CITY OF SAN MATEO
City Council Special Meeting
May 20, 2024
5:00 PM
City Hall Council Chamber 330 W.
20th Avenue San Mateo CA 94403
Entrance is on O’Farrell Street
COUNCIL MEMBERS
Lisa Diaz Nash, Mayor
Rob Newsom Jr., Deputy Mayor
Rich Hedges
Amourence Lee
Adam Loraine
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:
Monday, May 20, 2024
To join via telephone: (408) 638-0968
Webinar ID: 897 2220 1333 Passcode: 559580
CALL TO ORDER
Roll Call
AB 2449 Requests and Considerations 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: Shawnna Maltbie, Yumi Maeda, Karen Huang, Abby Veeser and Stacey Cue.
Employee Organizations: Police Sergeants’ Association, San Mateo City Employees Association, SEIU Maintenance and SEIU Non-Merit Part-Time
STUDY SESSION
The public will have an opportunity to comment during the consideration of this item.
2. Potential Ballot Measures for November 2024 - Results From Community Survey and Council Direction Receive a presentation from staff and our consultants, Team CivX and True North Research, concerning potential ballot measures for the November 2024 election and our recent community survey results; and provide staff with direction on which potential ballot measures to proceed with informing and educating the community.
CEQA: This survey not a project subject to CEQA, because it can be seen with certainty that it will not cause a physical change in the environment. (Public Resources Code Section 21065.)
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.
1 of 46
WATCHING A MEETING ON TV:
City Council meetings are broadcast live on Comcast/channel 27, Wave/channel 26, or AT&T/channel 99.
For transmission problems during the broadcast, please call (650) 522-7099. For all other broadcast comments, call (650) 522-7040, Monday-Friday, 8 a.m. - 5 p.m.
WATCHING A MEETING ON A COMPUTER:
There are three ways to stream.
1) Public Meeting Portal
www.cityofsanmateo.org/publicmeetings
2) City YouTube channel and stream it on YouTube:
http://youtube.com/CityofSanMateo
3) Watch TV live stream:
https://www.cityofsanmateo.org/193/Channel-San-Mateo-Live-Stream
PUBLIC COMMENTS/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 46
CITY OF SAN MATEO
4 6
1 9
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: 24-8778 TO: City Council
FROM: Alex Khojikian, City Manager
PREPARED BY: City Manager's Office
MEETING DATE: May 20, 2024
SUBJECT:
Potential Ballot Measures for November 2024 - Results From Community Survey and Council Direction RECOMMENDATION:
Receive a presentation from staff and our consultants, Team CivX and True North Research, concerning potential ballot measures for the November 2024 election and our recent community survey results; and provide staff with direction on which potential ballot measures to proceed with informing and educating the community.
BACKGROUND:
On March 18, 2024, the City Council adopted General Plan 2040, which includes proposed land use designations that exceed the current voter-approved height and housing density limits on some properties within the 10 study areas where growth is planned through 2040. Voter approval is needed to fully implement the heights and densities in the land use map in the adopted General Plan. The land use map includes five designations that exceed the voter approved height and density limits (Mixed-Use Medium II and High, Residential Medium II and High, and Office High). The land use map with these height and density limits was developed through six years of community outreach and engagement and anticipates the community’s housing needs through 2040 as well as allocations the City will be required to plan for by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). HCD informed the City that adoption of these land use designations will be key to maintaining a certified Housing Element, which is required by the State.
Separately, on December 5, 2022, the City Council experienced a situation where the timing of the mayoral rotation process came into question. Since that time, the City Council has expressed interest in amending the City’s Charter to avoid similar situations in the future. Amending the Charter requires voter approval. The Council has held several study sessions and two public hearings on potential Charter amendments, including those that address the mayoral rotation process.
To determine whether to place measures on the November 2024 election ballot, staff engaged a community survey consultant and an elections consultant. Additionally, a subcommittee of the City Council was formed to work periodically at key decision points with staff and the consultants. The Subcommittee comprised of Mayor Diaz-Nash and Councilmember Loraine joined the staff/consultant team twice; once to review and provide input on the draft survey prior to distribution, and once to review the survey results, refine the proposed ballot language, and help identify stakeholders for education and outreach. The subcommittee members approved the revised ballot language and outreach plan and are reviewing the stakeholder list.
If any of the proposed measures are placed on the ballot, the next step in the process will be for staff and Councilmembers to objectively educate and inform the community about them between May 21 and July 15, when this item again comes to City Council for a decision on whether to place a ballot measure on the November ballot. While the Council may take a
3 of 46
CITY OF SAN MATEO
4 6
1 9
position on the measures, the City is prohibited from using its resources to advocate for the measures and must cease its outreach and education activities after placing the measure(s) on the ballot. City staff may still respond to inquiries about the measures by providing objective, impartial information.
SURVEY:
Survey Consulting. The City engaged True North Research (“TNR”) to conduct a survey of the community regarding the potential ballot measures the City is considering for the general election in November 2024. TNR launched the survey in April 2024 and collected 600 opinions from likely November 2024 voters before preparing the attached report. 600 is the number needed for a statistically valid survey.
Survey Structure. The survey (Attachment 1) followed a mixed-method design that employed multiple recruiting methods (email, text, and telephone) and multiple data collection methods (telephone and online). Administered in English and Spanish between April 15 and April 22, 2024, the average interview lasted 16 minutes. The survey asked about quality of life, what San Mateo voters would like to see in their community, and about satisfaction with City services, as well as testing potential ballot language and reasons to support or oppose the potential ballot measures.
Survey Findings. San Mateo voters have a high opinion of the City, with over 83% rating their Quality of Life as good or excellent and over 77% expressing satisfaction with City Services. They recognize the need for additional affordable housing, but also have concerns about limiting growth and development, traffic congestion, and protecting parks and open space. These sentiments led many voters to support the proposed planning measure as a balanced solution — by concentrating future housing downtown along the El Camino corridor and near Caltrain stations where it is close to transit, jobs, infrastructure, and services, the measure would provide additional affordable housing for low- and middle-income residents and enable the City to meet State housing requirements while also enhancing parks and open space, protecting existing residential neighborhoods, and reducing traffic impacts. Support for the measure ranged between 62% and 66%, with a 4% margin of error, depending on the context. There was some confusion about whether this could be a tax measure, which is a common misconception amongst voters on ballot measures that are unrelated to taxation, and the subcommittee recommended inserting the phrase without raising taxes” into the proposed ballot measure language to ward off any potential confusion.
When asked to consider the two potential Charter Amendment measures, respondents were strongly supportive (63%) of requiring the selection of the Mayor and Deputy Mayor at the first regular Council Meeting following the election unless postponed by a unanimous vote of the Council or a natural disaster. Opinions were evenly mixed, however, regarding requiring that selection of the Mayor and Deputy Mayor follow a set rotation based on seniority – rather than the Mayor and Deputy Mayor being selected by a vote of current councilmembers (34% support, 38% oppose, 28% unsure/prefer not to answer).
Ballot Measure Consulting. The City engaged Team CivX to provide guidance toward potential ballot measures for the November 2024 election. Team CivX assisted the City with the survey, and to prepare educational materials and messages, and provide overall election guidance.
Based on the content of the Charter Amendments, both Team CivX and TNR consultants recommend that the Council defer placing these items on the ballot until the 2026 election. In their view, the timing of these measures may impact the success of the land use measure, which is critical to the ongoing certification of the Housing Element.
NEXT STEPS:
Following Council direction, the City will engage in an educational outreach effort to inform the community about the potential November 2024 ballot measures from May 21 through July 14, 2024. This outreach will include meeting with dozens of community stakeholder organizations and providing educational information to the community. It is anticipated that five members of staff and Councilmembers will participate in this effort. Informational outreach to the full community will include three communitywide mailers and digital advertising that is linked to the City’s dedicated informational website. State election law requires that the City no longer spend City resources or staff time on outreach to
4 of 46
CITY OF SAN MATEO
4 6
1 9
the community once Council makes a final determination that an item will be placed on the ballot, which is anticipated to be decided on July 15, 2024.
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL FEEDBACK:
1. Should the City proceed with education and outreach on the land use measure and return to Council for a decision whether to place it on the November 2024 ballot?
2. Should the City proceed with education and outreach on the Charter amendment measures and return to Council for a decision whether to place them on the November 2024 ballot?
3. Does the City Council have feedback on staffs’ proposed education and information outreach plan between May 21 and July 14?
4. Should the land use ballot language be revised to insert the phrase “without raising taxes“ to clarify that there is no tax increase related to the November 2024 ballot. The revised ballot language is below. The additional language is in parentheses and bold proposed measure, which would read as follows:
To allow for additional affordable housing for low- and middle-income residents and meet State housing requirements (without raising taxes) while enhancing parks and open space, protecting existing residential neighborhoods, and reducing traffic impacts, shall the City of San Mateo's measure be adopted allowing future housing to be concentrated downtown along the El Camino corridor and near Caltrain stations where it is close to transit, jobs, infrastructure, and services?
BUDGET IMPACT:
There are no costs associated with receiving this report. Funding for consultant services have already been appropriated.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:
This survey not a project subject to CEQA, because it can be seen with certainty that it will not cause a physical change in the environment. (Public Resources Code Section 21065.) NOTICE PROVIDED:
All meeting noticing requirements were met.
ATTACHMENTS:
Att 1 – Community Survey Report
STAFF CONTACT:
Christina Horrisberger, Assistant City Manager
[email protected]
(650) 522-7210
Tara Peterson, Interim Deputy Director of Special Projects - Community Development Department [email protected]
(650) 522-7235
5 of 46
6 of 46
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
7 of 46
Table of Contents
iCity of San Mateo True No rth Research, Inc. © 2024
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
T ABLE OF C ONTENTS
Table of Contents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii List of Figures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Motivation for Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Overview of Methodology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Organization of Report. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Disclaimer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 About True North . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Key Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Quality of Life & City Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Quality of Life. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Question 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Changes to Improve San Mateo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Question 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Overall Performance Rating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Question 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Initial Ballot Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Question 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Support by Subgroups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Reasons for Not Supporting Measure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Question 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Positive Arguments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Question 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Positive Arguments by Initial Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Interim Ballot Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Question 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Support by Subgroups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Negative Arguments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Question 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Negative Arguments by Initial Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Final Ballot Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Question 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Change in Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Charter Amendments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Question 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Question 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Background & Demographics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Questionnaire Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Programming, Pre-Test & Translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Sample. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Statistical Margin of Error . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Recruiting & Data Collection. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Data Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Rounding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Questionnaire & Toplines. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
8 of 46
List of Tables
True North Research, Inc. © 2024 ii
City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
L IST OF T ABLES
Table 1 Demographic Breakdown of Support at Initial Ballot Test. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Table 2 Top Positive Arguments by Position at Initial Ballot Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Table 3 Demographic Breakdown of Support at Interim Ballot Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Table 4 Top Negative Arguments by Position at Initia l Ballot Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Table 5 Demographic Breakdown of Support at Final Ballot Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Table 6 Movement Between Initial & Final Ballot Test. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Table 7 Demographics of Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
9 of 46
List of Figures
True North Research, Inc. © 2024 iii
City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
L IST OF F IGURES
Figure 1 Quality of Life . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Figure 2 Quality of Life by Years in San Mateo, Age, Child in Hsld, Homeowner on Voter File & Gender. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Figure 3 Changes to Improve City. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Figure 4 Overall Satisfaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Figure 5 Overall Satisfaction by Years in San Mateo, Age, Child in Hsld, Homeowner on Voter File & Gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Figure 6 Initial Ballot Test. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Figure 7 Reasons for not Supporting Measure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Figure 8 Positive Arguments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Figure 9 Interim Ballot Test. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Figure 10 Negative Arguments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Figure 11 Final Ballot Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 8 Figure 12 Charter Amendment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Figure 13 Charter Amendment Part 1 by Party, Overall Satisfaction, Age & Voting Propensity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Figure 14 Charter Amendment Part 2 by Party, Overall Satisfaction, Age & Voting Propensity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Figure 15 Maximum Margin of Error Due to Sampling. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
10 of 46
Introduction
True North Research, Inc. © 2024 1
City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
I NTRODUCTION
Like most California cities, San Mateo relies on its General Plan to guide decisions with respect to land use, development, mobility, sustainability, and related policy matters. In 2018, the City embarked upon a process to update the General Pl an to ensure that it reflects current commu- nity values, updated technical and environmenta l information, and addresses relevant issues that have surfaced since the existing General Plan was created. Over the following six years, as part of the General Plan Update effort, the Ci ty conducted extensive community outreach and engagement and used the input received to develop Strive San Mateo General Plan 2040, which was adopted by the City Council in March 2024.
One of the key challenges that is addressed in the General Plan is how best to accommodate future growth and development. Ca lifornia State law requires that all cities plan for additional housing. With a general shortage of housing in California, the state is requiring that the City of San Mateo plan for 7,015 new units by 2031, and it is expected that the State will require the City to plan for about 15,000 new units by 2040. Rather than spread future housing throughout the City which would impact/add density to existing residential neighborhoods, the General Plan proposes to concentrate future housing in taller buildings in select locations that are closer to transit, jobs, infrastructure, and services, primarily downtown along El Camino Real and near Cal Train stations. However, this approach will require voter approval as it will amend how Measure Y applies to these select areas.
MOTIVATION FOR RESEARCH The primary purpose of this study was to produce an unbiased, statistically reli able evaluation of voters’ interest in supporting a ballot measure that would allow future housing in San Mateo to be concentrated downtown along the El Camino cor- ridor and near Caltrain stations. Additionally, should the City decide to move forward with a mea- sure, the survey data can guide how best to struct ure a measure so that it is consistent with the community's priorities and expressed needs.
It is important to note at the outset that vote rs’ opinions about ballot measures are often some- what fluid, especially when the amount of information they initially have about a measure is lim- ited. How voters think and feel about a measure today may not be the same way they think and feel once they have had a chance to hear mo re information about the measure in the months leading up to election day. Accordingly, to a ccurately assess the feasibility of passing the pro- posed ballot measure, it was important that in addition to measuring current opinions about the measure (Question 5), the survey expose respon dents to the types of information voters are likely to encounter in future months—including arguments in favor of (Question 7) and opposed to (Question 9) the measure—and gauge how this information ultimately impacts their voting decision (Questions 8 & 10).
OVERVIEW OF METHODOLOGY For a full discussion of the research methods and tech- niques used in this study, turn to Methodology on page 24. In brief, the survey was administered to a random sample of 600 registered voters in the City of San Mateo who are likely to partici- pate in the November 2024 general election. The survey followed a mixed-method design that employed multiple recruiting methods (email, text, and telephone) and multiple data collection methods (telephone and online). Administered in English and Spanish between April 15 and April 22, 2024, the average interview lasted 16 minutes.
11 of 46
Introduction
True North Research, Inc. © 2024 2City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
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 pro- vides a summary of the most important findings of the survey and a discussion of their implica- tions. For the interested reader, this section is followed by a more detailed question-by-question discussion of the results from 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 27) and a complete set of crosstabulations for the survey results is contained in Appendix A.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS True North thanks the City of San Mateo for the opportunity to assist the city in this important effort. The collective expertise, local knowledge, and insight pro- vided by city staff and represen tatives improved the overall quality of the research presented here. A special thanks also to Barry Barnes (Tea mCivX) for contributing to the design of the study.
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. 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 opinions, perceptions, priorities, and concerns of their residents and voters. Through designing and implementing scientific surveys, focus groups, and one-on-one interviews, as well as expert interpretation of the findings, True North helps its clients to move with confidence when making strategic decisions in a variety of areas—such as planning, policy evaluation, performance management, establishing fiscal priori- ties, passing ballot measures, and developing effective public information campaigns.
During their careers, Dr. McLarney and Mr. Sarl es have designed and conducted over 1,300 sur- vey research studies for public agencies, including more than 400 ballot measure feasibility studies. Of the measures that have gone to ballot based on Dr. McLa rney’s recommendation, more than 95% have been successful.
12 of 46
Key Findings
True North Research, Inc. © 2024 3
City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
K EY F INDINGS
As noted in the Introduction, this study was designed to provide the City of San Mateo with a sta- tistically reliable understanding of voters’ interest in supporting a ballot measure that would allow future housing in San Mateo to be conc entrated downtown along the El Camino corridor and near Caltrain stations. Whereas subsequent sections of this report are devoted to conveying the detailed results of the survey, in this section we attempt to ‘see the forest through the trees’ and note how the collective results of the survey answer some of the key questions that moti- vated the research. The following conclusions are based on True North’s and TeamCivX’s inter- pretations of the survey results and the firms’ collective experience conducting ballot measure studies for public agencies throughout the State.
Are voters generally
supportive of the pro-
posed measure?
Yes. San Mateo voters recognize the need for additional affordable hous- ing, but also have concerns about limiting growth and development, traf- fic congestion, and protecting park s and open space. These sentiments lead many voters to support the proposed measure as balanced solu- tion—by concentrating future housing downtown along the El Camino corridor and near Caltrain stations where it is close to transit, jobs, infra- structure, and services, the measure would provide additional affordable housing for low- and middle-income residents and enable the City to meet State housing requ irements while also enhancing parks and open space, protecting existing residentia l neighborhoods, and reducing traf- fic impacts.
With support for the measure rang ing between 62% and 66% depending on the context, the results of this survey indicate that the proposed mea- sure is feasible for the November 2024 ballot provided that it is accom- panied by robust community/opinio n leader engagement, education, and communication (more on this below).
Having stated that the proposed measure appears feasible, it is impor- tant to note that the measure’s prospects will be shaped by external fac- tors (not within the City’s or an independent campaign’s control) and that a recommendation to place the measure on the November 2024 bal- lot comes with several qualificatio ns and conditions. Indeed, although the results are promising, all ballot measures must overcome challenges prior to being successful. The proposed measure is no exception.
How might a public
information campaign
affect support for the
proposed measure?
As noted in the body of this report , individuals’ opinions about ballot measures are often not rigid, especially when the amount of information presented to the public on a measure has been limited. Thus, in addition to measuring natural support for the measure, one of the goals of this study was to explore how the introd uction of additional information about the measure may affect voters’ opinions about the proposal.
13 of 46
Key Findings
True North Research, Inc. © 2024 4City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
It is clear from the survey results that some voters’ opinions about the proposed measure are somewhat sensitive to the nature—and amount— of information that they have abou t the measure. Information about the specific features of the measure and State housing requirements, as well as arguments in favor of the measure, were found by many voters to be compelling reasons to support the measure—effectively increasing sup- port to 66% at the Interim Ballot Te st. However, voters also exhibited sensitivity to opposition arguments, and there is a risk that voters could be swayed by divisive and hyper-p artisan campaigning during the 2024 election cycle. Accordingly, on e of the keys to building and sustaining support for a ballot measure will be the presence of an effective, well- organized public outreach effort and a separate, independent campaign that focuses on the need for the me asure as well as the many benefits that it will bring.
How might changes to
the economic or politi-
cal climate alter support
for the measure?
A survey is a snapshot in time—which means the results of this study and the conclusions noted above mu st be viewed in light of the current economic and political climates. On the one hand, this should provide some reassurances to the City that the proposed measure is feasible.
Even during a period darkened by infl ation, high interest rates, and con- cerns about traffic congestion, cost of living, and a myriad of related issues, voters were nevertheless supportive of the proposed measure.
On the other hand, the months leading up to the November 2024 elec- tion are likely to be punctuated with significant events on the economic and political fronts. Exactly how these events unfold and may shape vot- ers’ opinions remains to be seen. Should the economy and/or political climate improve, support for the measure could increase. Conversely, negative economic and/ or political developments (including devolving into a hyper-partisan environment, competing measures, and/or skewed voter turnout) could dampen support for the measure below what was recorded in this study.
14 of 46
Quality of Life & City Services
True North Research, Inc. © 2024 5
City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Q UALITY OF L IFE & C ITY S ERVICES
The opening section of the survey was designed to gauge voters’ opinions regarding the quality of life in San Mateo, their ideas for how it can be improved, as well as their assessment of the City’s performance in providing municipal services.
QUALITY OF LIFE At the outset of the interview, voters were asked to rate the quality of life in the City of San Mateo using a five-point scal e of excellent, good, fair, poor, or very poor. As shown in Figure 1 below, more than eight-in-ten voters shared favorable opinions of the quality of life in San Mateo, with 26% reporting it is excellent and 58% stating it is good. Approximately 14% of voters surveyed rated the quality of life in the City as fair, whereas less than 3% used poor or very poor to describe the quality of life in San Mateo and less than 1% were unsure.
Question 2 How would you rate the overall quality of life in San Mateo? Would you say it is excellent, good, fair, poor or very poor?
FIGURE 1 QUALITY OF LIFE
Figure 2 shows how ratings of the quality of life in
the City of San Mateo varied by length of residence,
age, presence of a child in the household, homeown-
ership status, and gender . When compared to their
respective counterparts, newer residents (less than 5
years), those under 40 or over 65 years of age, those
without children in the home, and males were the
most apt to rate the quality of life in the City as
excellent.
FIGURE 2 QUALITY OF LIFE BY YEARS IN SAN MATEO, AGE, CHILD IN HSLD, HOMEOWNER ON VOTER FILE & GENDER Very poor
0.6 Not sure
0.8 Poor
1.8 Fair
13.5 Excellent
25.7 Good
57.7 28.0 19.7 23.7 28.5 22.1 28.2 26.5 24.4 30.8 22.2
59.9 54.7
57.0 57.5 61.4 56.0 56.5 59.6 52.5 61.7
25.520.116.3
Excellent
37.1 73.6 64.2 53.5
Good
54.2 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Less than 5 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 or more Under 40 40 to 49 50 to 64 65 or older Yes No Yes No Male Female Years in San Mateo (Q1) Age Child in Hsld (Q13) Homeowner on Voter File
Gender
% Respondents
15 of 46
Quality of Life & City Services
True North Research, Inc. © 2024 6City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
CHANGES TO IMPROVE SAN MATEO The next question in this series asked voters to indicate the one thing that city government could change to make San Mateo a better place to live, now and in the future. Question 3 was po sed in an open-ended ma nner, allowing respon- dents to mention any aspect or attribute that came to mind withou t 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 3.
Question 3 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
Among specific changes desired, providing more affordable housing was the most common, mentioned by approximately 14% of voters surveyed, followed by improving/maintaining roads and infrastructure (11%), limiting growth/preserving open space (11%), and reducing traffic con- gestion (7%). Approximately 14% respondents could not think of a change to San Mateo that they desired (10%) or stated flatly that no changes are needed/everything is fine (4%).
OVERALL PERFORMANCE RATING The final question in this series asked respondents to indicate if, overall, they we re 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, facil- ity, or service and requested that the respondent consider the City’s performance in general, the findings of this question may be regarded as an overall performance rating for the City.
14.3 11.4
11.2 9.9
7.1 6.4
5.6 5.4
5.2 5.0
4.4 4.2
4.1 3.6
3.6 3.4
3.3 3.1
2.6 2.5
2.2 1.9
1.8 0 5 10 15
Provide more affordable housing
Improve, maintain infrastructure, roads
Limit growth, preserve open space
Not sure / Cannot think of anything specific
Reduce traffic congestion
Provide more bike lanes, safe sidewalks, paths
Improve parking
Improve public transit
Beautify, clean up City, landscape
Improve public safety
No changes needed / Everything is fine
Improve, add parks, rec facilities
Improve downtown area
Improve, provide more shopping, dining opportunities
Reduce cost of living
Address rent control issues
Enforce traffic laws
Improve city planning, zoning
Address homeless issues
Provide additional youth, family activities, events for different ages Improve schools, education
Reduce taxes, fees
Reduce noise pollution
% Respondents
16 of 46
Quality of Life & City Services
True North Research, Inc. © 2024 7City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Question 4 Generally speaking, are you satisfied or di ssatisfied with the job the City of San Mateo is doing to provide city services?
FIGURE 4 OVERALL SATISFACTION
As shown above in Figure 4, more than three- quarters of voters surveyed (77%) indicated that they were satisfied with the City of San Mateo’ s efforts to provide muni cipal services, with 24% saying they were very satisfied and 53% some what satisfied. Approximately 17% reported that they were dissatisfied with the City’s overall performance, whereas 6% were unsure or unwilling to state their opinion. For the interested reader, Figure 5 demonstrates that satisfaction with the City’s performance in providing municipal services is widespread, ranging from a low of 70% to a high of 92% across all identified subgroups.
FIGURE 5 OVERALL SATISFACTION BY YEARS IN SAN MATEO, AGE, CHILD IN HSLD, HOMEOWNER ON VOTER FILE & GENDER
Somewhat
satisfied
52.8 Very satisfied
24.3Somewhat
dissatisfied
13.3 Very
dissatisfied
3.2 Prefer not to
answer
0.7 Not sure
5.7 26.4 21.9 22.9 24.5 19.5 27.3 22.9 26.6 25.9 24.9
57.3 51.3 51.7 49.5 54.5
51.6 51.5
54.9 55.0 48.6
19.1 30.428.7
Ver y
satisfied
31.8 63.3 50.6
51.3 Smwt
satisfied
50.7 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Less than
5 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 or
mo re
Under 40 40 to 49 50 to 64 65 or
older
Yes No Yes No Male Female
Y ears in San Mateo (Q1) Age Child in Hsld (Q13) Hom eowner on Voter File
Gender
% Respondents
17 of 46
Initial Ballot Test
True North Research, Inc. © 2024 8
City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
I NITIAL B ALLOT T EST
The primary research objective of this survey wa s to estimate voters’ support for a ballot mea- sure that would allow future housing in San Mateo to be concentrat ed downtown along the El Camino corridor and near Caltrain stations where it is close to transit, jobs, infrastructure, and services, thereby providing additional affordable housing for low- and middle-income residents and enabling the City to meet State housing requirements while enhancing parks and open space, protecting existing residential neighbor hoods, and reducing traffic impacts. To this end, Question 5 was designed to take an early asse ssment of voters’ support for the proposed mea- sure.
The motivation for placing Question 5 near the front of the survey is twofold. First, voter support for a measure can often depend on the amount of information th ey have about a measure. At this point in the survey, the respondent has not been provided inform ation about the proposed measure beyond what is presented in the ballot la nguage. This situation is analogous to a voter casting a ballot with limited knowledge about the measure, such as what might occur in the absence of an effective campaign. Question 5, also known as the Initial Ballot Test, is thus a good measure of voter support for the proposed measure as it is today, on the natural. Because the Initial Ballot Test provides a gauge of natural support for the measure, it also serves a second purpose in that it provides a useful baseline fr om which to judge the impact of various informa- tion items conveyed later in the survey on voter support for the measure.
Question 5 Later this year, voters in San Mateo may be asked to vote on a local ballot mea- sure. Let me read you a summary of the measure. To allow for additional affordable housing for low- and middle-income residents and meet State housing requirements while enhancing parks and open space, protecting existing residentia l neighborhoods, and reducing traffic impacts, shall the City of San Mateo's measure be adopted allowing future housing to be concentrated downtown along the El Camino corridor and near Caltrain stations where it is close to transit, jobs, infrastructure, and services?
FIGURE 6 INITIAL BALLOT TEST
As shown in Figure 6, 64% of likely November
2024 voters surveyed indicated that they
would support the proposed measure,
whereas 27% stated that they would oppose
the measure and 9% were unsure or unwilling
to share their vote choice. The level of support
recorded at the Initial Ballot Test is approxi-
mately 14 percentage points above the simple
majority (50%+1) required for passage.
Definitely yes
31.7 Probably yes
32.2 Probably no
10.3 Definitely no
16.8 Not sure
8.4 Prefer not to
answer
0.7 18 of 46
Initial Ballot Test
True North Research, Inc. © 2024 9City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
SUPPORT BY SUBGROUPS For the interested reader, Table 1 page shows how support for the measure at the Initial Ballot Test varied by key demographic traits. The blue column (Approx- imate % of Universe) indicates the percentage of the likely November 2024 electorate that each subgroup category comprises. Support for the proposed measure varied considerably across subgroups, with the largest differences occurring by partisanship, household party type, length of residence, and satisfaction with the City’s overall performance in providing municipal ser- vices.
TABLE 1 DEMOGRAPHIC BREAKDOWN OF SUPPORT AT INITIAL BALLOT TEST Approximate %
of Voter
Universe
% Probably or
Definitely Yes % Not sure
Overall 100 63.9 8.4
Less than 5 19 81.8 7.4
5 to 9 14 82.1 5.8
10 to 14 12 51.1 11.5
15 or more 54 55.6 8.6
Democrat 56 71.2 7.5
Republican 15 39.3 9.7
Other 7 56.9 3.3
NPP 22 64.1 11.4
Satisfied 82 70.9 6.9
Dissatisfied 18 36.9 9.9
Under 40 31 75.3 7.8
40 to 49 16 59.4 7.2
50 to 64 25 59.0 9.6
65 or older 28 58.0 8.8
Single dem 31 76.0 5.3
Dual dem 16 65.8 9.5
Single rep 7 42.5 14.1
Dual rep 3 47.9 9.0
Other 21 64.8 9.0
Mixed 22 54.3 9.4
High 67 62.7 8.5
Medium 15 59.2 8.2
Low 17 72.6 8.3
Yes 25 61.5 5.5
No 75 67.0 9.0
Yes 78 66.6 7.0
No 22 59.6 14.2
Since June 2012 39 75.1 8.2
Before June 2012 61 56.8 8.5
Yes 63 55.2 9.1
No 37 78.5 7.3
Male 52 70.4 8.0
Female 48 60.2 9.0
Yes 91 64.4 8.7
No 9 57.9 5.4
Homeowner on Voter File
Gender
Likely to Vote by Mail
Child in Hsld (Q13)
Anticipate Living in City
in 10 Yrs (Q14)
Household Party Type
Registration Year
Years in San Mateo (Q1)
Age
Party
Voting Propensity
Overall Satisfaction (Q4)
19 of 46
Initial Ballot Test
True North Research, Inc. © 2024 10City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
REASONS FOR NOT SUPPORTING MEASURE Respondents who opposed the measure (or were unsure) at the Initial Ballot Test were subsequently asked if th ere was a particular rea- son for their position. Question 6 was asked in an open-ended manner, allowing respondents to mention any reason that came to mind without be ing prompted by, or restricted to, a particular list of options. True North later reviewed the verbatim responses and grouped them into the cat- egories shown in Figure 7.
Among the reasons offered for not supporting th e measure, the perception that the city is already densely populated (22%), concerns about additional traffic congestion (19%), and a need for more information (19%) were the most common.
Question 6 Is there a particular reason why you do not support or are unsure about the mea- sure I just described?
FIGURE 7 REASONS FOR NOT SUPPORTING MEASURE
22.0 18.9
18.6 7.6
6.5 6.1
5.9 5.8
5.6 4.8
4.1 3.2
2.7 2.2
1.9 4.9
3.3 0 5 10 15 20 25
City is already densely populated
It will create more traffic
Need more information
Parking issues
Taxes already too high
Infrastructure won’t keep up with growth
It will negatively impact city, residents
Concerns with safety, security
Other higher priorities in community
Concerns with high rises, buildings
It will increase rent, affordability
Do not trust City government
Money is misspent, mismanaged
Housing should be built around City
Opposed to new housing in general
Not sure / No particular reason
Less government involvement
% Respondents Who Do Not Support Measure
20 of 46
Positive Arguments
True North Research, Inc. © 2024 11
City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
P OSITIVE A RGUMENTS
If the City chooses to place a measure on an up coming ballot, voters will be exposed to various arguments about the measure in the ensuing months. Proponents of the measure will present arguments to try to persuade voters to support a measure, just as opponents may present argu- ments to achieve the opposite goal. For this study to be a reliable gauge of voter support for the proposed ballot measure, it is important that th e survey simulate the type of discussion and debate that will occur prior to the vote taking place and identify how this information ultimately shapes voters’ opinions about the measure.
The objective of Question 7 was thus to present respondents with arguments in favor of the pro- posed measure and identify whether they felt the arguments were convincing reasons to support it. Arguments in opposition to the measure were also presented and are discussed later in this report (see Negative Arguments on page 16). Within each series, specific arguments were admin- istered in random order to avoid a systematic position bias.
Question 7 What I'd like to do now is tell you what some people are saying about the measure we've been discussing. Supporters of the measure say: _____. Do you think this is a very convinc- ing, somewhat convincing, or not at all convincing reason to SUPPORT the measure? FIGURE 8 POSITIVE ARGUMENTS
45.4 22.1
25.9 28.0
34.4 27.9
30.4 32.6
28.2 16.9
23.8 22.5
45.5 40.7
37.9 30.7
37.0 32.4
28.9 29.2
40.2 31.8
0 1 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 0 1 0 0
San Mateo has become so expensive that longtime residents, seniors, younger residents being pushed out of city because they can’t afford to stay; need more affordable housing to give residents a chance to keep living in their neighborhoods
State law requires that City plan for ~7,000 new housing units by 2031; expected to require ~15,000 units by 2041; measure allows City to be smart by concentrating where it is best served by existing infrastructure, transit, shops
State law requires that City plan for thousands of new homes; measure allows City to locate homes in areas most suitable for growth, change, which are along El Camino Real, near Caltrain stations
By concentrating new housing downtown, near Caltrain stations, measure will allow existing residential neighborhoods to stay low-density San Mateo is an expensive place to live; measure will provide more housing that is affordable for young families, seniors, essential workers like teachers, nurses, first responders
Measure will create a more vibrant downtown with a greater diversity of businesses, employers and more customers to support local businesses Measure will NOT raise taxes, but will improve business climate downtown; independent study concluded that measure will generate millions of additional dollars each year for essential city services By locating new housing closer to transit, jobs, measure will reduce vehicle trips, traffic, greenhouse gas emissions while increasing transit use If measure doesn’t pass, City will need to allow greater density in all existing residential neighborhoods to meet State’s housing requirements; this could include building high-density apartments next to single family homes
Measure preserves Measure Y building height, density limits in most areas of city, including all low-density residential neighborhoods Measure will help enhance parks and open space amenities in the city Q7f2Q7a2Q7a1Q7dQ7f1Q7eQ7gQ7bQ7iQ7hQ7c
% Respondents
Very convincing Somewhat convincing
21 of 46
Positive Arguments
True North Research, Inc. © 2024 12City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Figure 8 presents the truncated positive arguments tested, as well as voters’ reactions to the arguments. The arguments are sorted from most convincing to least convincing based on the percentage of respondents who indicated that the argument was either a ‘very convincing’ or ‘somewhat convincing’ reason to support the measure. Using this methodology, the most com- pelling positive arguments were: San Mateo has become so expensive that longtime residents, seniors, and younger residents are being pushed out of the city because they can't afford to stay.
We need more affordable housing to give residents a chance to keep living in their neighbor- hoods (68% very or somewhat convincing), To meet current and future housing needs, State law requires that the City of Sa n Mateo plan for about 7,000 new housing units by 2031. It is expected that the State will require the City to plan for about 15,000 new units by 2041. This measure allows the City to be smart about how it plans for future housing by concentrating it where it is best served by existing infrastructure, transit, and shops (68%), 1 and By concentrat-
ing new housing downtown and near Caltrain stations, this measure will allow existing residen- tial neighborhoods to stay low-density (67%).
POSITIVE ARGUMENTS BY INITIAL SUPPORT Table 3 on the next page lists the top five most convincing positive arguments (showing the percentage of respondents who cited it as very convincing) according to respondents’ vote ch oice at the Initial Ba llot Test. The positive arguments resonated with a much higher percentage of voters initially inclined to support the measure compared with those who initially oppose d the measure or were unsure. Nevertheless, two arguments were ranked among the top five most compelling by all three groups.
1. The third-ranked argument in the gr aphic was tested in a split-sample format and was similar in wording to the second-ranked argument, which is why it is not list in the narrative.
22 of 46
Positive Arguments
True North Research, Inc. © 2024 13City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
TABLE 2 TOP POSITIVE ARGUMENTS BY POSITION AT INITIAL BALLOT TEST Position at
Initial Ballot
Test (Q5) Item Positive Argument Summary
% Very
Convincing
Q7f2
San Mateo has become so expensive that longtime residents, seniors, younger residents being pushed out of city because they can’t afford to stay; need more affordable housing to give residents a chance to keep living in their neighborhoods 62 Q7f1
San Mateo is an expensive place to live; measure will provide more housing that is affordable for young families, seniors, essential workers like teachers, nurses, first responders
49 Q7b By locating new housing closer to transit, jobs, measure will reduce vehicle trips, traffic, greenhouse gas emissions while increasing transit use 46 Q7g
Measure will NOT raise taxes, but will improve business climate downtown; independent study concluded that measure will generate millions of additional dollars each year for essential city services
43 Q7a1
State law requires that City plan for thousands of new homes; measure allows City to locate homes in areas most suitable for growth, change, which are along El Camino Real, near Caltrain stations
40 Q7d By concentrating new housing downtown, near Caltrain stations, measure will allow existing residential neighborhoods to stay low-density 9 Q7f2
San Mateo has become so expensive that longtime residents, seniors, younger residents being pushed out of city because they can’t afford to stay; need more affordable housing to give residents a chance to keep living in their neighborhoods 9 Q7i
If measure doesn’t pass, City will need to allow greater density in all existing residential neighborhoods to meet State’s housing requirements; this could include building high-density apartments next to single family homes 7 Q7c Measure will help enhance parks and open space amenities in the city 6 Q7f1
San Mateo is an expensive place to live; measure will provide more housing that is affordable for young families, seniors, essential workers like teachers, nurses, first responders
5 Q7f2
San Mateo has become so expensive that longtime residents, seniors, younger residents being pushed out of city because they can’t afford to stay; need more affordable housing to give residents a chance to keep living in their neighborhoods 35 Q7d By concentrating new housing downtown, near Caltrain stations, measure will allow existing residential neighborhoods to stay low-density 26 Q7f1
San Mateo is an expensive place to live; measure will provide more housing that is affordable for young families, seniors, essential workers like teachers, nurses, first responders
26 Q7g
Measure will NOT raise taxes, but will improve business climate downtown; independent study concluded that measure will generate millions of additional dollars each year for essential city services
25 Q7b By locating new housing closer to transit, jobs, measure will reduce vehicle trips, traffic, greenhouse gas emissions while increasing transit use 23 Probably or
Definitely Yes
(n = 383)
Probably or
Definitely No
(n = 162)
Not Sure
(n = 50)
23 of 46
Interim Ballot Test
True North Research, Inc. © 2024 14
City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
I NTERIM B ALLOT T EST
After exposing respondents to the types of posi tive arguments voters may encounter during an election cycle, the survey again presented respon dents with the ballot language used previously to gauge how support for the proposed measure may have changed. As shown in Figure 9, over- all support among likely November 2024 voters ticked up to 66%, with 34% of voters indicating that they would definitely vote yes on the measure. Approximately 26% of respondents opposed the measure at this point in the survey, and an additional 8% were unsure or unwilling to state their vote choice.
Question 8 Sometimes people change their mind about a measure once they have more infor- mation about it. Now that you have heard a bit more about the measure, let me read you a sum- mary of it again. To allow for additional affordable housing for low- and middle-income residents and meet State housing requirements while enhancing parks and open space, protecting existing residential neighborhoods, and reducing traffic impacts, shall the City of San Mateo's measure be adopted allowing future housing to be concentrated downtown along the El Camino corridor and near Caltrain stations where it is close to transit, jobs, infrastructure, and services? FIGURE 9 INTERIM BALLOT TEST
SUPPORT BY SUBGROUPS Table 3 on the next page shows how support for the measure at this point in the survey varied by key voter subgroups, as well as the change in subgroup sup- port when compared with the Initial Ballot Test . Positive differences appear in green, whereas negative differences appear in red. As shown in the table, support for the proposed measure increased or decreased by modest amounts (5 percentage points or less) between the Initial and Interim Ballot Test for most subgroups. Notable exceptions were single Republican households (+11%), mixed partisan households (+10%), and voters who do not anticipate living in San Mateo 10 years into the future (+7%).
Prefer not to
answer
0.4Not sure
7.7 Definitely no
16.7 Probably no
9.4 Probably yes
31.7 Definitely yes
34.0 24 of 46
Interim Ballot Test
True North Research, Inc. © 2024 15City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
TABLE 3 DEMOGRAPHIC BREAKDOWN OF SUPPORT AT INTERIM BALLOT TEST Approximate %
of Voter
Universe
% Probably or
Definitely Yes
Change From
Initial Ballot
Test (Q5)
Overall 100 65.8 +1.9
Less than 5 19 80.9 -0.9
5 to 9 14 79.9 -2.2
10 to 14 12 56.2 +5.1
15 or more 54 58.9 +3.3
Democrat 56 72.9 +1.7
Republican 15 44.4 +5.0
Other 7 56.6 -0.3
NPP 22 65.2 +1.1
Satisfied 82 73.2 +2.3
Dissatisfied 18 39.5 +2.6
Under 40 31 78.0 +2.8
40 to 49 16 61.8 +2.4
50 to 64 25 57.3 -1.7
65 or older 28 61.8 +3.8
Single dem 31 74.3 -1.7
Dual dem 16 69.3 +3.6
Single rep 7 53.3 +10.8
Dual rep 3 44.2 -3.7
Other 21 60.0 -4.7
Mixed 22 64.2 +9.9
High 67 63.3 +0.6
Medium 15 64.5 +5.3
Low 17 76.4 +3.8
Yes 25 64.5 +3.0
No 75 68.6 +1.6
Yes 78 67.8 +1.2
No 22 66.2 +6.6
Since June 2012 39 76.9 +1.7
Before June 2012 61 58.8 +2.0
Yes 63 59.9 +4.7
No 37 75.6 -2.9
Male 52 72.5 +2.1
Female 48 61.8 +1.7
Yes 91 66.1 +1.7
No 9 62.2 +4.2
Registration Year
Homeowner on Voter File
Gender
Likely to Vote by Mail
Household Party Type
Voting Propensity
Child in Hsld (Q13)
Anticipate Living in City
in 10 Yrs (Q14)
Years in San Mateo (Q1)
Party
Overall Satisfaction (Q4)
Age
25 of 46
Negative Arguments
True North Research, Inc. © 2024 16
City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
N EGATIVE A RGUMENTS
Whereas Question 7 of the survey presented respondents with arguments in favor of the mea- sure, Question 9 presented respondents with argu ments designed to elicit opposition to the measure. In the case of Question 9, however, respondents were asked whether they felt that the argument was a very convincing, somewhat convincing, or not at all convincing reason to oppose the measure. The arguments tested, as well as voters’ opinions about the arguments, are pre- sented below in Figure 10.
Question 9 Next, let me tell you what opponents of the measure are saying. Opponents of the measure say: _____. Do you think this is a very convincing, somewhat convincing, or not at all convincing reason to OPPOSE the measure?
FIGURE 10 NEGATIVE ARGUMENTS
Overall, the most compelling negative arguments were: San Mateo voters reaffirmed Measure Y in 2020 which limits building heights and densities in the city. Now, just four years later, the City is asking voters to undo Measure Y protections? Voters already spoke on this issue. The City just needs to listen (57% very or somewhat convincing), This measure is unfair. Instead of having every neighborhood accept its fair share of grow th, this measure protects higher-end neighbor- hoods with single family homes by concentrating future housing in lower-income areas of the city (55%), and Small businesses in our community will be pushed out as existing buildings are redeveloped into higher density units with less commercial space and much higher rents (55%).
28.7 21.4
26.9 17.7
24.9 26.6
19.0 27.8
34.0 28.4
36.7 22.9
19.6 23.9
0 1 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 0 1 0 0
San Mateo voters reaffirmed Measure Y in 2020 which limits building heights, densities in city; now, 4 years later, City asking voters to undo Measure Y protections? Voters already spoke on issue; City just needs to listen
Measure is unfair; instead of having every neighborhood accept its fair share of growth, measure protects higher-end neighborhoods with single family homes by concentrating housing in lower-income areas of city
Small businesses in community will be pushed out as
existing buildings are redeveloped into higher density units with less commercial space, much higher rents
Measure won’t provide what it promises; taller buildings much more expensive to construct, makes it impossible to provide affordable housing; housing that is built will be high-end, market rate housing
The only people who want more housing in San Mateo are
wealthy developers; building more housing may make them rich, but it will ruin quality of life
We shouldn’t let the State push us around and dictate land use policy in San Mateo
Don’t be fooled; City can meet State’s requirements for future housing while keeping all of height, density restrictions voters approved in Measure Y; we don’t need measure
Q9aQ9bQ9gQ9fQ9dQ9eQ9c
% Respondents
Very convincing Somewhat convincing
26 of 46
Negative Arguments
True North Research, Inc. © 2024 17City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
NEGATIVE ARGUMENTS BY INITIAL SUPPORT Table 4 ranks the top five negative arguments (showing the percentage of respondents who cited each as very convincing) accord- ing to respondents’ vote choice at the Initial Ballot Test.
TABLE 4 TOP NEGATIVE ARGUMENTS BY POSITION AT INITIAL BALLOT TEST Position at
Initial Ballot
Test (Q5) Item Negative Argument Summary
% Very
Convincing
Q9a
San Mateo voters reaffirmed Measure Y in 2020 which limits building heights, densities in city; now, 4 years later, City asking voters to undo Measure Y protections? Voters already spoke on issue; City just needs to listen 20 Q9g Small businesses in community will be pushed out as existing buildings are redeveloped into higher density units with less commercial space, much higher rents 19 Q9b
Measure is unfair; instead of having every neighborhood accept its fair share of growth, measure protects higher-end neighborhoods with single family homes by concentrating housing in lower-income areas of city
19 Q9d The only people who want more housing in San Mateo are wealthy developers; building more housing may make them rich, but it will ruin quality of life 17 Q9f
Measure won’t provide what it promises; taller buildings much more expensive to construct, makes it impossible to provide affordable housing; housing that is built will be high-end, market rate housing
15 Q9e We shouldn’t let the State push us around and dictate land use policy in San Mateo 55 Q9a
San Mateo voters reaffirmed Measure Y in 2020 which limits building heights, densities in city; now, 4 years later, City asking voters to undo Measure Y protections? Voters already spoke on issue; City just needs to listen 50 Q9g Small businesses in community will be pushed out as existing buildings are redeveloped into higher density units with less commercial space, much higher rents 45 Q9d The only people who want more housing in San Mateo are wealthy developers; building more housing may make them rich, but it will ruin quality of life 45 Q9c
Don’t be fooled; City can meet State’s requirements for future housing while keeping all of height, density restrictions voters approved in Measure Y; we don’t need measure
40 Q9e We shouldn’t let the State push us around and dictate land use policy in San Mateo 28 Q9a
San Mateo voters reaffirmed Measure Y in 2020 which limits building heights, densities in city; now, 4 years later, City asking voters to undo Measure Y protections? Voters already spoke on issue; City just needs to listen 27 Q9b
Measure is unfair; instead of having every neighborhood accept its fair share of growth, measure protects higher-end neighborhoods with single family homes by concentrating housing in lower-income areas of city
25 Q9g Small businesses in community will be pushed out as existing buildings are redeveloped into higher density units with less commercial space, much higher rents 24 Q9d The only people who want more housing in San Mateo are wealthy developers; building more housing may make them rich, but it will ruin quality of life 19 Probably or
Definitely Yes
(n = 383)
Probably or
Definitely No
(n = 162)
Not Sure
(n = 50)
27 of 46
Final Ballot Test
True North Research, Inc. © 2024 18
City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
F INAL B ALLOT T EST
Voters’ opinions about ballot measures are often not rigid, especially when the amount of infor- mation presented to the public on a measure has been limited. A goal of the survey was thus to gauge how voters’ opinions about the proposed measure may be affected by the information they could encounter during the course of an election cycle. After pr oviding respondents with the wording of the proposed measure, services th at could be funded, and arguments in favor of and against the proposal, the survey again asked voters whether they would vote ‘yes’ or ‘no’ on the proposed ballot measure.
Question 10 Now that you have heard a bit more about the measure, let me read you a sum- mary of it one more time. To allow for additional affordable housing for low- and middle-income residents and meet State housing requirements while enhancing parks and open space, protect- ing existing residential neighborhoods, and redu cing traffic impacts, shall the City of San Mateo's measure be adopted allowing future housing to be concentrated downtown along the El Camino corridor and near Caltrain stations where it is close to transit, jobs, infrastructure, and services?
FIGURE 11 FINAL BALLOT TEST
At this point in the survey, support for the proposed measure was found among 62% of likely November 2024 voters, with 30% indicating that they would definitely support the measure.
Approximately 30% of respondents were opposed to the measure at the Final Ballot Test, and 8% were unsure or unwilling to state their vote choice.
Definitely yes
30.1 Probably yes
31.9 Probably no
10.7 Definitely no
19.5 Not sure
7.2 Prefer not to
answer
0.7 28 of 46
Change in Support
True North Research, Inc. © 2024 19
City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
C HANGE IN S UPPORT
Table 5 provides a closer look at how supp ort for the proposed measure changed over the course of the interview by calcul ating the difference in support bet ween the Initial, Interim, and Final Ballot tests within various subgroups of voters. The percentage of support for the measure at the Final Ballot Test is shown in the column with the heading % Probably or Definitely Yes. The columns to the right show the di fference between the Final and the Initial, and the Final and Interim Ballot Tests. Positive differences appear in green, and negative differences appear in red.
TABLE 5 DEMOGRAPHIC BREAKDOWN OF SUPPORT AT FINAL BALLOT TEST As expected, voters generally responded to the negative arguments with a reduction in their sup- port for the ballot measure when compared with levels recorded at the Interim Ballot Test. The trend over the course of the entire survey (Initi al to Final Ballot Test) was also one of decreasing support for many voter subgroups, averaging -2% overall. Even with this trend, however, support for the proposed measure at the Final Ballot Test (62%) remained well above the simple majority (50%+1) required for passage.
Approximate %
of Voter
Universe
% Probably or
Definitely Yes
Change From
Initial Ballot
Test (Q5)
Change From
Interim Ballot
Test (Q10)
Overall 100 61.9 -2.0 -3.9
Less than 5 19 77.7 -4.1 -3.2
5 to 9 14 73.7 -8.4 -6.2
10 to 14 12 55.6 +4.5 -0.6
15 or more 54 54.8 -0.7 -4.0
Democrat 56 69.4 -1.8 -3.4
Republican 15 36.2 -3.2 -8.2
Other 7 53.1 -3.8 -3.5
NPP 22 63.1 -1.0 -2.1
Satisfied 82 70.2 -0.7 -3.0
Dissatisfied 18 35.2 -1.7 -4.3
Under 40 31 75.9 +0.6 -2.1
40 to 49 16 58.7 -0.7 -3.1
50 to 64 25 52.4 -6.6 -4.8
65 or older 28 56.4 -1.6 -5.4
Single dem 31 71.9 -4.1 -2.4
Dual dem 16 65.5 -0.3 -3.8
Single rep 7 37.9 -4.6 -15.4
Dual rep 3 41.6 -6.4 -2.6
Other 21 59.1 -5.6 -0.9
Mixed 22 59.0 +4.7 -5.2
High 67 59.4 -3.3 -3.9
Medium 15 57.9 -1.3 -6.6
Low 17 75.2 +2.6 -1.2
Yes 25 60.5 -1.0 -4.0
No 75 64.5 -2.5 -4.0
Yes 78 64.1 -2.5 -3.7
No 22 61.4 +1.8 -4.7
Since June 2012 39 71.7 -3.4 -5.1
Before June 2012 61 55.7 -1.1 -3.1
Yes 63 56.9 +1.7 -3.0
No 37 70.4 -8.1 -5.3
Male 52 70.2 -0.2 -2.3
Female 48 56.0 -4.2 -5.8
Yes 91 63.0 -1.5 -3.2
No 9 50.6 -7.3 -11.5
Registration Year
Homeowner on Voter File
Gender
Likely to Vote by Mail
Household Party Type
Voting Propensity
Child in Hsld (Q13)
Anticipate Living in City
in 10 Yrs (Q14)
Years in San Mateo (Q1)
Party
Overall Satisfaction (Q4)
Age
29 of 46
Change in Support
True North Research, Inc. © 2024 20City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Whereas Table 5 displays change in support for the measure over the cour se of the interview at the subgroup level, Table 6 displays the indivi dual-level changes that occurred between the Ini- tial and Final Ballot tests for the measure. On th e left side of the table is shown each of the response options to the Initial Ballot Test and the percentage of respondents in each group. The cells in the body of the table depict movement within each response group (row) based on the information provided throughout th e course of the survey as recorded by the Final Ballot Test.
For example, in the first row we see that of the 31.7% of respondents who indicated that they would definitely support the measure at the Initia l Ballot Test, 24.2% also indicated they would definitely support the measure at the Final Ballot Test. Approximately 5.5% moved to the proba- bly support group, 1.0% moved to the probably oppose group, 0.8% moved to the definitely oppose group, and 0.3% stated they were now unsure of their vote choice.
To ease interpretation of the table, the cells are color coded. Red shaded cells indicate declining support, green shaded cells indicate increasing support, whereas white cells indicate no move- ment. Moreover, within the cells, a white font indicates a fundamental change in the vote: from yes to no, no to yes, or not sure to either yes or no.
TABLE 6 MOVEMENT BETWEEN INITIAL & FINAL BALLOT TEST
As one might expect, the information conveyed in the survey had the greatest impact on individ- uals who either weren’t sure about how they would vote at the Initial Ballot Test or were tentative in their vote choice (probably yes or probably no). Moreover, Table 6 makes clear that although the information did impact some voters, it did not do so in a consistent way for all respondents.
Some respondents found the info rmation conveyed during the co urse of the interview to be a reason to become more supportive of the measur e, whereas a slightly larger percentage found the same information to be a reason to be less supportive. Despite 17% of respondents making a fundamental
2 shift in their opinion about the measure over the course of the interview, the net impact is that support for the measure at the Final Ballot Test (62%) was just 2% different than support at the Initial Ballot Test (64%).
2. This is, they changed from a position of support, opposition or undecided at the Initial Ballot Test to a differ- ent position at the Final Ballot Test.
Definitely
support
Probably
support
Probably
oppose
Definitely
oppose Not sure
Definitely support 31.7% 24.2% 5.5% 1.0% 0.8% 0.3%
Probably support 32.2% 4.7% 21.9% 1.6% 0.5% 3.5%
Probably oppose 10.3% 0.0% 1.2% 5.0% 3.2% 1.0%
Definitely oppose 16.8% 0.9% 0.5% 0.8% 14.4% 0.1%
Not sure 9.1% 0.2% 2.8% 2.4% 0.7% 3.0%
Initial Ballot Test (Q5)
Final Ballot Test (Q10)
30 of 46
Charter Amendments
True North Research, Inc. © 2024 21
City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
C HARTER A MENDMENTS
Although much of the survey focused on the proposed housing measure discussed in previous sections, the survey also presented an opportun ity to gauge San Mateo voters’ opinions about two potential charter amendments. As shown in Figure 12, opinions were mixed.
Question 11 Once elected to City Council, the five councilmembers choose the Mayor and Dep- uty Mayor for a one-year term. As there is currently no 'required' process for selecting the Mayor or Deputy Mayor, the City is considering a two-part Charter Amendment that would clarify the process. Part 1 of the Amendment would require that selection of the Mayor and Deputy Mayor must occur at the first regular Council Meeting following the election - it can't be postponed with- out a unanimous vote of the Council or a natural disaster. In general, do you support or oppose this requirement?
Question 12 Part 2 of the Amendment would require that selection of the Mayor and Deputy Mayor follow a set rotation based on seniority - rather than the Mayor and Deputy Mayor being selected by a vote of current councilmembers. Once a member serves a term as Mayor, they are moved to the back of the sequence and other Counc ilmembers move forward. In general, do you support or oppose requiring that the Mayor and Deputy Mayor selections be based on a set rota- tion?
FIGURE 12 CHARTER AMENDMENT
When presented with a proposed charter amendment (Part 1) that would require the selection the Mayor and Deputy Mayor at the first regular Council Meeting following the election (unless post- poned by a unanimous vote of the Council or a na tural disaster), 63% of likely November voters were supportive, 9% opposed the amendment, with the remainder being unsure (25%) or unwill- ing to share their opinion (3%).
Opinions were more divided regarding Part 2 of the amendment, which would require that the selection of the Mayor and Deputy Mayor follow a set rotation based on seniority, rather than the Mayor and Deputy Mayor being selected by a vo te of current councilm embers. Approximately one-third (34%) of San Mateo voters supported th is amendment, 38% were opposed, while 28% were unsure or unwilling to share their opinion.
34.3 37.6
25.0 26.8
62.9 9.4
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Part 1 Part 2
Charter Amendment
% Respondents
Prefer not to
answer
Not sure
Oppose
Support
31 of 46
Charter Amendments
True North Research, Inc. © 2024 22City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Figures 13 (Part 1) and 14 (Part 2) show how op inions regarding the amendments varied by par- tisanship, overall satisfaction with the City’s performance, age, and voting propensity.
FIGURE 13 CHARTER AMENDMENT PART 1 BY PARTY, OVERALL SATISFACTION, AGE & VOTING PROPENSITY FIGURE 14 CHARTER AMENDMENT PART 2 BY PARTY, OVERALL SATISFACTION, AGE & VOTING PROPENSITY
61.6 61.2 55.5
68.3 44.0
70.6 53.6 59.0 63.0 59.5
74.3 65.9
10.6 14.2
13.0 8.8
16.1 7.8
13.4 11.7 6.9 10.2
5.9 9.5
23.2 25.3 24.5
29.5 21.1
34.8 17.8
31.5 27.1 27.5 27.8 13.2 24.5
3.3 2.5 2.1 1.9 5.2 3.8 1.5 2.2 2.5 2.5 6.6
66.4 7.1
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Democrat Republican Other NPP Satisfied Dissatisfied Under 40 40 to 49 50 to 64 65 or older High Medium Low Party Overall Satisfaction
(Q4)
Age Voting Propensity
% Respondents
Prefer not
to answer
Not sure
Oppose
Support
37.8 27.5 32.0 36.5
27.7 34.2 27.1 35.5 37.6 34.2
22.0 45.1
37.4 58.8
36.3 38.1
37.1 47.6
39.7 33.6 28.3 33.3 57.2
37.0 28.4 23.1
13.7 29.4 24.3
32.3 17.2
29.7 29.7 33.6 31.2
17.4 17.8
2.9 3.5 1.2 3.4
35.1 35.4
0.51.31.01.12.41.71.0 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Democrat Republican Other NPP Satisfied Dissatisfied Under 40 40 to 49 50 to 64 65 or older High Medium Low Party Overall Satisfaction
(Q4)
Age Voting Propensity
% Respondents
Prefer not
to answer
Not sure
Oppose
Support
32 of 46
Background & Demographics
True North Research, Inc. © 2024 23
City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
B ACKGROUND & D EMOGRAPHICS
TABLE 7 DEMOGRAPHICS OF SAMPLE
In addition to questions di rectly related to the pro-
posed measure, the study collected basic demographic
information about respondents and their households.
Some of this information was gathered during the
interview, although much of it was collected from the
voter file. The profile of the likely November 2024 voter sample represented in this report is shown in Table 7.
Total Respondents 600
Years in San Mateo (Q1)
Less than 5 19.4
5 to 9 14.3
10 to 14 12.4
15 or more 53.6
Prefer not to answer 0.3
Child in Hsld (Q13)
Yes 24.0
No 71.9
Prefer not to answer 4.1
Anticipate Living in City in 10 Yrs (Q14)
Yes 70.8
No 20.1
Prefer not to answer 9.1
Gender
Male 49.8
Female 45.4
Non-binary 0.0
Prefer not to answer 4.9
Party
Democrat 55.8
Republican 14.8
Other 7.1
NPP 22.3
Age
Under 40 31.4
40 to 49 16.4
50 to 64 24.7
65 or older 27.5
Registration Year
Since June 2012 38.8
Before June 2012 61.2
Household Party Type
Single dem 31.0
Dual dem 15.6
Single rep 7.2
Dual rep 3.4
Other 20.7
Mixed 22.2
Homeowner on Voter File
Yes 62.7
No 37.3
Likely to Vote by Mail
Yes 91.5
No 8.5
Voting Propensity
High 67.5
Medium 15.1
Low 17.4
33 of 46
Methodology
True North Research, Inc. © 2024 24
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 to develop a questionnaire that covered the topics of interest and avoided possible sources of systematic measurement error, including position-order effects, wording effects, response-category effects, scaling effects, and priming. Several questions included multiple indi- vidual items. Because asking the items in a set order can lead to a systematic position bias in responses, items were asked in random order for each respondent.
Some questions asked in this study were presen ted only to a subset of respondents. For exam- ple, only individuals who did not support the me asure (or were unsure) at the Initial Ballot Test (Question 5) were asked the follow-up, open-en ded Question 6 regarding their reasons for not supporting the measure. In some cases, two versions of an argument were tested to identify how wording differences impact perception of the item. In such cases, half of the sample received the item with version 1 wording (e.g., Question 7, item A1) and the other half received version 2 (e.g., Question 7, item A2). The questi onnaire included with this report (see Questionnaire & Toplines on page 27) identifies the skip patterns that were used during the interview 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 Telephone Interviewing) programmed to assist interview- ers when conducting telephone interviews. Th e CATI program automatically navigates skip patterns, randomizes the appropriate question item s, and alerts the interviewer to certain types of keypunching mistakes should they occur. The survey was also pr ogrammed into a passcode- protected online survey application to allow online participation for sampled voters, and profes- sionally translated into Spanish. The integrity of the questionnaire was pre-tested internally by True North and by dialing into voter households in the city prior to formally beginning the sur- vey.
SAMPLE The survey was administered to a stratified and clustered random sample of regis- tered voters in the City of San Mateo who are likely to participate in the November 2024 general election. Consistent with the profile of this universe, the sample was stratified into clusters, each representing a combination of age, gender, and household party type. Individuals were then ran- domly selected based on their profile into an appr opriate cluster. This method ensures that if a person of a particular profile refuses to partic ipate, they are replaced by an individual who shares their same profile.
STATISTICAL MARGIN OF ERROR By using the probability-based sampling design noted above, True North ensured that the final sa mple was representative of voters in the city who are likely to participate in the November 2024 general election. The results of the survey can thus be used to estimate the opinions of all voters likely to participate in said election.
Because not all voters participated in the study, however, the results have what is known as a sta- tistical margin of error due to sampling. The ma rgin of error refers to the difference between what was found in the su rvey of 600 voters for a particular question and what would have been
34 of 46
Methodology
True North Research, Inc. © 2024 25City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
found if all of the estimated 52,735 likely Novem ber 2024 voters identified in the city had been surveyed for the study.
Figure 15 provides a graphic plot of the maximum margin of error in this study. The maximum margin of error for a dichotomous percentage re sult occurs when the answers are evenly split such that 50% provide one response and 50% prov ide the alternative response. For this survey, the maximum margin of error is ± 4.0%.
FIGURE 15 MAXIMUM MARGIN OF ERROR DUE TO SAMPLING
Within this report, figures and tables show ho w responses to certain questions varied by sub- groups such as age, gender, and partisan affilia tion. Figure 15 is thus useful for understanding how the maximum margin of error for a percentage estimate will grow as the number of individ- uals asked a question (or in a particular subgro up) 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.
RECRUITING & DATA COLLECTION The survey followed a mixed-method design that employed multiple recruiting methods (telephone, text, and email) and multiple data collection methods (telephone and online). Te lephone interviews averaged 16 minutes in length and were conducted during weekday evenings (5:30PM to 9PM) and on weekends (10AM to 5PM). It is stan- dard practice not to call during the day on we ekdays because most working adults are unavail- able and thus calling during those hours would likely bias the sample.
Voters recruited via email and text were assigned a unique passcode to ensure that only voters who received an invitation could access the online survey site, and that each voter could com- plete the survey only one time. During the data collection period, an email reminder notice was 600 Respondents
± 4.0%
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
35 of 46
Methodology
True North Research, Inc. © 2024 26City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
also sent to encourage participation among those who had yet to take the survey. A total of 600 surveys were completed between April 15 and April 22, 2024.
DATA PROCESSING Data processing consisted of checking the data for errors or inconsis- tencies, coding and recoding responses, weighting, and preparing frequency analyses and cross- tabulations.
ROUNDING Numbers that end in 0.5 or higher are rounded up to the nearest whole num- ber, whereas numbers that end in 0.4 or lower are rounded down to the nearest whole number.
These same rounding rules are also applied, when needed, to arrive at numbers that include a decimal place in constructing figures and tables. Occasionally, these rounding rules lead to small discrepancies in the first decimal place when comparing tables and charts for a given question.
36 of 46
Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2024 27
City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Q UESTIONNAIRE & T OPLINES
True North Research, Inc. © 2024 Page 1
City of San Mateo
General Plan Measure Survey
Final Toplines (n=600)
April 2024
Section 1: Introduction to Study
Hi, may I please speak to _____. My name is _____, and Im calling from TNR on behalf of the City of San Mateo (Muh-TAY-o). Were conducting a confidential survey of voters about important issues in the city and Id 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 10 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?
If the person asks why you need to speak to the listed person or if they ask to participate instead, explain: For statistical purposes, at this time the survey must only be completed by this particular individual.
Section 2: Quality of Life & City Services
Id like to begin by asking you a few questions about what it is like to live in San Mateo.
Q1 How long have you lived in San Mateo?
1 Less than 1 year 3%
2 1 to 4 years 17%
3 5 to 9 years 14%
4 10 to 14 years 12%
5 15 years or longer 54%
99 Prefer not to answer 0%
Q2 How would you rate the overall quality of life in San Mateo? Would you say it is excellent, good, fair, poor or very poor?
1 Excellent 26%
2 Good 58%
3 Fair 13%
4 Poor 2%
5 Very poor 1%
98 Not sure 1%
99 Prefer not to answer 0%
37 of 46
Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2024 28City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
City of San Mateo Survey April 2024
True North Research, Inc. © 2024 Page 2
Q3
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 14%
Limit growth, preserve open space 11%
Improve, maintain infrastructure, roads 11%
Not sure / Cannot think of anything specific 10%
Reduce traffic congestion 7%
Improve parking 6%
Provide more bike lanes, safe sidewalks,
paths 6%
Beautify, clean up City, landscape 5%
Improve public safety 5%
Improve public transit 5%
Improve, add parks, rec facilities 4%
Improve downtown area 4%
Reduce cost of living 4%
Improve, provide more shopping, dining
opportunities 4%
No changes needed / Everything is fine 4%
Enforce traffic laws 3%
Provide additional youth, family activities,
events for different ages 3%
Address homeless issues 3%
Improve city planning, zoning 3%
Address rent control issues 3%
Improve schools, education 2%
Reduce taxes, fees 2%
Reduce noise pollution 2%
Q4
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 24%
2 Somewhat satisfied 53%
3 Somewhat dissatisfied 13%
4 Very dissatisfied 3%
98 Not sure 6%
99 Prefer not to answer 1%
38 of 46
Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2024 29City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
City of San Mateo Survey April 2024
True North Research, Inc. © 2024 Page 3
Section 3: Initial Ballot Test
Later this year, voters in San Mateo may be asked to vote on a local ballot measure. Let me read you a summary of the measure.
Q5
To allow for additional affordable housing for low- and middle-income residents and meet State housing requirements while enhancing parks and open space, protecting existing residential neighborhoods, and reducing traffic impacts, shall the City of San Mateos measure be adopted allowing future housing to be concentrated downtown along the El Camino corridor and near Caltrain stations where it is close to transit, jobs, infrastructure, and services?
Listed supporters of the measure may include neighborhood groups, affordable housing and transportation advocates, and business groups.
Listed opponents of the measure may include government watchdog and neighborhood groups.
If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on this measure? Get answer, then ask: Would that be definitely (yes/no) or probably (yes/no)? 1 Definitely yes 32% Skip to Q7
2 Probably yes 32% Skip to Q7
3 Probably no 10% Ask Q6
4 Definitely no 17% Ask Q6
98 Not sure 8% Ask Q6
99 Prefer not to answer 1% Skip to Q7
Q6
Is there a particular reason why you do not support or are unsure about the measure I just described? If yes, ask: Please briefly describe your reason. Verbatim responses recorded and later grouped into categories shown below.
City is already densely populated 22%
Need more information 19%
It will create more traffic 19%
Parking issues 8%
Taxes already too high 7%
Concerns with safety, security 6%
It will negatively impact city, residents 6%
Other higher priorities in community 6%
Infrastructure wont keep up with growth 6%
It will increase rent, affordability 5%
Concerns with high rises, buildings 5%
Do not trust City government 4%
Money is misspent, mismanaged 3%
Opposed to new housing in general 3%
Housing should be built around City 3%
Less government involvement 2%
39 of 46
Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2024 30City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
City of San Mateo Survey April 2024
True North Research, Inc. © 2024 Page 4
Section 4: Positive Arguments
What Id like to do now is tell you what some people are saying about the measure weve been discussing.
Q7 Supporters of the measure say: _____. Do you think this is a very convincing, somewhat convincing, or not at all convincing reason to SUPPORT the measure? Split Sample A1/A2 first, then randomize
remaining items. Split Sample F1/F2.
Very
convincing
Somewhat
convincing
Not at all
convincing
Don t
believe
Not sure
Prefer not to
answer
A1
State law requires that the City of San Mateo
plan for thousands of new homes to meet
current and future needs. This measure
allows the City to locate these new homes in
the areas that are most suitable for growth
and change which are along El Camino Real
and near Caltrain stations.
26% 41% 23% 7% 2% 1%
A2
To meet current and future housing needs,
State law requires that the City of San Mateo
plan for about 7,000 new housing units by
2031. It is expected that the State will require
the City to plan for about 15,000 new units
by 2041. This measure allows the City to be
smart about how it plans for future housing
by concentrating it where it is best served by
existing infrastructure, transit, and shops.
22% 45% 19% 9% 3% 1% B
By locating new housing closer to transit and
jobs, this measure will reduce vehicle trips,
traffic, and greenhouse gas emissions while
increasing transit use.
33% 29% 18% 16% 3% 1%
C This measure will help enhance parks and
open space amenities in the city. 24% 32% 23% 16% 4% 2% D
By concentrating new housing downtown and
near Caltrain stations, this measure will allow
existing residential neighborhoods to stay
low-density.
28% 38% 20% 10% 3% 1%
E
This measure will create a more vibrant
downtown with a greater diversity of
businesses and employers and more
customers to support local businesses.
28% 37% 19% 12% 2% 1%
F1
San Mateo is an expensive place to live. This
measure will provide more housing that is
affordable for young families, seniors, and
essential workers like teachers, nurses, and
first responders.
34% 31% 17% 14% 3% 1%
40 of 46
Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2024 31City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
City of San Mateo Survey April 2024
True North Research, Inc. © 2024 Page 5
F2
San Mateo has become so expensive that
longtime residents, seniors, and younger
residents are being pushed out of the city
because they cant afford to stay. We need
more affordable housing to give residents a
chance to keep living in their neighborhoods.
45% 23% 17% 10% 3% 1%
G
This measure will NOT raise your taxes, but it
will improve the business climate downtown.
An independent fiscal study concluded that
the measure will generate millions of
additional dollars each year for essential city
services.
30% 32% 17% 15% 4% 1%
H
This measure preserves Measure Y building
height and density limits in most areas of the
city, including all low-density residential
neighborhoods.
17% 40% 24% 12% 5% 2%
I
If this measure doesnt pass, the City will
need to allow greater density in all existing
residential neighborhoods to meet the States
housing requirements. This could include
building high-density apartments next to
single family homes.
28% 29% 24% 12% 5% 1%
Section 5: Interim Ballot Test
Sometimes people change their mind about a measure once they have more information about it. Now that you have heard a bit more about the measure, let me read you a summary of it again.
Q8
To allow for additional affordable housing for low- and middle-income residents and meet State housing requirements while enhancing parks and open space, protecting existing residential neighborhoods, and reducing traffic impacts, shall the City of San Mateos measure be adopted allowing future housing to be concentrated downtown along the El Camino corridor and near Caltrain stations where it is close to transit, jobs, infrastructure, and services?
Listed supporters of the measure may include neighborhood groups, affordable housing and transportation advocates, and business groups.
Listed opponents of the measure may include government watchdog and neighborhood groups.
If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on this measure? Get answer, then ask: Would that be definitely (yes/no) or probably (yes/no)? 1 Definitely yes 34%
2 Probably yes 32%
3 Probably no 9%
4 Definitely no 17%
98 Not sure 8%
99 Prefer not to answer 0%
41 of 46
Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2024 32City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
City of San Mateo Survey April 2024
True North Research, Inc. © 2024 Page 6
Section 6: Negative Arguments
Next, let me tell you what opponents of the measure are saying.
Q9 Opponents of the measure say: _____. Do you think this is a very convincing, somewhat convincing, or not at all convincing reason to OPPOSE the measure? Randomize
Very
convincing
Somewhat
convincing
Not at all
convincing
Don t
believe
Not sure
Prefer not to
answer
A
San Mateo voters reaffirmed Measure Y in
2020 which limits building heights and
densities in the city. Now, just four years
later, the City is asking voters to undo
Measure Y protections? Voters already spoke
on this issue. The City just needs to listen.
29% 28% 29% 8% 5% 2%
B
This measure is unfair. Instead of having
every neighborhood accept its fair share of
growth, this measure protects higher-end
neighborhoods with single family homes
by concentrating future housing in lower-
income areas of the city.
21% 34% 26% 12% 5% 2%
C
Dont be fooled. The City can meet the States
requirements for future housing while
keeping all of the height and density
restrictions voters approved in Measure Y. We
dont need this measure.
19% 24% 33% 14% 8% 2%
D
The only people who want more housing in
San Mateo are wealthy developers. Building
more housing may make them rich, but it will
ruin our quality of life.
25% 23% 30% 16% 4% 2%
E We shouldnt let the State push us around
and dictate land use policy in San Mateo. 27% 20% 34% 15% 3% 2% F
This measure wont provide what it promises.
Taller buildings are much more expensive to
construct, which makes it impossible to
provide affordable housing. The housing that
is built will be high-end, market rate housing.
18% 37% 27% 12% 5% 2%
G
Small businesses in our community will be
pushed out as existing buildings are
redeveloped into higher density units with
less commercial space and much higher
rents.
27% 28% 29% 11% 3% 2%
42 of 46
Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2024 33City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
City of San Mateo Survey April 2024
True North Research, Inc. © 2024 Page 7
Section 7: Final Ballot Test
Now that you have heard a bit more about the measure, let me read you a summary of it one more time.
Q10
To allow for additional affordable housing for low- and middle-income residents and meet State housing requirements while enhancing parks and open space, protecting existing residential neighborhoods, and reducing traffic impacts, shall the City of San Mateos measure be adopted allowing future housing to be concentrated downtown along the El Camino corridor and near Caltrain stations where it is close to transit, jobs, infrastructure, and services?
Listed supporters of the measure may include neighborhood groups, affordable housing and transportation advocates, and business groups.
Listed opponents of the measure may include government watchdog and neighborhood groups.
If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on this measure? Get answer, then ask: Would that be definitely (yes/no) or probably (yes/no)? 1 Definitely yes 30%
2 Probably yes 32%
3 Probably no 11%
4 Definitely no 19%
98 Not sure 7%
99 Prefer not to answer 1%
Section 8: Charter Amendments
Next, Id like to ask you a few questions that will help the City set future policy.
Q11
Once elected to City Council, the five councilmembers choose the Mayor and Deputy Mayor for a one-year term. As there is currently no required process for selecting the Mayor or Deputy Mayor, the City is considering a two-part Charter Amendment that would clarify the process.
Part 1 of the Amendment would require that selection of the Mayor and Deputy Mayor must occur at the first regular Council Meeting following the election it cant be postponed without a unanimous vote of the Council or a natural disaster.
In general, do you support or oppose this requirement?
1 Support 63%
2 Oppose 9%
98 Not sure 25%
99 Prefer not to answer 3%
43 of 46
Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2024 34City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
City of San Mateo Survey April 2024
True North Research, Inc. © 2024 Page 8
Q12
Part 2 of the Amendment would require that selection of the Mayor and Deputy Mayor follow a set rotation based on seniority rather than the Mayor and Deputy Mayor being selected by a vote of current councilmembers. Once a member serves a term as Mayor, they are moved to the back of the sequence and other Councilmembers move forward.
In general, do you support or oppose requiring that the Mayor and Deputy Mayor selections be based on a set rotation?
1 Support 34%
2 Oppose 38%
98 Not sure 27%
99 Prefer not to answer 1%
Section 9: Background & Demographics
Thank you so much for your participation. I have just two background questions for statistical purposes.
Q13 Do you have children under the age of 18 living in your household? 1 Yes 24%
2 No 72%
99 Prefer not to answer 4%
Q14 Do you anticipate that you will still be living in the City of San Mateo 10 years from now? 1 Yes 71%
2 No 20%
99 Prefer not to answer 9%
Those are all of the questions that I have for you. Thanks so much for participating in this important survey.
Post-Interview & Sample Items
S1 Gender
1 Male 50%
2 Female 45%
3 Non-binary 0%
4 Prefer not to answer 5%
44 of 46
Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2024 35City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
City of San Mateo Survey April 2024
True North Research, Inc. © 2024 Page 9
S2 Party
1 Democrat 56%
2 Republican 15%
3 Other 7%
4 No Party Preference (NPP) 22%
S3 Age on Voter File
1 18 to 29 15%
2 30 to 39 17%
3 40 to 49 16%
4 50 to 64 25%
5 65 or older 28%
S4 Registration Date
1 Since Nov 2018 23%
2 Jun 2012 to before Nov 2018 16%
3 Jun 2006 to before Jun 2012 11%
4 Before June 2006 50%
S5 Household Party Type
1 Single Dem 31%
2 Dual Dem 16%
3 Single Rep 7%
4 Dual Rep 3%
5 Single Other 16%
6 Dual Other 5%
7 Dem & Rep 4%
8 Dem & Other 13%
9 Rep & Other 3%
0 Mixed (Dem + Rep + Other) 2%
S6 Homeowner on Voter File
1 Yes 63%
2 No 37%
45 of 46
Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2024 36City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
City of San Mateo Survey April 2024
True North Research, Inc. © 2024 Page 10
S7 Likely to Vote by Mail
1 Yes 91%
2 No 9%
S8 Likely November 2024 Voter
1 Yes 100%
2 No 0%
S9 Voting Propensity
1 High 68%
2 Medium 15%
3 Low 17%
S10 Survey Language
1 English 96%
2 Spanish 4%
46 of 46