Agenda packet — San Carlos City Council, March 14, 2022 (part 1 of 2)

1 CITY OF SAN CARLOS
City Council/Successor Agency to the
Redevelopment Agency/Housing Authority
Regular Meeting

March 14, 2022 7:00 P.M.

CONDUCTED REMOTELY
www.cityofsancarlos.org
AGENDA
In accordance with Assembly Bill 361, this meeting will be held by teleconference, and there will not be a physical location from which the public may attend. The public will have access to remotely observe the meeting and address the Council as outlined below.

Observe the Meeting Live:
- Zoom. https://us02web.zoom.us/j/88256140939; or call 1-669-900-9128 and enter the Meeting ID #: 882 5614 0939
- Meeting Webportal. www.sancarlosca.iqm2.com
- Local TV. Comcast Channel 27 and AT&T Uverse Channel 99

Provide Public Comments:

If you plan to make a public comment, please observe the meeting via Zoom (see above access information), and during the public comment period for the agenda item you wish to address, use the “raise hand” feature. If joining by phone, press *9 to “raise hand”.

MAYOR: Sara McDowell
COUNCIL: Ronald Collins, John Dugan, Laura Parmer-Lohan, Adam Rak

1. CALL TO ORDER

2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

3. CHANGES TO THE ORDER OF THE AGENDA

4. PRESENTATIONS
a. Present a Proclamation Recognizing and Commending the Kiwanis Club for 75 Years of Service to the Community.

5. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
Council Communications and Announcements are brief items from members of the C ity Council regarding upcoming events in the community and correspondence that they

2 have received. They are informational in nature and no action will be taken on these items at this meeting.

6. PUBLIC COMMENT
Persons wishing to address the City Council on matters NOT on the posted agenda may do so.

Each speaker is limited to two minutes. If there are more than five individuals wishing to speak during public comment, the Mayor may choose to allow the first five speakers to speak during this time, and the balance of the Public Comment speakers will be called upon at the end of the Council Meeting.

If the item you are speaking on is not listed on the agenda, please be advised that the City Council may briefly respond to statements made or questions posed as allowed under the Brown Act (Government Code Section 54954.2). The City Council's general policy is to refer items to staff for attention, or have a matter placed on a future City Council agenda for a more comprehensive action or report and formal public discussion and input at that time.

7. CONSENT CALENDAR
a. Motion to Waive Reading of All Ordinances.
b. Approve Minutes of February 14, 2022 City Council Regular Meeting. c. Adopt a Resolution Declaring the Need for City Council and Commissions to Continue Conducting Meetings Remotely Due to Health and Safety Concerns Pursuant to Assembly Bill 361.
d. Adopt a Resolution Accepting the Improvements for the 2020 Sewer Rehabilitation Project C9617-20.
e. Adopt a Resolution Accepting the 2022 Sewer System Root Foaming Project C1752-22; and Authorizing the Public Works Director to Issue and Record a Notice of Completion.
f. Reappoint Molly Barton to the Museum of San Carlos History Board of Directors for a Three-Year Term Ending June 30, 2025.
g. Reappoint Tony Chao to the Parks, Recreation and Culture Commission for a Three-Year Term Ending June 30, 2025.
h. Reappoint William Fairclough to the Transportation and Circulation Commission for a Three-Year Term Ending June 30, 2025.
i. Reappoint Ellen Gar vey to the Planning Commission for a Three -Year Term Ending June 30, 2025.
j. Reappoint John Durkin to the Parks, Recreation and Culture Commission for a Three-Year Term Ending June 30, 2025.
k. Reappoint Madhura Kumar to the Economic Development Advis ory Commission for a Three-Year Term Ending June 30, 2025.
l. Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute an Agreement and Appropriate Funds in Fiscal Year 2021 -22 from the Equipment Replacement Fund 0010 for the Purchase of One Hi -Tech/Spartan Gladiator MFD 1500 GPM Type I Fire Pumper (Fire Engine) in the Amount Not to Exceed $851,000. 3 m. Adopt Ordinance 1579 Repealing San Carlos Municipal Code Chapter 8.27 - Disposable Food Service Ware and Adopting a New Chapter 8.27 - Disposable Food Service Ware, Regulating the Use of Disposable Food Service Ware by Food Facilities to Align with New State Laws.

8. REPORTS TO COUNCIL
Reports to Council are updates on key City projects by City staff and City Council Subcommittees. They are information al in nature, and no action will be taken on these items at this meeting.
a. Receive a Report on the Results of the 2022 Community Characteristics Survey.

9. STUDY SESSION
a. Discuss and Provide Direction to Staff on a Child Care Impact Fee for Nonresidential Development.
b. Discuss and Provide Direction to Staff on the San Carlos Avenue Quick -Build Pilot Program Project C2107.
c. Discuss and Provide Direction to Staff on a Temporary Parklet Fee Structure for the Use of the Public Right -Of-Way While the Outdoor Dining Program is in Effect.

10. NEW BUSINESS
a. Consideration of Adopting a Resolution Extending the Temporary Closure of the 700 Block of Laurel Street and Temporarily Removing Parking on Portions of Laurel Street and San Carlos Avenue for an Additional Eighteen Months Ending on September 15, 2023.
b. Consideration of Adopting a Resolution Adopting the City of San Carlos 2022 Strategic Plan.

11. AGENDA SETTING
Items discussed in this Agenda Setting Section will be considered by the Council for placing on a future agenda. No action will be taken on these items at this meeting.

12. ADJOURNMENT

Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection upon request.

In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and Title VI, if you need special assistance or translation services to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at (650) 802 -4222 or via email at [email protected]. Notification in advance of the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting.

February 14, 2022 1

San Carlos City Council/Successor Agency to the
Redevelopment Agency/Housing Authority Regular Meeting
Conducted Remotely in Accordance with Assembly Bill 361 February 14, 2022, 7:00 PM

MINUTES

ROLL CALL
City Council Present: Sara McDowell, Mayor
Ronald Collins, Councilmember
John Dugan, Councilmember
Laura Parmer-Lohan, Councilmember
Adam Rak, Vice Mayor

Staff Present: Kristina Bell, Police Captain
Nil Blackburn, Assistant City Manager
Lisa Sanders, Principal Planner
Rucha Dande, Associate Planner
Sajuti Haque, Management Analyst
Steven Machida, Public Works Director
Jeff Maltbie, City Manager
Andrea Mardesich, Principal Planner
Rebecca Mendenhall, Administrative Services Director
Crystal Mui, City Clerk
Greg Rubens, City Attorney
Al Savay, Community Development Director

1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM by Mayor Sara McDowell.

2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Mayor McDowell.

3. CHANGES TO THE ORDER OF THE AGENDA
None.

4. PRESENTATIONS
a. Present a Proclamation Recognizing February as Black History Month.

Mayor McDowell presented a proclamation recognizing February as Black History Month. E ugene Whitlock received the proclamation and provided additional background and information on Black History Month.

Mayor McDowell encouraged the public to visit t he Community Foundation of San Carlos' website to view its dedicated resources on Black History Month.

7.b
Packet Pg. 4
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Feb 14, 2022 7:00 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR)

February 14, 2022 2
b. Present a Proclamation Condemning Antisemitism.

Mayor McDowell presented a proclamation condemning antisemitism . Tyler Gregory, CEO of the Jew ish Community Relations Council, received the proclamation, thanked the Council for the recognition and shared some common understandings of antisemitism.

5. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
Councilmember Collins provided an update from the Caltrain Electrification Task Force.

Mayor McDowell provided an update from a recent 2+2 Committee Meeting.

6. PUBLIC COMMENT
Daniel Villasenor, resident, spoke on concerts and murals in the City and his desi re to continue providing backyard concert shows.

Scott McMullin, resident, spoke on the Villages of San Mateo County’s programs and services, including a new medical equipment loan program.

7. CONSENT CALENDAR
RESULT: Adopted [Unanimous] Consent Calendar Items ‘a’- ‘f’; and Item ‘g’ – Adopting Ordinance No.1577 Amending Ordinance 1363 for the Planned Development Zoning District for the Property Located at 1129 Old County Road (APN:046-171-150).

MOVER: Laura Parmer-Lohan
SECONDER: Ronald Collins
AYES: Dugan, Collins, Parmer-Lohan, Rak, McDowell
a. Motion to Waive Reading of All Ordinances.
b. Approve Minutes of January 10, 2022 City Council Regular Meeting. c. Adopt a Resolution Appropriating $43,000 from the General Fund (Fund 25) to the Alameda De Las Pulgas Landslide Repair Project C1751 in Fiscal Year 2021- 22; Authorizing the City Manager to Execute an Amendment to the Public Projects Agreement with Rehak General Engineering, Inc. in the Amount of $41,970; Ratifying the Additional Scope of Work Compl eted; Accepting the Alameda De Las Pulgas Landslide Repair Project C1751; and Authorizing the Public Works Director to Issue and Record the Notice of Completion. Resolution 2022-013
d. Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute an Amendment to the Professional Services Agreement with Lamphier Gregory to Prepare an Environmental Impact Report for the Alexandria Life Sciences & Technology Project at 987 Commercial Street in an Additional Amount Not to Exceed $39,205. Resolution 2022-014
e. Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Sign an Agreement for Products And/Or Services with Du- All Safety, LLC. in a Not -To-Exceed Amount of $120,000 for Providing Safety Program Services on an as Needed Basis.

Resolution 2022-015

7.b
Packet Pg. 5
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Feb 14, 2022 7:00 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR)

February 14, 2022 3
f. Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Three- Year Agreement with PrimeGov in the Amount of $75,998.97 for the Agenda and Meeting Management System, with an Option to Renew for Two Years in the Amount of $46,295.05 and a 10% Contingency Up to an Amount of $12,229.40.

Resolution 2022-016
g. Adopt Ordinance 1577 Amending Ordinance 1363 for the Planned Development (PD) Zoning District for the Property Located at 1129 Old County Road (APN:
046-171-150).

8. REPORTS TO COUNCIL
a. Receive a Report on the R esults of the Community Benefits Survey for the East Side Vision Plan Conducted by True North Research.

Community Development Director Al Savay commenced the item by providing background on the East Side I nnovation District Vision Plan and turned the presentation over to Dr. Timothy McLarney, President of True North Research, Inc., to report on the results of the community benefits survey. Dr. McLarney and City Manager Jeff Maltbie responded to Council questions.

Public Comment
Carol spoke on her dismay for the lack of stoves in the units at the 817 Walnut Street affordable housing.

Council directed staff to follow -up with the public commenter and provide a report back to Council.

9. STUDY SESSION
a. Discuss Lobbyist Registration Ordinances and Provide Direction to Staff.

City Attorney Greg Rubens presented on his findings of lobbyist registration ordinances and, along with City Manager Jeff Maltbie, responded to Council questions.

Council directed staff to implement a streamlined approach to request acknowledgment from paid representatives when making a public comment.

Council recessed at 8:34 PM and returned at 8:44 PM.

10. PUBLIC HEARING
a. Consideration of Adopting an Urgency Ordinance, Pursuant to Government Code Section 65858(B), Extending Urg ency Ordinance 1576 Imposing Interim Regulations and Objective Standards for the Subdivision and Development of Qualified Senate Bill 9 Properties for a Period of 10 Months and 15 Days.

Senior Management Analyst Sajuti Haque provided the history on Senate Bill 9 and spoke on the need to extend Urgency Ordinance 1576. Ms. Haque, Community Development Director Al Savay and City Attorney Greg Rubens responded to Council questions.

7.b
Packet Pg. 6
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Feb 14, 2022 7:00 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR)

February 14, 2022 4
Public Comment
Karen Tuzman, resident, provided suggestions on how to expedi te the process for multifamily housing in single family zones.

Evelyn Rossi expressed concern that standards will force low income and people of color out of the community.

RESULT: Approved [Unanimous] to Close the Public Hearing.

MOVER: Ronald Collins
SECONDER: Adam Rak
AYES: Rak, Dugan, Collins, Parmer-Lohan, McDowell

RESULT: Adopted [Unanimous] Adopting Urgency Ordinance No. 1578 Pursuant to Government Code Section 65858(B), Extending Urgency Ordinance 1576 Imposing Interim Regulations and Objective Standards for the Subdivision and Development of Qualified Senate Bill 9 Properties for a Period of 10 Months and 15 Days.

MOVER: Ronald Collins
SECONDER: John Dugan
AYES: Parmer-Lohan, Rak, Dugan, Collins, McDowell

11. NEW BUSINESS
a. Consideration of Adopting a Resolution Declaring the Need for City Council and Commissions to Continue Conducting Meetings Remotely, Pursuant to Assembly Bill 361; and Discuss and Provide Direction on Returning to In-Person Meetings.

City Manager Jeff Maltbie presented the i tem, requested direction on when to return to in-person meetings and responded to Council questions.

Council expressed ambivalence with moving to in- person meetings at this time and requested staff to bring this item back in early April for reconsideration.

RESULT: Adopted [Unanimous] Resolution 2022- 017 Declaring the Need for City Council and Commissions to Continue
Conducting Meetings Remotely, Pursuant to Assembly Bill 361.

MOVER: John Dugan
SECONDER: Adam Rak
AYES: Collins, Parmer-Lohan, Rak, Dugan, McDowell

12. AGENDA SETTING
Council expressed concern for the lack of stoves at the 817 Walnut Affordable Housing Project and requested a tour of the units.

13. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 9:53 PM.

Crystal Mui,
City Clerk

7.b
Packet Pg. 7
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Feb 14, 2022 7:00 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR)

CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT

MEETING DATE: March 14, 2022

ITEM TITLE: Adopt a Resolution Declaring the Need for City Council and Commissions to Continue Conducting Meetings Remotely Due to Health and Safety Concerns Pursuant to Assembly Bill 361.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a Resolution renewing its declaration for City Council and Commissions to continue conducting meetings remotely due to health and safety concerns pursuant to Assembly Bill (“AB”) 361.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

None.

BACKGROUND:

On March 4, 2020, Governor Newsom of California proclaimed a state of emergency in response to the outbreak of the novel coronavirus (COVID -19). Then on March 17 , 2020, the Governor issued Executive Order N -29-20, easing Brown A ct restrictions to allow for local legislative bodies to hold their meetings via teleconference. This allowed for San Carlos Council and staff to continue to safely conduct public meetings with public participation via teleconference, while adhering to the County of San Mateo Health Officer’s "shelter -in-place" order.

On June 11, 2021, Governor Newsom issued Executive Order N -08-21, which among other things, rescinded his prior Executive Order N -29-20 and set a date of October 1, 2021 for agencies to tran sition back to public meetings held in full compliance with the Brown Act. The City Council had planned to shift to a hybrid meeting approach on August 23, 2021, which would have allowed the public to continue participating remotely while Councilmembers, Commissioners, and staff would meet in person. However, due to a spike in COVID-19 cases throughout the state and the San Mateo County Health Department’s issuance of a health order requiring masks indoors in public places regardless of vaccination status effective August 3, 2021, the Council opted to continue remote meetings for the safety of everyone.

On September 16, 2021, Governor Newsom approved AB 361 allowing local legislative bodies to continue to meet remotely if they met three criteria:

1. The local agency holds a meeting during a declared state of emergency;

7.c
Packet Pg. 8
2 2. State or local officials have imposed or recommended measures to promote social distancing; and

3. Legislative bodies have determined that meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees.

Pursuant to AB 361, the City Council adopted Resolution 2021 -093 on September 27, 2021, declaring the need for the City Council and Commissions to continue conducting remote meetings. Since October 25, 2021, the City Council h as adopted a Resolution each month renewing its declaration to continue meeting remotely for the next 30 days.

The City continues to meet the requirements of AB 361 in order to hold remote meetings as:

 The Governor’s proclamation for a state of emergenc y issued on March 4, 2020, remains in effect;
 State and County officials continue to strongly recommend masks be wor n by all individuals in indoor public settings; and
 The City cannot maintain social distancing requirements for the public, staff, Councilmembers, and Commissioners in their meeting spaces. This issue is most apparent on the dais. Seating and computer screens are less than six feet apart, as is the case with staff seated adjacent to Council. In addition, there is inadequate space at City Hall and in the Council Chambers to accommodate the public, staff, and consultants while maintaining safe social distancing, particularly for access to the speaker’s podium

ANALYSIS:

On February 7, 2022, the Governor announced the lifting of the indoor masking requirement for vaccinated people effective February 16, 2022 ; and on February 28, 2022, the Governor announced lifting the indoor masking requirement for unvaccinated people effective March 1, 2022. The County is aligned with the States’ mask mandates.

Pursuant to AB 361, a Resolution must be passed by majority vote of the City Council to continue meeting remotely under the modified Brown Act requirements. Staff recommends Council approve the Resolution to continue conducting remote meetings as stat e requirements and mandates can change again in the future at any time.

If Council does not adopt a Resolution this evening to renew the declaration, Council and Commission meetings will need to transition back to in-person public meetings beginning March 15, 2022.

At its February 14, 2022 meeting, Council expressed interest to agendize an item on its April 11, 2022 meeting to discuss and consider when to transition to in-person meetings.

ALTERNATIVES:

The alternatives available to the Council include:

1. Adopt a Resolution renewing its declaration on the need for City Council and Commissions to continue conducting its meetings remotely, due to health and safety concerns, pursuant to Assembly Bill (“AB”) 361; or

7.c
Packet Pg. 9
3 2. Do not adopt the Resolution and proceed to transition the City Council and Commissions back to in-person meetings beginning March 15, 2022; or

3. Provide staff with alternative direction.

Respectfully submitted by:

Crystal Mui,
City Clerk

Approved for submission by:

_________________________
Jeff Maltbie, City Manager

ATTACHMENT(S):

1. Resolution

2. AB 361

7.c
Packet Pg. 10
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-___

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN CARLOS

RENEWING ITS DECLARATION ON THE NEED FOR CITY COUNCIL AND COMMISSIONS

TO CONTINUE CONDUCTING MEETINGS REMOTELY, PURSUANT TO
ASSEMBLY BILL 361.

WHEREAS, on March 4, 2020, Governor Newsom declared a State of Emergency to make additional resources available, formalize emergency actions already underway across multiple state agencies and departments, and help the State prepare for a broader spread of the novel coronavirus (COVID-19); and

WHEREAS, on March 10, 2020, the City Manager, acting as Director of Emergency Services of the City of San Carlos, proclaimed the existence of a local emergency within the City; and

WHEREAS, on March 1 2, 2020, the City Council adopted Resolution 2020-013 ratifying and extending the Director of Emergency Services’ proclamation of the existence of a local emergency caused by COVID-19; and

WHEREAS, on March 17, 2020, in response to the COVID -19 pandemic, Governor Newsom issued Executive Order N-29-20 suspending certain provisions of the Ralph M. Brown Act to allow local legislative bodies to conduct meetings telephonically or by other means; and

WHEREAS, as a result of Executive Order N -29-20, City staff set up Zoom meetings for all City Council and Commission meetings; and

WHEREAS, on September 16, 2021, the Governor signed A ssembly Bill (“AB”) 361 into law as an urgency measure that went into effect immediately; and

WHEREAS, AB 361 authorizes local legislative bodies to continue to conduct meetings using teleconferencing without complying with the Ralph M. Brown Act’s standard teleconferencing requirements if certain conditions are met; and

WHEREAS, on September 27, 2021, pursuant to Assembly Bill 361, the City Council adopted Resolution 2021-093 making findings on the need for the City Council and Commissions to continue to teleconference in order to ensure the health and safety of the public; and

WHEREAS, each month since the passing of Resolution 2021-093, the City Council has reviewed the situation and adopted a Resolution renewing its declaration for the need for the City Council and Commissions to continue conducting meetings remotely due to health and safety concerns, pursuant to AB 361; and

WHEREAS, on February 7, 2022, the Governor announced the lifting of the indoor masking requirement for vaccinated people effective February 16, 2022 ; and on February 28, 2022, the Governor announced lifting of the indoor masking requirement for unvaccinated people effective March 1, 2022. The County is aligned with the State’s mask mandates; and

WHEREAS, the City desires to continue conducting public meetings of its Brown Act Bodies using teleconferencing as authorized by AB 361.

7.c.1
Packet Pg. 11
Attachment: Resolution (Assembly Bill 361)
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the San Carlos City Council hereby makes the following findings, in compliance with AB 361, and in order to continue to teleconference under the modified Brown Act requirements:

a. The City Council has reconsidered the circumstances of the state of emergency; and b. The Governor’s proclamation for a state of emergency issued on March 4, 2020 remains in effect; and the state of local emergency continues to directly impact the ability of the City Council and its Commissions, as well as staff and members of the pu blic, from meeting safely in person; and
c. State and local officials continue to strongly recommend masks be worn by all individuals in indoor settings.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED , that the San Carlos City Council and Commission meetings will continue to be conducted remotely for the next 30 days in compliance with AB 361 to better ensure the health and safety of staff and the public.

*****

I, Crystal Mui, City Clerk, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of San Carlos at a scheduled meeting thereof held on the 14th day of March 2022, by the following vote:

AYES, COUNCILMEMBERS: ______________________________________________ NOES, COUNCILMEMBERS: ______________________________________________ ABSENT, COUNCILMEMBERS: ______________________________________________

________________________________
CITY CLERK of the City of San Carlos

APPROVED:

___________________________
MAYOR of the City of San Carlos

7.c.1
Packet Pg. 12
Attachment: Resolution (Assembly Bill 361)
Assembly Bill No. 361
CHAPTER 165
An act to add and repeal Section 89305.6 of the Education Code, and to amend, repeal, and add Section 54953 of, and to add and repeal Section 11133 of, the Government Code, relating to open meetings, and declaring the urgency thereof, to take effect immediately.
[Approved by Governor September 16, 2021. Filed with
Secretary of State September 16, 2021.]
legislative counsel’s digest
AB 361, Robert Ri vas. Open meetings: state and local agencies:
teleconferences.
(1) Existing la w, the Ralph M. Bro wn Act requires, with specified exceptions, that all meetings of a legislative body of a local agency, as those terms are defined, be open and public and that all persons be permitted to attend and participate. The act contains specified provisions regarding the timelines for posting an agenda and pro viding for the ability of the public to directly address the legislative body on any item of interest to the public.

The act generally requires all regular and special meetings of the legislative body be held within the boundaries of the territory o ver which the local agency exercises jurisdiction, subject to certain exceptions. The act allows for meetings to occur via teleconferencing subject to certain requirements, particularly that the legislative body notice each teleconference location of each member that will be participating in the public meeting, that each teleconference location be accessible to the public, that members of the public be allo wed to address the le gislative body at each teleconference location, that the le gislative body post an agenda at each teleconference location, and that at least a quorum of the legislative body participate from locations within the boundaries of the local agenc y’s jurisdiction. The act provides an exemption to the jurisdictional requirement for health authorities, as defined. The act authorizes the district attorney or any interested person, subject to certain pro visions, to commence an action by mandamus or injunction for the purpose of obtaining a judicial determination that specified actions taken by a legislative body are null and void.

Existing la w, the California Emer gency Services Act, authorizes the Governor, or the Director of Emer gency Services when the go vernor is inaccessible, to proclaim a state of emergency under specified circumstances.

Executive Order No. N-29-20 suspends the Ralph M. Bro wn Act’s requirements for teleconferencing during the COVID-19 pandemic provided that notice and accessibility requirements are met, the public members are allowed to observe and address the legislative body at the meeting, and that a legislative body of a local agency has a procedure for receiving and swiftly

92 7.c.2
Packet Pg. 13
Attachment: AB 361 (Assembly Bill 361)
resolving requests for reasonable accommodation for indi viduals with disabilities, as specified.

This bill, until January 1, 2024, w ould authorize a local agenc y to use teleconferencing without complying with the teleconferencing requirements imposed by the Ralph M. Bro wn Act when a le gislative body of a local agency holds a meeting during a declared state of emer gency, as that term is defined, when state or local health officials have imposed or recommended measures to promote social distancing, during a proclaimed state of emergency held for the purpose of determining, by majority vote, whether meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees, and during a proclaimed state of emergency when the legislative body has determined that meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees, as provided.

This bill w ould require le gislative bodies that hold teleconferenced meetings under these abbreviated teleconferencing procedures to give notice of the meeting and post agendas, as described, to allo w members of the public to access the meeting and address the legislative body, to give notice of the means by which members of the public may access the meeting and offer public comment, including an opportunity for all persons to attend via a call-in option or an internet-based service option, and to conduct the meeting in a manner that protects the statutory and constitutional rights of the parties and the public appearing before the le gislative body. The bill would require the legislative body to take no further action on agenda items when there is a disruption which pre vents the public agenc y from broadcasting the meeting, or in the e vent of a disruption within the local agency’s control which prevents members of the public from offering public comments, until public access is restored. The bill would specify that actions taken during the disruption are subject to challenge proceedings, as specified.

This bill w ould prohibit the le gislative body from requiring public comments to be submitted in advance of the meeting and would specify that the legislative body must provide an opportunity for the public to address the legislative body and offer comment in real time. The bill would prohibit the le gislative body from closing the public comment period and the opportunity to register to provide public comment, until the public comment period has elapsed or until a reasonable amount of time has elapsed, as specified. When there is a continuing state of emergency, or when state or local officials have imposed or recommended measures to promote social distancing, the bill w ould require a le gislative body to mak e specified findings not later than 30 days after the first teleconferenced meeting pursuant to these pro visions, and to mak e those findings e very 30 days thereafter, in order to continue to meet under these abbre viated teleconferencing procedures.

Existing law prohibits a le gislative body from requiring, as a condition to attend a meeting, a person to re gister the person’s name, or to pro vide other information, or to fulfill an y condition precedent to the person’ s attendance.
92 — 2 — Ch. 165

7.c.2
Packet Pg. 14
Attachment: AB 361 (Assembly Bill 361)
This bill would exclude from that prohibition, a registration requirement imposed by a third-party internet website or other online platform not under the control of the legislative body.
(2) Existing law, the Bagle y-Keene Open Meeting Act, requires, with specified exceptions, that all meetings of a state body be open and public and all persons be permitted to attend any meeting of a state body. The act requires at least one member of the state body to be ph ysically present at the location specified in the notice of the meeting.

The Governor’s Executive Order No. N-29-20 suspends the requirements of the Bagle y-Keene Open Meeting Act for teleconferencing during the COVID-19 pandemic, provided that notice and accessibility requirements are met, the public members are allo wed to observe and address the state body at the meeting, and that a state body has a procedure for receiving and swiftly resolving requests for reasonable accommodation for indi viduals with disabilities, as specified.

This bill, until January 31, 2022, w ould authorize, subject to specified notice and accessibility requirements, a state body to hold public meetings through teleconferencing and to mak e public meetings accessible telephonically, or otherwise electronically , to all members of the public seeking to observ e and to address the state body . With respect to a state body holding a public meeting pursuant to these provisions, the bill would suspend certain requirements of e xisting law, including the requirements that each teleconference location be accessible to the public and that members of the public be able to address the state body at each teleconference location. Under the bill, a state body that holds a meeting through teleconferencing and allows members of the public to observe and address the meeting telephonically or otherwise electronically would satisfy any requirement that the state body allow members of the public to attend the meeting and of fer public comment. The bill w ould require that each state body that holds a meeting through teleconferencing provide notice of the meeting, and post the agenda, as pro vided. The bill w ould urge state bodies utilizing these teleconferencing procedures in the bill to use sound discretion and to make reasonable efforts to adhere as closely as reasonably possible to existing law, as provided.
(3) Existing law establishes the various campuses of the California State University under the administration of the Trustees of the California State University, and authorizes the establishment of student body organizations in connection with the operations of California State University campuses.

The Gloria Romero Open Meetings Act of 2000 generally requires a legislative body, as defined, of a student body or ganization to conduct its business in a meeting that is open and public. The act authorizes the legislative body to use teleconferencing, as defined, for the benefit of the public and the legislative body in connection with any meeting or proceeding authorized by law.

This bill, until January 31, 2022, w ould authorize, subject to specified notice and accessibility requirements, a le gislative body, as defined for purposes of the act, to hold public meetings through teleconferencing and 92 Ch. 165 — 3 —

7.c.2
Packet Pg. 15
Attachment: AB 361 (Assembly Bill 361)
to mak e public meetings accessible telephonically , or otherwise electronically, to all members of the public seeking to observe and to address the legislative body. With respect to a le gislative body holding a public meeting pursuant to these pro visions, the bill w ould suspend certain requirements of e xisting la w, including the requirements that each teleconference location be accessible to the public and that members of the public be able to address the legislative body at each teleconference location.

Under the bill, a le gislative body that holds a meeting through teleconferencing and allows members of the public to observe and address the meeting telephonically or otherwise electronically w ould satisfy an y requirement that the legislative body allow members of the public to attend the meeting and of fer public comment. The bill w ould require that each legislative body that holds a meeting through teleconferencing pro vide notice of the meeting, and post the agenda, as provided. The bill would urge legislative bodies utilizing these teleconferencing procedures in the bill to use sound discretion and to make reasonable efforts to adhere as closely as reasonably possible to existing law, as provided.
(4)  This bill would declare the Le gislature’s intent, consistent with the Governor’s Executive Order No. N-29-20, to impro ve and enhance public access to state and local agency meetings during the COVID-19 pandemic and future emergencies by allowing broader access through teleconferencing options.
(5)  This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 54953 of the Government Code proposed by AB 339 to be operative only if this bill and AB 339 are enacted and this bill is enacted last.
(6)  The California Constitution requires local agencies, for the purpose of ensuring public access to the meetings of public bodies and the writings of public officials and agencies, to comply with a statutory enactment that amends or enacts la ws relating to public records or open meetings and contains findings demonstrating that the enactment furthers the constitutional requirements relating to this purpose.

This bill would make legislative findings to that effect. (7) Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest.

This bill would make legislative findings to that effect. (8) This bill w ould declare that it is to tak e effect immediately as an urgency statute.

The people of the State of California do enact as follows:

SECTION 1. Section 89305.6 is added to the Education Code, to read:
89305.6. (a) Notwithstanding any other pro vision of this article, and subject to the notice and accessibility requirements in subdivisions (d) and (e), a legislative body may hold public meetings through teleconferencing 92 — 4 — Ch. 165

7.c.2
Packet Pg. 16
Attachment: AB 361 (Assembly Bill 361)
and mak e public meetings accessible telephonically , or otherwise electronically, to all members of the public seeking to observe and to address the legislative body.
(b)  (1)  For a le gislative body holding a public meeting through teleconferencing pursuant to this section, all requirements in this article requiring the physical presence of members, the clerk or other personnel of the le gislative body, or the public, as a condition of participation in or quorum for a public meeting, are hereby suspended.
(2)  For a le gislative body holding a public meeting through teleconferencing pursuant to this section, all of the following requirements in this article are suspended:
(A)  Each teleconference location from which a member will be participating in a public meeting or proceeding be identified in the notice and agenda of the public meeting or proceeding.
(B)  Each teleconference location be accessible to the public. (C)  Members of the public may address the le gislative body at each teleconference conference location.
(D)  Post agendas at all teleconference locations.
(E)  At least one member of the legislative body be physically present at the location specified in the notice of the meeting.
(c)  A legislative body that holds a meeting through teleconferencing and allows members of the public to observ e and address the meeting telephonically or otherwise electronically , consistent with the notice and accessibility requirements in subdi visions (d) and (e), shall ha ve satisfied any requirement that the le gislative body allow members of the public to attend the meeting and offer public comment. A legislative body need not make available any physical location from which members of the public may observe the meeting and offer public comment.
(d)  If a legislative body holds a meeting through teleconferencing pursuant to this section and allows members of the public to observe and address the meeting telephonically or otherwise electronically, the legislative body shall also do both of the following:
(1)  Implement a procedure for receiving and swiftly resolving requests for reasonable modification or accommodation from indi viduals with disabilities, consistent with the federal Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 12101 et seq.), and resolving an y doubt whatsoever in favor of accessibility.
(2)  Advertise that procedure each time notice is gi ven of the means by which members of the public may observ e the meeting and of fer public comment, pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (e).
(e)  Except to the extent this section provides otherwise, each legislative body that holds a meeting through teleconferencing pursuant to this section shall do both of the following:
(1)  Give advance notice of the time of, and post the agenda for , each public meeting according to the timeframes otherwise prescribed by this article, and using the means otherwise prescribed by this article, as applicable.
92 Ch. 165 — 5 —

7.c.2
Packet Pg. 17
Attachment: AB 361 (Assembly Bill 361)
(2)  In each instance in which notice of the time of the meeting is otherwise given or the agenda for the meeting is otherwise posted, also give notice of the means by which members of the public may observ e the meeting and offer public comment. As to any instance in which there is a change in the means of public observ ation and comment, or an y instance prior to the effective date of this section in which the time of the meeting has been noticed or the agenda for the meeting has been posted without also including notice of the means of public observation and comment, a legislative body may satisfy this requirement by advertising the means of public observation and comment using the most rapid means of communication a vailable at the time. Advertising the means of public observation and comment using the most rapid means of communication available at the time shall include, but need not be limited to, posting such means on the le gislative body’s internet website.
(f)  All legislative bodies utilizing the teleconferencing procedures in this section are urged to use sound discretion and to make reasonable efforts to adhere as closely as reasonably possible to the otherwise applicable provisions of this article, in order to maximize transparenc y and pro vide the public access to legislative body meetings.
(g)  This section shall remain in ef fect only until January 31, 2022, and as of that date is repealed.

SEC. 2. Section 11133 is added to the Government Code, to read:
11133. (a)  Notwithstanding an y other pro vision of this article, and subject to the notice and accessibility requirements in subdivisions (d) and (e), a state body may hold public meetings through teleconferencing and make public meetings accessible telephonically, or otherwise electronically, to all members of the public seeking to observ e and to address the state body.
(b)  (1)  For a state body holding a public meeting through teleconferencing pursuant to this section, all requirements in this article requiring the physical presence of members, the clerk or other personnel of the state body, or the public, as a condition of participation in or quorum for a public meeting, are hereby suspended.
(2)  For a state body holding a public meeting through teleconferencing pursuant to this section, all of the following requirements in this article are suspended:
(A)  Each teleconference location from which a member will be participating in a public meeting or proceeding be identified in the notice and agenda of the public meeting or proceeding.
(B)  Each teleconference location be accessible to the public. (C)  Members of the public may address the state body at each teleconference conference location.
(D)  Post agendas at all teleconference locations.
(E)  At least one member of the state body be ph ysically present at the location specified in the notice of the meeting.
(c)  A state body that holds a meeting through teleconferencing and allows members of the public to observ e and address the meeting telephonically 92 — 6 — Ch. 165

7.c.2
Packet Pg. 18
Attachment: AB 361 (Assembly Bill 361)
or otherwise electronically , consistent with the notice and accessibility requirements in subdivisions (d) and (e), shall have satisfied any requirement that the state body allow members of the public to attend the meeting and offer public comment. A state body need not mak e available any physical location from which members of the public may observ e the meeting and offer public comment.
(d)  If a state body holds a meeting through teleconferencing pursuant to this section and allo ws members of the public to observ e and address the meeting telephonically or otherwise electronically, the state body shall also do both of the following:
(1)  Implement a procedure for receiving and swiftly resolving requests for reasonable modification or accommodation from indi viduals with disabilities, consistent with the federal Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 12101 et seq.), and resolving an y doubt whatsoever in favor of accessibility.
(2)  Advertise that procedure each time notice is gi ven of the means by which members of the public may observ e the meeting and of fer public comment, pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (e).
(e)  Except to the extent this section provides otherwise, each state body that holds a meeting through teleconferencing pursuant to this section shall do both of the following:
(1)  Give advance notice of the time of, and post the agenda for , each public meeting according to the timeframes otherwise prescribed by this article, and using the means otherwise prescribed by this article, as applicable.
(2)  In each instance in which notice of the time of the meeting is otherwise given or the agenda for the meeting is otherwise posted, also give notice of the means by which members of the public may observ e the meeting and offer public comment. As to any instance in which there is a change in the means of public observ ation and comment, or an y instance prior to the effective date of this section in which the time of the meeting has been noticed or the agenda for the meeting has been posted without also including notice of the means of public observation and comment, a state body may satisfy this requirement by advertising the means of public observation and comment using the most rapid means of communication a vailable at the time. Advertising the means of public observation and comment using the most rapid means of communication available at the time shall include, but need not be limited to, posting such means on the state body’ s internet website.
(f)  All state bodies utilizing the teleconferencing procedures in this section are urged to use sound discretion and to make reasonable efforts to adhere as closely as reasonably possible to the otherwise applicable provisions of this article, in order to maximize transparency and provide the public access to state body meetings.
(g)  This section shall remain in ef fect only until January 31, 2022, and as of that date is repealed.

SEC. 3. Section 54953 of the Government Code is amended to read:
92 Ch. 165 — 7 —

7.c.2
Packet Pg. 19
Attachment: AB 361 (Assembly Bill 361)
54953. (a)  All meetings of the legislative body of a local agency shall be open and public, and all persons shall be permitted to attend any meeting of the legislative body of a local agenc y, except as otherwise pro vided in this chapter.
(b)  (1)  Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the legislative body of a local agency may use teleconferencing for the benefit of the public and the legislative body of a local agenc y in connection with an y meeting or proceeding authorized by law. The teleconferenced meeting or proceeding shall comply with all otherwise applicable requirements of this chapter and all otherwise applicable pro visions of la w relating to a specific type of meeting or proceeding.
(2)  Teleconferencing, as authorized by this section, may be used for all purposes in connection with an y meeting within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body. All votes taken during a teleconferenced meeting shall be by rollcall.
(3)  If the legislative body of a local agency elects to use teleconferencing, it shall post agendas at all teleconference locations and conduct teleconference meetings in a manner that protects the statutory and constitutional rights of the parties or the public appearing before the legislative body of a local agenc y. Each teleconference location shall be identified in the notice and agenda of the meeting or proceeding, and each teleconference location shall be accessible to the public. During the teleconference, at least a quorum of the members of the le gislative body shall participate from locations within the boundaries of the territory o ver which the local agenc y e xercises jurisdiction, e xcept as pro vided in subdivisions (d) and (e). The agenda shall pro vide an opportunity for members of the public to address the le gislative body directly pursuant to Section 54954.3 at each teleconference location.
(4)  For the purposes of this section, “teleconference” means a meeting of a le gislative body, the members of which are in dif ferent locations, connected by electronic means, through either audio or video, or both.

7.c.2
Packet Pg. 20
Attachment: AB 361 (Assembly Bill 361)
(d) (1) Notwithstanding the provisions relating to a quorum in paragraph (3) of subdivision (b), if a health authority conducts a teleconference meeting, members who are outside the jurisdiction of the authority may be counted toward the establishment of a quorum when participating in the teleconference if at least 50 percent of the number of members that w ould establish a quorum are present within the boundaries of the territory o ver which the authority exercises jurisdiction, and the health authority provides a teleconference number, and associated access codes, if an y, that allows any person to call in to participate in the meeting and the number and access codes are identified in the notice and agenda of the meeting. (2) Nothing in this subdivision shall be construed as discouraging health authority members from regularly meeting at a common physical site within the jurisdiction of the authority or from using teleconference locations within or near the jurisdiction of the authority. A teleconference meeting for which a quorum is established pursuant to this subdi vision shall be subject to all other requirements of this section.
(3) For purposes of this subdivision, a health authority means any entity created pursuant to Sections 14018.7, 14087.31, 14087.35, 14087.36, 14087.38, and 14087.9605 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, any joint powers authority created pursuant to Article 1 (commencing with Section 6500) of Chapter 5 of Division 7 for the purpose of contracting pursuant to Section 14087.3 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, and an y advisory committee to a county-sponsored health plan licensed pursuant to Chapter

2.2 (commencing with Section 1340) of Division 2 of the Health and Safety Code if the advisory committee has 12 or more members.
(e)  (1)  A local agency may use teleconferencing without complying with the requirements of paragraph (3) of subdivision (b) if the legislative body complies with the requirements of paragraph (2) of this subdivision in any of the following circumstances:
(A)  The legislative body holds a meeting during a proclaimed state of emergency, and state or local officials ha ve imposed or recommended measures to promote social distancing.
(B)  The legislative body holds a meeting during a proclaimed state of emergency for the purpose of determining, by majority v ote, whether as a result of the emer gency, meeting in person w ould present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees.
(C)  The legislative body holds a meeting during a proclaimed state of emergency and has determined, by majority vote, pursuant to subparagraph (B), that, as a result of the emer gency, meeting in person w ould present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees.
(2)  A legislative body that holds a meeting pursuant to this subdi vision shall do all of the following:
(A)  The legislative body shall give notice of the meeting and post agendas as otherwise required by this chapter.
(B)  The legislative body shall allow members of the public to access the meeting and the agenda shall pro vide an opportunity for members of the public to address the legislative body directly pursuant to Section 54954.3. 92 Ch. 165 — 9 —

7.c.2
Packet Pg. 21
Attachment: AB 361 (Assembly Bill 361)
In each instance in which notice of the time of the teleconferenced meeting is otherwise given or the agenda for the meeting is otherwise posted, the legislative body shall also gi ve notice of the means by which members of the public may access the meeting and of fer public comment. The agenda shall identify and include an opportunity for all persons to attend via a call-in option or an internet-based service option. This subparagraph shall not be construed to require the legislative body to provide a physical location from which the public may attend or comment.
(C) The le gislative body shall conduct teleconference meetings in a manner that protects the statutory and constitutional rights of the parties and the public appearing before the legislative body of a local agency. (D) In the event of a disruption which pre vents the public agency from broadcasting the meeting to members of the public using the call-in option or internet-based service option, or in the e vent of a disruption within the local agency’s control which prevents members of the public from offering public comments using the call-in option or internet-based service option, the body shall tak e no further action on items appearing on the meeting agenda until public access to the meeting via the call-in option or internet-based service option is restored. Actions taken on agenda items during a disruption which prevents the public agency from broadcasting the meeting may be challenged pursuant to Section 54960.1.
(E) The le gislative body shall not require public comments to be submitted in advance of the meeting and must pro vide an opportunity for the public to address the le gislative body and offer comment in real time.

7.c.2
Packet Pg. 22
Attachment: AB 361 (Assembly Bill 361)
(3)  If a state of emergency remains active, or state or local officials have imposed or recommended measures to promote social distancing, in order to continue to teleconference without compliance with paragraph (3) of subdivision (b), the le gislative body shall, not later than 30 days after teleconferencing for the first time pursuant to subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of paragraph (1), and every 30 days thereafter, make the following findings by majority vote:
(A)  The legislative body has reconsidered the circumstances of the state of emergency.
(B)  Any of the following circumstances exist:
(i)  The state of emergency continues to directly impact the ability of the members to meet safely in person.
(ii)  State or local officials continue to impose or recommend measures to promote social distancing.
(4)  For the purposes of this subdi vision, “state of emergency” means a state of emergency proclaimed pursuant to Section 8625 of the California Emergency Services Act (Article 1 (commencing with Section 8550) of Chapter 7 of Division 1 of Title 2).
(f)  This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2024, and as of that date is repealed.

SEC. 3.1. Section 54953 of the Government Code is amended to read:
54953. (a)  All meetings of the legislative body of a local agency shall be open and public, and all persons shall be permitted to attend any meeting of the le gislative body of a local agenc y in person, e xcept as otherwise provided in this chapter. Local agencies shall conduct meetings subject to this chapter consistent with applicable state and federal ci vil rights la ws, including, b ut not limited to, an y applicable language access and other nondiscrimination obligations.
(b)  (1)  Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the legislative body of a local agency may use teleconferencing for the benefit of the public and the legislative body of a local agenc y in connection with an y meeting or proceeding authorized by law. The teleconferenced meeting or proceeding shall comply with all otherwise applicable requirements of this chapter and all otherwise applicable pro visions of la w relating to a specific type of meeting or proceeding.
(2)  Teleconferencing, as authorized by this section, may be used for all purposes in connection with an y meeting within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body. All votes taken during a teleconferenced meeting shall be by rollcall.
(3)  If the legislative body of a local agency elects to use teleconferencing, it shall post agendas at all teleconference locations and conduct teleconference meetings in a manner that protects the statutory and constitutional rights of the parties or the public appearing before the legislative body of a local agenc y. Each teleconference location shall be identified in the notice and agenda of the meeting or proceeding, and each teleconference location shall be accessible to the public. During the teleconference, at least a quorum of the members of the le gislative body 92 Ch. 165 — 11 —

7.c.2
Packet Pg. 23
Attachment: AB 361 (Assembly Bill 361)
shall participate from locations within the boundaries of the territory o ver which the local agenc y e xercises jurisdiction, e xcept as pro vided in subdivisions (d) and (e). The agenda shall pro vide an opportunity for members of the public to address the le gislative body directly pursuant to Section 54954.3 at each teleconference location.
(4) For the purposes of this section, “teleconference” means a meeting of a le gislative body, the members of which are in dif ferent locations, connected by electronic means, through either audio or video, or both.

Nothing in this section shall prohibit a local agenc y from pro viding the public with additional teleconference locations.
(c)  (1)  No legislative body shall tak e action by secret ballot, whether preliminary or final.
(2)  The legislative body of a local agency shall publicly report any action taken and the vote or abstention on that action of each member present for the action.
(3)  Prior to taking final action, the legislative body shall orally report a summary of a recommendation for a final action on the salaries, salary schedules, or compensation paid in the form of fringe benefits of a local agency executive, as defined in subdi vision (d) of Section 3511.1, during the open meeting in which the final action is to be tak en. This paragraph shall not affect the public’s right under the California Public Records Act (Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 6250) of Di vision 7 of Title 1) to inspect or copy records created or received in the process of developing the recommendation.
(d)  (1)  Notwithstanding the provisions relating to a quorum in paragraph (3) of subdivision (b), if a health authority conducts a teleconference meeting, members who are outside the jurisdiction of the authority may be counted toward the establishment of a quorum when participating in the teleconference if at least 50 percent of the number of members that w ould establish a quorum are present within the boundaries of the territory o ver which the authority exercises jurisdiction, and the health authority provides a teleconference number, and associated access codes, if an y, that allows any person to call in to participate in the meeting and the number and access codes are identified in the notice and agenda of the meeting. (2)  Nothing in this subdivision shall be construed as discouraging health authority members from regularly meeting at a common physical site within the jurisdiction of the authority or from using teleconference locations within or near the jurisdiction of the authority. A teleconference meeting for which a quorum is established pursuant to this subdi vision shall be subject to all other requirements of this section.
(3)  For purposes of this subdivision, a health authority means any entity created pursuant to Sections 14018.7, 14087.31, 14087.35, 14087.36, 14087.38, and 14087.9605 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, any joint powers authority created pursuant to Article 1 (commencing with Section 6500) of Chapter 5 of Division 7 for the purpose of contracting pursuant to Section 14087.3 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, and an y advisory committee to a county-sponsored health plan licensed pursuant to Chapter 92 — 12 — Ch. 165

7.c.2
Packet Pg. 24
Attachment: AB 361 (Assembly Bill 361)

In each instance in which notice of the time of the teleconferenced meeting is otherwise given or the agenda for the meeting is otherwise posted, the legislative body shall also gi ve notice of the means by which members of the public may access the meeting and of fer public comment. The agenda shall identify and include an opportunity for all persons to attend via a call-in option or an internet-based service option. This subparagraph shall not be construed to require the legislative body to provide a physical location from which the public may attend or comment.
(C) The le gislative body shall conduct teleconference meetings in a manner that protects the statutory and constitutional rights of the parties and the public appearing before the legislative body of a local agency. (D) In the event of a disruption which pre vents the public agency from broadcasting the meeting to members of the public using the call-in option or internet-based service option, or in the e vent of a disruption within the local agency’s control which prevents members of the public from offering public comments using the call-in option or internet-based service option, the body shall tak e no further action on items appearing on the meeting agenda until public access to the meeting via the call-in option or internet-based service option is restored. Actions taken on agenda items during a disruption which prevents the public agency from broadcasting the meeting may be challenged pursuant to Section 54960.1.
(E) The le gislative body shall not require public comments to be submitted in advance of the meeting and must pro vide an opportunity for 92 Ch. 165 — 13 —

7.c.2
Packet Pg. 25
Attachment: AB 361 (Assembly Bill 361)
the public to address the le gislative body and offer comment in real time.

This subparagraph shall not be construed to require the legislative body to provide a physical location from which the public may attend or comment. (F)  Notwithstanding Section 54953.3, an individual desiring to provide public comment through the use of an internet website, or other online platform, not under the control of the local le gislative body, that requires registration to log in to a teleconference may be required to re gister as required by the third-party internet website or online platform to participate. (G)  (i)  A legislative body that provides a timed public comment period for each agenda item shall not close the public comment period for the agenda item, or the opportunity to re gister, pursuant to subparagraph (F), to pro vide public comment until that timed public comment period has elapsed.
(ii)  A legislative body that does not pro vide a timed public comment period, but takes public comment separately on each agenda item, shall allow a reasonable amount of time per agenda item to allow public members the opportunity to provide public comment, including time for members of the public to re gister pursuant to subparagraph (F), or otherwise be recognized for the purpose of providing public comment. (iii)  A legislative body that pro vides a timed general public comment period that does not correspond to a specific agenda item shall not close the public comment period or the opportunity to re gister, pursuant to subparagraph (F), until the timed general public comment period has elapsed. (3)  If a state of emergency remains active, or state or local officials have imposed or recommended measures to promote social distancing, in order to continue to teleconference without compliance with paragraph (3) of subdivision (b), the le gislative body shall, not later than 30 days after teleconferencing for the first time pursuant to subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of paragraph (1), and every 30 days thereafter, make the following findings by majority vote:
(A)  The legislative body has reconsidered the circumstances of the state of emergency.
(B)  Any of the following circumstances exist:
(i)  The state of emergency continues to directly impact the ability of the members to meet safely in person.
(ii)  State or local officials continue to impose or recommend measures to promote social distancing.
(4)  For the purposes of this subdi vision, “state of emergency” means a state of emergency proclaimed pursuant to Section 8625 of the California Emergency Services Act (Article 1 (commencing with Section 8550) of Chapter 7 of Division 1 of Title 2).
(f)  This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2024, and as of that date is repealed.

SEC. 4. Section 54953 is added to the Government Code, to read:
54953. (a) All meetings of the legislative body of a local agency shall be open and public, and all persons shall be permitted to attend any meeting 92 — 14 — Ch. 165

7.c.2
Packet Pg. 26
Attachment: AB 361 (Assembly Bill 361)
of the legislative body of a local agenc y, except as otherwise pro vided in this chapter.
(b)  (1)  Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the legislative body of a local agency may use teleconferencing for the benefit of the public and the legislative body of a local agenc y in connection with an y meeting or proceeding authorized by law. The teleconferenced meeting or proceeding shall comply with all requirements of this chapter and all otherwise applicable pro visions of la w relating to a specific type of meeting or proceeding.
(2)  Teleconferencing, as authorized by this section, may be used for all purposes in connection with an y meeting within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body. All votes taken during a teleconferenced meeting shall be by rollcall.
(3)  If the legislative body of a local agency elects to use teleconferencing, it shall post agendas at all teleconference locations and conduct teleconference meetings in a manner that protects the statutory and constitutional rights of the parties or the public appearing before the legislative body of a local agenc y. Each teleconference location shall be identified in the notice and agenda of the meeting or proceeding, and each teleconference location shall be accessible to the public. During the teleconference, at least a quorum of the members of the le gislative body shall participate from locations within the boundaries of the territory o ver which the local agenc y e xercises jurisdiction, e xcept as pro vided in subdivision (d). The agenda shall pro vide an opportunity for members of the public to address the legislative body directly pursuant to Section 54954.3 at each teleconference location.
(4)  For the purposes of this section, “teleconference” means a meeting of a le gislative body, the members of which are in dif ferent locations, connected by electronic means, through either audio or video, or both.

Nothing in this section shall prohibit a local agenc y from pro viding the public with additional teleconference locations
(c)  (1)  No legislative body shall tak e action by secret ballot, whether preliminary or final.
(2)  The legislative body of a local agency shall publicly report any action taken and the vote or abstention on that action of each member present for the action.
(3)  Prior to taking final action, the legislative body shall orally report a summary of a recommendation for a final action on the salaries, salary schedules, or compensation paid in the form of fringe benefits of a local agency executive, as defined in subdi vision (d) of Section 3511.1, during the open meeting in which the final action is to be tak en. This paragraph shall not affect the public’s right under the California Public Records Act (Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 6250) of Di vision 7 of Title 1) to inspect or copy records created or received in the process of developing the recommendation.
(d)  (1)  Notwithstanding the provisions relating to a quorum in paragraph (3) of subdivision (b), if a health authority conducts a teleconference meeting, 92 Ch. 165 — 15 —

7.c.2
Packet Pg. 27
Attachment: AB 361 (Assembly Bill 361)
members who are outside the jurisdiction of the authority may be counted toward the establishment of a quorum when participating in the teleconference if at least 50 percent of the number of members that w ould establish a quorum are present within the boundaries of the territory o ver which the authority exercises jurisdiction, and the health authority provides a teleconference number, and associated access codes, if an y, that allows any person to call in to participate in the meeting and the number and access codes are identified in the notice and agenda of the meeting. (2) Nothing in this subdivision shall be construed as discouraging health authority members from regularly meeting at a common physical site within the jurisdiction of the authority or from using teleconference locations within or near the jurisdiction of the authority. A teleconference meeting for which a quorum is established pursuant to this subdi vision shall be subject to all other requirements of this section.
(3) For purposes of this subdivision, a health authority means any entity created pursuant to Sections 14018.7, 14087.31, 14087.35, 14087.36, 14087.38, and 14087.9605 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, any joint powers authority created pursuant to Article 1 (commencing with Section 6500) of Chapter 5 of Division 7 for the purpose of contracting pursuant to Section 14087.3 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, and an y advisory committee to a county-sponsored health plan licensed pursuant to Chapter

2.2 (commencing with Section 1340) of Division 2 of the Health and Safety Code if the advisory committee has 12 or more members.
(e) This section shall become operative January 1, 2024.

SEC. 4.1. Section 54953 is added to the Government Code, to read:
54953. (a)  All meetings of the legislative body of a local agency shall be open and public, and all persons shall be permitted to attend any meeting of the le gislative body of a local agenc y, in person e xcept as otherwise provided in this chapter. Local agencies shall conduct meetings subject to this chapter consistent with applicable state and federal ci vil rights la ws, including, b ut not limited to, an y applicable language access and other nondiscrimination obligations.
(b)  (1)  Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the legislative body of a local agency may use teleconferencing for the benefit of the public and the legislative body of a local agenc y in connection with an y meeting or proceeding authorized by law. The teleconferenced meeting or proceeding shall comply with all requirements of this chapter and all otherwise applicable pro visions of la w relating to a specific type of meeting or proceeding.
(2)  Teleconferencing, as authorized by this section, may be used for all purposes in connection with an y meeting within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body. All votes taken during a teleconferenced meeting shall be by rollcall.
(3)  If the legislative body of a local agency elects to use teleconferencing, it shall post agendas at all teleconference locations and conduct teleconference meetings in a manner that protects the statutory and constitutional rights of the parties or the public appearing before the 92 — 16 — Ch. 165

7.c.2
Packet Pg. 28
Attachment: AB 361 (Assembly Bill 361)
legislative body of a local agenc y. Each teleconference location shall be identified in the notice and agenda of the meeting or proceeding, and each teleconference location shall be accessible to the public. During the teleconference, at least a quorum of the members of the le gislative body shall participate from locations within the boundaries of the territory o ver which the local agenc y e xercises jurisdiction, e xcept as pro vided in subdivision (d). The agenda shall pro vide an opportunity for members of the public to address the legislative body directly pursuant to Section 54954.3 at each teleconference location.
(4) For the purposes of this section, “teleconference” means a meeting of a le gislative body, the members of which are in dif ferent locations, connected by electronic means, through either audio or video, or both.

7.c.2
Packet Pg. 29
Attachment: AB 361 (Assembly Bill 361)
powers authority created pursuant to Article 1 (commencing with Section 6500) of Chapter 5 of Division 7 for the purpose of contracting pursuant to Section 14087.3 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, and an y advisory committee to a county-sponsored health plan licensed pursuant to Chapter

2.2 (commencing with Section 1340) of Division 2 of the Health and Safety Code if the advisory committee has 12 or more members.
(e) This section shall become operative January 1, 2024.

SEC. 5. Sections 3.1 and 4.1 of this bill incorporate amendments to Section 54953 of the Go vernment Code proposed by both this bill and Assembly Bill 339. Those sections of this bill shall only become operative if (1) both bills are enacted and become ef fective on or before January 1, 2022, but this bill becomes operati ve first, (2) each bill amends Section 54953 of the Government Code, and (3) this bill is enacted after Assembly Bill 339, in which case Section 54953 of the Government Code, as amended by Sections 3 and 4 of this bill, shall remain operative only until the operative date of Assembly Bill 339, at which time Sections 3.1 and 4.1 of this bill shall become operative.

SEC. 6. It is the intent of the Legislature in enacting this act to improve and enhance public access to state and local agenc y meetings during the COVID-19 pandemic and future applicable emergencies, by allowing broader access through teleconferencing options consistent with the Go vernor’s Executive Order No. N-29-20 dated March 17, 2020, permitting expanded use of teleconferencing during the COVID-19 pandemic.

SEC. 7. The Legislature finds and declares that Sections 3 and 4 of this act, which amend, repeal, and add Section 54953 of the Government Code, further, within the meaning of paragraph (7) of subdi vision (b) of Section 3 of Article I of the California Constitution, the purposes of that constitutional section as it relates to the right of public access to the meetings of local public bodies or the writings of local public officials and local agencies. Pursuant to paragraph (7) of subdivision (b) of Section 3 of Article I of the California Constitution, the Legislature makes the following findings:

This act is necessary to ensure minimum standards for public participation and notice requirements allo wing for greater public participation in teleconference meetings during applicable emergencies.

SEC. 8. (a) The Legislature finds and declares that during the COVID-19 public health emergency, certain requirements of the Bagle y-Keene Open Meeting Act (Article 9 (commencing with Section 11120) of Chapter 1 of Part 1 of Di vision 3 of Title 2 of the Go vernment Code) were suspended by Executive Order N-29-20. Audio and video teleconference were widely used to conduct public meetings in lieu of physical location meetings, and public meetings conducted by teleconference during the COVID-19 public health emergency have been productive, have increased public participation by all members of the public re gardless of their location in the state and ability to travel to physical meeting locations, have protected the health and safety of civil servants and the public, and have reduced travel costs incurred by members of state bodies and reduced work hours spent traveling to and from meetings.
92 — 18 — Ch. 165

7.c.2
Packet Pg. 30
Attachment: AB 361 (Assembly Bill 361)
(b) The Legislature finds and declares that Section 1 of this act, which adds and repeals Section 89305.6 of the Education Code, Section 2 of this act, which adds and repeals Section 11133 of the Go vernment Code, and Sections 3 and 4 of this act, which amend, repeal, and add Section 54953 of the Government Code, all increase and potentially limit the public’s right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies within the meaning of Section 3 of Article I of the California Constitution. Pursuant to that constitutional provision, the Legislature makes the following findings to demonstrate the interest protected by this limitation and the need for protecting that interest:
(1) By removing the requirement that public meetings be conducted at a primary ph ysical location with a quorum of members present, this act protects the health and safety of civil servants and the public and does not preference the experience of members of the public who might be able to attend a meeting in a ph ysical location o ver members of the public who cannot travel or attend that meeting in a physical location. (2) By removing the requirement for agendas to be placed at the location of each public official participating in a public meeting remotely, including from the member’s private home or hotel room, this act protects the personal, private information of public officials and their f amilies while preserving the public’ s right to access information concerning the conduct of the people’s business.

SEC. 9. This act is an ur gency statute necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety within the meaning of Article IV of the California Constitution and shall go into immediate effect.

The facts constituting the necessity are:

In order to ensure that state and local agencies can continue holding public meetings while pro viding essential services lik e w ater, po wer, and fire protection to their constituents during public health, wildfire, or other states of emergencies, it is necessary that this act take effect immediately.

O
92 Ch. 165 — 19 —

7.c.2
Packet Pg. 31
Attachment: AB 361 (Assembly Bill 361)

CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT

MEETING DATE: March 14, 2022

ITEM TITLE: Adopt a Resolution Accepting the Improvements for the 2020 Sewer Rehabilitation Project C9617-20.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a Resolution accepting the improvements for the 2020 Sewer Rehabilitation Project C9617-20 (“Project”).

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

The total Project cost is $3,451,202.16. There is sufficient budget to close out the Project; therefore, no additional appropriations are requested and there are no fiscal implications for this action.

The funding for the Project comes from C9617 which has a budget of $5,000,000 for Fiscal Year 2020-21. The Project was awarded for $3,436,105 and a contingency amount of $515,415.

BACKGROUND:

The Projec t is needed to address structurally deficient pipelines identified in the Sewer Collection System Master Plan adopted in January 2013 . Staff created a systematic approach that will rehabilitate or replace all Grade 4 and Grade 5 defects in the City’s 17 ba sins, one basin at a time. The goal is to follow a program that will methodically and continuously monitor and improve the entire sewer system.

Staff designed and prepared the construction documents for the Project in August 2020. The City Engineer signed the final bid set construction documents on August 19, 2020.

The Project was publicly advertised on August 21, 2020 and sealed bids were opened by the City Clerk on September 11, 2020.

City Council awarded the Project to Ranger Pipelines, Inc. (“Contr actor”) at its September 28, 2020 meeting. The Contractor began the Project on January 25, 2021.

ANALYSIS:

Construction for the Project was completed on September 24, 2021 and a final walk through and punch list were completed on October 8, 2021, in ac cordance with the construction documents. A notice of completion was filed on January 3, 2022.

7.d
Packet Pg. 32
2 Therefore, staff recommends that the City Council accept the improvements for the 2020 Sewer Rehabilitation Project C9617-20.

ALTERNATIVES:

The alternatives available to the City Council include:

1. Adopt a Resolution accepting the improvements for the Project; or

2. Do not adopt the Resolution; or

3. Provide staff with alternative direction.

Respectfully submitted by:

Steven Machida,
Public Works Director

Approved for submission by:

_________________________
Jeff Maltbie, City Manager

ATTACHMENT(S):

1. Resolution

7.d
Packet Pg. 33
RESOLUTION NO. 2022 – ____

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN CARLOS ACCEPTING THE IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE 2020 SEWER REHABILITATION PROJECT C9617-20.

WHEREAS, the 2020 Sewer Rehabilitation Project C9617 -20 (“Project”) addresses structurally deficient pipelines identified in the Sewer Collection System Master Plan; and

WHEREAS, staff created a systematic approach that will rehabilitate or replace all Grade 4 and Grade 5 defects in the city’s 17 basins, one basin at a time; and

WHEREAS, the City Engineer signed the final bid set construction documents on August 19, 2020; and

WHEREAS, the Project was publicly advertised on August 21, 2020 and sealed bids were opened by the City Clerk on September 11, 2020; and

WHEREAS, the City Council awarded the Project to Ranger Pipelines, Inc. (“Contractor”) at its September 28, 2020 meeting; and

WHEREAS, the Contractor began the Project on January 25, 2021; and

WHEREAS, construction for the Project was completed on September 24, 2021 and a final walk through and punch list were completed on October 8, 2021, in accordance with the construction documents; and

WHEREAS, a notice of completion was filed on January 3, 2022; and

WHEREAS, staff recommends accepting the improvements for the Project.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the San Carlos City Council hereby accepts the improvements for the 2020 Sewer Rehabilitation Project C9617-20.

* * * * *

I, City Clerk Crystal Mui, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of San Carlos at a scheduled meeting thereof held on the 14th day of March 2022, by the following vote:

AYES, COUNCILMEMBERS: _______________________________________________ NOES, COUNCILMEMBERS: _______________________________________________ ABSENT, COUNCILMEMBERS: _______________________________________________

________________________________
CITY CLERK of the City of San Carlos
APPROVED:

___________________________
MAYOR of the City of San Carlos

7.d.1
Packet Pg. 34
Attachment: Resolution (Accept 2020 Annual Sewer Rehabilitation Project)

CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT

MEETING DATE: March 14, 2022

ITEM TITLE: Adopt a Resolution Accepting the 2022 Sewer System Root Foaming Project C1752-22; and Authorizing the Public Works Director to Issue and Record a Notice of Completion.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a Resolution accepting the 2022 Sewer System Root Foaming Project C1752 -22 (“Project”) and authorizing the Public Works Director to issue and record a notice of completion.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

The total Project cost is $142,221.84. There is sufficient budget to close -out the Project .

Therefore, no additional appropriations are requested and there are no fiscal implications for this action.

The funding for the Project comes from C1752 which includes a budget of $175,000 for Fiscal Year 2021-22. The Project was awarded in the amount of $136,665.18 , with contingency up to the total Project budget.

BACKGROUND:

Over the past eight years, the City's maintenance staff has managed the root control program on an as-needed basis. However, the City's engineering staff has assumed responsibility for the root control program to address the large number of sewer mains with root intrusion and to coordinate repairs with future annual sewer rehabilitation projects.

Staff designed and prepared the project specifications for the Project in June 2021. The City Engineer signed the final bid set construction documents on June 29, 2021, which were approved by City Council on July 12, 2021.

The Project was publicly advertised on July 23, 2021 and sealed bids were opened by the City Clerk on August 19, 2021. The City Council awarded the Project to Duke’s Root Control, Inc. (“Contractor”) at its September 13, 2021 meeting. The Contractor began the Project on October 20, 2021.

7.e
Packet Pg. 35
2 ANALYSIS:

The Project was completed on November 30, 2021 in accordance with the approved Project specifications.

Therefore, staff recommends accepting the 2022 Sewer System Root Foaming Project C1752 - 22 and authorizing the Public Works Director to issue and record a Notice of Completion.

ALTERNATIVES:

The alternatives available to the City Council include:

1. Adopt a Resolution accepting the Project and authorizing the Public Works Director to issue and record a notice of completion; or

2. Do not adopt the Resolution; or

3. Provide staff with alternative direction.

Respectfully submitted by:

Steven Machida,
Public Works Director

Approved for submission by:

_________________________
Jeff Maltbie, City Manager

ATTACHMENT(S):

1. Resolution

7.e
Packet Pg. 36
RESOLUTION NO. 2022 – ____

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN CARLOS ACCEPTING THE 2022 SEWER SYSTEM ROOT FOAMING PROJECT C1752-22 AND

AUTHORIZING THE PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR TO ISSUE AND
RECORD A NOTICE OF COMPLETION.

WHEREAS, over the past eight years, root control has been managed by the City's maintenance staff on an as-needed basis; and

WHEREAS, to address the large number of sewer mains with root intrusion and to coordinate repairs with future annual sewer rehabilitation projects, the City's engineering staff has assumed responsibility for the root control program; and

WHEREAS, the City Engineer signed the final bid set Project specifications on June 29, 2021, which were approved by City Council on July 12, 2021; and

WHEREAS, the 2022 Sewer System Root Foaming Project C1752-22 (“Project”) was publicly advertised on July 23, 2021 and sealed bids were opened by the City Clerk on August 19, 2021; and

WHEREAS, City Council awarded the Project to Duke’s Root Control, Inc. (“Contractor”) at its September 13, 2021 meeting; and

WHEREAS, the Contractor began the Project on October 20, 2021 and the Project was completed on November 30, 2021 in accordance with the approved specifications;

WHEREAS, staff recommends accepting the Project and authorizing the Public Works Director to issue and record a notice of completion.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the San Carlos City Council hereby accepts the Project and authorizes the Public Works Director to issue and record the notice of completion.

* * * * *

______________________________
CITY CLERK of the City of San Carlos
APPROVED:

___________________________
MAYOR of the City of San Carlos
AYES, COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES, COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT, COUNCILMEMBERS:

7.e.1
Packet Pg. 37
Attachment: Resolution (Accept Sewer System Root Foaming Project)

CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT

MEETING DATE: March 14, 2022

ITEM TITLE: Reappoint Molly Barton to the Museum of San Carlos History Board of Directors for a Three-Year Term Ending June 30, 2025.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff provides no recommendation, as Commis sion and Board appointments are made at the Council’s discretion.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

There are no fiscal implications associated with this reappointment.

BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS:

At its May 20, 2019 meeting, the City Council appointed Molly Barton to the Museum of San Carlos History for a full -term beginning July 1, 2019 through June 30, 2022. Board Member Barton has expressed interest in continuing to serve on the Board for another term. Attached is her attendance report covering September 1, 2019 to date.

According to the San Carlos Municipal Code §2.24.060, commission and board members may serve two three-year terms, or no more th an a total of six consecutive years. Therefore, at this time, Board Member Barton is eligible to serve for one more three-year term.

ALTERNATIVES:

The alternatives available to the City Council include:

1. Reappoint Molly Barton to the Museum of San Car los History Board of Directors for a three-year term expiring June 30, 2025; or

2. Do not reappoint Molly Barton to the Museum of San Carlos History Board of Directors and direct staff to recruit to fill the seat; or

3. Provide staff with alternative direction.

7.f
Packet Pg. 38
2 Respectfully submitted by:

Crystal Mui,
City Clerk

Approved for submission by:

_________________________
Jeff Maltbie, City Manager

ATTACHMENT(S):

1. Attendance Report - Barton

7.f
Packet Pg. 39
FY 2019-2020 Total Unexcused Absenses
Quarter 1 9/10/2019
P 0
Quarter 2 11/12/2019
U 1-U
Quarter 3 1/14/2020 3/10/2020
E P 0
Quarter 4 5/14/2020
P 0
FY 2020-2021
Quarter 1 7/16/2020 9/8/2020 9/29/2020
P P P 0
Quarter 2 11/10/2020
P 0
Quarter 3 1/12/2021 3/9/2021
P P 0
FY 2021-2022
Quarter 1 7/13/2021 8/10/2021 9/14/2021
P P P 0
Quarter 2 11/8/2021
P 0
Quarter 3 1/10/2022
P 0
P = Present
U = Unexcused Absence
E = Excused
QA = Mtg canceled for lack of quorum, Commissioner wasn't able to attend QP = Mtg cancelled for lack of quorum, Commissioner would have been able to attend C = Mtg Canceled for any reason other than lack of quorum City of San Carlos
Attendance Report for Molly Barton
September 1, 2019 through March 1, 2022

7.f.1
Packet Pg. 40
Attachment: Attendance Report - Barton (Reappoint Barton Museum)

CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT

MEETING DATE: March 14, 2022

ITEM TITLE: Reappoint Tony Chao to the Parks, Recreation and Culture Commission for a Three-Year Term Ending June 30, 2025.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff provides no recommendation, as Commission and Board appointments are made at the Council’s discretion.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

There are no fiscal implications associated with received this report. .

BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS:

On June 28, 2021, City Council appointed Tony Chao to serve as an Alternate Member on the Parks, Recreation and Culture ("PR&C") Commission. Two months later, an unscheduled vacancy occurred on the Commission and the City Council, at its August 23, 2021 meeting, appointed Tony Chao to serve as a voting member on the PR&C to fill a term ending June 30, 2022.

Commissioner Chao ha s expressed interest in continuing to serve for another term on the PR&C Commission. Attached is his attendance report covering the start of his service to date.

According to the San Carlos Municipal Code §2.24.060, commission members may serve two three-year terms, or no more than a total of six consecutive years. However, time served to fill unexpired terms shall not be counted as a term or against the overall limit of six years of consecutive service. Therefore at this time , Commissioner Chao is eligible to serve for two three-year terms.

ALTERNATIVES:

The alternatives available to the City Council include:

1. Reappoint Tony Chao to the PR&C Commission for a term ending June 30, 2025; or

2. Do not reappoint Tony Chao to the PR&C Commission and direct staff to recruit to fill the seat; or

3. Provide staff with alternative direction.

7.g
Packet Pg. 41
2 Respectfully submitted by:

Crystal Mui,
City Clerk

Approved for submission by:

_________________________
Jeff Maltbie, City Manager

ATTACHMENT(S):

1. PR&C Attendance Report - Chao

7.g
Packet Pg. 42
2021-2022

TOTAL UNEXCUSED

ABSENCES
Quarter 1 8/11/2021
P0
Quarter 2 10/6/21 12/8/2021
PP 0
Quarter 3 2/2/2022
P0
Note: Tony Chao joined as an alternate at the 8/11/21 meeting, and became a regular commissioner at the 10/6/21 meeting.

P = Present
U = Unexcused Absence
E = Excused
QA = Mtg canceled for lack of quorum, Commissioner wasn't able to attend QP = Mtg cancelled for lack of quorum, Commissioner would have been able to attend C = Mtg Canceled for any reason other than lack of quorum City of San Carlos
Attendance Report for Commissioner Tony Chao
August 11, 2021 through February 2, 2022

7.g.1
Packet Pg. 43
Attachment: PR&C Attendance Report - Chao (Reappoint Chao PR&C)

CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT

MEETING DATE: March 14, 2022

ITEM TITLE: Reappoint William Fairclough to the Transportation and Circulation Commission for a Three-Year Term Ending June 30, 2025.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff provides no recommendation, as commis sion and board appointments are made at the Council’s discretion.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

There are no fiscal implications associated with receiving this report.

BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS:

On June 24, 2019, the City Council appointed William Fairclough t o the Transportation and Circulation (“T&C”) Commission for a full term beginning July 1, 2019 through June 30, 2022.

Commissioner Fairclough has expressed interest in continuing to serve for another term on the T&C Commission. Attached is his attendance report covering the start of his service to date.

According to the San Carlos Municipal Code §2.24.060, commission members may serve t wo three-year terms, or no more than a total of six consecutive years. Therefore at this time, Commissioner Fairclough is eligible to serve for one more three-year term.

ALTERNATIVES:

The alternatives available to the City Council include:

1. Reappoint William Fairclough to the T&C Commission for a term ending June 30, 2025; or

2. Do not reappoint William Fairclough to the T&C Commission and direct staff to recruit to fill the seat; or

3. Provide staff with alternative direction.

7.h
Packet Pg. 44
2 Respectfully submitted by:

Crystal Mui,
City Clerk

Approved for submission by:

_________________________
Jeff Maltbie, City Manager

ATTACHMENT(S):

1. Attendance Report - Fairclough

7.h
Packet Pg. 45
FY 2019-2020

TOTAL UNEXCUSED

ABSENCES
Quarter 1 7/16/2019 8/20/2019 9/17/2019
CPC 0
Quarter 2 10/15/2019 11/19/2019 12/17/2019
PPP 0
Quarter 3 1/21/2020 2/18/2020 2/27/2020 3/24/2020
QA QA PC 2-QA
Quarter 4 4/21/2020 5/19/2020 6/16/2020
CPP 0
FY 2020-2021
Quarter 1 7/21/2020 8/18/2020 9/15/2020
PCP 0
Quarter 2 10/20/2020 11/17/2020 12/15/2020
PPP 0
Quarter 3 1/19/2021 2/16/2021 3/16/2021
PPP 0
Quarter 4 4/20/2021 5/19/2021 6/15/2021
P QA P 1-QA
FY 2021-2022
Quarter 1 7/20/2021 8/17/2021 8/25/2021 9/21/2021
PCPP 0
Quarter 2 10/19/2021 11/16/2021 12/21/2021
PPC 0
Quarter 3 1/18/2022 2/15/2022 3/15/2022
PQ P 0
P = Present
U = Unexcused Absence
E = Excused
QA = Mtg canceled for lack of quorum, Commissioner wasn't able to attend QP = Mtg cancelled for lack of quorum, Commissioner would have been able to attend C = Mtg Canceled for any reason other than lack of quorum City of San Carlos
Attendance Report for Commissioner William Fairclough
July 1, 2019 through March 7, 2022

7.h.1
Packet Pg. 46
Attachment: Attendance Report - Fairclough (Reappoint Fairclough T&C)

CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT

MEETING DATE: March 14, 2022

ITEM TITLE: Reappoint Ellen Garvey to the Planning Commission for a Three -Year Term Ending June 30, 2025.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff provides no recommendation, as commission and board appointments are made at the Council’s discretion.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

There are no fiscal implications associated with receiving this report.

BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS:

On June 6, 2019, the City Council appointed Ellen Garvey to the Planning Commission for a ful l term beginning July 1, 2019 through June 30, 2022.

Commissioner Garvey has expressed interest in continuing to serve for another term on the Planning Commission. Attached is her attendance report covering the start of her service to date.

According to San Carlos Municipal Code §2.24.060, commission members may serve two three-year terms, or no more than a total of six consecutive year s. Therefore at this time, Commissioner Garvey is eligible to serve for one more three-year term.

ALTERNATIVES:

The alternatives available to the City Council include:

1. Reappoint Ellen Garvey to the Planning Commission for a term ending June 30, 2025; or

2. Do not reappoint Ellen Garvey to the Planning Commission and direct staff to recruit to fill the seat; or

3. Provide staff with alternative direction.

7.i
Packet Pg. 47
2 Respectfully submitted by:

Crystal Mui,
City Clerk

Approved for submission by:

_________________________
Jeff Maltbie, City Manager

ATTACHMENT(S):

1. Attendance Report - Garvey

7.i
Packet Pg. 48
FY 2019-2020
TOTAL

UNEXCUSED

ABSENCES
Quarter 1 7/1/2019 7/15/2019 8/5/2019 8/19/2019 8/29/2019 9/3/2019 9/16/2019 PPCCCPC 0
Quarter 2 10/7/2019 10/21/2019 10/23/2019 11/4/2019 11/18/2019 12/2/2019 12/16/2019 PPPCPCP 0
Quarter 3 1/6/2020 1/21/2020 2/3/2020 2/18/2020 3/2/2020 3/16/2020 CPPPPC 0
Quarter 4 4/6/2020 4/20/2020 5/4/2020 5/18/2020 6/1/2020 6/15/2020 CPCCPC 0
FY 2020-2021
Quarter 1 7/6/2020 7/20/2020 8/3/2020 8/17/2020 9/8/2020 9/21/2020 PPPCPP 0
Quarter 2 10/5/2020 10/19/2020 11/2/2020 11/16/2020 12/7/2020 12/21/2020 PPCPCP 0
Quarter 3 1/4/2021 1/192021 2/1/2021 2/16/2021 3/1/2021 3/15/2021 CCCCPP 0
Quarter 4 4/5/2021 4/19/2021 5/3/2021 5/17/2021 6/7/2021 6/21/2021 CPPCPP 0
FY 2021-2022
Quarter 1 7/6/2021 7/14/2021 7/19/2021 8/2/2021 8/16/2021 8/25/2021 9/7/2021 9/20/2021 PPPCPPPC 0
Quarter 2 10/4/2021 10/18/2021 11/1/2021 11/15/2021 12/6/2021 12/20/2021 PPCPPP 0
Quarter 3 1/3/2022 1/12/2022 1/18/2022 2/7/2022 2/22/2022 3/7/2022 CPPPEP 0
P = Present
U = Unexcused Absence
E = Excused
QA = Mtg canceled for lack of quorum, Commissioner wasn't able to attend QP = Mtg cancelled for lack of quorum, Commissioner would have been able to attend C = Mtg Canceled for any reason other than lack of quorum City of San Carlos
Attendance Report for Commissioner Ellen Garvey
July 1, 2019 through March 7, 2022

7.i.1
Packet Pg. 49
Attachment: Attendance Report - Garvey (Reappoint Garvey PC)

CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT

MEETING DATE: March 14, 2022

ITEM TITLE: Reappoint John Durkin to the Parks, Recreation and Culture Commission for a Three-Year Term Ending June 30, 2025.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff provides no recommendation, as commission and board appointments are made at the Council’s discretion.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

There are no fiscal implications associated with receiving this report.

BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS:

At its June 4, 2019 meeting, the City Council appointed John Durkin to the Parks, Recreation, and Culture (“PR&C”) Commission for a full term beginning July 1, 2019 through June 30, 2022.

During his tenure on the PR&C Commission, Commissioner Durkin has also served as the Commission’s appointed representative on the Museum of San Carlos History Board.

Commissioner Durkin has expressed interest in continuing to serve for another term on the PR&C Commission. Attached is his attendance report covering the start of his service to date.

According to San Carlos Municipal Code §2.24.060, commission members may serve two three-year terms, or no more than a total of six consecutive years. Therefore at this time , Commissioner Durkin is eligible to serve for one more three-year term.

ALTERNATIVES:

The alternatives available to the City Council include:

1. Reappoint John Durkin to the PR&C Commission for a term ending June 30, 2025; or

2. Do not r eappoint John Durkin to the PR&C Commission and direct staff to recruit to fill the seat; or

3. Provide staff with alternative direction.

7.j
Packet Pg. 50
2 Respectfully submitted by:

Crystal Mui,
City Clerk

Approved for submission by:

_________________________
Jeff Maltbie, City Manager

ATTACHMENT(S):

1. PR&C Attendance Report - Durkin

7.j
Packet Pg. 51
2019-2020

TOTAL UNEXCUSED

ABSENCES
Quarter 1 8/7/2019
P 0
Quarter 2 10/2/19 12/4/2019
PP 0
Quarter 3 2/5/2020
P 0
Quarter 4 4/1/20 6/3/2020
CC 0
2020-2021
Quarter 1 8/12/2020
P 0
Quarter 2 10/7/20 12/2/2020
PP 0
Quarter 3 2/3/2021
P 0
Quarter 4 4/7/21 5/12/2021 6/2/2021
PP P 0
2021-2022
Quarter 1 8/11/2021
P 0
Quarter 2 10/6/21 12/8/2021
PP 0
Quarter 3 2/2/2022
P 0
P = Present
U = Unexcused Absence
E = Excused
QA = Mtg canceled for lack of quorum, Commissioner wasn't able to attend QP = Mtg cancelled for lack of quorum, Commissioner would have been able to attend C = Mtg Canceled for any reason other than lack of quorum City of San Carlos
Attendance Report for Commissioner John Durkin
August 7, 2019 through February 2, 2022

7.j.1
Packet Pg. 52
Attachment: PR&C Attendance Report - Durkin (Reappoint Durkin PR&C)

CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT

MEETING DATE: March 14, 2022

ITEM TITLE: Reappoint Madhura Kumar to the Economic Development Advisory Commission for a Three-Year Term Ending June 30, 2025.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff provides no recommendation, as commission and board appointments are made at the Council’s discretion.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

There are no fiscal implications associated with receiving this report.

BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS:

On June 11, 2021, the City Council appointed Madhura Kumar to fill an unsc heduled vacancy on the Economic Development Advisory Commission (“EDAC”) for a term ending June 30, 2022.

Commissioner Kumar has expressed interest in continuing to serve for another term on EDAC.

Attached is his attendance report covering the start of his service to date.

According to San Carlos Municipal Code §2.24.060, commission members may serve two three-year terms, or no more than a total of six consecutive years. However, time served to fill unexpired terms shall not be counted as a term or against the overall limit of six years of consecutive service. Therefore at this time, Commissioner Kumar is eligible to serve for two three-year terms.

ALTERNATIVES:

The alternatives available to the City Council include:

1. Reappoint Madhura Kumar to EDAC for a term ending June 30, 2025; or

2. Do not reappoint Madhura Kumar to EDAC and direct staff to recruit to fill the seat; or

3. Provide staff with alternative direction.

7.k
Packet Pg. 53
2 Respectfully submitted by:

Crystal Mui,
City Clerk

Approved for submission by:

_________________________
Jeff Maltbie, City Manager

ATTACHMENT(S):

1. Attendance Report - Kumar

7.k
Packet Pg. 54
FY 2021-2022

TOTAL UNEXCUSED

ABSENCES
Quarter 1 7/27/2021 8/24/2021 9/28/2021
CPC0
Quarter 2 10/26/2021 11/23/2021 12/28/2021
PCC0
Quarter 3 1/25/2022 2/22/2022
PC 0
P = Present
U = Unexcused Absence
E = Excused
QA = Mtg canceled for lack of quorum, Commissioner wasn't able to attend QP = Mtg cancelled for lack of quorum, Commissioner would have been able to attend C = Mtg Canceled for any reason other than lack of quorum City of San Carlos
Attendance Report for Commissioner Madhura Kumar
July 1, 2021 through March 1, 2022

7.k.1
Packet Pg. 55
Attachment: Attendance Report - Kumar (Reappoint Kumar EDAC)

CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT

MEETING DATE: March 14, 2022

ITEM TITLE: Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute an Agreement and Appropriate Funds in Fiscal Year 2021 -22 from the Equipment Replacement Fund 0010 for the Purchase of One Hi -Tech/Spartan Gladiator MFD 1500 GPM Type I Fire Pumper (Fire Engine) in the Amount Not to Exceed $851,000.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute an agreement and appropriate funds in Fiscal Year (“FY”) 2021-22 from the Equipment Replacement Fund 0010 for the purchase of one Hi -Tech/Spartan Gladiator MFD 1500 GPW Type I Pumper in the amount not to exceed $851,000 (includes 9.75% sales tax) from Hi -Tech Emergency Vehicle Services, Inc., located in Oakdale, California.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

Engine 16 was scheduled for replacement in 2024. Purchasing must now be accelerated due to damage to an engine in the existing fleet. The current price is $850,918.09, which is guaranteed through March 16, 2022.

Approval of this Resolution will require an additional appropriation in the Equipment Replacement Fund 0010. There is sufficient fund balance to cover this request.

BACKGROUND:

The San Carlos Fire Department currently has a three engines, two front line and one held in reserve to be used when the other engines need maintenance. Engine 16 was scheduled for replacement in 2024, and funding has been saved for several years to cover the cost of replacement.

Engine 16 received significan t damage from an engine compartment fire last year. The estimated cost of repairing the engine is approximately $150,000 and the work would not be warrantied. Maintenance staff has evaluated the cost of repair and recommends that the estimated repair funds be applied toward the purchase of a new engine in lieu of repairing Engine 16.

Redwood City Fire is in the process of having two fire engines manufactured. The vendor has agreed to honor the price offered to Redwood City with only a modest increase in cost.

7.l
Packet Pg. 56
2 Redwood City was able to utilize a bid provided to the City of San Jose. Based on the rate of increasing prices for fire engines, the City will be able to save a significant amount of money by partnering with Redwood City and purchasing an engine in this manner.

ANALYSIS:

According to San Carlos Municipal Code, Title 3, Chapter 3.12, Section 3.12.200 “ [p]urchase through a governmental entity” makes it possible for the City to realize savings from competitive open market bids. The City of San Jose ’s competitive bidding processes and purchasing procedures are similar to those of San Carlos. The City of San Jose issued a request for bids, provided public notice, and awarded the bid to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder.

Staff recommends that the City of San Carlos take advantage of the recent competitive bid process by partnering with Redwood City and purchasing the equipment through this process.

The total price for the recommended fire pumper is $850,918.09. This includes the base unit price of $775,324, plus 9.75% sales tax . The recommended pumper will come equipped with the same standardized equipment as the other fire pumpers and will meet current Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) emission standards for diesel engines. If approved , delivery of the fire pumper will take approximately 365 days from date of purchase.

Maintaining and replacing fire service equipment as needed at the best possible price meets the Council goal of providing effective and sustainable community health and public safety.

ALTERNATIVES:

The alternatives available to the City Council include:

1. Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute an agreement and appropriate funds in FY 2021-22 from the Equipment Replacement Fund 0010 for the purchase o f one Hi -Tech/Spartan Gladiator Pumper in the amount not to exceed $851,000 from Hi-Tech Emergency Vehicle Service, Inc.; or

2. Do not adopt the Resolution; or

3. Provide staff with alternative direction.

Respectfully submitted by:

Dave Pucci,
RWCFD Deputy Fire Chief

Approved for submission by:

_________________________
Jeff Maltbie, City Manager

7.l
Packet Pg. 57
3 ATTACHMENT(S):

1. Resolution - Hi-Tech

2. Engine Offer San Carlos

7.l
Packet Pg. 58
RESOLUTION NO. 2022 - _____

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN CARLOS

AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT AND APPROPRIATE FUNDS IN FISCAL YEAR 2021-22 FROM THE EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT FUND 0010 FOR THE PURCHASE OF ONE HI-TECH SPARTAN GALDIATOR MFD 1500 GPM TYPE I FIRE PUMPER IN THE AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $851,000.

WHEREAS, the City of San Carlos provides fire protection services by contracting with the City of Redwood City; and

WHEREAS, protecting the residents of San Carlos from fires, floods, hazardous materials and other natural disaster requires specialized vehicles and equipment; and

WHEREAS, the City of San Carlos purchases and owns its fire protection vehicles; and

WHEREAS, the reliability of the emergency equipment is critical so that the fire department is always prepared to respond to and mitigate all emergencies; and

WHEREAS, the purchase of this fire pumper provides a reliable and critical component to our emergency response capability; and

WHEREAS, the Equipment Replacement Fund was created to pay for the anticipated replacement of general equipment and there are sufficient funds available to cover this request ; and

WHEREAS, by partnering with the City of Redwood City in this purchase agreement, we are purchasing this equipment in the most fiscally responsible manner possible.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED , that the City Council of the City of San Carlos hereby authorizes the City Manager to execute an agreement and appropriate funds in Fiscal Year 2021-22 from the Equipment Replacement Fund 0010 for the purchase of a Hi-Tech Spartan Gladiator MFD 1500 GPM Type I Fire Pumper for an amount not to exceed $851,000.00.

* * * * *

________________________________
CITY CLERK of the City of San Carlos
APPROVED:

MAYOR of the City of San Carlos
AYES, COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES, COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT, COUNCILMEMBERS:

7.l.1
Packet Pg. 59
Attachment: Resolution - Hi-Tech (Purchase Fire Engine)

7.l.2
Packet Pg. 60
Attachment: Engine Offer San Carlos (Purchase Fire Engine)

CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT

MEETING DATE: March 14, 2022

ITEM TITLE: Adopt Ordinance 1579 Repealing San Carlos Municipal Code Chapter 8.27 - Disposable Food Service Ware and Adopting a New Chapter 8.27 - Disposable Food Service Ware, Regulating the Use of Disposable Food Service Ware by Food Facilities to Align with New State Laws.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council adopt Ordinance 1579 repealing San Carlos Municipal Code Chapter 8.27 “Disposable Food Service Ware” and adopting a n ew Chapter 8.27 “Disposable Food Service Ware” in order to align with new State laws.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

There are no fiscal implications associated with adopting the Ordinance.

BACKGROUND:

On October 25, 2021, the San Carlos City Council adopted t he County of San Mateo’s Model Disposable Food Service Ware Ordinance (“Model Ordinance”). The Model Ordinance requires certain foodware be fiber -based compostable and restricts the distribution of single -use foodware accessories. Thirteen other jurisdicti ons, including the County, adopted the same Model Ordinance.

Also in October 2021, Governor Newsom signed new State laws AB 1276 and AB 1200 that placed restrictions on single-use foodware across the state. AB 1276 requires that food facilities make food ware accessories including straws, utensils, stirrers, splash sticks, and condiment packets available only upon request. AB 1200 prohibits the sale or distribution of any single -use foodware, comprised of paper or other plant -based natural fiber that conta ins intentionally added perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances ( “PFAS”). AB 1200 goes into effect on January 1, 2023.

While the Model Ordinance is mostly aligned with the new State laws, some discrepancies do exist. To ensure consistency, staff rec ommends that the City Council adopt Ordinance 1579 (“Ordinance”) in Attachment 1 that includes the following changes:

1. Only food facility drive-thrus and food facilities at public airports can offer accessories to consumers.

7.m
Packet Pg. 61
2 2. Food facilities cannot have ac cessories available in open bins/containers at self -serve areas for consumers to grab-and-go and dispensers may only dispense accessories one item at a time.

3. Explicitly allow for the use of refillable bulk condiment dispensers.

4. Sunset the PFAS requirements on December 31, 2022. The City will look to the State to assume responsibility for implementing and enforcing the prohibition of PFAS starting on January 1, 2023.

ANALYSIS:

The City Council introduced the Ordinance with the necessary changes during th e February 28, 2022 council meeting. Upon adoption of the Ordinance, staff will work with the County to continue outreach to food facilities to ensure all are aware of the requirements and have access to the necessary resources to comply.

ALTERNATIVES:

The alternatives available to the City Council include:

1. Adopt Ordinance 1579 repealing San Carlos Municipal Code Chapter 8.27 “Disposable Food Service Ware” and adopting a new Chapter 8.27 “Disposable Food Service Ware” in order to align with new State laws; or

2. Do not adopt the Ordinance; or

3. Provide staff with alternative direction.

Respectfully submitted by:

Nil Blackburn,
Assistant City Manager

Approved for submission by:

_________________________
Jeff Maltbie, City Manager

ATTACHMENT(S):

1. Ordinance 1579 - Disposable Food Service Ware

7.m
Packet Pg. 62
ORDINANCE NO. 1579

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN CARLOS REPEALING SAN CARLOS MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 8.27 – DISPOSABLE FOOD SERVICE WARE, AND ADOPTING A NEW CHAPTER 8.27 - DISPOSABLE FOOD SERVICE

WARE, REGULATING THE USE OF DISPOSABLE FOOD SERVICE WARE BY FOOD FACILITIES TO ALIGN WITH NEW STATE LAWS.

The City Council of the City of San Carlos does ordain as follows:

SECTION 1:

WHEREAS, the San Carlos City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1573, also known as the “Disposable Food Service Ware Ordinance” on October 2 5, 2021 with the purpose of reducing single-use plastic and other food service ware waste, improving the health and safety of San Carlos community members, and helping keep the city’s waterways clean and safe; and

WHEREAS, the Ordinance will go into effect and subject to enforcement on October 1, 2022; and

WHEREAS, the San Carlos Climate Mitigation and Adaptation Plan includes Strategy 26 to require food facilities use non -plastic, compostable food service ware when distributing prepared food; and

WHEREAS, on October 5, 2021, AB 1276 was signed into law by Governor Gavin Newsom. AB 1276 restricts the distribution of single -use foodware accessories by restaurants and other food facilities; and

WHEREAS, on October 5, 2021, AB 1200 was signed into law by Governor Gavin Newsom mandating that no person shall distribute, sell, or offer for sale in the state any food packaging (includin g single -use foodware) that contains regulated perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (“PFAS”); and

WHEREAS, the Ordinance includes requirements that are well aligned with many of the requirements on foodware in AB 1276 and AB 1200. However, some d iscrepancies exist. As such, the Ordinance must be amended to ensure alignment with requirements in both State bills; and

WHEREAS, the City Council does, accordingly, find and declare that it should repeal and replace in its entirety Chapter 8.27 of the San Carlos Municipal Code to ensure the City’s requirements around single -use foodware accessories distribution and PFAS regulation in single-us foodware align with the State of California’s requirements; and SECTION 2: The City Council hereby repeals Chapter 8.27 of the San Carlos Municipal Code and adopts a new Chapter 8.27 to be numbered and entitled and to read as follows:

CHAPTER 8.27 REGULATING THE USE OF DISPOSABLE FOOD SERVICE WARE

8.27.010 – Definitions.

7.m.1
Packet Pg. 63
Attachment: Ordinance 1579 - Disposable Food Service Ware (Amend Food Services Ware) For purposes of this Chapter, the following terms have the following meanings:

(a) “Aluminum Foil-based” means any Disposable Food Service Ware composed entirely of aluminum, including but not limited to aluminum tray liners, aluminum foil, and aluminum foil baskets.
(b) “Compostable” means that an item or material:

1. Meets standards for compostability from a certified/approved independent third - party approved by the City Manager or designee, in collaboration with local waste processors, haulers, and/or other entities, as needed; and/or

2. Is any variation of acceptable materials that will break down or otherwise become part of usable compost in a safe and timely manner as determined by the City Manager or designee, in collaboration with local waste processors, haulers, and/or other entities, as needed; and

3. Is Natural Fiber -based. Compostable items may include those that are made entirely of Natural Fiber or Natural Fiber-based items that are coated or lined with biologically based polymer, such as, but not limited to corn or other plant sources (e.g., compostable plastics), if certified/approved by independent third parties approved by the City Manager or designee.
“Compostable” does not include items made entirely/primarily of biologically based polymer (e.g., PLA, PHA, or other compostable plastic), even if labeled or certified as compostable.
(c) “Disposable” means designed to be discarded after a single or limited number of uses and not designed or manufactured for long-term multiple reuse. (d) “Food Service Ware” means food contact products used for serving, distributing, holding, packaging, and/or transporting Prepared Food including, but not limited to plates, cups, bowls, trays, clamshell containers, boxes, utensils, straws, lids, and food contact paper (e.g., wraps, bags, tray liners, etc.). The term "Food Service Ware" includes Food Service Ware Accessories and Standard Condiment in Disposable packaging. (e) “Food Service Ware Accessories” include different types of Food Service Ware such as straws, stirrers, Utensils, condiment cups and packets, cocktail sticks/picks, toothpicks, napkins, cup spill plugs, cup sleeves, and other similar accessory or accompanying Food Service Ware used as part of food or beverage service or packaging. Detachable lids for beverage cups and food containers are not considered a Food Service Ware Accessory. (f) “Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)” means a class of fluorinated organic chemicals containing at least one fully fluorinated carbon atom. (g) “Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) Restrictions” mean either of the following:

1. PFAS has not been intentionally added to a product or product component.

2. The presence of PFAS in a product or product component is below 100 parts per million, as measured in total organic fluorine.
(h) “Food Facility” means an operation that stores, prepares, packages, serves, vends, or otherwise provides food to the public for human consumption, as defined by the California Health and Safety Code Section 113789 or successor . It includes both permanent and temporary food facilities. Public schools are exempt from the provisions of this Chapter. (i) “Food Scrap Composting Method” means (1) self-hauling of food scraps to a permitted composting facility or a transfer station that accepts food scraps that will be transferred to a permitted composting facility for on-site compost processing, (2) food scrap compost collection service provided by a curbside hauler, or (3) on-site food scrap composting. (j) “Healthcare Facilities” mean places that provide healthcare to the public. Healthcare Facilities includes, but is not limited to hospitals, clinics, outpatient care centers, nursing homes, psychiatric care centers, medical offices, hospice homes, mental health a nd

7.m.1
Packet Pg. 64
Attachment: Ordinance 1579 - Disposable Food Service Ware (Amend Food Services Ware) addiction treatment centers, orthopedic and other rehabilitation centers, urgent care, birth centers, etc.
(k) “Natural Fiber/Natural Fiber-based” means a plant or animal-based, non-synthetic fiber, including but not limited to products made from paper, sug arcane, bamboo, wheat stems/stalk, hay, wood, etc.
(l) “Non-Compostable” means not meeting the definition of Compostable set forth in this Chapter.
(m) “Polystyrene-based” means and includes expanded polystyrene, which is a thermoplastic petrochemical material utilizing a styrene monomer and processed by any number of techniques including, but not limited to fusion of polymer spheres (expandable bead polystyrene), injection molding, form molding, and extrusion-blow molding (extruded foam polystyrene). The term "polystyrene" also includes polystyrene that has been expanded or blown using a gaseous blowing agent into a solid foam (expanded polystyrene [EPS]) and clear or solid polystyrene known as oriented polystyrene. (n) “Prepackaged Food” means any properly labeled processed food, prepackaged to prevent any direct human contact with the food product upon distribution from the manufacturer and prepared at an approved source.
(o) “Prepared Food” means food or beverages that undergo a cooking or food preparation technique on the Food Facility’s premises for consumption by the public. Cooking or food preparation technique includes, but is not limited to the following:

1. Cooking methods, utilizing the application of heat, such as steaming, microwaving, simmering, boiling, broiling, grilling, frying, or roasting.

2. Beverage preparation, such as blending, brewing, steeping, juicing, diluting, or pouring.

3. Food preparation tec hniques, such as defrosting, rinsing, washing, diluting, cutting, portioning, mixing, blending, assembling, coating, dipping, garnishing, decorating, or icing.

Prepared Food does not include raw eggs or raw, butchered meats, fish, and/or poultry sold from a butcher case, a refrigerator case, or similar retail appliance. (p) “Standard Condiment” means relishes, spices, sauces, confections, or seasonings that require no additional preparation and that are usually used on a food item after preparation, and includes different types such as ketchup, mustard, mayonnaise, soy sauce, hot sauce, salsa, salt, pepper, and sugar/sugar substitutes. (q) “Takeout Food” means Prepared Food that is purchased to be consumed off a Food Facility’s premises. Takeout Food includes Prepared Foo d delivered by a Food Facility or by a third-party Takeout Food Delivery Service.
(r) “Takeout Food Delivery Service” is a service for online food ordering and delivery of Prepared Food from a Food Facility to a customer. This service can be provided directly by the Food Facility or by a third-party.
(s) “Utensils” include different types of instruments used to assist the consumption of food, specifically, forks, knives, spoons, sporks, chopsticks, and tongs.

8.27.020 – Distribution of Disposable Food Service Ware Accessories and Standard Condiment.
(a) Except as provided in Subsections (b) and (c), Food Facilities, for on-premise dining and off-premise dining (e.g., Takeout Food Delivery Service, catering off -site, etc.), shall not provide any Disposable Food Service Ware Accessories or Standard Condiment in Disposable packaging to a consumer unless the specific type of Disposable Food Service Ware Accessory (including different types of Utensils) or specific type of Standard Condiment is requested by the consumer.

7.m.1
Packet Pg. 65
Attachment: Ordinance 1579 - Disposable Food Service Ware (Amend Food Services Ware) (b) Food Facilities may ask a drive-through consumer if the consumer wants a specific type of Disposable Food Service Ware Accessory (including different types of Utensils), if the item is necessary for the consumer to consume Prepared Food or to prevent spills of or safely transport Prepared Food.
(c) Food Facilities that are located entirely within a public use airport, as defined in Section

77.3 of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, may ask a walk -through consumer if the consumer wants a specific type of Disposable Food Service Ware Accessory (including different types of Utensils), if the item is necessary for the consumer to consume Prepared Food or to prevent spills of or safely transport Prepared Food. (d) Disposable Food Service Ware Accessories and Standard Condiment in Disposable packaging provided by Food Facilities for use by consumers shall not be bundled or packaged in a manner that prohibits a consumer from taking only the type of Disposable Food Service Ware Accessory (including different types of Utensils) or type of Standard Condiment desired without also having to take a different type of Disposable Food Service Ware Accessory or type of Standard Condiment. Food Facilities cannot distribute Disposable Utensils that are bundled or packaged together. Each type of Utensil (e.g., fork, spoon, knife, etc.) must be specifically requested by the consumer in order for a Food Facility to provide the item(s).
(e) Nothing in this Chapter shall prohibit a Food Facility from making unwrapped Disposable Food Service Ware Accessories available to a consumer usi ng refillable self -service dispensers that dispense different types of Disposable Food Service Ware Accessories one item at a time to allow for Disposable Food Service Ware Accessories to be obtained. (f) Nothing in this Chapter shall prohibit a Food Facility from making Standard Condiment available to a consumer using refillable self -service dispensers to allow for Standard Condiment to be obtained. Food Facilities that offer Standard Condiment are encouraged to use bulk dispensers for the condiments rather t han condiments packaged for single - use.
(g) Takeout Food Delivery Services shall provide consumers with the option to proactively request the different types of available Disposable Food Service Ware Accessories (including different types of Utensils) and the different types of Standard Condiment from a Food Facility serving Prepared Food. The default option on the digital ordering/point-of- sale platforms of Takeout Food Delivery Services shall be that no Disposable Food Service Ware Accessories or Standard Condiment are requested. (h) Takeout Food Delivery Services shall provide Food Facilities the ability to tailor the digital ordering/point-of-sale platforms so that Food Facilities can customize and itemize the different types of available Disposable Food Service Ware Accessories (including different types of Utensils) and the different types of available Standard Condiments for consumers to proactively select.
(i) If a Food Facility uses any Takeout Food Delivery Service, the Food Facility shall customize its menu w ith an itemized list and/or provide options of the different types of available Disposable Food Service Ware Accessories (including different types of Utensils) and the different types of available Standard Condiments for consumers to proactively select. O nly those specific types of Disposable Food Service Ware Accessories (including different types of Utensils) or specific types of Standard Condiment proactively requested by the consumer shall be provided by the Food Facility. If a consumer does not request any Disposable Food Service Ware Accessories or Standard Condiment, no Disposable Food Service Ware Accessories or Standard Condiment shall be provided by the Food Facility for delivery of Prepared Food. Pursuant to Subsection (d), each type of Utensil ( e.g., fork, spoon, knife, etc.) offered by the Food Facility shall also be listed individually, unbundled on the menu and provided by the Food Facility for delivery along with the Prepared Food only if requested by the consumer.

7.m.1
Packet Pg. 66
Attachment: Ordinance 1579 - Disposable Food Service Ware (Amend Food Services Ware)

8.27.030 – Standards and Required Use of Disposable Food Service Ware. (a) No Food Facility shall use Polystyrene -based Disposable Food Service Ware when providing Prepared Food.
(b) Food Facilit ies shall only provide Disposable straws, stirrers, utensils, and cocktail/toothpicks (and the packaging that these individual items are wrapped in , if any) that are Compostable.
(c) Nothing in this Chapter shall conflict or be construed to conflict with the Americans with Disabilities Act or any other applicable law concerning the rights of indiv iduals with disabilities. In particular, nothing in this Chapter shall restrict, or be construed to restrict, the provision by Food Facilities of Disposable Non-Compostable straws to individuals who may request the use of Disposable Non-Compostable straws to accommodate medical needs or disabilities . Healthcare Facilities may distribute Disposable Non-Compostable straws with or without request by a patient at the discretion of the Healthcare Facility staff based on the physical or medical needs of the patient.
(d) Food Facilities shall use Compostable items for the below Disposable Food Service Ware when providing Prepared Food:

1. Plates

2. Bowls (of all sizes including, but not limited to soup and salad bowls)

3. Cups (of all sizes including , but not limited to beverage and accessory cups for Standard Condiments)

4. Food trays and food boats

5. Boxes

6. Hinged or lidded containers (e.g., clamshells), deli containers, and other containers used for the sale and/or distribution of Prepared Food
(e) Commencing on the effective date of this Chapter up until December 31, 2022, for the Compostable Disposable Food Service Ware listed in Subsection (d), Food Facilities shall use items that meet Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Restricti ons.

To verify the PFAS Restrictions, Food Facilities shall use items that are certified/approved by independent third parties approved by the City Manager or designee, in collaboration with local waste processors and haulers, as needed.
(f) For all other Disp osable Food Service Ware not listed in Subsection s (b) and (d), Food Facilities shall use only Disposable Food Service Ware that can be composted by the Food Scrap Composting method utilized by the Food Facility and/or accepted for recycling by the Food Facility’s recycling collection service, unless a feasible alternative does not exist.
(g) The City shall maintain a list of approved Disposable Food Service Ware and/or references to resources that maintain regularly updated lists of products tha t meet the requirements detailed in Subsections (a), (b), (d), and (e) of this Section. This information shall be made public by the Office of Sustainability. If a product is not included on the approved list, the Food Facility wishing to use a product as Disposable Food Service Ware shall establish to the City Manager or designee’s satisfaction that the product complies with the requirements detailed in Subsections (a), (b), (d), and (e).

8.27.040 – Recordkeeping and Inspection.
(a) Food Facilities shall keep complete and accurate record or documents of the purchase of the acceptable Disposable Food Service Ware evidencing compliance with this Chapter for a minimum period of three years from the date of purchase. (b) The record shall be made available for in spection at no cost to the City during regular business hours by City employee or City-designated staff authorized to enforce this

7.m.1
Packet Pg. 67
Attachment: Ordinance 1579 - Disposable Food Service Ware (Amend Food Services Ware) Chapter. Unless an alternative location or method of review is mutually agreed upon, the records or documents shall be made available at the Food Facility address. (c) The provision of false or incomplete information, records, or documents to the City shall be a violation of this Chapter.

8.27.050 – Automatic Exemptions.
(a) Prepackaged Food is exempt from the provisions of this Chapter. (b) Polystyrene coolers and ice chests intended for reuse are exempt from the provisions of this Chapter.
(c) Disposable Food Service Ware that is entirely Aluminum Foil-based or recyclable glass is exempt from the provisions of this Chapter.
(d) If the City determines that a reasonably feasible Disposable Food Service Ware that complies with Section 4.107.040 (a), (b), (d), and (e) of this Chapter does not exist, these items will be exempt from all or select requirements of the abovementioned provisions of this Chapter until the City determines that a reasonably feasible alternative is available on the market for purchase. The County will have a current list of these temporarily exempted Disposable Food Service Ware made public by the Office of Sustainability. (e) Temporary exemptions due to an emergency are automatic without the submission of a request for an exemption. An emergency is defined as a sudden, unexpected occurrence posing a clear and imminent danger that requires immediate action to prevent or mitigate the loss or impairment of life, health, property, or essential public services. Examples of an emergency include, but are not limited to natural disasters, emergencies due to the release of hazardous materials, emergencies associated with loss of power and/or water, or emergency medical response.

8.27.060 – Case-by-Case Consideration of Requests for Hardship Exemption. (a) Grounds for an exemption.

An exemption from any of the provisions of this Chapter may be granted by the City Manager or designee upon demonstration by a Food Facility to the satisfaction of the City that strict application of the requirements would cause undue hardship . An “undue hardship” includes, but is not limited to the following:

1. A situation unique to the Food Facility where a suitable alternative that conforms with the requirements detailed in Section 4.107.040 (a), (b), (d), and (e) does not exist for a specific application.

2. Imposing the provisions of this Chapter would cause significant economic hardship. “Significant economic hardship” may be based on, but not limited to, demonstrating that suitable Disposable Food Service Ware is not available at a commercially reasonable price and the additional cost associated with providing the Disposable Food Service Ware is particularly burdensome to the Food Facility based on the type of operation(s) affected, the overall size of the business/operation, the number, type and location of its facilities, the impact on the overall financial resources of the Food Facility, and other factors . Reasonable added cost for a suitable item as compared to a similar item that the Food Facility can no longer use shall not by itself constitute adequate grounds to supp ort an exemption for such item. In determining whether a significant economic hardship has been established, the City Manager or designee may consider the following information: ability of the Food Facility to recover the additional expense by increasing its prices; the availability of tax credits and deductions; outside funding; and other options.
(b) Request for an exemption . A request for an exemption from the requirements of this Chapter shall include all information deemed necessary by the City to render a decision,

7.m.1
Packet Pg. 68
Attachment: Ordinance 1579 - Disposable Food Service Ware (Amend Food Services Ware) including but not limited to documentation showing the factual support for the requested exemption. A request for an exemption may be approved by the City Manager or designee, in whole or in part, with or without conditions. The duration of the exemption, if granted, shall also be determined by the City Manager or designee. Information about the application process for requesting an exemption will be made available to the public by the Office of Sustainability.

8.27.070 – Authorization of County Enforcement.

In addition to the City’s enforcement mechanisms set for in Title 1 of this code, the City of San Carlos authorizes the County of San Mateo to enforce this chapter of the municipal code, including, without limitation, the authority to act on requests for undue hardship exemptions, hold hearings, issue administrative fines and retain collected fines.

SECTION 3: California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Finding. This Ordinance is exempt from the environmental review requirements of CEQA pursuant to Section 15061 (b)(3) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the provisions contained herein may have a significant effect on the environment.

Further, the Ordinance is also exempt from the requirements of CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15307 and 15308 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations as actions taken by regulatory agencies to assure the maintena nce, restoration, enhancement of natural resources, or protection of the environment.

SECTION 4: That the City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance sentence by sentence, paragraph by paragraph, and section by section, and does hereby declare that any provisions of this Ordinance are severable, and, if for any reason any sentence, paragraph or section of this Ordinance shall be held invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining parts of this Ordinance.

SECTION 5: This Ordinance shall be published and posted according to law and shall take effect and be in force on October 1, 2022.

* * * * *
I, Crystal Mui, City Clerk, hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was i ntroduced by the City Council of the Cit y of San Carlos on the 28th day of February, 2022 and passed and adopted at a regular meeting thereof held on the 14th day of March, 2022 by the following vote:

________________________________
CITY CLERK of the City of San Carlos
APPROVED:

_____________________________
MAYOR of the City of San Carlos
AYES, COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES, COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT, COUNCILMEMBERS:

7.m.1
Packet Pg. 69
Attachment: Ordinance 1579 - Disposable Food Service Ware (Amend Food Services Ware)

CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT

MEETING DATE: March 14, 2022

ITEM TITLE: Receive a Report on the Results of the 2022 Community Characteristics Survey.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council receive a report on the results of the 2022 Community Characteristics Survey.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

There is no fiscal impact associated with receiving this report.

BACKGROUND:

It is t he City’s mission to provide high -quality services and facilities to our residents in an equitable, sustainable, tran sparent, responsive, and friendly manner in order to foster an inclusive, safe, and healthy community now and in the future.

To achieve the City’s mission, the City Council updates the City’s strategic plan annually. The strategic plan identifies current issues, needs, and interests that are of strategic importance to the quality of life of the community beyond the City’s day-to-day operations and initiatives.

The City’s strategic goals are based upon the community’s needs and interests, informed by the City Council’s knowledge and understanding of the community’s needs, and defined by City staff’s expertise in providing local government management and services.

In addition to offering multiple tools for community engagement on a range of topics and iss ues within the city, the City conducts two different community surveys. The first type of survey, a Community Opinion Survey , is conducted every two years and serves as a performance measurement tool to understand residents’ needs and priorities and measur e how well the City is performing. The second type of survey, and the focus of this staff report, is the Community Characteristics Survey. The Community Characteristics Survey is designed to provide the City with a better understanding of the San Carlos co mmunity itself, including its priorities and lifestyles.

Interviews for the City’s first Community Characteristic Survey were conducted in February 2019 and summarized in the report “Community Characteristics: Summary Report of Survey Findings” dated Mar ch 25, 2019 (“2019 Report”) and included as Attachment 1 . The City’s

8.a
Packet Pg. 70
2 second Community Characteristic Survey, and the subject of this staff report, was conducted during the month of January 2022 and is summarized in the report “Community Characteristics:

Summary Report of Survey Findings” dated February 7, 2022 (“2022 Report”) and included as Attachment 2.

ANALYSIS:

Both the 2019 and 2022 Community Characteristics Surveys and Reports were conducted and prepared by True North Research, an experienced firm t hat conducts statistically reliable surveys. The 2022 survey was administered to a random sample of 791 adult respondents who reside within the City of San Carlos and followed a mixed-method design that employed multiple recruiting methods (email, text, and telephone) and multiple data collection methods (telephone and online).

Some of the key results and observations from the 2022 Report are listed below:

1. When asked what they liked best about living in San Carlos, residents cited: small town feeling (23%), the d owntown area (19%), the ability to walk to many destinations in the city (18%), and public safety/low crime (14%).

2. When asked to indicate one thing they would most like to change about San Carlos, residents stated their desire to limit growth an d development ( 18%), provide more affordable housing (12%), provide a greater variety of restaurants and stores (9%), and improve/maintain infrastructure, roads, and sidewalks (8%).

3. The percentage working from home: Prior to the pandemic, just 13% indicated they work from home (2019 Report). In the 2022 survey, 47% indicated they work from home exclusively, and another 28% indicated they work hybrid (home and offsite).

4. Electric vehicle ownership: Ownership of an all -electric vehicle jumped from 8% in 201 9 to 19% in 2022. Ownership of a hybrid vehicle rose from 20% in 2019 to 23% in 2022.

Furthermore, while 34% of residents stated they found it difficult to charge their electric vehicles in San Carlos in 2019, this number rose slightly to 36% in 2022.

5. How well they know their neighbors: the percentage who indicated they know all or most of their neighbors slipped from 37% to 29%.

6. Use of vehicle for trips in San Carlos: Those doing so at least 5 days per week has declined from 66% in 2019 to 47% in 2022. This decrease is offset by the home delivery of meals/packages and food/meal delivery.

 Home delivery of meals/packages: 30% indicated they have packages delivered to their house 3+ days per week in 2022, up from 17% in 2019.

 Food/meal delivery: Similar to the above, with 30% receiving deliveries to their home at least once per week, up from 16% in 2019.

7. The percentage of residents who live in detached, single -family homes that intend to build an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) in the next five years rose slightly from 6% to 8%.

Of those that expressed intent to build an ADU in 2022, 34% stated they intend to rent out their ADUs for supplemental income. This question wasn’t asked in 2019.

8.a
Packet Pg. 71
3 ALTERNATIVES:

The alternatives available to the City Council include:

1. Accept the results of the 2022 Community Characteristics Survey; or

2. Do not accept the results of the 2022 Community Characteristics Survey; or

3. Provide staff with alternative direction.

Respectfully submitted by:

Nil Blackburn,
Assistant City Manager

Approved for submission by:

_________________________
Jeff Maltbie, City Manager

ATTACHMENT(S):

1. 2109 San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey Report

2. 2022 San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey Report

8.a
Packet Pg. 72

8.a.1
Packet Pg. 73
Attachment: 2109 San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey Report (2022 Community Characteristics Survey Report)

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

8.a.1
Packet Pg. 74
Attachment: 2109 San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey Report (2022 Community Characteristics Survey Report) Table of Contents
True North Research, Inc. © 2019 i
City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

T ABLE OF C ONTENTS
Table of Contents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii List of Figures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Overview of Methodology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Organization of Report. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Disclaimer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 About True North . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Key Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Living in San Carlos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Community Connections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Employment, Commute & Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Health & Lifestyle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Living in San Carlos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 What Do You Like Most About Living in San Carlos? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Question 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 What Should Be Changed? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Question 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Plan to Remain in San Carlos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Question 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Question 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Length of Residence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Question 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Housing Type. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Question 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Home Ownership Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Question 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Plan to Build Accessory Dwelling Unit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Question 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Community Connections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Feel Engaged & Connected to Community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Question 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Belong to Community Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Question 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Familiarity With Neighbors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Question 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Employment, Commute & Transportation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Employment Status. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Question 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Occupation & Industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Question 13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Question 14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Work from Home or Commute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Question 15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Home-based Business. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Question 16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Question 17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Commute Mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Question 18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Length of Commute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Question 19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

8.a.1
Packet Pg. 75
Attachment: 2109 San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey Report (2022 Community Characteristics Survey Report) Table of Contents
True North Research, Inc. © 2019 iiCity of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Duration of Commute. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Question 20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Travel within San Carlos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Question 21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Hybrid and Electric Vehicles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Question 22 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Question 23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Health & Lifestyle. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Recreation Activities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Question 24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Question 25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 House-Cleaning Service or Landscape Maintenance Service. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Question 26 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Question 27 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Home Delivery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Question 28 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Daily Media Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Question 29 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Background & Demographics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Questionnaire Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Programming & Pre-Test. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Sample, Recruiting & Data Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Margin of Error Due to Sampling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Data Processing & Weighting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Rounding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Questionnaire & Toplines. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

8.a.1
Packet Pg. 76
Attachment: 2109 San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey Report (2022 Community Characteristics Survey Report) List of Tables
True North Research, Inc. © 2019 iii
City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

L IST OF T ABLES
Table 1 Frequency of Traveling Within City of San Carlos by Overall, Age & Gender (Showing % Weekly Use) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Table 2 Frequency of Traveling Within City of San Carlos by Employment Status (Showing % Weekly Use) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Table 3 Frequency of Delivery by Over all, Age & Home Ownership Status (Showing % Weekly Use) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Table 4 Daily Media Use Showing Average Minutes Per Day by Age & Gender . . . . . . . . . . 44 Table 5 Demographics of Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

8.a.1
Packet Pg. 77
Attachment: 2109 San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey Report (2022 Community Characteristics Survey Report) List of Figures
True North Research, Inc. © 2019 iv
City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

L IST OF F IGURES
Figure 1 Like Best About San Carlos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Figure 2 Changes to Improve San Carlos. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Figure 3 Anticipate Living in San Carlos 10 Years From Now . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Figure 4 Anticipate Living in San Carlos 10 Years From Now by Years in San Carlos & Age. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Figure 5 Anticipate Living in San Carlos 10 Years From Now by Engaged Connected With Community, Hsld Members & Participate, Belong to Community Group . . . . . . 9 Figure 6 Anticipate Living in San Carlos 10 Years From Now by Home Ownership Status, Ethnicity & Gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Figure 7 Anticipate Living in San Carlos When Retired. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Figure 8 Anticipate Living in San Carlos When Retired by Years in San Carlos & Age . . . . . . 10 Figure 9 Anticipate Living in San Carlos When Retired by Engaged in Community, Hsld Members & Participate, Belong to Community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Figure 10 Anticipate Living in San Carlos When Retired by Home Ownership Status, Ethnicity & Gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Figure 11 Years in San Carlos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Figure 12 Years in San Carlos by Age & Ethnicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Figure 13 Type of Residence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Figure 14 Type of Residence by Years in San Carlos & Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Figure 15 Type of Residence by Engaged, Co nnected With Community, Hsld Members & Ethnicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Figure 16 Home Ownership Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Figure 17 Home Ownership Status by Years in San Carlos, Age & Type of Residence. . . . . . . 14 Figure 18 Home Ownership Status by Engaged, Connected With Community, Hsld Members & Ethnicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Figure 19 Build an Accessory Dwelling Unit in Next 5 Years (Among Single-Family Home Owners) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Figure 20 Build an Accessory Dwelling Unit in Next 5 Years by Years in San Carlos, Hsld Members & Age (Among Single-Family Home Owners). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Figure 21 Engaged, Connected With Sa n Carlos Community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Figure 22 Engaged, Connected With San Ca rlos Community by Years in San Carlos & Type of Residence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Figure 23 Engaged, Connected With San Carl os Community by Employment Status & Hsld Members. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Figure 24 Engaged, Connected With San Carlos Community by Age & Ethnicity. . . . . . . . . . . 17 Figure 25 Engaged, Connected With San Carl os Community by Participated, Belong to Community Group, Work Commute Status, Gender & Home Ownership Status . . . 18 Figure 26 Participate in or Belong to Organized Comm unity Group. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Figure 27 Participate in or Belong to Organized Community Group by Years in San Carlos & Type of Residence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Figure 28 Participate in or Belong to Organized Community by Group Employment Status & Hsld Members . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Figure 29 Participate in or Belong to Organized Community Group by Age & Ethnicity . . . . . 19 Figure 30 Participate in or Belong to Organized Community Group by Engaged, Connected With Community, Work Commute Status, Gender & Home Ownership Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Figure 31 Familiarity With Neighbors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Figure 32 Familiarity With Neighbors by Years in San Carlos & Type of Residence. . . . . . . . . 21 Figure 33 Familiarity With Neighbors by Employment Status & Hsld Members. . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Figure 34 Familiarity With Neighbors by Age & Ethnicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Figure 35 Familiarity With Neighbors by Engaged, Connected With Community, Work Commute Status, Gender & Home Ownership Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

8.a.1
Packet Pg. 78
Attachment: 2109 San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey Report (2022 Community Characteristics Survey Report) List of Figures
True North Research, Inc. © 2019 vCity of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Figure 36 Employment Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Figure 37 Employment Status by Age & Ethnicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Figure 38 Employment Status by Education & Gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Figure 39 Occupation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 5 Figure 40 Industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Figure 41 Work Location. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Figure 42 Work Location by Years in San Carlos & Engaged, Connected With Community. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Figure 43 Work Location by Age & Ethnicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Figure 44 Work Location by Education. Home Owners hip Status & Gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Figure 45 Own a Home-Based Business. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Figure 46 Telecommute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Figure 47 Primary Work Commute Mode. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Figure 48 Work Commute Distance in Miles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Figure 49 Work Commute Distance in Miles by Overall, Age, Ethnicity & Primary Commute Mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Figure 50 Work Commute Distance in Miles by Education, Participate, Belong to Community Group & Engaged, Connected With Community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Figure 51 Work Commute Duration in Minutes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Figure 52 Work Commute Duration in Minutes by Overall, Age, Ethnicity & Primary Commute Mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Figure 53 Work Commute Duration in Minutes by Education, Participate, Belong to Community Group & Engaged, Connected With Community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Figure 54 Work Commute Duration in Minutes by Co mmute Distance in Miles . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Figure 55 Frequency of Traveling Within City of San Carlos. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Figure 56 Own or Lease Hybrid or All-Electric Vehicle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Figure 57 Own or Lease Hybrid Vehicle or All-Electric Vehicle by Education & Age. . . . . . . . . 36 Figure 58 Own or Lease Hybrid or All-Electric Vehicle by Primary Commute Mode, Home Ownership Status & Ethnicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Figure 59 Difficult to Charge Electrical Vehicle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Figure 60 Adult Recreational Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Figure 61 Child Recreational Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Figure 62 Use House-Cleaning Service or Landscape Maintenance Service. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Figure 63 Use House-Cleaning Service by Years in San Carlos & Type of Residence . . . . . . . . 40 Figure 64 Use House-Cleaning Service by Home Ownership Status & Employment Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Figure 65 Use Landscape Service by Years in San Carlos, Type of Residence & Live in San Carlos 10 Years From Now . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Figure 66 Use Landscape Service by Home Ownership Status & Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Figure 67 Frequency of Home Delivery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Figure 68 Daily Media Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Figure 69 Daily Media Use Showing Average Minutes Per Day . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Figure 70 Maximum Margin of Error . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

8.a.1
Packet Pg. 79
Attachment: 2109 San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey Report (2022 Community Characteristics Survey Report) Introduction
True North Research, Inc. © 2019 1
City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

I NTRODUCTION
Encompassing 5.6 square miles in San Mateo County, the City of San Carlos was incorporated in 1925 as a General Law city and is currently home to an estimated 29,897 residents. 1 The City’s dedicated team of full-time and part-time employees provides a full suite of services to residents and local businesses directly or via a shared-se rvice model with other agencies and providers.

Every two years and most recently in 2018, the City of San Carlos conducts a Community Opinion Survey as a performance measurement tool to prof ile residents’ needs and priorities, measure how well the City is performing in meeting needs through existing services and facilities, gather data on a variety of quality-of-life, issue, and policy-related matters, and track in a statistically reliable way how opinions and priorities may have changed over the prior two-year period. For the first time in 2019, the City sought to cond uct a a statistically reli able lifestyle and demo- graphic survey of residents as a compliment to its bi-annual survey.

PURPOSE OF STUDY Whereas the bi-annual survey described above focuses on the commu- nity’s views of the City’s performance, the motivation for the current survey was to provide the City with a better understanding of the community itself. By exploring residents’ values and aspi- rations, lifestyle characteristic s, and demographics, the survey provides the City with better insights about the residents they serve and the factors that may shape the community’s charac- ter in the future.

To assist in this effort, the City selected True North Research to design the research plan and conduct the study. Broadly defined, the study was designed to:
• Assess residents’ perceptions about life in San Carlos and their plans for remaining in the City in the future;
• Examine how connected San Carlos residents are with their local community, including whether they belong to community groups and how well they know their neighbors; • Identify residents’ employment, comm ute, and transportation behaviors; • Gather opinions on lifestyle topics such as re creation preferences, media use, and utilization of housecleaning, landscaping, and home delivery services; and • Collect background and demographic data to better understand the profile of San Carlos residents.

OVERVIEW OF METHODOLOGY A full description of the methodology used for this study is included later in this report (see Methodology o n p a g e 4 6 ) . I n b r i e f , t h e s u r v e y w a s administered to a random sample of 885 adults who reside within the City of San Carlos. The survey followed a mixed-method design that employed multiple recruiting methods (mail, email, and telephone) and multiple data collectio n methods (telephone an d online). Administered between February 11 and February 19, 2019, the average interview lasted 16 minutes.

ORGANIZATION OF REPORT This report is designed to me et the needs of readers who prefer a summary of the findings as well as those who are interested in the details of the results.

For those who seek an overview of the findings, the section titled Key Findings is for you. It pro-

1. State of California, Depart ment of Finance, January 2018.

8.a.1
Packet Pg. 80
Attachment: 2109 San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey Report (2022 Community Characteristics Survey Report) Introduction
True North Research, Inc. © 2019 2City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
vides a summary of the most important factual find ings of the survey. For the interested reader, this section is followed by a more detailed ques tion-by-question discussion of the results from the survey by topic area (see Table of Contents ), as well as a description of the methodology employed for collecting and analyzing the data. An d, for the truly ambitious reader, the ques- tionnaire used for the interviews is contai ned at the back of this report (see Questionnaire & Toplines on page 49) and a complete set of crosstabulations for the survey results is contained in Appendix A.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS True North thanks the City of San Carlos for the opportunity to conduct the study and for contributing valuable input during the design stage of this study. The collective experience, insight, and local knowledge provided by city representatives and staff improved the overall quality of the research presented here.

DISCLAIMER The statements and conclu sions in this report are those of the authors (Dr. Timothy McLarney and Richard Sarles) at True North Research, Inc. and not necessarily those of the City of San Carlos. Any errors and omissions are the responsibility of the authors.

ABOUT TRUE NORTH True North is a full-service survey research firm that is dedicated to providing public agencies with a clear understanding of the values, perceptions, priorities, and concerns of their residents and customers. Thro ugh designing and implementing scientific sur- veys, focus groups, and one-on-one interviews, as well as expert interpretation of the findings, True North helps its clients to move with confidence when making strategic decisions in a variety of areas—such as planning, policy evaluation, per formance management, establishing fiscal pri- orities, passing revenue measures, and developing effective public information campaigns.

During their careers, Dr. McLarney (President) and Mr. Sarles (Principal Researcher) have designed and conducted over 1,000 survey research studies for public agencies—including more than 350 studies for California municipalities and special districts.

8.a.1
Packet Pg. 81
Attachment: 2109 San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey Report (2022 Community Characteristics Survey Report) Key Findings
True North Research, Inc. © 2019 3
City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

K EY F INDINGS
The following is an outline of the main findings from the survey. For the reader’s convenience, we have organized the findings according to the section titles used in th e body of this report.

Thus, if you would like to learn more about a particular finding, simply turn to the appropriate report section.

LIVING IN SAN CARLOS
• Residents were most apt to cite the small town feeling (29%) as what they like best about liv- ing in the City of San Carlos, followed by it being a nice, neighborly community (24%) and its location and accessibility (21%). Other specific attributes that were mentioned by at least 10% of respondents included San Carlos’ fam ily-oriented nature (14%), public safety/low crime (14%), its downtown area (13%), shopping/dining options (11%), and good schools (10%).
• When asked to indicate the one thing that they would most like to change about San Carlos, the most common specific ch anges desired were limiting gr owth and development (33%), reducing traffic congestion (25%), improving parking (15%), and improving/maintaining infrastructure, roads, and si dewalks (9%). Approximately 12% of respondents could not think of any desired changes (8%) or reported that no changes are needed (4%). • The majority of residents (53%) expect to still be living in San Carlos 10 years from now, 19% do not plan to remain in the City, and nearly three-in-ten (29%) were unsure or unwilling to share where they will be living in 10 years.
• Overall, 39% of all residents surveyed either anticipate retiring in San Carlos (22%) or are already retired (17%). An additional 29% do not anticipate retiring in San Carlos (10%) or liv- ing in the City in 10 years (19%) and the remaining 32% were unsure or unwilling to share their retirement plans. There was a strong, positive relationship between feeling engaged and connected to the Sa n Carlos community and planning to remain in the City for retire- ment.
• The majority of San Carlos residents surveyed have lived in the City 15 years or longer (59%), whereas 17% are newer residents that have lived in the City less than 1 year (5%) or 1 to 4 years (12%). An additional 14% have resided in San Carlos for 5 to 9 years and 10% have lived in the City between 10 and 14 years.
• More than three-quarters of residents survey ed live in a detached, single-family home (76%), whereas 10% live in an apartment, 8% a condominium, 3% a townhome, and 2% live in some other type of residence.
• The vast majority of San Carlos residents ow n their home (76%). The remainder either rent (17%), live rent free with family (4%), or were unwilling to state (3%). Strong, positive relation- ships exist between home ownership status and years in San Carlos, age of respondent, and being engaged/connected with the San Carlos community.
• When home owners who live in a detached, single-family home were asked if they plan to build an accessory dwelling unit, or granny flat, on their San Carlos property in the next five years, six percent answered in the affirmative.

COMMUNITY CONNECTIONS
• Overall, 16% of respondents describe themselves as very engaged and connected to the community, 41% are somewhat engaged and connected, and 31% slightly engaged and con- nected. Another 11% of respondents confided that they do not feel at all engaged or con- nected to their San Carlos community.

8.a.1
Packet Pg. 82
Attachment: 2109 San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey Report (2022 Community Characteristics Survey Report) Key Findings
True North Research, Inc. © 2019 4City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
• Three-in-ten respondents (30%) belong to an organized community group in the City, whereas two-thirds do not (67%) and the remainder were either unsure or unwilling to state.

It is worth noting that 69% of residents who feel engaged and connected with the San Carlos community are involved in an organized community group, more than twice the percentage found among residents overall (30%).
• Seven percent (7%) of residents know all the neighbors who live close to them well, 30% know most of their neighbors well, 54% know some of them well, and 8% confided that they do not know any of their neighbors well. As on e might expect, knowing all or most of their neighbors increased as respondents’ length of residence increased.

EMPLOYMENT, COMMUTE & TRANSPORTATION
• When asked about their employment status, 65% of residents indicated that they are employed either full-time (58%) or part-time (7%), 23% retired, 5% homemaker, 4% student, 2% are in-between jobs, and 2% were unsure or unwilling to state. • Residents work across a wide variety of occu pational categories. Overall, 19% of employed residents who provided an opinio n indicated that their current occupation falls within the professional specialty category such as accountant, lawyer, engineer, scientist, or laboratory technician, 14% work in an executive occupation such as general manager, CEO, CFO, con- troller, or business owner, 9% work in a sales occupation, 9% are teachers, 9% are supervi- sors or managers, 8% work in an information technology position, and 7% are office or administrative workers.
• When asked to describe their industry, 20% of employed residents who provided an opinion work in information technology manufacturing services, 13% work in medical and social ser- vices, 12% in education, 10% in business services, 9% in biosciences or pharmaceuticals, and 8% work in the construction industry.
• Nearly nine-in-ten employed individuals (86%) typically commute to a destination outside of their home for work, whereas the remainder typically work from home (13%) or declined to state (1%). A higher than aver age proportion of residents ve ry engaged/connected with the community, 45 to 64 years of age, and with a four-year degree work from home. • Approximately one-third of employed reside nts who work from home own a home-based business. This translates to 4% of all adult San Carlos residents primarily working from home and owning a home-based business.
• Forty-seven percent (47%) of employed residents at least occasionally telecommute or work from home, 13% of employed residents primar ily work from home, and 39% never telecom- mute and always comm ute to their work destination. Th ree-in-ten employees telecommute at least once per week (18%) or between two and three times per month (13%). • The most common method of commuting to work was driving alone to work in a car, truck, SUV, or van (82%). Public transit via Caltrain (7%), BART (2%), or other public transit mode (<1%) accounted for approximately 9% of commutes and ridesharing via carpool (5%) and on- demand rideshare services such as Uber or Lyft (<1%) accounted for approximately 5% of commutes. Active transportation modes (biking, walking, jogging, running) were mentioned by just over 1% of employees as their primary method of commuting to work. All other modes were mentioned by less than 3% of respondents, collectively. • In terms of commute distance, more than one-third of re spondents were represented in commute length categories of less than 10 miles (37%), just over one-quarter reported trav- eling 10 to 19 miles (27%), 21% commute 20 to 29 miles, and 12% commute 30 miles or more between work and home, one-way. An a dditional 4% of respon dents were unsure or declined to state. The average commute length among all commuters was 15.45 miles, one- way.

8.a.1
Packet Pg. 83
Attachment: 2109 San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey Report (2022 Community Characteristics Survey Report) Key Findings
True North Research, Inc. © 2019 5City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
•A s f o r t h e time it typically takes an employee to co mmute to work one-way without stops, approximately one-quarter of commuters (24%) indicated it takes less than 20 minutes, 18% indicated it takes between 20 and 29 minute s, a similar percentage (19%) reported their commute typically takes between 30 to 39 minutes, 20% stated that their one-way commute lasts between 40 to 59 minutes, and 14% offered that their commute lasts an hour or more.

An additional 5% of employees were unsure or unwilling to share. The average commute duration among all commuters was 33.59 minutes, one-way. • Nearly all residents (regardless of employment status) use a personal vehicle when traveling within San Carlos (98%) and close to seven-in-ten residents walk from home to a local store or restaurant (69%). Less than half of residents use Uber or Lyft (47%) or ride a bicycle (31%) when traveling within the City, and just 9% ride a local bus. • Overall, 20% of residents own a hybrid and 8% own an all-electric vehicle. Approximately one-third of all-electric vehicle owners (34%) find it difficult to charge their vehicle in the City of San Carlos.

HEALTH & LIFESTYLE
• Walking, jogging, and running wa s the most popular adult recreation activity (48%), followed by exercising/gym/yoga (30%), hiking/nature walks (24%), and cycling (16%). • Going to the park or beach (9%) and soccer ( 9%) were the most popular recreation activities among children and teenagers, followed by da nce/music/theater (6%), cycling (5%), basket- ball (5%), and walking, jogging, and running (5%). The majority of residents do not have a child or teen in their home (57%).
• Overall, 46% of residents use a house cleaner and 49% use a landscape maintenance service or gardener. Assessing the overlap, 32% of residents use both a housekeeper and gardener. • Nine-in-ten residents have goods and packag es delivered to their home from Amazon or other online retailers (90%) and five-in-ten residents have food, meals, and groceries deliv- ered to their home (53%).
• Daily media use was highest for the Internet, not including social media (87% of residents) with residents also spending the most time on that activity each day (147 minutes per day).

Approximately 85% of residents consume news each day, 80% watch television, 74% read a book or magazine, 66% listen to the radio, 65% use social media, and just 15% play video games daily.
• In terms of time spent on each activity, the average San Carlos resident spends over two hours in a typical day utilizing the Internet, not including social media (147 minutes per day) and watching television (131 minutes per da y). Residents spend approximately an hour or more consuming news (81 minutes), using social media (62 minutes), listening to the radio (62 minutes), and reading books or magazine s (57 minutes). Residents spend the least amount of time playing video games in a typical day (12 minutes).

8.a.1
Packet Pg. 84
Attachment: 2109 San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey Report (2022 Community Characteristics Survey Report) Living in San Carlos
True North Research, Inc. © 2019 6
City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

L IVING IN S AN C ARLOS
The opening series of questions was designed to assess residents’ top of mind perceptions about living in San Carlos, profile their housing characteristics, and gather information on whether they intend to remain in San Carlos in the future.

WHAT DO YOU LIKE MOST ABOUT LIVING IN SAN CARLOS? The first question in this series asked residents to identify what they like best about living in the City of San Carlos.

Question 2 was posed in an open-ended manner , thereby allowing residents to mention any aspect or attribute that came to mind without being prompted by—or restricted to—a particular list of options. True North later reviewed the verbatim responses and grouped them into the cat- egories shown in Figure 1 below.

San Carlos residents were most apt to cite the small town feeling (29%) as what they like best about living in the City of San Carlos, followed by it being a nice, neighborly community (24%) and its location and accessibility (21%). Other specific attributes that were mentioned by at least 10% of respondents included San Carlos’ family-oriented nature (14%), public safety/low crime (14%), its downtown area (13%), shopping/dining options (11%), and good schools (10%).

Question 2 What do you like best about living in San Carlos? FIGURE 1 LIKE BEST ABOUT SAN CARLOS

1.5 1.6

4.3 4.9

5.0 5.4

5.5 5.9

7.2 11.3

12.8 14.3

21.0 23.5

29.0 14.0

9.9 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Good governance in general
Public transportation options
Community activities, events
Parks
Open space, hills
Beautiful, clean city
Walkability, amenities within walking distance
Nothing comes to mind / Not sure
Climate, weather
Good schools
Shopping, dining options
Downtown area
Public safety, low crime
Family oriented
Location, accessibility
Nice community, neighbors
Small town feeling
% Respondents

8.a.1
Packet Pg. 85
Attachment: 2109 San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey Report (2022 Community Characteristics Survey Report) Living in San Carlos
True North Research, Inc. © 2019 7City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

WHAT SHOULD BE CHANGED? In an open-ended manner similar to that described above for Question 2, all respondents were also asked to indicate the one thing that they would most like to change about San Carlos. True North reviewed the verbatim responses to Question 3 and grouped them into the categories shown in Figure 2.

Among specific changes desired, the most co mmon were limiting growth and development (33%), reducing traffic congestion (25%), improving parking (15%), and improving/maintaining infrastructure, roads, and sidewalks (9%). Approximately 12% of respondents could not think of any desired changes (8%) or reported that no changes are needed (4%).

Question 3 What is the thing you would most like to change about San Carlos? FIGURE 2 CHANGES TO IMPROVE SAN CARLOS
PLAN TO REMAIN IN SAN CARLOS Respondents were next asked about their future intentions, specifically whether they anticipate living in San Carlos 10 years from now (Question 4) as well as once they are retired (Question 5) . As shown in Figure 3 on the next page, the majority of residents (53%) expect to still be living in San Carlos 10 years from now, 19% do not plan to remain in the City, and nearly three-in-ten (29%) were unsure or unwilling to share where they will be living in 10 years.

Figures 4 through 6 on the following pages displa y residents’ future housing plans by a variety of demographic characteristics. Overall, the newest residents (less than one year), those 35 to 54

1.1 1.5

2.1 2.3

2.5 2.6

2.8 3.3

3.7 3.8

3.8 5.1

5.4 7.5

9.4 15.4

24.9 33.4

3.8 4.7
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Preserve, recapture small town feeling
Improve governance in general
Improve, provide more bike lanes
Clean, beautify city, landscaping
More diversity in general
Improve public safety
Improve, provide more public transportation
Reduce cost of living
No changes desired / Everything is fine
Better city planning, development
Maintain, add parks, recreation facilities
Improve schools, education
Provide greater variety of restaurants, stores
Enforce traffic laws
Provide more affordable housing
Nothing comes to mind / Not sure
Improve, maintain infrastructure, roads, sidewalks
Improve parking
Reduce traffic congestion
Limit growth, development
% Respondents

8.a.1
Packet Pg. 86
Attachment: 2109 San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey Report (2022 Community Characteristics Survey Report) Living in San Carlos
True North Research, Inc. © 2019 8City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
years of age or 65 years and older, residents who indicated they are very engaged and connected to the San Carlos community, those with children under 13 years of age in their household, resi- dents who belong to a community group, home owners, and Asian American respondents were the most likely to anticipate remaining in San Carlos for at least the next 10 years.

Question 4 Do you anticipate that you will be living in San Carlos 10 years from now? FIGURE 3 ANTICIPATE LIVING IN SAN CARLOS 10 YEARS FROM NOW FIGURE 4 ANTICIPATE LIVING IN SAN CARLOS 10 YEARS FROM NOW BY YEARS IN SAN CARLOS & AGE Do not
anticipate livin g
in San Carlos in
10 years

18.8 Anticipate
livin g in San
Carlos in 10
years

52.5 Not sure

28.1 Prefer not to
answer

0.6 `

61.0 59.6

49.4 57.6

20.1 31.5

11.2 14.6

21.3 17.3

31.3 25.9 32.4 26.9 25.9 29.3 24.6

52.7 62.5

46.6 55.3 51.6

36.1 19.1

22.513.4

16.4 37.0

26.7 18.3
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Less than 1 1 to 4 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 or more 18 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or older Years in San Carlo s (Q1) Age (Q30)
% Respondents
Prefer not to
answer
Not sure
Do not anticipate
living in San Carlos
in 10 years
Anticipate living in
San Carlos in 10
years

8.a.1
Packet Pg. 87
Attachment: 2109 San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey Report (2022 Community Characteristics Survey Report) Living in San Carlos
True North Research, Inc. © 2019 9City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

FIGURE 5 ANTICIPATE LIVING IN SAN CARLOS 10 YEARS FROM NOW BY ENGAGED CONNECTED WITH COMMUNITY,

HSLD MEMBERS & PARTICIPATE, BELONG TO COMMUNITY GROUP
FIGURE 6 ANTICIPATE LIVING IN SAN CARLOS 10 YEARS FROM NOW BY HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS, ETHNICITY & GENDER
Along the same lines as Question 4, Question 5 asked respondents whether they anticipate remaining in San Carlos once they are retired. As shown in Figure 7 on the next page, 39% of all residents surveyed either anticipate retiring in San Carlos (22%) or are already in retirement (17%). An additional 29% do not anticipate retiring in San Carlos (10%) or living in the City in 10 years (19%), whereas the remaining 32% were unsure or unwilling to share their retirement plans.

For the interested reader, figures 8 through 10 examine the responses to Question 5 by years in San Carlos, age, engaged/connected with community, ages of household members, participate/ belong to community group, home ownership st atus, ethnicity, and gender. Of note is the strong, positive relationship between feeling engaged and connected to the San Carlos commu- nity and planning to remain in the City for retirement.

51.3 58.8

48.7 19.5 19.7 19.2

14.8 21.5

29.7 28.7 28.3 29.0 26.4 29.3

54.3 69.9

54.6 44.0

63.2 51.9

9.4 8.1

26.0 15.3

29.7 26.219.6
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Very Som ewhat Slightly, not at
all
Child under
13 T eenager Adult 18-64 Senior 65+ Y es No
Engaged, Connected w/Community (Q9) Hsld Members (Q31) Participate, Belong to Community Group (Q10)
% Respondents
Prefer not to
answer
Not sure
Do not anticipate
living in San Carlos
in 10 years
Anticipate living in
San Carlos in 10
years

52.6 51.9

17.6 31.9

18.3 19.9

30.7 23.6

36.4 28.7 27.7

53.7 61.0

29.4 40.5

63.2 31.7

13.6 13.2

28.8 33.5

37.2 28.225.1
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Own Rent Latino /
Hispanic
Asian American Caucasian /
White
Mixed or other Male Fem ale
Home Ownership Status (Q7) Ethnicity (Q36) Gender (Q34) % Respondents
Prefer not to
answer
Not sure
Do not anticipate
living in San Carlos
in 10 years
Anticipate living in
San Carlos in 10
years

8.a.1
Packet Pg. 88
Attachment: 2109 San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey Report (2022 Community Characteristics Survey Report) Living in San Carlos
True North Research, Inc. © 2019 10City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Question 5 Once you are retired, do you anticipate still living in San Carlos? FIGURE 7 ANTICIPATE LIVING IN SAN CARLOS WHEN RETIRED
FIGURE 8 ANTICIPATE LIVING IN SAN CARLOS WHEN RETIRED BY YEARS IN SAN CARLOS & AGE FIGURE 9 ANTICIPATE LIVING IN SAN CARLOS WHEN RETIRED BY ENGAGED IN COMMUNITY, HSLD MEMBERS &

PARTICIPATE, BELONG TO COMMUNITY
Not sure

31.2 Prefer not to
answer

0.7 Do not
anticipate livin g
in San Carlos in
10 years (Q4)

18.8 Do not
anticipate
retiring in San
Carlos

9.9 Anticipate
retiring in San
Carlos

22.4 Already retired

16.9 24.5 25.0 30.1

16.8 24.7

1.9 0.9 1.9

11.8 60.0

19.7 9.4

10.5 15.6 16.6

7.6 1.7

19.1 16.4

13.4 22.5

20.1 31.5 11.2

14.6 21.3

17.3 43.4 45.1 40.0 37.2

24.4 39.3 46.9 41.9

29.2 4.1

23.824.6 17.9 24.6 17.0 14.9

0.0 14.02.3

3.4 17.3

6.0 12.9
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Less than 1 1 to 4 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 or more 18 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or older Years in San Carlos (Q1) Age (Q30)
% Respondents
Prefer not to answer
Not sur e
Do not anticipate
living in San Carlos
in 10 years (Q4)
Do not anticipate
retiring in the City
Alread y retired
Anticipate retiring in
San Carlos

17.1 23.8 22.1

3.7 7.6

45.1 19.8 15.4

11.9 21.4 12.5

2.3 10.3

10.1 9.4

15.3 26.0

8.1 19.5 19.7

19.2 14.8 21.5

23.9 35.4 30.1

46.6 38.8 36.6

15.2 29.7 30.7

27.9 38.1

22.8 15.8 21.7 23.6

18.4 2.116.2

16.9 8.8

10.1 8.1
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Very Somewhat Slightly, not
at all
Child under
13 Teenager Adult 18-64 Senior 65+ Yes No
Engaged, Connected w/Community (Q9) Hsld Members (Q31) Participate, Belong to Community Group (Q10)
% Respondents
Prefer not to answer
Not sur e
Do not anticipate
living in San Carlos
in 10 years (Q4)
Do not anticipate
retiring in the City
Alread y retired
Anticipate retiring in
San Carlos

8.a.1
Packet Pg. 89
Attachment: 2109 San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey Report (2022 Community Characteristics Survey Report) Living in San Carlos
True North Research, Inc. © 2019 11City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

FIGURE 10 ANTICIPATE LIVING IN SAN CARLOS WHEN RETIRED BY HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS, ETHNICITY & GENDER LENGTH OF RESIDENCE The survey also asked a number of questions to profile resi- dents’ living situation and current housing. The first such question asked residents how long they have lived in San Carlos.

Question 1 How long have you lived in San Carlos?
FIGURE 11 YEARS IN SAN CARLOS
As shown in Figure 11, the majority of San
Carlos residents have lived in the City 15 years
or longer (59%), whereas 17% are newer resi-
dents that have lived in the City less than 1
year (5%) or 1 to 4 years (12%). An additional
14% have resided in San Carlos for 5 to 9 years
and 10% have lived in the City between 10 and
14 years.

Long-time residents were most likely to be 55
years and older, Cauc asian/White, and home
owners (see Figure 12).

FIGURE 12 YEARS IN SAN CARLOS BY AGE & ETHNICITY

24.0 20.5

18.8 8.6

16.7 17.4

13.4 6.0

9.3 11.1 9.3

13.6 33.5

28.8 13.2 17.6

31.9 18.3 19.9

30.1 31.0 23.3

36.1 30.8 32.9 29.3 32.6

17.3 31.6

17.8 8.5

26.9 21.35.0

16.8 13.120.8

8.0 10.7

22.1 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Own Rent Latino /
Hispanic
Asian American Caucasian /
Whit e
Mixed or other Male Female
Home Ownership Status (Q7) Ethnicity (Q36) Gender (Q34) % Respondents
Prefer not to answer
Not sur e
Do not anticipate
living in San Carlos
in 10 years (Q4)
Do not anticipate
retiring in the City
Alread y retired
Anticipate retiring in
San Carlos
15 years or
longer

58.8 Prefer not
to answer

0.3 10 to 14 years

10.4 5 to 9 years

13.7 Less than
1 year

4.5 1 to 4 years

12.3 39.8

64.4 47.9

64.1 25.6

6.9 12.5

11.0 9.3

13.2 10.3

10.7 18.2

9.6 9.5

17.5 14.0

11.4 13.224.3

21.4 10.4

4.5 3.6

23.2 20.3

9.8 15.3

9.2 30.5

4.9 14.7

2.9 3.8 11.4 2.4

12.3 3.1 11.8

83.1 60.2

20.7 46.7

74.9 51.0

3.8 10.6

21.9 11.2

32.1 5.2

21.5 6.7
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
18 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or
older
Latino /
Hispanic
Asian
American
Caucasian
/ White
Mixed or
other
Own Rent
Age (Q30) Ethnicity (Q36) Home Ownership
Status (Q7)
% Respondents
Prefer not to answer
Less than 1 year
1 to 4 years
5 to 9 years
10 to 14 years
15 years or longer

8.a.1
Packet Pg. 90
Attachment: 2109 San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey Report (2022 Community Characteristics Survey Report) Living in San Carlos
True North Research, Inc. © 2019 12City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

HOUSING TYPE More than three-quarters of residents surveyed live in a detached, single- family home (76%), whereas 10% live in an apartment, 8% a condominium, 3% a townhome, and 2% live in some other type of residence (Figure 13).

Question 6 Which of the following best describes your residence in San Carlos? FIGURE 13 TYPE OF RESIDENCE
Figures 14 and 15 display respondents’ type of residence by years in San Carlos, age, engaged/ connected with community, ages of household members, and et hnicity. Newer residents (less than 5 years), those 18 to 34 years of age, re sidents unengaged in the community, and Latino/ Hispanic residents were the most likely to live in a housing type other than a detached, single- family residence.

FIGURE 14 TYPE OF RESIDENCE BY YEARS IN SAN CARLOS & AGE Other

1.8 Prefer not to
answer

0.4 Townhome

3.2 Condo

7.7 Detached single
family

76.4 Apartment

10.4 77.7 83.5 83.8 78.8

4.5 22.3

12.5 9.8 4.9

4.2 10.2

5.4 14.4

6.3 3.4 6.3

9.513.6

2.7 2.6

5.8 2.2 1.8

2.7 2.4 3.6 5.6

86.7 58.8

45.1 69.5 73.2

55.9 23.6

11.417.7

25.1 27.0

3.9 1.8
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Less than 1 1 to 4 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 or more 18 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or older Years in San Carlos (Q1) Age (Q30)
% Respondents
Prefer not to answe r
Other
Townhome
Condo
Apartment
Detached single
family

8.a.1
Packet Pg. 91
Attachment: 2109 San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey Report (2022 Community Characteristics Survey Report) Living in San Carlos
True North Research, Inc. © 2019 13City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Question 7 Do you own or rent your residence in San Carlos? FIGURE 16 HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS
Figures 17 and 18 on the next page examine ho me ownership status by a host of respondent characteristics. Strong, positive relationships exist between home ownership status and years in San Carlos, age of respondent, and being engaged/connected with the San Carlos community.

82.0 58.3

75.9 79.4

67.2 5.3

12.2 3.6

26.1 7.2

8.0 24.5

10.3 6.4 7.3 7.6 13.4 12.9 6.9

3.2 3.6 2.7 2.5 1.5 2.4 4.1 2.3 3.1 3.6 3.1

91.384.4 80.7

69.9 83.9 76.8

6.5 6.7

15.0 7.3

6.2 1.5 4.24.8
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Very Som ewhat Slightly,
not at all
Child
under 13
T eenager Adult 18-
64 Senior 65+ Latino /
Hispanic
Asian
American
Caucasian
/ White
Mixed or
other
Engaged, Connected w/Community
(Q9)
Hsld Members (Q31) Ethnicity (Q36)
% Respondents
Prefer not to answer
Other
Townhome
Condo
Apartment
Detached single
family
Rent

17.3 Own

75.6 Live rent free
with family

4.2 Prefer not to
answer

2.9 8.a.1
Packet Pg. 92
Attachment: 2109 San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey Report (2022 Community Characteristics Survey Report) Living in San Carlos
True North Research, Inc. © 2019 14City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

FIGURE 17 HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS BY YEARS IN SAN CARLOS, AGE & TYPE OF RESIDENCE FIGURE 18 HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS BY ENGAGED, CONNECTED WITH COMMUNITY, HSLD MEMBERS & ETHNICITY PLAN TO BUILD ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT Home owners who live in a detached, single-family home were next asked if they plan to build an accessory dwelling unit (ADU), or granny flat, on their San Carlos property in the next five years. As shown in Figure 19 on the next page, six percent of single-family home owners answered Question 8 in the affirmative and plan to build an ADU. More than eight-in-ten (82%) do not have any plans to build an accessory dwell- ing unit in the next five years and 12% were unsure or unwilling to share.

Newer residents (less than five years), those with a child under 13 years of age in their house- hold, and respondents 35 to 44 years of age were the most likely single-family home owner sub- groups with plans to build an accessory dwelling unit on their property (see Figure 20 on next page).

75.7 80.8 85.7 90.0 90.2

48.8 66.6

7.5 28.5

21.9 18.2 13.0 8.0 3.5

51.2 33.4

0.0 3.4

22.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

82.5 52.5 56.3

72.9 74.6

41.9 45.3

17.727.1

42.8 0.9

6.4 5.50.0
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Less than
1 1 to 4 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 or
mo re
18 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or
older
Detached
single
family
To w n-
home
Condo
Years in San Carlos (Q1) Age (Q30) Q6 Type of residence % Respondents
Prefer not to answe r
Live rent free with
family
Rent
Own

83.0 62.7

81.4 78.1

53.6 10.1 19.9 8.1

32.2 15.0 15.1

34.3 3.4 0.0 5.0 5.1 5.1 0.0 4.3

73.3 82.9

73.373.8

87.9 81.5

15.8 21.2

16.610.4

0.0 11.05.36.9
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Very Somewhat Slightly,
not at all
Child
under 13
Teenager Adult 18-
64 Senior 65+ Latino /
Hispanic
Asian
American
Caucasian
/ White
Mixed or
other
Engaged, Connected w/Community
(Q9)
Hsld Members (Q31) Ethnicity (Q36)
% Respondents
Prefer not to answe r
Live rent free with
family
Rent
Own

8.a.1
Packet Pg. 93
Attachment: 2109 San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey Report (2022 Community Characteristics Survey Report) Living in San Carlos
True North Research, Inc. © 2019 15City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Question 8 In the next five years, do you plan to build an accessory dwelling unit - also known as a granny flat - on your property in San Carlos?
FIGURE 19 BUILD AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT IN NEXT 5 YEARS (AMONG SINGLE-FAMILY HOME OWNERS) FIGURE 20 BUILD AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT IN NEXT 5 YEARS BY YEARS IN SAN CARLOS, HSLD MEMBERS & AGE (AMONG SINGLE-FAMILY HOME OWNERS)
Prefer not to
answer

0.6 Not sure

11.5 Plan to build
ADU in next 5
years

6.3 No ADU in next
5 years

81.6 5.1

10.6 4.7

6.8 4.1

5.8 9.5

6.5 6.1

5.0 2.8

8.1 15.314.5
0 5
10 15
20 Less
than 1
1 to 4 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 or
mo re
Child
under 13
TeenagerAdult 18-
64 Senior
65+
18 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or
older
Years in San Carlos (Q1) Hsld Members (Q31) Age (Q30)
% Single Family Homeowners That Plan
to Build ADU in Next 5 Years

8.a.1
Packet Pg. 94
Attachment: 2109 San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey Report (2022 Community Characteristics Survey Report) Community Connections
True North Research, Inc. © 2019 16
City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

C OMMUNITY C ONNECTIONS
After assessing housing characteristics and perceptions about life in San Carlos, the survey tran- sitioned to examining how connected San Carlos residents are with their local community, including whether they belong to community groups and how well they know their neighbors.

FEEL ENGAGED & CONNECTED TO COMMUNITY The first question in this section asked respondents to rate how engaged and connec ted they feel to their local San Carlos com- munity using a scale of very, somewhat, slightly, or not at all engaged and connected. Overall, 16% of respondents describe themselves as very engaged and connected to the community, 41% are somewhat engaged and connected, and 31% slightly engaged and connected. Another 11% of respondents confided that they do not feel at all engaged or connected to their San Carlos com- munity (see Figure 21).

Question 9 In general, how engaged and connected do you feel to your San Carlos community? Would you say very, somewhat, slightly, or not at all engaged and connected? FIGURE 21 ENGAGED, CONNECTED WITH SAN CARLOS COMMUNITY For the interested reader, figures 22 through 25 on the following pages show feelings of com- munity connectedness varied by a number of demographic characteristics.

Somewhat
engaged &
connected

40.5 Very engaged &
connected

16.2 Slightly
engaged &
connected

30.9 Not engaged &
connected

11.0 Prefer not to
answer

0.2 Not sure

1.0 8.a.1
Packet Pg. 95
Attachment: 2109 San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey Report (2022 Community Characteristics Survey Report) Community Connections
True North Research, Inc. © 2019 17City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

FIGURE 22 ENGAGED, CONNECTED WITH SAN CARLOS COMMUNITY BY YEARS IN SAN CARLOS & TYPE OF RESIDENCE FIGURE 23 ENGAGED, CONNECTED WITH SAN CARLOS COMMUNITY BY EMPLOYMENT STATUS & HSLD MEMBERS FIGURE 24 ENGAGED, CONNECTED WITH SAN CARLOS COMMUNITY BY AGE & ETHNICITY

16.3 10.2 10.1

41.6 42.8 45.1

32.7 28.3

34.7 26.8 29.0 30.5

36.2 43.5

18.1 2.2

9.8 18.4 15.5 17.9

42.8 47.835.1

34.9 40.8

28.0 42.8
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Less than 1 1 to 4 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 or more Single family Townhome Condo Apartment Years in San Carlos (Q1) Type of Residence (Q6)
% Respondents
Slightly
engaged &
connected
Som ewhat
engaged &
connected
Very
engaged &
connected

26.4 15.3 15.3

54.1 39.7

45.0 40.4 44.5

24.1 28.6 32.0

23.2 31.5 28.9

20.419.522.7

8.716.2

7.9 56.2

46.4 40.3

36.9 32.9

29.331.1
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Full- time Part- time Ho memake r Re tire d Other Child unde r 13 Teenager Adult 18-64 Senior 65+
Employment Status (Q12) Hsld Members (Q31)
% Respondents
Slightly
engaged &
connected
Som ewhat
engaged &
connected
Very
engaged &
connected

12.0 16.8 9.5

40.9 19.9

36.3 43.5

39.0 27.6 30.9

42.0 34.8

30.0 39.7

18.7 7.5 13.9

26.2 14.9 15.7

41.9 42.0

36.0 41.7

34.2 30.2

31.6 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
18 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or older Latino / Hispanic
Asian
American
Caucasian /
White
Mixed or
other
Age (Q30) Ethnicity (Q36)
% Respondents
Slightly
engaged &
connected
Som ewhat
engaged &
connected
Very
engaged &
connected

8.a.1
Packet Pg. 96
Attachment: 2109 San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey Report (2022 Community Characteristics Survey Report) Community Connections
True North Research, Inc. © 2019 18City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

FIGURE 25 ENGAGED, CONNECTED WITH SAN CARLOS COMMUNITY BY PARTICIPATED, BELONG TO COMMUNITY GROUP,

WORK COMMUTE STATUS, GENDER & HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS
BELONG TO COMMUNITY GROUP The next question asked respondents whether they belong to any organized community groups in San Carlos. Three-in-ten respondents (30%) belong to an organized communit y group in the City, whereas two-thirds do not (67%) and the remainder were either unsure or unwilling to state (Figure 26).

Question 10 Do you currently participate in or belong to any organized community groups in San Carlos?
FIGURE 26 PARTICIPATE IN OR BELONG TO ORGANIZED COMMUNITY GROUP Figures 27 to 30 on the following pages displa y the percentage of respondents involved in a community group by a variety of resident subgroups. Residents who have lived in San Carlos five years or more, those living in a housing type other than an apartment, homemakers and retirees, respondents with children, teenagers, or seniors in their househol d, residents 35 to 54 years of age or 65 years and older, Caucasian/White respondents, residents very engaged and connected with the community, those who work from home, and home owners were the most likely sub- groups to belong to an organized community group.

16.9 18.8 9.8

43.5 41.5 39.2 39.5

37.0 29.6

32.9 29.8 32.5 31.0

37.0 15.513.4

27.1 6.6

37.8 18.0

38.3 35.6

40.2 44.4

15.7 28.1

38.5 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Y es No Work from
home
Commute to
work
Not
employed
Male Female Own Rent
Participate, Belong to
Co mmunity Gro up (Q10)
Work Commute Status (Q15) Gender (Q34) Home Ownership Status (Q7)
% Respondents
Slightly
engaged &
connected
Som ewhat
engaged &
connected
Very
engaged &
connected
Not involved in
a community
group

66.7 Involved in a
community
group

29.5 Not sure

2.6 Prefer not to
answer

1.2 8.a.1
Packet Pg. 97
Attachment: 2109 San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey Report (2022 Community Characteristics Survey Report) Community Connections
True North Research, Inc. © 2019 19City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

FIGURE 27 PARTICIPATE IN OR BELONG TO ORGANIZED COMMUNITY GROUP BY YEARS IN SAN CARLOS & TYPE OF

RESIDENCE
FIGURE 28 PARTICIPATE IN OR BELONG TO ORGANIZED COMMUNITY BY GROUP EMPLOYMENT STATUS & HSLD

MEMBERS
FIGURE 29 PARTICIPATE IN OR BELONG TO ORGANIZED COMMUNITY GROUP BY AGE & ETHNICITY

31.5 32.4 30.4 33.1

8.19.3 19.1

36.9 29.4
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
Less than 1 1 to 4 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 or more Single family Townhome Condo Apartment Years in San Carlos (Q1) Type of Residence (Q6)
% Respondents Involved
in a Community Group

12.4 38.6 37.7

27.6 33.735.5

41.9 26.128.6
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
Full- time Part- time Ho memaker Retired Other Child under 13 Teenager Adult 18-64 Senior 65+
Employment Status (Q12) Hsld Members (Q31)
% Respondents Involved
in a Community Group

37.6 19.4

22.8 33.4

17.6 9.5

32.5 36.8

27.2 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 18 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or older Latino / Hispanic
Asian
American
Caucasian /
White
Mixed or
other
Age (Q30) Ethnicity (Q36)
% Respondents Involved
in a Community Group

8.a.1
Packet Pg. 98
Attachment: 2109 San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey Report (2022 Community Characteristics Survey Report) Community Connections
True North Research, Inc. © 2019 20City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

FIGURE 30 PARTICIPATE IN OR BELONG TO ORGANIZED COMMUNITY GROUP BY ENGAGED, CONNECTED WITH

COMMUNITY, WORK COMMUTE STATUS, GENDER & HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS FAMILIARITY WITH NEIGHBORS The last question in this section asked respondents to describe how well they know their neighbors that live close by.

Question 11 Thinking of the neighbors that live close to you in San Carlos, what proportion do you know well? All, most, some, or none?
FIGURE 31 FAMILIARITY WITH NEIGHBORS
As shown in Figure 31, 7% of residents revealed
that they know all the neighbors who live close to
them well, 30% know most of their neighbors well,
54% know some of them well, and 8% confided
that they do not know any of their neighbors well.

The figures to follow show familiarity with neigh-
bors by resident subgroups. As one might expect,
knowing all or most of their neighbors increased
as respondents’ length of residence increased.

Additionally, much higher than average percent-
ages of residents who worked part-time or
reported being very engaged in the community
knew all or most of their neighbors well.

27.0 32.5 30.5 28.4

33.8 16.5

37.2 12.5

32.3 68.9
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
Very Som ewhat Slightly, not
at all
Work from
home
Commute to
work
Not
em ployed
Male Female Own Rent
Engaged, Connected w/Community
(Q9)
Work Commute Status (Q15) Gender (Q34) Home Ownership Status (Q7)
% Respondents Involved
in a Community Group
Most

29.6 All

6.7 Some

54.4 None

8.0 Not sure / Prefer
not to answer

1.3 8.a.1
Packet Pg. 99
Attachment: 2109 San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey Report (2022 Community Characteristics Survey Report) Community Connections
True North Research, Inc. © 2019 21City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

FIGURE 32 FAMILIARITY WITH NEIGHBORS BY YEARS IN SAN CARLOS & TYPE OF RESIDENCE FIGURE 33 FAMILIARITY WITH NEIGHBORS BY EMPLOYMENT STATUS & HSLD MEMBERS FIGURE 34 FAMILIARITY WITH NEIGHBORS BY AGE & ETHNICITY

1.6 2.1 6.6

34.6 33.1

19.3 19.1

20.7 60.4

60.7 51.9

74.1 69.0 52.8

7.36.65.42.90.0 8.3

20.3 23.7 26.6

14.2 55.8

49.3 67.2
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Less than 1 1 to 4 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 or more Single family Townhome Condo Apartment Years in San Carlos (Q1) Type of Residence (Q6)
% Respondents
Som e
Most
All

6.9 6.5 7.1

26.1 28.2

36.3 30.5 31.3

49.5 51.7 60.5

53.1 53.3 51.9

0.05.5 16.2

1.8 9.3 5.0

25.6 31.439.9

48.4 31.9

67.958.7
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Full- time Part- time Homemaker Retired Other Child under 13 Teenager Adult 18-64 Senior 65+
Employment Status (Q12) Hsld Members (Q31)
% Respondents
Som e
Most
All

3.1 6.7 4.3

29.9 28.5

23.0 31.2

27.5 53.0 50.5 51.7

67.1 52.5 57.3

13.710.26.45.13.7 7.5

21.6 31.9 31.2

32.6 53.1 53.7

63.2 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
18 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or older Latino / Hispanic
Asian
American
Caucasian /
White
Mixed or
other
Age (Q30) Ethnicity (Q36)
% Respondents
Som e
Most
All

8.a.1
Packet Pg. 100
Attachment: 2109 San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey Report (2022 Community Characteristics Survey Report) Community Connections
True North Research, Inc. © 2019 22City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

FIGURE 35 FAMILIARITY WITH NEIGHBORS BY ENGAGED, CONNECTED WITH COMMUNITY, WORK COMMUTE STATUS,

GENDER & HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS

5.7 7.8 7.0 4.9

27.7 31.6 29.9 29.6 31.5

21.9 59.0

53.2 54.1 57.4 51.2 53.6

58.3 5.913.9 7.2 3.6 10.7 6.7

35.9 29.8

22.7 35.1

51.2 56.5

48.4 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Very Somewhat Slightly, not
at all
Work from
home
Co mmute
to work
Not
employed
Male Female Own Rent
Engaged, Connected w/Community
(Q9)
Work Commute Status (Q15) Gender (Q34) Home Ownership Status (Q7)
% Respondents
Som e
Most
All

8.a.1
Packet Pg. 101
Attachment: 2109 San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey Report (2022 Community Characteristics Survey Report) Employment, Commute & Transportation
True North Research, Inc. © 2019 23
City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

E MPLOYMENT , C OMMUTE &

T RANSPORTATION
The next section of the survey was designed to identify residents’ employment and travel behav- iors and gather specific information about their commute—including primary mode, commute distance, and duration.

EMPLOYMENT STATUS The opening question in this se ries presented respondents with six different employment categories and asked th em to select the one that best matched their employment status. As shown in Figure 36 below , 65% of residents indicated that they are employed either full-time (58%) or part-time ( 7%), 23% selected retired, 5% homemaker, 4% stu- dent, 2% are in-between jobs, and 2% were unsure or unwilling to state.

Question 12 Next are a few questions about your employment and travel behavior. Which of the following best describes your employment status? Would you say you are employed full-time, part-time, a student, a homemaker, retired, or are you in-between jobs right now? FIGURE 36 EMPLOYMENT STATUS
For the interested reader, figures 37 and 38 on the next page show how employment status dif- fered across demographic subgroups of San Carlos residents.

Employed part-
time

7.3 Employed full-
time

57.8Student

3.8 Homemaker

4.5 In-between jobs

1.7 Retired

22.7 Not sure / Prefer
not to answer

2.2 8.a.1
Packet Pg. 102
Attachment: 2109 San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey Report (2022 Community Characteristics Survey Report) Employment, Commute & Transportation
True North Research, Inc. © 2019 24City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

FIGURE 37 EMPLOYMENT STATUS BY AGE & ETHNICITY
FIGURE 38 EMPLOYMENT STATUS BY EDUCATION & GENDER
OCCUPATION & INDUSTRY The next two questions asked employed residents to describe their occupation (Question 13) and industry (Question 14). These questions were asked in an open-ended manner, allowing respondents to provide specifics wi thout being limited to a list of options. True North later reviewed the verbatim responses and grouped them into the broader categories shown in the figures, which also provide examples of each category in paren- theses.

As shown in Figure 39 on the next page, San Carlos residents work across a wide variety of occu- pational categories. Overall, 19% of employed residents who provided an opinion indicated that their current occupation falls within the professional specialty category such as accountant, law- yer, engineer, scientist, or laboratory technici an, 14% work in an executive occupation such as general manager, CEO, CFO, controller, or business owner, 9% work in a sales occupation, 9% are teachers, 9% are supervisors or managers, 8% work in an information technology position, and 7% are office or administrative workers. The re maining occupational categories were cited by less than 6% of respondents each.

73.7 55.1

70.1 9.7

6.1 2.6

8.7 9.0

5.4 1.3

2.4 1.4

5.0 5.3

2.0 2.7 4.5

17.5 74.6

22.4 17.4

25.8 13.524.5

1.5 1.0 1.4 1.7

10.2 4.9 5.4 2.1

58.9 68.7

81.782.8

62.1 13.5

4.5 7.4

11.1 5.8

5.7 0.4

8.6 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
18 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or older Latino / Hispanic
Asian
American
Caucasian /
White
Mixed or
other
Age (Q30) Ethnicity (Q36)
% Respondents Who Provided Opinion
Other
Retired
Ho me make r
Part- time
Full- time

51.5 7.5 4.1

10.7 7.0

3.9 0.5

8.1 24.1

29.1 30.1 18.6 22.8 22.4 23.830.3

16.9 0.0 2.3 3.0 5.6 5.9

63.0 32.9 36.4

58.7 67.2 67.4

12.7 8.0

4.2 6.4

11.1 3.7

0.0 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Less than
college
Some college T wo-year degree Four-year degree Grad / Post grad degree
Male Female
Education (Q35) Gender (Q34)
% Respondents Who Provided Opinion
Other
Retired
Ho memaker
Part- time
Full- time

8.a.1
Packet Pg. 103
Attachment: 2109 San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey Report (2022 Community Characteristics Survey Report) Employment, Commute & Transportation
True North Research, Inc. © 2019 25City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Question 13 What is your current occupation?
FIGURE 39 OCCUPATION
When asked to describe their industry, 20% of employed residents who provided an opinion indi- cated that they work in information technology manufacturing services, 13% work in medical and social services, 12% in education, 10% in business services, 9% in biosciences or pharmaceuti- cals, and 8% work in the construction industry. The remaining industry groupings were each cited by less than 5% of respondents (see Figure 40 on next page).

0.1 0.1

0.7 0.8

1.3 1.4

2.9 3.4

3.6 5.6

7.0 8.9

9.2 9.4

14.3 19.2

8.0 4.1
0 5 10 15 20
Courier, delivery services, drivers
Precision production & precision assembly: (electronic
assemblers, precision production and/or assembly)
Protective Services: (security guards, safety officers, bouncers, police, fireman)
Customer Service Reps: (phone support, customer service, cashiers, bank tellers)
Food Preparation & Serving: (food handlers, food servers, waiters, baristas)
Government
Physicians: (doctors, dentists, physicians)
Nurses: (RNs only)
Craft & repair: (construction, mechanics, electricians, appliance installations, repair tech, handyman)
Medical Assistants: (medical technicians and assistants, LVN, nursing assistant, home health aides)
Self-employed, contractor, freelance
Administrative & Office Workers: (clerical, receptionists, data entry, records processing)
Information Technology (IT): (computer programmers,
network administrators, web designers)
Supervisors & Managers: (staff supervisors, shift managers, service supervisors)
Teachers: (professors, educators, grade school, middle
school, high school teachers)
Sales: (sales and marketing agents, real estate agents) Executive: (general managers, CEO, CFO, controller, other hi- level execs, business owners)
Professional Specialty (not IT): (accountants, lawyers, engineers, scientists, lab techs)
% Employed Respondents Who Provided Opinion

8.a.1
Packet Pg. 104
Attachment: 2109 San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey Report (2022 Community Characteristics Survey Report) Employment, Commute & Transportation
True North Research, Inc. © 2019 26City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Question 14 And what industry do you work in? If pauses, ask: What does your company do? FIGURE 40 INDUSTRY
WORK FROM HOME OR COMMUTE The survey also asked employed individuals whether they typically work from home or typica lly commute to a work location outside of their home. As shown in Figure 41 on the next page, nearly nine-in-ten respondents (86%) offered that they typically commute to a destination outsi de of their home for wo rk, whereas the remainder reported that they typically work from home (13%) or declined to state (1%).

Whereas Figure 41 displays work location among employed individuals, figures 42 through 44 have been expanded to show the percentages among all respondents by a variety of demo- graphic subgroups. Primarily working from home was somewhat more common among residents very engaged/connected with the community, those 45 to 64 years of age, and individuals with a four-year degree.

0.1 0.3

0.4 0.5

0.7 0.8

1.0 1.2

2.2 2.5

2.7 4.6

4.7 8.2

8.8 10.1

11.6 12.5

19.6 2.4

4.4 0 5 10 15 20
M ilitary: U. S. Army, Air Force, Navy, Coast Guard, M ilitary reserve, National Guard
None / Self-employed
Agriculture: Food and flower crops, support activities for agriculture
Maintenance / Janitorial
Security Services
Sales
Energy, natural resources
Transportation
Retail: Stores and outlets that sell products directly to consumers
Religious / Non-profit Industry
Communications: Phone, radio, cable companies, and those that manufacture such products
Hospitality, Visitor and Entertainment Services
Government / Public Administration: Any government agency such as a city, county, or publicly funded agency
Financial Services: Banks, credit unions, investment
consulting, income tax preparer
Non-IT Manufacturing: Manufacturers of products that are not electronic, such as food, textiles, clothing
Construction: Builders and developers, heavy construction, special trades
Biosciences and Pharmaceuticals: Companies that research, manufacture biological, chemical, medicines
Business Services: Businesses that provide services to other businesses
Education: Any educational institution, including public, private schools, colleges, universities
Medical and Social Services: Businesses that provide health care, hospitals, social assistance
IT Manufacturing services: Computer, software, electronics manufacturing, services
% Employed Respondents Who Provided Opinion

8.a.1
Packet Pg. 105
Attachment: 2109 San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey Report (2022 Community Characteristics Survey Report) Employment, Commute & Transportation
True North Research, Inc. © 2019 27City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Question 15 Do you typically work from your home in San Carlos, or do you typically commute to a work location outside of your home? If he sitates, ask: Where do you spend the most time working on your job - at your home, or at a location outside of your home? FIGURE 41 WORK LOCATION
FIGURE 42 WORK LOCATION BY YEARS IN SAN CARLOS & ENGAGED, CONNECTED WITH COMMUNITY Commute to
work

86.1 Work from
home

12.6 Prefer not to
answer

1.3 7.3 7.3

45.0 48.1 56.9 62.4

13.3 26.1

37.7 35.8 30.2

9.92.3 5.6 7.1 8.2 14.2

84.0 65.7

79.678.9

15.4 45.1

13.7 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Less than 1 1 to 4 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 or more Very Somewhat Slightly, not at all
Years in San Carlos (Q1) Engaged, Connected w/Community (Q9) % Respondents Who Provided Opinion
Not
em ployed
Co mmute to
workWork from
home

8.a.1
Packet Pg. 106
Attachment: 2109 San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey Report (2022 Community Characteristics Survey Report) Employment, Commute & Transportation
True North Research, Inc. © 2019 28City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

FIGURE 43 WORK LOCATION BY AGE & ETHNICITY
FIGURE 44 WORK LOCATION BY EDUCATION. HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS & GENDER

6.9 9.6 9.0

16.4 63.1

69.5 54.0

69.0 11.1

20.6 35.4

23.7 36.4

22.0 1.4

14.415.07.70.0 6.5

79.5 73.9

65.0 67.5

32.5 77.1

12.8 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
18 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or older Latino / Hispanic
Asian
American
Caucasian /
White
Mixed or
other
Age (Q30) Ethnicity (Q36)
% Respondents Who Provided Opinion
Not
employed
Commute to
work
Work from
home

7.0 9.2 8.0

61.4 54.1

76.0 62.2

53.6 37.5

25.0 36.8

17.0 28.6

38.4 8.95.9 3.3 5.3 10.6 9.2

36.8 64.4

57.2 39.2

57.6 29.7

57.3 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Less than
college
Som e
college
Tw o -year
degree
Four-year
degree
Grad / Post
grad degree
Own Rent Male Female
Education (Q35) Home Ownership Status
(Q7)
Gender (Q34)
% Respondents Who Provided Opinion
Not
employed
Commute to
work
Work from
home

8.a.1
Packet Pg. 107
Attachment: 2109 San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey Report (2022 Community Characteristics Survey Report) Employment, Commute & Transportation
True North Research, Inc. © 2019 29City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

HOME-BASED BUSINESS Approximately one-third of empl oyed residents who work from home own a home-based business. This translates to 4% of all adult San Carlos residents primar- ily working from home and owning a home-based business (Figure 45).

Question 16 Do you own a home-based business?
FIGURE 45 OWN A HOME-BASED BUSINESS
As shown in Figure 46 below, 47% of employed residents at least occasionally telecommute or work from home, 13% of employed residents primarily work from home, and 39% never telecom- mute and always commute to their work destin ation. Three-in-ten employees telecommute at least once per week (18%) or between two and three times per month (13%).

Question 17 Do you ever telecommute or work from home? If yes, ask: Would you say you tele- commute at least once per week, 2 to 3 times per month, once per month, or less often? FIGURE 46 TELECOMMUTE
Work from
home

12.6 Not home-
based
business

8.0 Home-based
business

4.1 Prefer not to
answer

1.3 Commute to
work

86.1 <1 per mo

9.6 1x per mo

6.7 1x per wk

17.6 Prefer not to
answer

1.1 2-3x per mo

13.4 Do not
telecommute

39.1 Typically
work
from home

12.6 Occasionally
telecommute

47.3 8.a.1
Packet Pg. 108
Attachment: 2109 San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey Report (2022 Community Characteristics Survey Report) Employment, Commute & Transportation
True North Research, Inc. © 2019 30City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

COMMUTE MODE Respondents who typically commute to a work destination outside of their home were subsequently as ked to identify the method of transportation they use most often when commuting to their work place. Overall, the most common method of commuting was driving alone to work in a car, truck, SUV, or van (82%). Public transit via Caltrain (7%), BART (2%), or other public transit mode (<1%) accounted for approximately 9% of commutes and ride- sharing via carpool (5%) and on-demand rideshare services such as Uber or Lyft (<1%) accounted for approximately 5% of commutes. Active transportation modes (biking, walking, jogging, run- ning) were mentioned by just over 1% of empl oyees as their primary method of commuting to work. All other modes were mentioned by less than 3% of respondents, collectively.

Question 18 What method of transportation do you use most of the time when commuting to your work place?
FIGURE 47 PRIMARY WORK COMMUTE MODE
LENGTH OF COMMUTE Length of commute was measured both in terms of distance trav- eled one-way between an employee’s home and their primary work place (Question 19), as well as the time it typically takes to commute between home and work if they drive directly without stops (Question 20).

In terms of commute distance (see Figure 48 on the next page), more than one-third of respon- dents were represented in commute length categories of less than 10 miles (37%), just over one- quarter reported traveling 10 to 19 miles (27%), 21% commute 20 to 29 miles, and 12% commute 30 miles or more between work and home, one- way. An additional 4% of respondents were unsure or declined to state. The average commute length among all commuters was 15.45 miles, one-way.

0.1 0.2

0.3 0.3

0.5 0.8

0.8 1.2

1.5 7.4

82.0 5.0
0 1 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 0 1 0 0
Other public transit
On-demand rideshare service like Uber or Lyft
Prefer not to answer
Bike
Mot orcycle
Walk / jog / run
Other mode
Employer-provided shuttle/bus
BART
Carpool (ride together 2 to 4 people)
Caltrain
Drive alone in a car, truck, SUV, or van
% Employed Respondents Who Typically Commute

8.a.1
Packet Pg. 109
Attachment: 2109 San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey Report (2022 Community Characteristics Survey Report) Employment, Commute & Transportation
True North Research, Inc. © 2019 31City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Question 19 In miles, what is the approximate dist ance between your home and your work place?
FIGURE 48 WORK COMMUTE DISTANCE IN MILES
The following figures show how average commute distances varied across subgroups of employ- ees. In general, the longest average commute distances were reported by those 18 to 34 or 55 to 64 years of age, Latino/Hispanic or Asian Am erican commuters, those who use a mode other than driving alone, commuters with at least a four-year degree, those who are not involved in community groups, and commuters who are not engaged in the community.

FIGURE 49 WORK COMMUTE DISTANCE IN MILES BY OVERALL, AGE, ETHNICITY & PRIMARY COMMUTE MODE 30 or more

12.3 Prefer not to
answer

3.9 20 to 29

20.5 10 to 19

26.6 Less than 5

21.9 5 to 9

14.8 17.66

14.09 16.37 17.03

15.29 13.93

14.86 18.17

15.45 18.11

13.51 14.15
0 5
10 15
20 18 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or
older
Latino /
Hispanic
Asian
American
Caucasian
/ White
Mixed or
other
Drive
alone
Alternative
mo de
Overall Age (Q30) Ethnicity (Q36) Primary Commute
Mode (Q18)
Avg One-Way Commute Miles Among
Employed Respondents Who Typically Commute

8.a.1
Packet Pg. 110
Attachment: 2109 San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey Report (2022 Community Characteristics Survey Report) Employment, Commute & Transportation
True North Research, Inc. © 2019 32City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

FIGURE 50 WORK COMMUTE DISTANCE IN MILES BY EDUCATION, PARTICIPATE, BELONG TO COMMUNITY GROUP &

ENGAGED, CONNECTED WITH COMMUNITY
DURATION OF COMMUTE As for the time it typically takes an employee to commute to work one-way without stops, approximately one-quarter of commuters (24%) indicated it takes less than 20 minutes, 18% indicated it takes between 20 and 29 minutes, a similar percentage (19%) reported their comm ute typically takes between 30 to 39 minutes, 20% stated that their one-way commute lasts between 40 to 59 minutes , and 14% offered that their commute lasts an hour or more. An additional 5% of employees were unsure or unwilling to share. The average commute duration among all commuters was 33.59 minutes, one-way.

Question 20 In time, how long does it typically take you to commute to work one-way if you travel there directly without stops?
FIGURE 51 WORK COMMUTE DURATION IN MINUTES

17.25 13.54

16.66 13.08

14.42 17.16

15.36 11.8411.68

8.39 0
5 10
15 20
Less than
college
Som e
college
Tw o -year
degree
Four-year
degree
Grad / Post
grad degree
Yes No Very Somewhat Slightly, not
at all
Education (Q35) Participate, Belong to
Community Group (Q10)
Engaged, Connected w/Community
(Q9)
Avg One-Way Commute Miles Among
Employed Respondents Who Typically Commute
10 to 19

18.3 Less than 10

5.5 20 to 29

17.8 30 to 39

19.1 60 or more

13.9 40 to 59

20.4 Prefer not to
answer

4.8 8.a.1
Packet Pg. 111
Attachment: 2109 San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey Report (2022 Community Characteristics Survey Report) Employment, Commute & Transportation
True North Research, Inc. © 2019 33City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The following figures show how average one-way commute durations varied across subgroups of employees (figures 52-54). In general, the longest average commute durations were reported by those 18 to 34 years of age, employees who ty pically commute via a mode other than driving alone, those with a four-year degree, and commuters unengaged in their local community. Natu- rally, there was a strong, positive relationship between commute distan ce and commute dura- tion.

FIGURE 52 WORK COMMUTE DURATION IN MINUTES BY OVERALL, AGE, ETHNICITY & PRIMARY COMMUTE MODE FIGURE 53 WORK COMMUTE DURATION IN MINUTES BY EDUCATION, PARTICIPATE, BELONG TO COMMUNITY GROUP &

ENGAGED, CONNECTED WITH COMMUNITY

35.60 30.76

34.47 35.03 33.75

29.67 31.23

43.66 29.44

33.22 38.64

33.59 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
18 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or
older
Latino /
Hispanic
Asian
American
Caucasian
/ White
Mixed or
other
Drive
alone
Alternative
mo de
Overall Age (Q30) Ethnicity (Q36) Primary Commute
Mode (Q18)
Avg One-Way Commute Minutes Among
Employed Respondents Who Typically Commute

34.24 32.34

34.74 27.93

32.17 36.75

18.24 31.38

25.04 36.51
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 Less than
college
Som e
college
Tw o -year
degree
Four-year
degree
Grad / Post
grad degree
Yes No Very Som ewhat Slightly, not
at all
Education (Q35) Participate, Belong to
Community Group (Q10)
Engaged, Connected w/Community
(Q9)
Avg One-Way Commute Minutes Among
Employed Respondents Who Typically Commute

8.a.1
Packet Pg. 112
Attachment: 2109 San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey Report (2022 Community Characteristics Survey Report) Employment, Commute & Transportation
True North Research, Inc. © 2019 34City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

FIGURE 54 WORK COMMUTE DURATION IN MINUTES BY COMMUTE DISTANCE IN MILES TRAVEL WITHIN SAN CARLOS Switching gears, all respondents (regardless of employ- ment status) were asked how often they use each of the five different transportation modes shown to the left of Figure 55 when traveling with the City of San Carlos. The order of the items was randomized for each respondent to avoid a systematic position bias. Nearly all residents use a personal vehicle when travelin g within San Carlos (98%) and cl ose to seven-in-ten residents walk from home to a local store or restaurant ( 69%). Less than half of residents use Uber or Lyft (47%) or ride a bicycle (31%) when traveling within the City, and just 9% ride a local bus.

Question 21 When traveling within the City of San Carlos, how often do you: _____? FIGURE 55 FREQUENCY OF TRAVELING WITHIN CITY OF SAN CARLOS

58.11 50.41

31.84 22.99

13.08 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
Less than 5 5 to 9 10 to 19 20 to 29 30 or more
Commute Distance in Miles (Q19)
Avg One-Way Commute Minutes Among
Employed Respondents Who Typically Commute

9.3 66.2

5.1 3.6

21.9 26.0

6.4 9.0

4.0 14.4

89.1 66.9
1 2
2 1
1 1
2 17.2

10.2 3.7
1 8.7

7.1 12.3

23.7 2

29.9 51.4
0 1 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 0 1 0 0
Ride a local bus
Ride a bicycle
Use Uber or Lyft
Walk from home to a
local store or restaurant
Use a personal vehicle
Q21b Q21e Q21c Q21d Q21a
% Respondents
5+ days per wk 1-4 days per wk 2-3 days per mo 1 day per mo < than 1 day per mo Never Prefer not to answer

8.a.1
Packet Pg. 113
Attachment: 2109 San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey Report (2022 Community Characteristics Survey Report) Employment, Commute & Transportation
True North Research, Inc. © 2019 35City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Tables 1 and 2 display weekly use of each transp ortation mode for travel within San Carlos by residents’ age, gender, and education. Weekly use of a personal vehicle was comparable by age and gender but showed some variation by educati on. Walking from home to a local store or res- taurant weekly was highest among residents 35 to 44 years of age as well as among those who have never been to college. Riding a bicycle week ly within San Carlos was highest among resi- dents 35 to 44 years of age, men, and those with a four-year degree or higher. Weekly Uber or Lyft use was most common among residents 18 to 34 years of age and those who have never been to college, and weekly bus use was highest among residents with less than a college educa- tion.

TABLE 1 FREQUENCY OF TRAVELING WITHIN CITY OF SAN CARLOS BY OVERALL, AGE & GENDER (SHOWING % WEEKLY USE)
TABLE 2 FREQUENCY OF TRAVELING WITHIN CITY OF SAN CARLOS BY EMPLOYMENT STATUS (SHOWING % WEEKLY USE) HYBRID AND ELECTRIC VEHICLES The next transportation-related question asked resi- dents whether they own or lease a hybrid gas and electric vehicle or an all-electric vehicle. As shown in Figure 56 below, 20% of residents own a hybrid and 8% own an all-electric vehicle.

Question 22 Do you own or lease: _____?
FIGURE 56 OWN OR LEASE HYBRID OR ALL-ELECTRIC VEHICLE
Overall
18 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or older Male Female Use a personal vehicle 92.2 90.6 91.0 93.8 93.2 92.6 90.7 93.6 Walk from home to a local store or restaurant 31.2 35.5 39.3 32.4 30.6 21.6 32.7 30.6 Ride a bicycle 6.8 8.2 11.5 7.9 6.5 1.7 8.7 5.2
Use Uber or Lyft 4.1 10.1 3.6 4.8 1.8 1.7 4.7 3.7
Ride a local bus 1.2 1.9 1.8 0.8 1.4 0.4 0.9 1.4
Age (Q30) Gender (Q34)
Less than
college
Some
college
Two-year
degree
Four-year
degree
Grad / Post
grad degree
Use a personal vehicle 78.7 92.9 88.6 94.3 93.2
Walk from home to a local store or restaurant 44.6 25.9 31.9 28.5 34.2 Ride a bicycle 2.3 4.3 3.9 8.4 7.8
Use Uber or Lyft 15.2 0.8 2.3 5.5 2.6
Ride a local bus 7.6 0.6 1.0 0.6 1.0
Education (Q35)

7.9 91.0

19.6 79.4
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Hybrid gas and electric vehicle All-electric vehicle
Q22 Do you own or lease…
% Respondents
Not sure /
Prefer not to
answerNo
Yes

8.a.1
Packet Pg. 114
Attachment: 2109 San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey Report (2022 Community Characteristics Survey Report) Employment, Commute & Transportation
True North Research, Inc. © 2019 36City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The following figures show hybrid and all-electric vehicle ownership by demographic subgroups of residents. Residents with a graduate degree, those 35 to 44 years of age, home owners, and Asian American respondents were the most likely to own or lease either a hybrid or all-electric vehicle. Residents who drive alone for their comm ute were more likely to own or lease a hybrid than those who use another transportation mode, whereas primary commute mode did not have an impact on owning or leasing an all-electric vehicle.

FIGURE 57 OWN OR LEASE HYBRID VEHICLE OR ALL-ELECTRIC VEHICLE BY EDUCATION & AGE FIGURE 58 OWN OR LEASE HYBRID OR ALL-ELECTRIC VEHICLE BY PRIMARY COMMUTE MODE, HOME OWNERSHIP

STATUS & ETHNICITY

10.4 20.6

15.7 0.9

8.0 11.7

9.3 1.7

20.2 23.0

19.9 25.7

16.8 12.1

8.7 11.3

15.8 1.81.0

3.4 0
5 10
15 20
25 30
Less than
college
Some
college
Two-year
degree
Four-year
degree
Grad / Post
grad
degree
18 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or older
Education (Q35) Age (Q30)
% Respondents
Hybrid gas and electric vehicle All-electric vehicle

22.1 10.0

3.6 5.9

11.9 21.1

15.1 21.9

25.9 17.5

21.0 10.1 9.6

12.2 8.0

2.3 0
5 10
15 20
25 30
Drive alone Alternative
mode
Own Rent Latino /
Hispanic
Asian
American
Caucasian /
White
Mixed or other
Primary Commute Mode (Q18) Home Ownership Status (Q7) Ethnicity (Q36) % Respondents
Hybrid gas and electric vehicle All-electric vehicle

8.a.1
Packet Pg. 115
Attachment: 2109 San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey Report (2022 Community Characteristics Survey Report) Employment, Commute & Transportation
True North Research, Inc. © 2019 37City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Residents with an all-electric vehicle were subs equently asked whether they find it difficult to charge their vehicle in the City of San Carlos. As shown in Figure 59, approximately one-third of all-electric vehicle owners answered Question 23 in the affirmative (34%).

Question 23 Do you find it difficult to charge your electric vehicle in the City of San Carlos? FIGURE 59 DIFFICULT TO CHARGE ELECTRICAL VEHICLE
Prefer not to
answer

12.3 Difficult to
charge all-
electric vehicle
in San Carlos

33.5 Not difficult

54.2 8.a.1
Packet Pg. 116
Attachment: 2109 San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey Report (2022 Community Characteristics Survey Report) Health & Lifestyle
True North Research, Inc. © 2019 38
City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

H EALTH & L IFESTYLE
Having profiled residents’ employment, commute, and transportation behaviors, the last sub- stantive section of the survey transitioned to the topic of health and lifestyle.

RECREATION ACTIVITIES Question 24 asked residents to describe the recreation activi- ties that the adults in their household engage in most often. Question 25 on the next page asked a similar question focused on children and teen age members of the household. Both questions were posed in an open-ended manner, thereby allo wing residents to mention any activities that came to mind without being pr ompted by—or restricted to—a part icular list of options. True North later reviewed the verbatim responses and grouped them into the categories shown in Fig- ure 60 (adult recreation) and Figure 61 (child/teen recreation).

Walking, jogging, and running was the most popular adult recreation activity (48%), followed by exercising/gym/yoga (30%), hiking/nature walks (24%), and cycling (16%).

Question 24 Next are a few questions about your health and lifestyle. Thinking of the adult members of your household, what recreation activities do the adults in your household engage in most often?
FIGURE 60 ADULT RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES

1.2 1.5

1.6 1.7

1.7 1.7

1.8 1.9

1.9 2.1

2.4 3.3

3.5 4.8

5.2 5.4

5.9 6.6

7.4 8.6

15.6 24.4

48.2 29.5

2.1 3.1
0 1 02 03 04 05 06 0
Softball, baseball
Boating, kayaking, rowing, sailing
Basketball
Fishing, hunting
Adult Community Center Boot Camp
Soccer
Shopping
Table games, cards, reading
Traveling
Socializing with friends, family
Gardening
Winter sports, activities (skiing, snowboarding, ice skating) Variety of sports
Parks, beach
Walking dog, dog park
Swimming
Golf
Tennis
Do not engage in recreation activities
Dance, music, theater
Dining out, wine tasting
Prefer not to answer
Cycling
Hiking, nature walks
Exercising, gym, yoga
Walking, jogging, running
% Respondents

8.a.1
Packet Pg. 117
Attachment: 2109 San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey Report (2022 Community Characteristics Survey Report) Health & Lifestyle
True North Research, Inc. © 2019 39City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Going to the park or beach (9%) and soccer ( 9%) were the most popular recreation activities among children and teenagers, followed by dance/musi c/theater (6%), cycling (5%), basketball (5%), and walking, jogging, and ru nning (5%). The majority of residents do not have a child or teen in their home (57%).

Question 25 Thinking of the children and teenage members of your household, what recre- ation activities do they engage in most often?
FIGURE 61 CHILD RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES
HOUSE-CLEANING SERVICE OR LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE SERVICE Respon- dents were next asked whether they use a house-cleaning service or maid (Question 26) or land- scape maintenance service or gar dener (Question 27). As shown in Figure 62 on the next page, 46% of residents use a house cleaner and 49% use a landscape maintenance service or gardener.

Although not shown in the figure, 32% of residents use both a housekeeper and gardener.

For the interested reader, figure s 63 to 64 show the percentage of residents that use a house- cleaning services or maid and figures 65 to 66 di splay the percentage of residents that utilize a landscape maintenance service or gardener by a variety of resident subgroups.

1.0 1.2

1.2 1.3

1.3 1.9

2.0 2.0

2.1 2.2

2.3 4.3

4.4 4.7

4.9 5.2

5.2 5.7

8.7 8.9

57.1 2.1

3.5 0 1 02 03 04 05 06 0
Camping / Scouting
Variety of Martial Arts
Winter sports, activities (skiing, snowboarding, ice skating) Dining out
Gymnastics
Exercising, gym, yoga
Library
Tennis
Hiking, nature walks
They do not engage in recreation activities
Socializing with friends, family
Table games, cards, reading, video games
Swimming
Softball, baseball
Variety of sports
Walking, jogging, running
Prefer not to answer
Basketball
Cycling
Dance, music, theater
Soccer
Parks, beach
No children or teenagers in home
% Respondents

8.a.1
Packet Pg. 118
Attachment: 2109 San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey Report (2022 Community Characteristics Survey Report) Health & Lifestyle
True North Research, Inc. © 2019 40City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Question 26 Do you use a house-cleaning service or maid? Question 27 Do you use a landscape maintenance service or gardener? FIGURE 62 USE HOUSE-CLEANING SERVICE OR LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE SERVICE FIGURE 63 USE HOUSE-CLEANING SERVICE BY YEARS IN SAN CARLOS & TYPE OF RESIDENCE

49.4 48.9

45.5 51.3
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
House-cleaning service or maid Landscape maintenance service or gardener
Q26/27 Do you use…
% Respondents
Not sure /
Prefer not to
answerNo
Yes

40.0 50.5 49.3

43.8 13.8

58.457.5

48.845.6
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 Less than 1 1 to 4 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 or more Single family Townhome Condo Apartment Y ears in San Carlos (Q1) T ype of Residence (Q6)
% Respondents That Use House-Cleaners

8.a.1
Packet Pg. 119
Attachment: 2109 San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey Report (2022 Community Characteristics Survey Report) Health & Lifestyle
True North Research, Inc. © 2019 41City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

FIGURE 64 USE HOUSE-CLEANING SERVICE BY HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS & EMPLOYMENT STATUS FIGURE 65 USE LANDSCAPE SERVICE BY YEARS IN SAN CARLOS, TYPE OF RESIDENCE & LIVE IN SAN CARLOS 10 YEARS

FROM NOW
FIGURE 66 USE LANDSCAPE SERVICE BY HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS & AGE

60.8 41.9

22.4 51.8

26.4 48.9 49.4
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 Ow n Rent Full- time Part- time Ho memaker Retired Other Home Ownership Status (Q7) Employment Status (Q12)
% Respondents That Use House-Cleaners

60.7 62.6

47.3 60.6

55.257.3

69.2 67.8

60.9 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
Less than 1 1 to 4 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 or more Single family Townhome Yes No Y ears i n San Carlos (Q1) T ype of Residence (Q6) Live i n San Carlos 10 yrs From Now (Q4)
% Single Family and Townhome Respondents That Use
Landscape Maintenance Service or Gardener

65.6 56.2

70.9 64.6

46.2 53.3

60.0 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
Own Rent 18 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or older Home Ownership Status (Q7) Age (Q30)
% Single Family and Townhome Respondents That Use
Landscape Maintenance Service or Gardener

8.a.1
Packet Pg. 120
Attachment: 2109 San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey Report (2022 Community Characteristics Survey Report) Health & Lifestyle
True North Research, Inc. © 2019 42City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

HOME DELIVERY Question 28 asked San Carlos residents how often they have items deliv- ered to their home, including go ods and packages and food, meals, and groceries. As shown in Figure 67 below, nine-in-ten residents have go ods and packages delivered to their home from Amazon or other online retailers (90%) and five-i n-ten residents have food, meals, and groceries delivered to their home (53%).

Question 28 How often do you: _____? At least three times per week, one to two times per week, two to three times per month, once per month, less often than once per month, or never? FIGURE 67 FREQUENCY OF HOME DELIVERY
Table 3 examines weekly utilization of home delivery services by age and home ownership sta- tus. Residents in the 35 to 44 year age group were the most likely to utilize each service, whereas residents 65 years and older were the least likely. Although package delivery was com- parable by home ownership status, renters were more likely than owners to have food, meals, or groceries delivered to their home.

TABLE 3 FREQUENCY OF DELIVERY BY OVERALL, AGE & HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS (SHOWING % WEEKLY USE) DAILY MEDIA USE The last substantive question of the survey asked respondents how much time they spend in a typical day on each form of media shown to the left of Figure 68 on the next page. While Figure 68 breaks down overall use of each type of media, Figure 69 displays average minutes per day spent on each activity. Overall media use was highest for the Internet, not including social media (87% of residents) with residents also spending the most time on that activity each day (147 minutes per day). Appr oximately 85% of residents consume news each

27.3 26.6 8.8

45.3 7.6
1 2
3 17.1

13.3 13.6

10.5 7.5 16.0
0 1 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 0 1 0 0
Have food, meals, or
groceries delivered to
home
Have goods or packages
delivered to home from
Amazon or another
online retailer
Q28a Q28b
% Respondents
3x+ per week 1 to 2x per week 2 to 3x per month 1x per month Less than 1x per month Never Prefer not to answer
Overall
18 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or older Owner Renter Have goods or packages
delivered to home from Amazon
or another online retailer

44.3 48.8 62.5 51.1 44.5 24.1 44.2 45.0
Have food, meals, or groceries
delivered to home 16.3 19.4 33.1 14.2 13.6 4.9 15.7 20.4 Age (Q30) Home Ownership
Status (Q7)

8.a.1
Packet Pg. 121
Attachment: 2109 San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey Report (2022 Community Characteristics Survey Report) Health & Lifestyle
True North Research, Inc. © 2019 43City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
day, 80% watch television, 74% read a book or magazine, 66% listen to the radio, 65% use social media, and 15% play video games daily.

In terms of time spent on each activity (Figur e 69), the average San Carlos resident spends over two hours in a typical day utilizing the Internet, not including social media (147 minutes per day) and watching television (131 minutes per day). Residents spend approximately an hour or more consuming news (81 minutes), using social media (62 minutes), listening to the radio (62 min- utes), and reading books or magazines (57 minu tes). Residents spend the least amount of time playing video games in a typical day (12 minutes).

Question 29 In a typical day, approximately how much time do you spend: _____? FIGURE 68 DAILY MEDIA USE
FIGURE 69 DAILY MEDIA USE SHOWING AVERAGE MINUTES PER DAY

8.8 8.3

12.7 14.9

19.3 16.5

9.8 19.3

26.4 21.0

32.7 25.5

17.7 20.6

6.9 9.5

27.5 76.1

25.5 8.5

9.9 9.8

9.9 10.1

10.3 10.0
2 4

8.2 1

14.6 6.2
4 32.3
5 10.1

11.0 3

22.8 8.9
1 5

6.3 28.2
5 3

9.8 16.1

24.3 0 1 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 0 1 0 0
Playing video games
Us ing s ocial m edia
Listening to the radio
Reading a book or
magazine
Watching television
Consuming news
Using the Internet, not
including social media
Q29g Q29d Q29c Q29f Q29b Q29a Q29e
% Respondents
Less than 30 mins 30 to 59 mins 1 hr to less than 2 hrs 2 hrs to less than 3 hrs 3 or more hrs None/Do not typically use Prefer not to answer

61.74 56.75

12.46 146.62
130.63

80.99 62.43
0 50
100
150
200
Using the
Internet, not
including
social media
Watching
television
Consuming
news
Using social
media
Listening to
the radio
Reading a
book or
magazine
Playing
video games
Q29 In a typical day, approximately how much time do you spend… Avg Minutes per Day

8.a.1
Packet Pg. 122
Attachment: 2109 San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey Report (2022 Community Characteristics Survey Report) Health & Lifestyle
True North Research, Inc. © 2019 44City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

For the interested reader, Table 4 displays average daily media use by age and gender.

TABLE 4 DAILY MEDIA USE SHOWING AVERAGE MINUTES PER DAY BY AGE & GENDER 18 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or older Male Female Using the Internet, not including social media 158.36 162.10 162.86 142.75 121.82 157.4 136.8 Watching television 111.03 74.56 94.88 142.90 190.18 124.2 138.0 Consuming news 73.55 56.25 64.02 81.34 117.54 76.8 85.1 Using social media 128.02 49.01 58.80 46.60 37.02 47.0 76.9 Listening to the radio 59.67 45.56 63.56 76.49 69.76 56.1 67.8 Reading a book or magazine 51.95 44.62 38.88 47.95 92.39 49.7 63.0 Playing video games 26.57 16.7 0 7.88 4.88 7.62 16.3 9.5 Age (Q30) Gender (Q34)

8.a.1
Packet Pg. 123
Attachment: 2109 San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey Report (2022 Community Characteristics Survey Report) Background & Demographics
True North Research, Inc. © 2019 45
City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

B ACKGROUND & D EMOGRAPHICS
TABLE 5 DEMOGRAPHICS OF SAMPLE
Table 5 presents key demographic information
collected during the survey. The primary motiva-
tion for collecting the background and demo-
graphic information was to provide a better
insight into how the resu lts of the substantive
questions of the survey vary by demographic
characteristics, and ensu re that the resulting
sample matched the profile of San Carlos’ adult
population on key characteristics.

Total Respondents 88 5
Q30 Age
18 to 24 6.4
25 to 34 12.2
35 to 44 18.8
45 to 54 20.3
55 to 64 17.2
65 or older 18.3
Prefer not to answer 6.8
Q31a Children under 13 years of age
None 72.1
1 10.7
2 10.6
3 or more 3.0
Prefer not to answer 3.5
Q31b Teenagers
None 82.9
19 . 3
23 . 8
3 or more 0.4
Prefer not to answer 3.6
Q31c Adults age 18 to 64
None 18.5
1 17.9
2 46.6
3 or more 12.6
Prefer not to answer 4.4
Q31d Seniors age 65 or older
None 63.4
1 17.2
2 14.8
3 or more 0.1
Prefer not to answer 4.5
Q32a Have a stay-at-home parent who watches your kids
Yes 8.7
No / No kids under 13 87.5
Prefer not to answer 3.8
Q32b Have a relative watch your kids
Yes 5.3
No / No kids under 13 90.7
Prefer not to answer 4.0
Q32c Have a nanny or other non-relative watch your kids Yes 5.8
No / No kids under 13 90.2
Prefer not to answer 4.0
Q32d Use a daycare center not located in your home
Yes 9.7
No / No kids under 13 86.4
Prefer not to answer 3.9
Q33 Senior member receiving in-home healthcare services Yes 1.2
No / No senior in home 94.2
Prefer not to answer 4.6
Q34 Gender
Male 46.2
Female 51.2
Other 0.1
Prefer not to answer 2.6
Q35 Education
Less than college4 . 7
Some college 10.4
Two-year degree 7.7
Four-year degree 31.4
Grad / Post grad degree 42.8
Prefer not to answer 3.1
Q36 Ethnicity
Latino / Hispanic 9.5
Asian American 13.6
Caucasian / White 65.1
Mixed or other 5.1
Prefer not to answer 6.8

8.a.1
Packet Pg. 124
Attachment: 2109 San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey Report (2022 Community Characteristics Survey Report) Methodology
True North Research, Inc. © 2019 46
City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

M ETHODOLOGY
The following sections outline the methodology used in the study, as well as the motivation for using certain techniques.

QUESTIONNAIRE DEVELOPMENT Dr. McLarney of True North Research worked closely with the City of San Carlos to develop a questi onnaire that covered the topics of interest and avoided many possible sources of systematic measurement erro r, including position-order effects, wording effects, response-category effect s, scaling effects, and priming. Several ques- tions included multiple individual items. Because asking items in a set order can lead to a sys- tematic position bias in responses, the items were asked in a random order for each respondent.

Some questions asked in this study were presen ted only to a subset of respondents. For exam- ple, only respondents that were employed full-time or part-time (Question 12) were asked to pro- vide their current occupation (Que stion 13). The questionnaire included with this report (see Questionnaire & Toplines on page 49) identifies the skip patterns used during the interview to ensure that each respondent received the appropriate questions.

PROGRAMMING & PRE-TEST Prior to fielding the survey, the questionnaire was CATI (Computer Assisted Telephone In terviewing) programmed to assist interviewers when conduct- ing the telephone interviews. The CATI program automatically navigates the skip patterns, ran- domizes the appropriate question items, and alerts interviewers to certain types of keypunching mistakes should they happen during the interview. The survey was also programmed into a pass- code-protected online survey application to allow online participation for sampled residents. The integrity of the questionnaire was pre-tested internally by True North and by dialing into random homes in the City prior to formally beginning the survey.

SAMPLE, RECRUITING & DATA COLLECTION A comprehensive database of San Car- los households was utilized for this study, ensuri ng that all households in San Carlos had the opportunity to participate in th e survey. Households were recrui ted to participate in the survey through multiple recruiting methods. Using a co mbination of mailed and emailed invitations, a random selection of households was initially invited to participate in the survey online at a secure, passcode-protected webs ite designed and hosted by True North. Each household was assigned a unique passcode to ensu re that only San Carlos residents who received an invitation could access the online survey site, and that th e survey could be completed only one time per passcode. An email reminder notice was also se nt to encourage participation among those who had yet to take the survey. Following a period of online data collection, True North began placing telephone calls to land lines and cell phone numbers of households throughout the City that had yet to participate in the online survey as a result of the emailed or mailed invitation.

Telephone interviews averaged 16 minutes in length and were conducted during weekday eve- nings (5:30PM to 9PM) and on weekends (10AM to 5PM). It is standard practice not to call during the day on weekdays because most working adults are unavailable and thus calling during those hours would bias the sample. A total of 885 completed surveys were gathered online and by tele- phone between February 11 and February 19, 2019.

8.a.1
Packet Pg. 125
Attachment: 2109 San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey Report (2022 Community Characteristics Survey Report) Methodology
True North Research, Inc. © 2019 47City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

MARGIN OF ERROR DUE TO SAMPLING The results of the survey can be used to esti- mate the opinions of all adult residents of the City. Because not every adult resident of the City participated in the survey, however, the results have what is known as a statistical margin of error due to sampling. The margin of error refers to the difference between what was found in the survey of 885 adult residents for a particular question and what would have been found if all of the estimated 22,746 adult residents
2 had been interviewed.

Figure 70 provides a plot of the maximum margin of error in this study. The maximum margin of error for a dichotomous percentage result occurs when the answers are evenly split such that 50% provide one response and 50% provide the al ternative response. For this survey, the maxi- mum margin of error is ± 3.23% for questions answered by all 885 respondents.

FIGURE 70 MAXIMUM MARGIN OF ERROR
Within this report, figures and tables show how responses to ce rtain questions varied by demo- graphic characteristics such as length of residence and age of th e respondent. Figure 70 is thus useful for understanding how the maximum margin of error for a percentage estimate will grow as the number of individuals asked a question (or in a particular subgroup) shrinks. Because the margin of error grows exponentially as the sample size decreases, the reader should use caution when generalizing and interpreting the results for small subgroups.

DATA PROCESSING & WEIGHTING Data processing consisted of checking the data for errors or inconsistencies, coding and recoding responses, categorizing verbatim responses, and preparing frequency analyses and cross-tabulations. The final data were weighted to balance the sample by age and ethnicity according to Census estimates.

2. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2013-2017 Ame rican Community Survey 5-Year Estimates.

Sample of 885
Adult Residents
± 3.23%
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Sample Size (Number of Respondents)
Margin of Error

8.a.1
Packet Pg. 126
Attachment: 2109 San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey Report (2022 Community Characteristics Survey Report) Methodology
True North Research, Inc. © 2019 48City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

ROUNDING Numbers that end in 0.5 or higher are rounded up to the nearest whole num- ber, whereas numbers that end in 0.4 or lower are rounded down to the nearest whole number.

These same rounding rules are also applied, when needed, to arrive at numbers that include a decimal place in constructing figures and charts. Occasionally, these rounding rules lead to small discrepancies in the first decimal place when comparing tables and figures for a given question.

8.a.1
Packet Pg. 127
Attachment: 2109 San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey Report (2022 Community Characteristics Survey Report) Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2019 49
City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Q UESTIONNAIRE & T OPLINES

True North Research, Inc. © 2019 Page 1
City of San Carlos
Community Characteristics Survey Version
Final Toplines (n = 885)
March 1, 2019
Hi, my name is _____ and I’m calling from TNR on behalf of the City of San Carlos. The City is conducting a survey of its residents so it can learn more about their demographics, lifestyles, and opinions. Your participation in the survey will be confidential and will help the City better meet residents’ needs and plan for the future.

If needed: This is a survey only – I’m NOT trying to sell anything and I won’t ask for a donation.

If needed: The survey should take about 14 minutes to complete.

If needed: If now is not a convenient time, can you let me know a better time so I can call back?
If the person says they are an elected official or is somehow associated with the survey, politely explain that this survey is designed to the measure the opinions of those not closely associated with the study, thank them for their time, and terminate the interview.

I’d like to begin by asking you a few questions about what it is like to live in the City of San Carlos.

Q1 How long have you lived in San Carlos?
1 Less than 1 year 4%
2 1 to 4 years 12%
3 5 to 9 years 14%
4 10 to 14 years 10%
5 15 years or longer 59%
99 Prefer not to answer 0%
Q2 What do you like
about living in San Carlos? Verbatim responses recorded and later grouped into categories shown below.

Small town feeling 29%
Nice community, neighbors 24%
Location, accessibility 21%
Safety, low crime 14%
Friendly, family oriented 14%
Downtown area 13%
Shopping areas, restaurants 11%
Good schools 10%
Climate, weather 7%
Nothing comes to mind / Not sure 6%
Beautiful, clean city 5%
Open space, hills 5%

8.a.1
Packet Pg. 128
Attachment: 2109 San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey Report (2022 Community Characteristics Survey Report) Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2019 50City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey 3/1/2019
True North Research, Inc. © 2019 Page 2
Parks 5%
Walkability, everything close, within walking
distance 5%
Community activities, events 4%
Public transportation, commute 2%
Good governance in general 2%
Public library 1%
Affordable housing 1%
Variety of activities for youth, kids 1%
Minimal traffic, congestion 1%
Q3 What is the thing you would
like to change about San Carlos? Verbatim responses
recorded and later grouped into categories shown below.

Limit growth, development 33%
Reduce traffic congestion 25%
Improve parking 15%
Improve, maintain infrastructure, roads,
sidewalks 9%
Nothing comes to mind / Not sure 7%
Provide more affordable housing 5%
Enforce traffic laws 5%
Provide more variety of restaurants, stores 5%
Better city planning, development 4%
Improve schools, education 4%
Maintain, add parks, recreation facilities 4%
No changes desired / Everything is fine 4%
Reduce cost of living 3%
Improve public safety 3%
Improve, provide more public
transportation 3%
More diversity in general 2%
Clean, beautify city, landscaping 2%
Improve, provide more bike lanes 2%
Reduce taxes, fees 1%
Improve downtown area 1%
Pet friendlier, more dog parks 1%
Improve governance in general 1%
Preserve, recapture small town feeling 1%
Enforce city ordinances 1%

8.a.1
Packet Pg. 129
Attachment: 2109 San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey Report (2022 Community Characteristics Survey Report) Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2019 51City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey 3/1/2019
True North Research, Inc. © 2019 Page 3

Q4 Do you anticipate that you will be living in San Carlos 10 years from now? 1 Yes 53% Ask Q5
2 No 19% Skip to Q6
98 Not sure 28% Ask Q5
99 Prefer not to answer 1% Ask Q5
Q5 Once you are retired, do you anticipate still living in San Carlos? 1 Yes 28%
2 No 12%
3 I already am retired and living in San
Carlos 21%
98 Not sure 38%
99 Prefer not to answer 1%
Q6 Which of the following best describes your residence in San Carlos? Read list. 1 Detached single family home 76% Ask Q7
2 Townhome 3% Ask Q7
3 Condominium 8% Ask Q7
4 Apartment 10% Skip to Q9
5 Other 2% Skip to Q9
99 Prefer not to answer 0% Skip to Q9
Q7 Do you own or rent your residence in San Carlos?
1 Own 87%
2 Rent 8%
3 Live rent free with family 5%
99 Prefer not to answer 1%

8.a.1
Packet Pg. 130
Attachment: 2109 San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey Report (2022 Community Characteristics Survey Report) Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2019 52City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey 3/1/2019
True North Research, Inc. © 2019 Page 4

Ask Q8 if Q6 = 1 AND Q7 = 1. Otherwise skip to Q9.

Q8 In the next five years, do you plan to build an
– also known as
a granny flat – on your property in San Carlos?
1 Yes 6%
2 No 82%
98 Not sure 11%
99 Prefer not to answer 1%

Q9 In general, how engaged and connected do you feel to your San Carlos community? Would you say very, somewhat, slightly, or not at all engaged and connected? 1 Very engaged and connected 16%
2 Somewhat engaged and connected 41%
3 Slightly engaged and connected 31%
4 Not engaged and connected 11%
98 Not sure 1%
99 Prefer not to answer 0%
Q10 Do you currently participate in or belong to any organized community groups in San Carlos?
1 Yes 30%
2 No 67%
98 Not sure 3%
99 Prefer not to answer 1%
Q11 Thinking of the neighbors that live close to you in San Carlos, what proportion do you know
? All, most, some, or none?
1 All 7%
2 Most 30%
3 Some 54%
4 None 8%
98 Not sure 1%
99 Prefer not to answer 0%

8.a.1
Packet Pg. 131
Attachment: 2109 San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey Report (2022 Community Characteristics Survey Report) Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2019 53City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey 3/1/2019
True North Research, Inc. © 2019 Page 5

Next are a few questions about your employment and travel behavior.

Q12
Which of the following best describes your employment status? Would you say you are employed full-time, part-time, a student, a homemaker, retired, or are you in-between jobs right now?
1 Employed full-time 58% Ask Q13
2 Employed part-time 7% Ask Q13
3 Student 4% Skip to Q21
4 Homemaker 4% Skip to Q21
5 Retired 23% Skip to Q21
6 In-between jobs 2% Skip to Q21
98 Not sure 0% Skip to Q21
99 Prefer not to answer 2% Skip to Q21
Q13 What is your current occupation? Verbatim responses recorded and later grouped into categories shown below, along with examples and clarification.

Professional Specialty (not IT): (accountants,
lawyers, engineers, scientists, lab techs) 17%

Executive: (general managers, CEO, CFO,
controller, other hi-level execs, business
owners)
13%
Prefer not to answer 12%
Sales: (sales and marketing agents, real
estate agents) 8%
Supervisors & Managers: (staff supervisors,
shift managers, service supervisors) 8%

Teachers: (professors, educators, grade
school, middle school, high school
teachers)
8%

Information Technology (IT): (computer
programmers, network administrators, web
designers)
7%

Administrative & Office Workers: (clerical,
receptionists, data entry, records
processing)
6%
Self-employed, contractor, freelance 5%

Medical Assistants: (medical technicians
and assistants, LVN, nursing assistant,
home health aides)
4%

Craft & repair: (construction, mechanics,
electricians, appliance installations, repair
tech, handyman)
3%
Nurses: (RNs only) 3%
Physicians: (doctors, dentists, physicians) 3%

8.a.1
Packet Pg. 132
Attachment: 2109 San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey Report (2022 Community Characteristics Survey Report) Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2019 54City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey 3/1/2019
True North Research, Inc. © 2019 Page 6
Customer Service Reps: (phone support,
customer service, cashiers, bank tellers) 1%
Food Preparation & Serving: (food handlers,
food servers, waiters, baristas) 1%
Government 1%
Protective Services: (security guards, safety
officers, bouncers, police, fireman) 1%
Q14 And what industry do you work in? If pauses, ask: What does your company do? Verbatim responses recorded and later grouped into categories shown below.

IT Manufacturing services: Computer,
software, electronics manufacturing,
services
18%

Medical and Social Services: Businesses that
provide health care, hospitals, social
assistance
12%

Education: Any educational institution,
including public, private schools, colleges,
universities
11%
Business Services: Businesses that provide
services to other businesses 9%

Biosciences and Pharmaceuticals:

Companies that research, manufacture
biological, chemical, medicines
8%
Construction: Builders and developers,
heavy construction, special trades 8%
Prefer not to answer 7%
Financial Services: Banks, credit unions,
investment consulting, income tax preparer 4%

Government / Public Administration: Any
government agency such as a city, county,
or publicly funded agency
4%

Non-IT Manufacturing: Manufacturers of
products that are not electronic, such as
food, textiles, clothing
4%

Communications: Phone, radio, cable
companies, and those that manufacture
such products
2%
Hospitality, Visitor and Entertainment
Services 2%
Religious / Non-profit Industry 2%
Retail: Stores and outlets that sell products
directly to consumers 2%
Energy, natural resources, wildlife 1%
Maintenance / Janitorial 1%
Sales 1%
Security Services 1%
Transportation 1%

8.a.1
Packet Pg. 133
Attachment: 2109 San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey Report (2022 Community Characteristics Survey Report) Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2019 55City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey 3/1/2019
True North Research, Inc. © 2019 Page 7
Q15
Do you typically work from your home in San Carlos, or do you typically commute to a work location outside of your home? If hesitates, ask: Where do you spend the most time working on your job – at your home, or at a location outside of your home? 1 Work from home 13% Ask Q16
2 Commute to work destination outside
of my home 86% Skip to Q17
99 Prefer not to answer 1% Skip to Q17
Q16 Do you own a home-based business?
1 Yes 33% Skip to Q21
2 No 64% Skip to Q21
99 Prefer not to answer 3% Skip to Q21
Q17
Do you ever telecommute or work from home? If yes, ask: Would you say you telecommute at least once per week, 2 to 3 times per month, once per month, or less often?
1 Yes, at least once per week 20%
2 Yes, 2 to 3 times per month 15%
3 Yes, 1 time per month 8%
4 Yes, less often than once per month 11%
5 No, do not telecommute 45%
99 Prefer not to answer 1%
Q18
What method of transportation do you use most of the time when commuting to your work place?

If says drive, ask: Do you drive alone or carpool with others?

If respondent says uses more than one transportation method each day, record the method they use for the longest portion of their commute. 1 Drive
in a car, truck, SUV, or
van 82%
2 Carpool (ride together 2 to 4 people) 5%
3 Vanpool (ride together with 5 to 15
people) 0%
4 Motorcycle 1%

8.a.1
Packet Pg. 134
Attachment: 2109 San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey Report (2022 Community Characteristics Survey Report) Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2019 56City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey 3/1/2019
True North Research, Inc. © 2019 Page 8

5 On-demand rideshare service like
Uber or Lyft 0%
6 Zipcar 0%
7 Taxi 0%
8 Employer-provided shuttle/bus 1%
Public Transit
9 Bus 0%
10 BART 2%
11 Caltrain 7%
12 Other public transit 0%
13 Bike 0%
14 Walk/jog/run 1%
15 Other 1%
99 Prefer not to answer 0%
Q19
In
, what is the approximate distance between your home and your work place? If respondent not sure, ask them to estimate. Miles recorded and later grouped into ranges shown below. Average commute = 15.45 miles.

Less than 5 22%
5 to 9 15%
10 to 19 27%
20 to 29 21%
30 or more 12%
Prefer not to answer 4%
Q20
In
, how long does it typically take you to commute to work if you travel
there directly without stops? If respondent says it depends or not sure, ask them to estimate their average time in minutes. Minutes recorded and later grouped into ranges shown below. Average commute = 33.59 minutes.

Less than 10 6%
10 to 19 18%
20 to 29 18%
30 to 39 19%
40 to 59 20%
60 or more 14%
Prefer not to answer 5%

8.a.1
Packet Pg. 135
Attachment: 2109 San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey Report (2022 Community Characteristics Survey Report) Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2019 57City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey 3/1/2019
True North Research, Inc. © 2019 Page 9

Q21 When traveling within the City of San Carlos, how often do you: _____? Read in Order
5+ days per
week
1 to 4 days per
y

2 to 3 days per
y
p

1 day per
y
p

Less than 1
day per

Never
Prefer not to
answer
A Use a personal vehicle 66% 26% 4% 1% 1% 2% 1%
B Ride a local bus 1% 1% 0% 1% 7% 89% 1%
C Use Uber or Lyft 1% 4% 9% 10% 24% 51% 2%
D Walk from your home to a local store or
restaurant 9% 22% 17% 9% 12% 30% 1%
E Ride a bicycle 2% 5% 6% 4% 14% 67% 2%
Q22 Do you own or lease: _____?
Read in order
Yes
No
Not sure /
Prefer not
to answer
A A hybrid gas and electric vehicle 20% 79% 1%
B An all-electric vehicle 8% 91% 1%
Ask Q23 if Q22B = 1.

Q23 Do you find it difficult to charge your electric vehicle in the City of San Carlos? 1 Yes 33%
2 No 54%
99 Prefer not to answer 12%

Next are a few questions about your health and lifestyle.

Q24
Thinking of the
members of your household, what recreation activities do the adults in your household engage in most often? Verbatim responses recorded and later grouped into categories shown below.

Probe: Any others?
Walking, jogging, running 48%
Exercising, gym, yoga 30%
Hiking, nature walks 24%
Cycling 16%

8.a.1
Packet Pg. 136
Attachment: 2109 San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey Report (2022 Community Characteristics Survey Report) Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2019 58City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey 3/1/2019
True North Research, Inc. © 2019 Page 10
Dance, music, theater 7%
Dining out, wine tasting 7%
Do not engage in recreation activities 6%
Tennis 5%
Swimming 5%
Golf 5%
Walking dog, dog park 4%
Parks, beach 3%
Variety of sports 3%
Soccer 2%
Basketball 2%
Table games, cards, reading 2%
Gardening 2%
Socializing with friends, family 2%
Fishing, hunting 2%
Traveling 2%
Boating, kayaking, rowing, sailing 2%
Shopping 2%
Winter sports, activities (skiing,
snowboarding, ice skating) 2%
Adult Community Center Boot Camp 2%
Arts & Crafts 1%
Softball, baseball 1%
Cooking 1%
Camping 1%
Volunteering 1%
Church, bible study 1%
Boxing 1%
Surfing, wakeboarding 1%
Q25
Thinking of the
members of your household, what recreation
activities do they engage in most often? Verbatim responses recorded and later grouped into categories shown below.

Probe: Any others?
No children or teenagers in home 57%
Soccer 9%
Parks, beach 9%
Dance, music, theater 6%
Basketball 5%

8.a.1
Packet Pg. 137
Attachment: 2109 San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey Report (2022 Community Characteristics Survey Report) Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2019 59City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey 3/1/2019
True North Research, Inc. © 2019 Page 11
Walking, jogging, running 5%
Cycling 5%
Variety of sports 4%
Softball, baseball 4%
Swimming 3%
Tennis 2%
Exercising, gym, yoga 2%
Hiking, nature walks 2%
Table games, cards, reading, video games 2%
Socializing with friends, family 2%
Library 2%
They do not engage in recreation activities 2%
Arts & Crafts 1%
Football 1%
Variety of Martial Arts 1%
Volleyball 1%
Camping / Scouting 1%
Dining out 1%
Gymnastics 1%
Lacrosse 1%
Winter sports, activities (skiing,
snowboarding, ice skating) 1%
Track & field 1%
Playing at home 1%
School activities, events 1%
Q26 Do you use a house-cleaning service or maid?
1 Yes 46%
2 No 51%
99 Prefer not to answer 3%
Ask Q27 if Q6 = (1,2).

Q27 Do you use a landscape maintenance service or gardener? 1 Yes 62%
2 No 36%
99 Prefer not to answer 2%

8.a.1
Packet Pg. 138
Attachment: 2109 San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey Report (2022 Community Characteristics Survey Report) Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2019 60City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey 3/1/2019
True North Research, Inc. © 2019 Page 12
Q28 How often do you: _____? At least three times per week, one to two times per week, two to three times per month, once per month, less often than once per month, or never? Read in Order
3+ times per

1 to 2 times
per

2 to 3 times
per

1 time per

Less than 1
per

Never
Prefer not to
answer
A Have food, meals, or groceries delivered to
your home? 3% 13% 14% 8% 16% 45% 1%
B
Have goods or packages delivered to your
home from Amazon or another online
retailer?
17% 27% 27% 10% 9% 8% 2%
Q29 In a typical day, approximately how much time do you spend: _____? Minutes per day recorded.

Read in Order
Average
Minutes per
Day
None / Do Not
Typically Use
Less than 30
mins
30 to 59 mins
1 hr. to less
than 2 hrs.
2 hrs. to less
than 3 hrs.
3 or more hrs.

Prefer not to
answer
A Consuming news 80.99 5% 8% 17% 33% 18% 10% 10%
B Watching television 130.63 10% 2% 6% 21% 23% 28% 10%
C Listening to the radio 61.74 24% 8% 15% 26% 10% 6% 10% D Using social media 62.43 26% 15% 13% 19% 11% 7% 10%
E Using the Internet, not including
social media 146.62 3% 4% 10% 25% 21% 28% 10%
F Reading a book or magazine 56.75 16% 9% 19% 32% 9% 5% 10% G Playing video games 12.46 76% 1% 4% 5% 3% 1% 8%

Thank you so much for your participation. I have just a few more background questions for statistical purposes.

Q30 In what year were you born? Year recoded into age groups below.

18 to 24 6%
25 to 34 12%
35 to 44 19%
45 to 54 20%
55 to 64 17%
65 or older 18%
Prefer not to answer 7%

8.a.1
Packet Pg. 139
Attachment: 2109 San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey Report (2022 Community Characteristics Survey Report) Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2019 61City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey 3/1/2019
True North Research, Inc. © 2019 Page 13

Q31 How many: _____ live in your household?
Read in Order
Zero
One
Two
Three or
more
Prefer not
to answer
A Children under 13 years of age 72% 11% 11% 3% 4%
B Teenagers 83% 9% 4% 0% 4%
C Adults age 18 to 64 18% 18% 47% 13% 4%
D Seniors age 65 or older 63% 17% 15% 0% 5%
Ask Q32 if Q31A = (1,2,3).

Q32 For childcare, do you: _____?
Read in Order
Yes
No
Not sure /
Prefer not
to answer
A Have a stay-at-home parent who watches
your kids 36% 63% 1%
B Have a relative watch your kids 22% 76% 2%
C
Have a nanny or other non-relative watch
your kids – either in your home or at their
home
24% 74% 2%
D Use a daycare center not located in your
home 40% 59% 2%
Ask Q33 if Q31D = (1,2,3).

Q33 Is there a senior member of your household that currently receives in-home healthcare services?
1 Yes 4%
2 No 96%
99 Prefer not to answer 0%
Q34 What is your gender? (record by voice if telephone interview) 1 Male 46%
2 Female 51%
3 Other 0%
99 Prefer not to answer 3%

8.a.1
Packet Pg. 140
Attachment: 2109 San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey Report (2022 Community Characteristics Survey Report) Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2019 62City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey 3/1/2019
True North Research, Inc. © 2019 Page 14

Q35 What was the last grade you completed in school?
1 Less than high school 0%
2 High school graduate 5%
3 Vocational/Trade certificate 1%
4 Some college 10%
5 Two-year degree 6%
6 Four-year degree 31%
7 Post-graduate work/Graduate degree 43%
8 Not sure 0%
9 Prefer not to answer 3%
Q36 What ethnic group do you consider yourself a part of or feel closest to? Read list if respondent hesitates
1 Latino/Hispanic 9%
2 Asian American -- Korean, Japanese,
Chinese, Vietnamese, Filipino or other
Asian
14%
3 Caucasian/White 65%
4 African-American/Black 1%
5 American Indian or Alaskan Native 0%
6 Pacific Islander 1%
7 Middle Eastern 1%
8 Mixed Heritage 2%
98 Other 1%
99 Prefer not to answer 7%
Those are all of the questions that I have for you! Thanks so much for participating in this important survey! This survey was conducted for the City of San Carlos

8.a.1
Packet Pg. 141
Attachment: 2109 San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey Report (2022 Community Characteristics Survey Report)

8.a.2
Packet Pg. 142
Attachment: 2022 San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey Report (2022 Community Characteristics Survey Report)

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

8.a.2
Packet Pg. 143
Attachment: 2022 San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey Report (2022 Community Characteristics Survey Report) Table of Contents
iCity of San Carlos True No rth Research, Inc. © 2022
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

T ABLE OF C ONTENTS
Table of Contents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii List of Figures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Motivation for Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Overview of Methodology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Organization of Report. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Disclaimer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 About True North . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Key Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Living in San Carlos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Community Connections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Employment, Commute & Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Health & Lifestyle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Pandemic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Living in San Carlos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 What Do You Like Most About Living in San Carlos? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Question 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 What should Be Changed? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Question 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Plan to Remain in San Carlos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Question 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Question 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Length of Residence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Question 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Housing Type. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Question 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Home Ownership Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Question 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Plan to Build Accessory Dwelling Unit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Question 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Do you Plan to Rent the ADU?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Question 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Community Connections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Feel Engaged & Connected to Community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Question 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Belong to Community Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Question 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Familiarity With Neighbors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Question 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Employment, Commute & Transportation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Employment Status. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Question 13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Occupation & Industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Question 14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Question 15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Work Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Question 16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Days per Week Working at Home . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Question 17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Home-Based Business. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

8.a.2
Packet Pg. 144
Attachment: 2022 San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey Report (2022 Community Characteristics Survey Report) Table of Contents
iiCity of San Carlos True No rth Research, Inc. © 2022
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Question 18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Commute Mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Question 19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Length of Commute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Question 20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Duration of Commute. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Question 21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Travel within San Carlos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Question 22 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Hybrid and Electric Vehicles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Question 23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Ability to Find EV Charging Stations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Question 24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Health & Lifestyle. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Recreation Activities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Question 25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Question 26 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 House-Cleaning Service or Landscape Maintenance Service. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Question 27 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Question 28 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Home Delivery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Question 29 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Daily Media Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Question 30 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Pandemic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Current Impact of Pandemic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Question 31 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Question 32 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Background & Demographics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Questionnaire Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Programming & Pre-Test. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Sample, Recruiting & Data Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Margin of Error Due to Sampling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Data Processing & Weighting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Rounding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Questionnaire & Toplines. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

8.a.2
Packet Pg. 145
Attachment: 2022 San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey Report (2022 Community Characteristics Survey Report) List of Tables
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 iii
City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

L IST OF T ABLES
Table 1 Like Best About San Carlos by Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Table 2 Changes to Improve San Carlos by Study Year. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Table 3 Frequency of Traveling Within City of San Carlos by Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Table 4 Frequency of Traveling Within Ci ty of San Carlos by Overall & Age (Showing % Weekly). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Table 5 Frequency of Traveling Within City of San Carlos by Education & Gender (Showing % Weekly). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Table 6 Frequency of Home Delivery by Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Table 7 Frequency of Home Delivery by Age & Home Ownership Status. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Table 8 Daily Media Use in Minutes Comparison: 2019 to 2022. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Table 9 Daily Media Use Showing Average Minutes Per Day by Age & Gender . . . . . . . . . . 45 Table 10 Daily Media Use Showing Average Minutes Per Day by Engaged, Connected With Community & Ethnicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Table 11 Demographics of Sample by Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

8.a.2
Packet Pg. 146
Attachment: 2022 San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey Report (2022 Community Characteristics Survey Report) List of Figures
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 iv
City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

L IST OF F IGURES
Figure 1 Like Best About San Carlos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Figure 2 Changes to Improve San Carlos. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Figure 3 Anticipate Living in San Carlos 10 Years Fr om Now by Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Figure 4 Anticipate Living in San Carlos 10 Years From Now by Years in San Carlos & Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Figure 5 Anticipate Living in San Carlos 10 Years From Now by Engaged Connected With Community, Hsld Members & Participate, Belong to Community . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Figure 6 Anticipate Living in San Carlos 10 Years From Now by Home Ownership Status, Ethnicity & Gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Figure 7 Anticipate Living in San Carlos When Retire d by Study Year. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Figure 8 Anticipate Living in San Carlos When Retired by Years in San Carlos & Age . . . . . . 11 Figure 9 Anticipate Living in San Carlos When Retired by Engaged, Connected With Community, Hsld Members & Participated, Belong to Community Group. . . . . . . . 11 Figure 10 Anticipate Living in San Carlos When Retired by Home Ownership Status, Ethnicity & Gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Figure 11 Years in San Carlos by Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Figure 12 Years in San Carlos by Age, Ethnicity & Ho me Ownership Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Figure 13 Type of Residence by Study Year. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Figure 14 Type of Residence by Years in San Carlos & Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Figure 15 Type of Residence by Engaged, Co nnected With Community, Hsld Members & Ethnicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Figure 16 Home Ownership Status by Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Figure 17 Home Ownership Status by Years in San Carlos, Age & Type of Residence. . . . . . . 15 Figure 18 Home Ownership Status by Engaged, Connected With Community, Hsld Members & Ethnicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Figure 19 Build an Accessory Dwelling Unit in Next 5 Years (Among Single-Family Home Owners) by Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Figure 20 Build an Accessory Dwelling Unit in Next 5 Years (Among Single-Family Home Owners) by Years in San Carlos, Hsld Members & Age. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Figure 21 Plan to Rent the Accessory Dwelling Unit for Supplemental Income . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Figure 22 Engaged, Connected With San Carlos Commun ity by Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Figure 23 Engaged, Connected With San Carl os Community by Years in San Carlos & Type of Residence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Figure 24 Engaged, Connected With San Carl os Community by Employment Status & Hsld Members. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Figure 25 Engaged, Connected With San Carlos Community by Age & Ethnicity. . . . . . . . . . . 19 Figure 26 Engaged, Connected With San Carl os Community by Participate, Belong to Community Group, Work Community Status & Gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Figure 27 Participate in or Belong to Organized Community Group by Study Year. . . . . . . . . 20 Figure 28 Participate in or Belong to Organized Community Group by Years in San Carlos & Type of Residence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Figure 29 Participate in or Belong to Organized Community Group by Employment Status & Hsld Members . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Figure 30 Participate in or Belong to Organized Community Group by Age & Ethnicity . . . . . 21 Figure 31 Participate in or Belong to Organized Community Group by Engaged Connected With Community, Gender & Home Ownership Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Figure 32 Familiarity With Neighbors by Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Figure 33 Familiarity With Neighbors by Years in San Carlos & Type of Residence. . . . . . . . . 23 Figure 34 Familiarity With Neighbors by Employment Status & Hsld Members. . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Figure 35 Familiarity With Neighbors by Age & Ethnicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Figure 36 Familiarity With Neighbors by Engaged, Connected With Community, Work Commute Status, Gender & Home Ownership Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

8.a.2
Packet Pg. 147
Attachment: 2022 San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey Report (2022 Community Characteristics Survey Report) List of Figures
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 vCity of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Figure 37 Employment Status by Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Figure 38 Employment Status by Age & Ethnicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Figure 39 Employment Status by Education & Gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Figure 40 Occupation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 6 Figure 41 Industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Figure 42 Work Location by Study Year. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Figure 43 Work Location by Years in San Carlos & Engaged, Connected With Community. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Figure 44 Work Location by Age & Ethnicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Figure 45 Work Location by Education, Home Owners hip Status & Gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Figure 46 Days a Week Working From Home. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Figure 47 Own a Home-Based Business among All Employed Respondents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Figure 48 Primary Work Commute Mode by Study Year. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Figure 49 Primary Work Commute Mode by Age & Ethnicit y . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Figure 50 Primary Work Commute Mode by Commute Duration in Minutes & Commute Distance in Miles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Figure 51 Work Commute Distance in Miles by Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Figure 52 Work Commute Distance in Miles by Overall, Age, Ethnicity & Primary Commute Mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Figure 53 Work Commute Distance in Miles by Education, Participate, Belong to Community Group & Engaged, Connected With Community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Figure 54 Work Commute Duration in Minutes by Study Ye ar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Figure 55 Work Commute Duration in Minutes by Overall, Age, Ethnicity & Primary Commute Mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Figure 56 Work Commute Duration in Minutes by Education, Participated, Belong to Community Group & Engaged, Connected With Community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Figure 57 Work Commute Duration in Minutes by Co mmute Distance in Miles . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Figure 58 Frequency of Traveling Within City of San Carlos. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Figure 59 Own or Lease Hybrid or All-Electric Vehicle by Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Figure 60 Own or Lease Hybrid or All-Electric Vehicle by Education & Age. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Figure 61 Own or Lease Hybrid or All-Electric Vehicle by Primary Commute Mode, Home Ownership Status & Ethnicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Figure 62 Difficulty to Charge Electrical Vehicle by Stud y Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Figure 63 Adult Recreational Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Figure 64 Child Recreational Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Figure 65 Use House-Cleaning Service by Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Figure 66 Use House-Cleaning Service by Years in San Carlos & Type of Residence . . . . . . . . 41 Figure 67 Use House-Cleaning Service by Home Ownership Status & Employment Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Figure 68 Use Landscape Service by Years in San Carlos, Type of Residence & Live in San Carlos 10 Years From Now . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Figure 69 Use Landscape Service by Home Ownership Status & Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Figure 70 Frequency of Home Delivery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Figure 71 Daily Media Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Figure 72 Daily Media Use by Showing Average Minutes Per Day. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Figure 73 Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Figure 74 Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic by Engaged, Connected With Community & Employment Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Figure 75 Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic by Hsld Mem bers & Ethnicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Figure 76 Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic by Age & Wo rk Commute Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Figure 77 Hsld Impacts Due to Pandemic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Figure 78 Maximum Margin of Error . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

8.a.2
Packet Pg. 148
Attachment: 2022 San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey Report (2022 Community Characteristics Survey Report) Introduction
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 1
City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

I NTRODUCTION
Encompassing 5.6 square miles in San Mateo County, the City of San Carlos was incorporated in 1925 as a General Law city and is currently home to an estimated 30,722 residents. 1 The City’s dedicated team of full-time and part-time employees provides a full suite of services to residents and local businesses directly or via a shared-service model with other agencies and providers.

Every two years and most recently in 2020, the City of San Carlos conducts a Community Opinion Survey as a performance measurement tool to prof ile residents’ needs and priorities, measure how well the City is performing in meeting needs through existing services and facilities, gather data on a variety of quality-of-life, issue, and policy-related matters, and track in a statistically reliable way how opinions and priorities may have changed over the prior two-year period.

For the first time in 2019, the City sought to conduct a a statistically reliable lifestyle and demo- graphic survey of residents as a complimen t to its bi-annual survey. Whereas the Community Opinion Survey focuses on the community’s views of the City’s performance, the Community Characteristics Survey sought to provide the City with a better understanding of the community itself. By exploring residents’ values and aspirations, lifestyle characteristics, and demographics, the survey provided the City with better insigh ts about the residents it serves and the factors that may shape the community’s character in the future.

MOTIVATION FOR RESEARCH Although not planned as such, the 2019 Community Characteristics Survey provided a very timely snapshot of San Carlos residents’ characteristics, experiences, behaviors, and expectations under ‘normal’ conditions. Just a few weeks after the survey was complete, the coronavirus pandemic ar rived in California. In addition to the direct economic impacts including job losses, salary cu ts, and reduced spending, the threat of COVID- 19 and the closure of non-essential businesses dramatically altered how and where people work, play, shop, and travel. As we approach the third year of th e pandemic, the 2022 Community Characteristics Survey presents an opportunity to unders tand the extent to which San Carlos residents’ lifestyles, needs, and expectations may have changed in response to these challeng- ing times.

To assist in this effort, the City selected True North Research to design the research plan and conduct the study. Broadly defined, the survey was designed to:
• Assess residents’ perceptions about life in San Carlos and their plans for remaining in the City in the future;
• Examine how connected San Carlos residents are with their local community, including whether they belong to community groups and how well they know their neighbors; • Profile residents’ employment, commu te, and transportation behaviors; • Gather opinions on lifestyle topics such as re creation preferences, media use, and utilization of housecleaning, landscaping, and home delivery services; and • Collect background and demographic data to better understand the profile of San Carlos residents.

1. United States Census estimate for Ci ty of San Carlos population, April 2020.

8.a.2
Packet Pg. 149
Attachment: 2022 San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey Report (2022 Community Characteristics Survey Report) Introduction
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 2City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

OVERVIEW OF METHODOLOGY A full description of the methodology used for this study is included later in this report (see Methodology o n p a g e 5 1 ) . I n b r i e f , t h e s u r v e y w a s administered to a random sample of 791 adults who reside within the City of San Carlos. The survey followed a mixed-method design that empl oyed multiple recruiting methods (email, text, and telephone) and multiple data collectio n methods (telephone an d online). Administered between January 13 and January 25, 2022, the average interview lasted 17 minutes.

ORGANIZATION OF REPORT This report is designed to me et the needs of readers who prefer a summary of the findings as well as those who are interested in the details of the results.

For those who seek an overview of the findings, the section titled Key Findings is for you. It pro- vides a summary of the most important factual find ings of the survey. For the interested reader, this section is followed by a more detailed ques tion-by-question discussion of the results from the survey by topic area (see Table of Contents ), as well as a description of the methodology employed for collecting and analyzing the data. An d, for the truly ambitious reader, the ques- tionnaire used for the interviews is contai ned at the back of this report (see Questionnaire & Toplines on page 54) and a complete set of crosstabulations for the survey results is contained in Appendix A.

During their careers, Dr. McLarney (President) and Mr. Sarles (Principal Researcher) have designed and conducted over 1,200 survey research studies for public agencies—including more than 400 studies for California municipalities and special districts.

8.a.2
Packet Pg. 150
Attachment: 2022 San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey Report (2022 Community Characteristics Survey Report) Key Findings
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 3
City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Thus, if you would like to learn more about a particular finding, simply turn to the appropriate report section.

LIVING IN SAN CARLOS
• San Carlos residents were most apt to cite the small town feeling (23%) as what they like best about living in the City of San Carlos, followed by it being a nice, neighborly community (22%), the downtown area (19%), and the ability to walk to many destinations in the City (18%). Other specific attributes that were mentioned by at least 10% of respondents included San Carlos’ location and accessibility (15%), shopping/dining options (14%), family-oriented nature (14%), and public safety/low crime (14%).
• When asked to indicate the one thing that they would most like to change about San Carlos, the most common specific ch anges desired were limiting gr owth and development (18%), providing more affordable housing (12%), providing a greater variety of restaurants and stores (9%), reducing traffic congestion (9%), and improving/maintaining infrastructure, roads, and sidewalks (8%).
• The majority of residents (51%) expect to still be living in San Carlos 10 years from now, 14% do not plan to remain in the City, and one-third (34%) were unsure or unwilling to share where they will be living in 10 years.
• Forty-one percent (41%) of all residents surve yed either anticipated retiring in San Carlos (23%) or were already in retirement (17%). An additional 23% did not anticipate retiring in San Carlos (9%) or living in the City in 10 years (14%), whereas the remaining 36% were unsure or unwilling to share their retirement plans.
• The majority of San Carlos respondents ha d lived in the City 15 years or longer (52%), whereas one-in-five were newer residents that had lived in the City less than 1 year (4%) or 1 to 4 years (18%). An additional 14% had resided in San Carlos for 5 to 9 years and 13% had lived in the City between 10 and 14 years.
• Approximately three-quarters of San Carlos residents surveyed in 2022 live in a detached, single-family home (75%), whereas 13% live in an apartment, 6% a condominium, 4% a town- home, and 2% live in some other type of residence or preferred to not answer the question. • The vast majority of San Carlos residents surveyed in 2022 own their home (66%). The remainder either rent (26%), live rent free with family (5%), or were unwilling to state (4%). 2 • When home owners who live in a detached, single-family home were asked if they plan to build an accessory dwelling unit, or granny flat, on their San Carlos property in the next five years, eight percent answered in the affirmative.
• One-third (34%) of San Carlos residents who plan to build an ADU also plan to rent it for sup- plemental income, whereas the remainder either do not plan to rent the unit for income (36%) or were unsure of their plans (31%).

2. Factoring out the ‘live rent free with family’ and prefer not to answer responses (which aren’t options on the US Census) and recalculating the percentages results in a homeownership rate of 72%, which is consistent with US Census estimates for San Carlos.

8.a.2
Packet Pg. 151
Attachment: 2022 San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey Report (2022 Community Characteristics Survey Report) Key Findings
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 4City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

COMMUNITY CONNECTIONS
• Overall, 14% of respondents described themselv es as very engaged and connected to the community in 2022, 36% were somewhat engaged and connected, and 37% slightly engaged and connected. Another 11% of respondents confided that they do not feel at all engaged or connected to the San Carlos community.
• Three-in-ten respondents (29%) belonged to an organized community group in the City, whereas 63% did not and the remainder were either unsure or unwilling to state. There is a strong, positive relationship between belonging to a comm unity group and feeling very engaged and connected to the San Carlos community.
• Five percent (5%) of residents revealed that they know all the neighbors who live close to them well, 24% know most of their neighbors well, 55% know some of them well, and 15% confided that they do not know any of their neighbors well.

EMPLOYMENT, COMMUTE & TRANSPORTATION
• When asked about their employment status, ap proximately seven-in-ten respondents indi- cated they are employed either full-time (61%) or part-time (9%), 21% selected retired, 3% homemaker, 3% student, 2% are in-between jobs, and 2% were unsure or unwilling to state. • San Carlos residents work across a wide variety of occupational categories. Overall, 26% of employed residents who provided an opinion in dicated that their cu rrent occupation falls within the professional specialty category such as accountant, lawyer, engineer, scientist, or laboratory technician, 11% work in an executive occupation such as general manager, CEO, CFO, controller, or business owner, 9% work in an information technology position, 8% are supervisors or managers, 6% work in sales, 6% are teachers, and 4% are office or administra- tive workers.
• When asked to describe their industry, 30% of employed residents who provided an opinion indicated that they work in information technology manufacturing services, 10% work in education, 8% in business services, 8% work in medical and social services, 7% in biosciences or pharmaceuticals, and 6% work in the financial services industry. • Nearly half of employed respondents in 2022 (47%) stated that they work from home, whereas 25% commute to a work location outside the home and 28% do a mixture of both.

The 2022 findings are in stark contrast to the results found in the 2019 survey just prior to pandemic, when more than eight-in-ten employed San Carlos residents (86%) commuted to a work site outside of their home.
• Among the 75% of employees who work from home at least occasionally, most (42%) indi- cated that they primarily work from home five days per week, with the remainder reporting they do so four (11%), three (10%), two (7%) or one day per week (4%). • Seven percent (7%) of all employed residents own a home based business in the City. • Among employees who occasionally commute to a work location outside of their home, the most common method of commuting was driving alone to work in a car, truck, SUV, or van (83%). Public transit via Caltrain (5%) or other public transit mode (1%) accounted for approx- imately 6% of commutes and ridesharing via carpool accounted for approximately 3% of commutes. Active transportation modes (biking, walking, jogging, running) were mentioned by 6% of employees as their primary method of commuting to work. All other modes were mentioned by just 1% of respondents, collectively.
• The average commute length among all commuters was 13.13 miles, one-way, which is lower than the 15.45 miles average commute distance recorded in 2019.

8.a.2
Packet Pg. 152
Attachment: 2022 San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey Report (2022 Community Characteristics Survey Report) Key Findings
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 5City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
• The average commute duration among all commuters was 26.2 minutes in 2022, one-way, which is somewhat less than the 33.6 minutes reported in 2019. • Regardless of their employment status, nearly all residents use a personal vehicle when trav- eling within San Carlos (97%) and three-quarters walk from home to a local store or restau- rant (76%). Less than half of residents ride a bicycle (42%) or use Uber or Lyft (38%) when traveling within the City, and just 8% ride a local bus. • Twenty-three percent (23)% of residents reported that they own a hybrid and 19% own an all- electric vehicle.
• Just over one-third of all-electric vehicle owners (36%) find it difficult to charge their vehicle in San Carlos.

HEALTH & LIFESTYLE
• Walking, jogging, and running wa s the most popular adult recreation activity (47%), followed by hiking/nature walks (33%), cycling (21%), and exercising/gym/yoga (15%). • Playing soccer (9%) and cycling (9%) were the most popular recreation activities among chil- dren and teenagers, followed by walking, jo gging, and running (7%), going to the park/ beach (7%), and hiking/nature walks (5%).3
• Forty-seven percent (47%) of residents report ed using a house cleaner and 52% a landscape maintenance service or gardener.
• Overall, 96% of residents have goods and pack ages delivered to their home from Amazon or other online retailers, with nearly two-thirds (65%) doing so weekly. • More than seven-in-ten respondents (72%) also indicated they have food, meals and grocer- ies delivered to their home, with 30% having weekly deliveries. • The average San Carlos resident spends nearly six hours in a typical day utilizing the Inter- net, not including social media (228 minutes per day) and watching television (121 minutes per day). Residents spend approximately an hour or more consuming news (73 minutes), using social media (66 minutes), reading books or magazines (62 minutes), and listening to the radio (57 minutes). San Carlos residents spend the least amount of time playing video games in a typical day (19 minutes).

PANDEMIC
• Approximately one-third of respondents (32%) stated the pandemic is currently having a big impact on their household, wi th an additional 47% describ ing the impact as moderate.

Approximately one-in-five respondents indica ted that the pandemic ’s current impacts on their household are either small (17%) or negligible (4%), whereas 1% preferred to not answer the question.
• Among those who indicated the pandemic is cu rrently having a big or moderate impact on their household, the most commonly reported impacts were the inability to socialize or gather with friends and family (32%), isolation/staying home (14%), working from home (14%), and restrictions on travel (12%), ability to go out for entertainment/dining (12%), and engage in activities (12%).

3. The majority of residents do not ha ve a child or teen in their home (5 4%), which is why the percentage fig- ures for child/teen activities tend to be lower when compared to the adult percentages.

8.a.2
Packet Pg. 153
Attachment: 2022 San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey Report (2022 Community Characteristics Survey Report) Living in San Carlos
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 6
City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

WHAT DO YOU LIKE MOST ABOUT LIVING IN SAN CARLOS? The first question in this series asked residents to identify what they like best about living in the City of San Carlos.

San Carlos residents were most apt to cite the small town feeling (23%) as what they like best about living in the City of San Carlos, followed by it being a nice, neighborly community (22%), the downtown area (19%), and the ability to walk to many destinations in the City (18%). Other specific attributes that were mentioned by at least 10% of respondents included San Carlos’ loca- tion and accessibility (15%), shopping/dining op tions (14%), family-oriented nature (14%), and public safety/low crime (14%). Table 1 on the next page presents the top-five aspects that respondents liked most about living in San Carlos in 2019 and 2022.

Question 2 What do you like best about living in San Carlos? FIGURE 1 LIKE BEST ABOUT SAN CARLOS

22.7 22.4

18.8 17.6

14.8 14.3

14.2 14.1

9.0 7.4

7.3 4.5

2.6 2.3

2.3 1.5

8.8 6.5
0 5 10 15 20 25
Small town feeling
Nice community, neighbors
Downtown area
Walkability, everything close, within walking distance
Location, accessibility
Shopping areas, restaurants
Family oriented
Public safety, low crime
Beautiful, clean city
Good schools
Climate, weather
Parks
Open space, hills
Nothing comes to mind / Not sure
Good governance in general
Variety of activities for youth, kids
Negative mentions
Public library
% Respondents

8.a.2
Packet Pg. 154
Attachment: 2022 San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey Report (2022 Community Characteristics Survey Report) Living in San Carlos
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 7City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

TABLE 1 LIKE BEST ABOUT SAN CARLOS BY STUDY YEAR
WHAT SHOULD BE CHANGED? In an open-ended manner similar to that described above for Question 2, all respondents were also asked to indicate the one thing that they would most like to change about San Carlos. True North reviewed the verbatim responses to Question 3 and grouped them into the categories shown in Figure 2.

Question 3 What is the thing you would most like to change about San Carlos? FIGURE 2 CHANGES TO IMPROVE SAN CARLOS
2022 2019
Small town feeling Small town feeling
Nice community,
neighbors
Nice community,
neighbors
Downtown area Location, accessibility
Walkability,
everything close,
within walking
Family oriented
Location, accessibility Public safety, low
crime
Study Year

18.4 12.3

9.5 9.2

8.7 7.9

6.8 6.3

5.8 4.7

3.7 3.4

3.4 3.1

2.8 2.6

2.6 2.2

2.1 1.9

1.7 1.6

3.4 5.8
0 5 10 15 20
Limit growth, development
Provide more affordable housing
Nothing comes to mind / Not sure
Provide more variety of restaurants, stores
Reduce traffic congestion
Improve, maintain infrastructure, roads, sidewalks
Enforce traffic laws
Maintain, add park, recreation facilities
No changes desired / Everything is fine
Improve parking
More diversity in general
Improve public safety
Improve, provide more schools
Clean, beautify city, landscaping
Provide more community events, activities
Improve, provide more bike lanes
Improve downtown area
Improve governance in general
Pet friendlier, more dog parks
Preserve, recapture small town feeling
Make Laurel St pedestrian only
Better city planning, development
Reduce cost of living
Improve, provide more public transportation
% Respondents

8.a.2
Packet Pg. 155
Attachment: 2022 San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey Report (2022 Community Characteristics Survey Report) Living in San Carlos
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 8City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Among specific changes desired, the most co mmon were limiting growth and development (18%), providing more affordable housing (12%), providing a greater variety of restaurants and stores (9%), reducing traffic congestion (9%), and improving/maintaining infrastructure, roads, and sidewalks (8%). Approximately 16% of respon dents could not think of any desired changes (10%) or reported that no changes are needed (6%). Although the top- mentioned improvement (limiting growth and development) was the same in 2022 as in 2019, a desire for more afford- able housing rose to the second position in 2022 (see Table 2).

TABLE 2 CHANGES TO IMPROVE SAN CARLOS BY STUDY YEAR
PLAN TO REMAIN IN SAN CARLOS Respondents were next asked about their future intentions, specifically whether they anticipate living in San Carlos 10 years from now (Question 4) as well as once they are retired (Question 5). As shown in Figure 3, the majority of residents (51%) expect to still be living in San Carlos 10 years from now, 14% do not plan to remain in the City, and one-third (34%) were unsure or unwilling to share where they will be living in 10 years.

The percentage who expected not to be living in San Carlos 10 years from now declined signifi- cantly between 2019 and 2022, while those who were unsure increased significantly.

Question 4 Do you anticipate that you will be living in San Carlos 10 years from now? FIGURE 3 ANTICIPATE LIVING IN SAN CARLOS 10 YEARS FROM NOW BY STUDY YEAR 2022 2019
Limit growth,
development
Limit growth,
development
Provide more
affordable housing
Reduce traffic
congestion
Nothing comes to
mind / Not sure Improve parking
Provide more variety
of restaurants, stores
Improve, maintain
infrastructure, roads,
sidewalks
Reduce traffic
congestion
Nothing comes to
mind / Not sure
Study Year

52.5 18.8

28.1 50.9

14.0†

34.1†
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
2022 2019
Study Y ear
% Respondents
Prefer not to
answer
Not sure
Do not
anticipate living
in San Carlos in
10 years
Anticipate living
in San Carlos in
10 years

8.a.2
Packet Pg. 156
Attachment: 2022 San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey Report (2022 Community Characteristics Survey Report) Living in San Carlos
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 9City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Figures 4 through 6 display residents’ future housing plans by a variety of demographic charac- teristics. When compared to their respective co unterparts, residents who had lived in San Carlos at least five years, those between 35 and 44 years of age, individuals who indicated they are very engaged and connected to the San Carlos community, those with children under 13 years of age in their household, home owners, and Asian American and Caucasian respondents were the most likely to anticipate remaining in San Carlos for at least the next 10 years.

FIGURE 4 ANTICIPATE LIVING IN SAN CARLOS 10 YEARS FROM NOW BY YEARS IN SAN CARLOS & AGE FIGURE 5 ANTICIPATE LIVING IN SAN CARLOS 10 YEARS FROM NOW BY ENGAGED CONNECTED WITH COMMUNITY,

HSLD MEMBERS & PARTICIPATE, BELONG TO COMMUNITY

54.2 46.6

59.6 27.7

8.7 9.3

16.0 7.2

40.6 33.9

24.6 35.4 35.8 32.3

66.7 52.852.255.0

43.8 29.7

12.6 5.6

12.523.7

32.5 41.5

32.4 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Less than 5 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 or more 18 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or older Years in San Carlos (Q1) Age (QD1)
% Respondents
Prefer not to
answer
Not sure
Do not anticipate
living in San Carlos
in 10 years
Anticipate living in
San Carlos in 10
years

53.4 53.3 50.4

13.9 15.6 9.5 9.3 16.5

35.5 25.4

35.2 36.1 37.0 32.8

53.7 68.3

54.5 44.2

67.6 49.1

4.1 7.0

19.5 10.4

35.1 32.425.2
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Very Som ewhat Slightly, not at
all
Child under 13 Teenager Adult 18-64 Senior 65+ Yes No
Engaged, Connected w/Community (Q10) Hsld Members (QD2) Participate, Belong to Community Group (Q11)
% Respondents
Prefer not to
answer
Not sure
Do not anticipate
living in San Carlos
in 10 years
Anticipate living in
San Carlos in 10
years

8.a.2
Packet Pg. 157
Attachment: 2022 San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey Report (2022 Community Characteristics Survey Report) Living in San Carlos
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 10City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

FIGURE 6 ANTICIPATE LIVING IN SAN CARLOS 10 YEARS FROM NOW BY HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS, ETHNICITY & GENDER
Along the same lines as Question 4, Question 5 asked respondents whether they anticipate remaining in San Carlos once they are retired. As shown in Figure 7, 41% of all residents sur- veyed either anticipated retiring in San Carlos (23%) or were already in retirement (17%). An addi- tional 23% did not anticipate retiring in San Carlos (9%) or living in the City in 10 years (14%), whereas the remaining 36% were unsure or unwill ing to share their retirement plans. The per- centage who were unsure about their retirement plans increased significantly between 2019 and 2022.

Question 5 Once you are retired, do you anticipate still living in San Carlos? FIGURE 7 ANTICIPATE LIVING IN SAN CARLOS WHEN RETIRED BY STUDY YEAR For the interested reader, figures 8 through 10 examine the responses to Question 5 by years in San Carlos, age, engaged/connected with community, ages of household members, participate/ belong to community group, home ownership st atus, ethnicity, and gender. Of note is the

50.3 54.3

13.3 22.0

14.2 13.1

45.2 26.2

40.3 34.6 32.2

52.7 63.1

28.8 42.1

58.5 37.6

8.1 14.0

11.6 22.8

48.5 33.528.2
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Own Rent Latino /
Hispanic
Asian American Caucasian /
White
Mixed or other Male Fem ale
Home Ownership Status (Q7) Ethnicity (QD7) Gender (QD5) % Respondents
Prefer not to
answer
Not sure
Do not anticipate
living in San Carlos
in 10 years
Anticipate living in
San Carlos in 10
years

22.4 16.9

9.9 18.8

31.2 23.1

17.4 9.0

14.0†

35.9†
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
2022 2019
Study Y ear
% Respondents
Prefer not to
answer
Not sure
Do not anticipate
living in San Carlos
in 10 years (Q4)
Do not anticipate
retiring in San
Carlos
Already retired
Anticipate retiring in
San Carlos

8.a.2
Packet Pg. 158
Attachment: 2022 San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey Report (2022 Community Characteristics Survey Report) Living in San Carlos
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 11City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
strong, positive relationship between length of residence, age, presence of a senior in the home, home ownership, and planning to remain in the City for retirement.

FIGURE 8 ANTICIPATE LIVING IN SAN CARLOS WHEN RETIRED BY YEARS IN SAN CARLOS & AGE FIGURE 9 ANTICIPATE LIVING IN SAN CARLOS WHEN RETIRED BY ENGAGED, CONNECTED WITH COMMUNITY, HSLD

MEMBERS & PARTICIPATED, BELONG TO COMMUNITY GROUP
FIGURE 10 ANTICIPATE LIVING IN SAN CARLOS WHEN RETIRED BY HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS, ETHNICITY & GENDER

27.2 31.1

21.8 3.9

0.0 1.7

11.3 63.7

12.2 6.8

12.8 12.7

7.1 1.0

23.7 12.6 5.6

12.5 27.7 8.7

9.3 16.0

7.2 50.3 45.0 47.1

25.0 41.0

54.8 48.1

32.8 6.4

23.728.4

19.718.115.8 13.7

8.3 13.8

27.1 2.2

8.0 12.7

16.0 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Less than 5 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 or more 18 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or older Years in S an Carlo s (Q1) Age (QD1)
% Respondents
Prefer not to answe r
Not sure
Do not anticipate
living in San Carlos
in 10 years (Q4)
Do not anticipate
retiring in San Carlos
Already retired, lives
in City
Anticipate retiring in
San Carlos

25.0 25.6 22.0

3.7 7.0

50.1 16.9 18.6

10.2 15.5 10.9

2.7 9.9 9.7

4.1 10.4

19.5 7.0 13.9 15.6

9.5 9.3 16.5

34.2 41.6

32.1 51.2 45.3 43.4

12.6 38.4 33.2

28.434.1

23.5 20.0 24.8 23.1

16.5 1.517.716.7

7.7 8.6

9.4 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Very Som ewhat Slightly, not
at all
Child under
13 Teenager Adult 18-64 Senior 65+ Yes No
Engaged, Connected w/Community (Q10) Hsld Members (QD2) Participate, Belong to Co mmunity Gro up (Q11)
% Respondents
Prefer not to answe r
Not sure
Do not anticipate
living in San Carlos
in 10 years (Q4)
Do not anticipate
retiring in San Carlos
Already retired, lives
in City
Anticipate retiring in
San Carlos

24.8 22.2

20.7 8.8

15.2 20.7

15.6 6.9

6.3 9.0 7.1

8.1 22.8

11.6 14.0 13.3

22.0 14.2 13.1

32.8 44.9 42.7

28.8 34.1

47.7 36.1 36.8

15.2 33.0

19.8 9.4

29.4 22.78.7

9.3 16.021.8

7.7 9.1

14.3 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Own Rent Latino /
Hispanic
Asian American Caucasian /
White
Mixed or other Male Fem ale
Home Ownership Status (Q7) Ethnicity (QD7) Gender (QD5) % Respondents
Prefer not to answe r
Not sure
Do not anticipate
living in San Carlos
in 10 years (Q4)
Do not anticipate
retiring in San Carlos
Already retired, lives
in City
Anticipate retiring in
San Carlos

8.a.2
Packet Pg. 159
Attachment: 2022 San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey Report (2022 Community Characteristics Survey Report) Living in San Carlos
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 12City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

LENGTH OF RESIDENCE The survey also asked a number of questions to profile resi- dents’ living situation and current housing. The first such question asked residents how long they have lived in San Carlos. As shown in Figu re 11, the majority of San Carlos residents have lived in the City 15 years or longer (52%), whereas one-in-five are newer residents that have lived in the City less than 1 year (4%) or 1 to 4 years (18%). An additional 14% have resided in San Car- los for 5 to 9 years and 13% have lived in the City between 10 and 14 years. The percentage of long-time residents (15+ years) in the 2022 survey was significantly lower than in 2019, whereas the percentage of new residents (less than one ye ar) increased. Long-time San Carlos residents were most likely to be 55 years and older, Caucasian/White, and home owners (see Figure 12).

Question 1 How long have you lived in San Carlos?
FIGURE 11 YEARS IN SAN CARLOS BY STUDY YEAR
FIGURE 12 YEARS IN SAN CARLOS BY AGE, ETHNICITY & HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS

58.8 10.4

13.7 18.0† 12.3†

3.5 4.5

51.8†

12.8 13.5
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
2022 2019
Study Y ear
% Respondents
Prefer not
to answer
Less than
1 year
1 to 4 years
5 to 9 years
10 to 14 years
15 years or
longer

40.4 57.8

39.9 63.2

17.4 10.5

10.0 17.9

12.1 11.1

10.7 19.2

19.0 11.0

17.2 16.1

12.8 7.5

12.9 45.8

29.8 11.6

24.7 23.3 13.7

34.2 11.6

38.4 11.0

4.4 3.1 2.4 3.5 7.3 8.1

44.9 74.7

43.9 19.6

37.4 78.8

18.3 25.2

11.3 4.7

16.9 7.0

27.9 1.7 1.5
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
18 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or older Latino / Hispanic
Asian
American
Caucasian
/ White
Mixed or
other
Own Rent
Age (QD1) Ethnicity (QD7) Home Ownership
Status (Q7)
% Respondents
Prefer not to answer
Less than 1
1 to 4
5 to 9
10 to 14
15 or longer

8.a.2
Packet Pg. 160
Attachment: 2022 San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey Report (2022 Community Characteristics Survey Report) Living in San Carlos
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 13City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

HOUSING TYPE Approximately three-quarters of San Carlos residents surveyed in 2022 live in a detached, single-family home (75%), whereas 13% live in an apartment, 6% a condominium, 4% a townhome, and 2% live in some other type of residence or preferred to not answer the ques- tion. These figures are nearly id entical to the percentages recorded in 2019 (Figure 13). Figures 14 and 15 display respondents’ type of residence by years in San Carlos, age, engaged/con- nected with community, ages of household members, and ethnicity. Newer residents (less than 5 years), those 18 to 34 years of age, residents less than very engaged in the community, those without a child or teen in the household, and respondents who reported mixed/other ethnicities were the most likely to live in a housing type other than a detached, single-family residence.

Question 6 Which of the following best describes your residence in San Carlos? Read list.

FIGURE 13 TYPE OF RESIDENCE BY STUDY YEAR
FIGURE 14 TYPE OF RESIDENCE BY YEARS IN SAN CARLOS & AGE

76.4 10.4

7.7 3.2

75.4 12.7

6.1 4.0
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
2022 2019
Study Y ear
% Respondents
Prefer not to
answer
Other
Townhome
Condo
Apartment
Detached single
family

79.4 81.7

73.6 22.6

13.4 13.8 6.0

9.3 8.7

3.1 5.0 1.8

5.2 9.6

6.0 0.6

4.5 3.9 5.5

1.3 3.1 4.2 6.6

80.287.1

60.1 73.0

59.1 60.5

17.4 23.4

4.4 23.5

10.9 8.9

7.8 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Less than 5 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 or more 18 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or older Ye ars in S an Carlo s (Q1) Age (QD1)
% Respondents
Other
Prefer not to answe r
To w nho me
Condominium
Apartment
Detached single
family ho me

8.a.2
Packet Pg. 161
Attachment: 2022 San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey Report (2022 Community Characteristics Survey Report) Living in San Carlos
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 14City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

FIGURE 15 TYPE OF RESIDENCE BY ENGAGED, CONNECTED WITH COMMUNITY, HSLD MEMBERS & ETHNICITY HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS As shown in Figure 16, the vast majority of San Carlos resi- dents surveyed in 2022 own their home (66%). The remainder either rent (26%), live rent free with family (5%), or were unwilling to state (4%). 4 Figures 17 and 18 on the next page examine home ownership status by a host of respondent characteristics. Strong, positive relationships exist between home ownership st atus and years in San Carlos, age of respondent, and being engaged/connected with the San Carlos community.

Question 7 Do you own or rent your residence in San Carlos? FIGURE 16 HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS BY STUDY YEAR

4. Factoring out the ‘live rent free with family’ and prefer not to answer responses (which aren’t options on the US Census) and recalculating the percentages results in a homeownership rate of 72%, which is consistent with US Census estimates for San Carlos.

78.1 76.2 72.0 78.7

59.6 14.7 7.1 16.4

7.7 12.2

25.6 6.5

5.4 4.9 7.2

6.5 12.6

4.66.0 3.2 1.0 2.4 4.0 5.3 4.6 3.6 10.3

91.187.6

72.8 74.5

84.2 75.6

4.76.7 9.4

14.213.3

6.7 1.8

3.5 2.81.4
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Very Som ewhat Slightly,
not at all
Child
under 13
T eenager Adult 18-
64 Senior 65+ Latino /
Hispanic
Asian
American
Caucasian
/ White
Mixed or
other
Engaged, Connected w/Community
(Q10)
Hsld Members (QD2) Ethnicity (QD7)
% Respondents
Other
Prefer not to answer
Townhome
Condominium
Apartment
Detached single
family ho me

75.6 17.3

4.22.9 66.0†

25.6†

4.8 3.6
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
2022 2019
Study Y ear
% Respondents
Prefer not to
answer
Live rent free
with fam ily
Rent
Own

8.a.2
Packet Pg. 162
Attachment: 2022 San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey Report (2022 Community Characteristics Survey Report) Living in San Carlos
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 15City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

FIGURE 17 HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS BY YEARS IN SAN CARLOS, AGE & TYPE OF RESIDENCE FIGURE 18 HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS BY ENGAGED, CONNECTED WITH COMMUNITY, HSLD MEMBERS & ETHNICITY PLAN TO BUILD ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT Home owners who live in a detached, single-family home were next asked if they plan to build an accessory dwelling unit (ADU), or granny flat, on their San Carlos property in the next five years. As shown in Figure 19 on the next page, eight percent of single-family home owners answered Question 8 in the affirmative and plan to build an ADU. Three-quarters of resp ondents (75%) do not have any plans to build an accessory dwelling unit in the next five years, whereas 17% were unsure or unwilling to share.

When compared to 2019, the percentage who we re unsure about their ADU plans increased sig- nificantly, which corresponded to a decline in those who did not plan to build an ADU.

Newer residents (less than five years), those with a child or teenager in their household, and respondents under 35 years of age were the most likely single-family home owner subgroups to have plans to build an accessory dwelling unit on their property (see Figure 20 on next page).

72.4 78.0 76.1 79.3

55.7 66.8

45.8 26.9 24.6 15.6 18.6 12.9

39.0 26.3

7.7 3.2 1.1 1.2 1.1 6.14.4 6.6 3.1 3.5 5.2 4.3 6.9

68.8 80.6

55.2 63.4

40.5 32.7

32.2 38.3

8.6 55.1

3.9 5.3

18.0 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Less than
5 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 or more 18 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or older Single family
Townhome Condo
Y ears in San Carlos (Q1) Age (QD1) T ype of Residence (Q6) % Respondents
Prefer not to answe r
Live rent free with
family
Rent
Own

74.8 63.5

77.5 66.4

46.3 15.0

29.7 14.1 30.5

14.3 25.7

45.7 6.1

1.5 5.6 5.1 2.5 2.6 5.64.7 6.0 3.5 5.7 2.2 3.3

78.279.4 71.8

58.5 74.3

63.0 17.5 23.4

30.7 22.9

4.1 5.4 4.71.6
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Very Somewhat Slightly,
not at all
Child under
13 T eenager Adult 18-
64 Senior 65+ Latino /
Hispanic
Asian
American
Caucasian
/ White
Mixed or
other
Engaged, Connected w/Community
(Q10)
Hsld Members (QD2) Ethnicity (QD7)
% Respondents
Prefer not to answe r
Live rent free with
family
Rent
Own

8.a.2
Packet Pg. 163
Attachment: 2022 San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey Report (2022 Community Characteristics Survey Report) Living in San Carlos
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 16City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Question 8 In the next five years, do you plan to build an accessory dwelling unit - also known as a granny flat - on your property in San Carlos?
FIGURE 19 BUILD AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT IN NEXT 5 YEARS (AMONG SINGLE-FAMILY HOME OWNERS) BY STUDY YEAR
FIGURE 20 BUILD AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT IN NEXT 5 YEARS (AMONG SINGLE-FAMILY HOME OWNERS) BY YEARS

IN SAN CARLOS, HSLD MEMBERS & AGE
DO YOU PLAN TO RENT THE ADU? The final question in this series (Question 9) was directed to home owners who pl anned to build an ADU on thei r property and simply asked whether they plan to rent the ADU for supplemen tal income. Overall, one-third (34%) of San Car- los residents who plan to build an ADU also plan to rent it for supplemental income (see Figure 21 on the next page), whereas the remainder either do not plan to rent the unit for income (36%) or were unsure of their plans (31%).

6.3 81.6

11.5 8.3

74.8†

16.5†
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
2022 2019
Study Y ear
% Single Family Homeowners
Prefer not to
answer
Not sure
No ADU in next
5 years
Plan to build
ADU in next 5
years

12.2 12.3

9.0 7.1

16.2 7.7

12.0 5.7 5.4

14.2 8.9 9.1

7.0 0
5 10
15 20
Less
than 5
5 to 9 10 to 14 15 or
mo re
Child
under 13
T eenager Adult 18-
64 Senior
65+
18 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or
older
Years in San Carlos (Q1) Hsld Members (QD2) Age (QD1)
% Single Family Homeowners That Plan
to Build ADU in Next 5 Years

8.a.2
Packet Pg. 164
Attachment: 2022 San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey Report (2022 Community Characteristics Survey Report) Living in San Carlos
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 17City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Question 9 Do you plan to rent the accessory dwelling unit for supplemental income? FIGURE 21 PLAN TO RENT THE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT FOR SUPPLEMENTAL INCOME Do not plan to
rent ADU

35.6 Plan to rent ADU

33.7 Not sure

30.6 8.a.2
Packet Pg. 165
Attachment: 2022 San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey Report (2022 Community Characteristics Survey Report) Community Connections
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 18
City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

FEEL ENGAGED & CONNECTED TO COMMUNITY The first question in this section asked respondents to rate how engaged and connec ted they feel to their local San Carlos com- munity using a scale of very, somewhat, slightly, or not at all engaged and connected. Overall, 14% of respondents described themselves as ve ry engaged and connected to the community in 2022, 36% were somewhat engaged and connect ed, and 37% slightly engaged and connected.

Another 11% of respondents confided that they do not feel at al l engaged or connected to the San Carlos community. When compared to 2019—prior to pandemic—the levels of engagement and feelings of connectivity among San Carlos residents declined somewhat (see Figure 22).

Question 10 In general, how engaged and connected do you feel to your San Carlos commu- nity? Would you say very, somewhat, slightly, or not at all engaged and connected? FIGURE 22 ENGAGED, CONNECTED WITH SAN CARLOS COMMUNITY BY STUDY YEAR For the interested reader, figures 23 through 26 on the following pages show how feelings of community connectedness varied by a number of demographic characteristics. Several sub- groups stood out for having a substantially higher percentage of respondents who feel very con- nected to the community, including those who had lived in San Carlos between 10 and 14 years, single family home owners, homemakers, those wi th a child or teenager in the home, residents between 45 and 54 years of age, and especially those who belong to a community group.

16.2 40.5

30.9 11.0

13.5 36.2

36.9†

11.1 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
2022 2019
Study Y ear
% Respondents
Prefer not to
answer
Not sure
Not engaged,
connected
Slightly engaged,
connected
Som ewhat
engaged,
connected
Very engaged,
connected

8.a.2
Packet Pg. 166
Attachment: 2022 San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey Report (2022 Community Characteristics Survey Report) Community Connections
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 19City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

FIGURE 23 ENGAGED, CONNECTED WITH SAN CARLOS COMMUNITY BY YEARS IN SAN CARLOS & TYPE OF RESIDENCE FIGURE 24 ENGAGED, CONNECTED WITH SAN CARLOS COMMUNITY BY EMPLOYMENT STATUS & HSLD MEMBERS FIGURE 25 ENGAGED, CONNECTED WITH SAN CARLOS COMMUNITY BY AGE & ETHNICITY

6.1 7.1

35.0 54.8

39.6 37.8

32.2 37.3

31.1 34.8 36.4

15.6 6.1

16.1 20.4 14.2

4.6 33.2

36.8 37.238.7

34.9 38.0

40.8 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Less than 5 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 or more Single family Townhome Condo Apartment Years in San Carlos (Q1) Type of Residence (Q6)
% Respondents
Slightly
engaged,
connected
Som ewhat
engaged,
connected
Very
engaged,
connected

18.5 12.3 11.8

47.3 40.8 45.8

38.5 33.7

23.5 40.0

34.8 28.9

36.4 42.6

19.414.017.713.014.0

2.0 42.1

48.6 31.836.1

36.7 41.435.4
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Full-time Part-time Ho me make r R etire d In-be tw e en jobs
Child under
13 T eenager Adult 18-64 Senior 65+
Employment Status (Q13) Hsld Members (QD2)
% Respondents
Slightly
engaged,
connected
Som ewhat
engaged,
connected
Very
engaged,
connected

13.6 14.4 9.7

33.8 33.6 30.9 34.7

56.0 31.5

40.3 42.7 40.2

38.9 15.0

10.110.3

19.516.9

6.1 13.6

41.0 37.7

36.2 34.5

39.1 43.1

32.9 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
18 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or older Latino / Hispanic
Asian
American
Caucasian /
White
Mixed or
other
Age (QD1) Ethnicity (QD7)
% Respondents
Slightly
engaged,
connected
Som ewhat
engaged,
connected
Very
engaged,
connected

8.a.2
Packet Pg. 167
Attachment: 2022 San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey Report (2022 Community Characteristics Survey Report) Community Connections
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 20City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

FIGURE 26 ENGAGED, CONNECTED WITH SAN CARLOS COMMUNITY BY PARTICIPATE, BELONG TO COMMUNITY GROUP,

WORK COMMUNITY STATUS & GENDER
BELONG TO COMMUNITY GROUP The next question asked respondents whether they belong to any organized community groups in San Carlos. Three-in-ten respondents (29%) belonged to an organized community group in the City, whereas 63% did not and the remainder were either unsure or unwilling to state (Figure 27). Residents who have lived in San Carlos between five and 14 years, those living in a housing type other than a condominium, homemak- ers, respondents with children and/or teenagers in their househ old, residents 35 to 54 years of age, residents very engaged and connected with the community, and those who work from home were the most likely subgroups to belong to an organized community group (see figures 28-31).

Question 11 Do you currently participate in or belong to any organized community groups in San Carlos?
FIGURE 27 PARTICIPATE IN OR BELONG TO ORGANIZED COMMUNITY GROUP BY STUDY YEAR

16.4 16.2 9.2

37.6 36.4

36.5 39.3

32.4 34.9

34.6 37.2

35.7 33.6

43.3 11.6

29.4 6.4

16.4 11.9 10.6

44.3 30.7

40.1 32.0

45.3 40.3

22.2 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Y es No Working from
home
Commuting
outside hom e
Mixture of
both
Male Female Own Rent
Participate, Belong to
Community Group (Q11)
Work Commute Status (Q16) Gender (QD5) Home Ownership Status (Q7) % Respondents
Slightly
engaged,
connectedSom ewhat
engaged,
connected
Very
engaged,
connected

29.5 66.7

2.6 29.1

63.0 5.0†
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
2022 2019
Study Y ear
% Respondents
Prefer not to
answer
Not sure
Not involved in a
community
group
Involved in a
community
group

8.a.2
Packet Pg. 168
Attachment: 2022 San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey Report (2022 Community Characteristics Survey Report) Community Connections
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 21City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

FIGURE 28 PARTICIPATE IN OR BELONG TO ORGANIZED COMMUNITY GROUP BY YEARS IN SAN CARLOS & TYPE OF

RESIDENCE
FIGURE 29 PARTICIPATE IN OR BELONG TO ORGANIZED COMMUNITY GROUP BY EMPLOYMENT STATUS & HSLD

MEMBERS
FIGURE 30 PARTICIPATE IN OR BELONG TO ORGANIZED COMMUNITY GROUP BY AGE & ETHNICITY

31.4 31.1

12.3 26.4

23.0 38.7 37.5

27.3 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 Less than 5 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 or more Single family Townhome Condo Apartment Years in San Carlos (Q1) Type of Residence (Q6)
% Respondents Involved
in a Community Group

26.0 38.7

42.4 30.2

26.227.8

39.1 29.029.5
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
Full-time Part-time Homemaker Retired In-between
jobs
Child under
13 Teenager Adult 18-64 Senior 65+
Employment Status (Q13) Hsld Members (QD2)
% Respondents Involved
in a Community Group

28.2 30.0

25.2 30.2

33.1 22.5

33.5 39.4

23.2 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 18 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or older Latino / Hispanic
Asian
American
Caucasian /
White
Mixed or
other
Age (QD1) Ethnicity (QD7)
% Respondents Involved
in a Community Group

8.a.2
Packet Pg. 169
Attachment: 2022 San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey Report (2022 Community Characteristics Survey Report) Community Connections
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 22City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

FIGURE 31 PARTICIPATE IN OR BELONG TO ORGANIZED COMMUNITY GROUP BY ENGAGED CONNECTED WITH

COMMUNITY, GENDER & HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS
FAMILIARITY WITH NEIGHBORS The last question in this section asked respondents to describe how well they know their neighbors that live close by (Figure 32). Overall, 5% of resi- dents revealed that they know all the neighbors who live close to them well, 24% know most of their neighbors well, 55% know some of them well, and 15% confided that they do not know any of their neighbors well. When compared to ri ght before the pandemic started (2019), the per- centage of San Carlos residents in 2022 who indicated they know most of their neighbors well declined significantly, while the percentage who know none of their neighbors well increased significantly. Figures 33 through 36 show how San Carlos residents’ familiarity with their neigh- bors varied by demographic ch aracteristics and subgroups. Lo ng-time residents (15+ years), those living in single family homes, residents 55 to 64 years of age, homeowners, and those who indicated they are very connect ed to the community were the mo st likely to report that they know all or most of their neighbors.

Question 12 Thinking of the neighbors that live close to you in San Carlos, what proportion do you know well? All, most, some, or none?
FIGURE 32 FAMILIARITY WITH NEIGHBORS BY STUDY YEAR

22.4 27.4 26.8

31.3 30.4 30.9

63.6 35.6

15.7 34.7
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
Very Som ewhat Slightly, not
at all
Working
from home
Co mmuting
outside
home
Mixture of
both
Male Female Own Rent
Engaged, Connected w/Community
(Q10)
Work Commute Status (Q16) Gender (QD5) Home Ownership Status (Q7)
% Respondents Involved
in a Community Group

6.7 29.6

54.4 8.0

5.1 23.9†

55.4 14.9†
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
2022 2019
Study Y ear
% Respondents
Not sure /
Prefer not to
answer
None
Som e
Most
All

8.a.2
Packet Pg. 170
Attachment: 2022 San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey Report (2022 Community Characteristics Survey Report) Community Connections
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 23City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

FIGURE 33 FAMILIARITY WITH NEIGHBORS BY YEARS IN SAN CARLOS & TYPE OF RESIDENCE FIGURE 34 FAMILIARITY WITH NEIGHBORS BY EMPLOYMENT STATUS & HSLD MEMBERS FIGURE 35 FAMILIARITY WITH NEIGHBORS BY AGE & ETHNICITY

27.6 13.6

9.1 11.3

74.1 53.7

57.3 56.8 50.7

1.85.80.8 2.4 2.0 8.0 7.610.2

31.1 16.9

25.9 55.6

56.5 49.2
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Less than 5 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 or more Single family Townhome Condo Apartment Y ears in San Carlos (Q1) T ype of Residence (Q6)
% Respondents
Som e
Most
All

4.2 7.1

29.9 23.3

32.5 23.4 25.2

49.8 54.4

62.0 55.8

55.4 56.9

4.72.03.8 2.0 11.2 3.8

21.8 26.0

36.625.1

63.1 58.6

54.8 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Full-time Part-time Homemaker Retired In-between
jobs
Child under
13 Teenager Adult 18-64 Senior 65+
Emplo yment S tatus (Q13) Hsld Members (QD2)
% Respondents
Som e
Most
All

3.5 24.1

20.2 28.2 23.5

18.4 61.2

54.2 48.7

51.3 59.1

47.5 2.04.612.02.13.41.1 7.5 5.8

24.9 27.6

25.7 19.0

39.6 59.160.3
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
18 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or older Latino / Hispanic
Asian
American
Caucasian /
White
Mixed or
other
Age (QD1) Ethnicity (QD7)
% Respondents
Som e
Most
All

8.a.2
Packet Pg. 171
Attachment: 2022 San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey Report (2022 Community Characteristics Survey Report) Community Connections
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 24City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

FIGURE 36 FAMILIARITY WITH NEIGHBORS BY ENGAGED, CONNECTED WITH COMMUNITY, WORK COMMUTE STATUS,

GENDER & HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS

5.0 25.4 21.0 22.4 25.6 28.6

57.5 55.8

61.1 57.1 56.2

57.2 54.9

1.75.33.3 12.1 4.2 3.9 2.1 6.3 6.7

10.1 42.2

21.314.4

29.3 57.3

49.7 44.0
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Very Somewhat Slightly, not
at all
Working
from home
Commuting
outside
home
Mixture of
both
Male Female Own Rent
Engaged, Connected w/Community
(Q10)
Work Commute Status (Q16) Gender (QD5) Home Ownership Status (Q7)
% Respondents
Som e
Most
All

8.a.2
Packet Pg. 172
Attachment: 2022 San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey Report (2022 Community Characteristics Survey Report) Employment, Commute & Transportation
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 25
City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

E MPLOYMENT , C OMMUTE &

EMPLOYMENT STATUS The opening question in this se ries presented respondents with six different employment categories and asked th em to select the one that best matched their employment status. As shown in Figure 37 below, approximately seven-in-ten respondents in 2022 indicated that they are employed either full-time (61%) or part-time (9%), 21% selected retired, 3% homemaker, 3% student, 2% are in-between jobs, and 2% were unsure or unwilling to state. Figures 38 and 39 show how employment status differed across demographic subgroups.

Question 13 Which of the following best describes your employment status? FIGURE 37 EMPLOYMENT STATUS BY STUDY YEAR
FIGURE 38 EMPLOYMENT STATUS BY AGE & ETHNICITY

57.8 7.3

3.8 4.5

20.9 22.7

1.9 1.7

60.7 8.9

2.52.7 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
2022 2019
Study Y ear
% Respondents
Not sure / Prefer
not to answer
In-between jobs
Retired
Ho memaker
Student
Employed part-
time
Employed full-
time

65.2 57.2

73.2 12.1

1.3 6.9

9.9 12.8

2.5 3.4

4.8 5.9

1.0 2.3 2.8

1.7 18.9

74.9 11.6 21.7 24.5

11.9 3.1 2.9 3.3 1.3 2.1 1.2

12.0 79.4 81.9 78.0

64.0 80.8

4.2 11.5

10.48.0 1.111.0

2.7 3.0

5.5 3.6
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
18 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or older Latino / Hispanic
Asian
American
Caucasian /
White
Mixed or
other
Age (QD1) Ethnicity (QD7)
% Respondents Who Provided Opinion
In-between
jobs
Retired
Ho memaker
Student
Part time
Full time

8.a.2
Packet Pg. 173
Attachment: 2022 San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey Report (2022 Community Characteristics Survey Report) Employment, Commute & Transportation
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 26City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

FIGURE 39 EMPLOYMENT STATUS BY EDUCATION & GENDER
OCCUPATION & INDUSTRY The next two questions asked employed residents to describe their occupation (Question 14) and industry (Question 15). These questions were asked in an open-ended manner, allowing respondents to provide specifics wi thout being limited to a list of options. True North later reviewed the verbatim responses and grouped them into the broader categories shown in the figures, which also provide examples of each category in paren- theses.

Question 14 What is your current occupation?
FIGURE 40 OCCUPATION

53.9 8.4 5.8

11.9 1.0

2.46.2 0.0 2.8

4.9 17.9 27.4 37.7

17.2 21.4 19.5 24.5

8.3 1.3 0.0 1.4 1.9 1.4 2.4

70.268.8

48.742.5

28.9 65.3

9.9 11.3

8.5 18.8

2.8 19.8

18.9 3.1

2.3 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Less than
college
Some college T wo-year degree Four-year degree Grad / Post grad degree
Male Female
Education (QD6) Gender (QD5)
% Respondents Who Provided Opinion
In-between
jobs
Retired
Ho memaker
Student
Part time
Full time

25.9 10.8

9.2 7.6

6.3 5.8

4.3 2.9

2.8 1.0

1.0 0.6

0.5 0.5

0.4 0.4

0.3 0.2

2.0 0.7
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Professional Specialty (not IT): (accountants, lawyers, engineers, scientists, lab technicians, biotechnicians, tech writers, artists, models) Executive: (General Managers, CEO, CFO, Controller, and other hi-level execs, business owners)
Information Technology (IT): (computer programmers, network administrators, web designers)
Supervisors, Managers: (staff supervisors, shift managers, service supervisors) Sales: (sales and marketing agents, real estate agents) Teachers: (Professors, educators, grade school, middle school, high school teachers)
Administrative & Office Workers: (clerical, receptionists, data entry, records processing)
Physicians: (doctors, dentists, physicians)
Craft and repair: (Construction, mechanics, electricians, appliances installations, repair tech, handyman, HVAC tech, general contractors)
Medical Assistants: (medical tech, medical assistants, LVN, nursing assistant, home health aides, care givers, pharmacist)
Nurses: (RNs only)
Self Employed, freelance
Government
Protective Services: (security guards, safety officers, bouncers, police, fireman) Operators, fabricators, laborers: (Machine operators, manual laborers, non-elec assemblers, vehicle/truck operators, stockroom helpers, packers, drivers, farmers) Contractor
Food Preparation and Serving: (food handlers, food servers, waiters, baristas) Customer Service Reps: (phone support, customer service, cashiers, bank tellers) Courier services, delivery, driver
Telemarketers: (Inbound/outbound telemarketers NOT support staff or customer service)
% Employed Respondents Who Provided Opinion

8.a.2
Packet Pg. 174
Attachment: 2022 San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey Report (2022 Community Characteristics Survey Report) Employment, Commute & Transportation
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 27City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

As shown in Figure 40 on the previous page, Sa n Carlos residents work across a wide variety of occupational categories. Overall, 26% of employ ed residents who provided an opinion indicated that their current occupation falls within the professional specialty category such as accountant, lawyer, engineer, scientist, or laboratory techni cian, 11% work in an executive occupation such as general manager, CEO, CFO, controller, or business owner, 9% work in an information technol- ogy position, 8% are supervisors or managers, 6% work in sales, 6% are teachers, and 4% are office or administrative workers. The remaining occupational categories were cited by less than 3% of respondents, respectively.

When asked to describe their industry, 30% of employed residents who provided an opinion indi- cated that they work in information technology manufacturing services, 10% work in education, 8% in business services, 8% work in medical and social services, 7% in biosciences or pharmaceu- ticals, and 6% work in the financial services industry. The remaining industry groupings were each cited by less than 5% of respondents (Figure 41).

Question 15 And what industry do you work in? If pauses, ask: What does your company do? FIGURE 41 INDUSTRY
WORK LOCATION The survey also asked employed in dividuals whether they work from home, commute to a work location outside of their home, or a mixture of both. As shown in Fig- ure 42 on the next page, nearly half of respondents in 2022 (47%) stated that they work from home, whereas 25% commute to a work location outside the home and 28% do a mixture of both. The 2022 findings are in stark contrast to the results found in the 2019 survey just prior to pandemic, when more than eigh t-in-ten employed San Carlos re sidents (86%) commuted to a work site outside of their home.

29.5 9.6

8.0 7.8

7.4 5.7

3.2 2.6

2.2 1.8

1.7 1.2

1.1 1.0

0.4 0.2

0.2 0.1

0.1 1.6

2.0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
IT Manufacturing services: Computer, Software and Elect Manufacturing and Services Education: Any educational institution, including public, private schools, colleges, universities
Business Services: Businesses that provide services to other businesses, incl legal, advertising, printing, engineering, accounting, IT services, install, repair services) M edical and Social Services: Businesses that provide health care, hospitals, social assistance
Biosciences and Pharmaceuticals: Companies that research, manufacture biological, chemical, medicinal products incl laboratory, medical equipment Financial Services: Banks, credit unions, investment consulting, income tax preparer Sales
Construction: Builders and developers, heavy construction, special trades Non-IT Manufacturing: Manufacturers of products that are not electronic, such as food, textiles, clothing, recreational goods
Religious / Non-profit Industry
Hospitality, Visitor and Entertainment Services
Government / Public Administration: Any government agency such as a city, county, or publicly funded agency
Security Services
Transportation
Retail: Retails stores and outlets that sell products directly to consumers Communications: Telephone, radio and cable companies, companies that manufacture communications-related products such as phones and fax machines Energy natural resources: Services (also Natural Resource/Wildlife) Maintenance / Janitorial
None / Self-employed
M ilitary: U. S. Army, Air Force, Navy, Coast Guard, Forces Branch not specified, M ilitary reserved or National Guard
Agriculture: Food and flower crops, support activities for agriculture % Employed Respondents Who Provided Opinion

8.a.2
Packet Pg. 175
Attachment: 2022 San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey Report (2022 Community Characteristics Survey Report) Employment, Commute & Transportation
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 28City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Question 16 Are you currently working from home, commuting to a workplace outside of your home, or a mixture of both?
FIGURE 42 WORK LOCATION BY STUDY YEAR
Figures 43 through 45 show how work location among employed San Carlos residents varied by length of residence, how engaged they feel with the community, age, ethnicity, education, home ownership status, and gender.

FIGURE 43 WORK LOCATION BY YEARS IN SAN CARLOS & ENGAGED, CONNECTED WITH COMMUNITY

12.6 86.1

46.7 24.8

28.0 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
2022 2019
Study Y ear
% Employed Respondents
Prefer not to
answer
Mixture of
both
Co mmuting
outside hom e
Working from
home

41.7 21.3

20.7 28.5

32.0 32.1 28.6 29.8

50.8 34.7

48.549.5

62.9 55.2

22.9 19.5

33.2 16.3

20.8 23.427.6
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Less than 5 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 or more Very Somewhat Slightly, not at all Years in San Carlos (Q1) Engaged, Connected w/Community (Q10) % Respondents Who Provided Opinion
Mixture of
both
Co mmuting
outside hom e
Working from
home

8.a.2
Packet Pg. 176
Attachment: 2022 San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey Report (2022 Community Characteristics Survey Report) Employment, Commute & Transportation
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 29City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

FIGURE 44 WORK LOCATION BY AGE & ETHNICITY
FIGURE 45 WORK LOCATION BY EDUCATION, HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS & GENDER DAYS PER WEEK WORKING AT HOME Respondents who reported that they work from home at least occasionally were subsequen tly asked to report how many days they primarily work from home per week (see Figure 46 on the next page). Among the 75% of employees who work from home at least occasionally, most (42%) indicated that they primarily work from home five days per week, with the remainder reporting they do so four (11%), three (10%), two (7%) or one day per week (4%).

53.0 43.7 41.8

17.1 17.1 17.4

27.1 30.8

30.9 33.9 25.8 29.5 29.2 27.4

39.7 58.7

44.8 47.5

39.4 57.1

29.4 26.8

21.625.0

30.2 43.2

11.9 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
18 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or older Latino / Hispanic
Asian
American
Caucasian /
White
Mixed or
other
Age (QD1) Ethnicity (QD7)
% Respondents Who Provided Opinion
Mixture of
both
Commuting
outside hom e
Working from
home

46.8 47.7 47.5

18.6 21.3 27.5 28.5

17.9 18.5 24.3 28.8 25.7 23.8

34.6 49.955.3

21.320.928.8

46.7 53.9 60.1

20.4 56.4

14.8 34.7

25.2 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Less than
college
Som e
college
Tw o -ye ar
degree
Four-year
degree
Grad / Post
grad degree
Own Rent Male Female
Education (QD6) Home Ownership Status
(Q7)
Gender (QD5)
% Respondents Who Provided Opinion
Mixture of
both
Commuting
outside hom e
Working from
home

8.a.2
Packet Pg. 177
Attachment: 2022 San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey Report (2022 Community Characteristics Survey Report) Employment, Commute & Transportation
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 30City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Question 17 How many days do you primarily work from home each week? FIGURE 46 DAYS A WEEK WORKING FROM HOME
HOME-BASED BUSINESS Approximately 10% employed San Carlos residents who work from home own a home-based busine ss, which translates to 7% of all employed residents own- ing a home based business in the City (Figure 47).

Question 18 Do you own a home-based business?
FIGURE 47 OWN A HOME-BASED BUSINESS AMONG ALL EMPLOYED RESPONDENTS COMMUTE MODE Respondents who commute to a work destination outside of their home at least occasionally were subsequently asked to identify the method of transportation they use most often when commuting to their work place. Overall, the most common method of commut- ing was driving alone to work in a car, truck, SUV, or van (83%). Public transit via Caltrain (5%) or other public transit mode (1%) accounted for approximately 6% of commutes and ridesharing via carpool accounted for approximately 3% of commutes. Active transportation modes (biking, walking, jogging, running) were mentioned by 6% of employees as their primary method of com- muting to work. All other modes were mentioned by just 1% of respondents, collectively. When compared to 2019, the percentage ridesharing or using transit for their work commutes declined Prefer not to
answer

0.7 Work from
home at least
some of the
time

74.7 Five or more

41.7 Commuting
outside home

24.8 Prefer not to
answer

0.5 Three

10.1 One

4.0 Two

7.3 Four

11.0 Not home-
based
business

91.3 Home-based
business

7.3 Prefer not to
answer

1.5 8.a.2
Packet Pg. 178
Attachment: 2022 San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey Report (2022 Community Characteristics Survey Report) Employment, Commute & Transportation
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 31City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
in 2022, whereas the percentage engaging in active transportation increased. Figures 49 and 50 show how the percentage who commute by driv ing alone varied by age, ethnicity, commute duration, and commute distance.

Question 19 What method of transportation do you use most of the time when commuting to your work place?
FIGURE 48 PRIMARY WORK COMMUTE MODE BY STUDY YEAR
FIGURE 49 PRIMARY WORK COMMUTE MODE BY AGE & ETHNICITY

83.4 4.8

4.1 3.2

2.0 1.2

0.6 0.6

0.2 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 82.0

7.4 0.8

5.0 0.3

0.8 0.0

1.5 0.5

1.2 0.2

0.1 0.3
0 1 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 0
Drive alone in a car, truck, SUV, or van
Caltrain
Walk/jog/run
Carpool (ride together 2 to 4 people)
Bike
Other
Bus
BART
Motorcycle
Employer-provided shuttle/bus
On-demand rideshare service like Uber or Lyft
Other public transit
Prefer not to answer
% Respondents
2022
2019

83.6 80.0

6.8 3.8

16.4 20.0

93.2 75.1

89.3 83.2 82.6

96.2 24.9 17.416.810.7
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
18 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or older Latino / Hispanic
Asian American Caucasian /
White
Age (QD1) Ethnicity (QD7)
% Employed Respondents
Who Typically Commute
Alternative
mo de
Drive alone

8.a.2
Packet Pg. 179
Attachment: 2022 San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey Report (2022 Community Characteristics Survey Report) Employment, Commute & Transportation
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 32City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

FIGURE 50 PRIMARY WORK COMMUTE MODE BY COMMUTE DURATION IN MINUTES & COMMUTE DISTANCE IN MILES LENGTH OF COMMUTE Length of commute was measured both in terms of distance trav- eled one-way between an employee’s home and their primary work place (Question 20), as well as the time it typically takes to commute between home and work if they drive directly without stops (Question 21).

In terms of commute distance (see Figure 51), half of respondents were represented in commute length categories of less than 10 miles (50%), one-in-five reported traveling 10 to 19 miles (21%), 16% commute 20 to 29 miles, and 10% commute 30 miles or more between work and home, one- way. An additional 3% of respondents were un sure or declined to state. The average commute length among all commuters was 13.13 miles, one-way, which is lower than the 15.45 miles average commute distance recorded in 2019.

Question 20 In miles, what is the approximate dist ance between your home and your work place?
FIGURE 51 WORK COMMUTE DISTANCE IN MILES BY STUDY YEAR The following figures show how average commute
distances varied across subgroups of employees. In
general, the longest average commute distances in
2022 were reported by those 35 to 44 years of age,
Caucasian commuters, commuters with at least a
four-year degree, those who self-describe as being
very engaged in the community.

80.1 87.5 91.1

81.3 77.3

26.2 36.5

19.9 12.5 8.9

18.7 22.7

63.5 83.690.984.5

95.6 73.8

15.5 9.1 16.4

4.4 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Less than
10 10 to 19 20 to 29 30 to 39 40 to 59 60 or
mo re
Less than
5 5 to 9 10 to 19 20 to 29 30 or
mo re
Co mmute Duratio n in Minutes (Q21) Co mmute Distance in Miles (Q20) % Employed Respondents
Who Typically Commute
Alternative
mo de
Drive alone
5 to 9

22.9 Less than 5

27.5 10 to 19

21.2 20 to 29

16.3 Prefer not to
answer

2.630 or more

9.5 8.a.2
Packet Pg. 180
Attachment: 2022 San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey Report (2022 Community Characteristics Survey Report) Employment, Commute & Transportation
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 33City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

FIGURE 52 WORK COMMUTE DISTANCE IN MILES BY OVERALL, AGE, ETHNICITY & PRIMARY COMMUTE MODE FIGURE 53 WORK COMMUTE DISTANCE IN MILES BY EDUCATION, PARTICIPATE, BELONG TO COMMUNITY GROUP &

ENGAGED, CONNECTED WITH COMMUNITY
DURATION OF COMMUTE As for the time it typically takes an employee to commute to work one-way without stops, approximately 36% indicated it takes less than 20 minutes, 21% indicated it takes between 20 and 29 minutes, 15% reported their co mmute typically takes between 30 to 39 minutes, 8% stated that thei r one-way commute lasts between 40 to 59 min- utes, and 9% offered that their co mmute lasts an hour or more. An additional 10% of employees were unsure or unwilling to share. The average commute duration among all commuters was

26.2 minutes in 2022, one-way, which is somewhat less than the 33.6 minutes reported in 2019.

Those who used alternative mo des for their commute reported the longest commute durations (see figures 55-57).

13.39 10.49

11.50 13.18 13.81

10.47 12.43 12.04

14.1814.81

10.67 13.13
0 5
10 15
20 18 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or older Latino / Hispanic
Asian
American
Caucasian
/ White
Mixed or
other
Drive
alone
Alternative
mo de
Overall Age (QD1) Ethnicity (QD7) Primary Co mmute
Mode (Q19)
Avg One-Way Commute Miles Among
Employed Respondents Who Commute
at Least Some of the Time

13.45 11.76

13.64 18.57

11.57 13.06

2.84 10.77

6.77 15.69
0 5
10 15
20 Less than
college
Some college T wo-year
degree
Four-year
degree
Grad / Post
grad degree
Y es No Very Som ewhat Slightly, not
at all
Education (QD6) Participate, Belong to
Community Group (Q11)
Engaged, Connected w/Community (Q10)
Avg One-Way Commute Miles Among
Employed Respondents Who Commute
at Least Some of the Time

8.a.2
Packet Pg. 181
Attachment: 2022 San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey Report (2022 Community Characteristics Survey Report) Employment, Commute & Transportation
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 34City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Question 21 In time, how long does it typically take you to commute to work one-way if you travel there directly without stops?
FIGURE 54 WORK COMMUTE DURATION IN MINUTES BY STUDY YEAR FIGURE 55 WORK COMMUTE DURATION IN MINUTES BY OVERALL, AGE, ETHNICITY & PRIMARY COMMUTE MODE FIGURE 56 WORK COMMUTE DURATION IN MINUTES BY EDUCATION, PARTICIPATED, BELONG TO COMMUNITY GROUP &

ENGAGED, CONNECTED WITH COMMUNITY
Prefer not to
answer

10.0 40 to 59

8.3 60 or more

9.4 30 to 39

14.7 20 to 29

21.4 Less than 10

10.5 10 to 19

25.6 30.84

24.12 23.97

26.81 26.87

22.25 24.20

36.42 26.20 25.74

23.04 26.92
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 18 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or
older
Latino /
Hispanic
Asian
American
Caucasian
/ White
Mixed or
other
Drive
alone
Alternative
mo de
Overall Age (QD1) Ethnicity (QD7) Primary Commute
Mode (Q19)
Avg One-Way Commute Mins Among
Employed Respondents Who Commute
at Least Some of the Time

29.34 25.37 26.52

22.22 24.42

27.92 25.43

16.83 26.34

15.13 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
Less than
college
Som e
college
Tw o -year
degree
Four-year
degree
Grad / Post
grad degree
Y es No Very Som ewhat Slightly, not
at all
Education (QD6) Participate, Belong to
Co mmunity Gro up (Q11)
Engaged, Connected w/Community
(Q10)
Avg One-Way Commute Mins Among
Employed Respondents Who Commute
at Least Some of the Time

8.a.2
Packet Pg. 182
Attachment: 2022 San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey Report (2022 Community Characteristics Survey Report) Employment, Commute & Transportation
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 35City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

FIGURE 57 WORK COMMUTE DURATION IN MINUTES BY COMMUTE DISTANCE IN MILES TRAVEL WITHIN SAN CARLOS Switching gears, all respondents (regardless of employ- ment status) were asked how often they use each of the five different transportation modes shown to the left of Figure 58 when traveling with the City of San Carlos. The order of the items was randomized for each respondent to avoid a systematic position bias. Nearly all residents use a personal vehicle when traveling within San Carlos (97%) and three-quarters walk from home to a local store or restaurant (76%). Less than half of residents ride a bicycle (42%) or use Uber or Lyft (38%) when traveling within the City, and just 8% ride a local bus.

Question 22 When traveling within the City of San Carlos, how often do you: _____? FIGURE 58 FREQUENCY OF TRAVELING WITHIN CITY OF SAN CARLOS When compared to 2019, the percentage of San Carlos residents who walk to a local store or res- taurant (+8%) and ride a bicycle (+5%) on a weekly basis in 2022 increased significantly, whereas the percentage who use an Uber or Lyft (-4%) an d use a personal vehicle (-6%) decreased signifi- cantly (see Table 3). Tables 4 and 5 display week ly use of each transportation mode for travel within San Carlos by respondents’ age, education, and gender.

58.00 11.79

19.20 26.53

42.90 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
Less than 5 5 to 9 10 to 19 20 to 29 30 or more
Commute Distance in Miles (Q20)
Avg One-Way Commute Mins Among
Employed Respondents Who Commute
at Least Some of the Time

27.7 9.5

17.4 12.7

10.6 22.7
1 1
2 2
1 11.4

47.1 2

38.7 4.7 5.0

1.6 9.3

6.3 5.4

11.4 27.5
1 2

56.5 60.3

91.3 0 1 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 0 1 0 0
Use a personal vehicle
Walk from home to local
store, restaurant
Ride a bicycle
Us e Uber or Lyft
Ride a local bus
% Respondents
5+ days per wk 1-4 days per wk 2-3 days per wk 1 day per month < 1 day per month Never Prefer not to answer

8.a.2
Packet Pg. 183
Attachment: 2022 San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey Report (2022 Community Characteristics Survey Report) Employment, Commute & Transportation
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 36City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

TABLE 3 FREQUENCY OF TRAVELING WITHIN CITY OF SAN CARLOS BY STUDY YEAR TABLE 4 FREQUENCY OF TRAVELING WITHIN CITY OF SAN CARLOS BY OVERALL & AGE (SHOWING % WEEKLY) TABLE 5 FREQUENCY OF TRAVELING WITHIN CITY OF SAN CARLOS BY EDUCATION & GENDER (SHOWING % WEEKLY) HYBRID AND ELECTRIC VEHICLES The next transportation-related question asked resi- dents whether they own or lease a hybrid gas and electric vehicle or an all-electric vehicle. As shown in Figure 59 below, 23% of residents reported that they own a hybrid and 19% own an all- electric vehicle. The percentage who reported owning an all-electric vehicle increased signifi- cantly in the past three years, from 8% in 2019 to 19% in 2022. Figures 60 and 61 on the next page show how hybrid and all-electric vehicle ownership varied by demographic subgroups.

Question 23 Do you own or lease: _____?
FIGURE 59 OWN OR LEASE HYBRID OR ALL-ELECTRIC VEHICLE BY STUDY YEAR 2022 2019
Walk from home to local store, restaurant 39.0 31.2 +7.9† Ride a bicycle 11.4 6.8 +4.6†
Ride a local bus 1.1 1.2 -0.1
Use Uber or Lyft 0.7 4.1 -3.5†
Use a personal vehicle 85.8 92.2 -6.4†
Study Year Difference in %
Weekly Use
2019 to 2022
18 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or older
U s e a p e r s o n a l v e h i c l e 8 5 . 88 3 . 69 0 . 58 7 . 78 2 . 78 5 . 3 Walk from home to local store, restaurant 39.0 60.5 42.9 38.3 31.9 21.4 Ride a bicycle 11.4 18.6 12.4 13.1 8.8 4.8
Ride a local bus 1.1 1.1 0.0 2.8 1.7 0.0
Use Uber or Lyft 0.7 0.0 1.3 1.0 0.5 0.0
Age (QD1)
Overall
Less than
college
Some
college
Two-year
degree
Four-year
degree
Grad / Post
grad degree Male Female
Use a personal vehicle 67.7 80.6 79.5 87.1 88.5 88.2 84.9 Walk from home to local store, restaurant 38.4 35.4 42.3 41.9 37.8 39.5 37.8 Ride a bicycle 0.0 6.5 5.4 15.4 11.0 18.0 5.6
Ride a local bus 0.0 0.0 2.6 0.8 1.4 0.7 1.6
Use Uber or Lyft 2.3 0.0 3.5 0.0 0.7 0.6 0.5
Gender (QD5)Education (QD6)

19.6 7.9

79.4 79.1

91.0 18.7†23.3

74.7 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
2022 2019 2022 2019
Hybrid gas/electric vehicle All-electric vehicle
Q23 Do you own or lease . . .
% Respondents
Not sure /
Prefer not to
answerNo
Yes

8.a.2
Packet Pg. 184
Attachment: 2022 San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey Report (2022 Community Characteristics Survey Report) Employment, Commute & Transportation
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 37City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

FIGURE 60 OWN OR LEASE HYBRID OR ALL-ELECTRIC VEHICLE BY EDUCATION & AGE FIGURE 61 OWN OR LEASE HYBRID OR ALL-ELECTRIC VEHICLE BY PRIMARY COMMUTE MODE, HOME OWNERSHIP

STATUS & ETHNICITY
ABILITY TO FIND EV CHARGING STATIONS The final question in this series asked respondents with an all-electric vehicle whether they find it difficult to charge their vehicle in the City of San Carlos. As shown in Figure 62 on the next page, just over one-third of all-electric vehicle owners (36%) answered Question 24 in the affirmative in 2022, which is similar to the percentage found in 2019.

26.3 11.3

23.6 7.3

21.7 20.2 20.4

11.3 14.6

17.3 23.8

25.3 28.8

24.4 27.5

7.6 14.8

8.7 29.1

26.6 0
10 20
30 40
Less than
college
Some
college
Two-year
degree
Four-year
degree
Grad / Post
grad degree
18 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or older
Education (QD6) Age (QD1)
% Respondents
Hybrid gas and electric vehicle All-electric vehicle

20.6 10.3

13.9 21.4

26.6 20.7

25.9 37.7

24.223.9

14.0 10.0

17.5 25.3

21.7 15.4
0 10
20 30
40 Drive alone Alternative
mode
Own Rent Latino /
Hispanic
Asian American Caucasian /
White
Mixed or other
Primary Commute Mode (Q19) Home Ownership Status (Q7) Ethnicity (QD7) % Respondents
Hybrid gas and electric vehicle All-electric vehicle

8.a.2
Packet Pg. 185
Attachment: 2022 San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey Report (2022 Community Characteristics Survey Report) Employment, Commute & Transportation
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 38City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Question 24 Do you find it difficult to charge your electric vehicle in the City of San Carlos? FIGURE 62 DIFFICULTY TO CHARGE ELECTRICAL VEHICLE BY STUDY YEAR

33.5 54.2

12.3 36.0

59.8 4.2†
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
2022 2019
Study Y ear
% Respondents
Prefer not to
answer
Not difficult
Difficult to
charge all-
electric vehicle
in San Carlos

8.a.2
Packet Pg. 186
Attachment: 2022 San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey Report (2022 Community Characteristics Survey Report) Health & Lifestyle
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 39
City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

H EALTH & L IFESTYLE
Having profiled residents’ employment, commute, and transportation behaviors, the survey tran- sitioned to the topics of health and lifestyle.

RECREATION ACTIVITIES Question 25 asked residents to describe the recreation activi- ties that the adults in their household engage in most often. Question 26 on the next page asked a similar question focused on children and teen age members of the household. Both questions were posed in an open-ended manner, thereby allo wing residents to mention any activities that came to mind without being pr ompted by—or restricted to—a part icular list of options. True North later reviewed the verbatim responses and grouped them into the categories shown in Fig- ure 63 (adult recreation) and Figure 64 (child/teen recreation).

Walking, jogging, and running was the most popular adult recreation activity (47%), followed by hiking/nature walks (33%), cycling (21%), and exercising/gym/yoga (15%). When compared to 2019, the percentage who reported hiking, taking nature walks, and cycling increased, whereas the percentage who indicated they exercise at the gym/yoga decreased.

Question 25 Thinking of the adult members of your household, what recreation activities do the adults in your household engage in most often?
FIGURE 63 ADULT RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES

47.2 33.4

21.3 14.6

7.2 7.1

6.3 5.5

5.4 4.8

3.5 2.6

2.6 2.2

2.0 2.0

1.8 1.7

1.6 1.5

3.2 5.2
0 1 02 03 04 05 0
Walking, jogging, running
Hiking, nature walks
Cycling
Exercising, gym, yoga
Tennis
Do not engage in recreation activities
Dining out, wine tasting
Dance, music, theater
Golf
Swimming
Walking dog, dog park
Parks, beach
Soccer
Gardening
Basketball
Table games, cards, reading
Pickle Ball
Boating, kayaking, rowing, sailing
Variety of sports
Weightlifting
Socializing with friends, family
Shopping
% Respondents

8.a.2
Packet Pg. 187
Attachment: 2022 San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey Report (2022 Community Characteristics Survey Report) Health & Lifestyle
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 40City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Playing soccer (9%) and cycling (9%) were the most popular recreation activities among children and teenagers, followed by walk ing, jogging, and running (7%), going to the park/beach (7%), and hiking/nature walks (5%). The majority of residents do not have a child or teen in their home (54%), which is why the percentage figures for child/teen activities tend to be lower when com- pared to the adult percentages in the prior figure.

Question 26 Thinking of the children and teenage members of your household, what recre- ation activities do they engage in most often?
FIGURE 64 CHILD RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES
HOUSE-CLEANING SERVICE OR LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE SERVICE Respon- dents were next asked whether they use a house-cleaning service or maid (Question 27) or land- scape maintenance service or gar dener (Question 28). As shown in Figure 65 on the next page, 47% of residents reported using a house cleaner and 52% a landscape maintenance service or gardener in 2022, which is similar to the 2019 survey findings.

For the interested reader, figures 66 and 67 show the percentage of residents that use a house- cleaning services or maid and figures 68 and 69 display the percentage of residents that utilize a landscape maintenance service or gardener by a variety of resident subgroups.

53.8 9.2

8.7 6.9

6.8 5.4

5.0 5.0

4.6 3.9

3.8 3.2

2.2 2.0

2.0 1.6

4.6 3.60 1 02 03 04 05 06 0
No children or teenagers in home
Soccer
Cycling
Walking, jogging, running
Parks, beach
Hiking, nature walks
Swimming
Dance, music, theater
Basketball
Variety of sports
Playgrounds
They do not engage in recreation activities
Softball, baseball
Tennis
Skateboarding, scootering
School activities, events
Socializing with friends, family
Table games, cards, reading, video games
% Respondents

8.a.2
Packet Pg. 188
Attachment: 2022 San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey Report (2022 Community Characteristics Survey Report) Health & Lifestyle
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 41City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Question 27 Do you use a house-cleaning service or maid? Question 28 Do you use a landscape maintenance service or gardener? FIGURE 65 USE HOUSE-CLEANING SERVICE BY STUDY YEAR
FIGURE 66 USE HOUSE-CLEANING SERVICE BY YEARS IN SAN CARLOS & TYPE OF RESIDENCE

45.5 49.4

51.3 46.5 48.9

47.3 52.4

49.3 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
2022 2019 2022 2019
House-cleaning service, maid Landscape maintenance service, gardener Q27/28 Do you use . . .
% Respondents
Not sure /
Prefer not to
answerNo
Yes

53.2 60.3

36.1 19.9

42.6 62.2

45.3 46.3
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 Less than 5 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 or more Single family Townhome Condo Apartment Y ears in San Carlos (Q1) T ype of Residence (Q6)
% Respondents That Use
House-Cleaner or Maid

8.a.2
Packet Pg. 189
Attachment: 2022 San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey Report (2022 Community Characteristics Survey Report) Health & Lifestyle
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 42City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

FIGURE 67 USE HOUSE-CLEANING SERVICE BY HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS & EMPLOYMENT STATUS FIGURE 68 USE LANDSCAPE SERVICE BY YEARS IN SAN CARLOS, TYPE OF RESIDENCE & LIVE IN SAN CARLOS 10 YEARS

FROM NOW

56.9 41.7 43.3

55.3 49.2

32.2 55.6
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 Own Rent Full-time Part-time Homemaker Retired In-between jobs
Home Ownership Status (Q7) Employment Status (Q13)
% Respondents That Use
House-Cleaner or Maid

66.3 61.0

69.1 51.9

62.9 72.1

78.5 64.3
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 Less than 5 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 or more Single family Townhome Yes No Years in San Carlos (Q1) Type of Residence (Q6) Live in San Carlos 10 yrs From Now (Q4)
% Single Family and Townhome
Respondents That Use Landscape
Maintenance Service or Gardener

8.a.2
Packet Pg. 190
Attachment: 2022 San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey Report (2022 Community Characteristics Survey Report) Health & Lifestyle
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 43City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

FIGURE 69 USE LANDSCAPE SERVICE BY HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS & AGE HOME DELIVERY Question 29 asked San Carlos residents how often they have items deliv- ered to their home, including goods and packages and food, meals, and groceries. Overall, 96% of residents have goods and packages delivere d to their home from Amazon or other online retailers, with nearly two-thirds (65%) doing so weekly. More than seven-in-ten respondents (72%) also indicated they have food , meals and groceries delivered to their home, with 30% having weekly deliveries (Figure 70). When compared to 2019, the percentage of San Carlos residents who have packages (+20%) and food (+14%) delivered to their home on a weekly basis increased significantly in 2022 (see Table 6).

Question 29 How often do you: _____? At least three times per week, one to two times per week, two to three times per month, once per month, less often than once per month, or never? FIGURE 70 FREQUENCY OF HOME DELIVERY

67.4 64.0

67.467.0 64.6 62.2

70.8 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
Own Rent 18 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or older Home Ownership Status (Q7) Age (QD1)
% Single Family and Townhome
Respondents That Use Landscape
Maintenance Service or Gardener

34.8 22.1 3.82.7
1 130.0

8.5 21.3 18.4 10.6

5.4 12.2 27
0 1 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 0 1 0 0
Have food, meals, groceries
delivered to home
Have goods, packages
delivered to home from
Amazon, online retailer
% Respondents
3+ x per wk 1-2 x per wk 2-3 x per month 1 x per month
< 1 per month Never Prefer not to answer

8.a.2
Packet Pg. 191
Attachment: 2022 San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey Report (2022 Community Characteristics Survey Report) Health & Lifestyle
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 44City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

TABLE 6 FREQUENCY OF HOME DELIVERY BY STUDY YEAR
TABLE 7 FREQUENCY OF HOME DELIVERY BY AGE & HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS DAILY MEDIA USE The last substantive question of this section asked respondents how much time they spend in a typi cal day on each form of media shown to the left of Figure 71.

Whereas Figure 71 breaks down overall use of ea ch type of media, Figure 72 displays average minutes per day spent on each activity. Overal l media use was highest for the Internet, not including social media (92% of residents) with residents also spending the most time on that activity each day (228 minutes per day). Approximately 88% watch television each day, 88% of residents consume news, 83% read a book or magazine, 76% use social media, 63% listen to the radio, and 27% play video games daily.

Question 30 In a typical day, approximately how much time do you spend: _____? FIGURE 71 DAILY MEDIA USE
2022 2019
Have goods, packages
delivered to home from
Amazon, online retailer

64.8 44.3 +20.4†
Have food, meals, groceries
delivered to home 29.8 16.3 +13.5†
Study Year
Difference in %
Weekly Use
2019 to 2022
18 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or older Own Rent Have goods, packages
delivered to home from
Amazon, online retailer
6 8 . 27 6 . 37 2 . 56 2 . 44 7 . 86 8 . 75 6 . 5
Have food, meals, groceries
delivered to home 36.2 45.8 35.0 25.6 8.9 29.4 30.4
Age (QD1) Home Ownership
Status (Q7)

6.2 9.2

21.7 12.0

13.1 7.1

26.2 37.2

27.9 18.0

8.2 15.5

2.8 12.9

7.8 11.8

10.3 3.1

10.4 48.8

29.6 2

10.5 17.1

34.2 19.4

17.5 7.9

4.8 12.7

19.6 4.9

2.2 10.0

10.7 14.8

8.5 37.2

73.5 23.8

16.8 12.3
0 1 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 0 1 0 0
Using Internet, not including
social media
Watching TV
Consuming news
Reading book, m agazine
Us ing s ocial m edia
Listening to radio
Playing video games
% Respondents Who Provided Opinion
3+ hrs 2 to <3 hrs 1 to <2 hrs 30 to 59 mins <30 mins None / Do not use

8.a.2
Packet Pg. 192
Attachment: 2022 San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey Report (2022 Community Characteristics Survey Report) Health & Lifestyle
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 45City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

In terms of time spent on each activity (Figure 72), the average San Carlos resident spends nearly six hours in a typical day utilizing the Internet, not including social media (228 minutes per day) and watching television (121 minutes per day). Residents spend approximately an hour or more consuming news (73 minutes), using social media (66 minutes), reading books or magazines (62 minutes), and listening to the radio (57 minutes). San Carlos residents spend the least amount of time playing video games in a typical day (19 minutes).

FIGURE 72 DAILY MEDIA USE BY SHOWING AVERAGE MINUTES PER DAY When compared to prior to the pandemic (2019) , San Carlos residents reported much greater use of the Internet on a daily basis (+81 minutes) in 2022 (Table 8). Tables 9 and 10 show how daily minutes of use for each form of media varied by demographics.

TABLE 8 DAILY MEDIA USE IN MINUTES COMPARISON: 2019 TO 2022 TABLE 9 DAILY MEDIA USE SHOWING AVERAGE MINUTES PER DAY BY AGE & GENDER

61.57 57.25

18.57 65.7273.02
121.24
227.80
0 50
100
150
200
250
Using
Internet, not
including
social media
Watching TV Consuming
news
Using social
media
Reading
book,
magazine
Listening to
radio
Playing video
games
Q30 In a typical day, approximately how much time do you spend . . .

Avg Minutes per Day
2022 2019
Using Internet, not including social media 227.8 146.62 81.2 Playing video games 18.57 12.46 6.1
Reading book, magazine 61.57 56.75 4.8
Using social media 65.72 62.43 3.3
Listening to radio 57.25 61.74 -4.5
Consuming news 73.02 80.99 -8.0
Watching TV 121.24 130.63 -9.4
Difference in
Daily Minutes
2019 to 2022
Study Year
18 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or older Male Female Using Internet, not including social media 256.8 242.5 270.8 221.9 163.7 231.7 232.3 Watching TV 114.8 78.4 99.5 144.3 172.3 115.2 129.2
Consuming news 75.1 48.4 66.0 84.1 96.1 73.7 73.8
Using social media 105.3 56.5 50.2 72.5 49.7 45.7 78.3
Reading book, magazine 52.1 45.7 53.5 63.3 92.3 56.0 69.5 L i s t e n i n g t o r a d i o 3 9 . 33 7 . 25 7 . 88 1 . 98 0 . 84 8 . 16 9 . 0 Playing video games 49.1 14.5 16.1 7.0 8.5 20.7 12.0
Age (QD1) Gender (QD5)

8.a.2
Packet Pg. 193
Attachment: 2022 San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey Report (2022 Community Characteristics Survey Report) Health & Lifestyle
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 46City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

TABLE 10 DAILY MEDIA USE SHOWING AVERAGE MINUTES PER DAY BY ENGAGED, CONNECTED WITH COMMUNITY &

ETHNICITY
Very Somewhat Slightly, not
at all
Latino /
Hispanic
Asian
American
Caucasian /
White
Mixed or
other
Using Internet, not including social media 248.8 228.0 226.6 285.9 245.2 215.6 228.5 Watching TV 105.9 118.4 130.5 99.4 108.0 127.7 116.8
Consuming news 72.2 67.8 78.6 56.6 58.7 78.3 63.1
Using social media 65.3 70.1 64.2 101.2 59.9 56.4 64.3
Reading book, magazine 56.2 61.6 64.1 54.7 53.5 62.9 66.2 Listening to radio 56.1 48.7 65.7 50.8 30.7 69.7 24.3
Playing video games 13.6 16.1 22.6 38.7 16.0 14.9 19.7
Engaged, Connected w/Community (Q10) Ethnicity (QD7)

8.a.2
Packet Pg. 194
Attachment: 2022 San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey Report (2022 Community Characteristics Survey Report) Pandemic
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 47
City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

P ANDEMIC
The two years leading up to the 2022 Community Characteristics Survey were punctuated by dif- ficult and dramatic events in San Carlos. The coronavirus pandemic that arrived in early 2020 has taken lives, threatened livelihoods, and forc ed dramatic changes in the way residents live, work, socialize, and play. As noted throughout this report, the 2022 survey found dramatic changes in where San Carlos residents are workin g and their daily use of the Internet, as well as significant changes in how connec ted they feel to the community, the recreation activities they engage in, and their reliance on home-delivery services. This final section of the survey addressed the topic of the pandemic head-on by asking residents to describe the main impacts of the pandemic on their household.

CURRENT IMPACT OF PANDEMIC Question 31 asked respondents the rate the pan- demic’s current impact on their household. As shown in Figure 73, approximately one-third of respondents (32%) stated the pandemic is currently having a big impact on their household, with an additional 47% describing th e impact as moderate. Approxim ately one-in-five respondents indicated that the pandemic’s current impacts on their household are either small (17%) or negli- gible (4%), whereas 1% preferred to not answer the question.

Question 31 The COVID-19 pandemic can impact peoples' lives in a variety of ways. Currently, would you say the pandemic is having a big impact, moderate impact, small impact, or no impact on your household?
FIGURE 73 IMPACT OF COVID-19 PANDEMIC
Although all resident subgroups had a high perce ntage of respondents indicating that the pan- demic was having either a big or moderate impact on their household, those very engaged with the community, part-time workers and the un employed, households with children under 13, Latino/Hispanic residents and those reporting mixed/other ethnicities, residents under 45 years of age, and San Carlos residents who work from home were most apt to describe the pandemic’s current impacts on their household as big or moderate (see figures 74-76).

Mode ra t e
impact

46.6 Big impact

31.8 Small impact

16.7 No impact

3.8 Prefer not to
answer

1.1 8.a.2
Packet Pg. 195
Attachment: 2022 San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey Report (2022 Community Characteristics Survey Report) Pandemic
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 48City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

FIGURE 74 IMPACT OF COVID-19 PANDEMIC BY ENGAGED, CONNECTED WITH COMMUNITY & EMPLOYMENT STATUS FIGURE 75 IMPACT OF COVID-19 PANDEMIC BY HSLD MEMBERS & ETHNICITY FIGURE 76 IMPACT OF COVID-19 PANDEMIC BY AGE & WORK COMMUTE STATUS

28.5 40.1

59.2 45.4 43.0

48.5 29.4

40.3 26.9 33.8 33.4 25.8

45.6 46.644.050.5
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Very Som ewhat Slightly, not at
all
Full-time Part-time Homemaker Retired In-between
jobs
Engaged, Connected w/Community (Q10) Employment Status (Q13) % Respondents
Moderate
impact
Big impact

29.6 39.7

36.0 41.5

49.3 49.3

27.131.131.630.3

44.9 51.5

47.1 48.0 46.4

38.3 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Child under 13 Teenager Adult 18-64 Senior 65+ Latino / Hispanic
Asian American Caucasian /
White
Mixed or other
Hsld Members (QD2) Ethnicity (QD7)
% Respondents
Moderate
impact
Big impact

26.6 33.3

47.9 48.8

52.7 43.7

28.530.7 37.2 33.1 28.6 35.5

54.8 44.639.8

47.2 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
18 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or older Working from home
Co mmuting
outside hom e
Mixture of
both
Age (QD1) Work Commute Status (Q16)
% Respondents
Moderate
impact
Big impact

8.a.2
Packet Pg. 196
Attachment: 2022 San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey Report (2022 Community Characteristics Survey Report) Pandemic
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 49City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Respondents who rated the pandemic’s impact on their household as big or moderate were sub- sequently asked to describe the main impact the pandemic is curre ntly having on their house- hold. Question 32 was presented in an open-ended manner, which allow respondents to mention any specific impact that came to mind. Tr ue North subsequently reviewed the verbatim responses and grouped them into the categories shown in Figure 77.

The most common impacts of the pandemic felt by San Carlos households are the inability to socialize or gather with friends and family (32%), isolation/staying home (14%), working from home (14%), and restrictions on travel (12%), ability to go out for entertainment/dining (12%), and engage in activities (12%).

Question 32 What is the main impact the pandemic is having on your household currently? FIGURE 77 HSLD IMPACTS DUE TO PANDEMIC

31.6 14.4

14.1 12.3

12.0 11.5

8.0 7.5

6.1 5.0

4.4 3.2

3.8 5.7
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Inability to socialize, gather with friends, family
Isolation, staying home
Working from home
Restricted, no travel
Unable to go out for entertainment, dining
Reduced activities in general
School disruptions, closures, distance learning
Loss of job, income / Work changes
Mental health issues, concerns
Childcare issues
Vaccines, mask mandates
Ongoing personal health concerns
Not sure
Lifestyle has changed, need to adapt
% Respondents Who Reported Bi g or Moderate Impact of COVID-19 (Q31)

8.a.2
Packet Pg. 197
Attachment: 2022 San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey Report (2022 Community Characteristics Survey Report) Background & Demographics
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 50
City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

B ACKGROUND & D EMOGRAPHICS
TABLE 11 DEMOGRAPHICS OF SAMPLE BY STUDY YEAR
Table 11 presents key demographic information
collected during the survey. The primary motiva-
tions for collecting the background and demo-
graphic information were to provide a better
insight into how the resu lts of the substantive
questions of the survey vary by demographic
characteristics, and ensu re that the resulting
sample matched the profile of San Carlos’ adult
population on key characteristics.
2022 2019
Total Respondents 791 885
Age (QD1)
18 to 34 19.9 18.6
35 to 44 19.6 18.8
45 to 54 19.7 20.3
55 to 64 17.8 17.2
65 or older 19.2 18.3
Prefer not to answer 3.8 6.8
Hsld Members (QD2)
Child under 13 27.3 25.5
Teenager 15.5 14.1
Adult 18-64 78.5 80.7
Senior 65+ 28.7 33.6
Gender (QD5)
Male 47.2 46.2
Female 48.2 51.2
Other 0.0 0.1
Prefer not to answer 4.6 2.6
Education (QD6)
Less than college 4.7 4.7
Some college 6.5 10.4
Two-year degree 7.5 7.7
Four-year degree 36.9 31.4
Grad / Post grad degree 42.3 42.8
Prefer not to answer 2.2 3.1
Ethnicity (QD7)
Latino / Hispanic 8.4 9.5
Asian American 16.3 13.6
Caucasian / White 63.4 65.1
Mixed or other 9.0 5.1
Prefer not to answer 2.9 6.8
Study Year

8.a.2
Packet Pg. 198
Attachment: 2022 San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey Report (2022 Community Characteristics Survey Report) Methodology
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 51
City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

M ETHODOLOGY
The following sections outline the methodology used in the study, as well as the motivation for using certain techniques.

Some questions asked in this study were presen ted only to a subset of respondents. For exam- ple, only respondents that were employed full-time or part-time (Question 13) were asked to pro- vide their current occupation (Que stion 14). The questionnaire included with this report (see Questionnaire & Toplines on page 54) identifies the skip patterns used during the interview to ensure that each respondent received the appropriate questions.

SAMPLE, RECRUITING & DATA COLLECTION A comprehensive database of San Car- los households was utilized for this study, ensuri ng that all households in San Carlos had the opportunity to be selected to participate in the survey. After random selection, additional contact information was appended to the file for adult residents and individuals were recruited to partic- ipate in the survey using a combination of email invitations, text invitations, and telephone calls.

Each individual was assigned a unique passcode to ensure that only San Carlos residents who received an invitation could a ccess the online survey site, and that the survey could be com- pleted only one time per passco de. Following a period of online data collection, True North placed telephone calls to residents that had yet to participate in the online survey as a result of the email or text invitation, or for whom only land line contact information was available.

Telephone interviews averaged 17 minutes in length and were conducted during weekday eve- nings (5:30PM to 9PM) and on weekends (10AM to 5PM). It is standard practice not to call during the day on weekdays because most working adults are unavailable and thus calling during those hours would bias the sample. A total of 791 completed surveys were gathered online and by tele- phone between January 13 and January 25, 2022.

8.a.2
Packet Pg. 199
Attachment: 2022 San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey Report (2022 Community Characteristics Survey Report) Methodology
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 52City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

MARGIN OF ERROR DUE TO SAMPLING The results of the survey can be used to esti- mate the opinions of all adult residents of the City. Because not every adult resident of the City participated in the survey, however, the results have what is known as a statistical margin of error due to sampling. The margin of error refers to the difference between what was found in the survey of 791 adult residents for a particular question and what would have been found if all of the estimated 23,103 adult residents
5 had been interviewed.

Figure 78 provides a plot of the maximum margin of error in this study. The maximum margin of error for a dichotomous percentage result occurs when the answers are evenly split such that 50% provide one response and 50% provide the al ternative response. For this survey, the maxi- mum margin of error is ± 3.4% for questions answered by all 791 respondents.

FIGURE 78 MAXIMUM MARGIN OF ERROR
Within this report, figures and tables show how responses to ce rtain questions varied by demo- graphic characteristics such as length of residence and age of th e respondent. Figure 78 is thus useful for understanding how the maximum margin of error for a percentage estimate will grow as the number of individuals asked a question (or in a particular subgroup) shrinks. Because the margin of error grows exponentially as the sample size decreases, the reader should use caution when generalizing and interpreting the results for small subgroups.

5. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, April 2020 estimate.
791 Respondents
± 3.4%
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 Sample Size (Number of Respondents)
Margin of Error

8.a.2
Packet Pg. 200
Attachment: 2022 San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey Report (2022 Community Characteristics Survey Report) Methodology
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 53City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

ROUNDING Numbers that end in 0.5 or higher are rounded up to the nearest whole num- ber, whereas numbers that end in 0.4 or lower are rounded down to the nearest whole number.

8.a.2
Packet Pg. 201
Attachment: 2022 San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey Report (2022 Community Characteristics Survey Report) Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 54
City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Q UESTIONNAIRE & T OPLINES

True North Research, Inc. © 2021 Page 1
City of San Carlos
Community Characteristics Survey Version
Final Toplines (n=791)
January 28, 2022
Section 1: Introduction to Study
Hi, my name is _____ and Im calling from TNR on behalf of the City of San Carlos. The City is conducting a survey of its residents so it can learn more about their demographics, lifestyles, and opinions. Your participation in the survey will be confidential and will help the City better meet residents needs and plan for the future.

If needed: This is a survey only Im NOT trying to sell anything and I wont ask for a donation.

If needed: The survey should take about 14 minutes to complete.

If needed: If now is not a convenient time, can you let me know a better time so I can call back?

If the person says they are an elected official or is somehow associated with the survey, politely explain that this survey is designed to the measure the opinions of those not closely associated with the study, thank them for their time, and terminate the interview.

Section 2: Living in San Carlos
Id like to begin by asking you a few questions about what it is like to live in the City of San Carlos.

Q1 How long have you lived in San Carlos?
1 Less than 1 year 4%
2 1 to 4 years 18%
3 5 to 9 years 13%
4 10 to 14 years 13%
5 15 years or longer 52%
99 Prefer not to answer 0%
Q2 What do you like best about living in San Carlos? Verbatim responses recorded and later grouped into categories shown below.

Small town feeling 23%
Nice community, neighbors 22%
Downtown area 19%
Walkability, everything close, within walking
distance 18%
Location, accessibility 15%
Safety, low crime 14%
Friendly, family oriented 14%
Shopping areas, restaurants 14%
Beautiful, clean city 9%
Good schools 9%
Open space, hills 7%

8.a.2
Packet Pg. 202
Attachment: 2022 San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey Report (2022 Community Characteristics Survey Report) Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 55City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey 1/27/2022
True North Research, Inc. © 2021 Page 2
Climate, weather 7%
Parks 7%
Nothing comes to mind / Not sure 4%
Good governance in general 3%
Public library 2%
Variety of activities for youth, kids 2%
Negative mentions 2%
Q3 What is the thing you would most like to change about San Carlos? Verbatim responses recorded and later grouped into categories shown below.

Limit growth, development 18%
Provide more affordable housing 12%
Nothing comes to mind / Not sure 10%
Reduce traffic congestion 9%
Provide more variety of restaurants, stores 9%
Improve, maintain infrastructure, roads,
sidewalks 8%
Enforce traffic laws 7%
Improve parking 6%
Maintain, add park, recreation facilities 6%
No changes desired / Everything is fine 6%
More diversity in general 5%
Improve public safety 4%
Clean, beautify city, landscaping 3%
Improve, provide more bike lanes 3%
Improve, provide more schools 3%
Improve downtown area 3%
Pet friendlier, more dog parks 3%
Improve governance in general 3%
Provide more community events, activities 3%
Reduce cost of living 2%
Better city planning, development 2%
Improve, provide more public
transportation 2%
Preserve, recapture small town feeling 2%
Make Laurel St pedestrian only 2%

8.a.2
Packet Pg. 203
Attachment: 2022 San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey Report (2022 Community Characteristics Survey Report) Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 56City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Q4 Do you anticipate that you will be living in San Carlos 10 years from now? 1 Yes 51% Ask Q5
2 No 14% Skip to Q6
98 Not sure 34% Ask Q5
99 Prefer not to answer 1% Ask Q5
Q5 Once you are retired, do you anticipate still living in San Carlos? 1 Yes 27%
2 No 10%
3 I already am retired and living in San
Carlos 20%
98 Not sure 42%
99 Prefer not to answer 1%
Q6 Which of the following best describes your residence in San Carlos? Read list. 1 Detached single family home 75% Ask Q7
2 Townhome 4% Ask Q7
3 Condominium 6% Ask Q7
4 Apartment 13% Skip to Q10
5 Other 1% Skip to Q10
99 Prefer not to answer 1% Skip to Q10
Q7 Do you own or rent your residence in San Carlos?
1 Own 77%
2 Rent 15%
3 Live rent free with family 6%
99 Prefer not to answer 2%
Ask Q8 if Q6=1 AND Q7=1. Otherwise skip to Q10.

Q8 In the next five years, do you plan to build an accessory dwelling unit also known as a granny flat on your property in San Carlos?
1 Yes 8% Ask Q9
2 No 75% Skip to Q10
98 Not sure 17% Skip to Q10
99 Prefer not to answer 0% Skip to Q10

8.a.2
Packet Pg. 204
Attachment: 2022 San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey Report (2022 Community Characteristics Survey Report) Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 57City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey 1/27/2022
True North Research, Inc. © 2021 Page 4
Q9 Do you plan to rent the accessory dwelling unit for supplemental income? 1 Yes 34%
2 No 36%
98 Not sure 31%
99 Prefer not to answer 0%

Section 3: Community Connections
Q10 In general, how engaged and connected do you feel to your San Carlos community? Would you say very, somewhat, slightly, or not at all engaged and connected? 1 Very engaged and connected 13%
2 Somewhat engaged and connected 36%
3 Slightly engaged and connected 37%
4 Not engaged and connected 11%
98 Not sure 1%
99 Prefer not to answer 1%
Q11 Do you currently participate in or belong to any organized community groups in San Carlos?
1 Yes 29%
2 No 63%
98 Not sure 5%
99 Prefer not to answer 3%
Q12 Thinking of the neighbors that live close to you in San Carlos, what proportion do you know well? All, most, some, or none?
1 All 5%
2 Most 24%
3 Some 55%
4 None 15%
98 Not sure 0%
99 Prefer not to answer 0%

8.a.2
Packet Pg. 205
Attachment: 2022 San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey Report (2022 Community Characteristics Survey Report) Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 58City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Section 4: Employment, Commute & Transportation
Next are a few questions about your employment and travel behavior.

Q13
Which of the following best describes your employment status? Would you say you are employed full-time, part-time, a student, a homemaker, retired, or are you in-between jobs right now?
1 Employed full-time 61% Ask Q14
2 Employed part-time 9% Ask Q14
3 Student 3% Skip to Q22
4 Homemaker 3% Skip to Q22
5 Retired 21% Skip to Q22
6 In-between jobs 2% Skip to Q22
98 Not sure 0% Skip to Q22
99 Prefer not to answer 2% Skip to Q22
Q14 What is your current occupation? Verbatim responses recorded and later grouped into categories shown below.

Professional Specialty (not IT): (accountants,
lawyers, engineers, scientists, lab
technicians, biotechnicians, technical
writers, artists, models)
26%
Prefer not to answer 13%

Executive: (General Managers, CEO, CFO,
Controller, and other hi-level execs,
business owners)
11%

Information Technology (IT): (computer
programmers, network administrators, web
designers)
9%

Supervisors and Managers: (staff
supervisors, shift managers, service
supervisors)
8%
Sales: (sales and marketing agents, real
estate agents) 6%

Teachers: (Professors, educators, grade
school, middle school, high school
teachers)
6%

Administrative and Office Workers: (clerical,
administrative support, secretaries,
receptionists, data entry, data processing,
schedulers, inventory accounting, records
processing, adjusters and collectors)
4%
Other (unique responses) 4%

Craft and repair: (Construction, mechanics,
electricians, appliances installations and
repair technician, handyman, HVAC
technician, general contractors)
3%

8.a.2
Packet Pg. 206
Attachment: 2022 San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey Report (2022 Community Characteristics Survey Report) Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 59City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey 1/27/2022
True North Research, Inc. © 2021 Page 6
Physicians: (doctors, dentists, physicians) 3%

Medical Assistants: (medical technicians,
medical assistants, LVN, nursing assistant,
home health aides, care givers, pharmacist)
2%
Contractor 1%
Government 1%
Nurses: (RNs only) 1%

Operators, fabricators and laborers:
(Machine operators, manual laborers, non-
electronic assemblers, vehicle/truck
operators, stockroom helpers, packers,
drivers, farmers)
1%
Protective Services: (security guards, safety
officers, bouncers, police, fireman) 1%
Self Employed, freelance 1%
Q15 And what industry do you work in? If pauses, ask: What does your company do? Verbatim responses recorded and later grouped into categories shown below.

IT Manufacturing services: Computer,
Software and Electronics Manufacturing and
Services
29%

Education: Any educational institution,
including public and private schools,
colleges and universities
10%
Prefer not to answer 10%

Business Services: Businesses that provide
services to other businesses, including
legal, advertising, printing, engineering,
accounting, IT services, install and repair
services)
8%

Medical and Social Services: Businesses that
provide health care, hospitals, social
assistance
8%

Biosciences and Pharmaceuticals:

Companies that research and manufacture
biological, chemical and medicinal products
including laboratory and medical
equipment
7%
Financial Services: Banks, credit unions,
investment consulting, income tax preparer 6%
Construction: Builders and developers,
heavy construction, special trades 3%
Sales 3%
Other (unique responses) 3%

Government / Public Administration: Any
government agency such as a city, county,
or publicly funded agency
2%
Hospitality, Visitor and Entertainment
Services 2%

8.a.2
Packet Pg. 207
Attachment: 2022 San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey Report (2022 Community Characteristics Survey Report) Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 60City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Non-IT Manufacturing: Manufacturers of
products that are not electronic, such as
food, textiles, clothing, recreational goods
2%
Religious / Non-profit Industry 2%
Security Services 2%

Communications: Telephone, radio and
cable companies, companies that
manufacture communications-related
products such as phones and fax machines
1%
Retail: Retails stores and outlets that sell
products directly to consumers 1%
Transportation 1%
Q16 Are you currently working from home, commuting to a workplace outside of your home, or a mixture of both?
1 Working from home 47% Ask Q17
2 Commuting to a workplace outside
home 25% Skip to Q19
3 Mixture of both 28% Ask Q17
99 Prefer not to answer 0% Skip to Q19
Q17 How many days do you primarily work from home each week? 1 One 5%
2 Two 10%
3 Three 13%
4 Four 15%
5 Five or more 56%
99 Prefer not to answer 1%
Q18 Do you own a home-based business?
1 Yes 10%
2 No 88%
99 Prefer not to answer 2%
Ask Q19 if Q16=(2,3). Otherwise skip to Q22.

Q19
What method of transportation do you use most of the time when commuting to your work place?

If says drive, ask: Do you drive alone or carpool with others?

If respondent says uses more than one transportation method each day, record the method they use for the longest portion of their commute. 1 Drive alone in a car, truck, SUV, or
van 83%
2 Carpool (ride togeth er 2 to 4 people) 3%

8.a.2
Packet Pg. 208
Attachment: 2022 San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey Report (2022 Community Characteristics Survey Report) Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 61City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey 2/2/2022
True North Research, Inc. © 2021 Page 8
3 Vanpool (ride together with 5 to 15
people) 0%
4 Motorcycle 0%
5 On-demand rideshare service like
Uber or Lyft 0%
6 Zipcar 0%
7 Taxi 0%
8 Employer-provided shuttle/bus 0%
Public Transit
9 Bus 1%
10 BART 1%
11 Caltrain 5%
12 Other public transit 0%
13 Bike 2%
14 Walk/jog/run 4%
15 Other 1%
99 Prefer not to answer 0%
Q20
In
, what is the approximate distance between your home and your work place? If respondent not sure, ask them to estimate. Miles recorded and later grouped into ranges shown below. Average commute = 13.13 miles.

Less than 5 28%
5 to 9 23%
10 to 19 21%
20 to 29 16%
30 or more 9%
Prefer not to answer 3%
Q21
In
, how long does it typically take you to commute to work if you travel
there directly without stops? If respondent says it depends or not sure, ask them to estimate their average time in minutes. Miles recorded and later grouped into ranges shown below. Average commute = 26.20 minutes.

Less than 10 10%
10 to 19 26%
20 to 29 21%
30 to 39 15%
40 to 59 8%
60 or more 9%
Prefer not to answer 10%

8.a.2
Packet Pg. 209
Attachment: 2022 San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey Report (2022 Community Characteristics Survey Report) Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 62City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Q22 When traveling within the City of San Carlos, how often do you: _____? Read in Order
5+ days per
week
1 to 4 days per
week
2 to 3 days per
month
1 day per
month
Less than 1
day per month
Never
Prefer not to
answer
A Use a personal vehicle 47% 39% 9% 2% 1% 2% 1%
B Ride a local bus 0% 1% 0% 1% 5% 91% 1%
C Use Uber or Lyft 0% 1% 5% 5% 28% 60% 2%
D Walk from your home to a local store or
restaurant 11% 28% 17% 9% 11% 23% 1%
E Ride a bicycle 2% 10% 13% 6% 11% 57% 2%
Q23 Do you own or lease: _____?
Read in order
Yes
No
Prefer not
to answer
A A hybrid gas and electric vehicle 23% 75% 2%
B An all-electric vehicle 19% 79% 2%
Ask Q24 if Q23B=1.

Q24 Do you find it difficult to charge your electric vehicle in the City of San Carlos? 1 Yes 36%
2 No 60%
99 Prefer not to answer 4%

Section 5: Health and Lifestyle
Next are a few questions about your health and lifestyle.

Q25
Thinking of the adult members of your household, what recreation activities do the adults in your household engage in most often?

Probe: Any others? Verbatim responses recorded and later grouped into categories shown below.

Walking, jogging, running 47%
Hiking, nature walks 33%
Cycling 21%
Exercising, gym, yoga 15%

8.a.2
Packet Pg. 210
Attachment: 2022 San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey Report (2022 Community Characteristics Survey Report) Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 63City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey 1/27/2022
True North Research, Inc. © 2021 Page 10
Tennis 7%
Do not engage in recreation activities 7%
Dance, music, theater 6%
Dining out, wine tasting 6%
Walking dog, dog park 5%
Swimming 5%
Golf 5%
Soccer 3%
Basketball 3%
Parks, beach 3%
Gardening 3%
Table games, cards, reading 2%
Variety of sports 2%
Socializing with friends, family 2%
Boating, kayaking, rowing, sailing 2%
Shopping 2%
Pickle Ball 2%
Weightlifting 2%
Q26
Thinking of the children and teenage members of your household, what recreation activities do they engage in most often? Probe: Any others? Verbatim responses recorded and later grouped into categories shown below.

No children or teenagers in home 54%
Soccer 9%
Cycling 9%
Walking, jogging, running 7%
Parks, beach 7%
Basketball 5%
Swimming 5%
Variety of sports 5%
Dance, music, theater 5%
Hiking, nature walks 5%
Softball, baseball 4%
Playgrounds 4%
They do not engage in recreation activities 4%
Tennis 3%
Table games, cards, reading, video games 2%
Socializing with friends, family 2%

8.a.2
Packet Pg. 211
Attachment: 2022 San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey Report (2022 Community Characteristics Survey Report) Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 64City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey 1/27/2022
True North Research, Inc. © 2021 Page 11
Skateboarding, scootering 2%
School activities, events 2%
Q27 Do you use a house-cleaning service or maid?
1 Yes 47%
2 No 49%
99 Prefer not to answer 3%
Ask Q28 if Q6=(1,2).

Q28 Do you use a landscape maintenance service or gardener? 1 Yes 66%
2 No 33%
99 Prefer not to answer 1%
Q29 How often do you: _____? At least three times per week, one to two times per week, two to three times per month, once per month, less often than once per month, or never? Read in Order
3+ times per
week
1 to 2 times
per week
2 to 3 times
per month
1 time per
month
Less than 1
per month
Never
Prefer not to
answer
A Have food, meals, or groceries delivered to
your home? 9% 21% 18% 11% 12% 27% 1%
B
Have goods or packages delivered to your
home from Amazon or another online
retailer
30% 35% 22% 5% 4% 3% 1%
Q30 In a typical day, approximately how much time do you spend: _____? If unsure or says it varies, ask them to estimate. Record to nearest quarter hour.

Read in Order
Average
Minutes per
Day
None / Do Not
Typically Use
Less than 30
mins
30 to 59 mins
1 hr. to less
than 2 hrs.
2 hrs. to less
than 3 hrs.
3 or more hrs.

Prefer not to
answer
A Consuming news 73.02 11% 9% 15% 33% 11% 9% 12%
B Watching television 121.24 10% 3% 7% 23% 19% 26% 11%
C Listening to the radio 57.25 33% 11% 14% 16% 6% 8% 11% D Using social media 65.72 21% 13% 11% 25% 9% 9% 11%
E Using the Internet, not including
social media 227.80 7% 2% 4% 17% 15% 44% 11%
F Reading a book or magazine 61.57 15% 9% 18% 31% 12% 6% 10% G Playing video games 18.57 66% 8% 4% 7% 2% 3% 10%

8.a.2
Packet Pg. 212
Attachment: 2022 San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey Report (2022 Community Characteristics Survey Report) Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 65City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey 1/27/2022
True North Research, Inc. © 2021 Page 12
Section 6: Pandemic
Q31
The COVID-19 pandemic can impact peoples lives in a variety of ways. Currently, would you say the pandemic is having a big impact, moderate impact, small impact, or no impact on your household?
1 Big impact 32% Ask Q32
2 Moderate impact 47% Ask Q32
3 Small impact 17% Skip to D1
4 No impact 4% Skip to D1
99 Prefer not to answer 1% Skip to D1
Q32 What is the main impact the pandemic is having on your household currently? Verbatim responses recorded and later grouped into categories shown below.

Inability to socialize, gather with friends,
family 32%
Isolation, staying home 14%
Working from home 14%
Restricted, no travel 12%
Unable to go out for entertainment, dining 12%
Reduced activities in general 11%
School disruptions, closures, distance
learning 8%
Loss of job, income / Work changes 7%
Childcare issues 6%
Mental health issues, concerns 6%
Vaccines, mask mandates 5%
Ongoing personal health concerns 4%
Lifestyle has changed, need to adapt 3%

Section 7: Demographics
Thank you so much for your participation. I have just a few more background questions for statistical purposes.

D1 In what year were you born? Year of birth recorded age categories shown below. 18 to 24 5%
25 to 34 15%
35 to 44 20%
45 to 54 20%
55 to 64 18%
65 or older 19%
Prefer not to answer 4%

8.a.2
Packet Pg. 213
Attachment: 2022 San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey Report (2022 Community Characteristics Survey Report) Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 66City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey 1/27/2022
True North Research, Inc. © 2021 Page 13
D2 How many: _____ live in your household?
Read in Order
Zero
One
Two
Three or
more
Prefer not
to answer
A Children under 13 years of age 68% 14% 11% 2% 5%
B Teenagers 80% 10% 5% 1% 5%
C Adults age 18 to 64 17% 15% 51% 13% 5%
D Seniors age 65 or older 66% 14% 14% 1% 5%
Ask QD3 if QD2A=(1,2,3).

D3 For childcare, do you: _____?
Read in Order
Yes
No
Not sure /
Prefer not
to answer
A Have a stay-at-home parent who watches
your kids 33% 62% 5%
B Have a relative watch your kids 20% 75% 5%
C
Have a nanny or other non-relative watch
your kids either in your home or at their
home
14% 81% 5%
D Use a daycare center not located in your
home 37% 58% 5%
Ask D4 if QD2D=(1,2,3).

D4 Is there a senior member of your household that currently receives in-home healthcare services?
1 Yes 4%
2 No 96%
99 Prefer not to answer 0%
D5 What is your gender?
1 Male 47%
2 Female 48%
3 Non-binary 1%
4 Other 0%
99 Prefer not to answer 3%
D6 What was the last grade you completed in school?

8.a.2
Packet Pg. 214
Attachment: 2022 San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey Report (2022 Community Characteristics Survey Report) Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 67City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey 1/27/2022
True North Research, Inc. © 2021 Page 14
1 Less than high school 1%
2 High school graduate 4%
3 Vocational/Trade certificate 1%
4 Some college 6%
5 Two-year degree 6%
6 Four-year degree 37%
7 Post-graduate work/Graduate degree 42%
8 Not sure 0%
9 Prefer not to answer 2%
D7 What ethnic group do you consider yourself a part of or feel closest to? Read list if respondent hesitates
1 Latino/Hispanic 8%
2 Asian American -- Korean, Japanese,
Chinese, Vietnamese, Filipino or other
Asian
16%
3 Caucasian/White 63%
4 African-American/Black 2%
5 American Indian or Alaskan Native 0%
6 Pacific Islander 1%
7 Middle Eastern 3%
8 Mixed Heritage 1%
98 Other 0%
99 Prefer not to answer 3%
Those are all of the questions that I have for you! Thanks so much for participating in this important survey! This survey was conducted for the City of San Carlos

8.a.2
Packet Pg. 215
Attachment: 2022 San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey Report (2022 Community Characteristics Survey Report)

CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT

MEETING DATE: March 14, 2022

ITEM TITLE: Discuss and Provide Direction to Staff on a Child Care Impact Fee for Nonresidential Development.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council consider the information presented, receive public input, and provide direction to staff on whether or not to prepare a draft ordinance to establish a child care development impact fee for nonresidential development for review and consideration by the City Council at a later date.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

There are no fiscal implications associated with this discussion item.

BACKGROUND:

One of the Council’s ongoing strategic goals is to increase access to child care by reducing the regulatory and financial barriers to the creation and expansion of child care facilities in the city.

In October 2017, the City Council received an informational presentation from staff describing potential strategies to address the shortage of child care facilities serving our community. This presentation was a response to San Mateo County’s Early Learning Support Services , which highlighted the need for additional child care . At the time, there was a shortage of more than 650 spaces for infant and preschool-aged children.

At Council’s direction, staff initiated a study of the issue. Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (“EPS”) was retained to conduct an initial study of regulatory and financing options to increase the supply of child care facilities and develop strategies to mitigate the future demand bas ed on the expected increase in residents and employers in San Carlos. In 2021, Council approved Municipal Code changes to remove regulatory barriers as summarized below:

 Updated Municipal Code sections 18.04 and 18.05 to remove minor use permit requirements for commercial child care centers in specific zoning districts.  Updated Municipal Code section 18.23.090 (Standards for Specific Uses and Activities) to (1) remove the outdoor space requirement; (2) allow staff-level review for pick-up and drop- off plans and require minor use permit s for parking non-compliance; and (3) updated hours of operation.
 Updated Municipal Code sections 18.23.090, 18.23.040, and 5.04.020 to ensure compliance with State law for small and large family in-home day care.

9.a
Packet Pg. 216
2 Beyond the changes to the local regulatory landscape summarized above, staff and consultants were asked to evaluate different approaches to creating new child care spaces as seen in the graphic below. While some of these efforts have been completed and some are in progress, this report focuses on the child care development impact fee and briefly touches on identifying child care as a community benefit via development agreements.

In July 2020, the Council received a presentation on child care development impa ct fees and requested further evaluation of funding options. Since then, staff has held two collaborative working sessions with the Child Care Subcommittee (June 2021 and November 2021 ) to review findings and develop preliminary recommendations for the Council’s discussion and feedback.

During these working sessions, the Subcommittee evaluated a range of funding strategies and considered options for potential partnerships with the 4Cs of San Mateo County. Because development of onsite child care may not a lways be appropriate from a General Plan perspective and/or may not be feasible for smaller projects, the Subcommittee indicated that an onsite requirement (with an associated in -lieu fee option) may not be viable at this time.

Accordingly, the following a nalysis discusses the parameters of a child care development impact fee program.

ANALYSIS:

A child care development impact fee is a one-time charge on new development set according to “nexus logic.” The funds collected can only be used to fund capital pr ojects (not maintenance or operations). For instance, the City could potentially use the funds to contribute to new child care facilities; land acquisition costs; and, loans or grants to providers seeking to create or expand capacity. It is important to no te that these funds cannot be used to subsidize operations or provide direct assistance with child care costs. The information below focuses on the potential maximum fee amount that the City can adopt, as well as the corresponding methodology.

9.a
Packet Pg. 217
3 Nexus-Based Maximum Fees:

Development impact fees authorized under the Mitigation Fee Act require the preparation of a nexus study to evaluate the impact of new development on the need for the identified facilities.

The study must ensure that the fee levels are pr oportionate to the impact. EPS prepared a nexus study in January 2020 and updated it in July 2021 (see Attachment 1). The nexus study evaluates the impact of new residential and non -residential development; however, the Subcommittee and the Council previously provided direction that the fee should not be applied to new residential development. Nexus-based fees are the maximum fees that can be justified given the current cost of developing new child care spaces. The Council may adopt fees lower than the nexu s-justified fees as a policy decision, based on feasibility and/or other considerations.

Nexus Methodology:

Based on data reported in the 2017 San Mateo County Early Learning Facilities Study, the demand for child care spaces resulting from new nonresidential development is approximately 4 spaces per 100 employees. At an estimated cost of $80,391 per space (including land), the cost per employee is $3,352. Based on the employment density assumptions, the cost per employee can be expressed as a cost per square foot as seen in the table below:

Maximum Fees for Non-Residential Development
Office/R&D $10.07 per square foot
Retail $5.03 per square foot
Hotel $3.35 per square foot.

Industrial $3.35 per square foot

Feasibility Considerations:

When considering a potential new child care development impact fee and appropriate fee levels, it is helpful to understand how similar fees and programs are being implemented in comparable jurisdictions. The table below compares child care policies and fee programs in three Bay Area jurisdictions.

Overview of Comparable Jurisdictions
Redwood
City
 Robust City-led child care program housed in the Parks and Recreation and Community Services Department
 Employs a full-time Child Care Coordinator who works with other departments and the community to implement programs to increase the quantity and quality of child care and early education
 Waives the planning fees associated with large family child care facilities  Does not charge child care impact fees
South  Child care program housed in the Parks Division

9.a
Packet Pg. 218
4 San
Francisco
 Program includes three preschools for children 2.5 to 5 years  Child care impact fee program for non-residential development San
Mateo
 The city partners with the Child Care Coordinating Council (4Cs) to support parents, providers, and local communities in finding, planning for, paying for, and accessing affordable, quality child care
 San Mateo has a child care impact fee program for non-residential development

Other Bay Area cities that charge child care i mpact fees include San Francisco, Berkeley, Livermore, San Ramon, and Clayton. In Southern California, Santa Monica has a robust child care impact fee program. The table below highlights the fee ranges from a few cities . View Attachment 2 provides for a more comprehensive overview.

City Fees per Square Feet of Non-Residential Development South San Francisco $0.18 to $0.68
San Mateo $1.09
San Francisco $2.02
Berkeley $0.75 to $1.50
Livermore $5.00 to $7.00 (broader “Social and Human Services Fee”) Santa Monica $3.68 to $7.34

Fee Burden Analysis:

In addition to reviewing what other cities are doing, the Child Care Subcommittee also requested an analysis of how adding a new child care development impact fee changes the existing fee burden. Curre ntly, the fee burden for all office/R&D, retail, hotel, and industrial developments includes the sewer capacity fee, commercial linkage fee, and the traffic impact fee. The table below shows the impact on the existing aggregate fee levels on non -residential development if a new child care development impact fee were to be implemented, both at the maximum-allowed and 50 percent reduced fee levels.

For example, new office development is currently required to pay, in aggregate, approximately $30.00 per square foot (“sq.ft.”) of new development. At a maximum-allowed fee of $10.07 per square foot, the child care impact fee would increase the existing fee burden by 33% and at a reduced fee of $5.00 per square foot, the child care impact fee would increase the existing fee burden by 17%. At the reduced fee levels, the child care fee represents 14% of the aggregate fee burden for office, 16% of the aggregate fee burden for R&D, 7% of the aggregate fee burden for retail and hotel, and 19% of the aggregate fee burden for industrial.

Land Use Current Fee
Obligation
Total Fee Obligation
with Max-Allowed
Child Care Fee
%
Increase
at Max
Total Fee
Obligation with
50% Reduced
Child Care Fee
(Recommended)
%
Increase
at
Reduced
Office/R&D $29.89 per sq.ft. $39.96 per sq.ft. 34% $34.89 per sq.ft. 17% Retail $31.79 per sq.ft. $36.82 per sq.ft. 16% $34.29 per sq.ft. 8% Hotel $20.21 per sq.ft. $23.56 per sq.ft. 17% $21.81 per sq.ft. 8%

9.a
Packet Pg. 219
5 Industrial $6.84 per sq.ft. $10.19 per sq.ft. 49% $8.44 per sq.ft. 23%

Adopting the max imum-justified child care development impact fees may affect the interest of some developers building in the City of San Carlos if the fees are considered too high. It will also effect the amount of community benefit dollars that would otherwise be availab le for other City Council community priorities such as the Downtown area, housing, parks, and open space amenities. If Council moves forward with an impact fee program, staff recommends adopting the reduced fee levels (highlighted in blue in the table abov e). Adopting the reduced fee levels is consistent with other jurisdictions and justified within the Nexus Study.

Preliminary Fee Program Recommendations:

Child Care Development Impact Fee Parameters:

Based on direction from the City Council in prior study sessions, feedback from the Child Care Subcommittee, and the preceding feasibility evaluation, the following fee program parameters are recommended:

 Apply a child care development impact fee only to new non-residential development.  Adopt the following reduced fee levels (50% reduced from the maximum fee levels).

Office/R&D $5.00 per sq.ft.

Retail $2.50 per sq.ft.

Hotel $1.60 per sq.ft.

Industrial $1.60 per sq.ft.

Child Care Build Onsite Option

It is also recommended that a build onsite option is included so developers have the option to build the child care facility onsite as an alternative to paying the child care development impact fee. A development would qualify for this option if the project is greater than 50,000 sq.ft. They would meet t heir obligation by building the child care facility onsite and contracting with a licensed child care provider.

The child care center would be approximately 10% of total square footage, thus the 50,000 sq.ft. project-size threshold to be eligible for the onsite option. A child care center (as opposed to a daycare in a family home) needs to be a minimum of approximately 5,000 square feet to operate effectively and efficiently.

To ensure implementation, a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the develop er would be needed to establish the appropriate size of an onsite child care center. The center would be required to meet all State and local licensing requirements and a contract with a licensed provider would be required to ensure the space would be operated.

Potential Use of Fee Revenue:

A development impact fee program will generate revenue for the creation of new child care spaces at existing or new facilities. As stated above, fee revenue can be put towards the construction of new child care facili ties, land acquisition for child care facilities, or a revolving loan or grant program for home daycare providers who need assistance funding capital improvements that result in increased capacity. The Mitigation Fee Act is clear that impact fee

9.a
Packet Pg. 220
6 revenue ca nnot be used to subsidize operations or provide direct assistance with child care costs.

Besides the child care development impact fee, there are other ways the City can help increase child care spaces. For example, developers of larger or more complex pr ojects may enter into development agreements (DA) with the City. Through a DA, the City may negotiate for child care-related community benefits. This is a common tool used by peer cities and an existing tool for San Carlos ready to be utilized without legi slative change. The main advantage of the funds collected through DAs is the flexibility on how the City can use the revenues. Unlike revenues collected from the child care development impact fees, revenue generated from DAs that identify child care as a c ommunity benefit can be used to help subsidize existing operations, provide direct assistance with child care costs, or help San Carlos families more directly.

However, projects utilizing DAs as part of the development entitlement process is limited to larger properties.

To this end, staff ha ve engaged with the San Mateo County 4Cs to better understand what a potential partnership may look like. Depending on the Council’s direction, the 4Cs could assist with providing accessible and affordable child care spaces for San Carlos families through a voucher program. Staff could work with the 4Cs team to refine the parameters of the program such as the eligibility criteria, subsidy amount, reporting requirements, etc. Once the program parameters are finalized, the 4Cs would be able to administer the program with City funds. It is important to note that this source of funding would be unpredictable as it is difficult to anticipate which developments would adopt this community benefit option versus simply paying th e development impact fee. If the Council desires to move in this direction, the Subcommittee, City staff, and 4Cs staff could determine a minimum amount this pool of funding must reach before implementing and ensuring the sustainability such a program.

Summary of Recommendations:

Child Care Development Impact Fee Parameters

Staff recommends that the Council adopt the reduced fee levels and only apply it to non - residential developments.

Build Onsite Option

Staff recommends allowing developments that ar e 50,000 sq.ft. or greater with the option to build the child care facility (minimum size 5,000 sq.ft.) onsite and contract with a licensed child care operator. This option would require an MOU with the City.

NEXT STEPS:

At this time staff is seeking di rection on whether the Council wants to move forward with a child care development impact fee. If so, staff is seeking feedback regarding the preliminary recommendations to inform the preparation of a draft ordinance.

9.a
Packet Pg. 221
7 Respectfully submitted by:

Al Savay, AICP
Community Development Director

Approved for submission by:

_________________________
Jeff Maltbie, City Manager

ATTACHMENT(S):

1. Child Care Development Impact Fee Draft Nexus Study

2. Child Care Development Impact Fee Survey of Other Local Jurisdictions

9.a
Packet Pg. 222

Draft Report
Childcare Impact Fee Nexus Study

Prepared for:

City of San Carlos

Prepared by:

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.

July 14, 2021

EPS #211028

9.a.1
Packet Pg. 223
Attachment: Child Care Development Impact Fee Draft Nexus Study (Child Care Development Impact Fee)

Table of Contents

1. BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY OF FEES ......................................................................... 1 Summary of Maximum Fee Levels ............................................................................. 1 Report Background and Legal Context ........................................................................ 2

2. DEMOGRAPHIC, EMPLOYMENT, AND LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS .............................................. 4 Current Population and Households in San Carlos ........................................................ 4 Age Cohorts ........................................................................................................... 5 Labor Force Participation .......................................................................................... 5 Childcare Choice ..................................................................................................... 6 Population Density .................................................................................................. 7 Employment Density ............................................................................................... 8

3. CHILDCARE FACILITY COST ESTIMATES ........................................................................ 9

4. CHILDCARE FEE CALCULATIONS ............................................................................... 10 Residential Fees .................................................................................................... 10 Nonresidential Fees ............................................................................................... 11

5. MITIGATION FEE ACT NEXUS FINDINGS ...................................................................... 13

6. FEE PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION AND ADMINISTRATION ................................................... 14 Fee Collection and Amount ..................................................................................... 14 Annual Review and Five-Year Review ....................................................................... 15 Accounting, Reporting, and Updates ........................................................................ 16

List of Tables
Table 1. Summary of Childcare Impact Fees by Land Use Category ..................................... 2 Table 2. Population and Households ............................................................................... 4 Table 3. Age Cohorts in City and County ......................................................................... 5 Table 4. Labor Force Participation .................................................................................. 6 Table 5. Childcare Choice ............................................................................................. 7 Table 6. Population and Households by Number of Units in Structure .................................. 8 Table 7. Employment Density ........................................................................................ 8

9.a.1
Packet Pg. 224
Attachment: Child Care Development Impact Fee Draft Nexus Study (Child Care Development Impact Fee)

Table 8. Average Cost per Childcare Space by Type of Facility ............................................ 9 Table 9. Childcare Fees for Residential Development ...................................................... 10 Table 10. Childcare Fees for Nonresidential Development .................................................. 11

9.a.1
Packet Pg. 225
Attachment: Child Care Development Impact Fee Draft Nexus Study (Child Care Development Impact Fee)

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 1 Z:\Shared\Projects\Oakland\211000s\211028_San Carlos Childcare F ee Update\Report\211028_Childcare Impact Fee Nexus Study_San Ca rlos_Draft Report_2021July14.docx

1. BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY OF FEES
This report establishes the maximum childcare development impact fees justifiable under the Mitigation Fee Act that could be required of new development in the City of San Carlos. In October 2017, the City Council considered strategies to address the shortage of childcare facilities serving the community. This was a response to a study initiated by the San Mateo County’s Office of Education, which identified significant shortages of childcare spaces in the County, generally, and San Carlos, specifically. At Council’s direction, staff was directed to study the regulatory and financing options available to the City to increase the supply of childcare facilities and develop strategies to mitigate the future demand based on the expected increase in residents and jobs in San Carlos.

The issues were studied, and the Council’s Childcare Subcommittee held collaborative working sessions with City staff to review findings and develop strategies. In the fall of 2019, the City Council affirmed that addressing the City’s childcare needs is a priority, and one of the funding strategies identified was to explore various fees or charges on new development to mitigate the demand for childcare from new residents and employees in the City. Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) was retained to develop the technical analysis and prepare the required Nexus Study to support potential implementation of a childcare development impact fee, as authorized by the Mitigation Fee Act (California Government Code 66000 et seq.).

While this Nexus Study supports the maximum-justifiable fee levels, the Council may choose to adopt fees below the maximum, charge only certain land use categories, or not adopt fees at all.

Summary of Maxi mum Fee Levels
At the Council’s discretion, a new childcare development impact fee could be charged to all new residential and/or nonresidential development and at fee levels up to the maximum justifiable through this Nexus Study. The technical analysis included in this report presents the methodology and analysis to support the maximum-justifiable fee levels in the City of San Carlos, as shown below in Table 1.

9.a.1
Packet Pg. 226
Attachment: Child Care Development Impact Fee Draft Nexus Study (Child Care Development Impact Fee) Childcare Impact Fee Nexus Study
Administrative Draft Report 7/14/21

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 2 Z:\Shared\Projects\Oakland\211000s\211028_San Carlos Childcare F ee Update\Report\211028_Childcare Impact Fee Nexus Study_San Ca rlos_Draft Report_2021July14.docx Table 1. Summary of Childcare Impact Fees by Land Use Category

Report Background and Legal Context
This report is designed to provide the necessary technical analysis supporting a schedule of development impact fees intended to mitigate the demand for childcare spaces in the City that results from new residential and commercial development. The City currently has several development impact fees, none of which is for childcare. A new fee program for childcare, if approved, will need to be enacted through the adoption of a new City Ordinance(s) supporting the addition of a new fee category for childcare facilities. The new enabling Ordinance would allow the City to adopt, by Resolution, a fee schedule consistent with the supporting technical analysis and findings provided in this Report. The Resolution approach to setting the fee allows periodic adjustments of the fee amount without requiring amendments to the enabling Ordinance.

The key requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act that determine the structure, scope, and amount of the proposed Fee Program are as follows:
 Collected for Capital Facility, Equipment, and Infrastructure Improvements. Impact fee revenue can be collected and used to cover the cost of constructing capital facilities and infrastructure improvements required to serve new development and growth in the City.

However, impact fee revenue cannot be used to cover the operations and maintenance costs of these or any other facilities and infrastructure.
 Cannot Fund Existing Needs. Impact fee revenue cannot be collected or used to cover the cost of existing needs/deficiencies in City capital facilities or infrastructure. Thus, the cost of capital projects or facilities designed to meet the needs of the City’s existing population must be funded through other sources to meet overall funding requirements.

Land Use Category
Residential
Single Family $12,257 per unit
Multifamily $9,355 per unit
Non-Residential
Office/R&D $10.07 per sq.ft.

Retail $5.03 per sq.ft.

Hotel $3.35 per sq.ft.

Industrial $3.35 per sq.ft.

Source: Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.

Maximum Fee [1]
[1] The analysis assumes that 100 percent of preschool-aged children, regardless of their parents’ working status, require child care. This is in support of the County’s overall policy to promote Universal Preschool.

9.a.1
Packet Pg. 227
Attachment: Child Care Development Impact Fee Draft Nexus Study (Child Care Development Impact Fee) Childcare Impact Fee Nexus Study
Administrative Draft Report 7/14/21

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 3 Z:\Shared\Projects\Oakland\211000s\211028_San Carlos Childcare F ee Update\Report\211028_Childcare Impact Fee Nexus Study_San Ca rlos_Draft Report_2021July14.docx  Must Be Based on a Rational Nexus. An impact fee must be based on a reasonable nexus, or connection, between new growth and development and the need for a new facility or improvement. As such, an impact fee must be supported by specific findings that explain or demonstrate this nexus. In addition, the impact fee amount must be structured such that the revenue generated does not exceed the cost of providing the facility or improvement for which the fee is imposed.

9.a.1
Packet Pg. 228
Attachment: Child Care Development Impact Fee Draft Nexus Study (Child Care Development Impact Fee)

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 4 Z:\Shared\Projects\Oakland\211000s\211028_San Carlos Childcare F ee Update\Report\211028_Childcare Impact Fee Nexus Study_San Ca rlos_Draft Report_2021July14.docx

2. DEMOGRAPHIC, EMPLOYMENT, AND LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS
This Chapter describes the demographic, employment, and land use assumptions utilized in this Study that are important drivers of the maximum development impact fee estimates. The estimates are used for the following primary purposes in the fee calculations:
 Population and household count data is used to relate the number of children in the City to the supply of housing units. This data is shown on Table 2.  Estimates of the number of children within certain age cohorts (e.g., infant, preschool, school-age) are used to estimate potential demand from each cohort and are shown on Table 3.
 Estimates of parental labor force participation by age cohort are used to understand the share of households needing childcare and are shown on Table 4.  Estimates of the share of children whose parents/guardians need a childcare arrangement and who will choose a childcare center type of facility are provided in Table 5.  Estimates related to population density (e.g., persons per housing unit) are shown on Table 6 and are used to differentiate costs between residential land uses.  Estimates related to employment density (e.g., employees per square foot) are shown on Table 7 and are used to differentiate costs between non-residential land uses.

Current Population and Ho useholds in San Carlos
Population and household counts are shown in Table 2 and are used to relate the number of children in the City to the overall population as well as to the supply of housing units.

Table 2. Population and Households

Item Total
Population in Households 30,024
Total Households 11,689
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2015-2019 American
Community Survey 5-Year Estimates; Economic &
Planning Systems, Inc.

9.a.1
Packet Pg. 229
Attachment: Child Care Development Impact Fee Draft Nexus Study (Child Care Development Impact Fee) Childcare Impact Fee Nexus Study
Administrative Draft Report 7/14/21

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 5 Z:\Shared\Projects\Oakland\211000s\211028_San Carlos Childcare F ee Update\Report\211028_Childcare Impact Fee Nexus Study_San Ca rlos_Draft Report_2021July14.docx Age Cohorts
EPS developed a distribution of the number of children within certain age cohorts based on data from the California Department of Finance and the U.S. Census American Community Survey (5-year estimate, 2015-2019). Because parents/guardians make different childcare decisions at different times in their children’s lives, this data is used to support estimates of childcare demand for different age cohorts. The Census-based age breakdown of children at the City level is not as detailed as the Department of Finance’s estimates for San Mateo County. Accordingly, EPS used the County’s age cohort distribution and applied those shares to the City’s population under 18 years of age. These estimates are provided in Table 3.

Table 3. Age Cohorts in City and County

Labor Force Participation
The U.S. Census American Community Survey (5-year estimate, 2015-2019) reports the number of children whose parents are working. The data reports the number of children in single parent households in which that parent is working, as well as the number of children in two-parent households in which both parents are working. These estimates are provided in Table 4.

Item Number
Percent of
Total
San Mateo County
Total Population under 18 Years of Age 170,296
Infant (Birth to 24 Months) 17,183 10.1%
Preschool (2 to 5 Years) 31,932 18.8%
School Age (5 to 18 Years) 121,182 71.2%
San Carlos [1]
Total Population under 18 Years of Age 7,469
Infant (Birth to 24 Months) 754 10.1%
Preschool (2 to 5 Years) 1,400 18.8%
School Age (5 to 18 Years) 5,315 71.2%
[1] County age distribution among population under age 18 (DOF, 2019) is applied to City's total population under age 18 as reported by Census.

Source: CA Department of Finance: Total Estimated and Projected Population for California Counties: July 1, 2010 to July 1, 2060 in 1-year Increments; U.S.

Census Bureau, 2015-2019 American Communi ty Survey 5-Year Estimates; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.

9.a.1
Packet Pg. 230
Attachment: Child Care Development Impact Fee Draft Nexus Study (Child Care Development Impact Fee) Childcare Impact Fee Nexus Study
Administrative Draft Report 7/14/21

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 6 Z:\Shared\Projects\Oakland\211000s\211028_San Carlos Childcare F ee Update\Report\211028_Childcare Impact Fee Nexus Study_San Ca rlos_Draft Report_2021July14.docx Table 4. Labor Force Participation

Childcare Choice
There are a range of childcare options potentially available to families requiring non-parental childcare, including other relatives, nanny shares, live-in au pairs, childcare centers, home-based day care, etc. As such, another adjustment to the data is needed to estimate the number of children whose parents/guardians need a childcare arrangement and who will choose a childcare center type of facility (i.e., the type of facility for which the impact fee revenue can be used).

Table 5 draws upon data collected by the U.S. Department of Education’s National Center for Education Statistics, which reports the number of children participating in various early childhood programs.

Item Estimate
Total Children [1] 7,341
Under 6 Years 2,382
Living with Two Parents 2,238
Both Parents in Labor Force 1,587
Living with One Parent 144
Parent in Labor Force 137
All Parents in Labor Force 1,724
Labor Force Participation 72.4%
6 to 17 Years 4,959
Living with Two Parents 4,131
Both Parents in Labor Force 2,897
Living with One Parent 828
Parent in Labor Force 763
All Parents in Labor Force 3,660
Labor Force Participation 73.8%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2015-2019 American
Community Survey 5-Year Estimates; Economic &
Planning Systems, Inc.
[1] Universe of data is "Own children under 18 years
in families and subfamilies."

9.a.1
Packet Pg. 231
Attachment: Child Care Development Impact Fee Draft Nexus Study (Child Care Development Impact Fee) Childcare Impact Fee Nexus Study
Administrative Draft Report 7/14/21

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 7 Z:\Shared\Projects\Oakland\211000s\211028_San Carlos Childcare F ee Update\Report\211028_Childcare Impact Fee Nexus Study_San Ca rlos_Draft Report_2021July14.docx Table 5. Childcare Choice

Population Density
EPS has developed persons per household estimates based on data from the California Department of Finance and the U.S. Census American Community Survey (5-year estimate, 2015-2019). This data has been used to develop estimates of the number of persons per occupied household specific to each residential development type. These estimates are provided in Table 6.

Age Cohort
Number of
Children in
Survey
Children in
Parental Care
Arrangements
Children in
Non-Parental Care
Arrangements
Number Percent
Total 21,362 8,609 12,753 7,742 60.7%
Infant
Under 1 Year Old 4,724 2,487 2,237 888 39.7%
1 to 2 Years Old 8,552 3,932 4,619 2,504 54.2%
Weighted Average 13,276 6,420 6,856 3,392 49.5%
Preschool [1]
3 to 5 Years Old 8,087 2,190 5,897 4,350 73.8%
[1] While the data suggests that 73.8% of preschoolers who need childcare will opt for center-based care or care in a non- relative's home, the analysis assumes that 100 percent of preschool-aged children require child care. This is in support of the County’s overall policy to promote Universal Preschool.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Early Childhood Program Participation Survey of the National Household Education Surveys Program (ECPP-NHES:2016).

Children in Center-Based
Care or Care in a Non-
relative’s Home
Note: Numbers are in thousands.

9.a.1
Packet Pg. 232
Attachment: Child Care Development Impact Fee Draft Nexus Study (Child Care Development Impact Fee) Childcare Impact Fee Nexus Study
Administrative Draft Report 7/14/21

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 8 Z:\Shared\Projects\Oakland\211000s\211028_San Carlos Childcare F ee Update\Report\211028_Childcare Impact Fee Nexus Study_San Ca rlos_Draft Report_2021July14.docx Table 6. Population and Households by Number of Units in Structure

Employment Density
The gross building square footage assumptions of workspace required on average to accommodate jobs in different land use categories are generally consistent with industry- standard employment densities and are reflected in Table 7. As shown, the average square feet required per job ranges from 333 square feet on average for office/R&D development to 1,000 square feet on average for industrial development. Stated in another way, office developments are assumed to have the highest employment density with about 3 jobs per 1,000 square feet relative to 1 job per 1,000 square feet of industrial development.

Table 7. Employment Density
Item
Single Family
1-Unit in Structure
Multifamily [1]
2 + Units in Structure Total
Total Households 8,590 3,099 11,689
Share 73.5% 26.5% 100.0%
Population in Households 23,542 6,482 30,024
People per HH 2.74 2.09 2.57
[1] Total includes mobile homes to account for the City's total population in households.

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2015-2019 American Co mmunity Survey 5-Year Estimates; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.

Item
Employment Density by Land Use Category
Square Feet per Job
Office/R&D 333 sq.ft. per job
Retail 667 sq.ft. per job
Hotel 1,000 sq.ft. per job
Industrial 1,000 sq.ft. per job
Jobs per Square Foot
Office/R&D 0.0030 jobs per sq.ft.

Retail 0.0015 jobs per sq.ft.

Hotel 0.0010 jobs per sq.ft.

Industrial 0.0010 jobs per sq.ft.

Assumption
Sources: City of San Carlos Linkage Fee Nexus Study, Vernazza Wolfe Associates, Inc. and Strategic Economics; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.

9.a.1
Packet Pg. 233
Attachment: Child Care Development Impact Fee Draft Nexus Study (Child Care Development Impact Fee)

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 9 Z:\Shared\Projects\Oakland\211000s\211028_San Carlos Childcare F ee Update\Report\211028_Childcare Impact Fee Nexus Study_San Ca rlos_Draft Report_2021July14.docx

3. CHILDCARE FACILITY COST ESTIMATES
The high cost of real estate and limited availability of land are factors that greatly influence the supply of child care facilities in high-cost counties, such as San Mateo. Of course, the cost of providing new childcare spaces will vary on a project-by-project basis, depending on the size of the facility and the overall development program. Typical costs associated with developing new childcare spaces in San Mateo County, excluding land, are provided in the 2017 San Mateo Early Learning Needs Assessment and shown below in Table 8. Costs range from $27,500 to $58,000 per space in 2021 dollars depending on the type of facility and include the structure, site design, preparation, general site improvement, and installation—but not land. The average cost is $43,391 per space, which is considered a reasonable average planning-level cost estimate for the purposes of establishing this fee. With land costs included, the cost per space is higher, at $80,391 per space.

Table 8. Average Cost per Childca re Space by Type of Facility

Construction Type
Avg. Cost /
Space (2017)1
Avg. Cost /
Space (2021)2
Development Cost
New Building $43,183 $46,743
New / Existing Commercial Space $53,800 $58,235
Expansion of Existing Center $37,003 $40,053
Portable Building $25,412 $27,507
Employer-based Center $41,033 $44,415
Average, Development Cost $43,391
Land Cost (Rounded)
3 $37,000
Total, Land and Average Development Costs $80,391
[1] Average cost per early learning space for child care facilities in San Mateo County, according to the San Mateo Early Learning Needs Assessment (2017). [2] Average cost per early learning space has been adjusted for inflation at an annual rate of 2%.

Sources: San Mateo Early Learning Needs Assessment (2017); Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
[3] Assumes 175 square feet of land area per child care space, reflecting the indoor, outdoor, administrative, public, and mechanical functions. The per acre land value assumption is $9 million based on current land values in San Carlos.

9.a.1
Packet Pg. 234
Attachment: Child Care Development Impact Fee Draft Nexus Study (Child Care Development Impact Fee)

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 10 Z:\Shared\Projects\Oakland\211000s\211028_San Carlos Childcare Fee Update\Report\211028_Childcare Impact Fee Nexus Study_San Carlos_Draft Report_2021July14.docx

4. CHILDCARE FEE CALCULATIONS
The Mitigation Fee Act maximum childcare development impact fee calculations are driven by:
(1) demand for childcare from residential and nonresidential development, (2) childcare facility cost estimates, and (3) persons per household and employment density assumptions. The residential fees are shown in Table 9 and the nonresidential fees are shown in Table 10.

Residential Fees
Table 9. Childcare Fees for Residential Development

As shown in Table 9, the demand for childcare spaces resulting from new residential development is approximately 6 spaces per 100 residents. At a cost of $80,391 per space, the Item Assumption Amount Notes
Total Population 30,024 See Table 2
Total Households 11,689 See Table 2
Population Under Age 18 7,469 See Table 3
Infant (Birth to 24 Months) 10.1% 754 See Table 3
Preschool (2 to 5 Years) 18.8% 1,400 See Table 3; Includes 1/2 of 5-year olds Population per Household
Infant (Birth to 24 Months) 0.06
Preschool (2 to 5 Years) 0.12
Population per Household, Needing Childcare
Infant (Birth to 24 Months) 72.4% 0.05 See Table 4
Preschool (2 to 5 Years) 72.4% 0.09 See Table 4
Population per Household, Choosing Center-based Care or Non-relative Care in Someone Else's Home Infant (Birth to 24 Months) 49.5% 0.02 Reflects weighted average of under 1 and 1-2 year olds cohorts; See Table 5
Preschool (2 to 5 Years) 100.0% 0.12 Reflects Countywide Universal Preschool Policy Objective
Childcare Spaces Needed in Licensed Centers 1,670 Spaces needed for every 11,689 households Childcare Spaces per Resident 0.0556
Cost per Childcare Space $80,391 See Table 8
Cost per Resident $4,472
Number of people per Single Family Household 2.74 See Table 6 Number of people per Multifamily Household 2.09 See Table 6 Cost per Single Family Household $12,257
Cost per Multifamily Household $9,355
Sources: CA Department of Finance: Total Estimated and Projected Population for California Counties: July 1, 2010 to July 1, 20 60 in 1- year Increments; U.S. Census Bureau, 2015-2019 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates; U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Early Childhood Program Participation Survey of the National Household Education Surv eys Program (ECPP-NHES:2016), Table was prepared December 2017; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.

9.a.1
Packet Pg. 235
Attachment: Child Care Development Impact Fee Draft Nexus Study (Child Care Development Impact Fee) Childcare Impact Fee Nexus Study
Administrative Draft Report 7/14/21

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 11 Z:\Shared\Projects\Oakland\211000s\211028_San Carlos Childcare F ee Update\Report\211028_Childcare Impact Fee Nexus Study_San Ca rlos_Draft Report_2021July14.docx cost per resident is $4,472. Based on the residential density assumptions, the cost per resident can be expressed as a cost per residential unit.

Nonresidential Fees
As shown in Table 10 and based on data reported in the 2017 San Mateo County Early Learning Facilities Study, the demand for childcare spaces resulting from new nonresidential development is approximately 4 spaces per 100 employees. At a cost of $80,391 per space, the cost per employee is $3,352. Based on the employment density assumptions, the cost per employee can be expressed as a cost per square foot.

Table 10. Childcare Fees for Nonresidential Development

As shown, the maximum development impact fees are:
 Single-Family. $12,257 per single family unit.
 Multifamily. $9,355 per multifamily/apartment unit.
 Accessory Dwelling Units. Note that Senate Bill 13 (effective 1/1/2020 – 12/31/2024) precludes jurisdictions from charging impact fees on ADUs under 750 square feet.  Office/R&D. $10.07 per office/R&D building square foot.  Retail. $5.03 per retail building square foot.
 Hotel. $3.35 per hotel building square foot.
 Industrial. $3.35 per industrial building square foot.

While these maximum childcare development impact fees are driven by marginal demand and average costs (rather than the City’s capital improvement list), the City has provided some examples of how it may use the revenue to invest in childcare facility expansion throughout San Item Notes
Cost per Childcare Space $80,391 See Table 8
Childcare Space Demand per Employee 0.0417 San Mateo County ELF Study, 2017 Cost per Employee $3,352
Jobs per Square Foot
Office/R&D 0.0030 jobs per sq.ft.

Retail 0.0015 jobs per sq.ft.

Hotel 0.0010 jobs per sq.ft.

Industrial 0.0010 jobs per sq.ft.

Fee by Land Use Category
Office/R&D $10.07 per sq.ft.

Retail $5.03 per sq.ft.

Hotel $3.35 per sq.ft.

Industrial $3.35 per sq.ft.

Sources: Brion Economics Team; City of San Carlos Linkage Fee Nexus Study, Vernazza Wolfe Associates, Inc. and Strategic Econom ics; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.

Assumption

9.a.1
Packet Pg. 236
Attachment: Child Care Development Impact Fee Draft Nexus Study (Child Care Development Impact Fee) Childcare Impact Fee Nexus Study
Administrative Draft Report 7/14/21

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 12 Z:\Shared\Projects\Oakland\211000s\211028_San Carlos Childcare F ee Update\Report\211028_Childcare Impact Fee Nexus Study_San Ca rlos_Draft Report_2021July14.docx Carlos. More detailed plans will be developed as part of the City’s future planning efforts and/or through negotiations with prospective developers.
 City contribution to new childcare facilities located within new or existing private developments.
 Loans or grants to providers operating Small or Large Family Childcare Homes, seeking to create/expand capacity.
 Loans or grants to providers operating Childcare Centers, seeking to create/expand capacity.

9.a.1
Packet Pg. 237
Attachment: Child Care Development Impact Fee Draft Nexus Study (Child Care Development Impact Fee)

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 13 Z:\Shared\Projects\Oakland\211000s\211028_San Carlos Childcare F ee Update\Report\211028_Childcare Impact Fee Nexus Study_San Ca rlos_Draft Report_2021July14.docx

5. MITIGATION FEE ACT NEXUS FINDINGS
Development impact fees can be charged to new development under the Mitigation Fee Act.

Nexus findings are provided below addressing: 1) the purpose of the fee, 2) the specific use of fee revenue, 3) the relationship between the facility improvements and the type of development, 4) the relationship between the need for the facility improvements and the type of development, and 5) the relationship between the amount of the fee and the proportionality of cost specifically attributable to development. The technical information and calculations provided support these nexus findings/requirements.

Purpose
The fee will support provision of adequate levels of childcare facility spaces in the City as new development occurs and will help ensure that new development pays its fair share of childcare facility costs.

Use of Fee
Fee revenue will contribute funding towards the creation or expansion of new childcare spaces in the City.

Relationship
New residential and nonresidential development and the associated new residents and workers in San Carlos will increase demand for childcare spaces. Fee revenue from this new development will be used to increase the number of childcare spaces thereby increasing the availability of childcare spaces and addressing demand from the new residents and workers.

Need
There is a demonstrated shortage of childcare spaces in the City, and each new residential and nonresidential development project adds to the need for quality childcare spaces. While this fee program cannot be used to address existing deficiencies, new childcare spaces are necessary to avoid exacerbating the current shortage.

Proportionality
The marginal demand for childcare spaces from new residents and employees in the City and the average cost of developing those spaces are used to ensure that new development funds a sufficient number of childcare spaces to mitigate its own demand, but no more. In this way, the contribution of new development is proportional to its impact and is not expanded beyond its appropriate share.

9.a.1
Packet Pg. 238
Attachment: Child Care Development Impact Fee Draft Nexus Study (Child Care Development Impact Fee)

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 14 Z:\Shared\Projects\Oakland\211000s\211028_San Carlos Childcare F ee Update\Report\211028_Childcare Impact Fee Nexus Study_San Ca rlos_Draft Report_2021July14.docx

6. FEE PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION AND ADMINISTRATION
The childcare development impact fee will need to be adopted by City Resolution as enabled by a new Ordinance. The Ordinance will allow the City Council to adopt, by Resolution, a fee schedule consistent with supporting technical analysis and findings provided in this Report. The Resolution approach to setting the fee allows periodic adjustments of the fee amount that may be necessary over time, without amending the enabling Ordinance. It is anticipated that the City will develop a new Ordinance as part of this study process. This new Ordinance addresses the primary implementation and administrative issues and procedures associated with the fee program. A brief summary of the key implementation and administrative elements is provided below.

Fee Collection and Amount
Applicable Land Uses
All new development that occurs within the City of San Carlos, except as specifically exempted by the Ordinance, shall pay the childcare development impact fee. While the maximum fee amount will be determined by the Mitigation Fee Act Nexus Study, the City may elect to charge less for a variety of reasons and under certain circumstances, as [will be] described in the Ordinance. In any case, the applicable fees will be published in a Fee Schedule made available by the City and updated periodically. The amount will vary by land use, as shown in Table 1.

It is possible that certain projects may not fit neatly into the identified categories. In cases where such ambiguity exists, the City’s Community Development Director will need to make a determination as to the applicable fees. The Fee Ordinance articulates guidelines for resolving discrepancies and/or disputes.

Exemptions
The City may also elect not to impose fees for certain categories of development, though alternative funding sources to offset a loss in fee revenue would need to be provided. For example, the City may elect to exempt developers from paying fees on any affordable housing units they build. Likewise, the City may enter into a Development Agreement that specifically exempts all or a portion of the City fees.

Alternative Means of Satisfying Fee Requirement
As [will be] described in the Ordinance, the City may specify alternative means of satisfying the childcare fee requirement, when doing so accelerates or enhances the number of childcare spaces available in the City. For example, new non-residential development greater than 50,000 square feet may meet its fee obligation by building childcare space onsite at a ratio of 10 percent, such that a 50,000 sq.ft. development provides at least 5,000 sq.ft. of childcare space) and contracting with a licensed childcare provider to operate the childcare facility. This threshold of 50,000 sq.ft. ensures that the size of the childcare facility is sufficient to serve enough children (approx. 50) to support efficient operations. This option may only be exercised if a childcare use onsite is consistent with the General Plan and zoning. In addition, the City will need to coordinate with the applicant to ensure that the childcare space will be able to meet state licensing requirements (for indoor and outdoor space).

9.a.1
Packet Pg. 239
Attachment: Child Care Development Impact Fee Draft Nexus Study (Child Care Development Impact Fee) Childcare Impact Fee Nexus Study
Administrative Draft Report 7/14/21

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 15 Z:\Shared\Projects\Oakland\211000s\211028_San Carlos Childcare F ee Update\Report\211028_Childcare Impact Fee Nexus Study_San Ca rlos_Draft Report_2021July14.docx The City also may be willing to consider the development of an off-site childcare center in-lieu of paying the childcare impact fees.

Timing of Establishing Effective Fees
Senate Bill 330, the “Housing Crisis Act of 2019,” requires jurisdictions to charge the fees in effect at the time an application for development is submitted, regardless of when the fees are to be paid. Jurisdictions may not increase fees during a project’s application period, unless the increase is related to an annual fee adjustment as described below.

Fee Escalation
The ordinance allows for an automatic adjustment of the fee to keep pace with inflationary increases in construction costs. This allows the fee level to keep pace with inflation without requiring an annual approval process. This adjustment is based on the Construction Cost Index (CCI) published by the Engineering News Record (ENR), a source widely used in the construction industry, and by many jurisdictions as a basis for making annual inflation adjustments to their development impact fees. ENR’s CCI has been published consistently every month since 1967. As such ENR is one of the most reliable and consistent indices that track trends in construction costs.

Senate Bill 330, the “Housing Crisis Act of 2019,” allows fee increases during a project’s application period if the fee increases are the result of an annual fee adjustment based on an independently published cost index and referenced within the relevant establishing ordinance or resolution.

Timing and Manner of Payment
The City’s Ordinance addresses issues related to the timing and manner of payment for the fee including the potential for fee deferrals, payment plans, credits and reimbursements, exemptions, and related adjustments.

Annual Review and Five-Year Review
Annual Review
This Report and the technical information contained herein should be maintained and reviewed periodically by the City as necessary to ensure alignment of facility needs and new development and to enable the adequate programming of funding sources. To the extent that improvement requirements, costs, or development potential changes over time, the Fee Program may need to be updated. Specifically, AB 1600 (at Gov. Code §§ 66001(c), 66006(b)(1)) stipulates that each local agency that requires payment of a fee make specific information available to the public annually within 180 days of the last day of the fiscal year. This information includes the following:
 A description of the type of fee in the account
 The amount of the fee
 The beginning and ending balance of the fund
 The amount of fees collected and interest earned
 Identification of the improvements constructed
 The total cost of the improvements constructed

9.a.1
Packet Pg. 240
Attachment: Child Care Development Impact Fee Draft Nexus Study (Child Care Development Impact Fee) Childcare Impact Fee Nexus Study
Administrative Draft Report 7/14/21

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 16 Z:\Shared\Projects\Oakland\211000s\211028_San Carlos Childcare F ee Update\Report\211028_Childcare Impact Fee Nexus Study_San Ca rlos_Draft Report_2021July14.docx  The fees expended to construct the improvement
 The percent of total costs funded by the fee
If sufficient fees have been collected to fund the construction of an improvement, the agency must specify the approximate date for construction of that improvement. Because of the dynamic nature of growth and infrastructure requirements, the City should monitor development activity, the need for improvements, and the adequacy of the fee revenues and other available funding. Formal annual review of the fee program should occur, at which time adjustments should be made.

Five-Year Review
Fees will be collected from new development within the City immediately; however, use of these funds may need to wait until a sufficient fund balance can be accrued. Per Government Code Section 66006, the City is required to deposit, invest, account for, and expend the fees in a prescribed manner. The fifth fiscal year following the first deposit into the Fee account or fund, and every five years thereafter, the City is required to make all of the following findings with respect to that portion of the account or fund remaining unexpended:
 Identify the purpose for which the fee is to be put;
 Demonstrate a reasonable relationship between the fee and the purpose for which it is charged;
 Identify all sources and amounts of funding anticipated to complete financing in incomplete improvements; and
 Designate the approximate dates on that the funding referred to in the above paragraph is expected to be deposited in the appropriate account or fund.

Once sufficient funds have been collected to complete the specified projects, the City must commence construction within 180 days. If they fail to do this, the City is required to refund the unexpended portion of the fee and any accrued interest to the then current owner.

Accounting, Reporting, and Updates
Accounting
Surplus Funds
AB 1600 also requires that if any portion of a fee remains unexpended or uncommitted in an account for five years or more after deposit of the fee, the City Council shall make findings once each year: (1) to identify the purpose to which the fee is to be put, (2) to demonstrate a reasonable relationship between the fee and the purpose for which it was charged, (3) to identify all sources and amounts of funding anticipated to complete financing of incomplete improvements, and (4) to designate the approximate dates on which the funding identified in (3) is expected to be deposited into the appropriate fund.

If adequate funding has been collected for a certain improvement, an approximate date must be specified as to when construction on the improvement will begin. If the findings show no need for the unspent funds, or if the conditions discussed above are not met, and the administrative

9.a.1
Packet Pg. 241
Attachment: Child Care Development Impact Fee Draft Nexus Study (Child Care Development Impact Fee) Childcare Impact Fee Nexus Study
Administrative Draft Report 7/14/21

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 17 Z:\Shared\Projects\Oakland\211000s\211028_San Carlos Childcare F ee Update\Report\211028_Childcare Impact Fee Nexus Study_San Ca rlos_Draft Report_2021July14.docx costs of the refund do not exceed the refund itself, the local agency that has collected the funds must refund them.

Credits and Reimbursements
It is recommended that, under certain and limited circumstances as determined by the City, the Impact Fee Ordinance allow developers subject to the fee to obtain credits, reimbursements, or exemptions. Fee credits, reimbursements, or exemptions should not be allowed by right but rather should be subject to a case-by-case review by City staff and Council to ensure that such credits or reimbursements are warranted and appropriate.

A fee credit—as defined by an annual cost review or other recent evaluation of cost—may be allowed if a developer provides a particular off-site facility or improvement that is of citywide benefit. For example, the City may elect to offer a fee credit to developers who develop childcare facilities off-site and of citywide benefit. In the event there is a discrepancy between the estimated and actual costs of construction for a project where a fee credit is being provided, if the actual construction costs are less than the estimate, the City will not reimburse the developer for any difference between the actual and estimated costs; and if the actual construction costs are more than the estimate, the City will not provide any additional funding to the developer.

Reimbursements should be considered for developers who contribute more funding and/or build and dedicate infrastructure items that exceed their proportional obligation if the project funded is of high priority. Such reimbursements should be provided as fee revenue becomes available and should include a reasonable factor for interest earned on the reimbursable amount. It should not compromise the implementation of other priority capital projects. A provision for including such interest payments as additional costs in subsequent fees can be included in the Ordinance.

Reimbursements would be granted on a discretionary basis only and not granted as a right.

Internal Loaning of Funds
Loans between the impact fee funds may be used from time to time to facilitate the construction of needed facilities and assure adequate cash flow. Any such loan shall be made in accordance with applicable law, as interpreted by the City Attorney of the City of San Carlos, and all funds shall be placed in separate accounts.

Reporting
AB 1483 (at Gov. Code §§ 65940.1(a)) requires all jurisdictions make available on their website the following:
 A current schedule of fees, exactions, and affordability requirements;  All zoning ordinances and development standards;
 The current and five previous annual fee reports or annual financial reports; and  An archive of impact fee nexus studies conducted on or after January 1, 2018.

Updates
Additionally, it is common for cities to undertake a comprehensive update of nexus studies and associated development impact fee programs every five to eight years to account for changes in facility development costs among other factors.

9.a.1
Packet Pg. 242
Attachment: Child Care Development Impact Fee Draft Nexus Study (Child Care Development Impact Fee) Appendix A-1
Childcare Development Impact Fee Survey
San Carlos Childcare Fee Study, EPS #181090
Residential Commercial
San Francisco San Francisco Child Care Impact Fee 2016 (Residential) 1985 (Commercial) 2021 $1.18 - $2.35 per sq.ft. depending on project size $2.02 per sq.ft.

Replacement of use and plan area fees
are different. Some plan area fees have
a percentage going to child care.

Link
Santa Monica Los Angeles Child Care Linkage Fee 2006 2019 $154.69 per unit (multifamily) Hotel $3.68 per sq.ft.

Retail $5.25 per sq.ft.

Office $7.34
per sq.ft.

Link
Berkeley Alameda Child Care Mitigation Fee 1993 2012 N/A Hotel $1.50 per sq.ft
Retail/Restaurant $1.25 per sq.ft
Office $1.25 per sq.ft
Industrial/Manufacturing $0.75 per sq.ft
Warehouse/Storage $0.62 per sq.ft.

R&D $0.80
per sq.ft
Link (Fee Range)
Link (Fee by Usage)
San Mateo San Mateo Child Care Development Fee 2004 2021 N/A $1.09 per sq.ft. Link South San Francisco San Mateo Childcare Impact Fee 2001 2020 $1,851 - $1,979 per unit
depending on du/ac. Other is
$1.28 per sq.ft.

Hotel $0.18 per sq.ft.

Retail/Commercial $0.68 per sq.ft.

Office/R&D $0.57 per sq.ft.

Industrial $0.54 per sq.ft.

Link
Livermore Alameda Social and Human Services
Facility Fee 2008 2021
$1,298 per unit (multifamily);
$1,415 per unit (single family
attached); $1,677 per unit (single
family detached)
Service $5 per sq.ft.

Retail $5 per sq.ft.

Office $7 per sq.ft.

R&D/ Manufacturing $3 per sq.ft.

Fee revenues used for child care
facilities, senior facilities, and facilities
for the homeless.

Link
San Ramon Contra Costa School Age Child Care Fee 1988 2021 $959.18 per unit (single-family) $516.82 per unit (multifamily)
Hotel $0.17 per sq.ft.

Retail $0.28 per sq.ft.

Office $0.61 per sq.ft.

Industrial $0.19
per sq.ft.

Link
Clayton Contra Costa Childcare Fee 1988 2020 $205 per unit (single-family) $205 per unit (multifamily) $0.10 per sq. ft Fee was last updated in 2009 and remains the same in 2020. Link
Sources: Websites of individual jurisdictions; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.

Description Link/SourceCity County Fee Name Date Implemented Latest Fee Year Available
Fee Levels

9.a.2
Packet Pg. 243
Attachment: Child Care Development Impact Fee Survey of Other Local Jurisdictions (Child Care Development Impact Fee)

CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT

MEETING DATE: March 14, 2022

ITEM TITLE: Discuss and Provide Direction to Staff on the San Carlos Avenue Quick - Build Pilot Program Project C2107.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council provide input and fee dback for the San Carlos Avenue Quick-Build Pilot Program Project C2107 (“Project”).

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

There is no fiscal implication or additional appropriation needed at this time.

The Fiscal Year 2021 -22 Adopted Budget includes an appropriation fo r the Project in the amount of $274,000 with f unding coming from the 2021 Active Transportation Program – Pilot Quick-Build Project Grant, in the same amount.

BACKGROUND:

Staff is bringing this item to the City Council for its input and feedback to the proposed quick- build improvements or countermeasures.

The scope of work spans San Carlos Avenue from Elm Street to El Camino Real with a focus on bicycle and pedestrian improvements. The Project is intended to be temporary. It will be built with durable, low-to-moderate cost materials and will remain in place for at least for one year.

The goal of this Project is to immediately addresses safety needs, quickly build a community benefit, and allows the community time to test and comment on the safety improvements.

The conceptual plan for the Project was prepared and included within the grant application. The plan was taken from the City’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan which identifies installing safety countermeasures to address the collision history along the San Carlos Avenue corridor and create a seamless first -to-last mile connection to the pedestrian -rich downtown as well as the Caltrain Station.

The following table details the types of countermeasures that are being planned.

9.b
Packet Pg. 244
2 Countermeasures Elm to
Walnut
Walnut
to Laurel
Laurel to
El Camino
5 Feet Bike Lanes X X X
Minimum Two Feet Buffer Space
between Bike and Travel Lanes X X
Bollards Separating Bike and
Travel Lanes X X
Minimum 10 Feet Travel Lanes X X X
Traffic Striping and Pavement
Marking X X X
High-Visibility Ladder
Crosswalks X X X
Bike Lane Markings through
Intersections X X X
Shared Lane Markings (with
Green Background) X X X
Thicker Centerline Striping at
Intersections X
Signage X X
Relocate Bike Lane Loop
Detectors X X X
Existing Parallel Parking to
Remain X
New Parallel Parking X
Remove Parking X X
Expanded Pedestrian Space X X
Bicycle Parking within Expanded
Pedestrian Space X X
Pre-Fabricated Curb Ramps X X

9.b
Packet Pg. 245
3 In July 2021, staff issu ed a request for proposals for engineering services to prepare the construction documents for the Project. Staff received one proposal from Alta Planning + Design, Inc. (“Alta”). An agreement with Alta was executed in December 2021.

ANALYSIS:

Alta condu cted site visits to validate the proposed conceptual plan layout. It verified that a majority of the proposed countermeasures can be implemented along Project limits except for the segment between Laurel Street to El Camino Real.

The conceptual plan and grant application were prepared and submitted prior to the adoption of the City’s Temporary Parklet Program. The current parklets along San Carlos Avenue between Laurel Street and El Camino Real are approximately 11.5 feet wide and are in conflict with th e bike lane countermeasures, which are approximately 9 feet wide.

There isn’t sufficient right -of-way along San Carlos Avenue between Laurel Street and El Camino Real to accommodate both parklets and Project countermeasures. Furthermore, reducing parklets sizes is not a feasible solution.

Grant funding cannot be allocated until the construction documents are approved. As such, Staff seeks direction from the Council on how to proceed.

If the City Council directs staff to move forward with the pilot p rogram, businesses would be required to remove their parklets prior to construction, which is anticipated to begin this summer, after grant funding is allocated in June.

If the City Council chooses to maintain the parklets on San Carlos Avenue between La urel Street and El Camino Real, the City would forego grant funding for the Project.

ALTERNATIVES:

Options available to the City Council include:

1. Provide input and feedback for the San Carlos Avenue Quick-Build Pilot Program Project C2107; or

2. Provide staff with alternative direction.

Respectfully submitted by:

Steven Machida,
Public Works Director

9.b
Packet Pg. 246
4 Approved for submission by:

_________________________
Jeff Maltbie, City Manager

ATTACHMENT(S):

1. Diagram

9.b
Packet Pg. 247

SAN CARLOS AVENUE

ELM STREET

WALNUT STREET

LAUREL STREET

EL CAMINO REAL
INSTALLPRE-FABRICATEDADA RAMP (TYP.)
INSTALLPRE-FABRICATEDADA RAMP (TYP.)
PROJECT NO:DESIGNED BY:DRAWN BY:REVIEWED BY:DATE:SCALE:SHEETOF SHEET NO.SHEET TITLE MARKDESCRIPTIONISSUEDATEINTIAL
304 12th Street, Suite 2A | Oakland, CA 94607510-540-5008 | altago.com Dwg filename: N:\Shared\PROJECTS\2021\00-2021-235 San Carlos, CA Quick-Build Pilot Program\CAD\02_Exhibits\20220303 Original Concept without Callouts\20220304_San Carlos Conceptual Original w Mods - v2.dwg Last saved by: taliaagazaryan Plotdate: 3/4/2022 12:41 PM Plotstyle table: ALTA NCS Standard.stb2021-235L-01QUICK BUILDSAN CARLOS AVENUE SAN CARLOS, CALAYOUT SHEET AHAHAH3.4.20221" = 40'11

9.b.1
Packet Pg. 248
Attachment: Diagram (SC Ave Quick-Build)

CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT

MEETING DATE: March 14, 2022

ITEM TITLE: Discuss and Provide Direction to Staff on a Temporary Parklet Fee Structure for the Use of the Public Right -Of-Way While the Outdoor Dining Program is in Effect.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council consider setting a temporary parklet fee for the use of the public right-of-way while the outdoor dining program is in effect.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

Since the start of the Temporary Downtown Closure Program (“Program” ), the City has absorbed the costs associated with the purchase and deployment of water barriers, regular parklet inspections, and cleaning of streets, sidewa lks, and water barrier s. Implementing a temporary parklet fee would cover the administration and m aintenance costs associated with the Program.

BACKGROUND:

At its June 9, 2020 meeting, the City Council adopted a Resolution approving the closure of the 600-700 blocks of Laurel Street. This also included allowing businesses to use designated parking areas on portions of Laurel Street and San Carlos Avenue for outdoor dining and retail purposes upon approval of encroachment permits by the City . The Program was designed to achieve the following objectives: 1) encourage pedestrian activity; and 2) all ow restaurants and other businesses to use the right-of-way to extend outdoor dining and showcase merchandise to ensure social distancing by staff and patrons. This created opportunities for residents and visitors to patronize San Carlos businesses, provid ed space for safe physical activity, and enabled downtown businesses to reduce loss of revenue and keep staff employed.

Subsequently, the 600 Block of Laurel Street was reopened to vehicles six days per week with Sunday being the only day that the street was closed to through traffic.

The original Program end date was scheduled for December 31, 2020 , with the City Council subsequently amending the Program end dates to September 1, 2021 with Resolution 2020-083 and to September 1, 2022 with Resolution 2021-049.

The Program has operated successfully since June 2020. The parklet owners obtained their no- fee encroachment permits, submitted their insurance documents, and provided a layout plan for

9.c
Packet Pg. 249
2 their parklets. Once this information was provided to the C ity, the owners were allowed to construct their parklets.

COVID-19 restrictions have lessened since the inception of the Program. The two -member Council Ad -Hoc Subcommittee requested that staff evaluate a fee structure that could be applied for the right to locate the private parklets in the street right -of-way and account for the maintenance costs.

ANALYSIS:

The purpose of this report is: 1) to provide the City Council with the feedback that staff obtained from San Carlos parklet owners regar ding the possibility of charging a fee for the use of the street right-of-way; and 2) to receive fee option scenarios the City Council could establish for the temporary parklets located in the street right-of-way.

San Carlos Parklet Owner Comments on a Possible Temporary Parklet Fee

Staff invited all 36 San Carlos parklet owners to attend a meeting to inform them that the City Council is considering changes to the outdoor dining program that would affect their business.

Staff wanted to ensure that parklet owners had the information needed and an initial opportunity to provide input on the possible changes. Since a parklet fee had not yet been established, a standard flat rate encroachment permit fee of $539.54 for six months was used as the example for the meeting discussion.

The meeting was conducted via Zoom on December 8, 2021 with 12 of the 36 parklet owners in attendance. The meeting minutes are attached to the staff report. A summary of c omments received at the meeting is listed below.

 All of the owners expressed appreciation that the City had established the Program and were thankful for their parklets.
 Four owners said they would support a fee especially if it was based on square footage.  Three other owners supported waiving the fee unti l after the September 1, 2022 Program end date and waiving the fee entirely if the City requires their parklets to be upgraded.
 The majority supported allowing their current parklets to become permanent.

Fee Option Scenarios for the Temporary Parklets

On October 13, 2021, an agreement was executed with NBS to provide an overhead cost allocation review and comprehensive fee and rate study. The purpose of this project is to ensure that the City of San Carlos is utilizing comprehensive overhead rates an d accurately accounting for the true cost of providing various programs and services within City operations. It is the City’s goal to have a well -documented and defensible Cost Allocation Plan that will incorporate appropriate general and administrative co st allocations into the budget , identify overhead rates that can be used in the calculation of billable hourly rates for grants, fees, federal reimbursements, and other billings , and develop charges for user fees that comply with Proposition 218. Feedback from the City Council discussion on this topic will be incorporated into the study which will be finalized in the next two months.

9.c
Packet Pg. 250
3 Option 1. Continue the practice of charging a no -fee encroachment permit to use the street right-of-way.

Under this option, there would be no change to the Program. The regular parklet inspections and street, sidewalk, and water barrier cleaning costs will continue to be absorbed by the City.

Annual street and sidewalk cleaning in the downtown area is performed by an outside contractor with project oversite by a City senior maintenance worker. The annual cleaning costs are summarized below.

Street, Sidewalk, and Water Barrier Cleaning
600-800 Block Laurel Street
1100-1200 Block San Carlos Avenue
$56,000
Senior Maintenance Worker Oversight $1,200
TOTAL $57,200

Option 2. Charge the Public Works encroachment permit fee.

The current Public Works encroachment permit fee is $539.54 , which may change depending upon the results of the fee study currently underway. This fee is used for street encroachments such as construction debris bins that are placed in the street right -of-way for a limited time.

Temporary parklets occupy the street in a similar fashion, and therefore, charging the equivalent encroachment permit fee would be applicable.

Under this scenario, staff is recommending that an encroachment permit application be renewed every six months to ensure that the City has the most up -to-date contact information, the parklets are in compliance with the rules of the permit and/or health orders, the owner’s insurance coverage is up to date, and regular parklet inspections are scheduled. The yearly cost for a temporary parklet encroachment permit would be $1,079.08.

As suggested by the parklet owners, they prefe r a fee based on parklet square footage rather than a standard flat rate. Staff estimated the current sizes of the current temporary parklets and concluded the average size is 300 square f eet (30 feet x 10 feet) . As such, staff recommends using this as the standard for charging the $1,079.08 fee. Parklets greater or smaller than 300 square feet would have their fee adjusted accordingly based on their parklet size.

The cleaning cost would be allocated based on the foot frontage of the parklet. The 600 -800 blocks of Laurel Street have a length of 1,772 feet and the 1100 -1200 blocks of San Carlos Avenue have a length of 662 feet for a total of 2,434 feet. The cleaning cost of $57,200/2,434 feet = $23.50/foot. For a standard 300 square foot parklet that has a front footage of 30 feet, the cost for cleaning would be $705.00 per year.

Under this option, the annual cost for a standard 300 square foot parklet is $1,079.08 (encroachment permit) + $705.00 (cleaning costs) = $1,784.08.

Option 3. Other local jurisdictions enacted fees for long-term parklet programs.

Staff evaluated four local programs and the Mountain View model seemed the most applicable to reference. Mountain View’s program has been in use for the past 20 years and is oriented towards the long term use of their street parking spaces for outdoor sidewalk dining.

9.c
Packet Pg. 251
4 Mountain View’s program consists of the following components:
 New application: $769
 Annual sidewalk cleaning fee: $6.00/sq. ft. of sidewalk space  Annual rent: $1,200 per parking space utilized
 Permit renewal: $205
 Minimum five-year license and indemnity agreement

By adapting the Mountain View framework for San Carlos, the value or rent applicable for the use of the street parking occupied by the parklet would need to be deter mined. Presumably this would be a proportion of the market rent for fully improved retail space. As identified above, the typical parklet space in San Carlos is 300 square feet which coincidentally is the same in Mountain View and Burlingame. Mountain Vie w determined the rent for parklet space is 9% of the rent of a fully-conditioned and enclosed retail space.

According to Loopnet, the retail rent in Downtown San Carlos is $39.79 per square foot per year. If one uses the 9% ratio of parklet rent to retail rent as used in Mountain View, the annual parklet rent in San Carlos would be 9% of $39.79 which equals $3.58 per square foot. For a typical 300 square foot parklet, the annual rent would be $3.58 per square foot x 300 square feet = $1,074.00. Fees for parklets that are either greater or less than 300 square feet would be adjusted accordingly based on the parklet size.

Additionally, a standard encroachment permit fee of $539.54 is required annually at the time the application is submitted.

As with Option 2, the annual cleaning costs for the streets, sidewalks and water barr iers would be added to the parklet fees . A standard parklet with 30 foot frontage would incur an annual cleaning fee of $705 based on the City’s cleaning cost of $23.50/foot of parklet frontage.

Under this option the annual cost for a standard 300 s quare foot parklet is $1,074.00 (rent) + $539.54 (encroachment permit) + $705.00 (cleaning costs) = $2,318.54.

Other Cities’ Programs:

South San Francisco is in the process of impl ementing a long term program. They will charge $500 per parklet per year and will be renewed annually. Their final program structure has not been finalized.

San Mateo’s temporary parklet program expires on April 30, 2022 after which a parklet permit application fee will cost $500 plus $250 per parking space used.

Burlingame’s model is based on the City of Mountain View’s program. Burlingame recently adopted an annual parklet permit fee of $1,500 in addition to a $250 per month cleaning fee.

ALTERNATIVES:

The options available to the City Council include:

1. Provide staff with direction on setting a temporary parklet fee for the use of the public right-of-way while the outdoor dining program is in effect; or

9.c
Packet Pg. 252
5 2. Provide staff with alternative direction.

Respectfully submitted by:

Steven Machida,
Public Works Director

Greg Rubens, City Attorney

Approved for submission by:

_________________________
Jeff Maltbie, City Manager

ATTACHMENT(S):

1. Parklet Meeting Minutes 12.8.21

9.c
Packet Pg. 253
Geoffroy Raby – Cuisinette (1105 San Carlos Ave.)

 Appreciates the parklet program.
 Believes closing Laurel St. has advantaged those businesses over the ones on San Carlos Ave.  Supports a parklet fee, but believes it should be based on square footage as opposed to a flat fee.
 Closure of Laurel St. has drastically reduced foot traffic on side streets including 80% reduction on San Carlos Ave. Supports reopening Laurel St.

Henry Eng – Number 5 Kitchen

 Very grateful for the parklets, believes the program saved his business.  40% of his customers still prefer to sit outside.
 Supports parklet fee based on square footage.
 Asked if San Carlos will publish a guideline standard for the parklets like San Francisco did.

Would like to know if there is a parklet timeline in place or if it will be made permanent at some point so business owners can plan how much capital to invest.  Would like to remove requirement to serve lunch and dinner five days per week. Objected to the fact that it’s only for the 600 block.

Kit – Faith & Spirits

 Supports waiving parklet fees until September 2022 deadline, and continuing to waive fees to offset costs if parklets are required to be upgraded.

Muslum Caferoglu – Stamp Bar & Grill

 Does not support parklet fees until after September 2022 deadline.

Utku Galip Akcok – Taurus Steakhouse

 Curious what will happen after September 2022 deadline. Challenge for restaurants to know whether to build up outside dining if parklets might be removed.

Mila Paul – Yoga Health Center

 Parklet program has been tremendous help to the Yoga Health Center.  Curious if the Farmers’ Market will expand in size.

Ajay Walia – Saffron Indian Bistro on San Carlos Ave.

 Parklets tremendously helpful. Explore option to make parklets permanent as some neighboring cities have done.
 Supports parklet fee.

Monica Pina – Mama Coco

 Very thankful for parklets. Inside seating is limited so really depend on the parklet.  Encourages the City to make the parklets permanent.
 Supports parklet fee – especially if based on square footage.

9.c.1
Packet Pg. 254
Attachment: Parklet Meeting Minutes 12.8.21 (Fee Structure for Temporary Outdoor Parklets)

CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT

MEETING DATE: March 14, 2022

ITEM TITLE: Consideration of Adopting a Resolution Extending the Temporary Closure of the 700 Block of Laurel Street and Temporarily Removing Parking on Portions of Laurel Street and San Carlos Avenue for an Additional Eighteen Months Ending on September 15, 2023.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a Resolution extending the temporary closure of the 700 block of Laurel Street and temporarily removing parking on portions of Laurel Street and San Carlos Avenue for an additional eighteen months to September 15, 2023.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

There are no fiscal implications.

BACKGROUND:

In response to the COVID -19 pandemic and the governor’s emergency order, the City Council authorized the temporary closure of portions of Laurel Street and elimination of certain parking spaces to accommodate outdoor dining. The project qualified for categorical and statutory exemptions under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Section 15301 (Existing Facilities) and Section 15269 (Emergencies) due to the governor’s emergency order.

ANALYSIS:

Since the last extension , the Council subcommittee has reviewed the ongoing and changed circumstances surrounding the impacts of Covid-19 on downtown businesses. The City Council parklet program and the temporary closure of the 700 block of Laurel Street is intended to achieve the following objectives: 1) to encourage pedestrian activity while the threat to limitations on indoor activities remains; 2) to allow restaurants and other businesses to use the right-of-way to extend outdoor dining and showcase merchandise; and 3) to promote safe pedestrian access to the downtown along with physical activity and additional social distanc ing space in these areas.

The City Council recently initiated the Downtown Specific Plan to evaluate permanent street and sidewalk modifications, updated streetscape design , and evaluation of land uses and preparation of objective design standards. The study is expected to take approximately two years to complete.

10.a
Packet Pg. 255
2 The City Council has the authority to extend closure of portions of Laurel Street, if the Council wishes to ultimately consider such a policy action. The temporary closure of the 700 block o f Laurel Street to accommodate outdoor dining in parklets is currently in force under Vehicle Code Section 21101(e). If the City Council wishes to extend outdoor dining beyond the COVID- 19 state of emergency, the Council could consider additional temporar y street closures by continuing to make the findings required under the Vehicle Code.

Because the Vehicle Code does not specifically define what period of time constitutes a temporary closure, a period of no more than 18 months for a temporary street cl osure is recommended (this is because other provisions in the Vehicle Code related to temporary emergency and safety related closures allow for an 18 month closure with five additional 18 month extensions.)

Staff retained Lamphier-Gregory (“Consultant”) to prepare the appropriate CEQA analysis to extend the temporary street closure and parking adjustments. The Consultant’s analysis included transportation and safety review by W -Trans, Inc. The analysis concluded that with additional signage implemented by the City, the street closure and parking adjustments would not have an impact on the environment. The Consultant prepared a Certificate of Exemption. If the City Council approves extending the temporary street closure, staff will record the Certificate of Exemption with the County Clerk.

Therefore, when the governor rescinds the COVID -19 emergency order, the City Council will have authorized the closure of the 700 block of Laurel Street and temporarily removed the parking on portions of Laurel Street and San Carlos Avenue for a period of eighteen months to September 15, 2023 utilizing a non-emergency CEQA exemption.

ALTERNATIVES:

The options available to the City Council include:

1. Adopt a Resolution extending the temporary closure of the 700 bloc k of Laurel Street and temporarily removing parking on portions of Laurel Street and San Carlos Avenue for an additional 18 months to September 15, 2023; or

2. Do not adopt the Resolution; or

3. Provide staff with alternative direction.

Respectfully submitted by:

Greg Rubens,
City Attorney

10.a
Packet Pg. 256
3 Steven Machida, Public Works Director

Al Savay, Community Development
Director

Approved for submission by:

_________________________
Jeff Maltbie, City Manager

ATTACHMENT(S):

1. Resolution - Laurel St Temporary Closure

2. CEQA Exemption

3. Transportation Impact Analysis

10.a
Packet Pg. 257
RESOLUTION NO. 2022 –_____

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN CARLOS EXTENDING THE TEMPORARY CLOSURE OF THE 700 BLOCK OF LAUREL STREET AND

TEMPORARILY REMOVING PARKING ON PORTIONS OF LAUREL STREET AND SAN

CARLOS AVENUE FOR AN ADDITIONAL EIGHTEEN MONTHS ENDING
ON SEPTEMBER 15, 2023.

WHEREAS, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and the governor’s emergency order, the City Council authorized the temporary closure of portions of Laurel Street and elimination of certain parking spaces to accommodate outdoor dining; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to extend the temporary closure of the 700 block of Laurel Street consistent with Vehicle Code Section 21101 concerning temporary closures; and WHEREAS, the project qualified for categorical and statutory exemptions under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) S ection 15301 (Existing Facilities) and Section 15269 (Emergencies) due to the governor’s emergency order; and

WHEREAS, the City Council recently i nitiated the Downtown Specific Plan to evaluate permanent street and sidewalk modifications, updated streetscape design, and evaluation of land uses and preparation; and
WHEREAS, staff retained Lamphier -Gregory (“Consultant”) to prepare the appropriate CEQA analysis to extend the temporary street closure and parking adjustments; and WHEREAS, the Consultant’s analysis included transportation and safety review by W - Trans, Inc.; and

WHEREAS, the analysis concluded that with additional signage implemented by the City, the street closure and parking adjustments would not have an impact on the environment and that the continued temporary closure of the 700 block of Laurel Street and the program meets the criteria for a Class 1 Exemption under CEQA as a project involving use of existing street right-of- way in a way that does not create additional automobile lanes and therefore meets the definition of a project qualifying for a Class 1 Exemption under CEQA Guidelines §15301; and

WHEREAS, the analysis concluded there are no exceptions that apply to t he closure of the 700 block or p rogram or its site that would exclude the use of an exemption under CEQA Guidelines §15300.2, including those related to location, cumulative effects, significant effects from unusual circumstances, scenic resources, hazardous waste, or historical resources; and WHEREAS, the analysis presented in this Certificate of Exemption provides substantial evidence that a Class 1 CEQA Exemption is applicable to the proposed p rogram and that no additional environmental analysis is required under CEQA. Accordingly, the Consultant prepared a Certificate of Exemption, and if the City Council approves extending the temporary street closure, staff will record the Certificate of Exemption with the County Clerk; and WHEREAS, when the governor rescinds the COVID-19 emergency order, the City Council will have authorized the closure of the 700 block of Laurel Street and temporarily removed the parking on portions of Laurel Street and San Carlos Avenue for a period of eighteen months to September 15, 2023 utilizing a non-emergency CEQA exemption as required by law.

10.a.1
Packet Pg. 258
Attachment: Resolution - Laurel St Temporary Closure (Extend Laurel St Closure)

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of San Carlos authorizes the extension of the temporary closure of the 700 block of Laurel Street and temporary removal of the parking on portions of Laurel Street and San Carlos Avenue for a period of eighteen months ending on September 15, 2023.

* * * * *

_________________________________
CITY CLERK of the City of San Carlos
APPROVED:

__________________________________
MAYOR of the City of San Carlos

AYES, COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES, COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT, COUNCILMEMBERS:

10.a.1
Packet Pg. 259
Attachment: Resolution - Laurel St Temporary Closure (Extend Laurel St Closure)

Extension of Temporary Street Closure and Parklet Program CLASS 1 CEQA EXEMPTION

Prepared for:

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

PLANNING DIVISION
600 ELM STREET
SAN CARLOS, CA 94070

Prepared by:

Lamphier-Gregory
4100 Redwood Road STE 20A-601
Oakland, CA. 94619

August 2021

10.a.2
Packet Pg. 260
Attachment: CEQA Exemption (Extend Laurel St Closure)

Extension of Temporary Street Closure and Parklet Program: Class 1 Existing Facilities CEQA Exemption Page 1

PROJECT INFORMATION

1. Project Title: Extension of Temporary Street Closure and Parklet Program

2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of San Carlos
600 Elm Street
San Carlos, CA 94070

3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Lisa Costa Sanders, Principal Planner City of San Carlos, Planning Division
600 Elm Street
San Carlos, CA 94070-3085
Telephone: 650.802.4207
Email: [email protected]

4. Project Location: 700 block of Laurel Street (closure) 600-800 block of Laurel Street and 1100 block of San Carlos Avenue (parklets)
San Carlos, CA 94070
(See Figure 1 on page 3)

5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address: City of San Carlos 600 Elm Street
San Carlos, CA 94070

6. Existing General Plan Designation: public roadways adjacent to Mixed Use, Medium Density

7. Existing Zoning: public roadways adjacent to Mixed Use-Downtown Core (MU-DC)

8. Project Description:

On June 9, 2020, the City Council enacted the Temporary Street Closure and Parklet Program (“Program”) to encourage pedestrian activity, allow restaurants and other businesses to use the right-of- way to extend outdoor dining and showcase merchandise, and to promote safe physical activity during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Program was based under the State’s Declaration of Emergency. After assessing closure of the 600, 700, and 800 blocks of Laurel Street, Council ultimately approved temporarily closure of only the 600 and 700 blocks and temporarily eliminating the parking on portions of Laurel Street and San Carlos Avenue to accommodate parklets. In late September 2020, the parklet program was extended to the Industrial Arts Area. The program’s initial deadline was December 31, 2020 but it was extended to September 1, 2021 due to its popularity.

Currently, only the 700 block of Laurel Street is fully closed to through-traffic and there are parklets on both sides of the 1100 block of San Carlos Avenue and the 600 block of Laurel Street, and on the west side of the 800 block of Laurel Street. See Figure 1. San Carlos Public Works coordinated with the businesses to install orange barricades (water walls) around the parklets and on the openings of the 700 block to clearly mark the street closures and protect pedestrians. Since then, many of the businesses

10.a.2
Packet Pg. 261
Attachment: CEQA Exemption (Extend Laurel St Closure)

Extension of Temporary Street Closure and Parklet Program: Class 1 Existing Facilities CEQA Exemption Page 2 custom built their parklets to match their retail or restaurant aesthetic. The current status of the Program area is summarized below:

Laurel Street is generally a two-lane north-south roadway through downtown San Carlos with diagonal parking on each side. The 700 block of Laurel Street has 63 parking spaces that have been displaced as a result of the street closure. On the 600 and 800 blocks, the parklets have displaced 23 and 8 parking spaces, respectively.

San Carlos Avenue is generally a four-lane east-west street with a center median in the downtown area.

On the 1100 block of San Carlos Avenue, the parklets have displaced 14 parking spaces.

Alternative vehicular parking options for visitors include public parking lots/garage between San Carlos Avenue and Arroyo Street, as shown in Figure 2 as well as street parking in the area. The employees for businesses on the east side of the 700 block of Laurel Street were observed to park in tandem in the alley behind the business and out of the travel way. For the businesses on the westerly side, there are reserved parking spaces in the Clark Plaza public lot.

To ensure the success and safety of the Temporary Street Closure and Parklet Program, a variety of measures were implemented. The City posted parking maps on the City website to show alternative parking, short-term parking, and accessible parking options around the Downtown.1,2 The City also implemented bicycle and pedestrian friendly signage to encourage alternative modes of travel around Laurel Street.

The City is considering an extension of the Temporary Street Closure and Parklet Program as it currently exists for three more years and has proposed additional safety improvements (referred to as the “Program” in this document), including the following:

1. At the Laurel Street/Olive Street intersection, parking wayfinding signage will be installed for the northbound drivers and all the crosswalk and yellow centerline striping will be refreshed for increased visibility.

2. At the outbound driveway for the Union Bank building at 799 Laurel Street, a sign indicating pedestrians may be crossing will be installed.

3. At the driveway for the Bank of America at 760 Laurel Street, a no parking sign will be installed on the barricade facing the parking lot indicating that parking is not allowed adjacent to the barricade.

4. At the northerly driveway exit (at Cherry Street) from the Clark Plaza parking lot, wayfinding signage will be installed in the view of outbound drivers identifying the next closest public parking lot.

9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:

The street closure and parklets are along street segments within mixed-use areas and fronting commercial uses.

1 Alternative Parking Options available at: https://www.cityofsancarlos.org/home/showdocument?id=6015 2 Accessible and Short Term Parking Locations available at:
https://www.cityofsancarlos.org/home/showdocument?id=6647&t=637556524958483559

10.a.2
Packet Pg. 262
Attachment: CEQA Exemption (Extend Laurel St Closure)

Extension of Temporary Street Closure and Parklet Program: Class 1 Existing Facilities CEQA Exemption Page 3

10. Other Agencies Whose Approval is required:

No other public agency approvals are required for the proposed extension of the Temporary Street Closure and Parklet Program.

10.a.2
Packet Pg. 263
Attachment: CEQA Exemption (Extend Laurel St Closure)

Extension of Temporary Street Closure and Parklet Program: Class 1 Existing Facilities CEQA Exemption Page 4

Figure 1: Temporary Street Closure and Parklet Program Area

Figure 2: Public Parking near Program Area

10.a.2
Packet Pg. 264
Attachment: CEQA Exemption (Extend Laurel St Closure)

Extension of Temporary Street Closure and Parklet Program: Class 1 Existing Facilities CEQA Exemption Page 5

SUMMARY CONCLUSIONS
The following analysis presents substantial evidence that a Class 1 CEQA Exemption is applicable to the proposed extension of the Temporary Street Closure and Parklet Program and that there are no exceptions that apply to the Program or its site that would exclude the use of an exemption.

CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CRITERIA
Article 19 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA Guidelines § 15300 to 15333), includes a list of classes of projects that have been determined to not have a significant effect on the environment and as a result, are exempt from review under CEQA.

Class 1: Existing Facilities
Among the classes of projects that are exempt from CEQA review are those projects that consist of the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of existing or former use. Examples of the Class 1 exemption under CEQA Guidelines §15301 include but are not limited to the following:
(a) Interior or exterior alterations involving such things as interior partitions, plumbing, and electrical conveyances;
(b) Existing facilities of both investor and publicly owned utilities used to provide electric power, natural gas, sewerage, or other public utility services; (c) Existing highways and streets, sidewalks, gutters, bicycle and pedestrian trails, and similar facilities (this includes road grading for the purpose of public safety), and other alterations such as the addition of bicycle facilities, including but not limited to bicycle parking, bicycle-share facilities and bicycle lanes, transit improvements such as bus lanes, pedestrian crossings, street trees, and other similar alterations that do not create additional automobile lanes); (d) Restoration or rehabilitation of deteriorated or damaged structures, facilities, or mechanical equipment to meet current standards of public health and safety, unless it is determined that the damage was substantial and resulted from an environmental hazard such as earthquake, landslide, or flood;
(e) Additions to existing structures provided that the addition will not result in an increase of more than:
(1) 50 percent of the floor area of the structures before the addition, or 2,500 square feet, whichever is less; or
(2) 10,000 square feet if:
(A) The project is in an area where all public services and facilities are available to allow for maximum development permissible in the General Plan and (B) The area in which the project is located is not environmentally sensitive. (f) Addition of safety or health protection devices for use during construction of or in conjunction with existing structures, facilities, or mechanical equipment, or topographical features including navigational devices;

10.a.2
Packet Pg. 265
Attachment: CEQA Exemption (Extend Laurel St Closure)

Extension of Temporary Street Closure and Parklet Program: Class 1 Existing Facilities CEQA Exemption Page 6 (g) New copy on existing on and off-premise signs;
(h) Maintenance of existing landscaping, native growth, and water supply reservoirs (excluding the use of pesticides, as defined in Section 12753, Division 7, Chapter 2, Food and Agricultural Code); (i) Maintenance of fish screens, fish ladders, wildlife habitat areas, artificial wildlife waterway devices, streamflows, springs and waterholes, and stream channels (clearing of debris) to protect fish and wildlife resources;
(j) Fish stocking by the California Department of Fish and Game; (k) Division of existing multiple family or single-family residences into common-interest ownership and subdivision of existing commercial or industrial buildings, where no physical changes occur which are not otherwise exempt;
(l) Demolition and removal of individual small structures listed in this subdivision:
(1) One single-family residence. In urbanized areas, up to three single-family residences may be demolished under this exemption.
(2) A duplex or similar multifamily residential structure. In urbanized areas, this exemption applies to duplexes and similar structures where not more than six dwelling units will be demolished.
(3) A store, motel, office, restaurant, or similar small commercial structure if designed for an occupant load of 30 persons or less. In urbanized areas, the exemption also applies to the demolition of up to three such commercial buildings on sites zoned for such use. (4) Accessory (appurtenant) structures including garages, carports, patios, swimming pools, and fences.
(m) Minor repairs and alterations to existing dams and appurtenant structures under the supervision of the Department of Water Resources.
(n) Conversion of a single family residence to office use. (o) Installation, in an existing facility occupied by a medical waste generator, of a steam sterilization unit for the treatment of medical waste generated by that facility provided that the unit is installed and operated in accordance with the Medical Waste Management Act (Section 117600, et seq., of the Health and Safety Code) and accepts no offsite waste. (p) Use of a single-family residence as a small family day care home, as defined in Section 1596.78 of the Health and Safety Code.

Exceptions
Even if a project is ordinarily exempt under any of the potential categorical exemptions, CEQA Guidelines §15300.2 provides specific instances where exceptions to otherwise applicable exemptions apply. Exceptions to a categorical exemption apply in the following circumstances, which would effectively nullify a CEQA categorical exemption:
(a) Location. Classes 3, 4, 5, 6, and 11 are qualified by consideration of where the project is to be located. A project that is ordinarily insignificant in its impact on the environment may in a particularly sensitive environment be significant. Therefore, these classes are considered to apply all instances, except where the project may impact on an environmental resource of hazardous

10.a.2
Packet Pg. 266
Attachment: CEQA Exemption (Extend Laurel St Closure)

Extension of Temporary Street Closure and Parklet Program: Class 1 Existing Facilities CEQA Exemption Page 7 or critical concern where designated, precisely mapped, and officially adopted pursuant to law by federal, state, or local agencies.
(b) Cumulative Impact. All exemptions for these classes are inapplicable when the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time is significant. (c) Significant Effect. A categorical exemption shall not be used for an activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances.
(d) Scenic Highways. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may result in damage to scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings, or similar resources, within a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway. This does not apply to improvements which are required as mitigation by an adopted negative declaration or certified EIR.
(e) Hazardous Waste Sites. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project located on a site which is included on any list compiled pursuant to §65962.5 of the Government Code. (f) Historical Resources. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource.

CEQA EXEMPTION CHECKLIST
The following analysis provides substantial evidence to support a conclusion that the proposed extension of the Temporary Street Closure and Parklet Program qualifies under CEQA Guidelines §15301 as a Class 1-Existing Facilities exemption.

Exemption Criterion §15301
Yes No
  Does the project consist of the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures or facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of existing or former use?

The Temporary Street Closure and Parklet Program qualifies for categorical exemption under CEQA Guidelines § 15301(c) (Existing Facilities) because the actions identified in the program are limited to the permitting and minor alteration of existing public facilities, including existing street right-of-way, and operation and maintenance of street closure and parklet facilities, none of which would not result in the creation of additional automobile lanes. The uses included in the temporary program would not vary from the current general uses of commercial businesses, residential areas, or public access within the City’s right-of-way and the program would therefore result in a negligible expansion of existing commercial uses and a change without expansion of the public’s use of City right-of-way.

Therefore, the Program qualifies for a Class 1 exemption as defined under §15301 (c):

Existing highways and streets, sidewalks, gutters, bicycle and pedestrian trails, and similar facilities (this includes road grading for the purpose of public safety), and other alterations such

10.a.2
Packet Pg. 267
Attachment: CEQA Exemption (Extend Laurel St Closure)

Extension of Temporary Street Closure and Parklet Program: Class 1 Existing Facilities CEQA Exemption Page 8 as the addition of bicycle facilities, including but not limited to bicycle parking, bicycle-share facilities and bicycle lanes, transit improvements such as bus lanes, pedestrian crossings, street trees, and other similar alterations that do not create additional automobile lanes).

EXCEPTIONS TO CATEGORICAL EXEMPTIONS CHECKLIST
In addition to investigating the applicability of CEQA Guidelines §15301 (Class 1 exemption) above, this technical report also assess whether any of the exceptions to qualifying for an exemption are present.

The following analysis compares the criteria of CEQA Guidelines §15300.2 (Exceptions) to the proposed Program. If a project meets any of the exception criteria, it would not qualify for a CEQA exemption.

Criterion §15300.2(a): Location
Yes No
  Is the project located in a particularly sensitive environment, such that the project may impact an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern where designated, precisely mapped, and officially adopted pursuant to law by federal, state, or local agencies?
This exception applies only to CEQA exemptions under Classes 3, 4, 5, 6 or 11. Since the Program qualifies as a Class 1-Existing Facilities exemption, this criterion is not applicable and is provided here for information purposes only. It can be further noted that there are no environmental resources of hazardous or critical concern that are designated, precisely mapped or officially adopted near the Program site, or that could be adversely affected by the Program.

Criterion §15300.2(b): Cumulative Impact
Yes No
  Does the project have the potential to contribute considerably to significant cumulative impacts of successive projects of the same type and in the same place, over time?
The Temporary Street Closure and Parklet Program represents a change in use of existing public facilities and as discussed in this document (see below), does not have the potential to significantly impact the environment. While nothing in this analysis would preclude additional parklets or other street closures that utilize existing facilities in San Carlos or neighboring jurisdictions, due to the almost negligible potential for environmental impact of this type of project, the program would not have the potential to have a significant contribution to a significant cumulative impact from successive projects of this type.

Therefore, exception under CEQA Guidelines § 15300.2(b) does not apply to the Temporary Street Closure and Parklet Program.

10.a.2
Packet Pg. 268
Attachment: CEQA Exemption (Extend Laurel St Closure)

Extension of Temporary Street Closure and Parklet Program: Class 1 Existing Facilities CEQA Exemption Page 9 Criterion §15300.2(c): Significant Effect from Unusual Circumstances Yes No
  Is there a reasonable possibility that the project will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances?
In determining which types of projects were exempt under CEQA, the usual circumstances of such projects have already been considered. This criterion addresses any aspects of a project or its circumstances that may not be usual for a project otherwise qualifying for a particular exemption.

The Program constitutes use of existing public facilities within a developed urban area with no known environmental sensitivity with the potential to be impacted by the Program. While construction and maintenance of parklet and street closure facilities may involve some construction activities and construction noise, these would be limited in scope and follow applicable City regulations for such activities and would therefore not be considered unusual circumstances. Similarly, operational activities could involve noise related to patrons’ enjoyment of the facilities but such noise would be consistent with commercial uses and public spaces and would not be considered unusual circumstances under a Class 1 exemption.

Because street closure and parklets involve use of public space for pedestrians, bicycles, and standing / seated commercial patrons instead of vehicles and in close proximity to vehicles, the potential for the Program to result significant effects with respect to Transportation was analyzed. The full Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) is included as Attachment A to this document and summarized below under the CEQA Guidelines checklist questions for the topic of Transportation. a. Would the project conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? There are several policies in the San Carlos 2030 General Plan and objectives the City’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan that address the need for safety and accessibility of all modes of transportation, both citywide and in the vicinity of the Program. During field reviews of the street closure the adequacy of the circulation system for transit riders, motorists, bicyclists and pedestrians was reviewed.

As a result of the street closure of the 700 block of Laurel Street and the parklets on San Carlos Avenue and elsewhere on Laurel Street, no transit stops were eliminated and no transit routes were changed. Access to existing transit facilities such as bus stops and the Caltrain station was not altered.

As a result of the street closure, additional bicycle parking spaces were provided near the Bank of America at 760 Laurel Street. On the 600 block of Laurel Street between Cherry Street and San Carlos Avenue, near the Wells Fargo Bank, additional and protected areas for bicycle parking were installed. No bicycle routes were displaced as a result of the street closure and the Class III bicycle routes marked with “Sharrows” on San Carlos Avenue are not impacted by the parklets.

There are continuous sidewalks on both sides of Laurel Street and crosswalks at each intersection in the study area that provide adequate paths to all retail and commercial businesses. The street closure did not reduce pedestrian access. Signs are posted at both ends of the 700 block of Laurel Street indicating that it is a pedestrian pathway and all visitors (pedestrians, bicyclists and motorists) should walk. At each of the parklets on San Carlos Avenue and Laurel Street, there are protective

10.a.2
Packet Pg. 269
Attachment: CEQA Exemption (Extend Laurel St Closure)

Extension of Temporary Street Closure and Parklet Program: Class 1 Existing Facilities CEQA Exemption Page 10 barriers that separate the patrons from adjacent street traffic. No reduction in pedestrian access was observed as a result of the parklets. It is noted that while restaurant staff were observed to cross the sidewalk to access the dining patrons in the parklets, pedestrian access along the sidewalks is not substantially impeded.

The Program would not preclude or interfere with any program, plan, ordinance or policy listed above as it relates to the circulation system and the impact of the Program would be less than significant in this regard.
b. Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines § 15064.3, subdivision (b)? CEQA Guidelines § 15064.3, Subdivision (b) indicates that a project would have a significant impact if the project resulted in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) exceeding an applicable threshold of significance. The City of San Carlos adopted threshold criteria for VMT analyses in September, 2020 that are consistent with guidance for transportation projects that are provided in the publication Transportation Impacts (SB 743) CEQA Guidelines Update and Technical Advisory, California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR), 2018.

As stated in the City’s guidelines, consistent with OPR’s research, an active transportation project that also reduces roadway capacity can be considered to have a less-than-significant impact related to VMT.

To further support this finding, OPR’s guidance document was reviewed. That document also states that active transportation projects are presumed to have a less-than-significant impact with respect to VMT. Other transportation projects that the guidelines reference that are similar to the street closure and would not be likely to induce a substantial or measurable increase in VMT and would also not be required to perform analysis are:
 Reduction in number of through lanes.
 Installation or reconfiguration of traffic calming devices.  Removal or relocation of off-street or on-street parking spaces.  Addition of new or enhanced bike or pedestrian facilities on existing streets/highways or within existing public rights-of-way.

The roadway network in the immediate vicinity of the street closure is generally a grid pattern. Any motorists who would have previously used the 700 block of Laurel Street as through traffic would instead divert to an alternate nearby route and would therefore not substantially change the distance of travel for those trips. Therefore, the closure of the 700 block of Laurel Street can be presumed to result in an immeasurable change to VMT related to trips that would have previously traversed the closed block of Laurel Street.

With respect to conversion of parking related to the street closure and parklets, motorists destined for those parking spots must now park somewhere else. See the discussion of Parking below for an assessment of parking availability in the area. While diversion to alternate parking may result in additional travel of several blocks for some motorists to find available parking, it can be assumed that some motorists now travel fewer blocks to access parking, depending on their path and direction of travel when accessing the area and whether they route directly to available public parking areas. Some former motorists may also now choose alternate modes of travel other than the private automobile for these trips. Therefore, the conversion of parking spots for the street closure and parklets can be presumed to result in an immeasurable change to VMT.

10.a.2
Packet Pg. 270
Attachment: CEQA Exemption (Extend Laurel St Closure)

Extension of Temporary Street Closure and Parklet Program: Class 1 Existing Facilities CEQA Exemption Page 11 Given the above, based on the City’s guidelines and OPR’s guidelines the Program would result in an immeasurable change to VMT and would have a less-than-significant impact in this regard. c. Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? In order to establish and separate the pedestrian area from the vehicular circulation system, barricades were installed around parklet areas and movable barricades at the Laurel Street/Cherry Street and Laurel Street/Olive Street intersections. Additional safety improvements are proposed with the current approvals as detailed under the Project Description above. This analysis addresses the existing conditions first then conditions with the proposed improvements.

The collision histories for the roadways and intersections in the study area were reviewed to determine any trends or patterns that may indicate a safety issue, and to identify any potential trend changes in reported collisions. Collision data from June 1, 2016 to January 28, 2021 was provided by the City of San Carlos. Since June 2020 when the street closure was first instituted, five collisions were reported in the area. Three were at the intersection of Laurel Street/Olive Street and the other two occurred on the 1200 block of San Carlos Avenue, though not in the same location and on different sides of the median. During the four years prior to the street closure, there were two collisions reported at the Laurel Street/Olive Street intersection and nine collisions nearby. Also, three collisions occurred on the 1200 block of San Carlos Avenue and 20 occurred on adjacent blocks and at nearby intersections during this time period.

While the amount of data available is not adequate to draw definitive conclusions, based on a review of the available collision data from the periods prior to and after the street closure, there appears to be an increase in collisions at the Laurel Street/Olive Street intersection, so close attention was paid to the conditions at this intersection.

The field observations also included a review of the transportation safety conditions at all locations.

At each end of the closure, there is adequate signage indicating the change in conditions. The barricades that separated the travel way from the pedestrian zone did not have visible signs of contact with vehicles, and the collision reports did not indicate any such activity either.

During the field review, some northbound motorists were observed performing an illegal u-turn in the Laurel Street/Olive Street intersection while other drivers entered the intersection without yielding. It was not clear if these motorists were searching for parking or were just unaware of the street closure. There are wayfinding parking signs at the intersection on the eastbound and westbound Olive Street approaches, but currently not in the northbound direction on Laurel Street.

Also, the painted striping at the intersection is faded and drivers were observed stopping within the crosswalk. As part of the current proposal, the City proposes to add wayfinding signage in the northbound direction at this intersection and to refresh the striping at this intersection. These proposed changes adequately address concerns related to collision increases and adequate safety measures at this intersection.

Transportation safety improvements are also identified for the exit driveway of the Union Bank building at 799 Laurel Street and the dead-end in the parking lot resulting from the street closure near the Bank of America at 760 Laurel Street.

Under existing conditions, upon exiting the one-way westbound internal drive aisle from the Union Bank parking lot at 799 Laurel Street, drivers are guided south through the street closure to the Laurel Street/Olive Street intersection. From the perspective of the driver exiting the parking lot, there is limited visibility due to the landscaping, proximity of the adjacent building and off-street

10.a.2
Packet Pg. 271
Attachment: CEQA Exemption (Extend Laurel St Closure)

Extension of Temporary Street Closure and Parklet Program: Class 1 Existing Facilities CEQA Exemption Page 12 parking spaces, and existing signage. The City proposes to install a sign at this exit indicating pedestrians may be crossing. This proposed change adequately addresses concerns related to safety measures at this location.

At the Laurel Street driveway for the Clark Plaza lot, a barricade was installed creating a dead-end in the off-street parking lot circulation. It was observed that drivers could easily navigate this dead-end with a multiple point turn to exit the same way they returned. During the field review, it was also observed that a motorcyclist had used the barricade as an unmarked parking space within the lot, resulting in difficulty navigating out of the space for the driver of a vehicle in the most southerly parking space adjacent to the barricade would have. The City proposes to install a “no parking” sign on the barricade facing the parking lot, indicating that parking is not allowed adjacent to the barricade. This proposed change adequately addresses concerns related to safety measures at this location.

Based on the review of field conditions along San Carlos Avenue near the parklets as well as near the locations of the reported collisions, no additional safety concerns or measures were identified.

Therefore, the proposed extension of the temporary Street Closure and Parklet Program, including the identified safety improvements, would not result in significant impacts with respect to hazards. d. Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? Emergency vehicles are still able to access the closed 700 block of Laurel Street via the moveable barricades. The parklets do not obstruct the travel lanes and access to the businesses along Laurel Street and San Carlos Avenue is not obstructed given the breaks in the barricades. The program would not impede emergency access and emergency response vehicles would continue to have access to the area. The program would have a less-than-significant impact related to emergency access.

Therefore, through the course of this analysis, there have been no identified unique or unusual circumstances that suggest the Program would have the potential to have a significant impact on the environment where other qualifying Class 1 Exemption projects would not. The exception under CEQA Guidelines § 15300.2(c) does not apply to the Program.

Parking Analysis
While not required to be directly analyzed under CEQA, the Transportation Impact Analysis also looked at parking availability. This is included in full in Attachment A and summarized below.

Approximately 108 parking spaces have been displaced with the Temporary Street Closure and Parklet Program. This includes 63 parking spaces on the closed 700 block of Laurel Street, 14 spaces on San Carlos Avenue for parklets, and 31 spaces on the 600 and 800 blocks of Laurel Street for parklets.

The employees for businesses on the east side of the 700 block of Laurel Street were observed to park in tandem in the alley behind the business and out of the travel way. For the businesses on the westerly side, there are reserved parking spaces in the Clark Plaza public lot. It was observed that visitors to the downtown area would either drive north-south along Laurel Street looking for a parking space before proceeding to one of the public parking lots to the west between San Carlos Avenue and Arroyo Street, or would route directly to these public lots. Parking wayfinding signage has already been installed or is proposed with hits approval for all directions of traffic at the two ends of the closed block of Laurel Street.

10.a.2
Packet Pg. 272
Attachment: CEQA Exemption (Extend Laurel St Closure)

Extension of Temporary Street Closure and Parklet Program: Class 1 Existing Facilities CEQA Exemption Page 13 During the field reviews, the Clark Plaza lot had 100 percent utilization, indicating a significant parking demand in the downtown area near the closed street segment. To direct drivers who may be exiting the lot looking for available parking elsewhere, wayfinding signage has been installed at the southerly driveway on Olive Street, and is proposed to be installed at the northerly driveway on Cherry Street.

The multi-level Wheeler Plaza parking garage on Walnut Street between San Carlos Avenue and Cherry Street, as well as the other public parking lots near the downtown area, had available capacity. Overall, since on- and off-street parking in the area was observed not to be fully utilized during the weekend midday and weekday evening hours, the parking supply in the downtown area is determined to be sufficient even with the spaces removed due to the parklets and the street closure.

Accessible parking spaces and nearby curb ramps near the parklets on San Carlos Avenue and Laurel Street were preserved and there are additional accessible parking spaces in the public lots. City staff posted parking maps on the City website to map accessible parking options around the Downtown area.3 No deficiency in accessible parking was identified.

As discussed above, there is adequate parking capacity in the area of the Temporary Street Closure and Parklet Program and with existing and proposed website posting and signage, there is comprehensive available wayfinding to direct traffic to available parking.

Criterion §15300.2(d): Scenic Highway
Yes No
  Does the project have the potential to result in damage to scenic resources including but not limited to, trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings or similar resources, within a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway? There is no designated or eligible State Scenic Highway in the vicinity of the Program.4 The Program would not have the potential to result in damage to scenic resources within a state scenic highway.

San Carlos City CouncilMarch 14, 2022

San Carlos City Council
March 14, 2022