Agenda packet — San Carlos City Council, May 22, 2023 (part 1 of 2)

CITY OF SAN CARLOS
City Council/Successor Agency to the
Redevelopment Agency/Housing Authority
Regular Meeting
May 22, 2023 7:00 PM
Council Chambers, City Hall
600 Elm Street, San Carlos, CA 94070
www.cityofsancarlos.org
AGENDA
This meeting will be conducted both inperson at City Hall and virtually via Zoom. Members of the public will have the option to observe the meeting and address the City Council as outlined below.

InPerson Participation:

Location. City Hall – 600 Elm Street, Council Chambers.

Masks are no longer required, but are still recommended by the California Department of Health. To maintain public health and safety, please do not attend in person if you are experiencing respiratory symptoms (e.g. cough, runny nose, and/or sore throat).

Provide Public Comment. To address the City Council on any item on the posted agenda, fill out a Request to Speak Form located in the back of the Council Chambers and submit it to the City Clerk; or, you may raise your hand when the Mayor calls for public comments.

Remote Participation :

Observe via:
Zoom. https://us02web.zoom.us/j/88256140939; or call 16699009128 and enter the Meeting ID #: 882 5614 0939
Meeting Webportal . www.cityofsancarlos.org/agenda Local TV. Comcast Channel 27 and AT&T Uverse Channel 99 Provide Public Comment. If you plan to make a public comment on any item on the posted agenda, 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 Zoom by phone, press *9 to “raise hand”.

Councilmembers may participate in this meeting remotely pursuant to Assembly Bill 2449.

MAYOR: Adam Rak
COUNCIL: Ronald Collins, John Dugan, Sara McDowell, Pranita Venkatesh

1. CALL TO ORDER

2. ASSEMBLY BILL 2449 TELECONFERENCE REQUESTS

3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

4. CHANGES TO THE ORDER OF THE AGENDA

5. REPORT FROM CLOSED SESSION

6. PRESENTATIONS
a. Present a City Coin to Community Volunteer Sandi Piepmeier. b. Present a Proclamation Recognizing May 21 – 27, 2023 as Public Works Week.

7. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
Council Communications and Announcements are brief items from members of the City Council regarding upcoming events in the community and correspondence that they have received. They are informational in nature and no action will be taken on these items at this meeting.

8. 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.

9. CONSENT CALENDAR
a. Motion to Waive Reading of All Ordinances.
b. Approve the April 10, 2023 City Council Special Meeting Minutes. c. Approve the April 10, 2023 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes. d. Accept the Fiscal Year 202223 Third Quarter Investment Report for the Period Ending March 31, 2023.
e. Accept the Fiscal Year 202223 Third Quarter Financial Report for the Period Ending March 31, 2023.
f. Adopt a Resolution Setting the Tax Rate for Fiscal Year 202324 with Respect to the General Obligation Refunding Bonds for the Library Project. g. Adopt a Resolution Appropriating $8,005 from the General Capital Fund 0025 (Fund 25) Unassigned Fund Balance in Fiscal Year 202223 to Project #C1744; Awarding the 7 Winding Way Guardrail Project; Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Public Projects Agreement with Golden Bay Construction, Inc. of Hayward, CA in the Amount of $99,241; and Authorizing the Expenditure of Contingency up to the Project Budget.
h. Adopt a Resolution Approving the Changes to the Debt Management Policy and Approving the Debt Disclosure Procedures Policy with no Changes for the City of San Carlos and Its Related Entities Other Than the Successor Agency. i. Adopt a Resolution Awarding the 2023 OnCall Sewer Replacement Project C1702; Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Public Projects Agreement with C2R Engineering, Inc. of Los Altos, CA in the Amount of $437,800; and Authorizing the Expenditure of Contingency up to the Project Budget.
j. Deny Claim of Marc Fagel.
k. Adopt a Resolution Authorizing City Manager to Execute an Addendum to the Second Amended and Restated Agreement between the Cities of Redwood City and San Carlos for Fire and Emergency Services Extending the Expiration to December 31, 2023, with one Additional Mutually Agreed City Manager Extension to March 31, 2024.
l. Adopt a Resolution Approving Financial Policies.
m. Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute an Amendment to the Public Projects Agreement with C2R Engineering, Inc. in the Amount of $39,715.52 for the Emergency Storm Drain Repair at 2819 Eaton Avenue. n. Adopt a Resolution Appropriating $200,000 from the Affordable Housing Fund (Fund 0029) Unassigned Fund Balance in Fiscal Year 202223 to Create a Capital Improvement Project for the Installation of Ovens at 817 Walnut.

10. REPORTS TO COUNCIL
Reports to the Council are updates on key City Projects by City Staff and City Council Subcommittees. They are informational in nature, and no action will be taken on these items at this meeting.
a. Receive a Report on the Results of the 2023 Citizen Opinion Survey Conducted by True North Research.

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
Adjourn in Memory of Marisa Malatesta.

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, and as outlined in the City’s Reasonable Accommodations Policy, if you need special assistance or translation services to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at (650) 8024222 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.

1 CITY OF SAN CARLOS
City Council/Successor Agency to the
Redevelopment Agency/Housing Authority
Regular Meeting
May 22, 2023 7:00 PM
Council Chambers, City Hall
600 Elm Street, San Carlos, CA 94070
www.cityofsancarlos.org
AGENDA
This meeting will be conducted both inperson at City Hall and virtually via Zoom. Members of the public will have the option to observe the meeting and address the City Council as outlined below.

InPerson Participation:

Location. City Hall – 600 Elm Street, Council Chambers.

Remote Participation :

Councilmembers may participate in this meeting remotely pursuant to Assembly Bill 2449.

MAYOR: Adam Rak
COUNCIL: Ronald Collins, John Dugan, Sara McDowell, Pranita Venkatesh

1. CALL TO ORDER

2. ASSEMBLY BILL 2449 TELECONFERENCE REQUESTS

3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

4. CHANGES TO THE ORDER OF THE AGENDA

5. REPORT FROM CLOSED SESSION

6. PRESENTATIONS
a. Present a City Coin to Community Volunteer Sandi Piepmeier. b. Present a Proclamation Recognizing May 21 – 27, 2023 as Public Works Week.

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

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
Adjourn in Memory of Marisa Malatesta.

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.

2 CITY OF SAN CARLOS
City Council/Successor Agency to the
Redevelopment Agency/Housing Authority
Regular Meeting
May 22, 2023 7:00 PM
Council Chambers, City Hall
600 Elm Street, San Carlos, CA 94070
www.cityofsancarlos.org
AGENDA
This meeting will be conducted both inperson at City Hall and virtually via Zoom. Members of the public will have the option to observe the meeting and address the City Council as outlined below.

InPerson Participation:

Location. City Hall – 600 Elm Street, Council Chambers.

Remote Participation :

Councilmembers may participate in this meeting remotely pursuant to Assembly Bill 2449.

MAYOR: Adam Rak
COUNCIL: Ronald Collins, John Dugan, Sara McDowell, Pranita Venkatesh

1. CALL TO ORDER

2. ASSEMBLY BILL 2449 TELECONFERENCE REQUESTS

3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

4. CHANGES TO THE ORDER OF THE AGENDA

5. REPORT FROM CLOSED SESSION

6. PRESENTATIONS
a. Present a City Coin to Community Volunteer Sandi Piepmeier. b. Present a Proclamation Recognizing May 21 – 27, 2023 as Public Works Week.

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

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
Adjourn in Memory of Marisa Malatesta.

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.

3 CITY OF SAN CARLOS
City Council/Successor Agency to the
Redevelopment Agency/Housing Authority
Regular Meeting
May 22, 2023 7:00 PM
Council Chambers, City Hall
600 Elm Street, San Carlos, CA 94070
www.cityofsancarlos.org
AGENDA
This meeting will be conducted both inperson at City Hall and virtually via Zoom. Members of the public will have the option to observe the meeting and address the City Council as outlined below.

InPerson Participation:

Location. City Hall – 600 Elm Street, Council Chambers.

Remote Participation :

Councilmembers may participate in this meeting remotely pursuant to Assembly Bill 2449.

MAYOR: Adam Rak
COUNCIL: Ronald Collins, John Dugan, Sara McDowell, Pranita Venkatesh

1. CALL TO ORDER

2. ASSEMBLY BILL 2449 TELECONFERENCE REQUESTS

3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

4. CHANGES TO THE ORDER OF THE AGENDA

5. REPORT FROM CLOSED SESSION

6. PRESENTATIONS
a. Present a City Coin to Community Volunteer Sandi Piepmeier. b. Present a Proclamation Recognizing May 21 – 27, 2023 as Public Works Week.

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

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
Adjourn in Memory of Marisa Malatesta.

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.

4 San Carlos City Council/Successor Agency to the
Redevelopment Agency/Housing Authority Special Meeting
Collaboration Room, City Hall
600 Elm Street, San Carlos, CA 94070
April 10, 2023 6:45 PM

MINUTES

ROLL CALL

Council Present: Adam Rak, Mayor
John Dugan, Vice Mayor
Ron Collins, Councilmember
Pranita Venkatesh, Councilmember

Council Absent: Sara McDowell, Councilmember

Staff Present: Adam Aronson, Economic Development and Housing Manager Jeff Maltbie, City Manager
Crystal Mui, City Clerk
Amy Newby, Parks and Recreation Director
Gregory J. Rubens, City Attorney
Al Savay, Community Development Director

1. CALL TO ORDER

Mayor Rak called the meeting to order at 6:45 PM.

2. PUBLIC COMMENT

None.

3. CLOSED SESSION

a. Conference with Real Property Negotiators Aronson, Maltbie, Newby, Rubens, and Savay - (Closed Session Held Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8) 2 to Discuss Potential Cell Antenna Price and Terms at Crestview Park, San Carlos, California (APN:050-520-020).

4. REPORT FROM CLOSED SESSION
None.

5. ADJOURNMENT

Meeting adjourned at 6:51 PM.

____________________________
Crystal Mui, City Clerk

9.b
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 5

MEETING | [Document subtitle]

9.b
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 6

San Carlos City Council/Successor Agency to the
Redevelopment Agency/Housing Authority Regular Meeting
Council Chambers, City Hall
600 Elm Street, San Carlos, CA 94070
April 10, 2023 7:00 PM

MINUTES

ROLL CALL

City Council Present:

City Council Absent:

Adam Rak, Mayor
John Dugan, Vice Mayor
Ronald Collins, Councilmember
Pranita Venkatesh, Councilmember

Sara McDowell, Councilmember

Staff Present: Nil Blackburn, Assistant City Manager
Lisa Costa Sanders, Principal Planner Consultant
Hanieh Houshmandi, Senior Traffic Engineer
Grace Le, City Engineer
Jeff Maltbie, City Manager
Rebecca Mendenhall, Administrative Services Director
Crystal Mui, City Clerk
Amy Newby, Parks and Recreation Director
Gregory Rubens, City Attorney
Al Savay, Community Development Director

1. CALL TO ORDER

Mayor Rak called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM.

2. ASSEMBLY BILL 2449 TELECONFERENCE REQUESTS

No members of the body are participating remotely pursuant to AB 2449.

3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Mayor Rak.

4. CHANGES TO THE ORDER OF THE AGENDA

None.

5. REPORT FROM CLOSED SESSION

9.c
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 7

City Attorney Greg Rubens stated that there are no reports from the Closed Session item held this evening at the 6:45 PM Special Council Meeting.

6. PRESENTATIONS
a. Present a Proclamation Recognizing April 28, 2023 as San Carlos Arbor Day.

Mayor Rak presented a proclamation to Parks and Recreation Director Amy Newby , recognizing April 28, 2023 as San Carlos Arbor Day.

7. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS

None.

8. PUBLIC COMMENT

None.

9. CONSENT CALENDAR

MOTION: Approve City Council and Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency Consent Calendar items ‘A’ – ‘L’.

MOVER: Ronald Collins
SECONDER: John Dugan
AYES: Dugan, Collins, Venkatesh, Rak
NAYS: None
ABSENT: McDowell
RESULT: Motion Passed 4 – 0 – 1

a. Motion to Waive Reading of All Ordinances.

b. Approve the February 27, 2023 City Council Special Meeting Minutes.

c. Approve the February 27, 2023 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes. d. Declare a City Council Summer Recess and Authorize Cancellation of the two July 2023 City Council Meetings.

e. Accept the Quarterly Reports from City Commissions and Boards.

f. Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute an Agreement with US Foods Under the Contract with the State of California for a Contract Period Consistent with the State of California's Agreement to Purchase Foods Supplies for the Adult Community Center Meal Programs and other Citywide Food Supply Purchases.

Resolution 2023-039

9.c
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 8

g. Adopt a Resolution Accepting Grants of Public Access Easements from ARE -SAN FRANCISCO NO. 63, LLC on Portions of the Properties at 825 and 835 Industrial Road. Resolution 2023-040

h. Adopt a Resolution Appropriating $30,793 from the Wastewater Fund (Fund 006) in Fiscal Year 2022- 23 to C1752; Awarding the 2023 Sewer System Root Foaming Project; Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Public Project Agreement with Duke’s Root Control, Inc. of Elgin, Illinois in the Amount of $171,327.43; and Authorizing the Expenditure of Contingency up to the Project Budget. Resolution 2023-041

i. Adopt a Resolution Awarding the 2023 On -Call Traffic Striping and Marking Project C9417; Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Public Projects Agreement with Chrisp Company of Fremont, CA in the Amount of $253,795; and Authorizing the Expenditure of Contingency up to the Project Budget. Resolution 2023-042

j. Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Amend the Internet Services Agreement with TPX Communications to Upgrade the Equipment to Expand Internet Capacity and to Amend the Agreement to Modify Services and Renew Support Until the Service is Replaced. Resolution 2023-043

k. Accept and Authorize the Filing of the Housing Successor Agency Annual Report for FY 2021-22.

l. Adopt a Resolution Setting the Time, Place and Duration of the San Carlos Farmers’ Market. Resolution 2023-044

10. STUDY SESSION

a. Receive a Presentation Providing an Overview of Transportation Management Association (TMA) Options for East San Carlos.

Community Development Director Al Savay commenced the item and turned the presentation over to Consultant Mark Spencer to review the Transportation Management Association (TMA) options. Mr. Spencer and Mr. Savay responded to Council questions.

Council expressed interest in expanding the TMA outside of the East Side Innovation District to impact the broader community, and requested staff to thoroughly review the charter to ensure it maintains the City’s influence, especially in the event that other agencies join.

11. NEW BUSINESS

a. Consideration of Adopting a Resolution Appropriating $200,000 from Park -in-Lieu Fund 27 to Fund a New North Crestview Park Master Plan.

9.c
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 9

Parks and Recreation Director Amy Newby provid ed a background on the North Crestview Park Master Plan, reviewed the project’s timeline and budget and responded to Council’s questions.

Public Comment
- Vesna, resident, spoke in opposition to a new Master Plan for North Crestview Park and requested Council proceed with the original Master Plan.

- Julia Mensing, resident, spoke in opposition to a new Master Plan for North Crestview Park and requested Council proceed with the original Master Plan.

- David Crabbe, resident, opposed a new Master Plan for North Crestview Park and requested Council review the previous Master Plan.

- Geoffrey Rutledge, resident opposed a new Master Plan for North Crestview Park and requested Council review the previous Master Plan.

- Dr. Charlene Edinboro, resident, spoke in opposition to a new Master Plan for North Crestview Park.

- Liz Seckler, resident, spoke in opposition to a new Master Plan for North Crestview Park and requested Council fund and execute the original design.

- Arlene Bitmansoor, resident, opposed funding a study for a new North Crestview Park Master Plan.

- John Lilygren, resident, opposed funding a study for a new North Crestview Park Master Plan and requested Council to leave it as a passive use park

- Tom Morse, resident, opposed funding a study for a new North Crestview Park Master Plan and offered to help develop the park according to the 2017 Master Plan.

- Mark Olbert, resident and former San Carlos Mayor and Councilmember, spoke in support of a new Master Plan for North Crestview Park.

- Andy Klein, resident and former San Carlos Mayor and Councilmember, spoke in support of a new Master Plan for North Crestview Park.

- Andrew Taylor, resident, spoke in opposition to a new North Crestview Park Master Plan and cited human safety issues in the area.

MOTION: Adopt Resolution 2023-045 Appropriating $200,000 from Park-in-Lieu Fund 27 to Fund a New North Crestview Park Master Plan.

MOVER: Pranita Venkatesh
SECONDER: Ronald Collins
AYES: Venkatesh, Dugan, Collins, Rak
NAYS: None
ABSENT: McDowell
RESULT: Motion Passed 4 – 0 – 1

9.c
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 10

12. AGENDA SETTING

None.

13. ADJOURNMENT

Mayor Rak paid tribute to his father-in-law, John Hart Clinton, Jr., and adjourned the meeting at 8:41 PM in his memory.

____________________________
Crystal Mui,
City Clerk

9.c
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 11

CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: May 22, 2023
ITEM TITLE: Accept the Fiscal Year 2022-23 Third Quarter Investment Report for the Period Ending March 31, 2023.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council review and accept the Quarterly Investment Report (“Report”) for the third quarter of Fiscal Year (“FY”) 2022-23 ending March 31, 2023.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

There is no fiscal impact associated with accepting the Report.

BACKGROUND:

On August 22, 2022, the City Council approved the Annual Investment Policy (“Policy”) per Resolution No. 2022-091. In accordance with the Policy, the City Administrative Services Director is responsible for investing the unexpended cash used for funding operations of the City of San Carlos (“City”).

The investment of funds for the City is directed by the goals of safety, liquidity, and yield. The authority governing investments for municipal governments is set forth in the California Government Code, sections 53601 through 53686 (“Code”). Effective January 1, 2023, per section 53646 (b)(1) of the Code, the Investment Committee serving as the legislative body will have the quarterly reports for its review within forty-five (45) days, changed from thirty (30) days, following the end of the quarter. Thus, this Report and its attachments are furnished for review and information, and the Investment Policy will be revised to reflect the updated review period in August 2023.

Beginning in FY 2016-17, the City included the checking account balance as part of this Report.

Although a checking account is not a typical investment account, this balance is included to show the total cash on hand for the quarter. The City typically maintains $1 million to $3 million, and a larger balance at the end of the calendar year, in the checking account to meet cash disbursement needs. Transfers are usually made into the investment accounts during the quarter to account for receipts that exceed disbursements.

Investment Strategy

The City’s investment priorities, in order, are “safety, liquidity, and yield,” while meeting the cash flow needs of the City through prudent investment of unexpended cash.

9.d
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 12

Compliance with Policy

Historical cash flow trends are compared to current cash flow requirements on an ongoing basis to ensure the City’s investment portfolio will remain sufficiently liquid to enable the City to meet all reasonably anticipated operating requirements. As of March 31, 2023, the portfolio contains sufficient liquidity to meet the next six months of expected expenditures by the City.

As of March 31, 2023, the City has no investment instruments with a maturity date longer than one year. All investments are in highly liquid accounts, using the State of California and County of San Mateo investment pools, and are in compliance with the Policy.

The primary objective of the Policy of the City of San Carlos is “safety of principal”. The permitted investments section of the Policy also states:

Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF), which is a State of California managed investment pool, and San Mateo County Investment pool, may be used up to the maximum permitted by California State Law. A review of the pool/fund is required when they are part of the list of authorized investments, with the knowledge that the pool/fund may include some investments allowed by statute but not explicitly identified in this investment policy.

The City’s Investment Committee, consisting of Jeff Maltbie, City Manager; Inge Tiegel, City Treasurer; and Rebecca Mendenhall, Administrative Services Director, has reviewed and approved this Report.

ANALYSIS:

The Investment Portfolio (Attachment 1) indicates that on March 31, 2023, City funds in the amount of $180,187,242 were invested, producing a weighted average yield of 2.55% for this quarter. The amount in the checking account was $2,755,075. The Local Agency Investment Fund (“LAIF”), the City’s benchmark for comparison of investment yield, was 2.74% for the quarter. The investment yield, net of administrative fees, for the County Pool was 2.42%. The allocation of the investment portfolio balance to various City funds is included on page 3 of the attachment.

Below is a summary of the changes from the last quarter.

The portfolio balance at the end of the third quarter is $182,942,317, an increase of approximately $2.8 million. The increase in the portfolio balance followed the same trend as previous years and was primarily due to the receipt of property tax ($6.6 million) and sales tax revenue ($3 million).

The City’s cash position typically improves in late December and April due to the receipt of property tax collections from San Mateo County.

9.d
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 13

The increase in cash during the quarter driven by the above revenues was partially offset by several major distributions: (1) $2.2 million payment to San Mateo County for law enforcement services for the third quarter of FY 2022-23; (2) $0.6 million operating expenditure contributions to Silicon Valley Clean Water; (3) $0.7 million for Silicon Valley Clean Water bond payments; (4) $1.0 million payments to Brannon Corporation related to storm costs; (5) $0.6 million on the building plan check services; and (6) $3.2 million for capital improvement projects (Annual Sewer Lateral Replacement, Annual Street Resurfacing, 2nd Floor Library Remodel, 447 Hillcrest Wall Replacement, Fire Station 16 Replacement, Study Land Use and Regulatory Options, and Traffic Circle and Midblock Crossing).

Below is a comparison of quarterly cash position for the past three years.

Below is a summary of the changes in the total investment interest earnings from the prior quarter.

The increase in interest earnings this quarter occurred due to the higher interest rates compared to the prior quarter. Interest for the investment accounts was $1,119,158 and $46,606 for the checking account.

ALTERNATIVES:

The alternatives available to the City Council include:

1. Accept the Quarterly Investment Report for the third quarter of Fiscal Year 2022-23 as of March 31, 2023; or

2. Do not accept the Report; or

3. Provide staff with alternative direction.

9.d
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 14

Respectfully submitted by:

Rebecca Mendenhall, Administrative Services Director
Approved for submission by:
_______________________
Jeff Maltbie, City Manager
ATTACHMENT(S):

1. Q3 2023 Investment Portfolio 03-31-2023

9.d
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 15

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO
March 31, 2023

CITY OF SAN CARLOS
Investment Type
Yield
%
Historical
Book
Value ($)
GASB 31
Market
Value ($)*
Purchase
Price ($)
% of
Portfolio
Quarterly
IncomeQtr. Year-to-date

LIQUID ACCOUNTS
Checking Account $ 2,755,075 5.41% 3.14% $ 2,755,075 2% $ 2,755,075 $ 46,606 Investment Accounts
San Mateo County Pool-City of San Carlos
State of California LAIF-City of San Carlos
105,745,654
74,441,588

2.42%

2.74%

1.78%

1.99%
105,745,654
74,441,588
58%
41%
102,955,026
73,437,395
632,134
487,025
Total Liquid Accounts $ 180,187,242 2.55% 1.87% $ 180,187,241 98% $ 176,392,421 $ 1,119,158 Total for City of San Carlos $ 182,942,317 2.60% 1.88% $ 182,942,316 100% $ 179,147,496 $ 1,165,764 * Note: Difference in value between Historical Value and Market Value may be due to timing of purchase. Investments in the investment pools may have been purchased when interest rates were lower or higher than the end date of this report. As interest rates increase or decrease, the value of the investment pools will decrease or increase accordingly. However, the interest rate fluctuations does not have impact to the City's balance in the investment pools. The market values are presented as a reference only.

9.d
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 16

City of San Carlos
Investment Portfolio
as of March 31, 2023
City ‐ LAIF
41%
City ‐ SMC Pool
City ‐ Checking
1%
58%
City ‐ Checking City ‐ SMC Pool City ‐ LAIF
Investment Portfolio Diversification
City of San Carlos
City of San Carlos
City of San Carlos
Checking Account
SM County Pool
LAIF-General
$
$
2,755,075
105,745,654
74,441,588
2%
58%
41%
Total 182,942,317 100%

9.d
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 17

City of San Carlos
Investment Allocations
as of March 31, 2023
31%
4%
2%
2%
4%
5%
2%
10% 21%
12% 7%
Capital Projects Funds (Fund 10, 14, 16, 18, 25, 27, and 28) Sewer Fund (Fund 6)
Housing Funds (Funds 29 and 31)
Facility/Infrastructure Improvements
General Fund Operations (includes checking account)
Unfunded Liabilities
Economic Uncertainties Reserve
Strategic Property Acquisition
Special Revenue Funds and Library Debt Service (Funds 15, 17, 93 and 95) Internal Service Funds (Funds 32, 33, and 35)
Restricted by contract or outside party
% of Total
Funds Cash Balance Balance
Capital Projects Funds (Fund 10, 14, 16, 18, 25, 27, and 28) $ 58,087,667 31% 21%
7%
Sewer Fund (Fund 6) 38,279,526
13,219,331
21,341,500
18,926,284
3,000,000
8,305,383
7,191,795
Housing Funds (Funds 29 and 31)
Facility/Infrastructure Improvements
General Fund Operations (includes checking account)
Unfunded Liabilities
12%
10%
2%
Economic Uncertainties Reserve 5%
Strategic Property Acquisition 4%
Special Revenue Funds and Library Debt Service (Funds 15, 17, 93 and 95) 4,120,482 2%
2%
4%
Internal Service Funds (Funds 32, 33, and 35) 2,978,945 7,491,405Restricted by contract or outside party
Total $ 182,942,317 100%

9.d
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 18

City of San Carlos Historical Summary of Investment Portfolio 100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
City ‐ Checking
City ‐ LAIF
City ‐ SM County
Pool
Mar‐21 Jun‐21 Sep‐21 Dec‐21 Mar‐22 Jun‐22 Sep‐22 Dec‐22 Mar‐23 City of San Carlos Investment Portfolio
Mar-21 Jun-21 Sep-21 Dec-21 Mar-22 Jun-22 Sep-22 Dec-22 Mar-23 City - Checking
City - SM County Pool
City - LAIF
2,500,327
62,891,172
61,327,279
2,321,355
74,665,430
60,644,252
2,329,948
74,839,584
58,692,480
3,214,823
81,871,382
51,978,289
5,993,674
84,355,059
51,260,708
2,166,789
96,365,828
66,551,266
2,115,336
92,597,140
69,161,866
3,257,964
106,000,261
70,891,695
2,755,075
105,745,654
74,441,588
Total $ 126,718,778 $ 137,631,036 $ 135,862,013 $ 137,064,494 $ 141,609,441 $ 165,083,883 $ 163,874,342 $ 180,149,920 $ 182,942,317

9.d
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 19

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

INVESTMENT ANNUALIZED RATE OF RETURN
March 31, 2023
Investment Annualized Rate of Return

2.50%

2.00%

1.50%

1.00%

0.50%

0.00%
Mar‐21 Jun‐21 Sep‐21 Dec‐21 Mar‐22 Jun‐22 Sep‐22 Dec‐22 Mar‐23 San Mateo County Pool‐City of San Carlos State of California LAIF‐City of San Carlos Annualized Rate of Return
Investment Accounts
San Mateo County Pool-City of San Carlos
State of California LAIF-City of San Carlos
Mar-21

1.11%

0.65%
Jun-21

1.07%

0.57%
Sep-21 Dec-21

0.88%

0.25%
Mar-22

0.87%

0.27%
Jun-22

0.91%

0.38%
Sep-22 Dec-22

1.45%

1.66%
Mar-23

1.78%

1.99%

0.99%

0.24%

1.31%

1.33%

9.d
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 20

CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: May 22, 2023
ITEM TITLE: Accept the Fiscal Year 2022-23 Third Quarter Financial Report for the Period Ending March 31, 2023.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council accept the Quarterly Financial Report (“Report”) for the third quarter of Fiscal Year (“FY”) 2022-23 ended March 31, 2023.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

There is no financial impact associated with accepting this Report.

BACKGROUND:

In June 2021, the City Council approved financial policies formalizing long standing practices. The policies were established to ensure that the City's finances are managed in a manner that will: (1) continue to provide for the delivery of quality services; (2) maintain and enhance service delivery as the community grows, in accordance with the General Plan; (3) guarantee a balanced budget annually assuring that the City is operating within its means; and (4) establish reserves necessary to meet known and unknown future obligations.

A key component of these policies includes the preparation of a quarterly financial report. This report provides an executive summary of the City’s current financial status as it relates to the adopted operating budget.

Attached is the Report for the third quarter that reflects the City’s overall General Fund financial position as of March 31, 2023. Included in the Report is an update on the General Fund balance, analysis of revenues earned to date, and expenses incurred for the first nine months of the fiscal year.

ANALYSIS:

Revenues
The Report for the third quarter is prepared on a cash basis, therefore only revenue received by March 31 is reflected. Since revenue is received on many different schedules depending on type, it is useful to compare the year-to-date (“YTD”) actual amounts to the prior year actual amounts.

Overall, fiscal year-to-date revenues were approximately $41.1 million, or $8.9 million and 27.7% greater than last year at the end of the third quarter, and represented 79.6% of budget. As discussed in the attached Report, revenues from property tax, sales taxes, charges for services, vehicle in lieu, other taxes, licenses and permits, and use of money and property were higher than

9.e
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 21

the prior year. This was primarily due to increased assessed property values, the restoration of special events in the Parks and Recreation Department, development fees, planning checks and inspections, and receiving the countywide shortfall vehicle in-lieu from FY 2020-21.

Other revenues were lower compared to quarter three of last year. As discussed in the attached Report, it was due to the timing of the receipt of the annual disbursement from Silicon Valley Community Foundation in the prior fiscal year. This was partially offset by receipt of the FEMA grant to cover COVID-19 losses and an increase in business registration fees.

Expenditures
Expenditures are recorded when paid, using the cash basis method of accounting. Overall, expenditures were $38.8 million, or 70.3%, of the budget. Total expenses were $5.4 million higher than the third quarter of last year due to increases in the budget approved by the City Council in March 2022. These increases included a number of program changes and additional staffing changes necessary to implement the strategic plan objectives, support the increased level of development activity, manage the increase in infrastructure projects, and advance the increased communication needs. Additional detail can be found in the attached report.

ALTERNATIVES:

The alternatives available to the City Council include:

1. Accept the Quarterly Financial Report for the third quarter of FY 2022-23 ended March 31, 2023; or

2. Do not accept the Quarterly Financial Report; or

3. Provide staff with alternative direction.

Respectfully submitted by:

Rebecca Mendenhall, Administrative Services Director
Approved for submission by:
_______________________
Jeff Maltbie, City Manager
ATTACHMENT(S):

1. Q3 FY23 Financial Report

9.e
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 22

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

Third Quarter of Fiscal Year 2022-23

The City has completed the third quarter of the fiscal year (“FY”) 2022-23 ended March 31, 2023. This report summarizes the activities of the City’s General Fund, which is the primary operating fund of the City and is used to account for most operating activities. Th is report is not meant to be inclusive of all finance and accounting transactions. It is intended only to pr ovide the Council and the public with an overview of the state of the City’s general fiscal condition.

GENERAL FUND FINANCIAL POSITION
The General Fund is comprised of budgeted oper ating revenues of $51,607,100 and operating expenditures of $55,201,925 for FY 2022-23. Expenditures contained in the General Fund account for direct services provided to the residents of San Carlos, including General Government, Police Services, Fire Services, Parks and Recreation, Community Development, and Public Works.

TOP SEVEN GENERAL FUND REVENUES
The City’s seven main revenue sources accounted for approximately 94.7% of the General Fund’s year-to- date total operating revenue in FY 2022-23.

Overall, these key operating revenues largely perfor med as projected based on payment schedules, past trends, and the expectation of cont inuing economic recovery from t he novel coronavi rus (“COVID-19”) pandemic. Any significant variations in the different revenue categories compared to the third quarter of the prior year and the budget are noted below:
 Property tax. The vast majority of the City’s pr operty taxes are received in December and April.

The property taxes received through the third quarter were $1,594,000 higher compared to the third quarter of last fiscal year due to increased assess ed values. We are projecting that property tax revenue will be 3% higher than budgeted as a result.

Quarterly Financial Report

9.e
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 23

 Sales Tax. Revenues for the quarter were $196,000 greater than the same period of the prior year mostly in the categories of business and indu stry, fuel and service stations, general consumer goods and restaurants and hotels. Restaurants experienced a strong uptick with increased prices and a continued desire to dine out. This category is also projected to be a little higher than originally budgeted as a result.
 Charges for Services. The majority of the revenues collected in this quarter were for recreation classes, special event sponsorships and fees, inspection fees, development fees, and building plan checks. Revenue was at 148.2% of the full year budget and compared to the third quarter of the prior year, there was an increase of $3,601,000 mainly due to the collection of plan check fees from large development projects and restoration of special events in Parks and Recreation. Plan check and inspection fee revenues can vary from year to year due to the timing of large-scale development projects.
 Vehicle in-lieu (VLF). The first distribution of revenue in this category was received in December 2022 and the second will be received in April 2023. T he revenue received in this fiscal year was $2,851,000 higher than the prior year mainly due to payment of the county-wide shortfall from two years ago (FY 2020-21) and the increase in property assessed values.  Other Taxes. These include Transient Occupanc y Tax (“TOT”) and Franchise fees. Total revenue was $529,000 higher than the third quarter of t he prior year. The budgeted TOT revenues for the full year are $1.9 million more than the prior year following an increase in tourism and travel activity.

Although the hotel industry began to rally in FY 2021-22 following the COVID-19 pandemic, the industry has not yet returned to hi storical occupancy as business travel has not yet fully returned to pre-pandemic rates. As such, it is anticipated that reve nues in this category will fall short of budgeted expectations by about $400,000.
 Licenses & Permits. Revenues were $280,000 greater than at the same point in the prior year and achieved 98% of this year’s budget. Similar to Charges for Services, this revenue category can vary from year to year due to the timing of development projects.  Use of Money and Property. This revenue stream was $323,000 higher than the third quarter of the prior year mostly due higher interest rates on investment return. Although interest rates have been trending less than 3% the increase is generated from higher investment balances due to the timing of the payment of expenditures..
 Other Revenues. This revenue category includes business registration fees, vehicle code fines, various cost reimbursements, and grants. It was $460,000 less compared to the third quarter of the prior year due to the timing of the receipt of the annual disbursement from Silicon Valley Community Foundation in the prior fiscal year. The payment was made in the fourth quarter this year. The decrease in this categorywas partially offset by the receipt of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (“FEMA”) grant to cover COVID-19 losses and the increase of business registration fees.

GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES
In March 2022, the City Council approved a number of program changes and additional staffing changes for FY 2022-23 that were necessary to implement the strategic plan objectives, support the increased level of development activity, manage the increase in in frastructure projects, and advance the increased communication needs. As a result, total expenditures for the third quarter of the current fiscal year were

16.3% higher than last year. As shown in the table below, expenditures are generally on target for the third quarter of the fiscal year. Any significant variations are noted below.

 General Government. Expenditures were $1,245,000 higher than the third quarter of the prior year due to the increase in professional services fees and the addition of new positions in FY 2022-23 to provide administrative support to support the increased need for communication and outreach.

9.e
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 24

 Community Development. Expenditures were $1,011,000 greater than the prior year due to higher professional consulting services and the additi on of new positions in FY 2022-23 budget to implement the strategic plan objectives and to support the greater workload related to the City’s development projects.
 Fire. Expenditures were $438,000 greater than the th ird quarter of last fiscal year due to increases in costs for contracted fire services from the City of Redwood City and annual pension payments related to the former Belmont San Carlos Fire Department.  Police. Expenditures were higher than the same period of last year by $966,000 due to an increase in the annual pension payments to CalPERS, and cost increases in the contracted law enforcement services from the San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office.
 Parks and Recreation. Expenditures were $823,000 higher compared to last year mainly due to the restoration of programs, classes, and special community events.  Public Works. Expenditures were $957,000 more than the prior year primarily due to the addition of new positions to support the increase in infr astructure projects and the increase in costs for utilities.

 Salaries and benefits. Expenditures were $2,250,000 greater than the third quarter of last year due to the increases in staff as noted above and an increase in the annual pension payments to CalPERS.
 Professional Services. Expenditures include paymen ts to outside consultants related to fire and police protection, police dispatch services, planni ng consultants, legal and auditing services, and recreation instructors. Expenditures in this cat egory were $2,472,000 higher than the prior year largely due to cost increases related to contracted fire and police services, development professional services contracts related to the Ci ty’s development projects, and the restoration of recreation services and special community events that were restored this fiscal year.  Other Operating. Expenditures were $696,000 higher in the third quarter when compared to the same period in the prior year, mainly due to more field and program supplies in Parks and Recreation as a result of the re storation of special events and increases in utility expenses and higher fuel costs.
 Capital Outlay costs are similar to the prior ye ar with $21,000 more due to higher fuel costs.

FOR MORE INFORMATION
This summary is based on detailed information produc ed by the City’s Finance Division. If you would like additional information or have any questions about this report, please call (650) 802-4213.

9.e
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 25

CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: May 22, 2023
ITEM TITLE: Adopt a Resolution Setting the Tax Rate for Fiscal Year 2023-24 with Respect to the General Obligation Refunding Bonds for the Library Project.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council approve a Resolution setting the tax rate for Fiscal Year (”FY”) 2023-24 with respect to the General Obligation Refunding Bonds (”Bonds”) for the Library Project. The action will result in no change to the tax rate of approximately $28 per residential property currently paid by the taxpayers.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

The City has determined that to provide sufficient funds to pay the principal of and interest on the Bonds totaling $468,550, due and payable on August 1, 2023 and February 1, 2024, it is necessary to levy a tax upon all taxable property in the city at the rate of 0.002377% of assessed valuation (representing $2.38 per $100,000 of assessed valuation), which is the same as the rate of the prior fiscal year. This is based on the estimated assessed values for all rolls (secured, unsecured, and utility) for FY 2023-24 and accounts for a reduction in the Debt Service Fund Balance of $78,000, with application of excess tax revenue.

There is no impact on the General Fund.

BACKGROUND:

Pursuant to Section 43632 of the California Government Code, the City Council is required annually to levy and collect a tax sufficient to pay the principal of and interest on the Bonds coming due and payable before the proceeds of a tax levied at the next general tax levy will be available.

In June 1996, more than two-thirds of San Carlos voters approved a proposition authorizing the issuance by the City of General Obligation Bonds in the aggregate principal amount of $8,000,000 to fund the construction of the San Carlos Library. In November 2005, the City refunded those bonds in full to realize debt service savings for the benefit of the taxpayers. On February 9, 2015, the City Council adopted Resolution 2015-012 authorizing the issuance and sale of 2015 General Obligation Refunding Bonds to refund the outstanding 2005 Library Refunding General Obligation Bonds. The total principal and interest remaining to be paid on the 2015 General Obligation Refunding Bond is $1,895,000 and $78,450, respectively, with a term date of August 1, 2026.

ANALYSIS:

The tax levy rate of 0.002377% for FY 2023-24 includes the application of excess tax revenues

9.f
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 26

of $78,000, which has helped to reduce the Debt Service Fund Balance. Approval of this action will not result in any change to the rate. Taxpayers pay on average approximately $28 per residential property.

ALTERNATIVES:

The alternatives available to the City Council include:

1. Adopt a Resolution setting the tax rate of FY 2023-24 with respect to the General Refunding Bonds for the Library Project; or

2. Do not adopt the Resolution; or

3. Provide staff with alternative direction.

Respectfully submitted by:

Rebecca Mendenhall, Administrative Services Director
Approved for submission by:
_______________________
Jeff Maltbie, City Manager
ATTACHMENT(S):

1. Resolution

9.f
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 27

RESOLUTION NO. 2023 – ____

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN CARLOS SETTING THE TAX RATE FOR FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 WITH RESPECT TO THE GENERAL OBLIGATION REFUNDING BONDS FOR THE LIBRARY PROJECT.

WHEREAS, at an election held on June 4, 1996, more than two-thirds of the voters of the City San Carlos (the “City”) approved a proposition authorizing the issuance by the City of general obligation bonds in the aggregate principal amount of $8,000,000, for the purpose of providing funds for the construction of public library facilities; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to such authorization, the City issued its City of San Carlos General Obligation Bonds, Series 1996 in the aggregate principal amount of $8,000,000, which have been refunded from the proceeds of the City of San Carlos 2015 General Obligation Refunding Bonds that were issued in the aggregate principal amount of $4,600,000 (the “Bonds”); and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 43632 of the California Government Code, the City Council is required annually to levy and collect a tax sufficient to pay the principal of and interest on the Bonds coming due and payable before the proceeds of a tax levied at the next general tax levy will be available; and
WHEREAS, the City has determined that to provide sufficient funds to pay the principal of and interest on the Bonds coming due and payable on August 1, 2023 and February 1, 2024, it is necessary to levy an ad valorem property tax upon all taxable property in the City at the rate of

0.002377% of assessed valuation (representing $2.38 per $100,000 of assessed valuation), based on the estimated assessed values for all rolls (secured, unsecured and utility) for Fiscal Year 2023-24.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the San Carlos City Council as follows:

Section 1. Levy of Tax. The City Council hereby determines that the tax rate necessary to pay the principal of and interest on the Bonds coming due and payable on August 1, 2023 and February 1, 2024, is 0.002377% of assessed valuation (representing $2.38 per $100,000 of assessed valuation), and such tax rate shall be and is hereby levied in accordance with all applicable requirements of law.

Section 2. Collection of Tax. The Administrative Services Director is hereby directed to forward a copy of this Resolution to the Controller of San Mateo County (the “County”) and to the Board of Supervisors of the County and to take such actions and execute such documents as may be required to cause the tax rate set forth in Section 1 to be placed on the 2023-24 property tax bill and collected by the County.

Section 3. Application of Tax. As provided in Section 43634 of the California Government Code, all taxes levied pursuant to this Resolution shall be used only for payment of the Bonds and the interest thereon.

Section 4. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect from and after the date of its passage and adoption.

9.f
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 28

* * * * *
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 22nd day of May 2023, 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

9.f
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 29

CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: May 22, 2023
ITEM TITLE: Adopt a Resolution Appropriating $8,005 from the General Capital Fund 0025 (Fund 25) Unassigned Fund Balance in Fiscal Year 2022- 23 to Project #C1744; Awarding the 7 Winding Way Guardrail Project; Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Public Projects Agreement with Golden Bay Construction, Inc. of Hayward, CA in the Amount of $99,241; and Authorizing the Expenditure of Contingency up to the Project Budget.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a Resolution appropriating $8,005 from the General Capital Fund 0025 (Fund 25) Unassigned Fund Balance in Fiscal Year (“FY”) 2022-23, awarding the 7 Winding Way Guardrail Project (“Project”), authorizing the City Manager to execute a Public Projects Agreement with Golden Bay Construction, Inc. of Hayward, CA (“Contractor”) in the amount of $99,241, and authorizing the expenditure of a contingency up to the Project budget.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

The Project is funded out of Project #C1744, which has an available Project budget of approximately $101,162.

An additional appropriation of $8,005 is needed from the Fund 0025 Unassigned Fund balance in FY 2022-23 to award the Project for the total bid amount, with approximately 10% contingency.

BACKGROUND:

An accident occurred at the intersection of Winding Way and Torino Drive involving a large truck that was unable to stop on the steep downhill grade along Torino Drive. Staff investigated the conditions and evaluated warrants which resulted in the recommendation to install a guardrail along the edge of the roadway at the bottom of Torino Drive.

Staff hired Bellecci & Associates, Inc. to prepare the construction documents. The final bid set construction documents were prepared and signed by the City Engineer on April 5, 2023.

ANALYSIS:

On April 10, 2023, the City advertised for bids for construction of the Project and bids were opened on April 27, 2023. Only one bid was received with the following results:

9.g
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 30

Contractor Bid Amount
Engineer’s Estimate $90,000
Golden Bay Construction, Inc. $99,241
The lowest responsible and responsive bid was submitted by Golden Bay Construction, Inc. in the amount of $99,241.

Staff recommends awarding the contract to Golden Bay Construction, Inc. The variance in the bid can be attributed to the scale of the Project, rising material costs, the current economy, and the bidder’s workload.

Additionally, staff recommends appropriating $8,005 from the General Capital Fund 0025 in FY 2022-23 to award the total bid amount, plus approximately 10% contingency.

ALTERNATIVES:

The alternatives available to the City Council include:

1. Adopt a Resolution appropriating $8,005 from the General Capital Fund 0025 in Fiscal Year 2022-23, awarding the 7 Winding Way Guardrail Project, authorizing the City Manager to execute a Public Projects Agreement with Golden Bay Construction, Inc. of Hayward, CA in the amount of $99,241, and authorizing the expenditure of a contingency up to the Project budget; 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

9.g
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 31

RESOLUTION NO. 2023 – ____

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN CARLOS APPROPRIATING $8,005 FROM THE GENERAL CAPITAL FUND 0025 (FUND 25) UNASSIGNED FUND BALANCE IN FISCAL YEAR 2022-23 TO PROJECT #C1744; AWARDING THE 7 WINDING WAY GUARDRAIL PROJECT; AUTHORIZING THE CITY

MANAGER TO EXECUTE A PUBLIC PROJECTS AGREEMENT WITH GOLDEN BAY CONSTRUCTION, INC. OF HAYWARD, CA IN THE AMOUNT OF $99,241; AND AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF CONTINGENCY UP TO THE PROJECT BUDGET.

WHEREAS, an accident occurred at the intersection of Winding Way and Torino Drive involving a large truck that was unable to stop on the steep downhill grade along Torino Drive; and
WHEREAS, staff investigated the conditions and evaluated warrants which resulted in the recommendation to install a guardrail along the edge of the roadway at the bottom of Torino Drive; and
WHEREAS, staff hired Bellecci & Associates, Inc. to prepare the construction documents, and the final bid set construction documents were prepared and signed by the City Engineer on April 5, 2023; and
WHEREAS, on April 10, 2023, the City advertised for bids for construction of the 7 Winding Way Guardrail Project (“Project”) and bids were opened on April 27, 2023; and WHEREAS, the lowest responsible and responsive bid was submitted by Golden Bay Construction, Inc. in the amount of $99,241; and
WHEREAS, staff recommends awarding the contract to Golden Bay Construction, Inc; and WHEREAS, staff recommends appropriating $8,005 from the Fund 0025 Unassigned Fund balance in FY 2022-23 to award the total bid amount, plus approximately 10% contingency; and WHEREAS, staff recommends that Council authorize the City Manager to execute an amendment to the Public Projects Agreement with the Golden Bay Construction, Inc. and authorize the expenditure of a contingency up to the Project budget.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of San Carlos hereby:
- appropriates $8,005 from the General Capital Fund 0025 (Fund 25) Unassigned Fund Balance in Fiscal Year 2022-23 to Project #C1744;
- awards the 7 Winding Way Guardrail Project;
- authorizes the City Manager to execute a Public Projects Agreement with Golden Bay Construction, Inc. of Hayward, CA in the amount of $99,241; and - authorizes the expenditure of contingency up to the Project budget. * * * * *

9.g
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 32

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 22nd day of May 2023, by the following vote:

9.g
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 33

CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: May 22, 2023
ITEM TITLE: Adopt a Resolution Approving the Changes to the Debt Management Policy and Approving the Debt Disclosure Procedures Policy with no Changes for the City of San Carlos and Its Related Entities Other Than the Successor Agency.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a Resolution approving the changes to the Debt Management Policy and approve the Debt Disclosure Procedures Policy with no changes for the City of San Carlos and its related entities other than the Successor Agency.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

None for this action.

BACKGROUND:

The Debt Management Policy was last adopted by the City Council on January 22, 2018 via Resolution 2018-010.

The Debt Procedure Policy was last adopted by the City Council on May 28, 2019 via Resolution 2019-037.

ANALYSIS:

In February 2023, staff consulted with the City’s on-call financial advisors, NHA Advisors, for both the Debt Management Policy and the Debt Disclosure Procedures Policy to review the language for updates and consistency. NHA Advisors did not recommend any changes to the Debt Disclosure Procedures Policy, but provided recommendations for changes to the Debt Management Policy.

Per review of the policy, staff recommends the following updates to the Debt Management Policy:

1. Additional language in the “Conditions and Purposes of Debt Issuance – Acceptable Conditions for the Use of Debt” section to include, “Debt will be considered to finance such projects if: the project to be financed will provide benefit to constituents over multiple years.”

2. Additional language in the “Internal Control Procedures Concerning Use of Proceeds of Debt” section to include, “Financings on behalf of other entities – The City may also find it beneficial to issue debt on behalf of other governmental agencies, such as Silicon Valley

9.h
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 34

Clean Water (SVCW), to further the public purposes of the City. In such cases, the City shall take reasonable steps to confirm the financial feasibility of the project to be financed and the financial solvency of any borrower and that the issuance of such debt is consistent with the policies set forth herein.”

3. Additional language in the “Type of Financial Instruments; Affordability and Planning Policies” section to include, “Short-Term and Other Debt – Tax and revenue anticipation notes, bonds or grant anticipation notes, etc.”
ALTERNATIVES:

The alternatives available to the City Council include:

1. Adopt a Resolution approving the changes to the Debt Management Policy and approve the Debt Disclosure Procedures Policy with no changes for the City of San Carlos and its related entities other than the Successor Agency; or

2. Do not adopt the Resolution; or

3. Provide staff with alternative direction.

Respectfully submitted by:

Rebecca Mendenhall, Administrative Services Director
Approved for submission by:
_______________________
Jeff Maltbie, City Manager
ATTACHMENT(S):

1. Resolution

2. Proposed Debt Management Policy – With Track Changes

3. Debt Disclosure Procedure Policy

9.h
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 35

RESOLUTION NO. 2023 – ____

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

APPROVING CHANGES TO THE DEBT MANAGEMENT POLICY AND APPROVING THE

DEBT DISCLOSURE PROCEDURES POLICY WITH NO CHANGES FOR THE CITY OF SAN CARLOS AND ITS RELATED ENTITIES OTHER THAN THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY.

WHEREAS, the Debt Management Policy was last updated via Resolution 2018-010 on January 22, 2018, and it is financially prudent to review the Debt Management Policy periodically for updates and consistency; and
WHEREAS, the Debt Disclosure Procedure Policy was last adopted by the City Council on May 28, 2019 via Resolution 2019-037 and no changes are recommended.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the San Carlos City Council hereby approves and adopts the Debt Management Policy and the Debt Disclosure Procedure Policy in the form presented to the City Council. The Debt Management Policy shall govern the issuance and administration of debt issued by the City, the San Carlos Housing Authority and each other entity for which the City Council of the City serves as the governing body, other than the Successor Agency to the San Carlos Redevelopment Agency, all in accordance and subject to the conditions set forth in such policy.

BE IF FURTHER RESOLVED, that this Resolution shall take effect from and after the date of approval and adoption thereof.
* * * * *
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 22nd day of May 2023, 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

9.h
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 36

8 2
5 CITY OF SAN CARLOS

DEBT MANAGEMENT POLICY
This Debt Management Policy (this “Policy”) establishes the parameters within which debt may be issued and administered by the City of San Carlos, the San Carlos Housing Authority and each other entity for which the City Council of the City serves as the governing body, other than the Successor Agency to the San Carlos Redevelopment Agency. The Successor Agency to the San Carlos Redevelopment Agency has adopted a separate debt management policy.

A. PURPOSE
The purpose of this Policy is to establish guidelines and parameters for the effective governance, management and administration of debt and other financing obligations issued by the City.

As used in this Policy, “City” shall mean the City of San Carlos and/or its related entities, as the context may require. As used in this Policy, “debt” shall be interpreted broadly to mean bonds, notes, certificates of participation, financing leases, or other financing obligations, but the use of such term in this Policy shall be solely for convenience and shall not be interpreted to characterize any such obligation as an indebtedness or debt within the meaning of any constitutional debt limitation where the substance and terms of the obligation comport with exceptions thereto. This Policy shall apply to all debt issued or sold to third party lenders or investors and does not pertain to City internal inter-fund borrowings or any employee benefit obligations.

B. BACKGROUND
The City and its related entities are committed to fiscal sustainability by employing long-term financial planning efforts, maintaining appropriate reserves levels and employing prudent practices in governance, management, budget administration and financial reporting.

Debt levels and their related annual costs are important long-term obligations that must be managed within available resources. A disciplined thoughtful approach to debt management includes policies that provide guidelines for the City and its related entities to manage their collective debt program in line with those resources. Therefore, the objective of this policy is to

9.h
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 37

City Debt Management Policy 2
provide written guidelines and restrictions concerning the amount and type of debt and other financing obligations issued by the City and its related entities and the ongoing management of the debt portfolio.

This Policy is intended to improve the quality of decisions, assist with the determination of the structure of debt issuance, identify policy goals, and demonstrate a commitment to long-term financial planning, including a multi-year capital plan. Adherence to a local debt policy signals to rating agencies and the capital markets that a government is well managed and should meet its obligations in a timely manner.

C. CONDITIONS AND PURPOSES OF DEBT ISSUANCE

1. Acceptable Conditions for the Use of Debt
The City believes that prudent amounts of debt can be an equitable and cost- effective means of financing major infrastructure and capital asset and project needs of the City. Debt will be considered to finance such projects if:
a) The project has been, or will be, included in the City’s capital improvement plan or has otherwise been coordinated with the City’s planning goals and objectives.
b) The project can be financed with debt not exceeding the term specified in Section E.1 of this Policy, to assure that long-term debt is not issued to finance projects with a short useful life.
c) It is the most cost-effective funding means available to the City, taking into account cash flow needs and other funding alternatives. d) It is fiscally prudent and meets the guidelines of this Policy. Any consideration of debt financing shall consider financial alternatives, including pay-as-you-go funding, proceeds derived from development or redevelopment of existing land and capital assets owned by the City, and use of existing or future cash reserves, or combinations thereof. d)e) The project to be financed will provide benefit to constituents over multiple years.

2. Acceptable Uses of Debt and Proceeds of Debt
The primary purpose of debt is to finance one of the following:
a) The City will consider long-term financing for the acquisition, substantial refurbishment, replacement, or expansion of capital assets (including but not limited to land improvements, infrastructure projects, equipment and water rights) for the following purposes:
i. Acquisition and or improvement of land, right-of-way or long-term easements.
ii. Acquisition of a capital asset with a useful life of three or more years.
iii. Construction or reconstruction of a facility.

9.h
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 38

City Debt Management Policy 3
iv. Although not the primary purpose of the financing effort, project reimbursables that include project planning design, engineering and other preconstruction efforts; project-associated furniture fixtures and equipment; capitalized interest, original issue discount, underwriter’s discount, and other costs of issuance.
b) Refunding, refinancing, or restructuring debt (including without limitation the refinancing or advance funding of City pension obligations), subject to refunding objectives and parameters discussed in Section G.

3. Short-Term Debt
a) In the event of temporary shortfalls in cash flow for City operation costs due to timing of receipt of revenues and the lack of cash on hand to cover the temporary deficit, the City may consider interim or cash flow financing, such as anticipation notes. In compliance with applicable state law, any such notes shall be payable either (i) not later than the last day of the fiscal year in which it is issued, or (ii) during the fiscal year succeeding the fiscal year in which issued, but in no event later than 15 months after the date of issue, and only if such note is payable only from revenue received or accrued during the fiscal year in which it was issued.
b) Short-term debt may be used to finance short-lived capital projects, such as lease purchase financing or equipment.
c) Prior to issuance of any short-term debt, a reliable revenue source shall be identified for repayment of the debt.

4. Internal Control Procedures Concerning Use of Proceeds of Debt One of the City’s priorities in the management of debt is to assure that the proceeds of the debt will be directed to the intended use for which the debt has been issued.

In furtherance of this priority, the following procedures shall apply:
a) The Administrative Services Department – Finance Division (Finance Division) shall retain, for the applicable period specified in Section H.4. of this Policy, a copy of each annual report filed with the California Debt and Investment Advisory Commission (“CDIAC”) pursuant to Section 8855(k) of the California Government Code concerning (1) debt authorized during the applicable reporting period (whether issued or not), (2) debt outstanding during the reporting period, and (3) the use during the reporting period of proceeds of issued debt.
b) In connection with the preparation of each annual report to be filed with CDIAC pursuant to Section 8855(k) of the California Government Code, the Finance Division shall keep a record of the original intended use for which the debt has been issued, and indicate whether the proceeds spent during the applicable one-year reporting period for such annual report comport with the intended use (at the time of original issuance or as modified pursuant to the following sentence). If a change in intended use has been authorized subsequent to the original issuance of the debt, the

9.h
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 39

City Debt Management Policy 4
Finance Division shall indicate in the record when the change in use was authorized and whether the City Council, City Manager, or another City official has authorized the change in intended use. The Administrative Services Director or his or her designee shall report apparent deviations from the intended use in debt proceeds to the City Manager for further discussion, and if the City Manager determines appropriate in consultation with legal counsel (which may be bond counsel, if applicable, or the City Attorney), to the City Council.
c) If the debt has been issued to finance a capital project and the project timeline or scope of project has changed in a way that all or a portion of the debt proceeds cannot be expended on the original project, the Administrative Services Director shall consult with the City Manager and legal counsel (which may be bond counsel, if applicable, or the City Attorney) as to available alternatives for the expenditure of the remaining debt proceeds (including prepayment of the debt).
d) Financings on behalf of other entities - The City may also find it beneficial to issue debt on behalf of other governmental agencies, such as Silicon Valley Clean Water (SVCW), to further the public purposes of the City. In such cases, the City shall take reasonable steps to confirm the financial feasibility of the project to be financed and the financial solvency of any borrower and that the issuance of such debt is consistent with the policies set forth herein.
c)
D. TYPE OF FINANCING INSTRUMENTS; AFFORDABILITY AND PLANNING POLICIES The City recognizes that there are numerous types of financing structures and funding sources available, each with specific benefits, risks, and costs. All potential funding sources are reviewed by management within the context of this Policy and the overall portfolio to ensure that any financial product or structure is consistent with the City’s objectives. Regardless of what financing structure(s) is utilized, due diligence review must be performed for each transaction, including the quantification of potential risks and benefits, and analysis of the impact on City creditworthiness and debt affordability and capacity.

Prior to the issuance of debt or other financing obligations to finance a project, the City will carefully consider the overall long-term affordability of the proposed debt issuance. The City shall not assume more debt or other financing obligations without conducting an objective analysis of the City’s ability to assume and support additional debt service payments. The City will consider its long-term revenue and expenditure trends, the impact on operational flexibility and the overall debt burden on the taxpayers. The evaluation process shall include a review of generally accepted measures of affordability and will strive to achieve and or maintain debt levels consistent with its current operating and capital needs.

1. General Fund-Supported Debt – General Fund Supported Debt generally include Certificates of Participation (“COPs”) and Lease Revenue Bonds (“LRBs”) which are lease obligations that are secured by an installment sale or by a lease-back arrangement between the City and another public entity. Typically, the City appropriates available General Fund moneys to pay the lease payments to the other public entity and, in turn, the public entity uses such lease payments received to pay debt service on the bonds or Certificates of Participation.

General Fund Supported Debt may also include bonds issued to refund obligations

9.h
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 40

City Debt Management Policy 5
imposed by law, such as judgments (judgment obligation bonds (“JOBs”)) or unfunded accrued actuarial liabilities for pension plans (pension obligation bonds (“POBs”)).

These obligations do not constitute indebtedness under the state constitutional debt limitation and, therefore, are not subject to voter approval.

9.h
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 41

City Debt Management Policy 6
Payments to be made under valid leases are payable only in the year in which use and occupancy of the leased property is available, and lease payments may not be accelerated. Lease financing requires the fair market rental value of the leased property to be equal to or greater than the required debt service or lease payment schedule. The lessee (the City) is obligated to include in its Annual Budget and appropriate the rental payments that are due and payable during each fiscal year the lessee has use of the leased property.

The City should strive to maintain its net General Fund-backed annual debt service at or less than [8%] of available annually budgeted revenue. This ratio is defined as the City’s annual debt service requirements on General Fund Supported Debt (including, but not limited to, COPs, LRBs, JOBs, and POBs) compared to total annual General Fund Revenues net of inter-fund transfers out.

2. Revenue Bonds – Long-term obligations payable solely from specific special fund sources, in general, are not subject to a debt limitation. Examples of such long- term obligations include those which are payable from a special fund consisting of restricted revenues or user fees (Enterprise Revenues) and revenues derived from the system of which the project being funded is a part.

In determining the affordability of proposed revenue bonds, the City will perform an analysis comparing projected annual net revenues (exclusive of depreciation which is a non-cash related expense) to estimated annual debt service. The City should strive to maintain a coverage ratio of 110% (or such higher coverage ratio included in the City’s existing financing documents), using historical and/or projected net revenues to cover annual debt service for bonds. To the extent necessary, the City shall undertake proceedings for a rate increase to cover both operations and debt service costs, and create debt service reserve funds to maintain the required coverage ratio.

The City may enter into agreements and other long-term obligations supporting revenue bonds issued by joint powers authorities of whom the City is a member, including, for example, Silicon Valley Clean Water (SVCW) and South Bayside Waste Management Authority (SBWMA).

3. Special Districts Financing – Special districts primarily consist of Community Facilities Districts (“CFDs”) and 1913/1915 Act Assessment Districts (“Assessment Districts”). The City will consider requests for special district formation and debt issuance when such requests address a public need or provide a public benefit.

Each application will be considered on a case by case basis, and the Finance Department may not recommend a financing if it is determined that the financing could be detrimental to the debt position or the best interests of the City.

4. General Obligation Bonds – Notwithstanding their name, General Obligation Bonds are not general obligations of the City, but instead they are payable from and secured by a dedicated, voter-approved property tax override rate (i.e., a property tax in excess of the 1% basic ad valorem property tax rate which has received the approving two-thirds vote of the City’s electorate). While the dedicated revenue stream to repay the debt makes General Obligation Bonds an attractive option, additional considerations for this financing mechanism include the time and expense of an election, the possibility that the electorate will not approve the ballot measure, and the legal bonding capacity limit of the assessed value of all taxable property within the City. (At the time of the adoption of this

9.h
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 42

City Debt Management Policy 7
Policy, the legal bonding capacity limit for a California general law city is 3.75% of the assessed value of all taxable property within the City.)

5. Tax Increment Financing – Tax increment financing is a financing method whereby a portion of ad valorem property taxes (commonly called the “tax increment”) that are allocated to an entity, such as a successor agency to redevelopment agency (Successor Agency), an enhanced infrastructure financing district (“EIFD”), a community revitalization and investment authority (CRIA) or an infrastructure and revitalization financing district (“IRFD”), and the entity is permitted to incur debt payable from and secured by the tax increment revenues.

While tax increment debt for redevelopment agencies and Successor Agencies is entitled to the benefits of Article XVI, Section 16, of the California Constitution, no similar provision exists for EIFDs, CRIAs and IRFDs at the time of adoption of this Policy. Therefore, when considering EIFD, CRIA or IRFD financing, or other types of tax increment financing which may be permitted by law in the future, debt limit concerns should be analyzed with respect to the proposed structure and taken into account in determining the practical viability of the proposed financing.

6. Conduit Debt – Conduit financing provides for the issuance of securities by a government agency to finance a project of a third party, such as a non-profit organization or other private entity. The City may sponsor conduit financings for those activities that have a general public purpose and are consistent with the City’s overall service and policy objectives. Unless a compelling public policy rationale exists, such conduit financings will not in any way pledge the City’s faith and credit.

6.7. Short-Term and Other Debt – Tax and revenue anticipation notes, bond or grant anticipation notes, etc.

E. STRUCTURE OF DEBT

1. Term of Debt – In keeping with Internal Revenue Service regulations for tax- exempt financing obligations, the weighted average maturity of the debt should not exceed 120 percent of the weighted average economic life of the facilities or projects to be financed, unless specific circumstances exist that would mitigate the extension of time to repay the debt and it would not cause the City to violate any covenants to maintain the tax-exempt status of such debt, if applicable.

2. Rapidity of Debt Payment; Level Payment – To the extent practical, bonds will be amortized on a level repayment basis, and revenue bonds will be amortized on a level repayment basis considering the forecasted available pledged revenues to achieve the lowest rates possible. Bond repayments should not increase on an annual basis in excess of 2% without a dedicated and supporting revenue funding stream.

Accelerated repayment schedules reduce debt burden faster and reduce total borrowing costs. The Administrative Services Department will amortize debt through the most financially advantageous debt structure and to the extent possible, match the City’s projected cash flow to the anticipated debt service payments. “Backloading” of debt service will be considered only when one or more of the following occur:
a) Natural disasters or extraordinary or unanticipated external factors make payments on the debt in early years prohibitive.

9.h
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 43

City Debt Management Policy 8
b) The benefits derived from the debt issuance can clearly be demonstrated to be greater in the future than in the present.
c) Such structuring is beneficial to the aggregate overall debt payment schedule or achieves measurable interest savings.
d) Such structuring will allow debt service to more closely match projected revenues, whether due to lower project revenues during the early years of the project’s operation, inflation escalators in the enterprise user rates, or other quantifiable reasons.

3. Serial Bonds, Term Bonds, and Capital Appreciation Bonds – For each issuance, the City will select serial bonds or term bonds, or both. On the occasions where circumstances warrant, Capital Appreciation Bonds (CABs) may be used.

The decision to use term, serial, or CAB bonds is driven based on market conditions.

4. Reserve Funds – To the extent that the use of available City moneys to fund a reserve fund provides an economic benefit that offsets the cost of financing the reserve fund from bond proceeds (as determined by the Administrative Services Director in consultation with the City’s municipal advisor and, if applicable, the underwriter for the bonds), the City may use legally permitted moneys to fund a reserve fund (in cash or through the purchase of a debt service reserve surety bond or insurance policy) for the proposed bonds, up to the maximum amount permitted by applicable law or regulation. Typically, this amount is equal to the least of: (i) maximum annual debt service on the bonds, (ii) 10% of the principal amount of the bonds (or 10% of the sale proceeds of the bonds, within the meaning of Section 148 of the federal Internal Revenue Code), or (iii) 125% of average annual debt service on the bonds.

F. USE OF ALTERNATIVE DEBT INSTRUMENTS
Alternative debt instruments and financing structures sometimes can provide a lower cost of borrowing in the short run, but may involve greater medium-term or long-term risk. Due diligence review must be performed for each transaction, including the quantification of potential risks and benefits, analysis of the impact on City creditworthiness and debt affordability and capacity, and an evaluation of the ability of the City to withstand the medium-term or long-term risk attendant to alternative debt instruments, including the feasibility of exit strategies.

1. Variable Rate Debt
Variable rate debt affords the City the potential to achieve a lower cost debt depending on market conditions. However, the City will not seek the use of variable-rate debt due to the potential risks of such instruments.

2. Derivatives
The City will not use derivative products for any transaction, nor will the City allow any financing structure to create current or future exposure to the risks of derivatives.

G. REFUNDING GUIDELINES

9.h
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 44

City Debt Management Policy 9
The Administrative Services Director shall monitor all outstanding City debt obligations for potential refinancing opportunities. The City will consider refinancing of outstanding debt to achieve annual savings or to refinance a bullet payment or spike in debt service. Except for instances in which a bullet payment or spike in debt service is being refinanced, absent a compelling reason or financial benefit to the City, any refinancing should not result in an increase to the weighted average life of the refinanced debt.

Except for instances in which a bullet payment or spike in debt service is being refinanced, the City will generally seek to achieve debt service savings which, on a net present value basis, are at least 3% of the debt being refinanced. The net present value assessment shall factor in all costs, including issuance, escrow, and foregone interest earnings of any contributed funds on hand. Any potential refinancing shall additionally consider whether an alternative refinancing opportunity with higher savings is reasonably expected in the future. Refundings which produce a net present value savings of less than 3% will be considered on a case-by-case basis.

H. MARKET COMMUNICATION, ADMINISTRATION, AND REPORTING

1. Rating Agency Relations and Annual or Ongoing Surveillance – The Administrative Services Director shall be responsible for maintaining the City’s relationships with S&P Global Ratings, Fitch Ratings and Moody’s Investors Service, as applicable. These agencies’ rating criteria often change and the City cannot control the decisions made by any rating agency. However, for each debt issue that the City will seek a rating assignment, the City will strive to obtain and maintain the highest possible underlying, uninsured rating. In addition to general communication, the Administrative Services Director shall:
a) Ensure the rating agencies are provided updated financial statements of the City as they become publicly available.
b) Communicate with credit analysts at each agency as may be requested by the agencies.
c) Prior to each proposed new debt issuance, schedule meetings or conference calls with agency analysts and provide a thorough update on the City’s financial position, including the impacts of the proposed debt issuance.

2. Council Communication – The Administrative Services Director should report feedback from rating agencies, when and if available, regarding the City’s financial strengths and weaknesses and areas of concern relating to weaknesses as they pertain to maintaining the City’s existing credit ratings.

3. Continuing Disclosure Compliance – The City shall remain in compliance with Rule 15c2-12, promulgated by the Securities and Exchange Commission under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, by filing (to the extent required by the applicable continuing disclosure undertaking) its annual financial statements and other financial and operating data for the benefit of its bondholders within 270 days of the close of the fiscal year, or by such other annual deadline required in any continuing disclosure agreement or certificate for any debt issue. The City shall maintain a log or file evidencing that all continuing disclosure filings have been made promptly.

9.h
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 45

City Debt Management Policy 10

4. Debt Issue Record-Keeping – A copy of all debt-related records shall be retained at the City’s offices. At minimum, these records shall include all official statements, bond legal documents/transcripts, resolutions, trustee statements, leases, and title reports for each City financing (to the extent available).

Such records shall be retained while any bonds of an issue are outstanding and during the three-year period following the final maturity or redemption of the bond issue or, if later, while any bonds that refund bonds of that original issue are outstanding and for the three year period following the final maturity or redemption date of the latest refunding bond issue.

5. Arbitrage Rebate – The use of bond proceeds and their investments must be monitored to ensure compliance with all arbitrage rebate requirements of the Internal Revenue Code and related Internal Revenue Service regulations, in keeping with the covenants of the City and/or related entity in the tax certificate for any federally tax-exempt financing. The Administrative Services Director shall ensure that all bond proceeds and investments are tracked in a manner which facilitates accurate calculation; and, if a rebate payment is due, such payment is made in a timely manner.

I. CREDIT RATINGS
The City will consider published ratings agency guidelines regarding best financial practices and guidelines for structuring its capital funding and debt strategies to maintain the highest possible credit ratings consistent with its current operating and capital needs.

J. SB 1029 COMPLIANCE
Senate Bill 1029, signed by Governor Brown on September 12, 2016, and enacted as Chapter 307, Statutes of 2016, requires issuers to adopt debt policies addressing each of the five items below:
i. The purposes for which the debt proceeds may be used.

Section C.2 (Acceptable Uses of Debt and Proceeds of Debt) and Section C.3 (Prohibited Use of Debt and Proceeds of Debt) address the purposes for which debt proceeds may be used.
ii. The types of debt that may be issued.

Section C.3 (Short-Term Debt), Section D (Types of Financing Instruments; Affordable and Planning Policies), Section E (Structure of Debt) and Section F (Use of Alternative Debt Instruments) are among the provisions that provide information regarding the types of debt that may be issued. iii. The relationship of the debt to, and integration with, the issuer's capital improvement program or budget, if applicable.

Section C.1 (Acceptable Conditions for the Use of Debt) provides information regarding the relationship between the City's debt and Capital Improvement Program.
iv. Policy goals related to the issuer's planning goals and objectives.

9.h
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 46

City Debt Management Policy 11
As described in Section B (BACKGROUND), Section D (TYPES OF FINANCING; AFFORDABILITY AND PLANNING POLICIES) and other sections, this Policy has been adopted to assist with the City’s goal of maintaining fiscal sustainability and financial prudence.
v. The internal control procedures that the issuer has implemented, or will implement, to ensure that the proceeds of the proposed debt issuance will be directed to the intended use.

Section 4 (Internal Control Procedures Concerning Use of Proceeds of Debt) provides information regarding the City's internal control procedures designed to ensure that the proceeds of its debt issues are spent as intended.

GLOSSARY
Ad Valorem Tax: A tax calculated “according to the value” of property. Such a tax is based on the assessed valuation of real property and a valuation of tangible personal property.

Amortization: The gradual reduction in principal of an outstanding debt based upon a specific repayment schedule, which details specific dates and repayment amounts on those dates.

Arbitrage: The gain that may be obtained by borrowing funds at a lower (often tax-exempt) rate and investing the proceeds at higher (often taxable) rates. The ability to earn arbitrage by issuing tax-exempt securities has been severely curtailed by the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.

Assessed Valuation: The appraised worth of property as set by a taxing authority through assessments for purposes of ad valorem taxation
Bond: A security that represents an obligation to pay a specified amount of money on a specific date in the future, typically with periodic interest payments.

Bond Anticipation Notes: Short-term notes issued usually for capital projects and paid from the proceeds of the issuance of long-term bonds. Provide interim financing in anticipation of bond issuance.

Bond Counsel: A specialized, qualified attorney retained by the issuer to give a legal opinion concerning the validity of securities. The bond counsel’s opinion usually addresses the subject of tax exemption. Bond counsel typically prepares and/or advises the issuer regarding legal structure, authorizing resolutions, trust indentures and the like.

Bond Insurance: A type of credit enhancement whereby an insurance company indemnifies an investor against default by the issuer. In the event of failure by the issuer to pay principal and interest in full and on time, investors may call upon the insurance company to do so. Once issued, the municipal bond insurance policy is generally irrevocable. The insurance company receives its premium when the policy is issued and this premium is typically paid out of the bond issue.

Call Option: The right to redeem a bond prior to its stated maturity, either on a given date or continuously. The call option is also referred to as the optional redemption provision. Often a call premium is added to the call option as compensation to the holders of the earliest bonds called.

9.h
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 47

City Debt Management Policy 12
Capital Appreciation Bond: A municipal security on which the investment return on an initial principal amount is reinvested at a stated compounded rate until maturity, at which time the investor receives a single payment representing both the initial principal amount and the total investment return.

CDIAC: California Debt and Advisory Commission (“CDIAC”) Certificates of Participation: A financial instrument representing a proportionate interest in payments such as lease payments by one party (such as a city acting as a lessee) to another party (often a JPA or non-profit).

Competitive Sale: A sale of bonds in which an underwriter or syndicate of underwriters submit sealed bids to purchase the bonds. Bids are awarded on a true interest cost basis (TIC), providing that other bidding requirements are satisfied. Competitive sales are recommended for simple financings with a strong underlying credit rating. This type of sale is in contrast to a Negotiated Sale
Continuing Disclosure: The requirement by the Securities and Exchange Commission for most issuers of municipal debt to post current financial information and notices of enumerated events on the MSRB’s EMMA website for access by the general marketplace.

Credit Rating Agency: A company that rates the relative credit quality of a bond issue and assigns a letter rating. These rating agencies include Moody’s Investors Service, Standard & Poor’s, and Fitch Ratings.

Debt Limit: The maximum amount of debt that is legally permitted by applicable charter, constitution, or statutes.

Debt Service: The amount necessary to pay principal and interest requirements on outstanding bonds for a given year or series of years.

Default: The failure to pay principal or interest in full or on time and, in some cases, the failure to comply with non-payment obligations after notice and the opportunity to cure.

Derivative: A financial instrument which derives its own value from the value of another instrument, usually an underlying asset such as a stock, bond, or an underlying reference such as an interest rate index.

Disclosure Counsel: A specialized, qualified attorney retained to provide advice on issuer disclosure obligations, to prepare the official statement and to prepare the continuing disclosure undertaking.

Discount: The difference between a bond’s par value and the price for which it is sold when the latter is less than par. Also known as “underwriter discount,” this is the fee paid to the underwriter its banking and bond marketing services.

Enterprise Activity: revenue generating project or business. The project often provides funds necessary to pay debt service on securities issued to finance the facility. Common examples include water, wastewater and solid waste enterprises
Financing Team: The working group of City staff and outside consultants necessary to complete a debt issuance.

9.h
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 48

City Debt Management Policy 13
General Obligation (GO) Bond: A bond secured by an unlimited property tax pledge. Requires a two-thirds vote by the electorate. GO bonds usually achieve lower rates of interest than other financing instruments since they are considered to be a lower risk.

Indenture: A contract between the issuer and the trustee stipulating the characteristics of the financial instrument, the issuer’s obligation to pay debt service, and the remedies available to the trustee in the event of default.

Issuance Costs: The costs incurred by the bond issuer during the planning and sale of securities.

These costs include by are not limited to municipal advisory, bond counsel, disclosure counsel, printing, advertising costs, credit enhancement, rating agencies fees, and other expenses incurred in the marketing of an issue.

Lease: An obligation wherein a lessee agrees to make payments to a lessor in exchange for the use of certain property. The term may refer to a capital lease or to an operating lease.

Lease Revenue Bonds: Bonds that are secured by an obligation of one party to make annual lease payments to another.

Maturity Date: The date upon which a specified amount of debt principal or bonds matures, or becomes due and payable by the issuer of the debt.

Municipal Advisor: A consultant who provides the issuer with advice on the structure of the bond issue, timing, terms and related matters for a new bond issue.

Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (MSRB): A self-regulating organization established on September 5, 1975 upon the appointment of a 15-member board by the Securities and Exchange Agreement. The MSRB, comprised of representatives from investment banking firms, dealer bank representatives, and public representatives, is entrusted with the responsibility of writing rules of conduct for the municipal securities market. The MSRB hosts the EMMA website, which hosts information posted by issuers under their continuing disclosure undertakings.

Negotiated Sale: A sale of securities in which the terms of the sale are determined through negotiation between the issuer and the purchaser, typically an underwriter, without competitive bidding. The negotiated sales process provides control over the financing structure and issuance timing. Negotiated sales are recommended for unusual financing terms, period of market volatility and weaker credit quality. A thorough evaluation, usually with the assistance of the City’s Municipal Advisor, of the proposed bond’s credit characteristics in conjunction with market conditions will be performed to ensure reasonable final pricing and underwriting spread.

Net Present Value (NPV): A financial measurement whereby savings of a transaction are discounted back to money into a “today’s” dollars equivalent. Often the discount rate used is the true interest cost (TIC—see definition below) rate on the proposed new bond issuance. Typically, in the municipal market place it is common to then divide the NPV value by the outstanding par amount of the bonds that are to be refunded to develop a percentage value.

Official Statement (Prospectus): A document published by the issuer in connection with a primary offering of securities that discloses material information on a new security issue including the purposes of the issue, how the securities will be repaid, and the financial, economic and social characteristics of the security for the bonds. Investors may use this information to evaluate the credit quality of the securities.

9.h
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 49

City Debt Management Policy 14
Par Value: The face value or principal amount of a security.

Pension Obligation Bonds: Financing instruments used to pay some or all of the unfunded pension liability of a pension plan. POBs are issued as taxable instruments over a 10-40 year term or by matching the term with the amortization period of the outstanding unfunded actuarial accrued liability.

Premium: The excess of the price at which a bond is sold over its face value.

Present Value: The value of a future amount or stream of revenues or expenditures.

Pricing Consultant: The Pricing Consultant provides a fairness letter to the City or its agent regarding the pricing of a new issue of municipal securities.

Private Placement: A bond issue that is structured specifically for one purchaser. Private placements are typically carried out when extraneous circumstances preclude public offerings. A private placement is considered to be a negotiated sale.

Redemption: Depending on an issue’s call provisions, an issuer may on certain dates and at certain premiums, redeem or call specific outstanding maturities. When a bond or certificate is redeemed, the issuer is required to pay the maturities’ par value, the accrued interest to the call date, plus any premium required by the issue’s call provisions.

Refunding: A procedure whereby an issuer refinances an outstanding debt issue by issuing a new debt issue.

Rule 15c2-12: Rule adopted by the Securities and Exchange Commission setting forth certain obligations of (i) underwriters to receive, review and disseminate official statements prepared by issuers of most primary offering of municipal securities, (ii) underwriters to obtain continuing disclosure agreements from issuers and other obligated persons to provide ongoing annual financial information on a continuing basis, and (iii) broker-dealers to have access to such continuing disclosure in order to make recommendations of municipal securities in the secondary market.

Reserve Fund: A fund established by the indenture of a bond issue into which money is deposited for payment of debt service in case of a shortfall in current revenues.

Revenue Bond: A bond which is payable from a specific source of revenue and to which the full faith and credit of an issuer is not pledged. Revenue bonds are payable from identified sources of revenue, and do not permit the bondholders to compel a jurisdiction to pay debt service from any other source. Pledged revenues often are derived from the operation of an enterprise.

Secondary Market: The market in which bonds are sold after their initial sale in the new issue market.

Serial Bonds: Bonds of an issue that mature in consecutive years or other intervals and are not subject to mandatory sinking fund provisions.

Special Tax Bonds: Bonds issued to fund eligible improvements and paid with special taxes levied in a community facilities district formed under the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982, as amended, or other applicable law.

9.h
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 50

City Debt Management Policy 15
State Revolving Funds: The State Revolving Fund (SRF) loan is a low interest loan program for the construction of water infrastructure projects.

Tax Allocation Bonds: Historically, tax allocation bonds referred to bonds issued under the Community Redevelopment Law to fund eligible capital facilities located within a redevelopment project area. However, as a result of the passage of AB X1 26, the San Carlos Redevelopment Agency has been dissolved and the successor agency’s obligations are limited to performing certain enforceable obligations. The California Legislature has enacted a number of laws that establish alternative tax increment financing mechanisms, and tax allocation bonds may be issued by the City under these laws in the future.

Tax and Revenue Anticipation Notes (TRANS): Short term notes issued in anticipation of receiving tax receipts and revenues within a fiscal year. TRANs allow the municipality to manage the period of cash shortfalls resulting from a mismatch between timing of revenues and timing of expenditures.

Term Bonds: Bonds that come due in a single maturity but where the issuer may agree to make periodic payments into a sinking fund for mandatory redemption of term bonds before maturity and for payment at maturity.

True Interest Cost (TIC): Under this method of computing the interest expense to the issuer of bonds, true interest cost is defined as the rate necessary to discount the amounts payable on the respective principal and interest payment dates to the purchase price received for the new issue of bonds. Interest is assumed to be compounded semi-annually. TIC computations produce a figure slightly different from the net interest cost (NIC) method because TIC considers the time value of money while NIC does not.

Trustee: A bank retained by the issuer as custodian of bond proceeds and official representative of bondholders. The trustee ensures compliance with the indenture. In many cases, the trustee also acts as paying agent and is responsible for transmitting payments of interest and principal to the bondholders.

Underwriter: A broker-dealer that purchases a new issue of municipal securities from the issuer for resale in a primary offering. The bonds may be purchased either through a negotiated sale with the issuer or through a competitive sale.

Yield: The net rate of return, as a percentage, received by an investor on an investment. Yield calculations on a fixed income investment, such as a bond issue, take purchase price and coupon into account when calculating yield to maturity.

9.h
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 51

1 CITY OF SAN CARLOS AND THE SAN CARLOS SUCCESSOR AGENCY Debt Disclosure Procedure Policy
APPLICABLE CODES AND REGULATIONS:

Section 17 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, and regulations adopted by the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) under those acts, particularly “Rule 10b-5” under the 1934 Act.

PURPOSE:

These Debt Disclosure Procedures (the “Procedures”) memorialize and communicate procedures in connection with obligations, including notes, bonds, loans and other debt obligations, issued by or on behalf of the City of San Carlos and the San Carlos Successor Agency (the “City”), or for which the City supplies material information to potential purchasers of the obligations (such as bonds for Silicon Valley Clean Water), so as to ensure that the City continues to comply with all applicable disclosure obligations and requirements under the federal securities laws.

BACKGROUND:

The City may from time to time issue revenue bonds, notes, loans or other debt obligations or supply material information to potential purchasers of bonds, notes, loans or other debt obligations issued by other entities (such as Silicon Valley Clean Water) (collectively, “Obligations”) in order to fund or refund capital investments, other long-term programs and working capital needs . In offering Obligations to the public, and at other times when the City makes certain reports, the City must comply with the “anti -fraud rules” of federal securities laws. (“Anti -fraud rules” refers to Section 17 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, and regulations adopted by the Securities and Exchange Commission under those acts , particularly “Rule 10b-5” under the 1934 Act.)
The core requirement of these rules is that potential investors in Obligations must be provided with all “material” information relating to the offered Obligations. The information provided to investors must not contain any material misstatements, and or omit material information that would be necessary to provide to investors a complete and transparent description of the Obligations and the City ’s financial condition. In the context of the sale of securities, a fact is generally considered to be “material” if there is a substantial likelihood that a reasonable investor would consider it to be important in determining whether or not to purchase the securities being offered.

When Obligations are issued to the public, the two central disclosure documents that are prepared are a preliminary official statement (“POS”) and a final official statement (“OS”, and collectively with the POS, “Official Statement”). The Official Statement generally consists of : (i) the forepart that describes the specific transaction including maturity dates, interest rates, redemption provisions, the specific type of financing, the project and other matters particular to the financing; (ii) a section that provides information on the City ( the “ City Section”) ; and ( iii) various other appendices, including the City’s audited financial report, form of the proposed legal opinion and forms of continuing disclosure undertaking s of the City . Investors use the Official Statement as

one of their primary resources for making informed investment decisions regarding the Obligations.

9.h
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 52

2 DISCLOSURE PROCEDURE:

When the City determines to issue Obligations (or participate in an offering of Obligations being undertaken by another entity), the City Manager requests the involved departments to commence preparation of the portions of the Official Statement (including particularly the City Section) for which they are responsible. While the general format and content of the Official Statement may not normally change substantially from offering to offering, except as necessary to reflect major events, the City Manager and other relevant City staff are responsible for reviewing and preparing or updating the portion of the Official Statement that is within their particular areas of knowledge.

Once the draft POS has been substantially updated, the entire draft POS is shared with the City Council for review and input before approval.

Members of the financing team, including Bond and Disclosure Counsel and a municipal advisor (the “Municipal Advisor”), assist staff in determining the materiality of any particular item and in the development of specific language in the City Section. Members of the financing team also assist the City in the development of a “big picture” overview of the City ’s financial condition, included in the City Section. This overview highlights particular areas of interest . Bond and Disclosure Counsel has a confidential, attorney -client relationship with officials and staff of the City.

The City Manager, Administrative Services Director, or a member of the financing team at the direction thereof, schedules one or more meetings or conference calls with the financing team (which may include City officials, City Attorney, Bond and Disclosure Counsel, the City’s Municipal Advisor (and the underwriters of the Obligations, and the underwriters’ counsel, if the proposed financing is being undertaken as a negotiated transaction)). New drafts of the forepart of the draft POS and the City Section are then circulated and discussed. Such communications may occur via electronic means rather than by meetings or conference calls. During this part of the process, there is substantial contact among City staff and other members of the financing team to discuss issues that may arise, determine the materiality of particular items and ascertain the prominence in which the items should be disclosed.

Prior to distributing a POS to potential investors, there is typically a formal conference call with City officials involved in the preparation of the POS and members of the financing team (and the underwriters and the underwriter s’ counsel, if the financing is a negotiated transaction) during which the POS is reviewed in its entirety to obtain final comments and to allow the underwriters (if the proposed financing is being undertaken as a negotiated transaction) , to ask questions of the City’s senior officials. This is referred to as a “due diligence” meeting.

A substantially final form of the POS is provi ded to the members of the City Council in advance of approval to afford such members an opportunity to review the POS, ask questions and make comments. The substantially final form of the POS is approved by the City Council, which generally authorizes certain senior staff to make additional corrections, changes and updates to the POS in consultation with the City Attorney and Bond and Disclosure Counsel.

At the time the POS is posted for review by potential investors, senior City officials execute certificates deeming certain portions of the POS complete (except for certain pricing terms) as required by SEC Rule 15c2-12.

Between the posting of the POS for review by potential investors and delivery of the final OS to the underwriter for redelivery to actual investors in the Obligations, any changes and developments will have been incorporated into the POS, including particularly the City Section, if

9.h
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 53

3 required. If necessary, to reflect developments following publication of the POS or OS, as applicable, supplements will be prepared and published.

In connection with the closing of the transaction, one or more senior City officials execute certificates stating that certain portions of the OS, as of the date of each OS and as of the date of closing, do not contain any untrue statement of material fact or omit to state any material fact necessary to ensure the statements contained in the OS, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, are not misleading. The City Attorney also provides an opinion letter (generally addressed to the underwriter s) advising that information contained in the City Section, as applicable (or specified portions thereof) as of its date did not, and as of the date of the closing, does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omitted or omits to state any material fact necessary to ensure the statements therein, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, are not misleading. The City Attorney does not opine to the underwriters or to other third parties as to any financial, statistical, economic or demographic data or forecasts, charts, tables, graphs, estimates, projections, assumptions or expressions of opinion and certain other matters that are customarily excluded. Bond and Disclosure Counsel also provides a negative assurance letter (addressed to the underwriters) with respect to the City Section. Bond and Disclosure Counsel does not give negative assurances to the underwriters or to other third parties as to any financial, statistical, economic or demographic data or forecasts, charts, tables, graphs, estimates, projections, assumptions or expressions of opinion, or information contained in appendices to the OS and certain other matters that are customarily excluded.

CITY SECTION:

The information contained in the City Section is developed by personnel under the direction of the City Manager, with the assistance of the financing team. In certain circumstances, additional officials will be involved, as necessary. The following principles govern the work of the respective staff that contribute information to the City Section:
• City staff members involved in the disclosure process are responsible for being familiar with their responsibilities under federal securities laws as described above. • City staff involved in the disclosure process should err on the side of raising issues when preparing or reviewing information for disclosure. Officials and staff are encouraged to consult the City Attorney and Bond and Disclosure Counsel if there are questions regarding whether an issue is material or not.
• Care should be taken not to shortcut or eliminate any steps outlined in the Procedures on an ad hoc basis. However, the Procedures are not necessarily intended to be a rigid list of procedural requirements, but instead to provide guidelines for disclosure review. If warranted, based on experience during financings or because of additional SEC pronouncements or other reasons, the City should consider revisions to the Procedures. • The pr ocess of updating the City Section from transaction to transaction should not be viewed as being limited to updating tables and numerical information. While it is not anticipated that there will be major changes in the form and content of the City Section at the time of each update, everyone involved in the process should consider the need for revisions in the form, content and tone of the sections for which they are responsible at the time of each update.
• The City must make sure that the staff involved in the disclosure process is of sufficient seniority such that it is reasonable to believe that, collectively, they are in possession of material information relating to the City, its operations and its finances.

9.h
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 54

4 TRAINING:

Periodic training for City staff involved in the preparation of the Official Statement (including the City Section) is coordinated by the finance team and /or the Administrative Services Director .

These training sessions are provided to assist staff members involved in identifying relevant disclosure information to be included in the City Section. The training sessions also provide an overview of federal laws relating to disclosure, situations in which disclosure rules apply, the purpose of the Official Statement and the City Section, a description of previous SEC enforcement actions and a discussion of recent developments in the area of municipal disclosure. Attendees at the training sessions are provided the opportunity to ask questions of finance team members, including the City A ttorney, concerning disclosure obligations and are encouraged to contact members of the finance team at any time if they have questions.

CONTINUING DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS:

In connection with the issuance or execution and delivery of Obligations, the City has entered into (and may in the future enter into) contractual agreements (“Continuing Disclosure Certificates”) to provide its audited financial statements and notice of certain events relating to the Obligations specified in the Continuing Disclosure Certificates. The City must comply with the specific requirements of each Continuing Disclosure Certificate. The City’s Continuing Disclosure Certificates generally require that the annual reports be filed no later than nine months after the end of the City ’s fiscal year (currently March 31 of each year, based on a fiscal year ending on June 30), and listed event notices are generally required to be filed within 10 business days of their occurrence.

Specific events that require “ listed event” notices are set forth in each particular Continuing Disclosure Certificate. The SEC adopted amendments to SEC Rule 15c2-12, effective February 27, 2019, adding two new listed events, as detailed in Exhibit A attached hereto. Importantly, these new events apply only to Continuing Disclosure Certificates entered into by the City after the February 27, 2019 effective date of the amendments.

The City shall be responsible for preparing and filing the annual reports and listed event notices required pursuant to the Continuing Disclosure Certificates. Particular care shall be paid to the timely filing of any changes in credit ratings on Obligations (including changes in the credit ratings of insurers of particular Obligations).

In addition, the City Attorney, City Manager, or other City staff will provide written notice to the Administrative Services Director of any default, event of acceleration, termination event, modification of terms (only if material or may reflect financial difficulties), or other similar events (collectively, a “Potentially Reportable Event”) under any agreement or obligation to which the City is a party and that may be a “financial obligation” as discussed below. Such written notice should be provided by the City Attorney to the Administrative Services Director as soon as the City Attorney receives written notice by staff, consultants, or external parties of such event or receives written notice of such event so that the Administrative Services Director can determine, with the assistance of D isclosure Counsel, whether notice of such Potentially Reportable Event is required to be filed on the Electronic Municipal Market Access (EMMA) portal pursuant to the disclosure requirements of SEC Rule 15c2-12. If filing on EMMA is required, the filing is due within 10 business days of such Potentially Reportable Event to comply with the continuing disclosure undertaking for the various debt obligations of the City. As noted above, the new reporting

9.h
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 55

5 obligations apply only to Continuing Disclosure Certificates entered into by the City after the February 27, 2019 effective date of the amendments to SEC Rule 15c2-12.

For the City’s obligations and for those that the City partakes, the City Attorney, City Manager, or other City staff will report to the Administrative Services Director the execution by the City of any agreement or other obligation that might constitute a “financial obligation” for purposes of SEC Rule 15c2- 12 and that is entered into after February 27 , 2019. Amendments to existing agreements or obligations with “financial obligation” that relate to covenants, events of default, remedies, priority rights, or other similar terms should be reported to the Administrative Services Director as soon as the City Attorney or such other senior staff is receives written notice by City staff, consultants, or external parties of such event or receives a written notice of such amendment requests. Notice to the Administrative Services Director is necessary so that the Administrative Services Director can determine, with the assistance of D isclosure Counsel, whether such agreement or other obligation constitutes a material “financial obligation” for purposes of SEC Rule 15c2-12. If such agreement or other obligation is determined to be a material “financial obligation” or a material amendment to a “financial obligation” described above, notice thereof would be required to be filed on EMMA within 10 business days of execution or incurrence. As noted above, the new reporti ng obligations apply only to Continuing Disclosure Certificates entered into by the City after the February 27, 2019 effective date of the amendments to SEC Rule 15c2-12.

The types of agreements or other obligations that could constitute “financial obligations” and that could need to be reported on EMMA are discussed in the memorandum from Jones Hall, which serves as B ond and disclosure Counsel to the City and the San Carlos Successor Agency, as well as Silicon Valley Clean Water, which is attached hereto as Exhibit B.

9.h
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 56

Exhibit A
Listed Events in SEC Rule 15c2-12

The Administrative Services Director or his or her delegate should review this list routinely to determine whether any event has occurred that may require a filing with EMMA.

For securities subject to SEC Rule 15c2-12, the following events require notice in a timely manner not in excess of ten (10) business days after the occurrence of the event with respect to the applicable securities:

1. Principal and interest payment delinquencies;

2. Non-payment related defaults, if material;

3. Unscheduled draws on debt service reserves reflecting financial difficulties;

4. Unscheduled draws on credit enhancements reflecting financial difficulties;

5. Substitution of credit or liquidity providers, or their failure to perform;

6. Adverse tax opinions, the issuance by the Internal Revenue Service (I.R.S). of proposed or final determinations of taxability, Notices of Proposed Issue or other material notices or determinations with respect to the tax status of the security, or other material events affecting the tax status of the security;

7. Modifications to rights of security holders, if material;

8. Bond calls, if material, and tender offers;

9. Defeasances;

10. Release, substitution, or sale of property securing repayment of the securities, if material

11. Rating changes;

12. Bankruptcy, insolvency, receivership or similar event of the obligated person;

13. Consummation of a merger, consolidation, or acquisition involving an obligated person or the sale of all or substantially all of the assets of the obligated person, other than in the ordinary course of business, the entry into a definitive agreement to undertake such an action or the termination of a definitive agreement relating to any such actions, other than pursuant to its terms, if material; and

14. Appointment of a successor or additional trustee or the change of name of a trustee, if material.

For continuing disclosure undertakings entered into on or after February 27, 2019, the following events require notice in a timely manner not in excess of ten (10) business days after the occurrence of the event with respect to the applicable securities:

1. Incurrence of a financial obligation of the obligated person, if material, or agreement to covenants, events of default, remedies, priority rights, or other similar terms of a financial obligation of the obligated person, any of which affect security holders, if material; and

9.h
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 57

7 2. Default, event of acceleration, te rmination event, modification of terms, or other similar event under the terms of a financial obligation of the obligated person, any of which reflect financial difficulties.

9.h
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 58

Exhibit B

Memorandum Regarding SEC Rule 15c2-12 Amendments from
Jones Hall, A Professional Law Corporation
Bond Counsel and Disclosure Counsel to the City and Successor Agency

See attached.

9.h
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 59

475 Sansome Street
Suite 1700
San Francisco, CA 94111
t. 415.391.5780
f. 415.276.2088

RECOMMENDATION S FOR ISSUERS REGARDING
THE 2019 AMENDMENTS TO RULE 15C2 -12
February 2019

BACKGROUND
Rule 15c2-12 (the “Rule”) of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”), promulgated under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, requires that before the issuance of municipal securities to investors in a public sale, underwriters must reasonably determine that the issuer and other obligated persons have undertaken to provide certain disclosure information to the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (the “MSRB”) through its internet based EMMA system.

This information generally consists of financial and operating data and audited financial statements, which must be filed at least annually, and notices of certain listed events, notice of which must be filed within 10 business days after they occur . The issuer’s undertaking to provide this information is detailed in a continuing disclosure certificate or agreement signed in connection with the issuance of municipal securities.

AMENDMENTS TO THE RULE
In response to concerns that municipal bond investors were not receiving material information regarding private placements or bank loan transactions, the SEC has added two new listed events to the existing 14 listed events:
(15) incurrence of a financial obligation of the obligated person, if material, or agreement to covenants, events of default, remedies, priority rights or other similar terms of a financial obligation, any of which affect security holders, if material; and (16) default, event of acceleration, termination event, modification of terms or other similar events under a financial obligation of an issuer, if any such event reflects financial difficulties.

These new listed events must be included in all continuing disclosure undertakings for transactions closing on or after February 27, 2019 (the “Compliance Date”) .

As used in new listed events 15 and 16, a “financial obligation” is (i) a debt obligation; (ii) a derivative instrument entered into in connection with, or pledged as security or a source of payment for, an existing or planned debt obligation; or (iii) a guarantee of (i) or (ii).

Exhibit B

9.h
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 60

2 Notably, financial obligations are not (i) municipal securities for which a final official statement is provided to the MSRB, regardless of whether such filing is required under the Rule, provided that a continuing disclosure undertaking is also entered into, or (ii) ordinary financial and operating liabilities incurred in the normal course of business by an issuer.

Therefore, a “ financial obligation ” i s generally the incurrence of debt in a private transaction, without a public offering of securities that would trigger its own continuing disclos ure obligations. A “financial obligation” can include short-term and long -term obligations, regardless of whether such obligations are identified as securities, loans, leases or otherwise. Leases that may be considered financial obligations include privately placed certificates of participation and lease financings, but would likely not include operating leases of the issuer.

New listed event 15 applies only applies to financial obligations or covenants entered into after the Compliance Date . Importantly for issuers , there is no requirement to retroactively disclose private placement or bank loan transactions that closed before Compliance Date .

New listed event 16, however, requires the reporting of defaults, events of acceleration, termination events, modification of terms , or other similar events for any financial obligations outstanding, whether entered into before or after a continuing disclosure undertaking entered into on or after Compliance Date . The SEC has noted that it believes that ho lding an issuer responsible for any of its financial obligations for purposes of new listed event 16, regardless of when it was incurred, should not be overly burdensome since such events are significant in nature, issuers should be aware that such events have occurred , without the need for additional monitoring.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ISSUERS
New Continuing Disclosure Undertakings. All continuing disclosure undertakings entered into for transactions closing on or after the Compliance Date need to include new listed event 15 and new listed event 16 in order to comply with the Rule.

Reporting New Financial Obligations . In order to be in a position to file a listed event notice with respect to new listed event 15, issuers should be ready to determine whether or not a future borrowing or other transaction constitutes a “financial obligation, ” and if so, determine whether the financial obligation would be material to investors in the issuer’s bonds issued on or after the Compliance Date. If a new financ ial obligation is determined to be material, a notice must be filed on EMMA within 10 business days of the incurrence of the financial obligation.

Issuers should consider whether they will, as a matter of course, be posting entire transaction documents to EMMA, summaries of the material terms of the documents, or evaluate and decide on a case -by-case basis.

Reporting Events With Respect to Existing Financial Obligations. In order to be in a position to file a listed event notice with respect new listed event 16, issuers should begin examining all of their existing financial obligations, whether or not considered material, and creating a database of such financial obligations. Issuers may also want to identify covenants, events of defaults, remedies, priority rights and other similar terms in an effort to be prepared to easily identify events that may constitute a default, event of acceleration, termination event, modification o f terms or other similar event reflecting financial difficulty pursuant to new listed

9.h
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 61

3 event 16. If the issuer determines that such an event has taken place, a notice must be filed on EMMA within 10 business days.

Issuers of municipal securities must be ready to comply with the amendments to the Rule on the Compliance Date , February 27, 2019 . The attorneys at Jones Hall can assist with any questions related to the amendments to the Rule, or the implementation of policies and procedures to ensure compli ance.

Sincerely,
/s/ David T. Fama & James A. Wawrzyniak Jr.

Jones Hall, A Professional Law Corporation
Tel: 415-391-5780
Email: [email protected]; [email protected] om

9.h
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 62

CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: May 22, 2023
ITEM TITLE: Adopt a Resolution Awarding the 2023 On-Call Sewer Replacement Project C1702, Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Public Projects Agreement with C2R Engineering, Inc. of Los Altos, CA in the Amount of $437,800, and Authorizing the Expenditure of Contingency up to the Project Budget.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a Resolution awarding the 2023 On-Call Sewer Replacement Project C1702 (“Project”), authorizing the City Manager to execute a Public Projects Agreement with C2R Engineering, Inc. (“Contractor”) of Los Altos, CA in the amount of $437,800, and authorizing the expenditure of contingency up to the Project budget.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

There are no additional appropriations needed at this time.

The Project is funded out of project number C1702 with an available budget of approximately $686,100 in Fiscal Year (“FY”) 2022-23.

There is sufficient budget to close out the previous project and award the Project for the total bid amount and contingency up to the Project budget.

Due to the amount of work that is anticipated, it is expected that the work and Project will carry over into FY 2023-24. Therefore, staff also recommends rolling over any remaining funds from FY 2022-23 to FY 2023-24.

BACKGROUND:

In January 2013, the City of San Carlos completed the Sewer Collection System Master Plan (“Master Plan”) that identifies and prioritizes sanitary sewer pipelines for replacement and upsizing. In accordance with the Master Plan, staff created the Sewer System Rehabilitation Program to address structurally deficient pipelines identified by the Master Plan. This program has two projects to address these defects: the Annual Sewer Rehabilitation Project and the On- Call Sewer Replacement Project.

The Annual Sewer Rehabilitation Project addresses sewer system defects in one basin annually on a rotation. This systematic approach ensures that all basins within the City’s sewer system are rehabilitated over time.

Staff continuously maintains a list of defects in need of emergency repair, outside of the scheduled

9.i
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 63

Annual Sewer Rehabilitation Project. The Project addresses emergency repairs needed outside of the basin scheduled for the current year Annual Sewer Rehabilitation Project. The Project also repairs defects prior to the Annual Pavement Rehabilitation Project and reduces trenching into newly paved street segments.

The City Engineer signed the final bid set construction documents on February 7, 2023, and City Council approved the construction documents at the February 27, 2023 meeting.

ANALYSIS:

On February 28, 2023, the Project was advertised for bids for construction and bids were opened on March 21, 2023. Four bids were received with the following results:

Contractor Bid Amount
Engineer’s Estimate $487,400.00
Smelly Mel’s Plumbing Inc. $432,850.00
C2R Engineering Inc. $437,800.00
APB General Engineering $512,000.00
Casey Construction Inc. $594,650.00
Based on the bids received, the lowest bid was submitted by Smelly Mel’s Plumbing, Inc. in the amount of $432,850.

On March 28, 2023, staff received a formal bid protest from the second lowest bidder, C2R Engineering, Inc., on the basis that the lowest bidder’s proposal included multiple discrepancies that would deem the bid as non-responsive.

Staff evaluated the bid protest and determined that Smelly Mel’s Plumbing, Inc. was not, in fact, a “responsive bidder” and therefore ineligible for contract award as their bid security was inadequate and their bid proposal was incomplete.

As such, C2R Engineering, Inc., with a bid amount of $437,800, submitted the lowest responsible and responsive bid. After bid evaluation, staff recommends awarding the Project to C2R Engineering, Inc.

Staff is also recommending contingency be approved up to the Project budget to complete any emergency repairs that arise outside of the current Project scope.

Lastly, staff recommends rolling over any remaining funds from FY 2022-23 to FY 2023-24 due to the amount of work and the potential of carry over into the next fiscal year.

ALTERNATIVES:

The alternatives available to the City Council include:

1. Adopt a Resolution awarding the 2023 On-Call Sewer Replacement Project #C1702, authorizing the City Manager to execute a Public Projects Agreement with C2R Engineering, Inc. of Los Altos, CA in the amount of $437,800; and authorizing the expenditure of contingency up to the Project budget; or

9.i
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 64

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

9.i
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 65

RESOLUTION NO. 2023 – ____

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN CARLOS AWARDING THE 2023 ON-CALL SEWER REPLACEMENT PROJECT C1702;

AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A PUBLIC PROJECTS AGREEMENT WITH C2R ENGINEERING, INC. OF LOS ALTOS, CA IN THE AMOUNT OF $437,800; AND AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF CONTINGENCY UP TO THE PROJECT BUDGET.

WHEREAS, in January 2013, the City completed the Sewer Collection System Master Plan (“Master Plan”) that identifies and prioritizes sanitary sewer pipelines for replacement and upsizing; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with the Master Plan, staff created the Sewer System Rehabilitation Program to address structurally deficient pipelines identified by the Master Plan; and
WHEREAS, this program has two projects to address these defects: the Annual Sewer Rehabilitation Project and the On-Call Sewer Replacement Project (“Project”); and WHEREAS, the Project addresses emergency repairs needed outside of the basin scheduled for the current year Annual Sewer Rehabilitation Project, and also repairs defects prior to the Annual Pavement Rehabilitation Project and reduces trenching into newly paved street segments; and
WHEREAS, the City Engineer signed the final bid set construction documents February 7, 2023 and the City Council approved the construction documents at the February 27, 2023 meeting; and
WHEREAS, the Project was advertised publicly and sealed bids were opened by the City Clerk on March 21, 2023 and the lowest was submitted by Smelly Mel’s Plumbing, Inc. in the amount of $432,850; and
WHEREAS, staff reviewed the bid and determined that Smelly Mel’s Plumbing, Inc. was “non-responsive” as they failed to provide references that would meet the requirements listed in the Bidder’s Reference section of the bid specifications; and WHEREAS, as stated in the General Provisions, if a low monetary bidder is found to be non-responsive, the bidder will be given notice and an opportunity to present additional relevant evidence for consideration; and
WHEREAS, Smelly Mel’s Plumbing, Inc. was able to provide additional references that met the listed requirements in the bid specifications; and WHEREAS, staff received a formal bid protest from the second lowest bidder, C2R Engineering, Inc., on the basis that the lowest bidder’s proposal included multiple discrepancies that would deem the bid as non-responsive; and

9.i
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 66

WHEREAS, staff evaluated the bid protest and determined that Smelly Mel’s Plumbing, Inc. was not, in fact, a “responsive bidder” and therefore ineligible for contract award as their bid security was inadequate and their bid proposal was incomplete; and WHEREAS, C2R Engineering, Inc., with a bid amount of $437,800, submitted the lowest responsible and responsive bid; and
WHEREAS, after bid evaluation, staff recommends awarding the Project to C2R Engineering, Inc; and
WHEREAS, staff is also recommending contingency be approved up to the Project budget to complete any emergency repairs outside of the current Project scope that arise; and WHEREAS, staff also recommends rolling over any remaining funds from Fiscal Year (“FY”) 2022-23to FY 2023-24 due to the amount of work and the potential of carry over into the next FY.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of San Carlos hereby approves awarding the 2023 On-Call Sewer Replacement Project C1702; authorizing the City Manager to execute a Public Projects Agreement with C2R Engineering, Inc. of Los Altos, CA in the amount of $437,800, and authorizing the expenditure of contingency up to the Project budget.
* * * * *
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 22nd day of May 2023, by the following vote:

9.i
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 67

CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: May 22, 2023
ITEM TITLE: Deny Claim of Marc Fagel.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council deny the claim of Marc Fagel as recommended by the Sedgwick representative.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

None for this action.

BACKGROUND:

This item is coming before the Council to act on the claim submitted by Marc Fagel. Staff recommends that the City Council deny the claim based on Sedgwick’s guidance.

The Tort Claims Act. California Government Code Sections 900, seq., mandates that all claims for money or damages against a public entity must be presented in writing to the public entity prior to filing suit. Generally, claims concerning personal injury, wrongful death, damage to personal property, or damage to crops must be presented to the public within six (6) months of the accrual of the claim. All other claims, principally claims on contracts and damage to real property, are subject to a one-year statute of limitations for presentation of the tort claim. Once a tort claim is received by the public entity, the entity has forty-five (45) days to act on the claim. A claim can be settled or rejected. If no action is taken within 45 days, the claim is deemed rejected by operation of law on the last day.

Claims Processing in San Carlos. When the City receives a claim, the claim is immediately forwarded to claims examiners at Sedgwick for investigation. After Sedgwick investigates the claim, Sedgwick provides a recommendation to the City on the handling of the claim.

About Sedgwick. Sedgwick is a leading global provider of technology-enabled risk, benefits and integrated business solutions. In July 2019, Sedgwick acquired York Risk Services Group (“York”). York was originally hired through the Pooled Liability Assurance Network Joint Powers Authority (“PLAN JPA”), and Sedgwick will continue claims administration services to provide claims administration services to the City. The City Council approved the City’s participation in the PLAN JPA (previously known as the Association of Bay Area Government Pooled Liability Assurance Network or “ABAG PLAN”) on November 27, 2017 and designated the Administrative Services Director and Senior Management Analyst as primary and alternate PLAN JPA Board members.

9.j
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 68

ANALYSIS:

Claimant Marc Fagel filed a claim against the City for property damages. The claimant alleges that on February 21, 2023, City employees were performing street work at the corner of Hewitt and Melendy adjacent to Highlands Park. Claimant further alleges a gust of wind blew an improperly weighted metal construction sign onto the claimant’s car resulting damages to the vehicle. Claimant is seeking reimbursement of over $5,000 for the repair.

The City is not liable for this claim as neither the City nor a City contractor was performing work in this area on the date of loss. For that reason, Sedgwick recommends formal rejection of Marc Fagel‘s claim.

The Council‘s rejection of this claim does not prevent City staff or the staff of Sedgwick from continuing to work with the claimant to resolve the dispute.

ALTERNATIVES:

The alternatives available to the City Council include:

1. Deny the claim of Marc Fagel; or

2. Do not deny the claim of Marc Fagel; or

3. Provide staff with alternative direction.

Respectfully submitted by:

Rebecca Mendenhall, Administrative Services Director
Approved for submission by:
_______________________
Jeff Maltbie, City Manager
ATTACHMENT(S):

1. Fagel Claim Form

9.j
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 69

9.j
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 70

COLOGNE Workfile ID:

PartsShare:

Federal ID:

State EPA:

BAR:
dbaab81e
84-1965501
CAL000448427
ARD00297048
Collision - Refinish - Service
1250 OLD COUNTY RD, BELMONT, CA 94002
Phone: (650) 591-2050
FAX: (650) 591-7469
Preliminary Estimate
Customer: FAGEL, MARC
Written By: Samantha Burri
Insured: FAGEL, MARC Policy #: Claim #:

Type of Loss: Date of Loss: Days to Repair: 0
Point of Impact:

Owner: Inspection Location: Insurance Company:

FAGEL, MARC COLOGNE
1250 OLD COUNTY RD
BELMONT, CA 94002
Repair Facility
(650) 591-2050 Business

VEHICLE
2018 AUDI A4 Premium Plus Quattro S Tronic AWD TFSI 4D SED 4-2.0L Turbocharged Gasoline Gasoline Direct Injection BLUE VIN: Interior Color: Mileage In: 0 Vehicle Out:

License: Exterior Color: BLUE Mileage Out:

State: CA Production Date: 7/2017 Condition: Job #:

TRANSMISSION Overhead Console AM Radio ROOF
Automatic Transmission CONVENIENCE FM Radio Electric Glass Sunroof 4 Wheel Drive Air Conditioning Stereo SEATS
POWER Intermittent Wipers Search/Seek Bucket Seats
Power Steering Tilt Wheel CD Player Leather Seats
Power Brakes Cruise Control Auxiliary Audio Connection Heated Seats Power Windows Rear Defogger Premium Radio WHEELS
Power Locks Keyless Entry Satellite Radio Aluminum/Alloy Wheels Power Mirrors Alarm SAFETY PAINT
Heated Mirrors Message Center Drivers Side Air Bag Clear Coat Paint Power Driver Seat Steering Wheel Touch Controls Passenger Air Bag OTHER Power Passenger Seat Telescopic Wheel Anti-Lock Brakes (4) Fog Lamps Memory Package Climate Control 4 Wheel Disc Brakes Traction Control DECOR Backup Camera Front Side Impact Air Bags Stability Control Dual Mirrors Parking Sensors Head/Curtain Air Bags Signal Integrated Mirrors Tinted Glass Home Link Hands Free Device Xenon or L.E.D. Headlamps Console/Storage RADIO Blind Spot Detection Power Trunk/Liftgate 2/28/2023 12:22:56 PM 031565 Page 1
7dfFJj
DocuSign Envelope ID: E8988400-E5EE-4E0E-9EEA-25372667BC99

9.j
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 71

Preliminary Estimate
Customer: FAGEL, MARC
2018 AUDI A4 Premium Plus Quattro S Tronic AWD TFSI 4D SED 4-2.0L Turbocharged Gasoline Gasoline Direct Injection BLUE Line Oper Description Part Number Qty Extended
Price $
Labor Paint
1 PILLARS, ROCKER & FLOOR
2 * Blnd RT Lower panel 1.0
Note: BLEND ROCKER PANEL
3 # Blnd RT SAIL PANEL 1.0
4 # Rpr ROPE WINDSHIELD 0.3
5 # Rpr ROPE BACK GLASS 0.3
6 R&I RT Rocker molding to 07/20/2019 0.5
7 REAR DOOR
8 Repl RT Door glass Audi w/o tint 8W5845206 1 208.33 0.5 9 R&I RT Belt molding chrome 0.3
10 R&I RT Handle, outside 0.4
11 R&I RT R&I trim panel 0.5
12 QUARTER PANEL
13 * Rpr RT Quarter panel 1.5 2.4
14 Add for Clear Coat 1.0
15 R&I RT Splash shield 0.3
16 R&I Fuel door 0.3
17 Blnd Fuel door 0.2
18 R&I Fuel pocket 0.3
19 Repl RT Qtr glass Audi, w/chrome
molding
8W5845298DNVB 1 310.00 1.8
20 R&I RT Upper qtr trim beige 0.2
21 R&I RT Qtr glass trim beige/gray 0.2
22 TRUNK LID
23 * Rpr Trunk lid 1.0 2.4
24 Overlap Major Adj. Panel -0.4
25 Add for Clear Coat 0.4
26 Repl Emblem chrome 8W58537422ZZ 1 98.33 0.2
27 REAR LAMPS
28 R&I RT Backup lamp assy from
05/29/2017

0.2 29 R&I LT Backup lamp assy from
05/29/2017

0.2 30 R&I RT Tail lamp assy from
05/29/2017

0.3 31 R&I LT Tail lamp assy from
05/29/2017

0.3 32 REAR BUMPER
33 R&I R&I bumper cover 1.2
34 VEHICLE DIAGNOSTICS
35 * Rpr Pre-repair scan m 0.5 M
36 * Rpr Post-repair scan m 0.5 M
37 MISCELLANEOUS OPERATIONS
38 # Repl Mask for Overspray 1 5.00 T 0.2
2/28/2023 12:22:56 PM 031565 Page 2
DocuSign Envelope ID: E8988400-E5EE-4E0E-9EEA-25372667BC99

9.j
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 72

Preliminary Estimate
Customer: FAGEL, MARC
2018 AUDI A4 Premium Plus Quattro S Tronic AWD TFSI 4D SED 4-2.0L Turbocharged Gasoline Gasoline Direct Injection BLUE 39 # Rpr Tint Color 0.5
40 # Repl Restore Corrosion Protection 1 15.00 0.3
41 # Repl Hazardous Waste Disposal 1 5.00
42 # DENIB & FINESSE 1 1.0
SUBTOTALS 641.66 12.3 9.5

ESTIMATE TOTALS
Category Basis Rate Cost $
Parts 636.66
Body Labor 11.3 hrs @ $ 160.00 /hr 1,808.00
Paint Labor 9.5 hrs @ $ 160.00 /hr 1,520.00
Mechanical Labor 1.0 hrs @ $ 250.00 /hr 250.00
Paint Supplies 9.5 hrs @ $ 70.00 /hr 665.00
Miscellaneous 5.00
Subtotal 4,884.66
Sales Tax $ 1,306.66 @ 9.8750 % 129.03
Grand Total 5,013.69
AUTHORIZED AND ACCEPTED: YOU ARE HEREBY AUTHORIZED TO MAKE SPECIFIED REPAIRS. I UNDERSTAND

THAT PAYMENT IN FULL WILL BE DUE UPON RELEASE OF VEHICLE, INCLUDING ADDITIONAL SUPPLEMENTAL

CHARGES, AND HEREBY GRANT YOU AND/OR YOUR EMPLOYEES, PERMISSION TO OPERATE THE CAR, TRUCK OR

VEHICLE HEREIN DESCRIBED ON STREET, HIGHWAYS OR ELSEWHERE FOR THE PURPOSE OF TESTING AND OR INSPECTION. AN EXPRESS MECHANIC'S LIEN IS HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGED ON ABOVE CAR, TRUCK OR VEHICLE TO SECURE THE AMOUNT OF REPAIRS THERETO. COLOGNE AUTO BODY WILL NOT BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR LOSS

OR DAMAGE TO VEHICLE OR ARTICLES LEFT IN VEHICLE IN CASE OF FIRE, THEFT, ACCIDENT OR ANY OTHER CAUSE BEYOND YOUR CONTROL.

PART PRICES SUBJECT TO INVOICE. OLD PARTS WILL BE DISCARDED UNLESS INSTRUCTED OTHERWISE.

REPAIR ORDER AUTHORIZED BY _________________________________ DATE _____/_____/_____

POWER OF ATTORNEY
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:

THAT THE UNDERSIGNED DOES HEREBY CONSTITUTE AND APPOINT COLOGNE AUTO BODY, MY (OR OUR) TRUE

AND LAWFUL ATTORNEY TO SIGN NAME, PLACE AND STEAD OF THE UNDERSIGNED ON ANY INSURANCE CHECKS OR DRAFTS ISSUED BY _______________________________________ COVERING ANY REPAIRS TO MY (OR OUR)

VEHICLE AUTHORIZED BY MYSELF (OR OURSELVES) IN WHATEVER MANNER IS NECESSARY TO PLACE CHECK OR DRAFT IN A CASHABLE POSITION.

I (OR WE) HEREBY RATIFY AND CONFIRM WHATEVER ACTION SAID ATTORNEY SHALL OR MAY TAKE BY VIRTUE HEREOF IN THE PREMISES.

WITNESS BY _________________________________ ASSURED BY _________________________________ WITNESS BY _________________________________ ASSURED BY _________________________________

THANK YOU FOR CHOOSING COLOGNE AUTO BODY WHERE ALL BODY AND REFINISH REPAIRS COME WITH A 2/28/2023 12:22:56 PM 031565 Page 3
DocuSign Envelope ID: E8988400-E5EE-4E0E-9EEA-25372667BC99

9.j
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 73

Preliminary Estimate
Customer: FAGEL, MARC
2018 AUDI A4 Premium Plus Quattro S Tronic AWD TFSI 4D SED 4-2.0L Turbocharged Gasoline Gasoline Direct Injection BLUE LIMITED LIFETIME WARRANTY!!!!!
ACTUAL REPAIR COST MAY BE HIGHER DUE TO ANY POSSIBLE HIDDEN DAMAGES.

VISIT US ON THE WEB AT WWW.COLOGNEAUTOBODY.COM

FOR YOUR PROTECTION CALIFORNIA LAW REQUIRES THE FOLLOWING TO APPEAR ON THIS FORM. ANY PERSON WHO KNOWINGLY PRESENTS FALSE

OR FRAUDULENT INFORMATION TO OBTAIN OR AMEND INSURANCE

COVERAGE OR TO MAKE A CLAIM FOR THE PAYMENT OF A LOSS IS

GUILTY OF A CRIME AND MAY BE SUBJECT TO FINES AND CONFINEMENT IN STATE PRISON.

THE FOLLOWING IS A LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS OR SYMBOLS THAT MAY

BE USED TO DESCRIBE WORK TO BE DONE OR PARTS TO BE REPAIRED OR REPLACED:

MOTOR ABBREVIATIONS/SYMBOLS: D=DISCONTINUED PART,
A=APPROXIMATE PRICE. LABOR TYPES: B=BODY LABOR, D=DIAGNOSTIC, E=ELECTRICAL, F=FRAME, G=GLASS, M=MECHANICAL, P=PAINT LABOR, S=STRUCTURAL, T=TAXED MISCELLANEOUS, X=NON TAXED
MISCELLANEOUS. CCC ONE: ADJ=ADJACENT, ALGN=ALIGN,
A/M=AFTERMARKET, BLND=BLEND, CAPA=CERTIFIED AUTOMOTIVE
PARTS ASSOCIATION, D&R=DISCONNECT AND RECONNECT,
EST=ESTIMATE, EXT. PRICE=UNIT PRICE MULTIPLIED BY THE QUANTITY, INCL=INCLUDED, MISC=MISCELLANEOUS, NAGS=NATIONAL AUTO GLASS SPECIFICATIONS, NON-ADJ=NON ADJACENT, O/H=OVERHAUL,
OP=OPERATION, NO=LINE NUMBER, QTY=QUANTITY,
RECOND=RECONDITION, REFN=REFINISH, REPL=REPLACE, R&I=REMOVE AND INSTALL, R&R=REMOVE AND REPLACE, RPR=REPAIR, RT=RIGHT, SECT=SECTION, SUBL=SUBLET, LT=LEFT, W/O=WITHOUT, W/_=WITH/_ SYMBOLS: #=MANUAL LINE ENTRY, *=OTHER [IE..MOTORS DATABASE INFORMATION WAS CHANGED], **=DATABASE LINE WITH AFTERMARKET, N=NOTES ATTACHED TO LINE. OPT OEM=ORIGINAL EQUIPMENT

MANUFACTURER PARTS EITHER OPTIONALLY SOURCED OR OTHERWISE PROVIDED WITH SOME UNIQUE PRICING OR DISCOUNT.
""CURE TIME"" MEANS THE LENGTH OF TIME THAT, PER THE ADHESIVE

MANUFACTURER, THE WINDSHIELD ADHESIVE NEEDS TO CURE UNTIL THE

WINDSHIELD CAN PROPERLY FUNCTION AS A SAFETY DEVICE PURSUANT

TO THE FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS AND THE
VEHICLE MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS.
2/28/2023 12:22:56 PM 031565 Page 4
DocuSign Envelope ID: E8988400-E5EE-4E0E-9EEA-25372667BC99

9.j
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 74

Preliminary Estimate
Customer: FAGEL, MARC
2018 AUDI A4 Premium Plus Quattro S Tronic AWD TFSI 4D SED 4-2.0L Turbocharged Gasoline Gasoline Direct Injection BLUE Estimate based on MOTOR CRASH ESTIMATING GUIDE and potentially other third party sources of data. Unless otherwise noted, (a) all items are derived from the Guide ERA1321, CCC Data Date 02/15/2023, and potentially other third party sources of data; and (b) the parts presented are OEM-parts. OEM parts are manufactured by or for the vehicle's Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) according to OEM's specifications for U.S. distribution. OEM parts are available at OE/Vehicle dealerships or the specified supplier. OPT OEM (Optional OEM) or ALT OEM (Alternative OEM) parts are OEM parts that may be provided by or through alternate sources other than the OEM vehicle dealerships with discounted pricing. Asterisk (*) or Double Asterisk (**) indicates that the parts and/or labor data provided by third party sources of data may have been modified or may have come from an alternate data source.

Tilde sign (~) items indicate MOTOR Not-Included Labor operations. The symbol (<>) indicates the refinish operation WILL NOT be performed as a separate procedure from the other panels in the estimate. Non-Original Equipment Manufacturer aftermarket parts are described as Non OEM, A/M or NAGS. Used parts are described as LKQ, RCY, or USED. Reconditioned parts are described as Recond. Recored parts are described as Recore. NAGS Part Numbers and Benchmark Prices are provided by National Auto Glass Specifications. Labor operation times listed on the line with the NAGS information are MOTOR suggested labor operation times. NAGS labor operation times are not included. Pound sign (#) items indicate manual entries.

Some 2023 vehicles contain minor changes from the previous year. For those vehicles, prior to receiving updated data from the vehicle manufacturer, labor and parts data from the previous year may be used. The CCC ONE estimator has a list of applicable vehicles. Parts numbers and prices should be confirmed with the local dealership.

The following is a list of additional abbreviations or symbols that may be used to describe work to be done or parts to be repaired or replaced:

SYMBOLS FOLLOWING PART PRICE:
m=MOTOR Mechanical component. s=MOTOR Structural component. T=Miscellaneous Taxed charge category.

X=Miscellaneous Non-Taxed charge category.

SYMBOLS FOLLOWING LABOR:

D=Diagnostic labor category. E=Electrical labor category. F=Frame labor category. G=Glass labor category.

M=Mechanical labor category. S=Structural labor category. (numbers) 1 through 4=User Defined Labor Categories.

OTHER SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS:

Adj.=Adjacent. Algn.=Align. ALU=Aluminum. A/M=Aftermarket part. Blnd=Blend. BOR=Boron steel.

CAPA=Certified Automotive Parts Association. D&R=Disconnect and Reconnect. HSS=High Strength Steel.

HYD=Hydroformed Steel. Incl.=Included. LKQ=Like Kind and Quality. LT=Left. MAG=Magnesium. Non-Adj.=Non Adjacent. NSF=NSF International Certified Part. O/H=Overhaul. Qty=Quantity. Refn=Refinish. Repl=Replace.

R&I=Remove and Install. R&R=Remove and Replace. Rpr=Repair. RT=Right. SAS=Sandwiched Steel.

Sect=Section. Subl=Sublet. UHS=Ultra High Strength Steel. N=Note(s) associated with the estimate line.

CCC ONE Estimating - A product of CCC Intelligent Services Inc.

The following is a list of abbreviations that may be used in CCC ONE Estimating that are not part of the MOTOR CRASH ESTIMATING GUIDE:

BAR=Bureau of Automotive Repair. EPA=Environmental Protection Agency. NHTSA= National Highway Transportation and Safety Administration. PDR=Paintless Dent Repair. VIN=Vehicle Identification Number. 2/28/2023 12:22:56 PM 031565 Page 5
DocuSign Envelope ID: E8988400-E5EE-4E0E-9EEA-25372667BC99

9.j
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 75

Preliminary Estimate
Customer: FAGEL, MARC
2018 AUDI A4 Premium Plus Quattro S Tronic AWD TFSI 4D SED 4-2.0L Turbocharged Gasoline Gasoline Direct Injection BLUE

RECALL INFO
2018 AUDI A4 Premium Plus Quattro S Tronic AWD TFSI 4D SED 4-2.0L Turbocharged Gasoline Gasoline Direct Injection BLUE VIN: Interior Color: Mileage In: 0 Vehicle Out:

License: Exterior Color: BLUE Mileage Out:

State: CA Production Date: 7/2017 Condition: Job #:

The National Highway Transportation and Safety Administration (NHTSA) has issued 4 safety-related recall notice(s) that may apply to the selected vehicle.

NHTSA ID: 21V874000 Issued: Nov 11, 21 Number of Vehicles: 00208332 SEATS Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. (Audi) is recalling certain 2017-2020 A4 Allroad, A4 Sedan, 2018-2019 RS5 Coupe, 2019 RS5 Sportback, 2018-2020 A5 Cabriolet, A5 Coupe, A5 Sportback, S4 Sedan, S5 Cabriolet, S5 Coupe, and Audi S5 Sportback vehicles. The cable connecting the seat heater to the Passenger Occupant Detection System (PODS) may have a contact fault, causing the software to misdiagnose a malfunction and disable the passenger air bag. A disabled passenger air bag increases the risk of injury in the event of a crash. Dealers will replace the connecting cable and either the heating mat or entire seat cover, free of charge. Owner notification letters were mailed January 7, 2022. Owners may contact Audi customer service at 1-800-253-2834. Audi''s number for this recall is 74E3. This recall is an expansion of Recall 19V-547 (74D9). Vehicles previously repaired under 19V-547 will need to return for the new remedy.

NHTSA ID: 19V547000 Issued: Jul 7, 19 Number of Vehicles: 00145337 AIR BAGS:SENSOR:OCCUPANT CLASSIFICATION Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. (Audi) is recalling certain 2018-2019 Audi RS5 Sportback, 2018 S5 Cabriolet, S5 Sportback, S5 Coupe, S4 Sedan, A5 Cabriolet, A5 Sportback, A5 Coupe, and 2017-2018 A4 Sedan and A4 Allroad vehicles.

Oxidation on the Passenger Occupant Detection System (PODS) connecting cable may cause the software to misdiagnose a malfunction and disable the passenger air bag. A disabled passenger air bag increases the risk of injury in the event of a crash. Audi will notify owners, and dealers will install cable ties to the harness, free of charge. The recall began September 9, 2019. Owners may contact Volkswagen customer service at 1-800-893-5298. Audi''s number for this recall is 74D9.

NHTSA ID: 18V836000 Issued: Nov 11, 18 Number of Vehicles: 00000012 AIR BAGS:FRONTAL:PASSENGER SIDE:INFLATOR MODULE Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. (Volkswagen) is recalling certain 2018 Audi A5 Sportback and 2017-2018 Audi A4 Allroad vehicles. A passenger air bag module mounting screw may not have been sufficiently tightened, possibly affecting the deployment of the air bag in the event of a crash. If the air bag does not deploy correctly in the event of a crash, it can increase the risk of an injury. Volkswagen will notify owners, and dealers will inspect the air bag mounting screw, tightening or replacing it as necessary, free of charge. The recall began December 19, 2018. Owners may contact Audi customer service at 1-800-253-2834. Volkswagen''s number for this recall is 69Y4.

NHTSA ID: 17V675000 Issued: Oct 10, 17 Number of Vehicles: 00031323 STRUCTURE:BODY:DOOR:HINGE AND ATTACHMENTS Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. (Volkswagen) is recalling certain 2017-2018 Audi A4 Sedan and A4 allroad, and 2018 A5 Sportback vehicles. The aluminum trim on the front and rear doors can come loose from around the door speakers, leaving sharp edges exposed. The sharp edges of the speaker trim increase the risk of injury to vehicle occupants. Audi will notify owners, and dealers will replace the speaker cover aluminum trim, free of charge. The recall began March 13, 2018. Owners may contact Audi customer service at 1-800-253-2834. Volkswagen''s number for this recall is 70G6. 2/28/2023 12:22:56 PM 031565 Page 6
DocuSign Envelope ID: E8988400-E5EE-4E0E-9EEA-25372667BC99

9.j
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 76

9.j
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 77

9.j
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 78

CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: May 22, 2023
ITEM TITLE: Adopt a Resolution Authorizing City Manager to Execute an Addendum to the Second Amended and Restated Agreement
between the Cities of Redwood City and San Carlos for Fire and Emergency Services Extending the Expiration to December 31, 2023, with one Additional Mutually Agreed City Manager Extension to March 31, 2024.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends the City Council adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute an addendum to extend the term of the Second Amended and Restated Agreement between the Cities of Redwood City and San Carlos for Fire and Emergency Services to December 31, 2023, with a one additional mutually agreed City Manager extension to March 31, 2024.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

The extension of the Fire Services Agreement with Redwood City will not create any fiscal implications. The current terms of the Agreement will be extended.

BACKGROUND AND ANLAYSIS:

On May 18, 2018, the City of San Carlos entered into the Second Amended and Restated Agreement for Fire and Emergency Services with Redwood City (“Agreement”). The term of the current Agreement expires on June 30, 2023. It has become apparent that the discussions will continue beyond the current term’s expiration date of June 30, 2023.

It is in the best interest of both Cities to provide sufficient time to negotiate and reach mutual agreement on extension terms for continued Fire and Emergency Services. This extension will not prevent San Carlos from exploring other alternatives while the City attempts to negotiate a new agreement with Redwood City for fire and emergency services.

An extension of the Agreement between the Cities of Redwood City and San Carlos for Fire and Emergency Services to December 31, 2023, with an optional extension to March 31, 2024, is appropriate at this time.

ALTERNATIVES:

The alternatives available to the City Council include:

9.k
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 79

1. Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to execute an addendum to the Second Amended and Restated Agreement between the Cities of Redwood City and San Carlos for Fire and Emergency Services; or

2. Do not adopt the Resolution; or

3. Provide staff with alternative direction.

Respectfully submitted by:

Gregory J. Rubens, City Attorney
Approved for submission by:
_______________________
Jeff Maltbie, City Manager
ATTACHMENT(S):

1. Resolution

2. Proposed Addendum to Second Amended and Restated Agreement

9.k
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 80

RESOLUTION NO. 2023 – ____

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

AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN ADDENDUM TO THE SECOND

AMENDED AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITIES OF REDWOOD CITY AND SAN CARLOS

FOR FIRE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES EXTENDING THE EXPIRATION TO DECEMBER 31, 2023, WITH ONE ADDITIONAL MUTUALLY AGREED CITY MANAGER EXTENSION TO MARCH 31, 2024.

WHEREAS, the Cities of Redwood City and San Carlos (the “Cities”) entered into that certain Second Amended and Restated Agreement for Fire and Emergency Services dated May 18, 2018, for the delivery of certain fire and emergency services (“Agreement”); and WHEREAS, the term of the Agreement expires on June 30, 2023; and WHEREAS, the Cities desire to negotiate and reach agreement on the terms and conditions of an extension agreement; and
WHEREAS, it has become apparent to the Cities that the discussion will continue beyond the current Term’s expiration date; and
WHEREAS, the Cities believe it is in their best interest to provide sufficient time to negotiate and reach mutual agreement on extension terms for continued fire and emergency services and if unsuccessful, provide for the orderly transition of fire and emergency services; and WHEREAS, the Cities desire to extend the Agreement by six (6) months with an “Extended Expiration Date” of December 31, 2023, with one city manager authorized extension to March 31, 2024, as more fully set forth herein.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FOUND, DETERMINED AND RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of San Carlos that:

1. The above recitals and findings are hereby incorporated by this reference and are hereby approved; and

2. The City Manager is authorized to execute the addendum to the Second Amended and Restated Agreement between Cities of Redwood City and San Carlos for Fire and Emergency Services, extending the term of the Agreement to December 31, 2023, with one additional mutually agreed City Manager extension to March 31, 2024. * * * * *
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 22nd day of May 2023, by the following vote:

AYES, COUNCILMEMBERS:_____________________________________________ NOES, COUNCILMEMBERS:_____________________________________________ ABSENT, COUNCILMEMBERS:_____________________________________________

9.k
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 81

________________________________
CITY CLERK of the City of San Carlos
APPROVED:
___________________________
MAYOR of the City of San Carlos

9.k
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 82

ATTY/AGR/2023.099/ADDENDUM TO SECOND AMENDED & RESTATED SAN CARLOS FIRE AGREEMENT REV: 05-16-23 VR

Page 1 of 3 ends

ADDENDUM TO SECOND AMENDED AND RESTATED AGREEMENT

BETWEEN CITIES OF REDWOOD CITY AND SAN CARLOS

FOR FIRE & EMERGENCY SERVICES

This Addendum to Second Amended and Restated Agreement between Cities of Redwood City and San Carlos for Fire and Emergency Services (“Addendum”) dated for informational purposes as of May 22, 2023, by and between the City of Redwood City, a charter city and municipal corporation of the State of California (“R edwood City”), and the City of San Carlos, a municipal corporation (“San Carlos”), collectively “Participating Agencies.”

RECITALS

WHEREAS, Redwood City and San Carlos entered into that certain Second Amended and Restated Agreement between Cities of Redwood City and San Carlos for Fire and Emergency Services dated May 18, 20 18 for the delivery of certain fire and emergency services (“Agreement”); and

WHEREAS, the Term of the Agreement expires on June 30, 2023 (“Expiration Date”); and

WHEREAS, the Participating Agencies desire to negotiate and reach agreement on the terms and conditions of an extension agreement; and

WHEREAS, it has become apparent to the Participating Agencies that the discussion will continue beyond the current Term’s Expiration Date; and

WHEREAS, the Participating Agencies believe it is in the best inte rest o f both Participating Agencies to provide sufficient time to negotiate and reach mutual agreement on extension terms for continued Fire and Emergency Services and if unsuccessful provide for the orderly transition of Fire and Emergency Services; and

WHEREAS, the Participating Agencies desire to extend the Agreement by six (6) months with an “Extended Expiration Date” of December 31, 2023 , as more fully set forth herein.

AGREEMENT

NOW THEREFORE, the Participating Agencies, for and in consideration o f the mutual benefits, covenants and agreements set forth herein, agree as follows:

1. Recitals; Capitalized Terms . The foregoing recitals are incorporated by reference into this Second Amendment. Capitalized terms used herein and not otherwise defined shall have the meanings given to such terms in the Agreement.

2. Extension of Term . The term of the Agreement as set forth in Section 6 thereof is hereby extended for six (6) months through December 31, 2023 (“Extended Expiration Date”) and shall expire on the Ext ended Expiration Date. The City Managers

9.k
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 83

ATTY/AGR/2023.099/ADDENDUM TO SECOND AMENDED & RESTATED SAN CARLOS FIRE AGREEMENT REV: 05-16-23 VR

Page 2 of 3 ends

of the Participating Agencies may further extend the term for up to an additional three (3) month period through March 31, 202 4, through a written agreement signed by both City Managers.

3. Ratification. The Participating Agencies acknowledge and agree that the Agreement, except as amended by this Addendum, remains unmodified and in full force and effect in accordance with its terms.

4. Interpretation. As used in this Addendum, masculine, feminine or neutral gender and t he singular or plural number shall each be deemed to include the others where and when the context so dictates. The word “including” shall be constructed as if followed by the words “without limitation.” This Addendum shall be interpreted as though prepared jointly by both parties.

[Signature Page Follows]

9.k
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 84

ATTY/AGR/2023.099/ADDENDUM TO SECOND AMENDED & RESTATED SAN CARLOS FIRE AGREEMENT REV: 05-16-23 VR

Page 3 of 3 ends

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Participating Agencies have executed this Addendum as of the date indicated on page one (l).

CITY OF REDWOOD CITY,
a charter city and municipal corporation
of the State of California

By:
_________________________________
Melissa Stevenson Diaz, City Manager

CITY OF SAN CARLOS,
a municipal corporation of the State of
California

By:
____________________________________
Jeff Maltbie, City Manager

ATTEST:

By:
_________________________________
Pamela Aguilar, City Clerk

ATTEST:

By:
____________________________________
Crystal Mui, City Clerk

Approved as to Form:

By:
_________________________________
Veronica Ramirez, City Attorney

Approved as to Form:

By:
____________________________________
Gregory J. Rubens, City Attorney

9.k
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 85

CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: May 22, 2023
ITEM TITLE: Adopt a Resolution Approving Financial Policies.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a Resolution approving the City’s Financial Policies.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

There are no fiscal implications associated with this item.

BACKGROUND:

In June 2008, the City Council approved financial policies formalizing longstanding practices that have been used in the past to prepare the budget. The policies were established to ensure that the City’s finances are managed in a manner that will:

1. Continue to provide for the delivery of quality services;

2. Maintain and enhance service delivery as the community grows, in accordance with the General Plan;

3. Guarantee a balanced budget assuring that the City is always living within its means; and

4. Establish reserves necessary to meet known and unknown future obligations.

The City Council last reviewed and updated these policies on June 14, 2021 as part of the adoption of the Fiscal Year (“FY”) 2021-23 Biennial Budget. Staff also included these policies as part of the FY 2023-25 Budget Study Session overview. Staff recommends formal review of the financial policies as part of the biennial budget process.

ANALYSIS:

There are no recommended changes at this time.

ALTERNATIVES:

The alternatives available to the City Council include:

1. Adopt a Resolution approving the City’s Financial Policies; or

2. Do not adopt the Resolution; or

3. Provide staff with alternative direction.

9.l
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 86

Respectfully submitted by:

Rebecca Mendenhall, Administrative Services Director
Approved for submission by:
_______________________
Jeff Maltbie, City Manager
ATTACHMENT(S):

1. Resolution

2. Financial Policies

9.l
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 87

RESOLUTION NO. 2023 – ____

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN CARLOS APPROVING THE FINANCIAL POLICIES.

WHEREAS, the City of San Carlos has established Financial Policies to ensure that the City’s finances are managed in a manner that will continue to provide for the delivery of quality services, maintain and enhance service delivery as the community grows in accordance with the General Plan, guarantee a two-year balanced budget, and establish reserves necessary to meet known and unknown future obligations; and
WHEREAS, the City Council last reviewed and updated the Financial Policies on June 14, 2021 as part of the adoption of the Fiscal Year (FY) 2021-23 Biennial Budget; and WHEREAS, there are no recommended changes at this time. Staff recommends review of the financial polices as part of the biennial budget process and has included them in the FY 2023-25 Budget Study Session overview.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the San Carlos City Council hereby approves the Financial Policies.
* * * * *
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 22nd day of May 2023, by the following vote:

9.l
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 88

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

FINANCIAL POLICIES

The following Financial Policies have been established to ensure that the City’s finances are managed in a manner that will:

• Continue to provide for the delivery of quality services; • Maintain and enhance service delivery as the community grows in accordance with the General Plan;
• Guarantee a balanced budget assuring that the City is always living within its means; and • Establish reserves necessary to meet known and unknown future obligations.

To achieve these goals, the following Financial Policies are presented that include General Policies; Revenue Policies; Cost of Service Policies; Reserves and Fund Balance Policies; Expenditure and Budget Policies; Capital Improvement Policies; Fixed Assets and Infrastructure Asset Policies; Investment Policy and Debt Management Policy.

A. GENERAL POLICIES

1) We will manage our financial assets in a sound and prudent manner. 2) We will maintain sound financial practices in accordance with State law. 3) We will direct the City’s financial resources toward meeting our long- term goals as identified by Council through the Strategic Planning and Team Building Retreat process. 4) We will manage and develop programs to ensure our long- term ability to pay all the costs necessary to provide the level and quality of service required by our citizens. 5) We will maintain accounting systems in conformance with generally accepted accounting principles. The financial records will be audited annually by an independent auditing firm.
6) We will establish and maintain investment policies in accordance with State laws in which the major goals are safety and liquidity of investments, above yield.

B. REVENUE POLICIES

1) We will strive to maintain a diversified and stable revenue base that is not overly dependent on any land use, major taxpayer, revenue type, restricted revenue, or external revenue.

9.l
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 89

2) We will aggressively pursue revenue collection and auditing to assure that moneys due are accurately received in a timely manner.
3) We will seek Federal and State grants and reimbursements for costs whenever possible. 4) We will investigate potential new revenue sources.
5) We will work proactively with the League of California Cities and local communities to monitor legislation that may impact the City financially. 6) We will avoid targeting revenues for specific purposes whenever possible. 7) We will impose user fees when appropriate.
8) We will adopt a user fee policy that establishes desired levels of cost recovery and determines the minimum frequency of user fee reviews.
9) We will maintain and further develop methods to track major revenue sources and evaluate financial trends.
10) We will establish methods to maximize the accuracy of revenue forecasts. 11) Revenues will be estimated using accepted standards and estimates provided by the State and other governmental agencies.

C. COST OF SERVICES POLICIES

1) Fees and charges for services will be determined based on the total direct and indirect cost of the activity, including administrative overhead and depreciation, where applicable. In certain circumstances, it may be appropriate to subsidize fees, where full cost recovery may be unrealistic.
2) We will recover the costs of new facilities and infrastructure necessitated by development, consistent with State law.
3) We will consider requiring large developments to prepare a fiscal analysis that will measure the direct and indirect costs of the project, as well as the benefits to the City. 4) Managers should be aware of the cos t of services and propose the most effective methodology for providing those services.

D. RESERVES AND FUND BALANCE POLICIES (per GASB 54)

1) We will work toward establishing, dedicating and maintaining reserves annually to meet known and estimated future obligations. The hierarchy followed to deplete these reserves is as follows: first unassigned fund balance will be depleted; second assigned fund balances will be deleted at discretion of the City Manager; and lastly committed fund balances will be depleted in accordance with item 3a(ii) or 3b(ii) below, and formal action of the City Council.
2) The Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) has issued their best practice in determining the appropriate level of unrestricted fund balance in the General Fund to be at a minimum of no less than two months of regular general fund operating revenues or expenses which equates to approximately 17%. The GFOA definition of unrestricted fund balance includes three general categories: committed fund balance, assigned fund balance and unassigned fund balance. For the City’s purpose, we will include committed and assigned balances when reviewing the reserve percentages. The total of these two categories will be maintained at or above the GFOA best practice amount.

9.l
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 90

3) We will commit amounts of fund balance for specific purposes as determined by formal action of the City Council, which include but are not limited to committing fund balance reserves for the following:
a. Economic Uncertainties (as updated by Council June 13, 2016) i. General Fund committed fund balance for Economic Uncertainties equal to a minimum of 12.5% of the General Fund expenditures with a target of increasing to 20% of General Fund expenditures.
ii. Once established, appropriations from the Economic Uncertainties fund balance commitment can only be made by formal action of the City Council.

Generally, appropriations and access to these funds will be reserved for emergency situations. Examples of such emergencies include, but are not limited to: catastrophic disaster (declared by Governor); budgeted revenue taken by another government entity; or a more than 5% drop in projected revenue to the General Fund.
b. Strategic Property Acquisitions (as approved by Council October 25, 2010) i. General Fund committed fund balance for Strategic Property Acquisitions accumulates funds from the proceeds of future sales of City properties, as directed by the City Manager or City Council.
ii. Once established, appropriations from the Strategic Property Acquisitions fund balance commitment can only be made by formal action of the City Council. Generally, appropriations and access to these funds will be reserved for funding strategic property acquisitions by the City. c. Equipment and Vehicle Replacement Reserves
i. A Replacement Fund will be maintained as a separate fund for budgetary purposes to fund the replacement costs of existing non- sewer-related vehicles, major equipment and information technology items when they reach the end of their useful liv es. The sewer -related items will be maintained in the Wastewater Fund. The Replacement Fund will be analyzed by staff at least annually as part of the budget update process, for changes in assets, useful lives, estimated replacement costs and appropriate funding levels. This fund is to be maintained at a level sufficient to fund 100% of the assets, based on estimated replacement costs and useful lives.

4) We will assign amounts of fund balance for specific purposes as determined by City Manager recommendation, as delegated by formal action of the City Council, which include but are not limited to assigning fund balance reserves for the following:
a. Liability insurance.
b. State Budget Contingencies.
c. Undesignated litigation.
d. Replacement of facilities and infrastructure.
e. Continuing appropriations (encumbrances and projects carried over from a prior year to the new fiscal year).
f. Debt service for future debt obligations/payments.

9.l
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 91

E. EXPENDITURE AND BUDGET POLICIES

1) The operating budget will be prepared to fund current year expenditures with current year revenue. Surplus fund balances may be used to increase fund balance reserves, fund Capital Improvement Projects or be carried forward to fund future years’ operating budgets when necessary to stabilize services and fund capital outlay. 2) We will assume normal inflationary growth in accordance with the consumer price index for operating expenses.
3) We will assume personnel costs based on current Memoranda of Understanding in effect at the time.
4) Any new or expanded programs will be required to identify new funding sources and/or off-setting reductions in expenditures in other programs. 5) We will deliver service in the most cost effective manner. 6) The budget will state the objectives of each of the operating programs. 7) The budget will fully account for and apportion all costs, fees and General Fund transfers associated with Special Revenue and Enterprise Funds.
8) All budget transfers require the approval of the City Manager or designee. However, transfers of appropriations that increase the total appropriations of a fund must be approved by the City Council.
9) We will maintain a long-range fiscal perspective through the use of a biennial operating budget, a five-year capital improvement program and a five-year financial forecast. 10) The biennial budget will be adopted by Resolution of the City Council by July 1 st every other year.
11) A mid-cycle budget status report will be prepared and presented to the City Council in the spring of the first year of the budget that will include projections to year-end and any adjustments required for the second year of the biennial budget. 12) Staff will provide a written report to Council quarterly on the City’s General Fund revenues and expenditures.

F. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT POLICIES

1) We will construct capital improvements in accordance with an adopted capital improvement program.
2) We will develop a five -year plan for capital improvements to be reviewed and, if necessary, updated as part of the budget proces s. Future capital expenditures will be projected for a five- year period based on changes in the community population, real estate development or replacement of infrastructure.
3) We will coordinate preparation of the Capital Improvement Budget with preparation of the Biennial Operating Budget. Future operating costs associated with new capital improvements will be projected and included in Operating Budget forecasts. 4) We will identify the estimated costs and potential funding sources for each proposed capital project before it is submitted to Council for approval. 5) We will attempt to determine the least costly financing method for all new projects.

9.l
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 92

G. FIXED ASSET AND INFRASTRUCTURE ASSET POLICIES

1) We will capitalize all assets with a cost greater than $5,000 and a useful life of more than one year.
2) All fixed assets and infrastructure assets are assigned an asset number that is recorded in the fixed asset software. Where applicable, the asset number is affixed or tagged to the asset.
3) Infrastructure related capital projects will be capitalized as construction in progress until completed. Costs to be capitalized include direct costs such as labor, materials and transportation, indirect costs such as engineering and construction management and ancillary costs such as construction period interest.
4) Repairs and maintenance to infrastructure assets will generally not be subject to capitalization unless the repair extends the useful life of the asset. 5) A physical inventory process will be initiated by staff when appropriate.

In addition, the City has three other financial policies that are reviewed and approved separately by the City Council. The three other financial policies are:

1) Investment Policy – last adopted by the City Council on August 22, 2022 via Resolution 2022-091;

2) Debt Management Policy - last adopted by the City Council on January 22, 2018 via Resolution 2018-010; and

3) Debt Disclosure Procedure Policy - last adopted by the City Council on May 28, 2019 via Resolution 2019-037.

These policies can be found on our website in the following location:
https://www.cityofsancarlos.org/government/departments/administrative-services/finance/budget- financial-reports-policies.

9.l
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 93

CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: May 22, 2023
ITEM TITLE: Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute an Amendment to the Public Projects Agreement with C2R Engineering, Inc. in the Amount of $39,715.52 for the Emergency Storm Drain Repair at 2819 Eaton Avenue.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute an amendment to the public projects agreement with C2R Engineering, Inc. (“Contractor”) in the amount of $39,715.52 for emergency storm drain repair at 2819 Eaton Avenue.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

Funding for the emergency storm drain repair at 2819 Eaton Avenue is funded through the Emergency Storm Damage Funds, 01000000-520320-STM23.

Staff executed an agreement with the Contractor under emergency authority for $56,750 to perform the repair.

Prior to starting the work, staff directed the Contractor to secure the area to prevent further erosion and damage to private properties. During excavation and repair, there were unforeseen conditions resulting in additional scope being added for the repair. The cost of these additional scope items is $39,715.52.

The total cost of the repair including additional scope of work is $96,465.52. Therefore, staff is requesting an additional $39,715.52 from the Emergency Storm Damage Funds.

BACKGROUND:

During the January 2023 storms, the property owner at 2819 Eaton Avenue reported a sink hole forming on their property due to a break in the storm drain main located in an easement along the property frontage.

Under Municipal Code Section 3.12.180 – Emergency Authority of City Manager and Administrative Services Director, staff retained the Contractor to install emergency preventative measures initially.

After the storms passed, staff investigated and determined there was a break in the main and that the sixty-five (65) linear feet of existing corrugated metal storm drain main needed to be replaced, which included repairing the sink hole and surrounding area, driveway, gate loop detectors, and fencing.

9.m
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 94

Under the same Emergency Authority, staff executed an agreement with the Contractor to complete the repair.

While excavating the existing storm drain main, the Contractor ran into unforeseen conditions that included buried materials such as, railroad ties and concrete foundations, around the storm drain main. The Contractor required additional labor and equipment for the removal of the buried material to complete the repair. The Contractor also had to remove additional fencing that was in conflict of installing the storm drain main.

To prevent delays and prevent any further damage to the private property, the Public Works Director approved the Contractor to proceed with the additional work.

ANALYSIS:

Under Municipal Code Chapter 3.12.180 Section B, “Where emergency conditions as set forth in subsection A of this section exist and the amount(s) in question exceeds seventy-five thousand dollars, and the City Council is unable or unavailable to meet in the time necessary to act, then the City Manager or the City Manager’s designee shall have the authority to purchase supplies or services in excess of seventy-five thousand dollars without complying with the provisions of Section 3.12.170.”
The total cost of the repair is $96,465.52, which exceeds the authority of the City Manager and Administrative Services Director.

Therefore, staff recommends that the City Council authorize the City Manager to execute an amendment to the Public Projects Agreement with the Contractor for the additional scope of work needed to complete the emergency storm drain repair.

ALTERNATIVES:

The alternatives available to the City Council include:

1. Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute an Amendment to the Public Projects Agreement with C2R Engineering, Inc. in the amount of $39,715.52 for the Emergency Storm Drain Repair at 2819 Eaton Avenue; or

2. Do not adopt the Resolution; or

3. Provide staff with alternative direction.

Respectfully submitted by:

Steven Machida, Public Works Director

9.m
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 95

Approved for submission by:
_______________________
Jeff Maltbie, City Manager
ATTACHMENT(S):

1. Resolution

9.m
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 96

RESOLUTION NO. 2023 – ____

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

AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AMENDMENT TO THE PUBLIC PROJECTS AGREEMENT WITH C2R ENGINEERING, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $39,715.52 FOR THE EMERGENCY STORM DRAIN REPAIR AT 2819 EATON AVENUE.

WHEREAS, during the January 2023 storm, the property owner at 2819 Eaton Avenue reported a sink hole forming on their property due to a break in the storm drain main located in an easement through the property; and
WHEREAS, under Municipal Code Section 3.12.180 – Emergency Authority of City Manager and Administrative Services Director, staff retained C2R Engineering, Inc. (“Contractor”) to install emergency preventative measures initially; and WHEREAS, after the storms passed, staff investigated and determined there was a break in the main and that the 65 linear feet of existing corrugated metal storm drain main needed to be replaced, which included repairing the sink hole and surrounding area, driveway, gate loop detectors, and fencing; and
WHEREAS, under the same Emergency Authority, staff executed an agreement with the Contractor to complete the repair; and
WHEREAS, while excavating the existing storm drain main, the Contractor ran into unforeseen conditions that included buried materials such as, railroad ties and concrete foundations, around the storm drain main; and
WHEREAS, the Contractor required additional labor and equipment for the removal of the buried material to complete the repair; and
WHEREAS, the Contractor also had to remove additional fencing that was in conflict of installing the storm drain main; and
WHEREAS, to prevent delays and prevent any further damage to the private property, the Public Works Director approved the Contractor to proceed with the additional work; and WHEREAS, under Municipal Code Chapter 3.12.180 Section B, “Where emergency conditions as set forth in subsection A of this section exist and the amount(s) in question exceeds seventy-five thousand dollars, and the City Council is unable or unavailable to meet in the time necessary to act, then the City Manager or the City Manager’s designee shall have the authority to purchase supplies or services in excess of seventy-five thousand dollars without complying with the provisions of Section 3.12.170”; and
WHEREAS, the total cost of the repair is $96,465,52, which exceeds the emergency authority of the City Manager and Administrative Services Director; and WHEREAS, staff recommends that the Council authorize the City Manager to execute an amendment to the Public Projects Agreement with the Contractor for the additional scope of work needed to complete the emergency storm drain repair.

9.m
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 97

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the San Carlos City Council hereby authorizes the City Manager to execute an amendment to the Public Projects Agreement with C2R Engineering, Inc. in the amount of $39,715.52 for the emergency storm drain repair at 2819 Eaton Avenue.
* * * * *
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 22nd day of May 2023, by the following vote:

9.m
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 98

CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: May 22, 2023
ITEM TITLE: Adopt a Resolution Appropriating $200,000 from the Affordable Housing Fund (Fund 0029) Unassigned Fund Balance in Fiscal Year 2022-23 to Create a Capital Improvement Project for the Installation of Ovens at 817 Walnut.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached Resolution appropriating $200,000 from the Affordable Housing Fund (Fund 0029) Unassigned Fund Balance in Fiscal Year (“FY”) 2022-23 to create a capital improvement project for the installation of ovens at 817 Walnut (“Project”).

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

This request will require an appropriation of $200,000 from the Fund 0029 Unassigned Fund balance in FY 2022-22 to fund the Project. There are sufficient funds available to cover this request.

BACKGROUND:

In 2022, the City-sponsored 817 Walnut affordable housing project completed construction. As the project neared completion, the City learned that the units did not include full-size ovens with four stove top burners. Instead, the units were equipped with convection ovens and a two-burner stove top. The developer of the project, Charities Housing, explained that in recent years it has become common for small studio apartments such as those at 817 Walnut to include energy efficient appliances like convection ovens that maximize storage space rather than full-sized ovens. Charities Housing also stated that these smaller convection ovens will cook and brown foods in the same way as a conventional oven.

While this may be the trend for smaller units in new affordable housing developments, the San Carlos City Council reiterated its stance that tenants in affordable units in San Carlos should expect appliances commensurate with those in market rate developments. In the interest of ensuring that affordable units in San Carlos continue to remain among the best in the Bay Area, the City Council directed Charities Housing to install full-sized ovens for tenants that opted for them and agreed to reimburse Charities Housing for the associated costs.

To meet the requirements of the project’s lenders and tax credit financing, Charities Housing first needed to complete the project’s conversion to permanent financing before installation of the full- sized ovens could occur. These requirements included full lease-up, certification of construction costs, and income reports based on multiple months of occupancy, among others. Construction of the project was completed in June of 2022 and the requirements to convert to permanent

9.n
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 99

financing were met in November of that year. The conversion then occurred in December of 2022, allowing Charities Housing to begin expending funds related to the oven installation which could later be reimbursed by the City.

Charities Housing subsequently hired Studio E Architects (“Studio E”) to study and develop drawings for full-sized oven installation. In March of 2023, Studio E completed its first round of drawings and determined that 50 amp 2 pole circuit breakers would need to be installed in each unit to account for the increased electrical requirements of the full-sized ovens. Range fans are already in place in each unit and will not require additional ventilation work.

Charities Housing is now in the process of collecting bids from contractors to install ovens in each unit and reaching out to individual tenants to determine who will and will not want a full-sized oven installed.

ANALYSIS:

At the May 5, 2023 Budget Study Session, staff proposed this Project to be funded as part of the Capital Improvement Program for the Fiscal Years 2023-28. Following that discussion, it was determined that this Project needs to be funded prior to July 1, 2023 and as such, is coming forward as a new project in FY 2023.

Charities Housing initially estimated the cost to install each oven to be approximately $5,600, or $129,000 for all 23 studio units. Each installation will last roughly one week from start to finish assuming that each trade can be scheduled to quickly follow one another. Initial feedback from contractors suggests that they would be able to work on four to five units at a time, requiring three to four weeks for the entire project to be completed, assuming all tenants opt for full-sized ovens.

Tenants will likely need to relocate while work is being completed on their unit and would either be relocated to another Charities Housing Property or a hotel, depending on availability. The City would pay for all relocation costs. Combining installation and relocation costs, the total initial estimate from Charities Housing for this work was $160,000. A more exact estimate will be available in the coming months as bids are received.

It was initially suggested that full-sized ovens be installed for all 23 units, however, the Council does not wish to require any tenants to install an oven that do not want one. For this reason, future tenants will also be given the option to install an oven and installations may occur over several years. For this reason, along with rising inflation and construction costs, staff is recommending that $200,000 be appropriated at this time to avoid the need for future appropriation requests.

ALTERNATIVES:

The alternatives available to the City Council include:

1. Adopt a Resolution appropriating $200,000 from the Affordable Housing Fund (Fund 0029) Unassigned Fund Balance in FY 2022-23 to create a capital improvement project for the installation of ovens at 817 Walnut; or

2. Do not adopt the Resolution; or

3. Provide staff with alternative direction.

9.n
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 100

Respectfully submitted by:

Al Savay, Community Development Director
Approved for submission by:
_______________________
Jeff Maltbie, City Manager
ATTACHMENT(S):

1. Resolution

2. CIP Form

3. Cost Estimate

4. Tenant Memo

9.n
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 101

RESOLUTION NO. 2023 – ____

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN CARLOS APPROPRIATING $200,000 FROM THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING FUND (FUND 0029) UNASSIGNED FUND BALANCE IN FISCAL YEAR (“FY”) 2022-23 TO CREATE A CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT FOR THE INSTALLATION OF OVENS AT 817 WALNUT.

WHEREAS, on June 24, 2019, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2019-051 approving a Disposition, Development, and Loan Agreement with Charities Housing to develop a new affordable housing project at 817 Walnut Street; and WHEREAS, in June of 2022 construction on the 817 Walnut Street project and its 23 studio units was completed; and
WHEREAS, the units at 817 Walnut Street include only convection ovens with two burner stovetops and the City Council voiced its support for the City to reimburse Charities Housing to install full-sized ovens with four burner stovetops for tenants that wanted them; and WHEREAS, the 817 Walnut Street project converted to permanent financing in December of 2022 and subsequently hired an architect to study and develop drawings for the installation of the full-sized ovens; and
WHEREAS, Charities Housing is now collecting bids from contractors for the oven installation; and
WHEREAS, at the May 5, 2023 Budget Study Session, Council directed staff to immediately appropriate funds for the oven installation project.

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council hereby appropriates $200,000 from the Affordable Housing Fund (Fund 0029) Unassigned Fund Balance in Fiscal Year 2022-23 (FY 2022-23) to create a capital improvement project for the installation of ovens at 817 Walnut; and
* * * * *
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 22nd day of May 2023, by the following vote:

9.n
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 102

CXXXX: 817 Walnut Oven Installation Fund 0029
Fund Number: Fund 29 Location: TBD
Department: Community Development Strategic Plan: Yes
Project Manager: Adam Aronson Priorities: Housing, Own Funding Source Category: Housing Priority Rating: 1
Description
This project will cover the cost to install full-sized ovens with four burner stovetops at the 817 Walnut Street affordable housing project.

Justification
The studio units at 817 Walnut Street come with convection ovens and two burner stovetops. The Council has heard that some tenants of the project would like to install full-sized ovens with four burners. As this cost was not included in the project's orginal budget the City has offered to cover the cost of installation. Tenants are not required to install a full-sized oven if they do not wish to receive one and future tenants may also request a full-sized oven if their unit does not already have one.

Duration
May 2023 to June 2026.

Status
Charities Housing, the manager of 817 Walnut Street, is currently undertaking architecture and engineering studies to determine the process and cost for installing the ovens. Once that is complete residents will be notified and asked to inform Charities whether they wish to install a full-sized oven. Charities will then submit invoices to the City for reimbursement as costs are incurred.

Programmed Funding
Appropriations
Total Approved
Budget Total Spent
Proposed
2022-23
Proposed
2023-24
Requested
2024-25
Requested
2025-26
Requested
2026-27
Total Project
Funding
Expenses $ - $ - $ 200,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 200,000
New request - - - - - - - -
Total $ - $ - $ 200,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 200,000
Fund Financing Sources
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Total $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Total Capital Project
$ - $ - $ 200,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 200,000
Future Impact on Operating Budget
$200,000 would be appropriated from the Affordable Housing Fund (Fund 0029) Unassigned Fund Balance to cover the total costs currently estimated for the project.

Current Strategic Plan Objective
Child Care
Climate Change
Downtown
X Housing
Mobility, Traffic, and Transportation Infrastructure
Northeast Area Specific Plan
Recreation Services

9.n
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 103

Category List: Priorities:

Parks Master Plan Gas Tax
Environmental Sustainability Legal Requirement or Mandate Wastewater Fund Facilities Cost of Deferred Maintenance Parks-in-lieu
Storm Grant Funded, Previously Funded, or Partially FundedParking-in-lieu Street Safety Housing Fund
Traffic & Transportation Council's Strategic Plan Library Improvement Fund Technology Community Survey Response to Nature or Emergency

9.n
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 104

Library Improvement Fund
Response to Nature or Emergency

9.n
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 105

817 Walnut Street Oven Installation Cost Estimate

Construction Costs: $ 5,600
*These costs include purchase of the oven, circuit
breakers, electrical wiring, adjustments to the
cabinetry, contractor labor, etc.

Soft Costs: $ 1,300
*This includes architectural drawings and
relocation expenses should tenants need to vacate
their units during installation

Cost per Unit: $ 6,900

Number of Units: 23

Total Estimated Cost: $ 158,700

9.n
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 106

CHARITIES HOUSING
SOBRATO CENTER FOR NONPROFITS – SAN JOSE 1400 PARKMOOR AVENUE, SUITE 190 SAN JOSE, CA 95126 MAIN: 408-550-8300 FAX: 408-550-8339 WWW.CHARITIESHOUSING.ORG

TTY: (711) VCO/HCO TO VOICE: ENGLISH (800) 855-7100 SPANISH: (800) 855-7200 CH FORM. 12.17.19

Memorandum

To: All Residents of Walnut Studios

From: Breanna Hernandez, Property Manager

Date: DATE

RE: Walnut Studios Cooking Facilities
________________________________________________________________________

For your convenience, your brand new energy-efficient, all-electric studio has been furnished with modern, space-saving appliances such as a two-burner cooktop as well as a microwave - convection oven combination unit to meet your cooking needs.

We do understand that a convection oven may not be for everyone ; therefore, if you find, even after you have moved into your unit, that you would like to have a full -sized stove instead of the cooktop, we can make this happen. Please just let property management know, ideally in writing.

If you decide that you would like a stove installed, please note that doing so will require a renovation process, such as the one outlined below:

1) Submit your written request to property management
2) Property management will contact our facilities department to coordinate the process. 3) A licensed contractor will survey the apartment, take measurements, and submit a bid. 4) Once we engage the contractor the stove will need to be ordered . Your patience is appreciated during the current environment of delayed supply chain timetables. 5) While waiting for the stove to be delivered, the contractor will begin the demolition process to create spacing for the new stove.
6) Because the process ma y take some time, depending on scheduling and materials availability, it may become necessary for you to temporarily relocate during the renovation.

You will want to pack up/secure your valuables and take enough clothing with you to last up to a week (worst case scenario).
7) Once the stove has been installed and any debris has been cleaned up, you will of course be allowed to return to your unit.

Should you elect to have a stove installed, please note that the installation and hotel stay will be entirely at no cost to you, other than the inconvenience of a temporary absence from your unit.

9.n
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 107

Please indicate your preference below and return this form to the property manager within seven (7) calendar days.

I decline to have a stove installed in my unit.

_______________________________ ____________________________ ____________ (Print Name) (Unit) (Signature) (Date)

Please install a stove in my unit:

_______________________________ ____________________________ ____________ (Print Name) (Unit) (Signature) (Date)

9.n
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 108

CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: May 22, 2023
ITEM TITLE: Receive a Report on the Results of the 2023 Citizen Opinion Survey Conducted by True North Research.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council receive a report on the results of the 2023 Citizen Opinion Survey conducted by True North Research.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

There is no fiscal impact associated with receiving this report.

BACKGROUND:

It is the City’s mission to provide high-quality services and facilities to all residents in an equitable, sustainable, transparent, 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 issues within the city, the City conducts two different community surveys. The first type of survey, and the focus of this report, is a Citizen Opinion Survey, which is conducted every two years and serves as a performance measurement tool to understand residents’ needs and priorities and measure how well the City is performing. The second type of survey, is the Community Characteristics Survey, and was last conducted in 2022. The Community Characteristics Survey is designed to provide the City with a better understanding of the San Carlos community itself, including its priorities and lifestyles.

The 2023 Citizen Opinion was administered between April 5 and April 17, 2023 to a random sample of 721 adults. The 2023 Citizen Opinion Survey Summary Report dated May 2023 (“2023 Report”) is included as Attachment 1. For comparative purposes, the 2021 Citizen Survey Summary Report dated February 15, 2021 is included as Attachment 2. Survey reports are posted on the City’s website at https://www.cityofsancarlos.org/residents/community-surveys.

10.a
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 109

ANALYSIS:

Both the 2021 and 2023 Citizen Surveys and Summary Reports were conducted and prepared by True North Research, an experienced firm that conducts statistically significant surveys. The 2023 survey was administered to a random sample of 721 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 2023 Report are listed below:

1. Compared with 2021, community satisfaction increased in the following areas:
•Percent of residents who perceived that the City manages its finances well increased to 79.8% in 2023 from 78.6% in 2021.
•Percent of residents who indicated that they trust the City increased to 80.9% in 2023 from 77.7% in 2021.
•Percent of residents who perceived City staff to be professional increased to 93.5% in 2023 from 88.7% in 2021.
•Percent of residents who stated that they are satisfied with the City’s communications efforts increased to 84% in 2023 from 82.4% in 2021.
•Percent of residents who expressed that they are satisfied with the City’s efforts to provide municipal services increased to 82.7% in 2023 from 82.1% in 2021.

2. Per Table 3 on page 16 of the 2023 Report, ”Satisfaction with Service by Study Year,” respondents expressed statistically significant increases in satisfaction with the City’s efforts to reduce traffic congestion on City streets (+7%) and provide more public parking downtown (+6%) between 2021 and 2023, whereas satisfaction with the City’s efforts to maintain storm drains, sewers, and creeks (-25%) and maintain a low crime rate (-5%) declined during the same period.” A change in opinion is considered “statistically significant” when the surveyor can be 95% confident that the differences reflect an actual change in public opinion between the two studies.

3. Per Figure 8 on page 13 of the 2023 Report, “Importance of Services,” “Providing fire protection, prevention and emergency medical services” was listed as #1 in 2021 and 2023. “Maintaining storm drains, sewers, and creeks” rose to #2 in 2023 from #7 in 2021. “Provide affordable housing” and “provide more public parking downtown” remained at bottom of the list both years.

4. Regarding the City’s communication efforts, page 7 of the 2023 Report states, “Whereas many cities have witnessed a significant decline in satisfaction with city-resident communications over the past decade, San Carlos has managed to keep the overall satisfaction level between 82% and 85% dating back to the first survey in 2014, with 2023’s 84% placing in the upper end of the range. The fact that San Carlos residents primarily rely on city-sponsored sources of information to find out about San Carlos news, events, and programming— including City newsletters, the City’s website, and email—is undoubtedly one of the reasons for this stability in satisfaction over the past nine years.”

5. Per Table 1 on page 10, “Quality of Life,” “Limiting growth and development” continues to be one of the top recommended improvements to improve the quality of life in San Carlos since 2016.

10.a
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 110

6. Per Figure 31 on page 37, “Funding Priorities,” of the 13 funding priorities, infrastructure and emergency services took the top five spots. To contrast, “improve network of trails” ranked 10 and “housing programs” ranked 11.

7. Per Figure 33 on page 40, “Recreational Amenities,” 62.7% of respondents felt there were not enough swimming pools in the City and more respondent felt there were not enough volleyball courts and pickleball courts, than tennis courts.

ALTERNATIVES:

The alternatives available to the City Council include:

1. Accept the results of the 2023 Citizen Opinion Survey; or

2. Do not accept the results of the 2023 Citizen Opinion; 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. 2023 Citizen Opinion Survey Summary Report dated May 2023

2. 2021 Citizen Survey Summary Report dated February 15, 2021

10.a
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 111

10.a
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 112

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

10.a
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 113

Table of Contents
True North Research, Inc. © 2023 i
City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

T ABLE OF C ONTENTS
Table of Contents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii List of Figures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Purpose of Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Overview of Methodology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Statistical Significance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Organization of Report. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Disclaimer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 About True North . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Key Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Quality of Life . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Overall Quality of Life. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Question 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Ways to Improve Quality of Life . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Question 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 City Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Overall Satisfaction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Question 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Specific Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Question 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Question 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Differentiators of Opinion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Performance Needs & Priorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Alternative Transportation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Frequency of Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Question 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Safety. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Question 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Local Governance & Customer Service. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Perceptions of City Government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Question 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Attention Paid to Your City Government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Question 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 City Staff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Question 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Question 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Communication. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Overall Satisfaction With Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Question 13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Sources of Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Question 14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Communication Preferences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Question 15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Preferred Social Media Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Question 16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Development & Housing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Housing Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Question 17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Pace of Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Question 18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

10.a
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 114

Table of Contents
True North Research, Inc. © 2023 iiCity of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Funding Priorities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Question 19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Additional High Priorities? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Question 20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Availability of Recreational Amenities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Question 21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Finances & Daycare . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Financial Situation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Question 24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Daycare Services in San Carlos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Question 25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Question 26 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Rounding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Questionnaire & Toplines. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

10.a
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 115

List of Tables
True North Research, Inc. © 2023 iii
City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

L IST OF T ABLES
Table 1 Top Changes to Improve San Carlos by Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Table 2 Importance of Services by Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Table 3 Satisfaction With Services by Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Table 4 Satisfaction With Services by Overall Satisfacti on. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Table 5 Resident Service Needs & Priorities Matrix. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Table 6 Days in Typical Month Use Alternative Transportation in San Carlos by Years in San Carlos (Showing % At Least Once Per Month). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Table 7 Days in Typical Month Use Alternative Transportation in San Carlos by Age (Showing % At Least Once Per Month) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Table 8 Days in Typical Month Use Alternative Transportation in San Carlos by Children in Hsld & Home Ownership Status (Showing % At Least Once Per Month) . . . . . . . . 22 Table 9 Agreement With Statements Ab out City by Study Year. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Table 10 Opinion of City Staff by Study Year (Showing % Very Among Those With Opinion) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Table 11 Top City Information Sources by Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Table 12 Effectiveness of Communication Methods by Overall Satisfaction & Age (Showing % Very Effective). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Table 13 Opinion of Housing Developm ent Types in City by Study Year. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Table 14 Funding Priorities by Overall Satisfaction & Age (Showing % High Priority) . . . . . . . 38 Table 15 Additional High Priority Items by Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Table 16 Availability of Recreational & Community Amenities by Age and Child in Hsld (Showing % Not Enough) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Table 17 Demographics of Sample by Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

10.a
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 116

List of Figures
True North Research, Inc. © 2023 iv
City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

L IST OF F IGURES
Figure 1 Quality of Life by Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Figure 2 Quality of Life by Years in San Carlos, Gen der & Children in Hsld . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Figure 3 Quality of Life by Age, Home Ownership St atus & Hsld Financial Situation. . . . . . . . 9 Figure 4 Changes to Improve San Carlos. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Figure 5 Overall Satisfaction by Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Figure 6 Overall Satisfaction by Years in San Carl os, Gender & Children in Hsld . . . . . . . . . 12 Figure 7 Overall Satisfaction by Age, Home Ownership Status & Hsld Financial Situation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Figure 8 Importance of Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Figure 9 Satisfaction With Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Figure 10 Resident Service Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Figure 11 Days in Typical Month Use Alternative Tran sportation in San Carlos . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Figure 12 Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Figure 13 Agreement With Statements About San Carlos. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Figure 14 Attentiveness to City Government by Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Figure 15 Attentiveness to City Government by Years in San Carlos & Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Figure 16 Attentiveness to City Government by Children in Hsld, Home Ownership Status, Overall Satisfaction & Contact With City Staff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Figure 17 Contact With City in Past 12 Months by Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Figure 18 Contact With City in Past 12 Months by Years in San Carlos, Age & Home Ownership Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Figure 19 Opinion of City Staff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Figure 20 Satisfaction With Communication by Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Figure 21 Satisfaction With Communication by Years in San Carlos, Gender & Children in Hsld . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Figure 22 Satisfaction With Communication by Age, Home Ownership Status & Overall Satisfaction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Figure 23 City Information Sources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Figure 24 Information Source Categories by Overall & Ag e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Figure 25 Information Source Categories by Children in Hsld, Home Ownership Status & Satisfaction with Communication. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Figure 26 Effectiveness of Communication Efforts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Figure 27 Preferred Social Media Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Figure 28 Opinion of Housing Development Types in City. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Figure 29 Pace of Development by Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Figure 30 Pace of Development by Years in San Carl os, Age & Overall Satisfaction . . . . . . . . 36 Figure 31 Funding Priorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Figure 32 Additional High Priority Items . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Figure 33 Availability of Recreational & Community Amenities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Figure 34 Hsld Financial Situation Past 2 Years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Figure 35 Hsld Financial Situation Past 2 Years by Years in San Carlos, Overall Satisfaction & Child in Hsld . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Figure 36 Hsld Financial Situation Past 2 Years by Employment Status & Home Ownership Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Figure 37 Hsld Financial Situation Past 2 Years by Age & Gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Figure 38 Searched for Daycare Services in Past 2 Years by Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Figure 39 Searched for Daycare Services in Past 2 Years by Age & Hsld Financial Situation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Figure 40 Ease of Finding Daycare by Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Figure 41 Maximum Margin of Error . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

10.a
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 117

Introduction
True North Research, Inc. © 2023 1
City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

I NTRODUCTION
Known as the City of Good Living, San Carlos is a diverse and welcoming community that offers many of the amenities and experiences that come with living in the greater Bay Area, while also maintaining a charming, small town feel. Encompassing 5.6 square miles in San Mateo County, the City was incorporated in 1925 as a General Law city and is currently home to an estimated 29,837 residents.
1 The City’s dedicated team of full-time and part-time employees provides a full suite of services to residents and local busine sses directly or via a shared-service model with other agencies and providers.

To monitor its progress in meeting residents’ needs, the City engages residents on a daily basis and receives periodic subjective feedback regarding its perfor mance. Although these informal feedback mechanisms are a valuable source of information for the City in that they provide timely and accurate information about the opinions of specific residents, it is important to recog- nize that they do not necessarily provide an ac curate picture of the co mmunity as a whole. For the most part, informal feedback mechanisms rely on the resident to initiate feedback, which creates a self-selection bias. The City receives feedback only from those residents who are moti- vated enough to initiate the feedback process. Because these residents tend to be those who are either very pleased or very displeased with the service they ha ve received, their collective opin- ions are not necessarily representative of the City’s resident population as a whole.

PURPOSE OF STUDY The motivation for the current st udy was to design and employ a methodology that would avoid the self-selection bias noted abov e and provide the City with a statistically reliable understanding of its residents’ satisfaction, priorities, and concerns as they relate to services and facilities provided by the City. Ultimately, the survey results and analyses presented in this report will provide Council and staff with information that can be used to make sound, strategic decisions in a variety of ar eas including service improvements and enhance- ments, measuring and tracking internal performance, budgeting, policy, and planning. 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:
• Profile residents’ perceptions of the quality of life in San Carlos; • Measure residents’ overall satisfaction with th e City’s efforts to provide municipal services, and their satisfaction with a variety of specific services; • Gather opinions on topics such as alternative transportation in San Carlos, development, housing, and funding priorities;
• Evaluate perceptions of local government and customer service; • Determine satisfaction with and perceived effectiveness of the City’s communication with residents; and
• Collect additional background and demographic data that are relevant to understanding res- idents’ perceptions, needs, and interests.

This is not the first statistically reliable community survey conducted for the City of San Carlos.

Similar studies were conducted in 2012, 2014, 2016, 2018, 2020, and 2021, and many of the

1. Source: State of California, Depart ment of Finance, E-1City/County Population Estimates, January 2022.

10.a
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 118

Introduction
True North Research, Inc. © 2023 2City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
questions included in the 2023 su rvey were purposefully tracked from the prior studies. How- ever, as discussed in the 2014 final report, methodological changes implemented in the 2014 survey limit comparisons to the 2012 study. Thus, in this report, the results of the current survey are compared with the results of identical questions from 2014 and beyond, where appropriate.

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 721 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 phone) and multiple data collection methods (phone an d online). Administered between April 5 and April 17, 2023, the average interview lasted 18 minutes.

STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE As discussed above, many of the figures and tables in this report present the results of questions asked in 2023 alongside the results found in the 2014, 2016, 2018, 2020, and 2021 surveys for identical questions. In such cases, True North con- ducted the appropriate tests of statistical signif icance to identify changes that likely reflect actual changes in public opinion from the last survey (2021) to the current survey (2023)—as opposed to being due to chance associated wi th independently selected samples. Differences between the two studies are identified as statistically significant if we can be 95% confident that the differences reflect an actual change in pub lic opinion between the two studies. Statistically significant differences within re sponse categories over time are denoted by the † symbol which appears in the figure next to the appropriate response value for 2023.

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 findings of the survey in a Question & Answer for- mat. For the interested reader, this section is followed by a more detailed question-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 anal yzing the data. And, for the truly ambitious reader, the questionnaire used for the interviews is contained 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 survey and for contributing valuable input during the design stage of this study. City staff’s collective experience, insight, and loca l knowledge 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.

10.a
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 119

Introduction
True North Research, Inc. © 2023 3City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
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. Dur- ing 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.

10.a
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 120

Key Findings
True North Research, Inc. © 2023 4
City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

K EY F INDINGS
As noted in the Introduction, this study was designed to provide the City of San Carlos with a sta- tistically reliable understanding of the opinions, priorities, and concerns of San Carlos residents.

Operating from the philosophy that you can’t manage what you don’t measure, the City has reg- ularly used the survey as a community needs assessment and performance measurement tool. In short, the study presents an opportunity to prof ile residents’ needs and priorities, measure how well the City is performing in meeting these needs through existing services and facilities, and gather data on a variety of quality-of-life, issue, and policy-related matters. More than just a pro- filing exercise, the City uses th e information gained from the studies to adjust and improve its services and policies—all toward the goal of building and sustaining a high level of community satisfaction.

Whereas subsequent sections of this report are devoted to conveying the detailed results of the survey, in this section we attempt to ‘see the forest through the trees’ and note how the survey results answer key questions that motivated th e research. The followin g conclusions are based on True North’s interpretations of the results, as well as the firm’s experience conducting similar studies for government agencies throughout the State.

How well is the City per-
forming in meeting the
needs of San Carlos resi-
dents?
The period of time between the 2021 Community Opinion Survey and the current study represented a welcome transition out of the COVID-19 pandemic that arrived in early 2020. Although the public health risks have subsided, the pandemic cont inues to have lingering economic impacts in the form of supply chain issues, product shortages, and stub- born inflation that reached a 40-year high in 2022. Both the cost of hous- ing and the cost of borrowing for a mortgage trended upward in the past 12 months, and equities remain well below where they began last year.

Environmental factors have also conspired to make this a difficult period, with weather ranging from severe dr ought and heat waves to unseason- ably low temperatures with higher than average rain, snowfall, and flood- ing.

Against this turbulent backdrop, San Carlos residents’ opinions of their community and city government have remained remarkably stable. Resi- dents continue to be quite satisfied with the City’s efforts to provide municipal services and facilities, as well as the quality of life in the City.

In 2023, more than eight-in-ten San Carlos residents (83%) were satisfied with the City’s overall performance in providing municipal services, which is statistically consistent with both the 2021 and 2020 surveys (see Overall Satisfaction on page 11).

The high level of satisfaction expr essed with the City’s performance in general was also mirrored in residents’ assessments of the City’s perfor- mance in providing specific services, with the highest satisfaction scores assigned to the City’s efforts to provide library services (97% very or somewhat satisfied), pr ovide trash collection and recycling services (95%), keep public buildings and facilities clean and attractive (94%), hold

10.a
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 121

Key Findings
True North Research, Inc. © 2023 5City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
special community events like summer concerts in the park, Night of Holiday Lights, Goblin Walk, and others (94%), and provide recreation programs for youth (94%).

Of the 21 services that were tested in both 2021 and 2023, only four experienced statistically significant changes in satisfaction during this time period. Most notable was a 25 point drop in satisfaction with the City’s efforts to maintain storm drains, sewers, and creeks (89% to 64%) which tracks with the flooding that occurred in January 2023 during a series of storms (see Specific Services on page 12).

For 15 of the 23 service areas test ed, the City is meeting or exceeding the needs and expectations of at leas t three-quarters of its residents— and for the majority of services the City is meeting the needs of more than 80% of residents (see Performance Needs & Priorities on page 18).

Similar to the high levels of satisfaction expressed with respect to the City’s overall performance in provid ing services, San Carlos residents also continue to hold very high opinions of the quality of life in the City.

Nine-in-ten (91% of) residents surveyed rated the quality of the life in San Carlos as excellent or good, a level that has remained consistent since 2018. Moreover, this sentiment was widespread, with at least 86% of respondents in every identified resi dent subgroup rating the quality of life in San Carlos as excellent or good (see Quality of Life on page 8).

How is the City per-
ceived with respect to
customer service and
governance?
Contributing to the positive ratings th e City receives for specific service areas is the day-to-day customer se rvice provided by city staff. Indeed, staff at the City of San Carlos are often the “face” of the City for residents who are using city facilities, participating in various programs or events, or in need of assistance from the City on any number of matters. Close to four-in-ten (39% of) re spondents indicated that they had been in con- tact with San Carlos staff at least once during the 12 months prior to the interview (consistent with 2021), and approximately nine-in-ten of those respondents indicated that staff me mbers were very or somewhat pro- fessional (94%), accessible (91%), and helpful (86%) (see City Staff on page 25).

With regard to local governance, th e City was rated highest for resident trust and managing its finances (8 0% of those who provided an opinion agreed with the statements ‘I trust the City of San Carlos’ and ‘The City manages its finances well’), followed by being responsive to residents’ needs (70%) and listening to residents when making important decisions (63%). Positive assessments within this question series remained statisti- cally consistent from 2021 to 2023 (see Perceptions of City Government on page 23).

10.a
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 122

Key Findings
True North Research, Inc. © 2023 6City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Where should the City
focus its efforts in the
future?
In addition to measuring the City’s current performance, a key goal of this study is to look forward and identify opportunities to adjust ser- vices, improve facilities, and/or refine communications strategies to best meet the community’s evolving needs and expectations. Although resi- dent satisfaction in San Carlos is high (see above), there is always room for improvement. Below we note some of the areas that present the best opportunities in this regard.

Considering respondents’ verbatim answers regarding what they feel city government could do to make San Carlos a better place to live (see Ways to Improve Quality of Life on page 9), the list of services and their respective priority status for future city attention (see Performance Needs & Priorities on page 18), and the manner in which residents prior- itize among potential funding areas (see Funding Priorities on page 37), the top priorities are: providing fire protection services, repairing/main- taining streets and infrastructure, providing affordable housing (while limiting growth and development), r educing traffic congestion on city streets, maintaining storm drains, sewers, and creeks, and having city- provided resources and facilities available to residents during PG&E power shut-offs. Although many of th ese priorities are similar to those identified in past studies, mainta ining storm drains, sewers, and creeks and having city-provided resources and facilities available to residents during PG&E power shut-offs have risen in importance since the last study.

With the recommendation that the City focus on these areas, it is equally important to stress that when it come s to improving satisfaction in ser- vice areas, the appropriate strategy is often a combination of better com- munication and actual service improvements. It may be, for example, that many residents are simply not aware of the City’s ongoing infra- structure improvement effo rts, or the limits of what a city can do to reduce traffic congestion. Choosing the appropriate balance of actual service improvements and efforts to raise awareness on these matters will be a key to maintaining and improving the community’s overall satis- faction in the short- and long-term.

It is also important to keep in mind that although these areas represent opportunities to improve resident satisfaction, the City should not over- steer. Indeed, the primary takeaway from this study is that the City does many things very well, and the emphasis should be on continuing to per- form at that high level in those areas. The vast majority of residents were pleased with the City’s efforts to provide services, programs, and facili- ties and have a favorable opinion of the City’s performance in most areas. The top priority for the City should thus be to do what it takes to maintain the high quality of services that it currently provides.

10.a
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 123

Key Findings
True North Research, Inc. © 2023 7City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

How well is the City com-
municating with San
Carlos residents?
The importance of city communication with residents cannot be over- stated. Much of a city’s success is sh aped by the qualit y of information that is exchanged in both directions, from the City to the community and from the community to the City. This study is just one example of San Carlos’ efforts to enhanc e the information flow to the City to better understand the community’s concerns, perceptions, and needs. Some of San Carlos’ many efforts to communic ate with its residents include its electronic and print newsletters, time ly press releases, email, website, and various social media accounts.

Keeping up with the challenge of communicating with residents has been difficult for many public agencies in recent years. As the number of information sources and channels ava ilable to the public have dramati- cally increased, so too has the diversity in where residents regularly turn for their information. Not only have entirely new channels arisen to become mainstream and nearly ubiquitous (e.g., social media), within these channels there exists a proliferation of alternative services. To add to the challenge, resident preferen ces for information sources are also dynamic, subject to change as new services are made available while oth- ers may fade in popularity, making thorough, effective communication a moving target for public agencies.

Despite the ground constantly shifting beneath its feet, the City has been nimble enough to adapt and contin ue to meet residents’ needs with respect to city-resident communications. Whereas many cities have wit- nessed a significant decline in satisfaction with city-resident communica- tions over the past decade, San Carl os has managed to keep the overall satisfaction level between 82% and 85% dating back to the first survey in 2014, with 2023’s 84% placing in the upper end of the range. The fact that San Carlos residents primarily rely on city-sponsored sources of information to find out about San Carlos news, events, and program- ming—including City newsletters, the City’s website, and email—is undoubtedly one of the reasons for this stability in satisfaction over the past nine years (see Communication on page 28).

Although San Carlos has been successful in maintaining a high level of resident satisfaction despite the proliferation of information sources and accelerating pace of change, it is important to recognize that the chal- lenges will continue to change (and may continue to grow). To stay ahead of the curve, San Carlos, like other cities, should periodically con- duct a careful review of its commun ications strategies and budget to ensure that both are evolving accordingly.

10.a
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 124

Quality of Life
True North Research, Inc. © 2023 8
City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Q UALITY OF L IFE
The opening series of question s in the 2023 survey was designed to assess residents’ percep- tions of the quality of life in San Carlos, as we ll as their ideas for what city government could do to improve the quality of life in the City, now and in the future.

OVERALL QUALITY OF LIFE At the outset of the survey, respondents were asked to rate the quality of life in the City using a five-point scale of excellent, good, fair, poor, or very poor.

As shown in Figure 1 below, nine-in-ten (91% of) residents in 2023 shared favorable opinions of the quality of life in San Carlos, with 39% reporting it is excellent and 52% stating it is good.

Eight percent (8%) of residents in dicated the quality of life in the City is fair, whereas just 1% used poor or very poor to descr ibe the quality of life in the City. Quality of life ratings have remained steady since 2020, with no statistically significant changes across response categories.

Question 2 How would you rate the overall quality of life in San Carlos? Would you say it is excellent, good, fair, poor or very poor?
FIGURE 1 QUALITY OF LIFE BY STUDY YEAR
Figures 2 and 3 on the next page show how rati ngs of the quality of life in the City varied by years of residence in San Carlos, gender, presen ce of children in the home, age of the respon- dent, home ownership status, and respondents’ household financial situation over the past two years. Across all subgroups, San Carlos residents shared positive assessments of the quality of life in the City, with ratings ranging from a low of 86% to a high of 95%.

40.5 37.9 44.5 47.0 51.3

49.6 52.5 46.5 48.9 46.4

7.9 7.7 7.9 3.6 2.1

39.1 51.9

7.5 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
2023 2021 2020 2018 2016 2014
Study Y ear
% Respondents
Not sure/Prefer
not to answer
Very poor
Poor
Fair
Good
Excellent

10.a
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 125

Quality of Life
True North Research, Inc. © 2023 9City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

FIGURE 2 QUALITY OF LIFE BY YEARS IN SAN CARLOS, GENDER & CHILDREN IN HSLD FIGURE 3 QUALITY OF LIFE BY AGE, HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS & HSLD FINANCIAL SITUATION WAYS TO IMPROVE QUALITY OF LIFE Respondents were next asked to indicate one thing that city government could change to ma ke San Carlos a better pl ace to live, now and in the future. This question was asked in an open-ended manner, allowing respondents to mention any improvement that came to mind without being prompted by or restricted to a list of options.

True North later reviewed the verbatim responses and grouped them into the categories shown in Figure 4 on the next page.

Overall, 13% of respondents were either unsure of a change that would make San Carlos a better place to live (7%) or indicated they desired no changes from the City (6%). Among specific changes mentioned, the most common were limiting growth and development (15%), improving and maintaining infrastructure (10%), providing affordable housing (9%), reducing traffic conges- tion (8%), and adding and improving sidewalks and bike lanes (7%).

38.6 40.2 41.1 38.6 40.1

52.6 51.5 50.8 53.7 52.2

38.736.1

48.5Excellent

37.8 39.3 57.4 53.0Good

52.7 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Less than 5 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 or more Male Female Yes, under 13 Yes, teenager No children Years in San Carlos (Q1) Gender (QD1) Children in Hsld (Q23,QD3) % Respondents

49.4 42.1 33.8

42.9 41.5 34.1

45.3 49.3 59.5

52.1 50.7

52.0 Excellent

40.6 39.9 33.9 36.0
Good

52.0 53.256.5

54.2 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Under 35 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or older Own Rent Improved About the same
Gotten
worse
Age (QD2) Home Ownership Status
(QD4)
Hsld Financial Situation (Q24)
% Respondents

10.a
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 126

Quality of Life
True North Research, Inc. © 2023 10City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Question 3 If the City government could change one thing to make San Carlos a better place to live now and in the future, what change would you like to see? FIGURE 4 CHANGES TO IMPROVE SAN CARLOS
Table 1 presents the top five responses to this question by study year . Limiting growth and development has remained the most suggested im provement since 2016, and reducing traffic congestion has also been a top five mention each year. Providing affordable housing also remained a top response since 2020. For the first time, not sure/ cannot think of anything was not a top-five response, meaning respondents were more apt to suggest an improvement in 2023. New to the top five this year were impro ving and maintaining infrastructure and adding and improving sidewalks and bike lanes. Improv ing and addressing parking issues, which had been in the top five since 2014, dropped to seventh place in 2023.

TABLE 1 TOP CHANGES TO IMPROVE SAN CARLOS BY STUDY YEAR

15.1 9.5

9.3 7.8

7.3 7.1

6.9 6.4

6.3 5.6

5.6 3.1

2.8 2.1

2.0 2.0

1.9 1.6

1.6 4.9

6.1 0 5 10 15 20
Limit growth, development
Improve, maintain infrastructure
Provide affordable housing
Reduce traffic congestion
Add, improve sidewalks, bike lanes
Not sure / Cannot think of anything
Improve, address downtown parking issues
Provide, improve parks, rec areas
No changes / Everything is fine
Improve public safety
Increase police presence, faster response, have own police Dept Improve, preserve walkability, keep Laurel Street closed Enforce traffic laws
Improve environmental efforts
Improve develop downtown area
Improve shopping, dining options
Add community pool
Improve schools, education
Put utility wires underground
Open up Laurel Street
Encourage, support small business
% Respondents
2023 2021 2020 2018 2016 2014
Limit growth,
development
Limit growth,
development
Limit growth,
development
Limit growth,
development
Limit growth,
development
Improve, address
parking issues
Improve, maintain
infrastructure
Reduce traffic
congestion
Reduce traffic
congestion
Improve, address
parking issues
Reduce traffic
congestion
Reduce traffic
congestion
Provide affordable
housing
Not sure / Cannot
think of anything
Improve, address
parking issues
Reduce traffic
congestion
Improve, address
parking issues
No changes
needed
Reduce traffic
congestion
Improve, address
parking issues
Provide affordable
housing
Not sure / Can't
think of anything
Not sure / Can't
think of anything
Not sure / Can't
think of anything
Add, improve
sidewalks, bike
lanes
Provide affordable
housing
Not sure / Can't
think of anything
Improve, maintain
infrastructure
Improve public
safety
Improve schools,
education
Study Year

10.a
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 127

City Services
True North Research, Inc. © 2023 11
City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

C ITY S ERVICES
After measuring respondents’ perceptions of the quality of life in San Carlos, the survey next turned to assessing opinions about the City’s performance in providing municipal services.

OVERALL SATISFACTION The first question in this seri es asked respondents to indicate if, overall, they were satisfied or dissatisfied with the job the City of San Carlos is doing to pro- vide services. Because this question does not refe rence a specific program, facility, or service and requested that the respondent consider the City’s performance in general, the findings of this question may be regarded as an overall performance rating for the City.

As shown in Figure 5, 83% of San Carlos residents indicated they were either very satisfied (36%) or somewhat satisfied (47%) with the City’s efforts to provide municipal services. Approximately 10% of respondents indicated that they were dissatisfied with the City’s overall performance, and an additional 7% indicated that they were unsure or unwilling to share their opinion. There were no statistically significant changes between the 2021 and 2023 survey results.

Question 4 Next, I would like to ask a series of questions about services provided by the City of San Carlos. Generally speaking, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the job the City of San Car- los is doing to provide city services?
FIGURE 5 OVERALL SATISFACTION BY STUDY YEAR
Figures 6 and 7 on the next page display how th e percentage of respondents satisfied with the City’s overall performance varied across demographic subgroups. Although there was some vari- ation in opinions across subgroups, the dominant pattern is one of consistency. Approximately eight-in-ten residents in every identified subgroup said they were satisfied with the City’s overall performance in providing municipal services.

32.0 41.8

49.9 48.4

44.5 51.2

45.9 8.9

7.4 8.1

7.62.6 1.25.2 2.5 6.0 3.5

42.2 35.6 32.2 34.7

47.1 7.2 8.7

3.7 3.13.52.8

6.9 4.3
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
2023 2021 2020 2018 2016 2014
Study Y ear
% Respondents
Prefer not to
answer
Not sure
Very
dissatisfied
Som ewhat
dissatisfied
Som ewhat
satisfied
Very satisfied

10.a
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 128

City Services
True North Research, Inc. © 2023 12City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

FIGURE 6 OVERALL SATISFACTION BY YEARS IN SAN CARLOS, GENDER & CHILDREN IN HSLD FIGURE 7 OVERALL SATISFACTION BY AGE, HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS & HSLD FINANCIAL SITUATION SPECIFIC SERVICES Whereas Question 4 addressed the City’s overall performance, the next two questions asked respondents to rate the importance of specific services offered by the City, as well as their level of satisfaction with efforts to provide these services. For each service, respondents were first asked if they thought a service was extremely important, very important, somewhat important, or not at all important. The order of the items was randomized for each respondent to avoid a systematic position bias.

Figure 8 on the next page presents the services sorted by order of importance according to the percentage of respondents who rated a service as at least very important. In line with past stud- ies, San Carlos residents once again rated pub lic safety and public works services as the most important. More specifically, providing fire pr otection, prevention, an d emergency medical ser- vices (94% extremely or very important), main taining storm drains, sewers, and creeks (90%), maintaining a low crime rate (90%), preparing the City for fire, police, and public works emergen- cies and disasters (89%), providing trash colle ction and recycling services (87%), maintaining

37.6 33.7 39.4 36.7 35.3

46.5 48.1 43.5 50.1 47.9
Ver y
satisfied

33.1 40.2 34.9 35.6
Smwt
satisfied

45.5 49.345.342.6
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Less than 5 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 or more Male Female Yes, under 13 Yes,
teenager
No children
Years in San Carlos (Q1) Gender (QD1) Children in Hsld (Q23,QD3) % Respondents

45.5 36.2 35.2 41.0 37.0

27.8 41.4

46.3 48.0 44.2 46.2

52.3 31.130.3

40.3 Ver y
satisfied

37.2 41.9

50.4 53.5
Smwt
satisfied

49.5 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Under 35 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or older Own Rent Improved About the same
Gotten
worse
Age (QD2) Home Ownership
Status (QD4)
Hsld Financial Situation (Q24)
% Respondents

10.a
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 129

City Services
True North Research, Inc. © 2023 13City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
local streets (87%), and providing safe streets (87%) received the highest importance ratings from residents. At the other end of the spectrum, providing more public parking downtown (42%) and providing affordable housing (50%) were viewed as less important.

Question 5 For each of the services I read, please tell me whether the service is extremely important to you, very important, somewhat important, or not at all important.

FIGURE 8 IMPORTANCE OF SERVICES
For the interested reader, Table 2 on the next pa ge displays the percentage of respondents who viewed each service as extremely or very important from 2014 to 2023, as well as the difference from 2021 to 2023. Over the past two years, three services exhibited statistically significant increases in importance (having city resources and facilities available during PG&E power shut- offs, holding special community events, and providing recreation programs for youth) while five others were rated as significantly less important (reducing traffic congestion on city streets, pro- viding more public parking do wntown, preserving community character and appearance, pro- moting economic development, and providing police services).

65.3 58.3

65.1 50.1

51.2 44.6

58.7 44.2

52.9 35.0

30.3 23.7

26.6 30.4

33.2 30.6

31.2 29.6

22.0 20.1

21.6 27.0

15.9 28.8

31.8 24.8

38.4 36.0

41.9 27.8

37.3 27.9

41.1 45.3

44.2 40.4

36.5 32.2

29.7 27.7

28.3 35.8

37.2 35.3

23.1 26.0
0 1 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 0 1 0 0
Providing fire protection, prevention and emergency medical services Maintaining storm drains, sewers and creeks
Maintaining a low crime rate
Preparing City for fire, police, public works emergencies, disasters Providing trash collection and recycling services
Maintaining local streets
Providing safe streets
Providing parks, sports fields and recreation facilities Providing police services
Providing library services
Providing recreation programs for youth
Establishing and maintaining financial reserves
Keeping public buildings and facilities clean and attractive Having city-provided resources, facilities avail during PG&E power shut-offs Making downtown more pedestrian friendly
Reducing traffic congestion on city streets
Preserving community character, appearance
Adding sidewalks where needed
Holding special community events
Promoting economic development to stimulate the local economy Prov iding recreation programs for adults and seniors
Providing affordable housing
Providing more public parking downtown
Q5dQ5kQ5bQ5cQ5gQ5iQ5rQ5jQ5aQ5fQ5lQ5tQ5hQ5uQ5vQ5eQ5qQ5wQ5oQ5pQ5mQ5sQ5n % Respondents
Extremely important Very important

10.a
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 130

City Services
True North Research, Inc. © 2023 14City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

TABLE 2 IMPORTANCE OF SERVICES BY STUDY YEAR2
† Statistically significant change (p < 0.05) between the 2021 and 2023 studies.

Turning to the satisfaction component, Figure 9 on the next page sorts the same list of services according to the percentage of respondents who indicated they were ei ther very or somewhat satisfied with the City’s efforts to provide the service. For comparison purposes between the ser- vices, only respondents who held an opinion (satisfied or dissatisfied) are included in the figure.

Those who did not have an opinion were removed from this analysis. The percentage of respon- dents who provided an opinion (satisfied or dissatisfied) is presented in brackets beside the ser- vice label in the figure, while the bars represent the answers of those with an opinion.

At the top of the list, respondents were most sa tisfied with the City’s efforts to provide library services (97% very or somewhat satisfied), followed by provide trash collection and recycling ser- vices (95%), keep public building s and facilities clean and attractive (94%), hold special commu- nity events like summer concerts in the park, Night of Holiday Lights, Goblin Walk, and others (94%), and provide recreation programs for youth (94%). Respondents were comparatively less satisfied with the City’s efforts to provide affordable housing (51%).

2. Preparing the City for fire , police, and public works emergencies and disasters was previously worded as Preparing the City for fire, police, and public works emergencies (2020 to 2021) and Preparing the City for emergencies (2014 to 2018).
2023 2021 2020 2018 2016 2014
Having city-provided resources, facilities avail during PG&E power shut-offs 67.0 58.7 N/A N/A N/A N/A +8.3† Holding special community events 57.8 52.2 47.6 51.0 56.8 58.3 +5.6† Providing recreation programs for youth 75.6 70.3 65.2 70.0 68.8 68.6 +5.3† Providing recreation programs for adults and seniors 56.9 52.7 51.9 49.7 54.6 N/A +4.2 Maintaining storm drains, sewers and creeks 90.1 86.9 87.6 92.4 89.5 91.5 +3.2 Providing library services 76.1 73.9 73.9 75.1 77.0 73.6 +2.1 Providing affordable housing 50.1 49.9 47.0 N/A N/A N/A +0.2 Providing parks, sports fields and recreation facilities 81.5 82.5 77.5 79.9 82.9 78.8 -1.0 Providing fire protection, prevention and emergency medical services 94.0 95.9 95.0 92.6 94.9 96.8 -1.8 Maintaining local streets 86.6 89.2 89.4 88.9 91.2 93.6 -2.6 Establishing and maintaining financial reserves 67.9 70.6 67.5 N/A N/A N/A -2.7 Preparing City for fire, police, public works emergencies, disasters 88.5 91.6 88.6 86.0 85.7 84.6 -3.1 Providing safe streets 86.5 89.7 95.5 N/A N/A N/A -3.2
Maintaining a low crime rate 89.9 93.2 93.6 93.1 96.0 95.5 -3.4 Providing trash collection and recycling services 87.2 90.6 90.0 90.5 90.6 89.7 -3.4 Keeping public buildings and facilities clean and attractive 67.0 70.8 71.8 70.3 74.5 76.6 -3.8 Providing police services 80.7 84.8 88.2 91.1 91.5 93.2 -4.0† Promoting economic development to stimulate the local economy 57.3 62.4 48.3 52.1 59.5 68.5 -5.1† Preserving community character, appearance 58.9 64.2 67.7 64.5 72.3 66.0 -5.3† Providing more public parking downtown 41.9 49.0 58.2 63.4 N/A N/A -7.1† Reducing traffic congestion on city streets 60.3 69.6 77.3 79.5 N/A N/A -9.2† Making downtown more pedestrian friendly 65.4 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Adding sidewalks where needed 57.9 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Study Year Change in
Extremely + Very
Important
2021 to 2023

10.a
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 131

City Services
True North Research, Inc. © 2023 15City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Question 6 For the same list of services I just read, I'd like you to tell me how satisfied you are with the job the city is doing to provide the service. Are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the city's efforts to: _____, or do you not have an opinion?
FIGURE 9 SATISFACTION WITH SERVICES
Table 3 on the next page displays the percentag e of respondents who were satisfied with each service from 2014 to 2023, as well as the difference in satisfaction between the 2021 and 2023 studies. As shown in the right column, most services experienced small and statistically insignif- icant changes in satisfaction over the past two years. Respondents expressed statistically signifi- cant increases in satisfaction with the City’s efforts to reduce traffic congestion on city streets (+7%) and provide more public parking downtown (+6%) between 2021 and 2023, whereas satis- faction with the City’s efforts to maintain storm drains, sewers, and creeks (-25%) and maintain a low crime rate (-5%) declined during the same period.

61.8 56.9

44.4 54.5

47.3 48.3

47.1 41.4

27.7 31.6

31.1 40.6

25.4 36.1

34.0 25.8

28.2 25.7

25.3 19.1

21.3 21.0

18.5 35.0

38.2 50.1

39.9 46.6

44.5 43.4

48.2 59.2

51.3 50.8

40.8 55.5

43.2 40.9

47.7 44.2

45.2 45.5

45.8 42.6

39.1 32.3

19.0 20.4

20.1 18.8

20.2 22.6

26.1 28.4

29.5 13.4

15.6 8.6

8.1 5.3

4.1 4.6

4.9 3.9
2 11.0

13.5 14.4

13.3 19.7

11.5 10.0

12.5 9.0

10.3 6.2

7.2 2
1 1
1 1
2 4
4 5.3

7.4 6.1
2 1
2 3.5
0 1 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 0 1 0 0
Provide library services [90%]
Provide trash collection and recycling services [94%]
Keep public buildings and facilities clean and attractive [91%] Hold special community events [89%]
Provide recreation programs for youth [80%]
Provide fire protection, prevention and emergency medical services [84%] Provide parks, sports fields and recreation facilities [95%] Provide recreation programs for adults and seniors [76%] Establish and Maintain financial reserves [58%]
Prepare City for fire, police, public works emergencies, disasters [78%] Make downtown more pedestrian friendly [93%]
Provide police services [89%]
Promoting economic development to stimulate the local economy [74%] Maintain a low crime rate [95%]
Prov ide safe streets [94%]
Add sidewalks where needed [82%]
Provide more public parking downtown [88%]
Preserve community character, appearance [87%]
Maintain local streets [94%]
Hav e city -prov ided resources, facilities av ail during PG&E power shut-offs [68%] Maintain storm drains, sewers and creeks [93%]
Reduce traffic congestion on city streets [88%]
Provide affordable housing [74%]
% Respondents Who Provided Opinion
Very satisfied Somewhat satisfied Somewhat dissatisfied Very dissatisfied

10.a
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 132

City Services
True North Research, Inc. © 2023 16City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

TABLE 3 SATISFACTION WITH SERVICES BY STUDY YEAR
† Statistically significant change (p < 0.05) between the 2021 and 2023 studies.

DIFFERENTIATORS OF OPINION For the interested reader, Table 4 on the next page displays how the level of satisfaction with ea ch specific service test ed in Question 6 varied according to residents’ overall performance ratings for the City (see Overall Satisfaction on page 11). The table divides residents who were satisfied with the City’s overall performance into one group and those dissatisfied into a second group. Also displayed is the difference between the two groups in terms of the percentage who indicated they were satisfied with the City’s efforts to provide each service tested in Qu estion 6 (far right column). For convenience, the services are sorted by that difference, with the greatest differentiators of opinion near the top of the table.

When compared with their counterparts, those satisfied with the City’s performance in providing services overall were also more likely to express satisfaction with the City’s efforts to provide 22 of the 23 individual services tested in Question 6. With that said, the greatest specific differenti- ators of opinion between satisf ied and dissatisfied residents we re found with respect to the City’s efforts to provide safe streets, maintain local streets, preserve community character and appearance through building an d planning permits, inspection s, and code enforcement, and maintain a low crime rate.

At the other end of the spectrum, there was much less difference between the two resident groups regarding their satisfaction with the City’s efforts to provide library services, hold special community events like summer concerts in the pa rk, Night of Holiday Lights, Goblin Walk, and others, provide trash collection and recycling serv ices, and keep public buildings and facilities clean and attractive.

Satisfaction with the City’s efforts to provide affordable housing was the only service to receive a higher rating among respondents dissatisfied with the City’s performance overall as compared to those satisfied.
2023 2021 2020 2018 2016 2014
Reduce traffic congestion on city streets 60.0 53.3 38.1 41.0 N/A N/A +6.8† Provide more public parking downtown 72.5 66.6 59.8 44.6 N/A N/A +5.9† Promoting economic development to stimulate the local economy 80.9 76.5 79.3 82.2 81.3 82.3 +4.4 Hold special community events 94.4 91.3 95.7 96.5 96.3 95.4 +3.1 Provide recreation programs for youth 93.9 91.2 93.9 94.7 96.2 95.8 +2.7 Maintain local streets 70.8 68.3 70.0 74.2 71.6 78.3 +2.5 Provide affordable housing 50.7 48.3 45.0 N/A N/A N/A +2.5 Establish and Maintain financial reserves 86.9 84.5 86.7 N/A N/A N/A +2.4 Provide library services 96.8 95.1 96.3 97.5 97.8 96.7 +1.6 Preserve community character, appearance 70.9 69.5 69.5 74.9 76.4 82.6 +1.4 Provide trash collection and recycling services 95.1 93.7 94.9 95.2 94.7 90.5 +1.4 Keep public buildings and facilities clean and attractive 94.5 93.5 92.8 95.7 93.2 98.5 +1.1 Provide parks, sports fields and recreation facilities 90.6 89.7 89.9 90.9 88.1 87.9 +0.9 Provide police services 81.4 80.6 84.3 89.4 83.4 91.1 +0.8 Provide fire protection, prevention and emergency medical services 92.8 92.9 94.2 95.8 95.9 96.4 -0.0 Provide safe streets 74.9 75.9 81.3 N/A N/A N/A -1.1
Provide recreation programs for adults and seniors 89.6 91.9 91.3 94.3 90.8 N/A -2.3 Prepare City for fire, police, public works emergencies, disasters 82.9 85.3 87.5 88.6 87.9 91.0 -2.4 Have city-provided resources, facilities avail during PG&E power shut-offs 64.9 68.3 N/A N/A N/A N/A -3.3 Maintain a low crime rate 79.4 84.2 85.9 90.8 76.6 86.6 -4.8† Maintain storm drains, sewers and creeks 63.9 89.0 88.0 89.3 87.3 89.2 -25.1† Make downtown more pedestrian friendly 81.8 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Add sidewalks where needed 73.4 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Change in
Satisfaction
2021 to 2023
Study Year

10.a
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 133

City Services
True North Research, Inc. © 2023 17City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

TABLE 4 SATISFACTION WITH SERVICES BY OVERALL SATISFACTION Very or somewhat
satisfied
Very or somewhat
dissatisfied
Provide safe streets 80.7 40.8 39.9
Maintain local streets 74.8 39.8 34.9
Preserve community character, appearance 75.4 40.7 34.7 Maintain a low crime rate 83.7 49.6 34.1
Prepare City for fire, police, public works emergencies, disasters 86.6 56.2 30.4 Maintain storm drains, sewers and creeks 68.1 38.0 30.1 Provide police services 84.6 59.1 25.5
Reduce traffic congestion on city streets 63.3 40.9 22.5 Have city-provided resources, facilities avail during PG&E power shut-offs 67.2 46.6 20.6 Add sidewalks where needed 76.8 56.9 19.9
Make downtown more pedestrian friendly 84.2 66.2 18.0
Establish and Maintain financial reserves 90.8 73.5 17.2 Provide parks, sports fields and recreation facilities 92.3 77.1 15.2 Provide more public parking downtown 73.9 58.8 15.1
Provide fire protection, prevention and emergency medical services 94.4 81.1 13.4 Provide recreation programs for youth 95.7 82.5 13.3
Provide recreation programs for adults and seniors 91.3 79.5 11.8 Promoting economic development to stimulate the local economy 83.1 72.2 10.8 Keep public buildings and facilities clean and attractive 96.1 87.3 8.7 Provide trash collection and recycling services 96.4 87.8 8.6 Hold special community events 96.2 90.6 5.6
Provide library services 97.0 92.3 4.7
Provide affordable housing 50.0 68.2 -18.1
City's Overall Performance (Q4) Difference Between
Groups For Each
Service
% Respondents Satisfied With Each Service

10.a
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 134

Performance Needs & Priorities
True North Research, Inc. © 2023 18
City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

P ERFORMANCE N EEDS & P RIORITIES
With a measure of the importance of a service to residents as well as a measure of satisfaction with the City’s efforts to prov ide the service, True North is able to examine the relationship between these two dimensions and identify areas where the City has the greatest opportunities to improve resident satisfaction—and identify fo r which services the City is meeting, and even exceeding, the majority of residents’ needs.

Rather than rely on averages to conduct this analysis, True North has developed an individual- ized approach to identifying priorities. This appr oach is built on the recognition that opinions will vary from resident to resident and that understanding this variation is required for assessing how well the City is meeting residents’ needs.3 Table 5 on the next page presents a grid based on the importance and satisfacti on scales. The horizontal ax is corresponds to the four impor- tance options, and the vertical sc ale corresponds to the four satisfaction options. The 16 cells within the grid are grouped into one of six categories based on how well the City is meeting, or not meeting, a resident’s needs for a particular service. The six groups are as follows:

Exceeding Needs The City is exceeding a respondent’s needs if a respondent is satisfied and the level of expressed satisfaction is higher than the importance that the respondent assigned to the service.

Meeting Needs,
Moderately
The City is moderately meeting a re spondent’s needs if the respondent is satisfied and the level of satisfaction is commensurate with the level of importance assigned to the service.

Meeting Needs,
Marginally
The City is marginally meeting a respondent’s needs if the respondent is satisfied with the City’s efforts to provide the service, but their level of satisfaction is lower than the level of importance assigned to the service.

Not Meeting Needs,
Marginally
The City is marginally not meeting a respondent’s needs if the respon- dent is somewhat dissatisfied, but the service is also viewed as just somewhat or not at all important.

Not Meeting Needs,
Moderately
The City is moderately not meeting a respondent’s needs if A) a respon- dent is very dissatisfied with the City’s efforts to provide the service, but the service is viewed somewhat or not at all important, or B) a respon- dent is somewhat dissatisfied and the service is very important.

Not Meeting Needs,
Severely
The City is severely not meeting a respondent’s needs if A) a respondent is dissatisfied and the service is view ed as extremely important, or B) a respondent is very dissatisfied and the service is viewed as very impor- tant.

3. Any tool that relies on the opinions of the average respondent will provide a limited and occasionally dis- torted picture of how well an agency is performing. The simple fact is that a city is not comprised of average residents—it is comprised of unique individuals who vary substantially in their opinions of the City’s perfor- mance in different service areas. Thus, although the arithmetic average of these individuals’ opinions is a useful statistic, it does not capture the variation in opinions that occurs among residents, and it is this varia- tion that is critical for truly assessing how well the City is meeting the needs of its residents.

10.a
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 135

Performance Needs & Priorities
True North Research, Inc. © 2023 19City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

TABLE 5 RESIDENT SERVICE NEEDS & PRIORITIES MATRIX
Using this framework, True North categorized respondents individually for each of the 23 ser- vices tested in the study. Thus, for example, a respondent who indicated that providing afford- able housing was somewhat important and they were very satisfied with the City’s efforts in this service area would be categorized in the exceeding needs group for this service. The same respondent may be grouped in the marginally not meeting needs group for another service (e.g., reducing traffic congestion on city streets) if they were somewhat di ssatisfied with the City’s efforts to provide the service, but the service was viewed as only somewhat important.

Figure 10 on the next page presents the 23 services tested, along with the percentage of respon- dents who were grouped into each of the six possible categories. For ease of interpretation, the color-coding in Figure 10 is consistent with that presented in Table 5. Thus, for example, in the service area of providing affordable housing, th e City is exceeding the needs of 17% of respon- dents, moderately meeting the needs of 17% of respondents, marginally meeting the needs of 16% of respondents, marginally not meeting th e needs of 9% of respondents, moderately not meeting the needs of 11% of respondents, and severely not meeting the needs of 30% of respon- dents.

As shown in the figure, the City is meeting the needs of at least three-quarters of residents for 15 of the 23 services tested. Operating from the management philosophy that, all other things being equal, the City should focus on improving those services that have the highest percentage of residents for which the City is currently not meeting their needs, the services have been sorted by order of priority. Thus, providing affordable housing is the top priority, followed by reducing traffic congestion on city streets, maintaining storm drains, sewers, and creeks, and having city- provided resources and facilities available to residents during PG&E power shut-offs.

Not at all
important
Somewhat
important Very important
Extremely
important
Very satisfied Exceeding needs Exceeding needs Meeting needs, moderately
Meeting needs,
moderately
Somewhat satisfied Exceeding needs Meeting needs,
moderately
Meeting needs,
marginally
Meeting needs,
marginally
Somewhat dissatisfied Not meeting
needs, marginally
Not meeting
needs, marginally
Not meeting
needs,
moderately
Not meeting
needs, severely
Very dissatisfied
Not meeting
needs,
moderately
Not meeting
needs,
moderately
Not meeting
needs, severely
Not meeting
needs, severely
Importance
Satisfaction

10.a
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 136

Performance Needs & Priorities
True North Research, Inc. © 2023 20City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

FIGURE 10 RESIDENT SERVICE NEEDS
9 5
16 20
10 2
7 16
11 4
17 8
14 5
7 18
27 18
4 8
3 16
17 62
57 43
52 47
49 48
45 34
33 29
38 29
35 31
25 25
25 29
23 24
22 17
25 33
35 22
37 42
35 30
42 46
35 36
38 39
37 30
20 28
38 34
37 23
16 2
0 4
6 4
1 4
2 6
9 2
2 1
2 4
4 4
5 3
6 2
4 6
9 9
7 8
8 10
11 1
6 7
4 6
12 11
14 6
19 20
16 12
16 21
23 27
24 30
0 0
0 1
0 1
7 2
3 2
0 1
2 1
2 2
4 3
1 3
0 1 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 0 1 0 0
Providing library services
Providing trash collection and recycling services
Keeping public buildings and facilities clean and attractive Holding special community events
Providing recreation programs for youth
Providing fire protection, prevention, emergency medical Providing parks, sports fields and recreation facilities Prov iding recreation programs for adults and seniors
Establishing and maintaining financial reserves
Preparing for fire, police, public works emergencies, disasters Making downtown more pedestrian friendly
Providing police services
Promoting economic development to stimulate local economy Maintaining a low crime rate
Providing safe streets
Adding sidewalks where needed
Providing more public parking downtown
Preserving community character, appearance
Maintaining local streets
Having city resources, facilities avail during power shut-offs Maintaining storm drains, sewers and creeks
Reducing traffic congestion on city streets
Providing affordable housing
% Respondents who Provided Opinion
Exceeding needs
Meeting needs
mo de rately
Meeting needs
marginally
Not m eeting needs
marginallyNot m eeting needs
mo de rately
Not m eeting needs
severely

10.a
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 137

Alternative Transportation
True North Research, Inc. © 2023 21
City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

A LTERNATIVE T RANSPORTATION
New to the 2023 study, the next section of the report presents the findings of two questions designed to assess how frequently residents use alternative transportation methods when travel- ing in San Carlos, and how safe residents feel wh ile engaged in alternativ e or active transporta- tion.

FREQUENCY OF USE In a typical month, 74% of San Carlos residents walk, jog, or run for a trip they would otherwise make by vehicle, with 19% doing so the majority of days in the month.

As shown in Figure 11, the frequency of using alternative modes of trav el was much lower for each of the other three methods tested. Approxim ately two-in-ten residents indicated that they ride a bicycle for a trip they would otherwise make by vehicle (21%) or use public transit such as a bus, train, or shuttle (19%) at least once pe r month, whereas 8% use an e-bike or e-scooter when traveling in San Carlos on a monthly basis.

Question 7 In a typical month, how many days do you:_________ when traveling in San Carlos? FIGURE 11 DAYS IN TYPICAL MONTH USE ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION IN SAN CARLOS The tables on the next page show how using each alternative transportation method at least once per month when traveling in San Ca rlos varied by demographic subgroups. Walking, jog- ging, or running for a trip that would have otherwise been made by vehicle was highest among respondents who have lived in San Carlos less th an 15 years, those under 65 years of age, and those with a child in the home. Riding a bicycle for a trip that would have otherwise been made by vehicle was highest among residents 35 to 64 years of age and those with a child in the home. Using public transit was reported most frequently by residents under 35 years of age and renters, while e-bike and e-scooter use was most prevalent among residents under 35 years of age.
1 0
0 0
0 11
1 1
2 2

26.2 78.7

80.7 7.8 3.6 7.4
1 2

5.4 11

15.1 3.9

34.5 16.5

13.4 92.5
0 1 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 0 1 0 0
Walk, jog or run for a trip you
would otherwise make by
vehicle
Ride a bicycle for a trip you
would otherwise make by
vehicle
Use public transit such a bus,
train, or shuttle
Use an E-bike or E-scooter
% Respondents
26 to 30 21 to 25 16 to 20 11 to 15 6 to 10 1 to 5 None

10.a
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 138

Alternative Transportation
True North Research, Inc. © 2023 22City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

TABLE 6 DAYS IN TYPICAL MONTH USE ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION IN SAN CARLOS BY YEARS IN SAN CARLOS (SHOWING % AT LEAST ONCE PER MONTH)
TABLE 7 DAYS IN TYPICAL MONTH USE ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION IN SAN CARLOS BY AGE (SHOWING % AT

LEAST ONCE PER MONTH)
TABLE 8 DAYS IN TYPICAL MONTH USE ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION IN SAN CARLOS BY CHILDREN IN HSLD & HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS (SHOWING % AT LEAST ONCE PER MONTH) SAFETY All San Carlos residents were next asked ho w safe they feel walking across intersec- tions, and those who indicated that they utilize public transit or ride a bicycle or e-bike (Question 7 ) w e r e a s k e d h o w s a f e t h e y f e e l e n g a g i n g i n e a c h a c t i v i t y . A s s h o w n i n F i g u r e 1 2 , t h e v a s t majority of residents feel safe in each scenario, with 91% of transit users indicating they feel very (51%) or somewhat (40%) safe riding public transit, 81% of all residents stating they feel very (36%) or somewhat (45%) safe walking across intersections, and 66% of cyclists and e-bike riders saying they feel very (20%) or somewhat safe (46%) bicycling on local streets.

Question 8 When you are: _____ in San Carlos, would you say that you feel very safe, somewhat safe, somewhat unsafe, or very unsafe?
FIGURE 12 SAFETY
Less than 5 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 or more
Walk, jog or run for a trip you would otherwise make by vehicle 84.7 83.9 80.6 67.1 Ride a bicycle for a trip you would otherwise make by vehicle 21.2 25.1 28.3 19.1 Use public transit such a bus, train, or shuttle 23.6 21.6 28.5 15.5 Use an E-bike or E-scooter 10.5 3.0 9.5 6.9
Years in San Carlos (Q1)
Under 35 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or older
Walk, jog or run for a trip you would otherwise make by vehicle 74.8 83.9 80.6 74.4 56.5 Ride a bicycle for a trip you would otherwise make by vehicle 15.7 29.6 27.2 26.3 9.4 Use public transit such a bus, train, or shuttle 35.8 16.5 19.1 16.7 10.7 Use an E-bike or E-scooter 17.7 3.7 7.2 8.3 2.3
Age (QD2)
Yes, under 13 Yes, teenager No children Own Rent
Walk, jog or run for a trip you would otherwise make by vehicle 83.8 84.6 68.5 73.5 79.2 Ride a bicycle for a trip you would otherwise make by vehicle 31.5 29.3 16.1 21.0 22.3 Use public transit such a bus, train, or shuttle 12.3 25.4 20.5 14.3 29.1 Use an E-bike or E-scooter 8.5 10.9 6.9 6.5 8.8
Children in Hsld (Q23,QD3)
Home Ownership
Status (QD4)

50.5 35.9

19.8 40.1

44.8 46.4

16.2 20.9
4 3

9.8 3.2
0 5.7
0 1 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 0 1 0 0
Riding public transit
Walking across
intersections
Bicycling on local
streets
% Respondents
Very safe Som ewhat safe Somewhat unsafe Very unsafe Not sure

10.a
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 139

Local Governance & Customer Service
True North Research, Inc. © 2023 23
City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

L OCAL G OVERNANCE & C USTOMER

S ERVICE
Although much of the survey focused on residents’ satisfaction with the City’s efforts to provide specific services, San Carlos—like other progre ssive cities—recognizes there is more to good local governance than simply providing satisfacto ry services. Do residents perceive that the City is accessible and responsive to residents’ needs? Do residents feel that staff serves their needs in a professional manner? How well do residents tr ust the City, and do they view the City as fis- cally responsible? Answers to questions like thes e are as important as se rvice or policy-related questions in measuring the City’s performance in meeting residents’ needs. Accordingly, they were the focus of the next section of the interview.

PERCEPTIONS OF CITY GOVERNMENT The first question in this series was designed to profile respondents’ perceptions of city government on a variety of dimensions, including fis- cal responsibility and responsiveness. For each of the four statements shown along the bottom of Figure 13, respondents were asked whether they agreed or disagreed with the statement, or if they had no opinion. The percentages shown in the colored bars are among those who provided an opinion.

Overall, 80% of residents said that they trust the City of San Carlos and agreed that the City man- ages its finances well, 70% felt the City is re sponsive to residents’ needs, and 63% agreed that the City listens to residents when making impo rtant decisions. Table 9 on the next page pro- vides the percentage of respondents who agr eed with each of the st atements from 2014 to 2023, among those who provided an opinion. There were no stat istically significant changes between the 2021 and 2023 surveys.

Question 9 Next, I'm going to read you a series of statements about the City of San Carlos. For each, I'd like you to tell me whether you agree or disagree with the statement.

FIGURE 13 AGREEMENT WITH STATEMENTS ABOUT SAN CARLOS

28.2 23.2

14.8 16.7

52.1 56.6

54.7 45.9

21.6 24.7

12.7 14.1 14.5

5.75.7 8.9
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
I trust the City of San
Carlos
[89% with opinion]
City manages its
finances well
[57% with opinion]
City is responsive to
residents’ needs
[80% with opinion]
City listens to
residents when
maki ng d ec isions
[76% with opinion]
Q9 Agreement with statements about San Carlos . . .
% Respondents Who Provided Opinion
Strongly
disagr ee
Somewhat
disagr ee
Somewhat
agree
Strongly
agree

10.a
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 140

Local Governance & Customer Service
True North Research, Inc. © 2023 24City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

TABLE 9 AGREEMENT WITH STATEMENTS ABOUT CITY BY STUDY YEAR ATTENTION PAID TO YOUR CITY GOVERNMENT The next question in this series asked respondents to rate how attentive they are to the issues, decisions, and activities of the San Carlos city government using a scale of very attentive, somewhat attentive, slightly attentive, or not at all attentive. Overall, 10% of respondents in 2023 said they are very attentive to matters of local government, 43% somewhat attentive, an d 37% slightly attentive. An additional 8% of respondents confided that they do not pay any attention to the activities of the City of San Carlos and 2% were unsure. There were no statistically significant changes from 2021 to 2023 (see Fig- ure 14).

Question 10 How much attention do you pay to the issues, decisions, and activities of your City government? Would you say that you are very attentive, somewhat attentive, slightly attentive, or not at all attentive?
FIGURE 14 ATTENTIVENESS TO CITY GOVERNMENT BY STUDY YEAR Figures 15 and 16 on the next page display ho w attentiveness to local government differed across a variety of demographic su bgroups. Respondents who have lived in San Carlos at least 15 years, residents 45 years and older, home ow ners, respondents who reported being dissatis- fied with the City’s overall performance, and those who had personal contact with a San Carlos staff member in the past year were generally more likely than their counterparts to say they are at least somewhat attentive to issues, decisions, and activities of the San Carlos city government. 2023 2021 2020 2018 2016 2014
I trust the City of San Carlos 80.3 77.7 77.4 77.2 75.8 84.4 +2.6 T h e C i t y i s r e s p o n s i v e t o r e s i d e n t s ’ n e e d s 6 9 . 56 7 . 66 7 . 96 9 . 26 9 . 2 67.8 +1.9 The City manages its finances well 79.8 78.6 79.7 76.0 68.6 76.2 +1.1 T h e C i t y l i s t e n s t o r e s i d e n t s w h e n m a k i n g i m p o r t a n t d e c i s i o n s 6 2 . 66 1 . 66 0 . 86 4 . 26 1 . 271.5 +1.0 Change in
Agreement
2021 to 2023
Study Year

11.3 13.2 11.6 15.0 14.9

46.5 45.7 50.5

51.8 42.2

34.4 32.3 30.1 25.2

34.1 8.1 6.8 6.7 6.3 6.5 8.1

10.2 42.8

37.1 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
2023 2021 2020 2018 2016 2014
Study Y ear
% Respondents
Not sure
Not at all
attentive
Slightly attentive
Som ewhat
attentive
Very attentive

10.a
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 141

Local Governance & Customer Service
True North Research, Inc. © 2023 25City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

FIGURE 15 ATTENTIVENESS TO CITY GOVERNMENT BY YEARS IN SAN CARLOS & AGE FIGURE 16 ATTENTIVENESS TO CITY GOVERNMENT BY CHILDREN IN HSLD, HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS, OVERALL

When compared with their respective counterparts, those at least 35 years of age and home own- ers were the most likely to report having contact with city staff in the past year (see Figure 18 on the next page).

6.4 8.4 11.8 13.7

38.1 33.9

43.2 47.9 48.7

5.2 12.7

6.06.7 Ver y

7.5 39.5 42.5

48.7 Somewhat

28.5 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
Less than 5 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 or more Under 35 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or older Years in San Carlos (Q1) Age (QD2)
% Respondents

9.9 15.7 17.3

5.2 33.3

42.7 50.5 52.5

35.9 Ver y

7.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 8.0
Somewhat

41.3 46.842.540.4
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 Yes, under 13 Yes, teenager No children Own Rent Satisfied Dissatisfied Yes No Children in Hsld (Q23,QD3) Home Ownership Status
(QD4)
Overall Satisfaction (Q4) Contact With City Staff (Q11) % Respondents

10.a
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 142

Local Governance & Customer Service
True North Research, Inc. © 2023 26City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Question 11 In the past 12 months, have you been in contact with staff fr om the City of San Carlos?
FIGURE 17 CONTACT WITH CITY IN PAST 12 MONTHS BY STUDY YEAR FIGURE 18 CONTACT WITH CITY IN PAST 12 MONTHS BY YEARS IN SAN CARLOS, AGE & HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS Respondents who had contact with city staff in the past 12 months were subsequently asked to rate city staff on three dimensions: helpfulness, professionalism, and accessibility. As displayed in Figure 19 on the next page, San Carlos reside nts rated city staff high on all three dimensions tested, with approximately nine-in-ten rating staff as very or somewhat professional (94%), accessible (91%), and helpful (86%). As shown in Table 10 on the next page, there were no statis- tically significant changes from the 2021 study in the perc entage of residents who provided the highest rating, among those who provided an opinion.

36.3 42.7 44.6 47.8 52.1

59.2 54.0 52.4 47.2 45.8

3.6 2.3 2.4 4.3 2.2

39.2 57.6

2.4 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
2023 2021 2020 2018 2016 2014
Study Y ear
% Respondents
Prefer not to
answer
Not sure
No contact
Yes, co ntact

30.8 40.7

45.3 40.5 39.8

43.1 33.436.3 37.4 37.2

41.2 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
Less than 5 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 or more Under 35 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or over Own Rent Years in San Carlos (Q1) Age (QD2) Home Ownership Status (QD4)
% Respondents With Staff
Contact in Past 12 Months

10.a
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 143

Local Governance & Customer Service
True North Research, Inc. © 2023 27City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Question 12 In your opinion, was the staff at the City very _____, somewhat ______, or not at all _____. Read one item at a time, continue until all items are read.

FIGURE 19 OPINION OF CITY STAFF
TABLE 10 OPINION OF CITY STAFF BY STUDY YEAR (SHOWING % VERY AMONG THOSE WITH OPINION)

68.8 48.5 50.2

24.7 42.1 35.9

7.3 3.2

7.03.3 6.62.5
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Professional Accessible Helpful
% Respondents With Staff
Interaction in Past 12 Months
Not sur e/
Prefer not
to answer
Not at all
Somewhat
Very
2023 2021 2020 2018 2016 2014
Helpful 53.8 46.5 46.4 46.6 47.4 47.1 +7.3
Professional 71.1 65.6 67.8 66.5 65.9 69.6 +5.5
Accessible 49.7 47.0 47.9 47.4 54.4 50.2 +2.7
Change in
% Very
2021 to 2023
Study Year

10.a
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 144

Communication
True North Research, Inc. © 2023 28
City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

C OMMUNICATION
The importance of city communication with residents cannot be over-stated. Much of a city’s suc- cess is shaped by the quality of information that is exchanged in both directions, from the City to the community and from the community to the City. This study is just one example of San Car- los’ efforts to enhance the information flow to the City to better un derstand the community’s concerns, perceptions, and needs. Some of San Carlos’ many efforts to communicate with its res- idents include its newsletters, timely press releases, social media posts, and its website. In this section, we present the results of several communication-related questions.

OVERALL SATISFACTION WITH COMMUNICATION Question 13 asked San Carlos residents to report their satisfaction with city-resident communication. Overall, 84% of respon- dents indicated they were satisfied with the City’s efforts to communicate with residents through electronic and print newsletters, social media, email, the City's website, and other means. The remaining respondents were either dissatisfied wi th the City’s efforts in this respect (11%) or unsure of their opinion (5%). Despite a slight wording change in 20234, the results for this ques- tion were consistent with those recorded in 2021—there were no statistically significant changes (see Figure 20).

Question 13 Overall, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the City's efforts to communicate with residents through electronic and print newsle tters, social media, email, the City's website, and other means?
FIGURE 20 SATISFACTION WITH COMMUNICATION BY STUDY YEAR † Statistically significant change (p < 0.05) between the 2021 and 2023 studies.

4. Prior to 2023, the question asked about satisfaction wi th the City's efforts to communicate with residents through newsletters, the Internet, television, and other means.

34.8 33.4 37.4 40.4 46.1

47.6 49.0 47.3 43.8 39.1

8.7 9.3 8.5 7.6 8.6 6.2

2.0 2.2 2.5 3.5 3.6 3.6

6.1 6.5 4.2 3.6 5.0

37.6 46.4

5.3 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
2023 2021 2020 2018 2016 2014
Study Y ear
% Respondents
Not sure/Prefer
not to answer
Very dissatisfied
Som ewhat
dissatisfied
Som ewhat
satisfied
Very satisfied

10.a
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 145

Communication
True North Research, Inc. © 2023 29City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
respondents in all but one subgro up reporting they were either very or somewhat satisfied. As might be expected, residents who were dissatisf ied with the City’s overall performance also reported lower satisfaction with the City’s communication efforts.

FIGURE 21 SATISFACTION WITH COMMUNICATION BY YEARS IN SAN CARLOS, GENDER & CHILDREN IN HSLD FIGURE 22 SATISFACTION WITH COMMUNICATION BY AGE, HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS & OVERALL SATISFACTION SOURCES OF INFORMATION To help the City identify the most effective means of com- municating with residents, it is helpful to un derstand what information sources they currently rely on for this type of information. Question 14 asked respondents to identify the information sources they typically use to find out about City of San Carlos news, events, and programs.

Because respondents were allowed to provide up to three sources, the percentages shown in Fig- ure 23 on the next page represent the percent age of residents who mentioned a particular source and thus sum to more than 100.

The most frequently-cited source for city information was city newsletters that are mailed to the home, mentioned by 55% of respondents. City news letters sent via email accounted for an addi- tional 14%, resulting in 62% of total respondents citing a city newsletter (after accounting for

36.2 40.0 35.6 40.8 39.0

46.1 46.3 49.6 46.0 45.5

38.934.4

45.1Ver y
satisfied

31.3 31.6 49.1 48.3Smwt
satisfied

48.4 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Less than 5 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 or more Male Female Yes, under 13 Yes,
teenager
No children
Years in San Carlos (Q1) Gender (QD1) Children in Hsld (Q23,QD3) % Respondents

48.5 38.5 35.4 42.0

12.5 38.3

46.7 47.0

46.6 49.0
Ver y
satisfied

32.8 42.3 35.3 31.6
Smwt
satisfied

50.4 53.947.7

42.3 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Under 35 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or older Own Rent Satisfied Dissatisfied Age (QD2) Home Ownership Status
(QD4)
Overall Satisfaction (Q4)
% Respondents

10.a
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 146

Communication
True North Research, Inc. © 2023 30City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
overlap among respondents who mentioned both). The City’s newsletters were followed by post- cards, letters, flyers, or brochures mailed to the home (25%), the City’s website (23%), email noti- fications from the City (18%), and Nextdoor (16% ). For the interested reader, Table 11 compares the top information sources cited in response to Question 14 in each study year. Although their relative ranking has changed over time, the top five sources for San Carlos news, events, and programming have remained the same since 2016.

Question 14 What information sources do you use to find out about City of San Carlos news, events, and programs?
FIGURE 23 CITY INFORMATION SOURCES
TABLE 11 TOP CITY INFORMATION SOURCES BY STUDY YEAR5

5. In 2023, city newsletters were delineated as mailed to your home or sent by email.

54.6 24.6

23.3 18.3

16.3 13.7

10.5 10.1

9.8 7.3

6.2 5.1

4.2 4.0

3.6 3.5

2.2 1.8

1.4 1.3

1.3 1.2

0.9 0.4

0.1 0.8

5.6 8.7

1.2 0 1 02 03 04 05 06 0
City Newsletters mailed to your home
Postcards, letters, flyers or brochures (mailed to home) City’s website
Email notification from City
Nextdoor
City Newsletters sent by email
Facebook
Internet (not City’s site)
Street banners
San Mateo Daily Journal (daily newspaper)
Friends/Family/Associates
Daily Post (daily newspaper)
Flyers, brochures or posters (displayed at public facilities) San Carlos Patch (online newspaper)
Instagram
San Francisco Chronicle (daily newspaper)
Television (general)
Twitter
City Council and Commission Meetings
Other newspaper
Billboard at Adult Community Center
Other
Local TV Channels 27 or 99
Do Not Receive Information about City
Not sure
Radio
Other social media site
Blogs
YouTube
% Respondents
2023 2021 2020 2018 2016 2014
City Newsletters
mailed to your
home
City Newsletters City Newsletters City Newsletters City Newsletters City Newsletters Postcards, letters,
flyers or brochures
(mailed to home)
Nextdoor Nextdoor City’s website
Postcards, letters,
flyers or brochures
(mailed to home)
City’s website
City’s website City’s website
Postcards, letters,
flyers or brochures
(mailed to home)
Nextdoor Email notification
from City Street banners
Email notification
from City
Email notification
from City City’s website
Postcards, letters,
flyers or brochures
(mailed to home)
Nextdoor Email notification
from City
Nextdoor
Postcards, letters,
flyers or brochures
(mailed to home)
Email notification
from City
Email notification
from City City’s website San Carlos Patch
Study Year

10.a
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 147

Communication
True North Research, Inc. © 2023 31City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

For the interested reader, figures 24 and 25 presen t the information source categories by age, presence of a child in the home, home ownership status, and satisfaction with the City’s commu- nication efforts. For ease of interpretation, the bars representing city-sponsored sources are dis- played in shades of green, and non-city sources in shades of orange.

FIGURE 24 INFORMATION SOURCE CATEGORIES BY OVERALL & AGE FIGURE 25 INFORMATION SOURCE CATEGORIES BY CHILDREN IN HSLD, HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS & SATISFACTION

WITH COMMUNICATION
COMMUNICATION PREFERENCES The next communication-re lated question presented residents with the methods shown to the left of Figure 26 on the next page and asked whether each would be an effective way for the City to communicate with them. Overall, respondents indi- cated that newsletters mailed to the home was the most effective method (87% very or somewhat effective), followed by email (84%), newsletters sent by email (78%), the City’s website (69%), and text messages (67%).
72 53
75 78
79 77
40 23
39 32
30 39
42 28
24 17
11 11
9 18
31 16
19 11
19 16
12 16
16 14
18 17
16 9
10 5
13 9
5 4
2 1
4 4
8 4
3 4
1 4
4 2
5 1
4 1
1 45
43 48
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Under 35 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or older
Overall Age (QD2)
% Respondents
City newsletters, direct mail
City website, emails
Social m edia
Newspapers
Non-City websites
Banners, flyers at facilities
Other sources
Radio/ T V
City Council meetings, SCTV
Not sure / No sources
74 70
70 76
67 76
56 45
45 41
40 37
29 31
36 32
33 10
8 22
17 15
17 12
10 12
19 14
22 15
21 18
13 16
16 15
16 14
17 15
5 10
4 9
8 2
2 7
4 5
4 6
3 5
3 3
4 3
6 3
2 2
2 2
1 8
35 42
41 35
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Yes, under 13 Yes, teenager No children Own Rent Satisfied Dissatisfied Child in Hsld (Q23,D3) Home Ownership Status (QD4) Satisfaction With Communication (Q13)
% Respondents
City newsletters, direct mail
City website, emails
Social m edia
Newspapers
Non-City websites
Banners, flyers at facilities
Other sources
Radio/ TV
City Council meetings, SCTV
Not sure / No sources

10.a
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 148

Communication
True North Research, Inc. © 2023 32City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Question 15 As I read the following ways that the City of San Carlos can communicate with residents, I'd like to know if you think they would be very effective, somewhat effective, or not an effective way for the City to communicate with you.

FIGURE 26 EFFECTIVENESS OF COMMUNICATION EFFORTS
Table 12 shows how the percentage of residents that rated each communication method as very effective varied depending on their satisfaction with th e City’s overall efforts to provide munici- pal services and their age, with the top three methods within each subgroup highlighted in green to ease comparisons. It is noteworthy that every age group cited newsletters mailed to the home as one of the top ways for the City to communicate with them. While email was in the top three for those 35 years and older, text messages were favored over email by a factor of 2 to 1 among the youngest age cohort (under 35 years).

TABLE 12 EFFECTIVENESS OF COMMUNICATION METHODS BY OVERALL SATISFACTION & AGE (SHOWING % VERY

EFFECTIVE)

54.7 44.4

39.7 24.1

40.1 25.4

9.1 8.7

5.5 4.3

31.9 39.5

37.8 45.1

27.2 31.1

37.2 26.4

23.6 11.6
0 1 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 0 1 0 0
Newsletters mailed to your home
Email
Newsletters sent by email
City’s Website
Text messages
Social media like Facebook, Twitter, Next Door, and YouTube Community outreach meetings
Billboard at the Adult Community Center
Advertisements in local papers
Television programs on Comcast Cable Channel 27
% Respondents
Very effective Somewhat effective
Satisfied Dissatisfied Under 35 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or older Newsletters mailed to your home 57.9 34.4 55.1 60.5 45.8 52.2 63.1 Email 45.1 44.8 25.9 59.0 49.1 44.3 49.0
Text messages 40.8 42.5 54.2 42.2 40.2 33.5 32.9
Newsletters sent by email 40.5 36.9 24.8 48.7 35.4 45.3 48.8 Social media like Facebook, Twitter, Next Door, and YouTube 26.1 22.5 29.0 38.2 30.8 19.7 12.4 City’s Website 26.4 13.2 32.5 28.2 18.3 20.9 22.9
Community outreach meetings 9.0 7.7 9.4 5.7 9.3 11.6 11.1 Billboard at the Adult Community Center 9.7 4.5 14.9 6.1 3.4 7.5 12.2 Advertisements in local papers 5.8 0.9 2.8 2.7 2.6 7.2 11.4 Television programs on Comcast Cable Channel 27 4.3 3.3 1.8 5.4 3.0 5.9 4.7 Overall Satisfaction (Q4) Age (QD2)

10.a
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 149

Communication
True North Research, Inc. © 2023 33City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

PREFERRED SOCIAL MEDIA SITE New to the 2023 survey, the final question in this sec- tion asked respondents who indi cated that social media was at least a somewh at effective method for the City to communicate with them to identify the social media site that they use most often. As shown in Figure 27, Instagram (32%) and Facebook (30%) were the most widely favored, followed by Nextdoor (13%) and Twitter (11%).

Question 16 What is your preferred Social Media site - the one you currently use most often? FIGURE 27 PREFERRED SOCIAL MEDIA SITE

32.4 30.3

12.5 10.5

6.4 2.3

1.9 1.9

1.5 1.3

1.0 1.4
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Instagram
Facebook
Nextdoor
Twitter
Not sure / Cannot think of any
Other
Email
YouTube
Reddit
LinkedIn
None / Don't use social media regularly
TikTok
% Respondents Who Said Social Media Would be a
Very or Somewhat Effective Method of Communication (Q15)

10.a
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 150

Development & Housing
True North Research, Inc. © 2023 34
City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

D EVELOPMENT & H OUSING
The San Carlos Community Development Departme nt and its Building, Housing, and Planning divisions play a vital role in sustaining a livable, vibrant, and economically sound community.

The 2023 survey included two questions designed to measure residents’ opinions regarding the pace of development in San Carlos, as well as the availability of different types of housing in the community.

HOUSING TYPES Opinions about housing often vary depending on the type of housing being discussed. To provide the City with a clearer picture of residents’ opinions about housing, Question 17 presented respondents with the list of housing types shown on the left of Figure 28 and simply asked if they felt there is currently too much, about the right amount, or too little of each type in San Carlos.

Question 17 Next, I would like to ask a few questions about the availability of housing in the City of San Carlos. As I read the following housing types, please tell me whether you feel there is currently too much, about the right amount, or too little of this type of housing in the City of San Carlos.

FIGURE 28 OPINION OF HOUSING DEVELOPMENT TYPES IN CITY Overall, residents were much more likely to cite a deficiency in housing that is programmed for specific groups than they were the physical st ructure of housing that could accommodate these needs. More than half of respondents felt there was too little housing that is affordable for mid- dle-income families (58%) and low-income families (51%). Although the dominant answer for the remaining housing types tested was about right/not sure, the percentage who felt there was not enough interim housing to help people trying to transition from being homeless (32%), special needs housing for families and individuals who need support services like job training and social services (32%), and senior housing (30%) was hi gher than the percentage who felt there was

58.2 51.1

31.9 31.5

30.0 24.6

23.9 20.5

20.1 18.0

17.9 16.9

37.6 38.6

57.3 63.3

66.2 63.8

66.9 68.9

54.7 60.4

70.3 68.9

4.2 10.3

10.8 3.7

9.2 5.3

10.6 25.2

21.6 11.8

14.2 11.6
0 1 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 0 1 0 0
Housing that is affordable for middle-income families
Housing that is affordable for low-income families
Interim housing to help people trying to transition from being homeless Special needs housing for families, individuals who need support services like jobs training, social services
Senior housing
Accessory dwelling units - also referred to as granny flats or guest houses Duplexes
Apartments with 6 units or less
Apartments with 7 or more units
Condominiums
Townhomes
Single family homes
Q17aQ17bQ17lQ17kQ17iQ17jQ17hQ17fQ17eQ17dQ17gQ17c
% Respondents Who Provided Opinion
Too little About right / Not sure Too much

10.a
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 151

Development & Housing
True North Research, Inc. © 2023 35City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
already too much of each type of housing in San Carlos by a factor of at least 3 to 1. At the other end of the spectrum, fewer than two-in-ten respondents felt there is currently not enough supply of single family homes (17%), townhomes (18%), and condominiums (18%) in San Carlos.

From 2021 to 2023 (see Table 13), a significantl y higher percentage of respondents felt there are currently not enough apartments with seven or more units (+8%) and condominiums (+6%) in San Carlos, whereas significantly fewer thought there are not enough accessory dwelling units (-7%).

TABLE 13 OPINION OF HOUSING DEVELOPMENT TYPES IN CITY BY STUDY YEAR † Statistically significant change (p < 0.05) between the 2021 and 2023 studies.

PACE OF DEVELOPMENT The next question in this series asked residents to describe the pace of development in the City of San Carlos over the past three years—has it been too fast, about right, or too slow? Figure 29 on the next page shows that 39% of those surveyed in 2023 viewed the pace of development as too fast, a st atistically significant decrease from the 2021 survey results that continues the decline from the peak of 55% recorded in 2020. Approximately four-in-ten (41%) thought the pace of development has been about right during the past three years (significantly higher than 2021), whereas 12% felt that the City has grown too slowly (also higher than 2021) and an additional 8% of respondents were unsure or unwilling to share their opinion on this matter.

Attitudes about the pace of development in the City were strongly related to the number of years a resident has lived in the City and their age. As length of residence increased, so did the per- centage who felt the pace of developm ent in the past three years has been too fast. For age, there is a marked difference in opinions between those under 45 years of age and those 45 and older (see Figure 30 on next page). Additionally, residents who were dissatisfied with the City’s overall performance were much more likely than their satisfied counterparts to perceive the pace of development to be too fast (61% vs. 36%).
2023 2021
Apartments with 7 or more units 20.1 12.2 +7.9†
Condominiums 18.0 11.9 +6.1†
Housing that is affordable for middle-income families 58.2 54.2 +4.1 Senior housing 30.0 26.0 +4.1
Single family homes 16.9 13.4 +3.5
Housing that is affordable for low-income families 51.1 47.9 +3.3 Apartments with 6 units or less 20.5 17.7 +2.8
Special needs housing for families, individuals who need support services like jobs training, social services 31.5 29.3 +2.1 Townhomes 17.9 16.7 +1.2
Interim housing to help people trying to transition from being homeless 31.9 31.5 +0.4 Accessory dwelling units - also referred to as granny flats or guest houses 24.6 31.7 -7.1† Duplexes 23.9 N/A N/A
Study Year Change in
% Too Little
2021 to 2023

10.a
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 152

Development & Housing
True North Research, Inc. © 2023 36City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Question 18 In the past three years, would you say the pace of development in San Carlos has been too fast, about right, or too slow?
FIGURE 29 PACE OF DEVELOPMENT BY STUDY YEAR
† Statistically significant change (p < 0.05) between the 2021 and 2023 studies.

FIGURE 30 PACE OF DEVELOPMENT BY YEARS IN SAN CARLOS, AGE & OVERALL SATISFACTION

48.7 55.2 50.0

29.3 33.5

33.8 33.9

49.3 8.8

6.6 9.5

11.9 8.7 3.7 6.3 9.0

38.8†

41.4†

12.0†

6.8 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
2023 2021 2020 2018 2016
Study Y ear
% Respondents
Prefer not to
answer
Not sure
T oo slow
About right
T oo fast
25 27
47 43 46
36 61
32 12 13
5 20 17
10 10
5 11
1819
34 38
47 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Less than
5 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 or
longer
Under 35 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 and
older
Satisfied Dissatisfied
Years in San Carlos (Q1) Age (QD2) Overall Satisfaction (Q4)
% Respondents
T oo fast T oo slow

10.a
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 153

Funding Priorities
True North Research, Inc. © 2023 37
City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

F UNDING P RIORITIES
It is often the case that residents’ desires for public programs and services exceed a city’s finan- cial resources. In such cases, a city must prio ritize projects based upon a variety of factors, including the preferences and needs of residents. The questions presented in this section of the report were designed to provide San Carlos with a reliable measure of how residents, as a whole, prioritize a variety of projects and programs to which the City could allocate additional funding.

The first question in this series (Question 19) was straightforward: after informing respondents that the City does not have the financial resources to fund all of the services, programs, and projects that may be desired by residents, resp ondents were asked whether each project or pro- gram shown in Figure 31 should be a high, medium, or low priority for future city spending—or if the City should not spend money on the projec t at all. To encourage a sense of competition, respondents were instructed that not all of the projects and programs could be high priorities.

Question 19 The City of San Carlos has the financial resources to provide some of the services, programs and projects desired by residents. Howe ver, because it can't fund every service, pro- gram and project, the City must set priorities. As I read each of the following items, please indi- cate whether you think the City should make the item a high priority, a medium priority, or a low priority for future city spending . If you feel the City should not spend any money on this item, just say so. Please keep in mind that not all of the items can be high priorities.

FIGURE 31 FUNDING PRIORITIES

65.7 57.5

58.2 26.6

58.2 23.2

19.8 29.8

28.1 20.5

30.6 20.6

8.8 26.6

34.0 33.1

60.4 23.9

53.8 49.7

37.1 34.9

38.3 26.0

34.9 41.1
0 1 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 0 1 0 0
Fire protection services
Street maintenance and repair
Infrastructure maintenance and repair
Park and landscape maintenance
Police services
Recreation programs and services
Community events and activities
Bicycle and pedestrian access/ improvements
Climate change mitigation, adaptation, and sustainability programs Improve network of trails, creating better access, connectivity between open space areas
Housing programs
Public transportation
Community outreach including meetings and mailings
Q19bQ19cQ19dQ19fQ19aQ19eQ19gQ19jQ19lQ19mQ19hQ19iQ19k
% Respondents
High priority Medium priority

10.a
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 154

Funding Priorities
True North Research, Inc. © 2023 38City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The 13 projects and programs are sorted in Figure 31 from high to low based on the percentage of respondents who indicated that an item was at least a medium priority for future city spend- ing. Among the projects and programs tested, fi re protection services (92% high or medium pri- ority), street maintenance and repair (92%), infrastructure maintenance and repair (91%), park and landscape maintenance (87%), and police services (82%) were the top five. The majority of all respondents rated each of the 13 projects as a high or medium priority for future spending.

For the interested reader, Table 14 provides the percentage of respondents who considered each project a high priority by their overall satisfaction with the City’s performance and age (top three within each subgroup highlighted green).

TABLE 14 FUNDING PRIORITIES BY OVERALL SATISFACTION & AGE (SHOWING % HIGH PRIORITY) ADDITIONAL HIGH PRIORITIES? As a follow-up to Question 19, all residents were next asked whether there was another item or projec t not previously mentioned that they thought should be a high priority for the City to fund. This question was asked in an open-ended manner, allowing respondents to mention any project th at came to mind without being prompted by or restricted to a list of options. True North la ter reviewed the verbatim responses and grouped them into the categories shown in Figure 32 on the next page.

The majority of residents (58%) did not have anyt hing to add to the list of projects and services tested previously. Among the specific items that were mentioned, maintaining city infrastructure and sidewalks (5%) was the only one to be cit ed by at least 5% of residents. Providing more affordable housing (3%), limiting growth and maintaining open space (3%), and providing more recreation centers and facilities (3%) rounded out the top responses.

Table 15 on the next page shows how responses to this question have changed since first intro- duced in 2020. Providing more affordable hous ing and providing more recreation centers and facilities were top-five responses for the first time in 2023.

Satisfied Dissatisfied Under 35 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or over Fire protection services 65.5 67.9 53.2 57.1 57.9 76.5 80.7 Infrastructure maintenance and repair 58.9 57.9 47.4 46.9 57.7 66.6 70.5 Police services 56.6 70.9 31.6 43.3 59.0 73.2 77.2
Street maintenance and repair 57.3 57.9 42.0 45.2 57.4 68.1 71.3 Housing programs 32.9 15.1 56.4 29.4 21.8 25.5 20.8
Bicycle and pedestrian access/ improvements 30.6 30.5 32.1 35.9 35.0 28.0 21.8 Climate change mitigation, adaptation, and sustainability programs 30.3 13.7 22.5 29.4 31.9 30.1 28.9 Park and landscape maintenance 24.1 35.9 15.9 29.0 26.2 32.4 30.2 Recreation programs and services 22.8 20.1 14.1 34.6 26.0 22.7 22.9 Public transportation 20.1 11.8 39.3 18.2 12.7 17.0 17.7 Improve network of trails, creating better access, connectivity btwn open space areas 20.0 22.9 29.1 17.0 18.6 19.2 18.8 Community events and activities 19.6 17.6 15.2 33.3 22.8 15.8 16.7 Community outreach including meetings and mailings 8.0 4.9 10.6 5.0 7.6 8.8 12.4 Overall Satisfaction (Q4) Age (QD2)

10.a
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 155

Funding Priorities
True North Research, Inc. © 2023 39City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Question 20 Is there another item or project not already mentioned that you think should be a high priority for the City to fund?
FIGURE 32 ADDITIONAL HIGH PRIORITY ITEMS
TABLE 15 ADDITIONAL HIGH PRIORITY ITEMS BY STUDY YEAR
AVAILABILITY OF RECREATIONAL AMENITIES New to the 2023 study, residents were presented with the ten recreational and community amenities shown to the left of Figure 33 on the next page and were asked whether they feel there are currently not enough, about the right amount, or too many of each type in San Carlos. Public swimming pools stood out as the amenity that most reside nts would like to see more of, with 63% indicating that there are not enough in San Carlos. For each of the remaining amenities, at least three-quarters of respon- dents felt the amount was about right or were unsure, and the percentage who felt there was not enough ranged from 10% (bocce ball courts) to 25% (restrooms at parks). For each recreational

57.9 5.1

3.5 3.1

3.0 2.5

2.5 2.5

2.3 1.8

1.6 1.6

1.4 1.4

0.8 0.7

0.6 2.1

1.6 0 1 02 03 04 05 06 0
No other high priorities / Nothing comes to mind
M aintain city infrastructure, sidewalks
Provide more affordable housing
Limit growth, maintain open space
Provide more rec centers, facilities
Improve public safety, more police patrols
Address parking issues
Improve economy, support for local business
Enforce traffic laws
Improve education, add more schools
Reduce traffic
Address environmental issues, preparedness
Improve city planning, development
Underground power lines
Provide, improve dog parks
Beautify city, landscaping
Improve street sweeping efforts
Provide public transportation
Provide assistant for seniors, disabled
% Respondents
2023 2021 2020
No other high
priorities / Nothing
comes to mind
No other high
priorities /
None come to mind
No other high
priorities /
None come to mind
Maintain city
infrastructure,
sidewalks
Prefer not to answer Limit growth,
maintain open space
Provide more
affordable housing
Address COVID-19
issues, concerns
Maintain city
infrastructure
Limit growth,
maintain open space Reduce traffic Reduce traffic
Provide more rec
centers, facilities
Improve education,
add more schools
Improve education,
add more schools
Study Year

10.a
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 156

Funding Priorities
True North Research, Inc. © 2023 40City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
and community amenity, respondents were much more likely to feel th at there are not enough versus too many in San Carlos.

Question 21 Next, I'm going to read a short list of recreational and community amenities in San Carlos. For each that I read, I'd like to know how you feel about their availability.

FIGURE 33 AVAILABILITY OF RECREATIONAL & COMMUNITY AMENITIES Table 16 shows the percentage of respondents who felt there was not enough of each recre- ational or community amenity by age of the re spondent and presence of a child in the house- hold, with the top three within each subgroup hi ghlighted in green to ease comparisons. Public swimming pools garnered the top response amon g each subgroup, whereas second and third place varied considerably by age and presence of a child in the household.

TABLE 16 AVAILABILITY OF RECREATIONAL & COMMUNITY AMENITIES BY AGE AND CHILD IN HSLD (SHOWING % NOT

ENOUGH)

62.7 24.5

22.5 21.2

20.9 20.8

16.5 15.3

14.0 9.5

36.7 75.0

76.8 77.6

77.9 75.3

82.2 83.1

82.4 84.6 5.9
4 1
0 0.7
1 1
4 1
2 0 1 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 0 1 0 0
Public swimming pools
Restrooms at parks
Picnic areas
Multi-use sports fields
Volleyball courts
Pickle ball courts
Playgrounds
Basketball courts
Tennis courts
Bocce ball courts
% Respondents Who Provided Opinion
Not enough About the right amount / Not sure Too many
Under 35 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or over Yes,
under 13
Yes,
teenager
No
children
Public swimming pools 70.7 74.5 65.3 54.0 48.5 81.1 76.4 54.4 Restrooms at parks 40.3 18.0 22.3 19.8 22.1 22.8 26.0 25.6 Picnic areas 22.3 24.9 21.1 19.8 24.6 24.2 20.0 22.4
Multi-use sports fields 23.5 17.3 32.1 17.5 16.9 29.9 31.3 16.2 Volleyball courts 40.0 16.5 18.1 18.7 15.1 22.2 35.4 19.0 Pickle ball courts 20.2 13.3 24.5 26.9 22.9 22.3 26.1 19.4 Playgrounds 17.6 25.8 9.9 9.4 18.9 25.4 11.0 13.9
Basketball courts 29.2 11.4 23.2 5.9 9.6 19.5 23.4 13.0 Tennis courts 10.9 18.6 16.3 10.6 13.9 17.5 17.5 12.2
Bocce ball courts 8.4 9.4 8.9 8.3 10.4 6.2 3.7 12.1
Age (QD2) Children in Hsld (Q23,QD3)

10.a
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 157

Finances & Daycare
True North Research, Inc. © 2023 41
City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

F INANCES & D AYCARE
The last substantive section of the survey asked respondents to reflect on their household’s financial situation over the past two years and for those with children under 13 years of age, their experience searching for daycare services during this same time period.

FINANCIAL SITUATION The first question in this sect ion asked residents about their household’s financial situation over the past two years. Close to half of residents (49%) indicated that their household’s financial situation has stayed about the same over the past two years (see Figure 34). Approximately 28% indicated that their household’s financial situation had improved, whereas 19% reported that their household’s financial situation had worsened during this period.

An additional 5% preferred to not answer the question.

Question 24 Over the past two years, has your household's financial situation improved a lot, improved somewhat, stayed about the same, gotten somewhat worse, or gotten a lot worse? FIGURE 34 HSLD FINANCIAL SITUATION PAST 2 YEARS
For the interested reader, figures 35-37
break down responses to Question 24 by
demographic subgroups.

FIGURE 35 HSLD FINANCIAL SITUATION PAST 2 YEARS BY YEARS IN SAN CARLOS, OVERALL SATISFACTION & CHILD IN HSLD
Prefer not to
answer

5.0 Gotten
somewhat worse

13.7 Improved
somewhat

19.0 Improved a lot

8.7 Gotten a lot
worse

5.2 Stayed about
the same

48.5 36.7

29.9 30.0 24.2

49.0 50.5

52.6 51.1 45.0

41.1 44.9

55.0 14.3 16.2

23.3 19.1 25.0

16.8 20.7 20.8

33.4 34.3

42.2 24.1
Improv ed

36.5 About
the same

48.1 Gotten
worse

15.4 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Less than 5 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 or more Satisfied Dissatisfied Yes, under 13 Yes, teenager No children Years in San Carlos (Q1) Overall Satisfaction (Q4) Child in Hsld (Q23,D3) % Respondents Who Provided Opinion

10.a
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 158

Finances & Daycare
True North Research, Inc. © 2023 42City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

FIGURE 36 HSLD FINANCIAL SITUATION PAST 2 YEARS BY EMPLOYMENT STATUS & HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS FIGURE 37 HSLD FINANCIAL SITUATION PAST 2 YEARS BY AGE & GENDER DAYCARE SERVICES IN SAN CARLOS Finding suitable childcare services can be a chal- lenge for some families, and the pandemic was expected to make this challenge even more diffi- cult as many childcare providers closed their programs to follow public health regulations and guidelines. To get a sense for how the pandemic impacted the availability of suitable childcare services in San Carlos, the 2021 survey asked respondents with at least one child under 13 in their home whether they had searched for daycare services for their child in San Carlos before the pandemic in 2019 and during the pandemic in 2021. The current 2023 survey asked respon- dents the same question framed over the past two years.

As shown in Figure 38 on the next page, 46% of respondents with at least one child under 13 years of age had searched for daycare services duri ng the past two years. Although this level is

23.2 8.4

28.4 34.0

51.9 42.3

65.1 53.9

67.8 66.6

55.4 38.2

24.9 27.4 23.0

37.7 3.8

22.7 17.1

27.8 Improv ed

39.1 11.9 10.7

27.530.3
About
the same

45.1 Gotten
worse

15.8 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Full time Part time S elf-e mplo yed Laid o ff /
Unemployed
Student Homemaker /
Caregiver
Retired Own Rent
Employment Status (Q22) Home Ownership Status (QD4)
% Respondents Who Provided Opinion

37.6 15.1

33.1 47.6 41.8

53.9 62.7

47.5 54.2

14.8 19.7 20.3 22.2 19.3 20.4
Improv ed

32.2 25.7 25.4

38.4 About
the same

49.4 Gotten
worse

18.4 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Under 35 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or older Male Female Age (QD2) Gender (QD1)
% Respondents Who Provided Opinion

10.a
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 159

Finances & Daycare
True North Research, Inc. © 2023 43City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
much higher than the percentag e recorded during the pandemic (22%), it slightly lower than— but statistically consistent with—the pre-pandemic level (53%).

Question 25 During the past two years, have you sear ched for daycare services for your child in San Carlos?
FIGURE 38 SEARCHED FOR DAYCARE SERVICES IN PAST 2 YEARS BY STUDY YEAR † Statistically significant change (p < 0.05) between the 2021 and 2023 studies.

Figure 39 displays whether households had sear ched for daycare services by the respondent’s age and household financial status. As might be expected, younger respondents under 35 years of age were the most likely to have searched fo r daycare services, followed by those 35 to 44 years of age. Respondents with a child under 13 years of age who also st ated that their house- hold’s financial situation had improved or stay ed about the same over the past two years were much more likely to have searched for daycare services than those whose situation had gotten worse.

FIGURE 39 SEARCHED FOR DAYCARE SERVICES IN PAST 2 YEARS BY AGE & HSLD FINANCIAL SITUATION

21.8 78.2

52.946.3†

47.153.7†
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Past Two Years During pandem ic Prior to pandemic
2023 2021
% Hslds With Child Under 13
Did not search
for daycare
services
Yes, searched
for daycare
services

0.0 51.7 49.3

28.4 22.4

17.2 60.8

68.2 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Under 35 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or older Improved About the same Gotten worse Age (QD2) Hsld Financial Situation (Q24)
% Hslds With Child Under 13 That Searched for
Daycare Services in Past 2 Years

10.a
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 160

Finances & Daycare
True North Research, Inc. © 2023 44City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Having established which respondents had searched for childcare services in San Carlos, the sur- vey next asked these individuals to rate how easy or difficult it was to find suitable daycare ser- vices in San Carlos (see Figure 40). Among those who had searched for daycare services in San Carlos over the past two years, the majority (51%) stated that it was very difficult and 22% said it was somewhat difficult to find suitable daycar e, whereas one-quarter indicated it was either somewhat easy (24%) or very easy (2%).

Although the overall percentage (72%) of respon dents with children under 13 who had searched for daycare services and found it difficult stayed statistically consistent with the levels recorded both during (79%) and prior to (75%) the pandem ic, the intensity shifted in 2023 with a higher percentage reporting that it was very difficult.

Question 26 Would you say it has been very easy to fi nd suitable daycare services in San Car- los, somewhat easy, somewhat difficult, or very difficult? FIGURE 40 EASE OF FINDING DAYCARE BY STUDY YEAR
† Statistically significant change (p < 0.05) between the 2021 and 2023 studies.

15.4 15.0

41.6 47.3

37.2 27.4

1.8 3.9

9.5 1.8 1.9

24.0 21.9†

50.5†
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Past Two Years During pandemic Prior to pandemic
2023 2021
% Hslds With Child Under 13 That Searched for
Daycare Services in Past 2 Years
Not sur e
Very difficult
Som ewhat
difficult
Som ewhat
easy
Very easy

10.a
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 161

Background & Demographics
True North Research, Inc. © 2023 45
City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

B ACKGROUND & D EMOGRAPHICS
Table 17 presents the key demographic informatio n collected during the survey by study year.

Because of the probability-based sampling methodology used in this study, the results shown in the table are representative of adult residents in the City of San Carlos. The primary motivation for collecting the background and demographic information was to provide a better insight into how the results of the substantiv e questions of the survey vary by demographic characteristics (see Appendix A crosstabulations for more details).

TABLE 17 DEMOGRAPHICS OF SAMPLE BY STUDY YEAR6

6. Prior to 2021, the not employed, but looking for work category of employment status was classified as in- between jobs.
2023 2021 2020 2018 2016 2014
Total Respondents 721 720 744 560 754 410
Years in San Carlos (Q1)
Less than 5 19.2 17.7 19.4 26.5 20.1 20.2
5 to 9 11.2 11.2 16.0 16.8 16.6 16.7
10 to 14 12.5 14.7 13.4 13.0 14.4 16.2
15 or more 56.7 56.2 51.0 43.4 47.9 46.6
Prefer not to answer 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.2 1.0 0.2
Gender (QD1)
Male 48.4 46.7 47.7 48.1 43.9 46.8
Female 49.4 48.9 49.6 48.1 49.7 48.5
Non-binary 0.2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Prefer not to answer 2.0 4.4 2.7 3.9 6.3 4.6
Age (QD2)
18 to 34 19.1 18.3 18.6 18.4 17.1 16.5
35 to 44 19.5 19.3 18.9 19.8 19.1 21.2
45 to 54 18.5 19.9 20.5 20.8 19.2 19.3
55 to 64 17.8 18.6 17.7 19.4 15.2 16.3
65 or older 18.0 19.9 18.4 18.6 16.3 15.4
Prefer not to answer 7.2 4.0 5.9 3.0 13.0 11.2
Child in household (Q23,D3)
Yes 37.0 35.8 35.6 36.3 38.2 44.0
Under 13 23.9 24.8 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Teenager 18.7 16.9 N/A N/A N/A N/A
No 59.6 61.6 58.7 59.8 57.9 52.2
Prefer not to answer 3.4 2.6 5.7 3.9 3.9 3.9
Home ownership status (QD4)
Own 69.0 77.9 73.6 78.1 82.9 80.6
Rent 25.4 19.6 22.0 20.7 13.1 19.1
Live rent free with family, friends 4.9 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Prefer not to answer 0.7 2.5 4.4 1.3 4.0 0.2
Employment status (Q22)
Full time 53.3 49.2 57.7 57.8 60.8 N/A
Part time 4.2 5.3 10.0 8.9 10.5 N/A
Self-employed 10.7 8.9 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Laid off, furloughed 1.6 2.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Student 3.8 3.1 4.0 6.7 2.9 N/A
Homemaker / Caregiver 2.5 3.3 2.2 2.5 3.4 N/A
Retired 20.4 24.1 20.3 17.4 16.4 N/A
Not employed, but looking for work 1.5 1.3 1.1 1.9 1.7 N/A Prefer not to answer 2.0 2.8 4.8 4.7 4.4 N/A
Study Year

10.a
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 162

Methodology
True North Research, Inc. © 2023 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 who had interacted with city staff in the past 12 months were asked to rate aspects of their experience with staff. The questionnaire included with this report (see Question- naire & Toplines on page 49) identifies the skip patterns used during the interview to ensure that each respondent received the appropriate questions.

Many of the questions asked in the 2023 survey were tracked directly from the 2021 survey to allow the City to monitor its performance and residents’ opinions on key issues over time.

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 phone interviews. The CATI program auto matically navigates the skip patterns, random- izes 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 of San Carlos 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 the survey. Once selected at random, contact information was appended to each record including email addre sses and telephone numbers for adult residents.

Individuals were subsequently recruited to partic ipate in the survey through multiple recruiting methods. Using a combination of email and text invitations, sampled residents were initially invited to participate in the su rvey online at a secure, passco de-protected website designed and hosted by True North. Each individual was assi gned a unique passcode to ensure that only San Carlos residents who received an invitation could access the online survey site, and that the sur- vey could be completed only one time per passco de. An email reminder notice was also sent to encourage participation among those who had ye t 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 sampled residents that had yet to part icipate in the online survey or for whom only telephone contact information was available.

Telephone interviews averaged 18 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

10.a
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 163

Methodology
True North Research, Inc. © 2023 47City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
the day on weekdays because most working adults are unavailable and thus calling during those hours would bias the sample. A total of 721 completed surveys were gathered online and by phone between April 5 and April 17, 2023.

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 721 adult residents for a particular question and what would have been found if all of the estimated 23,484 adult residents7 had been interviewed.

For example, in estimating the percentage of adul ts who have been in contact with City of San Carlos staff in the past 12 mont hs (Question 11), the margin of error can be calculated if one knows the size of the population, the size of the sample, a desired confidence level, and the dis- tribution of responses to the question. The a ppropriate equation for es timating the margin of error, in this case, is shown below:
where is the proportion of adults who said had been in contact with staff (0.39 for 39% in this example), is the population size of all adults (23,484), is the sample size that received the question (721), and is the upper point fo r the t-distribution wi th degrees of free- dom (1.96 for a 95% confidence interval). Solving the equation using these values reveals a mar- gin of error of ± 3.5%. This means that with 39% of survey respondents indicating they had contact with city staff in the past 12 months, we can be 95 percent confident that the actual per- centage of all adult residents in San Carlos in contact with staff during this period is between 36% and 43%.

FIGURE 41 MAXIMUM MARGIN OF ERROR

7. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2021 Americ an Community Survey 1-Year Estimates. pˆ t Nn–
N-------------
 pˆ 1 pˆ–
n 1–--------------------
pˆ
N n
t  2 n 1–
Sample of 721
Adult Residents
± 3.6%
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

10.a
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 164

Methodology
True North Research, Inc. © 2023 48City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Figure 41 on the prior page 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% prov ide one response and 50% provide the alternative response (i.e., = 0.5). For this survey, the maximum margin of error is ± 3.6% for questions answered by all 721 respondents.

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 41 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. Where appropriate, tests of statistical signif- icance were conducted to evaluate changes in responses between the 2021 and 2023 studies.

The final data were weighted to balance the sample by key demographics according to Census estimates.

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 tables. Occasionally, these rounding rules lead to small discrepancies in the first decimal place when co mparing tables and charts for a given question.

Due to rounding, some figures and narrative include numbers that sum to slightly more or less than 100%.
pˆ

10.a
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 165

Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2023 49
City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Q UESTIONNAIRE & T OPLINES

True North Research, Inc. © 2023 Page 1
City of San Carlos
Community Satisfaction Survey
Final Toplines (n=721)
April 2023
Section 1: Introduction to Study
Hi, my name is _____ and Im calling on behalf of TNR, an independent public opinion research company. Were conducting a survey about important issues in San Carlos and we would like to get your opinions.

If needed: This is a survey about community issues in San Carlos Im NOT trying to sell anything and I wont ask for a donation.

If needed: The survey should take about 12 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 needed: If you prefer, you can also take the survey online at your convenience at: <<insert URL>>. Provide unique password.

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: Screener for Inclusion in the Study Lane Line Only Use if land line: For statistical reasons, I would like to speak to the youngest adult male currently at home that is at least 18 years of age. If there is no male currently at home that is at least 18 years of age, then ask: Ok, then Id like to speak to the youngest female currently at home that is at least 18 years of age.

If there is no adult currently available, then ask for a callback time.

NOTE: Adjust this screener as needed to match sample quotas on gender & age If respondent asks why we want to speak to a particular demographic group, explain: Its important that the sample of people for the survey is representative of the adult population in the city for it to be statistically reliable. At this point, we need to balance our sample by asking for people who fit a particular demographic profile.

SC1 To begin, what is the zip code at your residence? Read zip code back to them to confirm correct
1 94070 100% Go to Q1
2 Any Other ZIP Code 0% Terminate

Section 3: Quality of Life
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 5%
2 1 to 4 years 14%
3 5 to 9 years 11%
4 10 to 14 years 13%
5 15 years or longer 57%
99 Prefer not to answer 0%

10.a
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 166

Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2023 50City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

San Carlos Resident Survey April 2023
True North Research, Inc. © 2023 Page 2
Q2 How would you rate the overall quality of life in San Carlos? Would you say it is excellent, good, fair, poor or very poor?
1 Excellent 39%
2 Good 52%
3 Fair 8%
4 Poor 1%
5 Very poor 0%
98 Not sure 0%
99 Prefer not to answer 0%
Q3
If the city government could change one thing to make San Carlos a better place to live now and in the future, what change would you like to see? Verbatim responses recorded and later grouped into categories shown below.

Limit growth, development 15%
Improve, maintain infrastructure 10%
Provide affordable housing 9%
Reduce traffic congestion 8%
Add, improve sidewalks, bike lanes 7%
Improve, address downtown parking issues 7%
Not sure / Cannot think of anything 7%
Improve public safety 6%
Provide, improve parks, rec areas 6%
Increase police presence, faster response,
have own police department 6%
Improve, preserve walkability, keep Laurel
Street closed 6%
No changes / Everything is fine 6%
Enforce traffic laws 5%
Improve develop downtown area 3%
Improve environmental efforts 3%
Improve schools, education 2%
Put utility wires underground 2%
Improve shopping, dining options 2%
Add community pool 2%
Encourage, support small business 2%
Open up Laurel Street 2%

10.a
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 167

Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2023 51City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

San Carlos Resident Survey April 2023
True North Research, Inc. © 2023 Page 3

Section 4: City Services
Next, I would like to ask a series of questions about services provided by the City of San Carlos.

Q4
Generally speaking, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the job the City of San Carlos is doing to provide city services? Get answer, then ask: Would that be very (satisfied/dissatisfied) or somewhat (satisfied/dissatisfied)? 1 Very satisfied 36%
2 Somewhat satisfied 47%
3 Somewhat dissatisfied 7%
4 Very dissatisfied 3%
98 Not sure 7%
99 Prefer not to answer 0%
Q5 For each of the services I read, please tell me whether the service is extremely important to you, very important, somewhat important, or not at all important.

Randomize
Extremely
Important
Very
Important
Somewhat
Important
Not at all
Important
Not sure
Prefer not to
answer
A Providing police services 53% 28% 15% 4% 0% 0%
B Maintaining a low crime rate 65% 25% 6% 2% 1% 0%
C Preparing the City for fire, police and public
works emergencies and disasters 50% 38% 10% 1% 0% 0%
D Providing fire protection, prevention and
emergency medical services 65% 29% 5% 1% 0% 0%
E Reducing traffic congestion on city streets 31% 30% 26% 12% 1% 1% F Providing library services 35% 41% 19% 4% 0% 1%
G Providing trash collection and recycling
services 51% 36% 11% 1% 0% 1%
H Keeping public buildings and facilities clean
and attractive 27% 40% 30% 3% 0% 0%
I Maintaining local streets 45% 42% 12% 1% 0% 0%
J Providing parks, sports fields and
recreation facilities 44% 37% 17% 1% 0% 0%
K Maintaining storm drains, sewers and
creeks 58% 32% 9% 0% 0% 0%
L Providing recreation programs for youth 30% 45% 19% 5% 1% 0% M Providing recreation programs for adults
and seniors 22% 35% 33% 8% 1% 0%
N Providing more public parking downtown 16% 26% 36% 20% 1% 1% O
Holding special community events like
summer concerts in the park, Night of
Holiday Lights, Goblin Walk & others
22% 36% 35% 7% 0% 0%

10.a
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 168

Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2023 52City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

San Carlos Resident Survey April 2023
True North Research, Inc. © 2023 Page 4
P Promoting economic development to
stimulate the local economy 20% 37% 30% 10% 2% 0%
Q
Preserving community character and
appearance through building and planning
permits, inspections and code enforcement
31% 28% 26% 14% 0% 0%
R Providing safe streets 59% 28% 11% 1% 1% 0%
S Providing affordable housing 27% 23% 28% 19% 1% 1%
T Establishing and maintaining financial
reserves 24% 44% 26% 5% 2% 0%
U
Having city-provided resources and
facilities available to residents during PG&E
power shut-offs
30% 37% 25% 7% 1% 0%
V Making downtown more pedestrian friendly 33% 32% 22% 12% 1% 0% W Adding sidewalks where needed 30% 28% 30% 11% 1% 1%
Q6
For the same list of services I just read, Id like you to tell me how satisfied you are with the job the city is doing to provide the service.

Are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the citys efforts to:_____, or do you not have an opinion? Get answer. If satisfied or dissatisfied, then ask: Would that be very (satisfied/dissatisfied) or somewhat (satisfied/dissatisfied)? Randomize
Very
Satisfied
Somewhat
Satisfied
Somewhat
Dissatisfied
Very
Dissatisfied
Not sure
Prefer not to
answer
A Provide police services 36% 36% 12% 5% 9% 2%
B Maintain a low crime rate 34% 41% 13% 7% 4% 1%
C Prepare the City for fire, police and public
works emergencies and disasters 25% 40% 11% 3% 20% 2%
D Provide fire protection, prevention and
emergency medical services 41% 38% 5% 2% 14% 1%
E Reduce traffic congestion on city streets 18% 34% 25% 10% 10% 2% F Provide library services 55% 31% 2% 1% 9% 1%
G Provide trash collection and recycling
services 53% 36% 4% 1% 5% 2%
H Keep public buildings and facilities clean
and attractive 40% 46% 4% 1% 8% 1%
I Maintain local streets 24% 43% 19% 8% 5% 2%
J Provide parks, sports fields and recreation
facilities 45% 41% 8% 1% 4% 1%
K Maintain storm drains, sewers and creeks 20% 40% 24% 9% 6% 2% L Provide recreation programs for youth 38% 37% 3% 2% 19% 2% M Provide recreation programs for adults and
seniors 32% 37% 7% 1% 22% 2%
N Provide more public parking downtown 25% 39% 18% 7% 11% 1%

10.a
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 169

Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2023 53City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

San Carlos Resident Survey April 2023
True North Research, Inc. © 2023 Page 5

O
Hold special community events like
summer concerts in the park, Night of
Holiday Lights, Goblin Walk & others
48% 35% 4% 1% 10% 1%
P Promote economic development to
stimulate the local economy 19% 41% 12% 3% 23% 3%
Q
Preserve community character and
appearance through building and planning
permits, inspections and code enforcement
22% 39% 16% 9% 12% 1%
R Provide safe streets 32% 39% 18% 6% 5% 1%
S Provide affordable housing 14% 24% 22% 15% 23% 3%
T Establish and maintain financial reserves 16% 34% 6% 1% 39% 3% U
Have city-provided resources and facilities
available to residents during PG&E power
shut-offs
13% 31% 15% 8% 30% 2%
V Make downtown more pedestrian friendly 29% 47% 13% 4% 5% 2% W Add sidewalks where needed 21% 39% 17% 5% 17% 1%

Section 5: Alternative Transportation
Q7 In a typical month, how many days do you: _____ when traveling in San Carlos? Read in Order
0 1 to 5
6 to 10
11 to 15
16 to 20
21 to 25
26 to 30
A Use public transit such a bus, train, or
shuttle 81% 13% 2% 1% 2% 0% 0%
B Ride a bicycle for a trip you would
otherwise make by vehicle 79% 16% 2% 1% 1% 0% 1%
C Walk, jog or run for a trip you would
otherwise make by vehicle 26% 34% 15% 5% 7% 4% 8%
D Use an E-bike or E-scooter 93% 4% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0%
Q8 When you are: _____ in San Carlos, would you say that you feel very safe, somewhat safe, somewhat unsafe, or very unsafe?
Ask in Order.

Only ask item A if Q7A>0.

Only ask item C if Q7B>0 OR Q7D>0.

Very Safe
Somewhat
Safe
Somewhat
Unsafe
Very
Unsafe
Not sure
Prefer not
to answer
A Riding public transit 51% 40% 4% 0% 4% 2%
B Walking across intersections 36% 45% 16% 3% 0% 0%
C Bicycling on local streets 20% 46% 21% 10% 2% 1%

10.a
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 170

Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2023 54City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

San Carlos Resident Survey April 2023
True North Research, Inc. © 2023 Page 6

Section 6: Local Governance & Customer Service
Q9
Next, Im going to read you a series of statements about the City of San Carlos. For each, Id like you to tell me whether you agree or disagree with the statement.

Here is the (first/next) one: _____. Do you agree or disagree, or do you not have an opinion? If agree or disagree, ask: Would that be strongly (agree/disagree) or somewhat (agree/disagree)?
Randomize
Strongly
Agree
Somewhat
Agree
Somewhat
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Not sure
Prefer not to
answer
A The City is responsive to residents needs 12% 44% 17% 7% 18% 2% B The City manages its finances well 13% 32% 8% 3% 40% 3% C The City listens to residents when making
important decisions 13% 35% 19% 10% 21% 3%
D I trust the City of San Carlos 25% 46% 13% 5% 9% 1%
Q10
How much attention do you pay to the issues, decisions and activities of your City government? Would you say that you are very attentive, somewhat attentive, slightly attentive, or not at all attentive?
1 Very attentive 10%
2 Somewhat attentive 43%
3 Slightly attentive 37%
4 Not at all attentive 8%
98 Not sure 1%
99 Prefer not to answer 0%
Q11 In the past 12 months, have you been in contact with staff from the City of San Carlos? 1 Yes 39% Ask Q12
2 No 58% Skip to Q13
98 Not sure 2% Skip to Q13
99 Prefer not to answer 1% Skip to Q13
Q12 In your opinion, was the staff at the City very _____, somewhat _____, or not at all _____.

Read one item at a time, continue until all items are read.

Randomize
Very
Somewhat
Not at all
Not sure
Prefer not
to answer
A Helpful 50% 36% 7% 4% 3%
B Professional 69% 25% 3% 2% 1%
C Accessible 48% 42% 7% 2% 1%

10.a
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 171

Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2023 55City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

San Carlos Resident Survey April 2023
True North Research, Inc. © 2023 Page 7
Section 7: Communication
Q13
Overall, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the Citys efforts to communicate with residents through electronic and print newsletters, social media, email, the Citys website, and other means? Get answer, then ask: Would that be very (satisfied/dissatisfied) or somewhat (satisfied/dissatisfied)? 1 Very satisfied 38%
2 Somewhat satisfied 46%
3 Somewhat dissatisfied 9%
4 Very dissatisfied 2%
98 Not Sure 5%
99 Prefer not to answer 0%
Q14 What information sources do you use to find out about City of San Carlos news, events, and programs? Dont read list. Record up to first 3 responses.

Newsletters and Newspapers
1 City Newsletters mailed to your home 55%
2 City Newsletters sent by email 14%
3 San Francisco Chronicle (daily
newspaper) 4%
4 San Mateo Daily Journal (daily
newspaper) 9%
5 Daily Post (daily newspaper) 6%
6 Other newspaper 2%
7 San Carlos Patch (online newspaper) 5%
TV, Radio & Meetings
8 Local TV Channels 27 or 99 1%
9 Television (general) 4%
10 City Council and Commission
Meetings 2%
11 Radio 1%
Internet & Email
12 Citys website 23%
13 Internet (not Citys site) 10%
14 Email notification from City 18%
15 Blogs 0%
Social Media
16 Facebook 10%
17 Twitter 3%
18 Nextdoor 16%
19 Instagram 4%

10.a
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 172

Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2023 56City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

San Carlos Resident Survey April 2023
True North Research, Inc. © 2023 Page 8
20 YouTube 0%
21 Other social media site 1%
Mail/Posters/Other
22 Postcards, letters, flyers or brochures
(mailed to home) 25%
23 Flyers, brochures or posters
(displayed at public facilities) 6%
24 Street banners 10%
25 Billboard at Adult Community Center 1%
26 Friends/Family/Associates 7%
27 Other source 1%
28 Do Not Receive Information about City 1%
98 Not sure 1%
99 Prefer not to answer 1%
Q15
As I read the following ways that the City of San Carlos can communicate with residents, Id like to know if you think they would be very effective, somewhat effective, or not an effective way for the City to communicate with you.

Randomize
Very
Effective
Somewhat
Effective
Not
Effective
Not Sure
Prefer not
to answer
A Newsletters sent by email 40% 38% 12% 9% 2%
B Newsletters mailed to your home 55% 32% 10% 2% 1%
C Text messages 40% 27% 22% 9% 2%
D Email 44% 40% 9% 6% 1%
E Citys Website 24% 45% 22% 7% 2%
F Advertisements in local papers 6% 24% 57% 12% 1%
G Social media like Facebook, Twitter, Next
Door, and YouTube 25% 31% 31% 11% 2%
H Community outreach meetings 9% 37% 36% 16% 2%
I Television programs on Comcast Cable
Channel 27 4% 12% 67% 15% 2%
J Billboard at the Adult Community Center 9% 26% 49% 14% 2%

10.a
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 173

Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2023 57City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

San Carlos Resident Survey April 2023
True North Research, Inc. © 2023 Page 9

Ask Q16 if Q15G=(1,2).

Q16 What is your preferred Social Media site the one you currently use most often? Verbatim responses recorded and later grouped into categories shown below.

Instagram 32%
Facebook 30%
Nextdoor 12%
Twitter 10%
Not sure / Cannot think of any 6%
Email 2%
Reddit 2%
YouTube 2%
Other 2%
LinkedIn 1%
TikTok 1%
None / Don't use social media regularly 1%

Section 8: Development & Housing
Next, I would like to ask a few questions about the availability of housing in the City of San Carlos.

Q17
As I read the following housing types, please tell me whether you feel there is currently too much, about the right amount, or too little of this type of housing in the City of San Carlos.

Randomize
Too Much
About
Right
Too Little
Not sure
Prefer not
to answer
A Housing that is affordable for middle-
income families 4% 22% 57% 15% 2%
B Housing that is affordable for low-income
families 10% 15% 50% 23% 2%
C Single family homes 14% 57% 17% 11% 1%
D Condominiums 21% 40% 18% 20% 1%
E Apartments with 7 or more units 25% 31% 20% 23% 2%
F Apartments with 6 units or less 10% 39% 20% 28% 3%
G Townhomes 12% 46% 18% 23% 1%
H Duplexes 9% 35% 24% 31% 2%
I Senior housing 4% 31% 30% 34% 2%
J Accessory dwelling units also referred to
as granny flats or guest houses 11% 23% 24% 40% 2%

10.a
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 174

Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2023 58City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

San Carlos Resident Survey April 2023
True North Research, Inc. © 2023 Page 10
K
Special needs housing for families and
individuals who need support services like
jobs training and social services
5% 18% 31% 45% 2%
L Interim housing to help people trying to
transition from being homeless 10% 13% 31% 42% 3%
Q18 In the past three years, would you say the pace of development in San Carlos has been too fast, about right, or too slow?
1 Too fast 39%
2 About right 41%
3 Too slow 12%
98 Not sure 7%
99 Prefer not to answer 1%

Section 9: Funding Priorities
The City of San Carlos has the financial resources to provide some of the services, programs and projects desired by residents. However, because it cant fund every service, program and project, the City must set priorities.

Q19
As I read each of the following items, please indicate whether you think the City should make the item a high priority, a medium priority, or a low priority for future city spending. If you feel the City should not spend any money on this item, just say so.

Please keep in mind that not all of the items can be high priorities.

Randomize
High Priority
Medium
Priority
Low Priority
Should not
spend money
Not sure
Prefer not to
answer
A Police services 58% 24% 13% 2% 2% 1%
B Fire protection services 66% 27% 5% 0% 2% 1%
C Street maintenance and repair 57% 34% 6% 1% 1% 1%
D Infrastructure maintenance and repair 58% 33% 6% 0% 2% 1% E Recreation programs and services 23% 54% 18% 2% 2% 1% F Park and landscape maintenance 27% 60% 11% 1% 1% 1%
G Community events and activities 20% 50% 26% 3% 2% 1%
H Housing programs 31% 26% 26% 13% 4% 1%
I Public transportation 21% 35% 33% 7% 3% 1%
J Bicycle and pedestrian access/
improvements 30% 37% 26% 6% 1% 1%
K Community outreach including meetings
and mailings 9% 41% 41% 6% 3% 1%
L Climate change mitigation, adaptation, and
sustainability programs 28% 35% 22% 12% 3% 1%
M
Improve the network of trails, creating
better access and connectivity between
open space areas
20% 38% 33% 5% 2% 1%

10.a
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 175

Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2023 59City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

San Carlos Resident Survey April 2023
True North Research, Inc. © 2023 Page 11
Q20
Is there another item or project not already mentioned that you think should be a high priority for the City to fund? If yes, ask: Please describe it to me. Verbatim responses recorded and later grouped into categories shown below.

No other high priorities / Nothing comes to
mind 58%
Maintain city infrastructure, sidewalks 5%
Improve public safety, more police patrols 3%
Limit growth, maintain open space 3%
Provide more affordable housing 3%
Provide more rec centers, facilities 3%
Address parking issues 3%
Improve economy, support for local
business 3%
Improve education, add more schools 2%
Reduce traffic 2%
Enforce traffic laws 2%
Address environmental issues,
preparedness 2%
Underground power lines 2%
Improve city planning, development 2%
Beautify city, landscaping 1%
Provide public transportation 1%
Provide, improve dog parks 1%
Provide assistant for seniors, disabled 1%
Improve street sweeping efforts 1%
Q21
Next, Im going to read a short list of recreational and community amenities in San Carlos. For each that I read, Id like to know how you feel about their availability.

Here is the (first/next) one: _____. Would you say there are not enough, about the right amount, or too many of these in San Carlos?
Randomize
Not enough
About the
right amount
Too many
Not sure
Prefer not to
answer
A Public swimming pools 62% 16% 1% 20% 1%
B Pickle ball courts 20% 37% 4% 37% 2%
C Bocce ball courts 9% 53% 6% 30% 2%
D Tennis courts 14% 65% 3% 16% 2%
E Basketball courts 15% 64% 2% 18% 2%
F Multi-use sports fields 21% 63% 1% 13% 2%
G Volleyball courts 20% 36% 1% 40% 3%

10.a
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 176

Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2023 60City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

San Carlos Resident Survey April 2023
True North Research, Inc. © 2023 Page 12
H Picnic areas 22% 65% 1% 10% 2%
I Restrooms at parks 24% 64% 0% 10% 2%
J Playgrounds 16% 70% 1% 11% 1%

Section 10: Employment, Finances & Daycare
Q22
Which best describes your current employment status? Are you employed full-time, employed part-time, self-employed, laid-off or furloughed, not employed but looking for work, a student, a homemaker or caregiver, or retired?
1 Employed full-time 53%
2 Employed part-time 4%
3 Self-employed 11%
4 Laid-off/furloughed 2%
5 Not employed, but looking for work 2%
6 Student 4%
7 Homemaker/caregiver 3%
8 Retired 20%
99 Prefer not to answer 2%
Q23 Do you have one or more children under the age of 13 living in your household? 1 Yes 24%
2 No 73%
99 Prefer not to answer 3%
Q24
Over the past two years, has your households financial situation improved a lot, improved somewhat, stayed about the same, gotten somewhat worse, or gotten a lot worse?
1 Improved a lot 9%
2 Improved somewhat 19%
3 Stayed about the same 49%
4 Gotten somewhat worse 14%
5 Gotten a lot worse 5%
99 Prefer not to answer 5%
Ask Q25 if Q23=1. Otherwise skip to intro preceding D1.

Q25 During the past two years, have you searched for daycare services for your child in San Carlos?
1 Yes 46% Ask Q26
2 No 53% Skip to D1
99 Prefer not to answer 1% Skip to D1

10.a
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 177

Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2023 61City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

San Carlos Resident Survey April 2023
True North Research, Inc. © 2023 Page 13
Q26 Would you say it has been very easy to find suitable daycare services in San Carlos, somewhat easy, somewhat difficult, or very difficult?
1 Very easy 2%
2 Somewhat easy 24%
3 Somewhat difficult 22%
4 Very difficult 51%
98 Not sure 2%
99 Prefer not to answer 0%

Section 11: Background & Demographics
Thank you so much for your participation. I have just a few background questions for statistical purposes.

D1 What is your gender?
1 Male 48%
2 Female 49%
3 Non-binary 0%
99 Prefer not to answer 2%
D2 In what year were you born? Year of birth recoded into age categories shown below. 18 to 24 6%
25 to 34 13%
35 to 44 19%
45 to 54 19%
55 to 64 18%
65 or older 18%
Prefer not to answer 7%
D3 Do you have a teenager between the ages of 13 and 18 living in your household? 1 Yes 19%
2 No 78%
99 Prefer not to answer 3%

10.a
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 178

Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2023 62City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

San Carlos Resident Survey April 2023
True North Research, Inc. © 2023 Page 14

D4 Do you own or rent your residence in San Carlos?
1 Own 69%
2 Rent 25%
3 Live rent free with family or friends 5%
99 Prefer not to answer 1%
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

10.a
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 179

10.a
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 180

THI

S PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

10.a
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 181

T ABLE OF C ONTENTS
Table of Contents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii List of Figures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Purpose of Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Overview of Methodology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Statistical Significance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Organization of Report. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Disclaimer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 About True North . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Just the Facts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Quality of Life. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 City Services. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Biking in San Carlos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Local Governance & Customer Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Development & Housing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Funding Priorities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Local Businesses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 COVID-19 Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Quality of Life . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Overall Quality of Life. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Question 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Ways to Improve Quality of Life . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Question 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 City Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Overall Satisfaction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Question 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Specific Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Question 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Question 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Differentiators of Opinion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Performance Needs & Priorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Biking in San Carlos. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Bicycle Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Question 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Bike Loops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Question 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Local Governance & Customer Service. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Perceptions of City Government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Question 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Attention Paid to Your City Government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Question 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 City Staff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Question 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Question 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Communication. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Overall Satisfaction With Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Question 13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Sources of Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

10.a
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 182

Question 14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Communication Preferences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Question 15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Development & Housing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Housing Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Question 16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Pace of Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Question 17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Funding Priorities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Question 18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Additional High Priorities? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Question 19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Shopping in San Carlos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Retail Shopping Habits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Question 20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Pandemic Impact on Local Shopping. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Question 21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Actions to Prompt More Local Spending . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Question 22 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 COVID-19 Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Work and Commute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Question 25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Financial Impacts of Pandemic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Question 26 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Daycare Services in San Carlos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 Question 27 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 Question 29 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 Question 28 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 Question 30 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 Background & Demographics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 Questionnaire Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 Programming & Pre-Test. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 Sample, Recruiting & Data Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 Margin of Error Due to Sampling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Data Processing & Weighting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 Rounding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 Questionnaire & Toplines. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

10.a
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 183

L IST OF T ABLES
Table 1 Top Changes to Improve San Carlos by Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Table 2 Importance of Services by Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Table 3 Satisfaction With Services by Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Table 4 Satisfaction With Services by Overall Satisfacti on With City . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Table 5 Resident Service Needs & Priorities Matrix. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Table 6 Agreement With Statements Ab out City by Study Year. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Table 7 Opinion of City Staff by Study Year (Showing % Very Among Those With Opinion) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Table 8 Top City Information Sources by Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Table 9 Effectiveness of Communication Efforts by Stud y Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Table 10 Effectiveness of Communication Methods by Overall Satisfaction & Age (Showing % Very Effective). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Table 11 Funding Priorities by Overall Satisfaction & Age (Showing % High Priority) . . . . . . . 43 Table 12 Additional High Priority Items by Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Table 13 Demographics of Sample by Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

10.a
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 184

L IST OF F IGURES
Figure 1 Quality of Life by Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Figure 2 Quality of Life by Years in San Carlos, Gen der & Children in Hsld . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Figure 3 Quality of Life by Age, Home Owners hip Status & Hsld Financial Situation Due to Pandemic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Figure 4 Changes to Improve San Carlos. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Figure 5 Overall Satisfaction by Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Figure 6 Overall Satisfaction by Years in San Carl os, Gender & Children in Hsld . . . . . . . . . 16 Figure 7 Overall Satisfaction by Age, Home Ownership Status & Hsld Financial Situation Due to Pandemic. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Figure 8 Importance of Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Figure 9 Satisfaction With Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Figure 10 Resident Service Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Figure 11 Opinion of Bike Safety by Study Year. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Figure 12 Opinion of Bike Safety by Overall Satisfaction, Age, Children in Hsld & Gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Figure 13 Used Bike Loops on Weekends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Figure 14 Used Bike Loops on Weekends by Over all Satisfaction, Age, Children in Hsld & Gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Figure 15 Agreement With Statements About San Carlos. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Figure 16 Attentiveness to City Government by Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Figure 17 Attentiveness to City Government by Years in San Carlos & Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Figure 18 Attentiveness to City Government by Children in Hsld, Home Ownership Status, Overall Satisfaction & Contact With City Staff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Figure 19 Contact With City in Past 12 Months by Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Figure 20 Contact With City in Past 12 Months by Years in San Carlos, Age & Home Ownership Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Figure 21 Opinion of City Staff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Figure 22 Satisfaction With Communication by Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Figure 23 Satisfaction With Communication by Years in San Carlos, Gender & Children in Hsld . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Figure 24 Satisfaction With Communication by Age, Home Ownership Status & Overall Satisfaction34
Figure 25 City Information Sources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Figure 26 Information Source Categories by Overall & Ag e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Figure 27 Information Source Categories by Children in Hsld, Home Ownership Status & Satisfaction with Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Figure 28 Effectiveness of Communication Efforts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Figure 29 Opinion of Housing Development Types in City. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Figure 30 Pace of Development by Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Figure 31 Pace of Development by Years in San Carl os, Age & Overall Satisfaction . . . . . . . . 41 Figure 32 Funding Priorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Figure 33 Additional High Priority Items . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Figure 34 Percentage of Household Retail Shopping Dollars Spent in San Carlos. . . . . . . . . . 45 Figure 35 Percentage of Household Retail Shopping Dollars Spent in San Carlos by Years in San Carlos, Overall Satisfaction & Hsld Financial Situation Due to Pandemic . . . 46 Figure 36 Percentage of Household Retail Shopping Dollars Spent in San Carlos by Employment Status & Children in Hsld . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Figure 37 Percentage of Household Retail Shopping Dollars Spent in San Carlos by Age & Gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Figure 38 Percentage of Hsld Retail Shopping Dollars Increase Since Pandemic. . . . . . . . . . . 47 Figure 39 Percentage of Hsld Retail Shopping Dollars Increase Since Pandemic by Years in San Carlos, Overall Satisfaction & Hsld Financial Situation Due to Pandemic . . . 48

10.a
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 185

Figure 40 Percentage of Hsld Retail Shoppi ng Dollars Increase Since Pandemic by Employment Status & Children in Hsld . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Figure 41 Percentage of Hsld Retail Shopping Dollars Increase Since Pandemic by Home Ownership Status, Age & Gender. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Figure 42 Action to Prompt More Shopping Within City. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Figure 43 COVID-19 Impacted Residents’ Work Arrangements & Living Situations. . . . . . . . . 51 Figure 44 COVID-19 Impacted Residents’ Work Arrangements & Living Situations by Home Ownership Status, Children in Hsld & Hsld Financial Situation Due to Pandemic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Figure 45 Opinion of Hsld’s Financial Situation Impact ed by Pandemic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Figure 46 Opinion of Hsld’s Financial Situation Impacted by Pandemic by Years in San Carlos, Overall Satisfaction & Children in Hsld. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Figure 47 Opinion of Hsld’s Financial Situation Impacted by Pandemic by Employment Status & Home Ownership Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Figure 48 Opinion of Hsld’s Financial Situation Impacted by Pandemic by Age & Gender. . . . 54 Figure 49 Searched For Daycare Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 Figure 50 Searched For Daycare Services by Hsld Fina ncial Due to Pandemic . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Figure 51 Ease of Finding Daycare Services Before an d During Pandemic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 Figure 52 Maximum Margin of Error . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

10.a
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 186

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 30,145 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.

Although the City has struggled over the past decade to main tain a balanced budget and has been forced on multiple occasions to cut back services, the tran sition to a shared-service model has allowed the City to restore balance to its finances and stop the annual cycle of service reduc- tions. In fact, the shared-services model saves the City approximately $4 million annually while enabling increases in service levels for public safety, recreation, and maintenance.

To monitor its progress in meeting residents’ needs, the City engages residents on a daily basis and receives periodic subjective feedback regarding its perfor mance. Although these informal feedback mechanisms are a valuable source of information for the City in that they provide timely and accurate information about the opinions of specific residents, it is important to recog- nize that they do not necessarily provide an ac curate picture of the co mmunity as a whole. For the most part, informal feedback mechanisms rely on the resident to initiate feedback, which creates a self-selection bias. The City receives feedback only from those residents who are moti- vated enough to initiate the feedback process. Because these residents tend to be those who are either very pleased or very displeased with the service they have received, their collective opin- ions are not necessarily representative of the City’s resident population as a whole.

PURPOSE OF STUDY The motivation for the current st udy was to design and employ a methodology that would avoid the self-selection bias noted abov e and provide the City with a statistically reliable understanding of its residents’ satisfaction, priorities, and concerns as they relate to services and facilities provided by the City. Ultimately, the survey results and analyses presented in this report will provide Council and staff with information that can be used to make sound, strategic decisions in a variety of ar eas including service improvements and enhance- ments, measuring and tracking internal performance, budgeting, policy, and planning. 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:
• Identify key issues of importance for residents, as well as their perceptions of the quality of life in San Carlos;
• Measure residents’ overall satisfaction with th e City’s efforts to provide municipal services, and their satisfaction with a variety of specific services; • Gather opinions on topics such as biking in San Carlos, development, housing, economic development, and COVID-19 impacts;
• Evaluate perceptions of local government and customer service; • Determine satisfaction with and perceived effectiveness of the City’s communication with residents; and
• Collect additional background and demographic data that are relevant to understanding res- idents’ perceptions, needs, and interests.

1. Source: State of California, Depart ment of Finance, E-1City/County Population Estimates, January 2020.

10.a
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 187

This is not the first statistically reliable community survey conducted for the City of San Carlos.

Similar studies were conducted in 2012, 2014, 2016, 2018, and 2020, and many of the ques- tions included in the 2021 survey were purposefu lly tracked from the prior studies. However, as discussed in the 2014 final report, methodolog ical changes implemented in the 2014 survey limit comparisons to the 2012 study. Thus, in this report, the results of the current survey are compared with the results of identical questions from 2014 and beyond, where appropriate.

OVERVIEW OF METHODOLOGY A full description of the methodology used for this study is included later in this report (see Methodology on page 58). In brief, the survey employed a combination of mailed invitations, emailed invitations, and phone calls to recruit participation in the survey from a random selection of San Carlos households. Households were assigned a unique passcode, ensuring that only San Carlos households could participate in the survey, and that the survey could be completed only one ti me per passcode. During the data collection period, which lasted from January 7 to January 25, 2021, a total of 720 residents participated in the survey by phone or online at a secure, password-protected website.

STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE As discussed above, many of the figures and tables in this report present the results of questions asked in 2021 alongside the results found in the 2014, 2016, 2018, and 2020 surveys for identical question s. In such cases, True North conducted the appropriate tests of statistical significance to i dentify changes that likely reflect actual changes in public opinion from the last survey (2020) to the current survey (2021)—as opposed to being due to chance associated with independently selected samples. Differences between the two studies are identified as statistically significant if we can be 95% confi dent that the differences reflect an actual change in public opinion between the two studies. Statistically significant differ- ences within response categories over time ar e denoted by the † symbol which appears in the figure next to the appropriate response value for 2021.

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 sections titled Just the Facts and Conclusions are for you. They provide a summary of the most important factual findings of the survey in bul- let-point format and a discussion of their implications. For the interested reader, this section is followed by a more detailed question-by-question discussion of the resu lts from the survey by topic area (see Table of Contents), as well as a description of the methodology employed for col- lecting and analyzing the data. And, for the truly ambitious re ader, the questionnaire used for the interviews is contained at the back of this report (see Questionnaire & Toplines on page 61), and a complete set of crosstabulations for the survey results is contained in Appendix A.

10.a
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 188

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. Dur- ing 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 400 studies for California municipalities and special districts.

10.a
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 189

J UST THE F ACTS
The following is an outline of the main factual findings from the survey. For the reader’s conve- nience, we have organized the findings according to the section titles us ed in the body of this report. Thus, if you would like to learn more about a particular finding, simply turn to the appro- priate report section.

QUALITY OF LIFE
• Nine-in-ten residents in 2021 shared favorable opinions of the quality of life in San Carlos, with 41% reporting it is excellent and 50% stating it is good. Eight percent (8%) of residents indicated the quality of life in the City is fair, whereas 2% used poor or very poor to describe the quality of life in the City.
• When asked what changes the City could make to improve the quality of life in San Carlos, approximately one-in-five (18% of) respondents were either unsure of a change that would make San Carlos a better place to live (12%) or indicated they desired no changes from the City (6%)—both of which are indicative of a respondent who does not perceive any pressing issues or problems in the City that can be addressed by local government. • Among specific changes desired, the most common were limiting growth and development (18%), reducing traffic congestion (13%), improving and addressing parking issues (8%), pro- viding affordable housing (7%), improving pu blic safety (7%), and adding and improving sidewalks and bike lanes (6%).

CITY SERVICES
• Eighty-two percent (82%) of San Carlos residents indicated they were either very satisfied (32%) or somewhat satisfied (50%) with the City’s efforts to provide municipal services.

Approximately 13% of respondents indicated that they were dissatisfied with the City’s over- all performance, and an additional 5% indicated that they were unsure or unwilling to share their opinion.
• Among 22 specific service areas tested, San Ca rlos residents rated public safety and public works services as the most important. More s pecifically, providing fire protection, preven- tion, and emergency medical services (96% extremely or very important), maintaining a low crime rate (93%), preparing the City for fire, police and public works emergencies (92%), pro- viding trash collection and recycling services (91%), providing safe streets (90%), and main- taining local streets (89%) received the highest importance ratings from residents. • The survey also asked about sa tisfaction with the City’s efforts to provide each of the same 22 services. Respondents were most satisfied wi th efforts to provide library services (95% very or somewhat satisfied), followed by provide trash collection and recycling services (94%), keep public buildings and facilities clean and attractive (93%), provide fire protection, prevention, and emergency medical services (9 3%), provide recreation programs for adults and seniors (92%), and hold special community events like summer concerts in the park, Night of Holiday Lights, Goblin Walk, and others (91%).

BIKING IN SAN CARLOS
• A majority of residents (56%) indicated in the 2021 survey that it is generally safe to ride a bike on city streets in San Carlos, which represents a statistically significant increase of 11% when compared to the 2020 survey findings. Approximately one-quarter (26%) felt in 2021 that riding a bike on city streets is unsafe , whereas 18% were unsure or preferred to not share their opinion.

10.a
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 190

Just the Facts
True North Research, Inc. © 2021 5City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
• When asked if they personally had used the bike loops established by the City to bike or walk on the weekends, nearly one-in-five respondents (17%) answered in the affirmative.

LOCAL GOVERNANCE & CUSTOMER SERVICE
• Overall, 79% of residents agreed that the City manages its finances well, 78% said that they trust the City of San Carlos, 68% felt the Ci ty is responsive to residents’ needs, and 62% agreed that the City listens to residents when making important decisions. • Eleven percent (11%) of respondents in 2021 claimed they are very attentive to matters of local government, 47% somewhat attentive, and 34% slightly attentive. An additional 8% of respondents confided that they do not pay any at tention to the activities of the City of San Carlos or were not sure.
• Just over one-in-three responde nts (36%) indicated they had been in contact with city staff in the 12 months preceding the interview.
• San Carlos residents rated city staff high on all three customer-service dimensions tested, with approximately nine-in-ten residents rating staff as very or somewhat professional (89%) and accessible (89%) and approximately eight-in-ten rating staff as helpful (78%).

COMMUNICATION
• Overall, 82% of respondents indicated they were satisfied with the City’s efforts to communi- cate with residents through newsletters, the Internet, television, and other means. The remaining respondents were either dissatisfied with the City’s efforts in this respect (12%) or unsure of their opinion (6%).
• The most frequently-cited source for city information was city newsletters/Good Living com- munity newsletter, mentioned by 64% of respondents. The City’s newsletters were followed by Nextdoor (28%), the City’s website (25%), email notifications from the City (21%), and postcards, letters, flyers or brochures mailed to their home (17%). • Respondents indicated that email and e-notifi cations was the most effective method for the City to communicate with them (88% very or somewhat effective), followed by postcards, let- ters, and newsletters mailed to the home (86%), the City’s website (76%), and social media like Facebook, Twitter, and Nextdoor (66%).

DEVELOPMENT & HOUSING
• Approximately half of respondents felt there was too little housing in San Carlos that is affordable for middle-income families (54%) and low-income families (48%). • Although the dominant answer for the remaining housing types tested was that the current amount is about right, the percentage who felt there was not enough accessory dwelling units (32%), interim housing for people transitioning from homelessness (32%), special needs housing for families and individuals who need support se rvices like job training and social services (29%), and senior housing (26%) was much higher than the percentage who felt there was already too much of each type of housing in San Carlos. • When compared to the other types of housin g mentioned above, fewer respondents felt there is currently not enough supply of condominiums (12%), apartments with seven or more units (12%), single family homes (13%), townhomes (17%), and apartments with six units or less (18%) in San Carlos.

10.a
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 191

Just the Facts
True North Research, Inc. © 2021 6City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
• Less than half (49%) of those surveyed in 2021 felt the pace of development in San Carlos during the past three years to be too fast, a st atistically significant decrease from the 2020 survey results. Approximately one-third (34%) felt the pace of development has been about right during the past three years, whereas 9% fe lt that the City has grown too slowly and an additional 9% of respondents were unsure or unwilling to share their opinion on this matter.

FUNDING PRIORITIES
• When asked to prioritize among 12 projects an d programs that could receive funding in the future, fire protection services (96% high or medium priority), infrastructure maintenance and repair (92%), street maintenance and repair (91%), and police services (88%) were the clear top priorities.
• Second tier priorities inclu ded park and landscape maintena nce (81%), environmental sus- tainability/green programs (66%), recreation programs and services (65%), bicycle and pedestrian access/improvements (60%), public transportation (58%), and housing programs (56%).
• When compared to the other projects and servi ces tested, fewer residents rated community events and activities (50%) and community outreach including meetings and mailings (52%) as a high or medium priority for future city spending.

LOCAL BUSINESSES
• Approximately 36% of responden ts indicated that they spend at least half of their house- hold’s retail shopping dollars within the City of San Carlos, with 8% spending at least 80% of their dollars within the City and 28% spending between 50% and 79% of their retail dollars in San Carlos. The majority of households (53%) reported they spend less than half of their retail shopping dollars locally in San Carlos and an additional 11% of respondents were unsure or declined to state.
• Approximately one-third (32%) of residents reported that they had reduced the percentage of their total shopping dollars spent in San Carlos since the pandemic started. However, this decline was offset by 29% reporting they in creased their local shopping during the same period, and 36% reporting that the percentage of their retail dollars spent locally had not changed.
• When residents who reported th at they spend less than 30% of their retail shopping dollars in San Carlos and/or decreased the percentage of their local spending in the past year were subsequently asked if there was a specific ac tion the City could take that would prompt them to do more of their shopping in San Carlos, the most common suggestions were pro- viding a greater variety of restaurants and sh ops (20%), ending pandemic restrictions/open- ing local businesses (12%), providing more parking (9%), continuing practices to ensure safety during the pandemic including social distancing and masks (7%), keeping Laurel Street closed to vehicle traffic or making it a one-way street after the pandemic (3%), and improving local online shopping opportunities (3%).

COVID-19 IMPACTS
• Nearly two-thirds (64%) of respondents indicated that at least one member of their house- hold had switched from commuting to work to primarily working from home during the past year.

10.a
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 192

Just the Facts
True North Research, Inc. © 2021 7City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
• Approximately one-quarter of respondents (24%) reported that they and/or another member of their household had their work hours or sa lary reduced during the pandemic, while 15% also reported that they and/or another member of their hous ehold had been laid-off or fur- loughed.
• Most San Carlos residents (66%) indicated that their household’s financial situation had not been impacted by the pandemic—it had stay ed about the same. Approximately 10% indi- cated that the pandemic had improved their household’s financial situation, whereas one-in- five (21%) reported that thei r household’s financial situation had worsened during this period. An additional 3% preferred to not answer the question. • More than half of those with a child under 13 in their household (53%) indicated that they had searched for daycare services in San Carlos prior to the pandemic. Approximately one- in-five (22%) reported doing the same during the pandemic. • Among those who had searched for suit able daycare services in San Carlos prior to the pan- demic, three-quarters stated that it was difficult to find (27% very difficult, 47% somewhat difficult), whereas one-quarter indicated it was either somewhat easy (15%) or very easy (10%) to find.
• During the pandemic, eight-in-ten rated the challenge of finding suitable daycare in San Car- los as very difficult (37%) or somewhat difficult (42%), while the percentage who found it somewhat or very easy declined to less than one-in-five (17%).

10.a
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 193

C ONCLUSIONS
As noted in the Introduction, this study was designed to provide the City of San Carlos with a sta- tistically reliable understanding of the opinions, priorities, and concerns of San Carlos residents.

How well is the City per-
forming in meeting the
needs of San Carlos resi-
dents?
The period of time between the 2020 Community Opinion Survey and the current study was punctuated by difficult and dramatic events in San Mateo County including large-scale wildfires, the COVID-19 pandemic, and the shuttering of non-essential bu sinesses to curb the spread of the disease. Against this turbulent back drop, residents’ opinions of their community and city government remained remarkably stable. San Carlos residents continue to be quite satisfied with the City’s efforts to provide municipal services and facilities, and the quality of life in the City.

More than eight-in-ten residents su rveyed (82%) indicated they were sat- isfied with the City’s overall efforts to provide municipal services, virtu- ally identical to the figure recorded prior to the pandemic in 2020 (83%).

The high level of satisfaction expr essed with the City’s performance in general was also mirrored in residents’ assessments of the City’s perfor- mance in providing most specific se rvices, with the highest satisfaction scores assigned to the City’s efforts to provide library services (95% very or somewhat satisfied), provide trash collection and recycling services (94%), keep public buildings and facilities clean and attractive (93%), pro- vide fire protection, prevention, and emergency medical services (93%), provide recreation programs for adul ts and seniors (92%), and hold spe- cial community events like summer concerts in the park, Night of Holi- day Lights, Goblin Walk, and others (91%) (see Specific Services on page 16).

For 16 of the 22 service areas test ed, the City is meeting or exceeding the needs and expectations of at leas t three-quarters of its residents— and for the majority of services the City is meeting the needs of more than 83% of residents (see Performance Needs & Priorities on page 22). It

10.a
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 194

Conclusions
True North Research, Inc. © 2021 9City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
is also noteworthy that with the establishment of bike loops, the percent- age who say that it is safe to ride a bike on city streets in San Carlos increased 11% in the past year (see Biking in San Carlos on page 25).

Nine-in-ten residents surv eyed rated the quality of the life in San Carlos as excellent or good. Moreover, this sentiment was widespread, with at least 85% of respondents in every identified resident subgroup rating the quality of life in San Carlos as excellent or good (see Quality of Life on page 12).

How is the City per-
ceived with respect to
governance?
Although much of the survey focused on residents’ satisfaction with the City’s efforts to provide specific services, as with other progressive cities San Carlos recognizes there is more to good local governance than sim- ply providing satisfactory services. Do residents perceive that the City is accessible and responsive to resident s’ needs? Do residents feel that staff serves their needs in a profe ssional manner? How well do residents trust the City, and do they view the Ci ty as fiscally responsible? Answers to questions like these are as important as service or policy-related ques- tions in measuring the City’s performance in meeting residents’ needs.

Among those with an opinion, the City was rated highest with regard to managing its finances well (79% strongly or somewhat agreed with the statement ‘The City manages its finances well’), followed by resident trust (78%), being responsive to residents’ needs (68%), and listening to residents when making important decisions (62%).

Additionally, when those who had contact with the City during the 12 months prior to the survey were asked to comment on staff’s perfor- mance, staff received high marks for being accessible, professional, and helpful (see Local Governance & Customer Service on page 28).

Considering respondents’ verbatim answers regarding what they feel city government could do to make San Carlos a better place to live (see Ways to Improve Quality of Life on page 13), the list of services and their respective priority status for future city attention (see Performance Needs & Priorities on page 22), and the manner in which residents prior-

10.a
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 195

Conclusions
True North Research, Inc. © 2021 10City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
itize among potential funding areas (see Funding Priorities on page 42), the top priorities are: providing fire protection services, repairing/main- taining streets and infrastructure, providing police services, providing affordable housing while limiting growth and development, reducing traffic congestion, and providing additional public parking downtown.

How has the pandemic
impacted residents of
San Carlos?
Although residents’ high opinions of the quality of life in San Carlos and the City’s performance in providing services have remained stable over the past year, the survey results reve al that the pandemic has had its impacts on the community. Nearly two-thirds of respondents revealed that one or more members of thei r household have switched from com- muting to work to primarily working from home. Approximately one- quarter of households also experienced reductions in work hours or sal- ary associated with the pandemic, while 15% experienced lay-offs or employment furloughs during this period. Approximately one-in-five res- idents reported that their financia l situation has worsened during the pandemic, and those looking for suitable child daycare in San Carlos report that it is somewhat harder to find now than it was prior to the pandemic (see COVID-19 Impacts on page 51).

The impacts of the pandemic have no t been felt evenly across the com- munity. When compared to homeowne rs, those who rent their residence in San Carlos were more likely to experience reductions to their hours or salary during the pandemic, as well as layoffs. The same is true for households with a teenager and those who indicated their financial situa- tion worsened with the pa ndemic. It is worth noti ng that a household’s

10.a
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 196

Conclusions
True North Research, Inc. © 2021 11City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
financial situation during the pandem ic was correlated with a need for daycare, with households that experienced financial hardship during the pandemic also being more likely to have searched for daycare in San Car- los both before and during the pandemic.

How well is the City com-
municating with San
Carlos residents?
The past few years have witnessed a shift in communication preferences, particularly among older residents. Whereas in the past there was a strong preference for printed forms of communication among older resi- dents, while younger residents gravit ated toward digital sources, these differences have eroded over time. In the 2021 community survey, email and e-notifications were not only pe rceived to be the most effective method of city-resident communicatio n overall, they were also the pre- ferred option in every age cohort. In other words, even among seniors, email and e-notifications were viewed as more effective than postcards, letters, and newsletters mailed to their home (direct mail).

That is not to say that direct mail is unpopular—it is second on the list in terms of perceived effectiveness over all, and is in the top-three most effective methods in every age group. It is simply to point out that the digital divide in terms of city-resident communications is not nearly as pronounced as it has been in the past , and we expect that the trend will continue in other areas where (currently) there are still differences in use by age (e.g., social media and the City’s website).

With the ground constantly shifting beneath its feet, the City has been nimble enough to adapt and contin ue to meet residents’ needs with respect to City-resident communicatio ns. Whereas many cities have wit- nessed a significant decline in satisfaction with city-resident communica- tions over the past decade, San Carl os has managed to keep the overall satisfaction level between 82% and 85% dating back to the first survey in 2014. The fact that San Carlos residents primarily rely on city-sponsored sources of information to find out about San Carlos news, events, and programming—including the Good Living newsletter, direct mail, email, and the City’s website—is undoubtedly one of the reasons for this stabil- ity in satisfaction over the past seven years (see Communication on page 33).

10.a
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 197

Q UALITY OF L IFE
The opening series of question s in the 2021 survey was designed to assess residents’ percep- tions of the quality of life in San Carlos, as we ll as their ideas for what city government could do to improve the quality of life in the City, now and in the future.

OVERALL QUALITY OF LIFE At the outset of the survey, respondents were asked to rate the quality of life in the City using a five-point scale of excellent, good, fair, poor, or very poor.

As shown in Figure 1 below, nine-in-ten residents in 2021 shared favorable opinions of the qual- ity of life in San Carlos, with 41% reporting it is excellent and 50% stating it is good. Eight per- cent (8%) of residents indicated the quality of life in the City is fair, whereas 2% used poor or very poor to describe the quality of life in the City . Despite the pandemic’s grip on the community since March 2020, were no statistically significant changes in the perceived quality of life in San Carlos during the past year.

Question 2 How would you rate the overall quality of life in San Carlos? Would you say it is excellent, good, fair, poor or very poor?
FIGURE 1 QUALITY OF LIFE BY STUDY YEAR
Figures 2 and 3 on the next page show how rati ngs of the quality of life in the City varied by years of residence in San Carlos, gender, presen ce of children in the home, age of the respon- dent, home ownership status, and the financial impact of the pandemic on the respondent’s household. Even at the subgroup level, San Carl os residents shared positive assessments of the quality of life in the City, with ratings ranging from a low of 85% to a high of 96% across all sub- groups.

37.9 44.5 47.0 51.3

52.5 46.5 48.9 46.4

7.7 7.9 3.6 2.1

40.5 49.6

7.9 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
2021 2020 2018 2016 2014
Study Y ear
% Respondents
Not sure/Prefer
not to answer
Very poor
Poor
Fair
Good
Excellent

10.a
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 198

FIGURE 2 QUALITY OF LIFE BY YEARS IN SAN CARLOS, GENDER & CHILDREN IN HSLD FIGURE 3 QUALITY OF LIFE BY AGE, HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS & HSLD FINANCIAL SITUATION DUE TO PANDEMIC WAYS TO IMPROVE QUALITY OF LIFE Respondents were next asked to indicate one thing that city government could change to ma ke San Carlos a better pl ace to live, now and in the future. This question was asked in an open-ended manner, allowing respondents to mention any improvement that came to mind without being prompted by or restricted to a list of options.

True North later reviewed the verbatim responses and grouped them into the categories shown in Figure 4 on the next page.

Nearly one-in-five (18% of) respondents were either unsure of a change that would make San Car- los a better place to live (12%) or indicated th ey desired no changes from the City (6%)—both of which are indicative of a respondent who does no t perceive any pressing issues or problems in the City that can be addressed by local govern ment. Among specific changes mentioned, the most common were limiting growth and development (18%), reducing traffic congestion (13%), improving and addressing parking issues (8%), providing affordable housing (7%), improving public safety (7%), and adding and improving si dewalks and bike lanes ( 6%). No other individual categories of improvement were mentioned by at least 5% of respondents, respectively.

42.7 40.6 40.3 44.1 40.4

46.2 51.8 47.9

48.9 50.8
Excellent

43.8 47.1

38.4 38.9
Good

48.6 50.150.6

47.3 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Less than 5 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 or more Male Female Yes, under 13 Yes, teenager No children Years in San Carlos (Q1) Gender (QD1) Children in Hsld (Q24,QD3) % Respondents

49.5 41.3 39.7 41.7 40.8 39.6

46.2 50.0 48.3 46.3 52.0

45.1 41.038.135.9
Excellent

41.6 53.3 54.3 43.6
Good

46.0 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Under 35 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or older Own Rent Improved Stayed about the
same
Gotten
worse
Age (QD2) Home Ownership Status
(QD4)
Hsld Financial Situation Due to
Pandemic (Q26)
% Respondents

10.a
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 199

Question 3 If the City government could change one thing to make San Carlos a better place to live now and in the future, what change would you like to see? FIGURE 4 CHANGES TO IMPROVE SAN CARLOS
Table 1 presents the top five responses to this qu estion from the past five study years. Limiting growth and development has remained the mo st suggested improvem ent since 2016, and improving and addressing parking issues and re ducing traffic congestion were among the top five mentions in each of the previous four studies. Providing affordable housing reached the top five for the first time in 2020 and remained there in the current study.

TABLE 1 TOP CHANGES TO IMPROVE SAN CARLOS BY STUDY YEAR

1.5 1.6

2.0 2.1

2.3 3.0

3.1 3.5

3.7 4.4

4.5 5.7

6.1 7.4

7.4 7.6

12.0 12.6

17.8 4.0

4.8 0 5 10 15 20
Maintain outdoor dining after pandemic ends
Improve shopping, dining options
Improve City Council, government process, transparency
Cleaner city, improve landscape
Maintain small town feeling
Improve, encourage cultural diversity
Improve schools, education
Address COVID-19 issues, concerns
Improve, preserve walkability, keep Laurel Street closed Provide, improve parks, rec areas
Improve, maintain infrastructure
Improve city planning, development
Enforce traffic laws
No changes / Everything is fine
Add, improve sidewalks, bike lanes
Improve public safety
Provide affordable housing
Improve, address parking issues
Not sure / Cannot think of anything
Reduce traffic congestion
Limit growth, development
% Respondents
2021 2020 2018 2016 2014
Limit growth,
development
Limit growth,
development
Limit growth,
development
Limit growth,
development
Improve, address
parking issues
Reduce traffic
congestion
Reduce traffic
congestion
Improve, address
parking issues
Reduce traffic
congestion
Reduce traffic
congestion
Not sure / Cannot
think of anything
Improve, address
parking issues
Reduce traffic
congestion
Improve, address
parking issues
No changes
needed
Improve, address
parking issues
Provide affordable
housing
Not sure / Can't
think of anything
Not sure / Can't
think of anything
Not sure / Can't
think of anything
Provide affordable
housing
Not sure / Can't
think of anything
Improve, maintain
infrastructure
Improve public
safety
Improve schools,
education
Study Year

10.a
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 200

As shown in Figure 5, 82% of San Carlos residents indicated they were either very satisfied (32%) or somewhat satisfied (50%) with the City’s efforts to provide municipal services. Approximately 13% of respondents indicated that they were dissatisfied with the City’s overall performance, and an additional 5% indicated that they were unsure or unwilling to share their opinion. There were no statistically significant changes between the 2020 and 2021 survey results.

Question 4 Next, I would like to ask a series of questions about services provided by the City of San Carlos. Generally speaking, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the job the City of San Car- los is doing to provide city services?
FIGURE 5 OVERALL SATISFACTION BY STUDY YEAR
Figures 6 and 7 on the next page display how th e percentage of respondents satisfied with the City’s overall performance varied across demographic subgroups. Although there was some vari- ation in opinions across subgroups, the dominant pattern is one of consistency. With the excep- tion of residents under 35 years of age (74%), more than eight-in-ten residents in every identified subgroup said they were satisfied with the City’s overall performance in providing municipal ser- vices.

41.8 48.4

44.5 51.2

45.9 8.7 8.1

7.6 1.24.3 6.0 3.5

42.2 34.732.2 32.0

49.9 7.4

8.9 3.7 3.1 2.63.5

2.55.2 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
2021 2020 2018 2016 2014
Study Y ear
% Respondents
Prefer not to
answer
Not sure
Very
dissatisfied
Som ewhat
dissatisfied
Som ewhat
satisfied
Very satisfied

10.a
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 201

FIGURE 6 OVERALL SATISFACTION BY YEARS IN SAN CARLOS, GENDER & CHILDREN IN HSLD FIGURE 7 OVERALL SATISFACTION BY AGE, HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS & HSLD FINANCIAL SITUATION DUE TO

PANDEMIC
SPECIFIC SERVICES Whereas Question 4 addressed the City’s overall performance, the next two questions asked respondents to rate the importance of specific services offered by the City, as well as their level of satisfaction with efforts to provide these services. For each service, respondents were first asked if they thought a service was extremely important, very important, somewhat important, or not at all important. The order of the items was randomized for each respondent to avoid a systematic position bias.

Figure 8 on the next page presents the services sorted by order of importance according to the percentage of respondents who rated a service as at least very important. In line with past stud- ies, San Carlos residents once again rated pub lic safety and public works services as the most important. More specifically, providing fire pr otection, prevention, an d emergency medical ser- vices (96% extremely or very important), maintaining a low crime rate (93%), preparing the City for fire, police and public works emergencies (92%), providing trash collection and recycling ser- vices (91%), providing safe streets (90%), and maintaining local streets (89%) received the highest importance ratings from residents.

34.2 31.4 32.7 32.8 32.7

49.2 50.0 53.6 50.0 48.4

31.133.337.6Ver y
satisfied

31.9 50.0

47.7 51.0
Smwt
satisfied

48.1 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Less than 5 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 or more Male Female Yes, under 13 Yes,
teenager
No children
Years in San Carlos (Q1) Gender (QD1) Children in Hsld (Q24,QD3) % Respondents

41.3 32.5 34.5

46.0 32.0 28.4

48.4 51.7 47.1

36.8 51.5 52.3
Ver y
satisfied

33.7 30.4 29.4 26.9
Smwt
satisfied

39.9 53.851.356.5
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Under 35 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or older Own Rent Improved Stayed about the
same
Gotten
worse
Age (QD2) Home Ownership
Status (QD4)
Hsld Financial Situation Due to
Pandemic (Q26)
% Respondents

10.a
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 202

At the other end of the spectrum, providing more parking downtown (49%), providing affordable housing (50%), holding special community events like summer concerts in the park, Night of Hol- iday Lights, Goblin Walk, and others (52%), and providing recreation programs for adults and seniors (53%) were viewed as less important.

Question 5 For each of the services I read, please tell me whether the service is extremely important to you, very important, somewhat important, or not at all important.

FIGURE 8 IMPORTANCE OF SERVICES
For the interested reader, Table 2 on the next pa ge displays the percentage of respondents who viewed each service as extremely or very important from 2014 to 2021, as well as the difference from 2020 to 2021. Over the past year, three services exhibited statistically significant increases in importance (promoting economic development, providing recreation programs for youth, and providing parks, sports fields and recreation faci lities) while three others were rated as signifi- cantly less important (providing more public pa rking downtown, reducing traffic congestion on city streets, and providing safe streets).

19.8 23.1

20.0 18.3

26.3 23.4

27.9 37.3

29.7 27.3

26.3 37.1

49.0 40.9

56.8 47.9

42.2 61.3

52.7 59.2

66.3 69.1

29.2 26.8

32.2 34.4

32.4 39.0

36.3 32.3

40.6 43.3

44.5 36.8

29.1 41.6

28.0 39.0

47.0 28.4

38.0 32.5

27.0 26.7
0 1 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 0 1 0 0
Providing more public parking downtown
Providing affordable housing
Holding special community events
Providing recreation programs for adults and seniors
Hav ing city-prov ided resources, facilities av ail during PG&E power shut-offs Promoting economic development to stimulate the local economy Preserving community character, appearance
Reducing traffic congestion on city streets
Prov iding recreation programs for y outh
Establishing and maintaining financial reserves
Keeping public buildings and facilities clean and attractive Providing library services
Responding to the COVID-19 pandemic
Providing parks, sports fields and recreation facilities Providing police services
Maintaining storm drains, sewers and creeks
Maintaining local streets
Providing safe streets
Providing trash collection and recycling services
Preparing the City for fire, police and public works emergencies Maintaining a low crime rate
Providing fire protection, prevention and emergency medical services Q5n Q5s Q5o Q5mQ5v Q5p Q5q Q5e Q5l Q5t Q5h Q5f Q5u Q5j Q5a Q5k Q5i Q5r Q5g Q5c Q5b Q5d % Respondents
Extrem ely im portant Very important

10.a
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 203

TABLE 2 IMPORTANCE OF SERVICES BY STUDY YEAR2
† Statistically significant change (p < 0.05) between the 2020 and 2021 studies.

At the top of the list, respondents were most sa tisfied with the City’s efforts to provide library services (95% very or somewhat satisfied), followed by provide trash collection and recycling ser- vices (94%), keep public buildings and facilities clean and attractive (9 3%), provide fire protec- tion, prevention, and emergency medical services (93%), provide recreation programs for adults and seniors (92%), and hold special community events like summer concerts in the park, Night of Holiday Lights, Goblin Walk, and others (91%). Respondents were comparatively less satisfied with the City’s efforts to provide affordable housing (48%) and reduce traffic congestion on city streets (53%).

2. Preparing the City for fire, poli ce, and public works emergencies was previously worded as Preparing the City for emergencies.
2021 2020 2018 2016 2014
Promoting economic development to stimulate the local economy 62.4 48.3 52.1 59.5 68.5 +14.2† Providing recreation programs for youth 70.3 65.2 70.0 68.8 68.6 +5.1† Providing parks, sports fields and recreation facilities 82.5 77.5 79.9 82.9 78.8 +5.0† Holding special community events 52.2 47.6 51.0 56.8 58.3 +4.6 Establishing and maintaining financial reserves 70.6 67.5 N/A N/A N/A +3.1 Preparing the City for fire, police and public works emergencies 91.6 88.6 86.0 85.7 84.6 +3.0 Providing affordable housing 49.9 47.0 N/A N/A N/A +2.9 Providing fire protection, prevention and emergency medical services 95.9 95.0 92.6 94.9 96.8 +0.8 Providing recreation programs for adults and seniors 52.7 51.9 49.7 54.6 N/A +0.8 Providing trash collection and recycling services 90.6 90.0 90.5 90.6 89.7 +0.7 Providing library services 73.9 73.9 75.1 77.0 73.6 +0.0 Maintaining local streets 89.2 89.4 88.9 91.2 93.6 -0.1 Maintaining a low crime rate 93.2 93.6 93.1 96.0 95.5 -0.4 Maintaining storm drains, sewers and creeks 86.9 87.6 92.4 89.5 91.5 -0.7 Keeping public buildings and facilities clean and attractive 70.8 71.8 70.3 74.5 76.6 -1.0 Providing police services 84.8 88.2 91.1 91.5 93.2 -3.4 Preserving community character, appearance 64.2 67.7 64.5 72.3 66.0 -3.4 Providing safe streets 89.7 95.5 N/A N/A N/A -5.8†
Reducing traffic congestion on city streets 69.6 77.3 79.5 N/A N/A -7.7† Providing more public parking downtown 49.0 58.2 63.4 N/A N/A -9.2† Responding to the COVID-19 pandemic 78.2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Having city-provided resources, facilities avail during PG&E power shut-offs 58.7 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Change in
Extremely + Very
Important
2020 to 2021
Study Year

10.a
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 204

Question 6 For the same list of services I just read, I'd like you to tell me how satisfied you are with the job the city is doing to provide the service. Are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the city's efforts to: _____, or do you not have an opinion?
FIGURE 9 SATISFACTION WITH SERVICES
Table 3 on the next page displays the percentag e of respondents who were satisfied with each service from 2014 to 2021, as well as the difference in satisfaction between the 2020 and 2021 studies. As shown in the right column, most services experienced small and statistically insignif- icant changes in satisfaction between 2020 and 2021. Respondents expressed statistically sig- nificant increases in satisfaction with the City’s efforts to reduce traffic congestion on city streets (+15%) and provide more public parking downtown (+7%) between 2020 and 2021, whereas satisfaction with the City’s efforts to provide safe streets (-5%) and hold special commu- nity events (-4%) declined during the same period.

12.6 13.7

26.0 18.6

22.4 25.5

32.1 19.9

31.0 37.1

42.9 27.1

34.4 35.4

44.5 42.7

51.5 35.8

47.5 41.6

55.3 54.7

35.7 39.6

40.6 49.6

45.9 44.1

43.9 56.6

48.8 43.5

41.3 57.4

50.9 53.6

45.2 48.5

39.8 56.1

45.3 51.8

38.5 40.4
8 7
7 5
5 5
4 2
3 2
3 2
2 2
2 10.0

10.7 12.1

12.4 24.8

29.0 22.6

20.9 22.2

19.5 17.0

16.0 10.9

7.9 3.9

7.5 7.0

11.0 2
2 5.5

5.1 7.3

7.9 26.9

17.7 10.9

10.8 9.5
0 1 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 0 1 0 0
Provide affordable housing [67%]
Reduce traffic congestion on city streets [93%]
Provide more public parking downtown [90%]
Have city-provided resources, facilities avail during PG&E power shut-offs [54%] Maintain local streets [96%]
Preserve community character, appearance [85%]
Provide safe streets [96%]
Promote economic development to stimulate the local economy [71%] Respond to the COVID-19 pandemic [82%]
Provide police services [91%]
Maintain a low crime rate [94%]
Establish and maintain financial reserves [53%]
Prepare the City for fire, police and public works emergencies [75%] Maintain storm drains, sewers and creeks [86%]
Provide parks, sports fields and recreation facilities [94%] Provide recreation programs for youth [76%]
Hold special community events [87%]
Provide recreation programs for adults and seniors [70%] Provide fire protection, prevention and emergency medical services [84%] Keep public buildings and facilities clean and attractive [92%] Provide trash collection and recycling services [94%]
Provide library services [90%]
% Respondents Who Provided Opinion
Very satisfied Som ewhat satisfied Somewhat dissatisfied Very dissatisfied

10.a
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 205

TABLE 3 SATISFACTION WITH SERVICES BY STUDY YEAR
† Statistically significant change (p < 0.05) between the 2020 and 2021 studies.

DIFFERENTIATORS OF OPINION For the interested reader, Table 4 displays how the level of satisfaction with each specific service tested in Question 6 varied according to residents’ overall performance ratings for the City (see Overall Satisfaction on page 15). The table divides residents who were sati sfied with the City’s overall performance into one group and those dis- satisfied into a second group. Also displayed is the difference between the two groups in terms of the percentage who indicated they were satisfie d with the City’s efforts to provide each ser- vice tested in Question 6 (far right column). Fo r convenience, the services are sorted by that dif- ference, with the greatest differentiators of opinion near the top of the table.

When compared with their counterparts, those satisfied with the City’s performance in providing services overall were also more likely to express satisfac tion with the City’s efforts to provide each of the individual services tested in Question 6. With that said, the greatest specific differen- tiators of opinion between satisf ied and dissatisfied residents we re found with respect to the City’s efforts to preserve community character and appearance, maintain local streets, reduce traffic congestion on city streets, and promot e economic development to stimulate the local economy.

At the other end of the spectrum, there was much less difference between the two resident groups regarding their satisfaction with the City’s efforts to provide affordable housing, provide parks, sports fields and recreation facilities, and provide library services. 2021 2020 2018 2016 2014
Reduce traffic congestion on city streets 53.3 38.1 41.0 N/A N/A +15.2† Provide more public parking downtown 66.6 59.8 44.6 N/A N/A +6.8† Provide affordable housing 48.3 45.0 N/A N/A N/A +3.3
Maintain storm drains, sewers and creeks 89.0 88.0 89.3 87.3 89.2 +1.0 Keep public buildings and facilities clean and attractive 93.5 92.8 95.7 93.2 98.5 +0.6 Provide recreation programs for adults and seniors 91.9 91.3 94.3 90.8 N/A +0.6 Preserving community character, appearance 69.5 69.5 74.9 76.4 82.6 +0.0 Provide parks, sports fields and recreation facilities 89.7 89.9 90.9 88.1 87.9 -0.2 Provide trash collection and recycling services 93.7 94.9 95.2 94.7 90.5 -1.2 Provide library services 95.1 96.3 97.5 97.8 96.7 -1.2
Provide fire protection, prevention and emergency medical services 92.9 94.2 95.8 95.9 96.4 -1.3 Maintain a low crime rate 84.2 85.9 90.8 76.6 86.6 -1.7 Maintain local streets 68.3 70.0 74.2 71.6 78.3 -1.8
Establish and maintain financial reserves 84.5 86.7 N/A N/A N/A -2.2 Prepare the City for emergencies 85.3 87.5 88.6 87.9 91.0 -2.2 Provide recreation programs for youth 91.2 93.9 94.7 96.2 95.8 -2.6 Promote economic development to stimulate the local economy 76.5 79.3 82.2 81.3 82.3 -2.8 Provide police services 80.6 84.3 89.4 83.4 91.1 -3.8
Holding special community events 91.3 95.7 96.5 96.3 95.4 -4.4† Provide safe streets 75.9 81.3 N/A N/A N/A -5.4†
Respond to the COVID-19 pandemic 79.7 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Have city-provided resources, facilities avail during PG&E power shut-offs 68.3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Change in
Satisfaction
2020 to 2021
Study Year

10.a
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 206

TABLE 4 SATISFACTION WITH SERVICES BY OVERALL SATISFACTION WITH CITY Very or somewhat
satisfied
Very or somewhat
dissatisfied
Preserve community character, appearance 75.1 28.3 46.8 Maintain local streets 74.5 29.4 45.1
Reduce traffic congestion on city streets 59.3 16.4 42.9 Promote economic development to stimulate the local economy 81.8 43.5 38.4 Respond to the COVID-19 pandemic 84.2 50.0 34.2
Provide police services 84.6 52.9 31.7
Provide safe streets 79.8 49.1 30.6
Establish and maintain financial reserves 89.5 59.6 29.9 Prepare the City for fire, police and public works emergencies 89.7 61.0 28.7 Have city-provided resources, facilities avail during PG&E power shut-offs 73.0 45.4 27.6 Provide more public parking downtown 70.4 44.8 25.7
Maintain a low crime rate 87.6 62.7 24.9
Maintain storm drains, sewers and creeks 91.4 70.9 20.5 Hold special community events 93.7 73.9 19.8
Keep public buildings and facilities clean and attractive 96.0 76.4 19.5 Provide recreation programs for adults and seniors 93.8 77.8 16.0 Provide fire protection, prevention and emergency medical services 94.7 80.9 13.8 Provide trash collection and recycling services 95.5 82.5 13.0 Provide recreation programs for youth 92.8 80.6 12.2
Provide library services 96.4 85.0 11.4
Provide parks, sports fields and recreation facilities 91.1 80.2 10.8 Provide affordable housing 49.4 42.1 7.3
% Respondents Satisfied With Each Service
Satisfaction With
City's Overall Performance (Q4)
Difference Between
Groups For Each
Service

10.a
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 207

10.a
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 208

TABLE 5 RESIDENT SERVICE NEEDS & PRIORITIES MATRIX
Using this framework, True North categorized respondents individually for each of the 22 ser- vices tested in the study. Thus, for example, a respondent who indicated that reducing traffic congestion on city streets was somewhat importan t and they were very satisfied with the City’s efforts in this service area would be categorized in the exceeding needs group for this service.

The same respondent may be grouped in the marginally not meeting needs group for another service (e.g., providing affordable housing) if they were somewhat dissatisfied with the City’s efforts to provide the service, but the service was viewed as only somewhat important.

Figure 10 on the next page presents the 22 services tested, along with the percentage of respon- dents who were grouped into each of the six possible categories. For ease of interpretation, the color-coding in Figure 10 is consistent with that presented in Table 5. Thus, for example, in the service area of reducing traffic congestion on ci ty streets, the City is exceeding the needs of 5% of respondents, moderately meetin g the needs of 13% of respondents, marginally meeting the needs of 19% of respondents, marginally not meeting the needs of 5% of respondents, moder- ately not meeting the needs of 13% of responden ts, and severely not meeting the needs of 44% of respondents.

As shown in the figure, the City is meeting the needs of at least three-quarters of residents for 16 of the 22 services tested. Operating from the management philosophy that, all other things being equal, the City should focus on improving those services that have the highest percentage of residents for which the City is currently not meeting their needs, the services have been sorted by order of priority. Thus, providing affordable housing is the top priority, followed by reducing traffic congestion on city streets, providing more public parking downtown, and maintaining local streets.

10.a
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 209

FIGURE 10 RESIDENT SERVICE NEEDS
10 2
11 1
17 21
8 7
4 1
4 2
4 5
8 4
11 10
2 23
7 15
57 58
46 49
42 50
50 47
39 39
38 44
41 36
31 33
30 24
27 25
23 17
28 34
36 43
33 20
34 36
47 46
42 38
36 39
37 39
28 35
40 19
24 16
3 6
2 5
5 1
5 6
6 2
3 3
3 3
4 3
5 1
4 7
9 2
8 11
11 11
11 13
5 2
4 6
7 10
8 14
13 12
9 20
18 15
19 18
30 32
1 2
4 1
2 1
2 1
1 1
2 1
0 2
2 2
3 3
3 4
0 1 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 0 1 0 0
Prov iding library serv ices
Providing trash collection and recycling services
Keeping public buildings and facilities clean and attractive Providing fire protection, prevention, emergency medical Prov iding recreation programs for adults and seniors
Holding special community events
Providing recreation programs for youth
Providing parks, sports fields and recreation facilities Maintaining storm drains, sewers and creeks
Preparing the City for fire, police and public works emergencies Establishing and maintaining financial reserves
Maintaining a low crime rate
Providing police services
R esponding to the COVID-19 pandemic
Promoting economic development to stimulate local economy Providing safe streets
Preserving community character, appearance
Having resources, facilities during PG&E power shut-offs Maintaining local streets
Providing more public parking downtown
Reducing traffic congestion on city streets
Providing affordable housing
% Respondents who Provided Opinion
Exceeding needs
Meeting needs
mo derately
Meeting needs
marginally
Not m eeting needs
marginally
Not m eeting needs
mo derately
Not m eeting needs
severely

10.a
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 210

B IKING IN S AN C ARLOS
Beginning in June 2020, the City of San Carlos established bike loops on Saturdays and Sundays to encourage exercise through bicycling, jogging, and walking and to provide residents with an alternative means to travel Down town. In this section, we report on how these changes have impacted residents’ opinions of bike safety in San Carlos, as well as whether they personally had used the bike loops to bike or walk on the weekends.

BICYCLE SAFETY The first question in this series aske d respondents if they felt that riding a bike on city streets in San Carlos is generally safe or unsafe. As shown in Figure 11, a majority of residents (56%) indicated in the 2021 survey that it is generally safe to ride a bike on city streets in San Carlos, which represents a statistically significant increase of 11% when compared to the 2020 survey findings. Approximately one-quarter (26%) felt in 2021 that riding a bike on city streets is unsafe, whereas 18% were unsure or preferred to not share their opinion.

Question 7 Would you say it is generally safe or unsafe to ride a bike on city streets in San Car- los?
FIGURE 11 OPINION OF BIKE SAFETY BY STUDY YEAR
Figure 12 on the next page shows how ratings of bicycle safety in San Ca rlos varied by overall opinion of the City’s performance, age, pr esence of a child in the home, and gender among those who provided an opinion (safe or unsafe). Safety ratings were highest among residents who were satisfied with the City’s overall performance, the youngest (under 35) and oldest (65+) age cohorts, those without children in the home, and males.

45.7 47.9 47.9

33.0 33.4 34.0

20.4 18.7 17.4

56.4†

25.7†

17.0 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
2021 2020 2018 2016
Study Y ear
% Respondents
Prefer not to
answer
Not sure
Unsafe
Safe

10.a
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 211

FIGURE 12 OPINION OF BIKE SAFETY BY OVERALL SATISFACTION, AGE, CHILDREN IN HSLD & GENDER BIKE LOOPS When asked if they personally had used the bike loops established by the City to bike or walk on the weekends, nearly one-in -five respondents (17%) answered in the affirma- tive (Figure 13). When compared to their respective counterparts, reported use of the bike loops was noticeably higher among residents age 45 to 54 and those with a child or teenager in the home (see Figure 14).

Question 8 Beginning in June of this year, the City of San Carlos established bike loops on Sat- urdays and Sundays to encourage exercise throug h bicycling, jogging and walking and to pro- vide residents with an alternative means to travel Downtown. Have you used the bike loops to bike or walk on the weekends?
FIGURE 13 USED BIKE LOOPS ON WEEKENDS
67 67 71
65 65
73 76
64 27
59 28
35 33 33 29
35 35
27 24
36 73
41 72
65 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Satisfied Dissatisfied Under 35 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or older Yes, under 13 Yes,
teenager
No children Male Female
Overall Satisfaction
(Q4)
Age (QD2) Children in Hsld (Q24,QD3) Gender (QD1)
% Respondents Who Provided Opinion
Safe Unsafe
Prefer not to
answer

0.5 Yes, used bike
loops on
weekends

17.1 Did not use
bike loops on
weekends

82.4 10.a
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 212

FIGURE 14 USED BIKE LOOPS ON WEEKENDS BY OVERALL SATISFACTION, AGE, CHILDREN IN HSLD & GENDER

27.9 15.4

8.2 28.9

24.5 12.2

16.4 18.517.1

19.3 17.0

18.5 0
10 20
30 40
Satisfied Dissatisfied Under 35 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or olderYes, under 13 Yes,
teenager
No children Male Female
Overall Satisfaction
(Q4)
Age (QD2) Children in Hsld (Q24,QD3) Gender (QD1)
% Respondents Who Used Bike
Loops on Weekends

10.a
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 213

Local Governance & Customer Service
True North Research, Inc. © 2021 28
City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

L OCAL G OVERNANCE & C USTOMER

PERCEPTIONS OF CITY GOVERNMENT The first question in this series was designed to profile respondents’ perceptions of city government on a variety of dimensions, including fis- cal responsibility and responsiveness. For each of the four statements shown along the bottom of Figure 15, respondents were asked whether they agreed or disagreed with the statement, or if they had no opinion. The percentages shown in the colored bars are among those who provided an opinion.

Overall, 79% of residents agreed that the City manages its finances well, 78% said that they trust the City of San Carlos, 68% felt the City is resp onsive to residents’ needs, and 62% agreed that the City listens to residents when making impo rtant decisions. Table 6 on the next page pro- vides the percentage of respondents who agr eed with each of the st atements from 2014 to 2021, among those who provided an opinion. There were no stat istically significant changes between the 2020 and 2021 surveys.

Question 9 Next, I'm going to read you a series of statements about the City of San Carlos. For each, I'd like you to tell me whether you agree or disagree with the statement.

FIGURE 15 AGREEMENT WITH STATEMENTS ABOUT SAN CARLOS

21.3 22.8

14.1 13.1

57.3 54.9

53.4 48.6

22.2 25.4

12.9 14.714.3

10.27.1 7.6
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
City manages its
finances well
[61% with opinion]
I trust the City of San
Carlos
[91% with opinion]
City is responsive to
residents’ needs
[83% with opinion]
City listens to
residents when
making decisio ns
[78% with opinion]
Q9 Agreement with statements about San Carlos . . .
% Respondents Who Provided Opinion
Strongly
disagree
Som ewhat
disagree
Som ewhat
agree
Strongly
agree

10.a
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 214

Local Governance & Customer Service
True North Research, Inc. © 2021 29City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

TABLE 6 AGREEMENT WITH STATEMENTS ABOUT CITY BY STUDY YEAR ATTENTION PAID TO YOUR CITY GOVERNMENT The next question in this series asked respondents to rate how attentive they are to the issues, decisions, and activities of the San Carlos city government using a scale of very attentive, somewhat attentive, slightly attentive, or not at all attentive. Overall, 11% of respondents in 2021 claimed they are very attentive to matters of local government, 47% somewhat attentive, and 34% slightly attentive. An additional 8% of respondents confided that they do not pay any attention to the activities of the City of San Carlos or were not sure. There were no statistically significant changes from 2020 to 2021 (see Figure 16).

Question 10 How much attention do you pay to the issues, decisions, and activities of your City government? Would you say that you are very attentive, somewhat attentive, slightly attentive, or not at all attentive?
FIGURE 16 ATTENTIVENESS TO CITY GOVERNMENT BY STUDY YEAR Figures 17 and 18 on the next page display ho w attentiveness to local government differed across a variety of demographic su bgroups. Respondents who have lived in San Carlos at least 15 years, residents 45 years and older, those living with a teenager, home owners, respondents who reported being dissatisfied with the City’s overall performance, and those who had personal contact with a San Carlos staff member in the pa st year were generally more likely than their counterparts to say they are at least somewhat attentive to issues, decisions, and activities of the San Carlos city government.
2021 2020 2018 2016 2014
The City listens to residents when making important decisions 61.6 60.8 64.2 61.2 71.5 +0.9 I trust the City of San Carlos 77.7 77.4 77.2 75.8 84.4 +0.3 The City manages its finances well 67.6 67.9 69.2 69.2 67.8 -0.3 The City is responsive to residents’ needs 78.6 79.7 76.0 68.6 76.2 -1.0 Change in
Agreement
2020 to 2021
Study Year

13.2 11.6 15.0 14.9

45.7 50.5

51.8 42.2

32.3 30.1 25.2

34.1 6.8 6.7 6.3 6.5 8.1

11.3 46.5

34.4 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
2021 2020 2018 2016 2014
Study Y ear
% Respondents
Not sure
Not at all
attentive
Slightly attentive
Som ewhat
attentive
Very attentive

10.a
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 215

Local Governance & Customer Service
True North Research, Inc. © 2021 30City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

FIGURE 17 ATTENTIVENESS TO CITY GOVERNMENT BY YEARS IN SAN CARLOS & AGE FIGURE 18 ATTENTIVENESS TO CITY GOVERNMENT BY CHILDREN IN HSLD, HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS, OVERALL

SATISFACTION & CONTACT WITH CITY STAFF
CITY STAFF The next question in this series aske d if the respondent had been in contact with City of San Carlos staff in the 12 months prior to the interview. As shown in Figure 19, 36% of respondents indicated they had been in contac t with staff in the past 12 months. Although research has generally shown lower rates of staff contact during the pandemic period, it is also the case that the significant decline in staff contact witnessed in 2021 is a slight acceleration of a longer-term trend in the City of San Carlos dating back to 2014.

When compared with their respective counterparts , those who have lived in the City five to nine years, those 45 to 54 years of age, and home owners were the most likely to report having con- tact with city staff in the past year (see Figure 20).

7.6 11.7 15.4 9.8

39.2 42.4

50.8 47.4 53.3
Ver y

9.9 10.0 11.1 11.8 10.1
Somewhat

26.4 52.8

44.350.0
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 Less than 5 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 or more Under 35 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or older Years in San Carlos (Q1) Age (QD2)
% Respondents

9.6 25.7 21.9

5.4 41.2 46.6

50.1 47.7

46.0 9.411.811.410.3Ver y

10.5 55.5

46.7 48.1Somewhat

43.4 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
Yes, under 13 Yes, teenager No children Own Rent Satisfied Dissatisfied Yes No Children in Hsld (Q24,QD3) Home Ownership Status
(QD4)
Overall Satisfaction (Q4) Contact With City Staff (Q11) % Respondents

10.a
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 216

Local Governance & Customer Service
True North Research, Inc. © 2021 31City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Question 11 In the past 12 months, have you been in contact with staff fr om the City of San Carlos?
FIGURE 19 CONTACT WITH CITY IN PAST 12 MONTHS BY STUDY YEAR FIGURE 20 CONTACT WITH CITY IN PAST 12 MONTHS BY YEARS IN SAN CARLOS, AGE & HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS Respondents who had contact with city staff in the past 12 months were subsequently asked to rate city staff on three dimensions: helpfulness, professionalism, and accessibility. As displayed in Figure 21 on the next page, San Carlos reside nts rated city staff high on all three dimensions tested, with approximately nine-in-ten residents rating staff as very or somewhat professional (89%) and accessible (89%) and approximately eight-in-ten rating staff as helpful (78%). As shown in Table 7 on the next page, there were no statistically significant changes from the 2020 study in the percentage of residents who provided the highest rati ng, among those who provided an opinion.

42.7 44.6 47.8 52.1

54.0 52.4 47.2

45.8 2.3 2.4 4.3 2.2

36.3†

59.2†

3.6 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
2021 2020 2018 2016 2014
Study Y ear
% Respondents
Prefer not to
answer
Not sure
No contact
Yes, co ntact

26.3 32.6

47.2 38.5

33.7 38.1

30.3 36.638.0

42.9 29.2
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 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 over Own Rent Years in San Carlos (Q1) Age (QD2) Home Ownership
Status (QD4)
% Respondents With Staff
Contact in Past 12 Months

10.a
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 217

Local Governance & Customer Service
True North Research, Inc. © 2021 32City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Question 12 In your opinion, was the staff at the City very _____, somewhat ______, or not at all _____. Read one item at a time, continue until all items are read.

FIGURE 21 OPINION OF CITY STAFF
TABLE 7 OPINION OF CITY STAFF BY STUDY YEAR (SHOWING % VERY AMONG THOSE WITH OPINION)

63.5 45.8 45.3

25.2 43.4

32.5 19.7

3.2 8.1 8.3

2.5 2.5
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Professional Accessible Helpful
Q12 Perception of city staff . . .
% Respondents With Staff
Interaction in Past 12 Months
Not sure/
Prefer not
to answer
Not at all
Som ewhat
Very
2021 2020 2018 2016 2014
Helpful 46.5 46.4 46.6 47.4 47.1 +0.1
Accessible 47.0 47.9 47.4 54.4 50.2 -0.9
Professional 65.6 67.8 66.5 65.9 69.6 -2.2
Change in
% Very
2020 to 2021
Study Year

10.a
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 218

OVERALL SATISFACTION WITH COMMUNICATION Question 13 asked San Carlos residents to report their satisfaction with city-resident communication. Overall, 82% of respon- dents indicated they were satisfied with the City’s efforts to communicate with residents through newsletters, the Internet, television, and othe r means. The remaining respondents were either dissatisfied with the City’s efforts in this respect (12%) or unsure of their opinion (6%). The results for this question in 2021 were consiste nt with those recorded in 2020—there were no statistically significant changes (see Figure 22).

Question 13 Overall, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the City's efforts to communicate with residents through newsletters, the Internet, television, and other means? FIGURE 22 SATISFACTION WITH COMMUNICATION BY STUDY YEAR † Statistically significant change (p < 0.05) between the 2020 and 2021 studies.

The next two figures display how satisfaction with the City’s efforts to communicate with resi- dents varied by length of residence, gender, presence of a child in the home, age of the respon- dent, home ownership status, and satisfaction wi th the City’s overall performance in providing services. Satisfaction with communication efforts was widespread, with at least three-quarters of respondents in all but one subgro up reporting they were either very or somewhat satisfied. As might be expected, residents who were dissatisf ied with the City’s overall performance also reported less satisfaction with the City’s communication efforts.

33.4 37.4 40.4 46.1

49.0 47.3 43.8

39.1 9.3 8.5 7.6 8.6 6.2

2.2 2.5 3.5 3.6 3.6

6.5 4.2 3.6 5.0

34.8 47.6

6.1 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
2021 2020 2018 2016 2014
Study Y ear
% Respondents
Not sure/Prefer
not to answer
Very dissatisfied
Som ewhat
dissatisfied
Som ewhat
satisfied
Very satisfied

10.a
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 219

FIGURE 23 SATISFACTION WITH COMMUNICATION BY YEARS IN SAN CARLOS, GENDER & CHILDREN IN HSLD FIGURE 24 SATISFACTION WITH COMMUNICATION BY AGE, HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS & OVERALL SATISFACTION SOURCES OF INFORMATION To help the City identify the most effective means of com- municating with residents, it is helpful to un derstand what information sources they currently rely on for this type of information. Question 14 asked respondents to identify the top three information sources they typically use to find out about City of San Carlos news, events, and pro- grams. Because respondents were allowed to provide up to three sources, the percentages shown in Figure 25 on the next page represen t the percentage of residents who mentioned a particular source and thus sum to more than 100.

The most frequently-cited source for city information was city newsletters/Good Living commu- nity newsletter, mentioned by 64% of respondents. The City’s newsletters were followed by Next- door (28%), the City’s website (25%), email notifications from the City (21%), and postcards, letters, flyers or brochures mailed to their home (17%). For the interested reader, Table 8 on the next page compares the top information sources cited in response to Question 14 in each study year. Although their relative ranking has changed over time, the top five sources for San Carlos news, events and programming have remained the same since 2016.

34.4 35.6 32.9 38.0 36.2

43.5 51.5

45.5 46.7 47.4
Ver y
satisfied

41.2 41.9

32.1 32.1
Smwt
satisfied

34.4 50.653.6

46.1 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Less than 5 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 or more Male Female Yes, under 13 Yes,
teenager
No children
Years in San Carlos (Q1) Gender (QD1) Children in Hsld (Q24,QD3) % Respondents

36.4 34.4 39.4 38.7

13.6 47.3 48.5 45.3 48.1

46.8 37.235.530.4
Ver y
satisfied

35.2 50.0 45.2

51.9Smwt
satisfied

44.2 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Under 35 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or older Own Rent Satisfied Dissatisfied Age (QD2) Home Ownership Status
(QD4)
Overall Satisfaction (Q4)
% Respondents

10.a
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 220

Question 14 What information sources do you use to find out about City of San Carlos news, events, and programs?
FIGURE 25 CITY INFORMATION SOURCES
TABLE 8 TOP CITY INFORMATION SOURCES BY STUDY YEAR
Figures 26 and 27 on the next page present the in formation source categories by age, presence of a child in the home, home ownership status, and satisfaction with the City’s communication efforts. For ease of interpretation, the bars representing city-sponsored sources are displayed in shades of green, and non-city sources in shades of orange.

0.3 0.3

0.5 0.5

0.6 1.0

1.2 1.5

1.5 1.7

2.4 4.1

4.4 4.7

5.2 7.6

8.7 12.0

12.2 12.3

13.1 17.2

25.1 63.5

20.8 1.7

2.7 27.8
0 1 02 03 04 05 06 07 0
Other
Not sure
Blogs
Radio
Do Not Receive Information about City
New Billboard at Adult Community Center
Other social media site
Instagram
Other newspaper
San Carlos TV/Channel 27
San Mateo County Times (daily newspaper)
Tw itter
Television (general)
City Council Meetings
Flyers, brochures or posters (displayed at public facilities) San Francisco Chronicle (daily newspaper)
Daily Post (daily newspaper)
Facebook
Street banners
San Carlos Patch (online newspaper)
Internet (not City’s site)
Friends/Family/Associates
San Mateo Daily Journal (daily newspaper)
Postcards, letters, flyers or brochures (mailed to home) Email notification from City
City’s website
Nextdoor
City Newsletters/Good Living community newsletter
% Respondents
2021 2020 2018 2016 2014
City Newsletters City Newsletters City Newsletters City Newsletters City Newsletters Nextdoor Nextdoor City’s website
Postcards, letters,
flyers or brochures
(mailed to home)
City’s website
City’s website
Postcards, letters,
flyers or brochures
(mailed to home)
Nextdoor Email notification
from City Street banners
Email notification
from City City’s website
Postcards, letters,
flyers or brochures
(mailed to home)
Nextdoor Email notification
from City
Postcards, letters,
flyers or brochures
(mailed to home)
Email notification
from City
Email notification
from City City’s website San Carlos Patch
Study Year

10.a
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 221

FIGURE 26 INFORMATION SOURCE CATEGORIES BY OVERALL & AGE FIGURE 27 INFORMATION SOURCE CATEGORIES BY CHILDREN IN HSLD, HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS & SATISFACTION

WITH COMMUNICATION
COMMUNICATION PREFERENCES The next communication-re lated question presented residents with the methods shown to the left of Figure 28 on the next page and asked whether each would be an effective way for the City to communicate with them. Overall, respondents indi- cated that email and e-notifications was the most effective method (88% very or somewhat effec- tive), followed by postcards, letters, and newsletters mailed to the home (86%), the City’s website (76%), and social media like Facebook, Twitter, and Nextdoor (66%). More than one-third of respondents also indicated that town hall meetings (47%), Shape San Carlos (42%), and the new billboard at the Adult Community Center (36%) would be at least somewhat effective methods for the City to communicate with them. When compared to the other methods tested, San Carlos res- idents found TV programs on Comcast Cable Channel 27 and AT&T Channel 99 (20%) and adver- tisements in local papers (28%) to be the least effective ways for the City to communicate with them.
71 51
74 77
77 75
42 48
32 36
20 43
42 38
40 24
29 29
25 24
14 22
14 11
15 22
42 13
18 14
12 10
10 13
12 12
16 12
12 6
6 5
6 6
4 3
4 3
0 3
6 1
2 0
2 1
0 39
45 46
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Under 35 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or older
Overall Age (QD2)
% Respondents
City newsletters, direct mail
City website, emails
Social m edia
Non-City websites
Newspapers
Banners, flyers at facilities
Other sources
City Council meetings, SCTV
Radio or T V
Not sure / No sources
76 75
70 75
62 75
56 41
45 43
47 37
33 39
28 37
35 24
20 23
23 26
24 24
11 15
28 24
17 23
21 12
9 15
11 23
14 11
13 20
11 12
14 12
12 7
6 5
5 4
5 8
3 2
4 3
3 3
2 1
1 1
1 1
0 3
44 32
42 41
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Yes, under 13 Yes, teenager No children Own Rent Satisfied Dissatisfied Children in Hsld (Q24,QD3) Home Ownership Status (QD4) Satisfaction With Co mmunicatio n (Q13)
% Respondents
City newsletters, direct mail
City website, emails
Social m edia
Non-City websites
Newspapers
Banners, flyers at facilities
Other sources
City Council meetings, SCTV
Radio or T V
Not sure / No sources

10.a
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 222

FIGURE 28 EFFECTIVENESS OF COMMUNICATION EFFORTS
Over the past year, the percentage of residents who rated the City’s website (+8%) and email/e- notifications (+5%) as very effective ways for the City to communicate with them increased signif- icantly (see Table 9). The same period also witnessed a significant decline in the percentage who viewed townhall meetings to be very effective (-4%).

TABLE 9 EFFECTIVENESS OF COMMUNICATION EFFORTS BY STUDY YEAR † Statistically significant change (p < 0.05) between the 2020 and 2021 studies.

Table 10 on the next page shows how the percen tage of residents that rated each communica- tion method as very effective varied depending on their satisfaction with the City’s overall efforts to provide municipal services and their age, wi th the top three methods within each subgroup highlighted green. It is noteworthy that even among seniors, email and e-notifications were viewed as the most effective way for the City to communicate.

4.1 7.1

9.7 12.3

11.4 30.0

29.4 46.7

55.8 15.9

21.2 25.9

29.7 36.0

35.6 46.9

38.8 32.0
0 1 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 0 1 0 0
TV programs on Comcast Cable Channel 27, AT&T Channel 99 Advertisements in local papers
New Billboard at the Adult Community Center
Shape San Carlos, virtual Townhall forum on the City website Townhall meetings
Social media like Facebook, Twitter and Next Door
City’s Website
Postcards, letters and newsletters mailed to your home
Email and E-notify
Q15gQ15d Q15i Q15h Q15f Q15e Q15c Q15b Q15a
% Respondents
Very effective Somewhat effective
2021 2020 2018 2016 2014
City’s Website 29.4 21.0 27.4 24.6 17.8 +8.4†
Email and E-notify 55.8 50.4 57.8 63.9 60.3 +5.4†
Shape San Carlos, virtual Townhall forum on the City website 12.3 11.0 12.7 10.4 11.4 +1.3 Advertisements in local papers 7.1 6.6 7.6 5.0 25.5 +0.6 Social media like Facebook, Twitter and Nextdoor 30.0 29.6 34.3 29.2 8.6 +0.4 TV programs on Comcast Cable Channel 27, AT&T Channel 99 4.1 4.0 6.1 3.5 19.7 +0.1 Postcards, letters and newsletters mailed to your home 46.7 46.8 51.3 47.7 55.3 -0.2 Townhall meetings 11.4 15.2 14.5 13.7 16.5 -3.8†
New Billboard at the Adult Community Center 9.7094 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Change in
% Very Effective
2020 to 2021
Study Year

10.a
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 223

TABLE 10 EFFECTIVENESS OF COMMUNICATION METHODS BY OVERALL SATISFACTION & AGE (SHOWING % VERY

EFFECTIVE)
Satisfied Dissatisfied 18 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or over Email and E-notify 58.6 45.3 56.5 56.5 66.0 53.8 51.6
Postcards, letters and newsletters mailed to your home 48.3 37.6 42.6 47.8 49.2 46.8 51.1 Social media like Facebook, Twitter and Nextdoor 31.3 19.4 39.0 34.8 38.1 21.2 21.2 City’s Website 31.8 23.9 39.7 28.3 29.4 30.1 23.4
Shape San Carlos, virtual Townhall forum on the City website 13.3 6.9 19.6 7.6 12.7 17.3 6.0 Townhall meetings 12.6 7.2 10.8 8.7 11.2 11.5 14.1
New Billboard at the Adult Community Center 10.2 8.1 13.9 7.6 6.1 12.2 9.8 Advertisements in local papers 8.0 4.6 13.2 3.3 4.1 5.8 9.8 TV programs on Comcast Cable Channel 27, AT&T Channel 99 3 . 9 6 . 8 6 . 21 . 12 . 05 . 14 . 9 Age (QD2)Overall Satisfaction (Q4)

10.a
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 224

The 2021 survey included two questions designed to measure residents’ opinions regarding the pace of development in San Carlos, as well as the availability of different types of housing in the community.

HOUSING TYPES Opinions about housing often vary depending on the type of housing being discussed. To provide the City with a clearer picture of residents’ opinions about housing, Question 16 presented respondents with the list of housing types shown on the left of Figure 29 and simply asked if they felt there is currently too much, about the right amount, or too little of each type in San Carlos.

Question 16 Next, I would like to ask a few questions about the availability of housing in the City of San Carlos. As I read the following housing types, please tell me whether you feel there is currently too much, about the right amount, or too little of this type of housing in the City of San Carlos.

FIGURE 29 OPINION OF HOUSING DEVELOPMENT TYPES IN CITY Approximately half of respondents felt there was too little housing that is affordable for middle- income families (54%) and low-income families (48%). Although the dominant answer for the remaining housing types tested was about right, the percentage who felt there was not enough accessory dwelling units (32%), interim housing for people transitioning from homelessness (32%), special needs housing for families and individuals who need support services like job training and social services (29% ), and senior housing (26%) was much higher than the percent- age who felt there was already too much of each type of housing in San Carlos.

11.9 12.2

13.4 16.7

17.7 26.0

29.3 31.5

31.7 47.9

54.2 61.0

57.3 76.8

66.8 71.3

71.5 65.8

60.3 62.0

43.4 43.3

27.2 30.5

9.8 11.0

4.9 2.5

2.6 8.7

6.3 8.1

16.5 0 1 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 0 1 0 0
Condominiums
Apartments with 7 or more units
Single family homes
Townhomes
Apartments with 6 units or less
Senior housing
Special needs housing for families, individuals who need support services like jobs training, social services
Interim housing to help people trying to transition from being homeless Accessory dwelling units - also referred to as granny flats or guest houses Housing that is affordable for low-income families
Housing that is affordable for middle-income families
Q16d Q16e Q16c Q16g Q16f Q16h Q16j Q16k Q16i Q16b Q16a
% Respondents Who Provided Opinion
Too little About right Too much

10.a
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 225

When compared to the other types of housing me ntioned above, fewer respondents felt there is currently not enough supply of condominiums (12%), apartments with seven or more units (12%), single family homes (13%), townhomes (17%), and apartments with six units or less (18%) in San Carlos. It is interesting that with the exception of additional dwelling units (ADUs), residents are two to three times more likely to cite a deficiency in housing that is programmed for specific groups (affordable housing, special needs housin g, interim housing, senior housing) than they are the physical structure of housing that could accommod ate these needs (condominiums, townhomes, apartments).

PACE OF DEVELOPMENT The next question in this series asked residents to describe the pace of development in the City of San Carlos over the past three years—has it been too fast, about right, or too slow? Figure 30 shows that less than half (49%) of those surveyed in 2021 felt the pace of development to be too fast, a statis tically significant decrease from the 2020 survey results. Approximately one-third (34%) felt the pace of development has been about right during the past three years, whereas 9% felt that the City has grown too slowly and an additional 9% of respondents were unsure or unwilling to share their opinion on this matter.

Question 17 In the past three years, would you say the pace of development in San Carlos has been too fast, about right, or too slow?
FIGURE 30 PACE OF DEVELOPMENT BY STUDY YEAR
† Statistically significant change (p < 0.05) between the 2020 and 2021 studies.

As show in Figure 31 on the next page, attitudes about the pace of development in the City were strongly related to the number of years a resident has lived in the City and their age, such that as each dimension increased, so did the percentage who felt the pace of development in the past three years has been too fast. Similarly, residents who were dissatisfied with the City’s overall performance were much more lik ely than their satisfied counte rparts to perceive the pace of development to be too fast (75% vs. 46%).

55.2 50.0

29.3 33.8

33.9 49.3

8.8 6.6 9.5

11.9 3.7 6.3 9.0

48.7†

33.5 8.7†
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
2021 2020 2018 2016
Study Y ear
% Respondents
Prefer not to
answer
Not sure
T oo slow
About right
T oo fast

10.a
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 226

FIGURE 31 PACE OF DEVELOPMENT BY YEARS IN SAN CARLOS, AGE & OVERALL SATISFACTION 31 41
50 56 58
46 75
19 14
3 6
18 13
7 5 3
8 1014
41 45
62 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Less than
5 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 or
longer
Under 35 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 and
older
Satisfied Dissatisfied
Years in San Carlos (Q1) Age (QD2) Overall Satisfaction (Q4)
% Respondents
T oo fast T oo slow

10.a
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 227

F UNDING P RIORITIES
Like most cities in California, the City of San Carlos is feeling the financial impacts of the pan- demic and is having to make budget cuts and other adjustments in resp onse to the associated economic downturn. During this difficult period, the survey pres ented an opportunity for resi- dents to help the City prioritize among variou s services, programs and projects that could receive funding in the future.

The first question in this series (Question 18) was straightforward: after informing respondents that the City does not have the financial resources to fund all of the services, programs, and projects that may be desired by residents, resp ondents were asked whether each project or pro- gram shown in Figure 32 should be a high, medium, or low priority for future city spending—or if the City should not spend money on the projec t at all. To encourage a sense of competition, respondents were instructed that not all of the projects and programs could be high priorities.

Question 18 Like most cities in California, the City of San Carlos is having to make budget cuts due to the pandemic and associated economic downturn. Your opinions will help the City set pri- orities during this difficult period. As I read each of the following items, please indicate whether you think the City should make th e item a high priority, a medium priority, or a low priority for future city spending. If you feel the City should not spend any money on this item, just say so.

Please keep in mind that not all of the items can be high priorities.

FIGURE 32 FUNDING PRIORITIES

12.5 8.1

26.2 17.8

22.4 19.5

27.9 23.8

64.2 51.3

50.2 77.9

37.2 43.8

30.0 40.6

37.8 45.7

37.8 57.5

24.2 40.0

41.7 18.1
0 1 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 0 1 0 0
Community events and activities
Community outreach including meetings and mailings
Housing programs
Public transportation
Bicycle and pedestrian access/ improvements
Recreation programs and services
Environmental sustainability/green programs
Park and landscape maintenance
Police services
Street maintenance and repair
Infrastructure maintenance and repair
Fire protection services
Q18g Q18k Q18h Q18i Q18j Q18e Q18l Q18f Q18a Q18c Q18d Q18b % Respondents
High priority Medium priority

10.a
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 228

The 12 projects and programs are sorted in Figure 32 from high to low based on the percentage of respondents who indicated that an item was at least a medium priority for future city spend- ing. Among the projects and programs tested, fi re protection services (96% high or medium pri- ority), infrastructure maintenance and repair (92%), street maintenance and repair (91%), and police services (88%) were the clear top priorities. Second tier priorities included park and land- scape maintenance (81%), environmental sustainability/green programs (66%), recreation pro- grams and services (65%), bicycle and pedestrian access/improvements (60%), public transportation (58%), and housing programs (56%).

When compared to the other projects and servi ces tested, fewer residents rated community events and activities (50%) and community outreach including meetings and mailings (52%) as a high or medium priority for future city spending. For the interested reader, the Table 11 provides the percentage of respondents who cons idered each proposed improvement a high priority by their overall satisfaction with the City’s performance and age (top three within each subgroup highlighted green).

TABLE 11 FUNDING PRIORITIES BY OVERALL SATISFACTION & AGE (SHOWING % HIGH PRIORITY) ADDITIONAL HIGH PRIORITIES? As a follow-up to Question 18, all residents were next asked whether there was another item or projec t not previously mentioned that they thought was a high priority for the City to fund. This question was asked in an open-ended manner, allowing respondents to mention any project th at came to mind without being prompted by or restricted to a list of options. True North la ter reviewed the verbatim responses and grouped them into the categories shown in Figure 33 on the next page.

More than two-thirds of residents (71%) did not have anything to add to the list of projects and services tested previously. Among the specific items that were mentioned, addressing COVID-19 and COVID-related concerns (3%), reducing traf fic congestion (3%), an d improving education/ adding schools (2%) were the top responses. Th e latter two responses were also among the top three specific issues mentioned in 2020 in response to this same question (see Table 12).

Satisfied Dissatisfied 18 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or over Fire protection services 78.7 73.6 80.9 69.6 72.1 83.3 83.2 Police services 64.0 73.5 34.5 60.9 65.0 76.9 78.3
Street maintenance and repair 51.5 52.3 53.1 44.6 52.8 51.9 54.9 Infrastructure maintenance and repair 50.7 49.2 53.1 47.8 49.7 52.6 52.2 Environmental sustainability/green programs 28.6 19.8 48.8 21.7 23.9 25.6 25.0 Housing programs 26.6 18.5 53.4 25.0 20.8 21.2 16.3
Park and landscape maintenance 24.9 16.4 25.1 27.2 28.4 19.2 20.1 Bicycle and pedestrian access/ improvements 22.1 23.4 22.5 29.3 31.5 18.6 12.5 Recreation programs and services 21.3 8.0 23.2 23.9 22.3 14.7 14.7 Public transportation 17.1 23.5 23.7 15.2 18.3 17.3 16.8 Community events and activities 13.8 8.1 15.5 13.0 15.2 11.5 8.7 Community outreach including meetings and mailings 7.3 11.9 16.3 2.2 7.1 6.4 8.7 Overall Satisfaction (Q4) Age (QD2)

10.a
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 229

Question 19 Is there another item or project not already mentioned that you think should be a high priority for the City to fund?
FIGURE 33 ADDITIONAL HIGH PRIORITY ITEMS
TABLE 12 ADDITIONAL HIGH PRIORITY ITEMS BY STUDY YEAR

0.6 0.6

0.6 0.7

0.8 1.0

1.2 1.4

1.4 1.7

1.8 2.0

2.3 2.3

2.4 2.5

3.0 6.1

65.3 2.0

1.7 0 1 02 03 04 05 06 07 0
Provide assistant for seniors, disabled
Provide public transportation
Have cultural, community events on Laurel St., keep it closed Improve city planning, development
Address parking issues
Address homeless issue
Provide more activities, events for all ages
Beautify City, landscaping
Limit growth, maintain open space
Improve economy, support for local business
Provide more rec centers, facilities
Provide more affordable housing
Address environmental issues, preparedness
Improve public safety, more police patrols
Enforce traffic laws
M aintain city infrastructure, sidewalks
Improve education, add more schools
Reduce traffic
Address COVID-19 issues, concerns
Prefer not to answer
No other high priorities / None come to mind
% Respondents
2021 2020
No other high
priorities /
None come to mind
No other high
priorities /
None come to mind
Prefer not to answer Limit growth,
maintain open space
Address COVID-19
issues, concerns
Maintain city
infrastructure
Reduce traffic Reduce traffic
Improve education,
add more schools
Improve education,
add more schools
Study Year

10.a
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 230

S HOPPING IN S AN C ARLOS
One of the challenges that all cities face is creating sustainable economic development initiatives that will support the tax base required for curre nt and future needs. The pandemic has elevated this challenge for many cities, as it has accele rated trends toward online shopping that can neg- atively impact local businesses and divert sales ta x revenues away from local jurisdictions. The 2021 survey presented an opportunity to measur e San Carlos residents’ local shopping habits, understand how they have been impacted by th e pandemic, and explore changes that may help improve the local economy.

RETAIL SHOPPING HABITS The first question in this series asked respondents to identify the percentage of their household’s retail shopping dollars that they spend locally in San Carlos.

As shown in Figure 34, approximately 36% of households indicated that they spend at least half of their household’s retail shopping dollars with in the City, with 8% spending at least 80% of their dollars within the City and 28% spending between 50% and 79% of their retail dollars in San Carlos. The majority of households (53%) reported they spend less than half of their retail shop- ping dollars locally in San Carlos and an additi onal 11% of respondents were unsure or declined to state.

Question 20 What percentage of your household's total shopping dollars do you spend locally in the City of San Carlos?
FIGURE 34 PERCENTAGE OF HOUSEHOLD RETAIL SHOPPING DOLLARS SPENT IN SAN CARLOS Figures 35-37 on the following pa ges show how residents’ local shopping habits varied by char- acteristics such as length of residence, how the pandemic has impacted their household’s finan- cial situation, age, gender, and presence of a child in the home. When compared to their respective counterparts, longtime residents, those whose financial condition has worsened with the pandemic, individuals who are self-employed or currently laid-off/furloughed, retirees, those not living with a child, renters, seniors, and females were the most likely to report that they spend at least half of their retail shopping dollars in San Carlos.

Not sure /
Prefer not to
answer

11.2 Less than 20%

22.3 20% to 49%

30.9 80% or more

7.8 50% to 79%

27.7 10.a
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 231

FIGURE 35 PERCENTAGE OF HOUSEHOLD RETAIL SHOPPING DOLLARS SPENT IN SAN CARLOS BY YEARS IN SAN CARLOS,

OVERALL SATISFACTION & HSLD FINANCIAL SITUATION DUE TO PANDEMIC FIGURE 36 PERCENTAGE OF HOUSEHOLD RETAIL SHOPPING DOLLARS SPENT IN SAN CARLOS BY EMPLOYMENT STATUS &

CHILDREN IN HSLD

32.7 24.1 30.1

22.1 29.9

41.7 38.0

36.2 30.4 33.5 36.8

30.6 25.0

20.8 35.2 30.7 30.8 30.3 29.0

36.9 12.3 7.2 8.8 9.0 8.8 7.2 7.9 10.5
Less than 20%

39.5 17.9

28.9 26.330.3
20% to 49%

21.5 50% to 79%

31.1 80% or m ore

7.9 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Less than 5 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 or more Satisfied Dissatisfied Improved Stayed about the same
Gotten worse
Years in San Carlos (Q1) Overall Satisfaction (Q4) Hsld Financial Situation Due to Pandemic (Q26) % Respondents Who Provided Opinion

27.1 19.1 16.9

24.1 23.0

44.7 27.5

33.9 52.4

46.4 33.5

38.9 43.5

33.0 25.4

34.5 39.2

28.6 33.5

35.9 26.0 27.7

33.1 2.8

12.0 10.4

0.0 3.2

13.8 2.9 4.7 10.8

26.1 32.3

16.816.5
Less than 20%

31.1 20% to 49%

34.4 50% to 79%

28.1 80% or m ore

6.4 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Full time Part time S e lf-e mplo ye d Laid o ff /
Unemployed
Student Homemaker Retired Yes, under 13 Yes, teenager No children Employment Status (Q23) Children in Hsld (Q24,QD3)
% Respondents Who Provided Opinion

10.a
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 232

FIGURE 37 PERCENTAGE OF HOUSEHOLD RETAIL SHOPPING DOLLARS SPENT IN SAN CARLOS BY AGE & GENDER PANDEMIC IMPACT ON LOCAL SHOPPING The pandemic and associated regulations have forced many businesses to curtail their operations in ways that limit shopping opportuni- ties. At the same time, concerns about exposure to the coronavirus have compelled many indi- viduals to shift their shopping online. With thes e twin forces at play, one might expect that the percentage of total shopping dollars residents spend locally in San Carlos would have declined in the past year. As shown in Figure 38, approx imately one-third (32%) of residents did indeed reduce the percentage of their total shopping dollars spent in San Carlos since the pandemic started. However, this decline is offset by 29% reporting they increased their local shopping dur- ing the same period, and 36% reporting that the percentage of their retail dollars spent locally has not changed.

Question 21 Since the pandemic started, has the percentage of your total shopping dollars that you spend in San Carlos increased, stayed about the same, or decreased? FIGURE 38 PERCENTAGE OF HSLD RETAIL SHOPPING DOLLARS INCREASE SINCE PANDEMIC

29.7 24.9 26.4 22.6

24.9 29.5

34.6 41.4

29.2 37.7

35.7 34.5

31.5 37.7

25.6 28.2

30.6 32.9

29.1 33.4

13.9 4.3 3.8 5.5

13.9 15.6

7.4 9.6

28.5 27.7

13.8 35.9
Less than 20%

24.5 20% to 49%

37.9 50% to 79%

30.1 80% or m ore

7.6 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Own Rent Under 35 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or older Male Female Home Ownership Status (QD4) Age (QD2) Gender (QD1)
% Respondents Who Provided Opinion
Prefer not to
answer

0.9Not sure

2.4 Decreased

32.1 Stay about the
same

35.7 Increased

29.0 10.a
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 233

The balance of those who increased or decreas ed the percentage of their total shopping dollars spent in San Carlos in response to the pandemic was fairly even for most subgroups (see figures 39-41). Those dissatisfied with the City’s overall performance in providing municipal services were substantially more likely to report decreasing their local retail spending since the pandemic started, as were those who indicated the pan demic worsened their household’s financial condi- tion, individuals who were laid off/furloughed, students, homemakers, and those aged 55 to 64.

FIGURE 39 PERCENTAGE OF HSLD RETAIL SHOPPING DOLLARS INCREASE SINCE PANDEMIC BY YEARS IN SAN CARLOS,

OVERALL SATISFACTION & HSLD FINANCIAL SITUATION DUE TO PANDEMIC FIGURE 40 PERCENTAGE OF HSLD RETAIL SHOPPING DOLLARS INCREASE SINCE PANDEMIC BY EMPLOYMENT STATUS &

CHILDREN IN HSLD
30 23
40 28 2828 31 33 33 31
43 29
32 3636
26 32
27 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
Less than 5 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 or more Satisfied Dissatisfied Improved Stayed about the same
Gotten worse
Years in San Carlos (Q1) Overall Satisfaction (Q4) Hsld Financial Situation Due to Pandemic (Q26)
% Respondents
Increased Decreased
18 25
28 35 34
27 31 31 31
46 43
35 31 32 33 3133
26 38
31 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
Full time Part time Self-
employed
Laid off /
Unemployed
Student Homemaker Retired Yes, under
13 Yes,
teenager
No children
Employment Status (Q23) Children in Hsld (Q24,QD3)
% Respondents
Increased Decreased

10.a
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 234

FIGURE 41 PERCENTAGE OF HSLD RETAIL SHOPPING DOLLARS INCREASE SINCE PANDEMIC BY HOME OWNERSHIP

STATUS, AGE & GENDER
ACTIONS TO PROMPT MORE LOCAL SPENDING Residents who reported that they spend less than 30% of their retail shopping dollars in San Carlos and/or decreased the percent- age of their local spending in the past year were subsequently asked if there was a specific action the City could take that would prompt them to do more of their shopping in San Carlos.

Question 22 Is there a specific action the City could take that would prompt you to do more of your shopping in San Carlos?
FIGURE 42 ACTION TO PROMPT MORE SHOPPING WITHIN CITY
35 25
29 29 3133
31 29
34 29
38 27
31 32
282827
30 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
Own Rent Under 35 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or older Male Female Home Ownership Status
(QD4)
Age (QD2) Gender (QD1)
% Respondents
Increased Decreased

0.4 0.8

0.8 0.9

1.1 1.4

1.8 2.1

2.1 2.9

7.4 11.5

20.1 40.5

2.7 8.5
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Limit growth
Reduce sales tax, fees
Open Laurel Street
Reduce traffic
Improve public safety, security
Offer more sales, rebates, discounts
Support local businesses in general
Provide, support more outdoor dining options
Provide, support more delivery options
Improve local online shopping options
Keep Laurel St closed after pandemic ends, or make it one way street Continue, encourage COVID-19 limitations, wearing mask, keeping distance
Provide more parking
End restrictions, open businesses
Provide more variety of restaurants, shops
No, nothing comes to mind / Not sure
% Respondents That Spend <30% of Hsld Shopping Dollars
in City or Have Decreased Spending Since Pandemic Started

10.a
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 235

Question 22 was presented in an open-ended manner, which allowed residents to respond in their own words without being prompted by or cons trained to a particular list of options. True North later reviewed the verbatim responses and grouped them into the categories shown in Fig- ure 42. Although 41% indicated that no changes came to mind, the remaining respondents did share ideas on what would cause them to shop San Carlos more frequently—with the most com- mon being providing a greater variety of restaura nts and shops (20%), en ding pandemic restric- tions/opening local businesses (12%), providing more parking (9%), continuing practices to ensure safety during the pandemic including so cial distancing and ma sks (7%), keeping Laurel Street closed to vehicle traffic or making it a one-way street after the pandemic (3%), and improv- ing local online shopping opportunities (3%).

10.a
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 236

COVID-19 I MPACTS
The arrival of coronavirus in California triggere d a statewide shelter-in-place mandate in March 2020, effectively shuttering many sectors of the world’s fifth largest economy for several months and sending ripple effects through most aspects of daily life. In addition to the direct economic impacts including job losses, salary cuts, and reduced spending, the threat of COVID-19 and the off-and-on closure of non-essential businesses dramatically altered how and where people work, play, shop, and travel. The 2021 community survey included several pandemic-related questions to provide the City with a better understandi ng of how the pandemic has impacted key aspects of San Carlos residents’ lives.

WORK AND COMMUTE The first question in this series asked residents to describe how the pandemic may have impacted their househol d’s work experiences and commute. As shown in Figure 43 below, nearly two-thirds (64%) of respondents indicated that at least one member of their household had switched from commuting to work to primarily working from home during the past year. Nearly one-quarter of respondents (24%) reported that th ey and/or another mem- ber of their household had their work hours or salary reduced during the pandemic, while 15% also reported that they and/or another member of their hous ehold had been laid-off or fur- loughed.

Question 25 The COVID-19 pandemic has impacted residents' work arrangements and living situations in different ways. During the pandemic have you or another member of your house- hold: _____?.

FIGURE 43 COVID-19 IMPACTED RESIDENTS’ WORK ARRANGEMENTS & LIVING SITUATIONS The impacts of the pandemic have not been felt evenly across the community (see Figure 44).

When compared to homeowners, those who rent their residence in San Carlos were more likely to experience reductions to their hours or salary during the pandemic, as well as layoffs. The same is true for household’s with a teenager and th ose who indicated their financial situation wors- ened with the pandemic.

63.5 23.5

14.8 22.8

65.0 73.9

9.712.2 10.0

1.51.5 1.5
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Switched from commuting
to work to primarily
working from hom e
Had work hours or salary
reduced
Been laid-off, furloughed or
fired from your job
Q25 Have you or another member of household . . .
% Respondents
Prefer not to
answer
Not Applicable
No
Yes

10.a
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 237

FIGURE 44 COVID-19 IMPACTED RESIDENTS’ WORK ARRANGEMENTS & LIVING SITUATIONS BY HOME OWNERSHIP

STATUS, CHILDREN IN HSLD & HSLD FINANCIAL SITUATION DUE TO PANDEMIC FINANCIAL IMPACTS OF PANDEMIC After profiling the impacts of the pandemic on their work situation and commute, the survey tr ansitioned to asking respondents about the impact of the pandemic on their household’s financial situation. Most San Carlos residents (66%) indicated that their household’s financial situation had not been impacted by the pandemic—it had stayed about the same (see Figure 45). Appr oximately 10% indicated that the pandemic had improved their household’s financial situation, whereas one-in-five (21%) reported that their household’s financial situation had worsened during this period. An additional 3% preferred to not answer the question.

Question 26 How has your household's financial situation been impacted by the pandemic? Has it improved a lot, improved somewhat, stayed about the same, gotten somewhat worse, or gotten a lot worse?
FIGURE 45 OPINION OF HSLD’S FINANCIAL SITUATION IMPACTED BY PANDEMIC 15 1
9 43
21 30
24 28
22 7
13 69
64 64
85 80
54 78
64 59
12 21
10 18
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Own Rent Yes, under 13 Yes, teenager No children Improved Stayed about the same
Gotten worse
Home Ownership Status (QD4) Children in Hsld (Q24,QD3) Hsld Financial Situation Due to Pandemic (Q26) % Households
Laid-off, furloughed or fired Work hours or salary reduced Switched to working from home Stayed about
the same

65.9 Gotten a lot
worse

5.1 Improved a lot

2.4 Improved
somewhat

7.6 Gotten
somewhat
worse

15.9 Prefer not to
answer

3.0 10.a
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 238

The financial impacts of the pandemic are stro ngly correlated with residents’ employment sta- tus, and to a lesser degree with their homeowne rship status (see figure s 46-48). Although the high percentage of respondents who were laid-off/furloughed that indicated their financial situa- tion has worsened during the pandemic is to be expected, it is striking that those who were self- employed or working part-time were also likely to report their financial situation worsened dur- ing this period. Renters were also more likely to report having financial difficulties during the pandemic when compared to home owners.

FIGURE 46 OPINION OF HSLD’S FINANCIAL SITUATION IMPACTED BY PANDEMIC BY YEARS IN SAN CARLOS, OVERALL

SATISFACTION & CHILDREN IN HSLD
FIGURE 47 OPINION OF HSLD’S FINANCIAL SITUATION IMPACTED BY PANDEMIC BY EMPLOYMENT STATUS & HOME

OWNERSHIP STATUS

7.6 10.4 12.9 7.8

74.1 67.0

67.8 68.5 59.9

60.7 66.6 72.3

18.3 18.3 23.1 21.1

27.2 23.9 20.3 19.8
Improv ed

12.4 9.1

15.4 13.114.7
Stayed about
the same

65.4 Gotten
worse

22.2 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Less than 5 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 or more Satisfied Dissatisfied Yes, under 13 Yes, teenager No children Years in San Carlos (Q1) Overall Satisfaction (Q4) Children in Hsld (Q24,QD3) % Respondents Who Provided Opinion

9.9 7.1

21.4 11.1

62.4 51.0

24.1 71.6

63.3 81.3 71.3

57.9 27.8

41.7 75.9

21.3 15.3 12.1

18.4 31.0

7.3 10.26.6
Improv ed

13.3 Stayed about
the same

68.7 Gotten
worse

17.9 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Full time Part time Self-employed Laid off /
Unemployed
Student Homemaker Retired Own Rent
Employment Status (Q23) Home Ownership Status (QD4)
% Respondents Who Provided Opinion

10.a
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 239

FIGURE 48 OPINION OF HSLD’S FINANCIAL SITUATION IMPACTED BY PANDEMIC BY AGE & GENDER DAYCARE SERVICES IN SAN CARLOS Finding suitable childcare services can be a chal- lenge for some families, and the pandemic was expected to make this challenge even more diffi- cult as many childcare providers closed their programs to follow public health regulations and guidelines. To get a sense for how the pandemic has impacted the availability of suitable child- care services in San Carlos, respondents with at least one child under 13 in their home were first screened to ask about whether they had searched for daycare services for their child in San Car- los before and during the pandemic.

Question 27 Prior to the pandemic, in 2019 had you searched for daycare services for your child in San Carlos?
Question 29 What about during the pandemic - have you searched for daycare services for your child in San Carlos?
FIGURE 49 SEARCHED FOR DAYCARE SERVICES

14.4 7.1 11.8

57.8 61.1

65.3 78.6 68.9

67.1 27.8 24.2 26.0

14.3 19.3 23.8

14.7 9.18.7Improv ed

7.1 Stayed about
the same

75.4 Gotten
worse

17.5 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Under 35 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or older Male Female Age (QD2) Gender (QD1)
% Respondents Who Provided Opinion

21.8 78.2

52.9 47.1
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Prior to pandemic During pandemic
% Hslds With Child Under 13
Did not search
for daycare
services
Yes, searched
for daycare
services

10.a
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 240

More half of those with a child under 13 in their household (53%) indicated that they had searched for daycare services in San Carlos pr ior to the pandemic. A pproximately one-in-five (22%) reported doing the same during the pandemic (see Figure 49). The survey data also reveal that a household’s financial situation during th e pandemic was correlated with their search for daycare both before and during the pandemic, wi th households that experienced financial hard- ship during the past year being the most likely to have searched for childcare in San Carlos in both periods (see Figure 50).

FIGURE 50 SEARCHED FOR DAYCARE SERVICES BY HSLD FINANCIAL DUE TO PANDEMIC Having established which respondents had search ed for childcare services in San Carlos (and when), the survey next asked these individuals to rate how easy or difficult it was to find suitable daycare services in San Carlos. As expected, th e pandemic appears to have made the challenge of finding local daycare services more difficult (see Figure 51 on the next page). Among those who had searched for daycare services in San Carlos prior to the pandemic, three-quarters stated that it was difficult to find (27% very difficult, 47% somewhat difficult), whereas one-quarter indi- cated it was either somewhat easy (15%) or very easy (10%) to find. Du ring the pandemic, eight- in-ten rated the challenge of finding suitable daycare in San Carlos as very difficult (37%) or somewhat difficult (42%), while the percentage who found it somewhat or very easy declined to less than one-in-five (17%).
14 21
30 62
50 47
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
Improved Stayed about the same Gotten worse
Hsld Financial Situation Due to Pandemic (Q26)
% Respondents
Prior to pandemic During pandemic

10.a
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 241

Question 28 Prior to the pandemic, how easy or difficult was it to find suitable daycare ser- vices for your child in San Carlos?
Question 30 During the pandemic, would you say it has been very easy to find suitable day- care services in San Carlos, somewhat easy, somewhat difficult, or very difficult? FIGURE 51 EASE OF FINDING DAYCARE SERVICES BEFORE AND DURING PANDEMIC

15.4 47.3

41.6 27.4

37.2 1.99.5

15.0 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Prior to pandemic During pandemic
% Respondents
Not sure
Very difficult
Som ewhat
difficult
Som ewhat
easy
Very easy

10.a
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 242

B ACKGROUND & D EMOGRAPHICS
Table 13 presents the key demographic informatio n collected during the survey by study year.

TABLE 13 DEMOGRAPHICS OF SAMPLE BY STUDY YEAR
2021 2020 2018 2016 2014
Total Respondents 720 744 560 754 410
Q1 Years in San Carlos
L e s s t h a n 5 1 7 . 71 9 . 42 6 . 52 0 . 12 0 . 2 5 t o 9 1 1 . 21 6 . 01 6 . 81 6 . 61 6 . 7
10 to 14 14.7 13.4 13.0 14.4 16.2
15 or more 56.2 51.0 43.4 47.9 46.6
Prefer not to answer 0.1 0.2 0.2 1.0 0.2
QD1 Gender
Male 46.7 47.7 48.1 43.9 46.8
Female 48.9 49.6 48.1 49.7 48.5
Prefer not to answer 4.4 2.7 3.9 6.3 4.6
QD2 Age
18 to 34 18.3 18.6 18.4 17.1 16.5
35 to 44 19.3 18.9 19.8 19.1 21.2
45 to 54 19.9 20.5 20.8 19.2 19.3
55 to 64 18.6 17.7 19.4 15.2 16.3
6 5 o r o l d e r 1 9 . 91 8 . 41 8 . 61 6 . 31 5 . 4 Prefer not to answer 4.0 5.9 3.0 13.0 11.2
Q24 Child in household
Y e s 3 5 . 83 5 . 63 6 . 33 8 . 24 4 . 0
No 61.6 58.7 59.8 57.9 52.2
Prefer not to answer 2.6 5.7 3.9 3.9 3.9
QD4 Home ownership status
O w n 7 7 . 97 3 . 67 8 . 18 2 . 98 0 . 6
Rent 19.6 22.0 20.7 13.1 19.1
Prefer not to answer 2.5 4.4 1.3 4.0 0.2
Q23 Employment status
Full time 49.2 57.7 57.8 60.8 N/A
P a r t t i m e 5 . 31 0 . 08 . 91 0 . 5N / A
Self-employed 8.9 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Laid off / Unemployed 3.3 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Student 3.1 4.0 6.7 2.9 N/A
H o m e - m a k e r 3 . 32 . 22 . 53 . 4N / A
R e t i r e d 2 4 . 12 0 . 31 7 . 41 6 . 4 N / A
In-between jobs N/A 1.1 1.9 1.7 N/A
Prefer not to answer 2.8 4.8 4.7 4.4 N/A
Study Year

10.a
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 243

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 who had interacted with city staff in the past 12 months were asked to rate aspects of their experience with staff. The questionnaire included with this report (see Question- naire & Toplines on page 61) identifies the skip patterns used during the interview to ensure that each respondent received the appropriate questions.

Many of the questions asked in the 2021 survey were tracked directly from the 2020 survey to allow the City to monitor its performance and residents’ opinions on key issues over time.

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 combination of mailed and emailed invitations, households were initially invited to participate in the survey online at a secure, passcode-pro- tected website designed and hosted by True North. Each household was assigned a unique pass- code to ensure that only San Carlos residents who received an invitation could access the online survey site. Following a period of online data collection, True North began placing calls to land lines and cell phone numbers of households throug hout the City that had yet to participate in the online survey as a result of the emailed or mailed invitation.

Phone interviews averaged 18 minutes in length and were conducted during weekday evenings (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 720 completed surveys were gathered online and by phone between January 7 and January 25, 2021.

10.a
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 244

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 720 adult residents for a particular question and what would have been found if all of the estimated 22,685 adult residents
4 had been interviewed.

For example, in estimating the percentage of adul ts who have been in contact with City of San Carlos staff in the past 12 mont hs (Question 11), the margin of error can be calculated if one knows the size of the population, the size of the sample, a desired confidence level, and the dis- tribution of responses to the question. The a ppropriate equation for es timating the margin of error, in this case, is shown below:
where is the proportion of adults who said had been in contact with staff (0.36 for 36% in this example), is the population size of all adults (22,685), is the sample size that received the question (720), and is the upper point fo r the t-distribution wi th degrees of free- dom (1.96 for a 95% confidence interval). Solving the equation using these values reveals a mar- gin of error of ± 3.39%. This means that with 36% of survey respondents indicating they had contact with city staff in the past 12 months, we can be 95 percent confident that the actual per- centage of all adult residents in San Carlos in contact with staff during this period is between 33% and 39%.

FIGURE 52 MAXIMUM MARGIN OF ERROR

4. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2019 Americ an Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. pˆ t Nn–
N-------------
 pˆ 1 pˆ–
n 1–--------------------
pˆ
N n
t  2 n 1–
Sample of 720
Adult Residents
± 3.59%
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

10.a
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 245

Figure 52 on the prior page 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% prov ide one response and 50% provide the alternative response (i.e., = 0.5). For this survey, the maximum margin of error is ± 3.59% for questions answered by all 720 respondents.

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 52 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.

The final data were weighted to balance the sample by age according to Census estimates.

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.

Due to rounding, some figures and narrative include numbers that sum to slightly more or less than 100%.
pˆ

10.a
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 246

Q UESTIONNAIRE & T OPLINES

True North Research, Inc. © 2020 Page 1
City of San Carlos
Community Satisfaction Survey 21
Final Toplines (n = 720)
January 26, 2021
Section 1: Introduction to Study
Hi, my name is _____ and Im calling on behalf of TNR, an independent public opinion research company. Were conducting a survey about important issues in San Carlos and we would like to get your opinions.

If needed: This is a survey about community issues in San Carlos Im NOT trying to sell anything and I wont ask for a donation.

If needed: The survey should take about 12 minutes to complete.

Section 2: Screener for Inclusion in the Study Phone Only Use if land line: For statistical reasons, I would like to speak to the youngest adult male currently at home that is at least 18 years of age. If there is no male currently at home that is at least 18 years of age, then ask: Ok, then Id like to speak to the youngest female currently at home that is at least 18 years of age.

If there is no adult currently available, then ask for a callback time.

SC1 To begin, what is the zip code at your residence? Read zip code back to them to confirm correct
1 94070 100% Go to Q1
2 Any other ZIP code 0% Terminate

Section 3: Quality of Life
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 5%
2 1 to 4 years 12%
3 5 to 9 years 11%
4 10 to 14 years 15%
5 15 years or longer 56%
99 Prefer not to answer 0%

10.a
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 247

San Carlos Resident Survey 1/26/2021
True North Research, Inc. © 2020 Page 2
Q2 How would you rate the overall quality of life in San Carlos? Would you say it is excellent, good, fair, poor or very poor?
1 Excellent 41%
2 Good 50%
3 Fair 8%
4 Poor 1%
5 Very Poor 1%
98 Not sure 0%
99 Prefer not to answer 0%
Q3
If the city government could change one thing to make San Carlos a better place to live now and in the future, what change would you like to see? Verbatim responses recorded and later grouped into categories shown below.

Limit growth, development 18%
Reduce traffic congestion 13%
Not sure / Cannot think of anything 12%
Improve, address parking issues 8%
Improve public safety 7%
Provide affordable housing 7%
Add, improve sidewalks, bike lanes 6%
No changes / Everything is fine 6%
Enforce traffic laws 5%
Improve city planning, development 5%
Improve, maintain infrastructure 4%
Provide, improve parks, rec areas 4%
Improve, preserve walkability, keep Laurel
Street closed 4%
Improve schools, education 3%
Address COVID-19 issues, concerns 3%
Improve, encourage cultural diversity 3%
Cleaner city, improve landscape 2%
Maintain small town feeling 2%
Improve City Council, government process,
transparency 2%
Improve shopping, dining options 2%
Maintain outdoor dining after pandemic
ends 2%

10.a
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 248

Section 4: City Services
Next, I would like to ask a series of questions about services provided by the City of San Carlos.

Q4
Generally speaking, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the job the City of San Carlos is doing to provide city services? Get answer, then ask: Would that be very (satisfied/dissatisfied) or somewhat (satisfied/dissatisfied)? 1 Very satisfied 32%
2 Somewhat satisfied 50%
3 Somewhat dissatisfied 9%
4 Very dissatisfied 4%
98 Not sure 5%
99 Prefer not to answer 0%
Q5 For each of the services I read, please tell me whether the service is extremely important to you, very important, somewhat important, or not at all important.

Randomize
Extremely
Important
Very
Important
Somewhat
Important
Not at all
Important
Not sure
Prefer not to
answer
A Providing police services 57% 28% 12% 3% 0% 0%
B Maintaining a low crime rate 66% 27% 6% 1% 0% 0%
C Preparing the City for fire, police and public
works emergencies 59% 32% 7% 0% 0% 0%
D Providing fire protection, prevention and
emergency medical services 69% 27% 3% 0% 0% 0%
E Reducing traffic congestion on city streets 37% 32% 26% 5% 0% 0% F Providing library services 37% 37% 22% 3% 0% 0%
G Providing trash collection and recycling
services 53% 38% 8% 1% 1% 0%
H Keeping public buildings and facilities clean
and attractive 26% 45% 27% 2% 0% 0%
I Maintaining local streets 42% 47% 10% 0% 0% 0%
J Providing parks, sports fields and
recreation facilities 41% 42% 17% 0% 0% 0%
K Maintaining storm drains, sewers and
creeks 48% 39% 12% 1% 0% 0%
L Providing recreation programs for youth 30% 41% 23% 5% 1% 0% M Providing recreation programs for adults
and seniors 18% 34% 36% 9% 1% 0%
N Providing more public parking downtown 20% 29% 36% 14% 1% 0% O
Holding special community events like
summer concerts in the park, Night of
Holiday Lights, Goblin Walk & others
20% 32% 38% 9% 1% 0%

10.a
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 249

San Carlos Resident Survey 1/26/2021
True North Research, Inc. © 2020 Page 4
P Promoting economic development to
stimulate the local economy 23% 39% 29% 7% 2% 0%
Q
Preserving community character and
appearance through building and planning
permits, inspections and code enforcement
28% 36% 27% 8% 1% 0%
R Providing safe streets 61% 28% 9% 1% 0% 0%
S Providing affordable housing 23% 27% 28% 19% 2% 1%
T Establishing and maintaining financial
reserves 27% 43% 23% 4% 2% 0%
U Responding to the COVID-19 pandemic 49% 29% 15% 6% 1% 0% V
Having city-provided resources and
facilities available to residents during PG&E
power shut-offs
26% 32% 30% 10% 1% 0%
Q6
For the same list of services I just read, Id like you to tell me how satisfied you are with the job the city is doing to provide the service.

Are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the citys efforts to: _____, or do you not have an opinion? Get answer. If satisfied or dissatisfied, then ask: Would that be very (satisfied/dissatisfied) or somewhat (satisfied/dissatisfied)? Randomize
Very
Satisfied
Somewhat
Satisfied
Somewhat
Dissatisfied
Very
Dissatisfied
Not sure
Prefer not to
answer
A Provide police services 34% 40% 11% 7% 8% 1%
B Maintain a low crime rate 40% 39% 10% 5% 6% 0%
C Prepare the City for fire, police and public
works emergencies 26% 38% 8% 3% 23% 2%
D Provide fire protection, prevention and
emergency medical services 40% 38% 4% 2% 15% 1%
E Reduce traffic congestion on city streets 13% 37% 27% 16% 6% 1% F Provide library services 49% 36% 2% 2% 9% 1%
G Provide trash collection and recycling
services 52% 36% 4% 2% 5% 1%
H Keep public buildings and facilities clean
and attractive 38% 47% 4% 2% 8% 1%
I Maintain local streets 22% 44% 21% 9% 3% 1%
J Provide parks, sports fields and recreation
facilities 42% 43% 7% 2% 5% 1%
K Maintain storm drains, sewers and creeks 30% 46% 7% 3% 13% 1% L Provide recreation programs for youth 33% 37% 5% 1% 22% 2% M Provide recreation programs for adults and
seniors 25% 39% 4% 2% 28% 2%
N Provide more public parking downtown 24% 37% 20% 10% 8% 2% O
Hold special community events like
summer concerts in the park, Night of
Holiday Lights, Goblin Walk & others
45% 34% 6% 2% 12% 2%

10.a
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 250

San Carlos Resident Survey 1/26/2021
True North Research, Inc. © 2020 Page 5
P Promote economic development to
stimulate the local economy 14% 40% 11% 5% 27% 2%
Q
Preserve community character and
appearance through building and planning
permits, inspections and code enforcement
22% 37% 16% 9% 15% 1%
R Provide safe streets 31% 42% 16% 7% 4% 0%
S Provide affordable housing 8% 24% 17% 18% 28% 5%
T Establish and maintain financial reserves 14% 30% 5% 3% 44% 3% U Respond to the COVID-19 pandemic 26% 40% 10% 6% 15% 3% V
Have city-provided resources and facilities
available to residents during PG&E power
shut-offs
10% 27% 11% 6% 43% 3%

Section 5: Biking in San Carlos
Q7 Would you say it is generally safe or unsafe to ride a bike on city streets in San Carlos? 1 Safe 56%
2 Unsafe 26%
98 Not sure 17%
99 Prefer not to answer 1%
Q8
Beginning in June of this year, the City of San Carlos established bike loops on Saturdays and Sundays to encourage exercise through bicycling, jogging and walking and to provide residents with an alternative means to travel Downtown.

Have you used the bike loops to bike or walk on the weekends? 1 Yes 17%
2 No 82%
99 Prefer not to answer 0%

10.a
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 251

Here is the (first/next) one: _____. Do you agree or disagree, or do you not have an opinion? If agree or disagree, ask: Would that be strongly (agree/disagree) or somewhat (agree/disagree)?
Randomize
Strongly
Agree
Somewhat
Agree
Somewhat
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Not sure
Prefer not to
answer
A The City is responsive to residents needs 12% 44% 18% 8% 16% 1% B The City manages its finances well 13% 35% 9% 4% 37% 2% C The City listens to residents when making
important decisions 10% 38% 20% 10% 21% 1%
D I trust the City of San Carlos 21% 50% 13% 7% 8% 1%
Q10
How much attention do you pay to the issues, decisions and activities of your City government? Would you say that you are very attentive, somewhat attentive, slightly attentive, or not at all attentive?
1 Very attentive 11%
2 Somewhat attentive 47%
3 Slightly attentive 34%
4 Not at all attentive 7%
98 Not sure 0%
99 Prefer not to answer 1%
Q11 In the past 12 months, have you been in contact with staff from the City of San Carlos? 1 Yes 36% Ask Q12
2 No 59% Skip to Q13
98 Not sure 4% Skip to Q13
99 Prefer not to answer 1% Skip to Q13
Q12 In your opinion, was the staff at the City very _____, somewhat _____, or not at all _____.

Read one item at a time, continue until all items are read.

Randomize
Very
Somewhat
Not at all
Not sure
Prefer not
to answer
A Helpful 45% 33% 20% 1% 2%
B Professional 64% 25% 8% 1% 2%
C Accessible 46% 43% 8% 0% 2%

10.a
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 252

San Carlos Resident Survey 1/26/2021
True North Research, Inc. © 2020 Page 7
Section 7: Communication
Q13
Overall, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the Citys efforts to communicate with residents through newsletters, the Internet, television, and other means? Get answer, then ask: Would that be very (satisfied/dissatisfied) or somewhat (satisfied/dissatisfied)? 1 Very satisfied 35%
2 Somewhat satisfied 48%
3 Somewhat dissatisfied 9%
4 Very dissatisfied 2%
98 Not sure 6%
99 Prefer not to answer 0%
Q14 What information sources do you use to find out about City of San Carlos news, events, and programs? Dont read list. Record up to first 3 responses.

Newsletters and Newspapers
1 City Newsletters/Good Living
community newsletter 64%
2 San Francisco Chronicle (daily
newspaper) 5%
3 San Mateo County Times (daily
newspaper) 2%
4 San Mateo Daily Journal (daily
newspaper) 13%
5 Daily Post (daily newspaper) 5%
6 Other newspaper 2%
7 San Carlos Patch (online newspaper) 12%
TV, Radio & Meetings
8 San Carlos TV/Channel 27 2%
9 Television (general) 3%
10 City Council Meetings 4%
11 Radio 0%
Internet & Email
12 Citys website 25%
13 Internet (not Citys site) 12%
14 Email notification from City 21%
15 Blogs 0%
Social Media
16 Facebook 8%
17 Twitter 2%
18 Next Door 28%
19 Instagram 2%

10.a
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 253

San Carlos Resident Survey 1/26/2021
True North Research, Inc. © 2020 Page 8
20 Other social media site 1%
Mail/Posters/Other
21 Postcards, letters, flyers or brochures
(mailed to home) 17%
22 Flyers, brochures or posters
(displayed at public facilities) 4%
23 Street banners 9%
24 New Billboard at Adult Community
Center 1%
25 Friends/Family/Associates 12%
26 Other 0%
27 Do Not Receive Information about City 1%
98 Not sure 0%
99 Prefer not to answer 0%
Q15
As I read the following ways that the City of San Carlos can communicate with residents, Id like to know if you think they would be very effective, somewhat effective, or not an effective way for the City to communicate with you.

Randomize
Very
Effective
Somewhat
Effective
Not
Effective
Not sure
Prefer not
to answer
A E-mail and E-notify 56% 32% 6% 5% 2%
B Postcards, letters and newsletters mailed to
your home 47% 39% 10% 4% 1%
C Citys Website 29% 47% 15% 7% 1%
D Advertisements in local papers 7% 21% 58% 12% 2%
E Social media like Facebook, Twitter and
Next Door 30% 36% 24% 9% 2%
F Townhall meetings 11% 36% 37% 14% 2%
G Television programs on Comcast Cable
Channel 27 and AT&T Channel 99 4% 16% 59% 20% 2%
H Shape San Carlos a virtual townhall forum
on the Citys website 12% 30% 34% 22% 2%
I New Billboard at the Adult Community
Center 10% 26% 45% 18% 2%

10.a
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 254

Section 8: Development & Housing
Next, I would like to ask a few questions about the availability of housing in the City of San Carlos.

Q16
As I read the following housing types, please tell me whether you feel there is currently too much, about the right amount, or too little of this type of housing in the City of San Carlos.

Randomize
Too Much
About
Right
Too Little
Not sure
Prefer not
to answer
A Housing that is affordable for middle-
income families 3% 23% 53% 20% 1%
B Housing that is affordable for low-income
families 9% 14% 47% 28% 2%
C Single family homes 10% 65% 13% 11% 1%
D Condominiums 27% 39% 12% 21% 1%
E Apartments with 7 or more units 30% 29% 12% 27% 2%
F Apartments with 6 units or less 11% 38% 17% 32% 1%
G Townhomes 16% 42% 17% 24% 1%
H Senior housing 2% 34% 26% 37% 1%
I Accessory dwelling units also referred to
as granny flats or guest houses 6% 18% 31% 42% 2%
J
Special needs housing for families and
individuals who need support services like
jobs training and social services
5% 13% 29% 51% 2%
K Interim housing to help people trying to
transition from being homeless 8% 12% 31% 47% 3%
Q17 In the past three years, would you say the pace of development in San Carlos has been too fast, about right, or too slow?
1 Too fast 49%
2 About right 34%
3 Too slow 9%
98 Not sure 9%
99 Prefer not to answer 0%

10.a
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 255

Section 9: Funding Priorities
Like most cities in California, the City of San Carlos is having to make budget cuts due to the pandemic and associated economic downturn. Your opinions will help the City set priorities during this difficult period.

Q18
As I read each of the following items, please indicate whether you think the City should make the item a high priority, a medium priority, or a low priority for future city spending. If you feel the City should not spend any money on this item, just say so.

Please keep in mind that not all of the items can be high priorities.

Here is the (first/next) one: _____. Should this item be a high, medium or low priority for the City or should the City not spend any money on this item? Randomize
High Priority
Medium
Priority
Low Priority
Should not
spend money
Not sure
Prefer not to
answer
A Police services 64% 24% 7% 3% 1% 0%
B Fire protection services 78% 18% 3% 0% 1% 0%
C Street maintenance and repair 51% 40% 7% 0% 1% 0%
D Infrastructure maintenance and repair 50% 42% 6% 0% 1% 0% E Recreation programs and services 20% 46% 29% 5% 1% 0% F Park and landscape maintenance 24% 58% 17% 1% 0% 0%
G Community events and activities 13% 37% 42% 8% 1% 0%
H Housing programs 26% 30% 26% 14% 3% 0%
I Public transportation 18% 41% 31% 8% 2% 0%
J Bicycle and pedestrian access/
improvements 22% 38% 30% 9% 1% 0%
K Community outreach including meetings
and mailings 8% 44% 39% 6% 2% 1%
L Environmental sustainability/green
programs 28% 38% 24% 9% 1% 1%
Q19
Is there another item or project not already mentioned that you think should be a high priority for the City to fund? If yes, ask: Please describe it to me. Verbatim responses recorded and later grouped into categories shown below.

No other high priorities / None come to
mind 65%
Prefer not to answer 6%
Reduce traffic 3%
Address COVID-19 issues, concerns 3%
Improve education, add more schools 2%
Improve public safety, more police patrols 2%
Enforce traffic laws 2%
Provide more affordable housing 2%
Provide more rec centers, facilities 2%

10.a
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 256

San Carlos Resident Survey 1/26/2021
True North Research, Inc. © 2020 Page 11
Address environmental issues,
preparedness 2%
Maintain city infrastructure, sidewalks 2%
Improve economy, support for local
business 2%
Limit growth, maintain open space 1%
Beautify City, landscaping 1%
Provide public transportation 1%
Address homeless issue 1%
Provide more activities, events for all ages 1%
Address parking issues 1%
Improve city planning, development 1%
Have cultural, community events on Laurel
Street, keep it closed 1%
Provide assistant for seniors, disabled 1%

Section 10: Local Businesses
Q20 What percentage of your households total shopping dollars do you spend locally in the City of San Carlos? (If they are uncertain, ask them to estimate). 1 Less than 10% 8%
2 10% to 19% 14%
3 20% to 29% 12%
4 30% to 39% 12%
5 40% to 49% 7%
6 50% to 59% 13%
7 60% to 69% 8%
8 70% to 79% 7%
9 80% to 89% 5%
10 90% to 100% 2%
98 Not sure 10%
99 Prefer not to answer 1%
Q21 Since the pandemic started, has the percentage of your total shopping dollars that you spend in San Carlos increased, stayed about the same, or decreased? 1 Increased 29%
2 Stayed about the same 36%
3 Decreased 32%
98 Not sure 2%
99 Prefer not to answer 1%

10.a
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 257

Q22
Is there a specific action the City could take that would prompt you to do more of your shopping in San Carlos? If yes, ask: Please describe what the City could do. Verbatim responses recorded and later grouped into categories shown below.

No, nothing comes to mind / Not sure 40%
Provide more variety of restaurants, shops 20%
End restrictions, open businesses 12%
Provide more parking 8%
Continue, encourage COVID-19 limitations,
wearing mask, keeping distance 7%
Keep Laurel Street closed after pandemic
ends, or make it one way street 3%
Improve local online shopping options 3%
Provide, support more outdoor dining
options 2%
Provide, support more delivery options 2%
Support local businesses in general 2%
Improve public safety, security 1%
Reduce traffic 1%
Open Laurel Street 1%
Reduce sales tax, fees 1%
Offer more sales, rebates, discounts 1%

Section 11: COVID-19 Impacts
Q23
Which best describes your current employment status? Are you employed full-time, employed part-time, self-employed, laid-off or furloughed, not employed but looking for work, a student, a homemaker, or retired?
1 Employed full-time 49%
2 Employed part-time 5%
3 Self-employed 9%
4 Laid-off/furloughed 2%
5 Not employed, but looking for work 1%
6 Student 3%
7 Homemaker 3%
8 Retired 24%
99 Prefer not to answer 3%

10.a
May 22, 2023

Packet Pg. 258

Q24 Do you have one or more children under the age of 13 living in your household? 1 Yes 25%
2 No 74%
99 Prefer not to answer 1%
Q25 The COVID-19 pandemic has impacted residents work arrangements and living situations in different ways. During the pandemic: _____? Read in Order
Yes
No
Not
Applicable
Prefer not
to answer
A
Have you or another member of your
household been laid-off, furloughed or fired
from your job
15% 74% 10% 2%
B
Have you or another member of your
household had work hours or salary
reduced
24% 65% 10% 2%
C
Did you or another member of your
household switch from commuting to work
to primarily working from home
64% 23% 12% 1%
Q26
How has your households financial situation been impacted by the pandemic? Has it improved a lot, improved somewhat, stayed about the same, gotten somewhat worse, or gotten a lot worse?
1 Improved a lot 2%
2 Improved somewhat 8%
3 Stayed about the same 66%
4 Gotten somewhat worse 16%
5 Gotten a lot worse 5%
99 Prefer not to answer 3%
Ask Q27 if Q24 = 1. Otherwise skip to intro preceding D1.

San Carlos City CouncilMay 22, 2023

San Carlos City Council
May 22, 2023