Jan 11, 2018 - characteristics of the adult residents in the City of South San Francisco (Based on 2016 ACS ( ... Import
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%
Page 5 January 11, 2018
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
Page 6 January 11, 2018
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.
Page 8 January 11, 2018
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%
Page 9 January 11, 2018
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%
Page 10 January 11, 2018
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%
Page 11 January 11, 2018
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+
Page 12 January 11, 2018
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%
Number of Respondents
60
By Age
50 40
Yes 30
No Not Sure
20 10 0 18-29
30-39
40-49
50-64
65+
Page 14 January 11, 2018
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%
Number of Respondents
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+
Page 15 January 11, 2018
Q14. Opinion on Amount of Residential Growth in Last 5 Years – By Area 100 90 80
Number of Respondents
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%
Mixed opinions 23.4%
Yes 53.2%
No 19.3%
Number of Respondents
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+
Page 17 January 11, 2018
Q15. Should the City Encourage Construction of More Affordable Housing – By Area 120
Number of Respondents
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%
Mixed opinions 21.1%
No 12.3% Yes 61.7%
Number of Respondents
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+
Page 19 January 11, 2018
Q16. Should the City Encourage Housing Construction Near Where People Work – By Area 140
120
Number of Respondents
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%
Page 21 January 11, 2018
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.
Page 22 January 11, 2018
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.”
Page 25 January 11, 2018
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
Page 26 January 11, 2018