HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 12270
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 OT HING /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.