Agenda packet, regular meeting — San Mateo City Council, April 3, 2023 (part 2 of 2)

276 of 575

Landscaper Leaf Blower Use Survey SurveyMonkey
2 / 26
Q6
Please provide any additional feedback about these potential regulations:

Setting aside my landscape use of an electric blower, only periodically, I find myself barraged in my neighborhood by loud, smelly leaf blowers at all hours of the day, early morning, into the evening when my family wants to enjoy quiet time in the garden....I would love for them to be used only at certain times, especially gas, but both if possible.

277 of 575

Landscaper Leaf Blower Use Survey SurveyMonkey
3 / 26
Q1
What type of leaf blowers do you use? (Check all that
apply)
Gas,
Electric battery-powered
Q2
If you use electric leaf blowers, why do you use electric leaf blowers? (Check all that apply)
Other areas I work have banned gas leaf blowers
Q3
What are the disadvantages of using electric leaf blowers? (Check all that apply)
Battery charge does not last long enough,
Electric leaf blowers are not as strong as gas leaf
blowers
,
Cost of purchasing new electric equipment,
Other (please specify):

Batteries when used for long periods of times drain and damage cells within the batteries resulting in replacing $200 batteries regularly.

Q4
How has the banning of gas leaf blowers in other cities affected your business?
I purchased electric leaf blower equipment to meet gas leaf blower ban requirements
Q5
Do you think time of use restrictions (e.g. limiting leaf blower use to only 1 day per week in specific
neighborhood zones) would have an impact on your
business? This approach is similar to Burlingame’s leaf blower regulations.

My schedule is based on efficiency and not by city. Most of my clients hve set days they prefer me and this would
ultimately ruin my schedule and make unecessary trips
back in forth.

Yes, please explain:
#2#2

COMPLETECOMPLETE
Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Thursday, January 26, 2023 11:25:47 PMThursday, January 26, 2023 11:25:47 PM Last Modified:Last Modified: Thursday, January 26, 2023 11:36:09 PMThursday, January 26, 2023 11:36:09 PM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:10:2200:10:22
IP Address:IP Address: 76.226.87.10576.226.87.105

Page 1 ends

278 of 575

Landscaper Leaf Blower Use Survey SurveyMonkey
4 / 26
Q6
Please provide any additional feedback about these potential regulations:

Palo Alto’s policy for electric leaf blowers only have already shown stress on landscapers. They are paying out of pocket to repair and buy new electrical equipment and struggle to keep up with buying expensive batteries due to their lack of longevity. Most have stuck to only raking making their hours longer and more physically draining.

279 of 575

Landscaper Leaf Blower Use Survey SurveyMonkey
5 / 26
Q1
What type of leaf blowers do you use? (Check all that
apply)
Electric-corded
Q2
If you use electric leaf blowers, why do you use electric leaf blowers? (Check all that apply)
Noise, electric equipment is quieter than gas
equipment
,
Health impacts,
Other areas I work have banned gas leaf blowers
Q3
What are the disadvantages of using electric leaf blowers? (Check all that apply)
There are no disadvantages of electric leaf blowers
Q4
How has the banning of gas leaf blowers in other cities affected your business?
I already use electric leaf blowers and did not need to change my business practices
Q5
Do you think time of use restrictions (e.g. limiting leaf blower use to only 1 day per week in specific
neighborhood zones) would have an impact on your
business? This approach is similar to Burlingame’s leaf blower regulations.

No
Q6
Please provide any additional feedback about these potential regulations:

I support electric because of reduced noise and 2 stroke gas engine pollution #3#3

COMPLETECOMPLETE
Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Sunday, January 29, 2023 2:41:51 PMSunday, January 29, 2023 2:41:51 PM Last Modified:Last Modified: Sunday, January 29, 2023 2:47:00 PMSunday, January 29, 2023 2:47:00 PM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:05:0800:05:08
IP Address:IP Address: 45.26.53.17645.26.53.176

Page 1 ends

280 of 575

Landscaper Leaf Blower Use Survey SurveyMonkey
6 / 26
Q1
What type of leaf blowers do you use? (Check all that
apply)
Gas
Q2
If you use electric leaf blowers, why do you use electric leaf blowers? (Check all that apply)
Respondent skipped this question
Q3
What are the disadvantages of using electric leaf blowers? (Check all that apply)
Battery charge does not last long enough,
Electric leaf blowers are not as strong as gas leaf
blowers
,
Cost of purchasing new electric equipment
Q4
How has the banning of gas leaf blowers in other cities affected your business?
I do not work in any cities where there has been a gas leaf blower ban
Q5
Do you think time of use restrictions (e.g. limiting leaf blower use to only 1 day per week in specific
neighborhood zones) would have an impact on your
business? This approach is similar to Burlingame’s leaf blower regulations.

No
Q6
Please provide any additional feedback about these
potential regulations:

Respondent skipped this question
#4#4

COMPLETECOMPLETE
Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, February 01, 2023 6:16:34 PMWednesday, February 01, 2023 6:16:34 PM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, February 01, 2023 6:20:15 PMWednesday, February 01, 2023 6:20:15 PM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:03:4000:03:40
IP Address:IP Address: 24.5.182.22724.5.182.227

Page 1 ends

281 of 575

Landscaper Leaf Blower Use Survey SurveyMonkey
7 / 26
Q1
What type of leaf blowers do you use? (Check all that
apply)
Gas
Q2
If you use electric leaf blowers, why do you use electric leaf blowers? (Check all that apply)
Respondent skipped this question
Q3
What are the disadvantages of using electric leaf blowers? (Check all that apply)
Battery charge does not last long enough,
Electric leaf blowers are not as strong as gas leaf
blowers
Q4
How has the banning of gas leaf blowers in other cities affected your business?
I do not work in any cities where there has been a gas leaf blower ban
Q5
Do you think time of use restrictions (e.g. limiting leaf blower use to only 1 day per week in specific
neighborhood zones) would have an impact on your
business? This approach is similar to Burlingame’s leaf blower regulations.

This would limit how much I can work and my livelihood. I have too many clients to be limited to one day a week.

Yes, please explain:

Q6
Please provide any additional feedback about these
potential regulations:

Respondent skipped this question
#5#5

COMPLETECOMPLETE
Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Thursday, February 02, 2023 8:20:19 PMThursday, February 02, 2023 8:20:19 PM Last Modified:Last Modified: Thursday, February 02, 2023 8:27:35 PMThursday, February 02, 2023 8:27:35 PM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:07:1500:07:15
IP Address:IP Address: 107.131.72.247107.131.72.247

Page 1 ends

282 of 575

Landscaper Leaf Blower Use Survey SurveyMonkey
8 / 26
Q1
What type of leaf blowers do you use? (Check all that
apply)
Gas
Q2
If you use electric leaf blowers, why do you use electric leaf blowers? (Check all that apply)
Respondent skipped this question
Q3
What are the disadvantages of using electric leaf blowers? (Check all that apply)
Battery charge does not last long enough,
Electric leaf blowers are not as strong as gas leaf
blowers
,
Cost of purchasing new electric equipment
Q4
How has the banning of gas leaf blowers in other cities affected your business?
I have not changed my business practices to
accommodate changes in regulations
Q5
Do you think time of use restrictions (e.g. limiting leaf blower use to only 1 day per week in specific
neighborhood zones) would have an impact on your
business? This approach is similar to Burlingame’s leaf blower regulations.

The costumer some times don’t understand to change the
service day
Yes, please explain:
#6#6

COMPLETECOMPLETE
Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Friday, February 03, 2023 2:10:52 PMFriday, February 03, 2023 2:10:52 PM Last Modified:Last Modified: Friday, February 03, 2023 2:32:16 PMFriday, February 03, 2023 2:32:16 PM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:21:2300:21:23
IP Address:IP Address: 70.236.211.7570.236.211.75

Page 1 ends

283 of 575

Landscaper Leaf Blower Use Survey SurveyMonkey
9 / 26
Q6
Please provide any additional feedback about these potential regulations:

The cost of a new tools and the time extended to blow the costumer won’t pay as many people do garden maintenance is ease to find some work for less, and the situation is crossing in the country everything goes up food,gas and items necessities, it has doble or more than use to cost before pandemic but if you rise up the cost of the service they say you only can rase up 5% of the cost of the service that percent don’t cover the cost of new equipment

284 of 575

Landscaper Leaf Blower Use Survey SurveyMonkey
10 / 26
Q1
What type of leaf blowers do you use? (Check all that
apply)
Electric battery-powered
Q2
If you use electric leaf blowers, why do you use electric leaf blowers? (Check all that apply)
Environmental concerns,
Noise, electric equipment is quieter than gas
equipment
,
Other (please specify):
easier to use, cheaper than gas, just as effective
Q3
What are the disadvantages of using electric leaf blowers? (Check all that apply)
Battery charge does not last long enough
Q4
How has the banning of gas leaf blowers in other cities affected your business?
I already use electric leaf blowers and did not need to change my business practices
Q5
Do you think time of use restrictions (e.g. limiting leaf blower use to only 1 day per week in specific
neighborhood zones) would have an impact on your
business? This approach is similar to Burlingame’s leaf blower regulations.

I work 5 days a week and am only at clients homes 1x per week. I would have to do every client's blowing in one day which leaves 4 days when I could not work. Also, for
construction, leaf blowers are used for daily cleanup.

Jobsites would get messy if they could only be used one day.

Yes, please explain:
#7#7

COMPLETECOMPLETE
Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Monday, February 06, 2023 12:25:24 PMMonday, February 06, 2023 12:25:24 PM Last Modified:Last Modified: Monday, February 06, 2023 12:30:43 PMMonday, February 06, 2023 12:30:43 PM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:05:1900:05:19
IP Address:IP Address: 142.254.109.200142.254.109.200

Page 1 ends

285 of 575

Landscaper Leaf Blower Use Survey SurveyMonkey
11 / 26
Q6
Please provide any additional feedback about these potential regulations:

I think electric blowers are fine and should be allowed to be used any day of the week. In general, I think leaf blowers should be used less frequently than they are - raking is a better way to remove targeted debris and leave beneficial organic matter in garden beds.

However, blowers are important for thoroughly cleaning hardscaped surfaces like patios, driveways and sidewalks. I am a professional horticulturist and have strong opinions about the overuse of blowers and their detriment to garden health, but they have their place and should be allowed.

286 of 575

Landscaper Leaf Blower Use Survey SurveyMonkey
12 / 26
Q1
What type of leaf blowers do you use? (Check all that
apply)
Electric-corded,
Electric battery-powered
Q2
If you use electric leaf blowers, why do you use electric leaf blowers? (Check all that apply)
Environmental concerns,
Noise, electric equipment is quieter than gas
equipment
,
Health impacts
Q3
What are the disadvantages of using electric leaf blowers? (Check all that apply)
Battery charge does not last long enough,
Electric leaf blowers are not as strong as gas leaf
blowers
,
Cost of purchasing new electric equipment
Q4
How has the banning of gas leaf blowers in other cities affected your business?
I purchased electric leaf blower equipment to meet gas leaf blower ban requirements
Q5
Do you think time of use restrictions (e.g. limiting leaf blower use to only 1 day per week in specific
neighborhood zones) would have an impact on your
business? This approach is similar to Burlingame’s leaf blower regulations.

No
Q6
Please provide any additional feedback about these
potential regulations:

Respondent skipped this question
#8#8

COMPLETECOMPLETE
Collector:Collector: Web Link 2 Web Link 2 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, February 22, 2023 12:46:06 PMWednesday, February 22, 2023 12:46:06 PM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, February 22, 2023 12:46:56 PMWednesday, February 22, 2023 12:46:56 PM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:4900:00:49
IP Address:IP Address: 76.14.0.9876.14.0.98

Page 1 ends

287 of 575

Landscaper Leaf Blower Use Survey SurveyMonkey
13 / 26
Q1
What type of leaf blowers do you use? (Check all that
apply)
Gas,
Electric-corded
Q2
If you use electric leaf blowers, why do you use electric leaf blowers? (Check all that apply)
Other areas I work have banned gas leaf blowers
Q3
What are the disadvantages of using electric leaf blowers? (Check all that apply)
Battery charge does not last long enough,
Electric leaf blowers are not as strong as gas leaf
blowers
,
Cost of purchasing new electric equipment
Q4
How has the banning of gas leaf blowers in other cities affected your business?
I no longer serve areas where gas leaf blowers are
banned
Q5
Do you think time of use restrictions (e.g. limiting leaf blower use to only 1 day per week in specific
neighborhood zones) would have an impact on your
business? This approach is similar to Burlingame’s leaf blower regulations.

No
Q6
Please provide any additional feedback about these potential regulations:

I think the council is biased to banning as blowers. This is a wasted effort. #9#9

COMPLETECOMPLETE
Collector:Collector: Web Link 2 Web Link 2 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, February 22, 2023 12:46:59 PMWednesday, February 22, 2023 12:46:59 PM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, February 22, 2023 12:49:01 PMWednesday, February 22, 2023 12:49:01 PM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:02:0200:02:02
IP Address:IP Address: 76.14.0.9876.14.0.98

Page 1 ends

288 of 575

Landscaper Leaf Blower Use Survey SurveyMonkey
14 / 26
Q1
What type of leaf blowers do you use? (Check all that
apply)
Electric battery-powered
Q2
If you use electric leaf blowers, why do you use electric leaf blowers? (Check all that apply)
Environmental concerns,
Noise, electric equipment is quieter than gas
equipment
,
Health impacts
Q3
What are the disadvantages of using electric leaf blowers? (Check all that apply)
There are no disadvantages of electric leaf blowers
Q4
How has the banning of gas leaf blowers in other cities affected your business?
I do not work in any cities where there has been a gas leaf blower ban
Q5
Do you think time of use restrictions (e.g. limiting leaf blower use to only 1 day per week in specific
neighborhood zones) would have an impact on your
business? This approach is similar to Burlingame’s leaf blower regulations.

No
Q6
Please provide any additional feedback about these potential regulations:

This isn't the time for half measures. Ban all gas yard tools. The businesses can adapt. #10#10

COMPLETECOMPLETE
Collector:Collector: Web Link 2 Web Link 2 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, February 22, 2023 12:49:04 PMWednesday, February 22, 2023 12:49:04 PM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, February 22, 2023 12:50:57 PMWednesday, February 22, 2023 12:50:57 PM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:01:5300:01:53
IP Address:IP Address: 76.14.0.9876.14.0.98

Page 1 ends

289 of 575

Landscaper Leaf Blower Use Survey SurveyMonkey
15 / 26
Q1
What type of leaf blowers do you use? (Check all that
apply)
Gas
Q2
If you use electric leaf blowers, why do you use electric leaf blowers? (Check all that apply)
Respondent skipped this question
Q3
What are the disadvantages of using electric leaf blowers? (Check all that apply)
Battery charge does not last long enough,
Electric leaf blowers are not as strong as gas leaf
blowers
,
Cost of purchasing new electric equipment,
Other (please specify):
in the near future your electric product will cause more toxic radiation than gas
Q4
How has the banning of gas leaf blowers in other cities affected your business?
I do not work in any cities where there has been a gas leaf blower ban
Q5
Do you think time of use restrictions (e.g. limiting leaf blower use to only 1 day per week in specific
neighborhood zones) would have an impact on your
business? This approach is similar to Burlingame’s leaf blower regulations.

This is ridiculous how do you expect a city to be well kept and clean to be done only once a week with with an
"electric" product.

Yes, please explain:
#11#11

COMPLETECOMPLETE
Collector:Collector: Web Link 2 Web Link 2 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, February 22, 2023 12:51:00 PMWednesday, February 22, 2023 12:51:00 PM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, February 22, 2023 12:54:42 PMWednesday, February 22, 2023 12:54:42 PM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:03:4200:03:42
IP Address:IP Address: 76.14.0.9876.14.0.98

Page 1 ends

290 of 575

Landscaper Leaf Blower Use Survey SurveyMonkey
16 / 26
Q6
Please provide any additional feedback about these potential regulations:

It does not surprise me how dumb California is turning, yet how people will allow all of our tax money to go towards a city - that will soon look and feel disgusting, wanting to push for an "all" electric environment yet landscaping to only be done once a week? Ridiculous! Wake up CA. Allowing this will only make San Mateo appear as Oakland.

291 of 575

Landscaper Leaf Blower Use Survey SurveyMonkey
17 / 26
Q1
What type of leaf blowers do you use? (Check all that
apply)
Gas
Q2
If you use electric leaf blowers, why do you use electric leaf blowers? (Check all that apply)
Respondent skipped this question
Q3
What are the disadvantages of using electric leaf blowers? (Check all that apply)
Battery charge does not last long enough,
Electric leaf blowers are not as strong as gas leaf
blowers
,
Cost of purchasing new electric equipment,
Other (please specify):

Battery charge - I wouldn't be able to do all of my clients.

Q4
How has the banning of gas leaf blowers in other cities affected your business?
I no longer serve areas where gas leaf blowers are
banned
Q5
Do you think time of use restrictions (e.g. limiting leaf blower use to only 1 day per week in specific
neighborhood zones) would have an impact on your
business? This approach is similar to Burlingame’s leaf blower regulations.

When I would work in Burlingame I'd have to move around too many clients schedules which resulted in negative/upset clients so I had to let go all of my Burlingame clients Yes, please explain:
#12#12

COMPLETECOMPLETE
Collector:Collector: Web Link 2 Web Link 2 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, February 22, 2023 12:54:46 PMWednesday, February 22, 2023 12:54:46 PM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, February 22, 2023 12:57:17 PMWednesday, February 22, 2023 12:57:17 PM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:02:3100:02:31
IP Address:IP Address: 76.14.0.9876.14.0.98

Page 1 ends

292 of 575

Landscaper Leaf Blower Use Survey SurveyMonkey
18 / 26
Q6
Please provide any additional feedback about these potential regulations:

I use my gas leaf blowers to not only clean residential yards, but the streets and clear the drains near my clients' homes, as I know the majority of other gardeners do. We keep the streets clean and if I have to use a battery/electric leaf blower, it would take too much time of my battery and time to continue to do the same amount of work.

293 of 575

Landscaper Leaf Blower Use Survey SurveyMonkey
19 / 26
Q1
What type of leaf blowers do you use? (Check all that
apply)
Respondent skipped this question
Q2
If you use electric leaf blowers, why do you use electric leaf blowers? (Check all that apply)
Respondent skipped this question
Q3
What are the disadvantages of using electric leaf blowers? (Check all that apply)
Respondent skipped this question
Q4
How has the banning of gas leaf blowers in other cities affected your business?
Respondent skipped this question
Q5
Do you think time of use restrictions (e.g. limiting leaf blower use to only 1 day per week in specific
neighborhood zones) would have an impact on your
business? This approach is similar to Burlingame’s leaf blower regulations.

Respondent skipped this question
Q6
Please provide any additional feedback about these potential regulations:

I'm a landscape architect so I design landscapes. I don't install or maintain them. #13#13

COMPLETECOMPLETE
Collector:Collector: Web Link 2 Web Link 2 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, February 22, 2023 12:57:18 PMWednesday, February 22, 2023 12:57:18 PM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, February 22, 2023 12:58:12 PMWednesday, February 22, 2023 12:58:12 PM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:5300:00:53
IP Address:IP Address: 76.14.0.9876.14.0.98

Page 1 ends

294 of 575

Landscaper Leaf Blower Use Survey SurveyMonkey
20 / 26
Q1
What type of leaf blowers do you use? (Check all that
apply)
Gas,
Electric battery-powered
Q2
If you use electric leaf blowers, why do you use electric leaf blowers? (Check all that apply)
Noise, electric equipment is quieter than gas
equipment
,
Client preference
Q3
What are the disadvantages of using electric leaf blowers? (Check all that apply)
Battery charge does not last long enough,
Cost of purchasing new electric equipment
Q4
How has the banning of gas leaf blowers in other cities affected your business?
I purchased electric leaf blower equipment to meet gas leaf blower ban requirements
Q5
Do you think time of use restrictions (e.g. limiting leaf blower use to only 1 day per week in specific
neighborhood zones) would have an impact on your
business? This approach is similar to Burlingame’s leaf blower regulations.

Yes, as a landscape contractor I need blowers 5 times per week.

Yes, please explain:

Q6
Please provide any additional feedback about these
potential regulations:

Respondent skipped this question
#14#14

COMPLETECOMPLETE
Collector:Collector: Web Link 2 Web Link 2 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, February 22, 2023 12:58:14 PMWednesday, February 22, 2023 12:58:14 PM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, February 22, 2023 1:00:04 PMWednesday, February 22, 2023 1:00:04 PM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:01:4900:01:49
IP Address:IP Address: 76.14.0.9876.14.0.98

Page 1 ends

295 of 575

Landscaper Leaf Blower Use Survey SurveyMonkey
21 / 26
Q1
What type of leaf blowers do you use? (Check all that
apply)
Gas
Q2
If you use electric leaf blowers, why do you use electric leaf blowers? (Check all that apply)
Environmental concerns,
Noise, electric equipment is quieter than gas
equipment
,
Health impacts,
Client preference,
Other areas I work have banned gas leaf blowers
Q3
What are the disadvantages of using electric leaf blowers? (Check all that apply)
Electric leaf blowers are not as strong as gas leaf
blowers
,
There are no disadvantages of electric leaf blowers
Q4
How has the banning of gas leaf blowers in other cities affected your business?
I do not work in any cities where there has been a gas leaf blower ban
Q5
Do you think time of use restrictions (e.g. limiting leaf blower use to only 1 day per week in specific
neighborhood zones) would have an impact on your
business? This approach is similar to Burlingame’s leaf blower regulations.

No
#15#15

COMPLETECOMPLETE
Collector:Collector: Web Link 2 Web Link 2 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, February 22, 2023 1:00:08 PMWednesday, February 22, 2023 1:00:08 PM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, February 22, 2023 1:01:04 PMWednesday, February 22, 2023 1:01:04 PM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:5500:00:55
IP Address:IP Address: 76.14.0.9876.14.0.98

Page 1 ends

296 of 575

Landscaper Leaf Blower Use Survey SurveyMonkey
22 / 26
Q6
Please provide any additional feedback about these potential regulations:

I am all for battery operated blower w/ good batteries!!

297 of 575

Landscaper Leaf Blower Use Survey SurveyMonkey
23 / 26
Q1
What type of leaf blowers do you use? (Check all that
apply)
Gas
Q2
If you use electric leaf blowers, why do you use electric leaf blowers? (Check all that apply)
Respondent skipped this question
Q3
What are the disadvantages of using electric leaf blowers? (Check all that apply)
Cost of purchasing new electric equipment
Q4
How has the banning of gas leaf blowers in other cities affected your business?
I do not work in any cities where there has been a gas leaf blower ban
Q5
Do you think time of use restrictions (e.g. limiting leaf blower use to only 1 day per week in specific
neighborhood zones) would have an impact on your
business? This approach is similar to Burlingame’s leaf blower regulations.

I'm the boss and worker so that would mean I would have to let go some of my clients. I can only do so many yard per day.

Yes, please explain:

Q6
Please provide any additional feedback about these potential regulations:

While watching the 11/09/22 Sustainability + Infrastructure Commission meeting I learned about the California CORE program. I just started the process in January. I was told it has been taking 3 months to have it finalized.

The current enforcement of the leaf blower ordinance is a joke. If you want any new regulation to work you will have to have a new team that just handles the leave blower ordinance and actually do enforcement. In the past I would report leaf blower ordinance violations but I stopped after seeing the same crews continuing with the same violations. #16#16

COMPLETECOMPLETE
Collector:Collector: Web Link 2 Web Link 2 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, February 22, 2023 1:01:11 PMWednesday, February 22, 2023 1:01:11 PM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, February 22, 2023 1:03:50 PMWednesday, February 22, 2023 1:03:50 PM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:02:3800:02:38
IP Address:IP Address: 76.14.0.9876.14.0.98

Page 1 ends

298 of 575

Landscaper Leaf Blower Use Survey SurveyMonkey
24 / 26
Q1
What type of leaf blowers do you use? (Check all that
apply)
Gas
Q2
If you use electric leaf blowers, why do you use electric leaf blowers? (Check all that apply)
Other areas I work have banned gas leaf blowers
Q3
What are the disadvantages of using electric leaf blowers? (Check all that apply)
Battery charge does not last long enough,
Cost of purchasing new electric equipment,
Other (please specify):

Short supply
Q4
How has the banning of gas leaf blowers in other cities affected your business?
Respondent skipped this question
Q5
Do you think time of use restrictions (e.g. limiting leaf blower use to only 1 day per week in specific
neighborhood zones) would have an impact on your
business? This approach is similar to Burlingame’s leaf blower regulations.

Clients like their properties clean when we leave. 9 am to 5pm are reasonable hours
Yes, please explain:

Q6
Please provide any additional feedback about these potential regulations:

Battery powered saws and blowers are not available enough to replace gas powered equipment #17#17

COMPLETECOMPLETE
Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Friday, February 24, 2023 8:29:26 AMFriday, February 24, 2023 8:29:26 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Friday, February 24, 2023 8:33:08 AMFriday, February 24, 2023 8:33:08 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:03:4200:03:42
IP Address:IP Address: 12.218.214.3412.218.214.34

Page 1 ends

299 of 575

Landscaper Leaf Blower Use Survey SurveyMonkey
25 / 26
Q1
What type of leaf blowers do you use? (Check all that
apply)
Gas,
Electric battery-powered
Q2
If you use electric leaf blowers, why do you use electric leaf blowers? (Check all that apply)
Noise, electric equipment is quieter than gas
equipment
,
Client preference,
Other areas I work have banned gas leaf blowers
Q3
What are the disadvantages of using electric leaf blowers? (Check all that apply)
Battery charge does not last long enough,
Electric leaf blowers are not as strong as gas leaf
blowers
Q4
How has the banning of gas leaf blowers in other cities affected your business?
I purchased electric leaf blower equipment to meet gas leaf blower ban requirements
Q5
Do you think time of use restrictions (e.g. limiting leaf blower use to only 1 day per week in specific
neighborhood zones) would have an impact on your
business? This approach is similar to Burlingame’s leaf blower regulations.

Dias especiales es algo super ridiculo como en Burlingame, es un dolor de cabeza.

Yes, please explain:
#18#18

COMPLETECOMPLETE
Collector:Collector: Web Link 2 Web Link 2 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Monday, February 27, 2023 9:32:36 AMMonday, February 27, 2023 9:32:36 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Monday, February 27, 2023 9:51:57 AMMonday, February 27, 2023 9:51:57 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:19:2100:19:21
IP Address:IP Address: 76.14.0.9876.14.0.98

Page 1 ends

300 of 575

Landscaper Leaf Blower Use Survey SurveyMonkey
26 / 26
Q6
Please provide any additional feedback about these potential regulations:
*Porque no trabanjan con el fabricante y no con el pobre trabajador? *Tengan en cuenta que fall y winter es desagradable usar electric super batt tools. *Please don't do like Burlingame, is a headedge to re schedule our long time routes.

English Translation:
* Why don't they work with the manufacturer and not with the poor worker? *Keep in mind that fall and winter is unpleasant to use electric super batt tools.

301 of 575

3/9/23, 8:45 AM City of San Mateo Law Library
about:blank 1/3
City of San Mateo Law Library / City of San Mateo Municipal Code. / Title 10 PEACE, SAFETY AND MORALS / Chapter 10.80 OPERATION OF LEAF BLOWERS
Chapter 10.80 OPERATION OF LEAF BLOWERS

10.80.010 PURPOSE.

It has been found that leaf blowers cause considerable noise and air pollution and have been the source of numerous complaints by San Mateo citizens living in residential zoning districts.

This chapter is intended to regulate the use of leaf blowers to minimize noise and air pollution in the City's residentially zoned neighborhoods and in areas bordering residentially zoned neighborhoods.
(Ord. No. 1997-2 § 1.)

10.80.020 LEAF BLOWER—DEFINITION.

Leaf blowers are defined as portable equipment that is powered by a self-contained fuel engine and used in any landscape, maintenance, construction, property repair, or property maintenance for the purpose of blowing, dispersing or redistributing dust, dirt, leaves, grass, clippings, cuttings and trimmings from trees, shrubs or other debris.
(Ord. No. 1997-2 § 1.)

10.80.030 HOURS OF OPERATION.

No person shall use or operate a leaf blower in a residential zoning district or in areas bordering a residential zoning district before 8:00 a.m. or after 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, nor prior to 9:00 a.m. or after 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays. Use of leaf blowers on Sundays or on the following

302 of 575

3/9/23, 8:45 AM City of San Mateo Law Library
about:blank 2/3
holidays is prohibited: New Years Day, Martin Luther King, Jr. Birthday, Presidents' Day, Memorial Day, 4th of July, Labor Day, Veterans Day, Thanksgiving, Christmas. (Ord. No. 1998-6 § 1; Ord. No. 1997-2 § 1.)

10.80.040 LIMITATIONS ON USE.

Any person who uses or operates a leaf blower in a residential zoning district or in areas bordering a residential zoning district shall use a blower nozzle extension and shall run the blower at a low speed to minimize noise. No more than one blower shall be operated at a residence at any time. (Ord. No. 1997-2 § 1.)

10.80.050 REMOVAL OF DEBRIS.

No material or matter blown by leaf blowers shall be blown upon neighboring properties or onto any portion of the public right-of-way, including but not limited to sidewalks and streets, without being immediately removed.
(Ord. No. 1997-2 § 1.)

10.80.060 VIOLATIONS.

It is unlawful for any person or entity to violate the provisions of this chapter. (Ord. No. 1997-2 § 1.)

303 of 575

3/9/23, 8:45 AM City of San Mateo Law Library
about:blank 3/3

10.80.070 CONSTRUCTION.

No section of this chapter shall impose a mandatory duty on the City, or on any officer, official, agent, employee, board, council, or commission of the City. Instead, if any section purports to impose a mandatory duty of enforcement, that section shall be deemed to invest the City, and the appropriate officer, official, agent, employee, board, council, or commission with discretion to enforce the section or not to enforce it.
(Ord. No. 1997-2 § 1.)

304 of 575

THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC

COMMENTS WERE SUBMITTED

FOLLOWING THE PUBLICATION

OF THE AGENDA PACKET

305 of 575

1 Martin McTaggart
From: Peter Breining
Sent: Saturday, March 18, 2023 3:09 PM
To: Clerk
Subject: Leaf blower support comment
Please do not change the current leaf blower regulations. The regulations are a good compromise as they currently exist.

Leaf blowers are a valuable tool. I use my gas-powered leaf blower to blow off dust and debris from public tennis courts before I play tennis, making them much less slippery and safer.

It would not be possible for me to sweep the tennis courts off each time.

Also, I recently noticed a park employee using a battery powered blower and it was much louder and much more shrill than my gas powered one. So there is no noise benefit of electric vs. gasoline, as far as I can see.

Thank you for your consideration of this safety-related use of leaf blowers and please do not change the current regulations.

Peter Breining

San Mateo

306 of 575

1 Martin McTaggart
From: Kristie Eglsaer
Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2023 4:18 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo); Clerk
Cc: Stephanie Gindlesperger; Sang Hee Cho; Bethany Lopez; Sue-Ellen Atkinson; Azalea Mitch; Amourence Lee; Lisa Diaz Nash; Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Richard Hedges; Andrea Chow Subject: Comments for Mon 3/20 CC meetings
Dear City Council,

Here are my public comments for the meetings on Monday, March 20.

Slow Speed School Zone (Item #16)
Thank you so much for starting the slow streets around schools project!

Ped/Bike Priority List Action (Item #19)
I look forward to the City making changes to our streets this year, and I am wondering if that is what is meant by “Create a pedestrian master plan implementation plan” because a 2012 Ped Plan Implementation Plan already exists ✅ ‐ Ch 7 titled Implementation, with things like pedestrian scale lighting, curb extensions, and signal timing with specific locations and cost estimates. Many near term actions, like those also mentioned in the 2022 TOD Ped Access Plan, can't happen soon enough, like minimizing vehicle conflicts with pedestrians at signalized intersections via turn restrictions at El Camino Downtown (p.63). My neighbor was just telling me yesterday about a really scary near miss there due to the ped-vehicle signal conflict.

Add Pilot Installations as part of Complete Streets Community Engagement Plan (Item #22) Pilot Installations are designed to be temporary, allowing for modifications based on real-world and real-time feedback from users, allowing the community and City to engage in a cycle of action and feedback. The city has had some real success with pilot installations and community engagement recently. Now it’s about folding that practice into the Complete Streets Community Engagement Process.

Leaf Blowers and #LeaveTheLeaves (Special Session)
Does the City of San Mateo Parks Dept have a policy similar to what is laid out by the NYC Parks Dept to leave fallen leaves on the ground, like keeping leaves around tree bases or mulch mowing lawns? Thank you for the City listing alternatives to leaf blowing on the leaf blower webpage, like letting the leaves lie, and thank you for the electric leaf blower rebate program (and great flyer with QR code!).

Thanks very much!

Best, Kristie

https://www.cityofsanmateo.org/4566/TOD‐Pedestrian‐Access‐Plan

https://www.cityofsanmateo.org/2218/Pedestrian‐Master‐Plan

https://www.cityofsanmateo.org/DocumentCenter/View/10061/10‐‐‐Implementation?bidId=

https://www.nycgovparks.org/learn/trees‐and‐plants/leave‐the‐leaves‐why‐our‐parks‐gardeners‐may‐leave‐fallen‐ autumn‐leaves‐on‐the‐ground

https://www.cityofsanmateo.org/4544/Electric‐Leaf‐Blower‐Rebate

307 of 575

2 https://www.cityofsanmateo.org/DocumentCenter/View/85710/Electric‐Leaf‐Blower‐Rebate‐Flyer?bidId=

308 of 575

1 Martin McTaggart
From: Patrice Olds
Sent: Monday, March 20, 2023 1:56 PM
To: Martin McTaggart; Andrea Chow; Sue-Ellen Atkinson
Subject: Fwd: Comments for 3/20 meeting

Get Outlook for iOS
From: Lisa Rayle
Sent: Monday, March 20, 2023 1:22:16 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: Comments for 3/20 meeting

Dear Councilmembers,

As a resident of San Mateo, I am writing to comment on three items on tonight's agenda:

1. City Council Priority List ‐ Draft Review, item #32

On it
em #32, I urge council to be more specific.
 "Refine programmatic timeline for future bike improvements" --> we should create a timeline to build all priority projects in the Bike Master Plan
 " Create a pedestrian master plan implementation plan" --> Does it really take all year to make a plan to implement a plan? Can we also identify quick-build projects that can be implemented this year?

2. Complete Streets Plan ‐ Introduction & Community Engagement

I strongly support the design of streets that are truly complete, which means making streets safe and welcoming for people on foot and on bike. San Mateo roads are too often designed for cars with pedestrians and bicycles as an afterthoug
ht. It's past time to correct that imbalance by prioritizing design for people over design for cars.

3. Leaf blowers

Gas leaf blowers create air pollution hazardous to health, with few benefits. When I lived in Palo Alto, where gas leaf blowers are banned, the landscapers were fine using an ele ctric blower and the cost was basically the same. Why
continue to subject residents and workers to hazardous fumes when there are perfectly good alternatives available?

Thank you,
Lisa Rayle

309 of 575

1 Martin McTaggart
From: Patrice Olds
Sent: Monday, March 20, 2023 2:15 PM
To: Andrea Chow; Martin McTaggart
Subject: Fwd: Leaf blower ordinance.

Get Outlook for iOS
From: Rick
Sent: Monday, March 20, 2023 2:12:13 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: Leaf blower ordinance.

Good afternoon,

I never seen anyone using a leaf blower (gas or electric) collect the debris and take it away. Have you? The debris gets blown onto the street or the neighbors property. This ends up in the storm drain system and clogs it up and eventually the pollutants flow into the SF Bay which is a violation of the Clean Water Act. A bro
om and a rake are the Green zero
emissions alternative. If we are banning everything that is gas or gasoline powered allowing gasoline leaf blowers, that sends the wrong message to everyone.
sincerely
Rick Sakuda
San Mateo, CA

310 of 575

1 Martin McTaggart
From: Elaine Salinger
Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2023 8:03 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo)
Subject: Citizens Climate Lobby members' comments about Leaf Blowers Dear Mayor Lee, Deputy Mayor Dias Nash, Councilmembers Loraine, Newsom and Hedges,

The San Mateo County chapter of Citizens Climate Lobby has the following comments on Item 2 of the March 20 Special Meeting of the City Council related to Leaf Blower Regulations. We have 1000 members in SMC and 200 members living in the City of San Mateo.

Recommendations for Regulations of Leaf Blowers

1. Effective January 1, 2026 or sooner, ban use of all gasoline powered landscaping equipment in San Mateo (an expansion of policy option two in the staff report).

2. Immediately enforce the widely ignored operating hours for leaf blowers; and enforce the limits on noise levels.

3. Expand the electric leaf blower rebate program to include batteries.

4. Use alternative landscaping methods that include leaving the leaves on the ground, letting the grass grow longer, and/or trimming shrubbery less often and educate the public. (Please see this link. for a good explanation of why this is beneficial.)

5. Have the Parks Dept trial mulch mowing and other ways to leave fallen leaves, like placing leaf piles around tree bases to protect tree roots.

Discussion of Recommendations

After January 1, 2024, new gasoline powered leaf blowers and other new gasoline powered equipment such as hedge trimmers can no longer be sold in California. The staff report for the March 20 City Council meeting very correctly outlines the reasoning: the environmental damage done by one hour of gasoline powered leaf blowers is equivalent to the emissions from driving a Toyota Camry for 1,100 miles.

Besides creating annoying noise pollution and carbon pollution, gas leaf blowers blow away topsoil, blow away pollinator larvae that live in the leaf litter, and blow away annual flower seeds. Over time, the ground that has been blown is visibly eroded and barren. While electric blowers have the same problems, because they are no t as powerful, the environmental damage is less severe.

311 of 575

2 other material can be hand raked and swept, very few, if any, homeowners or businesses would be willing to pay the higher labor cost such hand work would require. Actually, leaf litter is nature's best mulch. And about 3” of mulch is recommended to reduce water needs and keep plant roots cool . What is really needed is education of the public to accept landscaping that is more natural.

We thank the City for their electric leaf blower rebate program, and the California Air Resources Board for their recent launch of a voucher incentive program for zero emission landscape equipment, referred to as the CORE program, available to landscape professionals. We understand that the leaf blower battery may not last the entir
e day and landscapers will need to carry extra batteries. One solution is to expand the landscape professionals' rebate for electric leaf blowers to include additional batteries.

In addition to air pollution, gasoline powered leaf blowers create significant noise pollution and thus, by San Mateo Municipal Code, may legally be operated only between the hours of 8 AM and 5 PM in residential and adjacent areas. Please note that during hours of legal operation, the Municipal Code also sets some very clear noise level s
tandards. Unfortunately, in San Mateo, the hours of operation and sound level limitations are widely ignored, especially in commercial and office areas adjacent to residential properties.

An outright ban on gasoline powered landscaping equipment, effective January 1, 2026, gives landscape professionals almost three years to find electric battery powered alternatives. With financial assistance from the CORE program and the City’s rebates, this is an equitable and fair approach.

Finally, the problem of leaf blowers potentially could be addressed through alternative landscaping methods that involve less frequent use of leaf blowers, which would also yield other environmental benefits. The Parks and Recreation Department could try leaving the leaves on the ground to create natural mulch and provide habitat for the creatures . However, this was not on the objectives list from the City Council, and therefore, further awareness and public education of this option is needed.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Elaine Salinger, Group Co-Leader
San Mateo County Chapter

312 of 575

1 Martin McTaggart
From: Nancy Schneider
Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2023 8:34 PM
To: Clerk
Subject: Revised letter on Leaf Blower regulations
Hello Patrice ‐‐
Would you please replace the letter I sent a few minutes ago with the one below. I made a change on the signature.

Thank you,
Nancy

Dear Mayor Lee, Deputy Mayor Diaz Nash, Councilmembers Loraine, Newsom and Hedges,

The San Mateo Climate Action Team has the following comments on Item 2 of the March 20 Special Meeting of the City Council related to Leaf Blower Regulations.

Recommendations for Regulations of Leaf Blowers

1. Effective January 1, 2026 or sooner, ban use of all gasoline powered landscaping equipment in San Mateo (an expansion of policy option two in the staff report).

2. Immediately enforce the widely ignored operating hours for leaf blowers; and enforce the limits on noise levels.

3. Expand the electric leaf blower rebate program to include batteries.

5. Have the Parks Dept trial mulch mowing and other ways to leave fallen leaves, like placing leaf piles around tree bases to protect tree roots.

Discussion of Recommendations

313 of 575

2 other material can be hand raked and swept, very few, if any, homeowners or businesses would be willing to pay the higher labor cost such hand work would require. Actually, leaf litter is nature's best mulch. And about 3” of mulch is recommended to reduce water needs and keep plant roots cool. What is needed is education of the public to accept landscaping that is more natural.

We thank the City for their electric leaf blower rebate program, and the California Air Resources Board for their recent launch of a voucher incentive program for zero emission landscape equipment, referred to as the CORE program, available to landscape professionals. We also note that the experience of some of our members with electric leaf blowers has been like that of the San Mateo Parks Department: battery life makes switching from gasoline to electric a challenge. One solution is to expand the landscape professionals' rebate for electric leaf blowers to include additional batteries.

In addition to air pollution, gasoline powered leaf blowers create significant noise pollution and thus, by San Mateo Municipal Code, may legally be operated only between the hours of 8 AM and 5 PM in residential and adjacent areas. Please note that during hours of legal operation, the Municipal Code also sets some very clear noise level standards. Unfortunately, in San Mateo, the hours of operation and sound level limitations are widely ignored, especially in commercial and office areas adjacent to residential properties.

Finally, the problem of leaf blowers potentially could be addressed through alternative landscaping methods that involve less frequent use of leaf blowers, which would also yield other environmental benefits. The Parks and Recreation Department could try leaving the leaves on the ground to create natural mulch and provide habitat for useful creatures. However, this was not on the objectives list from the City Council, and therefore, further awareness of this option is needed.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Nancy Schneider and Elaine Salinger on behalf of the
180 Members of the San Mateo Climate Action Team

314 of 575

1 Martin McTaggart
From: Patrice Olds
Sent: Monday, March 20, 2023 1:20 PM
To: Andrea Chow; Martin McTaggart
Subject: Fwd: Ban gas-powered leafblower use

Get Outlook for iOS
From: Carol Steinfeld
Sent: Monday, March 20, 2023 1:01:03 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: Ban gas‐powered leafblower use

Councillors:

Please ban use of gas‐powered leafblowers—for at least residential use as an interim measure until a complete ban is enacted.

A study shows that gas lea
fblowers do not increase cost to the yard workers. But if if it did, this cost must be charged to the customers.

After all, yard maintenance is a discretionary cost, and I feel my neighbors should pay more for polluting the air, creating noise, and harming insects/plants/wildiife, as well as damaging ev eryone's health, including the yard workers'.

You might look at the Palo Alto regulations as a model.

Yard workers know the days of gas powered leafblowers are coming to an end.

Thank you.

Carol Steinfeld

315 of 575

1 Martin McTaggart
From: Maggie Trinh
Sent: Monday, March 20, 2023 9:22 AM
To: Clerk
Subject: Agenda Item #2 - Gas Leaf Blowers
To the City Council:

I am writing in my personal capacity to strongly urge a ban on gas leafblowers. We have in the past used landscaping services that used gas leafblowers and they created lots of noxious fumes that are unpleasant and dangerous to breathe in, similar to standing next to an idling pic kup truck (but much worse). We purchased an electric leafblower for the landscaping service to use, which was better from an environmental standpoint. The landscaper simply plugged it into an outlet on the side of our house using a long extension cord, which will be sufficient for the vast majority of residential jobs and will not require carrying a ba
ttery at all. I believe the fears of costs being passed onto the consumer are much exaggerated; electricity is much cheaper than gas, which customers are already paying for. And it will be much healthier for the people actually operating the leafbl owers who have to breathe in these fumes day after day. Banning gas leafblowers will be a step in the right direction ‐‐ we need to do everything we can to address the climate change crisis.

On a side note: I recognize that everyone will have different needs and preferences for how they clean up their yards, particularly commercial applications, but I have actua
lly stopped using these services altogether and my soil is much healthier and more productive and absorbs more rainwater, avoiding runoff/flooding.

Thank you for your time.

Regards,

Maggie Trinh

316 of 575

From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent on: Friday, March 31, 2023 2:35:10 AM
To: Martin McTaggart <[email protected]>; Andrea Chow <[email protected]>
Subject: Fwd: Leaf Blower Regulations, Item 15 on April 3 Agenda

Get Outlook for iOS

From: Nancy Schneider
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2023 7:00:10 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Cc: Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Leaf Blower Regulations, Item 15 on April 3 Agenda

Dear Mayor Lee, Deputy Mayor Diaz Nash, Councilmembers Loraine, Newsom and Hedges,

The San Mateo Climate Action Team has the following comments on Item 15 of the April 3 City Council Regular Meeting related to Leaf Blower Regulations.

Recommendations for Regulations of Leaf Blowers

1. Effective January 1, 2026 or sooner, ban use of all gasoline powered landscaping equipment in San Mateo (an expansion of policy option two in the staff report).

2. Immediately enforce the widely ignored operating hours for leaf blowers; and enforce the limits on noise levels.

3. Use alternative landscaping methods that include leaving the leaves on the ground, letting the grass grow longer, and/or trimming shrubbery less often and educate the public. (Please see this link. for a good explanation of why this is beneficial.)

4. Have the Parks Dept trial mulch mowing and other ways to leave fallen leaves, like placing leaf piles around tree bases to protect tree roots.

Discussion of Recommendations

317 of 575

After January 1, 2024, new gasoline powered leaf blowers and other new gasoline powered equipment such as hedge trimmers can no longer be sold in California. The staff report for the April 3 City Council meeting very correctly outlines the reasoning: the environmental damage done by one hour of gasoline powered leaf blowers is equivalent to the emissions from driving a Toyota Camry for 1,100 miles.

Besides creating annoying noise pollution and carbon pollution, gas leaf blowers blow away topsoil, blow away pollinator larvae that live in the leaf litter, and blow away annual flower seeds. Over time, the ground that has been blown is visibly eroded and barren. While electric blowers have the same problems, they are not as powerful, so the environmental damage is less severe.

However, we do recognize that as long as landscapers are expected to remove every leaf, it will be economically challenging for them to cease operations of all leaf blowers. Although leaves, grass clippings and other material can be hand raked and swept, very few, if any, homeowners or businesses would be willing to pay the higher labor cost such hand work would require.

Actually, leaf litter is nature's best mulch. And about 3” of mulch is recommended to reduce water needs and keep plant roots cool. What is needed is education of the public to accept landscaping that is more natural.

We thank the City for their electric leaf blower rebate program, and the California Air Resources Board for their recent launch of a voucher incentive program for zero emission landscape equipment, referred to as the CORE program, available to landscape professionals. We also note that the experience of some of our members with electric leaf blowers has been like that of the San Mateo Parks Department: battery life makes switching from gasoline to electric a challenge. We’re glad that the City has expanded the landscape professionals' rebate for electric leaf blowers to include additional batteries.

In addition to air pollution, gasoline powered leaf blowers create significant noise pollution and thus, by San Mateo Municipal Code, may legally be operated only between the hours of 8 AM and 5 PM in residential and adjacent areas. Please note that during hours of legal operation, the Municipal Code also sets some very clear noise level standards. Unfortunately, in San Mateo, the hours of operation and sound level limitations are widely ignored, especially in commercial and office areas adjacent to residential properties.

318 of 575

leaves on the ground to create natural mulch and provide habitat for useful creatures.

However, this was not on the objectives list from the City Council, and therefore, further awareness of this option is needed.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Nancy Schneider and Elaine Salinger on behalf of the
180 Members of the San Mateo Climate Action Team

319 of 575

From: Carol Wilhelmy
Sent on: Monday, April 3, 2023 5:08:44 AM
To: Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: public comments for April 3 agenda item #15

[ Here are my public comments for agenda item #15,
Leaf Blower Regulations, in case something prevents
me from attending in person. ]

benzene, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, and 1,3-butadiene
These are just some of the carcinogenic substances that I (and the leaf blower equipment operator) get exposed to.

The number one reason to ban the use of gas leaf blowers is to protect the health of San Mateo residents, not to mention the health of the leaf blower operators themselves.

Exposing neighbors to toxic, cancer-causing emissions is just wrong, but this inconsiderate behavior will continue as long as there is no ordinance in effect.

My neighbors' landscape maintenance person blows dust and debris onto my property every single time he comes. I can see it coming over the back fence as I stand at my kitchen window, and I can see it coming onto my front walkway from my office. I have to keep my windows closed.

At least I can protect myself from the noise with noise-canceling headphones, but why should I have to do that inside my own home?

The dumb thing is that my neighbors' property doesn't look any better after the blowing is completed.

Thank you in advance for doing the right thing and banning the use of these polluting engines which serve no great purpose, this year please.

Carol Wilhelmy
San Mateo resident and taxpayer

320 of 575

Leaf Blower
RegulationsApril 3, 2023Andrea ChowSustainability Analyst, City Manager’s Office

321 of 575

Leaf Blowers ImpactsNoiseAir quality
Human healthEnvironment

322 of 575

San Mateo Municipal Code Section 10.80 “Operation of Leaf Blowers”•Limits leaf blower use between 8:00 am –5:00 pm on weekdays and between 9:00 am –5:00 pm on Saturdays•Requires leaf blowers to run at low speeds and use nozzle extension to minimize noise•Applies to residential zoning districts and in areas bordering residentially zoned neighborhoods

323 of 575

City History with Leaf Blower Regulations•Gas leaf blowers remain a common concern raisedby community members to staff and Council members•2020 Sustainability and Infrastructure Commission Discussion•FY 2022-23 City Council priority •Five City Council meeting discussions•Evaluation of three policy options:1)Improve enforcement of current ordinance2)Implement a certification and enforcement program limiting leaf blowers that meet a 65 decibel (dB) threshold3)Implement a complete ban on gas and electric leaf blowers 2011-2013Since 2013

324 of 575

Electric Leaf Blower Rebate programCommercial LandscaperResidentRebate amount75% of purchase price, max $50050% of purchase price,max $100Rebates issued8 32Average rebate amount$375$75

325 of 575

Electric Equipment and City Parks Operations•Electric equipment•Backpack and handheld blowers•Hedge trimmers•Chain saws•Weed trimmers•Key Challenges with Electric Blowers•Battery life•Performance•Costs•Shift away from blower use

326 of 575

State Regulations•AB 1346: Prohibits sale of new SORE (small off-road engines) beginning 2024 Image credit: California Air Resources Board (CARB)

327 of 575

Policy Approaches
1) Time of day restrictions2) Gas leaf blower ban (allows electric leaf blower) 3) Complete gas and electric leaf blower ban

328 of 575

1) Time of Day Restrictions•Most common type of leaf blower regulation•Helps limit noise impacts but does not address GHG emissions or air quality impacts•Possible ordinance enhancements•Develop a zone approach (e.g., City of Burlingame)•Establish narrower time restrictions (e.g., Town of Atherton)•Expand restrictions to apply to more areas of the City

329 of 575

2) Gas leaf blower ban•Adopted by >20 cities in California•Addresses GHG emissions and air quality; electric leaf blowers still result in some noise and fugitive dust•Several Bay Area cities are taking up leaf blower bans

330 of 575

Feedback on Gas Leaf Blower Ban from Other Cities•Enforcement continues to be the number one challenge with leaf blower bans•Cities (Los Altos and Palo Alto) with longstanding gas leaf blower bans continue to hear complaints•Cities with recently adopted gas leaf blower bans also shared that enforcement is a challenge and that the focus has been on education of the new ordinance

331 of 575

3) Complete gas and electric leaf blower ban•Adopted by five cities in California•Addresses all concerns related to noise, emissions and air quality

332 of 575

Nov 9, 2022 SIC Feedback•Discussion: •Concern about ban of gas leaf blowers addressing noise•Concern about the use of gas generators to charge batteries•One commissioner was opposed to a gas leaf blower ban because of financial and economic impacts to small landscaping businesses•Most commissioners expressed support of gas leaf blower ban and regulations because of noise impacts to the community and health impacts to leaf blower operators.•Commissioners also expressed interest in pairing a gas leaf blower ban with limiting leaf blower use to specific days in certain zones (like Burlingame’s approach)

333 of 575

Landscaper Feedback•Survey (17 responses in English, 1 response in Spanish)•Concerns regarding gas leaf blower ban•Majority opposed to gas leaf blower ban•Increased amount of time jobs would take with •Ability to increase costs to cover the increased time•Faultiness with equipment and need for expensive repairs•Enforcement challenges•Concerns regarding time of use restrictions•56% opposed: main argument that the limitation would constrain schedules and clients already have a preferred day for gardening services

334 of 575

City Council feedback needed on three policy options:
1) Time of day restrictions2) Gas leaf blower ban (allows electric leaf blower) 3) Complete gas and electric leaf blower ban

335 of 575

Thank YouAndrea ChowSustainability Analyst, City Manager’s [email protected]

336 of 575

CITY OF SAN MATEO
4 0
7 8

CITY OF SAN MATEO
Agenda Report
City Hall
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo CA 94403
www.cityofsanmateo.org
Agenda Number: 16 Section Name: OLD BUSINESS Account Number: 25-3112 File ID: 23-7343 TO: City Council
FROM: Drew Corbett, City Manager
PREPARED BY: Community Development Department
MEETING DATE: April 03, 2023
SUBJECT:

General Plan Update – Review Council Direction on Land Use Heights and Densities and Measure Y RECOMMENDATION:

Provide direction on the base densities and height limits that should be incorporated into the General Plan Update’s Land Use Element, and provide direction on how Measure Y should be incorporated into the General Plan Update.

BACKGROUND:

General Plan Update
The City’s comprehensive General Plan Update (GPU) began in fall 2018 with a series of visioning workshops and community meetings. In 2019 and 2020, the General Plan team held a series of community meetings and events to establish the ten General Plan study areas, which were selected based on their proximity to transit and/or were areas in transition (aging shopping centers or concentrations of underutilized buildings and sites). Subsequent community outreach and engagement meetings were held to create a range of land use and circulation alternatives, confirm the draft alternatives, and select the preferred land use and circulation scenarios. In April 2022, the preferred land use and circulation scenarios were selected by the City Council, with the land use scenario subsequently confirmed in July 2022.

Following selection of preferred land use and circulation scenarios, the GPU’s draft goals, policies and actions were published in July 2022, followed by community outreach and engagement (public meetings, workshops, and pop-up events, as well as an online survey) and public meetings with the General Plan Subcommittee (GPS) and Planning Commission in the summer and early fall. In October and November 2022, the City Council provided direction on the goals, policies and actions that would be incorporated into the draft General Plan. Overarching direction on the GPU’s goals, policies and actions included a focus on sustainability and resilience, planning for sufficient housing to meet current and future needs, supporting a multimodal transportation system, expanding parks, open space and recreational amenities, and enhancing community outreach and engagement. More information about the General Plan Update process, including technical reports, community input and meeting materials and recordings, is available online at www.StriveSanMateo.org.
2022 Community Opinion Survey
In the beginning of 2022, during community outreach for the GPU’s alternatives phase, the City conducted a statistically signifigant survey about a range of topics, including land use and housing. The survey sample size included 775 San Mateo adult residents and was administered in English and Spanish between January 21 and February 2, 2022. The results of the Community Opinion Survey were presented to the City Council on March 7, 2022. The following summarizes the main findings concerning building heights and density:
•When presented with the opportunity 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

337 of 575

CITY OF SAN MATEO
4 0
7 8
concentrating new housing in higher-density buildings downtown and near transit up to 12 stories. A higher percentage (68%) indicated they would support buildings up to eight stories. •When compared to the other items tested, respondents indicated that keeping building heights low and minimizing the number of new units added to single-family neighborhoods were the least important when planning for future housing in the City.

The March 7, 2022 agenda report can be viewed on the City’s Public Meeting Portal. The 2022 Community Opinion Survey results can be viewed as Attachment 1.

City Council Study Session
On March 6, 2023, the City Council held a study session on the General Plan Update, with a focus on providing direction on the height and density ranges that should go into the Land Use Element, how Measure Y should be incorporated into the General Plan and if a ballot initiative to update Measure Y should be pursued, and if any other policies or programs should be considered. Following a presentation from the General Plan team, clarifying questions and comments from 17 members of the public (11 in-person and six remotely), the Council deliberated on the topics of the heights and densities that should go into the General Plan Update, how to address Measure Y, and if there were other policies or programs/actions that should be included in the GPU. Following deliberation, staff confirmed that a majority of Council supported the following direction:

1. Supported the height and density ranges associated with each land use designation are appropriate to be included in the Public Review Draft General Plan, with the following changes: 1) set the maximum height for Office High at seven stories, and 2) remove High II (up to 200 units/acre and 10 stories) for the Residential and Mixed-Use land use designations.

2. Supported the Measure Y framework proposed by staff with target for an updated ballot measure on the November 2024 election, with the following direction: 1) conduct a statistically significant survey to test ballot feasibility, and 2) conduct robust outreach to all members of the community with materials and large graphics that are legible and easy to understand.

3. Regarding other policies or programs/actions in the General Plan Update that should be evaluated for potential updates or revisions, Council supported maintaining the draft local hiring and living wage policies/actions but provided language revisions to update three of the four.

The meeting minutes were adopted by the City Council on March 20, 2023 (see Attachment 2). At the end of this meeting, during Reports and Announcements, Mayor Lee asked for clarification on the direction that was provided on the General Plan Update and noted that there may have been some confusion between what was outlined in the meeting minutes and the intent of a majority of the Council. To ensure that there was not any confusion on the direction, a majority of Council requested that this item be brought back in order to confirm the direction that was provided on the General Plan Update.

Specific elements of Council’s direction to be confirmed included:

1. Should Residential High II and Mixed-Use High II be removed from consideration?

2. Should a land use map with Residential High II and Mixed-Use High II be studied in the Environmental Impact Report?

3. When should a statistically reliable survey be conducted?

4. Should the survey ask about community support for including Residential High II and Mixed-Use High II designations in the General Plan or should it test ballot language feasibility for an update to Measure Y? NEXT STEPS:

Following this meeting, the General Plan team will incorporate Council’s direction into the draft General Plan and proceed accordingly. Publication of the draft General Plan is now targeted for June 2023. The draft General Plan will then be available for review and input from the community, the General Plan Subcommittee, the Planning Commission, and the

338 of 575

CITY OF SAN MATEO
4 0
7 8
City Council in summer and fall of 2023. No decisions are final until the City Council adopts the General Plan.

BUDGET IMPACT:

There are no direct budgetary impacts to taking this action.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

The City Council is not taking any formal actions related to the General Plan Update at this study session, which is not a project subject to CEQA because it can be seen with certainty that this activity will not cause a physical change in the environment (Public Resources Code 21065). Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the General Plan Update is underway, with publication of the DEIR for public review anticipated in summer of 2023. The DEIR will have a 45-day public comment period once it is published. A Final EIR will be prepared prior to any formal decisions on the updated General Plan.

PUBLIC COMMENTS:

All written comments that have been submitted on the General Plan Update are available online at www.strivesanmateo.org/documents/publiccomments. This link also includes all comments that have been submitted since the beginning of the GPU effort in September 2018.

NOTICE PROVIDED:

All meeting noticing requirements were met.

ATTACHMENTS
Att 1 - 2022 Community Opinion Survey
Att 2 – 2023-03-06 Regular Meeting Minutes

STAFF CONTACT
Zachary Dahl, Deputy Director
[email protected]
(650) 522-7207

339 of 575

340 of 575

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

341 of 575

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

342 of 575

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

343 of 575

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

344 of 575

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

345 of 575

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

346 of 575

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.

347 of 575

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.

348 of 575

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.

349 of 575

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%).

350 of 575

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.

351 of 575

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.

352 of 575

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

353 of 575

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.

354 of 575

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).

355 of 575

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

356 of 575

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)

357 of 575

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

358 of 575

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

359 of 575

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

360 of 575

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

361 of 575

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

362 of 575

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

363 of 575

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

364 of 575

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

365 of 575

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

366 of 575

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)

367 of 575

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

368 of 575

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)

369 of 575

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)

370 of 575

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

371 of 575

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)

372 of 575

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

373 of 575

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

374 of 575

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

375 of 575

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

376 of 575

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

377 of 575

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)

378 of 575

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)

379 of 575

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

380 of 575

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

381 of 575

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

382 of 575

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

383 of 575

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

384 of 575

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

385 of 575

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

386 of 575

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

387 of 575

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

388 of 575

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

389 of 575

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)

390 of 575

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

391 of 575

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

392 of 575

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.

393 of 575

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

394 of 575

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%.

395 of 575

Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 50
City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Q UESTIONNAIRE & T OPLINES

True North Research, Inc. © 2021 Page 1
City of San Mateo Community Opinion Survey
Phone Version
Final Toplines (n=775)
February 2022
Section 1: Introduction to Study
Hi, may I please speak to: _____. Hi, my name is _____ and Im calling from TNR, an independent public opinion research company. Were conducting a survey for the City of San Mateo (Muh-TAY-O) about important issues and we would like to get your opinions.

If needed: This is a survey about important issues in your community. Im NOT trying to sell anything and I wont ask for a donation.

If needed: The survey should take about 12 minutes to complete.

If needed: If now is not a convenient time, can you let me know a better time so I can call back?

Section 2: Quality of Life
Id like to begin by asking you a few questions about what it is like to live in the City of San Mateo.

Q1 How long have you lived in the City of San Mateo?
1 Less than 1 year 6%
2 1 to 4 years 17%
3 5 to 9 years 15%
4 10 to 14 years 11%
5 15 years or longer 52%
99 Prefer not to answer 0%
Q2 How would you rate: _____? Would you say it is excellent, good, fair, poor or very poor? Always ask A first, then randomize
remaining items
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Very Poor
Not sure
Prefer not to
answer
A The overall quality of life in the City of San
Mateo 24% 61% 11% 3% 1% 0% 0%
B San Mateo as a place to raise a family 26% 42% 17% 3% 3% 7% 2% C San Mateo as a place to work 18% 44% 16% 3% 1% 16% 2% D San Mateo as a place to retire 10% 27% 23% 18% 10% 12% 1% E San Mateo as a place to shop and dine 26% 51% 18% 3% 1% 0% 0% F San Mateo as a place to recreate 18% 41% 28% 5% 3% 5% 1%

396 of 575

Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 51City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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%

397 of 575

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%

398 of 575

Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 53City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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%

399 of 575

Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 54City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Section 4: Housing & Land Use
Next, I would like to ask a few questions about the availability of housing in the City of San Mateo.

Q7
As I read the following housing types, please tell me whether you feel there is currently too much, about the right amount, or too little of this type of housing in the City of San Mateo.

Randomize
Too Much
About
Right
Too Little
Not sure
Prefer not
to answer
A Housing that is affordable for middle-
income families 4% 20% 66% 9% 0%
B Housing that is affordable for low-income
families 8% 12% 64% 16% 1%
Q8
California State law requires that all cities plan for additional housing. With a general shortage of housing in California, the state is requiring that the City of San Mateo plan for thousands of new housing units.

There are a variety of factors the City can consider when deciding where new housing may be located and the types of housing that may be built. As I read the following list of items, Id like to know how important you feel the item should be as the City plans for future housing over the next 20 years. Please keep in mind that not all of the items can be extremely important.

Here is the (first/next) item: ______. Should this City make this an extremely important, very important, somewhat important, or not important factor when planning future housing?
Randomize
Extremely
Important
Very
Important
Somewhat
Important
Not
Important
Not sure
Prefer not to
answer
A Creating homes that are affordable for low-
and middle-income residents 45% 29% 17% 8% 1% 0%
B Preserving open space and creating new
park lands 43% 35% 19% 2% 1% 0%
C Minimizing vehicle trips and traffic
congestion 34% 41% 19% 4% 1% 0%
D Ensuring sufficient parking spaces 28% 37% 26% 7% 1% 0% E Locating additional shops and restaurants
near new housing units 17% 31% 37% 13% 2% 0%
F Creating commercial zones that will attract
high-paying jobs 13% 33% 35% 16% 2% 0%
G Creating pedestrian-friendly areas that
encourage people to walk rather than drive 40% 35% 18% 5% 1% 0% H Improving access to transit and increasing
transit ridership 31% 38% 22% 7% 2% 0%
I Creating bike lanes and paths 22% 31% 32% 13% 1% 1%

400 of 575

Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 55City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

J Minimizing pollution and greenhouse gas
emissions 44% 34% 14% 6% 1% 0%
K Preserving the Citys historic buildings and
resources 26% 32% 28% 13% 1% 0%
L Keeping building heights low 21% 22% 25% 29% 3% 0%
M Ensuring that the impacts of growth are not
concentrated in disadvantaged areas 28% 31% 24% 11% 5% 1% N
Producing the revenue necessary to pay for
the cost of providing police, fire, and other
city services to the new housing units
29% 43% 20% 4% 3% 1%
O Ensuring adequate water supplies 62% 31% 5% 1% 2% 0%
P Having a plan that will meet the States
requirements for at least the next 20 years 25% 40% 21% 9% 5% 1% Q
Avoiding new development in areas that are
at higher risk of natural hazards, climate
change, or sea level rise
39% 35% 17% 6% 3% 0%
R Minimizing the number of new units added
to single-family neighborhoods 24% 21% 23% 27% 5% 0%
Q9
Concentrating new housing in taller, higher-density buildings downtown and near transit would allow more land to be reserved for parks, recreation areas, and community amenities, and will minimize change to existing residential neighborhoods. Knowing this, would you support or oppose concentrating future housing in higher-density buildings up to 12 stories. Get answer, then ask: Would that be strongly (support/oppose) or somewhat (support/oppose)?
1 Strongly support 33% Skip to Q11
2 Somewhat support 30% Ask Q10
3 Somewhat oppose 14% Ask Q10
4 Strongly oppose 21% Ask Q10
99 Prefer not to answer 2% Ask Q10
Q10
Would you support or oppose concentrating future housing in higher-density buildings up to 8 stories. Get answer, then ask: Would that be strongly (support/oppose) or somewhat (support/oppose)?
1 Strongly support 16%
2 Somewhat support 36%
3 Somewhat oppose 20%
4 Strongly oppose 27%
99 Prefer not to answer 2%

401 of 575

Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 56City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Section 5: Mobility
Q11 When traveling within the City of San Mateo, how often do you: _____? Read options if needed: Five or more days per week, 1 to 4 days per week, .

Read in Order
5+ days per
week
1 to 4 days per
week
2 to 3 days per
month
1 day per
month
Less than 1
day per month
Never
Prefer not to
answer
A Use a personal vehicle 52% 35% 8% 1% 1% 3% 0%
B Use public transit such as a bus or train 3% 4% 5% 7% 22% 58% 1% C Use Uber, Lyft or taxi 1% 3% 12% 8% 33% 42% 1%
D Walk from your home to a local store or
restaurant 16% 29% 19% 9% 11% 15% 1%
E Ride a bicycle or a scooter 6% 12% 9% 6% 15% 49% 2%
Q12
A growing population will naturally lead to greater traffic congestion in the future unless improvements are made to the Citys transportation system and we find ways to reduce the number of trips people make by driving in a typical day.

As I read the following list of actions that could be used to help reduce traffic congestion, please indicate whether you think the City should make it a high priority, a medium priority, or a low priority for the Citys future. If you dont think the City should take the action, just say so. Please keep in mind that not all actions can be a high priority.

Here is the (first/next) one: _____. Should this be a high, medium, or low priority for the Citys future, or should the City not take this action? Randomize
High priority
Medium
priority
Low priority
Not a priority
Not Sure
Prefer not to
answer
A Increase programs that encourage
carpooling, vanpooling, and ridesharing 16% 41% 24% 15% 4% 0% B
Expand the network of dedicated bike lanes
and shared lanes to encourage more
bicycling
28% 35% 21% 13% 3% 0%
C
Improve sidewalks, crosswalks, pedestrian
safety, signs, and infrastructure to encourage
more walking
56% 28% 11% 4% 2% 0%
D Improve safe routes to school to encourage
more kids to walk and bike to school 52% 32% 9% 4% 3% 0% E Add Bikeshare services with bikes available
at kiosks for public use 15% 35% 28% 18% 4% 0%
F
Improve bus and shuttle services with more
routes and more frequent service within San
Mateo and to neighboring areas
33% 38% 15% 8% 5% 0%
G Provide financial incentives to encourage
greater use of transit 27% 37% 21% 12% 3% 0%

402 of 575

Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 57City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

City of San Mateo Community Opinion Survey February 2022 True North Research, Inc. © 2021 Page 8
H
Make infrastructure improvements needed to
support autonomous/driverless shuttles
and vehicles
19% 26% 25% 24% 6% 0%
I Create bus-only lanes to improve travel
times when using transit 13% 27% 26% 28% 6% 1%
Q13
Adding bike lanes and widening sidewalks will make it easier to travel around the City without using a car and could help reduce traffic congestion and greenhouse gas emissions. However, adding bike lanes and widening sidewalks could also require removing a vehicle lane or parking spaces in certain locations.

Knowing this, do you generally support or oppose adding bike lanes and widening sidewalks in San Mateo? Get answer, then ask: Would that be strongly (support/oppose) or somewhat (support/oppose)?
1 Strongly support 30%
2 Somewhat support 35%
3 Somewhat oppose 16%
4 Strongly oppose 17%
99 Prefer not to answer 2%

Section 6: Communications
Q14
Overall, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the Citys efforts to communicate with residents through newsletters, the Internet, social media, and other means? Get answer, then ask: Would that be very (satisfied/dissatisfied) or somewhat (satisfied/dissatisfied)? 1 Very satisfied 18%
2 Somewhat satisfied 44%
3 Somewhat dissatisfied 17%
4 Very dissatisfied 8%
98 No Opinion/Not Sure 13%
99 Prefer not to answer 0%
Q15 Is there a particular topic or issue that youd like to receive more information about from the City?
1 Yes 30% Ask Q16
2 No 62% Skip to Q17
99 Prefer not to answer 8% Skip to Q17

403 of 575

Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 58City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Q16 Please briefly describe the topic. Verbatim responses recorded and later grouped into categories shown below.

Commercial, housing developments,
density 31%
Affordable housing 13%
Streets, roads, infrastructure maintenance 13%
Environmental issues 8%
Recreational programs 7%
Public transportation 7%
Public safety, crime stats 7%
Community events 4%
Schools, education 4%
Traffic issues, updates 4%
Parking issues, enforcement 4%
City planning, vision 4%
Noise control 3%
COVID-19 mandates, tests, vaccines 3%
Local economy, businesses 3%
City budgeting, finances 2%
Senior assistance 2%
Homelessness 2%
Q17 What information sources do you use to find out about City of San Mateo news, events, and programs? Dont read list. Record up to first 3 responses.

Newspapers
1 San Francisco Chronicle (daily
newspaper) 12%
2 Mercury News (daily newspaper) 4%
3 San Mateo Daily Journal (daily
newspaper) 30%
4 Daily Post (daily newspaper) 4%
5 Other newspaper 3%
City Sources
6 City Website 15%
7 Email notifications from City 30%
8 Letters, postcards, flyers or brochures
mailed from City to your home 24%
9 Street banners or message signs 8%
10 City Council Meetings 1%

404 of 575

Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 59City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

City of San Mateo Community Opinion Survey February 2022 True North Research, Inc. © 2021 Page 10
Internet & Social Media
11 Internet (not Citys site) 18%
12 Facebook 12%
13 Twitter 4%
14 Instagram 5%
15 Other social media site 2%
16 Nextdoor.com 23%
17 Blogs 0%
Other
18 Television (general) 11%
19 Radio 3%
20 HOA or neighborhood association 4%
21 Friends/Family/Associates/word of
mouth 14%
22 Other 4%
23 Do Not Receive Information about City 4%
98 Not sure 2%
99 Prefer not to answer 1%
Q18
As I read the following ways that the City of San Mateo can communicate with residents, Id like to know if you think they would be very effective, somewhat effective, or not an effective way for the City to communicate with you.

Randomize
Very
Effective
Somewhat
Effective
Not
Effective
Not Sure
Prefer not
to answer
A Email 50% 34% 11% 4% 1%
B Postcards, letters and newsletters mailed to
your home 39% 39% 18% 3% 1%
C Citys Website 27% 46% 19% 8% 1%
D Advertisements in local papers 9% 31% 48% 10% 1%
E Social media like Facebook, Twitter and
Next Door 38% 40% 13% 7% 1%
F Townhall meetings 11% 41% 36% 10% 1%
G Television programs 11% 29% 48% 10% 1%

405 of 575

Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 60City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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%

406 of 575

Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 61City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

407 of 575

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%

408 of 575

City Council Regular Meeting Minutes – 3/6/2023 Page 1

COUNCIL MEMBERS
Amourence Lee, Mayor
Lisa Diaz Nash, Deputy Mayor
Rich Hedges
Adam Loraine
Rob Newsom Jr.

CITY OF SAN MATEO
Regular Meeting Minutes
City Council Meeting
City Hall
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo CA 94403
www. cityofsanmateo. org
March 06, 2023
City Hall Council Chambers 7: 00 PM
Regular Meeting
CALL TO ORDER at 7: 00 p. m.

Pledge of Allegiance
Roll Call

Present: Mayor Lee, Deputy Mayor Diaz Nash, Council Members: Hedges, Loraine, and Newsom Council Member Lisa Diaz Nash teleconferenced from: 364- 1, Naoshima, Kagawa District, Kagawa 761- 3110, Japan

CONSENT CALENDAR
The following items, 1 through 10, were considered to be routine by the City Council. After the titles of the items were read by the Deputy City Clerk, the public was invited to comment and there was one speaker. Michael Ragan had a question regarding Item number 4; if the money spent toward the storm water funding analysis will be for actual work done. He also asked that Item number 9 could show a map. Motion passed 5- 0.

Moved: Newsom, Seconded: Hedges
Ayes: Lee, Diaz Nash, Hedges, Loraine, and Newsom
Noes: None

1. City Council Meeting Minutes - Approval
Approve the minutes of the City Council special and regular meetings of February 21, 2023.

2. Youth Commissioners to the Park and Recreation Commission – Ordinance Adoption Adopt an Ordinance to amend San Mateo Municipal Code Chapter 2. 27 “ Park and Recreation Commission” to provide for Council appointment of two non- voting youth advisory members.

Enactment: Ordinance No. 2023- 1

3. Peninsula Clean Energy Public EV Fleets Program – Customer Participation Agreement Approve a Customer Participation Agreement with Peninsula Clean Energy ( PCE) for participation in PCE’s Public Electric Vehicle Fleets Program at no cost to the City and authorize the Public Works Director to enter into the agreement.

4. Stormwater Funding Analysis – Agreement
Approve an agreement with SCI Consulting Group for professional services for Stormwater Funding Analysis in an amount not to exceed $ 205, 949; establish a contingency reserve in the amount of 20, 000; and authorize the Public Works Director to execute the agreement in substantially the form presented and issue change orders within the contingency amount.

DocuSign Envelope ID: ACA425A3- D86F- 46B2- 9904- 3320B2222D9E

409 of 575

City Council Regular Meeting Minutes – 3/6/2023 Page 2

5. Collaborative Solutions, LLC, Workday Lean- On Services Support – Budget Appropriation and Statement of Work Approval
Adopt a Resolution to approve a supplemental budget appropriation of unassigned fund balance in the General Fund of $ 112, 650 to increase the Finance Department’ s 2022- 23 operating budget, and to approve the Statement of Work for the Master Services Agreement with Collaborative Solutions, LLC for Workday Lean- On Services Support in the amount of $ 112, 650, for a new agreement total of 2, 979, 545. Approval of the Statement of Work and a separate agenda item with Collaborative Solutions, LLC will result in a new agreement total of $ 3, 381, 765.

Enactment: Resolution No. 22 ( 2023)

6. Collaborative Solutions, LLC Enterprise Planning System Implementation Services – Supplemental Budget Appropriation and Change Order
Adopt a Resolution to approve a supplemental budget appropriation of $ 325, 852 of unassigned fund balance from the Equipment Replacement Fund, $ 59, 517 of unassigned fund balance from the Sewer Fund, and $ 16, 851 of unassigned fund balance from the Construction Services Fund to increase the budget for the Enterprise Resource Planning Software Project, and to approve Change Order No. 4 to the master services agreement with Collaborative Solutions, LLC for enterprise resource planning system implementation services in the amount of $ 402, 220, for a new agreement total of $ 3, 269, 115. Approval of Change Order No. 4 and a separate agenda item with Collaborative Solutions, LLC will result in a new agreement total of $ 3, 381, 765.

Enactment: Resolution No. 23 ( 2023)

7. E-Verify for Web Services Employers – Memorandum of Understanding Approve the Department of Homeland Security‘ s E-Verify Memorandum of Understanding for Web Services Employers, and authorize the Human Resources Director to execute the agreement in substantially the form presented.

8. Police Department Serological Expenses for Forensic DNA Testing of Evidence – Change Order Approve a change order to the San Mateo Police Department’ s purchase order with Serological Research Institute for an additional $ 20, 900 to cover the estimated remaining cost of service through June 2023 for forensic DNA testing of evidence for investigation purposes, bringing the total amount authorized for fiscal year 2022- 23 to $ 110, 900.

9. Congressionally Directed Spending Request For 19th Avenue/ Fashion Island Boulevard Class IV Bikeway Project – Letters of Support
Authorize the Mayor to sign letters of support on behalf of the City of San Mateo to Senator Dianne Feinstein, Senator Alex Padilla, and Representative Kevin Mullin for the San Mateo County Transportation Authority' s request for congressionally directed spending for the 19th Avenue/ Fashion Island Boulevard Class IV Bikeway Project.

10. Congressionally Directed Spending Projects/ Community Funded Projects – Letters of Support Authorize letters of support signed by Mayor Lee to be submitted to Senator Feinstein, Senator Padilla, and Representative Mullin for Congressionally Directed Spending/ Community Funded projects in San Mateo.

PUBLIC COMMENT
There were no speakers.

DocuSign Envelope ID: ACA425A3- D86F- 46B2- 9904- 3320B2222D9E

410 of 575

City Council Regular Meeting Minutes – 3/6/2023 Page 3

OLD BUSINESS

11. General Plan Update – Land Use Heights and Densities and Measure Y Zachary Dahl, Community Development Deputy Director, provided a presentation outlining the history of the General Plan update effort to date. He reviewed Council direction would be needed on height ranges, how Measure Y is incorporated into the General Plan, if a future ballot initiative would be needed to update Measure Y and if any other policies or programs should be considered. Joanna Jansen, Lead Consultant, PlaceWorks, Inc., was present to answer questions. Council asked questions and staff and the consultant responded.

Public Comment – speaking with regards to housing and Measure Y. In person ( 11): Moises Valeda; Ken Abreu; Jean Dail; Laurie Watanuki; Harry Moody; Elaine Salinger; Owen Day; Ted McKinnon; Bart Pantoia; Mitch Speidle; and Michael Ragan. Remote ( 6): Michael Weinhauer; A & L Taner; Ken Chan; Karen Herrell; David Light; Lisa Vande Voorde; Gary; Taso Zografos; Jordan Grimes; Chris Brousseau; George; Roisin; and Laurie Hietter.

Council recessed from 9: 20 pm to 9: 25 pm. Council reconvened and discussion ensued with additional input from staff including clarification from the City Attorney on state law.

Council provided direction to staff in three areas, these include:

1. Confirm that the proposed height ranges associated with each land use designation are appropriate to include in the Public Review Draft General Plan.

Council Direction – Support the height/ density ranges recommended by staff, with the following changes: 1) set Office High height max at 7 stories, and 2) remove High II for Residential and Mixed- Use land uses.

2. Confirm direction on General Plan alignment with Measure Y and a future ballot initiative to update Measure Y.

Council Direction – Support framework laid out by staff with target for November 2024 election, with the following direction: 1) conduct a statistically significant survey to test ballot feasibility, and 2) conduct robust outreach to all members of the community with materials and large graphics that are legible and easy to understand.

3. Provide input, if desired, on other policies or programs/ actions in the General Plan Update, including the Housing Element, that should be evaluated for potential updates or revisions.

Council Direction – Support for maintaining the draft local hiring and living wage policies/ actions but provided language revisions to update three of the four.

REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
City Manager, City Attorney and Council Members reported on their various assignments and liaison roles.

ADJOURNMENT – The meeting adjourned in honor of Jeff Lee, who owned Blue Sky Cleaners in Downtown San Mateo at 10: 53 p. m. His impact on the community and his customers will not be forgotten.

APPROVED BY: SUBMITTED BY:

Amourence Lee, Mayor Martin McTaggart, Deputy City Clerk DocuSign Envelope ID: ACA425A3- D86F- 46B2- 9904- 3320B2222D9E

411 of 575

March 31, 2023 via email

Mr. Zachary Dahl, Deputy Director
City of San Mateo, Community Development Dept.
[email protected]

Re: Proposed General Plan Designation for Central Park Plaza, APN 034-144-220, 230 & 240

Dear Mr. Dahl:

Subsidiaries of The Tan Group own the above-referenced parcels which encompass the block bordered by El Camino Real, 4th St, 5th St and San Mateo Drive in Downtown San Mateo. I am writing this letter in support of Staff and City Council’s Preferred Scenario as outlined in the City’s Draft Goals, Policies, and Actions as presented on November 7, 2022, especially in regards to Study Area 4 on page 68 of the document.

The current FAR, density and maximum height restrictions for the site are prohibitive for redevelopment to be financially feasible under current market conditions. Therefore, we are in favor of the proposed designation of Mixed-Use High II (Up to 10 Stories, 100-200 du/acre) for the subject property as presented to Council in the Draft Land Use Map on March 6th, 2023.

Although there are no current plans in place for the subject block, the long-term goal is redevelopment that would add desperately needed mixed-use, transit-oriented housing and job space that is walkable to Caltrain and all the amenities Downtown San Mateo provides. We are aware that the subject property is included in the Housing Element and we anticipate that future redevelopment would include a housing component.

We are excited to be part of the Strive San Mateo General Plan 2040 process.

Sincerely,

Jeff Gilman
Jeff Gilman
Vice President, Real Estate
The Tan Group

412 of 575

From: Connie Weiss
Sent: Friday, March 31, 2023 1:22:54 PM
To:

City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]>; Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Subject: April 3, 2023 Agenda Item #16

Hello City Council Members,

So. Here we are. Again.

At the March 6th meeting, many residents of San Mateo took the time to emphasize the importance of respecting Measure Y when considering new development. Oddly, the usual out-of-town special interests for over building San Mateo were mostly absent, which made the voice of the people more clear. And the decisions made, and entered into the minutes, were clear too:

1) Take High 2 off the table for Residential and Mixed Use (agreed to 8 stories with 2 more for density bonus)
2) Conduct a survey to test ballot language, not on the desirability of Measure Y

Note that right after this meeting, the San Mateo Daily Journal focused their poll question on the support of Measure Y, which (again) showed a majority supporting it.

Will we keep revisiting this until the Mayor gets the answer she wants instead of respecting those she is supposed to serve? Will out-of-town special interest and big builders flood the room to squelch the voice of the people? Will the Mayor wear her high-rise building blouse again?

As a long time San Mateo resident who loves this city dearly, I ask Council to respect the work of City Staff who have said repeatedly they can work with Measure Y and allow affordable housing to be built (we have enough luxury housing and empty office space for now).

Here are the key items residents have voiced consistently, and will again on Monday:
• Measure Y is what the people voted on, multiple times! • We don't want Measure Y height and density limits exceeded, especially in residential neighborhoods.
• The state has already given developers two extra stories (exceeding Measure Y limits).

Thank you,

Connie Weiss
San Mateo Resident

413 of 575

From: Danny Baciocco
Sent: Friday, March 31, 2023 4:47:11 PM
To:

City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: General Use Changes - 25th Ave

Hello,

I live on 25th Avenue between Hacienda and Isabelle, and was just greeted by a neighbor who shared detailed plans for a proposed increase in the height level maximum restriction on not only 25th Ave in the commercial zone, but also in the parking lot that is in the residential zone of 25th Ave, and is across the street from my home.

My first question, is why is this information coming from a concerned neighbor, and not our Counselman or the City directly?

I would like to know exact dates this is going to be discussed, debated, and voted on by the city counsel or any other board or committee meeting that would impact a final decision. Please advise on these dates as soon as possible. I plan on attending these meetings, and will be engaging with every single one of my neighbors regarding this plan. Further, I would like to request a full detail of the proposal that has been submitted, and a general outline of each council member's position on the proposal.

The overall project but more importantly certain elements of this development brought to my attention cause deep concern, as does the lack of communication with those these plans effect most. I am generally for the increase of housing in our city, and see the need for multifamily residents, of which our neighborhood has ample amounts, but a 5 Story tower with no parking in the middle of a residential zone is completely unacceptable.

Kind Regards,
Danny Baciocco

414 of 575

415 of 575

“We will measure ourselves by the moments of joy and connection to our coalition...that is what is going to take us forward…I'm in this with you - the fight is not over."

So, are we to believe Lee now has developed some form of “political amnesia” and it is allowable to try to bully a reversal of a council decision?

We are watching.

We will be talking and talking loudly.

We will be voting.

Please ignore such violations of democratic principles, retain the decisions as made and recorded in the March 6th meeting minutes.

Regards,

Dave Cohen
San Mateo VOTER and Resident

416 of 575

From: Sharon Lin
Sent: Friday, March 31, 2023 4:59:55 PM
To:

City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: Draft GP

Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
I recently found out about the proposed land uses and heights near 25th Ave and I am really upset. There was no pubic outreach letting me know this about proposal that affects me greatly. This is so close to my home and I had no idea. I am against the proposed heights and densities proposed. They do not belong in a neighborhood of one and two story homes. It is absurd to think a 5-story or higher building can abut a single family home. I will vote no on any measure to change the current height limits if the designation on the Farmer's Market lot and the part of 25th ave up against single family homes is not changed.

Thank You,
Sharon Lin

417 of 575

From: Paige Brennan <p
Sent: Saturday, April 1, 2023 2:17:33 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: 25th Ave redevelopment plans

Dear City Council,

I live at 244 W. 25th Ave and was just informed of the plans to develop the church parking lot into a potentially 7 story building along with the redevelopment of 25th Ave. I’m attaching the document I received here. This is extremely concerning to us. We are on the residential side of 25th and something of this size makes absolutely no sense. Besides the parking issues alone, our property values will plummet. I work in real estate and I’m sure you’ve seen the turn the market has taken. Prices in this neighborhood have already come down and with a building like this they will certainly continue to do so at a more rapid clip. I sincerely hope this proposal will not go through. It’s bad for our neighborhood and San Mateo as a whole. This is a quiet residential community and while I can see adding more density closer to El Camino, this kind of development will seriously impact our community in a negative way.

Thank you for taking the time to read this email.

Sincerely,
Paige

Paige Bocci Brennan
Sent from my iPhone

418 of 575

From: Leo Burns
Sent: Saturday, April 1, 2023 6:57:31 PM
To: A
dam Loraine <[email protected]>
Cc: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: 25th Ave.Proposal

Dear
Neighborhood Council Member, Adam Lorraine and all other Council Members, We are quite distressed to learn of the Proposed General Plan Land Use and Heights for our 25th Avenue Area. It seems very odd that nobody has contacted the neighbors(who would be directly affected by this drastic change in our neighborhood) about the proposal to override Measure Y. Now, just two days before the proposal will be brought up at a City Council Meeting, a kind neighbor has told us about this proposal. Why were we not notified about this proposal and that it will be discussed without proper notice? It is very wrong of the City Council not to keep their constituents aware of what they are planning for our neighborhood,
Therefore, please table discussion on this proposal until neighbors on 22nd, 23rd, 24th, 25th, 26th, 27th, Buena Vista and Isabelle Avenues; Flores, Garfield, Edison and Hacienda Streets; Portola Drive; Delmar Way; Mary Lu and LuluBelle Lanes and 26th Place have been thoroughly informed about this proposed change to their neighborhood.

Thank you for your consideration. With great concern, Leo and Joyce Burns

419 of 575

420 of 575

421 of 575

422 of 575

From: Breanne Feudale
Sent: Saturday, April 1, 2023 12:58:45 PM
To:

City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Cc: Adam Loraine <[email protected]>
Subject: PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN LAND USE AND HEIGHTS – 25TH AVE AREA

Dear City Council
This proposal is absolutely outrageous Where was public outreach? Why didn’t District 5 Councilmember Adam Loraine inform the neighborhood and speak with those most impacted? The heights and densities proposed at the Church parking lot are irrational; allowing 5-8 stories in the middle of single-family home neighborhoods is unreasonable. New buildings should be compatible with the neighborhood.

Parking is not included in this development. Where will the church goers and shoppers park? There is already an issue from overflow parking into the neighborhoods from the lack of parking on 25th Ave.

Where will the apartment residents park? How will a revitalized retail area succeed without parking? Every other shopping district has additional parking lots. This is a horrible plan!!!!!

Breanne

423 of 575

From: Michelle Hudson <
Sent: Saturday, April 1, 2023 8:49:08 PM
To:

City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]>; Clerk <[email protected]>; General Plan <[email protected]>
Subject: San Mateo Housing Element - Height and Density Limits

Dear Mayor Lee, Deputy Mayor Diaz Nash, and Members of the San Mateo City Council,

I’m writing as a San Mateo Resident in District 1, and a member of the San Mateo Climate Action Team, to address the height and density limits under consideration at the Special Study Session on April 3rd. I wish to thank the council and staff for their recognition at the March 6th Special Study Session that we need to increase height and density limits over those allowed by Measure Y in our General Plan Update. I am asking that you consider the following:

• Greater densification in areas close to public transit will have the benefit of reducing CO2 emissions through reduced travel distances and less urban sprawl. Greater densities also allow for higher numbers of affordable units. This satisfies requirements for both social justice and regional economic needs.

• The City has recently received its second letter from HCD stating that the San Mateo Housing Element for this cycle is not in compliance. The review letter from HCD cites serious flaws in the Site Inventory with respect to a great many of the sites’ suitability and capacity. This undercuts the claim that the city can move forward without serious consideration of either relaxing height limits imposed by Measure Y on an expedited basis to increase site capacity or else subject the R1 neighborhoods to potential upzoning. Please bear in mind that with the Builder’s Remedy, which is currently in play, San Mateo effectively has no enforceable zoning for proposed projects offering at least 20% affordable units.

• Under the current circumstances, I feel it is extremely misguided to eliminate staff’s March 6 proposal for Residential High II land use designation. The city website states in a FAQ section on the General Plan that “at the very least, General Plan 2040 will need to ensure that enough land is zoned for housing for RHNA 2023-31”. Not only should Residential High II designation be retained but, if anything, height and density provisions should be extended and strengthened.

• In the most recent opinion poll commissioned by the City, more than 60% of respondents last year indicated they favored higher densities and heights (up to 12 stories).

• No one has yet brought up what the consequences might be if a ballot measure to overturn Measure Y fails.

Based on the above considerations, I strongly urge the City Council to:

1. Retain the high density alternatives Residential High II and Mixed Use High II. Now is not the time to get rid of these options. We need the flexibility to use these designations.

2. Increase height limits for residential building to Residential High III for 12 stories in the downtown core of San Mateo and within a half mile of Cal-Train stations.

424 of 575

3. Increase height limits for residential buildings to 8 stories along the El Camino corridor.

4. Openly discuss the consequences for failure by the city to pass a resolution overturning Measure Y, candidly assess what this could mean for future compliance with the HCD, and entertain possible contingency plans.

Thank you for the opportunity to participate in this discussion.

Sincerely,

Michelle Hudson

425 of 575

From: Mark Lauricella
Sent: Saturday, April 1, 2023 4:44:03 PM
To:

City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]>; Adam Loraine <[email protected]>
Subject: PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN LAND USE AND HEIGHTS – 25TH AVE AREA

Hi Adam,

I war born and raised in Redwoodcity. I went to high-school at Junipero Serra and currently live on West 25th ave. Having a massive building unit at the church parking lot would create a parking nightmare! Look at the Hillsdale Mall area and the amount of parking needed for the apartments. It’s over crowded day and night. There’s a reason why we left the over crowed area and moved to 25th avenue. I am happy with the shops on 25th and do not see the benefit from evicting small business owners. Please rethink this plan, before making your decision. Thank you.

426 of 575

From: Jen Lee
Sent: Saturday, April 1, 2023 3:02:45 PM
To:

Adam Loraine <[email protected]>
Cc: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: 25th Ave Draft GP

Mayor and Council Members,
I am a small business owner on 25th Ave and I oppose the heights and densities on the draft GP. I am worried I will lose my business and not be able afford the rent at a new building. I wish the City had reached out to the business owners on 25th. The construction across the street is already affecting my business with all the construction noise, parking and traffic. Please help keep small businesses in business.

Thank you
Jenny Li
Hair Spectrum

Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

427 of 575

From: oscar lopez-guerra.net
Sent: Saturday, April 1, 2023 10:50:02 PM
To:

City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: Building Heights.

We do not want to re-visit this issue. Mayor Lee, stop trying to impose your wishes on us.

Oscar López-Guerra
🇺🇺🇺🇺

428 of 575

From: Kathy Mceachron
Sent: Saturday, April 1, 2023 12:25:15 PM
To:

City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Cc: Adam Loraine <[email protected]>
Subject: 25th Avenue proposed apartment building

Dear City Council members,

My Name is Kathy McEachron and I have lived at 300 W 25th Avenue for 31 years this year. We live in a nice quiet neighborhood and know many of our neighbors.

We were quite stunned to hear that the parking lot on 25th and Hacienda where we enjoy the farmers market each year has a proposed building plan. Anyone that requests a building or addition permit has to let the neighbors know and we usually receive a letter regarding the building information. We did not receive anything regarding the building. Are they trying to get this past us without listening to the neighbors that this will affect?

Not only are they looking at 3-5 stories which in San Mateo is only 4 stories because of measure Y, but it does not fit in our neighborhood. I grew up in San Mateo and am not pleased with all the apartment buildings. I understand a few but it is way out of proportion to homes. They do not plan to offer parking which means they will park in our street in front of our homes. Traffic will increase. But most importantly, this building does not fit and never will. We don't want people looking down into our yards that are private, or losing our sun like El Camino.

It is time to stop the building. Le'ts focus on fixing our roads which are a mess, cleaning up San Mateo that has become littered. We are tired of the council not listening to the neighbors and going ahead with all these buildings. No one wants Passages either. Enough is enough already.

Thank you,

Kathy McEachron

429 of 575

From: Jill McHale
Sent: Saturday, April 1, 2023 11:22:46 PM
To:

City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: Against re-opening building heights

I am a home owner in San Mateo. I am against re-opening matters already decided by Council earlier in the month in regard to building heights to study - since Council already voted against the highest heights option.

I am concerned that Mayor Lee states the previous meeting Minutes were 'confusing’ - this seems manipulative and false - and has used this excuse to reopen what’s already been decided by Voters via Measure Y and Council.

I am against a building higher than two stories at Hacienda and 25th.

Please hear my voice.

Jill McHale

430 of 575

From: Aimee WCrollerskate
Sent: Saturday, April 1, 2023 10:43:24 PM
To:

City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: End the antics and honor the will of the voters - Support Measure Y

As a constituent of San Mateo, I've had to write far too many letters - not about important community issues - but about the conduct of members of this council regarding their efforts to undermine the will of the people and the settled vote on Measure Y.

I will remind you all again that trust in our local government is critical, and a rejection of the measure that voters have already approved will certainly shatter that trust. Many are already furious with some in the Planning Council's previous back door meetings and other underhanded behavior.

Mayor Lee's ongoing disregard for established protocols and the voters of her city regarding this issue is completely inappropriate.

I ask once again that the City Council uphold the will of the voters/Measure Y and ACCEPT the current Housing Element including Building Heights as presented by City staff previously on January 24th. --
Regards,
Aimee Stevland
Resident

431 of 575

From: Kathy Wardwell
Sent: Saturday, April 1, 2023 4:29:23 PM
To:

Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Subject: Prop y

My family has lived in San Mateo since 1953. I and my children are graduates of San Mateo schools.

Please listen to the residents. We voted for Prop Y and it is the councils job to uphold it.

Kathy Wardwell

432 of 575

From: weller323 <
Sent: Saturday, April 1, 2023 11:01:20 PM
To:

City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]>; Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Subject: April 3 Study Session

Dear City Council Members,
I am disappointed to have to write another email regarding housing density and height limits in San Mateo. It had been my understanding that after the March study session the city council had reached a consensus on how to proceed with land use planning, height and density limits as well as future application of Measure Y.

There already are many office and mixed use complexes under construction. There are also many "for lease" and "for rent" signs throughout the city. Yes, more housing is included, but little of it will be actually affordable. Why are some putting so much pressure on development for the sake of development? The answer is obvious--- it's all about making fast money, not about thoughtful future planning. I do not want San Mateo to become another Redwood City or Millbrae. I hope 10 years from now I will not be lamenting how our city has become another cold, characterless place made up of sterile, blocky rectangles with windy canyons between buildings. Ugh! Encroaching into our residential areas---No!

The state has already allowed the city to add 2 stories to Measure Y limits. Measure Y has been approved by a majority of San Mateans multiple times. Citizens have clearly spoken we do not want developers to determine the character of our residential neighborhoods. And we do not want buildings that exceed Measure Y and state- mandated limits.

A concerned citizen,
Nancy Weller

433 of 575

434 of 575

From:

Se
nt: Sunday, April 2, 2023 7:39:18 PM
To:

Adam Loraine <[email protected]>; City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]>
Subject: Concerns Re: Proposed New Developments In The 25th Avenue Area

City Councilmember Adam Loraine & fellow City Council Members:

As a regular voter & long time resident of 23rd Avenue in San Mateo, I am extremely concerned about preliminary plans to develop the church parking lot at 24th & Hacienda as well as the construction of a new multi-story mixed use building on 25th Avenue.

Church Parking Lot
--------------------------------
Plans for the possible development of this parcel to include a multi-story, high density residential building that dramatically exceeds the existing 24' zoned height limit & single-family nature of this neighborhood is an outrageous & ill-conceived proposition that will most certainly negatively impact the quality of life existing residents of this neighborhood pay dearly to enjoy. Increased traffic congestion, more overflow parking (from building residents & guests, churchgoers & 25th Ave shoppers) spewing into the immediately adjacent neighborhood, the loss of an important famers market location and the sunlight shadow that this unreasonably tall building will cast over our single-family residential neighborhood are a few of the MANY concerns I have about this proposal. Developments of this height & density belong on or very near the El Camino corridor, NOT blocks away in the middle of a heritage residential neighborhood.

25th Avenue Multi-Story Mixed Use Building
---------------------------------------------------------------------- I support the idea of a revitalized 25th retail/mixed use area that satisfies useful & important purposes for both residents and small businesses alike in San Mateo. In my opinion, fundamental to any successful revitalization effort on 25th Avenue will be the addition of adequate and convenient parking options for all who come by car to execute business in this area.... something that has been woefully neglected heretofore; much to the detriment of the area's existing retailers, restauranteurs and their customers.

Any additional development under consideration for 25th Avenue MUST include the addition of adequate and appropriate parking accomodations else the adjacent residential neighborhoods will be flooded with the resulting overflow parking & congestion making the entire enterprise MISERABLE for all concerned. PLEASE, act responsibly and rationally on your constituents' behalf in this matter: No new parking, no additional development.

Further, I'm puzzled and more than a little troubled that District 5 Councilmember Adam Loraine has not made ANY attempt to inform and solicit opinions and comments from residents of my neighborhood re:
these very important and germaine matters currently under consideration by the City Council. I'd remind Mr. Loraine and brethren that you weren't elected to ignore your district's constituents best interests or withhold information that prevents their due process.

Mark Burton

435 of 575

436 of 575

From: Eldridge, Karyl
Sent: Sunday, April 2, 2023 7:35:38 PM
To:

Amourence Lee <[email protected]>; Lisa Diaz Nash <[email protected]>; Adam Loraine <[email protected]>; Richard Hedges <[email protected]>; Rob Newsom <[email protected]>
Cc: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Subject: General Plan update/The question of height and density

Dear Mayor Lee and Members of the San Mateo City Council,

Thank you very much for the opportunity to submit comments on the matter of heights and densities for the General Plan update. This is obviously a matter of great importance to the future of San Mateo and all of those living here.

Prior to March 6, 2023, the General Plan update proposed significant rezoning in the city’s commercial areas and provided for building heights of up to 12 stories in some locations. At the March 6 meeting, however, the city council lowered the maximum building height, decreased associated densities, and reduced the areas to be rezoned. The council even pushed beyond the staff recommendation to reduce the maximum height to ten stories, adopting eight stories instead, especially surprising in light of the finding by the True North Survey that 63% of those polled in San Mateo were open to as many as 12 stories.

These reductions do not properly reflect the magnitude of the housing crisis in the City of San Mateo. They place unfortunate and unnecessary limits on our ability to add to the supply of both market-rate and affordable homes. In so doing, they strangle our ability to push back against an affordability problem that is impoverishing renters and precluding the possibility of home ownership for so many people.

The San Mateo housing element provides ample data pointing to our need to make better use of the land. A few of the data points that appear are these:

Rents in San Mateo increased 74% from 2009 to 2019.
 Home prices in San Mateo increased 115% from 2010 to 2020.  The number of homes in San Mateo increased 3.6% from 2010 to 2020, which is below the growth rate for San Mateo County and below the growth rate of the region’s housing stock.
 Between 2002 and 2018, the jobs-household ratio in San Mateo increased from 1.17 to

1.45. Every piece of land in San Mateo is precious and needs to be used to strong advantage in the effort to house people at all income levels, create economic opportunities, and protect our environment. In the interest of realizing these goals, the reductions made on March 6 should be reversed, including the reduction of the maximum building height to 8 stories. At a time when meaningful change is called for, eight stories is not enough.

437 of 575

Sincerely,

Karyl Eldridge
Vice Chair of One San Mateo

*Wire Fraud is Real*. Before wiring any money, call the intended recipient at a number you know is valid to confirm the instructions. Additionally, please note that the sender does not have authority to bind a party to a real estate contract via written or verbal communication.

438 of 575

From: Kathy Feudale >
Sent: Sunday, April 2, 2023 12:20:33 AM
To:

City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]>; Ross Feudale <[email protected]>
Subject: proposal to build high rise

City Council:

We are thoroughly alarmed and disappointed that there is even a consideration for plans to build a 3-5- 7 story building in the treasured and well established neighborhood of 25th Ave and Hacienda Streets. My spouse and I moved here because we wanted to invest and live in a community where we could raise a family and in turn, live out our lives in a well respected and familiar environment. This proposed building will change the whole character of the community. Not only will it increase the population and increase parking difficulties, it will change the look of the neighborhood by taking away our airspace. A highrise building would be an eyesore and has no place among a settled and fixed community of single family homes. We pay very high taxes in this area. It is not fair or honest to serve as council members unless one is working for the betterment of the people who reside in this community. A highrise in a settled and traditional family neighborhood is not appropriate. We are a close-knit community that cares and knows each other personally. Currently the space considered serves as a parking lot for church and other community functions. There are weekly Farmer's Markets and Second Harvest meets there also. As council members, please consider how these current functions serve the community in a positive way and support the community in which we live. Please do not cripple our community: help us continue to flourish.

Ross and Kathleen Feudale

439 of 575

From: HOLLY HEWITT <
Sent: Sunday, April 2, 2023 1:12:31 PM
To:

City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: Measure Y

Mayor Lee, please stop trying to undo Measure Y.

Regards,
Holly Hewitt

Sent from my iPhone

440 of 575

From: Gail Marlin
Sent: Sunday, April 2, 2023 2:15:12 PM
To:

City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: Height Limit

To the San Mateo city council..........we the voters have already spoken. Why can't the council abide by this? Gail Marlin

441 of 575

From: Lesley McCreath
Sent: Sunday, April 2, 2023 5:45:57 PM
To:

Adam Loraine <[email protected]>
Cc: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject:

Mayor and Council Members,
I am writing in opposition to the proposed demolition and huge construction on our 25th Avenue shopping area. It is shocking that this has been pushed along with little or no discussion with the property owners in the neighborhood, and, I assume, no regard for the displacement of current business owners. As a 27 year resident of the neighborhood I frequent several of the businesses on 25th Avenue, which I doubt would be able to buy back into such a monolith. There must be other solutions than the ugly "mixed use" building being replicated everywhere. Choose a few of the addresses and build truly affordable apartments a few stories high - save the parking and atmosphere of our street that really does speak to quality of life in San Mateo.

Thank you,
Lesley McCreath

442 of 575

From: Ricki McGlashan
Sent: Sunday, April 2, 2023 9:28:56 PM
To:

City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]>; Clerk <[email protected]>; General Plan <[email protected]>
Subject: Housing in San Mateo

Dear Mayor Lee, Deputy Mayor Diaz Nash, and Members of the San Mateo City Council, I’m writing as a San Mateo resident to address the height and density limits under consideration at the Special Study Session on April 3rd. We are asking that you consider the following:
• Greater densification in areas close to public transit will have the benefit of reducing CO2 emissions through reduced travel distances and less urban sprawl. Greater densities also allow for higher numbers of affordable units. This satisfies requirements for both social justice and regional economic needs.
• The Builders’ Remedy is not something we want to deal with on every proposal. The council has to get out in front of this.

There has never been a generation that didn’t long for the good old days. But never has anyone ever been able to hang on to the way things used to be. The best we can do, the most beneficial, is to acknowledge population increases and densities and enable our city to adapt in the most agreeable way.

Based on the above considerations, we strongly urge the City Council to:

1. Retain the high density alternatives Residential High II and Mixed Use High II. Now is not the time to get rid of these options. We need the flexibility to use these designations.

2. Increase height limits for residential building to Residential High III for 12 stories in the downtown core of San Mateo and within a half mile of Cal-Train stations

3. Increase height limits for residential buildings to 8 stories along the El Camino corridor.

Sincerely,
Ricki and Doug McGlashan

443 of 575

From: Martha G Moore
Sent: Sunday, April 2, 2023 2:52:08 PM
To:

City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: Height Limits

Please do not permit skyscrapers or multistory buildings near 25thAvenue! They will block The sun and create too much congestion near the Expo Center And major churches and restaurants. Maybe a better idea would be to redevelop the Small shops and restaurants on 25th, offering housing above store and a post office On both sides of the street.

444 of 575

From: Claudia M.

Sent: Sunday, April 2, 2023 12:36:31 PM
To:

City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: Height limits

We are residents of San Mateo and are thunderstruck to hear that the height limits Prop Y is being reviewed. Can’t understand why when we already voted that you would even think about reviewing. The residents of San Mateo have spoken.

Please listen to us and not the developers. We deserve you to listen and not ruin our city by allowing developers to ruin our neighborhoods.

Claudia Moquin

“I have always loved the beach. The smell of the salty water, the wind in my face, the gentle roar of the waves all combine to create a sense of peace and calm.” -- Anonymous

445 of 575

From: John Penny
Sent: Sunday, April 2, 2023 5:24:40 PM
To:

City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: Ill Advised Growth

City Council Members,
The heights and densities proposed at the Farmer’s Market parking lot are absurd; allowing 5-8 stories in the middle of single-family home neighborhoods is unreasonable. New buildings should be compatible with the neighborhood. The current height limit at the parking lot is 24ft and the proposal allows buildings up to 50ft (with the potential for 70ft with density bonuses). The current height limit for the zoning at 25th Ave is 25ft and the proposal allows 60ft (with the potential for 80ft with density bonuses). The density and heights would be the same as El Camino! Parking is very limited in this development. Where will the church goers and shoppers park? Where will the apartment residents park? How will a revitalized retail area succeed without parking? Every other shopping district has additional parking lots. These increased densities will cause more traffic congestion in our neighborhood and amplify the already existing issue of overflow parking into the neighborhoods.

Have considerations been made for the sunlight impact a 70ft tall building and the shadow it would cast? A tower of these heights looming over its single-family home neighbors will cast a shadow multiple times greater than the building height, particularly worse during winter months.

Supporting the growth of our community should involve preserving what we have, while reinvesting in our local businesses, supporting small businesses, and prioritizing smart development of affordable housing. This plan is not in accordance with any of those concepts. I hope you can correct this ill advised direction.

John C. Penny

446 of 575

From: Gonzalo Ruiz
Sent: Sunday, April 2, 2023 4:20:34 PM
To:

Adam Loraine <[email protected]>; City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]>
Subject: PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN USE AND HEIGHTS - 25th AVE AREA

To the San Mateo Cory Council:

What a poor job are you doing in failing to inform the neighbors about your plans.

We categorically oppose the plans being proposed on 25th Ave.

This is in contravention of various laws and ordinances and is NOT taking into account the neighbors in the area either.

We have seen a huge rise in crime (my catalytic converter has been stolen) and rather Thant be thinking about this you should be increasing ensuring our neighborhood's safety is observed.

We should be focusing on reinvesting in local business.

We demand our voices to be heard. This is an absolute abuse of power.

447 of 575

From: Gonzalo Ruiz
Sent: Sunday, April 2, 2023 7:55:15 PM
To:

City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: NO TO YOUR PLAN ON 25th Ave!!!

The nerve to try to do something without checking with the neighbors!!!

Be ashamed

Sent from Proton Mail for iOS

448 of 575

From: Dave Santos
Sent: Sunday, April 2, 2023 8:24 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: Proposed General Plan Use and heights -25th Ave Area

City Council Members:

I recently read a nextdoor posting about the council’s plans to develop the church parking lot at the corner of 25th and Hacienda.

As a member of this community, I am concerned that I was not given an opportunity for input into this development. I am opposed to a development of this size because it does not fit with the surrounding community of single-family homes.

Currently, the church parking lot has a multitude of uses, and where are people going to park for church services and activities not to mention for housing and office work if this parking lot is removed and the site developed? I acknowledge the state requirement to develop future housing but am concerned about the lack of process and the override of Measure Y passed by voters.

If the council wants to override Measure Y, this needs to be put to a city-wide referendum and the development be a topic of further discussion.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter.

Sincerely.

Dave Santos

449 of 575

From: Francie
Sent: Sunday, April 2, 2023 12:22:37 AM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Cc: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Subject: H2 classification

Dear Mayor Lee and Members of the City Council,

1. It was decided according to the minutes at the 3/6/23 City Council meeting, to remove the Residential and Mixed Use H2 classification. Residential and Mixed Use High 2 are both 6-10 stories - 100-200 Density Units. This would bring it the height to 12 stories with 2 stories added for State Density Bonus.

The agreement at the 3/6/23 meeting for the maximum height and density ranges for Residential and Mixed Use High 1 was 5-8 stories and 130 Density Units, and this is our choice.

I support the March 6, 2023 decision to remove the H2 classification.

2. In regards to conducting a "statistically significant" survey to test ballot feasibility, the words “statistically significant” should be stricken because it is a loaded term. Instead, conduct a survey to test ballot language, not on the desirability of Measure Y.

Mayor Lee, we are paying attention so do not keep redoing this because you personally did not like the initial outcome.

Frances Souza
Central San Mateo resident & voter

Sent from my iPhone

450 of 575

From: Christina Ward
Sent: Sunday, April 2, 2023 11:25:41 PM
To:

City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: Resident Feedback: Proposal for 25th Avenue & Farmers' Market Lot Redevelopment

Hello,

I am a proud homeowner and resident of the 25th Avenue neighborhood, and have never once felt a need to attend a Council meeting, or to join the dialogue around zoning issues, but I was genuinely shocked to see what is being considered for 25th Avenue and the farmers’ market/parking lot.

To be clear, I am 100% pro-development, pro-density, and love living in a multi-family-zoned neighborhood where I can walk to a produce market, post office, restaurants, and retail. My home is next to a large duplex and an apartment complex, and I happily chose that. I think this area has plenty of room to continue increasing density, and to boost development and re-development of the 25th Avenue commercial district; however, 7-8 story buildings are EXTREMELY high and unreasonable here. The 25th Avenue district is surrounded on 3 sides by single-family homes, two-family homes, duplexes, triplexes, and 2-3 story apartment buildings - and the farmers’ market/parking lot itself is truly nestled within this residential neighborhood. I spent some time today looking for (and at) similarly-sized buildings in both San Mateo and San Francisco, and it was very apparent to me that a 7-story building would tower over every single home (including even 3-story apartment buildings multiple blocks away) in an outrageously disproportionate way.

With regards to the parking lot space: while a 3-4 story building (meaning the actual, total number of levels - density bonuses are misleading and not transparent for purposes of these discussions) would still of course be taller than anything around it, I think a building that actually fit into the neighborhood architecturally (not clashing with the entire neighborhood feel) would be a perfectly understandable and welcome addition. 4-story buildings on 25th Avenue seem perfectly reasonable as well, and importantly, would allow for a clear transition from the neighborhood to/from El Camino Real.

If we absolutely need 7-8 story buildings somewhere in this immediate area, other good potential options would seem to be:
- 20th Avenue west of El Camino Real, which already has many tall buildings and still countless underutilized lots;
- El Camino Real itself;
- 25th Avenue east of ECR, which is also underutilized, slightly closer to public transit, and even closer to additional commercial areas such as the growing Delaware Street district; and - 21st Avenue (east of ECR), which is of course smaller than these other options, but still highly underutilized.
(I actually live 3 blocks north of 25th Avenue, and only 1 short block west of El Camino, so putting 7- 8 story buildings on 20th Avenue and/or El Camino instead of 25th Avenue would be far more in my “backyard”, but it still seems like a far better choice to me to focus on maximizing the use of other viable spaces before completely transforming the heart of an entire residential neighborhood.)

I truly hope that as our elected representatives, you will genuinely consider the voices of those who actually live in this neighborhood above any outside interests.

Thank you,
Christina Ward

451 of 575

From: Kristen Watts-Penny
Sent: Sunday, April 2, 2023 4:57:18 PM
To:

City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: Proposals for 25th Avenue

Dear City Council,
I fear the stampede to develop is jeopardizing the survival of a beloved neighborhood. Please consider how you would feel if this was your neighborhood. Here are some of the concerns of those who actually live nearby:

• The heights and densities proposed at the Farmer’s Market parking lot are shocking; allowing 5-8 stories in the middle of single-family home neighborhoods is unreasonable.
• New buildings should be compatible with the
neighborhood. The current height limit at the parking lot is 24ft and the proposal allows buildings up to 50ft (with the potential for 70ft with density bonuses). The current height limit for the zoning at 25th Ave is 25ft and the proposal allows 60ft (with the potential for 80ft with density
bonuses). The density and heights would be the same as El Camino!

• Parking is very limited in this development. Where will the church goers and shoppers park? Where will the apartment residents park? How will a revitalized retail area succeed without parking? Every other shopping district has additional parking lots. These increased densities will cause more traffic congestion in our neighborhood and amplify the already existing issue of overflow parking into the neighborhoods.
• Have considerations been made for the sunlight impact a 70ft tall building and the shadow it would cast? A tower of these heights looming over its single-family home neighbors will cast a shadow multiple times greater than the building height, particularly worse during winter months.

Kristen Watts-Penny

452 of 575

From: Robert Whitehair
Sent: Sunday, April 2, 2023 2:46:16 PM
To:

City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]>; Clerk <[email protected]>; General Plan <[email protected]>
Subject: Measure Y and the Housing Element

Dear Mayor Lee, Deputy Mayor Diaz Nash, and Members of the San Mateo City Council,

I’m writing as a San Mateo Resident in District 1 and a member of the San Mateo Climate Action Team, to address the height and density limits under consideration on April 3rd. I offer this background:

1. Greater densification in areas close to public transit will have the benefit of reducing CO2 emissions through reduced travel distances and less urban sprawl.

2. Greater densities also allow for higher numbers of affordable units, including building space for support services.

3. The City has recently received its second letter from HCD stating that the San Mateo Housing Element for this cycle is not in compliance. The review letter from HCD cites serious flaws in the site Inventory with respect to a great many of the sites’ suitability and capacity. This undercuts the claim that the city can move forward without serious consideration of either relaxing height limits imposed by Measure Y on an expedited basis to increase site capacity or else subject the R1 neighborhoods to potential upzoning. Please bear in mind that with the Builder’s Remedy, which is currently in play, San Mateo effectively has no enforceable zoning for proposed projects offering at least 20% affordable units.

4. My greatest fear is that those who want to keep the status quo of Measure Y will find out that their greatest fears are realized - unlimited height and density construction anywhere in the City.

Based on the above considerations, I strongly urge the City Council to

1. Retain the high density alternatives Residential High II and Mixed Use High II.

2. Increase height limits for residential buildings to Residential High III for 12 stories in the downtown core of San Mateo and within a half mile of CalTrain stations.

3. Increase height limits for residential buildings to 8 stories along the El Camino corridor.

4. Openly discuss the consequences for failure by the city to move forward with a ballot initiative to overturn or modify Measure Y
Thanks again for the opportunity to participate in this discussion.

Sincerely,

Robert Whitehair
San Mateo

453 of 575

From: Susan Wright
Sent: Sunday, April 2, 2023 1:55 PM
To:

Adam Loraine <[email protected]>
Subject: 25th Avenue development

Greetings City Council Member Loraine-

I am contacting you as I have just learned of plans in the works to develop areas of W 25th Ave, of which I am a resident, and you are my Council Representative. I am upset by the fact that I have received no outreach/communication from any member of SM City Council, no information has been forthcoming, and absolutely no direct input has been sought from neighbors who would be impacted by such development. Am I missing something? Can you address these concerns by sharing any relevant information as it pertains to this unbelievably ridiculous plan, particularly for the area at Hacienda and 25th Ave.

As a longtime resident of San Mateo (40+ years) I am growing weary of the negative impact on the daily of all the development that is negatively impacting the quality of life in what used to be a very friendly city. I am not a NIMBY, and I welcome progress.....albeit there has to be some consideration given to the residents who already live here? Doesn't there?

Most Sincerely-
Susan Wright

454 of 575

455 of 575

From: Ted McKinnon
Sent: Monday, April 3, 2023 1:01:40 AM
To:

City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]>; Clerk <[email protected]>; General Plan <[email protected]>
Subject: General Plan Update Agenda Item for 4/3 City Council Meeting

Dear Mayor Lee and Members of the San Mateo City Council,

I’m writing as a San Mateo Resident in District 5 and a member of the San Mateo Climate Action Team, to address the height and density limits under consideration at the Special Study Session on April 3rd. We wish to thank the council and staff for their recognition at the March 6th Special Study Session that we need to increase height and density limits over those allowed by Measure Y in our General Plan Update. We are asking that you consider the following:

•
•
• Greater densification in areas close to public transit will • have the benefit of reducing CO2 emissions through reduced travel distances and less urban sprawl. Greater densities also allow for higher numbers of affordable units. This satisfies requirements for both social justice and regional economic needs.
•

•
•
• The City has recently received its second letter from HCD • stating that the San Mateo Housing Element for this cycle is not in compliance.

The review letter from HCD cites serious flaws in the Site Inventory with respect to a great many of the sites’ suitability and capacity. This undercuts the claim that the city
• can move forward without serious consideration of either relaxing height limits imposed by Measure Y on an expedited basis to increase site capacity or else subject the R1 neighborhoods to potential upzoning. Please bear in mind that with the Builder’s Remedy,
• which is currently in play, San Mateo effectively has no enforceable zoning for proposed projects offering at least 20% affordable units. •

•
•
• Under the current circumstances we feel it is extremely misguided • to eliminate staff’s March 6 proposal for Residential High II land use designation. The city website states in a FAQ section on the General Plan that

456 of 575

“at the very least, General Plan 2040 will need to ensure that enough land is zoned for housing for RHNA
• 2023-31”. Not only should Residential High II designation be retained but, if anything, height and density provisions should be extended and strengthened. •

•
•
• In the most recent opinion poll commissioned by the City, • more than 60% of respondents last year indicated they favored higher densities and heights (up
• to 12 stories).
•

•
•
• No one has yet brought up what the consequences might be if • a ballot measure to overturn Measure Y fails.
•

Based on the above considerations, we strongly urge the City Council to:

1. 2.

3. Retain the high density alternatives Residential High II and

4. Mixed Use High II. Now is not the time to get rid of these options. We need the flexibility to use these designations.

5. 6.

7. 8. Increase height limits for residential building to Residential

9. High III for 12 stories in the downtown core of San Mateo and within a half mile of Cal-Train stations

10. 11.

12. 13. Increase height limits for residential buildings to 8 stories

14. along the El Camino corridor.

15. 16.

17. 18. Openly discuss the consequences for failure by the city to

457 of 575

19. pass a resolution overturning Measure Y, candidly assess what this could mean for future compliance with the HCD, and entertain possible contingency plans.

20. Thanks again for the opportunity to participate in this discussion.

Sincerely,

Ted McKinnon

458 of 575

From: Barclay Moquin
Sent: Monday, April 3, 2023 7:43:28 AM
To:

City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Cc: C Moquin
Subject: Fwd: Proposal to override measure Y & 25th Ave project proposal

Dear Neighborhood Council Member, Adam Lorraine and all other Council Members,

We too agree and are quite distressed to learn of the Proposed General Plan Land Use and Heights for our 25th Avenue Area and the height limit proposal to override measure Y. We reiterate and copy below our neighbor concerns which are the same for us and all in our neighborhood.

It seems very odd that nobody has contacted the neighbors(who would be directly affected by this drastic change in our neighborhood) about the proposal to override Measure Y. Now, just two days before the proposal will be brought up at a City Council Meeting, a kind neighbor has told us about this proposal. Why were we not notified about this proposal and that it will be discussed without proper notice? It is very wrong of the City Council not to keep their constituents aware of what they are planning for our neighborhood,

Therefore, please table discussion on this proposal until neighbors on 22nd, 23rd, 24th, 25th, 26th, 27th, Buena Vista and Isabelle Avenues; Flores, Garfield, Edison and Hacienda Streets; Portola Drive; Delmar Way; Mary Lu and LuluBelle Lanes and 26th Place have been thoroughly informed about this proposed change to their neighborhood.

Thank you
Barclay & Claudia Moquin

459 of 575

From: Karen S
Sent: Monday, April 3, 2023 2:51:39 AM
To:

City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]>; Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Subject: City Council meeting on 4/3/23

Dear City Council,

I respectfully ask you to not disregard citizen input by reopening discussion regarding which building height limits to study and incorporate into the new General Plan. The most recent decision was reached based on significant resident input, council member input, and with voter-approved Measure Y as a consideration. No valid reason has been presented to reopen the matter and rehash it and take a new vote on it. It calls into question the honor and respectability and trustworthiness of the offices of city council and mayor when finalized decisions can be revisited without any validity. Please uphold the high calling of this office by asking all members of council to honor and abide by the decisions the council body has made.

Sincerely,
Karen Sid

460 of 575

From:

Se
nt: Monday, April 3, 2023 6:02:52 AM
To:

City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: Reopen discussion on building heights

Dear Councilmembers,
I strongly oppose reopening the discussion scheduled for the April 3rd council meeting regarding building heights per Mayor Lee’s request. Measure Y was approved by the majority of voters and the actions by our divisive mayor needs to stop.

Regards,
Bob Wackerman

Sent from my iPad

461 of 575

462 of 575

From: Peter Mandle
Sent: Saturday, April 1, 2023 6:57 PM
To: General Plan <[email protected]>; Patrice Olds <[email protected]>; City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]>
Subject: General Plan

To: Honorable Members of the San Mateo City Council,

This note (1) repeats my March 3 email requesting that the City Council allow Measure Y to remain unchanged recognizing that it was supported by the majority of City's voters two years ago despite the well-funded efforts of the opposition outside interests and developers, (2) request that any changes or challenges to Measure Y occur through a ballot initiative, and (3) the City avoid the trouble and cost of a community survey due the questionable reliability of such a survey as any statistician will vouch.

1. Allow Measure Y to remain unchanged. Measure Y allows sufficient housing to be developed in the City while achieving other community goals. With Measure Y housing can and will be located in sites providing excellent access to transit. Voiding Measure Y and allowing 10- to 12-storey buildings will forever change the character of our City.

2. Require any changes or challenges to occur through a ballot. It is disheartening to see the opponents of Measure Y once again try to circumvent the democratic process. Two years ago the opponents were able to unfairly introduce Measure R with the aid of the then City Council members.

The opponents spent millions opposing Measure Y, using TV advertisements, numerous slick mailings, and other media to publish their views. With the aid of high-paid consultants, they published lies about Measure Y, including implying that Measure R provided housing for First Responders, unlike Measure Y which was patently false. The efforts of the opponents were largely funded by developers, outside interests, and non-residents. In comparison Measure Y was truly a grassroots effort, with supporters, who were local residents, walking door-to-door and speaking with their neighbors. I hope you will recall the numerous lawn signs supporting Measure Y and the scarcity of signs supporting Measure R. It was a David versus Goliath effort, and despite the odds David and the local residents won.

I sincerely hope you do not overrule the residents who voted for Measure Y and side with the well- funded developers, outside interests, and their slick agents and lobbyists.

3. Avoid a community survey. Any qualified surveyor can "cook" the results of a survey by defining how questions are asked, what questions are included, and how the sampling is conducted, particularly if it is conducted on-line. If those overseeing a community survey have a specific objective and communicate this objective to the surveyor that they have engaged, I am confident the results will reflect the stated objective. If an accurate survey is desired, I hope that the City staff and City Council will distance themselves from the process and have an intermediary acceptable to both the pro Measure Y and anti Measure Y factions oversee the survey. Otherwise the results will be and should be challenged. Better yet, avoid the community survey and rely upon the ballot box to guide City Council actions.

Thank you for considering these comments.

Sincerely,
Peter Mandle

463 of 575

464 of 575

From: Genel Morgan <
Sent: Saturday, April 1, 2023 8:07 PM
To: General Plan <[email protected]>
Cc: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]>; Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Subject: General Plan

Dear City Council,

My expectation is that the members of the City Council will respect and honor the will of the voters who PASSED Measure Y in our last election, no matter what their personal opinion is.

I am upset that some people, including members of the City Council, are now pushing to change the building restrictions contained in Measure Y, because their "side" didn't win.

It is my understanding that San Mateo can meet the mandated amount of housing from the state even with Measure Y restrictions. It appears only because of pressure from Bohanon and other corporate builders that city officials want to "confirm direction on land use heights and densities and how to address Measure Y in the General Plan Update". That direction has already been given by the voters by passing Measure Y!

I oppose a countywide survey.

I oppose a future ballot initiative "to update" (ie change) Measure Y. Put it on the ballot in 10 years when Measure Y sunsets.

I oppose bending to the will of builders who only care about build, build, build for money's sake with no regard for the citizens affected by that building.

I support that new buildings be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. I oppose allowing building on the parking lot at Hacienda and 25th to be higher than limits within the neighborhood.

YOU are supposed to represent all of us in San Mateo. We vote you into office, not builders.. Follow the law and support Measure Y criteria.

Sincerely,
Genel Morgan

465 of 575

From: Nancy Schneider
Sent: Saturday, April 1, 2023 3:44 PM
To: Clerk <[email protected]>; City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Cc: General Plan <[email protected]>
Subject: General Plan Update - Item 16 April 3 Regular Meeting

Dear Mayor Lee, Deputy Mayor Diaz Nash and Councilmembers Loraine, Hedges and Newsom,

I’m writing as a San Mateo Resident in District 1 and a member of the San Mateo Climate Action Team, to address the height and density limits under consideration at the Special Study Session on April 3rd. I would like to thank the Council and City Staff for their recognition at the March 6th Special Study Session that we need to increase height and density limits over those allowed by Measure Y in our General Plan Update. Please consider the following:

• Higher densities in areas close to public transit will have the benefit of reducing CO2 emissions through reduced travel distances and less urban sprawl. Greater densities also allow for higher numbers of affordable units and more open space in the same area. This satisfies requirements for both social justice and regional economic needs.

• The City recently received its second letter from HCD stating that the San Mateo Housing Element for this cycle is not in compliance. The review letter from HCD cites serious flaws in the Site Inventory with respect to a great many of the sites’ suitability and capacity. This undercuts the claim that the city can move forward in the current Housing Element without serious consideration of either relaxing height limits imposed by Measure Y on an expedited basis to increase site capacity or else subjecting the R1 neighborhoods to potential upzoning. Please bear in mind that with the Builder’s Remedy, which is currently in play, San Mateo effectively has no enforceable zoning for proposed projects offering at least 20% affordable units.

• Under the current circumstances we feel it is extremely misguided to eliminate staff’s March 6 proposal for Residential High II land use designation.

The city website states in a FAQ section on the General Plan that “at the very least, General Plan 2040 will need to ensure that enough land is zoned for housing for RHNA 2023-31”. Not only should Residential High II designation be retained but, if anything, height and density provisions should be extended and strengthened.

• In the most recent opinion poll commissioned by the City, more than 60% of respondents last year indicated they favored higher densities and heights (up to 12 stories).

Based on the above considerations, we strongly urge the City Council to:

466 of 575

1. Retain the high density alternatives Residential High II and Mixed Use High II. Now is not the time to get rid of these options. We need the flexibility to use these designations.

2. Increase height limits for residential building to Residential High III for 12 stories in the downtown core of San Mateo and within a half mile of Cal-Train stations

3. Increase height limits for residential buildings to 8 stories along the El Camino corridor.

Thanks again for the opportunity to participate in this discussion.

Sincerely,
Nancy Schneider

467 of 575

From: HOLLY HEWITT
Sent: Sunday, April 2, 2023 11:06 AM
To: General Plan <[email protected]>
Subject: General Plan

Stop trying to undo measure Y .

H H Hewit
San Mateo

Sent from my iPhone

468 of 575

From: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, April 2, 2023 9:11 AM
To: General Plan <[email protected]>
Subject: General Plan

Hello,

I am surprised we are s�ll discussing development height limits. I assumed Measure Y is s�ll in eﬀect and we have already had mee�ngs to discuss these height limits but I will add my voice for honoring the vote that established Measure Y as the city rule.

Thank you,
Dennis Keane

469 of 575

From: Jon New
Sent: Sunday, April 2, 2023 5:51 PM
To: General Plan <[email protected]>
Subject: In favor of going 12+ stories

I would like to see San Mateo consider accommodating 12 stories or more in our downtown area. This is a tremendous opportunity to ameliorate our housing supply shortage, especially ina walkable area like downtown. When people live near amenities like grocery stores, and restaurants, they don't need to drive as much. We already have precedent; there are several 10+ story apartments near the library.

If we want to be a welcoming community, then let's take advantage of the opportunity and let's build some homes!

Jonathan New
San Mateo homeowner.

470 of 575

From: Jen Sprowls
Sent: Sunday, April 2, 2023 8:51 PM
To: General Plan <[email protected]>
Subject: General Plan - building height

Hi,

I am not suppor�ve of providing a variance to Prop Y to allow 7 to 8 story buildings built. The master plan has not addressed how they are going to mi�gate the addi�onal demand onparking, traﬃc, water supply, schools, outdoor space, hospitals, etc. The ci�zens of San Mateo have voted to keep height limits and this should be upheld.

A majority of people are s�ll working remotely which will be coming to an end and traﬃc and parking issues will explode.

A concerned resident of San Mateo of almost 20 years.

Jen Sprowls

471 of 575

From: Bill Williams
Sent: Sunday, April 2, 2023 3:52 PM
To: General Plan <[email protected]>
Subject: General Plan

When will the City of San Mateo prioritize housing to ease the jobs to housing imbalance? Negating Measure Y to accommodate developer interests over residential needs is inappropriate.

The Trag's and Draeger's projects come to mind along with new Hillsdale Mall office proposals. Increased traffic and the displacement of current residents will occur.

X Bill Williams, San Mateo

472 of 575

From: Laura Wood
Sent: Sunday, April 2, 2023 6:46 PM
To: General Plan <[email protected]>
Subject: Height Limits

I am aghast why we are still discussing this. I think the community of San Mateo has spoken at the voting box. Please listen and remember you serve to represent their interests and not developer’s interests.

Thank you.

Laura E. Wood

473 of 575

From: Marty Jordan
Sent: Monday, April 3, 2023 11:48 AM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]>; Clerk <[email protected]>; General Plan <[email protected]>
Subject: in support of higher buildings and density

Dear Mayor Lee, Deputy Mayor Diaz Nash, and Members of the San Mateo City Council,

I’m writing as a San Mateo Resident in District and a member of the San Mateo Climate Action Team, to address the height and density limits under consideration at the Special Study Session on April 3rd. We wish to thank the council and staff for their recognition at the March 6th Special Study Session that we need to increase height and density limits over those allowed by Measure Y in our General Plan Update. We are asking that you consider the following:

• Greater densiﬁca�on in areas close to public transit will have the beneﬁt of reducing CO2 emissions through reduced travel distances and less urban sprawl. Greater densi�es also allow for higher numbers of aﬀordable units. This sa�sﬁes requirements for both social jus�ce and regional economic needs.

• The City has recently received its second leter from HCD sta�ng that the San Mateo Housing Element for this cycle is not in compliance. The review leter from HCD cites serious ﬂaws in the Site Inventory with respect to a great many of the sites’ suitability and capacity. This undercuts the claim that the city can move forward without serious considera�on of either relaxing height limits imposed by Measure Y on an expedited basis to increase site capacity or else subject the R1 neighborhoods to poten�al upzoning.

Please bear in mind that with the Builder’s Remedy, which is currently in play, San Mateo eﬀec�vely has no enforceable zoning for proposed projects oﬀering at least 20% aﬀordable units.

• Under the current circumstances we feel it is extremely misguided to eliminate staﬀ’s March 6 proposal for Residen�al High II land use designa�on. The city website states in a FAQ sec�on on the General Plan that “at the very least, General Plan 2040 will need to ensure that enough land is zoned for housing for RHNA 2023-31”. Not only should Residen�al High II designa�on be retained but, if anything, height and density provisions should be extended and strengthened.

• In the most recent opinion poll commissioned by the City, more than 60% of respondents last year indicated they favored higher densi�es and heights (up to 12 stories).

• No one has yet brought up what the consequences might be if a ballot measure to overturn Measure Y fails.

Based on the above considerations, we strongly urge the City Council to:

1. Retain the high density alterna�ves Residen�al High II and Mixed Use High II. Now is not the �me to get rid of these op�ons. We need the ﬂexibility to use these designa�ons.

2. Increase height limits for residen�al building to Residen�al High III for 12 stories in the downtown core of San Mateo and within a half mile of Cal-Train sta�ons

3. Increase height limits for residen�al buildings to 8 stories along the El Camino corridor.

4. Openly discuss the consequences for failure by the city to pass a resolu�on overturning Measure Y, candidly assess what this could mean for future compliance with the HCD, and entertain possible con�ngency plans.

Thanks again for the opportunity to participate in this discussion.

Sincerely,

474 of 575

Marty Jordan

A po
int of view can be a dangerous luxury when substituted for insight and understanding. Marshall McLuhan

475 of 575

From: diana pettit <
Sent: Monday, April 3, 2023 10:57 AM
To: General Plan <[email protected]>
Subject: Item# 16 General Plan 2040 Review Council Direction on Land Use, Heights and Density Measure Y

The General Plan of 2040 needs to add the Measure Y to continue the exclusion of 2 High off the table(agree to 8 stories with 2 more for density bonus).

Since the Windy Hill property, Kiku Housing, and The Prometheus Trags Market development, the approval to exceed 2 High, additionally to the original building permit adds the following problems:

- Sidewalks not wide enough
for 2 way pedestrian traffic,
with wheel chairs, and
strollers.
- Blocking of street
continium visionary from
other established retail
businesses(i.e.

West of Baldwin/B street).
-Safe Pedestrian crossings
at Caltrain tracks on
Railroad Avenues at 3rd,4th
and 5th Avenues.(west and
east directions.
-Office buildings with
Constant lighting "glare"
Into other "proposed
residental" spaces.
- Educational resources
needed for the San-Mateo/
Foster City School District.
- SamTrans Transit ability to
"safely" drive down streets
with "parked" cars on either
side of the streets/bike
lanes.(S. Delaware/3rd
Avenue)

Other reasons to not "exceeding" current building
heights is the many hours of
Continuance at Planning/ City Council meetings.

This issue needs to be put
On the ballot for the "City of
San Mateo" residents.

476 of 575

Thank you.

Diana Pettit

477 of 575

From: Anna Baciocco
Sent: Friday, March 31, 2023 5:42:45 PM
To:

City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: General Use Changes to 25th Avenue

Hello,

My name is Anna Baciocco. I live on 25th Avenue between Hacienda and Isabelle, and was just greeted by a neighbor who shared detailed plans for a proposed increase in the height level maximum restriction on not only 25th Ave in the commercial zone, but also in the parking lot that is in the residential zone of 25th Ave, and is across the street from my home.

My family purchased this our home last year and some of the great appeals that drew us here were the quaintness of the neighborhood, relatively safe streets for our children (2 yo and one on the way) and age and character of the homes. We are disheartened to hear that proposed changes to the zoning requirements could cause major changes to what was so important to us when buying our home.

It is concerning to me that this information was provided to us from a concerned neighbor, and not our Counselman or notice from the City directly?

My family plans on attending these meetings, and will be engaging with our neighbors regarding this plan. We would also appreciate and are requesting a full detail of the proposal that has been submitted, and a general outline of each council member's position on such issue.

The overall project but more importantly certain elements of this development brought to my attention cause deep concern, as does the lack of communication with those these plans effect most. I understand the need for increased housing in this area and see the need for multifamily housing, however, I think that it needs to proceed with caution and be more thoughtfully carried out so that single family neighborhoods are not inundated with buildings that do not blend with the neighborhood. A 5 Story tower with no parking in the middle of a residential zone is completely unacceptable.

Best,

Anna Baciocco

478 of 575

From: Dave Santos
Sent: Sunday, April 2, 2023 6:26 PM
To:

Adam Loraine <[email protected]>
Subject: Proposed General Plan Use and heights -25th Ave Area

Hi Adam:

You are my City Council representative, and I am emailing to share my concern about a post I recently read on nextdoor about the City Council’s plans to develop the church parking lot at the corner of 25th and Hacienda.

I acknowledge the state requirement to develop future housing but am concerned about the lack of process and the override of Measure Y passed by voters.

If the council wants to override Measure Y, this needs to be put to a city-wide referendum and the development be a topic of further discussion.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter.

Sincerely.

Dave Santos

479 of 575

From: John Tastor
Sent: Sunday, April 2, 2023 2:40 PM
To:

Adam Loraine <[email protected]>
Subject: General Plan - Housing Element

Dear Council Member Lorraine:

I am writing in support of the housing element of the General Plan Revision. I want to emphasize that this support includes the 25th Avenue Corridor and the 25th & Hacienda Parking Lot.

I am a 43-year resident of San MAteo, a board ,eber of the Hosuing Leadership Council, and an Elder of the Waypoint Church (fka First Presbyterian Church.).

I am appalled by the falsehoods and half truths involving the Church property. I have heard one statement that the church sold its parcel to the City which will develop it. We are interested in the possibility of developing our property for housing, but have made no decisions. We have been waiting for the General Plan revision to complete its process, as well as supporting the passage of State legislation concerning development of affordable housing church property.

I intend to be at tomorrow evening's CC study Session

Thank you,

John Tastor

480 of 575

481 of 575

From: Sue Barizon
Sent: Monday, April 3, 2023 2:01 PM
To:

City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]>; Adam Loraine <[email protected]>
Subject: 25th Avenue - Land Use and Heights

Attention Council Members,
As a life long member of the 25th Ave. community (20 years on 23rd Ave, 50 years at 24th & Isabelle), I am whole heartedly opposed to a proposal to change land use designations, specifically, raising building height requirements to include the church parking lot at 25th Ave. and Hacienda. I am opposed to a development of this size which does not reflect the single-family residences in our surrounding area.

In a shared response from a neighbor. Councilmember Loraine stated, "The proposal to change these and other land use designations, for possible future development citywide, is part of the ongoing General Plan Update process. The city has had dozens of public meetings and workshops for this over four years (and more to come this year). You can find a comprehensive collection of documents, recordings of previous meetings and more at the official website for the General Plan Update:strivesanmateo.org.” I am most concerned about the lack of process and the override of Measure Y that was passed by the voters.

I want to know what interest groups support overriding Measure Y to accommodate these proposals to turn our community into an overdeveloped, overcrowded, urban pothole.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter.

Sue Barizon

482 of 575

From:

Sent: Monday, April 3, 2023 10:13 AM
To:

City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: Proposed development on 25th Ave.

Hello city council,
I am a resident of the blossom Heath 25th Ave. area, I am very concerned about the new proposal to add high-rise buildings at the church parking lot and down the 25 th Ave shopping area.

Where was the public outreach? The lack of parking now is evident, cars are double parked, doing illegal U-turn’s. There are already back ups on El Camino Ave. and Hacienda. My driveway is con�nuously being used to turn around to ﬁnd parking. Where are these new apartment dwellers going to park? I did not see that in the plans.

Our community was clear with the passing of measure Y we do not want high-rises in our single family neighborhoods!!
I am very concerned about the impact of the lack of sunlight, especially in the winter and the lack of privacy Thank You Barbara Bartels 25th Avenue resident

Sent from my iPhone

483 of 575

From: Ellis Berns <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 3, 2023 2:23 PM
To: General Plan <[email protected]>
Cc: Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Perry Hariri <[email protected]>
Subject: General Plan April 3, 2023 Study Session Measure Y Please find enclosed comments from Miramar Capital to be forwarded to the City Council for consideration for this evening's Study Session.

P
lease acknowledge receipt of this email.

T
hank you.

Ellis M. Berns
Principal
ebernsconsulting, LLC
[email protected]
650-954-4952 (cell)

484 of 575

485 of 575

486 of 575

487 of 575

From: Lisa Taner
Sent: Monday, April 3, 2023 11:5 5 AM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: Height Limits Re-Examined

Mayor Lee,

You have been tapping the hornet’s nest for so long, and now have fully kicked it.

It cannot be that you think your constituents lack intelligence as they watch you on the dais, but this time, with your ‘confusion’ over the Council approved height limits for study, you must feel that your position of power allows you to do most anything.

In your ‘confusion’ and desire to reopen this subject, it’s no wonder San Mateo residents are striving to recall you. It’s yet another example, after observing your gyrations and manipulations of important matters, staff and your fellow council members, of your continual failure to actually represent the people of San Mateo.

Everyone’s best guess is that your goal for tonight, in alliance with special interests, is to maximize the building heights for study and push for a “Do you like Measure Y?” resident survey. Sadly, you are all too predictable, as is your sidekick, Councilmember Loraine.

The disgust of your constituents should be loud and clear tonight. Oh, what a tangled web you weave.

With regret,
Lisa Taner

cc: City Council

488 of 575

-----Original Message-----
From: Donald Bilteau
Sent: Monday, April 3, 2023 1:30 PM
To:

City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: Proposed General Plan 25th Ave

Members San Mateo City Council,

This proposed plan for the development of 25th Ave. area is one of the worst ideas I have ever seen proposed.

Please stop trying to destroy residen�al neighborhoods!

Don Bilteau

489 of 575

From: Tom Brady
Sent: Monday, April 3, 2023 12:26 PM
To:

City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: 25th Avenue Height Limits

I strongly object to any changes to that which the City Council voted on several weeks ago. Please STOP screwing around, - NO HIGHER LIMITS.

Tom Brady, Sr. – 317 Portola Drive – San Mateo

490 of 575

From: Rochel Cookshoor <
Sent: Monday, April 3, 2023 9:39 AM
To:

City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: Against re-opening building heights

Dear City of San Mateo

I am against a building higher than two stories at Hacienda and 25th.

Please hear my voice.

Regards -
Rochel M. Cook

491 of 575

From: Pat Dunn
Sent: Monday, April 3, 2023 10:45 AM
To: Amourence Lee <[email protected]>; City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Building Heights for New Planned Development

Ms. Lee and other City Council members - Thanks to Ms. Lee's prompt response but it appears to answer someone else's email. It does not address the issue I brought up in my email from this morning. I've recopied my email directly below (in italics):

Good morning. I am a long time San Mateo resident. My wife and I raised four children in San Mateo and we continue to live here as we like the location and the local communities. I typically avoid any political issues but feel compelled to address Mayor Lee and others' blatant attempts to overturn Measure Y which was approved by citywide voters. Elected officials are supposed to implement the desires of their constituents, not attempt to circumvent or overturn them. Why do five former mayors of San Mateo support the recall of Mayor Lee? This, in itself, is a serious indictment of her continued behavior.

Patrick Dunn

On Mon, Apr 3, 2023 at 9:36 AM Amourence Lee <[email protected]> wrote:

Ms. Dunn,
Good morning, I hope this email finds you well, I appreciate your concerns raised about Measure Y and the church parking lot. We have received many inquiries spurred by a flier and Nextdoor post. The author is unknown, but I can verify it did not come from the City.

To clarify any misunderstanding, the City has received no proposed redevelopment project applications for the church parking lot on 25th Ave. Furthermore, this is not City-owned land and the City has no authority to develop a project on this site.

Measure Y is the law and can only be changed by majority vote of the electorate. However, if the City is unable to meet the statutory requirements to get a certified Housing Element by the State we could loose access to essential funding and local control of land use policy. The Builder's Remedy removes the City's ability to deny HAA projects and would override the heights and densities set by Measure Y.

Right now, the City is mandated to zone for over 7,000 net new housing units in the next 8 years (RHNA Cycle 6 2023-2031). We will likely need to plan for 2.5X that number over the next 20 years (the timeline of the General Plan 2040). One of our challenges is that the State requires the City to zone for projected population growth, which could force increased heights and densities into neighborhoods under Measure Y. The General Plan 2040 community engagement process established designated Study Areas that concentrates growth along the transit corridor and commercial areas to protect the established neighborhoods.

Our community is at a crossroads: do we support concentrating growth around commercial areas, jobs and transit OR would we rather it spread across the City and into neighborhoods? How do we address the housing crisis and support more affordable housing? Every affordable housing and climate change organization opposed Measure Y because density sprawl exacerbates traffic, pollution, demands on infrastructure, and constrains affordable housing production.

These are the challenging decisions of our time and ultimately the voters (and State) will decide. Over these past 4 years, City Council has supported a robust community engagement process through the General Plan, including public workshops, meetings, pop-up events, and a statistically valid community

492 of 575

survey. For additional information about the General Plan Update 2040 process, please visit: https://strivesanmateo.org

Thank you for raising your concerns and questions, your feedback is very appreciated.

Sincerely,

Amourence Lee
Mayor, City of San Mateo
T: (650) 522-7522 x 6262
M: (650) 477-8271
Book Online Council Office Hours
https://linktr.ee/amourencelee

From: Pat Dunn
Sent: Monday, April 3, 2023 9:21 AM
To:

City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: Building Heights for New Planned Development

Pat Dunn
* PRIVILEGE AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message, together with any attachments, is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. It may contain information that is confidential and prohibited from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the original sender immediately by telephone or by return e-mail and delete this message along with any attachments from your computer. Thank you.

493 of 575

494 of 575

From: georgette
Sent: Monday, April 3, 2023 1:42 PM
To:

City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]>; Richard Hedges <[email protected]>; Lisa Diaz Nash <[email protected]>; Rob Newsom <[email protected]>; Adam Loraine <[email protected]>; Amourence Lee <[email protected]>
Cc:

Subject: Building Heights/ CITY COUNDEL MIEETING 4/3/2023

As a longtime resident who fought many years ago with the Beresford Hillsdale neighborhood association, and other San Mateo neighborhood associations along side Gary Yates, in the early 90's to keep building heights in check in the city of San Mateo through Measure H, and later Measure P, it’s extremely discouraging to see that the present City Mayor, who obviously was not present in these important topics back then, intends to reopen this misguided matter. She also most probably does not know of the residents’ and small business owners’ fight to keep rampant development from engulfing Bay Meadows Phase I and Phase II in the early 2000's.

Ironically, all of the combined efforts of the City government and developers usually begin their persuasion of the public with the noble declaration that we need more affordable housing for all no matter which building project they were proposing. The affordable housing argument was a sham. The units, apartments, condos subsequently built were never really affordable no matter what the time period in which they were built.

The development of bigger and higher edifices have, and will, continue to cause chaos on our present infrastructure—whether it be for our congested transportation, sewer or electrical systems and grids. We see what the results of an electrical system run by an inept company has produced this winter. We see the conditions of our roads, levies and waterways where Public money can be better spent to improve.

The repetition of saying, “this is the worst winter ever”, doesn’t placate a public who knows that keeping everything repaired, renovated and run responsibly should be one of the top priorities of governments — not how many buildings we can squeeze into suburbs which have now become as sprawling as big cities, and have lowered the quality of life for all.

We also see some of the recently erected buildings beginning to have vacancies (Genentech’s South San Francisco letting off a good number of employees). Our local city governments who proclaim to be helping out its lower to middle class citizens have instead catered to the tech industry in an unbalanced and insincere way.

Acting upon ideologies without good, competent knowledge and experience of “how things work” will end up in bad and even sometimes “selfish” decisions?

Height measures should be reduced, not increased.

georgette guerra
San Mateo

495 of 575

496 of 575

From: Laurie Hietter
Sent: Monday, April 3, 2023 2:02 PM
To:

City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]>; Patrice Olds <[email protected]>; Amourence Lee <[email protected]>; Adam Loraine <[email protected]>; Lisa Diaz Nash <[email protected]>; Richard Hedges <[email protected]>; Rob Newsom <[email protected]> Subject: April 3rd Study Session on Measure Y Again?

Dear Council Members,

We were stunned to learn the Council is having another study session on land use heights and how to address Measure Y in the General Plan update. The Council decided on these issues at the March 6 meeting, and the notes were approved. The public confirmed their wishes to retain Measure Y in their comments at the March 6 meeting.

The council has so many topics that need study sessions we are disappointed that the council is wasting time rehashing already-decided topics.

We reiterate our support for maintaining Measure Y heights and densities. Please disregard the comments of non-residents asking for more height and density in San Mateo. The residents voted multiple times to limit heights and density. Please stop trying to overturn the will of the citizens.

Thank you,
Laurie and Randy Hietter

497 of 575

From: linda lara <
Sent: Monday, April 3, 2023 9:34 AM
To:

City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: Measure Y continued revuews

Dear Mayor Lee and Council Members,

As a long time resident (1961) of San Mateo, a parent that raised my daughter here from kindergarten through junior college, and now a grandmother whose grandchildren live here and are going thru the San Mateo school system and recreation programs as well, I have respected and valued the community I live in. I and my family are highly invested in our community.

I am asking that you please vote to keep Measure Y intact as the voters of San Mateo have already decided at the ballot box.

My fellow San Matean's, neighbors, co-workers, business owners etc. have spoken and voted on the matter more than once.

Yet, this issue keeps being re-hashed and manipulated to different degrees.

Shouldn't the voters of San Mateo be able to have confidence that their vote to maintain not only the parameters of Measure Y, but other issues as well, is safeguarded, secure and matters?

What will undoing this vote of the people do to our democracy on our local level?

Respectfully, I ask you to uphold the voice of the people.

Sincerely,
Linda Slocum Lara
North Central

498 of 575

From: Jeremy Levine <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 3, 2023 2:14 PM
To: Amourence Lee <[email protected]>; Richard Hedges <[email protected]>; Lisa Diaz Nash <[email protected]>; Adam Loraine <[email protected]>; Rob Newsom <[email protected]>; City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Cc: Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo-Garcia <[email protected]>
Subject: Comment on Agenda Item 16, General Plan Update

Good afternoon San Mateo City Council (and staff!),

I hope you and the entire San Mateo County are doing well. I am submitting the attached comment on behalf of HLC regarding the city's ongoing General Plan update.

Thank you for your consideration,
Jeremy
--
Jeremy Levine (he • him)
Policy Manager
Housing Leadership Council of San Mateo County
2905 El Camino Real
San Mateo, CA 94403
www.hlcsmc.org
650.242.1764

Facebook • Twitter • LinkedIn • Instagram • Become A Member!

499 of 575

Cityof SanMateo330W20thAve.SanMateo, CA94403
TothehonorableSanMateoCityCouncil,
TheHousingLeadershipCouncil of SanMateoCountyappreciatesthisopportunitytoengagetheCityof SanMateoonitsGeneral Plan. Wehavefollowedtheprocesscloselyandvaluethehardworkbycouncil andthecitystaff toput forwardaplanthat meetsthehousingneedsof theentireSanMateocommunity.

HLCwantstomakesurethat SanMateohasthemaximumamount of flexibilitytoplanforhousingthat meetstheneedsof all residents. ThoughtheGeneral Planrezoningscanhelpthecitymakeprogressonhousing, thecurrent proposalstobestudiedintheEIRarequitemodest.Thecityisonlyproposingtostudyanincreaseof densitiesinpre-existingcommercial andmulti-familyareas. Thehighest heightscurrentlyproposedtobestudiedintheEIR, whether 8or10stories, arequitelowrelativetothedwellingunitsper acrethecityassertscanbebuilt. (Ourgeneral ruleof thumbisonestoryevery10du/ac.) Theserezoningproposalswouldbeahugemissedopportunityfor thecity. Theredevelopmentof major commercial areassuchasHillsdaleandBridgepoint presentsahistoricchancetopromoteaffordablehousingnear transit andjobs. SanMateo’sdowntownwouldbemuchmorelivelywithagreater number of residents. Andmanyof thecity’shighest-opportunityneighborhoodscouldaccommodatenewhousingtopromoteaccess.

Furthermore, studyingsuchlowdensitieswithinsuchanarrowscopeintheEIRmaymakeitdifficult for thecitytocomplywithother statelaws, particularlyhousingelement law. Thecityiscurrentlyupdatingitshousingelement; thestatedepartment of HousingandCommunityDevelopment recentlysent thecityaletter withrecommendationsfor improvementstoitshousingplan.

Initsmost recent reviewletter, HCDwritesthat thehousingelement “must includespecificcommitment toincreasedensitiesandadjustmentstodevelopment standards. Inaddition, theelement shouldincludeaspecificprogramtoaddresstheconstraint of MeasureY.” Thecitycannot affordtoundershoot; toreceivehousingelement certification, thecitymust addresstheconstraint posedbyMeasureYasneededtomakenewhousingdevelopment feasible.

Therearetwooptionstoaddressthat constraint andmeet thestatehousinggoals. Thefirst istostudyincreaseddensitiesabovetheMeasureYlimit inspecificlocations–thecity’scurrent

500 of 575

strategy. Thesecondoptionistostudymodest densityincreasesuptotheMeasureYlimit insinglefamilyneighborhoodsthroughout thecity. HLCsupportsbothbeingstudied, but weexpect rezoninginsinglefamilyneighborhoodswill bemuchmorecontroversial thanoverturningthepoorlywritten, outdatedMeasureY.

Inaddition, includinghigher densitiesfor considerationinthecity’sGeneral PlanupdateEIRwouldcreateopportunitiesfor thecitytobetter complywithtwoprimaryareasof housingelement law:- SanMateo’ssiteinventoryreliesonanumber of largesitesthat likelyrequirerezoninginorder tobemadefeasiblefor newdevelopment. However, thecurrent constraintstodevelopment onthesesitesmaybetoohightoenableredevelopment for housing. ByincreasingthedensitiesstudiedinSanMateo’shousingelement EIR, thecitycanensureit hasthelatitudenecessarytoremoveconstraintstodevelopment onitsopportunitysites.- Current proposalstostudyrezoninginSanMateodolittletoAffirmativelyFurther FairHousing(AFFH), oneof themost significant newrequirementsfor ahousingelement.AFFHlawrequirescitiestopromoteaffordablehousingthroughout thecommunityratherthanconcentratingit incertainareas. Unfortunately, SanMateodrafteditsGeneral Planrezoningproposalsbeforeit evenconsideredAFFHissues. Asaresult, theGeneral PlanupdateEIRproposal doesn’t evenconsider allowingfor morehousingchoicesinthecity’shighest opportunityneighborhoods. Initsmost recent reviewletter, HCDwrites“Theelement should…identifyfurther programactionsthat will betakentopromoteequitablequalityof lifethroughout thecommunity.” Bycontinuingtostudysuchanarrowscopeof rezoning, thecitymayhamper itsabilitytocomplywiththeAFFHmandateandpromotefair housingthroughout thecommunity.

Thehousingelement isnot just apaper exercise; infact, it istheonlypart of theGeneral Planthat isspecificallyregulatedbythestate. Inthepast year, HLChassent thecitythreelettersoutliningopportunitiestoapprovetheinitial draft of itshousingelement: Wesent twolettersinApril andMayof 2022regardingthecity’sfirst draft of itsgeneral plan, onefocusedprimarilyonneedsandconstraints, theother focusedonaffirmativelyfurtheringfair housing, thesitesinventory, andthegoals, policies, andprograms. Wethensent athirdletter onNovember 7,2022elaboratingonour policyproposals, includingaset of rezoningproposalswebelievewouldensurethat SanMateocancomplywithall relevant statehousinglawswhilealsopromotingthemost housingchoicesfor thecommunity.

Unfortunately, thecity’scurrent General Planrezoningproposalsfor studyintheEIRpresent ahugerisk: TheproposeddensityincreasesaboveMeasureYmaynot pass. Asaresult of thisuncertainty, HLCproposesthecitystudymultipleoptionsinitsEIR: Aprimaryplanthat allowsfor potential rezoningabovetheMeasureYlimit inthecity’sdensest areas, andacontingencyplanthat allowsfor potential rezoningthroughout manyof thecommunity’ssingle-familyneighborhoods. If thecitydoesnot studyabroadenoughareawithintheEIR, thenit riskslegalchallengesthat couldundermineitsabilitytoget acertifiedhousingelement.

501 of 575

Inorder toprovidethemaximumflexibilitytoplanfor thecommunity’shousingneeds, SanMateo’sEIRshouldconsider thebroadest rangeof optionspossible. Thecitywouldbenefit fromstudying–andsurveying–amuchgreater scopefor itsgeneral planEIR. WeproposetheEIRinclude:- Continuationof the10-storyHighII zoningdesignation- Implementationof a12-storyHighIII zoningdesignationfor studyat HillsdaleandBridgepoint sites, at least- Expandareabeingstudiedfor upzoningtoat least Mixed-UseMediumII standardstoincludeall neighborhoodswithin¾mileof CalTrans- Expandareabeingstudiedfor upzoningtoMixed-UseMediumII standardstoincludeallsitesownedbyschoolsandfaithinstitutions.

Remember, we’renot makinganydecisionsright now. We’recreatingoptionsfor thefuturehousingneedsof SanMateo. Pleasedirect staff toexpandtherezoningoptionstobestudiedinthecity’sGeneral PlanEIRandrepresentativesurvey.

Thankyoufor your consideration,
JeremyLevinePolicyManager, HousingLeadershipCouncil of SanMateoCounty

502 of 575

From:

Sent: Monday, April 3, 2023 2:09 PM
To:

Adam Loraine <[email protected]>
Cc: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]>; Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Subject: 25th Ave

Council Member Loraine:

It’s amazing that there is an en�re neighborhood in the dark about the Dra� General Plan. At a very minimum we expect you, as our district representa�ve, to make decisions that support our neighborhood and to keep us informed of changes that profoundly impact us. If you think it is okay to plan for buildings that tower over single-family homes, displace small businesses, turn neighborhood streets into El Camino, then we have a bigger issue.

The proposed heights and densi�es for the church parking lot and for 25th Ave are completely inappropriate for our neighborhood. The Measure Y conﬂict map shows we are in the red zone indica�ng an increase of over 30’ from current allowed heights. The actual poten�al for height increases is 40’-50’ with density bonuses. It is totally unacceptable to have these heights and accompanying densi�es abu�ng single family homes. The church parking lot is currently designated R-1 @ 24’ height limit and it is surrounded on three sides by the same; it should remain that way to be compa�ble with the neighborhood. 25
th Ave is currently designated as Neighborhood commercial with a 25’ height limit.

It should remain that designa�on un�l Flores St.

The Dra� General Plan treats 25th Ave exactly same as it does El Camino. 25th Ave is not El Camino; it is a two-lane neighborhood street with parking on both sides. It does not always func�on as two-lane street since one lane is frequently occupied by delivery and construc�on trucks, people dropping of kids, or running in to pick up a meal. People are driving at 5mph looking for the elusive parking spot and making U-turns if one is spoted on the opposite side. Do you honestly think this street can support retail with high-density housing of 4-6 stories (and poten�ally 8 stories with density bonuses) with limited parking? How much aten�on or direc�on have you given to the proposed land use for 25th Ave? Have you seen this concept planned or constructed anywhere else? I would love to see it.

Small business owners of 25th Ave will undoubtedly be displaced. A land use change on 25th Ave will increase land values encouraging landowners to sell to developers. Parcels will be combined to maximize development. Before construc�on begins, small business owners will lose their space and must ﬁnd a new loca�on. They are unlikely to return since rents will not be aﬀordable in the new buildings. Both neighbors and business owners lose.

If the City General Plan allows for the current heights and densi�es, developers will ﬁnd a way to build it. Ul�mately, if the city wants a successful outcome in overturning Measure Y, the city needs the backing of residents.

Thank you,

503 of 575

Lisa Maley

504 of 575

From: Jennifer Martinez
Sent: Monday, April 3, 2023 2:26 PM
To:

City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]>; Clerk <[email protected]> Subject: 4/3 Agenda Item #16: General Plan Update & Height Limits

Dear Mayor Lee and Members of the San Mateo City Council, I am writing to express support for increased height and density in San Mateo's General Plan.

As I have said before, I feel very fortunate to have lived in San Mateo for the past 9 years. However, I am acutely aware that were it not for significant luck and the fact that my household consists of 3 full-time working adults, we would not be able to afford to live here.

So many who serve our community - essential workers, teachers, service providers, childcare providers, seniors, to name a few - either live in unaffordable (and too often, unsafe) conditions or travel long distances to work or visit family here. This is because the city has blocked opportunities to build housing that would benefit people at a range of income levels - namely, multi-family housing across the city.

Every piece of land in our city is precious and should be used efficiently and effectively to house people at all income levels, create economic opportunities, and protect our environment. Current R1 zoning and height and density limits prevent us from doing this. Current restrictions against high-density housing development are a remnant of old racial and classist belief systems that should be rejected on moral grounds and should also be rejected on practical grounds.

Despite what we might hear in city council meetings or in public comment, the vast majority of San Mateans (63% according to the True North survey conducted in 2022), support heights up to 12 stories. Please take seriously that the majority of voices are not being heard in the public debates about this issue because they are too busy working and taking care of their families to participate in this kind of forum - a challenge made even more acute by high housing costs and restrictive community inclusion.

With this in mind, I strongly encourage you to pursue changes to the General Plan that will allow for greater height and density so that we can adequately meet the housing and environmental challenges we face and so we can create the kind of vibrant, inclusive, sustainable San Mateo that so many current residents want and that future residents need.

Thank you,
Jennifer Martinez

505 of 575

From: Virginia McIsaac
Sent: Monday, April 3, 2023 10:31 AM
To:

Amourence Lee <[email protected]>
Cc: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Building Heights

In recent news it has shown that San Mateo County has ranked second in California for population decrease. Which is a good reason for questioning the RHNA numbers requested by the state. Keep our height limits and voters approved Measure Y intact. I also would encourage a discussion about the RHNA numbers supplied by the state to be reexamined.

Best Regards,
Virginia McIsaac

On Mon, Apr 3, 2023 at 10:15 AM Amourence Lee <[email protected]> wrote:

Good morning, I hope this email finds you well, I appreciate your concerns raised about Measure Y and the church parking lot. We have received many inquiries spurred by a flier and Nextdoor post. The author is unknown, but I can verify it did not come from the City.

Thank you for raising your concerns and questions, your feedback is very appreciated.

Sincerely,

506 of 575

Amourence Lee
Mayor, City of San Mateo
T: (650) 522-7522 x 6262
M: (650) 477-8271
Book Online Council Office Hours
https://linktr.ee/amourencelee

From: Virginia McIsaac <
Sent: Monday, A pril 3, 2023 10:03 AM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Cc: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Subject: Building Heights

I was pleased to see that we were able to meet the states RHNA numbers without exceeding the city voter mandated height limits.

I am concerned that while Council voted to approve that portion of the housing element, our Mayor has requested it to be reopened. This is a waste of Council's time when we have more pressing matters that need to be addressed.

I encourage our council to quickly resolve this issue by advising the Mayor that it was discussed and voted to approve the height limits as stated in the Housing Element of the General Plan.

Best regards
Virginia & Peter McIsaac
* PRIVILEGE AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message, together with any attachments, is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. It may contain information that is confidential and prohibited from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the original sender immediately by telephone or by return e-mail and delete this message along with any attachments from your computer. Thank you.

507 of 575

From: t <t
Sent: Monday, April 3, 2023 11:47 AM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]>; Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Subject: Agenda Item 16

Dear Mayor and City Council,

Agenda items are often evaluated one at a time and in a vacuum (by themselves without regard on other items and/or prior decisions). I strongly believe that issues are dynamic and impact one another. Likewise solutions that seem reasonable or work can be used for other challenging issues.

At the last City Council meeting (March 20th) this once again seemed present. We heard from the consultant regarding a potential storm water funding measure. A range of amounts were suggested. The consultant seemed to wisely advise we should focus outreach on a specific amount versus providing a range of amounts voters are willing to pay. At the end of the meeting it was suggested to bring back heights and densities by using a survey with a range of outcomes.

Regarding base heights and densities, I clearly understood from the March 6 th meeting there was
consensus to remove High II as an option. I am not in favor of High II. Primarily because after 85 feet of height there are additional fire and life safety requirements that are triggered. Assuming each floor is 10 feet I do not see the difference between 85 and 120 feet as feasible to be built from a cost standpoint and would have difficulty being underwritten or need to use private sources of funding resulting in increase the cost. We say we want our workers to make more, how is this possible if more money is going to those who finance the project versus those who build them?

Further it encourages existing landowners to exact a price as if the land were built at 120 feet. This would encourage speculation and a stubbornness that would be counterproductive to the housing needs of our City and the region (we may inadvertently create an imbalance of funding for projects in neighboring cities). My preference would be to have a standard that would result in a scenario where a project is more likely than not to be built. Government at all levels generally provides a framework, it would be more beneficial to provide examples of project that look good and can be built, while also allowing those who choose to invest in San Mateo a reasonable profit. Too much open-endedness creates uncertainty, and last time I checked the appetite for uncertainty was extremely low. A higher density will cause developers to sit on the sidelines and wait until certainty exists. If this happens we will likely fall short of our RHNA allocation.

About the survey, we should only poll what we plan to place in the EIR (we should use the same advice the storm fee consultant advised) and refrain from presenting a menu of options. The survey should also focus on likely voters. I think it would be counter productive and divisive to place a range of options before the public, because one option may poll a certain way and be voted on differently in an election. Like it or not this was a citizen ballot measure, so if we would like changes, you will need to listen versus trying to find an outcome that is like a popularity contest.

Thank you,

Thomas Morgan

508 of 575

509 of 575

From: Martha Park >
Sent: Monday, April 3, 2023 11:37 AM
To:

City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]>; Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Subject: Height and density limits and Measure Y

Dear Mayor Lee, Deputy Mayor Nash, and Council Members
Loraine, Newsom Jr., and Hedges,
We are writing ahead of the City Council Study Session tonight regarding height and density limits for the Public Review Draft General Plan. We would like to ask that the Council keep the direction aligned with Measure Y, as that is what the voters requested through the ballot box.

It seems that the state has already allowed developers an additional two stories past the limits of Measure Y.

Thank you for considering public comments.

Martha and Stephen Park

510 of 575

From: Cynthia Prien
Sent: Monday, April 3, 2023 11:26 AM
To:

Amourence Lee <[email protected]>; Adam Loraine <[email protected]> Cc: Lisa Diaz Nash <[email protected]>; Rob Newsom <[email protected]>; Richard Hedges <[email protected]>; Patrice Olds <[email protected]> Subject: General Plan Heights and Densities for 25th Ave Area

Mayor and Councilmembers,

I just learned of the proposed General Plan heights and densities for the 25th Avenue neighborhood. The City was derelict in its failure to provide neighborhood outreach specific to this proposal, particularly one that would incur such enormous and negative impacts to the neighborhood and businesses. I am vehemently opposed to the heights and densities proposed for the church parking lot and for 25th avenue.

It is beyond reason to contemplate: 1) building a tower (church parking lot) in the midst of single-family homes and where will church congregants park, and, 2) building 6-story, and potentially 8-story (density bonus) buildings along 25th avenue also backing up to single family homes. What happened to transition? This proposal treats 25th avenue as if it were El Camino!

It appears there was no foresight or concern with regard to the impacts of such development. As it is, 25th avenue has limited parking which overflows into the surrounding neighborhood. How can the additional traffic and parking burden
possibly be accommodated? Additionally, if such development should come to fruition, you can be assured that 25th avenue small businesses will no longer exist and the wonderful character that many have enjoyed for decades will be lost.

I am opposed to any ballot measure that includes the General Plan as currently written with regard to the 25the avenue area proposed development.

Lastly, councilmembers please adhere to proper decorum by not cutting off or interrupting others and being succinct so as not to unnecessarily impose upon the time of others.

Thank you.

511 of 575

512 of 575

From: l watanuki
Sent: Monday, April 3, 2023 10:40 AM
To:

City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Cc: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>; [email protected] Subject: Comments for April 3, 2023 City Council Mee�ng - Item 16 - General Plan Update

Dear Mayor Lee and Members of the City Council,

I atended the 3/6/23 mee�ng and agree with decision to remove the Residen�al and Mixed Use H2 category from the General Plan.

There will be 2 stories added to H2 category for Density Bonus and 12 stories buildings would bring more shadows and block the sunlight for the pedestrians and businesses. We will have similar impacts with 10 story buildings. According to residents the new taller glass buildings generate more heat and reﬂec�ve glare during the day and more light impacts at night for a residen�al neighborhood.

Please stay with the decision made on 3/6/23 in the recorded minutes and remove the H2 category.

As residents we have supported Measure Y heights and densi�es and it has served us well. With Measure Y aﬀordable housing is spread equitably around all neighborhoods to avoid targe�ng speciﬁc neighborhoods.

Thank you for your considera�on.

Laurie Watanuki

513 of 575

From: Thomas Woolway
Sent: Monday, April 3, 2023 12:34 PM
To:

City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: Tonights mee�ng

My name is Tom Woolway owner of the property at 2405 Hacienda. Is the board going to discuss the building height proposal for 25 Ave and the Church parking lot? Please let me know. If so please add me to to the sign up sheet to speak before the Council. Regards Tom Woolway Sent from my iPhone

514 of 575

From: Sean Lacson >
Sent: Monday, April 3, 2023 2:00 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]>; Clerk <[email protected]>; General Plan <[email protected]>
Subject: 4/3 Meeting - Rejected Housing Element

Dear Mayor Lee, Deputy Mayor Diaz Nash, and Members of the San Mateo City Council,

I’m writing as a San Mateo Resident in District 2 and a member of the San Mateo Climate Action Team, to address the height and density limits under consideration at the Special Study Session on April 3rd. We wish to thank the council and staff for their recognition at the March 6th Special Study Session that we need to increase height and density limits over those allowed by Measure Y in our General Plan Update. We are asking that you consider the following:

• Greater densification in areas close to public transit will have the benefit of reducing CO2 emissions through reduced travel distances and less urban sprawl.

Greater densities also allow for higher numbers of affordable units. This satisfies requirements for both social justice and regional economic needs.

• Under the current circumstances we feel it is extremely misguided to eliminate staff’s March 6 proposal for Residential High II land use designation.

• In the most recent opinion poll commissioned by the City, more than 60% of respondents last year indicated they favored higher densities and heights (up to 12 stories).

• No one has yet brought up what the consequences might be if a ballot measure to overturn Measure Y fails.

Based on the above considerations, we strongly urge the City Council to:

515 of 575

1. Retain the high density alternatives Residential High II and Mixed Use High II. Now is not the time to get rid of these options. We need the flexibility to use these designations.

2. Increase height limits for residential building to Residential High III for 12 stories in the downtown core of San Mateo and within a half mile of Cal-Train stations

3. Increase height limits for residential buildings to 8 stories along the El Camino corridor.

Thanks again for the opportunity to participate in this discussion.

Sincerely,

Sean Lacson

516 of 575

From: Lisa Taner
Sent: Monday, April 3, 2023 11:5 5 AM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: Height Limits Re-Examined

Mayor Lee,

You have been tapping the hornet’s nest for so long, and now have fully kicked it.

The disgust of your constituents should be loud and clear tonight. Oh, what a tangled web you weave.

With regret,
Lisa Taner

cc: City Council

517 of 575

518 of 575

From: Pam Mills Casey
Sent: Monday, April 3, 2023 3:40 PM
To:

City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: Please uphold Measure Y - April 3 mee�ng.

City council members, and San Mateo City Mayor-

I am wri�ng to express my con�nuing support for measure Y and its dictates on limi�ng height and density for our growing downtown. San Mateo is clearly ‘under construc�on’ at the present �me, and we must abide by the expressed will of the voters.

I have writen before to express my ongoing support of the passage of Measure Y and simply wanted to reiterate it again at this �me.

Thank you for listening to the voters, and for not atemp�ng to overturn their expressed desire. San Mateo is thriving, and does not need the addi�on of more high rise high density buildings in our core.

Measure Y should not be ignored.

Respec�ully submited,

Pam Mills Casey

519 of 575

From: William Cendak
Sent: Monday, April 3, 2023 3:55 PM
To:

City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: 25th & Hacienda

Dear Council members,

I can't believe your gall wanting to construct a 7 story building in a residential area.

You people are completely out of control!

How about we place a 7 story building next door to your residence?

What's good for the goose is good for the gander, right?

Wake up!

W. J. Cendak

520 of 575

From: Linda Tribuzi
Sent: Monday, April 3, 2023 3:09 PM
To:

City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]>; Adam Loraine <[email protected]>
Subject: 25th Avenue general Plan

Dear San Mateo City Council,
I am writing to voice my concerns about plans for building developments in San Mateo.

I have been a resident of W 25th Avenue since 1996. I learned about a plan indicating the parking lot at the corner of W 25th and Hacienda can or will be built up to 7 stories, and 25th Avenue from Hacienda to El Camino can or will be built up to 8 stories. After numerous neighbors started exchanging information about this within the last few days it is clear we need more information. After reviewing emails, I now understand this would potentially be in the general plan (no building plans in progress at this time). Also, just learned . . . the staff (I assume this is planning staff?) will recommend the church parking lot be amended to be classified as residential Low II (2-4 story height range).

Please see below for concerns about this:
•
The fact that a lot of information is being shared and some of it not updated should raise a red flag to all City Council members that citizens need better and summarized information to be sent to them proactively on the topic of building in our neighborhoods. •
Please do not dismiss this as nothing at this time because the City has received no proposed redevelopment project applications for the church parking lot, and this is not City-owned land and the City has no authority to develop a project on this site. Even though building is not happening now, we do not want these height limits included in the general plan. This opens the door to have this building happen in the future.
• Even with the new information that the recommendation for the church parking lot is Low II (2- 4 story height), I believe this is still too high as this is in the middle of a residential neighborhood. The height recommendation should be 1 or 2 story single family home as new buildings should be compatible with the neighborhood.
• Is parking included in the plan? If not, where will the residents, church goers, and shopper’s park? There is already an issue from overflow parking into the neighborhoods from the lack of parking on 25th Ave.

How will a revitalized retail area succeed without parking? •
What happened to Measure Y? Why are changes being made after the majority voted for this? The citizens of San Mateo voted for Measure Y and against the higher height options. • I support growth of our community while preserving what we have. We should invest in our local businesses and prioritize smart development without leaving citizens who have worked hard for their current communities and neighborhoods to feel abandoned or want to move out of this area.

Lastly, I see this topic on the agenda for the April 4th city council meeting as the last agenda item (#16). A topic as important as this should be one of the first agenda items. We have seen some of these city council meetings run long and it is not possible for some citizens to be available at the end of a very long meeting to share their feedback. As an alternative, this topic should be discussed at a separate special meeting that has an agenda of only this topic and time for public comments.

Thank you,
Linda Tribuzi

521 of 575

From: Lisa Vande Voorde
Sent: Monday, Apri l 3, 2023 3:43 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Cc: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Subject: The Outcome of the 3/6/23 City Council Meeting Should Stand

Dear City Council Members,

Please accept the following as public comment for
tonight's (4/3/23) City Council meeting.

I've spent the entire day wondering why we are re-hashing TONIGHT what was ALREADY DECIDED at the 3/6/23
City Council meeting. Why are we re-hashing it?
Because, at the next City Council meeting on 3/20/23,
Mayor Lee suddenly claimed she was "confused" about
what was decided upon at the 3/6/23 meeting. She
thought the minutes of the 3/6/23 meeting didn't reflect what was actually agreed upon. So, I re-watched a lot of the 3/6/23 meeting today to confirm my own
understanding, and Zach Dahl was quite specific at the
end of that agenda item in recapping what the input was from the City Council. And it was to take Residential-HII and Mixed Use-HII off the table and off the General
Plan. Zach paused to confirm that was the understanding, and not one City Council member said anything to the
contrary. Respectfully, Mayor Lee, THAT was the time to respond to Zach and say that was not your
understanding. And if you were confused about what was put in the minutes, you could have simply re-watched the video; but of course, you know that.

522 of 575

It is not appropriate to re-agendize a discussion that has already been agreed upon; maybe perhaps because you
had second-thoughts, or more likely because you felt
pressure from special interests groups and/or developers like Bohannon. You took your fellow council members and staff by surprise by bringing this up at the 11th hour (way past midnight), and you refused to take "no" for answer and pushed your agenda through by insisting that you saw "three heads nodding in approval" of re-agendizing, and also interrupting and talking over Councilmember Nash
who had some very valid points you didn't want to hear. If you think San Mateo residents aren't paying attention to these shenanigans, I assure you that we are.

Because you don't like the outcome of an issue does not mean you can re-hash it. Please don't waste our
time. But here I go again, having to write yet another letter to the City Council, expressing my SUPPORT of what was
agreed upon at the 3/6/23 City Council meeting --
specifically, eliminating the Residential High II and Mixed- Use High II categories from the Draft General Plan. That is what you agreed to, and that should be the outcome of tonight's 4/3/23 City Council meeting as well.

But since you have re-opened that discussion, I want to express my complete opposition to the General Plan
development proposed for 25th Ave. and the church
parking lot. Those heights and densities are way out of scale for a residential area of one to two story homes and businesses. Most neighbors I have spoken with are

523 of 575

completely outraged with what this General Plan would
allow on 25th Ave, and I feel the same.

Sincerely,

Lisa Vande Voorde

524 of 575

From: Tomislav Vranjes
Sent: Monday, April 3, 2023 2:54 PM
To:

Adam Loraine <[email protected]>
Cc: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: Reject Housing Feasibility for 194 W 25th Ave and Adjacent Parking Lot

Good day Councilmember Loraine and San Mateo City Council,

I am writing to express my strong opposition to the ongoing planning which would allow for the potential construction of commercial housing on 194 W 25th Ave and the adjacent parking lot.

Bringing large commercial housing developments to 25
th Avenue will irreparably destroy the peace and
wellbeing of those of us who live in the immediate area. As you know this is a neighborhood filled with single family residences, most of which are two or fewer stories tall. Introducing housing towers would inflict multiple hardships on the residents directly adjacent to them.

1. Sunlight
a. The height of the buildings which would be allowed under this review would cast the neighboring single-family residences into shadow for a substantial portion of the day. b. Not only would this drastically impact the quality of life for those residents, but it would also decrease property values.
c. The lack of direct sunlight would also impact the efficiency of any current or future solar panel systems installed on these homes.

2. Traffic/Parking Congestion & Crime
a. While I understand the parking lot is the private property of Waypoint Church the reality is that it is utilized as a critical piece of infrastructure by the adjacent community. b. There has never been enough parking to support the plethora of small businesses on 25th Ave. The parking lot supplements their ability to service customers and decreases the impact of this traffic on the neighboring residents. c. Even now, 24th Ave. and the neighboring streets are difficult to navigate with the number of vehicles parked on the street. Often only a single vehicle at a time can be driving with any oncoming traffic needing to pull to the side to allow for them to pass.

The potential addition of dozens or hundreds of housing units would exacerbate this problem beyond what can be tolerated for a residential neighborhood. d.

The Farmer’s Market and Food Bank Distribution serve as a small preview of the problems that would occur should these types of structures be permitted. Over the past several years our vehicles parked on 24th Ave have been struck five times during these events resulting in damage ranging from a full sideswipe up the entire driver’s side of a vehicle to the loss of multiple mirrors. I know multiple neighbors have suffered similar damages. These issues would only grow worse with even more vehicles in the area.

525 of 575

e. More vehicles mean more targets. I have already had catalytic converters stolen from two of our vehicles in the past three years. The increased use of street parking that these developments would bring will only incite further vehicle crime in the area.

3. Impact to Families and Children
a. The parking lot in its current form has been used by countless families in the area as a local park of sorts and continues to be used in this way today. b. I grew up on 24th Ave and spent the first 21 years of my life here. My most precious memories were of my father Stanko Vranjes teaching me how to ride a bike when I was just starting school. After living out of state and out of the country for work I moved back to 24th Ave in 2019 to care for my father who sadly passed away of cancer in 2021 during the height of the pandemic. Even as an adult I made memories in that parking lot. It served as a perfect place for me to help my father take short walks using his walker to keep him as fit as possible during chemotherapy and as he slowly began to decline. Getting him in and out of a car to take him to a real park was too difficult and the sidewalks were too narrow for him to walk and still had me supporting him on the side. Using the parking lot also allowed us to easily isolate ourselves from others as COVID would have proved deadly for my father.
c.

The parking lot is in view of my front porch and every single day I can watch families both old and new creating those invaluable lifelong memories. Allowing the development of the parking lot would violate the unspoken understanding that the community has formed with the Church over past decades. The residents tolerate the increased traffic of the church and its events (farmers market, food drive, funerals, etc.) and in exchange the parking lot provides the community with supplemental parking for the businesses on 25
th Ave. as well as a small, private, recreational space for the local families and their children to enjoy.

There is no future in which these commercial buildings can be constructed in this neighborhood without depriving existing residents and future generations of the incomparable joy of living here. Please, remove these properties from consideration for future development and ensure that they can never be considered for anything more than single family residences.

Thank you for your time and attention,
-
Tomislav Vranjes

526 of 575

From: Michael
Sent: Monday, April 3, 2023 3:42 PM
To:

City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Cc: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>; Drew Corbett <[email protected]> Subject: Council Meeting 4/3/23 Item #16

Mayor Lee and Councilmembers - I'm writing in response to item #16 aka "Groundhog Day".

Mayor Lee, you wonder why there is an effort underway to recall you? Well, it's stunts like this, for starters. The recall accuses you of dishonesty and lack of integrity - all on full display here. You ambush the council at roughly midnight last week that you're suddenly unclear about the outcome of the vote on heights and densities and conducting a survey. This despite a.) there being a video recording you could easily have referenced, b.) a transcript of said video, and c.) your presence in said meeting. Oddly, I think this is the first time in your 4+ years your memory seems to have failed you on something that was pretty clear to basically everyone else. So let's call it what it is - you didn't like the outcome, so you want a redo. One where you can rally special interests and supporters and use that to re-legislate to get your desired outcome. Honesty would be at least owning up to that. Integrity would mean you handle results that aren't in your favor respectfully and gracefully. Again, you've failed San Mateo on both counts.

With regards to tonight's meeting - this should be short. Reaffirm the existing decision to eliminate H2 from consideration. We have no idea what the next RHNA cycle will bring and there are serious pressures on office and housing. We have sufficiently zoned for this cycle. This is again, well-covered territory.

With regards to any "survey" on Measure Y and ballot language - you cannot call the survey "statistically valid" or anything like that - it's a loaded term and we all know that will be used to give it legitimacy it may not deserve even before any data is collected. Secondly, we've already done a statistically valid survey recently - the 2020 election barely two years ago now - where 23,000 voters affirmed their desire to continue Measure Y. Yes, we will need a ballot measure, and can survey the language that might be used, but this survey if it is to have any validity, MUST be ONLY LIKELY SAN MATEO VOTERS. This cannot be some free for all where every special interest in and out of San Mateo gets to weigh in. They won't be voting on the measure.

Residents shouldn't have to be constantly vigilant to your antics, and shouldn't have to keep dropping everything to write letters, inform neighbors, and attend meetings - we have better things to do with our time and energy. Do better, Mayor Lee. We're watching, listening, and will be voting in force.

- Michael Weinhauer

527 of 575

528 of 575

529 of 575

From: Vikas Maturi
To: City Council (San Mateo)
Subject: Eight stories is not enough
Date: Monday, April 3, 2023 5:33:58 PM
Dear San Mateo City Council,
I'm writing today to share my opposition to the decreased maximum height densities proposed in the General Plan.

Prior to March 6, 2023, the General Plan update proposed significant rezoning in the city’s commercial areas and provided for building heights of up to 10 stories in some locations.

Since the city council voted to further decrease the maximum height in the General Plan to 8 stories.

Eight stories is a squandered opportunity at best. It puts an unnecessary stranglehold on our ability to increase the housing stock and push back against an ever-worsening affordability problem. These data points from the city’s housing element reinforce how necessary additional housing is in our community:

Home prices in San Mateo increased 115% from 2010 to 2020. As of Q4 in 2022, the median home price in San Mateo was $2 million.

Rental prices increased by 74% from 2009 to 2019.

The number of homes in San Mateo increased 3.6% from 2010 to 2020, which is below the growth rate for San Mateo County and below the growth rate of the region’s housing stock.

The jobs-household ratio in San Mateo increased from 1.17 in 2002 to 1.45 in 2018.

Every piece of land in San Mateo is precious and needs to be used efficiently to house people at all income levels, create economic opportunities, and protect our environment. Current restrictions against greater height and density prevent this.

530 of 575

Thank you for your consideration.

Vikas Maturi

531 of 575

From: Todd Struble
To: City Council (San Mateo)
Subject: Fwd: Neighbor on 23rd & Hacienda re: Proposed GP and Heights Date: Monday, April 3, 2023 9:36:17 PM
Dear Mr. Loraine and City Council:

I have become aware of the adjustments for height and density outlined in the proposed City of San Mateo General Plan. I am 63 years old and currently living at 200 23rd Avenue (since 1993). I am a 3rd generation resident of San Mateo and very familiar with how our city has grown over the course of my life.

I have had the opportunity over the last 40+ years to see our city evolve to accommodate growth in both industry as well as population. While I support many of the projects that help us meet our objectives for reasonable and necessary planning, it deeply concerns me how meeting compliance guidelines from the State force the City of San Mateo to "plan" for the future (in record time) while potentially sacrificing the long, rich history of our great city.

I support our transportation corridor. I support our development of Bay Meadows and the housing it has created. I support the commercial development of office complexes that have brought many high tech businesses to our City. I support the affordable housing initiatives that help our distressed citizens. I do not, however, support raising our historic San Mateo neighborhoods into high rise, high density metros just because there happens to be a parking lot at the corner of 25th and Hacienda.

Sorry for being so blunt, but I am very disappointed that the 2023 proposed General Plan incorporates significant height and density zoning changes which seem motivated by the need to meet CA State compliance requirements rather than what reasonable and appropriate for our City. Again, I don't oppose growth. I oppose "growth at any (irreversible) cost." I also oppose making long term commitments during times of uncertainty where planning is especially difficult. Let's practice judicious caution, please, especially when it comes to affecting the core of our community.

There are many practical reasons that the plan for our neighborhood doesn't make sense:
parking, congestion, unbalanced fit to existing structures, adding to what is already acknowledged as a traffic corridor between HW92 and Hillsdale Blvd, and more. To me, however, the most important element is that there are many options to continue our progress along El Camino, the CalTrain corridor, Delaware Ave and more without performing radical change to our neighborhood surrounding 25th Ave.

The City of San Mateo has always documented it's core values and acted accordingly to stand up for preserving our history and putting community first. Our community around 25th Avenue has long been a part of the original San Mateo, just like our beautiful downtown. I ask for your voice to please help us preserve our 25th Ave. community, for the benefit of all who live and visit our beautiful City of San Mateo.

Please reject the proposed General Plan height and density changes which will affect the 25th Ave community, West of Flores.

532 of 575

Thank you,
Todd Struble
e:

533 of 575

From: L. Eberhart
To: Clerk; City Council (San Mateo); General Plan
Subject: General Plan - City Height limits
Date: Monday, April 3, 2023 5:30:33 PM
Dear Mayor Lee, Deputy Mayor Diaz Nash, and Members of the San Mateo City Council,
I’m writing as a San Mateo Resident in District 2 and a member of the San Mateo Climate Action Team, to address the height and density limits under consideration at the Special Study Session on April 3rd. We wish to thank the council and staff for their recognition at the March 6th Special Study Session that we need to increase height and density limits over those allowed by Measure Y in our General Plan Update. We are asking that you consider the following:

Greater densification in areas close to public transit will have the benefit of reducing CO2 emissions through reduced travel distances and less urban sprawl. Greater densities also allow for higher numbers of affordable units. This satisfies requirements for both social justice and regional economic needs.

SHORT bus rides from Caltrain will complement residents desire to travel door to door via mass transit.

The City has recently received its second letter from HCD stating that the San Mateo Housing Element for this cycle is not in compliance. San Mateo effectively has no enforceable zoning for proposed projects offering at least 20% affordable units AND will be at the mercy of developers.

Under the current circumstances we feel it is extremely misguided to eliminate staff’s March 6 proposal for Residential High II land use designation.

Based on the above considerations, we strongly urge the City Council to:

1. Retain the high density alternatives Residential High II and Mixed Use High II.

2. Increase height limits for residential building to Residential High III for 12 stories in the downtown core NORTH of Cal-Train stations. I am seeing a lot of 5 story buildings going into downtown without any setbacks from the street.

I have not seen any wind or daylighting in the GENERAL PLAN for

534 of 575

downtown. Eating outside or meeting for coffee outdoors is part of the charm of a wonderful downtown. YOU will not want to do that on 4th street next to the Draegers new building. PLEASE be aware of where you are densifying and look to San Carlos and Burlingame for wider streets, open pedestrian streets and plenty of sun and deciduous trees.

3. Increase height limits for residential buildings to 8 stories along the El Camino corridor.

Thanks again for the opportunity to participate in this discussion.

Sincerely,
Leane Eberhart,
San Mateo resident and Architect

535 of 575

From: Olivia Moir
To: City Council (San Mateo)
Cc: Adam Loraine
Subject: Proposed apartment buildings on 25th avenue
Date: Monday, April 3, 2023 6:24:04 PM
To whom it may concern,
In regards to the apartment buildings in talks to go up on 25th avenue, why would you think this is a good idea?? Where are people supposed to park? It’s already a nightmare to park anywhere in a three block radius so you are going to make it more of a nightmare. Why would anyone rent to live there at that point? I bet most of the apartments would be empty for a long time because you won’t be able to attract anyone to live there.

Knocking down all of 25th avenue is also a terrible idea because you are kicking out businesses who have been there for decades. Where are those businesses supposed to go if everything is apartment buildings? There’s already a limited amount of things to do in San Mateo to begin with so why would you bring down the number? San Mateo is boring let’s be honest. The only reason people live there is to commute because there’s nothing to do. Let’s keep a semblance of a community alive and leave 25th avenue alone and let jobs and businesses live on.

In addition, no one told anyone who lived around here about this! Why wouldn’t you let any of the neighbors, some who have lived here for over 30 years, privy to this information. This is terrible communication with your constituents and I’m extremely disappointed.

This is not a smart decision. These apartments should not be built. I don’t care how much money this will make people. Let’s care about the community and not make this more of a commuter town than it already is.

Thank you,
Olivia Wallach
Sent from my iPhone

536 of 575

From: Linda Callegari
To: Adam Loraine; City Council (San Mateo)
Subject: Proposed General Plan Land Use and Heights - 25th Ave Area Date: Monday, April 3, 2023 4:35:15 PM
To Councilmember Loraine,
I'm emailing you regarding the proposed 50 foot+ residential 3 -5 story building at the church parking lot between 24th and 25th Avenue on Hacienda. I am outraged that I just heard about this possible development this weekend. I am a longtime resident of the 25th Avenue neighborhood.

I do not understand why you, as our representative,
did not reach out to the neighborhood residents to discuss this proposal and how it might impact the neighborhood. It is not reasonable for there to be a 5 - 8 story building in the middle of a residential neighborhood. It will cause too much traffic and there will definitely not be enough parking for the apartment building, for the church on 25th Avenue, or for the shops on 25th Avenue.

I do not understand how the city council can override the building height limits of Measure Y, that won the vote of the citizens of San Mateo. It is just not right that the city council can change the rules because they don't like the outcome of the vote.

Also, before trying to get more dense and higher buildings into the middle of residential neighborhoods, make sure that the developments at Bay Meadows and the old K Mart area have been occupied. As I understand it, there will be more housing at the area of the Rite Aid shopping center on Delaware. Those developments have not even been built yet.

Do not try to override the voters of San Mateo and push this development through.

Sincerely,
Linda Callegari

537 of 575

Land Use Heights and Densities, and Measure YApril 3, 2023

538 of 575

2 StriveSanMateo.org
General Plan Team»City of San Mateo•Zachary Dahl, Deputy Director•Manira Sandhir, Planning Manager•Somer Smith, Associate Planner•Vinson Kwan, Assistant Planner•Bethany Lopez, Senior Engineer•Mary Way, Administrative Assistant»Technical Advisory Committee•Over 40 staff members from all City departments and SMCFD »Consultants•Joanna Jansen,PlaceWorks•Carey Stone,PlaceWorks•Angelica Garcia, PlaceWorks•Evelia Chairez, PCRC•Sabina Mora, Good City Co•Nelson\Nygaard•KittelsonAssociates, Inc.•Economic & Planning Systems (EPS)•BKF Engineers

539 of 575

3 StriveSanMateo.org
Objectives for Tonight »Confirm City Council direction on:•The base densities and height limits that should be incorporated into the General Plan Update’s Land Use Element•How Measure Y should be addressed as part of the General Plan Update

540 of 575

Project Overview

541 of 575

5 StriveSanMateo.org
General Plan: Vision Statement

542 of 575

6 StriveSanMateo.org
General Plan MilestonesTimeframeTaskFall -Winter 2018 Establish communitywide vision for 2040Spring -Summer 2019 Identify study areas•Developed with an awareness of Measures P and Y•Study areas did not include any Single-Family Residential areasFall 2019 Create a range of land use alternativesWinter 2019 -Summer 2021Finalize draft land use alternativesFall 2021 -Summer 2022Select a preferred land use and circulation scenarioSummer -Fall 2022Prepare draft goals, policies, and actions (GoPAs)

543 of 575

7 StriveSanMateo.org
Where Are We Now and What’s Next? We are here
(June/July)(August)

544 of 575

Community Outreach and Engagement

545 of 575

9 StriveSanMateo.org
Community Engagement»Outreach events from 2018 to 2022 include:•43 public meetings (GPS, PC and CC)•23 community workshops§2 youth events§3 Spanish language events•26 pop-up events•5 online activities•2 newsletters mailed to every San Mateo household•16+ Staff presentations to community groups•Focused outreach by PCRC at: Beresford Community Center, Mi Rancho Market, Los PrimosTaqueria, Video Loco, North B Street, bus stops, food distribution sites, churches, laundromats, COVID testing sites, etc.

546 of 575

10 StriveSanMateo.org
2022 Communitywide Survey»Statistically significant survey about a range of topics, including land use and housing »Administered in English and Spanish between January 21 and February 2, 2022 »Results of the Survey presented to the City Council on March 7, 2022»The following summarizes the main findings concerning building heights and density:•63% of San Mateo residents indicated support for concentrating new housing in higher-density buildings downtown and near transit up to 12 stories; and 68% indicated support for buildings up to eight stories, to reserve more land for parks, recreation areas, and community amenities and to minimize change to existing neighborhoods

547 of 575

11 StriveSanMateo.org
»Fall 2023 –Draft General Plan•Three City Council meetings»Late 2023/early 2024 –Adoption Hearings•Up to three City Council meetings Future City Council Meetings on General Plan

548 of 575

2040 Proposed General Plan Heights and Densities

549 of 575

13 StriveSanMateo.org
Draft Land Use Map

550 of 575

14 StriveSanMateo.org
Draft Land Use Map by Study Area

551 of 575

15 StriveSanMateo.org
Proposed Land Use Heights and Densities Land Use IntensityHeight RangeDensity RangeConsistent with Measure Y?Very Low1 to 3 stories 1 to 9 units per acreYesLow I1 to 3 stories10 to 19 units per acreYesLow II2 to 4 stories20 to 35 units per acreYesMedium I3 to 5 stories36 to 50 units per acreYesMedium II4 to 6 stories51 to 99 units per acreNoHigh I5 to 8 stories100 to 130 units per acreNoHigh II6 to 10 stories100 to 200 units per acreNo

552 of 575

16 StriveSanMateo.org
Relationship Between Site Design and Height

553 of 575

17 StriveSanMateo.org
Zoning Code Update»City will update Zoning Code following General Plan adoption»Zoning Code districts will further refine the allowed densities, FAR, and height»Not all Districts need to allow the max heightallowed by the General Plan•State law does allow housing projectsto request max density allowed under General Plan Existing General Plan
Existing Zoning Code

554 of 575

18 StriveSanMateo.org
Zoning Code Update -Timing»Following adoption of the General Plan, Zoning Code will need to be updated•Includes Zoning Code amendments and updated Zoning Map to align with General Plan•Could take 1-2+ years to complete, depending on final version of General Plan•Will include communityoutreach and engagement anddirection from Planning Commission before City Council consideration•General Plan Implementation Plan will be developedfollowing adoption

555 of 575

The General Plan Update and Measure Y

556 of 575

20 StriveSanMateo.org
Relationship to Measure Y»Measure Y is a ballot measure passed by the voters in November 2020»Retainedthe height and density limits from Measure P•Sunset date of 2030»Measure Y includes a height limit of up to 55 feet and a density limit up to 50dwelling units per acre•Height limit allows for exceptions in certain locationsand under certain circumstances•State Density Bonus law allows projects toexceed both limits when affordable units are provided»Anycomponents within the updated General Plan that areinconsistent with Measure Y will require voter approval before they could take effect

557 of 575

21 StriveSanMateo.org
Measure Y Alignment with Draft General Plan»Draft General Plan would continue to apply Measure Y requirements until:•Measure sunsets; or •Voters provide different direction»Public Review Draft General Plan would include Measure Y as an appendix, but the text would not be woven into the Land Use Element»Measure Y would be implemented by this policy:Voter Approved Growth Limits. As required by law, for the duration that Measure Y is in effect, any inconsistency between the measure and other provisions of the General Plan’s Land Use Element shall default to the provisions specified in Measure Y. »Reference to Measure Y will be added to each land use designation

558 of 575

22 StriveSanMateo.org
Measure Y Alignment Timeline»Winter 2024 –Council considers Final EIR and General Plan for adoption»Spring 2024 –Council reviews ballot measure language and resolution•A ballot measure must be added at least 88 days before the election (8/9/2024) •Ballot measure resolution adoption target is May/June 2024•Last regular CC meeting to adopt would be July 15, 2024»November 2024 –voters consider Measure Y related ballot measure

559 of 575

March 6thCity Council Study Session

560 of 575

24 StriveSanMateo.org
March 6 City Council Study SessionStaff confirmed that a majority of Council supported the following direction: »The height and density ranges associated with each land use designation are appropriate to be included in the Public Review Draft General Plan, with the following changes: •Set the maximum height for Office High at seven stories•Remove High II (up to 200 units/acre and 10 stories) for the Residential and Mixed-Use land use designations»The Measure Y framework proposed by staff with target for an updated ballot measure on the November 2024 election is appropriate, with the following direction: §Conduct a statistically significant survey to test ballot feasibility§Conduct robust outreach to all members of the community with materials and large graphics that are legible and easy to understand

561 of 575

City Council Discussion and Direction

562 of 575

26 StriveSanMateo.org
City Council Direction »Should Residential High II and Mixed-Use High II be removed from consideration?»Should a land use map with Residential High II and Mixed-Use High II be studied in the Environmental Impact Report? »Should a statistically reliable survey be conducted?»When should the survey be conducted?•During Draft General Plan Outreach §Should High II (up to 10 stories and 200 units/acre) be included in TOD areas and Bridgepointe•After Draft General Plan Phase §How Measure Y should be modified to align with the General Plan Update

563 of 575

27 StriveSanMateo.org
Land Use Considerations»Removal of the Residential High II and Mixed-Use High II designations could reduce the 20-year growth estimates by approx. 1,000 units»Preparation of the GPU’s Environmental Impact Report (EIR) started in August 2022•The EIR technical studies are evaluating a land use map with High II•Removing High II from EIR evaluation would delay publication of Draft EIR•The EIR can be certified even if a reduced growth land use map is adopted with the General Plan »The Draft EIR is targeted for publication in August 2023•45-day public comment period, with a public meeting, after publication

564 of 575

28 StriveSanMateo.org
High I and II Locations
»Proposed locations of Residential and Mixed-Use High I and High II designations on the Draft Land Use Map»Sites with current pipeline projects or existing buildings that exceed Measure Y identified

565 of 575

29 StriveSanMateo.org
Survey Timing Options
2023 2024WinterSpringSummerFallWinterSpringSummerFall
2024 ElectionBallot Resolution Deadline
Survey during Draft GP outreachSurvey after Draft GP phase completed CC adoption of EIR and GP
CC direction on Draft EIR and Draft GP
Adoption of Ballot Resolution
Publication of Draft GP
We are here
Publication of Final EIR and Final GP

566 of 575

30 StriveSanMateo.org
Survey Considerations»Cost to conduct a statistically reliable survey is $30K-$35K and takes 4-5 months to complete»Conducting survey before publication of Draft General Plan would eliminate ability to place a ballot measure on the November 2024 election»Who should be surveyed –community wide, registered voters or likely voters?•Surveying likely voters is recommended by staff»When should the survey be conducted?•During Draft General Plan Outreach §Should High II (up to 10 stories and 200 units/acre) be included in TOD areas and Bridgepointe•After Draft General Plan Phase §How Measure Y should be modified to align with the General Plan Update

567 of 575

31 StriveSanMateo.org
Council Meeting Public Comments»106 written comments received after agenda publication•March 31stto April 3rd(as of 3:30pm)»Expressions of concern related to proposed land uses around 25thAve (within Study Area 3)»Expressions of support to maintain Measure Y height and densitylimits »Expressions of support to keep High II land use designations to support high density housing production near transit and to reduce GHG emissions

568 of 575

32 StriveSanMateo.org
Land Use Map Recommendation»For Draft General Plan Publication•Adjust 25thAve block to Mixed-Use Medium I (3-5 stories, 36-50 du/ac)•Adjust First Presbyterian Church parking lot to Residential Low II (2-4 stories, 20-35 du/ac)•Allow General Plan team to make other study area edge adjustments to support height/density transitions»Make adjustments to other study area edges consistent with Council direction to establish land use height/density transitions Res Low II
Mixed
-
Use Med I
El Camino Real
25thAve
Hacienda St

569 of 575

33 StriveSanMateo.org
City Council Direction »Should Residential High II and Mixed-Use High II be removed from consideration?»Should a land use map with Residential High II and Mixed-Use High II be studied in the Environmental Impact Report? »Should a statistically reliable survey be conducted?»When should the survey be conducted?•During Draft General Plan Outreach §Should High II (up to 10 stories and 200 units/acre) be included in TOD areas and Bridgepointe•After Draft General Plan Phase §How Measure Y should be modified to align with the General Plan Update»Support allowing General Plan Team to make minor adjustments to draft land use map consistent with Council direction?

570 of 575

Thank You

571 of 575

Clarifying Questions?

572 of 575

Public Comment

573 of 575

City Council Discussion

574 of 575

38 StriveSanMateo.org
City Council Direction »Should Residential High II and Mixed-Use High II be removed from consideration?»Should a land use map with Residential High II and Mixed-Use High II be studied in the Environmental Impact Report? »Should a statistically reliable survey be conducted?»When should the survey be conducted?•During Draft General Plan Outreach §Should High II (up to 10 stories and 200 units/acre) be included in TOD areas and Bridgepointe•After Draft General Plan Phase §How Measure Y should be modified to align with the General Plan Update»Support allowing General Plan Team to make minor adjustments to draft land use map consistent with Council direction?

575 of 575

San Mateo City CouncilApril 3, 2023

San Mateo City Council
April 3, 2023