|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Focusing on the weaker areas of Palo Alto rather than its strong points, the City Council Monday night wrestled with how it could strengthen those elements rather than bask in the city’s overall successes.
The council took on a 110-page “Service Efforts and Accomplishments Report” for 2009.
The report, by the National Research Center, includes results of a survey of 1,200 residents — 424 of whom responded.
Palo Alto tops or nears the top of the list of local jurisdictions in most areas of services and governance, according to the report. The report also said the city is above the benchmark in welcoming citizen involvement and listening to citizens.
But there were weak areas as well. Council members said they were cognizant of disparities between the more positive report results and public perception, which at times rates the city much lower.
Council members will have a retreat on Saturday to set priorities for 2010, where they will discuss the report in greater detail.
Only 50 percent of respondents to the citizen-centric survey think the city is doing a “good or excellent” job of community engagement, a fact not lost on council members.
“We’re not doing well in civic engagement. It was our priority,” said Councilman Greg Schmid.
Councilwoman Gail Price said the city should be proud of its achievements but recognize the survey’s limitations.
“I’m always concerned about the person who never engages in these surveys,” she said. Non-English-speaking residents, although a minority, would not have been part of such a survey. And a greater number of people being more inner-focused and not as engaged could in part influence civic engagement in the current economic environment, she said.
Mayor Pat Burt said the citizen report is predominantly about perceptions. He pointed to how residents residing in different zip codes had very different evaluations of city performance.
In zip code 94306, residents in south Palo Alto had a lower sense of the safety of downtown Palo Alto than persons living in 94301, which is generally north of Oregon Expressway.
“That’s a red flag” as to how many other things may or may not be based on perception rather than reality, he said.
Burt said the disparity could be reflect the high rate of new development in south Palo Alto, which could have shaded residents’ perception of other city services.
The survey found just 43 percent of south Palo Alto residents felt the overall direction Palo Alto is taking is good or excellent, compared to 65 percent for persons living in zip codes 94301 and 94304. In south Palo Alto, only 34 percent approved of land use, planning and zoning compared to 53 percent in other parts of the city.
Councilman Yiaway Yeh said the results point to a need for greater community outreach.
“The further you get from City Hall the less satisfied you get with city services and programs. It is striking,” Yeh said, pointing out the trend exists in almost all areas except one.
Council members agreed key areas for 2010 consideration based on the report and survey would include outreach to citizens and emergency services.
General fund expenditures for the Fire Department in fiscal year 2008-2009 were $23.4 million, or down 3 percent. The Police Department budget was down 4 percent, to $28.3 million in 2009, according to the report.
Price said she was concerned about “the graying of Palo Alto” and the growing need for emergency services. During Saturday’s retreat, she said she wants to discuss retention and future expansion of emergency services.
“I know the police and emergency services building is off the list,” but in some rare cases cities have found multifaceted funding to expand public-safety centers, she said.
She questioned whether a reduction in emergency services and preparation, given living in earthquake country and the aging population, is prudent.
“A lot of this is risk analysis,” she said.
The council retreat is open to the public and will be held on Saturday (Jan. 30) from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. at the Palo Alto Unified School District Board Room, 25 Churchill Ave. The entire report and citizen survey results are available on the city’s website.
In other business, items the council approved on Monday night include:
■ Authorization of an $88,000 expenditure from the Council Contingency Account for city activities and a lobbyist related to the High Speed Rail project.
■ Adopted an ordinance authorizing the closing of the 2009 budget and approval of a budget amendment ordinance to reinstate an $809,000 transfer from the General Fund Budget Stabilization reserve to the Technology Fund in fiscal year 2010-2011.
■ Voted unanimously to name a small plaza adjacent to the High Street garage the Anna Zschokke Plaza, after one of he city’s first six residents and a founder of Palo Alto’s public school system.
■ Adopted a resolution approving the Utilities’ Legislative Policy Guidelines for 2010
■ Approved federal appropriations requests and the city’s federal and state legislative program, including asking the federal government for $2 million for the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority; $384,520 for the Foothills Fire Management Plan evacuation-route vegetation treatment; and $7.65 million for a Highway 101-Bike and Pedestrian Overpass project.
■ Approved a longtime agreement with the Palo Alto Unified School District for public use and maintenance of district-owned athletic fields, tennis courts and basketball courts jointly used by the public.
■ Approved a cooperative agreement with the Family Resources Foundation in Palo Alto for continued funding for support of staff and programs, including a Family Resources website.
That two thirds of the recipients never responded is sad. Another reason for people not engaging is a “Why bother?” attitude.
Even when speaking directly to some staff, one knows they hear, but do they care? Is taking the time to address a concern going to have any impact?
The city needs to train its leaders: upper management, the City Managers office, and City Council in the skill of conflict resolution. Successful conflict resolution depends on having facts.
Many people do not trust the city and with good reason. For instance, residents are still wondering what were the reasons that led to the falling of all California Avenue trees. It’s been 4 months since they were cut down. That has never been addressed.
The truth still has not yet been told. I am still piecing things together – With the new trees planted this weekend, I suspect the subject will be swept under the carpet, where “face” in the city can be saved. But at what expense? City credibility.
The City will be healthier, when the focus is on transparency, responsibiity and accountability among the staff & council at City Hall and residents and business neighbors.
The California Avenue trees issue could be a learning experience, one that will not be repeated. But healthy change won’t happen on its own, with a “same old, same old” mentality- catering to large numbers of squeaky wheels and sweeping problems under the carpet.
The TRUTH must be allowed to come out, in a safe setting, where only the ISSUE is addressed & people are not verbally attacked or slandered. That will be the key in making the city healthier so residents will be happier. The city’s approval rating will go through the roof. Palo Alto needs conflict resolution skills.
The first Oral Communications speaker last night was a woman from South Palo Alto, pleading to be heard by council to have trees planted at Mitchell Park – she has been waiting for 9 months, since they were removed.
She had to go to council and plead for trees to be replanted in a PARK? How sad is that! She is obviously not getting the information she needs from the proper department.
She lamented the fact that Cal Ave was getting trees so quickly, and said it was only because lots of people in North Palo Alto complained.
She is correct. But it ought not be the largest numbers of sqeaky wheels that get grease. Leadership is doing what is right, because it IS right –
I hope Mitchell Park gets its trees. I applaud that speaker for going the extra mile and asking council for help – I hope they hear.
She cared enough to go on a cold & rainy night, to speak to them. She would be the kind to fill out a survey too, in the comfort of her own home- with the hope that they care.
Actually, I am not in favor of even more transparency, aka “Palo Alto Process”. Palo Alto is run by City Staff, with some pressure from our elected council. We, basically, know who we are voting for, and we need to live with the consequences. If things get bad enough, we will throw the bums out. However, until real cuts are made in PA, there will be apathy. If my ox gets gored, you will hear from me…until then I will just whistle in the wind, and enjoy listening to all the regular whiners.
Thank you Ronna for your explanation of the CAADA decision process in supporting the ill-fated clearcutting of the CA street Holly Oaks. It adds nuance and makes it far more understandable.
I’m not sure there is all that much more truth to come out. From reading lots of documents and comments, it seems to me that the major reason for the decision was that there was a very limited budget and this was the cheapest way.
Back when I was still part of corporate America, we tried to have a review after a project to figure out what we could learn to improve our processes – at least when we had competent managers. The three learnings I would take from this debacle are the following:
1) Those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it. If the city staff had reviewed the last time trees were replaced on CA avenue, they would have been aware of the public outcry the last time they removed all the trees at once. It is too bad no one followed up on your recollections.
2) Any important memo should not exceed one page, and anything really important should be in the first paragraph. The one serious mistake the city made was when the memo approving the project, was on two pages and the requirement of a period of public notification before starting was on the SECOND page.
While conspiracy theorists amongst us can propose the ask forgiveness rather than permission theory, I propose “the manager never reads the second page” theory. Unfortunately. I see no way to prove one versus the other nor do I consider it of much importance. I just hope the city changes their processes to include limits to an approval on the first page of a memo not the second.
3) Criticizing people by name in a public forum is always dicey. It’s better to stick with the organization name. However, I think you were a little harsh on Council member Scharff, as he was responding to your public statements as a spokesperson for CAADA. That isn’t exactly hearsay. However, it is all too easy to attribute the wrong motivation for a statement when you don’t really understand the background. My impression is that he has apologized, which seems to me very appropriate.
The silver lining to this cloudy project is that we have ended up with a far superior planting plan than the city ever would have been able to afford if the plan had remained obscure. Also, we have some very in depth advice on tree planting from world class experts which are available to city staff for future tree plantings. I sincerely hope that the Mitchell Park replanting will closely review those reports and take advantage of the expertise of Palo Alto’s very own Canopy.
Finally, as a 94306 retired resident, I would like to personally thank you for all your hard work as a volunteer which has benefitted all of us. Your recommendations are thoughtful and I hope the city staff takes them seriously rather than defensively. I also hope this one negative experience doesn’t discourage you from future volunteer efforts. It is clear from other forums that you are very appreciated by those who worked with you and know you well.
To “Rona” re Mitchell Park trees –
Your criticisms are based on incorrect information and assumptions, and are as a result unfounded.
The truth is that the trees were removed last summer becuase they were a safety hazzard to park users and children in the picnic and play area. Limbs had fallen, actually hitting a child.
Staff has been working to replace the trees since the removal, and had – ironically enough – scheduled to do the replanting last Moday the 25th, but had to defer due to the wet ground conditions so that the equipment would not damage the turf. It is now tentatively rescheduled for next Monday February 1st, depending on the weather and ground conditions.
The first point I would like to make is that it has always been scheduled for replanting at this time of year, consistent with prior committments and best practices for winter planting. Both the speaker you refer to and your comments are simply wrong. Check the actual facts before you criticize and repeat bad information.
Secondly, this type of reactionary behavior is exactly what is wrong with the political and community attitudes here in Palo Alto. People assume that because they don’t know something or because they have heard something from someone else, that there must be something wrong and that the City/staff has done something wrong. You need to be part of the solution by being correct, not to increase the problem by being a conduit of bad information.
Please get over your remaining emotion and anger over the California Avenue issue, and resume your prior role as being a productive member of the community. A good start toward that end would be to stop blaming everyone else, admit your own role in the issue, and apologize, as others have done.
Peace/out.