HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026-01-20 City Council Agenda PacketCITY COUNCIL
Special Meeting
Tuesday, January 20, 2026
Council Chambers & Hybrid
5:30 PM
Palo Alto City Council meetings will be held as “hybrid” meetings with the option to attend by
teleconference or in person. Information on how the public may observe and participate in the
meeting is located at the end of the agenda. The meeting will be broadcast on Cable TV Channel
26, live on YouTube https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto, and streamed to Midpen Media
Center https://midpenmedia.org.
VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION CLICK HERE TO JOIN (https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/362027238)
Meeting ID: 362 027 238 Phone:1(669)900-6833
PUBLIC COMMENTS
General Public Comment for items not on the agenda will be accepted in person for up to three
minutes or an amount of time determined by the Chair. General public comment will be heard
for 30 minutes. Additional public comments, if any, will be heard at the end of the agenda.
Public comments for agendized items will be accepted both in person and via Zoom for up to
three minutes or an amount of time determined by the Chair. Requests to speak will be taken
until 5 minutes after the staff’s presentation or as determined by the Chair. Written public
comments can be submitted in advance to city.council@PaloAlto.gov and will be provided to
the Council and available for inspection on the City’s website. Please clearly indicate which
agenda item you are referencing in your subject line. Multiple individuals who wish to speak on
the same item may designate a spokesperson. Spokespersons must be representing five or more
verified individuals who are present either in person or via zoom. Spokespeople will be allowed
up to 10 minutes, at the discretion of the presiding officer. Speaking time may be reduced if the
presiding officer reduces the speaking time for individual speakers.
PowerPoints, videos, or other media to be presented during public comment are accepted only
by email to city.clerk@PaloAlto.gov at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. Once received, the
Clerk will have them shared at public comment for the specified item. To uphold strong
cybersecurity management practices, USB’s or other physical electronic storage devices are not
accepted. Signs and symbolic materials less than 2 feet by 3 feet are permitted provided that:
(1) sticks, posts, poles or similar/other type of handle objects are strictly prohibited; (2) the
items do not create a facility, fire, or safety hazard; and (3) persons with such items remain
seated when displaying them and must not raise the items above shoulder level, obstruct the
view or passage of other attendees, or otherwise disturb the business of the meeting.
TIME ESTIMATES
Listed times are estimates only and are subject to change at any time, including while the
meeting is in progress. The Council reserves the right to use more or less time on any item, to
change the order of items and/or to continue items to another meeting. Particular items may be
heard before or after the time estimated on the agenda. This may occur in order to best manage
the time at a meeting or to adapt to the participation of the public.
1 January 20, 2026
Materials submitted after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection at www.paloalto.gov/agendas.
CALL TO ORDER
SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY (5:30 - 5:40 PM)
1.Proclamation honoring Aaron (Bunk) Miller for 34 Years of Service to the Palo Alto
Regional Water Quality Control Plant and its partner agencies.
AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS
PUBLIC COMMENT (5:40 - 6:10 PM)
Members of the public may speak in-person ONLY to any item NOT on the agenda. 1-3 minutes depending on number of
speakers. Public Comment is limited to 30 minutes. Additional public comments, if any, will be heard at the end of the agenda.
COUNCIL MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS (6:10 - 6:25 PM)
Members of the public may not speak to the item(s).
STUDY SESSION (6:25 - 7:25 PM)
2.Presentation of the 2025 Annual Community Survey Results. CEQA Status -- Not a
project.
CONSENT CALENDAR (7:25 - 7:30 PM)
Items will be voted in one motion unless removed from the calendar by three Council Members.
3.Approval of Minutes from January 5, 2026 Meeting
4.Accept CalPERS Pension Annual Valuation Report as of June 30, 2024; CEQA Status – Not
a project.
5.Approval of the Advisory Report: Contract Solicitation & Authority Levels and Subsequent
Management Response as recommended by the Policy & Services Committee. CEQA
Status – Not a Project.
6.Approval of the City of Palo Alto’s Updated 2026 Water, Gas, and Wastewater Utility
Standards (Design and Construction); CEQA Status- Not a Project.
2 January 20, 2026
Materials submitted after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection at www.paloalto.gov/agendas.
7.Adopt a Resolution to Allow Consumption of Alcohol under PAMC section 9.04.010 on
Certain Days and Times through May 31, 2026, on California Avenue.
8.Approve Recommended Changes that will Align Increased General Liability Insurance
Costs in the General Liability Fund to be Included in the Mid-Year Budget Report as
Recommended by the Finance Committee. CEQA Status—Not a project.
9.Approval of Contract Amendment Number 3 to Contract C23183770 with Townsend
Public Affairs, Inc. in the amount of $186,000 to Revise the Not-to-Exceed Total to
$744,000 and to Extend the Term for an Additional Year of Service (the third of four one-
year options to renew) for State and Federal Legislative Advocacy and Grant Consulting
and Compliance Services; CEQA Status - Not a Project
10.SECOND READING: Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Repealing and
Replacing Section 18.40.250 (Lighting) of Chapter 18.40 (General Standards and
Exceptions) and Amending Chapters 18.10, 18.12, 18.28 and Section 18.40.230 of Title
18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Adopt New Outdoor Lighting Regulations
(REINTRODUCED FIRST READING: December 8, 2025; PASSED:6-1, Lythcott-Haims, no)
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS (7:30 - 7:45 PM)
BREAK (15 MINUTES)
ACTION ITEMS (Item 11: 8:00 - 9:00 PM, Item 12: 9:00 - 10:30 PM)
Include: Report of Committees/Commissions, Ordinances and Resolutions, Public Hearings, Report of Officials, Unfinished
Business and Council Matters.
11.Policy and Services Committee Recommendation to Adopt the 2026 State and Federal
State Legislative Guidelines and 2026 Utility Policy Guidelines, and Receive an Update
on State and Federal Legislative Advocacy; CEQA Status – Not a Project
12.Review the FY 2027-FY 2036 Long Range Financial Forecast (LRFF) and FY 2027 Budget
Development Guidelines using the LRFF as the Baseline for Developing the FY 2027
Budget as Recommended by the Finance Committee, CEQA Status – Not a Project
ADJOURNMENT
OTHER INFORMATION
3 January 20, 2026
Materials submitted after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection at www.paloalto.gov/agendas.
Standing Committee Meetings this week
Retail Committee January 22, 2026
Public Comment Letters
Schedule of Meetings
4 January 20, 2026
Materials submitted after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection at www.paloalto.gov/agendas.
PUBLIC COMMENT INSTRUCTIONS
Members of the Public may provide public comments to teleconference meetings via email,
teleconference, or by phone.
1.Written public comments may be submitted by email to city.council@PaloAlto.gov.
2.For in person public comments please complete a speaker request card located on the
table at the entrance to the Council Chambers and deliver it to the Clerk prior to
discussion of the item.
3.Spoken public comments for agendized items using a computer or smart phone will be
accepted through the teleconference meeting. To address the Council, click on the link
below to access a Zoom-based meeting. Please read the following instructions carefully.
◦You may download the Zoom client or connect to the meeting in- browser. If using
your browser, make sure you are using a current, up-to-date browser: Chrome 30 ,
Firefox 27 , Microsoft Edge 12 , Safari 7 . Certain functionality may be disabled in
older browsers including Internet Explorer. Or download the Zoom application onto
your smart phone from the Apple App Store or Google Play Store and enter in the
Meeting ID below.
◦You may be asked to enter an email address and name. We request that you
identify yourself by name as this will be visible online and will be used to notify you
that it is your turn to speak.
◦When you wish to speak on an Agenda Item, click on “raise hand.” The Clerk will
activate and unmute speakers in turn. Speakers will be notified shortly before they
are called to speak.
◦When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted. A timer will be
shown on the computer to help keep track of your comments.
4.Spoken public comments for agendized items using a phone use the telephone number
listed below. When you wish to speak on an agenda item hit *9 on your phone so we
know that you wish to speak. You will be asked to provide your first and last name before
addressing the Council. You will be advised how long you have to speak. When called
please limit your remarks to the agenda item and time limit allotted.
CLICK HERE TO JOIN Meeting ID: 362-027-238 Phone: 1-669-900-6833
Americans with Disability Act (ADA) It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to offer its public
programs, services and meetings in a manner that is readily accessible to all. Persons with
disabilities who require materials in an appropriate alternative format or who require auxiliary
aids to access City meetings, programs, or services may contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at
(650) 329-2550 (voice) or by emailing ada@PaloAlto.gov. Requests for assistance or
accommodations must be submitted at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or
service.
5 January 20, 2026
Materials submitted after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection at www.paloalto.gov/agendas.
California Government Code §84308, commonly referred to as the "Levine Act," prohibits an
elected official of a local government agency from participating in a proceeding involving a
license, permit, or other entitlement for use if the official received a campaign contribution
exceeding $500 from a party or participant, including their agents, to the proceeding within the
last 12 months. A “license, permit, or other entitlement for use” includes most land use and
planning approvals and the approval of contracts that are not subject to lowest responsible bid
procedures and have a value over $50,000. A “party” is a person who files an application for, or
is the subject of, a proceeding involving a license, permit, or other entitlement for use. A
“participant” is a person who actively supports or opposes a particular decision in a proceeding
involving a license, permit, or other entitlement for use, and has a financial interest in the
decision. The Levine Act incorporates the definition of “financial interest” in the Political Reform
Act, which encompasses interests in business entities, real property, sources of income, sources
of gifts, and personal finances that may be affected by the Council’s actions. If you qualify as a
“party” or “participant” to a proceeding, and you have made a campaign contribution to a
Council Member exceeding $500 made within the last 12 months, you must disclose the
campaign contribution before making your comments.
6 January 20, 2026
Materials submitted after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection at www.paloalto.gov/agendas.
City Council
Staff Report
From: City Manager
Report Type: SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY
Lead Department: Public Works
Meeting Date: January 20, 2026
Report #:2512-5743
Title
Proclamation honoring Aaron (Bunk) Miller for 34 Years of Service to the Palo Alto Regional
Water Quality Control Plant and its partner agencies.
Attachments
Attachment A: Retirement Proclamation of Appreciation for Aaron (Bunk) Miller
Approved By:
Brad Eggleston, Director Public Works/City Engineer
Item 1
Item 1 Staff Report
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 1 Packet Pg. 7 of 510
EXPRESSING APPRECIATION TO AARON (BUNK) MILLER
UPON HIS RETIREMENT
WHEREAS, Aaron (Bunk) Miller began his career with the City of Palo Alto at the Regional Water Quality Control Plant on January 6th,
1992, as an Operator-In-Training; and
WHEREAS, Bunk has enthusiastically served the citizens of Palo Alto working entirely in the Public Works Department- Environmental
Services Division for more than three decades with his final position as Assistant Plant Manager managing the Maintenance Department for
the Regional Water Quality Control Plant; and
WHEREAS, Bunk received the State of California State Water Resources Control Board Wastewater Treatment Plant Operator Grade I
and Grade II certificates, and the California Water Environment Association Grade I, Grade II, and Grade III certificates; and
WHEREAS, Bunk was awarded Plant Mechanic of the Year in 2016 from the CWEA; and
WHEREAS, Bunk with a smile worked through many storms to make sure that the streets of Palo Alto did not flood with wastewater by
keeping the headworks flowing, especially during the 2022 New Year’s Eve storm, where he and his crew worked around the clock for days
to make sure that the flow from the six communities could be treated at the Regional Water Quality Control Plant; and
WHEREAS, Bunk improved himself with certifications above and beyond what was needed for his position in safety, equipment, process,
leadership, and management and consistently had glowing reviews from his supervisors where he exceeded expectations throughout his tenure;
and
WHEREAS, Bunk has mentored and trained many new operators and mechanics during his career and is known to be a true leader by
showing the new team members how to fix things and where all the pipes, valves and pumps are located at the Regional Water Quality Control
Plant; all staff are going to miss his wealth of knowledge of our facility; and
WHEREAS, Bunk was known for being kind, helpful, friendly, honest, hardworking, having a team player mentality, and willing to work
and compromise with all departments for the betterment of the Regional Water Quality Control Plant, putting the needs of the many above
the needs of the few; and
WHEREAS, Bunk has completed 34 years of exemplary, outstanding, and dedicated service to the City of Palo Alto’s Regional Water
Quality Control Plant Serving the City of Palo Alto, the City of Mountain View, the City of Los Altos, the City of East Palo Alto, the Town
of Los Altos Hills, and Stanford University.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Vicki Veenker, Mayor of the City of Palo Alto, on behalf of the entire City Council, do hereby recognize Aaron
(Bunk) Miller for his dedication and excellent service rendered to the City.
PRESENTED: January 20, 2026
APPROVED:
______________________
Mayor Vicki Veenker
______________________ ______________________
Vice Mayor Greer Stone Councilmember Pat Burt
______________________ ______________________
Councilmember Ed Lauing Councilmember George Lu
______________________ ______________________
Councilmember Julie Lythcott-Haims Councilmember Keith Reckdahl
ATTEST:
______________________
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________ ______________________
City Manager City Attorney
Proclamation
Item 1
Attachment A - Retirement
Proclamation of Appreciation for Aaron
(Bunk) Miller
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 2 Packet Pg. 8 of 510
City Council
Staff Report
From: City Manager
Report Type: STUDY SESSION
Lead Department: City Manager
Meeting Date: January 20, 2026
Report #:2601-5805
TITLE
Presentation of the 2025 Annual Community Survey Results. CEQA Status -- Not a project.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council receive the Report of Results for the 2025 City of Palo
Alto Community Survey by Polco/National Research Center, Inc (Polco).
BACKGROUND
Since 2003, the City has annually or biennially conducted a community survey to gain insights
into residents’ perspectives about the community, including local amenities, services, public
trust, resident participation, and other aspects of the community. Survey information is used to
support budgeting, land use and strategic planning, and communication efforts with the
community. This report summarizes the latest survey conducted starting August 1, 2025
through October 3, 2025.
ANALYSIS
The City takes pride in delivering outstanding programs and services to the community. An
essential gauge of community satisfaction is through polling. The data obtained from these
surveys serves as a valuable reference point for setting City Council priorities. City staff utilizes
this information to assess programs, services and shaping performance metrics
during the annual budget process.
The National Community Survey is one of several methods employed to engage the community
and evaluate the perceived quality of City services. Similar to last year's response rate of 16%,
this year’s total responses were 574 (585 received in 2024). While historically responses have
hovered around 750, or about 23%, this year's response rate similar to last years, although
lower than average history, remains statistically significant. It also aligns with the typical range
observed in other jurisdictions, which falls between a 12% to 20% response rate. Responses
were statistically weighed to ensure representativeness of Palo alto’s demographic makeup.
Item 2
Item 2 Staff Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 1 Packet Pg. 9 of 510
A few highlights in the Key Findings section based on respondent perspectives of the report are
provided below, as well as a summary of notable circumstances that may have affected the
results.
Palo Alto residents continue to rate their quality of life highly.
Again, 88% of residents or approximately 9 of 10 residents rated Palo Alto, as well as their
own neighborhood—as an excellent or good place to live. Similarly, 9 in 10 gave high marks
to the overall quality of life in the city, while about 8 in 10 praised Palo Alto as a place to
work and raise children. These results were consistent with previous years and in line with
national benchmarks, except for Palo Alto’s rating as a place to work, which was again
higher than the national average.
About 7 in 10 residents gave high marks to the city as a place to visit, and more than half
rated Palo Alto as an excellent or good place to retire. Both ratings were like those from
previous years and aligned with the national benchmarks.
About 8 in 10 residents, indicated that they were likely to remain in Palo Alto for the next
five years, slightly up from the prior year, and would recommend living in the city to
someone who asked.
While residents were very satisfied with many City services, there are areas for improvement.
No service was below the national benchmark.
The City continues to maintain top-rated services, with the following seven higher than
national benchmarks: City parks, open space, drinking water, utility payment options,
recreation programs and classes, recreation centers and facilities, and preservation of
natural areas. These ratings were generally on par or above prior year levels.
Overall, 33 services received ratings consistent with 2024, while two services improved:
affordable high-speed internet access (54%, up 10 points from 2024) and electric utility
services (75%, up 8 points).
Compared to national benchmarks, eight services were rated above the national average
(Palo Alto open space, City parks, preservation of natural areas, drinking water, utility
payment options, street cleaning, recreation centers/facilities, and recreation
programs/classes), 15 services were on par, and none were below national benchmarks.
Several community features received high marks from residents, including ease of walking,
ease of travel by bicycle, the overall image and reputation of Palo Alto, fitness and
recreational opportunities (such as exercise classes and trails), and the quality of business
and service establishments. Positive ratings for these features ranged from 78% to 83%. The
perceived quality of business and service establishments increased by 7 points since 2024,
rising from 71% to 78%. Among the lower-rated services were building and planning
application processing, land use, planning, and zoning, and code enforcement (e.g., weeds
or abandoned buildings). However, these showed improvements from prior year levels.
Several process improvements have been executed or remain underway to help address the
Item 2
Item 2 Staff Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 2 Packet Pg. 10 of 510
low ratings including enhanced customer service training for all planning, building, and
support staff, aiming to improve responsiveness and efficiency in application handling,
as well as providing greater clarity in approval requirements.
Housing Affordability and cost of living remain key concerns
As in previous years, fewer than 1 in 10 residents gave positive ratings to the cost of living in
Palo Alto, and only about 1 in 10 rated the availability of affordable quality housing
favorably. Meanwhile, about 1 in 4 residents gave positive ratings to the variety of housing
options. All three ratings were similar to those in 2024. Compared to national benchmarks,
Palo Alto’s rating for cost of living was much lower, while ratings for affordable quality
housing and variety of housing options were lower than national averages.
The survey included an open-ended question inviting respondents to describe, in their own
words, one change the City could make to increase resident satisfaction. The most common
theme was housing and construction issues (mentioned by 21% of respondents), followed
by transportation and traffic (13%), and affordability (10%).
Parks, open space, and the natural environment stand out as Palo Alto’s greatest strengths.
The survey included an open-ended question inviting respondents to share, in their own
words, one thing they believe the City does well and should continue to maintain. Open
space and the natural environment topped the list, accounting for 28% of all mentions,
followed by activities and recreation (14%), and utility and city services (11%).
When asked about a list of activities they had done in the past 12 months, visiting a
neighborhood or City park ranked highest, with 95% of respondents reporting they had
done so. Other frequently reported activities included talking with immediate neighbors,
walking or biking instead of driving, voting in the most recent local election, and using Palo
Alto public libraries or their services.
Residents report limited awareness of sustainability programs.
About 1 in 7 residents said they are extremely or very familiar with Palo Alto’s programs to
advance community goals, such as home electrification. About 1 in 20 residents reported
being extremely or very familiar with the City’s Sustainability and Climate Action
Plan(S/CAP) and its goal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by 2030.
When asked what would most motivate them to replace major gas appliances with electric
models, the top consideration was saving money through rebates (59%), followed by
improving health and safety (37%), and helping to stop climate change (35%). About 3 in 10
residents said they were not interested in upgrading to electric.
Ratings for Palo Alto government performance remain strong with some improvements.
• Three-quarters of Palo Alto residents gave the local government high marks for treating
residents with respect, while about 6 in 10 praised it for being honest, treating all residents
Item 2
Item 2 Staff Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 3 Packet Pg. 11 of 510
fairly, acting in the best interest of the community, and being open and transparent with
the public. The remaining five performance attributes also received satisfaction ratings
above 50%.
• When compared to 2024, most government performance indicators were rated similarly,
except for acting in the best interest of the community and being open and transparent
with the public, both of which increased from 53% in 2024 to 60% in 2025. Palo Alto’s
ratings were comparable to national benchmarks across all indicators.
Overall, 78% of respondents praised the quality of services provided by the City of Palo Alto,
consistent with previous years. In contrast, state government services received a favorable
rating of 52% (similar to last year), while federal government services received a favorable
rating of just 19%, 22 points lower than in 2024.
The attached report includes information on trends over time, geographic and demographic
comparisons, national benchmark comparisons, and verbatim responses to open-ended
questions.
FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT
Funding for the Polco contract was approved in FY 2026 budget. No additional funding is
requested at this time.
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
The 2025 Palo Alto Community Survey process is a community engagement tool that helps the
City Council and City staff understand community perspectives on current services and
programs, as well as priorities. Staff continues to implement the existing community
engagement and Council priority workplans.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This item is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because
Community Survey results are presented for informational purposes only with no action
required by the Council.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: 2025 Community Survey Report
APPROVED BY:
Ed Shikada, City Manager
Item 2
Item 2 Staff Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 4 Packet Pg. 12 of 510
City of Palo Alto Resident Survey
June 2022
1241 John Q. Hammons Dr, Suite #203
Madison, WI 53717
info.polco.us • 608-709-8683
CITY OF PALO ALTO
COMMUNITY SURVEY 2025
Report of Results
October 2025
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025
Community Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 5 Packet Pg. 13 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Contents
Contents ........................................................................................................................................... 2
Survey background ........................................................................................................................... 3
Key Findings ..................................................................................................................................... 3
Detailed Survey Methods ................................................................................................................... 6
Survey Information ....................................................................................................................................... 6
Survey Validity ............................................................................................................................................... 6
Selecting Survey Recipients ......................................................................................................................... 7
Survey Administration and Response ......................................................................................................... 9
Confidence Intervals ..................................................................................................................................... 9
Survey Processing (Data Entry) ................................................................................................................. 10
Survey Data Analysis and Reporting ......................................................................................................... 12
Trends Over Time ....................................................................................................................................... 12
Geographic and Demographic Comparisons ........................................................................................... 13
National Benchmark Comparisons ........................................................................................................... 13
Appendix A: Results Tables ............................................................................................................. 15
Appendix B: Verbatim Responses to Open-ended Questions from Probability Survey ....................... 98
Appendix C: Results to Open-Participation Survey ......................................................................... 124
Appendix D: Results to Open-Participation Survey compared to Probability Survey ........................ 148
Appendix E: Verbatim Responses to Open-ended Questions from Open Participation Survey .......... 157
Appendix F: Survey Materials ........................................................................................................ 174
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025
Community Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 6 Packet Pg. 14 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 3
Survey background
Palo Alto contracted with Polco to implement the 2025 iteration of their community survey. For this effort,
3,600 households were randomly selected and mailed postcard invitations and paper surveys inviting
participation. A total of 574 residents from this address-based outreach completed the survey for a
response rate of 16% and a margin of error of ±4%. The results of this effort are highlighted below, with
full results found in Appendix A: Results Tables.
Appendix A includes several comparisons to better understand the random sample survey results.
o Comparisons to past surveys: iterations from 2012 to 2024 and the first iteration in 2003.
o Comparisons to national benchmarks for questions asked in other jurisdictions.
o Comparisons by geographic and demographic subgroups.
To ensure all community members would have an opportunity to participate, an additional and separate
outreach effort was conducted by the City. Through many communication channels , the City invited
residents to complete an open participation survey. The results from this outreach effort can be found in
Appendix C: Results to Open-Participation Survey.
Please contact Lupita Alamos, Assistant to the City Manager, City of Palo Alto, at
Lupita.Alamos@paloalto.gov, if you have any questions about the survey.
Key Findings
Palo Alto residents continue to express strong satisfaction with quality of life.
• About 9 in 10 residents rated Palo Alto—as well as their own neighborhood—as an excellent or
good place to live. Similarly, 9 in 10 gave high marks to the overall quality of life in the city, while
about 8 in 10 praised Palo Alto as a place to work and raise children. These results were
consistent with previous years and in line with national benchmarks, except for Palo Alto’s rating
as a place to work, which was again higher than the national average.
• Additionally, about 7 in 10 residents rated Palo Alto as an excellent or good place to visit, and
more than half gave favorable ratings to the city as a place to retire. Both results were similar to
previous years and aligned with national benchmarks.
• Nine in 10 residents praised the overall feeling of safety, the overall quality of natural environment,
and the health and wellness opportunities in Palo Alto. These results were similar to previous
years and higher than the national benchmarks.
• About 8 in 10 residents said they were likely to remain in Palo Alto for the next five years and
would recommend living in the city to others —again, consistent with prior years and national
comparisons.
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025
Community Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 7 Packet Pg. 15 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 4
While residents report high satisfaction with city services, some areas show
room for improvement.
• About 9 in 10 residents gave excellent or good ratings to City parks, Palo Alto open space, public
library services and facilities, ambulance and emergency medical services, fire emergency
services, and drinking water. These ratings were consistent with previous years. Palo Alto’s open
space was rated much higher than the national benchmark, while City parks and drinking water
were also above national averages.
• More than 8 in 10 respondents provided positive ratings for the variety of library materials, sewer
services, utility payment options, refuse collection, police services, recreation programs and
classes, art programs and theater, recreation centers or facilities, preservation of natural areas,
and animal control. These results were in line with previous years.
• Among the lower-rated services were building and planning application processing, land use,
planning, and zoning, and code enforcement (e.g., weeds or abandoned buildings).
• Overall, 33 services received ratings consistent with 2024, while two services improved:
affordable high-speed internet access (54%, up 10 points from 2024) and electric utility services
(75%, up 8 points).
• Compared to national benchmarks, eight services were rated above the national average (Palo
Alto open space, City parks, preservation of natural areas, drinking water, utility payment options,
street cleaning, recreation centers/facilities, and recreation programs/classes), 15 services were
on par, and none were below national benchmarks.
Business Quality Joins Palo Alto’s Reputation, Walkability, Bikeability, and
Fitness Among Top-Rated Community Features
• Several community features received high marks from residents, including ease of walking, ease
of travel by bicycle, the overall image and reputation of Palo Alto, fitness and recreational
opportunities (such as exercise classes and trails), and the quality of business and service
establishments. Positive ratings for these features ranged from 78% to 83%. The perceived
quality of business and service establishments increased by 7 points since 2024, rising from 71%
to 78%.
Affordable housing and cost of living continue to be key concerns.
• As in previous years, fewer than 1 in 10 residents gave positive ratings to the cost of living in Palo
Alto, and only about 1 in 10 rated the availability of affordable quality housing favorably.
Meanwhile, about 1 in 4 residents gave positive ratings to the variety of housing options. All three
ratings were similar to those in 2024. Compared to national benchmarks, Palo Alto’s rating for
cost of living was much lower, while ratings for affordable quality housing and variety of housing
options were lower than national averages.
• The survey included an open-ended question inviting respondents to describe, in their own words,
one change the City could make to increase resident satisfaction. The most common theme was
housing and construction issues (mentioned by 21% of respondents), followed by transportation
and traffic (13%), and affordability (10%).
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025
Community Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 8 Packet Pg. 16 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 5
Parks, open space, and the natural environment stand out as Palo Alto’s
greatest strengths.
•The survey included an open-ended question inviting respondents to share, in their own words,
one thing they believe the City does well and should continue to maintain. Open space and the
natural environment topped the list, accounting for 28% of all mentions, followed by activities and
recreation (14%), and utility and city services (11%).
•When asked about a list of activities they had done in the past 12 months, visiting a neighborhood
or City park ranked highest, with 95% of respondents reporting they had done so. Other frequently
reported activities included talking with immediate neighbors, walking or biking instead of driving,
voting in the most recent local election, and using Palo Alto public libraries or their services.
Residents report limited awareness of sustainability programs.
•bout 1 in 7 residents said they are extremely or very familiar with Palo Alto’s programs to
reported being extremely or very familiar with the City’s Sustainability an
•
Ratings for Palo Alto government performance remain strong, with gains in
key areas.
•
•
both of which increased from 53% in 2024 to 60% in 2025. Palo Alto’s
•
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025
Community Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 9 Packet Pg. 17 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 6
Detailed Survey Methods
Survey Information
The 2025 Palo Alto Community Survey was conducted by Polco. Results offer insight into residents’
perspectives about their community, as well as community needs and resident participation. This
information can be used to support budgeting, land use and strategic planning, and communication with
residents. The demographic characteristics and geographic location of respondents were collected to
permit weighting to the Census and American Community Survey estimates, and comparison of results
for different subgroups of residents. The City of Palo Alto funded this research.
Survey Validity
Polco recognizes that survey validity has two key components: (1) the degree to which a community can
be confident that responses accurately represent what would have been obtained if the entire population
had participated, and (2) the extent to which the results reflect residents’ true beliefs and behaviors.
To answer the first question, the best survey research practices were used to ensure that the results from
the survey respondents reflect the opinions of residents in the entire community. These practices
include:
• Using mail-based methodology, which typically gets a higher response rate than phone for the same
dollars spent. Getting a higher response rate lessens the worry that those who did not respond are
different than those who did respond.
• Using a list of households or residents that is as comprehensive as possible (like a USPS list that
includes all households) and selecting households at random to ensure they are representative of
the larger community.
• Over-sampling multi-family housing units to improve response from respondents who generally
respond in lower proportions.
• Contacting selected households multiple 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.
• Offering the opportunity to complete the survey online or by mail, and providing a pre-addressed,
postage-paid return envelope for ease and to spare the respondent any expense.
• Weighting the results to reflect the demographic characteristics 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 res ident is asked
to record their 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
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025
Community Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 10 Packet Pg. 18 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 7
increase for services to poor people, use of alternative modes of travel to work besides the single
occupancy vehicle), their memory of the actual behavior (if it is not a question speculating about future
actions, like a vote), their confidence that they 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. Polco’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 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. Polco 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 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 communi ty
boundaries using the most current municipal boundary file 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 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 lo wer
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025
Community Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 11 Packet Pg. 19 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 8
rates to surveys than those in single-family housing units. Figure 1 displays a map with the six areas of
Palo Alto used to track results.
In addition to the scientific, random selection of households, a link to an online open participation survey
was publicized and posted to the City of Palo Alto website. This open participation survey was identical
to the scientific survey and open to all City residents. Results from the open participation survey can be
found in Appendix C: Results to Open Participation Survey.
Figure 1: Palo Alto's Areas
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025
Community Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 12 Packet Pg. 20 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 9
Survey Administration and Response
Selected households received mailings beginning on August 1, 2025. All 3,600 households received three
notifications in the mail. The first mailing was a postcard announcing the upcoming survey with a link
and QR code to complete the survey online. The next mailing contained a letter from the City Manager
inviting the household to participate, along with a paper questionnaire and a postage-paid return
envelope. The third and final mailing was a reminder postcard. The second and third mailings also asked
respondents not to complete the survey a second time.
The online survey was available in English, Spanish, and Simplified Chinese. The paper survey was
available in English only. All mailings included a URL through which the residents could choose to
respond online, along with instructions on how to access the survey in Spanish or Simplified Chinese.
Completed surveys were collected over nine weeks. The online open participation survey was available
to residents beginning August 29, 2025, and remained open through October 3, 2025.
Less than 1% 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 3,588 households that
received the survey, 574 completed the survey, providing an overall response rate of 16%. Of the 574
completed surveys, 309 were completed online. Two surveys were completed in Simplified Chinese and
another two were completed in Spanish. Additionally, responses were tracked by geographic subarea;
response rates by area ranged from 13% to 23%. The response rates were calculated using AAPOR’s
response rate #21 for mailed surveys of unnamed persons. Additionally, 216 residents completed the
online open participation survey.
Confidence Intervals
It is customary to describe the precision of estimates made from surveys by a “level of confidence” and
accompanying “confidence interval” (or margin of error). A traditional level of confidence, and the one
used here, is 95 percent. The 95 percent level of confidence can be any size and quantifies the sampling
error or imprecision of the survey results because some residents’ opinions are relied on to estimate all
residents’ opinions.2
The margin of error or confidence interval for the City of Palo Alto survey is no greater than plus or minus
four percentage points around any given percent reported for the entire sample (574 completed surveys).
For subgroups of responses, the margin of error increases because the number of responses for the
subgroup is smaller. The margins of error for the six areas within Palo Alto are shown in the following
table. They range from ±8% in Area 6 to ±13% in Area 5.
1 See AAPOR’s Standard Definitions for more information: https://aapor.org/standards-and-ethics/standard-definitions/
2 A 95 percent level of confidence indicates that for every 100 random samples of this many residents, 95 of the confidence intervals
created will include the “true” population response. This theory is applied in practice to mean that the “true” perspective of the target
population lies within the confidence interval created for a single survey. For example, if 75 percent of residents rate a service as
“excellent” or “good,” then the 4 percent margin of error (for the 95 percent level of confidence) indicates that the range of likely
responses for the entire community is between 71 percent and 79 percent. This source of uncertainty is called sampling error. In
addition to sampling error, other sources of error may affect any survey, including the nonresponse of residents with opinions
different from survey responders. Differences in question wording, order, translation and data entry, as examples, can lead to
somewhat varying results.
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025
Community Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 13 Packet Pg. 21 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 10
Table 1: Survey Response Rates
Number
mailed Undeliverable Eligible Returned
Response
rate
Margin of
error
Area 1 379 1 378 86 23% ±11%
Area 2 649 4 645 106 16% ±10%
Area 3 439 0 439 80 18% ±11%
Area 4 724 3 721 106 15% ±10%
Area 5 344 0 344 59 17% ±13%
Area 6 1,065 4 1,061 137 13% ±8%
Overall 3,600 12 3,588 574 16% ±4%
Survey Processing (Data Entry)
Upon receipt, completed paper 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, Polco would use
protocols to randomly choose two of the three selected items for inclusion in the dataset.
All paper 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.
Online surveys were conducted through the Polco platform. The Polco platform includes many features
of online survey tools, but also includes elements tailored to the civic environment. For example, like
Polco’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 address-based and open participation surveys, the
demographics of each dataset were separately compared to those found in the US Census and the
American Community Survey (ACS) estimates for adults in the City of Palo Alto. The primary objective of
weighting survey data is to make the survey respondents reflect the larger population of the community.
Both survey datasets were weighted independently to best match the Census and ACS. The
characteristics used for weighting were housing tenure (rent or own), housing unit type (attached or
detached), sex, age, and area. The highlights are based on the results from the address-based mail survey
and full results for that outreach effort can be found in Appendix A: Results Tables. Results for the open
participation survey can be found in Appendix C: Results from Open Participation Survey.
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025
Community Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 14 Packet Pg. 22 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 11
Table 2: Palo Alto 2025 Address-based Survey Weighting Table
Characteristic Population Norm Unweighted Data Weighted Data
Housing
Rent home 44% 29% 43%
Own home 56% 71% 57%
Detached unit* 59% 67% 60%
Attached unit* 41% 33% 40%
Race and Ethnicity
White 55% 64% 58%
Not white 45% 36% 42%
Not Hispanic 94% 96% 94%
Hispanic 6% 4% 6%
Sex and Age
Female 52% 53% 53%
Male 48% 47% 47%
18-34 years of age 23% 7% 21%
35-54 years of age 35% 24% 34%
55+ years of age 42% 69% 45%
Females 18-34 11% 4% 10%
Females 35-54 18% 12% 18%
Females 55+ 23% 36% 25%
Males 18-34 12% 3% 11%
Males 35-54 17% 12% 17%
Males 55+ 19% 32% 19%
Area
Area 1 13% 15% 13%
Area 2 19% 18% 19%
Area 3 13% 14% 14%
Area 4 20% 18% 19%
Area 5 9% 10% 9%
Area 6 26% 24% 26%
* U.S. Census Bureau ACS 5-year estimates
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025
Community Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 15 Packet Pg. 23 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 12
Survey Data Analysis and Reporting
The survey dataset was analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). When
results are compared by demographic and geographic subgroups , and in the highlights section, the
percentages presented 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.” In Appendix A: Results
Tables for each question there are two tables that show all scale points, one including and one excluding
the respondents who chose “don’t know.” For ease of comparison, “don’t know” responses are excluded
from the tables which show comparisons by subgroups and also from the results discussed in the
highlights section. In other words, the highlights section and comparison tables only show 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 2025 ratings for the City of Palo Alto to the 12
previous iterations of survey results (going back to 2012) and displaying 2003 data, the year when
surveying started, when available.
Trend data for Palo Alto represent important comparison data and should be examined for improvement
or declines. Deviations from stable trends over time 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 six percentage points3 between the
2025 and 2024 surveys; otherwise, the comparisons between 2025 and 2024 are noted as being “similar.”
When comparing results over time, small differences (those with less than a 6 percent difference) are
more likely to be due to random variation (attributable to chance over real change), while larger
differences (those greater than 6 percent) 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.
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025
Community Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 16 Packet Pg. 24 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 13
Geographic and Demographic Comparisons
The subgroup comparison tables in Appendix A display differences in opinion of survey respondents by
the six geographic subareas, by race/ethnicity, and by age groups.
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 subgroup comparison tables is labeled with a letter for each group being compared.
The “Overall” column, which shows the ratings for all respondents, also has a column designation of
“(A),” but no statistical tests were done for the overall rating.
For each pair of subgroup ratings within a row (a single question item) that has a statistically significant
difference, an uppercase letter denoting significance is shown in the cell with the larger column
proportion. The letter denotes the subgroup with the smaller column proportion from which it is
statistically different. Subgroups that have no uppercase letter denotation in their column , and that are
also not referred to in any other column, were not statistically different.
National Benchmark Comparisons
Comparison Data
Polco’s database of comparative resident opinions is comprised of resident perspectives gathered in
surveys from over 400 communities whose residents evaluated the same kinds of topics as the Palo Alto
Community Survey. The surveys gathered for Polco’s database include data from communities that have
been conducted by Polco, as well as citizen surveys unaffiliated with Polco. The comparison evaluations
are from the most recent survey completed in each community; most communities conduct surveys
every year or in alternating years. Polco 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 geogr aphic and
population range. The City of Palo Alto chose to make comparisons to the entire database.
Interpreting the Results
Ratings are compared for 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 on the
table. The first column is Palo Alto’s average rating, converted to a 100-point scale. The second column
is the rank assigned to Palo Alto’s rating among communities where a similar question was asked. The
third column is the number of communities that asked a similar question. The final column shows the
comparison of Palo Alto’s rating to the benchmark.
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025
Community Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 17 Packet Pg. 25 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 14
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 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
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025
Community Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 18 Packet Pg. 26 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 15
Appendix A: 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, trends over time, and
geographic and demographic 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 and demographic comparisons. 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 six percentage points between the 2025 and 2024
surveys; otherwise, the comparison between 2025 and 2024 are noted as being “similar.”
Geographic and demographic comparisons have been provided for Questions 1 through 18 (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 8 on page 18, respondents in areas 1, 2, 3, and 6 gave significantly higher ratings
to Palo Alto as a place to live than respondents in area 4 and 5 (columns D and E), as denoted by the “D”
and the “E” listed in the cell of the ratings for area 1, 2, 3, and 6.
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025
Community Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 19 Packet Pg. 27 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 16
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 50% N=286 40% N=229 9% N=49 1% N=7 0% N=0 100% N=570
Your neighborhood as a place to live 52% N=292 40% N=227 7% N=40 1% N=6 0% N=0 100% N=565
Palo Alto as a place to raise children 40% N=224 29% N=162 11% N=59 4% N=20 17% N=96 100% N=562
Palo Alto as a place to work 34% N=190 29% N=162 14% N=77 2% N=9 22% N=126 100% N=564
Palo Alto as a place to visit 28% N=160 38% N=215 21% N=116 7% N=38 6% N=32 100% N=561
Palo Alto as a place to retire 23% N=129 22% N=124 19% N=108 18% N=102 17% N=97 100% N=560
The overall quality of life in Palo Alto 41% N=230 47% N=266 11% N=63 1% N=8 0% N=0 100% N=567
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 50% N=286 40% N=229 9% N=49 1% N=7 100% N=570
Your neighborhood as a place to live 52% N=292 40% N=227 7% N=40 1% N=6 100% N=565
Palo Alto as a place to raise children 48% N=224 35% N=162 13% N=59 4% N=20 100% N=465
Palo Alto as a place to work 43% N=190 37% N=162 18% N=77 2% N=9 100% N=438
Palo Alto as a place to visit 30% N=160 41% N=215 22% N=116 7% N=38 100% N=529
Palo Alto as a place to retire 28% N=129 27% N=124 23% N=108 22% N=102 100% N=463
The overall quality of life in Palo Alto 41% N=230 47% N=266 11% N=63 1% N=8 100% N=567
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025 Community
Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 20 Packet Pg. 28 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 17
Table 6: Question 1 - Historical Results
Please rate each of the
following aspects of quality of
life in Palo Alto:
Percent positive 2025 rating
compared to
2024 2003 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Palo Alto as a place to live 95% 95% 92% 95% 92% 91% 91% 89% 88% 88% 90% 91% 90% Similar
Your neighborhood as a place
to live
88% 90% 91% 92% 90% 91% 91% 90% 89% 88% 92% 93% 92% Similar
Palo Alto as a place to raise
children
90% 92% 90% 93% 87% 84% 84% 82% 82% 87% 83% 84% 83% Similar
Palo Alto as a place to work NA 88% 89% 86% 87% 82% 82% 80% 82% 79% 85% 84% 80% Similar
Palo Alto as a place to visit NA NA NA 75% 74% 72% 71% 68% 70% 69% 73% 70% 71% Similar
Palo Alto as a place to retire 62% 68% 56% 60% 52% 50% 51% 40% 52% 46% 53% 54% 55% Similar
The overall quality of life in
Palo Alto
92% 92% 94% 91% 91% 88% 85% 89% 84% 88% 86% 89% 87% Similar
Table 7: 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 80 100 355 Similar
Your neighborhood as a place to live 81 64 342 Similar
Palo Alto as a place to raise children 76 137 358 Similar
Palo Alto as a place to work 74 25 354 Higher
Palo Alto as a place to visit 65 114 331 Similar
Palo Alto as a place to retire 53 253 354 Similar
The overall quality of life in Palo Alto 76 94 369 Similar
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025 Community
Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 21 Packet Pg. 29 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 18
Table 8: Question 1 - Geographic Subgroup Results
Percent rating "excellent" or "good"
Area Overall
Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5 Area 6
(A) (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F)
Palo Alto as a place to live 95%
D E
93%
D E
94%
D E
84% 80% 93%
D E
90%
Your neighborhood as a place to live 92% 91% 88% 92% 88% 96%
C
92%
Palo Alto as a place to raise children 92%
B
79% 85% 80% 78% 84% 83%
Palo Alto as a place to work
79% 80% 82% 84% 77% 79% 80%
Palo Alto as a place to visit 69% 61% 80%
B
69% 66% 76%
B
71%
Palo Alto as a place to retire 54% 60%
D
51% 43% 49% 63%
D
55%
The overall quality of life in Palo Alto 92%
D E
88% 90%
E
82% 78% 91%
D E
87%
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025 Community
Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 22 Packet Pg. 30 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 19
Table 9: Question 1 - Demographic Subgroup Results
Percent rating "excellent" or "good"
Race Age Overall
White
Asian, Asian
Indian, or
Pacific
Islander
Other race or
Multi-racial 18-34 35-54 55+
(A) (A) (B) (C) (A) (B) (C)
Palo Alto as a place to live 93%
C
90% 82% 87% 89% 93% 90%
Your neighborhood as a place to live 94% 90% 91% 93% 88% 95%
B
92%
Palo Alto as a place to raise children 81% 89%
C
76% 59% 88%
A
86%
A
83%
Palo Alto as a place to work 85%
C
80%
C
64% 77% 74% 87%
B
80%
Palo Alto as a place to visit 72%
C
75%
C
53% 53% 67%
A
82%
A B
71%
Palo Alto as a place to retire 58% 52% 51% 53% 44% 62%
B
55%
The overall quality of life in Palo Alto 93%
B C
85% 79% 88% 84% 90% 87%
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025 Community
Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 23 Packet Pg. 31 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 20
Question 2
Table 10: 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)
24% N=136 50% N=282 21% N=120 4% N=21 1% N=4 100% N=563
Overall feeling of safety in Palo Alto 50% N=282 40% N=227 8% N=46 2% N=9 0% N=0 100% N=564
Overall quality of natural environment in Palo Alto 45% N=254 43% N=242 10% N=58 1% N=7 0% N=1 100% N=562
Overall health and wellness opportunities in Palo Alto 41% N=232 40% N=223 13% N=73 1% N=7 5% N=28 100% N=562
Residents' connection and engagement with their
community
16% N=91 37% N=206 26% N=147 11% N=61 10% N=53 100% N=559
Table 11: 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)
24% N=136 50% N=282 21% N=120 4% N=21 100% N=559
Overall feeling of safety in Palo Alto 50% N=282 40% N=227 8% N=46 2% N=9 100% N=564
Overall quality of natural environment in Palo Alto 45% N=254 43% N=242 10% N=58 1% N=7 100% N=561
Overall health and wellness opportunities in Palo Alto 43% N=232 42% N=223 14% N=73 1% N=7 100% N=534
Residents' connection and engagement with their community 18% N=91 41% N=206 29% N=147 12% N=61 100% N=506
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025 Community
Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 24 Packet Pg. 32 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 21
Table 12: Question 2 - Historical Results
Please rate each of the following
characteristics as they relate to Palo
Alto as a whole:
Percent positive 2025 rating
compared to
2024 2011 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Overall "built environment" of Palo
Alto (including overall design,
buildings, parks and transportation
systems)
NA NA 67% 63% 59% 65% 62% 76% 72% 72% 75% 75% Similar
Overall feeling of safety in Palo Alto NA NA 92% 91% 94% 94% 91% 87% 84% 84% 88% 90% Similar
Overall quality of natural environment
in Palo Alto
84% 83% 88% 86% 84% 89% 87% 90% 88% 90% 87% 88% Similar
Health and wellness opportunities in
Palo Alto
NA NA 88% 88% 85% 88% 84% 88% 90% 84% 85% 85% Similar
Residents' connection and
engagement with their community
NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 62% 63% 61% 61% 59% Similar
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)
65 33 325 Higher
Overall feeling of safety in Palo Alto 79 57 344 Higher
Overall quality of natural environment in Palo Alto 77 59 334 Higher
Overall health and wellness opportunities in Palo Alto 76 26 327 Higher
Residents’ connection and engagement with their community 55 128 318 Similar
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025 Community
Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 25 Packet Pg. 33 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 22
Table 14: Question 2 - Geographic Subgroup Results
Percent rating "excellent" or "good"
Area Overall
Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5 Area 6
(A) (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F)
Overall "built environment" of Palo Alto (including overall design,
buildings, parks and transportation systems)
81%
E
77%
E
81%
E
68% 59% 78%
E
75%
Overall feeling of safety in Palo Alto
88% 91% 88% 91% 85% 92% 90%
Overall quality of natural environment in Palo Alto 85% 88%
E
90%
E
91%
E
74% 92%
E
88%
Overall health and wellness opportunities in Palo Alto
90% 90% 84% 83% 84% 82% 85%
Residents' connection and engagement with their community 74%
B D E F
55% 77%
B D E F
52% 53% 52% 59%
Table 15: Question 2 - Demographic Subgroup Results
Percent rating "excellent" or "good"
Race Age Overall
White
Asian, Asian
Indian, or
Pacific
Islander
Other
race or
Multi-
racial 18-34 35-54 55+
(A) (A) (B) (C) (A) (B) (C)
Overall "built environment" of Palo Alto (including overall design,
buildings, parks and transportation systems)
76% 80%
C
65% 74% 75% 76% 75%
Overall feeling of safety in Palo Alto
91% 89% 91% 90% 91% 90% 90%
Overall quality of natural environment in Palo Alto 90%
C
88% 81% 87% 86% 91% 88%
Overall health and wellness opportunities in Palo Alto 88% 81% 83% 79% 82% 90%
A B
85%
Residents' connection and engagement with their community 56% 66%
A
56% 44% 59%
A
64%
A
59%
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025 Community
Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 26 Packet Pg. 34 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 23
Question 3
Table 16: 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
40% N=229 41% N=233 12% N=66 7% N=38 1% N=4 100% N=571
Remain in Palo Alto for the next five years 57% N=326 21% N=122 12% N=67 7% N=39 3% N=18 100% N=572
Recommend Palo Alto’s libraries to friends 65% N=370 18% N=103 4% N=25 3% N=15 10% N=56 100% N=568
Table 17: 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 40% N=229 41% N=233 12% N=66 7% N=38 100% N=567
Remain in Palo Alto for the next five years 59% N=326 22% N=122 12% N=67 7% N=39 100% N=554
Recommend Palo Alto’s libraries to friends 72% N=370 20% N=103 5% N=25 3% N=15 100% N=512
Table 18: Question 3 - Historical Results
Please indicate how likely or unlikely
you are to do each of the following:
Percent positive 2025 rating
compared to 2024 2011 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Recommend living in Palo Alto to
someone who asks
91% 89% 86% 80% 72% 75% 73% 74% 75% 77% 78% 82% Similar
Remain in Palo Alto for the next five
years
87% 87% 83% 80% 75% 76% 78% 78% 84% 77% 79% 81% Similar
Recommend Palo Alto’s libraries to
friends
NA NA NA NA NA 91% 92% 91% 92% 90% 92% 92% Similar
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025 Community
Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 27 Packet Pg. 35 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 24
Table 19: 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 82 200 328 Similar
Remain in Palo Alto for the next five years 81 219 332 Similar
Table 20: Question 3 - Geographic Subgroup Results
Percent rating "very likely" or "somewhat likely"
Area Overall
Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5 Area 6
(A) (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F)
Recommend living in Palo Alto to someone who asks 86%
D
79% 91%
B D
75% 78% 82% 82%
Remain in Palo Alto for the next five years 89%
F
83% 89%
F
78% 78% 75% 81%
Recommend Palo Alto’s libraries to friends 94% 95%
D
97%
D
87% 92% 91% 92%
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025 Community
Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 28 Packet Pg. 36 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 25
Table 21: Question 3 - Demographic Subgroup Results
Percent rating "very likely" or "somewhat
likely"
Race Age Overall
White
Asian, Asian
Indian, or
Pacific
Islander
Other race
or Multi-
racial 18-34 35-54 55+
(A) (A) (B) (C) (A) (B) (C)
Recommend living in Palo Alto to someone
who asks
81% 89%
A C
72% 77% 83% 82% 82%
Remain in Palo Alto for the next five years 77% 91%
A C
69% 49% 86%
A
92%
A
81%
Recommend Palo Alto’s libraries to friends 94%
C
94%
C
83% 90% 92% 95% 92%
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025 Community
Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 29 Packet Pg. 37 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 26
Question 4
Table 22: 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 19% N=109 41% N=232 22% N=127 7% N=41 10% N=59 100% N=567
Attracting people from diverse backgrounds 24% N=134 31% N=174 23% N=129 14% N=82 8% N=46 100% N=566
Valuing/respecting residents from diverse
backgrounds
26% N=145 40% N=228 18% N=105 5% N=31 10% N=58 100% N=566
Taking care of vulnerable residents (elderly, disabled,
homeless, etc.)
13% N=71 24% N=137 26% N=145 12% N=68 26% N=144 100% N=565
Table 23: 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 21% N=109 46% N=232 25% N=127 8% N=41 100% N=509
Attracting people from diverse backgrounds 26% N=134 34% N=174 25% N=129 16% N=82 100% N=519
Valuing/respecting residents from diverse backgrounds 28% N=145 45% N=228 21% N=105 6% N=31 100% N=508
Taking care of vulnerable residents (elderly, disabled, homeless, etc.) 17% N=71 33% N=137 34% N=145 16% N=68 100% N=420
Table 24: Question 4 - Historical Results
Please rate the job you feel the Palo Alto community does at each of the following.
Percent positive 2025 rating
compared to 2024 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Making all residents feel welcome 59% 62% 66% 68% 67% Similar
Attracting people from diverse backgrounds 52% 51% 57% 59% 59% Similar
Valuing/respecting residents from diverse backgrounds 65% 65% 68% 71% 73% Similar
Taking care of vulnerable residents (elderly, disabled, homeless, etc.) 47% 45% 50% 52% 49% Similar
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025 Community
Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 30 Packet Pg. 38 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 27
Table 25: Question 4 - Benchmark Comparisons
City of Palo Alto
rating Rank
Number of
jurisdictions for
comparison
Comparison to
benchmark
Making all residents feel welcome 60 176 320 Similar
Attracting people from diverse backgrounds 57 144 318 Similar
Valuing/respecting residents from diverse backgrounds 65 67 318 Similar
Taking care of vulnerable residents (elderly, disabled,
homeless, etc.)
50 168 315 Similar
Table 26: Question 4 - Geographic Subgroup Results
Percent rating "excellent" or "good"
Area Overall
Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5 Area 6
(A) (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F)
Making all residents feel welcome 81%
D E F
78%
E F
69%
E
66%
E
45% 61%
E
67%
Attracting people from diverse backgrounds 64%
E
69%
E F
74%
D E F
59%
E
31% 54%
E
59%
Valuing/respecting residents from diverse backgrounds 73% 79%
E
86%
D E F
69% 62% 70% 73%
Taking care of vulnerable residents (elderly, disabled, homeless, etc.) 65%
D E F
54%
F
64%
E F
48% 36% 39% 49%
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025 Community
Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 31 Packet Pg. 39 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 28
Table 27: Question 4 - Demographic Subgroup Results
Percent rating "excellent" or "good"
Race Age Overall
White
Asian, Asian
Indian, or
Pacific
Islander
Other race
or Multi-
racial 18-34 35-54 55+
(A) (A) (B) (C) (A) (B) (C)
Making all residents feel welcome 68%
C
76%
C
44% 70% 66% 67% 67%
Attracting people from diverse backgrounds 56% 70%
A C
49% 54% 56% 66%
A
59%
Valuing/respecting residents from diverse
backgrounds
75%
C
75%
C
58% 67% 73% 77% 73%
Taking care of vulnerable residents (elderly, disabled,
homeless, etc.)
45%
C
69%
A C
27% 36% 56%
A
49% 49%
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025 Community
Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 32 Packet Pg. 40 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 29
Question 5
Table 28: 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
25% N=138 52% N=294 17% N=97 4% N=24 2% N=10 100% N=562
Variety of business and service establishments in
Palo Alto
20% N=111 39% N=218 30% N=169 10% N=55 2% N=10 100% N=563
Vibrancy of downtown/commercial area 22% N=125 38% N=216 28% N=159 9% N=53 3% N=15 100% N=567
Employment opportunities 13% N=73 24% N=137 20% N=111 6% N=33 37% N=211 100% N=564
Shopping opportunities 26% N=148 40% N=225 26% N=146 7% N=39 1% N=5 100% N=563
Cost of living in Palo Alto 2% N=9 7% N=37 24% N=136 67% N=376 1% N=7 100% N=565
Overall image or reputation of Palo Alto 37% N=208 43% N=239 16% N=88 3% N=16 2% N=9 100% N=560
Traffic flow on major streets 10% N=58 35% N=196 37% N=211 17% N=94 1% N=7 100% N=566
Ease of public parking 19% N=107 43% N=244 26% N=149 9% N=52 3% N=17 100% N=569
Ease of travel by car in Palo Alto 25% N=141 44% N=251 22% N=124 7% N=41 2% N=9 100% N=566
Ease of travel by public transportation in Palo Alto 6% N=35 18% N=104 23% N=132 26% N=149 26% N=145 100% N=565
Ease of travel by bicycle in Palo Alto 29% N=164 39% N=219 13% N=75 3% N=19 15% N=83 100% N=561
Ease of walking in Palo Alto 35% N=198 47% N=265 11% N=65 5% N=30 1% N=8 100% N=565
Variety of housing options 5% N=28 18% N=100 31% N=176 35% N=198 11% N=60 100% N=562
Availability of affordable quality housing 3% N=15 6% N=35 15% N=85 62% N=349 14% N=77 100% N=563
Overall quality of new development in Palo Alto 6% N=33 21% N=117 25% N=140 15% N=82 34% N=188 100% N=559
Availability of paths and walking trails 28% N=155 42% N=238 19% N=109 6% N=32 5% N=27 100% N=562
Fitness opportunities (including exercise classes and
paths or trails, etc.)
30% N=169 42% N=238 13% N=75 6% N=33 9% N=52 100% N=566
Recreational opportunities 30% N=172 42% N=236 17% N=93 4% N=25 7% N=40 100% N=566
Availability of affordable quality mental health care 6% N=35 8% N=47 10% N=59 14% N=81 61% N=343 100% N=565
Opportunities to attend cultural/arts/music activities 27% N=155 38% N=215 20% N=115 5% N=27 10% N=55 100% N=568
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025 Community
Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 33 Packet Pg. 41 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 30
Table 29: 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 25% N=138 53% N=294 18% N=97 4% N=24 100% N=552
Variety of business and service establishments in Palo Alto 20% N=111 40% N=218 31% N=169 10% N=55 100% N=552
Vibrancy of downtown/commercial area 23% N=125 39% N=216 29% N=159 10% N=53 100% N=552
Employment opportunities 21% N=73 39% N=137 31% N=111 9% N=33 100% N=354
Shopping opportunities 26% N=148 40% N=225 26% N=146 7% N=39 100% N=558
Cost of living in Palo Alto 2% N=9 7% N=37 24% N=136 67% N=376 100% N=558
Overall image or reputation of Palo Alto 38% N=208 43% N=239 16% N=88 3% N=16 100% N=551
Traffic flow on major streets 10% N=58 35% N=196 38% N=211 17% N=94 100% N=559
Ease of public parking 19% N=107 44% N=244 27% N=149 9% N=52 100% N=552
Ease of travel by car in Palo Alto 25% N=141 45% N=251 22% N=124 7% N=41 100% N=557
Ease of travel by public transportation in Palo Alto 8% N=35 25% N=104 31% N=132 35% N=149 100% N=420
Ease of travel by bicycle in Palo Alto 34% N=164 46% N=219 16% N=75 4% N=19 100% N=478
Ease of walking in Palo Alto 36% N=198 47% N=265 12% N=65 5% N=30 100% N=558
Variety of housing options 6% N=28 20% N=100 35% N=176 39% N=198 100% N=502
Availability of affordable quality housing 3% N=15 7% N=35 18% N=85 72% N=349 100% N=485
Overall quality of new development in Palo Alto 9% N=33 31% N=117 38% N=140 22% N=82 100% N=371
Availability of paths and walking trails 29% N=155 45% N=238 20% N=109 6% N=32 100% N=534
Fitness opportunities (including exercise classes and paths or trails,
etc.)
33% N=169 46% N=238 15% N=75 6% N=33 100% N=514
Recreational opportunities 33% N=172 45% N=236 18% N=93 5% N=25 100% N=526
Availability of affordable quality mental health care 16% N=35 21% N=47 27% N=59 37% N=81 100% N=222
Opportunities to attend cultural/arts/music activities 30% N=155 42% N=215 22% N=115 5% N=27 100% N=513
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025 Community
Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 34 Packet Pg. 42 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 31
Table 30: Question 5 - Historical Results
Please rate each of the following
characteristics as they relate to
Palo Alto as a whole:
Percent positive 2025 rating
compared
to 2024 2003 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Overall quality of business and
service establishments in Palo
Alto
NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 85% 80% 74% 71% 78% Higher
Variety of business and service
establishments in Palo Alto
NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 66% 58% 58% 54% 60% Similar
Vibrancy of downtown/
commercial areas
NA NA NA 77% 76% 73% 73% 71% 72% 62% 65% 59% 62% Similar
Employment opportunities 33% 68% 68% 69% 66% 70% 74% 73% 68% 73% 62% 64% 60% Similar
Shopping opportunities NA 69% 73% 82% 79% 80% 82% 79% 78% 73% 69% 66% 67% Similar
Cost of living in Palo Alto NA NA NA 11% 8% 7% 8% 8% 6% 5% 8% 8% 8% Similar
Overall image or reputation of Palo
Alto
NA 92% 90% 92% 88% 86% 86% 83% 78% 76% 76% 78% 81% Similar
Traffic flow on major streets 36% 40% 36% 34% 35% 31% 30% 33% 49% 47% 51% 48% 45% Similar
Ease of public parking NA NA NA NA 38% 36% 33% 32% 59% 67% 68% 68% 64% Similar
Ease of travel by car in Palo Alto 55% 62% 51% 55% 52% 44% 44% 42% 70% 72% 73% 72% 70% Similar
Ease of travel by public
transportation in Palo Alto
NA 64% 71% 65% 36% 26% 28% 29% 30% 24% 32% 31% 33% Similar
Ease of travel by bicycle in Palo
Alto
84% 81% 78% 78% 77% 74% 78% 74% 79% 76% 77% 81% 80% Similar
Ease of walking in Palo Alto NA 82% 84% 84% 83% 80% 86% 83% 86% 85% 80% 82% 83% Similar
Variety of housing options NA 29% 26% 27% 20% 17% 18% 13% 27% 21% 26% 24% 26% Similar
Availability of affordable quality
housing
6% 12% 13% 11% 8% 6% 6% 5% 9% 6% 11% 11% 10% Similar
Overall quality of new
development in Palo Alto
NA 57% 56% 44% 51% 49% 42% 50% 38% 36% 40% 41% 40% Similar
Availability of paths and walking
trails
NA 75% 77% 71% 74% 73% 76% 77% 76% 76% 73% 73% 74% Similar
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025 Community
Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 35 Packet Pg. 43 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 32
Please rate each of the following
characteristics as they relate to
Palo Alto as a whole:
Percent positive 2025 rating
compared
to 2024 2003 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Fitness opportunities (including
exercise classes and paths or
trails, etc.)
NA NA NA NA NA 78% 78% 79% 78% 79% 77% 76% 79% Similar
Recreational opportunities NA 81% 81% 81% 77% 80% 77% 81% 75% 77% 79% 77% 77% Similar
Availability of affordable quality
mental health care
NA NA NA NA 63% 53% 46% 52% 38% 44% 26% 38% 37% Similar
Opportunities to attend
cultural/arts/music activities
NA 73% 77% 69% 81% 79% 77% 81% 74% 71% 78% 72% 72% Similar
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025 Community
Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 36 Packet Pg. 44 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 33
Table 31: 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
66 103 330 Similar
Variety of business and service establishments in Palo Alto 57 130 317 Similar
Vibrancy of downtown/commercial area 58 104 316 Similar
Employment opportunities 57 44 340 Higher
Shopping opportunities 62 62 330 Higher
Cost of living in Palo Alto 14 310 324 Much Lower
Overall image or reputation of Palo Alto 72 87 348 Higher
Traffic flow on major streets 46 183 342 Similar
Ease of public parking 58 126 319 Similar
Ease of travel by car in Palo Alto 63 170 336 Similar
Ease of travel by public transportation in Palo Alto 35 149 320 Similar
Ease of travel by bicycle in Palo Alto 70 16 333 Much Higher
Ease of walking in Palo Alto 71 42 336 Higher
Variety of housing options 31 285 329 Lower
Availability of affordable quality housing 14 320 343 Lower
Overall quality of new development in Palo Alto 42 233 332 Similar
Availability of paths and walking trails 66 164 336 Similar
Fitness opportunities (including exercise classes and paths
or trails, etc.)
68 115 321 Similar
Recreational opportunities 68 91 335 Similar
Availability of affordable quality mental health care 39 166 318 Similar
Opportunities to attend cultural/arts/music activities 66 60 338 Higher
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025 Community
Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 37 Packet Pg. 45 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 34
Table 32: Question 5 - Geographic Subgroup Results
Percent rating "excellent" or "good"
Area Overall
Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5 Area 6
(A) (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F)
Overall quality of business and service establishments in Palo Alto 74% 71% 82% 83%
B
78% 79% 78%
Variety of business and service establishments in Palo Alto 65% 52% 66% 67%
B F
56% 55% 60%
Vibrancy of downtown/commercial area
63% 61% 68% 64% 55% 59% 62%
Employment opportunities 53% 63% 66%
D
47% 70%
D
66%
D
60%
Shopping opportunities 68% 65% 69% 69% 77%
F
61% 67%
Cost of living in Palo Alto
11% 10% 4% 9% 9% 6% 8%
Overall image or reputation of Palo Alto
86% 82% 80% 81% 73% 82% 81%
Traffic flow on major streets
45% 51% 44% 41% 52% 43% 45%
Ease of public parking
58% 62% 66% 66% 56% 68% 64%
Ease of travel by car in Palo Alto 66% 77%
F
67% 78%
F
69% 65% 70%
Ease of travel by public transportation in Palo Alto 29% 38% 24% 28% 36% 40%
C
33%
Ease of travel by bicycle in Palo Alto 82% 87%
D
85% 73% 78% 79% 80%
Ease of walking in Palo Alto 90%
D
93%
C D E
82%
D
67% 78% 86%
D
83%
Variety of housing options 43%
D E F
30% 29% 21% 23% 18% 26%
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025 Community
Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 38 Packet Pg. 46 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 35
Percent rating "excellent" or "good"
Area Overall
Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5 Area 6
(A) (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F)
Availability of affordable quality housing 9% 15%
F
11% 9% 15% 7% 10%
Overall quality of new development in Palo Alto
45% 44% 41% 32% 39% 43% 40%
Availability of paths and walking trails
73% 79% 78% 68% 75% 71% 74%
Fitness opportunities (including exercise classes and paths or trails, etc.) 78% 81%
D
86%
D
69% 84%
D
81%
D
79%
Recreational opportunities 76% 81%
D
77% 68% 79% 82%
D
77%
Availability of affordable quality mental health care
37% 41% 46% 31% 27% 40% 37%
Opportunities to attend cultural/arts/music activities
73% 68% 77% 70% 71% 74% 72%
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025 Community
Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 39 Packet Pg. 47 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 36
Table 33: Question 5 - Demographic Subgroup Results
Percent rating "excellent" or "good"
Race Age Overall
White
Asian,
Asian
Indian, or
Pacific
Islander
Other race
or Multi-
racial 18-34 35-54 55+
(A) (A) (B) (C) (A) (B) (C)
Overall quality of business and service establishments in
Palo Alto
82%
C
80%
C
65% 81% 76% 78% 78%
Variety of business and service establishments in Palo
Alto
61%
C
66%
C
43% 60% 59% 60% 60%
Vibrancy of downtown/commercial area 61% 72%
A C
50% 64% 68%
C
55% 62%
Employment opportunities
64% 57% 52% 62% 55% 62% 60%
Shopping opportunities 71% 64% 64% 74%
B
62% 67% 67%
Cost of living in Palo Alto 8% 12% 4% 7% 5% 11%
B
8%
Overall image or reputation of Palo Alto
80% 86% 77% 77% 85% 81% 81%
Traffic flow on major streets 44% 52% 45% 49% 51%
C
40% 45%
Ease of public parking 64% 69% 59% 75%
C
70%
C
55% 64%
Ease of travel by car in Palo Alto 68% 79%
A
71% 82%
C
77%
C
62% 70%
Ease of travel by public transportation in Palo Alto
33% 32% 39% 37% 30% 35% 33%
Ease of travel by bicycle in Palo Alto
79% 81% 85% 84% 79% 81% 80%
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025 Community
Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 40 Packet Pg. 48 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 37
Percent rating "excellent" or "good"
Race Age Overall
White
Asian,
Asian
Indian, or
Pacific
Islander
Other race
or Multi-
racial 18-34 35-54 55+
(A) (A) (B) (C) (A) (B) (C)
Ease of walking in Palo Alto 83% 82% 82% 73% 85%
A
86%
A
83%
Variety of housing options 21% 37%
A
25% 19% 30%
A
25% 26%
Availability of affordable quality housing 6% 22%
A C
4% 8% 13% 10% 10%
Overall quality of new development in Palo Alto
38% 47% 41% 33% 46% 39% 40%
Availability of paths and walking trails
73% 75% 78% 71% 73% 75% 74%
Fitness opportunities (including exercise classes and
paths or trails, etc.)
81% 78% 74% 77% 75% 83% 79%
Recreational opportunities 83%
B
73% 71% 79% 74% 80% 77%
Availability of affordable quality mental health care 35% 40% 37% 41% 29% 43%
B
37%
Opportunities to attend cultural/arts/music activities 76%
C
69% 62% 65% 63% 80%
A B
72%
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025 Community
Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 41 Packet Pg. 49 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 38
Question 6
Table 34: 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 6% N=36 11% N=62 13% N=75 16% N=89 53% N=298 100% N=560
K-12 education 37% N=205 24% N=135 7% N=38 2% N=9 31% N=172 100% N=560
Adult educational opportunities 23% N=128 34% N=189 11% N=61 2% N=12 30% N=167 100% N=557
Opportunities to participate in social events and
activities 18% N=103 38% N=213 24% N=134 4% N=25 15% N=85 100% N=560
Openness and acceptance of the community toward
people of diverse backgrounds 21% N=117 39% N=218 19% N=108 5% N=28 15% N=83 100% N=554
Opportunities to learn about City services via City
website, social media (Twitter/X, Nextdoor, Facebook,
Instagram, Medium, LinkedIn) 18% N=98 35% N=195 17% N=97 4% N=25 26% N=145 100% N=560
Table 35: 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 14% N=36 24% N=62 28% N=75 34% N=89 100% N=262
K-12 education 53% N=205 35% N=135 10% N=38 2% N=9 100% N=388
Adult educational opportunities 33% N=128 48% N=189 16% N=61 3% N=12 100% N=390
Opportunities to participate in social events and activities 22% N=103 45% N=213 28% N=134 5% N=25 100% N=475
Openness and acceptance of the community toward people of
diverse backgrounds 25% N=117 46% N=218 23% N=108 6% N=28 100% N=471
Opportunities to learn about City services via City website, social
media (Twitter/X, Nextdoor, Facebook, Instagram, Medium, LinkedIn) 24% N=98 47% N=195 23% N=97 6% N=25 100% N=414
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025 Community
Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 42 Packet Pg. 50 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 39
Table 36: Question 6 - Historical Results*
Please rate each of the
following characteristics as
they relate to Palo Alto as a
whole:
Percent positive
2025 rating
compared to
2024 2003 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Availability of affordable quality
child care/preschool
25% 27% 31% 49% 49% 39% 47% 37% 44% 34% 43% 34% 37% Similar
K-12 education NA 92% 94% 95% 92% 90% 91% 91% 90% 88% 87% 89% 88% Similar
Adult educational opportunities NA NA NA 89% 83% 78% 82% 77% 83% 81% 78% 83% 81% Similar
Opportunities to participate in
social events and activities
NA 74% 74% 71% 74% 70% 72% 65% 62% 65% 65% 65% 67% Similar
Openness and acceptance of
the community toward people
of diverse backgrounds
73% 80% 76% 76% 68% 72% 72% 72% 59% 60% 64% 71% 71% Similar
Opportunities to learn about
City services through social
media such as Twitter,
Facebook, and Nextdoor
NA 63% 71% 73% 75% 68% 76% 67% 71% 58% 70% 73% 71% Similar
*Prior to 2023, “Opportunities to learn about City services through social media such as Twitter, Facebook, and Nextdoor ” was “Opportunities to learn about City services through
social media websites such as Twitter and Facebook”.
Table 37: 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 39 188 327 Similar
K-12 education 79 26 335 Much Higher
Adult educational opportunities 70 5 322 Much Higher
Opportunities to participate in social events and activities 61 104 325 Similar
Opportunities to participate in community matters 62 63 323 Similar
Openness and acceptance of the community towards people of
diverse backgrounds
63 44 335 Similar
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025 Community
Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 43 Packet Pg. 51 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 40
Table 38: Question 6 - Geographic Subgroup Results
Percent rating "excellent" or "good"
Area Overall
Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5 Area 6
(A) (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F)
Availability of affordable quality childcare/preschool 49% 36% 33% 34% 35% 39% 37%
K-12 education 89% 83% 93% 86% 88% 89% 88%
Adult educational opportunities 87% 82% 81% 82% 74% 81% 81%
Opportunities to participate in social events and activities 72% 63% 78%
B F
66% 64% 63% 67%
Openness and acceptance of the community toward people of diverse backgrounds 76% 71% 80% 71% 64% 66% 71%
Opportunities to learn about City services via City website, social media (Twitter/X,
Nextdoor, Facebook, Instagram, Medium, LinkedIn)
71% 77%
D
77%
D
59% 66% 73%
D
71%
Table 39: Question 6 - Demographic Subgroup Results
Percent rating "excellent" or "good"
Race Age Overall
White
Asian, Asian
Indian, or
Pacific
Islander
Other
race or
Multi-
racial 18-34 35-54 55+
(A) (A) (B) (C) (A) (B) (C)
Availability of affordable quality childcare/preschool 34% 46%
C
24% 22% 41%
A
37% 37%
K-12 education 93%
B C
84% 75% 79% 84% 92%
A B
88%
Adult educational opportunities 86%
B
77% 84% 98%
B C
75% 81% 81%
Opportunities to participate in social events and activities 67% 69% 58% 55% 60% 74%
A B
67%
Openness and acceptance of the community toward people of
diverse backgrounds
74%
C
75%
C
52% 70% 69% 74% 71%
Opportunities to learn about City services via City website, social
media (Twitter/X, Nextdoor, Facebook, Instagram, Medium, LinkedIn)
77%
B
64% 63% 61% 67% 76%
A
71%
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025 Community
Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 44 Packet Pg. 52 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 41
Question 7
Table 40: Question 7 - Response Percentages and Number of Respondents without "Don't Know" Responses
Please indicate whether or not you have done each of the following in the last 12 months. No Yes Total
Used Palo Alto recreation centers or their services 48% N=267 52% N=289 100% N=557
Visited a neighborhood park or City park 5% N=29 95% N=531 100% N=560
Used Palo Alto public libraries or their services 26% N=147 74% N=413 100% N=560
Participated in religious or spiritual activities in Palo Alto 76% N=424 24% N=136 100% N=560
Attended a City-sponsored event 44% N=249 56% N=314 100% N=563
Talked to or visited with your immediate neighbors 12% N=68 88% N=494 100% N=562
Used the City’s website to conduct business or pay bills 43% N=238 57% N=321 100% N=559
Used the Utilities webpage to conduct business or pay bills 31% N=173 69% N=385 100% N=557
Contacted the City of Palo Alto (in-person, phone, email or web) for help or information 49% N=275 51% N=284 100% N=560
Contacted Palo Alto elected officials (in-person, phone, email or web) to express your opinion 78% N=435 22% N=124 100% N=559
Attended a local public meeting (of local elected officials like City Council or County Commissioners,
advisory boards, town halls, HOA, neighborhood watch, etc.)
75% N=417 25% N=142 100% N=560
Watched (online or on television) a local public meeting 82% N=458 18% N=102 100% N=560
Volunteered your time to some group/activity in Palo Alto 59% N=327 41% N=229 100% N=556
Voted in your most recent local election 22% N=122 78% N=436 100% N=558
Used bus, rail, subway, or other public transportation instead of driving 47% N=261 53% N=298 100% N=559
Carpooled with other adults or children instead of driving alone 41% N=230 59% N=327 100% N=557
Walked or biked instead of driving 14% N=79 86% N=481 100% N=561
Observed a code violation or other hazard in Palo Alto (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc.) 57% N=318 43% N=240 100% N=557
Household member was a victim of a crime in Palo Alto 87% N=488 13% N=72 100% N=560
Reported a crime to the police in Palo Alto 81% N=456 19% N=104 100% N=560
This question did not have a “don’t know” response option.
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025 Community
Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 45 Packet Pg. 53 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 42
Table 41: 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 2025 rating
compared to
2024 2011 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Used Palo Alto recreation centers or their
services
60% 58% 63% 65% 63% 63% 65% 39% 47% 53% 50% 52% Similar
Visited a neighborhood park or City park 91% 94% 91% 94% 93% 91% 94% 94% 94% 94% 95% 95% Similar
Used Palo Alto public libraries or their
services
74% 77% 68% 76% 73% 75% 78% 62% 72% 70% 75% 74% Similar
Participated in religious or spiritual
activities in Palo Alto
NA NA 30% 30% 31% 30% 30% 24% 24% 24% 24% 24% Similar
Attended a City-sponsored event NA NA 50% 57% 51% 55% 52% 30% 45% 51% 55% 56% Similar
Talked to or visited with your immediate
neighbors
NA NA 91% 89% 88% 92% 90% 88% 88% 89% 84% 88% Similar
Used the City’s website to conduct
business or pay bills
NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 53% 60% 63% 60% 57% Similar
Used the Utilities webpage to conduct
business or pay bills
NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 69% 69% 73% 72% 69% Similar
Contacted the City of Palo Alto (in-person,
phone, email or web) for help or
information
NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 55% 58% 54% 57% 51% Similar
Contacted Palo Alto elected officials (in-
person, phone, email or web) to express
your opinion
NA NA 17% 15% 17% 20% 21% 25% 21% 17% 17% 22% Similar
Attended a local public meeting (of local
elected officials like City Council or
County Commissioners, advisory boards,
town halls, HOA, neighborhood watch,
etc.)
27% 28% 22% 22% 21% 24% 25% 26% 21% 20% 17% 25% Higher
Watched (online or on television) a local
public meeting
27% 24% 16% 18% 14% 16% 12% 29% 23% 18% 16% 18% Similar
Volunteered your time to some
group/activity in Palo Alto
45% 50% 40% 46% 45% 47% 47% 37% 45% 39% 40% 41% Similar
Voted in your most recent local election NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 83% 77% 70% 73% 78% Similar
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025 Community
Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 46 Packet Pg. 54 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 43
Please indicate whether or not you have
done each of the following in the last 12
months (percent “yes”).
Percent positive 2025 rating
compared to
2024 2011 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Used bus, rail, subway, or other public
transportation instead of driving
NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 34% 43% 44% 53% Higher
Carpooled with other adults or children
instead of driving alone
NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 41% 60% 59% 59% Similar
Walked or biked instead of driving NA NA NA 85% 87% 87% 84% 88% 86% 88% 84% 86% Similar
Did NOT observe a code violation or other
hazard in Palo Alto
NA NA NA 70% 67% 67% 62% 63% 60% 60% 58% 57% Similar
Household member was NOT the victim
of a crime in Palo Alto
91% 91% 94% 92% 93% 91% 90% 93% 86% 88% 87% 87% Similar
Did NOT report a crime to the police in
Palo Alto
NA NA NA 87% 87% 86% 85% 87% 79% 85% 84% 81% Similar
*Some questions were re-worded in the Historical Results table to reflect the positive rating of 'yes.' Prior to 2023, “Used the Utilities webpage to conduct business or pay bills”
was “Used the Utilities website to conduct business or pay bills”.
Table 42: Question 7 - Benchmark Comparisons
City of Palo Alto
rating Rank
Number of
jurisdictions for
comparison
Comparison to
benchmark
Contacted the City of Palo Alto (in-person, phone, email or web) for help
or information
51 115 337 Similar
Contacted Palo Alto elected officials (in-person, phone, email or web) to
express your opinion
22 48 320 Similar
Attended a local public meeting (of local elected officials like City
Council or County Commissioners, advisory boards,
25 66 322 Similar
Watched (online or on television) a local public meeting 18 227 316 Similar
Volunteered your time to some group/activity in Palo Alto 41 81 324 Similar
Voted in your most recent local election 78 142 317 Similar
Used bus, rail or other public transportation instead of driving 53 27 309 Much Higher
Carpooled with other adults or children instead of driving alone 59 35 316 Higher
Walked or biked instead of driving 86 14 317 Much Higher
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025 Community
Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 47 Packet Pg. 55 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 44
Table 43: Question 7 - Geographic Subgroup Results
Percent "yes"
Area Overall
Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5 Area 6
(A) (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F)
Used Palo Alto recreation centers or their services 58%
F
50% 55% 59%
F
57% 41% 52%
Visited a neighborhood park or City park 91% 96% 93% 97% 96% 94% 95%
Used Palo Alto public libraries or their services 77% 87%
C D F
68% 72% 79% 65% 74%
Participated in religious or spiritual activities in Palo Alto 32% 23% 26% 19% 26% 24% 24%
Attended a City-sponsored event 52% 50% 62% 53% 72%
A B D F
55% 56%
Talked to or visited with your immediate neighbors 89% 81% 92%
B
90%
B
97%
B F
86% 88%
Used the City’s website to conduct business or pay bills 60% 55% 46% 57% 75%
B C D F
58% 57%
Used the Utilities webpage to conduct business or pay bills 66% 79%
C F
59% 71% 81%
C F
62% 69%
Contacted the City of Palo Alto (in-person, phone, email or web) for help or
information
56%
F
47% 58%
F
54%
F
61%
F
41% 51%
Contacted Palo Alto elected officials (in-person, phone, email or web) to express
your opinion
21% 22% 26% 18% 30% 21% 22%
Attended a local public meeting (of local elected officials like City Council or
County Commissioners, advisory boards, town halls, HOA, neighborhood watch,
etc.)
27% 22% 35%
D
19% 35%
D
23% 25%
Watched (online or on television) a local public meeting 15% 23% 16% 16% 32%
A C D F
14% 18%
Volunteered your time to some group/activity in Palo Alto 50%
D
38% 49%
D
33% 48% 38% 41%
Voted in your most recent local election 83%
F
81%
F
82%
F
74% 93%
D F
68% 78%
Used bus, rail, subway, or other public transportation instead of driving 35% 51%
A
42% 57%
A C
70%
A B C
62%
A C
53%
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025 Community
Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 48 Packet Pg. 56 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 45
Percent "yes"
Area Overall
Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5 Area 6
(A) (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F)
Carpooled with other adults or children instead of driving alone 53% 56% 53% 63% 61% 64% 59%
Walked or biked instead of driving 84% 82% 88% 85% 90% 87% 86%
Observed a code violation or other hazard in Palo Alto (weeds, abandoned
buildings, etc.)
42% 38% 44% 50% 53% 38% 43%
Household member was a victim of a crime in Palo Alto 16% 15% 8% 7% 23%
C D
13% 13%
Reported a crime to the police in Palo Alto 18% 16% 12% 19% 30%
B C
20% 19%
Table 44: Question 7 - Demographic Subgroup Results
Percent "yes"
Race Age Overall
White
Asian, Asian
Indian, or
Pacific
Islander
Other race
or Multi-
racial 18-34 35-54 55+
(A) (A) (B) (C) (A) (B) (C)
Used Palo Alto recreation centers or their services 47% 57%
A
60% 45% 56% 51% 52%
Visited a neighborhood park or City park 94% 95% 100%
A
100%
C
97%
C
91% 95%
Used Palo Alto public libraries or their services 72% 81%
A
68% 83%
C
78%
C
66% 74%
Participated in religious or spiritual activities in Palo Alto 27%
B
15% 28%
B
20% 21% 29%
B
24%
Attended a City-sponsored event 54% 53% 67% 54% 62%
C
51% 56%
Talked to or visited with your immediate neighbors 89% 88% 81% 77% 89%
A
92%
A
88%
Used the City’s website to conduct business or pay bills 51% 64%
A
73%
A
47% 67%
A C
55% 57%
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025 Community
Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 49 Packet Pg. 57 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 46
Percent "yes"
Race Age Overall
White
Asian, Asian
Indian, or
Pacific
Islander
Other race
or Multi-
racial 18-34 35-54 55+
(A) (A) (B) (C) (A) (B) (C)
Used the Utilities webpage to conduct business or pay bills 64% 77%
A
86%
A
79%
C
80%
C
57% 69%
Contacted the City of Palo Alto (in-person, phone, email or
web) for help or information
46% 51% 66%
A
32% 52%
A
57%
A
51%
Contacted Palo Alto elected officials (in-person, phone, email
or web) to express your opinion
22%
B
13% 35%
A B
16% 20% 27%
A
22%
Attended a local public meeting (of local elected officials like
City Council or County Commissioners, advisory boards, town
halls, HOA, neighborhood watch, etc.)
27% 19% 35%
B
10% 28%
A
30%
A
25%
Watched (online or on television) a local public meeting 15% 19% 29%
A
10% 21%
A
19%
A
18%
Volunteered your time to some group/activity in Palo Alto 44%
B
32% 50%
B
28% 41%
A
46%
A
41%
Voted in your most recent local election 82%
B
68% 80%
B
70% 72% 86%
A B
78%
Used bus, rail, subway, or other public transportation instead
of driving
58%
B
43% 58% 85%
B C
47% 43% 53%
Carpooled with other adults or children instead of driving
alone
57% 60% 69% 77%
B C
57% 51% 59%
Walked or biked instead of driving 85% 87% 85% 95%
C
93%
C
76% 86%
Observed a code violation or other hazard in Palo Alto (weeds,
abandoned buildings, etc.)
43% 38% 51% 34% 37% 52%
A B
43%
Household member was a victim of a crime in Palo Alto 12% 13% 23%
A
8% 16%
A
13% 13%
Reported a crime to the police in Palo Alto 19% 12% 40%
A B
13% 20% 20% 19%
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025 Community
Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 50 Packet Pg. 58 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 47
Question 8
Table 45: 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 13% N=74 38% N=213 24% N=135 11% N=64 13% N=74 100% N=560
The overall direction that Palo Alto is taking 9% N=48 37% N=205 28% N=155 12% N=68 15% N=84 100% N=559
The job Palo Alto government does at welcoming
resident involvement
10% N=56 30% N=167 20% N=112 8% N=45 32% N=178 100% N=558
Overall confidence in Palo Alto government 10% N=56 37% N=206 25% N=139 13% N=74 15% N=82 100% N=558
Generally acting in the best interest of the community 12% N=65 39% N=217 22% N=124 12% N=64 15% N=86 100% N=557
Being honest 12% N=67 33% N=183 18% N=102 9% N=49 28% N=158 100% N=558
Being open and transparent to the public 10% N=57 34% N=193 19% N=105 11% N=63 25% N=141 100% N=559
Informing residents about issues facing the community 11% N=63 36% N=202 24% N=135 11% N=62 17% N=94 100% N=557
Treating all residents fairly 12% N=68 31% N=174 20% N=114 6% N=33 31% N=171 100% N=560
Treating residents with respect 16% N=91 39% N=220 17% N=94 4% N=22 24% N=132 100% N=558
Table 46: 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 15% N=74 44% N=213 28% N=135 13% N=64 100% N=486
The overall direction that Palo Alto is taking 10% N=48 43% N=205 33% N=155 14% N=68 100% N=475
The job Palo Alto government does at welcoming resident involvement 15% N=56 44% N=167 29% N=112 12% N=45 100% N=380
Overall confidence in Palo Alto government 12% N=56 43% N=206 29% N=139 16% N=74 100% N=475
Generally acting in the best interest of the community 14% N=65 46% N=217 26% N=124 14% N=64 100% N=471
Being honest 17% N=67 46% N=183 25% N=102 12% N=49 100% N=400
Being open and transparent to the public 14% N=57 46% N=193 25% N=105 15% N=63 100% N=418
Informing residents about issues facing the community 14% N=63 44% N=202 29% N=135 13% N=62 100% N=462
Treating all residents fairly 18% N=68 45% N=174 29% N=114 9% N=33 100% N=389
Treating residents with respect 21% N=91 52% N=220 22% N=94 5% N=22 100% N=426
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025 Community
Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 51 Packet Pg. 59 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 48
Table 47: Question 8 - Historical Results
Please rate the following
categories of Palo Alto
government performance:
Percent positive 2025 rating
compared to
2024 2003 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
The value of services for the
taxes paid to Palo Alto
NA 67% 66% 66% 65% 58% 61% 58% 53% 51% 57% 56% 59% Similar
The overall direction that Palo
Alto is taking
54% 59% 54% 50% 48% 40% 45% 42% 40% 42% 54% 47% 53% Similar
The job Palo Alto government
does at welcoming resident
involvement
65% 58% 55% 54% 61% 50% 56% 56% 51% 46% 55% 54% 59% Similar
Overall confidence in Palo Alto
government
NA NA NA 52% 53% 44% 49% 46% 49% 47% 52% 49% 55% Similar
Generally acting in the best
interest of the community
NA NA NA 54% 53% 44% 51% 45% 50% 52% 55% 53% 60% Higher
Being honest
NA NA NA 58% 62% 55% 61% 56% 55% 53% 62% 61% 62% Similar
Being open and transparent to
the public
NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 50% 53% 57% 53% 60% Higher
Informing residents about
issues facing the community
NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 55% 51% 61% 58% 57% Similar
Treating all residents fairly
NA NA NA 57% 53% 47% 56% 51% 57% 50% 62% 66% 62% Similar
Treating residents with respect
NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 67% 68% 71% 74% 73% Similar
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025 Community
Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 52 Packet Pg. 60 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 49
Table 48: 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 54 115 361 Similar
The overall direction that Palo Alto is taking 50 190 342 Similar
The job Palo Alto government does at welcoming citizen
involvement
54 107 341 Similar
Overall confidence in Palo Alto government 50 151 324 Similar
Generally acting in the best interest of the community 53 140 327 Similar
Being honest 56 117 319 Similar
Being open and transparent to the public 53 120 321 Similar
Informing residents about issues facing the community 53 94 320 Similar
Treating all residents fairly 57 114 326 Similar
Treating residents with respect 63 104 318 Similar
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025 Community
Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 53 Packet Pg. 61 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 50
Table 49: Question 8 - Geographic Subgroup Results
Percent "excellent" or "good".
Area Overall
Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5 Area 6
(A) (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F)
The value of services for the taxes paid to Palo Alto 53% 52% 55% 67%
B
58% 66%
B
59%
The overall direction that Palo Alto is taking
55% 57% 53% 52% 47% 53% 53%
The job Palo Alto government does at welcoming resident involvement
53% 58% 70% 58% 55% 59% 59%
Overall confidence in Palo Alto government
59% 55% 63% 54% 52% 50% 55%
Generally acting in the best interest of the community
61% 65% 60% 55% 58% 60% 60%
Being honest 60% 70%
D E
67% 52% 52% 70%
D E
62%
Being open and transparent to the public 53% 61% 71%
A D E
54% 50% 65% 60%
Informing residents about issues facing the community
57% 52% 64% 58% 60% 56% 57%
Treating all residents fairly 65% 65% 81%
D E F
56% 50% 59% 62%
Treating residents with respect 75% 72% 84%
D E
69% 63% 74% 73%
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025 Community
Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 54 Packet Pg. 62 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 51
Table 50: Question 8 - Demographic Subgroup Results
Percent "excellent" or "good".
Race Age Overall
White
Asian, Asian
Indian, or
Pacific Islander
Other race or
Multi-racial 18-34 35-54 55+
(A) (A) (B) (C) (A) (B) (C)
The value of services for the taxes paid to Palo Alto 70%
B C
51% 48% 69%
B
48% 65%
B
59%
The overall direction that Palo Alto is taking 57%
C
58%
C
39% 52% 57% 53% 53%
The job Palo Alto government does at welcoming
resident involvement
59% 66% 52% 51% 67%
A
56% 59%
Overall confidence in Palo Alto government 59%
C
63%
C
32% 60% 56% 54% 55%
Generally acting in the best interest of the community 64%
C
66%
C
47% 70%
C
61% 56% 60%
Being honest 68%
C
64%
C
38% 71% 62% 61% 62%
Being open and transparent to the public 66%
C
58% 50% 78%
B C
60% 54% 60%
Informing residents about issues facing the
community
64%
B
49% 56% 73%
B C
52% 57% 57%
Treating all residents fairly 70%
C
61%
C
41% 51% 68%
A
62% 62%
Treating residents with respect 81%
B C
71%
C
51% 78% 72% 73% 73%
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025 Community
Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 55 Packet Pg. 63 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 52
Question 9
Table 51: 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 24% N=134 48% N=269 16% N=89 5% N=27 7% N=39 100% N=558
The State Government 8% N=46 38% N=211 27% N=149 15% N=85 12% N=66 100% N=557
The Federal Government 4% N=22 13% N=72 33% N=182 37% N=208 13% N=74 100% N=558
Table 52: 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 26% N=134 52% N=269 17% N=89 5% N=27 100% N=519
The State Government 9% N=46 43% N=211 30% N=149 17% N=85 100% N=490
The Federal Government 5% N=22 15% N=72 38% N=182 43% N=208 100% N=484
Table 53: Question 9 - Historical Results
Overall, how would you rate the
quality of the services provided
by each of the following?
Percent positive 2025 rating
compared to
2024 2003 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
The City of Palo Alto 87% 88% 84% 83% 85% 81% 86% 82% 73% 72% 74% 74% 78% Similar
State Government 38% 41% 33% NA 47% 46% 54% 46% 52% 57% 50% 47% 52% Similar
The Federal Government 32% 50% 37% 48% 46% 46% 36% 33% 27% 47% 45% 41% 19% Lower
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025 Community
Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 56 Packet Pg. 64 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 53
Table 54: Question 9 - Benchmark Comparisons
City of Palo Alto rating Rank
Number of
jurisdictions for
comparison
Comparison to
benchmark
The City of Palo Alto 66 104 350 Similar
The Federal Government 27 303 309 Lower
Table 55: Question 9 - Geographic Subgroup Results
Percent "excellent" or "good"
Area Overall
Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5 Area 6
(A) (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F)
The City of Palo Alto
72% 79% 76% 79% 74% 82% 78%
The State Government
53% 53% 53% 53% 50% 51% 52%
The Federal Government 16% 32%
A C D E F
18% 16% 12% 19% 19%
Table 56: Question 9 - Demographic Subgroup Results
Percent "excellent" or "good"
Race Age Overall
White
Asian, Asian Indian,
or Pacific Islander
Other race or Multi-
racial 18-34 35-54 55+
(A) (A) (B) (C) (A) (B) (C)
The City of Palo Alto 83%
B C
75% 67% 84%
B
74% 79% 78%
The State Government 59%
B
43% 48% 63%
B
39% 57%
B
52%
The Federal Government 19% 24%
C
11% 18% 19% 20% 19%
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025 Community
Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 57 Packet Pg. 65 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 54
Question 10
Table 57: 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=59 41% N=223 23% N=127 12% N=63 13% N=71 100% N=543
Traffic signal timing 11% N=60 39% N=212 29% N=155 19% N=101 3% N=15 100% N=543
Street repair 16% N=85 40% N=219 29% N=159 14% N=76 2% N=9 100% N=547
Street cleaning 30% N=164 49% N=270 16% N=87 4% N=23 1% N=8 100% N=552
Street tree maintenance 27% N=146 42% N=230 19% N=103 8% N=45 5% N=26 100% N=550
Sidewalk maintenance 20% N=109 38% N=207 30% N=163 10% N=55 3% N=16 100% N=550
Land use, planning, and zoning 9% N=48 24% N=133 23% N=125 21% N=113 23% N=128 100% N=547
Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc.) 6% N=35 23% N=127 20% N=108 14% N=77 36% N=197 100% N=544
Preservation of natural areas (open space, farmlands,
and greenbelts)
32% N=171 44% N=240 13% N=71 2% N=13 9% N=46 100% N=542
Building and planning application processing services 4% N=20 11% N=61 15% N=82 17% N=94 53% N=287 100% N=545
Affordable high-speed internet access 16% N=87 26% N=140 21% N=114 14% N=78 23% N=125 100% N=545
Electric utility 28% N=151 43% N=238 18% N=99 6% N=31 5% N=29 100% N=547
Gas utility 24% N=131 41% N=223 17% N=90 5% N=30 13% N=72 100% N=546
Utility payment options 34% N=184 43% N=233 11% N=60 2% N=10 10% N=57 100% N=544
Drinking water 49% N=269 37% N=205 9% N=48 1% N=8 4% N=21 100% N=550
Sewer services 34% N=185 43% N=236 10% N=57 1% N=6 11% N=63 100% N=547
Storm water management (storm drainage, dams,
levees, etc.)
26% N=141 38% N=207 14% N=77 4% N=21 18% N=96 100% N=542
Refuse collection (garbage, recycling, yard waste, and
e-waste)
43% N=235 40% N=220 10% N=57 3% N=17 4% N=22 100% N=550
Police services 24% N=130 30% N=165 7% N=38 2% N=10 37% N=205 100% N=548
Crime prevention 19% N=101 35% N=191 15% N=81 4% N=25 27% N=149 100% N=546
Animal control 18% N=98 31% N=169 9% N=52 2% N=12 39% N=216 100% N=546
Ambulance or emergency medical services 22% N=122 24% N=132 4% N=20 1% N=6 49% N=264 100% N=544
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025 Community
Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 58 Packet Pg. 66 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 55
Please rate the quality of each of the following
services in Palo Alto: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total
Fire emergency services 25% N=138 25% N=137 4% N=22 1% N=8 44% N=241 100% N=546
Fire prevention and education 17% N=90 25% N=133 9% N=49 2% N=13 47% N=255 100% N=540
Palo Alto open space (e.g Foothills, Baylands) 54% N=293 33% N=179 6% N=32 1% N=5 7% N=38 100% N=546
City parks 54% N=297 37% N=204 6% N=32 0% N=2 2% N=11 100% N=547
Recreation programs or classes 28% N=153 31% N=172 8% N=45 2% N=8 31% N=171 100% N=550
Recreation centers or facilities 30% N=160 34% N=182 9% N=51 2% N=12 25% N=133 100% N=537
Public library services (e.g., hold requests, storytimes,
teen events, bookclubs)
52% N=281 26% N=139 4% N=21 1% N=7 17% N=94 100% N=541
Library facilities (buildings, computer equipment,
accessibility)
54% N=295 25% N=133 5% N=25 1% N=5 16% N=85 100% N=544
Variety of library materials (books, e-books,
streaming, databases, audiobooks)
47% N=256 27% N=145 8% N=45 2% N=11 16% N=89 100% N=547
Art programs and theater 26% N=142 33% N=183 8% N=45 2% N=10 30% N=165 100% N=546
City-sponsored special events 19% N=103 35% N=189 12% N=65 2% N=9 33% N=180 100% N=546
City website (cityofpaloalto.org) 18% N=96 43% N=231 17% N=92 3% N=17 19% N=102 100% N=539
Overall customer service by Palo Alto employees
(police, receptionists, planners, etc.)
24% N=126 35% N=185 12% N=63 3% N=13 27% N=141 100% N=528
Table 58: 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 12% N=59 47% N=223 27% N=127 13% N=63 100% N=473
Traffic signal timing 11% N=60 40% N=212 29% N=155 19% N=101 100% N=528
Street repair 16% N=85 41% N=219 29% N=159 14% N=76 100% N=538
Street cleaning 30% N=164 50% N=270 16% N=87 4% N=23 100% N=544
Street tree maintenance 28% N=146 44% N=230 20% N=103 9% N=45 100% N=525
Sidewalk maintenance 20% N=109 39% N=207 30% N=163 10% N=55 100% N=534
Land use, planning, and zoning 11% N=48 32% N=133 30% N=125 27% N=113 100% N=419
Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc.) 10% N=35 37% N=127 31% N=108 22% N=77 100% N=347
Preservation of natural areas (open space, farmlands, and greenbelts) 35% N=171 48% N=240 14% N=71 3% N=13 100% N=496
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025 Community
Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 59 Packet Pg. 67 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 56
Please rate the quality of each of the following services in Palo Alto: Excellent Good Fair Poor Total
Building and planning application processing services 8% N=20 24% N=61 32% N=82 36% N=94 100% N=258
Affordable high-speed internet access 21% N=87 33% N=140 27% N=114 19% N=78 100% N=420
Electric utility 29% N=151 46% N=238 19% N=99 6% N=31 100% N=518
Gas utility 28% N=131 47% N=223 19% N=90 6% N=30 100% N=474
Utility payment options 38% N=184 48% N=233 12% N=60 2% N=10 100% N=488
Drinking water 51% N=269 39% N=205 9% N=48 2% N=8 100% N=529
Sewer services 38% N=185 49% N=236 12% N=57 1% N=6 100% N=484
Storm water management (storm drainage, dams, levees, etc.) 32% N=141 46% N=207 17% N=77 5% N=21 100% N=446
Refuse collection (garbage, recycling, yard waste, and e-waste) 44% N=235 42% N=220 11% N=57 3% N=17 100% N=528
Police services 38% N=130 48% N=165 11% N=38 3% N=10 100% N=343
Crime prevention 25% N=101 48% N=191 20% N=81 6% N=25 100% N=398
Animal control 30% N=98 51% N=169 16% N=52 4% N=12 100% N=331
Ambulance or emergency medical services 44% N=122 47% N=132 7% N=20 2% N=6 100% N=280
Fire emergency services 45% N=138 45% N=137 7% N=22 2% N=8 100% N=305
Fire prevention and education 32% N=90 47% N=133 17% N=49 5% N=13 100% N=286
Palo Alto open space (e.g Foothills, Baylands) 58% N=293 35% N=179 6% N=32 1% N=5 100% N=509
City parks 55% N=297 38% N=204 6% N=32 0% N=2 100% N=536
Recreation programs or classes 40% N=153 46% N=172 12% N=45 2% N=8 100% N=378
Recreation centers or facilities 39% N=160 45% N=182 13% N=51 3% N=12 100% N=404
Public library services (e.g., hold requests, storytimes, teen events,
bookclubs)
63% N=281 31% N=139 5% N=21 2% N=7 100% N=447
Library facilities (buildings, computer equipment, accessibility) 64% N=295 29% N=133 6% N=25 1% N=5 100% N=459
Variety of library materials (books, e-books, streaming, databases,
audiobooks)
56% N=256 32% N=145 10% N=45 2% N=11 100% N=458
Art programs and theater 37% N=142 48% N=183 12% N=45 3% N=10 100% N=381
City-sponsored special events 28% N=103 52% N=189 18% N=65 2% N=9 100% N=366
City website (cityofpaloalto.org) 22% N=96 53% N=231 21% N=92 4% N=17 100% N=436
Overall customer service by Palo Alto employees (police,
receptionists, planners, etc.)
33% N=126 48% N=185 16% N=63 3% N=13 100% N=388
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025 Community
Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 60 Packet Pg. 68 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 57
Table 59: Question 10 - Historical Results*
Please rate the quality of each of
the following services in Palo
Alto:
Percent positive 2025 rating
compared to
2024 2003 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Traffic enforcement 64% 66% 64% 62% 60% 60% 60% 53% 65% 55% 65% 56% 60% Similar
Traffic signal timing NA 47% 53% 53% 47% 50% 49% 45% 59% 50% 63% 57% 51% Similar
Street repair 50% 42% 47% 55% 51% 57% 55% 46% 56% 46% 42% 52% 57% Similar
Street cleaning 75% 80% 76% 80% 75% 77% 78% 72% 83% 82% 79% 80% 80% Similar
Street tree maintenance 62% 71% 66% 80% 73% 71% 75% 72% 75% 76% 67% 72% 72% Similar
Sidewalk maintenance 50% 53% 56% 62% 62% 61% 65% 61% 63% 61% 63% 57% 59% Similar
Land use, planning and zoning 41% 51% 36% 43% 40% 37% 40% 39% 40% 38% 40% 41% 43% Similar
Code enforcement (weeds,
abandoned buildings, etc.)
55% 61% 57% 62% 59% 52% 56% 55% 52% 51% 53% 44% 47% Similar
Preservation of natural areas
(open space, farmlands, and
greenbelts)
NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 83% 83% 83% 81% 83% Similar
Building and planning application
processing services
NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 44% 43% 35% 38% 29% 32% Similar
Affordable high-speed internet
access
NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 39% 41% 45% 44% 54% Higher
Electric utility NA 84% 80% 72% 87% 86% 87% 83% 77% 80% 73% 67% 75% Higher
Gas utility NA 86% 81% 88% 88% 87% 89% 84% 78% 81% 70% 71% 75% Similar
Utility payment options NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 85% 86% 87% 85% 80% 86% Similar
Drinking water 82% 83% 88% 89% 88% 87% 88% 87% 88% 91% 86% 84% 90% Similar
Sewer services 84% 82% 84% 89% 88% 88% 88% 85% 87% 87% 87% 83% 87% Similar
Storm water management (storm
drainage, dams, levees, etc.)
65% 75% 69% 80% 71% 75% 81% 71% 83% 78% 73% 77% 78% Similar
Refuse collection (garbage,
recycling, yard waste, and e-
waste)
NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 85% 87% 85% 87% 83% 86% Similar
Police services 89% 86% 86% 87% 88% 88% 93% 89% 78% 86% 84% 81% 86% Similar
Crime prevention NA 74% 75% 80% 79% 80% 81% 78% 67% 64% 68% 69% 73% Similar
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025 Community
Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 61 Packet Pg. 69 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 58
Please rate the quality of each of
the following services in Palo
Alto:
Percent positive 2025 rating
compared to
2024 2003 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Animal control 79% 78% 76% 80% 80% 77% 80% 75% 82% 81% 78% 82% 81% Similar
Ambulance or emergency
medical services
95% 96% 93% 97% 95% 96% 96% 93% 93% 88% 90% 91% 91% Similar
Fire emergency services 96% 96% 93% 95% 97% 97% 97% 94% 94% 93% 93% 92% 90% Similar
Fire prevention and education NA 80% 82% 85% 85% 85% 87% 84% 82% 81% 77% 80% 78% Similar
Palo Alto open space NA NA NA 82% 84% 81% 86% 83% 86% 92% 93% 89% 93% Similar
City parks 90% 91% 93% 92% 93% 91% 94% 91% 91% 93% 93% 90% 94% Similar
Recreation programs or classes 83% 87% 87% 87% 84% 84% 87% 81% 83% 79% 83% 80% 86% Similar
Recreation centers or facilities 77% 85% 80% 84% 86% 81% 86% 82% 82% 79% 85% 81% 84% Similar
Public library services (e.g., hold
requests, storytimes, teen events,
bookclubs)
NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 92% 93% 93% 92% 94% Similar
Library facilities (buildings,
computer equipment,
accessibility)
NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 92% 94% 95% 93% 93% 93% Similar
Variety of library materials
(books, e-books, streaming,
databases, audiobooks)
60% 88% 81% 88% 83% 82% 86% 88% 86% 92% 90% 89% 88% Similar
Art programs and theater NA 82% 82% 69% 80% 78% 82% 76% 82% 89% 83% 84% 85% Similar
City-sponsored special events NA NA NA 75% 75% 73% 75% 77% 72% 74% 75% 76% 80% Similar
City website (cityofpaloalto.org) NA 70% 69% 88% 69% 66% 72% 65% 69% 70% 73% 72% 75% Similar
Overall customer service by Palo
Alto employees (police,
receptionists, planners, etc.)
78% 81% 79% 81% 74% 77% 84% 77% 79% 80% 78% 79% 80% Similar
*Prior to 2023, “Public information (Police/public safety)” was “Public information services (Police/public safety)” and “Public inform ation (non-Police/public safety)” was
“Public information services (non-Police/public safety)”.
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025 Community
Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 62 Packet Pg. 70 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 59
Table 60: Question 10 - Benchmark Comparisons
City of Palo Alto
rating Rank
Number of
jurisdictions for
comparison
Comparison to
benchmark
Traffic enforcement 53 177 348 Similar
Traffic signal timing 48 194 321 Similar
Street repair 53 99 362 Similar
Street cleaning 69 56 329 Higher
Sidewalk maintenance 56 110 324 Similar
Land use, planning and zoning 42 166 336 Similar
Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc.) 45 163 340 Similar
Preservation of natural areas (open space, farmlands and
greenbelts)
72 24 322 Higher
Affordable high-speed internet access 52 148 312 Similar
Utility payment options 74 6 313 Higher
Drinking water 80 14 335 Higher
Sewer services 75 67 327 Similar
Storm water management (storm drainage, dams, levees,
etc.)
68 104 336 Similar
Police emergency services 74 103 364 Similar
Crime prevention 64 168 344 Similar
Animal control 69 60 327 Similar
Ambulance or emergency medical services 77 111 335 Similar
Fire emergency services 78 193 349 Similar
Fire prevention and education 68 151 327 Similar
Palo Alto open space (e.g. Foothills, Baylands) 83 1 315 Much Higher
City parks 83 14 347 Higher
Recreation programs or classes 75 16 329 Higher
Recreation centers or facilities 74 33 324 Higher
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025 Community
Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 63 Packet Pg. 71 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 60
Table 61: Question 10 - Geographic Subgroup Results
Percent rating "excellent" or "good"
Area Overall
Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5 Area 6
(A) (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F)
Traffic enforcement 59% 71%
D
57% 52% 55% 60% 60%
Traffic signal timing 50% 51% 58% 51% 41% 53% 51%
Street repair 41% 61%
A
62%
A
55% 53% 60%
A
57%
Street cleaning 74% 85%
D
81% 74% 73% 85%
D
80%
Street tree maintenance 58% 73%
A
76%
A
73%
A
74%
A
74%
A
72%
Sidewalk maintenance 49% 63% 70%
A E
58% 48% 61% 59%
Land use, planning, and zoning 55%
D E
45% 49%
E
37% 28% 43% 43%
Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc.) 43% 49% 48% 45% 39% 52% 47%
Preservation of natural areas (open space, farmlands, and greenbelts) 81% 90% 81% 81% 78% 83% 83%
Building and planning application processing services 37% 27% 44% 28% 31% 28% 32%
Affordable high-speed internet access 53% 61% 57% 46% 50% 56% 54%
Electric utility 82% 76% 74% 70% 76% 74% 75%
Gas utility 75% 77% 78% 71% 74% 73% 75%
Utility payment options 88% 81% 85% 86% 85% 88% 86%
Drinking water 92% 92% 88% 86% 83% 92% 90%
Sewer services 88% 88% 86% 85% 81% 90% 87%
Storm water management (storm drainage, dams, levees, etc.) 72% 81% 82% 79% 71% 79% 78%
Refuse collection (garbage, recycling, yard waste, and e-waste) 86% 91% 83% 83% 84% 87% 86%
Police services 92%
D
89%
D
92%
D
71% 84% 91%
D
86%
Crime prevention 70% 73% 68% 78% 65% 79% 73%
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025 Community
Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 64 Packet Pg. 72 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 61
Percent rating "excellent" or "good"
Area Overall
Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5 Area 6
(A) (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F)
Animal control 82% 86%
E
80% 76% 66% 87%
E
81%
Ambulance or emergency medical services 92%
D
99%
D
94%
D
74% 86% 95%
D
91%
Fire emergency services 95%
D
90% 91% 79% 85% 98%
D E
90%
Fire prevention and education 78% 78% 79% 74% 83% 78% 78%
Palo Alto open space (e.g Foothills, Baylands) 91% 94% 89% 94% 88% 96% 93%
City parks 89% 93% 90% 99%
A C E
87% 97%
A C E
94%
Recreation programs or classes 83% 88% 87% 89% 79% 85% 86%
Recreation centers or facilities 77% 86% 87% 81% 84% 89% 84%
Public library services (e.g., hold requests, storytimes, teen events, bookclubs) 91% 96% 96% 91% 94% 94% 94%
Library facilities (buildings, computer equipment, accessibility) 86% 97%
A
94% 93% 93% 93% 93%
Variety of library materials (books, e-books, streaming, databases, audiobooks) 82% 92% 94%
A
84% 83% 89% 88%
Art programs and theater 89%
E
92%
D E
88%
E
81% 72% 85%
E
85%
City-sponsored special events 85%
E
82%
E
78% 87%
E
62% 79%
E
80%
City website (cityofpaloalto.org) 67% 81% 75% 81% 69% 74% 75%
Overall customer service by Palo Alto employees (police, receptionists,
planners, etc.)
72% 84% 71% 83% 83% 84% 80%
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025 Community
Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 65 Packet Pg. 73 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 62
Table 62: Question 10 - Demographic Subgroup Results
Percent rating "excellent" or "good"
Race Age Overall
White
Asian, Asian Indian,
or Pacific Islander
Other race or
Multi-racial 18-34
35-
54 55+
(A) (A) (B) (C) (A) (B) (C)
Traffic enforcement 59% 62% 59% 47% 61%
A
63%
A
60%
Traffic signal timing
49% 57% 55% 52% 55% 50% 51%
Street repair 60% 55% 51% 70%
B C
55% 53% 57%
Street cleaning 85%
B
74% 77% 81% 79% 80% 80%
Street tree maintenance 74% 68% 76% 84%
B C
73% 66% 72%
Sidewalk maintenance 60% 58% 68% 64%
C
64%
C
53% 59%
Land use, planning, and zoning 41% 54%
A
39% 45% 51%
C
37% 43%
Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc.) 47% 50% 45% 74%
B C
51%
C
35% 47%
Preservation of natural areas (open space, farmlands, and
greenbelts)
84% 83% 84% 86% 83% 82% 83%
Building and planning application processing services 25% 46%
A
34% 19% 43%
A C
27% 32%
Affordable high-speed internet access 60% 49% 48% 72%
B C
44% 55%
B
54%
Electric utility 80%
B
71% 69% 73% 69% 80%
B
75%
Gas utility 80%
C
71% 66% 71% 68% 81%
B
75%
Utility payment options 90%
B
80% 86% 92%
B
81% 88% 86%
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025 Community
Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 66 Packet Pg. 74 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 63
Percent rating "excellent" or "good"
Race Age Overall
White
Asian, Asian Indian,
or Pacific Islander
Other race or
Multi-racial 18-34
35-
54 55+
(A) (A) (B) (C) (A) (B) (C)
Drinking water 93%
B
82% 89% 95%
B
84% 91%
B
90%
Sewer services 89%
B
81% 90% 87% 82% 91%
B
87%
Storm water management (storm drainage, dams, levees,
etc.)
78% 80% 77% 87% 78% 76% 78%
Refuse collection (garbage, recycling, yard waste, and e-
waste)
88%
B
78% 94%
B
82% 83% 91%
A B
86%
Police services 92%
B C
82%
C
65% 77% 82% 92%
A B
86%
Crime prevention 83%
B C
63% 60% 80%
B
68% 75% 73%
Animal control 86%
B
73% 79% 95%
B C
76% 81% 81%
Ambulance or emergency medical services 96%
B C
83% 82% 77% 89%
A
94%
A
91%
Fire emergency services 97%
B C
84% 78% 90% 87% 93% 90%
Fire prevention and education 87%
B C
76%
C
59% 75% 74% 84% 78%
Palo Alto open space (e.g Foothills, Baylands) 96%
B C
90% 87% 94% 91% 94% 93%
City parks 95% 92% 91% 100%
B C
90% 94% 94%
Recreation programs or classes 87% 87% 81% 100%
B C
84% 83% 86%
Recreation centers or facilities
87% 82% 78% 91% 81% 84% 84%
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025 Community
Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 67 Packet Pg. 75 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 64
Percent rating "excellent" or "good"
Race Age Overall
White
Asian, Asian Indian,
or Pacific Islander
Other race or
Multi-racial 18-34
35-
54 55+
(A) (A) (B) (C) (A) (B) (C)
Public library services (e.g., hold requests, storytimes, teen
events, bookclubs)
97%
B C
91% 85% 98%
B
91% 94% 94%
Library facilities (buildings, computer equipment,
accessibility)
96%
B C
91% 87% 95% 91% 94% 93%
Variety of library materials (books, e-books, streaming,
databases, audiobooks)
89% 89% 80% 84% 87% 90% 88%
Art programs and theater 89%
C
84% 74% 79% 82% 89% 85%
City-sponsored special events
84% 75% 81% 89% 78% 78% 80%
City website (cityofpaloalto.org) 75% 79% 82% 92%
B C
75% 70% 75%
Overall customer service by Palo Alto employees (police,
receptionists, planners, etc.)
85% 78% 77% 89% 78% 81% 80%
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025 Community
Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 68 Packet Pg. 76 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 65
Question 11
Table 63: 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=284 38% N=211 8% N=42 1% N=3 1% N=8 100% N=548
Affordability of utility services 20% N=112 31% N=172 28% N=156 16% N=88 4% N=21 100% N=549
Community value received from the City owning and
operating its own municipal utility services
37% N=199 31% N=166 11% N=59 6% N=30 16% N=86 100% N=541
Utilities online customer self-service features 31% N=169 32% N=170 11% N=59 1% N=6 25% N=135 100% N=539
Providing opportunities for energy and water efficiency
at home or business
27% N=144 33% N=178 13% N=70 4% N=19 24% N=127 100% N=538
Working hard to keep utilities prices competitive 20% N=106 26% N=141 15% N=83 13% N=69 26% N=140 100% N=539
Value of all the services Palo Alto Utilities provides for
the price you pay
23% N=126 36% N=196 20% N=110 10% N=55 10% N=54 100% N=540
Ease of obtaining information or performing a
transaction through the City’s website
20% N=107 36% N=195 16% N=86 5% N=27 23% N=126 100% N=541
Value of Palo Alto Utilities’ customer communications 21% N=113 32% N=174 16% N=85 4% N=21 27% N=146 100% N=540
Ease of contacting Utilities department staff 21% N=114 24% N=132 12% N=65 2% N=13 40% N=216 100% N=541
Speed of response after contacting Utilities department
staff
22% N=120 21% N=116 12% N=66 2% N=11 42% N=228 100% N=540
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025 Community
Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 69 Packet Pg. 77 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 66
Table 64: 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 53% N=284 39% N=211 8% N=42 1% N=3 100% N=540
Affordability of utility services 21% N=112 33% N=172 30% N=156 17% N=88 100% N=528
Community value received from the City owning and operating its own
municipal utility services
44% N=199 36% N=166 13% N=59 7% N=30 100% N=455
Utilities online customer self-service features 42% N=169 42% N=170 15% N=59 2% N=6 100% N=404
Providing opportunities for energy and water efficiency at home or
business
35% N=144 43% N=178 17% N=70 5% N=19 100% N=411
Working hard to keep utilities prices competitive 26% N=106 35% N=141 21% N=83 17% N=69 100% N=399
Value of all the services Palo Alto Utilities provides for the price you
pay
26% N=126 40% N=196 23% N=110 11% N=55 100% N=486
Ease of obtaining information or performing a transaction through the
City’s website
26% N=107 47% N=195 21% N=86 6% N=27 100% N=414
Value of Palo Alto Utilities’ customer communications 29% N=113 44% N=174 22% N=85 5% N=21 100% N=394
Ease of contacting Utilities department staff 35% N=114 41% N=132 20% N=65 4% N=13 100% N=325
Speed of response after contacting Utilities department staff 38% N=120 37% N=116 21% N=66 4% N=11 100% N=313
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025 Community
Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 70 Packet Pg. 78 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 67
Table 65: Question 11 - Historical Results
Please rate the following as they relate to Palo Alto Utilities' services:
Percent positive 2025 rating
compared to 2024 2017 2018 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Reliability of utility services 96% 94% 93% 88% 91% 88% 92% Similar
Affordability of utility services 64% 59% 58% 60% 51% 46% 54% Higher
Community value received from the City owning and operating its own
municipal utility services
81% 79% 84% 86% 79% 78% 80% Similar
Utilities online customer self-service features NA 78% 86% 82% 83% 77% 84% Higher
Providing opportunities for energy and water efficiency at home or
business
83% 75% 80% 76% 77% 70% 78% Higher
Working hard to keep utilities prices competitive 63% 59% 62% 68% 56% 53% 62% Higher
Value of all the services Palo Alto Utilities provides for the price you
pay
68% 62% 66% 68% 64% 58% 66% Higher
Ease of obtaining information or performing a transaction through the
City’s website
65% 61% 72% 75% 71% 69% 73% Similar
Value of Palo Alto Utilities’ customer communications 76% 70% 80% 78% 72% 72% 73% Similar
Ease of contacting Utilities department staff NA 75% 84% 81% 76% 70% 76% Similar
Speed of response after contacting Utilities department staff NA 76% 83% 84% 75% 73% 75% Similar
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025 Community
Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 71 Packet Pg. 79 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 68
Table 66: Question 11 - Geographic Subgroup Results
Percent rating "excellent" or "good"
Area Overall
Area
1
Area
2
Area
3
Area
4
Area
5
Area
6
(A) (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F)
Reliability of utility services 91% 92% 93% 88% 97%
D
92% 92%
Affordability of utility services 50% 57%
D
62%
D
43% 60%
D
54% 54%
Community value received from the City owning and operating its own municipal utility
services
86% 80% 79% 79% 83% 78% 80%
Utilities online customer self-service features 80% 84% 82% 82% 86% 88% 84%
Providing opportunities for energy and water efficiency at home or business 84% 81% 77% 73% 75% 80% 78%
Working hard to keep utilities prices competitive 58% 64% 66% 60% 58% 63% 62%
Value of all the services Palo Alto Utilities provides for the price you pay 62% 65% 70% 65% 63% 70% 66%
Ease of obtaining information or performing a transaction through the City’s website 71% 79%
D
66% 63% 71% 81%
C D
73%
Value of Palo Alto Utilities’ customer communications 70% 79%
E
72% 75% 61% 76% 73%
Ease of contacting Utilities department staff 73% 81% 74% 73% 70% 81% 76%
Speed of response after contacting Utilities department staff 79% 83% 77% 68% 67% 79% 75%
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025 Community
Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 72 Packet Pg. 80 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 69
Table 67: Question 11 - Demographic Subgroup Results
Percent rating "excellent" or "good"
Race Age Overall
White
Asian, Asian
Indian, or
Pacific
Islander
Other race
or Multi-
racial 18-34 35-54 55+
(A) (A) (B) (C) (A) (B) (C)
Reliability of utility services 95%
B
86% 90% 94% 87% 94%
B
92%
Affordability of utility services 56%
C
59%
C
35% 36% 54%
A
61%
A
54%
Community value received from the City owning and operating
its own municipal utility services
87%
B C
73% 72% 67% 78%
A
87%
A B
80%
Utilities online customer self-service features 88%
B
80% 82% 90%
B
80% 85% 84%
Providing opportunities for energy and water efficiency at
home or business
84%
B C
74% 65% 77% 71% 85%
B
78%
Working hard to keep utilities prices competitive 69%
C
61%
C
42% 69%
B
54% 66%
B
62%
Value of all the services Palo Alto Utilities provides for the
price you pay
73%
B C
62% 52% 70% 60% 70%
B
66%
Ease of obtaining information or performing a transaction
through the City’s website
75% 71% 74% 84%
C
73% 68% 73%
Value of Palo Alto Utilities’ customer communications 76% 72% 62% 92%
B C
65% 75%
B
73%
Ease of contacting Utilities department staff 83%
B C
70% 67% 84% 71% 78% 76%
Speed of response after contacting Utilities department staff 84%
B C
67% 68% 84% 69% 79% 75%
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025 Community
Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 73 Packet Pg. 81 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 70
Question 12
Table 68: 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)
46% N=242 39% N=207 13% N=66 2% N=12 100% N=529
Overall economic health of Palo Alto 47% N=256 38% N=209 13% N=72 2% N=10 100% N=548
Overall feeling of safety in Palo Alto 53% N=295 30% N=164 14% N=75 3% N=18 100% N=552
Overall quality of natural environment in Palo Alto 43% N=239 43% N=237 13% N=69 1% N=6 100% N=551
Overall health and wellness opportunities in Palo Alto 25% N=135 38% N=210 31% N=172 6% N=30 100% N=548
Overall opportunities for education, culture and the arts 27% N=150 42% N=230 26% N=143 4% N=22 100% N=545
Residents' connection and engagement with their community 20% N=112 43% N=235 31% N=169 6% N=35 100% N=550
Reducing community greenhouse gas emissions 25% N=138 32% N=175 30% N=164 13% N=73 100% N=549
Increasing local solar generation capacity within city boundaries 27% N=149 29% N=158 32% N=175 12% N=68 100% N=550
Faster notification systems (online, mobile or email) for Utilities
billing issues, efficiency tips, outage information
18% N=95 28% N=154 40% N=218 14% N=76 100% N=543
Faster notification systems (online, mobile or email) for public
safety issues
31% N=169 31% N=171 29% N=161 8% N=46 100% N=547
This question did not have a “don’t know” response option.
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025 Community
Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 74 Packet Pg. 82 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 71
Table 69: Question 12 - Historical Results
Please rate how important, if at all, you think it is for the
Palo Alto community to focus on each of the following
in the coming two years.
Percent positive 2025 rating
compared to
2024 2015 2016 2017 2018 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Overall “built environment” of Palo Alto (including overall
design, buildings, parks and transportation systems)
80% 82% 75% 78% 81% 84% 81% 79% 85% Similar
Overall economic health of Palo Alto 78% 82% 76% NA 85% 81% 87% 78% 85% Higher
Overall feeling of safety in Palo Alto 82% 80% 80% 81% 83% 87% 87% 82% 83% Similar
Overall quality of natural environment in Palo Alto 81% 84% 79% 78% 85% 83% 84% 79% 86% Higher
Overall health and wellness opportunities in Palo Alto 61% 65% 62% NA 66% 66% 71% 61% 63% Similar
Overall opportunities for education, culture and the arts 67% 70% 67% NA 70% 74% 72% 69% 70% Similar
Residents’ connection and engagement with their
community
71% 73% 70% NA 66% 68% 61% 60% 63% Similar
Reducing community greenhouse gas emissions NA NA 58% 64% 67% 70% 68% 60% 57% Similar
Increasing local solar generation capacity within city
boundaries
NA NA 57% 55% 62% 63% 67% 55% 56% Similar
Faster notification systems (online, mobile or email) for
Utilities billing issues, efficiency tips, outage information
NA NA NA 45% 46% 53% 57% 47% 46% Similar
Faster notification systems (online, mobile or email) for
public safety issues
NA NA NA 63% 64% 68% 74% 61% 62% Similar
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025 Community
Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 75 Packet Pg. 83 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 72
Table 70: 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)
76 32 317 Higher
Overall economic health of Palo Alto. 77 208 317 Similar
Overall feeling of safety in Palo Alto 78 243 317 Similar
Overall quality of natural environment in Palo Alto 76 75 317 Similar
Overall health and wellness opportunities in Palo Alto 61 297 317 Lower
Overall opportunities for education, culture and the arts 64 216 317 Similar
Residents’ connection and engagement with their community 59 274 317 Similar
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025 Community
Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 76 Packet Pg. 84 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 73
Table 71: Question 12 - Geographic Subgroup Results
Percent rating "excellent" or "good"
Area Overall
Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5 Area 6
(A) (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F)
Overall “built environment” of Palo Alto (including overall design,
buildings, parks and transportation systems)
85% 91%
E F
92%
E F
84% 77% 81% 85%
Overall economic health of Palo Alto 86%
D
92%
D
91%
D
73% 84% 85%
D
85%
Overall feeling of safety in Palo Alto 91%
D E F
87%
F
93%
D E F
80% 76% 76% 83%
Overall quality of natural environment in Palo Alto 85% 91% 92%
E
84% 79% 85% 86%
Overall health and wellness opportunities in Palo Alto 60% 61% 63% 68% 56% 64% 63%
Overall opportunities for education, culture and the arts 80%
D
67% 67% 60% 70% 75%
D
70%
Residents' connection and engagement with their community 65% 54% 66% 62% 64% 67%
B
63%
Reducing community greenhouse gas emissions 45% 47% 60% 58% 64%
A B
65%
A B
57%
Increasing local solar generation capacity within city boundaries 55%
B
39% 56%
B
53%
B
70%
B D
65%
B
56%
Faster notification systems (online, mobile or email) for Utilities billing
issues, efficiency tips, outage information
44% 51% 50% 45% 36% 45% 46%
Faster notification systems (online, mobile or email) for public safety
issues
65%
E
63% 70%
E
63% 47% 61% 62%
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025 Community
Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 77 Packet Pg. 85 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 74
Table 72: Question 12 - Demographic Subgroup Results
Percent rating "excellent" or "good"
Race Age Overall
White
Asian, Asian
Indian, or Pacific
Islander
Other race
or Multi-
racial
18-
34
35-
54 55+
(A) (A) (B) (C) (A) (B) (C)
Overall “built environment” of Palo Alto (including overall design,
buildings, parks and transportation systems)
84% 88% 79% 81% 86% 86% 85%
Overall economic health of Palo Alto 86% 83% 84% 71% 87%
A
91%
A
85%
Overall feeling of safety in Palo Alto 79% 91%
A
82% 61% 87%
A
91%
A
83%
Overall quality of natural environment in Palo Alto 86% 88% 83% 76% 89%
A
89%
A
86%
Overall health and wellness opportunities in Palo Alto 60% 73%
A C
54% 50% 64%
A
69%
A
63%
Overall opportunities for education, culture and the arts 68% 75% 67% 59% 70%
A
75%
A
70%
Residents' connection and engagement with their community 60% 63% 75%
A
56% 61% 68%
A
63%
Reducing community greenhouse gas emissions 60% 54% 55% 43% 54% 66%
A B
57%
Increasing local solar generation capacity within city boundaries 58% 50% 65% 55% 51% 61%
B
56%
Faster notification systems (online, mobile or email) for Utilities
billing issues, efficiency tips, outage information
39% 62%
A C
40% 24% 47%
A
57%
A B
46%
Faster notification systems (online, mobile or email) for public
safety issues
56% 80%
A C
47% 36% 64%
A
74%
A B
62%
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025 Community
Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 78 Packet Pg. 86 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 75
Question 13
Table 73: 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=182 22% N=122 19% N=102 25% N=141 1% N=5 100% N=551
Spend quality time with local friends, family, and/or
neighbors
56% N=313 31% N=174 7% N=41 5% N=26 0% N=1 100% N=555
Table 74: 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)
33% N=182 22% N=122 19% N=102 26% N=141 100% N=547
Spend quality time with local friends, family, and/or neighbors 57% N=313 31% N=174 7% N=41 5% N=26 100% N=554
Table 75: Question 13 - Historical Results
In a typical week, how likely are you to:
Percent positive (e.g., very/somewhat likely) 2025 rating
compared to
2024 2017 2018 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Participate in organized group activities (such as clubs, sports teams
volunteer your time, attend church/temple)
52% 56% 47% 55% 53% 52% 56% Similar
Spend quality time with local friends, family, and/or neighbors
85% 88% 82% 86% 86% 83% 88% Similar
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025 Community
Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 79 Packet Pg. 87 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 76
Table 76: Question 13 - Geographic Subgroup Results
Percent rating "very likely" or "somewhat likely"
Area Overall
Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5 Area 6
(A) (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F)
Participate in organized group activities (such as clubs, sports
teams, volunteer your time, attend church/temple)
50% 56% 55% 56% 73%
A B C D F
52% 56%
Spend quality time with local friends, family, and/or neighbors 87% 86% 84% 83% 88% 95%
B C D
88%
Table 77: Question 13 - Demographic Subgroup Results
Percent rating "very likely" or "somewhat likely"
Race Age Overall
White
Asian, Asian
Indian, or
Pacific
Islander
Other race or
Multi-racial
18-
34
35-
54 55+
(A) (A) (B) (C) (A) (B) (C)
Participate in organized group activities (such as clubs, sports
teams, volunteer your time, attend church/temple)
55% 51% 67%
B
49% 54% 59% 56%
Spend quality time with local friends, family, and/or neighbors 89%
C
89%
C
79% 84% 89% 89% 88%
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025 Community
Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 80 Packet Pg. 88 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 77
Question 14
Table 78: 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 67% N=377
Walking 14% N=82
Biking 15% N=87
Bus 1% N=7
Train 0% N=0
Scootering 1% N=7
Palo Alto Link 0% N=0
Uber/Lyft or similar rideshare service 1% N=5
Carpooling 0% N=1
Total 100% N=565
Table 79: 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
2025 rating
compared to 2024 2016 2017 2018 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Driving 77% 73% 76% 71% 67% 77% 68% 67% Similar
Walking 13% 13% 11% 14% 16% 12% 18% 14% Similar
Biking 8% 11% 10% 13% 15% 8% 12% 15% Similar
Bus 1% 1% 0% 1% 1% 1% 0% 1% Similar
Train 0% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% Similar
Scootering NA NA NA NA NA NA 1% 1% Similar
Palo Alto Link NA NA NA NA NA NA 0% 0% Similar
Uber/Lyft or similar rideshare service 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 1% Similar
Carpooling 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% Similar
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025 Community
Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 81 Packet Pg. 89 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 78
Question 15
Table 80: 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 36% N=196 35% N=190 16% N=89 12% N=66 100% N=541
Biking 47% N=249 31% N=164 8% N=43 13% N=71 100% N=526
Bus 9% N=45 26% N=136 35% N=180 30% N=153 100% N=514
Train 17% N=86 32% N=166 28% N=147 23% N=122 100% N=521
Scootering 13% N=63 26% N=121 24% N=112 37% N=175 100% N=471
Palo Alto Link 13% N=62 36% N=167 33% N=151 18% N=83 100% N=464
Uber/Lyft or similar rideshare service 45% N=229 34% N=172 15% N=75 7% N=34 100% N=509
Carpooling 10% N=51 27% N=134 35% N=173 27% N=134 100% N=491
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025 Community
Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 82 Packet Pg. 90 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 79
Table 81: 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)
2025 rating
compared to
2024 2015 2016 2017 2018 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Walking 92% 94% 92% 69% 76% 66% 70% 74% 71% Similar
Biking 76% 75% 75% 77% 83% 80% 78% 81% 78% Similar
Bus 53% 50% 52% 33% 33% 33% 31% 30% 35% Similar
Train 68% 66% 60% 41% 39% 43% 39% 42% 48% Similar
Scootering NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 42% 39% Similar
Palo Alto Link NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 54% 49% Similar
Uber/Lyft or similar rideshare service 52% 62% 66% 83% 77% 74% 78% 76% 79% Similar
Carpooling 52% 45% 49% 33% 26% 41% 36% 41% 38% Similar
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025 Community
Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 83 Packet Pg. 91 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 80
Table 82: Question 15 - Geographic Subgroup Results
Percent rating "very" or "somewhat" likely
Area Overall
Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5 Area 6
(A) (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F)
Walking 72%
D
74%
D
73%
D
46% 86%
D
82%
D
71%
Biking 67% 83%
A D
78% 70% 90%
A D
83%
A D
78%
Bus 21% 27% 31% 46%
A B C
46%
A B
37%
A
35%
Train 46% 35% 38% 41% 64%
B C D
65%
A B C D
48%
Scootering
45% 36% 44% 33% 46% 38% 39%
Palo Alto Link 54% 59%
D F
60%
D F
43% 49% 39% 49%
Uber/Lyft or similar rideshare service 84% 80% 89%
D E F
76% 69% 76% 79%
Carpooling
31% 39% 38% 41% 41% 35% 38%
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025 Community
Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 84 Packet Pg. 92 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 81
Table 83: Question 15 - Demographic Subgroup Results
Percent rating "very" or "somewhat"
likely
Race Age Overall
White
Asian, Asian Indian, or
Pacific Islander
Other race or Multi-
racial
18-
34
35-
54 55+
(A) (A) (B) (C) (A) (B) (C)
Walking 75%
C
67% 60% 60% 75%
A
73%
A
71%
Biking 77% 81% 87% 88%
C
89%
C
65% 78%
Bus 32% 42%
A
41% 44%
B
32% 33% 35%
Train
51% 44% 49% 43% 48% 51% 48%
Scootering 36% 45% 46% 38%
C
56%
A C
26% 39%
Palo Alto Link 51%
C
57%
C
35% 37% 54%
A
52%
A
49%
Uber/Lyft or similar rideshare service 76% 84% 76% 65% 87%
A
79%
A
79%
Carpooling
36% 39% 44% 45% 37% 35% 38%
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025 Community
Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 85 Packet Pg. 93 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 82
Question 16
Table 84: Question 16 - Response Percentages and Number of Respondents
Extremely
familiar
Very
familiar
Moderately
familiar
Slightly
familiar Not familiar Total
How familiar are you with Palo Alto’s Sustainability and
Climate Action Plan (S/CAP) and its goal to reduce
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions 80% by 2030?
1% N=8 5% N=26 18% N=101 18% N=100 58% N=324 100% N=560
Table 85: Question 16 - Historical Results
Percent familiar (e.g., extremely/very familiar) 2025 rating
compared to 2024 2024 2025
How familiar are you with Palo Alto’s Sustainability and Climate Action Plan
(S/CAP) and its goal to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions 80% by 2030?
5% 6% Similar
Table 86: Question 16 - Geographic Subgroup Results
Percent rating "very" or "extremely" familiar
Area Overall
Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5 Area 6
(A) (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F)
How familiar are you with Palo Alto’s Sustainability and Climate Action Plan
(S/CAP) and its goal to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions 80% by 2030?
10% 5% 8% 3% 11% 5% 6%
Table 87: Question 16 - Demographic Subgroup Results
Percent rating "very" or "extremely" familiar
Race Age Overall
White
Asian, Asian
Indian, or Pacific
Islander
Other race
or Multi-
racial
18-
34
35-
54 55+
(A) (A) (B) (C) (A) (B) (C)
How familiar are you with Palo Alto’s Sustainability and Climate Action
Plan (S/CAP) and its goal to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
80% by 2030?
6% 6% 7% 2% 5% 8%
A
6%
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025 Community
Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 86 Packet Pg. 94 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 83
Question 17
Table 88: Question 17 - Response Percentages and Number of Respondents
Extremely
familiar
Very
familiar
Moderately
familiar
Slightly
familiar Not familiar Total
How familiar are you with Palo Alto’s programs to
advance our community goals such as home
electrification?
3% N=19 12% N=66 21% N=119 18% N=103 45% N=252 100% N=559
Table 89: Question 17 - Geographic Subgroup Results
Percent rating "very" or "extremely" familiar
Area Overall
Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5 Area 6
(A) (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F)
How familiar are you with Palo Alto’s programs to advance our
community goals such as home electrification?
16% 20%
F
21%
F
15% 18% 8% 15%
Table 90: Question 17 - Demographic Subgroup Results
Percent rating "very" or "extremely" familiar
Race Age Overall
White
Asian,
Asian
Indian, or
Pacific
Islander
Other
race or
Multi-
racial 18-34 35-54 55+
(A) (A) (B) (C) (A) (B) (C)
How familiar are you with Palo Alto’s programs to advance our
community goals such as home electrification?
16% 13% 18% 10% 11% 21%
A B
15%
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025 Community
Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 87 Packet Pg. 95 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 84
Question 18
Table 91: Question Q18 - Response Percentages and Number of Respondents
Which of the following considerations would most motivate you to replace your major gas appliances with an electric model?
(Select up to three) Percent Number
Save time with helpful installation 30% N=154
Save money through rebates 59% N=310
Improve health and safety 37% N=193
Affect climate change 35% N=182
Support Home resale value 15% N=77
I am not going to upgrade to electric 29% N=151
Table 92: Question 18 - Geographic Subgroup Results
Which of the following considerations would most motivate you to replace your
major gas appliances with an electric model? (Select up to three)
Area Overall
Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5 Area 6
(A) (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F)
Save time with helpful installation 36% 29% 29% 38%
F
32% 18% 30%
Save money through rebates
47% 63% 59% 67% 69% 52% 59%
Improve health and safety
33% 34% 30% 35% 50% 42% 37%
Affect climate change 33% 21% 42% 39% 35% 40%
B
35%
Support Home resale value
13% 19% 11% 15% 20% 12% 15%
I am not going to upgrade to electric
37% 37% 24% 22% 18% 31% 29%
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025 Community
Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 88 Packet Pg. 96 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 85
Table 93: Question 18 - Demographic Subgroup Results
Which of the following considerations would most motivate you
to replace your major gas appliances with an electric model?
(Select up to three)
Race Age Overall
White
Asian, Asian
Indian, or
Pacific
Islander
Other race or
Multi-racial
18-
34
35-
54 55+
(A) (A) (B) (C) (A) (B) (C)
Save time with helpful installation
28% 33% 33% 25% 33% 30% 30%
Save money through rebates
56% 64% 66% 65% 63% 54% 59%
Improve health and safety 32% 49%
A C
30% 37% 43% 32% 37%
Affect climate change
37% 34% 37% 37% 35% 34% 35%
Support Home resale value 14% 15% 16% 10% 21%
C
12% 15%
I am not going to upgrade to electric 36%
B C
21% 13% 31% 22% 33%
B
29%
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025 Community
Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 89 Packet Pg. 97 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 86
Question 19
Table 94: Question 19 - 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 and Construction 21% N=100
Public Safety and Policing 8% N=38
Transportation and Traffic 13% N=62
Homelessness and RVs 4% N=21
City Governance and Administration 7% N=35
Community Amenities and Services 6% N=29
Economic Development 4% N=20
Noise and Urban Environment 3% N=14
Develop Infrastructure 2% N=8
Walking and Biking trails 3% N=15
Code Enforcement 2% N=12
Make the city more affordable 10% N=45
Cleanliness of community; upkeep 4% N=21
Other 10% N=47
Don't know 1% N=6
Total 100% N=471
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025 Community
Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 90 Packet Pg. 98 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 87
Table 95: Question 19 - Geographic Subgroup Results
As a resident of Palo Alto, what one change could the City make that
would make you happier?
Area Overall
Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5 Area 6
(A) (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F)
Housing and Construction 10% 18% 12% 27% 29% 26% 21%
Public Safety and Policing 7% 5% 5% 15% 6% 8% 8%
Transportation and Traffic 11% 12% 13% 16% 11% 13% 13%
Homelessness and RVs 7% 8% 12%
F
1% 2% 1% 4%
City Governance and Administration 17%
D
8% 8% 2% 7% 7% 7%
Community Amenities and Services 7% 12% 6% 6% 0% 4% 6%
Economic Development 4% 3% 2% 2% 4% 9% 4%
Noise and Urban Environment 0% 8% 4% 0% 1% 3% 3%
Develop Infrastructure 4% 1% 4% 2% 0% 0% 2%
Walking and Biking trails 4% 2% 3% 5% 0% 4% 3%
Code Enforcement 2% 3% 3% 1% 0% 5% 2%
Make the city more affordable 5% 5% 12% 13% 22% 6% 10%
Cleanliness of community; upkeep 12% 7% 0% 4% 2% 3% 4%
Other 9% 9% 15% 6% 11% 11% 10%
Don't know 2% 1% 1% 0% 5% 1% 1%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025 Community
Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 91 Packet Pg. 99 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 88
Table 96: Question 19 - Demographic Subgroup Results
As a resident of Palo Alto, what one change could
the City make that would make you happier?
Race Age Overall
White
Asian, Asian
Indian, or Pacific
Islander
Other race or
Multi-racial 18-34 35-54 55+
(A) (A) (B) (C) (A) (B) (C)
Housing and Construction 21% 16% 30% 33%
B C
16% 20% 21%
Public Safety and Policing 5% 14%
A
12% 14%
C
9% 5% 8%
Transportation and Traffic 16% 12% 7% 14% 10% 16% 13%
Homelessness and RVs 3% 7% 7% 5% 6% 3% 4%
City Governance and Administration 7% 9% 3% 1% 7% 10%
A
7%
Community Amenities and Services 7% 6% 5% 9% 6% 5% 6%
Economic Development 5% 2% 3% 0% 7% 4% 4%
Noise and Urban Environment 2% 3% 3% 2% 2% 3% 3%
Develop Infrastructure 1% 4%
A
0% 0% 3% 2% 2%
Walking and Biking trails 5% 1% 0% 2% 5% 2% 3%
Code Enforcement 3% 0% 2% 0% 2% 4% 2%
Make the city more affordable 7% 13% 16% 11% 12% 6% 10%
Cleanliness of community; upkeep 6% 4% 0% 5% 5% 4% 4%
Other 10% 5% 12% 3% 10% 14%
A
10%
Don't know 1% 3% 0% 2% 0% 2% 1%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025 Community
Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 92 Packet Pg. 100 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 89
Question 20
Table 97: Question 20 - Response Percentages and Number of Respondents
As a resident of Palo Alto, what one thing do you believe the City does well and would want to maintain? Percent Number
Parks, open space, and natural environment 28% N=125
Utilities and city services 11% N=50
Safety services 7% N=32
Activities and Recreation (arts, libraries, museums, theaters, etc.) 14% N=64
Government/leadership; government communication 6% N=26
Schools and education, programs for the youth 7% N=33
Cleanliness of community; upkeep 9% N=39
Quality of life, reputation 4% N=17
Infrastructure, streets, transportation 1% N=3
Ease of bicycle travel/walking 3% N=14
Sustainability 2% N=8
Culture, diversity 1% N=4
Other 7% N=32
Nothing / Don’t know 1% N=6
Total 100% N=454
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025 Community
Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 93 Packet Pg. 101 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 90
Table 98: Question 20 - Geographic Subgroup Results
As a resident of Palo Alto, what one thing do you believe the City
does well and would want to maintain?
Area Overall
Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5 Area 6
(A) (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F)
Parks, open space, and natural environment
20% 28% 35% 32% 23% 26% 28%
Utilities and city services 12% 23%
F
8% 10% 12% 4% 11%
Safety services
5% 4% 8% 8% 4% 11% 7%
Activities and Recreation (arts, libraries, museums, theaters, etc.)
21% 15% 11% 14% 17% 10% 14%
Government/leadership; government communication
3% 4% 3% 8% 4% 9% 6%
Schools and education, programs for the youth 12% 5% 18%
F
5% 5% 4% 7%
Cleanliness of community; upkeep
12% 6% 6% 7% 4% 13% 9%
Quality of life, reputation
2% 4% 3% 5% 5% 3% 4%
Infrastructure, streets, transportation
0% 1% 0% 1% 0% 1% 1%
Ease of bicycle travel/walking
0% 5% 5% 4% 1% 3% 3%
Sustainability
1% 1% 0% 4% 4% 1% 2%
Culture, diversity
1% 1% 0% 0% 1% 2% 1%
Other 10% 3% 4% 4% 12% 10% 7%
Nothing / Don’t know 0% 0% 0% 0% 6% 3% 1%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025 Community
Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 94 Packet Pg. 102 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 91
Table 99: Question 20 - Demographic Subgroup Results
As a resident of Palo Alto, what one thing do you believe the City
does well and would want to maintain?
Race Age Overall
White
Asian, Asian
Indian, or Pacific
Islander
Other race or
Multi-racial
18-
34
35-
54 55+
(A) (A) (B) (C) (A) (B) (C)
Parks, open space, and natural environment 29% 27% 25% 36%
C
28% 22% 28%
Utilities and city services 14%
C
7% 1% 9% 6% 16%
B
11%
Safety services 8% 8% 3% 2% 8% 10%
A
7%
Activities and Recreation (arts, libraries, museums, theaters, etc.)
11% 18% 11% 16% 15% 11% 14%
Government/leadership; government communication 4% 4% 21%
A B
8% 5% 6% 6%
Schools and education, programs for the youth 4% 10% 15%
A
0% 14%
C
6% 7%
Cleanliness of community; upkeep
8% 10% 9% 14% 7% 6% 9%
Quality of life, reputation
4% 5% 1% 4% 1% 5% 4%
Infrastructure, streets, transportation
1% 0% 1% 0% 1% 1% 1%
Ease of bicycle travel/walking
4% 4% 0% 2% 5% 3% 3%
Sustainability 1% 1% 7%
A
2% 2% 2% 2%
Culture, diversity 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% 1%
Other 9% 4% 3% 6% 6% 9% 7%
Nothing / Don’t know 2% 1% 2% 0% 3% 1% 1%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025 Community
Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 95 Packet Pg. 103 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 92
Demographic Questions
Table 100: 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 6% N=33
Somewhat positive 10% N=57
Neutral 44% N=246
Somewhat negative 34% N=190
Very negative 7% N=37
Total 100% N=563
Table 101: Question D2 - Response Percentages and Number of Respondents
What is your employment status? Percent Number
Working full time for pay 55% N=309
Working part time for pay 9% N=48
Unemployed, looking for paid work 3% N=17
Unemployed, not looking for paid work 2% N=12
Fully retired 30% N=169
College student, unemployed 1% N=7
Total 100% N=562
Table 102: Question D3 - Response Percentages and Number of Respondents
Do you work inside the boundaries of Palo Alto? Percent Number
Yes, outside the home 35% N=124
Yes, from home 25% N=91
No 40% N=143
Total 100% N=357
Question asked of those reporting that they work full or part time.
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025 Community
Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 96 Packet Pg. 104 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 93
Table 103: Question D4 - Response Percentages and Number of Respondents
How many years have you lived in Palo Alto? Percent Number
Less than 2 years 11% N=64
2 to 5 years 22% N=123
6 to 10 years 11% N=64
11 to 20 years 16% N=89
More than 20 years 40% N=227
Total 100% N=567
Table 104: 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 60% N=337
Building with two or more homes (duplex, townhome, apartment or condominium) 38% N=217
Mobile home 0% N=0
Other 2% N=10
Total 100% N=564
Table 105: Question D6 - Response Percentages and Number of Respondents
Do you rent or own your home? Percent Number
Rent 43% N=238
Own 57% N=321
Total 100% N=559
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025 Community
Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 97 Packet Pg. 105 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 94
Table 106: 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 4% N=20
$500 to $999 per month 5% N=25
$1,000 to $1,499 per month 5% N=26
$1,500 to $1,999 per month 5% N=24
$2,000 to $2,499 per month 10% N=51
$2,500 to $2,999 per month 8% N=40
$3,000 to $3,499 per month 10% N=51
$3,500 to $3,999 per month 8% N=43
$4,000 to $4,499 per month 5% N=23
$4,500 to $4,999 per month 6% N=32
$4,500 to $4,999 per month 6% N=32
$5,500 to $5,999 per month 2% N=12
$6,000 to $6,499 per month 4% N=20
$6,500 to $6,999 per month 2% N=10
$7,000 to $7,499 per month 1% N=7
$7,500 to $7,999 per month 3% N=14
$8,000 to $8,499 per month 2% N=10
$8,500 to $8,999 per month 1% N=7
$9,000 to $9,499 per month 1% N=3
$9,500 to $9,999 per month 2% N=9
$10,000 or more per month 11% N=58
Total 100% N=516
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025 Community
Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 98 Packet Pg. 106 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 95
Table 107: Question D8 - Response Percentages and Number of Respondents
Do any children 17 or under live in your household? Percent Number
No 74% N=411
Yes 26% N=147
Total 100% N=557
Table 108: Question D9 - Response Percentages and Number of Respondents
Are you or any other members of your household aged 65 or older? Percent Number
No 59% N=328
Yes 41% N=228
Total 100% N=556
Table 109: 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 3% N=15
$25,000 to $49,999 4% N=20
$50,000 to $74,999 11% N=52
$75,000 to $99,999 12% N=57
$100,000 to $149,999 11% N=51
$150,000 to $199,999 11% N=51
$200,000 to $249,999 9% N=43
$250,000 to $299,999 7% N=31
$300,000 to $349,999 5% N=25
$350,000 to $399,999 5% N=24
$400,000 to $449,999 3% N=14
$450,000 to $499,999 20% N=96
$500,000 or more 0% N=0
Total 100% N=479
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025 Community
Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 99 Packet Pg. 107 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 96
Table 110: Question D11 - Response Percentages and Number of Respondents
Are you Spanish, Hispanic or Latino? Percent Number
No, not Spanish, Hispanic or Latino 94% N=511
Yes, I consider myself to be Spanish, Hispanic or Latino 6% N=34
Table 111: 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=6
Asian, Asian Indian or Pacific Islander 34% N=181
Black or African American 4% N=23
Middle Eastern or North African 1% N=6
White 64% N=344
Other 4% N=22
Total may exceed 100% as respondents could select more than one option.
Table 112: Question D13 - Response Percentages and Number of Respondents
In which category is your age? Percent Number
18 to 24 years 4% N=21
25 to 34 years 18% N=99
35 to 44 years 13% N=71
45 to 54 years 21% N=120
55 to 64 years 10% N=54
65 to 74 years 15% N=86
75 years or older 20% N=110
Total 100% N=561
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025 Community
Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 100 Packet Pg. 108 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 97
Table 113: Question D14 - Response Percentages and Number of Respondents
What is your gender? Percent Number
Female 53% N=293
Male 47% N=261
Identify in another way 0% N=0
Total 100% N=554
Table 114: Question D14 - Response Percentages and Number of Respondents
What is your sexual orientation? Percent Number
Heterosexual 93% N=474
Lesbian 1% N=6
Gay 2% N=9
Bisexual 2% N=11
Identify another way 2% N=12
Total 100% N=512
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025 Community
Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 101 Packet Pg. 109 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 98
Appendix B: Verbatim Responses to Open -ended
Questions from Probability Survey
The following are responses to questions 19 and 20. Responses are presented here in verbatim form,
including any typographical, grammatical or other mistakes. Responses are in alphabetical order within
the category in which the response was categorized.
Question 19: As a resident of Palo Alto, what one change could the
City make that would make you happier?
Housing and Construction
• 1) MAKE "AFFORDABLE HOUSING" TRULY AFFORDABLE FOR MINIMUM WAGE WORKERS 2) MAKE
SENIOR SERVICES & HOUSING VERY LOW COST.
• A much greater emphasis on housing, to the point of restricting current and future commercial
development until housing resources are better aligned.
• Accelerate the building of all types of housing.
• Actually get apartment buildings built. I don't need that myself but we should let more people live here.
Overall, the City does get.
• ADDRESS "HOUSING ELEMENT ISSUES" (OVER NO-BLDG)
• AFFORDABLE HOUSING - FAIRNESS OF RESOURCES FOR ALL NEIGHBORS
• AFFORDABLE HOUSING & CHILD CARE
• Affordable housing, we rent but we'd love to own where we live
• ALLOW FASTER BUILDING APPROVALS, ESPECIALLY CALTRAIN GRADE SEPARATION
• Allow for more building of residences of all kinds. I cannot recommend Palo Alto if no one can afford to
move here. More homes, more apartments, and yes towers are OK. More bike lanes would also be
wonderful.
• ALLOW REZONING THAT HELPS BUILD MULTIPURPOSE COMMERCIAL/HOUSING ON MIDDLEFIELD RD.
• APARTMENTS FOR LOWER INCOME AND CITY EMPLOYEES
• Approve the building of more affordable housing and allow more 6+ apartment building stories in
downtown.
• As a resident of Barron Park, I love it here - am concerned (but not overly) about all the new (needed)
housing construction on El Camino, and new traffic signs (e.g., no turn on red) near Barron Park - the
combition of all of these factors is going to significantly increase travel time for residents here getting in
and out of Barron Park. Not sure what can be done - if the no right turn on red signs significantly help
safety for (possibly increasing?) number of cyclists on El Camino - then I understand signs. And we need
more affordable housing - but it will hit Barron Park hard from a traffic perspective.
• Bajar el costo de viviendas, para que ms gente pueda venir a traer a sus hijos, a las escuelas de Palo Alto
• BETTER HOUSING PRICES (JUST AFFORDABLE)
• BUILD AFFORDABLE HOUSING; PROVIDE HOUSING FOR HOMELESS
• Build cheaper homes. Do not allow huge very expensive homes to replace smaller cheaper homes. A
large pelty tax on vacant homes.
• Build more affordable AND market rate housing
• Build more affordable housing.
• BUILD MORE AFFORTABLE APARTMENTS FOR MIDDLE INCOME ELDERLY
• Build more housing
• Build more housing and clean up the streets. Why are we letting unsheltered residents sleep outside?
• Building higher density housing around transportation hubs like Caltrain stations.
• BUILDING HUGE UGLY HOMES ON SMALL LOTS
• Calm traffic by installing bike lanes with barriers so that children can bike safely to school.
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025
Community Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 102 Packet Pg. 110 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 99
• CLARITY ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING
• COST OF BUYING A HOME OR ROUTING HERE NEEDS TO DECREASE
• denser housing
• DO NOT ALLOW BUILDERS TO BUILD HIGHER THAN 6 -8 FLOORS MAX. MAKE BUILDERS PLAN FOR
IMPACTS TO PARKING CARS ON THE ROAD, IMPACTS TO INFRASTRUCTURE ROADS, BIKE LANES,
TRAFFIC LIGHTS, TUNNELS SAFETY.
• Encourage more affordable housing to be built. Require large % of new builds have affordable units.
Require new permitted ADUs to be rented at below market rates or to house vulnerable populations like
the elderly or disabled.
• encourage more housing construction through more flexible zoning
• FEWER HIGH RISE DEVELOPMENT WITH LESS TRAFFIC
• Find a way to put an immediate end to the State-mandated. forced housing requirements that increase
density.
• GET OUT OF HOUSING SOLUTIONS
• Housing affordability and diversity (which are related)
• HOUSING DIVERSITY
• I AM RESIDENT OF LYTTON GARDENS SENIOR HOME MORE SENIOR HOUSING
• I wish our NIMBYS and our YIMBYS would work together on solving housing.
• INCREASE AFFORDABLE HOUSING
• INCREASE CONSTRUCTION RATE OF BUILDINGS IN THE MIDDLEFIELD PLAZA
• Increase in affordable housing for all, especially those who are homeless or in danger of becoming
homeless.
• Increase reliability and availability of buses. The nearest bust stop is a mile away, and it takes about an
hour to get anywhere, even only a few miles
• It's a NIMBY perspective, but I'm not in favor of government-mandated affordable housing. It will reduce
property values (bad for the haves and will allocate a scarce below market resource somewhat arbitrarily
to the have-nots). So nobody will be happy. I understand this is a state mandate, but it could greatly affect
quality of life for some of us.
• KEEP HOME STYLE THE SAME
• KEEP OUR BUILDING HEIGHT LIMIT TO 50 FEET!
• LESS DENSITY, BETTER ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN, TRAFFIC CALMING
• LESS LOW QUALITY HOUSING UNITS, LESS CROWDING LESS OVER POPULATION.
• LIMIT NUMBER OF APPOINTMENT BUILDINGS
• LIVE UP TO ITS OBLIGATION TO PROVIDE MORE HOUSING (ALL KINDS).
• Lower cost of building permits and ease the process.
• Lower cost of housing, may it be a price to buy or a price to rent.
• LOWER HOUSING COSTS
• Lower the cost of housing!
• Lower the cost of housing.
• MAKE AFFORDABLE HOUSING AVAILABLE AND FOR THAT I THINK REZONING WILL BE NECESSARY
• Make housing affordable for my children to live here.
• make housing more affordable
• More affordable homes. Will be moving soon bc I can't afford to buy here. I wish I could.
• MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING
• MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING
• MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING
• More affordable housing
• More affordable housing
• MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND AVAILABLE PUBLIC REST ROOMS
• More affordable housing for others that are middle class vs. wealthy, especially local service providers
such as teachers, fire, and police personnel
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025
Community Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 103 Packet Pg. 111 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 100
• MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR SERVICE WORKERS
• More affordable housing, less NIMBYism
• More affordable housing.. Housing closer to business and shopping and transportation.
• MORE AFFORDABLE SENIOR HOUSING
• MORE HOUSING BETTER ZONING ON CAL AVE & UNIVERSITY MORE BIKE INFRASTRUCTURE
• MORE LOW COST HOUSING
• More mixed-use development to increase convenience of walking and to increase housing options and
affordability
• Offer more housing options.
• Overall cost of housing is the major concern
• Planning Department does not have a clear plan of how city should implement additiol housing. a 17
story building does not fit in with neighborhood, parking is a big problem, which is made worse when new
buildings are under parked.
• provide more affordable housing options especially for essential workers - teachers, caretakers, city
employees
• PUSH BACK ON CA STATE HIGH DENSITY HOUSING LAWS
• Reduce effect of construction on neighbors: Putting dirt into water system, enforce hours, and encourage
quick completion
• Speed up approval process for projects
• STOP BUILDING - FIX SIDEWALKS - TRIM TREES
• STOP BUILDING HOUSING
• STOP BUILDING MULTI LEVEL APARTMENTS THE CITY IS LOOKING UGLY AND TRAFFIC CONGESTION
• STOP HOUSING CONSTRUCTION, IE, LESS POPULATION
• STOP INCREASING HOUSING DENSITY
• STOP PERMITTING LARGE, TALL BUILDINGS IN SOUTH PA, STOP GIVING DEVELOPERS ZONING
EXEMPTIONS, FIGHT THE STATE MANDATE TO ADD 6000+ HOUSING UNITS TO PA BY 2030, OPPOSE
SB79 BECAUSE OF ITS IMPACTS TO NEIGHBORHOODS, IT SEEMS LIKE THE PEOPLE MAKING THE
DECISIONS HAVE NEVER USED THE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM (BUS, CAL TRAIN); THESE
NEED TO BE IMPROVED BEFORE INCREASING THE POPULATION.
• STREAMLINE AFFORDABLE HOUSING CONSTRUCTION
• The city needs more housing options. My family (2 adults, 3 children) would definitely like to upgrade
from a 3-br 1350 sq ft unit, but there are not many options without moving to another city. I understand
that long-time residents don't want 20 story apartment buildings, but there needs to be a balance between
that and aging ranch homes in sprawling neighborhoods.
• The cost of house should be lower or stayed.
• The high density housing is unsightly and tightly packed into single story neighborhoods. The new
monstrosity is are ugly and not well thought out. There's also a great number of RV homeless people
everywhere. They create trash and their oversized vehicles are a traffic Hazard.
Public Safety and Policing
• BETTER TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT
• Do more about residential crimes, both actively and in terms of getting the message out that Palo Alto
will crack down on all crimil activity
• FOCUS ON BURGLARIES - SEEM THIS PROBLEM IS CONTINUING AND ADD MORE PICKTOBALL WORKS!
• Focus on safety and do something about the e-bike riders!
• Further reduction in house break-ins, bike thefts.
• Hire more public safety officers to reduce crime and speeding/aggressive driving.
• ID LIKE THE CITY TO FOCUS MORE IN PUBLIC SAFETY (IF FIRE, POLICE, EMS)
• Make our city safe / reduce crime.
• more attention to safe routes to school and less attention to converting every single street into a
neighborhood bike path - we are an aging community and drive cars
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025
Community Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 104 Packet Pg. 112 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 101
• More frequent traffic law enforcement on El Camino Real, sometimes I saw cars running through red
lights, creating risks to others
• MORE SAFETY IN PUBLIC PLACES
• Patrol city parks after sunset
• POLICE (NON-URGENT) SPEND LESS TIME VERIFYING REPORT INCIDENT MORE TIME ON QUICK
RESPONSE TO STOP FIREWORKS (FIRE DANGER)
• POLICE ENFORCEMENT AGAINST BIKE RIDING, WHEN OTHER PRESENT, CALIF AVE UNDERPASS
• POLICE RESPONSEVENESS USABILITY
• REDUCE THE BURGLAY IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD
• REDUCING THEFT AND BURGLARY
• SAFETY
• SAFETY
• SAFETY CONTROLS.
• Safety improvements, no crime especially in residential stress
• SAFETY, CONNECT BETWEEN RESIDENTS, CITIZEN EVENTS.
• Separate roads from train crossings to reduce suicides and improve traffic flow
• Speed bumps to slow cars on Grant and Ash
• SPEED ENFORCEMENT ON BUSY STREETS LIKE EMBARCADRO RD
• STREETER TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT SAFETY
• Tener mas luz en el barrio por la noche
• Traffic law compliance enforcement for safety of seniors...both cars and bikes.vc
Transportation and Traffic
• 1. Small buses to provide public transportation from residential areas to city landmarks (Cubberley,
Uiveristy ave, Cal Ave, public libraries) 2. Figure out Caltrain crossings ASAP and ACT! 3. Spend less
money on police station
• Accelerate plans for Caltrain grade separate at the three crossings (Charleston, Meadow, and Churchill)
• Better and more accessible public transportation system
• Better around town transportation such as LIFT, bus.
• BETTER DESIGN OF CAL AVENUE PEDESTRIAN AREA
• BETTER PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION
• better public transportationn
• Better ride share: longer hours, better availability
• BETTER ROADS - TO RUDY
• better traffic flow; i.e better (dedicated) bike lanes, better sigl timing, roundabouts, etc
• Better transit in the neighborhoods
• BRING BACK THE FREE SHUTTLE, CONTROL RENT/MAKE SURE NO BUILDINGS START EMPTY
• Connectivity to Caltrain
• CONVERT THAT SMALL PARK NEAR STANFORD SHOP CENTER INTO A ROAD
• DEAL WITH TRAFFIC, HAVING NARROWED ROADS AND NO RIGHTS TURNS ON RED ON EL CAMINO
REAL IT TAKES FOREVER TO DRIVE ANYWHERE IN PALO ALTO VERY FRUSTRATING.
• ENFORCE TRAFFIC LAWS, DISTRACTED BIKER & PEDESTRIANS
• Enforce traffic speed limits on the major thru-fares, on all streets, really
• Figure out how to get to El Camino Laundromat with the no parking for the bicycle lane.
• FIX SIGNAL TIMINGS - SPECIALLY AT TRACKS (RAILROAD CROSSINGS)
• Fix the intersection(s) on Embarcadero near the high school and Town & Country Village. They are a
mece. Only one crossing is needed.
• Fix the traffic light at Oregon Expressway and El Camino Real so that it doesn't go out so frequently.
Maybe 10 x / year it malfunctions with no light and dangerous traffic with compounding major delays in
traffic at that intersection. Breaks down way too frequently. This should be fixable.
• FREE BUS SAVE; MORE HOUSE FOR ELDERLY
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025
Community Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 105 Packet Pg. 113 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 102
• Getting rid of the neighborhood parking programs
• GRADE SEPARATIONS GET THEM DONE. PRIORITIZE SPEED PEOPLE ARE DYING
• HAVE MORE PUBLIC PARKING FOR RESIDENTS IN DOWNTOWN AREA (ALMA STREET AND HOMER)
• Have our neighborhood be able to participate in City services for the elderlylike help in transportation,
which we are not included in now.
• here are some: traffic control on major thoroughfares: Alma, East Meadow, Charleston; near schools (
there are many more speeders on East Meadow and Bryant bikeway); improve RR crossings-
Churchill&Alma/need dedicated left turn lane/light at North Alma at RR parking lot; improve lights or
traffic control at Alma&El Camino interchange (people go through red lights - camera to capture license?);
replace those trees removed from city sites (no liquid amber trees = they are hazardous and cause sewer
problem); improve web vigation and bill paying (garden plots)
• I'm near California Ave. shopping area. We will have more residents and more traffic (congestion, noise,
pollution, danger). We need to encourage other ways of getting around than cars. I loved the closing of
California Ave to car traffic.
• Improve connections to CalTrain
• Improve public transport or Palo Alto link
• IMPROVE RAIL ROAD CROSSINGS FOR PEDESTRIANS & BIKES
• Improve shuttle service -- Btw Cal Ave and Univ Ave, for example.
• Improve the conditions of the road surfaces
• Improve the timing of traffic lights. Eg. Streets that cross Caltrain tracks should have green while train is
crossing. Eg. It's never possible to have green lights all the way down El Camino Real - I always seem to
hit every red.
• Improve traffic flow (Embarcadero/Alma, and Page Mill - Oregon/Alma) and then close Churchill crossing.
• IMPROVE TRAFFIC FLOW; FEWER LIGHTS MORE ROUNDABOUTS!
• IMPROVE TRAFFIC LIGHT INTELLIGENCE ON EL CAMINO REAL
• Improve traffic on streets like Sand Hill Blvd
• IMPROVE TRAFFIC SYSTEM CROSSING THE RAILROAD
• Install real-time traffic sigl control technology on major streets to keep traffic moving, thus reducing
waiting at sigls while also reducing GHG emissions from idling vehicles.
• less traffic
• Make Palo Alto Link more reliable and frequent. Make El Camino traffic sigls synchronize
• more parking
• MORE RIDE SERVICES FOR ELDERLY
• MORE SENSORS FOR AUTO TRAFFIC SO SIGLS MAY RESPOND QUICKER TO ANOTHER VEHICLE DURING
SLOW TIMES LIKE EVENINGS AND NIGHT.
• NO MORE UNDERGROUND BIKE PATHS (UNDER RAILROAD) REDUCE SPEEDING CARS. TRAFFIC &
SPEEDING NEED TO BE ADDRESSED. SPEND MONEY IN THAT AREA. WE DO NOT NEED ANOTHER
UNDERPASS BIKE / PEDPATH.
• People from neighboring cities, park their car in our neighborhood and leave garbage in the street. I would
love to see the city improve the situation.
• PEOPLE NOT STOPPING AT STOP SIGNS-PLOWING THRU ON THEIR SCOOTERS/E BIKES/ADULTS &
CHILDREN! TREES-CITY TREES ON RESIDENTS PROPERTY-THEY REED TO TRIM THEM MORE OFTEN
ONLY LINE THEY DO IS ONLY. IF YOU CALL THEM NOW.
• Please write traffic tickets. People speed. People run stop signs. People run traffic lights. We really need
traffic to slow down.
• PROTECTED LEFT TURN AT MIDDLEFIELD & COLORADO
• PROUD IMPROVED & CONVENIENT PUBLIC TRANSPORT
• REDUCING TRAFFIC
• Revamp Midtown including the old Philz space and also the Safeway which is poorly stocked and maged.
• RR/Alma crossings at Charleston & at E.Meadow should be exactly same as Embarcadero. Especially
regarding the simple+easy bike routing on Embarcadero, ie: keep bike lanes physically separated from
cars, with very minimal elevation up/down (3% max grade for bikes, preferably flat), and provide 2 bike
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025
Community Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 106 Packet Pg. 114 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 103
lanes (one eastbound, one westbound, each positioned to right of car lanes (this is vs idiotic proposals
that expect cyclists to inconveniently cross multiple car lanes to join a single/combined 2 -way bike lane
and then inconveniently cross back again afterwards).
• SIDEWALKS IN BARRON PARK
• STOP PARKING ON UNIVERSITY AVE DB IT IS A THROUGH SHEET & MAKE PERMUTING FOR NEW
QUALIFIED HOMES FASTER
• Street lights for pedestrians to make it safer to walk in the evening, increase safe and clean public
transportation options (buses), availability of app-paid electric scooters and bikes, longer opening hours
of cafes/bars, more community events like concerts (there are free concerts in Redwood city and MV)
• TRAFFIC
• TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT - ESPECIALLY RED LIGHT RUNNERS/STOP SIGN RUNNERS
• Traffic enforcement - stop signs, speed, bikes following rules. And addressing homes without residents
which is destabilizing to sense of community - the Mark Zuckerberg articles in New York Times were so
disappointing. This should be a place for family engagement.And downtown is sooooo boring. One
aversge restaurant after another. The shops are mostly gone. And it's all Asian related stores and
restaurants now. Little diversity. Such a disappointment. In fact PAlo is becoming less and less diverse
not more.
• TRAFFIC IS TERRIBLE WHEN TRYING TO CROSS THE RAILROAD TRACKS - UNDER CROSSING /OVER
CROSSING SIGNAL TIMING
• TRAFFIC RULES ENFORCEMENT - CARS AND BIKES. TOO MANY RED-LIGHT RUNNERS
• TRAIN UNDER/OVER PASSES MORE SENIORS BIKE SAFETY MEASURES
• TRANSPORTATION - LIGHTS TIMES TO KEEP TRAFFIC FLOWING!
• UNDERGROUND ROLES/STREET PAVEMENT
• VENDER TO PARK AT EXTREME CARRIERS A RESIDENTIAL DRIVEWAY THAT WIDER RESIDENTIAL
STREETS FOR VEHICLE PARKING AND NOT ALLOWING
• WE NEED ALTERNATIVES TO CARS WITH MORE PEOPLE WE WILL HAVE CAR CONGESTION
• We need new pavement after sewer line fix several years ago on Whitclem Drive.
Homelessness and RVs
• Address the number of RV residents living in our neighborhoods. This is especially bad now that El
Camino has been blocked off for bikers.
• Deal with the apparently abandoned homes or homes that start construction but don't finish in a timely
manner. Also enforce the Keep Clear area of streets, particularly the one at Oregon and Greer.
• DECREASE HOMELESS LIVING ON STREET
• ELIMINATE RV CAMPING ON STREETS
• ESTABLISH SAFE RV PARKING & SERVICES FOR HOMELESS AND/OR FOLKS WORKING HERE BUT
LIVING IN CENTRAL VALLEY.
• Find a workable and sustaible solution for the unhoused who live and park their RVs on city streets that
aren't able to support their needs
• find apartments fpr all the homeless people
• Get rid of the RVs all over Palo Alto. It is not a good image for Palo Alto and hurts homeowners and
businesses.
• GET THE RVs OUT OF FABIAN WAY AND E MEADOW CIRCLE
• INCREASE SPACE AND RESOURCES FOR VAN DWELLERS
• Long term rv parking on street
• Outlawing parking of trailers in Mitchell Park parking lot and on residential streets. This would make me
feel safer for my kids.
• REDUCE HOMELESS / RVS
• Reduce homelessness and homeless campers in the city
• REDUCE HOMELESSNESS AROUND TOWN, IT'S EVERYWHERE
• REDUCE THE HOMELESS PEOPLE AROUND THE DOWNTOWN AREA
• Reducing homelessness
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025
Community Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 107 Packet Pg. 115 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 104
• remove trailer living on local streets (which blocks bike lanes, harms overall visibility, is unsightly, and
degrades the overall appearance and neighborhood feel in Palo Alto)
• The RVs that are now encroaching in our neighborhoods because of the bike lanes on ECR is a big
problem. Their spillover of junk onto the sidewalks is not just hazardous, but ugly.
City Governance and Administration
• A LESS LIBERAL "WOKE" AGENDA & LESS SOCIAL ENGINEERING
• ACCESS TO 250 HAMILTON CITY OFFICES
• AN EASY TO USE, HELPFUL WEB SITE GOOD SEARCH ENGINE
• BE MORE TRANSPARENT, DO NOT LIKE WHEN SOME PEOPLE ARE ABOVE THE LAW, LIKE MARK
ZUCKERBERG WHO WAS ABLE TO GET AROUND P.A. BUILDING LAWS
• better leadership, listen more to and act on citizen concerns, better planning and code enforcement
• Better utilities department transparency and alignment with residents beliefs such as supporting the Bay
Delta Plan
• BRIGHTER CITY COUNCIL, COORDINATE THE STOPLIGHTS AT EL CAMINO & OXFORD
• CITY COUNCIL TO BE MORE RESPONSIVE TO RENTERS CONCERNS
• City government more transparent to the residents.
• Do away with the Palo Alto Process. Does it take 20 plus years to put 3 underpasses on a railroad?
• Equitable property tax, or if that's not possible, protected bike lanes.
• Fire 50% of city employees. Palo Alto needs its DOGE moment.
• FIRE ALTA HOUSING
• Fully reopen City Hall
• Getting building and remodeling permits
• HOW / WHERE TO FIND OUT DIFFERENT ELECTRICITY PRICES DURING A DAY
• I WISH THE CITY COUNCIL WOULD MAKE DECISIONS & NOT HIRE EXPERTS
• I would like the city workers to be more helpful and knowledgeable about their fields, be helpful to the
residents regardless of their race. Because they have these huge salaries they should work harder, it is
disheartening to see them on their phones or distracted while they're at work
• IMPROVE CUSTOMER SERVICE
• Leaner and more efficient city administration, more like Mountain View
• LESS CITY STAFF
• less regulations
• Less restrictive permitting and planners being more flexible
• LESS ROAD WORK DURING MORNING & AFTERNOON COMMUTE HOURS
• Let residents choose, instead of mandates
• Make decisions based on facts and information and not on political whims. Too much time and $ is
wasted on staff and consultant time that the council in the end ignores and makes decisions or non
decisions to avoid making the hard decisions. The Palo Alto way!!!
• More efficient governce to deal with changing times.
• MORE REBATE FOR ELECTRIFICATION/BIG ITEM PICKUP MORE OFTEN
• My stove is electric, and I don't use the gas heating, so my gas usage is zero. Still, the city charges me
$15 monthly for gas, which feels like a pelty for not using gas and goes against your policy. Please stop
this charge.
• Quit trying to place all the low income and rental properties along the San Antonio corridor. Traffic sucks
there right now and the City is only going to make it worse by not devoting enough resources to the area.
Where are they going to park ? City is allowing less than two parking spaces per residence. Can't afford to
make it in this area on one "low" income.
• Reduce Bureaucracy for permits
• Resist efforts by the State to control local zoning.
• Resist the pressure to in-fill by developers looking to make a bundle and move on. Our neighborhood is
being transformed by uffordable mega-houses crammed onto newly split lots. The city definitely doesn't
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025
Community Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 108 Packet Pg. 116 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 105
have our backs on this one: Our magnificent tree canopy is being destroyed, displacing tive wildlife and
leaving us instead with traffic and car-lined streets.
• SHORTEN CITY MEETINGS - LESS STOP & GO
• SPEND SMARTER & SAVE COST ON SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION/IMPROVEMENT
• staff city offices; no off-site workno
• Stop charging residents for using Foothill Park
• Stop trying to force us to do things - lpg is essential for cooking - it does not harm the environment like
gasoline does - stop forcing rent control on owners. Fix our traffic lights - make then synchronous
• STOP WASTING VALUABLE TIME ON CITY COUNCIL VIRTUE SIGNALING & DO YOUR JOB RUNNING THE
CITY!
• Streamline permitting processes for home improvement
• THE CITY COUNCIL SPENDS HOURS DISCUSSING, THEN KICKS THE CAN DOWN THE ROAD -STOP!
• The city's bureaucracy sucks. Transparency is minimal. And it seems more programs are geared toward
the wealthy. If you can afford to own a home in Palo Alto, for example, you can pay for your own damn
solar panels. Also the city's leaders suffer from an acute frankly embarrassing lack of vision and
imagition. Look at how dumb the Cal Ave makeover has been, and how the upcoming plans will make it
dumber. We somehow have "two downtowns" - Cal Ave and University Ave - yet both are nowhere near as
vibrant, fun or pleasant as other downtowns including but not limited to RWC, Mountain View, Los Altos,
etc. further away, Los Gatos, Saratoga, etc are all better destitions than either one of our "two
downtowns"
• When I lived in Santa Clara, we can upload a ticket in publicstuff, and some staff will reply to me in 1 -2
weeks, actions will be taken soon. In Palo alto, I asked about a street tree question twice via email, and
only get an automatic email reply which mentioned someone will answer my questions in 10 days, 1) but
no questions were ever answered in email. 2) There is an ticket created in publicstuff, but no one is
replying in it.Palo Alto has too many departments and programs, it is already hard to know whi ch service
is under which department, and hard to connect easily.
Community Amenities and Services
• 1.MORE OPPORTUNITIES FOR COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT / 2.BETTER INTERNET ACCESS
• 1.PUBLIC REC CENTER AT CUBBERLY. 2.BUILDING DEPT. PERMITTING PROCESS IS A NIGHTMARE.
• Add a community center
• Attract younger and diverse people ramping up cultural entertainment
• DEVELOP ACTIVE SENIOR PROGRAMMING
• Excellent Open Air Theatre for movies and music
• Facilitate neighborhood socials, keep pedestrian streets like California Avenue, attract more small
business and restaurants to downtown
• GET CUBBEKLEY DONE!
• Greater emphasis on recreatiol activities.
• I don't know about ways to get involved in the community
• I WISE WE HAD AN ACTUAL SENIOR CENTER LIKE OTHER CITIES DO
• I'd like to see more community engagement around Midtown that isn't religious affiliated.
• Improve Rincoda pool maintence.
• MORE ACTIVITIES AVAILABLE FOR YOUNG PEOPLE IN 20'S
• MORE COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES, MORE PLACES TO SOCIALIZE
• MORE COMMUNITY GATHERINGS & PUBLIC MUSICAL EVENTS; BAND CONCERTS ETC.
• More dog parks/off leash dog areas
• More events that can help residents connect
• More fitness options - commercial gyms and exercise equipment at parks.
• MORE FREQUENT RESURFACING OF TENNIS & PUCKLEBALL COINS.
• MORE PICKLEBALL COURTS
• More summer camp programs within walking distance, cheaper utilities, better time control for sigls at
Middlefield Rd
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025
Community Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 109 Packet Pg. 117 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 106
• official welcome wagon for new residence. Get people to in local neighbourhoods to meet each other
more regularlyfor the above question : replacing appliances to gas, I felt the city has not supported me
well through this process of electrification. I get the permit yet the city makes things difficult. It started
with changing my electrical panel -- all was done as per the requirements, but I was thinking ahead so I
increased my electrical panel to accommodate future upgrades to the house like electric car, water
heater, heat pump. But the city required and additiol post inspection -- why? The city official said they
were concerned I was putting too big of a panel ( a big panel is required to upgrade all things you are
promoting to upgrade) The city needs to make electrification easy. The city also needs to upgrade its
electrical grid to support all the electrical cars. City support not there to help me as a resident migrate to
electricity. Permitting difficult and the inspectors are not easy to work with. Way easier to stay with
gas.Please enforce Gardners to use electrical equipment. I hate the smell of hydrocarbons from the
neighbour's gardeners who use gas equipment (it is not just 1 it is many many)
• STAGE SOME COMMUNITY CELEBRATIVE ONE IN WHILE.
Economic Development
• 1. Introduce more business in town, I feel Palo Alto is behind the city like Cupertino or even Redwood City,
Los Altos. For example, there is State Street Market in Los Altos, I cannot find something even close in
Palo Alto.2. Increase bike lane and reduce the traffic3. Increase housing
• Allow more stores on el Camino where residents can walk to buy groceries. Allow greater variety of
restaurants, cafes, retail stores, grocery stores to open in Palo Alto. Make Palo Alto more walkable and
rebuild the very old stores that no one goes to on el Camino and other areas.
• ATTRACT & RETAIN MORE RESTAURANTS & BARS. REDUCE ONEROUS PERMITS
• attract more affordable restaurants and stores
• Attract young entrepreneurs and starups (via e.g. home & office rent incentives, or by opening a city -
sponsored co-working and community space) - that may re-vitalize both the economy and the community.
Palo Alto, that used to be the epicenter of growth and innovaton, today is safe and polished, but also
mostly uffordable, predomintly white, old, oftenly boring, and stagnt. We still love it, and wish it the very
best.
• Be more pro business and stop virtue sigling by elected officials.
• BRING MORE VARIETY OF BUSINESS TO CALIFORNIA AVENUE. THERE ARE A LOT OF STREETS THAT
NEED ASPHALT REPAIRS. REDUCE UTILITY CHARGES
• Change tax structure to strongly discourage downtown prop ownwers from having empty storefronts!
Downtown, where I Live has tons of empty stores. Also we need more housing! Faster permitting! I am a
YIMBY, not the norm of NIMBY in Palo Alto. Make Palo Alt o available to younger families again, build!
• Diversify the kinds of stores/restaurants in the downtown spaces, especially. University. Seems
impossible for small, unique stores or restaurants to make it anymore, increasingly just outposts of larger
chains, which is less interesting. (A second thing would be to extend Fiber service into College Terrace!)
• ENABLE MORE MIXED UP AND ECONOMIC COMMERCIAL ENTERTAINMENT VACANCY
• Encourage movie theaters
• Find a way to make Palo Alto more attractive to a wide range o household income levels.
• IMPROVE DOWNTOWN RETAIL
• Improve downtown vibrancy. Too many empty properties. Feels blighted. Too many restaurants and lack
of shopping diversity. Also, homelessness is off putting with too many frightening interactions,
particularly near the train and 7-11 on Lytton
• Improved retail mix on U. Ave, Cal Ave
• Maintain stores and services that make life in Palo Alto easy. Stop building multi-use projects that never
get commercial partners in them. Mandate that developers of multi-use developments subside retail so
that retail can exist.
• MORE GOOD RESTAURANTS TO EAT AT
• More grocery stores and less vacant buildings
• Prevent future flooding
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025
Community Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 110 Packet Pg. 118 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 107
• Revitalize Downtown Palo Alto. It used to be great. This is no longer the case. The city is too difficult to
work with. This causes businesses to go elsewhere.
• Wider variety of businesses and more creative, inviting architecture on University Avenue .
Noise and Urban Environment
• A levee to protect from Bay flooding.
• Do more to encourage all residents to switch to climate-friendly appliances and especially replace _all_
gas usage in the home! We were early adopters and it was frustrating that we could never get the rebates
that were given to residents 3 months or years AFTER we switched out gas stove, heater and more.
• Environment
• FIGHT TO REDUCE THE OVERWHELMING AIRPLANE NOTICE
• Get rid of train noise from Caltrain
• Increase tive tree canopy and protect ture and biodiversity in parks and open space. Buy properties to
increase the availability of parkland and recreation opportunities. Promote use of tive plants in private
property.
• more trees
• MY STREET TREE WAS RUN OVER. PLEASE REPLACE IT
• PROMISE TO MAINTAIN OR INCREASE THE AMOUNT OF GREEN SPACE FORESTS
• QUALITY AT NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
• REDUCE NOISE; DISALLOW LOUD CAR EXHAUSTS, AIRPLANE, HELICOPTERS, TRAIN, SIRENS
• Relaying in tural body of water
• Silence the Caltrain horns
• TOO MUCH NOISE FROM PLANTS ALSO LOUD CARS & MOTORCYCLES AT NIGHT .
Develop Infrastructure
• Accelerate Palo Alto Fiber installation - I've been hearing about it for so long but nothing has happened in
my area and the website provides no status updates that make any sense.
• ADDING BATHROOM TO ELEANOR PARDEE PARK
• ALLOW MORE SOLAR BATTERY INSTALLATION; IMPROVE CELL PHONE SIGNALS.
• Bathrooms at Eleanor park
• Don't do the repair everyday on Charleston Avenue and Arastradero Road. The repair seems occur every
working day in a year.
• Fast Internet
• Have their fiber optic up and running
• maintain roads
• Put a restroom in Padee park, have more access to adult ed classes.
Walking and Biking trails
• Bike path crossings over/under train
• Bike safety lanes on major roads
• Elimite bike lanes on el Camino so we can park at my dentist office
• improve bike infrastructure/safety
• KEEP RAMONCE STREET PEDESTRIAN ONLY
• LESS FOCUS ON MAKING ROADS BICYCLE FRIENDLY BUT DANGEROUS FOR DRIVERS
• MORE & SAFER BIKE LANES - I FEEL MORE UNSAFE THAN EVER
• MORE BIKE LANES
• MORE BIKING ROUTES & ENFORCE NO PARKING IN LANES
• MOST BIKE LANES ARE NOT USED OFTEN & TIE UP TRAFFIC
• pedestrian-friendly environment
• Safer biking streets- make a planned concerted effort of routes through the town that have separate bike
lanes
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025
Community Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 111 Packet Pg. 119 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 108
• SOFA BIKING INFRASTRUCTURE DOWNTOWN
• Stop the building of bike lanes and assuming people are willing or able to bike to do daily tasks or just
life.
Code Enforcement
• A) ENFORCE SPEED LIMITS B) FIX STREETS
• ALLOW DOGS OFF LEASH IN PARKS AT LOW-USE TIMES
• ATTENTION TO CODE VIOLATIONS FOR SAFETY AT/ON STREETS
• BE MORE AGGRESSIVE IN INSURING RESIDENTS MAINTAIN HOME & YARD
• CODE ENFORCEMENT IS TERRIBLE-NEW BUILDINGS ARE TOO DENSE & UGLY
• CODE ENFORCEMENT WAS REAPPOINTED AGAINST ME BY NEIGHBOR - WASTE OF TIME
• CONTROL ALL DOGS ON CUBBERLEY FIELD - MAKE OWNERS LEASH THEIR DOGS
• Enforce code, especially gas powered blowers.
• Enforce existing bike laws! Before adding any more bike routes, enforce the existing. Putting signs up
does not work. I walk and bikes make my life as pedestrian terrible. I've tried working with the city but
they seem to care more about cars and bikes rather than pedestrians. You have bike lanes and bikes
continue to ride on the sidewalks. When sign ask bike riders to dismount, they just speed up. Try walking
and see how terrible it is to be a walker!
• Enforce parking laws, get rid of campers/large vehicles parked on streets with people living in them.
• Enforce sidewalk safety through better bicycle regulation and education.As a Palo Alto resident, I'd
prioritize creating safer sidewalks through stricter enforcement of bicycle regulations and comprehensive
rider education. Despite our city's excellent bike lane infrastructure, cyclists regularly ride on sidewalks,
creating dangerous conditions for pedestrians.This isn't just an inconvenienceit's a genuine safety crisis
affecting everyone involved. I've been almost struck by cyclists multiple times, watched my dog nearly get
run over, and feared for my elderly father's safety during his visits. When I lived in Sunnyvale, riders would
announce when they were getting close to you, showing this courtesy is possible. Here in Palo Alto,
cyclists rarely announce their presence or slow down around pedestrians, showing a concerning lack of
basic courtesy and awareness. I've also witnessed cyclists fall or lose control when trying to vigate
around pedestrians and pets on crowded sidewalksputting both riders and walker s at risk.The solution
requires both enforcement and education. We need consistent citation of sidewalk cycling violations,
coupled with public awareness campaigns about proper cycling etiquettelike audibly warning pedestrians
before passing and using desigted bike lanes that taxpayers have funded.Our sidewalks should be safe
spaces for all pedestrians, including children, seniors, and people with disabilities. When cyclists ignore
desigted infrastructure and endanger pedestrians, it undermines both our transportation goals and
community safety. If current infrastructure isn't working, the city should consider reallocating funds to
redesign problematic intersections and create clearer physical separation between bike lanes and
sidewalks. Better sigge, barriers, or redesigned pathways could elimite confusion about where cyclists
belong while protecting pedestrians.Better regulation and targeted infrastructure improvements would
immediately improve quality of life
• ENFORCE SPEED LAWS (WITHIN REASON)
• Enforce speed limit and stop signs
• INCREASE CCW TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT
• Sonic Internet utility install crews should not be cutting concrete at 10:45 PM .
Make the city more affordable
• A GREATER FOCUS ON WHO IS BUYING HOMES. THERE SHOULDN'T BE THIS MANY INVESTMENT
COMPANIES DRIVING UP PRICES IN OUR ALREADY HIGH-PRICED NEIGHBORHOOD
• AFFORDABILITY
• Affordability
• Better affordability to support living here long term. It's hard to imagine affording children here.
• COST OF LIVING FOR FAMILIES W/55 & PARENTS FACING RETIREMENT & JOB DISCRIM - IN AT LOST
• Cut taxes, even at the expense of city services
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025
Community Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 112 Packet Pg. 120 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 109
• Don't keep increasing the utility bill
• EASIER /CHEEPER TO TRANSITION FROM WORKING TO RETRIEMENT.
• Focus on what people actually need. Utilities are horrendous, Sewer rate for renters. $70 of $110 bill.
Each apartment in duplex on site (with no pool, dishwasher, little garden) pays same as houses flanking,
Utilites has been unresponsive to both separate renters inquiries. Completely unhelpful,
• GREATER RENT AFFORDABILITY, LOWER HOUSING PRICES.
• I DON'T SUPPOSE YOU CAN DO ANYTHING ABOUT THE COST OF RENT…
• I JUST GRAD. COLLEGE, MAKE 50K/YEAR - THE CITY IS SO EXPENSIVE!!!
• I WISH UTILITY PRICES WOULD BE MORE AFFORDABLE; I ALSO AVAILABILITY OF MORE AFFORDABLE
• If cost of living was more affordable for the "middle class"
• IF HOUSING WERE MORE AFFORDABLE FOR OTHERS, IF THE LIBRARY HAD MORE BOOKS!
• IF UTILITY BILL KEEPS CLIMBING AT RATE CITY SAY BIT WILL, WE MAY NOT BE ABLE TO CONTINUE TO
RETIRE HERE
• KEEP THE UTILITIES BILL LOW
• Less expensive.
• Life costs are not getting higher every year.
• Lower cost of living
• lower cost of living
• LOWER RENT/RENT STABILIZATION
• Lower the utility rate
• Lower utilities cost
• Lower utilities cost
• Lower utility costs
• Make it easier for people who work here to live here, too. This would be especially nice for our city
employees.
• PROVIDE MORE REASONABLE RENT RATE FOR DONE STUDIOS, RECREATION ACTIVITY TOWN
• Reduce outrageous water fees
• reduce property tax
• REDUCE PROPERTY TAXES, REMOVE RESIDENCIES KING TAX, PRIVATE WEEKLY MAYORAL REPORT TO
NEWSPAPER
• REDUCE SALES TAX
• Reduce the cost of gas
• REDUCING THE COST OF LIVING
• Reduction of utility bills
• RENT CONTROL
• Rent control for downtown businesses , so they can afford to stay in business
• Rent control/cost lowering
• Stop siphoning money from utilities
• TRY TO KEEP UTILITY PRICES DOWN WATER, GAS, ELECTRIC
• UTILITY DISCOUNTS FOR SENIORS.
Cleanliness of community; upkeep
• Beautify and adapt downtown streets that are already closed to cars, and close more downtown streets
to cars.
• BETTER MAINTENANCE OF STREETS
• Better maintence of landscaping at City facilities
• clean sidewalk street
• Crackdown on neglected/vacant residential properties. Whole neighborhoods have become ghost streets
with out of area buyers leaving their property vacant & unkept creating theft vulnerability, fire & rodent
infestation dangers for the whole neighborhood.
• FIX ROADS & SIDEWALKS
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025
Community Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 113 Packet Pg. 121 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 110
• Good maintence and availability of the local parks
• Have better architecture for new buildings, especially apartment buildings.
• IMPROVE THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN OF BUILDINGS CONSTRUCTED & MODERNIZE
• KEEP STREETS CLEANER, MAKE UNIVERSITY AVE MORE COLESIDE, ATTRACTIVE
• Keep the city clean! I hate to see the trash on the streets, in medians and in yards and dirty sidewalks and
roads.
• Keep the city safe and clean, and keep property taxes as low as possible
• Maintain the character of Palo Alto, which has already dramatically changed for the worse. It has gotten
too dense, too crowded, too many people here only for the city services and not to truly be a part of the
community. Wish there could be a limit on the number of second home purchases that are only for
investment.
• NEIGHBORS KEEPING CURB AREA CLEANER AND MORE WELL-TENDED
• OCCATIONAL STREET SWEEPING ON OUR STREET (EL CAMINO WAY) IF POSSIBLE
• Street and curb repair. Our curb was damaged when underground work was done on our street. The curb
is still left damaged.
• TEST CONTROL FOR RATS, AFFORDABLE HOUSING
• Trim city trees to reduce branch/leaf falls and potential hurt. Build restrooms in parks.
Other
• Address 311 tickets.
• Change utilities sewer rates to be based on number of residents or home size. Other rates are based on
usage, but a single resident in a studio apartment should not have to pay the same amount as an entire
family.
• CITY SOULED LINES!
• Covered heated outdoor eating on California avenue
• Diversity
• Divest from genocide and pass resolutions to divest from companies and services complicit in
Palestinian genocide.
• DO NOT SUPPORT (TWITTER ORX)
• Enforce the CUP rules for pod schools as you do for private and public schools.
• ethnic diversity
• FOCUS EDUCATION ON ACADEMIC OUTCOMES VERY UNHAPPY WITH PAUSD
• Free afterschool until 4:30 pm
• GET RIDE OF LIQUIDAMBARS!!!!
• Help neighboring communities by doing things regiolly vs just our city
• IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LIBERAL, DEMOCRATIC VIEW YOU ARE SHUNNED. NOT OPEN TO OTHER
VIEWS.
• Integrate more with East Palo Alto. The divide is so stark. Also, their kid section of the library is fantastic,
and I often take my kids there. Palo Alto has a whole children's library, and it doesn't come close in terms
of coziness. Their library has a much more commul feel, which I love.
• KEEP PARKING & BRING BACK WIDE VARIETY OF RETAIL
• Kick out snobby people
• Less antisemitism in the town and country protests
• LESS EMPHASIS ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING & GROWTH AND MORE ON MAINTAINING QUALITY OF
OUR NEIGHBORHOODS. FIGHT BACK ON STATE MANDATES.
• Less of a feeling of "us versus them" when it comes to different parts of the city (north vs. south, Barron
Park vs. everywhere else, etc.)
• LESS PALO ALTO PROCESS!!! KEEP DONATION CLEAN!!
• LESS SNOOTY
• LESS VACANCIES / LESS POP UP STORES
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025
Community Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 114 Packet Pg. 122 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 111
• LET APARTMENT DWELLERS WITH THEIR OWN ADDRESS TO BE PART OF NEIGHBORHOOD CLEANUP.
• Low cost Event space for Live Music
• MAINTAIN ABILITY TO SUPPLY GAS TO RESIDENCES THROUGH MY GAS PAYMENT WITH OUT UPPING
MY COSTS THROUGH TRANFEING MUNCY TO THE GENERAL FUND
• Making education more persolized for their need and level instead of making them the same bar which
can be either too high for some kids and too low for some others. At a result, school trends to keep the
challenges low in middle and elementary schools for most kids and it does not challenges them and
prepare them well for high school.
• More focus on preservation of our heritage of older buildings
• More positive focus on the neighborhood things that make a big difference in how happy snd safe
residents feel. For example, the removal of the fire engine from Middlefield Rd. Not remedying the stagnt
water on Ames Avenue for months and months while blaming residents instead of fixing the street that
has lifted over time, not moving with light speed to help rebuild the burned down comercial center at
Middlefield and Loma Verde that housed a cafe and outdoor garden seating area, not fixing the facade of
the Mitchell Park Library for years, not taking care of the plantings in the street along Ross Road or the
landscaping at Mitchell Park Library.
• MORE PUBLIC EVCATE IN DOWNTOWN AREA
• Not require electrification of water heaters and gas furces for those of us with 100amp service. It would
cost upwards of $30k for me. Since any new electricity needs in CA will most likely be filled by new gas
plants, and using gas to make electricity is less efficient than using gas directly, you are not reducing
greenhouse gases. Just because PA pays extra for green energy does not change these calculations for
the state of CA as a whole.
• PALO ALTO IS GETTING VERY CROWDED, COMPARED IS WHEN I MOVED HERE, I DON'T THAT FIXABLE.
• PUBLIC SCHOOL PATHWAYS TO ALLOW STUDENTS TO MAXIMIZE THEIR OWN ACADEMIC POTENTIAL
• publish school days and hours and holidays
• Relax the tree removal ordince; put bathrooms in Eleanor park
• REMOVE THE FEMA RESTRICTIONS IN SOUTH PALO ALTO DUE TO NON-EXISTENT BAY FLOODS
• REPLACE LIQUID - AMBAR TREES IN COLLEGE TERRACE WITH TREES THAT DON'T DROP SEED PODS
• REPLACE THE ROADS IN RESIDENTIAL AREA
• Return Foothills to PA residents only
• ROADS ARE FOR WORK THAN MUCH LESS AFFLUENT CITIES
• Send the survey to an email or use an app versus paper.
• SOME SORT OF OUTREACH TO NEW CHINESE IMMIGRANTS THEY DON'T KNOW ABOUT VALUE OF
COMMUNITY EFFORT. 1) HEY RARELY SAY HELLOW, OR SMILE AS WALK BY 2) LOOK AWARNESS THAT
OUT OPEN SPACES ARE
• stop connect library to open internet, so students won't be coming and play video games for long long
time in library and waste their study time!!!
• Stop the blackouts
• Stop using the social media platform X. Many residents are troubled by this. The City should move to
Bluesky and stop supporting that platform for hate speech and propaganda.
• STOP WASTING TIME 1/3 $ ON STUDIES THAT THE COUNCIL THE IGNORES PURSING POLITICAL
SOLUTIONS
• SUPPORT LA COMIDA MORE
• TAKE STRONG STAND ON NATIONAL (POLITICAL) ISSUES
• There was a time when city staff hadn't returned from Covid, or were working remotely - long after most
people had returned to work - and I found the city very unreliable. I didn't understand why they were not
coming back to work like the rest of us. I lost trust in the city over this.
• TO REPLACE OUR MAJOR GAS APPLIANCES WITH ELECTRICITY
• TO TRIM TREES MORE NEAR ELECTRICAL AREAS US HAVING TO PAY FOR IT
• Treat Stanford University employees with respect and appreciation rather than as an annoyance. I have
lived at Stanford West apartments on Sand Hill Rd for 25 years and we have never felt welcome as a
community or neighborhood in Palo Alto. We are residents of Palo Alto, but do not feel Palo Alto as a city
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025
Community Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 115 Packet Pg. 123 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 112
government or as a community overall welcome us at all. The resistance of Palo Alto elected officials and
voters to the concept of building this apartment complex still stings after more than 25 years. I walk to
work everyday, and drive only 2,500 miles per year, and still we are resented. It's painful.
• Work to end the tensions between long time residents and newer residents; The school board bruhaha is
a symptom of a failure to listen, communicate, understand .
Nothing/Don't know
• FINE WEATHER FOR WALKING - IN OTHER WORDS, NOTHING
• I am very happy now! Keep working hard to make Palo Alto wonderful!
• I don't know
• NO CHANGE IS NECESSARY
• NONE
• None
• NOTHING.
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025
Community Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 116 Packet Pg. 124 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 113
Question 20: As a resident of Palo Alto, what one thing do you believe
the City does well and would want to maintain?
Parks, open space, and natural environment
• ABUNDANT GREENERY (MAINTAIN & EXPAND)
• ACCESS TO PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES
• ACCESS TO PARKS, NATURE, PAY LANDS, ETC.
• Amount of green area
• BAYLANDS & OTHER PARKS, KEEP THE WILD WILD, DON'T BUILD ON IT OR EXPAND THE AIRPORT
• Baylands. No more wetlands loss like for the airport.
• BEAUTIFUL PARKS, TREES, CITY PLANNING, LOW CRIME RATE, EXCELLENT POLICE AND FIRE
DEPARTMENTS
• BEAUTIFUL TREES AND PARKS.
• Care for our trees and tural environment
• CARE OF THE TREES AROUND THE CITY, PARKS AND THE HERITAGE HOME PRESERVATION.
• CITY PARKS
• CITY PARKS AND RECREATION ACCESS AND OPPORTUNITIES. ALSO LIBRARY ACCESS
• CITY PARKS! OPEN SPACES; STREET CLEANING
• Green and Open spaces.
• Green space
• Green spaces
• Green spaces and trees
• Love foothill park.
• MAINTAIN GREAT PARKS
• maintain it's green spaces
• Maintain its own utilities.
• Maintain its parks
• Maintain the excellent parks
• Maintaining green spaces. The parks are fantastic.
• Maintaining parks and libraries
• PARKS
• PARKS
• Parks
• Parks
• Parks
• Parks
• Parks
• PARKS & RECREATION
• PARKS AND EMERGENCY SERVICES
• Parks and libraries
• PARKS AND LIBRARIES ARE (FIRE EMOJI)
• PARKS AND OPEN SPACE
• Parks and open space!!!
• PARKS AND OPEN SPACES AND LIBRARIES
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025
Community Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 117 Packet Pg. 125 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 114
• parks and outdoor spaces are very good
• Parks are abundant and well maintained
• Parks!! - keep up maintence please.
• Parks, Libraries, Art Center, and Children's Theatre
• PARKS, LIBRARIES, PROGRAMS FOR FAMILIES
• PARKS, NATURAL ENVIRONMENT, BAYLANDS
• Parks, Open spaces and access to them. The pedestrian / bike bridge to the Baylands over Hwy-101
between San Antonio and Oregon Expressway is a great example. Tons of people use that overpass to
access the open space. The city should know how many people were up there on July 4th with kids, bikes,
dogs, grandparents, etc. to go watch the fireworks displays.
• PARKS, SHOPS
• provider of park space
• Public areas are great.
• Public open space.
• Public parks and libraries are great amenities for residents
• Public parks/spaces like foothills, Mitchell, etc
• QUALITY AT NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
• The open spaces are nice. Utilities was reasobly easy.
• The open spaces, including Foothills Open Space Preserve and the baylands.
• THE PARKS
• the parks & libraries
• THE PARKS & THE LIBRARY
• The trees
• there are many: Parks/libraries/community gardens/free compost/tree lined streets/info from
utilities/zero waste website/engaging in planning (e.g. Cubberley, bike routes)/support for VA Palo Alto
• TREES & GREENERY & PARKS & LIBRARIES
• TREES ENVIRONMENT, PARKS, GARBAGE COLLECTION LIBRARIES
• Trees, libraries, teachers
• tural environment and trails such as the Baylands
• turaleza y seguridad
• ture preserves are good (we should stop developing anything within ture preserves). Small town
atmosphere.
• VALUES ITS NATURAL ENVIRONMENT - ENGLANDS, FOOTBALL, ITS TREES ETC
• WE LOVE THE PARKS AND PRESERVES. THANK YOU FOR ALL YOU DO TO MAINTAIN THEM
• CONTINUE TO INVEST IN PUBLIC SPACES LIKE PARKS. MOST HOUSES ARE FIRE BUT SOME HOMES LOOK
ABANDONED)
• ENVIRONMENT AND LANDSCAPE
• ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP
• Great outdoor space and clean city
• GREAT PARKS AND RECREATION. LOTS OPEN SPACE
• I love our parks and libraries.
• I LOVE THE GREEN CANOPY - KEEP IT UP
• I LOVE THE PARKS AND DOG PARKS. STREET SWEEPING. THE PARKING PERMIT SYSTEM HAS REALLY
HELPED THE SPILL-OVER BUSINESS PARKING IN RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS
• LUSH GREEN, BIG TREES TROUGHOUT
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025
Community Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 118 Packet Pg. 126 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 115
• MAINTAINING PARKS AND PUBLIC SPACES
• Maintaining parks and public spaces
• Maintaining the excellent public spaces like libraries, parks, and tural spaces.
• Maintaining the overall environment of the city
• MAINTAINS OUR GREEN CANOPY
• MAINTENANCE OF PARKS
• MAINTENANCE OF STREETS AND PARKS
• Maintence of city parks and common spaces
• Maintence of parks and recreation areas
• OPEN SPACE
• open space
• Open Space Preserve is fantastic.
• Our parks and libraries are pretty nice
• Our parks are awesome.
• Palo Alto Baylands
• Quantity and size of parks & green spaces (including keeping school fields available after school hours)
• So many parks
• SPACE GIVEN TO PARKS. CONCERTS IN THE PARK
• The environment with all the trees and plants
• The environmentalism
• The investment in maintain and improving parks and libraries and cultural events
• I WOULD WANT TO CITY TO MAINTAIN ITS PARTS AND OPEN SPACES
• IT'S NATURAL BEAUTY - TREES/PARKS
• Love the parks and outdoor spaces.
• MANY WELL MAINTAINED PARKS SCATTERED THROUGHOUT THE AREA
• NATURE, PARKS, LIBRARIES
• OVERALL ENVIRONMENT. KEEPING THE CITY VERY GREEN
• Park and open space maintence
• PARK MAINTENANCE
• Street trees
• Street trees. Library.
Utilities and city services
• AFFORDABLE UTILITY SERVICE/COST
• MAINTAIN INFRASTRUCTURE TO CITY SERVICES
• Their utility in one bill
• UTILITIES
• UTILITIES
• UTILITIES
• Utilities
• Utilities
• Utilities
• Utilities
• Utilities
• Utilities
• UTILITIES & POLICE SERVICES
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025
Community Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 119 Packet Pg. 127 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 116
• utilities communication and billing
• UTILITIES PUBLIC SAFETY
• Utilities response time
• UTILITIES SERVICE
• Utilities Services
• Utility
• Utility department
• Utility services
• Utility services in general.
• City employees polite. Lots of services for children.
• CITY OWNED UTILITIES!
• City owned utility.
• CITY PROVIDED SERVICE
• CITY RUN UTILITIES - EXCELLENT!
• CPAU electric has really good rates.
• effective utilities and services
• ELECTRIC SERVICE
• Electricity and water supply.
• ELECTRIFICATION PROGRAM - IMPORTANT TO PROMOTE RESIDENTIAL SOLAR AND BATTERY
STORAGE
• GOOD VALUES IN TERMS OF ENVIRONMENT CARE OF RESIDENTS
• KEEPING PALO ALTO UTILITIES NOT PGE
• Keeping utilities costs down and a great recycling program
• Maging its own utility district
• MAINTAIN P A UTILITIES INVESTMENTS
• OWNERSHIP AND OPERATION OF UTILITIES
• OWNING & OPERATING ITS OWN MUNICIPAL UTILITY SERVICES
• Owning our public utilities.
• OWNING OWN UTILITIES
• Pa owned utilities
• Public Utilities
• The utility services as a whole. It is a very important service as well as police and emergency services are
excellent.
• Gas utility services
• GENERAL GENE OF BASIC SERVICES
• Good service for utility and street cleaning
• HELPING SENIORS WITH COMFORT. TAKING GARBAGE CAME OUT/HELPING WITH UTILITIES.
• I AM VERY PLEASED WITH THE RESPONSE TIME OF THE UTILITES DEPARTMENT WHEN CONTACTING
THEM REGARDING ROAD ISSUES - PARTICULARRLY PETER RUANO - LEAD ELECTRIC UNDERGROUND
INSPECTOR
• KEEP UTILITIES COSTS LOW
• Palo Alto has a lot of public facilities, eg the community center, and the downtown area is quite vibrant for
a small town.
• Palo Alto provided electric utility
• REBATE FOR ELECTRIFICATION
• reliability of our utilities
• Tenemos buenos hospitalesY bues escuelas pblicas
• The city does really well in utility magement, being transparent about decisions and taking actions to
provide good service.
• The city should continue providing its own utilities, including its initiative for high speed internet.
• The city-owned electric is very affordable compared to surrounding communities. It's like an oasis.
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025
Community Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 120 Packet Pg. 128 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 117
Safety services
• EXTRA POINTS FOR PA FIRE DEPT. THEYR'E BEEN VERY HELPFUL ON SVERAL TECHNICAL AND
MEDICAL ISSUES
• Keep the city safe.
• KEEPING THE CRIME RATE DOWN
• Keeping the neighborhood safe
• KEEPING US SAFE / FEELING SAFE
• LOCAL POLICE, FILE, EMT
• POLICE & FIRE
• Police and Fire Department services
• POLICE CHIEF & DEPARTMENT ARE REALLY CONNECTING W/RESIDENTS/KEEP THAT UP AND OFFER
MORE OPPORTUNITIES FOR CITIZENS AND CUPS TO INTERACT! LET'S BUILD BRIDGES!
• Police Fire Education Parks Library Emergency services although I'm very worried about the switch to
contracted EMT,s to staff ambulances. I am alive because PA Firefighters revived me after a cardiac
arrest and transported me to Stanford fast enough that I was able to make a full recovery. I don't know if I
would have survived with less experienced contracted EMTs. I do support fiber to the home.
• POLICE FORCE
• POLICE SERVICE UTILITIES SERVICES - PARKS - CHILDREN ACTIVITIES
• prevent crime
• Provides safe community living
• Public safety
• public safety
• Public safety.
• Public safey
• PUBLIC SCHOOLS
• SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL
• SAFETY
• Safety
• safety
• SAFETY & ENVIRONMENT
• Safety and walk ability
• Safety of residents
• Safety of residents
• Safety, and community.
• Safety, beautiful and clean environment
• CRIME CONTROL
• Things are much better, but continuing to remove homeless and broken down RVs/vehicles from our
streets
• Fire and police services and that we own our utilities
• I DO FEEL SAFE & I LIKE THAT CAMERAS THAT CAN HELP IN CRIME RESOLUTION
• I really appreciate that it feels safe here, that our utilities feel reliable, and that it is a beautiful and vibrant
place.
• KEEP PA A SAFE PLACE FOR FAMILIES
• keep resident safe from crimes
• OVERALL FEELING OF SAFETY IN PALO ALTO.
Activities and Recreation (arts, libraries, museums, theaters, etc.)
• ALL OF THE COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT EVENTS & OPPORTUNITIES WE ESPECIALLY LOVE THE
TWILIGHT CONCERTS
• Amazing library services in person and online (important during pandemic and for those with limited
mobility) for young families and elderly
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025
Community Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 121 Packet Pg. 129 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 118
• I love the libraries
• I LOVE THE LIBRARIES & BEING ABLE TO WALK ANYWHERE I NEED TO MAKE CITY BETTER FOR POOR
PEOPLE TO LIVE HERE
• I love the Palo Alto libraries!
• LIBRARIES
• LIBRARIES
• LIBRARIES
• LIBRARIES
• LIBRARIES
• Libraries
• Libraries
• Libraries
• LIBRARIES & REC FACILITIES
• LIBRARIES AND ARTS EVENTS
• Libraries and parks and cleaniness of streets
• Libraries and parks and community events
• Libraries are excellent for kids and adults. Online assets that libraries provide like Morningstar
subscription is above and beyond what other cities provide.
• Libraries are well run and a valuable asset to the city.
• Libraries are wonderful
• libraries, pool, parks
• LIBRARY
• Library and park
• LIBRARY FACILITIES
• Library services
• LIBRARY SYSTEM IS THE BEST
• Library, Park, Recreation Centers are well run, and kids really enjoyed them.
• LOVE CAL AVE BANDS/MUSIC & GATHERINGS - WISH THERE WERE MORE
• Public library and utilities
• The libraries are amazing! Keep funding them please!
• The libraries are excellent and they nurture my family's persol growth!
• City library
• community entertainment (the movie nights in the park), events at the library, and speed limit control
• COMMUNITY EVENTS LIKE SUMMER CONCERT SERIES AT PARKS
• CULTURAL RESOURCES: LIBRARIES, MUSEUMS, EVENTS
• CULTURAL-ART/THEATER
• events; however they are not well publcized in a timely fashion
• Excellent libraries and recreation centers
• EXCELLENT RECREATION OPPORTUNITIES (DANCE CLASSES AT HOCTE STERNS) POOLS, ETC,
FOOTHILLS PARK. FUN COMMUNITY EVENTS ON HOLIDAYS, ETC.
• MAINTENANCE OF OUR LIBRARIES, PARKS
• plentiful recreatiol access
• SENIOR ACTIVITIES
• THEY DO EVENTS WELL BUT DON'T SEND THAT NOTICES AHEAD OF TIME
• Funding library, open space, and parks
• GOOD LIBRARIES AND ARTS CENTERS
• MOST OF THEIR ACTIVITIES
• NICE LIBRARIES / PARKS / DOWNTOWN
• Oh gosh, too many things to say! I would say city programming for families and youth - the libraries, the
children's theater
• Opportunities to engage in different types of activities. Social, recreation, arts, classes, etc.
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025
Community Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 122 Packet Pg. 130 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 119
• ORGANIZING COMMUNITY EVENTS SUCH AS THE CONCERT SERIES TO FOSTER ENGAGEMENT AND
BELONGING
• outdoor wellness opps -- nice parks, trails, tennis courts, concerts
• Overall our libraries and parks are wonderful.
• RECREATION CLASSES
• RINCONADZ POOL AND THE PARKS ARE STELLAR. LOVE THE LIBRARIES. I WISH DOWNTOWN
SHOPPING WHO AS CHARMING, UNPRETENTIOUS & USEFUL IS NEWLO PARK
• The Enjoy Catalog of opportunities. Supporting the children's theatre.
Government/leadership; government communication
• A continuous stream of leaders willing to serve on Council and commissions
• A POLITICAL VOICE NATIONALLY
• City council engagement with the community
• Great talents and great leaders make the difference
• Communicate with residents
• COMMUNICATE WITH RESIDENTS - OUTREACH
• Communications to residents via website, flyers, etc
• Communications.
• community and technology adoption
• Community efforts
• CONTACT & RESIDENTS THROUGH UTILITY MAILINGS
• CONTACT ME @ WHAT'S GOING ON IN PA THERE WEEKLY EMAILS.
• Continue keeping the website updated with current information and emergency notifications.
• CONTINUOUSLY IMPROVING THE CITY. WHEN I MOVED LANE IN 2022, #1 CAMINO REAL WAS
HORRIBLE BUT SINCE 2024, THE ROADS LANE DRAMATICALLY IMPROVED. THE CITY PROVIDE,
AFFORDABLE AVENUES FOR ITS RESIDENTS TO ENGAGE IN LEVELNESS EXERCISES, EDUCATION, ARTS
& COMMUNITY GATHERING.
• Good policing.
• STAFF
• TRANSPARENCY W/ COMMUNITY
• I think the City of Palo Alto is very thorough in how it approaches things, which is something I appreciate
very much.
• Keeping citizens informed
• Keeps residents informed and maintains a very inclusive environment
• LISTEN TO RESIDENCE
• palo alto is well maged and i hope it continues.
• Palo Alto runs very effectively and efficiently. It takes many people working together to make that
happen. Keep working!!!
• Planning and building. The quality of building in PA is second to none. You do need to make getting a
building permit easier.
• Seeks cooperation and consensus in decisions that affect all residents.
Schools and education, programs for youth
• EXTRA DIN PECULIAR SUPPORT FOR STUDENTS & ADULTS (EDUCATION ARTS) (CONT.) ENCOURAGE
STANFORD TO PROVIDE MORE PARKING FOR EMPLOYS/STUDENTS/ASSOCIATES/VISITORS
• Great schools
• Have a good public school system
• K12 schools
• Prioritizes schools
• PUBLIC EDUCATION QUALITY
• Public schools
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025
Community Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 123 Packet Pg. 131 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 120
• Public schools
• Public services
• School District has been amazing for us
• SCHOOLS
• SCHOOLS
• SCHOOLS
• SCHOOLS
• Schools
• SCHOOLS.
• The schools are amazing, and kid activities and job opportunities are good
• VERY GOOD SCHOOLS; KEEP OF THE STANDARD
• Educate children.
• Education
• Education - the public schools are outstanding
• EDUCATION QUALITY
• EXCELLENT SCHOOLS, EXCELLENT PARKS
• Excellent. Schools
• EXCREMENT SCHOOLS
• Our schools
• Palo Alto Adult School
• HIGH QUALITY OF PUBLIC EDUCATION AND ITS COMMITMENT TO SAFETY FOR EVERYONE IN THE
COMMUNITY
• It maintains schools educatiol quality,,, but this mostly due to the constituency' value on higher education.
Recurring efforts to "dumb-down" curriculum standards are misguided and counterproductive.
• Maintain our exceptiol commitment to public education and community resources.As a Palo Alto
resident, I'm consistently impressed by the city's dedication to fostering an educated, well -informed
community. Having five libraries throughout our city demonstrates that we genuinely value education and
knowledge access for all residentsfrom young families to seniors.I also appreciate thoughtful community
outreach like the welcoming mailer with important contact numbers and city information. I really
appreciated receiving that when I moved in, especially since the cost of real estate in the Bay Area means
so many people have to rent. As a renter, it made me feel valued and seen since I don't contribute taxes
through being a homeowner. This kind of proactive communication shows the city cares about keeping
all residentsregardless of housing statusinformed and connected to essential services.These efforts
reflect Palo Alto's core values: prioritizing education, ensuring equitable access to resources, and
maintaining strong communication with residents. Our library system isn't just about booksit's about
creating community spaces where people can learn, work, and connect. Combined with clear, helpful
communication from city staff, these initiatives show a city government that truly serves its entire
community.I hope Palo Alto continues investing in these educatiol and communication resources, as
they're what make our city not just a place to live, but a place where all residents can thrive and stay
engaged in civic life.
• Palo Alto engages in helping our community thrive through its planning and implementation of running
our schools, health and community services and commitment to combating climate change.
• THE EDUCATION SYSTEM - PAUSED
• THE EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM, DESPITE RECENT ETHANOL RACE-STADNES DISPUTES IS GOOD, BUT
VARIOUS HNOMS/AP CLASSES SHOULD BE RESTORAL! AVE FEE RACE ETHNIC CIRCULAR SHOULD BE
ESITY, AND FULLY AVAILABLE FOR EXAMINATION.
Cleanliness of community; upkeep
• Clean and safe public spaces.
• Clean and Tidy Streets
• CLEAN STREETS, TREE CORE
• CLEAN/SAFE
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025
Community Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 124 Packet Pg. 132 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 121
• CLEANLINESS
• CLEANLINESS
• Cleanliness
• CLEANLINESS OF ENVIRONMENT
• Cleanliness of the city and hoping to extend further to remote corners of the city.
• Clean-up of El Camino has impressed me
• KEEP STREET CLEAN, REPAIR THE POT HOLE OF THE ROAD. (EL CAMINO REAL)
• LANDSCAPING, BEAUTIFICATION
• Maintain a clean and safe enviornment.
• Maintain city street sweeping once every one or two weeks.
• TRASH PICKUP & RECYCLING
• WASTE COLLECTION
• WEEKLY GARBAGE CLEAN-UP
• Commitment to a clean and green environment
• CURBSIDE REFUSE COLLECTION IS GREAT
• PA LINK CLEANLINESS
• Street Sweeping
• Garbage pickup is excellent -- reliable, neat and professiol
• GOOD MAINTENANCE
• I ABSOLUTELY LOVE HOW VISIBLE? FREQUENT PLAYGROUND CLEANING AND MAINTENANCE IS
• Maintence of the streets and trees
• Overall, the cleanliness and safety of the city are very high.
• Park cleaning and maintence.
• regular street sweeping. Rich options in library.
• STREET CLEANING MORE SECURITY AND SAFETY
• STREET TREE MAINTENANCE.
Quality of life, reputation
• An overall forward-thinking vision and willingness to deploy resources to make quality of life a high
priority
• Nurture its reputation
• QUALITY OF LIFE GREAT - CLEAR STREETS / TREE TRIMMING
• BRINGING THE COMMUNITY TOGETHER.
• CITY OF PA IS PRETTY.
• Create a welcoming and attractive city environment.
• EMPHASIS ON PHYSICAL BEAUTY AND MAINTENANCE; TREE TRIMMING, STREET SWEEPING
• ENGAGES RESIDENTS
• Engaging with residents
• family friendly
• Focus on the community, not the typical political bs
• Good quality of life issues, environment such as fixiing the creek flooding threat after some twenty years,
maintaining control of zoning issues, street parking hazards.
• KEEPING A SMALL TOWN SPIRIT RATHER THAN JUST BEING A "SUBURB" OF SAN FRANCISCO.
• My Greenmeadow neighborhood - and others like it.
• NEIGHBORS FRIENDLINESS: THIS IS RAPIDLY NOT GOVERNMENT PROVIDED: EG. WE ALL RAISED
CHANGING = VERY SAD SITUATION MONEY FOR OPEN SPACE AS VOLUNTEERS.
• Overall high quality of life.
• ROAD MAINTENANCE
• Roads/bike lanes
• STREETS ARE WELL-KEPT
• The City needs to continue to be at the forefront of innovations to improve our quality of life.
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025
Community Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 125 Packet Pg. 133 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 122
Infrastructure, streets, transportation
• Downtown - overall feel, public parking options
• IMPROVEMENT AND WIDENING OF MAIN STREETS FOR EASE A TRAFFIC
Ease of bicycle travel/walking
• As someone who gets out on foot and bike a lot - it is so much better to travel on foot/bike/scooter here
than other Peninsula Cities. If I'm allowed a quick second - I'm in love with trees and I love how Palo Alto
prtoects the trees everywhere. It means a world of diffference!
• Attractive walkable neighborhoods
• BEAUTIFUL WALKABLE TREE LINED STREETS THAT ARE SAFE
• BICYCLE BOULEVARDS, SUMMER ART CAMPS
• BIKE & PEDESTRIAN TRANSPORTATION
• Bike path maintence and improvement
• Bike routes are very useful and appreciated.
• BIKE ROUTES, OPEN SPACE, CULTURAL ACTIVITIES
• BIKE-FRIENDLY
• CHILDREN LIBRARY, KIDS FRIENDLY EVENTS, PARK CLEANESS
• Children's Zoo and Museum is Great!! Not as important as public safety but very special.
• I think Palo Alto does a great job maintain bike paths and lanes.
• Walk ability
• Closed California avenue to vehicular traffic.
Sustainability
• Protecting the tural environment
• Provide high quality water from the Hetch-Hetchy system.
• Recycling
• Delivering Hetch Hetchy water AND maintaining lower, more reliable electricity than PG&E -- we are very
grateful!
• Ecological programs
• Focuses on the environment
• GOES OUT OF YOUR WAY TO PROTECT TREES AND GREEN SPACE APPRECIATE IT AND WANT IT TO
CONTINUE
• RECYCLE & REFUSE COLLECTION
• SUPPORT CLIMATE CHANGE MEASURES - MAKE IT EASIER, FASTER, CHEAPER.
Culture, diversity
• ATTRACTIVE & WELCOMING DIVERSE COMMUNITY OF PEOPLE. MAINTENANCE A GOOD
RELATIONSHIP WITH STANFORD BECAUSE THEY OFFER THE BEST RESOURCES & EVENTS.
• DIVERSITY, EQUITY, AND INCLUSION
• downtown is vibrant and fun
• Public Partner partnerships with the Art Center, The Children's Theatre and the Children's Museum and
Zoo.
• Generally progressive and open attitudes.
• It is a very nice place to live but must maintain cultural and economic diversity
• The diversity is excellent of the people. The downtown areas are fun to visit. The city parks are beautiful.
Other
• appeal to young families to keep them wanting to purchase homes in Palo Alto
• BETTER MAINTENANCE OF STREETS AND SEWERS
• City does most things well.
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025
Community Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 126 Packet Pg. 134 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 123
• Use technology to improve productivity and reduce costs
• Very prompt responses for any questions.
• WAS VERY ACTIVE IN PALO ALTO 2000-2010. FEEL VERY DETECTED FROM COMMUNITY SINCE 2019.
• Community involvement
• CONTROLLER SALARIES AND FUTURE OBLIGATIONS LIKE PENSIONS
• EVERYTHING
• Everything - great place to raise kids
• EVERYTHING. EXCEED. ALTA HOUSING DISTRICT
• TO OT OWN HORN
• Economic opportunities are high here
• I am extremely dissatisfied with the inclusion of my special needs child (non-speaking autism). There is
barely any opportunity for him to participate. Also there is simply no training among city programs to
support him. The area is so uffordable that I cant find care either. It forced me to give up a career and
provide for my son. The school district is even worse- they wont acknowledge his method of
communication. There is lack or training, unwillingness to learn or be open to needs that require
consistent learning/committment. All help is sporadic, unreliable and meant to be an eye wash
• I like that we are not dependent on PG&E
• I think the city takes a lot of criticism for the city owned utilities, but over the history of the city it has been
a significant good, and should be maintained.
• KEEPS PROPERTY VALUES HIGH
• LOW DENSITY HOUSING MAINTENANCE
• MIXED HOUSING OPTIONS & POLICE SAFETY ACTION
• No homeless
• Open minded community
• OPENERS
• PA SHOULD DO MORE TO PRESERVE OLD HOUSES, LIMIT HUGE MANSIONS KEEP THE RESIDENT CAL
"FLAVOURED" OLD PA.
• PALO ALTO DRAWS INTERESTING & MOTIVATED PEOPLE
• PARKING GARAGES
• PARKING IS PUTTY GOOD
• PAUC
• RELATIONSHIP WITH STARFOOD
• SEAFOOD BALANCE OF ALL SERVICES SHOULD BE BETTER, BUT WORKS WELL
• Strict building codes that are fairly enforced
• STRIKES A GOOD BALANCE SERVING LOCAL NEEDS & REGIONAL / GLOBAL GOALS (WATER) (CLIMATE)
• Support of non-profit agencies
• THE CITY DOES VERY WELL AS IT IS
Nothing/don’t know/something negative
• N/A
• N/a
• NONE
• not sure
• I am not familiar enough to comment
• I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE CITY DOES.
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025
Community Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 127 Packet Pg. 135 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 124
Appendix C: Results to Open -Participation Survey
After data collection for the probability-based, address-sampled survey was underway, the City
launched an open survey to gather additional input from residents. The survey was accessible
through a link on the City’s website and shared via social media. Between August 29 and October
3, 2025, a total of 216 responses were received. This section presents the results from that open
participation survey. Because these responses were not collected through a random sample, it is
not possible to determine who in the community was aware of or chose to participate in the
survey; therefore, no statistical level of confidence can be assigned to the representativeness of
the results. To help reduce potential bias, the data were weighted to align with key demographic
characteristics of adults in the City of Palo Alto based on the 2020 Census and 2022 American
Community Survey estimates. The resulting weighting scheme is summarized in the table.
Table 115: Palo Alto, CA 2025 Weighting Table
Characteristic Population Norm Unweighted Data Weighted Data
Housing
Rent home 44% 21% 39%
Own home 56% 79% 61%
Detached unit* 59% 76% 58%
Attached unit* 41% 24% 42%
Race and Ethnicity
White 55% 78% 66%
Not white 45% 22% 34%
Not Hispanic 94% 95% 93%
Hispanic 6% 5% 7%
Sex and Age
Female 52% 55% 53%
Male 48% 45% 47%
18-34 years of age 23% 3% 13%
35-54 years of age 35% 22% 38%
55+ years of age 42% 74% 50%
Females 18-34 11% 2% 5%
Females 35-54 18% 12% 18%
Females 55+ 23% 42% 30%
Males 18-34 12% 2% 7%
Males 35-54 17% 9% 18%
Males 55+ 19% 34% 21%
Area
Area 1 13% 14% 15%
Area 2 19% 18% 17%
Area 3 13% 23% 14%
Area 4 20% 12% 20%
Area 5 9% 13% 10%
Area 6 26% 21% 23%
* U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 5-year estimates
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025
Community Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 128 Packet Pg. 136 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 125
Results Tables
Table 116: 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 39% N=84 47% N=100 12% N=26 2% N=4 0% N=0 100% N=214
Your neighborhood as a place to live 39% N=82 52% N=111 6% N=13 3% N=6 0% N=0 100% N=212
Palo Alto as a place to raise children 37% N=79 41% N=85 11% N=23 2% N=4 9% N=20 100% N=211
Palo Alto as a place to work 33% N=69 36% N=75 14% N=29 1% N=3 16% N=34 100% N=210
Palo Alto as a place to visit 27% N=56 43% N=90 21% N=45 4% N=8 6% N=12 100% N=212
Palo Alto as a place to retire 18% N=37 27% N=58 20% N=43 29% N=61 6% N=12 100% N=211
The overall quality of life in Palo Alto 30% N=63 52% N=110 17% N=35 1% N=3 0% N=0 100% N=211
Table 117: 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 39% N=84 47% N=100 12% N=26 2% N=4 100% N=214
Your neighborhood as a place to live 39% N=82 52% N=111 6% N=13 3% N=6 100% N=212
Palo Alto as a place to raise children 41% N=79 45% N=85 12% N=23 2% N=4 100% N=191
Palo Alto as a place to work 39% N=69 43% N=75 17% N=29 2% N=3 100% N=176
Palo Alto as a place to visit 28% N=56 45% N=90 23% N=45 4% N=8 100% N=200
Palo Alto as a place to retire 19% N=37 29% N=58 22% N=43 30% N=61 100% N=199
The overall quality of life in Palo Alto 30% N=63 52% N=110 17% N=35 1% N=3 100% N=211
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025 Community
Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 129 Packet Pg. 137 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 126
Table 118: 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) 13% N=28 53% N=113 27% N=57 6% N=13 0% N=0 100% N=212
Overall feeling of safety in Palo Alto 46% N=99 44% N=94 7% N=15 3% N=6 0% N=0 100% N=214
Overall quality of natural environment in Palo Alto 46% N=97 44% N=94 8% N=18 1% N=3 0% N=0 100% N=213
Overall health and wellness opportunities in Palo Alto 45% N=97 38% N=82 11% N=24 4% N=9 1% N=2 100% N=214
Residents' connection and engagement with their
community 14% N=30 44% N=94 27% N=58 11% N=24 3% N=6 100% N=213
Table 119: 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) 13% N=28 53% N=113 27% N=57 6% N=13 100% N=212
Overall feeling of safety in Palo Alto 46% N=99 44% N=94 7% N=15 3% N=6 100% N=214
Overall quality of natural environment in Palo Alto 46% N=97 44% N=94 8% N=18 1% N=3 100% N=213
Overall health and wellness opportunities in Palo Alto 46% N=97 39% N=82 11% N=24 4% N=9 100% N=212
Residents' connection and engagement with their community 15% N=30 45% N=94 28% N=58 12% N=24 100% N=207
Table 120: 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 34% N=73 42% N=91 14% N=30 8% N=18 1% N=2 100% N=215
Remain in Palo Alto for the next five years 50% N=108 33% N=70 8% N=18 4% N=9 5% N=10 100% N=215
Recommend Palo Alto’s libraries to friends 71% N=151 21% N=46 3% N=5 1% N=3 4% N=8 100% N=214
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025 Community
Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 130 Packet Pg. 138 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 127
Table 121: 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 34% N=73 43% N=91 14% N=30 9% N=18 100% N=213
Remain in Palo Alto for the next five years 53% N=108 34% N=70 9% N=18 4% N=9 100% N=205
Recommend Palo Alto’s libraries to friends 74% N=151 22% N=46 3% N=5 1% N=3 100% N=205
Table 122: 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 12% N=25 39% N=83 27% N=58 19% N=42 3% N=7 100% N=214
Attracting people from diverse backgrounds 15% N=32 26% N=55 23% N=50 30% N=65 6% N=12 100% N=214
Valuing/respecting residents from diverse backgrounds 17% N=36 33% N=69 21% N=45 21% N=45 8% N=16 100% N=212
Taking care of vulnerable residents (elderly, disabled,
homeless, etc.) 5% N=12 26% N=56 33% N=72 28% N=60 7% N=15 100% N=215
Table 123: 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 12% N=25 40% N=83 28% N=58 20% N=42 100% N=207
Attracting people from diverse backgrounds 16% N=32 27% N=55 25% N=50 32% N=65 100% N=202
Valuing/respecting residents from diverse backgrounds 18% N=36 35% N=69 23% N=45 23% N=45 100% N=196
Taking care of vulnerable residents (elderly, disabled, homeless, etc.) 6% N=12 28% N=56 36% N=72 30% N=60 100% N=200
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025 Community
Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 131 Packet Pg. 139 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 128
Table 124: 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 20% N=44 51% N=109 23% N=50 4% N=9 1% N=2 100% N=215
Variety of business and service establishments in Palo
Alto 11% N=22 48% N=102 28% N=59 14% N=29 0% N=0 100% N=212
Vibrancy of downtown/commercial area 14% N=31 41% N=88 31% N=66 11% N=23 3% N=7 100% N=215
Employment opportunities 14% N=31 32% N=69 20% N=44 5% N=10 28% N=60 100% N=214
Shopping opportunities 22% N=46 51% N=108 21% N=44 6% N=12 0% N=0 100% N=210
Cost of living in Palo Alto 1% N=3 4% N=9 16% N=35 77% N=166 1% N=2 100% N=215
Overall image or reputation of Palo Alto 29% N=62 39% N=82 21% N=44 10% N=22 1% N=2 100% N=213
Traffic flow on major streets 9% N=19 41% N=86 29% N=61 21% N=44 1% N=2 100% N=211
Ease of public parking 25% N=54 44% N=94 22% N=46 8% N=16 1% N=3 100% N=214
Ease of travel by car in Palo Alto 19% N=40 56% N=120 18% N=39 7% N=15 0% N=1 100% N=214
Ease of travel by public transportation in Palo Alto 5% N=11 18% N=38 19% N=42 38% N=82 19% N=41 100% N=213
Ease of travel by bicycle in Palo Alto 22% N=47 38% N=80 21% N=45 5% N=11 14% N=30 100% N=212
Ease of walking in Palo Alto 34% N=72 39% N=84 18% N=38 8% N=17 1% N=2 100% N=213
Variety of housing options 5% N=11 13% N=27 28% N=58 49% N=104 6% N=12 100% N=212
Availability of affordable quality housing 5% N=10 6% N=13 11% N=22 72% N=150 7% N=14 100% N=208
Recreational opportunities 29% N=62 49% N=104 14% N=31 2% N=4 6% N=14 100% N=215
Availability of affordable quality mental health care 5% N=11 10% N=22 14% N=31 21% N=46 49% N=104 100% N=215
Opportunities to attend cultural/arts/music activities 31% N=67 43% N=91 15% N=31 5% N=10 6% N=13 100% N=212
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025 Community
Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 132 Packet Pg. 140 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 129
Table 125: 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 21% N=44 51% N=109 24% N=50 4% N=9 100% N=213
Variety of business and service establishments in Palo Alto 11% N=22 48% N=102 28% N=59 14% N=29 100% N=212
Vibrancy of downtown/commercial area 15% N=31 43% N=88 32% N=66 11% N=23 100% N=208
Employment opportunities 20% N=31 45% N=69 28% N=44 7% N=10 100% N=154
Shopping opportunities 22% N=46 51% N=108 21% N=44 6% N=12 100% N=210
Cost of living in Palo Alto 1% N=3 4% N=9 16% N=35 78% N=166 100% N=213
Overall image or reputation of Palo Alto 30% N=62 39% N=82 21% N=44 10% N=22 100% N=211
Traffic flow on major streets 9% N=19 41% N=86 29% N=61 21% N=44 100% N=209
Ease of public parking 26% N=54 45% N=94 22% N=46 8% N=16 100% N=211
Ease of travel by car in Palo Alto 19% N=40 56% N=120 18% N=39 7% N=15 100% N=213
Ease of travel by public transportation in Palo Alto 6% N=11 22% N=38 24% N=42 47% N=82 100% N=172
Ease of travel by bicycle in Palo Alto 26% N=47 44% N=80 24% N=45 6% N=11 100% N=183
Ease of walking in Palo Alto 34% N=72 40% N=84 18% N=38 8% N=17 100% N=211
Variety of housing options 5% N=11 13% N=27 29% N=58 52% N=104 100% N=200
Availability of affordable quality housing 5% N=10 7% N=13 12% N=22 77% N=150 100% N=194
Recreational opportunities 31% N=62 52% N=104 15% N=31 2% N=4 100% N=201
Availability of affordable quality mental health care 10% N=11 20% N=22 28% N=31 42% N=46 100% N=111
Opportunities to attend cultural/arts/music activities 34% N=67 46% N=91 16% N=31 5% N=10 100% N=199
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025 Community
Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 133 Packet Pg. 141 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 130
Table 126: 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 6% N=13 10% N=22 19% N=40 32% N=69 32% N=69 100% N=214
K-12 education 44% N=93 29% N=61 15% N=31 2% N=3 11% N=23 100% N=212
Adult educational opportunities 25% N=53 35% N=76 15% N=31 4% N=8 22% N=47 100% N=215
Opportunities to participate in social events and activities 19% N=41 50% N=107 13% N=27 5% N=11 13% N=27 100% N=213
Openness and acceptance of the community toward
people of diverse backgrounds 15% N=33 34% N=72 24% N=51 17% N=36 10% N=22 100% N=214
Opportunities to learn about City services via City website,
social media (Twitter/X, Nextdoor, Facebook, Instagram,
Medium, LinkedIn) 18% N=37 45% N=94 20% N=41 7% N=14 11% N=24 100% N=211
Table 127: 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 9% N=13 15% N=22 28% N=40 48% N=69 100% N=144
K-12 education 49% N=93 33% N=61 16% N=31 2% N=3 100% N=188
Adult educational opportunities 31% N=53 45% N=76 19% N=31 5% N=8 100% N=168
Opportunities to participate in social events and activities 22% N=41 57% N=107 15% N=27 6% N=11 100% N=186
Openness and acceptance of the community toward people of diverse
backgrounds 17% N=33 37% N=72 27% N=51 19% N=36 100% N=192
Opportunities to learn about City services via City website, social media
(Twitter/X, Nextdoor, Facebook, Instagram, Medium, LinkedIn) 20% N=37 51% N=94 22% N=41 7% N=14 100% N=187
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025 Community
Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 134 Packet Pg. 142 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 131
Table 128: Question 7 - Response Percentages and Number of Respondents without "Don't Know" Responses
Please indicate whether or not you have done each of the following in the last 12 months. No Yes Total
Used Palo Alto recreation centers or their services 35% N=75 65% N=138 100% N=213
Visited a neighborhood park or City park 4% N=9 96% N=205 100% N=214
Used Palo Alto public libraries or their services 16% N=34 84% N=179 100% N=213
Participated in religious or spiritual activities in Palo Alto 69% N=146 31% N=64 100% N=210
Attended a City-sponsored event 30% N=63 70% N=149 100% N=212
Talked to or visited with your immediate neighbors 7% N=14 93% N=198 100% N=212
Used the City’s website to conduct business or pay bills 41% N=86 59% N=125 100% N=211
Used the Utilities webpage to conduct business or pay bills 36% N=77 64% N=136 100% N=214
Contacted the City of Palo Alto (in-person, phone, email or web) for help or information 38% N=80 62% N=131 100% N=211
Contacted Palo Alto elected officials (in-person, phone, email or web) to express your opinion 47% N=99 53% N=113 100% N=212
Attended a local public meeting (of local elected officials like City Council or County Commissioners,
advisory boards, town halls, HOA, neighborhood watch, etc.) 51% N=107 49% N=104 100% N=211
Watched (online or on television) a local public meeting 61% N=128 39% N=84 100% N=212
Volunteered your time to some group/activity in Palo Alto 39% N=83 61% N=129 100% N=211
Voted in your most recent local election 10% N=22 90% N=192 100% N=214
Used bus, rail, subway, or other public transportation instead of driving 40% N=85 60% N=128 100% N=213
Household member was a victim of a crime in Palo Alto 89% N=189 11% N=22 100% N=212
Reported a crime to the police in Palo Alto 79% N=169 21% N=45 100% N=214
*This question did not have a "don't know" option.
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025 Community
Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 135 Packet Pg. 143 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 132
Table 129: 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 14% N=30 34% N=73 33% N=71 14% N=29 4% N=9 100% N=211
The overall direction that Palo Alto is taking 10% N=22 29% N=60 40% N=83 18% N=37 3% N=6 100% N=207
The job Palo Alto government does at welcoming resident
involvement 12% N=26 35% N=73 33% N=69 11% N=22 9% N=19 100% N=208
Overall confidence in Palo Alto government 9% N=18 28% N=58 37% N=77 21% N=44 4% N=8 100% N=205
Generally acting in the best interest of the community 14% N=29 30% N=63 28% N=57 23% N=48 5% N=11 100% N=208
Being honest 14% N=29 37% N=77 22% N=46 17% N=35 10% N=21 100% N=208
Being open and transparent to the public 11% N=23 36% N=74 26% N=54 18% N=37 10% N=21 100% N=209
Informing residents about issues facing the community 14% N=28 37% N=76 26% N=54 15% N=31 8% N=16 100% N=204
Treating all residents fairly 9% N=20 32% N=67 22% N=46 21% N=43 15% N=32 100% N=208
Treating residents with respect 18% N=37 37% N=78 19% N=40 11% N=23 15% N=32 100% N=209
Table 130: 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 15% N=30 36% N=73 35% N=71 14% N=29 100% N=202
The overall direction that Palo Alto is taking 11% N=22 30% N=60 41% N=83 18% N=37 100% N=201
The job Palo Alto government does at welcoming resident involvement 13% N=26 39% N=73 36% N=69 12% N=22 100% N=190
Overall confidence in Palo Alto government 9% N=18 30% N=58 39% N=77 22% N=44 100% N=197
Generally acting in the best interest of the community 15% N=29 32% N=63 29% N=57 24% N=48 100% N=198
Being honest 16% N=29 41% N=77 25% N=46 18% N=35 100% N=187
Being open and transparent to the public 12% N=23 39% N=74 29% N=54 20% N=37 100% N=188
Informing residents about issues facing the community 15% N=28 40% N=76 29% N=54 16% N=31 100% N=188
Treating all residents fairly 11% N=20 38% N=67 26% N=46 25% N=43 100% N=176
Treating residents with respect 21% N=37 44% N=78 22% N=40 13% N=23 100% N=178
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025 Community
Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 136 Packet Pg. 144 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 133
Table 131: 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 22% N=46 48% N=101 22% N=47 6% N=12 2% N=5 100% N=210
The State Government 7% N=15 37% N=76 38% N=79 13% N=28 6% N=11 100% N=209
The Federal Government 1% N=3 12% N=24 28% N=57 53% N=109 6% N=12 100% N=205
Table 132: 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 22% N=46 49% N=101 23% N=47 6% N=12 100% N=206
The State Government 7% N=15 39% N=76 40% N=79 14% N=28 100% N=197
The Federal Government 1% N=3 12% N=24 30% N=57 57% N=109 100% N=193
Table 133: 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 9% N=19 33% N=70 29% N=60 21% N=45 7% N=15 100% N=209
Traffic signal timing 15% N=32 28% N=58 40% N=84 13% N=27 4% N=8 100% N=209
Street repair 15% N=31 47% N=98 23% N=47 15% N=32 0% N=0 100% N=208
Street cleaning 26% N=55 55% N=114 13% N=27 5% N=9 2% N=4 100% N=209
Street tree maintenance 29% N=59 49% N=101 11% N=23 7% N=14 4% N=9 100% N=206
Sidewalk maintenance 10% N=21 54% N=112 22% N=47 11% N=23 3% N=6 100% N=209
Land use, planning, and zoning 7% N=13 17% N=34 29% N=60 34% N=71 13% N=27 100% N=206
Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc.) 8% N=16 27% N=56 26% N=55 18% N=37 21% N=44 100% N=208
Preservation of natural areas (open space, farmlands, and
greenbelts) 31% N=64 41% N=85 18% N=36 3% N=6 7% N=15 100% N=206
Building and planning application processing services 4% N=8 11% N=23 19% N=39 31% N=65 35% N=72 100% N=207
Affordable high-speed internet access 17% N=35 32% N=67 22% N=47 13% N=28 15% N=32 100% N=209
Electric utility 38% N=79 38% N=80 14% N=29 9% N=19 1% N=3 100% N=209
Gas utility 32% N=65 36% N=73 19% N=39 6% N=13 7% N=14 100% N=205
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025 Community
Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 137 Packet Pg. 145 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 134
Please rate the quality of each of the following services
in Palo Alto: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total
Utility payment options 38% N=79 37% N=77 12% N=25 1% N=2 11% N=24 100% N=207
Drinking water 47% N=97 42% N=85 8% N=17 0% N=0 3% N=6 100% N=205
Sewer services 35% N=72 45% N=93 6% N=13 3% N=6 11% N=23 100% N=207
Storm water management (storm drainage, dams, levees,
etc.) 20% N=42 55% N=114 9% N=18 4% N=7 12% N=25 100% N=206
Refuse collection (garbage, recycling, yard waste, and e-
waste) 42% N=87 45% N=95 6% N=13 4% N=9 2% N=5 100% N=209
Police services 37% N=77 26% N=55 8% N=18 2% N=5 26% N=54 100% N=209
Crime prevention 26% N=53 36% N=75 10% N=20 8% N=16 21% N=45 100% N=209
Animal control 26% N=54 31% N=64 9% N=17 1% N=2 33% N=67 100% N=205
Ambulance or emergency medical services 40% N=83 19% N=39 3% N=7 0% N=0 38% N=79 100% N=209
Fire emergency services 37% N=78 31% N=65 1% N=3 0% N=1 30% N=63 100% N=209
Fire prevention and education 29% N=58 32% N=65 3% N=6 3% N=6 33% N=66 100% N=202
Palo Alto open space (e.g Foothills, Baylands) 55% N=114 32% N=68 7% N=15 1% N=1 5% N=10 100% N=208
City parks 47% N=98 42% N=89 6% N=13 0% N=0 4% N=8 100% N=208
Recreation programs or classes 32% N=66 33% N=69 11% N=22 1% N=2 23% N=47 100% N=207
Recreation centers or facilities 32% N=67 41% N=84 12% N=24 2% N=3 14% N=28 100% N=206
Public library services (e.g., hold requests, storytimes,
teen events, bookclubs) 58% N=120 29% N=58 3% N=5 0% N=0 10% N=21 100% N=205
Library facilities (buildings, computer equipment,
accessibility) 61% N=127 31% N=64 1% N=2 2% N=4 5% N=10 100% N=207
Variety of library materials (books, e-books, streaming,
databases, audiobooks) 52% N=108 32% N=67 7% N=15 2% N=4 7% N=14 100% N=207
Art programs and theater 39% N=81 32% N=65 5% N=11 2% N=3 22% N=46 100% N=206
City-sponsored special events 24% N=50 42% N=88 8% N=17 3% N=6 22% N=46 100% N=207
City website (cityofpaloalto.org) 16% N=34 41% N=85 28% N=58 3% N=5 11% N=24 100% N=206
Overall customer service by Palo Alto employees (police,
receptionists, planners, etc.) 27% N=54 45% N=92 11% N=21 5% N=10 12% N=25 100% N=203
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025 Community
Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 138 Packet Pg. 146 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 135
Table 134: 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 10% N=19 36% N=70 31% N=60 23% N=45 100% N=194
Traffic signal timing 16% N=32 29% N=58 42% N=84 14% N=27 100% N=201
Street repair 15% N=31 47% N=98 23% N=47 15% N=32 100% N=208
Street cleaning 27% N=55 56% N=114 13% N=27 5% N=9 100% N=205
Street tree maintenance 30% N=59 51% N=101 12% N=23 7% N=14 100% N=197
Sidewalk maintenance 10% N=21 55% N=112 23% N=47 11% N=23 100% N=203
Land use, planning, and zoning 8% N=13 19% N=34 33% N=60 40% N=71 100% N=179
Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc.) 10% N=16 34% N=56 34% N=55 22% N=37 100% N=164
Preservation of natural areas (open space, farmlands, and greenbelts) 34% N=64 44% N=85 19% N=36 3% N=6 100% N=191
Building and planning application processing services 6% N=8 17% N=23 29% N=39 48% N=65 100% N=135
Affordable high-speed internet access 20% N=35 38% N=67 27% N=47 16% N=28 100% N=177
Electric utility 38% N=79 39% N=80 14% N=29 9% N=19 100% N=206
Gas utility 34% N=65 38% N=73 21% N=39 7% N=13 100% N=191
Utility payment options 43% N=79 42% N=77 14% N=25 1% N=2 100% N=184
Drinking water 49% N=97 43% N=85 8% N=17 0% N=0 100% N=199
Sewer services 39% N=72 50% N=93 7% N=13 3% N=6 100% N=184
Storm water management (storm drainage, dams, levees, etc.) 23% N=42 63% N=114 10% N=18 4% N=7 100% N=181
Refuse collection (garbage, recycling, yard waste, and e-waste) 43% N=87 46% N=95 6% N=13 4% N=9 100% N=204
Police services 50% N=77 36% N=55 11% N=18 3% N=5 100% N=155
Crime prevention 33% N=53 46% N=75 12% N=20 10% N=16 100% N=164
Animal control 39% N=54 47% N=64 13% N=17 2% N=2 100% N=138
Ambulance or emergency medical services 64% N=83 30% N=39 5% N=7 0% N=0 100% N=130
Fire emergency services 53% N=78 44% N=65 2% N=3 0% N=1 100% N=146
Fire prevention and education 43% N=58 48% N=65 5% N=6 5% N=6 100% N=136
Palo Alto open space (e.g Foothills, Baylands) 58% N=114 34% N=68 8% N=15 1% N=1 100% N=198
City parks 49% N=98 44% N=89 6% N=13 0% N=0 100% N=200
Recreation programs or classes 42% N=66 43% N=69 14% N=22 1% N=2 100% N=159
Recreation centers or facilities 37% N=67 47% N=84 14% N=24 2% N=3 100% N=178
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025 Community
Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 139 Packet Pg. 147 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 136
Please rate the quality of each of the following services in Palo Alto: Excellent Good Fair Poor Total
Public library services (e.g., hold requests, storytimes, teen events,
bookclubs) 65% N=120 32% N=58 3% N=5 0% N=0 100% N=183
Library facilities (buildings, computer equipment, accessibility) 65% N=127 33% N=64 1% N=2 2% N=4 100% N=197
Variety of library materials (books, e-books, streaming, databases,
audiobooks) 56% N=108 34% N=67 8% N=15 2% N=4 100% N=193
Art programs and theater 50% N=81 41% N=65 7% N=11 2% N=3 100% N=160
City-sponsored special events 31% N=50 55% N=88 11% N=17 4% N=6 100% N=161
City website (cityofpaloalto.org) 19% N=34 47% N=85 32% N=58 3% N=5 100% N=183
Overall customer service by Palo Alto employees (police, receptionists,
planners, etc.) 30% N=54 52% N=92 12% N=21 6% N=10 100% N=177
Table 135: 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 51% N=105 42% N=86 5% N=10 2% N=3 1% N=3 100% N=206
Affordability of utility services 24% N=49 38% N=79 23% N=47 13% N=27 2% N=5 100% N=206
Community value received from the City owning and
operating its own municipal utility services 37% N=78 39% N=81 12% N=24 4% N=9 8% N=16 100% N=208
Utilities online customer self-service features 31% N=64 32% N=67 12% N=24 2% N=4 23% N=48 100% N=207
Providing opportunities for energy and water efficiency at
home or business 31% N=63 40% N=82 10% N=20 4% N=8 15% N=31 100% N=204
Working hard to keep utilities prices competitive 28% N=57 34% N=71 10% N=20 10% N=22 18% N=38 100% N=208
Value of all the services Palo Alto Utilities provides for the
price you pay 28% N=59 37% N=76 19% N=39 8% N=16 8% N=17 100% N=207
Ease of obtaining information or performing a transaction
through the City’s website 20% N=42 41% N=84 18% N=38 7% N=14 14% N=29 100% N=207
Value of Palo Alto Utilities’ customer communications 29% N=59 34% N=69 13% N=27 4% N=9 20% N=40 100% N=205
Ease of contacting Utilities department staff 29% N=59 27% N=55 7% N=13 4% N=9 32% N=65 100% N=201
Speed of response after contacting Utilities department
staff 27% N=56 29% N=59 4% N=9 3% N=7 36% N=75 100% N=206
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025 Community
Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 140 Packet Pg. 148 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 137
Table 136: 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 51% N=105 42% N=86 5% N=10 2% N=3 100% N=203
Affordability of utility services 24% N=49 39% N=79 23% N=47 13% N=27 100% N=202
Community value received from the City owning and operating its own
municipal utility services 40% N=78 42% N=81 13% N=24 5% N=9 100% N=192
Utilities online customer self-service features 40% N=64 42% N=67 15% N=24 2% N=4 100% N=159
Providing opportunities for energy and water efficiency at home or
business 36% N=63 47% N=82 12% N=20 5% N=8 100% N=173
Working hard to keep utilities prices competitive 34% N=57 42% N=71 12% N=20 13% N=22 100% N=170
Value of all the services Palo Alto Utilities provides for the price you pay 31% N=59 40% N=76 21% N=39 9% N=16 100% N=190
Ease of obtaining information or performing a transaction through the
City’s website 24% N=42 47% N=84 21% N=38 8% N=14 100% N=178
Value of Palo Alto Utilities’ customer communications 36% N=59 42% N=69 16% N=27 6% N=9 100% N=165
Ease of contacting Utilities department staff 43% N=59 41% N=55 10% N=13 7% N=9 100% N=136
Speed of response after contacting Utilities department staff 42% N=56 45% N=59 7% N=9 5% N=7 100% N=131
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025 Community
Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 141 Packet Pg. 149 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 138
Table 137: 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) 63% N=122 25% N=49 10% N=19 2% N=4 100% N=195
Overall economic health of Palo Alto 59% N=120 32% N=65 6% N=13 4% N=7 100% N=205
Overall feeling of safety in Palo Alto 49% N=102 33% N=68 13% N=27 5% N=9 100% N=207
Overall quality of natural environment in Palo Alto 42% N=88 36% N=75 19% N=40 3% N=6 100% N=208
Overall health and wellness opportunities in Palo Alto 28% N=58 40% N=83 27% N=56 5% N=10 100% N=208
Overall opportunities for education, culture and the arts 30% N=61 42% N=86 21% N=43 6% N=13 100% N=203
Residents' connection and engagement with their community 31% N=64 39% N=80 27% N=55 4% N=8 100% N=207
Reducing community greenhouse gas emissions 29% N=59 36% N=75 21% N=43 14% N=30 100% N=208
Increasing local solar generation capacity within city boundaries 26% N=54 33% N=68 25% N=53 16% N=33 100% N=208
Faster notification systems (online, mobile or email) for Utilities
billing issues, efficiency tips, outage information 21% N=44 25% N=52 38% N=78 16% N=33 100% N=208
Faster notification systems (online, mobile or email) for public
safety issues 33% N=69 33% N=67 24% N=49 10% N=21 100% N=207
* This question did not have a “don’t know” option.
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025 Community
Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 142 Packet Pg. 150 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 139
Table 138: 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) 47% N=97 22% N=47 14% N=30 16% N=32 1% N=2 100% N=208
Spend quality time with local friends, family, and/or
neighbors 59% N=122 33% N=69 6% N=12 2% N=3 1% N=1 100% N=208
Table 139: 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) 47% N=97 23% N=47 14% N=30 16% N=32 100% N=206
Spend quality time with local friends, family, and/or neighbors 59% N=122 33% N=69 6% N=12 2% N=3 100% N=206
Table 140: 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 56% N=117
Walking 18% N=37
Biking 23% N=47
Bus 1% N=2
Train 1% N=1
Scootering 0% N=1
Palo Alto Link 0% N=0
Uber/Lyft or similar rideshare service 0% N=0
Carpooling 1% N=3
Total 100% N=208
* This question did not have a “don’t know” option.
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025 Community
Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 143 Packet Pg. 151 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 140
Table 141: 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=76 38% N=74 15% N=30 7% N=14 100% N=194
Biking 43% N=81 31% N=58 14% N=26 12% N=23 100% N=189
Bus 8% N=16 25% N=49 30% N=58 36% N=69 100% N=191
Train 18% N=35 33% N=63 32% N=61 16% N=30 100% N=190
Scootering 9% N=17 34% N=61 22% N=39 35% N=63 100% N=181
Palo Alto Link 5% N=9 48% N=86 25% N=45 21% N=38 100% N=177
Uber/Lyft or similar rideshare service 51% N=95 32% N=60 11% N=20 6% N=11 100% N=186
Carpooling 15% N=27 33% N=61 26% N=48 27% N=50 100% N=186
* This question did not have a “don’t know” option.
Table 142: Question 16 - Response Percentages and Number of Respondents
How familiar are you with Palo Alto’s Sustainability and Climate Action Plan (S/CAP) and its goal to reduce greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions 80% by 2030? Percent Number
Extremely familiar 11% N=23
Very familiar 11% N=24
Moderately familiar 21% N=43
Slightly familiar 25% N=53
Not familiar 31% N=64
Total 100% N=206
* This question did not have a “don’t know” option.
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025 Community
Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 144 Packet Pg. 152 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 141
Table 143: Question 17 - Response Percentages and Number of Respondents
How familiar are you with Palo Alto’s programs to advance our community goals such as home electrification? Percent Number
Extremely familiar 13% N=27
Very familiar 19% N=40
Moderately familiar 27% N=56
Slightly familiar 25% N=52
Not familiar 15% N=30
Total 100% N=205
* This question did not have a “don’t know” option.
Table 144: Question Q18 - Response Percentages and Number of Respondents
Which of the following considerations would most motivate you to replace your major gas appliances with an electric model?
(Select up to three) Percent Number
Save time with helpful installation 32% N=64
Save money through rebates 61% N=123
Improve health and safety 40% N=80
Affect climate change 40% N=81
Support Home resale value 16% N=32
I am not going to upgrade to electric 29% N=58
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025 Community
Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 145 Packet Pg. 153 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 142
Demographic Questions
Table 145: 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 5% N=10
Somewhat positive 10% N=20
Neutral 41% N=85
Somewhat negative 35% N=73
Very negative 10% N=20
Total 100% N=208
Table 146: Question D2 - Response Percentages and Number of Respondents
What is your employment status? Percent Number
Working full time for pay 50% N=104
Working part time for pay 9% N=19
Unemployed, looking for paid work 7% N=16
Unemployed, not looking for paid work 3% N=6
Fully retired 30% N=63
College student, unemployed 0% N=0
Total 100% N=208
Table 147: Question D3 - Response Percentages and Number of Respondents
Do you work inside the boundaries of Palo Alto? Percent Number
Yes, outside the home 28% N=35
Yes, from home 39% N=47
No 33% N=40
Total 100% N=122
Question asked of those reporting that they work full or part time.
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025 Community
Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 146 Packet Pg. 154 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 143
Table 148: Question D4 - Response Percentages and Number of Respondents
How many years have you lived in Palo Alto? Percent Number
Less than 2 years 2% N=4
2 to 5 years 9% N=19
6 to 10 years 22% N=47
11 to 20 years 16% N=33
More than 20 years 50% N=105
Total 100% N=208
Table 149: 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=122
Building with two or more homes (duplex, townhome, apartment or condominium) 34% N=70
Mobile home 0% N=0
Other 8% N=17
Total 100% N=208
Table 150: Question D6 - Response Percentages and Number of Respondents
Do you rent or own your home? Percent Number
Rent 39% N=80
Own 61% N=126
Total 100% N=206
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025 Community
Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 147 Packet Pg. 155 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 144
Table 151: Question D7 - Response Percentages and Number of Respondents
About how much is your monthly housing cost for the place you live (including rent, mortgage payment, property
tax, property insurance and homeowners' association (HOA) fees)? Percent Number
Less than $500 per month 3% N=5
$500 to $999 per month 7% N=13
$1,000 to $1,499 per month 5% N=10
$1,500 to $1,999 per month 14% N=27
$2,000 to $2,499 per month 3% N=5
$2,500 to $2,999 per month 11% N=21
$3,000 to $3,499 per month 6% N=11
$3,500 to $3,999 per month 11% N=21
$4,000 to $4,499 per month 6% N=12
$4,500 to $4,999 per month 3% N=6
$4,500 to $4,999 per month 6% N=11
$5,500 to $5,999 per month 3% N=6
$6,000 to $6,499 per month 4% N=8
$6,500 to $6,999 per month 0% N=0
$7,000 to $7,499 per month 4% N=7
$7,500 to $7,999 per month 1% N=1
$8,000 to $8,499 per month 2% N=3
$8,500 to $8,999 per month 0% N=1
$9,000 to $9,499 per month 0% N=0
$9,500 to $9,999 per month 2% N=4
$10,000 or more per month 9% N=17
Total 100% N=187
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025 Community
Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 148 Packet Pg. 156 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 145
Table 152: Question D8 - Response Percentages and Number of Respondents
Do any children 17 or under live in your household? Percent Number
No 66% N=136
Yes 34% N=69
Total 100% N=205
Table 153: Question D9 - Response Percentages and Number of Respondents
Are you or any other members of your household aged 65 or older? Percent Number
No 60% N=125
Yes 40% N=83
Total 100% N=208
Table 154: 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 0% N=0
$25,000 to $49,999 2% N=3
$50,000 to $74,999 16% N=27
$75,000 to $99,999 10% N=17
$100,000 to $149,999 11% N=18
$150,000 to $199,999 9% N=15
$200,000 to $249,999 12% N=19
$250,000 to $299,999 6% N=9
$300,000 to $349,999 4% N=6
$350,000 to $399,999 6% N=9
$400,000 to $449,999 2% N=4
$450,000 to $499,999 22% N=36
$500,000 or more 0% N=0
Total 100% N=163
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025 Community
Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 149 Packet Pg. 157 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 146
Table 155: Question D11 - Response Percentages and Number of Respondents
Are you Spanish, Hispanic or Latino? Percent Number
No, not Spanish, Hispanic or Latino 93% N=181
Yes, I consider myself to be Spanish, Hispanic or Latino 7% N=14
Total 100% N=163
Table 156: 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=1
Asian, Asian Indian or Pacific Islander 28% N=54
Black or African American 1% N=2
Middle Eastern or North African 0% N=0
White 71% N=135
Other 4% N=7
Total may exceed 100% as respondents could select more than one option.
Table 157: Question D13 - Response Percentages and Number of Respondents
In which category is your age? Percent Number
18 to 24 years 0% N=0
25 to 34 years 13% N=25
35 to 44 years 18% N=37
45 to 54 years 20% N=39
55 to 64 years 17% N=34
65 to 74 years 12% N=23
75 years or older 21% N=42
Total 100% N=199
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025 Community
Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 150 Packet Pg. 158 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 147
Table 158: Question D14 - Response Percentages and Number of Respondents
What is your gender? Percent Number
Female 52% N=102
Male 46% N=91
Identify in another way 2% N=4
Total 100% N=197
Table 159: Question D14 - Response Percentages and Number of Respondents
What is your sexual orientation? Percent Number
Heterosexual 93% N=172
Lesbian 0% N=0
Gay 4% N=7
Bisexual 3% N=5
Identify another way 1% N=2
Total 100% N=185
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025 Community
Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 151 Packet Pg. 159 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 148
Appendix D: Results to Open -Participation Survey
compared to Probability Survey
Table 160: Question 1 - by Sample
Percent rating "excellent" or "good"
Probability Sample
Open participation
Sample
(A) (B)
Palo Alto as a place to live 90% 86%
Your neighborhood as a place to live 92% 91%
Palo Alto as a place to raise children 83% 86%
Palo Alto as a place to work 80% 82%
Palo Alto as a place to visit 71% 73%
Palo Alto as a place to retire 55% 48%
The overall quality of life in Palo Alto 87% 82%
Table 161: Question 2 - by Sample
Percent rating "excellent" or "good"
Probability Sample
Open participation
Sample
(A) (B)
Overall "built environment" of Palo Alto (including
overall design, buildings, parks and transportation
systems)
75%
B
67%
Overall feeling of safety in Palo Alto 90% 90%
Overall quality of natural environment in Palo Alto 88% 90%
Overall health and wellness opportunities in Palo Alto 85% 85%
Residents' connection and engagement with their
community
59% 60%
Table 162: Question 3 - by Sample
Percent rating "very likely" or "somewhat likely"
Probability Sample
Open participation
Sample
(A) (B)
Recommend living in Palo Alto to someone who asks 82% 77%
Remain in Palo Alto for the next five years 81% 87%
Recommend Palo Alto’s libraries to friends 92% 96%
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025
Community Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 152 Packet Pg. 160 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 149
Table 163: Question 4 - by Sample
Percent rating "excellent" or "good"
Probability Sample
Open participation
Sample
(A) (B)
Making all residents feel welcome 67%
B
52%
Attracting people from diverse backgrounds 59%
B
43%
Valuing/respecting residents from diverse
backgrounds
73%
B
54%
Taking care of vulnerable residents (elderly, disabled,
homeless, etc.)
49%
B
34%
Table 164: Question 5 - by Sample
Percent rating "excellent" or "good"
Probability Sample
Open participation
Sample
(A) (B)
Overall quality of business and service
establishments in Palo Alto
78% 72%
Variety of business and service establishments in
Palo Alto
60% 59%
Vibrancy of downtown/commercial area 62% 57%
Employment opportunities 60% 65%
Shopping opportunities 67% 74%
Cost of living in Palo Alto 8% 6%
Overall image or reputation of Palo Alto 81%
B
69%
Traffic flow on major streets 45% 50%
Ease of public parking 64% 70%
Ease of travel by car in Palo Alto 70% 75%
Ease of travel by public transportation in Palo Alto 33% 28%
Ease of travel by bicycle in Palo Alto 80%
B
69%
Ease of walking in Palo Alto 83%
B
74%
Variety of housing options 26% 19%
Availability of affordable quality housing 10% 11%
Overall quality of new development in Palo Alto 40% 37%
Availability of paths and walking trails 74% 75%
Fitness opportunities (including exercise classes and
paths or trails, etc.)
79% 77%
Recreational opportunities 77% 83%
Availability of affordable quality mental health care 37% 30%
Opportunities to attend cultural/arts/music activities 72% 79%
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025
Community Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 153 Packet Pg. 161 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 150
Table 165: Question 6 - by Sample
Percent rating "excellent" or "good"
Probability Sample
Open participation
Sample
(A) (B)
Availability of affordable quality childcare/preschool 37%
B
24%
K-12 education 88% 82%
Adult educational opportunities 81% 77%
Opportunities to participate in social events and
activities
67% 79%
A
Openness and acceptance of the community toward
people of diverse backgrounds
71%
B
55%
Opportunities to learn about City services via City
website, social media (Twitter/X, Nextdoor, Facebook,
Instagram, Medium, LinkedIn)
71% 70%
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025
Community Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 154 Packet Pg. 162 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 151
Table 166: Question 7 - by Sample
Percent "yes"
Probability Sample
Open participation
Sample
(A) (B)
Used Palo Alto recreation centers or their services 52% 65%
A
Visited a neighborhood park or City park 95% 96%
Used Palo Alto public libraries or their services 74% 84%
A
Participated in religious or spiritual activities in Palo
Alto
24% 31%
Attended a City-sponsored event 56% 70%
A
Talked to or visited with your immediate neighbors 88% 93%
A
Used the City’s website to conduct business or pay
bills
57% 59%
Used the Utilities webpage to conduct business or pay
bills
69% 64%
Contacted the City of Palo Alto (in-person, phone,
email or web) for help or information
51% 62%
A
Contacted Palo Alto elected officials (in-person,
phone, email or web) to express your opinion
22% 53%
A
Attended a local public meeting (of local elected
officials like City Council or County Commissioners,
advisory boards, town halls, HOA, neighborhood
watch, etc.)
25% 49%
A
Watched (online or on television) a local public
meeting
18% 39%
A
Volunteered your time to some group/activity in Palo
Alto
41% 61%
A
Voted in your most recent local election 78% 90%
A
Used bus, rail, subway, or other public transportation
instead of driving
53% 60%
Carpooled with other adults or children instead of
driving alone
59% 61%
Walked or biked instead of driving 86% 86%
Observed a code violation or other hazard in Palo Alto
(weeds, abandoned buildings, etc.)
43% 55%
A
Household member was a victim of a crime in Palo
Alto
13% 11%
Reported a crime to the police in Palo Alto 19% 21%
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025
Community Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 155 Packet Pg. 163 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 152
Table 167: Question 8 - by Sample
Percent "excellent" or "good".
Probability Sample
Open participation
Sample
(A) (B)
The value of services for the taxes paid to Palo Alto 59%
B
51%
The overall direction that Palo Alto is taking 53%
B
40%
The job Palo Alto government does at welcoming resident
involvement
59% 52%
Overall confidence in Palo Alto government 55%
B
39%
Generally acting in the best interest of the community 60%
B
47%
Being honest 62% 57%
Being open and transparent to the public 60% 52%
Informing residents about issues facing the community 57% 55%
Treating all residents fairly 62%
B
49%
Treating residents with respect 73%
B
65%
Table 168: Question 9 - by Sample
Percent "excellent" or "good"
Address-based
Sample
Open participation
Sample
(A) (B)
The City of Palo Alto 78% 71%
The State Government 52% 46%
The Federal Government 19% 14%
Table 169: Question 10 - by Sample
Percent rating "excellent" or "good"
Probability Sample
Open participation
Sample
(A) (B)
Traffic enforcement 60%
B
46%
Traffic signal timing 51% 45%
Street repair 57% 62%
Street cleaning 80% 82%
Street tree maintenance 72% 81%
A
Sidewalk maintenance 59% 66%
Land use, planning, and zoning 43%
B
27%
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025
Community Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 156 Packet Pg. 164 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 153
Percent rating "excellent" or "good"
Probability Sample
Open participation
Sample
(A) (B)
Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc.) 47% 44%
Preservation of natural areas (open space, farmlands, and
greenbelts)
83% 78%
Building and planning application processing services 32% 23%
Affordable high-speed internet access 54% 58%
Electric utility 75% 77%
Gas utility 75% 73%
Utility payment options 86% 85%
Drinking water 90% 92%
Sewer services 87% 90%
Storm water management (storm drainage, dams, levees,
etc.)
78% 86%
A
Refuse collection (garbage, recycling, yard waste, and e-
waste)
86% 89%
Police services 86% 86%
Crime prevention 73% 78%
Animal control 81% 86%
Ambulance or emergency medical services 91% 94%
Fire emergency services 90% 98%
A
Fire prevention and education 78% 91%
A
Palo Alto open space (e.g Foothills, Baylands) 93% 92%
City parks 94% 93%
Recreation programs or classes 86% 85%
Recreation centers or facilities 84% 85%
Public library services (e.g., hold requests, storytimes, teen
events, bookclubs)
94% 97%
Library facilities (buildings, computer equipment,
accessibility)
93% 97%
Variety of library materials (books, e-books, streaming,
databases, audiobooks)
88% 90%
Art programs and theater 85% 91%
City-sponsored special events 80% 86%
City website (cityofpaloalto.org) 75%
B
65%
Overall customer service by Palo Alto employees (police,
receptionists, planners, etc.)
80% 82%
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025
Community Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 157 Packet Pg. 165 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 154
Table 170: Question 11 - by Sample
Percent rating "excellent" or "good"
Probability Sample
Open participation
Sample
(A) (B)
Reliability of utility services 92% 94%
Affordability of utility services 54% 63%
A
Community value received from the City owning and
operating its own municipal utility services
80% 83%
Utilities online customer self-service features 84% 82%
Providing opportunities for energy and water efficiency at
home or business
78% 84%
Working hard to keep utilities prices competitive 62% 75%
A
Value of all the services Palo Alto Utilities provides for the
price you pay
66% 71%
Ease of obtaining information or performing a transaction
through the City’s website
73% 71%
Value of Palo Alto Utilities’ customer communications 73% 78%
Ease of contacting Utilities department staff 76% 84%
Speed of response after contacting Utilities department
staff
75% 88%
A
Table 171: Question 12 - by Sample
Percent rating "excellent" or "good"
Probability Sample
Open participation
Sample
(A) (B)
Overall “built environment” of Palo Alto (including overall
design, buildings, parks and transportation systems)
85% 88%
Overall economic health of Palo Alto 85% 90%
Overall feeling of safety in Palo Alto 83% 82%
Overall quality of natural environment in Palo Alto 86%
B
78%
Overall health and wellness opportunities in Palo Alto 63% 68%
Overall opportunities for education, culture and the arts 70% 73%
Residents' connection and engagement with their
community
63% 70%
Reducing community greenhouse gas emissions 57% 65%
Increasing local solar generation capacity within city
boundaries
56% 59%
Faster notification systems (online, mobile or email) for
Utilities billing issues, efficiency tips, outage information
46% 46%
Faster notification systems (online, mobile or email) for
public safety issues
62% 66%
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025
Community Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 158 Packet Pg. 166 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 155
Table 172: Question 13 - by Sample
Percent rating "very likely" or "somewhat likely"
Probability Sample
Open participation
Sample
(A) (B)
Participate in organized group activities (such as clubs,
sports teams, volunteer your time, attend church/temple)
56% 70%
A
Spend quality time with local friends, family, and/or
neighbors
88% 92%
Table 173: Question 15 - by Sample
Percent rating "very" or "somewhat" likely
Probability Sample
Open participation
Sample
(A) (B)
Walking 71% 77%
Biking 78% 74%
Bus 35% 34%
Train 48% 52%
Scootering 39% 43%
Palo Alto Link 49% 53%
Uber/Lyft or similar rideshare service 79% 83%
Carpooling 38% 47%
A
Table 174: Question 16 - by Sample
Percent rating "very" or "extremely" familiar
Probability Sample
Open participation
Sample
(A) (B)
How familiar are you with Palo Alto’s Sustainability and
Climate Action Plan (S/CAP) and its goal to reduce
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions 80% by 2030?
6% 22%
A
Table 175: Question 17 - by Sample
Percent rating "very" or "extremely" familiar
Probability Sample
Open participation
Sample
(A) (B)
How familiar are you with Palo Alto’s programs to advance
our community goals such as home electrification?
15% 33%
A
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025
Community Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 159 Packet Pg. 167 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 156
Table 176: Question 18 - by Sample
Which of the following considerations would most motivate
you to replace your major gas appliances with an electric
model? (Select up to three)
Probability Sample
Open participation
Sample
(A) (B)
Save time with helpful installation 30% 32%
Save money through rebates 59% 61%
Improve health and safety 37% 40%
Affect climate change 35% 40%
Support Home resale value 15% 16%
I am not going to upgrade to electric 29% 29%
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025
Community Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 160 Packet Pg. 168 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 157
Appendix E: Verbatim Responses to Open -ended
Questions from Open Participation Survey
The following are responses to questions 19 and 20. Responses are presented here in verbatim form,
including any typographical, grammatical or other mistakes. Responses are in alphabetical order.
Question 19: As a resident of Palo Alto, what one change could the
City make that would make you happier?
Housing and Construction
• Actual affordable housing for very low-income residents
• Add more housing. This would have a remarkably strong impact on rental prices.
• affordable housing
• Affordable housing
• Affordable housing for PAUSD teachers
• Approve more housing for all income groups
• build a lot more housing
• Build affordable housing quickly and in locations near downtown and midtown
• Build more affordable housing
• Build more homes at all income levels. Our housing shortage is a crisis. My kids and mom cannot
afford to live near me. This is my #1 local issues. We must upzone.
• Build more housing
• Build much much much more housing
• Decrease the new apartment buildings - too crowded in residential area already. Need to build
along highway or bayland openspace. Please don;t keep adding high rise to the residential areas.
Rental units should be far away from owner occupied homes as home owners value their
properties and surrounding area/community. Rentals come and go and tends to trash the
surrounding areas and make the neighborhood less attractive to live in. Please don't try and build
affordakle housing and sacrifice the quality of living and open space, too crowded. Don't keep
changing the Zoning and allow more and more crowded units and high rise - that's San Francisco.
Thank you for listening.
• Don't allow huge development like extremely tall and dense new Mollie Stone's
• Encourage more density for housing or mixed use. Promote more innovative architecture and
design. Move beyond suburban mentally to no-urban perspective.
• Faster approve more affordable housing
• Focusing on affordable housing, I acknowledge that there is work being done however it is a bit
lacking.
• get serious about affordable housing - government (local, state, and federal) must get involved
since the "free market" will never prefer low profit development when higher profits are available.
• implement consistent and effective housing development plans
• Increase residential building height limits significantly eeverywhere
• Less development and coming construction and traffic congestion in South Palo Alto.
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025
Community Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 161 Packet Pg. 169 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 158
• meaningful steps to add housing supply and address vacancy/investment properties
• More housing for low and moderate income people.
• More affordable high rise housing
• More affordable housing for needed workers; eg health care workers, childcare workers and
teachers who do not make competitive salaries anymore in the entire Bay Area and we are losing
workers in our community because of this.Housing for our homeless parti cularly handicapped (
many in wheel chairs living outside) and seniors which we see daily in Palo Alto.
• more affordable housing, remove zoning
• More housing (affordable and otherwise)
• More housing across all cost levels.
• more housing for a diverse mix of residents!
• More housing in the walkable downtown areas (University Ave and California Avenue) My family
and I are able to live a low carbon lifestyle and I want thousands more to be able to do so in Palo
Alto. We need customers for local businesses who live within a few blocks of our downtowns to
sustain those businesses economically and we need to win back middle class residents in Palo
Alto. I would give younger residents more say in public processes and a stake to participate in
civic life - sadly, their proportions are shrinking
• More housing! More density! More neighbors!
• New housing rentals need to increase and be available for the middle class, not just those with
low incomes or who are unhoused.
• Permit more housing. Lot of it!
• Provide more affordable housing and allow canbis sales in the city. Our vets next door have to
drive a long way or pay large fees to obtain their regular canbis supply.
• Resist over urbanization. I know housing is terribly expensive but I hate seeing Palo Alto turn into
a big city. Rush hour traffic is starting earlier and earlier.
• Rezone to allow high rise housing
• The City could make it easier to build dense housing so that more people could live more
affordably here. The City could make a decision about where the train-track crossings should be
and what they will look like.
• The city needs to permit the construction of more homes to become more affordable!
• The city needs top make it much easier for developers to create multi-family dwellings in the city.
The myriad of rules limiting construction have left us without enough reasobly priced housing in
the city, and it has radically reduced the number of people in the 20's and early 30's who can live
here. It also makes it very hard for many of the people who work here to live near their jobs.
• Urbanize - add lots of housing/density
Public Safety and Policing
• Enforce speed limits and red lights on Embarcadero Rd so I can safely enter traffic from side
streets without risking getting T-boned or run over. Speeds esp. bad east of Newell, and I see
light-running daily at Bryant and Greer intersections.
• Enforce the speed limits
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025
Community Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 162 Packet Pg. 170 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 159
• Enforce traffic laws by using automated red-light and speed cameras in major intersections near
safe-to-school routes, and prioritize people over passenger vehicles
• For the police to enforce the low. For the city council to be aware of what is going on in difference
areas of Palo Alto.
• Install speeding ticket cameras on Middlefield in Midtown and South Palo Alto
• Make the city safer and reduce noise.
• Monitor the sale of canbis products to minors. Several parents have informed PAPD about
Smokers Station on El Camino selling canbis vapes to minors only to be told PAPD cannot "do
anything" without a self-incrimiting statement from the minor. Why is that necessary? Why can't
PAPD just go into Smokers Station and remind them of their legal obligations? Shouldn't PAPD
be doing that anyway? Right now they are selling with impunity and have a "we dote to PAPD"
sticker on their front door. If PAPD is not protecting our kids, what are they doing?
• More police watching speeders
• More traffic enforcement
• More traffic enforcement (drivers on Alma exhibit crazy and fast driving behaviors)
• Patrol my street better for speedy drivers. I live on Greer Road between Embarcadero and
Channing. Speedy vehicles go down my street all the time, especially during the work week,
mornings and afternoons especially. It's used as 'through way.' Would love if city would install
speed bumps along Greer Road between Embarcadero and Channing.
• Stronger law enforcement. Removal of all street or parking lot parked RVs and junk them.
Transportation and Traffic
• Better traffic enforcement. Too often, I see red lights run, speeding, and stop signs run.
• Better traffic flow
• Better traffic law enforcement
• For the question above that does not apply to renters - my landlord also has no interest in
upgrading or my heath. One change that would make me happier is to elimite the train -crossings.
I don't mean talk about it for a few more decades, I mean start doing it now.
• Have public transportation options for South Palo Alto
• hire traffic enforcement personnel
• I know you asked for one, but I'm giving you two themes and some specific suggestions.Theme:
continued improvements to public transit1. A light rail running perpendicular to Caltrain.2. Making
University Avenue pedestrian only similar to California Avenue and Castro Street in MTV.3. More
infrastructure that prioritizes bikes over cars. Theme: aggressive action to mitigate climate
change4. More programs that incentivize homeowners to fully convert appliances to electric
options. The heat pump program was fantastic.5. Making our climate goals more aggressive.
Why not 100% by 2027? We should be leading the country.6. Offer homeowners $$$ incentives
to participate in Virtual Power Plants if they have a home storage battery.7. Offer homeowners
$$$ to termite their gas connection.
• Improve traffic flow and police speed enforcement
• improve traffic light timing in major streets especially El Cam and Embarcadero
• Provide more public transportation, so I don't have to rely on my car as much.
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025
Community Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 163 Packet Pg. 171 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 160
• Road safety and reducing speeding drivers!
• Stop rumiting over railroad crossings and leave it the way it is.
• Traffic control on Embarcadero road
• Traffic enforcement. Cars aren't even stopping at stop signs and they speed everywhere. It's
dangerous.
• Traffic law enforcement
Homelessness and RVs
• Deal with homeless and vehicle dwellers
• Find a successf Approach to getting the unhoused off the streets and out of the parks
• Get rid of the vans
• Resolve the issue of RV parking in residential and business locations.
• Work on homeless RVs due to reduced sanitation and order.
City Governance and Administration
• (1) Fire super-intendent.
• A fully staffed fire engine in Midtown; treating Midtown area equally to Old Palo Alto.
• Be less dismissive of resident concerns and questions and more transparent about
communicating what the city is and is not doing. For instance, if a setback is optiol for developers,
don't leave out that information when staff talks about it in public meet ings. Plan
comprehensively as the city used to, and pay more attention to planning for south Palo Alto where
the city has decided to put most of the state-mandated housing. Also, multiple choice surveys
are not good for the kinds of questions you are asking here. For instance, this survey asks very
general questions about existing conditions and gives little opportunity to give nuanced
responses and no opportunity to express concerns about planning for substantive future land use
changes that are coming.
• Better listening to south Palo Alto residents regarding transportation plans esp grade separation
preferred plan by certain city council members that reduce safety for students commuting from
Gunn back to their house on the east side of Alma, turning Alma into an expressway to improve
traffic flow
• Building code less restrictive and move project faster.
• City Council make decisions quicker and stick with them -- too much back and forth and trying to
please everyone. Also, neighborhood representation on Council, i.e., not citywide elections
• City Council should listen to all residents, not just NIMBYs. We need more affordable housing for
everyone. And don't close Churchill crossing to cars - Paly staff and buses need that intersection.
City Council only listens to Southgate NIMBYs on that issue
• City council to serve the community- be honest and effective and utility department to be present
and responsive and billing to be fair
• City Government could be more receptive to resident input, not just listening but taking the
feedback to heart.
• City planning department be more efficient
• Dealing with the planning dept. in "days" instead of weeks, months, and years.
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025
Community Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 164 Packet Pg. 172 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 161
• End all monetary subsidies for electrification. Highlight the fact that mandatory fees already
offset all CO2 emissions. After that, remove protections on redwood trees.
• Figure out a way to totally subsidize conversion to electric for low income homeowners. Hire
more Code Enforcement officers. Try to reign in Builders Remedy, SB9 lot splits and SB79
projects to maintain City quality of life.
• Focus on getting things done, rather than endless debates that are never resolved (railroad
crossings, fiber to the home, underground utilities, low cost housing, homeless issues, zoning,
etc., etc.)
• Get a new City Mager.
• Get rid of hight limits
• Have city council members represent specific areas of the city as their districts.
• Help keep neighborhoods more residential and uncrowded. Too many ADU's or multi units in
neighborhoods will over urbanize Palo Alto. Put denser housing on busier streets away from
neighborhoods.
• Lower taxes!
• lower utility rates
• Make decisions based on the quality of life for it's residents, and not just economic impact.
• mayor should not ignore problems by saying resident issues are "unintended consequences". City
council protects many sectors ( low income, homeless, developers/builders) but shows little
empathy for condo & homeowner issues. Nice that they protect the needed and they want future
jobs/campaign funds from the wealthy developers.
• More input on community issues -- resident voting online on current items before the council and
committees (2nd: Fix permitting process)
• Prioritize resident interests over business demands. Whatever business wants, it seems to get
regardless of how it affects the quality of life for residents. Many meetings with businesses to
generate altertives and action plans based on what business wants. Meetings with residents are
only after decisions have been made. Residents are not in the room where things happen.
• Replace all the City Council members who don't want change or do anything to make this City
better.
• Replace PAUSD board and superintendent. Not safe for kids.
• Retain person to peron interactions. Was surprised to be denied speaking with a staff person at
City Hall. Too much reliance on the internet degrades comminity"
• Speed up building department approvals
• Speed up the "Palo Alto process." Make posicy by what is good for the city as a whole, and stop
retreating in the face of NIMBYs.
• Stop isolating city offices from public. Open up city hall again
• That the city STOP/cut using expensive consultants with no local knowledge like the bike and
retail consultants and the business registry morons that waste our time correcting and that have
little staff oversight and push up our utility rates
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025
Community Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 165 Packet Pg. 173 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 162
• Too much bureaucracy. It takes years to do projects such as Charleston / Arastradero. Rail
upgrades and improvements (the city's part). Cubberly. I feel like it takes so long to get these
project done I might not be alive to see them complete and I am not that old.
• Urban planning and programming to make Palo Alto more attractive to young adults. Palo Alto
feels like a retirement community.
• Use consultants a lot less, eg less than half of current status
• We are having a horrible experience with the planning department. They do not seem to
communicate with each other and renegotiate what they've already agreed to. It is costing us
thousands in fees to our architect who has to respond and chase them when they take weeks to
reply and they have also made comments about our plans as if our budget is infinite, specifically
that instead of a remodel, we should just do a new build. Well that's another $500k for the work
that would take and it comes off tone deaf as if everyone here is Zuckerberg or Marissa Mayer.
I'd like to have the city have a clear process for permitting work on my home and it's clear that the
people in planning can't collaborate or communicate with each other. It seems like everything is
done over email and that's not an auditable or repeatable process. I'm really irritated at this and
will vote for whoever improves this problem. It also cost $17k to have them do the initial review
and it's just been a huge headache.
• With the implementation of the bike lanes and the need to build so much housing because of
ABAG requirements, I would like that there be more consideration given to the individual
neighborhoods in the city when creating overall long range plans for future development. Not
every neighborhood in Palo Alto is the same, so what might work for downtown PA creates big
problems in south Palo Alto. I am feeling that many residents do not have a voice.
Community Amenities and Services
• 8 (or more) additiol pickleball courts in Mitchell Park
• Add more pickleball courts to Mitchell Park, please!
• Allow rapid and complete redevelopment of El Camino corridor through the length of the city,
providing more attractive spaces for walking, recreation, business, and much denser housing.
• Be more transparent, invest less in the airport (1%) but more in people services like theater and
recreation for many (99%). I would like to remove my PAUSD tax because I don't have kids in the
school district.
• Build new Cubberley Community Center
• Complete Mayfield soccer complex upgrade and better maintence of soccer fields in general.
• No more pickleball sites near my house
Economic Development
• Being less of a boring place. Having more commerce, everything closes
• better more diverse restaurants
• Bigger grocery store in midtown. More opportunities for small business owners.
• creative ways to encourage local business development
• Fill vacant commercial leases; utilize available space
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025
Community Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 166 Packet Pg. 174 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 163
• Here are two : ). Please incentivize development and commerce along El Camino in south Palo
Alto. So many abandoned-looking places are there currentlya very depressing place to pass
through and an unfortute image for a town that is otherwise vibrant (Midto wn could use similar
incentives but it is less dire). And how about an education campaign to ensure cars stop at stop
signs - that would greatly improve safety and quality of life.
• Revitalize the downtown area with retail business and community-building events. Our town looks
like a ghost town compared to RWC, Mountain View and even Los altos. It looks like we are
pandering to Asian tourists.
• Too many vacant store fronts downtown. I would like to see more restaurants and stores so that
Palo Alto is a better destition with more choices.
• University Downtown has stagted. Years back, there were surveys run on Downtown
Revitalization, and nothing has been done. This effort, put on hold, is vital to not only the
community you seek to build in Palo Alto, but the economic vitality, traffic abatement and safety,
and desirability as a travel destition. In the meantime, California Avenue is closed to traffic and is
your obvious example sitting right in front of you. It is high time you take this issue on, since
COVID is no long here as an excuse to hide behind. Want to make a difference in your public
service, get the community and funding behind revitalizing University Avenue and downtown.
Noise and Urban Environment
• close down the airport
• Protect open space by reducing FAR in zoning ordinces and/or increasing public parks. For
example, for each 1000 square feet of ADU that is actually built increase public park space by
ten square feet. Or increase the number of units allowed per 10,000 square foot lot but require a
large fee payment into the public park land acquisition fund. Or reduce the FAR so that there is
more open space (private) on each lot.
• Reduce noise from trains and train crossings
• Reduce the impact of aircraft noise. This includes traffic at PAO airport, including Stanford
Hospital helicopters that fly at very low altitudes (as low as 500 ft), including at night, just to refuel
(these flights are not emergency flights). From a noise, fuel consumption, and carbon emissions
perspective, this does not make any sense. Stanford could easily build a ground helipad with a
fueling station with about 10,000 square feet of land at a cost of $1M or less.This also includes
stopping the promotion and growth of PAO, including for new electric aircraft (air taxis, drones).
Even though electric aircraft are quieter, most of them will fly at low altitudes (sometimes only a
few hundred feet) resulting in additiol audible noise for many residents who are already exposed
to aircraft noise. The sheer volume of low-flying electric aircraft combined with the fact that the
City cannot regulate PAO operations (such as imposing curfew or limiting the number of
operations) will severely impact the quality of life for many residents, let alone very likely endanger
their safety. Low-flying aircraft are more dangerous for communities because of a much higher
risk of collision with obstacles (buildings, power lines) and a much higher likelihood of accidents
because pilots have a very limited time to react to unforeseen events and prevent a crash.
• Stop destroying the environment by overbuilding and adding more human population, since both
use more tural resources and also degrade the local livability.
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025
Community Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 167 Packet Pg. 175 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 164
• The noise level from the 101 freeway has been exponentially increasing. We live 1/2 mile from
the freeway, and we now feel we are near it. It might be related to the new sound walls installed
in a new townhouse project on Bayshore. Is the City studying the noise impact of neighborhood
before allowing sound walls?
Develop Infrastructure
• Address the uttractive overhead utility lines. Remove or tidy up.
• City of Palo Alto high bandwidth internet service
• Coming el Camino real to be a complete street
• Extend the fiber-optic network for FTTP to my area of town (Barron Park) before I die - the city
seems to prioritize "north palo alto" over "south palo alto" in almost everything they do
• Fix deadly intersection at Lincoln/middlefield
• Move more quickly on flood control related to the San Francisquito Creek
• No forced fluoridation in water
• Quickly address the San Francisquito Creek problem
• Underground utilities (Ventura)
Walking and Biking trails
• A solution to the E Charleston and E Meadow train crossing that preserves as many properties as
possible and ensures the safety of both pedestrians and bicyclists
• Better bike infrastructure -- it always takes second priority to cars and/or pedestrians, most
drivers will never make the switch until the infrastructure is built. e.g. Passages under Caltrain
require bicyclists to dismount for pedestrians -- would you ever ask drivers to push their cars to
defer to bikers?
• Bikability of Churchill train intersection is so bad. I feel unsafe / can take 5+ minute of waiting to
cross over to Paly
• Bike paths that are bike first. Bryant St is great, El Camino is frightening. Cal Ave underpass is
frustrating. Make biking a first class transit method, not a 'scurry around and don't bother cars
or people'
• Make biking safer and easier
• More bike friendly lanes (more than just paint)
• more protected bikeways and enforcement of bike safety laws
• Require more bicycle racks in retail spaces. Build most new housing downtown, where public rail
and bus transportation exists, not in the traffic-clogged air-polluted (from 101) San Antonio Road
section of the city.
• Safer biking on major streets
• Wider sidewalks
Code Enforcement
• Better access to code enforcement. The app is difficult to use. Code enforcement takes a long
time to get back to you.
• Better cleanup of vehicles constantly parked in same locations without moving. People are
camping on streets and making some areas feel unsafe and dirty
• Enforce the ban on gas-powered leaf blowers
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025
Community Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 168 Packet Pg. 176 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 165
• Force my immediate neighbor to observe building codes and stop being such an *** to everyone
on the entire street. He is mentally ill and nobody does anything.
• Keeping landlords of single family homes as accountable as landlords of multiple-unit dwellings,
with regard to property maintence and safety.
Make the city more affordable
• Ability for families! How about a place that is affordable for dinner, groceries, visit South Palo Alto
on public transportation? Police address crime when it is reported. How about some public
transportation to the locations we actually need to go - Kaiser, Target- PA is not a bubble. How
about libraries and a zoo that is actually open when kids are Not in school Monday holidays and
after 6PM - that is when we can go and this would be actually meeting customer needs. San
Mateo County is doing a great job and it seems that we are not aware of how to provide services
for people that are not ritch and retired.
• Lower costs for everything
• Stop letting billioires buy all the homes in the area and rent them out and keep home prices so
high
Cleanliness of community; upkeep
• beautify clean up downtown and keep schools up to -date, clean
• Improve the look and feel of Downtown and Cal Ave. Create attractive, inviting areas for
restaurants, shopping is largely done outside of these areas anyway. Do not cheap out like the
broken glass thrown on the sidewalk of Cal Ave. If you had $150M to spend on an opulent police
station, we don't need to be sitting out on some dirty old asphalt with ebikes flying by at 30 mph!!
Also, stop raising our utility rates to siphon cash into the general fund.
• increased flexibility around clean-up days. should be twice a year (as now) but customer shuld be
able to pick the day. should not have it so close to Labor Day and other holidays. I called to see if
I could move it and was treated rudely and told no way. We paya fortune and get treated terribly.
Also I hate the 'smart meter' for utilities.
• Keep city clean, less expensive utilities
• Replace dead vegetation along Oregon Expressway; fill in gaps in vegetation. These changes
recommended to improve aesthetic appearances for the busy lanes of traffic that cut PA in half,
but most importantly to improve the health of community members who l ive in adjacent
neighborhoods.
• Weed the foxtail weeds in parks which injure dogs. They are everywhere. Cost me $4000 for my
dog. He was so sick! And tree pruning is badly neglected.
Other
• Allow for limited income seniors that currently qualify for BMR apartments to continue living in
BMR apts once retired. SS, retirement & possible small side business is not sufficient income to
qualify to continue in BMR. Forced to retire due to work-related injuries.
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025
Community Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 169 Packet Pg. 177 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 166
• California St (between Alma and High St) too wide - it makes me feel unsafe (my house on the
corner) - is it possible to make it rrower (options include planting more trees on California St
between High St and Alma, or simply extending Boyden park towards California St (and thus make
California St rrower)? Would very much appreciate some feedback, especially given the recent
burglary next door to me
• Car dependent city design means choices that are made across city planning often are
compromised or fall short.
• Consider the bias towards the city has towards homeowners, for example the last question
assumes that I own a home rather than rent.
• Elimite fee for residential parking permits
• Highlight & publicize how "average citizens" are working to reduce their GHGs.
• If I saw that the City was being much more considerate to its residents than to the new developers
of very large construction.
• Improve San Antonio residential corridor
• Improve the quality of life here. For example, enforce traffic violations such as speeding and
running red lights.
• increase diversity of city residents
• Less virtue sigling and more realistic assessment of aspiratiol goals
• More connection with the community
• Provide opportunities for open discussion of RH.
• Remove 3-day limit for resident/permitted on-street parking
• Stop being a bunch of rrow-sighted pearl-clutching NIMBY-ebling slow-moving virtue sigling
politicians and actually building ******* dense housing near transportation hubs. The entire
process of building in Palo Alto and the Bay Area is absurd, convoluted, socially destructive, and
too slow. Local zoning and regulations need to be updated, expedited, and the power to determine
who gets to build more housing is held by too many people. Simply put, you need to build, build,
and build more housing, and you need to ignore the whining, NIMBY boomers, because otherwise
you're going to start getting "**** the system" political candidates who reflect the anger and
frustration we see tion-wide. That means the so-called "In This Neighborhood Love Is Real"
slacktavists have had their turn at stagting resources and hoarding housing, and real leadership
that can address the housing crisis needs to be empowered. Whether it's going to be realignment
of our progressive values or some "burn it all down and start over" candidate, something is going
to need to happen before the disparity of wealth inequality leads to worse outcomes and more
frustration.
• Stop focusing on tiol and world political issues. Focus on what you can affect: Palo Alto. And stop
pushing for electrification. It does not meaningfully impact the environment and is a huge pain.
• Tell residents to stop acting so entitled, bring back gas leaf blowers
• Welcoming to diverse residents and visitors of All INCOME and services that address a wide
range of needs
Don't know
• I'm pretty happy living here - I think all is going well.
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025
Community Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 170 Packet Pg. 178 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 167
• None
• None.
Question 20: As a resident of Palo Alto, what one thing do you believe
the City does well and would want to maintain?
Parks, open space, and natural environment
• Access to city parks and preserves.
• Baylands, Foothill ture Preserve.
• Clean parks
• Done a nice job with the public parks, need to continue to support and take care of them.
• Foothills Park and Baylands; Utilities
• Gorgeous green spaces
• great parks and libraries
• Green parks. Johnson Park in particular.
• Greenery and landscaping (trees lining the streets)
• I love Foothills Park.
• It's green spaces (Parks, Foothills, Arastradero, Baylands)
• Keep Foothills Park open and its wildlife protected
• Keep the open and green place
• Keeping public parks available
• Maintain the open space parks. Expand them.
• Maintain the tree canopy.
• Maintaining the trees in this city.
• Maintencecfor all city building parks etc
• Many things, Parks, Street Maintence, Utility Service, Police Department,
• Open space.
• Open spaces and parks
• Our trees
• our tural environment ( bay land , and foot hill park )
• Overall quality of spaces - generally safe and clean.
• Palo Alto has maintained its parks which do a lot to make the city more livable. Unfortutely, an
increase in park space is not considered given the increased density of housing. We are paving
to the curb everywhere
• Park maintence
• Parks
• Parks
• Parks
• Parks
• Parks
• Parks
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025
Community Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 171 Packet Pg. 179 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 168
• Parks and arts
• Parks and libraries
• Parks and open space--Maintain the current ratio of space per resident in south Palo Alto as the
city adds population there. Though--No more pickleball courts. Let other cities serve THEIR
residents with their tax dollars. Mitchell Park is overrun by car traffic and parking and noise from
regiol pickleball players. This is destroying the serenity and availability of the park space for local
residents.
• Parks very appreciative for the new Ventura neighborhood park
• parks, open space, trees
• Parks!
• Prioritizing trees
• protect the baylands and get rid of the airport.
• Quality of parks, libraries, classes.
• Supports the parks and libraries.
• The parks and tree-lined residential areas must be maintained.
• The parks.
• tree lined streets
• trees
• Trees
• We have incredible parks and libraries and community centers.
Utilities and city services
• City owned public utilities
• City owned utilities.
• City-owned utilities
• I appreciate our city-owned utilities.
• Infrastructure and basic services
• It's a safe city
• Low cost utilities
• Mage utilities well
• Municipal utilities are excellent and a major reason I love Palo Alto
• Our locally owned utilities program is excellent and I hope we keep it! Almost everything else is
really also excellent, too.
• Palo Alto Utilities! We appreciate the excellence of the city's own utility service. Thank you!
• Proud we have our own utilities and make sustaible guided decisions
• Provides good services for residents - utilities, water, roads for example. The core needs for all
residents to live in a city need to be maintained.
• Providing efficient public services
• Public utilities (with the possible exception of water)
• publicly owned utilities are great
• The city-owned utilities have proven to be a valuable investment for many decades. Continued
strong leadership of the utilities is essential.
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025
Community Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 172 Packet Pg. 180 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 169
• The fact that we have our own utilities is a major benefit of living in Palo Alto. However, water /
sewer is way too expensive.
• Trash pickup is great.
• utilities
• Utilities
• Utilities
• Utilities
• Utilities, and other city services
• Utilities, cleanliness
• Utility governce, park space historically
• Utility services.
• Utilities and city services
Safety services
• emergency services and response times
• EMT and police
• Focus on safety downtown (too many drug addicts/homeless - they are one and the same), For
their own safety and everyone else's, remove them from the street and put in rehab, relocate to
shelters or jail if they refuse those options.. Open up California Avenue!! You've ruined it! Will not
go down there - it's ugly and there's no parking. See downtown Los Altos with small park -lets.
That's what Calif Ave should do.
• I live in a very safe, walkable and bikeable neighborhood. I want to maintain that character, even
if density increased
• Keeping the city safe
• Overall safety
• Provides everything one needs to have a comfortable and safe neighborhood.
• Public safety
• Public safety
• Safety, great neighborhood feel.
• this is a safe, beautiful place to live without a lot of hassles of bigger cities. Trying to preserve
that is important to the City and I appreciate that.
Activities and Recreation (arts, libraries, museums, theaters, etc.)
• A lot of planned activities, classes, feedback and study groups...
• Charge non-Palo Alto residents when they use our public facility
• City librarians esp at Rincoda area great, support of Ada's at Mitchell community center providing
job opportunities to some more challenged residents, pickleball courts, bike lanes except for El
Camino bike lanes
• Community driven events such as art walks, library reading events and small park concerts. I love
having these and maintaining these is crucial to keeping residents engaged and happy.
• community events
• Cultural events are a must to engage communities.
• Excellent library services
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025
Community Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 173 Packet Pg. 181 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 170
• Fine library and quality cultural and educatiol events.
• Good library system.
• Here are two: ) Great rec department! Super responsive and helpful and a good variety of available
offerings. And the libraries are a gem!
• I like the Mayfield soccer complex.
• libraries and parks
• Libraries and recreation programs.
• libraries and trees (2)
• Library operations
• Library services.
• Maintain an environment with eating, entertainment, cultural opportunities.
• Music in the parks
• Neighborhood block parties
• Neighborhood meetings. Need to do more follow up on suggestions.
• programs for seniors
• reacreatiol opportunities
• recreatiol activities
• Recreation opportunities, beautiful parks and open space
• Supporting the libraries and the senior Avenidas Center.
• The libraries used to be great until they stopped doing author alerts to save a piddling amount of
money
• The library is excellent, parks are good except where they have children's play equipment and no
bathroom. Streets are generally well paved and bike lanes are abundant.
• The library, art center, summer camps, children's theater etc are cherished programs that build
and nourish community in Palo Alto.
• The various communities (volunteer, hobbies, sports, etc) are a wonderful part of living here.
• They library system is excellent
Government/leadership; government communication
• Communicating with the public and we are lucky to have the Palo Alto Weekly.
• Enlightened policing - City Council meetings with police chief and independent police auditor are
critical to maintain this good policing.
• Great staff
• High quality leadership
• Outreach to residents
• public hearings over the internet are useful and helpful, and we have good bike parking (thought
not at the train or transit centers!),- this is another example of assuming everyone has everything
they need, no rentable options. Our utilities in house is a plus. Public works projects seem to take
2x as long as other cities. The public events are very well done.
• shares sustaibility info, great job with weekly residential collections and cleanliness of streets,
attempts to communicate clearly but still lots of room (ex. water increase, does public hearing 2
weeks before increase and at a time where most people have left for summer vacation.
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025
Community Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 174 Packet Pg. 182 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 171
• The efforts to keep everyone informed.
• Transparency
Schools and education, programs for the youth
• educatiol system
• education
• Excellent education especially the schools, the children's museum and the libraries.
• Good public schools and libraries.
• Quality of education and basic essential services (safety, street cleaning, park maintence).
• Quality of public schools
• School quality.
• Schools
• Schools
• Support our public school teachers who are the "gold" in our community.
• We have good schools, but let's take care of our kids please.
Cleanliness of community; upkeep
• City property maintence
• cleaning streets and maintaining trees
• It keeps the City clean.
• keep city clean
• Keeps Palo Alto a clean city
• Picking up garbage, recycling, hazardous waste area
• Sweep streets
Quality of life, reputation
• Attempts to provide quality services to residents
• Creates a community environment well
• It's focus on the quality of life, green spaces and parks, and just the overall feeling of Palo Alto as
a green and livable small city.
• Keep a focus on quality of life for many residents. Keep investing in the Baylands, parks, libraries,
separated bike lanes, pedestrian areas, etc. because such things benefit many people, generate
few negative exterlities, and contribute to reducing carbon emissions.
• Keeping Palo Alto as a great place to raise kids, from the good work PAUSD has been doing to
the parks, libraries and safe environment
• Low density neighborhoods
• Maintain overall quality of life for residents
• Positive attitude as a community
• Supporting quality of life activities like the farmers markets and swimming pool
• The overall beauty of the city and the surrounding area. NO development in the Stanford Foothills!
• This is an excellent city to live in.
Infrastructure, streets, transportation
• quality of infrastructure maintence (utilities, streets) is quite good.
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025
Community Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 175 Packet Pg. 183 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 172
Ease of bicycle travel/walking
• Baylands paths are excellent
• Bike and pedestrian routes and infrastructure are great, and we need more safe routes to be
prioritized over car parking
• Bike safety
• Bikeabilty.
• Good biking for students and feel safe to walk
• Maintains walkability
• Making PA a bike-friendly city
• Marking for bikes, more trails for bikes
• Prioritizes bike/walking over cars
• The pedestrian/bike bridge over 101 is awesome. Keep doing inspiring projects like this.
Sustainability
• city maintains the environment well. I love to walk and feel safe doing so.
• Climate change goals
Culture, diversity
• Make Palo Alto affordable to the lower and middle class again by joining with the county to
provide revolving construction loans to affordable housing developers and building/renovating
mixed income public or nonprofit- owned housing
• respect for diverse opinions and types
Other
• (2) continue to work with builders to "build up" in palo alto and increase occupancy in smart ways.
• Attracts high tech businesses and cooperation with Stanford
• Currently very disillusioned by the way the City of Palo Alto has treated younger residents (<45
years old) and renters (including long term, middle aged renters) by excluding them in public
processes and and defacto pushing them out. We are not building a next generation in our city
or making it affordable for the next generation to live here, so the community is ossifying,
becoming anti-innovative and uble to build a strong future Palo Alto.
• Encouraging people to get to know their neighbors with the KYN grant and in helping people
reduce their carbon footprint
• Hard to think about any . When I compere how was Palo Alto on the 70, 80, and 90, today is very
well define that are certain benefit that only apply to certain people.
• Most things
• Palo Alto has walked a balance between trying to feel like a small city and courting billioires and
cowtowing to tech interests. Often, it has erred in the side of money and wealth. But it also has
some of the brightest minds in the world in these few zip codes, and it's very diverse. Palo Alto
sometimes embraces that cultural and intellectual diversity, and that's why it continues to be a
place where ground breaking ideas happen. It's a city sized incubator, and that's pretty neat. I
hope the city continues to emphasize education and the arts.
• Remain your high tech sophistication
• Resale value due to limited housing
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025
Community Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 176 Packet Pg. 184 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 173
• Startup and business community is the jewel of Palo Alto
• Take decisions on buildings faster (ie., Cubberley and San Antonio)
• The very, very, slow permit process for housing construction. Less construction equals less dirt
and noise. Thank you.
• They have numerous areas of improvement
Nothing / Don’t know
• None
• Not sure.
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025
Community Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 177 Packet Pg. 185 of 510
City of Palo Alto Community Survey
October 2025
Report of Results
Page 174
Appendix F : Survey Materials
The following pages contain copies of the survey materials sent to randomly selected households within
the City of Palo Alto.
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025
Community Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 178 Packet Pg. 186 of 510
Dear Denver Resident,
It won’t take much of your time to make a big difference!
Your household has been randomly selected to participate in the 2025
Denver Public Library Survey. Scan the QR code or visit the link below
to complete our survey and enter your email for a chance to win Denver
Zoo passes, Denver Nuggets tickets, or a grocery gift card!
https://polco.us/xxplaceholder
Please do not share your survey link. This survey is for randomly
selected households only. A separate survey that is open to all
residents will open in a few weeks.
If you have any questions about the survey, please call (720) 865-1111.
Thank you for your time and participation!
Sincerely,
Para contestar la encuesta en
línea en español y participar por
un premio, seleccione la opción
‘español’ en el menú desplegable
que aparece en la parte superior
de la página de la encuesta.
Để trả lời khảo sát trực tuyến
bằng tiếng Việt và tham gia nhận
giải thưởng, vui lòng chọn tùy
chọn ‘Tiếng Việt’ trong menu thả
xuống ở đầu trang khảo sát.
እባክዎ ከኢንተርኔት ጥናቱ ገፅ ላይ ከላይ
ያለው የሚወጣ ምናሌ ማውጫ
ማናቸውንም አማርኛ አማራጭ
ይምረጡ እና እንደዚህ በአማርኛ
የሚካሄደውን መለማመጥ በመሙላት
ሽልማት ለመሸምተት ይሳተፉ።
Nicolle Davies
City Librarian
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025
Community Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 179 Packet Pg. 187 of 510
Presorted
First Class Mail
US Postage
PAID
Boulder, CO
Permit NO. 94
Tell us what you think!
Complete the Denver Public Library survey by scanning the QR code.
¡Su opinión nos interesa! Hãy cho chúng tôi biết suy nghĩ của bạn! ምን እንደሚያስቡ ይንገሩን!
QR Code
Placeholder
Denver Public Library
Attn: Strategy & Evaluation
10 W 14th Ave. Denver, CO 80204
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025
Community Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 180 Packet Pg. 188 of 510
Dear Denver Resident,
Just a reminder—if you have not yet completed the 2025 Denver Public
Library survey, please do so. If you have completed it, thank you.
Please do not respond twice.
Your household has been randomly selected to participate in the 2025
Denver Public Library Survey. Scan the QR code or visit the link below
to complete our survey and enter your email for a chance to win Denver
Zoo passes, Denver Nuggets tickets, or a grocery gift card!
https://polco.us/xxplaceholder
Please do not share your survey link. This survey is for randomly
selected households only. A separate survey for all residents will open
next week.
If you have any questions about the survey, please call (720) 865-1111.
Thank you for your time and participation!
Sincerely,
Para contestar la encuesta en
línea en español y participar por
un premio, seleccione la opción
‘español’ en el menú desplegable
que aparece en la parte superior
de la página de la encuesta.
Để trả lời khảo sát trực tuyến
bằng tiếng Việt và tham gia nhận
giải thưởng, vui lòng chọn tùy
chọn ‘Tiếng Việt’ trong menu thả
xuống ở đầu trang khảo sát.
እባክዎ ከኢንተርኔት ጥናቱ ገፅ ላይ ከላይ
ያለው የሚወጣ ምናሌ ማውጫ
ማናቸውንም አማርኛ አማራጭ
ይምረጡ እና እንደዚህ በአማርኛ
የሚካሄደውን መለማመጥ በመሙላት
ሽልማት ለመሸምተት ይሳተፉ።
Nicolle Davies
City Librarian
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025
Community Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 181 Packet Pg. 189 of 510
Presorted
First Class Mail
US Postage
PAID
Boulder, CO
Permit NO. 94
Denver Public Library
Attn: Strategy & Evaluation
10 W 14th Ave. Denver, CO 80204
Tell us what you think!
Complete the Denver Public Library survey by scanning the QR code.
¡Su opinión nos interesa! Hãy cho chúng tôi biết suy nghĩ của bạn! ምን እንደሚያስቡ ይንገሩን!
QR Code
Placeholder
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025
Community Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 182 Packet Pg. 190 of 510
Denver Public Library Survey Page 1 of 5
Denver Public Library Survey 2025
Please take this survey if you are the adult (age 18 or older) in your household with the most recent birthday. Your year of
birth does not matter. All responses are confidential and reported only as a group. Thank you.
1. Do you have a Denver Public Library card?
Yes No Don’t know
2. In the past 12 months, how often did you use any Denver Public Library service?
Daily Weekly Monthly Less than once per month Never
3. If you have not used Denver Public Library in the last 12 months, why not? (Please check all that apply.)
❑ I don’t need to use it ❑ It's too hard to find what I am looking for
❑ I use another library (e.g., school library, library in ❑ Library hours are not convenient
another city, etc.) ❑ Parking is difficult
❑ The library is too far from my home ❑ The library is an unsafe environment
❑ I don't have any transportation ❑ The customer service at the library is not very good
❑ I don't have a library card ❑ The hold times are too long to get the books and
❑ I get my information from the Internet materials I want
❑ I buy my own books/magazines/DVDs ❑ Not applicable
❑ I don't know what the library offers
4. Which library location do you visit most frequently? (Please select one.)
Athmar Park Branch Library
Bear Valley Branch Library
Blair-Caldwell African
American Research Library
Bob Ragland Branch Library
Denver Central Library
Decker Branch Library
Eugene Field Branch Library
Ford Warren Branch Library
Green Valley Ranch Library
Hadley Branch Library
Hampden Branch Library
John "Thunderbird Man"
Emhoolah, Jr. Branch Library
Montbello Branch Library
Park Hill Branch Library
Pauline Robinson Branch
Library
Rodolfo "Corky" Gonzales
Branch Library
Ross-Phyllis Bigpond Branch
Library (formerly Ross-
Barnum)
Ross-Broadway Branch Library
Ross-Cherry Creek Branch
Library
Ross-University Hills Branch
Library
Sam Gary Branch Library
Schlessman Family Branch
Library
Smiley Branch Library
Valdez-Perry Branch Library
Virginia Village Branch Library
Westwood Branch Library
Woodbury Branch Library
I only access the library online
None/I don’t visit any library
location
5. In the past 12 months, about how often, on average, did you: Less than once
Daily Weekly Monthly per month Never
Browse shelves ............................................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5
Borrow physical materials (books, DVDs, music, etc.)
from the library ....................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
Borrow digital materials (books, movies, music, etc.)
from the library ....................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
Borrow newspapers and magazines from the library ................ 1 2 3 4 5
Request an interlibrary loan .................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5
Pick up materials put on hold ................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5
Receive staff-provided book/material recommendations ....... 1 2 3 4 5
Use the library's Internet access/Wifi ............................................... 1 2 3 4 5
Use the library's computers ................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
Use the library's printer, photocopier, or fax machine............... 1 2 3 4 5
Use makerspace equipment ................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
Have a librarian help you use computers, printers, etc. ............ 1 2 3 4 5
Use the library's online services (website, catalog,
research databases, etc.) ..................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
Use reference/research services (assistance from librarians) ......1 2 3 4 5
Book 1x1 appointments ........................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
Access archival collections ..................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
Use the library's study rooms ............................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
Use the library's community/meeting rooms ................................ 1 2 3 4 5
Use the Denver Public Library as a place to spend time ............ 1 2 3 4 5
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025
Community Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 183 Packet Pg. 191 of 510
Denver Public Library Survey Page 2 of 5
Less than once
Daily Weekly Monthly per month Never
Attend programs for children (classes, storytimes, etc.)
at the library ............................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5
Attend programs for adults (classes, book clubs, etc.)
at the library ............................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5
Use the Bookmobile ................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
Get help from the library's social workers or
peer navigators ........................................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5
Get a sack lunch, snack, cold weather gear, or other items ...... 1 2 3 4 5
Utilize small business & non-profit support ................................... 1 2 3 4 5
Other (please specify):_________________________________________ .... 1 2 3 4 5
6. Please first rate the quality and importance of each library service.
Don’t Very Somewhat Not at all Don’t
Excellent Good Fair Poor know Essential important important important know
Browse shelves ....................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
Borrow physical materials (books, DVDs,
music, etc.) from the library .......................... 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
Variety of physical materials (books,
DVDs, music, etc.) from the library ............ 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
Borrow digital materials (books, movies,
music, etc.) from the library .......................... 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
Borrow newspapers and magazines
from the library .................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
Request an interlibrary loan ............................. 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
Pick up materials put on hold ........................... 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
Have library books and materials
delivered to your home ................................... 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
Receive staff-provided book/material
recommendations.............................................. 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
Use the library's Internet access/Wifi .......... 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
Use the library's computers .............................. 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
Use the library's printer, photocopier, or
fax machine .......................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
Use makerspace equipment .............................. 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
Have a librarian help you use computers,
printers, etc. ......................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
Use the online catalog .......................................... 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
Use the library’s website .......................................... 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
Use reference/research services
(assistance from librarians) ............................ 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
Book 1x1 appointments ...................................... 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
Access archival collections ................................. 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
Use the library's study rooms ........................... 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
Use the library's community meeting
rooms ...................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
Use the Denver Public Library as a place
to spend time ....................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
Attend programs for children (classes,
storytimes, etc.) at the library ...................... 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
Attend programs for adults (classes,
book clubs, etc.) at the library ...................... 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
Use the Bookmobile .............................................. 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
Get help from the library's social
workers or peer navigators ........................... 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
Get a sack lunch, snack, cold weather gear,
or other items ................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
Utilize small business & non-profit support ...... 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
Other (please specify):
__________________________________________........ 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025
Community Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 184 Packet Pg. 192 of 510
Denver Public Library Survey Page 3 of 5
7. In the last year, did you or anyone in your household go to denverlibrary.org for any of the following, either
at the library or outside the library?
Wanted to, Did not know the Did not
Yes, with but did not library website want or
Yes someone’s help know how offered this need to
Search a public library catalog ................................. 1 2 3 4 5
Download library e-book, magazine or audio file .. 1 2 3 4 5
Search a database through the library’s website .... 1 2 3 4 5
Request or renew a library book............................. 1 2 3 4 5
Register for a library program ................................. 1 2 3 4 5
Find a program or event to attend ......................... 1 2 3 4 5
Reserve a meeting room or a study room ........... 1 2 3 4 5
8. In the last 12 months, how often have you interacted with library staff? (Please include any interactions
such as in person, by phone or online.) (If "0 times," please skip the next question.)
0 times (skip to question 10) 1-2 times 3-5 times 6-8 times 9 or more times
9. How would you rate your last experience with library staff?
Excellent Good Fair Poor Don’t know
Knowledge .......................................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
Courtesy .............................................................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5
Responsiveness to requests and/or needs .......................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
Treating all people in a respectful manner .......................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
Overall impression of library staff member ........................................................ 1 2 3 4 5
10. How often are you able to locate the books and other materials that you are looking for in the library or on
its website?
Always Sometimes Rarely Never Not applicable
In the Library ..................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
On the website ................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
11. In general, how do you feel about the time it takes to receive items you request or place on hold?
The time is longer than I expect
The time is just as long as I expect
The time is shorter than I expect
Don’t know/I don’t place items on hold
12. Please rate the Denver Public Library location you use the most on each of the following:
Excellent Good Fair Poor Don’t know
Condition of the outside of the library ................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
Condition of the inside of the library ...................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
Ease of access entering the building ....................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
Ease of access inside the library ............................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
Signs and signage ............................................................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5
Layout and arrangement .............................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5
Availability of seating and tables .............................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5
Availability of meeting spaces ................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
Availability of technology ............................................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5
Availability of youth designated space .................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5
Time waiting for service ............................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
Cleanliness ......................................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
Lighting ................................................................................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5
Acoustics ............................................................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5
Safety .................................................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
Temperature and comfort ........................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
13. What types of materials do you prefer?
I prefer physical items only
I prefer digital items only
I prefer physical items but sometimes use
digital items
I prefer digital items but sometimes use
physical items
Format does not matter to me
Don't know
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025
Community Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 185 Packet Pg. 193 of 510
Denver Public Library Survey Page 4 of 5
14. When do/would you like to visit the library? (Select top 3.)
❑ Early mornings (before 10am) ❑ Weekday evenings ❑ Sunday mornings
❑ Late evening (after 8pm) ❑ Saturday mornings ❑ Sunday afternoons
❑ Weekday mornings ❑ Saturday afternoons ❑ Sunday evenings
❑ Weekday afternoons ❑ Saturday evenings
15. When do/would you like to attend programs and events? (Select top 3.)
❑ Early mornings (before 10am) ❑ Weekday evenings ❑ Sunday mornings
❑ Late evening (after 8pm) ❑ Saturday mornings ❑ Sunday afternoons
❑ Weekday mornings ❑ Saturday afternoons ❑ Sunday evenings
❑ Weekday afternoons ❑ Saturday evenings
16. How much do you know about the programs and services provided by the Denver Public Library?
Very knowledgeable Somewhat knowledgeable Not at all knowledgeable Don’t know
17. How do you learn about library programs and services? (Please check all that apply.)
❑ Library staff and/or signage
❑ Library website
❑ Library publications (Engage, Conexiones, flyers, etc.)
❑ Library email newsletters
❑ Library social media (Facebook, Instagram, etc.)
❑ Search Engines
❑ Advertisements (TV, radio, magazine, etc.)
❑ Other social media (not from the library)
❑ Other events (not at the library)
❑ Word of mouth (not library staff)
❑ Other: ______________________________
❑ Don't know/Not applicable
18. If you use Denver Public Library's promotional materials to learn about programs and services, how
reflective do you find these resources of your community?
Very reflective Somewhat reflective Not at all reflective Don't know
19. How important is it that Denver Public Library offers programs for:
Very Somewhat Not at all Don’t Essential important important important know
Young children (0-5) .......................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
Primary/middle school children (6-12) .................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
Teens (13-18) ....................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
Adults (18+)........................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
Older adults (50+)............................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
Immigrants/refugees ........................................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5
Lower-income residents ........................................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5
Residents without technology at home ....................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
Unhoused individuals ........................................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5
Unemployed individuals .................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5
20. How much do you agree with the following statements?
Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly Don’t
agree agree disagree disagree know
The library helps me to feel more connected to my community............. 1 2 3 4 5
The library is a welcoming place for people of all backgrounds
and identities ........................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
The library helps me learn and grow .................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5
The library is a trustworthy institution ............................................................. 1 2 3 4 5
The library is a space where I feel less likely to experience
discrimination and racism ................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
The library is a good use of public funds ........................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
The library is committed to its values of equity and welcoming ............ 1 2 3 4 5
The library helps me connect to other resources and organizations .... 1 2 3 4 5
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025
Community Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 186 Packet Pg. 194 of 510
Denver Public Library Survey Page 5 of 5
21. Please rate which of the following features make you feel welcome at the library.
Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly Don’t
agree agree disagree disagree know
Library staff ................................................................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5
Access to computers and technology .............................................................. 1 2 3 4 5
Library spaces ........................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
Other library visitors .............................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5
Building safety .......................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
22. What contributed to your experience of either feeling welcome or unwelcome at the library?
23. How can Denver Public Library better serve you and your community?
24. Would you like to subscribe to our emails for a chance to win a prize?
🔾 No 🔾 Yes -> please type your email here___________________________________________________________
Our last questions are about you. These responses will be used to compare survey responses to better understand the
potential differing experiences of residents from diverse backgrounds. These questions are voluntary, but we are asking
you to please help us by providing this critical information so that we can fully understand survey results. The Denver
Public Library strives to fairly meet the needs of all of our customers. To do this well, we want to understand more about
people using the library. Your answers will help us design programs, services and spaces to better meet your needs.
D1. How long have you lived in Denver?
Less than 2 years
2-5 years
6-10 years
11-20 years
More than 20 years
D2. Which best describes the building you live in?
One family house detached from any other
houses
Building with two or more homes
(duplex, townhome, apartment, or
condominium)
Mobile home
Other
🔾 Transitional/unhoused
D3. Do you rent or own your home?
Rent
Own
D4. Do you describe yourself as a person with a
disability? (Check all that apply).
❑ Developmental disability
❑ Learning disability
❑ Mental health or emotional disability
❑ Unseen disability
❑ Physical disability
❑ Sensory disability
❑ If you use an alternative term, please describe
here: ________________________________________________
❑ Not applicable
D5. How do you describe yourself? (Check all that
apply).
❑ Indigenous/Native American or Alaskan Native
❑ Black or African American
❑ East or Southeast Asian
❑ Hispanic or Latino
❑ Middle Eastern or Arab
❑ Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander
❑ South Asian
❑ White
❑ Biracial or Multiracial
❑ Other: ______________________________________________
❑ Prefer not to say
D6. What is your age?
18-24 years 55-64 years
25-34 years 65-74 years
35-44 years 75 years or older
45-54 years Prefer not to say
D7. How do you describe your gender identity?
Woman/girl
Man/boy
Non-binary, third gender, or Two Spirit
Prefer to self-describe:
______________________________________________________
Item 2
Attachment A - 2025
Community Survey Report
Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 187 Packet Pg. 195 of 510
City Council
Staff Report
Report Type: CONSENT CALENDAR
Lead Department: City Clerk
Meeting Date: January 20, 2026
Report #:2601-5807
TITLE
Approval of Minutes from January 5, 2026 Meeting
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council review and approve the minutes.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: January 5, 2026 Draft Action Minutes
APPROVED BY:
Mahealani Ah Yun, City Clerk
Item 3
Item 3 Staff Report
Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 1 Packet Pg. 196 of 510
CITY COUNCIL
DRAFT ACTION MINUTES
Page 1 of 2
Regular Meeting
January 5, 2026
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers and by virtual
teleconference at 5:30 P.M.
Present In Person: Burt, Lauing, Lu, Lythcott-Haims, Reckdahl, Stone, Veenker
Present Remotely:
Absent:
Call to Order
2026 Mayor and Vice Mayor
1. Election of the 2026 Mayor
NOMINATION: Councilmember Lauing nominated Councilmember Veenker for Mayor for 2026.
NOMINATION FOR COUNCILMEMBER VEENKER AS MAYOR FOR 2026 PASSED: 7-0
2. Election of the 2026 Vice Mayor
NOMINATION: Councilmember Lu nominated Councilmember Stone for Vice Mayor for 2026.
NOMINATION: Councilmember Lythcott-Haims nominated Councilmember Reckdahl for Vice
Mayor for 2026.
First Round of voting for the position of Vice Mayor with term ending December 31, 2026.
Voting For:
Reckdahl Burt, Lythcott-Haims, Reckdahl (3)
Stone Lauing, Lu, Stone, Veenker (4)
NOMINATION FOR COUNCILMEMBER STONE AS VICE MAYOR FOR 2026 PASSED: 4-3
Item 3
Attachment A - January 5,
2026 Draft Action Minutes
Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 2 Packet Pg. 197 of 510
DRAFT ACTION MINUTES
Page 2 of 2
City Council Meeting
Draft Action Minutes: 1/5/2026
3. Adoption of a Resolution Expressing Appreciation for Outstanding Public Service to Ed
Lauing as 2025 Mayor
MOTION: Councilmember Reckdahl moved, seconded by Councilmember Lythcott-Haims to
adopt a resolution expressing appreciation to Ed Lauing as 2025 Mayor.
MOTION PASSED: 6-0-1, Lauing Abstain
Public Comment
Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 7:33 P.M.
ATTEST: APPROVED:
____________________ ____________________
City Clerk Mayor
NOTE: Action minutes are prepared in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC)
2.04.160(a) and (b). Summary minutes (sense) are prepared in accordance with PAMC Section
2.04.160(c). Beginning in January 2018, in accordance with Ordinance No. 5423, the City Council
found action minutes and the video/audio recordings of Council proceedings to be the official
records of both Council and committee proceedings. These recordings are available on the City’s
website.
Item 3
Attachment A - January 5,
2026 Draft Action Minutes
Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 3 Packet Pg. 198 of 510
City Council
Staff Report
From: City Manager
Report Type: CONSENT CALENDAR
Lead Department: Administrative Services
Meeting Date: January 20, 2026
Report #:2511-5417
TITLE
Accept CalPERS Pension Annual Valuation Report as of June 30, 2024; CEQA Status – Not a
project.
RECOMMENDATION
Accept CalPERS Pension Annual Valuation Report as of June 30, 2024
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The CalPERS Annual Valuation Report was reviewed with the Finance Committee on September
16, 2025, and the Committee unanimously recommended that the City Council accept the
report.1 The June 30, 2024 CalPERS Annual Valuation report is used to inform the development
of the upcoming FY 2027 Budget process and FY 2027 - 2036 Long Range Financial Forecast
(LRFF).
This report estimates total employer costs of $71.1 million in FY 2027, an increase of $2.6
million or 3.8% from the total employer cost of $68.5 million in FY 2026. This increase is
primarily due to CalPERS investment gain of 9.3% and 5.8% as compared to target levels of 6.8%
for the period ending June 30, 2024 and June 30, 2023, respectively. This was preceded by
significant volatile investment loss of -6.1% and gain of +21.3% for the period ending June 30,
2022 and June 30, 2021, respectively. This gain triggered the CalPERS Risk Mitigation Policy,
which ultimately resulted in the reduction of the discount rate (target investment return) from
7.0% to 6.8%. Overall, the City’s combined funded status is projected to be 66.0% in FY 2027 as
compared to 64.0% in FY 2026 and 63.8% in FY 2025.
1 Finance Committee, September 16, 2025; Agenda Item #1,
https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=39059&dbid=0&repo=PaloAlto
Item 4
Item 4 Staff Report
Item 4: Staff Report Pg. 1 Packet Pg. 199 of 510
The Unfunded Accrued Liability (UAL) is $566.4 million. This amount is reduced to $456.5
million or 72.6% funded status once adjusted for the City’s Pension Trust, which has $109.9
million of contributions/principal and net earnings. In total, planned contributions (principal) of
$87.5 million to the Pension Trust have been made through FY 2025 ($56.5 million, or 64.6% of
the total, is from the General Fund). Contributions to this Trust continue in alignment with the
City’s goal to reach 90% funded by FY 2036.
BACKGROUND
Table 1: City of Palo Alto Pension Benefit Plans and Tiers
Miscellaneous Safety: Fire Safety: Police
Tier 1 2.7%/service year worked;
eligibility starting at the age of 55
(2.7% @ 55)
3.0%/service year worked;
eligibility starting at the age of 50
(3.0% @ 50)
3.0%/service year worked;
eligibility starting at the age of 50
(3.0% @ 50)
Tier 2 Effective July 16, 2010:
2.0%/service year worked,
eligibility starting at age 60 (2.0%
@ 60)
Effective June 7, 2012:
3.0%/service year worked,
eligibility starting at age 55 (3.0%
@ 55)
Effective December 6, 2012:
3.0%/service year worked,
eligibility starting at age 55 (3.0%
@ 55)
Tier 3
“PEPRA”*
Effective January 1, 2013:
2.0%/service year worked;
eligibility starting at age 62 (2.0%
at 62)
Effective January 1, 2013:
2.7%/service year worked;
eligibility starting at age 57 (2.7%
at 57)
Effective January 1, 2013:
2.7%/service year worked;
eligibility starting at age 57 (2.7%
at 57)
* Under the California Public Employees’ Pension Reform Act (PEPRA), the benefit calculation is limited by a maximum salary of
$186,096 in 2025 for both the Miscellaneous and Safety plans, therefore it is calculated based on service years but cannot
exceed the maximum amount. The final salary calculation is based on the average of the highest three years.
Item 4
Item 4 Staff Report
Item 4: Staff Report Pg. 2 Packet Pg. 200 of 510
CalPERS Annual Valuations
3, and will be used to inform the FY 2027 budget development process. The
calculations for annual employer contributions are based on a set of actuarial assumptions for
demographic (e.g., mortality, retirement, termination, and disability rates) and economic
factors (e.g., investment returns, inflations, salary growth). These assumptions reflect CalPERS’
best estimate for future experience of the plans and are long term in nature. Valuation results
will vary from one year to the next due to assumption or method changes, changes in plan
provisions, and actuarial experience that is different than anticipated such as investment
returns that do not meet the CalPERS 6.8% target.
Maintaining the discount rate at 6.8%;
New actuarial assumptions, including an increase for price inflation from 2.3% to 2.5%
and total wage inflation from 2.8% to 3.0%; and
Adoption of a new investment governance model.
3 Finance Committee, December 2, 2025; Agenda Item #3,
https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Public/CompiledDocument?meetingTemplateId=16340&compileOutputType
=1
Item 4
Item 4 Staff Report
Item 4: Staff Report Pg. 3 Packet Pg. 201 of 510
investment return should be adjusted and its asset allocation changed in line with the new
expected rate of return.
The most recent CalPERS ALM concluded in November 2025. This kicks off preparations for the
City’s internal comprehensive review of the Retiree Benefit Policy. In alignment with City policy,
the Retiree Benefit Policy review will be brought forward in fall 2026. This will include
collaboration with an outside actuary, transmittal of pertinent results from the CalPERS ALM, and
any proposed amendments to the policy. The City’s Retiree Benefit Policy and impacts of the
preliminary ALM were used to inform recommended budget balancing strategies presented to
the Finance Committee on November 18, 20255 including a recommendation that funds in the
Section 115 Pension Trust Fund (Pension Trust) held by Public Agency Retirement Services (PARS)
be transmitted to CalPERS. Continued implementation of this policy has been incorporated into
the development of the FY 2027-2036 LRFF presented to the Finance Committee on December
2, 2025 and tentatively agendized for the City Council on January 20, 2026.
Long-term Financial Planning
The City has taken several proactive steps to address rising pension costs and long-term liabilities,
including cost-sharing in labor agreements, establishing an irrevocable Section 115 Pension Trust
“Pension Trust” (CMR 75536), and adopting a Retiree Benefit Funding Policy that guides financial
planning of retirement benefits. The City initially contributed to the Pension Trust in FY 2017 on
an ad-hoc basis, using one-time savings or excess revenues. Beginning in FY 2019, the City Council
directed staff to use a more conservative discount rate as compared to CalPERS for the Normal
Cost (NC) portion of the payment, and transferring the additional “supplemental” funding
beyond CalPERS required employer contributions to the Pension Trust (CMR 97407). This practice
was reinforced in the development of a funding policy, as adopted by the City Council in FY 2021
(CMR 117228) and modified in FY 2023 (CMR 2212-05139). In FY 2024 this rate is 5.3% as
compared to the CalPERS discount rate of 6.8%. Additionally, one-time contributions continue to
be made each year if excess revenues or unspent savings are available, subject to City Council
approval. As part of policy goals, the City seeks to reach a 90% funded status by FY 2036.
Every four years, in alignment with the timing of the CalPERS ALM study, the policy requires that
staff consult with an actuary to inform the City Council of progress the City has made towards
5 Finance Committee, November 18, 2025; Agenda Item #2, https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=83883&dbid=0&repo=PaloAlto
6 https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/agendas-minutes-reports/reports/city-manager-
reports-cmrs/year-archive/2017/7553.pdf
7 https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/agendas-minutes-reports/reports/city-manager-
reports-cmrs/year-archive/2018/9740.pdf
8 https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/agendas-minutes-reports/reports/city-manager-
reports-cmrs/year-archive/2020-2/id-11722.pdf
9 https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=82218&dbid=0&repo=PaloAlto
Item 4
Item 4 Staff Report
Item 4: Staff Report Pg. 4 Packet Pg. 202 of 510
achieving a 90% funded status goal and assess and respond to changes impacting the City’s
retiree benefit plans. The previous comprehensive review of the policy by Council was completed
in FY 2023 and resulted in several policy revisions, most notably reducing the discount rate used
to calculate supplemental contributions from 6.2% to 5.3% and extending actuary reporting from
three to four years to align with the CalPERS ALM Study. Additionally, the title of the policy was
revised from the Pension Policy to the Retiree Benefit Policy to recognize actions approved by
the City Council to proactively plan for retiree healthcare plans in a similar manner to pensions
(CMR 2212-051315). The most recent City pension actuary analysis encompassing the CalPERS
assets/liabilities and the Pension Trust conducted in 2022 projects that the City will meet a 90%
funded goal by FY 2034 (Miscellaneous plan) and FY 2036-37 (Safety plan). The City’s practice of
transmitting excess one-time savings will help reach goals sooner.
It is important to note that this policy, and the funding elements within it, are subject to
modification at any time by the City Council. Consistent with prior years, any changes to the
budget or financial planning of retiree benefits in interim years will be implemented at the timing
of City Council approval and formalized in the policy document in the next comprehensive
reporting period.
ANALYSIS
CalPERS has two components designated in the annual billing for employer contributions:
1. The Normal Cost (NC) or “pay-go”
This cost reflects the employer contribution for the plan retirement benefits provided to
current employees based on the current set of assumptions and is billed as a percentage
of payroll.
2. The Unfunded Accrued Liability (UAL) or “catch-up”
This cost represents the employer amortization of unfunded accrued liability and is
billed as a flat dollar rate. The CalPERS’s annual payment is calculated to pay down the
City’s unfunded accrued pension liability over the amortization timeline. If all actuarial
assumptions were realized through the amortization timeline, the City would eliminate
its unfunded pension liability after making these annual payments.
The Actuarial Determined Contribution (ADC) or “blended rate” reflects the combined cost of NC
and UAL to approximate total employer cost.
Current and Projected Employer Contributions
15 https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=82218&dbid=0&repo=PaloAlto
Item 4
Item 4 Staff Report
Item 4: Staff Report Pg. 5 Packet Pg. 203 of 510
Table 2 summarizes the projected employer contributions required for each plan to fund the
ADC and the NC and UAL that make up this rate. Over the next six years, CALPERS estimates
that future ADCs will adjust from 43.7% of payroll or $43.7 million in FY 2026 to 34.6% of
Item 4
Item 4 Staff Report
Item 4: Staff Report Pg. 6 Packet Pg. 204 of 510
payroll or $46.5 million by FY 2032 for the Miscellaneous plan. Over the same six-year span,
CalPERS estimates that the ADC will adjust from 81.7% of payroll or $24.8 million in FY 2026 to
77.5% of payroll or $29.1 million in 2032 for Safety. As projected in the table below, the cost
fluctuations in the outyears are primarily due to investment returns of +21.3% as of June 30,
2021 (used to develop FY 2024), -6.1% as of June 30, 2022 (used to develop FY 2025), +5.8% as
of June 30, 2023 (used to develop FY 2026) where investment gains and losses are subject to a
five-year ramp-up period. The full impact from these returns will be realized in FY 2028, FY 2029
and FY 2030, respectively.
TABLE 2: CalPERS Current and Projected Employer Contributions*
Miscellaneous FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 FY 2029 FY 2030 FY 2031 FY 2032
NC (%)**11.3%10.9%10.5%10.2%9.9%9.7%9.5%9.3%
UAL (%)36.1%32.8%27.2%27.4%29.1%28.6%28.0%25.3%
Total ADC
(% payroll)
47.4%43.7%37.6%37.6%39.0%38.3%37.5%34.6%
NC ($)10.1 10.9 12.3 12.3 12.3 12.3 12.4 12.5
UAL ($)**32.2 32.8 31.8 33.0 35.9 36.4 36.7 34.0
Total ADC ($M)$42.3 $43.7 $44.1 $45.3 $48.2 $48.7 $49.1 $46.5
Safety FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 FY 2029 FY 2030 FY 2031 FY 2032
NC (%)**22.2%20.6%19.6%19.0%18.3%17.7%17.1%16.5%
UAL (%)60.9%61.1%62.8%63.2%66.0%65.1%64.0%61.0%
Total ADC
(% payroll)
83.1%81.7%82.4%82.2%84.3%82.8%81.1%77.5%
NC ($)6.0 6.3 6.4 6.4 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.2
UAL ($)**16.6 18.5 20.5 21.3 22.8 23.1 23.4 22.9
Total ADC ($M)$22.6 $24.8 $27.0 $27.7 $29.1 $29.4 $29.7 $29.1
* This table does not include cost savings for prepayment of the UAL, which confers 3.2% or $1.7 million in savings,
or provisions in labor agreements for employees to pay a portion of employer normal costs; Miscellaneous groups
pay 1-2% and Safety groups pay 3-4%. These savings will continue to be included in budget development.
** The City makes payments to CalPERS for NC as a percentage of payroll and for UAL as a flat dollar rate. For
illustrative purposes, this table uses CalPERS estimates to restate the total ADC (NC and UAL) in respective terms.
TABLE 3: CalPERS Investment Returns
Returns as of 6/30/22 6/30/23 6/30/24 6/30/25 6/30/26 6/30/27 6/30/28 6/30/29
Used to develop FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 FY 2029 FY 2030 FY 2031 FY 2032
Actual (%)-6.1 5.8 9.3 11.6*----
Target (%)6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8
*This CalPERS report does not consider the preliminary 11.6% return on investments for the period ending June
30, 2025 (6.8 percent target)[5]. The estimated impact from this return will be included in long-term financial
planning.
Item 4
Item 4 Staff Report
Item 4: Staff Report Pg. 7 Packet Pg. 205 of 510
TABLE 4: FY 2026 - 2025 Long-Range Financial Forecast – Pension Rates by Plan *
Plan Type FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 FY 2029 FY 2030 FY 2031
Miscellaneous 43.7%40.6%41.0%43.1%42.7%42.2%
Safety 81.7%82.8%83.3%86.3%85.4%84.4%
*Total ADC as % of payroll as of the June 30, 2023 valuation
In comparing the CalPERS current and projected rates (Table #2) in the June 30, 2024 valuation
with the prior year’s valuation, which was used to inform the previous FY 2026-2035 long-range
financial forecast (Table #4), these new pension projected rates align and are favorable compared
to the prior long-range projections within 0.4% to 4% between FY 2027 and FY 2031. Note that
only the next fiscal year (FY 2027) are definite rates, while the next years are projections, subject
to change with annual actuarial reports especially future investment returns.
Pension Plan’s Funded Status
The funded status is a measure of how well funded, or how “on track” a plan is with respect to
assets versus accrued liabilities. As of June 30, 2024, the funded status of the overall Public
Employee’s Retirement Fund (PERF) increased from 71.4% to projected levels of 75.0%[6]. This
rate is higher than the City’s funded status of 68.7% for Miscellaneous and 61.1% for Safety.
Table 5 details the City’s June 30, 2024 funded status for the Miscellaneous and Safety plans.
The total unfunded pension liability decreased from $573.5 million as of June 30, 2023 to
$566.4 million as of June 30, 2024. This represents a decrease of $7.1 million, or 1.2%
compared to the prior year. This change was predominantly due to investment returns. When
investment returns come in lower than anticipated, this increases the City’s unfunded liability.
Conversely, when investment returns come in higher than anticipated this favorably impacts
the City’s plans.
TABLE 5: CalPERS Projected Unfunded Accrued Liability
As of
June 30, 2020
As of
June 30, 2021
As of
June 30, 2022
As of
June 30, 2023
As of
June 30, 2024
Miscellaneous 317,116,346 236,033,956 340,518,738 349,828,105 339,818,201
Misc. Funded Status 65.1%75.3%65.8%66.3%68.7%
Safety 193,301,713 155,885,841 212,812,272 223,707,130 226,573,506
Safety Funded Status 60.3%69.4%60.0%59.7%61.1%
TOTAL UNFUNDED
PENSION LIABILITY
$510,418,059 $391,919,797 $553,331,510 $573,535,235 $566,391,707
% Change from Prior Yr $7.0%-23.2%41.2%3.7%-1.2%
TOTAL FUNDED STATUS % 63.5%73.3%63.8%64.0%66.0%
Item 4
Item 4 Staff Report
Item 4: Staff Report Pg. 8 Packet Pg. 206 of 510
Pension Trust Status
FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT
Item 4
Item 4 Staff Report
Item 4: Staff Report Pg. 9 Packet Pg. 207 of 510
the Retiree Benefit Policy review will be brought forward in fall 2026. This will include
collaboration with an outside actuary, transmittal of pertinent results from the CalPERS ALM,
and any recommended policy adjustments.
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
ATTACHMENTS
APPROVED BY:
Item 4
Item 4 Staff Report
Item 4: Staff Report Pg. 10 Packet Pg. 208 of 510
Employee Group Employee Group
Q3 2025 Q3 2024 Q3 2025 Q3 2024
City Council & Council Appointees 8 8 IAFF 87 79
Tier 1 1 1 Tier 1 28 30
Tier 2 2 2 Tier 2 9 8
Tier 3 5 5 Tier 3 50 41
Management & Professional 218 199 Fire Chiefs' Association 4 4
Tier 1 54 56 Tier 1 4 4
Tier 2 36 36 Tier 2 0 0
Tier 3 128 107 Tier 3 0 0
Service Employees' International 556 571 Fire Management 4 6
Tier 1 127 145 Tier 1 4 3
Tier 2 38 43 Tier 2 0 1
Tier 3 391 383 Tier 3 0 2
Utilities Management 45 47 PAPOA 67 73
Tier 1 25 29 Tier 1 15 20
Tier 2 8 6 Tier 2 1 3
Tier 3 12 12 Tier 3 51 50
Police Management Association 7 7
Tier 1 7 7
Tier 2 0 0
Tier 3 0 0
Police Management 2 9
Tier 1 1 3
Tier 2 1 2
Tier 3 0 4
Grand Total Miscellaneous Plans 827 825 Grand Total Safety Plans 171 178
Tier 1 207 231 Tier 1 59 67
Tier 2 84 87 Tier 2 11 14
Tier 3 536 507 Tier 3 101 97
Tiered Percentage Miscellaneous Plans Tiered Percentage Safety Plans
Tier 1 25.0%28.0%Tier 1 34.5%37.6%
Tier 2 10.2%10.5%Tier 2 6.4%7.9%
Tier 3 64.8%61.5%Tier 3 59.1%54.5%
Tier Definitions Tier Definitions
Tier 1 2.7% @ 55 Tier 1 3% @ 50
Tier 2 2% @ 60 Tier 2 3% @ 55
Tier 3 2% @ 62 Tier 3 2.7% @ 57
* Includes Police Trainee and Limited Hourly FTE
Attachment A:
City of Palo Alto Pension Plan Benefit Levels Enrollment by Plan and Employee Group as of Third Quarter
Miscellaneous Plans Safety Plans
Employee Count Employee Count
Item 4
Attachment A - Pension
Plan Benefit Levels
Enrollment by Plan and
Employee Group
Item 4: Staff Report Pg. 11 Packet Pg. 209 of 510
California Public Employees’ Retirement System
Actuarial Office
400 Q Street, Sacramento, CA 95811 | Phone: (916) 795 -3000 | Fax: (916) 795-2744
888 CalPERS (or 888-225-7377) | TTY: (877) 249 -7442 | www.calpers.ca.gov
July 2025
Miscellaneous Plan of the City of Palo Alto (CalPERS ID: 6373437857)
Annual Valuation Report as of June 30, 2024
Dear Employer,
Attached to this letter is the June 30, 2024, actuarial valuation report for the plan noted above. Provided in this report is the
determination of the minimum required employer contributions for fiscal year (FY) 2026 -27. In addition, the report
contains important information regarding the current financial status of the plan as well as projections and risk measures to aid
in planning for the future.
Required Contributions
The table below shows the minimum required employer contributions and the PEPRA member contribution rates for FY 2026 -27
along with an estimate of the employer contribution requirements for FY 2027-28. The required employer and member
contributions in this report do not reflect any cost sharing arrangement between the agency and the employees.
Fiscal Year Employer Normal
Cost Rate
Employer Amortization of
Unfunded Accrued Liability
PEPRA Member
Contribution Rate
2026-27 10.48% $31,802,552 7.25%
Projected Results
2027-28 10.2% $32,983,000 TBD
The actual investment return for FY 202 4-25 was not known at the time this report was prepared. The projection UAL payment
above assumes the investment return for that year would be 6.8%. To the extent the actual investment return for FY 2024-25
differs from 6.8%, the actual UAL contribution requirement for FY 2027 -28 will differ from that shown above. For additional
information on future contribution requirements , please refer to Projected Employer Contributions . This section also contains
projected required contributions through FY 2031-32.
PEPRA Member Contribution Rate
The employee contribution rate for PEPRA members can change based on the results of the actuarial valuation. See Member
Contribution Rates for more information.
Report Navigation Features
The valuation report has a number of features to ease navigation and allow the reader to find specific information more quickly.
The tables of contents are “clickable .” This is true for the main table of contents that follows the title page and the intermediate
tables of contents at the beginning of sections. The Adobe navigation pane on the left c an also be used to skip to specific
exhibits .
Item 4
Attachment B - CalPERS
Miscellaneous Valuation as
of June 30, 2024
Item 4: Staff Report Pg. 12 Packet Pg. 210 of 510
CalPERS Actuarial Valuation - June 30, 2024
Miscellaneous Plan of the City of Palo Alto
CalPERS ID: 6373437857
Page 2
There are a number of links throughout the document in blue text. Links that are internal to the document are not underlined,
while underlined links will take you to the CalPERS website. Examples are shown be low.
Internal Bookmarks CalPERS Website Links
Required Employer Contributions Required Employer Contribution Search Tool
Member Contribution Rates Public Agency PEPRA Member Contribution Rates
Summary of Key Valuation Results Pension Outlook Overview
Funded Status – Funding Policy Basis Interactive Summary of Public Agency Valuation Results
Projected Employer Contributions Public Agency Actuarial Valuation Reports
Further descriptions of general changes are included in the Highlights and Executive Summary section and in Appendix A -
Actuarial Methods and Assumptions . The effects of any cha nges on the required contributions are included in the Reconciliation
of Required Employer Contributions section.
Questions
A CalPERS actuary is available to answer questions about this report. Other questions may be directed to the Customer Contact
Center at 888 CalPERS (or 888-225-7377).
Sincerely,
Matthew Biggart, ASA, MAAA
Actuary, CalPERS
Randall Dziubek, ASA, MAAA
Deputy Chief Actuary, Valuation Services , CalPERS
Scott Terando , ASA, EA, MAAA, FCA, CFA
Chief Actuary, CalPERS
Item 4
Attachment B - CalPERS
Miscellaneous Valuation as
of June 30, 2024
Item 4: Staff Report Pg. 13 Packet Pg. 211 of 510
California Public Employees’ Retirement System
Actuarial Valuation for the
Miscellaneous Plan
of the City of Palo Alto
as of June 30, 2024
(CalPERS ID: 6373437857)
(Rate Plan ID: 8)
Required Contributions for Fiscal Year
July 1, 2026 — June 30, 2027
Item 4
Attachment B - CalPERS
Miscellaneous Valuation as
of June 30, 2024
Item 4: Staff Report Pg. 14 Packet Pg. 212 of 510
CY Fin Job Instance ID: 464138 PY Fin Job Instance ID: 438257 Report ID: 473152
Table of Contents
Actuarial Certification .......................................................................................................................................................................................1
Highlights and Executive Summary .............................................................................................................................................................2
Introduction .......................................................................................................................................................................................................3
Purpose .............................................................................................................................................................................................................3
Summary of Key Valuati on Results ..............................................................................................................................................................4
Changes Since the Prior Year’s Valuation ..................................................................................................................................................5
Subsequent Events .........................................................................................................................................................................................5
Assets ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................6
Reconciliation of the Market Value of Assets ..............................................................................................................................................7
Asset Allocation................................................................................................................................................................................................8
CalPERS History of Investment Returns .....................................................................................................................................................9
Liabilities and Contributions ....................................................................................................................................................................... 10
Determination of Required Contributions.................................................................................................................................................. 11
Development of Accrued and Unfunded Liabilities ................................................................................................................................. 12
Required Employer Contributions .............................................................................................................................................................. 13
Member Contribution Rates ........................................................................................................................................................................ 14
Funded Status – Funding Policy Basis ..................................................................................................................................................... 15
Additional Employer Contributions............................................................................................................................................................. 16
Projected Employer Contributions ............................................................................................................................................................. 17
(Gain)/Loss Analysis 6/30/23 – 6/30/24 .................................................................................................................................................... 18
Schedule of Amortization Bases ................................................................................................................................................................ 19
Amortization Schedule and Alternatives ................................................................................................................................................... 21
Reconciliation of Required Employer Contributions ................................................................................................................................ 23
Employer Contribution History .................................................................................................................................................................... 24
Funding History ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 24
Risk Analysis ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 25
Future Investment Return Scenarios ......................................................................................................................................................... 26
Discount Rate Sensitivity............................................................................................................................................................................. 27
Mortality Rate Sensitivity ............................................................................................................................................................................. 27
Maturity Measures ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 28
Maturity Measures History........................................................................................................................................................................... 29
Funded Status – Termination Basis .......................................................................................................................................................... 30
Funded Status – Low-Default-Risk Basis ................................................................................................................................................. 31
Supplementary Information ......................................................................................................................................................................... 32
Normal Cost by Benefit Group .................................................................................................................................................................... 33
Summary of Valuation Data ........................................................................................................................................................................ 34
Status of PEPRA Transition ........................................................................................................................................................................ 35
Plan's Major Benefit Options....................................................................................................................................................................... 36
Appendix A - Actuarial Methods and Assumptions .............................................................................................................................. 38
Appendix B - Principal Plan Provisions .................................................................................................................................................... 64
Appendix C - Participant Data ..................................................................................................................................................................... 75
Appendix D - Glossary .................................................................................................................................................................................. 80
Item 4
Attachment B - CalPERS
Miscellaneous Valuation as
of June 30, 2024
Item 4: Staff Report Pg. 15 Packet Pg. 213 of 510
CalPERS Actuarial Valuation - June 30, 2024
Miscellaneous Plan of the City of Palo Al to
CalPERS ID: 6373437857
Page 1
Actuarial Certification
It is our opinion that the valuation has been performed in accordance with generally accepted actuarial principles as well as the
applicable Standards of Practice promulgated by the Actuarial Standards Board . While this report is intended to be complete,
our office is available to answer questions as needed. All of the undersigned are actuaries who satisfy the Qualification
Standards for Actuaries I ssuing Statements of Actuarial Opinion in the United States of the American Academy of Actuaries with
regard to pensions.
Actuarial Methods and Assumptions
It is our opinion that the assumptions and methods, as recommended by the Chief Actuary and adopted by the CalPERS Board
of Administration, are internally consistent and reasonable for this plan.
Randall Dziubek, ASA, MAAA
Deputy Chief Actuary, Valuation Services , CalPERS
Scott Terando , ASA, EA, MAAA, FCA, CFA
Chief Actuary, CalPERS
Actuarial Data and Rate Plan Results
To the best of my knowledge and having relied upon the attestation above that the actuarial methods and assumptions are
reasonable, this report is complete and accurate and contains sufficient information to disclose, fully and fairly, the funded
condition of the Miscellaneous Plan of the City of Palo Alto and satisfies the actuarial valuation requirements of Government
Code section 7504. This valuation and related validation work w as performed by the CalPERS Actuarial Office. The valuation
was based on the member and financial data as of June 30, 2024 , provided by the various CalPERS databases and the benefits
under this plan with CalPERS as of the date this report was pr oduced.
Matthew Biggart, ASA, MAAA
Actuary, CalPERS
Item 4
Attachment B - CalPERS
Miscellaneous Valuation as
of June 30, 2024
Item 4: Staff Report Pg. 16 Packet Pg. 214 of 510
Highlights and Executive Summary
• Introduction 3
• Purpose 3
• Summary of Key Valuation Results 4
• Changes Since the Prior Year’s Valuation 5
• Subsequent Events 5
Item 4
Attachment B - CalPERS
Miscellaneous Valuation as
of June 30, 2024
Item 4: Staff Report Pg. 17 Packet Pg. 215 of 510
CalPERS Actuarial Valuation - June 30, 2024
Miscellaneous Plan of the City of Palo Alto
CalPERS ID: 6373437857
Page 3
Introduction
This report presents the results of the June 30, 2024 , actuarial valuation of the Miscellaneous Plan of the City of Palo Alto of the
California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS). This actuarial valuation sets the minimum required contributions
for fiscal year (FY) 2026-27.
Purpose
This report documents the results of the actuarial valuation prepared by the CalPERS Actuarial Office using data as of June 30,
2024. This report contains actuarial information for the following rate plan(s).
• 8, Miscellaneous First Level
• 30157, Miscellaneous Second Level
• 26004, Miscellaneous PEPRA Level
The purpose of the valuation is to:
• Set forth the assets and accrued liabilities of this rate plan as of June 30, 2024 ;
• Determine the minimum required employer contributions for this rate plan for FY July 1, 2026, through June 30, 2027;
• Determine the required member contribution rate for FY July 1, 2026, through June 30, 2027, for employees subject
to the California Public Employees' Pension Reform Act of 2013 (PEPRA); and
• Provide actuarial information as of June 30, 2024 , to the CalPERS Board of Administration (board) and other
interested parties.
The pension funding in formation presented in this report should not be used in financial reports subject to Governmental
Accounting Standards Board (GASB) Statement No. 68 for an Agent Employer Defined Benefit Pension Plan. A separate
accounting valuation report for such purpos es is available from CalPERS and details for ordering are available on the CalPERS
website (www.calpers.ca.gov).
The measurements shown in this actuarial valuation may not be applicable for other purposes. The agency should contact a
CalPERS actuary before disseminating any portion of this report for any reason that is not explicitly described above.
Future actuarial measurements may differ significantly from the current measurements presented in this report due to such
factors as the following: plan expe rience differing from that anticipated by the economic or demographic assumptions; changes
in economic or demographic assumptions; changes in actuarial policies; changes in plan provisions or applicable law; and
differences between the required contributio ns determined by the valuation and the actual contributions made by the agency.
Assessment and Disclosure of Risk
This report includes the following risk disclosures consistent with the guidance of the Actuarial Standards of Practice:
• A “Scenario Test,” projecting future results under different investment income returns.
• A “Sensitivity Analysis,” showing the impact on current valuation results using alternative discount rates of 5.8% and
7.8%.
• A “Sensitivity Analysis,” showing the impact on current valua tion results assuming rates of mortality are 10% lower or
10% higher than our current post-retirement mortality assumptions adopted in 2021.
• Plan maturity measures indicating how sensitive a plan may be to the risks noted above.
• The funded status on a term ination basis.
• A low-default-risk obligation measure (LDROM) of benefit costs accrued as of the valuation date.
Item 4
Attachment B - CalPERS
Miscellaneous Valuation as
of June 30, 2024
Item 4: Staff Report Pg. 18 Packet Pg. 216 of 510
CalPERS Actuarial Valuation - June 30, 2024
Miscellaneous Plan of the City of Palo Alto
CalPERS ID: 6373437857
Page 4
Summary of Key Valuation Results
Below is a brief summary of key valuation resu lts along with page references where more detailed information can be found .
Required Employer Contributions — page 13
Fiscal Year
2025-26
Fiscal Year
2026-27
Employer Normal Cost Rate 10.90% 10.48%
Unfunded Accrued Liability (UAL) Contribution Amount $32,780,459 $31,802,552
Paid either as
Option 1) 12 Monthly Payments of $2,731,705 $2,650,213
Option 2) Annual Prepayment in July $31,719,724 $30,773,461
Member Contribution Rates — page 14
Fiscal Year
2025-26
Fiscal Year
2026-27
Classic Member Contribution Rate 7.00%/8.00% 7.00%/8.00%
PEPRA Member Contribution Rate 7.25% 7.25%
Projected Employer Contributions — page 17
Fiscal Year Normal Cost
(% of payroll)
Annual
UAL Payment
2027-28 10.2% $32,983,000
2028-29 9.9% $35,941,000
2029-30 9.7% $36,353,000
2030-31 9.5% $36,662,000
2031-32 9.3% $33,998,000
Funded Status – Funding Policy Basis — page 15
June 30, 2023 June 30, 2024
Entry Age Accrued Liability (AL) $1,037,247,281 $1,085,448,984
Market Value of Assets (MVA) 687,419,176 745,630,783
Unfunded Accrued Liability (UAL) [AL – MVA] $349,828,105 $339,818,201
Funded Ratio [MVA ÷ AL] 66.3% 68.7%
Summary of Valuation Data — page 34
June 30, 2023 June 30, 2024
Active Member Count 757 833
Annual Covered Payroll $91,956,169 $107,807,296
Transferred Member Count 392 393
Separated Member Count 488 504
Retired Members and Beneficiaries Count 1,348 1,364
Item 4
Attachment B - CalPERS
Miscellaneous Valuation as
of June 30, 2024
Item 4: Staff Report Pg. 19 Packet Pg. 217 of 510
CalPERS Actuarial Valuation - June 30, 2024
Miscellaneous Plan of the City of Palo Alto
CalPERS ID: 6373437857
Page 5
Changes Since the Prior Year’s Valuation
Benefits
The standard actuarial practice at CalPERS is to recognize mandated legislative benefit changes in the first annual valuation
following the effective date of the legislation. For rate plans that are not in a risk pool (non -pooled), benefit changes by contract
amendment are generally included in the first valuation that is prepared after the amendment becomes effective, even if the
effective date of the amendment is after the valuation date.
Please refer to the Plan’s Major Benefit Options and Appendix B - Principal Plan Provisions for a summary of the plan provisions
used in this valuation. The effect of any mandated benefit changes or plan amendments on the unfunded liability is shown in the
(Gain)/Loss Analysis 6/30/23 – 6/30/24 and the effect on the employer contribution is shown in the Reconciliation of Required
Employer Contributions . It should be noted that no change in liability or contribution is shown for any plan changes which were
already included in the p rior year’s valuation.
Board Policy
On April 16, 2024, the board took action to modify the Funding Risk Mitigation Policy to remove the automatic change to the
discount rate when the investment return exceeds various thresholds. Rather than an automatic change to the discount rate, a
board discussion would be placed on the calendar. The 95 th percentile return in the Future Investment Return Scenarios exhibit
in this report, which include s returns high enough to trigger a board discussion, do es not reflect any change in the discount rate.
Actuarial Methods and Assumptions
There are no significant changes to the actuarial methods or assumptions for the June 30, 2024, actuarial valuation.
Subsequent Events
This actuarial valuation report reflects fund investment return through June 30, 2024, as well as statutory changes, regulatory
changes and board actions through January 202 5.
CalPERS will be completing an Asset Liability Management (ALM) review process in November 2025 that will review the capital
market assumptions and the CalPERS Total Fund Investment Policy and ascertain whether a change in the discount is
warranted. In addition, the Actuarial Office will be presenting the findings of its Experience Study which reviews economic
assumptions other than the discount rate as well as all demographic assumptions and makes recommendations to modify
actuarial assumptions where appropriate. Any ch anges in actuarial assumptions will be reflected in the June 30, 2025, actuarial
valuations.
The 202 4 annual benefit limit under Internal Revenue Code (IRC) section 415(b) and annual compensation limits under IR C
section 401(a)(17) and Government Code section 7522.10 were use d for this valuation and are assumed to increase 2.3% per
year based on the price inflation assumption. The actual 202 5 limits , determined in October 202 4, are not reflected.
To the best of our knowledge, there have been no other s ubsequent events that could materially affect current or future
certifications rendered in this report.
Item 4
Attachment B - CalPERS
Miscellaneous Valuation as
of June 30, 2024
Item 4: Staff Report Pg. 20 Packet Pg. 218 of 510
Assets
• Reconciliation of the Market Value of Assets 7
• Asset Allocation 8
• CalPERS History of Investment Returns 9
Item 4
Attachment B - CalPERS
Miscellaneous Valuation as
of June 30, 2024
Item 4: Staff Report Pg. 21 Packet Pg. 219 of 510
CalPERS Actuarial Valuation - June 30, 2024
Miscellaneous Plan of the City of Palo Alto
CalPERS ID: 6373437857
Page 7
Reconciliation of the Market Value of Assets
1. Market Value of Assets as of 6/30/23 including Receivables $687,419,176
2. Change in Receivables for Service Buybacks (237,909)
3. Employer Contributions 38,293,903
4. Employee Contributions 9,399,972
5. Benefit Payments to Retirees and Beneficiaries (54,755,943)
6. Refunds (415,563)
7. Transfers 0
8. Service Credit Purchase (SCP) Payments and Interest 220,928
9. Administrative Expenses (502,688)
10. Miscellaneous Adjustments 0
11. Investment Return (Net of Investment Expenses) 66,208,907
12. Market Value of Assets as of 6/30/24 including Receivables $745 ,630,783
Item 4
Attachment B - CalPERS
Miscellaneous Valuation as
of June 30, 2024
Item 4: Staff Report Pg. 22 Packet Pg. 220 of 510
CalPERS Actuarial Valuation - June 30, 2024
Miscellaneous Plan of the City of Palo Alto
CalPERS ID: 6373437857
Page 8
Asset Allocation
CalPERS adheres to an Asset Allocation Strategy which establishes asset class allocation policy targets and ranges and
manages those asset class allocations within their policy ranges . CalPERS Investment Belief No. 6 recognizes that strategic
asset allocation is the dominant determinant of portfolio risk and return .
The asset allocation shown below reflects the allocation of the Public Employees’ Retirement Fund (PERF) in its entirety. The
assets for City of Palo Alto Miscellaneous Plan are a subset of the PERF and are invested accordingly.
On March 20, 2024, the board adopted changes to the strategic asset allocation . The new allocation was effective July 1, 202 4.
The asset allocation as of June 30, 2024 , is shown below, along with the strategic asset allocation targets.
For more information s ee the Trust Level Review as of June 30, 2024 , which is available on the CalPERS website.
31.8%
10.0%
7.3%
5.3%
6.4%
5.3%
5.3%
15.5%
13.2%
2.8%
(3.0%)
27%
10%
7%
5%
6%
5%
5%
17%
15%
8%
(5%)
(10%)0%10%20%30%40%
Public Equities - Cap Weighted
Public Equities - Factor Weighted
Treasury
Mortgage-Backed Securities
Investment Grade Corporates
High Yield
Emerging Market Sovereign Bonds
Private Equity
Real Assets
Private Debt
Strategic Financing
Current Allocation Strategic Asset Allocation Target
Item 4
Attachment B - CalPERS
Miscellaneous Valuation as
of June 30, 2024
Item 4: Staff Report Pg. 23 Packet Pg. 221 of 510
CalPERS Actuarial Valuation - June 30, 2024
Miscellaneous Plan of the City of Palo Alto
CalPERS ID: 6373437857
Page 9
CalPERS History of Investment Returns
The following is a chart with 20 years of historical annual returns of the PERF for each fiscal year ending on June 30 as reported
by the Investment Office. Investment returns reported are net of investment expenses but without reduction for administrative
expenses. The assumed rate of return , however, is net of both investment and administrative expenses. Also, the Investment
Office uses lag ged private asset valuations for investment performance reporting purposes. This can lead to a timing difference
in private asset influence on performance in the returns below and those used for financial reporting purposes. The investment
gain or loss calculation in this report relies on final assets that have been audited and are appropriate for financial reporting.
Because of these differences, the effective investment return for funding purposes in a single year can be higher or lower than
the return reported by the Investment Office shown here.
History of Investment Returns (2005 through 2024)
* As reported by the Investment Office with lagged private valuations and without any reduction for administrative expenses .
The table below shows annualized investment returns of the PERF for various time periods ending on June 30, 2024 . These
returns are the annual rates that if compounded over the indicated number of years would equate to the actual time -weighted
investment performance of the PERF. It should be recognized that the annual rate of return is volatile, as the chart above
illustrates, so when looking at investment returns, it is informative to look at average returns over longer time horizons.
PERF Realized Rates of Return as of June 30, 2024
1 year 3 year 5 year 10 year 20 year 30 year
9.3% 2.8% 6.6% 6.2% 6.7% 7.7 %
Item 4
Attachment B - CalPERS
Miscellaneous Valuation as
of June 30, 2024
Item 4: Staff Report Pg. 24 Packet Pg. 222 of 510
Liabilities and Contributions
• Determination of Required Contributions 11
• Development of Accrued and Unfunded Liabilities 12
• Required Employer Contributions 13
• Member Contribution Rates 14
• Funded Status – Funding Policy Basis 15
• Additional Employer Contributions 16
• Projected Employer Contributions 17
• (Gain)/Loss Analysis 6/30/23 – 6/30/24 18
• Schedule of Amortization Bases 19
• Amortization Schedule and Alternatives 21
• Reconciliation of Required Employer Contributions 23
• Employer Contribution History 24
• Funding History 24
Item 4
Attachment B - CalPERS
Miscellaneous Valuation as
of June 30, 2024
Item 4: Staff Report Pg. 25 Packet Pg. 223 of 510
CalPERS Actuarial Valuation - June 30, 2024
Miscellaneous Plan of the City of Palo Alto
CalPERS ID: 6373437857
Page 11
Determination of Required Contributions
Contributions to fund the plan are determined by an actuarial valuation performed each year. The valuation employs complex
calculations based on a set of actuarial assumptions and methods. See Appendix A for information on the assumptions and
methods used in this valuation. The valuation incorporates all plan experience through the valuation date and sets required
contributions for the fiscal year that begins two years after the valuation date.
Contribution Components
Two components comprise required contributions:
• Normal Cost — expressed as a percentage of pensionable payroll
• Unfunded Accrued Liability (UAL) Contribution — expressed as a dollar amount
Normal Cost represents the value of benefits allocated to the upcoming year for active employees. If all plan experience exact ly
matched the actuarial assumptions, normal cost would be sufficient to fully fund all benefits. The em ployer and employee s each
pay a share of the normal cost with contributions payable as part of the regular payroll reporting process. The contribution rate
for Classic members is set by statute based on benefit formula whereas for PEPRA members it is based on 50% of the total
normal cost.
When plan experience differs from the actuarial assumptions, UAL emerges. The new UAL may be positive or negative. If the
total UAL is positive (i.e., accrued liability exceeds assets), the employer is required to make contributions to pay off the UAL
over time. This is called the UAL Contribution component. There is an option to prepay this amount during July of each fi scal
year, otherwise it is paid monthly.
In measuring the UAL each year, plan experience is split by source. Common sources of UAL include investment experience
different than expected , non-investment experience different than expected, assumption changes, and benefit changes. Each
source of UAL (positive or negative) forms a base that is amortized, or paid off, over a specified period of time in accordan ce
with the CalPERS Actuarial Amortization Policy. The UAL Contribution is the sum of the payments on all bases. See the
Schedule of Amortization Bases section of this report for an inventory of existing bases and Appendix A for mor e information on
the amortization policy.
Item 4
Attachment B - CalPERS
Miscellaneous Valuation as
of June 30, 2024
Item 4: Staff Report Pg. 26 Packet Pg. 224 of 510
CalPERS Actuarial Valuation - June 30, 2024
Miscellaneous Plan of the City of Palo Alto
CalPERS ID: 6373437857
Page 12
Development of Accrued and Unfunded Liabilities
June 30, 2023 June 30, 2024
1. Present Value of Projected Benefits
a) Active Members $454,680,927 $500,299,849
b) Transferred Members 45,946,284 50,315,737
c) Separated Members 22,788,782 24,294,459
d) Members and Beneficiaries Receiving Payments 653,009,459 670,851,688
e) Total $1,176,425,452 $1,245,761,733
2. Present Value of Future Employer Normal Costs $77,828,908 $88,353,448
3. Present Value of Future Employee Contributions $61,34 9,263 $71,959,301
4. Entry Age Accrued Liability
a) Active Members [(1a) - (2) - (3)] $315,502,756 $339,987,100
b) Transferred Members (1b) 45,946,284 50,315,737
c) Separated Members (1c) 22,788,782 24,294,459
d) Members and Beneficiaries Receiving Payments (1d) 653,009,459 670,851,688
e) Total $1,037,247,281 $1,085,448,984
5. Market Value of Assets (MVA) $687,419,176 $745,630,783
6. Unfunded Accrued Liability (UAL) [(4e) - (5)] $349,828,105 $339,818,201
7. Funded Ratio [(5) ÷ (4e)] 66.3% 68.7%
Item 4
Attachment B - CalPERS
Miscellaneous Valuation as
of June 30, 2024
Item 4: Staff Report Pg. 27 Packet Pg. 225 of 510
CalPERS Actuarial Valuation - June 30, 2024
Miscellaneous Plan of the City of Palo Alto
CalPERS ID: 6373437857
Page 13
Required Employer Contributions
The required employer contributions in this report do not reflect any cost sharing arrangement between the agency and the
employees.
Fiscal Year
Required Employer Contributions 2026-27
Employer Normal Cost Rate 10.48%
Plus
Unfunded Accrued Liability (UAL) Contribution Amount $31,802,552
Paid either as
1) Monthly Payment $2,650,213
Or
2) Annual Prepayment Option* $30,773,461
The total minimum required employer contribution is the sum of the Plan’s Employer Normal Cost Rate
(expressed as a percentage of payroll and paid as payroll is reported) and the Unfunded Accrued Liability
(UAL) Contribution Amount (billed monthly (1) or p repaid annually (2) in dollars).
* Only the UAL portion of the employer contribution can be prepaid (which must be received in full no later
than July 31).
For Member Contribution Rates see the following page.
Fiscal Year Fiscal Year
2025-26 2026-27
Normal Cost Contribution as a Percentage of Payroll
Total Normal Cost1 18.39% 17.93%
Offset due to Employee Contribution s 2 (7.49%) (7.45%)
Employer Normal Cost 10.90% 10.48%
Projected Annual Payroll for Contribution Year $99,898,787 $117,119,039
Estimated Employer Contributions Based on Projected Payroll
Total Normal Cost $18,371,387 $20,999,444
Expected Employee Contribution s (7,482,419) (8,725,368)
Employer Normal Cost $10,888,968 $12,274,076
Unfunded Liability Contribution $32,780,459 $31,802,552
% of Projected Payroll (illustrative only) 32.81% 27.15%
Estimated Total Employer Contribution $43,669,427 $44,076,628
% of Projected Payroll (illustrative only) 43.71% 37.63%
1 The Total Normal Cost is a blended rate for all benefit groups in the plan. For a breakout of normal cost by benefit
group, see Normal Cost by Benefit Group.
2 This is the expected employee contributions, taking into account individual benefit formula and any offset from the use
of a modified formula, divided by projected annual payroll. For member contribution rates above the breakpoint for each
benefit formula, see Member Contribution Rates .
Item 4
Attachment B - CalPERS
Miscellaneous Valuation as
of June 30, 2024
Item 4: Staff Report Pg. 28 Packet Pg. 226 of 510
CalPERS Actuarial Valuation - June 30, 2024
Miscellaneous Plan of the City of Palo Alto
CalPERS ID: 6373437857
Page 14
Member Contribution Rates
The required member contributions in this report do not reflect any cost sharing arrangement between the agency and the
employees.
Classic Members
Each member contributes toward their retirement based upon the retirement formula. The standard Classic member contribution
ra te above the breakpoint, if any, is as described below.
Benefit Formula
Percent Contributed
above the Breakpoint
Miscellaneous, 1.5% at age 65 2%
Miscellaneous, 2% at age 60 7%
Miscellaneous, 2% at age 55 7%
Miscellaneous, 2.5% at age 55 8%
Miscellaneous, 2.7% at age 55 8%
Miscellaneous, 3% at age 60 8%
Auxiliary organizations of the CSU system may elect reduced contribution rates for Miscellaneous members, in which case the
contribution rate above the breakpoint is 6% if members are not covered by Social Security and 5% if they are.
PEPRA Members
The California Public Employees’ Pension Reform Act of 2013 (“PEPRA”) established new benefit formulas, final compensation
period, and contribution requirements for “new” employees (generally those first hired into a CalPERS -covered position on or
after January 1, 2013). In accordance with Government Code Section 7522.30(b), “new members … shall have an initial
contribution rate of at least 50% of the normal cost rate.” The normal cost rate for the plan is dependent on the benefit levels,
actuarial assumptions, and demographics of the plan, particularly members’ entry age into the plan. Should the total normal cost
rate of the plan change by more than 1% from the base total normal cost rate established for the plan, the new member rate
shall be 50% of the new normal cost rate rounded to the nearest quarter percent.
The table below shows the determination of the PEPRA m ember contribution rates effective July 1, 2026, based on 50 % of the
total normal cost rate for each respective rate plan as of the June 30, 2024, valuation.
Basis for Current Rate Rates Effective July 1, 2026
Rate Plan
Identifier Benefit Group Name
Total
Normal
Cost
Member
Rate
Total
Normal
Cost
Change
in
Normal
Cost
Adj.
Needed
Member
Rate
26004 Miscellaneous PEPRA
Level 14.250% 7.25% 14.59% 0.340% No 7.25%
For a description of the methodology used to determine the Total Normal Cost for this purpose, see PEPRA Normal C ost Rate
Methodology in Appendix A.
Item 4
Attachment B - CalPERS
Miscellaneous Valuation as
of June 30, 2024
Item 4: Staff Report Pg. 29 Packet Pg. 227 of 510
CalPERS Actuarial Valuation - June 30, 2024
Miscellaneous Plan of the City of Palo Alto
CalPERS ID: 6373437857
Page 15
Funded Status – Funding Policy Basis
The table below provides information on the current funded status of the plan under the funding policy. The funded status for this
purpose is based on the market value of assets relative to the funding target produced by the entry age actuarial cost method
and actuarial assumptions adopted by the board. The actuarial cost method allocates the total expected cost of a member’s
projected benefit (Present Value of Benefits ) to individual years of service (the Normal Cost). The value of the projected
benefit that is not allocated to future service is referred to as the Accrued Liability and is the plan’s funding target on the
valuation date. The Unfunded Accrued Liability (UAL) equals the funding target minus the assets. The UAL is an absolute
measure of funded status and can be viewed as employer debt. The Funded Ratio equals the assets divided by the funding
target. The funded ratio is a relative measure of the funded status and allows for comparisons between plans of different sizes.
June 30, 2023 June 30, 2024
1. Present Value of Benefits $1,176,425,452 $1,245,761,733
2. Entry Age Accrued Liability 1,037,247,281 1,085,448,984
3. Market Value of Assets (MVA) 687,419,176 745,630,783
4. Unfunded Accrued Liability (UAL) [(2) – (3)] $349,828,105 $339,818,201
5. Funded Ratio [(3) ÷ (2)] 66.3% 68.7%
A funded ratio of 100% (UAL of $0) implies that the funding of the plan is on target and that future contributions equal to the
normal cost of the active plan members will be sufficient to fully fund all retirement benefits if future experience matches the
actuarial assumptions. A fu nded ratio of less than 100% (positive UAL) implies that in addition to normal costs, payments toward
the UAL will be required. Plans with a funded ratio greater than 100% have a negative UAL (or surplus) but are required under
current law to continue contributing the normal cost in most cases, preserving the surplus for future contingencies.
Calculations for the funding target reflect the expected long -term investment return of 6.8%. If it were known on the valuation
date that future investment returns wi ll average something greater/less than the expected return, calculated normal costs and
accrued liabilities provided in this report would be less/greater than the results shown. Therefore, for example, if actual a verage
future returns are less than the exp ected return, calculated normal costs and UAL contributions will not be sufficient to fully fund
all retirement benefits. Under this scenario, required future normal cost contributions will need to increase from those provided in
this report, and the plan will develop unfunded liabilities that will also add to required future contributions. For illustrative
purposes, funded status es based on a 1% lower and higher average future investment return (discount rate) are as follows:
1% Lower
Average Return
Current
Assumption
1% Higher
Average Return
Discount Rate 5.8% 6.8% 7.8%
1. Present Value of Benefits $1,442,802,538 $1,245,761,733 $1,090,341,534
2. Entry Age Accrued Liability 1,223,262,430 1,085,448,984 971,255,802
3. Market Value of Assets (MVA) 745,630,783 745,630,783 745,630,783
4. Unfunded Accrued Liability (UAL) [(2) – (3)] $477,631,647 $339,818,201 $225,625,019
5. Funded Ratio [(3) ÷ (2)] 61.0% 68.7% 76.8%
The Risk Analysis section of the report provides additional information regarding the sensitivity of valuation results to the
expected investment return and other factor s. Also provided in that section are measures of funded status that are appropriate
for assessing the sufficiency of plan assets to cover estimated termination liabilities.
Item 4
Attachment B - CalPERS
Miscellaneous Valuation as
of June 30, 2024
Item 4: Staff Report Pg. 30 Packet Pg. 228 of 510
CalPERS Actuarial Valuation - June 30, 2024
Miscellaneous Plan of the City of Palo Alto
CalPERS ID: 6373437857
Page 16
Additional Employe r Contributions
The CalPERS amortization policy provides a systematic methodology for paying down a plan’s unfunded accrued liability (UAL)
over a reasonable period of years. The projected schedule of required payments for this plan under the amortization policy is
provided in Amortization Schedule and Alternatives . Certain aspects of the policy such as 1) layered amortization bases
(positive and negative) with different remaining payoff periods, and 2) the pha se-in of required payments toward investment
gains and losses, can result in volatility in year -to-year projected UAL payments. Provided below is information on how an
Additional Discretionary Payment (ADP), together with your required UAL payment of $31,802,552 for FY 2026-27, may better
accomplish your agen cy’s specific objectives with regard to either smoothing out projected future payments or achieving a
greater reduction in UAL than would otherwise occur w hen making only the minimum required payment. Such additional
payments are allowed at any time and ca n also result in significant long -term savings.
Fiscal Year 2026-27 Employer Contribution Versus Agency Funding Objectives
The interest-to-payment ratio for the FY 2026-27 minimum required UAL payment is 65%, which means the required payment of
$31,802,552 includes $20,574,053 of interest cost and results in a $11,228,499 reduction in the UAL , as can be seen in
Amortization Schedule and Alternatives (see columns labelled Current Amortization Schedule). If th e interest-to-payment ratio is
close to 100%, and the reduction in the UAL is small, it may indicate that required contributions will be increasing in the coming
years, which would be shown in Projected Em ployer Contributions . Another measure that can be used to evaluate how well the
FY 2026-27 required UAL payment meets the agency’s specific funding objectives is the number o f years required to pay off the
existing UAL if the annual payment were held constant in future years . With an annual payment of $31,802,552 it would take
16.3 years to pay off the current UAL . A result that is longer than the agency’s target funding period suggests that the option of
supplementing the minimum payment with an ADP should be weighed against the agency’s budget constraints.
Provided below are select ADP options for consideration. Making such an ADP during FY 2026-27 does not require an ADP be
made in any future year, nor does it change the remaining amortization period of any portion of unfunded liability. For
information on permanent changes to amortization periods, see Amortization Schedule and Alternatives . Agencies considering
making an ADP should contact CalPERS for additional information.
Fiscal Year 2026-27 Employer Contributions — Illustrative Scenarios
If the Annual UAL
Payment Each
Year W ere…
The Current
UAL Would be
Paid Off in…
This W ould
Require an ADP1
in FY 2026-27 of…
Plus the Estimated
Normal Cost of…
Estimated Total
Contribution
$31,802,552 16.3 years $0 $12,274,076 $44,076,628
33,380,276 15 years 1,577,724 12,274,076 45,654,352
43,434,023 10 years 11,631,471 12,274,076 55,708,099
74,692,930 5 years 42,890,378 12,274,076 86,967,006
1 The ADP amounts are assumed to be made in the middle of the fiscal year. A payment made earlier or later in the fiscal year would have to
be less or more than the amount shown to have the same effect on the UAL amortization.
The calculations above are based on the projected UAL as of June 30, 2026, as determined in the June 30, 2024, actuarial
valuation. New unfunded liabilities can emerge in future years due to assumption or method changes, changes in plan
provisions, and actuarial experience different than assumed. Making an ADP illustrated above for the indicated number of year s
will not result in a plan that is exactly 100% funded in the indicated number of years. Valuation results will vary from one year to
the next and can diverge significantly from projections over a period of several years.
Additional Discretionary Payment History
The following table provides a recent history of actual ADPs made to the plan.
Fiscal
Year ADP Fiscal
Year ADP
2017-18 N/A 2021-22 $0
2018-19 $0 2022-23 0
2019-20 0 2023-24 0
2020-21 0 2024-25 0
Item 4
Attachment B - CalPERS
Miscellaneous Valuation as
of June 30, 2024
Item 4: Staff Report Pg. 31 Packet Pg. 229 of 510
CalPERS Actuarial Valuation - June 30, 2024
Miscellaneous Plan of the City of Palo Alto
CalPERS ID: 6373437857
Page 17
Projected Employer Contributions
The table below shows the required and projected employer contributions (before cost sharing) for the next six fiscal years. The
projection assumes that all actuarial assumptions will b e realized and that no further changes to assumptions, contributions,
benefits, or funding will occur during the projection period. In particular, the investment return beginning with FY 2024-25 is
assumed to be 6.80% per year, net of investment and administrative expenses. The actual long -term cost of the plan will
depend on the actual benefits and expenses paid and the actual investment experience of the fund.
The projected normal cost percentages below reflect that the normal cost is expected to continue to decline over time as new
employees are hired into lower cost benefit tiers. Future contribution requirements may differ significantly from those shown
below. The actuaria l valuation does not include payroll beyond the valuation date. For the most realistic projections, the
employer should apply projected payroll amounts to the rates below based on the most recent information available, such as
current payroll as well as an y plans to fill vacancies or add or remove positions.
Required
Contribution
Projected Future Employer Contributions
(Assumes 6.80% Return for Fiscal Year 2024-25 and Beyond)
2026-27 2027-28 2028-29 2029-30 2030-31 2031-32
Normal Cost % 10.48% 10.2% 9.9% 9.7% 9.5% 9.3%
UAL Payment $31,802,552 $32,983,000 $35,941,000 $36,353,000 $36,662,000 $33,998,000
Total as a % of Payroll* 37.63% 37.6% 39.0% 38.3% 37.5% 34.6%
Projected Payroll $117,119,039 $120,398,372 $123,769,526 $127,235,073 $130,797,655 $134,459,989
*Illustrative only and based on the projected payroll shown.
The required UAL payments are expected to vary significantly from the projections above due to experience, particularly
investment experience. For projected contributions under alternate investment return scenarios, please see the Future
Investment Return Scenarios exhibit. Our online pension plan projection tool, Pension Outlook, is available in the Employers
section of the CalPERS website. Pension Outlook can help plan and budget pension costs under various scenarios.
For ongoing plans, investment gains and losses are amortized using a n initial 5-year ramp. For more information, please see
Amortization of Unfunded Actuarial Accrued Liability in Appendix A. This method phases in the impact of the change in UAL
over a 5 -year period in order to reduce employer cost volatility from year to year. As a result of this methodology, dramatic
changes in the required employer contributions in any one ye ar are less likely. However, required contributions can change
gradually and significantly over the next five years. In years when there is a large investment loss, the relatively small
amortization payments during the initial ramp period could result in contributions that are less than interest on the UAL (i.e.
negative amortization) while the contribution impact of the increase in the UAL is phased in.
Item 4
Attachment B - CalPERS
Miscellaneous Valuation as
of June 30, 2024
Item 4: Staff Report Pg. 32 Packet Pg. 230 of 510
CalPERS Actuarial Valuation - June 30, 2024
Miscellaneous Plan of the City of Palo Alto
CalPERS ID: 6373437857
Page 18
(Gain)/Loss Analysis 6/30/23 – 6/30/24
To calculate the cost requirements of the plan, assumptions are made about future events that affect the amount and timing of
benefits to be paid and assets to be accumulated. Each year , actual experience is comp ared to the expected experience based
on the actuarial assumptions. This results in actuarial gains or losses, as shown below.
1. Total (Gain)/Loss for the Year
a) Unfunded Accrued Liability (UAL) as of 6/30/23 $349,828,105
b) Expected payment on the UAL during 20 23-24 28,646,081
c) Interest through 6/30/24 [0.068 x (1a) - ((1.068)½ - 1) x (1b)] 22,830,365
d) Expected UAL before all other changes [(1a) - (1b) + (1c)] 344,012,389
e) Change due to plan changes 0
f) Change due to AL Significant Increase 0
g) Change due to assumption changes 0
h) Change due to method change s 0
i) Change due to discount rate change with Funding Risk Mitigation 0
j) Expected UAL after all other changes [(1d) + (1e) + (1f) + (1g) + (1h) + (1i)] 344,012,389
k) Actual UAL as of 6/30/24 339,818,201
l) Total (Gain)/Loss for 20 23-24 [(1k) - (1j)] ($4,194,188)
2. Investment (Gain)/Loss for the Year
a) Market Value of Assets as of 6/30/23 $687,419,176
b) Prior fiscal year receivables (512,051)
c) Current fiscal year receivables 274,142
d) Contributions received 47,693,875
e) Benefits and refunds paid (55,171,505)
f) Transfers, SCP p ayments and interest, and m iscellaneous adjustments 220,928
g) Expected return at 6.8% per year 47,425,254
h) Expected assets as of 6/30/24 [(2a) + (2b) + (2c) + (2d) + (2e) + (2f) + (2g)] 727,349,818
i) Actual Market Value of Assets as of 6/30/24 745,630,783
j) Investment (Gain)/Loss [(2h) - (2i)] ($18,280,965)
3. Non -Investment (Gain)/Loss for the Year
a) Total (Gain)/Loss (1l) ($4,194,188)
b) Investment (Gain)/Loss (2j) (18,280,965)
c) Non-Investment (Gain)/Loss [(3a) - (3b)] $14,086,777
Item 4
Attachment B - CalPERS
Miscellaneous Valuation as
of June 30, 2024
Item 4: Staff Report Pg. 33 Packet Pg. 231 of 510
CalPERS Actuarial Valuation - June 30, 2024
Miscellaneous Plan of the City of Palo Alto
CalPERS ID: 6373437857
Page 19
Schedule of Amortization Bases
Below is the schedule of the plan’s amortization bases. Note that there is a two -year lag between the valuation date and the start of the contribution year.
• The assets, liabilities, and funded status of the plan are measured as of the valuation date: June 30, 2024 .
• The required employer contributions determined by the valuation are for the fiscal year beginning two years after the valuati on date: FY 2026-27.
This two-year lag is necessary due to the amount of time needed to extract and test the membership and financial data, and the need to provide public agencies with their
required employer contribution well in advance of the start of the fiscal year.
The Unfunded Accrued Liability (UAL) is used to determine the employer contribution and therefore must be rolled forward two years fro m the valuation date to the first day of
the fiscal year for which the contribution is being determined. The UAL is rolled forward each year by subtracting the expected payment on the UAL for the fiscal year and
adjusting for interest. The expected payment on the UAL for FY 2024-25 is based on the actuarial valuation two years ago , adjusted for additional discretionary payments , if
necessary, and the expected payment for FY 2025-26 is based on the actuarial valuation one year ago.
Reason for Base
Date
Est.
Ramp
Level
2026-27
Ramp
Shape
Escala -
tion
Rate
Amort.
Period
Balance
6/30/24
Expected
Payment
2024-25
Balance
6/30/25
Expected
Payment
2025-26
Balance
6/30/26
Minimum
Required
Payment
2026-27
Assumption Change 6/30/03 No Ramp 2.80% 0 2,483,697 2,566,754 0 0 0 0
Method Change 6/30/04 No Ramp 2.80% 0 (342,649) (180,433) (179,482) (185,484) 0 0
Benefit Change 6/30/05 No Ramp 2.80% 0 7,591,259 3,997,417 3,976,371 4,109,344 0 0
Assumption Change 6/30/09 No Ramp 2.80% 5 17,191,729 2,837,767 15,428,102 2,917,224 13,462,434 2,998,906
Special (Gain)/Loss 6/30/09 No Ramp 2.80% 15 16,114,614 1,306,515 15,860,202 1,343,097 15,550,684 1,380,704
Special (Gain)/Loss 6/30/10 No Ramp 2.80% 16 1,352,994 105,376 1,336,098 108,326 1,315,004 111,359
Assumption Change 6/30/11 No Ramp 2.80% 7 9,139,787 1,216,703 8,503,902 1,250,770 7,789,571 1,285,792
Special (Gain)/Loss 6/30/11 No Ramp 2.80% 17 (57,758) (4,334) (57,207) (4,455) (56,493) (4,580)
(Gain)/Loss 6/30/12 No Ramp 2.80% 18 25,812,160 1,871,123 25,633,692 1,923,514 25,388,945 1,977,372
Payment (Gain)/Loss 6/30/12 No Ramp 2.80% 18 3,061,875 221,955 3,040,705 228,170 3,011,673 234,559
(Gain)/Loss 6/30/13 100% Up/Dn 2.80% 19 80,448,305 6,044,993 79,671,647 6,214,252 78,667,257 6,388,252
(Gain)/Loss 6/30/14 100% Up/Dn 2.80% 20 (51,512,649) (3,738,908) (51,151,569) (3,843,597) (50,657,746) (3,951,218)
Assumption Change 6/30/14 100% Up/Dn 2.80% 10 38,560,921 4,718,366 36,306,911 4,850,480 33,763,097 4,986,293
(Gain)/Loss 6/30/15 100% Up/Dn 2.80% 21 32,173,075 2,261,077 32,024,155 2,324,387 31,799,681 2,389,470
(Gain)/Loss 6/30/16 100% Up/Dn 2.80% 22 37,121,900 2,531,532 37,030,001 2,602,415 36,858,599 2,675,283
Assumption Change 6/30/16 100% Up/Dn 2.80% 12 13,131,361 1,386,503 12,591,425 1,425,325 11,974,653 1,465,235
(Gain)/Loss 6/30/17 100% Up/Dn 2.80% 23 (21,004,122) (1,392,639) (20,993,192) (1,431,633) (20,941,221) (1,471,719)
Assumption Change 6/30/17 100% Up/Dn 2.80% 13 14,748,572 1,462,604 14,239,960 1,503,557 13,654,440 1,545,657
Assumption Change 6/30/18 100% Up/Dn 2.80% 14 28,301,618 2,651,517 27,485,942 2,725,759 26,538,075 2,802,080
Method Change 6/30/18 100% Up/Dn 2.80% 14 5,482,156 513,611 5,324,156 527,992 5,140,550 542,776
Item 4
Attachment B - CalPERS Miscellaneous
Valuation as of June 30, 2024
Item 4: Staff Report Pg. 34 Packet Pg. 232 of 510
CalPERS Actuarial Valuation - June 30, 2024
Miscellaneous Plan of the City of Palo Alto
CalPERS ID: 6373437857
Page 20
Schedule of Amortization Bases (continued)
Reason for Base
Date
Est.
Ramp
Level
2026-27
Ramp
Shape
Escala -
tion
Rate
Amort.
Period
Balance
6/30/24
Expected
Payment
2024-25
Balance
6/30/25
Expected
Payment
2025-26
Balance
6/30/26
Minimum
Required
Payment
2026-27
(Gain)/Loss 6/30/18 100% Up/Dn 2.80% 24 (6,651,530) (429,546) (6,659,924) (441,574) (6,656,458) (453,938)
Investment (Gain)/Loss 6/30/19 100% Up Only 0.00% 15 2,743,035 218,624 2,703,626 273,280 2,605,054 273,280
Non-Investment (Gain)/Loss 6/30/19 No Ramp 0.00% 15 5,365,131 524,400 5,188,024 524,400 4,998,873 524,400
Investment (Gain)/Loss 6/30/20 100% Up Only 0.00% 16 16,946,208 1,018,917 17,045,560 1,358,556 16,800,671 1,698,195
Non-Investment (Gain)/Loss 6/30/20 No Ramp 0.00% 16 9,819,658 931,019 9,525,242 931,019 9,210,805 931,019
Assumption Change 6/30/21 No Ramp 0.00% 17 2,035,513 187,721 1,979,929 187,720 1,920,567 187,721
Net Investment (Gain) 6/30/21 80% Up Only 0.00% 17 (85,533,269) (3,516,036) (87,715,916) (5,274,054) (88,230,175) (7,032,072)
Non-Investment (Gain)/Loss 6/30/21 No Ramp 0.00% 17 (7,304,375) (673,629) (7,104,917) (673,629) (6,891,896) (673,630)
Benefit Change 6/30/22 No Ramp 0.00% 18 946,437 85,107 922,842 85,107 897,642 85,107
Investment (Gain)/Loss 6/30/22 60% Up Only 0.00% 18 119,392,600 2,566,307 124,859,170 5,132,615 128,045,340 7,698,922
Non-Investment (Gain)/Loss 6/30/22 No Ramp 0.00% 18 10,006,578 899,827 9,757,107 899,827 9,490,672 899,827
Investment (Gain)/Loss 6/30/23 40% Up Only 0.00% 19 5,361,749 0 5,726,348 123,086 5,988,538 246,172
Non-Investment (Gain)/Loss 6/30/23 No Ramp 0.00% 19 11,085,809 0 11,839,644 1,064,663 11,544,474 1,064,663
Investment (Gain)/Loss 6/30/24 20% Up Only 0.00% 20 (18,280,965) 0 (19,524,071) 0 (20,851,708) (448,201)
Non-Investment (Gain)/Loss 6/30/24 No Ramp 0.00% 20 14,086,777 0 15,044,678 0 16,067,716 1,444,866
Total 339,818,201 32,190,210 329,659,161 32,780,459 318,199,318 31,802,552
Item 4
Attachment B - CalPERS Miscellaneous
Valuation as of June 30, 2024
Item 4: Staff Report Pg. 35 Packet Pg. 233 of 510
CalPERS Actuarial Valuation - June 30, 2024
Miscellaneous Plan of the City of Palo Alto
CalPERS ID: 6373437857
Page 21
Amortization Schedule and Alternatives
The amortization schedule on the previous pag e(s) shows the minimum contributions required according to the CalPERS
amortization policy. Each year, m any agencies express a desire for a more stable pattern of payments or indicate interest in
paying off the unfunded accrued liabilities more quickly tha n required. As such, we have provided alternative amortization
schedules to help analyze the current amortization schedule and illustrate the potential savings of accelerating unfunded lia bility
payments.
Shown on the following page are future year amortization payments based on 1) the current amortization schedule reflecting th e
individual bases and remaining periods shown on the previous page, and 2) alternative “fresh start” amortization schedules
using two sample periods that would both result in interest savings relative to the current amortization schedule. To initiate a
fresh s tart, please contact a CalPERS actuary.
The current amortization s chedule typically contains both positive and negative bases . Positive bases result from plan changes,
assumption changes, method changes , or plan experience that increase unfunded liability. Negative bases result from plan
changes, assumption changes, method changes, or plan experience that decrease unfunded liabi lity. The combination of
positive and negative bases within an amortization schedule can result in unusual or problematic circumstances in future year s,
such as:
• When a negative payment would be required on a positive unfunded actuarial liability; or
• When the payment would completely amortize the total unfunded liability in a very short time period, and results in
a large change in the employer contribution requirement.
In any year when one of the above scenarios occurs, the actuary will consider correcti ve action such as replacing the existing
unfunded liability bases with a single “fresh start” base and amortizing it over an appropriate period.
The current amortization s chedule on the following page may appear to show that, based on the current amortization bases, one
of the above scenarios will occur at some point in the future. It is impossible to know today whether such a scenario will in fact
arise since there will be additional bases added to the amortization schedule in each future year. Should su ch a scenario arise in
any future year, the actuary will take appropriate action based on guidelines in the CalPERS Actuarial Amortization Policy.
Item 4
Attachment B - CalPERS
Miscellaneous Valuation as
of June 30, 2024
Item 4: Staff Report Pg. 36 Packet Pg. 234 of 510
CalPERS Actuarial Valuation - June 30, 2024
Miscellaneous Plan of the City of Palo Alto
CalPERS ID: 6373437857
Page 22
Amortization Schedule and Alternatives (continued)
Alternative Schedules
Current Amortization
Schedule 15 Year Amortization 10 Year Amortization
Date Balance Payment Balance Payment Balance Payment
6/30/2026 318,199,318 31,802,552 318,199,318 33,380,276 318,199,318 43,434,023
6/30/2027 306,970,819 32,982,994 305,340,331 33,380,276 294,950,378 43,434,022
6/30/2028 293,758,863 35,940,967 291,606,933 33,380,276 270,120,511 43,434,023
6/30/2029 276,591,603 36,352,715 276,939,663 33,380,275 243,602,212 43,434,023
6/30/2030 257,831,449 36,662,002 261,275,020 33,380,275 215,280,669 43,434,023
6/30/2031 237,475,979 33,997,767 244,545,181 33,380,275 185,033,261 43,434,022
6/30/2032 218,489,664 33,524,893 226,677,713 33,380,276 152,729,030 43,434,023
6/30/2033 198,700,967 31,445,836 207,595,257 33,380,276 118,228,110 43,434,022
6/30/2034 179,715,220 30,469,177 187,215,194 33,380,276 81,381,129 43,434,023
6/30/2035 160,447,760 29,023,760 165,449,286 33,380,275 42,028,552 43,434,023
6/30/2036 141,363,869 26,598,727 142,203,298 33,380,276
6/30/2037 123,488,402 25,373,300 117,376,581 33,380,275
6/30/2038 105,663,810 24,065,344 90,861,649 33,380,276
6/30/2039 87,978,841 23,090,801 62,543,700 33,380,275
6/30/2040 70,098,426 22,504,787 32,300,132 33,380,276
6/30/2041 51,607,754 18,066,784
6/30/2042 36,446,126 14,786,516
6/30/2043 23,643,472 22,788,335
6/30/2044 1,700,831 1,757,708
6/30/2045
6/30/2046
6/30/2047
6/30/2048
6/30/2049
Total 511,234,965 500,704,134 434,340,227
Interest Paid 193,035,647 182,504,816 116,140,909
Estimated Savings 10,530,831 76,894,738
Item 4
Attachment B - CalPERS
Miscellaneous Valuation as
of June 30, 2024
Item 4: Staff Report Pg. 37 Packet Pg. 235 of 510
CalPERS Actuarial Valuation - June 30, 2024
Miscellaneous Plan of the City of Palo Alto
CalPERS ID: 6373437857
Page 23
Reconciliation of Required Employer Contributions
Normal Cost (% of Payroll)
1. For Period 7/1/25 – 6/30/26
a) Employer Normal Cost 10.90%
b) Employee contribution 7.49%
c) Total Normal Cost 18.39%
2. Changes since the prior year annual valuation
a) Effect of demographic experience (0.46%)
b) Effect of plan changes 0.00%
c) Effect of discount rate change due to Funding Risk Mitigation 0.00%
d) Effect of assumption changes 0.00%
e) Effect of method changes 0.00%
f) Net effect of the changes above [sum of (a) through (e)] (0.46%)
3. For Period 7/1/26 – 6/30/27
a) Employer Normal Cost 10.48%
b) Employee contribution 7.45%
c) Total Normal Cost 17.93%
Employer Normal Cost Change [(3a) – (1a)] (0.42%)
Employee Contribution Change [(3b) – (1b)] (0.04%)
Unfunded Liability Contribution ($)
1. For Period 7/1/25 – 6/30/26 32,780,459
2. Changes since the prior year annual valuation
a) Effect of adjustments to prior year’s amortization schedule 0
b) Effect of elimination of amortization bases (3,923,860)
c) Effect of progression of amortization bases 1 1,949,288
d) Effect of investment (gain)/loss during prior year2 (448,201)
e) Effect of non-investment (gain)/loss during prior year 1,444,866
f) Effect of re-amortizing existing bases due to Funding Risk Mitigation 0
g) Effect of Golden Handshake 0
h) Effect of plan changes 0
i) Effect of AL Significant Increase (Government Code section 20791) 0
j) Effect of assumption changes 0
k) Effect of adjustments to the amortization schedule (e.g., Fresh Start) 0
l) Effect of method change 0
m) Net effect of the changes above [sum of (a) through (l)] (977,907)
3. For Period 7/1/26 – 6/30/27 [(1) + (2m)] 31,802,552
The amounts shown for the period 7/1/25 – 6/30/26 may be different if a prepayment of unfunded actuarial liability is made or a
plan change became effective after the prior year’s actuarial valuation was performed.
1 Includes scheduled escalation in individual amortization base payments due to the 5 -year ramp and payroll growth
assumption used in the pre-2019 amortization policy.
2 The unfunded liability contribution for the investment (gain)/loss during the year prior to the valuation date is 20% of the
“full” annual requirement due to the 5-year ramp. Increases to this amount that occur during the ramp period will be
included in line c ) for each of the next four years.
Item 4
Attachment B - CalPERS
Miscellaneous Valuation as
of June 30, 2024
Item 4: Staff Report Pg. 38 Packet Pg. 236 of 510
CalPERS Actuarial Valuation - June 30, 2024
Miscellaneous Plan of the City of Palo Alto
CalPERS ID: 6373437857
Page 24
Employer Contribution History
The table below provides a 10-year history of the employer contribution requirements for the plan , as determined by the annual
actuarial valuation . Changes due to prepayments or plan amendments after the valuation report was finalized are not reflected.
Valuation
Date
Contribution
Year
Employer
Normal Cost Rate
Unfunded Liability
Payment
06/30/2015 2017-18 10.039% $15,765,273
06/30/2016 2018-19 10.217% 18,392,618
06/30/2017 2019-20 10.716% 21,287,260
06/30/2018 2020-21 11.487% 23,432,860
06/30/2019 2021-22 10.95% 26,358,094
06/30/2020 2022-23 10.58% 29,715,229
06/30/2021 2023-24 11.73% 28,654,772
06/30/2022 2024-25 11.34% 32,190,210
06/30/2023 2025-26 10.90% 32,780,459
06/30/2024 2026-27 10.48% 31,802,552
Funding History
The table below shows the recent history of the actuarial accrued liability, market value of assets, unfunded accrued liability,
funded ratio and annual covered payroll.
Valuation
Date
Accrued
Liability
(AL)
Market Value of
Assets (MVA)
Unfunded
Accrued
Liability (UAL)
Funded
Ratio
Annual
Covered
Payroll
6/30/2015 $696,699,220 $477,031,099 $219,668,121 68.5% $71,574,823
6/30/2016 730,382,476 468,702,245 261,680,231 64.2% 75,345,962
6/30/2017 772,526,669 511,805,893 260,720,776 66.3% 78,476,098
6/30/2018 831,958,865 547,102,617 284,856,248 65.8% 80,363,405
6/30/2019 868,716,440 574,012,871 294,703,569 66.1% 78,848,216
6/30/2020 909,429,635 592,313,289 317,116,346 65.1% 84,892,137
6/30/2021 956,179,582 720,145,626 236,033,956 75.3% 79,718,988
6/30/2022 996,201,108 655,682,370 340,518,738 65.8% 82,193,044
6/30/2023 1,037,247,281 687,419,176 349,828,105 66.3% 91,956,169
6/30/2024 1,085,448,984 745,630,783 339,818,201 68.7% 107,807,296
Item 4
Attachment B - CalPERS
Miscellaneous Valuation as
of June 30, 2024
Item 4: Staff Report Pg. 39 Packet Pg. 237 of 510
Risk Analysis
• Future Investment Return Scenarios 26
• Discount Rate Sensitivity 27
• Mortality Rate Sensitivity 27
• Maturity Measures 28
• Maturity Measures History 29
• Funded Status – Termination Basis 30
• Funded Status – Low-Default-Risk Basis 31
Item 4
Attachment B - CalPERS
Miscellaneous Valuation as
of June 30, 2024
Item 4: Staff Report Pg. 40 Packet Pg. 238 of 510
CalPERS Actuarial Valuation - June 30, 2024
Miscellaneous Plan of the City of Palo Alto
CalPERS ID: 6373437857
Page 26
Future Investment Return Scenarios
Analysis using the investment return scenarios from the Asset Liability Management process completed in 2021 was performed
to determine the effects of various future investment returns on required employer UAL contributions. The CalPERS Funding
Risk Mitigation Policy stipulates that when the investment return exceeds the discount rate by at least 2%, the board will
consider adjustments to the discount rate . The projections below use a discount rate of 6.8% for all scenarios even though an
annual return of 1 0.8% is high enough to trigger a board discussion on the discount rate . The projections also assume that all
other actua rial assumptions will be realized and that no further changes in assumptions, contributions, benefits , or funding will
occur.
The employer normal cost rates are not affected by investment returns, and since no future assumption changes are being
reflected, the projected employer normal cost rates for every future investment return scenario are the same as those shown
earlier in this report. See Projected Employer Contributions for more information on projecting the employer normal cost.
The first table shows projected UAL contribution requirements if the fund were to earn either 3.0% or 10.8% annually. These
alternate investment returns were chosen because 90% of long -term average returns are expected to fall between them over the
20-year period ending June 30, 2044.
Assumed Annual Return
FY 2024-25
through FY 2043 -44
Projected Employer UAL Contributions
2027-28 2028-29 2029-30 2030 -31 2031-32
3.0% (5th percentile) $33,676,000 $38,037,000 $40,578,000 $43,760,000 $44,730,000
10.8% (95th percentile ) $32,254,000 $33,678,000 $31,670,000 $28,583,000 $20,028,000
Required UAL contributions outside of this range are also possible. In particular, whereas it is unlikely that investment returns
will average less than 3.0% or greater than 10.8% over a 20 -year period, the likelihood of a single investment return less than
3.0% or greater than 10.8% in any given year is much greater. The following analysis illustrates the effect of an extreme, single
year investment return.
The portfolio has an expected volatility (or standard deviation) of 12.0% per year. Accordingly, in any given ye ar there is a 16%
probability that the annual return will be -5.2% or less and a 2.5% probability that the annual return will be -17.2% or less. These
returns represent one and two standard deviations below the expected return of 6.8%.
The following table shows the effect of one and two standard deviation investment loss es in FY 2024-25 on the FY 2027-28
contribution requirements. Note that a single -year investment gain or loss decreases or increases the required UAL contribution
amount incrementally for each of the next five years, not just one, due to the 5 -year ramp in the amortization policy. However,
the contribution requirements beyond the first year are also impacted by investment returns beyond the first year . Historically,
significant downturns in the market are often followed by higher than average retur ns. Such investment gains would offset the
impact of these single year negative returns in years beyond FY 2027-28.
Assumed Annual Return for
Fiscal Year 2024-25
Required Employer
UAL Contributions
Projected Employer
UAL Contributions
2026-27 2027-28
(17.2%) (2 standard deviation loss) $31,802,552 $37,358,000
(5.2%) (1 standard deviation loss ) $31,802,552 $35,171,000
• Without investment gains (returns higher than 6.8%) in FY 2025-26 or later, projected contributions rates would
continue to rise over the next four years due to the continued phase -in of the impact of the illustrated investment loss in
FY 2024-25.
• The Pension Outlook Tool can be used to model projected contributions for these scenarios beyond FY 2027-28 as
well as to model other investment return scenarios .
Item 4
Attachment B - CalPERS
Miscellaneous Valuation as
of June 30, 2024
Item 4: Staff Report Pg. 41 Packet Pg. 239 of 510
CalPERS Actuarial Valuation - June 30, 2024
Miscellaneous Plan of the City of Palo Alto
CalPERS ID: 6373437857
Page 27
Discount Rate Sensitivity
The discount rate assumption is calculated as the sum of the assumed real rate of return and the assumed annual price
inflation, currently 4.5% and 2.3%, respectively. Changing either the price inflation assumption or the real rate of return
assumption will change the discount rate. The sensitivity of the valuation results to the discount rate assumption depends on
which component of the discount rate is changed. Shown b elow are various valuation results as of June 30, 2024, assuming
alternate discount rates by changing the two components independently. Results are shown using the current discount rate of
6.8% as well as alternate discount rates of 5.8% and 7.8%. The rates of 5.8% and 7.8% were selected since they illustrate the
impact of a 1.0% increase or decrease to the 6.8% assumption.
Sensitivity to the Discount Rate Due to Varying the Real Rate of Return Assumption
As of June 30, 2024
1% Lower
Real Return Rate
Current
Assumptions
1% Higher
Real Return Rate
Discount Rate 5.8% 6.8% 7.8%
Price Inflation 2.3% 2.3% 2.3%
Real Rate of Return 3.5% 4.5% 5.5%
a) Total Normal Cost 22.67% 17.93% 14.34%
b) Accrued Liability $1,223,262,430 $1,085,448,984 $971,255,802
c) Market Value of Assets $745,630,783 $745,630,783 $745,630,783
d) Unfunded Liability/(Surplus) [(b) - (c)] $477,631,647 $339,818,201 $225,625,019
e) Funded Ratio 61.0% 68.7% 76.8%
Sensitivity to the Discount Rate Due to Varying the Price Inflation Assumption
As of June 30, 2024
1% Lower
Price Inflation
Current
Assumptions
1% Higher
Price Inflation
Discount Rate 5.8% 6.8% 7.8%
Price Inflation 1.3% 2.3% 3.3%
Real Rate of Return 4.5% 4.5% 4.5%
a) Total Normal Cost 18.86% 17.93% 16.30%
b) Accrued Liability $1,120,247,466 $1,085,448,984 $1,012,531,819
c) Market Value of Assets $745,630,783 $745,630,783 $745,630,783
d) Unfunded Liability/(Surplus) [(b) - (c)] $374,616,683 $339,818,201 $266,901,036
e) Funded Ratio 66.6% 68.7% 73.6%
Mortality Rate Sensitivity
The following table looks at the change in the June 30, 2024, plan costs and funded status under two differe nt longevity
scenarios, namely assuming rates of post-retirement mortality are 10% lower or 10% higher than our current mortality
assumptions adopted in 2021 . This type of analysis highlights the impact on the plan of a change in the mortality assumption .
As of June 30, 2024 10% Lower
Mortality Rates
Current
Assumptions
10% Higher
Mortality Rates
a) Total Normal Cost 18.24% 17.93% 17.64%
b) Accrued Liability $1,109,541,976 $1,085,448,984 $1,063,363,775
c) Market Value of Assets $745,630,783 $745,630,783 $745,630,783
d) Unfunded Liability/(Surplus) [(b) - (c)] $363,911,193 $339,818,201 $317,732,992
e) Funded Ratio 67.2% 68.7% 70.1%
Item 4
Attachment B - CalPERS
Miscellaneous Valuation as
of June 30, 2024
Item 4: Staff Report Pg. 42 Packet Pg. 240 of 510
CalPERS Actuarial Valuation - June 30, 2024
Miscellaneous Plan of the City of Palo Alto
CalPERS ID: 6373437857
Page 28
Maturity Measures
As pension plans mature , they become more sensitive to risks. Understanding plan maturity and how it affects the ability of a
pension plan sponsor to tolerate risk is important in understanding how the pension plan is impacted by investment return
volatility, other economic varia bles , and changes in longevity or other demographic assumptions.
One way to look at the maturity level of CalPERS and its plans is to look at the ratio of a plan’s retiree liability to its t otal liability.
A pension plan in its infancy will have a very low ratio of retiree liability to total liability. As the plan matures, the ratio increases.
A mature plan will often have a ratio above 60%-65%.
Ratio of Retiree Accrued Liability to
Total Accrued Liability June 30, 2023 June 30, 2024
1. Retiree Accrued Liability $653,009,459 $670,851,688
2. Total Accrued Liability $1,037,247,281 $1,085,448,984
3. Ratio of Retiree AL to Total AL [(1) ÷ (2)] 63% 62%
Another measure of the maturity level of CalPERS and its plans is the ratio of actives to retirees, also called the s upport ratio. A
pension plan in its infancy will have a very high ratio of active to retired members. As the plan matures and members retir e, the
ratio declines. A mature plan will often have a ratio near or below one.
To calculate the support ratio for the rate plan, retirees and beneficiaries receiving a continuance are each counted as one, even
though they may have only worked a portion of their careers as an active member of this rate plan. For this reason, the support
ratio, while intuitive, may be less informative than the ratio of retiree liability to total accrued liability above.
For comparison, the support ratio for all CalPERS pu blic agency plans as of June 30, 202 3, was 0.78 and was calculated
consistently with how it is for the individual rate plan. Note that to calculate the support ratio for all public agency plan s, a retiree
with service from more than one CalPERS agency is c ounted as a retiree more than once .
Support Ratio June 30, 2023 June 30, 2024
1. Number of Actives 757 833
2. Number of Retirees 1,348 1,364
3. Support Ratio [(1) ÷ (2)] 0.56 0.61
Item 4
Attachment B - CalPERS
Miscellaneous Valuation as
of June 30, 2024
Item 4: Staff Report Pg. 43 Packet Pg. 241 of 510
CalPERS Actuarial Valuation - June 30, 2024
Miscellaneous Plan of the City of Palo Alto
CalPERS ID: 6373437857
Page 29
Maturity Measures (continued)
The actuarial calculations supplied in this communication are based on various assumptions about long -term demographic and
economic behavior. Unless these assumptions (e.g., terminations, deaths, disabilities, retirements, salary increases, investment
return) are exactly realized each year, there will be differences on a year -to-year basis. The year-to-year differences between
actual experience and the assumptions are called actuarial gains and losses and serve to lower or raise required employer
contributi ons from one year to the next. Therefore, employer contributions will inevitably fluctuate, especially due to the ups and
downs of investment returns.
Asset Volatility Ratio
Shown in the table below is the asset volatility ratio (AVR), which is the ratio of market value of assets to payroll. Plans that have
a higher AVR experience more volatile employer contributions (as a percentage of payroll) due to investment return. For
example, a plan with an AVR of 8 may experience twice the contribution volatility due to investment return volatility than a plan
with an AVR of 4. It should be noted that this ratio is a measure of the current situation. It increases over time but generally
tends to stabilize as a plan matures.
Liability Volatility Ratio
Also shown in the table below is the liability volatility ratio (LVR), which is the ratio of accrued liability to payroll. Plans that ha ve
a higher LVR experience more volatile employer contributions (as a percentage of payroll) due to changes in liability. For
example, a plan with an LVR of 8 is expected to have twice the contribution volatility of a plan with an LVR of 4 when there is a
change in accrued liability, such as when there is a change in actuarial assumptions . It should be noted that this ratio indicates a
longer-term potential for contribution volatility, since the AVR, described above, will tend to move closer to the LVR as the
funded ratio approaches 100%.
Contribution Volatility June 30, 2023 June 30, 2024
1. Market Value of Assets without Receivables $686,907,124 $745,356,641
2. Payroll 91,956,169 107,807,296
3. Asset Volatility Ratio (AVR) [(1) ÷ (2)] 7.5 6.9
4. Accrued Liability $1,037,247,281 $1,085,448,984
5. Liability Volatility Ratio (LVR) [(4) ÷ (2)] 11.3 10.1
Maturity Measures History
Valuation Date
Ratio of
Retiree Accrued Liability
to
Total Accrued Liability Support Ratio
Asset
Volatility
Ratio
Liability
Volatility
Ratio
6/30/2017
57%
0.74
6.5
9.8
6/30/2018
57%
0.72
6.8
10.4
6/30/2019
61%
0.65
7.3
11.0
6/30/2020
60%
0.64
7.0
10.7
6/30/2021
62%
0.57
9.0
12.0
6/30/2022
64%
0.54
8.0
12.1
6/30/2023
63%
0.56
7.5
11.3
6/30/2024
62%
0.61
6.9
10.1
Item 4
Attachment B - CalPERS
Miscellaneous Valuation as
of June 30, 2024
Item 4: Staff Report Pg. 44 Packet Pg. 242 of 510
CalPERS Actuarial Valuation - June 30, 2024
Miscellaneous Plan of the City of Palo Alto
CalPERS ID: 6373437857
Page 30
Funded Status – Termination Basis
The funded status measured on a termination basis is an estimate d range for the financial position of the plan had the contract
with CalPERS been terminated as of June 30, 2024 . The accrued liability on a termination basis (termination liability) is
calculated differently from the p lan’s ongoing funding liability. For th e termination liability calculation, both compensation and
service are frozen as of the valuation date and no future pay increases or service accruals are assumed. This measure of
funded status is not appropriate for assessing the need for future employer contributions in the case of an ongoing plan, that is,
for an employer that continues to provide CalPERS retirement benefits to active employees. Unlike the actuarial cost method
used for ongoing plans, the terminatio n liability is the present value of the benefits earned through the valuation date.
A more conservative investment policy and asset allocation strategy was adopted by the board for the Terminated Agency Pool.
The Terminated Agency Pool has limited funding sources since no future employer contributions will be made. Therefore,
expected benefit payments are secured by risk-free assets and benefit security for members is increased while limiting the
funding risk. However, this asset allocation has a lower expected rate of return than the re mainder of the PERF and
consequently, a lower discoun t rate assumption. The lower discount rate for the Terminated Agency Pool results in higher
liabilities for terminated plans.
The discount rate used for actual termination valuations is a weighted average of the 10 -year and 30 -year Treasury yields where
the weights are based on matching asset and liability durations as of the termination date. The discount rates used in the
following analysis is based on 20 -year Treasury bonds , which is a good proxy for most plans. The discount rate upon contract
termination will depend on actual Treasury rates on the date of termination , which varies over time, as demonstrated below.
Valuation 20-Year Valuation 20-Year
Date Treasury Rate Date Treasury Rate
06/30/201 5 2.83% 06/30/2020 1.18%
06/30/201 6 1.86% 06/30/2021 2.00%
06/30/201 7 2.61% 06/30/2022 3.38%
06/30/201 8 2.91% 06/30/2023 4.06%
06/30/201 9 2.31% 06/30/2024 4.61%
As Treasury rates are variable, the table below shows a range for the termination liability using discount rates 1% below and
above the 20-year Treasury rate on the valuation date. The price inflation assumption is the 20 -year Treasury breakeven
inflation rate, that is, the difference between the 20 -year inflation indexed bond and the 20 -year fixed -rate bond.
The Market Value of Assets (MVA) also varies with interest rates and will fluctuate depending on other market conditions on the
date of termination . Since i t is not possible to approximate how the MVA will change in different interest rate environments, th e
results below use the MVA as of the valuation date.
Discount Rate: 3.61 %
Price Inflation: 2.45%
Discount Rate: 5.61%
Price Inflation: 2.45%
1. Termination Liability1 $1,561,870,398 $1,198,572,890
2. Market Value of Assets (MVA) 745,630,783 745,630,783
3. Unfunded Termination Liability [(1) – (2)] $816,239,615 $452,942,107
4. Funded Ratio [(2) ÷ (1)] 47.7% 62.2%
1 The termination liabilities calculated above include a 5% contingency load. The contingency load and other actuarial
assumptions can be found in Appendix A.
In order to terminate the plan, first contact our Pension Contract Services unit to initiate a Resolution of Intent to Termin ate. The
completed Resolution will allow a CalPERS actuary to provide a preliminary termination valuation with a more up -to-date
es timate of the plan ’s assets and liabilities. Before beginning this process, please consult with a CalPERS actuary.
Item 4
Attachment B - CalPERS
Miscellaneous Valuation as
of June 30, 2024
Item 4: Staff Report Pg. 45 Packet Pg. 243 of 510
CalPERS Actuarial Valuation - June 30, 2024
Miscellaneous Plan of the City of Palo Alto
CalPERS ID: 6373437857
Page 31
Funded Status – Low-Default-Risk Basis
Actuarial Standard of Practice (ASOP) No. 4, Measuring Pension Obligations and Determining Pension Plan Costs or
Contributions, requires the disclosure of a low -default-risk obligation measure (LDROM) of benefit costs accrued as of the
valuation date using a discount rate based on the yields o f high quality fixed income securities with cash flows that replicate
expected benefit payments. Conceptually, this measure represents the level at which financial markets would value the accrued
plan costs, and would be approximately equal to the cost of a portfolio of low-default-risk bonds with similar financial
characteristics to accrued plan costs.
As permitted in ASOP No. 4, the Actuarial Office uses the Entry Age Actuarial Cost Method to calculate the LDROM. This
methodology is in line with the measure of “benefit entitlements” calculated by the Bureau of Economic Analysis and used by the
Federal Reserve to report the indebtedness due to pensions of plan sponsors and, conversely, the household wealth due to
pensions of plan members.
As shown below, the discount rate used for the LDROM is 5.35%, which is the Standard FTSE Pension Liability Index1 discount
rate as of June 30, 2024 .
Selected Measures on a Low -Default-Risk Basis June 30, 2024
Discount Rate 5.35%
1. Accrued Liability – Low -Default-Risk Basis (LDROM)
a) Active Members $427,708,543
b) Transferred Members 67,059,167
c) Separated Members 29,975,511
d) Members and Beneficiaries Receiving Payments 769,883,438
e) Total $1,294,626,659
2. Market Value of Assets (MVA) 745,630,783
3. Unfunded Accrued Liability – Low-Default-Risk Basis [(1e) – (2)] $548,995,876
4. Unfunded Accrued Liability – Funding Policy Basis 339,818,201
5. Present Value of Unearned Investment Risk Premium [(3) – (4)] $209,177,675
The difference between the unfunded liabilities on a low -default-risk basis and on the funding policy basis represents the present
value of the investment risk premium that must be earned in future years to keep future contributions for currently accrued p lan
costs at the levels anticipated by the funding policy.
Benefit security for members of the plan relies on a combination of the assets in the plan, the investment income generated f rom
those assets and the ability of the plan sponsor to make necessary future contributions. If future returns fall short of 6.8%,
benefit security could be at risk without higher than currently anticipated future contributions.
The funded status on a low -default-risk basis is not appropriate for assessing the sufficiency o f plan assets to cover the cost of
settling the plan’s benefit obligations (see Funded Status – Termination Basis), nor is it appropriate for assessing the need for
future contributions (see Funded Status – Funding Policy Basis ).
1 This index is based on a yield curve of hypothetical AA -rated zero-coupon corporate bonds whose maturities range
from 6 months to 30 years. The index represents the single discount rate that would produce the same present value
as discounting a standardized set of liabilit y cash flows for a fully open pension plan using the yield curve. The liability
cash flows are reasonably consistent with the pattern of benefits expected to be pa id from the entire Public
Employees’ Retirement Fund for current and former plan members. A different index, hence a different discount rate,
may be needed to measure the LDROM for a subset of the fund, such as a single rate plan or a group o f retirees.
Item 4
Attachment B - CalPERS
Miscellaneous Valuation as
of June 30, 2024
Item 4: Staff Report Pg. 46 Packet Pg. 244 of 510
Supplementary Information
• Normal Cost by Benefit Group 33
• Summary of Valuation Data 34
• Status of PEPRA Transition 35
• Plan's Major Benefit Options 36
Item 4
Attachment B - CalPERS
Miscellaneous Valuation as
of June 30, 2024
Item 4: Staff Report Pg. 47 Packet Pg. 245 of 510
CalPERS Actuarial Valuation - June 30, 2024
Miscellaneous Plan of the City of Palo Alto
CalPERS ID: 6373437857
Page 33
Normal Cost by Benefit Group
The table below displays the Total Normal Cost broken out by benefit group for FY 2026-27. The Total Normal Cost is the
annual cost of service accrual for the fiscal year for active employees and can be viewed as the long -term contribution rate for
the benefits contracted. Generally, the normal cost for a benefit group subject to more generous benefit provisions will exceed
the normal cost for a group with less generous benefits. However, based on the characteristics of the members (particularly
when the number of actives is small), this may not be the case. Future measurements of the Total Normal Cost for each group
may differ significantly from the current values due to such factors as: changes in the demographics of the group, changes in
economic and demographic assumptions, changes in plan be nefits or applicable law.
Rate
Plan
Identifier Benefit Group Name
Total
Normal
Cost
FY 2026-27
Offset due to
Employee
Contributions
FY 2026-27
Employer
Normal
Cost1
FY 2026-27
Number
of
Actives
Payroll on
6/30/2024
8 Miscellaneous First Level 23.09% 8.00% 15.09% 232 $34,593,373
30157 Miscellaneous Second Level 19.61% 7.00% 12.61% 88 14,389,852
26004 Miscellaneous PEPR A Level 14.59% 7.25% 7.34% 513 58,824,071
Plan Total 17.93% 7.45% 10.48% 833 $107,807,296
1 The employer normal cost for individual rate plans is provided for illustrative purposes only. The employer normal cost rate for
contribution purposes is the blended rate shown in the Plan Total row and is the employer normal cost contribution rate that applies to
the covered payroll of members in every rate plan shown above.
Note that if a Benefit Group above has multiple bargaining units, each of which has separately contracted for different benef its
such as Employer Paid Member Contributions, then the Normal Cost shown for the respective benefit level does not reflect
those differences. Additionally, if a Second Level Benefit Group amended to the same benefit formula as a First Level Benefit
Group, their Normal Costs may be diss imilar due to demographic or other population differences. For questions in these
situations, please contact a CalPERS actuary.
Item 4
Attachment B - CalPERS
Miscellaneous Valuation as
of June 30, 2024
Item 4: Staff Report Pg. 48 Packet Pg. 246 of 510
CalPERS Actuarial Valuation - June 30, 2024
Miscellaneous Plan of the City of Palo Alto
CalPERS ID: 6373437857
Page 34
Summary of Valuation Data
June 30, 2023 June 30, 2024
1. Active Members
a) Counts 757 833
b) Average Attained Age
45.55 45.17
c) Average Entry Age to Rate Plan 35.29 35.61
d) Average Years of Credited Service 10.26 9.47
e) Average Annual Covered Payroll $121,474 $129,421
f) Annual Covered Payroll $91,956,169 $107,807,296
g) Projected Annual Payroll for Contribution Year $99,898,787 $117,119,039
h) Present Value of Future Payroll $829,447,506 $977,355,440
2. Transferred Members
a) Counts 392 393
b) Average Attained Age 45.76 46.08
c) Average Years of Credited Service 3.58 3.68
d) Average Annual Covered Payroll $137,723 $146,064
3. Separated Members
a) Counts 488 504
b) Average Attained Age 47.65 47.81
c) Average Years of Credited Service 3.03 3.03
d) Average Annual Covered Payroll $80,177 $80,559
4. Retired Members and Beneficiaries Receiving Payments
a) Counts 1,348 1,364
b) Average Attained Age 71.13 71.49
c) Average Annual Benefits $40,011 $41,180
d) Total Annual Benefits $53,934,949 $56,169,453
5. Active to Retired Ratio [(1a) ÷ (4a)] 0.56 0.61
Counts of members included in the valuation are counts of the records processed by the valuation. Multiple records may exist
for those who have service in more than one valuation group. This does not result in double counting of liabilities.
Average Annual Benefits represe nts benefit amounts payable by this plan only. Some members may have service with
another agency and would therefore have a larger total benefit than would be included as part of the average shown here.
Item 4
Attachment B - CalPERS
Miscellaneous Valuation as
of June 30, 2024
Item 4: Staff Report Pg. 49 Packet Pg. 247 of 510
CalPERS Actuarial Valuation - June 30, 2024
Miscellaneous Plan of the City of Palo Alto
CalPERS ID: 6373437857
Page 35
Status of PEPRA Transition
The California Public Employees' Pension Reform Act of 2013 (PEPRA), which took effect in January 2013, changed
CalPERS retirement benefits and placed compensation limits on new members joining CalPERS o n or after January 1, 2013.
One of the objectives of PEPRA was to improve the ability of employers to manage the costs of retirement benefits for their
members. While such changes can reduce future benefit costs in a meaningful way, the full impact on empl oyer contributions
will not occur until all active members are subject to the rules and provisions of PEPRA. The table below illustrates the sta tus
of this transition as of June 30, 2024 .
Classic PEPRA
PEPRA
as a Percent
of Total
Active Members
Count 320 513 61.6%
Average Attained Age 52.82 40.41
Average Entry Age 34.43 36.34
Average Years of Credited Service 18.33 3.94
Average Annual Covered Payroll $153,073 $114,667
Annual Covered Payroll $48,983,225 $58,824,071 54.6%
Present Value of Future Payroll $338,328,246 $639,027,194 65.4%
Transferred Members
Count 245 148 37.7%
Separated Members
Count 305 199 39.5%
Retired Members and Beneficiaries Receiving Payments
Count 1,349 15 1.1%
Average Annual Benefit $41,507 $11,735
Total Annual Benefits $55,993,431 $176,022 0.3%
Accrued Liabilities
Active Members $294,722,928 $45,264,172 13.3%
Transferred Members 44,271,203 6,044,534 12.0%
Separated Members 21,456,422 2,838,037 11.7%
Retired Members and Beneficiaries 668,453,307 2,398,381 0.4%
Total $1,028,903,860 $56,545,124 5.2%
Item 4
Attachment B - CalPERS
Miscellaneous Valuation as
of June 30, 2024
Item 4: Staff Report Pg. 50 Packet Pg. 248 of 510
CalPERS Actuarial Valuation - June 30, 2024
Miscellaneous Plan of the City of Palo Alto
CalPERS ID: 6373437857
Page 36
Plan's Major Benefit Options
Shown below is a summary of the major optional benefits for which the agency has contracted. A description of principal standard and optional plan provisions is in
Appendix B.
Benefit Group
Member Category Misc Misc Misc Misc Misc Misc Misc
Demographics
Actives No Yes Yes No Yes No No
Transfers/Separated Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No
Receiving Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Benefit Group Key 105391 105393 107485 111264 200040 200044 200045
Benefit Provision
Benefit Formula 2% @ 55 2.7% @ 55 2% @ 60 2% @ 62 2% @ 62
Social Security Coverage No No No No No
Full/Modified Full Full Full Full Full
Employee Contribution Rate 8.00% 7.00% 7.25%
Final Average Compensation Period One Year One Year One Year Three Year Three Year
Sick Leave Credit No No No No No
Non-Industrial Disability Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard
Industrial Disability No No No No No
Pre-Retirement Death Benefits
Optional Settlement 2 No No No No No
1959 Survivor Benefit Level Level 1 Level 1 Level 1 Level 1 Level 1
Special No No No No No
Alternate (firefighters) No No No No No
Post-Retirement Death Benefits
Lump Sum $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000
Survivor Allowance (PRSA) No No No No No No No
COLA 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2%
Item 4
Attachment B - CalPERS Miscellaneous
Valuation as of June 30, 2024
Item 4: Staff Report Pg. 51 Packet Pg. 249 of 510
CalPERS Actuarial Valuation - June 30, 2024
Miscellaneous Plan of the City of Palo Alto
CalPERS ID: 6373437857
Page 37
Plan's Major Benefit Options (Continued)
Shown below is a summary of the major optional benefits for which the agency has contracted. A description of principal standard and optional plan provisions is in
Appendix B.
Benefit Group
Member Category Misc
Demographics
Actives No
Transfers/Separated No
Receiving Yes
200046
Benefit Provision
Benefit Formula
Social Security Coverage
Full/Modified
Employee Contribution Rate
Final Average Compensation Period
Sick Leave Credit
Non-Industrial Disability
Industrial Disability
Pre-Retirement Death Benefits
Optional Settlement 2
1959 Survivor Benefit Level
Special
Alternate (firefi ghters)
Post-Retirement Death Benefits
Lump Sum $2,000
Survivor Allowance (PRSA) No
COLA 2%
Item 4
Attachment B - CalPERS Miscellaneous
Valuation as of June 30, 2024
Item 4: Staff Report Pg. 52 Packet Pg. 250 of 510
Appendix A - Actuarial Methods and Assumptions
• Actuarial Data 39
• Actuarial Methods 39
• Actuarial Assumptions 43
• Miscellaneous 63
Item 4
Attachment B - CalPERS
Miscellaneous Valuation as
of June 30, 2024
Item 4: Staff Report Pg. 53 Packet Pg. 251 of 510
CalPERS Actuarial Valuation - June 30, 2024
Miscellaneous Plan of the City of Palo Alto
CalPERS ID: 6373437857
Page 39
Actuarial Data
As stated in the Actuarial Certification, the data which serves as the basis of this valuation has been obtained from the various
CalPERS databases. We have reviewed the valuation data and believe that it is reasonable and appropriate in aggregate. We
are unaware of any potential data issues that would have a material effect on the results of this valuation, except that data does
not always contain the latest salary information for former members now in reciprocal systems and does not recognize the
potential for unusually large salary deviation in certain cases such as elected officials. Therefore, salary inf ormation in these
cases may not be accurate. These situations are relatively infrequent, however, and generally do not have a material impact o n
the required employer contributions.
Actuarial Methods
Actuarial Cost Method
With one exception, the actuarial cost method use d in this valuation is the Entry Age Actuarial Cost Method. This method is
used to calculate the required employer contributions and the PEPRA member contribution rate. Under this method, the cost of
the projected benefits is allocated on an individual basis as a level percent of earnings for the individual between entry age and
retirement age. The portion allocated to the year following the valuation date is the normal cost. This method yields a total
normal cost rate, expressed as a percentage of payroll, which is designed to remain level throughout the member’s career.
The actuarial accrued liability for active members is then calculated as the present value of benefits minus the present value of
future normal cost, or the portion of the total present value of benefits allocated to prior years. The actuarial accrued liability for
members currently receiving benefits and for members entitled to deferred benefits is equal to the present value of the benef its
expected to be paid. No normal costs are applicable for these pa rticipants.
To calculate the accrued liability on termination basis, this valuation use d the Traditional Unit Credit Actuarial Cost Method. This
method differs from the entry age method only for active members where the accrued liability is the present va lue of benefits
assuming no future pay increases or service accruals.
Amortization of Unfunded Actuarial Accrued Liability
The excess of the total actuarial accrued liability over the market value of plan assets is called the unfunded actuarial acc rued
l iability (UAL). Funding requirements are determined by adding the normal cost and a payment toward the UAL. The UAL
payment is equal to the sum of individual amortization payments, each representing a different source of UAL for a given
measurement period.
Amortization payments are determined according to the CalPERS Actuarial Amortization Policy. The board adopted a new
policy effective for the June 30, 2019 , actuarial valua tion. The new policy applies prospectively only; amortization bases
(sources of UAL) established prior to the June 30, 2019 , valuation will continue to be amortized according to the prior policy.
Item 4
Attachment B - CalPERS
Miscellaneous Valuation as
of June 30, 2024
Item 4: Staff Report Pg. 54 Packet Pg. 252 of 510
CalPERS Actuarial Valuation - June 30, 2024
Miscellaneous Plan of the City of Palo Alto
CalPERS ID: 6373437857
Page 40
Amortization of Unfunded Actuarial Accrued Liability (continued)
Prior Policy (Bases Established on or after June 30, 2013 , and prior to June 30, 2019)
Amortization payments are determined as a level percentage of payroll whereby the payment increases each year at an
escalation rate. Gains or losses are amorti zed over a fixed 30 -year period with a 5 -year ramp up at the beginning and a 5 -year
ramp down at the end of the amortization period. All changes in liability due to plan amendments (other than golden
handshakes) are amortized over a 20 -year period with no ramp. Changes in actuarial assumptions or changes in actuarial
methodology are amortized over a 20 -year period with a 5 -year ramp up at the beginning and a 5 -year ramp down at the end of
the amortization period. Changes in unfunded accrued liability due to a Golden Handshake are amortized over a period of five
years (20 years prior to June 30, 2014). A summary is provided in the following table:
Driver
Source
(Gain)/Loss
Assumption/Method
Change
Benefit
Change
Golden
Handshake Investment
Non-
investment
Amortization
Period 30 Years 30 Years 20 Years
20
Years 5 Years
Escalation Rate
- Active Plans
- Inactive Plans
2.80%
0%
2.80%
0%
2.80%
0%
2.80%
0%
2.80%
0%
Ramp Up 5 5 5 0 0
Ramp Down 5 5 5 0 0
The 5-year ramp up means that the payments in the first four years of the amortization period are 20%, 40%, 60% and 80% of
the “full” payment which begins in year five. The 5 -year ramp down means that the reverse is true in the final four years of the
amortization period.
Current Policy (Bases Es tablished on or after June 30, 2019)
Amortization payments are determined as a level dollar amount. Investment gains or losses are amortized over a fixed 20 -year
period with a 5 -year ramp up at the beginning of the amortization period. Non -investment gain s or losses are amortized over a
fixed 20 -year period with no ramps. All changes in liability due to plan amendments (other than golden handshakes) are
amortized over a 20 -year period with no ramps. Changes in actuarial assumptions or changes in actuarial methodology are
amortized over a 20 -year period with no ramps. Changes in unfunded accrued liability due to a Golden Handshake are
amortized over a period of five years. A summary is provided in the table below:
Driver
Source
(Gain)/Loss
Assumption/
Method
Change
Benefit
Change
Golden
Handshake Investment
Non-
investment
Amortization
Period 20 Years 20 Years 20 Years 20 Years 5 Years
Escalation Rate 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Ramp Up 5 0 0 0 0
Ramp Down 0 0 0 0 0
The 5-year ramp up means that the payments in the first four years of the amortization period are 20%, 40%, 60% and 80% of
the “full” payment which begins in year five.
Item 4
Attachment B - CalPERS
Miscellaneous Valuation as
of June 30, 2024
Item 4: Staff Report Pg. 55 Packet Pg. 253 of 510
CalPERS Actuarial Valuation - June 30, 2024
Miscellaneous Plan of the City of Palo Alto
CalPERS ID: 6373437857
Page 41
Amortization of Unfunded Actuarial Accrued Liability (continued)
Exceptions for Inconsistencies
An exception to the amortization rules above is used whenever their application results in inconsistencies. In these cases, a
“fresh start” approach is used. This means that the current unfunded actuarial liability is projected and amortized over a se t
number of years. For example, a fresh start is needed in the following situations:
• When a negative payment would be required on a positive unfunded actuarial liability; or
• When the payment would completely amortize the total unfunded liability in a very short time period, and results in
a large change in the employer contribution requirement .
It should be noted that the actuary may determine that a fresh start is necessary under other circumstances. In all cases of a
fresh start, the period is set by the actuary at what is deemed appropriate; however, the period will not be greater than 20 years.
Exceptions for Plans in Surplus
If a surplus exists (i.e., the Market Value of Assets exceeds the plan’s accrued liability) any prior amortization layers shall be
considered fully amortized, and the surplus shall not be amortized.
In the event of any subsequent unfunded liability, a Fresh Start shall be used with an amortization period of 20 years or les s.
Exceptions for Small Amounts
Where small unfunded liabilities are identi fied in annual valuations which result in small payment amounts, the actuary may
shorten the remaining period for these bases.
• When the balance of a single amortization base has an absolute value less than $250, the amortization period is
reduced to one year.
• When the entire unfunded liability is a small amount , the actuary may perform a Fresh Start and use an appropriate
amortization period.
Exceptions for Inactive Plans
The following exceptions apply to plans classified as Inactive. These plans have no active members and no expectation to have
active members in the future.
• Amortization of the unfunded liability is on a “level dollar” basis rather than a “level percent of pay” basis. For
amortization layers, which utilize a ramp up and ramp down, the “u ltimate” payment is constant.
• Actuarial judgment will be used to shorten amortization periods for Inactive plans with existing periods that are deemed
too long given the duration of the liability. The specific demographics of the plan will be used to deter mine if shorter
periods may be more appropriate.
Exceptions for Inactive Agencies
For a public agency with no active members in any CalPERS rate plan, the unfunded liability shall be amortized over a closed
amortization period of no more than 15 years.
Asset Valuation Method
The Actuarial Value of Assets is set equal to the m arket value of assets. Asset values include accounts receivable.
PEPRA Normal Cost Rate Methodology
Per Government Code s ection 7522.30(b), the “normal cost rate” shall mean the annual actuarially determined normal cost for
the plan of retirement benefits provided to the new member and shall be established based on actuarial assumptions used to
determine the liabilities and costs as part of the annual actuarial valuation. The plan of retirement benefits shall include any
elements that would impact the actuarial determination of the normal cost, including, but not limited to, the retirement form ula,
eligibility and vesting criteria, ancillary benefit provisions, and any automatic co st-of-living adjustments as determined by the
public retirement system.
Item 4
Attachment B - CalPERS
Miscellaneous Valuation as
of June 30, 2024
Item 4: Staff Report Pg. 56 Packet Pg. 254 of 510
CalPERS Actuarial Valuation - June 30, 2024
Miscellaneous Plan of the City of Palo Alto
CalPERS ID: 6373437857
Page 42
PEPRA Normal Cost Rate Methodology (continued)
For purposes of setting member rates, it is preferable to determine total normal cost using a large active population so that the
rate remains relatively stable. While each CalPERS non -pooled plan has a sufficiently large active population for this purpose,
the PEPRA active population by itself may not be sufficiently large enough yet. The total PEPRA normal cost for each PEPRA
benefit tier will be determined based on the entire active plan population (both PEPRA and Classic) only until the number of
members covered under the PEPRA formula meets either:
1. 50% of the active population, or
2. 25% of the active population and 100 or more PEPRA members
Once one of these conditions is met, the total PEPRA normal cost for each PEPRA benefit tier will be determined using the
entire active PEPRA population.
Item 4
Attachment B - CalPERS
Miscellaneous Valuation as
of June 30, 2024
Item 4: Staff Report Pg. 57 Packet Pg. 255 of 510
CalPERS Actuarial Valuation - June 30, 2024
Miscellaneous Plan of the City of Palo Alto
CalPERS ID: 6373437857
Page 43
Actuarial Assumptions
In 2021, CalPERS completed its most recent asset liability management study incorporating actuarial assumptions and strategic
asset allocation. In November 2021, the board adopted changes to the asset allocation that increased the expec ted volatility of
returns. The adopted asset allocation was expected to have a long -term blended return that continued to support a discount rate
assumption of 6.80%. The board also approved several changes to the demographic assumptions that more closely aligned with
actual experience.
For more details and additional rationale for the selection of the actuarial assumptions, please refer to the 2021 CalPERS
Experience Study and Review of Actuarial Assumptions that can be found on the CalPERS website under: Forms and
Publications. Click on “View All” and search for Experience Study.
All actuarial assumptions (except the discount rates and price inflation ass umption used for the accrued liability on a termination
basis and the interest rate used for the low -default-risk obligation measure ) represent an estimate of future experience rather
than observations of the estimates inherent in market data.
Economic As sumptions
Discount Rate
The prescribed discount rate assumption, adopted by the board on November 17, 2021, is 6.80% compounded annually (net of
investment and administrative expenses) as of June 30, 2024. The discou nt rate is based on the long-term expected rate of
return on assets using a building -block method in which expected future real rates of return (expected returns, net of pension
plan investment expense and inflation) are developed for each major a s set clas s. The current assumption, originally based on
capital market assumptions developed by the Investment Office in 2021, has been reviewed for this valuation based on capital
market assumptions developed by the Investment Office in 2023.
Termination Liability Discount Rate
The current discount rate assumption used for termination valuations is a weighted average of the 10 -year and 30 -year U.S.
Treasury yields where the weights are based on matching asset and liability durations as of the termination date. The accrued
liabilities on a termination basis in this report use discount rates that are based on the 20-year Treasury rate on the valuation
date.
To illustrate the impact of the variability of interest rates, the accrued liabilities on a termination basis in this report use discount
rates 1% below and 1% above the 20-year Treasury rate on the valuation date. The 20-year Treasury rate was 4.61% on June
30, 2024.
Item 4
Attachment B - CalPERS
Miscellaneous Valuation as
of June 30, 2024
Item 4: Staff Report Pg. 58 Packet Pg. 256 of 510
CalPERS Actuarial Valuation - June 30, 2024
Miscellaneous Plan of the City of Palo Alto
CalPERS ID: 6373437857
Page 44
Salary Increases
Annual increases vary by category, entry age, and duration of service. A sample of assumed increases due to seniority, merit
and promotion are shown below. Assumed wage inflation is combined with these factors to develop the total expected salary
increases.
Public Agency Miscellaneous
Duration of Service (Entry Age 20) (Entry Age 30) (Entry Age 40)
0 0.0764 0.0621 0.0521
1 0.0663 0.0528 0.0424
2 0.0576 0.0449 0.0346
3 0.0501 0.0381 0.0282
4 0.0435 0.0324 0.0229
5 0.0378 0.0276 0.0187
10 0.0201 0.0126 0.0108
15 0.0155 0.0102 0.0071
20 0.0119 0.0083 0.0047
25 0.0091 0.0067 0.0031
30 0.0070 0.0054 0.0020
Public Agency Fire
Duration of Service (Entry Age 20) (Entry Age 30) (Entry Age 40)
0 0.1517 0.1549 0.0631
1 0.1191 0.1138 0.0517
2 0.0936 0.0835 0.0423
3 0.0735 0.0613 0.0346
4 0.0577 0.0451 0.0284
5 0.0453 0.0331 0.0232
10 0.0188 0.0143 0.0077
15 0.0165 0.0124 0.0088
20 0.0145 0.0108 0.0101
25 0.0127 0.0094 0.0115
30 0.0112 0.0082 0.0132
Public Agency Police
Duration of Service (Entry Age 20) (Entry Age 30) (Entry Age 40)
0 0.1181 0.1051 0.0653
1 0.0934 0.0812 0.0532
2 0.0738 0.0628 0.0434
3 0.0584 0.0485 0.0353
4 0.0462 0.0375 0.0288
5 0.0365 0.0290 0.0235
10 0.0185 0.0155 0.0118
15 0.0183 0.0150 0.0131
20 0.0181 0.0145 0.0145
25 0.0179 0.0141 0.0161
30 0.0178 0.0136 0.0179
Item 4
Attachment B - CalPERS
Miscellaneous Valuation as
of June 30, 2024
Item 4: Staff Report Pg. 59 Packet Pg. 257 of 510
CalPERS Actuarial Valuation - June 30, 2024
Miscellaneous Plan of the City of Palo Alto
CalPERS ID: 6373437857
Page 45
Salary Increases (continued)
Public Agency County Peace Officers
Duration of Service (Entry Age 20) (Entry Age 30) (Entry Age 40)
0 0.1238 0.1053 0.0890
1 0.0941 0.0805 0.0674
2 0.0715 0.0616 0.0510
3 0.0544 0.0471 0.0387
4 0.0413 0.0360 0.0293
5 0.0314 0.0276 0.0222
10 0.0184 0.0142 0.0072
15 0.0174 0.0124 0.0073
20 0.0164 0.0108 0.0074
25 0.0155 0.0094 0.0075
30 0.0147 0.0083 0.0077
Schools
Duration of Service (Entry Age 20) (Entry Age 30) (Entry Age 40)
0 0.0275 0.0275 0.0200
1 0.0422 0.0373 0.0298
2 0.0422 0.0373 0.0298
3 0.0422 0.0373 0.0298
4 0.0388 0.0314 0.0245
5 0.0308 0.0239 0.0179
10 0.0236 0.0160 0.0121
15 0.0182 0.0135 0.0103
20 0.0145 0.0109 0.0085
25 0.0124 0.0102 0.0058
30 0.0075 0.0053 0.0019
• The Miscellaneous salary scale is used for Local Prosecutors.
• The Police salary scale is used for Other Safety, Local Sheriff, and School Police.
Price Inflation
2.30% compounded annually.
Termination Liability Price Inflation
The breakeven inflation rate for 20 -year Treasuries on the valuation date, 2.45%.
Wage Inflation
2.80% compounded annually. This is used in projecting individual salary increases.
Payroll Growth
2.80% compounded annu ally. This is used as the escalation rate of the amortization payments on level percent of payroll
amortization bases , that is, on any amortization bases established prior to 2019 for plans that currently have active members.
Miscellaneous Loading Factors
Credit for Unused Sick Leave
Total years of service is increased by 1% for those plans that have adopted the provision of providing Credit for Unused Sick
Leave.
Item 4
Attachment B - CalPERS
Miscellaneous Valuation as
of June 30, 2024
Item 4: Staff Report Pg. 60 Packet Pg. 258 of 510
CalPERS Actuarial Valuation - June 30, 2024
Miscellaneous Plan of the City of Palo Alto
CalPERS ID: 6373437857
Page 46
Conversion of Employer Paid Member Contributions (EPMC)
Total years of service is increase d by the Employee Contribution Rate for those plans with the provision providing for the
Conversion of Employer Paid Member Contributions (EPMC) during the final compensation period.
Norris Decision (Best Factors)
Employees hired prior to July 1, 1982 , have projected benefit amounts increased in order to reflect the use of “Best Factors” in
the calculation of optional benefit forms. This is due to a 1983 Supreme Court decision, known as the Norris decision, which
required males and females to be treated equally in the determination of benefit amounts. Consequently, anyone already
employed at that time is given the best possible conversion factor when optional benefits are determined. No loading is
necessary for employees hired after July 1, 1982.
Termination Liability
The termination liabilities include a 5% contingency load. This load is for unforeseen improvements in mortality.
Demographic Assumptions
Pre -Retirement Mortality
The mortality assumptions are based on mortality rates resulting from the m ost recent CalPERS Experience Study adopted by
the CalPERS Board in November 2021. For purposes of the mortality rates, the rates incorporate generational mortality to
capture ongoing mortality improvement. Generational mortality explicitly assumes that me mbers born more recently will live
longer than the members born before them thereby capturing the mortality improvement seen in the past and expected
continued improvement. For more details, please refer to the 2021 CalPERS Experience Study and Review of Actuarial
Assumptions report that can be found on the CalPERS website .
Rates vary by age and gender. This table only contains a sample of the 2017 base tab le rates for illustrative purposes. The non -
industrial death rates are used for all plans. The industrial death rates are used for Safety plans , except for local Safety
members described in Government Code s ection 20423.6 where the agency has not specifica lly contracted for industrial death
benefits.
Miscellaneous Safety
Non-Industrial Death Non-Industrial Death Industrial Death
(Not Job-Related) (Not Job-Related) (Job-Related)
Age Male Female Male Female Male Female
20 0.00039 0.00014 0.00038 0.00014 0.00004 0.00002
25 0.00033 0.00013 0.00034 0.00018 0.00004 0.00002
30 0.00044 0.00019 0.00042 0.00025 0.00005 0.00003
35 0.00058 0.00029 0.00048 0.00034 0.00005 0.00004
40 0.00075 0.00039 0.00055 0.00042 0.00006 0.00005
45 0.00093 0.00054 0.00066 0.00053 0.00007 0.00006
50 0.00134 0.00081 0.00092 0.00073 0.00010 0.00008
55 0.00198 0.00123 0.00138 0.00106 0.00015 0.00012
60 0.00287 0.00179 0.00221 0.00151 0.00025 0.00017
65 0.00403 0.00250 0.00346 0.00194 0.00038 0.00022
70 0.00594 0.00404 0.00606 0.00358 0.00067 0.00040
75 0.00933 0.00688 0.01099 0.00699 0.00122 0.00078
80 0.01515 0.01149 0.02027 0.01410 0.00225 0.00157
• The pre -retirement mortality rates above are for 2017 and are projected generationally for future years using 80% of
the Society of Actuaries’ Scale MP -2020.
• Miscellaneous plans usually have industrial death rates set to zero unless the agency has specifically contracted for
industrial death benefits. If so, each non -industrial death rate shown above will be split into two components : 99% will
become the non-industrial death rate and 1% will become the industrial death rate.
Item 4
Attachment B - CalPERS
Miscellaneous Valuation as
of June 30, 2024
Item 4: Staff Report Pg. 61 Packet Pg. 259 of 510
CalPERS Actuarial Valuation - June 30, 2024
Miscellaneous Plan of the City of Palo Alto
CalPERS ID: 6373437857
Page 47
Post-Retirement Mortality
Rates vary by age, type of retirement, and gender. See sample rates in table below. These rates are used for all plans.
Service Retirement
Non-Industrial Disability Industrial Disability
(Not Job-Related) (Job-Related)
Age Male Female Male Female Male Female
50 0.00267 0.00199 0.01701 0.01439 0.00430 0.00311
55 0.00390 0.00325 0.02210 0.01734 0.00621 0.00550
60 0.00578 0.00455 0.02708 0.01962 0.00944 0.00868
65 0.00857 0.00612 0.03334 0.02276 0.01394 0.01190
70 0.01333 0.00996 0.04001 0.02910 0.02163 0.01858
75 0.02391 0.01783 0.05376 0.04160 0.03446 0.03134
80 0.04371 0.03403 0.07936 0.06112 0.05853 0.05183
85 0.08274 0.06166 0.11561 0.09385 0.10137 0.08045
90 0.14539 0.11086 0.16608 0.14396 0.16584 0.12434
95 0.24665 0.20364 0.24665 0.20364 0.24665 0.20364
100 0.36198 0.31582 0.36198 0.31582 0.36198 0.31582
105 0.52229 0.44679 0.52229 0.44679 0.52229 0.44679
110 1.00000 1.00000 1.00000 1.00000 1.00000 1.00000
• The post-retirement mortality rates above are for 2017 and are projected generationally for future years using 80% of
the Society of Actuaries’ Scale MP -2020.
Marital Status
For active members, a percentage who are married upon retirement is assumed according to the member category as shown in
the following table.
Member Category Percent Married
Miscellaneous Member 70%
Local Police 85%
Local Fire 85%
Other Local Safety 70%
School Police 85%
Local County Peace Officers 75%
Age of Spouse
It is assumed that female spouses are 3 years younger than male spouses. This assumption is used for all plans.
Separated Members
It is assumed that separated members refund immediately if non -vested. Separated members who are vested are assumed to
retire at age 59 for Miscellaneous members and age 54 for Safety members.
Item 4
Attachment B - CalPERS
Miscellaneous Valuation as
of June 30, 2024
Item 4: Staff Report Pg. 62 Packet Pg. 260 of 510
CalPERS Actuarial Valuation - June 30, 2024
Miscellaneous Plan of the City of Palo Alto
CalPERS ID: 6373437857
Page 48
Termination with Refund
Rates vary by entry age and service for Miscellaneous plans. Rates vary by service for Safety plans. See sample rates in tables
below.
Public Agency Miscellaneous
Duration of
Service Entry Age 20 Entry Age 25 Entry Age 30 Entry Age 35 Entry Age 40 Entry Age 45
Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female
0 0.1851 0.1944 0.1769 0.1899 0.1631 0.1824 0.1493 0.1749 0.1490 0.1731 0.1487 0.1713
1 0.1531 0.1673 0.1432 0.1602 0.1266 0.1484 0.1101 0.1366 0.1069 0.1323 0.1037 0.1280
2 0.1218 0.1381 0.1125 0.1307 0.0970 0.1183 0.0815 0.1058 0.0771 0.0998 0.0726 0.0938
3 0.0927 0.1085 0.0852 0.1020 0.0727 0.0912 0.0601 0.0804 0.0556 0.0737 0.0511 0.0669
4 0.0672 0.0801 0.0616 0.0752 0.0524 0.0670 0.0431 0.0587 0.0392 0.0523 0.0352 0.0459
5 0.0463 0.0551 0.0423 0.0517 0.0358 0.0461 0.0292 0.0404 0.0261 0.0350 0.0230 0.0296
10 0.0112 0.0140 0.0101 0.0129 0.0083 0.0112 0.0064 0.0094 0.0048 0.0071 0.0033 0.0049
15 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
20 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
25 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
30 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
35 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Public Agency Safety
Duration of
Service Fire Police County Peace Officer
Male Female Male Female Male Female
0 0.1022 0.1317 0.1298 0.1389 0.1086 0.1284
1 0.0686 0.1007 0.0789 0.0904 0.0777 0.0998
2 0.0441 0.0743 0.0464 0.0566 0.0549 0.0759
3 0.0272 0.0524 0.0274 0.0343 0.0385 0.0562
4 0.0161 0.0349 0.0170 0.0206 0.0268 0.0402
5 0.0092 0.0214 0.0113 0.0128 0.0186 0.0276
10 0.0015 0.0000 0.0032 0.0047 0.0046 0.0038
15 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0023 0.0036
20 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
25 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
30 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
35 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
• The police termination and refund rates are also used for Public Agency Local Prosecutors, Other Safety, Local
Sheriff, and School Police.
Item 4
Attachment B - CalPERS
Miscellaneous Valuation as
of June 30, 2024
Item 4: Staff Report Pg. 63 Packet Pg. 261 of 510
CalPERS Actuarial Valuation - June 30, 2024
Miscellaneous Plan of the City of Palo Alto
CalPERS ID: 6373437857
Page 49
Termination with Refund (continued)
Schools
Duration of
Service Entry Age 20 Entry Age 25 Entry Age 30 Entry Age 35 Entry Age 40 Entry Age 45
Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female
0 0.2054 0.2120 0.1933 0.1952 0.1730 0.1672 0.1527 0.1392 0.1423 0.1212 0.1318 0.1032
1 0.1922 0.2069 0.1778 0.1883 0.1539 0.1573 0.1300 0.1264 0.1191 0.1087 0.1083 0.0910
2 0.1678 0.1859 0.1536 0.1681 0.1298 0.1383 0.1060 0.1086 0.0957 0.0934 0.0853 0.0782
3 0.1384 0.1575 0.1256 0.1417 0.1042 0.1155 0.0829 0.0893 0.0736 0.0774 0.0643 0.0656
4 0.1085 0.1274 0.0978 0.1143 0.0800 0.0925 0.0622 0.0707 0.0542 0.0620 0.0462 0.0533
5 0.0816 0.0991 0.0732 0.0887 0.0590 0.0713 0.0449 0.0539 0.0383 0.0476 0.0317 0.0413
10 0.0222 0.0248 0.0200 0.0221 0.0163 0.0174 0.0125 0.0128 0.0094 0.0100 0.0063 0.0072
15 0.0106 0.0132 0.0095 0.0113 0.0077 0.0083 0.0058 0.0052 0.0040 0.0039 0.0021 0.0026
20 0.0059 0.0065 0.0050 0.0054 0.0035 0.0036 0.0021 0.0019 0.0010 0.0009 0.0000 0.0000
25 0.0029 0.0034 0.0025 0.0029 0.0018 0.0020 0.0010 0.0012 0.0005 0.0006 0.0000 0.0000
30 0.0012 0.0015 0.0011 0.0013 0.0011 0.0011 0.0010 0.0009 0.0005 0.0005 0.0000 0.0000
35 0.0006 0.0007 0.0006 0.0007 0.0005 0.0006 0.0005 0.0005 0.0003 0.0002 0.0000 0.0000
Item 4
Attachment B - CalPERS
Miscellaneous Valuation as
of June 30, 2024
Item 4: Staff Report Pg. 64 Packet Pg. 262 of 510
CalPERS Actuarial Valuation - June 30, 2024
Miscellaneous Plan of the City of Palo Alto
CalPERS ID: 6373437857
Page 50
Termination with Vested Benefits
Rates vary by entry age and service for Miscellaneous plans. Rates vary by service for Safety plans. See sample rates in tables
below.
Public Agency Miscellaneous
Duration of
Service Entry Age 20 Entry Age 25 Entry Age 30 Entry Age 35 Entry Age 40
Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female
5 0.0381 0.0524 0.0381 0.0524 0.0358 0.0464 0.0334 0.0405 0.0301 0.0380
10 0.0265 0.0362 0.0265 0.0362 0.0254 0.0334 0.0244 0.0307 0.0197 0.0236
15 0.0180 0.0252 0.0180 0.0252 0.0166 0.0213 0.0152 0.0174 0.0119 0.0132
20 0.0141 0.0175 0.0141 0.0175 0.0110 0.0131 0.0079 0.0087 0.0000 0.0000
25 0.0084 0.0108 0.0084 0.0108 0.0064 0.0076 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
30 0.0047 0.0056 0.0047 0.0056 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
35 0.0038 0.0041 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Public Agency Safety
Duration of
Service Fire Police County Peace Officer
Male Female Male Female Male Female
5 0.0089 0.0224 0.0156 0.0272 0.0177 0.0266
10 0.0066 0.0164 0.0113 0.0198 0.0126 0.0189
15 0.0048 0.0120 0.0083 0.0144 0.0089 0.0134
20 0.0035 0.0088 0.0060 0.0105 0.0063 0.0095
25 0.0024 0.0061 0.0042 0.0073 0.0042 0.0063
30 0.0012 0.0031 0.0021 0.0037 0.0021 0.0031
35 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
• After termination with vested benefits, a Miscellaneous member is assumed to retire at age 59 and a Safety
member at age 54.
• The Police termination with vested benefits rates are also used for Public Agency Local Prosecutors, Other Safety,
Local Sheriff, and School Police.
Schools
Duration of
Service Entry Age 20 Entry Age 25 Entry Age 30 Entry Age 35 Entry Age 40
Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female
5 0.0359 0.0501 0.0359 0.0501 0.0332 0.0402 0.0305 0.0304 0.0266 0.0272
10 0.0311 0.0417 0.0311 0.0417 0.0269 0.0341 0.0228 0.0265 0.0193 0.0233
15 0.0193 0.0264 0.0193 0.0264 0.0172 0.0220 0.0151 0.0175 0.0123 0.0142
20 0.0145 0.0185 0.0145 0.0185 0.0113 0.0141 0.0080 0.0097 0.0000 0.0000
25 0.0089 0.0123 0.0089 0.0123 0.0074 0.0093 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
30 0.0057 0.0064 0.0057 0.0064 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
35 0.0040 0.0049 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Item 4
Attachment B - CalPERS
Miscellaneous Valuation as
of June 30, 2024
Item 4: Staff Report Pg. 65 Packet Pg. 263 of 510
CalPERS Actuarial Valuation - June 30, 2024
Miscellaneous Plan of the City of Palo Alto
CalPERS ID: 6373437857
Page 51
Non-Industrial (Not Job -Related) Disability
Rates vary by age and gender for Miscellaneous plans. Rates vary by age and category for Safety plans.
Miscellaneous Fire Police County Peace Officer Schools
Age Male Female All All All Male Female
20 0.0001 0.0000 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0000 0.0002
25 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0000 0.0002
30 0.0002 0.0003 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0002 0.0002
35 0.0004 0.0007 0.0001 0.0002 0.0003 0.0005 0.0004
40 0.0009 0.0012 0.0001 0.0002 0.0006 0.0010 0.0008
45 0.0015 0.0019 0.0002 0.0003 0.0011 0.0019 0.0015
50 0.0015 0.0019 0.0004 0.0005 0.0016 0.0027 0.0021
55 0.0014 0.0013 0.0006 0.0007 0.0009 0.0024 0.0017
60 0.0012 0.0009 0.0006 0.0011 0.0005 0.0020 0.0010
• The Miscellaneous non -industrial disability rates are used for Local Prosecutors.
• The police non -industrial disability rates are also used for Other Safety, Local Sheriff, and School Police.
Industrial (Job -Related) Disability
Rates vary by age and category.
Age Fire Police County Peace Officer
20 0.0001 0.0000 0.0004
25 0.0002 0.0017 0.0013
30 0.0006 0.0048 0.0025
35 0.0012 0.0079 0.0037
40 0.0023 0.0110 0.0051
45 0.0040 0.0141 0.0067
50 0.0208 0.0185 0.0092
55 0.0307 0.0479 0.0151
60 0.0438 0.0602 0.0174
• The police industrial disability rates are also used for Local Sheriff and Other Safety.
• 50% of the police industrial disability rates are used for School Police.
• 1% of the police industrial disability rates are used for Local Prosecutors.
• Normally, rates are zero for Miscellaneous plans unless the agency has specifically contracted for industrial
disability benefits. If so, each Miscellaneous non -industrial disability rate will be split into two compone nts: 50% will
become the non -industrial disability rate and 50% will become the industrial disability rate.
Item 4
Attachment B - CalPERS
Miscellaneous Valuation as
of June 30, 2024
Item 4: Staff Report Pg. 66 Packet Pg. 264 of 510
CalPERS Actuarial Valuation - June 30, 2024
Miscellaneous Plan of the City of Palo Alto
CalPERS ID: 6373437857
Page 52
Service Retirement
Retirement rates vary by age, service, and formula, except for the Safety Half Pay at 55 and 2% at 55 formulas, where
retirement rates vary by age only.
Public Agency Miscellaneous 1.5% at age 65
Duration of Service
Age 5 Years 10 Years 15 Years 20 Years 25 Years 30 Years
50 0.008 0.011 0.013 0.015 0.017 0.019
51 0.007 0.010 0.012 0.013 0.015 0.017
52 0.010 0.014 0.017 0.019 0.021 0.024
53 0.008 0.012 0.015 0.017 0.019 0.022
54 0.012 0.016 0.019 0.022 0.025 0.028
55 0.018 0.025 0.031 0.035 0.038 0.043
56 0.015 0.021 0.025 0.029 0.032 0.036
57 0.020 0.028 0.033 0.038 0.043 0.048
58 0.024 0.033 0.040 0.046 0.052 0.058
59 0.028 0.039 0.048 0.054 0.060 0.067
60 0.049 0.069 0.083 0.094 0.105 0.118
61 0.062 0.087 0.106 0.120 0.133 0.150
62 0.104 0.146 0.177 0.200 0.223 0.251
63 0.099 0.139 0.169 0.191 0.213 0.239
64 0.097 0.136 0.165 0.186 0.209 0.233
65 0.140 0.197 0.240 0.271 0.302 0.339
66 0.092 0.130 0.157 0.177 0.198 0.222
67 0.129 0.181 0.220 0.249 0.277 0.311
68 0.092 0.129 0.156 0.177 0.197 0.221
69 0.092 0.130 0.158 0.178 0.199 0.224
70 0.103 0.144 0.175 0.198 0.221 0.248
Public Agency Miscellaneous 2% at age 60
Duration of Service
Age 5 Years 10 Years 15 Years 20 Years 25 Years 30 Years
50 0.010 0.011 0.014 0.014 0.017 0.017
51 0.017 0.013 0.014 0.010 0.010 0.010
52 0.014 0.014 0.018 0.015 0.016 0.016
53 0.015 0.012 0.013 0.010 0.011 0.011
54 0.006 0.010 0.017 0.016 0.018 0.018
55 0.012 0.016 0.024 0.032 0.036 0.036
56 0.010 0.014 0.023 0.030 0.034 0.034
57 0.006 0.018 0.030 0.040 0.044 0.044
58 0.022 0.023 0.033 0.042 0.046 0.046
59 0.039 0.033 0.040 0.047 0.050 0.050
60 0.063 0.069 0.074 0.090 0.137 0.116
61 0.044 0.058 0.066 0.083 0.131 0.113
62 0.084 0.107 0.121 0.153 0.238 0.205
63 0.173 0.166 0.165 0.191 0.283 0.235
64 0.120 0.145 0.164 0.147 0.160 0.172
65 0.138 0.160 0.214 0.216 0.237 0.283
66 0.198 0.228 0.249 0.216 0.228 0.239
67 0.207 0.242 0.230 0.233 0.233 0.233
68 0.201 0.234 0.225 0.231 0.231 0.231
69 0.152 0.173 0.164 0.166 0.166 0.166
70 0.200 0.200 0.200 0.200 0.200 0.200
Item 4
Attachment B - CalPERS
Miscellaneous Valuation as
of June 30, 2024
Item 4: Staff Report Pg. 67 Packet Pg. 265 of 510
CalPERS Actuarial Valuation - June 30, 2024
Miscellaneous Plan of the City of Palo Alto
CalPERS ID: 6373437857
Page 53
Service Retirement (continued)
Public Agency Miscellaneous 2% at age 55
Duration of Service
Age 5 Years 10 Years 15 Years 20 Years 25 Years 30 Years
50 0.014 0.014 0.017 0.021 0.023 0.024
51 0.013 0.017 0.017 0.018 0.018 0.019
52 0.013 0.018 0.018 0.020 0.020 0.021
53 0.013 0.019 0.021 0.024 0.025 0.026
54 0.017 0.025 0.028 0.032 0.033 0.035
55 0.045 0.042 0.053 0.086 0.098 0.123
56 0.018 0.036 0.056 0.086 0.102 0.119
57 0.041 0.046 0.056 0.076 0.094 0.120
58 0.052 0.044 0.048 0.074 0.106 0.123
59 0.043 0.058 0.073 0.092 0.105 0.126
60 0.059 0.064 0.083 0.115 0.154 0.170
61 0.087 0.074 0.087 0.107 0.147 0.168
62 0.115 0.123 0.151 0.180 0.227 0.237
63 0.116 0.127 0.164 0.202 0.252 0.261
64 0.084 0.138 0.153 0.190 0.227 0.228
65 0.167 0.187 0.210 0.262 0.288 0.291
66 0.187 0.258 0.280 0.308 0.318 0.319
67 0.195 0.235 0.244 0.277 0.269 0.280
68 0.228 0.248 0.250 0.241 0.245 0.245
69 0.188 0.201 0.209 0.219 0.231 0.231
70 0.229 0.229 0.229 0.229 0.229 0.229
Public Agency Miscellaneous 2.5% at age 55
Duration of Service
Age 5 Years 10 Years 15 Years 20 Years 25 Years 30 Years
50 0.014 0.017 0.027 0.035 0.046 0.050
51 0.019 0.021 0.025 0.030 0.038 0.040
52 0.018 0.020 0.026 0.034 0.038 0.037
53 0.013 0.021 0.031 0.045 0.052 0.053
54 0.025 0.025 0.030 0.046 0.057 0.068
55 0.029 0.042 0.064 0.109 0.150 0.225
56 0.036 0.047 0.068 0.106 0.134 0.194
57 0.051 0.047 0.060 0.092 0.116 0.166
58 0.035 0.046 0.062 0.093 0.119 0.170
59 0.029 0.053 0.072 0.112 0.139 0.165
60 0.039 0.069 0.094 0.157 0.177 0.221
61 0.080 0.077 0.086 0.140 0.167 0.205
62 0.086 0.131 0.149 0.220 0.244 0.284
63 0.135 0.135 0.147 0.214 0.222 0.262
64 0.114 0.128 0.158 0.177 0.233 0.229
65 0.112 0.174 0.222 0.209 0.268 0.273
66 0.235 0.254 0.297 0.289 0.321 0.337
67 0.237 0.240 0.267 0.249 0.267 0.277
68 0.258 0.271 0.275 0.207 0.210 0.212
69 0.117 0.208 0.266 0.219 0.250 0.270
70 0.229 0.229 0.229 0.229 0.229 0.229
Item 4
Attachment B - CalPERS
Miscellaneous Valuation as
of June 30, 2024
Item 4: Staff Report Pg. 68 Packet Pg. 266 of 510
CalPERS Actuarial Valuation - June 30, 2024
Miscellaneous Plan of the City of Palo Alto
CalPERS ID: 6373437857
Page 54
Service Retirement (continued)
Public Agency Miscellaneous 2.7% at age 55
Duration of Service
Age 5 Years 10 Years 15 Years 20 Years 25 Years 30 Years
50 0.011 0.016 0.022 0.033 0.034 0.038
51 0.018 0.019 0.023 0.032 0.031 0.031
52 0.019 0.020 0.026 0.035 0.034 0.037
53 0.020 0.020 0.025 0.043 0.048 0.053
54 0.018 0.030 0.040 0.052 0.053 0.070
55 0.045 0.058 0.082 0.138 0.208 0.278
56 0.057 0.062 0.080 0.121 0.178 0.222
57 0.045 0.052 0.071 0.106 0.147 0.182
58 0.074 0.060 0.074 0.118 0.163 0.182
59 0.058 0.067 0.086 0.123 0.158 0.187
60 0.087 0.084 0.096 0.142 0.165 0.198
61 0.073 0.084 0.101 0.138 0.173 0.218
62 0.130 0.133 0.146 0.187 0.214 0.249
63 0.122 0.140 0.160 0.204 0.209 0.243
64 0.104 0.124 0.154 0.202 0.214 0.230
65 0.182 0.201 0.242 0.264 0.293 0.293
66 0.272 0.249 0.273 0.285 0.312 0.312
67 0.182 0.217 0.254 0.249 0.264 0.264
68 0.223 0.197 0.218 0.242 0.273 0.273
69 0.217 0.217 0.217 0.217 0.217 0.217
70 0.227 0.227 0.227 0.227 0.227 0.227
Public Agency Miscellaneous 3% at age 60
Duration of Service
Age 5 Years 10 Years 15 Years 20 Years 25 Years 30 Years
50 0.015 0.020 0.025 0.039 0.040 0.044
51 0.041 0.034 0.032 0.041 0.036 0.037
52 0.024 0.020 0.022 0.039 0.040 0.041
53 0.018 0.024 0.032 0.047 0.048 0.057
54 0.033 0.033 0.035 0.051 0.049 0.052
55 0.137 0.043 0.051 0.065 0.076 0.108
56 0.173 0.038 0.054 0.075 0.085 0.117
57 0.019 0.035 0.059 0.088 0.111 0.134
58 0.011 0.040 0.070 0.105 0.133 0.162
59 0.194 0.056 0.064 0.081 0.113 0.163
60 0.081 0.085 0.133 0.215 0.280 0.333
61 0.080 0.090 0.134 0.170 0.223 0.292
62 0.137 0.153 0.201 0.250 0.278 0.288
63 0.128 0.140 0.183 0.227 0.251 0.260
64 0.174 0.147 0.173 0.224 0.239 0.264
65 0.152 0.201 0.262 0.299 0.323 0.323
66 0.272 0.273 0.317 0.355 0.380 0.380
67 0.218 0.237 0.268 0.274 0.284 0.284
68 0.200 0.228 0.269 0.285 0.299 0.299
69 0.250 0.250 0.250 0.250 0.250 0.250
70 0.245 0.245 0.245 0.245 0.245 0.245
Item 4
Attachment B - CalPERS
Miscellaneous Valuation as
of June 30, 2024
Item 4: Staff Report Pg. 69 Packet Pg. 267 of 510
CalPERS Actuarial Valuation - June 30, 2024
Miscellaneous Plan of the City of Palo Alto
CalPERS ID: 6373437857
Page 55
Service Retirement (continued)
Public Agency Miscellaneous 2% at age 62
Duration of Service
Age 5 Years 10 Years 15 Years 20 Years 25 Years 30 Years
50 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
51 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
52 0.005 0.008 0.012 0.015 0.019 0.031
53 0.007 0.011 0.014 0.018 0.021 0.032
54 0.007 0.011 0.015 0.019 0.023 0.034
55 0.010 0.019 0.028 0.036 0.061 0.096
56 0.014 0.026 0.038 0.050 0.075 0.108
57 0.018 0.029 0.039 0.050 0.074 0.107
58 0.023 0.035 0.048 0.060 0.073 0.099
59 0.025 0.038 0.051 0.065 0.092 0.128
60 0.031 0.051 0.071 0.091 0.111 0.138
61 0.038 0.058 0.079 0.100 0.121 0.167
62 0.044 0.074 0.104 0.134 0.164 0.214
63 0.077 0.105 0.134 0.163 0.192 0.237
64 0.072 0.101 0.129 0.158 0.187 0.242
65 0.108 0.141 0.173 0.206 0.239 0.300
66 0.132 0.172 0.212 0.252 0.292 0.366
67 0.132 0.172 0.212 0.252 0.292 0.366
68 0.120 0.156 0.193 0.229 0.265 0.333
69 0.120 0.156 0.193 0.229 0.265 0.333
70 0.120 0.156 0.193 0.229 0.265 0.333
Public Agency Fire Half Pay at age 55 and 2% at age 55
Age Rate
Age Rate
50 0.016 56 0.111
51 0.000 57 0.000
52 0.034 58 0.095
53 0.020 59 0.044
54 0.041 60 1.000
55 0.075
Public Agency Police Half Pay at age 55 and 2% at age 55
Age Rate
Age Rate
50 0.026 56 0.069
51 0.000 57 0.051
52 0.016 58 0.072
53 0.027 59 0.070
54 0.010 60 0.300
55 0.167
Item 4
Attachment B - CalPERS
Miscellaneous Valuation as
of June 30, 2024
Item 4: Staff Report Pg. 70 Packet Pg. 268 of 510
CalPERS Actuarial Valuation - June 30, 2024
Miscellaneous Plan of the City of Palo Alto
CalPERS ID: 6373437857
Page 56
Service Retirement (continued)
Public Agency Police 2% at age 50
Duration of Service
Age 5 Years 10 Years 15 Years 20 Years 25 Years 30 Years
50 0.018 0.077 0.056 0.046 0.043 0.046
51 0.022 0.087 0.060 0.048 0.044 0.047
52 0.020 0.102 0.081 0.071 0.069 0.075
53 0.016 0.072 0.053 0.045 0.042 0.046
54 0.006 0.071 0.071 0.069 0.072 0.080
55 0.009 0.040 0.099 0.157 0.186 0.186
56 0.020 0.051 0.108 0.165 0.194 0.194
57 0.036 0.072 0.106 0.139 0.156 0.156
58 0.001 0.046 0.089 0.130 0.152 0.152
59 0.066 0.094 0.119 0.143 0.155 0.155
60 0.177 0.177 0.177 0.177 0.177 0.177
61 0.134 0.134 0.134 0.134 0.134 0.134
62 0.184 0.184 0.184 0.184 0.184 0.184
63 0.250 0.250 0.250 0.250 0.250 0.250
64 0.177 0.177 0.177 0.177 0.177 0.177
65 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
• These rates also apply to County Peace officers, Local Prosecutors, Local Sheriff, School Police, and Other
Safety.
Public Agency Fire 2% at age 50
Duration of Service
Age 5 Years 10 Years 15 Years 20 Years 25 Years 30 Years
50 0.054 0.054 0.056 0.080 0.064 0.066
51 0.020 0.020 0.021 0.030 0.024 0.024
52 0.037 0.037 0.038 0.054 0.043 0.045
53 0.051 0.051 0.053 0.076 0.061 0.063
54 0.082 0.082 0.085 0.121 0.097 0.100
55 0.139 0.139 0.139 0.139 0.139 0.139
56 0.129 0.129 0.129 0.129 0.129 0.129
57 0.085 0.085 0.085 0.085 0.085 0.085
58 0.119 0.119 0.119 0.119 0.119 0.119
59 0.167 0.167 0.167 0.167 0.167 0.167
60 0.152 0.152 0.152 0.152 0.152 0.152
61 0.179 0.179 0.179 0.179 0.179 0.179
62 0.179 0.179 0.179 0.179 0.179 0.179
63 0.179 0.179 0.179 0.179 0.179 0.179
64 0.179 0.179 0.179 0.179 0.179 0.179
65 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Item 4
Attachment B - CalPERS
Miscellaneous Valuation as
of June 30, 2024
Item 4: Staff Report Pg. 71 Packet Pg. 269 of 510
CalPERS Actuarial Valuation - June 30, 2024
Miscellaneous Plan of the City of Palo Alto
CalPERS ID: 6373437857
Page 57
Service Retirement (continued)
Public Agency Police 3% at age 55
Duration of Service
Age 5 Years 10 Years 15 Years 20 Years 25 Years 30 Years
50 0.019 0.053 0.045 0.054 0.057 0.061
51 0.002 0.017 0.028 0.044 0.053 0.060
52 0.002 0.031 0.037 0.051 0.059 0.066
53 0.026 0.049 0.049 0.080 0.099 0.114
54 0.019 0.034 0.047 0.091 0.121 0.142
55 0.006 0.115 0.141 0.199 0.231 0.259
56 0.017 0.188 0.121 0.173 0.199 0.199
57 0.008 0.137 0.093 0.136 0.157 0.157
58 0.017 0.126 0.105 0.164 0.194 0.194
59 0.026 0.146 0.110 0.167 0.195 0.195
60 0.155 0.155 0.155 0.155 0.155 0.155
61 0.210 0.210 0.210 0.210 0.210 0.210
62 0.262 0.262 0.262 0.262 0.262 0.262
63 0.172 0.172 0.172 0.172 0.172 0.172
64 0.227 0.227 0.227 0.227 0.227 0.227
65 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
• These rates also apply to County Peace officers, Local Prosecutors, Local Sheriff, School Police, and Other
Safety.
Public Agency Fire 3% at age 55
Duration of Service
Age 5 Years 10 Years 15 Years 20 Years 25 Years 30 Years
50 0.003 0.006 0.013 0.019 0.025 0.028
51 0.004 0.008 0.017 0.026 0.034 0.038
52 0.005 0.011 0.022 0.033 0.044 0.049
53 0.005 0.034 0.024 0.038 0.069 0.138
54 0.007 0.047 0.032 0.051 0.094 0.187
55 0.010 0.067 0.046 0.073 0.134 0.266
56 0.010 0.063 0.044 0.069 0.127 0.253
57 0.135 0.100 0.148 0.196 0.220 0.220
58 0.083 0.062 0.091 0.120 0.135 0.135
59 0.137 0.053 0.084 0.146 0.177 0.177
60 0.162 0.063 0.099 0.172 0.208 0.208
61 0.598 0.231 0.231 0.231 0.231 0.231
62 0.621 0.240 0.240 0.240 0.240 0.240
63 0.236 0.236 0.236 0.236 0.236 0.236
64 0.236 0.236 0.236 0.236 0.236 0.236
65 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Item 4
Attachment B - CalPERS
Miscellaneous Valuation as
of June 30, 2024
Item 4: Staff Report Pg. 72 Packet Pg. 270 of 510
CalPERS Actuarial Valuation - June 30, 2024
Miscellaneous Plan of the City of Palo Alto
CalPERS ID: 6373437857
Page 58
Service Retirement (continued)
Public Agency Police 3% at age 50
Duration of Service
Age 5 Years 10 Years 15 Years 20 Years 25 Years 30 Years
50 0.124 0.103 0.113 0.143 0.244 0.376
51 0.060 0.081 0.087 0.125 0.207 0.294
52 0.016 0.055 0.111 0.148 0.192 0.235
53 0.072 0.074 0.098 0.142 0.189 0.237
54 0.018 0.049 0.105 0.123 0.187 0.271
55 0.069 0.074 0.081 0.113 0.209 0.305
56 0.064 0.108 0.113 0.125 0.190 0.288
57 0.056 0.109 0.160 0.182 0.210 0.210
58 0.108 0.129 0.173 0.189 0.214 0.214
59 0.093 0.144 0.204 0.229 0.262 0.262
60 0.343 0.180 0.159 0.188 0.247 0.247
61 0.221 0.221 0.221 0.221 0.221 0.221
62 0.213 0.213 0.213 0.213 0.213 0.213
63 0.233 0.233 0.233 0.233 0.233 0.233
64 0.234 0.234 0.234 0.234 0.234 0.234
65 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
• These rates also apply to County Peace officers, Local Prosecutors, Local Sheriff, School Police, and Other
Safety.
Public Agency Fire 3% at age 50
Duration of Service
Age 5 Years 10 Years 15 Years 20 Years 25 Years 30 Years
50 0.095 0.048 0.053 0.093 0.134 0.175
51 0.016 0.032 0.053 0.085 0.117 0.149
52 0.013 0.032 0.054 0.087 0.120 0.154
53 0.085 0.044 0.049 0.089 0.129 0.170
54 0.038 0.065 0.074 0.105 0.136 0.167
55 0.042 0.043 0.049 0.085 0.132 0.215
56 0.133 0.103 0.075 0.113 0.151 0.209
57 0.062 0.048 0.060 0.124 0.172 0.213
58 0.124 0.097 0.092 0.153 0.194 0.227
59 0.092 0.071 0.078 0.144 0.192 0.233
60 0.056 0.044 0.061 0.131 0.186 0.233
61 0.282 0.219 0.158 0.198 0.233 0.260
62 0.292 0.227 0.164 0.205 0.241 0.269
63 0.196 0.196 0.196 0.196 0.196 0.196
64 0.197 0.197 0.197 0.197 0.197 0.197
65 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Item 4
Attachment B - CalPERS
Miscellaneous Valuation as
of June 30, 2024
Item 4: Staff Report Pg. 73 Packet Pg. 271 of 510
CalPERS Actuarial Valuation - June 30, 2024
Miscellaneous Plan of the City of Palo Alto
CalPERS ID: 6373437857
Page 59
Service Retirement (continued)
Public Agency Police 2% at age 57
Duration of Service
Age 5 Years 10 Years 15 Years 20 Years 25 Years 30 Years
50 0.040 0.040 0.040 0.040 0.040 0.080
51 0.028 0.028 0.028 0.028 0.040 0.066
52 0.028 0.028 0.028 0.028 0.043 0.061
53 0.028 0.028 0.028 0.028 0.057 0.086
54 0.028 0.028 0.028 0.032 0.069 0.110
55 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.067 0.099 0.179
56 0.046 0.046 0.046 0.062 0.090 0.160
57 0.054 0.054 0.054 0.072 0.106 0.191
58 0.060 0.060 0.060 0.066 0.103 0.171
59 0.060 0.060 0.060 0.069 0.105 0.171
60 0.113 0.113 0.113 0.113 0.113 0.171
61 0.108 0.108 0.108 0.108 0.108 0.128
62 0.113 0.113 0.113 0.113 0.113 0.159
63 0.113 0.113 0.113 0.113 0.113 0.159
64 0.113 0.113 0.113 0.113 0.113 0.239
65 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
• These rates also apply to County Peace officers, Local Prosecutors, Local Sheriff, School Police, and Other
Safety.
Public Agency Fire 2% at age 57
Duration of Service
Age 5 Years 10 Years 15 Years 20 Years 25 Years 30 Years
50 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.008 0.012
51 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.009 0.013
52 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.019 0.028
53 0.033 0.033 0.033 0.033 0.050 0.075
54 0.045 0.045 0.045 0.045 0.069 0.103
55 0.061 0.061 0.061 0.061 0.094 0.140
56 0.055 0.055 0.055 0.055 0.084 0.126
57 0.081 0.081 0.081 0.081 0.125 0.187
58 0.059 0.059 0.059 0.059 0.091 0.137
59 0.055 0.055 0.055 0.055 0.084 0.126
60 0.085 0.085 0.085 0.085 0.131 0.196
61 0.085 0.085 0.085 0.085 0.131 0.196
62 0.085 0.085 0.085 0.085 0.131 0.196
63 0.085 0.085 0.085 0.085 0.131 0.196
64 0.085 0.085 0.085 0.085 0.131 0.196
65 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Item 4
Attachment B - CalPERS
Miscellaneous Valuation as
of June 30, 2024
Item 4: Staff Report Pg. 74 Packet Pg. 272 of 510
CalPERS Actuarial Valuation - June 30, 2024
Miscellaneous Plan of the City of Palo Alto
CalPERS ID: 6373437857
Page 60
Service Retirement (continued)
Public Agency Police 2.5% at age 57
Duration of Service
Age 5 Years 10 Years 15 Years 20 Years 25 Years 30 Years
50 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.100
51 0.038 0.038 0.038 0.038 0.055 0.089
52 0.038 0.038 0.038 0.038 0.058 0.082
53 0.036 0.036 0.036 0.036 0.073 0.111
54 0.036 0.036 0.036 0.041 0.088 0.142
55 0.061 0.061 0.061 0.082 0.120 0.217
56 0.056 0.056 0.056 0.075 0.110 0.194
57 0.060 0.060 0.060 0.080 0.118 0.213
58 0.072 0.072 0.072 0.079 0.124 0.205
59 0.072 0.072 0.072 0.083 0.126 0.205
60 0.135 0.135 0.135 0.135 0.135 0.205
61 0.130 0.130 0.130 0.130 0.130 0.153
62 0.135 0.135 0.135 0.135 0.135 0.191
63 0.135 0.135 0.135 0.135 0.135 0.191
64 0.135 0.135 0.135 0.135 0.135 0.287
65 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
• These rates also apply to County Peace officers, Local Prosecutors, Local Sheriff, School Police, and Other
Safety.
Public Agency Fire 2.5% at age 57
Duration of Service
Age 5 Years 10 Years 15 Years 20 Years 25 Years 30 Years
50 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.010 0.015
51 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.012 0.018
52 0.016 0.016 0.016 0.016 0.025 0.038
53 0.042 0.042 0.042 0.042 0.064 0.096
54 0.057 0.057 0.057 0.057 0.088 0.132
55 0.074 0.074 0.074 0.074 0.114 0.170
56 0.066 0.066 0.066 0.066 0.102 0.153
57 0.090 0.090 0.090 0.090 0.139 0.208
58 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.110 0.164
59 0.066 0.066 0.066 0.066 0.101 0.151
60 0.102 0.102 0.102 0.102 0.157 0.235
61 0.102 0.102 0.102 0.102 0.157 0.236
62 0.102 0.102 0.102 0.102 0.157 0.236
63 0.102 0.102 0.102 0.102 0.157 0.236
64 0.102 0.102 0.102 0.102 0.157 0.236
65 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Item 4
Attachment B - CalPERS
Miscellaneous Valuation as
of June 30, 2024
Item 4: Staff Report Pg. 75 Packet Pg. 273 of 510
CalPERS Actuarial Valuation - June 30, 2024
Miscellaneous Plan of the City of Palo Alto
CalPERS ID: 6373437857
Page 61
Service Retirement (continued)
Public Agency Police 2.7% at age 57
Duration of Service
Age 5 Years 10 Years 15 Years 20 Years 25 Years 30 Years
50 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.100
51 0.040 0.040 0.040 0.040 0.058 0.094
52 0.038 0.038 0.038 0.038 0.058 0.083
53 0.038 0.038 0.038 0.038 0.077 0.117
54 0.038 0.038 0.038 0.044 0.093 0.150
55 0.068 0.068 0.068 0.091 0.134 0.242
56 0.063 0.063 0.063 0.084 0.123 0.217
57 0.060 0.060 0.060 0.080 0.118 0.213
58 0.080 0.080 0.080 0.088 0.138 0.228
59 0.080 0.080 0.080 0.092 0.140 0.228
60 0.150 0.150 0.150 0.150 0.150 0.228
61 0.144 0.144 0.144 0.144 0.144 0.170
62 0.150 0.150 0.150 0.150 0.150 0.213
63 0.150 0.150 0.150 0.150 0.150 0.213
64 0.150 0.150 0.150 0.150 0.150 0.319
65 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
• These rates also apply to County Peace officers, Local Prosecutors, Local Sheriff, School Police, and Other
Safety.
Public Agency Fire 2.7% at age 57
Duration of Service
Age 5 Years 10 Years 15 Years 20 Years 25 Years 30 Years
50 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.010 0.015
51 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.013 0.019
52 0.016 0.016 0.016 0.016 0.025 0.038
53 0.044 0.044 0.044 0.044 0.068 0.102
54 0.061 0.061 0.061 0.061 0.093 0.140
55 0.083 0.083 0.083 0.083 0.127 0.190
56 0.074 0.074 0.074 0.074 0.114 0.171
57 0.090 0.090 0.090 0.090 0.139 0.208
58 0.079 0.079 0.079 0.079 0.122 0.182
59 0.073 0.073 0.073 0.073 0.112 0.168
60 0.114 0.114 0.114 0.114 0.175 0.262
61 0.114 0.114 0.114 0.114 0.175 0.262
62 0.114 0.114 0.114 0.114 0.175 0.262
63 0.114 0.114 0.114 0.114 0.175 0.262
64 0.114 0.114 0.114 0.114 0.175 0.262
65 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Item 4
Attachment B - CalPERS
Miscellaneous Valuation as
of June 30, 2024
Item 4: Staff Report Pg. 76 Packet Pg. 274 of 510
CalPERS Actuarial Valuation - June 30, 2024
Miscellaneous Plan of the City of Palo Alto
CalPERS ID: 6373437857
Page 62
Service Retirement (continued)
Schools 2% at age 55
Duration of Service
Age 5 Years 10 Years 15 Years 20 Years 25 Years 30 Years
50 0.003 0.004 0.006 0.007 0.010 0.010
51 0.004 0.005 0.007 0.008 0.011 0.011
52 0.005 0.007 0.008 0.009 0.012 0.012
53 0.007 0.008 0.010 0.012 0.015 0.015
54 0.006 0.009 0.012 0.015 0.020 0.021
55 0.011 0.023 0.034 0.057 0.070 0.090
56 0.012 0.027 0.036 0.056 0.073 0.095
57 0.016 0.027 0.036 0.055 0.068 0.087
58 0.019 0.030 0.040 0.062 0.078 0.103
59 0.023 0.034 0.046 0.070 0.085 0.109
60 0.022 0.043 0.062 0.095 0.113 0.141
61 0.030 0.051 0.071 0.103 0.124 0.154
62 0.065 0.098 0.128 0.188 0.216 0.248
63 0.075 0.112 0.144 0.197 0.222 0.268
64 0.091 0.116 0.138 0.180 0.196 0.231
65 0.163 0.164 0.197 0.232 0.250 0.271
66 0.208 0.204 0.243 0.282 0.301 0.315
67 0.189 0.185 0.221 0.257 0.274 0.287
68 0.127 0.158 0.200 0.227 0.241 0.244
69 0.168 0.162 0.189 0.217 0.229 0.238
70 0.191 0.190 0.237 0.250 0.246 0.254
Schools 2% at age 62
Duration of Service
Age 5 Years 10 Years 15 Years 20 Years 25 Years 30 Years
50 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
51 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
52 0.004 0.007 0.010 0.011 0.013 0.015
53 0.004 0.008 0.010 0.013 0.014 0.016
54 0.005 0.011 0.015 0.018 0.020 0.022
55 0.014 0.027 0.038 0.045 0.050 0.056
56 0.013 0.026 0.037 0.043 0.048 0.055
57 0.013 0.027 0.038 0.045 0.050 0.055
58 0.017 0.034 0.047 0.056 0.062 0.069
59 0.019 0.037 0.052 0.062 0.068 0.076
60 0.026 0.053 0.074 0.087 0.097 0.108
61 0.030 0.058 0.081 0.095 0.106 0.119
62 0.053 0.105 0.147 0.174 0.194 0.217
63 0.054 0.107 0.151 0.178 0.198 0.222
64 0.053 0.105 0.147 0.174 0.194 0.216
65 0.072 0.142 0.199 0.235 0.262 0.293
66 0.077 0.152 0.213 0.252 0.281 0.314
67 0.070 0.139 0.194 0.229 0.255 0.286
68 0.063 0.124 0.173 0.205 0.228 0.255
69 0.066 0.130 0.183 0.216 0.241 0.270
70 0.071 0.140 0.196 0.231 0.258 0.289
Item 4
Attachment B - CalPERS
Miscellaneous Valuation as
of June 30, 2024
Item 4: Staff Report Pg. 77 Packet Pg. 275 of 510
CalPERS Actuarial Valuation - June 30, 2024
Miscellaneous Plan of the City of Palo Alto
CalPERS ID: 6373437857
Page 63
Miscellaneous
Models
The valuation results are based on proprietary actuarial valuation models. The models are centralized and maintained by a
specialized team to achieve a high degree of accuracy and consistency. The Actuarial Office is responsible for confirming the
appropriateness of the inputs (such as participant data, actuarial methods and assumptions, and plan provisions) as well as
performing tests and validating the reasonableness of the output. The results of our models are independently confirmed by
parallel valuations performed by outside actuaries o n a periodic basis using their models. In our professional judgment, our
actuarial valuation models produce comprehensive pension funding information consistent with the purposes of the valuation
and have no material limitations or known weaknesses.
Internal Revenue Code Section 415 (b)
The limitations on benefits imposed by Internal Revenue Code s ection 415(b) are taken into account in this valuation. Each
year, the impact of any changes in this limitation other than assumed since the prior valuation is included and amortized as part
of the non-investment gain or loss base. This results in lower contributions for those employers contributing to the Replacement
Benefit Fund and protects CalPERS from prefunding expected benefits in excess of limits imposed by federal tax law. The
Section 415(b) dollar limit for the 2024 calendar year is $2 75,000.
Internal Revenue Code Section 401(a)(17)
The limitations on compensation imposed by Internal Revenue Code s ection 401(a)(17) are taken into account in this valuation.
Each year, the impact of any changes in the compensation limitation other than assumed since the prior valuation is included
and amortized as part of the non -investment gain or loss base. The compensation limit for classic members for the 2024
calendar year is $345,000.
PEPRA Compensation Limits
The limitations on compensation for PEPRA members imposed by Government Code section 7522.10 are taken into account in
this valuation. Each year, the impact of any changes in the comp ensation limitation other than assumed since the prior valuation
is included and amortized as part of the non-investment gain or loss base. The PEPRA compensation limit for 2024 is $151,446
for members who participate in Social Security and $181,734 for those who do not. The limits are adjusted annually based on
changes to the CPI for all urban consumers.
Item 4
Attachment B - CalPERS
Miscellaneous Valuation as
of June 30, 2024
Item 4: Staff Report Pg. 78 Packet Pg. 276 of 510
Appendix B - Principal Plan Provisions
• Service Retirement 65
• Vested Deferred Retirement 67
• Non-Industrial Disability Retirement 67
• Industrial Disability Retirement 68
• Post-Retirement Death Benefit 69
• Form of Payment for Retirement Allowance 69
• Pre-Retirement Death Benefits 70
• Cost-of-Living Adjustments (COLA) 72
• Purchasing Power Protection Allowance (PPPA) 72
• Employee Contributions 73
• Refund of Employee Contributions 73
• 1959 Survivor Benefit 74
Item 4
Attachment B - CalPERS
Miscellaneous Valuation as
of June 30, 2024
Item 4: Staff Report Pg. 79 Packet Pg. 277 of 510
CalPERS Actuarial Valuation - June 30, 2024
Miscellaneous Plan of the City of Palo Alto
CalPERS ID: 6373437857
Page 65
The following is a description of the principal plan pr ovisions used in calculating costs and liabilities. We have indicated whether
a plan provision is standard or optional. Standard benefits are applicable to all members while optional benefits vary among
employers. Optional benefits that apply to a single p eriod of time, such as Golden Handshakes, have not been included. Many
of the statements in this summary are general in nature, and are intended to provide an easily understood summary of the
Public Employees’ Retirement Law and the California Public Emplo yees’ Pension Reform Act of 2013 . The law itself governs in
all situations.
Service Retirement
Eligibility
A classic CalPERS member or PEPRA Safety member becomes eligible for Service Retirement upon attainment of age 50 with
at least 5 years of credited service (total service across all CalPERS employers, and with certain other retirement systems with
which Ca lPERS has reciprocity agreements). For employees hired into a plan with the 1.5% at age 65 formula, eligibility for
service retirement is age 55 with at least 5 years of service. PEPRA Miscellaneous members become eligible for service
retirement upon attai nment of age 52 with at least 5 years of service.
Benefit
The service retirement benefit is a monthly allowance equal to the product of the benefit factor, years of service, and final
compensation. The benefit factor depends on the benefit formula specified in the agency’s contract. The table below shows the
factors for each of the available formulas. Factors vary by the member’s age at retirement. Listed are the factors for retire ment
at whole year ages:
Miscellaneo us Plan Formulas
Retirement
Age
1.5% at
age 65
2% at
age 60
2% at
age 55
2.5% at
age 55
2.7% at
age 55
3% at
age 60
PEPRA
2% at
age 62
50 0.5000% 1.092% 1.426% 2.000% 2.000% 2.000% N/A
51 0.5667% 1.156% 1.522% 2.100% 2.140% 2.100% N/A
52 0.6334% 1.224% 1.628% 2.200% 2.280% 2.200% 1.000%
53 0.7000% 1.296% 1.742% 2.300% 2.420% 2.300% 1.100%
54 0.7667% 1.376% 1.866% 2.400% 2.560% 2.400% 1.200%
55 0.8334% 1.460% 2.000% 2.500% 2.700% 2.500% 1.300%
56 0.9000% 1.552% 2.052% 2.500% 2.700% 2.600% 1.400%
57 0.9667% 1.650% 2.104% 2.500% 2.700% 2.700% 1.500%
58 1.0334% 1.758% 2.156% 2.500% 2.700% 2.800% 1.600%
59 1.1000% 1.874% 2.210% 2.500% 2.700% 2.900% 1.700%
60 1.1667% 2.000% 2.262% 2.500% 2.700% 3.000% 1.800%
61 1.2334% 2.134% 2.314% 2.500% 2.700% 3.000% 1.900%
62 1.3000% 2.272% 2.366% 2.500% 2.700% 3.000% 2.000%
63 1.3667% 2.418% 2.418% 2.500% 2.700% 3.000% 2.100%
64 1.4334% 2.418% 2.418% 2.500% 2.700% 3.000% 2.200%
65 1.5000% 2.418% 2.418% 2.500% 2.700% 3.000% 2.300%
66 1.5000% 2.418% 2.418% 2.500% 2.700% 3.000% 2.400%
67 & up 1.5000% 2.418% 2.418% 2.500% 2.700% 3.000% 2.500%
Item 4
Attachment B - CalPERS
Miscellaneous Valuation as
of June 30, 2024
Item 4: Staff Report Pg. 80 Packet Pg. 278 of 510
CalPERS Actuarial Valuation - June 30, 2024
Miscellaneous Plan of the City of Palo Alto
CalPERS ID: 6373437857
Page 66
Classic Safety Plan Formulas
Retirement Age Half Pay at
age 55* 2% at age 55 2% at age 50 3% at age 55 3% at age 50
50 1.783% 1.426% 2.000% 2.400% 3.000%
51 1.903% 1.522% 2.140% 2.520% 3.000%
52 2.035% 1.628% 2.280% 2.640% 3.000%
53 2.178% 1.742% 2.420% 2.760% 3.000%
54 2.333% 1.866% 2.560% 2.880% 3.000%
55 & Up 2.500% 2.000% 2.700% 3.000% 3.000%
* For this formula, the benefit factor also varies by entry age. The factors shown are for members with an entry age of 35 or
greater. If entry age is less than 35, then the age 55 benefit factor is 50% divided by the difference between age 55 and entry
age. The benefit factor for ages prior to age 55 is the same proportion of the age 55 benefit factor as in the above table.
PEPRA Safety Plan Formulas
Retirement Age 2% at age 57 2.5% at age 57 2.7% at age 57
50 1.426% 2.000% 2.000%
51 1.508% 2.071% 2.100%
52 1.590% 2.143% 2.200%
53 1.672% 2.214% 2.300%
54 1.754% 2.286% 2.400%
55 1.836% 2.357% 2.500%
56 1.918% 2.429% 2.600%
57 & Up 2.000% 2.500% 2.700%
• The years of service is the amount credited by CalPERS to a member while he or she is employed in this group (or for other
periods that are recognized under the employer’s contract with CalPERS). For a member who has earned service with
multiple CalPERS employers, the benefit from each employer is calculated separately according to each employer’s
contract, and then added together for the total allowance. An agency may contract for an optional benefit where any unused
sick leave accumulated at the time of retirement will be co nverted to credited service at a rate of 0.004 years of service for
each day of sick leave.
• The final compensation is the monthly average of the member’s highest 36 or 12 consecutive months’ full -time equivalent
monthly pay (no matter which CalPERS emplo yer paid this compensation). The standard benefit is 36 months. Employers
had the option of providing a final compensation equal to the highest 12 consecutive months for classic plans only. Final
compensation must be defined by the highest 36 consecutive m onths’ pay under the 1.5% at age 65 formula. PEPRA
members have a limit on the annual compensation that can be used to calculate final compensation . The limits are adjusted
annually based on changes to the CPI for all urban consumers.
• PEPRA benefit formul as have no Social Security offsets and Social Security coverage is optional . For Classic benefit
formulas, employees must be covered by Social Security with the 1.5% at age 65 formula. Social Security is optional for all
other Classic benefit formulas. For employees covered by Social Security, the modified formula is the standard benefit.
Under this type of formula, the final compensation is offset by $133.33 (or by one third if the final compensation is less th an
$400). Employers may contract for the full benefit with Social Security that will eliminate the offset applicable to the final
compensation. For employees not covered by Social Security, the full benefit is paid with no offsets. Auxiliary organizations
of the CSUC system may elect reduced contribution rates, in which case the offset is $317 if members are not covered by
Social Security or $513 if members are covered by Social Security.
• The Miscellaneous and PEPRA Safety service retirement benefit is not capped. The Classic Safety service retirement
benefit is capped at 90% of final compensation.
Item 4
Attachment B - CalPERS
Miscellaneous Valuation as
of June 30, 2024
Item 4: Staff Report Pg. 81 Packet Pg. 279 of 510
CalPERS Actuarial Valuation - June 30, 2024
Miscellaneous Plan of the City of Palo Alto
CalPERS ID: 6373437857
Page 67
Vested Deferred Retirement
Eligibility for Deferred Status
CalPERS members becomes eligible for a deferred vested retirement benefit when they leave employment, keep their
contribution account balance on deposit with CalPERS, and have earned at least 5 years of credited service (total service
across all CalPERS employers, and with certain other retirement systems with which CalPERS has reciprocity agreements).
Eligibility to Start Receiving Benefits
The CalPERS classic members and PEPRA Safety members become eligible to receive the deferred retirement benefit upon
satisfying the eligibility requirements for deferred status and upon attainment of age 50 (55 for employees hired into a 1.5% at
age 65 plan). PEPRA Miscellaneous members become eligible to receive the deferred retirement benefit upon satisfying the
eligibility requirements for deferred status and upon attainment of age 52.
Benefit
The vested deferre d retirement benefit is the same as the service retirement benefit, where the benefit factor is based on the
member’s age at allowance commencement. For members who have earned service with multiple CalPERS employers, the
benefit from each employer is calc ulated separately according to each employer’s contract, and then added together for the total
allowance.
Non-Industrial Disability Retirement
Eligibility
A CalPERS member is eligible for Non -Industrial (non-job related) Disability Retirement if he or she becomes disabled and has
at least 5 years of credited service (total service across all CalPERS employers, and with certain other retirement systems w ith
which CalPERS has reciprocity agreements). There is no special age requirement. Disabled means the member is unable to
perform their job because of an illness or injury, which is expected to be permanent or to last indefinitely. The illness or injury
does n ot have to be job related. A CalPERS member must be actively employed by any CalPERS employer at the time of
disability in order to be eligible for this benefit.
Standard Benefit
The standard Non -Industrial Disability Retirement benefit is a monthly allo wance equal to 1.8% of final compensation, multiplied
by service, which is determined as follows:
• Service is CalPERS credited service, for members with less than 10 years of service or greater than 18.518 years of
service; or
• Service is CalPERS credited service plus the additional number of years that the member would have worked until age
60, for members with at least 10 years but not more than 18.518 years of service. The maximum benefit in this case is
33⅓% of final compensation.
Item 4
Attachment B - CalPERS
Miscellaneous Valuation as
of June 30, 2024
Item 4: Staff Report Pg. 82 Packet Pg. 280 of 510
CalPERS Actuarial Valuation - June 30, 2024
Miscellaneous Plan of the City of Palo Alto
CalPERS ID: 6373437857
Page 68
Improved Benefit
Employers have the option of providing the improved Non -Industrial Disability Retirement benefit. This benefit provides a
monthly allowance equal to 30% of final compensation for the first 5 years of service, plus 1% for eac h additional year of service
to a maximum of 50% of final compensation.
Members who are eligible for a larger service retirement benefit may choose to receive that benefit in lieu of a disability b enefit.
Members eligible to retire, and who have attained the normal retirement age determined by their service retirement benefit
formula, will receive the same dollar amount for disability retirement as that payable for service retirement. For members wh o
have earned service with multiple CalPERS employers, the benefit attributed to each employer is the total disability allowance
multiplied by the ratio of service with a particular employer to the total CalPERS service.
Industrial Disability Retirement
This is a standard benefit for Safety members except those described in Section 20423.6. For excluded Safety members and all
Miscellaneous members, employers have the option of providing this benefit. An employer may choose to provide the increased
benefit option or the improved benefit option.
Eligibility
An employee is eligible for Industrial (job related) Disability Retirement if he or she becomes disabled while working, where
disabled means the member is unable to perform the duties of the job because of a work-related illness or injury, which is
expected to be permanent or to last indefinitely. A CalPERS member who has left active employment within this group is not
eligible for this benefit, except to the extent described below.
Standard Benefit
The standard Industrial Disability Retirement benefit is a monthly allowance equal to 50% of final compensation.
Increased Benefit (75% of Final Compensation)
The increased Industrial Disability Retirement benefit is a monthly allowance equal to 75% of final com pensation for total
disability.
Improved Benefit (50% to 90% of Final Compensation)
The improved Industrial Disability Retirement benefit is a monthly allowance equal to the Workman’s Compensation Appeals
Board permanent disability rate percentage (if 5 0% or greater, with a maximum of 90%) times the final compensation.
For a CalPERS member not actively employed in this group who became disabled while employed by some other CalPERS
employer, the benefit is a return of accumulated member contributions wit h respect to employment in this group. With the
standard or increased benefit, a member may also choose to receive the annuitization of the accumulated member
contributions.
If a member is eligible for service retirement and if the service retirement bene fit is more than the industrial disability retirement
benefit, the member may choose to receive the larger benefit.
Item 4
Attachment B - CalPERS
Miscellaneous Valuation as
of June 30, 2024
Item 4: Staff Report Pg. 83 Packet Pg. 281 of 510
CalPERS Actuarial Valuation - June 30, 2024
Miscellaneous Plan of the City of Palo Alto
CalPERS ID: 6373437857
Page 69
Post-Retirement Death Benefit
Standard Lump Sum Payment
Upon the death of a retiree, a one-time lump sum payment of $500 will be made to the retiree’s designated survivor(s), or to the
retiree’s estate. The lump sum payment amount increases to $2,000 for any death occurring on or after July 1, 2023, due to SB
1168.
Optional Lump Sum Payment
In lieu of the standard lump sum death benefit, e mployers have the option of providing a lump sum death benefit of $600,
$3,000, $4,000 or $5,000.
Form of Payment for Retirement Allowance
Standard Form of Payment
Generally, the retirement allowance is paid to the retiree in the form of an annuity for as long as he or she is alive. The r etiree
may choose to provide for a portion of their allowance to be paid to any designated ben eficiary after the retiree’s death.
CalPERS provides for a variety of such benefit options, which the retiree pays for by taking a reduction in their retirement
allowance. Such reduction takes into account the amount to be provided to the beneficiary and the probable duration of
payments (based on the ages of the member and beneficiary) made subsequent to the member’s death.
Improved Form of Payment (Post-Retirement Survivor Allowance)
Employers have the option to contract for the post-retirement survivor allowance.
For retirement allowances with respect to service subject to a modified Classic formula, 25% of the retirement allowance will
automatically be continued to certain statutory beneficiaries upon the death of the retiree, without a reduction in t he retiree’s
allowance. For retirement allowances with respect to service subject to a PEPRA formula or a full or supplemental Classic
formula, 50% of the retirement allowance will automatically be continued to certain statutory beneficiaries upon the deat h of the
retiree, without a reduction in the retiree’s allowance. This additional benefit is referred to as post -retirement survivor allowance
(PRSA) or simply as survivor continuance.
In other words, 25% or 50% of the allowance, the continuance portion , is paid to the retiree for as long as he or she is alive, and
that same amount is continued to the retiree’s spouse (or if no eligible spouse, to unmarried child(ren) until they attain ag e 18;
or, if no eligible child(ren), to a qualifying dependent pare nt) for the rest of their lifetime. This benefit will not be discontinued in
the event the spouse remarries.
The remaining 75% or 50% of the retirement allowance, which may be referred to as the option portion of the benefit, is paid to
the retiree as an annuity for as long as he or she is alive. Or, the retiree may choose to provide for some of this option portion to
be paid to any designated beneficiary after the retiree’s death. Benefit options applicable to the option portion are the sam e as
those offe red with the standard form. The reduction is calculated in the same manner but is applied only to the option portion.
Item 4
Attachment B - CalPERS
Miscellaneous Valuation as
of June 30, 2024
Item 4: Staff Report Pg. 84 Packet Pg. 282 of 510
CalPERS Actuarial Valuation - June 30, 2024
Miscellaneous Plan of the City of Palo Alto
CalPERS ID: 6373437857
Page 70
Pre-Retirement Death Benefits
Basic Death Benefit
This is a standard benefit.
Eligibility
An employee’s beneficiary (or estate) may receive the basic death benefit if the member dies while actively employed. A
CalPERS member must be actively employed with the CalPERS employer providing this benefit to be eligible for this benefit. A
member’s survivor who is eligible for any other pre -retirement death benefit may choose to receive that death benefit instead of
this basic death benefit.
Benefit
The basic death benefit is a lump sum in the amount of the member’s accumulated contributions, where interest is credited
annually at the greater of 6% or the prevailing discount rate through the date of death, plus a lump sum in the amount of one
month's salary for each completed year of current service, up to a maximum of six months ' salary. For purposes of this benefit,
one month's salary is defined as the member's average monthly full -time rate of compensation during the 12 months preceding
death.
1957 Survivor Benefit
This is a standard benefit.
Eligibility
An employee’s eligible survivor(s) may receive the 1957 Survivor benefit if the member dies while actively employed, has
attained at least age 50 for classic and PEPRA Safety members and age 52 for PEPRA Miscellaneous members, and has at
least 5 years of credited service (to tal service across all CalPERS employers and with certain other retirement systems with
which CalPERS has reciprocity agreements). A CalPERS member must be actively employed with the CalPERS employer
providing this benefit to be eligible for this benefit. An eligible survivor means the surviving spouse to whom the member was
married at least one year before death or, if there is no eligible spouse, to the member's unmarried child(ren) under age 18. A
member’s survivor who is eligible for any other pre -retirement death benefit may choose to receive that death benefit instead of
this 1957 Survivor benefit.
Benefit
The 1957 Survivor benefit is a monthly allowance equal to one -half of the unmodified service retirement benefit that the member
would have been en titled to receive if the member had retired on the date of their death. If the benefit is payable to the spouse,
the benefit is discontinued upon the death of the spouse. If the benefit is payable to dependent child(ren), the benefit will be
discontinued upon death or attainment of age 18, unless the child(ren) is disa bled. The total amount paid will be at least equal to
the basic death benefit.
Item 4
Attachment B - CalPERS
Miscellaneous Valuation as
of June 30, 2024
Item 4: Staff Report Pg. 85 Packet Pg. 283 of 510
CalPERS Actuarial Valuation - June 30, 2024
Miscellaneous Plan of the City of Palo Alto
CalPERS ID: 6373437857
Page 71
Optional Settlement 2 Death Benefit
This is an optional benefit.
Eligibility
An employee’s eligible survivor may receive the Optional Settlement 2 Death benefit if the member dies while actively employed,
has attained at least age 50 for classic and PEPRA Safety members and age 52 for PEPRA Miscellaneous members, and has
at least 5 years of credited service (total service across all CalPERS employers and with cert ain other retirement systems with
which CalPERS has reciprocity agreements). A CalPERS member who is no longer actively employed with any CalPERS
employer is not eligible for this benefit. An eligible survivor means the surviving spouse to whom the member was married at
least one year before death. A member’s survivor who is eligible for any other pre -retirement death benefit may choose to
receive that death benefit instead of this Optional Settlement 2 Death benefit.
Benefit
The Optional Settlement 2 Death benefit is a monthly allowance equal to the service retirement benefit that the member would
have received had the member retired on the date of their death and elected 100% to continue to the eligible survivor after the
mem ber’s death. The allowance is payable to the surviving spouse until death , at which time it is continued to any unmarried
child(ren), if applicable. The total amount paid will be at least equal to the basic death benefit.
Special Death Benefit
This is a standard benefit for Safety members except those described in Section 20423.6. For excluded Safety members and all
Miscellaneous members, employers have the option of providing this benefit.
Eligibility
An employee’s eligible survivor(s) may receive the special death benefit if the member dies while actively employed and the
death is job -related. A CalPERS member who is no longer actively employed with any CalPERS employer is not eligible for this
benefit. An eligible survivor means the surviving spouse to whom the member was married prior to the onset of the injury or
illness that resulted in death. If there is no eligible spouse, an eligible survivor means the member's unmarried child(ren) under
age 22. An eligible survivor who chooses to receive this be nefit will not receive any other death benefit.
Benefit
The special death benefit is a monthly allowance equal to 50 % of final compensation and will be increased whenever the
compensation paid to active employees is increased but ceasing to increase wh en the member would have attained age 50. The
allowance is payable to the surviving spouse until death , at which time the allowance is continued to any unmarried child(ren)
under age 22. There is a guarantee that the total amount paid will at least equal t he basic death benefit.
If the member’s death is the result of an accident or injury caused by external violence or physical force incurred in the
performance of the member’s duty, and there are eligible surviving child(ren) (eligible means unmarried chil d(ren) under age 22)
in addition to an eligible spouse, then an additional monthly allowance is paid equal to the following:
• if 1 eligible child: 12.5% of final compensation
• if 2 eligible children: 20.0% of final compensation
• if 3 or more eligible children: 25.0% of final compensation
Item 4
Attachment B - CalPERS
Miscellaneous Valuation as
of June 30, 2024
Item 4: Staff Report Pg. 86 Packet Pg. 284 of 510
CalPERS Actuarial Valuation - June 30, 2024
Miscellaneous Plan of the City of Palo Alto
CalPERS ID: 6373437857
Page 72
Alternate Death Benefit for Local Fire Members
This is an optional benefit available only to local fire members.
Eligibility
An employee’s eligible survivor(s) may receive the alternate death benefit in lieu of the basic death benefit or the 1957 Survivor
benefit if the member dies while actively employed and has at least 20 years of total CalPERS service. A CalPERS member who
is no longer actively employed with any CalPERS employer is not eligible for this benefit. An eligible survivor means the
surviving spouse to whom the member was married prior to the onset of the injury or illness that resulted in death. If there is no
eligible spouse, an eligible survivor means the member's unmarried child(ren) under age 18.
Benefit
The Alternate Death benefit is a monthly allowance equal to the service retirement benefit that the member would have receive d
had the member retired on the date of their death and elected Optional Settlement 2. (A retiree who elects Optional Settlement 2
receives an allowance that has been reduced so that it will continue to be paid after their death to a surviving beneficiary.) If the
member has not yet attained age 50, the benefit is equal t o that which would be payable if the member had retired at age 50,
based on service credited at the time of death. The allowance is payable to the surviving spouse until death , at which time it is
continued to any unmarried child(ren), if applicable. The t otal amount paid will be at least equal to the basic death benefit.
Cost-of-Living Adjustments (COLA)
Standard Benefit
Retirement and survivor allowances are adjusted each year in May for cost of livin g, beginning the second calendar year after
the year of retirement. The standard cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) is 2%. Annual adjustments are calculated by first
determining the lesser of 1) 2% compounded from the end of the year of retirement or 2) actu al rate of price inflation. The
resulting increase is divided by the total increase provided in prior years. For any given year, the COLA adjustment may be l ess
than 2% (when the rate of price inflation is low), may be greater than the rate of price inflation (when the rate of price inflation is
low after several years of high price inflation) or may even be greater than 2% (when price inflation is high after several years of
low price inflation).
Improved Benefit
Employers have the option of providing a COLA of 3 %, 4%, or 5%, determined in the same manner as described above for the
standard 2 % COLA. An improved COLA is not available with the 1.5% at age 65 formula.
Purchasing Power Protection Allowance (PPPA)
Retirement and survivor allowances are protected against price inflation by PPPA. PPPA benefits are cost-of-living adjustments
that are intended to maintain an individual’s allowance at 80 % of the initial allowance at retirement adjusted for price inflation
since retirement. The PPPA benefit will be coordinated with other cost -of-living adjustments provided under the plan.
Item 4
Attachment B - CalPERS
Miscellaneous Valuation as
of June 30, 2024
Item 4: Staff Report Pg. 87 Packet Pg. 285 of 510
CalPERS Actuarial Valuation - June 30, 2024
Miscellaneous Plan of the City of Palo Alto
CalPERS ID: 6373437857
Page 73
Employee Contributions
Each employee contributes toward their retirement based upon the retirement formula. The standard employee contribution is as
described below.
• The percent contributed below the monthly compensation breakpoint is 0 %.
• The monthly compensation breakpoint is $0 for all PEPRA members and Classic members covered by a full or
supplemental formula and $133.33 for Classic members covered by a modified formula.
• The percent contributed above the monthly compensation breakpoint depends upon the benefit formula, as shown in
the table below.
Benefit Formula Percent Contributed
above the Breakpoint
Miscellaneous, 1.5% at age 65 2%
Miscellaneous, 2% at age 60 7%
Miscellaneous, 2% at age 55 7%
Miscellaneous, 2.5% at age 55 8%
Miscellaneous, 2.7% at age 55 8%
Miscellaneous, 3% at age 60 8%
Miscellaneous, 2% at age 62 50% of the Total Normal Cost
Miscellaneous, 1.5% at age 65 50% of the Total Normal Cost
Safety, Half Pay at age 55 Varies by entry age
Safety, 2% at age 55 7%
Safety, 2% at age 50 9%
Safety, 3% at age 55 9%
Safety, 3% at age 50 9%
Safety, 2% at age 57 50% of the Total Normal Cost
Safety, 2.5% at age 57 50% of the Total Normal Cost
Safety, 2.7% at age 57 50% of the Total Normal Cost
The employer may choose to “pick -up” these contributions for classic members (Employer Paid Member Contributions or
EPMC). EPMC is prohibited for new PEPRA members.
An employer may also include Employee Cost Sharing in the contract, where employees agree to share the cost of the employer
contribution. These co ntributions are paid in addition to the member contribution.
Auxiliary organizations of the CSU system may elect reduced contribution rates, in which case the offset is $317 and the
contribution rate is 6 % if members are not covered by Social Security. If members are covered by Social Security, the offset is
$513 and the contribution rate is 5 %.
Refund of Employee Contributions
If the member’s service with the employer ends, and if the member does not sa tisfy the eligibility conditions for any of the
retirement benefits above, the member may elect to receive a refund of their employee contributions, which are credited with 6 %
interest compounded annually.
Item 4
Attachment B - CalPERS
Miscellaneous Valuation as
of June 30, 2024
Item 4: Staff Report Pg. 88 Packet Pg. 286 of 510
CalPERS Actuarial Valuation - June 30, 2024
Miscellaneous Plan of the City of Palo Alto
CalPERS ID: 6373437857
Page 74
1959 Survivor Benefit
This is a pre -retirement death benefit available only to members not covered by Social Security. Any agency joining CalPERS
subsequent to 1993 is required to provide this benefit if the members are not covered by Social Security. The benefit is optional
for agencies joining CalPERS prior to 1994. Levels 1, 2 , and 3 are now closed. Any new agency or any agency wishing to add
this benefit or increase the current level may only choose the 4 th or Indexed Level.
This benefit is not included in the results presented in this valuation. More information on this benefit is available on the
CalPERS website.
Item 4
Attachment B - CalPERS
Miscellaneous Valuation as
of June 30, 2024
Item 4: Staff Report Pg. 89 Packet Pg. 287 of 510
Appendix C - Participant Data
• Active Members 76
• Transferred and Separated Members 77
• Retired Members and Beneficiaries 78
Item 4
Attachment B - CalPERS
Miscellaneous Valuation as
of June 30, 2024
Item 4: Staff Report Pg. 90 Packet Pg. 288 of 510
CalPERS Actuarial Valuation - June 30, 2024
Miscellaneous Plan of the City of Palo Alto
CalPERS ID: 6373437857
Page 76
Active Members
Counts of members included in the valuation are counts of the recor ds processed by the valuation. Multiple records may exist
for those who have service in more than one valuation group. This does not result in double counting of liabilities.
Distribution of Active Members by Age and Service
Years of Service at Valuation Date
Attained
Age 0-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25+ Total
15-24 21 0 0 0 0 0 21
25-29 60 5 0 0 0 0 65
30-34 70 41 2 0 0 0 113
35-39 54 42 12 1 0 0 109
40-44 35 25 24 14 5 1 104
45-49 38 26 18 17 21 8 128
50-54 29 14 11 12 15 16 97
55-59 23 13 17 11 14 18 96
60-64 11 12 6 17 5 20 71
65 and Over 6 3 5 7 3 5 29
All Ages 347 181 95 79 63 68 833
Distribution of Average Annual Salaries by Age and Service
Years of Service at Valuation Date
Attained
Age 0-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-2 4 25+
Average
Salary
15-24 $85,114 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $85,114
25-29 106,368 112,343 0 0 0 0 106,828
30-34 103,541 118,880 157,450 0 0 0 110,061
35-39 113,202 139,208 121,507 164,905 0 0 124,611
40-44 109,623 133,070 157,097 157,711 133,462 119,850 133,933
45-49 117,930 147,706 149,826 135,113 159,975 155,220 139,974
50-54 122,533 175,127 136,335 149,946 144,666 176,825 147,458
55-59 111,185 137,611 147,760 137,941 130,410 164,542 137,114
60-64 143,348 152,667 135,397 148,996 147,498 131,449 142,544
65 and Over 97,489 95,451 104,023 171,062 99,656 147,199 124,959
Average $109,858 $137,065 $142,992 $148,315 $143,79 3 $154,670 $129,421
Item 4
Attachment B - CalPERS
Miscellaneous Valuation as
of June 30, 2024
Item 4: Staff Report Pg. 91 Packet Pg. 289 of 510
CalPERS Actuarial Valuation - June 30, 2024
Miscellaneous Plan of the City of Palo Alto
CalPERS ID: 6373437857
Page 77
Transferred and Separated Members
Distribution of Transfers to Other CalPERS Plans by Age , Service, and average Salary
Years of Service at Valuation Date
Attained
Age 0-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25+ Total
Average
Salary
15-24 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 $116,890
25-29 10 0 0 0 0 0 10 117,748
30-34 41 6 0 0 0 0 47 115,736
35-39 47 9 1 0 0 0 57 136,817
40-44 47 12 7 0 2 0 68 155,809
45-49 57 12 5 2 1 2 79 148,598
50-54 31 12 2 5 0 0 50 161,893
55-59 28 9 1 2 0 0 40 164,890
60-64 23 6 3 0 0 0 32 143,809
65 and Over 7 1 0 0 0 0 8 140,924
All Ages 293 67 19 9 3 2 393 $146,064
Distribution of Separated Participants with Funds on Deposit by Age, Service, and average Salary
Years of Service at Valuation Date
Attained Age 0-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-2 4 25+ Total
Average
Salary
15-24 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 $39,990
25-29 13 0 0 0 0 0 13 74,591
30-34 48 6 0 0 0 0 54 87,119
35-39 55 10 4 0 0 0 69 94,119
40-44 64 11 4 2 1 0 82 83,724
45-49 65 7 5 0 0 1 78 84,472
50-54 47 16 2 0 1 0 66 80,125
55-59 51 12 2 0 0 2 67 72,714
60-64 38 7 1 1 0 0 47 65,439
65 and Over 24 3 0 0 0 0 27 63,090
All Ages 406 72 18 3 2 3 504 $80,559
Item 4
Attachment B - CalPERS
Miscellaneous Valuation as
of June 30, 2024
Item 4: Staff Report Pg. 92 Packet Pg. 290 of 510
CalPERS Actuarial Valuation - June 30, 2024
Miscellaneous Plan of the City of Palo Alto
CalPERS ID: 6373437857
Page 78
Retired Members and Beneficiaries
Distribution of Retirees and Beneficiaries by Age and Retirement Type*
Attained Age
Service
Retirement
Non-
Industrial
Disability
Industrial
Disability
Non-
Industrial
Death
Industrial
Death
Death After
Retirement Total
Under 30 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
30 -34 0 0 1 0 0 1 2
35 -39 0 0 0 0 0 4 4
40 -44 0 0 2 0 0 1 3
45 -49 0 0 3 0 0 1 4
50 -54 34 2 3 0 0 0 39
55 -59 86 4 0 1 0 1 92
60 -64 197 11 4 0 0 12 224
65 -69 227 10 1 0 0 12 250
70 -74 215 7 0 0 0 20 242
75 -79 195 9 1 0 0 20 225
80 -84 132 2 1 0 0 30 165
85 and Over 76 4 0 0 0 33 113
All Ages 1,162 49 16 1 0 136 1,364
Distribution of Average Annual Disbursements to Retirees and Beneficiaries by Age and Retirement Type*
Attained
Age
Service
Retirement
Non-
Industrial
Disability
Industrial
Disability
Non-
Industrial
Death
Industrial
Death
Death After
Retirement Average
Under 30 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $39,748 $39,748
30-34 0 0 222 0 0 16,026 8,124
35-39 0 0 0 0 0 7,543 7,543
40-44 0 0 310 0 0 13,556 4,725
45-49 0 0 726 0 0 119,243 30,355
50-54 29,410 6,241 1,010 0 0 0 26,037
55-59 39,696 16,035 0 19,000 0 11,350 38,134
60-64 46,450 14,819 934 0 0 21,849 42,766
65-69 46,837 16,075 13,545 0 0 21,814 44,272
70-74 49,368 20,396 0 0 0 28,036 46,767
75-79 45,898 19,918 20,965 0 0 26,777 43,049
80-84 36,597 21,071 2,252 0 0 36,827 36,242
85 and Over 37,229 21,058 0 0 0 26,641 33,564
All Ages $44,252 $17,322 $2,909 $19,000 $0 $28,193 $41,180
* Counts of members do not include alternate payees receiving benefits while the member is still working. Therefore, the total counts may not
match information on C-1 of the report. Multiple records may exist for those who have service in more than one coverage group. This does not
result in double counting of liabilities.
Item 4
Attachment B - CalPERS
Miscellaneous Valuation as
of June 30, 2024
Item 4: Staff Report Pg. 93 Packet Pg. 291 of 510
CalPERS Actuarial Valuation - June 30, 2024
Miscellaneous Plan of the City of Palo Alto
CalPERS ID: 6373437857
Page 79
Retired Members and Beneficiaries (continued)
Distribution of Retirees and Beneficiaries by Years Retired and Retirement Type*
Years
Retired
Service
Retirement
Non-
Industrial
Disability
Industrial
Disability
Non-
Industrial
Death
Industrial
Death
Death After
Retirement Total
Under 5 Yrs 266 1 5 0 0 46 318
5-9 253 2 1 1 0 31 288
10-14 233 6 5 0 0 19 263
15-19 214 13 3 0 0 21 251
20-24 114 8 1 0 0 8 131
25-29 46 8 1 0 0 6 61
30 and Over 36 11 0 0 0 5 52
All Years 1,162 49 16 1 0 136 1,364
Distribution of Average Annual Disbursements to Retirees and Beneficiaries by Years Retired and Retirement Type*
Years
Retired
Service
Retirement
Non-
Industrial
Disability
Industrial
Disability
Non-
Industrial
Death
Industrial
Death
Death After
Retirement Average
Under 5 Yrs $43,468 $17,302 $959 $0 $0 $30,071 $40,779
5-9 43,682 14,357 345 19,000 0 27,855 41,539
10-14 49,283 12,520 317 0 0 32,743 46,319
15-19 51,157 18,091 11,895 0 0 24,053 46,708
20-24 38,316 20,916 1,890 0 0 22,916 36,035
25-29 31,304 21,788 2,252 0 0 17,327 28,205
30 and Over 15,784 13,711 0 0 0 34,604 17,155
All Years $44,252 $17,322 $2,909 $19,000 $0 $28,193 $41,180
* Counts of members do not include alternate payees receiving benefits while the member is still working. Therefore, the total
counts may not match information on C -1 of the report. Multiple records may exist for those who have service in more than one
coverage group. This does not result in double counting of liabilities .
Item 4
Attachment B - CalPERS
Miscellaneous Valuation as
of June 30, 2024
Item 4: Staff Report Pg. 94 Packet Pg. 292 of 510