CITY OF SAN MATEO
City Council Special Meeting
March 7, 2022
5:30 PM
COUNCIL MEMBERS
Rick Bonilla, Mayor
Diane Papan, Deputy Mayor
Joe Goethals
Amourence Lee
Eric Rodriguez
AGENDA
DUE TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA’S DECLARATION OF EMERGENCY – THIS MEETING IS BEING HELD PURSUANT TO AUTHORIZATION FROM GOVERNMENT CODE 54943(b)(3) / AB 361 (2021) – CITY COUNCIL AND COMMISSION MEETINGS ARE NO LONGER OPEN TO IN-PERSON ATTENDANCE.
ANYONE CAN WATCH AND PROVIDE COMMENTS REMOTELY IN THE WAYS DESCRIBED AT THE END OF THE AGENDA.
To join via Zoom – click here: March 7, 2022 Zoom Meeting To join via telephone: (408) 638-0968
Conference ID: 820 6705 4004 Passcode: 830748
CALL TO ORDER
Roll Call
STUDY SESSION
The public will have an opportunity to comment during the consideration of these items.
1. City Council Strategic Plan – Draft Review
Review staff feedback on proposed work plans and resource requirements to address the City Council’s priorities for fiscal year 2022-23 and recommend any adjustments to the draft 2022-23 Strategic Plan.
2. 2022 Community Survey Results
Receive an informational report about the results of the City's Community Survey, conducted between late January and early February 2022 by True North Research.
ADJOURNMENT
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ AGENDAS: Agendas and material are posted on the City’s website on the Friday preceding each Council Meeting and can be viewed on the City's website at www.cityofsanmateo.org . Any supplemental material distributed to the Council after the posting of the agenda will be made part of the official record.
WATCHING A MEETING ON TV: City Council meetings are broadcast live on Comcast/channel 27, Wave/channel 26, or AT&T/channel 99.
For transmission problems during the broadcast, please call (650) 522-7099.
For all other broadcast comments, call (650) 522-7040, Monday-Friday, 8 a.m. - 5 p.m.
WATCHING A MEETING ON A COMPUTER: There are three ways to stream. 1) Public Meeting Portal www.cityofsanmateo.org/publicmeetings 2) City YouTube channel and stream it on YouTube: http://youtube.com/CityofSanMateo 3) Watch TV live stream: https://www.cityofsanmateo.org/193/Channel-San-Mateo-Live-Stream PUBLIC COMMENTS – Can be received in the following ways (Time limits will apply) :
1 of 81
Prior to the meeting in writing: Send comments to: [email protected] until 4 p.m. the day of the meeting.
During the meeting by computer: Click the link at the top of the agenda and you’ll be added to the meeting. All attendees are muted by default.
When the item of interest is open for consideration, select the “Raise Your Hand” icon and you will be called on at the appropriate time.
During the meeting by telephone: Call (408) 638-0968 and enter the conference ID found at the top of the meeting agenda. When the item of interest is open for consideration, select *9 to raise your hand. When called upon, press *6 to unmute, state your name and provide your comments.
ACCESSIBILITY: In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, those with disabilities requiring special accommodations to participate in this meeting may contact the City Clerk’s Office at (650) 522-7040 or [email protected]. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. 2 of 81
CITY OF SAN MATEO
2 8
5 8
CITY OF SAN MATEO
Agenda Report
City Hall
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo CA 94403
www.cityofsanmateo.org
Agenda Number: 1 Section Name: STUDY SESSION File ID: 22-5800 TO: City Council
FROM: Drew Corbett, City Manager
PREPARED BY: City Manager's Office
MEETING DATE: March 07, 2022
SUBJECT:
City Council Strategic Plan – Draft Review
RECOMMENDATION:
Review staff feedback on proposed work plans and resource requirements to address the City Council’s priorities for fiscal year 2022-23 and recommend any adjustments to the draft 2022-23 Strategic Plan.
BACKGROUND:
The City Council goal setting process includes a three-step deliberation process resulting in the adoption of a Strategic Plan that allows for multi-year resource planning. The first step of the process was a City Council workshop, held on January 29, 2022. At this workshop, the City Council reviewed the adopted fiscal year 2021-22 Strategic Plan to remove completed items, adjust the priority levels, and propose new objectives to add to the Strategic Plan for fiscal year 2022-23.
The second step of the process, which will take place at the March 7th City Council study session, is a review of proposed work plan items to address each of the objectives in the draft Strategic Plan. In addition, staff has provided an estimate of additional resources required for implementation and the possible sources of funding. Based on this information, City Council will have an opportunity to suggest modifications to the proposed objectives and/or the assigned priority. The draft Strategic Plan for the fiscal year 2022-23 with the proposed work plan items and required resources is included as Attachment 1.
Highlighted in yellow on the draft Strategic Plan are a few of items that staff has flagged for City Council consideration to change the designated priority or remove the item from the Strategic Plan.
The final step in the process will be City Council approval of the Strategic Plan with the proposed objectives for the 2022- 23 fiscal year, which is anticipated to be a consent calendar item on the March 21st City Council agenda.
BUDGET IMPACT:
There is no budget impact from this agenda item. The priority objectives identified by the Council will be taken into consideration as part of the development of the fiscal year 2022-23 budget.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:
This strategic planning meeting is not a project subject to CEQA, since it is a government administrative activity that will not impact the physical environment. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(5).) CEQA analysis will be done for individual projects that result from the adoption of the strategic plan.
NOTICE PROVIDED
All meeting noticing requirements were met.
3 of 81
CITY OF SAN MATEO
2 8
5 8
ATTACHMENTS
Att 1 - Draft Strategic Plan Fiscal Year 2022-23
STAFF CONTACT
Denise Garcia, Management Analyst I
[email protected]
(650) 522-7003
4 of 81
Fiscal Year 2022‐23 City Council Objectives
Council Focus
Area
Strategic
Initiatives # Council Objectives Priority Work Plan and Expected Deliverables for 2022‐23 Resources Re quired and Other Notes 1 Reconstruct all failed streets in San Mateo by 2026. A Complete construction on Smooth Streets Phase III and design for Phases IV and V. No additional resources required. 2 Address structural issues at the Marina Library A Complete stru ctural evaluation of Marina Branch Library; apply for $3M in grant funding for the improvements.
If successful in obtaining grant, the project will require 50% in matching funds ($1.5M). If grant application is not successful, $2.5M will be needed for improvements that will extend the life of the facility at least 10 years. Local funding could potentially come from Measure S.
3 Replace all remaining high voltage circuits to improve safety and reliability of the street light system A
Complete construction of Baywood High Voltage project. Award contract and complete construction of Phase 3 circuits (7 circuits total). Complete design of Phase 4 circuits (9 circuits total). Prepare for Phase 4 construction at the beginning of FY2023‐24.
No additional resources required.
4 Expedite efforts to improve the stormwater collection and storage system, including dredging the Marina lagoon A Conduct public outreach for a property based City‐wide stormwa ter fee for spring 2023; finalize fee study. No additional resou rces required. 5 Remove North Shoreview from FEMA Flood Assessment A Complete construction of the North Shoreview Levee Improvements and submit for Letter of Map Revision from FEMA to remove residential properties out of flood hazard zones. No additional resources required. 6 Fund and deliver the Clean Water Program A Continue construction of the WWTP Expansion Project, UFES, and other sewer collection system improvements. No additional resources required. 7 Meet the 100% trash reduction mandate A
Advertise, bid, award, and construct the Poplar Golf Course Trash Capture Device. Begin evaluation, selection, and installation of small trash capture devices. Commence implementation of enhanced trash inspections of private parcels with high and medium trash generating rates.
A third Environmental Compliance Inspector position is needed to conduct the required enhanced trash and business inspections and to implement organics recycling program ($149K). Funding Source: 75% Solid Waste Fund, 25% Sewer Fund. Position is same as one required for item #38.
8 Develop an anti‐littering trash and cigarette butt outreach campaign A Implement anti‐littering campaign, promote Team Up to Clean Up volunteer cleanup events and anti‐littering messaging on social media channels and website, promote and track individual and business participation. No additional resources required. 9 Implement a Green Fleet by 2030 A
Complete ordering of backlog of vehicles and decommission the compressed natural gas treatment system.
Develop a Green Fleet Transition Plan to identify charging needs and vehicle alternatives. Identify funding assistance programs (e.g., PG&E, Peninsula Clean Energy) and begin appropriate applications.
Substantial additional funding will likely be needed to plan, design, and construct charging infrastructure and backup power sources.
Additional vehicle costs will also be incurred. Transition Plan will provide high level capital cost estimates.
10 Expedite efforts to produce potable water from the Clean Water Program A Develop a CEQA ready preliminary design for options on advanced wastewater treatment for reservoir water augmentation and direct potable reuse with the SFPUC, SVCW/Redwood City, BAWSCA, Mid‐Pen, and Cal Water.
Effort is estimated at $1M for the next study phase. The City's contribution could be $150K (the rest would be covered by the other participating agencies). Funding Source: Sewer Fund
Stewardship of
Infrastructure
Reliability
Resilience
Environmental
Responsibility
1 5 of 81
Fiscal Year 2022‐23 City Council Objectives
Council Focus
Area
Strategic
Initiatives # Council Objectives Priority Work Plan and Expected Deliverables for 2022‐23 Resources Re quired and Other Notes 11 Implement traffic programs and improvements to enhance safety for all users by utilizing public input and data, such as the input that led to the Traffic Action Plans, to improve safety on neighborhood roadways and intersections.
A Complete the Local Roadway Safety Plan and identify funding for priority safety projects in neighborhoods.
Begin traffic calming policy update and Complete Streets Plan. No additional resources required. 12 Minimize impacts to residents from train horn noise at City at‐ grade crossings A
Finalize permit authorizations, complete design and initiate construction of railroad improvements and improvements within City Right‐of‐Way for 4th and 5th Avenue grade crossings. Construction completion anticipated December 2024. Begin evaluation of closure of other roadways necessary to qualify for quiet zone.
No additional resources required.
13 Proactively manage Citywide parking resources to optimize existing supply. A
Identify options to address residential parking needs in Downtown San Mateo (e.g. overnight residential permits). Complete Citywide TDM Ordinance to reduce parking demand through increased use and support of alternative modes with LEAP grant funds. Identify and apply for grant funding for CPID Zoning Code revisions to update parking requirements for development projects in Downtown San Mateo.
No additional resources required to complete work plan items.
Funding needed for Downtown residential parking strategy and implementation when options are identified.
14 Identify and implement measures to optimize vehicle traffic on major roadways, reduce green‐house gas emissions, and
improve safety for all modes of transportation.
A
Coordinate with SMCTA and SamTrans on multimodal design for US101/92 Direct Connector project (grant applications for feasibility and design). Obtain project approvals, finalize EIR, and begin design on US‐ 101/Peninsula Interchange project to improve safety in North Central near Poplar Avenue. Begin design on Norfolk/Fashion Island Blvd intersection and nearby improvements to address congestion on the 19th Ave/Fashion Island Blvd. corridor.
No additional resources required.
15 Implement bicycle and pedestrian projects and programs that address safety and align with adopted City plans A
Identify funding for construction for bicycle and pedestrian projects with completed design. Design ATP‐funded Delaware Street bicycle corridor project. Continue development of Complete Streets Plan. Adopt TOD Pedestrian Access Plan and identify funding options for top priority projects. Implement a Safe Routes to School (SRTS) program, including program planning and integration with local schools.
Part‐time SRTS coordinator and program funding required for activities ($79K). Costs include $49K for coordinator, $20K bike rodeo and vendors, $10K printing. Funding Source: General Fund 16 Implement Library Space Master Plan A Complete installation of new desk and other furniture. No additional resources required. 17 Provide no cost menstruation products at recreation centers A Identify whether current dispensers can allow for free product dispensing. If not, coordinate with Public Works to purchase and install new dispensers. Purchase new products when ordering Janitorial supplies.
Minor costs may be incurred if new dispensers are required and for the cost of the products. These costs can likely be absorbed within the existing operating budget.
18 Open a public bathroom in downtown A Identify options to open bathrooms in City facilities in the Downtown to the public including evaluating costs to clean and maintain and safety and security.
Will result in an increase of approximately $20K to the Downtown Cleaning contract to clean the restrooms twice daily. There will also be additional unknown costs associated with increased maintenance of plumbing, vandalism repair, and graffiti removal. Funding Source:
Fleet and Building Maintenance Fund
19 Create COVID‐19 children's programming A Anticipating return to full program and activity schedule. Recommend removal of item from the Strategic Plan.
Quality of Life
Neighborhoods
Community
Services
2 6 of 81
Fiscal Year 2022‐23 City Council Objectives
Council Focus
Area
Strategic
Initiatives # Council Objectives Priority Work Plan and Expected Deliverables for 2022‐23 Resources Re quired and Other Notes 20 Enhance and fund police accountability, transparency, and efficiency and expand on coordinating police services with mental health and social services
A
Continue to work with County of SM and Stanford University Gardner Center to measure effectiveness of mental health clinician program. Conduct regular QA to ensure compliance with requirements of the Racial and Identity Profiling Act (RIPA), and incorporate RIPA data onto police transparency webpage. Continue to reevaluate and enhance transparency webpage content. Implement other projects related to transparency and accountability including LIVE 911 and Cue‐Hit. Hold Study Session to discuss role of DEI Task Force in evaluating Police Transparency.
No additional resources required.
21 Adopt an ordinance that creates a buffer zone during large protests around clinics, like planned parenthood, so that accessibility remains possible.
A Conduct legal research and review ordinances enacted by other cities. Draft ordinance and present to Council. No additional resources required. 22 Implement projects and programs to enhance Police Traffic Unit services. A
Increase officers assigned to Traffic Unit to provide increased coverage. Adopt/implement MAIT (Major Accident Investigation TEAM) to enhance ability to investigate major accidents with neighboring agencies.
Conduct more targeted saturation details to address neighborhood complaints and problematic trends.
No additional resources required.
23 Strengthen implementation of existing red tag ordinance A Evaluate amendments to Municipal Code to include additional penalties for repeat offenders and modifications to the hearing procedures for currently available penalties. No additional resources required. 24 Leverage technology in support of safe and secure
neighborhoods A
Continue to seek opportunities to enhance neighborhood safety, including but not limited to enhancing the Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) program throughout the City. Work to secure analytical assistance to maximize effectiveness of technology efforts.
Requires approval of reallocation vacant position to analyst position ($33,000 requested for Council consideration on 3/7/22) and may require additional investment in technology to enhance/maximize existing resources. Recommendations for additional expenditures will be brought back to Council for consideration.
25 Maintain an ongoing community conversation on policing in San Mateo A
Continue to host Real Talk Sessions; Coffee with a cop (when Covid precautions permit); Virtual Ride Alongs; and other activities to promote communication. Continue successful Community Policing Academy program.
Develop academy curriculum in multiple languages and which targets specific demographic groups (i.e. youth, seniors).
No additional resources required.
26 Explore banning smoking in commercial areas B Implementation of this item will be deferred to a future fiscal year. No resource s will be dedicated to this item.
Quality of Life Public Health
and Safety
3 7 of 81
Fiscal Year 2022‐23 City Council Objectives
Council Focus
Area
Strategic
Initiatives # Council Objectives Priority Work Plan and Expected Deliverables for 2022‐23 Resources Re quired and Other Notes 27 Create a Diversity and Equity Task Force A Convene the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Task Force to address topics recommended by City Council.
Consider development of a Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Strategic Plan for the City.
Funding required for on‐going facilitation of Task Force and Strategic Plan Development ($50,000 from the General Fund).
28 Establish policies to decarbonize existing buildings and infrastructure and eliminate methane gas use by 2030. A Develop and adopt new building electrification reach codes for the 2023 Building Code cycle. No additional r esources required. 29 Implement the Climate Action Plan and work to reduce greenhouse gas emissions A
Continue implementation of new measures from the 2020 CAP including commercial energy efficiency benchmarking, expansion of EV infrastructure, and explore reach codes for the 2023 Building Code update related to electrification, Electric Vehicle readiness, and solar installations.
No additional resources required.
30 Study campaign finance reform policies, including voluntary expenditure limit, disclosure requirement for independent expenditures, and improving access for voter education
initiatives.
A Conduct legal research and review ordinances enacted by other cities. Draft ordinance and present to Council. No additional resources required. 31 Explore policies to strengthen AB1482 Tenant Protection Act A Outreach to tenant and landlord group to Identify issues related to AB1482 provisions. Survey other programs and propose revisions for Council consideration.
Dependent on Council direction, but will not likely require additional resources.
32 Explore ways to explore expanding youth participation and representation on Boards and Commissions A
Research practices in other jurisdictions that have youth representation on boards and commissions; analyze best practices; develop policy options for implementing enhanced youth participation in the City's decision making processes.
No additional resources required.
33 Evaluate leaf blower regulations A Analyze policy options and best practices from other jurisdictions with the Sustainability and Infrastructure Commission and bring forward recommendations for City Council consideration. No additional resources required. 34 Study landscaping water conservation policies A
Continue to implement implementation of SMMC Chapter 23.72 and conditions of approval requiring repair of damaged landscaping with drought tolerant plants, and return to Council with a study session to explore other potential landscaping water conservation policies.
Dependent on Council direction, but will not likely require additional resources.
35 Study fiscal impact of adopting an environmental, social, and corporate governance (ESG) provision for our City’s investment policy.
A Council study session in late spring to evaluate the financial impact to the City's investment portfolio by adding ESG provisions to its Investment Policy. No additional resources required. 36 Create a racial equity community art project A
The pedestrian B Street areas have been identified as potential locations and possible a street art idea introduced informationally to the Civic Arts Committee. Will utilize input from the City's taskforce members and the Civic Arts Committee to further explore the location opportunities and further develop ideas for themes and process.
Civic Arts Committee will manage art development plan with input from taskforce and the Art in Public Places Fund will be the financial resource.
37 Pursue development and preservation of housing to increase supply of affordable and workforce housing and leverage external funding sources for affordable housing.
A
Continue to look for opportunities to increase supply of affordable and workforce housing, including City surplus sites downtown and acquisition/rehab of existing housing. Continue to look for additional funding sources.
No additional resources required.
Framing the
Future
Social
Leadership
4 8 of 81
Fiscal Year 2022‐23 City Council Objectives
Council Focus
Area
Strategic
Initiatives # Council Objectives Priority Work Plan and Expected Deliverables for 2022‐23 Resources Re quired and Other Notes 38 Implement mandates for composting in multi‐family dwellings A Continue to work with South Bayside Waste Management Authority (SBWMA), San Mateo County Office of Sustainability (County OOS), and city staff to implement requirements for SB1383 outreach, organic recycling programs, tracking and enforcement, edible food recovery program, and organic materials procurement.
A third Environmental Compliance Inspector position is needed to implement organics recycling program, in additional to enhanced trash and business inspections ($149K). Funding Sources: 75% Solid Waste Fund, 25% Sewer Enterprise. Position is the same as the one required for Item #7.
39 Analyze density minimums for mixed‐use projects and update the Density Bonus and Community Benefits policies. A
Develop a combined Community Benefits and Density Bonus Program, with clear thresholds, parameters, and options for developers depending on the project type. Evaluate the minimum requirements for residential uses in Mixed‐Use Projects and propose ordinance amendments.
Housing/economic policy consultant needed, with an estimated cost of up to $100K to be covered at least in part by SB2/LEAP grant funds. 40 Consider the adoption of wage theft protections C Staff will continue to monitor the adoption and implementation of wage theft protections in other municipalities and to include information about wage theft enforcement in the annual minimum wage mailing. No resources will be dedicated to this item. 41 Implement the Central Park Master Plan A Initiate construction drawings for Fallen Heroes Memorial and new playground; complete fundraising for the Fallen Heroes Memorial. No additional resources required. 42 Explore whether the City should adopt an ordinance to zone parcels for up to 10 units of residential density per parcel if the parcel is located in a transit‐rich area or an urban infill site (SB10).
A Conduct GIS mapping, and present analysis and recommendations to the City Council for further direction through a study session. No additional resources required. 43 Update the General Plan, including developing public benefits policy for increased height areas, urban agriculture policies, and evaluating affordable housing incentives/zoning allowances for properties with adjacent lots, such as those owned by faith‐ based organizations
A
Public outreach and engagement on drafting the goals, policies and actions for all elements in the General Plan will be initiated, followed by preparation of the draft General Plan. Concurrently, preparation of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) will be underway. Polices related to community benefits, urban agriculture and housing on properties owned by faith based organizations will be evaluated as part of this process.
No additional resources required.
44 Develop a funding strategy for existing infrastructure plans A Continue to seek grant opportunities for projects identified in existing master plans. Continue to evaluate implementation of a stormwater enterprise and associated fee.
Grant writing consulting services required ($30K). Funding Source:
Various
Framing the
Future
Strategic
Planning
5 9 of 81
Fiscal Year 2022‐23 City Council Objectives
Council Focus
Area
Strategic
Initiatives # Council Objectives Priority Work Plan and Expected Deliverables for 2022‐23 Resources Re quired and Other Notes 45 Review Municipal Code provisions related to development review process and identify opportunities for streamlining A CDD: Continue to revise known code errors/ambiguities, reevaluate application/implementation of existing codes, continue to work on major code changes already underway, plan for critical substantive code changes not already underway for FY 2022‐23. Implement more staff trainings to ensure codes are applied correctly and consistently, and accurate, clear, and consistent Code information is provided to customers. Update CDD website to provide more easily accessible Code/Code update information to customers.
Public Works: Retain consultant to begin the development of engineering standard details and specifications.
Identify Municipal Code sections that require updating to reflect new standards. Subsequent to development of the standards, begin preparation of Developer Guidelines for work in the right of way.
Consulting services required for Developer Guidelines and municipal code revisions ($100K) and for updates to standard details and specifications ($200K). Funding Source: Construction Services Fund and Capital Improvement Program Fund.
46 Plan for the downtown grade separations and long‐term train corridor improvements B Evaluate potential grant opportunities for funding grade separation studies. When funding is identified, develop RFP/RFQ to solicit consultant services for development of the Downtown Grade Separation Plan.
Grant writing consulting services required ($30K). Funding Source:
General Fund. Staff recommends Priority should be changed to A since it is being resourced.
47 Create additional parking supply for Downtown San Mateo A Complete construction of the new downtown parking garage at 5th and Railroad. Continue to identify options for shared parking agreements with private development projects to create additional public parking supply. No additional resources required. 48 Enhance the customer experience Downtown and in other commercial districts A Transition from the Temporary Outdoor Dining program to long‐term parklet program, host Downtown festivals (if allowed by COVID), and continue to monitor Downtown cleanliness. No additional resources required. 49 Design and implement capital improvements for permanent street closure. A Design and initiate construction on capital improvements for t he permanent street closures/pedestrian malls.
An appropriation will be required to fund the capital project implementation. The amount required has not yet been determined but is estimated to be $600,000.
50 Evaluate Downtown parking and transit incentive programs for employees A
Continue implementation of the low‐income parking permit program in Downtown parking garages. Evaluate other opportunities to provide transportation incentives through coordination with regional partners (e.g.
Commute.org and/or Caltrain).
No additional resources required.
51 Increase education and resources to small businesses on ADA compliance A Evaluate options to support small businesses on ADA Compliance and bring policy/program options to City Council for consideration.
An additional appropriation may be required to provide direct support to businesses on ADA compliance. The amount to be determined by City Council.
52 Explore options to discourage commercial vacancies B Staff to present policy options to City Council consideration at future Council meeting. Depending on City Council direction will either convert to an A or be removed from list.
53 Explore the establishment of Property‐Based Improvement Districts (PBIDs) B Continue to gauge interest from Downtown property owners. No ad ditional resources required. 54 Eliminate the City’s unfunded pension and Other Public Employee Benefits (OPEB) liabilities by no later than 2050 A Continue to pay the full annual required contribution (ARC) for pension and OPEB. Develop updated strategies to address growing pension liability. No additional resources required. 55 Adopt a Retail Cannabis Ordinance with restrictions around schools and significant public benefits including license fees and safety standards.
A
Study session(s) with Council to explore legal options, receive policy direction. Draft ordinances: (1) Zoning amendment ‐ land use permit and allowed zones; (2) regulatory permit framework to screen and select applicants.
Outside consulting assistance estimated to cost $200,000 will be needed.
56 Develop portfolio options for sustained enhanced revenues A If there is community support for and Council direction to move forward with a revenue measure, draft an ordinance to append/amend the SMMC and a resolution for the ballot measure.
The cost for including this in the voter guide for the next election cycle is projected to be less than $10K.
Economic
Vitality
Commercial/
Retail Districts
Financial
Sustainability
6 10 of 81
CITY OF SAN MATEO
2 8
6 7
CITY OF SAN MATEO
Agenda Report
City Hall
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo CA 94403
www.cityofsanmateo.org
Agenda Number: 2 Section Name: STUDY SESSION File ID: 22-5822 TO: City Council
FROM: Drew Corbett, City Manager
PREPARED BY: City Manager's Office
MEETING DATE: March 07, 2022
SUBJECT:
2022 Community Survey Results
RECOMMENDATION:
Receive an informational report about the results of the City's Community Survey, conducted between late January and early February 2022 by True North Research.
BACKGROUND:
In the City’s ongoing efforts to engage the public and be responsive to the community’s interests, the City hired True North Research to conduct its second statistically-reliable survey about community opinions on a variety of topics. An interdepartmental team of staff worked with True North Research to develop a comprehensive survey on resident opinions about satisfaction with city services, quality of life, and communication. The survey also included General Plan Update-related questions regarding preferences for planning for future growth and circulation improvements.
True North Research was hired in 2020 to conduct the City's first survey and was again selected as the consultant for this work through a competitive request for proposal process. Staff selected True North based on their years of experience conducting surveys for California municipalities, proposed methodology, and high success rate in predicting ballot measure outcomes. True North Research President Dr. Timothy McLarney led the project and will present the findings of his independent research during the Council meeting. True North Research authored a robust report analyzing the survey results, which is included as Attachment 1.
This survey was issued between January 21 and February 2, 2022 in English and Spanish, with 775 residents participating via phone and online. The study employed a methodology that would provide statistically-reliable results by surveying a random sample of residents who represent San Mateo’s demographics. The survey has an estimated maximum statistical margin of error of +/- 3.5% at the 95% confidence level. As with any survey, this one provides a snapshot of participants' opinions at the time it was issued.
Purpose of the Community Survey
The City regularly hears from members of the public about their individual feedback regarding the City’s performance and policies. For the most part, the City’s outreach mechanisms rely on residents who are motivated to participate in the feedback process. Residents willing to initiate feedback tend to be those who are either very pleased or very displeased with a particular service or policy. Often, this results in a self-selection bias and feedback that’s not necessarily representative of the City’s resident population as a whole.
Similar to many other cities, San Mateo sought to conduct a survey that would avoid the self-selection bias and provide a statistically-reliable understanding of residents’ satisfaction, priorities and concerns, as they relate to City services, quality of life and policies. It is the City's intent to conduct statistically-reliable surveys every two years to benchmark community 11 of 81
CITY OF SAN MATEO
2 8
6 7
sentiment on City services and quality of life, while incorporating timely policy-related questions. This information can be used to make strategic decisions in a variety of areas including service improvements, tracking internal performance, budgeting and community outreach.
In addition to gauging opinions about municipal services and quality of life, the Council has also expressed an interest in including questions that could help inform the General Plan Update process. The General Plan 2040 Update is a long-range planning process, and the timing of this survey aligned with the alternatives analysis phase. The survey results can be used to help inform decisions on the preferred land use and circulation scenarios for the General Plan Update, and the policies and programs in the draft Housing Element, which will be considered by the City Council in the coming months.
This survey covered a broad variety of topics and it was important to keep it at a reasonable length to encourage completion by selected participants. It is important to note that this survey was just one of many opportunities to collect community feedback on the General Plan 2040 update. The City has also hosted numerous community workshops, formal public meetings and an online survey that provided opportunities to go into greater depth on the alternatives phase. This statistical survey is meant to provide decision makers insights into the community’s general priorities when planning for the future. It is not meant to be used as the sole factor when evaluating preferred land use and circulation alternatives.
Along with other forms of input, the results of this statistically-significant Community Survey will be incorporated into the alternatives evaluation, which will be considered during the March 22nd Planning Commission meeting and the April 18th City Council meeting.
BUDGET IMPACT:
The Community Survey cost $27,900 to complete and was paid for by current budget allocations within the Community Development Department.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:
This informational report regarding the 2022 Community Survey is not a project subject to CEQA, because the City Council is not taking action at this time. (Public Resources Code Section 21065.)
NOTICE PROVIDED
All meeting noticing requirements were met.
ATTACHMENTS
Att 1 - 2022 Community Survey Opinion Report
STAFF CONTACT
Samantha Weigel, Communications Manager
[email protected]
(650) 522-7005
12 of 81
13 of 81
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
14 of 81
Table of Contents
iCity of San Mateo True No rth Research, Inc. © 2022
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
T ABLE OF C ONTENTS
Table of Contents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii List of Figures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Purpose of Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Overview of Methodology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Statistical Significance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Organization of Report. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Disclaimer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 About True North . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Just the Facts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Quality of Life. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 City Services. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Housing & Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Communications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Quality of Life . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Overall Quality of Life. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Question 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 What do You Like Most About Living in San Mateo?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Question 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 What Should Be Changed? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Question 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 City Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Overall Satisfaction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Question 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Specific Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Question 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Differentiators of Opinion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 housing & Land Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Affordable Housing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Question 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Factors to Prioritize when Planning Housing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Question 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Building Height & Density Trade-offs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Question 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Question 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Frequency of Mode Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Question 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Strategies to Reduce Future Congestion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Question 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Active Transportation Trade-Offs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Question 13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Communications. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Overall Satisfaction With Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Question 14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Topics of Interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Question 15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Question 16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 15 of 81
Table of Contents
iiCity of San Mateo True No rth Research, Inc. © 2022
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Sources of Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Question 17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Communication Preferences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Question 18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Background & Demographics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Questionnaire Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Programming, Pre-Test & Translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Sample, Recruiting & Data Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Margin of Error due to Sampling. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Data Processing & Weighting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Rounding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Questionnaire & Toplines. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 16 of 81
List of Tables
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 iii
City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
L IST OF T ABLES
Table 1 Rating City of San Mateo by Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Table 2 Rating City of San Mateo by Years in San Mateo & Gender (Showing % Excellent & Good) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Table 3 Rating City of San Mateo by Age (Showing % Excellent & Good) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Table 4 Rating City of San Mateo by Child in Hsld & Adult Over 65 in Hsld (Showing % Excellent & Good) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Table 5 Rating City of San Mateo by Ethnicity & Home Ownership Status (Showing % Excellent & Good) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Table 6 Like Most About San Mateo by Study Year. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Table 7 Changes to Improve City by Study Year. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Table 8 Satisfaction With City Services by Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Table 9 Satisfaction With City Services by Overall Sa tisfaction With City . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Table 10 Amount of Affordable Housing in San Mateo by Years in San Mateo, Adult Over 65 in Hsld & Survey Language (Showing % Too Little) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Table 11 Amount of Affordable Housing in San Mateo by Age (Showing % Too Little). . . . . . 21 Table 12 Amount of Affordable Housing in San Mateo by Gender, Child in Hsld & Home Ownership Status (Showing % Too Little) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Table 13 Importance of Issues of City Deve lopment by Years in San Mateo & Overall Satisfaction (Showing % Extremely Important) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Table 14 Importance of Issues of City De velopment by Age (Showing % Extremely Important) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Table 15 Importance of Issues of City Develo pment by Child in Hsld, Adult Over 65 in Hsld & Survey Language (Showing % Extremely Important) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Table 16 Importance of Issues of City De velopment by Ethnicity & Home Ownership Status (Showing % Extremely Important) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Table 17 Strategies to Reduce Traffic by Ye ars in San Mateo & Gender (Showing % High Priority). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Table 18 Strategies to Reduce Traffic by Age (Showing % High Priority) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Table 19 Strategies to Reduce Traffic by Child in Hsld, Adult Over 65 in Hsld & Survey Language (Showing % High Priority). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Table 20 Strategies to Reduce Traffic by Ethnicity & Home Ownership Status (Showing % High Priority) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Table 21 Effectiveness of Communication Methods by Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Table 22 Effectiveness of Communication Methods by Age (Showing % Very Effective). . . . . 44 Table 23 Effectiveness of Communication Methods by Ethnicity & Overall Satisfaction (Showing % Very Effective). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Table 24 Effectiveness of Communication Methods by Child in Hsld, Satisfaction With Communication & Survey Language (Showing % Very Effective)45 Table 25 Demographics of Sample by Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 17 of 81
List of Figures
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 iv
City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
L IST OF F IGURES
Figure 1 Rating City of San Mateo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Figure 2 Like Most About San Mateo. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Figure 3 Changes to Improve City. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Figure 4 Overall Satisfaction by Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Figure 5 Overall Satisfaction by Years in San Mate o, Child in Hsld & Survey Language. . . . . 16 Figure 6 Overall Satisfaction by Age & Gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Figure 7 Overall Satisfaction by Ethnicity, Home Ownership Status & Adult Over 65 in Hsld . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Figure 8 Satisfaction With City Services. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Figure 9 Amount of Affordable Housing in San Mateo by Study Year. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Figure 10 Importance of Issues of City Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Figure 11 Support Concentrating Future Housing in Higher Density Buildings. . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Figure 12 Support Concentrating Future Housing in Higher Density Buildings up to 8 stories by Years in San Mateo & Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Figure 13 Support Concentrating Future Housing in Higher Density Buildings up to 8 Stories by Child in Hsld, Anticipated Years in San Mateo & Adult Over 65 in Hsld . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Figure 14 Support Concentrating Future Housing in Higher Density Buildings up to 8 Stories by Ethnicity, Home Ownership Status & Survey Language. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Figure 15 Frequency of Mode Use Within City . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Figure 16 Frequency of Mode Use Within City by Over all, Age & Overall Satisfaction . . . . . . 30 Figure 17 Frequency of Mode Use Within City by Empl oyment Status & Ethnicity. . . . . . . . . . 30 Figure 18 Strategies to Reduce Traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Figure 19 Support Adding Bike Lanes, Widening Sidewal ks in San Mateo. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Figure 20 Support Adding Bike Lanes, Widenin g Sidewalks in San Mateo by Years in San Mateo & Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Figure 21 Support Adding Bike Lanes, Widening Sidewalks in San Mateo by Child in Hsld & Anticipated Years in San Mateo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Figure 22 Support Adding Bike Lanes, Widen ing Sidewalks in San Mateo by Ethnicity, Home Ownership Status & Survey Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Figure 23 Support Adding Bike Lanes, Widen ing Sidewalks in San Mateo by Employment Status & Work Commute Status. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Figure 24 Support Adding Bike Lanes, Widen ing Sidewalks in San Mateo by Traveling Within City at Least 1x Per Week & Adult Over 65 In Hsld . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Figure 25 Satisfaction With Communication by Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Figure 26 Satisfaction With Communication by Years in San Mateo, Child in Hsld & Adult Over 65 in Hsld. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Figure 27 Satisfaction With Communication by Age & Ge nder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Figure 28 Satisfaction With Communication by Ethnicity, Overall Satisfaction, Home Ownership Status & Survey Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Figure 29 Interested in Receiving More Information Abou t City. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Figure 30 Interested in Receiving More Information About City by Years in San Mateo, Child in Hsld & Adult Over 65 in Hsld . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Figure 31 Interested in Receiving More Information About City by Age & Gender . . . . . . . . . 40 Figure 32 Interested in Receiving More Information About City by Ethnicity, Overall Satisfaction, Home Ownership Status & Survey Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Figure 33 Information Topics Desired. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Figure 34 Information Sources by Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Figure 35 Information Sources by Study Year by Overall, Age & Satisfaction With Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Figure 36 Information Sources by Study Year by Ethnicity, Child in Hsld & Adult Over 65 in Hsld . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 18 of 81
List of Figures
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 vCity of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Figure 37 Information Sources by Study Year by Years in San Mateo, Overall Satisfaction & Survey Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Figure 38 Effectiveness of Communication Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Figure 39 Maximum Margin of Error . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 19 of 81
Introduction
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 1
City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
I NTRODUCTION
Incorporated in 1894, the City of San Mateo encompasses 15.9 square miles in the San Francisco Bay Area and is currently home to an estimated 105,661 residents.1 One of only two charter cit- ies in San Mateo County, the City is governed by a five-member City Council, while the City’s daily operations are managed by a dedicated team of employees that provide a full suite of ser- vices to residents and the local business community.
To monitor its progress in meeting residents’ needs, the City engages residents on a daily basis and receives periodic subjective feedback regarding its perform ance and policies. Although these informal feedback mechanisms are a valuable source of informatio n for the City in that they provide timely and accurate information about the opinions of specific residents, it is important to recognize that they do not necessa rily provide an accurate picture of the commu- nity as a whole. For the most part, informal feedback mechanisms rely on the resident to initiate feedback, which creates a self-selection bias. Th e City receives feedback only from those resi- dents who are motivated enough to initiate the feedback proce ss. Because these residents tend to be those who are either very pleased or very displeased with a particular service or policy, their collective opinions are not necessarily repres entative of the City’s resident population as a whole.
PURPOSE OF STUDY The motivation for the current st udy was to design and employ a methodology that would avoid the self-selection bias noted above and thereby provide the City with a statistically reliable understanding of its residents’ satisfaction, priorities, opinions, and concerns as they relate to city services, facilit ies, and policies. Ultimately, the survey results and analyses presented in this report will provide Council and staff with information that can be used to make sound, strategic decisions in a vari ety of areas including service improvements and enhancements, measuring and tr acking internal performance, budgeting, and community out- reach.
In addition to gathering perfo rmance-related feedback, the surv ey was also designed to help inform the City’s General Plan update. Like most California cities, the City of San Mateo relies on its General Plan to guide decisions with respect to land use, development, mobility, sustainabil- ity, and related policy matters. Although the City Council, staff, and co nsultants have played an important role in gathering data and organizing the update process, it was the desire of the City that the citizens of San Mateo be the true inspiration for the Plan. Accordingly, a portion of the survey was dedicated to understanding San Mateo residents’ needs and opinions as they relate to issues that will be addressed in the General Plan, with a focus on mobility and how best to plan for future housing as required by State law.
To assist in this effort, the City selected True North Research to design the research plan and conduct the survey. Broadly defined, the survey was designed to:
• Identify key issues of importance for residents, as well as their perceptions of the quality of life in San Mateo;
1. US Census esti mate, April 2020.
20 of 81
Introduction
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 2City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
• Measure residents’ overall satisfaction with th e City’s efforts to provide municipal services, and their satisfaction with a variety of specific services; • Gather opinions on General Plan topics with a focus on mobility and housing; • Determine satisfaction with (and perceived ef fectiveness of) the City’s communication with residents; and
• Collect additional background and demographic data that are relevant to understanding res- idents’ perceptions, needs, and interests.
OVERVIEW OF METHODOLOGY A full description of the methodology used for this study is included later in this report (see Methodology o n p a g e 4 7 ) . 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 775 adults who reside in the City of San Mateo. The survey followed a mixed-method design that employed multiple recruiting methods (mailed letters, email, text, and telephone) and multiple data collection methods (telephone and online). Admin- istered in English and Spanish between January 21 and February 2, 2022, the average interview lasted 18 minutes.
STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE This is not the first statistically reliable community survey conducted for the City of San Mateo. A similar study was conducted by True North for the City in 2020, and many of the questions included in th e 2022 survey were purpos ely tracked from the prior survey. Because there is a natural interest in tracking the City’s performance in meeting the evolving needs of its residents, where appropriate the results of the current study are compared with the results of identical questions included in the 2020 survey. In su ch cases, True North conducted the appropriate tests of statistical sign ificance to identify ch anges that likely reflect actual changes in public opinion between the prior survey (2020) and the current (2022), as opposed to being due to chance associated with selecting two samples independently and at ran- dom. Differences between the two studies are identified as statistically significant if we can be 95% confident that the differences reflect an actual change in public opinion between the two studies. Statistically significant differences with in response categories over time are denoted by the † symbol which appears in the figure next to the appropriate response value for 2022.
ORGANIZATION OF REPORT This report is designed to me et the needs of readers who prefer a summary of the findings as well as those who are interested in the details of the results.
For those who seek an overview of the findings, the sections titled Just the Facts and Conclusions are for you. They provide a summary of the most important factual findings of the survey in bul- let-point format and a discussion of their implications. For the interested reader, this section is followed by a more detailed question-by-question discussion of the resu lts from the survey by topic area (see Table of Contents), as well as a description of the methodology employed for col- lecting and analyzing the data. And, for the truly ambitious re ader, the questionnaire used for the interviews is contained at the back of this report (see Questionnaire & Toplines on page 50), and a complete set of crosstabulations for the survey results is contained in Appendix A.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS True North thanks the City of San Mateo 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. 21 of 81
Introduction
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 3City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
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 Mateo. 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. 22 of 81
Just the Facts
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 4
City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
J UST THE F ACTS
The following is an outline of the main factual findings from the survey. For the reader’s conve- nience, we have organized the findings according to the section titles us ed in the body of this report. Thus, to learn more about a particular finding, simply turn to the appropriate report sec- tion.
QUALITY OF LIFE
• San Mateo residents provided the most positive ratings for the overall quality of life in the City (85% excellent or good), San Mateo as a place to shop and dine (77%), and as a place to raise a family (68%).
• Although still rated favorably by over half of respondents, residents provided somewhat softer ratings for San Mateo as a place to work (62%) and as a place to recreate (59%). • Just over one-third of residents provided a favorable rating for San Mateo as a place to retire (37%), although approximately 13% held no opinion or did not provide a rating. • When asked what they like most about living in the City of San Mateo that city government should make sure to preserve in the future, residents were most apt to cite parks and recre- ation facilities and opportunities (24%), followed by shopping and dining opportunities (16%), proximity to surrounding cities/areas (12%), and the open/green spaces and moun- tains (12%). Other specific attributes that we re mentioned by at least 5% of respondents included San Mateo’s diversity of business, cult ures, and activities (9%), small town atmo- sphere (8%), low crime rate/pub lic safety (7%), downtown ar ea (7%), and friendly people/ neighbors (6%).
• When residents were asked to indicate the one thing city government could change to make San Mateo a better place to live, now and in th e future, providing more affordable housing was the most common (19%), followed by limitin g growth and preserving open space (13%), improving public safety/more police presence (8%), and improving and maintaining infra- structure, streets and roads (7%).
CITY SERVICES
• Close to three-quarters (74%) of San Mateo resi dents indicated they were either very (25%) or somewhat (49%) satisfied with the City’s ef forts to provide municipal services. Approxi- mately 16% were very or somewhat dissatisfied, whereas 10% were unsure or unwilling to share their opinion.
• Residents were asked to rate their satisfaction with 18 specific services provided by the City of San Mateo. Although the majority of residents surveyed were satisfied with 13 of the 16 services tested, they were most satisfied with the City’s efforts to pr ovide fire protection, prevention, and emergency medical services (9 4% very or somewhat satisfied), followed by maintain public buildings and facilities like City Hall, libraries, and parking garages (91%), provide parks, sports fields, and recreation facilities (87%), provide paths and trails for walk- ing, jogging, and running (82%), and provide a variety of recreation programs for all ages (81%).
• At the other end of the spectrum, respondents were less satisfied with the City’s efforts to facilitate the creation of affordable hous ing (33%), address homelessness (42%), manage traffic congestion (48%), and maintain local streets and roads (54%). 23 of 81
Just the Facts
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 5City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
HOUSING & LAND USE
• Approximately two-thirds of residents indicated that there is currently too little housing that is affordable for middle-income (67%) and low-income families (64%) in the City of San Mateo.
• When asked to prioritize among a list of factors the City could consider as it plans for addi- tional housing units as required by state law, ensuring adequate water supplies (98% at least somewhat important) was viewed as the most important factor, followed by preserving open space and creating new park lands (97%), minimizing vehicle trips and traffic congestion (95%), creating pedestrian-friendly areas that encourage people to walk rather than drive (94%), and minimizing pollution and greenhouse gas emissions (93%). • When compared to the other items tested, re spondents indicated that keeping building heights low (68%) and minimizing the number of new units added to single-family neighbor- hoods (68%) were the least important when planning for future housing in the City. • When presented with the opportun ity to reserve more land for parks, recreation areas, and community amenities and minimize change to existing neighborhoods, 63% of San Mateo residents indicated they would support concentrating new hous ing in higher-density build- ings downtown and near transit up to 12 stories. A higher percentage (68%) indicated they would support buildings up to eight stories.
MOBILITY
• The vast majority of residents (87%) indicat ed they use a personal vehicle on a weekly basis when traveling within the City of San Mateo, while 45% reported that they walk from their home to a local store or restaurant at least once per week. Less than one-in-five respondents indicated that they ride a bicycle or scooter (19% ), use public transit su ch as a bus or train (8%), or use Uber, Lyft, or a taxi (4%) at least once per week when traveling within the City of San Mateo.
• Among strategies the City could consider to reduce vehicle trips and mitigate growth- induced congestion in the future, improving safe routes to school to encourage more kids to walk and bike to school (84% high or medium priority) and improving sidewalks, crosswalks, pedestrian safety, signs and infrastructure to encourage more walking (84%) were widely viewed as the top priorities, followed by im proving bus and shuttl e services with more routes and more frequent service within San Mateo and to neighboring areas (71%), provid- ing financial incentives to encourage greate r use of transit use (64%), and expanding the network of dedicated bike lanes and shared lanes to encourage more bicycling (63%). • Sixty-four percent (64%) of respondents indica ted they generally support adding bike lanes and widening sidewalks in San Mateo, even if it requires removing a vehicle lane or parking spaces in certain locations.
COMMUNICATIONS
• Overall, 62% of respondents indicated they were satisfied with the City’s efforts to communi- cate with residents through newsletters, the Internet, social medi a, and other means in 2022. The remaining respondents were either dissatisfied with the City’s efforts in this respect (25%) or unsure of their opinion (13%).
• Thirty percent (30%) of respondents indicated the were interested in receiving more informa- tion from the City.
24 of 81
Just the Facts
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 6City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
• The most commonly mentioned topics of interest were information about the City’s future commercial and residential development plans ( 31%), affordable housing (13%), street/road and infrastructure maintenance (13%), environmental issues (8%), public transportation (7%), public safety/crime statistics (7%), and recreation programs (7%). • When asked to identify the information sources they currently use most often for news, information, and programming in San Mateo, the most frequently cited sources were the San Mateo Daily Journal and email notifications from the City, both mentioned by 30% of respon- dents. These sources were followed by letters, postcards, flyers, or brochures mailed to the home from the City (24%), Nextdoor (23%), the Internet not including the City’s site (18%), the City’s website (15%), and friends/family/associates/word of mouth (15%). • Respondents indicated that email was the most effective method for the City to communi- cate with them (84% very or somewhat effective), followed by postcards, letters, and news- letters mailed to the home (i.e., direct mail, 78%), social media like Facebook, Twitter, and Nextdoor (78%), and the City’s website (72%).
• Townhall meetings (52%), television programs (41%), and advertisements in local papers (40%) were generally viewed by residents as less effective ways for the City to communicate with them.
25 of 81
Conclusions
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 7
City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
C ONCLUSIONS
As noted in the Introduction, this study was designed to provide the City of San Mateo with a sta- tistically reliable understanding of its residents’ satisfaction, opinions, and priorities as they relate to city services, facilities and policies, as well as topics pertinent to the General Plan update. Whereas subsequent sections of this report are devoted to conveying the detailed results of the survey, in this section we attempt to ‘see the forest through the trees’ and note how the collective results of the survey answer some of the key questions that motivated the research.
How well is the City per-
forming in meeting the
needs of San Mateo resi-
dents?
The two years leading up to the 2022 Community Opinion Survey were punctuated by difficult and dramatic events in San Mateo. The coronavi- rus pandemic that arrived in early 2020 has taken lives, threatened liveli- hoods, and forced dramatic changes in the way residents live, work, socialize, and play. Non-essential businesses were shuttered for weeks or months at a time to curb the spread of COVID-19, and the City’s oper- ations were also adjusted to protec t public health an d adhere to State and County guidelines. Services that could be effectively moved to an online format were able to continue in that form, whereas other pro- grams and services were modified, curt ailed, or canceled to protect the safety of the public and City employ ees. Many city facilities were also closed periodically to prevent the spread of COVID-19, including City Hall.
Against this turbulent backdrop, residents’ opinions of their community and city government remained positive. Approximately three-quarters of residents (74%) indicated they were satisfied with the City’s overall efforts to provide municipal services, whereas just 16% were dissatisfied and the remaining 10% were unsure or did not provide a response. The percentage of respondents who indica ted they were very satisfied with the City’s overall performance also increased significantly between 2020 and 2022, and satisfaction was wi despread across resident subgroups (see Overall Satisfaction on page 15).
The high level of satisfaction expr essed with the City’s performance in general was also mirrored in residents’ assessments of the City’s perfor- mance in providing specific services, with the highest satisfaction scores assigned to the City’s efforts to provide fire protection, prevention, and emergency medical services, maintain public buildings and facilities like City Hall, libraries, and parking garages, provide parks, sports fields, and recreation facilities, provide paths and trails for walking, jogging, and running, and provide a variety of re creation programs for all ages (see Specific Services on page 17).
The City’s performance in providing municipal services has contributed to a high quality of life for residents. Indeed, the vast majority of resi- dents surveyed in 2022 (85%) rated the quality of life in the City of San Mateo as excellent or good, a statistically significant increase of 4% when 26 of 81
Conclusions
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 8City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
compared to 2020. This sentiment was also widespread, with the per- centage who rated the quality of life as excellent or good exceeding 75% across every identified resident subgroup (see Overall Quality of Life on page 10). When asked in an open-e nded manner to describe the things they value most about living in San Mateo that they would like to pre- serve in the future, parks and recrea tion facilities and opportunities topped the list, followed by shopping and dining opportunities, proxim- ity to surrounding cities/areas, an d the open/green spaces and moun- tains (see What do You Like Most About Living in San Mateo? on page 11).
Where should the City
focus its efforts in the
future?
In addition to measuring the City’s current performance, a key goal of this study is to look forward and identify opportunities to adjust ser- vices, improve facilities, and/or refine communications strategies to best meet the community’s evolving needs and expectations. Although resi- dent satisfaction in San Mateo is generally high (see above), there is always room for improvement. Belo w we note some of the areas that present the best opportunities in this regard.
Considering respondents’ verbatim answers regarding what they feel city government could do to make San Mateo a better place to live (see What Should Be Changed? on page 13) and the levels of satisfaction found in specific service areas (see Specific Services on page 17), the top priorities are: facilitating the creation of more affordable housing, limiting growth/preserving open space, ad dressing homelessness, managing traffic congestion, maintaining local streets and roads, improving public safety, and improving city-resident communication.
With the recommendation that the City focus on these areas, it is equally important to stress that when it come s to improving satisfaction in ser- vice areas, the appropriate strategy is often a combination of better com- munication and actual service improvements. It may be, for example, that many residents are simply not aware of the City’s ongoing infra- structure improvement effo rts, or the limits of what a city can do to address homelessness. Choosing the ap propriate balance of actual ser- vice improvements and efforts to ra ise awareness on these matters will be a key to maintaining and improving the community’s overall satisfac- tion in the short- and long-term.
What criteria do resi-
dents want the City to
prioritize when plan-
ning for future housing?
Affordable housing (or lack thereof) has become a hot topic in many communities, increasing in saliency during the past few years along with rising rents and home prices. When asked directly, most respondents felt there was too little affordable housing (of any type) in San Mateo, and increasing the availability of affordable housing was the most frequently mentioned change that residents indicated would make San Mateo a bet- ter place to live, now and in the future.
27 of 81
Conclusions
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 9City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
When asked to rate various criteria the City could consider as it explores different ways that it could accommodate future housing, factors related to environmental sustainability tended to rise to the top of the list among survey respondents. Of the 18 factors tested, ensuring adequate water supplies was viewed as the most important factor, followed by pre- serving open space and creating ne w park lands, minimizing vehicle trips and traffic congestion, creati ng pedestrian-friendly areas that encourage people to walk rather than drive, and minimizing pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. When compared to the other factors tested, respondents indicated that keeping building heights low and minimizing the number of new unit s added to single-family neighbor- hoods were the least important when planning for future housing in the City (see Factors to Prioritize when Planning Housing on page 21).
The desire to preserve land for parks and community spaces was also evident in residents’ willingness to accept taller, high-density housing up to 12 stories (64%) or eight stories (68%) downtown and near transit if it would reserve more land for parks, recreation areas, and community amenities while also minimizing the impacts of new housing in existing neighborhoods (see Building Height & Density Trade-offs on page 26).
What actions do resi-
dents prioritize for mini-
mizing vehicle trips and
congestion in the future?
One of the key challenges when pl anning for popula tion growth and future housing is the issue of mobility. Put simply, adding housing and people to a community will naturally lead to more congestion and decreased mobility unless improvements are made to the transportation system to accommodate the additi onal demand and/or vehicle demand is mitigated through use of altern ative modes. Accordingly, the survey explored the types of actions and st rategies residents would prioritize for minimizing growth-induced congestion in the future.
Improving safe routes to school to encourage more kids to walk and bike to school (84% high or medium priority) and improving sidewalks, cross- walks, pedestrian safety, signs and infrastructure to encourage more walking (84%) were widely viewed as the top priorities among the actions tested, followed by improving bus and shuttle services with more routes and more frequent service within Sa n Mateo and to neighboring areas (71%), providing financial incentives to encourage greater use of transit use (64%), and expanding the network of dedicated bike lanes and shared lanes to encourage more bicycling (63%). It is worth noting, more- over, that 64% of respondents indi cated they generally support adding bike lanes and widening sidewalks in San Mateo, even if it requires removing a vehicle lane or parking spaces in certain locations (see Mobil- ity on page 29).
28 of 81
Quality of Life
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 10
City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Q UALITY OF L IFE
The opening series of questions in the survey was designed to assess residents’ top of mind per- ceptions about the quality of life in San Mateo, what they would most like to preserve about the City, as well as ways to improve the quality of life in San Mateo.
OVERALL QUALITY OF LIFE At the outset of the intervi ew, respondents were asked to rate the City of San Mateo on a number of key di mensions—including overall quality of life, as a place to raise a family, and as a place to work—u sing a five-point scale of excellent, good, fair, poor, or very poor. As shown in Figure 1 below, the majority of residents shared favorable opin- ions of San Mateo on five of the six aspects te sted, with the most positive ratings provided for the overall quality of life in the City (85% exce llent or good), San Mateo as a place to shop and dine (77%), and as a place to raise a family (68%). Although still rated favorably by over half of respondents, residents provided somewhat softer ratings for San Mateo as a place to work (62%) and as a place to recreate (59%). Just over one- third of residents provi ded a favorable rating for San Mateo as a place to retire (37%), although approximately 13% held no opinion or did not pro- vide a rating. It is worth noting that the percentage of residents who were unsure or unwilling to share their opinion ranged from a low of 0% for the overall quality of life to a high of 18% for San Mateo as a place to work.
Question 2 How would you rate: _____? Would you say it is excellent, good, fair, poor or very poor?
FIGURE 1 RATING CITY OF SAN MATEO
As shown in Table 1 on the next page, when co mpared to 2020, the percentage of respondents in 2022 who offered ratings of excellent or good increased significantly for San Mateo as a place to retire (+7%), as a place to shop and dine (+6%), as a place to work (+5%), and the overall quality of life in the City (+4%). Tables 2 through 5, meanwhile, show how the ratings for each dimen- sion tested in Question 2 varied by length of re sidence, gender, age, presence of a child in the home, presence of a senior in the home, ethnicity, and home ownership. For ease of comparison, the top three ratings within each subgroup are highlighted green.
24.5 26.2
26.1 17.8
18.2 9.9
60.5 51.1
42.0 44.4
41.1 27.2
11.4 18.3
16.8 15.5
28.0 22.6
3 3
3 3
5 1
10 18
18 3
1 3
10 9
13 6
0 1 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 0 1 0 0
Overall quality of life in San Mateo
San Mateo as a place to shop and dine
San Mateo as a place to raise a family
San Mateo as a place to work
San Mateo as a place to recreate
San Mateo as a place to retire
% Respondents
Excellent Good Fair Poor Very poor Not sure/Prefer not to answer
29 of 81
Quality of Life
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 11City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
TABLE 1 RATING CITY OF SAN MATEO BY STUDY YEAR
† Statistically significant change (p < 0.05) between the 2020 and 2022 studies.
TABLE 2 RATING CITY OF SAN MATEO BY YEARS IN SAN MATEO & GENDER (SHOWING % EXCELLENT & GOOD) TABLE 3 RATING CITY OF SAN MATEO BY AGE (SHOWING % EXCELLENT & GOOD) TABLE 4 RATING CITY OF SAN MATEO BY CHILD IN HSLD & ADULT OVER 65 IN HSLD (SHOWING % EXCELLENT & GOOD)
TABLE 5 RATING CITY OF SAN MATEO BY ETHNICITY & HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS (SHOWING % EXCELLENT & GOOD) WHAT DO YOU LIKE MOST ABOUT LIVING IN SAN MATEO? The next question in this series asked residents to identify what they like most about living in the City of San Mateo that city government should make sure to pres erve in the future. Question 3 was posed in an open-ended manner, thereby allowing residents to mention any aspect or attribute that came to 2022 2020
San Mateo as a place to retire 37.0 30.3 +6.7†
San Mateo as a place to shop and dine 77.4 71.6 +5.8†
San Mateo as a place to work 62.2 57.6 +4.6†
Overall quality of life in San Mateo 85.0 80.9 +4.1†
San Mateo as a place to raise a family 68.1 65.1 +3.0
San Mateo as a place to recreate 59.2 56.3 +3.0
Study Year
Change in
Excellent +
Good
2020 to 2022
Less than 5 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 or longer Male Female
Overall quality of life in San Mateo 88.8 87.0 88.5 82.0 86.4 85.9 San Mateo as a place to shop and dine 83.6 77.2 85.6 73.0 79.0 77.8 San Mateo as a place to raise a family 63.8 64.7 72.9 69.8 69.4 68.9 San Mateo as a place to work 57.0 63.7 56.6 65.2 62.9 64.6 San Mateo as a place to recreate 59.1 56.5 63.3 59.2 57.2 62.3 San Mateo as a place to retire 28.7 36.8 39.6 40.1 35.2 40.6 Gender (QD2)Years in San Mateo (Q1)
18 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or older Overall quality of life in San Mateo 88.2 83.6 83.4 86.0 86.0 86.0 San Mateo as a place to shop and dine 86.1 81.8 75.5 77.1 77.8 70.8 San Mateo as a place to raise a family 69.4 62.2 71.8 73.5 69.8 67.5 San Mateo as a place to work 75.9 60.9 54.8 65.9 67.9 59.3 San Mateo as a place to recreate 67.0 54.5 60.7 62.1 62.8 55.2 San Mateo as a place to retire 54.5 30.6 28.1 30.7 32.1 51.7 Age (QD1)
Yes,
under 18
Yes,
under 6 None Yes No
Overall quality of life in San Mateo 82.0 76.0 88.6 84.5 87.0 San Mateo as a place to shop and dine 77.2 72.8 78.6 74.3 79.8 San Mateo as a place to raise a family 76.6 75.6 66.3 69.2 69.3 San Mateo as a place to work 68.2 65.6 61.2 58.1 65.5
San Mateo as a place to recreate 58.5 56.5 60.4 56.1 61.2 San Mateo as a place to retire 30.5 24.3 40.7 48.4 32.1 Child in Hsld (QD3,4) Adult Over 65
in Hsld (QD5)
Caucasian
/ White
Asian
American
Latino /
Hispanic
Mixed or
other Own Rent
Overall quality of life in San Mateo 87.5 89.6 80.3 80.7 85.7 86.1 San Mateo as a place to shop and dine 74.8 80.8 80.1 75.5 75.2 80.8 San Mateo as a place to raise a family 67.4 73.3 67.4 66.1 73.4 64.6 San Mateo as a place to work 59.6 65.4 66.3 53.1 61.0 65.1 San Mateo as a place to recreate 59.4 64.9 56.9 51.2 59.4 59.9 San Mateo as a place to retire 33.1 40.2 42.9 29.6 40.0 33.5 Home Ownership Status
(QD6)Ethnicity (QD12)
30 of 81
Quality of Life
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 12City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
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 categories shown in Figure 2.
San Mateo residents were most apt to cite parks and recreation facilities and opportunities (24%) as what they like most about living in the City of San Mateo and would like to preserve, followed by shopping and dining opportunities (16%), proximity to surrounding cities/areas (12%), and the open/green spaces and mountains (12%). Other specific attributes that were mentioned by at least 5% of respondents included San Mateo’s diversity of business, cultures, and activities (9%), small town atmosphere (8%), low crime rate/public safety (7%), downtown area (7%), and friendly people/neighbors (6%). For the interested reader , Table 6 on the next page lists the top five responses to Question 3 in 2020 and 2022.
Question 3 What do you like most about the City of San Mateo that should be preserved in the future?
FIGURE 2 LIKE MOST ABOUT SAN MATEO
23.6 16.0
12.8 12.4
11.7 8.9
8.3 6.6
6.6 4.8
4.4 3.0
2.8 2.7
2.5 2.5
2.4 2.4
2.0 1.8
3.2 6.3
0 5 10 15 20 25
Parks, recreation facilities, opportunities
Shopping, dining opportunities
Not sure / Cannot think of anything specific
Proximity to surrounding cities, areas
Open, green space, mountains
Diversity of businesses, cultures, activities
Small town atmosphere
Low crime, public safety
Downtown area
Friendly people, neighbors
Weather, clean air
Good schools
Clean, well-maintained
Sense of community
Access to bay, ocean
Access to public transportation
Affordable houses
Historical places
Outdoor activities
Less crowded, traffic than other cities
Family friendly
Availability of parking
% Respondents
31 of 81
Quality of Life
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 13City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
TABLE 6 LIKE MOST ABOUT SAN MATEO BY STUDY YEAR
WHAT SHOULD BE CHANGED? In an open-ended manner similar to that described for Question 3, all respondents were also asked to indicate the one thing that city government could change to make San Mateo a better place to live. True North reviewed the verbatim responses to Question 4 and grouped them into the categories shown in Figure 3. Among the specific changes desired, providing more affordable housing was the most common (19%), followed by limiting growth and preserving open space (13%), improv ing public safety/more police presence (8%), and improving and maintaining infrastructure, streets and roads (7%). Approximately 14% could not think of a desired change (10%) or reported that no changes are needed (4%). Table 7 shows the top 5 responses to Question 4 in 2020 and 2022.
Question 4 If the city government could change one thing to make San Mateo a better place to live now and in the future, what change would you like to see? FIGURE 3 CHANGES TO IMPROVE CITY
2022 2020
Parks, recreation
facilities,
opportunities
Parks, recreation
facilities,
opportunities
Shopping, dining
opportunities
Not sure / Cannot
think of anything
specific
Not sure / Cannot
think of anything
specific
Shopping, dining
opportunities
Proximity to
surrounding cities,
areas
Small town
atmosphere
Open, green space,
mountains
Proximity to
surrounding cities,
areas
Study Year
18.8 12.9
10.0 7.5
7.1 6.3
6.0 5.2
5.1 3.7
3.5 3.2
3.2 3.0
3.0 2.6
2.5 2.5
2.3 2.3
2.3 2.2
3.7 3.3
0 5 10 15 20
Provide more affordable housing
Limit growth, preserve open space
Not sure / Cannot think of anything specific
Improve public safety, more police presence
Improve, maintain infrastructure, streets, roads
Provide more shopping, dining opportunities
Reduce traffic congestion
Reduce cost of living
Address parking issues
Reduce taxes, fees
Beautify, clean up City
No changes needed / Everything is fine
Add, improve bike lanes
Improve, add parks, rec facilities
Reduce building permit restrictions
Enforce traffic laws
Improve public transit
Improve economy, jobs
Provide more activities, events for all ages
Improve schools, education
Address homeless issues
Improve City Council, gov process
Improve downtown area
Improve environmental efforts
% Respondents
32 of 81
Quality of Life
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 14City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
TABLE 7 CHANGES TO IMPROVE CITY BY STUDY YEAR
2022 2020
Provide more
affordable housing
Provide more
affordable housing
Limit growth,
preserve open
space
Reduce traffic
congestion
Not sure / Cannot
think of anything
specific
Limit growth,
preserve open
space
Improve public
safety, more police
presence
Improve, maintain
infrastructure,
streets, roads
Improve, maintain
infrastructure,
streets, roads
Improve parking
Study Year
33 of 81
City Services
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 15
City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
C ITY S ERVICES
After measuring respondents’ perceptions of the quality of life in San Mateo, the survey next turned to assessing their opinions about the City’s performance in providing various municipal services.
OVERALL SATISFACTION The first question in this seri es asked respondents to indicate if, overall, they were satisfied or dissatisfied wi th the job the City of Sa n Mateo is doing to pro- vide city services. Because this question does not reference a specific program, facility, or service and requested that the respondent consider the City’s performance in general, the findings of this question may be regarded as an overall performance rating for the City.
As shown in Figure 4, close to three-quarters (74%) of San Ma teo residents indicated they were either very (25%) or somewhat (49%) satisfied wi th the City’s efforts to provide municipal ser- vices. Approximately 16% were very or somewh at dissatisfied, whereas 10% were unsure or unwilling to share their opinion. When compared to 2020, its worth noting that the percentage of respondents indicating they were very satisfied with the City’s performance increased signifi- cantly.
Question 5 Generally speaking, are you satisfied or di ssatisfied with the job the City of San Mateo is doing to provide city services?
FIGURE 4 OVERALL SATISFACTION BY STUDY YEAR
† Statistically significant change (p < 0.05) between the 2020 and 2022 studies.
The next three figures display how residents’ op inions about the City’s overall performance in providing municipal services varied by years in San Mateo, children in the household, survey lan- guage, age of the respondent, gender, ethnicit y, home ownership status, and presence of an adult 65 years and older in the household. The most striking pattern in the figures is that the solid levels of satisfaction exhibited by respondents as a whole (see Figure 4 above) were gener- ally echoed across resident subgro ups, with satisfaction ranging from a low of 62% to a high of 90%.
53.9 12.4
8.4 24.5† 19.2
49.4†
10.6 5.35.2
9.5 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
2022 2020
% Respondents
Prefer not to
answer
Not sure
Very
dissatisfied
Som ewhat
dissatisfied
Som ewhat
satisfied
Very
satisfied
34 of 81
City Services
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 16City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
FIGURE 5 OVERALL SATISFACTION BY YEARS IN SAN MATEO, CHILD IN HSLD & SURVEY LANGUAGE FIGURE 6 OVERALL SATISFACTION BY AGE & GENDER
FIGURE 7 OVERALL SATISFACTION BY ETHNICITY, HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS & ADULT OVER 65 IN HSLD
22.4 18.5
26.7 24.3 27.8
50.5 52.6
49.7 49.5 48.2
23.728.223.1
Ver y
satisfied
25.9 48.4
48.8 49.5
Smwt
satisfied
49.8 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Less than 5 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 or longer Yes, under 18 Yes, under 6 None English Spanish Years in San Mateo (Q1) Child in Hsld (QD3,4) Survey Language % Respondents
18.5 24.6 27.8 23.1
52.7 52.4 50.3
48.9 Ver y
satisfied
52.6 24.8 23.4 18.3
Smwt
satisfied
37.3 56.446.249.2
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
18 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or older Male Female Age (QD1) Gender (QD2)
% Respondents
20.2 29.9 24.1 25.5
56.3 43.2 48.6 51.1
18.9 32.5
20.1 Ver y
satisfied
23.3 53.7
45.4 43.3
Smwt
satisfied
52.8 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Caucasian /
White
Asian American Latino / Hispanic Mixed or other Own Rent Yes No Ethnicity (QD12) Home Ownership Status (QD6) Adult Over 65 in Hsld (QD5) % Respondents
35 of 81
City Services
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 17City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
SPECIFIC SERVICES Whereas Question 5 addressed the City’s overall performance, Ques- tion 6 asked residents to rate their level of satisfaction with each of the 18 specific service areas shown in Figure 8. The order in which the service areas were presented was randomized for each respondent to avoid a systematic position bias, although they have been sorted from high to low in Figure 8 according to the percentage of resp ondents who indicated they were satisfied with the City’s performance in providing the service. For comparison purposes between the services, only respondents who held an opinion (satisfied or dissatisfied) are included in the figure. Those who did not have an opinion were removed from this analysis.2 At the top of the list, respondents were most sati sfied with the City’s efforts to provide fire pro- tection, prevention, and emergency medical services (94% very or somewhat satisfied), followed by maintain public buildings and facilities like City Hall, libraries, and parking garages (91%), provide parks, sports fields, and recreation facilities (87%), provide paths and trails for walking, jogging, and running (82%), and provide a variety of recreation programs for all ages (81%). At the other end of the spectrum, respondents were less satisfied with the City’s efforts to facilitate the creation of affordable housing (33%), addr ess homelessness (42%), manage traffic conges- tion (48%), and maintain local streets and roads (54%).
Question 6 For each of the services I read next, I'd like you to tell me how satisfied you are with the job the city is doing to provide the service. Are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the city's efforts to: _____, or do you not have an opinion?
FIGURE 8 SATISFACTION WITH CITY SERVICES
2. The percentage who held an opinion for each service is shown to the right of the service label in brackets.
45.3 39.1
39.3 30.2
34.0 29.2
22.0 20.6
21.2 22.7
22.9 16.6
20.4 21.7
14.0 10.3
10.2 9.1
48.6 52.2
47.6 51.5
46.7 48.1
53.3 54.7
54.0 51.6
46.6 49.5
45.3 40.1
40.1 37.5
31.6 23.8
32.2 32.3
28.1 19.9
39.0 24.0
18.8 19.8
16.7 14.2
15.1 13.4
9.4 6.8
4.3 16.5
19.0 20.8
23.7 26.7
4.2 5.0
4 2
2 8.3
6.7 9.7
10.2 25.8
19.3 8.5
8.1 5.0
15.4 14.2
0 1 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 0 1 0 0
Provide fire protection, prevention and emergency medical services [85%] Maintain public buildings and facilities like City Hall, libraries, parking garages [91%] Provide parks, sports fields and recreation facilities [96%] Provide paths and trails for walking, jogging, and running [95%] Provide a variety of recreation programs for all ages [80%] Provide police and crime prevention services [88%]
Maintain storm drains, sewers and creeks [88%]
Prepare the city for emergencies and natural disasters [68%] Protect the environment [80%]
Provide special events like community festivals and holiday celebrations [84%] Provide bicycle lanes and paths [89%]
Promote economic development to attract new businesses, good-paying jobs [72%] Enforce codes to address issues like abandoned vehicles, non-permitted construction [75%]
Cleaning up litter, trash that people dump along streets, sidewalks, in public areas [97%] Maintain local streets and roads [96%]
Manage traffic congestion [93%]
Address homelessness [78%]
Facilitate the creation of affordable housing [80%]
% Respondents Who Provided Opinion
Very satisfied Somewhat satisfied Somewhat dissatisfied Very dissatisfied 36 of 81
City Services
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 18City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Table 8 displays the percentage of respondents who were satisfied with each service by study year, and the difference between 2020 and 2022. When compared with the 2020 survey, satis- faction with the City’s efforts to manage traffic congestion increasing significantly (+18%), while satisfaction with the City’s efforts to provide a variety of recreation programs for all ages (-4%), police and crime prevention servi ces (-5%), special events like community festivals and holiday celebrations (-8%), and address homelessness (-9%) decreased significantly.
TABLE 8 SATISFACTION WITH CITY SERVICES BY STUDY YEAR
† Statistically significant change (p < 0.05) between the 2020 and 2022 studies.
DIFFERENTIATORS OF OPINION For the interested reader, Table 9 on the next page shows how the level of satisfaction with each specific service tested in Question 6 varied accord- ing to residents’ overall performance ratings for the City (see Overall Satisfaction on page 15).
The table divides residents who we re satisfied with the City’s overall performance into one group and those dissatisfied into a second group. Also displayed is the difference between the two groups in terms of the percentage who indicated they were satisfied with the City’s efforts to provide each service tested in Qu estion 6 (far right column). For convenience, the services are sorted by that difference, with the greatest differentiators of opinion near the top of the table.
When compared to their counterparts, those who were satisfied with the City’s overall perfor- mance in providing city services were also more likely to express satisfaction with the City’s efforts to provide each of the services tested in Question 6. That said, the greatest specific dif- ferentiators of opinion between satisfied and di ssatisfied residents were found with respect to the City’s efforts to maintain local streets and roads, promote economic development to attract new businesses and good-paying jobs to the co mmunity, maintain storm drains, sewers and creeks, provide police and crime prevention serv ices, and enforce code violations to address issues like abandoned vehicles, non-permitted co nstruction, and yards not being properly main- tained.
At the other end of the spectrum, there was much less difference between the two resident groups regarding their satisfaction with the City’s efforts to provide fire protection, prevention, and emergency medical services, and provide paths and trails for walking, jogging, and running. 2022 2020
Manage traffic congestion 47.9 30.3 +17.6†
Enforce codes to address issues like abandoned vehicles, non-permitted construction 65.8 62.0 +3.7 Prepare the city for emergencies and natural disasters 75.3 73.8 +1.4 Promote economic development to attract new businesses, good-paying jobs to community 66.1 65.5 +0.6 Maintain storm drains, sewers and creeks 75.3 75.1 +0.2 Maintain public buildings and facilities like City Hall, libraries, parking garages 91.3 91.5 -0.1 Maintain local streets and roads 54.0 54.3 -0.3
Provide parks, sports fields and recreation facilities 86.9 88.6 -1.7 Provide fire protection, prevention and emergency medical services 93.9 95.9 -1.9 Provide a variety of recreation programs for all ages 80.7 84.6 -3.9† Provide police and crime prevention services 77.3 82.7 -5.3† Provide special events like community festivals and holiday celebrations 74.2 82.5 -8.3† Address homelessness 41.8 51.0 -9.1†
Protect the environment 75.2 N/A N/A
Provide paths and trails for walking, jogging, and running 81.6 N/A N/A Provide bicycle lanes and paths 69.5 N/A N/A
Cleaning up litter, trash that people dump along streets, sidewalks, in public areas 61.8 N/A N/A Facilitate the creation of affordable housing 32.9 N/A N/A Study Year Change in
Satisfaction
2020 to 2022
37 of 81
City Services
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 19City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
TABLE 9 SATISFACTION WITH CITY SERVICES BY OVERALL SATISFACTION WITH CITY Very or somewhat
satisfied
Very or somewhat
dissatisfied
Maintain local streets and roads 61.0 20.7 40.3
Promote economic development to attract new businesses, good-paying jobs 74.7 35.3 39.4 Maintain storm drains, sewers and creeks 81.9 47.9 34.0 Provide police and crime prevention services 83.8 50.6 33.1 Enforce codes to address issues like abandoned vehicles, non-permitted construction 71.9 39.3 32.6 Cleaning up litter, trash that people dump along streets, sidewalks, in public areas 67.9 36.3 31.7 Manage traffic congestion 53.9 22.5 31.4
Provide a variety of recreation programs for all ages 87.3 56.1 31.2 Provide special events like community festivals and holiday celebrations 81.9 50.8 31.0 Protect the environment 81.3 50.5 30.8
Prepare the city for emergencies and natural disasters 81.8 51.0 30.8 Address homelessness 47.8 20.7 27.1
Maintain public buildings, facilities like City Hall, libraries, parking garages 95.0 71.6 23.4 Provide parks, sports fields and recreation facilities 90.1 71.5 18.6 Provide bicycle lanes and paths 74.3 56.3 18.0
Facilitate the creation of affordable housing 37.0 21.0 16.0 Provide paths and trails for walking, jogging, and running 84.8 69.6 15.1 Provide fire protection, prevention and emergency medical services 96.7 82.2 14.5 City's Overall Performance (Q5) Difference Between
Groups For Each
Service
% Respondents Satisfied With Each
Service
38 of 81
housing & Land Use
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 20
City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
HOUSING & L AND U SE
The General Plan will help shape the nature of San Mateo’s future development and redevelop- ment—including the size, type, ch aracter, and location of new housing projects—as well as the pace at which these changes occur. To help info rm the City’s General Plan update, the survey included a series of questions re lated to housing and density, as well as the factors that resi- dents feel the City should prioritize when planning new housing.
AFFORDABLE HOUSING The first question in this series simply asked respondents to indicate whether there is currently too much, about the right amount, or too little affordable housing in the City of San Mateo for middle-income and low-income families, respectively. Resi- dents expressed similar opinions for both types of affordable housing, with approximately two- thirds of residents indicating that there is currently too little housing that is affordable for mid- dle-income (67%) and low-income families (64%). Approximately three-in-ten residents felt the amount of affordable housing was about right or were unsure (middle income: 29%, low income:
28%), while just 5% felt there was too much housing that is affordable for middle-income families and 8% shared the same sentiment for housing that is affordable for low-income families.
Question 7 As I read the following housing types, please tell me whether you feel there is cur- rently too much, about the right amount, or too little of this type of housing in the City of San Mateo.
FIGURE 9 AMOUNT OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN SAN MATEO BY STUDY YEAR † Statistically significant change (p < 0.05) between the 2020 and 2022 studies.
Tables 10-12 on the next page display the percentage of residents who felt there is currently too little of each affordable housing type in the City by key demographic traits. When compared to their respective counterparts, younger residents (under 35), renters, and those who had lived in the City between 10 and 14 years were the most likely to perceive there is not enough affordable housing for low-income families in San Mateo, while those who completed the survey in Spanish, renters, those between 35 and 44 years of age, and those who had lived in the City between 10
24.3 28.0 24.8
68.5 7.94.04.5 6.6
28.7†
71.7 64.1†66.8†
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
2022 2020 2022 2020
Housing affordable for middle-income
families
Housing affordable for low-income
families
% Respondents
T oo little
About right
T oo m uch
39 of 81
housing & Land Use
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 21City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
and 14 years were the most likely to indicate there is not enough affordable housing for middle- income families.
TABLE 10 AMOUNT OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN SAN MATEO BY YEARS IN SAN MATEO, ADULT OVER 65 IN HSLD & SURVEY LANGUAGE (SHOWING % TOO LITTLE)
TABLE 11 AMOUNT OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN SAN MATEO BY AGE (SHOWING % TOO LITTLE) TABLE 12 AMOUNT OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN SAN MATEO BY GENDER, CHILD IN HSLD & HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS (SHOWING % TOO LITTLE)
FACTORS TO PRIORITIZE WHEN PLANNING HOUSING California State law requires that all cities plan for addition al housing. With a general shortage of housing in California, the state is requiring that the City of San Mateo plan for thousands of new housing units. After pro- viding this background information, Question 8 presented respondents with each of the factors shown in Figure 10 on the next page and asked them how important they feel the item should be as the City plans for future housing over the ne xt 20 years. To ensure that respondents priori- tized among the items, they we re instructed to keep in mind th at not all of the items can be extremely important.
Although all of the factors tested in Question 8 were viewed as importan t by at least two-thirds of respondents, factors that relate to environmental sustainability tended to rise to the top of the list when it comes to planning future housing. Overall, ensuring adequate water supplies (98% at least somewhat important) was viewed as the most important factor, followed by preserving open space and creating new park lands (97%), minimizing vehicle trips and traffic congestion (95%), creating pedestrian-friendly areas that en courage people to walk rather than drive (94%), and minimizing pollution and greenhouse gas emissions (93%).
When compared to the other items tested, resp ondents indicated that keeping building heights low (68%) and minimizing the number of new units added to single-family neighborhoods (68%) were the least important when planning for future housing in the City.
Less than 5 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 or longer Yes No English Spanish Housing affordable for middle-income
families 68.3 65.1 72.9 64.7 63.5 68.7 65.8 75.8
Housing affordable for low-income
families 67.3 61.5 72.0 60.7 62.1 65.1 63.5 64.8
Years in San Mateo (Q1) Adult Over 65
in Hsld (QD5) Survey Language
18 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or older Housing affordable for middle-income
families 60.6 71.5 75.3 63.9 63.5 62.4
Housing affordable for low-income
families 87.5 72.8 58.3 58.9 53.4 60.3
Age (QD1)
Male Female
Yes,
under 18
Yes,
under 6 None Own Rent
Housing affordable for middle-income
families 66.6 67.7 67.7 65.5 66.3 59.3 75.1
Housing affordable for low-income
families 63.0 65.9 57.6 50.3 67.2 51.0 78.1
Gender (QD2) Child in Hsld (QD3,4) Home Ownership Status (QD6)
40 of 81
housing & Land Use
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 22City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Question 8 California State law requires that all cities plan for additional housing. With a gen- eral shortage of housing in California, the state is requiring that the City of San Mateo plan for thousands of new housing units. There are a variety of factors the City can consider when decid- ing where new housing may be located and the types of housing that may be built. As I read the following list of items, I'd like to know how important you feel the item should be as the City plans for future housing over the next 20 years. Please keep in mind that not all of the items can be extremely important.
FIGURE 10 IMPORTANCE OF ISSUES OF CITY DEVELOPMENT
Tables 13-16 show the percentage of respondents in each respondent subgroup that identified a factor as extremely important when the City plans for fu ture housing. For the reader’s conve- nience, the top five factors in each subgroup are highlighted in green. When considering just those who indicated a factor was extremely important, three factors were consistently among the top five across subgroups: ensuring adequate water supplies, creating homes that are affordable for low- and middle-income residents, and minimizing pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.
62.0 42.9
33.9 40.1
44.0 29.2
28.1 30.8
39.2 45.0
26.2 25.1
22.2 17.3
27.8 12.7
24.2 20.7
30.8 35.3
41.3 35.4
34.5 43.3
37.0 38.5
35.2 28.6
31.9 39.6
30.8 31.2
30.8 33.3
21.4 22.3
4.7 18.5
19.4 18.0
14.3 20.4
26.5 22.1
16.7 17.0
27.5 20.6
32.1 36.5
24.3 35.3
22.8 25.1
0 1 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 0 1 0 0
Ensuring adequate water supplies
Preserving open space and creating new park lands
Minimizing vehicle trips and traffic congestion
Creating pedestrian-friendly areas that encourage people to walk rather than drive Minimizing pollution and greenhouse gas emissions
Producing revenue to pay for police, fire, city services to new housing units Ensuring sufficient parking spaces
Improving access to transit and increasing transit ridership Avoiding new development in areas that are at higher risk of natural hazards, climate change, or sea level rise
Creating homes that are affordable for low- and middle-income residents Preserving the City’s historic buildings and resources
Having a plan that will meet the State’s requirements for at least the next 20 years Creating bike lanes and paths
Locating additional shops and restaurants near new housing units Ensuring that the impacts of growth are not concentrated in disadvantaged areas Creating commercial zones that will attract high-paying jobs Minimizing the number of new units added to single-family neighborhoods Keeping building heights low
% Respondents
Extremely important V ery important Somewhat important
41 of 81
housing & Land Use
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 23City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
TABLE 13 IMPORTANCE OF ISSUES OF CITY DEVELOPMENT BY YEARS IN SAN MATEO & OVERALL SATISFACTION (SHOWING % EXTREMELY IMPORTANT)
Less than 5 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 or longer Satisfied Dissatisfied Ensuring adequate water supplies 55.1 62.0 69.2 63.6 62.8 64.1 Creating homes that are affordable for
low- and middle-income residents 54.5 46.7 44.8 40.4 45.0 42.1 M i n i m i z i n g p o l l u t i o n a n d g r e e n h o u s e g a s e m i s s i o n s 4 9 . 94 7 . 54 3 . 54 0 . 64 3 . 64 0 . 9 Preserving open space and creating new park lands 41.4 42.9 47.7 42.6 42.0 40.6 Creating pedestrian-friendly areas that encourage people to walk rather than drive 46.1 43.1 39.9 36.7 42.3 28.5 Avoiding new development in areas that are at higher risk of natural hazards, climate change, or sea level rise 42.8 33.7 32.3 40.6 39.0 39.0 Minimizing vehicle trips and traffic congestion 31.0 28.4 26.3 38.3 34.3 35.5 Improving access to transit and increasing transit ridership 37.6 26.8 29.6 29.2 32.4 25.7 Producing revenue necessary to pay for cost of providing police, fire, other city services to new housing units 20.6 28.7 35.7 31.7 29.2 33.4 Ensuring sufficient parking spaces 17.8 25.9 30.4 32.7 26.4 39.5 Ensuring that the impacts of growth are not concentrated in disadvantaged areas 30.4 25.7 23.6 28.1 27.0 31.6
Preserving the City’s historic buildings and resources 17.4 18.3 21.8 33.3 27.0 26.5 Having a plan that will meet the State’s requirements for at least the next 20 years 26.4 27.0 25.0 24.1 25.6 20.7 Minimizing the number of new units added to single-family neighborhoods 10.8 16.9 19.2 33.2 23.0 37.5
C r e a t i n g b i k e l a n e s a n d p a t h s 2 8 . 52 3 . 31 5 . 82 0 . 52 2 . 31 8 . 1 Keeping building heights low 14.6 12.9 19.6 25.9 18.3 35.3 Locating additional shops and restaurants near new
housing units 13.9 20.0 17.0 18.0 17.1 16.3
Creating commercial zones that will attract high-paying jobs 11.5 12.3 15.6 12.8 13.3 13.7
Years in San Mateo (Q1) Overall Satisfaction (Q5)
42 of 81
housing & Land Use
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 24City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
TABLE 14 IMPORTANCE OF ISSUES OF CITY DEVELOPMENT BY AGE (SHOWING % EXTREMELY IMPORTANT) 18 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or older Ensuring adequate water supplies 46.0 58.1 63.3 67.2 64.5 68.6 Creating homes that are affordable for
low- and middle-income residents 50.2 58.3 42.8 40.4 36.9 42.4 M i n i m i z i n g p o l l u t i o n a n d g r e e n h o u s e g a s e m i s s i o n s 4 9 . 04 6 . 34 0 . 34 2 . 83 9 . 85 0 . 9 Preserving open space and creating new park lands 27.8 39.4 47.8 48.1 48.2 40.0 Creating pedestrian-friendly areas that encourage people to walk rather than drive 36.1 49.3 34.9 44.1 42.5 30.7 Avoiding new development in areas that are at higher risk of natural hazards, climate change, or sea level rise 41.5 40.9 31.6 35.7 35.5 46.1 Minimizing vehicle trips and traffic congestion 26.9 28.0 36.1 35.7 40.9 35.1 Improving access to transit and increasing transit ridership 26.4 37.5 30.8 30.5 29.6 23.6 Producing revenue necessary to pay for cost of providing police, fire, other city services to new housing units 21.0 19.9 30.2 35.2 33.0 36.8 Ensuring sufficient parking spaces 13.9 17.3 27.8 29.2 34.4 40.6 Ensuring that the impacts of growth are not concentrated in disadvantaged areas 41.7 32.3 28.4 25.7 20.9 22.6
Preserving the City’s historic buildings and resources 21.7 19.6 19.1 27.5 37.9 32.8 Having a plan that will meet the State’s requirements for at least the next 20 years 27.1 22.4 22.7 30.7 20.7 30.3 Minimizing the number of new units added to single-family neighborhoods 16.0 12.3 22.7 28.2 34.0 31.5
C r e a t i n g b i k e l a n e s a n d p a t h s 1 3 . 92 1 . 82 1 . 43 2 . 02 4 . 21 7 . 2 Keeping building heights low 7.1 11.3 17.5 24.1 28.3 28.9 Locating additional shops and restaurants near new
housing units 7.8 16.0 18.1 20.8 15.2 22.2
Creating commercial zones that will attract high-paying jobs 4.7 11.8 17.0 16.1 8.3 15.1
Age (QD1)
43 of 81
housing & Land Use
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 25City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
TABLE 15 IMPORTANCE OF ISSUES OF CITY DEVELOPMENT BY CHILD IN HSLD, ADULT OVER 65 IN HSLD & SURVEY LANGUAGE (SHOWING % EXTREMELY IMPORTANT)
Yes,
under 18
Yes,
under 6 None Yes No English Spanish
Ensuring adequate water supplies 69.4 67.5 58.8 64.9 60.8 61.5 69.1 Creating homes that are affordable for
low- and middle-income residents 43.2 39.6 46.9 39.6 48.8 42.9 74.8 M i n i m i z i n g p o l l u t i o n a n d g r e e n h o u s e g a s e m i s s i o n s 4 4 . 43 9 . 14 4 . 64 3 . 84 5 . 04 3 . 05 7 . 2 Preserving open space and creating new park lands 46.9 44.4 41.5 39.4 43.9 42.9 42.5 Creating pedestrian-friendly areas that encourage people to walk rather than drive 39.1 39.0 40.6 31.9 43.4 39.4 49.6 Avoiding new development in areas that are at higher risk of natural hazards, climate change, or sea level rise 38.2 34.8 40.3 46.1 37.1 38.5 48.7 Minimizing vehicle trips and traffic congestion 32.2 27.1 33.5 35.5 32.4 33.2 43.6 Improving access to transit and increasing transit ridership 26.5 26.0 32.5 26.4 33.1 29.6 46.8 Producing revenue necessary to pay for cost of providing police, fire, other city services to new housing units 34.2 33.1 26.3 34.1 26.3 29.2 28.4 Ensuring sufficient parking spaces 29.4 25.1 27.0 39.2 22.8 28.2 27.0 Ensuring that the impacts of growth are not concentrated in disadvantaged areas 28.8 28.7 27.6 25.9 28.5 27.5 31.2 P r e s e r v i n g t h e C i t y ’ s h i s t o r i c b u i l d i n g s a n d r e s o u r c e s 2 5 . 32 1 . 02 6 . 43 0 . 82 3 . 52 5 . 93 1 . 2 Having a plan that will meet the State’s requirements for at least the next 20 years 23.4 19.6 26.1 25.4 25.1 24.3 36.4 Minimizing the number of new units added to single-family neighborhoods 28.9 25.7 21.0 29.6 21.0 24.4 21.1
C r e a t i n g b i k e l a n e s a n d p a t h s 2 4 . 11 9 . 62 1 . 21 8 . 42 3 . 72 2 . 02 5 . 3 K e e p i n g b u i l d i n g h e i g h t s l o w 2 4 . 22 2 . 31 8 . 42 7 . 81 6 . 22 0 . 42 4 . 6 Locating additional shops and restaurants near new
housing units 20.9 18.9 16.4 17.0 18.2 16.4 29.8
Creating commercial zones that will attract high-paying jobs 15.2 13.5 11.5 14.3 12.1 11.9 24.8
Child in Hsld (QD3,4) Adult Over 65
in Hsld (QD5) Survey Language
44 of 81
housing & Land Use
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 26City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
TABLE 16 IMPORTANCE OF ISSUES OF CITY DEVELOPMENT BY ETHNICITY & HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS (SHOWING %
EXTREMELY IMPORTANT)
BUILDING HEIGHT & DENSITY TRADE-OFFS Concentrating new housing in taller, higher-density buildings downtown and near transit would allow more land in the City to be reserved for parks, recreation areas, and co mmunity amenities, and will minimize change to existing residential neighborhoods. Once appris ed of this trade-off, respondents were simply asked whether they would support or oppose concentrating future housing in higher-density buildings up to 12 stories. Those who did not support buildings up to 12 stories were subse- quently asked if they would support buildings up to eight stories. The answers to both questions are combined in Figure 11 on the next page.
When presented with the opportunity to reserve more land for parks, recreation areas, and com- munity amenities and minimize change to existing neighborhoods, 63% of San Mateo residents indicated they would support concentrating new housing in higher-density buildings downtown and near transit up to 12 stories. A higher percentage (68%) indicated they would support build- ings up to eight stories. In general, newer residents (less than 10 years), younger residents (under 35), those who anticipated living in the City 5 to 10 more years, those without a senior in the home, Caucasians, Asians, and those who co mpleted the survey in English were the most Caucasian
/ White
Asian
American
Latino /
Hispanic
Mixed or
other Own Rent
Ensuring adequate water supplies 61.2 63.1 58.3 69.6 65.3 59.0 Creating homes that are affordable for
low- and middle-income residents 45.3 35.4 53.7 46.8 27.7 64.4 Minimizing pollution and greenhouse gas emissions 44.6 40.0 44.9 49.3 43.6 44.9 Preserving open space and creating new park lands 43.2 44.2 40.2 37.5 49.9 36.4 Creating pedestrian-friendly areas that encourage people to walk rather than drive 41.1 40.5 38.3 41.0 40.1 41.0 Avoiding new development in areas that are at higher risk of natural hazards, climate change, or sea level rise 38.7 38.5 40.7 42.2 38.8 40.6 Minimizing vehicle trips and traffic congestion 37.9 29.1 28.4 47.8 35.7 31.7 Improving access to transit and increasing transit ridership 33.5 25.2 28.3 42.1 29.9 32.3 Producing revenue necessary to pay for cost of providing police, fire, other city services to new housing units 27.8 30.4 26.7 30.4 33.4 25.1 Ensuring sufficient parking spaces 28.3 29.9 23.2 34.8 32.8 23.4 Ensuring that the impacts of growth are not concentrated in disadvantaged areas 29.8 18.9 28.8 45.2 22.3 33.1
Preserving the City’s historic buildings and resources 25.9 24.5 28.2 27.1 26.6 25.7 Having a plan that will meet the State’s requirements for at least the next 20 years 24.6 26.7 24.7 22.6 24.2 25.2 Minimizing the number of new units added to single-family neighborhoods 26.2 22.8 19.0 26.7 32.9 14.8
Creating bike lanes and paths 21.5 18.4 22.1 33.6 21.1 24.1 Keeping building heights low 20.5 20.7 19.0 18.9 28.0 12.8 Locating additional shops and restaurants near new
housing units 18.9 16.3 17.5 13.3 18.5 16.8
Creating commercial zones that will attract high-paying jobs 8.4 14.1 13.5 27.6 15.4 10.5
Ethnicity (QD12) Home Ownership Status
(QD6)
45 of 81
housing & Land Use
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 27City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
supportive of concentratin g new housing in higher-density buildings up to eight stories down- town and near transit (see figures 12-14).
Question 9 Concentrating new housing in taller, higher-density buildings downtown and near transit would allow more land to be reserved for parks, recreation areas, and community ameni- ties, and will minimize change to existing residential neighborhoods. Knowing this, would you support or oppose concentrating future housing in higher-density buildings up to 12 stories.
Question 10 Would you support or oppose concentrating future housing in higher-density buildings up to 8 stories.
FIGURE 11 SUPPORT CONCENTRATING FUTURE HOUSING IN HIGHER DENSITY BUILDINGS FIGURE 12 SUPPORT CONCENTRATING FUTURE HOUSING IN HIGHER DENSITY BUILDINGS UP TO 8 STORIES BY YEARS IN
SAN MATEO & AGE
10.8 23.9
17.7 33.333.3
30.0 14.0
13.3 21.0
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Up to 12 stories Up to 8 stories
% Respondents
Prefer not to
answer
Strongly
oppose
Som ewhat
oppose
Som ewhat
support
Strongly
support
Strongly
support at 12
stories
33.3 34.0 33.6
23.1 27.6
10.6 7.5 9.7 7.4
8.9 27.3 24.6
17.9 29.4 22.2 23.0
32.2 7.7 6.6
19.8 16.4
19.6 9.8
11.2 14.9 11.8 15.3
12.3 8.7 13.3 23.5
6.1 14.9 17.1 16.7 22.2 19.7
24.5 52.1 46.2
31.4 22.0
46.9 7.1
13.3 6.2
10.9 25.2
22.2 19.4
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Less than 5 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 or longer 18 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or older Years in S an Mateo (Q1) Age (QD1)
% Respondents
Prefer not to
answer
Strongly oppose
Somewhat oppose
Som ewhat support
Strongly support
Strongly support at
12 stories
46 of 81
housing & Land Use
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 28City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
FIGURE 13 SUPPORT CONCENTRATING FUTURE HOUSING IN HIGHER DENSITY BUILDINGS UP TO 8 STORIES BY CHILD IN HSLD, ANTICIPATED YEARS IN SAN MATEO & ADULT OVER 65 IN HSLD FIGURE 14 SUPPORT CONCENTRATING FUTURE HOUSING IN HIGHER DENSITY BUILDINGS UP TO 8 STORIES BY
ETHNICITY, HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS & SURVEY LANGUAGE
23.4 22.3
39.2 9.1
7.5 12.0 12.0
10.6 25.4 19.7 26.5 25.9 27.6
23.1 14.0 9.6 12.5
16.9 9.3
12.5 15.4 16.1
11.6 20.3 19.7 14.5 16.9 10.5
20.4 22.9 21.0 14.3
31.232.135.733.530.3
48.7 11.7 10.6 13.711.5
23.0 21.1
24.8 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Yes, under 18 Yes, under 6 None Less than 5 5 to 10 11 to 15 16 or more Yes No Child in Hsld (QD3,4) Anticipated Years in San Mateo (QD8) Adult Over 65 in Hsld (QD5) % Respondents
Prefer not to
answer
Strongly oppose
Somewhat oppose
Somewhat support
Strongly support
Strongly support at
12 stories
33.4 32.1
9.7 11.4
10.6 13.2
18.0 15.0
21.3 24.8
10.2 10.8 14.7
17.2 10.2
13.2 12.3 12.8
20.8 13.9 13.3 19.5 26.8 19.9 14.9 17.6
19.2 30.238.1 32.7 28.9 35.7 38.8
8.5 12.4
15.37.8 30.4 26.2
27.4 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Caucasian /
White
Asian American Latino /
Hispanic
Mixed or other Own Rent English Spanish
Ethnicity (QD12) Home Ownership Status (QD6) Survey Language % Respondents
Prefer not to
answer
Strongly oppose
Som ewhat oppose
Som ewhat support
Strongly support
Strongly support at
12 stories
47 of 81
Mobility
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 29
City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
M OBILITY
One of the key challenges when planning for population growth and future housing is the issue of mobility. Put simply, adding housing and people to a community will naturally lead to more congestion and decreased mobility unless improvements are made to the transportation system to accommodate the additional demand and/or vehicle demand is mitigated through use of alternative modes. Accordingly, the survey explor ed how residents tend to travel within San Mateo, as well as the types of actions and strategies they would prioritize for minimizing growth- induced congestion in the future.
FREQUENCY OF MODE USE The first question in this series asked respondents how often they use each of the modes listed in Figure 15 when traveling within the City of San Mateo.
As expected, the vast majority of residents (8 7%) indicated they use a personal vehicle on a weekly basis when traveling within the City of San Mateo, while 45% reported that they walk from their home to a local store or restaurant at least once per week. Less than one-in-five respon- dents indicated that they ride a bicycle or scooter (19%), use public transit such as a bus or train (8%), or use Uber, Lyft, or a taxi (4%) at least once per week when traveling within the City of San Mateo. For the interested reader, figures 16 an d 17 show how reported frequency of mode use within the City of San Mateo varied by age, overall satisfaction with the City’s efforts to provide municipal services, employment status, and ethnicity.
Question 11 When traveling within the City of San Mateo, how often do you: _____? FIGURE 15 FREQUENCY OF MODE USE WITHIN CITY
29.3 12.3
4.5 3.1
18.6 8.9
12.1 10.8 15.415.9
52.2 6.3
3 35.0 7.6
4.8 6.7
8.1 1
9.0 6.1
32.8 15.2
22.1 13
49.4 58.2
42 0 1 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 0 1 0 0
Use per sonal vehicle
Walk from home to store,
restaurant
Ride a bicycle, scooter
Use public transit such as bus,
train
Use Uber , Lyft, taxi
% Respondents
5+ days per wk 1-4 days per wk 2-3 days per mo 1 day per mo < 1 day per mo Never Prefer not to answer 48 of 81
Mobility
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 30City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
FIGURE 16 FREQUENCY OF MODE USE WITHIN CITY BY OVERALL, AGE & OVERALL SATISFACTION FIGURE 17 FREQUENCY OF MODE USE WITHIN CITY BY EMPLOYMENT STATUS & ETHNICITY STRATEGIES TO REDUCE FUTURE CONGESTION The survey next transitioned to exploring residents’ opinions about different actions the City could take in the future to reduce the number of vehicle trips people make by drivin g in a typical day. For each of the actions shown on the left of Figure 18, respondents were asked if the City should make the action a high priority, medium priority, or low priority for th e City’s future. Respondents were also allowed to indicate that the City should not take the action. Although presented in a random order for each respondent, the actions are sorted from high to low in the fi gure based on the percentage of respondents that indicated an action is a high or medium priority.
Improving safe routes to school to encourage more kids to walk and bike to school (84% high or medium priority) and improving sidewalks, cro sswalks, pedestrian safety, signs and infrastruc- ture to encourage more walking (84%) were widely viewed as the top priorities among the actions tested, followed by improving bus and shuttle services with more routes and more frequent ser- vice within San Mateo and to neighboring areas (71%), providing financial incentives to encour- age greater use of transit use (64%), and expa nding the network of dedicated bike lanes and shared lanes to encourage more bicycling (63%).
91 92
88 94
91 92
90 92
90 47
56 44
19 14
29 17
24 17
11 19
24 7
8 14
5 6
4 3
7 9
4 6
7 2
3 1
3 4
4 49
42 48
41 38
57 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
18 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or older Satisfied Dis-satisfied Overall Age (QD1) Overall Satisfaction (Q5)
% Respondents
Personal vehicle
Walk
Bike, scooter
Public transit
Uber, Lyft, taxi
90 96
90 90
91 89
95 89
97 48
41 44
22 12
11 32
19 16
15 24
29 7
1 4
16 19
5 5
13 7
4 1
3 0
9 3
4 5
8 41
54 43
53 58
66 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Full-time Part-time Retired Between jobs Other Caucasian / White
Asian American Latino /
Hispanic
Mixed or other
Employment Status (QD9) Ethnicity (QD12)
% Respondents
Personal vehicle
Walk
Bike, scooter
Public transit
Uber, Lyft, taxi
49 of 81
Mobility
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 31City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Question 12 A growing population will naturally lead to greater traffic congestion in the future unless improvements are made to the City's transportation system and we find ways to reduce the number of trips people make by driving in a typical day. As I read the following list of actions that could be used to help reduce traffic cong estion, please indicate whether you think the City should make it a high priority, a medium priority, or a low priority for the City's future. If you don't think the City should take th e action, just say so. Please keep in mind that not all actions can be a high priority.
FIGURE 18 STRATEGIES TO REDUCE TRAFFIC
Tables 17-20 show the percentage of respondents within each subgroup that identified an action as a high priority for the City’s future. To ease co mparisons, the three top-rated actions within each subgroup are highlighted in green. Most respondent su bgroups rated the same three actions as the highest priorities—improving sidewalks, crosswalks, pedestrian safety, signs, and infrastructure to encourage more walking, improving safe routes to school to encourage more kids to walk and bike to scho ol, and improving bus and shuttle services with more routes and more frequent service within San Mateo and to neighboring areas.
52.4 55.7
33.4 27.0
28.0 16.0
14.9 18.6
12.8 31.8
27.9 37.9
36.7 34.7
41.3 34.5
26.0 26.7
0 1 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 0 1 0 0
Improve safe routes to school to encourage more kids to walk and bike to school
Improve sidewalks, crosswalks, pedestrian safety, signs, infrastructure to encourage more walking
Improv e bus, shuttle serv ices with more routes, more frequent serv ice within San Mateo, to neighboring areas
Provide financial incentives to encourage greater use of transit Expand the network of dedicated bike lanes and shared lanes to encourage more bicycling
Increase programs that encourage carpooling, vanpooling, and ridesharing
Add Bikeshare services with bikes available at kiosks for public use Make infrastructure improvements needed to support
autonomous/driverless shuttles, vehicles
Create bus-only lanes to improve travel times when using transit % Respondents
High priority Medium priority
50 of 81
Mobility
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 32City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
TABLE 17 STRATEGIES TO REDUCE TRAFFIC BY YEARS IN SAN MATEO & GENDER (SHOWING % HIGH PRIORITY) TABLE 18 STRATEGIES TO REDUCE TRAFFIC BY AGE (SHOWING % HIGH PRIORITY) Less than 5 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 or longer Male Female
Improve sidewalks, crosswalks, pedestrian safety, signs, infrastructure to encourage more walking 58.9 55.9 55.2 54.5 52.5 60.7 Improve safe routes to school to encourage more kids to walk and bike to school 53.1 51.4 48.2 53.4 49.3 55.9
Improve bus, shuttle services with more routes, more frequent service within San Mateo, to neighboring areas 36.2 30.4 29.4 34.0 29.8 39.2 Expand the network of dedicated bike lanes and shared lanes to encourage more bicycling 38.7 24.5 26.6 24.7 31.6 25.2
Provide financial incentives to encourage greater use of transit 31.5 27.8 20.4 26.3 28.6 25.9 Make infrastructure improvements needed to support
autonomous/driverless shuttles, vehicles 19.9 18.1 24.5 17.0 21.6 15.6 Increase programs that encourage carpooling,
vanpooling, and ridesharing 16.5 12.7 10.6 17.9 17.0 16.2 Add Bikeshare services with bikes available at kiosks for public use 15.4 11.0 17.3 15.3 15.5 15.1
Create bus-only lanes to improve travel times when using transit 17.7 3.4 9.6 14.0 12.7 13.5 Years in San Mateo (Q1) Gender (QD2)
18 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or older Improve sidewalks, crosswalks, pedestrian safety, signs, infrastructure to encourage more walking 50.7 49.6 60.0 64.7 53.7 56.9 Improve safe routes to school to encourage more kids to walk and bike to school 63.9 51.1 51.8 62.2 46.2 46.4
Improve bus, shuttle services with more routes, more frequent service within San Mateo, to neighboring areas 55.2 32.1 28.7 29.5 34.5 32.0 Expand the network of dedicated bike lanes and shared lanes to encourage more bicycling 33.2 34.7 23.8 34.1 25.9 20.8
Provide financial incentives to encourage greater use of transit 41.7 33.5 24.7 23.6 22.2 19.4 Make infrastructure improvements needed to support
autonomous/driverless shuttles, vehicles 19.8 19.3 20.4 16.0 20.4 14.7 Increase programs that encourage carpooling,
vanpooling, and ridesharing 24.1 12.4 13.3 14.1 15.7 21.4 Add Bikeshare services with bikes available at kiosks for public use 21.9 16.0 16.8 18.0 11.1 9.3
Create bus-only lanes to improve travel times when using transit 35.4 9.8 10.6 7.3 11.0 13.0 Age (QD1)
51 of 81
Mobility
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 33City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
TABLE 19 STRATEGIES TO REDUCE TRAFFIC BY CHILD IN HSLD, ADULT OVER 65 IN HSLD & SURVEY LANGUAGE (SHOWING % HIGH PRIORITY)
TABLE 20 STRATEGIES TO REDUCE TRAFFIC BY ETHNICITY & HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS (SHOWING % HIGH PRIORITY) ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION TRADE-OFFS As with most aspects of planning, improve- ments in one area may require trade-offs in ot her areas. Adding bike lanes and widening side- walks will make it easier to travel around the City without using a car and could help reduce traffic congestion and greenhous e gas emissions. However, adding bike lanes and widening sidewalks could also require removing a vehicle lane or parking spaces in certain locations.
Yes,
under 18
Yes,
under 6 None Yes No English Spanish
Improve sidewalks, crosswalks, pedestrian safety, signs, infrastructure to encourage more walking 55.6 55.4 56.6 53.2 57.8 54.7 70.5 Improve safe routes to school to encourage more kids to walk and bike to school 60.7 57.7 49.5 48.6 54.6 51.4 67.3
Improve bus, shuttle services with more routes, more frequent service within San Mateo, to neighboring areas 28.6 21.3 36.0 35.2 33.0 32.8 42.4 Expand the network of dedicated bike lanes and shared lanes to encourage more bicycling 24.9 25.5 29.9 21.8 31.4 27.7 32.3 Provide financial incentives to encourage greater use of transit 20.2 17.5 30.1 21.9 29.5 26.9 28.3 Make infrastructure improvements needed to support
autonomous/driverless shuttles, vehicles 16.5 18.7 19.1 14.0 20.3 18.7 16.9 Increase programs that encourage carpooling,
vanpooling, and ridesharing 12.1 11.6 17.9 20.5 14.5 16.2 14.2 Add Bikeshare services with bikes available at kiosks for public use 17.7 22.4 14.0 12.5 16.6 14.3 23.0
Create bus-only lanes to improve travel times when using transit 11.8 7.1 13.3 13.5 12.3 12.8 12.5 Child in Hsld (QD3,4)
Adult Over 65
in Hsld (QD5) Survey Language
Caucasian
/ White
Asian
American
Latino /
Hispanic
Mixed or
other Own Rent
Improve sidewalks, crosswalks, pedestrian safety, signs, infrastructure to encourage more walking 56.2 50.3 55.8 70.3 55.1 58.3 Improve safe routes to school to encourage more kids to walk and bike to school 52.0 48.9 55.7 51.3 53.6 52.6
Improve bus, shuttle services with more routes, more frequent service within San Mateo, to neighboring areas 31.6 27.8 39.7 40.4 30.1 37.3 Expand the network of dedicated bike lanes and shared lanes to encourage more bicycling 28.4 23.9 30.7 32.2 26.0 31.1
Provide financial incentives to encourage greater use of transit 27.4 18.5 29.3 40.2 20.8 33.1 Make infrastructure improvements needed to support
autonomous/driverless shuttles, vehicles 13.7 20.4 20.6 39.7 18.1 19.2 Increase programs that encourage carpooling,
vanpooling, and ridesharing 14.9 14.1 17.6 26.0 16.3 15.5 Add Bikeshare services with bikes available at kiosks for public use 14.7 9.3 16.9 31.4 13.1 16.8
Create bus-only lanes to improve travel times when using transit 11.4 13.0 13.7 21.4 12.3 13.3 Ethnicity (QD12)
Home Ownership Status
(QD6)
52 of 81
Mobility
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 34City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
When presented with the aforementioned trade-off, 64% of respondents indicated they generally support adding bike lanes and wi dening sidewalks in San Mateo, ev en if it requires removing a vehicle lane or parking spaces in certain loca tions. Approximately one-third of respondents (34%) opposed adding bike lanes or widening sidewalks if it involved this type of trade-off, while 2% were unsure or preferred to not answer the question (Figure 19).
Question 13 Adding bike lanes and widening sidewalks will make it easier to travel around the City without using a car and could help reduce traffic congestion and greenhouse gas emissions.
However, adding bike lanes and widening sidewalks could also require removing a vehicle lane or parking spaces in certain locations. Knowing th is, do you generally support or oppose adding bike lanes and widening sidewalks in San Mateo?
FIGURE 19 SUPPORT ADDING BIKE LANES, WIDENING SIDEWALKS IN SAN MATEO Figures 20-24 show how support for adding bike
lanes and widening sidewalk s even if it involves
removing a vehicle lane or parking spaces in certain
locations varied across subgroups of San Mateo resi-
dents. Newer residents (less than 5 years), younger
residents (under 25), those not living with a child,
those in ‘other’ employment categories (homemaker/
student), and those who use public transit and/or a
bicycle/scooter to travel within the City on a weekly
basis were the most support ive of adding bike lanes
and widening sidewalks. Th at said, a majority of
respondents in every subgroup expressed support for
adding bike lanes and widening sidewalks, even if it
involved the stated trade-offs.
FIGURE 20 SUPPORT ADDING BIKE LANES, WIDENING SIDEWALKS IN SAN MATEO BY YEARS IN SAN MATEO & AGE Prefer not to
answer
2.0 Strongly
oppose
17.4 Somewhat
oppose
16.5 Strongly
support
29.6 Somewhat
support
34.5 25.6
33.4 25.1 19.6
36.8 34.8
32.1 36.6
28.3 43.4
21.9 17.4
10.1 17.7
15.6 25.2
20.6 6.9 14.4 12.1
23.9 13.2 16.4
21.1 12.8 20.4 14.5
38.542.8
34.5 22.2 24.1
38.7 34.4
32.743.1
34.2 14.1
11.513.2
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Less than 5 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 or longer 18 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or older Years in San Mateo (Q1) Age (QD1)
% Respondents
Prefer not to
answer
Strongly oppose
Somewhat oppose
Somewhat support
Strongly support
53 of 81
Mobility
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 35City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
FIGURE 21 SUPPORT ADDING BIKE LANES, WIDENING SIDEWALKS IN SAN MATEO BY CHILD IN HSLD & ANTICIPATED
YEARS IN SAN MATEO
FIGURE 22 SUPPORT ADDING BIKE LANES, WIDENING SIDEWALKS IN SAN MATEO BY ETHNICITY, HOME OWNERSHIP
STATUS & SURVEY LANGUAGE
FIGURE 23 SUPPORT ADDING BIKE LANES, WIDENING SIDEWALKS IN SAN MATEO BY EMPLOYMENT STATUS & WORK
COMMUTE STATUS
25.1 37.5
35.9 31.2
15.0 14.9 17.5
19.6 21.6 23.0
14.3 16.8 10.9 15.8
21.1 30.730.431.9
23.126.0
34.8 37.9
36.9 37.1
31.4 19.1
15.1 14.5
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Yes, under 18 Yes, under 6 None Less than 5 5 to 10 11 to 15 16 or more Child in Hsld (QD3,4) Anticipated Years in San Mateo (QD8) % Respondents
Prefer not to
answer
Strongly oppose
Som ewhat oppose
Som ewhat support
Strongly support
29.0 37.9
34.8 34.9
35.5 20.4
17.2 9.6
14.5 15.8 26.2
14.0 17.3 15.5
29.5 18.1 15.6 17.7 13.0
33.835.131.325.930.0 26.5
37.2 34.3 25.836.6
17.4 18.317.2
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Caucasian /
White
Asian American Latino /
Hispanic
Mixed or other Own Rent English Spanish
Ethnicity (QD12) Home Ownership Status (QD6) Survey Language % Respondents
Prefer not to
answer
Strongly oppose
Somewhat oppose
Somewhat support
Strongly support
22.9 33.4
30.5 30.1
38.6 36.6
19.7 17.4
14.7 16.3
15.6 17.5 10.8
15.8 18.4
11.5 14.3 21.4
14.4 44.7
31.7 25.3 20.9
39.8 38.8
34.5 21.7
37.8 43.5
17.2 13.3
15.6 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Full-time Part-time Retired Between jobs Other Working from home
Co mmuting
outside hom e
Mixture of both
Employment Status (QD9) Work Commute Status (QD10)
% Respondents
Prefer not to
answer
Strongly oppose
Somewhat oppose
Som ewhat support
Strongly support
54 of 81
Mobility
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 36City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
FIGURE 24 SUPPORT ADDING BIKE LANES, WIDENING SIDEWALKS IN SAN MATEO BY TRAVELING WITHIN CITY AT LEAST 1X PER WEEK & ADULT OVER 65 IN HSLD
33.7 32.2
36.8 34.9
14.6 13.2
20.8 14.3
19.3 1.8
25.1 14.0
8.8 18.3 15.7
52.9 28.0
49.8 28.0
39.6 21.1
34.3 31.2
27.9 30.2
15.8 5.6
16.6 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Personal vehicle Public transit Uber, Lyft, taxi Walk Bike, scooter Yes No Travel Within City at Least 1x Per Week (Q11) Adult Over 65 in Hsld (QD5) % Respondents
Prefer not to
answer
Strongly oppose
Somewhat oppose
Somewhat support
Strongly support
55 of 81
Communications
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 37
City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
C OMMUNICATIONS
The importance of city communication with residents cannot be over-stated. Much of a city’s suc- cess is shaped by the quality of information that is exchanged in both directions, from the City to the community and from the community to the City. This study is just one example of San Mateo’ efforts to enhance the information flow to the City to better understand the community’s concerns, perceptions, and needs. Some of San Mateo’ many efforts to communicate with its res- idents include its newsletters, timely press releas es, social media, and its website. In this sec- tion, we present the results of several communication-related questions.
OVERALL SATISFACTION WITH COMMUNICATION Question 14 asked San Mateo residents to report their satisfaction with city-resident communication. Overall, 62% of respon- dents indicated they were satisfied with the City’s efforts to communicate with residents through newsletters, the Internet, social media, and other means in 2022. The remaining respondents were either dissatisfied with the City’s efforts in this respect (25%) or unsure of their opinion (13%). When compared to 2020, there was a statistically significant decline in resident satisfac- tion with the City’s communication efforts.
Question 14 Overall, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the City's efforts to communicate with residents through newsletters, the Internet, social media, and other means? FIGURE 25 SATISFACTION WITH COMMUNICATION BY STUDY YEAR † Statistically significant change (p < 0.05) between the 2020 and 2022 studies.
The next three figures display how satisfaction with the City’s efforts to communicate with resi- dents varied by length of residence, presence and age(s) of children in the home, presence of an adult 65 years and older in the household, age of the respondent, gender, ethnicity, satisfaction with the City’s overall performance in provid ing services, home ownership status, and survey language. As is often the case, resi dents dissatisfied with the City’s overall performance were also the least satisfied with the City’s communic ation efforts, whereas those generally satisfied with the City were the among the most satisfied with city-resident communication.
48.7 14.3
10.2 21.318.3
44.1†
16.8 7.9† 5.0
12.5 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
2022 2020
Study Y ear
% Respondents
Prefer not to
answer
Not sure
Very dissatisfied
Som ewhat
dissatisfied
Som ewhat
satisfied
Very satisfied
56 of 81
Communications
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 38City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
FIGURE 26 SATISFACTION WITH COMMUNICATION BY YEARS IN SAN MATEO, CHILD IN HSLD & ADULT OVER 65 IN HSLD
FIGURE 27 SATISFACTION WITH COMMUNICATION BY AGE & GENDER FIGURE 28 SATISFACTION WITH COMMUNICATION BY ETHNICITY, OVERALL SATISFACTION, HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS &
SURVEY LANGUAGE
15.7 17.8 20.0 17.7 19.0
46.8 35.8
43.5 50.0 42.0
16.221.323.9Ver y
satisfied
18.2 34.2
48.7 46.8
Smwt
satisfied
42.0 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Less than 5 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 or longer Yes, under 18 Yes, under 6 None Yes No Years in San Mateo (Q1) Child in Hsld (QD3,4) Adult Over 65 in Hsld (QD5) % Respondents
18.5 18.9 17.3 20.9
35.2 53.2
40.5 48.3
Ver y
satisfied
25.2 18.4 16.7 17.2
Smwt
satisfied
56.4 50.2
41.835.5
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
18 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or older Male Female Age (QD1) Gender (QD2)
% Respondents
22.2 4.0
17.3 20.3 17.7
27.4 48.5
30.9 48.4 40.0 44.5
38.7 Ver y
satisfied
16.5 14.7
23.5 19.8
Smwt
satisfied
45.3 29.4
42.0 48.6
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Caucasian /
White
Asian
American
Latino /
Hispanic
Mixed or
other
Satisfied Dissatisfied Own Rent English Spanish
Ethnicity (QD12) Overall Satisfaction (Q5) Home Ownership Status (QD6)
Survey Language
% Respondents
57 of 81
Communications
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 39City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
TOPICS OF INTEREST All respondents were next asked if there was a particular topic or issue about which they’d like to receive more information from the City (Question 15) and—if yes—to describe the topic (Question 16). As shown in figures 29-32, 30% of respondents indi- cated the were interested in receiving more information from the City, with those expressing dis- satisfaction with the City’s communication efforts and overall performance in providing municipal services being the most likely to desire more information from the City.
Question 15 Is there a particular topic or issue that you'd like to receive more information about from the City?
FIGURE 29 INTERESTED IN RECEIVING MORE INFORMATION ABOUT CITY FIGURE 30 INTERESTED IN RECEIVING MORE INFORMATION ABOUT CITY BY YEARS IN SAN MATEO, CHILD IN HSLD & ADULT OVER 65 IN HSLD
Do not desire
additional info
62.3 Yes, desire
additional info
30.2 Prefer not to
answer
7.6 29.3 31.8 29.9 29.7 29.630.6
19.3 35.1
31.3 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
Less than 5 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 or longer Yes, under 18 Yes, under 6 None Yes No Years in San Mateo (Q1) Child in Hsld (QD3,4) Adult Over 65 in Hsld (QD5) % Respondents Who Interested in
Receiving More Info About City
58 of 81
Communications
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 40City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
FIGURE 31 INTERESTED IN RECEIVING MORE INFORMATION ABOUT CITY BY AGE & GENDER FIGURE 32 INTERESTED IN RECEIVING MORE INFORMATION ABOUT CITY BY ETHNICITY, OVERALL SATISFACTION, HOME
OWNERSHIP STATUS & SURVEY LANGUAGE
As for the specific topics of interest to those seeking more information from the City (see Figure 33), the most commonly mentioned were information about the City’s future commercial and residential development plans (31%), affordable housing (13%), street/road and infrastructure maintenance (13%), environmental issues (8%), pu blic transportation (7%), public safety/crime statistics (7%), and recreation programs (7%).
30.1 27.9 30.3 30.8
23.2 52.2
16.0 33.3
29.5 34.0
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 18 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or older Male Female Satisfied Dissatisfied Age (QD1) Gender (QD2) Satisfaction With
Communication (Q14)
% Respondents Who Interested in
Receiving More Info About City
27.0 43.8
32.0 28.2 31.1
17.5 39.2
29.831.2
27.4 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
Caucasian /
White
Asian
American
Latino /
Hispanic
Mixed or
other
Satisfied Dissatisfied Own Rent English Spanish
Ethnicity (QD12) Overall Satisfaction (Q5) Home Ownership Status (QD6)
Survey Language
% Respondents Who Interested in
Receiving More Info About City
59 of 81
Communications
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 41City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Question 16 Please briefly describe the topic.
FIGURE 33 INFORMATION TOPICS DESIRED
SOURCES OF INFORMATION To help the City identify the most effective means of com- municating with residents, it is helpful to un derstand what information sources they currently rely on for this type of information. Question 17 asked respondents to identify the top three information sources they typically use to find out about City of San Mateo news, events, and pro- grams. Because respondents were allowed to provide up to three sources, the percentages shown in Figure 34 on the next page represen t the percentage of residents who mentioned a particular source and thus sum to more than 100.
The most frequently cited sources for City information in 2022 were the San Mateo Daily Journal and email notifications from th e City, both mentioned by 30% of respondents. These sources were followed by letters, postcards, flyers, or brochures mailed to the home from the City (24%), Nextdoor (23%), the Internet not including the Ci ty’s site (18%), the City’s website (15%), and friends/family/associates/word of mouth (15%). When compared to the 2020 survey results, the percentage who cited the San Mateo Daily Journal, letters, postcards, flyers, or brochures mailed to the home by the City, and st reet banners/signs declined sign ificantly, whereas mentions of the San Francisco Chronicle and television incr eased significantly. Figures 35-37 present the information source categories by a number of key demographic traits. For ease of interpretation, the bars representing city-sponsored sources are displayed in shades of green, and non-city sources in shades of orange.
30.9 12.9
12.6 8.3
7.1 6.8
6.5 4.3
4.0 3.9
3.8 2.9
2.5 2.4
2.0 1.6
3.1 3.9
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Commercial, residential development, plans
Affordable housing
Streets, roads, infrastructure maintenance
Environmental issues
Public transportation
Public safety, crime stats
Recreational programs
Traffic issues, updates
Community events
City planning, vision
Parking issues, enforcement
Schools, education
COVID-19 mandates, tests, vaccines
Local economy, businesses
Noise control
Homelessness
Senior assistance
City budgeting, finances
% Respondents Who Desire More Info
60 of 81
Communications
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 42City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Question 17 What information sources do you use to find out about City of San Mateo news, events, and programs?
FIGURE 34 INFORMATION SOURCES BY STUDY YEAR
† Statistically significant change (p < 0.05) between the 2020 and 2022 studies.
FIGURE 35 INFORMATION SOURCES BY STUDY YEAR BY OVERALL, AGE & SATISFACTION WITH COMMUNICATION
29.6 22.9
17.8 15.2
14.5 11.7
4.9 4.3
4.2 4.2
4.0 3.8
3.7 3.1
2.9 2.0
1.7 1.3
0.4 37.1
30.6 31.1
26.2 16.4
15.2 15.7
9.5 10.9
4.5 14.3
2.6 2.7
4.2 2.9
5.9 2.7
6.2 2.0
1.8 1.7
1.6 1.5
0.0 11.4†
12.4†
7.7†
23.7†
30.1†
0 1 02 03 04 0
San Mateo Daily Journal (daily newspaper)
Email notifications from City
Letters, postcards, flyers or brochures mailed from City Nextdoor.com
Internet (not City’s site)
City Website
Friends/Family/Associates/word of mouth
San Francisco Chronicle (daily newspaper)
Facebook
Television (general)
Street banners or message signs
Instagram
Twitter
Mercury News (daily newspaper)
Do Not Receive Information about City
HOA or neighborhood association
Other sources
Daily Post (daily newspaper)
Radio
Other newspaper
Other social media site
Not sure
City Council Meetings
Blogs
% Respondents
2022
2020
42 26
29 31
44 53
61 41
48 41
20 48
39 43
30 46
47 39
35 42
40 24
2 27
29 27
25 25
27 20
22 20
20 22
21 20
28 20
24 18
25 14
18 19
17 21
18 17
14 15
10 13
7 15
23 16
13 8
5 9
9 8
8 6
9 4
1 0
2 1
1 2
2 1
1 6
5 10
7 3
4 2
3 8
52 36
45 43
45 34
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 18 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or older Satisfied Dissatisfied Overall Age (QD1) Satisfaction With
Communication (Q14)
% Respondents
Newspapers
City website, emails
Social Media
City newsletters, direct mail
Other sources
Non-City websites
Radio, T V
Street banners, message
signs
City Council Meetings
Not sure / No sources
61 of 81
Communications
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 43City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
FIGURE 36 INFORMATION SOURCES BY STUDY YEAR BY ETHNICITY, CHILD IN HSLD & ADULT OVER 65 IN HSLD FIGURE 37 INFORMATION SOURCES BY STUDY YEAR BY YEARS IN SAN MATEO, OVERALL SATISFACTION & SURVEY
LANGUAGE
COMMUNICATION PREFERENCES The final substantive ques tion of the survey pre- sented residents with the methods shown to the left of Figure 38 and asked whether each would be an effective way for the City to communicate with them. Over all, respondents indicated that email was the most effective method (84% very or somewhat effective), followed by postcards, letters, and newsletters mailed to the home (i.e., direct mail, 78%), social media like Facebook, Twitter, and Nextdoor (78%), and the City’s website (72%). Townhall meetings (52%), television programs (41%), and advertisements in local pape rs (40%) were generally viewed by residents as less effective ways for the City to communicate with them. Wh en compared to 2020, the per- ceived effectiveness of email declined by a small, but statistically significant 4% (see Table 21). 48 38
36 39
33 22
44 55
35 42
40 42
39 33
45 30
51 51
33 36
40 27
26 13
39 27
31 23
22 25
20 28
17 28
22 25
21 23
21 17
18 19
18 19
12 18
20 17
10 19
20 1
13 17
15 24
10 9
8 6
8 8
10 8
5 9
1 1
2 0
1 0
2 2
1 8
3 6
7 4
8 7
5 6
39 51
39 38
42 44
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
Caucasian /
White
Asian
American
Latino /
Hispanic
Mixed or
other
Yes, under
18 Yes, under 6 No ne Yes No
Ethnicity (QD12) Child in Hsld (QD3,4) Adult Over 65 in Hsld (QD5)
% Respondents
Newspapers
City website, emails
Social Media
City newsletters, direct mail
Other sources
Non-City websites
Radio, TV
Street banners, message
signs
City Council Meetings
Not sure / No sources
28 32
34 53
42 42
51 42
32 42
50 43
27 43
42 43
39 39
37 39
42 31
30 21
20 25
25 18
25 7
19 16
27 24
22 22
20 23
6 20
20 23
16 17
17 18
18 12
10 11
7 18
15 15
14 13
28 11
7 12
6 8
8 8
8 5
0 0
1 2
1 1
2 1
0 9
3 3
6 5
5 8
5 12
38 39
30 41
40 43
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
Less than 1 1 to 4 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 or more Satisfied Dissatisfied English Spanish Years in San Mateo (Q1) Overall Satisfaction (Q5) Survey Language % Respondents
Newspapers
City website, emails
Social Media
City newsletters, direct mail
Other sources
Non-City websites
Radio, T V
Street banners, message
signs
City Council Meetings
Not sure / No sources
62 of 81
Communications
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 44City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Question 18 As I read the following ways that the City of San Mateo can communicate with res- idents, I'd like to know if you think they would be very effective, somewhat effective, or not an effective way for the City to communicate with you.
FIGURE 38 EFFECTIVENESS OF COMMUNICATION METHODS
TABLE 21 EFFECTIVENESS OF COMMUNICATION METHODS BY STUDY YEAR † Statistically significant change (p < 0.05) between the 2020 and 2022 studies.
Tables 22-24 show how the perce ntage of residents that rated each communication method as very effective varied depending on their age, ethnicity, satisfaction with the City’s overall efforts to provide municipal services, presence and age(s) of children in the home, satisfaction with city- resident communication, and survey language.
TABLE 22 EFFECTIVENESS OF COMMUNICATION METHODS BY AGE (SHOWING % VERY EFFECTIVE)
50.1 38.8
38.0 26.6
10.5 11.4
8.9 33.6
39.3 39.8
45.8 41.3
29.2 31.4
0 1 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 0 1 0 0
Email
Postcards, letters and newsletters mailed to your home
Social media like Facebook, Twitter and Next Door
City’s Website
Townhall meetings
Television programs
Advertisements in local papers
% Respondents
Very effective Somewhat effective
2022 2020
City’s Website 72.4 69.3 +3.1
Townhall meetings 51.9 49.3 +2.6
Television programs 40.7 39.6 +1.1
Social media like Facebook, Twitter and Next Door 77.8 76.8 +1.1 Postcards, letters and newsletters mailed to your home 78.0 78.7 -0.7 Advertisements in local papers 40.3 43.4 -3.1
Email 83.7 87.9 -4.1†
Change in
Very + Smwt
Effective
2020 to 2022
Study Year
18 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or older Email 44.6 45.5 54.6 52.5 55.1 51.5
Postcards, letters and newsletters mailed to your home 46.2 37.0 42.7 33.3 42.4 37.1 Social media like Facebook, Twitter and Next Door 62.5 43.0 39.6 41.9 35.4 20.6 City’s Website 33.5 26.7 22.7 33.5 28.1 21.0
Television programs 12.5 6.9 10.5 11.9 12.7 13.2
Townhall meetings 17.7 6.6 10.2 7.9 10.6 12.3
Advertisements in local papers 17.9 6.4 7.1 5.4 9.7 9.2 Age (QD1)
63 of 81
Communications
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 45City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
TABLE 23 EFFECTIVENESS OF COMMUNICATION METHODS BY ETHNICITY & OVERALL SATISFACTION (SHOWING % VERY
EFFECTIVE)
TABLE 24 EFFECTIVENESS OF COMMUNICATION METHODS BY CHILD IN HSLD, SATISFACTION WITH COMMUNICATION & SURVEY LANGUAGE (SHOWING % VERY EFFECTIVE)
Caucasian
/ White
Asian
American
Latino /
Hispanic
Mixed or
other Satisfied Dissatisfied
Email 54.4 49.5 46.4 45.6 49.3 49.8
Postcards, letters and newsletters mailed to your home 40.5 30.6 40.3 42.2 40.4 38.5 Social media like Facebook, Twitter and Next Door 38.9 33.4 42.9 30.7 27.1 43.1 City’s Website 24.2 24.0 30.0 30.4 25.3 27.8
Television programs 9.5 14.8 9.2 12.8 14.7 9.1
Townhall meetings 12.3 2.7 11.9 15.0 12.7 9.4
Advertisements in local papers 6.6 7.1 11.9 10.9 11.7 7.5 Ethnicity (QD12) Overall Satisfaction (Q5)
Yes,
under 18
Yes,
under 6 None Satisfied Dissatisfied English Spanish
Email 52.8 48.7 48.5 52.3 48.6 50.1 50.8
Postcards, letters and newsletters mailed to your home 39.5 42.7 38.7 41.7 36.6 38.6 41.0 Social media like Facebook, Twitter and Next Door 45.0 43.0 35.4 42.1 35.6 37.9 39.8 City’s Website 25.6 19.5 27.6 30.3 21.7 26.0 34.4
Television programs 10.6 13.0 11.3 11.6 12.8 11.6 9.7
Townhall meetings 7.6 9.4 11.9 10.3 12.3 10.5 10.6
Advertisements in local papers 7.2 6.0 9.3 9.5 8.8 8.7 12.3 Child in Hsld (QD3,4)
Satisfaction With
Communication (Q14) Survey Language
64 of 81
Background & Demographics
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 46
City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
B ACKGROUND & D EMOGRAPHICS
TABLE 25 DEMOGRAPHICS OF SAMPLE BY STUDY YEAR
Table 25 presents the key demographic information
collected during the survey. In additional to providing insights into how the results of the survey vary across demographic subgroups, the information is also used
to ensure that the survey sample matches the profile
of San Mateo’s adult population on key characteristics
based on the latest Census figures.
2022 2020
Total Respondents 775 1,276
Years in San Mateo (Q1)
Less than 1 5.7 5.8
1 to 4 16.7 18.5
5 to 9 14.8 12.8
10 to 14 10.8 10.1
15 or more 51.9 52.4
Prefer not to answer 0.1 0.4
Age (QD1)
18 to 24 8.6 9.0
25 to 34 23.4 20.5
35 to 44 17.8 21.0
45 to 54 15.2 16.8
55 to 64 13.7 12.8
65 or older 16.8 15.7
Prefer not to answer 4.3 4.2
Child in Hsld (QD3,4)
Yes, under 18 28.6 34.3
Yes, under 6 11.8 16.5
None 67.1 60.5
Prefer not to answer 4.4 5.2
Adult Over 65 in Hsld (QD5)
Yes 29.2 32.1
No 66.2 63.0
Prefer not to answer 4.6 4.9
Home Ownership Status (QD6)
Own 49.5 56.7
Rent 45.8 40.1
Prefer not to answer 4.7 3.2
Home Type (QD7)
Single family 51.8 60.1
Townhome 7.5 8.4
Condo 10.9 9.6
Apartment 26.0 18.5
Prefer not to answer 3.9 3.3
Anticipated Years in San Mateo (QD8)
Less than 5 20.5 20.0
5 to 10 29.6 25.2
11 to 15 9.2 10.5
16 or more 32.1 33.7
Prefer not to answer 8.6 10.5
Employment Status (QD9)
Full-time 61.4 63.4
Part-time 5.8 5.3
Student 5.3 5.4
Homemaker 1.1 2.5
Retired 18.0 15.6
Between jobs 3.8 2.2
Prefer not to answer 4.6 5.5
Ethnicity (QD12)
Caucasian / White 39.2 39.8
Asian American 21.6 18.3
Latino / Hispanic 27.4 23.5
Mixed or other 7.3 10.4
Prefer not to answer 4.5 8.0
Gender
Male 47.8 45.2
Female 46.1 50.5
Not listed 0.2 0.6
Prefer not to answer 5.9 3.7
Study Year
65 of 81
Methodology
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 47
City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
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 Mateo to develop a questionnaire that covered the topics of interest and avoided many possible sources of systematic measurement erro r, including position-order effects, wording effects, response-category effect s, scaling effects, and priming. Several ques- tions included multiple individual items. Because asking items in a set order can lead to a sys- tematic position bias in responses, the items were asked in a random order for each respondent.
Some questions asked in this study were presen ted only to a subset of respondents. For exam- ple, only respondents who indicated they were interested in additional information from the City (Question 15) were subsequently asked to briefly describe their topics of interest (Question 16).
The questionnaire included with this report (see Questionnaire & Toplines on page 50) identifies the skip patterns used during the interview to ensure that each respondent received the appro- priate questions.
PROGRAMMING, PRE-TEST & TRANSLATION Prior to fielding the survey, the ques- tionnaire was CATI (Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing) programmed to assist interview- ers when conducting the teleph one interviews. The CATI program automatically navigates the skip patterns, randomizes the appropriate questi on items, and alerts interviewers to certain types of keypunching mistakes should they ha ppen during the interview. The survey was also programmed into a passcode-protected online survey application to allow online participation for sampled households. The inte grity 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. The final questionnaire was also professionally translated into Spanish to allow for data collection in English and Spanish according to the preference of the respondent.
SAMPLE, RECRUITING & DATA COLLECTION A comprehensive database of house- holds in the City of San Mateo was utilized for this study, ensuring that all households in San Mateo had the opportunity to be selected for th e survey. After random selection, households were recruited to participate in the survey using a combination of mailed letters, email invita- tions, text invitations, and telephone calls to both land lines and mobile lines, as appropriate.
The mail, email, and text invitations contained a unique passcode so that only those invited could access the secure survey site, and they could complete the survey one-time only. Following a period of online data collection, True North re cruited by telephone to households that had yet to participate in the online survey in response to the mail, email, and/or text invitations, or for which only telephone contact information was available.
Telephone interviews averaged 18 minutes in length and were conducted during weekday eve- nings (5:30PM to 9PM) and on weekends (10AM to 5PM). It is standard practice not to call during the day on weekdays because most working adults are unavailable and thus calling during those hours would bias the sample. A total of 775 completed surveys were gathered online and by tele- phone between January 21 and February 2, 2022.
66 of 81
Methodology
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 48City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
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 775 adult residents for a particular question and what would have been found if all of the estimated 83,578 adult residents
3 had been interviewed.
Figure 39 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 ± 3.5% for questions answered by all 775 respondents.
FIGURE 39 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 39 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.
3. US Census Bureau estimate, April 2020.
775 Respondents
± 3.5%
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
67 of 81
Methodology
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 49City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
ROUNDING Numbers that end in 0.5 or higher are rounded up to the nearest whole num- ber, whereas numbers that end in 0.4 or lower are rounded down to the nearest whole number.
These same rounding rules are also applied, when needed, to arrive at numbers that include a decimal place in constructing figures and tables. Occasionally, these rounding rules lead to small discrepancies in the first decimal place when co mparing tables and charts for a given question.
Due to rounding, some figures and narrative include numbers that add to more than or less than 100%.
68 of 81
Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 50
City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Q UESTIONNAIRE & T OPLINES
True North Research, Inc. © 2021 Page 1
City of San Mateo Community Opinion Survey
Phone Version
Final Toplines (n=775)
February 2022
Section 1: Introduction to Study
Hi, may I please speak to: _____. Hi, my name is _____ and Im calling from TNR, an independent public opinion research company. Were conducting a survey for the City of San Mateo (Muh-TAY-O) about important issues and we would like to get your opinions.
If needed: This is a survey about important issues in your community. Im NOT trying to sell anything and I wont ask for a donation.
If needed: The survey should take about 12 minutes to complete.
If needed: If now is not a convenient time, can you let me know a better time so I can call back?
Section 2: Quality of Life
Id like to begin by asking you a few questions about what it is like to live in the City of San Mateo.
Q1 How long have you lived in the City of San Mateo?
1 Less than 1 year 6%
2 1 to 4 years 17%
3 5 to 9 years 15%
4 10 to 14 years 11%
5 15 years or longer 52%
99 Prefer not to answer 0%
Q2 How would you rate: _____? Would you say it is excellent, good, fair, poor or very poor? Always ask A first, then randomize
remaining items
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Very Poor
Not sure
Prefer not to
answer
A The overall quality of life in the City of San
Mateo 24% 61% 11% 3% 1% 0% 0%
B San Mateo as a place to raise a family 26% 42% 17% 3% 3% 7% 2% C San Mateo as a place to work 18% 44% 16% 3% 1% 16% 2% D San Mateo as a place to retire 10% 27% 23% 18% 10% 12% 1% E San Mateo as a place to shop and dine 26% 51% 18% 3% 1% 0% 0% F San Mateo as a place to recreate 18% 41% 28% 5% 3% 5% 1% 69 of 81
Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 51City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
City of San Mateo Community Opinion Survey February 2022 True North Research, Inc. © 2021 Page 2
Q3 What do you like most about the City of San Mateo that should be preserved in the future? Verbatim responses recorded and later grouped into categories shown below.
Parks, recreation facilities, opportunities 24%
Shopping, dining opportunities 16%
Not sure / Cannot think of anything specific 13%
Proximity to surrounding cities, areas 12%
Open, green space, mountains 12%
Diversity of businesses, cultures, activities 9%
Small town atmosphere 8%
Low crime, public safety 7%
Downtown area 7%
Friendly people, neighbors 6%
Weather, clean air 5%
Good schools 4%
Clean, well-maintained 3%
Sense of community 3%
Access to bay, ocean 3%
Access to public transportation 3%
Affordable houses 2%
Historical places 2%
Outdoor activities 2%
Less crowded, traffic than other cities 2%
Family friendly 2%
Availability of parking 2%
Q4
If the city government could change one thing to make San Mateo a better place to live now and in the future, what change would you like to see? Verbatim responses recorded and later grouped into categories shown below.
Provide more affordable housing 19%
Limit growth, preserve open space 13%
Not sure / Cannot think of anything specific 10%
Improve public safety, more police presence 8%
Improve, maintain infrastructure, streets,
roads 7%
Provide more shopping, dining
opportunities 6%
Reduce traffic congestion 6%
Reduce cost of living 5%
Address parking issues 5%
70 of 81
Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 52City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
City of San Mateo Community Opinion Survey February 2022 True North Research, Inc. © 2021 Page 3
Reduce taxes, fees 4%
Beautify, clean up City 4%
No changes needed / Everything is fine 4%
Add, improve bike lanes 3%
Improve, add parks, rec facilities 3%
Reduce building permit restrictions 3%
Enforce traffic laws 3%
Improve public transit 3%
Improve economy, jobs 3%
Provide more activities, events for all ages 3%
Improve schools, education 2%
Address homeless issues 2%
Improve City Council, gov process 2%
Improve downtown area 2%
Improve environmental efforts 2%
Section 3: City Services
Next, I would like to ask a series of questions about services provided by the City of San Mateo.
Q5
Generally speaking, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the job the City of San Mateo is doing to provide city services? Get answer, then ask: Would that be very (satisfied/dissatisfied) or somewhat (satisfied/dissatisfied)? 1 Very satisfied 25%
2 Somewhat satisfied 49%
3 Somewhat dissatisfied 11%
4 Very dissatisfied 5%
98 Not sure 10%
99 Prefer not to answer 1%
71 of 81
Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 53City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
City of San Mateo Community Opinion Survey February 2022 True North Research, Inc. © 2021 Page 4
Q6
For each of the services I read next, I’d like you to tell me how satisfied you are with the job the city is doing to provide the service. Are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the city’s efforts to: _____, or do you not have an opinion? Get answer. If ‘satisfied’ or ‘dissatisfied’, then ask: Would that be very (satisfied/dissatisfied) or somewhat (satisfied/dissatisfied)?
Randomize
Very
Satisfied
Somewhat
Satisfied
Somewhat
Dissatisfied
Very
Dissatisfied
Not sure
Prefer not to
answer
A Provide police and crime prevention
services 26% 43% 13% 8% 11% 1%
B
Promote economic development to attract
new businesses and good-paying jobs to
the community
12% 36% 17% 7% 25% 3%
C Prepare the city for emergencies and
natural disasters 14% 37% 13% 3% 31% 1%
D Provide fire protection, prevention and
emergency medical services 39% 41% 4% 2% 14% 1%
E Manage traffic congestion 10% 35% 30% 19% 7% 0%
F Address homelessness 8% 25% 25% 20% 20% 2%
G Maintain public buildings and facilities like
City Hall, libraries and parking garages 36% 48% 6% 2% 9% 0% H Maintain local streets and roads 13% 39% 26% 19% 3% 0% I Maintain storm drains, sewers and creeks 19% 47% 15% 7% 12% 1% J Provide parks, sports fields and recreation
facilities 38% 46% 9% 4% 3% 0%
K Provide a variety of recreation programs for
all ages 27% 37% 12% 3% 19% 1%
L Provide special events like community
festivals and holiday celebrations 19% 43% 16% 6% 15% 2% M
Enforce code violations to address issues
like abandoned vehicles, non-permitted
construction, and yards not being properly
maintained
15% 34% 14% 12% 23% 2%
N Protect the environment 17% 43% 13% 7% 19% 1%
O Provide paths and trails for walking,
jogging, and running 29% 49% 13% 5% 4% 0%
P Provide bicycle lanes and paths 20% 41% 18% 9% 9% 2%
Q
Cleaning up litter and trash that people
dump along streets, sidewalks and in public
areas
21% 39% 23% 14% 3% 0%
R Facilitate the creation of affordable housing 7% 0% 19% 23% 31% 17%
72 of 81
Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 54City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
City of San Mateo Community Opinion Survey February 2022 True North Research, Inc. © 2021 Page 5
Section 4: Housing & Land Use
Next, I would like to ask a few questions about the availability of housing in the City of San Mateo.
Q7
As I read the following housing types, please tell me whether you feel there is currently too much, about the right amount, or too little of this type of housing in the City of San Mateo.
Randomize
Too Much
About
Right
Too Little
Not sure
Prefer not
to answer
A Housing that is affordable for middle-
income families 4% 20% 66% 9% 0%
B Housing that is affordable for low-income
families 8% 12% 64% 16% 1%
Q8
California State law requires that all cities plan for additional housing. With a general shortage of housing in California, the state is requiring that the City of San Mateo plan for thousands of new housing units.
There are a variety of factors the City can consider when deciding where new housing may be located and the types of housing that may be built. As I read the following list of items, Id like to know how important you feel the item should be as the City plans for future housing over the next 20 years. Please keep in mind that not all of the items can be extremely important.
Here is the (first/next) item: ______. Should this City make this an extremely important, very important, somewhat important, or not important factor when planning future housing?
Randomize
Extremely
Important
Very
Important
Somewhat
Important
Not
Important
Not sure
Prefer not to
answer
A Creating homes that are affordable for low-
and middle-income residents 45% 29% 17% 8% 1% 0%
B Preserving open space and creating new
park lands 43% 35% 19% 2% 1% 0%
C Minimizing vehicle trips and traffic
congestion 34% 41% 19% 4% 1% 0%
D Ensuring sufficient parking spaces 28% 37% 26% 7% 1% 0% E Locating additional shops and restaurants
near new housing units 17% 31% 37% 13% 2% 0%
F Creating commercial zones that will attract
high-paying jobs 13% 33% 35% 16% 2% 0%
G Creating pedestrian-friendly areas that
encourage people to walk rather than drive 40% 35% 18% 5% 1% 0% H Improving access to transit and increasing
transit ridership 31% 38% 22% 7% 2% 0%
I Creating bike lanes and paths 22% 31% 32% 13% 1% 1%
73 of 81
Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 55City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
City of San Mateo Community Opinion Survey February 2022 True North Research, Inc. © 2021 Page 6
J Minimizing pollution and greenhouse gas
emissions 44% 34% 14% 6% 1% 0%
K Preserving the Citys historic buildings and
resources 26% 32% 28% 13% 1% 0%
L Keeping building heights low 21% 22% 25% 29% 3% 0%
M Ensuring that the impacts of growth are not
concentrated in disadvantaged areas 28% 31% 24% 11% 5% 1% N
Producing the revenue necessary to pay for
the cost of providing police, fire, and other
city services to the new housing units
29% 43% 20% 4% 3% 1%
O Ensuring adequate water supplies 62% 31% 5% 1% 2% 0%
P Having a plan that will meet the States
requirements for at least the next 20 years 25% 40% 21% 9% 5% 1% Q
Avoiding new development in areas that are
at higher risk of natural hazards, climate
change, or sea level rise
39% 35% 17% 6% 3% 0%
R Minimizing the number of new units added
to single-family neighborhoods 24% 21% 23% 27% 5% 0%
Q9
Concentrating new housing in taller, higher-density buildings downtown and near transit would allow more land to be reserved for parks, recreation areas, and community amenities, and will minimize change to existing residential neighborhoods. Knowing this, would you support or oppose concentrating future housing in higher-density buildings up to 12 stories. Get answer, then ask: Would that be strongly (support/oppose) or somewhat (support/oppose)?
1 Strongly support 33% Skip to Q11
2 Somewhat support 30% Ask Q10
3 Somewhat oppose 14% Ask Q10
4 Strongly oppose 21% Ask Q10
99 Prefer not to answer 2% Ask Q10
Q10
Would you support or oppose concentrating future housing in higher-density buildings up to 8 stories. Get answer, then ask: Would that be strongly (support/oppose) or somewhat (support/oppose)?
1 Strongly support 16%
2 Somewhat support 36%
3 Somewhat oppose 20%
4 Strongly oppose 27%
99 Prefer not to answer 2%
74 of 81
Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 56City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
City of San Mateo Community Opinion Survey February 2022 True North Research, Inc. © 2021 Page 7
Section 5: Mobility
Q11 When traveling within the City of San Mateo, how often do you: _____? Read options if needed: Five or more days per week, 1 to 4 days per week, .
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 52% 35% 8% 1% 1% 3% 0%
B Use public transit such as a bus or train 3% 4% 5% 7% 22% 58% 1% C Use Uber, Lyft or taxi 1% 3% 12% 8% 33% 42% 1%
D Walk from your home to a local store or
restaurant 16% 29% 19% 9% 11% 15% 1%
E Ride a bicycle or a scooter 6% 12% 9% 6% 15% 49% 2%
Q12
A growing population will naturally lead to greater traffic congestion in the future unless improvements are made to the Citys transportation system and we find ways to reduce the number of trips people make by driving in a typical day.
As I read the following list of actions that could be used to help reduce traffic congestion, please indicate whether you think the City should make it a high priority, a medium priority, or a low priority for the Citys future. If you dont think the City should take the action, just say so. Please keep in mind that not all actions can be a high priority.
Here is the (first/next) one: _____. Should this be a high, medium, or low priority for the Citys future, or should the City not take this action? Randomize
High priority
Medium
priority
Low priority
Not a priority
Not Sure
Prefer not to
answer
A Increase programs that encourage
carpooling, vanpooling, and ridesharing 16% 41% 24% 15% 4% 0% B
Expand the network of dedicated bike lanes
and shared lanes to encourage more
bicycling
28% 35% 21% 13% 3% 0%
C
Improve sidewalks, crosswalks, pedestrian
safety, signs, and infrastructure to encourage
more walking
56% 28% 11% 4% 2% 0%
D Improve safe routes to school to encourage
more kids to walk and bike to school 52% 32% 9% 4% 3% 0% E Add Bikeshare services with bikes available
at kiosks for public use 15% 35% 28% 18% 4% 0%
F
Improve bus and shuttle services with more
routes and more frequent service within San
Mateo and to neighboring areas
33% 38% 15% 8% 5% 0%
G Provide financial incentives to encourage
greater use of transit 27% 37% 21% 12% 3% 0%
75 of 81
Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 57City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
City of San Mateo Community Opinion Survey February 2022 True North Research, Inc. © 2021 Page 8
H
Make infrastructure improvements needed to
support autonomous/driverless shuttles
and vehicles
19% 26% 25% 24% 6% 0%
I Create bus-only lanes to improve travel
times when using transit 13% 27% 26% 28% 6% 1%
Q13
Adding bike lanes and widening sidewalks will make it easier to travel around the City without using a car and could help reduce traffic congestion and greenhouse gas emissions. However, adding bike lanes and widening sidewalks could also require removing a vehicle lane or parking spaces in certain locations.
Knowing this, do you generally support or oppose adding bike lanes and widening sidewalks in San Mateo? Get answer, then ask: Would that be strongly (support/oppose) or somewhat (support/oppose)?
1 Strongly support 30%
2 Somewhat support 35%
3 Somewhat oppose 16%
4 Strongly oppose 17%
99 Prefer not to answer 2%
Section 6: Communications
Q14
Overall, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the Citys efforts to communicate with residents through newsletters, the Internet, social media, and other means? Get answer, then ask: Would that be very (satisfied/dissatisfied) or somewhat (satisfied/dissatisfied)? 1 Very satisfied 18%
2 Somewhat satisfied 44%
3 Somewhat dissatisfied 17%
4 Very dissatisfied 8%
98 No Opinion/Not Sure 13%
99 Prefer not to answer 0%
Q15 Is there a particular topic or issue that youd like to receive more information about from the City?
1 Yes 30% Ask Q16
2 No 62% Skip to Q17
99 Prefer not to answer 8% Skip to Q17
76 of 81
Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 58City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
City of San Mateo Community Opinion Survey February 2022 True North Research, Inc. © 2021 Page 9
Q16 Please briefly describe the topic. Verbatim responses recorded and later grouped into categories shown below.
Commercial, housing developments,
density 31%
Affordable housing 13%
Streets, roads, infrastructure maintenance 13%
Environmental issues 8%
Recreational programs 7%
Public transportation 7%
Public safety, crime stats 7%
Community events 4%
Schools, education 4%
Traffic issues, updates 4%
Parking issues, enforcement 4%
City planning, vision 4%
Noise control 3%
COVID-19 mandates, tests, vaccines 3%
Local economy, businesses 3%
City budgeting, finances 2%
Senior assistance 2%
Homelessness 2%
Q17 What information sources do you use to find out about City of San Mateo news, events, and programs? Dont read list. Record up to first 3 responses.
Newspapers
1 San Francisco Chronicle (daily
newspaper) 12%
2 Mercury News (daily newspaper) 4%
3 San Mateo Daily Journal (daily
newspaper) 30%
4 Daily Post (daily newspaper) 4%
5 Other newspaper 3%
City Sources
6 City Website 15%
7 Email notifications from City 30%
8 Letters, postcards, flyers or brochures
mailed from City to your home 24%
9 Street banners or message signs 8%
10 City Council Meetings 1%
77 of 81
Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 59City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
City of San Mateo Community Opinion Survey February 2022 True North Research, Inc. © 2021 Page 10
Internet & Social Media
11 Internet (not Citys site) 18%
12 Facebook 12%
13 Twitter 4%
14 Instagram 5%
15 Other social media site 2%
16 Nextdoor.com 23%
17 Blogs 0%
Other
18 Television (general) 11%
19 Radio 3%
20 HOA or neighborhood association 4%
21 Friends/Family/Associates/word of
mouth 14%
22 Other 4%
23 Do Not Receive Information about City 4%
98 Not sure 2%
99 Prefer not to answer 1%
Q18
As I read the following ways that the City of San Mateo can communicate with residents, Id like to know if you think they would be very effective, somewhat effective, or not an effective way for the City to communicate with you.
Randomize
Very
Effective
Somewhat
Effective
Not
Effective
Not Sure
Prefer not
to answer
A Email 50% 34% 11% 4% 1%
B Postcards, letters and newsletters mailed to
your home 39% 39% 18% 3% 1%
C Citys Website 27% 46% 19% 8% 1%
D Advertisements in local papers 9% 31% 48% 10% 1%
E Social media like Facebook, Twitter and
Next Door 38% 40% 13% 7% 1%
F Townhall meetings 11% 41% 36% 10% 1%
G Television programs 11% 29% 48% 10% 1%
78 of 81
Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 60City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
City of San Mateo Community Opinion Survey February 2022 True North Research, Inc. © 2021 Page 11
Section 7: Background & Demographics
Thank you so much for your participation. I have just a few background questions for statistical purposes.
D1 In what year were you born? Year recoded into age groups shown below. 18 to 24 9%
25 to 34 23%
35 to 44 18%
45 to 54 15%
55 to 64 14%
65 or older 17%
Prefer not to answer 4%
D2 What is your gender?
1 Male 48%
2 Female 46%
3 Non-binary <1%
99 Prefer not to answer 6%
D3 Do you have one or more children under the age of 18 living in your household? 1 Yes 29% Ask D4
2 No 67% Skip to D5
99 Prefer not to answer 4% Skip to D5
D4 Do you have one or more children under the age of six living in your household? 1 Yes 41%
2 No 57%
99 Prefer not to answer 2%
D5 Do you have one or more adults 65 years of age or older in your household? 1 Yes 29%
2 No 66%
99 Prefer not to answer 5%
79 of 81
Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 61City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
City of San Mateo Community Opinion Survey February 2022 True North Research, Inc. © 2021 Page 12
D6 Do you own or rent your residence in San Mateo?
1 Own 49%
2 Rent 46%
99 Prefer not to answer 5%
D7 Which of the following best describes your current home? 1 Single family detached home 52%
2 Townhome 7%
3 Condominium 11%
4 Apartment 26%
99 Prefer not to answer 4%
D8 How many more years do you anticipate that you will be living in the City of San Mateo? 1 Less than 5 years 21%
2 5 to 10 years 30%
3 11 to 15 years 9%
4 16 years or more 32%
99 Prefer not to answer 9%
D9
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 D10
2 Employed part-time 6% Ask D10
3 Student 5% Skip to D12
4 Homemaker 1% Skip to D12
5 Retired 18% Skip to D12
6 In-between jobs 4% Skip to D12
99 Prefer not to answer 5% Skip to D12
D10 Are you currently working from home, commuting to a workplace outside of your home, or a mixture of both?
1 Working from home 31% Ask D11
2 Commuting to a workplace outside
home 35% Skip to D12
3 Mixture of both 34% Ask D11
99 Prefer not to answer 1% Skip to D12
80 of 81
Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 62City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
City of San Mateo Community Opinion Survey February 2022 True North Research, Inc. © 2021 Page 13
D11 How many days do you primarily work from home in a typical week? 0 Zero 1%
1 One 4%
2 Two 14%
3 Three 17%
4 Four 15%
5 Five or more 47%
99 Prefer not to answer 2%
D12 What ethnic group do you consider yourself a part of or feel closest to? Read list if respondent hesitates.
1 Caucasian/White 39%
2 Asian -- Korean, Chinese, Vietnamese,
Japanese, Filipino or other Asian 22%
3 Indian (India) 2%
4 Latino/Hispanic/Mexican 27%
5 African-American/Black 2%
6 Native American Indian or Alaskan
Native <1%
7 Pacific Islander 1%
8 Mixed Heritage 2%
9 Other 1%
99 Prefer not to answer 5%
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 Mateo.
Post Interview Items
S1 Survey Language
1 English 93%
2 Spanish 7%
81 of 81