9.b
March 25, 2024
Packet Pg. 531
List of Tables
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 iii
City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
L IST OF T ABLES
Table 1 Like Best About San Carlos by Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Table 2 Changes to Improve San Carlos by Study Year. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Table 3 Frequency of Traveling Within City of San Carlos by Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Table 4 Frequency of Traveling Within Ci ty of San Carlos by Overall & Age (Showing % Weekly). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Table 5 Frequency of Traveling Within City of San Carlos by Education & Gender (Showing % Weekly). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Table 6 Frequency of Home Delivery by Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Table 7 Frequency of Home Delivery by Age & Home Ownership Status. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Table 8 Daily Media Use in Minutes Comparison: 2019 to 2022. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Table 9 Daily Media Use Showing Average Minutes Per Day by Age & Gender . . . . . . . . . . 45 Table 10 Daily Media Use Showing Average Minutes Per Day by Engaged, Connected With Community & Ethnicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Table 11 Demographics of Sample by Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
9.b
March 25, 2024
Packet Pg. 532
List of Figures
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 iv
City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
L IST OF F IGURES
Figure 1 Like Best About San Carlos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Figure 2 Changes to Improve San Carlos. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Figure 3 Anticipate Living in San Carlos 10 Years Fr om Now by Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Figure 4 Anticipate Living in San Carlos 10 Years From Now by Years in San Carlos & Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Figure 5 Anticipate Living in San Carlos 10 Years From Now by Engaged Connected With Community, Hsld Members & Participate, Belong to Community . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Figure 6 Anticipate Living in San Carlos 10 Years From Now by Home Ownership Status, Ethnicity & Gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Figure 7 Anticipate Living in San Carlos When Retire d by Study Year. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Figure 8 Anticipate Living in San Carlos When Retired by Years in San Carlos & Age . . . . . . 11 Figure 9 Anticipate Living in San Carlos When Retired by Engaged, Connected With Community, Hsld Members & Participated, Belong to Community Group. . . . . . . . 11 Figure 10 Anticipate Living in San Carlos When Retired by Home Ownership Status, Ethnicity & Gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Figure 11 Years in San Carlos by Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Figure 12 Years in San Carlos by Age, Ethnicity & Ho me Ownership Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Figure 13 Type of Residence by Study Year. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Figure 14 Type of Residence by Years in San Carlos & Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Figure 15 Type of Residence by Engaged, Co nnected With Community, Hsld Members & Ethnicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Figure 16 Home Ownership Status by Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Figure 17 Home Ownership Status by Years in San Carlos, Age & Type of Residence. . . . . . . 15 Figure 18 Home Ownership Status by Engaged, Connected With Community, Hsld Members & Ethnicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Figure 19 Build an Accessory Dwelling Unit in Next 5 Years (Among Single-Family Home Owners) by Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Figure 20 Build an Accessory Dwelling Unit in Next 5 Years (Among Single-Family Home Owners) by Years in San Carlos, Hsld Members & Age. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Figure 21 Plan to Rent the Accessory Dwelling Unit for Supplemental Income . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Figure 22 Engaged, Connected With San Carlos Commun ity by Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Figure 23 Engaged, Connected With San Carl os Community by Years in San Carlos & Type of Residence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Figure 24 Engaged, Connected With San Carl os Community by Employment Status & Hsld Members. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Figure 25 Engaged, Connected With San Carlos Community by Age & Ethnicity. . . . . . . . . . . 19 Figure 26 Engaged, Connected With San Carl os Community by Participate, Belong to Community Group, Work Community Status & Gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Figure 27 Participate in or Belong to Organized Community Group by Study Year. . . . . . . . . 20 Figure 28 Participate in or Belong to Organized Community Group by Years in San Carlos & Type of Residence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Figure 29 Participate in or Belong to Organized Community Group by Employment Status & Hsld Members . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Figure 30 Participate in or Belong to Organized Community Group by Age & Ethnicity . . . . . 21 Figure 31 Participate in or Belong to Organized Community Group by Engaged Connected With Community, Gender & Home Ownership Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Figure 32 Familiarity With Neighbors by Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Figure 33 Familiarity With Neighbors by Years in San Carlos & Type of Residence. . . . . . . . . 23 Figure 34 Familiarity With Neighbors by Employment Status & Hsld Members. . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Figure 35 Familiarity With Neighbors by Age & Ethnicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Figure 36 Familiarity With Neighbors by Engaged, Connected With Community, Work Commute Status, Gender & Home Ownership Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
9.b
March 25, 2024
Packet Pg. 533
List of Figures
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 vCity of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Figure 37 Employment Status by Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Figure 38 Employment Status by Age & Ethnicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Figure 39 Employment Status by Education & Gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Figure 40 Occupation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 6 Figure 41 Industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Figure 42 Work Location by Study Year. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Figure 43 Work Location by Years in San Carlos & Engaged, Connected With Community. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Figure 44 Work Location by Age & Ethnicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Figure 45 Work Location by Education, Home Owners hip Status & Gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Figure 46 Days a Week Working From Home. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Figure 47 Own a Home-Based Business among All Employed Respondents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Figure 48 Primary Work Commute Mode by Study Year. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Figure 49 Primary Work Commute Mode by Age & Ethnicit y . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Figure 50 Primary Work Commute Mode by Commute Duration in Minutes & Commute Distance in Miles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Figure 51 Work Commute Distance in Miles by Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Figure 52 Work Commute Distance in Miles by Overall, Age, Ethnicity & Primary Commute Mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Figure 53 Work Commute Distance in Miles by Education, Participate, Belong to Community Group & Engaged, Connected With Community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Figure 54 Work Commute Duration in Minutes by Study Ye ar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Figure 55 Work Commute Duration in Minutes by Overall, Age, Ethnicity & Primary Commute Mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Figure 56 Work Commute Duration in Minutes by Education, Participated, Belong to Community Group & Engaged, Connected With Community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Figure 57 Work Commute Duration in Minutes by Co mmute Distance in Miles . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Figure 58 Frequency of Traveling Within City of San Carlos. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Figure 59 Own or Lease Hybrid or All-Electric Vehicle by Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Figure 60 Own or Lease Hybrid or All-Electric Vehicle by Education & Age. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Figure 61 Own or Lease Hybrid or All-Electric Vehicle by Primary Commute Mode, Home Ownership Status & Ethnicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Figure 62 Difficulty to Charge Electrical Vehicle by Stud y Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Figure 63 Adult Recreational Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Figure 64 Child Recreational Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Figure 65 Use House-Cleaning Service by Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Figure 66 Use House-Cleaning Service by Years in San Carlos & Type of Residence . . . . . . . . 41 Figure 67 Use House-Cleaning Service by Home Ownership Status & Employment Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Figure 68 Use Landscape Service by Years in San Carlos, Type of Residence & Live in San Carlos 10 Years From Now . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Figure 69 Use Landscape Service by Home Ownership Status & Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Figure 70 Frequency of Home Delivery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Figure 71 Daily Media Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Figure 72 Daily Media Use by Showing Average Minutes Per Day. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Figure 73 Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Figure 74 Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic by Engaged, Connected With Community & Employment Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Figure 75 Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic by Hsld Mem bers & Ethnicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Figure 76 Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic by Age & Wo rk Commute Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Figure 77 Hsld Impacts Due to Pandemic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Figure 78 Maximum Margin of Error . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
9.b
March 25, 2024
Packet Pg. 534
Introduction
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 1
City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
I NTRODUCTION
Encompassing 5.6 square miles in San Mateo County, the City of San Carlos was incorporated in 1925 as a General Law city and is currently home to an estimated 30,722 residents. 1 The City’s dedicated team of full-time and part-time employees provides a full suite of services to residents and local businesses directly or via a shared-service model with other agencies and providers.
Every two years and most recently in 2020, the City of San Carlos conducts a Community Opinion Survey as a performance measurement tool to prof ile residents’ needs and priorities, measure how well the City is performing in meeting needs through existing services and facilities, gather data on a variety of quality-of-life, issue, and policy-related matters, and track in a statistically reliable way how opinions and priorities may have changed over the prior two-year period.
For the first time in 2019, the City sought to conduct a a statistically reliable lifestyle and demo- graphic survey of residents as a complimen t to its bi-annual survey. Whereas the Community Opinion Survey focuses on the community’s views of the City’s performance, the Community Characteristics Survey sought to provide the City with a better understanding of the community itself. By exploring residents’ values and aspirations, lifestyle characteristics, and demographics, the survey provided the City with better insigh ts about the residents it serves and the factors that may shape the community’s character in the future.
MOTIVATION FOR RESEARCH Although not planned as such, the 2019 Community Characteristics Survey provided a very timely snapshot of San Carlos residents’ characteristics, experiences, behaviors, and expectations under ‘normal’ conditions. Just a few weeks after the survey was complete, the coronavirus pandemic ar rived in California. In addition to the direct economic impacts including job losses, salary cu ts, and reduced spending, the threat of COVID- 19 and the closure of non-essential businesses dramatically altered how and where people work, play, shop, and travel. As we approach the third year of th e pandemic, the 2022 Community Characteristics Survey presents an opportunity to unders tand the extent to which San Carlos residents’ lifestyles, needs, and expectations may have changed in response to these challeng- ing times.
To assist in this effort, the City selected True North Research to design the research plan and conduct the study. Broadly defined, the survey was designed to:
• Assess residents’ perceptions about life in San Carlos and their plans for remaining in the City in the future;
• Examine how connected San Carlos residents are with their local community, including whether they belong to community groups and how well they know their neighbors; • Profile residents’ employment, commu te, and transportation behaviors; • Gather opinions on lifestyle topics such as re creation preferences, media use, and utilization of housecleaning, landscaping, and home delivery services; and • Collect background and demographic data to better understand the profile of San Carlos residents.
1. United States Census estimate for Ci ty of San Carlos population, April 2020.
9.b
March 25, 2024
Packet Pg. 535
Introduction
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 2City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
OVERVIEW OF METHODOLOGY A full description of the methodology used for this study is included later in this report (see Methodology o n p a g e 5 1 ) . I n b r i e f , t h e s u r v e y w a s administered to a random sample of 791 adults who reside within the City of San Carlos. The survey followed a mixed-method design that empl oyed multiple recruiting methods (email, text, and telephone) and multiple data collectio n methods (telephone an d online). Administered between January 13 and January 25, 2022, the average interview lasted 17 minutes.
ORGANIZATION OF REPORT This report is designed to me et the needs of readers who prefer a summary of the findings as well as those who are interested in the details of the results.
For those who seek an overview of the findings, the section titled Key Findings is for you. It pro- vides a summary of the most important factual find ings of the survey. For the interested reader, this section is followed by a more detailed ques tion-by-question discussion of the results from the survey by topic area (see Table of Contents ), as well as a description of the methodology employed for collecting and analyzing the data. An d, for the truly ambitious reader, the ques- tionnaire used for the interviews is contai ned at the back of this report (see Questionnaire & Toplines on page 54) and a complete set of crosstabulations for the survey results is contained in Appendix A.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS True North thanks the City of San Carlos for the opportunity to conduct the study and for contributing valuable input during the design stage of this study. The collective experience, insight, and local knowledge provided by city representatives and staff improved the overall quality of the research presented here.
DISCLAIMER The statements and conclu sions in this report are those of the authors (Dr. Timothy McLarney and Richard Sarles) at True North Research, Inc. and not necessarily those of the City of San Carlos. Any errors and omissions are the responsibility of the authors.
ABOUT TRUE NORTH True North is a full-service survey research firm that is dedicated to providing public agencies with a clear understanding of the values, perceptions, priorities, and concerns of their residents and customers. Thro ugh designing and implementing scientific sur- veys, focus groups, and one-on-one interviews, as well as expert interpretation of the findings, True North helps its clients to move with confidence when making strategic decisions in a variety of areas—such as planning, policy evaluation, per formance management, establishing fiscal pri- orities, passing revenue measures, and developing effective public information campaigns.
During their careers, Dr. McLarney (President) and Mr. Sarles (Principal Researcher) have designed and conducted over 1,200 survey research studies for public agencies—including more than 400 studies for California municipalities and special districts.
9.b
March 25, 2024
Packet Pg. 536
Key Findings
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 3
City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
K EY F INDINGS
The following is an outline of the main findings from the survey. For the reader’s convenience, we have organized the findings according to the section titles used in th e body of this report.
Thus, if you would like to learn more about a particular finding, simply turn to the appropriate report section.
LIVING IN SAN CARLOS
• San Carlos residents were most apt to cite the small town feeling (23%) as what they like best about living in the City of San Carlos, followed by it being a nice, neighborly community (22%), the downtown area (19%), and the ability to walk to many destinations in the City (18%). Other specific attributes that were mentioned by at least 10% of respondents included San Carlos’ location and accessibility (15%), shopping/dining options (14%), family-oriented nature (14%), and public safety/low crime (14%).
• When asked to indicate the one thing that they would most like to change about San Carlos, the most common specific ch anges desired were limiting gr owth and development (18%), providing more affordable housing (12%), providing a greater variety of restaurants and stores (9%), reducing traffic congestion (9%), and improving/maintaining infrastructure, roads, and sidewalks (8%).
• The majority of residents (51%) expect to still be living in San Carlos 10 years from now, 14% do not plan to remain in the City, and one-third (34%) were unsure or unwilling to share where they will be living in 10 years.
• Forty-one percent (41%) of all residents surve yed either anticipated retiring in San Carlos (23%) or were already in retirement (17%). An additional 23% did not anticipate retiring in San Carlos (9%) or living in the City in 10 years (14%), whereas the remaining 36% were unsure or unwilling to share their retirement plans.
• The majority of San Carlos respondents ha d lived in the City 15 years or longer (52%), whereas one-in-five were newer residents that had lived in the City less than 1 year (4%) or 1 to 4 years (18%). An additional 14% had resided in San Carlos for 5 to 9 years and 13% had lived in the City between 10 and 14 years.
• Approximately three-quarters of San Carlos residents surveyed in 2022 live in a detached, single-family home (75%), whereas 13% live in an apartment, 6% a condominium, 4% a town- home, and 2% live in some other type of residence or preferred to not answer the question. • The vast majority of San Carlos residents surveyed in 2022 own their home (66%). The remainder either rent (26%), live rent free with family (5%), or were unwilling to state (4%). 2 • When home owners who live in a detached, single-family home were asked if they plan to build an accessory dwelling unit, or granny flat, on their San Carlos property in the next five years, eight percent answered in the affirmative.
• One-third (34%) of San Carlos residents who plan to build an ADU also plan to rent it for sup- plemental income, whereas the remainder either do not plan to rent the unit for income (36%) or were unsure of their plans (31%).
2. Factoring out the ‘live rent free with family’ and prefer not to answer responses (which aren’t options on the US Census) and recalculating the percentages results in a homeownership rate of 72%, which is consistent with US Census estimates for San Carlos.
9.b
March 25, 2024
Packet Pg. 537
Key Findings
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 4City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
COMMUNITY CONNECTIONS
• Overall, 14% of respondents described themselv es as very engaged and connected to the community in 2022, 36% were somewhat engaged and connected, and 37% slightly engaged and connected. Another 11% of respondents confided that they do not feel at all engaged or connected to the San Carlos community.
• Three-in-ten respondents (29%) belonged to an organized community group in the City, whereas 63% did not and the remainder were either unsure or unwilling to state. There is a strong, positive relationship between belonging to a comm unity group and feeling very engaged and connected to the San Carlos community.
• Five percent (5%) of residents revealed that they know all the neighbors who live close to them well, 24% know most of their neighbors well, 55% know some of them well, and 15% confided that they do not know any of their neighbors well.
EMPLOYMENT, COMMUTE & TRANSPORTATION
• When asked about their employment status, ap proximately seven-in-ten respondents indi- cated they are employed either full-time (61%) or part-time (9%), 21% selected retired, 3% homemaker, 3% student, 2% are in-between jobs, and 2% were unsure or unwilling to state. • San Carlos residents work across a wide variety of occupational categories. Overall, 26% of employed residents who provided an opinion in dicated that their cu rrent occupation falls within the professional specialty category such as accountant, lawyer, engineer, scientist, or laboratory technician, 11% work in an executive occupation such as general manager, CEO, CFO, controller, or business owner, 9% work in an information technology position, 8% are supervisors or managers, 6% work in sales, 6% are teachers, and 4% are office or administra- tive workers.
• When asked to describe their industry, 30% of employed residents who provided an opinion indicated that they work in information technology manufacturing services, 10% work in education, 8% in business services, 8% work in medical and social services, 7% in biosciences or pharmaceuticals, and 6% work in the financial services industry. • Nearly half of employed respondents in 2022 (47%) stated that they work from home, whereas 25% commute to a work location outside the home and 28% do a mixture of both.
The 2022 findings are in stark contrast to the results found in the 2019 survey just prior to pandemic, when more than eight-in-ten employed San Carlos residents (86%) commuted to a work site outside of their home.
• Among the 75% of employees who work from home at least occasionally, most (42%) indi- cated that they primarily work from home five days per week, with the remainder reporting they do so four (11%), three (10%), two (7%) or one day per week (4%). • Seven percent (7%) of all employed residents own a home based business in the City. • Among employees who occasionally commute to a work location outside of their home, the most common method of commuting was driving alone to work in a car, truck, SUV, or van (83%). Public transit via Caltrain (5%) or other public transit mode (1%) accounted for approx- imately 6% of commutes and ridesharing via carpool accounted for approximately 3% of commutes. Active transportation modes (biking, walking, jogging, running) were mentioned by 6% of employees as their primary method of commuting to work. All other modes were mentioned by just 1% of respondents, collectively.
• The average commute length among all commuters was 13.13 miles, one-way, which is lower than the 15.45 miles average commute distance recorded in 2019.
9.b
March 25, 2024
Packet Pg. 538
Key Findings
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 5City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
• The average commute duration among all commuters was 26.2 minutes in 2022, one-way, which is somewhat less than the 33.6 minutes reported in 2019. • Regardless of their employment status, nearly all residents use a personal vehicle when trav- eling within San Carlos (97%) and three-quarters walk from home to a local store or restau- rant (76%). Less than half of residents ride a bicycle (42%) or use Uber or Lyft (38%) when traveling within the City, and just 8% ride a local bus. • Twenty-three percent (23)% of residents reported that they own a hybrid and 19% own an all- electric vehicle.
• Just over one-third of all-electric vehicle owners (36%) find it difficult to charge their vehicle in San Carlos.
HEALTH & LIFESTYLE
• Walking, jogging, and running wa s the most popular adult recreation activity (47%), followed by hiking/nature walks (33%), cycling (21%), and exercising/gym/yoga (15%). • Playing soccer (9%) and cycling (9%) were the most popular recreation activities among chil- dren and teenagers, followed by walking, jo gging, and running (7%), going to the park/ beach (7%), and hiking/nature walks (5%).3
• Forty-seven percent (47%) of residents report ed using a house cleaner and 52% a landscape maintenance service or gardener.
• Overall, 96% of residents have goods and pack ages delivered to their home from Amazon or other online retailers, with nearly two-thirds (65%) doing so weekly. • More than seven-in-ten respondents (72%) also indicated they have food, meals and grocer- ies delivered to their home, with 30% having weekly deliveries. • The average San Carlos resident spends nearly six hours in a typical day utilizing the Inter- net, not including social media (228 minutes per day) and watching television (121 minutes per day). Residents spend approximately an hour or more consuming news (73 minutes), using social media (66 minutes), reading books or magazines (62 minutes), and listening to the radio (57 minutes). San Carlos residents spend the least amount of time playing video games in a typical day (19 minutes).
PANDEMIC
• Approximately one-third of respondents (32%) stated the pandemic is currently having a big impact on their household, wi th an additional 47% describ ing the impact as moderate.
Approximately one-in-five respondents indica ted that the pandemic ’s current impacts on their household are either small (17%) or negligible (4%), whereas 1% preferred to not answer the question.
• Among those who indicated the pandemic is cu rrently having a big or moderate impact on their household, the most commonly reported impacts were the inability to socialize or gather with friends and family (32%), isolation/staying home (14%), working from home (14%), and restrictions on travel (12%), ability to go out for entertainment/dining (12%), and engage in activities (12%).
3. The majority of residents do not ha ve a child or teen in their home (5 4%), which is why the percentage fig- ures for child/teen activities tend to be lower when compared to the adult percentages.
9.b
March 25, 2024
Packet Pg. 539
Living in San Carlos
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 6
City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
L IVING IN S AN C ARLOS
The opening series of questions was designed to assess residents’ top of mind perceptions about living in San Carlos, profile their housing characteristics, and gather information on whether they intend to remain in San Carlos in the future.
WHAT DO YOU LIKE MOST ABOUT LIVING IN SAN CARLOS? The first question in this series asked residents to identify what they like best about living in the City of San Carlos.
Question 2 was posed in an open-ended manner , thereby allowing residents to mention any aspect or attribute that came to mind without being prompted by—or restricted to—a particular list of options. True North later reviewed the verbatim responses and grouped them into the cat- egories shown in Figure 1 below.
San Carlos residents were most apt to cite the small town feeling (23%) as what they like best about living in the City of San Carlos, followed by it being a nice, neighborly community (22%), the downtown area (19%), and the ability to walk to many destinations in the City (18%). Other specific attributes that were mentioned by at least 10% of respondents included San Carlos’ loca- tion and accessibility (15%), shopping/dining op tions (14%), family-oriented nature (14%), and public safety/low crime (14%). Table 1 on the next page presents the top-five aspects that respondents liked most about living in San Carlos in 2019 and 2022.
Question 2 What do you like best about living in San Carlos? FIGURE 1 LIKE BEST ABOUT SAN CARLOS
22.7 22.4
18.8 17.6
14.8 14.3
14.2 14.1
9.0 7.4
7.3 4.5
2.6 2.3
2.3 1.5
8.8 6.5
0 5 10 15 20 25
Small town feeling
Nice community, neighbors
Downtown area
Walkability, everything close, within walking distance
Location, accessibility
Shopping areas, restaurants
Family oriented
Public safety, low crime
Beautiful, clean city
Good schools
Climate, weather
Parks
Open space, hills
Nothing comes to mind / Not sure
Good governance in general
Variety of activities for youth, kids
Negative mentions
Public library
% Respondents
9.b
March 25, 2024
Packet Pg. 540
Living in San Carlos
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 7City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
TABLE 1 LIKE BEST ABOUT SAN CARLOS BY STUDY YEAR
WHAT SHOULD BE CHANGED? In an open-ended manner similar to that described above for Question 2, all respondents were also asked to indicate the one thing that they would most like to change about San Carlos. True North reviewed the verbatim responses to Question 3 and grouped them into the categories shown in Figure 2.
Question 3 What is the thing you would most like to change about San Carlos? FIGURE 2 CHANGES TO IMPROVE SAN CARLOS
2022 2019
Small town feeling Small town feeling
Nice community,
neighbors
Nice community,
neighbors
Downtown area Location, accessibility
Walkability,
everything close,
within walking
Family oriented
Location, accessibility Public safety, low
crime
Study Year
18.4 12.3
9.5 9.2
8.7 7.9
6.8 6.3
5.8 4.7
3.7 3.4
3.4 3.1
2.8 2.6
2.6 2.2
2.1 1.9
1.7 1.6
3.4 5.8
0 5 10 15 20
Limit growth, development
Provide more affordable housing
Nothing comes to mind / Not sure
Provide more variety of restaurants, stores
Reduce traffic congestion
Improve, maintain infrastructure, roads, sidewalks
Enforce traffic laws
Maintain, add park, recreation facilities
No changes desired / Everything is fine
Improve parking
More diversity in general
Improve public safety
Improve, provide more schools
Clean, beautify city, landscaping
Provide more community events, activities
Improve, provide more bike lanes
Improve downtown area
Improve governance in general
Pet friendlier, more dog parks
Preserve, recapture small town feeling
Make Laurel St pedestrian only
Better city planning, development
Reduce cost of living
Improve, provide more public transportation
% Respondents
9.b
March 25, 2024
Packet Pg. 541
Living in San Carlos
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 8City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Among specific changes desired, the most co mmon were limiting growth and development (18%), providing more affordable housing (12%), providing a greater variety of restaurants and stores (9%), reducing traffic congestion (9%), and improving/maintaining infrastructure, roads, and sidewalks (8%). Approximately 16% of respon dents could not think of any desired changes (10%) or reported that no changes are needed (6%). Although the top- mentioned improvement (limiting growth and development) was the same in 2022 as in 2019, a desire for more afford- able housing rose to the second position in 2022 (see Table 2).
TABLE 2 CHANGES TO IMPROVE SAN CARLOS BY STUDY YEAR
PLAN TO REMAIN IN SAN CARLOS Respondents were next asked about their future intentions, specifically whether they anticipate living in San Carlos 10 years from now (Question 4) as well as once they are retired (Question 5). As shown in Figure 3, the majority of residents (51%) expect to still be living in San Carlos 10 years from now, 14% do not plan to remain in the City, and one-third (34%) were unsure or unwilling to share where they will be living in 10 years.
The percentage who expected not to be living in San Carlos 10 years from now declined signifi- cantly between 2019 and 2022, while those who were unsure increased significantly.
Question 4 Do you anticipate that you will be living in San Carlos 10 years from now? FIGURE 3 ANTICIPATE LIVING IN SAN CARLOS 10 YEARS FROM NOW BY STUDY YEAR 2022 2019
Limit growth,
development
Limit growth,
development
Provide more
affordable housing
Reduce traffic
congestion
Nothing comes to
mind / Not sure Improve parking
Provide more variety
of restaurants, stores
Improve, maintain
infrastructure, roads,
sidewalks
Reduce traffic
congestion
Nothing comes to
mind / Not sure
Study Year
52.5 18.8
28.1 50.9
14.0†
34.1†
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
2022 2019
Study Y ear
% Respondents
Prefer not to
answer
Not sure
Do not
anticipate living
in San Carlos in
10 years
Anticipate living
in San Carlos in
10 years
9.b
March 25, 2024
Packet Pg. 542
Living in San Carlos
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 9City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Figures 4 through 6 display residents’ future housing plans by a variety of demographic charac- teristics. When compared to their respective co unterparts, residents who had lived in San Carlos at least five years, those between 35 and 44 years of age, individuals who indicated they are very engaged and connected to the San Carlos community, those with children under 13 years of age in their household, home owners, and Asian American and Caucasian respondents were the most likely to anticipate remaining in San Carlos for at least the next 10 years.
FIGURE 4 ANTICIPATE LIVING IN SAN CARLOS 10 YEARS FROM NOW BY YEARS IN SAN CARLOS & AGE FIGURE 5 ANTICIPATE LIVING IN SAN CARLOS 10 YEARS FROM NOW BY ENGAGED CONNECTED WITH COMMUNITY,
HSLD MEMBERS & PARTICIPATE, BELONG TO COMMUNITY
54.2 46.6
59.6 27.7
8.7 9.3
16.0 7.2
40.6 33.9
24.6 35.4 35.8 32.3
66.7 52.852.255.0
43.8 29.7
12.6 5.6
12.523.7
32.5 41.5
32.4 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Less than 5 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 or more 18 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or older Years in San Carlos (Q1) Age (QD1)
% Respondents
Prefer not to
answer
Not sure
Do not anticipate
living in San Carlos
in 10 years
Anticipate living in
San Carlos in 10
years
53.4 53.3 50.4
13.9 15.6 9.5 9.3 16.5
35.5 25.4
35.2 36.1 37.0 32.8
53.7 68.3
54.5 44.2
67.6 49.1
4.1 7.0
19.5 10.4
35.1 32.425.2
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Very Som ewhat Slightly, not at
all
Child under 13 Teenager Adult 18-64 Senior 65+ Yes No
Engaged, Connected w/Community (Q10) Hsld Members (QD2) Participate, Belong to Community Group (Q11)
% Respondents
Prefer not to
answer
Not sure
Do not anticipate
living in San Carlos
in 10 years
Anticipate living in
San Carlos in 10
years
9.b
March 25, 2024
Packet Pg. 543
Living in San Carlos
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 10City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
FIGURE 6 ANTICIPATE LIVING IN SAN CARLOS 10 YEARS FROM NOW BY HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS, ETHNICITY & GENDER
Along the same lines as Question 4, Question 5 asked respondents whether they anticipate remaining in San Carlos once they are retired. As shown in Figure 7, 41% of all residents sur- veyed either anticipated retiring in San Carlos (23%) or were already in retirement (17%). An addi- tional 23% did not anticipate retiring in San Carlos (9%) or living in the City in 10 years (14%), whereas the remaining 36% were unsure or unwill ing to share their retirement plans. The per- centage who were unsure about their retirement plans increased significantly between 2019 and 2022.
Question 5 Once you are retired, do you anticipate still living in San Carlos? FIGURE 7 ANTICIPATE LIVING IN SAN CARLOS WHEN RETIRED BY STUDY YEAR For the interested reader, figures 8 through 10 examine the responses to Question 5 by years in San Carlos, age, engaged/connected with community, ages of household members, participate/ belong to community group, home ownership st atus, ethnicity, and gender. Of note is the
50.3 54.3
13.3 22.0
14.2 13.1
45.2 26.2
40.3 34.6 32.2
52.7 63.1
28.8 42.1
58.5 37.6
8.1 14.0
11.6 22.8
48.5 33.528.2
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Own Rent Latino /
Hispanic
Asian American Caucasian /
White
Mixed or other Male Fem ale
Home Ownership Status (Q7) Ethnicity (QD7) Gender (QD5) % Respondents
Prefer not to
answer
Not sure
Do not anticipate
living in San Carlos
in 10 years
Anticipate living in
San Carlos in 10
years
22.4 16.9
9.9 18.8
31.2 23.1
17.4 9.0
14.0†
35.9†
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
2022 2019
Study Y ear
% Respondents
Prefer not to
answer
Not sure
Do not anticipate
living in San Carlos
in 10 years (Q4)
Do not anticipate
retiring in San
Carlos
Already retired
Anticipate retiring in
San Carlos
9.b
March 25, 2024
Packet Pg. 544
Living in San Carlos
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 11City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
strong, positive relationship between length of residence, age, presence of a senior in the home, home ownership, and planning to remain in the City for retirement.
FIGURE 8 ANTICIPATE LIVING IN SAN CARLOS WHEN RETIRED BY YEARS IN SAN CARLOS & AGE FIGURE 9 ANTICIPATE LIVING IN SAN CARLOS WHEN RETIRED BY ENGAGED, CONNECTED WITH COMMUNITY, HSLD
MEMBERS & PARTICIPATED, BELONG TO COMMUNITY GROUP
FIGURE 10 ANTICIPATE LIVING IN SAN CARLOS WHEN RETIRED BY HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS, ETHNICITY & GENDER
27.2 31.1
21.8 3.9
0.0 1.7
11.3 63.7
12.2 6.8
12.8 12.7
7.1 1.0
23.7 12.6 5.6
12.5 27.7 8.7
9.3 16.0
7.2 50.3 45.0 47.1
25.0 41.0
54.8 48.1
32.8 6.4
23.728.4
19.718.115.8 13.7
8.3 13.8
27.1 2.2
8.0 12.7
16.0 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Less than 5 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 or more 18 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or older Years in S an Carlo s (Q1) Age (QD1)
% Respondents
Prefer not to answe r
Not sure
Do not anticipate
living in San Carlos
in 10 years (Q4)
Do not anticipate
retiring in San Carlos
Already retired, lives
in City
Anticipate retiring in
San Carlos
25.0 25.6 22.0
3.7 7.0
50.1 16.9 18.6
10.2 15.5 10.9
2.7 9.9 9.7
4.1 10.4
19.5 7.0 13.9 15.6
9.5 9.3 16.5
34.2 41.6
32.1 51.2 45.3 43.4
12.6 38.4 33.2
28.434.1
23.5 20.0 24.8 23.1
16.5 1.517.716.7
7.7 8.6
9.4 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Very Som ewhat Slightly, not
at all
Child under
13 Teenager Adult 18-64 Senior 65+ Yes No
Engaged, Connected w/Community (Q10) Hsld Members (QD2) Participate, Belong to Co mmunity Gro up (Q11)
% Respondents
Prefer not to answe r
Not sure
Do not anticipate
living in San Carlos
in 10 years (Q4)
Do not anticipate
retiring in San Carlos
Already retired, lives
in City
Anticipate retiring in
San Carlos
24.8 22.2
20.7 8.8
15.2 20.7
15.6 6.9
6.3 9.0 7.1
8.1 22.8
11.6 14.0 13.3
22.0 14.2 13.1
32.8 44.9 42.7
28.8 34.1
47.7 36.1 36.8
15.2 33.0
19.8 9.4
29.4 22.78.7
9.3 16.021.8
7.7 9.1
14.3 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Own Rent Latino /
Hispanic
Asian American Caucasian /
White
Mixed or other Male Fem ale
Home Ownership Status (Q7) Ethnicity (QD7) Gender (QD5) % Respondents
Prefer not to answe r
Not sure
Do not anticipate
living in San Carlos
in 10 years (Q4)
Do not anticipate
retiring in San Carlos
Already retired, lives
in City
Anticipate retiring in
San Carlos
9.b
March 25, 2024
Packet Pg. 545
Living in San Carlos
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 12City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
LENGTH OF RESIDENCE The survey also asked a number of questions to profile resi- dents’ living situation and current housing. The first such question asked residents how long they have lived in San Carlos. As shown in Figu re 11, the majority of San Carlos residents have lived in the City 15 years or longer (52%), whereas one-in-five are newer residents that have lived in the City less than 1 year (4%) or 1 to 4 years (18%). An additional 14% have resided in San Car- los for 5 to 9 years and 13% have lived in the City between 10 and 14 years. The percentage of long-time residents (15+ years) in the 2022 survey was significantly lower than in 2019, whereas the percentage of new residents (less than one ye ar) increased. Long-time San Carlos residents were most likely to be 55 years and older, Caucasian/White, and home owners (see Figure 12).
Question 1 How long have you lived in San Carlos?
FIGURE 11 YEARS IN SAN CARLOS BY STUDY YEAR
FIGURE 12 YEARS IN SAN CARLOS BY AGE, ETHNICITY & HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS
58.8 10.4
13.7 18.0† 12.3†
3.5 4.5
51.8†
12.8 13.5
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
2022 2019
Study Y ear
% Respondents
Prefer not
to answer
Less than
1 year
1 to 4 years
5 to 9 years
10 to 14 years
15 years or
longer
40.4 57.8
39.9 63.2
17.4 10.5
10.0 17.9
12.1 11.1
10.7 19.2
19.0 11.0
17.2 16.1
12.8 7.5
12.9 45.8
29.8 11.6
24.7 23.3 13.7
34.2 11.6
38.4 11.0
4.4 3.1 2.4 3.5 7.3 8.1
44.9 74.7
43.9 19.6
37.4 78.8
18.3 25.2
11.3 4.7
16.9 7.0
27.9 1.7 1.5
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
18 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or older Latino / Hispanic
Asian
American
Caucasian
/ White
Mixed or
other
Own Rent
Age (QD1) Ethnicity (QD7) Home Ownership
Status (Q7)
% Respondents
Prefer not to answer
Less than 1
1 to 4
5 to 9
10 to 14
15 or longer
9.b
March 25, 2024
Packet Pg. 546
Living in San Carlos
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 13City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
HOUSING TYPE Approximately three-quarters of San Carlos residents surveyed in 2022 live in a detached, single-family home (75%), whereas 13% live in an apartment, 6% a condominium, 4% a townhome, and 2% live in some other type of residence or preferred to not answer the ques- tion. These figures are nearly id entical to the percentages recorded in 2019 (Figure 13). Figures 14 and 15 display respondents’ type of residence by years in San Carlos, age, engaged/con- nected with community, ages of household members, and ethnicity. Newer residents (less than 5 years), those 18 to 34 years of age, residents less than very engaged in the community, those without a child or teen in the household, and respondents who reported mixed/other ethnicities were the most likely to live in a housing type other than a detached, single-family residence.
Question 6 Which of the following best describes your residence in San Carlos? Read list.
FIGURE 13 TYPE OF RESIDENCE BY STUDY YEAR
FIGURE 14 TYPE OF RESIDENCE BY YEARS IN SAN CARLOS & AGE
76.4 10.4
7.7 3.2
75.4 12.7
6.1 4.0
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
2022 2019
Study Y ear
% Respondents
Prefer not to
answer
Other
Townhome
Condo
Apartment
Detached single
family
79.4 81.7
73.6 22.6
13.4 13.8 6.0
9.3 8.7
3.1 5.0 1.8
5.2 9.6
6.0 0.6
4.5 3.9 5.5
1.3 3.1 4.2 6.6
80.287.1
60.1 73.0
59.1 60.5
17.4 23.4
4.4 23.5
10.9 8.9
7.8 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Less than 5 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 or more 18 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or older Ye ars in S an Carlo s (Q1) Age (QD1)
% Respondents
Other
Prefer not to answe r
To w nho me
Condominium
Apartment
Detached single
family ho me
9.b
March 25, 2024
Packet Pg. 547
Living in San Carlos
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 14City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
FIGURE 15 TYPE OF RESIDENCE BY ENGAGED, CONNECTED WITH COMMUNITY, HSLD MEMBERS & ETHNICITY HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS As shown in Figure 16, the vast majority of San Carlos resi- dents surveyed in 2022 own their home (66%). The remainder either rent (26%), live rent free with family (5%), or were unwilling to state (4%). 4 Figures 17 and 18 on the next page examine home ownership status by a host of respondent characteristics. Strong, positive relationships exist between home ownership st atus and years in San Carlos, age of respondent, and being engaged/connected with the San Carlos community.
Question 7 Do you own or rent your residence in San Carlos? FIGURE 16 HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS BY STUDY YEAR
4. Factoring out the ‘live rent free with family’ and prefer not to answer responses (which aren’t options on the US Census) and recalculating the percentages results in a homeownership rate of 72%, which is consistent with US Census estimates for San Carlos.
78.1 76.2 72.0 78.7
59.6 14.7 7.1 16.4
7.7 12.2
25.6 6.5
5.4 4.9 7.2
6.5 12.6
4.66.0 3.2 1.0 2.4 4.0 5.3 4.6 3.6 10.3
91.187.6
72.8 74.5
84.2 75.6
4.76.7 9.4
14.213.3
6.7 1.8
3.5 2.81.4
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Very Som ewhat Slightly,
not at all
Child
under 13
T eenager Adult 18-
64 Senior 65+ Latino /
Hispanic
Asian
American
Caucasian
/ White
Mixed or
other
Engaged, Connected w/Community
(Q10)
Hsld Members (QD2) Ethnicity (QD7)
% Respondents
Other
Prefer not to answer
Townhome
Condominium
Apartment
Detached single
family ho me
75.6 17.3
4.22.9 66.0†
25.6†
4.8 3.6
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
2022 2019
Study Y ear
% Respondents
Prefer not to
answer
Live rent free
with fam ily
Rent
Own
9.b
March 25, 2024
Packet Pg. 548
Living in San Carlos
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 15City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
FIGURE 17 HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS BY YEARS IN SAN CARLOS, AGE & TYPE OF RESIDENCE FIGURE 18 HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS BY ENGAGED, CONNECTED WITH COMMUNITY, HSLD MEMBERS & ETHNICITY PLAN TO BUILD ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT Home owners who live in a detached, single-family home were next asked if they plan to build an accessory dwelling unit (ADU), or granny flat, on their San Carlos property in the next five years. As shown in Figure 19 on the next page, eight percent of single-family home owners answered Question 8 in the affirmative and plan to build an ADU. Three-quarters of resp ondents (75%) do not have any plans to build an accessory dwelling unit in the next five years, whereas 17% were unsure or unwilling to share.
When compared to 2019, the percentage who we re unsure about their ADU plans increased sig- nificantly, which corresponded to a decline in those who did not plan to build an ADU.
Newer residents (less than five years), those with a child or teenager in their household, and respondents under 35 years of age were the most likely single-family home owner subgroups to have plans to build an accessory dwelling unit on their property (see Figure 20 on next page).
72.4 78.0 76.1 79.3
55.7 66.8
45.8 26.9 24.6 15.6 18.6 12.9
39.0 26.3
7.7 3.2 1.1 1.2 1.1 6.14.4 6.6 3.1 3.5 5.2 4.3 6.9
68.8 80.6
55.2 63.4
40.5 32.7
32.2 38.3
8.6 55.1
3.9 5.3
18.0 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Less than
5 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 or more 18 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or older Single family
Townhome Condo
Y ears in San Carlos (Q1) Age (QD1) T ype of Residence (Q6) % Respondents
Prefer not to answe r
Live rent free with
family
Rent
Own
74.8 63.5
77.5 66.4
46.3 15.0
29.7 14.1 30.5
14.3 25.7
45.7 6.1
1.5 5.6 5.1 2.5 2.6 5.64.7 6.0 3.5 5.7 2.2 3.3
78.279.4 71.8
58.5 74.3
63.0 17.5 23.4
30.7 22.9
4.1 5.4 4.71.6
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Very Somewhat Slightly,
not at all
Child under
13 T eenager Adult 18-
64 Senior 65+ Latino /
Hispanic
Asian
American
Caucasian
/ White
Mixed or
other
Engaged, Connected w/Community
(Q10)
Hsld Members (QD2) Ethnicity (QD7)
% Respondents
Prefer not to answe r
Live rent free with
family
Rent
Own
9.b
March 25, 2024
Packet Pg. 549
Living in San Carlos
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 16City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Question 8 In the next five years, do you plan to build an accessory dwelling unit - also known as a granny flat - on your property in San Carlos?
FIGURE 19 BUILD AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT IN NEXT 5 YEARS (AMONG SINGLE-FAMILY HOME OWNERS) BY STUDY YEAR
FIGURE 20 BUILD AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT IN NEXT 5 YEARS (AMONG SINGLE-FAMILY HOME OWNERS) BY YEARS
IN SAN CARLOS, HSLD MEMBERS & AGE
DO YOU PLAN TO RENT THE ADU? The final question in this series (Question 9) was directed to home owners who pl anned to build an ADU on thei r property and simply asked whether they plan to rent the ADU for supplemen tal income. Overall, one-third (34%) of San Car- los residents who plan to build an ADU also plan to rent it for supplemental income (see Figure 21 on the next page), whereas the remainder either do not plan to rent the unit for income (36%) or were unsure of their plans (31%).
6.3 81.6
11.5 8.3
74.8†
16.5†
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
2022 2019
Study Y ear
% Single Family Homeowners
Prefer not to
answer
Not sure
No ADU in next
5 years
Plan to build
ADU in next 5
years
12.2 12.3
9.0 7.1
16.2 7.7
12.0 5.7 5.4
14.2 8.9 9.1
7.0 0
5 10
15 20
Less
than 5
5 to 9 10 to 14 15 or
mo re
Child
under 13
T eenager Adult 18-
64 Senior
65+
18 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or
older
Years in San Carlos (Q1) Hsld Members (QD2) Age (QD1)
% Single Family Homeowners That Plan
to Build ADU in Next 5 Years
9.b
March 25, 2024
Packet Pg. 550
Living in San Carlos
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 17City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Question 9 Do you plan to rent the accessory dwelling unit for supplemental income? FIGURE 21 PLAN TO RENT THE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT FOR SUPPLEMENTAL INCOME Do not plan to
rent ADU
35.6 Plan to rent ADU
33.7 Not sure
30.6 9.b
March 25, 2024
Packet Pg. 551
Community Connections
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 18
City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
C OMMUNITY C ONNECTIONS
After assessing housing characteristics and perceptions about life in San Carlos, the survey tran- sitioned to examining how connected San Carlos residents are with their local community, including whether they belong to community groups and how well they know their neighbors.
FEEL ENGAGED & CONNECTED TO COMMUNITY The first question in this section asked respondents to rate how engaged and connec ted they feel to their local San Carlos com- munity using a scale of very, somewhat, slightly, or not at all engaged and connected. Overall, 14% of respondents described themselves as ve ry engaged and connected to the community in 2022, 36% were somewhat engaged and connect ed, and 37% slightly engaged and connected.
Another 11% of respondents confided that they do not feel at al l engaged or connected to the San Carlos community. When compared to 2019—prior to pandemic—the levels of engagement and feelings of connectivity among San Carlos residents declined somewhat (see Figure 22).
Question 10 In general, how engaged and connected do you feel to your San Carlos commu- nity? Would you say very, somewhat, slightly, or not at all engaged and connected? FIGURE 22 ENGAGED, CONNECTED WITH SAN CARLOS COMMUNITY BY STUDY YEAR For the interested reader, figures 23 through 26 on the following pages show how feelings of community connectedness varied by a number of demographic characteristics. Several sub- groups stood out for having a substantially higher percentage of respondents who feel very con- nected to the community, including those who had lived in San Carlos between 10 and 14 years, single family home owners, homemakers, those wi th a child or teenager in the home, residents between 45 and 54 years of age, and especially those who belong to a community group.
16.2 40.5
30.9 11.0
13.5 36.2
36.9†
11.1 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
2022 2019
Study Y ear
% Respondents
Prefer not to
answer
Not sure
Not engaged,
connected
Slightly engaged,
connected
Som ewhat
engaged,
connected
Very engaged,
connected
9.b
March 25, 2024
Packet Pg. 552
Community Connections
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 19City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
FIGURE 23 ENGAGED, CONNECTED WITH SAN CARLOS COMMUNITY BY YEARS IN SAN CARLOS & TYPE OF RESIDENCE FIGURE 24 ENGAGED, CONNECTED WITH SAN CARLOS COMMUNITY BY EMPLOYMENT STATUS & HSLD MEMBERS FIGURE 25 ENGAGED, CONNECTED WITH SAN CARLOS COMMUNITY BY AGE & ETHNICITY
6.1 7.1
35.0 54.8
39.6 37.8
32.2 37.3
31.1 34.8 36.4
15.6 6.1
16.1 20.4 14.2
4.6 33.2
36.8 37.238.7
34.9 38.0
40.8 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Less than 5 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 or more Single family Townhome Condo Apartment Years in San Carlos (Q1) Type of Residence (Q6)
% Respondents
Slightly
engaged,
connected
Som ewhat
engaged,
connected
Very
engaged,
connected
18.5 12.3 11.8
47.3 40.8 45.8
38.5 33.7
23.5 40.0
34.8 28.9
36.4 42.6
19.414.017.713.014.0
2.0 42.1
48.6 31.836.1
36.7 41.435.4
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Full-time Part-time Ho me make r R etire d In-be tw e en jobs
Child under
13 T eenager Adult 18-64 Senior 65+
Employment Status (Q13) Hsld Members (QD2)
% Respondents
Slightly
engaged,
connected
Som ewhat
engaged,
connected
Very
engaged,
connected
13.6 14.4 9.7
33.8 33.6 30.9 34.7
56.0 31.5
40.3 42.7 40.2
38.9 15.0
10.110.3
19.516.9
6.1 13.6
41.0 37.7
36.2 34.5
39.1 43.1
32.9 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
18 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or older Latino / Hispanic
Asian
American
Caucasian /
White
Mixed or
other
Age (QD1) Ethnicity (QD7)
% Respondents
Slightly
engaged,
connected
Som ewhat
engaged,
connected
Very
engaged,
connected
9.b
March 25, 2024
Packet Pg. 553
Community Connections
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 20City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
FIGURE 26 ENGAGED, CONNECTED WITH SAN CARLOS COMMUNITY BY PARTICIPATE, BELONG TO COMMUNITY GROUP,
WORK COMMUNITY STATUS & GENDER
BELONG TO COMMUNITY GROUP The next question asked respondents whether they belong to any organized community groups in San Carlos. Three-in-ten respondents (29%) belonged to an organized community group in the City, whereas 63% did not and the remainder were either unsure or unwilling to state (Figure 27). Residents who have lived in San Carlos between five and 14 years, those living in a housing type other than a condominium, homemak- ers, respondents with children and/or teenagers in their househ old, residents 35 to 54 years of age, residents very engaged and connected with the community, and those who work from home were the most likely subgroups to belong to an organized community group (see figures 28-31).
Question 11 Do you currently participate in or belong to any organized community groups in San Carlos?
FIGURE 27 PARTICIPATE IN OR BELONG TO ORGANIZED COMMUNITY GROUP BY STUDY YEAR
16.4 16.2 9.2
37.6 36.4
36.5 39.3
32.4 34.9
34.6 37.2
35.7 33.6
43.3 11.6
29.4 6.4
16.4 11.9 10.6
44.3 30.7
40.1 32.0
45.3 40.3
22.2 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Y es No Working from
home
Commuting
outside hom e
Mixture of
both
Male Female Own Rent
Participate, Belong to
Community Group (Q11)
Work Commute Status (Q16) Gender (QD5) Home Ownership Status (Q7) % Respondents
Slightly
engaged,
connectedSom ewhat
engaged,
connected
Very
engaged,
connected
29.5 66.7
2.6 29.1
63.0 5.0†
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
2022 2019
Study Y ear
% Respondents
Prefer not to
answer
Not sure
Not involved in a
community
group
Involved in a
community
group
9.b
March 25, 2024
Packet Pg. 554
Community Connections
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 21City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
FIGURE 28 PARTICIPATE IN OR BELONG TO ORGANIZED COMMUNITY GROUP BY YEARS IN SAN CARLOS & TYPE OF
RESIDENCE
FIGURE 29 PARTICIPATE IN OR BELONG TO ORGANIZED COMMUNITY GROUP BY EMPLOYMENT STATUS & HSLD
MEMBERS
FIGURE 30 PARTICIPATE IN OR BELONG TO ORGANIZED COMMUNITY GROUP BY AGE & ETHNICITY
31.4 31.1
12.3 26.4
23.0 38.7 37.5
27.3 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 Less than 5 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 or more Single family Townhome Condo Apartment Years in San Carlos (Q1) Type of Residence (Q6)
% Respondents Involved
in a Community Group
26.0 38.7
42.4 30.2
26.227.8
39.1 29.029.5
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
Full-time Part-time Homemaker Retired In-between
jobs
Child under
13 Teenager Adult 18-64 Senior 65+
Employment Status (Q13) Hsld Members (QD2)
% Respondents Involved
in a Community Group
28.2 30.0
25.2 30.2
33.1 22.5
33.5 39.4
23.2 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 18 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or older Latino / Hispanic
Asian
American
Caucasian /
White
Mixed or
other
Age (QD1) Ethnicity (QD7)
% Respondents Involved
in a Community Group
9.b
March 25, 2024
Packet Pg. 555
Community Connections
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 22City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
FIGURE 31 PARTICIPATE IN OR BELONG TO ORGANIZED COMMUNITY GROUP BY ENGAGED CONNECTED WITH
COMMUNITY, GENDER & HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS
FAMILIARITY WITH NEIGHBORS The last question in this section asked respondents to describe how well they know their neighbors that live close by (Figure 32). Overall, 5% of resi- dents revealed that they know all the neighbors who live close to them well, 24% know most of their neighbors well, 55% know some of them well, and 15% confided that they do not know any of their neighbors well. When compared to ri ght before the pandemic started (2019), the per- centage of San Carlos residents in 2022 who indicated they know most of their neighbors well declined significantly, while the percentage who know none of their neighbors well increased significantly. Figures 33 through 36 show how San Carlos residents’ familiarity with their neigh- bors varied by demographic ch aracteristics and subgroups. Lo ng-time residents (15+ years), those living in single family homes, residents 55 to 64 years of age, homeowners, and those who indicated they are very connect ed to the community were the mo st likely to report that they know all or most of their neighbors.
Question 12 Thinking of the neighbors that live close to you in San Carlos, what proportion do you know well? All, most, some, or none?
FIGURE 32 FAMILIARITY WITH NEIGHBORS BY STUDY YEAR
22.4 27.4 26.8
31.3 30.4 30.9
63.6 35.6
15.7 34.7
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
Very Som ewhat Slightly, not
at all
Working
from home
Co mmuting
outside
home
Mixture of
both
Male Female Own Rent
Engaged, Connected w/Community
(Q10)
Work Commute Status (Q16) Gender (QD5) Home Ownership Status (Q7)
% Respondents Involved
in a Community Group
6.7 29.6
54.4 8.0
5.1 23.9†
55.4 14.9†
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
2022 2019
Study Y ear
% Respondents
Not sure /
Prefer not to
answer
None
Som e
Most
All
9.b
March 25, 2024
Packet Pg. 556
Community Connections
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 23City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
FIGURE 33 FAMILIARITY WITH NEIGHBORS BY YEARS IN SAN CARLOS & TYPE OF RESIDENCE FIGURE 34 FAMILIARITY WITH NEIGHBORS BY EMPLOYMENT STATUS & HSLD MEMBERS FIGURE 35 FAMILIARITY WITH NEIGHBORS BY AGE & ETHNICITY
27.6 13.6
9.1 11.3
74.1 53.7
57.3 56.8 50.7
1.85.80.8 2.4 2.0 8.0 7.610.2
31.1 16.9
25.9 55.6
56.5 49.2
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Less than 5 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 or more Single family Townhome Condo Apartment Y ears in San Carlos (Q1) T ype of Residence (Q6)
% Respondents
Som e
Most
All
4.2 7.1
29.9 23.3
32.5 23.4 25.2
49.8 54.4
62.0 55.8
55.4 56.9
4.72.03.8 2.0 11.2 3.8
21.8 26.0
36.625.1
63.1 58.6
54.8 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Full-time Part-time Homemaker Retired In-between
jobs
Child under
13 Teenager Adult 18-64 Senior 65+
Emplo yment S tatus (Q13) Hsld Members (QD2)
% Respondents
Som e
Most
All
3.5 24.1
20.2 28.2 23.5
18.4 61.2
54.2 48.7
51.3 59.1
47.5 2.04.612.02.13.41.1 7.5 5.8
24.9 27.6
25.7 19.0
39.6 59.160.3
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
18 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or older Latino / Hispanic
Asian
American
Caucasian /
White
Mixed or
other
Age (QD1) Ethnicity (QD7)
% Respondents
Som e
Most
All
9.b
March 25, 2024
Packet Pg. 557
Community Connections
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 24City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
FIGURE 36 FAMILIARITY WITH NEIGHBORS BY ENGAGED, CONNECTED WITH COMMUNITY, WORK COMMUTE STATUS,
GENDER & HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS
5.0 25.4 21.0 22.4 25.6 28.6
57.5 55.8
61.1 57.1 56.2
57.2 54.9
1.75.33.3 12.1 4.2 3.9 2.1 6.3 6.7
10.1 42.2
21.314.4
29.3 57.3
49.7 44.0
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Very Somewhat Slightly, not
at all
Working
from home
Commuting
outside
home
Mixture of
both
Male Female Own Rent
Engaged, Connected w/Community
(Q10)
Work Commute Status (Q16) Gender (QD5) Home Ownership Status (Q7)
% Respondents
Som e
Most
All
9.b
March 25, 2024
Packet Pg. 558
Employment, Commute & Transportation
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 25
City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
E MPLOYMENT , C OMMUTE &
T RANSPORTATION
The next section of the survey was designed to identify residents’ employment and travel behav- iors and gather specific information about their commute—including primary mode, commute distance, and duration.
EMPLOYMENT STATUS The opening question in this se ries presented respondents with six different employment categories and asked th em to select the one that best matched their employment status. As shown in Figure 37 below, approximately seven-in-ten respondents in 2022 indicated that they are employed either full-time (61%) or part-time (9%), 21% selected retired, 3% homemaker, 3% student, 2% are in-between jobs, and 2% were unsure or unwilling to state. Figures 38 and 39 show how employment status differed across demographic subgroups.
Question 13 Which of the following best describes your employment status? FIGURE 37 EMPLOYMENT STATUS BY STUDY YEAR
FIGURE 38 EMPLOYMENT STATUS BY AGE & ETHNICITY
57.8 7.3
3.8 4.5
20.9 22.7
1.9 1.7
60.7 8.9
2.52.7 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
2022 2019
Study Y ear
% Respondents
Not sure / Prefer
not to answer
In-between jobs
Retired
Ho memaker
Student
Employed part-
time
Employed full-
time
65.2 57.2
73.2 12.1
1.3 6.9
9.9 12.8
2.5 3.4
4.8 5.9
1.0 2.3 2.8
1.7 18.9
74.9 11.6 21.7 24.5
11.9 3.1 2.9 3.3 1.3 2.1 1.2
12.0 79.4 81.9 78.0
64.0 80.8
4.2 11.5
10.48.0 1.111.0
2.7 3.0
5.5 3.6
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
18 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or older Latino / Hispanic
Asian
American
Caucasian /
White
Mixed or
other
Age (QD1) Ethnicity (QD7)
% Respondents Who Provided Opinion
In-between
jobs
Retired
Ho memaker
Student
Part time
Full time
9.b
March 25, 2024
Packet Pg. 559
Employment, Commute & Transportation
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 26City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
FIGURE 39 EMPLOYMENT STATUS BY EDUCATION & GENDER
OCCUPATION & INDUSTRY The next two questions asked employed residents to describe their occupation (Question 14) and industry (Question 15). These questions were asked in an open-ended manner, allowing respondents to provide specifics wi thout being limited to a list of options. True North later reviewed the verbatim responses and grouped them into the broader categories shown in the figures, which also provide examples of each category in paren- theses.
Question 14 What is your current occupation?
FIGURE 40 OCCUPATION
53.9 8.4 5.8
11.9 1.0
2.46.2 0.0 2.8
4.9 17.9 27.4 37.7
17.2 21.4 19.5 24.5
8.3 1.3 0.0 1.4 1.9 1.4 2.4
70.268.8
48.742.5
28.9 65.3
9.9 11.3
8.5 18.8
2.8 19.8
18.9 3.1
2.3 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Less than
college
Some college T wo-year degree Four-year degree Grad / Post grad degree
Male Female
Education (QD6) Gender (QD5)
% Respondents Who Provided Opinion
In-between
jobs
Retired
Ho memaker
Student
Part time
Full time
25.9 10.8
9.2 7.6
6.3 5.8
4.3 2.9
2.8 1.0
1.0 0.6
0.5 0.5
0.4 0.4
0.3 0.2
2.0 0.7
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Professional Specialty (not IT): (accountants, lawyers, engineers, scientists, lab technicians, biotechnicians, tech writers, artists, models) Executive: (General Managers, CEO, CFO, Controller, and other hi-level execs, business owners)
Information Technology (IT): (computer programmers, network administrators, web designers)
Supervisors, Managers: (staff supervisors, shift managers, service supervisors) Sales: (sales and marketing agents, real estate agents) Teachers: (Professors, educators, grade school, middle school, high school teachers)
Administrative & Office Workers: (clerical, receptionists, data entry, records processing)
Physicians: (doctors, dentists, physicians)
Craft and repair: (Construction, mechanics, electricians, appliances installations, repair tech, handyman, HVAC tech, general contractors)
Medical Assistants: (medical tech, medical assistants, LVN, nursing assistant, home health aides, care givers, pharmacist)
Nurses: (RNs only)
Self Employed, freelance
Government
Protective Services: (security guards, safety officers, bouncers, police, fireman) Operators, fabricators, laborers: (Machine operators, manual laborers, non-elec assemblers, vehicle/truck operators, stockroom helpers, packers, drivers, farmers) Contractor
Food Preparation and Serving: (food handlers, food servers, waiters, baristas) Customer Service Reps: (phone support, customer service, cashiers, bank tellers) Courier services, delivery, driver
Telemarketers: (Inbound/outbound telemarketers NOT support staff or customer service)
% Employed Respondents Who Provided Opinion
9.b
March 25, 2024
Packet Pg. 560
Employment, Commute & Transportation
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 27City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
As shown in Figure 40 on the previous page, Sa n Carlos residents work across a wide variety of occupational categories. Overall, 26% of employ ed residents who provided an opinion indicated that their current occupation falls within the professional specialty category such as accountant, lawyer, engineer, scientist, or laboratory techni cian, 11% work in an executive occupation such as general manager, CEO, CFO, controller, or business owner, 9% work in an information technol- ogy position, 8% are supervisors or managers, 6% work in sales, 6% are teachers, and 4% are office or administrative workers. The remaining occupational categories were cited by less than 3% of respondents, respectively.
When asked to describe their industry, 30% of employed residents who provided an opinion indi- cated that they work in information technology manufacturing services, 10% work in education, 8% in business services, 8% work in medical and social services, 7% in biosciences or pharmaceu- ticals, and 6% work in the financial services industry. The remaining industry groupings were each cited by less than 5% of respondents (Figure 41).
Question 15 And what industry do you work in? If pauses, ask: What does your company do? FIGURE 41 INDUSTRY
WORK LOCATION The survey also asked employed in dividuals whether they work from home, commute to a work location outside of their home, or a mixture of both. As shown in Fig- ure 42 on the next page, nearly half of respondents in 2022 (47%) stated that they work from home, whereas 25% commute to a work location outside the home and 28% do a mixture of both. The 2022 findings are in stark contrast to the results found in the 2019 survey just prior to pandemic, when more than eigh t-in-ten employed San Carlos re sidents (86%) commuted to a work site outside of their home.
29.5 9.6
8.0 7.8
7.4 5.7
3.2 2.6
2.2 1.8
1.7 1.2
1.1 1.0
0.4 0.2
0.2 0.1
0.1 1.6
2.0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
IT Manufacturing services: Computer, Software and Elect Manufacturing and Services Education: Any educational institution, including public, private schools, colleges, universities
Business Services: Businesses that provide services to other businesses, incl legal, advertising, printing, engineering, accounting, IT services, install, repair services) M edical and Social Services: Businesses that provide health care, hospitals, social assistance
Biosciences and Pharmaceuticals: Companies that research, manufacture biological, chemical, medicinal products incl laboratory, medical equipment Financial Services: Banks, credit unions, investment consulting, income tax preparer Sales
Construction: Builders and developers, heavy construction, special trades Non-IT Manufacturing: Manufacturers of products that are not electronic, such as food, textiles, clothing, recreational goods
Religious / Non-profit Industry
Hospitality, Visitor and Entertainment Services
Government / Public Administration: Any government agency such as a city, county, or publicly funded agency
Security Services
Transportation
Retail: Retails stores and outlets that sell products directly to consumers Communications: Telephone, radio and cable companies, companies that manufacture communications-related products such as phones and fax machines Energy natural resources: Services (also Natural Resource/Wildlife) Maintenance / Janitorial
None / Self-employed
M ilitary: U. S. Army, Air Force, Navy, Coast Guard, Forces Branch not specified, M ilitary reserved or National Guard
Agriculture: Food and flower crops, support activities for agriculture % Employed Respondents Who Provided Opinion
9.b
March 25, 2024
Packet Pg. 561
Employment, Commute & Transportation
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 28City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Question 16 Are you currently working from home, commuting to a workplace outside of your home, or a mixture of both?
FIGURE 42 WORK LOCATION BY STUDY YEAR
Figures 43 through 45 show how work location among employed San Carlos residents varied by length of residence, how engaged they feel with the community, age, ethnicity, education, home ownership status, and gender.
FIGURE 43 WORK LOCATION BY YEARS IN SAN CARLOS & ENGAGED, CONNECTED WITH COMMUNITY
12.6 86.1
46.7 24.8
28.0 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
2022 2019
Study Y ear
% Employed Respondents
Prefer not to
answer
Mixture of
both
Co mmuting
outside hom e
Working from
home
41.7 21.3
20.7 28.5
32.0 32.1 28.6 29.8
50.8 34.7
48.549.5
62.9 55.2
22.9 19.5
33.2 16.3
20.8 23.427.6
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Less than 5 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 or more Very Somewhat Slightly, not at all Years in San Carlos (Q1) Engaged, Connected w/Community (Q10) % Respondents Who Provided Opinion
Mixture of
both
Co mmuting
outside hom e
Working from
home
9.b
March 25, 2024
Packet Pg. 562
Employment, Commute & Transportation
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 29City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
FIGURE 44 WORK LOCATION BY AGE & ETHNICITY
FIGURE 45 WORK LOCATION BY EDUCATION, HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS & GENDER DAYS PER WEEK WORKING AT HOME Respondents who reported that they work from home at least occasionally were subsequen tly asked to report how many days they primarily work from home per week (see Figure 46 on the next page). Among the 75% of employees who work from home at least occasionally, most (42%) indicated that they primarily work from home five days per week, with the remainder reporting they do so four (11%), three (10%), two (7%) or one day per week (4%).
53.0 43.7 41.8
17.1 17.1 17.4
27.1 30.8
30.9 33.9 25.8 29.5 29.2 27.4
39.7 58.7
44.8 47.5
39.4 57.1
29.4 26.8
21.625.0
30.2 43.2
11.9 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
18 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or older Latino / Hispanic
Asian
American
Caucasian /
White
Mixed or
other
Age (QD1) Ethnicity (QD7)
% Respondents Who Provided Opinion
Mixture of
both
Commuting
outside hom e
Working from
home
46.8 47.7 47.5
18.6 21.3 27.5 28.5
17.9 18.5 24.3 28.8 25.7 23.8
34.6 49.955.3
21.320.928.8
46.7 53.9 60.1
20.4 56.4
14.8 34.7
25.2 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Less than
college
Som e
college
Tw o -ye ar
degree
Four-year
degree
Grad / Post
grad degree
Own Rent Male Female
Education (QD6) Home Ownership Status
(Q7)
Gender (QD5)
% Respondents Who Provided Opinion
Mixture of
both
Commuting
outside hom e
Working from
home
9.b
March 25, 2024
Packet Pg. 563
Employment, Commute & Transportation
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 30City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Question 17 How many days do you primarily work from home each week? FIGURE 46 DAYS A WEEK WORKING FROM HOME
HOME-BASED BUSINESS Approximately 10% employed San Carlos residents who work from home own a home-based busine ss, which translates to 7% of all employed residents own- ing a home based business in the City (Figure 47).
Question 18 Do you own a home-based business?
FIGURE 47 OWN A HOME-BASED BUSINESS AMONG ALL EMPLOYED RESPONDENTS COMMUTE MODE Respondents who commute to a work destination outside of their home at least occasionally were subsequently asked to identify the method of transportation they use most often when commuting to their work place. Overall, the most common method of commut- ing was driving alone to work in a car, truck, SUV, or van (83%). Public transit via Caltrain (5%) or other public transit mode (1%) accounted for approximately 6% of commutes and ridesharing via carpool accounted for approximately 3% of commutes. Active transportation modes (biking, walking, jogging, running) were mentioned by 6% of employees as their primary method of com- muting to work. All other modes were mentioned by just 1% of respondents, collectively. When compared to 2019, the percentage ridesharing or using transit for their work commutes declined Prefer not to
answer
0.7 Work from
home at least
some of the
time
74.7 Five or more
41.7 Commuting
outside home
24.8 Prefer not to
answer
0.5 Three
10.1 One
4.0 Two
7.3 Four
11.0 Not home-
based
business
91.3 Home-based
business
7.3 Prefer not to
answer
1.5 9.b
March 25, 2024
Packet Pg. 564
Employment, Commute & Transportation
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 31City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
in 2022, whereas the percentage engaging in active transportation increased. Figures 49 and 50 show how the percentage who commute by driv ing alone varied by age, ethnicity, commute duration, and commute distance.
Question 19 What method of transportation do you use most of the time when commuting to your work place?
FIGURE 48 PRIMARY WORK COMMUTE MODE BY STUDY YEAR
FIGURE 49 PRIMARY WORK COMMUTE MODE BY AGE & ETHNICITY
83.4 4.8
4.1 3.2
2.0 1.2
0.6 0.6
0.2 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 82.0
7.4 0.8
5.0 0.3
0.8 0.0
1.5 0.5
1.2 0.2
0.1 0.3
0 1 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 0
Drive alone in a car, truck, SUV, or van
Caltrain
Walk/jog/run
Carpool (ride together 2 to 4 people)
Bike
Other
Bus
BART
Motorcycle
Employer-provided shuttle/bus
On-demand rideshare service like Uber or Lyft
Other public transit
Prefer not to answer
% Respondents
2022
2019
83.6 80.0
6.8 3.8
16.4 20.0
93.2 75.1
89.3 83.2 82.6
96.2 24.9 17.416.810.7
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
18 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or older Latino / Hispanic
Asian American Caucasian /
White
Age (QD1) Ethnicity (QD7)
% Employed Respondents
Who Typically Commute
Alternative
mo de
Drive alone
9.b
March 25, 2024
Packet Pg. 565
Employment, Commute & Transportation
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 32City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
FIGURE 50 PRIMARY WORK COMMUTE MODE BY COMMUTE DURATION IN MINUTES & COMMUTE DISTANCE IN MILES LENGTH OF COMMUTE Length of commute was measured both in terms of distance trav- eled one-way between an employee’s home and their primary work place (Question 20), as well as the time it typically takes to commute between home and work if they drive directly without stops (Question 21).
In terms of commute distance (see Figure 51), half of respondents were represented in commute length categories of less than 10 miles (50%), one-in-five reported traveling 10 to 19 miles (21%), 16% commute 20 to 29 miles, and 10% commute 30 miles or more between work and home, one- way. An additional 3% of respondents were un sure or declined to state. The average commute length among all commuters was 13.13 miles, one-way, which is lower than the 15.45 miles average commute distance recorded in 2019.
Question 20 In miles, what is the approximate dist ance between your home and your work place?
FIGURE 51 WORK COMMUTE DISTANCE IN MILES BY STUDY YEAR The following figures show how average commute
distances varied across subgroups of employees. In
general, the longest average commute distances in
2022 were reported by those 35 to 44 years of age,
Caucasian commuters, commuters with at least a
four-year degree, those who self-describe as being
very engaged in the community.
80.1 87.5 91.1
81.3 77.3
26.2 36.5
19.9 12.5 8.9
18.7 22.7
63.5 83.690.984.5
95.6 73.8
15.5 9.1 16.4
4.4 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Less than
10 10 to 19 20 to 29 30 to 39 40 to 59 60 or
mo re
Less than
5 5 to 9 10 to 19 20 to 29 30 or
mo re
Co mmute Duratio n in Minutes (Q21) Co mmute Distance in Miles (Q20) % Employed Respondents
Who Typically Commute
Alternative
mo de
Drive alone
5 to 9
22.9 Less than 5
27.5 10 to 19
21.2 20 to 29
16.3 Prefer not to
answer
2.630 or more
9.5 9.b
March 25, 2024
Packet Pg. 566
Employment, Commute & Transportation
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 33City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
FIGURE 52 WORK COMMUTE DISTANCE IN MILES BY OVERALL, AGE, ETHNICITY & PRIMARY COMMUTE MODE FIGURE 53 WORK COMMUTE DISTANCE IN MILES BY EDUCATION, PARTICIPATE, BELONG TO COMMUNITY GROUP &
ENGAGED, CONNECTED WITH COMMUNITY
DURATION OF COMMUTE As for the time it typically takes an employee to commute to work one-way without stops, approximately 36% indicated it takes less than 20 minutes, 21% indicated it takes between 20 and 29 minutes, 15% reported their co mmute typically takes between 30 to 39 minutes, 8% stated that thei r one-way commute lasts between 40 to 59 min- utes, and 9% offered that their co mmute lasts an hour or more. An additional 10% of employees were unsure or unwilling to share. The average commute duration among all commuters was
26.2 minutes in 2022, one-way, which is somewhat less than the 33.6 minutes reported in 2019.
Those who used alternative mo des for their commute reported the longest commute durations (see figures 55-57).
13.39 10.49
11.50 13.18 13.81
10.47 12.43 12.04
14.1814.81
10.67 13.13
0 5
10 15
20 18 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or older Latino / Hispanic
Asian
American
Caucasian
/ White
Mixed or
other
Drive
alone
Alternative
mo de
Overall Age (QD1) Ethnicity (QD7) Primary Co mmute
Mode (Q19)
Avg One-Way Commute Miles Among
Employed Respondents Who Commute
at Least Some of the Time
13.45 11.76
13.64 18.57
11.57 13.06
2.84 10.77
6.77 15.69
0 5
10 15
20 Less than
college
Some college T wo-year
degree
Four-year
degree
Grad / Post
grad degree
Y es No Very Som ewhat Slightly, not
at all
Education (QD6) Participate, Belong to
Community Group (Q11)
Engaged, Connected w/Community (Q10)
Avg One-Way Commute Miles Among
Employed Respondents Who Commute
at Least Some of the Time
9.b
March 25, 2024
Packet Pg. 567
Employment, Commute & Transportation
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 34City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Question 21 In time, how long does it typically take you to commute to work one-way if you travel there directly without stops?
FIGURE 54 WORK COMMUTE DURATION IN MINUTES BY STUDY YEAR FIGURE 55 WORK COMMUTE DURATION IN MINUTES BY OVERALL, AGE, ETHNICITY & PRIMARY COMMUTE MODE FIGURE 56 WORK COMMUTE DURATION IN MINUTES BY EDUCATION, PARTICIPATED, BELONG TO COMMUNITY GROUP &
ENGAGED, CONNECTED WITH COMMUNITY
Prefer not to
answer
10.0 40 to 59
8.3 60 or more
9.4 30 to 39
14.7 20 to 29
21.4 Less than 10
10.5 10 to 19
25.6 30.84
24.12 23.97
26.81 26.87
22.25 24.20
36.42 26.20 25.74
23.04 26.92
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 18 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or
older
Latino /
Hispanic
Asian
American
Caucasian
/ White
Mixed or
other
Drive
alone
Alternative
mo de
Overall Age (QD1) Ethnicity (QD7) Primary Commute
Mode (Q19)
Avg One-Way Commute Mins Among
Employed Respondents Who Commute
at Least Some of the Time
29.34 25.37 26.52
22.22 24.42
27.92 25.43
16.83 26.34
15.13 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
Less than
college
Som e
college
Tw o -year
degree
Four-year
degree
Grad / Post
grad degree
Y es No Very Som ewhat Slightly, not
at all
Education (QD6) Participate, Belong to
Co mmunity Gro up (Q11)
Engaged, Connected w/Community
(Q10)
Avg One-Way Commute Mins Among
Employed Respondents Who Commute
at Least Some of the Time
9.b
March 25, 2024
Packet Pg. 568
Employment, Commute & Transportation
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 35City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
FIGURE 57 WORK COMMUTE DURATION IN MINUTES BY COMMUTE DISTANCE IN MILES TRAVEL WITHIN SAN CARLOS Switching gears, all respondents (regardless of employ- ment status) were asked how often they use each of the five different transportation modes shown to the left of Figure 58 when traveling with the City of San Carlos. The order of the items was randomized for each respondent to avoid a systematic position bias. Nearly all residents use a personal vehicle when traveling within San Carlos (97%) and three-quarters walk from home to a local store or restaurant (76%). Less than half of residents ride a bicycle (42%) or use Uber or Lyft (38%) when traveling within the City, and just 8% ride a local bus.
Question 22 When traveling within the City of San Carlos, how often do you: _____? FIGURE 58 FREQUENCY OF TRAVELING WITHIN CITY OF SAN CARLOS When compared to 2019, the percentage of San Carlos residents who walk to a local store or res- taurant (+8%) and ride a bicycle (+5%) on a weekly basis in 2022 increased significantly, whereas the percentage who use an Uber or Lyft (-4%) an d use a personal vehicle (-6%) decreased signifi- cantly (see Table 3). Tables 4 and 5 display week ly use of each transportation mode for travel within San Carlos by respondents’ age, education, and gender.
58.00 11.79
19.20 26.53
42.90 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
Less than 5 5 to 9 10 to 19 20 to 29 30 or more
Commute Distance in Miles (Q20)
Avg One-Way Commute Mins Among
Employed Respondents Who Commute
at Least Some of the Time
27.7 9.5
17.4 12.7
10.6 22.7
1 1
2 2
1 11.4
47.1 2
38.7 4.7 5.0
1.6 9.3
6.3 5.4
11.4 27.5
1 2
56.5 60.3
91.3 0 1 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 0 1 0 0
Use a personal vehicle
Walk from home to local
store, restaurant
Ride a bicycle
Us e Uber or Lyft
Ride a local bus
% Respondents
5+ days per wk 1-4 days per wk 2-3 days per wk 1 day per month < 1 day per month Never Prefer not to answer
9.b
March 25, 2024
Packet Pg. 569
Employment, Commute & Transportation
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 36City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
TABLE 3 FREQUENCY OF TRAVELING WITHIN CITY OF SAN CARLOS BY STUDY YEAR TABLE 4 FREQUENCY OF TRAVELING WITHIN CITY OF SAN CARLOS BY OVERALL & AGE (SHOWING % WEEKLY) TABLE 5 FREQUENCY OF TRAVELING WITHIN CITY OF SAN CARLOS BY EDUCATION & GENDER (SHOWING % WEEKLY) HYBRID AND ELECTRIC VEHICLES The next transportation-related question asked resi- dents whether they own or lease a hybrid gas and electric vehicle or an all-electric vehicle. As shown in Figure 59 below, 23% of residents reported that they own a hybrid and 19% own an all- electric vehicle. The percentage who reported owning an all-electric vehicle increased signifi- cantly in the past three years, from 8% in 2019 to 19% in 2022. Figures 60 and 61 on the next page show how hybrid and all-electric vehicle ownership varied by demographic subgroups.
Question 23 Do you own or lease: _____?
FIGURE 59 OWN OR LEASE HYBRID OR ALL-ELECTRIC VEHICLE BY STUDY YEAR 2022 2019
Walk from home to local store, restaurant 39.0 31.2 +7.9† Ride a bicycle 11.4 6.8 +4.6†
Ride a local bus 1.1 1.2 -0.1
Use Uber or Lyft 0.7 4.1 -3.5†
Use a personal vehicle 85.8 92.2 -6.4†
Study Year Difference in %
Weekly Use
2019 to 2022
18 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or older
U s e a p e r s o n a l v e h i c l e 8 5 . 88 3 . 69 0 . 58 7 . 78 2 . 78 5 . 3 Walk from home to local store, restaurant 39.0 60.5 42.9 38.3 31.9 21.4 Ride a bicycle 11.4 18.6 12.4 13.1 8.8 4.8
Ride a local bus 1.1 1.1 0.0 2.8 1.7 0.0
Use Uber or Lyft 0.7 0.0 1.3 1.0 0.5 0.0
Age (QD1)
Overall
Less than
college
Some
college
Two-year
degree
Four-year
degree
Grad / Post
grad degree Male Female
Use a personal vehicle 67.7 80.6 79.5 87.1 88.5 88.2 84.9 Walk from home to local store, restaurant 38.4 35.4 42.3 41.9 37.8 39.5 37.8 Ride a bicycle 0.0 6.5 5.4 15.4 11.0 18.0 5.6
Ride a local bus 0.0 0.0 2.6 0.8 1.4 0.7 1.6
Use Uber or Lyft 2.3 0.0 3.5 0.0 0.7 0.6 0.5
Gender (QD5)Education (QD6)
19.6 7.9
79.4 79.1
91.0 18.7†23.3
74.7 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
2022 2019 2022 2019
Hybrid gas/electric vehicle All-electric vehicle
Q23 Do you own or lease . . .
% Respondents
Not sure /
Prefer not to
answerNo
Yes
9.b
March 25, 2024
Packet Pg. 570
Employment, Commute & Transportation
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 37City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
FIGURE 60 OWN OR LEASE HYBRID OR ALL-ELECTRIC VEHICLE BY EDUCATION & AGE FIGURE 61 OWN OR LEASE HYBRID OR ALL-ELECTRIC VEHICLE BY PRIMARY COMMUTE MODE, HOME OWNERSHIP
STATUS & ETHNICITY
ABILITY TO FIND EV CHARGING STATIONS The final question in this series asked respondents with an all-electric vehicle whether they find it difficult to charge their vehicle in the City of San Carlos. As shown in Figure 62 on the next page, just over one-third of all-electric vehicle owners (36%) answered Question 24 in the affirmative in 2022, which is similar to the percentage found in 2019.
26.3 11.3
23.6 7.3
21.7 20.2 20.4
11.3 14.6
17.3 23.8
25.3 28.8
24.4 27.5
7.6 14.8
8.7 29.1
26.6 0
10 20
30 40
Less than
college
Some
college
Two-year
degree
Four-year
degree
Grad / Post
grad degree
18 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or older
Education (QD6) Age (QD1)
% Respondents
Hybrid gas and electric vehicle All-electric vehicle
20.6 10.3
13.9 21.4
26.6 20.7
25.9 37.7
24.223.9
14.0 10.0
17.5 25.3
21.7 15.4
0 10
20 30
40 Drive alone Alternative
mode
Own Rent Latino /
Hispanic
Asian American Caucasian /
White
Mixed or other
Primary Commute Mode (Q19) Home Ownership Status (Q7) Ethnicity (QD7) % Respondents
Hybrid gas and electric vehicle All-electric vehicle
9.b
March 25, 2024
Packet Pg. 571
Employment, Commute & Transportation
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 38City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Question 24 Do you find it difficult to charge your electric vehicle in the City of San Carlos? FIGURE 62 DIFFICULTY TO CHARGE ELECTRICAL VEHICLE BY STUDY YEAR
33.5 54.2
12.3 36.0
59.8 4.2†
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
2022 2019
Study Y ear
% Respondents
Prefer not to
answer
Not difficult
Difficult to
charge all-
electric vehicle
in San Carlos
9.b
March 25, 2024
Packet Pg. 572
Health & Lifestyle
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 39
City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
H EALTH & L IFESTYLE
Having profiled residents’ employment, commute, and transportation behaviors, the survey tran- sitioned to the topics of health and lifestyle.
RECREATION ACTIVITIES Question 25 asked residents to describe the recreation activi- ties that the adults in their household engage in most often. Question 26 on the next page asked a similar question focused on children and teen age members of the household. Both questions were posed in an open-ended manner, thereby allo wing residents to mention any activities that came to mind without being pr ompted by—or restricted to—a part icular list of options. True North later reviewed the verbatim responses and grouped them into the categories shown in Fig- ure 63 (adult recreation) and Figure 64 (child/teen recreation).
Walking, jogging, and running was the most popular adult recreation activity (47%), followed by hiking/nature walks (33%), cycling (21%), and exercising/gym/yoga (15%). When compared to 2019, the percentage who reported hiking, taking nature walks, and cycling increased, whereas the percentage who indicated they exercise at the gym/yoga decreased.
Question 25 Thinking of the adult members of your household, what recreation activities do the adults in your household engage in most often?
FIGURE 63 ADULT RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES
47.2 33.4
21.3 14.6
7.2 7.1
6.3 5.5
5.4 4.8
3.5 2.6
2.6 2.2
2.0 2.0
1.8 1.7
1.6 1.5
3.2 5.2
0 1 02 03 04 05 0
Walking, jogging, running
Hiking, nature walks
Cycling
Exercising, gym, yoga
Tennis
Do not engage in recreation activities
Dining out, wine tasting
Dance, music, theater
Golf
Swimming
Walking dog, dog park
Parks, beach
Soccer
Gardening
Basketball
Table games, cards, reading
Pickle Ball
Boating, kayaking, rowing, sailing
Variety of sports
Weightlifting
Socializing with friends, family
Shopping
% Respondents
9.b
March 25, 2024
Packet Pg. 573
Health & Lifestyle
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 40City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Playing soccer (9%) and cycling (9%) were the most popular recreation activities among children and teenagers, followed by walk ing, jogging, and running (7%), going to the park/beach (7%), and hiking/nature walks (5%). The majority of residents do not have a child or teen in their home (54%), which is why the percentage figures for child/teen activities tend to be lower when com- pared to the adult percentages in the prior figure.
Question 26 Thinking of the children and teenage members of your household, what recre- ation activities do they engage in most often?
FIGURE 64 CHILD RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES
HOUSE-CLEANING SERVICE OR LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE SERVICE Respon- dents were next asked whether they use a house-cleaning service or maid (Question 27) or land- scape maintenance service or gar dener (Question 28). As shown in Figure 65 on the next page, 47% of residents reported using a house cleaner and 52% a landscape maintenance service or gardener in 2022, which is similar to the 2019 survey findings.
For the interested reader, figures 66 and 67 show the percentage of residents that use a house- cleaning services or maid and figures 68 and 69 display the percentage of residents that utilize a landscape maintenance service or gardener by a variety of resident subgroups.
53.8 9.2
8.7 6.9
6.8 5.4
5.0 5.0
4.6 3.9
3.8 3.2
2.2 2.0
2.0 1.6
4.6 3.60 1 02 03 04 05 06 0
No children or teenagers in home
Soccer
Cycling
Walking, jogging, running
Parks, beach
Hiking, nature walks
Swimming
Dance, music, theater
Basketball
Variety of sports
Playgrounds
They do not engage in recreation activities
Softball, baseball
Tennis
Skateboarding, scootering
School activities, events
Socializing with friends, family
Table games, cards, reading, video games
% Respondents
9.b
March 25, 2024
Packet Pg. 574
Health & Lifestyle
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 41City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Question 27 Do you use a house-cleaning service or maid? Question 28 Do you use a landscape maintenance service or gardener? FIGURE 65 USE HOUSE-CLEANING SERVICE BY STUDY YEAR
FIGURE 66 USE HOUSE-CLEANING SERVICE BY YEARS IN SAN CARLOS & TYPE OF RESIDENCE
45.5 49.4
51.3 46.5 48.9
47.3 52.4
49.3 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
2022 2019 2022 2019
House-cleaning service, maid Landscape maintenance service, gardener Q27/28 Do you use . . .
% Respondents
Not sure /
Prefer not to
answerNo
Yes
53.2 60.3
36.1 19.9
42.6 62.2
45.3 46.3
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 Less than 5 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 or more Single family Townhome Condo Apartment Y ears in San Carlos (Q1) T ype of Residence (Q6)
% Respondents That Use
House-Cleaner or Maid
9.b
March 25, 2024
Packet Pg. 575
Health & Lifestyle
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 42City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
FIGURE 67 USE HOUSE-CLEANING SERVICE BY HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS & EMPLOYMENT STATUS FIGURE 68 USE LANDSCAPE SERVICE BY YEARS IN SAN CARLOS, TYPE OF RESIDENCE & LIVE IN SAN CARLOS 10 YEARS
FROM NOW
56.9 41.7 43.3
55.3 49.2
32.2 55.6
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 Own Rent Full-time Part-time Homemaker Retired In-between jobs
Home Ownership Status (Q7) Employment Status (Q13)
% Respondents That Use
House-Cleaner or Maid
66.3 61.0
69.1 51.9
62.9 72.1
78.5 64.3
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 Less than 5 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 or more Single family Townhome Yes No Years in San Carlos (Q1) Type of Residence (Q6) Live in San Carlos 10 yrs From Now (Q4)
% Single Family and Townhome
Respondents That Use Landscape
Maintenance Service or Gardener
9.b
March 25, 2024
Packet Pg. 576
Health & Lifestyle
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 43City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
FIGURE 69 USE LANDSCAPE SERVICE BY HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS & AGE HOME DELIVERY Question 29 asked San Carlos residents how often they have items deliv- ered to their home, including goods and packages and food, meals, and groceries. Overall, 96% of residents have goods and packages delivere d to their home from Amazon or other online retailers, with nearly two-thirds (65%) doing so weekly. More than seven-in-ten respondents (72%) also indicated they have food , meals and groceries delivered to their home, with 30% having weekly deliveries (Figure 70). When compared to 2019, the percentage of San Carlos residents who have packages (+20%) and food (+14%) delivered to their home on a weekly basis increased significantly in 2022 (see Table 6).
Question 29 How often do you: _____? At least three times per week, one to two times per week, two to three times per month, once per month, less often than once per month, or never? FIGURE 70 FREQUENCY OF HOME DELIVERY
67.4 64.0
67.467.0 64.6 62.2
70.8 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
Own Rent 18 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or older Home Ownership Status (Q7) Age (QD1)
% Single Family and Townhome
Respondents That Use Landscape
Maintenance Service or Gardener
34.8 22.1 3.82.7
1 130.0
8.5 21.3 18.4 10.6
5.4 12.2 27
0 1 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 0 1 0 0
Have food, meals, groceries
delivered to home
Have goods, packages
delivered to home from
Amazon, online retailer
% Respondents
3+ x per wk 1-2 x per wk 2-3 x per month 1 x per month
< 1 per month Never Prefer not to answer
9.b
March 25, 2024
Packet Pg. 577
Health & Lifestyle
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 44City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
TABLE 6 FREQUENCY OF HOME DELIVERY BY STUDY YEAR
TABLE 7 FREQUENCY OF HOME DELIVERY BY AGE & HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS DAILY MEDIA USE The last substantive question of this section asked respondents how much time they spend in a typi cal day on each form of media shown to the left of Figure 71.
Whereas Figure 71 breaks down overall use of ea ch type of media, Figure 72 displays average minutes per day spent on each activity. Overal l media use was highest for the Internet, not including social media (92% of residents) with residents also spending the most time on that activity each day (228 minutes per day). Approximately 88% watch television each day, 88% of residents consume news, 83% read a book or magazine, 76% use social media, 63% listen to the radio, and 27% play video games daily.
Question 30 In a typical day, approximately how much time do you spend: _____? FIGURE 71 DAILY MEDIA USE
2022 2019
Have goods, packages
delivered to home from
Amazon, online retailer
64.8 44.3 +20.4†
Have food, meals, groceries
delivered to home 29.8 16.3 +13.5†
Study Year
Difference in %
Weekly Use
2019 to 2022
18 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or older Own Rent Have goods, packages
delivered to home from
Amazon, online retailer
6 8 . 27 6 . 37 2 . 56 2 . 44 7 . 86 8 . 75 6 . 5
Have food, meals, groceries
delivered to home 36.2 45.8 35.0 25.6 8.9 29.4 30.4
Age (QD1) Home Ownership
Status (Q7)
6.2 9.2
21.7 12.0
13.1 7.1
26.2 37.2
27.9 18.0
8.2 15.5
2.8 12.9
7.8 11.8
10.3 3.1
10.4 48.8
29.6 2
10.5 17.1
34.2 19.4
17.5 7.9
4.8 12.7
19.6 4.9
2.2 10.0
10.7 14.8
8.5 37.2
73.5 23.8
16.8 12.3
0 1 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 0 1 0 0
Using Internet, not including
social media
Watching TV
Consuming news
Reading book, m agazine
Us ing s ocial m edia
Listening to radio
Playing video games
% Respondents Who Provided Opinion
3+ hrs 2 to <3 hrs 1 to <2 hrs 30 to 59 mins <30 mins None / Do not use
9.b
March 25, 2024
Packet Pg. 578
Health & Lifestyle
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 45City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
In terms of time spent on each activity (Figure 72), the average San Carlos resident spends nearly six hours in a typical day utilizing the Internet, not including social media (228 minutes per day) and watching television (121 minutes per day). Residents spend approximately an hour or more consuming news (73 minutes), using social media (66 minutes), reading books or magazines (62 minutes), and listening to the radio (57 minutes). San Carlos residents spend the least amount of time playing video games in a typical day (19 minutes).
FIGURE 72 DAILY MEDIA USE BY SHOWING AVERAGE MINUTES PER DAY When compared to prior to the pandemic (2019) , San Carlos residents reported much greater use of the Internet on a daily basis (+81 minutes) in 2022 (Table 8). Tables 9 and 10 show how daily minutes of use for each form of media varied by demographics.
TABLE 8 DAILY MEDIA USE IN MINUTES COMPARISON: 2019 TO 2022 TABLE 9 DAILY MEDIA USE SHOWING AVERAGE MINUTES PER DAY BY AGE & GENDER
61.57 57.25
18.57 65.7273.02
121.24
227.80
0 50
100
150
200
250
Using
Internet, not
including
social media
Watching TV Consuming
news
Using social
media
Reading
book,
magazine
Listening to
radio
Playing video
games
Q30 In a typical day, approximately how much time do you spend . . .
Avg Minutes per Day
2022 2019
Using Internet, not including social media 227.8 146.62 81.2 Playing video games 18.57 12.46 6.1
Reading book, magazine 61.57 56.75 4.8
Using social media 65.72 62.43 3.3
Listening to radio 57.25 61.74 -4.5
Consuming news 73.02 80.99 -8.0
Watching TV 121.24 130.63 -9.4
Difference in
Daily Minutes
2019 to 2022
Study Year
18 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or older Male Female Using Internet, not including social media 256.8 242.5 270.8 221.9 163.7 231.7 232.3 Watching TV 114.8 78.4 99.5 144.3 172.3 115.2 129.2
Consuming news 75.1 48.4 66.0 84.1 96.1 73.7 73.8
Using social media 105.3 56.5 50.2 72.5 49.7 45.7 78.3
Reading book, magazine 52.1 45.7 53.5 63.3 92.3 56.0 69.5 L i s t e n i n g t o r a d i o 3 9 . 33 7 . 25 7 . 88 1 . 98 0 . 84 8 . 16 9 . 0 Playing video games 49.1 14.5 16.1 7.0 8.5 20.7 12.0
Age (QD1) Gender (QD5)
9.b
March 25, 2024
Packet Pg. 579
Health & Lifestyle
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 46City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
TABLE 10 DAILY MEDIA USE SHOWING AVERAGE MINUTES PER DAY BY ENGAGED, CONNECTED WITH COMMUNITY &
ETHNICITY
Very Somewhat Slightly, not
at all
Latino /
Hispanic
Asian
American
Caucasian /
White
Mixed or
other
Using Internet, not including social media 248.8 228.0 226.6 285.9 245.2 215.6 228.5 Watching TV 105.9 118.4 130.5 99.4 108.0 127.7 116.8
Consuming news 72.2 67.8 78.6 56.6 58.7 78.3 63.1
Using social media 65.3 70.1 64.2 101.2 59.9 56.4 64.3
Reading book, magazine 56.2 61.6 64.1 54.7 53.5 62.9 66.2 Listening to radio 56.1 48.7 65.7 50.8 30.7 69.7 24.3
Playing video games 13.6 16.1 22.6 38.7 16.0 14.9 19.7
Engaged, Connected w/Community (Q10) Ethnicity (QD7)
9.b
March 25, 2024
Packet Pg. 580
Pandemic
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 47
City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
P ANDEMIC
The two years leading up to the 2022 Community Characteristics Survey were punctuated by dif- ficult and dramatic events in San Carlos. The coronavirus pandemic that arrived in early 2020 has taken lives, threatened livelihoods, and forc ed dramatic changes in the way residents live, work, socialize, and play. As noted throughout this report, the 2022 survey found dramatic changes in where San Carlos residents are workin g and their daily use of the Internet, as well as significant changes in how connec ted they feel to the community, the recreation activities they engage in, and their reliance on home-delivery services. This final section of the survey addressed the topic of the pandemic head-on by asking residents to describe the main impacts of the pandemic on their household.
CURRENT IMPACT OF PANDEMIC Question 31 asked respondents the rate the pan- demic’s current impact on their household. As shown in Figure 73, approximately one-third of respondents (32%) stated the pandemic is currently having a big impact on their household, with an additional 47% describing th e impact as moderate. Approxim ately one-in-five respondents indicated that the pandemic’s current impacts on their household are either small (17%) or negli- gible (4%), whereas 1% preferred to not answer the question.
Question 31 The COVID-19 pandemic can impact peoples' lives in a variety of ways. Currently, would you say the pandemic is having a big impact, moderate impact, small impact, or no impact on your household?
FIGURE 73 IMPACT OF COVID-19 PANDEMIC
Although all resident subgroups had a high perce ntage of respondents indicating that the pan- demic was having either a big or moderate impact on their household, those very engaged with the community, part-time workers and the un employed, households with children under 13, Latino/Hispanic residents and those reporting mixed/other ethnicities, residents under 45 years of age, and San Carlos residents who work from home were most apt to describe the pandemic’s current impacts on their household as big or moderate (see figures 74-76).
Mode ra t e
impact
46.6 Big impact
31.8 Small impact
16.7 No impact
3.8 Prefer not to
answer
1.1 9.b
March 25, 2024
Packet Pg. 581
Pandemic
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 48City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
FIGURE 74 IMPACT OF COVID-19 PANDEMIC BY ENGAGED, CONNECTED WITH COMMUNITY & EMPLOYMENT STATUS FIGURE 75 IMPACT OF COVID-19 PANDEMIC BY HSLD MEMBERS & ETHNICITY FIGURE 76 IMPACT OF COVID-19 PANDEMIC BY AGE & WORK COMMUTE STATUS
28.5 40.1
59.2 45.4 43.0
48.5 29.4
40.3 26.9 33.8 33.4 25.8
45.6 46.644.050.5
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Very Som ewhat Slightly, not at
all
Full-time Part-time Homemaker Retired In-between
jobs
Engaged, Connected w/Community (Q10) Employment Status (Q13) % Respondents
Moderate
impact
Big impact
29.6 39.7
36.0 41.5
49.3 49.3
27.131.131.630.3
44.9 51.5
47.1 48.0 46.4
38.3 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Child under 13 Teenager Adult 18-64 Senior 65+ Latino / Hispanic
Asian American Caucasian /
White
Mixed or other
Hsld Members (QD2) Ethnicity (QD7)
% Respondents
Moderate
impact
Big impact
26.6 33.3
47.9 48.8
52.7 43.7
28.530.7 37.2 33.1 28.6 35.5
54.8 44.639.8
47.2 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
18 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or older Working from home
Co mmuting
outside hom e
Mixture of
both
Age (QD1) Work Commute Status (Q16)
% Respondents
Moderate
impact
Big impact
9.b
March 25, 2024
Packet Pg. 582
Pandemic
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 49City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Respondents who rated the pandemic’s impact on their household as big or moderate were sub- sequently asked to describe the main impact the pandemic is curre ntly having on their house- hold. Question 32 was presented in an open-ended manner, which allow respondents to mention any specific impact that came to mind. Tr ue North subsequently reviewed the verbatim responses and grouped them into the categories shown in Figure 77.
The most common impacts of the pandemic felt by San Carlos households are the inability to socialize or gather with friends and family (32%), isolation/staying home (14%), working from home (14%), and restrictions on travel (12%), ability to go out for entertainment/dining (12%), and engage in activities (12%).
Question 32 What is the main impact the pandemic is having on your household currently? FIGURE 77 HSLD IMPACTS DUE TO PANDEMIC
31.6 14.4
14.1 12.3
12.0 11.5
8.0 7.5
6.1 5.0
4.4 3.2
3.8 5.7
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Inability to socialize, gather with friends, family
Isolation, staying home
Working from home
Restricted, no travel
Unable to go out for entertainment, dining
Reduced activities in general
School disruptions, closures, distance learning
Loss of job, income / Work changes
Mental health issues, concerns
Childcare issues
Vaccines, mask mandates
Ongoing personal health concerns
Not sure
Lifestyle has changed, need to adapt
% Respondents Who Reported Bi g or Moderate Impact of COVID-19 (Q31)
9.b
March 25, 2024
Packet Pg. 583
Background & Demographics
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 50
City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
B ACKGROUND & D EMOGRAPHICS
TABLE 11 DEMOGRAPHICS OF SAMPLE BY STUDY YEAR
Table 11 presents key demographic information
collected during the survey. The primary motiva-
tions for collecting the background and demo-
graphic information were to provide a better
insight into how the resu lts of the substantive
questions of the survey vary by demographic
characteristics, and ensu re that the resulting
sample matched the profile of San Carlos’ adult
population on key characteristics.
2022 2019
Total Respondents 791 885
Age (QD1)
18 to 34 19.9 18.6
35 to 44 19.6 18.8
45 to 54 19.7 20.3
55 to 64 17.8 17.2
65 or older 19.2 18.3
Prefer not to answer 3.8 6.8
Hsld Members (QD2)
Child under 13 27.3 25.5
Teenager 15.5 14.1
Adult 18-64 78.5 80.7
Senior 65+ 28.7 33.6
Gender (QD5)
Male 47.2 46.2
Female 48.2 51.2
Other 0.0 0.1
Prefer not to answer 4.6 2.6
Education (QD6)
Less than college 4.7 4.7
Some college 6.5 10.4
Two-year degree 7.5 7.7
Four-year degree 36.9 31.4
Grad / Post grad degree 42.3 42.8
Prefer not to answer 2.2 3.1
Ethnicity (QD7)
Latino / Hispanic 8.4 9.5
Asian American 16.3 13.6
Caucasian / White 63.4 65.1
Mixed or other 9.0 5.1
Prefer not to answer 2.9 6.8
Study Year
9.b
March 25, 2024
Packet Pg. 584
Methodology
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 51
City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
M ETHODOLOGY
The following sections outline the methodology used in the study, as well as the motivation for using certain techniques.
QUESTIONNAIRE DEVELOPMENT Dr. McLarney of True North Research worked closely with the City of San Carlos to develop a questi onnaire that covered the topics of interest and avoided many possible sources of systematic measurement erro r, including position-order effects, wording effects, response-category effect s, scaling effects, and priming. Several ques- tions included multiple individual items. Because asking items in a set order can lead to a sys- tematic position bias in responses, the items were asked in a random order for each respondent.
Some questions asked in this study were presen ted only to a subset of respondents. For exam- ple, only respondents that were employed full-time or part-time (Question 13) were asked to pro- vide their current occupation (Que stion 14). The questionnaire included with this report (see Questionnaire & Toplines on page 54) identifies the skip patterns used during the interview to ensure that each respondent received the appropriate questions.
PROGRAMMING & PRE-TEST Prior to fielding the survey, the questionnaire was CATI (Computer Assisted Telephone In terviewing) programmed to assist interviewers when conduct- ing the telephone interviews. The CATI program automatically navigates the skip patterns, ran- domizes the appropriate question items, and alerts interviewers to certain types of keypunching mistakes should they happen during the interview. The survey was also programmed into a pass- code-protected online survey application to allow online participation for sampled residents. The integrity of the questionnaire was pre-tested internally by True North and by dialing into random homes in the City prior to formally beginning the survey.
SAMPLE, RECRUITING & DATA COLLECTION A comprehensive database of San Car- los households was utilized for this study, ensuri ng that all households in San Carlos had the opportunity to be selected to participate in the survey. After random selection, additional contact information was appended to the file for adult residents and individuals were recruited to partic- ipate in the survey using a combination of email invitations, text invitations, and telephone calls.
Each individual was assigned a unique passcode to ensure that only San Carlos residents who received an invitation could a ccess the online survey site, and that the survey could be com- pleted only one time per passco de. Following a period of online data collection, True North placed telephone calls to residents that had yet to participate in the online survey as a result of the email or text invitation, or for whom only land line contact information was available.
Telephone interviews averaged 17 minutes in length and were conducted during weekday eve- nings (5:30PM to 9PM) and on weekends (10AM to 5PM). It is standard practice not to call during the day on weekdays because most working adults are unavailable and thus calling during those hours would bias the sample. A total of 791 completed surveys were gathered online and by tele- phone between January 13 and January 25, 2022.
9.b
March 25, 2024
Packet Pg. 585
Methodology
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 52City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
MARGIN OF ERROR DUE TO SAMPLING The results of the survey can be used to esti- mate the opinions of all adult residents of the City. Because not every adult resident of the City participated in the survey, however, the results have what is known as a statistical margin of error due to sampling. The margin of error refers to the difference between what was found in the survey of 791 adult residents for a particular question and what would have been found if all of the estimated 23,103 adult residents
5 had been interviewed.
Figure 78 provides a plot of the maximum margin of error in this study. The maximum margin of error for a dichotomous percentage result occurs when the answers are evenly split such that 50% provide one response and 50% provide the al ternative response. For this survey, the maxi- mum margin of error is ± 3.4% for questions answered by all 791 respondents.
FIGURE 78 MAXIMUM MARGIN OF ERROR
Within this report, figures and tables show how responses to ce rtain questions varied by demo- graphic characteristics such as length of residence and age of th e respondent. Figure 78 is thus useful for understanding how the maximum margin of error for a percentage estimate will grow as the number of individuals asked a question (or in a particular subgroup) shrinks. Because the margin of error grows exponentially as the sample size decreases, the reader should use caution when generalizing and interpreting the results for small subgroups.
DATA PROCESSING & WEIGHTING Data processing consisted of checking the data for errors or inconsistencies, coding and recoding responses, categorizing verbatim responses, and preparing frequency analyses and cross-tabulations. The final data were weighted to balance the sample by age and ethnicity according to Census estimates.
5. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, April 2020 estimate.
791 Respondents
± 3.4%
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 Sample Size (Number of Respondents)
Margin of Error
9.b
March 25, 2024
Packet Pg. 586
Methodology
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 53City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
ROUNDING Numbers that end in 0.5 or higher are rounded up to the nearest whole num- ber, whereas numbers that end in 0.4 or lower are rounded down to the nearest whole number.
These same rounding rules are also applied, when needed, to arrive at numbers that include a decimal place in constructing figures and charts. Occasionally, these rounding rules lead to small discrepancies in the first decimal place when comparing tables and figures for a given question.
9.b
March 25, 2024
Packet Pg. 587
Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 54
City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Q UESTIONNAIRE & T OPLINES
True North Research, Inc. © 2021 Page 1
City of San Carlos
Community Characteristics Survey Version
Final Toplines (n=791)
January 28, 2022
Section 1: Introduction to Study
Hi, my name is _____ and Im calling from TNR on behalf of the City of San Carlos. The City is conducting a survey of its residents so it can learn more about their demographics, lifestyles, and opinions. Your participation in the survey will be confidential and will help the City better meet residents needs and plan for the future.
If needed: This is a survey only Im NOT trying to sell anything and I wont ask for a donation.
If needed: The survey should take about 14 minutes to complete.
If needed: If now is not a convenient time, can you let me know a better time so I can call back?
If the person says they are an elected official or is somehow associated with the survey, politely explain that this survey is designed to the measure the opinions of those not closely associated with the study, thank them for their time, and terminate the interview.
Section 2: Living in San Carlos
Id like to begin by asking you a few questions about what it is like to live in the City of San Carlos.
Q1 How long have you lived in San Carlos?
1 Less than 1 year 4%
2 1 to 4 years 18%
3 5 to 9 years 13%
4 10 to 14 years 13%
5 15 years or longer 52%
99 Prefer not to answer 0%
Q2 What do you like best about living in San Carlos? Verbatim responses recorded and later grouped into categories shown below.
Small town feeling 23%
Nice community, neighbors 22%
Downtown area 19%
Walkability, everything close, within walking
distance 18%
Location, accessibility 15%
Safety, low crime 14%
Friendly, family oriented 14%
Shopping areas, restaurants 14%
Beautiful, clean city 9%
Good schools 9%
Open space, hills 7%
9.b
March 25, 2024
Packet Pg. 588
Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 55City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey 1/27/2022
True North Research, Inc. © 2021 Page 2
Climate, weather 7%
Parks 7%
Nothing comes to mind / Not sure 4%
Good governance in general 3%
Public library 2%
Variety of activities for youth, kids 2%
Negative mentions 2%
Q3 What is the thing you would most like to change about San Carlos? Verbatim responses recorded and later grouped into categories shown below.
Limit growth, development 18%
Provide more affordable housing 12%
Nothing comes to mind / Not sure 10%
Reduce traffic congestion 9%
Provide more variety of restaurants, stores 9%
Improve, maintain infrastructure, roads,
sidewalks 8%
Enforce traffic laws 7%
Improve parking 6%
Maintain, add park, recreation facilities 6%
No changes desired / Everything is fine 6%
More diversity in general 5%
Improve public safety 4%
Clean, beautify city, landscaping 3%
Improve, provide more bike lanes 3%
Improve, provide more schools 3%
Improve downtown area 3%
Pet friendlier, more dog parks 3%
Improve governance in general 3%
Provide more community events, activities 3%
Reduce cost of living 2%
Better city planning, development 2%
Improve, provide more public
transportation 2%
Preserve, recapture small town feeling 2%
Make Laurel St pedestrian only 2%
9.b
March 25, 2024
Packet Pg. 589
Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 56City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey 1/27/2022
True North Research, Inc. © 2021 Page 3
Q4 Do you anticipate that you will be living in San Carlos 10 years from now? 1 Yes 51% Ask Q5
2 No 14% Skip to Q6
98 Not sure 34% Ask Q5
99 Prefer not to answer 1% Ask Q5
Q5 Once you are retired, do you anticipate still living in San Carlos? 1 Yes 27%
2 No 10%
3 I already am retired and living in San
Carlos 20%
98 Not sure 42%
99 Prefer not to answer 1%
Q6 Which of the following best describes your residence in San Carlos? Read list. 1 Detached single family home 75% Ask Q7
2 Townhome 4% Ask Q7
3 Condominium 6% Ask Q7
4 Apartment 13% Skip to Q10
5 Other 1% Skip to Q10
99 Prefer not to answer 1% Skip to Q10
Q7 Do you own or rent your residence in San Carlos?
1 Own 77%
2 Rent 15%
3 Live rent free with family 6%
99 Prefer not to answer 2%
Ask Q8 if Q6=1 AND Q7=1. Otherwise skip to Q10.
Q8 In the next five years, do you plan to build an accessory dwelling unit also known as a granny flat on your property in San Carlos?
1 Yes 8% Ask Q9
2 No 75% Skip to Q10
98 Not sure 17% Skip to Q10
99 Prefer not to answer 0% Skip to Q10
9.b
March 25, 2024
Packet Pg. 590
Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 57City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey 1/27/2022
True North Research, Inc. © 2021 Page 4
Q9 Do you plan to rent the accessory dwelling unit for supplemental income? 1 Yes 34%
2 No 36%
98 Not sure 31%
99 Prefer not to answer 0%
Section 3: Community Connections
Q10 In general, how engaged and connected do you feel to your San Carlos community? Would you say very, somewhat, slightly, or not at all engaged and connected? 1 Very engaged and connected 13%
2 Somewhat engaged and connected 36%
3 Slightly engaged and connected 37%
4 Not engaged and connected 11%
98 Not sure 1%
99 Prefer not to answer 1%
Q11 Do you currently participate in or belong to any organized community groups in San Carlos?
1 Yes 29%
2 No 63%
98 Not sure 5%
99 Prefer not to answer 3%
Q12 Thinking of the neighbors that live close to you in San Carlos, what proportion do you know well? All, most, some, or none?
1 All 5%
2 Most 24%
3 Some 55%
4 None 15%
98 Not sure 0%
99 Prefer not to answer 0%
9.b
March 25, 2024
Packet Pg. 591
Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 58City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey 1/27/2022
True North Research, Inc. © 2021 Page 5
Section 4: Employment, Commute & Transportation
Next are a few questions about your employment and travel behavior.
Q13
Which of the following best describes your employment status? Would you say you are employed full-time, part-time, a student, a homemaker, retired, or are you in-between jobs right now?
1 Employed full-time 61% Ask Q14
2 Employed part-time 9% Ask Q14
3 Student 3% Skip to Q22
4 Homemaker 3% Skip to Q22
5 Retired 21% Skip to Q22
6 In-between jobs 2% Skip to Q22
98 Not sure 0% Skip to Q22
99 Prefer not to answer 2% Skip to Q22
Q14 What is your current occupation? Verbatim responses recorded and later grouped into categories shown below.
Professional Specialty (not IT): (accountants,
lawyers, engineers, scientists, lab
technicians, biotechnicians, technical
writers, artists, models)
26%
Prefer not to answer 13%
Executive: (General Managers, CEO, CFO,
Controller, and other hi-level execs,
business owners)
11%
Information Technology (IT): (computer
programmers, network administrators, web
designers)
9%
Supervisors and Managers: (staff
supervisors, shift managers, service
supervisors)
8%
Sales: (sales and marketing agents, real
estate agents) 6%
Teachers: (Professors, educators, grade
school, middle school, high school
teachers)
6%
Administrative and Office Workers: (clerical,
administrative support, secretaries,
receptionists, data entry, data processing,
schedulers, inventory accounting, records
processing, adjusters and collectors)
4%
Other (unique responses) 4%
Craft and repair: (Construction, mechanics,
electricians, appliances installations and
repair technician, handyman, HVAC
technician, general contractors)
3%
9.b
March 25, 2024
Packet Pg. 592
Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 59City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey 1/27/2022
True North Research, Inc. © 2021 Page 6
Physicians: (doctors, dentists, physicians) 3%
Medical Assistants: (medical technicians,
medical assistants, LVN, nursing assistant,
home health aides, care givers, pharmacist)
2%
Contractor 1%
Government 1%
Nurses: (RNs only) 1%
Operators, fabricators and laborers:
(Machine operators, manual laborers, non-
electronic assemblers, vehicle/truck
operators, stockroom helpers, packers,
drivers, farmers)
1%
Protective Services: (security guards, safety
officers, bouncers, police, fireman) 1%
Self Employed, freelance 1%
Q15 And what industry do you work in? If pauses, ask: What does your company do? Verbatim responses recorded and later grouped into categories shown below.
IT Manufacturing services: Computer,
Software and Electronics Manufacturing and
Services
29%
Education: Any educational institution,
including public and private schools,
colleges and universities
10%
Prefer not to answer 10%
Business Services: Businesses that provide
services to other businesses, including
legal, advertising, printing, engineering,
accounting, IT services, install and repair
services)
8%
Medical and Social Services: Businesses that
provide health care, hospitals, social
assistance
8%
Biosciences and Pharmaceuticals:
Companies that research and manufacture
biological, chemical and medicinal products
including laboratory and medical
equipment
7%
Financial Services: Banks, credit unions,
investment consulting, income tax preparer 6%
Construction: Builders and developers,
heavy construction, special trades 3%
Sales 3%
Other (unique responses) 3%
Government / Public Administration: Any
government agency such as a city, county,
or publicly funded agency
2%
Hospitality, Visitor and Entertainment
Services 2%
9.b
March 25, 2024
Packet Pg. 593
Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 60City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey 1/27/2022
True North Research, Inc. © 2021 Page 7
Non-IT Manufacturing: Manufacturers of
products that are not electronic, such as
food, textiles, clothing, recreational goods
2%
Religious / Non-profit Industry 2%
Security Services 2%
Communications: Telephone, radio and
cable companies, companies that
manufacture communications-related
products such as phones and fax machines
1%
Retail: Retails stores and outlets that sell
products directly to consumers 1%
Transportation 1%
Q16 Are you currently working from home, commuting to a workplace outside of your home, or a mixture of both?
1 Working from home 47% Ask Q17
2 Commuting to a workplace outside
home 25% Skip to Q19
3 Mixture of both 28% Ask Q17
99 Prefer not to answer 0% Skip to Q19
Q17 How many days do you primarily work from home each week? 1 One 5%
2 Two 10%
3 Three 13%
4 Four 15%
5 Five or more 56%
99 Prefer not to answer 1%
Q18 Do you own a home-based business?
1 Yes 10%
2 No 88%
99 Prefer not to answer 2%
Ask Q19 if Q16=(2,3). Otherwise skip to Q22.
Q19
What method of transportation do you use most of the time when commuting to your work place?
If says drive, ask: Do you drive alone or carpool with others?
If respondent says uses more than one transportation method each day, record the method they use for the longest portion of their commute. 1 Drive alone in a car, truck, SUV, or
van 83%
2 Carpool (ride togeth er 2 to 4 people) 3%
9.b
March 25, 2024
Packet Pg. 594
Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 61City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey 2/2/2022
True North Research, Inc. © 2021 Page 8
3 Vanpool (ride together with 5 to 15
people) 0%
4 Motorcycle 0%
5 On-demand rideshare service like
Uber or Lyft 0%
6 Zipcar 0%
7 Taxi 0%
8 Employer-provided shuttle/bus 0%
Public Transit
9 Bus 1%
10 BART 1%
11 Caltrain 5%
12 Other public transit 0%
13 Bike 2%
14 Walk/jog/run 4%
15 Other 1%
99 Prefer not to answer 0%
Q20
In
, what is the approximate distance between your home and your work place? If respondent not sure, ask them to estimate. Miles recorded and later grouped into ranges shown below. Average commute = 13.13 miles.
Less than 5 28%
5 to 9 23%
10 to 19 21%
20 to 29 16%
30 or more 9%
Prefer not to answer 3%
Q21
In
, how long does it typically take you to commute to work if you travel
there directly without stops? If respondent says it depends or not sure, ask them to estimate their average time in minutes. Miles recorded and later grouped into ranges shown below. Average commute = 26.20 minutes.
Less than 10 10%
10 to 19 26%
20 to 29 21%
30 to 39 15%
40 to 59 8%
60 or more 9%
Prefer not to answer 10%
9.b
March 25, 2024
Packet Pg. 595
Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 62City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey 1/27/2022
True North Research, Inc. © 2021 Page 9
Q22 When traveling within the City of San Carlos, how often do you: _____? Read in Order
5+ days per
week
1 to 4 days per
week
2 to 3 days per
month
1 day per
month
Less than 1
day per month
Never
Prefer not to
answer
A Use a personal vehicle 47% 39% 9% 2% 1% 2% 1%
B Ride a local bus 0% 1% 0% 1% 5% 91% 1%
C Use Uber or Lyft 0% 1% 5% 5% 28% 60% 2%
D Walk from your home to a local store or
restaurant 11% 28% 17% 9% 11% 23% 1%
E Ride a bicycle 2% 10% 13% 6% 11% 57% 2%
Q23 Do you own or lease: _____?
Read in order
Yes
No
Prefer not
to answer
A A hybrid gas and electric vehicle 23% 75% 2%
B An all-electric vehicle 19% 79% 2%
Ask Q24 if Q23B=1.
Q24 Do you find it difficult to charge your electric vehicle in the City of San Carlos? 1 Yes 36%
2 No 60%
99 Prefer not to answer 4%
Section 5: Health and Lifestyle
Next are a few questions about your health and lifestyle.
Q25
Thinking of the adult members of your household, what recreation activities do the adults in your household engage in most often?
Probe: Any others? Verbatim responses recorded and later grouped into categories shown below.
Walking, jogging, running 47%
Hiking, nature walks 33%
Cycling 21%
Exercising, gym, yoga 15%
9.b
March 25, 2024
Packet Pg. 596
Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 63City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey 1/27/2022
True North Research, Inc. © 2021 Page 10
Tennis 7%
Do not engage in recreation activities 7%
Dance, music, theater 6%
Dining out, wine tasting 6%
Walking dog, dog park 5%
Swimming 5%
Golf 5%
Soccer 3%
Basketball 3%
Parks, beach 3%
Gardening 3%
Table games, cards, reading 2%
Variety of sports 2%
Socializing with friends, family 2%
Boating, kayaking, rowing, sailing 2%
Shopping 2%
Pickle Ball 2%
Weightlifting 2%
Q26
Thinking of the children and teenage members of your household, what recreation activities do they engage in most often? Probe: Any others? Verbatim responses recorded and later grouped into categories shown below.
No children or teenagers in home 54%
Soccer 9%
Cycling 9%
Walking, jogging, running 7%
Parks, beach 7%
Basketball 5%
Swimming 5%
Variety of sports 5%
Dance, music, theater 5%
Hiking, nature walks 5%
Softball, baseball 4%
Playgrounds 4%
They do not engage in recreation activities 4%
Tennis 3%
Table games, cards, reading, video games 2%
Socializing with friends, family 2%
9.b
March 25, 2024
Packet Pg. 597
Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 64City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey 1/27/2022
True North Research, Inc. © 2021 Page 11
Skateboarding, scootering 2%
School activities, events 2%
Q27 Do you use a house-cleaning service or maid?
1 Yes 47%
2 No 49%
99 Prefer not to answer 3%
Ask Q28 if Q6=(1,2).
Q28 Do you use a landscape maintenance service or gardener? 1 Yes 66%
2 No 33%
99 Prefer not to answer 1%
Q29 How often do you: _____? At least three times per week, one to two times per week, two to three times per month, once per month, less often than once per month, or never? Read in Order
3+ times per
week
1 to 2 times
per week
2 to 3 times
per month
1 time per
month
Less than 1
per month
Never
Prefer not to
answer
A Have food, meals, or groceries delivered to
your home? 9% 21% 18% 11% 12% 27% 1%
B
Have goods or packages delivered to your
home from Amazon or another online
retailer
30% 35% 22% 5% 4% 3% 1%
Q30 In a typical day, approximately how much time do you spend: _____? If unsure or says it varies, ask them to estimate. Record to nearest quarter hour.
Read in Order
Average
Minutes per
Day
None / Do Not
Typically Use
Less than 30
mins
30 to 59 mins
1 hr. to less
than 2 hrs.
2 hrs. to less
than 3 hrs.
3 or more hrs.
Prefer not to
answer
A Consuming news 73.02 11% 9% 15% 33% 11% 9% 12%
B Watching television 121.24 10% 3% 7% 23% 19% 26% 11%
C Listening to the radio 57.25 33% 11% 14% 16% 6% 8% 11% D Using social media 65.72 21% 13% 11% 25% 9% 9% 11%
E Using the Internet, not including
social media 227.80 7% 2% 4% 17% 15% 44% 11%
F Reading a book or magazine 61.57 15% 9% 18% 31% 12% 6% 10% G Playing video games 18.57 66% 8% 4% 7% 2% 3% 10%
9.b
March 25, 2024
Packet Pg. 598
Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 65City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey 1/27/2022
True North Research, Inc. © 2021 Page 12
Section 6: Pandemic
Q31
The COVID-19 pandemic can impact peoples lives in a variety of ways. Currently, would you say the pandemic is having a big impact, moderate impact, small impact, or no impact on your household?
1 Big impact 32% Ask Q32
2 Moderate impact 47% Ask Q32
3 Small impact 17% Skip to D1
4 No impact 4% Skip to D1
99 Prefer not to answer 1% Skip to D1
Q32 What is the main impact the pandemic is having on your household currently? Verbatim responses recorded and later grouped into categories shown below.
Inability to socialize, gather with friends,
family 32%
Isolation, staying home 14%
Working from home 14%
Restricted, no travel 12%
Unable to go out for entertainment, dining 12%
Reduced activities in general 11%
School disruptions, closures, distance
learning 8%
Loss of job, income / Work changes 7%
Childcare issues 6%
Mental health issues, concerns 6%
Vaccines, mask mandates 5%
Ongoing personal health concerns 4%
Lifestyle has changed, need to adapt 3%
Section 7: Demographics
Thank you so much for your participation. I have just a few more background questions for statistical purposes.
D1 In what year were you born? Year of birth recorded age categories shown below. 18 to 24 5%
25 to 34 15%
35 to 44 20%
45 to 54 20%
55 to 64 18%
65 or older 19%
Prefer not to answer 4%
9.b
March 25, 2024
Packet Pg. 599
Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 66City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey 1/27/2022
True North Research, Inc. © 2021 Page 13
D2 How many: _____ live in your household?
Read in Order
Zero
One
Two
Three or
more
Prefer not
to answer
A Children under 13 years of age 68% 14% 11% 2% 5%
B Teenagers 80% 10% 5% 1% 5%
C Adults age 18 to 64 17% 15% 51% 13% 5%
D Seniors age 65 or older 66% 14% 14% 1% 5%
Ask QD3 if QD2A=(1,2,3).
D3 For childcare, do you: _____?
Read in Order
Yes
No
Not sure /
Prefer not
to answer
A Have a stay-at-home parent who watches
your kids 33% 62% 5%
B Have a relative watch your kids 20% 75% 5%
C
Have a nanny or other non-relative watch
your kids either in your home or at their
home
14% 81% 5%
D Use a daycare center not located in your
home 37% 58% 5%
Ask D4 if QD2D=(1,2,3).
D4 Is there a senior member of your household that currently receives in-home healthcare services?
1 Yes 4%
2 No 96%
99 Prefer not to answer 0%
D5 What is your gender?
1 Male 47%
2 Female 48%
3 Non-binary 1%
4 Other 0%
99 Prefer not to answer 3%
D6 What was the last grade you completed in school?
9.b
March 25, 2024
Packet Pg. 600
Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 67City of San Carlos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
San Carlos Community Characteristics Survey 1/27/2022
True North Research, Inc. © 2021 Page 14
1 Less than high school 1%
2 High school graduate 4%
3 Vocational/Trade certificate 1%
4 Some college 6%
5 Two-year degree 6%
6 Four-year degree 37%
7 Post-graduate work/Graduate degree 42%
8 Not sure 0%
9 Prefer not to answer 2%
D7 What ethnic group do you consider yourself a part of or feel closest to? Read list if respondent hesitates
1 Latino/Hispanic 8%
2 Asian American -- Korean, Japanese,
Chinese, Vietnamese, Filipino or other
Asian
16%
3 Caucasian/White 63%
4 African-American/Black 2%
5 American Indian or Alaskan Native 0%
6 Pacific Islander 1%
7 Middle Eastern 3%
8 Mixed Heritage 1%
98 Other 0%
99 Prefer not to answer 3%
Those are all of the questions that I have for you! Thanks so much for participating in this important survey! This survey was conducted for the City of San Carlos
9.b
March 25, 2024
Packet Pg. 601
CITY COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: March 25, 2024
ITEM TITLE: Consideration of Adopting a Resolution Adopting the 2024 Beekeeping Practices Administrative Policy in Accordance with Section 6.04.430 of the Animal Control Chapter of the San Carlos Municipal Code.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a Resolution adopting the 2024 Beekeeping Practices Administrative Policy in accordance with Section 6.04.430 of the Animal Control chapter of the San Carlos Municipal Code.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
There are no fiscal implications associated with updating the Beekeeping Practices Administrative Policy.
BACKGROUND:
At its February 28, 2022 regular meeting, the City Council received a report and held a study session on the City’s beekeeping regulations. At that time, bees and beekeeping were not explicitly addressed in Animal Control Chapter Section 6.04 of the San Carlos Municipal Code (“Code”). Instead, the City’s Beekeeping Practices Administrative Policy (“Beekeeping Policy”) dated September 15, 2009, defined twelve requirements for obtaining a beekeeping permit and the conditions for enforcement and revocation of permits. The annual fee to obtain a beekeeping permit was $365. The Community Development Department’s Building Code Division had never received an application for a beekeeping permit and the City’s Code Enforcement Officer had received two complaints related to beekeeping in San Carlos between 2012 and the time of the 2022 study session.
Prior to and during the study session, the City Council received dozens of public comments regarding beekeeping. Four prominent themes emerged from the public comments and are summarized below.
Theme 1: The City’s beekeeping regulations acted as a “ban” on beekeeping.
10.a
March 25, 2024
Packet Pg. 602
According to local proponents of recreational beekeeping and the Beekeepers Guild of San Mateo County1, the City’s Beekeeping Policy functioned as an “effective ban” on beekeeping because it permits no more than one hive per 10,000 square feet on a single-family residential parcel and only 16% of single-family residential lots in the city are greater than 10,000 square feet.
Based on information provided by the Beekeepers Guild of San Mateo County, every other city in the County, except for the City of San Carlos, City of Redwood City, and Town of Hillsborough, relies on less restrictive nuisance clauses in their municipal codes to address potential issues related to beekeeping.
Proponents also suggested that the Beekeeping Policy included requirements, such as distance from property lines and hive positioning, which don’t relate to actual bee behaviors.
Theme 2: There are many misperceptions about bees and bee behaviors.
Proponents of beekeeping explained that individuals often confuse bees with yellow jackets or wasps, which are naturally more aggressive. Furthermore, swarming, or instances where bees cluster and attach to an object like a tree or pole, is the bees’ temporary method of relocation for the purposes of establishing a new colony. Also, bees generally stay with their hives and leave their hives for water or to pollinate. With regard to pollination, residents may actively attract or deter bees by considering the types of flowers and plants they maintain on their properties.
Theme 3: The benefits of beekeeping outweigh nuisances.
Proponents of beekeeping explained that beekeeping is an enjoyable hobby that can be shared among families and friends, and that bees are critical pollinators and play a critical role in our environment, as well as fruit and vegetable production. A single hive can produce anywhere from 10 to 200 pounds of honey per year.
Theme 4: Bee stings can be life threatening.
Opponents of recreational beekeeping expressed concerns that some individuals are allergic or hypersensitive to bee or wasp stings. If an allergic person is stung by a bee, yellow jacket, or wasp, the body could go into anaphylactic shock and without lifesaving treatment, that person could die.
Next steps
At the conclusion of the study session, the City Council indicated to staff that it would like to (1) consider relaxing beekeeping restrictions while still regulating beekeeping in order to avoid nuisances to neighbors; (2) obtain more information about the health risks of bees; (3) consider how the City may address instances where a beekeeper’s property is adjacent to an individual who could die if stung by a bee; and (4) determine whether jurisdictions who recently relaxed their beekeeping regulations were receiving complaints from their respective communities.
Since the February 2022 study session, the annual permit fee for beekeeping was reduced from $365 per project to $150 per project. In addition, on January 22, 2024, the City Council adopted 1 The Beekeepers Guild of San Mateo County is a regional, non-governmental association established in 1979 to encourage better beekeeping methods among the beekeepers of the area, to promote cooperation among its members, and to maintain friendly and helpful relations with forces working to better the welfare of beekeeping interests.
10.a
March 25, 2024
Packet Pg. 603
Ordinance 1609 amending and replacing San Carlos Municipal Code Chapter 6.04 - Animal Control, to align with Chapter 6.04 - Animal Control of Title 6 of the San Mateo County Ordinance Code to clarify existing definitions, enact additional requirements for animal control, and revise the fees for animal control services. It was at this time that the word “bees” was added to two sections of the Code: 6.04.390 – Permit Required and 6.04.430 – Housing and Keeping of Pets – Regulations, to clarify that the Code was intended to apply to bees.
ANALYSIS:
The following four sections address the follow-up items and questions posed by the City Council at the February 2022 study session.
1. Relaxing San Carlos’ Beekeeping Restrictions
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the updated and less restrictive 2024 Beekeeping Practices Administrative Policy (“Updated Beekeeping Policy”) included as Exhibit A to the Resolution. A redlined version of the Updated Beekeeping Policy is included as Attachment 2.
The Updated Beekeeping Policy eliminates the current requirement that only residential properties greater than 10,000 square feet and less than 20,000 square feet may maintain one hive. Instead, it allows a maximum of two hives on a residential parcel or lot. Staff is proposing a maximum of two hives be allowed because two hives have been deemed sufficient for recreational beekeeping purposes by a representative of the Beekeepers’ Guild of San Mateo County. Also, two hives can be situated and oriented towards each other as a way to control flyway, or bees’ flight path.
The Updated Beekeeping Policy adds a new requirement to control flyway and maintains a previous requirement that the beekeeper maintain a constant water supply to discourage bees from seeking water from neighbors’ properties. It eliminates requirements related to where a hive can be located within a parcel, hive encasement and fencing requirements, and public notification and signage requirements.
Staff considered the use of a general public nuisance code to address issues related to beekeeping similar to other cities in San Mateo County, but decided that the Updated Beekeeping Policy addresses the San Carlos community’s concerns with more specificity and clarity than a general public nuisance enforcement could. Under a general public nuisance code, the City would not impose any requirements or restrictions on beekeeping. Instead, if and when an issue arose, the affected individual(s) could bring a nuisance complaint to the City for further investigation.
Under this scenario, the burden of demonstrating a public nuisance is borne by the City, which can be costly and time consuming. Residents retain the right to claim a private nuisance based on their particular circumstances.
2. Health Risks Posed by Bees
About one or two in every 1,000 people is allergic or hypersensitive to bee or wasp stings. If an allergic person is stung by a venomous insect, the body could go into anaphylactic shock.
Anaphylaxis, if treated in time, usually can be reversed by the effects of epinephrine injected into the body. Individuals who are aware that they are allergic to stings should carry an epinephrine injection device (e.g. EpiPen) whenever they think they may encounter stinging insects.
10.a
March 25, 2024
Packet Pg. 604
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, from 2000 to 2017, there have been 1,109 deaths that occurred due to hornet, wasp, and bee stings in the United States. On average, that is about 62 deaths per year.
According to the Stanford Children’s Hospital’s website, for most people, reactions to insect stings are usually not serious. However, they can be life threatening if the sting occurs in the mouth, nose, or throat area. This is because swelling can close the airway. Most stings are from honeybees or yellow jackets. Yellow jackets cause the most allergic reactions in the U.S.
The County of San Mateo does not maintain information related to emergency room visits related to bee stings.
3. Considering Hive Placement Near Neighbors with Life-Threatening Allergic Reactions to Bees
The grant of City permits for beekeeping is discretionary. According to both the previous and Updated Beekeeping Policy, “[t]he Community Development Director or his/her designee shall inspect the premises upon which the bee hives are located and determine that the premises meet the conditions specified in this policy and that the issuance of a permit will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare.”
Section 6.04.400(B) of the Code, which relates to permit applications and issuance, states:
“…Building Official, Police Chief or his/her/their designee shall inspect the premises upon which the household pet, animal or bees are to be located and determine that the premises meet the conditions of this title, and that the issuance of a permit hereunder will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare.”
Based on the forgoing, the City may decide not to issue a beekeeping permit if it is determined that the risk to a neighbor with life threatening allergies is too great, and there is no way to reasonably mitigate the specific risks.
4. Community Complaints in Other Jurisdictions Since Relaxing Restrictions The Cities of Burlingame, Foster City, Pacifica, Redwood City, and San Mateo relaxed their beekeeping restrictions and adopted nuisance-based approaches to beekeeping in years 2018, 2021, 2020, 2016, and 2021, respectively. The City of Burlingame reported two complaints since 2018. Both complaints were referred to the Beekeepers’ Guild of San Mateo County for assistance. The City of Pacifica reported one inquiry/complaint since 2020. In that case, the reporting party wanted to get more information from the City of Pacifica before discussing the issue with their neighbor. The Cities of Foster City, Redwood City, and San Mateo did not report having received any issues or complaints since relaxing their beekeeping requirements and adopting a nuisance-based policy.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a Resolution adopting the updated 2024 Beekeeping Practices Administrative Policy in accordance with Section 6.04.430 of the Animal Control chapter of the San Carlos Municipal Code. If adopted, City staff will develop and provide a webpage on the City’s website explaining the City’s regulations regarding beekeeping. In addition, staff will provide links to community resources and organizations, such as the Beekeepers Guild of San Mateo County, so that interested residents may access free resources
10.a
March 25, 2024
Packet Pg. 605
such as introductory beekeeping classes and workshops, guidelines for responsible beekeeping, site assessments, tips on the types of plants that can attract or deter honeybees, and swarm removal services.
ALTERNATIVES:
The alternatives available to the City Council include:
1. Adopt a Resolution adopting the 2024 Beekeeping Practices Administrative Policy in accordance with Section 6.04.430 of the Animal Control chapter of the San Carlos Municipal Code; or
2. Do not adopt the Resolution; 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. Resolution
Exhibit A to Resolution – 2024 Beekeeping Practices Administrative Policy
2. Redlined Beekeeping Practices Administrative Policy
10.a
March 25, 2024
Packet Pg. 606
RESOLUTION NO. 2024 – ____
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN CARLOS ADOPTING THE 2024 BEEKEEPING PRACTICES ADMINSTRATIVE POLICY IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 6.04.430 OF THE ANIMAL CONTROL CHAPTER OF THE SAN CARLOS MUNICIPAL CODE.
WHEREAS, the City of San Carlos supports an efficient and humanely enforced animal control program specified in Chapter 6.04 of the City of San Carlos Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, Section 6.04.390 of the Animal Control chapter of the San Carlos Municipal Code makes it “…unlawful for any person to keep, maintain or cause to be kept or maintained any household pets, bees, or other animals not otherwise permitted herein without having first obtained a permit…”; and
WHEREAS, Section 6.04.430 of the Animal Control chapter of the San Carlos Municipal Code states: “[f]or bees and beehives, regulations adopted by resolution of the City Council shall apply to the keeping of bees and beehives on private property in the City”; and WHEREAS, the updated 2024 Beekeeping Practices Administrative Policy lists the regulations that shall apply to the permit requirements for the keeping of bees and beehives on private property in the City.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the San Carlos City Council hereby adopts the 2024 Beekeeping Practices Administrative Policy (Exhibit A) in accordance with Section
6.04.430 of the Animal Control Chapter of the San Carlos Municipal Code. * * * * *
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 25th day of March 2024, by the following vote:
________________________________
CITY CLERK of the City of San Carlos
APPROVED:
___________________________
MAYOR of the City of San Carlos
Exhibit A. 2024 Beekeeping Practices Administrative Policy AYES, COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES, COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT, COUNCILMEMBERS:
10.a
March 25, 2024
Packet Pg. 607
Beekeeping Practices Administrative Policy Page 1 of 3 Updated March 2024
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
BEEKEEPING PRACTICES ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY
Updated March 2024
PURPOSE:
The City supports an efficient and humanely enforced animal control program specified in Chapter 6.04 of the City of San Carlos Municipal Code. The purpose of this policy is to protect the interests of San Carlos residents and to reinforce public health, safety, and welfare, by adopting consistent and standard procedures for beekeeping practices.
As the Municipal Code affords responsibilities for Animal Control program to Police Chief or his/her designee, this policy is issued with the authority of the Chief of Police to designate the Community Development Director to enforce policies, procedures, rules, and regulations as they relate to beekeeping practices within San Carlos city limits.
This policy supplements the Animal Control Chapter 6.04 of the Municipal Code and replaces the former Beekeeping Practices Administrative Policy dated September 15, 2009. The Municipal Code governs in the event of any conflict.
DEFINITIONS:
“Beekeeping” is defined as the maintenance of honey bee colonies in hives by humans. A beekeeper keeps bees in order to collect honey and beewax for the purpose of pollinating vegetation, to produce bees for sale to other beekeepers, and/or for purpose satisfying natural scientific curiosity.
“Bee colony” is the group of bees which consists of the queen, the drones, and the workers, which live in the box or similar receptacle.
“Hive Box” means any box, receptacle, or container made or prepared for the use of bees, or similar container of which bees have taken possession.
BEEKEEPING PERMIT AND ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY:
Section 6.04.390 of the Animal Control chapter of the San Carlos Municipal Code makes it “…unlawful for any person to keep, maintain or cause to be kept or maintained any household pets, bees, or other animals not otherwise permitted herein without having first obtained a permit…”
Section 6.04.430 of the Animal Control chapter of the San Carlos Municipal Code states: “[f]or bees and beehives, regulations adopted by resolution of the City Council shall apply to the keeping of bees and beehives on private property in the City.” In order to obtain a beekeeping permit, the following conditions must be met.
1. An application for a beekeeping permit must be made on the form prescribed for this purpose by the City and filed with the Community Development Department. The application must be signed by an owner or lawful tenant of the lot or parcel for which the application is submitted.
10.a
March 25, 2024
Packet Pg. 608
2. The application must be accompanied by maps, sketches, site plans, and/or other drawings, or information required or necessary to enable the Community Development Director or his/her designee to make the determinations.
3. No more than two (2) hives may be maintained on any lot or parcel.
4. Care should be exercised to direct the bees’ flight path, known as “flyway”, to avoid neighbors and the public. Bees should be directed to leave their hive boxes in an upward trajectory with use of screenings, foliage, shrubs, trees, fencing and/or other barriers that will help to minimize human and animal contact. In the case of two hive boxes, the beekeeper may situate and orientate the hives toward each other to direct flyway.
5. All properties must provide constant water supply adequate to the needs of all hives located on the premises and must ensure that they do not become a mosquito-breeding site.
6. The Community Development Director or his/her designee shall inspect the premises upon which the bee hives are to be located and determine that the premises meet the conditions specified in this policy and that the issuance of a permit will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare.
7. The permit is valid for a period of twelve (12) months from the date of issuance and is subject to renewal and approval each year pending conditions and requirements existing as of the date of renewal.
8. The permit may not be sold, assigned or transferred, and may cover only the premises designated and the person to whom the permit was originally issued.
9. The filing fees for the permit application, inspection and signage must be determined under the City’s Uniform Fee Schedule and adopted by resolution of the City Council. No application may be accepted as complete until all fees have been paid.
ENFORCEMENT:
The Community Development Department shall inspect the premises of each beekeeper at least once a year and at such additional times as it deems necessary. The Community Development Director or his/her designee may investigate or require any further information or documentation, which would assist in determining whether the statements made by the applicant are correct and whether the permit should be issued.
Conditions for Denial or Revocation of the Permit
Community Development Director or his/her designee may deny or revoke a permit issued pursuant to this policy in any of the following situations:
1. It was determined by inspection of the premises where the hive(s) are maintained that the applicant cannot comply with the requirements of this policy, the Municipal Code, or applicable State law, or the permit holder is in violation of the permit conditions.
2. The beekeeper refuses to permit the animal control officer a reasonable right of inspection of the premises to ensure compliance with applicable State law, the Municipal Code, and this policy.
10.a
March 25, 2024
Packet Pg. 609
3. The beekeeper fails to file an application for permit renewal or pay the permit fee prior to the permit anniversary date.
4. Community Development Director or his/her designee has a reason to believe that the applicant or permit holder has willfully withheld or falsified any information required for a permit.
5. The proposed beekeeping use, location of the bee colony/hive box, its effect, and the resulting number of beekeeping permits in a neighborhood will be detrimental or injurious to property and to the health, safety, and welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed use.
Permit Revocation Process
Per Section 6.04.420 of the Municipal Code, a permit may be revoked or suspended in the following manner: A notice of intention to revoke beekeeping permit shall be mailed to the applicant specifying wherein he/she has failed to comply with any terms or conditions specified in the permit, the Municipal Code, this policy, or any other law. The notice will require the permittee to appear before the City Manager at a date and hour specified not less than five days after the mailing of such notice to the permittee, and showing cause why the permit should not be revoked or suspended. At such time and place, the permittee shall have the right to appear in person or by counsel and introduce such evidence as he/she may desire. A permittee dissatisfied with the decision may appeal to the City Council which shall hold a public hearing on the matter. The City Council may continue the hearing from time to time. The decision of the City Council shall be final.
10.a
March 25, 2024
Packet Pg. 610
Beekeeping Practices Administrative Policy Page 1 of 4 Updated March 2024 ATTACHMENT 1
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
BEEKEEPING PRACTICES ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY
ADMINISTRATIVE POLICYUpdated March 2024
PURPOSE:
The City supports an efficient and humanely enforced animal control program specified in Chapter 6.04 of the City of San Carlos Municipal Code. The purpose of this policy is to protect the interests of San Carlos residents and to reinforce public health, safety, and welfare, by adopting consistent and standard procedures for beekeeping practices.
As the Municipal Code affords responsibilities for Animal Control program to Police Chief or his/her designee, this policy is issued with the authority of the Chief of Police to designate the Community Development Director to enforce policies, procedures, rules, and regulations as they relate to beekeeping practices within San Carlos city limits.
This policy supplements the Animal Control Chapter 6.04 of the Municipal Code and replaces the former Beekeeping Practices Administrative Policy dated September 15, 2009. The Municipal Code governs in the event of any conflict.
DEFINITIONS:
“Beekeeping” is defined as the maintenance of honey bee colonies in hives by humans. A beekeeper keeps bees in order to collect honey and beewax for the purpose of pollinating vegetation, to produce bees for sale to other beekeepers, and/or for purpose satisfying natural scientific curiosity.
“Bee colony” is the group of bees which consists of the queen, the drones, and the workers, which live in the box or similar receptacle.
“Hive Box” means any box, receptacle, or container made or prepared for the use of bees, or similar container of which bees have taken possession. A hive box is usually called a Langstroth deep or super, and is roughly 19.75 inches long, 16.5 inches wide, and 9.5 inches tall. It contains 10 frames of foundation on which the bees build comb for producing brood and food. A hive box requires some kind of top board, some kind of bottom board, and an entrance which is usually incorporated in the bottom board.
BEEKEEPING BEEKEEPING PERMIT PERMIT AND ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY:
It is unlawful for any person to keep, maintain sell or trade any hive of bees on any lot or parcel within the City without first obtaining a permit under the Animal Control Chapter, Section
6.04.330 390 of the Municipal Codeof the Animal Control chapter of the San Carlos Municipal Code makes it “…unlawful for any person to keep, maintain or cause to be kept or maintained any household pets, bees, or other animals not otherwise permitted herein without having first obtained a permit…”.
10.a
March 25, 2024
Packet Pg. 611
The purpose of the beekeeping permit is to provide appropriate review and consideration of small scale beekeeping under the direction of the Community Development Director or his/her designee, and to ensure that beekeeping on certain-sized parcels in single-family residential zones will not be detrimental or injurious to property and to the health, safety, and welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed use.
Section 6.04.430 of the Animal Control chapter of the San Carlos Municipal Code states: “[f]or bees and beehives, regulations adopted by resolution of the City Council shall apply to the keeping of bees and beehives on private property in the City.” A. Permit Requirements
In order to obtain a beekeeping permit, the following conditions must be met.
1. 1. An A permit may be granted only if all of the criteria for the use specified in Section 6.04.340 of the Municipal Code and this policy are met.
Aapplication for a beekeeping permit must be made on the form prescribed for this purpose by the City and filed with the Community Development Department. The application must be signed by an owner or lawful tenant of the lot or parcel for which the application is submitted.
2.2. The application must be accompanied by such maps, sketches, site plans, and/or other drawings, or information required or necessary to enable the Community Development Director or his/her designee to make the determinations. .
3. NNo more than two (2) hives may be maintained on any lot or parcel. One (1) bee colony and/or hive box will be allowed in single-family residential parcels which are greater than 10,000 square feet in size, provided, that for every 10,000 feet in excess of 10,000 square feet, there may be one additional hive.
4. Care should be exercised to direct the bees’ flight path, known as “flyway”, to avoid neighbors and the public. Bees should be directed to leave their hive boxes in an upward trajectory with use of screenings, foliage, shrubs, trees, fencing and/or other barriers that will help to minimize human and animal contact.
3. No hive may be kept or maintained within ten (10) feet of any side property line on the lot or parcel upon which such hives are suitable, or within fifty (50) feet of any dwelling unit other than occupied by the person maintaining the hive(s).
Hives entrances must be oriented to face a house or building on the premises and surrounded by a solid fence not less than six (6) feet in height, located in rear yard no farther than thirty (30) feet from such hives.In the case of two hive boxes, the beekeeper may situate and orientate the hives toward each other to direct flyway.
5. All properties must provide constant water supply adequate to the needs of all hives located on the premises . and must ensure that they do not become a mosquito-breeding site.
10.a
March 25, 2024
Packet Pg. 612
4. 6. Every person maintaining bees on the premises shall identify the bee hives by affixing and maintaining a sign on the property entrance showing the name of the owner, and his address and telephone number. The sign shall be lettered in black at least one inch in height on a white or light background. The beekeeper shall obtain an approved sign from the Community Development Department for a nonrefundable fee and shall surrender such sign in the event of the revocation of the permit, approved relocation of bee hives, or other reasonable cause (Municipal Code 6.04.120 F).
5. The Community Development Director or his/her designee shall inspect the premises upon which the bee hives are to be located and determine that the premises meet the conditions specified in this policy and that the issuance of a permit will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare.
6. 7. The permit is valid for a period of twelve (12) months from the date of issuance and is subject to renewal and approval each year pending conditions and requirements existing as of the date of renewal.
7. 8. The permit may not be sold, assigned or transferred, and may cover only the premises designated and the person to whom the permit was originally issued.
8. 9. The filing fees for the permit application, inspection and signage must be determined under the City’s Uniform Fee Schedule and adopted by resolution of the City Council. No application may be accepted as complete until all fees have been paid.
ENFORCEMENT:
The Community Development Department shall inspect the premises of each bee keeper at least once a year and at such additional times as it deems necessary. The Community Development Director or his/her designee may investigate or require any further information or documentation, which would assist in determining whether the statements made by the applicant are correct and whether the permit should be issued.
B. Conditions for Denial or Revocation of the Permit
Community Development Director or his/her designee may deny or revoke a permit issued pursuant to this policy in any of the following situations:
1. It was determined by inspection of the premises where the hive(s) are maintained that the applicant cannot comply with the requirements of this policy, the Municipal Code, or applicable State law, or the permit holder is in violation of the permit conditions.
2. The beekeeper refuses to permit the animal control officer a reasonable right of inspection of the premises to ensure compliance with applicable State law, the Municipal Code, and this policy.
3. The beekeeper fails to file an application for permit renewal or pay the permit fee prior to the permit anniversary date.
10.a
March 25, 2024
Packet Pg. 613
4. Community Development Director or his/her designee has a reason to believe that the applicant or permit holder has willfully withheld or falsified any information required for a permit.
5. The proposed beekeeping use, location of the bee colony/hive box, its effect, and the resulting number of beekeeping permits in a neighborhood will be detrimental or injurious to property and to the health, safety, and welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed use.
PERMIT REVOCATION PROCESS: Permit Revocation Process
Per Section 6.04.360 420 of the Municipal Code, a permit may be revoked or suspended in the following manner: A notice of intention to revoke beekeeping permit shall be mailed to the applicant specifying wherein he/she has failed to comply with any terms or conditions specified in the permit, the Municipal Code, this policy, or any other law. The notice will require the permittee to appear before the City Manager at a date and hour specified not less than five days after the mailing of such notice to the permittee, and showing cause why the permit should not be revoked or suspended. At such time and place, the permittee shall have the right to appear in person or by counsel and introduce such evidence as he/she may desire. A permittee dissatisfied with the decision may appeal to the City Council which shall hold a public hearing on the matter. The City Council may continue the hearing from time to time. The decision of the City Council shall be final.
10.a
March 25, 2024
Packet Pg. 614
CITY COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: March 25, 2024
ITEM TITLE: Consideration of Adopting a Resolution Appropriating $100,000 from the General Capital Fund (Fund 25) Unassigned Fund Balance in Fiscal Year 2023-24 to Create a New Capital Improvement Project for the Purchase and Installation of Eight Automated External Defibrillators (AEDs) in Parks and the Wheeler Plaza Parking Garage.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a Resolution appropriating $100,000 from the General Capital Fund Unassigned Fund Balance (Fund 25) in Fiscal Year (FY) 2023-24 to create a new capital improvement project for the purchase and installation of eight Automated External Defibrillators (AEDs) in parks and the Wheeler Plaza Parking Garage.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
Should City Council choose to install AEDs in parks, there will be both one-time funding needs, as well as ongoing operating costs. The one-time costs are $100,000 to install a total of eight AEDs in parks and the Wheeler Plaza Parking Garage.
SaveStation Towers $45,000
AED Devices 28,000
Electrical work 17,000
Contingency 10,000
Total Project Budget $100,000
Approval of this resolution will require a budget appropriation in the amount of $100,000 for FY 2023-24 from the Fund 25 Unassigned Fund Balance. There are sufficient funds available to cover this request. Additionally, funding will need to be included in future years’ operating budgets for AED maintenance, including battery and pad replacement, as well as funds to continue cellular service connections once the initial service with the vendor concludes.
BACKGROUND:
An AED is a medical device designed to analyze heart rhythm and deliver an electric shock to victims of ventricular fibrillation to restore the heart rhythm to normal. Ventricular fibrillation is the uncoordinated heart rhythm most often responsible for sudden cardiac arrest (OSHA, www.osha.gov). AEDs can increase the chance of survival of a person suffering from cardiac arrest and can be used by the general public as they are portable, safe, accurate, and easy to use (American Heart Association). Formal training is not required for the general public as the AED system walks the person using it through the steps to administer it on someone in cardiac arrest.
10.b
March 25, 2024
Packet Pg. 615
The City of San Carlos currently provides and maintains AEDs in City facilities including the Youth Center, Adult Community Center, Kiwanis Building, Laureola Park building, City Hall, Corp Yard, Library, and Sherrif’s Office. At the September 25, 2023 City Council meeting, members of the community provided public comment related to a cardiac arrest emergency that occurred at Highlands Park. Speakers encouraged the City Council to consider installing AEDs in public parks. Following Council’s direction, staff began to research what other communities have publicly accessible AEDs in parks and what options would be best for the outdoors.
ANALYSIS:
Staff reached out to cities in San Mateo County to determine whether other agencies have AEDs accessible in public parks. Of those that responded, Foster City was the only city that responded they have AEDs in their parks with athletic fields. Belmont reported they have AEDs in parks but are not accessible to the public, rather they require a key to access which the sports leagues have access to. San Mateo reported they are carried in their park ranger vehicles. Nine cities stated they do not have AEDs in public parks. Feedback from other Parks and Recreation departments also included concerns of possible vandalism of AEDs once placed in open public places.
Staff continued to research available options for outdoor cabinets for the AEDs to be housed in parks. The recommended option is the SaveStation Tower which includes security and safety features including an audible and visual alarm, transparent cover for maximum AED visibility, customizable 911 location decal, ventilation and heating system that automatically activates as needed, remote monitoring, and text or email notifications when activated. The cabinet is weather- proof to ensure equipment does not get wet or damaged. Additionally, as other cities who have these installed in parks have reported vandalism, this cabinet will take a photo each time the door to the cabinet is opened. Furthermore, these cabinets will be placed in view of park security cameras.
These AED towers require an electrician to install proper connectivity to activate all features of the systems. Included in the purchase of these towers is a four-year cellular plan for remote monitoring and communications. The City would need to renew the cellular plan after four years.
Additionally, the Public Works Maintenance Division will add these new locations to the maintenance rotation on a bi-annual basis to check AED pads and replace batteries as necessary.
Should City Council approve the funding for AEDs in parks and the Wheeler Plaza Parking Garage, staff recommends AED placement in the following locations: one AED in each of Arguello Park, Burton Park, Crestview Park, Laureola Park; two AEDs at Highlands Park; and two AEDs in the Wheeler Parking Garage.
ALTERNATIVES:
The alternatives available to the City Council include:
1. Adopt a Resolution appropriating $100,000 from the General Capital Fund Unassigned Fund Balance (Fund 25) in FY 2023-24 to create a new capital improvement project for the purchase and installation of eight AEDs in City parks and the Wheeler Plaza Parking Garage; or
2. Do not adopt the Resolution; or
3. Provide staff with alternative direction.
10.b
March 25, 2024
Packet Pg. 616
Respectfully submitted by:
Amy Newby, Parks & Recreation Director
Approved for submission by:
_______________________
Jeff Maltbie, City Manager
ATTACHMENT(S):
1. Resolution
10.b
March 25, 2024
Packet Pg. 617
RESOLUTION NO. 2024 – ____
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN CARLOS APPROPRIATING $100,000 FROM THE GENERAL CAPITAL FUND (FUND 25) UNASSIGNED FUND BALANCE IN FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 TO CREATE A NEW
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT FOR THE PURCHASE AND INSTALLATION OF
EIGHT AUTOMATED EXTERNAL DEFIBRILLATORS (AEDS) IN PARKS AND THE WHEELER PLAZA PARKING GARAGE.
WHEREAS, an automated external defibrillator (AED) is a medical device designed to analyze heart rhythm and deliver an electric shock to victims of ventricular fibrillation to restore the heart rhythm to normal; and
WHEREAS, the City currently provides AEDs in City facilities including the Youth Center, Adult Community Center, Kiwanis Building, Laureola Park building, City Hall, Corp Yard, Library and Sheriff’s Office; and
WHEREAS, at the September 25, 2023 City Council meeting, members of the community provided public comment following a cardiac arrest emergency at a City park to encourage the City Council to install and maintain AEDs in parks; and
WHEREAS, throughout San Mateo County, only one city has publicly accessible AEDs in parks and one other city has AEDs in parks which require a key to access which sports organizations have available to use; and
WHEREAS, in San Mateo County nine cities reported they do not have AEDs in public parks; and
WHEREAS, staff researched best outdoor options and determined that the SaveStation brand is the best option and includes a weatherproof tower, audible and visual alarm system, transparent cover for maximum visibility, customizable 911 location decal, remote monitoring and text or email notifications when activated; and
WHEREAS, it is recommended that AEDs be installed at Arguello Park, Burton Park, Crestview Park, Laureola Park, Highlands Park, and Wheeler Plaza Parking Garage; and WHEREAS, this will require a budget appropriation in the amount of $100,000 in Fiscal Year (FY) 2023-24 from the Fund 25 Unassigned Fund Balance and additional funding in future year operating budgets for ongoing maintenance and service of the AEDs and tower equipment; and WHEREAS, there is sufficient funding in the Fund 25 Unassigned Fund Balance to cover this request.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the San Carlos City Council hereby appropriates $100,000 from Fund 25 Unassigned Fund Balance in FY 2023-24 to create a new capital improvement project for the purchase and installation of eight AEDs in parks and the Wheeler Plaza Parking Garage.
* * * * *
10.b
March 25, 2024
Packet Pg. 618
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 25th day of March 2024, by the following vote:
________________________________
CITY CLERK of the City of San Carlos
APPROVED:
___________________________
MAYOR of the City of San Carlos
AYES, COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES, COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT, COUNCILMEMBERS:
10.b
March 25, 2024
Packet Pg. 619