City of South San Francisco:

City of South San Francisco: 2017 Community Survey January 11, 2018 Page 1 January 11, 2018

Methodology Overview  Data Collection

Landline (n=69), cell phone (n=40), text to online (n=159), and email to online (n=203) interviewing

 Universe

53,212 adults ages 18 and older in the City of South San Francisco, with a subsample of registered voters (30,958)

 Fielding Dates

December 11 through December 17, 2017

 Interview Length

18 minutes

 Sample Size

471 Adult residents 379 Registered voters

 Margin of Error

± 4.50% Adult residents 18+ ± 5.00% Registered voters

Note: The data have been weighted by respondent age and ethnicity to reflect the actual population characteristics of the adult residents in the City of South San Francisco (Based on 2016 ACS (American Community Survey).

Page 2 January 11, 2018

Q1. Satisfaction with Quality of Life Q2. Opinion on Future Direction of South San Francisco

Quality of Life Total Satisfied = 83.3% Total Dissatisfied = 14%

Somewhat dissatisfied 11.0%

Very dissatisfied 4.0%

Not sure 1.7%

Very satisfied 35.5%

Somewhat satisfied 47.8% DK/NA/[Not sure] 23.4%

Right direction 54.9% Wrong direction 21.8%

Future Direction of SSF Page 3 January 11, 2018

Q3. Most Important Issue Facing South San Francisco 25.7%

Affordable Housing 19.8%

Traffic Congestion 11.0%

Crime

10.1%

Overdevelopment/Crowded

9.6%

Education 6.8%

Roads/Street/Infrastructure

6.5%

Quality of Life/Scenery

6.1%

Parking

5.1%

Public Safety

4.6%

Homelessness

3.8%

Downtown/Shopping needs improvement

3.3%

Child/Elder care Police

2.5%

Drug issues

2.4%

Cost of living

2.4%

Public transportation/Transit

2.4% 2.0%

Cleanliness

15.1%

Other mention

20.0%

DK/NA/Unsure 0%

10%

20%

Note: Issues that were mentioned by less than 2 percent of the residents have been added to the “Other mention” category for charting purposes.

30% Page 4 January 11, 2018

Q4. Satisfaction With City’s Provision of Services

Very dissatisfied 3.8%

Somewhat dissatisfied 8.4%

Not sure 6.4%

Very satisfied 28.9%

Somewhat satisfied 52.5%


Q5. Importance of City Services, Programs and Facilities 2.60

A. Police services

2.57

96.1%

2.48

K. Traffic on major City streets

Tier 1

B. Fire protection services

2.39

L. Street pavement maintenance

2.28

E. Parks and Recreation facilities

2.25

H. Park maintenance

2.22 2.17

I. Library facilities

2.15

G. Senior services

2.13

N. Managing building and development

2.12

O. Preserving open space

2.12

J. Library programs and services

2.10

Tier 3

P. Environmental and sustainability programs

Tier 2

F. Parks and Recreation programs

2.02

D. Code enforcement services 1.70

C. Building permit services 1.22

Q. Bike share programs

35.3%

0

1

2

3

Not At All Important

Somewhat Important

Very Important

Extremely Important

Note: The above rating questions have been abbreviated for charting purposes, and responses were recoded to calculate mean scores: “Extremely Important” = +3, “Very Important” = +2, “Somewhat Important” = +1, and “Not At All Important” = 0.

T-3 T-4 T-5

1.92

M. Maintaining the City's character and history


Q6. Satisfaction with City Services, Programs and Facilities 1.30

J. Library programs and services

Tier 1

1.41 84.2%

B. Fire protection services

1.25

I. Library facilities

1.01

A. Police services

G. Senior services

0.89

E. Parks and Recreation facilities

0.88

H. Park maintenance

0.86 0.79

P. Environmental and sustainability programs

0.77

M. Maintaining the City's character and history

0.67

Q. Bike share programs

0.66

D. Code enforcement services

0.65

Tier 3

C. Building permit services

Tier 2

0.93

F. Parks and Recreation programs

T-4

0.55

O. Preserving open space

0.36

N. Managing building and development

T-5 T-6

0.28

L. Street pavement maintenance

48.0%

-0.13

K. Traffic on major City streets -2

-1

Very Dissatisfied

Somewhat Dissatisfied

0

Note: The above rating questions have been abbreviated for charting purposes, and responses were recoded to calculate mean scores: “Very Satisfied” = +2, “Somewhat Satisfied” = +1, “Somewhat Dissatisfied” = -1, and “Very Dissatisfied” = -2.

1

2

Somewhat Satisfied

Very Satisfied Page 7 January 11, 2018

Importance – Satisfaction Matrix Importance

Satisfaction

5B. Fire protection services

2.60

1.41

5A. Police services

2.57

1.01

5K. Traffic on major City streets

2.48

-0.13

5L. Street pavement maintenance

2.39

0.28

5F. Parks and Recreation programs

2.28

0.93

5E. Parks and Recreation facilities

2.25

0.88

5H. Park maintenance 5P. Environmental and sustainability programs 5I. Library facilities

2.22

0.86

2.17

0.77

2.15

1.25

5G. Senior services

2.13

0.89

5N. Managing building and development

2.12

0.36

5O. Preserving open space

2.12

0.55

5J. Library programs and services

2.10

1.30

5D. Code enforcement services 5M. Maintaining the City's character and history 5C. Building permit services

2.02

0.65

1.92

0.67

1.70

0.79

5Q. Bike share programs

1.22

0.66

Note: The above have been ranked based on the Importance scale described earlier.


Q7. Opinion on Parks and Recreation Programs and Facilities

Very poor 2.8% Poor 5.4%

Not used City of SSF park or recreation program or facility 13.0%

Not sure 1.9% Excellent 18.4%

Fair 18.1% Good 40.4%


Q9. Opinion on City Public Library Services

Not used City of SSF public library or services 23.5%

Not sure 2.3%

Excellent 28.2%

Very poor 0.0%

Poor 1.2%

Fair 12.7%

Good 32.1%


Q11. Opinion on Whether There is a Housing Crisis on the Peninsula

Mixed opinions 17.5%

Not sure 6.1%

No 6.6%

Yes 69.7%


Q11. Opinion on Whether There is a Housing Crisis on the Peninsula – By Age 100 90

Number of Respondents

80 70 60

Yes No

50

Mixed 40

Not sure

30 20 10 0

18-29

30-39

40-49

50-64

65+


Q12. Opinion on How to Address Housing Crisis

26.8%

Allow more single-family homes

18.4%

Allow more high-density apartments or condos

44.9%

Allow more high-density affordable housing

23.2%

Provide more public transportation

12.9%

Other

11.8%

Not sure/DK/NA

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50% Page 13 January 11, 2018

Q13. Considering Moving Out of South San Francisco in Next 12 Months Not sure 15.6%

Yes 40.0% No 44.4%


60

By Age

50 40

Yes 30

No Not Sure

20 10 0 18-29

30-39

40-49

50-64

65+


Q14. Opinion on Amount of Residential Growth in Last 5 Years Mixed opinions 10.6%

Not sure 6.7%

Too little 8.8%

Too much 40.7%

About right 33.2%


60

By Age

50 40

Too much About right

30

Too little Mixed opinions

20

Not sure 10 0 18-29

30-39

40-49

50-64

65+


Q14. Opinion on Amount of Residential Growth in Last 5 Years – By Area 100 90 80


70 60

Too much 50

About right Too little

40

Mixed opinions 30 20 10 0

East of El Camino & Between 280 & El 101 Camino

West of 280

Not Sure Page 16 January 11, 2018

Q15. Should the City Encourage Construction of More Affordable Housing Not sure 4.1%


Yes 53.2%

No 19.3%


70

Yes No

60

Mixed Opinions

By Age

50

Not sure

40 30 20 10 0 18-29

30-39

40-49

50-64

65+


Q15. Should the City Encourage Construction of More Affordable Housing – By Area 120


100

80

Yes 60

No Mixed Opinions Not Sure

40

20

0

East of El Camino & 101

Between 280 & El Camino

West of 280

Not sure Page 18 January 11, 2018

Q16. Should the City Encourage Housing Construction Near Where People Work Not sure 4.9%


No 12.3% Yes 61.7%


80

Yes

70

No

By Age

60

Mixed Opinions Not sure

50 40 30 20 10 0

18-29

30-39

40-49

50-64

65+


Q16. Should the City Encourage Housing Construction Near Where People Work – By Area 140

120


100

80

Yes No

60

Mixed Opinions Not Sure

40

20

0

East of El Camino Between 280 & El & 101 Camino

West of 280

Not sure Page 20 January 11, 2018

Q17. Contacted City Department in Last 12 Months

Not sure 1.0%

Yes 26.0%

No 73.0%


Q18. Satisfaction with City Contact Adults 18+ (n=471)

85.9%

Tier 1

1.33

C. Courtesy of the City staff

1.09

B. The customer service you received

Tier 2

0.87

D. Timeliness of the response

0.83

A. Getting your problem resolved or question answered

-2

-1

Very Dissatisfied

Somewhat Dissatisfied

0

73.7%

1

2

Somewhat Satisfied

Very Satisfied

Note: The above rating questions have been abbreviated for charting purposes, and responses were recoded to calculate mean scores: “Very Satisfied” = +2, “Somewhat Satisfied” = +1, “Somewhat Dissatisfied” = -1, and “Very Dissatisfied” = -2.


Summary  83.3 percent of residents are satisfied with the quality of life in South San Francisco. And, a majority think things are going in the right direction, while only 21.8 percent say things are going in the wrong direction.  In an open-end format, residents’ top concerns are:  Affordable housing (25.7%)  Traffic congestion (19.8%)  A substantial majority of residents are satisfied with the job the City is doing to provide municipal services.  81.4 percent of respondents indicated that they are “very satisfied” (28.9%) or “somewhat satisfied” (52.5%) with the job the City is doing to provide services.  The most important municipal services are:  Fire protection services  Police services  Traffic on major streets Page 23 January 11, 2018

Summary  Residents are most satisfied with:  Fire protection services  Library programs and services  Library facilities  58.8 percent rated park and recreation programs as excellent or good.  60.3 percent rated public library services as excellent or good.  69.7 percent of residents believe there is a housing crisis on the Peninsula.  44.9 percent think that “allowing more high-density affordable housing” would solve the problem.  However, 40.7 percent indicated that there has been “too much residential growth in South San Francisco in the last five years.”  53.2 percent think that “the City should encourage the construction of more affordable housing.”  61.7 percent think that “the City should encourage the construction of housing near where people work to reduce commuter traffic.” Page 24 January 11, 2018

Summary  Among those who indicated there is a housing crisis, 40 percent would consider moving out of South San Francisco in the next 12 months, 44.4 percent would not move, and 15.6 percent don’t know.  26 percent of the respondents had contacted the City within the last 12 months.  85.9 percent were satisfied with the “courtesy of City staff.”  84.2 percent were satisfied with “the customer service you received.”  77.9 percent indicated they were satisfied with the “timeliness of the response.”  73.7 percent were satisfied with “getting your problem resolved or question answered.”


www.godberesearch.com California and Corporate Offices 1575 Old Bayshore Highway, Suite 102 Burlingame, CA 94010

Nevada Office 59 Damonte Ranch Parkway, Suite B309 Reno, NV 89521 Pacific Northwest Office 601 108th Avenue NE, Suite 1900 Bellevue, WA 98004
