Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Renter Survey topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
City's renter survey shows high self-reported rent burden; public and commissioners flag small sample and representativeness concerns
Summary
Staff presented results of a fall 2023 renter survey showing roughly three-quarters of respondents reported spending 30% or more of income on housing; commissioners and residents questioned the sample size, translation/ outreach and representativeness.
City staff on Feb. 5 summarized results from a renter survey conducted July through September 2023 as an early community-engagement snapshot for housing-element implementation.
Leslie Mendez, planning and building manager, said the survey sought renter input and was distributed online and in hard copy; staff sent a postcard with a QR code to multifamily rental addresses and made print copies available at the library, community center and senior center. Mendez said the online survey was available in multiple languages and that printed copies were provided in English and Chinese.
Mendez reported the survey captured 238 total respondents (staff later corrected an earlier figure presented in public comments). Of those respondents, she said about 81% identified as renters and 11% as housing providers. The presentation said roughly 70% of respondents reported rents between $1,500 and $3,000 (excluding utilities) and approximately 75% reported spending 30% or more of their income on housing costs (rent plus utilities), the common definition of rent-burdened.
The survey asked about housing conditions and tenure; Mendez said about 50% of renter respondents had lived in their home more than five years and about 36% of responding households reported children. The presentation also highlighted that only about 34% of respondents said they were aware of the city's rent-review program, suggesting outreach gaps.
Public commenters and several commissioners questioned the survey's statistical representativeness. Multiple speakers said the voluntary survey could overrepresent people with strong views and undercount harder-to-reach groups. Commenters urged cross-tabulation of responses (for example, rent burden by household type and housing condition) and comparison with Census/ACS data; staff said it would prepare further cross-analysis and noted the survey was not meant to be statistically significant but rather a community snapshot.
Speakers also asked whether postcards had been sent to UC Village and whether a comprehensive rental-registry exists; staff said the city does not have a complete rent registry but does maintain knowledge of multifamily properties and that staff would follow up on the UC Village mailing question.
Several speakers recommended broader outreach and additional surveys to increase response counts and to compare local results with state and Bay Area statistics. The commission asked staff to provide more demographic cross-tabs and to supplement the survey with Census/ACS data as part of ongoing housing-element work.
