Agenda packet — Palo Alto City Council, September 18, 2023 (part 2 of 2)

Item 7: Staff Report
Pg.
45 Packet Pg. 187 of 449

_______________________

1.Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.

2.The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.

3.The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 Ms. Van Fleet: Hearing me again. Let her get the slides loaded. Alright, so we had five days with 2 the poles installed correctly. We’ve done our best to make use of those five days. When they 3 were originally installed I did email Amy the next day to say they’re not done, they’re not right 4 and that was on July 27 th. They were fixed last Thursday. A lot of people were out of town this 5 weekend, it was the weekend before school started. So not everybody has seen them and 6 commented but we’ll give you what we have thus far and we’ll go from there. 7 8 So, next slide please. We want to definitely enforce that a PC needs to remain over this so that 9 it is enforceable and we also want to say, especially after hearing Mr. Hayes’s presentation. 10 More harm is being done here than good at this point for the residents of Ellsworth Place and 11 our circulation. They are not providing public benefits for us, they really aren’t and we’ll 12 through… I’ll through that in a few slides. And then the ownership of the road, yes it was 13 mentioned in the Chicago Title letter that it’s a private road and that’s what they’re going on 14 right now. But the County maps don’t lie and it’s been saying it’s a public road since 1968 so 15 that needs to be solved. It’s still an open question, I tiried to get that open with the City in an 16 application over the last couple of weeks and I’ve gotten no where with it. Amy sent me a reply 17 that there’s no such application that exists, so more has to be done there and that is a potential 18 benefit of this whole project if we could add that on. And then all of the false information still 19 needs to be corrected in the Packet and some of that was already mentioned and we’ll go 20 through more of that.
21 22 We’ll reiterate that this has been… sorry, the next slide. This has been our road circulation for 23 this Ellsworth Place for 50 years plus, actually 56 years plus. The current plan is to remove every 24 benefit of the current PC, that is our road circulation and they want to replace it with less. What 25 they’re replacing does not improve ourt road circulation, it makes it worse and we were directly 26 impacted by a fence that was set 4-feet back from the property line. It had been hit by trucks, it 27 had been pushed back a couple of feet. So that… it wanted to be at that 26-foot line and that 28 was a nightmare. We all sent in code enforcement complaints about that and here they are 29 wanting to give us less than that. So, next slide please. 30 31 As I’d mentioned before, the proposed public benefits are inadequate and we are potentially 32 losing our ability to get deliveries. This was mentioned by planning Staff during an onsite 33 meeting of July 3 rd that transportation was considering banning delivery trucks from our street. 34 That’s a problem in today’s day and age when most of us deliver… we all depend on deliveries 35 or we can’t really live here in Palo Alto without them. We want to preserve that ability and we 36 want to maintain our line of sight or actually to improve ourt lineght of sighte as we exit and 37 we’ll… I’ll mention that in a next slide on how we think it should be done. Not what they’re 38 proposing which we disagree with. There is inadequate street circulation by this, so right now 39 the parking lot, even if cars are parked there.
40 Item 7
Attachment D - August
9th excerpt verbatim PTC
minutes

Item 7: Staff Report
Pg.
46 Packet Pg. 188 of 449

_______________________

2.The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.

3.The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 [note – video skipped] away from us and replacing 24-feet, which is 2 ½-foot increase over what 2 it is now, it is currently 21 ½-feet if you look at where the white line is for the 20-foot mark out 3 there. They keep saying its 20, we’re living with 21 ½-feet. They’re going to give us 2 ½-feet of 4 driveway width over the first 25-feet of the actual road because mind you 10-feet is the 5 sidewalk and driveway itself. So, they’re going to give us 25-feet of road at 24-feet and narrow 6 us down from our 26 that we have now down to 20-feet is what they’re doing with it. That’s 7 okay with us. That driveway entrance is the only benefit they’re offering us and it’s not enough. 8 9 Next slide, it says perceived width in the Packet and this is again, I heard Hechtman clarifying 10 the materials that they want to use. That path of even if it’s paved is going to end in his pavers 11 where his family walks. We don’t find that safe. We want that all the way across to the fence 12 because having paved road end at somebody’s pavers is crazy to us. Like who comes up with 13 that? It’s dangerous and we don’t want to live in a situation that’s dangerous. Plus, they’ve 14 changed those placement again. They call it landscaped strip, they’ve called it pavers, they’ve 15 called it paving. We don’t know what it is. It’s still unclear and every time we show up here 16 there’s a new plan in place. Including last time when we were here, there were new slides that 17 the public hadn’t even seen that you were going to vote on and we hadn’t even been allowed 18 to make comments on them. So, we want clarity in this and we want to make sure that it’s a 19 safe situation that does give a public benefit because right now we are really not getting a 20 benefit of any kind at this point. Oh, and the one that they were telling us we were going to get 21 with them giving us easement, that’s already been proven that we already have that. 22 23 So, next slide, the parking lot, I’ll show you this again. This is our cul de sac. We are use to 26- 24 feet width of road over this parking lot. It doesn’t matter if the whole thing is full of cars. We 25 have 26-feet. They want to narrow us down to 20, keep that in mind, next slide. 26 27 So, I did some mock ups here over using Google Maps and you can see what we are used to 28 working with now in the yellow on the left. What they’re proposing is that they’ll give us this 29 24-feet over the entrance. As I said we currently have 21 ½-feet, so they want to give us 30 basically 2 ½-feet of extended width over the first 25-feet of road. That’s it and you can’t drive 31 on someone’s pavers. We all know this, next slide.
32 33 So, we’ve come up with some options that do provide public benefit. As I mentioned, if they 34 extend these road widths for the full length of the road and maintain our 26-feet, including 26- 35 feet at the driveway. We already have 26-feet, we are used to 26-feet, we want to maintain 36 that and also have it go over the driveway. That’s a public benefit and there are a couple ways 37 that that can be done. Obviously, the utility pole needs to be investigated. Can it be moved? I 38 did find a… I found a solution online where they make poles that are end poles. I don’t know if 39 we have those in California but it is there. So, can we take the pole before it and… that’s where 40 the electricity seems to end anyway and make that the end pole and then underground Item 7
Attachment D - August
9th excerpt verbatim PTC
minutes

Item 7: Staff Report
Pg.
47 Packet Pg. 189 of 449

_______________________

2.The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.

3.The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 Comcast and a telephone. It’s not that much is going to that last pole, so if they can 2 underground that or do some other configuration to remove the utility pole and open up 3 circulation. It solves a lot of problems. It needs to be investigated. If they can’t then you can see 4 that you can still take the 6-feet on Handa’s side and he can still build a house so go to the next 5 slide. The house still fits there and the other thing about this is that his house footprint [note – 6 video skipped] 1,090-square feet. So, this will be the largest home on the block by a lot, by 55 7 percent larger. If the house had to reduce in size a small bit to keep the safety and circulation 8 on our road. We actually don’t see a problem with that and it would be more in scale with the 9 community.
10 11 Next slide and again, this is our goal. It’s not about preventing his house, it’s about keeping our 12 circulation and safety intact and how we integrate with Middlefield Road and the pedestrian on 13 the sidewalk. Next slide. So, they keep saying that 20-feet is sufficient. If you notice they’re little 14 car diagram has it stopped at the stop bar. In order to see to get out, we’re on the side walk 15 right now with the current conditions. Even that orange netting, we can’t see over it so we’re 16 on the sidewalk to get out. I tried to do a little photoshop demonstration to move the car into 17 the sidewalk and you can see if another car tries to turn in while someone is trying to turn out. 18 You’ll have an impact so right now we end up backing up and then someone goes around over 19 the parking the lot and that’s how we’ve dealt with it. We would like the situation improved, 20 next slide.
21 22 We are looking to this point of the sidewalk where the curve is. That’s where the road narrows 23 down and the sidewalk follows it. That is where we’re looking when we leave and we only really 24 care about this sight line on the creek side. The apartment side, the olive tree, the sweet maple 25 or not… what is that thing called? The sweet… I’m not using my cards. Liquid amber tree, 26 they’re not bothering us and neither are those utility boxes that are tall. We… they don’t… none 27 of that bothers us. It’s the creek side and we’ve said this over and over and over again. We 28 need about a car width back from what would be the stop bar. Visible to that point basically 29 where the creek fence is. That’s about where that corner is. There’s still room for his fence, it 30 just has to be moved back. His patio is untouched. It would be a good compromise all around 31 but right now where the fence is located with the orange netting. It does not work; every 32 neighbor has complained. Next slide and the six of us that went out and took pictures. You can 33 see this is our reality and there’s another slide of these as well if you want to go to the next 34 slide. And there you can see what it’s like when the pedestrian is coming down the street. He’s 35 already gone by the curve and when I took this picture of my neighbor there. She actually 36 backed up to allow him to pass. That happens a lot. We always give right of way to pedestrian… 37 to the pedestrians and this is what we could get done in the five days we’ve had so. 38 39 Additionally, we’ve asked can we have an asphalt approach. That would probably solve it, right? 40 If you’re on a regular street, you have an asphalt approach so you actually get to go past the Item 7
Attachment D - August
9th excerpt verbatim PTC
minutes

Item 7: Staff Report
Pg.
48 Packet Pg. 190 of 449

_______________________

2.The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.

3.The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 sidewalk and the pedestrian stops. But when you’re on a sidewalk, the pedestrian has the right 2 of way so you have to back up. That causes the problems, so at an asphalt approach with things 3 like bumpy plates on the sidewalks. Things that tell pedestrians hey, there’s a road here. Maybe 4 a step down curve or a well, wheelchair or bicycle friendly type curve. It would make them 5 aware that there’s a street there. They’d stop running into our cars because this has happened 6 many, many times. It should show Key School on the other side of the street that there’s a 7 street there. It would fix a lot of things and right now to get out of Ellsworth Place. We go up an 8 incline but it’s actually kind of over a hill. Like a little bump, so if that was smoothed out with an 9 asphalt approach. It might solve a lot of our issues getting on and off Middlefield Road. In 10 addition to having that road width there of 26-feet. As I said, right now we’re used to 21 1/2 . 11 They keep telling you 20, we have 21 ½. That needs to be stated over and over and over. 12 13 Next slide and we asked about this. They mentioned they’re going to move that bracing. Well, if 14 they’re going to look into moving that bracing, can they look into undergrounding the pole? 15 Because right now that’s not a useable spot and undergrounding or getting rid of that pole just 16 causes or I mean it just helps solve a lot of problems. Thank you. 17 18 Chair Summa: Thank you very much. Do we have other speakers? 19 20 Ms. Dao: Yes, we have Susan Light who’s I believe going to speak on some later slides. 21 22 Ms. Susan Light: Yeah, well you know I think I’m going to be really short and hopefully Kristen 23 will forgive me. The real question that has come up is who owns the street and I came up with 24 the analogy of being an adopted child and growing up in a household and then not getting 25 invited to Thanksgiving dinner. We have Palo Alto on our address, we send our kids to school in 26 Palo Alto, Palo Alto utilities is an important part of our lives and when something happens we 27 call the Palo Alto police. So, the idea that our street is not part of Palo Alto is really difficult and 28 when… I don’t know what the exact number of feet of streets there are in Palo Alto, but adding 29 500-feet from Ellsworth is not going to be a huge impact on the budget of the City of Palo Alto. 30 But it would solve a lot of problems and that’s the… that’s why the adopted child analogy I think 31 is something to think about. We want to be adopted, we want to be legally adopted by the City. 32 I’ll leave it at that.
33 34 Chair Summa: Thank you.
35 36 Ms. Dao: And then one more, Ms. Bill Ross.
37 38 Chair Summa: Thanks.
39 Item 7
Attachment D - August
9th excerpt verbatim PTC
minutes

Item 7: Staff Report
Pg.
49 Packet Pg. 191 of 449

_______________________

2.The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.

3.The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 Mr. Bill Ross: Good evening. I’d like to make a couple points for purposes of the record. One 2 was in a communication to you tonight. It’s from the handbook for the Commission and the 3 duties of the Staff liaison which also happens to be the principalle planner for this project. 4 There is a 7-day requirement for all material to come to not only the Commission but also 5 members of the public. Ellsworth residents don’t waive that. 6 7 Upon review of the revised Staff Report, we raised the same issues. Specifically, the PC 8 ordinance isn’t complied with. The ordinance itself is the mode is the measure of the power. 9 We mentioned last time and it’s still not here. There’s no analysis of the consistency of this 10 project, which is a zone change, with the Comprehensive or General Plan. There’s a cherry 11 picked section in the ordinances now that picks out I think six goals. That’s how you do a 12 Consistency Analysis. You got to do it where you balance and examine goals and policies of the 13 General Plan. It’s not done.
14 15 I… with respect to the CEQA analysis, I’m going to make this analogy. This is a zone change, 16 almost from the beginning of CEQA, zone changes are characterized as projects that are not 17 other wise exempt, right? What’s Staff’s done on Page 239 is to try to add mitigation to an 18 exemption. You can’t do that so and that’s an adjudicatory function. Evidence based, it’s not 19 legislative. We made that clear in the first go around, it’s applicable the second go around. So, 20 the Consistency Analysis, a real CEQA analysis, which would need an Initial Study. This is a zone 21 change, it’s not what’s characterized as any of the exemptions on Page 239 and withstanding 22 that, we raised the issue under CEQA Guideline Section 15300.2. That you have again, 23 substantial evidence by the neighbors raising genuine issues about access, transportation, 24 visual clarity based on safety and those are issues that could be easily examined in an Initial 25 Study by Staff. So, you know, these aren’t inconsequential, you could go back to the beginning 26 and say look, if the Staff liaison who’s also the principalle [note – video skipped] still lacking an 27 analysis for both Streambank Protection and for the PC analysis. You can’t cherry pick those 28 things. You have to go down and establish them.
29 30 Finally, I’d like to note for the record that as far as I’m aware there’s no… any type of urgency 31 ordinance that’s in effect, either in Covid, either locally or in a State-wide basis. AB 214… 2449 32 is applicable to decision makers. Right, it allows for participations in adjudicatory hearings and 33 the CEQA part of this hearing is adjudicatory and I think the evidence based that’s required to 34 come into compliance with the PC Zone is also evidence based. Staff’s got to come up with that. 35 36 Right, my point is I’d have no idea whether counsel to the Commission is watching now, 37 whether it’s online and I see the cameras when I’ve looked on what’s available to the public 38 and you can’t see what’s going on here. There are evidentiary conclusions that are before you 39 that you have to make. I’m suggesting that’s an additional element of due process that’s not 40 present for this hearing. Counsel and Staff should all be present. I don’t know where counsel is.

Item 7
Attachment D - August
9th excerpt verbatim PTC
minutes

Item 7: Staff Report
Pg.
50 Packet Pg. 192 of 449

_______________________

2.The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.

3.The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 You know, I’ve been informed several times but I don’t know that there’s a policy for that for 2 participation of Palo Alto employees in another state. I’ve raised it, 2449 is applicable to 3 decision makers. As far as I can see there’s no exemption for Staff but the principle issues are 4 with respect to compliance with the PC Ordinance and the CEQA analysis. Thank you for your 5 consideration.
6 7 Chair Summa: Thank you Mr. Ross. Was that our final speaker? 8 9 Ms. Dao: Yes, I have no raised hands on Zoom.
10 11 Chair Summa: Okay, thank you for that. Oh, would the applicant like to speak? 12 13 Mr. Hayes: Hi, Chair Summa, Ken Hayes again with Hayes Group Architects. So, this is really 14 getting blown out of proportion. We need to remember why we ware here. We were caught in 15 a situation where there were inaccurate City records that created big problems for my client 16 and Mr. Handa and so we’re trying to fix that mistake from 1976. The safety concerns that the 17 neighbors are bringing up, you know I’m not going to dispute them. If they feel they have safety 18 issues, but how is our project creating those safety issues? You know, we’re removing eight cars 19 from traveling on Ellsworth. We’ve removed the trash pick up on Ellsworth. We’ve provided a 20 space for a delivery truck to park on our property off of Ellsworth, not blocking cars, that sort of 21 thing. So, I just don’t see… and the home that we’re building is actually set back further outside 22 of the 35-foot sight triangle than if there were vans parked in those existing eight guest parking 23 spaces. Because as those spaces got closer to Ellsworth they would block or I’m sorry closer to 24 Middlefield. They would block sight lines. We’re improving all of that to get through this 25 process.
26 27 The road is 20-feet legally for their access. We’re willing to make that a foot and a half wider on 28 Mr. Nitin’s side. Yes, just so happens that’s where the existing pavement is today but they don’t 29 have the right to be on that part of the street right? It’s private property but we’re now giving 30 them the right to drive on that part of the street that is now defined by that asphalt edge. 31 32 Undergrounding the utilities, honestly if we need to underground more or move [note – video 33 skipped]. It’s… we just can’t do that is what I’ve been told. It’s just not going to happen. So, 34 we’re making improvements that we truly believe we can do to help mitigate this. The road’s 35 going to be 20 percent wider than it is today. The ownership of the public way or I’m sorry of 36 this private street, it’s irrelevant. I don’t… we don’t care who owns it. It’s not pertinent to what 37 we’re trying to do tonight, alright? We’re giving our private property to them visa via an 38 easement or a PC Development Plan and that’s what we’re doing. I don’t care who owns the 39 road, so if they have an issue with road ownership. That’s outside of this project in my opinion. 40 Item 7
Attachment D - August
9th excerpt verbatim PTC
minutes

Item 7: Staff Report
Pg.
51 Packet Pg. 193 of 449

_______________________

2.The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.

3.The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 And then lastly, just and then I’m done, the public benefits, really? We’re widening the road 20 2 percent, giving them access to private land, we’re doing a new driveway apron curb cut, the 3 sight triangle. It’s not really public benefit, I had it listed. It’s required by the City. We are 4 creating fewer cars using Ellsworth. We’re creating a temporary delivery truck space on private 5 property. We’ve already moved the trash from Ellsworth and let’s not forget, we’re creating a 6 single-family home. Alright, so thank you very much.
7 8 Chair Summa: Thank you, Mr. Hayes and with that we will bring it back to the Commission for 9 discussion. So, who would like start us off? Anyone? Okay, oh Commissioner Hechtman. 10 11 Commissioner Hechtman: Yeah, I’ll start off just very briefly with kind of a simple one. One of 12 the… a part of the motion at the last meeting had to do with the setback of the building from 13 the creek and the way the language was translated and it appears on Packet Page 89. The 14 condition is the setback from the creek shall be determined by a slope stability analysis. So, I 15 wanted to ask Staff just a couple of questions about that. It looked to me like the applicant’s 16 proposal for the house utilized a 6-foot setback from what is said… what is described as the 17 creek property. And so, I wanted to understand if that… if we have some guideline that tells us 18 what a standard setback from the creek property is absent of soil stability analysis? 19 20 Ms. French: Well, the 6-foot setback is indicating the interior side setback, so that’s what that 6- 21 feet is.
22 23 Commissioner Hechtman: Because in the absence of the creek that side of that (interrupted) 24 25 Ms. French: To the property line.
26 27 Commissioner Hechtman: Edge of the house is considered the side, right? 28 29 Ms. French: Correct because Middlefield Road is the shorter of the property’s facing… and is a 30 facing a street. Right so that’s the front and the right side is to the property line of the creek of 31 the ownership of that creek.
32 33 Commissioner Hechtman: Okay so I… and I just want to focus on that setback from the creek. 34 So, and I’ll just finish tackling this issue and then I’ll come back to do some other ones but on 35 the slope stability issue, and I think Mr. Sauls, I don’t know if he’s here tonight or not. 36 37 Ms. French: He’s watching.
38 39 Commissioner Hechtman: At the last meeting he kind of explained… I mean we can understand 40 what the issue is in general. Right, you’re building a structure which will have weight and Item 7
Attachment D - August
9th excerpt verbatim PTC
minutes

Item 7: Staff Report
Pg.
52 Packet Pg. 194 of 449

_______________________

2.The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.

3.The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 density and that could… will put pressure on the soil beneath it and if you’re close to a creek. 2 You don’t want that pressure to basically push the dirt toward the creek in a way that will cause 3 it to erode or crumble and effect the creek. Right and I think Mr. Sauls explained at the last 4 meeting that here, Matadero Creek, is a channelized concrete culvert and so there is no dirt to 5 get pushed into the creek. You would have to have enough force to actually bust the concrete 6 and force it into the Matadero Creek. So, I don’t know that a slope stability analysis is really 7 necessary here but I don’t really have a problem with utilizing it. The concern I had is the way 8 this condition was written, drafted, is we have a setback and that setback is 6-feet. And that 9 should be the setback unless the slope stability analysis says a larger setback is needed. And 10 that’s really what this condition should say and hopefully there won’t be an objection because 11 my concern is if we get a report back that just says the slope is stable, a house won’t effect it. 12 The soils guy or gal won’t necessarily tell us what the setback should be. So, I’d like to put that 13 6-foot marker in there and then the slope stability analysis can say if that’s too close or not. So, 14 anyway, that’s… we’re not anywhere near motions but when we get to it. I would like to see 15 that changed in that condition, so I’ll leave it with that issue for now. I’ve got more later. 16 17 Mr. Garrett Sauls, Planner: Good evening, Commissioners. This is Garrett, hello. Yes, 18 Commissioner Hechtman, what you reiterated is what I had said previously. That it is the 19 outward forces of that foundation of the structure putting pressure towards the channelized 20 culvert wall that the Santa Clara Valley Water District has had more issues with. Obviously, 21 again as you mentioned before, that it would either rupture, bust or damage that integrity of 22 that culvert wall. Such that obviously it would collapse, so that would be what an analysis 23 would demonstrate is whether or not those outward forces would create that impact so. 24 25 Chair Summa: Are you…?
26 27 Commissioner Hechtman: [off mic] That’s it for now. 28 29 Chair Summa: That’s it for now, okay. Do I have other lights or? Okay, well I will say a few things 30 then and that is that I would concur with Mr. Hayes that there’s some… those… there’s 31 inconsistency in the proposed ordinance that he already mentioned. And I think Staff would 32 agree with that and that needs to be fixed.
33 34 And then I want to clarify that no… we are not proposing that any significant trees be removed 35 from the sight triangle. Most particularly, I would like to call out the multi-trunk olive tree 36 which is of some age and I would also agree with the comments from the public that turning 37 right isn’t the issue. It’s the other side that’s an issue and it has to do with two grade changes. 38 One as you slope on the sidewalk to Ellsworth Place and you slope up to the sidewalk from 39 Ellsworth Place. And it’s also where the… there’s a curve in the sidewalk and the street narrows Item 7
Attachment D - August
9th excerpt verbatim PTC
minutes

Item 7: Staff Report
Pg.
53 Packet Pg. 195 of 449

_______________________

2.The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.

3.The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 and that’s what makes it so tricky. So, I think any of the existing trees, there’s was no intention 2 ever to remove them, especially that large mature olive. 3 4 I… sadly we haven’t been given real determining information on what it would take to remove 5 utilities that are in the way and it seems like though maybe not ideal the hydrant is alright. But I 6 have another question and that is that the way the language is in the proposed ordinance, I 7 don’t… find the page. In both… oh here it is… in both cases, [note – video skipped] regardless of 8 whether it’s 24 or 26-feet as a swath of pavement along side Ellsworth Place. Now what 9 Ellsworth Place is legally is a 20-foot easement that we generally believe all the parties that 10 have an interest in it have a right to traverse. I’m really worried about this language I wonder 11 what I means and maybe it’s a question for our legal counsel. It’s… there’s no mention of 12 adjusting or the easement or making it a condition of granting either of both PCs that that be… 13 that the widening of the street be guaranteed in perpetuity as far as I’m reading it. And I think… 14 so maybe Mr. Yang can help with this but I don’t see anything except a swath of pavement 15 which gives the impression of a useable area. But I don’t think it’s guaranteed and I think that 16 we know what happens when sort of institutional memory, especially of PC, is lost and I’m… I 17 mean we have direct information here. And when I read this, I think about somebody in the 18 future thinking well, if that’s my land, I’d like to put on that little paved area pots of geraniums. 19 So, I don’t see how this is guaranteed at all the way it’s written, so I see our counsel. 20 21 Mr. Yang: Yeah, [unintelligible] that this paved area would be incorporated into the PC 22 Development Plan for each site would ensure that it would remain in that state. But I 23 understand your concern that maybe something like something could be placed on top planters 24 or something like that. So, it could be included as a condition that the area shall remain clear. 25 26 Chair Summa: Yeah and I would say probably for perpetuity. I mean and it’s… that was… that 27 concept of… because what they had before was sort of the feel of a 26-foot wide street 28 because of the extra space in the parking lot basically. And so, I think to have anything 29 successful happen here we have to either condition it as a prerequisite of the PCs and that it 30 should be required to survive these two PCs as a concept, or that I don’t… that an additional 31 easement be created. It’s so essential and I agree that that is… so that needs to be resolved and 32 it’s just totally missing from the proposed draft ordinance. 33 34 And I would say the other problem for me (interrupted) 35 36 Commissioner Reckdahl: Can I have a follow up? Why would we not do an easement? I don’t… 37 it seems strange that you would make the… it’s effectively an easement but you’re making it a 38 condition of the PC and that seems rather awkward.
39 Item 7
Attachment D - August
9th excerpt verbatim PTC
minutes

Item 7: Staff Report
Pg.
54 Packet Pg. 196 of 449

_______________________

2.The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.

3.The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 Chair Summa: It’s neither right now and it has to be. There has to be some reason why 2 somebody’s not going to be able to just say oh, there’s no… they don’t have a right to be… drive 3 there. It’s not guaranteed the way I read it and I think Mr. Yang agreed just now. I mean that’s a 4 pretty essential part of this situation.
5 6 So, that would need to be resolved for me before I could make any recommendation and the 7 other issue [note – video skipped] along Middlefield is towo high still. It’s too high, it seems 8 even higher than it is because of the grade and I believe it needs to be… the fence needs 9 brought back. Mr. Handa or whoever occupies that house would be able to use all the area in 10 front of the fence but it’s blocking and it’s very difficult to see small people there especially and 11 by that I mean children. So, it was my observation that that was not adequate and I think I don’t 12 know exactly how far back it needs to go because it’s not something I can imagine but I would 13 think a reasonable place would be kind of outside of his patio where he wants it there to 14 protect that area. And the rest of the yard would still be his yard but it just wouldn’t be fenced 15 in and I would say it is not the case that everybody has a fence. You know, most people can 16 have a 3-foot fence across their front yard but many people do not. I don’t… I mean I don’t 17 know, I cannot say with any certainty the percentage of people in Palo Alto that do and don’t, 18 but I would say most yards that I can think of, of people I know don’t have that kind of fence. 19 Some people like it and it’s fine and I think if Mr. Handa wants a fence, he should have a fence, 20 but it should be placed… this is a different intersection because of the grade change. And he 21 should certainly have a fence but it should be in a location that does not obscure the view of 22 exiting vehicles. Particularly for, you know, because of the grade, so I am going to leave it there 23 for now and Commissioner Akin.
24 25 Commissioner Akin: Thank you, Chair Summa. I don’t have any dispositive comments to make 26 here but a few observations. Yes, I agree that the 3-foot fence still interferes with visibility in an 27 area where it’s important. A shorter fence might solve that problem. There are other 28 alternatives that the applicants might want to consider. As someone who lives near… lives at a 29 6,000 vehicle a day corner where noise from traffic is a constant problem and is a fraction of 30 what the noise at this site near Middlefield would be. The yard… the front yard is not going to 31 be useable as a front yard. So, it’s not wise to place to much weight on that particular use, but 32 there are things that can be done to improve that space and one is to build a larger interior 33 fence. Setback sufficiently so that greater height is possible and make it out of some dense 34 material like concrete and that’s a sound wall. That’s what you need to make that patio space 35 useable, despite the traffic on Middlefield. So, I would suggest that that might be worth 36 considering if the original 3-foot fence farther out proves not to be viable for other reasons. 37 38 There was some debate at the last meeting about 24 versus 26 and I ended up supporting the 39 minimum of 26 because I believe it does add value, particularly at the intersection with 40 Middlefield. However, I could see expecting 24 if the bottle neck that’s caused [note – video Item 7
Attachment D - August
9th excerpt verbatim PTC
minutes

Item 7: Staff Report
Pg.
55 Packet Pg. 197 of 449

_______________________

2.The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.

3.The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 skipped] more flexibility along the length of the road which is where it exists… which is what 2 exists today. But it allows the other sections of the road not to be widened as much as what 3 otherwise be needed. So, there’s I think room for compromise there as well if we had the key 4 information about whether that pole could be moved or eliminated. It does appear that the… 5 those are low voltage lines at that terminal pole. So, there… it seems to me that there’s some 6 hope that could be done provided the strictly mechanical requirements of support for the 7 penultimate pole are taken care of. I don’t know any way to do that other than asking utilities 8 or Public Works about their standards for the span lengths and support angles whether that’s 9 feasible in the space that we have available. So, we just don’t have the information we need to 10 know whether that’s doable. Alright, I think that’s everything I have for the moment. 11 12 Chair Summa: Thank you. Commissioner Lu.
13 14 Commissioner Lu: [off mic] Commissioner Chang [note – Vice-Chair Chang] had her hand up 15 first.
16 17 Chair Summa: She was first, oh okay. Commissioner Chang [note – Vice-Chair Chang]. 18 19 Vice-Chair Chang: Thank you, Commissioner Lu. So, I do remember my original motion asking 20 for the wider easement to be granted to all the neighbors and yes, that’s a good catch that 21 Chair Summa made that the actual PC language doesn’t grant that easement. And so, on Packet 22 Page 81, the top of the page for 2B, it does say the new width of the easement be granted to all 23 the neighbors on Ellsworth. So, we just need to make sure that that actually gets properly 24 reflected in the two PCs.
25 26 And then I concur with my colleagues who visited the site and said that the 3-foot fence height 27 does obstruct visibility. One of my thoughts, but I… one of my thoughts was that because of the 28 very unusual topography at Ellsworth and Middlefield with the sloping of Middlefield as well as 29 the sloping of Ellsworth. It make a conventional sight triangle kind of insufficient and it really 30 isn’t the Dewy side as everyone has noted. And so, one of my thought was that it’s not that a 31 fence… a front yard fence isn’t possible, but that the fence shouldn’t be within the sight triangle 32 and not only within the 35-foot sight triangle but also right along Middlefield in the front… I 33 don’t know. If you’re looking at A-2.0 in the architecture sheets, kind of in the lower right 34 corner of the property so at the corner here Matadero Creek meets Middlefield. That’s also a 35 real problem area for where a fence would be and so if you could push the fence further back 36 than 4-feet in that corner. That also helps and so actually when I was listening to the public 37 comments. The diagram drawn by… the diagram shown by… I’m so sorry… by Kristen. I can’t… 38 her last name is escaping me at this particular moment. Where she proposed a compromise for 39 where the fence could be is… that actually makes a lot of sense I think in terms [note – video 40 skipped] from Middlefield than 4-feet. But actually, I think that the compromise that was… that Item 7
Attachment D - August
9th excerpt verbatim PTC
minutes

Item 7: Staff Report
Pg.
56 Packet Pg. 198 of 449

_______________________

2.The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.

3.The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 Kristen drew was a much more elegant solution and creates a much nicer front yard, but 2 achieves the same goal. But I think essentially what she drew puts into drawing what I observed 3 at the site which is where the obstruction to vision occurs. So, those are my comments. 4 5 Chair Summa: Commissioner Lu.
6 7 Commissioner Lu: I’ll make a few quick comments and welcome any additions or thoughts from 8 other Commissioners on this. Firstly, I definitely agree that the language on the easement 9 should be clear. Visiting the site, I didn’t get a… I mean it’s always difficult to truly imagine the 10 day to day lived experience but I didn’t see as much of a large qualitative difference to me 11 between the 24 versus 26 feet. But I did feel like the wider flare would actually be a material 12 improvement as you actually pull out and to that point, I find some of the framing around the 13 sight triangle a little bit odd. In the examples that Ms. Van Fleet presented, it seems like most 14 cars really just pull up right up to the stop sign right on that little hump and that kind of goes a 15 little bit past the fence anyways. And so, from that perspective you area little bit higher, maybe 16 a foot higher and you have a more clear view at the very base of the sight triangle. So, I kind of 17 understand how that would be the preferred way to pull out regardless and that’s where you 18 would really start looking at Middlefield. To me the sight triangle is important for peripheral 19 vision as you pull out but its like… it’s not like the critical point. I think the sight triangle does a 20 lot of work for cars that are turning right onto Middlefield, to have a sense who is pulling out of 21 Ellsworth, but qualitatively, you know it just gets so tricky. It’s hard for me to really make clear 22 statements about how the fence should be or how the intersection should work besides the 23 wider flares.
24 25 The last point that I’ll shout out is that we discussed last time that we should keep this as a PC… 26 as a separate PC. I think it’s actually… there’s a reasonable case to make, if we decide to move 27 forward just on the merits of the project at all, to just keep it as an R-1 with deed restrictions. 28 The PC symbolically has more continuity but it’s also marginally worse for the applicant. If we 29 actually think this project should move forward, I don’t know if it makes sense to have any sort 30 of minor symbolic, almost punishment of keeping it as a PC versus having it as an R-1 with deed 31 restrictions. I don’t know that that would actually make a practical difference, but seems like 32 the more lenient or generous thing to do and so I think we should do that if we move forward. 33 34 Chair Summa: Commissioner Reckdahl.
35 36 Commissioner Reckdahl: Could Staff bring up Slide 3 in the Packet, in the presentation Packet? 37 Yeah, so the think that bothers me is that the visibility really is bad when you pull up to that 38 side [note – video skipped]. I mean you’re going to be hugging that curve and then the curb Item 7
Attachment D - August
9th excerpt verbatim PTC
minutes

Item 7: Staff Report
Pg.
57 Packet Pg. 199 of 449

_______________________

2.The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.

3.The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 comes out just at the wrong time and that current sight triangle doesn’t protect you against 2 that… the bicycles that are down the street. So, I really do think that having that flatter so it 3 doesn’t have to go… doesn’t have to be as deep on Ellsworth but it should extend flatter, more 4 parallel to Middlefield to protect you again that… those bicyclists and pedestrians who are 5 coming around that curve there. That’s a really dangerous feature. 6 7 The other thing that’s problematic is the fact that that sidewalk is higher. Is transportation 8 online?
9 10 Ms. French: They are.
11 12 Commissioner Reckdahl: A question for them is this is a private street and really is treated like a 13 driveway. Other places in the City where we have private streets, are they treated more as a 14 street crossing? The public comment had expressed making this appear more like a street as 15 opposed to a driveway and I wonder how uniform are we around the City? 16 17 Ms. Sylvia Star-Lack, Transportation Planning Manager: This is Sylvia Star-Lack, Transportation 18 Planning Manager, good evening Commissioners. I can’t speak for all of the private streets in 19 town. This one is built as a driveway. I don’t know why it was built that way but that is how 20 drivers should treat it. It is a private street but it should be used the way that one would use a 21 driveway and just to clarify, the proper maneuver for leaving this private street that is built with 22 a driveway entrance is to stop before the sidewalk, check if the sidewalk is clear and then move 23 forward and stop before the roadway, check is the roadway is clear. 24 25 Commissioner Reckdahl: Okay, so on other private streets do you have a feeling about… are 26 they usually like driveways or do you not have…?
27 28 Ms. Star-Lack: I don’t have a working knowledge of all of the private streets in town. It just 29 depends, yeah.
30 31 Commissioner Reckdahl: Fair enough, okay thank you. 32 33 Commissioner Hechtman: Alright, so two little issues and then a big issue. First of all, on the 34 fence issues on 702, you know I’m… I saw the design of the fence and I’m hearing concerns 35 from Commissioners that not withstanding the 3-inch gap between the slates. We’re still going 36 to have issues of visibility so I wanted to ask Staff if these… I guess it’s a front yard. Basically the 37 3-foot version of the fence is the front yard fence, right? Okay. 38 39 Ms. French: Correct.
40 Item 7
Attachment D - August
9th excerpt verbatim PTC
minutes

Item 7: Staff Report
Pg.
58 Packet Pg. 200 of 449

_______________________

2.The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.

3.The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 Commissioner Hechtman: And is there a prohibition in Palo Alto from using wroughtrod iron for 2 a front yard fence?
3 4 Ms. French: No.
5 6 Commissioner Hechtman: Okay, so I would just like to put that out in the atmosphere for 7 people to think about. WroughtRod iron fences are typically a more open design, so you could 8 see better through them. My perception is part of the reason the owner wants a 3-foot fence 9 and at this location is they… it’s really sort of a modest security to dissuade people from just 10 walking in or like stepping over a 2-foot fence. You know, you got to have a pretty good stride 11 to get over a three and so this might be something that solves the visibility problem while 12 allowing the fence to remain… I think it’s proposed at 4-feet back, right? So, I’m not [note- 13 video skipped]
14 15 First of all, I agree that at a minimum 702 and Middlefield Field should have separate PCs. It’s 16 not good practice to lump properties owned by separate people in one PC. So, there does need 17 to be a division that way and Middlefield needs to stay in a… it’s in a PC. For 702, I don’t know 18 that I have a real strong impression. I mean my gut and training is that while I can’t say that a 19 PC has ever been used in Palo Alto before for a single-family home. I don’t know that, but I 20 know that PCs are definitionally built to be flexible. You could use them in almost any kind of 21 setting and they have benefits in that way, whereas R-1 I’ve very seldom seen conditions 22 imposed upon a standard rezoning and gives me a little bit of cause for concern. So, I’m… I 23 don’t feel strongly about that, but I would say I feel more comfortable with a PC Zone and I 24 haven’t really understood from the applicant what their level of discomfort is with it that makes 25 the conventional zoning with a deed restriction more desirable to them. 26 27 Alright, so those are the smaller issues, here’s the big issue and I’m sorry I wasn’t here at the 28 last meeting to articulate it. There’s a natural inclination when a proposal is made to develop a 29 property to kind of look not at the project being proposed but at the surroundings and ask 30 yourself well, okay they want to do this on this land. What problems can we solve while they’re 31 doing this on this land and there can be in that process over reaches. You would… how do I 32 explain this. There are limitations on conditions that we can impose or require and for example, 33 we have limitations in CEQA if there’s… you can’t impose… you can’t require a mitigation 34 measures if there’s not an impact that needs to be mitigated. And even outside CEQA, you can’t 35 exact rights from property owners unless [note – video skipped] impacts. So, there are real 36 limitations in doing that, so where you often see this is in with public street where somebody 37 wants to develop something and the City wants them to improve a public street and you have 38 to go through this analysis. Well, is what they’re doing creating a traffic impact because if it’s 39 not creating a traffic impact then you can’t make them fix the public street. It’s just a public 40 street that needs to be fixed and [note – video skipped] because we don’t have a public street.

Item 7
Attachment D - August
9th excerpt verbatim PTC
minutes

Item 7: Staff Report
Pg.
59 Packet Pg. 201 of 449

_______________________

2.The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.

3.The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 We have a private street and what the Commission is talking about doing last time and a little 2 bit tonight is requiring one private property owner to give its property rights not to the public in 3 relation to some impact of the project, but actually to 13 other private property owners. That’s 4 what we’re talking about when we talk about requiring that these owners grant easements to 5 the folks down the street and I don’t believe we have the power to do that as a City. To 6 require… you know, anymore than we would have to say gosh, this new development is 7 impacting the value of your 13 properties. So, we’re going to make the property owner give 8 each of you $10,000. Right, we can’t do that and it’s particularly troubling here where again, if 9 we look at the impacts of what is being proposed. The only traffic impact on Ellsworth from the 10 totality of the proposal is a beneficial traffic impact. It’s beneficial, right compared to the 11 existing conditions, the long existing condition which according to the photographs we’ve seen 12 for example, has had shrubs on the Matadero side for who knows how long. I know Mr. Dewey I 13 think has owned the property since 2017 and we didn’t hear anything from the neighbors that 14 they’ve been on him routinely to cut those shrubs down but now they’re gone and they will 15 stay gone. Staff has been in communication with the water district to trim the farther shrubs 16 closest to Matadero Creek and actually, it was odd because I thought the Staff Report said it 17 had been done but then when I was out there today and I did visit the site today. It seemed like 18 there were shrubs right up again the like the concrete abutment and so I wasn’t entirely clear 19 on that or whether there were some more shrubs that needed to be removed. 20 21 But you know what is… the totality of the proposal is they’re taking pavement that is… well, 22 first of all, there’s really two sections to this Ellsworth Road that I think we can break into. One 23 is most of it which starts at the very back and it comes up until the point where you have to be 24 concerned about the intersection with Middlefield and whether that’s one car length or two 25 length, whatever it is. So, that back section, that’s 20-feet. It’s been 20-feet for over 50 years 26 and I went to the back of it today and what I noticed is that at least half of those folks that live 27 in those houses have either a fence or dense shrubbery or a curb that closes down that 20-feet 28 or closes it down to 20-feet in that area. So, and then the other thing I noticed was a few 29 people have pavers in the front which they park on and I was curious about the… you know a 30 comment of the… one of the commenters that can’t park on pavers. That’s how they’re used on 31 the street in a number of places and that’s the intention I think of Mr. Handa, to have his 32 driveway which will be drivable pavers that can be used that way. So, you’ve got this back 33 section that’s 20-feet and it’s necked down by a lot of the neighbors who are feeling put upon 34 by this development. But those neighbors, and this is a point that Commissioner Templeton 35 raised last time, those neighbors are not saying hey, we really need 26-feet here. Right, this 36 road really needs to be 26-feet and so we are each willing to give the City 3-feet… the 3-foot 37 frontage of our property to make it a 26-foot public road. We’re not hearing that. What we’re 38 hearing is a frustration by these neighbors that property they don’t own, that happens to be in 39 front of us for development, isn’t going to 26-feet which is as near as I can tell it’s never been at 40 least at the front part which is the most important part up at Middlefield. Because that’s where Item 7
Attachment D - August
9th excerpt verbatim PTC
minutes

Item 7: Staff Report
Pg.
60 Packet Pg. 202 of 449

_______________________

2.The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.

3.The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 the action is and that’s where I think the public benefit of what’s being proposed really exists 2 because that’s where it is expanding from 21 ½-feet which it is currently; 20-foot easement plus 3 another foot and a half of pavement. It’s going to now be widened by another 2 ½-feet so that’s 4 24-feet and then it’s going to, again this is part of the proposal, bow out to 28-feet which is 5 actually happening on City property because that’s the… that sidewalk is City property. So, and 6 then what we’ve learned is so it’s going to start at 28, neck down to 24 which is wider in the 7 most important area than it currently is, it’s going to travel at 24-feet back I think 35-feet and 8 then it’s going to have if I’m understanding correctly another 7-feet on the Ellsworth side at 18- 9 inches. So that section is 21 ½-feet and then past that you actually have the pavers on the 702 10 side which again, create more space and this temporary parking area on the Middlefield side so 11 it widens out again. So, I think in the most critical area we have clear traffic safety improvement 12 and public benefit and we can’t require private property owners to give other private property 13 owners rights over their property.
14 15 Now a quirk in that rule is that while we can’t require it, if they volunteer it, we can take it and 16 make a condition and that’s really what’s happened here is these private property owners have 17 offered to provide these improvements to widen the road. I think I understood Ms. Steinmetz 18 to say that if we did an R-1 rezoning then they would grant an easement on the 702 side for the 19 18-inch wide strip which I think is 42-foot long and I think I also heard her say that they 20 wouldn’t be offering an easement on the Middlefield side for it’s 30-inches for roughly I think 21 35 or 37-feet. But instead, that would be a requirement in the PC Development Plan which 22 could only be changed through a PC Development Plan Amendment, which would not make it 23 permanent to address the Chair’s concern but it would require a public process to make that 24 change which I’m sure if… I can’t imagine it ever being tire. But if it was, you would have 13 25 residents behind expressing the same kinds of concerns we’ve heard about necking down their 26 street.
27 28 So, I am… I’m supportive of taking as much as we can get from these applicants, as much as 29 they will voluntarily offer. I would encourage them to consider the concerns regarding the 30 permanence of that 30-inch travel way on the Middlefield side that you’ve heard from other 31 Commissioners. And I would just kind of close on this, this really… this issue really also impacts 32 the utility pole issue because again, we… what we’d be talking about there is requiring that 33 utility pole to be removed. Actually, not… that’s not actually a public benefit because it’s really 34 for the private benefit of the 13 residents… 13 homeowners who live down the street and so I 35 just don’t think we can do that. So, I’m going to be supporting something more in line with 36 what the developers are offering, so thank you for giving me an unusually long time to make 37 that… make those remarks.
38 39 Chair Summa: Commissioner Chang [note – Vice-Chair Chang]. 40 Item 7
Attachment D - August
9th excerpt verbatim PTC
minutes

Item 7: Staff Report
Pg.
61 Packet Pg. 203 of 449

_______________________

2.The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.

3.The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 Vice-Chair Chang: I would just like to provide a different perspective with what Commissioner 2 Hechtman spoke about. I actually agree with a lot of what Commissioner Hechtman said in 3 terms of it is not our job to reassign property rights but in this situation its actually a little bit 4 different. The application at hand that we were first asked to consider was to amend a PC and 5 in that situation we’re being asked to grant a property owner additional rights which was to 6 give them the ability to build an additional house where one is not allowed and permitted right 7 now. And so, we’re actually being asked to give rights and in exchange, we’re asking to make 8 something safer. Not necessarily to give rights to only 13 property owners but really what we’re 9 doing is trying to make things safer for all… for the rest of our City. For all the people who 10 traverse that opening on Ellsworth. There’s quite a lot of bicyclists and pedestrians who are 11 using that sidewalk. Particularly, given the proximity to the Midtown shopping area and also 12 lots of young children using it to get to Winder Lodge and the Kim Grant Tennis Center and just 13 lots of pedestrians in general. Those of us who did site visits I’m sure saw lots of pedestrians 14 and bicyclists and in addition, there’s the school across the street and the Middlefield itself is a 15 really busy thoroughfare so lots of cars. And so, we’re just trying to make this area safer 16 because no matter what those… no matter what those 13 households do have to use Ellsworth 17 for ingress and egress and if we make it safer for them to go in and out at that opening. We 18 make it safer for everybody else at that intersection and so that’s how I looked at it. 19 20 And I agree 100 percent with Commissioner Hechtman that it is the front section, the front 21 most section that is the most important and the reason when I was making the motion last time 22 I heard this. That I settled on 26-feet was because I looked at our City’s own ordinances and 23 what is currently considered the bare minimum in terms of safety for a private street serving 24 this number of residents and the bare minimum is 26-feet. In fact, it requires special Director 25 approval to go down to 20 and usually it’s not in this type of situation. There’s actually a whole 26 bunch of other situations mentioned but not this situation. Usually its if there’s parking 27 separating a building and the private street and there just isn’t any of those things in this 28 situation that would grant the exception to be… that would allow a Director to make that 29 exception. That said, I understand that this is an existing situation but also, we’re… it’s an 30 existing situation and we are granting the applicant the ability to change the existing situation. 31 And so that’s why it’s incumbent upon us as the Planning and Transportation Commission to 32 make sure that it remains safe for the rest of Midtown Palo Alto. There’s lots of accidents that 33 happen on Middlefield, lots and lots of accidents that happen on Middlefield. So, that’s an 34 alternative perspective and why at least regardless of how we decide to do this. An execution 35 PC or R-1 with deed restriction, I think it’s pretty important to do it. Thanks. 36 37 Chair Summa: Thank you. Commissioner Akin.
38 39 Commissioner Akin: I’d just like to put in a word of support for the section of Ellsworth that’s 40 not immediately at Middlefield. Folks have pointed out that we have a delivery vehicle problem Item 7
Attachment D - August
9th excerpt verbatim PTC
minutes

Item 7: Staff Report
Pg.
62 Packet Pg. 204 of 449

_______________________

2.The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.

3.The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 and its recognized that it’s difficult enough for delivery vehicles to get in and out, but the 2 applicants are generously willing to reserve some space to allow the delivery vehicles to park. 3 And when I raised the question of what the turning movements would be at the previous 4 meeting. The transportation consultant described well, you would pull in there and then you 5 would back up into Mr. Handa’s driveway so that you could complete the turn and then exit. So, 6 we find ourselves in this odd position of arguing on the one hand that this property that 7 comprises the parking spaces now is private property and not useable for the folks who live 8 further down on Ellsworth. And yes, the only solutions we can come up with involve using other 9 private property to solve the same problems. So, I think there’s a clue here that there is just not 10 enough space for a simple answer. Thanks.
11 12 Chair Summa: Put those thoughts on hold for a second, it’s not 10:30. Do we want to… we have 13 I think Staff waiting for Item 3. Do we want to… I think we should let them go if we’re thinking 14 we’re not going to get to that item, but I’m happy to go ahead and try to get that item done 15 too. What are my colleagues thinking?
16 17 Commissioner Lu: I’m personally also happy to get to it but also want to be sensitive of… I mean 18 restriction for anyone else.
19 20 Ms. French: I was going to note, we don’t… I don’t think we have Staff. I think we have 21 consultants here and then we (interrupted)
22 23 Chair Summa: Well, their feelings count too.
24 25 Ms. French: I know, I’m Staff for the project and possible George Hoyt is here. He’s not here, 26 okay, so they’re getting paid.
27 28 Chair Summa: Commissioner Hechtman, your… did you want to…? 29 30 Commissioner Hechtman: I can go either way.
31 32 Chair Summa: Okay, let’s just carry on then. I don’t see any lights so I’m going to make a 33 comment and I also agree with some of what Commissioner Hechtman said but I feel like… and 34 I have a lot of respect for Commissioner Hechtman but he is not our City Attorney. He’s a very 35 fine attorney I’m sure and I… so I don’t know. That argument was unusual. I didn’t hear from 36 our City Attorney and but I will note that as an R-1… the PC allows Mr. Handa more flexibility 37 than he would have as an R-1 property because the City doesn’t even have to grant… the City 38 does not have to allow a new non-conforming property to be built on it at all. So, I think the PC 39 initially… I also recall that I think Mr. Handa wanted his own PC and the PC gives us a little Item 7
Attachment D - August
9th excerpt verbatim PTC
minutes

Item 7: Staff Report
Pg.
63 Packet Pg. 205 of 449

_______________________

2.The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.

3.The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 control but also gives Mr. Handa much more flexibility and the final decision makers and what 2 Mr. Handa it does give him more flexibility.
3 4 I’m very moved by what Commissioner Akin just said and I think it’s… if I heard him right he was 5 expressing concern that there’s sort of conundrum here that we don’t have enough space to 6 need what we… to do what we need to do in this location. And that’s kind of the Palo Alto… I 7 won’t say process but the problem that I often see is and my analogy is somebody with a size 8 ten foot is trying to squeeze into a size 6 shoes. So, we have… we really need to compromise 9 here to get something that makes everybody happy and I believe there was overreach in the 10 process and we have not allowed that. For instance, the determination of private or public 11 street was not our Agenda as much as I know the people… people really care about it. It wasn’t 12 agendized, it wasn’t part of this process but this is an amendment of a PC and a creation of a 13 new PC and those are supposed to have public benefit. 14 15 I cannot find a way to think that 26-foot, which is a minimum width for a private street in Palo 16 Alto, and by the way does not serve a street with that many houses at the end of it legally. So, it 17 is a real compromise, the 26 and I do not think it keeps… I think Mr. Dewey gets to do what he 18 wants to do and that makes me happy. I think Mr. Handa gets to do what he wants to do with 19 maybe a slight change to where his front fence is or the nature of the fence. Meaning material 20 and how open it as Commissioner Hechtman pointed out. And it also gives the other people 21 that use this private street, their guests and all the future people that will own houses or own 22 properties that are served by this a real improvement to the intersection. So, I don’t know, 23 I’m… I don’t think it’s an unreasonable compromise at 26-feet and I really appreciate that all 24 the parties have offered so much.
25 26 I also think Commissioner Akin had an interesting idea earlier this evening in proposing that if it 27 was 24-feet but the last pole, which doesn’t have high… what does it have? It doesn’t have a lot 28 of equipment on it.
29 30 Commissioner Akin: Yeah, it’s not power, just low voltage stuff. 31 32 Chair Summa: Yeah, it’s just internet and stuff, it doesn’t have power. You know that… all… 33 even… you know at one point we were going to underground all the power poles in Palo Alto 34 and that has been abandoned but this is just one pole. So, we have to find a compromise here 35 and I’m not sure exactly what to do but I do see Mr. Yang. 36 37 Mr. Yang: Yeah so I just wanted to comment that I think many of the principles that 38 Commissioner Hechtman laid out are correct and there are potentially some limitations on the 39 City’s ability to exact more than what the applicant is offering here. Specifically, the difference 40 between 24 and 26-feet, but it’s something that I would want to look into further and so if that Item 7
Attachment D - August
9th excerpt verbatim PTC
minutes

Item 7: Staff Report
Pg.
64 Packet Pg. 206 of 449

_______________________

2.The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.

3.The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 did make it into a final recommendation from the Commission. I guess I would just request that 2 there be a caveat subject to additional legal research. 3 4 Chair Summa: Okay and I would like to suggest that another caveat that we… the… regardless 5 that any body considering this be brought real information about the cost of underground poles 6 or removing poles and that sort of thing. Because I think that would be helpful to for the City 7 Council or us if this should happen to come back to us again. Would… oh, I see Commissioner 8 Reckdahl has a light.
9 10 Commissioner Reckdahl: I had a question for Mr. Yang. This original PC is many years old and 11 people have been using this extra width for many years. Have they met the threshold for a 12 prescriptive easement?
13 14 Mr. Yang: I’m not able to comment on that. I think it’s unlikely but yeah, I can’t provide a 15 definitive answer.
16 17 Commissioner Reckdahl: Okay, thank you.
18 19 Chair Summa: Commissioner Hechtman.
20 21 Commissioner Hechtman: Yeah, kind of comment and a question. First just to point out to the 22 Vice-Chair Chang that the sort of the premise that here’s why we can do what we’re trying to 23 do. They’ve come to us asking for permission to do something that they currently can’t do. 24 Well, that’s true, it also perfectly describes every permit application in the City because that’s 25 the only time you apply for a permit is when you can’t do it without a permit and so I think that 26 that is a distinction. The fact that they are… the thing they are asking to do is build a house 27 doesn’t really change the rules.
28 29 I was curious about one of the suggestions that Ms. Van Fleet had mentioned because I hadn’t 30 thought of it and I hadn’t heard about it before but her comment was on the apron. You know, 31 the apron that connects Middlefield to the asphalt of Ellsworth and how it’s concrete 32 composition makes it feel more like a driveway whereas an asphalt composition would make it 33 feel more like a street. And I think she even mentioned, you know maybe you put bots, those 34 little bumper bots like we do our streets, to make it feel more like a street and I think the 35 concept there is to alert bicyclists and pedestrians approach that this is a street. This is more 36 like a street because it again, it’s feeding 13 plus houses and maybe even to have that kind of 37 effect on the travelers along Middlefield who see something that looks more like a street 38 emptying into their drive path. And so, I’m just wondering, of course I realize that would be an 39 extra expense to the developers but I was… what I’m mostly wondering is whether in Staff’s 40 discussion with the applicants was this ever explored? Are there reasons why it can’t be done? Item 7
Attachment D - August
9th excerpt verbatim PTC
minutes

Item 7: Staff Report
Pg.
65 Packet Pg. 207 of 449

_______________________

2.The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.

3.The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 2 Ms. French: Sorry, I was thinking about the next item and the people but the suggestion was to 3 make the pavement go (interrupted)
4 5 Commissioner Hechtman: Yeah, so this idea of… yeah, this asphalt… so some work is going to 6 have to be done on that apron right now to widen it out to 28 as proposed, 30 as the motion 7 last week. So, works… it’s going to be torn up and the question is could you tear out the rest of 8 it and make it asphalt so it looked more like… the streets in both directions. Those are asphalt 9 coming into Middlefield and so I don’t know if we have… because it’s a private road it’s not 10 allowed to have asphalt in that location?
11 12 Ms. French: So (interrupted)
13 14 Commissioner Hechtman: I don’t know if Ms. Star-Lack is still with us. 15 16 Ms. French: Maybe… Sylvia Star-Lack is here but then… so I mean obviously having pedestrians 17 step down, we’d want to have ADA curb from the sideway. If you’re carving in (interrupted) 18 19 Commissioner Hechtman: It would have to be just like the streets, right? They have a required 20 grade down with those bumper bots and then it’s flat across the street. There also may be 21 drainage issues because of the way this… right and so all of that would have to be taken into 22 account.
23 24 Ms. French: Sure, it would have to be studied.
25 26 Commissioner Hechtman: I’m just wondering if it’s… I’m mostly wondering was it ever 27 discussed and discarded or just never came up before? 28 29 Ms. French: It wasn’t… it didn’t come up during this process. It would have to be studied. We’d 30 need Public Works Engineering at the table.
31 32 Commissioner Hechtman: Okay, thank you.
33 34 Chair Summa: Okay I guess at this point I should be looking for motions from colleagues. 35 Anyone like to take a stab at it? Well, it would be… Commissioner Hechtman, are you hitting a 36 button?
37 38 Commissioner Hechtman: Yeah, I was waiting to see if anyone else… I’m… again I don’t like to 39 hog all the motion making but I’m happy to take the first stab at it. 40 Item 7
Attachment D - August
9th excerpt verbatim PTC
minutes

Item 7: Staff Report
Pg.
66 Packet Pg. 208 of 449

_______________________

2.The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.

3.The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 [note- video skipped]
2 3 Commissioner Akin: I don’t have any sense of… I don’t have any feeling of consensus so there’s 4 a… are we just developing something to shoot down and the move on to the next? Sorry, as my 5 experience is limited, I’m not quite sure how to proceed. 6 7 Commissioner Hechtman: Well (interrupted)
8 9 Chair Summa: I can (interrupted)
10 11 Commissioner Hechtman: I’m willing to take a… yeah, why don’t I put a motion on the table. 12 Maybe if somebody could second it for discussion purposes and then we can start picking it 13 apart and finding where the issues are. Alright?
14 15 Chair Summa: If that’s what you’d like to do, thank you. 16 17 MOTION #1
18 19 Commissioner Hechtman: Yep, okay. Before I make the motion, I just want to mention that 20 when I read the two draft ordinance which are attached as Attachment A and B. One thing I 21 noticed is that there was kind of a bleed over in the first one, the Middlefield, of a bunch of 22 stuff about 702 Ellsworth. And in the 702 Ellsworth, it was kind of the flip, a bleed over of the 23 Middlefield stuff and that kind of… and so the result was things particularly for example, when 24 you had the environmental provisions there. They got kind of… the distinctions got kind of 25 blurred. So, I did bring that to Mr. Yang’s attention earlier today that I thought you really don’t 26 need all the redundancy and repetition. What you really just need is in each of the ordinance 27 which is already in Subpart C, kind of a cross reference that we had this one PC that covered 28 two properties. Now we’re doing two separate PCs and so there may be… Mr. Yang and our 29 legal counsel have to decide how to handle that but that… so the motion I’m going to make is 30 basically subject to whatever sort of these non-substantive changes that Staff may make to the 31 ordinance as it travels to Council.
32 33 So, with that background, I will move that the PTC recommend to the Council adoption of the 34 attached draft Planned Community PC Ordinances and the accompanying development exhibit 35 plans for… well, I guess I got to read all this. PC 2343 Amendment Ordinance, Attachment A for 36 the existing 12 unit apartment building at 2901 to 2905 Middlefield Road; to remove the parcel 37 at 702 Ellsworth Place, expand the width of the roadway onto the property at 2901 to 2905 38 Middlefield as proposed by the applicant meaning 30 inch expansion; provide one on site 39 delivery truck space to serve Ellsworth Place frontage properties and four on site uncovered 40 parking spaces and relocate a purtenances to enable the Ellsworth Place road widening.

Item 7
Attachment D - August
9th excerpt verbatim PTC
minutes

Item 7: Staff Report
Pg.
67 Packet Pg. 209 of 449

_______________________

2.The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.

3.The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 2 B) 702 Ellsworth Place PC Ordinance, Attachment B, to able the removal of the apartments 3 guest parking lot previously required with PC 2343 and the development of a single-family 4 residences show in the Development Plan with indicated specific minimum setbacks. Including 5 a 6-foot setback on the creek side unless a greater setback is determined through a soil stability 6 analysis; the expansion of the width of Ellsworth Place roadway by 18-inches for approximately 7 42-feet as proposed by the applicant; and the restrictions on the front yard height and 8 landscaping with a suggestion that the applicant consider utilizing a 3-foot rod iron fence in 9 place of a wood fence with 3-inch wide slates between. 10 11 Chair Summa: I think you might have meant 24, not 42. 12 13 Commissioner Hechtman: Sorry, it said a 42-foot long 18-inch strip. 14 15 Chair Summa: Oh [unintelligible]
16 17 Commissioner Hechtman: Is… right, the 24-feet is a different measurement. Yeah, that’s the 18 special setback, right and then I’m proposing that that is per the ordinance… per the draft 19 ordinance which references with the correct as Mr. Hayes noted and Staff also noted in their 20 slides. It’s 25-feet for the Middlefield and 24 for the Ellsworth. There’s actually different special 21 setbacks for those. Okay, so I think that is the complete motion. 22 23 Chair Summa: Do I have a seconder?
24 25 SECOND
26 27 Commissioner Lu: I’ll second.
28 29 Chair Summa: Seconded by Commissioner Lu. Discussion or would you like to speak to your 30 motion? Sorry.
31 32 Commissioner Hechtman: Well, just very briefly to say I think this is the right way to go. I think 33 it’s the way we need to go. I want to deliver to our City Council a recommendation that ideally 34 they would just adopt and I’m concerned that the alternatives considered for this motion may 35 present them a situation where they can’t adopt our recommendation an are wondering why 36 we made it. So, I have some what of a concern about our credibility with the Council and 37 wanting to avoid risking that. Recognizing that they have the ability to themselves explore a 38 wider initial portion of the road than we might recommend. 39 40 Chair Summa: Commissioner Lu, did you want to speak to your second? Item 7
Attachment D - August
9th excerpt verbatim PTC
minutes

Item 7: Staff Report
Pg.
68 Packet Pg. 210 of 449

_______________________

2.The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.

3.The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 2 Commissioner Lu: I generally agree with Commissioner Hechtman. I think urban infill is 3 generally how we should build and I mean specially when you compare it to the open space 4 project that we were just looking at. I think the concessions from the applicants are reasonable. 5 I think the safety issues are largely preexisting. I think there’s still a lot of problems that need 6 solving but it’s hard for me to clearly reconcile how this project makes those worse. So, yeah, I 7 second.
8 9 Chair Summa: Thank you. I don’t see any lights so I will say that I think the Council would find 10 equally creditable the very small difference between 24-foot street and 26-foot street, a fence 11 further back or as Commissioner Hechtman recommended a fence that is largely open. Really 12 largely open but sort of symbolic of like don’t come across… up this. But what I find entirely 13 missing from this is any idea… any… that it does not address my concern that this is something 14 that could evaporate because it does not contain a… any new easement or even a condition of 15 approval for the PC that would give certainty that this was available for everybody to use as 16 part of the road. And my example earlier was what if somebody some day decides they want to 17 put pots of geraniums in the 18-inches or 2 ½-feet or whatever it is. And I think built into a PC 18 Zone is the idea of public benefit and I think negotiating that I have never known negotiating 19 the public benefit to be considered not legal for some reason. I’m just… I never have. I mean it 20 is a real negotiation so I don’t find the lack of credibility compelling. I find a slight difference in 21 the two things but with a fence and a 26 versus 24-feet. But it completely lacks any certainty 22 that the additional whatever it ends up being part of the street would remain… would be 23 guaranteed for everybody to use. Including people in the apartment building and anybody who 24 lives in any of the Ellsworth addresses or owns them. So, that’s where I’m at. Comments? 25 Commissioner Chang [note – Vice-Chair Chang].
26 27 Vice-Chair Chang: Sure, as written I won’t be supporting this motion. I would have supported a 28 motion that recommended the Staff recommendation with a few modifications. The change 29 about the 6-foot setback with the creek unless [unintelligible] back is recommended makes 30 sense to me. The rod iron fence, I would support fence that’s largely see through up front. That 31 would be fine or no fence or a very short fence. And then I’m… I concur with Commissioner 32 Summa’s or with Chair Summa’s comments about needing something that indicates that the 33 widening of the private street is a Condition of Approval or an easement or something that is 34 more permanent. And I stand by needing the 26-feet which is kind of where we had landed last 35 time.
36 37 Chair Summa: Commissioner Lu.
38 39 Commissioner Lu: I’ll just agree that we should make the language about the easement explicit 40 in the recommendation.

Item 7
Attachment D - August
9th excerpt verbatim PTC
minutes

Item 7: Staff Report
Pg.
69 Packet Pg. 211 of 449

_______________________

2.The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.

3.The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 2 Chair Summa: So, would you like to withdrawn your second or would you like to suggest an 3 amendment or…?
4 5 Commissioner Lu: I’m reading it and thinking about an amendment but I’ll… get back to me. 6 7 Chair Summa: Other comments?
8 9 Commissioner Hechtman: I have a couple. Sorry and really just responsive. First, the Chair, 10 even though this won’t sway you to support the motion. Mr. Yang did mention earlier that this 11 concept of including language in both PCs about… and what I wrote down here as this view is to 12 effect that the areas that this 30-inch wide either… I can’t… I don’t know if it’s 35 or 37-foot 13 long strip on the Middlefield parcel and this 18-inch wide, 42-foot long strip on the Ellsworth 14 property parcel. That will be paved and blended into the pavement of the road be kept clear of 15 impediments to traffic travel. So, I would add that… make that amendment to my own motion 16 to address that. It doesn’t solve the permanence problem with I acknowledge but because 17 we’re moving… again, my belief is we can’t extract easements and what we’ve heard from the 18 applicant is that they are not offering to grant any easement on the Middlefield side. They 19 would only grant the easement on the Ellsworth side if we were using conventional R-1 zoning, 20 which my motion does not do. It uses the PC Zone and so we don’t have in my estimation an 21 offer to grant and easement and for the reasons I expressed before. I’m not wanting to include 22 that in the motion. So, our protection will be the PC zoning, the same reason that people are 23 here today to change… to make a change to the PC zoning that exists, the 2343. This is the 24 process that you would have to go through to get rid of that 30-inch strip on the Middlefield 25 side or the 18-inch strip. Right, you’d have to apply to the City for a permit, there would be 26 public hearings and notice to neighbors and that’s our protection. That it’s permanent unless 27 something different comes along and a decision making body of this City decides that that 28 different thing justifies a change.
29 30 Chair Summa: Commissioner Lu, did you want to… are you still thinking? 31 32 Commissioner Lu: [unintelligible -off mic]
33 34 Chair Summa: Okay, yeah I think it would be better done as an easement to be honest and I 35 guess that this whole case really is proof of why I think that would be better done that way 36 because PCs… the meanings of PCs get lost over time and I don’t find this strong enough. And I 37 also think… I think you might find that giving the Council a range from 24 to 26 for them to 38 decide might be a more successful type of motion here because I think a lot of people really feel 39 it’s reasonable the 26. I mean a significant benefit; financial benefit has been given to both 40 sides and there are other benefits. Such as a nice new home in Palo Alto. No one denies that Item 7
Attachment D - August
9th excerpt verbatim PTC
minutes

Item 7: Staff Report
Pg.
70 Packet Pg. 212 of 449

_______________________

2.The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.

3.The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 but I just think we’ve kind of lost perspective a little bit. That we can offer a range to the 2 Council and let them decide what they think is better since they are the decision making body 3 and that might be more agreeable to a majority of the Commission. 4 5 Commissioner Hechtman: I feel like Chair, at least you may not be… well, if you understand the 6 nature of my motion and its reasoning. You know that I can’t offer… the only range I could offer 7 is a reduction. Since my range is premised, since my motion is premised on the most that we 8 can ask for is what they are offering. That’s a premise is so I can’t make a motion consistent 9 with that premise that includes more than they are offering and so and I’m not going to do that. 10 It may be that my… it could be that Commissioner Lu, you know now that I’ve clarified that I 11 don’t want to make easements explicit. In fact, I explicitly don’t want to include easements. 12 That may cause him to withdraw his second that and that’s fine and if so then then motion will 13 die for lack of a second and somebody else can make a motion with a range or with some other 14 figure.
15 16 Chair Summa: Okay. Commissioner Lu, are you (interrupted) 17 18 Commissioner Lu: Can we briefly check with the applicants just to confirm that they are… would 19 not be willing to have easements on both sides for two PCs zones? 20 21 Chair Summa: We can but we… we could do that if you need to but I thought you were 22 considering either withdrawing your second or suggesting an amendment. And I (interrupted) 23 24 Commissioner Lu: Well, if the applicants agree to that then we can add an amendment with 25 explicit reference to easements and I would be happy to keep the motion as it is. 26 27 Chair Summa: Okay so (interrupted)
28 29 Commissioner Lu: Or, I think both Commissioner Hechtman and I would be open to that 30 amendment and I think it would maybe make some other folks happier too. 31 32 Chair Summa: Because I am kind of concerned we’re getting a little in the weeds here and we 33 should vote on this pretty soon if (interrupted)
34 35 Commissioner Hechtman: I like Mr. Lu’s [note – Commissioner Lu] suggestion and it may well 36 be that the applicants are not comfortable offering easements on Middlefield or with a PC on 37 Ellsworth. And if so, then we’ll have that answer and that Mr. Lu [note – Commissioner Lu] can 38 decide whether to withdraw his second.
39 40 Chair Summa: Okay, why don’t you pose your question to the applicants.

Item 7
Attachment D - August
9th excerpt verbatim PTC
minutes

Item 7: Staff Report
Pg.
71 Packet Pg. 213 of 449

_______________________

2.The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.

3.The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 2 Commissioner Lu: I think they understand the question. 3 4 Chair Summa: Okay.
5 6 Commissioner Lu: Hopefully, yeah I think or just the way we’ve used our terminology 7 (interrupted)
8 9 Chair Summa: You’re probably not (interrupted)
10 11 Commissioner Lu: Yeah, the way we’ve used our terminology over the last two meetings has 12 been a little bit sloppy so I think this point is not actually clear to me. 13 14 Mr. Hayes: I’m sorry, I had to take a minute there. 15 16 Chair Summa: That’s fine.
17 18 Mr. Hayes: I can only speak on behalf of my client and so that would be the Middlefield parcel 19 and we would be willing to make an easement as part of the PC for that 30-inch portion. Mr. 20 Handa would have to speak for himself.
21 22 Mr. Handa: You know, for my parcel I would still prefer if you can do it as R-1 zoning and then 23 we can do it as an easement but if that doesn’t work and you know, there’s… that option is 24 completely out of table and the only way forward is to make it as an easement as PC. Then you 25 know that… then it is what it is.
26 27 Chair Summa: So, the option of R-1 is not on the table right now so if you would like to answer 28 the… Commissioner Lu’s question it might be helpful. 29 30 Mr. Handa: I’m sorry, can you repeat the question that is…? 31 32 Commissioner Lu: I think he did answer. I think you said as very un-ideal but it would be 33 acceptable to have an easement on an additional PC.
34 35 Mr. Handa: Right.
36 37 Commissioner Lu: Yeah.
38 39 Mr. Handa: If that’s the only way to move forward, you know then (interrupted) 40 Item 7
Attachment D - August
9th excerpt verbatim PTC
minutes

Item 7: Staff Report
Pg.
72 Packet Pg. 214 of 449

_______________________

2.The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.

3.The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 Commissioner Lu: Sure.
2 3 Chair Summa: Thank you, Mr. Handa.
4 5 MOTION AMENDED BY THE MAKER
6 7 Commissioner Hechtman: And so, then I would clarify that the motion I made, which in this 8 regard relates to the proposals of the owner of Middlefield and of Ellsworth, includes the 9 proposals that they’ve just verified. That the specified paved strip, 30-inches by either 35 or 37- 10 feet on Middlefield and 18-inches by 42, would be the subject of an easement granted 11 respectively by each of those two owners to the owners of the existing 20-foot wide easement 12 for Ellsworth Place and that’s voluntarily offered by each of those two property owners. So, I 13 would clarify that that is the intent of my motion.
14 15 Chair Summa: Thank you, Commissioner Hechtman. I’m just going to read it really quickly. 16 17 Commissioner Hechtman: [note- video skipped – began mid-sentence] finish typing and then I 18 have at least one correction to get the language right. You ready? 19 20 Ms. Dao: Yeah, what’s your correction?
21 22 Commissioner Hechtman: So, in B, the fourth line that start “6-foot setback from”… it’s the 23 creek part property. Yeah, “unless”, and “it’s a greater setback is recommended by the stability 24 analysis” rather than a lesser so it could be more. It’s not going to be closer than 6-feet but it 25 could end up being more. Okay, alright and in B, the next line, “expansion of the paved” lets put 26 “paved width of Ellsworth Place by 18-inches for” it’s the first 42-feet. The first 42-feet length. 27 28 Ms. French: Commissioner Hechtman, can I just throw out there something because you’re 29 talking about the paved width and as we know it’s not… the paved width is currently beyond 30 the 20-foot easement so a factor.
31 32 Commissioner Hechtman: Oh, “by 18-inches” I guess we would say “from the edge of the 20- 33 foot easement”. That would… that should work. After 18-inches, “from the edge of the 20-foot 34 easement”.
35 36 Chair Summa: Commissioner Hechtman, do you want to add language that is analogist to the 37 42-feet for the other?
38 39 Commissioner Hechtman: Yeah, I do, I do. So, I just want to make sure we got this right. Yeah, 40 so now let’s go up to A and its “expand the”… so in the second line, “expand the paved width of Item 7
Attachment D - August
9th excerpt verbatim PTC
minutes

Item 7: Staff Report
Pg.
73 Packet Pg. 215 of 449

_______________________

2.The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.

3.The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 Ellsworth Place roadway on the property at 2901 to 2905 Middlefield by”… here’s where we’re 2 going to add “by 30-inches from the edge of the 20”… well, it’s actually from the property line, 3 right which… because that easement runs… right? “For the first” and here Staff, is it 35 or 37- 4 feet?
5 6 Ms. French: 37 is to the guy wire.
7 8 Commissioner Hechtman: Okay, 37-feet, “for the first 37-foot length” 9 10 [note – several folks started talking at once off mic] 11 12 Commissioner Hechtman: Okay, “the first 37 length as proposed by applicant”. Okay, so 13 because we’ve… and then C, we have now the specified “paved strips would be the subject to 14 an easement which has been voluntarily offered to the residents on Ellsworth by both 15 applicants respectively”. Okay, so let me just point out that with this iteration of the motion, 16 this idea that the area has to be kept clear of impediments, we don’t need that because the 17 nature of an easement is it has to be useable for it’s purpose. And so, like that’s why we don’t 18 have to tell the Ellsworth person he can’t put stuff in the middle of the 20-foot roadway. Yeah, 19 so I’m just saying that’s why I’m not including it here (interrupted) 20 21 Chair Summa: Yes, thanks.
22 23 Commissioner Hechtman: Because we’ve not got it covered in C in a better way and I thank the 24 applicant, both of them for considering this. Hopefully this is the path forward, we’ll see. 25 Alright, so that my revised motion and I guess the question for you, Commissioner Lu, is are you 26 standing by your second?
27 28 Commissioner Lu: Yes.
29 30 Chair Summa: Awesome, thank you for that and thank you to the applicants for being flexible. 31 So, unless somebody has something to say, I’m going to call… ask for the vote. 32 33 Mr. Sauls: I did just want to clarify one last item on B. Just at the end about the 3-foot 34 wroughtrod iron fence, if there’s any sort of specific location as was discussed earlier, that 35 should be referenced too.
36 37 Commissioner Hechtman: So (interrupted)
38 39 Mr. Sauls: Meaning, you know is this respective to the sight distance triangle or other locations 40 shown on the plans.

Item 7
Attachment D - August
9th excerpt verbatim PTC
minutes

Item 7: Staff Report
Pg.
74 Packet Pg. 216 of 449

_______________________

2.The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.

3.The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 2 Commissioner Hechtman: So, my intention was to utilize the location of the fence shown on the 3 plans submitted for 702 Ellsworth, which as I understand it are 4-feet behind the sidewalk. Is 4 that right?
5 6 Mr. Sauls: Correct.
7 8 Commissioner Hechtman: Yeah, so my motion does not propose a relocation of that fence 9 beyond what… from the location proposed by the applicant. 10 11 Mr. Sauls: Okay, thank you.
12 13 Chair Summa: Everybody ready to vote? Okay.
14 15 VOTE
16 17 Ms. Dao: Commissioner Akin?
18 19 Commissioner Akin: With great reluctance, yes.
20 21 Ms. Dao: Vice-Chair Chang?
22 23 Vice-Chair Chang: No.
24 25 Ms. Dao: Commissioner Hechtman?
26 27 Commissioner Hechtman: Yes.
28 29 Ms. Dao: Commissioner Lu?
30 31 Commissioner Lu: Yes.
32 33 Ms. Dao: Commissioner Reckdahl?
34 35 Commissioner Reckdahl: No.
36 37 Ms. Dao: Chair Summa?
38 39 Chair Summa: Nope.
40 Item 7
Attachment D - August
9th excerpt verbatim PTC
minutes

Item 7: Staff Report
Pg.
75 Packet Pg. 217 of 449

_______________________

2.The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.

3.The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 Ms. Dao: Motion fails 3-3.
2 3 MOTION FAILED 3(Akin, Lu, Hechtman) -3(Chang, Reckdahl, Summa) -1 (Templeton absent) 4 5 Chair Summa: So, in order, Commissioner Chang [note – Vice-Chair Chang], Commissioner 6 Reckdahl, would you like to speak to your no votes?
7 8 Vice-Chair Chang: Sure, I think I said it before. I mean the… my reason for the 26, I know it feel 9 small but at the sidewalk the 26 is really important for safety. There’s a reason it’s in our Code, I 10 feel strongly about the safety of Midtown, I think it is incumbent upon us as the Planning and 11 Transportation Commission to look out for the safety of our residents. Thanks. 12 13 Commissioner Reckdahl: I would echo that, also the sight triangle I think we need to have 14 nothing above 1-foot in the south sight triangle.
15 16 Chair Summa: I would agree with my colleagues who just spoke. So, I think given the hour, we 17 should make a decision about whether we’re hearing the third thing because now we have to 18 continue with this item.
19 20 Ms. French: Well, I gave George permission to leave. He has to be awake in the morning at 7 so 21 or start work. So, if anyone where to have Building Code related questions, we don’t have our 22 Chief Building Official for that third item.
23 24 Chair Summa: Colleagues, would you like to continue the item or would like to… I mean we 25 have to continue with Mr. Handa and Dewey project but would you like to continue the third 26 item?
27 28 Commissioner Reckdahl: Yeah, I don’t see any way that we’re going to make that in a timely 29 manner so I think we’re going to… probably just punt that one to the next meeting. 30 31 Chair Summa: Go ahead.
32 33 Commissioner Hechtman: Yeah, so I think so too. I think this could… this could item could take 34 us a while longer and so really the… I guess the question I would have for Staff is right now we 35 have nothing on our 8/30 Agenda, for August 30 th. Right, we talked about that at the beginning 36 of the meeting so we could move this last item, the electrification, to that. It would be the sole 37 item or we could move it to September 13 th and so I guess one of the questions I have is your 38 sense of the September 13 th that’s it’s already going to be a very full Agenda? 39 40 Ms. French: Yes, that’s a full Agenda.

Item 7
Attachment D - August
9th excerpt verbatim PTC
minutes

Item 7: Staff Report
Pg.
76 Packet Pg. 218 of 449

_______________________

2.The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.

3.The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 2 Commissioner Hechtman: Alright, so it sounds like we should move it to… just move it to August 3 30 th and have a short meeting.
4 5 Chair Summa: Does that work for you Ms. French because I know there was (interrupted) 6 7 Ms. French: There’s been pressure to bring it back to Council, the electrification item. 8 9 Chair Summa: But does it work for you to have to have a meeting on the 30 th? 10 11 Ms. French: Yes.
12 13 Chair Summa: Okay, alright, would you like to make a motion… would somebody like to make… 14 would you like to make a motion to move it to the 30 th? 15 16 Commissioner Hechtman: Maybe somebody else can.
17 18 Mr. Yang: We should wait until we can conclude with this and then we can make that formal 19 motion to continue it later. Yeah, thanks.
20 21 Chair Summa: Alright, so back to the matter at hand. So, what I’m looking for is an alternate 22 motion.
23 24 Commissioner Lu: Would… oh, do you want to go first? 25 26 Commissioner Hechtman: It seems like from what I’ve heard from the Commissioners who 27 voted no, the interest by those Commissioners would be at a minimum increasing the 30-inches 28 on Middlefield and the 18-inchs on Ellsworth. And it wasn’t really clear to me whether the 29 intention there, since we’re 2-feet short… since 24 was that motion and there’s Commissioners 30 looking for 26. Whether they were thinking it was 1-foot on each side or 2-feet on just one 31 side? So, I think you could clarify that and that would fit it. 32 33 I also think probably to address Commissioner Reckdahl’s issue, there would need to be a 34 change at the end of B where I’ve referenced the rod iron fence. 35 36 Also, I know that in the motion on… at the last meeting, there was… I think it was part of the 37 motion that the easement would not just be for the first 37-feet on Middlefield or 42-feet on 38 the Ellsworth property but for the full 100-feet.
39 Item 7
Attachment D - August
9th excerpt verbatim PTC
minutes

Item 7: Staff Report
Pg.
77 Packet Pg. 219 of 449

_______________________

2.The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.

3.The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 Chair Summa: No, no, we actually… that was what was initially proposed and then we modified 2 that to accommodate both Mr. Dewey and Mr. Handa.
3 4 Commissioner Hechtman: Okay, alright so I’m happy that’s not on the [unintelligible]. 5 6 Chair Summa: So, and I think Ms. French can explain this but I think it was not evenly 7 distributed and I think it’s probably because it’s sort of unused area on… in a sense on the 8 Dewey side where as Mr. Handa is trying to put a house there. So, the distribution, it’s in our 9 Staff Report somewhere, it was (interrupted)
10 11 Vice-Chair Chang: It was an additional foot on each side. I have my hand up so I’m going to 12 (interrupted)
13 14 Commissioner Hechtman: Okay, yeah.
15 16 Vice-Chair Chang: I’ve having my hand up for a while. 17 18 Ms. French: That’s correct, that’s what (interrupted) 19 20 Chair Summa: It’s 36-inches and Ms. French will… it’s 36-inches I believe on 2901 and 21 (interrupted)
22 23 Ms. French: It was 3-foot 6 I believe, so it’s… it was going to be 30-inches but then you add a 24 foot to that and that makes it (interrupted)
25 26 Chair Summa: So, it’s 30… yeah.
27 28 Ms. French: It’s 36 plus another six so yeah.
29 30 Chair Summa: Okay, could you just verify where those numbers are in our Staff Report? I know 31 they’re here but…?
32 33 Ms. French: I was thinking it might be in the motion so Packet Page… sorry. Not (interrupted) 34 35 Commissioner Akin: There’s the clarification on Page 80 which describes an additional foot on 36 each property. Was that what you were after?
37 38 Chair Summa: I am looking… I am asking for if it where to be wider than the street to 26-feet. 39 What the distribution was on either side. It was not even from the middle the way Staff had 40 suggested it and it’s in here some place but if somebody could (interrupted) Item 7
Attachment D - August
9th excerpt verbatim PTC
minutes

Item 7: Staff Report
Pg.
78 Packet Pg. 220 of 449

_______________________

2.The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.

3.The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 2 Ms. French: Let’s see, 3-foot 6-inch wide asphalt is stated on Page 70… Packet Page 77 for the 3 Middlefield. It says 3-foot 6-inch wide asphalt.
4 5 Chair Summa: Okay.
6 7 Ms. French: Which is the same as saying 42-inchs, right? 8 9 Chair Summa: And then what is it for Ellsworth?
10 11 Ms. French: Well, then it would be 30-inches because it’s… right? 12 13 Commissioner Hechtman: No, well yeah, 30-inches.
14 15 Ms. French: 18-inches plus 12-inches.
16 17 Chair Summa: Yeah, okay that’s what I was doing [unintelligible](interrupted) 18 19 Commissioner Hechtman: Its on Packet Page 89, actually the draft resolution which refers to a 20 2-foot 6 inch which is 30-inch. So, it was an addition of 12-inches on each of the parcels. 21 22 Chair Summa: Okay, so if we make those changes, we can keep all of this language but make 23 the changes. The appropriate changes in both A and B. 24 25 Commissioner Hechtman: Yeah.
26 27 Chair Summa: And Commissioner Reckdahl, would you like to work on language for the sight 28 triangle on Ellsworth while Ms. Dao is working on updating the motion? 29 30 Commissioner Reckdahl: Can we assume that the term sight triangle is well defined or do we 31 have to define what a sight triangle is?
32 33 Mr. Sauls: The sight triangle is very clearly defined in our Fence Code handout so if you use that 34 term we’ll understand what you mean by it.
35 36 Commissioner Reckdahl: Okay, very good.
37 38 Mr. Sauls: But if you’re thinking of a different sight distance triangle that’s not described as that 39 45 degree angle with 35-feet on each side at the intersection of the curbs then obviously we 40 don’t have that.

Item 7
Attachment D - August
9th excerpt verbatim PTC
minutes

Item 7: Staff Report
Pg.
79 Packet Pg. 221 of 449

_______________________

2.The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.

3.The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 2 Commissioner Reckdahl: As I mentioned earlier, I think flatter would be better but at this point 3 I’m happy with just the standard 45 degree.
4 5 Commissioner Hechtman: Chair, let me mention that in the motion that we’re looking at now. 6 The draft motion that somebody might make, you need to take out of A and B “as proposed by 7 the applicant” because this version is not what they proposed. 8 9 Chair Summa: Yes.
10 11 Commissioner Hechtman: Right so its… okay and then similarly, I’ll wait for Ms. Dao to take care 12 of B. And then in C, I think you just have to take out everything after easement because those 13 26… those easements have not been offered.
14 15 Chair Summa: And then also the bit about the fence needs to be changed a bit too. 16 17 Commissioner Hechtman: That’s… yeah Keith’s [note – Commissioner Reckdahl] working on 18 that.
19 20 Chair Summa: And that’s… yeah.
21 22 Ms. Dao: Yes.
23 24 Commissioner Reckdahl: Oh okay, I’m sorry, so at the end of B, delete everything starting “and 25 restrictions on the front yard fence” and say “the sight triangle on the south side of Ellsworth” 26 (interrupted)
27 28 Vice-Chair Chang: It is by definition on Ellsworth because this… B is regarding Ellsworth. 29 30 Commissioner Reckdahl: Oh okay, well to… it doesn’t hurt to be clear about that I guess but it is 31 kind of redundant. “Shall not be obstructed by plants, fences or other objects taller than 1- 32 foot”.
33 34 Vice-Chair Chang: Sight should be s-i-g-h-t.
35 36 Commissioner Reckdahl: Oh yes.
37 38 Vice-Chair Chang: Just to be clear because I think we’re getting… we always get confused. 39 40 Ms. French: Might I weigh in just for a moment?
Item 7
Attachment D - August
9th excerpt verbatim PTC
minutes

Item 7: Staff Report
Pg.
80 Packet Pg. 222 of 449

_______________________

2.The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.

3.The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 2 Chair Summa: Please.
3 4 Ms. French: Because there’s a fire hydrant that’s taller than 1-foot. There’s some other things 5 that are there like (interrupted)
6 7 Chair Summa: Yeah, I don’t think this language (interrupted) 8 9 Ms. French: Stop signs and things.
10 11 Chair Summa: I think we want to be specific to the fence here. We don’t want them 12 (interrupted)
13 14 Commissioner Reckdahl: Yeah, I (interrupted)
15 16 Chair Summa: We’ve already said that they can keep existing trees and we don’t want to imply 17 that they have to remove the fire hydrant which is sort of okay… which is okay. So (interrupted) 18 19 Commissioner Reckdahl: I would say the fire hydrant if we say on the property (interrupted) 20 21 Chair Summa: And I think you want to just say where you want the fence and how high you 22 want it to be because the fence is the issue.
23 24 Commissioner Reckdahl: I don’t care where they put the fence as long as they don’t put it in the 25 sight triangle.
26 27 Chair Summa: Okay.
28 29 Commissioner Reckdahl: If they wanted to put a 1-foot fence in the sight triangle, I have no 30 problem with that.
31 32 Chair Summa: Why don’t we say “shall not be obstructed by new”… what was your word, 33 [unintelligible]?
34 35 Commissioner Hechtman: Impediments.
36 37 Chair Summa: Impediments.
38 39 Commissioner Reckdahl: Okay.
40 Item 7
Attachment D - August
9th excerpt verbatim PTC
minutes

Item 7: Staff Report
Pg.
81 Packet Pg. 223 of 449

_______________________

2.The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.

3.The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 Chair Summa: Including a fence but new impediments. We’re not telling them to move things 2 that are there. We don’t want new things.
3 4 Commissioner Reckdahl: Yeah, I mean right now there’s one tree there and the fire hydrant and 5 then a post. Okay, the fire hydrant is not on the property so they have no control over that 6 anyway.
7 8 Ms. French: True, just that it’s in the sight triangle. 9 10 MOTION #2
11 12 Chair Summa: Sight triangle on the south. Everybody happy with that language? Okay. Do I have 13 a second?
14 15 Commissioner Hechtman: Just before you second, I think… and again, I’m not supportive of this 16 motion. I’m just helping to craft it so it’s clear.
17 18 Chair Summa: Thank you.
19 20 Commissioner Hechtman: In C I think I had us take out a little to much language because we 21 have to say who the easement is to be granted too and that’s to… maybe we can go back up to 22 the motion that failed and see. I thought we made a reference to the residences on Ellsworth. 23 Okay, so back down to this one, “to an easement granted to the residents on Ellsworth”. 24 25 Chair Summa: That’s helpful, thank you.
26 27 Ms. French: Would it be residents or property owners? 28 29 Commissioner Hechtman: Well, it’s actually it’s the property owners. Right, it’s actually… it’s 30 not even the property owners. It’s the parcels. The easements granted, right, it runs with the 31 land. It’s to the… yeah.
32 33 Chair Summa: Everyone ready to vote? Okay Ms. Dao, would you please call the vote? 34 35 Vice-Chair Chang: Who is it moved by and who is it seconded by? 36 37 Chair Summa: Oh, good point.
38 39 Commissioner Hechtman: I think the Chair. I kind of got the sense that the Chair was building 40 the motion.

Item 7
Attachment D - August
9th excerpt verbatim PTC
minutes

Item 7: Staff Report
Pg.
82 Packet Pg. 224 of 449

_______________________

2.The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.

3.The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 2 Chair Summa: Okay, do I have a second for my motion? 3 4 SECOND
5 6 Commissioner Akin: I’ll second.
7 8 Chair Summa: Okay, seconded by… would you like to speak to your second? 9 10 Commissioner Akin: I think this is a better compromise that I hope we can make stand in 11 Council.
12 13 Chair Summa: Okay thank you. I don’t need to speak and if I may now ask Ms. Dao to call the 14 vote.
15 16 VOTE
17 18 Ms. Dao: Chair Summa?
19 20 Chair Summa: Yes.
21 22 Ms. Dao: Commissioner Reckdahl?
23 24 Commissioner Reckdahl: Yes.
25 26 Ms. Dao: Commissioner Lu?
27 28 Commissioner Lu: No.
29 30 Ms. Dao: Commissioner Hechtman?
31 32 Commissioner Hechtman: No.
33 34 Ms. Dao: Vice-Chair Chang?
35 36 Vice-Chair Chang: Yes.
37 38 Ms. Dao: Commissioner Akin?
39 40 Commissioner Akin: Yes.

Item 7
Attachment D - August
9th excerpt verbatim PTC
minutes

Item 7: Staff Report
Pg.
83 Packet Pg. 225 of 449

_______________________

2.The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.

3.The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 2 Ms. Dao: Motion carries 4-2.
3 4 MOTION PASSED 4(Akin, Chang Reckdahl, Summa) -2(Lu, Hechtman) -1(Templeton absent) 5 6 Chair Summa: Thank you very much. Would you like to speak to your no vote? 7 8 Commissioner Hechtman: Oh, well I guess I think I’ve made pretty clear my concern about our 9 ability to require an applicant to grant rights over it’s property to other private property 10 owners. At least under these circumstances if under… if not under all circumstances. 11 12 Chair Summa: Thank you. Commissioner Lu?
13 14 Commissioner Lu: I think my position is also mostly clear. I’m not so hung up on the 26 versus 15 24-foot but I think the sight triangle language is a bit new and it’s pretty uncertain on how that 16 would actually pan out and so I’m not comfortable recommending that to Council. 17 18 Chair Summa: Okay, thank you very much and thank you very to the applicants and all the other 19 interested parties who attended tonight and our Staff for being so helpful so. 20 21Commission Action: Motion by Hechtman, seconded by Lu. Failed 3-3 (Chang, Reckdahl, 22 Summa no; Templeton absent)
23 24Commission Action: Motion by Summa, seconded by Akin. Passed 4-2 (Hechtman, Lu no; 25 Templeton absent)
Item 7
Attachment D - August
9th excerpt verbatim PTC
minutes

Item 7: Staff Report
Pg.
84 Packet Pg. 226 of 449

Item 7
Attachment E -
Geotechnical Clarification
Report from Applicant
August 31 2023

Item 7: Staff Report
Pg.
85 Packet Pg. 227 of 449

From: Ken Hayes
To: Nitin Handa
Subject: Fwd: Ellsworth. Phots (3) of a person on bike
Date: Monday, August 14, 2023 10:21:05 AM
FYI
Thanks,
Ken
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:

From: Richard Dewey <[email protected]>
Date: August 13, 2023 at 10:30:45 AM PDT
To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Subject: Ellsworth. Phots (3) of a person on bike
All. 3 photos of a person on a bike. She is 5’3” tall. FYI.

Taken from the STOP SIGN at Ellsworth on Sat Aug 12
Note in each photo that the biker is clearly visible from the driver’s seat in the car.

Note in each photo that the BIKER IS VISIBLE FROM WAY ABOVE THE TOP OF THE PROPOSED FENCE at 3’ tall set back 4’ from back of sidewalk Staff at City of PC: planning and transportation should see these photos for the perspective of safety and visibility and why the PTC is so off base to limit the fence to 12” in height in the safety triangle.

Seeing the top of sidewalk is irrelevant
Seeing the pedestrian, biker or a car over the 3’ fence is As these photos clearly show, all are clearly visible over the 3’ proposed fence.

Comments?
Thx,
Rich
Item 7
Attachment F - Applicant
Correspondence and
photographs received
from applicant after
August 9

Item 7: Staff Report
Pg.
86 Packet Pg. 228 of 449

702 Ellsworth/Middlefield PC Applicant Bicycle Rider Photos

Item 7
Attachment F - Applicant
Correspondence and
photographs received
from applicant after
August 9

Item 7: Staff Report
Pg.
87 Packet Pg. 229 of 449

Item 7
Attachment F - Applicant
Correspondence and
photographs received
from applicant after
August 9

Item 7: Staff Report
Pg.
88 Packet Pg. 230 of 449

Photographs by City staff: Ellsworth Intersection with Middlefield Road

Item 7
Attachment G -
Photographs taken by
staff shared with the PTC

Item 7: Staff Report
Pg.
89 Packet Pg. 231 of 449

Item 7
Attachment G -
Photographs taken by
staff shared with the PTC

Item 7: Staff Report
Pg.
90 Packet Pg. 232 of 449

2 5
3 1
City Council
Staff Report
From: City Manager
Report Type: ACTION ITEMS
Lead Department: Utilities
Meeting Date: September 18, 2023
Report Staff:2306-1660
TITLE
Public Hearing: Adoption of a Resolution Approving Capped-Price Winter Natural Gas Purchases for Winter 2023-24 and Amending the FY 2024 Gas Fund Budget to Fund These Purchases; Amending the Gas Utility Long-term Plan Objectives, Strategies and Implementation Plan; and Amending Rate Schedules G-1 (Residential Gas Service), G-2 (Residential Master-Metered and Commercial Gas Service), G-3 (Large Commercial Gas Service), and G-10 (Compressed Natural Gas Service); CEQA status: not a project under Public Resources Code 15378(b)(5) and exempt under Public Resources Code 15273(a)

RECOMMENDATION
The Finance Committee recommends that City Council (Council) adopt a resolution (Attachment A):

1. Implementing capped-price winter natural gas purchases for winter 2023-24 with a maximum commodity rate impact of 15 cents per therm;

2. Amending the FY 2024 Budget Appropriation in the Gas Fund (requires 2/3 approval) by:
a. Increasing the Gas Operating Budget for Commodity Purchases by $2,000,000; and
b. Increasing the Gas Operating Retail revenue estimate by $2,000,000

3. Amending the Gas Utility Long-term Plan (GULP) Objectives, Strategies and Implementation Plan (Attachment B) to implement the capped-price winter gas purchases intended to manage potential winter 2023 gas price spikes; and

4. Amending Rate Schedules G-1 (Residential Gas Service), G-2 (Residential Master-Metered and Commercial Gas Service), G-3 (Large Commercial Gas Service), and G-10 (Compressed Natural Gas Service) (Attachment C), effective November 1, 2023.

Item 8
Item 8 Staff Report

Item 8: Staff Report
Pg.
1 Packet Pg. 233 of 449

2 5
3 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Based on the Finance Committee’s recommendation on August 15, 2023 ( Finance Committee Aug 15, 2023 1), staff is seeking Council approval to implement capped-price winter natural gas purchasing for winter 2023-24.

Capped-price winter gas purchasing involves continuing to purchase monthly gas at prices tied to a published market monthly index, but purchasing the gas with a price cap in place. Purchasing capped price gas functions as an insurance policy, in which the City will pay an additional charge to a gas supplier, in order to limit the price the City pays for gas to a maximum of $2 per therm, and thus avoiding exposure to extremely high market prices like those seen during winter 2022-

23. The City’s current monthly market-price-based gas purchasing and pass-through commodity rate strategy has been in place since 2012 when the strategy was approved by Council ( Council Approval of Pass-through Rates)2. Under this strategy, the City purchases baseload gas at prices tied to a published gas market monthly index, adjusted to account for delivery losses to the customer’s meter and a municipal purchase discount.

This past winter (2022-23), natural gas prices rose dramatically across the western United States, resulting in high customer bills and numerous customer inquiries. In response, staff explored alternatives for mitigating the impact of similar market events in the future. Staff identified a gas procurement strategy – capped-price winter gas purchasing – that could limit the impact of another unexpected surge in prices and be implemented in time for this upcoming winter (2023- 24).

The actual cost of this product cannot be precisely determined until staff receives proposals from eligible counterparties; staff estimates that implementing capped-price winter gas purchasing for winter 2023-24 could result in an additional cost of $1.93 million-$3.03 million and an increase of 4-6% in the median monthly residential customer gas bill over the year, assuming the product is available. Staff recommends Council approve a maximum customer commodity rate impact of 15 cents per therm on gas sales over a 12-month period. Staff recommends Council approve a maximum customer commodity rate impact of 15 cents per therm on gas sales over a 12-month period. Resulting in a percentage breakdown of an 8% increase on an annual bill. The City will purchase as much capped-price winter gas as is available and projected to be necessary to serve load while staying within the 15 cents per therm impact limit. The Council-approved $4 per therm maximum commodity charge will not change.

GULP is the vehicle by which the gas supply portfolio is managed consistently, transparently, and with input from Council. Council amended the GULP Objectives, Strategies, and Implementation 1 https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=12741 2 https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/from-archive/agendas-minutes-reports/reports/city-manager- reports-cmrs/2012/final-staff-report-id-2552_gas-utility-long-term-plan-revisions.pdf Item 8
Item 8 Staff Report

Item 8: Staff Report
Pg.
2 Packet Pg. 234 of 449

2 5
3 1
Plan most recently in 2017 ( Staff Report #7967) 3. Council adoption of staff’s proposed capped price winter natural gas purchases to manage potential winter 2023 natural gas price spikes requires conforming changes to GULP which are reflected in Attachment B. Since 2017, there have been a number of other Council-approved changes to policies and operations that require conforming changes to GULP. For simplicity, those changes will be addressed in a separate future staff report.

BACKGROUND
Prior to the 2001 energy crisis, Palo Alto engaged in minimal short-term natural gas commodity hedging. Hedging is a risk management strategy used to achieve some level of cost stability despite fluctuations in commodity prices. The energy crisis sent market prices soaring, and the City’s largely unhedged gas portfolio experienced gas supply cost shocks that required four major retail gas rate increases in FY 2001 (15%, 25%, 35% and 67%). In addition, $9 million was withdrawn from the Gas Supply Rate Stabilization Reserve (G-SRSR) leaving a near-zero balance.

In 2001, in direct response to the financial pain caused by gas rate increases experienced during the energy crisis, staff developed and Council approved a gas laddering strategy, whereby a portion of the City’s gas needs would be purchased at fixed-prices and capped-prices over a 36- month time horizon. The goal of this purchasing strategy was to smooth or stabilize gas supply costs relative to the extremely volatile market. The gas laddering strategy was only applicable to residential and small commercial customers. Palo Alto’s eight largest customers managed their own gas portfolio costs by electing either a monthly market-based commodity rate, a fixed rate for 12 or 24 months, or a custom rate.

In the summer of 2008, the credit crisis combined with increased gas supply from new shale developments sent market prices plummeting. As anticipated in a falling market, Palo Alto’s average gas supply cost became higher than wholesale market prices, and commodity rates were therefore higher since some fixed-price gas was purchased prior to the price decline. This prompted a review of the laddering strategy.

In 2012, Council approved a new monthly market-price-based purchasing and pass-through commodity rate strategy. The City began purchasing gas at prices tied to a published gas market monthly index, adjusted to account for delivery losses to the customer’s meter and a municipal purchase discount. That purchase price, which made up the commodity charge, was passed through in customer’s retail gas rates. This monthly market-price-based purchasing and pass- through commodity rate strategy has remained in place since.

DISCUSSION
Winter 2022-23 Gas Prices
This past winter (2022-23), natural gas prices rose dramatically across the western United States due to a confluence of factors, including: (a) historically cold December temperatures, (b) 3 https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes-reports/reports/city-manager-reports- cmrs/year-archive/2017/id-7967-6-5-17-ccm.pdf
Item 8
Item 8 Staff Report

Item 8: Staff Report
Pg.
3 Packet Pg. 235 of 449

2 5
3 1
unusually low regional gas storage levels, (c) constraints on the availability of natural gas supplies flowing into California, and (d) an increased reliance on natural gas in the electric power sector as a result of the ongoing drought’s impact on hydroelectric supplies. Though fundamental conditions were influencing the increase in prices, those factors alone do not explain the unprecedented price spike. January natural gas prices were five times greater than November prices. In December 2022, Council increased the maximum allowed commodity rate passed through to customers from $2 per therm to $4 per therm, but the City’s price to purchase January gas was $5 per therm, resulting in a $1.8M shortfall discussed in more detail below. The sudden and extreme increase in natural gas prices is under investigation by Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). The preliminary timeline for these investigations to yield findings is in the spring of 2026, subject to change.

Figure 1 shows the published gas market monthly indexes from October 2018 through July 2023, including the winter 2022-23 price surge. The PG&E Citygate hub in Northern California is a delivery point for Palo Alto’s gas purchases and the index on which the city gas commodity rates are based.

Figure 1
When staff began to see signs of higher gas prices in late November and early December 2022, attempts were made to inform customers in advance through utility bill messaging, website notices, social media, email newsletters, and other community forums. Customers were encouraged to take action and save energy to try to avoid surprisingly high utility bills. The gas market monthly index for January 2023 settled at just below $5 per therm, above the Council- approved maximum commodity rate for the first time in history.

Because the gas market monthly index exceeded the maximum Council-approved commodity rate, the full cost of January gas was not passed through to customers; instead about $1.84 million in reserves was withdrawn to cover the difference between the maximum commodity Item 8
Item 8 Staff Report

Item 8: Staff Report
Pg.
4 Packet Pg. 236 of 449

2 5
3 1
rate and market purchase price. Even so, the impact on customer bills was significant, and the City received a large number of customer inquiries. The City responded by offering resources to help customers with higher than anticipated utility bill costs, including access to free home efficiency assessments through the Home Efficiency Genie and payment arrangements. In April 2023 Council approved gas and electric (Staff Report 2303-1209)4 rebates of $2.4 million, funded by the City’s General Fund, to compensate residential customers for the high energy bills they experienced.

Gas prices dropped and began to stabilize to levels under $1 per therm in March 2023, and monthly indexes as well as price forecasts for the upcoming winter 2023-24 have remained below the $1 per therm level to present. However, due to the dramatic rise in gas prices and resulting high customer bills, staff explored alternative gas procurement strategies that would limit the risk and impact of another unexpected surge in prices and could be implemented in time for this upcoming winter 2023-24.

Recommended Capped-Price Winter Gas Purchase
The capped-price winter gas purchasing alternative involves continuing to purchase monthly gas at prices tied to a published market monthly index, but also purchasing the gas needed for the coldest winter months with a price cap in place. The estimated cost of purchasing the price cap is $2.0 million-$3.0 million for December 2023-February 2024. This functions as an insurance policy and limits the price paid to a maximum of $2 per therm, a price consistent with the pre- winter 2022-23 Council-approved maximum commodity rate. For example, if the monthly index settles below $2 per therm, the City’s purchase price would be the monthly index; on the other hand, if the monthly index settles at or above $2 per therm, the City’s purchase price would be $2 per therm.

In order to minimize customer bill impacts, staff proposes spreading the cost of the price cap over the calendar year. Commodity charges are one part of the City’s monthly gas volumetric and service charges5, which are listed in the City’s gas rate schedules and shown by month.

December, January, and February are typically the coldest and most expensive months for gas in California and the most at risk for dramatic rises in gas prices due to winter supply and demand and market fundamentals. These were the three months during this past winter 2022-23 when the market monthly indexes settled at the highest levels, from above $1.25 per therm to just shy of $5/therm. Given the cost of a $2 per therm price cap, staff only recommends purchasing gas with the price cap in place for the December, January, and February months and recommends continuing to purchase gas without the price cap for the other months of the year. 4 https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/viewer?id=1954&type=0 5 https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/utilities/rates-schedules-for-utilities/residential-utility- rates/monthly-gas-volumetric-and-service-charges-residential.pdf Item 8
Item 8 Staff Report

Item 8: Staff Report
Pg.
5 Packet Pg. 237 of 449

2 5
3 1
If approved by Council, the capped-price winter purchasing strategy will be implemented in accordance with the Energy Risk Management Policy6, Guidelines, and Procedures. The City solicit bids from a list of pre-approved counterparties ( Staff Report 14551) 7 for all natural gas purchases to ensure competitive pricing and consistent, robust contract terms. The amended rate schedules associated with this change will be effective November 1, 2023.

Finance Committee Review
Staff presented the two alternatives to the Finance Committee on August 15, 2023, seeking their recommendation on whether to maintain the current market-price-based gas purchasing and pass-through commodity rate strategy or implement the capped-price winter gas purchasing alternative for winter 2023-24. Their recommendation (by a vote of 3-0) for Council approval was to implement capped-price winter gas purchasing for winter 2023-24.

Alternative Strategies Not Recommended
The default alternative is to maintain the current market-price-based gas purchasing and pass- through commodity rate strategy for this upcoming winter 2023-24 with no price spike mitigation measures. Considerations for maintaining the current policy include: 1) energy market prices are inherently unpredictable and volatile, but gas prices (including for the upcoming winter) have come down significantly and stabilized since March 2023; 2) Palo Alto’s commodity rates are generally less than PG&E’s; and 3) this policy yields the lowest average supply cost over many years of implementation.

Considerations for revising the current strategy and implementing capped-price winter gas purchasing include: 1) reserve levels will be protected, protecting against the need for future rate increases; 2) customer costs will be higher if implemented over many years; 3) this acts as an insurance policy that adds cost but may not be used; 4) this is an uncommon strategy in gas markets, and thus the capped-price product may not be readily available from suppliers; and 5) this may result in an additional cost that is even greater than staff’s estimate, if the market is very volatile, or lower than staff’s estimate if the market is relatively stable.

Staff is presenting the capped-price winter gas purchasing alternative because it could be implemented in time for this upcoming winter. There are also other alternatives that could potentially be considered for the future. These alternatives, which would take additional resources and time to evaluate, plan, and implement, include: 1) establishing an additional special reserve to manage gas price spikes; 2) making a limited volume of fixed-price gas purchases; 3) reverting to a full laddering strategy; 4) investing in gas production assets; and 5) investing in gas storage.
6 https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/sustainability/policies-and-plans/attachment-c-energy-risk- management-policy-2018.pdf
7 https://portal.laserfiche.com/Portal/DocView.aspx?id=59239&repo=r-704298fc&searchid=6445f704-ce44-46fc- adc1-0d9e3606c5af
Item 8
Item 8 Staff Report

Item 8: Staff Report
Pg.
6 Packet Pg. 238 of 449

2 5
3 1
Changes to GULP Needed if Council Adopts Capped Price Winter Gas Purchase Strategy The 2017 GULP update included the change from a hedged portfolio to market-based retail gas rates. Those commodity rates have been in effect since 2013. Cost containment applied to winter 2023 gas purchases, if adopted, requires changes to GULP as shown in Table 1 below. The GULP Objectives, Strategies and Implementation Plans are attached. While some other items also need updates, staff is not proposing changes other than those associated with the gas purchasing strategy at this time for the sake of simplicity. Administrative updates will be brought to Council in a separate staff report.

Table 1: Market Price Transparency in GULP
GULP Current Proposed
Objective 1 Pass a market cost signal
through to customers.

Pass a market supply cost signal through
to customers with measures to protect
against price spikes applied during
winter months.

Strategy 1 a. Purchase natural gas at
monthly and daily market index
prices.
b. Change gas supply rate
monthly to reflect market
prices.
a. Purchasing natural gas at monthly
and daily market index prices;
b. Changing gas supply rates monthly to
reflect market prices; and
c. Purchasing physical capped-price gas
for some or all forecasted natural gas
volumes for December through
February, provided that the cost of
the price caps results in no more
than a 15 cents per therm impact on
retail commodity gas rates.

Implementation
Plan Item 1
a. Continue to implement
market-based supply purchases
and commodity rates.

Implement market-based supply
purchases and commodity rates with
measures to protect against price spikes
applied during winter months by:
a. Developing a new purchasing plan
to be approved by the Director of
Utilities; and
c. Conducting customer
communication and outreach.

Item 8
Item 8 Staff Report

Item 8: Staff Report
Pg.
7 Packet Pg. 239 of 449

2 5
3 1

FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT
There are no additional fiscal or resource impacts of maintaining the current market-price-based natural gas purchasing and pass-through commodity rate strategy.

There is a fiscal impact associated with implementing the capped-price winter natural gas purchasing alternative for winter 2023-24; no additional staff resources are needed. The cost of the price cap for December 2023-February 2024 is estimated at $0.175-$0.275 per therm, based on recent supplier quotes, resulting in an additional estimated gas supply cost of $2.0 million- $3.0 million to the City, assuming the capped price product is available on the market. Staff recommends an appropriation of $2.0 million in the FY 2024 Gas Operating budget in the Commodity Purchase category to increase the budget from $20.8 million to $22.8 million, which will be offset by increased retail gas prices and corresponding revenues from customers.

The commodity charge for customer gas rates would continue to be based on the monthly market price, which will include the cost of the December 2023-February 2024 purchase price cap, applied over 12 months. The estimated cost impact is $0.07-$0.11 per therm, which would result in an increase of 4-6% in the median monthly residential customer bill over the year if capped price purchases prove necessary and available. The increase would be 4-6% for the winter bill months (November 2023-March 2024) and 3-5% for the summer bill months (April 2024-October 2024).

Table 2 shows the median monthly residential customer bill and the projected impact based on the estimated cost of $0.07 per therm or $0.11 per therm for the price cap.

Table 2

STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
The Finance Committee reviewed the alternatives presented by staff at its August 15, 2023 (Finance Committee Aug 15, 2023)8 meeting and voted unanimously to recommend the capped price gas purchasing strategy to Council. If adopted by Council, the website will be updated to reflect the change in the commodity rate calculation in the Monthly Gas Volumetric and Service Charges9 document. In addition, customers will be notified via bill inserts and social media. 8 Finance Committee Staff Report
https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=12741 9 Monthly Gas Volumetric and Service Charges https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/utilities/rates- schedules-for-utilities/residential-utility-rates/monthly-gas-volumetric-and-service-charges-residential.pdf Median Monthly Residential Bill - Projected Impact
Season Therms Bill Estimate $0.07 $0.11 $0.07 $0.11Winter (Nov-Mar) 54 99.80$ 3.78$ 5.94$ 4% 6%Summer (Apr-Oct) 18 40.52$ 1.26$ 1.98$ 3% 5%Annual 33 65.22$ 2.31$ 3.63$ 4% 6% Commodity Cost Increase Commodity Cost Increase/Bill Estimate Item 8
Item 8 Staff Report

Item 8: Staff Report
Pg.
8 Packet Pg. 240 of 449

2 5
3 1

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Council’s approval of capped-price winter natural gas purchasing for winter 2023-24, amendments to the FY 2024 Gas Fund budget appropriation and amendments to the Gas Utility Long-term Plan (GULP) Objectives, Strategies and Implementation Plan does not require California Environmental Quality Act review, since these actions do not meet the definition of a project under Public Resources Code Section 21065 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(5), because these are administrative governmental activities which will not cause a direct or indirect physical change in the environment, and therefore, no environmental assessment is required.

The Council finds that changing the Commodity Charge Cost Component of gas rates schedules to meet operating expenses, purchase supplies and materials, meet financial reserve needs and obtain funds for capital improvements necessary to maintain service is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to California Public Resources Code Sec. 21080(b)(8) and Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations Sec.15273(a). After reviewing the staff report and all attachments presented to Council, the Council incorporates these documents herein and finds that sufficient evidence has been presented setting forth with specificity the basis for this claim of CEQA exemption.

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Resolution Approving Capped-Price Winter Natural Gas Purchase for Winter 2023-24 and Amending the FY24 Gas Fund Budget
Attachment B: GULP Revisions 2023 Winter Hedging
APPROVED BY:

Dean Batchelor, Director of Utilities
Staff: Karla Dailey, Acting Assistant Director
Jason Huang, Resource Planner
Item 8
Item 8 Staff Report

Item 8: Staff Report
Pg.
9 Packet Pg. 241 of 449

Attachment A
* NOT YET APPROVED *

1 6056774
Resolution No.

Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving Capped-Price Winter Natural Gas Purchases for Winter 2023-24 and Amending the FY 2024 Gas Fund Budget by $2,000,000 to Fund These Purchases; Amending the Gas Utility Long- term Plan Objectives, Strategies and Implementation Plan; and Amending Rate Schedules G-1 (Residential Gas Service), G-2 (Residential Master-Metered and Commercial Gas Service), G-3 (Large Commercial Gas Service), and G-10 (Compressed Natural Gas Service)

R E C I T A L S

A. On March 7, 2011, the Council adopted Resolution No. 9151, which approved the Gas Utility Long-term Plan Objectives, Strategies and Implementation Plan (the “Plan”).

B. On April 23, 2012, the Council adopted Resolution No. 9244, which amended the Gas Utility Long-term Plan Objectives, Strategies and Implementation Plan (the “Plan”).

C. The Council’s Finance Committee has recommended the Council approve implementation of capped-price winter natural gas purchases for Winter 2023-24, which requires Council’s approval of certain amendments to the Plan, which are attached and incorporated by reference as Exhibit A to this Resolution.

D. Resolution No. 9244 is intended to be amended to reflect the current version of the Plan.

E. Pursuant to Chapter 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, the Council of the City of Palo Alto may by resolution adopt rules and regulations governing utility services, fees and charges.

F. Implementing capped-price winter natural gas purchasing requires amending the FY 2024 Gas Fund Budget by $2,000,000 to fund these purchases.

G. Implementing capped-price winter natural gas purchasing requires amending the Commodity Charge cost component of Rate Schedules G-1 (Residential Gas Service), G-2 (Residential Master-Metered and Commercial Gas Service), G-3 (Large Commercial Gas Service), and G- 10 (Compressed Natural Gas Service); attached and incorporated as Exhibits B through E to this Resolution.

H. On September 18, 2023, the City Council heard and approved the proposed gas rate increases at a noticed public hearing.

The Council of the City of Palo Alto does hereby RESOLVE as follows:

Item 8
Attachment A -
Resolution Approving
Capped-Price Winter
Natural Gas Purchase for
Winter 2023-24 and
Amending the FY24 Gas
Fund Budget

Item 8: Staff Report
Pg.
10 Packet Pg. 242 of 449

Attachment A
* NOT YET APPROVED *

2 6056774

SECTION 1. The Council hereby approves the amendments to the Gas Utility Long- term Plan Objectives, Strategies and Implementation Plan (GULP), attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A.

SECTION 2. Resolution No. 9244 is hereby amended in so far as the Plan, as amended, is hereby approved.

SECTION 3. The Council hereby approves increasing the FY 2024 Gas Fund budget and gas operating revenues by $2,000,000.

SECTION
4 Pursuant to Section 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Utility Rate Schedule G-1 (Residential Gas Service) is hereby amended to read as attached and incorporated to this Resolution as Exhibit B. Utility Rate Schedule G-1, as amended, shall become effective November 1, 2023.

SECTION 5. Pursuant to Section 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Utility Rate Schedule G-2 (Residential Master-Metered and Commercial Gas Service) is hereby amended to read as attached and incorporated to this Resolution as Exhibit C. Utility Rate Schedule G-2, as amended, shall become effective November 1, 2023.

SECTION 6. Pursuant to Section 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Utility Rate Schedule G-3 (Large Commercial Gas Service) is hereby amended to read as attached and incorporated to this Resolution as Exhibit D. Utility Rate Schedule G-3, as amended, shall become effective November 1, 2023.

SECTION 7. Pursuant to Section 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Utility Rate Schedule G-10 (Compressed Natural Gas Service Service) is hereby amended to read as attached and incorporated to this Resolution as Exhibit E. Utility Rate Schedule G-10, as amended, shall become effective November 1, 2023.

SECTION 8. The City Council finds as follows:

a. Revenues derived from the gas rates approved by this resolution do not exceed the funds required to provide gas service.

b. Revenues derived from the gas rates approved by this resolution shall not be used for any purpose other than providing gas service, and the purposes set forth in Article VII, Section 2, of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto.

SECTION 9.

The Council finds that the fees and charges adopted by this resolution are charges imposed for a specific government service or product provided directly to the payor that are not provided to those not charged, and do not exceed the reasonable costs to the City of providing the service or product.

Item 8
Attachment A -
Resolution Approving
Capped-Price Winter
Natural Gas Purchase for
Winter 2023-24 and
Amending the FY24 Gas
Fund Budget

Item 8: Staff Report
Pg.
11 Packet Pg. 243 of 449

Attachment A
* NOT YET APPROVED *

3 6056774

SECTION 10. The Council finds that approving the changes to the FY 2024 Gas Fund budget appropriation and Plan does not meet the California Environmental Quality Act’s (CEQA) definition of a project under Public Resources Code Section 21065 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(5), because these actions are administrative governmental activities which will not cause a direct or indirect physical change in the environment, and therefore, no environmental assessment is required. The Council finds that changing the Commodity Charge cost component of gas rates to meet operating expenses, purchase supplies and materials, meet financial reserve needs and obtain funds for capital improvements necessary to maintain service is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to California Public Resources Code Sec. 21080(b)(8) and Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations Sec. 15273(a). After reviewing the staff report and all attachments presented to Council, the Council incorporates these documents herein and finds that s ufficient evidence has been presented setting forth with specificity the basis for this claim of CEQA exemption.

INTRODUCED AND PASSED:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTENTIONS:

ATTEST:

City Clerk Mayor

APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:

Assistant City Attorney City Manager

Director of Utilities

Director of Administrative Services
Item 8
Attachment A -
Resolution Approving
Capped-Price Winter
Natural Gas Purchase for
Winter 2023-24 and
Amending the FY24 Gas
Fund Budget

Item 8: Staff Report
Pg.
12 Packet Pg. 244 of 449

Exhibit A

Proposed Gas Utility Long-term Plan (GULP)
Objectives, Strategies and Implementation Plan

Adopted by Council on _____________ via Resolution No. _____.

GULP Objectives:

1. Market price transparency – Pass a market supply cost signal through to customers with measures to protect against price spikes applied during winter months.

2. Supply Cost Management – Lower delivered gas cost over the long term.

3. Energy Efficiency – Ensure the deployment of all feasible, reliable, cost-effective energy efficiency measures.

4. Climate Protection – Reduce the carbon intensity of the gas portfolio in accordance with the Sustainability and Climate Protection Plan.

5. Parity with PG&E – At a reasonable cost, protect the City’s interests and maintain access to transportation on par with PG&E’s core customers.

GULP Strategies:

1. Pass a market supply cost signal through to customers with measures to protect against price spikes applied during winter months by:
a. Purchasing natural gas at monthly and daily market index prices; b. Changing gas supply rates monthly to reflect market prices; and c. Purchasing physical capped-price gas for some or all forecasted natural gas volumes for December through February, provided that the cost of the price caps results in no more than a 15 cents per therm impact on retail commodity gas rates.

2. Lower delivered gas cost over the long term by:
a. Acquiring pipeline assets that yield supply costs below market and meet operational needs;
b. Taking advantage of the City’s low cost of capital to acquire gas supply and assets; and
c. Optimizing existing assets.

3. Ensure the deployment of all feasible, reliable, cost-effective energy efficiency measures by:
a. Developing a ten-year gas efficiency plan every four years maintaining consistency with the electric energy efficiency goals update schedule; and b. Considering the impacts of electrification on gas demand.

4. Reduce the carbon intensity of the gas portfolio in accordance with the Climate Protection Plan by:
a. Terminating the PaloAltoGreen Gas program established by Resolution 9405; and b. Designing and implementing the Carbon Neutral Gas Plan to achieve carbon reduction with no more than a 10 cent per therm rate impact.

5. At a reasonable cost, protect the City’s interests and maintain access to transportation on par with PG&E’s core customers by:
a. Participating in the regulatory and legislative arenas when the potential impact on the City is aligned with the cost to intervene and the probability of success; a. Negotiating with PG&E for fair access to transportation and storage; and b. Exploring potential joint action with other public agencies.

Item 8
Attachment A -
Resolution Approving
Capped-Price Winter
Natural Gas Purchase for
Winter 2023-24 and
Amending the FY24 Gas
Fund Budget

Item 8: Staff Report
Pg.
13 Packet Pg. 245 of 449

ATTACHMENT A

GULP Implementation Plan:

1. Implement market-based supply purchases and commodity rates with measures to protect against price spikes applied during winter months by:
a. Developing a new purchasing plan to be approved by the Director of Utilities; and b. Conducting customer communication and outreach.

2. Pursue below-market assets available through the Gas Transportation and Storage Settlement by:
a. Evaluating the pipeline capacity reservation options available; and b. Contracting with PG&E for any pipeline capacity with an estimated cost below the forecasted market value.

3. Monitor the prepay market and prepare for implementation in preparation for a future MuniGas transaction.

4. Implement gas efficiency programs to meet the gas efficiency goals.

5. Track and report on gas efficiency by:
a. Providing quarterly updates to the UAC about the gas efficiency programs; and b. Providing annual updates to Council on gas efficiency achievements compared to the goals and overall cost effectiveness.

6. Continue evaluating new gas efficiency technologies and undertake pilot studies where appropriate.

7. Pursue potential modifications to the Carbon Neutral Gas Plan by:
a. Determining an acceptable premium, if any, to be paid for a local offset project if and when a certified project is identified; and
b. Investigating alternatives to offsets, including methods involving voter approval.

Item 8
Attachment A -
Resolution Approving
Capped-Price Winter
Natural Gas Purchase for
Winter 2023-24 and
Amending the FY24 Gas
Fund Budget

Item 8: Staff Report
Pg.
14 Packet Pg. 246 of 449

RESIDENTIAL GAS SERVICE
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE G-1
CI

TY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council
Supersedes Sheet No G-1-1 Sheet No G-1-1
dated 71-1-2023 Effective 117-1-2023
A. APPLICABILITY:

T
his schedule applies to the following Customers receiving Gas Service from City of Palo Alto Utilities:

1. S eparately-metered single-family residential Customers;

2. Separately-metered multi-family residential Customers in multi- family residential facilities.

B. TER
RITORY:

T
his schedule applies anywhere the City of Palo Alto provides Gas Service.

C. UNBUNDLED RATES: Per Service
M
onthly Service Charge: ........................................................................................................$14.01 Tier 1 Rates: Per Therm
Supply Charges:

1. Commodity (Monthly Market Based) .......................................... $0.10-$4.00

2. Cap and Trade Compliance Charge ............................................ $0.00-$0.25

3. Transportation Charge ................................................................. $0.00-$0.25

4. Carbon Offset Charge .................................................................. $0.00-$0.10 D
istribution Charge:....................................................................................... $0.6807 T
ier 2 Rates: (All usage over 100% of Tier 1)
Supply Charges:

1. Commodity (Monthly Market Based) .......................................... $0.10-$4.00

2. Cap and Trade Compliance Charge ............................................. $0.00-$0.25

3. Transportation Charge ................................................................. $0.00-$0.25

1. Calculation of Cost Components

EXHIBIT B
Item 8
Attachment A -
Resolution Approving
Capped-Price Winter
Natural Gas Purchase for
Winter 2023-24 and
Amending the FY24 Gas
Fund Budget

Item 8: Staff Report
Pg.
15 Packet Pg. 247 of 449

RESIDENTIAL GAS SERVICE

UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE G-1

CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council

Supersedes Sheet No G-1-2 Sheet No G-1-2
dated 71-1-2023 Effective 117-1-2023

The actual bill amount is calculated based on the applicable rates in Section C above and adjusted for any applicable discounts, surcharges and/or Taxes. On a Customer’s bill statement, the bill amount may be broken down into appropriate components as calculated under Section C.

The Commodity Charge is based on the monthly natural gas Bidweek Price Index for delivery at PG&E Citygate, adjusted to account for delivery losses to the Customer’s Meter. The Commodity Charge also includes adjustments to account for Council- approved programs implemented to reduce the cost of gas, including a municipal purchase discount1, and a maximum $0.15/per therm cost for capped price winter natural gas purchases2.

The Commodity Charge is based on the monthly natural gas Bidweek Price Index for delivery at PG&E Citygate, accounting for delivery losses to the Customer’s Meter.

The Cap and Trade Compliance Charge reflects the City’s cost of regulatory compliance with the state’s Cap and Trade Program, including the cost of acquiring compliance instruments sufficient to cover the City’s Gas Utility’s compliance obligations. The Cap and Trade Compliance Charge will change in response to changing market conditions, retail sales volumes and the quantity of allowances required.

The Carbon Offset Charge reflects the City’s cost to purchase offsets for greenhouse gases produced in the burning of natural gas. The Carbon Offset Charge will change in response to changing market conditions, changing sales volumes and the quantity of offsets purchased within the Council-approved per therm cap.

The Transportation Charge is based on the current PG&E G-WSL rate for Palo Alto, accounting for delivery losses to the Customer’s Meter.

1 Adopted via Resolution 9451, on September 15, 2014.

2 Adopted via Resolution XXXX, on September 18, 2023.

Item 8
Attachment A -
Resolution Approving
Capped-Price Winter
Natural Gas Purchase for
Winter 2023-24 and
Amending the FY24 Gas
Fund Budget

Item 8: Staff Report
Pg.
16 Packet Pg. 248 of 449

RESIDENTIAL GAS SERVICE

UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE G-1

CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council

Supersedes Sheet No G-1-3 Sheet No G-1-3
dated 71-1-2023 Effective 117-1-2023

The Commodity, Cap and Trade Compliance, Carbon Offset and Transportation Charges will fall within the minimum/maximum ranges set forth in Section C. Current and historic per therm rates for the Commodity, Cap and Trade Compliance, Carbon Offset and Transportation Charges are posted on the City Utilities website. 3 1.2. Seasonal Rate Changes:

The Summer period is effective April 1 to October 31 and the W inter period is effective from November 1 to March 31. When the billing period includes use in both the Summer and the W inter periods, the usage will be prorated based on the number of days in each seasonal period, and the charges based on the applicable rates for each period. For further discussion of bill calculation and proration, refer to Rule and Regulation 11.

2.3. Calculation of Usage Tiers

Tier 1 natural gas usage shall be calculated and billed based upon a level of 0.667 therms per day during the Summer period and 2.0 therms per day during the Winter p eriod, rounded to the nearest whole therm, based on meter reading days of service. As an example, for a 30 day bill, the Tier 1 level would be 20 therms during the Summer period and 60 therms during the Winter period months. For further discussion of bill calculation and proration, refer to Rule and Regulation 11.
{End}

3 Monthly gas and commodity and volumetric rates are available here, or by visiting https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/utilities/rates-schedules-for-utilities/residential-utility-rates/monthly-gas- volumetric-and-service-charges-residential.pdf
Item 8
Attachment A -
Resolution Approving
Capped-Price Winter
Natural Gas Purchase for
Winter 2023-24 and
Amending the FY24 Gas
Fund Budget

Item 8: Staff Report
Pg.
17 Packet Pg. 249 of 449

RESIDENTIAL MASTER-METERED AND COMMERCIAL GAS SERVICE

UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE G-2

CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council

Supersedes Sheet No G-2-1 Effective 117-1-2023
dated 71-1-2023 Sheet No G-2-1

A. APPLICABILITY:

This schedule applies to the following Customers receiving Gas Service from the City of Palo Alto Utilities:

1. Commercial Customers who use less than 250,000 therms per year at one site;

2. Master-metered residential Customers in multi-family residential facilities.

B. TERRITORY:

This schedule applies anywhere the City of Palo Alto provides Gas Service.

C. UNBUNDLED RATES: Per Service

Monthly Service Charge: ......................................................................................................$129.78

Per Therm
Supply Charges:

1. Commodity (Monthly Market Based) ......................................... $0.10-$4.00

2. Cap and Trade Compliance Charges ........................................... $0.00-$0.25

3. Transportation Charge ................................................................. $0.00-$0.25

4. Carbon Offset Charge .................................................................. $0.00-$0.10

Distribution Charge: ................................................................................................. $0.8941

D. SPECIAL NOTES:

1. Calculation of Cost Components

1 Adopted via Resolution 9451, on September 15, 2014.

Item 8
Attachment A -
Resolution Approving
Capped-Price Winter
Natural Gas Purchase for
Winter 2023-24 and
Amending the FY24 Gas
Fund Budget

Item 8: Staff Report
Pg.
18 Packet Pg. 250 of 449

RESIDENTIAL MASTER-METERED AND COMMERCIAL GAS SERVICE

UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE G-2

CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council

Supersedes Sheet No G-2-2 Effective 117-1-2023
dated 71-1-2023 Sheet No G-2-2

gas purchases2.

The Commodity Charge is based on the monthly natural gas Bidweek Price Index for delivery at PG&E Citygate, accounting for delivery losses to the Customer’s Meter.

The Transportation Charge is based on the current PG&E G-WSL rate for Palo Alto, accounting for delivery losses to the Customer’s Meter.

2 Adopted via Resolution XXXX, on September 18, 2023
3 Monthly gas and commodity and volumetric rates are available here, or by visiting https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/utilities/business/business-rates/monthly-gas-volumetric-and-service- charges-commercial.pdf
Item 8
Attachment A -
Resolution Approving
Capped-Price Winter
Natural Gas Purchase for
Winter 2023-24 and
Amending the FY24 Gas
Fund Budget

Item 8: Staff Report
Pg.
19 Packet Pg. 251 of 449

LARGE COMMERCIAL GAS SERVICE

UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE G-3

CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council

Supersedes Sheet No G-3-1 Effective 117-1-2023
dated 71-1-2023 Sheet No G-3-1

A. APPLICABILITY:

This schedule applies to the following Customers receiving Gas Service from the City of Palo Alto Utilities:

1. Commercial Customers who use at least 250,000 therms per year at one site;

2. Customers at City-owned generation facilities.

B. TERRITORY:

This schedule applies anywhere the City of Palo Alto provides Gas Service.

C. UNBUNDLED RATES: Per Service

Monthly Service Charge: $593.79

Per Therm
Supply Charges:

1. Commodity (Monthly Market Based) .................................................... $0.10-$4.00

2. Cap and Trade Compliance Charges .................................................... $0.00-$0.25

3. Transportation Charge .......................................................................... $0.00-$0.25

4. Carbon Offset Charge ........................................................................... $0.00-$0.10

Distribution Charge: .............................................................................................................$0.8852

D. SPECIAL NOTES:

1. Calculation of Cost Components

The actual bill amount is calculated based on the applicable rates in Section C above and adjusted for any applicable discounts , surcharges and/or Taxes. On a C ustomer’s bill statement, the bill amount may be broken down into appropriate components as calculated under Section C.

The Commodity Charge is based on the monthly natural gas Bidweek Price Index for delivery at PG&E Citygate, adjusted to account for delivery losses to the Customer’s Meter. The Commodity Charge also includes adjustments to account for Council- approved programs implemented to reduce the cost of gas, including a municipal Item 8
Attachment A -
Resolution Approving
Capped-Price Winter
Natural Gas Purchase for
Winter 2023-24 and
Amending the FY24 Gas
Fund Budget

Item 8: Staff Report
Pg.
20 Packet Pg. 252 of 449

LARGE COMMERCIAL GAS SERVICE

UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE G-3

CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council

Supersedes Sheet No G-3-2 Effective 117-1-2023
dated 71-1-2023 Sheet No G-3-2

purchase discount1, and a maximum $0.15/per therm cost for capped price winter natural gas purchases2.

The Commodity Charge is based on the monthly natural gas B idweek Price Index for delivery at PG&E Citygate, accounting for delivery losses to the Customer’s Meter.

The Carbon Offset Charge reflects the City’s cost to purchase offsets for greenhouse gases produced in the burning of natural gas. The Carbon Offset Charge will change in response to changing market conditions, changing sales volumes and the quantity of of fsets purchased within the Council-approved per therm cap.

The Transportation C harge is based on the current PG&E G -WSL rate for Palo Alto , accounting for delivery losses to the Customer’s Meter.

A qualifying Customer may request service under this schedule for more than one account or meter if the accounts are located on one site. A site consists of one or more contiguous parcels of land with no intervening public right-of- ways (e.g. streets).

3. Changing Rate Schedules

1 Adopted via Resolution 9451, on September 15, 2014.

2 Adopted via Resolution XXXX, on September 18, 2023.
3 Monthly gas and commodity and volumetric rates are available here, or by visiting https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/utilities/business/business-rates/monthly-gas-volumetric-and-service- charges-commercial.pdf
Item 8
Attachment A -
Resolution Approving
Capped-Price Winter
Natural Gas Purchase for
Winter 2023-24 and
Amending the FY24 Gas
Fund Budget

Item 8: Staff Report
Pg.
21 Packet Pg. 253 of 449

LARGE COMMERCIAL GAS SERVICE

UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE G-3

CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council

Supersedes Sheet No G-3-3 Effective 117-1-2023
dated 71-1-2023 Sheet No G-3-3

Customers may request a rate schedule change at any time to any applicable City of Palo Alto full-service rate schedule.
{End}
Item 8
Attachment A -
Resolution Approving
Capped-Price Winter
Natural Gas Purchase for
Winter 2023-24 and
Amending the FY24 Gas
Fund Budget

Item 8: Staff Report
Pg.
22 Packet Pg. 254 of 449

COMPRESSED NATURAL GAS SERVICE

UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE G-10

CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council

Supersedes Sheet No G-10-1 Effective 117-1-2023
dated 71-1-2023 Sheet No. G-10-1

A. APPLICABILITY:

This schedule applies to the sale of natural gas to the City-owned compressed natural gas (CNG) fueling station at the Municipal Service Center in Palo Alto.

B. TERRITORY:

Applies to the City’s CNG fueling station located at the Municipal Service Center in City of Palo Alto.

C. UNBUNDLED RATES: Per Service

Monthly Service Charge: ........................................................................................................$87.77

Per Therm
Supply Charges:

Commodity (Monthly Market Based) ................................................................ $0.10-$4.00 Cap and Trade Compliance Charges.................................................................. $0.00-$0.25 Transportation Charge ....................................................................................... $0.00-$0.25 Carbon Offset Charge ........................................................................................ $0.00-$0.10

Distribution Charge ...............................................................................................................$0.0145

D. SPECIAL CONDITIONS

1. Calculation of Cost Components

The actual bill amount is calculated based on the applicable rates in Section C above and adjusted for any applicable discounts , surcharges and/or T axes. On a C ustomer’s bill statement, the bill amount may be broken down into appropriate components as calculated under Section C.

The Commodity Charge is based on the monthly natural gas Bidweek Price Index for delivery at PG&E Citygate, adjusted to account for delivery losses to the Customer’s Meter. The Commodity Charge also includes adjustments to account for Council-approved programs implemented to reduce the cost of gas, including a municipal purchase discount1, and a

1 Adopted via Resolution 9451, on September 15, 2014.

Item 8
Attachment A -
Resolution Approving
Capped-Price Winter
Natural Gas Purchase for
Winter 2023-24 and
Amending the FY24 Gas
Fund Budget

Item 8: Staff Report
Pg.
23 Packet Pg. 255 of 449

COMPRESSED NATURAL GAS SERVICE

UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE G-10

CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council

Supersedes Sheet No G-10-2 Effective 117-1-2023
dated 71-1-2023 Sheet No. G-10-2

maximum $0.15/per therm cost for capped price winter natural gas purchases2.

The Commodity charge is based on the monthly natural gas Bidweek Price Index for delivery at PG&E Citygate, accounting for delivery losses to the Customer’s Meter.

The Transportation Charge is based on the current PG&E G-WSL rate for Palo Alto, accounting for delivery losses to the Customer’s Meter.

The Commodity, Cap and Trade Compliance, Carbon Offset and Transportation Charges will fall within the minimum/maximum range set forth in Section C. Current and historic per therm rates for the Commodity, Cap and Trade Compliance, Carbon Offset and Transportation Charges are posted on the City Utilities website.
3 {End}

Item 8: Staff Report
Pg.
24 Packet Pg. 256 of 449

2 2
6 4
Proposed Gas Utility Long-term Plan (GULP)
Objectives, Strategies and Implementation Plan
(applicable if Council approves winter gas cost containment alternative) GULP Objectives:

1. Market price transparency – Pass a market supply cost signal through to customers with measures to protect against price spikes applied during winter months.

2. Supply Cost Management – Lower delivered gas cost over the long term.

3. Energy Efficiency – Ensure the deployment of all feasible, reliable, cost-effective energy efficiency measures.

4. Climate Protection – Reduce the carbon intensity of the gas portfolio in accordance with the Sustainability and Climate Protection Plan.

5. Parity with PG&E – At a reasonable cost, protect the City’s interests and maintain access to transportation on par with PG&E’s core customers.

GULP Strategies:

1. Pass a market supply cost signal through to customers with measures to protect against price spikes applied during winter months by:
a. Purchasing natural gas at monthly and daily market index prices; b. Changing gas supply rates monthly to reflect market prices ; and c. Purchasing physical capped -price gas of for some or all forecasted natural gas volumes for December through February, provided that the cost of the price caps such capped-price gas purchases results in with no more than a 15 cents per therm impact on retail commodity gas ratesrates.

Item 8
Attachment B - GULP
Revisions 2023 Winter
Hedging

Item 8: Staff Report
Pg.
25 Packet Pg. 257 of 449

GULP Implementation Plan:

1. Continue to iImplement market-based supply purchases and commodity rates with measures to protect against price spikes applied during winter months by:
a. Developing a new purchasing plan to be approved by the Director of Utilities; and b. Conducting customer communication and outreach.

1.2. Pursue below-market assets available through the Gas Transportation and Storage Settlement by:
a. Evaluating the pipeline capacity reservation options available; and b. Contracting with PG&E for any pipeline capacity with an estimated cost below the forecasted market value.

2.3. Monitor the prepay market and prepare for implementation in preparation for a future MuniGas transaction.

3.4. Implement gas efficiency programs to meet the gas efficiency goals.

4.5. Track and report on gas efficiency by:
a. Providing quarterly updates to the UAC about the gas efficiency programs; and b. Providing annual updates to Council on gas efficiency achievements compared to the goals and overall cost effectiveness.

5.6. Continue evaluating new gas efficiency technologies and undertake pilot studies where appropriate.

6.7. Pursue potential modifications to the Carbon Neutral Gas Plan by:
a. Determining an acceptable premium, if any, to be paid for a local offset project if and when a certified project is identified; and
b. Investigating alternatives to offsets, including methods involving voter approval.

Item 8
Attachment B - GULP
Revisions 2023 Winter
Hedging

Item 8: Staff Report
Pg.
26 Packet Pg. 258 of 449

City Council
Staff Report
From: City Manager
Report Type: INFORMATION REPORTS
Lead Department: Utilities
Meeting Date: September 18, 2023
Report Staff: 2307-1743
TITLE
Informational Report on the Annual Review of the City’s Renewable Procurement Plan, Renewable Portfolio Standard Compliance, and Carbon Neutral Electric Supplies for 2022

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Like all electric utilities in California, Palo Alto is subject to the state’s Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) mandate of 60% by 2030. The City has also adopted a Carbon Neutral Plan, which led to the achievement of a carbon neutral electric supply portfolio starting in 2013 (and which was updated by Council in August 2020). In 2011, in compliance with state RPS regulations, the Council also formally adopted an RPS Procurement Plan and an RPS Enforcement Program that recognize certain elements of the state’s RPS law applicable to publicly-owned utilities. The RPS Enforcement Program requires the City Manager, or their designee, the Utilities Director, to conduct an annual review of the Electric Utility’s compliance with the procurement targets set forth in the City’s RPS Procurement Plan.

This staff report satisfies the reporting requirements of the City’s RPS Enforcement Program, while also providing an update on the City’s compliance with the Carbon Neutral Plan. The City continues to meet both its RPS and Carbon Neutral Plan objectives—even after selling 184,000 MWh of renewable energy in 2022.

BACKGROUND
The City currently has two independent procurement targets related to renewable and carbon neutral electricity:
•RPS Procurement Plan (60% by 2030): The City’s official renewable electricity goal is contained in the RPS Procurement Plan that the City was required to adopt under Section 399.30(a) of California’s Public Utilities Code. This was adopted in December 2011 ( Staff Item 9
Item 9 Staff Report

Item 9: Staff Report
Pg.
1 Packet Pg. 259 of 449

Report 22251, Resolutions 92142 and 92153) and updated in November 2013 (Staff Report 41684, Resolution 9381 5), December 2018 ( Staff Report 9761 6, Resolution 9802 7), and December 2020 ( Staff Report 11650 8, Resolution 9929 9). The last update to the RPS Procurement Plan brought it into alignment with the state’s 60% RPS requirement (SB 100), which was signed into law in 2018. The RPS Procurement Plan and RPS Enforcement Program complement each other: the Procurement Plan establishes official procurement targets, while the Enforcement Program specifies the reporting and monitoring that is required of the Utilities Director while working to achieve those targets.

The procurement requirement in the current version of the City’s RPS Procurement Plan is that the City acquire renewable electricity supplies equal to 60% of retail sales by 2030, which is in line with the state’s current RPS mandate. The RPS Procurement Plan also contains an escalating set of targets for six interim Compliance Periods (2011-2013, 2014- 2016, 2017-2020, 2021-2024, 2025-2027, and 2028-2030), as well as subsequent 3-year compliance periods beginning in 2031.
•Carbon Neutral Plan (100% Carbon Neutral Electricity by 2013): The Carbon Neutral Plan was adopted in March 2013 ( Staff Report 3550 10, Resolution 9322 11) and updated in August 2020 (Staff Report 1155612, Resolution 991313), and requires that the City procure a carbon neutral electric supply portfolio, which started in calendar year (CY) 2013. In general, this goal is primarily met through purchases made under the City’s long-term 1 Staff Report 2225 https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/from-archive/agendas-minutes- reports/reports/city-manager-reports-cmrs/2011/final-staff-report-id-2225-renewable-energy-procurement- enforcement-prog-12-12-11.pdf
2 Resolution 9381 https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/city-clerk/resolutions/reso-9214.pdf 3 Resolution 9251 https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/city-clerk/resolutions/reso-9215.pdf 4 Staff Report 4168 https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes-reports/reports/city- manager-reports-cmrs/year-archive/2013/final-staff-report-id-4168_rps-procurement-plan-update.pdf 5 Resolition 9381 https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/city-clerk/resolutions/reso-9381.pdf 6 Staff Report 9761 https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes-reports/reports/city- manager-reports-cmrs/year-archive/2018/final-staff-report-id9761_approval-of-the-2018-electric-integrated- resource-plan-and-related-documents.pdf
7 Resolution 9802 https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/city-clerk/resolutions/reso- 9802.pdf?t=40498.07
8 Staff Report 11650 https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes-reports/reports/city- manager-reports-cmrs/year-archive/2020-2/id-11650.pdf?t=41063.12 9 Resolution 9929 https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/city-clerk/resolutions/resolutions-1909-to- present/2020/reso-9929.pdf
10 Staff Report 3550 https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes-reports/reports/city- manager-reports-cmrs/year-archive/2013/final-staff-report-id-3550_electric-supply-portfolio-carbon-neutral- plan.pdf
11 Resolution 9322 https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/city-clerk/resolutions/reso-9322-33835.pdf 12 Staff Report 11556 https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes-reports/reports/city- manager-reports-cmrs/year-archive/2020-2/id-11566.pdf
13 Resolution 9913 https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/city-clerk/resolutions/reso- 9913.pdf?t=40151.26
Item 9
Item 9 Staff Report

Item 9: Staff Report
Pg.
2 Packet Pg. 260 of 449

renewable power purchase agreements (PPAs) and output from its hydroelectric resources. However, when the City Council approved an update to the Carbon Neutral Plan in August 2020, they also approved a new procurement strategy whereby the City does not keep all of the output of its long-term, in-state PPAs, but instead exchanges that output for less expensive out-of-state renewable generation (with the net proceeds used to fund local decarbonization programs).

ANALYSIS
The City continues to meet its objectives under the RPS Procurement Plan and the Carbon Neutral Plan, and achieved an RPS level of 38.8% in 2022. This value slightly exceeded the state’s 38.5% RPS procurement “soft target” for the year, and the City remains compliant with the state RPS procurement mandate, which is evaluated over a multi-year horizon (2021-2024 in this case). The City also has more than enough RPS supplies under contract to far exceed the state’s soft target levels in the later years of the four-year compliance period. Below is a summary of CPAU’s progress toward satisfying its renewable energy and carbon neutral procurement targets14.

RPS Procurement Plan Compliance
In CY 2022, the City initially received 469,064 MWh of renewable energy through its long-term contracts for wind, solar, landfill gas, and small hydro resources (which represents 56.7% of the City’s total retail sales for that period). Additionally, the City received 156,090 MWh of large hydroelectric generation (representing 18.9% of the City’s total retail sales), which is not classified as eligible renewable generation by the state. Based on the Council’s decision in August 2020 to pursue the “REC Exchange Program” ( Staff Report 11556 15, Resolution 991316) the City sold 184,000 MWh of in-state renewable energy supplies, yielding $2.77 million in sales revenue, while purchasing 428,000 MWh of out-of-state renewable energy 17, at a cost of $2.03 million.

Figure 1 below depicts the City’s load and supply resources for CY 2022, before and after the REC Exchanges described above. Accounting for these transactions, the City’s net renewable energy supplies totaled 713,064 MWh, which represents 86.2% of the City’s total retail sales for 2022.

However, under the state’s RPS regulations the majority of the out-of-state renewable energy purchases were not able to be applied to the City’s RPS requirement, hence the City’s official RPS level was only 38.8%.
14 Renewable and Carbon Neutral Electricity Supply Procurement Details https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes-reports/reports/city-manager-reports- cmrs/attachments/09-18-2023-id-2307-1743-linked-document.pdf 15 Staff Report 11556 https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes-reports/reports/city- manager-reports-cmrs/year-archive/2020-2/id-11566.pdf
16 Resolution 9913 https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/city-clerk/resolutions/reso- 9913.pdf?t=40151.26
17 Not including 28,000 MWh of RECs purchased on behalf of PaloAltoGreen customers.

Item 9
Item 9 Staff Report

Item 9: Staff Report
Pg.
3 Packet Pg. 261 of 449

Figure 1: CY 2022 Electric Load and Supply Resources, With and Without REC Exchanges For CY 2023 to date, staff has contracted to sell about 160,000 MWh of in-state renewable generation and has purchased about 200,000 MWh of out-of-state renewable generation. Figure 2 below depicts the City’s projected load and supply resources for CY 2023, before and after the REC Exchanges described above. Once these transactions are accounted for, they will yield a total of about $2.8 million in net revenue, and an official RPS level of 41.25% (equal to the state’s RPS soft target for 2022).

Item 9
Item 9 Staff Report

Item 9: Staff Report
Pg.
4 Packet Pg. 262 of 449

Figure 2: Projected CY 2023 Electric Load and Supply Resources, With and Without REC Exchanges
In accordance with the state’s RPS Program requirements, CPAU’s Procurement Plan develops a renewable electric supply portfolio that balances environmental goals with system reliability while maintaining stable and low retail electric rates. The state RPS program requires retail electricity suppliers like CPAU to procure progressively larger renewable electricity supplies across a series of separate multi-year Compliance Periods. CPAU’s procurement targets, as well as its actual/projected procurement volumes and RPS levels, for the first three Compliance Periods are summarized in Table 1 below.

Table 1: RPS Compliance Period Procurement Targets and Actual Procurement RPS
Compliance
Period
Years Retail Sales
(MWh)
Procurement
Target (MWh)
Actual/Projected
Procurement
(MWh)
% of Retail
Sales
1 2011-2013 2,837,773 567,555 607,740 21.4%
2 2014-2016 2,801,056 605,949 826,855 29.5%
3 2017-2020 3,487,686 1,043,424 1,619,303 46.4%
4 2021-2024 3,286,954 1,311,952 1,311,952 39.9%
TOTALS 12,413,469 3,528,880 4,365,850 35.2%
Item 9
Item 9 Staff Report

Item 9: Staff Report
Pg.
5 Packet Pg. 263 of 449

Carbon Neutral Plan
In CY 2022, CPAU achieved its goal, set forth in the Carbon Neutral Plan, of an electric supply portfolio with zero net greenhouse (GHG) emissions for the eighth consecutive year. Carbon neutrality was achieved in CY 2022 through existing hydro and renewable generation (wind, solar, and landfill gas). As discussed above, due to the Council’s adoption of the REC Exchange Program in August 2020, the City sold 184,000 MWh of in-state renewable energy supplies in CY 2022, yielding $2.77 million in sales revenue, while purchasing 428,000 MWh of out-of-state renewable energy, at a cost of $2.03 million (resulting in net revenue of $0.74 million). Accounting for these transactions, the City’s net renewable energy supplies totaled 713,064 MWh, which represents

86.2% of the City’s total retail sales for 2022. The remainder of the City’s needs were supplied by large hydroelectric resources.

When the City Council approved an update to the Carbon Neutral Plan in August 2020, the primary change was to adopt an hourly carbon accounting methodology as the basis for determining whether the City has met its carbon neutrality objective. Using an annual accounting approach, the City had an overall surplus of 20,306 MWh of carbon neutral generation compared to its load (equal to 2.4% total load), and thus substantially exceeded the carbon neutrality standard. Meanwhile, under the hourly carbon accounting approach, 18 the City’s electric supply portfolio also exceeded the carbon neutrality standard, being responsible for a net negative amount of GHG emissions: -27,335 metric tons of CO2 equivalent. See Figure 3 below for a depiction of the City’s monthly total net CO2 emissions for 2022, as well as the monthly average emissions intensity for the California electric grid.
18 The City’s hourly carbon accounting methodology entails calculating the City’s net surplus or deficit carbon neutral supply position relative to its load in every hour of the year. The grid average electricity emissions intensity for each hour is then applied to each of these hourly surpluses or deficits to yield a net emissions contribution (or reduction) that the City’s electric supply portfolio is responsible for in that hour. These hourly emissions totals are then summed across the entire year to yield the City’s annual emissions total for the year.

Item 9
Item 9 Staff Report

Item 9: Staff Report
Pg.
6 Packet Pg. 264 of 449

Figure 3: CY 2022 Monthly Net Electric Supply Emissions and CAISO Emissions Intensity For CY 2023, above average hydro conditions are expected to result in about 54% of the City’s electric supply needs being supplied by hydroelectric resources (compared to a long-term annual average of about 45%), with the remainder coming from non-hydro renewable energy resources.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS
This report implements Sections 4 and 5 of the City’s RPS Enforcement Program, which require an annual review of the Electric Utility’s compliance with the CPAU RPS Procurement Plan to ensure that CPAU is making reasonable progress toward meeting the compliance obligations established in the CPAU RPS Procurement Plan.

FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT
This is an informational report that has no fiscal or resource impact to the Utilities Department or the City. As noted above, the implementation of the REC Exchange Program resulted in net revenue of $0.74 million for CY 2022.

Item 9
Item 9 Staff Report

Item 9: Staff Report
Pg.
7 Packet Pg. 265 of 449

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Council’s review of this report does not meet the definition of a “project” pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21065, thus California Environmental Quality Act review is not required.

APPROVED BY:

Dean Batchelor, Director Utilities
Staff: James Stack, PhD, Senior Resource Planner
Item 9
Item 9 Staff Report

Item 9: Staff Report
Pg.
8 Packet Pg. 266 of 449

City Council
Staff Report
From: City Manager
Report Type: INFORMATION REPORTS
Lead Department: City Manager
Meeting Date: September 18, 2023
Report #:2306-1676
TITLE
Avenidas Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults

INFORMTIONAL REPORT
In early 2023, Avenidas, a nonprofit organization serving seniors, released the results of the Community Assessment Survey of Older Adults (CASOA). Avenidas has conducted community wide research into the changing needs and interests of older adults every ten years since 1962.

The report includes years of data collected from The Community Assessment of Older Adults (CASOA), a survey that measures what older people think about quality of life in their state, county, city, or town. The report is intended to enable local governments, community-based organizations, the private sector and other community members to understand more thoroughly and predict more accurately the services and resources required to serve an aging population. As with the Annual Community Survey, the City of Palo Alto values this information to evaluate its facilities and senior programming meets the needs of its residents.

Conducted by Polco NRC, the survey was mailed to 12,000 households selected at random, with an adult member 60 years or older. A total of 669 responses were obtained, providing an overall response rate of 5.82%. Results were statistically weighted to reflect the proper demographic composition of older adults in the entire community. Aspects of livability are explored within six community dimensions: Community design, Employment and Finances, Equity and Inclusivity, Health and Wellness, Information and Assistance, and Productive Activities.

Below are a few key findings of the report:

OVERALL COMMUNITY QUALITY
About 89% of older residents living in the region rated their overall quality of life as excellent or good. Most of the older respondents scored their communities positively as a place to live and would recommend their communities to others. About 85% residents planned to stay in their community throughout their retirement.

Item 10
Item 10 Staff Report

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
1 Packet Pg. 267 of 449

COMMUNITY DESIGN
About 63% of respondents rated the overall quality of the transportation system (auto, bicycle, foot, bus) in their community as excellent or good. In many communities, ease of travel by walking or bicycling is given lower ratings than travel by car. Here, ease of travel by car was considered excellent or good by 88% of respondents, while ease of travel by walking and bicycling was considered excellent or good by 80% and 79% of respondents, respectively.

EMPLOYMENT AND FINANCES
About 92% of older residents rated the overall economic health of their communities positively, although the cost of living was rated as excellent or good by only 13%.

About 15% older adults reported financial challenges and 14% reported employment needs.

EQUITY AND INCLUSION
About 64% of older residents rated the sense of community in their towns as excellent or good, and neighborliness was rated positively by 59% of residents.

About 64% of the respondents positively rated their community’s openness and acceptance toward older residents of diverse backgrounds, and 57% indicated that their community valued older residents.

HEALTH AND WELLNESS
About 83% older residents in the region rated their overall physical health as excellent or good and 89% rated their mental health as excellent or good.

In most places, opportunities for health and wellness receive higher ratings from older adults than do health care ratings. Here, community opportunities for health and wellness were scored positively by 86% residents, while the percent giving ratings of excellent or good to the availability of physical health care was 56%, to mental health care 39%, and to long term care options 45%.

The full report can be found online at https://www.avenidas.org/media/news/avenidas-casoa-final- report/, and linked as Attachment A in this report.

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: 2022 Avenidas Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults APPROVED BY:

Ed Shikada, City Manager
Item 10
Item 10 Staff Report

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
2 Packet Pg. 268 of 449

8001 Terrace Ave Middleton, WI 53562
info.polco.us • 608-709-8683
Avenidas
Community Assessment Survey for
Older Adults
September 2022
Item 10
Attachment A - 2022
Avenidas Community
Assessment Survey for
Older Adults

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
3 Packet Pg. 269 of 449

Table of Contents
Section 1: Introduction 1
Section 2: Key Findings 6
Section 3: Understanding the Report 13
Section 4: Community Readiness 14
Section 5: Community Livability Topics 18
Section 6: Overall Community Quality
Section 6A: Place to Live and Retire 21
Section 6B: Recommend and Remain in Community 23
Section 7: Community Design
Section 7A: Housing 25
Section 7B: Land Use 28
Section 7C: Mobility 30
Section 8: Employment and Finances
Section 8A: Employment 33
Section 8B: Finances 36
Section 9: Equity and Inclusivity
Section 9A: Community Inclusivity 39
Section 9B: Equity 42
Section 10: Health and Wellness
Section 10A: Health Care 44
Section 10B: Independent Living 47
Section 10C: Mental Health 50
Section 10D: Physical Health 53
Section 10E: Safety 57
Section 11: Information and Assistance
Section 11A: Information on Available Older Adult Services 59 Section 11B: Quality of Older Adult Services 63
Section 12: Productive Activities
Item 10
Attachment A - 2022
Avenidas Community
Assessment Survey for
Older Adults

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
4 Packet Pg. 270 of 449

Section 12A: Caregiving 65
Section 12B: Civic Engagement 68
Section 12C: Social Engagement 72
Section 13: Economic Contribution 76
Section 14: Community Needs 79
Section 15: Full Results (with No Opinion) 84
Section 16: Full Results (excluding No Opinion) 107
Section 17: National Benchmark Comparisons 130
Section 18: Methods 146
Item 10
Attachment A - 2022
Avenidas Community
Assessment Survey for
Older Adults

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
5 Packet Pg. 271 of 449

Section 1: Introduction
About the Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults
The Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults (CASOA)provides a statistically valid survey of the strengths and needs of olderadults as reported by older adults themselves. This report is intendedto enable local governments, community-based organizations, theprivate sector and other community members to understand morethoroughly and predict more accurately the services and resourcesrequired to serve an aging population. With this data, communitystakeholders can shape public policy, educate the public and assistcommunities and organizations in their eﬀorts to sustain a high qualityof life for older adults. ®
®
Avenidas | Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults September 2022
1 Item 10
Attachment A - 2022
Avenidas Community
Assessment Survey for
Older Adults

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
6 Packet Pg. 272 of 449

The results of this exploration will provide useful information forplanning and resource development as well as strengths advocacyeﬀorts and stakeholder engagement. The ultimate goal of theassessment is to create empowered communities that support vibrantolder adult populations. This report summarizes how older residents view their community andits success in creating a thriving environment for older adults. Aspectsof livability are explored within six community dimensions: CommunityDesign, Employment and Finances, Equity and Inclusivity, Health andWellness, Information and Assistance, and Productive Activities. Overallcommunity quality also is assessed.

Avenidas | Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults September 2022
2 Item 10
Attachment A - 2022
Avenidas Community
Assessment Survey for
Older Adults

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
7 Packet Pg. 273 of 449

Survey Methods
The CASOA survey instrument and its administration are standardizedto assure high-quality survey methods and comparable results acrosscommunities. Households with an adult member 60 years or olderwere selected at random. Multiple mailed contacts gave eachhousehold more than one prompt to participate. A total of 12,000 olderadult households were randomly selected to receive the survey. Thesehouseholds ﬁrst received a half-page postcard inviting them tocomplete the survey online, followed by a mailed hard copy surveypacket which included a cover letter, a copy of the questionnaire and apostage-paid return envelope. A total of 669 completed surveys wasobtained, providing an overall response rate of 5.82% and a margin oferror plus or minus 3.79% around any given percent and one pointaround any given average rating for the entire sample (e.g., averagenumber of caregiving hours). Results were statistically weighted toreﬂect the proper demographic composition of older adults in theentire community. In addition to the random sample "probability" survey, an openparticipation survey was conducted, in which all older adults 60 yearsor older were invited to participate. The open participation surveyinstrument was identical to the probability sample survey. This surveywas conducted entirely online. A total of 143 surveys were completedby open participation survey respondents. The open participationsurvey results were combined with responses from the probabilitysample survey, for a total of 812 completed surveys. With the inclusionof the open participation survey participants, it is likely that theprecision of the responses would be even greater (and thus the marginof error smaller). Results were statistically weighted to reﬂect the proper demographiccomposition of older adults in the entire community. Because Avenidas doesn't have any prior measurements, trends aren'tavailable. Trends will be available after this survey has been conducteda second time. Diﬀerences in responses between the surveyadministrations will be tested for statistical signiﬁcance, and Avenidas | Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults September 2022
3 Item 10
Attachment A - 2022
Avenidas Community
Assessment Survey for
Older Adults

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
8 Packet Pg. 274 of 449

statistically signiﬁcant diﬀerences are noted in the charts. Trend datarepresent important comparisons and should be examined forimprovements or declines. For additional details on the survey methodology, see the Methodssection.

How the Results Are Reported
Don't Know Responses and RoundingOn many of the questions in the survey, respondents could provide ananswer of don't know. The proportion of residents giving this reply canbe seen in Responses. However, these responses have been removedfrom the analyses presented in the body of the report, unlessotherwise indicated. In other words, the majority of the tables andgraphs in the body of the report display the responses fromrespondents who had an opinion about a speciﬁc item. For some questions, respondents were permitted to select multipleresponses. When the total exceeds 100% in a table for a multipleresponse question, it is because some respondents are counted inmultiple categories. When a table for a question that only permitted asingle response does not total to exactly 100%, it is due to thecustomary practice of rounding percentages to the nearest wholenumber. Benchmark Comparison DataNational Research Center at Polco has developed a database thatcollates responses to CASOA and related surveys administered in othercommunities, which allows the results from Avenidas to be comparedagainst a set of national benchmarks. This benchmarking databaseincludes responses from more than 35,000 older adults (age 55 andover) in over 326 communities across the nation. Ratings are compared when similar questions are included in Polco'sdatabase and when there are at least ﬁve other communities in whichthe question was asked. Where comparisons for ratings are available,Avenidas's results are shown as more favorable than the benchmark,less favorable than the benchmark or similar to the benchmark. In Avenidas | Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults September 2022
4 Item 10
Attachment A - 2022
Avenidas Community
Assessment Survey for
Older Adults

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
9 Packet Pg. 275 of 449

instances where ratings are considerably more or less favorable thanthe benchmark, these ratings have been further demarcated by theattribute of "much" (for example, much more favorable or much lessfavorable).

Avenidas | Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults September 2022
5 Item 10
Attachment A - 2022
Avenidas Community
Assessment Survey for
Older Adults

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
10 Packet Pg. 276 of 449

Section 2: Key Findings
Background
Most older adults desire to age in place. Communities that assist olderadults in remaining or becoming active community participants mustprovide the requisite opportunities for recreation, transportation,culture, education, communication, social connection, spiritualenrichment and health care. To better understand the strengths and challenges of Avenidas areacommunities aging in place, Avenidas partnered with Polco toadminister The Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults(CASOA) across all service areas. Data in this report focus speciﬁcallyon older residents in the Avenidas service area. Survey participants rated the overall quality of life in their community.They also evaluated their communities as livable communities for olderadults within six domains: · Community Design· Employment and Finances· Equity and Inclusivity· Health and Wellness· Information and Assistance· Productive Activities. The extent to which older adults experience challenges within thesedomains is also described.

Overall Community Quality
Measuring community livability for older adults starts with assessingthe quality of life of those who live there, and ensuring that thecommunity is attractive, accessible, and welcoming to all. Exploringhow older residents view their community overall and how likely theyare to recommend and remain in their communities can provide a high-level overview of the quality and livability of the community. ®
Avenidas | Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults September 2022
6 Item 10
Attachment A - 2022
Avenidas Community
Assessment Survey for
Older Adults

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
11 Packet Pg. 277 of 449

· About 89% of older residents living in the region rated their overallquality of life as excellent or good. Most of the older respondentsscored their communities positively as a place to live and wouldrecommend their communities to others. About 85% residentsplanned to stay in their community throughout their retirement.· Positive scores were given to their communities as places to retireby 70% of older residents.

Overall Scores of Community Livability
The Community Assessment Survey of Older Adults (CASOA) isdesigned to examine the status of older adults and the communityaround many (17) topics of livability within six domains: CommunityDesign, Employment and Finances, Equity and Inclusivity, Health andWellness, Information and Assistance, and Productive Activities.Summary scores of community livability were created through theaggregation of a series of resident ratings within each of thesediﬀerent livability aspects and domains. Of the 17 aspects of livabilityexamined, the aspects found to be strongest in the region related toareas of Safety (average positive score of 85%), Physical Health (77%),and Social Engagement (76%). The areas showing the greatest needfor improvement related to Housing (19%), Employment (32%) andMental Health (39%). More detailed information about each livabilitydomain follows.

Community Design
Livable communities (which include those with mixed-useneighborhoods, higher-density development, increased connections,shared community spaces and more human-scale design) will becomea necessity for communities to age successfully. Communities thathave planned and been designed for older adults tend to emphasizeaccess, helping to facilitate movement and participation.· About 63% of respondents rated the overall quality of thetransportation system (auto, bicycle, foot, bus) in their communityas excellent or good. In many communities, ease of travel bywalking or bicycling is given lower ratings than travel by car. Here,ease of travel by car was considered excellent or good by 88% of Avenidas | Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults September 2022
7 Item 10
Attachment A - 2022
Avenidas Community
Assessment Survey for
Older Adults

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
12 Packet Pg. 278 of 449

respondents, while ease of travel by walking and bicycling wasconsidered excellent or good by 80% and 79% of respondents,respectively.· When considering aspects of housing (aﬀordability and variety) andcommunity features of new urbanism (where people can live closeto places where they can eat, shop, work, and receive services),relatively lower scores were given by older adults compared tomany other items on the survey. Only 11% of respondents gave apositive score to the availability of aﬀordable quality housing intheir communities, and only about 32% older adults gave excellentor good ratings to the availability of mixed-use neighborhoods. · About 44% of older residents in the region reported experiencinghousing needs and 24% reported mobility needs.

Employment and Finances
The life expectancy for those born between 1940 and 1960 hasincreased dramatically due to advances in health care and lifestylechanges. While this is a very positive trend overall, it also highlightsboth the importance of communities providing employmentopportunities for older adults and the need for older adults to plan wellfor their retirement years. · About 92% of older residents rated the overall economic health oftheir communities positively, although the cost of living was ratedas excellent or good by only 13%. · Employment opportunities for older adults (quality and variety)received low ratings (23% and 20% positive, respectively), and theopportunity to build work skills also was found to be lacking (51%excellent or good). · About 15% older adults reported ﬁnancial challenges and 14%reported employment needs.

Equity and Inclusion
A community is often greater than the sum of its parts. Having a senseof community entails not only a sense of membership and belonging,but also feelings of equity and trust in the other members of thecommunity.

Avenidas | Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults September 2022
8 Item 10
Attachment A - 2022
Avenidas Community
Assessment Survey for
Older Adults

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
13 Packet Pg. 279 of 449

· About 64% of older residents rated the sense of community in theirtowns as excellent or good, and neighborliness was rated positivelyby 59% of residents. · About 64% of the respondents positively rated their community’sopenness and acceptance toward older residents of diversebackgrounds, and 57% indicated that their community valued olderresidents.· Inclusion challenges were reported by about 18% of older residentsand equity challenges by 4%.

Health and Wellness
Of all the attributes of aging, health poses the greatest risk and thebiggest opportunity for communities to ensure the independence andcontributions of their aging populations. Health and wellness, for thepurposes of this study, included not only physical and mental health,but issues of safety, independent living and health care.· About 83% older residents in the region rated their overall physicalhealth as excellent or good and 89% rated their mental health asexcellent or good.· In most places, opportunities for health and wellness receive higherratings from older adults than do health care ratings. Here,community opportunities for health and wellness were scoredpositively by 86% residents, while the percent giving ratings ofexcellent or good to the availability of physical health care was56%, to mental health care 39%, and to long term care options45%. · Health-related problems were some of the most commonchallenges listed by older adults in the survey, with 36% reportingphysical health challenges and 25% reporting mental healthchallenges. Health care was also a challenge for about 24% of olderresidents.

Information and Assistance
The older adult service network, while strong, is under-resourced andunable to single-handedly meet the needs of the continuously growingpopulation of older adults. Providing useful and well-designed Avenidas | Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults September 2022
9 Item 10
Attachment A - 2022
Avenidas Community
Assessment Survey for
Older Adults

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
14 Packet Pg. 280 of 449

programs, as well as informing residents about other assistanceresources, is an important way that government agencies can helpresidents age in place. · The overall services provided to older adults in the region wererated as excellent or good by 73% of survey respondents.· About 70% of survey respondents reported being somewhatinformed or very informed about services and activities available toolder adults. The availability of information about resources forolder adults was rated positively by 54% of older residents and theavailability of ﬁnancial or legal planning services was ratedpositively by 54% of older residents.· About 30% of older adults were found to have information accesschallenges in the region.

Productive Activities
Productive activities outside of work (such as volunteerism and socialactivity) promote quality of life and contribute to active aging. Thisdomain examines the extent of older adults’ participation in social andleisure programs and their time spent attending or viewing civicmeetings, volunteering or providing help to others.· About 73% of older adults surveyed felt they had excellent or goodopportunities to volunteer, and 53% participated in some kind ofvolunteer work.· The caregiving contribution of older adults was substantial in theregion. About 32% of older residents reported providing care toindividuals 55 and older, 12% to individuals 18-54 and 19% toindividuals under 18. · Older adults in the region reported challenges with being civicallyengaged 19%, being socially engaged 19% and caregiving 10%.

The Economic Contribution of Older Adults
The contribution older adults make through employment, volunteerismand caregiving was calculated for all older adults living in the region. Itis estimated that older residents contribute $895,616,087 annually totheir community through paid and unpaid work.

Avenidas | Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults September 2022
10 Item 10
Attachment A - 2022
Avenidas Community
Assessment Survey for
Older Adults

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
15 Packet Pg. 281 of 449

Older Resident Needs
Through the survey, more than 40 challenges commonly facing olderadults were assessed by respondents. These challenges were groupedinto 15 larger categories of needs. In the region, the largest challengeswere in the areas of housing, physical health, and information aboutolder adult services. At least 44% of older residents reported at leastone item in these categories was a major or moderate problem in the12 months prior to taking the survey.

Comparison to National Benchmarks
Community Characteristics BenchmarksTo better provide context to the survey data, resident responses for theregion were compared to Polco’s national benchmark database or olderadult opinion. Of the 52 assessments of community livability that werecompared to the benchmark database, 34 were similar, 14 above, and4 below the benchmark comparisons.The areas in which the region ratings were lower than benchmarkcomparisons were:· Quality of employment opportunities for older adults· Cost of living in your community· Availability of aﬀordable quality housing· Variety of housing options The areas in which the region rating was higher than benchmarkcomparisons were:· Overall economic health of your community· Overall design or layout of your community's residential andcommercial areas (e.g., homes, buildings, streets, parks, etc.)· Overall quality of the utility infrastructure in your community(water, sewer, storm water, electric/gas, broadband)· Overall health and wellness opportunities in your community· Overall opportunities for education, culture, and the arts· How would you rate the overall services provided to older adults inyour community?· Ease of travel by car in your community· Ease of walking in your community Avenidas | Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults September 2022
11 Item 10
Attachment A - 2022
Avenidas Community
Assessment Survey for
Older Adults

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
16 Packet Pg. 282 of 449

· Ease of bicycling in your community· Opportunities to build work skills· Availability of information about resources for older adults· Availability of ﬁnancial or legal planning services· Availability of daytime care options for older adults· Opportunities to enroll in skill-building or personal enrichmentclasses Older Adult Challenges BenchmarksComparisons to the benchmark database can also be made for theproportion of residents experiencing a variety of challenges. In region,there was a lower proportion of older adults experiencing challengesfor 9 item(s), a greater proportion of older adults experiencingchallenges for 1 item(s), and a similar proportion experiencingchallenges for 32 item(s). The challenge for which a greater proportion of residents reported aproblem compared to benchmarks was:· Maintaining your home The challenges for which a lower proportion of residents reported aproblem compared to benchmarks were:· Having enough money to meet daily expenses· Having enough money to pay your property taxes· Finding aﬀordable health insurance· Getting the health care you need· Getting the oral health care you need· Aﬀording the medications you need· Maintaining a healthy diet· Feeling like your voice is heard in the community· Having interesting recreational or cultural activities to attend Avenidas | Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults September 2022
12 Item 10
Attachment A - 2022
Avenidas Community
Assessment Survey for
Older Adults

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
17 Packet Pg. 283 of 449

Trends
Favorably
At least 7 percentage points more favorable than last measure Similar
No statistically significant difference
Unfavorably
At least 7 percentage points less favorable than last measure Benchmarks
Much more favorable
At least 20 points more favorable than benchmark
More favorable
10-20 points more favorable than benchmark
Similar
No statistically significant difference
Less favorable
10-20 points less favorable than benchmark
Much less favorable
At least 20 points less favorable than benchmark
Throughout this report, iconography is used to denote trends and benchmarks. While some pages will show the legend, others won’t for the sake of space. Keep this page handy for reference.

Section 3: Understanding the Report
Avenidas | Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults September 2022
13 Item 10
Attachment A - 2022
Avenidas Community
Assessment Survey for
Older Adults

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
18 Packet Pg. 284 of 449

Section 4: Community ReadinessCommunities that assist older adults to remain or become activecommunity participants must provide the requisite opportunities forrecreation, transportation, culture, education, communication, socialconnection, spiritual enrichment and health care. Because everycommunity is diﬀerent, each must identify what its older adults valuemost and what the community oﬀers its older residents. Thejudgments of these residents provide the elements used to calculatethe overall community quality in Avenidas. Survey respondents were asked to rate a number of aspects of thecommunity. These ratings were converted to an average scale of 0 (thelowest rating, such as poor) to 100 (the highest rating, such asexcellent) and then combined to provide one overall rating (index) foreach of the six dimensions of Community Readiness, as well as anoverall rating of the Quality of the Community. If trend data prior to2022 are shown, it should be noted that community readiness scoreshave been updated from previous reports to improve these metrics.Readiness scores for past surveys were recalculated using the newdimensions to make them comparable to the current structure.

Community Readiness Chart

Dimension Community Livability Topics
Score
(out of
100)
Overall Community Quality• Place to Live and Retire
• Recommend and Remain in Community 64
Community Design
• Housing
• Mobility
• Land Use
38 Employment and Finances • Employment
• Finances 27
Equity and Inclusivity • Equity
• Community Inclusivity 45
1 Avenidas | Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults September 2022
14 Item 10
Attachment A - 2022
Avenidas Community
Assessment Survey for
Older Adults

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
19 Packet Pg. 285 of 449

Dimension Community Livability Topics
Score
(out of
100)
Health and Wellness
• Safety
• Physical Health
• Mental Health
• Health Care
• Independent Living
41 Information and Assistance
• Quality of Older Adult Services
• Information on Available Older Adult
Services
31 Productive Activities
• Civic Engagement
• Social Engagement
• Caregiving
45 Avenidas | Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults September 2022
15 Item 10
Attachment A - 2022
Avenidas Community
Assessment Survey for
Older Adults

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
20 Packet Pg. 286 of 449

These ratings are not to be understood like ratings from school tests,because they are summaries of several questions that range from 0 aspoor, 33 as fair, 67 as good and 100 as excellent. For example, a score 1 Avenidas | Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults September 2022
16 Item 10
Attachment A - 2022
Avenidas Community
Assessment Survey for
Older Adults

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
21 Packet Pg. 287 of 449

of 58 should be interpreted as closer to good than to fair (with themidpoint of the scale, 50, representing equidistance between good andfair).

Avenidas | Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults September 2022
17 Item 10
Attachment A - 2022
Avenidas Community
Assessment Survey for
Older Adults

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
22 Packet Pg. 288 of 449

Section 5: Community livability topicsThe Community Assessment Survey of Older Adults (CASOA) is designed toexamine the status of older adults and the community around many (17)aspects of livability within six domains: Community Design, Employment andFinances, Equity and Inclusivity, Health and Wellness, Information andAssistance, and Productive Activities. Overall community quality also isassessed with two topics. (See Introduction section About the CommunityAssessment Survey for Older Adults for an overview of all the communitylivability topics within these domains.) For each of these 19 community livabilitytopic areas, survey questions evaluated the community's ability toaccommodate the needs of older residents, as well as the actual experiencesand challenges of older adults.To summarize the data, an index score was calculated for each aspect oflivability by averaging the ratings given to the questions related to the speciﬁccommunity livability topic. (This index includes only the ratings of communityamenities, not those items related to the respondents' own status or thechallenges faced by the respondent.) Overall Community Quality
Place to Live andRetire87 / 100
Recommend andRemain in Community77 / 100
Community Design
Housing19 / 100 Land Use63 / 100
Mobility72 / 100
Livability score trend unavailable.

Because Avenidas doesn't have a prior livability score, trends for livability aren'tavailable. Trends will be available aer this survey has been conducted a second time.

Avenidas | Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults September 2022
18 Item 10
Attachment A - 2022
Avenidas Community
Assessment Survey for
Older Adults

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
23 Packet Pg. 289 of 449

Employment and Finances
Employment32 / 100 Finances53 / 100
Equity and Inclusivity
Community Inclusivity61 / 100 Equity60 / 100
Health and Wellness
Health Care66 / 100 Independent Living43 / 100
Mental Health39 / 100 Physical Health77 / 100
Safety85 / 100
Information and Assistance
Information onAvailable Older AdultServices54 / 100
Quality of Older AdultServices73 / 100
Avenidas | Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults September 2022
19 Item 10
Attachment A - 2022
Avenidas Community
Assessment Survey for
Older Adults

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
24 Packet Pg. 290 of 449

Productive Activities
CaregivingScoring not applicable Civic Engagement69 / 100 Social Engagement76 / 100
Avenidas | Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults September 2022
20 Item 10
Attachment A - 2022
Avenidas Community
Assessment Survey for
Older Adults

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
25 Packet Pg. 291 of 449

Section 6A: Place to Live and Retire
Successful aging communities are attractive and welcoming to older adults andprovide the support necessary for residents to age in place.

Livability score
Average of community quality items87
Livability score trend unavailable.

Because Avenidas doesn't have a prior livability score, trends for livability aren'tavailable. Trends will be available aer this survey has been conducted a second time.

Avenidas | Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults September 2022
21 Item 10
Attachment A - 2022
Avenidas Community
Assessment Survey for
Older Adults

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
26 Packet Pg. 292 of 449

Related survey results
Items on the survey related to this topic are shown below. These tables displaythe ratings given by respondents, as well as a comparison to the nationalbenchmark (average ratings from communities across the nation) and, ifavailable, comparisons to ratings from the most recently implemented survey.

Quality of Community
Percent reporting excellent or good.

Your community as a place tolive 94%
Your neighborhood as a place tolive 93%
The overall quality of life in yourcommunity 89%
Your community as a place toretire 70%
Status Indicators - Personal Quality of Life
Percent reporting excellent or good.

Your overall quality of life 91%
Trends unavailable
Because Avenidas doesn't have any prior measurements, these trends aren't available.Trends will be available aer this survey has been conducted a second time.

Characteristic % positiveNationalBenchmark
Characteristic % positiveNationalBenchmark
Avenidas | Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults September 2022
22 Item 10
Attachment A - 2022
Avenidas Community
Assessment Survey for
Older Adults

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
27 Packet Pg. 293 of 449

Section 6B: Recommend and Remain in Community
A strong testament to the quality of a community is the likelihood of residentsrecommending and remaining in the community. Generally, residents will notrecommend a community to friends unless they believe that community isoﬀering the right amenities and services. Furthermore, communities that do agood job supporting seniors allow their residents to remain throughout theirretirement years.

Livability score
Average of community quality items77
Livability score trend unavailable.

Because Avenidas doesn't have a prior livability score, trends for livability aren'tavailable. Trends will be available aer this survey has been conducted a second time.

Avenidas | Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults September 2022
23 Item 10
Attachment A - 2022
Avenidas Community
Assessment Survey for
Older Adults

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
28 Packet Pg. 294 of 449

Quality of Community
Percent reporting very likely or somewhat likely.

Remain in your communitythroughout your retirement 85%
Recommend living in yourcommunity to older adults 69%
Trends unavailable
Because Avenidas doesn't have any prior measurements, these trends aren't available.Trends will be available aer this survey has been conducted a second time.

Characteristic % likelyNationalBenchmark
Avenidas | Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults September 2022
24 Item 10
Attachment A - 2022
Avenidas Community
Assessment Survey for
Older Adults

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
29 Packet Pg. 295 of 449

Section 7A: Housing
Most older adults want to age in place; however, many do not have homes thatfeature universal design allowing access for walkers and wheelchairs andproviding safety for those who are frail or experiencing mobility impairments.Ensuring the availability of housing stock that is both aﬀordable and suitablefor seniors is necessary as a community’s population ages.

Livability score
Average of community quality items19
Livability score trend unavailable.

Because Avenidas doesn't have a prior livability score, trends for livability aren'tavailable. Trends will be available aer this survey has been conducted a second time.

Avenidas | Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults September 2022
25 Item 10
Attachment A - 2022
Avenidas Community
Assessment Survey for
Older Adults

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
30 Packet Pg. 296 of 449

Potential Problems
Percent reporting minor problem, moderate problem or major problem.

Doing heavy or intensehousework 61%
Maintaining your home 59%
Maintaining your yard 56%
Having housing to suit yourneeds 23%
Trends unavailable
Because Avenidas doesn't have any prior measurements, these trends aren't available.Trends will be available aer this survey has been conducted a second time.

Characteristic %problematic NationalBenchmark
Avenidas | Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults September 2022
26 Item 10
Attachment A - 2022
Avenidas Community
Assessment Survey for
Older Adults

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
31 Packet Pg. 297 of 449

Quality of Community
Percent reporting excellent or good.

Availability of accessible housing(e.g., homes with a no step entry,single-ﬂoor living, wide hallwaysand doorways) 28%
Variety of housing options 23%
Availability of aﬀordable qualityhousing 11%
Characteristic % positiveNationalBenchmark
Avenidas | Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults September 2022
27 Item 10
Attachment A - 2022
Avenidas Community
Assessment Survey for
Older Adults

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
32 Packet Pg. 298 of 449

Section 7B: Land Use
The movement in America towards designing more livable communities (whichinclude mixed-use neighborhoods, higher-density development, increasedconnections, shared community spaces and more human-scale design) willbecome a necessity for communities to age successfully. Communities thathave planned and been designed for older adults tend to emphasize access,helping to facilitate movement and participation.

Livability score
Average of community quality items63
Livability score trend unavailable.

Because Avenidas doesn't have a prior livability score, trends for livability aren'tavailable. Trends will be available aer this survey has been conducted a second time.

Avenidas | Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults September 2022
28 Item 10
Attachment A - 2022
Avenidas Community
Assessment Survey for
Older Adults

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
33 Packet Pg. 299 of 449

Quality of Community
Percent reporting excellent or good.

Overall quality of the utilityinfrastructure in your community(water, sewer, storm water,electric/gas, broadband) 83%
Overall design or layout of yourcommunity's residential andcommercial areas (e.g., homes,buildings, streets, parks, etc.) 79%
Public places where people wantto spend time 52%
Availability of mixed-useneighborhoods where peoplelive close to places where theycan eat, shop, work, and receiveservices 32%
Trends unavailable
Because Avenidas doesn't have any prior measurements, these trends aren't available.Trends will be available aer this survey has been conducted a second time.

Characteristic % positiveNationalBenchmark
Avenidas | Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults September 2022
29 Item 10
Attachment A - 2022
Avenidas Community
Assessment Survey for
Older Adults

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
34 Packet Pg. 300 of 449

Section 7C: Mobility
The ease with which older residents can move about their communities,whether for commuting, leisure, or recreation, plays a major role in the qualityof life for all who live, work, and play in the community. Those who reside inlivable communities where they can reach their destinations easily andcomfortably by auto, on foot or in public transportation are more likely toremain engaged in their communities and to demonstrate signs of successfulaging. Residents that must give up driving are more likely to be able to age inplace if other modes of transportation are easily accessed in theirneighborhood and community.

Livability score
Average of community quality items72
Livability score trend unavailable.

Because Avenidas doesn't have a prior livability score, trends for livability aren'tavailable. Trends will be available aer this survey has been conducted a second time.

Avenidas | Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults September 2022
30 Item 10
Attachment A - 2022
Avenidas Community
Assessment Survey for
Older Adults

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
35 Packet Pg. 301 of 449

Potential Problems
Percent reporting minor problem, moderate problem or major problem.

Having safe and aﬀordabletransportation available 41%
No longer being able to drive 16%
Trends unavailable
Because Avenidas doesn't have any prior measurements, these trends aren't available.Trends will be available aer this survey has been conducted a second time.

Characteristic %problematic NationalBenchmark
Avenidas | Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults September 2022
31 Item 10
Attachment A - 2022
Avenidas Community
Assessment Survey for
Older Adults

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
36 Packet Pg. 302 of 449

Quality of Community
Percent reporting excellent or good.

Ease of travel by car in yourcommunity 88%
Ease of getting to the placesyou usually have to visit 84% Ease of walking in yourcommunity 80%
Ease of bicycling in yourcommunity 79%
Overall quality of thetransportation system (auto,bicycle, foot, bus) in yourcommunity 63%
Ease of travel by publictransportation in yourcommunity 30% Characteristic % positiveNationalBenchmark
Avenidas | Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults September 2022
32 Item 10
Attachment A - 2022
Avenidas Community
Assessment Survey for
Older Adults

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
37 Packet Pg. 303 of 449

Section 8A: Employment
People in the U.S. are working longer and retiring at an older age than theyhave in the past. Older adults are postponing retirement for a variety ofreasons: improved health, the desire to accumulate additional wealth and/orbeneﬁt from delayed pension plans, and because the information age–basedeconomy is less physically demanding than jobs from the industrial age. Olderworkers are an untapped resource for many communities seeking economicstability and growth.

Livability score
Average of community quality items32
Livability score trend unavailable.

Because Avenidas doesn't have a prior livability score, trends for livability aren'tavailable. Trends will be available aer this survey has been conducted a second time.

Avenidas | Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults September 2022
33 Item 10
Attachment A - 2022
Avenidas Community
Assessment Survey for
Older Adults

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
38 Packet Pg. 304 of 449

Potential Problems
Percent reporting minor problem, moderate problem or major problem.

Building skills for paid or unpaidwork 30%
Finding work in retirement 29%
Trends unavailable
Because Avenidas doesn't have any prior measurements, these trends aren't available.Trends will be available aer this survey has been conducted a second time. Certain benchmarks unavailable
Because this survey includes new characteristics, we can’t determine your benchmarkperformance on the new characteristics until a suﬃcient number of communities havecompleted surveying.

Characteristic %problematic NationalBenchmark
Avenidas | Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults September 2022
34 Item 10
Attachment A - 2022
Avenidas Community
Assessment Survey for
Older Adults

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
39 Packet Pg. 305 of 449

Quality of Community
Percent reporting excellent or good.

Opportunities to build workskills 51%
Quality of employmentopportunities for older adults 23% Variety of employmentopportunities for older adults 20% Characteristic % positiveNationalBenchmark
Avenidas | Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults September 2022
35 Item 10
Attachment A - 2022
Avenidas Community
Assessment Survey for
Older Adults

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
40 Packet Pg. 306 of 449

Section 8B: Finances
With longer life spans, the importance of ﬁnancial well-being in old age hasincreased dramatically. Financial independence and the ability to economicallycontribute to a community have become critical factors in enhancing the qualityof life of older adults.

Livability score
Average of community quality items53
Livability score trend unavailable.

Because Avenidas doesn't have a prior livability score, trends for livability aren'tavailable. Trends will be available aer this survey has been conducted a second time.

Avenidas | Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults September 2022
36 Item 10
Attachment A - 2022
Avenidas Community
Assessment Survey for
Older Adults

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
41 Packet Pg. 307 of 449

Potential Problems
Percent reporting minor problem, moderate problem or major problem.

Having enough money to meetdaily expenses 24%
Having enough money to payyour property taxes 16%
Quality of Community
Percent reporting excellent or good.

Overall economic health of yourcommunity 92%
Cost of living in your community 13%
Trends unavailable
Because Avenidas doesn't have any prior measurements, these trends aren't available.Trends will be available aer this survey has been conducted a second time.

Characteristic %problematic NationalBenchmark
Characteristic % positiveNationalBenchmark
Avenidas | Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults September 2022
37 Item 10
Attachment A - 2022
Avenidas Community
Assessment Survey for
Older Adults

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
42 Packet Pg. 308 of 449

Status Indicators - Household Financial Status
Percent reporting very positive or somewhat positive.

What impact, if any, do you thinkthe economy will have on yourfamily income in the next 6months? Do you think theimpact will be:
20%
Characteristic % positiveNationalBenchmark
Avenidas | Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults September 2022
38 Item 10
Attachment A - 2022
Avenidas Community
Assessment Survey for
Older Adults

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
43 Packet Pg. 309 of 449

Section 9A: Community Inclusivity
Inclusivity refers to a cultural and environmental feeling of belonging. Creatingplaces in which any individual or group can be and feel welcomed, respected,supported, and valued increases the overall livability of communities.

Livability score
Average of community quality items61
Livability score trend unavailable.

Because Avenidas doesn't have a prior livability score, trends for livability aren'tavailable. Trends will be available aer this survey has been conducted a second time.

Avenidas | Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults September 2022
39 Item 10
Attachment A - 2022
Avenidas Community
Assessment Survey for
Older Adults

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
44 Packet Pg. 310 of 449

Potential Problems
Percent reporting minor problem, moderate problem or major problem.

Feeling lonely or isolated 36%
Having friends or family you canrely on 35%
Feeling like you don't ﬁt in orbelong 28%
Trends unavailable
Because Avenidas doesn't have any prior measurements, these trends aren't available.Trends will be available aer this survey has been conducted a second time. Certain benchmarks unavailable
Because this survey includes new characteristics, we can’t determine your benchmarkperformance on the new characteristics until a suﬃcient number of communities havecompleted surveying.

Characteristic %problematic NationalBenchmark
Avenidas | Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults September 2022
40 Item 10
Attachment A - 2022
Avenidas Community
Assessment Survey for
Older Adults

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
45 Packet Pg. 311 of 449

Quality of Community
Percent reporting excellent or good.

Sense of community in yourcommunity 64%
Neighborliness of yourcommunity 59%
Making all residents feelwelcome 59%
Characteristic % positiveNationalBenchmark
Avenidas | Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults September 2022
41 Item 10
Attachment A - 2022
Avenidas Community
Assessment Survey for
Older Adults

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
46 Packet Pg. 312 of 449

Section 9B: Equity
Opportunities for health, income, housing and other life circumstances areoen disproportionate. Strong communities work to decrease inequalities sothat all residents can successfully age in place.

Livability score
Average of community quality items60
Livability score trend unavailable.

Because Avenidas doesn't have a prior livability score, trends for livability aren'tavailable. Trends will be available aer this survey has been conducted a second time.

Avenidas | Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults September 2022
42 Item 10
Attachment A - 2022
Avenidas Community
Assessment Survey for
Older Adults

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
47 Packet Pg. 313 of 449

Potential Problems
Percent reporting minor problem, moderate problem or major problem.

Being treated unfairly ordiscriminated against becauseof your age 20% Quality of Community
Percent reporting excellent or good.

Openness and acceptance of thecommunity towards olderresidents of diversebackgrounds 64%
Valuing older residents in yourcommunity 57%
Trends unavailable
Because Avenidas doesn't have any prior measurements, these trends aren't available.Trends will be available aer this survey has been conducted a second time.

Characteristic %problematic NationalBenchmark
Characteristic % positiveNationalBenchmark
Avenidas | Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults September 2022
43 Item 10
Attachment A - 2022
Avenidas Community
Assessment Survey for
Older Adults

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
48 Packet Pg. 314 of 449

Section 10A: Health Care
Poor health does not need to be an inevitable consequence of aging. Adoptionsof healthy lifestyles and the use of preventive services will reduce the risk ofmorbidity and increase healthy longevity of older residents.

Livability score
Average of community quality items66
Livability score trend unavailable.

Because Avenidas doesn't have a prior livability score, trends for livability aren'tavailable. Trends will be available aer this survey has been conducted a second time.

Avenidas | Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults September 2022
44 Item 10
Attachment A - 2022
Avenidas Community
Assessment Survey for
Older Adults

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
49 Packet Pg. 315 of 449

Potential Problems
Percent reporting minor problem, moderate problem or major problem.

Finding aﬀordable healthinsurance 29%
Getting the health care you need 26%
Getting the vision care you need 21%
Getting the oral health care youneed 21%
Aﬀording the medications youneed 20%
Trends unavailable
Because Avenidas doesn't have any prior measurements, these trends aren't available.Trends will be available aer this survey has been conducted a second time.

Characteristic %problematic NationalBenchmark
Avenidas | Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults September 2022
45 Item 10
Attachment A - 2022
Avenidas Community
Assessment Survey for
Older Adults

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
50 Packet Pg. 316 of 449

Quality of Community
Percent reporting excellent or good.

Availability of preventive healthservices (e.g., health screenings,ﬂu shots, educationalworkshops) 75%
Availability of aﬀordable qualityphysical health care 56% Characteristic % positiveNationalBenchmark
Avenidas | Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults September 2022
46 Item 10
Attachment A - 2022
Avenidas Community
Assessment Survey for
Older Adults

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
51 Packet Pg. 317 of 449

Section 10B: Independent Living
If the community cannot help maintain the independence of residents whoexperience the decline in health that oen accompanies aging, the potentialcontribution of older residents will be lost to hospitals and nursing homes.

Livability score
Average of community quality items43
Livability score trend unavailable.

Because Avenidas doesn't have a prior livability score, trends for livability aren'tavailable. Trends will be available aer this survey has been conducted a second time.

Avenidas | Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults September 2022
47 Item 10
Attachment A - 2022
Avenidas Community
Assessment Survey for
Older Adults

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
52 Packet Pg. 318 of 449

Average Number of Hours Providing Care
Average number of hours spent per respondent in a typical weekWhy aren't statistical comparisons to trends/benchmarks shown? Receiving assistance, paid orunpaid (e.g., with shopping,cooking, etc.) 1.2 Potential Problems
Percent reporting minor problem, moderate problem or major problem.

Performing regular activities,including walking, eating andpreparing meals 25% Trends unavailable
Because Avenidas doesn't have any prior measurements, these trends aren't available.Trends will be available aer this survey has been conducted a second time.

Characteristic Average # ofHours NationalBenchmark
Characteristic %problematic NationalBenchmark
Avenidas | Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults September 2022
48 Item 10
Attachment A - 2022
Avenidas Community
Assessment Survey for
Older Adults

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
53 Packet Pg. 319 of 449

Quality of Community
Percent reporting excellent or good.

Availability of long-term careoptions 45%
Availability of daytime careoptions for older adults 41% Status Indicators - Activities
Percent reporting 1 to 3 hours, 4 to 5 hours, 6 to 10 hours, 11 to 19 hours or 20or more hours.

Receiving assistance, paid orunpaid (e.g., with shopping,cooking, etc.) 19% Status Indicators - Long-term Care Admissions
Percent reporting 1-2 days, 3-5 days or 6 or more days.

In a long-term care facility(including nursing home or in-patient rehabilitation facility) 5% Characteristic % positiveNationalBenchmark
Characteristic % ofrespondentsNationalBenchmark
Characteristic % ofrespondentsNationalBenchmark
Avenidas | Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults September 2022
49 Item 10
Attachment A - 2022
Avenidas Community
Assessment Survey for
Older Adults

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
54 Packet Pg. 320 of 449

Section 10C: Mental Health
Mental health plays a vital role in the well-being of residents. Depression,isolation, anxiety and memory loss can have a direct and profound eﬀect onolder adults’ quality of life.

Livability score
Average of community quality items39
Livability score trend unavailable.

Because Avenidas doesn't have a prior livability score, trends for livability aren'tavailable. Trends will be available aer this survey has been conducted a second time.

Avenidas | Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults September 2022
50 Item 10
Attachment A - 2022
Avenidas Community
Assessment Survey for
Older Adults

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
55 Packet Pg. 321 of 449

Potential Problems
Percent reporting minor problem, moderate problem or major problem.

Dealing with the loss of a closefamily member or friend 41% Experiencing confusion orforgetfulness 35%
Feeling depressed 35%
Quality of Community
Percent reporting excellent or good.

Availability of aﬀordable qualitymental health care 39% Trends unavailable
Because Avenidas doesn't have any prior measurements, these trends aren't available.Trends will be available aer this survey has been conducted a second time.

Characteristic %problematic NationalBenchmark
Characteristic % positiveNationalBenchmark
Avenidas | Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults September 2022
51 Item 10
Attachment A - 2022
Avenidas Community
Assessment Survey for
Older Adults

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
56 Packet Pg. 322 of 449

Status Indicators - Personal Health Status
Percent reporting excellent or good.

Your overall mentalhealth/emotional wellbeing 89%
Characteristic % positiveNationalBenchmark
Avenidas | Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults September 2022
52 Item 10
Attachment A - 2022
Avenidas Community
Assessment Survey for
Older Adults

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
57 Packet Pg. 323 of 449

Section 10D: Physical Health
Of all the attributes of aging, health poses the greatest risk and the biggestopportunity. When good health can be sustained, the individuals beneﬁt byliving a life of better quality, friends and family beneﬁt from reduced caregivingburdens, and the community beneﬁts by harnessing the power of older adults’contributions.

Livability score
Average of community quality items77
Livability score trend unavailable.

Because Avenidas doesn't have a prior livability score, trends for livability aren'tavailable. Trends will be available aer this survey has been conducted a second time.

Avenidas | Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults September 2022
53 Item 10
Attachment A - 2022
Avenidas Community
Assessment Survey for
Older Adults

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
58 Packet Pg. 324 of 449

Potential Problems
Percent reporting minor problem, moderate problem or major problem.

Your physical health 59%
Staying physically ﬁt 50%
Falling or injuring yourself inyour home 34%
Maintaining a healthy diet 33%
Having enough food to eat 8%
Trends unavailable
Because Avenidas doesn't have any prior measurements, these trends aren't available.Trends will be available aer this survey has been conducted a second time.

Characteristic %problematic NationalBenchmark
Avenidas | Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults September 2022
54 Item 10
Attachment A - 2022
Avenidas Community
Assessment Survey for
Older Adults

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
59 Packet Pg. 325 of 449

Quality of Community
Percent reporting excellent or good.

Overall quality of naturalenvironment in your community 88% Overall health and wellnessopportunities in your community 86% Fitness opportunities (includingexercise classes and paths ortrails, etc.) 76% Availability of aﬀordable qualityfood 59%
Status Indicators - Falls
Percent reporting 1 to 2 times, 3 to 5 times or more than 5 times.

Thinking back over the past 12months, how many times haveyou fallen and injured yourself? 34% Status Indicators - Hospitalizations
Percent reporting 1-2 days, 3-5 days or 6 or more days.

As a patient in a hospital 21%
Characteristic % positiveNationalBenchmark
Characteristic % ofrespondentsNationalBenchmark
Characteristic % ofrespondentsNationalBenchmark
Avenidas | Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults September 2022
55 Item 10
Attachment A - 2022
Avenidas Community
Assessment Survey for
Older Adults

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
60 Packet Pg. 326 of 449

Status Indicators - Personal Health Status
Percent reporting excellent or good.

Your overall physical health 83%
Characteristic % positiveNationalBenchmark
Avenidas | Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults September 2022
56 Item 10
Attachment A - 2022
Avenidas Community
Assessment Survey for
Older Adults

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
61 Packet Pg. 327 of 449

Section 10E: Safety
Safety is one of the most essential components of community livability. Theextent to which older residents feel safe from crime and other adverse eventscan strengthen their feelings of comfort and trust and impact their ability tolive independently.

Livability score
Average of community quality items85
Livability score trend unavailable.

Because Avenidas doesn't have a prior livability score, trends for livability aren'tavailable. Trends will be available aer this survey has been conducted a second time.

Avenidas | Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults September 2022
57 Item 10
Attachment A - 2022
Avenidas Community
Assessment Survey for
Older Adults

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
62 Packet Pg. 328 of 449

Potential Problems
Percent reporting minor problem, moderate problem or major problem.

Being a victim of fraud or ascam 16%
Being a victim of crime 9%
Being physically or emotionallyabused 5%
Quality of Community
Percent reporting excellent or good.

Overall feeling of safety in yourcommunity 85%
Trends unavailable
Because Avenidas doesn't have any prior measurements, these trends aren't available.Trends will be available aer this survey has been conducted a second time.

Characteristic %problematic NationalBenchmark
Characteristic % positiveNationalBenchmark
Avenidas | Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults September 2022
58 Item 10
Attachment A - 2022
Avenidas Community
Assessment Survey for
Older Adults

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
63 Packet Pg. 329 of 449

Section 11A: Information on Available Older Adult Services Sometimes residents of any age fail to take advantage of services oﬀered by acommunity solely because they are not aware of the opportunities that exist.Educating a large community of older adults is not simple, but raisingawareness about attractive, useful and well-designed programs will lead moreresidents to beneﬁt from becoming participants.

Livability score
Average of community quality items54
Livability score trend unavailable.

Because Avenidas doesn't have a prior livability score, trends for livability aren'tavailable. Trends will be available aer this survey has been conducted a second time.

Avenidas | Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults September 2022
59 Item 10
Attachment A - 2022
Avenidas Community
Assessment Survey for
Older Adults

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
64 Packet Pg. 330 of 449

Potential Problems
Percent reporting minor problem, moderate problem or major problem.

Not knowing what services areavailable to older adults in yourcommunity 62% Having adequate information ordealing with public programssuch as Social Security,Medicare, and Medicaid 45%
Trends unavailable
Because Avenidas doesn't have any prior measurements, these trends aren't available.Trends will be available aer this survey has been conducted a second time. Certain benchmarks unavailable
Because this survey includes new characteristics, we can’t determine your benchmarkperformance on the new characteristics until a suﬃcient number of communities havecompleted surveying.

Characteristic %problematic NationalBenchmark
Avenidas | Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults September 2022
60 Item 10
Attachment A - 2022
Avenidas Community
Assessment Survey for
Older Adults

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
65 Packet Pg. 331 of 449

Quality of Community
Percent reporting excellent or good.

Availability of information aboutresources for older adults 54% Availability of ﬁnancial or legalplanning services 54%
Status Indicators - Informed about Services
Percent reporting very informed or somewhat informed.

In general, how informed oruninformed do you feel aboutservices and activities availableto older adults in yourcommunity? 70% N/A
Characteristic % positiveNationalBenchmark
Characteristic % informedNationalBenchmark
Avenidas | Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults September 2022
61 Item 10
Attachment A - 2022
Avenidas Community
Assessment Survey for
Older Adults

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
66 Packet Pg. 332 of 449

Status Indicators - Use of Technology
Percent reporting several times a day, once a day or a few times a week.

Use or check email 96%
Access the internet from yourhome using a computer, laptop,or tablet computer 94% Access the internet from yourcell phone 76%
Visit social media sites such asFacebook, Twitter, Nextdoor, etc. 61% Shop online 38%
Share your opinions online 25%
Percent reporting yes.

I have high-speedinternet/broadband at home 91% N/A
Characteristic % ofrespondentsNationalBenchmark
Characteristic % yesNationalBenchmark
Avenidas | Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults September 2022
62 Item 10
Attachment A - 2022
Avenidas Community
Assessment Survey for
Older Adults

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
67 Packet Pg. 333 of 449

Section 11B: Quality of Older Adult Services
Strong local governments play a major role in producing communities thatmeet the needs of older residents while making the best use of availableresources. Providing services that are responsive to the present and futureneeds of the older community is an important responsibility and a vitalcomponent of livable communities.

Livability score
Average of community quality items73
Livability score trend unavailable.

Because Avenidas doesn't have a prior livability score, trends for livability aren'tavailable. Trends will be available aer this survey has been conducted a second time.

Avenidas | Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults September 2022
63 Item 10
Attachment A - 2022
Avenidas Community
Assessment Survey for
Older Adults

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
68 Packet Pg. 334 of 449

Quality of Community
Percent reporting excellent or good.

How would you rate the overallservices provided to olderadults in your community? 73% Trends unavailable
Because Avenidas doesn't have any prior measurements, these trends aren't available.Trends will be available aer this survey has been conducted a second time.

Characteristic % positiveNationalBenchmark
Avenidas | Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults September 2022
64 Item 10
Attachment A - 2022
Avenidas Community
Assessment Survey for
Older Adults

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
69 Packet Pg. 335 of 449

Section 12A: Caregiving
According to the Centers for Disease Control, about 2 in 5 adults 65 years andolder have a disabling condition that aﬀects their ability to live independently.Those who provide care to a loved one or friend with such a condition oenfeel a sense of contribution and personal worth despite the physical, emotionaland ﬁnancial burden such care can produce. While such caregiving is mostoen provided by family members and is unpaid, AARP researchers estimatethe value of the care as $470 billion annually. A caregiving crunch is predicted inthe future, where the average American will spend more years caring for theirparents than for their own children.

Prevalence of Disabilities and Health Care Access by Disability Status andType Among Adults — United States, 2016AARP Family Caregiver Contribution study 1 2
1 2
Livability scoring is not applicable.

Because data for this topic are informational and not evaluative, no livability score iscalculated.

Avenidas | Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults September 2022
65 Item 10
Attachment A - 2022
Avenidas Community
Assessment Survey for
Older Adults

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
70 Packet Pg. 336 of 449

Average Number of Hours Providing Care
Average number of hours spent per respondent in a typical weekWhy aren't statistical comparisons to trends/benchmarks shown? Providing care to someone age55+ 2.7
Providing care someone underage 18 1.3
Providing care to someone age18 to 54 0.6
Trends unavailable
Because Avenidas doesn't have any prior measurements, these trends aren't available.Trends will be available aer this survey has been conducted a second time.

Characteristic Average # ofHours NationalBenchmark
Avenidas | Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults September 2022
66 Item 10
Attachment A - 2022
Avenidas Community
Assessment Survey for
Older Adults

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
71 Packet Pg. 337 of 449

Potential Problems
Percent reporting minor problem, moderate problem or major problem.

Feeling EMOTIONALLY burdenedby providing care for anotherperson 23% Feeling PHYSICALLY burdenedby providing care for anotherperson 17% Feeling FINANCIALLY burdenedby providing care for anotherperson 15% Status Indicators - Activities
Percent reporting 1 to 3 hours, 4 to 5 hours, 6 to 10 hours, 11 to 19 hours or 20or more hours.

Providing care to someone age55+ 32%
Providing care someone underage 18 19%
Providing care to someone age18 to 54 12%
Characteristic %problematic NationalBenchmark
Characteristic % ofrespondentsNationalBenchmark
Avenidas | Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults September 2022
67 Item 10
Attachment A - 2022
Avenidas Community
Assessment Survey for
Older Adults

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
72 Packet Pg. 338 of 449

Section 12B: Civic Engagement
In communities where residents care about local politics and social conditions,where they feel engaged and eﬀective, there tends to be greater social,economic and cultural prosperity. Civic activity of any kind, such asvolunteering, participating in political groups or being active in communitydecision-making, beneﬁts both communities and seniors themselves.

Livability score
Average of community quality items69
Livability score trend unavailable.

Because Avenidas doesn't have a prior livability score, trends for livability aren'tavailable. Trends will be available aer this survey has been conducted a second time.

Avenidas | Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults September 2022
68 Item 10
Attachment A - 2022
Avenidas Community
Assessment Survey for
Older Adults

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
73 Packet Pg. 339 of 449

Average Number of Hours Providing Care
Average number of hours spent per respondent in a typical weekWhy aren't statistical comparisons to trends/benchmarks shown? Volunteering your time 2.3
Potential Problems
Percent reporting minor problem, moderate problem or major problem.

Feeling like your voice is heardin the community 37%
Finding productive ormeaningful activities to do 30%
Finding meaningful volunteerwork 25%
Trends unavailable
Because Avenidas doesn't have any prior measurements, these trends aren't available.Trends will be available aer this survey has been conducted a second time.

Characteristic Average # ofHours NationalBenchmark
Characteristic %problematic NationalBenchmark
Avenidas | Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults September 2022
69 Item 10
Attachment A - 2022
Avenidas Community
Assessment Survey for
Older Adults

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
74 Packet Pg. 340 of 449

Quality of Community
Percent reporting excellent or good.

Opportunities to volunteer 73%
Opportunities to participate incommunity matters 73%
Residents' connection andengagement with theircommunity 62% Status Indicators - Activities
Percent reporting 1 to 3 hours, 4 to 5 hours, 6 to 10 hours, 11 to 19 hours or 20or more hours.

Volunteering your time 53%
Characteristic % positiveNationalBenchmark
Characteristic % ofrespondentsNationalBenchmark
Avenidas | Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults September 2022
70 Item 10
Attachment A - 2022
Avenidas Community
Assessment Survey for
Older Adults

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
75 Packet Pg. 341 of 449

Status Indicators - Participation
Percent reporting yes.

Voted in your most recent localelection 88%
Watched (online or on television)a local public meeting 31% Attended a local public meeting(of local elected oﬃcials like CityCouncil or CountyCommissioners, advisoryboards, town halls, HOA,neighborhood watch, etc.) 22%
Participated in a civic group(including Elks, Kiwanis, Masons,etc.) 17% Characteristic % yesNationalBenchmark
Avenidas | Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults September 2022
71 Item 10
Attachment A - 2022
Avenidas Community
Assessment Survey for
Older Adults

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
76 Packet Pg. 342 of 449

Section 12C: Social Engagement
It is well documented that social support also has many mental and physicalhealth beneﬁts. Extensive opportunities for recreation, the arts and socialinteraction make a community more attractive, especially to older adults.

Livability score
Average of community quality items76
Livability score trend unavailable.

Because Avenidas doesn't have a prior livability score, trends for livability aren'tavailable. Trends will be available aer this survey has been conducted a second time.

Avenidas | Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults September 2022
72 Item 10
Attachment A - 2022
Avenidas Community
Assessment Survey for
Older Adults

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
77 Packet Pg. 343 of 449

Average Number of Hours Providing Care
Average number of hours spent per respondent in a typical weekWhy aren't statistical comparisons to trends/benchmarks shown? Talking or visiting withfriends/family 6.5
Assisting friends, relatives, orneighbors 3.9
Potential Problems
Percent reporting minor problem, moderate problem or major problem.

Having interesting social eventsor activities to attend 43% Having interesting recreationalor cultural activities to attend 35% Feeling bored 34%
Trends unavailable
Because Avenidas doesn't have any prior measurements, these trends aren't available.Trends will be available aer this survey has been conducted a second time.

Characteristic Average # ofHours NationalBenchmark
Characteristic %problematic NationalBenchmark
Avenidas | Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults September 2022
73 Item 10
Attachment A - 2022
Avenidas Community
Assessment Survey for
Older Adults

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
78 Packet Pg. 344 of 449

Quality of Community
Percent reporting excellent or good.

Overall quality of parks andrecreation opportunities 85% Overall opportunities foreducation, culture, and the arts 84% Opportunities to attend religiousor spiritual activities 80% Recreation opportunities(including games, arts, libraryservices, etc.) 75% Opportunities to enroll in skill-building or personal enrichmentclasses 68% Opportunities to attend socialevents or activities 61%
Status Indicators - Activities
Percent reporting 1 to 3 hours, 4 to 5 hours, 6 to 10 hours, 11 to 19 hours or 20or more hours.

Talking or visiting withfriends/family 97%
Assisting friends, relatives, orneighbors 78%
Characteristic % positiveNationalBenchmark
Characteristic % ofrespondentsNationalBenchmark
Avenidas | Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults September 2022
74 Item 10
Attachment A - 2022
Avenidas Community
Assessment Survey for
Older Adults

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
79 Packet Pg. 345 of 449

Status Indicators - Participation
Percent reporting yes.

Used a public library in yourcommunity 62%
Participated in a club (includingbook, dance, game, and othersocial) 45% Participated in religious orspiritual activities with others 41% Participated in a recreationprogram or group activity 40% Used a recreation center in yourcommunity 30%
Used a senior center in yourcommunity 24%
Characteristic % yesNationalBenchmark
Avenidas | Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults September 2022
75 Item 10
Attachment A - 2022
Avenidas Community
Assessment Survey for
Older Adults

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
80 Packet Pg. 346 of 449

Section 13: Economic ContributionProductive behavior is “any activity, paid or unpaid, that generatesgoods or services of economic value.” Productive activities includemany types of paid and unpaid work, as well as services provided tofriends, family or neighbors. Older adults make signiﬁcantcontributions (paid and unpaid) to the communities in which they live.In addition to their paid work, older adults contribute to the economythrough volunteering, providing informal help to family and friends,and caregiving.

Economic Contribution of Older Adults in Avenidas

The calculations of the economic contributions of older adults inAvenidas were rough estimates using data from the U.S. Department ofLabor Bureau of Labor Statistics (Metropolitan and NonmetropolitanArea Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates).

Economic Contribution of Older Adults

% of older
adults
# of older
adults
Average #
of hours
Average
hourly
rate
Annual total
1 * **
***
Avenidas | Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults September 2022
76 Item 10
Attachment A - 2022
Avenidas Community
Assessment Survey for
Older Adults

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
81 Packet Pg. 347 of 449

Providing
care to older
adult(s)
33% 18,128 2.97 $16.35 $45,781,935
Providing
care to
adult(s)
13% 7,218 0.6 $16.35 $3,691,291
Providing
care to
child(ren)
20% 11,132 1.41 $17.99 $14,637,369
Providing
help to
family and
friends
79% 43,548 4.09 $20.28 $187,911,966
Volunteering 54% 29,971 2.38 $23.32 $86,501,535
Subtotal
unpaid $338,524,095
Working part
time 12% 6,580 15 $41.14 $211,159,079
Working full
time 9% 5,053 32 $41.14 $345,932,913
Subtotal
paid $557,091,992
Total
contribution $895,616,087
Rowe JW, Kahn RL. Successful Aging. New York: Pantheon Books;1998.* Based on U.S. Census Bureau - 2019 American Community Survey;about 55,229 adults age 60 and over in the state.** Respondents were asked to select a range of hours. The averagenumber of hours was calculated from the mid-point of the responsescale. For example, a response of 1 to 3 hours equated to 2 hours anda response of never was assumed to be zero hours. In cases where therespondent chose a response that indicated 11 or more hours or 20 ormore hours, the number of hours was calculated as 125% of 11 and 1 Avenidas | Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults September 2022
77 Item 10
Attachment A - 2022
Avenidas Community
Assessment Survey for
Older Adults

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
82 Packet Pg. 348 of 449

125% of 20 (i.e., 13.75 and 25 respectively). Working full time wasassumed to be 32 hours per week and working part time was assumedto be 15 hours per week.*** The economic value of an hour worked was assumed to be thesame as the average hourly wage as calculated by the Bureau of Laborstatistics for similar types of work in undeﬁned. Providing care for olderadults and adults was assumed to be the equivalent of “Personal andHome Care Aides.” Providing care for children was assumed to be theequivalent of “Child Care Workers.” Providing help to family and friendswas assumed to be the equivalent of “Personal Care and ServiceOccupations.” Volunteering was assumed to be the equivalent of“Oﬃce Clerks, General.” Working full time and part time was assumedto be the equivalent of “All Occupations.” Avenidas | Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults September 2022
78 Item 10
Attachment A - 2022
Avenidas Community
Assessment Survey for
Older Adults

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
83 Packet Pg. 349 of 449

Section 14: Community NeedsThe individual survey questions about speciﬁc problems faced by oldercommunity members were summarized into the 17 larger categories toprovide a broad picture of older resident needs in Avenidas. The ﬁgurebelow shows the percent of respondents who reported that one ormore items within each of these 17 areas was a major or moderateproblem. (See Methods for more information on the items included ineach area.) Typically, it is understood that the self-reported needs of older adultsrepresent a minimum level, a conservative estimate attenuated byrespondents’ strong desire to feel and appear self-reliant and furtherreduced by the silent voice of some older adults who, no matter howsensitive the attempt, are too frail to participate in any surveyenterprise.

Percent and Estimated Number of Older Adults With a Need

Percent with need Number aﬀected
(N=55,229)
Housing 44% 24,518
Mobility 24% 13,400
Employment 14% 7,738
Finances 15% 8,408
Equity 4% 2,381
Community Inclusivity 18% 9,769
Safety 9% 4,839
Physical Health 36% 19,848
Mental Health 25% 14,057
Health Care 24% 13,417
Independent Living 7% 4,027
*
Avenidas | Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults September 2022
79 Item 10
Attachment A - 2022
Avenidas Community
Assessment Survey for
Older Adults

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
84 Packet Pg. 350 of 449

Percent with need Number aﬀected
(N=55,229)
Housing 44% 24,518
Mobility 24% 13,400
Information on Available
Older Adult Services 30% 16,549
Civic Engagement 19% 10,718
Social Engagement 19% 10,306
Caregiving 10% 5,678

Populations at Higher Risk
As people age, many learn to take better care of themselves, to planfor retirement and, generally, to move more deliberately. Aging buildswisdom but can sap resources — physical, emotional and ﬁnancial.Even those blessed by good luck or prescient enough to plancomprehensively for the best future may ﬁnd themselves withunanticipated needs or with physical, emotional or ﬁnancial strengthsthat could endure only with help. Some people age better than others,and aging well requires certain strengths that are inherent and othersthat can be supported by assistance from the private sector andgovernment. The tables below show the reported needs within each category oflivability of Avenidas's older adult population, by demographicsubgroup. This information can help identify which groups are at higherrisk in the community and account for sociodemographic disparitieswhen addressing these needs. Percent Needs of Older Population by SociodemographicCharacteristics, (55,229)The sociodemographic characteristics examined included Gender, Age,Race, Ethnicity, Annual Household Income, Housing Tenure (Rent orOwn), and Household Composition (Lives alone or Lives with others) Housing Mobility Employment Finances Equity
*
*
Avenidas | Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults September 2022
80 Item 10
Attachment A - 2022
Avenidas Community
Assessment Survey for
Older Adults

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
85 Packet Pg. 351 of 449

Female 48% 27% 16% 18% 7%
Male 40% 21% 12% 12% 1%
60 to 64
years 42% 11% 11% 20% 5%
65 to 74
years 45% 22% 17% 15% 2%
75 or over 46% 37% 13% 12% 6%
White 40% 25% 12% 12% 5%
Not white 55% 21% 19% 23% 4%
Hispanic 56% 14% 40% 33% 6%
Not
Hispanic 43% 25% 12% 13% 4%
Less than
$75,000 64% 45% 25% 31% 6%
$75,000 to
$199,999 43% 20% 13% 12% 6%
$200,000
or more 21% 9% 1% 3% 0%
Rent 53% 39% 23% 35% 12%
Own 42% 20% 11% 9% 2%
Lives alone 51% 33% 15% 17% 7%
Lives with
others 40% 19% 13% 14% 2%
Overall 44% 24% 14% 15% 4%
Community
Inclusivity Safety Physical
Health
Mental
Health
Health
Care
Independent
Living
Female 22% 11% 44% 32% 25% 9%
Male 13% 6% 27% 18% 24% 5%
Avenidas | Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults September 2022
81 Item 10
Attachment A - 2022
Avenidas Community
Assessment Survey for
Older Adults

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
86 Packet Pg. 352 of 449

60 to 64
years 20% 7% 33% 26% 35% 8%
65 to 74
years 16% 8% 27% 24% 24% 5%
75 or
over 17% 10% 47% 26% 17% 9%
White 17% 8% 36% 27% 19% 7%
Not white 17% 10% 35% 21% 37% 8%
Hispanic 18% 13% 61% 36% 40% 13%
Not
Hispanic 17% 8% 34% 24% 22% 7%
Less than
$75,000 30% 13% 60% 36% 38% 10%
$75,000
to
$199,999
17% 9% 31% 24% 19% 9%
$200,000
or more 7% 7% 16% 16% 13% 2%
Rent 28% 15% 53% 37% 37% 9%
Own 14% 7% 31% 22% 21% 7%
Lives
alone 27% 11% 43% 34% 25% 10%
Lives
with
others
12% 7% 31% 20% 24% 5%
Overall 18% 9% 36% 25% 24% 7%

Information on
Available
Older Adult
Services
Civic
Engagement
Social
Engagement Caregiving
Avenidas | Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults September 2022
82 Item 10
Attachment A - 2022
Avenidas Community
Assessment Survey for
Older Adults

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
87 Packet Pg. 353 of 449

Information on
Available
Older Adult
Services
Civic
Engagement
Social
Engagement Caregiving
Female 35% 21% 23% 11%
Male 24% 17% 14% 9%
60 to 64
years 32% 22% 22% 9%
65 to 74
years 34% 17% 13% 13%
75 or over 24% 21% 22% 8%
White 28% 20% 16% 10%
Not white 33% 15% 24% 8%
Hispanic 45% 20% 30% 26%
Not
Hispanic 28% 19% 17% 9%
Less than
$75,000 46% 26% 34% 11%
$75,000 to
$199,999 29% 24% 17% 11%
$200,000
or more 16% 8% 6% 7%
Rent 40% 28% 31% 8%
Own 27% 17% 15% 11%
Lives alone 32% 21% 19% 8%
Lives with
others 28% 17% 18% 12%
Overall 30% 19% 19% 10%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2019 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates *
Avenidas | Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults September 2022
83 Item 10
Attachment A - 2022
Avenidas Community
Assessment Survey for
Older Adults

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
88 Packet Pg. 354 of 449

Section 15: Full Results (with No Opinion)
These results include all questions. The results include the percentage that responded for each answer choice and the number of responses. If the choices included a choice with no opinion (like don't know or not applicable), they will be shown in this section. The following section shows the results with no opinion choices.

1. In which category is your age?
Answer Choice Percent
50-54 years 6% (47)
55-59 years 10% (83)
60-64 years 22% (179)
65-69 years 17% (141)
70-74 years 14% (113)
75-79 years 15% (122)
80-84 years 10% (78)
85-89 years 4% (34)
90-94 years 1% (10)
95 years or older 0% (3)
Avenidas | Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults September 2022
84 Item 10
Attachment A - 2022 Avenidas
Community Assessment Survey for
Older Adults

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
89 Packet Pg. 355 of 449

2. Please rate each of the following aspects of quality of life in your community.

Characteristic Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know
Y our community as a place to live 55% (372) 38% (254) 5% (33) 1% (5) 1% (9) Y our neighborhood as a place to live 56% (373) 36% (236) 6% (41) 1% (6) 1% (5) Y our community as a place to retire 32% (211) 36% (234) 21% (140) 7% (48) 3% (20) Sense of community in your community 27% (178) 35% (234) 26% (170) 10% (63) 3% (18) The overall quality of life in your community 45% (300) 43% (281) 10% (65) 1% (6) 1% (8) Avenidas | Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults September 2022
85 Item 10
Attachment A - 2022 Avenidas
Community Assessment Survey for
Older Adults

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
90 Packet Pg. 356 of 449

3. Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to your community as a whole.

Characteristic Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't
know
Overall economic health of your community 45% (304) 42% (285) 7% (48) 1% (6) 5% (34) Overall quality of the transportation system (auto, bicycle, foot, bus) in your community
16% (106) 44% (292) 28% (183) 8% (54) 4% (27)
Overall design or layout of your community's residential and commercial areas (e.g., homes, buildings, streets, parks, etc.) 25% (163) 52% (346) 18% (119) 3% (19) 3% (19)
Overall quality of the utility infrastructure in your community (water, sewer, storm water, electric/gas, broadband)
32% (210) 49% (330) 13% (89) 3% (19) 3% (20)
Overall feeling of safety in your community 38% (252) 47% (316) 13% (90) 1% (9) 0% (3) Overall quality of natural environment in your community 37% (248) 50% (331) 11% (72) 2% (11) 1% (5) Overall quality of parks and recreation opportunities 39% (261) 44% (296) 12% (81) 3% (19) 2% (11) Overall health and wellness opportunities in your community 39% (258) 42% (276) 11% (75) 2% (13) 6% (42) Overall opportunities for education, culture, and the arts 47% (317) 36% (239) 12% (82) 3% (21) 2% (12) Residents' connection and engagement with their community 17% (117) 39% (261) 28% (185) 7% (48) 9% (60) Avenidas | Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults September 2022
86 Item 10
Attachment A - 2022 Avenidas
Community Assessment Survey for
Older Adults

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
91 Packet Pg. 357 of 449

4. How would you rate the overall services provided to older adults in your community? Answer Choice Percent
Excellent 15% (103)
Good 39% (265)
Fair 16% (108)
Poor 4% (28)
Don't know 25% (168)

5. Please indicate how likely or unlikely you are to do each of the following.

Characteristic Very likely Somewhat
likely
Somewhat
unlikely
Very
unlikely
Don't
know
Recommend living in your community to older
adults
23% (152) 42% (281) 18% (124) 11% (74) 6% (41)
Remain in your community throughout your
retirement
52% (338) 29% (188) 7% (48) 7% (47) 5% (30)
Avenidas | Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults September 2022
87 Item 10
Attachment A - 2022 Avenidas
Community Assessment Survey for
Older Adults

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
92 Packet Pg. 358 of 449

6. In general, how informed or uninformed do you feel about services and activities available to older adults in your community? Answer Choice Percent
Very informed 21% (139)
Somewhat informed 50% (336)
Somewhat uninformed 20% (131)
Very uninformed 10% (67)

7. Please rate the quality of each of the following.

Characteristic Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know
Y our overall physical health 21% (146) 62% (422) 15% (99) 2% (14) 0% (0) Y our overall mental health/emotional wellbeing 35% (235) 54% (362) 10% (64) 1% (6) 0% (1) Y our overall quality of life 38% (255) 53% (356) 9% (58) 1% (4) 0% (0) Avenidas | Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults September 2022
88 Item 10
Attachment A - 2022 Avenidas
Community Assessment Survey for
Older Adults

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
93 Packet Pg. 359 of 449

8. 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:

Answer Choice Percent
Very positive 3% (18)
Somewhat positive 17% (116)
Neutral 47% (320)
Somewhat negative 30% (205)
Very negative 2% (15)
Avenidas | Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults September 2022
89 Item 10
Attachment A - 2022 Avenidas
Community Assessment Survey for
Older Adults

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
94 Packet Pg. 360 of 449

9. Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to older adults in your community.

Characteristic Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't
know
Ease of travel by public transportation in your community 5% (31) 19% (131) 28% (186) 29% (194) 20% (132) Ease of travel by car in your community 33% (220) 52% (351) 10% (65) 2% (16) 3% (17) Ease of walking in your community 34% (228) 45% (304) 16% (111) 3% (21) 1% (8) Ease of bicycling in your community 25% (165) 40% (267) 14% (94) 3% (21) 18% (121) Ease of getting to the places you usually have to visit 33% (220) 50% (334) 13% (90) 2% (14) 1% (9) Opportunities to build work skills 4% (29) 17% (112) 13% (84) 7% (49) 58% (383) Quality of employment opportunities for older adults 2% (11) 6% (42) 13% (89) 13% (89) 65% (431) Variety of employment opportunities for older adults 2% (12) 6% (37) 16% (106) 14% (89) 63% (413) Cost of living in your community 3% (17) 10% (66) 35% (232) 48% (316) 4% (29) Availability of affordable quality food 21% (142) 36% (243) 32% (214) 8% (57) 3% (17) Availability of affordable quality housing 3% (19) 7% (46) 18% (118) 63% (420) 10% (67) Variety of housing options 2% (15) 17% (111) 28% (183) 37% (248) 16% (106) Availability of accessible housing (e.g., homes with a no step entry, single-floor living, wide hallways and doorways) 2% (13) 14% (95) 22% (146) 20% (133) 42% (282)
Availability of mixed-use neighborhoods where people live close to places where they can eat, shop, work, and receive services 6% (42) 21% (139) 35% (235) 21% (143) 16% (107)
Avenidas | Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults September 2022
90 Item 10
Attachment A - 2022 Avenidas
Community Assessment Survey for
Older Adults

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
95 Packet Pg. 361 of 449

Characteristic Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't
know
Public places where people want to spend time 13% (85) 34% (232) 33% (224) 11% (73) 9% (58) Availability of information about resources for older adults 9% (64) 33% (225) 24% (159) 12% (83) 21% (142) Availability of financial or legal planning services 10% (69) 23% (155) 17% (115) 11% (73) 39% (261) Availability of long-term care options 5% (35) 23% (151) 21% (138) 14% (92) 38% (253) Availability of daytime care options for older adults 3% (22) 18% (117) 17% (115) 12% (82) 49% (326) Availability of affordable quality physical health care 14% (96) 29% (190) 23% (152) 11% (74) 23% (149) Availability of affordable quality mental health care 6% (40) 14% (94) 18% (118) 14% (93) 48% (315) Availability of preventive health services (e.g., health screenings, flu shots, educational workshops)
25% (167) 42% (278) 17% (111) 5% (35) 10% (66)
Recreation opportunities (including games, arts, library services, etc.)
25% (169) 44% (294) 20% (131) 3% (22) 8% (53)
Fitness opportunities (including exercise classes and paths or trails, etc.)
27% (180) 40% (272) 18% (119) 4% (27) 11% (73)
Opportunities to participate in community matters 19% (126) 38% (257) 18% (120) 3% (20) 22% (146) Opportunities to volunteer 22% (144) 33% (223) 16% (110) 3% (22) 25% (170) Opportunities to enroll in skill-building or personal enrichment classes
11% (76) 36% (241) 17% (111) 6% (38) 30% (198)
Opportunities to attend social events or activities 14% (96) 34% (226) 25% (164) 6% (41) 21% (136) Opportunities to attend religious or spiritual activities 28% (184) 34% (223) 13% (88) 2% (11) 23% (153) Avenidas | Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults September 2022
91 Item 10
Attachment A - 2022 Avenidas
Community Assessment Survey for
Older Adults

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
96 Packet Pg. 362 of 449

Characteristic Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't
know
Openness and acceptance of the community towards older
residents of diverse backgrounds
15% (101) 35% (237) 21% (140) 7% (48) 22% (144)
Making all residents feel welcome 14% (93) 35% (236) 25% (167) 9% (62) 17% (111) Valuing older residents in your community 11% (75) 33% (220) 24% (157) 10% (69) 22% (147) Neighborliness of your community 17% (112) 39% (260) 29% (192) 10% (66) 6% (40) Avenidas | Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults September 2022
92 Item 10
Attachment A - 2022 Avenidas
Community Assessment Survey for
Older Adults

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
97 Packet Pg. 363 of 449

10. Older adults may or may not face a number of challenges. Thinking back over the last 12 months, how much of a problem, if at all, have each of the following been for you?
Characteristic Not a
problem
Minor
problem
Moderate
problem
Major
problem
Don't
know
Having enough money to meet daily expenses 76% (497) 11% (74) 11% (71) 2% (13) 0% (0) Having enough money to pay your property taxes 75% (485) 8% (51) 6% (38) 1% (6) 11% (68) Having housing to suit your needs 76% (501) 11% (70) 9% (57) 3% (23) 1% (6) Doing heavy or intense housework 39% (254) 28% (187) 19% (125) 12% (82) 2% (12) Maintaining your home 40% (263) 32% (212) 19% (126) 7% (48) 2% (12) Maintaining your yard 41% (266) 25% (162) 20% (132) 6% (40) 7% (47) Having safe and affordable transportation available 54% (357) 18% (121) 12% (78) 8% (51) 8% (56) No longer being able to drive 74% (472) 4% (26) 5% (32) 5% (35) 12% (73) Finding work in retirement 40% (256) 5% (30) 7% (44) 5% (30) 44% (282) Building skills for paid or unpaid work 35% (217) 6% (39) 7% (40) 2% (12) 50% (309) Having adequate information or dealing with public
programs such as Social Security, Medicare, and
Medicaid
49% (323) 22% (143) 14% (93) 4% (23) 11% (75)
Not knowing what services are available to older adults in your community
32% (207) 28% (178) 20% (128) 5% (32) 16% (102)
Y our physical health 41% (269) 34% (225) 21% (135) 4% (28) 0% (0) Falling or injuring yourself in your home 64% (420) 22% (141) 11% (70) 1% (10) 2% (14) Avenidas | Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults September 2022
93 Item 10
Attachment A - 2022 Avenidas
Community Assessment Survey for
Older Adults

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
98 Packet Pg. 364 of 449

Characteristic Not a
problem
Minor
problem
Moderate
problem
Major
problem
Don't
know
Finding affordable health insurance 69% (454) 18% (118) 8% (54) 2% (14) 3% (20) Getting the health care you need 74% (489) 16% (104) 9% (57) 1% (9) 0% (2) Getting the oral health care you need 79% (519) 9% (61) 7% (46) 5% (32) 0% (1) Getting the vision care you need 79% (516) 11% (72) 7% (48) 3% (20) 0% (1) Affording the medications you need 80% (527) 14% (92) 4% (30) 1% (10) 0% (1) Staying physically fit 50% (326) 32% (206) 12% (78) 7% (43) 0% (0) Maintaining a healthy diet 67% (437) 22% (147) 10% (65) 1% (6) 0% (0) Having enough food to eat 92% (606) 6% (38) 2% (13) 0% (1) 0% (0) Experiencing confusion or forgetfulness 64% (426) 27% (180) 6% (43) 1% (9) 1% (3) Feeling depressed 65% (429) 26% (170) 7% (44) 2% (13) 1% (5) Feeling bored 66% (431) 25% (166) 7% (44) 2% (10) 1% (4) Having friends or family you can rely on 66% (432) 24% (159) 5% (35) 5% (34) 0% (0) Feeling lonely or isolated 64% (418) 25% (160) 8% (53) 3% (18) 0% (0) Dealing with the loss of a close family member or friend 56% (370) 22% (145) 11% (73) 6% (41) 5% (31) Being a victim of crime 85% (558) 5% (32) 3% (17) 1% (4) 7% (43) Being a victim of fraud or a scam 80% (523) 9% (58) 5% (33) 1% (9) 5% (32) Avenidas | Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults September 2022
94 Item 10
Attachment A - 2022 Avenidas
Community Assessment Survey for
Older Adults

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
99 Packet Pg. 365 of 449

Characteristic Not a
problem
Minor
problem
Moderate
problem
Major
problem
Don't
know
Being physically or emotionally abused 92% (595) 3% (22) 1% (4) 1% (4) 4% (24) Being treated unfairly or discriminated against because of your age
76% (503) 15% (101) 2% (16) 2% (12) 4% (25)
Feeling like you don't fit in or belong 70% (458) 22% (143) 4% (25) 2% (13) 2% (13) Feeling like your voice is heard in the community 52% (335) 19% (122) 8% (51) 3% (23) 18% (119) Feeling PHYSICALL Y burdened by providing care for
another person
78% (507) 11% (68) 4% (29) 2% (10) 5% (35)
Feeling EMOTIONALL Y burdened by providing care for
another person
73% (475) 13% (84) 5% (35) 3% (19) 6% (38)
Feeling FINANCIALL Y burdened by providing care for
another person
81% (527) 10% (65) 3% (17) 1% (9) 5% (32)
Performing regular activities, including walking, eating and preparing meals
75% (484) 17% (111) 5% (34) 2% (13) 1% (6)
Finding meaningful volunteer work 55% (357) 10% (65) 6% (39) 3% (18) 26% (167) Finding productive or meaningful activities to do 66% (432) 19% (125) 8% (50) 2% (11) 6% (36) Having interesting recreational or cultural activities to attend
62% (405) 20% (128) 10% (69) 3% (20) 5% (34)
Having interesting social events or activities to attend 53% (343) 26% (170) 11% (69) 3% (20) 8% (50) Avenidas | Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults September 2022
95 Item 10
Attachment A - 2022 Avenidas
Community Assessment Survey for
Older Adults

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
100

Packet Pg. 366 of 449

11. Thinking back over the past 12 months, how much time did you spend in each of the following? Characteristic 0 days 1-2 days 3-5
days
6 or more
days
As a patient in a hospital 79% (516) 12% (78) 5% (36) 4% (25) In a long-term care facility (including nursing home or in-patient rehabilitation facility)
95% (622) 2% (10) 0% (2) 3% (20)

12. Thinking back over the past 12 months, how many times have you fallen and injured yourself? Answer Choice Percent
Never 66% (443)
1 to 2 times 30% (202)
3 to 5 times 3% (18)
More than 5 times 1% (10)
Don't know 0% (2)
Avenidas | Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults September 2022
96 Item 10
Attachment A - 2022 Avenidas
Community Assessment Survey for
Older Adults

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
101

Packet Pg. 367 of 449

13. Please indicate whether or not you have done each of the following in the last 12 months.

Characteristic No Y es
Attended a local public meeting (of local elected officials like City Council or County Commissioners, advisory boards, town halls, HOA, neighborhood watch, etc.) 78% (523) 22% (151)
Watched (online or on television) a local public meeting 69% (462) 31% (211) Voted in your most recent local election 12% (82) 88% (590) Participated in a civic group (including Elks, Kiwanis, Masons, etc.) 84% (558) 17% (110) Used a senior center in your community 76% (508) 24% (164) Used a public library in your community 38% (253) 62% (420) Used a recreation center in your community 70% (466) 30% (203) Participated in a recreation program or group activity 60% (400) 40% (270) Participated in religious or spiritual activities with others 59% (399) 41% (273) Participated in a club (including book, dance, game, and other social) 55% (366) 45% (301) Avenidas | Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults September 2022
97 Item 10
Attachment A - 2022 Avenidas
Community Assessment Survey for
Older Adults

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
102

Packet Pg. 368 of 449

14. During a typical week, how many hours do you spend:

Characteristic Never 1 to 3
hours
4 to 5
hours
6 to 10
hours
11 to 19
hours
20 or more
hours
Don't
know
Assisting friends, relatives, or
neighbors
21% (138) 47% (304) 14% (92) 7% (46) 3% (19) 5% (33) 3% (20) Volunteering your time 46% (304) 33% (217) 11% (74) 4% (26) 2% (14) 2% (13) 2% (17) Talking or visiting with friends/family 3% (19) 33% (218) 27% (177) 23% (155) 7% (46) 7% (46) 1% (7) Providing care to someone age 55+ 67% (446) 14% (94) 5% (32) 4% (27) 2% (14) 6% (40) 2% (11) Providing care to someone age 18 to
54 87% (576) 7% (45) 2% (15) 2% (12) 0% (2) 1% (4) 1% (9) Providing care someone under age
18 80% (525) 10% (64) 3% (17) 2% (14) 2% (11) 2% (15) 2% (12) Receiving assistance, paid or unpaid
(e.g., with shopping, cooking, etc.)
81% (536) 12% (80) 3% (18) 1% (8) 2% (10) 2% (13) 0% (1) Avenidas | Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults September 2022
98 Item 10
Attachment A - 2022 Avenidas
Community Assessment Survey for
Older Adults

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
103

Packet Pg. 369 of 449

15. Please answer the following, as they relate to Internet access at your home:

Characteristic No Y es
I have high-speed internet/broadband at home 9% (61) 91% (603) High speed internet is not available 90% (514) 10% (57) I can't afford high speed internet 91% (532) 9% (51)
I'm not interested in high speed internet 91% (516) 9% (53) High speed internet is available, but is not reliable 88% (485) 12% (67)

16. In general, how many times do you:

Characteristic Several times
a day
Once a
day
A few times a
week
Every few
weeks
Less often or
never
Don't
know
Access the internet from your home
using a computer, laptop, or tablet
computer
78% (526) 11% (73) 4% (26) 1% (8) 5% (33) 1% (4)
Access the internet from your cell phone 60% (399) 10% (63) 5% (36) 3% (19) 21% (136) 2% (12) Visit social media sites such as
Facebook, Twitter, Nextdoor, etc.
28% (188) 18% (118) 14% (95) 6% (39) 33% (223) 1% (6)
Use or check email 77% (513) 16% (107) 3% (18) 1% (5) 4% (24) 0% (1) Share your opinions online 10% (69) 5% (32) 9% (63) 13% (87) 60% (405) 2% (15) Shop online 7% (49) 5% (33) 26% (170) 39% (257) 22% (149) 1% (5) Avenidas | Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults September 2022
99 Item 10
Attachment A - 2022 Avenidas
Community Assessment Survey for
Older Adults

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
104

Packet Pg. 370 of 449

17. How many years have you lived in your community?
Answer Choice Percent
Less than 2 years 4% (27)
2-5 years 4% (26)
6-10 years 6% (38)
11-20 years 12% (81)
More than 20 years 75% (508)

18. Which best describes the building you live in?
Answer Choice Percent
Single family home 69% (471)
Townhouse, condominium, duplex, or apartment 25% (168)
Mobile home 2% (12)
Assisted living residence 2% (11)
Nursing home 0% (0)
Other 3% (18)
Avenidas | Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults September 2022
100
Item 10
Attachment A - 2022 Avenidas
Community Assessment Survey for
Older Adults

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
105

Packet Pg. 371 of 449

19. Do you rent or own your home?
Answer Choice Percent
Rent 24% (160)
Own (with a mortgage payment) 29% (194)
Own (free and clear; no mortgage) 47% (319)

20. 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)?
Answer Choice Percent
Less than $300 per month 7% (43)
$300 to $599 per month 13% (85)
$600 to $999 per month 15% (96)
$1,000 to $1,499 per month 14% (91)
$1,500 to $2,499 per month 16% (106)
$2,500 or more per month 35% (226)
Avenidas | Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults September 2022
101
Item 10
Attachment A - 2022 Avenidas
Community Assessment Survey for
Older Adults

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
106

Packet Pg. 372 of 449

21. How many people, including yourself, live in your household? Answer Choice Percent
1 person (live alone) 38% (258)
2 people 51% (344)
3 people 7% (49)
4 or more people 4% (25)

22. How many of these people, including yourself, are 60 or older? Answer Choice Percent
1 person 45% (304)
2 people 53% (353)
3 people 1% (7)
4 or more people 1% (8)
Avenidas | Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults September 2022
102
Item 10
Attachment A - 2022 Avenidas
Community Assessment Survey for
Older Adults

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
107

Packet Pg. 373 of 449

23. What is your employment status?
Answer Choice Percent
Fully retired 77% (527)
Working full time for pay 9% (62)
Working part time for pay 12% (81)
Unemployed, looking for paid work 2% (11)

24. At what age do you expect to retire completely and not work for pay at all? Answer Choice Percent
60-64 5% (10)
65-67 9% (18)
68-69 8% (17)
70-72 20% (40)
73 or older 58% (119)
Avenidas | Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults September 2022
103
Item 10
Attachment A - 2022 Avenidas
Community Assessment Survey for
Older Adults

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
108

Packet Pg. 374 of 449

25. 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.) Answer Choice Percent
Less than $25,000 8% (47)
$25,000 to $49,999 15% (90)
$50,000 to $74,999 10% (62)
$75,000 to $99,999 11% (70)
$100,000 to $149,999 19% (115)
$150,000 to $199,999 12% (72)
$200,000 or more. 25% (156)

26. Are you Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino?
Answer Choice Percent
No, not of Hispanic, Latino/a/x, or Spanish origin 93% (617) Y es, I consider myself to be of Hispanic, Latino/a/x, or Spanish origin 7% (50) Avenidas | Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults September 2022
104
Item 10
Attachment A - 2022 Avenidas
Community Assessment Survey for
Older Adults

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
109

Packet Pg. 375 of 449

27. What is your race? (Mark one or more races to indicate what race you consider yourself to be.) Answer Choice Percent
American Indian or Alaska Native 2% (14)
Asian 17% (119)
Black or African American 2% (15)
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 1% (4)
White 73% (506)
A race not listed 5% (32)

28. What is your gender?
Answer Choice Percent
Woman 54% (368)
Man 46% (308)
Identify in another way 0% (1)
Avenidas | Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults September 2022
105
Item 10
Attachment A - 2022 Avenidas
Community Assessment Survey for
Older Adults

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
110

Packet Pg. 376 of 449

30. What is your sexual orientation?
Answer Choice Percent
Heterosexual 96% (611)
Lesbian 1% (4)
Gay 1% (6)
Bisexual 2% (15)
Identify in another way 1% (5)
Avenidas | Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults September 2022
106
Item 10
Attachment A - 2022 Avenidas
Community Assessment Survey for
Older Adults

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
111

Packet Pg. 377 of 449

Section 16: Full Results (excluding No Opinion)
These results include all questions. The results include the percentage that responded for each answer choice and the number of responses. If the choices included a choice with no opinion (like don't know or not applicable), the tables in the prior section show the results with those no opinion choices. This section shows the results without those choices.

1. In which category is your age?
Not including don't know
Answer Choice Percent
50-54 years 6% (47)
55-59 years 10% (83)
60-64 years 22% (179)
65-69 years 17% (141)
70-74 years 14% (113)
75-79 years 15% (122)
80-84 years 10% (78)
85-89 years 4% (34)
90-94 years 1% (10)
95 years or older 0% (3)
Avenidas | Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults September 2022
107
Item 10
Attachment A - 2022 Avenidas
Community Assessment Survey for
Older Adults

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
112

Packet Pg. 378 of 449

2. Please rate each of the following aspects of quality of life in your community.

Not including don't know
Characteristic Excellent Good Fair Poor
Y our community as a place to live 56% (372) 38% (254) 5% (33) 1% (5) Y our neighborhood as a place to live 57% (373) 36% (236) 6% (41) 1% (6) Y our community as a place to retire 33% (211) 37% (234) 22% (140) 8% (48) Sense of community in your community 28% (178) 36% (234) 26% (170) 10% (63) The overall quality of life in your community 46% (300) 43% (281) 10% (65) 1% (6) Avenidas | Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults September 2022
108
Item 10
Attachment A - 2022 Avenidas
Community Assessment Survey for
Older Adults

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
113

Packet Pg. 379 of 449

3. Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to your community as a whole.

Not including don't know
Characteristic Excellent Good Fair Poor
Overall economic health of your community 47% (304) 44% (285) 8% (48) 1% (6) Overall quality of the transportation system (auto, bicycle, foot, bus) in your community
17% (106) 46% (292) 29% (183) 8% (54)
Overall design or layout of your community's residential and commercial areas (e.g., homes, buildings, streets, parks, etc.)
25% (163) 53% (346) 18% (119) 3% (19)
Overall quality of the utility infrastructure in your community (water, sewer, storm water, electric/gas, broadband)
32% (210) 51% (330) 14% (89) 3% (19)
Overall feeling of safety in your community 38% (252) 47% (316) 13% (90) 1% (9) Overall quality of natural environment in your community 38% (248) 50% (331) 11% (72) 2% (11) Overall quality of parks and recreation opportunities 40% (261) 45% (296) 12% (81) 3% (19) Overall health and wellness opportunities in your community 41% (258) 44% (276) 12% (75) 2% (13) Overall opportunities for education, culture, and the arts 48% (317) 36% (239) 12% (82) 3% (21) Residents' connection and engagement with their community 19% (117) 43% (261) 30% (185) 8% (48) Avenidas | Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults September 2022
109
Item 10
Attachment A - 2022 Avenidas
Community Assessment Survey for
Older Adults

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
114

Packet Pg. 380 of 449

4. How would you rate the overall services provided to older adults in your community? Not including don't know
Answer Choice Percent
Excellent 20% (103)
Good 53% (265)
Fair 21% (108)
Poor 6% (28)

5. Please indicate how likely or unlikely you are to do each of the following.

Not including don't know
Characteristic Very likely Somewhat likely Somewhat unlikely Very unlikely Recommend living in your community to older adults 24% (152) 45% (281) 20% (124) 12% (74) Remain in your community throughout your retirement 54% (338) 30% (188) 8% (48) 8% (47) Avenidas | Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults September 2022
110
Item 10
Attachment A - 2022 Avenidas
Community Assessment Survey for
Older Adults

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
115

Packet Pg. 381 of 449

6. In general, how informed or uninformed do you feel about services and activities available to older adults in your community? Not including don't know
Answer Choice Percent
Very informed 21% (139)
Somewhat informed 50% (336)
Somewhat uninformed 20% (131)
Very uninformed 10% (67)

7. Please rate the quality of each of the following.

Not including don't know
Characteristic Excellent Good Fair Poor
Y our overall physical health 21% (146) 62% (422) 15% (99) 2% (14) Y our overall mental health/emotional wellbeing 35% (235) 54% (362) 10% (64) 1% (6) Y our overall quality of life 38% (255) 53% (356) 9% (58) 1% (4) Avenidas | Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults September 2022
111
Item 10
Attachment A - 2022 Avenidas
Community Assessment Survey for
Older Adults

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
116

Packet Pg. 382 of 449

8. 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:

Not including don't know
Answer Choice Percent
Very positive 3% (18)
Somewhat positive 17% (116)
Neutral 47% (320)
Somewhat negative 30% (205)
Very negative 2% (15)
Avenidas | Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults September 2022
112
Item 10
Attachment A - 2022 Avenidas
Community Assessment Survey for
Older Adults

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
117

Packet Pg. 383 of 449

9. Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to older adults in your community.

Not including don't know
Characteristic Excellent Good Fair Poor
Ease of travel by public transportation in your community 6% (31) 24% (131) 34% (186) 36% (194) Ease of travel by car in your community 34% (220) 54% (351) 10% (65) 2% (16) Ease of walking in your community 34% (228) 46% (304) 17% (111) 3% (21) Ease of bicycling in your community 30% (165) 49% (267) 17% (94) 4% (21) Ease of getting to the places you usually have to visit 33% (220) 51% (334) 14% (90) 2% (14) Opportunities to build work skills 11% (29) 41% (112) 31% (84) 18% (49) Quality of employment opportunities for older adults 5% (11) 18% (42) 39% (89) 39% (89) Variety of employment opportunities for older adults 5% (12) 15% (37) 43% (106) 37% (89) Cost of living in your community 3% (17) 10% (66) 37% (232) 50% (316) Availability of affordable quality food 22% (142) 37% (243) 33% (214) 9% (57) Availability of affordable quality housing 3% (19) 8% (46) 20% (118) 70% (420) Variety of housing options 3% (15) 20% (111) 33% (183) 45% (248) Availability of accessible housing (e.g., homes with a no step entry, single-floor living, wide hallways and doorways)
3% (13) 25% (95) 38% (146) 34% (133)
Availability of mixed-use neighborhoods where people live close to places where they can eat, shop, work, and receive services
8% (42) 25% (139) 42% (235) 26% (143)
Avenidas | Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults September 2022
113
Item 10
Attachment A - 2022 Avenidas
Community Assessment Survey for
Older Adults

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
118

Packet Pg. 384 of 449

Characteristic Excellent Good Fair Poor
Public places where people want to spend time 14% (85) 38% (232) 37% (224) 12% (73) Availability of information about resources for older adults 12% (64) 42% (225) 30% (159) 16% (83) Availability of financial or legal planning services 17% (69) 38% (155) 28% (115) 18% (73) Availability of long-term care options 8% (35) 36% (151) 33% (138) 22% (92) Availability of daytime care options for older adults 7% (22) 35% (117) 34% (115) 24% (82) Availability of affordable quality physical health care 19% (96) 37% (190) 30% (152) 14% (74) Availability of affordable quality mental health care 12% (40) 27% (94) 34% (118) 27% (93) Availability of preventive health services (e.g., health screenings, flu shots, educational workshops)
28% (167) 47% (278) 19% (111) 6% (35)
Recreation opportunities (including games, arts, library services, etc.) 27% (169) 48% (294) 21% (131) 4% (22) Fitness opportunities (including exercise classes and paths or trails, etc.) 30% (180) 45% (272) 20% (119) 5% (27) Opportunities to participate in community matters 24% (126) 49% (257) 23% (120) 4% (20) Opportunities to volunteer 29% (144) 45% (223) 22% (110) 4% (22) Opportunities to enroll in skill-building or personal enrichment classes 16% (76) 52% (241) 24% (111) 8% (38) Opportunities to attend social events or activities 18% (96) 43% (226) 31% (164) 8% (41) Opportunities to attend religious or spiritual activities 36% (184) 44% (223) 17% (88) 2% (11) Openness and acceptance of the community towards older residents of diverse backgrounds
19% (101) 45% (237) 27% (140) 9% (48)
Avenidas | Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults September 2022
114
Item 10
Attachment A - 2022 Avenidas
Community Assessment Survey for
Older Adults

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
119

Packet Pg. 385 of 449

Characteristic Excellent Good Fair Poor
Making all residents feel welcome 17% (93) 42% (236) 30% (167) 11% (62) Valuing older residents in your community 14% (75) 42% (220) 30% (157) 13% (69) Neighborliness of your community 18% (112) 41% (260) 30% (192) 11% (66) Avenidas | Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults September 2022
115
Item 10
Attachment A - 2022 Avenidas
Community Assessment Survey for
Older Adults

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
120

Packet Pg. 386 of 449

10. Older adults may or may not face a number of challenges. Thinking back over the last 12 months, how much of a problem, if at all, have each of the following been for you?
Not including don't know
Characteristic Not a
problem
Minor
problem
Moderate
problem
Major
problem
Having enough money to meet daily expenses 76% (497) 11% (74) 11% (71) 2% (13) Having enough money to pay your property taxes 84% (485) 9% (51) 7% (38) 1% (6) Having housing to suit your needs 77% (501) 11% (70) 9% (57) 4% (23) Doing heavy or intense housework 39% (254) 29% (187) 19% (125) 13% (82) Maintaining your home 41% (263) 33% (212) 19% (126) 7% (48) Maintaining your yard 44% (266) 27% (162) 22% (132) 7% (40) Having safe and affordable transportation available 59% (357) 20% (121) 13% (78) 8% (51) No longer being able to drive 84% (472) 5% (26) 6% (32) 6% (35) Finding work in retirement 71% (256) 8% (30) 12% (44) 8% (30) Building skills for paid or unpaid work 70% (217) 13% (39) 13% (40) 4% (12) Having adequate information or dealing with public programs such as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid
55% (323) 25% (143) 16% (93) 4% (23)
Not knowing what services are available to older adults in your community
38% (207) 33% (178) 23% (128) 6% (32)
Y our physical health 41% (269) 34% (225) 21% (135) 4% (28) Falling or injuring yourself in your home 66% (420) 22% (141) 11% (70) 2% (10) Avenidas | Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults September 2022
116
Item 10
Attachment A - 2022 Avenidas
Community Assessment Survey for
Older Adults

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
121

Packet Pg. 387 of 449

Characteristic Not a
problem
Minor
problem
Moderate
problem
Major
problem
Finding affordable health insurance 71% (454) 18% (118) 8% (54) 2% (14) Getting the health care you need 74% (489) 16% (104) 9% (57) 1% (9) Getting the oral health care you need 79% (519) 9% (61) 7% (46) 5% (32) Getting the vision care you need 79% (516) 11% (72) 7% (48) 3% (20) Affording the medications you need 80% (527) 14% (92) 4% (30) 1% (10) Staying physically fit 50% (326) 32% (206) 12% (78) 7% (43) Maintaining a healthy diet 67% (437) 22% (147) 10% (65) 1% (6) Having enough food to eat 92% (606) 6% (38) 2% (13) 0% (1) Experiencing confusion or forgetfulness 65% (426) 27% (180) 6% (43) 1% (9) Feeling depressed 65% (429) 26% (170) 7% (44) 2% (13)
Feeling bored 66% (431) 26% (166) 7% (44) 2% (10)
Having friends or family you can rely on 66% (432) 24% (159) 5% (35) 5% (34) Feeling lonely or isolated 64% (418) 25% (160) 8% (53) 3% (18) Dealing with the loss of a close family member or friend 59% (370) 23% (145) 12% (73) 6% (41) Being a victim of crime 91% (558) 5% (32) 3% (17) 1% (4) Being a victim of fraud or a scam 84% (523) 9% (58) 5% (33) 1% (9) Avenidas | Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults September 2022
117
Item 10
Attachment A - 2022 Avenidas
Community Assessment Survey for
Older Adults

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
122

Packet Pg. 388 of 449

Characteristic Not a
problem
Minor
problem
Moderate
problem
Major
problem
Being physically or emotionally abused 95% (595) 3% (22) 1% (4) 1% (4) Being treated unfairly or discriminated against because of your age 80% (503) 16% (101) 3% (16) 2% (12) Feeling like you don't fit in or belong 72% (458) 22% (143) 4% (25) 2% (13) Feeling like your voice is heard in the community 63% (335) 23% (122) 10% (51) 4% (23) Feeling PHYSICALL Y burdened by providing care for another person 83% (507) 11% (68) 5% (29) 2% (10) Feeling EMOTIONALL Y burdened by providing care for another person
77% (475) 14% (84) 6% (35) 3% (19)
Feeling FINANCIALL Y burdened by providing care for another person 85% (527) 11% (65) 3% (17) 1% (9) Performing regular activities, including walking, eating and preparing meals
75% (484) 17% (111) 5% (34) 2% (13)
Finding meaningful volunteer work 75% (357) 14% (65) 8% (39) 4% (18) Finding productive or meaningful activities to do 70% (432) 20% (125) 8% (50) 2% (11) Having interesting recreational or cultural activities to attend 65% (405) 21% (128) 11% (69) 3% (20) Having interesting social events or activities to attend 57% (343) 28% (170) 11% (69) 3% (20) Avenidas | Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults September 2022
118
Item 10
Attachment A - 2022 Avenidas
Community Assessment Survey for
Older Adults

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
123

Packet Pg. 389 of 449

11. Thinking back over the past 12 months, how much time did you spend in each of the following? Not including don't know
Characteristic 0 days 1-2 days 3-5
days
6 or more
days
As a patient in a hospital 79% (516) 12% (78) 5% (36) 4% (25) In a long-term care facility (including nursing home or in-patient rehabilitation facility)
95% (622) 2% (10) 0% (2) 3% (20)

12. Thinking back over the past 12 months, how many times have you fallen and injured yourself? Not including don't know
Answer Choice Percent
Never 66% (443)
1 to 2 times 30% (202)
3 to 5 times 3% (18)
More than 5 times 1% (10)
Avenidas | Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults September 2022
119
Item 10
Attachment A - 2022 Avenidas
Community Assessment Survey for
Older Adults

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
124

Packet Pg. 390 of 449

13. Please indicate whether or not you have done each of the following in the last 12 months.

Not including don't know
Characteristic No Y es
Attended a local public meeting (of local elected officials like City Council or County Commissioners, advisory boards, town halls, HOA, neighborhood watch, etc.) 78% (523) 22% (151)
Watched (online or on television) a local public meeting 69% (462) 31% (211) Voted in your most recent local election 12% (82) 88% (590) Participated in a civic group (including Elks, Kiwanis, Masons, etc.) 84% (558) 17% (110) Used a senior center in your community 76% (508) 24% (164) Used a public library in your community 38% (253) 62% (420) Used a recreation center in your community 70% (466) 30% (203) Participated in a recreation program or group activity 60% (400) 40% (270) Participated in religious or spiritual activities with others 59% (399) 41% (273) Participated in a club (including book, dance, game, and other social) 55% (366) 45% (301) Avenidas | Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults September 2022
120
Item 10
Attachment A - 2022 Avenidas
Community Assessment Survey for
Older Adults

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
125

Packet Pg. 391 of 449

14. During a typical week, how many hours do you spend:

Not including don't know
Characteristic Never 1 to 3
hours
4 to 5
hours
6 to 10
hours
11 to 19
hours
20 or more
hours
Assisting friends, relatives, or neighbors 22% (138) 48% (304) 15% (92) 7% (46) 3% (19) 5% (33) Volunteering your time 47% (304) 34% (217) 11% (74) 4% (26) 2% (14) 2% (13) Talking or visiting with friends/family 3% (19) 33% (218) 27% (177) 23% (155) 7% (46) 7% (46) Providing care to someone age 55+ 68% (446) 14% (94) 5% (32) 4% (27) 2% (14) 6% (40) Providing care to someone age 18 to 54 88% (576) 7% (45) 2% (15) 2% (12) 0% (2) 1% (4) Providing care someone under age 18 81% (525) 10% (64) 3% (17) 2% (14) 2% (11) 2% (15) Receiving assistance, paid or unpaid (e.g.,
with shopping, cooking, etc.)
81% (536) 12% (80) 3% (18) 1% (8) 2% (10) 2% (13)

15. Please answer the following, as they relate to Internet access at your home:

Not including don't know
Characteristic No Y es
I have high-speed internet/broadband at home 9% (61) 91% (603) High speed internet is not available 90% (514) 10% (57) I can't afford high speed internet 91% (532) 9% (51)
I'm not interested in high speed internet 91% (516) 9% (53) Avenidas | Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults September 2022
121
Item 10
Attachment A - 2022 Avenidas
Community Assessment Survey for
Older Adults

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
126

Packet Pg. 392 of 449

Characteristic No Y es
High speed internet is available, but is not reliable 88% (485) 12% (67)

16. In general, how many times do you:

Not including don't know
Characteristic Several times
a day
Once a
day
A few times a
week
Every few
weeks
Less often or
never
Access the internet from your home using a
computer, laptop, or tablet computer
79% (526) 11% (73) 4% (26) 1% (8) 5% (33)
Access the internet from your cell phone 61% (399) 10% (63) 6% (36) 3% (19) 21% (136) Visit social media sites such as Facebook,
Twitter, Nextdoor, etc.
28% (188) 18% (118) 14% (95) 6% (39) 34% (223)
Use or check email 77% (513) 16% (107) 3% (18) 1% (5) 4% (24) Share your opinions online 11% (69) 5% (32) 10% (63) 13% (87) 62% (405) Shop online 7% (49) 5% (33) 26% (170) 39% (257) 23% (149) Avenidas | Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults September 2022
122
Item 10
Attachment A - 2022 Avenidas
Community Assessment Survey for
Older Adults

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
127

Packet Pg. 393 of 449

17. How many years have you lived in your community?
Not including don't know
Answer Choice Percent
Less than 2 years 4% (27)
2-5 years 4% (26)
6-10 years 6% (38)
11-20 years 12% (81)
More than 20 years 75% (508)

18. Which best describes the building you live in?
Not including don't know
Answer Choice Percent
Single family home 69% (471)
Townhouse, condominium, duplex, or apartment 25% (168)
Mobile home 2% (12)
Assisted living residence 2% (11)
Nursing home 0% (0)
Other 3% (18)
Avenidas | Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults September 2022
123
Item 10
Attachment A - 2022 Avenidas
Community Assessment Survey for
Older Adults

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
128

Packet Pg. 394 of 449

19. Do you rent or own your home?
Not including don't know
Answer Choice Percent
Rent 24% (160)
Own (with a mortgage payment) 29% (194)
Own (free and clear; no mortgage) 47% (319)

20. 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)?
Not including don't know
Answer Choice Percent
Less than $300 per month 7% (43)
$300 to $599 per month 13% (85)
$600 to $999 per month 15% (96)
$1,000 to $1,499 per month 14% (91)
$1,500 to $2,499 per month 16% (106)
$2,500 or more per month 35% (226)
Avenidas | Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults September 2022
124
Item 10
Attachment A - 2022 Avenidas
Community Assessment Survey for
Older Adults

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
129

Packet Pg. 395 of 449

21. How many people, including yourself, live in your household? Not including don't know
Answer Choice Percent
1 person (live alone) 38% (258)
2 people 51% (344)
3 people 7% (49)
4 or more people 4% (25)

22. How many of these people, including yourself, are 60 or older? Not including don't know
Answer Choice Percent
1 person 45% (304)
2 people 53% (353)
3 people 1% (7)
4 or more people 1% (8)
Avenidas | Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults September 2022
125
Item 10
Attachment A - 2022 Avenidas
Community Assessment Survey for
Older Adults

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
130

Packet Pg. 396 of 449

23. What is your employment status?
Not including don't know
Answer Choice Percent
Fully retired 77% (527)
Working full time for pay 9% (62)
Working part time for pay 12% (81)
Unemployed, looking for paid work 2% (11)

24. At what age do you expect to retire completely and not work for pay at all? Not including don't know
Answer Choice Percent
60-64 5% (10)
65-67 9% (18)
68-69 8% (17)
70-72 20% (40)
73 or older 58% (119)
Avenidas | Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults September 2022
126
Item 10
Attachment A - 2022 Avenidas
Community Assessment Survey for
Older Adults

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
131

Packet Pg. 397 of 449

25. 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.) Not including don't know
Answer Choice Percent
Less than $25,000 8% (47)
$25,000 to $49,999 15% (90)
$50,000 to $74,999 10% (62)
$75,000 to $99,999 11% (70)
$100,000 to $149,999 19% (115)
$150,000 to $199,999 12% (72)
$200,000 or more. 25% (156)

26. Are you Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino?
Not including don't know
Answer Choice Percent
No, not of Hispanic, Latino/a/x, or Spanish origin 93% (617) Y es, I consider myself to be of Hispanic, Latino/a/x, or Spanish origin 7% (50) Avenidas | Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults September 2022
127
Item 10
Attachment A - 2022 Avenidas
Community Assessment Survey for
Older Adults

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
132

Packet Pg. 398 of 449

27. What is your race? (Mark one or more races to indicate what race you consider yourself to be.) Not including don't know
Answer Choice Percent
American Indian or Alaska Native 2% (14)
Asian 17% (119)
Black or African American 2% (15)
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 1% (4)
White 73% (506)
A race not listed 5% (32)

28. What is your gender?
Not including don't know
Answer Choice Percent
Woman 54% (368)
Man 46% (308)
Identify in another way 0% (1)
Avenidas | Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults September 2022
128
Item 10
Attachment A - 2022 Avenidas
Community Assessment Survey for
Older Adults

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
133

Packet Pg. 399 of 449

30. What is your sexual orientation?
Not including don't know
Answer Choice Percent
Heterosexual 96% (611)
Lesbian 1% (4)
Gay 1% (6)
Bisexual 2% (15)
Identify in another way 1% (5)
Avenidas | Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults September 2022
129
Item 10
Attachment A - 2022 Avenidas
Community Assessment Survey for
Older Adults

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
134

Packet Pg. 400 of 449

Section 17: National Benchmark Comparisons
Rated characteristics are eligible for trend and benchmark comparisons. For trends, the characteristic must have been asked in a prior survey, and to be statistically significant the difference between the last measurement and current measurements must be at least 7 percentage points. All characteristics should have benchmarks, and to be statistically significant (more/less favorable), the difference must be at least 10 points. To be much more favorable/unfavorable, difference must be at least 20 points.

Demographic questions aren't eligible for trend and benchmark comparisons. Though all survey questions are listed in this section, demographic questions are noted as not having trends or benchmarks.

1. In which category is your age?
Percent positive, trends, and benchmarks do not apply to this question

2. Please rate each of the following aspects of quality of life in your community.

Percent positive is the percentage of responses that rated the characteristic as: "Excellent" or "Good" Characteristic % positive National Benchmark Rank # of Compared Communities Y our community as a place to live 94 36 296
Y our neighborhood as a place to live 93 31 257
Y our community as a place to retire 70 138 296
Sense of community in your community 64 110 296
The overall quality of life in your community 89 37 257 Avenidas | Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults September 2022
130
Item 10
Attachment A - 2022 Avenidas
Community Assessment Survey for
Older Adults

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
135

Packet Pg. 401 of 449

3. Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to your community as a whole.

Percent positive is the percentage of responses that rated the characteristic as: "Excellent" or "Good" Characteristic %
positive
National
Benchmark
Rank # of Compared
Communities
Overall economic health of your community 92 4 257
Overall quality of the transportation system (auto, bicycle, foot, bus) in your community
63 122 257
Overall design or layout of your community's residential and commercial areas (e.g., homes, buildings, streets, parks, etc.) 79 21 257
Overall quality of the utility infrastructure in your community (water, sewer, storm water, electric/gas, broadband)
83 19 163
Overall feeling of safety in your community 85 93 296
Overall quality of natural environment in your community 88 48 257 Overall quality of parks and recreation opportunities 85 48 163 Overall health and wellness opportunities in your community 86 29 257 Overall opportunities for education, culture, and the arts 84 14 257 Residents' connection and engagement with their community 62 45 163 Avenidas | Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults September 2022
131
Item 10
Attachment A - 2022 Avenidas
Community Assessment Survey for
Older Adults

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
136

Packet Pg. 402 of 449

4. How would you rate the overall services provided to older adults in your community? Percent positive is the percentage of responses that rated the characteristic as: "Excellent" or "Good" Characteristic %
positive
National
Benchmark
Rank # of Compared
Communities
How would you rate the overall services provided to older adults in your community?
73 6 101

5. Please indicate how likely or unlikely you are to do each of the following.

Percent positive is the percentage of responses that rated the characteristic as: "Very likely" or "Somewhat likely" Characteristic % likely National Benchmark Rank # of Compared Communities Recommend living in your community to older adults 69 239 296 Remain in your community throughout your retirement 85 31 101

6. In general, how informed or uninformed do you feel about services and activities available to older adults in your community? Percent positive is the percentage of responses that rated the characteristic as: "Very informed" or "Somewhat informed" Characteristic %
informed
National
Benchmark
Rank # of Compared
Communities
In general, how informed or uninformed do you feel about services and activities available to older adults in your community? 70 Avenidas | Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults September 2022
132
Item 10
Attachment A - 2022 Avenidas
Community Assessment Survey for
Older Adults

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
137

Packet Pg. 403 of 449

7. Please rate the quality of each of the following.

8. 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 positive is the percentage of responses that rated the characteristic as: "Very positive" or "Somewhat positive" Characteristic %
positive
National
Benchmark
Rank # of Compared
Communities
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:
20 170 257
Avenidas | Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults September 2022
133
Item 10
Attachment A - 2022 Avenidas
Community Assessment Survey for
Older Adults

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
138

Packet Pg. 404 of 449

9. Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to older adults in your community.

Percent positive is the percentage of responses that rated the characteristic as: "Excellent" or "Good" Characteristic %
positive
National
Benchmark
Rank # of Compared
Communities
Ease of travel by public transportation in your community 30 150 279 Ease of travel by car in your community 88 15 296
Ease of walking in your community 80 43 296
Ease of bicycling in your community 79 1 21
Ease of getting to the places you usually have to visit 84 2 61 Opportunities to build work skills 51 6 59
Quality of employment opportunities for older adults 23 230 295 Variety of employment opportunities for older adults 20 27 59 Cost of living in your community 13 282 296
Availability of affordable quality food 59 140 288
Availability of affordable quality housing 11 267 295
Variety of housing options 23 246 296
Availability of accessible housing (e.g., homes with a no step entry, single-floor living, wide hallways and doorways)
28 20 59
Avenidas | Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults September 2022
134
Item 10
Attachment A - 2022 Avenidas
Community Assessment Survey for
Older Adults

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
139

Packet Pg. 405 of 449

Characteristic %
positive
National
Benchmark
Rank # of Compared
Communities
Availability of mixed-use neighborhoods where people live close to places where they can eat, shop, work, and receive services 32 11 59
Public places where people want to spend time 52 144 256 Availability of information about resources for older adults 54 8 101 Availability of financial or legal planning services 54 6 101 Availability of long-term care options 45 23 101
Availability of daytime care options for older adults 41 7 101 Availability of affordable quality physical health care 56 148 287 Availability of affordable quality mental health care 39 136 285 Availability of preventive health services (e.g., health screenings, flu shots, educational workshops)
75 46 285
Recreation opportunities (including games, arts, library services, etc.) 75 83 294 Fitness opportunities (including exercise classes and paths or trails, etc.)
76 100 293
Opportunities to participate in community matters 73 63 294 Opportunities to volunteer 73 73 203
Opportunities to enroll in skill-building or personal enrichment classes 68 10 101 Avenidas | Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults September 2022
135
Item 10
Attachment A - 2022 Avenidas
Community Assessment Survey for
Older Adults

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
140

Packet Pg. 406 of 449

Characteristic %
positive
National
Benchmark
Rank # of Compared
Communities
Opportunities to attend social events or activities 61 126 294 Opportunities to attend religious or spiritual activities 80 35 101 Openness and acceptance of the community towards older residents of diverse backgrounds
64 85 296
Making all residents feel welcome 59 97 163
Valuing older residents in your community 57 32 101
Neighborliness of your community 59 90 202
Avenidas | Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults September 2022
136
Item 10
Attachment A - 2022 Avenidas
Community Assessment Survey for
Older Adults

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
141

Packet Pg. 407 of 449

10. Older adults may or may not face a number of challenges. Thinking back over the last 12 months, how much of a problem, if at all, have each of the following been for you?
Percent positive is the percentage of responses that rated the characteristic as: "Minor problem", "Moderate problem", or "Major problem" Characteristic %
problematic
National
Benchmark
Rank # of Compared
Communities
Having enough money to meet daily expenses 76 8 101
Having enough money to pay your property taxes 84 7 101 Having housing to suit your needs 77 36 101
Doing heavy or intense housework 39 56 101
Maintaining your home 41 77 101
Maintaining your yard 44 86 101
Having safe and affordable transportation available 59 80 101 No longer being able to drive 84 46 100
Finding work in retirement 71 30 101
Building skills for paid or unpaid work 70 35 100
Having adequate information or dealing with public programs such as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid
55 31 101
Not knowing what services are available to older adults in your community
38 22 101
Avenidas | Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults September 2022
137
Item 10
Attachment A - 2022 Avenidas
Community Assessment Survey for
Older Adults

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
142

Packet Pg. 408 of 449

Characteristic %
problematic
National
Benchmark
Rank # of Compared
Communities
Y our physical health 41 58 101
Falling or injuring yourself in your home 66 62 101
Finding affordable health insurance 71 5 101
Getting the health care you need 74 13 101
Getting the oral health care you need 79 9 101
Getting the vision care you need 79 15 101
Affording the medications you need 80 4 101
Staying physically fit 50 17 101
Maintaining a healthy diet 67 9 101
Having enough food to eat 92 15 100
Experiencing confusion or forgetfulness 65 52 101
Feeling depressed 65 23 101
Feeling bored 66 14 101
Having friends or family you can rely on 65 74 101
Avenidas | Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults September 2022
138
Item 10
Attachment A - 2022 Avenidas
Community Assessment Survey for
Older Adults

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
143

Packet Pg. 409 of 449

Characteristic %
problematic
National
Benchmark
Rank # of Compared
Communities
Feeling lonely or isolated 64 49 100
Dealing with the loss of a close family member or friend 59 48 101 Being a victim of crime 91 20 99
Being a victim of fraud or a scam 84 13 101
Being physically or emotionally abused 95 25 99
Being treated unfairly or discriminated against because of your age
80 22 59
Feeling like you don't fit in or belong 72 10 59
Feeling like your voice is heard in the community 63 10 101 Feeling PHYSICALL Y burdened by providing care for another person
83 17 101
Feeling EMOTIONALL Y burdened by providing care for another person
77 32 101
Feeling FINANCIALL Y burdened by providing care for another person
85 21 101
Performing regular activities, including walking, eating and preparing meals
75 3 21
Finding meaningful volunteer work 75 9 21
Avenidas | Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults September 2022
139
Item 10
Attachment A - 2022 Avenidas
Community Assessment Survey for
Older Adults

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
144

Packet Pg. 410 of 449

Characteristic %
problematic
National
Benchmark
Rank # of Compared
Communities
Finding productive or meaningful activities to do 70 4 21 Having interesting recreational or cultural activities to attend 65 3 21 Having interesting social events or activities to attend 57 6 21

11. Thinking back over the past 12 months, how much time did you spend in each of the following? Percent positive is the percentage of responses that rated the characteristic as: "1-2 days", "3-5 days", or "6 or more days" Characteristic % of
respondents
National
Benchmark
Rank # of Compared
Communities
As a patient in a hospital 21 54 101
In a long-term care facility (including nursing home or in- patient rehabilitation facility)
5 14 85

12. Thinking back over the past 12 months, how many times have you fallen and injured yourself? Percent positive is the percentage of responses that rated the characteristic as: "1 to 2 times", "3 to 5 times", or "More than 5 times" Characteristic % of
respondents
National
Benchmark
Rank # of Compared
Communities
Thinking back over the past 12 months, how many times have you fallen and injured yourself?
34 60 101
Avenidas | Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults September 2022
140
Item 10
Attachment A - 2022 Avenidas
Community Assessment Survey for
Older Adults

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
145

Packet Pg. 411 of 449

13. Please indicate whether or not you have done each of the following in the last 12 months.

Percent positive is the percentage of responses that rated the characteristic as: "Y es" Characteristic %
yes
National
Benchmark
Rank # of Compared
Communities
Attended a local public meeting (of local elected officials like City Council or County Commissioners, advisory boards, town halls, HOA, neighborhood watch, etc.)
22 156 295
Watched (online or on television) a local public meeting 31 11 100 Voted in your most recent local election 88 51 161
Participated in a civic group (including Elks, Kiwanis, Masons, etc.) 17 23 101 Used a senior center in your community 24 19 99
Used a public library in your community 62 15 101
Used a recreation center in your community 30 33 101
Participated in a recreation program or group activity 40 24 101 Participated in religious or spiritual activities with others 41 83 101 Participated in a club (including book, dance, game, and other social) 45 1 101 Avenidas | Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults September 2022
141
Item 10
Attachment A - 2022 Avenidas
Community Assessment Survey for
Older Adults

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
146

Packet Pg. 412 of 449

14. During a typical week, how many hours do you spend:

Percent positive is the percentage of responses that rated the characteristic as: "1 to 3 hours", "4 to 5 hours", "6 to 10 hours", "11 to 19 hours", or "20 or more hours"
Characteristic % of
respondents
National
Benchmark
Rank # of Compared
Communities
Assisting friends, relatives, or neighbors 78 49 101
Volunteering your time 53 31 101
Talking or visiting with friends/family 97 15 101
Providing care to someone age 55+ 32 48 101
Providing care to someone age 18 to 54 12 77 101
Providing care someone under age 18 19 34 100
Receiving assistance, paid or unpaid (e.g., with
shopping, cooking, etc.)
19 19 21
Avenidas | Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults September 2022
142
Item 10
Attachment A - 2022 Avenidas
Community Assessment Survey for
Older Adults

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
147

Packet Pg. 413 of 449

15. Please answer the following, as they relate to Internet access at your home:

Percent positive is the percentage of responses that rated the characteristic as: "Y es" Characteristic % yes National Benchmark Rank # of Compared Communities I have high-speed internet/broadband at home 91
High speed internet is not available 10
I can't afford high speed internet 9
I'm not interested in high speed internet 9
High speed internet is available, but is not reliable 12

16. In general, how many times do you:

Percent positive is the percentage of responses that rated the characteristic as: "Several times a day", "Once a day", or "A few times a week" Characteristic % of
respondents
National
Benchmark
Rank # of Compared
Communities
Access the internet from your home using a computer,
laptop, or tablet computer
94 40 162
Access the internet from your cell phone 76 93 162
Visit social media sites such as Facebook, Twitter,
Nextdoor, etc.
61 109 161
Use or check email 96 37 162
Share your opinions online 25 74 162
Avenidas | Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults September 2022
143
Item 10
Attachment A - 2022 Avenidas
Community Assessment Survey for
Older Adults

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
148

Packet Pg. 414 of 449

Characteristic % of
respondents
National
Benchmark
Rank # of Compared
Communities
Shop online 38 74 162

17. How many years have you lived in your community?
Percent positive, trends, and benchmarks do not apply to this question

18. Which best describes the building you live in?
Percent positive, trends, and benchmarks do not apply to this question

19. Do you rent or own your home?
Percent positive, trends, and benchmarks do not apply to this question

21. How many people, including yourself, live in your household? Percent positive, trends, and benchmarks do not apply to this question

22. How many of these people, including yourself, are 60 or older? Percent positive, trends, and benchmarks do not apply to this question

23. What is your employment status?
Percent positive, trends, and benchmarks do not apply to this question

24. At what age do you expect to retire completely and not work for pay at all? Percent positive, trends, and benchmarks do not apply to this question

26. Are you Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino?
Percent positive, trends, and benchmarks do not apply to this question Avenidas | Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults September 2022
144
Item 10
Attachment A - 2022 Avenidas
Community Assessment Survey for
Older Adults

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
149

Packet Pg. 415 of 449

27. What is your race? (Mark one or more races to indicate what race you consider yourself to be.) Percent positive, trends, and benchmarks do not apply to this question

28. What is your gender?
Percent positive, trends, and benchmarks do not apply to this question

30. What is your sexual orientation?
Percent positive, trends, and benchmarks do not apply to this question Avenidas | Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults September 2022
145
Item 10
Attachment A - 2022 Avenidas
Community Assessment Survey for
Older Adults

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
150

Packet Pg. 416 of 449

Section 18: Methods
About the Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults
(CASOA)
The Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults (CASOA) wasdeveloped by National Research Center at Polco (NRC) to provide anaccurate, aﬀordable and easy way to assess and interpret theexperience of older adults in the community. The CASOA surveyinstrument and its administration are standardized to assure high-quality survey methods and comparable results across CASOAcommunities. The CASOA was customized for Avenidas to reﬂect thecorrect local age deﬁnition of older adults and to use oﬃcial Avenidasgraphics, contact information and signatures on survey invitationmailing materials. The undeﬁned sponsored and funded this research.Please contact John Sink of the Avenidas at [email protected] if youhave any questions about the survey.

Questionnaire Development
The CASOA questionnaire contains many questions related to the life ofolder residents in the community. The instrument includes questionsrelated to overall quality of life, characteristics of the community,perceptions of safety, and many diﬀerent needs common to olderadults. The questionnaire grew from a synthesis of numerous data collectionprocesses, including a national search of needs assessmentsconducted by communities across the United States, a review of theliterature on aging, and numerous surveys and large-scale needsassessments conducted by NRC. A blue-ribbon panel of nationalexperts contributed to the concept and content of CASOA. ®
®
®
Avenidas | Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults September 2022
146
Item 10
Attachment A - 2022
Avenidas Community
Assessment Survey for
Older Adults

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
151

Packet Pg. 417 of 449

The items in the questionnaire were pilot tested on older adultresidents using a “think-aloud” method in which older adults wereasked to complete the survey and describe their thought processesrelated to speciﬁc questions and question sets. The results of the pilottest were used to alter the questionnaire for better understanding bysenior participants. The ﬁnal questionnaire was tested in a set ofdiverse U.S. communities and modiﬁcations again were made asnecessary.

Random (Probability) Sample Survey

Selecting Survey Recipients
One of the ﬁrst steps taken to ensure survey results are representativeof the target population is to use a source from which survey recipientsare selected that provides adequate to good coverage of the targetpopulation. This source is referred to as the sampling frame. The target population for this survey was residents age 60 years orolder in households within the Avenidas service area boundaries. Since it would be cost prohibitive to survey every person age 60 yearsor older in the Avenidas service area, a random selection of recordsfrom the sampling frame was made. This process can be illustratedusing an example that may be familiar from a math or statistics classof a jar of marbles of various colors. If the jar has two-thirds redmarbles and one-third blue marbles, a random selection of marblesfrom that jar should result in a similar proportion (although perhaps notidentical) of red and blue marbles as in the original jar. The sampling frame used for this survey was a list of households with ahigh likelihood of having a resident age 60 years or older within theAvenidas service area boundaries from Mail Graphics. These lists,compiled by sampling and marketing ﬁrms based on data from Avenidas | Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults September 2022
147
Item 10
Attachment A - 2022
Avenidas Community
Assessment Survey for
Older Adults

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
152

Packet Pg. 418 of 449

multiple sources (such as warranty information, voting lists, and more),provide fairly complete coverage of all members of the targetpopulation.

Data Collection
Each randomly selected household received two mailings, about oneweek apart, beginning on August, 1, 2022. The ﬁrst mailing was aprenotiﬁcation postcard announcing the upcoming survey. This half-sheet postcard included a URL so that recipients could immediately goonline to complete the survey if they wished. The second mailingcontained a letter from the Vice President, Enrichment Services invitingthe household to participate, a printed questionnaire and a postage-paid return envelope. The survey was available in English, Spanish,Traditional Chinese, Vietnamese, Korean, and Arabic. Completedsurveys were collected over the following 7 weeks. About 505 (4%) of the 12,000 surveys mailed were returned becausethe housing unit was vacant or the postal service was unable to deliverthe survey as addressed. Of the remaining 11,495 households thatreceived the survey, 669 completed the survey, providing an overallresponse rate of 5.82%. Of the total surveys received, 463 werecompleted using the hard copy surveys while 206 were submittedonline. Response rates are calculated using AAPOR’s response rate #2for mailed surveys of unnamed persons.

Open Participation Survey
In addition to the random sample “probability” survey describedabove, an open participation survey was conducted, in which all olderadults age 60 years or older were invited to participate. The openparticipation survey instrument was identical to the probability samplesurvey. This survey was conducted entirely online. For the openparticipation survey a single URL was provided to contacts fromAvenidas to share with residents through email lists, social mediaaccounts, service settings and community partners. The URL directed 1 Avenidas | Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults September 2022
148
Item 10
Attachment A - 2022
Avenidas Community
Assessment Survey for
Older Adults

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
153

Packet Pg. 419 of 449

community members to a short survey where they indicated theirgeographic location and were directed to the survey for theirappropriate city. Avenidas conducted all outreach, after receivingguidance on best practices for conducting such outreach from Polco.This guidance suggested the use of social media, press releases,newsletters and e-newsletters, existing resident email lists, printedmaterials, and invitations publicized at local and virtual meetings. Thissurvey became available to all residents on 9/2/2022 and remainedopen until 9/16/2022. A total of 143 surveys were completed by openparticipation survey respondents.

Analysis and Reporting

Conﬁdence Intervals
It is customary to describe the precision of estimates made fromprobability surveys by a “level of conﬁdence” and accompanying“conﬁdence interval” (or margin of error). A traditional level ofconﬁdence, and the one used here, is 95%. The 95% conﬁdenceinterval can be any size and quantiﬁes the sampling error orimprecision of the survey results because some residents’ opinions arerelied on to estimate all residents’ opinions. The margin of error for the Avenidas survey is no greater than plus orminus 3.79 percentage points around any given percent reported forall probability survey respondents (669). For subgroups of responses,the margin of error increases because the number of respondents foreach subgroup is smaller. For subgroups of approximately 100respondents, the margin of error is plus or minus 10 percentage points. The open participation survey results were combined with responsesfrom the probability sample survey, for a total of 812 completedsurveys. With the inclusion of the open participation surveyparticipants, it is likely that the precision of the responses would beeven greater (and thus the margin of error smaller). 2 Avenidas | Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults September 2022
149
Item 10
Attachment A - 2022
Avenidas Community
Assessment Survey for
Older Adults

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
154

Packet Pg. 420 of 449

Survey Processing (Data Entry)
Upon receipt, completed hard copy surveys were assigned a uniqueidentiﬁcation number. Additionally, each survey was reviewed and“cleaned” as necessary. An example of cleaning would be if a questionasked a respondent to pick two items out of a list of ﬁve, but therespondent checked three; in this case, NRC would use protocols torandomly choose two of the three selected items for inclusion in thedataset. All surveys then were entered twice into an electronic dataset; anydiscrepancies were resolved in comparison to the original survey form.Range checks as well as other forms of quality control were alsoperformed. The online survey data was collected on Polco, an online civicengagement platform. Use of Polco means all collected data areentered into the dataset immediately when the respondents submitthe surveys. Skip patterns are programmed into the system sorespondents are automatically directed to the appropriate question(skipping irrelevant questions, when applicable) based on theindividual responses given. A series of quality control checks were also performed in order toensure the integrity of the web data. Steps may include (and are notlimited to) reviewing the data for clusters of repeat IP addresses andtime stamps (indicating duplicate responses) and removing emptysubmissions (questionnaires submitted with no questions answered).

Survey Data Weighting
The primary objective of weighting survey data is to make the surveysample reﬂective of the larger population of Avenidas. This is done byreviewing the demographic proﬁle of respondents and comparing it tothe demographic proﬁle of older adults based on the most recentCensus data. Those respondent subgroups that were less likely torespond are statistically adjusted to be given more weight, while those Avenidas | Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults September 2022
150
Item 10
Attachment A - 2022
Avenidas Community
Assessment Survey for
Older Adults

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
155

Packet Pg. 421 of 449

subgroups that were more likely to respond are given less weight. Thecharacteristics used for weighting were age, gender, race, Hispanicorigin, housing type, rent or own home, and area. No adjustments weremade for design eﬀects. Weights were calculated using an iterative,multiplicative raking model known as the ANES Weighting Algorithm(see https://surveyinsights.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Full-anesrake-paper.pdf for more details). The results of the weightingscheme are presented in the following table. Weighting Scheme for the 2022 Avenidas CASOA Demographic Group Unweighted WeightedPopulation Target
Rent or Own Home
Rent 10.6 % 23.8 % 23.9 %
Own 89.4 % 76.2 % 76.1 %
Housing Type
Detached 75.1 % 71 % 71.2 %
Attached 24.9 % 29 % 28.8 %
Race
White 83.1 % 73 % 72.6 %
Not white 16.9 % 27 % 27.4 %
Ethnicity
Hispanic 3.5 % 7.5 % 6.4 %
Not Hispanic 96.5 % 92.5 % 93.6 %
Gender
Female 62 % 54.4 % 54.4 %
Male 38 % 45.6 % 45.6 %
Age
Age 60 to 64 15.9 % 26.2 % 26.3 %
Age 65 to 74 41.4 % 37.3 % 37.3 %
Age 75 and over 42.8 % 36.4 % 36.4 %
*
Avenidas | Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults September 2022
151
Item 10
Attachment A - 2022
Avenidas Community
Assessment Survey for
Older Adults

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
156

Packet Pg. 422 of 449

Gender and Age
Female 60 to 64 8.9 % 13.2 % 13.2 %
Female 65 to 74 25.7 % 20.1 % 20.1 %
Female 75 and over 27.4 % 21.2 % 21.1 %
Male 60 to 64 6.7 % 13.1 % 13.1 %
Male 65 to 74 15.7 % 17.3 % 17.3 %
Male 75 and over 15.6 % 15.2 % 15.2 %

Reporting
For the most part, the percentages presented in the reports representthe “percent positive.” The percent positive is the combination of thetop two most positive response options (i.e., excellent and good, verysafe and somewhat safe, essential and very important, etc.), or, in thecase of resident behaviors/participation, the percent positiverepresents the proportion of respondents indicating yes or participatingin an activity at least once a month. On many of the questions in the survey respondents may answer don’tknow. The proportion of respondents giving this reply is shown in thefull set of responses included in the Responses tab. However, theseresponses have been removed from the analyses presented in themain body of the report. In other words, the tables and graphs displaythe responses from respondents who had an opinion about a speciﬁcitem. Multiple Response Questions For some questions, respondents were permitted to select multipleresponses. When the total exceeds 100% in a table for a multipleresponse question, it is because some respondents are counted inmultiple categories. Rounding

Avenidas | Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults September 2022
152
Item 10
Attachment A - 2022
Avenidas Community
Assessment Survey for
Older Adults

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
157

Packet Pg. 423 of 449

Excluding the Participants tab, percentages shown are rounded to thenearest whole number. This can sometimes mean that the percent ofresponses across all the possible response categories may sum tosomething other than exactly 100%. It also means that in someinstances, the “percent positive,” “percent problem,” or othersummaries of data may not equal the rounded percentages of the twocategories. For example, if 30.4% of respondents rated quality of life asexcellent, and 20.4% of respondents rated it as good, a display of allthe responses will show 30% excellent and 20% good. However, adisplay of the percent rating quality of life as excellent or good willshow 51% (as 30.4% + 20.4% equals 50.8%, which rounds to 51%). Making Comparisons to Benchmarks National Research Center at Polco has developed a database thatcollates responses to CASOA and related surveys administered in othercommunities, which allows the results from Avenidas to be comparedagainst a set of national benchmarks. This benchmarking databaseincludes responses from more than 35,000 older adults (age 55 andover) in over 326 communities across the nation. Ratings are compared when similar questions are included in Polco’sdatabase, and there are at least ﬁve other communities in which thequestion was asked. Where comparisons for ratings were available,Avenidas’s results are shown as being more favorable than thebenchmark, less favorable than the benchmark or similar to thebenchmark. In instances where ratings are considerably more or lessfavorable than the benchmark, these ratings have been furtherdemarcated by the attribute of “much,” (for example, much morefavorable or much less favorable). Reporting Statistical Signiﬁcance For the crosstabs of survey results by selected respondentcharacteristic, chi-square or ANOVA (Analysis of Variance) tests ofsigniﬁcance were applied to these breakdowns of selected surveyquestions. A p-value of 0.05 or less indicates that there is less than a Avenidas | Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults September 2022
153
Item 10
Attachment A - 2022
Avenidas Community
Assessment Survey for
Older Adults

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
158

Packet Pg. 424 of 449

Dimension of Community
Readiness
Items Included in Community Readiness
Score
5% probability that diﬀerences observed between groups are due tochance; or in other words, a greater than 95% probability that thediﬀerences observed in the selected categories of the samplerepresent “real” diﬀerences among those populations. However, itshould be noted that while these tests of statistical signiﬁcance wereused to help guide readers and policy makers to diﬀerences that arelikely not due to chance alone, these types of probabilistic inferenceswere designed for use when results come from random sampling alone(for more information, see Hirschauer, N., Gruner, S., Mußhoﬀ, O.,Becker, C., & Jantsch, A. (2020). Can p-values be meaningfullyinterpreted without random sampling? Statistics Surveys, 14, 71-91).

Community Readiness Scores
The community readiness scores presented in Community Readinessrepresents the average of the questions included in the index.Although the evaluative or frequency questions were made on 4- or 5-point scales, with 1 representing the best rating, the scales haddiﬀerent labels (e.g., excellent, very likely). To calculate these averagescores, the questions used in the index were converted to a commonscale where 0 is the worst possible rating and 100 is the best possiblerating. If everyone answered excellent, then the result would be 100 onthe 0-100 scale. If the average rating for quality of life was right in themiddle of the scale (halfway between good and fair), then the resultwould be 50. This scale can be thought of like the thermometer that isoften used to illustrate total donations received by charitableorganizations—the higher the thermometer reading, the closer to thegoal. In this case, 100 (the top of the thermometer) would representthe most positive response possible. The table below shows theindividual questions comprising each summary score for the sixdimensions of community readiness, as well as the overall rating forthe Quality of the Community.

Avenidas | Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults September 2022
154
Item 10
Attachment A - 2022
Avenidas Community
Assessment Survey for
Older Adults

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
159

Packet Pg. 425 of 449

Dimension of Community
Readiness
Items Included in Community Readiness
Score
Overall Community Quality
• Your community as a place to live
• Your neighborhood as a place to live
• Your community as a place to retire
• The overall quality of life in your community
• Recommend living in your community to older
adults
• Remain in your community throughout your
retirement
Community Design
• Housing
• Mobility
• Land Use
Employment and Finances • Employment
• Finances
Equity and Inclusivity • Equity
• Community Inclusivity
Health and Wellness
• Overall feeling of safety in your community
• Overall quality of natural environment in your
community
• Overall health and wellness opportunities in
your community
• Availability of aﬀordable quality food
• Availability of long-term care options
• Availability of daytime care options for older
adults
• Availability of aﬀordable quality physical health
care
• Availability of aﬀordable quality mental health
care
• Availability of preventive health services (e.g.,
health screenings, ﬂu shots, educational
workshops)
• Fitness opportunities (including exercise classes
and paths or trails, etc.)
Avenidas | Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults September 2022
155
Item 10
Attachment A - 2022
Avenidas Community
Assessment Survey for
Older Adults

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
160

Packet Pg. 426 of 449

Dimension of Community
Readiness
Items Included in Community Readiness
Score
Information and Assistance
• How would you rate the overall services
provided to older adults in your community?
• Availability of information about resources for
older adults
• Availability of ﬁnancial or legal planning services
Productive Activities
• Overall quality of parks and recreation
opportunities
• Overall opportunities for education, culture, and
the arts
• Residents' connection and engagement with
their community
• Recreation opportunities (including games, arts,
library services, etc.)
• Opportunities participate in community matters
Needs Score Items Included in the Score

Needs Summary
Each livability topic covered in the survey includes a summary ofneeds identiﬁed by respondents. For almost all of these needssummaries, a respondent was counted as having a need if they had amajor problem or moderate problem with any of the items examined ineach score area. The one exception is for the independent living topic;for this needs score, a respondent was counted as having a need ifthey reported spending any time in a hospital or in a long-term carefacility in the last year.

Avenidas | Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults September 2022
156
Item 10
Attachment A - 2022
Avenidas Community
Assessment Survey for
Older Adults

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
161

Packet Pg. 427 of 449

Needs Score Items Included in the Score
Caregiving
• Any of the following were a major or moderate
problem:
• Feeling PHYSICALLY burdened by providing care
for another person
• Feeling EMOTIONALLY burdened by providing
care for another person
• Feeling FINANCIALLY burdened by providing care
for another person
Civic Engagement
• Any of the following were a major or moderate
problem:
• Feeling like your voice is heard in the
community
Community Inclusivity
• Any of the following were a major or moderate
problem:
• Having friends or family you can rely on
• Feeling lonely or isolated
• Feeling like you don't ﬁt in or belong
Employment
• Any of the following were a major or moderate
problem:
• Finding work in retirement
• Building skills for paid or unpaid work
Equity
• Any of the following were a major or moderate
problem:
• Being treated unfairly or discriminated against
because of your age
Finances
• Any of the following were a major or moderate
problem:
• Having enough money to meet daily expenses
• Having enough money to pay your property
taxes
Avenidas | Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults September 2022
157
Item 10
Attachment A - 2022
Avenidas Community
Assessment Survey for
Older Adults

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
162

Packet Pg. 428 of 449

Needs Score Items Included in the Score
Health Care
• Any of the following were a major or moderate
problem:
• Finding aﬀordable health insurance
• Getting the health care you need
• Getting the oral health care you need
• Getting the vision care you need
• Aﬀording the medications you need
Housing
• Any of the following were a major or moderate
problem:
• Having housing to suit your needs
• Doing heavy or intense housework
• Maintaining your home
• Maintaining your yard
Independent Living
• Spent one or more days:
• In a long-term care facility (including nursing
home or in-patient rehabilitation facility)
• As a patient in a hospital
Information and Assistance
• Any of the following were a major or moderate
problem:
• Having adequate information or dealing with
public programs such as Social Security,
Medicare, and Medicaid
• Not knowing what services are available to
older adults in your community
Mental Health
• Any of the following were a major or moderate
problem:
• Experiencing confusion or forgetfulness
• Feeling depressed
• Dealing with the loss of a close family member
or friend
Mobility
• Any of the following were a major or moderate
problem:
• Having safe and aﬀordable transportation
available
• No longer being able to drive
Avenidas | Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults September 2022
158
Item 10
Attachment A - 2022
Avenidas Community
Assessment Survey for
Older Adults

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
163

Packet Pg. 429 of 449

Needs Score Items Included in the Score
Physical Health
• Any of the following were a major or moderate
problem:
• Your physical health
• Falling or injuring yourself in your home
• Staying physically ﬁt
• Maintaining a healthy diet
• Having enough food to eat
Safety
• Any of the following were a major or moderate
problem:
• Being a victim of crime
• Being a victim of fraud or a scam
• Being physically or emotionally abused
Social Engagement
• Any of the following were a major or moderate
problem:
• Feeling bored
See AAPOR’s Standard Deﬁnitions here:http://www.aapor.org/Standards-Ethics/Standard-Deﬁnitions-(1).aspxfor more informationA 95% conﬁdence interval indicates that for every 100 randomsamples of this many residents, 95 of the conﬁdence intervals createdwill include the “true” population response. This theory is applied inpractice to mean that the “true” perspective of the target populationlies within the conﬁdence interval created for a single survey. Forexample, if 75% of residents rate a service as excellent or good, then a4% margin of error (for the 95% conﬁdence interval) indicates that therange of likely responses for the entire community is between 71% and79%. This source of uncertainty is called sampling error. In addition tosampling error, other sources of error may aﬀect any survey, includingthe non-response of residents with opinions diﬀerent from surveyresponders. Though standardized on CASOA, on other surveys,diﬀerences in question wording, order, translation and data entry (asexamples) can lead to somewhat varying results. 1 2
Avenidas | Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults September 2022
159
Item 10
Attachment A - 2022
Avenidas Community
Assessment Survey for
Older Adults

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
164

Packet Pg. 430 of 449

*Source: U.S. Census Bureau - 2019 American Community Survey 5-year estimates Age, rent or own home, and gender estimates are forthose age 60+, while type of housing unit, race and ethnicity are forthose age 65+.

Avenidas | Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults September 2022
160
Item 10
Attachment A - 2022
Avenidas Community
Assessment Survey for
Older Adults

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
165

Packet Pg. 431 of 449

City Council
Staff Report
From: City Manager
Report Type: INFORMATION REPORTS
Lead Department: City Manager
Meeting Date: September 18, 2023
Report #:2309-1982
TITLE
Independent Police Auditor's (IPA) Report of Review of Investigations as of June 1, 2023 and Police Department Use of Force Report for January - June 2023

BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS
Since 2006, Palo Alto has utilized an Independent Police Auditor (IPA) to conduct secondary review of certain investigations of uniformed Police Department personnel and provide related services. Since the inception of the independent police auditing program, the City has contracted with the Office of Independent Review (OIR Group), to provide these services. The following report transmits the Independent Police Auditor Report on Investigations Completed as of June 1, 2023.

Attachment A contains the IPA report for investigations completed as of June 1, 2023.

For reference, the prior IPA report was published on June 5, 2023 as an Informational Item1, and covered the time period of July – December 2022. The IPA also published a recruitment and hiring special report on May 8, 2023.2 The Police Department’s website lists all past Independent Police Auditor Reports, here. For an overview of the history of the expanded scope of the IPA work, please visit the City’s Race and Equity webpage at: www.cityofpaloalto.org/raceandequity. 1 https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/police-department/accountability/ipa-reports/january- 2023-independent-police-auditors-report-and-papd-use-of-force-report.pdf 2 https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/police-department/accountability/ipa-reports/february- 2023-review-of-papd-recruitment-and-hiring.pdf
Item 11
Item 11 Staff Report

Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
1 Packet Pg. 432 of 449

Police Department's Response to IPA Recommendations
On March 14, 2022, the City Council directed the Police Department to provide written responses to future IPA recommendations (Minutes). The first report of Police Department responses to the IPA report after the March City Council action was June 20, 2022.3 Attachment B has the Department’s responses to the current IPA Report on Investigations Completed as of June 1, 2023.

Police Department's Use of Force Report for January 2023-June 2023 In 2020, the City Council directed staff to include use of force information when transmitting the IPA reports to the City Council. Attachment C contains the Department’s Use of Force Report for January 2023 – June 2023.

Process to File a Complaint to the IPA
The public can find more information about filing a complaint through the link here:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Police/Accountability/Employee-Complaint Complaints may also be directed to the Independent Police Auditor as follows:

Contact:

Mr. Mike Gennaco
Phone: (323) 412-0334
Email: [email protected]
Or mail to:

OIR Group
1443 E. Washington Blvd., #234
Pasadena, CA 91104

RESOURCE IMPACT
The cost for contract services provided by Office of Independent Review (OIR Group) is included in the FY 2024 Adopted Operating Budget. Staff support is provided from the Police Department, City Attorney’s Office, and City Manager’s Office.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Not a project.

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Palo Alto Review of Investigations Completed as of Jun. 1, 2023 Attachment B: PAPD Response to OIR Recommendations Jun. 1, 2023 Attachment C: PAPD Use of Force Supplemental Report Jan. - Jun. 2023 APPROVED BY:

Ed Shikada, City Manager
3 https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/police-department/accountability/ipa-reports/june-2022- independent-police-auditors-report-and-papd-use-of-force-report.pdf Item 11
Item 11 Staff Report

Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
2 Packet Pg. 433 of 449

1 INDEPENDENT POLICE AUDITORS’ REPORT
Review of Investigations Completed as of June 1, 2023

Presented to the Honorable City Council
City of Palo Alto
2023

Prepared by: Michael Gennaco and Stephen Connolly
Independent Police Auditors for
the City of Palo Alto

Item 11
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Review of Investigations
Completed as of June
2023 (OIR Group)

Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
3 Packet Pg. 434 of 449

2 Introduction

As we have for several years now, OIR Group publishes reports semiannually in Palo Alto for consideration by City Council and the general public. This Report covers six months of recent activity within the Palo Alto Police Department, across the designated range of categories that is subject to our review in our capacity as the City's Independent Police Auditor.1
The goals of our work are straightforward: to offer increased transparency about processes that have long been primarily internal and confidential within policing, to increase the scrutiny of the Department's internal review processes from the perspective of an independent outsider, and offer recommendations where applicable with an eye toward strengthening PAPD performance in the future.

The IPA scope of responsibility in Palo Alto, as defined by the City Council in a way that has evolved over time, calls for evaluation of all Department investigations into alleged misconduct. The IPA is now also responsible to review select incidents involving use of force by officers – a grouping that includes all Taser cases, dog bites, and instances of significant injury or hospital treatment.

The pool of matters covered below is, as with our previous Report from earlier this year, is a relatively small one. Only one complaint investigation emerged during the relevant months. We also looked at one relatively straightforward use of force and one that was part of a more complicated incident – and ended up involving a vehicle pursuit with a car that crashed, followed by a foot pursuit and use of physical force.

For the second time, this Report also features a discussion about PAPD's administrative process with regard to the review of "pointed firearm" incidents. Public recognition of these events as a significant exercise of police authority has increased in recent years, and what was once treated as a routine tactic is now subject not only to policy limitations but to a new level of formal review.

As we mentioned in our last Report and describe below, the Department's process is still developing, and we note a couple of concerns and suggestions in the discussion that follows. Importantly, though, PAPD appears to be committed to smoothing the bumps in its protocol and achieving the goals of more rigorous evaluation.

1OIR Group has served as Palo Alto's Independent Police Auditor since 2007. It is led by Michael Gennaco, a former federal prosecutor, and a nationally renowned authority on the civilian oversight of law enforcement. Its website, which includes past versions of its semi-annual reports on PAPD, is www.oirgroup.com.

Item 11
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Review of Investigations
Completed as of June
2023 (OIR Group)

Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
4 Packet Pg. 435 of 449

3 In developing the summaries, analyses, and recommendations that follow, we benefitted from our full access to the underlying records associated with each case. The Department continues to be cooperative in providing us with the requisite reports and other evidence (including body-worn camera recordings), and it remains open to our feedback. We appreciate the opportunities to engage with PAPD and, ideally, contribute on behalf of the public to the enhancement of its operations.

Item 11
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Review of Investigations
Completed as of June
2023 (OIR Group)

Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
5 Packet Pg. 436 of 449

4 External Complaint Investigations
Case 1: Third-Party Complaint about Failure To Properly Handle an Allegation of Sexual Assault
Factual Overview:

An adult male underwent two surgical procedures in the same Palo Alto hospital, several weeks apart. A few months later, he contacted PAPD to make a rape allegation that was based on his contention that he had been given a catheter without his consent during both hospital visits.

A supervisor spoke with him and took some investigative steps in relation to the man's report. The man eventually agreed to a release of his medical records, which included signed copies of the consent form to which he had agreed prior to both surgeries. Based on the language within the form, and on a consultation with the District Attorney's Office as to whether the conduct at issue was criminal in nature, the Department decided not to move forward with developing charges and making a formal submission for prosecution.

This was disappointing to the man, who energetically maintained that he was a crime victim and accused the supervisor and others of not doing their job. He expressed his frustration through communications with the initial supervisor and PAPD management that included references to possible legal action in response.

PAPD Investigation and Outcome
The Department decided to formalize the man's concerns and the PAPD analysis within a Supervisor Inquiry Investigation. It essentially recounted the history of the interactions with the complainant, and reached a conclusion that any misconduct allegations were "Unfounded."
IPA Review and Analysis
We concur with the finding that no violations of policy occurred. The initial supervisor had handled the man's report with appropriate due diligence, and PAPD took several additional steps to ensure that its interpretation of the facts was sound.

Use of Force Cases:

Case 1:

Factual Summary
This case involved officers' efforts to take a man into custody after he had allegedly assaulted employees without provocation upon entering a restaurant. The PAPD Item 11
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Review of Investigations
Completed as of June
2023 (OIR Group)

Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
6 Packet Pg. 437 of 449

5 involvement began when police received a call for service from employees at the restaurant, reporting that the subject had entered the restaurant, began yelling, and throwing furniture, and then assaulted two employees. The body-worn camera recording from the initial officer to arrive at the scene shows two employees holding a man down who is on his back.

The officer called for backup, and a number of additional officers arrived within seconds to assist. The officer rolled the subject onto his stomach, which resulted in the subject’s hands being beneath him. After three additional officers arrived, the subject did not comply with instructions in both English and Spanish to put his hands behind his back so that he could be handcuffed. As a result, one officer reported delivering several punches to the subject’s thigh, while a second officer reported delivering several knee strikes to the man’s rib area. Eventually, the officers were able to roll the man onto his stomach and secure him with handcuffs. The subject suffered no visible injuries from PAPD’s reported uses of force and declined medical attention.

PAPD Review:

The case went through the Department's supervisory review process, which utilizes a detailed template to ensure that relevant evidence is gathered and that compliance with policy is thoroughly evaluated. Here, the assigned supervisor showed due diligence in moving through the relevant investigative steps. These included review of body-worn camera recordings and reports, as well as interviews of the restaurant employees who were victims and witnesses to the earlier assaultive behavior.

The reviewing supervisor determined that the force was justified by the circumstances and consistent with policy. The supervisor found that the exigency of arriving to an incident in which the subject had reportedly just punched two employees made it impracticable to deploy de-escalation techniques other than the instructions given to the subject to place his hands behind his back.

IPA Review and Analysis:

We reviewed body-worn camera footage and reports from this incident, and we concur with the Department's finding that the force was an appropriate response to the subject's resistive behavior.

Item 11
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Review of Investigations
Completed as of June
2023 (OIR Group)

Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
7 Packet Pg. 438 of 449

6 Vehicle Pursuit -- Pointed Firearm -- Foot Pursuit -- Use of Force
Factual Summary
This case began when officers were asked to respond to a reported retail theft at a local shopping center. The involved officer responded to the call and observed a female sitting in a vehicle in a nearby parking lot whom he suspected of being involved. He pulled behind her car. The subject then exited her car while talking on her cell phone. She spoke briefly to the officer before returning to her car and closing the door over the officer’s objections. The officer unholstered his firearm as he moved toward the driver’s side of the vehicle and pointed his gun at the woman. The officer then immediately backed away from the subject’s vehicle as the subject placed her car in reverse, striking the patrol car. The subject then put her car in forward gear and drove over the curb and away from the location.

The officer pursued the subject while utilizing the lights and siren of his vehicle. After losing sight of the subject at one point, he reacquired her location and continued to pursue her. After approximately two minutes, the officer observed the subject’s vehicle roll over. As he approached the subject, the officer again drew his weapon and pointed it at the woman. The woman ignored the officer’s commands and began to run away. The officer ran after her and tackled her to the ground after a brief foot pursuit. Additional officers arrived and assisted in handcuffing the subject. Paramedics were called to the location and the subject was transported to a local hospital.

We were further advised that as a result of the incident, the involved officer received an injury to his wrist which caused him to be out of work for several weeks.

PAPD Review
The initial review focused on the vehicle pursuit. The reviewing supervisor concluded that the pursuit was within policy since the subject had just rammed the officer’s car – an act which met the requisite “violent felony” standard that PAPD policy requires before a pursuit can be initiated. The supervisor further concluded that the pursuit was controlled and the direction of travel was appropriately called out by the officer. In evaluating the driving of the officer, the supervisor noted that the officer had failed to stop at a controlled intersection on one occasion and crossed the center line on another occasion to pass a box truck.

To his credit, the supervisor further noted that the officer had failed to include in his initial report that he had pointed his firearm at the subject at the initial stop. The supervisor Item 11
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Review of Investigations
Completed as of June
2023 (OIR Group)

Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
8 Packet Pg. 439 of 449

7 indicated he discussed with the officer the need to document that action and the officer had prepared a supplemental report documenting his decision to unholster his weapon and the rationale for doing so.

Finally, to the supervisor’s additional credit, he noted that as the subject was being directed into a vehicle, the officer said: “It’s not that hard to get into a fucking car.” The supervisor said he reminded the officer of PAPD policy restricting the use of profanity and counseled him on its use. Department management's use of such "teachable moments" occasions for course correction is a practice we endorse.

IPA Review and Analysis
IPA was provided and reviewed the recordings from both the officer's in-car video system and his body-worn camera, the police reports, and the supervisory memorandum. As discussed below, we noted a few issues for further consideration.

The Vehicle Pursuit
PAPD’s vehicle pursuit policy acknowledges that vehicle pursuits are one of the most dangerous enforcement actions an officer may be involved in. As a result, the policy sets out a series of detailed expectations for initiating and terminating a pursuit, as well as expectations that supervisors carefully review the incident to determine whether the policy requirements have been met.

As detailed above, the review of the vehicle pursuit was set out in a supervisory memorandum. However, in that memorandum, certain aspects of the pursuit were not fully documented. For example, PAPD’s vehicle pursuit policy states that pursuing units should exercise due caution when proceeding through controlled intersections. The memorandum notes that the officer failed to stop at one controlled intersection. Yet a close review of the MAV ("dash-cam") footage shows that the officer failed to stop or slow through six controlled intersections.

The memorandum further notes that the officer crossed over to the opposite lane of a two- lane road in order to pass a large truck. The MAV footage, however, shows that it was actually two large trucks that were passed in the maneuver. The MAV footage also shows that later in the pursuit, the radio car again briefly crossed into the opposing lane.

The analysis of the pursuit suffers from the omission of important facts that were captured by the video equipment. While a more careful analysis may have still concluded that the pursuit was in policy, the failure of the supervisory memorandum to include all salient Item 11
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Review of Investigations
Completed as of June
2023 (OIR Group)

Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
9 Packet Pg. 440 of 449

8 facts – and to base any subsequent analysis on all those facts –undercuts the legitimacy of the Department’s bottom-line conclusion.2
Recommendation ONE :

PAPD should ensure that supervisors include all salient facts in their vehicle pursuit evaluations.

Foot Pursuit
Current PAPD policy advises officers that “the safety of department members and the public should be the primary consideration when determining whether a foot pursuit should be initiated or continued. Officers must be mindful that immediate apprehension of a suspect is rarely more important than the safety of the public and department members.”
The policy further requires officers involved in foot pursuits to complete the appropriate crime/arrest reports documenting, at minimum, the following:
(a) The reason for initiating the foot pursuit.
(b) The identity of involved personnel.
(c) The course and approximate distance of the pursuit. (d) Whether a suspect was apprehended as well as the means and methods used.

1. Any use of force shall be reported and documented in compliance with the Department Use of Force Policy.
(e) Any injuries or property damage.

While in this case the initiating officer documented some of the above information in his police report, information such as the course and approximate distance of the pursuit was not specifically included. More critically, the foot pursuit sets out certain criteria an officer should consider in determining whether to initiate and continue a foot pursuit. In reviewing this incident, the supervising officer did not evaluate the officer’s actions to determine whether the officer’s actions were “reasonable” and followed the criteria set out in policy. There should have been an evaluation of the officer’s conduct and whether his actions complied with the Department’s foot pursuit policy, especially given the use of force that terminated the pursuit.

2 The reader should not conclude that IPA found any intent to deceive as a result of the memorandum failing to include all salient facts.

Item 11
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Review of Investigations
Completed as of June
2023 (OIR Group)

Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
10 Packet Pg. 441 of 449

9 Recommendation TWO:

The Department should expressly evaluate compliance with its foot pursuit policy, particularly when the end of the pursuit involves a use of force involving potential injury or pain to the subject.

The Use of Force
The repeated pointing of the involved officer’s firearm.3 The supervisory memorandum appropriately notes that the pointing of the firearm at the initiation of the incident should have been documented, along with the rationale for doing so. However, the memorandum fails to note that the officer actually unholstered his firearm and pointed it at the subject on two separate occasions: first at the initiation of the contact and again after the subject’s car rolled over and she got out of the car. To the officer’s credit, he described both “pointing a firearm” incidents in his supplementary memorandum.

The tackling of the subject. There is no apparent PAPD review of the officer’s admitted “tackling” of the subject, causing her to go to the ground – an action he reported to a supervisor on scene immediately after the incident. The body-worn camera recording shows that, at one point, the officer told a supervisor that he saw blood on the subject’s hands after she went down but did not know if it occurred because of the tackle or the accident.

The officer then said it probably didn’t occur from the tackle since they had landed on grass. There are no indicia that the subject was interviewed relating to the use of force.4 As a result, there is insufficient documentation of the take-down, which leaves a question as to whether a more formal force review process was needed per policy. That gap should have been closed.

Recommendation THREE:

PAPD should ensure that sufficient inquiry is made at the scene regarding any reported use of force to determine whether a more formal review is required.

3 We note here that PAPD does not technically categorize the pointing of a firearm as a "use of force" per the definitions of its policy manual. However, the Department has recently subjected this tactic to a greater degree of formal scrutiny, as discussed further below in the "Pointed Firearm" section of this Report.

4 If the subject had been interviewed and indicated that any injury or pain that she had received had been a result of the rollover accident, that would have dropped the physical contact at the end of the foot pursuit below the level of PAPD's process for the formal supervisory review of force.

Item 11
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Review of Investigations
Completed as of June
2023 (OIR Group)

Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
11 Packet Pg. 442 of 449

10 Interviews of Witnesses
One civilian witness assisted the responding officer in controlling the subject until backup officers arrived. Another civilian witnessed the incident. According to the body-worn camera recording, the responding officers encountered the two individuals after the incident and asked if they had in fact been participants. When they replied affirmatively, the initially involved officer advised them that since he himself had been involved, it would be better for a non-involved officer to obtain their statements. The officer then creditably followed up with a supervisor and the civilians were interviewed by another officer. And the subject was also interviewed by non-involved officers about aspects of the incident.

These were noteworthy instances in which Department members showed a consciousness of best practices to ensure the objectivity of the review. As such, they deserve acknowledgement.
"Pointed Firearm" Incidents
As noted above, this is the second audit cycle that provided us with the opportunity to evaluate the Department's administrative handling of incidents in which officers point their firearms at a subject in the context of an enforcement encounter. PAPD reported five instances that fit the criteria, and gave us available materials, including police reports and relevant body-worn camera recordings.5 A new feature was also included for each case:
a brief memo from a reviewing supervisor who had assessed the incident and evaluated the legitimacy of the involved officer's actions.

This supervisorial memo is the product of the Department's evolving system for addressing these incidents with completeness, appropriate rigor, and efficiency. Our previous Report cited "growing pains" in this endeavor that were of two types. First was the need for more timely and accurate identification of these incidents when they occur, and second was the need for a further vision for developing and documenting a review process – one that effectively balanced meaningful accountability against new impositions on supervisory time and attention.

New mechanisms for ensuring the "capture" of relevant incidents have been implemented – and in fact led to the surfacing of an instance that was missed in 2022 and belatedly

5 A sixth incident was one element of a larger encounter that had several "reviewable" features, and which we discuss above.

Item 11
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Review of Investigations
Completed as of June
2023 (OIR Group)

Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
12 Packet Pg. 443 of 449

11 reviewed for this cycle.6 We expect that ongoing refinements will enhance the identification process even further going forward.

As for the supervisor's memo, it constitutes a useful step in the right direction. While the initial examples have been quite brief, they constitute formal documentation of a purposeful assessment that itself is adding accountability in an arena that members of the public clearly care about. However, as discussed below, we questioned the substance of the evaluations in at least a couple of instances.

The context for the five deployments was as follows:
• Police received an early morning call from a grocery store employee regarding a young male subject who had allegedly brandished a firearm in the context of a dispute at a checkout register. Different officers responded to the area in an attempt to locate the subject. A responding supervisor encountered the person, who was walking in the neighborhood. Because of the reports that the subject was armed, the supervisor unholstered his duty weapon and pointed it at the subject while giving commands for him to get on his knees. The subject was initially non- compliant but was then taken into custody without further incident. • Using a locator app, officers tracked the subject in a robbery/assault into a neighboring city and found him seated in a stolen vehicle. The male subject initially fled from officers. One officer trailed him, first in his radio car and then on foot. He eventually re-encountered the subject in a parking lot and ordered him at gun point to get on the ground. Though initially non-compliant, the subject was eventually taken into custody without further incident.
• In responding to the same call for service as the robbery/assault case above, a responding officer noted a second subject walking away at the stolen car location from which the first subject had fled. The officer continued to monitor the vehicle location, saw the second subject back in the car's vicinity, and pointed his firearm to gain compliance with commands for the person to get on the ground. • Responding officers located a subject who was wanted in connection with a residential burglary that had just occurred. He was walking along a freeway onramp, and an officer who spotted him got out of his own vehicle and, using his car as cover, pointed his weapon in the man's general direction while giving commands. The man complied eventually and was arrested. • Several officers responded to a broadcast regarding a reckless male driver who was involved in several hit and run collisions (and was eventually arrested for

6 To be clear, our sense is that any gaps have been a function of adapting to new expectations and clarifying definitional ambiguities, and not a matter of intentional evasion on the part of officers. And we reiterate a point from our last report: the very small number of apparent deployments reflects appropriate restraint on the part of PAPD personnel in the field.

Item 11
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Review of Investigations
Completed as of June
2023 (OIR Group)

Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
13 Packet Pg. 444 of 449

12 being under the influence of drugs). One of the officers who found the subject and who used his radio car to block the subject's escape route briefly unholstered his weapon and pointed it in the man's general direction while giving initial commands.

Each of these tactical choices was found by PAPD to be consistent with policy and training, and we concurred with these "bottom line" conclusions. At the same time, we noted a couple of concerns.

First, in one case, the officer had simultaneously unholstered both his Taser and his firearm, and briefly pointed both at the subject while giving commands as the man approached. Because of the potential for "weapons confusion" and inadvertent trigger pull, this is considered tactically problematic, to the point where a specific admonitory reference is included in Department policy.

Here, the officer seemed very much in control, and he quickly and overtly holstered his gun so as to de-escalate the situation. In our view, though, the supervisor's memo should have – and did not – make note of the tactical misstep. This effort would not be for the sake of nitpicking or undermining the officer, but instead to constructively enhance future performance. This, along with accountability where appropriate, is an important way to make administrative review meaningful and worthwhile.

We also disagreed with a supervisor's assessment that a particular use of "terse and provocative language" was an effective factor in gaining the subject's compliance in conjunction with a pointed firearm. In our viewing of it, the subject was already cooperating – to the point of lying down on the sidewalk and extending his arms – when the officer punctuated an additional command with a particularly harsh profanity.

While flagging the issue at all was to the supervisor's credit, we reiterate a point we have made often: although there are indeed instances when understandable adrenaline or the desire to give a verbal "jolt" make officer profanity excusable, the bar would ideally be higher than what we saw (and heard) here.

Recommendation FOUR:

PAPD should encourage supervisors to treat the "pointed firearm" review process as an opportunity for holistic assessment of officer performance, and should document and address issues where relevant.

Recommendation FIVE:

PAPD should continue to scrutinize officer profanity and emphasize the limited nature of exceptions to the general prohibition.

Item 11
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Review of Investigations
Completed as of June
2023 (OIR Group)

Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
14 Packet Pg. 445 of 449

13 On the whole, we consider PAPD's enhanced attention to the pointing of firearms as an important addition to its mechanisms for meaningful internal review. And the process, if imperfect, is already being refined in positive ways.

Item 11
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Review of Investigations
Completed as of June
2023 (OIR Group)

Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
15 Packet Pg. 446 of 449

1 | Page

DATE: AUGUST 31, 2023

TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL

FROM: CHIEF ANDREW BINDER

SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO IPA RECOMMENDATIONS IN JUNE 1, 2023 REPORT

RECOMMENDATION 1: PAPD should ensure that supervisors include all salient facts in their vehicle pursuit evaluations.

The Department agrees and will reinforce to supervisors that all relevant and factual details should be included in vehicle pursuit evaluations.

RECOMMENDATION 2: The Department should expressly evaluate compliance with its foot pursuit policy, particularly when the end of the pursuit involves a use of force involving potential injury or pain to the subject.

The Department agrees and will reinforce that foot pursuit details be included in reports as required by policy and that supervisors evaluate compliance with the foot pursuit policy.

RECOMMENDATION 3: PAPD should ensure that sufficient inquiry is made at the scene regarding any reported use of force to determine whether a more formal review is required.

The Department agrees and will remind supervisors to make sufficient inquiries at the scene of any reported use of force to determine if a formal Supervisor’s Report on Use of Force is required by policy.

RECOMMENDATION 4: PAPD should encourage supervisors to treat the “pointed firearm” review process as an opportunity for holistic assessment of officer performance, and should document and address issues where relevant.

The Department agrees and will continue to use “pointed firearm” reviews (and all supervisor reports) as an opportunity to assess officer performance and to document and address issues as appropriate.

RECOMMENDATION 5: PAPD should continue to scrutinize officer profanity and emphasize the limited nature of exceptions to the general prohibition.

The Department agrees and will continue to evaluate an officer’s use of profanity to ensure its use is consistent with policy directives.

Item 11
Attachment B - PAPD
Response to OIR
Recommendations June
2023

Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
16 Packet Pg. 447 of 449

1 | Page

DATE: AUGUST 31, 2023

TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL

FROM: CHIEF ANDREW BINDER

SUBJECT: USE OF FORCE REPORT SUPPLEMENT TO IPA REPORT DATED JUNE 1, 2023

This memorandum responds to the City Council’s November 2020 direction to provide use of force summary data (which encompasses all use of force incidents in which a “Supervisor’s Report on Use of Force” has been completed by the Police Department) as an attachment to each Independent Police Auditor (IPA) report. Policy Manual §300 (“Use of Force”) requires that all uses of force by Police Department members “be documented promptly, completely, and accurately in an appropriate report.”
1 The policy also requires that, under certain circumstances, a “Supervisor’s Report on Use of Force” also be completed by the supervisor, and that report is routed for approval through the chain of command up to and including the Police Chief. Most commonly, a “Supervisor’s Report on Use of Force” is completed after an officer uses some form of force that results in a visible or apparent physical injury to a subject or the subject complains of pain or alleges they were injured.

Consistent with the IPA’s expanded scope of administrative review established by the City Council in November 2020, the Department forwards the following types of use of force cases to the IPA for review and recommendations: all cases where a subject’s injuries necessitate any treatment beyond minor medical treatment in the field, and all cases where an officer uses a baton, chemical agent, TASER, less- lethal projectile, canine, or firearm. The IPA’s scope of administrative review was further expanded in July 2021 to include cases when a firearm is pointed at a subject.

Continuing the practice established in the last iteration of this memorandum, the Department is choosing to release the race of the recipient(s) of any force used.

This summary covers the period of January 1, 2023 through June 30, 2023.

Use of Force Cases

From January 1, 2023 through June 30, 2023, the Police Department responded to more than 20,000 calls for service and effected more than 700 arrests. During that time, there was one case where force requiring a “Supervisor’s Report on Use of Force” was used. The IPA’s review of that case appears in the current IPA report (as “Case 1”), and they concurred with the Department’s findings that the use of force was justified by the circumstances and consistent with policy.

The race of the subject upon whom force was used was Hispanic.

1 The Palo Alto Police Department Policy Manual is updated quarterly and posted online at https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Police/Public -Information-Portal/Police-Policy-Manual.

Item 11
Attachment C - PAPD Use
of Force (UOF)
Supplemental Report
Jan. - Jun. 2023

Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
17 Packet Pg. 448 of 449

2 | Page

Firearm Pointed at Person Cases

From January 1, 2023 through June 30, 2023, officers pointed a firearm at a person on six occasions.

The current IPA report includes a review of six total incidents during which officers pointed a firearm at a person. Three of those incidents occurred in 2022 but were discovered in early 2023 (as described in the last iteration of this memorandum). The other three incidents occurred between January 1, 2023 through June 30, 2023.

In their review of these six incidents, the IPA concurred in each case with the Department’s findings that the pointing of the firearm was justified by the circumstances and consistent with policy.

In the “‘Pointed Firearm’ Incidents” section of the current IPA report, the race of the subjects at whom a firearm was pointed were white, Black, Black, Hispanic, and Hispanic (respectively). In the case described in the “Vehicle Pursuit – Pointed Firearm – Foot Pursuit – Use of Force” section, the race of the subject at whom a firearm was pointed was Black.

For the Next Use of Force Report

Due to continued refinement of our auditing procedures, the Department has identified two final cases from 2022 where firearms were pointed at people. Those cases will be sent to the IPA for their review in the near future, and the Department expects them to be included in the next IPA report. Also being sent to the IPA in the near future for inclusion in their next report are three additional incidents that occurred between January 1, 2023 through June 30, 2023. The administrative review of those three incidents had not been completed in time for inclusion into the current report.

January – June 2023 Use of Force Report Summary

Type of Force Number of Cases Status of IPA Review

Physical Strength 1 Reviewed in current report

Chemical Agent 0

TASER 0

Baton 0

Less-Lethal Projectile 0

Canine 0

Firearm 0
Item 11
Attachment C - PAPD Use
of Force (UOF)
Supplemental Report
Jan. - Jun. 2023

Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
18 Packet Pg. 449 of 449

Palo Alto City CouncilSeptember 18, 2023

Palo Alto City Council
September 18, 2023