San Mateo City Council
April 18, 2022

Alternative B
More green spaces.
Intersection improvements and traffic flow.
Decrease bike and pedestrian use.
No closed streets in downtown area. Increase parking and vehicle flow in downtown. Encourage easy connections. Increase BART connectivity. Change selected high-traffic corridors to one-way streets to improve circulation and maximize space use with bike lanes and sidewalks.
Bikeways on main vehicle thoroughfares will only impede traffic. Improvements to sidewalks for better walkability.
Ensure sufficient parking and enable more friendly car traffic for those who need their cars. 293 of 509
March 31, 2022| Page 22
Alternative C
More walkable city areas protected by trees.
Make it easier for transit, pedestrians, and cyclists to get around safely. Provide more bike lanes, sidewalk improvements, and pedestrian paths/bridges. Add bicycle racks. Include the area around Hillsdale and expand to the west side of El Camino Real. Dramatically increase frequency of bus service.
Mandate electric car charging at all apartment buildings. Add more pedestrian friendly streets in downtown.
Link a bike path with the Canada Road access on Ralston Avenue. Add bike lanes on Delaware Street for use by North Central cyclists. Take advantage of extra wide streets on Baldwin Avenue and 4th Avenue downtown for multi- faceted, multi-functional, entertaining, and architecturally interesting pedestrian malls. Add free residential permit parking to increase usable space and limit the number of permits per household based on capacity.
Provide more public parking for large work and business vehicles. Synchronized traffic lights that prioritize public transit and bicycles. All San Mateo train crossings should be underground or improved significantly. Need more designated left turn lanes on El Camino.
Align alternative modes of transportation with pick up and drop off at all schools. More parking structures. Maintain parking in Downtown. Do not reduce street parking in residential areas.
Need a strong shuttle bus service from Study Area 6 to Hillsdale train station and El Camino Real. Focus on improving roads and infrastructure, instead of public transit. Less bicycle lanes. Do not replace vehicle lanes or sidewalks on main streets with bicycle lanes. Better biking to schools.
More traffic calming measures.
One-way streets.

Land Use
Most important land use issue the General Plan should help the City improve.

Downtown
Would like to see a vibrant downtown.
Protect the Downtown to preserve the successful mix of small and medium businesses. More homes near jobs, transit, amenities and downtown.

Housing
Add more housing, especially close to jobs and transit. Affordability of housing. 20 percent of new housing should be affordable. Aim to exceed RHNA for all cycles until 2040.
Flexible zoning requirements for mixed use developments. 294 of 509
March 31, 2022| Page 23
Balance new housing while preserving existing housing. Address overcrowding and over population.
Increase mixed use areas throughout the city.
New affordable housing development should include services for residents and visitors. Avoid high density housing that dramatically impacts traffic. Quantity of housing should be kept to minimal levels that will still meet any state demands. Make it feasible for affordable housing developers and private developers to build lower-cost housing, especially missing-middle housing.
Single-family neighborhoods should allow multifamily, including in Aragon and San Mateo Park. Provide a mix of housing types within single-family neighborhoods. Address overcrowding and loss of single-family homes to multi-family. Adequate parking should be provided for new housing.
Maintain single-family neighborhoods as they currently are. Protect all single family neighborhoods, including in and adjacent to North Central San Mateo, similar to the other side of El Camino Real.
Increase the required percentage of affordable housing. More mid-level homes that are three to five stories in height. Seek State funding as a permanent source of funding for affordable housing. Workforce housing with three to four bedrooms is needed for families.

Transit
Need more transit-supportive land uses for SamTrans and Caltrain to increase transit service. Increase heights and densities around transit stations and main corridors like El Camino Real. Locate multi-family and mixed use near public transportation and transit areas. Improve public transit near housing areas.
Provide light rail transportation to all shopping centers and malls. Add pedestrian and bicycle bridges.

Amenities
More community gathering areas, open space, recreation facilities and parks. Bring culture to San Mateo by adding public art, museums and theaters. New housing should be developed in conjunction with amenities, such as transit, parking, open space. Do not build the housing first and add the amenities after. New multi-family housing needs recreational areas for families.

Other
Mixed use buildings with retail on the ground floor, and housing above. Keep heights as is, there are too many tall buildings. Measure Y height restrictions must be withdrawn.
Maintain current heights but increase density.
Increase heights and densities.
Preservation and lack of open and green space. Require developers to preserve redwood trees. Slow and moderate growth.
295 of 509
March 31, 2022| Page 24
Protection and enhancement of the existing built environment, including neighborhoods, historic and cultural resources. Implement adaptive reuse.
Neighborhood parking structures in lieu of on street parking. Parking is an issue in neighborhoods because people do not use their garages for cars. Address unused parking lots and aging shopping centers. Concern the City Council is only listening to developers. Increase the tree cover in the city.
Require parking for new developments.
Jobs housing balance.
Provide nice outdoor dining areas.
Availability of water and infrastructure. Consider impacts of increased density to infrastructure, roads, schools, water and open space.
Plant trees and clean up the city.
Increase seating areas along sidewalks. Add night lights. Traffic congestion. Add vehicle lanes and address parking. Make use of underutilized commercial areas.
Fairness and equality for all residents.
Pedestrian protection when walking from residential to downtown, Hayward park and Hillsdale. Expand the study area boundary to consider the areas west of El Camino Real. Address parks, open space and landscaping.
Do not allow people to pitch tents in public areas.
Address severe climate threats and public health and equity issues. Consideration of natural resources and climate change, including droughts. There are too many old commercial properties that could be repurposed. Slow growth to maintain city integrity.
Do not add new businesses.
Add restrictions on accessory dwelling units.

Ideas from the land use alternatives that should be part of the adopted General Plan.

Attendees of the preferred scenario workshops were able to share ideas from the land use alternatives they believe should be a part of the General Plan. The responses are summarized below. Focus on adding jobs and housing near transit.
Housing diversity throughout the city, not just where transit is currently. Reduce size of unused parking lots.
Increase affordable housing options.
Support redevelopment of Hillsdale Mall to incorporate housing and supportive uses. Allow development to the next increment of density citywide. Housing densities need to be increased along Alameda and El Camino Real and within low density neighborhoods, including Aragon Beresford and San Mateo Park. Support for various housing types distributed throughout the city, including in San Mateo Park, Baywood, and Beresford Hillsdale.
296 of 509
March 31, 2022| Page 25
Create a special Mello-Roos community facilities district that allows higher heights/densities in exchange for paying a special tax to fund transportation improvements. New development should be built at the same time as new services for the community. Support for new mid-level housing that is 4 to 7 stories tall. Mixed use zones should have a minimum percentage of housing with density bonuses. Rehabilitating underused shopping centers and commercial buildings. Consider impacts to schools as a result of new residents. Keep the height limits as is.
More parks and community space. Parkland needs to be added in the San Mateo Heights. Reduce or eliminate parking minimums.
Support developers allocating 15 to 20% of new housing units as affordable housing. More pedestrian friendly areas. Walkability is critical moving forward. Housing at Bridgepointe is a great idea to slow the closing of retail. Address services for the community, especially medical services. Provide housing for only city and county employees.
Strike a balance between housing and preservation.

Preferred land use alternative input from the workshops and online survey.

Citywide
The support received for each land use alternative during the draft alternatives range workshops, preferred scenario workshops, and preferred scenario online survey are listed below. 28 workshop participants and 64 online survey respondents prefer Land Use Alternative C. 12 workshop participants and 121 online survey respondents prefer Land Use Alternative A. 8 workshop participants and 43 online survey respondents prefer Land Use Alternative B.

Study Area
To allow community member to provide feedback at a study area level, the preferred scenario online survey allows participants the ability to choose whether they want to provide feedback at a citywide level or by study area. Of the 404 participants that completed the online survey 96 survey participants chose to select their preferred land use alternative by study area. The table below lists the number of participants that selected each alternative by study area. The land use alternative with the highest number of responses for each study area is shaded.

TABLE 1 NUMBER OF SURVEY RESPONDENTS THAT SELECTED EACH STUDY AREA
Study Area Land Use Alternative
A
Land Use Alternative
B
Land Use Alternative
C
Study Area 1 – 37 32 27
297 of 509
March 31, 2022| Page 26
TABLE 1 NUMBER OF SURVEY RESPONDENTS THAT SELECTED EACH STUDY AREA
Study Area Land Use Alternative
A
Land Use Alternative
B
Land Use Alternative
C
El Camino Real NORTH
Study Area 1 –
El Camino Real CENTRAL 37 32 26
Study Area 1 –
El Camino Real SOUTH 33 33 28
Study Area 2 –
Bel Mateo/ Mollie Stone Area 41 19 34
Study Area 3 –
Rail Corridor Area 38 19 37
Study Area 4 –
Downtown 38 16 40
Study Area 5 –
Peninsula Ave. Area 34 39 21
Study Area 6 –
Campus Dr. Area 34 40 20
Study Area 7 – North
Shoreview and Shoreview Area 31 19 45
Study Area 8 –
Parkside Plaza Area 36 44 15
Study Area 9 –
Hillsdale/ Norfolk Area 33 45 17
Study Area 10 –
Bridgepointe 27 49 17
Source: PlaceWorks, 2022.

Key works or sentences used to describe the preferred land use alternative.

The preferred scenario online survey asks participants to identify a key word or sentence to describe their preferred land use alternative. The responses submitted are summarized below. Well-designed growth with a meaningful number of affordable units. More housing and density.
More mixed use.
Modern.
Historic preservation.
Slow or moderate growth.
Balance and thoughtfulness.
Responsible and sustainable growth.
298 of 509
March 31, 2022| Page 27
Pedestrian oriented.
Protection of single-family neighborhoods.
Visually attractive and interesting.
Consider impacts to infrastructure, water, fire and police. Lowest growth.
Parks.
Housing near jobs.
Quality of life.
Livable.
Lower carbon emissions per person.
Walkable downtown.
Change office to housing.
Public transportation.
Parking and traffic.
Concentrate dense housing and tall buildings in one area. Spread out change.
Maintain height limits. No tall buildings, especially adjacent to single family residences. High density corridors with strong public transit and pedestrian services. No new high rises in downtown, density along rail corridor, maintain suburban character of downtown, focus growth in study areas: 2,3,6,8, and 10.
Maintain current heights but increase density.
Provide at least 15-20 % affordable units in any development of more than 10 units. Density, affordable, rugged (fire safe, flood safe, wind safe, sea level rise safe, of course earthquake retrofitted), and shaded by trees.
Equitable growth. Enable the whole city to grow organically by relaxing zoning restriction throughout, favoring housing and mixed use over office developments, and not relying on housing towers by train stations to solve the problems. More updates shopping/stores in Shoreview area.
Protect the Downtown's character of small and medium sized businesses. Multi-family that is built with families and children in mind. Retain historic neighborhoods.
Maintain a community vibe.
Minimize new traffic.

Changes suggested to the preferred land use alternative.

Land Use Alternative A
Change Office High to Office Medium at Borel in Study Area 1 – Central. More Mixed Use Low in Study Area 1 – Central.
More housing and fewer jobs in Study Area 1 – Central. Change some commercial areas to Mixed Use Low in Study Area 1 – South. No new homes or less housing in Study Areas 2, 3, and 6. Residential Medium should not be taller than 5 stories in Study Areas 2, 5, and 9. 299 of 509
March 31, 2022| Page 28
Add green space if the Hillsdale Mall is removed in Study Area 3. Change Mixed Use High to Mixed Use Medium on 20 th Avenue in Study Area 3. Do not exceed 7 stories in height or medium densities in Study Area 3. Reduce Mixed Use High to Mixed Use Medium in Study Area 3. Preserve architectural historic buildings and minimize wind and shadow in Study Area 4. Reduce/retain existing heights and densities for Study Area 1 - North and South, 3, 4, 7, 8, and 9. Fewer MTU/MDU housing for Study Area 1 - North.
Consider changes along Alameda de las Pulgas since it is a major thoroughfare. Add parks and schools.
Only allow single-family residential development and preserve existing single-family neighborhoods.
Modernize current strip malls.
Slow growth.
Do not allow people to pitch tents in public areas.
Allow duplex and multi-units in single family homes.

Land Use Alternative B
Allow more housing everywhere.
Focus on the missing middle housing.
Encourage conversion of underused commercial space to mixed use. Include ground level small service businesses and require affordable housing that includes parking in Study Area 1 - North.
More density and homes in Study Areas 1 - North and Central, 2, and 9. Change Mixed Use Low with Mixed Use High in Study Area 1 –South. Add more height while still focusing on homes for Study Area 4.. Keep heights as low as possible in Study Area 4 and 6. Parks are needed in Study Area 6. Also provide bicycle and pedestrian only paths. Do not remove all office uses from this study area.
Add commercial neighborhood at Norfolk in Study Area 9. More pocket parks in dead end streets next to railroad tracks. Expand density and height in new construction near transit, downtown, and in new area formerly used for alternative use
Avoid underground parking for shopping areas.
Encourage moderate growth.

Land Use Alternative C
More native grasses in parklands, expand park lands and open spaces, less concrete jungle look, tree lined transit corridors, community gardens and beehives. Residential low rather than residential medium in Study Area 1 - North. Commercial areas should be mixed use to allow businesses to have a second or third story where people can live in Study Area 1 - North and Central.
Reduce the number of jobs in Study Area 1 - Central.
Expand 41 st Avenue and build up in Study Area 1 – South. 300 of 509
March 31, 2022| Page 29
Add more mixed use in Study Area 2.
Add more densities and homes in Study Areas 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10. Reduce building height and densities in Study Area 5. Designate a park on San Mateo Drive adjacent to State Street to provide for public use. Change the Safeway to Mixed Use Medium or higher.
Reduce heights in Study Area 6. Consider changing designation to Residential Low. Insist that good design and quality building materials prevail. Further expand boundary into single-family areas.
Add more housing units and less jobs.
Encourage moderate growth.
Raise height limits and eliminate parking requirements. Add more mixed-use developments and apartments along El Camino Real. Spread growth throughout the city.
Increase density in the 1,000 foot radius north of San Mateo Caltrain station. Add a bicycle route on 28 th Avenue.

Feedback from Housing Element Outreach
The City of San Mateo is in the process of updating its Housing Element. As part of the update, the City is reaching out to community members to better understand their housing needs. In the fall, City staff and their consultant team conducted an intercept survey and received 156 responses. The City also had an online survey available from October 11, 2021 to January 16, 2022. The online survey received 594 responses. Major themes that are related to land use, housing, and circulation are summarized below; questions and responses tailored to Housing Element content not relevant to the land use or circulation alternatives are not included.

Housing Element Intercept Survey Results
To manage the production of housing overall, there was notable interest in in redeveloping existing properties that have potential for more housing (45%), creating accessory units on existing single-family properties (22%), and encouraging mixed-use projects that have both commercial and residential uses (21%).
Construct new housing to address housing affordability. Redevelop around Interstate 280.
More housing means more traffic and less parking.
High cost of housing is an issue.
Infrastructure development.
Stop building.
Remove height limit.
Allow taller buildings.
Include up-scale neighborhoods in zoning changes.
Commuting to work is difficult due to traffic.
Address traffic on Hillsdale.
301 of 509
March 31, 2022| Page 30
Crowded street parking is an issue.
Address housing for people that are unhoused.
Improve traffic flow through dense areas.
More golf courses.
Build more housing.

Housing Element Online Survey - Preliminary Results
The top three locations to add more housing are:
oNew housing should be walkable/bikeable to shops and services (53.8 %). oNew housing should be concentrated near public transit (53%). oNew housing should be located where it will have the least impact on traffic (38.4%). oNew housing should be spread evenly across all parts of the city (36.9%). oNew housing should be located where it will have the least impact on the environment overall (32.7%).
oNew housing should be concentrated close to job centers (22.8%). oNew housing should be located near community services and parks (19.9%). oOther (13.7%).
The top three strategies to manage the production of new housing are:
oEncourage mixed-use projects (50.9 %).
oRedevelop existing properties that have additional potential (49.1%). oIncrease the allowable density in areas that are close to transit (46.2%). oAllow taller developments if they include open space (33.1%). oStreamline housing approval process (26.6%).
oCreate ADU’s on existing single-family properties (23.9%). oConvert single-family homes into duplexes (15.0%).
oOther (17.4%).
The top three housing types that should be prioritized:
oSmaller units that are less expensive (52.3%).
oLarger units for families and/or multi-generational (36.6%). oOwnership units (35.9%).
oRental units (35.8%).
oPreserve existing housing (31%).
oAdding units to existing single family properties (22.7%). oInterim/transitional housing for the unhoused (21.8%). oHousing assist for those with special needs (16.4%).
oOther (12.4%).
302 of 509
March 31, 2022| Page 31
The top three ways to address housing affordability:
oIncentives for private developers to build more affordable housing (44.3%). oLocate affordable housing near transit and jobs (41.7%). oStreamline residential approval process (29.6%).
oDevelop programs that help people experiencing homelessness find permanent housing (24.3%).
oEncourage conversions of single-family units to duplexes in single-family neighborhoods (19.1%).
oFinancial assistance to homeowners to add accessory dwelling units (14.9%). oOther (19.3%).
The top three ways to ensure housing opportunities are available to all members of the city:
oEnsure affordable housing opportunities are created throughout the entire city (51.1%).
oImprove infrastructure, transit and services in underserved neighborhoods (51.1%). oTarget outreach for new affordable housing to underserved groups (37.3%). Other comments:
oPreserve single family neighborhoods.
oDo not build new housing.
oProvide infrastructure for new housing.
oAllow taller developments.
oNeed faster transit systems.
oRezone vacant office buildings and other underutilized areas to residential. oStop building offices.
oNo more ADU’s.
oMake it easier to commute around the city.
oEnsure adequate parking is provided.
oHigher buildings in downtown.
oCreate greened rooftops, living walls, and streets that can better manage storm water runoff and improve climate.
303 of 509
Property Owner Land Use Requests
APN Address/Location Requested Land Use Property Owner Source Study Area Notes 39353010

BOHANAN HILLSDALE
2950 EL CAMINO REAL Mixed-Use High Bohanan Development Company Bohannon letter 2/16/22 3 Planning Commission supported this request 39353020

BOHANAN HILLSDALE
60 31st Ave Mixed-Use High Bohanan Development Company Bohannon letter 2/16/22 3 Planning Commission supported this request 39353030

BOHANAN HILLSDALE
60 31st Ave Mixed-Use Medium Bohanan Development Company Bohannon letter 2/16/22 3 Planning Commission supported this request 39353040

BOHANAN HILLSDALE
60 31st Ave Mixed-Use Medium Bohanan Development Company Bohannon letter 2/16/22 3 Planning Commission supported this request 39490170

BOHANAN HILLSDALE
41 HILLSDALE BLVD
Split - Mixed-Use High (east) and
Medium (west) Bohanan Development Company Bohannon letter 2/16/22 3 Planning Commission supported this request 39490050

BOHANAN HILLSDALE
61 HILLSDALE BLVD Mixed-Use Medium Bohanan Development Company Bohannon letter 2/16/22 3 Planning Commission supported this request 42121080

BOHANAN HILLSDALE
3590 EL CAMINO REAL Mixed-Use Medium Bohanan Development Company Bohannon letter 2/16/22 3 Planning Commission supported this request 42121060

BOHANAN HILLSDALE
No address-parking Mixed-Use Medium Bohanan Development Company Bohannon letter 2/16/22 3 Planning Commission supported this request 39360140

BOHANAN HILLSDALE
No address-Anna furniture Mixed-Use High Bohanan Development Company Bohannon letter 2/16/22 3 Planning Commission supported this request 39360160

BOHANAN HILLSDALE
3025 S. El Camino Real Mixed-Use High Bohanan Development Company Bohannon letter 2/16/22 3 Planning Commission supported this request 39360070

BOHANAN HILLSDALE
3111 El Camino Real Mixed-Use High Bohanan Development Company Bohannon letter 2/16/22 3 Planning Commission supported this request 32131650 850 Woodside Way Mixed-Use (office + aff housing) SAMCAR Input to staff 5 (e) land use is Exe Office/High Density MF;
PC recommended Mixed-Use Low
41330070
Park View Terrace
1501-1555 W Hillsdale Blvd Residential Medium Jadallah Wagner letter 2/28/22 Outside (near
SA 6) Existing land use is Low Density Multi-Family
35241240
PS Business Park
1670 S Amphlett Mixed-Use Medium PS Business Parks Bayshore Commons letter 2/15/22 8 Planning Commission recommended Mixed-
Use High
35241250
PS Business Park
1700 S Amphlett Mixed-Use Medium PS Business Parks Bayshore Commons letter 2/15/22 8 Planning Commission recommended Mixed-
Use High
35241260
PS Business Park
1720 S Amphlett Mixed-Use Medium PS Business Parks Bayshore Commons letter 2/15/22 8 Planning Commission recommended Mixed-
Use High
35383200
Fish Market
1863 and 1885 S Norfolk St. Residential Med. or Mixed-Use Med. Windy Hill and Property Owner Windy Hill letter 3/18/22 8 Planning Commission recommended Mixed-
Use Medium
35243090
Crossroad Property
1825, 1855, and 1875 S Grant St
Allow by-right R&D uses. Increase bulk
limits, FAR, and lot coverage.

Lesee (Reuben, Junius & Rose
LLP) Rubanlaw Catalano letter 3/15/22 8
Planning Commission recommended land
use is Office High
304 of 509
APN Address/Location Requested Land Use Property Owner Source Study Area Notes 35391090 1900 S Norfolk St Mixed-Use Medium Seagate Atrium GP LLC Seagate Properties letter 4/7/22 8 Planning Commission recommended
Commercial Service (letter submitted after
PC meeting)
40102630 477 E Hillsdale Blvd Residential Medium 477 Hillsdale, LLC Gamelin letter 3/30/22 9 Currently proposed for a Residential Low
land use
40102620 477 E Hillsdale Blvd Residential Medium 477 Hillsdale, LLC Gamelin letter 3/30/22 9 Currently proposed for a Residential Low
land use
40102580 341 E Hillsdale Blvd Residential Medium 477 Hillsdale, LLC Gamelin letter 3/30/22 9 Currently proposed for a Residential Low
land use
305 of 509
306 of 509

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
307 of 509
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 308 of 509
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. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 309 of 509
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 310 of 509
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 311 of 509
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 312 of 509
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.
313 of 509
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. 314 of 509
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. 315 of 509
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%). 316 of 509
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.
317 of 509
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.
318 of 509
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 319 of 509
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.
320 of 509
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).
321 of 509
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

322 of 509
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)
323 of 509
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
324 of 509
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
325 of 509
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
326 of 509
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
327 of 509
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
328 of 509
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 329 of 509
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
330 of 509
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
331 of 509
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
332 of 509
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)
333 of 509
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
334 of 509
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)
335 of 509
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)
336 of 509
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
337 of 509
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)
338 of 509
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
339 of 509
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
340 of 509
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 341 of 509
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
342 of 509
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
343 of 509
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)
344 of 509
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)
345 of 509
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
346 of 509
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
347 of 509
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
348 of 509
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
349 of 509
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
350 of 509
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
351 of 509
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
352 of 509
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
353 of 509
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
354 of 509
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
355 of 509
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)
356 of 509
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
357 of 509
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
358 of 509
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.
359 of 509
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
360 of 509
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%.
361 of 509
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 I’m calling from TNR, an independent public opinion research company. We’re 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. I’m NOT trying to sell anything and I won’t 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
I’d 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% 362 of 509
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%
363 of 509
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%
364 of 509
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%

365 of 509
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, 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.

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%
366 of 509
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 City’s 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 State’s
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%

367 of 509
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 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 congestion, 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 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 City’s 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%
368 of 509
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 City’s 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 you’d 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
369 of 509
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? Don’t 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%
370 of 509
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 City’s 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, 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.

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 City’s 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%

371 of 509
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%
372 of 509
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
373 of 509
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%

374 of 509
375 of 509
376 of 509
377 of 509
378 of 509
379 of 509
380 of 509
381 of 509
382 of 509
383 of 509
384 of 509
385 of 509
386 of 509

CITY OF SAN MATEO
3 2
3 8

CITY OF SAN MATEO
Agenda Report
City Hall
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo CA 94403
www.cityofsanmateo.org
Agenda Number: 17 Section Name: PUBLIC HEARING File ID: 22-5966 TO: City Council
FROM: Drew Corbett, City Manager
PREPARED BY: Finance Department
MEETING DATE: April 18, 2022
SUBJECT:

Fiscal Year 2022-23 Comprehensive Fee Schedule – Approval RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt a Resolution to approve the revisions to the proposed fiscal year 2022-23 Comprehensive Fee Schedule.

BACKGROUND:

Section 3.64.010 of the San Mateo Municipal Code requires the City Manager to submit the City’s fee schedule to the City Council for approval prior to submittal of the annual budget. It is the City's policy and practice to increase fees annually by Consumer Price Index, or CPI, for the San Francisco Bay Area. The proposed increases reflect the City's increase in materials and maintenance costs incurred in providing services. The City uses the CPI from the previous October, which is the most recent data available at the beginning of the review process (CPI for 2022-23 is 3.80% from November 2020 to October 2021). Certain fees are adjusted using other formulas including the Construction Cost Index (CCI) which was 9.8% this year. Other adjustments to fees are made periodically as deemed necessary to reflect actual staff costs, market alignments, or to comply with policy. The proposed fee adjustments are based on the annual CPI increase, a periodic adjustment, or are the result of detailed analyses of the cost for providing specific programs/activities.

Recreation fees and park in-lieu fees were reviewed by the Parks and Recreation Commission at its March 2, 2022 meeting.

Library fees were reviewed by the Library Board at its January 24, 2022 meeting. All fees will become effective July 1, 2022, except where otherwise noted. Sewer service charges are set separately by ordinance and are not part of this fee revision process. Tables summarizing the new fees and various fee changes including those in excess of CPI are provided in Attachment 4.

BUDGET IMPACT:

The changes to fees, including new fees, for fiscal year 2022-23 are estimated to increase revenues by $4.2 million. These revenues will be reflected in the 2022-23 budget.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

This Comprehensive Fee Schedule update for fiscal year 2022-23 is not a project subject to CEQA, because it is a government fiscal activity which does not involve any commitment to any specific project which may result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(4).)

NOTICE PROVIDED
All meeting noticing requirements were met. In accordance with Government Code sections 66018 and 6062a, notice of the fee increases was published twice, beginning 10 days in advance of the public hearing. Prior to the meeting, City staff made the data available for the public, indicating the amount of cost, or estimated cost, required to provide the service for which the fee or service charge is levied, and the receiving fund of the fee revenue. 387 of 509

CITY OF SAN MATEO
3 2
3 8

ATTACHMENTS
Att 1 - Proposed Resolution
Att 2 - Proposed Comprehensive Fee Schedule FY 2022-23
Att 3 - Proposed Comprehensive Fee Schedule FY 2022-23 (track changes) Att 4 - Tables Summarizing Changes

STAFF CONTACT
Karley Toffey, Senior Management Analyst
[email protected]
(650) 522-7106
Rich Lee, Director, Finance
[email protected]
(650) 522-7102
388 of 509

CITY OF SAN MATEO
RESOLUTION NO. ___ (2022)
ESTABLISHING A COMPREHENSIVE FEE SCHEDULE FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022-2023 WHEREAS, the City reviews its Comprehensive Fee Schedule on an annual basis; and WHEREAS, it is the City’s policy and practice to establish service fees sufficient to recover its costs, including inflation, based on increases to the Consumer Price Index, and to eliminate or reduce fees that are obsolete, no longer applicable to services provided, or succeeded by state or county agencies; and WHEREAS, the increase to the Consumer Price Index from November 2020 to October 2021 is 3.80% and will be reflected in the fiscal year 2022-2023 budget; and WHEREAS, fee increases in excess of the 3.80% CPI factor are appropriate, when based on increases in the City’s actual costs or market analyses, as follows:
Transportation Improvement Fees
Below Market Rate Housing
Commercial Linkage Fees
Police Outside Detail Rates
Encroachment Permits
Site Development Permits
Final Map-Plan Check/Processing
Repair to City Property
Environmental Compliance Fees
Miscellaneous Public Works Fees
Curb Painting
Some Facility Rental Fees
WHEREAS, in accordance with Government Code section 66016, the Council held a public hearing to consider these fee increases on April 18, 2022; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Government Code section 66019, at least ten days prior to the public hearing, the City made data available to the public supporting the need for fee increases.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN MATEO, CALIFORNIA HEREBY FINDS AND RESOLVES that:

1. The approval of a Comprehensive Fee Schedule is not a project subject to CEQA because it is a government fiscal activity which does not involve any commitment to any specific project which may result in a potentially significant impact on the environment. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(4).)

2. The fees included in the Comprehensive Fee Schedule are approved. 389 of 509
6 2
2 7

3. All fees shall become effective July 1, 2022, except where otherwise noted. 390 of 509
Proposed
Comprehensive Fee Schedule
July 1, 2022 - June 30, 2023
391 of 509
Finance…………………………………………...………………………...……....….5.1
Information Technology………………………………………………………….....…6.1
Effective July 1, 2020, customers using credit/debit cards to pay for services will be charged a service fee payable to the City's merchant service provider at the rate of 2.6%+ in addition to the cost of services. The credit card service fee will be reflected as a separate transaction on your credit card statement. As an alternative, checks and money orders are acceptable by mail or cash, check, e-check and money orders in person at City facilities.

Public Works…………………………………………………………………............10.1
Penalties & Interest……………………………………………………………...…....11.1 Impact, In-lieu, and Linkage Fees…………………………………………....…...…..12.1

CITY OF SAN MATEO

COMPREHENSIVE FEE SCHEDULE
Table of Contents
Parks & Recreation…………………………………………………………….........…8.1
Police……………………………………………………………………….…….....…9.1
Library……………………………………………………………………………........7.1
City Clerk's………………………………………………………………………….....1.1
Community Development
Building…………………...…………..……..…...………………..…....2.1
Code Enforcement………………………………………...………….....3.1
Planning………………...…………..………..…...……………...….…..4.1
392 of 509

UNIT FEE
I. ELECTION DOCUMENT COPIES Per Page $0.10
II. PHOTOCOPIES Per Page $0.15
III. OUTSIDE SERVICES
Reproductions not performed by City (maps, photos, etc.). Per Reproduction Actual Costs IV. CERTIFICATIONS Each $1.50
V. APPEALS to the City Council of a decision by the Planning Commission, Community Relations Commission, or Public
Works Commission.

Each Appeal $519.00
VI. INITIATIVE FILING FEE Each $200.00

CITY CLERK

DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES

393 of 509

UNIT FEE
I.

A. % of Building Permit Fee 70%
B. % of Building Permit Fee 75%
C. % of Building Permit Fee 65%
II.

A.

Valuation $272.59
Valuation $272.59
(for 1st $500) $12.84 for each add'l $100 or fraction
thereof
Valuation $472.51
(for 1st $2,000) $22.33 for each add'l $1,000 or
fraction thereof
Valuation $1,005.64
(for 1st $25,000) $28.48 for each add'l $1,000 or
fraction thereof
Valuation $1,744.70
(for 1st $50,000) $21.94 for each add'l $1,000 or
fraction thereof
Valuation $2,883.62
(for 1st $100,000) $14.16 for each add'l $1,000 or
fraction thereof
Valuation $5,088.77
(for 1st $250,000) $7.75 for each add'l $1,000 or
fraction thereof
Valuation $7,100.03
(for 1st $500,000) $6.96 for each add'l $1,000 or
fraction thereof
Valuation $10,710.67
(for 1st $1,000,000) $3.48 for each add'l $1,000 or
fraction thereof

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

BUILDING DIVISION

DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES

BUILDING PLAN REVIEW FEES
$1.00 - $500.00
$2,001.00 - $25,000.00
$50,001.00 - $100,000.00
$100,001.00 - $250,000.00

BUILDING PERMIT AND INSPECTION FEES
$25,001.00 - $50,000.00

SINGLE FAMILY/DUPLEX RESIDENTIAL PLAN
REVIEW

COMMERCIAL BUILDING PLAN REVIEW

MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PLAN
REVIEW

SINGLE FAMILY/DUPLEX RESIDENTIAL

PERMIT AND INSPECTION
$501.00 - $2,000.00
$500,001 to $1,000,000
$250,001.00 - $500,000
$1,000,001 and Over

394 of 509

UNIT FEE

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

BUILDING DIVISION

DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES
BUILDING PLAN REVIEW FEESII.

B.

Valuation $272.59
Valuation $272.59
(for 1st $500) $12.84 for each add'l $100 or fraction
thereof
Valuation $472.51
(for 1st $2,000) $30.96 for each add'l $1,000 or
fraction thereof
Valuation $1,211.58
(for 1st $25,000) $25.68 for each add'l $1,000 or
fraction thereof
Valuation $1,877.98
(for 1st $50,000) $29.65 for each add'l $1,000 or
fraction thereof
Valuation $3,416.74
(for 1st $100,000) $8.87 for each add'l $1,000 or
fraction thereof
Valuation $7,100.03
(for 1st $500,000) $10.55 for each add'l $1,000 or
fraction thereof
Valuation $12,576.58
(for 1st $1,00,000) $1.64 for each add'l $1,000 or
fraction thereof
Valuation $19,385.93
(for 1st $5,000,000) $2.60 for each add'l $1,000 or
fraction thereof
Valuation $32,859.28
(for 1st $10,000,000) $1.39 for each add'l $1,000 or
fraction thereof
Valuation $54,474.77
(for 1st $25,000,000) $1.04 for each add'l $1,000 or
fraction thereof
Valuation $81,421.47
(for 1st $50,000,000) $1.04 for each add'l $1,000 or
fraction thereof
Valuation $108,368.17
(for 1st $75,000,000) $0.52 for each add'l $1,000 or
fraction thereof
$10,000,000.01 - $25,000,000.00
$25,000,000.01 - $50,000,000.00
$50,000,000.01 - $75,000,000.00
$75,000,000.01 and Over
$50,000.01 - $100,000.00
$100,000.01 - $500,000.00
$500,000.01 - $1,000,000.00
$1,000,000.01 - $5,000,000.00
$5,000,000.01 - $10,000,000.00

COMMERCIAL BUILDING PERMIT AND

INSPECTION
$501.00 - $2,000.00
$2,001.00 - $25,000.00
$1.00 - $500.00
$25,000.01 - $50,000.00

BUILDING PERMIT AND INSPECTION FEES
(continued)

395 of 509

UNIT FEE

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

BUILDING DIVISION

DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES
BUILDING PLAN REVIEW FEESII.

C.

Valuation $272.59
Valuation $272.59
(for 1st $500) $12.84 for each add'l $100 or fraction
thereof
Valuation $472.51
(for 1st $2,000) $30.96 for each add'l $1,000 or
fraction thereof
Valuation $1,211.58
(for 1st $25,000) $25.68 for each add'l $1,000 or
fraction thereof
Valuation $1,877.98
(for 1st $50,000) $29.65 for each add'l $1,000 or
fraction thereof
Valuation $3,416.74
(for 1st $100,000) $8.87 for each add'l $1,000 or
fraction thereof
Valuation $7,100.03
(for 1st $500,000) $10.55 for each add'l $1,000 or
fraction thereof
Valuation $12,576.58
(for 1st $1,00,000) $3.57 for each add'l $1,000 or
fraction thereof
Valuation $27,382.73
(for 1st $5,000,000) $5.16 for each add'l $1,000 or
fraction thereof
Valuation $54,184.08
(for 1st $10,000,000) $1.73 for each add'l $1,000 or
fraction thereof
Valuation $81,130.78
(for 1st $25,000,000) $1.55 for each add'l $1,000 or
fraction thereof
Valuation $121,405.48
(for 1st $50,000,000) $1.04 for each add'l $1,000 or
fraction thereof
Valuation $148,352.17
(for 1st $75,000,000) $0.52 for each add'l $1,000 or
fraction thereof
NOTE: Valuation shall be determined based upon the International Code Council's most recently published Building Valuation Table with a regional cost modifier of 2.93. The project valuation will be inclusive of all trades - Building, Electrical, Mechanical, and Plumbing. The Building Official may adjust the plan checking/permit fee for an individual project when costs to the City are not congruent with this fee schedule.

BUILDING PERMIT AND INSPECTION FEES
(continued)

MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL BUILDING

PERMT AND INSPECTION
$1.00 - $500.00
$501.00 - $2,000.00
$2,001.00 - $25,000.00
$25,000.01 - $50,000.00
$50,000.01 - $100,000.00
$100,000.01 - $500,000.00
$500,000.01 - $1,000,000.00
$1,000,000.01 - $5,000,000.00
$5,000,000.01 - $10,000,000.00
$10,000,000.01 - $25,000,000.00
$25,000,000.01 - $50,000,000.00
$50,000,000.01 - $75,000,000.00
$75,000,000.01 and Over

396 of 509

UNIT FEE

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

BUILDING DIVISION

DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES
BUILDING PLAN REVIEW FEESIII.

A.

1. Commercial and Multi-Residential
0 -10,000 Square Feet Per Occurrence *See Note Below
10,001-35,000 Square Feet Per Occurrence *See Note Below 35,001-75,000 Square Feet Per Occurrence *See Note Below 75,001-120,000 Square Feet Per Occurrence *See Note Below Over 120,000 Square Feet Per Hour *See Note Below

2. Single Family and Duplex Plan Review
0-10,000 Square Feet Per Occurrence *See Note Below
B. Fee 0.34% of Valuation
C. Hourly Rate Please refer to Building, Fire and Planning Hourly Rate
D. Fee / Actual Cost Actual Cost for all City Departments for additional identical and mirror image plan checks where
applicable codes have not changed.

E.
a. Park and Recreation Tax on Residential
Building Permits
Per $100 Valuation on
Building Permit App.
$0.31
a. Consultants for specialized plan checking and
inspection services or to expedite plan checking
and inspection services
Fee is per Consultant's rate
b. Reimburse cost of staff or consultant time spent
in plan check or inspection services. Park Plan
Check and Inspection Services on Building
Permits. Fee to be collected at time of Building
Permit application. After payment of fees,
Permittee may apply for an exemption for projects
having no Park Plan Check or Inspection
Requirements.

Building Valuation on Those
Building Permits Whose
Valuation is Over $5,000

0.05%
F. Construction Valuation of
All Projects

0.59% of valuation
G. Fee 13 mills/$1,000 valuation
Residential (Minimum $0.50)
28 mills/$1,000 valuation
Non-Residential. (Minimum $0.50)
H. Fee $1/$25,000 valuation
I. Percentage 0.15% of valuation
J. All Required Permits Minimum of 100% of all building permit fees

GENERAL PLAN MAINTENANCE FEE

STATE TAX
Strong motion instrumentation and seismic hazard
mapping (Fee set by State of California).

BUILDING STANDARDS ADMINISTRATION

SPECIAL REVOLVING FUND

TECHNOLOGY FEE

CONSTRUCTION WITHOUT A PERMIT
Penalty incurred when any construction is performed
without a permit.

ADDITIONAL REQUIRED PLAN REVIEW &

BUILDING PERMIT FEES

FIRE PLAN CHECK
*These fees are collected on behalf of the San Mateo Consolidated Fire Department. The current fee charged may be higher than those listed. Please see the San Mateo Consolidated Fire Department's fee schedule for current fees that will be collected by the City of San Mateo on behalf of San Mateo Consolidated Fire Department at: smcfire.org/i-want-to

PLANNING SUPPORT FEE (PLAN

CHECK/INSPECTION)
(Fee covers initial review and 2 resubmittals) The fee will be charged for all projects which require a
planning application, for new single-family homes and
duplexes, and for any other permit application that
requires review by the Planning Division.

ADDITIONAL PLAN REVIEW FEES FOR
PROJECTS REVIEWED 4TH REVIEW AND
BEYOND

PLAN CHECK FEES FOR IDENTICAL AND

MIRROR IMAGE PLANS

PARKS AND RECREATION FEES

1. Park and Landscape Resources

2. Development Project Review Fee

397 of 509

UNIT FEE

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

BUILDING DIVISION

DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES
BUILDING PLAN REVIEW FEESIV.

A. Per Hr (Min. 2 Hours) $266.77
B. Per Hr (Min. 1 Hour) $266.77
C. Per Hr
(Min. 1/2 Hour)
$278.18
D. Per Reactivation $166.08
E. Per Hour $230.44
F. Each $608.27
G. Each $856.35
H. $205.52
I.

1. Single Family Dwellings/Duplex's Each $508.62

2. Multi-Family, Mixed Use/Commercial
0-5,000 Sq Ft Each $508.62
Over 5,000 Sq Ft Each $908.25
J.

1. Bathroom or Kitchen Remodels - Per Remodel Each Combination Permit $678.85 K. Each $405.86
L. Each $606.19
M. Each $611.38
N. Each $478.52
O.

Each $2,671.29
Each $1,916.15
P. Each $1,371.72

CALIFORNIA'S EARTHQUAKE BRACE AND

BOLT RETROFIT PROGRAM

ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEMS FOR SFR AND
DUPLEX

ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS

JUNIOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS
Remodel
New Construction

REACTIVIATION FEE FOR EXPIRED PERMITS
(Use 50% of original permit fee if permit fee is less
than the reactivation fee)

APPLICATION FOR DEMOLITION OF

RESIDENTIAL UNITS WHICH HAVE BEEN

DECLARED A PUBLIC NUISANCE OR WHICH

ARE BEING DEMOLISHED ON APPROVAL OF

THE BUILDING OFFICIAL UNDER SECTION

23.06.100.

APPLICATION FOR ALTERNATE MATERIALS

AND CODE INTERPRETATIONS

PERMITS FOR SMALL ANIMAL & FOWL

RE-ROOF'S

COMBINATION BUILDING, PLUMBING,

ELECTRICAL, AND MECHANICAL PERMITS
FOR MINOR RESIDENTIAL REMODELS:

HARDSHIP WAIVER FOR DISABLED ACCESS

REQUIREMENTS

WINDOW REPLACEMENTS FOR SINGLE
FAMILY AND DUPLEX (same location, same size, 5
maximum)

WINDOW REPLACEMENTS FOR SINGLE
FAMILY AND DUPLEX (same location, same size,
more than 5)
MISC. INSPECTIONS AND FEES
Applicable to building, plumbing, electrical and mechanical permits.

INSPECTIONS OUTSIDE OF NORMAL BUINESS
HOURS

REINSPECTION FEE

PLAN REVIEW REQUIRED BY CHANGES,

ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO APPROVED

PLANS, OR MORE THAN TWO RECHECKS

398 of 509

UNIT FEE

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

BUILDING DIVISION

DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES
IV.

Q.

1. Single Family Dwellings Each Combination Permit $450.00

2. Multi-family Buildings
Up to 15 kW Each $450.00
16 kW and up Each $450.00
+ $15.00 for each additional kW

3. Commercial Buildings
Up to 50 kW Each $1,000.00
51 kW to 250 kW Each $1,000.00
+ $7.00 for each additional kW up to 250 kW
251 kW and up Each $2,400.00
+ $5.00 for each additional kW over 250 kW
R.

1. Single Family Dwellings Each Combination Permit $450.00

2. Multi-family Buildings
Up to 15 kW Each $450.00
16 kW and up Each $450.00
+ $15.00 for each additional kW

3. Commercial Buildings
Up to 30 kWth Each $1,000.00
31 kWth to 260 kWth Each $1,000.00
+ $7.00 for each additional kWth up to 260 kWth
261 kWth and up Each $2,610.00
+ $5.00 for each additional kWth over 260 kWth
S.

1. Single Family Dwellings & Duplexes Each $201.37

2. Multi-Family/Commercial (Level I/II)
1-6 Stations Eac h $566.75
7+ Stations Eac h $1,066.03
Multi-Family/Commercial (Level III)
1-6 Stations Eac h $925.90
7+ Stations Eac h $1,381.58
T. Each $454.64
V. ELECTRICAL PERMIT FEES
A. RESIDENTIAL ELECTRICAL PERMIT FEE Each $272.99
B. COMMERCIAL ELECTRICAL PERMIT FEE Each $1,175.02
C. Sq Ft. $0.23
D. Each $871.92

TEMPORARY CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY
COMMERCIAL TENANT IMPROVEMENTS:

ELECTRICAL WORK ONLY

ELECTRICAL REWIRING FOR SFR AND
DUPLEX
MISC. INSPECTIONS AND FEES (continued)
Applicable to building, plumbing, electrical and
mechanical permits.

ROOFTOP SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEMS (Fee set by
State of California AB-1414; sunsets 1/1/2025)
SOLAR THERMAL SYSTEMS (Fee set by State of
California AB-1414; sunsets 1/1/2025)

ELECTRICAL VEHICLE CHARGING STATIONS

399 of 509

UNIT FEE

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

BUILDING DIVISION

DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES
BUILDING PLAN REVIEW FEESVI. MECHANICAL PERMIT FEES
A. RESIDENTIAL MECHANICAL PERMIT FEE Each $272.99
B. COMMERCIAL MECHANICAL PERMIT FEE Each $908.25
C. Sq Ft. $0.23
D. Each $375.76
E. Each $781.61
VII. PLUMBING PERMIT FEES
A. RESIDENTIAL PLUMBING PERMIT FEE Each $272.99
B. COMMERCIAL PLUMBING PERMIT FEE Each $908.25
C. Sq Ft. $0.23
D. TANKLESS WATER HEATER Each $478.52
E. Each $871.92
VIII. SIGN PERMIT FEES**
Permit fee determined by Commercial Valuation
Table
Each $205.52
IX. CHILD CARE DEVELOPMENT FEE Per Sq. Ft.

A.

Per Dwelling Unit $4,412.54
Per Dwelling Unit $3,182.51
B.

Per Sq. Ft. $0.37
Per Sq. Ft. $0.63
Per Sq. Ft. $0.21
Per Sq. Ft. $0.13
X.

A. Per Sq. Ft. $12.46
B. Per Sq. Ft. $6.23
C. Per Sq. Ft. $31.14
XI. Each 1.19% of valuation

RETAIL, RESTAURANTS, AND SERVICES

OFFICE, RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT USES,

AND MEDICAL OFFICES

ART IN PUBLIC PLACE FEE
The fee is applicable to commercial and multi-family
residential projects exceeding three (3) million dollars in building permit valuation.

2. Multi-family

3. Industrial

4. Hotel

COMMERCIAL LINKAGE FEE
(City Council adopted September 16, 2016 - effective
November 16, 2016)
New commercial construction in excess of 5,000
Exempts public uses such as hospitals, nonprofit and
government facilities, churches, schools and child care centers. Developers who enter written agreements to pay area standard wages to all construction workers on the
project are entitled to a 25% reduction of the fee.

Additionally, developers may provide construction of
affordable housing units in lieu of the fee payment.

HVAC INSTALLATIONS (REPLACEMENT AT

SAME LOCATION FOR SFR AND DUPLEX)

REPIPE FOR WATER SUPPLY SYSTEMS FOR

SFR AND DUPLEX
Residential

1. Single-family

2. Office

1. Retail
Commercial

HVAC INSTALLATIONS (RELOCATIONS AND

NEW INSTALLATIONS FOR SFR AND DUPLEX)
COMMERCIAL TENANT IMPROVEMENTS:

PLUMBING WORK ONLY
All permanent signs
Temporary Banner (30-day)
**PENALTY: When a sign permit is required and a sign is installed prior to obtaining a permit, a double fee shall be charged.

HOTELS
COMMERCIAL TENANT IMPROVEMENTS:

MECHANICAL WORK ONLY

400 of 509
UNIT
I.

1. First Citation $100.00
If not Abated, Second Citation $200.00
If not Abated, Third Citation $500.00
II. First Citation $200.00
If not Abated, Second Citation $300.00
If not Abated, Third Citation $500.00
III. Each Case Actual Cost *
IV. Each Appeal $519.00
V. Each Inspection $100.00ABATEMENT ORDER VIOLATION CORRECTION RE-INSPECTION FEE

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

CODE ENFORCEMENT

DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES FEE

NUISANCE ABATEMENT FEES FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE SMMC

WHICH ARE SUBJECT TO ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION PER
SMMC 1.10.

Violations of the SMMC Administrative Citation Ordinance which have been abated within 10 days of service and verified by the Code Enforcement Division have a reduced fee.

NUISANCE ABATEMENT FEES FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE SAME
SMMC SECTION WITHIN 12 MONTHS OF INITIAL CITATION
VIOLATIONS OF THE SMMC REQUIRING 1) ORDER OF
ABATEMENT, 2) AN INSPECTION OF SEIZURE WARRANT, 3) A

POSTING OF AN ORDER DESIGNATING THE PROPERTY AS
UNSAGE TO OCCUPY, 4) THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE CIVIL
LITIGATION PROCEEDINGS OR 5) SUMMARY ABATEMENT OF
HAZARDS.*Actual Cost includes all costs of abatement, including, but not limited to: code enforcement staff, and associated indirect costs, such as labor, equipment, private contractor, materials, materials storage, and all other costs reasonable and necessary to abate the nuisance.

APPEAL OF A DECISION OR ORDER TO ABATE

401 of 509

CHARGE TYPE FEE OR INITIAL DEPOSIT
I. PLANNING APPLICATIONS
A. PLANNING APPLICATION(S)- ZONING ADMINISTRATOR

DECISION (SINGLE FAMILY ONLY OR CERTIFICATE OF

PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY - ALCOHOLIC

BEVERAGES)
Initial Deposit $4,000.00
B. PLANNING APPLICATION(S)- ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
DECISION (OTHER THAN SINGLE FAMILY OR PCNs)
Initial Deposit $6,000.00
C. PLANNING APPLICATION(S)- PLANNING COMMISSION

DECISION - IF NO PRE-APPLICATION REQUIRED
Initial Deposit $10,000.00
D. PLANNING APPLICATION(S)- PLANNING COMMISSION

DECISION - IF PRE-APPLICATION REQUIRED
Initial Deposit $50,000.00
E. PLANNING APPLICATION(S)- PLANNING COMMISSION &

CITY COUNCIL DECISION
Initial Deposit $100,000.00
F. FENCE EXCEPTION SPAR PLANNING APPLICATION Initial Deposit $2,000.00 G. SPECIAL USE PERMIT - DAY CARE FACILITIES Flat fee $2,000.00 H. ANNUAL REVIEW OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Initial Deposit $4,500.00 I. DESIGN REVIEW BY CONSULTING ARCHITECT (required for
projects with 6+ units, 10,000+ SF non-residential; or other projects as determined by City Resolution)
Initial Deposit $5,000.00
J. LARGE PROJECT PRE-APPLICATION Initial Deposit $25,000.00 K. INFORMATIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING (PRE-

APPLICATION) PUBLIC NOTICE LIST PREPARATION
Flat Fee $479.00
L. MODIFICATIONS OF APPROVED PLANNING APPLICATIONS-

ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION
Initial Deposit $3,000.00
M. MODIFICATIONS OF APPROVED PLANNING APPLICATIONS-

PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION
Initial Deposit $10,000.00
II. ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE (CEQA) PROCESSING
A. CATEGORICAL OR STATUTORY EXEMPTION (Excluding
Single Family and PCNs)
Initial Deposit $500.00
B. INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION Initial Deposit $5,000.00 C. INITIAL STUDY/EIR Initial Deposit $10,000.00
D. MANDATED FEDERAL, STATE OR COUNTY FEES (e.g., Fish
& Game CEQA Fee; Fish & Game Code §711.4; Negative
Declaration; EIR)
As Mandated by State N/A
III. CITY STAFF TIME
Planning Staff Hourly Rate $275.00
All City departments reviewing a planning application. Hourly Rate Actual Cost IV. MONITORING OF REQUIRED MITIGATION MEASURE Initial Deposit for Staff time
Determined for each project.

V. INVESTIGATION
FEE for properties with code violations before or after planning approval.

Hourly Rate $275.00
VI. RESEARCH FEE
A. RETRIEVAL OF OFF-SITE PLANNING APPLICATION

RECORDS
Flat Fee $170.00
B. RESEARCH REQUIRING EXTENSIVE STAFF TIME Hourly Rate $275.00 C. POST PLANNING APPLICATION PROJECT CONSULTATION Hourly Rate $275.00 VII. APPEALS
A. APPEAL FEE - ALL PLANNING APPLICATIONS Flat Fee $519.00 VIII. LANDSCAPE UNIT IN-LIEU FEES Per Landscape Unit $336.86

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

PLANNING DIVISION

DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES

402 of 509

CHARGE TYPE FEE OR INITIAL DEPOSIT

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

PLANNING DIVISION

DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES
IX. SUBORDINATION PROCESSING FEE
Applies to requests to allow City Housing Program loans to subordinate to new mortgage lenders in conjunction with refinances. Per Loan $250.00 X.

A. In Lieu Fees for Fractional Units

1. Rental

0.1 Housing Unit $30,788.00

0.2 Housing Unit $61,577.00

0.3 Housing Unit $92,365.00

0.4 Housing Unit $123,153.00

2. Owner

0.1 Housing Unit $27,354.00

0.2 Housing Unit $54,708.00

0.3 Housing Unit $82,062.00

0.4 Housing Unit $109,416.00
B. In Lieu Fee for Projects Less than 11 Units

1. Rental
5 Unit Project $153,942.00
6 Unit Project $184,730.00
7 Unit Project $215,519.00
8 Unit Project $246,307.00
9 Unit Project $277,095.00
10 Unit Project $307,884.00

2. Owner
5 Unit Project $136,770.00
6 Unit Project $164,124.00
7 Unit Project $191,478.00
8 Unit Project $218,832.00
9 Unit Project $246,186.00
10 Unit Project $273,540.00
XI. POLICIES RE: PLANNING FEES
A.

B.

C.

D.

E.

F.

G.

H.

The cost for staff time expended by all city staff pursuant to a planning application shall be billed to the project account at the hourly rate in section III.

Under extenuating circumstances, the Community Development Director has the authority to set a deposit amount below the amount indicated in the fee schedule.
"Planning applications" include: site plan and architectural review; special use permit; temporary use permit; variance; site development permit; subdivision and parcel maps; reclassification; planned development; general plan amendment; specific plan amendment; code amendments regarding land use regulation; development agreements, downtown economic development permit; planned signing districts and freestanding signs over 8 feet in commercial districts, single family dwelling design review (SFDDR), mills act contract, historic building survey amendment, historic building demolition permit and other planning applications as set forth in Chapter 27 of the San Mateo Municipal Code.

BELOW MARKET RATE HOUSING FEE
A fee in lieu of constructing affordable housing units onsite per Below Market Rate program:

If the cost of the staff time spent on the application(s) is less than the amount of the deposit, the balance shall be refunded to the applicant.

If at any time before action is taken on an application, more than 70% of the deposit has been expended on the application, the applicant shall be required to pay an additional deposit.

No public hearing on a planning application shall be held unless all deposits requested have been fully paid. No application by an applicant shall be accepted as complete pursuant to title 27 of the San Mateo Municipal Code if that applicant has failed to pay amounts due and payable for another planning application.

The applicant is responsible for paying the costs of staff and consultant time incurred pursuant to any appeal.

The applicant shall pay the actual cost of any consultant services required to process a planning application including the environmental (CEQA) clearance processing.

403 of 509

UNIT FEE
I. BUSINESS LICENSE LISTING Each Qtr. $32.00
II. RETURNED CHECK PROCESSING CHARGE
(Non-sufficient fund checks and other issues) Each $25.00 III. STATE MANDATED DISABILITY ACCESS FEE (SB 1186)
On each Business Tax application and renewal Each $4.00 IV. NEW BUSINESS - FIRE INSPECTION Each See Note Below* V. COLLECTION REFERRAL CHARGE Each $25.00

FINANCE

DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES
*This fee is collected on behalf of the San Mateo Consolidated Fire Department. Please see the San Mateo Consolidated Fire Department's fee schedule for current fees that will be collected by the City of San Mateo on behalf of San Mateo Consolidated Fire Department at: smcfire.org/i-want-to

404 of 509

UNIT FEE
I.

A. GIS SERVICES Hour $91.00
Additional Time (Hourly) $91.00
B. HARDCOPY PLOTS OF CITY MAPS Each $16.75

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES

GIS MAPPING / ELECTRONIC DATA FEES

405 of 509

UNIT FEE
I. FINES
A. OVERDUE MATERIAL

1. Adult Materials Per Day & Per Item $0.25

2. Juvenile Materials Per Day & Per Item $0.15
**No overdue fines for borrowers ages 19 & under

3. Technology Lending Devices Per Day & Per Item $1.00
a. Cleaning Fee for Devices Per Item $10.00
B. OVERDUE MAXIMUM FINE

1. Adult Per Item $8.00

2. Juvenile Per Item $4.00
C. LINK + SERVICE

1. Overdue materials Per Day & Per Item $1.00

2. Overdue maximum fine Per Item $15.00

3. Replacement charges Per Item $115.00
II. FEES
A. Per Item Price of material
+ processing fee of $5.00
B. COPY CHARGES

1. Photocopy machine
a. Black/white copies Per Copy $0.15

2. Computer printer copy
a. Black/white copies Per Page After 3 Pages $0.15
b. Microform reader-printer Per Copy $0.15
c. Color computer printer copy Per Copy $0.30
C. COMMUNITY MEETING ROOMS, MAIN LIBRARY

1. Oak Room and courtyard
a. Non profit/not for profit (business hours) $195.00 for 1st 4 hours + $30 each additional hour
b. Non profit/not for profit (after hours) Per Hour $160.00 c. Resident (business hours) Per Hour $130.00
Resident (after hours) Per Hour $195.00
d. Non-Resident (business hours) Per Hour $195.00
Non-Resident (after hours) Per Hour $255.00
e. San Mateo Business (business hours) Per Hour $195.00 San Mateo Business (after hours) Per Hour $290.00
f. Non San Mateo Business (business hours) Per Hour $290.00 Non San Mateo Business (after hours) Per Hour $385.00
g. Music recitals Per Use (Up to 3 Hours) $145.00
h. Security/damage deposit Per Use $350.00

2. Laurel and Cedar Rooms
a. Non profit/not for profit (business hours) $105.00 for 1st 4 hours + $20 each additional hour
b. Non profit/not for profit (after hours) Per Hour $95.00 c. Resident (business hours) Per Hour $95.00
Resident (after hours) Per Hour $195.00
d. Non-Resident (business hours) Per Hour $130.00
Non-Resident (after hours) Per Hour $225.00
e. San Mateo Business (business hours) Per Hour $195.00 San Mateo Business (after hours) Per Hour $290.00
f. Non San Mateo Business (business hours) Per Hour $290.00 Non San Mateo Business (after hours) Per Hour $385.00
g. Security/damage deposit Per Use $255.00

REPLACEMENT CHARGE FOR EACH ITEM LOST OR

DAMAGED

LIBRARY

DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES

406 of 509

UNIT FEE

LIBRARY

DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES
II. FEES (continued)

3. Library computer training room
a. Non profit/not for profit Use of:
1 -10 computers 4 Hours (Minimum) $150.00 per every 4 hrs 11 - 20 computers 4 Hours (Minimum) $190.00 per every 4 hrs 21 – 26 computers 4 Hours (Minimum) $245.00 per every 4 hrs b. Resident or Non-Resident Use of:
1 -10 computers 4 Hours (Minimum) $200.00 per every 4 hrs 11 - 20 computers 4 Hours (Minimum) $265.00 per every 4 hrs 21 – 26 computers 4 Hours (Minimum) $335.00 per every 4 hrs c. Security/damage deposit Per Use $500.00
d. A/V Technician Use of:
1 - 10 computers Per Use $40.00
11 - 20 computers Per Use $75.00
21 – 26 computers Per Use $115.00

4. Library – Other Areas
a. Other Library areas – fees to be determined on a case-by-case basis by City Librarian or designee
Per Hour/Per Area Up to $385.00
b. Security/damage deposit Per Use Up to $500.00

5. Miscellaneous Meeting Room Fees
a. A/V Technician Per Use $40.00
A/V Technician – special projects Per Hour $60.00
b. Portable Stage rental:

Single stage (8’x6’x16”) Per Use $160.00
Double stage (16’x6’x16”) Per Use $225.00
c. Conference Phone rental Per Use $40.00
d. Piano tuning (special request) Each $200.00
D. COMPUTER FILES STORAGE DEVICES

1. USB flash drive Each $15.00
E. MATERIAL RECOVERY FEE Per Account $10.00
F. LIBRARY LOGO REUSABLE BAGS Each $2.50
G. PASSPORT PROCESSING SERVICES

1. Adult Passport Book & Card Each $195.00

2. Adult Passport Book Each $165.00

3. Adult Passport Card Each $65.00

4. Minor Passport Book & Card Each $150.00

5. Minor Passport Book Each $135.00

6. Minor Passport Card Each $50.00

7. Expedite Fee Per Passport Each $60.00

8. Express Service to Processing Center
a. USPS Express Mail (up to 8 oz.) Per Mailing Unit Current postal rate H.

1. One-time use fee per digital file for any medium
a. Personal/non profit use Each $20.00
b. For profit/commercial use Each $40.00
III. RESEARCH SERVICE
A. OBITUARY SEARCH SERVICE Each $20.00
Search for Non-San
Mateo County residents

USE FEES FOR PHOTOGRAPHS FROM DIGITAL ARCHIVES

407 of 509










PARKS AND RECREATION
RECREATION COST RECOVERY AND PRICING POLICY*
The following shall serve as the policy guidance for establishing a Recreation Activities Cost Recovery Plan, developing annual activity budgets, and establishing fees to be charged for recreation activities. The specific elements of this policy are that:

The Park and Recreation Cost Recovery and Pricing Model shall be used.

In recognition of the wide variety of service values and revenue generating potentials of various activities, specific cost recovery thresholds shall be established for each recreation activity area at the most specific programming level that is administratively practical.

The thresholds shall include both minimum and target levels of cost recovery.

Strategies for achieving the minimum and target thresholds shall be established by staff for each activity area. These strategies may include immediate or gradual action depending upon the best interests of maintaining a strong program, achieving the target within a reasonable time period and current fiscal conditions.

Activity areas unable to meet their minimum threshold after these strategies have been applied shall be reviewed by the Park and Recreation Commission for consideration of recommending appropriate action: reduce costs; reduce cost recovery target; eliminate activity.

Activities that have achieved or exceeded their target threshold shall be evaluated to determine if the target can/should be increased.

The Cost Recovery Plan shall, where appropriate, also include specific other fee considerations (e.g. benchmarking to a specific competitor) that may supersede cost recovery target considerations.

Once a Cost Recovery Plan is established, and within that context, staff shall have the authority to set and adjust fees, except that no fee increase shall exceed 20% within a 1-year period without the review of the Park and Recreation Commission and approval of the City Council.

As part of the budgetary process, the Park and Recreation Commission shall review the Cost Recovery Plan and the performance of each activity compared to the plan and make any recommendations for changes to the plan.

408 of 509

PARKS AND RECREATION
Program Direct Overhead (DOH): Direct supervision of the program, and minor miscellaneous items such as supervisor mileage.

Facility Overhead (FOH): The combination of facility direct costs (the day-to-day costs to keep the building open- receptionist, custodial services, custodial products, utilities) and facility direct overhead (primarily facility supervision).

Operating Indirect Overhead (Op IOH): Division level and shared costs, such as departmental management, brochure, printing, photocopying, training, accounting support, technology, credit card discount costs, administrative office clerical support, computer, and recreation equipment sinking fund charges
Facility Indirect Overhead (Fac IOH): Calculated charges for the Public Works Building Maintenance for on-going maintenance and repairs (e.g. plumbing, electrical, mechanical, carpentry, painting).

Recreation Cost Tier Definitions
Direct: The specific “go-away” costs at the course or activity level. These include leaders, instructors and materials or services (e.g. transportation) specific to the course or activity.

409 of 509

PARKS AND RECREATION

MINIMUM
Direct
Direct
75% Direct
Direct
100% Subsidy
100% Subsidy
100% Subsidy

MINIMUM
Direct
50% of Direct
100% Subsidy
Direct
Direct
Direct
Direct
Direct
Direct
TARGET
Direct +20%
Direct
100% Subsidy
Through DOH
Through DOH
Through DOH
Direct
Direct
Through DOH
Benchmark fees to mid-point of Peninsula cities.

OTHER FEE CONSIDERATIONS
TARGET
Through FOH
Through DOH
Direct
Through DOH
100% Subsidy
100% Subsidy
100% Subsidy

OTHER FEE CONSIDERATIONS
Benchmark fees to bottom end of Peninsula cities
Benchmark fees to mid-point of Peninsula cities
Building Blocks
Summer Flex Camps

RECREATION PROGRAMS COST RECOVERY PLAN - TABLE OF TARGETS Group 1- Highest service value consideration- composed of core youth programs. Typical thresholds ranges: Minimum- From 100% subsidy to direct cost recovery. Target- From 100% subsidy through Direct Overhead (DOH).

Recreation Swim

ACTIVITY
Swimming Lessons
King Center Teen Programs
King Center Drop-In
Senior Services Link
Group 2- Composed of core programs for youth and seniors, with service values as higher consideration. Typical thresholds ranges:

ACTIVITY
Children's Services Center Based
King Center Children's Programs
Youth Art
Youth Gymnastics
Teen Dances
Senior Center Programs
Senior Center Special Events
Children's Services Special
Youth Dance/Dance Shows

410 of 509

PARKS AND RECREATION

MINIMUM
Through DOH
Through DOH
Through DOH
Through DOH
Through DOH
Through DOH
Through DOH
Through DOH
Through DOH
Through DOH
Through DOH
Through DOH
Direct + additional
required office staffing
Through DOH
67% of food costs

MINIMUM
Through DOH
Through DOH
Through DOH
Through DOH
NOTE:
*
Through FOH
Through FOH
Direct

TARGET OTHER FEE CONSIDERATIONS
Adult Fitness
Youth Fitness
Golf Lessons
Ice Skating
Youth Leisure Education
Adults Leisure Education
Full Cost Recovery
Through FOH
Through FOH
Group 4- Composed primarily of specialty activities, with cost recovery considerations of highest consideration among the 4 groups. Typical thresholds ranges: Minimum- Through Direct Overhead (DOH). Target- range of from through Facility Overhead (FOH) to full recovery.

ACTIVITY
Through Operating Indirect
Benchmark fees to less than top of market.

Fees less than top of market.

OTHER FEE CONSIDERATIONSTARGET
Through FOH
Through FOH
Through FOH
Through FOH
Through FOH
Through FOH
Through FOH
Specialized Aquatics Programs
Adult Swimfit
Tennis
Adult Sports Leagues
Adult Arts and Crafts
Senior Lunch
Beresford Kids Club
Through FOH
Through FOH
RECREATION PROGRAMS COST RECOVERY PLAN - TABLE OF TARGETS (continued) Group 3- Composed primarily of adult core, and youth additional typical programs, in which both service and cost recovery values are of strong consideration. Typical thresholds ranges: Minimum- Through Direct Overhead (DOH). Target- Through Facility Overhead (FOH)

ACTIVITY
Youth Music/Drama Through FOH
Benchmark fees to San Mateo Foster City School District Through FOH Martial Arts Through Operating Indirect
Overhead
Adult Music/Drama
Adult Dance
Youth Sports Camps
Miscellaneous Athletic Activities
Fees established through the Recreation Cost Recovery and Pricing Policy shall be collected at the time of course registration, with certain exceptions. Prior to completion of a course, patrons may withdraw from a course and receive a refund. Refunds may be returned immediately or left on account with the Recreation Division for two years. After two years, all credits left on account by patrons that have not participated in Division activities for two years or more are donated to the Recreation Fee Assistance Program.

Does not include special non-general fund revenues or expenses from grants, trust, etc.

411 of 509

PARKS AND RECREATION

UNIT FEES EFFECTIVE
THROUGH 12/31/22
FEES

EFFECTIVE
1/1/23
I. FACILITY RENTAL FEES
A.

Beresford
Shelter Per Use $200.00 $220.00
Area #1 Per Use $65.00 $67.00
Area #2 Per Use $65.00 $67.00
Area #3 Per Use $65.00 $67.00
Bocce Court Tables Per Use $65.00 $67.00
Per Use $65.00 $67.00
Central
Entire Area Per Use $425.00 $425.00
Area 1 Per Use $180.00 $186.00
Area 2 Per Use $85.00 $88.00
Area 3 Per Use $85.00 $88.00
Area 4 Per Use $85.00 $88.00
Harborview Park Per Use $85.00 $88.00
Indian Springs Park Per Use $85.00 $88.00
Joinville
Entire facility Per Use $205.00 $210.00
Area 1 Per Use $65.00 $67.00
Area 2 Per Use $65.00 $67.00
Area 3 Per Use $65.00 $67.00
King Per Use $65.00 $67.00
Lakeshore Per Use $65.00 $67.00
Laurelwood Per Use $65.00 $67.00
Los Prados Per Use $65.00 $67.00
Paddock Park Per Use $65.00 $67.00
Parkside Aquatic Per Use $65.00 $67.00
Ryder Park
Area 1 Per Use $85.00 $88.00
Area 2 Per Use $85.00 $88.00
Entire Facility Per Use $200.00 $210.00
Shoreview Per Use $85.00 $88.00
Alcohol Fee Per Use $50.00 $50.00
Jumper Fee Per Use $25.00 $25.00
Picnic Use/Cleanup Deposit
Beresford Shelter Per Use $255.00 $255.00
Central Park – entire area Per Use $255.00 $255.00
Bayside/Joinville – entire area Per Use $255.00 $255.00 Ryder – entire area Per Use $255.00 $255.00
All other areas Per Use $255.00 $255.00
B. SPECIAL PARK PERMITS
Filming for commercial purposes Hour $50.00 $50.00
Japanese Garden or Rose Garden
Per Use $205.00 $205.00
Per Use $255.00 $255.00
Per Hour $100.00 $100.00
Per Hour $125.00 $125.00
Per Booking $30.00 $30.00
Per Use $28.00 $28.00
Per Use $150.00 $150.00
Central outdoor stage Per Use $50.00 $55.00
Special Event Fee (minimum two hours) Per Hour $25.00 $25.00 Special Event Alcohol Fee Per Use $260.00 $260.00
C.

Field Reservations
Priority 1 No fee No fee
Priority 2
Youth Field Player Fee (Per season) Per Player $8.00 $8.00 Weekday and Half Day Per Use $8.00 $8.00
Weekend/Holiday Full Day Per Use $15.00 $15.00
Tournament Per Use/Field $100.00 $100.00
Tournament Refundable Deposit Per Use/Field $260.00 $260.00 Priority 3-4
Youth Field Player Fee (Per season) Per Player $20.00 $20.00

DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES
Casanova
Non Resident Extra Hours
ATHLETICS (Priority Levels defined on page 8.13)
Chair Set-up
Per occasion when using rec ctr.

Resident

PICNIC AREAS
Non-Resident
Resident Extra Hours
Non Profit Rate

412 of 509

PARKS AND RECREATION

UNIT FEES EFFECTIVE
THROUGH 6/30/22
FEES

EFFECTIVE
7/1/22
I. FACILITY RENTAL FEES (continued)
Priority 3-4
Weekday and Half Day Per Use $20.00 $30.00
Camp or Clinic Fee - Soccer (Grass) Per Hour New $50.00 Camp or Clinic Fee - Soccer (Turf) Per Hour New $60.00
Camp or Clinic Fee - Baseball/Softball (Grass) Per Hour New $40.00 Camp or Clinic Fee - Baseball/Softball (Turf) Per Hour New $50.00 Weekend/Holiday Full Day Per Use $40.00 $50.00

UNIT FEES EFFECTIVE
THROUGH 12/31/22
FEES

EFFECTIVE
1/1/23
I. FACILITY RENTAL FEES (continued)
Priority 3-4
Tournament Per Use $210.00 $210.00
Tournament Refundable Deposit Per Use/Field $260.00 $260.00 Priority 5
Resident Adult Field Reservation (Per season) Per Hour $25.00 $25.00 Priority 6
NR Adult Reservation Field Per Hour $32.00 $33.00
Non-Athletic based NP Field Reservation Per Hour $15.00 $15.00 Private Tournament Per Use/Field $210.00 $215.00
Refundable Deposit Per Use/Field $260.00 $265.00
Light Charges Per Hour $25.00 $28.00
Fields - Unlocked Soccer Goal Fee Per Request $25.00 $30.00 Field Attendant Per Hour Staff Rate Staff Rate
Tennis Court Rental for Organizations Per Hour New $12.00 Tennis Court Reservation Per Hour $9.00 $9.00
Bocce Courts (4 hours or less) Per Booking $11.00 $11.00 Bocce Courts (4+ hours) Per Booking $25.00 $25.00
Outdoor Fitness Fee Per Hour $25.00 $25.00
San Mateo High School Gymnasium Rentals
Gym Per Hour $75.00 $100.00
Lobby Per Hour $30.00 $30.00
Dance Studio Per Hour $35.00 $40.00
Multi-Purpose Room Per Hour $35.00 $40.00

DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES

DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES

413 of 509

PARKS AND RECREATION

UNIT FEES EFFECTIVE
THROUGH 12/31/22
FEES

EFFECTIVE
1/1/23
II. AQUATICS - (See Classification Categories on page 8.12) A. CENTER RENTALS - (See pages 8.10 - 8.12)

JOINVILLE
Large Pool (includes Dressing Room)
Classification A No Charge No Charge
Classification B $24.00 $25.00
Classification E $35.00 $36.00
Non-Resident $43.00 $44.00
Small Pool (includes Dressing Room)
Classification A No Charge No Charge
Classification B $12.00 $12.00
Classification E $18.00 $18.00
Non-Resident $22.00 $22.00
Multi-Purpose Room See Community
Centers Category 4 (pg

8.11)
See
Community
Centers
Category 4 (pg

8.11)
Off Season Closure Period By negotiation - full
cost recovery
By negotiation -
full cost
recovery

BIRTHDAY PARTY FEE
Reservation Fee/Deposit Includes 15 Guests $95.00 $95.00 Additional Guests Up to 20 Guests $6.00 $6.00

KING POOL
Both Pools (includes Dressing Room)
Classification A No Charge No Charge
Classification B $20.00 $20.00
Classification E $30.00 $30.00
Non-Resident $37.00 $37.00
Off Season Closure Period

BOATHOUSE
Classification A No Charge No Charge
Classification B $20.00 $20.00
Classification E $32.00 $32.00
Non-Resident $41.00 $41.00
FACILITY PERS. RATES
Custodian Per Hour Staff Rate Staff Rate
Facility Specialist Per Hour Staff Rate Staff Rate

LIFEGUARDS
1st Guard - Senior Guard Per Hour Staff Rate Staff Rate 2nd & each additional Guard Per Hour Staff Rate Staff Rate

MARINA LAGOON
Boating pass (power boats 5 hp and up) Annual $450.00 $450.00 Daily $40.00 $40.00
Boating pass (under 5 hp and sail over 8 ft.) Annual $250.00 $250.00 Daily $25.00 $25.00
III. MISCELLANEOUS FEES
Volleyball net and standards rental Per Weekend $30.00 $30.00 Refundable Deposit $100.00 $100.00
Custodian Per Hour Staff Rate Staff Rate
Clay 25 lb Bag Actual cost Actual cost

PHOTOCOPY & MAILINGS
Agendas Year $6.00 $6.00
Agendas & Minutes Year $12.00 $12.00
Photocopies Per Sheet $0.15 $0.15
IV. SCHOOL DISTRICT FEES
A.

B. San Mateo Foster City School District (SMFCSD)SAN MATEO FOSTER CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT (SMFCSD) Fees shall be applied to the district and affiliated organizations (eg. PTA, Boosters, Foundation) as follows:

SAN MATEO HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT
Unless otherwise specified in an adopted facility use agreement, indoor, swimming pool and athletic facility fees shall be calculated administratively to be comparable to the SMUHSD fee schedule as it pertains to City use of similar SMUHSD facilities.

Picnic and special park facility fees, and staffing fees charged to SMUHSD shall be at the rates described in other sections of the fee schedule.

DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES

414 of 509

PARKS AND RECREATION

UNIT FEES EFFECTIVE
THROUGH 6/30/22
FEES

EFFECTIVE
7/1/22
V. GOLF COURSE
A. GENERAL
Weekdays Per Round $39.00 $41.00
Weekday Twilight Per Round $28.00 $30.00
Weekday Super Twilight Per Round $20.00 $22.00
Weekends (Fri., Sat., Sun., Holiday) Per Round $55.00 $57.00 Weekend Twilight Per Round $35.00 $37.00
Weekend Super Twilight Per Round $27.00 $29.00
Weekday-back 9 Per Round $25.00 $25.00
Weekend-back 9 Per Round $29.00 $29.00
Sr. 10 Play Card Each $310.00 $320.00
B. RESIDENT
Weekdays Per Round $34.00 $36.00
Weekday Twilight Per Round $28.00 $30.00
Weekday Super Twilight Per Round $20.00 $22.00
Weekends (Fri., Sat., Sun., Holiday) Per Round $47.00 $49.00 Weekend Twilight Per Round $35.00 $37.00
Weekend Super Twilight Per Round $27.00 $29.00
Weekday-back 9 Per Round $25.00 $25.00
Weekend-back 9 Per Round $29.00 $29.00
Senior Weekdays Per Round $30.00 $31.00
Sr. 10 Play Card Each $260.00 $270.00
C. JUNIOR
Jr. Weekdays Per Round $15.00 $15.00
Jr. Weekend Per Round $18.00 $20.00
D. RESIDENT GOLF I.D. CARD Per Annual Fee $20.00 $20.00 E. RANGE BALLS (BUCKET) Size: Warm-up $5.00 $5.00
Small $8.00 $8.00
Medium $11.00 $11.00
Large $14.00 $14.00
F. MEMBERSHIP SUBSCRIPTION Per Month $29.99 $29.99

UNIT FEES EFFECTIVE
THROUGH 12/31/22
FEES

EFFECTIVE
1/1/23
VI. PARK AND LANDSCAPE RESOURCES
A. HERITAGE TREE PERMIT Per Permit $100.00 $100.00
Tree Replacement Cost (24" Box Tree) Per Tree $740.00 $740.00 Right of Way Tree Removal Per Hour Actual cost charged by a city designated private
tree care company
Actual cost
charged by a
city designated
private tree
care company
B. MEMORIAL BENCH Per Bench $2,500.00 $2,500.00
C. TREE REPLACEMENT COST (15 gallon) Each $483.00 $483.00 D. TREE REPLACEMENT COST (36 inch box) Each $1,480.00 $1,480.00 E. TREE REPLACEMENT COST (48 inch box) Each $2,960.00
$2,960.00
F. COMMEMORATIVE TREE Per Tree $1,000.00 $1,000.00
G. COMMUNITY GARDENS - Community Garden Plots Per Square Ft. $0.28 $0.28 H. Each $80.00 $80.00
I. HERITAGE TREE APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL (Applicant Exempt from Fee) Each $80.00 $80.00

UNIT FEES EFFECTIVE
THROUGH 6/30/22
FEES

EFFECTIVE
7/1/22
J. Each New $100.00
Per Residential Unit Type: Per unit* Per Unit*
Single Family $29,598.00 $29,598.00
Multi-family 2-4 Units $27,172.00 $27,172.00
Multi-family 5+ Units $20,476.00 $20,476.00
Mobile Homes $17,564.00 $17,564.00
L. Per $100 Valuation on
Building Permit App.
$0.30 $0.30
Single Family 3.05 persons per unit
Multi-family 2-4 units 2.80 persons per unit
Multi-family 5+ units 2.11 persons per unit
Mobile Homes 1.81 persons per unit

DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES

DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES

TEMPORARY PARK ACCESS PERMIT
PARK AND RECREATION TAX ON RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PERMITS 1

PARK IN-LIEU FEE / PARK IMPACT FEE FOR RESIDENTIAL PLANNING APPLICATION

PROJECTS INVOLVING PARCEL MAPS, SUBDIVISION AND OTHER MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS.

Golf Fees - The Parks and Recreation Director may adjust green fee amounts for marketing and promotional activities as is necessary to encourage optimum play at the municipal golf courses.

HERITAGE TREE APPEAL TO PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION (Applicant Exempt from Fee)
K.
* Fee = Land Dedication Requirement x Median Land Value of $5,155,309 per acre adopted by City Council Resolution, where Land Dedication Requirement = [(Quantity of proposed dwelling units x population factor per dwelling unit type) less (quantity of existing dwelling units x population factor per dwelling unit type)] x (2 acres/ 1000 population) per Muni Code Section 26.64. The population factors per dwelling unit type are as follows:

DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES

415 of 509

PARKS AND RECREATION

UNIT FEES EFFECTIVE
THROUGH 12/31/22
FEES

EFFECTIVE
1/1/23
VII.

A. Fee is per Consultant's
rate
Fee is per
Consultant's
rateB. Building Valuation on Those
Building Permits Whose
Valuation is Over $5,000

0.05% 0.05%REIMBURSE COST OF STAFF OR CONSULTANT TIME SPENT IN PLAN CHECK OR INSPECTION SERVICES. PARK PLAN CHECK AND INSPECTION SERVICES ON BUILDING PERMITS. FEE TO BE COLLECTED AT TIME OF BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION. AFTER

PAYMENT OF FEES, PERMITTEE MAY APPLY FOR AN EXEMPTION FOR PROJECTS HAVING NO PARK PLAN CHECK OR INSPECTION REQUIREMENTS.

DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES
1These fees are collected by Community Development's Building Division - see page 2.3 DEVELOPMENT PROJECT REVIEW FEE1

CONSULTANTS FOR SPECIALIZED PLAN CHECKING AND INSPECTION SERVICES OR TO

EXPEDITE PLAN CHECKING AND INSPECTION SERVICES

416 of 509

PARKS AND RECREATION
Flat Per Use B-1*
$40.00
$30.00
$25.00
$15.00
Flat Per Use B-2*
$50.00
Flat Per Use B-3*
$45.00
$35.00
$30.00
$20.00
Room Hourly E-1* Room Hourly
NR-1*
$120.00 $145.00
$95.00 $120.00
$75.00 $90.00
$40.00 $50.00
Room Hourly E-2* Room Hourly
NR-2*
$170.00 $200.00
$145.00 $170.00
$120.00 $135.00
$70.00 $80.00
Hourly E-2 Hourly
NR-2

N/A N/A
$95.00 $120.00
$75.00 $90.00
$40.00 $50.00
Hourly E-2 Hourly
NR-2
$50.00 $63.00
Flat Per Use E-2 Flat Per Use
NR-2
$90.00 $115.00
Room Category
Additional Hourly Charges: Hourly Staff Cost for Rental Officer and / or Custodian if needed.

Room Category
*Fee includes requested room and use of immediately adjacent kitchen.

Category 1
Category 2
Category 3
Category 4
Additional Hourly Charges:

Hourly Staff Cost for Rental Officer and / or Custodian if needed.

Additional Hourly Charges: Hourly Staff Cost for Rental Officer and / or Custodian if needed.

B-2 Classification: (Non-profit booking on Sat/Sun beginning after 3 pm or ending after 6pm - fee applies to entire booking) Room Category
Any Room
Additional Hourly Charges: Hourly Staff Cost for Rental Officer and / or Custodian if needed.

B-3 Classification: (B-1 groups reserving regular weekly or monthly meeting times.) Room Category
Category 1
Category 2
Category 3
Birthday* (2-hr rental)
King Gymasium
Category 4
Additional Hourly Charges: If requesting more than one room, use the following chart for additional fees:

Room Category
Category 1
Category 2
Category 3
Category 4
E-2 & NR-2 Classification: (private, profit & non-resident business uses during non-business hours) Room Category
Category 1
Category 2
Category 3
Category 4
Additional Hourly Charges:

Hourly Staff Cost for Rental Officer and / or Custodian if needed.

E-1 & NR-1 Classification: (private, profit & non-resident business uses during specifically designated operating hrs.) Room Category
Category 3
Category 4
Community Center Fee Schedule
B-1 Classification: (Non-profit (including 501©(6)) conducting business activity) Room Category
Category 1
Category 2

417 of 509

PARKS AND RECREATION
Standing Theatre Facility Room Category
Beresford Assembly 1
614 439 Beresford Social 3
359 256 Beresford Activity 3
540 385 Beresford Conference 4
Beresford Studio 4
333 238 Beresford Club 4
342 244 Beresford Assembly 2
Central Activity A/B 2
265 189 Central Activity A 4
Central Stage 4
307 219 Central Lounge 4
254 181 Central Activity B 4
City Hall City Council 2
City Hall Room C 3
City Hall Atrium 3
City Hall Room A 4
211 150 City Hall Room B 4
City Hall Cafeteria 4
250 178 King Assembly 1
125 89 King Social A/B 2
125 89 King Studio 4
84 60 King Social A 4
King Conference 4
King Social B 4
Joinville Pool Multipurpose 4
162 116
170 122
101 72 Sr. Center Assem/MP 1
158 113 Sr. Center Activity 3
125 89 Sr. Center Assem/MP A 4
158 113 Sr. Center Conference 4
150 107
Note - Capacities are fire safety maximums. Rental capacities may vary and are established by each center consistent with use needs. 50 Category 1
Category 2
Category 3
Category 4
53 34
King Studio 53
King Social A 42
City Hall Cafeteria
Joinville Multipurpose
54 Central Activity B 57
City Hall Conf Rm
26 Central Lounge
Central Stage
42 Beresford Studio B 42
Beresford Club 28
Beresford Studio A
Studio 83
70 85
City Hall Conf Rm
City Hall Atrium
Beresford Social
Facility Room Banquet
C. FACILITY CATEGORY TABLES
City Hall Council
King Social
Beresford
Sr. Center Assem/MP
A (Back
Half)
King Social B
King Conference
City Hall Conf Rm
Central Activity A
Beresford Conference
Beresford
Sr. Center Activity
88 Activity 102
111
114
Activity
Sr. Center Assembly 180
Central
Beresford Assembly 205
King Assembly 120
Central Assembly

418 of 509

PARKS AND RECREATION
NR-2: NR use during non-public facility hours.

E-2: E classification use during non-public facility hours.

Non-Resident:

Recreation activities, social, business, or service, meetings, and private groups in which one-half of its current membership are not residents of the City of San Mateo or in the case of private groups, such as receptions at parties, the applicant (or business) is not a City resident.

NR-1: NR use during specifically designated public facility hours.

Any recreation, social, business, or service activity conducted by any person or group not included within Classifications A or B and are residents or businesses of the City of San Mateo, such as parties and receptions.

E-1: E classification use during specifically designated public facility hours.

Classification B-2:

Any activities scheduled during "Prime Time," defined as any booking beginning 3 p.m. or later, or ending 6 p.m. or later on Saturdays and Sundays.

Classification B-3:

B-1 groups reserving regular monthly meeting times.

Classification B-4:

Classification B:

Recreation activities and meetings that are organized, promoted, conducted, and sponsored by registered non-profits (IRS registered non-profit or established and organized not-for-profit groups with written organization documents, stationary, and/or membership lists) serving residents of the City of San Mateo and whose membership is open to the general public.

Classification B-1:

Any activities which are related to the business or mission of the organization.

B-1 groups participating in in-kind volunteer service fee waiver program.

Classification E:

FACILITY PERMIT CLASSIFICATION DEFINITIONS
Classification A:

Public recreation activities that are co-sponsored by or affiliated with the Recreation Department after meeting department qualifications and requirements.

419 of 509

PARKS AND RECREATION
Athletics Field Priorities
Priority 1:

Programs and activities conducted or sponsored by the City of San Mateo. This includes the San Mateo Police Activities League program(s).

Priority 2:

Priority 5:

A. Adult resident sports groups or teams.

B. Resident private rentals.

Priority 6:

Youth or Adult non-resident groups, teams, or individuals. Nonresident is defined as having an organization address outside of the San Mateo City limits and/or having less than 25% residency.

Programs conducted by Elementary Schools (K-8) within the City of San Mateo. Also programs conducted by organizations that limit their recruitment and sign-ups to individuals living within the San Mateo City limits and are recreational in nature having a "everyone plays; no child is turned away" philosophy. Residency requirement for Priority 2 consideration is a minimum of 90% Priority 3:

Programs conducted by private high schools within the City of San Mateo. Also, programs conducted by organizations in which participants must "tryout" or be selected based on skill level. Organizations may be "select" in that participants may be recruited from cities other than San Mateo. Residency requirement for Priority 3 consideration is a minimum of 50%. Residency verification may be required.

Priority 4:

Programs conducted by organizations in which participants must "tryout" or be selected based on skill level. Organizations may be "select" in that participants may be recruited from cities other than San Mateo. Residency requirement for Priority 4 consideration is a minimum of 25% residency. Residency verification may be required.

420 of 509
UNIT
I. PERMITS
A. MASSAGE ESTABLISHMENT:

1. Establishment Certificate for Non-Practitioner Owners Base Fee for Processing $586.00
+ Actual Time Spent x Rate Per
Hour as Appropriate

2. Establishment Certificate for Owner/Practitioners
Verification/Processing/Safety Inspection Base Fee for Processing $292.00 + Actual Time Spent x Rate Per
Hour as Appropriate
B. MASSAGE PRACTITIONER OFF- PREMISE
Verification/Processing Each $55.00
C. TANNING SALON

1. Tanning Facility Application Fee Each $498.00

2. Tanning Facility Biyearly Renewal Fee Each Facility $82.00 D. TAXI CAB DRIVER Investigation/Processing
New/Renewal $115.00 1
E. TAXI CAB INSPECTION $138.00 2
F. ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT Each $319.00
G. TOW SERVICE

1. Tow Truck Application Fee $291.00 1

2. Tow Truck Rotation List $45.00

3. Tow Truck Licensing Fee $3.00
H. Fee/Per Hour $160.00
II. COPIES OF REPORTS
A. ACCIDENT REPORTS Per Page $0.15
B. CAD REPORTS Per Page $0.15
C. ARREST REPORTS Per Page $0.15
D. CLEARANCE LETTER Each $10.00
E. PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST Per Page $0.15
III. VIDEO/AUDIO TAPE RECORDS AND PHOTOS
A. VIDEO RECORDINGS

1. Each $12.00
B. PHOTOS Each $5.00
IV. Each $15.00
V.

A. Per 1/4 Hour $6.00
B. Per Page $0.10
C. Each Actual Cost
DVD / CD / Flash drive Recording

FILING OF REPORT OF REPOSSESSION
(State Law GC 41612)

SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM
(State Law CEC 1563)
CLERICAL COSTS (Charged on a 1/4 hr basis w/the hrly rate set at $24.00) STANDARD REPRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS OF A SIZE OF 8 1/2 X 14 INCHES OR LESS

REPRODUCTION OF OVERSIZE DOCUMENTS, DOCUMENTS

REQUIRING SPECIAL PROCESSING, POSTAGE, RETRIEVAL/RETURN

OF RECORDS HELD OFF-SITE
POLICE

DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES FEE
Background Investigation/Verification/ Processing/Safety Inspection

PROJECT PLAN CHECKING FEE ON BUILDING PERMITS

421 of 509
POLICE
UNIT
VI. FALSE ALARMS
First alarm starting each fiscal year (7/1/21) One Free 2nd & over Each $108.00
VII. Each As determined by the County
VIII. OFFICER RESPONSE
A. Per Hour $90.00
B. Per Hour $90.00
Per Officer (one (1) hour min.)
C.

See “SPECIAL COMMUNITY EVENTS PERMIT” Section
D. Each $275.00
(per CA Government Code
68097.2)
IX. VEHICLE RELEASES
A. IMPOUNDED/STORED VEHICLE Each $20.00
X. One $111.00
Additional $72.00
XI. OUTSIDE DETAIL RATES 3, 4
Police Officer Per Hour $108.67
Police Sergeant Per Hour $130.39
Community Service Officer Per Hour $65.79
Sr. Dispatcher Per Hour $85.58
Police Reserve Officer Per Hour $81.96
Police Vehicle Abatement Officer Per Hour $52.74
Police Officer Per Hour $135.84
Police Sergeant Per Hour $162.99
Community Service Officer Per Hour $82.24
Sr. Dispatcher Per Hour $106.97
Police Reserve Officer Per Hour $102.45
Police Vehicle Abatement Officer Per Hour $65.93
Police Department Footnotes:
1 Plus prevailing State, Federal and County Fees for fingerprinting of applicants that are at the following costs:

DOJ Prevailing Fee $32.00
FBI Prevailing Fee $17.00
County Prevailing Fee $5.00
$54.00
2 3
4 Category B: Fund raising events organized, conducted and sponsored by registered non- profit organizations.

Category C: Events sponsored by for-profit business or non-tax-exempt organizations.

The fee will include up to two re-inspections at no additional cost. Additional inspections will be billed at 50% of the original cost.

OUTSIDE DETAIL
CIVIL SUBPOENA WITNESS FEE DEPOSIT (Governed by State Law).

Actual costs will be charged
(excluding vehicles towed exclusively under the authority of VC 22651(c), (g), (k), (o), (i.)(l), or VC 226.55.5).

Category A: City organized, conducted, sponsored, or co-sponsored events, or non- profit sponsored events that benefit city programs.

DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES FEE
BOOKING FEE (UPON CONVICTION) STATE LAW SECTION 29550.1.

EMERGENCY RESPONSE TO DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE (DUI) upon conviction (Gov't Code Section 53150-58)

DISTURBANCE SERVICE FEE
(loud parties, barking dogs, etc.)

STORAGE OF FIREARM
(Includes safekeeping)
In the event the Police Department must augment staffing of an outside detail with personnel from an allied agency, the outside detail rate charged shall be commensurate to the actual rate which is charged by that agency, which may be higher/lower than the rate listed.

The rates charged for Outside Detail may be updated during the Fiscal Year to reflect negotiated salary increases and ensure full cost recovery.

422 of 509
POLICE
$79.00/ $10.00 w/POC
$47.00/ $10.00 w/POC
$47.00/ $10.00 w/POC
$43.00
$47.00
$43.00
$47.00
$47.00
$47.00
$47.00
$43.00
$47.00
$43.00
$47.00
$47.00
$347.00
$43.00
$347.00
$47.00
$47.00
$58.00
$47.00
$347.00
$149.00
$149.00
$47.00
$47.00
$47.00
$47.00
$47.00
$43.00
$43.00
$43.00
$43.00
$43.00
$43.00
$43.00
$47.00
$43.00
$43.00
$43.00
$43.00
$43.00
Overtime in meter zone/feeding meter $43.00
$43.00
$43.00
$43.00
$47.00
21113 Parking on public grounds-no permit
22500.1 Fire lane
22500(a) Parking within an intersection

PARKING PENALTY SCHEDULE
Only one violation per citation
4000(a) Expired registration (make sure you check the POC box) 5200 License plates failure to display (make sure you check the POC box) 5204 Tabs (make sure you check the POC box)
22500(e) Blocking any driveway
22500(f) Parking on a sidewalk
22500(g) Obstructing traffic by parking near excavation 22500(b) Parking within a crosswalk
22500(c) Parking within a safety zone
22500(d) Parking within 15 ft. of fire station driveway 22500(l) Blocking wheelchair access to sidewalk
22502(a) Not within 18” of the curb
22507.8 Handicapped parking
22500(h) Double parking
22500(i) Parking within bus zone
22500(k) Parking upon any bridge
22521 Parking within 7 ½ feet of train tracks
22522 Blocking disabled ramp
22523(a) Abandoned vehicle- any highway
22514 Blocking fire hydrant
22515(a) Parked with engine running and/or parking brake not set 22516 Person locked in vehicle

11.32.070 Red, yellow, etc., curb markings

11.32.100 Commercial vehicle on residential street, 10,000 lbs. GVW

11.32.105 Oversized vehicle/trailer parked on residential street 22523(b) Abandon vehicle-public/private property

11.32.030 Truck parked on City street (may be used for limos, small shuttle buses, and small school buses)

11.32.040 Parked on parkway (Planting strip)

11.40.040(a) Restricted parking on City street (posted) (No residential parking permit)

11.40.040(b) Restricted parking on City lot (posted) i.e., City Hall, Rec Centers, Library, etc.

11.40.055 Street sweeping

11.36.010(1) Parallel parking in angle slot

11.36.020 Angle parking (right front tire not within 18” of curb)

11.40.040(a) Restricted parking on City street (posted)

11.40.110 Parked on private property w/o consent

11.44.090 Parked in front of a hooded meter

11.44.130 Parking over lines

11.40.060 Curb wheels/set brake on hill

11.40.070 Parking so as to obstruct traffic

11.40.100 Violation of emergency signs posted

11.48.070 Parking in bus zone (curb marked)

17.08.20 Boat or other object parked on public right-of-way

11.44.150 Meter violation

11.44.160

11.44.165 Repeat violations for overtime parking (2nd violation-same day, same place)

11.48.030 Parking in alley

423 of 509

UNIT FEE
I. PARKING FEES
A. TEMPORARY NO PARKING METERS (1)
Up to 7 days Per Day/Per Meter $12.50
8 – 49 days Per Wk./Per Meter $75.00
50 – 98 days Per Wk./Per Meter $150.00
99+ days Per Wk./Per Meter $300.00
Per Installation $77.00
B. TEMPORARY "NO PARKING" SIGNS Each $3.00
C. DOWNTOWN PARKING FEE PARKING PASSES
2nd and El Camino Real Monthly $65.00
Central Parking Monthly $100.00
Tennis Court Garage Monthly $65.00
Main Street Garage Monthly $100.00
Transit Center Monthly $65.00
Railroad Avenue between 5th to 9th Monthly $40.00
Low-Income Parking Permit Monthly $40.00
D. ON-STREET AND OFF-STREET RATES (per SMMC 11.40.010)
($0.50 minimum for credit cards at pay stations) Time Limit:

Premium On-Street Space 3 Hours/per Hour $1.50
Premium Off-Street Facilities 3 Hours/Per Hour $1.25
Premium Off-Street Facilities No Limit $1.25
(Central Garage – Lots 4, 5, 6), Main Street Garage
Value On-Street Spaces 3 Hours/Per Hour $1.00
Value Off-Street Facilities 3 Hours/Per Hour $0.75
Value Off-Street Facilities No Limit $0.75
No Limit $0.25
E. VALET PARKING PERMIT FEE
Permit Fee Per Permit $478.00
Implementation/Replacement Costs:

Curb Marking Each Location $85.00
Signs Per Sign $141.00
Meter Pole/Bracket Per Pole/Bracket $40.00
F. Annually Per Space Per Day $1.00 x # of spaces x # of days of operation per
week x 52 weeks
G. PUBLIC EV CHARGING STATION Per kW/h $0.26

USE OF PUBLIC PARKING SPACES FOR VALET STATIONS

PUBLIC WORKS

DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES
For each time the City installs and removes a meter bag. (Main Street Garage – Lot 1, Second and ECR Garage – Lot 2, Tennis Court Garage – Lot 3, 5th and B Lot – Lot 7, 4th and Railroad Lot – Lot 8, Transit Center – Lot 9, 5th to 9th Ave on S. Railroad Ave), Kinko’s Lot – Lot 10, and Worker’s Resource Lot – Lot 11

424 of 509

PUBLIC WORKS

UNIT FEE
II. ENCROACHMENT PERMITS (see Encroachment Permit Notes (II)) A. FLAT FEE ENCROACHMENT PERMITS

1.Residential Driveway / Sidewalk / Curb & Gutter Each $723.00

2. Each $381.00

3. Temporary Rental Storage Container (i.e. Pods) Each $166.00

4.Traffic Control Each $581.00

5.Sidewalk and Pedestrian Mall Outdoor Dining
a. Permit Application Fee Each $385.10
b. Parklet Encroachment Permit Fee Each $385.10

6.Public Improvements Related to Planning Applications (PA) Each $214.00

7.Sewer Lateral Each $896.00

8.Time Extension Each $40.00

9. Dock Permit
a. New Installation and Repaire or Replacment Each $3,167.00 b. Annual Fee Per Dock $43.00

10. Parklet
a. Permit Application Fee Each $500.00
Per Public Parking Space
Used in the Parklet
$250.00
b. Parklet Encroachment Permit Fee Per Public Parking Space Used in the Parklet
$250.00
B. ALL OTHER ENCROACHMENT PERMITS
Construction Cost in Public ROW
$0-$50k Base $1,756.86
$50k-$100k Base $1,756.86
+Every dollar above $50k 5.00%
$100k-$500k Base $4,256.51
+Every dollar above $100k 2.91%
$500k-$1m Base $15,893.59
+Every dollar above $500k 2.11%
$1m-$5m Base $26,462.63
+Every dollar above $1m 0.27%
$5m + Base $37,423.82
+Every dollar above $5m 0.28%
Temporary Encroachment Permit (i.e. dumpsters, scaffolding, soil tests, sewer video inspections, etc.)

DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES

425 of 509

PUBLIC WORKS
NOTES:

II. ENCROACHMENT PERMITS
A. FLAT FEE ENCROACHMENT PERMITS

1. Residential Driveway / Sidewalk / Curb & Gutter

2. Temporary Encroachment Permit (i.e. dumpsters, scaffolding, soil tests, sewer video inspections, etc.)

3. Temporary Rental Storage Container (i.e. Pods)

4. Traffic Control

5. Sidewalk and Pedestrian Mall Outdoor Dining

6. Public Improvements Related to Planning Applications (PA)

7. Sewer Lateral

8. Time Extension

9. Dock Permit
a. New Installation and Repaire or Replacment
b. Annual Fee

10. Parklet
B. ALL OTHER ENCROACHMENT PERMITS
In order to obtain an encroachment permit, an Encroachment Permit Application must be filled out by the owner of the property or the contractor performing the work. In addition to the required fee and application, all aspects of Chapter 17 of the San Mateo Municipal Code must be adhered to. The applicant must post financial security equal to the value of the improvements to secure performance. Labor and materials must also be secured at one-half the value of the improvements. Current standard insurance must be on file with the City. Insurance requirements include public liability and property damage insurance, naming the City as an additional insured. Evidence of insurance may include a certificate and/or endorsement. A portion of the fee will be used to fund the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program (STOPPP) in accordance with Chapter 7.39 of the San Mateo Municipal Code. Fees are waived for City projects.

This fee will cover permit processing and inspections for encroachment permits related to driveways, sidewalks, and/or curb and gutters. Traffic control as part of this permit is included in the fee and no additional fees are required. The application shall include necessary insurance and security deposit. Time extension may be granted per the fee schedule.

An encroachment permit, including necessary insurance and security deposits, will be required for the placement of temporary items, including dumpsters, scaffolding, equipment for soil tests, equipment for sewer video inspections, in the public right-of-way. The application shall include necessary insurance and security deposit.

Time extension may be granted per the fee schedule.

An encroachment permit, including general liability insurance, will be required for the placment of temporary storage container or portable on-demand storage in the public right-of-way. Approved permit renewals will be charged at a rate of $10 per container per day.

This fee will cover permit processing for time extensions of certain encroachment permits as noted. Changes to the scope of work is not covered by this fee.

This fee will cover permit processing and inspections for encroachment permits related the installation, repair or replacement of docks. The application shall include necessary insurance and security deposit.

Dock owners shall pay an annual fee to cover the costs of program administration and periodic inspections.

Encroachment permits for work that is not listed under Flat Fee Encroachment Permits, shall pay a fee based on the construction cost of the work in the public right-of- way. This fee will cover permit processing and inspections for the encroachment. Applicants shall submit a construction cost estimate of work within the public right-of- way with their application, which will be subject to the review and approval by Public Works. The application shall include necessary insurance and security deposit. For utility companies, they shall be exempt from providing a security deposit, billing will be on a quaterly basis, and current insurance is required to be on file with the City.

An encroachment permit application, including necessary insurance and application fees, will be required for parklet installations in most commercial areas.

Applicant shall pay the renewel fee annually prior to permit expiration.

An encroachment permit, including necessary insurance and security deposits, will be required for traffic control, in the public right-of-way, that is not associated with another encroachment permt. Time extension may be granted per the fee schedule.

An encroachment permit appication, including necessary insurance and application fee, will be required for ground floor food service businesses to provide outdoor seating and related furnishings in the following areas if the applicant meets certain City standards and conditions of use: Commercial districts on the sidewalk (with the exception of along El Camino Real), Pedestrian mall on B Street between 1st and 3rd Avenue on the sidewalk and/or street. Applicant shall pay the renewel fee annually prior to permit expiration.

When work that requires an encroachment permit is done in conjunction with a Planning Applicattion (PA), a processing fee is required. The Project Account for the PA will cover the cost for engineering review and inspection services by the City related to the encroachment. The application shall include necessary insurance and security deposit. Time extension may be granted per the fee schedule.

This fee will cover permit processing and inspections for encroachment permits related to sewer laterals. Traffic control as part of this permit is included in the fee and no additional fees are required. The application shall include necessary insurance and security deposit. Time extension may be granted per the fee schedule.

426 of 509

PUBLIC WORKS

UNIT FEE
III. STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION CONSTRUCTION PERMITS A. PERMIT FEE - non-refundable
Each No Fee
Each $587.51
Each $587.51
B. EROSION CONTROL MINIMUM COMPLIANCE Minimum Deposit $395.48 NOTES:

III. STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION CONSTRUCTION PERMITS Type III and IV Projects
(See Stormwater Pollution Prevention Construction Permit Notes for description of types of projects) PLUS
Type IV Projects
Type IV Projects are large sized projects, 1 acre or greater. Type IV Projects require a General Permit issued by the State Water Resources Control Board in addition to the City’s STOPPP Construction Permit. The STOPPP Construction Permit fee is listed above. Type IV projects required a minimum refundable deposit for erosion control plan compliance. The minimum deposit is required at plan submittal for additional plan checking and inspection. At the time of permit issuance, additional funds may be required to be added to the deposit if the deposit balance is less than estimated inspection fees, as determined by the City. Any portion not expended by the City in its engineering review and inspection is refundable. Time billed at $130.00 per hour. Expenses not covered by the deposit will be billed monthly. Bills to be paid in accordance with regular City billing processes. Account must be paid in full prior to final sign-off of conditions. The deposit will be refunded if permittee has complied with the submitted erosion plan and the City has not been required to perform work on permitee’s behalf.

Type III and IV Projects - Refundable Deposit
(See Stormwater Pollution Prevention Construction Permit Notes) In order to obtain a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program (STOPPP) Construction permit per the San Mateo Municipal Code Chapter 7.39, an applicant (i.e., property owner or contractor performing the work) must pay the appropriate permit fee. Type I Projects are not required to pay the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program Construction Permit fee, but are still required to comply with Construction Best Management Practices (BMP) as outlined in the permit card. Storm drain polluters may be liable for fines up to $10,000 per day. A permittee under the STOPPP Construction permit is required to adhere to all aspects of Chapter 7.39 of the San Mateo Municipal Code.

If the work being done involves an encroachment permit, a separate STOPPP permit is not required since the encroachment permit includes it.

Type I Projects
Type I Projects are small projects not in the public right-of-way that are generally under 20 cubic yards of soil disturbance (i.e. most residential driveways). If the work being done involves an encroachment permit, a separate STOPPP permit is not required since the encroachment permit includes it.

Type II Projects
Type II Projects are medium projects generally over 20 cubic yards of soil disturbance, such as installation/removal of swimming pools, demolition/installation of garages, home additions, retaining walls, and decks, that do not require a planning application and are reviewed through the building permit process (excluding residential driveways not in the public right-of-way). The fee for this type of project is listed above. No deposit is required.

Type III Projects
Type III Projects are medium sized projects over 20 cubic yards of soil disturbance, such as home additions, new single family homes, that require a planning application. The fee for a Type III Project is listed above. Type III projects require a minimum refundable deposit for erosion control plan compliance. The minimum deposit is required at plan submittal to guarantee to the City that the permitted will comply with the terms and conditions of the permit. At the time of permit issuance, additional funds may be required to be added to the deposit if the deposit balance is less than estimated inspection fees, as determined by the City. Any portion not expended by the City in its engineering review and inspection is refundable. Time billed at $130.00 per hour. Expenses not covered by the deposit will be billed monthly. Bills to be paid in accordance with regular City billing processes. Account must be paid in full prior to final sign-off of conditions. The deposit will be refunded if permittee has met all requirement in the erosion plan and the City has not been required to perform work on permitee’s behalf.

DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES
(See Stormwater Pollution Prevention Construction Permit Notes) Type I Projects
Type II Projects

427 of 509

PUBLIC WORKS

UNIT FEE
IV. SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMITS (See SMMC 23.40)
185 - 1,000 cubic yards Base $1,595.00
+ Per 50 c.y. greater than 185 $45.00
1,001 - 10,000 cubic yards Base $3,653.00
+ Per 100 c.y. greater than
1,000
$74.00
over 10,000 cubic yards Base $9,618.00
+ Per 100 c.y. greater than
10,000
$59.00
V. FINAL MAP-PLAN CHECK/ PROCESSING
A. PARCEL MAPS Per Map $4,431.00
B. FINAL MAPS/CONDO CONVERSTIONS Per Map $8,105.00
C. LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT/MERGERS (by deed) Each $2,595.00 D. CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE Each $1,390.00
E. ABANDONMENT EASEMENT / RIGHT-OF-WAY Each $8,140.00
VI. REPAIR TO CITY PROPERTY
A. LABOR Hour $182.00
Hour O/T $205.00
B. CONTRACTOR Hour Cost + 5%
C. MATERIAL & EQUIPMENT Each Cost + 5%
D. INSPECTION/SURVEY/ ENGINEERING Hour $198.00
Equipment rate based on the most recent State "Labor Surcharge and Equipment Rental Rates" book published by Caltrans Publications.

A Site Development Permit shall comply with SMMC 23.40. An application, including required fees, insurance and deposits are required.

DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES

428 of 509

PUBLIC WORKS

UNIT FEE
VII. ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE FEES
A. CLASS A WASTE DISCHARGE PERMIT ANNUAL FEE Each $687.00 B. CLASS B WASTE DISCHARGE PERMIT ANNUAL FEE Each $497.00 C. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PERMIT ANNUAL FEE Each $343.00 D. POLLUTION PREVENTION INSPECTION FEE Per Hour $308.00 E. INSPECTION/INVESTIGATION FEE Per Hour $154.00
Per Hour OT $180.00
F. SAMPLING FEE Per Hour $154.00
Per Hour OT $180.00
G. ANALYTICAL SERVICES FEE Each Cost
H. HYDRAULIC LOADING CHARGE Per 100 Cu. Ft. Basic Sewer Service Charge rate
I. DEFICIENCY RESULTING IN “SIGNIFICANT NONCOMPLIANCE” Each $452.30 J. FAILURE TO CONDUCT SELF-MONITORING Per Hour $136.42
K. Each $281.25
L. ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP/ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE

1. Labor Per Hour $154.00
Per Hour OT $180.00

2. Material And Equipment Each Cost

3. Contract Services Each Cost
M. APPEAL - of decision to issue permit, levy fees, or finding of noncompliance $2,182.00 N. Each Case $4,069.00

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH OFFICIAL NOTICE TO CORRECT VIOLATION

VIOLATIONS REQUIRING INSPECTION WARRANT, OR COMMENCEMENT OF CIVIL

LITIGATION PROCEEDINGS

DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES

429 of 509

PUBLIC WORKS
NOTES:

VII.ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE FEES
A.

B.

C.

D.

E.

F.

G.

H.

I.

J.

K.

L.

M.

N.

Analytical Services Fee. Cost based in service provider cost of service.

Pollution Prevention Inspection Fee. The Director is authorized to conduct all inspection, surveillance, and monitoring procedures necessary to assure compliance with this Chapter. The Director may enter without unreasonable delay, during facility hours of operation, any premises of any user in which a potential pollutant discharge source exists or in which facility discharge and materials and waste records are kept. Records shall be made available to the Director for inspection and copying. Reasonable times for inspection and sampling may include times that are unannounced. (7.38.350, 7.39.140) Cost based on 0.5- hour admin and inspection time per year at standard labor rate.

Violations Requiring Inspection Warrant or Commencement of Civil Litigation Proceedings. In the event that the user refuses the Director entry to the premises, inspection may be made only upon the issuance of a search warrant by a duly authorized magistrate. In the event that the user refuses entry after the request has been made, the Director is hereby empowered to seek assistance from the court in obtaining such entry; Any person who has violated or continues to violate the provisions of this Chapter or any order or permit issued hereunder, shall be subject to the imposition of civil penalties pursuant to Chapter 1.11 of this Code. (7.38.350, 7.39.140,

7.38.410, 7.39.200, 7.38.480, 7.39.290)
Appeal of Decision to Issue Permit, Levy fees, or Finding of Noncompliance. Any person affected by any decision, action or determination, including administrative remedies, made in interpreting or implementing the provisions of this Chapter may appeal therefrom to the City of San Mateo Public Works Commission. (7.39.200). Fee is refunded if appellant prevails.

Environmental Cleanup/Abatement of Public Nuisance. City may impose a charge upon the user to reimburse the City or District for the cost of cleaning and/or repair of City facilities, including mitigation of waste discharge to the storm drainage system; any condition caused or permitted to exist in violation of any of the provisions of this Chapter is a threat to the public health, safety and welfare, and is declared and deemed a nuisance., and may be summarily abated and/or restored by the City. The cost of such abatement and restoration shall be borne by the owner of the property. (7.38.180, 7.38.470, 7.39.280).

Class B Discharge Permit. A Class B permit shall be issued, at the discretion of the Director, to any user who is not a significant industrial user, yet requires periodic inspection and/or monitoring to verify compliance with this Chapter. A Class B permit may be required for discharge of industrial waste from stationary sources, trucked wastes, contaminated groundwater, and other industrial wastes approved by the Director for discharge to the sanitary sewer. (7.38.260). Cost based on 1.5 hours admin and inspection time per year at standard labor rate.

Class A Discharge Permit. A Class A permit shall be issued to all significant industrial users (SIU). Class A permit holders are regulated in accordance with the requirements specified in the pretreatment regulations, 40 CFR Part 403 and 40 CFR Chapter I, Subchapter N, Parts 405-471, as amended, and this Chapter. (7.38.260) Cost based on 4 hours admin and inspection time per year at standard labor rate.

Inspection/Investigation Fee. Applies to inspection and investigation activities not covered in D. or K. Cost based on standard labor rate.

Sampling Fee. The Director shall have the right to establish on any property such devices as are necessary to conduct sampling or metering operations. During all inspections as provided herein, the official may take any samples deemed necessary to aid in the pursuit of the inquiry or in the recording of activities on the site. (7.38.350, 7.39.140). Cost based standard labor rate.

Failure to Comply with Official Notice to Correct Violation. When an authorized enforcement official finds that a user has violated or is violating this Chapter, or a permit or order issued hereunder, the official may serve upon said user a Notice of Violation which enumerates the violations found, and orders compliance by a date certain. (7.38.460, 7.39.270); any condition caused or permitted to exist in violation of any of the provisions of this Chapter is a threat to the public health, safety and welfare, and is declared and deemed a nuisance. (7.38.470, 7.39.280) Failure to Conduct Self-monitoring. The Director may require that the user conduct a sampling and analysis program of the user’s waste or stormwater discharge of a frequency and type required by the Director to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of this Chapter. (7.38.360, 7.39.160).

Deficiency Resulting in “Significant Noncompliance”. At least annually, the Director shall provide public notice in the largest local daily newspaper a list of those significant industrial users that, during the previous twelve (12) months, were found in significant noncompliance, as defined in the pretreatment regulations and this Chapter. (7.38.420). Cost based on administrative time and cost of publication for 3 days in San Mateo County Times.

The following fees are intended to help recover the cost of implementation and enforcement of SMMC Chapter 7.38 Hydraulic Loading Charge. The Director may impose upon the user a hydraulic loading charge for discharge of groundwater or other waters in cases where conventional sewer service charges applied by the City or District do not account for said flows or uses. User discharges which exceed 10,000 gallons per batch discharge or users undertaking long term discharges of groundwater to the sanitary sewer shall be metered and levied a hydraulic loading charge based upon the basic sewer service charge rate. (7.38.260)
Stormwater Management Permit. A property that is required to install, operate, and maintain stormwater treatment facilities, or maintain parking lots, storm drain inlets, or other facilities for stormwater pollution prevention as specified in project conditions, shall obtain a Stormwater Management (SWM) permit from the Director of Public Works. (7.39.235). Cost based on 2 hours admin and inspection time per year at standard labor rate.

430 of 509

PUBLIC WORKS

UNIT FEE
VIII. DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES (subject to annual review) A. WASTEWATER CAPACITY CHARGE
a. Per Dwelling Unit $10,399.72
b.

Per Dwelling Unit $5,199.34
Per Dwelling Unit $8,666.26
Per Dwelling Unit $10,399.72
c. Per Room/Apartment $5,199.34
d. Per Bedroom $5,199.34
e. Per Square Foot $5.20
a.

Per Meter $10,399.72
Per Meter $11,139.82
Per Meter $12,269.16
b.

Per Meter $17,332.52
Per Meter $18,565.67
Per Meter $20,448.60
c.

Per Meter $34,665.05
Per Meter $37,132.37
Per Meter $40,897.20
d.

Per Meter $55,463.45
Per Meter $59,410.97
Per Meter $65,435.52
e.

Per Meter $103,994.11
Per Meter $111,396.08
Per Meter $122,690.56
f.

Per Meter $173,323.16
Per Meter $185,659.79
Per Meter $204,484.96
g.

Per Meter $346,646.33
Per Meter $371,320.63
Per Meter $408,969.92
h.

Per Meter $554,633.50
Per Meter $594,112.79
Per Meter $654,352.09
a. Per Gallon Per Day $80.50
b. Per Pound Per Day $1,944.71
c. Per Pound Per Day $1,753.51
Meter size of 1 inch
i. Class B
ii. Class C
iii. Class D
Meter size of 2 inches
i. Class B
ii. Class C
iii. Class D
Meter size of 6 inches
Flow
Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD)
Suspended Solids (SS)
*Wastewater Class Thresholds
●Class B represents standard strength, a biological oxygen demand of 200 mg/L, and a suspended solids measurement of 200 mg/L ●Class C represents moderate strength, a biological oxygen demand of 400 mg/L, and a suspended solids measurement of 400 mg/L ●Class D represents high strength, a biological oxygen demand of 800 mg/L, and a suspended solids measurement of 600 mg/L ii. Class C
iii. Class D

3. Industrial
The capacity charge for industrial uses is based on estimated wastewater flow and strength.

Meter size of 8 inches
i. Class B
Meter size of 3 inches
i. Class B
ii. Class C
iii. Class D
Meter size of 4 inches
Meter size of 1 inch and 1/2 inch
i. Class B
i. Class B
ii. Class C
iii. Class D
iii. Class D
ii. Class C
i. Class B
ii. Class C
iii. Class D

DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES

1. Residential
Class A represents all residential uses, a biological oxygen demand of 200mg/L, and a suspended solids measurement of 200mg/L
i. Class B
ii. Class C
iii. Class D
Meter size of up to 3/4 inch
Accessory Dwelling Unit
Board or lodging houses
Hotels or motels

2. Commercial/Institutional
The capacity charge for commercial/institutional uses is based on water meter size and wastewater class. *see footnote below for class explanation*
iii. 3+ bedroom
Single-family
Multi-family
ii. 2 bedroom
i. Studio & 1 bedroom

431 of 509

PUBLIC WORKS

UNIT FEE
VIII. DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES (subject to annual review) (continued) B. TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT FEE

1. Residential
a. Single-family Per Dwelling Unit $6,867.99
b. Multi-family Per Dwelling Unit $3,468.58

2. Commercial and Industrial
a. Retail Per 1,000 Sq. Ft. $27,735.48
b. Office Per 1,000 Sq. Ft. $8,366.76
c. Industrial Per 1,000 Sq. Ft. $4,589.64
d. Hotel Per Room $4,367.84
e. Institution Per 1,000 Sq. Ft. $3,568.50
C. Per Space $57,699.90
IX. NEWSRACK ORDINANCE VIOLATION
A. ABATEMENT FEE
failure to abate violation for Chapter 17.12 of the S.M.M.C. Per Violation $69.55 B. APPEAL OF ABATEMENT ORDER FEE
(Fee refunded if appellant prevails). Per Violation $134.94

DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES

CENTRAL PARKING IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT PER SPACE IN-LIEU FEE

432 of 509

PUBLIC WORKS

UNIT FEE
X. MISCELLANEOUS FEES
A. PLANS AND SPECS Per Set Varies at cost
B. ENGINEERING PHOTOCOPIES - large sizes
24" x 36" Per Print Actual Cost
36" x no. of feet Per Print Actual Cost
C. PHOTOCOPIES

8.5" x 11" Per Copy $0.15

8.5" x 14" Per Copy Actual Cost
11" x 17" Per Copy Actual Cost
D. HANG BANNER Per Request $379.00
+ certificate of insurance
E. STREET LIGHT BANNER Per Pole/ Per Banner $95.00
F. CURB PAINTING:
a. Review

1. Red Tipping Per Request $376.00

2. Blue Curb (Disabled) Per Request $376.00

3. Yellow Curb (Loading Zone) Per Request $284.00

4. White Curb (Passenger Loading) Per Request $284.00

5. Green Curb (Limited-Time) Per Request $284.00

6. Non-Critical Red Zones Per Request $183.00
b. Installation

1. Red Tipping Per Request $189.00

2. Blue Curb (Disabled) Per Request $474.00

3. Yellow Curb (Loading Zone) Per Request $284.00

4. White Curb (Passenger Loading) Per Request $189.00

5. Green Curb (Limited-Time) Per Request $474.00

6. Non-Critical Red Zones Per Request $284.00
G. Each $905.00
H. WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILTIES PERMIT

1. Wireless Permits Application Fee Min Deposit Per Location $4,000.00

2. Master License Agreement Fee Min Deposit Per New
Agreement
$1,000.00
Per Hour $200.00

3. Per Location Per Year $270.00

4. Min Deposit Per Location $2,500.00

5. Per Hour $200.00
I. SHARED MOBILITY PERMIT APPLICATION FEE Each $5,000.00 J. Each $1,520.00
Section 6409 Permit
License Fee for City Pole (subject to 3% annual increase) Annual fee for each attachment to a municipality – owned structure in the public right-of-way Request to place a new facility or substantial modification of an existing facility in the public ROW. This minimum deposit listed is required at the pre-application phase. The deposit will cover field visits, engineering review of the existing or proposed facilities, inspections during construction, the cost of hiring an independent consultant with specialized or expert knowledge in connection with wireless facilities, including, but not limited to: permit application completeness and/or accuracy, compliance with RF emissions, gap in services, alternative sites analysis, inspection during construction, and administrative time to process the permit application. At the time of permit issuance, additional funds may be required to be added to the deposit if the deposit balance is less than estimated, as determined by the City. Any portion not expended by the City is refundable. Account must be paid in full prior to final sign-off. (Amendments charged at actual cost per hourly rate)
This fee will cover the development of a Tie-Back Agreement related to tie-backs within the public right-of- way.

Hourly Rate for City Labor/Services

TIE-BACKS IN THE PUBLIC ROW
Request to modify an existing facility in the public ROW. If modifications are deemed substantial, applicant shall apply for a Minor or Major Permit. This minimum deposit listed is required at the pre-application phase and will cover field visits, engineering review of the existing or proposed facilities, inspections during construction, the cost of hiring an independent consultant with specialized or expert knowledge in connection with wireless facilities, including, but not limited to: permit application completeness and/or accuracy, compliance with RF emissions, gap in services, alternative sites analysis, inspections during construction, and administrative time to process the permit application. At the time of permit issuance, additional funds may be required to be added to the deposit if the deposit balance is less than estimated, as determined by the City. Any portion not expended by the City is refundable. Account must be paid in full prior to final sign-off. (Note: Nonprofit organizations may contract with a vendor of their choice to install their banners but an encroachment permit is required.)
ADDRESS ASSIGNMENT FEE to be charged when assignment is not required as a condition of construction; charge for non-essential address changes only.

DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES

433 of 509

PUBLIC WORKS

SPECIAL EVENT APPLICATION FEES

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. SPECIAL EVENT FEES FOR SERVICE

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. UNIT FEE
I. USE FEES -

PUBLIC STREETS AND RIGHT OF WAYS
Daily Use Fees: Per Day $100.00
Per Day $200.00
Television Series/Movies/Pilot and Feature Films Per Day $300.00 CIVIC FACILITIES, PARKS, SPECIAL USE AREAS (for all uses) Per Hour $50.00 II. SUPPORT SERVICES FEES
III. DEPOSIT
All businesses shall submit a refundable deposit in the amount of $1,000.00 at the time fees are due and payable to cover any unanticipated support services fees, property damage repair, etc.

Videos/Travel/Documentary/Still Photography/Industrial Commercials Filming fees shall apply to commercial businesses desiring to film on public streets, right of ways or within city owned facilities, including parks, civic facilities and buildings or special use areas, such as Poplar Creek Golf Course. Prior to the granting of a permit, all businesses shall comply with all applicable policies and procedures, including, but not limited to, evidence of insurance, permits and licenses, and appropriate hold harmless language.

Any filming use that requires any of the following, shall be billed in accordance with the guidelines outlined within the Special Community Events Permit Fee section, Category C designation; i.e. for-profit businesses or non-tax exempt organizations:

Fees for use of City equipment, consumable supplies, preparation of specialized logistic plans, specialized contracted services and on-duty personnel will be billed at cost, plus a 25% administrative overhead fee.

Fees for use of overtime personnel shall be calculated at the top step prevailing overtime rate for the classification(s) utilized plus a 25% administrative overhead fee.

SPECIAL COMMUNITY EVENTS PERMIT

COMMERCIAL FILMING FEES

FEE CATEGORY
Overtime rates for personnel not regularly on duty who are required to work the event Fair market value charges for utilization of City equipment and/or vehicles used in support of the event No Fee-For events open to the general public, sponsored by a non-profit organization that are not for fundraising purposes, where no registration or admission fee is charged, no donations or contributions are solicited or where no money exchanges hands. $100 - For Low Impact events sponsored by a non-profit. A low impact event means any event other than a high impact event.

Regular rates for personnel who may be required to prepare specialized logistic plans in support of the event Actual costs for consumable supplies, e.g. parking meter signs, garbage bags, etc., used in support of the event Actual cost for specialized services contracted by the City that are required to support the event $230 - For High Impact events sponsored by non-profits. A high impact event means a special event meeting two or more of the following criteria: 1) Being held for the first time; 2) expected to draw more than 500 participants; 3) held on a recurring basis; 4) requiring the support of 2 or more city departments; 5) following a route with a different start and finish; 6) requiring a street closure; or 7) requiring interagency coordination. $500 – For Low Impact events sponsored by a commercial or for profit business. A low impact event means any event other than a high impact event. $1,000 – For High Impact events sponsored by a commercial or for profit business. See above for definition of a High Impact event.

Depending on the nature of the special event, applicable fees may include some or all of the following:

434 of 509

Chapter 3.64
FEES
Sections:

3. 64.010 Fees.

3.64.020 Penalties & Interest

3.64.030 Fees for Code Enforcement

3.64.010 - F
EES.

Prior to submittal of the annual budget, the City Manager shall submit to the City Council the fees proposed for the next fiscal year. The prior year’s fees shall continue if the City Manager does not submit new proposed fees. If the proposed fees do not represent a percentage increase exceeding the percentage increase for the preceding twelve (12) month period as shown by the San Francisco Bay Area Consumer Price Index of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, United States Department of Labor, under the heading All Items, or any index substituted by the Department of Labor therefor, the proposed fees shall become effective on the following July 1, unless a different date is set forth in the submission, provided however that the Council may amend the fees before the effective date. If the proposed fees represent a percentage increase exceeding the percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index, they must be approved by the Council before becoming effective. Notwithstanding the above, the Council may amend any fee at any time. (Ord. 1994-12 § 1, 1994; Ord. 1989-8 § 1, 1989; Ord. 1986-26 § 1, 1986).

3.64.020 - PEN
ALTIES AND INTEREST.

Any fee imposed by this chapter shall be due and payable within thirty days after the bill is mailed by the City. The fees shall be delinquent if not paid within said thirty days. Any person who fails to remit any fee within the time required shall pay a penalty of ten percent of the amount due, per month to a maximum of three months, plus interest at the rate of 1-1/2 percent per month, or fraction thereof, computed from the delinquent date of the fee until and including the date of payment. (Ord. 1989-8 § 1, 1989).

3.64.030 - FEES
FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT.
(a) Nuisances. The Council is authorized to adopt fees for administrative costs incurred in the enforcement of Title 7. No fee shall be charged if a property owner or agent abates the nuisance or violation within thirty (30) days after first notification of the violation is mailed by the City. (b) Other Violations. The City shall be authorized to adopt fees for costs incurred in the enforcement of Municipal Code violations which result in a requirement for a planning application or building permit, if such application is made or permit applied for more than thirty days after notification of the violation is mailed. (Ord. 1990-5 § 4, 1990; Ord. 1989-8 § 1, 1989).
435 of 509

UNIT FEE
I.

A. WASTEWATER CAPACITY CHARGE

1. Residential
Class A represents all residential uses, a biological oxygen demand of 200mg/L, and a suspended solids measurement of 200mg/L
a. Single-family Per Dwelling Unit $10,399.72
b. Multi-family
i. Studio & 1 bedroom Per Dwelling Unit $5,199.34
ii. 2 bedroom Per Dwelling Unit $8,666.26
iii. 3+ bedroom Per Dwelling Unit $10,399.72
c. Hotels or motels Per Room/Apartment $5,199.34
d. Board or lodging houses Per Bedroom $5,199.34
e. Accessory Dwelling Unit Per Square Foot $5.20

2. Commercial/Institutional
The capacity charge for commercial/institutional uses is based on water meter size and wastewater class. *see footnote below for class explanation*
a. Meter size of up to 3/4 inch
i. Class B Per Meter $10,399.72
ii. Class C Per Meter $11,139.82
iii. Class D Per Meter $12,269.16
b. Meter size of 1 inch
i. Class B Per Meter $17,332.52
ii. Class C Per Meter $18,565.67
iii. Class D Per Meter $20,448.60
c. Meter size of 1 and 1/2 inch
i. Class B Per Meter $34,665.05
ii. Class C Per Meter $37,132.37
iii. Class D Per Meter $40,897.20
d. Meter size of 2 inches
i. Class B Per Meter $55,463.45
ii. Class C Per Meter $59,410.97
iii. Class D Per Meter $65,435.52
e. Meter size of 3 inches
i. Class B Per Meter $103,994.11
ii. Class C Per Meter $111,396.08
iii. Class D Per Meter $122,690.56
f. Meter size of 4 inches
i. Class B Per Meter $173,323.16
ii. Class C Per Meter $185,659.79
iii. Class D Per Meter $204,484.96
g. Meter size of 6 inches
i. Class B Per Meter $346,646.33
ii. Class C Per Meter $371,320.63
iii. Class D Per Meter $408,969.92
h. Meter size of 8 inches
i. Class B Per Meter $554,633.50
ii. Class C Per Meter $594,112.79
iii. Class D Per Meter $654,352.09

3. Industrial
The capacity charge for industrial uses is based on estimated wastewater flow and strength. a. Flow Per Gallon Per Day $80.50
b. Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) Per Pound Per Day $1,944.71 c. Suspended Solids (SS) Per Pound Per Day $1,753.51

IMPACT, IN-LIEU, AND LINKAGE FEES

DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES (subject to annual review)
*Wastewater Class Thresholds
●Class B represents standard strength, a biological oxygen demand of 200 mg/L, and a suspended solids measurement of 200 mg/L ●Class C represents moderate strength, a biological oxygen demand of 400 mg/L, and a suspended solids measurement of 400 mg/L ●Class D represents high strength, a biological oxygen demand of 800 mg/L, and a suspended solids measurement of 600 mg/L