CITY OF SAN MATEO
City Council Special Meeting
March 3, 2025
5:30 PM
City Hall Council Chamber
Entrance is on O’Farrell Street
COUNCIL MEMBERS
Robert Newsom Jr.
Adam Loraine
Nicole Fernandez
Danielle Cwirko-Godycki
Lisa Diaz Nash
AGENDA
THIS MEETING CAN BE ATTENDED IN PERSON OR REMOTE BY JOINING ZOOM – SEE CODES BELOW.
PUBLIC COMMENTS WILL BE ACCEPTED BOTH IN PERSON AND REMOTEL Y.
SEE END OF AGENDA FOR OPTIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO PARTICIPATE IN THE MEETING.
To join via Zoom – click here:
M
arch 3, 2025
To join via telephone: (408) 638-0968
Webinar ID: 863 9565 0944 Passcode: 829481
CALL TO ORDER
Roll Call
AB 2449 Requests and Consideration for Meeting Participation by Teleconference due to Just Cause or Emergency Circumstances
CLOSED SESSION
The public will have an opportunity to comment before the consideration of this item. Following the meeting a report of action from Closed Session will be provided if required.
1. Conference with Labor Negotiators (Government Code Section 54957.6) City designated representatives: Yumi Maeda, Karen Huang, Abby Veeser and Aracelia Esparza Employee Organizations: SEIU Maintenance
STUDY SESSION
The public will have an opportunity to comment during the consideration of this item.
2. 2025 Community Survey Results
Receive an informational report about the results of the City's Community Survey, conducted in February 2025 by True North Research.
ADJOURNMENT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AGENDAS:
Agendas and material are posted on the City’s website on the Friday preceding each Council Meeting and can be viewed on the City's website at
www.cityofsanmateo.org
. Any supplemental material distributed to the Council after the posting of the agenda will be made part of the official record.
WATCHING A MEETING ON TV:
City Council meetings are broadcast live on Comcast/channel 27, Wave/channel 26, or AT&T/channel 99.
For transmission problems during the broadcast, please call (650) 522-7099. For all other broadcast comments, call (650) 522-7040, Monday-Friday, 8 a.m. - 5 p.m.
1 of 72
WATCHING A MEETING ON A COMPUTER:
There are three ways to stream.
1) Public Meeting Portal
www.cityofsanmateo.org/publicmeetings
2) City YouTube channel and stream it on YouTube:
http://youtube.com/CityofSanMateo
3) Watch TV live stream:
https://www.cityofsanmateo.org/193/Channel-San-Mateo-Live-Stream
PUBLIC COMMENTS/REQUEST TO SPEAK
Prior to the Meeting
Send comments to:
[email protected]
until 4 p.m. the day of the meeting.
During the meeting
By Zoom:
Click the link at the top of the agenda and you’ll be added to the meeting. All attendees are muted by default. When the item of interest is open for consideration, select the “Raise Your Hand” icon and you will be called on at the appropriate time.
By telephone:
Call (408) 638-0968 and enter the conference ID found at the top of the meeting agenda. When the item of interest is open for consideration, select *9 to raise your hand. When called upon, press *6 to unmute, state your name and provide your comments.
In Person:
At the meeting complete a “Request to Speak” form, submit a request at the speaker kiosk or scan the QR code.
ACCESSIBILITY:
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, those with disabilities requiring special accommodations to participate in this meeting may contact the City Clerk’s Office at (650) 522-7040 or [email protected]
. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will
enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting.
2 of 72
CITY OF SAN MATEO
5 3
9 5
CITY OF SAN MATEO
Agenda Report
City Hall
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo CA 94403
www.cityofsanmateo.org
Agenda Number: 2 Section Name: STUDY SESSION Account Number: 10-1311 File ID: 25-9691 TO: City Council
FROM: Alex Khojikian, City Manager
PREPARED BY: City Manager's Office
MEETING DATE: March 03, 2025
SUBJECT: 2025 Community Survey Results
RECOMMENDATION:
Receive an informational report about the results of the City's Community Survey, conducted in February 2025 by True North Research.
BACKGROUND:
In the City’s ongoing efforts to engage the public and be responsive to the community’s interests, the City hired True North Research to conduct its third statistically significant survey about community opinions on a variety of topics. The City team worked with True North Research to develop a comprehensive survey on resident opinions about satisfaction with city services, quality of life, and a variety of topics covered in the recently adopted General Plan and slated for discussion in the City Council’s upcoming Strategic Planning process. True North Research was first hired in 2020 through a competitive request for proposal process and has since been retained to work on other City surveys. Staff selected True North based on their years of experience conducting surveys for California municipalities, experience in San Mateo, proposed methodology, and track record presenting clear and concise survey data.
True North Research President Dr. Timothy McLarney led the project and will present the findings of his independent research during the Council meeting. True North Research authored a robust report analyzing the survey results, which is included as Attachment 1. This survey was issued between February 8 and February 12, 2025 in English and Spanish, with 750 randomly selected adults residents participating who represent San Mateo’s demographics. The study employed a mixed-method design that utilized multiple recruiting methods (email, text, and telephone) and multiple data collection methods (telephone and online) to ensure statistically reliable results. The survey has an estimated maximum statistical margin of error due to sampling of +/- 3.6% at the 95% confidence level. As with any survey, this one provides a snapshot of participants' opinions at the time it was issued.
Purpose of the Community Survey
The City regularly hears from members of the public about their individual feedback regarding the City’s performance and policies. For the most part, the City’s outreach mechanisms rely on residents who are motivated to participate in the feedback process. Residents willing to initiate feedback tend to be those who are either very pleased or very displeased with a particular service or policy. Often, this results in a self-selection bias and feedback that’s not necessarily representative of the City’s resident population as a whole. Similar to many other cities, San Mateo sought to conduct a survey that would avoid the self-selection bias and provide a statistically significant understanding of residents’ satisfaction, priorities and concerns, as they relate to City services, quality of life and potential policies. Since 2020 the City has been conducting statistically significant surveys every two years. This information can be used to make strategic decisions in a variety of areas including service improvements, tracking internal performance, budgeting and community outreach. This particular survey, along with other forms of input, such as the San Mateo “Conversations” community engagement effort and General Plan Policies, will be used to inform the City Council’s upcoming Strategic Planning effort
3 of 72
CITY OF SAN MATEO
5 3
9 5
which is set to commence at a workshop on March 14, 2025. The Strategic Plan will provide a framework for the prioritizing City’s work plans in the coming years.
Survey Results
The 2025 Community Survey reveals that the vast majority of San Mateo residents continue to be satisfied with the City’s overall efforts to provide services and with the quality of life in their city. More than seven-in-ten respondents surveyed (71%) indicated they were satisfied with the City’s overall performance in providing municipal services, and 85% rated the overall quality of life in San Mateo as excellent or good. Moreover, as detailed in the full report, resident satisfaction improved significantly during the past three years in many services areas including double-digit increases in satisfaction for the City’s efforts to address homelessness (+17%), provide special events like community festivals and holiday celebrations (+13%), and clean up litter and trash that people dump along streets, sidewalks, and in public areas (+10%). Respondents also reported a statistically significant increase in their satisfaction with the City’s efforts to communicate through newsletters, the Internet, social media, and other means.
BUDGET IMPACT:
The Community Survey cost $28,550 to complete and was paid for by current budget allocations within the Community Development Department.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:
This community survey is not a project subject to CEQA, because it is an organizational or administrative activity that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(5).)
NOTICE PROVIDED
All meeting noticing requirements were met.
ATTACHMENTS
Att 1 - 2025 Community Survey
STAFF CONTACT
Christina Horrisberger, Assistant City Manager
[email protected]
(650) 522-7210
4 of 72
5 of 72
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
6 of 72
Table of Contents
iCity of San Mateo True No rth Research, Inc. © 2025
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
T ABLE OF C ONTENTS
Table of Contents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii List of Figures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Purpose of Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Overview of Methodology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Statistical Significance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Organization of Report. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Disclaimer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 About True North . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Key Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Quality of Life . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Overall Quality of Life. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Question 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 What Do You Like Most About Living in San Mateo? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Question 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 What Should Be Changed? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Question 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 City Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Overall Satisfaction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Question 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Specific Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Question 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Differentiators of Opinion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Strategic Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Question 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Additional High Priorities? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Question 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Question 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Communication. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Overall Satisfaction With Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Question 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Topics of Interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Question 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Question 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Sources of Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Question 13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Communication Preferences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Question 14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Background & Demographics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Questionnaire Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Programming, Pre-Test & Translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Sample, Recruiting & Data Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Margin of Error Due to Sampling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Data Processing & Weighting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Rounding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Questionnaire & Toplines. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
7 of 72
List of Tables
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 ii
City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
L IST OF T ABLES
Table 1 Rating City of San Mateo by Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Table 2 Rating City of San Mateo by Years in San Mateo & Gender (Showing % Excellent & Good) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Table 3 Rating City of San Mateo by Age (Showing % Excellent & Good) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Table 4 Rating City of San Mateo by Child in Hsld & Adult Over 65 in Hsld (Showing % Excellent & Good) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Table 5 Rating City of San Mateo by Ethnicity & Home Ownership Status (Showing % Excellent & Good) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Table 6 Like Most About San Mateo by Study Year. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Table 7 Changes to Improve City by Study Year. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Table 8 Satisfaction With Services by Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Table 9 Satisfaction With Services by Overall Satisfacti on With City . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Table 10 Strategic Plan Priorities by Year s in San Mateo & Gender (Showing % High Priority). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Table 11 Strategic Plan Priorities by Age (Showing % High Priority) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Table 12 Strategic Plan Priorities by Home Ownership Status & Ethnicity (Showing % High Priority) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Table 13 Strategic Plan Priorities by Child in Hsld, Adult Over 65 in Hsld & Survey Language (Showing % High Priority). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Table 14 Mode Use Within City by Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Table 15 Effectiveness of Communication Methods by Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Table 16 Effectiveness of Communication Methods by Age (Showing % Very Effective). . . . . 32 Table 17 Effectiveness of Communication Methods by Ethnicity & Overall Satisfaction (Showing % Very Effective). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Table 18 Effectiveness of Communication Methods by Child in Hsld, Satisfaction With Communication & Survey Language (Showing % Very Effective)32 Table 19 Demographics of Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
8 of 72
List of Figures
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 iii
City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
L IST OF F IGURES
Figure 1 Rating City of San Mateo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Figure 2 Like Most About San Mateo. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Figure 3 Changes to Improve City. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Figure 4 Overall Satisfaction by Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Figure 5 Overall Satisfaction by Years in San Mate o, Child in Hsld & Survey Language. . . . . 14 Figure 6 Overall Satisfaction by Age & Gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Figure 7 Overall Satisfaction by Ethnicity, Home Ownership Status & Adult Over 65 in Hsld . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Figure 8 Satisfaction With Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Figure 9 Strategic Plan Priorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Figure 10 Additional High Priority Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Figure 11 Frequency of Mode Use Within City . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Figure 12 Mode Use Within City by Ov erall, Age & Overall Satisfaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Figure 13 Mode Use Within City by Ethnicity & Employme nt Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Figure 14 Satisfaction With Communication by Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Figure 15 Satisfaction With Communication by Years in San Mateo, Child in Hsld & Adult Over 65 in Hsld. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Figure 16 Satisfaction With Communication by Age & Ge nder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Figure 17 Satisfaction With Communication by Ethnicity, Overall Satisfaction, Home Ownership Status & Survey Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Figure 18 Interested in Receiving More Information About City by Study Year. . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Figure 19 Interested in Receiving More Information About City by Years in San Mateo, Child in Hsld & Adult Over 65 in Hsld . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Figure 20 Interested in Receiving More Information About City by Age, Gender & Satisfaction With Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Figure 21 Interested in Receiving More Information About City by Ethnicity, Overall Satisfaction, Home Ownership Status & Survey Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Figure 22 Information Topics Desired. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Figure 23 Information Sources by Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Figure 24 Information Sources by Overall, Age & Sa tisfaction With Communication . . . . . . . 30 Figure 25 Information Sources by Ethnicity, Child in Hsld & Adult Over 65 in Hsld . . . . . . . . 30 Figure 26 Information Sources by Years in San Mateo, Overall Satisfaction & Survey Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Figure 27 Effectiveness of Communication Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Figure 28 Maximum Margin of Error . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
9 of 72
Introduction
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 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 103,352 residents. 1 One of only two charter cities 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 te am of employees that provide a full suite of services 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 tracking internal performance, planning, budgeting, policy- making, and community outreach.
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;
• 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 strategic priorities for the next two years; • 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.
1. Source: State of California, Depart ment of Finance, E-1City/County Population Estimates, January 2024.
10 of 72
Introduction
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 2City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
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 3 4 ) . 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 750 adults who reside in the City of San Mateo. The survey followed a mixed-method design that employed mu ltiple recruiting methods (email, text, and telephone) and multiple data collection methods (telephone and online). Administered in English and Spanish between February 8 and February 12, 2025, the average interview lasted 18 minutes.
STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE This is not the first statistically reliable community survey conducted for the City of San Mateo. Similar studies were conducted by True North for the City in 2020 and 2022, and many of the questions included in the 2025 survey were purposely tracked from those studies. Because there is a natural interest in tracking the City’s performance in meeting the evolving needs of it s residents, where appropriate th e results of the current study are compared with the results of identical ques tions in the prior surveys. In such cases, True North conducted the appropriate tests of statistical significance to identify changes that likely reflect actual changes in public opinion between the most recent prior survey (2022) and the current (2025), as opposed to being due to ch ance associated with selecting two samples inde- pendently and at random. Differences betwe en the two studies are identified as statistically significant if we can be 95% confident that the differe nces reflect an actu al change in public opinion between the two studies. Statistically si gnificant differences within response categories over time are denoted by the † symbol which a ppears in the figure next to the appropriate response value for 2025.
ORGANIZATION OF REPORT This report is designed to me et the needs of readers who prefer a summary of the findings as well as those who are interested in the details of the results.
For those who seek an overview of the findings, the section titled Key Findings is for you. It provides a summary of the most important factual findings of the survey in a Question & Answer format. For the interested reader, this section is followed by a more detailed question-by-ques- tion discussion of the results fr om the survey by topic area (see Table of Contents), as well as a description of the methodology employed for collecting and anal yzing the data. And, for the truly ambitious reader, the questionnaire used for the interviews is contained at the back of this report (see Questionnaire & Toplines on page 37), 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.
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 an d customers. Through designin g and implementing scientific
11 of 72
Introduction
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 3City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
surveys, focus groups, and one-on -one interviews, as well as expert interpretation of the find- ings, True North helps its clients to move with confidence when making strategic decisions in a variety of areas—such as planning, policy ev aluation, performance management, establishing fiscal priorities, 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 1,500 survey research studies for public agencies—including more than 500 studies for California municipalities and special districts.
12 of 72
Key Findings
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 4
City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
K EY F INDINGS
As noted in the Introduction, this study was designed to provi de the City of San Mateo with a statistically reliable understanding of its resident s’ satisfaction, opinions, and priorities as they relate to city services, facilities, and policies. As such, the findings of this study can provide the City with information needed to make sound, strategic decisions in a variety of areas including performance management, planning, establishing budget priorities, and community engage- ment.
Whereas subsequent sections of this report are devoted to conveying the detailed results of the survey, in this section we attempt to ‘see the forest through the trees’ and note how the survey results answer key questions that motivated th e research. The followin g conclusions are based on True North’s interpretations of the results, as well as the firm’s experience conducting similar studies for government agencies throughout the State.
How well is the City per-
forming in meeting the
needs of San Mateo resi-
dents?
The vast majority of San Mateo resi dents continue to be satisfied with the City’s overall efforts to provide services and with the quality of life in their city. Moreover, as detailed on page 6, resident satisfaction improved significantly during the past three years in many service areas.
When asked to rate the City’s overall performance in providing municipal services, seven-in-ten (71% of) residents surveyed in 2025 indicated they were satisfied with the City’s ov erall efforts to provide municipal services, whereas 17% were dissati sfied and the remaining 12% were unsure or did not provide a response . Overall satisfaction has remained consistent since the first survey in 2020, ranging between 71% and 74% (see Overall Satisfaction on page 13).
The level of satisfaction expre ssed with the City’s performance in general was also mirrored in residents’ assessments of the City’s perfor- mance in providing most specific se rvices, with the highest satisfaction scores assigned to the City’s efforts to provide library services (96% very or somewhat satisfied), provide fire protection , prevention, and emer- gency medical services (93%), maintain public buildings and facilities like City Hall, libraries, and parking garages (92%), provide special events like community festivals and holiday celebrations (87%), and provide parks, sports fields, and recreation facilities (84%) (see Specific Services on page 15).
The City’s performance providing mu nicipal services has also contrib- uted to a high quality of life for residents. Consistent with the 2022 survey, 84% of residents surveyed in 2025 provided excellent or good ratings to the overall quality of life in San Mateo. The majority of resi- dents also shared positive assessments regarding San Mateo as a place to shop and dine (76% excellent or good), as a place to raise a family (67%), as a place to recreate (62%), and as a place to work (58%). Addi- tionally, this sentiment was widespread, with seven-in-ten residents in
13 of 72
Key Findings
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 5City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
every identified subgroup rating the quality of life in San Mateo as excel- lent or good (see Overall Quality of Life on page 8). When asked in an open-ended manner to describe the thin gs they value most about living in San Mateo, parks and recreation facilities and opportunities topped the list (19%), followed by shopping and dining opportunities (16%) and the downtown area (12%) (see What Do You Like Most About Living in San Mateo? on page 9).
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 oppo rtunities to adjust services, improve facilities, and/or refine communications strategies to best meet the community’s evolving needs and expectations. Although resident 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 11), the levels of satisfaction found in specific service areas (see Specific Services on page 15), and the services with the greatest differences in op inion between satisfied and dissatis- fied residents (see Differentiators of Opinion on page 16), the top priori- ties are: facilitating the creation of more affordable housing, managing land use and development (including limiting growth/preserving open space), managing traffic congesti on, addressing homelessness, and promoting economic development to attract new businesses and good paying jobs to the city.
Examining the manner in which residents prioritize among potential strategic goals for the City’s attention over the next two years yielded additional opportunity areas. Upgrading and maintaining public infra- structure including streets, stormw ater systems, parks, pools, fire stations, libraries, community centers, and other public facilities was viewed as a top area of focus (93% high or medium priority), followed by improving the City's preparedness for emergencies and natural disasters (88%) and stabilizing and balancing the City's long-term financial condi- tion (86%). Although facilitating the development of more affordable housing for middle and low-income families ranked third from last (out of 12 total projects), it is important to point out that half (51%) of all resi- dents viewed it as a high priority (see Strategic Plan on page 18).
With the recommendation that the City focus on these areas, it is equally important to stress that when it comes to improving satisfaction in service areas, the appropriate strate gy is often a combination of better communication and actual servic e improvements. It may be, for example, that many residents are simp ly not aware of the City’s current plans to facilitate affordable housing in San Mateo, or the limits of what
14 of 72
Key Findings
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 6City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
a city can do to address homele ssness. Choosing the appropriate balance of actual service improvemen ts and efforts to raise awareness on these matters will be a key to maintaining and improving the commu- nity’s overall satisfaction in the short- and long-term.
What were the most
notable changes in the
survey results between
2022 and 2025?
Most key performance metrics in 2025 remained consistent with the results of the most recent prior study (2022), including ratings of the overall quality of life in the City, views on San Mateo as a place to raise a family, recreate, shop and dine, work, and retire, the City’s overall performance rating, and satisfaction ratings for the majority of specific services. There was, however, an eight percentage point improvement in satisfaction with city-resident communication from 2022 to 2025 (discussed in greater detail in the next section).
Turning to specific services, statistically significant changes in satisfac- tion were recorded for eight (8) of the 18 services presented to residents in both studies, with three times as many improvements as declines (6 vs. 2). Double-digit increases in sati sfaction were recorded for the City’s efforts to address homelessness (+17%), provide special events like community festivals and holiday celebrations (+13%), and clean up litter and trash that people dump along streets, sidewalks, and in public areas (+10%). Resident satisfaction with the City’s efforts to maintain local streets and roads (+9%), facilitate the creation of affordable housing (+6%), and provide police and crime prevention services (+5%) were also significantly higher in 2025 than 2022. Meanwhile, satisfaction with the City’s efforts to provide bicycle lanes and paths (-8%) and provide paths and trails for walking, jogging, and running (-6%) experienced statisti- cally significant declines during this same period.
How well is the City com-
municating with San
Mateo residents?
The importance of city communication with residents cannot be over- stated. Much of a city’s success is sh aped by the qualit y of information that is exchanged in both directions, from the City to the community and from the community to the City. This study is just one example of San Mateo’s efforts to enhanc e the information flow to the City to better understand the community’s concerns, perceptions, and needs. Some of San Mateo’s many efforts to communicate with its residents include its newsletters, timely press releases, its website, and social media posts.
Keeping up with the challenge of communicating with residents has been difficult for many public agencies in recent years. As the number of information sources and channels ava ilable to the public have dramati- cally increased, so too has the diversity in where residents regularly turn for their information. Not only have entirely new channels arisen to become mainstream and nearly ubiquitous (e.g., social media), within these channels there exists a proliferation of alternative services. To add to the challenge, resident preferen ces for information sources are also dynamic, subject to change as ne w services are made available while
15 of 72
Key Findings
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 7City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
others may fade in popularity, making thorough, effective communica- tion a moving target for public agencies.
Against this backdrop of declining satisfaction with public agency communications in general, the survey results indicate that the City of San Mateo has improved in this area over the past three years, fully recovering the dip recorded from 2020 to 2022. Seven-in-ten residents (70%) said they were satisfied with the City’s efforts to communicate through newsletters, the Internet, social media, and other means in 2025, which is up significantly from 2022’s 62% (and back to the level recorded in 2020). Along the same lin e, fewer respondents indicated a desire for more information on a particular topic from the City in 2025 (24% in 2025 vs. 30% in 2022). Among those seeking additional informa- tion, the City’s future commercial and residential development plans, city planning/vision, road/infrastructure maintenance, and affordable housing were the most frequently me ntioned topics of interest. Resi- dents also reported that email (88% very or somewhat effective), direct mail (78%), the City’s website (72%), and social media (68%) were their preferred methods of receiving city information in 2025.
Further, the survey results show that the majority of residents rely on city sources to find out about City of San Mateo news, events, and programming. While the San Mateo Daily Journal continues to be the top individual source for information (36%), the next three were all city sources: email notifications from th e City (32%), letters, postcards, flyers, or brochures mailed to the ho me from the City (29%), and the City’s website (18%). Other city so urces included street banners or message signs (10%), flyers or QR codes placed at city facilities and around the City (5%), and City Council Meetings (2%).
Taken together, and after accounting for respondents who mentioned multiple sources, 62% of residents reported relying on city sources for information in 2025, which is higher than 2022’s 57% (although just shy of the threshold for statistical significance). In True North’s experience, a high level of satisfaction with a city’s communication efforts is generally associated with and likely caused by a greater reliance among city-spon- sored sources of information such as newsletters, websites, and related publications (see Communication on page 24).
16 of 72
Quality of Life
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 8
City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Q UALITY OF L IFE
The opening series of question s in the survey was designed to assess residents’ top of mind perceptions 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 (84% exce llent or good), San Mateo as a place to shop and dine (76%), and as a place to raise a family (67%). Although still rated favorably by over half of respondents, residents provided so mewhat softer ratings for San Mateo as a place to recreate (62%) and as a place to work (58%). Just over one-third of residents pr ovided a favorable rating for San Mateo as a place to retire (35%), although approximately 21% held no opinion or did not provide 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 <1% for the overall quality of life to a high of 23% 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 ne xt page, the percentage of respondents who offered ratings of excellent or good in 2025 was statistically comp arable to the levels recorded in 2022. Tables 2 through 5, meanwhile, show how the ratings for each dimension tested in Question 2 varied by length of residence, gender, age, presence and ag e(s) of children in the home, presence of a senior in the home, ethnicity, and home owne rship. For ease of comparison, the top three ratings within each subgroup are highlighted green.
22.0 24.6
21.7 13.6
13.8 9.4
61.7 51.5
45.7 48.4
44.2 25.5
13.3 18.7
15.4 24.9
16.1 19.9
2 3
3 3
1 6
15.5 8.7
2 1
1 5
22.8 21.0
12.8 0 1 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 0 1 0 0
The overall quality of life in the City of 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 recreate
San Mateo as a place to work
San Mateo as a place to retire
Q2aQ2eQ2bQ2fQ2cQ2d
% Respondents
Excellent Good Fair Poor Very poor Not sure/Prefer not to answer
17 of 72
Quality of Life
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 9City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
TABLE 1 RATING CITY OF SAN MATEO BY STUDY YEAR
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 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. 2025 2022 2020
San Mateo as a place to recreate 62.0 59.2 56.3 +2.8
San Mateo as a place to raise a family 67.4 68.1 65.1 -0.6 Overall quality of life in San Mateo 83.8 85.0 80.9 -1.2 San Mateo as a place to shop and dine 76.0 77.4 71.6 -1.4 San Mateo as a place to retire 34.9 37.0 30.3 -2.2
San Mateo as a place to work 58.0 62.2 57.6 -4.2
Change in
Excellent +
Good
2022 to 2025
Study Year
Less than 5 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 or longer Male Female
Overall quality of life in San Mateo 86.9 87.2 89.2 80.6 82.8 87.4 San Mateo as a place to shop and dine 84.5 76.7 76.8 71.5 74.4 78.5 San Mateo as a place to raise a family 60.9 65.3 74.2 70.9 65.0 72.3 San Mateo as a place to recreate 55.5 67.4 62.2 64.5 63.1 61.6 San Mateo as a place to work 48.4 59.0 74.4 60.5 60.2 57.0 San Mateo as a place to retire 25.7 33.4 36.4 40.2 33.2 36.7 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 Overall quality of life in San Mateo 81.1 83.6 88.1 84.2 79.3 85.1 San Mateo as a place to shop and dine 81.5 87.0 73.4 78.0 63.6 70.6 San Mateo as a place to raise a family 76.9 60.6 63.3 74.9 71.1 66.0 San Mateo as a place to recreate 66.5 58.9 57.7 62.4 62.6 63.9 San Mateo as a place to work 68.2 51.0 54.0 68.4 65.5 49.9 San Mateo as a place to retire 42.8 27.9 18.2 25.3 33.4 63.6 Age (QD1)
Yes,
under 18
Yes,
under 6 None Yes No
Overall quality of life in San Mateo 82.7 84.5 84.1 83.3 83.8 San Mateo as a place to shop and dine 73.6 74.8 77.8 70.5 79.1 San Mateo as a place to raise a family 79.3 80.9 63.8 63.7 69.3 San Mateo as a place to recreate 62.0 60.4 63.1 64.5 61.7 San Mateo as a place to work 60.0 51.6 57.9 50.9 61.7
San Mateo as a place to retire 22.6 16.9 39.6 51.7 27.6 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 89.9 83.1 80.3 72.4 87.1 80.7 San Mateo as a place to shop and dine 78.0 80.7 71.8 69.1 72.3 80.1 San Mateo as a place to raise a family 66.3 70.6 68.5 62.8 72.7 62.8 San Mateo as a place to recreate 67.4 56.1 62.0 53.7 64.6 60.4 San Mateo as a place to work 60.0 57.5 56.2 58.3 59.3 59.2 San Mateo as a place to retire 37.8 34.3 34.4 25.1 38.7 30.4 Ethnicity (QD12) Home Ownership Status
(QD6)
18 of 72
Quality of Life
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 10City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
San Mateo residents were most apt to cite parks and recreation facilities and opportunities (19%) as what they like most about living in the City of San Mateo and would like to preserve, followed by shopping and dining opportun ities (16%) and the downtown area (12%). Other specific attri- butes that were mentioned by more than 5% of respondents included San Mateo’s walkability (8%), diversity of business, cultures, and activities (7%), low crime rate/public safety (7%), and the open/green spaces and mountain s (7%). For the interested read er, Table 6 lists the top five responses to Question 3 by study year.
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
TABLE 6 LIKE MOST ABOUT SAN MATEO BY STUDY YEAR
18.6 15.8
12.1 10.7
8.3 7.4
6.6 6.6
5.4 5.2
5.2 3.6
3.5 2.9
2.8 2.6
2.5 2.5
2.4 2.4
2.3 2.2
2.1 2.1
1.6 1.5
2.2 5.4
4.7 0 5 10 15 20
Parks, recreation facilities, opportunities
Shopping, dining opportunities
Downtown area
Not sure / Cannot think of anything specific
City walkability
Diversity of businesses, cultures, activities
Low crime, public safety
Open, green space, mountains
Central Park
Access to public transportation
Proximity to surrounding cities, areas
Small town atmosphere
Public libraries
Local, small businesses
Good schools
Sense of community
Historical places
Neighborhoods, communities
Friendly people, neighbors
B street closure, pedestrian walkway
Access to bay, ocean
Clean, well-maintained
Community events
Small businesses
Weather, clean air
Bike lanes
Good City planning, development
Single family homes
Less crowded, traffic than other cities
% Respondents
2025 2022 2020
Parks, recreation
facilities,
opportunities
Parks, recreation
facilities,
opportunities
Parks, recreation
facilities,
opportunities
Shopping, dining
opportunities
Shopping, dining
opportunities
Not sure / Cannot
think of anything
specific
Downtown area
Not sure / Cannot
think of anything
specific
Shopping, dining
opportunities
Not sure / Cannot
think of anything
specific
Proximity to
surrounding cities,
areas
Small town
atmosphere
City walkability Open, green space,
mountains
Proximity to
surrounding cities,
areas
Study Year
19 of 72
Quality of Life
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 11City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
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 (15%), followed by limiting growth and preserving open space (10%), providing more bike lanes (8%), improving public transit (7%), reducing traffic congestion (7%), improving and maintaining roads (7%), and improving parking (7%). Approximately 12% could not think of a desired change (8%) or reported that no changes are needed (4%).
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
Table 7 on the next page displays the five most suggested improvements by study year and shows that the top three responses remained consistent from 2022 to 2025.
14.7 9.8
8.1 7.6
7.3 7.0
6.9 6.7
5.7 4.8
4.4 3.5
3.4 3.4
3.3 2.4
2.4 2.4
1.9 1.9
1.7 1.7
3.8 5.4
1.7 05 1 0 1 5
Provide more affordable housing
Limit growth, preserve open space
Not sure / Cannot think of anything specific
Provide more bike lanes
Improve public transit
Reduce traffic congestion
Improve, maintain roads
Improve parking
Provide more shopping, dining opportunities
Reduce cost of living
Improve, add parks, rec facilities
Beautify, clean up City
No changes needed / Everything is fine
Provide addt'l youth, family activities, events for different ages Improve schools, education
Enforce traffic laws
Address rent control
Improve public safety, more police presence
Improve walkability
Provide, improve sidewalks
Improve planning, zoning
Support police department
Improve downtown area
Reduce taxes, fees
Address homeless issues
% Respondents
20 of 72
Quality of Life
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 12City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
TABLE 7 CHANGES TO IMPROVE CITY BY STUDY YEAR
2025 2022 2020
Provide more
affordable housing
Provide more
affordable housing
Provide more
affordable housing
Limit growth,
preserve open
space
Limit growth,
preserve open
space
Reduce traffic
congestion
Not sure / Cannot
think of anything
specific
Not sure / Cannot
think of anything
specific
Limit growth,
preserve open
space
Provide more bike
lanes
Improve public
safety, more police
presence
Improve, maintain
infrastructure,
streets, roads
Improve public
transit
Improve, maintain
infrastructure,
streets, roads
Improve parking
Study Year
21 of 72
City Services
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 13
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 with the job the City of San Mateo is doing to provide 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 find- ings of this question may be regarded as an overall performance rating for the City.
As shown in Figure 4, seven-in-ten (71% of) Sa n Mateo residents indicated they were either very (21%) or somewhat (50%) satisfied with the City’s efforts to provide municipal services. Approxi- mately 17% were very or somewhat dissatisfied, whereas 12% were unsure or unwilling to share their opinion. Overall satisfaction with the City’s performance tracked very closely from 2022 to 2025, with no statistically significant changes.
Question 5 Next, I would like to ask a series of questions about services provided by the City of San Mateo. Generally speaking, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with th e job the City of San Mateo is doing to provide city services?
FIGURE 4 OVERALL SATISFACTION BY STUDY YEAR
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, presence and age(s) of children in the home, survey language, age of the respondent, gender, ethnicity, home ownership status, and presence of an adult 65 years and older in th e household. The most st riking pattern in the figures is that the solid levels of satisfaction exhibited by respondents as a whole (see Figure 4 above) were generally echoed across resident subgroups, with satisfaction ranging from a low of 65% to a high of 91%.
49.4 53.9
10.6 9.5
19.224.520.9
50.1 12.412.4
4.6 5.35.2
8.411.5
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
2025 2022 2020
Study Year
% Respondents
Prefer not to
answer
Not sur e
Very
dissatisfied
Som ewhat
dissatisfied
Som ewhat
satisfied
Very
satisfied
22 of 72
City Services
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 14City 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
20.0 18.9 21.6 20.6 25.0
51.7 52.0 50.7 50.8 41.3
Ver y
satisfied
21.2 22.2 26.9 19.4
Smwt
satisfied
47.0 51.8
46.952.6
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
17.6 27.3 20.9 21.7
49.8 49.7
51.4 49.7
14.416.420.9
Ver y
satisfied
35.2 43.8 53.7 56.9
Smwt
satisfied
55.6 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
18.2 23.7 21.5 21.1
53.3 49.3
45.7 52.0
Ver y
satisfied
21.0 17.8
26.8 16.1
Smwt
satisfied
56.2 49.1
39.853.0
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
23 of 72
City Services
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 15City 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 20 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 sa tisfied with the City’s efforts to provide library services (96% very or somewhat satisfied), follo wed by provide fire prot ection, prevention, and emergency medical services (93%), maintain public buildings and facilities like City Hall, libraries, and parking garages (92%), provide special events like community festivals and holiday celebra- tions (87%), and provide parks, sports fields, and recreation facilities (84%).
At the other end of the spectrum, respondents were less satisfied with the City’s efforts to facili- tate the creation of affordable housing (39%), manage land use development (50%), and manage traffic congestion (51%).
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 SERVICES
2. The percentage who held an opinion for each service is shown to the right of the service label in brackets.
67.5 47.1
43.3 36.3
40.0 32.8
35.8 25.7
29.8 23.8
24.5 24.6
16.9 19.0
19.1 22.2
15.6 9.6
12.7 11.0
28.8 46.3
49.1 50.4
44.3 49.5
46.0 52.2
46.2 51.9
50.1 47.2
50.2 45.4
43.7 39.4
42.9 41.1
37.4 27.8
23.2 26.2
31.3 32.7
31.7 15.2
18.1 17.2
29.5 24.3
19.2 17.6
18.8 18.4
2 4.3
6.0 9.7
12.1 12.7
12.8 15.6
20.2 23.5 12.1
12.7 6.5
5.4 5.0
13.0 15.3
9.0 7.8
5.6 5.6
1 2
1 3.6
3.6 0 1 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 0 1 0 0
Provide library services [89%]
Provide fire protection, prevention and emergency medical services [75%] Maintain public buildings and facilities like City Hall, libraries, parking garages [89%] Provide special events like community festivals and holiday celebrations [84%] Provide parks, sports fields and recreation facilities [93%] Provide police and crime prevention services [82%]
Provide a variety of recreation programs for all ages [82%] Protect the environment [71%]
Provide paths and trails for walking, jogging and running [91%] Prepare the city for emergencies and natural disasters [64%] Maintain storm drains, sewers and creeks [87%]
Clean up litter, trash that people dump along streets, sidewalks, in public areas [95%] Promote economic development to attract new businesses, good-paying jobs [73%] Enforce codes to address issues like abandoned vehicles, non-permitted construction [69%] Maintain local streets and roads [97%]
Provide bicycle lanes and paths [81%]
Address homelessness [77%]
Manage traffic congestion [92%]
Manage land use and development [74%]
Facilitate the creation of affordable housing [74%]
% R espondents Who Provided Opinion
Very satisfied Somewhat satisfied Somewhat dissatisfied Very dissatisfied
24 of 72
City Services
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 16City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Table 8 displays the percentage of respondents who were satisfied with each service by study year, and the difference between 2022 and 2025 is shown in the far right column. When compared with the 2022 survey, statistically si gnificant improvements were recorded in six service areas in 2025, while two areas experienced declines. The largest increases in satisfaction were found for the City’s efforts to address homelessness (+17%), provide special events like community festivals and holiday celebrations ( +13%), and clean up litte r and trash that people dump along streets, sidewalks, and in public areas (+10%), while satisfaction with the City’s efforts to provide bicycle lanes and paths (-8%) and provide paths and trails for walking, jogging, and running (-6%) experienced statistically significant declines.
TABLE 8 SATISFACTION WITH SERVICES BY STUDY YEAR
† Statistically significant change (p < 0.05) between the 2022 and 2025 studies.
DIFFERENTIATORS OF OPINION For the interested reader, Table 9 on the next page shows how the level of satisfac tion with each specific serv ice tested in Question 6 varied according to residents’ overall performance ratings for the City (see Overall Satisfaction on page 13). The table divides residents who were satisfied with the City’s overall performance into one group and those dissatisfied into a second group. Also displayed is the difference between the two groups in terms of the percentage who indicated they were satisfied with the City’s efforts to provide each service tested in Qu estion 6 (far right column). For convenience, the services are sorted by that difference, with the greatest differentiators of opinion near the top of the table.
When compared 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 differentiators of opinion between satisfied and dissatisfied residents were found with respect to the City’s efforts to promote economic development to attract new businesses and good-paying jobs to the community, maintain local streets and roads, and manage land use and development. 2025 2022 2020
Address homelessness 58.5 41.8 51.0 +16.7†
Provide special events like community festivals and holiday celebrations 86.7 74.2 82.5 +12.5† Clean up litter, trash that people dump along streets, sidewalks, in public areas 71.8 61.8 N/A +10.0† Maintain local streets and roads 62.7 54.0 54.3 +8.7†
Facilitate the creation of affordable housing 38.8 32.9 N/A +5.9† Provide police and crime prevention services 82.4 77.3 82.7 +5.0† Manage traffic congestion 50.7 47.9 30.3 +2.8
Protect the environment 77.9 75.2 N/A +2.7
Maintain public buildings and facilities like City Hall, libraries, parking garages 92.5 91.3 91.5 +1.1 Provide a variety of recreation programs for all ages 81.8 80.7 84.6 +1.1 Promote economic development to attract new businesses, good-paying jobs 67.1 66.1 65.5 +0.9 Prepare the city for emergencies and natural disasters 75.6 75.3 73.8 +0.4 Provide fire protection, prevention and emergency medical services 93.4 93.9 95.9 -0.5 Maintain storm drains, sewers and creeks 74.6 75.3 75.1 -0.6 Enforce codes to address issues like abandoned vehicles, non-permitted construction 64.3 65.8 62.0 -1.4 Provide parks, sports fields and recreation facilities 84.3 86.9 88.6 -2.6 Provide paths and trails for walking, jogging and running 76.0 81.6 N/A -5.6† Provide bicycle lanes and paths 61.6 69.5 N/A -7.9†
Provide library services 96.3 N/A N/A N/A
Manage land use and development 50.1 N/A N/A N/A
Change in
Satisfaction
2022 to 2025
Study Year
25 of 72
City Services
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 17City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
At the other end of the spectrum, there was much less difference between the two resident groups regarding their satisfaction with the City’s efforts to provide library services and maintain public buildings and facilities like City Hall, libraries, and parking garages.
TABLE 9 SATISFACTION WITH SERVICES BY OVERALL SATISFACTION WITH CITY Very or somewhat
satisfied
Very or somewhat
dissatisfied
Promote economic development to attract new businesses, good-paying jobs 78.5 27.6 50.9 Maintain local streets and roads 71.6 25.0 46.7
Manage land use and development 61.4 17.2 44.3
Cleaning up litter, trash that people dump along streets, sidewalks, in public areas 79.5 39.9 39.6 Prepare the city for emergencies and natural disasters 84.6 45.7 38.8 Maintain storm drains, sewers and creeks 82.9 46.3 36.6 Enforce codes to address issues like abandoned vehicles, non-permitted construction 72.1 36.2 35.9 Provide parks, sports fields and recreation facilities 89.9 56.7 33.2 Manage traffic congestion 57.4 27.5 29.9
Protect the environment 83.1 53.8 29.3
Provide a variety of recreation programs for all ages 87.0 59.1 27.8 Provide paths and trails for walking, jogging and running 81.0 53.7 27.3 Provide police and crime prevention services 88.7 64.1 24.6 Provide fire protection, prevention and emergency medical services 98.4 74.3 24.1 Address homelessness 64.1 41.5 22.6
Facilitate the creation of affordable housing 44.8 22.5 22.4 Provide bicycle lanes and paths 66.2 46.7 19.6
Provide special events like community festivals and holiday celebrations 90.9 71.4 19.5 Maintain public buildings and facilities like City Hall, libraries, parking garages 95.9 78.5 17.4 Provide library services 98.1 87.3 10.9
Satisfaction With
City's Overall Performance (Q5) Difference Between
Groups For Each
Service
% Respondents Satisfied With Each Service
26 of 72
Strategic Plan
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 18
City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
S TRATEGIC P LAN
The City of San Mateo is in the process of updating its Strategic Plan, which will guide the City's future decisions on a variety of topics that affect the quality of life in the City including economic development, public safety, housing, and tran sportation. To help inform the plan, the 2025 survey included a question series examining proposed priorities for the future of San Mateo.
The format of Question 7 was straightforwar d: respondents were as ked whether each item shown in Figure 9 should be a high, medium, or low priority for San Mateo to accomplish in the next two years. To encourage a sense of competition, respondents were instructed that not all of the items could be high prioriti es. The items are sorted from high to low in the figure based on the percentage of respondents who indicated that an item was at least a medium priority.
Question 7 The City of San Mateo is in the process of updating its Strategic Plan. The Strategic Plan will guide the City's future decisions on a variety of topics that affect the quality of life in the city and set priorities for the next year. As I read each of the following items, please indicate whether you think the item should be a high priority, a medium priority, or a low priority for San Mateo to accomplish in the next two years. If you feel the item should not be a priority, just say so. Please keep in mind that not all of the items can be high priorities.
FIGURE 9 STRATEGIC PLAN PRIORITIES
Among the items tested, upgradin g and maintaining public infrastructure including streets, stormwater systems, parks, pool s, fire stations, libraries, co mmunity centers, and other public facilities was viewed as the top priority (93% high or medium priority), followed by improving the City's preparedness for emergencies and natura l disasters (88%) and stabilizing and balancing the City's long-term financial condition (86%). Although facilitating the development of more affordable housing for middle and low-income families ranked third from last in Figure 9, it is important to point out that half (51%) of all residents viewed it as a high priority.
60.0 43.3
41.5 51.3
38.8 30.3
38.1 46.9
39.1 50.6
30.4 29.7
33.1 44.5
44.5 31.4
42.7 50.4
42.0 31.9
38.1 25.4
44.4 43.1
0 1 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 0 1 0 0
U pgrade, maintain public infrastructure, streets, stormwater systems, parks, pools, fire stations, libraries, community centers, other public facilities Improve the City’s preparedness for emergencies and natural disasters Stabilize and balance the City’s long-term financial condition Improve City’s transportation system to reduce traffic, encourage walking, biking, transit use
Improve City’s economic vitality through business-friendly policies, revitalizing outdated commercial areas, attracting diverse mix of employers, jobs Ensure City has a sufficient number of employees to provide responsive, high quality city services to residents
Encourage health, wellness for residents of all ages through rec, activities, providing access to healthy foods, community services, green spaces Move toward a sustainable environment by protecting resources, reducing waste, pollution, greenhouse gas emissions
Improve public safety including police and fire protection services Facilitate development of more affordable housing for middle, low-income families Improve appearance of the City by removing trash and graffiti, improving landscaping, beautification projects
Strengthen the City’s engagement, transparent communications with the community % Respondents
High priority Medium priority
27 of 72
Strategic Plan
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 19City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
For the interested reader, tables 10 through 13 show how the percentage of respondents that assigned high priority status to the objectives varied across subgroups of residents. For ease of comparison, the top three ratings within each subgroup are highlighted green.
TABLE 10 STRATEGIC PLAN PRIORITIES BY YEARS IN SAN MATEO & GENDER (SHOWING % HIGH PRIORITY) TABLE 11 STRATEGIC PLAN PRIORITIES BY AGE (SHOWING % HIGH PRIORITY) Less than 5 5 to 9 10 to 14
15 or
longer Male Female
Upgrade, maintain public infrastructure, streets, stormwater systems, parks, pools, fire stations, libraries, community centers, other public facilities 50.6 67.3 57.5 63.5 55.9 64.1 Improve City’s transportation system to reduce traffic, encourage walking, biking, transit use 59.3 55.2 46.9 46.8 49.8 52.2
Facilitate development of more affordable housing for middle, low-income families 65.0 33.2 51.2 48.3 47.1 54.4 Move toward a sustainable environment by protecting resources, reducing waste, pollution, greenhouse gas emissions 58.8 41.7 41.1 43.4 36.0 58.5 Improve the City’s preparedness for emergencies and natural disasters 39.7 37.3 45.4 46.8 36.7 51.5 Stabilize and balance the City’s long-term financial condition 26.3 39.9 47.7 49.6 43.7 40.4 Improve public safety including police and fire protection services 29.5 33.1 37.3 46.6 37.9 39.7 Improve City’s economic vitality through business-friendly policies, revitalizing outdated commercial areas, attracting diverse mix of employers, jobs 39.7 44.5 39.6 36.2 40.9 37.2 Encourage health, wellness for residents of all ages through rec, activities, providing access to healthy foods, community services, green spaces 41.1 44.2 33.2 35.7 32.8 43.3 Improve appearance of the City by removing trash and graffiti, improving landscaping, beautification projects 23.7 30.7 20.6 35.8 33.8 28.1
Ensure City has a sufficient number of employees to provide responsive, high quality city services to residents 28.1 21.8 27.8 34.7 24.8 37.8
Strengthen the City’s engagement, transparent communications with the community 23.9 27.6 25.5 34.3 24.8 35.5 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 Upgrade, maintain public infrastructure, streets, stormwater systems, parks, pools, fire stations, libraries, community centers, other public facilities 38.7 53.0 60.0 62.6 69.7 73.2 Improve City’s transportation system to reduce traffic, encourage walking, biking, transit use 49.8 64.1 57.2 42.8 49.5 39.8
Facilitate development of more affordable housing for middle, low-income families 69.3 67.8 42.0 41.4 40.2 45.7 Move toward a sustainable environment by protecting resources, reducing waste, pollution, greenhouse gas emissions 63.8 58.3 44.8 29.5 47.6 40.9 Improve the City’s preparedness for emergencies and natural disasters 42.7 30.8 41.1 37.9 54.8 56.0 Stabilize and balance the City’s long-term financial condition 40.5 19.3 43.5 45.5 47.9 58.4 Improve public safety including police and fire protection services 30.0 20.2 37.7 41.0 56.4 53.0 Improve City’s economic vitality through business-friendly policies, revitalizing outdated commercial areas, attracting diverse mix of employers, jobs 32.0 36.6 49.6 36.9 43.3 35.2 Encourage health, wellness for residents of all ages through rec, activities, providing access to healthy foods, community services, green spaces 51.1 44.7 36.6 33.1 39.5 27.8 Improve appearance of the City by removing trash and graffiti, improving landscaping, beautification projects 15.1 19.6 32.9 30.5 41.4 39.4
Ensure City has a sufficient number of employees to provide responsive, high quality city services to residents 24.8 21.4 33.2 29.6 37.0 37.7
Strengthen the City’s engagement, transparent communications with the community 31.5 20.6 29.9 29.0 35.3 34.1 Age (QD1)
28 of 72
Strategic Plan
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 20City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
TABLE 12 STRATEGIC PLAN PRIORITIES BY HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS & ETHNICITY (SHOWING % HIGH PRIORITY) TABLE 13 STRATEGIC PLAN PRIORITIES BY CHILD IN HSLD, ADULT OVER 65 IN HSLD & SURVEY LANGUAGE (SHOWING % HIGH PRIORITY)
Own Rent
Caucasian/
White
Asian
American
Latino/
Hispanic
Mixed or
other
Upgrade, maintain public infrastructure, streets, stormwater systems, parks, pools, fire stations, libraries, community centers, other public facilities 64.7 56.1 60.3 60.4 64.6 42.7 Improve City’s transportation system to reduce traffic, encourage walking, biking, transit use 51.5 51.8 54.2 53.8 46.4 43.0
Facilitate development of more affordable housing for middle, low-income families 33.8 68.0 49.3 48.3 55.0 60.8 Move toward a sustainable environment by protecting resources, reducing waste, pollution, greenhouse gas emissions 36.4 57.4 44.4 45.9 55.2 46.3 Improve the City’s preparedness for emergencies and natural disasters 46.2 41.1 41.4 45.0 46.7 37.9 Stabilize and balance the City’s long-term financial condition 46.8 37.0 44.9 37.8 39.8 38.6 Improve public safety including police and fire protection services 43.9 34.6 34.2 43.3 39.9 43.3 Improve City’s economic vitality through business-friendly policies, revitalizing outdated commercial areas, attracting diverse mix of employers, jobs 40.2 37.5 38.3 40.2 41.0 30.2 Encourage health, wellness for residents of all ages through rec, activities, providing access to healthy foods, community services, green spaces 31.0 45.1 34.5 44.5 41.4 36.6 Improve appearance of the City by removing trash and graffiti, improving landscaping, beautification projects 33.3 27.8 34.1 26.3 27.0 30.3
Ensure City has a sufficient number of employees to provide responsive, high quality city services to residents 28.5 33.5 30.4 27.4 35.3 30.0
Strengthen the City’s engagement, transparent communications with the community 29.9 29.3 25.4 28.3 38.4 24.0 Ethnicity (QD12)Home Ownership
Status (QD6)
Yes, under
18 Yes, under
6N o n e Y e sN o E n g l i s h S p a n i s h
Upgrade, maintain public infrastructure, streets, stormwater systems, parks, pools, fire stations, libraries, community centers, other public facilities 66.0 65.5 58.3 69.1 56.6 60.0 60.8 Improve City’s transportation system to reduce traffic, encourage walking, biking, transit use 51.2 50.8 51.7 45.4 53.8 51.6 48.2
Facilitate development of more affordable housing for middle, low-income families 42.3 35.9 55.3 48.2 52.1 49.8 59.6 Move toward a sustainable environment by protecting resources, reducing waste, pollution, greenhouse gas emissions 40.8 41.5 49.4 42.1 48.5 45.9 59.9 Improve the City’s preparedness for emergencies and natural disasters 37.2 35.2 45.9 53.3 39.1 41.7 63.3 Stabilize and balance the City’s long-term financial condition 43.3 40.7 40.5 51.6 37.3 42.6 28.4 Improve public safety including police and fire protection services 34.3 28.0 40.1 49.6 34.5 38.7 44.5 Improve City’s economic vitality through business-friendly policies, revitalizing outdated commercial areas, attracting diverse mix of employers, jobs 43.2 48.2 37.7 34.9 40.5 38.7 39.6 Encourage health, wellness for residents of all ages through rec, activities, providing access to healthy foods, community services, green spaces 37.5 34.0 38.2 28.6 41.5 37.7 43.0 Improve appearance of the City by removing trash and graffiti, improving landscaping, beautification projects 28.7 27.4 31.0 37.0 28.2 30.1 34.3 Ensure City has a sufficient number of employees to provide responsive, high quality city services to residents 31.0 31.4 30.7 34.3 28.6 29.9 35.1 Strengthen the City’s engagement, transparent communications with the community 31.4 31.9 29.1 31.9 28.6 28.6 43.6 Survey LanguageAdult Over 65
in Hsld (QD5)Child in Hsld (QD3,4)
29 of 72
Strategic Plan
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 21City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
ADDITIONAL HIGH PRIORITIES? As a follow-up to Question 7, all residents were next asked whether there was another item or goal not previously mention ed that they thought should be a high priority for the City over the next two years. This question was asked in an open-ended manner, allowing respondents to ment ion any project that came to mind without being prompted by or restricted to a list of options. True North later reviewed the verbatim responses and grouped them into the categories shown in Figure 10.
Approximately two-thirds (68%) of residents did not have anything to add to the list of items and goals tested previously. Among the specific items that were mentioned, improving city planning and development (3%) providing affordable hous ing (3%), and improving schools and education (2%) were the top three responses.
Question 8 Is there a goal I didn't mention that you think should be a high priority for the City in the next two years?
FIGURE 10 ADDITIONAL HIGH PRIORITY GOALS
67.5 2.7
2.5 2.2
1.8 1.7
1.6 1.6
1.5 1.4
1.4 1.2
1.1 1.1
1.0 0.9
0.9 0.9
0.9 0.9
0.9 0.8
0.8 0.6
0.6 0.6
0.6 0.5
0.8 1.4
1.3 0 1 02 03 04 05 06 07 0
No additional goals / Can’t think of anything
Improve city planning, development
Provide affordable housing
Provide, improve schools, education
Enforce traffic laws
Improve roads, infrastructure
Reduce traffic, congestion
Provide, improve parks, rec facilities
Improve public safety, security
Lower cost of living
Provide more, safer bike lanes, walking trails
Redevelop rundown commercial areas, lots
Address parking issues
Improve public transit
Beautify City, landscape
Limit growth, development
Address homelessness
Improve public health
Address rent control
Address PG&E issues
Disaster preparedness, prevention
Improve Central Park playground
Reduce building permit restrictions
Improve assistance to seniors
Attract upscale businesses
Improve government process, transparency
Address immigration issues
Lower property taxes
Improve city-resident communication
Provide more grocery stores
Revitalize downtown
% Respondents
30 of 72
Mobility
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 22
City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
M OBILITY
One of the key challenges when planning for population growth and future housing is the issue of mobility. Accordingly, the survey explored ho w residents tend to travel within San Mateo.
Figure 11 presents frequency of use for a variety of modes of travel, sorted by the percentage of weekly use.
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 43% 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 (18%), use public transit such as a bus or train (14%), use Uber, Lyft, or a taxi (4%), or ride Paratransit (3%) at least once per week when traveling within the City of San Mateo.
Question 9 When traveling within the City of San Mateo, how often do you: _____? FIGURE 11 FREQUENCY OF MODE USE WITHIN CITY
Table 14 displays total mode use by study year and shows that a significantly higher percentage of residents reported using public transit in 2025 than 2022 (+8%), while fewer reported riding a bike or scooter (-9%), walking from a store of restaurant (-5%), and using a personal vehicle (-3%) while traveling within San Mateo.
TABLE 14 MODE USE WITHIN CITY BY STUDY YEAR
† Statistically significant change (p < 0.05) between the 2022 and 2025 studies.
29.2 12.7
10.2 19.1
6.2 11.2
9.6 20.1
89.4 1
1 1
1 1
41 3.8
1 4.8
56.5 13.9
3 2
30.6 1
8.6 6.0
1 5.6
6.9 1
14.8 7.5
2 18.9
10.8 28.9 39.9
49.9 59.0
4.5 0 1 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 0 1 0 0
Use a personal vehicle
Walk from your home to a local
store or restaurant
Ride a bicycle or a scooter
Use public transit such as a bus or
train
Use Uber , Lyft or taxi
Paratransit
% 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 2025 2022
Use public transit such as a bus or train 48.9 40.7 +8.2† Use Uber, Lyft or taxi 59.0 56.9 +2.2
Use a personal vehicle 94.2 97.0 -2.8†
Walk from your home to a local store or restaurant 78.8 83.6 -4.9† Ride a bicycle or a scooter 40.1 48.9 -8.7†
Paratransit 7.0 N/A N/A
Change in Use
2022 to 2025
Study Year
31 of 72
Mobility
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 23City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
For the interested reader, figures 12 and 13 show how total reported mode use within the City of San Mateo varied by age, overall satisfaction with the City’s efforts to provide municipal services, ethnicity, and employment status.
FIGURE 12 MODE USE WITHIN CITY BY OVERALL, AGE & OVERALL SATISFACTION FIGURE 13 MODE USE WITHIN CITY BY ETHNICITY & EMPLOYMENT STATUS 94 83
93 96
97 96
98 94
95 79
87 72
59 68
60 62
70 54
44 59
55 49
73 57
46 44
40 43
54 37
40 35
45 50
49 38
21 41
38 7
21 5
4 5
10 6
8 8
86 77
74 81
71 76
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 Dissatisfied Overall Age (QD1) Overall Satisfaction (Q5)
% Respondents
Personal vehicle
Walk
Uber, Lyft, taxi
Public transit
Bike, scooter
Paratransit
97 94
91 92
95 91
97 91
93 83
78 83
56 66
61 45
66 66
44 55
50 51
55 47
46 51
50 40
50 56
43 40
36 36
45 45
22 48
33 3
9 13
2 5
7 7
15 15
80 83
75 76
74 76
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Caucasian /
White
Asian American Latino /
Hispanic
Mixed or other Full-time Part-time Retired Between jobs Other Ethnicity (QD12) Employment Status (QD9)
% Respondents
Personal vehicle
Walk
Uber , Lyft, taxi
Public transit
Bike, scooter
Paratransit
32 of 72
Communication
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 24
City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
C OMMUNICATION
The importance of city communication with residents cannot be over-stated. Much of a city’s success is shaped by the quality of information th at 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 residents include its newsletters, timely press re leases, social media, and its website. In this section, we present the results of several communication-related questions.
OVERALL SATISFACTION WITH COMMUNICATION Question 10 asked San Mateo residents to report their satisfaction with city-resident communication. Overall, 70% 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 2025. The remaining respondents were either dissatisfied with the City’s efforts in this respect (17%) or unsure of their opinion (13%). When compared to 2022, there was a statistically significant increase in resident satisfac- tion with the City’s communication efforts (+8%) which puts the levels back in line with those recorded in 2020.
Question 10 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 14 SATISFACTION WITH COMMUNICATION BY STUDY YEAR † Statistically significant change (p < 0.05) between the 2022 and 2025 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.
44.1 48.7
16.8 12.5
22.2 18.3 21.3
48.1 11.8† 14.3
7.9 5.04.8†
11.6 10.2
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
2025 2022 2020
Study Year
% Respondents
Prefer not to
answer
Not sur e
Very dissatisfied
Somewhat
dissatisfied
Somewhat
satisfied
Very satisfied
33 of 72
Communication
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 25City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
FIGURE 15 SATISFACTION WITH COMMUNICATION BY YEARS IN SAN MATEO, CHILD IN HSLD & ADULT OVER 65 IN HSLD
FIGURE 16 SATISFACTION WITH COMMUNICATION BY AGE & GENDER FIGURE 17 SATISFACTION WITH COMMUNICATION BY ETHNICITY, OVERALL SATISFACTION, HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS &
SURVEY LANGUAGE
18.2 18.7 24.3 21.1 23.0
50.2 51.1
47.6 47.9 48.6
Ver y
satisfied
19.4 31.4
19.3 21.6
Smwt
satisfied
51.6 46.949.5
45.7 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
20.2 25.4 22.5 22.0
43.0 49.3 51.4 46.5
20.625.6
18.3 Ver y
satisfied
23.7 54.2
47.1 39.8
Smwt
satisfied
54.7 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
28.1 6.9
22.2 23.9 21.7 28.5
51.8 40.5
46.3 50.0 49.0 37.3
Ver y
satisfied
26.5 20.7 20.7 15.2
Smwt
satisfied
52.0 48.245.246.9
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
34 of 72
Communication
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 26City 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 11) and—if yes—to describe the topic (Question 12). As shown in figures 18-21, approximately one-quarter of respondents (24%) indicated that they were interested in receiving more information from the City (significantly lower than 2022’s 30%), with those expressing dissatisfaction with the City’s communication efforts and overa ll performance in providing municipal services being the most likely to desire additional information from the City.
Question 11 Is there a particular topic or issue that you'd like to receive more information about from the City?
FIGURE 18 INTERESTED IN RECEIVING MORE INFORMATION ABOUT CITY BY STUDY YEAR † Statistically significant change (p < 0.05) between the 2022 and 2025 studies.
FIGURE 19 INTERESTED IN RECEIVING MORE INFORMATION ABOUT CITY BY YEARS IN SAN MATEO, CHILD IN HSLD & ADULT OVER 65 IN HSLD
62.3 7.6
30.223.9†
66.6 9.5
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
2025 2022
Study Y ear
% Respondents
Prefer not to
answer
Do not desire
additional info
Yes, desire
additional info
26.6 24.6 22.7 25.0 23.425.2
22.0 27.6
20.4 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 Interested in
Receiving More Info From City
35 of 72
Communication
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 27City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
FIGURE 20 INTERESTED IN RECEIVING MORE INFORMATION ABOUT CITY BY AGE, GENDER & SATISFACTION WITH
COMMUNICATION
FIGURE 21 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 22 on the next page), the most commonly mentio ned topics of interest were information about the City’s future commercial and residential development plans (19%), city planning/vision (15%), road and infrastructure maintenance (14%), a ffordable housing (10%), and community events (7%).
24.1 27.7
24.1 23.5
20.2 46.8
18.6 19.8
22.8 29.9
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 (Q10)
% Respondents Interested in
Receiving More Info From City
19.9 43.2
28.0 20.7 23.5
29.8 24.927.3
21.822.1
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 Interested in
Receiving More Info From City
36 of 72
Communication
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 28City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Question 12 Please briefly describe the topic.
FIGURE 22 INFORMATION TOPICS DESIRED
SOURCES OF INFORMATION To help the City identify the most effective means of communicating with residents, it is helpful to understand what information sources they currently rely on for this type of information. Question 13 asked respondents to identify the information sources they typically use to find out about City of San Mateo news, events, and programs. Because respondents were allowed to provide up to three sources, the percentages shown in Figure 22 on the next page represen t the percentage of residents who mentioned a particular source and thus sum to more than 100.
The three most frequently cited sources fo r city information in 2025 were the San Mateo Daily Journal (36%), email notifications from the City (32%), and letters, postcards, flyers, or brochures mailed to the home from the City (29%). These sources were followed by the City’s website (18%), friends/family/associates/word of mouth (14%), Nextdoor (13%), the San Francisco Chronicle (13%), and the Internet not including the City’s site (13%).
When compared to the 2022 survey results, the percentage who cited Nextdoor (-10%), television (-8%), the Internet in general (-5%), Facebook (-4%), X/Twitter (-2%), and radio (-2%) declined significantly, whereas mentions of the San Mateo Daily Journal (+6%), letters, postcards, flyers, or brochures mailed to the home by the City (+6%), and Instagram (+4%) increased significantly.
19.3 15.4
14.0 9.6
7.3 5.7
5.0 5.0
5.0 4.3
3.9 3.7
3.5 2.7
2.4 2.2
2.0 1.8
4.4 3.8
0 5 10 15 20
Commercial, residential development, plans
City planning, vision
Road, infrastructure maintenance
Affordable housing
Community events
City, public safety
Traffic issues, updates
Not sure / Cannot think of anything specific
Speeding, traffic enforcement issues
Bike lanes infrastructure, plans
City budgeting, finances
Recreational facility renovations, improvements
Disaster preparedness, prevention
Public transportation
Economic forecasts, indicators
Volunteer opportunities, community engagement info
Senior assistance
Noise control
Recreational programs
Parking issues, enforcement
% Respondents Who Desire More Info
37 of 72
Communication
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 29City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Question 13 What information sources do you use to find out about City of San Mateo news, events, and programs?
FIGURE 23 INFORMATION SOURCES BY STUDY YEAR
† Statistically significant change (p < 0.05) between the 2022 and 2025 studies.
Figures 24-26 on the following pages 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.
31.9 17.8
14.2 13.0
9.8 5.8
5.1 4.6
4.1 4.0
2.6 2.5
1.9 1.6
0.7 30.1
29.6 23.7
15.2 14.5
22.9 12.4
17.8 7.7
4.9 11.7
2.0 3.8
4.2 4.2
3.7 11.4
4.0 1.7
4.3 2.9
1.3 3.1
0.4 37.1
30.6 31.1
15.2 15.7
26.2 9.5
16.4 14.3
2.6 10.9
1.7 2.7
4.2 2.9
6.2 4.5
5.9 1.6
2.7 1.8
1.5 2.0
0.0 9.3†
12.7†
7.6†
29.2†
35.7†
13.3†
5.4 3.6†
2.2†
1.3†
01 0 2 0 3 0 4 0
San Mateo Daily Journal (daily newspaper)
Email notifications from City
Letters, postcards, flyers or brochures mailed from City City Website
Friends/Family /Associates/word of mouth
Nextdoor.com
San Francisco Chronicle (daily newspaper)
Internet (not City’s site)
Street banners or message signs
Instagram
Facebook
Other social media site
Flyers, QR codes placed at city facilities, around city Other sources
Mercury News (daily newspaper)
Do Not Receive Information about City
Daily Post (daily newspaper)
Television (general)
HOA or neighborhood association
Not sure
X/Twitter
Other newspaper
City Council Meetings
Radio
Blogs
% Respondents
2025
2022
2020
38 of 72
Communication
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 30City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
FIGURE 24 INFORMATION SOURCES BY OVERALL, AGE & SATISFACTION WITH COMMUNICATION FIGURE 25 INFORMATION SOURCES BY ETHNICITY, CHILD IN HSLD & ADULT OVER 65 IN HSLD FIGURE 26 INFORMATION SOURCES BY YEARS IN SAN MATEO, OVERALL SATISFACTION & SURVEY LANGUAGE 45 22
33 36
55 50
65 47
38 43
32 43
33 37
38 40
33 40
15 33
37 30
14 37
33 30
29 30
32 27
21 39
23 19
16 19
20 21
19 14
6 20
23 12
9 9
15 13
13 24
14 14
10 11
10 14
11 5
6 0
1 6
10 7
5 7
2 1
2 1
0 1
5 2
3 7
1 11
6 5
4 6
5 9
59 35
47 49
39 38
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
Co mmunicatio n (Q10)
% Respondents
Newspapers
City website, emails
Social Media
City newsletters, direct mail
Other sources
Street banners, f lyers, QR
codes
Non-City websites
Radio, T V
City Council Meetings
Not sure / No sources
55 36
40 43
42 44
46 60
39 48
39 41
32 29
40 27
42 48
29 20
38 29
38 27
28 36
37 28
26 32
19 28
19 16
17 16
23 15
24 13
18 16
7 18
22 13
9 16
11 17
12 21
13 16
14 11
14 6
4 3
0 3
0 5
7 4
2 0
3 0
1 2
2 3
1 5
5 8
10 5
5 7
10 5
42 48
42 42
44 48
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 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
Street banners, flyers, QR
codes
Non-City websites
Radio, TV
City Council Meetings
Not sure / No sources
37 36
43 52
46 48
46 26
39 54
36 31
30 37
34 33
35 33
36 32
38 30
26 32
26 31
17 27
22 17
19 23
15 22
18 23
15 12
10 15
10 14
15 18
14 15
10 13
9 13
17 3
3 5
6 4
7 5
0 0
3 0
3 1
3 2
3 7
5 7
7 5
11 7
9 46
57 42
43 39
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 Less than 5 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 or longer Satisfied Dis-satisfied English Spanish Y ears in San Mateo (Q1) Overall Satisfaction (Q5) Survey Language % Respondents
Newspapers
City website, emails
Social Media
City newsletters, direct mail
Other sources
Street banners, flyers, QR
codes
Non-City websites
Radio, T V
City Council Meetings
Not sure / No sources
39 of 72
Communication
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 31City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
COMMUNICATION PREFERENCES The final substantive question of the survey presented residents with the methods shown to the left of Figure 27 and asked whether each would be an effective way for the City to communicate with them. Overall, respondents indicated that email was the most effective method (88% very or somewhat effective), followed by post- cards, letters, and newsletters mailed to the home (i.e., direct mail, 78%), the City’s website (72%) and social media like Facebook, Twitter, and Nextdoor (68%). Townhall meetings (49%), adver- tisements in local papers (38%), and television programs (33%) were generally viewed by resi- dents as less effective ways for the City to communicate with them. When compared to 2022, the perceived effectiveness of email increased (+4%), while social media (-10%) and television programs (-8%) experienced statistically significant declines (see Table 15).
Question 14 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 27 EFFECTIVENESS OF COMMUNICATION METHODS
TABLE 15 EFFECTIVENESS OF COMMUNICATION METHODS BY STUDY YEAR † Statistically significant change (p < 0.05) between the 2022 and 2025 studies.
45.7 33.8
20.3 30.7
8.4 6.0
7.1 42.3
44.1 51.2
37.2 40.6
31.8 25.8
0 1 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 0 1 0 0
Email
Postcards, letters and newsletters mailed to your home
City’s Website
Social media like Facebook, X and Nextdoor
Townhall meetings
Advertisements in local papers
Television programs
Q14aQ14bQ14cQ14eQ14fQ14dQ14g
% Respondents
Very effective Somewhat effective
2025 2022 2020
Email 88.0 83.7 87.9 +4.2†
Postcards, letters and newsletters mailed to your home 77.9 78.0 78.7 -0.1 City’s Website 71.5 72.4 69.3 -0.9
Advertisements in local papers 37.8 40.3 43.4 -2.5
Townhall meetings 49.1 51.9 49.3 -2.8
Television programs 32.9 40.7 39.6 -7.8†
Social media like Facebook, X and Nextdoor 67.9 77.8 76.8 -9.9† Change in
Very + Smwt
Effective
2022 to 2025
Study Year
40 of 72
Communication
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 32City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Tables 16-18 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. For ease of comparison, the three most preferred methods within each subgroup are highlighted green.
TABLE 16 EFFECTIVENESS OF COMMUNICATION METHODS BY AGE (SHOWING % VERY EFFECTIVE) TABLE 17 EFFECTIVENESS OF COMMUNICATION METHODS BY ETHNICITY & OVERALL SATISFACTION (SHOWING % VERY
EFFECTIVE)
TABLE 18 EFFECTIVENESS OF COMMUNICATION METHODS BY CHILD IN HSLD, SATISFACTION WITH COMMUNICATION & SURVEY LANGUAGE (SHOWING % VERY EFFECTIVE)
18 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or older Email 43.0 48.7 50.3 38.3 45.1 47.7
Postcards, letters and newsletters mailed to your home 24.8 44.5 41.9 33.3 24.0 27.5 Social media like Facebook, X and Nextdoor 48.9 38.0 34.9 32.0 26.6 11.2 City’s Website 34.8 22.0 16.1 20.7 22.8 13.1
Townhall meetings 6.0 6.2 6.7 11.0 7.8 12.3
Television programs 18.6 7.6 4.6 4.0 11.4 1.9
Advertisements in local papers 12.5 4.7 4.2 2.6 7.5 7.3 Age (QD1)
Caucasian/
White
Asian
American
Latino/
Hispanic
Mixed or
other Satisfied Dissatisfied
Email 47.2 45.3 42.3 60.3 47.0 49.6
Postcards, letters and newsletters mailed to your home 33.4 35.9 32.1 35.3 35.8 30.4 Social media like Facebook, X and Nextdoor 26.5 31.9 43.2 14.3 31.5 25.6 City’s Website 19.3 12.4 26.8 31.3 23.0 11.3
Townhall meetings 8.2 6.7 11.4 7.2 9.4 5.3
Television programs 4.5 2.5 14.9 8.5 7.3 8.5
Advertisements in local papers 5.7 3.4 9.4 6.5 6.3 4.6
Ethnicity (QD12) Overall Satisfaction (Q5)
Yes,
under 18
Yes,
under 6 None Satisfied Dissatisfied English Spanish
Email 42.7 45.2 47.4 49.1 41.4 45.6 46.6
Postcards, letters and newsletters mailed to your home 33.4 40.5 34.6 37.3 26.6 33.8 33.8 Social media like Facebook, X and Nextdoor 37.8 35.0 29.4 33.2 29.8 29.8 41.9 City’s Website 18.5 11.6 21.3 24.7 9.8 19.1 35.4
T o w n h a l l m e e t i n g s 6 . 74 . 29 . 59 . 66 . 97 . 7 1 7 . 0 T e l e v i s i o n p r o g r a m s 4 . 33 . 28 . 57 . 49 . 56 . 0 2 1 . 0 Advertisements in local papers 3.6 2.6 7.0 6.0 10.5 5.1 16.9 Child in Hsld (QD3,4) Satisfaction With
Communication (Q10) Survey Language
41 of 72
Background & Demographics
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 33
City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
B ACKGROUND & D EMOGRAPHICS
TABLE 19 DEMOGRAPHICS OF SAMPLE
Table 19 presents the key demo-
graphic information collected during
the survey. In addition 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 ACS esti-
mates.
2025 2022 2020
Total Respondents 750 775 1,276
Years in San Mateo (Q1)
Less than 1 5.9 5.7 5.8
1 to 4 20.9 16.7 18.5
5 to 9 15.3 14.8 12.8
10 to 14 8.9 10.8 10.1
15 or more 48.6 51.9 52.4
Prefer not to answer 0.5 0.1 0.4
Age (QD1)
18 to 24 11.2 8.6 9.0
25 to 34 21.9 23.4 20.5
35 to 44 17.2 17.8 21.0
45 to 54 16.3 15.2 16.8
55 to 64 12.8 13.7 12.8
65 or older 17.3 16.8 15.7
Prefer not to answer 3.3 4.3 4.2
Child in Hsld (QD3,4)
Yes, under 18 26.3 28.6 34.3
Yes, under 6 11.2 11.8 16.5
None 68.8 67.1 60.5
Prefer not to answer 4.9 4.4 5.2
Adult Over 65 in Hsld (QD5)
Yes 28.5 29.2 32.1
No 67.8 66.2 63.0
Prefer not to answer 3.7 4.6 4.9
Home Ownership Status (QD6)
Own 46.6 49.5 56.7
Rent 46.1 45.8 40.1
Prefer not to answer 7.3 4.7 3.2
Home Type (QD7)
Single family 52.2 51.8 60.1
Townhome 7.8 7.5 8.4
Condo 10.7 10.9 9.6
Apartment 24.7 26.0 18.5
Prefer not to answer 4.6 3.9 3.3
Anticipated Years in San Mateo (QD8)
Less than 5 21.7 20.5 20.0
5 to 10 29.7 29.6 25.2
11 to 15 11.0 9.2 10.5
16 or more 26.6 32.1 33.7
Prefer not to answer 11.0 8.6 10.5
Employment Status (QD9)
Full-time 58.3 61.4 63.4
Part-time 8.7 5.8 5.3
Student 6.4 5.3 5.4
Homemaker 2.4 1.1 2.5
Retired 15.3 18.0 15.6
Between jobs 4.2 3.8 2.2
Prefer not to answer 4.7 4.6 5.5
Ethnicity (QD12)
Caucasian / White 40.0 39.2 39.8
Asian American 23.9 21.6 18.3
Latino / Hispanic 26.6 27.4 23.5
Mixed or other 5.5 7.3 10.4
Prefer not to answer 4.0 4.5 8.0
Gender (QD2)
Male 48.6 47.8 45.2
Female 46.2 46.1 50.5
Non-binary 0.9 0.2 0.6
Prefer not to answer 4.4 5.9 3.7
Study Year
42 of 72
Methodology
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 34
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 systematic position bias in responses, the item s were asked in a random order for each respon- dent.
Some questions asked in this study were pres ented only to a subset of respondents. For example, only respondents who indicated they were interested in addi tional information from the City (Question 11) were subsequently asked to briefly describe their topics of interest (Ques- tion 12). The questionnaire in cluded with this report (see Questionnaire & Toplines on page 37) identifies the skip patterns used during the in terview to ensure that each respondent received the appropriate questions.
PROGRAMMING, PRE-TEST & TRANSLATION Prior to fielding the survey, the ques- tionnaire was CATI (Computer Assisted Telephon e Interviewing) programmed to assist inter- viewers when conducting the te lephone interviews. The CATI program automatically navigates the skip patterns, randomizes th e appropriate question items, an d 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 email invitations, text invita- tions, and telephone calls to both land lines and mobile lines, as appropriate. The 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 recruited by telephone to households that had yet to participate in the online survey in response to the 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 evenings (5:30PM to 9PM) and on weekends (10AM to 5PM). It is standard practice not to call during the day on weekdays because most work ing adults are unavailable and thus calling during those hours would bias the sample. A total of 750 completed surveys were gathered online and by telephone between February 8 and February 12, 2025.
43 of 72
Methodology
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 35City 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 750 adult residents for a particular question and what would have been found if all of the estimated 84,400 adult residents
3 had been interviewed.
Figure 28 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 alternative response. For this survey, the maximum margin of error is ± 3.6% for questions answered by all 750 respondents.
FIGURE 28 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 28 is thus useful for understanding how the maximum margin of error for a percentage estimate will grow as the number of individuals asked a question (or in a particular subgroup) shrinks. Because the margin of error grows exponentially as the sample size decreases, the reader should use caution when generalizing and interpreting the results for small subgroups.
DATA PROCESSING & WEIGHTING Data processing consisted of checking the data for errors or inconsistencies, coding and recoding responses, categorizing verbatim responses, and preparing frequency analyses and cross-tabulations. Where appropriate, tests of statistical signif- icance were conducted to evaluate changes in responses between the 2022 and 2025 studies.
The final data were weighted to balance the sample by key demographics according to Census estimates.
3. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2023 Americ an Community Survey 1-Year Estimates. 750 Respondents
± 3.6%
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
44 of 72
Methodology
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 36City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
ROUNDING Numbers that end in 0.5 or higher are rounded up to the nearest whole number, whereas numbers that end in 0.4 or lower are rounded down to the nearest whole number. These same rounding rules are also a pplied, when needed, to arrive at numbers that include a decimal place in constr ucting figures and tables. Occa sionally, these rounding rules lead to small discrepancies in the first decimal place when comparing ta bles and charts for a given question. Due to rounding, some figures and narrative include numbers that add to more than or less than 100%.
45 of 72
Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 37
City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Q UESTIONNAIRE & T OPLINES
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 Page 1
City of San Mateo
Community Opinion Survey
Final Toplines (n= 750)
February 2025
Section 1: Introduction to Study
Hi, may I please speak to: _____. Hi, my name is _____ and Im calling from TNR on behalf of the City of San Mateo (Muh-TAY-O). The City is conducting a survey of residents 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 21%
3 5 to 9 years 15%
4 10 to 14 years 9%
5 15 years or longer 49%
99 Not sure/Prefer not to answer 1%
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 22% 62% 13% 2% 1% 0% 0%
B San Mateo as a place to raise a family 22% 46% 15% 3% 1% 10% 3% C San Mateo as a place to work 14% 44% 16% 3% 0% 20% 3% D San Mateo as a place to retire 9% 26% 20% 16% 9% 20% 1% E San Mateo as a place to shop and dine 25% 51% 19% 3% 1% 0% 0% F San Mateo as a place to recreate 14% 48% 25% 6% 2% 5% 0%
46 of 72
Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 38City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
City of San Mateo Community Opinion Survey February 2025 True North Research, Inc. © 2025 Page 2
Q3 What do you like most about the City of San Mateo that should be preserved in the future? Verbatim responses recorded and later grouped into categories shown below.
Parks, recreation facilities, opportunities 19%
Shopping, dining opportunities 16%
Downtown area 12%
Not sure / Cannot think of anything specific 11%
City walkability 8%
Open, green space, mountains 7%
Low crime, public safety 7%
Diversity of businesses, cultures, activities 7%
Small town atmosphere 5%
Proximity to surrounding cities, areas 5%
Access to public transportation 5%
Public libraries 5%
Central Park 5%
Historical places 3%
Sense of community 3%
Good schools 3%
Neighborhoods, communities 3%
Access to bay, ocean 2%
Bike lanes 2%
Weather, clean air 2%
Friendly people, neighbors 2%
Less crowded, traffic than other cities 2%
Clean, well-maintained 2%
Single family homes 2%
B street closure, pedestrian walkway 2%
Good City planning, development 2%
Community events 2%
Local, small businesses 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 15%
Limit growth, preserve open space 10%
Provide more bike lanes 8%
47 of 72
Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 39City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
City of San Mateo Community Opinion Survey February 2025 True North Research, Inc. © 2025 Page 3
Not sure / Cannot think of anything specific 8%
Improve, maintain roads 7%
Reduce traffic congestion 7%
Improve parking 7%
Improve public transit 7%
Provide more shopping, dining
opportunities 6%
Improve, add parks, rec facilities 5%
Reduce cost of living 5%
Beautify, clean up City 4%
Provide additional youth, family activities,
events for different ages 4%
No changes needed / Everything is fine 4%
Improve schools, education 3%
Enforce traffic laws 3%
Address rent control 3%
Improve public safety, more police presence 2%
Improve downtown area 2%
Address homeless issues 2%
Reduce taxes, fees 2%
Improve planning, zoning 2%
Support police department 2%
Provide, improve sidewalks 2%
Improve walkability 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 21%
2 Somewhat satisfied 50%
3 Somewhat dissatisfied 12%
4 Very dissatisfied 5%
98 Not sure 11%
99 Prefer not to answer 1%
48 of 72
Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 40City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
City of San Mateo Community Opinion Survey February 2025 True North Research, Inc. © 2025 Page 4
Q6
For each of the services I read next, Id like you to tell me how satisfied you are with the job the city is doing to provide the service.
Are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the citys efforts to: ______, or do you not have an opinion? Get answer. If satisfied or dissatisfied, then ask: Would that be very (satisfied/dissatisfied) or somewhat (satisfied/dissatisfied)? Randomize
Very
satisfied
Somewhat
satisfied
Somewhat
dissatisfied
Very
dissatisfied
Not sure
Prefer not to
answer
A Provide police and crime prevention
services 27% 40% 10% 4% 16% 3%
B
Promote economic development to attract
new businesses and good-paying jobs to
the community
12% 37% 15% 9% 24% 2%
C Prepare the city for emergencies and
natural disasters 15% 33% 12% 4% 34% 1%
D Provide fire protection, prevention and
emergency medical services 35% 35% 3% 2% 24% 1%
E Manage traffic congestion 9% 38% 29% 17% 7% 1%
F Address homelessness 12% 33% 20% 12% 22% 1%
G Maintain public buildings and facilities like
City Hall, libraries and parking garages 39% 44% 5% 1% 10% 1% H Maintain local streets and roads 18% 42% 23% 13% 3% 0% I Maintain storm drains, sewers and creeks 21% 44% 15% 7% 12% 1% J Provide parks, sports fields and recreation
facilities 37% 41% 11% 3% 6% 1%
K Provide a variety of recreation programs for
all ages 29% 38% 11% 4% 16% 2%
L Provide special events like community
festivals and holiday celebrations 31% 42% 8% 3% 14% 2% M
Enforce code violations to address issues
like abandoned vehicles, non-permitted
construction, and yards not being properly
maintained
13% 31% 16% 8% 28% 3%
N Protect the environment 18% 37% 11% 5% 27% 2%
O Provide paths and trails for walking,
jogging, and running 27% 42% 17% 5% 8% 1%
P Provide bicycle lanes and paths 18% 32% 19% 12% 16% 3% Q Clean up litter and trash that people dump
along streets, sidewalks and in public areas 23% 45% 18% 8% 5% 1% R Facilitate the creation of affordable housing 8% 21% 24% 22% 22% 4% S Provide library services 60% 25% 2% 1% 11% 1%
T Manage land use and development 9% 28% 24% 13% 25% 2%
49 of 72
Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 41City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
City of San Mateo Community Opinion Survey February 2025 True North Research, Inc. © 2025 Page 5
Section 4: Strategic Plan
The City of San Mateo is in the process of updating its Strategic Plan. The Strategic Plan will guide the Citys future decisions on a variety of topics that affect the quality of life in the city and set priorities for the next year.
Q7
As I read each of the following items, please indicate whether you think the item should be a high priority, a medium priority, or a low priority for San Mateo to accomplish in the next two years. If you feel the item should not be a priority, just say so. Please keep in mind that not all of the items can be high priorities.
Here is the (first/next) one: _____. Should this be a high, medium, or low priority for the City to accomplish in the next two years, 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
Facilitate the development of more
affordable housing for middle- and low-
income families
51% 25% 11% 10% 1% 1%
B
Improve the Citys transportation system to
reduce traffic and encourage walking, biking
and transit use
51% 31% 10% 5% 2% 1%
C
Move toward a sustainable environment by
protecting resources and reducing waste,
pollution, and greenhouse gas emissions
47% 32% 13% 7% 0% 1%
D
Improve the Citys economic vitality through
business-friendly policies, revitalizing
outdated commercial areas, and attracting a
diverse mix of employers and jobs to the city
39% 43% 13% 3% 2% 1%
E Improve public safety including police and
fire protection services 39% 38% 15% 5% 3% 0%
F Improve the Citys preparedness for
emergencies and natural disasters 43% 44% 8% 2% 2% 0%
G
Upgrade and maintain public infrastructure
including streets, stormwater systems, parks,
pools, fire stations, libraries, community
centers, and other public facilities
60% 33% 5% 1% 1% 0%
H
Strengthen the Citys engagement and
transparent communications with the
community
30% 43% 18% 4% 5% 0%
I
Ensure the City has a sufficient number of
employees to provide responsive, high
quality city services to residents
30% 50% 11% 3% 4% 0%
J Stabilize and balance the Citys long-term
financial condition 42% 45% 7% 1% 5% 1%
K
Improve the appearance of the City by
removing trash and graffiti, improving
landscaping, and beautification projects
30% 44% 19% 5% 1% 1%
50 of 72
Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 42City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
City of San Mateo Community Opinion Survey February 2025 True North Research, Inc. © 2025 Page 6
L
Encourage health and wellness for residents
of all ages through recreation, activities, and
providing access to healthy foods,
community services, and green spaces
38% 42% 14% 4% 1% 1%
Q8
Is there a goal I didn’t mention that you think should be a high priority for the City in the next two years? If yes, ask: Please briefly describe it to me. Verbatim responses recorded and later grouped into categories shown below.
No additional goals / Cant think of anything 67%
Improve city planning, development 3%
Provide, improve schools, education 2%
Enforce traffic laws 2%
Provide affordable housing 2%
Improve roads, infrastructure 2%
Reduce traffic, congestion 2%
Provide, improve parks, rec facilities 2%
Lower property taxes 1%
Improve Central Park playground 1%
Improve public safety, security 1%
Beautify City, landscape 1%
Lower cost of living 1%
Redevelop rundown commercial areas, lots 1%
Limit growth, development 1%
Provide more, safer bike lanes, walking trails 1%
Attract upscale businesses 1%
Address PG&E issues 1%
Address parking issues 1%
Address homelessness 1%
Provide more grocery stores 1%
Improve public transit 1%
Address rent control 1%
Revitalize downtown 1%
Improve assistance to seniors 1%
Reduce building permit restrictions 1%
Improve city-resident communication 1%
Disaster preparedness, prevention 1%
Address immigration issues 1%
Improve government process, transparency 1%
Improve public health 1%
51 of 72
Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 43City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
City of San Mateo Community Opinion Survey February 2025 True North Research, Inc. © 2025 Page 7
Section 5: Mobility
Q9 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 57% 31% 6% 1% 0% 4% 1%
B Use public transit such as a bus or train 4% 10% 9% 8% 19% 50% 1% C Use Uber, Lyft or taxi 1% 3% 11% 15% 29% 40% 1%
D Walk from your home to a local store or
restaurant 14% 29% 19% 7% 10% 20% 1%
E Ride a bicycle or a scooter 5% 13% 6% 6% 11% 59% 1%
F Paratransit 1% 2% 1% 1% 2% 89% 4%
Section 6: Communications
Q10
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 22%
2 Somewhat satisfied 48%
3 Somewhat dissatisfied 12%
4 Very dissatisfied 5%
98 Not sure 12%
99 Prefer not to answer 1%
Q11 Is there a particular topic or issue that youd like to receive more information about from the City?
1 Yes 24% Ask Q12
2 No 67% Skip to Q13
99 Prefer not to answer 9% Skip to Q13
Q12 Please briefly describe the topic. Verbatim responses recorded and later grouped into categories shown below.
Commercial, residential development, plans 19%
City planning, vision 15%
Road, infrastructure maintenance 14%
Affordable housing 10%
Community events 7%
52 of 72
Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 44City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
City of San Mateo Community Opinion Survey February 2025 True North Research, Inc. © 2025 Page 8
City, public safety 6%
Traffic issues, updates 5%
Speeding, traffic enforcement issues 5%
Not sure / Cannot think of anything specific 5%
Public transportation 4%
City budgeting, finances 4%
Bike lanes infrastructure, plans 4%
Disaster preparedness, prevention 4%
Recreational facility renovations,
improvements 4%
Economic forecasts, indicators 3%
Volunteer opportunities, community
engagement info 3%
Recreational programs 2%
Noise control 2%
Senior assistance 2%
Parking issues, enforcement 2%
Q13 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) 13%
2 Mercury News (daily newspaper) 5%
3 San Mateo Daily J ournal (daily
newspaper) 36%
4 Daily Post (daily newspaper) 4%
5 Other newspaper 2%
City Sources
6 City Website 18%
7 Email notifications from City 32%
8 Letters, postcards, flyers or brochures
mailed from City to your home 29%
9 Flyers and QR codes placed at city
facilities and around the city 5%
10 Street banners or message signs 10%
11 City Council Meetings 2%
Internet & Social Media
12 Internet (not Citys site) 13%
13 Facebook 8%
14 X/Twitter 2%
53 of 72
Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 45City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
City of San Mateo Community Opinion Survey February 2025 True North Research, Inc. © 2025 Page 9
15 Instagram 9%
16 Other social media site 6%
17 Nextdoor.com 13%
18 Blogs 1%
Other
19 Television (general) 4%
20 Radio 1%
21 HOA or neighborhood association 3%
22 Friends/Family/Associates/Word of
mouth 14%
23 Other 5%
24 Do not receive information about City 4%
98 Not sure 3%
99 Prefer not to answer 2%
Q14
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 46% 42% 7% 3% 1%
B Postcards, letters and newsletters mailed to
your home 34% 44% 17% 3% 1%
C Citys Website 20% 51% 19% 8% 1%
D Advertisements in local papers 6% 32% 50% 11% 1%
E Social media like Facebook, X and Nextdoor 31% 37% 20% 11% 2% F Townhall meetings 8% 41% 35% 14% 2%
G Television programs 7% 26% 52% 14% 1%
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 recorded and grouped into categories shown below. 18 to 24 11%
25 to 34 22%
35 to 44 17%
45 to 54 16%
55 to 64 13%
54 of 72
Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 46City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
City of San Mateo Community Opinion Survey February 2025 True North Research, Inc. © 2025 Page 10
65 or older 17%
Prefer not to answer 3%
D2 What is your gender?
1 Male 49%
2 Female 46%
3 Non-binary 1%
99 Prefer not to answer 4%
D3 Do you have one or more children under the age of 18 living in your household? 1 Yes 26% Ask D4
2 No 69% Skip to D5
99 Prefer not to answer 5% Skip to D5
D4 Do you have one or more children under the age of six living in your household? 1 Yes 43%
2 No 56%
99 Prefer not to answer 1%
D5 Do you have one or more adults 65 years of age or older in your household? 1 Yes 28%
2 No 68%
99 Prefer not to answer 4%
D6 Do you own or rent your residence in San Mateo?
1 Own 47%
2 Rent 46%
99 Prefer not to answer 7%
D7 Which of the following best describes your current home? 1 Single family detached home 52%
2 Townhome 8%
3 Condominium 11%
4 Apartment 25%
99 Prefer not to answer 5%
55 of 72
Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 47City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
City of San Mateo Community Opinion Survey February 2025 True North Research, Inc. © 2025 Page 11
D8 How many more years do you anticipate that you will be living in the City of San Mateo? 1 Less than 5 years 22%
2 5 to 10 years 30%
3 11 to 15 years 11%
4 16 years or more 27%
99 Prefer not to answer 11%
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 58% Ask D10
2 Employed part-time 9% Ask D10
3 Student 6% Skip to D12
4 Homemaker 2% Skip to D12
5 Retired 15% Skip to D12
6 In-between jobs 4% Skip to D12
98 Not sure 5% Skip to D12
99 Prefer not to answer 58% 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 16% Ask D11
2 Commuting to a workplace outside
home 44% Skip to D12
3 Mixture of both 39% Ask D11
99 Prefer not to answer 1% Skip to D12
D11 How many days do you primarily work from home in a typical week? 0 Zero 1%
1 One 12%
2 Two 24%
3 Three 21%
4 Four 12%
5 Five or more 27%
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 40%
2 Asian -- Korean, Chinese, Vietnamese,
Japanese, Filipino or other Asian 24%
56 of 72
Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 48City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
City of San Mateo Community Opinion Survey February 2025 True North Research, Inc. © 2025 Page 12
3 Indian (India) 1%
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 4%
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%
57 of 72
1 1 of 15
Christina Horrisberger - Assistant City Manager
Timothy McLarney Ph.D. - True North Research
COMMUNITY SURVEY
–
2025
58 of 72
2 2 of 15
oIn 2020 City Council decided to conduct
statistically reliable community surveys to hear
from a cross section of the community in a reliable
and consistent manner
oApproximately every 2 years – 2020; 2022; 2025
oGeneral topics (e.g. quality of life; satisfaction with City services)
oTimely Topics (e.g. land use; housing; parks; finances) o2025 Survey gears up for City’s Strategic Planning process o Strategic Plan Workshop: March 14, 2025; MLK Center; 9am -3pm
SURVEY BACKGROUND
59 of 72
COMMUNITY OPINION SURVEY
CONDUCTED FOR THE
CITY OF SAN MATEO
PRESENTED BY
TIMOTHY MCLARNEY PH.D.
60 of 72
4 4 of 15
o How did we select residents to survey?
o Stratified random sample of adult residents
o Balanced, representative sample that aligns with Census estimates o How did we recruit participation?
o Personalized email, text, and telephone calls
o PINs to restrict access and ensure one complete per respondent o How were respondents able to share their opinions?
o Secure, PIN -protected website that scales to the device o Telephone (land line or mobile)
o English & Spanish
o What was the sample size?
o 750 completed interviews
o Overall margin of error of ± 3.6% @ 95% level of confidence
METHODOLOGY OF STUDY
61 of 72
5 5 of 15
RATING CITY OF SAN MATEO
22.0 24.6
21.7 13.6
13.8 9.4
61.7 51.5
45.7 48.4
44.2 25.5
13.3 18.7
15.4 24.9
16.1 19.9
2 3
3 3
1 6
15.5 8.7
2 1
1 5
22.8 21.0
12.8 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
The overall quality of life in the City of 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 recreate
San Mateo as a place to work
San Mateo as a place to retire
% Respondents
Excellent Good Fair Poor Very poor Not sure/Prefer not to answer
62 of 72
6 6 of 15
LIKE MOST ABOUT SAN MATEO
18.6 15.8
12.1 10.7
8.3 7.4
6.6 6.6
5.4 5.2
5.2 3.6
3.5 2.9
2.8 2.6
2.5 2.5
2.4 2.4
2.3 2.2
2.1 2.1
1.6 1.5
2.2 5.4
4.7 0 5 10 15 20
Parks, recreation facilities, opportunities
Shopping, dining opportunities
Downtown area
Not sure / Cannot think of anything specific
City walkability
Diversity of businesses, cultures, activities
Low crime, public safety
Open, green space, mountains
Central Park
Access to public transportation
Proximity to surrounding cities, areas
Small town atmosphere
Public libraries
Local, small businesses
Good schools
Sense of community
Historical places
Neighborhoods, communities
Friendly people, neighbors
B street closure, pedestrian walkway
Access to bay, ocean
Clean, well-maintained
Community events
Small businesses
Weather, clean air
Bike lanes
Good City planning, development
Single family homes
Less crowded, traffic than other cities
% Respondents
63 of 72
7 7 of 15
CHANGES TO IMPROVE CITY
14.7 9.8
8.1 7.6
7.3 7.0
6.9 6.7
5.7 4.8
4.4 3.5
3.4 3.4
3.3 2.4
2.4 2.4
1.9 1.9
1.7 1.7
3.8 5.4
1.7 0 5 10 15
Provide more affordable housing
Limit growth, preserve open space
Not sure / Cannot think of anything specific
Provide more bike lanes
Improve public transit
Reduce traffic congestion
Improve, maintain roads
Improve parking
Provide more shopping, dining opportunities
Reduce cost of living
Improve, add parks, rec facilities
Beautify, clean up City
No changes needed / Everything is fine
Provide addt'l youth, family activities, events for different ages Improve schools, education
Enforce traffic laws
Address rent control
Improve public safety, more police presence
Improve walkability
Provide, improve sidewalks
Improve planning, zoning
Support police department
Improve downtown area
Reduce taxes, fees
Address homeless issues
% Respondents
64 of 72
8 8 of 15
OVERALL SATISFACTION
BY STUDY YEAR
49.4 53.9
10.6 9.5
19.224.520.9
50.1 12.412.4
4.6 5.35.2
8.411.5
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
2025 2022 2020
Study Year
% Respondents
Prefer not to
answer
N ot sure
Very
dissatisfied
Somew hat
dissatisfied
Somew hat
satisfied
Very
satisfied
65 of 72
9 9 of 15
SATISFACTION WITH CITY SERVICES
67.5 47.1
43.3 36.3
40.0 32.8
35.8 25.7
29.8 23.8
24.5 24.6
16.9 19.0
19.1 22.2
15.6 9.6
12.7 11.0
28.8 46.3
49.1 50.4
44.3 49.5
46.0 52.2
46.2 51.9
50.1 47.2
50.2 45.4
43.7 39.4
42.9 41.1
37.4 27.8
23.2 26.2
31.3 32.7
31.7 15.2
18.1 17.2
29.5 24.3
19.2 17.6
18.8 18.4
2 4.3
6.0 9.7
12.1 12.7
12.8 15.6
20.2 23.5 12.1
12.7 6.5
5.4 5.0
13.0 15.3
9.0 7.8
5.6 5.6
1 2
1 3.6
3.6 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Prov ide library serv ices
Provide fire protection, prevention and emergency medical services Maintain public buildings and facilities like City Hall, libraries, parking garages Provide special events like community festivals and holiday celebrations Provide parks, sports fields and recreation facilities Provide police and crime prevention services
Prov ide a v ariety of recreation programs for all ages Protect the environment
Provide paths and trails for walking, jogging and running Prepare the city for emergencies and natural disasters
Maintain storm drains, sewers and creeks
Clean up litter, trash that people dump along streets, sidewalks, in public areas Promote economic development to attract new businesses, good-paying jobs Enforce codes to address issues like abandoned vehicles, non-permitted construction Maintain local streets and roads
Provide bicycle lanes and paths
Address homelessness
Manage traffic congestion
Manage land use and development
Facilitate the creation of affordable housing
% Respondents Who Provided Opinion
Very satisfied Somewhat satisfied Somewhat dissatisfied Very dissatisfied
66 of 72
10 10 of 15
STRATEGIC PLAN PRIORITIES
60.0 43.3
41.5 51.3
38.8 30.3
38.1 46.9
39.1 50.6
30.4 29.7
33.1 44.5
44.5 31.4
42.7 50.4
42.0 31.9
38.1 25.4
44.4 43.1
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Upgrade, maintain public infrastructure, streets, stormwater systems, parks, pools, fire stations, libraries, community centers, other public facilities Improve the City’s preparedness for emergencies and natural disasters Stabilize and balance the City’s long-term financial condition Improve City’s transportation system to reduce traffic, encourage walking, biking, transit use
Improve City’s economic vitality through business-friendly policies, revitalizing outdated commercial areas, attracting diverse mix of employers, jobs Ensure City has a sufficient number of employees to provide responsive, high quality city services to residents
Encourage health, wellness for residents of all ages through rec, activities, providing access to healthy foods, community services, green spaces Move toward a sustainable environment by protecting resources, reducing waste, pollution, greenhouse gas emissions
Improve public safety including police and fire protection services Facilitate development of more affordable housing for middle, low-income families Improv e appearance of the City by remov ing trash and graffiti, improv ing landscaping, beautification projects
Strengthen the City’s engagement, transparent communications with the community % Respondents
High priority Medium priority
67 of 72
11 11 of 15
SATISFACTION WITH COMMUNICATION
BY STUDY YEAR
44.1 48.7
16.8 12.5
22.2 18.3 21.3
48.1 11.8† 14.3
7.9 5.04.8†
11.6 10.2
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
2025 2022 2020
Study Year
% Respondents
Prefer not to
answer
N ot sure
Very dissatisfied
Somew hat
dissatisfied
Somew hat
satisfied
Very satisfied
† Statistically significant change (p < 0.05) between the 2022 and 2025 studies
68 of 72
12 12 of 15
INFORMATION TOPICS DESIRED
19.3 15.4
14.0 9.6
7.3 5.7
5.0 5.0
5.0 4.3
3.9 3.7
3.5 2.7
2.4 2.2
2.0 1.8
4.4 3.8
0 5 10 15 20
Commercial, residential development, plans
City planning, vision
Road, infrastructure maintenance
Affordable housing
Community events
City, public safety
Traffic issues, updates
Not sure / Cannot think of anything specific
Speeding, traffic enforcement issues
Bike lanes infrastructure, plans
City budgeting, finances
Recreational facility renovations, improvements
Disaster preparedness, prevention
Public transportation
Economic forecasts, indicators
Volunteer opportunities, community engagement info
Senior assistance
Noise control
Recreational programs
Parking issues, enforcement
% Respondents Who Desire More Info
69 of 72
13 13 of 15
EFFECTIVENESS OF COMMUNICATION
METHODS
45.7 33.8
20.3 30.7
8.4 6.0
7.1 42.3
44.1 51.2
37.2 40.6
31.8 25.8
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Email
Postcards, letters and newsletters mailed to your home
City’s Website
Social media like Facebook, X and Nextdoor
Townhall meetings
Advertisements in local papers
Television programs
% Respondents
Very effective Somewhat effective
70 of 72
14 14 of 15
Residents continue to be satisfied with San Mateo and the City’s performance o Overall quality of life
o Overall performance in providing municipal services
o Customer service provided by staff
o Statistically significant improvements in 7 performance areas, just 2 declines Specific Strengths
o Library services
o Fire & EMS
o Maintain public buildings
o Special community events
o Parks, sports fields, and recreation facilities
o Police and crime prevention
o Recreation programs
Priority/Opportunities Areas
o Facilitating more affordable housing
o Managing land use and development
o Managing traffic congestion
o Addressing homelessness
o Promoting economic development
o Maintaining public infrastructure
o Emergency preparedness
o Stabilizing and balancing City’s long -term fiscal condition
KEY CONCLUSIONS
71 of 72
15 15 of 15
QUESTIONS???
THANK YOU!
72 of 72