18% N=109 5% N=31 100% N=622
Crime prevention 22% N=127 45% N=261 26% N=153 7% N=40 100% N=581
Animal control 28% N=134 54% N=255 15% N=71 3% N=14 100% N=474
Ambulance or emergency medical services 42% N=164 51% N=198 6% N=25 1% N=3 100% N=390
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4349E292-849D-469B-AB22-6624AF8E03BD
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
42
Please rate the quality of each of the following services in Palo Alto: Excellent Good Fair Poor Total
Fire services 47% N=220 47% N=217 6% N=27 0% N=2 100% N=466
Fire prevention and education 30% N=122 52% N=211 12% N=49 6% N=24 100% N=405
Palo Alto open space 43% N=293 43% N=290 10% N=69 4% N=29 100% N=681
City parks 47% N=343 43% N=313 8% N=59 1% N=9 100% N=724
Recreation programs or classes 32% N=150 51% N=241 15% N=69 2% N=11 100% N=472
Recreation centers or facilities 30% N=151 52% N=267 15% N=79 3% N=14 100% N=511
Public library services (e.g., hold requests, storytimes, teen events, bookclubs) 55% N=312 36% N=204 6% N=36 2% N=11 100% N=563
Library facilities (buildings, computer equipment, accessibility) 55% N=313 38% N=218 5% N=27 2% N=10 100% N=568
Variety of library materials (books, e-books, streaming, databases, audiobooks) 48% N=272 38% N=217 12% N=67 3% N=14 100% N=570
Art programs and theater 34% N=166 48% N=237 13% N=62 5% N=25 100% N=489
City-sponsored special events 19% N=79 53% N=214 21% N=87 7% N=27 100% N=407
City website (cityofpaloalto.org) 18% N=106 51% N=300 26% N=152 6% N=34 100% N=593
Public information services (Police/public safety) 17% N=90 57% N=296 23% N=119 3% N=18 100% N=522
Public information services (non-Police/public safety) 17% N=84 58% N=291 21% N=106 4% N=18 100% N=499
Overall customer service by Palo Alto employees (police, receptionists, planners, etc.) 24% N=140 55% N=320 18% N=106 2% N=13 100% N=578
TABLE 49: QUESTION 10 - HISTORICAL RESULTS*
Please rate the quality of each of the following
services in Palo Alto:
Percent positive 2021 rating
compared to 2018 2003 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2021
Traffic enforcement 64% 61% 64% 61% 66% 64% 62% 60% 60% 60% 53% 65% Higher
Traffic signal timing NA 56% 56% 52% 47% 53% 53% 47% 50% 49% 45% 59% Higher
Street repair 50% 42% 43% 40% 42% 47% 55% 51% 57% 55% 46% 56% Higher
Street cleaning 75% 73% 76% 79% 80% 76% 80% 75% 77% 78% 72% 83% Higher
Street tree maintenance 62% 72% 69% 70% 71% 66% 80% 73% 71% 75% 72% 75% Similar
Sidewalk maintenance 50% 53% 51% 51% 53% 56% 62% 62% 61% 65% 61% 63% Similar
Land use, planning and zoning 41% 47% 49% 45% 51% 36% 43% 40% 37% 40% 39% 40% Similar
Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings,
etc.) 55% 50% 53% 56% 61% 57% 62% 59% 52% 56% 55% 52% Similar
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4349E292-849D-469B-AB22-6624AF8E03BD
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
43
Please rate the quality of each of the following
services in Palo Alto:
Percent positive 2021 rating
compared to 2018 2003 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2021
Building and planning application processing
services NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 44% 43% Similar
Electric utility NA 83% 79% 85% 84% 80% 72% 87% 86% 87% 83% 77% Lower
Gas utility NA 81% 80% 82% 86% 81% 88% 88% 87% 89% 84% 78% Lower
Utility payment options NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 85% 86% Similar
Drinking water 82% 81% 84% 86% 83% 88% 89% 88% 87% 88% 87% 88% Similar
Sewer services 84% 81% 82% 84% 82% 84% 89% 88% 88% 88% 85% 87% Similar
Storm water management (storm drainage,
dams, levees, etc.) 65% 73% 74% 74% 75% 69% 80% 71% 75% 81% 71% 83% Higher
Refuse collection (garbage, recycling, yard waste,
and e-waste) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 85% 87% Similar
Police services 89% 84% 87% 88% 86% 86% 87% 88% 88% 93% 89% 78% Lower
Crime prevention NA 73% 79% 81% 74% 75% 80% 79% 80% 81% 78% 67% Lower
Animal control 79% 78% 76% 72% 78% 76% 80% 80% 77% 80% 75% 82% Higher
Ambulance or emergency medical services 95% 91% 94% 93% 96% 93% 97% 95% 96% 96% 93% 93% Similar
Fire services 96% 95% 93% 92% 96% 93% 95% 97% 97% 97% 94% 94% Similar
Fire prevention and education NA 80% 79% 76% 80% 82% 85% 85% 85% 87% 84% 82% Similar
Palo Alto open space NA NA NA NA NA NA 82% 84% 81% 86% 83% 86% Similar
City parks 90% 92% 90% 94% 91% 93% 92% 93% 91% 94% 91% 91% Similar
Recreation programs or classes 83% 85% 82% 81% 87% 87% 87% 84% 84% 87% 81% 83% Similar
Recreation centers or facilities 77% 80% 81% 75% 85% 80% 84% 86% 81% 86% 82% 82% Similar
Library facilities (buildings, computer equipment,
accessibility) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 92% 94% Similar
Variety of library materials (books, e-books,
streaming, databases, audiobooks) 60% 73% 75% 72% 88% 81% 88% 83% 82% 86% 88% 86% Similar
Art programs and theater NA 79% 78% 81% 82% 82% 69% 80% 78% 82% 76% 82% Higher
City-sponsored special events NA NA NA NA NA NA 75% 75% 73% 75% 77% 72% Similar
City website (cityofpaloalto.org) NA 55% 73% 67% 70% 69% 88% 69% 66% 72% 65% 69% Similar
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4349E292-849D-469B-AB22-6624AF8E03BD
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
44
Please rate the quality of each of the following
services in Palo Alto:
Percent positive 2021 rating
compared to 2018 2003 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2021
Public information services (Police/public safety) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 77% 74% Similar
Public information services (non-Police/public
safety) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 75% 75% Similar
Overall customer service by Palo Alto employees
(police, receptionists, planners, etc.) 78% 79% 77% 76% 81% 79% 81% 74% 77% 84% 77% 79% Similar
* Trend data are not included for three items in this question (preservation of natural areas, affordable high-speed internet access, and public library services) because
this was the first year these questions were asked.
TABLE 50: 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
(A)
(A) (B) (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F)
Traffic enforcement 67% 64% 60% 62% 61% 68% 73% 68% 65%
Traffic signal timing
60% 59% 53% 58% 69%
A D
53% 59% 65%
A D
59%
Street repair
57% 54% 49% 60%
D
67%
A D
39% 60%
D
61%
A D
56%
Street cleaning
85% 81% 81% 83% 84% 75% 86%
D
87%
D
83%
Street tree maintenance
74% 76% 70% 76% 84%
A D
71% 76% 76% 75%
Sidewalk maintenance
61% 66% 52% 65%
A
70%
A
62% 66% 64%
A
63%
Land use, planning, and zoning
41% 38% 38% 40% 44% 32% 35% 47%
D
40%
Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc.) 54% 50% 49% 48% 58% 45% 55% 57% 52%
Preservation of natural areas (open space, farmlands, and greenbelts)
86%
B
80% 86%
B
76% 85% 80% 86% 86%
B
83%
Building and planning application processing services
44% 43% 31% 38% 58%
A B D
38% 45% 52%
A
43%
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4349E292-849D-469B-AB22-6624AF8E03BD
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
45
Percent rating "excellent" or "good"
North/South Area Overall
North South Area
1
Area
2
Area
3
Area
4
Area
5
Area
6
(A)
(A) (B) (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F)
Affordable high-speed internet access 41% 38% 36% 39% 35% 39% 39% 45% 39%
Electric utility 79% 75% 76% 75% 73% 76% 75% 83% 77%
Gas utility 79% 78% 77% 80% 76% 77% 73% 84% 78%
Utility payment options 87% 84% 86% 82% 84% 86% 86% 89% 86%
Drinking water 88% 88% 91% 89% 91% 84% 84% 89% 88%
Sewer services 87% 88% 86% 88% 88% 86% 86% 89% 87%
Storm water management (storm drainage, dams, levees, etc.) 83% 83% 79% 83% 87% 77% 81% 87% 83%
Refuse collection (garbage, recycling, yard waste, and e-waste)
87% 86% 87% 82% 91%
B
87% 90% 85% 87%
Police services
79% 76% 75% 78% 81% 70% 81% 81%
D
78%
Crime prevention
69% 65% 62% 67% 70% 59% 71% 74%
D
67%
Animal control
81% 83% 77% 84% 86% 79% 73% 90%
A D E
82%
Ambulance or emergency medical services
95% 91% 92% 89% 97%
D
87% 91% 99%
B D
93%
Fire services 96% 92% 94% 90% 97% 91% 95% 96% 94%
Fire prevention and education
85% 79% 82% 74% 84% 82% 85% 88%
B
82%
Palo Alto open space 87% 84% 88% 85% 85% 82% 88% 87% 86%
City parks 91% 90% 91% 93% 87% 89% 92% 91% 91%
Recreation programs or classes
86% 81% 81% 83%
D
88%
D
72% 87%
D
89%
D
83%
Recreation centers or facilities
84% 80% 80% 80% 87%
D
72% 84% 88%
D
82%
Public library services (e.g., hold requests, storytimes, teen events, bookclubs)
91% 92% 89% 93% 96%
D
87% 91% 93% 92%
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4349E292-849D-469B-AB22-6624AF8E03BD
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
46
Percent rating "excellent" or "good"
North/South Area Overall
North South Area
1
Area
2
Area
3
Area
4
Area
5
Area
6
(A)
(A) (B) (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F)
Library facilities (buildings, computer equipment, accessibility) 93% 94% 94% 96% 96% 90% 92% 94% 94%
Variety of library materials (books, e-books, streaming, databases, audiobooks)
85% 86% 94%
E F
86% 89% 84% 78% 82% 86%
Art programs and theater
83% 82% 88%
D
81% 94%
B D E
73% 78% 82% 82%
City-sponsored special events
76% 69% 77%
D
68% 78%
D
62% 75% 75% 72%
City website (cityofpaloalto.org)
66% 71% 68% 61% 81%
B E F
75%
B
62% 66% 69%
Public information services (Police/public safety)
70% 77% 74% 71% 83%
E
79% 66% 71% 74%
Public information services (non-Police/public safety) 75% 75% 77% 70% 78% 77% 71% 77% 75%
Overall customer service by Palo Alto employees (police, receptionists, planners,
etc.)
79% 80% 80% 76% 86%
E
79% 70% 82% 79%
TABLE 51: QUESTION 10 - BENCHMARK COMPARISONS
City of Palo Alto rating Rank Number of jurisdictions for comparison Comparison to benchmark
Traffic enforcement 56 221 369 Similar
Traffic signal timing 52 97 281 Similar
Street repair 51 125 363 Similar
Street cleaning 69 33 322 Higher
Sidewalk maintenance 56 112 319 Similar
Land use, planning, and zoning 41 225 310 Similar
Code enforcement 48 178 377 Similar
Preservation of natural areas 72 13 270 Higher
Affordable high-speed internet access 39 48 54 Similar
Utility payment options 73 6 252 Higher
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4349E292-849D-469B-AB22-6624AF8E03BD
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
47
City of Palo Alto rating Rank Number of jurisdictions for comparison Comparison to benchmark
Drinking water 77 25 314 Higher
Sewer services 73 46 316 Similar
Storm water management 68 40 341 Higher
Police services 67 286 433 Similar
Crime prevention 61 217 364 Similar
Animal control 69 23 332 Higher
Ambulance or emergency medical services 78 158 336 Similar
Fire services 80 164 374 Similar
Fire prevention and education 69 148 297 Similar
Palo Alto open space 75 8 260 Higher
City parks 79 51 322 Similar
Recreation programs or classes 71 57 326 Similar
Recreation centers or facilities 70 56 293 Similar
Overall customer service by Palo Alto employees 67 166 385 Similar
*Benchmark comparisons were not available for a number of items in this question.
QUESTION 11
TABLE 52: QUESTION 11 - RESPONSE PERCENTAGES AND NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS INCLUDING "DON'T KNOW" RESPONSES
Please rate the following as they relate to Palo Alto Utilities’
services: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total
Reliability of utility services 52% N=381 38% N=277 6% N=46 1% N=5 3% N=25 100% N=735
Affordability of utility services 16% N=119 39% N=284 28% N=208 12% N=87 5% N=35 100% N=734
Community value received from the City owning and operating its
own municipal utility services 31% N=232 36% N=263 9% N=67 4% N=27 20% N=147 100% N=737
Utilities online customer self-service features 24% N=178 37% N=269 9% N=65 1% N=9 28% N=206 100% N=727
Providing opportunities for energy and water efficiency at home or
business 21% N=154 36% N=263 12% N=85 3% N=22 28% N=209 100% N=733
Working hard to keep utilities prices competitive 13% N=98 27% N=201 15% N=113 9% N=66 35% N=255 100% N=733
Value of all the services Palo Alto Utilities provides for the price you
pay 19% N=138 38% N=280 24% N=177 5% N=39 14% N=102 100% N=735
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4349E292-849D-469B-AB22-6624AF8E03BD
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
48
Please rate the following as they relate to Palo Alto Utilities’
services: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total
Ease of obtaining information or performing a transaction through
the City’s website 16% N=113 36% N=263 16% N=117 4% N=28 29% N=208 100% N=729
Value of Palo Alto Utilities’ customer communications 20% N=147 42% N=309 13% N=94 2% N=18 22% N=163 100% N=731
Ease of contacting Utilities department staff 21% N=155 34% N=252 9% N=67 2% N=13 34% N=248 100% N=735
Speed of response after contacting Utilities department staff 21% N=155 31% N=225 9% N=64 2% N=14 38% N=277 100% N=734
TABLE 53: QUESTION 11 - RESPONSE PERCENTAGES AND NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS WITHOUT "DON'T KNOW" RESPONSES
Please rate the following as they relate to Palo Alto Utilities’ services: Excellent Good Fair Poor Total
Reliability of utility services 54% N=381 39% N=277 7% N=46 1% N=5 100% N=710
Affordability of utility services 17% N=119 41% N=284 30% N=208 12% N=87 100% N=699
Community value received from the City owning and operating its own municipal utility
services 39% N=232 45% N=263 11% N=67 5% N=27 100% N=589
Utilities online customer self-service features 34% N=178 52% N=269 13% N=65 2% N=9 100% N=521
Providing opportunities for energy and water efficiency at home or business 29% N=154 50% N=263 16% N=85 4% N=22 100% N=524
Working hard to keep utilities prices competitive 20% N=98 42% N=201 24% N=113 14% N=66 100% N=479
Value of all the services Palo Alto Utilities provides for the price you pay 22% N=138 44% N=280 28% N=177 6% N=39 100% N=633
Ease of obtaining information or performing a transaction through the City’s website 22% N=113 51% N=263 22% N=117 5% N=28 100% N=521
Value of Palo Alto Utilities’ customer communications 26% N=147 54% N=309 17% N=94 3% N=18 100% N=568
Ease of contacting Utilities department staff 32% N=155 52% N=252 14% N=67 3% N=13 100% N=487
Speed of response after contacting Utilities department staff 34% N=155 49% N=225 14% N=64 3% N=14 100% N=457
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4349E292-849D-469B-AB22-6624AF8E03BD
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
49
TABLE 54: QUESTION 11 - HISTORICAL RESULTS
Please rate the following as they relate to Palo Alto Utilities' services:
Percent positive
2021 rating compared to 2018 2017 2018 2021
Reliability of utility services 96% 94% 93% Similar
Affordability of utility services 64% 59% 58% Similar
Community value received from the City owning and operating its own municipal utility services 81% 79% 84% Similar
Utilities online customer self-service features NA 78% 86% Higher
Providing opportunities for energy and water efficiency at home or business 83% 75% 80% Similar
Working hard to keep utilities prices competitive 63% 59% 62% Similar
Value of all the services Palo Alto Utilities provides for the price you pay 68% 62% 66% Similar
Ease of obtaining information or performing a transaction through the City’s website 65% 61% 72% Higher
Value of Palo Alto Utilities’ customer communications 76% 70% 80% Higher
Ease of contacting Utilities department staff NA 75% 84% Higher
Speed of response after contacting Utilities department staff NA 76% 83% Higher
TABLE 55: 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
(A)
(A) (B) (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F)
Reliability of utility services
95% 91% 95%
D
90% 98%
B D
87% 93% 95%
D
93%
Affordability of utility services
55% 60% 45% 57% 62%
A
62%
A
59%
A
61%
A
58%
Community value received from the City owning and operating its own municipal
utility services
86% 82% 79% 81% 89%
D
78% 90%
D
90%
A D
84%
Utilities online customer self-service features
87% 85% 79% 89%
A D
88% 78% 85% 94%
A D
86%
Providing opportunities for energy and water efficiency at home or business
80% 79% 66% 75% 86%
A
78%
A
80%
A
91%
A B D
80%
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4349E292-849D-469B-AB22-6624AF8E03BD
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
50
Percent rating "excellent" or "good"
North/South Area Overall
North South Area
1
Area
2
Area
3
Area
4
Area
5
Area
6
(A)
(A) (B) (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F)
Working hard to keep utilities prices competitive
60% 65% 57% 61% 74%
A
62% 63% 61% 62%
Value of all the services Palo Alto Utilities provides for the price you pay
62% 69%
A
53% 68%
A
71%
A
70%
A
68% 66%
A
66%
Ease of obtaining information or performing a transaction throu gh the City’s website 69% 75% 63% 72% 77% 76% 73% 71% 72%
Value of Palo Alto Utilities' customer communications
80% 80% 74% 76% 88%
A
79% 78% 88%
A B
80%
Ease of contacting Utilities department staff
84% 83% 78% 86% 84% 79% 86% 90%
A D
84%
Speed of response after contacting Utilities department staff 83% 83% 77% 82% 87% 80% 86% 89% 83%
There are no benchmark data available for Question 11 as this question is unique to Palo Alto.
QUESTION 12
TABLE 56: QUESTION 12 - 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 “built environment” of Palo Alto (including overall design, buildings,
parks and transportation systems) 40% N=285 41% N=288 17% N=119 2% N=16 100% N=709
Overall economic health of Palo Alto 44% N=321 41% N=294 14% N=100 1% N=11 100% N=726
Overall feeling of safety in Palo Alto 52% N=381 30% N=222 15% N=106 3% N=20 100% N=730
Overall quality of natural environment in Palo Alto 43% N=316 42% N=303 14% N=103 1% N=5 100% N=728
Overall health and wellness opportunities in Palo Alto 28% N=202 39% N=279 27% N=197 6% N=46 100% N=725
Overall opportunities for education, culture and the arts 30% N=214 40% N=291 26% N=185 4% N=32 100% N=722
Residents' connection and engagement with their community 19% N=138 47% N=334 32% N=227 2% N=18 100% N=717
Reducing community greenhouse gas emissions 34% N=244 33% N=242 25% N=179 8% N=60 100% N=725
Increasing local solar generation capacity within city boundaries 30% N=217 31% N=225 29% N=207 10% N=69 100% N=718
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4349E292-849D-469B-AB22-6624AF8E03BD
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
51
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
Increasing electric storage capacity within city boundaries 26% N=185 35% N=248 30% N=214 9% N=67 100% N=713
Faster notification systems (online, mobile or email) for Utilities billing
issues, efficiency tips, outage information 18% N=129 29% N=206 41% N=297 12% N=89 100% N=721
Faster notification systems (online, mobile or email) for public safety issues 28% N=205 36% N=256 29% N=210 7% N=49 100% N=720
*This question did not have a “don’t know” option.
TABLE 57: QUESTION 12 - HISTORICAL RESULTS
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.
Percent positive 2021 rating compared
to 2018 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2021
Overall “built environment” of Palo Alto (including overall design, buildings, parks and
transportation systems) 80% 80% 82% 75% 78% 81% Similar
Overall economic health of Palo Alto 80% 78% 82% 76% NA 85% NA
Overall feeling of safety in Palo Alto 84% 82% 80% 80% 81% 83% Similar
Overall quality of natural environment in Palo Alto 81% 81% 84% 79% 78% 85% Higher
Overall health and wellness opportunities in Palo Alto 65% 61% 65% 62% NA 66% NA
Overall opportunities for education, culture and the arts 71% 67% 70% 67% NA 70% NA
Residents’ connection and engagement with their community 72% 71% 73% 70% NA 66% NA
Reducing community greenhouse gas emissions NA NA NA 58% 64% 67% Similar
Increasing local solar generation capacity within city boundaries NA NA NA 57% 55% 62% Higher
Increasing electric storage capacity within city boundaries NA NA NA NA 50% 61% Higher
Faster notification systems (online, mobile or email) for Utilities billing issues, efficiency tips,
outage information NA NA NA NA 45% 46% Similar
Faster notification systems (online, mobile or email) for public safety issues NA NA NA NA 63% 64% Similar
*Prior to 2021, “Overall opportunities for education, culture and the arts ” was “Overall opportunities for education and enrichment” and “Residents’ connection and
engagement with their community” was “sense of community”.
NEW TABLE -->
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4349E292-849D-469B-AB22-6624AF8E03BD
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
52
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
(A)
(A) (B) (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F)
Overall "built environment" of Palo Alto (including overall design, buildings, parks and
transportation systems)
81% 81% 81% 88%
D
80% 73% 86%
D
80% 81%
Overall economic health of Palo Alto 84% 86% 87% 85% 85% 86% 87% 81% 85%
Overall feeling of safety in Palo Alto
79% 86%
A
85%
E
83% 91%
E F
85%
E
74% 79% 83%
Overall quality of natural environment in Palo Alto 85% 85% 82% 88% 83% 84% 88% 86% 85%
Overall health and wellness opportunities in Palo Alto 66% 67% 62% 69% 69% 63% 68% 67% 66%
Overall opportunities for education, culture and the arts 69% 71% 67% 73% 71% 67% 76% 68% 70%
Residents' connection and engagement with their communit y
61% 70%
A
63% 68% 67% 74%
F
63% 59% 66%
Reducing community greenhouse gas emissions 67% 67% 62% 72% 61% 65% 71% 69% 67%
Increasing local solar generation capacity within city boundaries
63% 60% 50% 60% 59% 59% 71%
A
69%
A
62%
Increasing electric storage capacity within city boundaries
62% 60% 52% 62% 55% 60% 69%
A
66%
A
61%
Faster notification systems (online, mobile or email) for Utilities billing issues, efficiency
tips, outage information
40% 52%
A
42% 53%
F
42% 58%
A C F
48% 35% 46%
Faster notification systems (online, mobile or email) for public safety issues
60% 68%
A
63% 67% 67% 70%
F
64% 56% 64%
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4349E292-849D-469B-AB22-6624AF8E03BD
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
53
TABLE 59: QUESTION 12 - BENCHMARK COMPARISONS
City of Palo Alto
rating Rank
Number of jurisdictions for
comparison
Comparison to
benchmark
Overall "built environment" of Palo Alto (including overall design, buildings, parks
and transportation systems) 73 39 264 Similar
Overall economic health of Palo Alto 76 214 264 Similar
Overall feeling of safety in Palo Alto 77 216 264 Similar
Overall quality of natural environment in Palo Alto 76 63 264 Similar
Overall health and wellness opportunities in Palo Alto 63 219 263 Similar
Overall opportunities for education, culture, and the arts 65 217 264 Similar
Residents' connection and engagement with their community 61 253 264 Lower
*Benchmark comparisons were not available for a number of items in this question as these were unique to Palo Alto..
QUESTION 13
TABLE 60: QUESTION 13 - RESPONSE PERCENTAGES AND NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS INCLUDING "DON'T KNOW" RESPONSES
In a typical week, how likely are you to: Very likely
Somewhat
likely
Somewhat
unlikely Very unlikely
Don't
know Total
Participate in organized group activities (such as clubs, sports
teams, volunteer your time, attend church/temple) 24% N=172 22% N=160 18% N=131 34% N=250 2% N=18 100% N=731
Spend quality time with local friends, family, and/or neighbors 51% N=373 29% N=212 7% N=54 10% N=75 2% N=17 100% N=730
TABLE 61: QUESTION 13 - RESPONSE PERCENTAGES AND NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS WITHOUT "DON'T KNOW" RESPONSES
In a typical week, how likely are you to: Very likely
Somewhat
likely
Somewhat
unlikely Very unlikely Total
Participate in organized group activities (such as clubs, sports teams, volunteer
your time, attend church/temple) 24% N=172 22% N=160 18% N=131 35% N=250 100% N=713
Spend quality time with local friends, family, and/or neighbors 52% N=373 30% N=212 8% N=54 11% N=75 100% N=713
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4349E292-849D-469B-AB22-6624AF8E03BD
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
54
TABLE 62: QUESTION 13 - HISTORICAL RESULTS
In a typical week, how likely are you to:
Percent positive (e.g.,
very/somewhat likely) 2021 rating compared
to 2018 2017 2018 2021
Participate in organized group activities (such as clubs, sports teams volunteer your time, attend
church/temple) 52% 56% 47% Lower
Spend quality time with local friends, family, and/or neighbors 85% 88% 82% Lower
TABLE 63: QUESTION 13 - 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
(A)
(A) (B) (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F)
Participate in organized group activities (such as clubs, sports teams, volunteer your
time, attend church/temple)
43% 50% 52%
F
48% 49% 53%
E F
38% 39% 47%
Spend quality time with local friends, family, and/or neighbors
80% 83% 83% 84% 89%
D
79% 78% 80% 82%
There are no benchmark data available for Question 13 as this question is unique to Palo Alto.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4349E292-849D-469B-AB22-6624AF8E03BD
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
55
QUESTION 14
TABLE 64: 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 71% N=520
Walking 14% N=106
Biking 13% N=98
Bus 1% N=5
Train 0% N=0
Free shuttle 0% N=3
Taxi 0% N=0
Uber/Lyft or similar rideshare service 0% N=3
Carpooling 0% N=2
Total 100% N=737
TABLE 65: QUESTION 14 - HISTORICAL RESULTS
What mode of transportation do you use most for your typical daily needs for getting around
town?
Percent selecting each response 2021 rating compared to
2018 2016 2017 2018 2021
Driving 77% 73% 76% 71% Similar
Walking 13% 13% 11% 14% Similar
Biking 8% 11% 10% 13% Similar
Bus 1% 1% 0% 1% Similar
Train 0% 1% 1% 0% Similar
Free shuttle 0% 0% 1% 0% Similar
Taxi 0% 0% 0% 0% Similar
Uber/Lyft or similar rideshare service 0% 1% 0% 0% Similar
Carpooling 0% 0% 0% 0% Similar
There are no benchmark data available for Question 14 as this question is unique to Palo Alto.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4349E292-849D-469B-AB22-6624AF8E03BD
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
56
QUESTION 15
TABLE 66: 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 39% N=276 37% N=262 12% N=86 11% N=80 100% N=704
Biking 50% N=347 33% N=227 7% N=50 10% N=68 100% N=693
Bus 8% N=56 24% N=163 34% N=225 34% N=226 100% N=671
Train 13% N=87 26% N=176 30% N=201 32% N=213 100% N=676
Free shuttle 15% N=94 31% N=198 31% N=201 23% N=150 100% N=643
Taxi 7% N=45 23% N=147 29% N=186 41% N=268 100% N=646
Uber/Lyft or similar rid eshare service 43% N=291 34% N=232 12% N=85 10% N=71 100% N=678
Carpooling 6% N=41 20% N=128 34% N=225 40% N=262 100% N=657
*This question did not have a “don’t know” option.
TABLE 67: 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 positive (e.g., very/somewhat convenient)
2021 rating
compared to 2018 2015 2016 2017 2018 2021
Walking 92% 94% 92% 69% 76% Higher
Biking 76% 75% 75% 77% 83% Higher
Bus 53% 50% 52% 33% 33% Similar
Train 68% 66% 60% 41% 39% Similar
Free shuttle 78% 75% 74% 46% 45% Similar
Taxi 26% 27% 24% 35% 30% Similar
Uber/Lyft or similar rideshare service 52% 62% 66% 83% 77% Lower
Carpooling 52% 45% 49% 33% 26% Lower
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4349E292-849D-469B-AB22-6624AF8E03BD
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
57
TABLE 68: QUESTION 15 - GEOGRAPHIC SUBGROUP RESULTS
Percent rating "very" or "somewhat" likely
North/South Area Overall
North South Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5 Area 6 (A)
(A) (B) (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F)
Walking
82%
B
71% 78%
D
79%
D
68% 66% 84%
C D
82%
C D
76%
Biking 83% 83% 79% 84% 82% 83% 89% 81% 83%
Bus 30%
35% 23% 31% 31% 42%
A
32% 33% 33%
Train 39% 38% 38% 38% 33% 43% 33% 42% 39%
Free shuttle 48% 43% 51% 44% 43% 41% 39% 51% 45%
Taxi 27%
32% 30% 28% 29% 39%
F
31% 23% 30%
Uber/Lyft or similar rideshare service 78%
76% 85%
B E
68% 77% 84%
B E
70% 78%
B
77%
Carpooling 23%
28% 28% 28%
E
33%
E
25% 14% 25% 26%
QUESTION 16
TABLE 69: QUESTION 16 - RESPONSE PERCENTAGES AND NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS WITH "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 26% N=150 28% N=163 14% N=83 31% N=176 100% N=572
Diesel 1% N=7 3% N=17 6% N=32 90% N=495 100% N=551
Natural gas 2% N=9 2% N=10 8% N=43 88% N=456 100% N=518
Hybrid 31% N=181 38% N=224 13% N=77 17% N=101 100% N=583
Plug-in hybrid 21% N=117 39% N=215 15% N=83 24% N=133 100% N=549
Electric 46% N=274 30% N=180 11% N=66 13% N=75 100% N=596
Fuel cell 2% N=10 12% N=53 15% N=65 71% N=308 100% N=436
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4349E292-849D-469B-AB22-6624AF8E03BD
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
58
TABLE 70: QUESTION 16 - 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 26% N=150 28% N=163 14% N=83 31% N=176 100% N=572
Diesel 1% N=7 3% N=17 6% N=32 90% N=495 100% N=551
Natural gas 2% N=9 2% N=10 8% N=43 88% N=456 100% N=518
Hybrid 31% N=181 38% N=224 13% N=77 17% N=101 100% N=583
Plug-in hybrid 21% N=117 39% N=215 15% N=83 24% N=133 100% N=549
Electric 46% N=274 30% N=180 11% N=66 13% N=75 100% N=596
Fuel cell 2% N=10 12% N=53 15% N=65 71% N=308 100% N=436
TABLE 71: QUESTION 16 - HISTORICAL RESULTS
If you plan to purchase a new car within the next two years, what is the likelihood of it being:
Percent rating positively (e.g.,
very/somewhat likely) 2021 rating compared to
2018 2016 2017 2018 2021
Gas 71% 71% 66% 55% Lower
Diesel 10% 5% 6% 4% Similar
Natural gas 4% 5% 6% 4% Similar
Hybrid 70% 71% 71% 69% Similar
Plug-in hybrid 59% 62% 62% 61% Similar
Electric 65% 71% 67% 76% Higher
Fuel cell 10% 14% 11% 14% Similar
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4349E292-849D-469B-AB22-6624AF8E03BD
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
59
TABLE 72: QUESTION 16 - GEOGRAPHIC SUBGROUP RESULTS
Percent rating "very" or "somewhat" likely
North/South Area Overall
North South Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5 Area 6
(A) (A) (B) (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F)
Gas 54% 55% 62% 61% 50% 53% 47% 54% 55%
Diesel 1%
7%
A 1%
8%
A E F 5%
6%
E 0% 2% 4%
Natural gas 3% 4% 3% 3% 6% 4% 1% 4% 4%
Hybrid 70% 69% 64% 74% 64% 66%
84%
A C D F 66% 69%
Plug-in hybrid 57% 64% 59%
69%
F 55% 64% 61% 54% 61%
Electric 76% 76%
87%
C E F 80% 71% 75% 71% 73% 76%
Fuel cell 11% 17% 9% 15% 18% 19% 17% 10% 14%
QUESTION 17
TABLE 73: QUESTION 17 - RESPONSE PERCENTAGES AND NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS
As a resident of Palo Alto, what one change could the City make that would make you happier? Percent Number
Housing (amount, type, affordability/cost of living) 19% N=117
Street conditions and traffic concerns 11% N=65
General government operations 7% N=41
Development (other than housing) 6% N=35
Safety, crime, policing and law enforcement 6% N=34
Parks and recreation amenities/services 6% N=36
City services, utilities and amenities 5% N=30
Address homelessness 4% N=24
Sense of community/community activities 4% N=27
Improvements for walking and biking 3% N=17
Public transportation 3% N=19
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4349E292-849D-469B-AB22-6624AF8E03BD
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
60
As a resident of Palo Alto, what one change could the City make that would make you happier? Percent Number
Lower taxes and/or utility costs 3% N=16
Local businesses, retail/shopping options 3% N=18
Downtown improvements 2% N=10
Permits, code/ordinance enforcement 2% N=15
Schools, programs for children 2% N=10
Overall appearance, cleanliness, upkeep 2% N=14
Parking concerns 1% N=9
Reduce noise 1% N=9
Other 6% N=34
Nothing/Don't know 3% N=21
Total 100% N=601
QUESTION 18
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4349E292-849D-469B-AB22-6624AF8E03BD
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
61
TABLE 74: QUESTION 18 - RESPONSE PERCENTAGES AND NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS
As a resident of Palo Alto, what one thing do you believe the City does well and would want to maintain? Percent Number
Parks, open space, and natural environment 26% N=152
Safety services 10% N=57
Library 10% N=58
Utilities 8% N=45
Schools and education 8% N=48
Sense of community, community activities, and recreation 5% N=28
Cleanliness of community 4% N=23
Ability to give input and communication with government 4% N=21
General City services 4% N=25
Street maintenance 3% N=16
Ease of bicycle travel 2% N=10
Government/leadership 2% N=10
Everything/great place to live 2% N=9
Downtown area 2% N=12
Other 6% N=36
Don’t know/nothing, negative comments, additional improvements 8% N=45
Total 100% N=595
DEMOGRAPHIC Q UESTIONS
TABLE 75: QUESTION D1 - 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 7% N=51
Somewhat positive 20% N=145
Neutral 54% N=400
Somewhat negative 15% N=107
Very negative 4% N=31
Total 100% N=735
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4349E292-849D-469B-AB22-6624AF8E03BD
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
62
TABLE 76: QUESTION D2 - RESPONSE PERCENTAGES AND NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS
What is your employment status? Percent Number
Working full time for pay 59% N=442
Working part time for pay 9% N=65
Unemployed, looking for paid work 6% N=45
Unemployed, not looking for paid work 5% N=35
Fully retired 19% N=145
College student, unemployed 2% N=13
Total 100% N=745
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4349E292-849D-469B-AB22-6624AF8E03BD
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
63
TABLE 77: QUESTION D3 - RESPONSE PERCENTAGES AND NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS
Do you work inside the boundaries of Palo Alto? Percent Number
Yes, outside the home 18% N=130
Yes, from home 45% N=321
No 37% N=269
Total 100% N=720
TABLE 78: QUESTION D4 - RESPONSE PERCENTAGES AND NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS
How many years have you lived in Palo Alto? Percent Number
Less than 2 years 15% N=116
2 to 5 years 15% N=110
6 to 10 years 16% N=121
11 to 20 years 19% N=141
More than 20 years 35% N=265
Total 100% N=751
TABLE 79: QUESTION D5 - RESPONSE PERCENTAGES AND NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS
Which best describes the building you live in? Percent Number
One family house detached from any other houses 58% N=434
Building with two or more homes (duplex, townhome, apartment or condominium) 40% N=300
Mobile home 0% N=1
Other 2% N=16
Total 100% N=750
TABLE 80: QUESTION D6 - RESPONSE PERCENTAGES AND NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS
Do you rent or own your home? Percent Number
Rent 45% N=335
Own 55% N=414
Total 100% N=749
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4349E292-849D-469B-AB22-6624AF8E03BD
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
64
TABLE 81: QUESTION D7 - RESPONSE PERCENTAGES AND NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS
About how much is your monthly housing cost for the place you
live (including rent, mortgage payment, property tax, property
insurance and homeowners' association (HOA) fees)? Percent Number
Less than $500 per month 3% N=23
$500 to $999 per month 3% N=22
$1,000 to $1,499 per month 6% N=43
$1,500 to $1,999 per month 6% N=42
$2,000 to $2,499 per month 12% N=82
$2,500 to $2,999 per month 10% N=75
$3,000 to $3,499 per month 11% N=78
$3,500 to $3,999 per month 7% N=48
$4,000 to $4,499 per month 6% N=43
$4,500 to $4,999 per month 5% N=36
$5,000 to $5,499 per month 5% N=36
$5,500 to $5,999 per month 4% N=30
$6,000 to $6,499 per month 5% N=35
$6,500 to $6,999 per month 2% N=13
$7,000 to $7,499 per month 3% N=18
$7,500 to $7,999 per month 1% N=6
$8,000 to $8,499 per month 2% N=15
$8,500 to $8,999 per month 1% N=7
$9,000 to $9,499 per month 1% N=9
$9,500 to $9,999 per month 1% N=7
$10,000 or more per month 6% N=45
Total 100% N=715
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4349E292-849D-469B-AB22-6624AF8E03BD
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
65
TABLE 82: QUESTION D8 - RESPONSE PERCENTAGES AND NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS
Do any children 17 or under live in your household? Percent Number
No 65% N=487
Yes 35% N=257
Total 100% N=744
TABLE 83: QUESTION D9 - RESPONSE PERCENTAGES AND NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS
Are you or any other members of your household aged 65 or older? Percent Number
No 69% N=516
Yes 31% N=230
Total 100% N=746
TABLE 84: QUESTION D10 - 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=25
$25,000 to $49,999 4% N=30
$50,000 to $74,999 15% N=100
$75,000 to $99,999 15% N=99
$100,000 to $149,999 11% N=74
$150,000 to $199,999 8% N=56
$200,000 to $249,999 7% N=48
$250,000 to $299,999 7% N=46
$300,000 to $349,999 6% N=44
$350,000 to $399,999 3% N=21
$400,000 to $449,999 2% N=14
$450,000 to $499,999 18% N=120
$500,000 or more 0% N=0
Total 100% N=677
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4349E292-849D-469B-AB22-6624AF8E03BD
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
66
TABLE 85: QUESTION D11 - RESPONSE PERCENTAGES AND NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS
Are you Spanish, Hispanic or Latino? Percent Number
No, not Spanish, Hispanic or Latino 95% N=696
Yes, I consider myself to be Spanish, Hispanic or Latino 5% N=40
TABLE 86: QUESTION D12 - 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=11
Asian, Asian Indian or Pacific Islander 27% N=200
Black or African American 2% N=18
White 69% N=504
Other 4% N=30
Total may equal more than 100% as respondents could select more than one opt ion.
TABLE 87: QUESTION D13 - RESPONSE PERCENTAGES AND NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS
In which category is your age? Percent Number
18 to 24 years 2% N=15
25 to 34 years 20% N=144
35 to 44 years 15% N=112
45 to 54 years 26% N=191
55 to 64 years 13% N=93
65 to 74 years 11% N=81
75 years or older 13% N=98
Total 100% N=735
TABLE 88: QUESTION D14 - RESPONSE PERCENTAGES AND NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS
What is your gender? Percent Number
Female 51% N=373
Male 49% N=360
Identify in another way 1% N=4
Total 100% N=737
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4349E292-849D-469B-AB22-6624AF8E03BD
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
67
VERBATIM RESPONSES TO OPEN -ENDED SURVEY QUESTION S
Following are verbatim responses to the open-ended question on the survey. Because these
responses were written by survey participants, they are presented here in verbatim form, including
any typographical, grammar or other mistakes. The responses are grouped by category and are in
alphabetical order.
Question 17: As a resident of Palo Alto, what one change could the City
make that would make you happier?
H OUSING (AMOUNT , TYPE , AFFORDABILITY /COST OF LIVING )
• "ghost" homes Limit/Eliminate unoccupied "investment" homes.
• Add more low=income housing
• Affordability is a challenge. More affordable housing.
• affordable housing
• Affordable housing and a fair economy.
• affordable housing for my children that have left
• affordable housing for the elderly (we need grandparents to stay local, or be able to move here to be near
our children)
• AFFORDABLE HOUSING! End single-family zoning, increase density. We are becoming a "luxury item" and
losing the spirit of Palo Alto. I am 45. I have lived here my whole life. The Palo Alto I know and love is
disappearing. People my age cannot afford to live here unless they are extraordinarily wealthy, This is
rapidly changing the demographics of our city. Letting more people in will not ruin our city; keeping them
out will. We are going to atrophy.
• Affordable housing.
• Affordable housing.
• Affordable housing.
• AFFORDABLE QUALITY HOUSING.
• Allow massive MULTI-home residential projects close to mass transit.
• Allow more housing development
• Approve more diversity in housing, e.g.,condos or apartments in single family neighborhoods.
• Better rent price.
• Better transit, BUILD MORE APARTMENTS AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING. BUILD, BUILD, BUILD. Prices are
outrageous.
• Build high rise housing
• Build housing that is affordable for the median person and reduce commercial development that just sits
empty for years
• Build more affordable housing and create incentives for racially integrated housing throughout Palo Alto .
• Build more affordable housing so that people who work here can live here.
• Build more housing of all kinds, to ensure a dynamic, vibrant, and inclusive community. This is the single
thing that would also address more of the concerns above (e.g., climate, more community feel, more arts,
so on). When I rated the community as being less-than-welcoming, it is in this dimension that I most mean
it... policies which have led to, persist, and exacerbate the housing crisis -- and Palo Alto's cowardice to do
its fair share and then some -- are the single worst part of this community.
• Build more housing! Affordable housing will give us a more diverse and vibrant city. The idea that it will
somehow ruin what we have is silly - it's just current property owners being greedy to protect what was
already a hugely lucky windfall for them.
• Build more housing.
• Build more medium to low-end housing.
• Build much more housing, build denser housing (and higher buildings)
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4349E292-849D-469B-AB22-6624AF8E03BD
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
68
• Building of more affordable housing
• Cancel the President Hotel decision. It's better in housing!
• Change R-1 zoning to allow multi-family units like duplexes and quadraplexes.
• Cooperate with regional entities to solve housing and transportation problems. This would require
streamlining the "Palo Alto process." Endless discussion about development and hijacking of housing
development, as we witnessed when the Barron Park neighborhood association mounted a coup against
building senior housing in the neighborhood should not be allowed to stand. I live in Barron Park, by the
way, and campaigned for the senior housing project. Talking with people door to door, it seemed to me
that we are becoming a city that, through it's development decisions, discourages age and income
diversity. Transportation is the other issue. Regional solutions to developing public transportation options
should be a number one priority. We should have integrated systems for getting around the Bay Area.
Sitting in traffic for three hours to get to the East Bay or an hour to get to San Jose, is ridiculo us. If it
weren't so inconvenient, people would take trains and buses to get around. Santa Clara County and San
Mateo County have been hold outs in raising the taxes needed for sane regional transportation. Fifty years
and counting.
• Cost of living
• Cost of living decrease.
• Cost of living.
• Create actual affordable housing. Reduce school administrators pay. Rethink the rushed and poorly
considered opening of Foothills park and chastise mayor Fine for his ignorant and lazy comments about it
just being "growing pains". Remove all of the extremely dangerous concrete structures that restrict streets
while claiming to promote bike friendly roadways! And fire whoever came up with that terrible idea to
waste money on such a project! Enforce the ban on gas powered leaf blowers. Prevent constructions trucks
and equipment from clogging residential streets and creating unsafe environments for kids, bikes and
pedestrians. Build a gas station and a decent grocery store in mid-town. Stop Stanford from doing
whatever they want without investing in the community. Remember that not everyone around he re makes
$500,000 a year.
• decrease cost of living! ha!
• Decrease rent (pipe dream, I know). It is very expensive to live here.
• Different zoning to allow more construction of houses /lower cost of housing.
• Don't change zoning regulations as they relate to single-family housing
• Ending single family zoning
• facilitate building more housing / zoning for more housing
• Find ways to increase low & middle income housing. Duplexes in single family neighborhoods should be
okayed. The Stanford housing off Calif Avenue is a great example of duplexes fitting right in.
• Focusing on affordable housing production.
• Have a way for young families to afford to live here. Without people from many generatio ns the City is
truly lacking and could die out.
• Help reduce the cost of living
• Help with cost of living
• Hold landlords accountable (for, e.g., conducting construction without permits). Stop letting landlords
treat tenants like cash flow, e.g. make all rental communities "co-ops" of sorts by granting tenants
collective power against landlords through local ordinances. Institute more stringent rent control (no more
than inflation + 1% annually).
• Increase housing but not all on San Antonia. How about some in North Palo Alto?
• Increase the supply of affordable housing. End police racism and violence.
• Increase the the low cost housing and build up along El Camino with multiuse buildings to allow more
residents with jobs in the lower and middle class to live where they work.
• increased affordable housing
• LARGE INCREASE IN AFFORDABLE HOUSING (LOW INCOME).
• Limit developers from adding more residences because it makes traffic a nightmare.
• Limit high density housing and fix broken traffic light timing.
• Limit multi family home building - there is not more room
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4349E292-849D-469B-AB22-6624AF8E03BD
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
69
• LIMITED AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
• Long-range development plan (including affordable housing) for Calif Ave to "Ventura" (Fry's site)
• low income housing
• LOW RENT.
• Lower Cost of living.
• Lower cost of living.
• Lower housing prices
• lower rent
• Lower rent
• Lower rent
• Make affordable housing a reality.
• More abundant and more diverse housing options.
• More affordable cost of living - rent etc
• More affordable high-density housing complexes.
• More affordable housing
• More affordable housing
• more affordable housing
• more affordable housing
• More affordable housing
• More affordable housing
• more affordable housing and more recreation opportunities for families like mini gold, bowling, etc.
• More affordable housing for all - teachers, firemen, police, secretaries, etc. A secondary item would be
there are still too many traffic signals that don't have responsive sensors so you end up waiting 2 -3 minutes
for the green turn light even though there's no traffic coming from the other way.
• More affordable housing for middle class
• More affordable housing for middle-income people.
• More affordable housing options
• More affordable housing options.
• more affordable housing or rent control
• More affordable housing so wet can own a house in Palo Alto
• More affordable housing, more property tax equity
• More affordable housing.
• More attention to those of us who are not tech magnates / members of the 1%. Those of us who are lower
income workers, including public servants, who can barely afford very low quality rental housing. Who are
left out because of the upper-class orientation of this city. Who increasingly feel like we are outsiders
unwelcome in this city. The number of motor homes and cars with people living in them are even stronger
evidence of the failure of this city to look after ALL of our community. What a change from the years when
Palo Alto at least tried to care for those of us who are not part of the high-tech/ 1% orientation of this city
now. what a shame
• More houses below $2 million
• More housing - possibly mixed use.
• More housing affordability.
• More Housing Opportunities.
• More Housing!
• More low and middle income housing
• More low-moderate housing. Multi story housing near transit.
• Prices are out of control!!!
• Protect renters by capping what predatory landlords can charge.
• PROVIDE LOW-COST HOUSING FOR LOW-INCOME PEOPLE WHO SERVE US.
• provide more housing in each pricing class
• Provide truly affordable housing for low paid workers
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4349E292-849D-469B-AB22-6624AF8E03BD
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
70
• Purchase our homes and give residents the right to live there as long as we wish, subject to conditions such
as basic maintenance of the home. Money should move in a healthy economy and not get stuck in real
estate!
• Put a stronger effort in providing more affordable housing.
• Quality single-family housing availability and home ownership affordability, including taxes
• Raised height limits along ECR to facilitate housing.
• Reduce cost of living by at least 50%
• Reduce the cost of property! Palo Alto house properties are too high and pricing younger families out of
the market. Student numbers have been decreasing over the years as families struggle with the cost of rent
and are unable to afford to buy a house. Please put some serious research into this area. We would love to
stay in Palo Alto indefinitely but it is a big financial worry.
• Reduce the rate of commercial construction
• Rent control- service discount.
• Rent is too high.
• Rental property oversight and improvement of rental housing standard of living. I've rented houses in
(midtown) Palo Alto with mold issues seeping through walls, rat issues in attic with furnace in attic, central
heating issues (which they suggested to use space heaters throughout the house instead), sewer line issues
(old lines that they don't want to repair from house to city connection) - and every single landlord, even
with the advice of licensed property manager, is resistant to fix the issue to acceptable standard of living.
The landlords don't want to spend money to repair or maintain a property to an acceptable living standard,
so instead of taking them to mediation/court, I've moved to another houses in Palo Alto. These are houses
that are renting for $5000+ a month, built in the 1950's/1960's era - and the owners don't want to fix them
to a reasonable standard of living. What are the long term costs to Palo Alto residents when children inhale
mold, inhale rat excrement in the furnace system, and the showers back up with grey water from toilets?
City of Palo Alto allows the market to set prices for rental without any standard of living oversight - and
allow owner/landlords to rent properties that are subpar.
• Stop allowing for mega homes to invade neighborhoods.
• Stop building high density multifamily residents.
• Stop Building housing. It's gotten too crowded!
• Stop increasing population density of the city by allowing more housing that is not single family. I bought
into Palo Alto because it is primarily single family zoning
• support and pursue broader range of housing and transport options
• The toughest thing about Palo Alto is the cost of living.
• Tons more housing of all types
• Truly affordable housing for low to very low income people and families.
• Upzoning and encouraging more housing development
• Would like to see Palo Alto offer more affordable housing (e.g., apartment rentals that people earning less
than six- or seven-figure salaries can afford or that aren't simply new "luxury apartment homes.")
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4349E292-849D-469B-AB22-6624AF8E03BD
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
71
S TREET CONDITIONS AND TRAFFIC CONCERNS
• Address traffic issues on Lytton Ave - introduce traffic calming on Lytton & Waverley.
• Adjust the very strange signal timing in the traffic corridors.
• Adjust traffic light on Oregon expwy/ page mill road for more efficient timing
• Better ability to merger/ cross Arastradero Rd from side streets/ especially during the school ye ar!
• Better handling of heavy traffic on El Camino Real
• better road maintenance
• better roadways
• Better street Conditions.
• better upkeep of streets and sidewalks
• Control Speeding car better enforcement.
• Coordinate traffic signals
• Enact a 3 ton truck limit on residential arterials ( University Ave, Embarcadero, Churchill, Middlefield)
• enforce speed limits on streets
• Engineer traffic flow better, esp with new high density housing
• Fix Caltrain and traffic issues making traffic problems.
• Fix the 25 mph speed limit on main streets: either enforce the limit or raise it
• Fix the main roads
• Fix the potholes on El Camino the trash up on the freeways.
• Fix the streets and sidewalks. They both are in great disrepair. Very dangerous for bikers and walkers.
Allow a few grocers to have more sq ft so they can be competitive.
• Fix traffic and the road surfaces on El Camino
• Fix traffic on university road from Sand Hill-101.
• Get rid of the failed roundabouts which endanger our children who bike or walk to school. Huge waste of
taxpayer money. A majority of city residents oppose them, and the city council didn't listen!
• i wanna get over the highway, 101, but I can't find how to get to the other side
• improve light timing, close Cal Ave to car traffic and make it a pedestrian lane permanently, limit
nonresident access to Foothill Park (only issue a certain number of permits)
• Improve roads
• Improve the roads - or get CalTrans to. El Camino is a nightmare! Build some affordable housing for our
teachers, city workers, etc.
• Improve the streets.
• Improve the traffic safety, traffic flows, and criminal prevention methods.
• Improve traffic safety by attention to traffic lights and bike pathways
• Increase my driving opportunities.
• Just one?! enforced local speed limits and safety for walkin g at night/alone
• Keep cal ave closed to traffic forever
• less traffic (due to less businesses and residents)
• Less traffic congestion (without Covid reduction)
• Less traffic from non-residents.
• Less traffic, fewer cars. Forever. For a hundred reasons. Thank you.
• Manage traffic on Alma-safer left turns.
• More roundabouts add speed bumps on certain streets where people speed (eg. Hamilton Ave), close
University Ave to redirect traffic.
• Pave the streets!!!!
• Post-COVID, reducing traffic overall.
• Reduce car traffic on Embarcadero Road - its a safety issue for cars backing off from homes situated on
Embarcadero, and also affects air quality, noise levels and overall quality of life.
• Reduce car traffic.
• Reduce drive through, speeding traffic
• Reduce the non-covid-era traffic congestion/noise in PA.
• reduce traffic
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4349E292-849D-469B-AB22-6624AF8E03BD
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
72
• reduce traffic clogging on University Ave in afternoon-evening weekdays
• Reduce unnecessary road signs, traffic lights, or islands in residential area.
• Reduce/make safer traffic (by stopping dense housing, increasing work at home).
• Remove all the traffic cones at Middle Field and Seale. Lots of accidents - Dumb idea!
• Remove the "small traffic circles" that were recently installed (such as the one at Ross Road and East
Meadows). They are dangerous to drivers and bicyclists.
• Remove the roundabouts along Ross. It was a waste of money and made the road more dangerous than
before.
• Repair the roads.
• Residential street speed enforcement. People using WAZE to avoid stoplights race down our street
(Webster near Oregon) at rush hour endangering anyone walking across the street or pulling out of their
driveway.
• Ross Road should be a auto friendly street.
• Signs and Road improvement.
• Slow drivers down in all residential areas.
• Slow traffic down on my street (Channing Ave).
• solve the traffic problem
• stop sign enforcement, speed limit enforcement
• The conditions of our roads and streets is pretty sorry.
• traffic control
• Traffic control when schools are open people drive too fast.
• Traffic enforcement
• Traffic mitigation and appropriate Development growth
• traffic patterns to improve the safety of pedestrians and bicyclists while preserving residential streets
G ENERAL GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS
• Better handling of COVID safety protocol.
• City council stop meeting behind closed doors.
• city council truly listen to the residents, not just say" co llect feedback" but never take the feedback
seriously.
• Ease of city council to listen and take action from citizens
• ELECT THE MAYOR by popular vote!!!!!
• fewer members of local government
• Fiscal responsibility & transparency
• Getting well qualifies persons to run the city..
• Give some sense of confidence that the city govt will spend $$ responsibility. I hear little confidence that
dollars, such no hotel tax increase, for example, will be spent in any way that will benefit the city overall.
• Greater speed and effectiveness in processing issues and making decisions
• Have a city council that can make up their minds in a timely manner.
• I am happy with the cleanliness and surrounding beauty of Pa lo Alto. However, at some point, there is a
diminishing return on efforts. How can community boards and commissions justify spending weeks of
consideration and then 4+ hours of time debating whether someone should be allowed to build a
basement where there is an old growth tree in their yard? There are other ways of solving a problem - eg.
require the owner to sponsor planting 20-30 new trees in Palo Alto for potentially removing the old growth
tree. The amount of time spent by the community fixated on a black and white solution translates directly
into cost. Our community and commissions can spend time on more critical life altering issues such as
how to ensure health and wellness, public transport, or fiber to the home. My family and I are US citize ns
who have lived around the world including the UK, Australia, and Hong Kong. No where else have I seen
such a dysfunctional approach (where one small special interest group can commandeer so much
time/energy/ cost) to managing a community for the broader good.
• I feel as if the City treats its citizens as impediments to t heir operations.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4349E292-849D-469B-AB22-6624AF8E03BD
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
73
• I want city council make the decisions based on the P.A residents' opinion, not on option of Carts Council
only!
• IMPROVE WEBSITE SEARCH FUNCTION.
• Increased concern for disabled, homeless, elderly, and low-income community members in city-wide
policies and programs; consulting such individuals on their needs when making any/all city -wide policies
and programs, as well as consulting them on existing policies and programs
• Less debates on various options (ex: Caltrain grade separation, Castil leja school expansion) and faster
decision process.
• Less decisions made behind closed doors
• LESS IDENTITY POLITICS.
• less regulations on homes/businesses; schools are not as good as "hyped " especially middle-school;
affordable home prices
• Make decisions in a more rational and timely manner using the best factual data available and not try to
solve every problem residents bring to the City. Bring closure on matters unlike the instantly of some of
the rail crossing decision making processes and the process used for the Castilleja CUP. Signs up for and
against a decision for years simply divide the community. Delays are a way for particularly the Council to
avoid a decision and placed the blame on others. Enough already!!!
• Make decisions on the wellbeing of the residents, not political pressure.
• Managing budget/spending
• more responsive planning department.
• Open discussions, no closed sessions.
• Reduce pay of city manager.
• Reduce percentage of budget spent on retirement benefits
• Reduce unnecessary city spending and the large number of full-time employees, to save money for
emergencies like the current pandemic.
• Remove the bureaucratic firewall from the City's website that prevents one from talking to a public official
about a complaint or request for service!
• Replace building/permit staff with competent and helpful employees.
• Replace the current City Manger via an open, wide, and competitive search.
• Serve the current residents, rather than pursuing broader political agendas
• Set out a vision or plan for the City - what are our priorities and how do we get there. Also, allowing for
areas/spaces that are more family and kid friendly and less geared towards corporate or retirees. The parks
are amazing but without bathrooms or nearby cafes they leave families without a place to really meet up
(in non-Covid times) and spend a day.
• shorter council meetings
• spend tax money wisely, especially on education
• Stop wasting money on un-needed and fiscally irresponsible projects
• Take action and not dither eg. Electrification of Caltrain, hybrid learning, etc. we need more leadership,
essentially listen to others make a decision and then explain the decision based on the inputs. For example
a trench or tunnel for Caltrain will be very expensive (no way to fund ) so present the viable options don't
waste time.
• The city council needs to work together for the common good. Cut out the long meetings, prioritize goals,
and get things done. More affordable housing, traffic control, transparency.
• transparency/accountability
• Transparent Council business and mindful of citizen concerns'
• using tax money better
D EVELOPMENT (OTHER THAN HOUSING )
• City needs to get in front of upcoming changes to commercial use of existing and new buildings. The old
model of forced retail spaces is probably not what we need for the future.
• Create a citizen-focused development plan for the Fry's location that includes an abundance of affordable
housing, gardens, and community meeting paints connected by pedestrian + bike paths.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4349E292-849D-469B-AB22-6624AF8E03BD
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
74
• Create more pro-development sections in the city. Large office/mixed use.
• Discourage growth of large companies within the city: they can expand elsewhere.
• Encourage density along El Camino Real. Tall buildings and mass transportation = mini Manhattan.
• Less building of huge new developments like what is happening along San Antonio.
• Less commercial development
• Less dense development
• Less high density construction
• Less office space (address jobs/housing imbalance).
• Less tall buildings.
• Limit development
• Limit growth so we do not become even more congested
• limit new office space with all the traffic, housing, etc. issues that it creates
• No more "improvements" like the horrible Charleston Corridor.
• no more new businesses, no more dense housing and Less Traffic
• NOT TO OVER-BUILD
• Please focus on balance in new construction- Don't make El Camino Road a city scape of extra tall
buildings.
• reduce density problem
• reduce expansion of Stanford University due to high traffic on surface streets
• reduce what buildout looks like....a lot.
• Spend less money on building and construction, and move that money to spend on people and making the
city affordable for non-tech professionals.
• Stop building ADUs in residential neighborhoods where there really isn't enough space. Limit development.
• stop building and focus on long term residents needs
• STOP BUILDING MORE AND MORE OFFICE SPACE.
• Stop building multi-story buildings - Lower utility build and water charges.
• STOP building offices and rezone office land to accommodate affordable housing.
• Stop building on top of the side walk. Hard to enjoy the natural environment when a tall wall towers above
the sidewalk.
• Stop building ugly high rise buildings in Ventura/ South Palo Alto. Also there is no sense of architectural
unity or style. It feels like Developers are paying the city council to get what they want. Also need another
public pool.
• Stop catering to big developers
• stop new businesses from opening in Palo Alto as there is already inadequate parking and housing for
employees.
• Stop Over developing!!!
• Stop overbuilding!!!!!
• Stop overbuilding, control traffic congestion.
• Stop the overbuilding in P.A.
S AFETY , CRIME , POLICING AND LAW ENFORC EMENT
• 1 - Stop bike theft rings! I've had at least five bikes stolen from downtown / Cal Av over the years. 2 -
Affordable housing / better support to vulnerable citizens
• Better crime prevention. Too much theft.
• Better lighting at night.
• Crime is a big problem. Lots of car break ins and too many housebreak ins and street robberies.
• Deal with burglaries better
• Do something about the increase in bulgaries
• Friendlier police force.
• Friendlier police.
• Having the police follow up with minor crime reports (theft, break-ins, ...). They couldn't care less.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4349E292-849D-469B-AB22-6624AF8E03BD
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
75
• I want to see the city make more big changes to address policing concerns citizens voiced t his past
summer. Also still disgruntled by Ed's 10-day shutdown announcement - changes should be made to
prevent such future actions.
• I would rework the Police budget so more resources are available for mental health services.
• Implement changes to hold police accountable (mandatory bodycams, longer training periods of 2+years,
focus on reduction of use of force) to the public and set an example of how to do so for other
small/medium sized cities.
• Improve the safety of our neighborhood
• Increase police presence
• Increasing safty level
• less crime
• Make PA safer.
• make Palo Alto a safe place to live
• More frequent Peace Officers patrolling neighborhoods for safety.
• More police presence in Downtown areas.
• No more racial profiling by police.
• Reduce property crimes, car break-ins.
• Reduce property crimes, Car break-ins.
• Reduce property crimes, car break-ins.
• safe neighborhood
• Safer place. (We lost a lot of packages, mails and bikes in 2020)
• Safer/less crime
• safety
• Safety
• Safety
• Security camera installation
• Solve bike theft problem. 3 bikes (locked) stolen my main transportation!!!
• STOP the crime, vandalism, theft, prowlers, robberies, break-ins. I am unlikely to install security cameras on
my property because the police can't or won't arrest anyone.
• train police how to interact with people who are mentally ill
P ARKS AND RECREATION AMENITIES /SERVICES
• 1. Not make unilateral decisions about Foothills Park. This issue should of been put on ballot and voted by
community. 2. Palo Alto is top heavy in management and staff is well compensated, yet they constantly
hire outside auditors to help make decisions. 3. Seems to be a disconnect if you have to ask residents
feedback (this survey) on how they feel about Palo Alto.
• Cancel the opening of foothill park opening to the public. Put back only to PA Residence. I cannot get in
park since opening to public. I am resident since "86". PA Residents should not have to pay to get into
Foothill Park.
• Close foothill park back to residents only.
• Close Foothill Park to non-residents
• Close Foothill Park to non-residents
• Close Foothills Park to non-residents (Palo Alto spent the $ to purchase the land years ago and pays for
maintenance). I shouldn't have to wait in line, make a reservation, get closed out, or pay a fee to use the
park. Very unfair. Second item: improve code enforcement; in particular, faster response time.
• close Foothills Park to outsiders
• Enforcing leash and pick up rules in parks
• EXCLUSIVE RESIDENT USE OF FOOTHILLS PARK.
• FOOTHILLS PARK - HOW I WISH ITS NOT FOR PUBLIC.
• Get Foothill park back
• Guarantee access to Foothills Park on the weekend and every day. I already cannot go to Arastradero
Preserve and Byxbee Park, because there is no parking. Now I can't go to Foothills Park on a weekend
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4349E292-849D-469B-AB22-6624AF8E03BD
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
76
middle of the day either. I am saddened that a park that I love and have visited many times, is now not
available to me, yet I pay taxes to support it. It seems unfair, and I feel betrayed by the City Council for
giving in to the lawsuit demands.
• Include more California native plants in city parks designs
• Keep Foothill Park resident only
• keep Foothills Park for Palo Alto residents only
• KEEP FOOTHILLS PARK FOR POLO ALTO RESIDENTS ONLY.
• Keep masses out of Park.
• Keep the Foothill Park residents only.
• Limit Foothills park residents on weekends.
• Make Foothills Park be for Palo Alto residents only
• More green areas.
• More off leash dog areas
• More parks
• More space for dogs to be off leash.
• More tennis courts
• open the park and open the public toilet with covid-care
• Please restrict non palo alto citizen's access to foothill park or come up with a method to guarantee palo
alto citizen's access to foothill park all the time as before.
• Put Foothill Park back to the way it was
• Reclaim control of Foothill Park
• Re-close Foothills Park to non-residents. It's turned into a mob scene, parking is jammed so frequently that
PA residents (who paid for it and still pay 100% of maintenance & fire protection) can't use it anymore.
• Recreation options.
• Resident only foothill park/Safe environment/Stanford Univ. is not y our enemy. They are helping PA
• RESTORING FOOTHILLS PARK TO PALO ALTANS.
• Revise the recent change to Foothill Park, to allow only a certain number of public visitors per day. The
park and nature preserve will be ruined if there is unlimited access and use b y the general public. Numbers
have been through the roof already, and that's not fair to the animals and nature that call the park home. If
the city must allow the public, then some sensible rules should be put in place to put the health and well -
being of Foothill Park first.
• Stop fighting about FOOTHILLS park-get it open to all. Pretty gross & petty.
• tennis court and swimming pool
C ITY SERVICES , UTILITIES AND AMENITIES
• Buildout Fiber to the Premises (FTTP)
• Center for information to be available
• Change the library hold & pick up process implemented since covid. The four step process - place hold, get
notice of hold ready, schedule appt, pick up books - is onerous and prevents us from actually being able to
get books
• City Owned Fiber Internet
• City-owned fiber to the home
• city-owned last mile Internet hookups
• City-wide fiber internet. Bury the overhead powerlines.
• Deliver affordable fiber to all multi-family dwellings. Honestly, I can't believe that we don't have this
already given Palo Alto's role in technology. I would vote for ANY candidate for City Council who promised
to make this a top priority.
• Enforce mandatory removal of cars from street on "street cleaning days". Too many cars parked forever
on street and city does not tow during street cleaning so street cleaning cleans the center of the street and
does NOTHING for leaves & ... in gutter. Tow cars parked in the way of street cleaners! (Protect R1!)
• Free or low-cost of high speed internet access
• Gigabit internet
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4349E292-849D-469B-AB22-6624AF8E03BD
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
77
• HAVING A FUNCTIONING RECYCLING CENTER.
• I use SCC Libraty in Los Altos. Locatate a library satellite near Gunn High School. There was once one at
old Terman School now Fletcher
• Internet speed could be greatly improved. Affordable housing.
• Less blackout, reliable electricity
• Make life easier for elderly males-On call or scheduled city cab service-
• More city jobs and apprentice programs.
• Move our libraries system into Santa Clara county libraries system.
• Municipal Fiber Broadband
• Open the animal shelter for shots and surgeries.
• Pay more attention to taxpayer funded services. They are paid for by taxpayers
• Pick up compost materials and trash at our driveway (have to take them down to the cul -de-sac now).
• Promote affordable fast internet to home
• Remove 5G cell towers and deny further 5G permits.
• Re-open library
• Restore AA access to Lucie Stern Community center.
• SUPPORT THE CREATION OF A PALO ALTO MUSEUM.
• Trim my city trees
• Underground our electric lines.
• UTILITY CITY OWNED INTERNET FIBRE PRICED <$60/MCH.
A DDRESS HOMELESSNESS
• A plan for the Homeless/campers on El Camino
• Address the parked RV trailers so many communities have gone bad and we are headed there.
• Better services for the homeless and unhoused
• Care for homeless
• Do not allow people to sleep in their RVs and leave trash in front of my house!!!!
• During this COVID period we are seeing an increase in the number of homeless in our downtown as well as
an increase in those living in campers and cars. This is heartbreaking and certainly needs to addressed for
the safety of all.
• Enforce the 72 hour Parking limit on major roads like El Camino. Remove the RVs that is becoming a dire
situation and creating encampments near residential neighborhood. This is creating safety and hazard
issues along with crime. Discouraging shopping and use of commercial business. . Please engage Stanford
University-and take action otherwise this will threaten the vibrancy of Palo Alto. This will start driving out
residences. We are looking to leave because the city and police are not wi lling to protect the
neighborhoods and. Enforce the laws. Crime is increasing.
• Enforce the ban on RVs/trailers/sleeping on the streets!
• Fewer homeless people in the streets.
• Find compassionate solutions for the homeless population
• Finding solutions for homelessness (including RVs on streets)
• Get rid of all the RV Trailers taking over the neighborhood!
• Get the people living in RVs on economy Housing!!!
• Global solution to homeless problem.
• helping the homeless more
• Homeless people issues (especially along El Camino)
• Housing for homeless.
• I respect fiscal responsibility/also very very upset w/ the unsanitary conditions of vehicle dwellers on El
Camino. Shut it down.
• I would like to see the homeless taken care of and off the streets and RV's off the El Camino
• Less homeless people in parks meant for children.
• relocate homeless RV's
• Remove Campers along El Camino, bikers don't belong on sidewalks.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4349E292-849D-469B-AB22-6624AF8E03BD
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
78
• Remove motorhomes and trailers parked on city streets
• Too man RV's Parking in the streets.
S ENSE OF COMMUNITY /COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES
• Community - lots of self isolated people that are motivated by self interest and not being neighborly. We
should consider having neighborhood programs and fostering community initiatives (eg food drives,
charitable giving, community improvement) to bring neighborhoods more common sense of purpose and
responsibility to each other
• Create more opportunities for community connection & welcome diversity.
• Diversity
• Diversity of the residents
• Diversity.
• I would like to see more connectivity within the community.
• Improve community engagement among neighbors
• Increase the economic diversity of the population
• LESS ELITIST.
• less old, white, 'we're rich and snobby' pretentious attitude
• Lost more/ improve quality of city-sponsored events, like the chili festival.
• Make it welcoming people from diverse background
• More community building among the people.
• more community events to get to know neighbors
• more community events with notification of them
• more cultural diversity
• more cultural institutions and events
• more diversity and affordable housing
• More inclusive and outgoing - seems like city govt is a tight, small club; ditto for school parent
organizations; police not very friendly for a relatively small and safe city; relatively few options for public
arts and activities, etc.
• More music concerts in the park & theatre(musical).
• More things to do
• newcomer groups
• Organize a volunteer event to plant trees after the wild fires or around Palo Alto city limits
• Overcome NIMBYism and be more welcoming to a greater range of residents, including supporting more
housing development
• Palo Alto feels elitist to me. Increase diversity.
• Quality street entertainment.
• WHEN A CITY TREE NEEDS REPLACEMENT, ALLOW RESIDENT CHOICES.
I MPROVEMENTS FOR WALKING AND BIKING
• better "highspeed" bike commute options. Today if i want to ride to work I hit stop sign after stop sigh OR I
have to ride on busy "expressway" streets with cars moving 60mph+. I'd like an efficient corridor that
keeps cyclists safe and separated (somewhat) from motor vehicles and provides for more efficient bike
travel. If this were available I would ride to work far more often (like daily, whether permitting)
• better repair of sidewalks
• Better support of safe, nondriving forms of transportation.
• Bike lanes on El Camino Real- Norv's.
• BIKE ROUTES WITHOUT CAR TRAFFIC, E.G ALONG CREEKS. REPLACE DIESEL CALTRAIN W/ "GREEN GOAT"
ELECTRIC LOCOMOTIVE UNTIL RAIL IS ELECTRIFIED.
• bike trail
• EASIER COMMUTE FOR PEOPLE WHO DON NOT OWN A CAR.
• easier to report trouble spots, including sidewalks that need repair
• Enforcing rules of the road for bicycles. It is not being done.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4349E292-849D-469B-AB22-6624AF8E03BD
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
79
• Fix Sidewalks.
• Keep in mind that not everyone in this town is 30/40 years old and able to walk/bike everywhere. You
don't have to be that much older (especially by the 50s) for hip, knee and other joint issues to kick in -
especially if you've been athletic in younger years. I see a lot of decisions which presume that residents are
capable of walking long distances when that is often not the case - without being defined as "disabled".
• More bike lanes would be wonderful.
• More bike paths.
• More bike routes
• More paved sidewalks! The neighborhood we live in (Green Acres, north of Juan Briones Elementary
school) does not have enough paved sidewalks. I think there's plenty of space to install paved sidewalks in
this neighborhood, and that would benefit the quality of life greatly.
• Repair crumbling sidewalks
• Stop prioritizing adult bicyclists and the street obstructions they demand.
P UBLIC TRANSPORTATIO N
• Better in town public transportation.
• Better public transportation
• Better transportation options for those who cannot drive in particular, but for all residents too so as to
reduce single occupancy driving.
• Connect Cal train to bus service or increase parking. Male bullet train all the time every hour.
• Continues train service to SF
• Do a better job with public transportation.
• Expand free shuttle for high school students
• Have consistent scheduling for free shuttle; focus to affordability to live in Palo A lto.
• having a very usable bus system
• Make products market and bus service nearly my senior apartment building.
• More Bus stops near Residence.
• More buses. There are places you can only get to by car. I think that everyone should be able to take a bus
and get to where they want to go with only a little walkings.
• More convenient FREE shuttles.
• More convenient public transportation
• Provide a way for workers to enter and exit the city without the use of cars.
• Public transportation.
• put the train underground
• Transportation options for Seniors
• Underground the trains
L OWER TAXES AND /OR UTILITY COSTS
• Affordability.
• Change electrical pricing so partially electric homes pay less than natural gas homes. So, add an electric
appliance and pay less per kWh of electricity.
• I've lived in Palo Alto over thirty years and for me the escalating seasonal cost of utilities clearly should be
curtailed as should the number of workers in the public utility system.
• Lower property tax
• lower tax
• Lower tax
• Lower utility bills; especially when you live on a fixed income.
• Lower utility rates, especially water
• payless in utilities and keep the library and foothill parks only Palo alto residents
• Reduce Local Property Taxes
• Reduce property taxes
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4349E292-849D-469B-AB22-6624AF8E03BD
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
80
• Reduce Property Taxes to offset elevated property valuations. The property taxes are the sole rea son for us
considering moving.
• Reduce taxes
• reduce the property taxes
• reduce the utility bill
• We should not pay for all utilities.
L OCAL BUSINESSES , RETAIL /SHOPPING OPTIONS
• Allow a private gym establishment like Equinox to open
• Attract more business or keep them in Palo Alto
• Better live music venues, bring back outdoor dining.
• Bring back and support more small businesses (Cal Ave, Downtown) to the downtown areas, for
shopping/restaurants, services. etc. On Cal Ave I still miss Cho's dumplings, the Village A rts Stationary
store, the photography store - it is so much more bland now with fitness, chains, and hair salons.
• Bring back shopping: gift shops, boutiques, bakery, etc. Clean sidewalks, create charm, etc.
• Bring more arts, theater productions, etc.
• Clean up of Camino ugly business.
• improve the look and feel and variety of businesses in south palo alto on el camino
• Keep things that have history and character like Stanford Theatre Frys.
• Make it easy for opening small stores.
• More music venues downtown that are not just jazz/classical. Need Americana/folk/roots music.
• more restaurants
• More retail businesses and affordable housing for city workers and teachers
• Open the businesses on university and allow dining at the parklets. The vibrancy of our town an d economic
health is at stake!
• Refocus on local, unique small businesses & less building.
• Return shopping-less restaurants-create charm! Clean sidewalks.
• Supermarket/s, less riding bikes in downtown and more convenient parking.
• Supporting our independent restaurants and retailers to get back downtown vibrancy.
D OWNTOWN IMPROV EMENTS
• A city less spread out, with a downtown rich in places of art and cultural events
• Allowing business in downtown to have tables on streets again
• Close off down town to traffic. Wash the sidewalks and remove homeless
• close university ave and California ave to car traffic
• Closing Downtown & Cal Ave for restaurants and better retail. Bike only streets to/from schools
• I'd love more pedestrian spaces (e.g. closing Cal Ave and Univ Ave to cars permanently)
• Keep retail on the ground floor of downtown!
• Keep the city clean and businesses vibrant. The open streets program on Cal Ave and University Ave was
good. Make it permanent. Many of the questions in this survey were hard to answer since most of the
services ( library, arts, recreation, etc) were closed due to the COVID restrictions.
• Keep University Ave and California Ave vehicle free, there's a much nicer feeling to be able to walk, eat
outside and socialize.
• Make University Ave a walking promenade (no cars)
P ERMITS , CODE /ORDINANCE ENFORCEMENT
• Easier permits, more places allowed for night time astronomy in parks/ open spaces. Also stop package
theft!
• Enforce leaf blower ordinances.
• Enforce the gas blower ban
• Faster permit approvals.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4349E292-849D-469B-AB22-6624AF8E03BD
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
81
• Fix insane building code and permit process, and the horrendous anti-business and anti-development
atmosphere. You pretend to be green and progressive, but low income or minorities must drive 50 miles to
work here and can't dream of living here. Don't do stupid "affordable housing," just let people build, run
businesses here. If that leads to traffic and parking, heck the more incentive to use public/bike. Maintain
focus on safety, don't let a crime spiral start. Fix disastrous 10 year wait for airport hangars! Triple the
rents, incent the people using it for storage and dead planes to leave. You get a lot of money, airport gets
more functional. Win win!
• For the city to enforce codes on residential construction
• I wish that Palo Alto would enforce its gas leaf blower ordinance. It impedes my family's quality of life to
be surrounded by gas leaf blowers -- I hear them in my home office, when I am out walking, when I go
biking with my children, etc. The noise is intolerable, and the air is not healthy to breathe when they are
blowing in my area. Palo Alto has had a law banning gas blowers for the last 15 years, and if it would just
enforce the law, it would hugely improve the quality of life in Palo Alto. It would also advance Palo Alto's
goals of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. As I understand it, Palo Alto issued just 1 warning and 1
citation for gas blowers in the entire city all of last year, despite hundreds of complaints. Enforcement is
virtually non-existent. I do not understand why Palo Alto does not enforce the laws that it passes.
• Make code enforcement of leaf blowers, residential AND COMMERCIAL, along with construction hours and
after hours noise issues, more of a priority and make it easier for a citizens' complaints to be addressed .
Who really should a citizen contact in order for their complaint to be taken care of? Police dept. or Code
Enforcement office? Along with this, when large commercial projects are being built close to an adjoining
neighborhood, as an example, within the Stanford Research Park, there should be more awareness mad e
as to the resulting impact of that project upon that neighborhood! The neighborhood should have a voice!
For example, SandHill Properties promised the adjoining neighbors along Matadero Ave, the creation of a
berm or buffer for the impact of their new bu ilding, at 3251 Hanover, upon those neighbors. After
construction started, they eliminated the creation of a berm. This is so typical of SandHill. As you can see,
I am very frustrated with the lack of code enforcement by the city. I live close to the Stanford Research
Park. Should I really think that a code enforcement officer will address a noise or leaf blower issue after
hours? Say on a Sunday or at 11:30 at night?
• Make it easier to get rid of California Land Oak Trees.
• Planning for remodeling be more flexible.
• SIMPLIFY PERMITTING AND BUILDING REPAIR PROCESS
• Streamline & speed up the building permitting process
• Streamline building/ remodeling reviews.
• Streamline the permit process so that people can fix up these old house.
• The building department needs to offer a way to help people with building requirements and issues. They
are very difficult to work with; I have had issues with different projects over the years and find it difficult to
get answers from the City.
S CHOOLS , PROGRAMS FOR CHILDREN
• (1)Better run public schools and more recreational opportunity for youth (2) address the homeless
problem
• (Bring Children back to school)
• A better variety of programs for kids rent prices.
• After school care to be more affordable.
• For k-12 school - Raise tax on Corporations and lower tax on residents to attract more lower income and
diverse residents.
• Improve rigor of PAUSD academics.
• In-person Education for kids.
• Invest in local public education.
• Invest more in K-12 education
• more public service for children like public preschools, sports and arts programs.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4349E292-849D-469B-AB22-6624AF8E03BD
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
82
O VERALL APPEARANCE , CLEANLINESS , UPKEEP
• Build beautiful buildings.
• Clean the sidewalks, curbs-so much garbage.
• Clean up the freeway entrance trash.
• cleaner streets (more control on parking violations), trees maintenance, less traffic, less restaurants, more
convenient stores. Palo Alto can not claim its reputation otherwise.
• Enforce cleaning around RV park on streets.
• Improving the maintainance and aesthetics of streets and public landscaping bordering streets. In many
cases, this relates to affordable housing issues. e.g. remove RVs camped on El Camino and other city
streets by offering other solutions.
• Keep clean Streets & sidewalks/house all homeless!
• More efficient tree care
• more trees
• More trees in mid to south Palo Alto
• Replace various street trees with magnolias and redwoods
• some trees died in the community garden and removed, please plant more trees
• Stop allowing such ugly architecture
• Tree and sidewalk upkeep.
P ARKING CONCERNS
• free up the need of permit parking
• Make downtown parking easier
• MAKE PARKING AVAILABLE TO WORKERS.
• Make the parking situation easier/less costly for low income workers. When we are in a drought actually
fine people who are still watering their lawns too frequently.
• More downtown parking.
• More parking downtown
• more public parking
• New buildings need adequate parking. Townhouse parking crowds our streets.
• Public residential parking is a mess-very limited availability.
R EDUCE NOISE
• Airplane noise: there are way too many planes flying over the city, which not only making the outdoor
activities not as pleasant as they should be, but also making people distracted even indoor.
• better noise restrictions (e.g. loud motorcycles and cars)
• FIX THE AIRPLANE NOISE OVER CRESCENT PARK! It has been years and there has been a lot of
handwringing, but we still get woken up by commercial airliners EVERY NIGHT that fly at 3000 ft directly
over our houses.
• Less aircraft noise once the Pandemic subsides and traffic increases. I have lived here for for over 40 years
and the aircraft noise had become difficult to take. The City Council paints the picture that they have no
control over the path and that's weak. We used to be a city that depended on the ability to get on an
airplane and see our associates/customers on a moment's notice and the shift is radical, so most of the
travel has been curtailed.
• Less noise - I live right next to Emhazades - it's quite noisy.
• quieter
• reduce air traffic - it's gotten terrible (before COVID) and the one thing that is likely to make me move away
from Palo Alto
• reduce the environmental noises, such as new constructions,.
• reduce the noise of Caltrain horns at signal crossings
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4349E292-849D-469B-AB22-6624AF8E03BD
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
83
O THER
• Allow Castilleja to modernize their campus.
• Approve the Castilleja project! This has lasted FAR too long, and the school has demonstrated its ability to
mitigate all impacts.
• At 88yrs old my health prevents most activities.
• change political climate from flaming liberal to conservative.
• Create a more cooperative relationship with east Palo alto to raise their standard of living and the appeal
of the "east side".
• Expected Vaccine distribution.
• Fewer people.
• Financial support for pets in need - as promised!
• force new jobs to leave and reverse the trend of increasing population density
• Give me work.
• Improve quality of public art.
• Improve the livability of palo alto
• living wages for those of us who earn less than $100.000 a year
• MORE SURVEYS!
• NEGOTIATE LESS LOW FLYING AIRCRAFT TO SFO.
• OPEN UP!!!
• Reduce Black & Hispanic racial biases-increase really affordable public housing
• Reduction in size of city state-and [?].
• Return to self-sufficient town('70s'), QUIT A BAG!
• Settle train crossings question.
• shorter surveys and better sidewalks
• Talk about the high pension costs that are driving out other spending.
• The art commission needs to choose more art and less idiotic things.
• Vaccinate all of us ASAP against COVID-19.
• Weird to say, I am new to the area. I would suggest tires for bike programs and diversity.
• Why are you conducting this survey in a Pandemic about getting together and services when we are at
home sheltered?
• Work on eliminating staff at huge pensions.
N OTHING /D ON’T KNOW
• na
• No change needed.
• Don't know.
• Maintain status quo.
• Don't know.
• I have loved living here the past 12 years downtown. You do a great job!
• NO IDEA.
• To old to thinging this.
• None
• N.A.
• Difficult to answer
• I guess I am happy enough.
• Appreciate all we have
• You are doing great I have no suggestions at this time
• Stay afloat-- I know this year has been hard in so many ways, including financially.
• No idea
• Don't know
• I have only lived here 2 weeks, so I can't really say. People seem friendly and open to international people
(I am a US citizen, though I have lived abroad for 10 yrs)
• nothing
• no ideal
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4349E292-849D-469B-AB22-6624AF8E03BD
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
84
Question 18: As a resident of Palo Alto, what one thing do you believe the
City does well and would want to maintain?
P ARKS , OPEN SPACE , AND NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
• *PARKS !!*
• Access to local parks.
• beautiful parks and wonderful libraries
• Cares for trees.
• City has nice parks, definitely keep that up
• City Park System with variety of recreation possibilities.
• city parks and activities
• City Parks and increased investment in libraries to broaden their offerings
• CITY PARKS.
• CITY PARKS-BETTER UP-KEEP NEEDED.
• Cleanliness of the streets of Palo Alto.
• Emphasize parks and open spaces--with the caveat that protecting the Foothills preserve needs to be
significantly improved now that it is broadly open
• enviroment
• Environment
• excellent parks
• Excellent parks and open spaces
• Focus on the environment
• Foothill Park
• Foothills Park a real gem and should carefully opened up to others with a plan to minimize damage from
overuse
• General greenery and outdoor spaces like parks
• Good attention to the natural environment.
• Good maintenance of landscape and trees in general. Good city utilities management not forgetting good
schools.
• Good parks
• Good parks.
• Great neighborhood parks!
• Great outdoor spaces -- parks, trails, and foothills
• Green environment of Palo Alto- Parks, paths and street trees
• green environment, nice and safe neighborhood
• Green space
• Green space and trees
• Green trees.
• I like the development of the pollinator gardens over the last few years. I helped plant on Guinda St. and by
the library. I hope you continue to support this program.
• I like the parks
• I love our network of parks. I am happy we have our own utility company. This was a difficult survey to
respond to, given that we've been in SIP for 10 months!
• It is wonderful that we work so hard to protect the trees, both street trees and heritage trees. Our urban
forest is the thing I like most about Palo Alto, and it really makes Palo Alto unique.
• It's parks & libraries.
• It's parks are amazing and the weekly refuse collections are also great, keep up th e great work!
• Keep city parks clean, repaired and change more for non-residents to foothill park.
• keep up the parks
• LOTS OF GREEN.
• love our open space (baylands, pearson, foothill) and trails; wish there were more!
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4349E292-849D-469B-AB22-6624AF8E03BD
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
85
• Lovely parks and open spaces. I hope Palo Alto is able to cap visitors to Foothill park at a low level (e.g.
only what is supported by the parking lots and NOT parking along the roadsides) now that it is open to all.
• Maintain parks
• Maintain parks and recreations areas.
• Maintain the open spaces
• Maintain the parks and the bike paths, this allows for the opportunit ies to use your bike to go to different
things.
• Maintaining all the parks and libraries
• Maintaining and promoting its parks and open spaces
• Maintaining green spaces
• maintaining preserves - especially Foothill Park, Byxbee park, Aratstradero
• Maintaining the # of parks and library services.
• Maintains Trees. This survey was way too long! Sheesh!
• Maintenance of local trees
• Maintenance of public parks
• Natural Environment.
• Natural preserves.
• Nature preservation
• Open & green spaces.
• Open natural space
• open space and natural environment
• Open space preservation
• Open space, Parks, Libraries.
• Open space/parks/libraries/schools.
• Open spaces
• Open spaces & parks are beautiful. Libraries are amazing. Organized garbage pick up is so good compared
to other towns we've lived in.
• Open Spaces, Parks, etc.
• Outdoor recreation opportunities and venues (parks, open spaces, bike-friendly routes)
• overall appearance of greenery along streets and parks
• PARK ACCESS.
• Park and open space
• Park and open space.
• park maintenance
• park services
• Parks
• Parks
• parks
• Parks
• Parks
• parks
• parks
• Parks
• Parks
• Parks & open space.
• Parks & Recreation
• Parks & recreation including libraries.
• Parks and biking friendly.
• Parks and Libraries
• Parks and libraries
• Parks and libraries are top notch
• Parks and natural environment are well maintained.
• Parks and nature
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4349E292-849D-469B-AB22-6624AF8E03BD
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
86
• Parks and Open Space
• Parks and open space.
• Parks and open spaces
• Parks and open spaces for hiking & biking etc.
• Parks and Rec department does a good job. The city needs to put some more money into maintaining
Rinconada Pool though.
• Parks and Rec is great.
• Parks and Recreation
• Parks and recreation
• Parks and recreation.
• Parks and street trees. Free downtown and CA Ave parking.
• PARKS ARE BEAUTIFUL.
• parks are clean, well maintained and nice
• parks are nice
• Parks are nice and clean.
• Parks are well maintained. (Though we need a better system for managing time on tennis courts). Also love
feeling safe and knowing we have a great police force.
• PARKS WITHIN NEIGHBORHOODS.
• Parks!
• Parks!
• Parks, open space, safe biking
• Parks, open spaces, baylands, etc
• Parks, open spaces, landscaping, walking paths and bike lanes.
• Parks, Playground.
• Parks, recreational services, environment.
• Parks, sidewalks, and environment
• Parks.
• Parks.
• Parks.
• PARKS.
• Parks.
• Parks.
• Parks. We need to have parks and open spaces.
• Personally, I am delighted that Foothill Park is FINALLY open to non -resident people. Also that Buena Vista
mobile home park is still in Palo Alto.
• PICKLEBALL COURTS AT MITCHELL PARK.
• pleasant environment, e.g. parks, trees,
• Preserving and maintaining natural spaces
• Preserving trees.
• Protecting and restoring green spaces and natural environments.
• quality of parks and green spaces
• Quality of the parks.
• Really nice parks, public safety
• reserve the nature
• Taking care of our trees.
• Taking care of parks
• Tennis courts
• The city does a great job at maintaining our parks, trees and natural environment. These are all key to Palo
Alto's culture and natural beauty.
• The excellent park and library services.
• The open spaces are very good.
• the parks and open nature areas
• the parks are outstanding and very important
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4349E292-849D-469B-AB22-6624AF8E03BD
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
87
• The parks are typically well maintained
• The parks.
• The street trees
• The trees are greenery.
• The trees.
• Tree maintenance
• Trees
• Trees, Natural settings - Love F.H park, mad parking there and Bayshore is lousy.
• Upload and maintain-it's "built environment". Very good at trees too!!
• urban forest
• Variety & quality of parks.
• Well cared for parks.
S AFETY SERVICES
• AMBULANCE SERVICE.
• Beautiful environment
• CERT
• Community safety.
• Crime control
• crime control
• Emergency preparedness: police and fire work very well w volunteers
• emergency services
• Emergency services.
• Ensure safety
• Excellent police fire protection & best sanitation crew in the country.
• feeling of safety in palo alto
• feeling of safety, cleanliness of the city, community feeling
• feels safe.
• fire department.
• Its natural environment
• Keep the city safe and beautiful
• keeping crime rate low
• Keeping the community safe.
• Maintains the parks nicely
• palo alto citizen's safety
• Palo Alto Fire and Police Departments are both excellent
• peace
• PEACE & ORDER.
• Police & fire dept.
• Police and safety! Thank You!
• Police force
• Police Force - Yeah.
• POLICE PRESENCE & FUNDING.
• police response time
• Police support
• Policing seems pretty good
• Providing a safe place to live.
• public safety (fire and police)
• Public safety quality (police, fire etc)
• PUBLIC SAFETY SERVICES.
• Public safety, (fire and police), street tree program
• Public Safety.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4349E292-849D-469B-AB22-6624AF8E03BD
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
88
• Public safety. We feel safe here and want to continue to do so.
• Safe community
• Safe neighborhoods
• safe, active environment
• safety
• safety
• safety
• safety
• safety
• Safety
• Safety
• safety - crime
• Safety - Police and Fire
• Safety.
• Safety.
• Safety.
• safety.
• Taking care of natural preserves
• The police.
L IBRARY
• good libraries and art programs
• Great Paramedic Service
• Great schools, good resources, good community of people.
• I LOVE our local libraries and use them very frequently
• I love the library system.
• Its libraries
• libraries
• Libraries
• Libraries
• libraries
• libraries
• libraries
• Libraries
• Libraries
• Libraries
• Libraries
• libraries
• libraries (although access during COVID-19 is challenging)
• Libraries and city recreation services
• Libraries are phenomenal!! Thank You. Create a citizen -focused development plan for the Fry's location
that includes an abundance of affordable housing gardens.
• Libraries, EMT, Police.
• Libraries, parks and schools
• libraries, parks.
• Libraries, Rec. dept., Utility billing, Street cleaning, Parks.
• LIBRARIES, SCHOOLS K-12 MODERATE GROWTH.
• Libraries.
• Libraries.
• LIBRARIES.
• Libraries.
• Libraries.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4349E292-849D-469B-AB22-6624AF8E03BD
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
89
• Libraries.
• Library
• Library
• Library
• Library and art center
• Library and park services
• Library and parks are important public services.
• Library and rec dept services
• Library services are very good
• Library services; fire safety
• Library service--though it's limited right now & somewhat difficult to access. If we may have 2 things to
mention, the other would be that the City continue with its weekly updates re. Covid pandemic....info is
always read in our household.
• Library system
• Library system, all branches open
• LIBRARY!
• Library, parks, schools
• Library, schools, parks, activity programs.
• Maintain libraries and parks
• neighborhood library branches; clean parks; good walking & biking around town
• Our Libraries.
• Planting and maintaining trees
• Safety
• The libraries are very good!
• the library
• The library and park systems are fantastic here.
• The library is pretty great. More affordable camp options.
• The library system has been excellent in adapting during COVID-19
• The public libraries are outstanding. We also look forward to the re-opening of the Junior Museum and
Zoo.
• Vibrant, diverse library services.
U TILITIES
• City owned utilities
• City services such as utilities and parks
• City utilities and parks/natural areas
• City Utilities.
• City utility services
• Close to my job and the water and the utility is good.
• General services (i.e., Palo Alto Utilities, fire/police, medical)
• Good public utilities
• Good public utilities and maintenance of roads/sidewalks.
• Good utilities and public safety.
• Having their own utility company with sustainable options
• I admire our ability to utilize 100% renewable resources for electricity
• It's great that the city owns and operate the utilities, and keeping the cost low.
• It's own utility company.
• Keep Palo Alto utilities.
• Manage utilities.
• Owning utilities.
• Palo Alto Utilities service is doing well.
• Provide utilities and garbage collection.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4349E292-849D-469B-AB22-6624AF8E03BD
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
90
• public utilities are good, but need better/universal high speed internet
• Public utilities.
• Utilities
• utilities
• utilities
• Utilities and cultural opportunities
• UTILITIES AND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT.
• Utilities and recreation services
• UTILITIES AND SERVICES.
• Utilities are a good value. Overpayments should be returned to residents.
• Utilities are done pretty well
• utilities are excellent
• Utilities management.
• Utilities work quite well.
• Utilities! Libraries!
• Utilities, public safety
• Utilities.
• Utilities. FIBER PLEASE
• Utilities. Schools.
• Utility Dept.
• Utility independence from PG&E
• Utility service and responses.
• Utility services
• Utility services
• UTILITY SERVICES & PUBLIC SAFETY (POLICE & FIRE).
• Utility services. The infrastructure nobody notices until it breaks.
S CHOOLS AND EDUCATION
• education
• Education
• Education quality.
• Education.
• Education. Excellent teachers and curriculum
• Educational system
• Excellence in educational opportunities for all ages
• Good schools
• good schools
• Good schools.
• Great schools and public facilities including parks and libraries
• Great Schools.
• Great schools.
• Great services for children! I love the Palo Alto libraries, the Junior museum, the recreational programs,
and the various parks and open spaces. Palo Alto provides great services for kids!
• I love the schools. Thank you!
• It's schools and adult educational programs.
• K-12 Education
• k-12 Schooling
• Maintain school system quality
• Public education
• Public education and public library services are critical
• Public education.
• Public facilities (schools, libraries, and parks).
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4349E292-849D-469B-AB22-6624AF8E03BD
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
91
• Public school quality
• public schools
• Public Schools.
• Quality of public schools. We have been very happy with elementary and middle schools so far!
• Quality of schools( when in person)
• Quality schools
• school district
• School education/bring children back to school.
• Schools
• Schools
• Schools
• Schools, Libraries.
• Schools, Libraries.
• Schools, parks.
• Schools, parks.
• Schools.
• Schools..
• Schools/education opportunities.
• Supporting education.
• The educational values.
• The city does schools and utilities very well.
• The elementary schools are great!
• The public schools. The quality of education at Pally is by far the most valuable public service.
• The quality of residential neighbours and education.
• The schools.
S ENSE OF COMMUNITY , COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES , AND RECREATION
• Recreation [?] and opportunities.
• Activities for children K-12 focus of our children. Good Job.
• Friendly Atmosphere.
• Palo Alto offers great Arts & Culture opportunities.
• Farmers markets.
• Resend street art was interesting and encouraging to young participants.
• Neighborhood involvement.
• You have wonderful classes and community recreation.
• Arts and culture, Parks.
• Farmers Market.
• access to various recreational centers and parks
• cultural and art activities..
• Lucie Stern community center and all the activities/classes/theater shows that happen in that complex.
• Rents out space at Cubberley for a variety of activities and programs.
• The downtown Saturday market is often one of the highlights of my week
• The City's approach to pickleball has been great.
• Diversity of residential population is welcomed.
• A feeling of community-- maybe it's just here in Midtown, but when there's no COVID, I love waving at my
neighbors, having block parties, etc.
• I appreciate the city's efforts to provide opportunities for involvement for people of all ages in civic,
cultural, and recreational life.
• Recreation Programs
• diversity and cultur
• Cultural events
• Clean up days.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4349E292-849D-469B-AB22-6624AF8E03BD
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
92
• Affording excellent recreational and civic opportunities
• community in general
• Arts and art lesson opportunities
• Recreational facilities
• farmers markets
C LEANLINESS OF COMMUNITY
• clean and neat streets.
• clean and safe
• Clean green environment friendly and safe.
• Clean streets
• clean streets
• Clean streets and town.
• Clean streets.
• cleaning up street garbage
• Cleanliness, police service and fire stations
• General cleanliness, the safety of the community.
• keep the street clean
• Keeping city clean
• Keeping our city clean & free from trash.
• keeping the neighborhood parks clean and safe.
• Keeping the streets & sidewalks clean. It's a very clean & well kept city with very few exceptions.
• Keeping things tidy.
• maintaining a clean, safe, walkable community
• Overall, the city is clean.
• Quiet and clean environment.
• The city does a good job with keeping it clean
• The cleanliness of the environment
• The parks & streets are super clean! Great job!
• Trash and litter pick up.
A BILI TY TO GIVE INPUT AND COMMUNICATION WITH GOVERNMENT
• Adequate info on what's going on in city govt from local papers and news like PA Weekly and PA Online.
• Asking residents to participate in council meetings
• attending to feedback if residents
• Communicate to residents
• Communicate what is happening with utilities, recycling, etc.
• Communication as well as opportunities to participate in local governmental issues, education, cultural
events and the arts.
• Communication with citizens
• Community engagement.
• community surveys
• engagement of residents
• engaging residents
• Good job being organized and communicating information
• High standards in accepting community input without slowing down the process.
• Informs citizenry.
• listening to residents ideas/suggestions
• Listens to residents
• Open Government/ Public Safety.
• Providing useful information re public services, etc.
• Response to community member inquiries. It is excellent.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4349E292-849D-469B-AB22-6624AF8E03BD
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
93
• Sharing/notifying City's decision/directions immediately. I believe the transparency aro und public services
is the key to the trustful community.
• SURVEYS.
G ENERAL C ITY SERVICES
• Animal Shelter and services (Pets in need now).
• basic city services
• Basic city services work pretty well.
• Cit services.
• DRINKING WATER.
• Drinking/tap water is absolutely amazing
• Excellent recycle programs and education (best at early elementary and high school level)
• Garbage Collection
• Good water quality
• Its recycling program is top-notch.
• Most services that are needed on a daily basis.
• municipal services are good
• Over all city services
• Palo Alto has a good animal services division. Support this to the fullest extent possible
• Public services and amenities
• Public works
• Quality service
• Recycle program.
• Recycling
• Recycling Waste Removal.
• The city government does an excellent job of managing services (utilities, trash, street cleaning, library).
• The extra pick up on garbage day
• Waste management and recycling.
• water quality
• Weekly garbage, recycling and compost pickups and street sweeping.
S TREET MAINTENANCE
• A luxury to have street sweepers, maintaining parks except for Foothill Park now due to increased usage.
• cleaning streets and fast emergencies.
• Maintenance of city streets.
• Maintenance of streets, parks, grocery.
• Our streets are well maintained and and the natural surrounding, trees, and city parks are beautiful.
• Parking downtown being free and accessible, maintenance of city streets.
• Road maintenance
• Street and park upkeep, utilities availability, solar deployment
• street cleaning
• STREET CLEANING.
• Street cleanliness.
• Street maintenance and cleaning
• Street maintenance and services, utilities excellent.
• street pavement
• street sweeping
• Streets Cleanness.
E ASE OF BICYCLE TRAVEL
• Access to Bike paths is easiest.
• bike paths, roads, and boulevards, love that
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4349E292-849D-469B-AB22-6624AF8E03BD
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
94
• Bike routes
• Bike-ability. It makes this a great place to live, please keep that up!
• Biking infrastructure
• City is very bikeable
• good biking environment
• Keep developing bike boulevards
• Maintaining bike lanes all over the city
• The city is very bike friendly so I ride my bike to work and to do much of my grocery shopping.
G OVERNMENT /LEADERSHIP
• ARCHITECTURE BOARD.
• City is well run
• Code enforcement by at least one employee-he was good.
• Excellent customer service from City staff and utility rates.
• Excellent staff response to residents.
• In the past, the city did a great job of looking ahead - city-owned utility which seems to be much better
than PG&E, designing the libraries, parks, recreational facilities; and creating vibrant retail/restaurant
areas. I'd like to see that continued forward-thinking continue. We already seem behind in an area like
fiber internet - which is not critical infrastructure. Undergrounding utilities has also disappeared - after
some areas of the city benefited from it, and to the detriment of the areas that didn't. We need to keep
pushing forward on initiatives that are designed to improve the city - and lead surrounding communities
rather than follow. That also includes thinking creatively to incorporate affordable housing.
• Response to service requests.
• Responsiveness to significant issues
• The city works hard to resolve issues.
• Transparency
E VERYTHING /GREAT PLACE TO LIVE
• All is good
• Balanced Lifestyle, regarding Parks, recreational sidewalks, downtown. I like Palo Alto and I do not where
else to reside at this time.
• City has succeeded overall in creating a great place to live.
• City is doing well in building restrictions, public safety, and utilities services. Green/natural reservation and
environmental protection are also necessary to maintain well.
• everything
• Everything is fine just the way it is.
• I think the city does the majority of things fairly well.
• I would not want to live anywhere else.
• Lots of people want to live here. Keep up those qualities - many are intangibles. Some examples - Good
schools, single family zoning, nice people, safe.
D OWNTOWN AREA
• downtown atmosphere
• DOWNTOWN CHARM.
• downtowns (of course, pre-pandemic)
• Free downtown parking and expand
• Good planning, nice downtown
• I like downtown.
• I think the City has a vibrant downtown, beautiful open space, and offers fantastic educational
opportunities.
• Keep the vibrancy of downtown - which will be a challenge post-COVID
• Maintains downtown.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4349E292-849D-469B-AB22-6624AF8E03BD
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
95
• Supporting downtown businesses, both Downtown and Midtown.
• Thriving commercial area/business/ downtown clean city, nice parks, great schools.
• vibrant downtown for residents
O THER
• All the ones I marked essential
• As someone who had to learn survey design.... this survey was suboptimal
• available parking
• Buena Vista mobile home park.
• Built environment.
• Closing down University to allow the businesses the numbers of tables outdoors while we avoid indoor
dining
• Closing the streets to cars for walking and restaurants has been a real positive in 2020. I'd like to see this
continue.
• Economy.
• Good balance in quality fo life
• Green electricity
• green energy
• Healthy environment.
• I don't think I can answer that. Palo Alto has a lot of really smart people who are unwilling to compromise
because they know they know best. Our motto is, "Why shouldn't the perfect be the enemy of the good."
• Investing in community, forward thinking, anticipating future needs.
• Landscaping.
• Local newspaper Local TV Stations.
• One thing the city has done is to turn Palo Alto into a version of CANYON LANDS - But I would not care to
see it get any worse- Used to be able to see something other than tall buildings- Now the Cemetery is the
only place from which I can see the evening fog roll in-----
• Peace & quiet environment.
• Planning to replace "at grade" train crossings with safe crossings for cars, bikes and pedestrians.
• Presents well to the outside world
• Progressive outlook to protect the environment
• Protection of historic buildings- Keep this strong and make it strong!
• Providing special services and opportunity for senior citizens safety with COVID 19
• Quality employment opportunities and open space.
• Reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
• residential and public area hygiene
• Service to community
• Support for aging in place
• support of recycling and trend toward more sustainable society
• The development center, the responsiveness of planners.
• Traffic is well organized, schools are strong point, city utilities well organized, number of parks is plentiful.
• Working towards a long-term solution to the Chaucer-Pope bridge
D ON’T KNOW /NOTHING , NEGATIVE COMMENTS , ADDITIONAL IMPROVEMENTS
• Avoid rapid growth.
• better traffic flow management -- traffic circles in major and lesser intersections
• CONTINUE & EXPAND ELECTRIC TRANSPORTATION, EG E-BIKES.
• continue improving traffic flow
• Continue to invest in renewable, environmentally friendly energy.
• Don't know.
• Electing 'yes' folks to run the city...
• facilitate recycle programs and keep nature spaces
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4349E292-849D-469B-AB22-6624AF8E03BD
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
96
• focusing on keeping Palo Alto a safe place to walk around and have a family.
• Homeless services. We need to maintain what we do--Opportunity Center, Downtown Streets--and also
INCREASE--go back to our roots. We used to have a number of residential hotels and really try to include
and welcome our homeless citizens.
• I am sick of this city. At this time nothing. The city is refusing to support the police department and enforce
laws. Homelessness is the biggest issue right now.
• I don't know.
• Keep buildings low.
• Keep focusing on keeping city accessible by bikes, and other non-driving modes of transportation.
• Keep foothill for residents
• Keep Foothill park for residents only.
• Keep homeless population down.
• Keep neighborhoods walkable.
• Keeping utilities as inexpensive as possible
• Keeps the city feeling like a first rate community.
• less focus on business development; more attention to residential issues
• Make the City-Wide Garage Sale an annual event!
• More pedestrian and bicycle safety outreach, education, infrastructure and encouragement.
• na
• No additional subsidized rental units to ensure a safe environment. Exceptions for elderly & disabled!
• No idea.
• NO IDEA.
• no ideal
• None
• not mush comes to mind
• Not Sure.
• Nothing
• Nothing
• Nothing.
• Nothing. Will leave the state when have funds!
• overgrown vegetation from homeowner on to the sidewalk
• Please keep tree maintenance and urban canopy preservation top priority. My hometown of Newark, CA
has almost a complete lack of trees in the city and every time I visit, it feels like an utterly dismal place.
Trees really, really do make a difference!
• Police and Fire services are essential, focus on that for a change
• Recycling. I think Palo Alto needs to revive a method to collect aseptic items and styrofoam, even if they
don't recycle it, they could contract with other external recyclers
• Support and increase funding for public safety
• Support the parks and rec resources
• The City Counsel (sp?) certainly does very well at discussing and debating a subject to the point of dragging
out decisions for months. I guess that is a good thing? yes/no?
• The importance of maintaining the overall beauty of our foothills and residential areas when it comes to
any new commercial and new residential construction.
• They used to provide fair priced utilities. What went wrong?
• Things are ok.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4349E292-849D-469B-AB22-6624AF8E03BD
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
97
RESPONSES TO OPEN-PARTICIPATION, COMMUNITY-WIDE SURVEY
About the Open -Participation Online Survey
After the data collection period for the random-sample, mail-based survey was underway, the City
made available a web-based survey to its residents through a link on the City’s website and on social
media. Visitors to the site were able to complete the survey from January 25 - February 8, 2021 and
157 surveys were received. This report contains the results of this opt-in administration of the web-
based survey. These data were not collected through a random sample and it is unknown who in the
community was aware of the survey; therefore, a level of confidence in the representativeness of the
sample cannot be estimated. However, to reduce bias where possible, these data were weighted to
match the demographic characteristics of the 2010 Census and 2017 American Community Survey
estimates for adults in the City of Palo Alto. The results of the weighting scheme for the opt-in
survey are presented in the following table.
TABLE 89: PALO ALTO, CA 2021 WEIGHTING TABLE
Characteristic Population Norm Unweighted Data Weighted Data
Housing
Rent home 45% 20% 40%
Own home 55% 80% 60%
Detached unit* 58% 82% 63%
Attached unit* 42% 18% 37%
Race and Ethnicity
White 68% 77% 74%
Not white 32% 23% 26%
Not Hispanic 95% 95% 95%
Hispanic 5% 5% 5%
Sex and Age
Female 52% 65% 53%
Male 48% 35% 47%
18-34 years of age 22% 4% 17%
35-54 years of age 41% 29% 43%
55+ years of age 37% 67% 40%
Females 18-34 10% 2% 8%
Females 35-54 21% 21% 23%
Females 55+ 20% 42% 22%
Males 18-34 12% 2% 9%
Males 35-54 20% 7% 20%
Males 55+ 17% 26% 18%
* U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 2017 5-year estimates
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4349E292-849D-469B-AB22-6624AF8E03BD
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
98
Results Tables
TABLE 90: 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 22% N=34 62% N=97 15% N=24 1% N=2 0% N=0 100% N=157
Your neighborhood as a place to live 32% N=50 52% N=82 13% N=21 2% N=3 0% N=0 100% N=157
Palo Alto as a place to raise children 30% N=47 35% N=55 15% N=24 11% N=18 8% N=13 100% N=156
Palo Alto as a place to work 15% N=24 40% N=63 14% N=21 6% N=10 25% N=39 100% N=157
Palo Alto as a place to visit 11% N=17 40% N=63 38% N=60 6% N=10 5% N=7 100% N=157
Palo Alto as a place to retire 13% N=21 23% N=36 26% N=41 24% N=37 13% N=21 100% N=155
The overall quality of life in Palo Alto 13% N=21 63% N=98 18% N=28 5% N=8 1% N=1 100% N=156
TABLE 91: 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 22% N=34 62% N=97 15% N=24 1% N=2 100% N=156
Your neighborhood as a place to live 32% N=50 52% N=82 14% N=21 2% N=3 100% N=157
Palo Alto as a place to raise children 33% N=47 38% N=55 17% N=24 12% N=18 100% N=143
Palo Alto as a place to work 20% N=24 54% N=63 18% N=21 8% N=10 100% N=118
Palo Alto as a place to visit 11% N=17 42% N=63 40% N=60 6% N=10 100% N=150
Palo Alto as a place to retire 15% N=21 27% N=36 30% N=41 27% N=37 100% N=134
The overall quality of life in Palo Alto 13% N=21 63% N=98 18% N=28 5% N=8 100% N=155
TABLE 92: 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 "built environment" of Palo Alto (including overall design, buildings,
parks and transportation systems) 16% N=25 38% N=60 33% N=51 13% N=20 0% N=0 100% N=157
Overall feeling of safety in Palo Alto 29% N=46 56% N=87 14% N=21 1% N=2 0% N=0 100% N=156
Overall quality of natural environment in Palo Alto 29% N=46 60% N=94 6% N=9 5% N=7 0% N=0 100% N=157
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4349E292-849D-469B-AB22-6624AF8E03BD
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
99
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 health and wellness opportunities in Palo Alto 26% N=40 56% N=88 13% N=20 3% N=5 1% N=2 100% N=157
Residents' connection and engagement with their community 6% N=10 42% N=65 41% N=64 11% N=17 0% N=0 100% N=156
TABLE 93: 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 "built environment" of Palo Alto (including overall design, buildings, parks and
transportation systems) 16% N=25 38% N=60 33% N=51 13% N=20 100% N=157
Overall feeling of safety in Palo Alto 29% N=46 56% N=87 14% N=21 1% N=2 100% N=156
Overall quality of natural environment in Palo Alto 29% N=46 60% N=94 6% N=9 5% N=7 100% N=156
Overall health and wellness opportunities in Palo Alto 26% N=40 57% N=88 13% N=20 4% N=5 100% N=154
Residents' connection and engagement with their community 6% N=10 42% N=65 41% N=64 11% N=17 100% N=156
TABLE 94: 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 23% N=35 41% N=65 21% N=33 15% N=24 0% N=0 100% N=157
Remain in Palo Alto for the next five years 41% N=65 27% N=42 15% N=23 14% N=21 4% N=6 100% N=157
Recommend Palo Alto’s libraries to friends 60% N=94 21% N=32 8% N=12 3% N=5 8% N=13 100% N=157
TABLE 95: 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 23% N=35 41% N=65 21% N=33 15% N=24 100% N=157
Remain in Palo Alto for the next five years 43% N=65 28% N=42 15% N=23 14% N=21 100% N=151
Recommend Palo Alto’s libraries to friends 65% N=94 22% N=32 8% N=12 4% N=5 100% N=143
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4349E292-849D-469B-AB22-6624AF8E03BD
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
100
TABLE 96: QUESTION 4 - RESPONSE PERCENTAGES AND NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS INCLUDING "DON'T KNOW" RESPONSES
Please rate the job you feel the Palo Alto community does at each of the
following. Excellent Good Fair Poor
Don't
know Total
Making all residents feel welcome 14% N=23 31% N=49 20% N=32 30% N=47 5% N=7 100% N=157
Attracting people from diverse backgrounds 15% N=23 23% N=35 22% N=34 35% N=55 5% N=8 100% N=156
Valuing/respecting residents from diverse backgrounds 16% N=25 28% N=44 27% N=42 23% N=36 6% N=10 100% N=157
Taking care of vulnerable residents (elderly, disabled, homeless, etc.) 4% N=6 23% N=36 37% N=58 28% N=44 8% N=13 100% N=157
TABLE 97: QUESTION 4 - RESPONSE PERCENTAGES AND NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS WITHOUT "DON'T KNOW" RESPONSES
Please rate the job you feel the Palo Alto community does a t each of the following. Excellent Good Fair Poor Total
Making all residents feel welcome 15% N=23 32% N=49 21% N=32 31% N=47 100% N=150
Attracting people from diverse backgrounds 16% N=23 24% N=35 23% N=34 37% N=55 100% N=148
Valuing/respecting residents from diverse backgrounds 17% N=25 30% N=44 29% N=42 24% N=36 100% N=147
Taking care of vulnerable residents (elderly, disabled, homeless, etc.) 4% N=6 25% N=36 40% N=58 30% N=44 100% N=144
TABLE 98: 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
Overall quality of business and service establishments in Palo Alto 18% N=28 56% N=88 24% N=38 1% N=1 1% N=2 100% N=157
Variety of business and service establishments in Palo Alto 15% N=23 31% N=49 43% N=67 10% N=15 1% N=1 100% N=156
Vibrancy of downtown/commercial area 10% N=16 42% N=65 33% N=52 13% N=21 2% N=2 100% N=157
Employment opportunities 19% N=30 33% N=51 23% N=37 7% N=11 18% N=28 100% N=156
Shopping opportunities 16% N=25 51% N=79 21% N=32 8% N=13 4% N=6 100% N=155
Cost of living in Palo Alto 0% N=1 3% N=5 23% N=36 74% N=115 0% N=0 100% N=156
Overall image or reputation of Palo Alto 20% N=32 35% N=56 33% N=52 9% N=15 1% N=2 100% N=157
Ease of travel by bicycle in Palo Alto 29% N=45 33% N=51 20% N=30 11% N=17 7% N=10 100% N=155
Ease of walking in Palo Alto 34% N=53 46% N=71 16% N=26 4% N=6 0% N=0 100% N=156
Variety of housing options 2% N=3 18% N=28 30% N=46 47% N=73 4% N=7 100% N=157
Availability of affordable quality housing 1% N=2 8% N=13 11% N=18 73% N=114 6% N=9 100% N=156
Recreational opportunities 18% N=28 60% N=94 18% N=28 2% N=4 3% N=4 100% N=157
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4349E292-849D-469B-AB22-6624AF8E03BD
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
101
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 mental health care 2% N=3 14% N=22 15% N=24 19% N=30 50% N=78 100% N=156
Opportunities to attend cultural/arts/music activities 17% N=26 41% N=64 23% N=35 14% N=21 6% N=9 100% N=156
TABLE 99: 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
Overall quality of business and service establishments in Palo Alto 18% N=28 57% N=88 25% N=38 1% N=1 100% N=156
Variety of business and service establishments in Palo Alto 15% N=23 32% N=49 44% N=67 10% N=15 100% N=155
Vibrancy of downtown/commercial area 11% N=16 42% N=65 34% N=52 13% N=21 100% N=154
Employment opportunities 23% N=30 40% N=51 28% N=37 8% N=11 100% N=128
Shopping opportunities 17% N=25 53% N=79 21% N=32 9% N=13 100% N=149
Cost of living in Palo Alto 0% N=1 3% N=5 23% N=36 74% N=115 100% N=156
Overall image or reputation of Palo Alto 21% N=32 36% N=56 34% N=52 9% N=15 100% N=155
Ease of travel by bicycle in Palo Alto 31% N=45 35% N=51 21% N=30 12% N=17 100% N=144
Ease of walking in Palo Alto 34% N=53 46% N=71 16% N=26 4% N=6 100% N=156
Variety of housing options 2% N=3 18% N=28 31% N=46 49% N=73 100% N=150
Availability of affordable quality housing 1% N=2 9% N=13 12% N=18 78% N=114 100% N=147
Recreational opportunities 18% N=28 61% N=94 18% N=28 2% N=4 100% N=153
Availability of affordable quality mental health care 3% N=3 28% N=22 30% N=24 39% N=30 100% N=78
Opportunities to attend cultural/arts/music activities 18% N=26 44% N=64 24% N=35 14% N=21 100% N=147
TABLE 100: 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 childcare/preschool 5% N=7 9% N=15 27% N=43 25% N=40 33% N=52 100% N=157
K-12 education 41% N=63 33% N=51 7% N=11 3% N=5 16% N=24 100% N=154
Adult educational opportunities 16% N=24 39% N=59 16% N=24 3% N=5 27% N=41 100% N=153
Opportunities to participate in social events and activities 9% N=14 41% N=63 36% N=56 7% N=11 8% N=12 100% N=156
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4349E292-849D-469B-AB22-6624AF8E03BD
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
102
Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Palo Alto
as a whole: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total
Openness and acceptance of the community toward people of diverse
backgrounds 15% N=24 28% N=44 20% N=32 30% N=47 6% N=9 100% N=156
Opportunities to learn about City services through social media websites
such as Twitter and Facebook 9% N=14 44% N=68 17% N=27 3% N=5 27% N=43 100% N=156
TABLE 101: QUESTION 6 - RESPONSE PERCENTAGES AND NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS WITHOUT "DON'T KNOW" RESPONSES
Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Pa lo Alto as a whole: Excellent Good Fair Poor Total
Availability of affordable quality childcare/preschool 7% N=7 14% N=15 41% N=43 38% N=40 100% N=105
K-12 education 48% N=63 39% N=51 9% N=11 4% N=5 100% N=130
Adult educational opportunities 22% N=24 53% N=59 21% N=24 4% N=5 100% N=112
Opportunities to participate in social events and activities 10% N=14 44% N=63 39% N=56 7% N=11 100% N=144
Openness and acceptance of the community toward people of diverse backgrounds 16% N=24 30% N=44 22% N=32 32% N=47 100% N=147
Opportunities to learn about City services through social media websites such as Twitter
and Facebook 12% N=14 60% N=68 24% N=27 4% N=5 100% N=114
TABLE 102: QUESTION 7 - RESPONSE PERCENTAGES AND NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS WITHOUT "DON'T KNOW" RESPONSES
Please indicate whether or not you have done each of the following in the last 12 months. No Yes Total
Used Palo Alto recreation centers or their services 65% N=101 35% N=55 100% N=157
Visited a neighborhood park or City park 6% N=9 94% N=148 100% N=157
Used Palo Alto public libraries or their services 33% N=53 67% N=105 100% N=157
Participated in religious or spiritual activities in Palo Alto 81% N=125 19% N=30 100% N=155
Attended a City-sponsored event 54% N=84 46% N=73 100% N=156
Participated in a club 75% N=118 25% N=39 100% N=157
Talked to or visited with your immediate neighbors 9% N=15 91% N=142 100% N=157
Contacted Palo Alto elected officials (in-person, phone, email or web) to express your opinion 51% N=79 49% N=76 100% N=155
Attended a local public meeting (of local elected officials like City Council or County Commissioners, advisory boards,
town halls, HOA, neighborhood watch, etc.) 50% N=78 50% N=79 100% N=157
Watched (online or on television) a local public meeting 41% N=64 59% N=93 100% N=157
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4349E292-849D-469B-AB22-6624AF8E03BD
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
103
Please indicate whether or not you have done each of the following in the last 12 months. No Yes Total
Volunteered your time to some group/activity in Palo Alto 49% N=77 51% N=80 100% N=157
Walked or biked instead of driving 10% N=16 90% N=141 100% N=157
Observed a code violation or other hazard in Palo Alto (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc.) 43% N=67 57% N=90 100% N=157
Household member was a victim of a crime in Palo Alto 90% N=142 10% N=16 100% N=157
Reported a crime to the police in Palo Alto 84% N=131 16% N=25 100% N=156
Stocked 14 days’ worth of supplies in case of a major disaster where you have no electricity, water, internet, or
telephone service 36% N=57 64% N=100 100% N=157
*This question did not have a "don't know" option.
TABLE 103: QUESTION 8 - RESPONSE PERCENTAGES AND NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS
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 4% N=6 40% N=63 29% N=46 18% N=28 9% N=14 100% N=157
The overall direction that Palo Alto is taking 5% N=8 21% N=33 34% N=53 32% N=50 7% N=11 100% N=155
The job Palo Alto government does at welcoming resident involvement 6% N=10 39% N=62 19% N=30 22% N=35 13% N=20 100% N=157
Overall confidence in Palo Alto government 5% N=8 32% N=49 28% N=44 33% N=52 2% N=3 100% N=157
Generally acting in the best interest of the community 3% N=5 38% N=60 25% N=39 28% N=44 6% N=10 100% N=157
Being honest 8% N=13 32% N=50 25% N=40 19% N=29 15% N=24 100% N=157
Being open and transparent to the public 6% N=9 29% N=46 37% N=58 21% N=33 7% N=11 100% N=157
Informing residents about issues facing the community 12% N=19 35% N=56 33% N=51 15% N=23 5% N=7 100% N=157
Treating all residents fairly 10% N=16 23% N=36 21% N=32 29% N=46 16% N=26 100% N=157
Treating residents with respect 12% N=19 32% N=50 25% N=39 19% N=29 12% N=19 100% N=156
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4349E292-849D-469B-AB22-6624AF8E03BD
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
104
TABLE 104: QUESTION 8 - 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 5% N=6 44% N=63 32% N=46 19% N=28 100% N=143
The overall direction that Palo Alto is taking 6% N=8 23% N=33 37% N=53 35% N=50 100% N=144
The job Palo Alto government does at welcoming resident involvement 7% N=10 45% N=62 22% N=30 25% N=35 100% N=137
Overall confidence in Palo Alto government 5% N=8 32% N=49 29% N=44 34% N=52 100% N=154
Generally acting in the best interest of the community 4% N=5 40% N=60 26% N=39 30% N=44 100% N=148
Being honest 10% N=13 38% N=50 30% N=40 22% N=29 100% N=133
Being open and transparent to the public 6% N=9 31% N=46 40% N=58 23% N=33 100% N=146
Informing residents about issues facing the community 13% N=19 37% N=56 35% N=51 15% N=23 100% N=149
Treating all residents fairly 12% N=16 28% N=36 25% N=32 35% N=46 100% N=131
Treating residents with respect 14% N=19 36% N=50 29% N=39 21% N=29 100% N=137
TABLE 105: QUESTION 9 - RESPONSE PERCENTAGES AND NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS
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 12% N=19 52% N=81 27% N=43 8% N=12 1% N=1 100% N=157
The State Government 3% N=5 43% N=67 27% N=42 20% N=32 7% N=11 100% N=157
The Federal Government 0% N=0 27% N=42 38% N=58 28% N=44 7% N=11 100% N=154
TABLE 106: QUESTION 9 - 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 12% N=19 52% N=81 28% N=43 8% N=12 100% N=156
The State Government 3% N=5 46% N=67 29% N=42 22% N=32 100% N=146
The Federal Government 0% N=0 29% N=42 40% N=58 30% N=44 100% N=143
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4349E292-849D-469B-AB22-6624AF8E03BD
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
105
TABLE 107: 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
Traffic enforcement 6% N=10 34% N=53 23% N=36 23% N=37 13% N=21 100% N=157
Traffic signal timing 10% N=15 36% N=56 34% N=54 18% N=28 3% N=4 100% N=157
Street repair 12% N=19 28% N=44 39% N=61 20% N=32 0% N=0 100% N=156
Street cleaning 27% N=42 49% N=78 16% N=24 6% N=9 2% N=4 100% N=157
Street tree maintenance 26% N=41 49% N=76 12% N=20 10% N=15 3% N=5 100% N=157
Sidewalk maintenance 15% N=23 38% N=60 31% N=49 14% N=21 2% N=4 100% N=157
Land use, planning, and zoning 4% N=7 15% N=23 26% N=41 41% N=65 13% N=21 100% N=157
Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc.) 7% N=11 23% N=36 20% N=31 20% N=31 31% N=48 100% N=156
Preservation of natural areas (open space, farmlands, and greenbelts) 27% N=43 37% N=58 18% N=28 13% N=20 4% N=7 100% N=156
Building and planning application processing services 1% N=2 12% N=19 17% N=27 16% N=24 54% N=85 100% N=156
Affordable high-speed internet access 9% N=15 12% N=19 20% N=31 40% N=62 19% N=29 100% N=157
Electric utility 23% N=37 47% N=74 19% N=29 5% N=7 6% N=10 100% N=157
Gas utility 22% N=35 47% N=73 16% N=24 4% N=7 11% N=17 100% N=157
Utility payment options 34% N=53 46% N=72 10% N=16 1% N=2 9% N=14 100% N=157
Drinking water 51% N=80 37% N=58 8% N=12 0% N=0 4% N=7 100% N=157
Sewer services 27% N=43 45% N=71 10% N=16 1% N=1 17% N=26 100% N=156
Storm water management (storm drainage, dams, levees, etc.) 26% N=40 44% N=67 14% N=21 5% N=7 11% N=17 100% N=153
Refuse collection (garbage, recycling, yard waste, and e-waste) 37% N=59 44% N=69 14% N=21 2% N=4 3% N=5 100% N=157
Police services 13% N=20 38% N=59 20% N=32 12% N=19 17% N=27 100% N=157
Crime prevention 12% N=19 36% N=56 22% N=34 13% N=21 17% N=27 100% N=157
Animal control 22% N=34 29% N=45 4% N=7 6% N=9 40% N=62 100% N=157
Ambulance or emergency medical services 13% N=20 32% N=50 1% N=1 0% N=0 54% N=84 100% N=156
Fire services 25% N=39 35% N=55 1% N=2 0% N=0 39% N=60 100% N=156
Fire prevention and education 15% N=24 23% N=36 7% N=11 1% N=1 55% N=86 100% N=157
Palo Alto open space 35% N=55 39% N=61 10% N=16 13% N=20 3% N=4 100% N=157
City parks 39% N=61 49% N=77 8% N=13 3% N=5 0% N=0 100% N=156
Recreation programs or classes 12% N=19 37% N=58 12% N=19 0% N=1 38% N=60 100% N=157
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4349E292-849D-469B-AB22-6624AF8E03BD
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
106
Please rate the quality of each of the following services in Palo Alto: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total
Recreation centers or facilities 10% N=16 40% N=61 15% N=24 2% N=3 33% N=51 100% N=153
Public library services (e.g., hold requests, storytimes, teen events,
bookclubs) 50% N=78 30% N=46 1% N=2 2% N=3 17% N=26 100% N=155
Library facilities (buildings, computer equipment, accessibility) 51% N=78 32% N=49 2% N=3 0% N=1 15% N=23 100% N=153
Variety of library materials (books, e-books, streaming, databases,
audiobooks) 43% N=68 36% N=56 5% N=8 2% N=3 14% N=22 100% N=157
Art programs and theater 19% N=30 34% N=53 7% N=11 1% N=1 39% N=61 100% N=155
City-sponsored special events 8% N=13 32% N=50 21% N=32 2% N=3 37% N=58 100% N=156
City website (cityofpaloalto.org) 7% N=12 38% N=60 37% N=58 8% N=13 9% N=13 100% N=156
Public information services (Police/public safety) 8% N=12 39% N=60 28% N=43 5% N=7 20% N=31 100% N=154
Public information services (non-Police/public safety) 6% N=9 38% N=58 30% N=45 4% N=6 22% N=34 100% N=153
Overall customer service by Palo Alto employees (police, receptionists,
planners, etc.) 9% N=15 41% N=64 19% N=29 6% N=9 25% N=39 100% N=155
TABLE 108: 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
Traffic enforcement 7% N=10 39% N=53 26% N=36 27% N=37 100% N=136
Traffic signal timing 10% N=15 37% N=56 35% N=54 18% N=28 100% N=153
Street repair 12% N=19 28% N=44 39% N=61 20% N=32 100% N=156
Street cleaning 27% N=42 51% N=78 16% N=24 6% N=9 100% N=153
Street tree maintenance 27% N=41 50% N=76 13% N=20 10% N=15 100% N=152
Sidewalk maintenance 15% N=23 39% N=60 32% N=49 14% N=21 100% N=153
Land use, planning, and zoning 5% N=7 17% N=23 30% N=41 47% N=65 100% N=136
Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc.) 10% N=11 33% N=36 28% N=31 29% N=31 100% N=108
Preservation of natural areas (open space, farmlands, and greenbelts) 29% N=43 39% N=58 19% N=28 14% N=20 100% N=149
Building and planning application processing services 2% N=2 26% N=19 38% N=27 34% N=24 100% N=72
Affordable high-speed internet access 12% N=15 15% N=19 24% N=31 49% N=62 100% N=127
Electric utility 25% N=37 50% N=74 20% N=29 5% N=7 100% N=148
Gas utility 25% N=35 53% N=73 18% N=24 5% N=7 100% N=139
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4349E292-849D-469B-AB22-6624AF8E03BD
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
107
Please rate the quality of each of the following services in Palo Alto: Excellent Good Fair Poor Total
Utility payment options 37% N=53 50% N=72 11% N=16 1% N=2 100% N=143
Drinking water 53% N=80 39% N=58 8% N=12 0% N=0 100% N=150
Sewer services 33% N=43 54% N=71 12% N=16 1% N=1 100% N=130
Storm water management (storm drainage, dams, levees, etc.) 30% N=40 50% N=67 16% N=21 5% N=7 100% N=136
Refuse collection (garbage, recycling, yard waste, and e-waste) 39% N=59 45% N=69 14% N=21 2% N=4 100% N=152
Police services 15% N=20 46% N=59 25% N=32 15% N=19 100% N=130
Crime prevention 15% N=19 43% N=56 26% N=34 16% N=21 100% N=130
Animal control 36% N=34 48% N=45 7% N=7 9% N=9 100% N=94
Ambulance or emergency medical services 29% N=20 70% N=50 1% N=1 0% N=0 100% N=72
Fire services 40% N=39 58% N=55 2% N=2 0% N=0 100% N=96
Fire prevention and education 33% N=24 50% N=36 15% N=11 2% N=1 100% N=71
Palo Alto open space 36% N=55 40% N=61 10% N=16 13% N=20 100% N=152
City parks 39% N=61 49% N=77 8% N=13 3% N=5 100% N=156
Recreation programs or classes 20% N=19 60% N=58 20% N=19 1% N=1 100% N=97
Recreation centers or facilities 15% N=16 59% N=61 23% N=24 3% N=3 100% N=103
Public library services (e.g., hold requests, storytimes, teen events, bookclubs) 61% N=78 36% N=46 2% N=2 2% N=3 100% N=129
Library facilities (buildings, computer equipment, accessibility) 60% N=78 37% N=49 2% N=3 0% N=1 100% N=131
Variety of library materials (books, e-books, streaming, databases, audiobooks) 50% N=68 42% N=56 6% N=8 2% N=3 100% N=135
Art programs and theater 31% N=30 56% N=53 11% N=11 1% N=1 100% N=95
City-sponsored special events 13% N=13 51% N=50 33% N=32 3% N=3 100% N=98
City website (cityofpaloalto.org) 8% N=12 42% N=60 41% N=58 9% N=13 100% N=142
Public information services (Police/public safety) 10% N=12 49% N=60 35% N=43 6% N=7 100% N=122
Public information services (non-Police/public safety) 8% N=9 49% N=58 38% N=45 5% N=6 100% N=119
Overall customer service by Palo Alto employees (police, receptionists, planners, etc.) 13% N=15 55% N=64 25% N=29 7% N=9 100% N=117
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4349E292-849D-469B-AB22-6624AF8E03BD
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
108
TABLE 109: QUESTION 11 - RESPONSE PERCENTAGES AND NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS INCLUDING "DON'T KNOW" RESPONSES
Please rate the following as they relate to Palo Alto Utilities’ services: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total
Reliability of utility services 56% N=87 30% N=47 10% N=16 0% N=1 4% N=5 100% N=157
Affordability of utility services 13% N=21 35% N=54 28% N=44 13% N=20 11% N=18 100% N=157
Community value received from the City owning and operating its own
municipal utility services 37% N=58 24% N=37 17% N=26 7% N=11 15% N=24 100% N=155
Utilities online customer self-service features 19% N=30 32% N=49 10% N=16 4% N=6 35% N=55 100% N=155
Providing opportunities for energy and water efficiency at home or
business 21% N=32 31% N=48 8% N=13 6% N=9 34% N=53 100% N=155
Working hard to keep utilities prices competitive 12% N=18 19% N=29 22% N=34 12% N=19 35% N=55 100% N=154
Value of all the services Palo Alto Utilities provides for the price you pay 15% N=24 38% N=58 21% N=32 10% N=15 16% N=25 100% N=155
Ease of obtaining information or performing a transaction through the
City’s website 13% N=20 25% N=38 26% N=40 7% N=10 29% N=45 100% N=154
Value of Palo Alto Utilities’ customer communications 16% N=24 35% N=54 13% N=20 11% N=16 25% N=39 100% N=154
Ease of contacting Utilities department staff 19% N=30 22% N=35 13% N=20 3% N=5 42% N=65 100% N=155
Speed of response after contacting Utilities department staff 16% N=25 22% N=34 13% N=20 3% N=5 46% N=71 100% N=155
TABLE 110: QUESTION 11 - RESPONSE PERCENTAGES AND NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS WITHOUT "DON'T KNOW" RESPONSES
Please rate the following as they relate to Palo Alto Utilities’ services: Excellent Good Fair Poor Total
Reliability of utility services 58% N=87 31% N=47 10% N=16 0% N=1 100% N=151
Affordability of utility services 15% N=21 39% N=54 32% N=44 14% N=20 100% N=139
Community value received from the City owning and operating its own municipal utility
services 44% N=58 28% N=37 20% N=26 8% N=11 100% N=132
Utilities online customer self-service features 30% N=30 49% N=49 15% N=16 6% N=6 100% N=100
Providing opportunities for energy and water efficiency at home or business 32% N=32 47% N=48 12% N=13 8% N=9 100% N=102
Working hard to keep utilities prices competitive 18% N=18 29% N=29 34% N=34 19% N=19 100% N=100
Value of all the services Palo Alto Utilities provides for the price you pay 18% N=24 45% N=58 25% N=32 12% N=15 100% N=130
Ease of obtaining information or performing a transaction through the City’s website 19% N=20 35% N=38 37% N=40 9% N=10 100% N=109
Value of Palo Alto Utilities’ customer communications 21% N=24 47% N=54 17% N=20 14% N=16 100% N=115
Ease of contacting Utilities department staff 33% N=30 39% N=35 23% N=20 6% N=5 100% N=90
Speed of response after contacting Utilities department staff 30% N=25 40% N=34 24% N=20 6% N=5 100% N=84
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4349E292-849D-469B-AB22-6624AF8E03BD
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
109
TABLE 111: QUESTION 12 - 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 “built environment” of Palo Alto (including overall design, buildings,
parks and transportation systems) 55% N=86 36% N=56 7% N=11 3% N=4 100% N=157
Overall economic health of Palo Alto 37% N=58 43% N=68 14% N=21 6% N=9 100% N=157
Overall feeling of safety in Palo Alto 44% N=69 36% N=56 14% N=22 7% N=10 100% N=157
Overall quality of natural environment in Palo Alto 43% N=67 40% N=62 17% N=27 0% N=0 100% N=157
Overall health and wellness opportunities in Palo Alto 15% N=24 44% N=69 33% N=51 8% N=13 100% N=156
Overall opportunities for education, culture and the arts 25% N=38 37% N=58 33% N=51 6% N=9 100% N=156
Residents' connection and engagement with their community 27% N=41 34% N=53 34% N=53 6% N=9 100% N=155
Reducing community greenhouse gas emissions 41% N=64 33% N=51 17% N=26 9% N=14 100% N=155
Increasing local solar generation capacity within city boundaries 30% N=46 19% N=29 37% N=57 14% N=21 100% N=154
Increasing electric storage capacity within city boundaries 26% N=40 23% N=35 36% N=56 16% N=24 100% N=156
Faster notification systems (online, mobile or email) for Utilities billing issues,
efficiency tips, outage information 15% N=23 19% N=29 49% N=77 17% N=26 100% N=156
Faster notification systems (online, mobile or email) for public safety issues 27% N=42 29% N=44 33% N=51 12% N=18 100% N=155
* This question did not have a “don’t know” option.
TABLE 112: QUESTION 13 - RESPONSE PERCENTAGES AND NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS INCLUDING "DON'T KNOW" RESPONSES
In a typical week, how likely are you to: Very likely
Somewhat
likely
Somewhat
unlikely
Very
unlikely
Don't
know Total
Participate in organized group activities (such as clubs, sports teams,
volunteer your time, attend church/temple) 33% N=51 27% N=41 13% N=21 24% N=38 4% N=6 100% N=157
Spend quality time with local friends, family, and/or neighbors 55% N=87 24% N=38 10% N=16 8% N=13 2% N=3 100% N=157
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4349E292-849D-469B-AB22-6624AF8E03BD
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
110
TABLE 113: QUESTION 13 - RESPONSE PERCENTAGES AND NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS WITHOUT "DON'T KNOW" RESPONSES
In a typical week, how likely are you to: Very likely
Somewhat
likely
Somewhat
unlikely
Very
unlikely Total
Participate in organized group activities (such as clubs, sports teams, volunteer
your time, attend church/temple) 34% N=51 27% N=41 14% N=21 25% N=38 100% N=151
Spend quality time with local friends, family, and/or neighbors 56% N=87 25% N=38 10% N=16 9% N=13 100% N=154
TABLE 114: 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 60% N=95
Walking 20% N=31
Biking 20% N=31
Bus 0% N=0
Train 0% N=0
Free shuttle 0% N=0
Taxi 0% N=0
Uber/Lyft or similar rideshare service 0% N=0
Carpooling 0% N=0
Total 100% N=157
* This question did not have a “don’t know” option.
TABLE 115: QUESTION 15 - RESPONSE PERCENTAGES AND NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS
In a typical week, how likely are you to: Very convenient Somewhat convenient Somewhat inconvenient Very inconvenient Total
Walking 32% N=49 38% N=58 20% N=31 9% N=13 100% N=151
Biking 58% N=86 27% N=40 7% N=10 9% N=13 100% N=149
Bus 2% N=3 21% N=31 28% N=41 49% N=72 100% N=147
Train 7% N=11 33% N=48 15% N=22 45% N=66 100% N=147
Free shuttle 8% N=11 28% N=39 32% N=45 32% N=46 100% N=142
Taxi 7% N=9 14% N=19 35% N=49 44% N=62 100% N=139
Uber/Lyft or similar rideshare service 38% N=56 33% N=48 18% N=27 10% N=15 100% N=147
Carpooling 9% N=13 14% N=20 25% N=36 52% N=76 100% N=145
* This question did not have a “don’t know” option.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4349E292-849D-469B-AB22-6624AF8E03BD
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
111
TABLE 116: QUESTION 16 - RESPONSE PERCENTAGES AND NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS WITH "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 23% N=30 13% N=17 17% N=22 47% N=60 100% N=130
Diesel 1% N=1 0% N=1 1% N=2 98% N=127 100% N=130
Natural gas 0% N=0 5% N=6 2% N=3 92% N=115 100% N=124
Hybrid 22% N=29 31% N=40 16% N=21 30% N=39 100% N=129
Plug-in hybrid 17% N=22 41% N=53 14% N=18 28% N=37 100% N=130
Electric 39% N=53 35% N=48 11% N=14 15% N=20 100% N=135
Fuel cell 1% N=1 9% N=11 13% N=15 77% N=87 100% N=113
TABLE 117: QUESTION 16 - 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 23% N=30 13% N=17 17% N=22 47% N=60 100% N=130
Diesel 1% N=1 0% N=1 1% N=2 98% N=127 100% N=130
Natural gas 0% N=0 5% N=6 2% N=3 92% N=115 100% N=124
Hybrid 22% N=29 31% N=40 16% N=21 30% N=39 100% N=129
Plug-in hybrid 17% N=22 41% N=53 14% N=18 28% N=37 100% N=130
Electric 39% N=53 35% N=48 11% N=14 15% N=20 100% N=135
Fuel cell 1% N=1 9% N=11 13% N=15 77% N=87 100% N=113
TABLE 118: QUESTION D1 - 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 3% N=5
Somewhat positive 20% N=32
Neutral 54% N=86
Somewhat negative 20% N=32
Very negative 2% N=3
Total 100% N=157
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4349E292-849D-469B-AB22-6624AF8E03BD
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
112
TABLE 119: QUESTION D2 - RESPONSE PERCENTAGES AND NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS
What is your employment status? Percent Number
Working full time for pay 50% N=78
Working part time for pay 14% N=21
Unemployed, looking for paid work 8% N=12
Unemployed, not looking for paid work 7% N=11
Fully retired 20% N=30
College student, unemployed 2% N=4
Total 100% N=155
TABLE 120: QUESTION D3 - RESPONSE PERCENTAGES AND NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS
Do you work inside the boundaries of Palo Alto? Percent Number
Yes, outside the home 9% N=14
Yes, from home 53% N=78
No 38% N=56
Total 100% N=148
TABLE 121: QUESTION D4 - RESPONSE PERCENTAGES AND NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS
How many years have you lived in Palo Alto? Percent Number
Less than 2 years 10% N=16
2 to 5 years 11% N=17
6 to 10 years 16% N=24
11 to 20 years 23% N=35
More than 20 years 41% N=63
Total 100% N=156
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4349E292-849D-469B-AB22-6624AF8E03BD
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
113
TABLE 122: QUESTION D5 - RESPONSE PERCENTAGES AND NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS
Which best describes the building you live in? Percent Number
One family house detached from any other houses 63% N=99
Building with two or more homes (duplex, townhome, apartment or condominium) 32% N=50
Mobile home 0% N=0
Other 5% N=8
Total 100% N=157
TABLE 123: QUESTION D6 - RESPONSE PERCENTAGES AND NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS
Do you rent or own your home? Percent Number
Rent 40% N=63
Own 60% N=94
Total 100% N=156
TABLE 124: QUESTION D7 - RESPONSE PERCENTAGES AND NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS
About how much is your monthly housing cost for the place you live (including rent, mortgage payment, property tax, property insurance and
homeowners' association (HOA) fees)? Percent Number
Less than $500 per month 2% N=3
$500 to $999 per month 5% N=7
$1,000 to $1,499 per month 9% N=13
$1,500 to $1,999 per month 8% N=11
$2,000 to $2,499 per month 6% N=9
$2,500 to $2,999 per month 8% N=11
$3,000 to $3,499 per month 14% N=20
$3,500 to $3,999 per month 7% N=10
$4,000 to $4,499 per month 13% N=18
$4,500 to $4,999 per month 2% N=3
$4,500 to $4,999 per month 8% N=11
$5,500 to $5,999 per month 2% N=2
$6,000 to $6,499 per month 2% N=3
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4349E292-849D-469B-AB22-6624AF8E03BD
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
114
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
$6,500 to $6,999 per month 0% N=0
$7,000 to $7,499 per month 1% N=2
$7,500 to $7,999 per month 2% N=3
$8,000 to $8,499 per month 0% N=1
$8,500 to $8,999 per month 3% N=5
$9,000 to $9,499 per month 0% N=0
$9,500 to $9,999 per month 0% N=0
$10,000 or more per month 7% N=9
Total 100% N=142
TABLE 125: QUESTION D8 - RESPONSE PERCENTAGES AND NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS
Do any children 17 or under live in your household? Percent Number
No 52% N=79
Yes 48% N=75
Total 100% N=154
TABLE 126: QUESTION D9 - RESPONSE PERCENTAGES AND NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS
Are you or any other members of your household aged 65 or olde r? Percent Number
No 73% N=113
Yes 27% N=41
Total 100% N=154
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4349E292-849D-469B-AB22-6624AF8E03BD
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
115
TABLE 127: QUESTION D10 - RESPONSE PERCENTAGES AND NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS
How much do you anticipate your household's total income before taxes will be for the curr ent year? (Please include in your total income money
from all sources for all persons living in your household.) Percent Number
Less than $25,000 1% N=1
$25,000 to $49,999 3% N=4
$50,000 to $74,999 14% N=19
$75,000 to $99,999 12% N=16
$100,000 to $149,999 17% N=23
$150,000 to $199,999 5% N=6
$200,000 to $249,999 8% N=11
$250,000 to $299,999 5% N=7
$300,000 to $349,999 7% N=9
$350,000 to $399,999 11% N=15
$400,000 to $449,999 1% N=1
$450,000 to $499,999 19% N=26
$500,000 or more 0% N=0
Total 100% N=138
TABLE 128: QUESTION D11 - RESPONSE PERCENTAGES AND NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS
Are you Spanish, Hispanic or Latino? Percent Number
No, not Spanish, Hispanic or Latino 95% N=146
Yes, I consider myself to be Spanish, Hispanic o r Latino 5% N=8
Total may exceed 100% as respondents could select more than one option.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4349E292-849D-469B-AB22-6624AF8E03BD
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
116
TABLE 129: QUESTION D12 - 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 0% N=0
Asian, Asian Indian or Pacific Islander 19% N=30
Black or African American 0% N=0
White 79% N=121
Other 8% N=11
Total 100% N=153
TABLE 130: QUESTION D13 - RESPONSE PERCENTAGES AND NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS
In which category is your age? Percent Number
18 to 24 years 6% N=9
25 to 34 years 11% N=17
35 to 44 years 18% N=27
45 to 54 years 25% N=38
55 to 64 years 17% N=26
65 to 74 years 14% N=21
75 years or older 8% N=13
Total 100% N=152
TABLE 131: QUESTION D14 - RESPONSE PERCENTAGES AND NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS
What is your gender? Percent Number
Female 52% N=79
Male 46% N=70
Identify in another way 1% N=2
Total 100% N=152
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4349E292-849D-469B-AB22-6624AF8E03BD
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
117
VERBATIM RESPONSES TO OPEN-ENDED S URVEY Q UESTIONS
The following pages contain the respondents’ verbatim responses as entered in the web survey and have not
been edited for spelling or grammar. Responses have been organized by alphabetical order.
Question 17: As a resident of Palo Alto, what one change could the City make
that would make you happier?
• 1) Creating a public bank which is authorized by the state.
• 1) make streets safer for bicylists but not like Ross Rd debacle. 2) enforce laws f or reckless/dangerous bicycle
riders
• A clear plan to create housing capacity in areas which can absorb said, not based on opportunistic developer
preferences.
• A risk-free way to report racial discrimination, threats, and harrassment.
• Add a surcharge tax to foreign buyers of residential properties, like Vancouver did in 2016. Foreign buyers have
driven home prices to untenable levels. It causes a ripple effect on all housing costs and makes people less likely to
invest in the community because they are renters.
• Address airplane noise impacts
• Affordable housing . Do not support 'residentialists'.
• allow denser and taller buildings everywhere, but particularly near downtown, Cal Ave, and San Antonio.
• Allow residents whose utilities are paid by their landlord to have access to utility info during an outage by phone. As
is, you are asked for your individual account info before you can progress to outage i nfo. If you don't have an
individual account, you're done. PLEASE FIX THIS ASAP.
• Allow the downtown restaurants to maintain their outdoor dining (in the parking spots) even after the pandemic
ends. This really livens up the atmosphere of downtown
• Assist small, local businesses in their recovery
• atesImprove housing opportunities, especially low and moderate
• Attention to property crime.
• Attract more businesses to city to further development.
• become transparent and honest
• Being more careful with our money, instead of spending it on, for example, new Utilities marketing materials
• Better management of the homeless/mental health/public drinking issues, especially around parks.
• Better paved streets, especially for biking, overall poor compared to other places i have biked
• better public transportation options
• Better road maintenance
• better street maintenance
• Better traffic management. Timed lights.
• bring back public cross-town shuttle, get VTA to bring back 88 bus to Gunn High School, make the home remodeling
process/permitting streamlined, reduce management in the library staff
• bring the level of services back to what it was 25-30 years ago. Since that won't happen, get all city employees off
of the pension system and into 401k's like the rest of us.
• Build a variety of housing types throughout the city. All I see is huge, multimillion houses getting built and it mak es
me feel like I have no future.
• build more affordable housing
• build more affordable housing. Increase density in single family areas.
• Build the new Police Department over on California. We have waited too long.
• Canceling parking zones and permits
• Challenge and win against MTC/ABAG housing mandate!! Even 6,000 units is ridiculous...it will ruin our city as we
know it.
• cheaper electricity and gas prices
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4349E292-849D-469B-AB22-6624AF8E03BD
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
118
• Close Cal Ave to cars. Open restaurant outdoor dining ASAP. Clean up trash on El Camino by university and put a
parking ban to discourage overnight parking.
• Close streets to cars. Just bikes and buses.
• Crime related to theft
• Cut taxes and fire the school board
• Deal with overhead plane flights after midnight!!!
• Deal with the homeless people wandering the streets of downtown Palo Alto. Possibly help them find housing, or
make it illegal for homeless to loiter on the streets. I currently don't feel safe walking downtown in the early
morning or late evening.
• Deal with traffic issues
• eliminate the horrendously loud airplane noise
• Encourage and build affordable housing
• encourage more interactions among neighbors, including those with diverse backgrounds
• Encourage more solar by allowing Tesla to install their free solar panels. Not everybody has thousands of dollars to
spend.
• enforce parking rules near the trailer park in my neighborhood and put the electrical lines underground
• Enforce the gas powered leaf blower ban!!
• Fewer multi-story buildings;less crowded Foothills Park
• Figuring out a solution to prevent overcrowding at Foothills Park now that no residents are allowed in
• Fix non resident parking on Chabot terrace .
• Focus on the business of running the city: budget, planning, public safety, etc. not trying to weigh in on all of the
world's social problems.
• For most of my shopping I go to either Mountain View or Redwood City. I wish there were shops downtown I could
actually patronize for clothing, gardening, pet care, crafts, sewing, appliance repair, thrift stores.
• Fulfill its obligations with respect to building more low-cost housing as dictated by the state rules
• Get rid of rats
• Get rid of the car campers on ECR
• Get rid of the RVs on El Camino and other streets
• Grade separation at rail crossings
• Have 2nd and 3rd stories set back in more built-up areas so you don't create "concrete" canyons
• Have a plan for the City to build affordable housing along transportation corridors and as infill hou sing.
• Have more flexible development standards to really provide options for affordable housing.
• Help the homeless and build apartments in appropriate areas that are genuinely affordable for low -income people
• Housing projects that actually met resident needs without big giveaways to developers.
• I don't know.
• If emergency personnel who work here actually live here. (That, and more dedicated pickleball courts)
• improve communications and engagement with residents
• Improve police behavior with people of color
• Improve walking and bikeability along entire length of El Camino Real
• Increase objective limits on development, particularly office development.
• Inforce traffic laws such as red light running and speeding
• Invest fully in bicycle and other clean transportation methods and routes
• Just say "no" to ABAG. Reinstate traffic/motorcycle police and the full police budget.
• Keep more outdoor dining options (car free streets?) after pandemic
• Keep the pedestrian zones on University and California at the very least during the weekends
• Less local government drama.
• less office, code enforcement, better building design, transparent govt
• Listen to residents first, then real estate developers
• Lots and lots more affordable housing
• Lower utility costs to the consumer
• Maintain the Quality of the K-12 school system. Too many intolerant, angry parents not understanding Covid -19,
and Public Health Issues.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4349E292-849D-469B-AB22-6624AF8E03BD
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
119
• Make Foothills Park / Preserver accessible to the residents of the City, who have been and are paying for it. It i s not
accessible now due to the City's plea bargain against the residents' collective wishes.
• Make it affordable to buy a house
• Make it more welcoming to families. It doesn't appear families are even on your mind. The may fete parade a
parade for little kids has no actual activities. When the parade ends, everyone leaves. The art and wine festival?
Almost nothing for kids. There are no fun places for kids to go, other than parks. Look at San Carlos and Mountain
View they have a number of family friendly activities and event centers. Closing downtown streets is a start. It
*almost* makes Pali alto feel like a community. But what can you do to make it more inviting for families?
• Make it safer to walk the sidewalks (no bike riding/skateboards) and cross the streets and enforce and apply noise
codes to city workers downtown.
• Make sure more housing is being built. Affordable housing in p articular
• Make the city safe please. With all the burglaries and crimes, I no longer feel safe to enjoy my life here.
• Moratorium on office development. Rezone commercial for housing.
• More affordable housing
• more affordable housing
• more affordable housing and OPEN schools
• More affordable housing and services
• More after school sport options for middle school kids
• More attractive affordable housing for families and single working professionals to encourage more economic and
racial diversity in Palo Alto
• More community activities,
• more diversity
• More diversity training/inclusion initiatives; affordable housing
• More economic diversity
• More focus on community services and less on housing and environment
• More help for the elderly
• More housing
• More housing for low-middle income earners. So we can house our essential workers in the community and reduce
car trips
• More incentives for energy saving - solar, rain water collection, etc.
• More mid size housing opportunities
• More multifamily homes
• More open space
• More parking near the trails or a regular (like 15 min intervals) shuttle to them.
• More pools for lap swimming
• More protection for trees. Currently, a permit is required for cutting down four species of trees. I would like this
protection broadened to any tree with greater than a 16 inch trunk diameter.
• More routes for safe biking
• Planning department being more respectful and representative of residents instead of representing developers.
• Please close University Ave to through traffic and open it back up to pedestrians. Downtown was so much nicer
with this. Also, California ave, but first choice is University if I had to pick.
• Please make the traffic lights smarter. Also ensure that there are 2 lights at the crosswalk perpendicular to each
other as I have narrowly escaped being hit by a car countless number of times, when I am crossing the road at night
by both oncoming traffic and traffic that is behind me. Its as if they do not see me even though I have flashing night
lights on me. Please make a stop sign on the crosswalk between Seale and Newell as its a major artery and
Middlefield and Seale instead of Yield sign
• Provide more affordable housing
• Provide more staffing for code enforcement issues
• Provide Municipal Broadband/Fiber Internet to residents and busineses
• Put in Dip signs at the corner of Middlefield Road and Lincoln. Or do away with the dip and put in drains to the new
largely unused storm drain that runs under Lincoln. At that intersection, every tree and the school sign has been hit,
a light pole and a nearby power pole have been destroyed, and there have been at least a dozen accidents in the
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4349E292-849D-469B-AB22-6624AF8E03BD
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
120
last few years, many of them with injuries. And right next to an elementary school!And ban wood fires, especially in
fire places! They make it very unpleasant to air one's home or go for walks. Dryer sheets, too.
• Put in turn signal in traffic lite 100 ft from our house on Middlefield
• Put together detailed plans with metrics on how we are going to effectively electrify our homes
• Quit referring to apts . as Homes. They are apts. Quit allowing ugly apt. bldgs. with flat roofs. Quit building office
bldgs. and use the property for REAL PARKS. Stop Stanford from buying homes and taking them off of the market.
quit allowing realtors to overprice this junk for people who have never been anywhere in their life and think this is
ok. This place is hilarious!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
• Reallocating the police budget to stuff that actually helps people.
• Rebate increase for EVs
• Reduce arrogance of city staff
• Reduce bicycle and other theft, burglaries.
• Reduce size of government
• Reduce the train noise and ground shaking along the train tracks.
• Regulate public access to Foothills park (maybe ask for an entrance fee)
• Remove the circles at intersections on bike routes.
• Remove the homeless and criminals
• Reopen libraries
• Restore Fry's Electronics or a similar store to Palo Alto. That was a real loss to experimenters and hams.B
• Restrict Foothills Park to Palo Alto residents.
• Schools that actually addressed my child's needs rather than shovel him toward the school-to-prison pipeline.
• Shorten the planning process.
• stabilize revenue with expenses
• Stop adding offices and instead convert existing ones into true affordable housing
• Stop allowing the building of high rises with inadequate parking along El Camino.
• Stop building housing! Pay more attention to the stretch of El Camino between Charleston Rd and Hansen Way.
Close the Glass Slipper, it's an eyesore. We have so many run down buildings in this area. I grew up here and am fed
up with attention on beautifying other areas except here.
• STOP giving away our land to rich private interests like Castilleja and Stanford. Invest in US. We need HOUSING.
• stop holding up Neighborhood Traffic Safety and Bicycle Boulevard phase 2
• STOP making the city more dense in both housing and commercial development!
• Stop upzoning R-1 neighborhoods and increasing density
• Streamline permit process
• Support economic diversity
• take airplane noise more seriously
• The motor homes parked between the residential and commercial area in my yellow district
• There continue to be homeless in the local parks and downtown area. Particularly Mitchell Park. I would feel safer if
the city could offer resources to assist.
• Traffic enforcement for drivers to observe speed limits, stop signs, and red lights.
• Transportation
• Try to bring the price of housing and housing related costs down.
• Vibrant downtown areas, Attract more millennials, Improve internet bandwidth
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4349E292-849D-469B-AB22-6624AF8E03BD
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
121
Question 18: As a resident of Palo Alto, what one thing do y ou believe the City
does well and would want to maintain?
• ?
• 1) Libraries
• A well functioning public utility.
• Access and quality of open spaces
• Access to city council meetings - public comment, videos
• Although quality of selection has deteriorated, library services are excellent.
• Animal services
• basic services
• Beautiful parks and open spaces
• Bike lanes
• Bike paths and safety
• Bin collection and distribution
• Builds awareness on climate change
• cannot think of any one thing in particular
• can't think of anything
• Chief Jonsen has my support. Police and utility notifications are already fast, so don't need to be "faster" as asked
above. Tree and park maintenance are excellent.
• Child and youth activities - kids library, theatre, etc.
• Children's Theatre
• City employees (not including the City Council, for clarity) based on my interactions are experts in their field who
are dedicated to public service. We need to retain them and thank them.
• City governement and city staff are generally professional and thoughtful, and want to "do the right thing"
• City-owned utilitilies
• Climate Saving Programs
• Communication
• Communication newsletters
• Communication of events, opportunities, news
• Communication on Facebook is excellent and in different languages. Very impressed
• communication, utilities
• community outreach
• Continue dedication to address climate change
• decent website
• Education
• Education! We have phenomenal schools.
• Electric and gas utilities
• Emergency medical
• Emphases on schools and community
• enabling alternative modes of transportation--particularly biking and walking
• EV infrastructure. Add EV infrastructure on remodel.
• Fire and ambulance services
• Fire dept
• Firefighters, police officers and first responsders
• Foothill Park
• good education
• Good schools - this is questionable at the moment though.
• Good schools overall
• great recycling of all materials in the blue bins
• Great schools
• Green waste. Utilities (so much better than PG&E)
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4349E292-849D-469B-AB22-6624AF8E03BD
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
122
• Hard to say just one. Probably the ease of access to city staff whether sidewalks, utilities, whatever
• Having libraries open many hours with good online access and easy holds and borrowing from other libraries
• high standards for education
• I can't pick just one thing. Palo Alto a good place to live.
• improving biking services
• Keep encouraging bicycling
• Keep the city clean
• Keep the nice neighborhoods and parks clean and safe and free of RVS --> please extend that to all the
neighborhoods, i.e., Venture. Boulware Park has drinking and drugs on a daily basis. How is that safe for me and my
child? Whenever we visit ANY other park, there is no sign of this type of behavior. Please be consistent and make
the park close to my house safe for me and my child.
• Keep up the quality of parks and open spaces.
• Keeping the city clean and safe.
• Kids programming - we need more
• Leading the way in electrifying our city and ensuring energy & water security
• libraries
• Libraries
• Libraries
• Libraries
• Libraries
• Libraries and parks
• Library and community services are comprehensive and excellent.
• Library System
• Local parks
• Lots of space for parks
• maintain single family neighborhoods, do not turn it into NYC --no tall buildings, preserve all historic buildings, stop
ugly modern bldgs
• Maintain the parks and walk sidewalks
• Maintain the suburban neighborhoods, good schools, and q uality of life that drew most of us here in the first place
• Maintaining an environment that is conducive to raising a family.
• Maintaining our public parks
• Maintenance of playgrounds
• Municipal services
• N/A
• Offering the Free Shuttle service
• Open Areas, Parks, Trails & Bike Paths
• Open space
• our own utility district
• Our parks are beautiful.
• Our parks.
• Our utility has great people working on important things.
• Outstanding parks, walkable neighborhoods with diverse business districts and a lot of trees. I do believe this is at
risk as bookstores, toy stores, and stationery stores are pushed out of town and replaced by ultra high -end shops
and offices.
• Overall quality of life....low density housing....libraries....trees.....streets.....minimize traffic thru ci ty.
• Palo Alto Unified School District!!
• Palo Alto Utilities.
• Parks and bike routes
• Parks and open spaces
• Parks and open spaces and in particular the opening of all of them to the public.
• Parks.
• Playgrounds are maintained well
• Police and Emergency Services
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4349E292-849D-469B-AB22-6624AF8E03BD
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
123
• provides a wide range of services that appeal to all ages and interest
• providing all the utilities under one umbrella, and focusing on sustainable power sources
• public safety
• public school
• Public utilities and incentives to get off natural gas.
• Public Utilities. Excellent foresight and planning in the past. Somewhat shortsighted about the total life cycle costs
of solar and wind going forward. You don't want to follow the German model and path down that rabbit hole.
• Quality of parks and utilities
• Quality of schools
• Really great trees and tree maintenance
• Recreation opportunities
• Reduce, reuse, recycle
• Relative diversity, cultural opportunities, nature
• Reliability of utilities
• Run a public utility
• Running our own utility system
• Safe Routes to School program
• Safety
• Schools
• Street sweeping
• Streets and park maintenance
• Strong arts departments, libraries.
• Support for community arts programs.
• The 311 service
• The city literally does nothing well other than tax the poor and subsidize the rich, and I want that t o end.
• The library and library related services are very good.
• the library system
• The library, community center, and parks are fantastic. The utility service is excellent.
• The Mitchell Park Library
• The number of rec activities you offer and the public spa ces (libraries, communities centers) are great. So are the
many bike lanes and bike boulevards.
• The Palo Alto Art Center and its programs
• The politeness of most of the City workers even when customers are ratty
• the public libraries
• The quality and safety of our parks and libraries
• They are pretty good at code enforcement once a complaint is made.
• Trash/Recycling is always excellent.
• Tree maintenance does a great job
• Utilities
• utilities and parks
• Utilities are reliable and high quality
• Utilities!
• Utilities, owning them and running them. Do not sell out ever.
• utility service as is, staffs are excellent.
• Utility services
• Water and utilities
• We operate our own utilities company, which provides us with lower-cost energy. However, the energy costs have
gone up considerably in the last 10 years or so.
• We're lucky to have our own Utility
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4349E292-849D-469B-AB22-6624AF8E03BD
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
124
COMMUNITIES INCLUDED IN NATIONAL COMPARISONS
The communities included in the Palo Alto comparisons are listed on the following pages along with their
population according to the 2017 American Community Survey.
Adams County, CO .................... 487,850
Airway Heights city, WA ................ 8,017
Albany city, OR ............................ 52,007
Albemarle County, VA ............... 105,105
Albert Lea city, MN...................... 17,716
Alexandria city, VA .................... 154,710
Allegan County, MI .................... 114,145
American Canyon city, CA ........... 20,341
Ankeny city, IA............................. 56,237
Ann Arbor city, MI ..................... 119,303
Apache Junction city, AZ ............. 38,452
Arapahoe County, CO ................ 626,612
Arlington city, TX ....................... 388,225
Arvada city, CO .......................... 115,320
Asheville city, NC ......................... 89,318
Ashland city, OR .......................... 20,733
Ashland town, MA ....................... 17,478
Ashland town, VA .......................... 7,554
Aspen city, CO ............................... 7,097
Athens-Clarke County, GA ......... 122,292
Auburn city, AL ............................ 61,462
Aurora city, CO .......................... 357,323
Austin city, TX ............................ 916,906
Avon town, CO .............................. 6,503
Avon town, IN ............................. 16,479
Avondale city, AZ ......................... 81,590
Azusa city, CA .............................. 49,029
Bainbridge Island city, WA .......... 23,689
Baltimore city, MD .................... 619,796
Baltimore County, MD............... 828,637
Basehor city, KS ............................. 5,401
Batavia city, IL ............................. 26,499
Battle Creek city, MI .................... 51,505
Bay Village city, OH ..................... 15,426
Baytown city, TX .......................... 76,205
Beaumont city, CA ....................... 43,641
Bellingham city, WA .................... 85,388
Bend city, OR ............................... 87,167
Bethlehem township, PA ............. 23,800
Bettendorf city, IA ....................... 35,293
Billings city, MT ......................... 109,082
Bloomington city, IN .................... 83,636
Bloomington city, MN ................. 85,417
Boise City city, ID ....................... 220,859
Bonner Springs city, KS .................. 7,644
Boulder city, CO ........................ 106,271
Bowling Green city, KY ................ 64,302
Bozeman city, MT ........................ 43,132
Brookline CDP, MA ...................... 59,246
Brooklyn Center city, MN ............ 30,885
Brooklyn city, OH ........................ 10,891
Broomfield city, CO ..................... 64,283
Brownsburg town, IN .................. 24,625
Buffalo Grove village, IL ............... 41,551
Burlingame city, CA ..................... 30,401
Cabarrus County, NC ................. 196,716
Cambridge city, MA ................... 110,893
Canandaigua city, NY ................... 10,402
Cannon Beach city, OR .................. 1,517
Cañon City city, CO ...................... 16,298
Cape Coral city, FL ..................... 173,679
Carlsbad city, CA ....................... 113,147
Cartersville city, GA ..................... 20,235
Cary town, NC ........................... 159,715
Castle Rock town, CO .................. 57,274
Cedar Hill city, TX ........................ 48,149
Cedar Park city, TX ...................... 70,010
Cedar Rapids city, IA ................. 130,330
Celina city, TX ................................ 7,910
Centennial city, CO .................... 108,448
Chandler city, TX ........................... 2,896
Chanhassen city, MN .................. 25,108
Chapel Hill town, NC ................... 59,234
Chardon city, OH ........................... 5,166
Charles County, MD .................. 156,021
Charlotte County, FL ................. 173,236
Charlottesville city, VA ................ 46,487
Chattanooga city, TN................. 176,291
Chautauqua town, NY ................... 4,362
Chesterfield County, VA ............ 335,594
Clayton city, MO ......................... 16,214
Clearwater city, FL .................... 112,794
Clinton city, SC .............................. 8,538
Clive city, IA................................. 17,134
Clovis city, CA ............................ 104,411
College Park city, MD .................. 32,186
College Station city, TX.............. 107,445
Colleyville city, TX ....................... 25,557
Collinsville city, IL ........................ 24,767
Columbia city, MO .................... 118,620
Commerce City city, CO .............. 52,905
Conshohocken borough, PA .......... 7,985
Coolidge city, AZ ......................... 12,221
Coon Rapids city, MN .................. 62,342
Coral Springs city, FL ................. 130,110
Coronado city, CA ....................... 24,053
Corvallis city, OR ......................... 56,224
Cottonwood Heights city, UT ...... 34,214
Coventry Lake CDP, CT .................. 2,932
Coventry town, CT ...................... 12,458
Cupertino city, CA ....................... 60,687
Dacono city, CO ............................. 4,929
Dakota County, MN .................. 414,655
Dallas city, OR ............................. 15,413
Dallas city, TX ......................... 1,300,122
Danvers town, MA ...................... 27,527
Danville city, KY ........................... 16,657
Darien city, IL .............................. 22,206
Davidson town, NC...................... 12,325
Dayton city, OH ......................... 140,939
Dayton town, WY ............................. 815
Dearborn city, MI ........................ 95,295
Decatur city, GA .......................... 22,022
DeLand city, FL ............................ 30,315
Delaware city, OH ....................... 38,193
Denison city, TX .......................... 23,342
Denton city, TX .......................... 131,097
Denver city, CO ......................... 678,467
Des Moines city, IA.................... 214,778
Des Peres city, MO ........................ 8,536
Destin city, FL ...............................13,421
Dothan city, AL ............................67,784
Dover city, NH ..............................30,901
Dublin city, CA .............................57,022
Dublin city, OH .............................44,442
Duluth city, MN ...........................86,066
Durham city, NC ......................... 257,232
Durham County, NC ................... 300,865
Dyer town, IN ...............................16,077
Eagan city, MN .............................66,102
Eagle Mountain city, UT ...............27,773
Eau Claire city, WI ........................67,945
Eden Prairie city, MN ...................63,660
Eden town, VT ...............................1,254
Edgewater city, CO ........................5,299
Edina city, MN .............................50,603
Edmond city, OK ..........................89,769
Edmonds city, WA ........................41,309
El Cerrito city, CA .........................24,982
El Paso de Robles (Paso
Robles) city, CA .....................31,409
Elbert County, CO ........................24,553
Elgin city, IL ................................ 112,628
Elk Grove city, CA ....................... 166,228
Elmhurst city, IL ...........................46,139
Englewood city, CO ......................33,155
Erie town, CO ...............................22,019
Escambia County, FL .................. 309,924
Estes Park town, CO .......................6,248
Euclid city, OH ..............................47,698
Farmers Branch city, TX ...............33,808
Farmersville city, TX .......................3,440
Farmington Hills city, MI ..............81,235
Fate city, TX .................................10,339
Fayetteville city, GA .....................17,069
Fayetteville city, NC ................... 210,324
Ferguson township, PA ................18,837
Fernandina Beach city, FL ............11,957
Flower Mound town, TX ..............71,575
Forest Grove city, OR ...................23,554
Fort Collins city, CO .................... 159,150
Franklin city, TN ...........................72,990
Frederick town, CO ......................11,397
Fremont city, CA ........................ 230,964
Frisco town, CO ..............................2,977
Fruita city, CO ..............................13,039
Gahanna city, OH .........................34,691
Gaithersburg city, MD ..................67,417
Galveston city, TX ........................49,706
Gardner city, KS ...........................21,059
Germantown city, TN ...................39,230
Gilbert town, AZ......................... 232,176
Gillette city, WY ...........................31,783
Glen Ellyn village, IL .....................27,983
Glendora city, CA .........................51,891
Glenview village, IL ......................47,066
Golden city, CO ............................20,365
Golden Valley city, MN ................21,208
Goodyear city, AZ ........................74,953
Grafton village, WI .......................11,576
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4349E292-849D-469B-AB22-6624AF8E03BD
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
125
Grand Rapids city, MI ................ 195,355
Grand Traverse County, MI ......... 91,222
Greeley city, CO ......................... 100,760
Greenville city, NC ....................... 90,347
Greer city, SC ............................... 28,587
Gulf Breeze city, FL ........................ 6,251
Gunnison County, CO .................. 16,215
Haltom City city, TX ..................... 44,059
Hamilton city, OH ........................ 62,216
Hamilton town, MA ....................... 7,991
Hampton city, VA ...................... 136,255
Hanover County, VA .................. 103,218
Harrisburg city, SD ......................... 5,429
Hastings city, MN ........................ 22,620
Henderson city, NV ................... 284,817
High Point city, NC..................... 109,849
Highland Park city, IL ................... 29,796
Highlands Ranch CDP, CO .......... 105,264
Homer Glen village, IL ................. 24,403
Honolulu County, HI .................. 990,060
Hopkinton town, MA ................... 16,720
Hoquiam city, WA ......................... 8,416
Horry County, SC ....................... 310,186
Hudson town, CO .......................... 1,709
Huntley village, IL ........................ 26,265
Huntsville city, TX ........................ 40,727
Hutchinson city, MN .................... 13,836
Hutto city, TX............................... 22,644
Hyattsville city, MD ..................... 18,225
Independence city, IA .................... 6,013
Independence city, MO ............. 117,369
Indio city, CA ............................... 86,867
Iowa City city, IA .......................... 73,415
Issaquah city, WA ........................ 35,629
Jackson city, MO ......................... 14,690
Jackson County, MI ................... 158,989
Jefferson Parish, LA ................... 437,038
Jerome city, ID............................. 11,306
Johnson City city, TN ................... 65,598
Johnston city, IA .......................... 20,172
Jupiter town, FL ........................... 62,373
Kalamazoo city, MI ...................... 75,833
Kansas City city, KS .................... 151,042
Kansas City city, MO .................. 476,974
Kent city, WA............................. 126,561
Kerrville city, TX ........................... 22,931
Key West city, FL ......................... 25,316
King City city, CA ......................... 13,721
Kingman city, AZ .......................... 28,855
Kirkland city, WA ......................... 86,772
Kirkwood city, MO ....................... 27,659
La Mesa city, CA .......................... 59,479
La Plata town, MD ......................... 9,160
La Vista city, NE ........................... 17,062
Lake Forest city, IL ....................... 18,931
Lake in the Hills village, IL ............ 28,908
Lake Zurich village, IL .................. 19,983
Lakeville city, MN ........................ 61,056
Lakewood city, CO ..................... 151,411
Lakewood city, WA ...................... 59,102
Lancaster County, SC ................... 86,544
Laramie city, WY.......................... 32,104
Larimer County, CO ................... 330,976
Las Cruces city, NM ................... 101,014
Las Vegas city, NM ...................... 13,445
Las Vegas city, NV...................... 621,662
Lawrence city, KS ........................ 93,954
Lawrenceville city, GA ................. 29,287
Lehi city, UT ................................ 58,351
Lenexa city, KS ............................ 52,030
Lewisville city, TX ...................... 103,638
Libertyville village, IL ................... 20,504
Lincolnwood village, IL ................ 12,637
Lindsborg city, KS .......................... 3,313
Little Chute village, WI ................ 11,006
Littleton city, CO ......................... 45,848
Livermore city, CA ....................... 88,232
Lombard village, IL ...................... 43,776
Lone Tree city, CO ....................... 13,430
Long Grove village, IL .................... 7,980
Longmont city, CO....................... 91,730
Lonsdale city, MN ......................... 3,850
Los Alamos County, NM .............. 18,031
Los Altos Hills town, CA ................. 8,490
Loudoun County, VA ................. 374,558
Louisville city, CO ........................ 20,319
Lower Merion township, PA........ 58,500
Lynchburg city, VA ...................... 79,237
Lynnwood city, WA ..................... 37,242
Manassas city, VA ....................... 41,379
Manhattan Beach city, CA ........... 35,698
Manhattan city, KS ...................... 55,427
Mankato city, MN ....................... 41,241
Maple Grove city, MN ................. 68,362
Maplewood city, MN .................. 40,127
Maricopa County, AZ ............. 4,155,501
Marin County, CA ...................... 260,814
Marion city, IA............................. 38,014
Mariposa County, CA .................. 17,658
Marshalltown city, IA .................. 27,440
Marshfield city, WI ...................... 18,326
Martinez city, CA ......................... 37,902
Marysville city, WA ..................... 66,178
Maui County, HI ........................ 164,094
McKinney city, TX ...................... 164,760
McMinnville city, OR ................... 33,211
Mecklenburg County, NC ....... 1,034,290
Menlo Park city, CA ..................... 33,661
Menomonee Falls village, WI ...... 36,411
Mercer Island city, WA ................ 24,768
Meridian charter township, MI ... 41,903
Merriam city, KS .......................... 11,259
Mesa city, AZ ............................. 479,317
Mesquite city, TX ...................... 144,118
Miami city, FL ............................ 443,007
Middleton city, WI ...................... 18,951
Middletown town, RI .................. 16,100
Milford city, DE ........................... 10,645
Milton city, GA ............................ 37,556
Minneapolis city, MN ................ 411,452
Minnetrista city, MN ..................... 7,187
Missoula County, MT ................ 114,231
Missouri City city, TX ................... 72,688
Moline city, IL.............................. 42,644
Monroe city, MI .......................... 20,128
Montgomery city, MN ................... 2,921
Montgomery County, MD ...... 1,039,198
Monticello city, UT ........................ 2,599
Montrose city, CO ....................... 18,918
Moorpark city, CA ....................... 36,060
Moraga town, CA ........................ 17,231
Morristown city, TN .................... 29,446
Morrisville town, NC ....................23,873
Morro Bay city, CA .......................10,568
Moscow city, ID ...........................24,833
Mountlake Terrace city, WA ........20,922
Murphy city, TX ............................20,361
Naperville city, IL ....................... 146,431
Napoleon city, OH ..........................8,646
Needham CDP, MA ......................30,429
Nevada City city, CA .......................3,112
Nevada County, CA ......................98,838
New Braunfels city, TX .................70,317
New Brighton city, MN ................22,440
New Concord village, OH ...............2,561
New Hope city, MN ......................20,909
Newport city, RI ...........................24,745
Newport News city, VA .............. 180,775
Newton city, IA ............................15,085
Niles village, IL .............................29,823
Noblesville city, IN .......................59,807
Norcross city, GA .........................16,474
Norfolk city, NE ............................24,352
North Mankato city, MN ..............13,583
North Port city, FL ........................62,542
North Yarmouth town, ME ............3,714
Northglenn city, CO .....................38,473
Novato city, CA ............................55,378
Novi city, MI .................................58,835
O'Fallon city, IL ............................29,095
Oak Park village, IL .......................52,229
Oakdale city, MN .........................27,972
Oklahoma City city, OK .............. 629,191
Olmsted County, MN ................. 151,685
Orland Park village, IL ..................59,161
Orleans Parish, LA ...................... 388,182
Oshkosh city, WI ..........................66,649
Oswego village, IL ........................33,759
Overland Park city, KS ................ 186,147
Paducah city, KY ...........................24,879
Palm Beach Gardens city, FL ........53,119
Palm Coast city, FL .......................82,356
Palo Alto city, CA..........................67,082
Palos Verdes Estates city, CA .......13,591
Panama City Beach city, FL ..........12,461
Papillion city, NE ..........................19,478
Paradise Valley town, AZ .............13,961
Park City city, UT ............................8,167
Parker town, CO...........................51,125
Pasco city, WA .............................70,607
Pasco County, FL ........................ 498,136
Payette city, ID ...............................7,366
Pearland city, TX ........................ 113,693
Peoria city, IL ............................. 115,424
Pflugerville city, TX ......................58,013
Philadelphia city, PA ............... 1,569,657
Pinehurst village, NC ....................15,580
Piqua city, OH ..............................20,793
Pitkin County, CO .........................17,747
Plano city, TX ............................. 281,566
Platte City city, MO ........................4,867
Pleasant Hill city, IA .......................9,608
Pleasanton city, CA ......................79,341
Plymouth city, MN .......................76,258
Port Orange city, FL .....................60,315
Port St. Lucie city, FL .................. 178,778
Portage city, MI ...........................48,072
Portland city, OR ........................ 630,331
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4349E292-849D-469B-AB22-6624AF8E03BD
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
126
Powell city, OH ............................ 12,658
Powhatan County, VA ................. 28,364
Prairie Village city, KS .................. 21,932
Pueblo city, CO .......................... 109,122
Purcellville town, VA ..................... 9,217
Queen Creek town, AZ ................ 33,298
Raleigh city, NC ......................... 449,477
Ramsey city, MN ......................... 25,853
Raymore city, MO ....................... 20,358
Redmond city, OR ....................... 28,492
Redmond city, WA ...................... 60,712
Redwood City city, CA ................. 84,368
Reno city, NV ............................. 239,732
Richfield city, MN ........................ 35,993
Richland city, WA ........................ 53,991
Richmond city, CA ..................... 108,853
Richmond Heights city, MO ........... 8,466
Rio Rancho city, NM .................... 93,317
River Falls city, WI ....................... 15,256
Riverside city, CA ....................... 321,570
Roanoke city, VA ......................... 99,572
Roanoke County, VA.................... 93,419
Rochester city, NY ..................... 209,463
Rock Hill city, SC .......................... 70,764
Rockville city, MD ........................ 66,420
Roeland Park city, KS ..................... 6,810
Rohnert Park city, CA .................. 42,305
Rolla city, MO .............................. 20,013
Rosemount city, MN ................... 23,474
Rosenberg city, TX ....................... 35,867
Roseville city, MN ........................ 35,624
Round Rock city, TX ................... 116,369
Royal Palm Beach village, FL ........ 37,665
Sacramento city, CA .................. 489,650
Sahuarita town, AZ ...................... 28,257
Sammamish city, WA .................. 62,877
San Carlos city, CA ....................... 29,954
San Diego city, CA .................. 1,390,966
San Francisco city, CA ................ 864,263
San Jose city, CA ..................... 1,023,031
San Marcos city, TX ..................... 59,935
Sangamon County, IL ................. 198,134
Santa Fe city, NM ........................ 82,980
Santa Fe County, NM ................ 147,514
Savage city, MN ........................... 30,011
Schaumburg village, IL ................. 74,427
Schertz city, TX ............................ 38,199
Scott County, MN ...................... 141,463
Scottsdale city, AZ ..................... 239,283
Sedona city, AZ ........................... 10,246
Sevierville city, TN ....................... 16,387
Shakopee city, MN ...................... 40,024
Shawnee city, KS ......................... 64,840
Shawnee city, OK ........................ 30,974
Shoreline city, WA ....................... 55,431
Shoreview city, MN ..................... 26,432
Shorewood village, IL .................. 16,809
Sierra Vista city, AZ ..................... 43,585
Silverton city, OR ........................... 9,757
Sioux Falls city, SD ..................... 170,401
Skokie village, IL .......................... 64,773
Snoqualmie city, WA ................... 12,944
Snowmass Village town, CO .......... 2,827
Somerset town, MA .................... 18,257
South Bend city, IN.................... 101,928
South Jordan city, UT .................. 65,523
South Portland city, ME .............. 25,431
Southlake city, TX ........................ 30,090
Spearfish city, SD ........................ 11,300
Springville city, UT....................... 32,319
St. Augustine city, FL ................... 13,952
St. Charles city, IL ........................ 32,730
St. Cloud city, MN ....................... 67,093
St. Croix County, WI .................... 87,142
St. Joseph city, MO...................... 76,819
St. Louis County, MN ................. 200,294
St. Lucie County, FL ................... 298,763
State College borough, PA .......... 42,224
Steamboat Springs city, CO ......... 12,520
Sugar Land city, TX ...................... 86,886
Suisun City city, CA ...................... 29,280
Summit County, UT ..................... 39,731
Sunnyvale city, CA ..................... 151,565
Surprise city, AZ ........................ 129,534
Suwanee city, GA ........................ 18,655
Tacoma city, WA ....................... 207,280
Takoma Park city, MD ................. 17,643
Tempe city, AZ .......................... 178,339
Temple city, TX ............................ 71,795
Texarkana city, TX ....................... 37,222
The Woodlands CDP, TX ............ 109,608
Thousand Oaks city, CA ............. 128,909
Tigard city, OR ............................. 51,355
Tinley Park village, IL ................... 57,107
Tracy city, CA .............................. 87,613
Trinidad CCD, CO ......................... 10,819
Tualatin city, OR .......................... 27,135
Tulsa city, OK............................. 401,352
Tustin city, CA ..............................80,007
Twin Falls city, ID .........................47,340
Unalaska city, AK ...........................4,809
University Heights city, OH ..........13,201
University Park city, TX ................24,692
Urbandale city, IA ........................42,222
Vail town, CO .................................5,425
Vernon Hills village, IL ..................26,084
Victoria city, MN ............................8,679
Vienna town, VA ..........................16,474
Virginia Beach city, VA ............... 450,057
Walnut Creek city, CA ..................68,516
Warrensburg city, MO .................19,890
Washington County, MN ........... 250,979
Washoe County, NV ................... 445,551
Waunakee village, WI ..................13,284
Wauwatosa city, WI .....................47,687
Wentzville city, MO .....................35,768
West Bend city, WI ......................31,656
West Carrollton city, OH ..............12,963
West Chester township, OH.........62,804
West Des Moines city, IA .............62,999
Western Springs village, IL ...........13,187
Westerville city, OH .....................38,604
Westlake town, TX .........................1,006
Westminster city, CO ................. 111,895
Westminster city, MD ..................18,557
Wheat Ridge city, CO ...................31,162
White House city, TN ...................11,107
Wichita city, KS .......................... 389,054
Williamsburg city, VA ...................14,817
Willowbrook village, IL ...................8,598
Wilmington city, NC ................... 115,261
Wilsonville city, OR ......................22,789
Windsor town, CO .......................23,386
Windsor town, CT ........................29,037
Winter Garden city, FL .................40,799
Woodbury city, MN .....................67,648
Woodinville city, WA ...................11,675
Wyandotte County, KS ............... 163,227
Wyoming city, MI .........................75,124
Yakima city, WA ...........................93,182
York County, VA ...........................67,196
Yorktown town, IN .......................11,200
Yorkville city, IL ............................18,691
Yountville city, CA ..........................2,978
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4349E292-849D-469B-AB22-6624AF8E03BD
The City of Palo Alto Community Survey
March 2021
Report of Results
127
SURVEY MATERIALS
The following pages contain copies of the survey materials sent to randomly selected households within the
City of Palo Alto.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4349E292-849D-469B-AB22-6624AF8E03BD
Dear Palo Alto Resident,
Your household has been randomly selected to participate in a survey about
our community. It won’t take much of your time to make a big difference!
Our annual Community Survey is a critical community engagement tool that
helps the City Council and City staff understand community needs and
community priorities. You can go online and complete the survey at:
https://bit.ly/xxplaceholderxx
Please do not share your survey link. This survey is for randomly selected
households only. The City will conduct a separate survey that is open to all
residents just a few weeks from now. You can also wait a few days for the
survey to arrive in the mail.
Thank you for your time and participation!
Sincerely,
Ed Shikada
City Manager
Dear Palo Alto Resident,
Your household has been randomly selected to participate in a survey about
our community. It won’t take much of your time to make a big difference!
Our annual Community Survey is a critical community engagement tool that
helps the City Council and City staff understand community needs and
community priorities. You can go online and complete the survey at:
https://bit.ly/xxplaceholderxx
Please do not share your survey link. This survey is for randomly selected
households only. The City will conduct a separate survey that is open to all
residents just a few weeks from now. You can also wait a few days for the
survey to arrive in the mail.
Thank you for your time and participation!
Sincerely,
Ed Shikada
City Manager
Dear Palo Alto Resident,
Your household has been randomly selected to participate in a survey about
our community. It won’t take much of your time to make a big difference!
Our annual Community Survey is a critical community engagement tool that
helps the City Council and City staff understand community needs and
community priorities. You can go online and complete the survey at:
https://bit.ly/xxplaceholderxx
Please do not share your survey link. This survey is for randomly selected
households only. The City will conduct a separate survey that is open to all
residents just a few weeks from now. You can also wait a few days for the
survey to arrive in the mail.
Thank you for your time and participation!
Sincerely,
Ed Shikada
City Manager
Dear Palo Alto Resident,
Your household has been randomly selected to participate in a survey about
our community. It won’t take much of your time to make a big difference!
Our annual Community Survey is a critical community engagement tool that
helps the City Council and City staff understand community needs and
community priorities. You can go online and complete the survey at:
https://bit.ly/xxplaceholderxx
Please do not share your survey link. This survey is for randomly selected
households only. The City will conduct a separate survey that is open to all
residents just a few weeks from now. You can also wait a few days for the
survey to arrive in the mail.
Thank you for your time and participation!
Sincerely,
Ed Shikada
City Manager
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4349E292-849D-469B-AB22-6624AF8E03BD
Presorted
First Class Mail
US Postage
PAID
Boulder, CO
Permit NO. 94
Presorted
First Class Mail
US Postage
PAID
Boulder, CO
Permit NO. 94
Presorted
First Class Mail
US Postage
PAID
Boulder, CO
Permit NO. 94
Presorted
First Class Mail
US Postage
PAID
Boulder, CO
Permit NO. 94
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4349E292-849D-469B-AB22-6624AF8E03BD
Presorted
First Class Mail
US Postage
PAID
Boulder, CO
Permit NO.94
Logo
Address
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4349E292-849D-469B-AB22-6624AF8E03BD
This letter was printed on 30% postconsumer recycled paper.
Dear Palo Alto Resident:
Please help us shape the future of Palo Alto! Your household has been selected at random to participate
in the 2020 Palo Alto Community Survey.
Our annual Community Survey is a critical community engagement tool that helps the City Council and
City staff understand community needs and community priorities. During these uncertain times, the
survey is one way of many that we are connecting with residents.
Please take a few minutes to fill out the enclosed survey. Your participation in this survey is very
important –especially since your household is one of only a small number of households being surveyed.
The survey results are reviewed by the City Council and City staff and community input helps shape the
City’s decision-making processes and provide City services.
A few things to remember:
• Your responses are completely anonymous.
• In order to hear from a diverse group of residents, the adult 18 years or older in your household
who most recently had a birthday should complete this survey.
• You may return the survey by mail in the enclosed postage-paid envelope, or you can
complete the survey online at:
https://bit.ly/xxplaceholderxx
If you have any questions about the survey please call (650) 329-2392.
Thank you for your time and participation!
Sincerely,
Ed Shikada
City Manager
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4349E292-849D-469B-AB22-6624AF8E03BD
This letter was printed on 30% postconsumer recycled paper.
Dear Palo Alto Resident:
If you haven’t already responded to the 2020 Palo Alto Community Survey, please share your
feedback with us! (If you completed it and sent it back, thank you. Please do not respond
twice.)
Please help us shape the future of Palo Alto! Your household has been selected at random to participate
in the 2020 Palo Alto Community Survey.
Our annual Community Survey is a critical community engagement tool that helps the City Council and
City staff understand community needs and community priorities. During these uncertain times, the
survey is one way of many that we are connecting with residents.
Please take a few minutes to fill out the enclosed survey. Your participation in this survey is very
important –especially since your household is one of only a small number of households being surveyed.
The survey results are reviewed by the City Council and City staff and community input helps shape the
City’s decision-making processes and provide City services.
A few things to remember:
• Your responses are completely anonymous.
• In order to hear from a diverse group of residents, the adult 18 years or older in your household
who most recently had a birthday should complete this survey.
• You may return the survey by mail in the enclosed postage-paid envelope, or you can
complete the survey online at:
https://bit.ly/xxplaceholderxx
If you have any questions about the survey please call (650) 329-2667.
Thank you for your time and participation!
Sincerely,
Ed Shikada
City Manager
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4349E292-849D-469B-AB22-6624AF8E03BD
Dear Palo Alto Resident,
Your household has been randomly selected to participate in a survey about
our community. It won’t take much of your time to make a big difference!
Our annual Community Survey is a critical community engagement tool that
helps the City Council and City staff understand community needs and
community priorities. You can go online and complete the survey at:
https://bit.ly/xxplaceholderxx
Please do not share your survey link. This survey is for randomly selected
households only. The City will conduct a separate survey that is open to all
residents just a few weeks from now.
Thank you for your time and participation!
Sincerely,
Ed Shikada
City Manager
Dear Palo Alto Resident,
Your household has been randomly selected to participate in a survey about
our community. It won’t take much of your time to make a big difference!
Our annual Community Survey is a critical community engagement tool that
helps the City Council and City staff understand community needs and
community priorities. You can go online and complete the survey at:
https://bit.ly/xxplaceholderxx
Please do not share your survey link. This survey is for randomly selected
households only. The City will conduct a separate survey that is open to all
residents just a few weeks from now.
Thank you for your time and participation!
Sincerely,
Ed Shikada
City Manager
Dear Palo Alto Resident,
Your household has been randomly selected to participate in a survey about
our community. It won’t take much of your time to make a big difference!
Our annual Community Survey is a critical community engagement tool that
helps the City Council and City staff understand community needs and
community priorities. You can go online and complete the survey at:
https://bit.ly/xxplaceholderxx
Please do not share your survey link. This survey is for randomly selected
households only. The City will conduct a separate survey that is open to all
residents just a few weeks from now.
Thank you for your time and participation!
Sincerely,
Ed Shikada
City Manager
Dear Palo Alto Resident,
Your household has been randomly selected to participate in a survey about
our community. It won’t take much of your time to make a big difference!
Our annual Community Survey is a critical community engagement tool that
helps the City Council and City staff understand community needs and
community priorities. You can go online and complete the survey at:
https://bit.ly/xxplaceholderxx
Please do not share your survey link. This survey is for randomly selected
households only. The City will conduct a separate survey that is open to all
residents just a few weeks from now.
Thank you for your time and participation!
Sincerely,
Ed Shikada
City Manager
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4349E292-849D-469B-AB22-6624AF8E03BD
Presorted
First Class Mail
US Postage
PAID
Boulder, CO
Permit NO. 94
Presorted
First Class Mail
US Postage
PAID
Boulder, CO
Permit NO. 94
Presorted
First Class Mail
US Postage
PAID
Boulder, CO
Permit NO. 94
Presorted
First Class Mail
US Postage
PAID
Boulder, CO
Permit NO. 94
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4349E292-849D-469B-AB22-6624AF8E03BD
Dear Palo Alto Resident,
Just a reminder—your household has been randomly selected to participate in
a survey about our community. If you have not yet completed Palo Alto’s
2020 Community Survey, please do so. If you have completed it, thank you.
Please do not respond twice.
Your participation in this survey is very important—your input will help Palo
Alto City Council and City staff understand community needs and priorities as
we continue to provide services make decisions that affect our community.
Please complete the survey online at: https://bit.ly/xxplaceholderxx
Please do not share your survey link. This survey is for randomly selected
households only. The City will conduct a separate survey that is open to all
residents just a few weeks from now.
Thank you very much!
Sincerely,
Ed Shikada
City Manager
Dear Palo Alto Resident,
Just a reminder—your household has been randomly selected to participate in
a survey about our community. If you have not yet completed Palo Alto’s
2020 Community Survey, please do so. If you have completed it, thank you.
Please do not respond twice.
Your participation in this survey is very important—your input will help Palo
Alto City Council and City staff understand community needs and priorities as
we continue to provide services make decisions that affect our community.
Please complete the survey online at: https://bit.ly/xxplaceholderxx
Please do not share your survey link. This survey is for randomly selected
households only. The City will conduct a separate survey that is open to all
residents just a few weeks from now.
Thank you very much!
Sincerely,
Ed Shikada
City Manager
Dear Palo Alto Resident,
Just a reminder—your household has been randomly selected to participate in
a survey about our community. If you have not yet completed Palo Alto’s
2020 Community Survey, please do so. If you have completed it, thank you.
Please do not respond twice.
Your participation in this survey is very important—your input will help Palo
Alto City Council and City staff understand community needs and priorities as
we continue to provide services make decisions that affect our community.
Please complete the survey online at: https://bit.ly/xxplaceholderxx
Please do not share your survey link. This survey is for randomly selected
households only. The City will conduct a separate survey that is open to all
residents just a few weeks from now.
Thank you very much!
Sincerely,
Ed Shikada
City Manager
Dear Palo Alto Resident,
Just a reminder—your household has been randomly selected to participate in
a survey about our community. If you have not yet completed Palo Alto’s
2020 Community Survey, please do so. If you have completed it, thank you.
Please do not respond twice.
Your participation in this survey is very important—your input will help Palo
Alto City Council and City staff understand community needs and priorities as
we continue to provide services make decisions that affect our community.
Please complete the survey online at: https://bit.ly/xxplaceholderxx
Please do not share your survey link. This survey is for randomly selected
households only. The City will conduct a separate survey that is open to all
residents just a few weeks from now.
Thank you very much!
Sincerely,
Ed Shikada
City Manager
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4349E292-849D-469B-AB22-6624AF8E03BD
Presorted
First Class Mail
US Postage
PAID
Boulder, CO
Permit NO. 94
Presorted
First Class Mail
US Postage
PAID
Boulder, CO
Permit NO. 94
Presorted
First Class Mail
US Postage
PAID
Boulder, CO
Permit NO. 94
Presorted
First Class Mail
US Postage
PAID
Boulder, CO
Permit NO. 94
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4349E292-849D-469B-AB22-6624AF8E03BD
2020 Community Survey
Page 1 of 5
Please complete this survey if you are the adult (age 18 or older) in the household who most recently had a birthday (the
year of birth does not matter). Your responses are anonymous and will be reported in group form only.
1. Please rate each of the following aspects of quality of life in Palo Alto. Excellent Good Fair Poor Don’t know
Palo Alto as a place to live ................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
Your neighborhood as a place to live .................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
Palo Alto as a place to raise children..................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
Palo Alto as a place to work ................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5
Palo Alto as a place to visit .................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5
Palo Alto as a place to retire ................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5
The overall quality of life in Palo Alto .................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
2. Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Palo Alto as a whole.
Excellent Good Fair Poor Don’t know
Overall “built environment” of Palo Alto (including overall design,
buildings, parks and transportation systems) ..................................... 1 2 3 4 5
Overall feeling of safety in Palo Alto ..................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
Overall quality of natural environment in Palo Alto ................................ 1 2 3 4 5
Overall health and wellness opportunities in Palo Alto ........................... 1 2 3 4 5
Residents’ connection and engagement with their community ............... 1 2 3 4 5
3. Please indicate how likely or unlikely you are to do each of the following.
Very Somewhat Somewhat Very Don’t likely likely unlikely unlikely know
Recommend living in Palo Alto to someone who asks .............. 1 2 3 4 5
Remain in Palo Alto for the next five years .............................. 1 2 3 4 5
Recommend Palo Alto’s libraries to friends .............................. 1 2 3 4 5
4. Please rate the job you feel the Palo Alto community does at each of the following. Excellent Good Fair Poor Don’t know
Making all residents feel welcome ........................................................ 1 2 3 4 5
Attracting people from diverse backgrounds ......................................... 1 2 3 4 5
Valuing/respecting residents from diverse backgrounds ......................... 1 2 3 4 5
Taking care of vulnerable residents (elderly, disabled, homeless, etc.) ... 1 2 3 4 5
5. Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Palo Alto as a whole.
Excellent Good Fair Poor Don’t know
Overall quality of business and service establishments in Palo Alto ......... 1 2 3 4 5
Variety of business and service establishments in Palo Alto.................... 1 2 3 4 5
Vibrancy of downtown/commercial area ............................................... 1 2 3 4 5
Employment opportunities ................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
Shopping opportunities ........................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5
Cost of living in Palo Alto ..................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
Overall image or reputation of Palo Alto ............................................... 1 2 3 4 5
Traffic flow on major streets ................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5
Ease of public parking.......................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
Ease of travel by car in Palo Alto .......................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
Ease of travel by public transportation in Palo Alto ................................ 1 2 3 4 5
Ease of travel by bicycle in Palo Alto ..................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
Ease of walking in Palo Alto ................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5
Variety of housing options ................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
Availability of affordable quality housing ............................................... 1 2 3 4 5
Overall quality of new development in Palo Alto .................................... 1 2 3 4 5
Availability of paths and walking trails .................................................. 1 2 3 4 5
Fitness opportunities (including exercise classes and paths or trails, etc.) ... 1 2 3 4 5
Recreational opportunities ................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
Availability of affordable quality mental health care ............................... 1 2 3 4 5
Opportunities to attend cultural/arts/music activities ............................. 1 2 3 4 5
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4349E292-849D-469B-AB22-6624AF8E03BD
Page 2 of 5
6. Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Palo Alto as a whole.
Excellent Good Fair Poor Don’t know
Availability of affordable quality childcare/preschool .............................. 1 2 3 4 5
K-12 education .................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
Adult educational opportunities ............................................................ 1 2 3 4 5
Opportunities to participate in social events and activities...................... 1 2 3 4 5
Opportunities to participate in community matters ................................ 1 2 3 4 5
Openness and acceptance of the community toward people
of diverse backgrounds ..................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
Opportunities to learn about City services through social media
websites such as Twitter and Facebook ............................................. 1 2 3 4 5
7. Please indicate whether or not you have done each of the following in the last 12 months.
No Yes
Used Palo Alto recreation centers or their services ....................................................................... 1 2
Visited a neighborhood park or City park ..................................................................................... 1 2
Used Palo Alto public libraries or their services ............................................................................. 1 2
Participated in religious or spiritual activities in Palo Alto .............................................................. 1 2
Attended a City-sponsored event ................................................................................................. 1 2
Participated in a club .................................................................................................................. 1 2
Talked to or visited with your immediate neighbors ...................................................................... 1 2
Done a favor for a neighbor ........................................................................................................ 1 2
Used the City’s website to conduct business or pay bills ............................................................... 1 2
Used the Utilities website to conduct business or pay bills ............................................................ 1 2
Contacted the City of Palo Alto (in-person, phone, email or web) for help or information ............... 1 2
Contacted Palo Alto elected officials (in-person, phone, email or web) to express your opinion....... 1 2
Attended a local public meeting (of local elected officials like City Council or County
Commissioners, advisory boards, town halls, HOA, neighborhood watch, etc.) ......................... 1 2
Watched (online or on television) a local public meeting ............................................................... 1 2
Volunteered your time to some group/activity in Palo Alto ............................................................ 1 2
Voted in your most recent local election ...................................................................................... 1 2
Used bus, rail, or other public transportation instead of driving ..................................................... 1 2
Carpooled with other adults or children instead of driving alone.................................................... 1 2
Walked or biked instead of driving............................................................................................... 1 2
Observed a code violation or other hazard in Palo Alto (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc.) ............ 1 2
Household member was a victim of a crime in Palo Alto ............................................................... 1 2
Reported a crime to the police in Palo Alto................................................................................... 1 2
Stocked 14 days’ worth of supplies in case of a major disaster where you have no
electricity, water, internet, or telephone service ....................................................................... 1 2
8. Please rate the following categories of Palo Alto government performance.
Excellent Good Fair Poor Don’t know
The value of services for the taxes paid to Palo Alto .............................. 1 2 3 4 5
The overall direction that Palo Alto is taking.......................................... 1 2 3 4 5
The job Palo Alto government does at welcoming resident involvement . 1 2 3 4 5
Overall confidence in Palo Alto government .......................................... 1 2 3 4 5
Generally acting in the best interest of the community .......................... 1 2 3 4 5
Being honest ....................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
Being open and transparent to the public ............................................. 1 2 3 4 5
Informing residents about issues facing the community ......................... 1 2 3 4 5
Treating all residents fairly ................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
Treating residents with respect ............................................................ 1 2 3 4 5
9. Overall, how would you rate the quality of the services provided by each of the following?
Excellent Good Fair Poor Don’t know
The City of Palo Alto ............................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5
The State Government ......................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
The Federal Government ..................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4349E292-849D-469B-AB22-6624AF8E03BD
2020 Community Survey
Page 3 of 5
10. Please rate the quality of each of the following services in Palo Alto.
Excellent Good Fair Poor Don’t know
Traffic enforcement ................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
Traffic signal timing ................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
Street repair .............................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5
Street cleaning .......................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
Street tree maintenance ............................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5
Sidewalk maintenance ............................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
Land use, planning, and zoning .................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5
Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc.) ............................... 1 2 3 4 5
Preservation of natural areas (open space, farmlands and greenbelts) ......... 1 2 3 4 5
Building and planning application processing services .................................. 1 2 3 4 5
Affordable high-speed internet access ........................................................ 1 2 3 4 5
Electric utility ............................................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5
Gas utility.................................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5
Utility payment options .............................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5
Drinking water .......................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
Sewer services .......................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
Storm water management (storm drainage, dams, levees, etc.) ................. 1 2 3 4 5
Refuse collection (garbage, recycling, yard waste, and e-waste) .................. 1 2 3 4 5
Police services ........................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
Crime prevention ....................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
Animal control ........................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
Ambulance or emergency medical services ................................................. 1 2 3 4 5
Fire services .............................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5
Fire prevention and education .................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
Palo Alto open space ................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5
City parks.................................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5
Recreation programs or classes .................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5
Recreation centers or facilities .................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
Public library services (e.g., hold requests, storytimes, teen events, bookclubs) ... 1 2 3 4 5
Library facilities (buildings, computer equipment, accessibility) .................... 1 2 3 4 5
Variety of library materials (books, e-books, streaming, databases, audiobooks) .. 1 2 3 4 5
Art programs and theater........................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
City-sponsored special events .................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
City website (cityofpaloalto.org) ................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5
Public information services (Police/public safety) ......................................... 1 2 3 4 5
Public information services (non-Police/public safety) .................................. 1 2 3 4 5
Overall customer service by Palo Alto employees
(police, receptionists, planners, etc.) ...................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
11. Please rate the following as they relate to Palo Alto Utilities’ services:
Excellent Good Fair Poor Don’t know
Reliability of utility services ...................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
Affordability of utility services................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
Community value received from the City owning and operating its
own municipal utility services ................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5
Utilities online customer self-service features ............................................ 1 2 3 4 5
Providing opportunities for energy and water efficiency at home or business .. 1 2 3 4 5
Working hard to keep utilities prices competitive ....................................... 1 2 3 4 5
Value of all the services Palo Alto Utilities provides for the price you pay ...... 1 2 3 4 5
Ease of obtaining information or performing a transaction through the
City’s website ....................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
Value of Palo Alto Utilities’ customer communications ................................ 1 2 3 4 5
Ease of contacting Utilities department staff ............................................. 1 2 3 4 5
Speed of response after contacting Utilities department staff ..................... 1 2 3 4 5
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4349E292-849D-469B-AB22-6624AF8E03BD
Page 4 of 5
12. 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. Very Somewhat Not at all
Essential important important important
Overall “built environment” of Palo Alto (including overall design,
buildings, parks and transportation systems) ......................................... 1 2 3 4
Overall economic health of Palo Alto ......................................................... 1 2 3 4
Overall feeling of safety in Palo Alto ......................................................... 1 2 3 4
Overall quality of natural environment in Palo Alto .................................... 1 2 3 4
Overall health and wellness opportunities in Palo Alto ............................... 1 2 3 4
Overall opportunities for education, culture and the arts ........................... 1 2 3 4
Residents’ connection and engagement with their community ................... 1 2 3 4
Reducing community greenhouse gas emissions ....................................... 1 2 3 4
Increasing local solar generation capacity within city boundaries ............... 1 2 3 4
Increasing electric storage capacity within city boundaries......................... 1 2 3 4
Faster notification systems (online, mobile or email) for Utilities
billing issues, efficiency tips, outage information .................................... 1 2 3 4
Faster notification systems (online, mobile or email) for public safety issues .... 1 2 3 4
13. In a typical week, how likely are you to:
Very Somewhat Somewhat Very Don’t
likely likely unlikely unlikely know
Participate in organized group activities (such as clubs, sports
teams, volunteer your time, attend church/temple) .................. 1 2 3 4 5
Spend quality time with local friends, family, and/or neighbors .... 1 2 3 4 5
14. What mode of transportation do you use most for your typical daily needs for getting around
town?
Driving Biking Train Taxi Carpooling
Walking Bus Free shuttle Uber/Lyft or similar rideshare service
15. 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 Somewhat Somewhat Very
convenient convenient inconvenient inconvenient
Walking .................................................................................... 1 2 3 4
Biking ....................................................................................... 1 2 3 4
Bus ........................................................................................... 1 2 3 4
Train ......................................................................................... 1 2 3 4
Free shuttle ............................................................................... 1 2 3 4
Taxi .......................................................................................... 1 2 3 4
Uber/Lyft or similar rideshare service ......................................... 1 2 3 4
Carpooling ................................................................................ 1 2 3 4
16. If you plan to purchase a new car within the next two years, what is the likelihood of it being:
Very Somewhat Somewhat Very Don’t
likely likely unlikely unlikely know
Gas ........................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
Diesel ....................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
Natural gas ............................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
Hybrid ....................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
Plug-in hybrid ............................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5
Electric ...................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
Fuel cell .................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
17. As a resident of Palo Alto, what one change could the City make that would make you happier?
18. As a resident of Palo Alto, what one thing do you believe the City does well and would want to maintain?
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4349E292-849D-469B-AB22-6624AF8E03BD
2020 Community Survey
Page 5 of 5
Our last questions are about you and your household.
Again, all of your responses to this survey are completely anonymous and will be reported in group form only.
D1. 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:
Very positive Somewhat positive Neutral Somewhat negative Very negative
D2. What is your employment status?
Working full time for pay
Working part time for pay
Unemployed, looking for paid work
Unemployed, not looking for paid work
Fully retired
College student, unemployed
D3. Do you work inside the boundaries of Palo
Alto?
Yes, outside the home
Yes, from home
No
D4. How many years have you lived in Palo Alto?
Less than 2 years
2-5 years
6-10 years
11-20 years
More than 20 years
D5. Which best describes the building you live in?
One family house detached from any other
houses
Building with two or more homes (duplex,
townhome, apartment or condominium)
Mobile home
Other
D6. Do you rent or own your home?
Rent
Own
D7. 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)?
Less than $500 $5,500 to $5,999
$500 to $999 $6,000 to $6,499
$1,000 to $1,499 $6,500 to $6,999
$1,500 to $1,999 $7,000 to $7,499
$2,000 to $2,499 $7,500 to $7,999
$2,499 to $2,999 $8,000 to $8,499
$3,000 to $3,499 $8,500 to $8,999
$3,500 to $3,999 $9,000 to $9,499
$4,000 to $4,499 $9,500 to $9,999
$4,500 to $4,999 $10,000 or more
$5,000 to $5,499
D8. Do any children 17 or under live in your
household?
No Yes
D9. Are you or any other members of your
household aged 65 or older?
No Yes
D10. 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.)
Less than $25,000
$25,000 to $49,999
$50,000 to $99,999
$100,000 to $149,000
$150,000 to $199,999
$200,000 to $249,999
$250,000 to $299,999
$300,000 to $349,999
$350,000 to $399,999
$400,000 to $449,999
$450,000 to $499,999
$500,000 or more
D11. Are you Spanish, Hispanic or Latino?
No, not Spanish, Hispanic or Latino
Yes, I consider myself to be Spanish, Hispanic
or Latino
D12. What is your race? (Mark one or more races
to indicate what race you consider yourself
to be.)
❑ American Indian or Alaskan Native
❑ Asian, Asian Indian or Pacific Islander
❑ Black or African American
❑ White
❑ Other
D13. In which category is your age?
18-24 years 55-64 years
25-34 years 65-74 years
35-44 years 75 years or older
45-54 years
D14. What is your gender?
Female
Male
Identify in another way
Thank you! Please return the completed survey in the postage-paid envelope to:
National Research Center, Inc., PO Box 549, Belle Mead, NJ 08502
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4349E292-849D-469B-AB22-6624AF8E03BD
CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
May 17, 2021
The Honorable City Council
Attention: Finance Committee
Palo Alto, California
Approval of Action Minutes for the April 26 and May 3, 2021 City
Council Meetings
Staff is requesting Council review and approve the attached Action Minutes.
ATTACHMENTS:
• Attachment A: 04-26-21 CCM DRAFT Action Minutes (PDF)
• Attachment B: 05-03-21 CCM DRAFT Action Minutes (DOCX)
Department Head: Beth Minor, City Clerk
Page 2
CITY COUNCIL
DRAFT ACTION MINUTES
Page 1 of 7
Sp. City Council Meeting
Draft Action Minutes: 04/26/2021
Special Meeting
April 26, 2021
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in virtual
teleconference at 5:00 P.M.
Participating Remotely: Burt, Cormack, DuBois, Filseth, Kou, Stone, Tanaka
Absent:
Closed Session
1. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
City Designated Representatives: City Manager and his designees
Pursuant to Merit System Rules and Regulations (Ed Shikada,
Rumi Portillo, Molly Stump, Kiely Nose, Nick Raisch, Bob Jonsen,
Geo Blackshire, Dean Batchelor)
Employee Organizations: Service Employees International Union,
(SEIU) Local 521; Service Employees International Union, (SEIU) Local
521, Hourly Unit; Palo Alto Police Officers Association (PAPOA); Palo
Alto Fire Chiefs’ Association (FCA) and Employee Organization:
International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF), Local 1319; Palo Alto
Police Manager’s Association (PAPMA); Utilities Management and
Professional Association of Palo Alto (UMPAPA);
Authority: Government Code Section 54957.6(a).
MOTION: Council Member Cormack moved, seconded by Council Member
Stone to go into Closed Session.
MOTION PASSED: 7-0
Council went into Closed Session at 5:01 P.M.
Council returned from Closed Session at 6:30 P.M.
Mayor DuBois announced no reportable action.
Consent Calendar
Council Member Tanaka registered a no vote on Agenda Item Number 2.
DRAFT ACTION MINUTES
Page 2 of 7
Sp. City Council Meeting
Draft Action Minutes: 04/26/2021
MOTION: Council Member Cormack moved, seconded by Mayor DuBois to
approve Agenda Item Numbers 2-3.
2. Approval of Amendment Number 3 to Contract Number C18171057
With AECOM for Continued Services for the Connecting Palo Alto Rail
Grade Separation (PL-17001) Effort and to Increase Compensation by
$80,000 for a Total Not-to-Exceed Amount of $2,874,658.
3. Council Approval of Appointment of Terence Howzell as Chief Assistant
Attorney.
MOTION PASSED FOR AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 2: 6-1 Tanaka no
MOTION PASSED FOR AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 3: 7-0
Action Items
4. TEFRA HEARING: Regarding Conduit Financing for the Oshman Family
Jewish Community Center Located at 3921 Fabian Way; Approving the
Issuance of Revenue Obligations by the California Enterprise
Development Authority for the Purpose of Financing and Refinancing
the Cost of the Acquisition, Development, Construction, Installation,
Equipping, and Furnishing of Various Educational Facilities and Other
Matters Relating Thereto; and Adopting Resolution 9950 Entitled,
“Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving the
Deemed Reissuance of Certain Revenue Obligations of the California
Enterprise Development Authority in an Aggregate Principal Amount
Not-to-Exceed $37,800,000 for the Purpose of Refinancing the
Acquisition, Construction, Improvement, Furnishing and Equipping of a
Community Center for Oshman Family Jewish Community Center, and
Certain Other Matters Relating Thereto.”
Public Hearing opened at 6:54 P.M.
Public Hearing closed at 6:57 P.M.
MOTION: Mayor DuBois moved, seconded by Council Member Stone to
Adopt a Resolution approving the deemed reissuance of obligations by the
California Enterprise Development Authority (CEDA) for the benefit of
Oshman Family Jewish Community Center (Borrower).
MOTION PASSED: 7-0
5. Connecting Palo Alto Rail Grade Separation: Discuss Final Report and
Recommendations From the Expanded Community Advisory Panel
(XCAP); Removal of two Rail Grade Separation Alternatives From
DRAFT ACTION MINUTES
Page 3 of 7
Sp. City Council Meeting
Draft Action Minutes: 04/26/2021
Further Consideration; and Review of the Draft Work Plan (Continued
From March 23, 2021).
MOTION: Vice Mayor Burt moved, seconded by Council Member Kou to:
A. Eliminate the South Palo Alto Tunnel (Passenger and Freight) and
South Palo Alto Tunnel alternatives;
B. Direct Staff to return to Council with:
i. South Palo Alto Underpass:
a. Pursue design iterations of Underpass alternatives at
Charleston and East Meadow, including engaging an urban
designer;
b. Engage a City Manager appointed stakeholder group;
c. Additional evaluation of the trench alternative;
ii. Churchill Area Bike/Pedestrian:
a. Scoping plan for Alma/Seale and Alma/vicinity of Loma
Verde bike/pedestrian crossing, including an update on
Bike/Pedestrian Master Plan and how it relates to grade
separation plans;
b. Research the long-term viability of the Embarcadero Bridge
whether and when an eventual replacement may be
needed;
iii. Caltrain Issues:
a. In collaboration with other cities, engage with Caltrain on
new Engineering and Construction Standards and the 4-
track issue and open a dialogue with neighboring cities,
such as Menlo Park;
iv. Traffic:
a. Update Traffic Study and Provide an additional scope of
work to address issues raised by the Expanded Community
Advisory Panel (XCAP);
v. Geotechnical and Drainage:
DRAFT ACTION MINUTES
Page 4 of 7
Sp. City Council Meeting
Draft Action Minutes: 04/26/2021
a. Conduct preliminary geotechnical and drainage
investigations to evaluate alternatives in preparation for
the next phase;
vi. Outreach:
a. Work with the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD)
and related stakeholders to collaborate on designs
(modifications and return to Council with an update by
August 2021);
b. Fully engage with Stanford;
vii. An updated Work Plan and the anticipated timing for Council
review of alternatives;
viii. Plans for a Technical Advisory Committee;
C. Refer to the Rail Committee to:
i. Meet with Caltrain on technical issues and support a Local Policy
Maker Group Sub-Committee;
ii. Review and recommend updates to the Grade Separation
Criteria; and
iii. Review XCAP’s suggestions for safety mitigations along the
entire corridor and recommend further action.
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER to add to Motion, Part B.i.a, “…and mitigating
takings of private property to the greatest extent possible”.
MOTION AS AMENDED: Vice Mayor Burt moved, seconded by Council
Member Kou to:
A. Eliminate the South Palo Alto Tunnel (Passenger and Freight) and
South Palo Alto Tunnel alternatives;
B. Direct Staff to return to Council with:
i. South Palo Alto Underpass:
a. Pursue design iterations of Underpass alternatives at
Charleston and East Meadow, including engaging an urban
DRAFT ACTION MINUTES
Page 5 of 7
Sp. City Council Meeting
Draft Action Minutes: 04/26/2021
designer, and mitigating takings of private property to the
greatest extent possible;
b. Engage a City Manager appointed stakeholder group;
c. Additional evaluation of the trench alternative;
ii. Churchill Area Bike/Pedestrian:
a. Scoping plan for Alma/Seale and Alma/vicinity of Loma
Verde bike/pedestrian crossing, including an update on
Bike/Pedestrian Master Plan and how it relates to grade
separation plans;
b. Research the long-term viability of the Embarcadero Bridge
whether and when an eventual replacement may be
needed;
iii. Caltrain Issues:
a. In collaboration with other cities, engage with Caltrain on
new Engineering and Construction Standards and the 4-
track issue and open a dialogue with neighboring cities,
such as Menlo Park;
iv. Traffic:
a. Update Traffic Study and Provide an additional scope of
work to address issues raised by the Expanded Community
Advisory Panel (XCAP);
v. Geotechnical and Drainage:
a. Conduct preliminary geotechnical and drainage
investigations to evaluate alternatives in preparation for
the next phase;
vi. Outreach:
a. Work with the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD)
and related stakeholders to collaborate on designs
(modifications and return to Council with an update by
August 2021);
b. Fully engage with Stanford;
DRAFT ACTION MINUTES
Page 6 of 7
Sp. City Council Meeting
Draft Action Minutes: 04/26/2021
vii. An updated Work Plan and the anticipated timing for Council
review of alternatives;
viii. Plans for a Technical Advisory Committee;
C. Refer to the Rail Committee to:
i. Meet with Caltrain on technical issues and support a Local Policy
Maker Group Sub-Committee;
ii. Review and recommend updates to the Grade Separation
Criteria; and
iii. Review XCAP’s suggestions for safety mitigations along the
entire corridor and recommend further action.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Council Member Cormack moved, seconded by
Council Member Filseth to direct Staff to:
A. Eliminate the following alternatives from further consideration,
including South Palo Alto Tunnel (passenger and freight) and South
Palo Alto Tunnel (with at-grade freight);
B. Accept the Staff’s Proposed Grade Separation Work Plan and
Anticipated Timing;
i. Summer: Complete a detailed review of the Charleston/Meadow
alternatives still under consideration, then provide direction on
additional studies/next phase of the project;
ii. Fall: Complete a detailed review of the Churchill alternatives still
under consideration, then provide direction on additional
studies/next phase of the project;
iii. Fall/Winter: Council to reconvene the Rail Committee and
discuss financial considerations;
C. Refer to the Rail Committee to:
i. Work with Caltrain on political and technical issues; and
ii. Review and recommend updates to the Grade Separation
Criteria.
DRAFT ACTION MINUTES
Page 7 of 7
Sp. City Council Meeting
Draft Action Minutes: 04/26/2021
INCORPORATED INTO THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION WITH THE
CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Substitute
Motion, Part B, “…incorporating details from the Expanded Community
Advisory Panel (XCAP) report and feedback from Council tonight”.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION AS AMENDED: Council Member Cormack moved,
seconded by Council Member Filseth to direct Staff to:
A. Eliminate the following alternatives from further consideration,
including South Palo Alto Tunnel (passenger and freight) and South
Palo Alto Tunnel (with at-grade freight);
B. Accept the Staff’s Proposed Grade Separation Work Plan and
Anticipated Timing incorporating details from the Expanded
Community Advisory Panel (XCAP) report and feedback from Council
tonight;
i. Summer: Complete a detailed review of the Charleston/Meadow
alternatives still under consideration, then provide direction on
additional studies/next phase of the project;
ii. Fall: Complete a detailed review of the Churchill alternatives still
under consideration, then provide direction on additional
studies/next phase of the project;
iii. Fall/Winter: Council to reconvene the Rail Committee and
discuss financial considerations;
C. Refer to the Rail Committee to:
i. Work with Caltrain on political and technical issues; and
ii. Review and recommend updates to the Grade Separation
Criteria.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 6-1 Kou, no
Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 11:07 P.M. in recognition of
Jasmina Bojic, the Founder and Executive Director of UNAFF (United Nations
Association Film Festival), a longtime Stanford educator and film critic to join
the International Council for Film, Television and Audiovisual Communication
(ICFT) UNESCO based in Paris.
CITY COUNCIL
DRAFT ACTION MINUTES
Page 1 of 4
Special Meeting
May 3, 2021
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in virtual
teleconference at 5:01 P.M.
Participating Remotely: Burt, Cormack, DuBois, Filseth, Kou, Stone, Tanaka
Absent:
Special Orders of the Day
1. Resolution 9951 Entitled, “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo
Alto Expressing Appreciation to Margaret Zittle Upon Her Retirement.”
MOTION: Mayor DuBois moved, seconded by Council Member Cormack to
adopt a Resolution Expressing Appreciation to Margaret Zittle Upon Her
Retirement.
MOTION PASSED: 7-0
2. Resolution 9952 Entitled, “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo
Alto Expressing Appreciation to Phil Bobel Upon His Retirement.”
MOTION: Mayor DuBois moved, seconded by Council Member Filseth to
adopt a Resolution Expressing Appreciation to Phil Bobel Upon His Retirement.
MOTION PASSED: 7-0
Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions
None.
Minutes Approval
3. Approval of Action Minutes for the April 12, 2021 City Council Meeting.
MOTION: Mayor DuBois moved, seconded by Council Member Cormack to
approve the Action Minutes for the April 12, 2021 City Council Meeting.
MOTION PASSED: 7-0
DRAFT ACTION MINUTES
Page 2 of 4
Sp. City Council Meeting
Draft Action Minutes: 05/03/2021
Consent Calendar
MOTION: Vice Mayor Burt moved, seconded by Council Member Stone, third
by Council Member Tanaka to pull Agenda Item Number 8 to be heard at the
end of the meeting.
MOTION: Council Member Kou moved, seconded by Mayor DuBois to approve
Agenda Item Numbers 4-7, 9.
Council Member Tanaka registered a no vote on Agenda Item Numbers 6 and
9.
4. Approval of Amendment Number 3 to Contract Number C16162262 With
Biggs Cardosa Associates, Inc. to Extend the Term of the Contract
Through December 31, 2021, at no Added Cost to the City, for
Continued Construction Support Services for the Highway 101
Pedestrian/Bicycle Overpass Project (PE-11011).
5. Staff and the Utilities Advisory Commission Recommend the City Council
Approve the City's 10 Year Energy Efficiency Goals for 2022-2031.
6. Approval of Contract Number C21180722 With Brad Horak Consulting in
an Amount Not-to-Exceed $250,000 to Provide Wireless Consulting
Services in Support of Palo Alto Public Safety for a Five -year Term
Through April 11, 2026.
7. Adoption of an Updated Salary Schedule for Water, Gas, and
Wastewater Inspectors Represented by Service Employees International
Union (SEIU) 521 in Compliance With the Arbitration Award.
8. Review and Approve Fiscal Year 2021 Capital Project Budget Reductions
of $2.5 Million; and Approve a Budget Amendment in the Capital
Improvement Fund.
9. Request for Authorization to Amend the Existing Legal Service
Agreement With the Law Firm of Colantuono, Highsmith & Whatley, PC
(Contract S17167696) to Increase the Contract Amount by an Additional
$45,000, for a new Not-to-Exceed Amount of $385,000.
MOTION PASSED FOR AGENDA ITEM NUMBERS 4-5, 7: 7-0
MOTION PASSED FOR AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 6: 6-1 Tanaka no
MOTION PASSED FOR AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 9: 6-1 Tanaka no
Council took a break at 6:07 P.M. and returned at 6:16 P.M.
DRAFT ACTION MINUTES
Page 3 of 4
Sp. City Council Meeting
Draft Action Minutes: 05/03/2021
Action Items
10. Planning and Transportation Commission Recommend Review of two
Concept Plan Alternatives for Improvements to the Alma Street and
Churchill Avenue Intersection; and Direct Staff to Complete Final
Design Plans, Environmental Analysis, Specifications, and Estimates for
Construction for Alternative 2.
MOTION: Council Member Cormack moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Burt to
approve Concept Plan Alternative 2 as the preferred alternative for the near-
term safety improvements to the Alma Street and Churchill Avenue Railroad
Crossing; and direct Staff to complete final design plans, environmental
analysis, specifications, and estimates for construction.
MOTION FAILED: 3-4 Burt, Cormack, Stone yes
MOTION: Mayor DuBois moved, seconded by Council Member Kou to approve
Concept Plan Alternative 1 as the preferred alternative for the near-term
safety improvements to the Alma Street and Churchill Avenue Railroad
Crossing; and direct Staff to complete final design plans, environmental
analysis, specifications, and estimates for construction.
MOTION PASSED: 7-0
11. PUBLIC HEARING: Adoption of the Community Development Block
Grant (CDBG) Funds for the Fiscal Year (FY) 2021-22 Annual Action
Plan; and Resolution 9953 Entitled, “Resolution of the Council of the
City of Palo Alto Approving the use of CDBG Funds for FY 2021-22.”
Public Hearing opened at 7:56 P.M.
Public Hearing closed at 7:58 P.M.
MOTION: Mayor DuBois moved, seconded by Council Member Stone to:
A. Adopt the draft Fiscal Year 2021-22 Annual Action Plan and the
associated Resolution allocating Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) funding for Fiscal Year 2021-22;
B. Authorize the City Manager to execute the Fiscal Year 2021-2022 CDBG
application to fund the Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Annual Action Plan and
any other necessary documents concerning the application, and to
otherwise bind the City with respect to the applications and commitment
of funds; and
DRAFT ACTION MINUTES
Page 4 of 4
Sp. City Council Meeting
Draft Action Minutes: 05/03/2021
C. Authorize Staff to submit the Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Annual Action Plan
to HUD by the May 15, 2021 deadline.
MOTION PASSED: 7-0
Council took a break at 8:11 P.M. and returned at 8:23 P.M.
Study Session
12. Fiscal Year 2022 Proposed Budget Overview.
NO ACTION TAKEN
13. (Former Agenda Item Number 8) Review and Approve Fiscal Year 2021
Capital Project Budget Reductions of $2.5 Million; and Approve a Budget
Amendment in the Capital Improvement Fund.
MOTION: Council Member Filseth moved, seconded by Council Member
Cormack to approve the proposed additional $2.5 million reduction in Fiscal
Year 2021 capital project budget, and amend the Fiscal Year 2021 Budget
Appropriation for the Capital Improvement Fund (majority approval needed)
by:
A. Decreasing the Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Project (PE-13011) by
$2,000,000;
B. Decreasing the Street Maintenance Project (PE-86070) by $376,000;
C. Decreasing the Thermoplastic Striping Project (PO-11011) by $15,500;
D. Decreasing the Downtown Automated Parking Guidance Systems,
Access Controls & Revenue Collection Equip. Project (PL -15002) by
$150,000; and
E. Increasing the Ending Fund Balance by $2,541,500.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Vice Mayor Burt moved, seconded by Council
Member Stone to accept the Staff recommendation, except the
Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Project, which should proceed this year with
the bid accepted by Staff.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION FAILED: 3-4 Burt, Stone, Tanaka yes
MOTION PASSED: 4-3 Burt, Stone, Tanaka no
Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 11:14 P.M.
City of Palo Alto (ID # 11946)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 5/17/2021
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Council Priority: Transportation and Traffic
Summary Title: Approve Contract Amendment for Dixon Resources to Extend
Term
Title: Approval of Amendment Number 4 to Contract Number C18172676
With Dixon Resources to Extend the Term to June 2022 With no Additi onal
Costs for the Downtown Parking Study
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Transportation Department
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that Council approve Amendment #4 to Contract Number C18172676 with
Dixon Resources to extend the term to June 2022 with no additional costs or changes in scope.
Background:
In 2016 and 2017, Dixon Resources prepared detailed plans to implement paid parking after an
extensive internal and public process. This was considered by the Planning and Transportation
Commission (PTC) but did not move beyond PTC discussions at that time.
The original contract with Dixon can be seen in this staff report from June 25, 2018.
Amendment #4 can be seen in this staff report as Attachment A.
On May 13, 2019, the City Council accepted a report about the Residential Pref erential Parking
(RPP) Program from the Municipal Resource Group (MRG). The report contained 35
recommendations for the City to consider. Recommendation #2 stated that the City should do
the following:
Recommendation 2: Conduct Downtown Parking Operational Study – A contract
(amendment) should be approved that provides the information and specific steps
needed to move the City forward from a parking program built around a rigid system of
City of Palo Alto Page 2
pre-paid permits to a program built around the dynamic monitoring of usage and the
application of pricing. It would also provide a roadmap to build community support for
this effort. This contract is expected to be presented to the City Council in FY 2018 -19.
Based on MRG’s guidance, the Office of Transportation needed to fill two senior positions
before executing tasks to improve the City’s parking programs. Shortly after, the Chief
Transportation Official position was filled early Summer 2019 and a new Parking Manager was
hired in Spring 2020.
The prolonged recruitment process and the 2020-2021 impacts of the COVID pandemic led to
significant deliverable delays on Dixon’s scope of work. This current report brings forward a
contract amendment to advance the recommendations outlined in the agreement.
Discussion:
Through this contract amendment, the Palo Alto Parking Action Plan (“Action Plan”) is intended
to outline the recommended short, mid, and long-term implementation steps to establish an
effective and efficient parking program in Palo Alto’s commercial and residential parking
districts. The recommendations will take into consideration stakeholder feedback, budget and
costs, past data analysis, industry best practices, and the City’s overall goals and objectives.
Each recommendation will be organized by phase into the plan with a list of detailed
implementation steps. Many of the recommendations will have an immediate impact on
parking management and will establish the basis for future improvements.
The contract amendment aligns with the RPP parking recommendations from the MRG report.
Resource Impact:
This amendment will require no additional appropriation of funds as the amendment only
extends the term of the contract to June 2022 without changes to the contract scope or
contract amount.
Sufficient funding for these expenses was included as part of the FY 2 021 Adopted Operating
Budget. Services will be provided to various parking districts in Palo Alto; therefore, the costs
are proportionally split between the University Avenue Parking Permit Fund, California Avenue
Parking Permit Fund, and Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Program Funds.
Any additional funding required in subsequent years is subject to City Council approval of future
budgets.
Environmental Review:
The contract as amended would provide consultant support to staff and does not constit ute a
“project” requiring review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
City of Palo Alto Page 3
Attachments:
Attachment A: C18172676_Dixon contract_Amendment 4 (PDF)
City of Palo Alto Contract C18172676
Form Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019 Amendment No. 4
Page 1 of 4
AMENDMENT NO. 4 TO CONTRACT NO. C18172676
BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND
DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED
This Amendment No. 4 (this “Amendment”) to Contract No. C18172676 (the “Contract” as
defined below) is entered into as of May 17, 2021, by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a
California chartered municipal corporation (“CITY”), and DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED, a
California corporation, located at 3639 Midway Drive, Suite B345, San Diego, CA 92110
(“CONTRACTOR”). CITY and CONTRACTOR are referred to collectively as the “Parties” in this
Amendment.
R E C I T A L S
A. The Contract (as defined below) was entered into by and between the Parties hereto
for the provision of support services for the Office of Transportation, as detailed therein.
B. The Parties now wish to amend the Contract to extend the term of contract by
twelve months, from the original end date of June 30, 2021 through June 30, 2022, for the
continued provision of services described in Exhibit A to the Contract, with no change to the
maximum compensation payable under the Contract.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants, terms, conditions, and provisions of
this Amendment, the Parties agree:
SECTION 1. Definitions. The following definitions shall apply to this Amendment:
a. Contract. The term “Contract” shall mean Contract No. C18172676
between CONSULTANT and CITY, dated July 1, 2018, as amended by:
Amendment No.1, dated March 25, 2019
Amendment No.2, dated October 28, 2019
Amendment No.3, dated June 15, 2020
b. Other Terms. Capitalized terms used and not defined in this Amendment
shall have the meanings assigned to such terms in the Contract.
SECTION 2. Section 2 of the Contract is hereby amended to read as follows:
“SECTION 2. TERM.
The term of this Agreement shall be from the date of its full execution through June 30,
2022, unless terminated earlier pursuant to Section 19 or Section 25 of this Agreement.”
DocuSign Envelope ID: EC10AC8E-C9B7-4F77-9307-162E13414DBF
City of Palo Alto Contract C18172676
Form Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019 Amendment No. 4
Page 2 of 4
SECTION 3. The following exhibit(s) to the Contract is/are hereby amended or added, as
indicated below, to read as set forth in the attachment(s) to this Amendment, which is/are hereby
incorporated in full into this Amendment and into the Contract by this reference:
a. Exhibit “C” entitled “Compensation”, AMENDED, REPLACES PREVIOUS.
SECTION 4. Legal Effect. Except as modified by this Amendment, all other provisions of the
Contract, including any exhibits thereto, shall remain in full force and effect.
SECTION 5. Incorporation of Recitals. The recitals set forth above are terms of this
Amendment and are fully incorporated herein by this reference.
(SIGNATURE BLOCK FOLLOWS ON THE NEXT PAGE.)
DocuSign Envelope ID: EC10AC8E-C9B7-4F77-9307-162E13414DBF
City of Palo Alto Contract C18172676
Form Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019 Amendment No. 4
Page 3 of 4
SIGNATURES OF THE PARTIES
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have by their duly authorized representatives executed
this Amendment effective as of the date first above written.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney or designee
DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED
Officer 1
By:
Name:
Title:
Attachments:
EXHIBIT C: Compensation
DocuSign Envelope ID: EC10AC8E-C9B7-4F77-9307-162E13414DBF
President
Julianne Dixon
City of Palo Alto Contract C18172676
Form Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019 Amendment No. 4
Page 4 of 4
EXHIBIT C
COMPENSATION
(AS AMENDED, REPLACES PREVIOUS)
Budget Breakdown – Total Contract Compensation
Contract Year Dates Funds
Encumbered
Funds Spent Funds Remaining
1 7/1/2018 to
6/30/2019
$285,126.00 $84,493.02 $200,142.98
2 7/1/2019 to
6/30/2020
$0.00 $41,317.95 $158,825.03
3 to-date 7/1/2020 to
3/1/2021
$0.00 $32,353.75 $126,961.28
4 3/2/2021 to
6/30/2022
$0.00 TBD TBD
TOTAL $285,126.00
$158,674.72 $126,961.28
DocuSign Envelope ID: EC10AC8E-C9B7-4F77-9307-162E13414DBF
City of Palo Alto (ID # 12082)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 5/17/2021
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: 5 -Year Support and Maintenance Contract for Utilities Design
and Asset Management System
Title: Approval of a Professional Services Agreement With CAD Masters, Inc.
for Ongoing Support, Maintenance, Development, and Enhancement of the
Geospatial Design and Asset Management System for the Utilities
Department in an Amount of $390,000 per Year, for a Total Not -to-Exceed
Amount of $1,950,000 for up to Five Years
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Utilities
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council approve and authorize the City Manager or designee to
execute an exemption and a 5-year professional services agreement with CAD Masters, Inc. in
the amount not to exceed $1,950,000. The contract (C21181846) covers on-going support,
maintenance, development, and enhancement services as needed for the Utilities
Department’s geospatial design and asset management system.
Executive Summary
The current 5-year professional services agreement with CAD Masters, Inc. (CMI) will expire on
June 30, 2021; therefore, a new contract (C21181846) is needed to provide continuous support
of the City of Palo Alto Utilities (CPAU) Department’s GIS database, and the required
professional services to expand and enhance existing applications or develop new functionality
upon request. The CPAU GIS database supports electric, water, gas, wastewater collection,
fiber optic, traffic signal, and streetlight design and infrastructure. Over the past 12 years,
significant development that has occurred to produce a robust and high functioning system that
the Utilities Department uses on a daily basis.
In accordance with Section 2.30.360 of the City’s Municipal Code, t he City Council has the
authority to grant an exemption from the City’s competitive solicitation requirements as
warranted. Over the past decade, CMI has developed software which has resulted in
customization and system integration with other critical utility-specific applications. Therefore,
a solicitation is impracticable and expected to yield no operational or financial advantage for
CITY OF
PALO
ALTO
City of Palo Alto Page 2
the City. CMI was chosen competitively via a request for proposal in 2009. Bringing in a new
service provider to support the current GIS system or replacing it with a new platform will
require significant time and financial resources. Approval of the exemption from competitive
solicitation and renewal of the contract (C21181846) will allow the City to retain CAD Masters,
Inc.’s knowledge and experience for the next five years. Prior to the sunset of this period, staff
will complete an evaluation of the system and professional service provider s prior to any
additional extension of services.
Background
In 2009 the Utilities Department selected CAD Masters, Inc. via a competitive process to
provide a geospatial design and data management system to collect, edit, and process utility
infrastructure data, and for use as a design and drafting tool. Three service providers proposed
several GIS solutions and products. At the time the City’s GIS master plan identified a
preference for using AutoCAD-based systems to leverage staff’s familiarity with the product.
Staff reviewed the proposals and selected an AutoCAD-based solution provided by CAD
Masters, Inc. (CMI) using Autodesk’s Topobase Client software.
Under Contract C10132135, executed in 2009 (Staff Report ID# 391-09), CMI developed
geographic information system (GIS) data models for electric, fiber, water, gas, wastewater,
traffic signals, and streetlights. These GIS data models are used daily by Utilities Engineering
and Operations staff for Underground Service Alert (USA) marking and locating, as well as
design and construction of capital improvement projects. The utility data is also linked to other
software and applications to schedule and document operations and maintenance activities.
Since the Utilities GIS solution was implemented in 2011, City Council has approved two 5-year
contracts (C10132135 in 2011 and C16164375 in 2016) with CMI for on-going support and
maintenance, further development, and enhancement services of the Utilities GIS database and
applications.
In 2012, Autodesk consolidated Topobase Client with AutoCAD Map 3D, to form AutoCAD
Map3D Enterprise (AME) for customers like CPAU who use Oracle to store and manage industry
models. AME is a separate system and runs independently of the City’s Enterprise GIS. Over the
past 12 years, the vendor has customized AME software which incorporated many functions
the Utilities Department performs that require the merging of utility infrastructure data in the
Utility GIS database.
The Council approved the modernization of a City-wide Esri ArcGIS platform in May, 2020 (Staff
Report 10413). However, for the time being Engineering staff for the Water, Gas and
Wastewater (WGW) Utilities will continue to use the AME database because it is the best tool
for WGW engineering staff to prepare in-house design drawings. CPAU will utilize Esri-
compatible software with the current AME database for maintenance asset management and
engineering analysis. In addition to maintaining and enhancing the existing system, CMI will
create data models and reports in the ArcGIS platform. CMI will generate automated data
transformation processes to convert GIS data to different formats.
City of Palo Alto Page 3
As the IT Department moves forward with the GIS modernization project, CMI can provide
services as needed to create ArcGIS workflows, business rules, maps, analysis, data updates,
and reports pertaining to Utilities infrastructure data.
Discussion
Bringing in a new service provider to support the current GIS system or replacing it with a new
platform will require significant resources both time and financially. At this time, the necessary
resources are not available to effectively complete a new solicitation and potential
implementation of a new system or onboarding of new professional expertise. In accordance
with Section 2.30.360 of the City’s Municipal Code, the City has the authority to grant an
exemption from the City’s competitive solicitation requirements as warranted; because
solicitations of proposals for these services would be impracticable and unavailing, and produce
no operational or financial advantage for the City. Staff is therefore recommending Council
approve this contract with CAD Masters, Inc. Approval to renew the contract will allow CPAU to
retain CMI’s knowledge and experience for up to the next five years.
The current 5-year contract under C16164375 with CMI will end on June 30th, 2021. A new 5-
year contract extension for FY2022 to FY2027 is necessary to renew their professional services,
as long as funds are appropriated in the budget, the consultant is responsive to the contract
requirements, and the quality of the work is acceptable during each year of the contract. CMI
will troubleshoot problems, provide solutions and repairs, enhance existing databases, expand
current applications’ functionalities, and develop other applications on an as-needed basis
upon the City’s requests. The City Manager may suspend the performance of the services, in
whole or in part, or terminate the contract, with or without cause, by giving ten (10) days prior
written notice thereof to CMI. Upon receipt of such notice, CMI must immediately discontinue
its performance of the services.
Alternatively, staff could begin a formal solicitation process to seek a new solution or another
consultant to support the current platform. However, this will impact the existing system in the
short term as current services will terminate prior to completion of this work and would require
additional resources both staff and contractual services, making it less cost effective. CMI's
hourly rates are in line with industry average rates in addition to over a decade of institutional
knowledge of the software and the Utilities Department’s business to perform work efficiently.
It is also critical to maintain the continuity to avoid down t ime or disruption to the database or
applications related to mapping, updating, and marking and locating activities.
Prior to the sunset of this amended contract period, staff will complete an evaluation of the
system and professional services provider prior to any additional extension of services.
Resource Impact
Funds for the first fiscal year of this contract are available under WS -02014 (Water, Gas,
Wastewater Utility GIS Data), EL-02011 (Electric Utility GIS), and FO-10001 (Fiber Optic
City of Palo Alto Page 4
Network). Funding for subsequent years is subject to annual budget approval by Council for the
various CIPs.
The funding allocation for the proposed 5-year agreement is as follows:
Funding Source Funding Type Annual Expense 5-Year
Total Contract
WS-02014 Water, Gas, Wastewater
Utility GIS Data
$240,000
($80,000 x 3 Utilities)
$1,200,000
EL-02011 Electric Utility GIS $100,000 $500,000
FO-10001 Fiber Optic Network $50,000 $250,000
Total $390,000 $1,950,000
The previous 5-year agreement included an annual not-to-exceed amount of $500,000 for five
Utilities (or $100,000 per Utility per year). The proposed annual not-to-exceed amount of
$390,000 is less than the previous contract because there is less work anticipated for WGW and
fiber Utilities. The current WGW AME applications are matured, therefore the proposed
amount was reduced from $100,000 to $80,000 per Utility per year. WGW will continue to use
CMI’s services to support the WGW AME GIS database, maintain synchronization with the City-
wide GIS, troubleshoot issues, improve functionalities, and customize upcoming new solutions
using Esri product/platform. For the Fiber GIS database, the proposed amount was reduced
from $100,000 to $50,000 per year based on previous usage. The Electric Utility is migrating
their engineering design and GIS applications to an Esri platform and CMI will be heavily
involved with the migration process; therefore, there is no change to the Electric funding.
This contract is on the City’s professional services template, which permits the City to terminate
without cause/for convenience by providing written notice to the contractor. In the event the
City finds itself facing a challenging budget situation, and it is determined that City resources
need to be refocused elsewhere, the City can terminate for convenience. Other options include
termination due to non-appropriation of funds or amending the contract to reduce the cost, for
example, by reducing the scope of work. The contract may also be temporarily suspended by
written notice of the City Manager.
Policy Implications
This recommendation is consistent with the Council-approved Utilities Strategic Plan 2018:
Priority 2, Collaboration, Strategy 2, Action 1: Enhance current coordination of scheduling,
synchronization and communication of capital improvements, maintenance, operations
projects and other Utilities programs with other departments to improve implementation and
efficiency; Priority 3, Technology, Strategy 4, Action 4: Integrate with new GIS(ESRI) to ensure
accurate infrastructure information for customer service and infrastructure improvements;
Priority 3, Technology, Strategy 5, Action 2: Implement continuous education and evaluation of
new technology applications and related utility trends to ensure CAPU maintains an effective,
competitive and optimal use of technology applications.
City of Palo Alto Page 5
Stakeholder Engagement
Utilities reached out to the IT Department to confirm that this project does not conflict with the
newly developed ArcGIS Enterprise System and the two departments will continue to
coordinate the data synchronization and support each other’s system. No public engagement
was deemed necessary.
Environmental Review
Council’s approval of this contract for database development and maintenance does not meet
the definition of a “project” under California Public Resources Code Section 21065, thus
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review is not required.
Attachments:
• Attachment A: C21181846
CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO. C21181846
AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND CAD MASTERS, INC.
This Agreement for Professional Services (this “Agreement”) is entered into as of the 1st day of July,
2021 (the “Effective Date”), by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered
municipal corporation (“CITY”), and CAD MASTERS, INC., a California corporation, located at
201 North Civic Drive, Suite 182, Walnut Creek, CA 94596 (“CONSULTANT”).
The following recitals are a substantive portion of this Agreement and are fully incorporated herein
by this reference:
RECITALS
A. CITY intends to develop, support, and maintain the City’s Enterprise Geographical
Information System (GIS) asset management database (the “Project”) and desires to engage a
consultant to provide these services in connection with the Project (the “Services”, as detailed more
fully in Exhibit A).
B. CONSULTANT represents that it, its employees and subconsultants, if any, possess the
necessary professional expertise, qualifications, and capability, and all required licenses and/or
certifications to provide the Services.
C. CITY, in reliance on these representations, desires to engage CONSULTANT to provide the
Services as more fully described in Exhibit A, entitled “SCOPE OF SERVICES”.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the recitals, covenants, terms, and conditions, in this
Agreement, the parties agree as follows:
SECTION 1. SCOPE OF SERVICES. CONSULTANT shall perform the Services described in
Exhibit A in accordance with the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement. The performance
of all Services shall be to the reasonable satisfaction of CITY.
SECTION 2. TERM.
The term of this Agreement shall be from the date of its full execution through June 30, 2026 unless
terminated earlier pursuant to Section 19 (Termination) of this Agreement.
SECTION 3. SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE. Time is of the essence in the performance of
Services under this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall complete the Services within the term of this
Agreement and in accordance with the schedule set forth in Exhibit B, entitled “SCHEDULE OF
PERFORMANCE”. Any Services for which times for performance are not specified in this
Agreement shall be commenced and completed by CONSULTANT in a reasonably prompt and
timely manner based upon the circumstances and direction communicated to the CONSULTANT.
CITY’s agreement to extend the term or the schedule for performance shall not preclude recovery of
damages for delay if the extension is required due to the fault of CONSULTANT.
SECTION 4. NOT TO EXCEED COMPENSATION. The compensation to be paid to
CONSULTANT for performance of the Services shall be based on the compensation structure
DocuSign Envelope ID: B45A2530-DABF-4182-9728-CEEA1EF7C957
detailed in Exhibit C, entitled “COMPENSATION,” including any reimbursable expenses specified
therein, and the maximum total compensation shall not exceed One Million Nine Hundred Fifty
Thousand Dollars ($1,950,000). The hourly schedule of rates, if applicable, is set out in Exhibit C-
1, entitled “SCHEDULE OF RATES.” Any work performed or expenses incurred for which payment
would result in a total exceeding the maximum compensation set forth in this Section 4 shall be at no
cost to the CITY.
SECTION 5. INVOICES. In order to request payment, CONSULTANT shall submit monthly
invoices to the CITY describing the Services performed and the applicable charges (including, if
applicable, an identification of personnel who performed the Services, hours worked, hourly rates,
and reimbursable expenses), based upon Exhibit C or, as applicable, CONSULTANT’s schedule of
rates set forth in Exhibit C-1. If applicable, the invoice shall also describe the percentage of
completion of each task. The information in CONSULTANT’s invoices shall be subject to
verification by CITY. CONSULTANT shall send all invoices to CITY’s Project Manager at the
address specified in Section 13 (Project Management) below. CITY will generally process and pay
invoices within thirty (30) days of receipt of an acceptable invoice.
SECTION 6. QUALIFICATIONS/STANDARD OF CARE. All Services shall be performed by
CONSULTANT or under CONSULTANT’s supervision. CONSULTANT represents that it, its
employees and subcontractors, if any, possess the professional and technical personnel necessary to
perform the Services required by this Agreement and that the personnel have sufficient skill and
experience to perform the Services assigned to them. CONSULTANT represents that it, its employees
and subcontractors, if any, have and shall maintain during the term of this Agreement all licenses,
permits, qualifications, insurance and approvals of whatever nature that are legally required to
perform the Services. All Services to be furnished by CONSULTANT under this Agreement shall
meet the professional standard and quality that prevail among professionals in the same discipline
and of similar knowledge and skill engaged in related work throughout California under the same or
similar circumstances.
SECTION 7. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS. CONSULTANT shall keep itself informed of and
in compliance with all federal, state and local laws, ordinances, regulations, and orders that may affect
in any manner the Project or the performance of the Services or those engaged to perform Services
under this Agreement, as amended from time to time. CONSULTANT shall procure all permits and
licenses, pay all charges and fees, and give all notices required by law in the performance of the
Services.
SECTION 8. ERRORS/OMISSIONS. CONSULTANT is solely responsible for costs, including,
but not limited to, increases in the cost of Services, arising from or caused by CONSULTANT’s
errors and omissions, including, but not limited to, the costs of corrections such errors and omissions,
any change order markup costs, or costs arising from delay caused by the errors and omissions or
unreasonable delay in correcting the errors and omissions.
SECTION 9. COST ESTIMATES. If this Agreement pertains to the design of a public works
project, CONSULTANT shall submit estimates of probable construction costs at each phase of design
submittal. If the total estimated construction cost at any submittal exceeds the CITY’s stated
construction budget by ten percent (10%) or more, CONSULTANT shall make recommendations to
CITY for aligning the Project design with the budget, incorporate CITY approved recommendations,
and revise the design to meet the Project budget, at no additional cost to CITY.
SECTION 10. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. CONSULTANT acknowledges and agrees
DocuSign Envelope ID: B45A2530-DABF-4182-9728-CEEA1EF7C957
that CONSULTANT and any agent or employee of CONSULTANT will act as and shall be deemed
at all times to be an independent contractor and shall be wholly responsible for the manner in which
CONSULTANT performs the Services requested by CITY under this Agreement. CONSULTANT
and any agent or employee of CONSULTANT will not have employee status with CITY, nor be
entitled to participate in any plans, arrangements, or distributions by CITY pertaining to or in
connection with any retirement, health or other benefits that CITY may offer its employees.
CONSULTANT will be responsible for all obligations and payments, whether imposed by federal,
state or local law, including, but not limited to, FICA, income tax withholdings, workers’
compensation, unemployment compensation, insurance, and other similar responsibilities related to
CONSULTANT’s performance of the Services, or any agent or employee of CONSULTANT
providing same. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed as creating an employment or agency
relationship between CIT Y and CONSULTANT or any agent or employee of CONSULTANT. Any
terms in this Agreement referring to direction from CITY shall be construed as providing for direction
as to policy and the result of CONSULTANT’s provision of the Services only, and not as to the means
by which such a result is obtained.
SECTION 11. ASSIGNMENT. The parties agree that the expertise and experience of
CONSULTANT are material considerations for this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall not assign or
transfer any interest in this Agreement nor the performance of any of CONSULTANT’s obligations
hereunder without the prior written approval of the City Manager. Any purported assignment made
without the prior written approval of the City Manager will be void and without effect. Subject to the
foregoing, the covenants, terms, conditions and provisions of this Agreement will apply to, and will
bind, the heirs, successors, executors, administrators and assignees of the parties.
SECTION 12. SUBCONTRACTING.
CONSULTANT shall not subcontract any portion of the Services to be performed under this
Agreement without the prior written authorization of the City Manager or designee. In the event
CONSULTANT does subcontract any portion of the work to be performed under this Agreement,
CONSULTANT shall be fully responsible for all acts and omissions of subcontractors.
SECTION 13. PROJECT MANAGEMENT. CONSULTANT will assign Drew Burgasser as the
CONSULTANT’s Project Manager to have supervisory responsibility for the performance, progress,
and execution of the Services and represent CONSULTANT during the day-to-day performance of
the Services. If circumstances cause the substitution of the CONSULTANT’s Project Manager or any
other of CONSULTANT’s key personnel for any reason, the appointment of a substitute Project
Manager and the assignment of any key new or replacement personnel will be subject to the prior
written approval of the CITY’s Project Manager. CONSULTANT, at CITY’s request, shall promptly
remove CONSULTANT personnel who CITY finds do not perform the Services in an acceptable
manner, are uncooperative, or present a threat to the adequate or timely completion of the Services or
a threat to the safety of persons or property.
CITY ’s Project Manager is Tuan Nguyen, Utilities Department, Engineering Division, 1007 Elwell
Court, Palo Alto, CA, 94303, Telephone: (650) 566-4547. CITY’s Project Manager will be
CONSULTANT’s point of contact with respect to performance, progress and execution of the
Services. CITY may designate an alternate Project Manager from time to time.
SECTION 14. OWNERSHIP OF MATERIALS. All work product, including without limitation,
all writings, drawings, studies, sketches, photographs, plans, reports, specifications, computations,
models, recordings, data, documents, and other materials and copyright interests developed under this
Agreement, in any form or media, shall be and remain the exclusive property of CITY without
DocuSign Envelope ID: B45A2530-DABF-4182-9728-CEEA1EF7C957
restriction or limitation upon their use. CONSULTANT agrees that all copyrights which arise from
creation of the work product pursuant to this Agreement are vested in CITY, and CONSULTANT
hereby waives and relinquishes all claims to copyright or other intellectual property rights in favor of
CITY. Neither CONSULTANT nor its subcontractors, if any, shall make any of such work product
available to any individual or organization without the prior written approval of the City Manager or
designee. CONSULTANT makes no representation of the suitability of the work product for use in
or application to circumstances not contemplated by the Scope of Services.
SECTION 15. AUDITS. CONSULTANT agrees to permit CITY and its authorized representatives
to audit, at any reasonable time during the term of this Agreement and for four (4) years from the date
of final payment, CONSULTANT’s records pertaining to matters covered by this Agreement,
including without limitation records demonstrating compliance with the requirements of Section 10
(Independent Contractor). CONSULTANT further agrees to maintain and retain accurate books and
records in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles for at least four (4) years after
the expiration or earlier termination of this Agreement or the completion of any audit hereunder,
whichever is later.
SECTION 16. INDEMNITY.
16.1 To the fullest extent permitted by law, CONSULTANT shall indemnify, defend
and hold harmless CITY, its Council members, officers, employees and agents (each an “Indemnified
Party”) from and against any and all demands, claims, or liability of any nature, including death or
injury to any person, property damage or any other loss, including all costs and expenses of whatever
nature including attorney’s fees, experts fees, court costs and disbursements (“Claims”) resulting
from, arising out of or in any manner related to performance or nonperformance by CONSULTANT,
its officers, employees, agents or contractors under this Agreement, regardless of whether or not it is
caused in part by an Indemnified Party.
16.2. Notwithstanding the above, nothing in this Section 16 shall be construed to
require CONSULTANT to indemnify an Indemnified Party from a Claim arising from the active
negligence or willful misconduct of an Indemnified Party that is not contributed to by any act of, or
by any omission to perform a duty imposed by law or agreement by, CONSULTANT, its officers,
employees, agents or contractors under this Agreement.
16.3. The acceptance of CONSULTANT’s Services and duties by CITY shall not
operate as a waiver of the right of indemnification. The provisions of this Section 16 shall survive the
expiration or early termination of this Agreement.
SECTION 17. WAIVERS. No waiver of a condition or nonperformance of an obligation under this
Agreement is effective unless it is in writing in accordance with Section 28.4 of this Agreement. No
delay or failure to require performance of any provision of this Agreement shall constitute a waiver
of that provision as to that or any other instance. Any waiver granted shall apply solely to the specific
instance expressly stated. No single or partial exercise of any right or remedy will preclude any other
or further exercise of any right or remedy.
SECTION 18. INSURANCE.
18.1. CONSULTANT, at its sole cost and expense, shall obtain and maintain, in full
force and effect during the term of this Agreement, the insurance coverage described in Exhibit D,
entitled “INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS”. CONSULTANT and its contractors, if any, shall obtain
DocuSign Envelope ID: B45A2530-DABF-4182-9728-CEEA1EF7C957
a policy endorsement naming CITY as an additional insured under any general liability or automobile
policy or policies.
18.2. All insurance coverage required hereunder shall be provided through carriers
with AM Best’s Key Rating Guide ratings of A-:VII or higher which are licensed or authorized to
transact insurance business in the State of California. Any and all contractors of CONSULTANT
retained to perform Services under this Agreement will obtain and maintain, in full force and effect
during the term of this Agreement, identical insurance coverage, naming CITY as an additional
insured under such policies as required above.
18.3. Certificates evidencing such insurance shall be filed with CITY concurrently
with the execution of this Agreement. The certificates will be subject to the approval of CITY’s Risk
Manager and will contain an endorsement stating that the insurance is primary coverage and will not
be canceled, or materially reduced in coverage or limits, by the insurer except after filing with the
Purchasing Manager thirty (30) days’ prior written notice of the cancellation or modification. If the
insurer cancels or modifies the insurance and provides less than thirty (30) days’ notice to
CONSULTANT, CONSULTANT shall provide the Purchasing Manager written notice of the
cancellation or modification within two (2) business days of the CONSULTANT’s receipt of such
notice. CONSULTANT shall be responsible for ensuring that current certificates evidencing the
insurance are provided to CITY’s Chief Procurement Officer during the entire term of this Agreement.
18.4. The procuring of such required policy or policies of insurance will not be
construed to limit CONSULTANT’s liability hereunder nor to fulfill the indemnification provisions
of this Agreement. Notwithstanding the policy or policies of insurance, CONSULTANT will be
obligated for the full and total amount of any damage, injury, or loss caused by or directly arising as
a result of the Services performed under this Agreement, including such damage, injury, or loss
arising after the Agreement is terminated or the term has expired.
SECTION 19. TERMINATION OR SUSPENSION OF AGREEMENT OR SERVICES.
19.1. The City Manager may suspend the performance of the Services, in whole or
in part, or terminate this Agreement, with or without cause, by giving ten (10) days prior written
notice thereof to CONSULTANT. If CONSULTANT fails to perform any of its material obligations
under this Agreement, in addition to all other remedies provided under this Agreement or at law, the
City Manager may terminate this Agreement sooner upon written notice of termination. Upon receipt
of any notice of suspension or termination, CONSULTANT will discontinue its performance of the
Services on the effective date in the notice of suspension or termination.
19.2. In event of suspension or termination, CONSULTANT will deliver to the City
Manager on or before the effective date in the notice of suspension or termination, any and all work
product, as detailed in Section 14 (Ownership of Materials), whether or not completed, prepared by
CONSULTANT or its contractors, if any, in the performance of this Agreement. Such work product
is the property of CITY, as detailed in Section 14 (Ownership of Materials).
19.3. In event of suspension or termination, CONSULTANT will be paid for the
Services rendered and work products delivered to CITY in accordance with the Scope of Services up
to the effective date in the notice of suspension or termination; provided, however, if this Agreement
is suspended or terminated on account of a default by CONSULTANT, CITY will be obligated to
compensate CONSULTANT only for that portion of CONSULTANT’s Services provided in material
conformity with this Agreement as such determination is made by the City Manager acting in the
DocuSign Envelope ID: B45A2530-DABF-4182-9728-CEEA1EF7C957
reasonable exercise of his/her discretion. The following Sections will survive any expiration or
termination of this Agreement: 14, 15, 16, 17, 19.2, 19.3, 19.4, 20, 25, 27, 28 and 29.
19.4. No payment, partial payment, acceptance, or partial acceptance by CITY will
operate as a waiver on the part of CITY of any of its rights under this Agreement, unless made in
accordance with Section 17 (Waivers).
SECTION 20. NOTICES.
All notices hereunder will be given in writing and mailed, postage prepaid, by certified
mail, addressed as follows:
To CITY: Office of the City Clerk
City of Palo Alto
Post Office Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303
With a copy to the Purchasing Manager
To CONSULTANT: Attention of the Project Manager at the address of
CONSULTANT recited on the first page of this Agreement.
CONSULTANT shall provide written notice to CITY of any change of address.
SECTION 21. CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
21.1. In executing this Agreement, CONSULTANT covenants that it presently has
no interest, and will not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, financial or otherwise, which would
conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of the Services.
21.2. CONSULTANT further covenants that, in the performance of this Agreement,
it will not employ subcontractors or other persons or parties having such an interest. CONSULTANT
certifies that no person who has or will have any financial interest under this Agreement is an officer
or employee of CITY; this provision will be interpreted in accordance with the applicable provisions
of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and the Government Code of the State of California, as amended
from time to time. CONSULTANT agrees to notify CITY if any conflict arises.
21.3. If the CONSULTANT meets the definition of a “Consultant” as defined by the
Regulations of the Fair Political Practices Commission, CONSULTANT will file the appropriate
financial disclosure documents required by the Palo Alto Municipal Code and the Political Reform
Act of 1974, as amended from time to time.
SECTION 22. NONDISCRIMINATION; COMPLIANCE WITH ADA.
22.1. As set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 2.30.510, as amended from
time to time, CONSULTANT certifies that in the performance of this Agreement, it shall not
discriminate in the employment of any person due to that person’s race, skin color, gender, gender
identity, age, religion, disability, national origin, ancestry, sexual orientation, pregnancy, genetic
information or condition, housing status, marital status, familial status, weight or height of such
person. CONSULTANT acknowledges that it has read and understands the provisions of Section
DocuSign Envelope ID: B45A2530-DABF-4182-9728-CEEA1EF7C957
2.30.510 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code relating to Nondiscrimination Requirements and the
penalties for violation thereof, and agrees to meet all requirements of Section 2.30.510 pertaining to
nondiscrimination in employment.
22.2. CONSULTANT understands and agrees that pursuant to the Americans
Disabilities Act (“ADA”), programs, services and other activities provided by a public entity to the
public, whether directly or through a contractor or subcontractor, are required to be accessible to the
disabled public. CONSULTANT will provide the Services specified in this Agreement in a manner
that complies with the ADA and any other applicable federal, state and local disability rights laws
and regulations, as amended from time to time. CONSULTANT will not discriminate against persons
with disabilities in the provision of services, benefits or activities provided under this Agreement.
SECTION 23. ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED PURCHASING AND ZERO WASTE
REQUIREMENTS. CONSULTANT shall comply with the CITY’s Environmentally Preferred
Purchasing policies which are available at CITY’s Purchasing Department, hereby incorporated by
reference and as amended from time to time. CONSULTANT shall comply with waste reduction,
reuse, recycling and disposal requirements of CITY’s Zero Waste Program. Zero Waste best practices
include, first, minimizing and reducing waste; second, reusing waste; and, third, recycling or
composting waste. In particular, CONSULTANT shall comply with the following Zero Waste
requirements:
(a) All printed materials provided by CONSULTANT to CITY generated from a personal
computer and printer including but not limited to, proposals, quotes, invoices, reports, and public
education materials, shall be double-sided and printed on a minimum of 30% or greater post-consumer
content paper, unless otherwise approved by CITY’s Project Manager. Any submitted materials
printed by a professional printing company shall be a minimum of 30% or greater post-consumer
material and printed with vegetable-based inks.
(b) Goods purchased by CONSULTANT on behalf of CITY shall be purchased in
accordance with CITY’s Environmental Purchasing Policy including but not limited to Extended
Producer Responsibility requirements for products and packaging. A copy of this policy is on file at
the Purchasing Department’s office.
(c) Reusable/returnable pallets shall be taken back by CONSULTANT, at no additional
cost to CITY, for reuse or recycling. CONSULTANT shall provide documentation from the facility
accepting the pallets to verify that pallets are not being disposed.
SECTION 24. COMPLIANCE WITH PALO ALTO MINIMUM WAGE ORDINANCE.
CONSULTANT shall comply with all requirements of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 4.62
(Citywide Minimum Wage), as amended from time to time. In particular, for any employee otherwise
entitled to the State minimum wage, who performs at least two (2) hours of work in a calendar week
within the geographic boundaries of the City, CONSULTANT shall pay such employees no less than
the minimum wage set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 4.62.030 for each hour worked
within the geographic boundaries of the City of Palo Alto. In addition, CONSULTANT shall post
notices regarding the Palo Alto Minimum Wage Ordinance in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal
Code Section 4.62.060.
SECTION 25. NON-APPROPRIATION. This Agreement is subject to the fiscal provisions of the
Charter of the City of Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Municipal Code, as amended from time to time.
This Agreement will terminate without any penalty (a) at the end of any fiscal year in the event that
funds are not appropriated for the following fiscal year, or (b) at any time within a fiscal year in the
event that funds are only appropriated for a portion of the fiscal year and funds for this Agreement
are no longer available. This Section shall take precedence in the event of a conflict with any other
DocuSign Envelope ID: B45A2530-DABF-4182-9728-CEEA1EF7C957
covenant, term, condition, or provision of this Agreement.
SECTION 26. PREVAILING WAGES AND DIR REGISTRATION FOR PUBLIC WORKS
CONTRACTS.
26.1. This Project is not subject to prevailing wages and related requirements.
CONSULTANT is not required to pay prevailing wages and meet related requirements under the
California Labor Code and California Code of Regulations in the performance and implementation
of the Project if the contract:
(1) is not a public works contract;
(2) is for a public works construction project of $25,000 or less, per California Labor
Code Sections 1782(d)(1), 1725.5(f) and 1773.3(j); or
(3) is for a public works alteration, demolition, repair, or maintenance project of
$15,000 or less, per California Labor Code Sections 1782(d)(1), 1725.5(f) and
1773.3(j).
SECTION 27. CLAIMS PROCEDURE FOR “9204 PUBLIC WORKS PROJECTS”. For
purposes of this Section 27, a “9204 Public Works Project” means the erection, construction,
alteration, repair, or improvement of any public structure, building, road, or other public improvement
of any kind. (Cal. Pub. Cont. Code § 9204.) Per California Public Contract Code Section 9204, for
Public Works Projects, certain claims procedures shall apply, as set forth in Exhibit F, entitled
“Claims for Public Contract Code Section 9204 Public Works Projects”.
This Project is a 9204 Public Works Project and is required to comply with the
claims procedures set forth in Exhibit F, entitled “Claims for Public Contract Code Section 9204
Public Works Projects”.
OR
This Project is not a 9204 Public Works Project.
SECTION 28. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS.
28.1. This Agreement will be governed by California law, without regard to its
conflict of law provisions.
28.2. In the event that an action is brought, the parties agree that trial of such action
will be vested exclusively in the state courts of California in the County of Santa Clara, State of
California.
28.3. The prevailing party in any action brought to enforce the provisions of this
Agreement may recover its reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees expended in connection with that
action. The prevailing party shall be entitled to recover an amount equal to the fair market value of
legal services provided by attorneys employed by it as well as any attorneys’ fees paid to third parties.
28.4. This Agreement, including all exhibits, constitutes the entire and integrated
agreement between the parties with respect to the subject matter of this Agreement, and supersedes
all prior agreements, negotiations, representations, statements and undertakings, either oral or written.
This Agreement may be amended only by a written instrument, which is signed by the authorized
representatives of the parties and approved as required under Palo Alto Municipal Code, as amended
DocuSign Envelope ID: B45A2530-DABF-4182-9728-CEEA1EF7C957
□
from time to time.
28.5. If a court of competent jurisdiction finds or rules that any provision of this
Agreement is void or unenforceable, the unaffected provisions of this Agreement will remain in full
force and effect.
28.6. In the event of a conflict between the terms of this Agreement and the exhibits
hereto (per Section 29) or CONSULTANT’s proposal (if any), the Agreement shall control. In the
event of a conflict between the exhibits hereto and CONSULTANT’s proposal (if any), the exhibits
shall control.
28.7. The provisions of all checked boxes in this Agreement shall apply to this
Agreement; the provisions of any unchecked boxes shall not apply to this Agreement.
28.8. All section headings contained in this Agreement are for convenience and
reference only and are not intended to define or limit the scope of any provision of this Agreement.
28.9. This Agreement may be signed in multiple counterparts, which, when executed
by the authorized representatives of the parties, shall together constitute a single binding agreement.
SECTION 29. EXHIBITS. Each of the following exhibits, if the check box for such exhibit is
selected below, is hereby attached and incorporated into this Agreement by reference as though fully
set forth herein:
EXHIBIT A: SCOPE OF SERVICES
EXHIBIT B: SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE
EXHIBIT C: COMPENSATION
EXHIBIT C-1: SCHEDULE OF RATES
EXHIBIT D: INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
EXHIBIT E: OBLIGATIONS REGARDING NON-DISCLOSURE OF
CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
EXHIBIT F: INFORMATION PRIVACY POLICY
EXHIBIT G: CYBERSECURITY TERMS AND CONDITIONS
THIS AGREEMENT IS NOT COMPLETE UNLESS ALL SELECTED EXHIBITS ARE
ATTACHED.
DocuSign Envelope ID: B45A2530-DABF-4182-9728-CEEA1EF7C957
CONTRACT No. C21181846 SIGNATURE PAGE
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have by their duly authorized representatives
executed this Agreement as of the date first above written.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
____________________________
City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________
City Attorney or designee
CAD MASTERS, INC.
By:
Name:
Title:
DocuSign Envelope ID: B45A2530-DABF-4182-9728-CEEA1EF7C957
Vice-President
Drew Burgasser
EXHIBIT A
SCOPE OF SERVICES
5-Year Support, Maintenance, Development, and Enhancement Contract to
Utility Design and Asset Management System (FY’22 to FY’27)
INTRODUCTION:
This project is to support, maintain, develop, and enhance the City’s Enterprise Geographical
Information System (GIS) asset management database on a fixed hourly rate and as-needed basis
during the upcoming five years (FY2022 through FY2027).
BACKGROUND INFORMATION (DATA ENGINES AND EXISTING APPLICATIONS):
The City currently uses the following database engines, software applications, custom applications,
and workflows:
I. Database Engines:
a. Oracle
b. Microsoft SQL Server
c. Microsoft Access (for maintenance of legacy applications)
II. Primary Software Applications:
a. Autodesk AutoCAD Map 3D
b. Autodesk AutoCAD Civil 3D
c. Autodesk Utility Design (AUD)
d. ESRI ArcGIS
e. CMI Standards Manager
f. Encompass GIST
g. Sedaru
h. Feature Manipulation Engine (FME)
III. Custom Applications:
a. Electric data model (Oracle) and front-end application (Map 3D)
b. Fiber data model (Oracle) and front-end application (Map 3D)
c. Dark Fiber data model (Oracle) and front-end application (Map 3D)
d. Water data model (Oracle) and front-end application (Map 3D)
e. Gas data model (Oracle) and front-end application (Map 3D)
f. Wastewater data model (Oracle) and front-end application (Map 3D)
g. Traffic Signals data model (Oracle) and front-end application (Map 3D)
h. Street Lights data model (Oracle) and front-end application (Map 3D)
i. WGW Service Order Generation (SOGEN)
j. Electric Equipment and Maintenance data model (Oracle) front-end application
(EEM) Electric Autodesk Utility Design (AUD)
k. Document Management System (DMS)
l. Drawing Generation (DWGGEN) for creating AutoCAD and AUD entities from GIS
m. Map Locator (custom Google Maps interface on top of AutoCAD)
IV. Workflows:
a. FME Workspaces for import from and export to SAP, ESRI SHP, DWG and Excel
b. Encompass GIST/Oracle data synchronization
c. WaterCAD data export
DocuSign Envelope ID: B45A2530-DABF-4182-9728-CEEA1EF7C957
d. Gas Works data export
e. Sedaru data export
f. Transformer Purchasing DB data export
g. SAP data import and export
SCOPE OF WORK
1. User Support and Maintenance of Existing Applications and Workflows.
1.1 Oracle Database Administration
a. Install and configure Oracle software.
b. Configure and monitor data backups.
c. Troubleshoot performance issues.
1.2 AutoCAD Map 3D Enterprise
a. Install and configure software and software upgrades, provide training, and troubleshoot
problems. Assist IT department when directed by City.
b. Modify and configure utility data models including water, gas, wastewater, electric,
cathodic protection, fiber, streetlights, and traffic signals.
c. Modify and configure display models.
d. Write, configure, and monitor business rules and workflows.
e. Write, configure, and monitor software (DWGGEN) to export Oracle utility data to
AutoCAD for capital improvement projects.
f. Configure reports for the various utilities.
g. Add document linking, query, and viewing capability.
1.3 Service Order Generation (SOGEN)
a. Write, configure, and monitor service order generation (SOGEN) software.
b. Provide programming and support for mobile SOGEN.
1.4 Automated Utility Design (AUD)
a. Install and configure software and software upgrades, provide training, and troubleshoot
problems. Assist IT department when directed by City.
b. Provide customization services for import and export to SAP and report generation.
c. Write, configure and monitor software to update material catalog prices from SAP.
d. Write, configure and monitor software to output work order data to Excel.
1.5 Outage Management
a. Configure and monitor FME workspaces to export electric and base data from Oracle to
ESRI ArcGIS for use in the outage management system.
b. Write, configure, and monitor software to output electric connectivity data for use in the
outage management system.
1.6 Electric Equipment Management Database
a. Write, configure, and monitor database (Oracle) and front-end application (EEM) for
electric equipment maintenance.
1.7 Dark Fiber
a. Write, configure, and monitor database (Oracle) and front-end application (AutoCAD
DocuSign Envelope ID: B45A2530-DABF-4182-9728-CEEA1EF7C957
Map 3D) for dark fiber.
1.8 ArcGIS
a. Assist with implementation of ArcGIS applications including ArcGIS Pro, ArcGIS
Server, ArcGIS Online, and ArcGIS Collector.
b. Provide tools to update data models in ArcGIS based on pre-existing data models in
AME and Encompass.
c. Provide FME workspaces to synchronize data between ArcGIS and AME/Encompass.
d. Provide services as needed to create ArcGIS workflows, business rules, maps, analysis,
data updates, and reports.
e. Provide services as needed to export and import data for Automated Utility Design and
the Electric Outage Management System.
2. Data Synchronization, Import, Export
2.1 Write, configure, and monitor software to synchronize Encompass GIST (City’s current GIS
platform) utility data with Oracle.
2.2 Configure and support FME workspaces for export to ESRI SHP, AutoCAD DWG, and
Excel.
2.3 Configure and support data export to WaterCAD.
2.4 Write, configure, and monitor software to import SAP utility meter data (installation
numbers) into Oracle.
2.5 Configure and support FME workspaces to import SAP consumption data (via a middleware
Excel file) for any desired utility into Oracle.
2.6 Configure and support data synchronization for asset management application like Sedaru
for wastewater. Provide support for document linking to assets for these applications.
3. Develop New Applications, Incorporate New Data, Enhance and Broaden Access to the
GIS.
3.1 Create new applications, workflows, reports, etc.
3.2 On-board new assets, departments, divisions, and users.
3.3 Develop and enhance web-based access to the GIS.
3.4 Develop and enhance field access to the GIS
DocuSign Envelope ID: B45A2530-DABF-4182-9728-CEEA1EF7C957
EXHIBIT B
SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE
CONSULTANT shall perform the Services so as to complete each milestone within the number of
days/weeks specified below. The time to complete each milestone may be increased or decreased by
mutual written agreement of the Project Managers for CONSULTANT and CITY so long as all work
is completed within the term of the Agreement. CONSULTANT shall provide a detailed schedule of
work consistent with the schedule below within 2 weeks of receipt of the notice to proceed (“NTP”)
from the CITY.
Milestones
Completion
Number of Days/Weeks (as specified below)
from NTP
Scope Category 1: User Support &
Maintenance of Existing Applications &
Workflows
Services to be provided on an ongoing basis as
directed by City
Scope Category 2: Data Synchronization,
Import, and Export
Services to be provided on an ongoing basis as
directed by City
Scope Category 3: Develop New
Applications, Incorporate New Data, and
Enhance and Broaden Access to the GIS
Services to be provided on an ongoing basis as
directed by City
DocuSign Envelope ID: B45A2530-DABF-4182-9728-CEEA1EF7C957
EXHIBIT C
COMPENSATION
CITY agrees to compensate CONSULTANT for the Services performed in accordance with the terms
and conditions of this Agreement, including Services, any specified reimbursable expenses, and
Additional Services (if any, per Section 4 of the Agreement), based on the hourly rate schedule
attached as Exhibit C-1.
The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT under this Agreement for all Services, any specified
reimbursable expenses, and Additional Services (if any, per Section 4), shall not exceed the amount(s)
stated in Section 4 of this Agreement. CONSULTANT agrees to complete all Services, any specified
reimbursable expenses, and Additional Services (if any, per Section 4), within this/these amount(s).
Any work performed or expenses incurred for which payment would result in a total exceeding the
maximum amount of compensation set forth in this Agreement shall be at no cost to the CITY.
TASK DESCRIPTIONS
Estimated
Annual
Budget:
5 Year
Contract
Total:
Category 1 – User Support & Maintenance of Existing Applications & Workflows $150,000 $750,000
Task 1.1 - Oracle Database Administration
Task 1.2 - AutoCAD Map 3D Enterprise
Task 1.3 - Service Order Generation (SOGEN)
Task 1.4 - Automated Utility Design (AUD)
Task 1.5 - Outage Management
Task 1.6 - Electric Equipment Management Database
Task 1.7 - Dark Fiber
Task 1.8 - ArcGIS
Category 2 – Data Synchronization, Import and Export $90,000 $450,000
Task 2.1 – Write, configure, and monitor software to synchronize
Encompass utility data with Oracle
Task 2.2 - Configure and support FME workspaces for export to ESRI SHP,
AutoCAD DWG, and Excel
Task 2.3 - Configure and support data export to WaterCAD
Task 2.4 - Write, configure, and monitor software to import SAP utility meter data
(installation numbers) into Oracle
Task 2.5 - Configure and support FME workspaces to import SAP consumption
data (via a middleware Excel file) for any desired utility into Oracle
Task 2.6 - Configure and support data synchronization for asset management
application like Sedaru for wastewater. Provide support for document
linking to assets for these applications.
Category 3 – Develop New Applications, Incorporate New Data and Enhance
Access to the GIS $150,000 $750,000
Task 3.1 – Develop new applications, workflows, reports, etc.
Task 3.2 - On-board new assets, departments, divisions and users.
Task 3.3 - Develop and enhance web-based access to the GIS
Task 3.4 - Develop and enhance field access to the GIS
Total: $390,000 $1,950,000
DocuSign Envelope ID: B45A2530-DABF-4182-9728-CEEA1EF7C957
Sub-total Basic Services $1,950,000.00
Total Basic Services and Reimbursable expenses $1,950,000.00
Maximum Total Compensation $1,950,000.00
REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES
CONSULTANT’S ordinary business expenses, such as administrative, overhead, administrative
support time/overtime, information systems, software and hardware, photocopying,
telecommunications (telephone, internet), in-house printing, insurance and other ordinary business
expenses, are included within the scope of payment for Services and are not reimbursable expenses
hereunder.
Reimbursable expenses, if any are specified as reimbursable under this section, will be reimbursed at
actual cost. The expenses (by type, e.g. travel) for which CONSULTANT will be reimbursed are:
NONE up to the not-to-exceed amount of: $0.00.
A. Travel outside the San Francisco Bay Area, including transportation and meals, if specified as
reimbursable, will be reimbursed at actual cost subject to the City of Palo Alto’s policy for
reimbursement of travel and meal expenses.
B. Long distance telephone service charges, cellular phone service charges, facsimile transmission
and postage charges, if specified as reimbursable, will be reimbursed at actual cost.
All requests for reimbursement of expenses, if any are specified as reimbursable under this section,
shall be accompanied by appropriate backup documentation and information.
DocuSign Envelope ID: B45A2530-DABF-4182-9728-CEEA1EF7C957
EXHIBIT C-1
SCHEDULE OF RATES
CONSULTANT’s schedule of rates is as follows:
Rate Sheet (for all 5 years)
Junior Engineer: $ 160 per hour
Project Engineer: $ 190 per hour
Senior Engineer: $ 220 per hour
DocuSign Envelope ID: B45A2530-DABF-4182-9728-CEEA1EF7C957
EXHIBIT D
INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
CONSULTANTS TO THE CITY OF PALO ALTO (CITY), AT THEIR SOLE EXPENSE, SHALL FOR THE TERM OF THE
CONTRACT OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN INSURANCE IN THE AMOUNTS FOR THE COVERAGE SPECIFIED BELOW,
AFFORDED BY COMPANIES WITH AM BEST’S KEY RATING OF A-:VII, OR HIGHER, LICENSED OR
AUTHORIZED TO TRANSACT INSURANCE BUSINESS IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
AWARD IS CONTINGENT ON COMPLIANCE WITH CITY’S INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS AS SPECIFIED HEREIN.
REQUIRED TYPE OF COVERAGE REQUIREMENT
MINIMUM LIMITS
EACH
OCCURRENCE AGGREGATE
YES
YES
WORKER’S COMPENSATION
EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY
STATUTORY
STATUTORY STATUTORY STATUTORY
YES
GENERAL LIABILITY, INCLUDING
PERSONAL INJURY, BROAD FORM
PROPERTY DAMAGE BLANKET
CONTRACTUAL, AND FIRE LEGAL
LIABILITY
BODILY INJURY
PROPERTY DAMAGE
BODILY INJURY & PROPERTY
DAMAGE COMBINED.
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
YES
AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY,
INCLUDING ALL OWNED, HIRED,
NON-OWNED
BODILY INJURY
EACH PERSON
EACH OCCURRENCE
PROPERTY DAMAGE
BODILY INJURY AND PROPERTY
DAMAGE, COMBINED
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
YES
PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY,
INCLUDING, ERRORS AND
OMISSIONS, MALPRACTICE (WHEN
APPLICABLE), AND NEGLIGENT
PERFORMANCE
ALL DAMAGES $1,000,000
YES
THE CITY OF PALO ALTO IS TO BE NAMED AS AN ADDITIONAL INSURED: CONSULTANT, AT ITS SOLE COST
AND EXPENSE, SHALL OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN, IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE TERM
OF ANY RESULTANT AGREEMENT, THE INSURANCE COVERAGE HEREIN DESCRIBED, INSURING NOT ONLY
CONSULTANT AND ITS SUBCONSULTANTS, IF ANY, BUT ALSO, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF WORKERS’
COMPENSATION, EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY AND PROFESSIONAL INSURANCE, NAMING AS ADDITIONAL
INSUREDS CITY, ITS COUNCIL MEMBERS, OFFICERS, AGENTS, AND EMPLOYEES.
INSURANCE COVERAGE MUST INCLUDE:
A CONTRACTUAL LIABILITY ENDORSEMENT PROVIDING INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR CONSULTANT’S
AGREEMENT TO INDEMNIFY CITY.
THE CONSULTANT MUST SUBMIT CERTIFICATES(S) OF INSURANCE EVIDENCING REQUIRED COVERAGE AT THE
FOLLOWING URL: HTTPS://WWW.PLANETBIDS.COM/PORTAL/PORTAL.CFM?COMPANYID=25569
ENDORSEMENT PROVISIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE INSURANCE AFFORDED TO ADDITIONAL INSUREDS:
PRIMARY COVERAGE
WITH RESPECT TO CLAIMS ARISING OUT OF THE OPERATIONS OF THE NAMED INSURED, INSURANCE AS
AFFORDED BY THIS POLICY IS PRIMARY AND IS NOT ADDITIONAL TO OR CONTRIBUTING WITH ANY OTHER
INSURANCE CARRIED BY OR FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE ADDITIONAL INSUREDS.
CROSS LIABILITY
THE NAMING OF MORE THAN ONE PERSON, FIRM, OR CORPORATION AS INSUREDS UNDER THE POLICY SHALL
NOT, FOR THAT REASON ALONE, EXTINGUISH ANY RIGHTS OF THE INSURED AGAINST ANOTHER, BUT THIS
DocuSign Envelope ID: B45A2530-DABF-4182-9728-CEEA1EF7C957
ENDORSEMENT, AND THE NAMING OF MULTIPLE INSUREDS, SHALL NOT INCREASE THE TOTAL LIABILITY OF THE
COMPANY UNDER THIS POLICY.
NOTICE OF CANCELLATION
IF THE POLICY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE FOR ANY REASON OTHER THAN THE NON-PAYMENT
OF PREMIUM, THE CONSULTANT SHALL PROVIDE CITY AT LEAST A THIRTY (30) DAY WRITTEN NOTICE BEFORE
THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF CANCELLATION.
IF THE POLICY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE FOR THE NON-PAYMENT OF PREMIUM, THE
CONSULTANT SHALL PROVIDE CITY AT LEAST A TEN (10) DAY WRITTEN NOTICE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE
OF CANCELLATION.
EVIDENCE OF INSURANCE AND OTHER RELATED NOTICES ARE REQUIRED TO BE FILED
WITH THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AT THE FOLLOWING URL:
HTTPS://WWW.PLANETBIDS.COM/PORTAL/PORTAL.CFM?COMPANYID=25569
OR
HTTP://WWW.CITYOFPALOALTO.ORG/GOV/DEPTS/ASD/PLANET_BIDS_HOW_TO.ASP
DocuSign Envelope ID: B45A2530-DABF-4182-9728-CEEA1EF7C957
EXHIBIT E
OBLIGATIONS REGARDING NON-DISCLOSURE OF
CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
PURPOSE
1.1 In its performance of Services under this Agreement, CONSULTANT and its directors,
officers, partners, managers, members, employees, advisors, agents, sub-contractors and other
representatives of CONSULTANT and their subsidiaries and affiliates, including, without
limitation, attorneys, accountants, consultants, and financial advisors (collectively, the
“Representatives”) may acquire and otherwise gain access to Confidential Information, as defined
in Section 1 of this Exhibit “E”, which is exempt from public disclosure under the California Public
Records Act, Cal. Gov. Code section 6250 et seq.
1.2 In accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, CONSULTANT agrees to
take reasonable precautions to ensure that Confidential Information of CITY, as defined in this
Exhibit, is safeguarded against disclosure to unauthorized employees or third parties.
1.3 CITY would not share or disclose any Confidential Information to CONSULTANT but for
the legal protections against unauthorized disclosures intended to be afforded by California law and
this Agreement, and is relying on this Agreement in disclosing such Confidential Information to
CONSULTANT.
CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION, DEFINED
2.1 “Confidential Information”, defined: “Confidential Information” means any and all
information which is of a non-public, proprietary or confidential nature, in any form or medium,
written or oral, (whether prepared by the CITY, its employees, or agents, and irrespective of the
form or means of communication and whether it is labeled or otherwise identified as confidential)
that is furnished to the Receiving Party by the CITY, and any other proprietary business and utility
data or information consisting of research and development, intellectual property, technical
information, computer programs, software, maps, methodologies, innovations, software tools,
know-how, knowledge, designs, drawings, specifications, concepts, data, reports, processes,
techniques, documentation, pricing, marketing plans and customer lists. Confidential Information
shall also include notes, copies, printouts, analysis, discussion or summaries of or regarding
Confidential Information prepared by the CONSULTANT or its directors, officers, partners,
managers, members, employees, advisors, agents, sub-contractors and other representatives of the
CONSULTANT and their subsidiaries and affiliates, including without limitation attorneys,
accountants, consultants, and financial advisors (collectively, “Representatives”).
2.2 Exceptions. “Confidential Information” shall exclude (and the CONSULTANT shall not be
under any obligation to maintain in confidence) any information (or any portion thereof) disclosed
to CONSULTANT by CITY to the extent that such information:
(a) is in the public domain at the time of disclosure; or
(b) at the time of or following disclosure, becomes generally known or available through no act
or omission on the part of CITY; or
DocuSign Envelope ID: B45A2530-DABF-4182-9728-CEEA1EF7C957
(c) is known, or becomes known, to CONSULTANT from a source other than CITY or its
Representatives (as defined herein), provided that disclosure by such source is not in breach of a
confidentiality agreement CITY; or
(d) is independently developed by CONSULTANT without violating any of its obligations
under this Agreement or any other agreement between the Parties; or
(e) is legally required to be disclosed by judicial or other governmental action; provided,
however, that prompt notice of such judicial or other governmental action shall have been first
given to CITY, which shall be afforded the opportunity to exhaust all reasonable legal remedies to
maintain the Confidential Information in confidence; or
(f) is permitted to be disclosed by a formal written agreement executed by and between the
Parties.
Specific information shall not fall within the exceptions of Sections (a) through (f) above merely
because it is embraced by more general information falling within such exceptions.
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC RECORDS ACT
3.1 CONSULTANT acknowledges that CITY is a public agency subject to the requirements of
the California Constitution, Article 1, Section 3 and California Public Records Act Cal. Gov. Code
section 6250 et seq. CONSULTANT acknowledges that CITY may submit to or otherwise provide
access to CONSULTANT Confidential Information that CITY or any utility customer of CITY
considers to be protected from disclosure pursuant to exemptions granted by applicable California
law.
3.2 Whether or not there is a request or demand of any third party not a Party to this Agreement
(the “Requestor”) for the production, inspection and/or copying of information designated by CITY
as Confidential Information, CONSULTANT shall be solely responsible for taking whatever legal
steps CITY deems necessary to protect information deemed by it to be Confidential Information and
to prevent release of information to the Requestor (including the release of such information by
CONSULTANT).
3.3 Under no circumstances will CONSULTANT be permitted to comply with the Requestor’s
demand for disclosure of such Confidential Information that CITY deems confidential and not
intended for disclosure to the general public, or otherwise publicly disclose the Confidential
Information to any person not authorized by law to receive such information.
CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION DESIGNATION
4.1 As practicable, the Confidential Information shall be marked with the words “Confidential”
or “Confidential Material” or with words of similar import. CITY shall instruct CONSULTANT
that information of a financial, personal, or proprietary nature being conveyed orally and intended
by CITY to be covered by the terms of this Agreement, is deemed Confidential Information. To the
extent possible, CITY shall endeavor to mark any electronic document intended to be covered by
the terms of this Agreement with the words “Confidential” or similar words, or, if that is not
possible or would be exceedingly difficult, CITY shall notify CONSULTANT (for example, by
DocuSign Envelope ID: B45A2530-DABF-4182-9728-CEEA1EF7C957
covering e-mail transmitting the electronic document) that the electronic document is Confidential
Information.
4.2 CITY’s failure, for whatever reason, to mark any material at the time it is produced to
CONSULTANT, or to notify it that oral or electronic material is Confidential Information at the
time it is provided, shall not take the material out of the coverage of this Agreement for all time, and
CONSULTANT shall treat the material as Confidential Information once CITY has notified it that
the material is to be covered by this Agreement.
DUTY TO KEEP CONFIDENTIAL
5.1 CONSULTANT agrees to maintain as confidential, to the extent permitted or required by
applicable law, all Confidential Information furnished or otherwise made available to the
CONSULTANT, or its Representatives by CITY. CONSULTANT acknowledges that the
Confidential Information is proprietary and a valuable asset of CITY and agrees that
CONSULTANT shall take reasonable precautions to ensure that such Confidential Information is
safeguarded against disclosure to unauthorized employees, Representatives or third parties.
(a) CONSULTANT shall use the Confidential Information solely as permitted by the Contract
and shall not sell Confidential Information or otherwise disclose such Confidential Information
under any circumstances and without the prior written consent of CITY. CONSULTANT shall not
disclose the Confidential Information, or portions thereof, to any of its Representatives, except to
those who need to know such information for the purpose of advising CITY and who agree to the
terms of this Agreement.
(b) CONSULTANT agrees that any of the Representatives to whom the Confidential
Information is disclosed will be informed of the confidential or proprietary nature of such
information and of CONSULTANT’s obligations under this Agreement. CONSULTANT is
responsible for any use of Confidential Information by any of its Representatives.
(c) CONSULTANT shall ensure that:
(i) any Representatives with whom CONSULTANT shares such Confidential Information or
who acquire knowledge of such Confidential Information from or through CONSULTANT regard
and treat such Confidential Information of CITY as strictly confidential and wholly owned by
CITY, and
(ii) CONSULTANT shall not (and CONSULTANT shall ensure that any Representatives with
whom CONSULTANT shares such Confidential Information or who acquire knowledge of such
Confidential Information from or through CONSULTANT do not) for any reason, in any fashion,
either directly or indirectly, sell, lend, lease, distribute, license, give, transfer, assign, show,
disclose, disseminate, or otherwise communicate any such Confidential Information to any third
party, or misappropriate, reproduce, copy or use any such Confidential Information, in either case,
for any purpose other than in accordance with this Agreement.
(d) If CONSULTANT or any of its Representatives are requested or required to disclose any
Confidential Information by law, regulation, the applicable rules of any national securities exchange
or other market or reporting system, oral questions, interrogatories, requests for information or other
documents in legal proceedings, subpoena, civil investigative demand or any other similar process,
DocuSign Envelope ID: B45A2530-DABF-4182-9728-CEEA1EF7C957
CONSULTANT shall provide CITY with prompt written notice of any such request or requirement
so that CITY has an opportunity to seek a protective order via writ of mandate or other appropriate
remedy, or waive compliance with the provisions of this Agreement.
(e) If CITY waives compliance with the provisions of this Agreement with respect to a specific
request or requirement, CONSULTANT and its Representatives shall disclose only that portion of
the Confidential Information that is expressly covered by such waiver and which is necessary to
disclose in order to comply with such request or requirement. CONSULTANT and its
Representatives shall cooperate in a reasonable manner with CITY in attempting to preserve the
confidentiality of the Confidential Information.
(f) If (in the absence of a waiver by CITY) CONSULTANT has not secured a protective order
or other appropriate remedy despite attempting to do so, and CONSULTANT or one of its
Representatives is nonetheless then legally compelled to disclose any Confidential Information,
CONSULTANT or such Representative may, without liability hereunder, disclose only that portion
of the Confidential Information that is necessary to be disclosed. In the event that disclosure is made
in accordance with this subsection, CONSULTANT shall exercise, and cause its Representatives to
exercise, reasonable efforts to preserve the confidentiality of the Confidential Information,
including obtaining reliable assurance at the sole expense of CONSULTANT that confidential
treatment shall be accorded any Confidential Information so furnished.
NO LIABILITY, RELEASE, OR OBLIGATION
Except as set forth in any formal written agreement executed by and between the parties, neither
CONSULTANT nor any of its Representatives shall be entitled to rely on any statement, promise,
agreement or understanding, whether written or oral, or any custom, usage of trade, course of
dealing or conduct. In addition, each Party understands and acknowledges that neither CITY nor
any of its representatives, employees or agents makes any representation or warranty, express or
implied, as to the accuracy or completeness of any Confidential Information, and that neither CITY
nor any of its representatives, employees or agents shall have any liability whatsoever to
CONSULTANT or to any of its Representatives relating to or resulting from the Confidential
Information or any errors therein or omissions therefrom.
REMEDIES
In recognition that an irreparable injury may result to CITY, if any provision of this Exhibit E is
violated, CONSULTANT agrees that upon any breach or threatened breach of any provision of this
Exhibit E by CONSULTANT or any of its Representatives, that CITY shall be entitled to seek an
injunction or specific performance prohibiting such conduct or any other relief as may be permitted
by law.
RETURN OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
8.1 CONSULTANT shall have access to the Confidential Information provided by CITY only
during the term of this Agreement, and shall return all Confidential Information provided under this
Agreement upon its termination, or at any time upon request of CITY, as described in Section 8.2 of
this Exhibit E.
DocuSign Envelope ID: B45A2530-DABF-4182-9728-CEEA1EF7C957
8.2 CITY may at any time request that CONSULTANT promptly return to CITY or destroy any
or all documents or other materials containing Confidential Information of CITY, and
CONSULTANT shall immediately comply with any such request. Notwithstanding the return or
destruction of the Confidential Information as contemplated by this section 8 of this Exhibit E, the
CONSULTANT and its Representatives will continue to be bound by the terms of this Agreement
with respect thereto, including all obligations of confidentiality.
SURVIVAL
CONSULTANT’s obligations of confidentiality and non-circumvention under this Exhibit E shall
survive the termination of this Agreement.
WAIVER; AMENDMENT
None of the terms or conditions of this Exhibit E may be amended or waived except in writing
signed by the parties. The parties agree that no waiver, amendment, or modification of this Exhibit
E shall be established by conduct, custom, or course of dealing. The failure by any party at any time
or times to require performance of any provision hereof will in no manner affect its right at a later
time to enforce the same.
OWNERSHIP RIGHTS NOT CREATED
The transfer of Confidential Information hereunder shall not be construed as granting a license of
any kind or any right of ownership in the Confidential Information to CONSULTANT.
NO OBLIGATION TO DISCLOSE
Nothing in this Section shall obligate CITY to disclose specific Confidential Information to
CONSULTANT. Such disclosures shall be at the CITY’s sole discretion.
DocuSign Envelope ID: B45A2530-DABF-4182-9728-CEEA1EF7C957
POLICY AND PROCEDURES 1-64/IT
Revised: December 2017
EXHIBIT F
INFORMATION PRIVACY POLICY
POLICY STATEMENT
The City of Palo Alto (the "City") strives to promote and sustain a superior quality of life for persons in Palo
Alto. In promoting the quality of life of these persons, it is the policy of the City, consistent with the provisions
of the California Public Records Act, California Government Code §§ 6250 - 6270, to take appropriate
measures to safeguard the security and privacy of the personal (including, without limitation, financial)
information of persons, collected in the ordinary course and scope of conducting the City's business as a
local government agency. These measures are generally observed by federal, state and local authorities and
reflected in federal and California laws, the City's rules and regulations, and industry best practices,
including, without limitation, the provisions of California Civil Code §§ 1798.3(a), 1798.24, 1798.79.8(b),
1798.80(e), 1798.81.5, 1798.82(e), 1798.83(e)(7), and 1798.92(c). Though some of these provisions do not
apply to local government agencies like the City, the City will conduct business in a manner which promotes
the privacy of personal information, as reflected in federal and California laws. The objective of this Policy is
to describe the City's data security goals and objectives, to ensure the ongoing protection of the Personal
Information, Personally Identifiable Information, Protected Critical Infrastructure Information and Personally
Identifying Information of persons doing business with the City and receiving services from the City or a third
party under contract to the City to provide services. The terms "Personal Information," "Protected Critical
Infrastructure Information", "Personally Identifiable Information" and "Personally Identifying Information"
(collectively, the "Information") are defined in the California Civil Code sections, referred to above, and are
incorporated in this Policy by reference.
PURPOSE
The City, acting in its governmental and proprietary capacities, collects the Information pertaining to persons
who do business with or receive services from the City. The Information is collected by a variety of means,
including, without limitation, from persons applying to receive services provided by the City, persons
accessing the City's website, and persons who access other information portals maintained by the City's staff
and/or authorized third-party contractors. The City is committed to protecting the privacy and security of the
Information collected by the City. The City acknowledges federal and California laws, policies, rules,
regulations and procedures, and industry best practices are dedicated to ensuring the Information is
collected, stored and utilized in compliance with applicable laws.
The goals and objectives of the Policy are: (a) a safe, productive, and inoffensive work environment for all
users having access to the City's applications and databases; (b) the appropriate maintenance and security
of database information assets owned by, or entrusted to, the City; (c) the controlled access and security of
the Information provided to the City's staff and third party contractors; and (d) faithful compliance with legal
and regulatory requirements.
SCOPE
The Policy will guide the City's staff and, indirectly, third party contractors, which are by contract required to
protect the confidentiality and privacy of the Information of the persons whose personal information data are
intended to be covered by the Policy and which will be advised by City staff to conform their performances to
the Policy should they enjoy conditional access to that information.
DocuSign Envelope ID: B45A2530-DABF-4182-9728-CEEA1EF7C957
CONSEQUENCES
The City's employees shall comply with the Policy in the execution of their official duties to the extent their
work implicates access to the Information referred to in this Policy. A failure to comply may result in
employment and/or legal consequences.
EXCEPTIONS
In the event that a City employee cannot fully comply with one or more element(s) described in this Policy,
the employee may request an exception by submitting Security Exception Request. The exception request
will be reviewed and administered by the City's Information Security Manager (the "ISM"). The employee,
with the approval of his or her supervisor, will provide any additional information as may be requested by the
ISM. The ISM will conduct a risk assessment of the requested exception in accordance with guidelines
approved by the City's Chief Information Officer ("CIO") and approved as to form by the City Attorney. The
Policy's guidelines will include at a minimum: purpose, source, collection, storage, access, retention, usage,
and protection of the Information identified in the request. The ISM will consult with the CIO to approve or
deny the exception request. After due consideration is given to the request, the exception request disposition
will be communicated, in writing, to the City employee and his or her supervisor. The approval of any request
may be subject to countermeasures established by the CIO, acting by the ISM.
MUNICIPALORDINANCE
This Policy will supersede any City policy, rule, regulation or procedure regarding information privacy.
RESPONSIBILITIES OF CITY STAFF
A. RESPONSIBILITY OF CIO AND ISM
The CIO, acting by the ISM, will establish an information security management framework to initiate and
coordinate the implementation of information security measures by the City's government.
The City's employees, in particular, software application users and database users, and, indirectly, third party
contractors under contract to the City to provide services, shall by guided by this Policy in the performance of
their job responsibilities.
The ISM will be responsible for: (a) developing and updating the Policy, (b) enforcing compliance with and
the effectiveness of the Policy; (c) the development of privacy standards that will manifest the Policy in
detailed, auditable technical requirements, which will be designed and maintained by the persons
responsible for the City's IT environments; (d) assisting the City's staff in evaluating security and privacy
incidents that arise in regard to potential violations of the Policy; (e) reviewing and approving department-
specific policies and procedures which fall under the purview of this Policy; and (f) reviewing Non- Disclosure
Agreements (NDAs) signed by third party contractors, which will provide services, including, without
limitation, local or 'cloud-based' software services to the City.
B. RESPONSIBILITY OF INFORMATION SECURITY STEERING COMMITIEE
The Information Security Steering Committee (the "ISSC"), which is comprised of the City's employees,
drawn from the various City departments, will provide the primary direction, prioritization and approval for all
information security efforts, including key information security and privacy risks, programs, initiatives and
activities. The ISSC will provide input to the information security and privacy strategic planning processes to
ensure that information security risks are adequately considered, assessed and addressed at the appropriate
City department level.
C. RESPONSIBILITY OF USERS
All authorized users of the Information will be responsible for complying with information privacy processes
and technologies within the scope of responsibility of each user.
DocuSign Envelope ID: B45A2530-DABF-4182-9728-CEEA1EF7C957
D. RESPONSIBILITY OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (IT) MANAGERS
The City's IT Managers, who are responsible for internal, external, direct and indirect connections to the
City's networks, will be responsible for configuring, maintaining and securing the City's IT networks in
compliance with the City's information security and privacy policies. They are also responsible for timely
internal reporting of events that may have compromised network, system or data security.
E. RESPONSIBILITY OF AUTHORIZATION COORDINATION
The ISM will ensure that the City's employees secure the execution of Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDA),
whenever access to the Information will be granted to third party contractors, in conjunction with the Software
as a Service (SaaS) Security and Privacy Terms and Conditions. An NDA must be executed prior to the
sharing of the Information of persons covered by this Policy with third party contractors. The City's approach
to managing information security and its implementation (i.e. objectives, policies, processes, and procedures
for information security) will be reviewed independently by the ISM at planned intervals, or whenever
significant changes to security implementation have occurred.
The CIO, acting by the ISM, will review and recommend changes to the Policy annually, or as appropriate,
commencing from the date of its adoption.
GENERAL PROCEDURE FOR INFORMATION PRIVACY
A. OVERVIEW
The Policy applies to activities that involve the use of the City's information assets, namely, the Information of
persons doing business with the City or receiving services from the City, which are owned by, or entrusted
to, the City and will be made available to the City's employees and third party contractors under contract to
the City to provide Software as a Service consulting services. These activities include, without limitation,
accessing the Internet, using e-mail, accessing the City's intranet or other networks, systems, or devices.
The term "information assets" also includes the personal information of the City's employees and any other
related organizations while those assets are under the City's control. Security measures will be designed,
implemented, and maintained to ensure that only authorized persons will enjoy access to the information
assets. The City's staff will act to protect its information assets from theft, damage, loss, compromise, and
inappropriate disclosure or alteration. The City will plan, design, implement and maintain information
management systems, networks and processes in order to assure the appropriate confidentiality, integrity,
and availability of its information assets to the City's employees and authorized third parties.
B. PERSONAL INFORMATION AND CHOICE
Except as permitted or provided by applicable laws, the City will not share the Information of any person
doing business with the City, or receiving services from the City, in violation of this Policy, unless that person
has consented in writing to the City's sharing of such information during the conduct of the City's business as
a local government agency with third parties under contract to the City to provide services.
C. METHODS OF COLLECTION OF PERSONAL INFORMATION
The City may gather the Information from a variety of sources and resources, provided that the collection of
such information is both necessary and appropriate in order for the City to conduct business as a local
government agency in its governmental and proprietary capacities. That information may be gathered at
service windows and contact centers as well as at web sites, by mobile applications, and with other
technologies, wherever the City may interact with persons who need to share such formation in order to
secure the City's services.
The City's staff will inform the persons whose Information are covered by this Policy that the City's web site
may use "cookies" to customize the browsing experience with the City of Palo Alto web site. The City will
note that a cookie contains unique information that a web site can use to track, among others, the Internet
Protocol address of the computer used to access the City's web sites, the identification of the browser
DocuSign Envelope ID: B45A2530-DABF-4182-9728-CEEA1EF7C957
software and operating systems used, the date and time a user accessed the site, and the Internet address
of the website from which the user linked to the City's web sites. Cookies created on the user's computer by
using the City's web site do not contain the Information, and thus do not compromise the user's privacy or
security. Users can refuse the cookies or delete the cookie files from their computers by using any of the
widely available methods. If the user chooses not to accept a cookie on his or her computer, it will not
prevent or prohibit the user from gaining access to or using the City's sites.
D. UTILITIES SERVICE
In the provision of utility services to persons located within Palo Alto, the City of Palo Alto Utilities
Department ("CPAU") will collect the Information in order to initiate and manage utility services to customers.
To the extent the management of that information is not specifically addressed in the Utilities Rules and
Regulations or other ordinances, rules, regulations or procedures, this Policy will apply; provided, however,
any such Rules and Regulations must conform to this Policy, unless otherwise directed or approved by the
Council. This includes the sharing of CPAU-collected Information with other City departments except as may
be required by law.
Businesses and residents with standard utility meters and/or having non-metered monthly services will have
secure access through a CPAU website to their Information, including, without limitation, their monthly utility
usage and billing data. In addition to their regular monthly utilities billing, businesses and residents with non-
standard or experimental electric, water or natural gas meters may have their usage and/or billing data
provided to them through non-City electronic portals at different intervals than with the standard monthly
billing.
Businesses and residents with such non-standard or experimental metering will have their Information
covered by the same privacy protections and personal information exchange rules applicable to Information
under applicable federal and California laws.
E. PUBLIC DISCLOSURE
The Information that is collected by the City in the ordinary course and scope of conducting its business
could be incorporated in a public record that may be subject to inspection and copying by the public, unless
such information is exempt from disclosure to the public by relevant Federal and California law.
F. ACCESS TO PERSONAL INFORMATION
The City will take reasonable steps to verify a person's identity before the City will grant anyone online
access to that person's Information. Each City department that collects Information will afford access to
affected persons who can review and update that information at reasonable times.
G. SECURITY, CONFIDENTIALITY AND NON-DISCLOSURE
Except as otherwise provided by applicable law or this Policy, the City will treat the Information of persons
covered by this Policy as confidential and will not disclose it, or permit it to be disclosed, to third parties
without the express written consent of the person affected. The City will develop and maintain reasonable
controls that are designed to protect the confidentiality and security of the Information of persons covered by
this Policy.
The City may authorize the City's employee and or third party contractors to access and/or use the
Information of persons who do business with the City or receive services from the City. In those instances,
the City will require the City's employee and/or the third party contractors to agree to use such Information
only in furtherance of City-related business and in accordance with the Policy.
If the City becomes aware of a breach, or has reasonable grounds to believe that a security breach has
occurred, with respect to the Information of a person, the City will notify the affected person of such breach in
accordance with applicable laws. The notice of breach will include the date(s) or estimated date(s) of the
known or suspected breach, the nature of the Information that is the subject of the breach, and the proposed
action to be taken or the responsive action taken by the City.
DocuSign Envelope ID: B45A2530-DABF-4182-9728-CEEA1EF7C957
H. DATA RETENTION / INFORMATION RETENTION
The City will store and secure all Information for a period of time as may be required by law, or if no period is
established by law, for seven (7) years, and thereafter such information will be scheduled for destruction.
I. SOFTWARE AS A SERVICE (SAAS) OVERSIGHT
The City may engage third party contractors and vendors to provide software application and database
services, commonly known as Software-as-a-Service (SaaS).
In order to assure the privacy and security of the Information of those who do business with the City and
those who received services from the City, as a condition of selling goods and/or services to the City, the
SaaS services provider and its subcontractors, if any, including any IT infrastructure services provider, shall
design, install, provide, and maintain a secure IT environment, while it performs such services and/or
furnishes goods to the City, to the extent any scope of work or services implicates the confidentiality and
privacy of the Information.
These requirements include information security directives pertaining to: (a) the IT infrastructure, by which
the services are provided to the City, including connection to the City's IT systems; (b) the SaaS services
provider's operations and maintenance processes needed to support the IT environment, including disaster
recovery and business continuity planning; and (c) the IT infrastructure performance monitoring services to
ensure a secure and reliable environment and service availability to the City. The term "IT infrastructure"
refers to the integrated framework, including, without limitation, data centers, computers, and database
management devices, upon which digital networks operate.
Prior to entering into an agreement to provide services to the City, the City's staff will require the SaaS
services provider to complete and submit an Information Security and Privacy Questionnaire. In the event
that the SaaS services provider reasonably determines that it cannot fulfill the information security
requirements during the course of providing services, the City will require the SaaS services provider to
promptly inform the ISM.
J FAIR AND ACCURATE CREDIT TRANSACTION ACT OF 2003
CPAU will require utility customers to provide their Information in order for the City to initiate and manage
utility services to them.
Federal regulations, implementing the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003 (Public Law 108-
159), including the Red Flag Rules, require that CPAU, as a "covered financial institution or creditor" which
provides services in advance of payment and which can affect consumer credit, develop and implement
procedures for an identity theft program for new and existing accounts to detect, prevent, respond and
mitigate potential identity theft of its customers' Information.
CPAU procedures for potential identity theft will be reviewed independently by the ISM annually or whenever
significant changes to security implementation have occurred. The ISM will recommend changes to CPAU
identity theft procedures, or as appropriate, so as to conform to this Policy.
There are California laws which are applicable to identity theft; they are set forth in California Civil Code §
1798.92.
NOTE: Questions regarding this policy should be referred to the Information Technology Department, as
appropriate.
Recommended:
12/5/2017
DocuSign Envelope ID: B45A2530-DABF-4182-9728-CEEA1EF7C957
Director Information Technology/CIO Date
Approved:
12/13/2017
City Manager Date
DocuSign Envelope ID: B45A2530-DABF-4182-9728-CEEA1EF7C957
Professional Services
Rev. Dec.15, 2020
DocuS1gn Envelope ID: EDD01731-45F7-42C2-AC00-3DECDAB971 82
City of Palo Alto
Information Security
Document Version: V2.7
Doc : lnfoSec 110
EXHIBIT G
VENDOR CYBERSECURITY TERMS AND CONDITIONS
In order to assure the privacy and security of the personal information of the City's customers and people
who do business with the City, including, without limitation, vendors, utility customers, library patrons and
other individuals and businesses, who are required to share such information with the City, as a condition
of receiving services from the City or selling goods and services to the City, including, without limitation, the
Software as a Service services provider (the "Consultant") and its subcontractors, if any, including, without
limitation, any Information Technology ("IT") infrastructure services provider, shall design, install, provide,
and maintain a secure IT environment, described below, while it renders and performs the Services and
furnishes goods, if any, described in the Statement of Work, Exhibit A, to the extent any scope of work
implicates the confidentiality and privacy of the personal information of the City's customers. The Consultant
shall fulfill the data and information security requirements (the "Requirements") set forth in Part A below.
A "secure IT environment" includes: (a) the IT infrastructure, by which the Services are provided to the City,
including connection to the City's IT systems; (b) the Consultant's operations and maintenance processes
needed to support the environment, including disaster recovery and business continuity planning; and (c)
the IT infrastructure performance monitoring services to ensure a secure and reliable environment and
service availability to the City. "IT infrastructure" refers to the integrated framework, including, without
limitation, data centers, computers, and database management devices, upon which digital networks
operate.
In the event that, after the Effective Date, the Consultant reasonably determines that it cannot fulfill the
Requirements, the Consultant shall promptly inform the City of its determination and submit, in writing, one
or more alternate countermeasure options to the Requirements (the "Alternate Requirements" as set forth
in Part B), which may be accepted or rejected in the reasonable satisfaction of the Information Security
Manager (the "ISM").
Part A. Requirements:
The Consultant shall at all times during the term of any contract between the City and the Consultant:
(a) Appoint or designate an employee, preferably an executive officer, as the security liaison to the
City with respect to the Services to be performed under this Agreement.
(b) Comply with the City's Information Privacy Policy:
(c) Have adopted and implemented information security and privacy policies that are documented,
are accessible to the City and conform to ISO 27001/2 - Information Security Management Systems
(ISMS) Standards or other substantially similar industry standards such as NIST Cybersecurity framework.
See the following:
http :// ww w.is o.org/iso/home /store/ca ta Iogue tc/cata Iogue detail.htm?cs numb er=42103
http:/ /www .iso.org/iso/iso cataIogue/cataiogue tc/catalogue detail.htm?csnumber=50297
https://www.nist.gov/cyberframework(d) Conduct routine data and information security compliance training
of its personnel that is appropriate to their role.
DocuSign Envelope ID: B45A2530-DABF-4182-9728-CEEA1EF7C957
Professional Services
Rev. Dec.15, 2020
(e) Develop and maintain detailed documentation of the IT infrastructure, including software versions
and patch levels.
(f) Develop an independently verifiable process, consistent with industry standards, for performing
professional and criminal background checks of its employees performing Services that (1) would permit
verification of employees' personal identity and employment status, and (2) would enable the immediate
denial of access to the City's confidential data and information by any of its employees who no longer would
require access to that information or who are terminated.
(g) Subject to the NDA between the parties, provide a list of IT infrastructure components in order to
verify whether the Consultant has met or has failed to meet any objective terms and conditions.
(h) Implement access accountability (identification and authentication) architecture and support role-
based access control ("RBAC") and segregation of duties ("SoD") mechanisms for all personnel, systems,
and software used to provide the Services. "RBAC" refers to a computer systems security approach to
restricting access only to authorized users. "SoD" is an approach that would require more than one
individual to complete a security task in order to promote the detection and prevention of fraud and errors.
(i) Assist the City in undertaking annually an assessment to assure that: (1) all elements of the
Services' environment design and deployment are known to the City, and (2) it has implemented measures
in accordance with industry best practices applicable to secure coding and secure IT architecture.
(j) Provide and maintain secure intersystem communication paths that would ensure the
confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the City's information.
(k) Deploy and maintain IT system upgrades, patches and configurations conforming to industry
standards: Security patches to be applied within 30 days of release and all other patches to be applied
within 90 days of release. . Emergency security patches must be installed within 24 hours after its date of
release.
(I) Provide for the timely detection of, response to, and the reporting of security breaches, including
on-going incident monitoring with logging.
(m) Notify the City within twenty-four (24) hours of discovery of a security breach that results in the
unauthorized access to or the misuse of the City's confidential data and information.
(n) Inform the City that any third party service provider(s) meet(s) all of the Requirements.
(o) Perform security self-audits on a regular basis and not less frequently than on a quarterly basis,.
(p) Subject to the NDA, accommodate, as practicable, and upon reasonable prior notice by the City,
provide relevant documentation evidencing Consultant's and its third party service provider(s)' awareness
of security policies and practices, including access authentication and authorization, and incident detection
and response.
(q) Cooperate with the City to ensure that to the extent required by applicable laws, rules and
regulations, the Confidential Information will be accessible only by the Consultant and any authorized third
party service provider's personnel.
(r) Perform regular, reliable secured backups of all data needed to maximize the availability of the
Services.
(s) Maintain claim records relating to the Services for a period of three (3) years after the expiration or
earlier termination of this Agreement and in a mutually agreeable storage medium. Within thirty (30) days
after the effective date of expiration or earlier termination of this Agreement, all of those records relating to
the performance of the Services shall be provided to the ISM.
(t) Maintain the Confidential Information in accordance with applicable federal, state and local data
and information privacy laws, rules, and regulations.
(u) Encrypt the Confidential Information before delivering the same by electronic mail to the City and
or any authorized recipient.
(v) Unless otherwise addressed in the Agreement, shall not hold the City liable for any direct, indirect
or punitive damages whatsoever including, without limitation, damages for loss of use, data or profits,
arising out of or in any way connected with the City's IT environment, including, without limitation, IT
infrastructure communications.
Part B. Alternate Requirements: N/A
DocuSign Envelope ID: B45A2530-DABF-4182-9728-CEEA1EF7C957
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Rice, Danille
Sent:Friday, May 14, 2021 1:41 PM
To:Council, City; Council Agenda Email
Cc:Executive Leadership Team; ORG - Clerk's Office
Subject:Council Agenda Consent Questions for May 17, Items 5 and 6
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
On behalf of City Manager Ed Shikada, please find below the staff responses to
inquiries made by Council Member Tanaka and Council Member Cormack in
regard to the May 17, 2021 Council Meeting agenda.
Item 5: Five‐Year Support and Maintenance Contract for Utilities Design and
Asset Management System
Item 6: Resolution in Support of Grant Application for State TDA 3 Funds
Item 5: Five‐Year Support and Maintenance Contract for Utilities Design
and Asset Management System (requested by Council Member Tanaka)
1. Is this contract renewing the license to the software itself or only
providing additional support and maintenance for the software? If it
is only additional support and maintenance of the software, is it
necessary? If so, why?
This renewal contract is to provide additional professional services to
support on‐going maintenance, development, and enhancement to
CPAU GIS database, not for renewing the software license. Over the
past 12 years, significant development that has occurred to produce a
robust and high functioning system that the Utilities Department uses
on a daily basis. See the Executive Summary for more details.
2. Is the renewal of the CAD Masters Inc. crucial to the day to day
operations of the utilities department for the City of Palo Alto?
As described in the Discussion section of the report, yes, it is critical
to maintain the continuity to avoid down time or disruption to the
database or applications related to mapping, updating, and marking
and locating activities.
3. What are the effects of not approving this 5 year renewal contract
for the Utilities design and asset management system?
Without this system, Utilities Engineering staff will not be able to
prepare design drawings needed for capital improvement projects to
maintain the safety and reliability of the distribution and collection
systems. Operations staff also use the information for their daily
construction and mark & locate activities to avoid utility dig‐ins that
2
may result in service disruption or potential public endangerment
related to electric, water, and gas infrastructure damage. This
software was also customized to incorporate many functions the
Utilities Department performs that require the merging of utility
infrastructure data in the Utility GIS database.
4. Are there any other Utilities Design and Asset Management Systems
out there that are cheaper, but can accomplish the same tasks as
CMI?
As described in the Discussion section of the report, there are
professional services providers that can assist in support of GIS
systems, however it is staff’s evaluation that bringing in a new service
provider to support the current GIS system will require significant
resources both time and financially. As outlined in question six,
prices are within expected levels for this service therefore onboarding
a new provider would increase cost estimates due to start‐up costs.
5. Does granting the exemption from competitive solicitation come at
the cost of potentially using a more effective software program for
Palo Alto Utilities?
As described in the Discussion section of the report, no, staff
evaluated functionality as part of the new City‐wide Esri ArcGIS
platform and determined the current platform, AutoCAD Map3D
Enterprise (AME), is necessary to meet the specific functional
needs. As noted in the staff report, prior to the sunset of this
amended contract period, staff will complete an evaluation of the
system and professional services provider prior to any additional
extension of services.
6. Is this price standard for a Utilities Design and Asset Management
System?
As described in the Discussion section of the report, CMI's hourly
rates are in line with industry average rates in addition to over a
decade of institutional knowledge of the software and the Utilities
Department’s business to perform work efficiently.
Item 6: Resolution in Support of Grant Application for State TDA 3 Funds (requested by
Council Member Cormack)
1. How are the members of the PABAC chosen? Is it normal to have so
few women on the committee (appears to be 4 out of 18)??
The PABAC is currently an informal group advisory to the Chief
Transportation Official, and PABAC members are self‐selected. To be
added to the roster and become a voting member, candidates need
only attend three consecutive meetings (or must attend 3 of 4
consecutive meetings).
While noting that at this time PABAC has more women members than
it has had anytime in the past 10 years, staff is examining
opportunities to add other perspectives to this group.
Thank you.
3
Danille Rice
Executive Assistant to the City Manager
(650) 329‐2105 | danille.rice@cityofpaloalto.org
www.cityofpaloalto.org
City of Palo Alto (ID # 12159)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 5/17/2021
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Resolution in Support of Grant Application for State TDA 3
Funds
Title: Adoption of a Resolution Making Required Findings in Support of the
City's Grant Application for the State Transportation Development Act Article
3 Funds to Update the City's Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Transportation Department
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council:
1. Adopt a Resolution making required findings in support of the City’s application for FY
2021/22 Transportation Development Act (TDA) Article 3 funds in the amount of
$334,852 for the City’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan Update (Attachment
A).
2. Direct staff to return with options to pursue Vision Zero after completion of the Plan
Update.
Background
The City’s 2012 Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan is approaching a decade old and is in
need of a comprehensive update to reflect current community needs and desires, as well as to
address changes in bicycle and pedestrian planning and design. The core of updating the Bicycle
and Pedestrian Transportation Plan (Plan Update) is to seek robust community feedback,
reevaluate implementation progress from previous plans to adjust recommendations for new
policies, facilities, and programs, and determine appropriate criteria and metrics to prioritize
recommendations. The Plan Update will also further investigate safety data to propose
impactful recommendations, explore the role of emerging transportation technologies such as
electric-bicycles and micro-mobility, and establish big-picture planning to expand bicycling and
walking for all user types in support of the City’s Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goals and
other planning documents and policies.
Previous Plans
The City’s 2003 Bicycle Transportation Plan (2003 BTP) identified existing bikeways, analyzed
bicycle and pedestrian accident data, and recommended new bicycle facilities and education
City of Palo Alto Page 2
and safety programs. The 2012 Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan (2012 BPTP) was in
many respects an update of the 2003 BTP, but it also include d new recommendations such as a
policy framework, design strategies, and pedestrian facilities.
Transportation Development Act (TDA) Article 3 Program
The State of California’s Transportation Development Act (TDA) passed in 1971 implemented a
statewide quarter-cent sales tax to provide a public transportation funding source. Under
Article 3 of the Act, TDA funds are to be used by local jurisdictions for qualified bicycle and
pedestrian projects. Writing and updating bicycle, pedestrian and active transportation plans
are eligible TDA expenses.
Local jurisdictions obtain these funds in a three-step process: apportionment, allocation, and
payment (reimbursement). Apportionment, a city or county’s “guaranteed” share of funds, in
the San Francisco Bay Area follows the nine-county Metropolitan Transportation Commission
(MTC) formula based upon population statistics provided by the California Department of
Finance. Allocation funding requests to the MTC for exclusive use of bicycle and pedestrian
projects can be done annually, while funding requests for development of comprehensive
bicycle and/or pedestrian plans are eligible once every five years. A city or county could choose
to request allocation of funds and/or banking of funds annually. Payment of allocated grant
funds is received upon submission of claims for reimbursement by the city or county. The
process is conducted by a county coordinator.
No matching funds are required, but the project must meet the funding objectives and be
developed in cooperation with the community.
The county coordinator – for Santa Clara County, the county coordinator is the Valley
Transportation Authority (VTA) – initiates an annual call-for-projects. This fiscal year, the
County’s “guarantee” share of MTC’s TDA Article 3 fund estimate is $3,326,332, of which
$334,852 is the City’s portion. This amount represents FY2021/22’s guaranteed amount, which
includes the city’s prior years’ banked funds. Under TDA Article 3, funds may be banked for up
to four years plus one year to program funds, and if funds are not used within the prescribed
time, they will be redistributed to the countywide TDA Article 3 pool. The City has banked the
last four years; therefore, the funds must be programmed this fiscal year.
FY 2021/22 TDA Grant Application and Required Resolution
The FY2021/22 TDA Article 3 call-for-projects was released on March 8, 2021, with an
application deadline of April 16, 2021, and requires a governing body resolution supporting the
application by June 30, 2021. Staff submitted an application for the City’s entire guarantee
share in the amount of $334,852 for the Plan Update. A resolution making required findings in
support of the City’s application is attached for Council consideration and approval (Attachment
A).
City of Palo Alto Page 3
Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee (PABAC)
The Palo Alto Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee (PABAC) is composed of bicyclists and
pedestrians who live and/or work in the city. As a requirement to use TDA Article 3 funds,
PABAC will participate in the development and review of the Plan Update.
As of April 2021, there are 18 remarkable PABAC members who have contributed their time to
attend monthly meetings and provide valuable perspectives on issues related to bicyclist and
pedestrian travel in the city. Table 1 below presents the current list of PABAC members and
their respective interests.
Table 1: PABAC Members, April 2021
Name Role Respective Interest
Alan Wachtel Member Bicycle
Art Liberman Vice Chair Pedestrian
Bill Courington Member Bicycle
Bill Zaumen Member Bicycle
Bruce Arthur Member Bicycle
Cedric de la Beaujardiere Member Bicycle
Eric Nordman Member Pedestrian &Bicycle
Jane Rosten Member Bicycle
Kathy Durham Member Pedestrian
Ken Joye Chair Bicycle
Paul Goldstein Member Pedestrian &Bicycle
Penny Ellson Member Pedestrian &Bicycle
Richard Swent Member Pedestrian
Rob Robinson Member Bicycle
Robert Neff Member Pedestrian &Bicycle
Steve Rock Member Bicycle
Nicole Zoeller Boelens Member Bicycle
Arnout Boelens Member Bicycle
In support of the need to update the City’s latest Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan,
PABAC members and staff diligently discussed and constructed a Framework for the Plan
Update over a course of four months, from November 2020 to February 2021. The objective of
the Framework is to provide structure for reevaluating the 2012 BPTP and to develop strategies
for other transportation challenges, such as expanding transportation options and i ncreasing
safety and accessibility for all user types. The Framework is available in Attachment B.
In February 2021, PABAC members passed a motion accepting the Framework and
recommended staff to send the Framework to City Council for consideration. Additionally,
PABAC members passed a second motion supporting the use of the entire TDA Article 3
guarantee share for development of the Plan Update.
City of Palo Alto Page 4
Discussion
The City’s 2003 BTP and 2012 BPTP have successfully guided investments in non -motorized
transportation facilities and related programs in the City. However, over the past decade,
bicycle and pedestrian planning and implementation best practices have evolved. For example,
Complete Streets guidelines continue to be required in multimodal streetscape design. Vision
Zero is a strategy to eliminate all traffic fatalities and severe injuries, while increasing safe,
healthy, and equitable mobility for all. Vision Zero policies, plans, and implementation tools are
becoming a standard for transportation network safety. Safe Routes for Older Adults or Safe
Routes for Aging in Place programs are emerging to replicate the Safe Routes to School model
for seniors as transportation sector goals for greenhouse gas emissions reductions necessitate
improving transportation options for all segments of the population. There is increasing
recognition that alternative modes of travel such as biking, walking, micro-mobility, and transit,
will need to play a large role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the transportation sector.
The Plan Update will help direct City investment into safety improvements and programs for all
Palo Alto residents and visitors that can best support the City’s Sustainability and Climate
Action goals.
During discussions in developing a Framework for the Plan Update, PABAC members
deliberated on the importance of incorporating these new best practices into the Plan Update.
There is a strong desire to include Vision Zero efforts, but Vision Zero efforts could be costly.
Since TDA Article 3 funds are limited, a full Vision Zero planning initiative as a part of the Plan
Update is unlikely.
While the Plan Update will include a safety analysis and lay the foundation for Vision Zero
efforts, additional resources are required to pursue robust Vision Zero actions and
programming. At the direction of Council, staff will return with a menu of options for
implementing Vision Zero after completion of the Plan Update.
Policy Implications
Along with the City’s 2003 BTP and 2012 BPTP, this Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan
Update will contain specific policy, project, and program recommendations. The Plan Update
will aim to improve the quality of active transportation options, taking into consideration
community feedback, City priorities, and available funds.
Resource Impact
The City is eligible for funding to cover the Plan Update expenditures under TDA Article 3 and
can request allocation of up to $334,852 for this effort .
At this time, staff cannot project how much it will cost to update the plan until a Request for
Proposal is issued and proposals are received. The last update in 2012 cost approximately
$110,000, and accounting for inflation and an enhanced scope of work, the cost is anticipated
to be significantly greater and may utilize the full available TDA Article 3 funding.
City of Palo Alto Page 5
Sufficient funding for anticipated expenses is available in the FY 2021 Capital Budget Bicycle and
Pedestrian Transportation Plan Implementation project, PL-04010. Eligible costs incurred will be
reimbursed through the TDA Article 3 payment (reimbursement) process.
Timeline
Upon City Council adoption of the attached Resolution, staff will submit the signed Resolution
to VTA, which completes the City’s application for FY 2021/22 TDA Article 3 funds. After
receiving MTC’s approval, anticipated in Summer 2021, staff will work on a Request for Proposal
for a consulting team to develop the Plan Update. The Plan Update will be completed 18-24
months after contract award.
Stakeholder Engagement
Four PABAC meetings have been held to discuss the Plan Update and roughly 30 emailed
comments have been received from the public regarding the Plan Update Framework. In the
future, the Plan Update will also include involvement from the City/School Transportation
Safety Committee. The Scope of Work in the Plan Update Request for Proposal will include a
community engagement plan that will serve as a guide for soliciting community feedback on
the Plan Update.
Environmental Review
Adoption of the attached resolution is not a project under CEQA and no environmental review is
required at this time.
Attachments:
• Attachment A: Resolution Making Required Findings in Support of the City’s Grant
Application for Transportation Development Act Article 3 Funds
• Attachment B: Plan Update Final Framework
*NOT YET APPROVED*
1
0228_20210429_ts24
Resolution No. ___
Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Making Required Findings in
Support of the City’s Grant Application for FY 2021/22 Transportation
Development Act Article 3 Funds in the Amount of $334,852 for the City’s Bicycle
and Pedestrian Transportation Plan Update
RECITALS
A.Article 3 of the Transportation Development Act (TDA), Public Utilities Code (PUC)
Section 99200 et seq., authorizes the submission of claims to a regional transportation planning
agency for the funding of projects exclusively for the benefit and/or use of pedestrians and
bicyclists; and
B.The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), as the regional
transportation planning agency for the San Francisco Bay region, has adopted MTC Resolution
No. 4108, entitled “Transportation Development Act, Article 3, Pedestrian and Bicycle Projects,”
which delineates procedures and criteria for submission of requests for the allocation of “TDA
Article 3” funding; and
C.MTC Resolution No. 4108 requires that requests for the allocation of TDA Article
3 funding be submitted as part of a single, countywide coordinated claim from each county in the
San Francisco Bay region; and
D.The City of Palo Alto desires to submit a request to MTC for the allocation of TDA
Article 3 funds to support the projects described in Attachment B to this resolution, which are for
the exclusive benefit and/or use of pedestrians and/or bicyclists.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto does hereby RESOLVE as
follows:
SECTION 1. The City of Palo Alto declares it is eligible to request an allocation
of TDA Article 3 funds pursuant to Section 99234 of the Public Utilities Code.
SECTION 2. There is no pending or threatened litigation that might adversely
affect the project or projects described in Attachment B to this resolution, or that might impair
the ability of the City of Palo Alto to carry out the project.
SECTION 3. The project has been reviewed by the Pedestrian and Bicycle
Advisory Committee (PABAC) of the City of Palo Alto.
SECTION 4. The City of Palo Alto attests to the accuracy of and approves the
statements in Attachment A to this resolution.
*NOT YET APPROVED*
2
0228_20210429_ts24
SECTION 5. A certified copy of this resolution and its attachments, and any
accompanying supporting materials shall be forwarded to the congestion management agency,
countywide transportation planning agency, or county association of governments, as the case
may be, of Santa Clara County for submission to MTC as part of the countywide coordinated TDA
Article 3 claim.
SECTION 6. This resolution shall be effective immediately upon passage.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
__________________________ ______________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
__________________________ _____________________________
Deputy City Attorney City Manager
_____________________________
Chief Transportation Official
*NOT YET APPROVED*
3
ATTACHMENT A
Findings
1. That the City of Palo Alto is not legally impeded from submitting a request to the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission for the allocation of Transportation Development Act (TDA)
Article 3 funds, nor is the City of Palo Alto legally impeded from undertaking the project
described in Attachment B of this resolution.
2. That the City of Palo Alto has committed adequate staffing resources to complete the project
described in Attachment B.
3. A review of the project described in Attachment B has resulted in the consideration of all
pertinent matters, including those related to environmental and right-of-way permits and
clearances, attendant to the successful completion of the project.
4. Issues attendant to securing environmental and right-of-way permits and clearances for the
projects described in Attachment B have been reviewed and will be concluded in a manner
and on a schedule that will not jeopardize the deadline for the use of the TDA funds being
requested.
5. That the project described in Attachment B will complete the appropriate environmental
document as part of the project to comply with the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq.).
6. That as portrayed in the budgetary description of the project in Attachment B, the sources of
funding other than TDA are assured and adequate for completion of the project.
7. That the project described in Attachment B is for capital construction and/or design
engineering; and/or for the maintenance of a Class I bikeway which is closed to motorized
traffic; and/or for the purposes of restriping Class II bicycle lanes; and/or for the development
or support of a bicycle safety education program; and/or for the development of a
comprehensive bicycle and/or pedestrian facilities plan, and an allocation of TDA Article 3
funding for such a plan has not been received by the City of Palo Alto within the prior five
fiscal years.
8. That the project described in Attachment B is included in a locally approved bicycle,
pedestrian, transit, multimodal, complete streets, or other relevant plan.
9. That any project described in Attachment B that is a bikeway meets the mandatory minimum
safety design criteria published in Chapter 1000 of the California Highway Design Manual.
10. That the project described in Attachment B will be completed before the funds expire.
11. That the City of Palo Alto agrees to maintain, or provide for the maintenance of, the project
and facilities described in Attachment B, for the benefit of and use by the public.
*NOT YET APPROVED*
4
ATTACHMENT B
TDA Article 3 Project Application Form
Fiscal Year of this Claim: 2021/2022 Applicant: City of Palo Alto
Contact person: Philip Kamhi
Mailing Address: 250 Hamilton Ave, 5th Floor, Palo Alto, CA 94301
E-Mail Address: Philip.Kamhi@CityofPaloAlto.org Telephone: 650-329-2136
Secondary Contact (in event primary not available): Joanna Chan
E-Mail Address: Joanna.Chan@CityofPaloAlto.org Telephone: 650-329-2156
Short Title Description of Project: City of Palo Alto Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan Update
Amount of claim: $334,852
Functional Description of Project:
The City of Palo Alto Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Update will build upon the 2012 Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan. Additionally, the
Plan Update will include goals and strategies for encouraging more use of walking and biking, as well as explore emerging transportation
technologies.
Financial Plan:
List the project elements for which TDA funding is being requested (e.g., planning, engineering, construction, contingency). Use
the table below to show the project budget for the phase being funded or total project. Include prior and proposed future
funding of the project. Planning funds may only be used for comprehensive bicycle and pedestrian plans. Project level planning
is not an eligible use of TDA Article 3.
Project Elements: Planning
Funding Source All Prior FYs Application FY Next FY Following FYs Totals
TDA Article 3 $334,852 $334,852
list all other sources:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Totals $334,852
Project Eligibility: YES?/NO?
A. Has the project been approved by the claimant's governing body? (If "NO," provide the approximate date
approval is anticipated). Approval is anticipated in May, 2021.
No
B. Has this project previously received TDA Article 3 funding? If "YES," provide an explanation on a separate page. No
C. For "bikeways," does the project meet Caltrans minimum safety design criteria pursuant to Chapter 1000 of the
California Highway Design Manual? (Available on the internet via: http://www.dot.ca.gov).
N/A
D. Has the project been reviewed by a Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC)? (If "NO," provide an explanation). Enter
date the project was reviewed by the BAC: February 2, 2021.
Yes
E. Has the public availability of the environmental compliance documentation for the project (pursuant to CEQA)
been evidenced by the dated stamping of the document by the county clerk or county recorder? (required only
for projects that include construction).
N/A
F. Will the project be completed before the allocation expires? Enter the anticipated completion date of project
(month and year) Completion is anticipated by Spring 2023.
Yes
G. Have provisions been made by the claimant to maintain the project or facility, or has the claimant arranged for
such maintenance by another agency? (If an agency other than the Claimant is to maintain the facility provide
its name: )
N/A
Note: City of Palo Alto Sustainability and Climate Action Plan is anticipated for Council in mid -
2021, which may influence content of the Plan Update.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan Update
Final Framework
i.Letter from the Mayor or City Manager (tentative)
ii.Executive Summary
1.Introduction
1.1. Purpose
1.2. Principles
1.3. Goals, Performance Measures, and Policies
1.4. Palo Alto Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee (PABAC)
2.Plans, Programs, and Facilities
2.1. Relevant Plans
2.2. Supporting Programs
2.3. Supporting Facilities
3.Community Engagement for the Plan Update
3.1. Purpose
3.2. Process
3.3. Outcome
4.Safety Analysis
4.1. Bicycle and Pedestrian Volumes
4.2. High Injury Network
4.3. Bicycle Collision Trends
4.4. Pedestrian Collision Trends
4.5. Other Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Factors
5.Needs Assessment Criteria and Metrics
6.Recommendations
6.1. Projects
6.1.1. List of Bicycle Projects Recommendations
6.1.2. List of Pedestrian Projects Recommendations
6.2. Facilities
6.2.1. List of Bicycle Facilities Recommendations
6.2.2. List of Pedestrian Facilities Recommendations
6.3. Programs
6.3.1. List of Safe Routes to School Program Recommendations
6.3.2. List of New Program Recommendations
6.4. Policies
7.Implementation
7.1. Methodology
7.2. List of Ranked and Prioritized Projects
8.Appendices
ATTACHMENT B
City of Palo Alto (ID # 12167)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 5/17/2021
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Business Registry and BID Fee Waiver for 2021
Title: Adoption of a: 1) Resolution Waiving the Business Registration Fee for
Fiscal Year 2022 if Completed on Time and Extending the due Date to July 15,
2021; 2) Resolution Declaring an Intenti on to Temporarily Suspend the Levy
of Assessment Against Businesses Within the Downtown Business
Improvement District for Fiscal Year 2022, and Setting a Public Hearing on
the Proposed Temporary Suspension for June 1, 2021; and 3) Approval of the
Reimbursement of any Business Registration Fees and BID Assessments
Already Paid in 2021
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Administrative Services
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council:
1) Adopt a resolution waiving the business registration fee (Palo Alto Municipal
Code Chapter 4.60) due and payable in calendar year 2021 for FY 2022, except
the minimal state certified access specialist (CASp) fee required by law
(Attachment A), provided that registration is completed on time, and extending
the due date to July 15, 2021, and extending all late fees for the FY 2022
collection cycle to August 15, 2021;
2) Adopt a resolution of intention to temporarily suspend the levy of the
assessments in the Palo Alto Downtown Business Improvement District (BID) for
Fiscal Year 2022 (Attachment B), setting a date and time for the public hearing
on the proposal to suspend the levy for June 1 2021, at 5:00 PM, or thereafter;
and
3) Approve the reimbursement of any business registration fees and BID
assessments due in 2021 for FY 2022 that have already been paid by businesses.
Background
On May 4 2020, Council waived the business registration and BID fees for the FY 2021
cycle due to the COVID-19 public health emergency (CMR 11219,). As a result, any fees
paid by businesses in 2020 for the FY 2021 collection cycle were refunded as approved
City of Palo Alto Page 2
by Council. On June 8 and June 23, 2020 Council implemented the suspension of the
BID fees for FY 2021. (CMRs 11358, 11405.)
At the March 1, 2021 Council meeting, in response to the ongoing impact of the COVID-
19 pandemic, Council adopted a motion to waive the FY 2022 business registration fee
provided that registrations are completed by the due date, and to suspend the FY 2022
downtown business improvement (BID) assessment levy. The motion was recorded as
follows:
Direct Staff to return with the necessary documents to waive the business
registration fee (Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 4.60) for timely
completion, due and payable in Calendar Year 2021 and the assessments
typically levied for the Downtown Business Improvement District (BID) for
Fiscal Year 2021*
(*Note: The reference in the motion to “Fiscal Year 2021” is an error. The FY 2021
assessments had already waived by Council action in May and June of 2020. The March
1, 2021 staff report recommended suspension of BID fees due in 2021 for FY 2022.
Staff has interpreted Council’s motion to apply to BID fees typically collected in 2021 for
the FY 2022 collection cycle.)
Staff is proposing that the business registration due date be July 15, 2021 to offer
businesses ample time to complete the process and take advantage of the fee waiver.
The regular $50 fee for the Business Registry Certificate (BRC) will apply to any
registration completed after July 15, 2021 and late fees for the BRC will be applied after
August 15, 2021. There will be no fees or late fees for the BID. This report requests the
approval of resolutions to enact Council’s direction.
Business Registry
The Business Registration Program requirements in Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter
4.60 (commonly referred to as the “Business Registry”) apply to all businesses located
in Palo Alto, with the exception of nonprofits and businesses with less than one full-time
equivalent employee, home-based or transitory businesses, religious organizations with
no ancillary business on-site, businesses who relocated outside of Palo Alto in the past
year, and businesses that are permanently close d. Most exempt businesses need to
annually claim their exemption through the application but do not pay the fees. The $50
business registration fee is for cost recovery purposes and the $4 certified access
specialist (CASp) fee is a State requirement (SB1186 and AB1379) for local jurisdictions
to collect a $4 fee from new or renewal applicants for a local business license or
equivalent instrument or permit. The CASp fee is for the purposes of increasing CASp
services and compliance with construction-related accessibility requirements in Palo Alto
and cannot be waived by the City.
Business Improvement District
City of Palo Alto Page 3
The Downtown Business Improvement District (BID) was established to promote the
economic revitalization and physical maintenance of the Palo Alto Downtown Business
Improvement District. The City contracts with Palo Alto Downtown Business and
Professional Association (PADBPA) to provide services to businesses in the BID. The BID
assessment is levied on and paid by businesses in the district boundary to provide these
services. The assessment ranges between $50-$500 based on the location of the
business in the BID, type of business, and number of employees (or number of rooms
for a lodging business).
Discussion
Based on the City Council action on March 1, 2021, staff is bringing forward the
following actions:
1) Adopt a resolution waiving the FY 2022 Business Registry Fee of $50 for
registrations completed by July 15, 2021 (the regular fee of $50 will be assessed
for registrations completed after July 15, 2021 and all registrants will pay the
minimal CASp fee required by the state), and extending the deadline for the BRC
to July 15, 2021, and the late fee for the BRC to August 15, 2021; and
2) Adopt a resolution of intention to suspend the levy of assessments in the Palo
Alto Downtown Business Improvement District (BID) for Fiscal Year 2022, setting
a date and time for the public hearing on the proposal to suspend the levy of
assessment for June 1, 2021, at 5:00 PM, or thereafter; and
3) Direct staff to reimburse any business registration fees and BID assessments
already paid in 2021 for FY 2022.
In a typical year, the collection process for both programs would have kicked-off in
February with due dates of March 31, 2021 for the Business Registry, and April 13,
2021 for BID assessments. Due to the ongoing impact of COVID-19 and to assist
businesses during this time, the Council adopted a motion on March 1, 2021 directing
staff to waive fees for BRC registrations completed on time, which staff has designated
as July 15, 2021 to provide business sufficient time to complete registrations, and to
suspend the BID assessments for FY 2022.
Rescinding the approval of the levy of assessments for the BID as well as waiving the
business registration fee are included in this recommendation to further assist
businesses during this time. The BID assessment can be a larger amount for many
businesses in the district compared to the Business Registry fee. If the proposed
resolution (Attachment A) is approved, the City will not collect the $50 registration fee
from businesses due for FY 2022 if registrations are completed by the July 15, 2021 due
date. The $50 registration fee will apply for registrations completed after July 15, 2021,
and late fees for the BRC will be applied after August 15. Businesses will still pay the
state-mandated $4 CASp fee, a portion of which is remitted to the State and the
balance maintained in a restricted City fund.
City of Palo Alto Page 4
For any business that inadvertently paid the BRC or BID fee for FY 2021 or FY 2022,
staff is requesting Council’s authorization to issue refunds as done previously in 2020.
Providing refunds is recommended as opposed to providing fee and assessment credits.
Providing credits was determined to be administratively complex after consulting with
Avenu Insights & Analytics, on details required for implementation. Refunds will be
issued by mail to businesses that have already paid. No action will be required by these
organizations to receive this refund.
Resource Impact
Fees collected through the BID assessment are typically used by the Palo Alto
Downtown Business and Professional Association (PADBPA) for programs and activities.
With the waiver of fees for FY 2021, no activities were scheduled. The FY 2022
Proposed Budget assumed the continuation of no scheduled activities to align with the
possible fee waiver in FY 2022. An average of approximately $76,000 has been
collected from the annual BID assessment cycle in the past.
This recommendation will also impact the annual collection of the cost recovery
Business Registry fees. Approximately $100,000 has been collected annually in the past,
with approximately $15,000 of this amount attributed to late fees. The waiver of the
business registration fee was not assumed as part of the FY 2022 Proposed Bu dget, and
this action will result in a loss in revenues in Fiscal Year 2022, however, this is expected
to be offset by vacancy savings due to a current vacancy in the position that
administers this program. An adjustment to the FY 2022 Proposed Budget to account
for the reduced revenue will be brought forward for Council review as necessary for FY
2022.
Avenu Insights & Analytics Contract
Avenu Insights & Analytics bills the City $12 per initial registry payment from each
business per registry period. This will still be owed by the City to Avenu Insights &
Analytics even if no registration payments are collected from businesses to defray that
cost. These costs have been assumed as part of the FY 2022 Proposed budget. The
recommendation for Avenu Insights & Analytics to issue refunds to businesses comes at
no additional cost.
Stakeholder Engagement
The City contacted a representative of PADBPA who expressed support for not
collecting the assessment for FY 2022.
Environmental Review
The proposed actions are not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act.
Attachments:
• Attachment A: Resolution Waiving Business Registry Certificate Fee 2022
• Attachment B: Resolution Declaring Intention to Temporarily Suspend the Levy of
Assessments
Attachment A
NOT YET ADOPTED
Attachment A - 1
Resolution No. ______
Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Waiving the 2021 Business
Registration Fee (Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 4.60) for Registrations
Completed on Time, Setting the Due Date as July 15 and Establishing Late Fees
for Registrations Received After August 15 for the 2022 Collection Cycle
The Council of the City of Palo Alto hereby DECLARES as follows:
SECTION 1. Under the City of Palo Alto Business Registry Program (Palo Alto Municipal
Code (PAMC) Chapter 4.60), Palo Alto businesses are required to annually register and submit
an application for a business registration certificate, together with payment of a registration
fee, which is currently $50. In compliance with state law, the City also collects with each
business certificate application a $4 fee to support the Certified Access Specialist (CASp)
program.
SECTION 2. Due to the substantial detrimental impacts on businesses in Palo Alto
resulting from the ongoing coronavirus (covid-19) pandemic, state of emergency and economic
contraction, the Council desires to waive payment of the business registration fee by businesses
that submit registrations by the due date of July 15 and are otherwise in compliance with PAMC
Chapter 4.60.
SECTION 3. The City Council hereby authorizes and approves the waiver of the 202 2
business registration fee for businesses that register by July 15. This waiver applies only to the
$50 registration fee and not to the $4 state-mandated CASp fee which remains due and payable
with each application.
SECTION 4. The City Council hereby authorizes and directs the City Manager to return or
reimburse any payments of the business registration fee already made by businesses for 202 2.
SECTION 5. The City Council hereby authorizes and approves the establishment of late
payment fees for business registrations that are made after August 15.
/ /
/ /
/ /
Attachment A
NOT YET ADOPTED
Attachment A - 2
SECTION 6. The Council finds that the adoption of this Resolution does not meet the
definition of a project under Section 21065 of the California Environmental Quality Act and,
therefore, no environmental impact assessment is necessary.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney City Manager or Designee
Director of Administrative
Services
Attachment A
NOT YET ADOPTED
Attachment A - 3
Attachment B
Attachment B - 1
Resolution No. _____
Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Declaring Its Intention to
Temporarily Suspend the Levy of Assessments Against Businesses Within the
Downtown Palo Alto Business Improvement District for Fiscal Year 2022; and
Setting a Time and Place for a Public Hearing on the Proposed Suspension of
Assessment on June 1, 2021 at 5:00 PM or Thereafter, in the Council Chambers
R E C I T A L S
A. The Parking and Business Improvement Area Law of 1989 (the "Law"), California
Streets and Highways Code Sections 36500 et seq., authorizes the City Council to levy an
assessment against businesses within a parking and business improvement area which is in
addition to any assessments, fees, charges, or taxes imposed in the City.
B. Pursuant to the Law, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 4819 establishing the
Downtown Palo Alto Business Improvement District (the "District") in the City of Palo Alto.
C. The City Council, by Resolution No. 8416, appointed the Board of Directors of the Palo
Alto Downtown Business & Professional Association, a California nonprofit mutual benefit
corporation, to serve as the Advisory Board for the District (the "Advisory Board").
D. Since March 17, 2020, Santa Clara County together with all other Bay Area counties,
have been under a Shelter in Place order issued by the County Public Health Officers due to the
COVID-19 pandemic and statewide emergency. For periods of time during the intervening year,
businesses were required to close, open for curbside pick-up or take-out only, or open with
reduced capacity.
E. COVID-19 and the measures to mitigate the spread have resulted in significant
financial loss and uncertainty for many people and businesses including those in Palo Alto.
While increased vaccinations and decreased case numbers are allowing economic activity to
resume, the financial impacts on local businesses are anticipated to continue for months, if not
longer.
F. In recognition of the current challenges affecting downtown businesses, the City
Council on March 1, 2021 directed the suspension of assessments for fiscal year 2022 (July 1,
2021 through June 30, 2022).
NOW THEREFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The Council hereby adopts the above Recitals as findings of the Council.
Attachment B
Attachment B - 2
SECTION 2. Based on the findings herein, the Council intends to suspend the levy and
collection of assessments for the District for fiscal year 2022 (July 1, 2021 through June 30,
2022). The District shall remain in effect and the Council will consider the levy of assessments
for following fiscal years.
SECTION 3. The City Council hereby fixes the time and place for a public hearing on the
proposed suspension of levy of an assessment against businesses within the District for fiscal
year 2022 as follows:
DATE: June 1, 2021
PLACE: Conducted via Zoom Meeting
TIME: 5:00 p.m. or soon thereafter
At the public hearing, the testimony of all interested persons regarding the suspension of levy
of an assessment against businesses within the District for fiscal year 202 2 shall be heard.
SECTION 4. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to provide notice of the
public hearing in accordance with law.
SECTION 5. The Council finds that the adoption of this Resolution does not meet the
definition of a project under Section 21065 of the California Environmental Quality Act and,
therefore, no environmental impact assessment is necessary.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney City Manager or Designee
Attachment B
Attachment B - 3
Director of Administrative
Services
CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
May 17, 2021
The Honorable City Council
Palo Alto, California
SECOND READING: Finance Committee Recommends City Council
Approve Park, Community Center, and Library Development Impact
Fee Justification Study; Adjustments to Park, Community Center, and
Library Development Impact Fees; Adopt the Ordinance Updating Park
Land In Lieu fee; and Direct Staff to Implement the Impact Fee
Updates With the Fiscal Year 2022 Budget (Continued From March 8,
2021) (FIRST READING: April 12, 2021 PASSED: 6-1 Tanaka no)
This Ordinance was first heard by the City Council on April 12, 2021 and was
passed 6-1, Tanaka no.
MOTION AS AMENDED: Vice Mayor Burt moved, seconded by Council Member
Kou to:
A. Review and Accept the Park, Community Center, and Library Development
Impact Fee Justification Study and select and approve updated fee levels
based on study recommendations to update the City’s Park, Community
Center, and Library Impact Fee Program;
B. Direct Staff to implement the approved fee levels as part of the Fiscal Year
2022 budget process;
C. Adopt an Ordinance to update the fair market value per acre of land for the
Park Land in Lieu Fee in PAMC section 21.50.070; and
D. Direct the Finance Committee and Parks and Recreation Commission to
review the fee structures next Fiscal Year with a focus on:
i. Updated land acquisition costs;
ii. The differentiating fee structure for retail space versus office space;
iii. An update on office density;
Page 2
iv. Recommendation from the Finance Committee on the frequency
these schedules should be updated;
v. Recommendations on if there should be changes between multi-and
single-family fee structures; and
vi. Direct Staff to evaluate a reduction in fees for new multi-family
housing construction for projects that would exceed required
percentages of Below Market Rate units.
MOTION SPLIT FOR THE PURPOSE OF VOTING
MOTION AS AMENDED FOR PARTS A-C PASSED: 6-1 Tanaka no
MOTION AS AMENDED FOR PART D PASSED: 7-0
ATTACHMENTS:
• Attachment A: Ordinance Second Reading (PDF)
Department Head: Beth Minor, City Clerk
Page 3
*NOT YET APPROVED*
1
0223_20210223_ts24
Ordinance No. ___
Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 21.50.070
(Calculation of fair market value) of Chapter 21.50 (Park Land Dedication or
Fees In Lieu Thereof) of Title 21 (Subdivisions and Other Divisions of Land) to
Update the Fair Market Value of Land.
The Council of the City of Palo Alto ORDAINS as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings and declarations. The City Council finds and declares as follows:
1. Pursuant to local law and the state Quimby Act (see Gov. Code section 66477 et
seq.), the City requires park land dedication or fees in lieu thereof when creating a subdivision as
detailed in Palo Alto Municipal Code chapter 21.50;
2. The City Council approved a Park, Community Center, and Library Development
Impact Fee Justification Study on March 8, 2021 in which it was determined that the fair market
value of land for acquisition for City parks is $5.7 million per acre in Palo Alto; and
3. The City Council now desires to update the fair market value per acre of land for
the purposes of Chapter 21.50 to $5.7 million per acre.
SECTION 2. Subsection (b) of Section 21.50.070 (Calculation of fair market value) of
Chapter 21.50 (Park Land Dedication or Fees In Lieu Thereof) of Title 21 (Subdivisions and Other
Divisions of Land) is hereby amended as follows (new text in underline, deleted text in
strikethrough):
21.50.070 Calculation of fair market value.
(a) At the time of submission a final subdivision map for approval, the city shall, in those cases
where a fee in lieu of dedication is required either in whole or in part, determine the fair market
value of the land in the proposed residential development, and this determination shall be used
in calculating the fee to be paid. If the developer objects to the fair market value, the city, at
developer's expense, shall obtain an appraisal of the property by a qualified independent real
estate appraiser, agreed to by the city and the developer, and the value established by said
appraiser using standard recognized appraisal techniques to establish fair market value will be
accepted as the fair market value of the land in the proposed development. Alternatively, the
city and the developer may agree as to the fair market value.
(b) The fair market value per acre of land for the purposes of the calculation in § 21.50.080 is
$3.9 $5.7 million per acre.
(c) The rate of the fee shall be subject to annual adjustment for inflation pursuant to Section
16.64.110.
SECTION 3. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is
for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent
jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance.
The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each and every
section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without
*NOT YET APPROVED*
2
0223_20210223_ts24
regard to whether any portion of the Ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or
unconstitutional.
SECTION 4. The Council finds this ordinance to update this fee is not c onsidered a Project
as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA regulation 15061(b)(3).
The projects associated with this fee have been fully analyzed as part of the City’s 2030
Comprehensive Plan and its EIR, as well as the City’s Parks and Open Space Master Plan and its
Mitigated Negative Declaration and no further CEQA analysis is necessary.
SECTION 5. This Ordinance shall be effective upon the effective date of the revised Parks,
Open Space, and Library impact fees anticipated to be approved with the City’s fiscal year 2022
budget, but in no case shall the ordinance be effective less than thirty-one days after the date of
its adoption.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
NOT PARTICIPATING:
ATTEST:
____________________________ ____________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
____________________________ ____________________________
Deputy City Attorney City Manager
____________________________
Director of Community Services
____________________________
Director of Administrative Services
City of Palo Alto (ID # 11895)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 5/17/2021
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Public Hearing: Adoption of a Resolution Confirming Weed
Abatement & Assessment
Title: PUBLIC HEARING: Adoption of a Resolution Confirming the Weed
Abatement Report and Ordering the Cost of Abatement to be a Special
Assessment on the Respect ive Properties Described Therein
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Fire
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends Council (1) hold a public hearing to hear and consider objections from
affected property owners of proposed assessments related to completed weed abatement
work, and (2) adopt the attached resolution confirming the report and ordering abatement
costs to be a special assessment on the properties specified in the report.
BACKGROUND
The Weed Abatement Division of Santa Clara County Agriculture and Environmental
Management administers the contract for weed abatement within the City of Palo Alto, in
accordance with an agreement established on April 18, 1977, between the City and County.
On December 14, 2020, in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 8.08 (Linked
Here), the City Council declared weeds to be a nuisance and ordered that the nuisance be
abated. A public hearing was held on March 1, 2021, to consider objections to the proposed
destruction or removal of the weeds. No objections were noted. Once the above steps had
been taken, the County Weed Abatement Division instructed its contractor to abate weeds on
City and private properties within Palo Alto. That work has now been completed. Property
owners were notified the third week in December 2020 that weeds were to be abated by April
30th, 2021, either by the owners or by the County. If the property owners chose to have the
County abate the weeds, the abatement charges would be levied against the respective
properties as an assessment by the County Assessor. The County has since informed the
property owners of the costs for destroying and removing the weeds.
City of Palo Alto Page 2
The City Clerk has published the required notice of this hearing in the Palo Alto Weekly. The
cost report by the County Weed Abatement Division has been posted on the City Hall Plaza
bulletin board for ten (10) days prior to this hearing.
DISCUSSION
Property owners may object to the charges for weed abatement being levied against their
properties. The charge consists of the contractor’s cost plus 150 percent administrative
charges, in accordance with Palo Alto’s contract with Santa Clara County (CMR #7527,
December 12, 2016).
A representative from the County Weed Abatement Division will be present at the public
hearing with the records of weed abatement that have taken place. Should there be any
modifications in the proposed assessments as a result of the hearing; changes in the
assessment spread will be made as necessary. After any recalculations are completed, and
Council adopts the attached resolution confirming the abatements and ordering those costs to
be imposed as liens on the abated properties, the assessments will be submitted to the County
Assessor for entry on the October tax roll upon which general City taxes are to be collected.
An overview of the program and annual calendar for the steps involving City Council action is
provided in Attachment B.
RESOURCE IMPACT
There is no direct fiscal impact of this action to the City. The assessments identified as Exhibit
A1 of the Resolution, totaling $59,843, will be imposed as liens on the properties listed and will
not be borne by the City.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
This procedure is consistent with existing City policies.
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
The entire weed abatement program is coordinated by the Santa Clara County Department of
Agriculture and Environmental Management. Coordination includes contracts, inspections,
nuisance reports/lists and fees.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
The Santa Clara County Counsel has determined the Weed Abatement Program to be
Categorically Exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15308.
Attachments:
• Attachment A: Resolution Confirming Weed Abatement
• Attachment B: CPA Weed Abatement 3.0
Attachment A
*NOT YET ADOPTED*
1
0160045_20210421_ay16
Resolution No.
Resolution Confirming Weed Abatement Report and Ordering Cost of
Abatement to be a Special Assessment on the Respective Properties
Described Therein
R E C I T A L S
A. The Council of the City of Palo Alto has heretofore declared weeds growing on
certain properties within the City to be a public nuisance by Resolution No. 9931, dated
December 14, 2020.
B. The Council on March 01, 2021, did adopt Resolution No. 9938, thereby ordering
the weed nuisance abated.
C. Subsequent to the giving of said notice, the Fire Chief, through his Administrator,
the Weed Abatement Division of Santa Clara County Department of Agriculture and
Environmental Management, has caused to be abated the weeds on the herein described
properties.
D. The Fire Chief, through his Administrator, the Weed Abatement Division of Santa
Clara County Department of Agriculture and Environmental Management, has filed his report
and assessment list for weed abatement as provided by law and a hearing has been duly set and
noticed, for objections to said report and assessment list and for confirmation.
E. The Council has duly considered the report and assessment list and any
objections thereto.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto does RESOLVE as follows:
SECTION 1. The report and assessment list is in all respects complete and correct
and is hereby confirmed. The amounts of the cost for abating the nuisance are confirmed and
those remaining unpaid, as shown on Exhibit “A” attached hereto and incorporated herein, shall
constitute special assessments against the respective parcels of land and are a lien on the
property for the amount of the respective assessment.
SECTION 2. All written or oral protests or objections to said report and assessment
list are overruled or denied.
SECTION 3. The unpaid assessments shown on Exhibit “A” shall be entered upon the
2021‐2022 tax roll against the parcels of land and shall be collected at the same time and in the
same manner as general City taxes, be subject to the same interest and penalties, and be subject
Attachment A
*NOT YET ADOPTED*
2
0160045_20210421_ay16
to the same procedure and sale in case of delinquency. All laws and ordinances applicable to the
levy, collection, and enforcement of City taxes are hereby made applicable to this special
assessment.
SECTION 4. Santa Clara County has determined the weed abatement program to be
categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15308.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
Assistant City Attorney City Manager
Fire Chief
Director of Administrative Services
ExhibitA1
2020 WEED ABATEMENT PROGRAM
ASSESSMENT REPORT
CITY OF PALO ALTO
TAX ROLL
Situs APN OWNER ADDRESS AMT TRA
1605 Edgewood
003-12-002
Miao, Nina Yanti 931 Clara Dr PALO ALTO
94303-4002
$2,545.40
6006
2 1576 Hamilton 003-24-010 1576 Hamilton Avenue Lie 0 Po Box 1179 PALO ALTO 94304 $101.00 6006
3 136 Lois 003-38-044 Hobson Eleanor M Trustee Po Box 60452 PALO ALTO 94306 $101.00 6001
4 170 Iris 003-41-008 Xia, Fan And Zhou, Yuan 170 Iris Wy PALO ALTO 94303-3036 $1,763.00 6006
5 782 Greer 003-41-065 Deng, Jingjing And Jiang, Lijun 782 Greer Ln PALO ALTO 94303-3022 $IO1.00 6006
6 999 Embarcadero 003-41-068 Ge, Ruifang And Wang, Peiyu 999 Embarcadero Rd PALO ALTO 94303-3050 $IO1.00 6006
7 1938 Channing 003-42-039 Haley, Philip H Trustee & Et Al 506 Eisenhower St DAVIS 95616 $IO1.00 6006
8 1031 Embarcadero 003-42-060 Omegacloud Corporation IO181 Adriana Av CUPERTINO 95014-1125 $IO1.00 6006
9 2385 St Francis 003-48-021 Zadik, Yair And Linda 2385 St Francis Dr PALO ALTO 94303-3136 $1,719.80 6006
10 2075 Louis 003-50-021 Keller, Jeffrey R 2075 Louis Rd PALO ALTO 94303-3452 $IO1.00 6006
11 946 El Cajon 003-52-057 Pillsbury, Albert F And Helen B 707 Elm St Apt 221 SAN CARLOS 94070-8005 $101.00 6006
12 260 Byron 120-02-030 Liveright, Michael 260 Byron St PALO ALTO 94301-1307 $1,763.00 6006
13 655 Embarcadero 120-08-023 LS & Co Partnership 555 Byron St Unit I 05 PALO ALTO 94301-1303 $101.00 6001
14 733 Ramona 120-27-063 Koda, Ross K Trustee 0 PO Box 156 SOUTH DOS PALOS 93665 $1,868.60 6006
15 135 Melville 124-15-028 Poppy, James C And Sylvester, Mary 135 Melville Av PALO ALTO 94301-3541 $IO1.00 6006
16 3419 Cork Oak 127-48-023 Sunny Venture Lie 530 Showers Dr 7-229 MOUNTAIN VIEW 94040 $101.00 6006
17 464 Colorado 132-08-115 Chuang, Suhchu 142 Park Av PALO ALTO 94306-1107 $101.00 6006
18 3533 Ramona 132-22-097 Tang, Dexter Chihung Trustee & Et 3533 Ramona St PALO ALTO 94306-3549 $101.00 6006
Report Date: 5/27/2020 (List Sorted by APN) Page 1
ExhibitA1
2020 WEED ABATEMENT PROGRAM
ASSESSMENT REPORT
CITY OF PALO ALTO
TAX ROLL
Situs APN OWNER ADDRESS AMT TRA
19 3541 Bryant
132-23-033
Kaposhilin, Nicholas Trustee
936 California Av N PALO ALTO
94303-3405
$803.00 6006
20 76 Roosevelt 132-23-059 Liu, Jenkuei Trustee & Et Al 4039 Scripps Av PALO ALTO 94306-4535 $101.00 6006
21 149 El Dorado 132-25-022 Quan, Steven Y And Lillian M Trustee 3143 Greer Rd PALO ALTO 94303-4027 $101.00 6006
22 2876 Emerson 132-26-006 Hsu, Yen-fen 2876 Emerson St PALO ALTO 94306-2350 $101.00 6006
23 6006
24 6006
25 6006
26 6006
27 6006
28 6006
29 6006
30 6006
31 6006
32 6006
33 6006
34 6006
35 6006
36 6006
Report Date: 5/27/2020 (List Sorted by APN) Page 2
2886 Emerson 132-26-007 Wang, Diana 0 Po Box 6020 I PALO ALTO 94306-0201 $101.00
22 Roosevelt 132-29-067 Chiou, Ren-kang And Teng, Hsiu- 22 Roosevelt Cl PALO ALTO 94306-4216 $101.00
18
Roosevelt
132-29-069
Bernstein, Amir D Trustee
18 Roosevelt Cl
PALO ALTO
94306
$1,739.00
Lambert 132-33-060 Linda Allen 1700 Space Park Dr. SANTA CLARA 95054 $101.00
Lambert 132-33-061 Linda Allen 1700 Space Park Dr. SANTA CLARA 95054 $2,094.20
Lambert 132-33-062 Linda Allen 1700 Space Park Dr. SANTA CLARA 95054 $2,233.40
Lambert 132-33-063 Linda Allen 1700 Space Park Dr. SANTACLARA 95054 $2,027.00
220 Matadero 132-34-025 Ajloun Enterprises Lie 186 Camelia Dr DALY CITY 94015 $1,715.00
280 Matadero 132-34-031 Rose Rock Property Management Lie 19066 Austin Wy SARATOGA 95070-6405 $101.00
290 Matadero 132-34-032 Ruehl, Karl K And Sigrid T Trustee 2391 Gabriel Av MOUNTAIN VIEW 94040-1415 $101.00
3605 Park 132-34-050 Enabling Strategies Limited, A 3605 Park Boulevard Palo Alto 94306 $101.00
3561 Park 132-34-052 Mahal, Jaswinder 180 Park Sharon Dr SAN JOSE 95136-2535 $1,719.80
210 Wilton 132-35-012 Chase Wilton Lie 3024 Ross Rd PALO ALTO 94303-4102 $101.00
443 Wilton 132-35-027 Atashband, Bahram 443 Wilton Av PALO ALTO 94306-2859 $101.00
ExhibitA1
2020 WEED ABATEMENT PROGRAM
ASSESSMENT REPORT
CITY OF PALO ALTO
TAX ROLL
Situs APN OWNER ADDRESS AMT TRA
37 215 Wilton 132-35-042 Godshall, Kelvin V Et Al
215 Wilton Av PALO ALTO
94306-2855 $101.00 6006
38 3705 El Camino Real 132-35-045 Wilton Court Ii Lie 2595 Bayshore Rd E Suite 200 PALO ALTO 94303 $101.00 6006
39 2755 El Camino Real 132-36-084 Whpv Alta Locale Lie 530 Emerson St Ste 150 PALO ALTO 94301 $101.00 6006
40 434 Fernando 132-39-025 Woodrich Lie 696 Towle Wy Apt 33 PALO ALTO 94306-2538 $101.00 6006
41 421 Fernando 132-39-037 Williger, Edward M 0 P O Box 20089 STANFORD 94309-0089 $101.00 6006
42 415 Fernando 132-39-038 Brown, Jonathan S And Miriam M 415 Fernando Av PALO ALTO 94306-2820 $101.00 6006
43 3550 Orinda 132-40-001 Rodriguez, Agustin E Trustee & Et Al 3550 Orinda St PALO ALTO 94306-2842 $101.00 6006
44 4032 Park 132-43-025 Zhu, Li And Wan, Fanny Trustee 33345 7th St UNION CITY 94587 $101.00 6006
45 613 Stanford 137-01-059 Baumann, John R 613 Stanford Av PALO ALTO 94306-1412 $101.00 6006
46 2321 Wellesley 137-02-024 Culpepper, Benjamin J 335 Panoramic Wy BERKELEY 94704 $2,003.00 6006
47 2195 Columbia 137-06-036 Edelman, Andrea Trustee 2195 Columbia St PALO ALTO 94306-1233 $101.00 6006
48 3700 El Camino Real 137-11-078 Kss Investment Lie 1380 Miravalle Av LOS ALTOS 94024-5744 $1,811.00 6006
49 3793 La Donna 137-12-016 Mehta, Bijal And Pallavi Trustee 3793 La Donna Av PALO ALTO 94306-3151 $1,811.00 6006
50 6006
51 6006
52 6006
53
54
Report Date: 5/27/2020 (List Sorted by APN) Page 3
721 Barron 137-13-042 Ashworth, Darren And Imane 705 Barron Av PALO ALTO 94306-3108 $101.00
3890 La Donna 137-13-059 Sanders, David R And Dejesus-rueff, 3890 La Donna Av PALO ALTO 94306-3156 $101.00
4146 El Camino Real 137-24-034 Juan, Su Chen And Chung-chiung 6 Atherton Oaks Ln ATHERTON 94027 $2,295.80
4170 Alta Mesa 137-25-113 Wu, Mike C And Tsai-feng Trustee 4170 Alta Mesa Av PALO ALTO 94306-3930 $101.00 6006
Maybell 137-25-134 Golden Gate Homes Lie 2225 E Bayshore Rd Ste 200 PALO ALTO 94303 $101.00 6006
ExhibitA1
2020 WEED ABATEMENT PROGRAM
ASSESSMENT REPORT
CITY OF PALO ALTO
TAX ROLL
Situs APN OWNER ADDRESS AMT TRA
55
Maybell 137-25-135
Golden Gate Homes Lie 2225 E Bayshore Rd Ste 200 PALO ALTO 94303 $101.00 6006
56 Maybell 137-25-136 Golden Gate Homes Lie 2225 E Bayshore Rd Ste 200 PALO ALTO 94303 $101.00 6006
57 Maybell 137-25-137 Golden Gate Homes Lie 2225 E Bayshore Rd Ste 200 PALO ALTO 94303 $101.00 6006
58 Maybell 137-25-138 Golden Gate Homes Lie 2225 E Bayshore Rd Ste 200 PALO ALTO 94303 $IO1.00 6006
59 Maybell 137-25-139 Golden Gate Homes Lie 2225 E Bayshore Rd Ste 200 PALO ALTO 94303 $101.00 6006
60 Maybell 137-25-140 Golden Gate Homes Lie 2225 E Bayshore Rd Ste 200 PALO ALTO 94303 $101.00 6006
61 Maybell 137-25-141 Golden Gate Homes Lie 2225 E Bayshore Rd Ste 200 PALO ALTO 94303 $101.00 6006
62 Maybell 137-25-142 Golden Gate Homes Lie 2225 E Bayshore Rd Ste 200 PALO ALTO 94303 $IO1.00 6006
63 Maybell 137-25-143 Golden Gate Homes Lie 2225 E Bayshore Rd Ste 200 PALO ALTO 94303 $101.00 6006
64 Maybell 137-25-144 Golden Gate Homes Lie 2225 E Bayshore Rd Ste 200 PALO ALTO 94303 $101.00 6006
65 Maybell 137-25-145 Golden Gate Homes Lie 2225 E Bayshore Rd Ste 200 PALO ALTO 94303 $101.00 6006
66 Maybell 137-25-146 Golden Gate Homes Lie 2225 E Bayshore Rd Ste 200 PALO ALTO 94303 $101.00 6006
67 Maybell 137-25-147 Golden Gate Homes Lie 2225 E Bayshore Rd Ste 200 PALO ALTO 94303 $101.00 6006
68 Maybell 137-25-148 Golden Gate Homes Lie 2225 E Bayshore Rd Ste 200 PALO ALTO 94303 $101.00 6006
69 Maybell 137-25-149 Golden Gate Homes Lie 2225 E Bayshore Rd Ste 200 PALO ALTO 94303 $101.00 6006
70 4158 Arnaranta 137-26-027 Edmonds, Brian W And Parsa, 4158 Arnaranta Av PALO ALTO 94306-3905 $101.00 6006
71 4170 Coulombe 137-26-112 Tana, Chin in Trustee & Et Al 4170 Coulombe Dr PALO ALTO 94306-380 I $101.00 6006
72 4130 Donald 137-27-086 Hsi, Hsing-hui 4130 Donald Dr PALO ALTO 94306-3822 $101.00 6006
Report Date: 5/27/2020 (List Sorted by APN) Page 4
ExhibitA1
2020 WEED ABATEMENT PROGRAM
ASSESSMENT REPORT
CITY OF PALO ALTO
TAX ROLL
Situs APN OWNER ADDRESS AMT TRA
73 3460 Hillview
142-16-059
Leland Stanford Jr Univ The Bd
IO I California Av Ste I 800 SAN FRANCISCO
94111
$1,691.00 6006
74 1050 Arastradero 142-16-060 Leland Stanford Jr Univ Bd I 050 Arastradero Rd Palo Alto 94304 $1,907.00 6006
75 3495 Deer Creek 142-16-062 Leland Stanford Jr Univ Board 150 Portola Rd PORTOLA VALLEY 94025 $2,867.00 6006
76 3500 Deer Creek 142-16-066 Leland Stanford Jr University Board 3500 Deer Creek Rd PALO ALTO 94304 $2,867.00 6006
77 1000 Page Mill 142-20-091 Leland Stanford Jr University Board 965 Page Mill Rd PALO ALTO 94304 $101.00 6006
78 144 Monroe 148-06-001 Palo Alto Ca 14 Lie 2316 Wahsatch Av N #631 COLORADO SPRINGS 80907 $101.00 6006
79 4388 Silva 148-12-028 Yin 4761 EastusDr. San Jose 95129-3216 $1,715.00 6006
80 633 Arastradero 167-06-016 Stone, Virginia A And Bradley K 3516 Bajamont Wy CARMICHAEL 95608 $1,715.00 6006
81 639 Arastradero 167-06-063 Firm Ground Real Estate 0 Po Box 51871 PALO ALTO 94303 $101.00 6006
82 4179 Oak Hill 175-01-025 Bachrach, Virginia R Trustee 12 Starr Wy MOUNTAIN VIEW 94040 $3,299.00 6006
83 4169 Oak Hill 175-01-026 Bachrach, Virginia R Trustee 12 Starr Wy MOUNTAIN VIEW 94040 $3,347.00 6006
84 849 Mesa 175-01-037 Tit Lie 0 Po Box 1667 PALO ALTO 94302 $1,671.80 6006
85 4158 Oakhill 175-01-051 Karnath, Swati P Trustee 4158 Oakhill Av PALO ALTO 94306-3720 $101.00 6006
86 4243 Manuela 175-02-053 Weakland, Alan Trustee & Et Al 515 Flower St S Floor 25 LOS ANGELES 90071 $101.00 6006
87 4103 Old Trace 175-20-078 Smithwick, Alton D And Ursula L 0 Po Box 60065 PALO ALTO 94306 $2,487.80 6006
88 Old Adobe 175-20-092 Grove, Eva K Trustee 171 Main St 278 LOS ALTOS 94022 $101.00 6006
89 931 Laurel Glen 182-54-012 Sheth, Beerud Trustee & Et Al 931 Laurel Glen Dr PALO ALTO 94304-1323 $101.00 6006
TOTAL $59,842.60
Report Date: 5/27/2020 (List Sorted by APN) Page 5
City of Palo Alto Weed Abatement
The City of Palo Alto contracts with the Santa Clara County Department of Agriculture and
Environmental Management (SCCDAEM) to remove and destroy weeds in its efforts to mitigate
potential fire hazards (as defined in Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 8.08). The entire weed
abatement program is coordinated by the SCCDAEM. Abatement proceedings must follow a
legally established course. This is an annual process with weed abatement occurring in late
Spring. City of Palo Alto involvement is limited to the following 3 steps for City Council:
1)(Nov-Dec) City of Palo Alto Declares Weeds a Nuisance to allow for County abatement
and sets a later date (Jan-Feb) for a public hearing to review the Annual
Commencement Report (list of” nuisance” parcels).
2)(Jan-Feb) Public Hearing to review the Annual Commencement Report and approve the
County abatement proceedings. At this public hearing, property owners may appear and
object to the proposed weed destruction or removal. After the hearing and
consideration of any objections, the Council may sustain or overrule any or all
objections. Upon adoption of the resolution confirming the weed abatement
commencement report and ordering weed nuisances abated, the County will be asked
to perform the abatement work to destroy and remove any weeds.
3)(June) Public Hearing to approve the invoices for the abatement work performed by the
SCCDAEM.
The Santa Clara County Weed Abatement Program
The Santa Clara County Department of Agriculture and Environmental Management and the
City of Palo Alto work together to protect our community from fire. The purpose of the Weed
Abatement Program is to prevent fire hazards posed by vegetative overgrowth and the
accumulation of combustible materials.
Typically, a property is placed on the program list by a County Weed Abatement Inspector who
identifies a potential fire hazard on the property. The Palo Alto Fire Department (PAFD) & Code
Enforcement also report addresses of concern and forward (verified) complaints from residents
to the SCCDAEM. Residents can report addresses of concern to PAFD, code enforcement, or
directly to the County Weed Abatement Program.
Santa Clara County program staff annually inspect “nuisance” parcels at the beginning of the fire
season, which is typically April 30th for CPA parcels.
The Weed Abatement program is entirely funded from fees charged to residents. All parcels on
the list will be charged a basic inspection fee. If the parcel is not in compliance at the time of
inspection, the property owner will be charged an additional failed inspection fee, and they will
receive a final courtesy notice as a reminder to abate their weeds within 2 weeks.
If the weeds are not abated by the property owner, the work will be completed by the County
contractor. The property owner will pay the contractor’s fees plus a County administrative fee.
All fees will be included in their property tax bill.
Attachment C
Properties that meet and maintain the minimum fire safety standards will only be charged for
the annual fee. These properties will be removed from the list after three years of compliance.
City of Palo Alto (ID # 11735)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 5/17/2021
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Sedimentation Tanks Rehabilitation: Approval of Contract,
Partner Agreements, and State Financing
Title: Approval of a Construction Contract With C. Overaa & Co. in the Total
Amount of $15,123,900, and Three Amendments to Existing Agreements
With: 1) Stanford University, 2) East Palo Alto Sanitary District, and 3)
Mountain View & Los Altos, for the Primary Sedimentation Tanks
Rehabilitation and Equipment Room Electrical Upgrade Project (WQ -14003)
at the Regional Water Quality Control Plant; A doption of a Resolution
Revising and Superseding Resolution No. 9667, Establishing Pledged Sources
of Revenue for Repayment of State Revolving Fund Loan; and Adoption of a
Resolution Authorizing an Installment Sale Agreement With the California
State Water Resources Control Board for Financing the Design and
Construction of the Primary Sedimentation Tanks Rehabilitation and
Equipment Room Electrical Upgrade Project
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Public Works
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council:
1. Approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute the contract with C.
Overaa & Co. (Contract), in the amount of $13,749,000 for the Primary Sedimentation
Tanks Rehabilitation and Equipment Room Electrical Upgrade Project, funded in
Wastewater Treatment Enterprise Fund Capital Improvement Program, Project WQ -
14003, at the Regional Water Quality Control Plant;
2. Authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute one or more change orders to
the contract with C. Overaa & Co. for related, additional but unforeseen work that may
develop during the project, the total value of which shall not exceed $1,374,900 or 10%
of the contract amount, for a total not-to-exceed amount of $15,123,900;
CITY OF
PALO
ALTO
City of Palo Alto Page 2
3. Approve the adoption of a resolution (Attachment A) authorizing an Installment Sale
Agreement (Exhibit A to Attachment A) with the California State Water Resource Control
Board (SWRCB) in connection with the financing of the design and construction of the
Primary Sedimentation Tanks Rehabilitation and Equipment Room Electrical Upgrade
Project;
4. Approve the adoption of a resolution (Attachment B) revising and superseding
Resolution No. 9667 establishing pledged sources of revenue for repayment of funding
pursuant to the federal Clean Water Act Amendments; and
5. Approve Amendment No. 7 to the agreement between Palo Alto and Stanford
University (Attachment C); the Second Amended and Restated Agreement between Palo
Alto and the East Palo Alto Sanitary District (Attachment D); and Addendum No. 10 to
the agreement between Palo Alto, Mountain View, and Los Altos (Attachment E).
Background
The Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) was originally constructed in 1934 and has
undergone several expansions and upgrades, including the construction of the primary
sedimentation tanks (PSTs) in 1972. The four concrete PSTs (each measuring 220 feet long by
41 feet wide by 14 feet deep) are covered with a monolithic concrete slab and equipped with
mechanical and electrical equipment for wastewater flow control and sludge and scum
removal. The tanks are periodically emptied for mechanical equipment inspection and
maintenance. Over the course of their 48-year life, minor concrete repairs and crack sealing
were completed to manage visible surface cracks and spalling that occurred, mostly on the
concrete roof slab and near deck openings.
The design of the Primary Sedimentation Tanks Rehabilitation and Equipment Room Electrical
Upgrade Project was completed in August 2019 under a separate contract with Kennedy/ Jenks
Consultants (C18168129). As detailed in a Preliminary Design Report, the original coating on the
interior of the PSTs failed causing concrete deterioration on the interior surfaces of the tanks
(e.g., cracks and exposed aggregate). Most of the PSTs’ original equipment has reached the end
of its useful life. Rehabilitating the PSTs and their ancillary systems is necessary to ensure
reliability for continuous use of the primary treatment units and to ensure compliance with
current and future regulations.
California Clean Water State Revolving Fund (SRF) Program
The California State Water Resource Control Board (SWRCB) Division of Financial Assistance
administers the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (SRF) program. The SRF program provides
low interest financing to agencies for wastewater projects. Under this program, eligible projects
can apply for loans with interest rates that are approximately half of the State General
Obligation rate resulting in lower project costs and maximizing benefits to ratepayers and
partner agencies. On December 12, 2018, Council approved the adoption of reimbursement
resolutions to designate the amount of project expenditures to be reimbursed by Clean Water
City of Palo Alto Page 3
SRF proceeds for the funding of the Primary Sedimentation Tanks Rehabilitation and Equipment
Room Electrical Upgrade Project as well as the Discharge Infrastructure Improvement (Outfall
Pipeline) Project (SR #9814).
The SWRCB has completed their review of the City’s loan application for the Primary
Sedimentation Tanks Rehabilitation and Equipment Room Electrical Upgrade Project, and in
conjunction with the City Attorney’s Office, prepared the loan document entitled the
Installment Sale Agreement (ISA). The next step after Council approval is for the SWRCB to
complete its internal ISA approval process and gather all required State signatures in the next
two to four weeks, and then to present the ISA, in substantia lly the form of Exhibit A to
Attachment A, to the City’s Authorized officer (the City Manager, Director of Public Works, or
Manager of the Regional Water Quality Control Plant) for signature on behalf of the City.
Designated Palo Alto and SWRCB representatives must execute the ISA for the City to receive
SRF funds. Because financing is not secured until the ISA is approved and executed by both
parties, the City will terminate the construction contract in the event the SWRCB does not
provide an approved ISA for signature.
The City has previously obtained SRF loans for the Ultraviolet Disinfection Facility ($8.5 m illion,
20-year term); Palo Alto/Mountain View Recycled Water Pipeline project ($9.0 million, 20-year
term); and Sludge Dewatering and Truck Loadout Facility ($25.7 million, 30-year term). For the
Primary Sedimentation Tanks Rehabilitation and Equipment Room Electrical Upgrade Project,
the total estimated cost is $19.4 million and includes planning, design, construction,
construction contingency, capital program administration and construction management.
Discussion
This Project will rehabilitate four concrete PSTs and their ancillary systems and extend useful
life at least another 30 years. The scope of work includes the following for all four tanks: repair
cracked and spalling concrete on the tank’s floors, walls, and covers; apply a new protective
coating to the tank walls, ceilings, and covers; upgrade PST area lighting with LED light fixtures;
replace hatch and drainage covers on the top deck; install a flight and chain monitoring system
for the primary sludge raking mechanisms; replace effluent flow di version gates; and replace
aging motor control centers (i.e., electrical power distribution equipment) and relocate them to
a pre-engineered building adjacent to the sludge pump room.
Bid Process
On August 11, 2020, the City solicited formal bids from qua lified contractors for the Primary
Sedimentation Tanks Rehabilitation and Equipment Room Electrical Upgrade Project. The
bidding period was 74 calendar days. Four bids were received on October 23, 2020 with bid
prices ranging from $14,876,992 to $17,011,850. Due to issues with bids received, all bids were
rejected. A notice inviting formal bids was issued again on January 28, 2021 and the bidding
period was 57 days. Two bids were received on March 25, 2021 as listed in the attached Bid
Summary (Attachment F). The lowest bid from the second IFB issuance was $1,127,992 lower
than the lowest bid from the first IFB issuance.
City of Palo Alto Page 4
Table 1: Summary of Bid Process
Bid Name/Number
Primary Sedimentation Tanks Rehabilitation and
Equipment Room Electrical Upgrade Project (IFB-
179134A)
Proposed Length of Project 30 months after Notice to Proceed
Number of Bid Packages
downloaded by Contractors 36
Number of Bid Packages
downloaded by Builder’s Exchanges 4
Total Days to Respond to Bid 57
Pre-Bid Meeting (Virtual Meeting) Yes
Number of Company Attended Pre-
Bid Meeting 30
Number of Bids Received: 2
Base Bid Price Range $13,749,000 to $13,861,300
Staff has reviewed all bids submitted and recommends the bid of $13,749,000 submitted by C.
Overaa & Co. be accepted and C. Overaa & Co. be declared the lowest responsible bidder. The
base bid is 1.8% above the engineer's estimate of $13,500,000 and is within the expected level
of estimating accuracy. A contingency amount of $1,374,900 (10% of the bid price) is requested
for related, additional but unforeseen work that may develop during the project. Staff
confirmed with the Contractor's State License Board that the contractor has an active license on
file. It is recommended that Council approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee to
execute the contract with C. Overaa & Co.
Resolution Authorizing SWRCB Installment Sale Agreement (ISA) The authorizing resolution for
the ISA is included as Attachment A; the ISA is included as Exhibit A to Attachment A. The low
interest SRF ISA will provide funding in an amount not to exceed $19.4 million (not including
interest) based on the estimated cost of Primary Sedimentation Tanks Rehabilitation and
Equipment Room Electrical Upgrade Project, pending the City’s approval of the construction
contract, as well as both parties’ approval and execution of the ISA. The SRF loan will have an
interest rate of 0.9% for a 30-year term. The SRF loan will cover construction, construction
contingency, planning, design, capital program administration and construction management
costs. Costs incurred for the planning and design of this project were funded by the
Wastewater Treatment Enterprise Fund Capital Improvement Program (Project WQ-14003),
and will be reimbursed by the SRF loan. The final loan amount will be adjusted at project
completion to reflect actual disbursements requested over the course of construction.
The City’s payments under the ISA will be secured by a pledge of and payable from net
revenues of the City’s Wastewater Collection and Wastewater Treatment enterprise funds, on a
parity basis with the City’s obligation to repay the SWRCB under three prior SRF financing
agreements (the 2007 Ultraviolet Disinfection Facility, the 2009 Palo Alto-Mountain View
City of Palo Alto Page 5
Recycled Water Pipeline Project, and the 2017 Sludge Dewatering and Loadout Facility).
Resolution Establishing Pledged Sources of Revenue for Repayment of SRF Funding
The authorizing resolution for revising and superseding Resolution No. 9667 (adopted on
February 17, 2017), establishing pledged sources of revenue for repayment of funding pursuant
to the federal Clean Water Act Amendments is included as Attachment B. Since 2017, the
Water Board changed some of the standard terminology used in the template CWSRF
agreements commencing with the 2020 agreements (i.e., ISA included as Exhibit A to
Attachment A). Specifically, the definitions for “Maintenance and Operations Costs”, “Net
Revenues” and “Revenues” were modified, and the City now wishes to adopt a revised
resolution (Attachment B) that includes the updated definitions, while keeping al l other terms
and provisions of Resolution 9667 in place. Because the pledge of Net Revenues of the City’s
Wastewater Treatment and Wastewater Collection enterprise funds to the CWSRF financing for
CWSRF Project No. 8104 (Planning and Design of Projects Identified in the Long Range Facility
Plan) and CWSRF Project No. 8091-110 (Sludge Dewatering and Loadout Facility) will be on a
parity basis with the pledge of Net Revenues to certain outstanding obligations, it is the intent
of the Water Board and the City that the updated terminology does not result in a substantive
change in the scope of the Net Revenues pledged to repaym ent of the CWSRF financial
assistance.
Partner Agencies Agreements
In October 2016, Council approved contract amendments (SR ID #7144) with partner agencies
for the planning and design of the Primary Sedimentation Tanks Rehabilitation and Equipment
Room Electrical Upgrade Project (Project). To fund the SRF loan, the partner agencies approved
up to $17 million in Project funding. The partners also approved up to $12 million in funding for
the Outfall Pipeline project. Staff will return to Council for approval of construction and loan
financing for the Outfall Pipeline project with details in a separate staff report. Approval of
these partner agreements does not commit the City t o the Outfall Pipeline project. Partner
agreements were modified, and each agency approved the attached agreements by their
Board, Council, or authorized representative on the following date s: Stanford (2/11/20),
Mountain View (4/14/20), Los Altos, (5/26/20), and East Palo Alto Sanitary District (4/16/20).
Note that Los Altos Hills has the smallest contribution to the Plant and has a different
agreement that does not require them to approve capital improvement projects. It is
recommended that Council approve the following:
• Amendment No. 7 to the Agreement between Palo Alto and Stanford University
(Attachment C)
• The Second Amended and Restated Agreement between Palo Alto and the East Palo
Sanitary District (Attachment D)
• Addendum No. 10 to the Agreement between Palo Alto, Mountain View, and Los Altos
(Attachment E)
The total SRF loan will be $19.4 million based on the lowest responsible bid. The partner
City of Palo Alto Page 6
agreement amendments (Attachments C, D and E) recommended for approval by Council have
a stated maximum SRF loan amount of $17.0 million and the SRF loan total project cost of $17.5
million, which were based on earlier construction cost estimates. The SWRCB is expected to
approve a staff request to increase the SRF loan to $19.4 million. Furthermore, staff will return
to Council with modified agreements from Stanford, East Palo Alto Sanitary District, Mountain
View, and Los Altos increasing the maximum loan amount to approximately $19.4 million. In
the interim or in the unlikely event the maximum loan amount is not modified by partners or
the SWRCB, up to $2.4 million of the difference will be covered by the Plant Repair, Retrofit,
and Equipment Replacement project (WQ-19002). This project is also funded by the partners
with a fixed dollar amount annually for minor capital work at the Plant, but one larger project
funded in WQ-19002 is a Medium Voltage (12kV) Electrical Loop Rehabilitation. In the event the
$2.4 million is needed to cover the PSTs Rehabilitation Project, staff will consider splitting the
construction of the 12kV Electrical Loop Rehabilitation into multiple phases to accommodate
the budget constraints.
Timeline
The work is anticipated to be completed by December 31, 2023.
Resource Impact
Palo Alto RWQCP treats the combined wastewater from Palo Alto, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills,
Mountain View, Stanford University, and the East Palo Alto Sanitary District. Palo Alto’s share of
this project is 38.16% and the other five agencies’ share is 61.84%, based on the fixed capacity
established in partners’ agreements. As the lead agency, the City of Palo Alto has appropriated
the funding for this Project in the Wastewater Treatment Enterprise Fund Capital Improvement
Program (Project WQ-14003). A total of $20,681,849, including salary and benefit costs for City
Staff, has been planned for WQ-14003, with $14,295,593 appropriated in FY 2021 and
$5,586,000 planned for FY 2022 as part of the 2021-2025 Capital Improvement Plan. Staff will
encumber $11.6 million of the total contract in FY 2021. The remaining $3.5 million of the
contract will be encumbered in FY 2022 to complete the work, subject to the FY 2022 budget
process and Council’s appropriation of funds for FY 2022.
Table 2: Project Implementation Costs
Construction Cost (C. Overaa & Co. bid including 10% contingency)1 $15,123,900
Construction Management Services2 $1,512,390
Design Cost (including additional services)3 $965,000
Capital Program Administrative Services $350,490
Contingency4 $1,448,220
Total Project Cost5: $19,400,000
Notes:
1. Proposed contract with C. Overaa & Co. with base bid of $13,749,000 and 10% contingency $1,374,900
City of Palo Alto Page 7
for a total of $15,123,900.
2. Staff will return to City Council at a future date for approval of a separate construction management
services contract. The estimated cost of $1,512,390 is 10% of the total construction cost.
3. Existing contract (C18168129) with Kennedy/ Jenks Consultants (K/J) is $965,000. Staff will return to City
Council at a future date for approval of a budget amendment for K/J to continue to provide services during
construction through June 2024.
4. A contingency in the amount of $1,448,220 is included in the total project cost to account for unknown
and unforeseen program expenditures.
5. Staff will submit Final Budget Approval Form in the amount of $19.4 million to the SWRCB during the
second or third quarter of 2021. Once the form is approved, the $19.4 million will become the final not-to-
exceed loan amount. This amount does not include salary and benefit costs of City Staff.
The design and construction of this project, including associated construction management and
administrative costs, will be financed through the CWSRF loan, which is disbursed on a
reimbursement basis. Pursuant to SRF policy, the first repayment occurs one year after project
completion, which is estimated to be in December 2024. The annual SRF loan repayment, which
includes principal and interest, will be based on an amortized period of 30 years. Based on a
CWSRF loan amount of $19.4 million, the estimated annual repayments contributed by the City
of Palo Alto and partner agencies are summarized in Table 3 below.
Table 3: CWSRF Loan Repayment Partner Agency Estimates
Contributing Partner Agency Percent
Contribution Annual Repayment1
City of Palo Alto 38.16% $282,681
City of Mountain View 37.89% $280,681
City of Los Altos 9.47% $70,152
East Palo Alto Sanitary District 7.64% $56,595
Stanford University 5.26% $38,965
Town of Los Altos Hills 1.58% $11,704
Total: 100.00% $740,779
Note: 1. Based on CWSRF loan amount of $19,400,000 at 0.9% interest rate for 30-year term.
Policy Implications
This recommendation does not represent any change to existing City policies and supports the
Comprehensive Plan Policy N.4-16.
Stakeholder Engagement
This project is part of the RWQCP’s major capital improvement program funded by Palo Alto
and the five partner agencies who use the RWQCP for wastewater treatment. The five partner
agencies are regularly updated on both the need for and the progress of wastewater treatment
capital work. Updates are provided each year at an annual meeting and at other periodic
meetings established to inform partner agency staff about the major capital improvement
City of Palo Alto Page 8
program. With respect to Palo Alto itself, the open meetings on the budget process se rve as the
main vehicle for engaging the community on both new projects such as this and associated rate
impacts.
Environmental Review
The construction of this project has been determined to be exempt from CEQA under CEQA
Guidelines Section 15301, subsections (b) and (e)(1), Existing Facilities, as it involves the repair
and maintenance of an existing publicly-owned utility used to provide sewerage treatment
services with a minor addition to an existing building. On October 15, 2018, Council approved
the determination that the construction of the Primary Sedimentation Tanks Rehabilitation and
Electrical Upgrade Project to be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act and
approved the preliminary design (Staff Report #9581). A Notice of Exemption has been
submitted to Santa Clara County Clerk-Recorder’s office and was recorded on October 31, 2018
(File No. ENV21843).
Adoption of resolutions authorizing an Installment Sale Agreement and establishing pledged
sources of revenue for repayment of funding, and amendments to the partner agreements are
not actions that require CEQA review. These actions do not meet the definition of a project for
the purposes of CEQA, under Public Resources Code Section 21065 and CEQA Guidelines
Section 15378(b)(5), because they are administrative governmental activities which will not
cause a direct or indirect physical change in the environment.
Attachments:
• Attachment A - Closing Resolution Authorizing Installment Sale Agreement for Primary
Sedimentation Tank Rehabilitation Project
• Attachment B - Resolution Establishing Pledged Sources of Revenue for Repayment of
Funding
• Attachment C - Amendment No.7 to the Agreement Between Palo Alto and Stanford
University
• Attachment D - Second Amended & Restated Agreement Between Palo Alto and East
Palo Alto Sanitary District
• Attachment E - Addendum No.10 to the Agreement Between Palo Alto, Mountain View,
and Los Altos
• Attachment F - Bid Summary
NOT YET ADOPTED ATTACHMENT A
2020110601
Resolution No.
Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Authorizing an
Installment Sale Agreement with the California State Water Resources Control
Board in Connection with the Financing of a Primary Sedimentation Tank
Rehabilitation and Electrical Upgrade Project at the Regional Water Quality
Control Plant, Establishing One or More Pledged Sources of Revenue for
Repayment of Funding, and
Taking Certain Other Actions Relating Thereto
R E C I T A L S
A. The City of Palo Alto (the “City”) wishes to finance a primary sedimentation tank
rehabilitation and electrical upgrade project at the Regional Water Quality Control Plant (the
“Project”).
B. The City intends to finance the construction and/or reconstruction of the Project
or portions of the Project with moneys (“Project Funds”) provided by the State of California,
acting by and through the State Water Resources Control Board (the “State Water Board”).
C. The City previously adopted Resolution No. 9630 authorizing an application for
financial assistance to the State Water Board and Resolution No. 9805 declaring its intention to
use a portion of the Project Funds to reimburse certain capital expenditures made prior to the
receipt of Project Funds from available moneys of the City in connection with the Project.
D. The City and the State Water Board now desire to approve a Construction
Installment Sale Agreement (the “2020 Installment Sale Agreement”), for the purpose of
providing the terms relating to the distribution and repayment by the City of the Project Funds
and relating to the City’s payment of certain installment payments.
E. Section 603(d)(1)(C) of the Federal Clean Water Act Amendments require each
financing recipient to establish one or more pledged sources of revenue for Clean Water State
Revolving Fund (CWSRF) financial assistance.
F. Under the 2020 Installment Sale Agreement, the installment payments payable by
the City will be secured by a pledge of and payable from Net Revenues (as defined in the 2020
Installment Sale Agreement) of the City’s Wastewater Treatment enterprise and Wastewater
Collection enterprise, on a parity basis with the City’s obligation to pay installment payments
under three outstanding installment sale agreements with the State Water Board:
i. an Installment Sale Agreement No. D16-01034, dated as of March 20, 2017 (the
“2017 Agreement”), by and between the City and the State Water Board;
2
202011001
ii. a Project Finance Agreement No. 09-814-550, between the City and the State
Water Board (the “2009 Agreement”), along with an amendment of the 2009
Agreement dated June 12, 2017; and
iii. a Project Finance Agreement No. 07-814,550-0, between the City and the State
Water Board (the “2007 Agreement”), along with an amendment of the 2007
Agreement dated June 12, 2017.
G. The City and the State Water Board have agreed that the installment payments
payable by the City under the 2020 Installment Sale Agreement will be secured by a pledge of
and payable from Net Revenues on a subordinate basis to the City’s obligation to pay a portion
of the debt service on the City of Palo Alto Utility Revenue and Refunding Bonds, 1999 Series A
under an Indenture of Trust dated as of June 1, 1999.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto hereby RESOLVES as follows:
SECTION 1. Each of the above recitals is true and correct and is adopted by the Council
of the City of Palo Alto.
SECTION 2. The City approves the Project Funds in an amount not to exceed $19.4
million with an interest rate not to exceed 2.0%.
SECTION 3. The 2020 Installment Sale Agreement, a copy of which is attached as
Exhibit A, is hereby approved in substantially the form thereof with such changes as may be
approved by the City Manager, the Director of Public Works or any designee of the City Manager
or the Director of Public Works (each an “Authorized Officer”). Execution by an Authorized Officer
of the 2020 Installment Sale Agreement shall constitute conclusive evidence of such Authorized
Officer’s approval of all such changes. Each of the Authorized Officers is hereby authorized,
together or alone, to execute and deliver the 2020 Installment Sale Agreement. The City Clerk is
hereby authorized to attest to the Authorized Officer's signature.
SECTION 4. The covenants set forth in the 2020 Installment Sale Agreement to be
executed in accordance with Section 3 above are hereby approved, shall be deemed to be
covenants of the legislative body of the City, and shall be complied with by the City and its
officers.
SECTION 5. The City hereby pledges Net Revenues (as defined in the 2020 Installment
Sale Agreement) of its Wastewater Treatment enterprise and Wastewater Collection enterprise
fund to the payment of amounts owed under the 2020 Installment Sale Agreement, as follows:
(i) on a parity basis with the City’s obligation to pay installment payments under three
outstanding installment sale agreements with the State Water Board as set forth in Recital F
above, and (ii) on a subordinate basis to the City’s obligation to pay a portion of the debt service
on the City of Palo Alto Utility Revenue and Refunding Bonds, 1999 Series A under an Indenture
of Trust dated as of June 1, 1999. The pledged source of revenue shall remain in effect until such
3
202011001
financing is fully discharged unless modification or change of such dedication is approved in
writing by the State Water Board.
SECTION 6. Each Authorized Officer and the other officers and staff of the City
responsible for the fiscal affairs of the City are hereby authorized and directed to take any actions
and execute and deliver any and all documents and certificates as are necessary to accomplish
and to consummate the transactions contemplated by the 2020 Installment Sale Agreement.
SECTION 7. On October 15, 2018, the City Council approved the determination that
the construction of the Primary Sedimentation Tanks Rehabilitation and Electrical Upgrade
Project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under CEQA Guidelines
Section 15301, subsections (b) and (e)(1), Existing Facilities, as it involves the repair and
maintenance of an existing publicly-owned utility used to provide sewerage treatment services
with a minor addition to an existing building.
4
202011001
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Assistant City Attorney City Manager
Director of Public Works
Director of Administrative Services
5
202011001
EXHIBIT
Exhibit A – Installment Sale Agreement for Primary Sedimentation Tanks Rehabilitation and
Equipment Room Electrical Upgrade Project
Attachment B
161220 jb 6053827A 1
*Yet to be Passed*
Resolution No. ___
Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Revising and
Superseding Resolution No. 9667 Establishing Pledged Sources of
Revenue For Repayment of Funding Pursuant to the Federal Clean
Water Act Amendments
RECITALS
A.The CITY OF PALO ALTO (the “City”) desires to finance the costs of planning,
design, and/or construction of certain public facilities and improvements relating to its
wastewater system, including the planning/design of primary sedimentation tanks, fixed film
reactors, and the laboratory/environmental service building, and the construction of a sludge
treatment and load-out facility (the “Projects”) that were identified in the Regional Water
Quality Control Plant’s Long Range Facility Plan.
B.The City intends to finance the planning, design, and/or construction of the
Projects or portions of the Projects with moneys (“Project Funds”) provided by the State of
California, acting by and through the State Water Resources Control Board (the “Water Board”).
C.Section 603(d)(1)(C) of the Federal Clean Water Act Amendments require each
financing recipient to establish one or more pledged sources of revenue for Clean Water State
Revolving Fund (“CWSRF”) financial assistance.
D.Revenue will be considered pledged when the City passes a resolution
committing a source of funds for repayment.
E.On October 17, 2016, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 9631, pledging net
revenues of its Wastewater Treatment enterprise fund to repayment of CWSRF financial
assistance incurred for the planning, design, and/or construction of the Projects.
F. On February 17, 2017, in response to additional direction from the Water Board,
the City Council repealed Resolution No. 9631 and adopted Resolution No. 9667, in order to
pledge net revenue from both its Wastewater Treatment and Wastewater Collection enterprise
funds to repayment of CWSRF financial assistance for the Projects.
G.Since 2017, the Water Board changed some of the standard terminology used in
the template CWSRF agreements commencing with the 2020 agreements; specifically, the
definitions for “Maintenance and Operations Costs” and “Net Revenues” and “Revenues” were
modified, and the City now wishes to adopt a revised resolution that includes the updated
definitions, while keeping all other terms and provisions of Resolution 9667 in place. Because
the pledge of Net Revenues of the City’s Wastewater Treatment and Wastewater Collection
enterprise funds to the CWSRF financing for CWSRF Project No. 8104 CWSRF Project No. 8091-
110 will be on a parity basis with the pledge of Net Revenues to certain outstanding obligations,
--
161220 jb 6053827A 2
it is the intent of the Water Board and the City that the updated terminology does not result in
a substantive change in the scope of the Net Revenues pledged to repayment of the CWSRF
financial assistance.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto RESOLVES as follows:
SECTION 1. The City of Palo Alto hereby pledges Net Revenues of its Wastewater
Treatment enterprise fund and Wastewater Collection enterprise fund to repayment of any and
all CWSRF financing incurred for CWSRF Project No. 8104, including the planning/design of
primary sedimentation tanks, fixed film reactors, and laboratory/ environmental service
building and CWSRF Project No. 8091-110, including the design and construction of a sludge
dewatering and load-out facility. Net Revenues of the City’s Wastewater Treatment enterprise
and Wastewater Collection enterprise are defined as follows:
"Net Revenues" means, for any Fiscal Year, all Revenues received by the Recipient less
the Operations and Maintenance Costs for such Fiscal Year.
"Revenues" means, for each Fiscal Year, all gross income and revenue received or
receivable by the Recipient from the ownership or operation of the System, determined
in accordance with GAAP, including all rates, fees, and charges (including connection
fees and charges) as received by the Recipient for the services of the System, and all
other income and revenue howsoever derived by the Recipient from the ownership or
operation of the System or arising from the System, including all income from the
deposit or investment of any money in the Enterprise Fund or any rate stabilization fund
of the Recipient or held on the Recipient’s behalf, and any refundable deposits made to
establish credit, and advances or contributions in aid of construction. For the avoidance
of doubt, the parties intend that this definition be substantially equivalent to the
definitions of “Revenues” contained in the Prior SRF Agreements, and the State Water
Board hereby agrees that Recipient shall be entitled to treat them as equivalents in
connection with the calculation of Revenues and Net Revenues and the issuance of
additional System Obligations.
"Operations and Maintenance Costs" means the reasonable and necessary costs paid or
incurred by the Recipient for maintaining and operating the System, determined in
accordance with GAAP, including the cost of supply of water, gas and electric energy
under contracts or otherwise, the funding of reasonable reserves, and all reasonable
and necessary expenses of management and repair and all other expenses necessary to
maintain and preserve the System in good repair and working order, and including all
reasonable and necessary administrative costs of the Recipient attributable to the
System and to any financing instruments incurred to finance improvements to the
System, such as salaries and wages and the necessary contribution to retirement of
employees, overhead, insurance, taxes (if any), expenses, compensation and
indemnification of any bond trustee, and fees of auditors, accountants, attorneys or
engineers, and including all other reasonable and necessary costs of the Recipient or the
161220 jb 6053827A 3
cost of permits, licenses, and charges required to be paid by it to comply with the terms
of any financing instrument related to the System; but excluding, in all cases
depreciation, replacement, and obsolescence charges or reserves therefor and
amortization of intangibles or other bookkeeping entries of a similar nature."
This pledge of Net Revenues shall remain in effect until such financing is fully discharged unless
modification or change of such dedication is approved in writing by the Water Board.
SECTION 2: The Council’s pledge of the revenues to repay State Revolving Fund
financing for the above-referenced Projects does not meet the definition of a project for the
purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act, under Public Resources Code Section
21065 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(5), because it is an administrative governmental
activity which will not cause a direct or indirect physical change in the environment. Council
approved an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the sludge-dewatering and
loadout facility project on March 28, 2016 (Staff Report ID# 6424).
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
161220 jb 6053827A 4
//
SECTION 3: Resolution No. 9667, adopted on February 17, 2017 is hereby repealed
and superseded by adoption of this Resolution No. ____
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
_________________________ ______________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
__________________________ ______________________________
Senior Deputy City Attorney City Manager
______________________________
Director of Public Works
______________________________
Director of Administrative Services
1 2020010902
AMENDMENT NO. SEVEN TO CONTRACT NO. C869
BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND THE BOARD OF
TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY
This Amendment No. Seven (7) to the Contract is made and entered into on
, by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a chartered city and a
chartered municipal corporation of the State of California (“City”) and the BOARD OF
TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY, a body having corporate
powers under the laws of the State of California (“Stanford”) (individually, a “Party”;
collectively, the “Parties”).
R E C I T A L S:
A.The Parties have entered into that certain Contract Between Palo Alto and
Stanford, executed on November 30, 1956, as amended by the Addendum and Amendments
described below (collectively, the “Contract”). The Contract has been amended six times as
follows: Addendum No. One (1) to the Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Stanford,
dated as of June 11, 1971; Amendment No. Two (2) to the Contract Between the City of Palo
Alto and Stanford, dated as of November 2, 1998; Amendment No. Three (3) to the Contract
Between the City of Palo Alto and Stanford, dated as of March 16, 2009; Amendment No. Four
(4) to the Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Stanford, dated as of October 17, 2016;
Amendment No. 5 to the Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Stanford, dated as of
August 13, 2018; and Amendment No. Six (6) to the Contract Between the City of Palo Alto
and Stanford, dated March 4, 2019.
B.Palo Alto owns and operates the sewage system (the “System”) pursuant to the
Contract, and is responsible for making capital additions to the System. Under the Contract, prior
to commencement of construction of any capital additions or enlargements of the System, City
and Stanford shall agree upon the terms of payment by Stanford of its proportionate cost. The
Parties now desire to agree upon the sharing of costs associated with the construction and
implementation of a new outfall and improvements to existing discharge infrastructure, and
rehabilitation of the primary sedimentation tanks including electrical upgrades(individually, the
“Project”, collectively, the “Projects”). The Projects will become part of the Regional Water
Quality Control Plant (the “Plant”), which is owned and operated by Palo Alto as part of the
System.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the terms, conditions and covenants set forth in
this Amendment No. Seven (7), the Contract is hereby amended as follows:
Section 1. Paragraph 26 of the Contract is hereby added to read, as follows:
“26. CONSTRUCTION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE OUTFALL
PROJECT AND THE PRIMARY SEDIMENTATION TANK REHABILITATION
PROJECT. Palo Alto and Stanford hereby approve the construction of a new outfall
DocuSign Envelope ID: F8E00CA5-B77A-4803-B668-7A8E5E533DE3 Attachment C
2 2020010902
and related improvements to existing discharge infrastructure (the “Outfall Project”)
and the rehabilitation of the primary sedimentation tanks including electrical upgrades
(the “Primary Sedimentation Tank Rehabilitation Project”) for construction, referred
to in this Section 26 individually as a “Project” and collectively as the “Projects”.
Each Party shall pay its share of the Project Costs for these two projects in proportion
to the capacity it owns in the Joint System or portion thereof as shown in Exhibit “H”
to Amendment No. Two (2) to the Contract. “Project Costs” means all costs incurred
in connection with the construction and implementation of these two projects.
Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, Project Costs shall include, but not
be limited to: engineering and other consultants’ fees and costs, including fees
incurred pursuant to agreements with engineers, contractors and other consulting,
design and construction professionals; deposits, applicable permit fees; all costs to
apply for and secure necessary permits from all required regional, state, and federal
agencies; plan check fees, and inspection fees; construction costs; initial maintenance;
attorneys’ fees and costs; insurance; interest from the date of payment on any
contracts.
The Parties authorize Palo Alto to receive State Revolving Fund (“SRF”) loans from
the State Water Resources Control Board (“SWRCB”) or pursue other project
financing (i.e. utility revenue bonds) to fund the costs of these two Projects. The
maximum amount of financing sought for each Project is:
x Outfall Project - $12 million
x Primary Sedimentation Tank Rehabilitation - $17 million
The SRF loans will have a thirty-year repayment term. The SRF loan shall be repaid
by the Parties in the same proportionate shares as shown on Exhibit “H” to
Amendment No. Two (2) to the Contract.
If the SWRCB terminates its loan commitment unexpectedly following execution of
the construction contract(s) for the Project or the Projects, the City shall notify
Stanford promptly. Following notification of the termination of the SRF loan
commitment, the Parties shall meet in a timely manner to discuss alternative funding
sources and strategies for completion of the Projects. If the Parties are unable to agree
on new funding sources in a timely manner, then the City shall have the right to
terminate the Project or Projects immediately.
The Parties shall remain responsible for Project Costs and loans incurred, whether
before or after termination of the Project/Projects, including costs incurred in
connection with the termination of the Project planning/design/construction
contract(s), in the same proportion to each organization’s share, as shown on Exhibit
“H” to Amendment No. Two (2) to the Contract.
Stanford shall pay its share of any Project Costs within thirty (30) business days of
receipt of the annual billing statement sent by the City. If Stanford disputes the
correctness of an invoice, it shall pay the invoice in full and the dispute shall be
DocuSign Envelope ID: F8E00CA5-B77A-4803-B668-7A8E5E533DE3
3 2020010902
resolved after payment in accordance with the Contract, and shall not offset against
any payment due.
Section 2 . Except as modified herein, the Contract shall remain unchanged, and is hereby
ratified and confirmed.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have by their duly authorized representatives executed this
Amendment as of the date first written above.
ATTEST:
__________________________________
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________________
City Attorney or Designee
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
__________________________________
City Manager or Designee
CITY OF PALO ALTO
By: __________________________________
Mayor
THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND
STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY
By: __________________________________
Name: __________________________________
Title: __________________________________
DocuSign Envelope ID: F8E00CA5-B77A-4803-B668-7A8E5E533DE3
Attachment D
SECOND RESTATED AND AMENDED AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
CITY OF PALO ALTO AND THE EAST PALO SANITARY DISTRICT
FOR WASTEWATER TREATMENT AND DISTRICT OUTFALL
This Second Amended and Restated Agreement ("Agreement") is made and entered into on
________ , by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a chartered municipal
corporation of the State of California (the "City") and the East Palo Alto Sanitary District, a
public corporation under the laws of the State of California (the "District") (individually, a
"~", collectively, the "Parties"), restates and amends that certain agreement, Contract No.
C23 7, first entered into March 11, 1940 and first restated as amended on March 16, 1989,
including subsequent amendments thereto.
RECITALS
A. On March 11, 1940, the Parties entered into a contract, "Contract Restatement and
Amendment No. C237," whereby the City agreed to provide treatment of the District's
wastewater, which contract was subsequently amended by amendments dated September 10,
1963, June 25, 1964, and May 1971 (the "Ori ginal A greement").
B. On October 10, 1968, the City joined with the cities of Mountain View and Los Altos to fund
the construction, operation, and maintenance of the regional sewage treatment plant (the
"Treatment Plant") that is part of a sewerage system ("System") owned and operated by the City.
C. In May 1971, the City and District agreed that the District's share of the primary/secondary
design capacity of the Treatment Plant would be 2.25 million gallons per day (mgd) average dry
weather flow (ADWF). The Treatment Plant was subsequently modified to include tertiary
treatment, and the District's share of tertiary capacity was established at 1.9 mgd (ADWF).
D. On March 16, 1989, the Parties restated and amended the Original Agreement (the "1989
A greement") to provide for the District's participation in financing and expansion of the
Treatment Plant's capacity from 35.0 primary/secondary capacity to 38.0 mgd (ADWF) (and
40.0 mgd average annual flow (AAF)) and from a tertiary capacity of 30.6 mgd to 38.0 mgd
ADWF (and 40.0 mgd AAF).
E. On May 30, 1989, the Parties amended the 1989 Agreement to revise the billing and payment
provisions in Paragraph 6.b of the 1989 Agreement ("Amendment No. 1").
F. On December 18, 1989, the Parties amended the 1989 Agreement to provide specific
measures and procedures for complying with federal and state laws and regulations regarding
wastewater collection, transmission, treatment and disposal in Paragraph 9 of the 1989
Agreement ("Amendment No. 2").
G. On December 7, 1998, the Parties amended the 1989 Agreement to add Paragraph 26 to
permit the rehabilitation of the City's incinerators ("Amendment No. 3").
H. On November 19, 2003, the Parties executed an agreement entitled "Settlement and Release
Agreement" and amended Paragraphs 6.a and 8 of the 1989 Agreement on June 2, 2005 to be
consistent with the Settlement and Release Agreement ("Amendment No. 4").
I. On March 19, 2009, the Parties amended the 1989 Agreement to add Paragraph 28, which
provided for the funding, design, and construction of an ultraviolet disinfection treatment system
at the Treatment Plant ("Amendment No. 5").
J. On October 17, 2016, the Parties amended the 1989 Agreement to provide for the cost
sharing for certain Treatment Plant renovations ( collectively, the "Projects"), and to clarify the
indemnity provision ("Amendment No. 6"). The Projects include, but are not limited to, up to
$6.75 million for planning and design of the rehabilitation of:
• the primary sedimentation tanks;
• secondary treatment upgrades; and
• a new lab/environmental services building.
The Projects included up to $28 million for design and construction of the Sludge Dewatering
and Truck Loadout Facility. The State Revolving Fund ("SRF") loans from the State Water
Resources Control Board ("SWRCB") were the anticipated and authorized funding instruments
in Amendment No. 6. The SRF loan has been granted for up to $28 million for the costs of the
Sludge Dewatering and Truck Load-out Facility design and construction. An SRF loan has not
yet been authorized for the $6.75 million planning and design expenses. However, SRF funding
is anticipated to cover a portion of this amount.
The 1989 Agreement and Amendment Nos. 1-6 are referred to collectively, hereinafter as the
"1989 A greement."
K. City has developed and continues to implement an industrial pretreatment program
("Pretreatment Program"), pursuant to conditions contained in its National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System ("NPDES") Permit number CA003 7834 issued by the San Francisco Bay
Regional Water Quality Control Board ("Water Board"), implementing the requirements and
policies of State law and the Federal Clean Water Act.
L. The District, who is a partner to the Treatment Plant ( also referred to as the "Palo Alto
Regional Water Quality Control Plant" or "R WQCP"), desires to continue to utilize the System
and recognizes its industrial waste control obligations under the Federal Pretreatment
Regulations at Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 403, ("40 CPR 403") as the
same may be amended from time to time.
M. The Parties desire to restate and amend the Agreement to consolidate the terms added
through multiple amendments into one document, to clarify certain provisions, to expand project
financing instruments for the Projects described in Recital J beyond the SWRCB's SRF loan
program, and to approve the construction of and cost-sharing for two additional RWQCP
projects: (1) a new outfall and improvements to existing discharge infrastructure, and (2)
rehabilitation of the primary sedimentation tanks including electrical upgrades.
N. District Staff raised the issue of whether a Joint Powers Authority should be formed to
manage the Treatment Plant. City staff are not taking steps to implement this idea at this time, as
it has not been suggested by any of the other Partners to the Treatment Plant. City Staff have
reported that neighboring Joint Power Authority treatment plants have higher sewer rates than
the Partners of the Palo Alto Treatment Plant.
AGREEMENT
1. DEFINITIONS. As used in this Agreement, the following terms shall have the meanings
herein set forth:
a. "Capacity" means a stated amount of wastewater flow through the Treatment Plant
(whether total, or a portion assigned to any contributor to the Treatment Plant), variously
expressed in terms of Average Annual Flow (AAF) or Average Dry Weather Flow (ADWF).
b. "Average Annual Flow (AAF)" means the daily average discharge of wastewater during
a calendar year period, expressed as a rate of flow in million gallons per day, and shall be
computed by dividing the total gallons discharged during such year by the number of days
within such year.
c. "Average Dry Weather Flow (ADWF)" means the daily average discharge of wastewater
from May 1 to October 31, expressed as a rate of flow in millions gallons per day, and shall
be computed by dividing the total gallons discharged during such period by the number of
days within such period.
d. "Recycled Water" means wastewater which has been treated beyond that required for San
Francisco Bay discharge and which meets any water recycling criteria set forth in Title 22,
Division 4, Chapter 3 of the California Code of Regulations.
e. "Wastewater" means the water-carried wastes of the community derived from public,
residential, commercial, or industrial sources.
2. TREATMENT PLANT CAPACITY AND ALLOCATION.
a. Treatment Plant Capacity and Allocation. The Treatment Plant's primary, secondary, and
tertiary capacity is 38.0 mgd (ADWF). The City shall have the right to utilize a total of 20.0
mgd of both the primary, secondary, and tertiary capacities, and shall make available a total
of 2.9 mgd (ADWF) of such capacities to the District for the District's utilization. The
District's capacity is 3.06 mgd (AAF) and is detailed in Exhibit "H" attached hereto and
incorporated herein.
b. Use of Capaci ty . Neither the District nor the City shall use the Treatment Plant or any part
thereof to a greater percentage of its capacity, specified above, except with the approval and
agreement of the other Party, as hereinafter provided. If either the City or the District
hereafter desires to use additional capacity in the Treatment Plant or any unit thereof in
excess of such amounts, and the Treatment Plant or any unit thereof is not then being used by
the other Party to the full extent to which the other Party is entitled, the Party desiring such
additional capacity may rent such additional capacity rights, at a rate of $400.00 per million
gallons of primary and secondary capacity and $200.00 per million gallons of advanced
waste treatment facility capacity. The District may audit the City's use of any capacity rented
from the District, and the City may not sell the rented capacity to others. Likewise, the City
may audit the District's use of rented capacity and the District may not sell rented capacity.
3. PAYMENT FOR COST OF TREATMENT. The District shall bear a proportionate share of
the costs, determined in accordance with the City's standard accounting practices, of operating
and maintaining the Treatment Plant, as follows:
a. Use of Allocation Formula. Attached to this Agreement and incorporated herein as
Exhibit "C" is a description of the cost-allocation formula to be used to allocate operating
and maintenance costs among the participants in the Treatment Plant. The District shall bear
its share (as determined according to such formula) of all costs of operating and maintaining
the Treatment Plant.
b. Industrial User Charges. Notwithstanding the foregoing and except as provided in
Paragraph 11.n, the City shall charge the District an added amount to cover the cost of the
Industrial Waste Pretreatment Program (IWPP). The IWPP charge shall be calculated as
follows: 67% of the Palo Alto Utility Quantity Rate (Utility Rate Schedule S-2, Section C.2,
excluding special notes) as of July 1 each year, multiplied by the volume of process
wastewater discharged to the sewer system from any and all District "Significant Industrial
Users," as defined by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The Palo Alto Utility Rate
S-2 will change from time to time as the City changes its rates.
c. Billin g and Payment. The City shall bill the District as follows:
Prior to the commencement of its fiscal year on July 1, the City shall prepare an estimate of
the annual cost of operating and maintaining the Treatment Plant for the forthcoming fiscal
year and allocate such costs by user consistent with this Agreement. The City will provide a
copy of said proposed budget to the District at least 30 days before it is scheduled for
adoption. The District may comment on the proposed budget and review the City's records
supporting its final budget, including the City's actual costs. Not later than thirty (30) days
after July 1, October 1, January 1, and April 1, of each year, the City will bill the District an
amount, payable not later than forty-five (45) days after July 1, October 1, January 1, and
April 1, of each fiscal year, or twenty-five (25) days after the District receives said bill,
whichever date is later, equal to one-fourth the amount of the adopted budget for the
Treatment Plant allocated to the District. Such amount will be subject to the following
adjustments:
1. All October 1 billings will be adjusted, subject to the City's annual audit, by the
amount necessary to reflect the actual costs and expenses for operation and
maintenance of the Treatment Plant during the immediately prior fiscal year. The City
will review any audit performed by the District and may adjust the billings upon such
review.
11. With the April 1 billing, the City will make an adjustment for the then estimated
remaining operation and maintenance expenses to be incurred between the period of
April 1 and July 1, adjusted by the City's actual expenditures, if known, for the first
three quarters of the fiscal year prior to April 1.
111. In the event that the amount billed to and collected from the District for operation and
maintenance associated with the District are less than or greater than the actual
amounts expended when determined in conformity with subparagraph (a) by an
amount more than ten percent ( 10%) greater or more than ten percent ( 10%) less than
the amount billed and collected, the District's bill for the October 1 payment will be
adjusted by an amount necessary to compensate for interest earned by or interest lost
to the City on the amount of the overage or underage based on an imputed interest
rate equal to the City's latest average rate of return on investments published by the
Director of Finance of the City and applied to the average amount over ten percent
(10%) or under ten percent (10%) from the date of payment.
1v. The District hereby agrees to set and collect fees and rates within its service area
sufficient to pay its share of operating, maintenance, and capital expenses.
d. Supp orting Information to be Made Available. The City shall supply the District with all
existing information requested by the District which supports the City's determinations
regarding the cost of operating and maintaining the Treatment Plant, including information
relating to the computation of the relative shares of the individual participants in such costs.
The City shall make available all such information relative to the costs of operating and
maintaining the Treatment Plant (historical as well as current) to the District's auditors, upon
request.
e. Delinquent Payments. In the event any amounts to be paid under this Agreement are not
paid in full to the City within thirty (30) days of the due date, interest shall accrue on the
unpaid balance at a rate and in an amount equal to seventy-five one hundredths percent
(0.75%) per month of the unpaid balance.
4. RIGHTS OF PARTIES TO USE OF WASTEWATER PRODUCTS. Notwithstanding Water
Code section 1210, either party to this Agreement shall have the right to have and to convey, at
its own expense, all available wastewater by-products, including treated wastewater and
Recycled Water, for reuse that the party requires. In the event the total of the Partner requests
exceeds the available supply, each party shall be entitled to have wastewater by-products,
including treated wastewater and Recycled Water, in proportion to the party's percentage of
actual wastewater input flow to the total plant flow over the relevant period of time. In the future,
should the District receive Recycled Water, City may bill the District for the incremental
operation and maintenance (O&M) cost of producing Recycled Water (at a rate adopted by the
City after review with the District), over and above the O&M cost of producing treated the same
amount of wastewater that would otherwise be discharged to the Bay.
5. PAYMENT FOR PAST PROJECTS WITH ONGOING OBLIGATIONS. As part of the
1989 Agreement, the Parties agreed on financing through bonds and/or loans and cost-sharing for
certain projects including the Capacity Expansion Project, the Incinerator Rehabilitation Project,
the Ultraviolet (UV) Disinfection Facility Project, and the Sludge Dewatering and Truck
Loadout Facility Project. Debt schedules with remaining principal and interest payments are
detailed in Exhibits "D," "E," "F," and "G" all attached hereto and incorporated herein. The
District and City shall continue to pay their share of principal and interest on the following past
projects listed below, and consistent with the Exhibits D, E, F, and G:
Loan Principal District Debt
Project Schedule Palo Alto/District Share Exhibit
1999 Refunding of 1990 Bonds $3,946,176
for 1989 Capacity Expansion 11.9% share "D"*
Project $986,544/$469,595
1999 Bonds for Incinerator $7,500,000 7.64% share, "E"** Rehabilitation Project $2,862,000/$573,000 Exhibit H
SRF Loan for Ultraviolet $8,595,665 7.64% share, "F" Disinfection Facility Project $3,280, 106/$656, 709 Exhibit H
SRF Loan for Sludge $25,197.407.73 7.64% share, Dewatering and Truck Load Exhibit H "G"
Facility Proj ect $9,615,330.79/$1,925,081.95
* The bill shall include an annual amortization of issuance costs and bond discount of $490.34
due in Q4 of each fiscal year (2020, 2021, 2022, and 2023) and $449.48 (2024).
** The bill shall include an annual amortization of issuance costs and bond discount of $664.06
due in Q4 of each fiscal year (2020, 2021, 2022, and 2023 ) and $$608.72 (2024).
a. 1989 Cap acity Exp ansion Pro ject: 1999 Refundin g of 1990 Bonds.
1. Payment for the District's Additional Cap acity . The District hereby agrees to pay its
proportionate share (11.9%) of the annual debt service and bond issuance requirements
for the 1999 refunding of the 1990 bonds according to the schedule set forth in Exhibit
"D" attached to this Agreement. The 1990 bonds are for the 1989 Capacity Expansion
Project, which was refunded in 1999. The City shall bill the District one-quarter of such
annual payment with each quarterly billing, as set forth in Paragraph 3 .c of this
Agreement. The bill shall include an annual amortization of issuance costs and bond
discount.
b. 1999 Incinerator Rehabilitation Pro ject: 1999 Bonds.
i. Payment for Incinerator Rehabilitation. The District hereby agrees to pay its
proportionate share (7 .64%) of the annual debt service and bond issuance requirements
for the 1999 bonds according to the schedule set forth in Exhibit "E" attached to this
Agreement. The 1999 bonds are for the Incinerator Rehabilitation project. The City
shall bill the District one-quarter of such annual payment with each quarterly billing, as
set forth in Paragraph 3 .c of this Agreement. The bill shall include an annual
amortization of issuance costs and bond discount.
c. Ultraviolet Disinfection Facility Project and SRF Loan
1. For purposes of this subparagraph, "Project Costs" means all costs incurred in
connection with the planning, design, construction and implementation of the project.
Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, Project Costs shall include, but not
to be limited to, design, engineering, and other consultants' fees and costs, including
fees incurred pursuant to agreements with engineers, contractors and other consulting,
design and construction professionals; environmental analysis and approval,
including compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act; deposits;
ordinarily applicable permit fees, plan check fees, and inspection fees; initial
maintenance; attorney's fees and costs; insurance; and interest from the date of
payment on any contracts.
ii. The Parties authorized the City to pursue State Revolving Fund (SRF) loan from the
State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) to fund the costs of the Ultraviolet
Disinfection Project. The loan was authorized. The SRF loan shall be repaid in the
same proportionate share as shown on Exhibit "H." The Parties further agree that if
necessary, each Party shall raise their sewer use rates for the repayment of past SRF
loans, operations, and/or maintenance of the Project, following any appropriate
process under California Constitution article XIII C and D (Proposition 218).
iii. If the SWRCB terminates its loan commitment unexpectedly following execution of
the construction contract for the Project, the City shall notify the District promptly.
Following notification of the termination of the SRF, the Parties shall meet in a
timely manner to discuss alternative funding sources and strategies.
1v. The Parties shall remain responsible for the Ultraviolet Disinfection Facility Project
costs, bonds, and loans incurred, whether before or after termination of the Project, in
connection with the termination of the Project construction contract, in the same
proportion to each organization's share as shown in Exhibits "F" and "H". Unless
earlier terminated, the obligations and responsibilities of the Parties shall commence
with the execution of this Agreement and be in force for the life of the SRF loan.
v. The District shall pay its share of any Project Costs within ten (10) business days of
receipt of the quarterly billing statement sent by the City. If District disputes the
correctness of an invoice, it shall pay the invoice in full and the dispute shall be
resolved after payment in accordance with the Agreement, and shall not offset against
any payment due.
6. DESIGN OF PRIMARY SEDIMENTATION TANK REHABILITATION, SECONDARY
TREATMENT UPGRADE, LABORATORY SERVICES BUILDING; DESIGN AND
CONSTRUCTION OF SLUDGE DEWATERING AND TRUCK LOADOUT FACILITY; AND
CONSTRUCTION OF OUTFALL AND PRIMARY SEDIMENTATION TANK
REHABILITATION.
a. Implementation of the "Projects"
1. City and District hereby approve the planning and design of the Primary
Sedimentation Tanks, Secondary Treatment Upgrades, Laboratory/Environmental
Services Building, and design and construction of a Sludge Dewatering and Truck
Loadout Facility. Each Party shall pay its share of Project Costs for the Projects in
proportion as it owns capacity in the Treatment Plant or portion thereof, as shown
in Exhibit "H." For purposes of this subparagraph, "Project Costs" means all costs
incurred in connection with the planning, design, construction and
implementation of the Projects. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing,
Project Costs shall include, but not be limited to: design, engineering, and other
consultants' fees and costs, including fees incurred pursuant to agreements with
engineers, contractors and other consulting, design and construction professionals;
environmental analysis and approval costs, including cost of compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act; deposits, applicable permit fees; all costs
to apply for and secure necessary permits from all required regional, state, and
federal agencies, plan check fees, and inspection fees; construction costs; initial
maintenance; attorneys' fees and costs; insurance; interest from the date of
payment on any contracts.
11. City and District hereby approve the construction of a new outfall and related
improvements to existing discharge infrastructure ( the "Outfall Project") and the
rehabilitation of the primary sedimentation tanks including electrical upgrades
(the "Primary Sedimentation Tank Rehabilitation Project"). Each Party shall pay
its share of Project Costs for the Projects in proportion as it owns capacity in the
Treatment Plant or portion thereof, as shown in Exhibit "H." For purposes of this
subparagraph, "Project Costs" means all costs incurred in connection with the
construction and implementation of these two projects. Without limiting the
generality of the foregoing, Project Costs shall include, but not be limited to:
engineering and other consultants' fees and costs, including fees incurred
pursuant to agreements with engineers, contractors and other consulting, design
and construction professionals; deposits, applicable permit fees; all costs to apply
for and secure necessary permits from all required regional, state, and federal
agencies; plan check fees, and inspection fees; construction costs; initial
maintenance; attorneys' fees and costs; insurance; interest from the date of
payment on any contracts.
111. The projects described in subparagraphs (i) and (ii) immediately above are
referred to individually as a "Project" and collectively as the "Projects".
b. Financing for the Projects. The District authorizes the City to pursue and receive State
Revolving Fund ("SRF") loans from the State Water Resources Control Board
("SWRCB") or pursue other project financing (i.e. utility revenue bonds) to fund the
costs of the Projects. The maximum amount of the financing sought for each Project is:
• Planning/ design of the primary sedimentation tanks, secondary treatment
upgrades, and a new Laboratory/Environmental Services Building -$6.75
million
• Design and construction of a sludge dewatering and truck load-out facility -
$28 million
• Construction of Outfall Project -$12 million
• Construction of Primary Sedimentation Tank Rehabilitation -$17 million
c. The SRF loans will have a thirty year repayment term. The SRF loans shall be repaid in
the same proportionate share, as shown on Exhibit "H." The Parties further agree that, if
necessary each Party shall raise their sewer use rates for the repayment of the SRF loan or
other financing, operations, and/or maintenance of the Project, following any appropriate
process under California Constitution article XIII C and D (Proposition 218).
d. If the SWRCB terminates its loan commitment unexpectedly following execution of the
planning and/or construction contract(s) for a Project or the Projects, the City shall notify
the District promptly. Following notification of the termination of the SRF loan
commitment, the Parties shall meet in a timely manner to discuss alternative funding
sources and strategies for completion of the Projects. If the Parties are unable to agree on
new funding sources in a timely manner, then the City shall have the right to terminate
the Project or the Projects immediately.
e. The Parties shall remain responsible for Project Costs and loans incurred, whether before
or after termination of the Project, in connection with the termination of the Project
construction contract, in the same proportion to each organization's share, as shown on
Exhibit "H." Unless earlier terminated, the obligations and responsibilities of the Parties
shall commence with the execution of this Agreement and be in force for the life of the
SRF loan or other financing.
f. Pursuant to Paragraph 3.c of the Agreement, the City will supply the District with all
information supporting the City's determinations regarding the Project Costs, including
but not limited to, information relating to the computation of the relative shares of each
organization. The City will make available all such information (historical and current) to
the District's auditors, on request.
g. District shall pay its share of any Project Costs within thirty (30) business days of receipt
of the quarterly billing statement sent by the City. If District disputes the correctness of
an invoice, it shall pay the invoice in full and the dispute shall be resolved after payment
in accordance with the Agreement, and shall not offset against any payment due. The
Parties shall undertake any dispute resolution in accordance with Paragraph 15 of the
Agreement.
7. FUNDING FOR MINOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS (CIPs).
a. Relatively small capital projects for the replacement of obsolete, broken or worn-out
equipment, shall be referred to as "Minor Capital Projects". The total annual expenditure
on Minor Capital Projects shall not exceed the amount specified for the base year (1982-
1984) , as set forth below, adjusted annually, in accordance with the Consumer Price
Index [Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers] (base year 1982-1984 = 100) for the
San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose CSMA ("CPI"), published by the United States
Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics ("Index"), most immediately preceding
the twelve-month period beginning the July of each following fiscal year ("Extension
Index"), and which shall be compared with the Index published most immediately
preceding the twelve-month period beginning the July of each preceding fiscal year
("Beginning Index"). The Minor Capital Projects total maximum amount for the base
year is set at 1.9 million dollars ($1,900,000.00).
b. Minor Capital Project expenses are included as part of operating expenses. Therefore, the
District's share is calculated using Exhibit C, as it is for all operating expenses. Major
CIPs are those which are too large to be implemented with the annual funds available in
7.a above. The District's share for Major CIPs is contained in Exhibit H.
8. PAYMENTS FOR MAJOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS (CIPS ). Each Party
shall pay for the cost of major CIPs in an amount equal to its proportional share of capacity in
the Treatment Plant or portion thereof, as more fully described in Exhibit "H," attached hereto
and incorporated herein by reference. If the District will pay for its share of the costs of CIPs
through its voluntary participation in the City's issuance of debt securities, if any, to finance the
work, then the District shall pay to the City for its share of the City's debt service in an amount
equal to its proportional share of capacity in the Treatment Plant, unless the Parties agree in a
separate writing to a different share. Major CIPs means those projects, which are not covered by
Paragraph 7.
9. ALTERNATE FUNDING MECHANISM FOR THE PLANNING AND DESIGN OF THE
PRIMARY SEDIMENTATION TANK REHABILITATON, SECONDARY TREATMENT
UPGRADE, AND LAB/ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES BUILDING PROJECTS. The City
utilized the annual minor capital budget funded by the Parties ( detailed in Paragraph 6) to fund
the Sludge Dewatering and Load-out Facility project planning and design, with the intent to
reimburse the annual minor capital budget once the SRF loan for that project phase was received.
The Parties agree that the City will use the SRF loan reimbursement funds from the Sludge
Dewatering and Loadout Facility project design (soft costs only of approximately $3.4 million,
referred to as the "Reimbursement Funds") to finance the initial planning and design costs of the
following three projects: (1) primary sedimentation tanks, (2) secondary treatment upgrades, and
(3) a new Laboratory/Environmental Services Building. After the Reimbursement Funds are
exhausted, any additional planning and design expenses for the three projects shall be paid by the
Parties in quarterly payments in the same proportionate shares as shown on Exhibit "H". Once
construction financing for these three projects is secured, the City may roll any remaining, yet
unbilled, planning and design expenses into the debt financing instrument.
10. THE DISTRICT'S OUTFALL. The City hereby confirms that by an Amendment to the
Original Agreement dated September 10, 1963 ("September 1963 Amendment"), it granted to
the District the right to construct and maintain a sanitary sewer outfall line ( subsequently sized at
twenty-four (24) inches) over a route across City property as shown on a map attached to this
Agreement as Exhibit "A" and "B."
a. The District shall have an irrevocable license coextensive in term with the existence of
said outfall or until the license is replaced with an easement as set forth in subparagraph
f, for ingress and egress across City property necessary to maintain or repair said outfall,
in the event that the Parties do not agree on another method of such repair and
maintenance.
b. District shall operate such facilities without trespassing on any fairways or greens of
City's golf course and shall exercise due diligence in the protection of all natural plant
material, wetlands (if any), environmental habitat, and piping, to the greatest extent
feasible.
c. In addition, for the portion of the District's facilities within the City's airport, the District
shall exercise due diligence and coordinate any maintenance work with the City's airport
and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) as required.
d. If any regulatory permits are required, the District shall be responsible for obtaining them
and following the requirements of any applicable regulatory permit.
e. District's operation of its facilities shall not interfere with City's use or development of
any City property.
f. In 2017, as part of the San Francisquito Creek Flood Reduction, Ecosystem, Restoration,
and Recreation Project San Francisco Bay to Highway 101, District relocated a portion of
the sanitary sewer outfall line pursuant to a Right of Entry Agreement by and between
City and District dated October 5, 2017 ("ROE"). The Parties agree to enter into an
easement agreement to govern the rights and obligations of the Parties with respect to
both the new portion of the line and the preexisting portion first contemplated by the
September 1963 Amendment, which easement agreement upon recording shall supersede
and replace the preceding provisions regarding the license. The Parties shall cooperate in
the preparation and recording of the easement. At City's request, District shall cause the
preparation of the following documents necessary for the easement, and submit them to
City:
• A set of as-built plans and profiles (hard copy and AutoCAD) for District's entire
sanitary sewer outfall line· on City property, including the preexisting portion and that
portion installed under the ROE. The plan shall be prepared based on the surveyed
information obtained by the District's consultant.
• The set of as-built plans and profiles shall include the segment of pipe that was slip-
lined and left in place for future use.
• Where feasible, surveyed markers, steel pipe, monuments or equivalent shall be set in
the field by a licensed surveyor to identify the location of the existing facilities.
g. In accordance with the September 1963 Amendment, and without creating any precedent
for any future connections, the District shall provide and reserve capacity for sanitary
facilities at the City's golf course in order to accommodate the sewage from the two (2)
existing restroom facilities at the golf course ("Fixture Units") in operation as of the date
of this Agreement. The flow value of each of the two (2) Fixture Units is approximately
5,000 gallons per year. The In preparing fourth quarter bills for each fiscal year, the City
shall deduct 5,000 gallons per fiscal year from the total flow of the District beginning in
Fiscal Year 2020-2021.
h. The two connections to the District's trunk line from the Palo Alto Airport which predate
November 19, 2003 may also continue to be utilized by the City without compensation to
the District. One connection is from the airport tower and wash pad, and the other
connection is from Building 1903B.
1. The flow from the four connections described in subsections (g) and (h) above shall not
count toward the District's capacity allocation contained in Exhibit "H."
J. The Parties agree that the value of the license and easement to the District offsets any
incremental cost to the District from Fixture Units and the City Airport trunk line
connections.
k. Regarding future connections or flow increases to the District outfall from Palo Alto, fees
and expenses for both use and connection to the District outfall shall be negotiated and
approved in a future amendment to this agreement.
11. PRETREATMENT PROGRAM
a. District will adopt the City's Sewer Use Ordinance (currently codified in Chapter 16.09
of Title 16 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code), as it may be amended from time to time.
Alternatively, the District may adopt its own Pretreatment Ordinance which is at least as
stringent as federal, state, and City requirements, and is rapidly updated when new
requirements are issued by any of these entities.
b. Whenever City makes revisions or additions to its Sewer Use Ordinance, City will
forward to District a copy of such revisions or additions within ninety (90) days of enactment
thereof. District will take all necessary steps to ensure that the ordinance as applicable in the
District's jurisdiction is consistent with and reflects the most current version of the City's
Sewer Use Ordinance in effect.
c. District designates City as an agent of District for the purposes of implementation and
enforcement of District's ordinances against industrial users located in District. City may, but
shall not be obligated to, take any action under District's ordinances which could have been
taken by District, including the enforcement of the ordinance in courts of law.
d. City, on behalf of and as agent for District, will perform technical and administrative
duties to implement and enforce District ordinances and regulations. City will: ( 1) Prepare
industrial waste discharge permits for District to issue to industrial users located within its
boundary; (2) Conduct inspections, sampling, surveillance, and analysis; (3) Take all
appropriate enforcement action, save litigation ( except as specified in 11.i below), required to
enforce District's ordinances, regulations, and industrial waste discharge permit provisions,
as outlined in City's enforcement response plan and provided for in District's ordinances and
regulations; (4) Notify industrial users of new requirements; (5) Prepare documentation
necessary to support enforcement actions to be taken by District; ( 6) Process from industrial
users all reports, including compliance reports, self-monitoring reports, base-line reports,
records of violations and actions taken, and any other monitoring or reporting requirements
imposed by federal, state, or local regulations. These records and other relevant information
shall be maintained for at least three (3) years by City. City shall forward copies of any
inspection reports, sampling results, and informal administrative enforcement actions which
it generates to District upon request; and (7) Perform any other technical or administrative
duties the Parties deem appropriate. In addition, City may, as an agent of District, take
emergency action to stop or prevent any discharge which presents or may present an
imminent danger to the health or welfare of humans, which reasonably appears to threaten
the environment, or which threatens to cause interference, pass through, or sludge
contamination.
e. Any authorized officer or employee of City may enter and inspect at any reasonable time
any part of District's wastewater system; provided, however, at or before the time this right
of inspection is exercised, City shall notify District by at least telephonic means of the date,
time, place and nature of the intended inspection, and upon conclusion of the inspection shall
upon request provide District with a written report of the inspection activities undertaken by
City and the information obtained. The right of entry and inspection shall extend to public
streets, easements, and property within which the system is located. Additionally, District
hereby grants authorized officers or employees of City to enter onto private property, in
compliance with the law, to inspect industrial users within the jurisdiction of District.
Authorized officers or employees of City shall have the same legal authority afforded District
staff. The right of inspection shall include on-site inspection of entire facilities including
pretreatment and sewer facilities and includes observation, measurement, sampling, testing,
and access to (with the right to copy) all pertinent compliance reports and documents
required to be maintained by federal, state, or local regulations and applicable discharge
permits.
f. District will be responsible for:
1. Updating the industrial waste survey and providing such update annually to City;
11. Issuing industrial waste discharge permits;
iii. Initiating litigation required to enforce District's ordinances, regulations, and
industrial waste discharge permit provisions. The District and the City may each or
both seek injunctive relief when an imminent danger exists , as described in 11.i
below and
1v. Controlling by written contract, with terms and conditions equivalent to the
requirements of District's ordinances and regulations, any discharger outside
District's territorial limits which is connected to District's wastewater system.
g. District shall file with City certified copies of its ordinances and regulations and any
amendments thereto, any discharge permits which District issues, including any contracts
entered into by District for the purpose of controlling industrial waste.
h. If City determines that District has failed or has refused to fulfill any Pretreatment
Program obligations, City will allow District thirty (30) days to identify the cause of the
violation(s) and remedy them. If the District is unable to remedy the violation within thirty
(30) days, City shall develop, in consultation with District if possible, and issue a remedial
plan containing a description of the nature of the Pretreatment Program deficiencies, and an
enumeration of the steps to be taken by District, and a time schedule for attaining compliance
with all Pretreatment Program obligations. Where District fails or declines to satisfy the
conditions of the remedial plan on schedule, City may seek review of the remedial plan and
enforcement thereof, via seeking injunctive relief or any other legally available remedy, in a
court of competent jurisdiction. Where District fails to satisfy any such conditions on
schedule, other than those imposed or required by formal administrative or judicial
enforcement actions, City may conduct those tasks. District shall reimburse City for any and
all costs associated with performing these tasks. In the event District has failed to satisfy the
terms of any remedial plan, City may, upon thirty (30) days' written notice, refuse to accept
industrial waste emanating from industrial users within District's jurisdiction and enforce
such prohibition in any court of competent jurisdiction.
i. Where a discharge to the wastewater system reasonably appears to present an imminent
danger to the public health, safety, and welfare, or presents or may present, an imminent
danger to the environment, or threatens to interfere with either Party's wastewater system,
either Party may immediately initiate steps to identify the source of the discharge, and to halt
or prevent said discharge. Either Party may seek injunctive relief against any industrial user
or other person contributing to the emergency conditions and may pursue self-help remedies
if available.
j. District will prohibit the discharge of surface and storm water into its sanitary sewers if
such discharge is or would be excessive under any federal, state, or local regulation, and shall
otherwise comply with such regulations in permitting any such discharge therein.
k. District shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City, its agents, officers and
employees, of, from and for all damages, fines and costs incurred as a result of industrial
waste discharge from District (including industrial dischargers connected to District's
system) or incurred as a result of the failure of District to comply with Paragraph 11
(Pretreatment Program) of this Agreement. District shall reimburse City for fines or costs
stemming from damages to City facilities or the System, disruption of treatment processes or
operations, degradation of sludge quality, NPDES permit violations arising in the jurisdiction
of District, and other air, water and sludge quality violations attributable to District, or its
industrial dischargers, and any enforcement actions of regulatory agencies including the state
and regional water boards and federal and state environmental protection agencies. In the
event that any suit based on such a claim, demand, suit, action, fine, penalty or liability is
brought against either Party, each Party retains the right to participate in said suit.
1. If the authority of City to act as an agent for District under this Agreement is questioned
by an industrial user, court of law, or otherwise, District will take whatever action is
necessary to ensure the implementation and enforcement of District ordinances and
regulations against its industrial users, including, but not limited to, implementing and
enforcing District ordinances and regulations on its own behalf and/or amending this
Agreement to clarify City authority. Any such actions shall be at no cost to City.
m. The Parties will review and revise this Agreement to ensure compliance with the Federal
Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and rules and regulations (see 40 CFR Part 403)
issued thereunder, as necessary.
n. District shall reimburse City for administrative costs of permitting, implementing and
enforcing the Pretreatment Program. District agrees that City may seek such reimbursement
by directly charging facilities regulated under the Pretreatment Program within the
jurisdiction of District for said costs and/or recovering said costs through permit or annual
fees.
12. INDEMNIFICATION. Each of the Parties shall defend, indemnify and hold the other party
harmless of and from all claims, liabilities, actions, causes of action, proceedings, damages,
fines, penalties, costs, expenses, attorneys' fees or any other forms of pecuniary or non-
pecuniary relief which result from:
a. That party's violation of laws and regulations governing the collection, transmission,
treatment and disposal of wastewater or wastewater byproducts, including, without
limitation, laws and regulations governing disruption of treatment processes or operations,
degradation of sludge quality, and NPDES permit violations attributable to the conduct of
that party or other persons, including industrial waste dischargers for whom that party
exercises regulatory responsibility.
b. That party's failure to exercise reasonable care in the operation and maintenance of its
wastewater facilities.
13. TERMINATION.
a. Termination Ri ghts. Except as otherwise provided herein, this Agreement shall continue
indefinitely; provided the District may withdraw herefrom if it decides to construct and
operate a treatment plant of its own, join in the use of some plant, or execute another
alternative; in which case the District shall give the City at least six months written notice in
advance of its intention to withdraw. Upon the consummation of such withdrawal, this
Agreement shall be deemed to have terminated, except as to obligations already incurred and
not yet satisfied.
b. Disp osition of Property and Funds U pon Termination. Upon termination of this
Agreement, all property of either Party then in the custody of the other or a third party shall
be distributed pursuant to an agreement reached by the City and the District at that time.
14. BREACH OF AGREEMENT. In the case of a breach by either Party of any of its respective
obligations to be performed hereunder, notice in writing of such breach may be given by the
aggrieved one to the other, who shall have a reasonable time not exceeding sixty (60) days, in
which to cure such breach.
15. DISPUTE RESOLUTION. The Parties acknowledge that there are a number of informal
dispute resolution procedures ( such as arbitration, mediation, informal conferences, etc.) which
could be used to resolve any controversy or claim arising out of or relating to this Agreement, or
the alleged breach thereof. The Parties agree in principle that one or more such mechanisms
should be utilized prior to proceeding in a judicial forum. Should any such controversy or claim
arise, any Party wishing to utilize an informal dispute resolution procedure may request in
writing that such procedure should be utilized, stating in general terms the nature of the proposed
procedure. The other Party shall then have a period of two (2) weeks in which to either accept or
reject such request. If such request is denied, or if no answer to such request is given within such
period, then the requesting Party shall be free to pursue any legal remedy which may be available
to it. If such request is accepted, then the procedures outlined in such request shall first be
followed prior to either Party resorting to a judicial procedure.
16. NOTICES AND OTHER COMMUNICATIONS. Every notice or other communication
required or contemplated by this Agreement by either Party shall be delivered either by (a)
personal delivery or (b) postage prepaid return receipt requested certified mail addressed to the
Party for whom intended at the following address:
a. If to District, to:
General Manager
East Palo Alto Sanitary District
901 Weeks Street
East Palo Alto, CA 94303
Separate copies to:
President of Board of Directors
Secretary of Board of Directors
East Palo Alto Sanitary District
901 Weeks Street
East Palo Alto, CA 94303
b. Ifto City, to:
City of Palo Alto
City Manager's Office
Post Office Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Attn: Director of Public Works
Copy to:
Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant
Attn: Manager, Water Quality Control Plant
2501 Embarcadero Way
Palo Alto, CA 94303
or at such other address as the intended recipient previously shall have designated by written
notice to the other party. Notice by certified mail shall be effective on the date it is officially
recorded as delivered to the intended party by return receipt or the equivalent. Notice not
given in writing shall be effective only if acknowledged in writing by a duly authorized
representative of the party to whom it was given.
17. CONSENT TO JURISDICTION , SERVICE , AND VENUE. Should either party submit
matters of dispute to a court for the purpose of enforcing obligations hereunder or otherwise in
connection herewith, both parties hereby consent to the jurisdiction and venue of the state or
federal courts in the County of San Mateo or the County of Santa Clara, California.
18. NO W AIYER OF RIGHTS. All waivers hereunder must be in writing, and failure at any
time to require the other party's performance of any obligation under this Agreement shall not
affect the right subsequently to require performance of that obligation. Any waiver of any breach
of any provision of this Agreement shall not be construed as a waiver of any continuing or
succeeding breach of such provision or a waiver or modification of the provision.
19. COUNTERPARTS. This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, and
each counterpart shall constitute an original instrument, but all such separate counterparts shall
constitute only one and the same instrument.
20. WRITTEN AGREEMENT TO GOVERN. This Agreement sets forth the entire
understanding and prospectively supersedes all prior and contemporaneous agreements between
the parties relating to the subject matter contained herein and merges all prior and
contemporaneous discussions between them, and neither party shall be bound by any definition,
condition, representation, warranty, covenant, or provision other than as expressly stated in or
contemplated by this Agreement or as subsequently shall be set forth in writing and executed by
a duly authorized representative of the party to be bound. Except as expressly set forth in the
Agreement, all rights, claims, and obligations of the parties shall be preserved.
21. SEVERABILITY. If any provision of this Agreement shall be held invalid under any
applicable law, such invalidity shall not affect any other provision of this Agreement that can be
given an effect without the invalid provision, and, to this end, the provisions hereof are
severable. If any provision of this Agreement shall be held invalid because of its scope or
duration, the court making such determination shall have the power to limit the scope and/or
duration of such provision and, in its limited form; such provision shall then be enforceable.
22. SUCCESSORS. This Agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the
successors of the parties.
23. REVISION OF AGREEMENT. This Agreement may, from time to time, be amended,
revised, or supplemented by and with the consent of the parties hereto and subject to the
approval and ratification of their respective governing bodies.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have by their duly authorized representatives executed
this Agreement which Testates and amends that certain Agreement (Palo Alto No. 23 7) dated
March 16, 1989, as amended, between the City of Palo Alto and EastPalo Alto Sanitary District
as of the date first written above.
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney or Designee
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
City Manager or Designee
EAST PALO ALTO SANITARY DISTRICT
ATTEST:
fa~~
BetsyYa~
APPROVED AS TO j75RM:
... i
/'•~; .,
f
Mala Subramanian, General Counsel
CITY OF PALO AL TO
By:-------------
Mayor
Joan Sykes-Miessi, Vice President
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have by their duly authorized representatives executed
this Agreement which ·restates and amends that certain Agreement (Palo Alto No. 237) dated
March 16, 1989, as amended, between the City of Palo Alto and East Palo Alto Sanitary District
as of the date first written above.
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney or Designee
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
City Manager or Designee
EAST PALO ALTO SANITARY DISTRICT
ATTEST:
Betsy Yanez, Secretary
APPROVED AS TO
/111
f
Mala Subramanian, General Counsel
CITY OF PALO ALTO
By: __________ _
Mayor
SR #11735 Attachment D “Second Restated and Amended Agreement Between the City of
Palo Alto and the East Palo Alto Sanitary District for Wastewater Treatment and District
Outfall”, List of Exhibits:
Exhibit A – Legal Description: Easement A, B, C, D, and E
Exhibit B – Plat to Accompany Legal Description Sheet 1, 2, and 3
Exhibit C – Allocation, Billing, and Payment
Exhibit D – Debt Schedule for 1999 Refunding of 1990 Bonds, Capacity Expansion Project
Exhibit E – Debt Schedule for 1999 Bonds, Incinerator Rehabilitation Project
Exhibit F – Debt Schedule for SRF Loan, Ultraviolet Disinfection Facility Project
Exhibit G – Debt Schedule for SRF Loan, Sludge Dewatering and Truck Loadout Facility Project
Exhibit H – Annual Average Flow Capacity Rights
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/public-works/water-quality-control-plant/sr11735-
attachment-d-exhibits-a-thru-h.pdf
1
2020010901
ADDENDUM NO. TEN TO THE BASIC AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO, THE CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW AND THE
CITY OF LOS ALTOS FOR THE ACQUISITION, CONSTRUCTION AND
MAINTENANCE OF A JOINT SEWER SYSTEM
This Addendum No. Ten (10) to the Basic Agreement for the Acquisition, Construction
and Maintenance of a Joint Sewer System is made and entered into on
_______________________, by and among the CITY OF PALO ALTO (“Palo Alto”), the CITY
OF MOUNTAIN VIEW (“Mountain View”), and the CITY OF LOS ALTOS (“Los Altos”)
(individually, a “Party”, collectively, the “Parties”), all municipal corporations under the laws of
the State of California.
R E C I T A L S:
A.The Parties have entered into that certain Basic Agreement Between the City of
Palo Alto, the City of Mountain View and the City of Los Altos for the Acquisition,
Construction, and Maintenance of a Joint Sewer System, executed on October 10, 1968, as
amended by the Addenda described below (collectively, the “Basic Agreement”). The Basic
Agreement has been amended nine times by addenda, as follows: Addendum No. One (1) to
Basic Agreement Between the Cities of Palo Alto, Mountain View, and Los Altos for
Acquisition, Construction and Maintenance of a Joint Sewer System, dated as of December 5,
1977; Addendum No. Two (2) to Basic Agreement Between the Cities of Palo Alto, Mountain
View, and Los Altos for Acquisition, Construction and Maintenance of a Joint Sewer System
dated as of January 14, 1980; Addendum No. Three (3) to an Agreement By and Between the
Cities of Palo Alto, Mountain View, and Los Altos for Acquisition, Construction and
Maintenance of a Joint Sewer System, dated as of April 9, 1985; Addendum No. Four (4) to the
Agreement By and Between the Cities of Mountain View, Los Altos, and Palo Alto as further
amended and dated May 30, 1991; Addendum No. Five (5) to Basic Agreement Between the
Cities of Palo Alto, Mountain View, and Los Altos for Acquisition, Construction and
Maintenance of a Joint Sewer System, dated as of July 31, 1992; Addendum No. Six (6) to Basic
Agreement Between the City of Palo Alto, the City of Mountain View, and the City of Los Altos
for Acquisition, Construction and Maintenance of a Joint Sewer System dated as of March 16,
1998; and Addendum No. Seven (7) to Basic Agreement Between the City of Palo Alto, the City
of Mountain View, and the City of Los Altos for Acquisition, Construction and Maintenance of a
Joint Sewer System dated as of April 15, 2009; Addendum No. Eight (8) to the Basic Agreement
between the City of Palo Alto, the City of Mountain View and the City of Los Altos for the
Acquisition, Construction, and Maintenance of a Joint Sewer System dated as of October 17,
2016; and Addendum No. Nine (9) to the Basic Agreement between the City of Palo Alto, the
City of Mountain View and the City of Los Altos for the Acquisition, Construction and
Maintenance of a Joint Sewer System dated March 4, 2019 (collectively, the “Addenda”).
B. Palo Alto owns and operates the sanitary sewerage treatment and disposal works
and system (the “Joint System”) pursuant to the Basic Agreement, and is responsible for making
capital additions to the Joint System. Under the Basic Agreement, any major capital additions
for the replacement of obsolete or worn-out units require an agreement by the Parties amending
the Basic Agreement. The Parties now desire to agree to construct two projects to improve the
Joint System by: 1) constructing a new outfall and implementing improvements to existing
discharge infrastructure, and 2) rehabilitating the primary sedimentation tanks (including
2
2020010901
electrical upgrades) (individually, “Project”, collectively the “Projects”). The Parties also agree
to provide for the sharing of costs associated with the Projects. The Projects will become part of
the Regional Water Quality Control Plant (the “Plant”), which is owned and operated by Palo
Alto as part of the Joint System.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the terms, conditions and covenants set forth in this
Addendum No. Ten (10), the Basic Agreement is hereby amended, as follows:
Section 1. Paragraph 40 is hereby added to the Basic Agreement to read, as follows:
“40. CONSTRUCTION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE OUTFALL
PROJECT AND THE PRIMARY SEDIMENTATION TANK REHABILITATION
PROJECT. Palo Alto, Mountain View, and Los Altos hereby approve the
construction of a new outfall and related improvements to existing discharge
infrastructure (the “Outfall Project”) and the rehabilitation of the primary
sedimentation tanks including electrical upgrades (the “Primary Sedimentation Tank
Rehabilitation Project”) for construction, referred to in this Section 40 individually as
a “Project” and collectively as the “Projects”. Each Party shall pay its share of the
Project Costs, in proportion to the capacity it owns in the Joint System or portion
thereof as shown in Exhibit “H” to Addendum No. Six (6) to the Basic Agreement.
“Project Costs”, as used in this Section 40, means all costs incurred in connection
with the construction and implementation of these two Projects. Without limiting the
generality of the foregoing, Project Costs shall include, but not be limited to:
engineering and other consultants’ fees and costs, including fees incurred pursuant to
agreements with engineers, contractors and other consulting, design and construction
professionals; deposits, applicable permit fees; all costs to apply for and secure
necessary permits from all required regional, state, and federal agencies; plan check
fees, and inspection fees; construction costs; initial maintenance; attorneys’ fees and
costs; insurance; interest from the date of payment on any contracts.
The Parties authorize Palo Alto to receive State Revolving Fund (“SRF”) loans from
the State Water Resources Control Board (“SWRCB”) or pursue other project
financing (i.e. utility revenue bonds) to fund the costs of these two Projects. The
maximum amount of financing for each Project is:
x Outfall Project - $12 million
x Primary Sedimentation Tank Rehabilitation Project - $17 million
The SRF loans will have a thirty-year repayment term. The repayments of the SRF
loans shall be treated in the same manner as debt services under the Basic Agreement
and its Addenda, and repaid by the Parties in the same proportionate shares as shown
on Exhibit “H” to Addendum No. Six (6) to the Basic Agreement. The Parties further
agree that, if necessary, each Party shall secure the funding necessary for repayment
of the SRF loan, operations, and/or maintenance of the Projects, following any
appropriate process executed under California Constitution article XIII C and D
(Proposition 218).
3
2020010901
If the SWRCB terminates its loan commitment unexpectedly following execution of
the planning and/or construction contract(s) for the Projects or the Project, Palo Alto
shall notify the Parties promptly. Following notification of the termination of the
SRF loan commitment, the Parties shall meet in a timely manner to discuss alternative
funding sources and strategies for completion of the Projects. If the Parties are
unable to agree on new funding sources in a timely manner, then Palo Alto shall have
the right to terminate the Project or the Projects.
The Parties shall remain responsible for Project Costs and loans incurred, whether
before or after termination of the Project/Projects, including costs incurred in
connection with the termination of Project planning/design/construction contract(s),
in the same proportion to each organization’s share of Plant capacity, as stated in
Exhibit “H” to Addendum No. Six (6) of the Basic Agreement. Total Project Costs
shall not exceed the authorized maximum financing amount approved by Parties
without prior approval of each Party’s governing body. Unless earlier terminated, the
obligations and responsibilities of the Parties shall commence with the execution of
Addendum No. Ten (10) to the Basic Agreement and be in force for the term of the
SRF loan or other financing.
Mountain View and Los Altos shall pay their respective shares of any Project Costs
within thirty (30) business days of receipt of the quarterly billing statement sent by
Palo Alto. Palo Alto shall not send more than one invoice in any thirty-day period. If
a Party disputes the correctness of an invoice, it shall pay the invoice in full and the
dispute shall be resolved after payment in accordance with Section 19 of the Basic
Agreement, and shall not offset against any payment due.
Section 2. Except as modified herein, the Basic Agreement shall remain unchanged, and is
hereby ratified and confirmed.
[SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS]
4
2020010901
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have by their duly authorized representatives
executed this Addendum as of the date first written above.
ATTEST:
__________________________________
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________________
Assistant City Attorney
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
__________________________________
City Manager
CITY OF PALO ALTO
By: __________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
__________________________________
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________________
City Attorney
FINANCIAL APPROVAL:
__________________________________
Finance and Administrative Services Director
CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW
By: __________________________________
City Manager
ATTEST:
__________________________________
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________________
City Attorney
CITY OF LOS ALTOS
By: __________________________________
City Manager
Christopher Jordan
DocuSignl>d by :
(44( 1,.",.1-.,..,f.,:..
3207371729A E4 74 ...
I, OocuSlgncd by:
L~r.~.~
1-DocuSlgncd by:
~oR.:,,1 i=7C.5f',A4 l 4{l4
4
2020010901
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have by their duly authorized representatives
executed this Addendum as of the date first written above.
ATTEST:
__________________________________
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________________
Assistant City Attorney
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
__________________________________
City Manager
CITY OF PALO ALTO
By: __________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
__________________________________
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________________
City Attorney
FINANCIAL APPROVAL:
__________________________________
Finance and Administrative Services Director
CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW
By: __________________________________
City Manager
ATTEST:
__________________________________
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________________
City Attorney
CITY OF LOS ALTOS
By: __________________________________
City Manager
Christopher Jordan
DocuSigned by:
44<7~
3207371729A E474 ...
Bid Item Description Engineer's Estimate C. Overaa & Co.
Anderson Pacific
Engineering Construction,
Inc.
Base Bid
Rehabilitate four concrete primary sedimentation tanks and their ancillary
systems. The scope of work includes the following for all four tanks: repair cracked
and spalling concrete on the tank’s floors, walls, and covers; apply a new
protective coating to the tank walls, ceilings, and covers; upgrade PST area lighting
with LED light fixtures; replace hatch and drainage covers on the top deck; install a
flight and chain monitoring system for the primary sludge raking mechanisms;
replace effluent flow diversion gates; and replace aging motor control centers
(power distribution equipment) and relocate them to a pre‐engineered building
adjacent to the sludge pump room.
$13,500,000 $13,749,000 $13,861,300
Lowest Responsible Bidder
1.84% above Engineer's
Estimate 2.68% above Engineer's
Estimate
Remarks:
Attachment F
City of Palo Alto, Public Works Department
CIP WQ‐14003
Bid Summary for Primary Sedimentation Tanks Rehabilitation and Equipment Room Electrical Upgrade Project
(IFB‐179134A) ‐ Rebid
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
_______5/12/2021_______
[X] Placed Before Meeting
[ ] Received at Meeting
#11
City of Palo Alto
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: City Council
DATE: May 17, 2021
SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM #11: Continued Discussion of the Fiscal Year 2022 Budget
Recommended Motion
The Finance Committee recommends the City Council:
1) Review the current proposed adjustments to the Fiscal Year 2022 Proposed Operating and Capital
Budgets and Fiscal Year 2022 Municipal Fee Schedule in alignment with the work completed by
the Committee May 4, 11, and 12th, 2021;
2) Review the areas of focus for the City Council as identified by the Finance Committee; and
3) Identify and provide feedback to the Finance Committee on any areas of focus or additional
deliberations for the Committee to review as part of the Budget Wrap‐up Meeting, scheduled for
May 25, 2021.
Executive Summary
This memorandum includes additional information provided pertaining to the Fiscal Year 2022 Proposed
Budget, summarizes recommended changes to the City Manager’s Fiscal Year 2022 Proposed Budget, and
responds to some of the questions raised by the Finance Committee during previous budget hearings.
The memorandum is organized as follows:
1) Finance Committee Identified Items for Further Discussion with City Council
2) Finance Committee Tentatively Recommended Revised Balancing Strategy
3) Summary of Finance Committee Review of FY 2022 Proposed Budget (Actions & Reference)
1) FINANCE COMMITTEE IDENTIFIED ITEMS FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION WITH CITY COUNCIL
This section outlines staff‐recommended changes to the proposed budget and items that the Finance
Committee wants to highlight for further discussion with the City Council. The intent of the Finance
Committee is to inform the Council of certain assumptions that were made as part of their review and
2
5/17/2021
confirm that Council understands these assumptions before completing the final budget wrap‐up meeting
prior to returning to the City Council for the FY 2022 budget adoption.
Notes/Questions for City Council from the Finance Committee
The seven items that the Finance Committee wanted to highlight for the City Council to consider and
discuss are:
1) Propose lowering the level of the Budget Stabilization Reserve (BSR) by $2.5 million, below the
18.5 percent target to between 16.6 percent and 17.4 percent of estimated FY 2022 expense
levels;
2) Propose a one‐year solution where the City will continue to face gaps in FY 2023 if revenues do
not grow faster than expenses;
3) Assume a 50‐50 split of the reciept and appropriation of American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funding
of $13.7 million over a 24‐month period;
4) Consider a moderate increase in the Electric Utility Rate in FY 2022;
5) Request the City Council or their representatives to engage with the school board on cost sharing
for services such as, but not limited to: Crossing Guards, Children’s Theatre Outreach, Safe Routes
to School;
6) Assume the $1.6 million in labor concessions in the General Fund are achieved; and
7) Recommend up to $1.0 million for the City Council to increase the Uncertainty Reserve, replenish
the Budget Stabilization Reserve, and/or allocate towards service restoration.
2) FINANCE COMMITTEE TENTATIVELY RECOMMENDED REVISED BALANCING STRATEGY
During the deliberations with the Finance Committee on May 11 and 12, the Committee reviewed the FY
2022 Operating Budget, Capital Budget, and Municipal Fees. To balance the FY 2022 $13 million gap, the
Proposed Budget includes $7.7 million in net service and capital improvement investment reductions, $1.0
million use of program specific reserves (e.g. Development Center), an assumed $1.6 million in labor
concessions, and use of $3.1 million in ARPA funds. Based on the proposed balancing strategy and well
as new information made available as part of the committee’s deliberations, the Committee has made
the following tentative recommendations for adjustments to the FY 2022 proposed budgets. Overall, the
current tentative strategy would restore proposed FY 2022 budget reductions in the following
departments: Police, Library, Community Services, Fire, Planning and Development Services, and some
additional in adjustments in internal services departments. Significant service reductions adopted in FY
2021 would continue and additional reductions in internal service resources would continue to be
diminished impacting cycle times and increasing overall risk.
Below is a summary tale of the adjustments approved by the Committee followed by more detailed
explanation for them.
3
5/17/2021
*In staff’s review of the actions taken by the Finance Committee, staff found that the Committee did not explicitly
include this action in the list of restorations as it was not articulated that this had both use of reserves and additional
reductions. Given the Committee’s discussion and other direction, staff have included the restoration of the staffing
resources here to align with the Committee’s intent. The proposed balancing strategy continues to use the reserve
funds for Bryant Street Garage to maintain Think Fund teen services.
Date Finance Committee Adjustments to Budget* FY 2022 GF Dept
Beginning Balance ‐ ARPA Reserve $ 3,192,580
11‐May Add Phase 4 Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Project in FY
2023 CIP plan +$3M; staff to provide options for offset
‐ PWD
12‐May Adj gas commodity purchases ‐$1.6M UTL
12‐May Revised ARPA Allocation +$1.2M over 24 mo. (2 ‐1, Burt No) 600,000 ASD
12‐May NON Bgt Adj: City Council Contingency (2 ‐1, Burt No) 100,000 NON
12‐May NON BSR: reduce by $2.5M (3‐0) 2,500,000 NON
12‐May Allocate $50k SUMC Funds (Community Health & Safety)
towards HSRAP Allocation (3 ‐0)
‐ CSD
4‐May JMZ Ticket Pricing Analysis @ $10 entry (914,000) CSD
12‐May CSD Bgt Adj: Art Center Hours/Program/Fees (208,025) CSD
12‐May CSD Bgt Adj: Eliminate CSD Admin Support (152,200) CSD
12‐May CSD Bgt Adj: Sports and Recreation Staffing (38,202) CSD
12‐May CSD Bgt Adj: JMZ Marketing Reduction (50,000) CSD
12‐May CSD Bgt Adj: Cubberley Theatre Admin Reduction (94,123) CSD
12‐May CSD Bgt Adj: Children’s Theatre Operations & Production (68,224) CSD
TBD* CSD Bgt Adj: Teen Services/Use of Think Funds (55,209) CSD
12‐May CSD Bgt Adj: Elim Baylands Interpretive Cntr Hrs (15,321) CSD
12‐May CSD Bgt Adj: Elim Cubberley Artist Studio Admin (12,173) CSD
12‐May Add $125K to CSD at Staff's Discretion (125,000) CSD
11‐May Fire Bgt Adj: Emerg. Incident Brown Out (FS#22) (709,000) FIR
12‐May Fire Bgt: Fire Equity Hiring (50,000) FIR
11‐May Police Bgt Adj: Reduce Patrol Staffing (1,008,737) POL
11‐May Police Bgt Adj: Reduce Crossing Guard Srvcs (304,310) POL
11‐May Police Bgt Adj: Reallocate Lieutenant to CMO (292,903) POL
11‐May Police Bgt Adj: Reduce Admin Programming (47,450) POL
12‐May Library Bgt Adj: Neighborhood Library Closure (544,918) LIB
12‐May PDS Bgt Adj: Current Planning Staff (138,146) PDS
12‐May CMO Bgt Adj: Federal Lobbyist Contract (40,000) CMO
12‐May CLK Bgt Adj: Minutes Transcription Services (63,000) CLK
12‐May Establish Council Uncertainty Reserve (500,000) CSD
12‐May SRF Bgt Adj: TMA Funding, ‐$110k OOT
Remaining: 961,639$
(University Ave. Parking Permit Fund)
4
5/17/2021
Recognize Additional ARPA Funds and Use of Budget Stabilization Reserve (BSR):
The FY 2022 Proposed Operating Budget recognized 50 percent or $6.25 million of the $12.5 million that
the City anticipated to receive from the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) as part of the Federal
government COVID‐19 relief package. This funding is anticipated to be received in two tranches over a
period of 24 months. Of the $6.25 million, a total of $3.1 million was reserved for discussion and allocation
by the Finance Committee and City Council during budget deliberations.
In May 11th presentations, staff provided an update to the City’s anticipated ARPA allocation at $13.7
million, an increase of $1.2 million from the $12.5 million estimated in the FY 2022 Proposed Budget. The
Finance Committee recommended the use 50 percent or $0.6 million in FY 2022. Additionally, staff
provided preliminary Q3 2021 financials that project an additional $2.0 to $3.3 million contribution to the
BSR due to higher than anticipated tax revenues. Staff and the Finance Committee discussed the potential
use of BSR to offset recommended changes to the FY 2022 Operating Budget and impact to BSR levels;
Council policy is 15‐20 percent with an 18.5 percent target, whereas the Government Finance Officers
Association (GFOA) best practices is to fund two months of operating expenditures, or 16.6 percent based
on FY 2022 Proposed Budget levels. Ultimately, the Finance Committee recommended to reduce the BSR
by $2.5M for use in FY 2022, resulting in a funding level between 16.6 percent and 17.4 percent.
In total, these actions added $6.3 million for discussion and allocation by the Finance Committee: $3.2
million ARPA reserve beginning balance, $0.6 million additional ARPA reserve, and $2.5 million from the
BSR. The following section describes the Finance Committee recommended uses of these funds and other
tentative adjustments to the FY 2022 Operating and Capital Budgets and Municipal Fee Schedule. A total
of $1.0 million remains unallocated. It is critical to note that all of these assumptions presume the City
and its labor groups reach agreement on zero wage increases for a second year in FY 2022, an estimated
General Fund savings of $1.6 million ($2.5 million all funds).
GENERAL FUND
Community Services Department:
On May 4th, 2021, the Finance Committee reviewed and tentatively approved a staff recommended
operating plan for the Junior Museum and Zoo (JMZ), including an $18.00 ticket price (CMR 12050). The
Finance Committee set aside $914,000 in the parking lot to consider adjustments to the currently
approved operating plan such as lowering the ticket and membership prices and requested that staff
return with a scenario analysis that better informs the interactions between attendance, ticket prices, and
expenses. Staff have engaged a consultant to support this analysis and will return to present findings and
recommendations. Following staff presentation on May 12, 2021 the Finance Committee moved forward
with a motion to tentatively approve the additional $914,000 to adjust the operating plan including a
reduced ticket price of $10.00. Details of the adjusted operating plan tentatively approved in the motion
can be found under Scenario 5 in CMR 12050.
City Manager Report #12050: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas‐minutes‐
reports/reports/city‐manager‐reports‐cmrs/2021/id‐12050.pdf
5
5/17/2021
On May 12th, 2021, the Finance Committee approved a tentative motion to restore the following
proposals:
Arts Center Operating Hours, Programming, and Fees ($208,025, 2.16 FTE): This proposal is
revised to tentatively approve the 10 percent fee increases and corresponding net $18,792 in
revenue and restore expenditure and staffing reductions.
Eliminate Administrative Support Staffing and Enjoy! Catalog ($152,200, 1.00 FTE): This proposal
is revised to tentatively approve the elimination of $20,000 for the printing of the Enjoy! Catalog
and restore 1.00 Administrative Assistant.
Sports and Recreation Reductions, Fees, and Staffing ($38,202, 0.35 FTE): This proposal is revised
to tentatively approve the 10 percent fee increases and corresponding $79,000 in revenue and
restore expenditure and staffing reductions.
Junior Museum and Zoo (JMZ) Marketing Reduction ($50,000): This proposal is revised to restore
50 percent of the $100,000 reduction to JMZ marketing; a total of approximately $150,000
remains budgeted for this purpose.
Cubberley Theater Administrative Staffing ($94,123, 0.75 FTE)
Children’s Theater Operations and Production Staffing ($68,224, 1.32 FTE)
Teen services ($55,209, 1.21 FTE)*: This proposal is revised to tentatively approve the use of
$150,000 of the Think Fund/Bryant Street Garage Fund to offset teen service expenses and restore
staffing reductions.
Baylands Interpretive Center Public Hours ($15,321, 0.29 FTE)
Cubberley Artist Studio Administrative Staffing ($12,173, 0.20 FTE)
Add $125,000 (one‐time) for use at Staff’s discretion
*In staff’s review of the actions taken by the Finance Committee, staff found that the Committee did not explicitly
include this action in the list of restorations as it was not articulated that this had both use of reserves and additional
reductions. Given the Committee’s discussion and other direction, staff have included the restoration of the staffing
resources here to align with the Committee’s intent. The proposed balancing strategy continues to use the reserve
funds for Bryant Street Garage to maintain Think Fund teen services.
Fire Department
On May 12th, the Finance Committee approved a tentative motion to restore $709,000 in overtime funding
associated with the full brown‐out of Fire Station 2, remaining consistent with FY 2021 levels. Additionally,
the Finance Committee added $50,000 to the Fire Department budget to support efforts in equity hiring.
Police Department
On May 12th, the Finance Committee tentatively approved to restore $1.7M in the Police Department,
including 5.00 FTE positions in Patrol ($1.0 million), crossing guard services ($304,310), funding for the
reallocation of a Lieutenant to CMO ($292,903), and funding for administrative programming ($47,450).
The tentatively approved actions will result in the following being funded in FY 2022:
Five sworn positions in Patrol Services, remaining consistent with FY 2021 staffing levels
Crossing guard services contract which services 29 PAUSD locations during the school year,
remaining consistent with FY 2021 funding levels
Reinstate Lieutenant position back to PD, previously reallocated to the City Manager’s Office to
support the business community during the pandemic
Administrative programming for Citizen’s Academy, Reserve Dinner, DUI Campaign Costs, Bike
Patrol, Explorer Program, FBI Academy
6
5/17/2021
Library Department
On May 12th, 2021, the Finance Committee tentatively approved to restore $544,918 to avoid the closure
of the College Terrace, Downtown, and Children’s Libraries, maintain current open hours for the
Rinconada and Mitchell Park Libraries, and restore 5.00 full time and 0.28 part‐time positions. This would
maintain the reduced service adopted in FY 2021 which includes reducing the service offerings at
Children’s Library and maintaining Children’s, College Terrace, and Downtown Library hours three days
per week and Rinconada and Mitchel Park Library hours six days a week.
Planning and Development Services
On May 12th, 2021 the Finance Committee tentatively approved $138,146 to restore 1.00 Associate
Planner in the Current Planning Division to support timely development project assistance, processing and
permit issuance.
City Manager’s Office
On May 12th, 2021 the Finance Committee tentatively approved $40,000 to restore funding for federal
lobbyist contract services to the full $200,000 for state and federal lobbyist activities to ensure the City
can continue to identify opportunities and leverage resources at the federal level. Staff will continue to
pursue any cost savings or efficiencies through the issuance of a request for proposal for these services.
City Clerk
On May 12th, 2021 the Finance Committee tentatively approved $63,000 to restore transcription services,
which will allow the Clerk’s Office to continue to provide final summary minutes in addition to action
minutes.
City Council
On May 12th, 2021 the Finance Committee tentatively approved to reduce the Council Contingency by
$100,000, from $125,000 to $25,000, in order to free‐up additional funding to help offset the restoration
of proposed budget reductions.
Non‐departmental
On May 12th, 2021, the Finance Committee tentatively approved $500,000 to establish an uncertainty
reserve in FY 2022, to address unanticipated funding needs for critical operations, services, or projects
that may come up in FY 2022. This was discussed as a similar adjustment as the establishment of the City
Council FY2021 COVID‐19 Uncertainty Reserve, which was established in the amount of $744,000 and has
been recommended to be allocated to rent forgiveness for City tenants this year.
SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS
University Avenue Parking District Fund – Transportation Management Association (TMA)
On May 12th, 2021, Staff brought forward a recommendation to reduce the FY 2022 Proposed funding
levels for the TMA from $350,000 to $240,000 in an at places memo. The TMA anticipates lower commute
activity as a result of the COVID‐19 pandemic and proposed to continue efforts to reduce single occupancy
vehicle (SOV) trips to and from Palo Alto at a reduced service level. The Finance Committee tentatively
approved this action and staff will return to the City Council with a revised contract with TMA that details
7
5/17/2021
the activities planned in FY 2022 where scope of services can be further detailed and discussed prior to
release of any funding as per the typical process.
Stanford University Medical Center (SUMC) Fund
On May 12th, 2021 the Finance Committee tentatively approved to use Community Health and Safety
funds for $50,000 in Human Services Resource Allocation Process (HSRAP) funding.
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND – Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Project Funding
On May 11th, the Finance Committee approved a tentative motion to add $3.0 million for phase four of
the Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Project in the FY 2023 Capital Improvement Plan and asked staff to
return with options to offset the funding, including the potential use of Stanford University Medical Center
(SUMC) development agreement funds, reprioritization of current projects, or other staff
recommendations.
Staff recommends one of the following options to fund phase four:
SUMC Funding
(Revenue)
Bike/Pedestrian Plan
(PL‐04010)
(Expense Reduction)
Various Street
Maintenance Projects
(Expense Reduction)
Charleston/Arastradero
(PE‐13011)
(Expense Increase)
Option 1 $1.2M ‐$1.5M ‐$0.3M $3.0M
Option 2 $2.0M ‐$1.0M $0 $3.0M
Option 3 $3.0M $0 $0 $3.0M
Option 1 would increase FY 2023 revenues in the Capital Improvement Fund from SUMC Community
Health/Safety funding by $1.2 million, reallocate $1.5 million in expenses from the Bicycle and Pedestrian
Plan Implementation Project (PL‐04010), and reallocate $0.3 million from various streets maintenance
projects to offset the $3.0 million of expenses needed for phase four of the Charleston/Arastradero
Corridor Project (PE‐13011).
Option 2 would increase FY 2023 revenues in the Capital Improvement Fund from SUMC Community
Health/Safety funding by $2.0 million, and reallocate $1.0 million in expenses from the Bicycle and
Pedestrian Plan Implementation Project (PL‐04010) to offset the $3.0 million of expenses needed for
phase four of the Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Project (PE‐13011).
Option 3 would increase FY 2023 revenues in the Capital Improvement Fund from SUMC Community
Health/Safety funding by $2.35 million, and the Infrastructure and Affordable Housing funding by $0.65
million. This would exhaust remaining funding in each of these categories.
Should the Council choose to move forward with use of SUMC funding as discussed by the Committee, a
construction contract can be awarded immediately using current bids, combining Phase 3 and 4 or Phase
3a and 3b to complete the full original scope of the Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Project. Staff would
come back with an item that would both adjust the financial transactions and award the contract together
for project completion before City Council’s summer break.
8
5/17/2021
Further deferral and/or reprioritization of projects is not recommended but would be required to maintain
a positive fund balance through the 5‐year Capital Improvement Plan if Council does not move forward
with Option 1,2, or 3.
For reference the SUMC table of funding is below, additional details can be found in staff report #12233
ENTERPRISE FUNDS
Gas Fund
On May 12th, 2021, the Finance Committee approved a tentative motion to decrease expenses in the Gas
Fund by $1.6 million, from $18.0 million to $16.4 million, to correct for an inadvertent adjustment for
carbon neutral offsets already included in the base budget. This does not impact forecasted and
tentatively approved utility rates.
FY 2022 Municipal Fee Schedule
On May 12th, 2021, the Finance Committee tentatively approved the FY 2022 Municipal Fee Schedule CMR
12193, including a revised Schedule for Municipal Fee Schedule Amendments for FY 2022 Changed Fees
that was districted via an at places memo, that summarizes details of changed fees by name along with
the Adopted FY 2021 amount, the Proposed FY 2022 amount, the percentage change where relevant, and
the fee change justification. In addition, the distributed at places memo includes detail for the City Council
approved an ordinance and emergency ordinance for a $6 vehicle entry fee for Foothills Nature Preserve
which is incorporated into the Municipal Fee Schedule, based on City Council approval on May 10th, 2021.
9
5/17/2021
3) SUMMARY OF FINANCE COMMITTEE REVIEW OF FY 2022 PROPOSED BUDGET (ACTIONS &
REFERENCE)
Finance Committee Tentative Motions & Materials Distributed (actions & reference materials)
Action Minutes to the Finance Committee Hearings can be found on the City’s webpage here:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/City‐Clerk/City‐Council‐Standing‐Committees/Finance‐
Committee. In addition, throughout the Finance Committee Budget Hearings, various memoranda were
distributed “At Places” in order to respond to inquiries made by the Committee or provide additional
pertinent information at staffs behest. In addition, summary presentations were given at each hearing
providing high level overviews of each item. Specific meetings and reference links to materials are
outlined below.
May 4, 2021 Finance Committee
Action Minutes: pending
Presentations:
Junior Museum and Zoo (JMZ) Operating Plan:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas‐minutes‐reports/item‐
presentations/2021/05‐04‐21‐fcm‐presentation‐item‐1.pdf
Stanford University Medical Center (SUMC) Fund Status:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/administrative‐services/city‐budgets/fy‐
2022‐city‐budget/fcm‐budget‐hearings/sumc‐ppt.‐item‐2‐fc‐5.4.21.pdf
FY 2022 Proposed Budget Overview:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas‐minutes‐reports/item‐
presentations/2021/05‐04‐21‐fcm‐presentation‐item‐3.pdf
Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPZZuhlXEB4
May 11, 2022 Finance Committee
Action Minutes: pending
Presentations:
FY 2021‐2022 Proposed Operating and Capital Budgets:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/administrative‐services/city‐budgets/fy‐
2022‐city‐budget/fcm‐budget‐hearings/may‐12‐2021/05‐11‐2021‐fcm‐budget‐hearing‐
presentation‐final.pdf
Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPZZuhlXEB4
May 12, 2022 Finance Committee
Action Minutes: pending
Presentations:
FY 2021‐2022 Proposed Operating and Capital Budgets Continuation:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/administrative‐services/city‐budgets/fy‐
2022‐city‐budget/fcm‐budget‐hearings/may‐12‐2021/05.12.21‐budget‐hearing‐
presentation_updated.pdf
Video: https://youtu.be/t4I5XP4jsz4
List of Supplemental Information provided during the Finance Committee Deliberations
During the Finance Committee hearings, requests for additional information were made by the Committee
members, and Staff provided information for items that have been routinely asked for in prior years. This
10
5/17/2021
section addresses the Finance Committee’s requests regarding the Fiscal Year 2022 Proposed Budget.
Below is a list of links to those memorandum that have been presented with additional information:
May 11 At Places Memorandum: Additional Information
May 12 At Places Memorandum: Palo Alto Transportation Management Association
May 12 At Places Memorandum: Additional Information and Clarification
Additional Information and Clarification Memos From May 11th and 12th (provided at staff’s behest)
In previous years, the City Council has made a variety of requests to provide context and/or additional
data points of reference to aid in budget deliberations. Staff compiled and transmitted the following items
at the May 11 and 12, 2021 budget meetings to assist in the review of the FY 2022 Proposed Budget:
Capital Fund reappropriations list
Vacancy report, as of May 2021
City’s list of lease information
Service provider spend report
Department organization charts
Responses to City Council questions from May 4 Overview Meeting
Crossing Guard Locations
Community Budget Survey Results (at staff’s behest)
The City released an online survey on May 5, 2021 to facilitate community feedback on the FY 2022
budget, including prioritization of service areas, proposed reductions, and alternative funding sources.
Staff included preliminary survey results in the May 12 Finance Committee Meeting, and additional
preliminary survey information will be provided as a part of the presentation for this meeting. Final survey
results will be available at the May 25 Wrap‐up Meeting with the Finance Committee after the survey
closes on May 21, 2021 at 12pm. For ease of reference, initial results can be found here on slides 4‐6.
DEPARTMENT HEAD:
KIELY NOSE
Director, Administrative Services/CFO
CITY MANAGER:
ED SHIKADA
City Manager
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
_______5/12/2021_______
[X] Placed Before Meeting
[ ] Received at Meeting
#11
1
City of Palo Alto
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: City Council
DATE: May 17, 2021
SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM #11: TRANSMITTAL OF CITY COUNCIL COLLEAGUES MEMO REGARDING
PALO ALTO MUSEUM (PAM) AT THE ROTH BUILDING
At the end of March 2021 three City Council Members submitted a colleagues memo in regards to
providing direction to staff on the ongoing partnership with the Palo Alto Museum and use of the ROTH
Building 300 Homer Avenue. Staff is transmitting that memo, with the concurrence of the authors as
information to inform the Council’s discussion regarding the FY 2022 budget and the FY 2022-2026
Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Plan as the recommendations include identification of additional
funding for the rehabilitation of the facility in the amount of approximately $4 million additional funds.
Staff most recently received direction on this item at the December 15, 2020 City Council meeting, the
staff report can be found here, including detailed funding table for the project. Staff Report #11832
Staff will bring back the substantive question of the ROTH building itself as outlined in the memo and
will complete the resource impact in prep for that discussion at that time.
DEPARTMENT HEAD:
KIELY NOSE
Director, Administrative Services/CFO
CITY MANAGER:
ED SHIKADA
City Manager
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5835298E-F2A2-4984-A5E6-BB8B7CDA6A89
2
ATTACHMENT A: COLLEAGUES MEMO
DATE: March 23, 2021
TO: City Council Members
FROM: Council Members Kou and Stone, Vice Mayor Burt
SUBJECT: Palo Alto Museum (PAM) at the Roth Building
Issue
The City purchased the historic Roth Building in 2000 and issued a Lease Option to the Palo Alto History
Museum (now the Palo Alto Museum) in 2007. The Museum has invested $1.8M in approved plans to
rehabilitate the Roth Building, generated several million dollars to both rehabilitate the building and to
then install a museum in the National Register building. The momentum to install a museum in the Roth
Building has been inhibited by inconsistent action from the City.
As a City-owned asset, the hard shell of the building would normally be the responsibility of the landlord
(the city) with the tenant being responsible for interior build-outs, other than “tenant improvements”
funded or provided by the landlord. In addition, the city is scheduled to receive multiple significant
community assets and benefits that are outside of museum-based functions or obligations including;
publicly accessible park restrooms, a cafe accessible to the park, community meeting spaces, and
resources for youth research and education.
Partnership Goals
The partnership goals include rehabilitation of an historically significant building which is listed on the
National Register of Historic Places according to the Secretary of Interior’s Standards, and support for a
significant community serving facility. The building is an especially important City-owned property that
embodies our history of innovation, and the legacies of the community, all in one building,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palo_Alto_Medical_Foundation:
● The entrepreneurs and founders, including Dr. Russel Lee and Dr. Edward Roth, of the
innovative “community clinic” model of the Palo Alto Medical Clinic (later Foundation) at the
Roth Building (constructed in 1932);
● Clinic co-founder, Dr. Esther Clark, was a trailblazing female pediatrician;
● Artist and Stanford Professor, Victor Arnautoff, whose world-renowned frescoes depicting
medical history adorn the entrance and are perhaps the most important public art in the city;
and
● Architecture by Palo Alto’s Birge Clark, whose renowned architectural legacy is embedded in our
residential, commercial, and public properties.
Consequently, the Roth Building is the uniquely ideal building to house the Palo Alto Museum and
related public facilities.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5835298E-F2A2-4984-A5E6-BB8B7CDA6A89
3
Background and Discussion
2000 City purchases Roth Building and approves historic designation
2004 Council accepts Palo Alto Historical Association (PAHA) RFP proposal
2005 Council approves 40-year lease option to Palo Alto Museum, formerly Palo Alto History
Museum (PAHM)
2007 PAM lease option agreement approved
2010 Roth Building placed on National Register of Historic Places
2017 City challenges the Museum to raise $1.75M by year end which was met and confirmed by
an independent review in late 2019. The Lease Option was not extended as indicated.
From 2017 – 2020, the City has conveyed inconsistent messages to the Museum and the public with
confusing directions. The city challenged the Museum to raise $1.75M in exchange for a Lease Option,
then pursued rezoning, investigated other uses, issued a new RFP, and discussed selling the building.
These inconsistent messages and lack of a promised Lease Option have made fundraising extremely
challenging for the Palo Alto Museum.
Completed by PAM:
Design, Approval Architectural Plans and City Permits acquired at $1.8 million Museum expense
Plans conform to requirements as an historical building enabling the sale of Transfer of
Development Rights (TDR) funds to pay for rehabilitation work.
Partnered with Vance Brown for construction contract services.
Procured Grants from Santa Clara County for roof replacement. Grants are restricted to the PAM
rehabilitation plans. Additional grant funding was also secured for Arnautoff frescoes
restoration.
Identified potentially applicable development impact fees as outlined in Finance Committee
Staff report dated 11/17/20201
According to the approved plans, the establishment of the Museum in the Roth Building is expected to
bring a number of contributions to the community. Those include:
A public restroom at Heritage Park (as required by the initial RFP)
Permanent home for the City-owned historic archives
Community meeting spaces
Unique Palo Alto and Stanford social, cultural, and technological exhibits a
Resources for required studies by second - fourth grade students not currently available
elsewhere
Lab of evolving technologies for all students
Park-side café
Venue for speakers and authors
The Council in its 2020-2021 budget discussions directed that shovel-ready projects take priority.
1 https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=59923.76&BlobID=79089
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5835298E-F2A2-4984-A5E6-BB8B7CDA6A89
4
The Museum has brought forward the rehabilitation of the City-owned Roth Building with approved
plans and permits. By partnering with the Museum, the City can take advantage of the millions of dollars
in project financing the Museum brings for the fastest and most cost-efficient means to rehabilitate the
historic Roth Building.
Timing is critical. This project needs to move forward quickly to preserve this vulnerable historic
building, take advantage of the existing permit, and move forward this construction season to avoid
winter rains.
Recommendation
1) Issue a lease or lease-option between the City and PAM, which would allow for donor and restricted
funds for the rehabilitation pursuant to the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and County grants
to be released for construction of Phase 1 (Phase 1 is the rehabilitation and build out of the facility
to make it suitable for occupancy also known as a “warm shell” estimated at $10.5 million);
2) Direct City Staff to identify additional funding to help complete the rehabilitation funding gap
ranging between $4.0 - $4.3 million (PAM estimate at $3.71 million in 2020) from possible library,
community center, and/or parks impact fees, Stanford Development Funds, cost savings from
CIP projects and other identifiable sources;
3) Release the amended Lease Agreement to the Museum for timely review and finalization;
4) Commit to a partnership with the Museum for the rehabilitation of the Roth Building and for mutual
long-term success of the project.
Resource Impact
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5835298E-F2A2-4984-A5E6-BB8B7CDA6A89
Certificate Of Completion
Envelope Id: 5835298EF2A24984A5E6BB8B7CDA6A89 Status: Completed
Subject: Please DocuSign: Colleagues Memo 2021 PAM v03-22_KN.docx
Source Envelope:
Document Pages: 4 Signatures: 2 Envelope Originator:
Certificate Pages: 2 Initials: 0 Josh Martinez
AutoNav: Enabled
EnvelopeId Stamping: Enabled
Time Zone: (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada)
250 Hamilton Ave
Palo Alto , CA 94301
Josh.Martinez@CityofPaloAlto.org
IP Address: 199.33.32.254
Record Tracking
Status: Original
5/17/2021 2:11:40 PM
Holder: Josh Martinez
Josh.Martinez@CityofPaloAlto.org
Location: DocuSign
Security Appliance Status: Connected Pool: StateLocal
Storage Appliance Status: Connected Pool: City of Palo Alto Location: DocuSign
Signer Events Signature Timestamp
Kiely Nose
Kiely.Nose@CityofPaloAlto.org
Director, Administrative Services/CFO
City of Palo Alto
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(None)
Signature Adoption: Uploaded Signature Image
Using IP Address: 174.194.140.123
Signed using mobile
Sent: 5/17/2021 2:15:58 PM
Viewed: 5/17/2021 2:16:31 PM
Signed: 5/17/2021 2:16:50 PM
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:
Not Offered via DocuSign
Ed Shikada
Ed.Shikada@CityofPaloAlto.org
Ed Shikada, City Manager
City of Palo Alto
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(None)
Signature Adoption: Pre-selected Style
Using IP Address: 199.33.32.254
Sent: 5/17/2021 2:16:52 PM
Viewed: 5/17/2021 2:56:05 PM
Signed: 5/17/2021 2:56:26 PM
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:
Not Offered via DocuSign
In Person Signer Events Signature Timestamp
Editor Delivery Events Status Timestamp
Agent Delivery Events Status Timestamp
Intermediary Delivery Events Status Timestamp
Certified Delivery Events Status Timestamp
Carbon Copy Events Status Timestamp
Josh Martinez
josh.martinez@cityofpaloalto.org
Administrative Associate III
City of Palo Alto
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(None)
Sent: 5/17/2021 2:56:27 PM
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:
Not Offered via DocuSign
Witness Events Signature Timestamp
Notary Events Signature Timestamp
Envelope Summary Events Status Timestamps
Envelope Sent Hashed/Encrypted 5/17/2021 2:15:58 PM
Certified Delivered Security Checked 5/17/2021 2:56:05 PM
Signing Complete Security Checked 5/17/2021 2:56:26 PM
Completed Security Checked 5/17/2021 2:56:28 PM
Payment Events Status Timestamps