HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Bill 5.B-Attch1 03/17/2003III
0
G odb ehse a rcb& A
�n� ` T 4 •J i ui ' E
rnr ¶f
0
f
60 Stone Pine Road
Half Moon'B# CA,94019 - 1739
Phone 650/712 -3137
Fax 650/712 -3131
95 South Market Street, Suite 300
San Jose CA 95113 -2350
Phone 408/288 -9232
Fax 408/288 -9212
445 South Figueroa Street, 2600
Los Angeles CA 90071 -1631
Phone 213/624 -8863
Fax 213/624 -8864
640 Grand Avenue, Suite G
Carlsbad CA 92008 -2365
Phone 760/730 - 2941
Fax 760/720 -4706
C
List Figures ............................................................................................................................. ii
Lis of Tables ...... ............................ '_..............
bi
Introduction ................................................................. . ..............................................................
l
E xecutive Summary —.--------.-----------.-----.--^..---.--2
Methodology --.--.----------
Important Issu8.----------^--~----.-------------.—.-----l2
Development in Petaluma .------__-----,,-------------.----.--l4
R ecreation and -------.-----.--------------------25
ItoffiC Transportation, and Travel —^--------------___----.
Dl
Consumer Behavior .................................................. ...... ..... .... ..... ...... --------...
35
0
Ci�)����n� Guu�xBumanh&m�hm�
Page i
List of Figures
7
Lost of Figures
Figure 1.
Important Issue to Petaluma Residents.....:.., .... I ............. 1 . .......... ... I ............................................. 112
Figure 2.
Agreement with Petaluma's Future Planning Priorities ............................... .............................14
Figure 3.
Areas appropriate for New Development ........................................................ ...........::................17
Figure 4.
Agreement with Planning Alternatives to maintain open space ................. ...............................
20
Figure 5•
Development of Facilities (Mean Score) ...................................................... ......:........................
21
Figure 6.
Development of Facilities (Distribution of Responses) ............................... ...............................
22
Figure 7.
Fifteen most Visited Parks in Petaluma ......... :.............................................................................
25
Figure 8.
Primary Reason for Visiting the Park .......... ............ ....... ................................... ... :............ .........
26
Figure 9.
Satisfaction with Recreational Facilities .......................................................... I...........................
26
Figure 10.
Expanding Recreational Facilities ............................................................... ...............................
28
Figure 11,
Support for a Recreation Revenue Measure by thosethat would like to see the
FacilitiesExpanded ....................................................................................... ...............................
29
Figure 12.
Support for a Recreation Revenue Measure by all Residents .....................................................
30
Figure 13.
Priorities for Transportation Planning ........................................................ ............................:..
31
Figure 14.
Travelling Patterns Within Petaluma ....................................................... . ....................... ...........
33
Figure 15.
Travelling Patterns Outside Petaluma ............ ......... :.................................................................
34
Figure 16.
Shopping Behavior Within Petaluma ............................................. ............................... .........
3 5 •
Figure 17.
Shopping Behavior Outside of Petaluma .... ............................... ............................... .......:36
Figure 18.
Descriptive Statistics for the Responses to Question 16 .............................. .:...........:.:...............
37
Figure 19.
Length of Residence in Petaluma ....:...: ........ ..............................................................................
38
Figure 20.
Residential Area within Petaluma .................... .........................
3
Fi g ure21.
Current,-Home Type .................................................... :....... ..........................................................
39
Figure22.
Rent or Own .................................................... : ...................................................................... :.....
39
Fi 23.
Number of Adults in Household ...............................................:.............::.... ...............................
39
Figure 24.
Number of Children in Household ............................................................... ......I....................:...
40
Figure25.
Age .... ......................... ............................... ...:............. ............................... ..........40
Figure26.
Regular Internet Access .................................................... ............................................................
40
Figure27.
Sources of City ....................................................................................... .............................
Figure28.
Respondent Status .......................................... : ................ :............................................................
41
Figure 29.
A dedicated Home Office or Working'Studio ................................................ ...............................
41
Figure
Ethnicity ........................................................................................................ ...............................
42
Figure
Incorrme ................................,..,..............................,........................................ ..:..........................42
Figure32.
Gender .............................:.............................................::.................................. ...........................:.
Fi 33.
Language used in the Survey ....................................................................... ...............................
43
•
Oily of Petaluma Godbe Reseizrcb v.rinalvsis -
Page ii
List of Tables
•
C7
List. ®f Tables.
Table1.
Methodology Overview ..................................................................................... ..............................7
Table2.
Subgroup Labels ..... ..... ..... .... ...... .. ..... ....... ......... . .... . .... . .... . ... . ........ . ......... . ... ....... .......................
8
Table3.
Margin of Error., ........... I ....................... I ........ I ...............................................................................
9
Table 4.
Satisfaction with Petaluma's Recreational Facilities by Gender ................... .............................10
Table 5.
Top Five Ranked Issues of Importance by Length of Residence
in Petaluma ..............................................................................:.................... .............................13
Table 6.
Top Five Ranked Issues of Importance by Area of Residence_ ....................... .............................13
Table 7.
Agreement .with Petaluma's.Future by Area of Residence ......::.................... .............................15
Table 8.
Agreement with Petaluma's Future by Age ................................................... .............................16
Table 9.
Agreement with Petaluma's Future by Homeownership Status
andGender ..........:........................................................................................... .............................16
Table 10.
Areas Appropriate for Development by Area of Residence .............................. .............................18
Table 11.
Areas Appropriate for Development by Income .............................................. .............................19
Table 12.
Development of Facilities by Area of Residence ....:...................................... ...............................
23
Table 13.
Development of Facilities by Description of Current Residence .................. ...............................
24
Table 14.
Satisfaction with Recreational Facilities by Area of Residence ................... ...............................
27
Table 15.
Transportation Priorities by Area of Residence ............................................ ...............................
32
Table 16.
Transportation Priorities by Length of Residence in Petaluma ................. ...............................
32
Table 17.
Transportation Priorities by Age ................................................................... ...............................
33
City of Petaluuna
Godbe ResearG) &Analy&
Page iii
I
•
Executive Szt?W=7a )
Introduction
Intr®duct® ® n
Godbe Research & Analysis (GRA) is pleased to present the results of a public opinion
research project conducted for the City of Petaluma. This report is organized into the follow-
ing sections:
The Etiecutive Summar)� provides the key findings from the survey.
Afethodolog The MethodoloD� section explains the methodology used to conduct this type of survey
research. This section also explains how to use the detailed crosstabulation tables in Appen-
dix B.
Su7777=7� of Results In the body of the report we present a question -by- question analysis of the survey. The dis-
cussion is organized into the following sections:
®' Important Issues
• Development in Petaluma
• Recreation and Open Space
• Traffic, Transportation, and Travel Patterns
• Consumer Behavior
• Demographic and Behavioral Information
Appe7�dices We have included the following three appendices:
® Appendi,; A, which presents the questionnaire and topline data.
® Appendix; B, which presents the computer:: generated crosstabulation.
® Appendix C, which presents the'verbatim responses to open end questions.
Cit) of Petalzona
Godbe Research & Avalvsis
Page 1
Executive Summary
Executive Summary
Key Findings
Based on the analysis of the data, Godbe Research & Analysis (GRA) is pleased to present the
following key findings of the telephone survey of residents conducted in July 2002.
•
Issues of Importaiace i77 Petaluma The first substantive question of the survey asked respondents to indicate what they felt was
the most important issue facing residents in the City of Petaluma. This question was pre-
sented in an open -ended format, which; means that respondents were free to mention any
issue without being constrained to choose from a list, Asking this question in an open -ended
format is useful to assess the,salience of the issues to the respondent. Consequently, the
answers provided by respondents would not only reflect the importance, but also the salience,
of the issues in the Petaluma community. Asking a question of this type early in the ques-
tionnaire also avoided influencing respondents' answer with the line of questions that might
have preceded it.
Seventeen percent of respondents indicated that traffic congestion during their commute was
the most important issue facing residents of Petaluma. Condition of the streets and roads
was °the second.most noted issue by respondents: followed by local traffic congestions, too
much housing, and almost equally noted as too much housing was too little housing.
The issue of housing revealed interesting relationship with length of residence in Peta-
luma. Residents who lived in the city longer were more likely to rate 'too much housing' as
the:most,important issue facing the City whereas residents who had lived in the city a shorter
duration were more likely to rate `too little housing' as the most important issue facing the
community.
Planizi7ag Priorities for Petaluma 's Question 4 explored several ideas of how Petaluma should be developed and asked residents
Future to indicate whether they agreed or disagreed with the following planning priorities for the
City.
Survey results reveal that Petaluma residents! most agreed with the statement `The City
should focus on increasing the number of jobs in the area', followed by 'The City should
maintain the current balance of jobs and housing into the.future', 'The City should.encour-
age retail and commercial growth so. Petaluma residents have more shopping opportunities
closer to home'. The only planning priority tested that received an overall negative mean
score was 'The City should limit commercial growth as much as possible'.
Respondents from the Northeast quadrant most strongly agreed with the statement `The City
should encourage retail and commercial, growth so Petaluma residents have more shopping
opportunities closer to home' whereas residents in the Southeast and Southwest most
City ofPetaiwna Godbe Research &Analvsys
Page 2
Executive Summary
strongly agreed the statement 'The City should focus on increasing the number of jobs
in the area' .
Areas in Petaluma Appropriate for The survey next asked respondents whether specific areas in the City were appropriate for
Developiiient new development.
'Vacant buildings or under -used parking lots' were perceived as the most appropriate areas
in the City for new development, followedby, 'Existing one -story industrial businesses', 'The
Southern City entrance alongIakeville Highway', and 'The Southern. City entrance at Peta-
luma Blvd. South'. The two areas evaluated in the survey that respondents, on average, were
most opposed to new development included 'The City's edge - to the west' and 'The.Fair-
grounds area.
PlanningAlterhatives to Maintain Question 6 presented respondents with different strategies formaintaining undeveloped
open. -space open -space within the City. The purpose of this question was to identify those strategies that
respondents considered worth supporting if they would help maihtain open- space.
Over half of all residents supported all four of the strategies to maintain open -space within
the City. Over two out of every three respondents supported 'Converting aging industrial
areas into new residential neighborhoods', which was closeiyfollowed in overall;support by
'Adding on to existing one and two story buildings'. 'Allowing second units to be built above
or behind garages' was supported by almost 60% of residents with `Tighter more
developments, such as Apartments or Townhomes' still receiving:support from a.majority of
residents.
Development of Fadlities The survey next asked respondents whether they wanted more,'less, or the same,amount of
specific. facilities and services within Petaluma. The purposeof'dais question was to gauge
the demand by residents for facilities that can be developed in Petaluma.. Residents indicated
the most demand for more 'Entertainment facilities such as movie theatres or playhouses',
followed by'Cultural facilities such as performing arts or community centers', `Public
parks', `Small retail shops',. and 'Single family homes', 'Nightclubs and bars' were the only
type of facility tested that had more residents indicate they would like less of that type of
facility rather than more.
Residents from the Northeast quadrant of Petaluma were more likely to indicate that they
would like : more 'Medium to large regional retail stores (i.e. Target) than residents from
other areas of the City Residents from theSoutheast quadrant of Petaluma were less likely to
indicate that they would want more `Neighborhood shopping and grocery centers' than resi-
dents from other areas of the City. Respondents who currently ive.in apartments or condo -
miniums were more likely to indicate that they would like to see more 'Single.family
homes', 'Medium to large regional :retail stores (i.e. Target)', and 'Apartments and Condo-
miniums' than their counterparts who currently live in Single family homes.
is
•
City of Petaluma Gocibe Research &Analysis
Page 3
Executive Summary
Parks and Rm eation Facilities in Residents were next asked about which ;park they and their family visit most, Like other
Petaluma, questions in thislssurvey this question was presented in an open -ended format, so the respon-
dent were free to mention any park without being prompted of any possible responses.
Survey results reveal that approximately one -third of respondents indicated 'Lucchesi Park'
as the park they or their family visited most. Sixteen percent of residents indicated that 'No
one in my (their) household visits a City park' with 15 percent of residents indicating
'McNear Park'., followed closely by, `Helen Putnam Park', 'Walnut Park', and 'Shollenberger
Park'.
As a follow up to the previous question, residents who indicated that someone in their house-
hold had visited a park in the City were next asked what their primary reason for visiting that
particular park. The most respondents mentioned 'Walking or running' as the primary rea-
son for visiting a City park, followed by 'Taking children to play', and 'Being outdoors',
Respondents were next asked about their overall satisfaction with the recreational facilities
in Petaluma. More than two out of every three residents were either 'Very' or 'Somewhat' sat-
isfied with the-recreational facilities in Petaluma, Approximately one quarter of respondents
were either 'Somewhat' or 'Very' dissatisfied with the recreational facilities in Petaluma and
another five percent did not reveal an opinion to this'question.
Survey data shows there is little differentiation, in the overall satisfaction of recreational
facilities between, residents in the four regions within the City. Over 60 percent of residents
from each quadrant indicated that they were either 'Very' or 'Somewhat' satisfied with recre-
atiori facilities in Petaluma. The southwest quadrant was the only region with more than 30
percent of respondents indicating they either 'Very' or 'Somewhat' dissatisfied with recre-
ational facilities in the City.
After asking about the overall satisfaction with recreational facilities in the City, respondents
were then asked about expanding or developing specific types of facilities and recreational
resources within the City.
All 12 of the facilities evaluated received over fifty percent support from residents. 'New walk-
ing, biking, and riding trails' received ithe.highest level of support from respondents followed
by'Playgrounds for young children', 'A larger -teen center' `A gymnasium and/or recreation
center', and 'Grass playing for soccer, softball, and other organized sports'.
As a follow up to the previous question, residents who had indicated that they would support
the development of a specific type of recreational facility were asked if they would pay
increased local taxes for the developmentof that facility. The purpose of this question was to
gauge the approximate level of support for a tax increase to fund the different recreational
facilities, however it should be made clear that the survey used for this study is representative
of the residents of Petaluma and not necessarily representative of the registered voters or
City of Petaluma Godbe Resecircb & Awlr)stis
Page 4
Executive Summary
likely voters in the City of Petaluma. As a group, residents tend to be morewilling to support
a local revenue measure than are registered or likely voters,
The respondents that indicated they supported the development of 'Playgrounds for young
children' gave the highest level of support for increased local taxes for the development of
that facility, followed by 'A larger teen center', 'A nature preserve for hiking and bird- watch-
ing', and 'Newwalking, biking, and riding trails'.
Transportatioiz 'PlanningPriorities The, next question of the survey asked respondents to rate the importance of different priori-
des for transportation planning within Petaluma.
`Improving the,flowand efficiency of cars moving through the City center" was, perceived as
the most important transportation priority evaluated, followed by 'Maintaining and improv-
ing pedestrian walkways', and 'Developing and increasing the availability of public trans -
portation'. It should be noted that all five of the planning priorities evaluated were perceived
as more than 'Somewhat important'.
Individuals from the Northwest quadrant of the City were,more likely to, rate 'Increasing the
availability of parking' as more important than 'Maintaining and improving bicycling
lanes', which was unlike residents from the three other quadrants. The results of the survey
also reveal the longer residents have lived in Petaluma the more they were likely
to place on 'Improving the flow and efficiency of cars moving through the City center',
whereas the shorter time residents have lived in Petaluma the more importance,they were
likely to place on `Maintaining and improving bicycling lanes'.
Travel Patterns of Petaluma The last two substantive questions of the survey asked residents how often they traveled to
Ren lents different locations within the City and then outside the City boundaries.
Over 85 percent of residents shop within Petaluma either 'Daily' or 'Weekly' and over 70 per-
cent of respondents indicated that they traveled to 'Recreation or entertainment' in Peta-
luma either 'Daily' 'Weekly', or .Monthly'. Respondents more.often indicated1hat they
traveled to `Work' on a daily basis more tlian any of the other locations e -xamined.
Similar to those residents that shop in Petaluma, over 85 percent of residents shop outside
Petaluma either 'Weekly' or 'Monthly', the significant difference being the much. higher per-
centage of Petaluma shopping that is done 'Daily'. Over 80 percent of ,respondents indicated
that tliey ' traveled. to 'Recreation ,or entertainment' outside of Petaluma: either 'Daily',
'Weekly'.., or 'Monthly' and Iiketravelling within Petaluma,.more respondents indicated. that
they left the City `daily' for travelling to work in comparison to all the other locations exam-
ined.
L
•
•
City of Petaluma Godbe Research &Anai
Page 5
Fxecuave Summary
II.
I '
consumer Behavior Questions 14,15,.and:16 of the survey focus on residents shopping behavior within the City
of Petaluma and outside its boundaries. Residents were asked how often they shop for differ-
ent items within Petaluma, how often they shop at different locations outside the City, and
then the average expenditure at each of the different locations. The ultimate analysis gener-
ated for these line of questions will be developed in the future, however some initial observa-
tions of the data can be made.
Respondents shopped for 'Weekly'or monthly groceries' within Petaluma more often than
any of the other items examined, with 90% of respondents doing so on a weekly basis. Over
90 percent of respondents indicated that they shopped for 'Clothing and clothing accessories'
either 'Weekly', Monthly, or 'Yearly' and over 85 percent of respondents mentioned that they
shopped for their 'Hardware and home improvement needs' within the City, either 'Weekly',
'Monthly', or 'Yearly'.
Respondents traveled outside Petaluma more often for 'Major variety retailers (i.e. Target)'
than any of the other types of stores examined, with almost 70 percent of respondents indi-
cating that. shop at tlis type of location either 'Weekly' or 'Monthly'. 'Home stores (i.e.
Home Depot)' received the second highest amount of responses of individuals indicating
that they left Petaluma to shop at one of these types of locations. Almost 55 percent of
respondents shopping at a 'Home, store (s)' either 'Weekly' or 'Monthly'. It should
be noted that more than half of all residents indicated shopping at the five type of locations
outside of Petaluma either 'Weekly', 'Monthly' or 'Yearly'.
Lastly z a follow up to the previous question residents who indicated that they had shopped
at ,a given type of store outside Petaluma at least as often as 'Yearly' were next asked how
much money, on average, they spend on each visit to that type of store. The average expendi-
ture for a purchase from a'Mail order or over the Internet' was the highest of the stores eval-
uated, however the relatively low number for the mode as well as the relatively high standard
deviation associated with the typical average expenditure for 'Mail order or over the Internet'
reveal that the responses were much more widely distributed than the average expenditures
for the other types of stores examined.
•
City of Petaluma Gocdbe Research G Analysts
Page u
Methodology
hold. If the youngest male w not available at the time of the call, the interviewer asked to
as
speak to the youngest female at home at the time.
Once collected, the data were cotnpared with Census 2000 data to examines possible differ-
ences between the sample and the population of the City of Petaluma on -major demo -
graphic variables. The data have been weighted to correct for deviations in age so that they
accurately represent the target population.
Subgroup Labels The following naming and abbreviation conventions are referred to,frequently in the body of
the report:
Table 2. Subgroup Labels
Adults in Household
Respondents indicated how many adults ived in their household:
'One'- ,'Two', or'Three or more'
Age
Individuals were grouped into one of the following age brackets: '18 to
29 years', '30 to 39 years', '40 to 49 years', '50 to 64' years';,and'65
years or more'.
Ethnicity
Respondents were grouped based on their response'•to the;ethnic
group theyfeel closest to: 'African - American', 'Asian:American%'Cau-
casian / White', and 'Latino(a) / Hispanic'.
Area of Residence
Respondents were grouped based on their response to where they
lived in Petama: 'Northeast" (North of Washington, east.of''Highway
lu
101), 'Northwest' (North of Washington, west, Highway 101), 'South -
east' (South of Washington, east of Highway 101), 'Southwest
of Washington west of Highway 101).
Children in Household
Respondents indicated,how many children under'18'currently'live in
their household: None, One; Two, Three or more
Income
Residents indicated their total household pre-tax income: '$40k or
less', 140.1k to $601<', '$60.1k to $i o0k', '$i o0.1 k,to $1501<' or
'$150.1'k +'
Gender
Male and temale.respondents are identified by their appropriate labels:
'Male' or Temale'.
Homeownership Status
Respondents indicated whether they owned or did not .own their resi-
dense: 'Own', 'Rent', or 'Do not pay'rent'..
Access to the Internet
Respondenfsdndicated whether or. not they had re_ gular access to the
Internet.
Length of Residence
Residents indicated the number of years they have lived in Petaluma:
'Less than 1 year', '1 to 5 years'., '10 to 14,years`, and '15 years
Description of Residence
Residents indicated the best description of their current home: 'Single
family home', 'Apartment', 'Condominium', or'Mobile home'.
Satisfaction with Recreational
Respondents were grouped based on their response to their level of
Facilities
satisfaction with 'Petaluma's recreational facilities: 'Very satisfied'.;
'Somewhat satisfied', 'Somewhat dissatisfied',:and 'Very dissatisfied.
Randomization of OuesCio7ls To avoid the problem of systematieposition bias -- where the order in which a series of ques-
tions is asked.systematically influences the answers to. the questions -- several of the.ques-
tions in this survey were randomized such that respondents were not consistently asked the
questions in the same order. The-series of items;in Questions 4, 5, 6, 7,11,12,13,14
and 18 were randomized for each interview. .
•
•
CMi of Petaluma Godbe Researcb�llnalvsis
Page 8
Methodology
Understanding the Margiii of Emor' Because a survey typically interviews a limited number of people who are part of a larger
population group, by mere chance alone there will almost always be some difference
between a sample and the population from which it was drawn. For example, researchers
might collect information from 400 adults.in a town of 15,000 people. Because not all peo-
pie'in the population were surveyed, there are likely to be differences between the results
obtained from interviewing the sample respondents and the results that would be obtained if
all people in the population were: interviewed. These differences are known as `sampling
error', and they are to be expected to occur regardless of how scientifically the sample has
been selected. Sampling error is determined byfour factors: the size of the population, the
chosen sample size, a confidence,l'evel, and the dispersion of responses to a survey question.
The following table shows the possible sampling variation that applies to a percentage result
reported from a probability type sample. if'a,sample of 600 residents is drawn from all resi-
dents in the City of Petaluma, one can be 95 percent confident that the margin of error due
to sampling vary, plus or minus, by more than the indicated number of percentage
points from the result that would have been bbtained 9 the interviews had been conducted
with all persons in the universe represented in the sample.
Tabie 3, Margin of Error
As`the table indicates, the maximum margin of. error for all topline responses is between 2,38
and 3.97 percent for this survey. This means that for a given question with dichotomous
response options answered by all 600 respondents in the City of Petaluma, one can be 95 per-
cent confident that the difference between the percentage breakdowns of the sample popula-
tion and those of the total population is no greater than 3.97 percent. The percent margin of
error applies to both sides of the answer, so that for a question in which 50 percent of respon-
dents said yes, one can be 95 percent confident that the actual percent of the population that
would say yes is between 46:03 percent and 53.97 percent.
City of Petahana Godbe Research G Anaivssrs
Page 9
Dis #r�butio of Response
_
90%
70%
50% / 500 0
1 O,QD
1.84%
2.45%
2.80%
3.00%
3.06%
8OU
2.06%
2.74%
3.14%
3.36%
3.43%
70U
2.20 %
2.9'4%
3.37%
3.60%
3.67%
64%
r `
z
3 97%
50U
2.61%
3.48%
3.96, - X
4.27%
4.36%
4UU
2.93%
3.90
4.47%
4.78%
4.88%
300
3.38%
4.51%
5.17%
5.52%
5.64%
200
4.15%
5.53%
6.34%
6.77%
6.91%
As`the table indicates, the maximum margin of. error for all topline responses is between 2,38
and 3.97 percent for this survey. This means that for a given question with dichotomous
response options answered by all 600 respondents in the City of Petaluma, one can be 95 per-
cent confident that the difference between the percentage breakdowns of the sample popula-
tion and those of the total population is no greater than 3.97 percent. The percent margin of
error applies to both sides of the answer, so that for a question in which 50 percent of respon-
dents said yes, one can be 95 percent confident that the actual percent of the population that
would say yes is between 46:03 percent and 53.97 percent.
City of Petahana Godbe Research G Anaivssrs
Page 9
Methodoiogy
The actual margin of error for a-given question in this survey-depends on the distribution of
the responses to the question. The 3.97 percent refers to dichotomous questions., such as
yes /no questions, where opinions are evenly split in the sample with 50 percent.of'respon-
o receive a response in
dents saying yes:and 50 percent saying no. If that same question were t
which 10 percent of respondents say yes and 90 percent =say no, then the margin of error
would be no greater than 2.38 percent. As the number of respondents in ;a particular sub-
group (e.g gender) is smaller than the number of total respondents, the margin of error
associated with estimating a given' subgroup's response will be higher. For this reason, GRA
cautions against generalizing the results for subgroups that are composed of 25 or fewer
respondents.
How*to Read a Cr•osstabzdatiora The questions discussed and analyzed.in this report comprise a subset of the various
Table crosstabulation tables available for each question. Only those, subgroups that are of particu-
lar interest or that illustrate a,particular insight are included in the discussion on the.follow
ing,pages. Should readers wish to conduct a closer analysis of subgroups for a given
question, the complete breakdowns appear in Appendix B. These crosstabulation tables pro-
vide detailed information on the responses to each question by all demographic groups that
were assessed in the survey. ; A typical crosstabulation table looks like this:
Irab0e 4. Satisfaction With Petaluma °s Recreational Facilities b19 Gender
C
A short description of the item appears at the top of the table, The sample size' (in this case
n =600) is'presented in the:first column of data under 'Overall': The results tueach possible
answer choice of all respondents are also presented in the first column of data under' Over-
all', The aggregate number of respondents in each answer category is presented as awhole
00
number, and the percentage of °the entire sample that this number represents is just below
the whole,number, For example, among overall respondents, 168 people indicated that they
were `Very Satisfied' with the recreational facilities in Petaluma, and 268 represents 28 per-
Qi gfPetalwma Godbe:Research vMaliwl
Page 10
Methodology
` cent of the 600 respondents to whom the question. was administered. Next to the 'Overall'
column are other columns representing opinions of male and female respondents. The data
from these columns are read in exactly the same fashion as the data in the 'Overall' column,
although each group makes up a smaller percentage of the entire sample.
ANote on the Tables To present the data in the:most accurate fashion, we display the results to the first decimal
point in the tables and figures. For, the purposes of discussion, however, conventional round-
ing rules are applied with numbers that include .5 or higher rounded to the next highest
whole number and numbers that include .4 or lower rounded to the next lowest whole num-
ber. Because of this rounding, the :reader may notice that percentages in the discussion may
not sum to 100 percent, Moreover, the decimal numbers shown in pie charts mayvary some-
what from the decimal numbers shown in the tables due to software requirements that pie
charts sum to exactly 100 percent. These disparities are confined to the first decimal place.
Open Ended Questions Open, ended questions are asked of respondents without providing them specific answers
from which to choose. For this type of question respondents are able to mention any issue,
topic, or general response relevant to the question without being constrained by a limited
number of options. After data collection was completed, GRA examined the verbatim
responses that were recorded and created categories to best represent the responses cited by
participants.
illultiple Response Questions Some questions within the sutvey were presented as a multiple response format. For this type
of question, each respondent is given the opportunity to select more than one response
option. For this reason, the response percentages will typically sum to more than 100 percent
and represent the percentage of individuals that mentioned a particular response.
•
CiC) of Petaluma
Goclbe Research $ Analysis
Page 11
Important Issues
•
I'mPortant Issues
Q3, What do yozi feel is the most The first substantive question of the survey asked respondents to indicate what they felt was
important issue facing the,resulents the most important issue facing residents in the'City of Petaluma. This question was pre -
Petaluma? sented in an open -ended format, which means that respondents were free to mention any
issue without being constrained to choose from a list. Asking this question in an open -ended
formatis useful to assess the salience of the issues to the respondent, Consequently, the
answers provided by respondents would not only reflect the importance, but also the salience,
of the issues in the Petaluma community. Asking a question of this type early in the ques-
tionnaire also avoided influencing respondents' answer with the line of questions that might
have preceded it. The first answer of each respondent was recorded and all open -ended
responses were coded into the categories presented in Figure 1'.
As shown in Figure 1,17 percent of respondents indicated that traffic congestion during their
commute was the most important issue facing residents. Condition of the streets and
roads(15 %) was the second most noted issue by respondents followed by traffic congestions
locally (12%), too much housing (11'/'0 and too little housing (9%).
Figure 1. Important issue to Petaluma Residents
Traffic congestion.,Commutis
Condition of Streets' &ROade
Traffic congestion -loca
Too much housing
Too little housing
Refused
Othei
Quality of educator
Funding for City services
Park &.Rec. Opportunities
Too much retal
:Police & Fire.Protectior
Local Governanci
Economic Concerns
Not enough jobs
Water Supply
Environmental Concerns
.Living wage employment
Flooding
i The 'other' category is comprised of responses that, individually, accounted for iess than 1% of respondents.
City of Petaluma Godbe Research v Analysis
Page 12
0.00% 2.00% 4.00% 6.00 6.00% 10.00% 12.00% 14.00% 16.00% 16.00%
Impor[ant Issaes
Looking only at columns of residents that contain at least 25 respondents due to the inherent
risks of generalizing the results for subcategories that have fewer respondents (due to the
increased margin of error), Table 5 displays responses by duration of the respondents' resi-
dence in Petaluma. The issue of.housing revealed an interesting, relationship with length of
residence in Petaluma, as residents who lived in the city longer were more likely to rate `too
much housing' as the.most.important issue facing the City whereas residents;who had lived
in the city a shortenduration were more likely to rate `too little housing' as themost impor-
tant issue facing the community. Table 6 reveals the five -most Important- issues in Petaluma,
as noted by residents, by the quadrants in the City in which the respondents live.
Table S. Top Five Ranked issues of importance by Length mf' Residence in
Petaluma
•
Cio� of Petaliima Gocdbe Researdi &Analysis
Page 13
Table 6. Top Five Ranked issues of Importance: by Area of Residence
Development Li Petaluma
i
I� Development in Petal
Planning Priorities 4 ®r Petaluma's Future
Q4.1'd like to ask you if you agree or Question 4 explored several ideas of how Petaluma should be developed and asked residents
disagree with the following to indicate whether they agreed or disagreed with the following planning priorities for the
statements that naay be said about City To ease_interpretation of the results, responses were recoded and avera to create
Petaluma's future and bow the Cite
will changeover the next 20 mean scores. Individual responses of `Strongly agree' were recoded as +2, responses of
years. Do you agree or disagree with ` somewhat agree' were recoded as + 1, responses of `no opinion' were assigned a value of 0,
the following statement on responses of `somewhat disagree' were recoded as -1, and responses of `strongly disagree'
Petalunza's future? were recoded as -2.
The different planning priorities were presented in a random order to prevent a position bias.
Figure 2 reveals the results of Petaluma's planning priorities inquiry with the most agree-
ment given to `The City should focus on increasing the number of jobs in the area' (0.85),
followed' by `The City should maintain the current balance of jobs and housing into the
future' (0.79), `The City should encourage and commercial growth so Petaluma resi-
dents have more shopping opportunities closer to home' (0.69). The only planning priority
tested, that received an overall negative mean score was. `The City should limit commercial
growth as much as possible' (- 0.11) .
Figure 2. Agreement with Petaluma s, Future Planning Priorities
04b lncreasejobs
04f Maintain current balance of jobs and housing
04c. Encourage retail and commercial development
04e Propose open space "& recreational revenue me:
04d Expand the downtown area
04a Limit Commercial Growth
v
City of Petaluma Godbe Research v Analim
Page I z
Development in Petaluma
les through reveal the: evel of '
a mentwith Petalumas planning priorities by area
Tab 7 b 9 g_ P g P
of residence, age of respondent, homeownership status and gender. Table 7 reveals that
respondents from the Northeast quadrant most strongly agreed with. the statement `The City
should encourage retail and,commercial growtkso Petaluma residents have more shopping
opportunities closer to, home? whereas residents in the Southeast and Southwestmost
strongly agreed with the.statement `The City should focus on increasing the number of jobs
in the area'. Table 8 shows that younger residents were more likely to agree with the plan-
ning priority `The City should propose'funding public open space and recreational parks
though voter approved tax increases'. Table 9 indicates the highest agreement for renters was
the statement `The City should focus on increasing the number of `jobs °in the area' whereas
homeowners most agreed with the statement `The City should maintain the current balance
of jobs and housing into the:future'.
Table 7. OAgeeement.:with Pettaluma ° s Future by Area off, Residence
City of Petah nza
Godbe Research v Analvmi
Page 15
Development hi Petaluma
•
Tabie g: Agreement with Petaluma's Future
Tabie S. Agreement with Petaiuma °s Future by Homeownership Status and
Gender
•
O'iv of Petaluma
Godbe Research G Analvsis
Page 16
Development in Petaluma
Areas in Petaluma Appropriate fo Development
Q5jvow, I'd like to ask;ym about The survey next asked respondents whether specific areas in d-le City were appropriate for
specific al-eas in PelalU777a thatyou new development. Using a scale of 'Yes' = +1, '.No' = -1, 'Don't know' =0, responses were
thi7ik are appropriate fog' new aggregated to produce a mean score, similar to the mean scores in question 4. A mean score
developnaelzt. Please tell 177e f each of +1.0`would indicate all respondents agree that a specific area is appropriatefor new devel-
area that I read 2s appropriate for
netu housing and %r bilsiness opment.
developinent.Here's the f rst/ m'd.' Is/
Are appropriate for Again, like question 4, the specific areas being evaluated were presented.in a random order
new development? to preventa position bias.
Figure 3 displays the results from question 5, with 'Vacantbuildings or. .'under -used parking
lots' (0.58) being perceived as the most appropriate areas in the;City for new development,
followed by, 'Existing one- story industrial businesses' (0,39), 'The Southern City e_ntrance
along Lakeville Highway' (0:25), and. 'The Southern City entrance at Petaluma Blvd. South'
(0.20). The two�areas evaluated in the survey that respondents, on average, were most
opposed to new development included 'The City's edge to the west' ( -0.19) and The Fair-
grounds area (411).
Figure 3.. Areas appropriate for New Development
•
05c Vacant buildings or under -used parking
05b Existing one -story industrial businesses
051 Southern City entrance _ Cakeville,highw
05g Southern city . entrance
051 City's edge - to the North
05d Alongthe. Petalumasiver
05e city's edge - East towards adobe. road
05a Downtown. near City's center
05f Fairgrounds, area
ash City's edge - to the west
•
City of Petah naa vodbe Research & Analymr
Page 17
Development in Petaluma
For the interested reader, tables 10 and 11 reveal responses to the appropriateness of new
development in Petaluma by the respondent's area of'residence, and income.
Table 10. Areas Appropriate for Development by Area of Residence
00) ofPetaivwzra Godbe Research vAnatjmiE
Page 18
Ueveiopment in Petaluma
•
6 1
city of `Petaluma Godbe Research v r 77iil) rs
Page 19
Table 19. Areas Appropriate for Development by Income
Development hi Petaluma
Planning Alternatives t® maintain open-space
•
QG.Ne%t, I'd like to discuss diermt Question 6 presented respondents with different strategies for maintaining undeveloped
ways in Petaluma to maintain open -space within the City. The purpose of this question was to identify those strategies that
uradeveioped opm- space.. Please tell
respondents considered worth sup porting °if they would help maintain open - space. Respon-
niewhich of the follbiuingplanning dents answered simply `Yes' or `No' if they would support each of the four strategies consid-
alte7aatives you generally support.
Here's the first /neat: Do you ered in the survey.
support if it helps
maintain undeveloped open -space As with previous questions that testa battery of'issues within a question, the specific strate-
in Petaluma? gies being evaluated were presented in.axandom order to prevent a position bias.
As seen in Figure 4, over half of all residents supported all four of the strategies to maintain
open -space within the City. Over two out.of every three respondents supported `Converting
aging industrial areas into new residential neighborhoods' (69%), which was closely fol-
lowed in overall support by `Adding on to existing one and two story buildings' (68 °0) . `Allow -
ing, second units to be built above or behind garages' (59%) was supported by almost 60% of
residents with '`Ti more compact developments, such as Apartments or Townho-
mes' (53%) still received support from a majority'of residents.
Figure 4. Agreement vvith Planning Alternatives t® maintain open sp ace
Converting Industrial
into Residential.
Adding onto exsting
buildings
Second units above
garages
Tighter Development
/ Apartments
•
Cio) of Petaluma Godbe Research v Analysr's
Page 20
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Development in Petaluma
•
Q7. Finally I -would likeyou to think
about, publicjadlities, 'businesses
and howing in Petaluiiu mould
you like to see:more or less
in the Cite or do yqu feel there is
currentlyan adequate number?
Development.- of Facilities
The survey next questioned respondents as to whether tleywanted more; less, or the same
amount of specific facilities and;services within Petaluma. The purpose of this question was
to gauge the demand,by residents for facilities that can be developed in Petaluma. Using a
scale of 'More' +1, 'Less' = -1, and `Adequate' =0 responses were aggregated to produce a
mean score, similar to the mean scores used earlier in the survey. A mean score of +1.0
would indicate all respondents agree that the City should have 'more" of a specific facility,
Again, the specific facilities being evaluated were presented in a random order to prevent a
position bias.
As revealed,in Figure 5 residents indicated the most demand for more 'Entertainment facili-
ties such as-movie theatres or playhouses' (0.84), followed by 'Cultural facilities such. as�per-
forming arts or community centers' (0.63), 'Public parl -& (0.59), 'Small retail shops'
(0.44), and 'Single family homes' (0.44) . 'Nightclubs andbars' (-0.10) were the only type of
facility tested that had more'residents indicate they would like less of that type of facility
rather than more.
Figure 5. ®eveiopment ®$ Faciiities (Mean Scores
] O7f Entertainment facilities
�. O7g Cultural facilities
] O7l Public Perks
] `O71, Small retail shops
] O7j Single. family h.:
] O7a Pesteurants &Cafes
] O7e Oraeery Stores
] O7d Medlum m borgeretnll
] O7h Alpert, to and
- Candominiu
], O7a Nightclubs and bars'
Cih) of Petaluma
aeeu
Godbe Research F Analysis
Page 21
Deveiopment in Petaluma
Figure 6 also gives the result to question 7, but instead of.showing mean scores, like Figure 5,
the distribution of responses are given, The figure below reveals that over 85 percent of
respondents would like to see more `Entertainment facilities such as movie theatres or play-
houses' in the City. Figure 6 a shows that while almost half of residents would like to see
more 'Medium to large regional retailstores (i.e; Target)' approximately a quarter or all res-
idents would like to see less of that type offacility in the City. `Apartments and Condomini-
ums' displayed asimilar trend with 45 percent of respondents indicating they would like see
more of these facilities in the City with 22' percent of respondents indicating they would like
to see less.
Figure 6. Development of Facilities (Distribution of Responses)
is
Entertainment Facilities
Cultural. Facilities (Performir
Public
Small retai
Single tamilq
Med: To Large retail (i.e.,
Apartments and
Restaurants 6
Grocery
Nightclubs ai
O More ® Less ❑ Adequate ❑ DK /NA
Tables 12 and 13 display the development of facility mean scores by respondent's area of res-
idence and the'description of the current residence.,Residents from the Northeast quadrant
of Petaluma were more likely to indicate that they would like more `Medium to large
regional retail stores (i.e. Target) than residents from other areas of the Cite. Residents from
the Southeast quadrant of Petaluma were less likely to indicate that they would want more
`Neighborhood shopping and grocery centers' than.residents from other areas of the City,
Respondents who currently live in apartments or condominiums were more likely to indicate
that they would tike to see more `Single family homes', `Medium to large regional retail
stores (i.e. Target)', and `Apartments and Condominiums' than their counterparts who cur-
rently live in Single family homes.
C
Cite of Petalunza
GodbeResearch &Analvsrs
Page 22
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Development in Petaluma
'Fable 12. ®eveiopment of Faceiife by Area of Residence,
i s
0
City of Petcrlunaa Godbe Research f Malysis
Page 23
Deveiopmenriv Petaluma
•
Table 13. Development: of Facilities by Description of Current Resid
Cite of Petaluma
Godbe remareb & Awlysis
Page 24
Recreation and Open -Space
Recreation and Open -Space
08: ii'lbatpark in Petaluma do you Residents were next asked about which park they and their family visit most ". Like other
and nzenzbers of pour family visit questions in this,survey, this question was presented in an open -ended format, so the respon-
naost? dent were free to mention any park without being prompted of any possible responses. Multi-
ple responses °were allowed and the percentages were derived by taking the number of
responses fora given park over the total number of respondents, which corresponds into the
combined percentages of responses being greater than 100 percent.
Figure 7 reveals that approximately one -third of respondents indicated 'Lucchesi Park' as
the park they or their family visited most. Sixteen percent of residents indicated that 'No one
in my ( their) household visits ,a City park' with 15 percent of residents indicating 'McNear
Park', followed closely by, "Helen Putnam.Park' (11 %), 'Walnut Park' (11 %), and'Shollen-
berger Park' (9%) .
Figure 7. 'Fifteen most Visited !writs in Petaluma
ii kespondents who were unable to identify the name of the paric were asked to give the cross -
streets of the park, the data reflects the parks as identified by name or cross street.
Ci. of Petaluma
Godbe Research &Anaiysrs
Page 'S
0% 10% 20% 30% 40%
Lucchesi P
No one visits a City p
McNear P
Helen Putnam P
Walnut P
Shollenberger.P
Ot
Oak Hill P
Prince P
Wiseman Airport P
Anna's Mead
Rocky Memorial Dog P
Putnam PI;
Wickersham P
McDowell P
ii kespondents who were unable to identify the name of the paric were asked to give the cross -
streets of the park, the data reflects the parks as identified by name or cross street.
Ci. of Petaluma
Godbe Research &Anaiysrs
Page 'S
0% 10% 20% 30% 40%
Recreation and Open -Space
09. What zs the prima?)) reaso77 you As a follow up to the previous question, residents who indicated that someone in their house-
visit this park? hold had visited a park in the City were next-asked what their primary reason for visiting that
particular park.
Figure.8 :below, reveals that most respondents mentioned `Walking or unniag' (22 %) as the
primary reason for visiting a City park, followed by 'Taking children to play' (18 %), and
'Being outdoors' (14 %).
Figure S. Primary Reason for Visiting the Park
Walking or runni
Taking children to pl
Being outdoc
Othe r typ e .of recre ati
Walking a r
Playing an organized sp
M e e.ti ng frie nd s o re la tiv
Participating in a rec cla
QI o.Gezaezafly peikiag, are you Respondents were next asked about;ther overall satisfaction with tlze;recreational facilities
satisfied oz- dissatisfied zuith the in Petaluma. Figure,9 reveals that more than two out of every three residents were either
recreatimal facildies i77, Petaluma? Very''(28 %) or 'Somewhat' (40 °0) satisfied with the recreational facilities in Petaluma.
Approximately one quarter. or respondents were either 'Somewhat' (14 %) or 'Very' (13 %)
dissatisfied with the; recreational facilities in Petaluma and another.five percent did not
reveal an opinion to this question.
Figure 9. Satisfaction with Recreational Facilities
U
City of Petaluma Godbe,Researcb v Awlvsis
Page 26
Recreabon and Open -space
•
C
Q1 I. Next, 1'd like to ask you about
exj)anding recreational, facilities in
Petaluma. MOUId Vou support the
development of the following
recreational facilities in Petaluma.
Table 14 reveals respondent's; satisfaction with the recreational facilities by the area of resi-
dence. The survey data shows that there is little differentiation in overall satisfaction of the
recreational facilities between the regions within the City. Over 60 percent of residents from
each quadrant indicated that were either 'Very' or 'Somewhat' satisfied with recreation
facilities in,Petaluma. The southwest quadrant was the only region with more than 30 per-
cent of respondents indicating they were either 'Very' or 'Somewhat' dissatisfied with recre-
ational facilities in the City.
" fable 14. Satisfaction with Recreational facilities by Area of Reside
After asldng about the overall satisfaction with recreational facilities in the City, respondents
were then asked about expanding or developing specific types of facilities and resources
within the City, Respondents were asked or `no' if they would support the development
of different recreational facilities and recreational resources.
Again, the specific facilities or recreational resources being evaluated were presented in a
random order to prevent a position bias.
Ci, of Petaluma
Godbe Research &Analysis
Page 27
Recreation and Open -Space
•
Q12.Currenth, `there.is not enough
zizoney izz the Qt )) s budget to
expand or inz rove recreational
facilities. Please fell .me f you i ould
be willing to increase local taxes to
pay for the recreational. fdd ties you
previously mentioned you,would
like to.see expanded Here'sIhe first/
next, irlould yozi pay increased local
tares fOr the developnicnzt
of
As shown in Figure 10, all 12 of the facilities evaluated, received over fifty percentsupport
from residents. 'New walking and riding trails' (82 %) received the 'highest level of
support from respondents followed by'Playgrounds for young children' (80%), `A larger teen
center' (77 %), 'A,gymnasium and/or recreation center' (7:3%), and 'Grass playing fields for
soccer, softball, and other organized sports' (72 %) ,
Figure 110. Expanding Recreational !Facilities
As a follow up to the previous question, residents who had indicated that they would support
the development .of 'a specific type of recreational facility were asked if the) would pay
increased local taxes for the development of that facility. The purpose of this question'was to
gauge the ; approximate level of support for a revenue measure to fund the different recre-
ational facilities, however it should be made clear that the survey used for this study is repre-
sentative of I the residents of Petaluma and not necessarily representative of `the registered
voters or likely voters in the City of Petaluma. As a.group, residents tend to, be morewilling to
support alocal revenue measure than are registered or likely voters.
•
0
Cio) of Petaluma
Godbe.Pesearch &Analvsis
Page 28
New trails
`^
a
Playgrounds for children
r
A,largerteen center
Gym and Ftecreaiion center
Grass playing ;fields
Small parks
Nature preserves
A town square orgarcle
Outdoor, lit basketball courts
Aquatic park'
;}
Large Community Park
{
An outdoor ampitheatre
0:%
25% 50, j:.. 75% 1.00%
As a follow up to the previous question, residents who had indicated that they would support
the development .of 'a specific type of recreational facility were asked if the) would pay
increased local taxes for the development of that facility. The purpose of this question'was to
gauge the ; approximate level of support for a revenue measure to fund the different recre-
ational facilities, however it should be made clear that the survey used for this study is repre-
sentative of I the residents of Petaluma and not necessarily representative of `the registered
voters or likely voters in the City of Petaluma. As a.group, residents tend to, be morewilling to
support alocal revenue measure than are registered or likely voters.
•
0
Cio) of Petaluma
Godbe.Pesearch &Analvsis
Page 28
Recreadon and Open -Space
•
Figure 11 below displays the level ofsupport by those respondents that were asked question
12. These percentages should be interpreted as the'level of support by residents, for a local
tax increase, by those individuals that initi ally indicated they supported the development of
that facility. The respondents that indicated they supported the development of `Playgrounds
for young children' (725'.), gave the highest level' of support for increased local taxes for the
development of"that facility, followed by `A larger teen center' (67 %), `A nature preserve for
hiking and bird- watching' (65 %), and `New walking, biking, and riding trails' (64 %).
Figtir 11.. Support for a Recreation Revenue Measure by those that would
like to see the Facilities F.rtpanded
Playgrounds for childre
A larger tee n,cente
Nature preserve
New trail
Grass playing field
Large Community Par
Small parks
Gym and Recreation cente
An outdoor ampitheatri
A town square or garde
Aquatic par
O;utdoo,r, fit ba'sketball' court
City of Petaluma
Godbe Reward) &A nalysis
Page 29
Recreation and Open -Space
Figure 12 reveals the level of support a local tax increase for each recreational facility by
all respondents rather than just those that initially supported the, development of the facility
without a tax.increase. To derive thepercentage level of support;in Figure 12 it is assumed
that those individuals that did not:support the development of the facility without any dis-
cussion of a fax increase would still be: unwilling to support the recreational.facility with a
local tax increase required for its development.
Only three of the recreational facilities` evaluated 'Playgrounds for young children' (57 %),
'New walking, biking, and. riding= trails' (53 %) and'A larger teen center' (51P/ ) received over
fifty percent support from all respondents. The levels of support for these three facilities are
still 10 to 15 percent less than whatvould be required for a bond measure orparcel tax
increase which.requires a two - thirds, threshold for success.
Figure 92. Support ffog.a Recreation Revenue Measure'bb. all Reside
P laygrounds for children r
New trails u
A largerte'en center
Grass playing fields
Nature preserves
Gym and Recreation cente
Small parks
A town square or garden
Outdoor, lit basketball churls
Large Community Park"
Aquatic park
An outdoor
0% _ 25 50/ — -75°/ 100%
•
Cihy of Petaluma Godbe Research &Az , psis
Page 30
Traffic, Transportation, and Travel Patterns
Traffic, Transportation, and, Travel
Patterns
The next question of the survey asked respondents to rate the importance of different priori-
ties for transportation planning within Petaluma. Participants' responses were coded using
thefollowingscale: 'not at all important' = 0, 'somewhat important' = +1, `very important'
_ +2, and'extremely important' = +3. The aggregate responses to each item are presented
below in the form of a mean, which is simply a summary statistic obtained by taking the
average from all responses. Amean of +2 for example, indicates that, overall, respondents
felt that the planning priority was 'very important'.
•
013. Now let's talk a little about Figure 13 reveals the importance mean score for each transportation planning priority eval-
traffic and getting around in uated. `Improving the flow and efficiency of cars moving through the City center' (2.00) was
Petaluma. Please tell ?sae whether° the perceived as the most important priorityavaluated followed by `Maintaining and improving
, follozoi7zg priorities for plct7z7zng
G777d developing trazzspoi°tatioz7 i77 pedestrian walkways' (1.65), and Developing and increasing the availability of public trans -
Petaluma are extremely, ver)/, portation' (155). It should be noted that all five of the planning priorities evaluated were
somezohat, oz• nol at all 1777portC7nt? perceived as more than 'Somewhat important'.
Figure 13. Priorities for 71rarisportation Planning
013b Improve Flow of Cars
013a.Pedestrian Walkways
013d Public Transportation
013c Bicycling lanes
013e Increasing parking
Cite of Petaluma Godbe Research &Anwlysis
Page 31
Traffic, Transportation, and Travel Patterns
•
Tables 15 throughi 17 display the. transportation planning priority importance ratings by a
host.of resident characteristics. Table 15 shows that individuals from-the Northwest quadrant
of the City, were -more likely to rate 'Increasing °the availability of parking' as,more.important
than 'Maintaining and improving bicycling lanes', which was unlike residents from the
three other quadrants. Table 16 reveals the longer residents'have lived in Petaluma the more
importance they were, likely to place 'Improving the flow and efficiency of cars moving
through the City center', whereas the'shorter time residents have. ived in Petaluma the more
importance they were likely to place on 'Maintaining and improving bicycling lanes'. Table
17 illustrates as residents got older the more likely they were to designate 'Improving the
Row and efficiency of cars moving through the City center' as either 'Very' or 'Extremely'
important.
Vable 15.. T'ransporta #ion Priorities by Area of Residence
•
Table 16. Transportation priorities by Length of Residence in Petalu
•
Qi ) of Pelalunua Gocdbe Research & Analvszs
Page 32
i M i I
0
0
Q1 7, fle vt 1'd Uke you to think about
bow often you travel to different
in Petaluma. As 1 react the
following activities, please tell me
hozv often you travel to these
activities in Petaluma, a aily at least
once a week, less than weekly but at
least, once a nsonth, less than
monthly but at least once a yea?; or
never?Here's the firstl7mvt one: How
often do you travel, to
in
Pet(Iluma, daily, weekly, 77707161)
nearly or never ;?
Traffic, Transportation, and Travel Patterns
Table 77. Transportation Priorities by Age
The last two substantive questions of the survey asked residents how often they traveled to
different locations within the City then outside the City boundaries. For both of these
questions, the different locationswere presented randomly to avoid a position bias.
Figure 14 reveals how often respondents travel to different locations within Petaluma. Over
85,percent of residents,slop within Petaluma either'Daily' (21 %) or 'Weekly' (66%) and over
70 percent of respondents indicated that they traveled to 'Recreation or entertainment' in
Petaluma either 'Daily' (9 %), 'Weekly' (38%), or 'Monthly' (25 %). Respondents more often
indicated that they traveled to 'Work' (40 %) on a daily basis more than any of the other
locations examined,
Figure 'i'4. Travelling Patterns Within Petaluma
Shopping
Recreation &
Entertainment
W ork
School
ODaily
®W eekly OMonthly EiY early
Gity of Petaluma
GoctbeResearch &dnalvsis
Page 33
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Q18, Now I'd like to a,?k you about
traveling to different, activities tljat'
reside outside of Petaluma. As 'I read
the following activities, please tell Brie
how often you trave[to the activities
outside Petaluma, daily„ weekly;
monthly, yearly, or riemr. Her the
firsYnext one: How often do you
travel to
outside of Petaluina; daily, weekly,
monthly, yearly or never?
Traffic, Transportation, mid Travel Patterns
Figure 15 displays how often respondents travel to different locations outside Petaluma. Over
85 percent of residents shop outside Petaluma.either `Weekly' (48 %) or `Monthly' (39 %),
which was comparable!to.the results for shopping within Petalurnahowever the
City had a much higher percentage of respondents who would.shop `Daily'. Over 80 percent
of respondents indicated that-they traveled to `Recreation or entertainment' outside of Peta-
luma either `Daily' (3 %), 'Weekly (33%), or `Monthly' (47 %) and like travelling wid Pet -
aluma, _more respondents indicated that they left the City `daily' for travelling to work in
comparison to all the other locations examined.
Figure 1'5. Tkavelling Patteani, Outside Petaluma
•
•
•
Cite of Petalurlla
Godhe Research & Arialvsts
Page34
0% 25% 50% 75% 100 -%
Consumer Behavior
n
Q14. Now, 1'd like to talk about
where you usually shop. I would
now like you to think about the type
of purchases y ou make in
Petaluma. How often do you
purchase the following items in
Petaluma, at least once, a. week, less
tlxin weekly but at least once a
7nonth, less than inontbly but at
least once a year, or never? Here's
the first /next one: Do you purchase
177.
Petaluma, aveekly monthly, yearly,
or never?
Consumer Behavior
Questions 14, 15, and 16 of the surveyfocus on residents shopping behavior within the City
of Petaluma and outside its boundaries. Residents were asked how often they shop for differ-
ent items within Petaluma, how often they shop at different locations outside the City, and
then the average expenditure at each of the different locations. The ultimate analysis gener-
ated for these line of .questions will be developed in the future, however some initial observa-
tions of the data can be made.
Figure 16 displays the results from °the inquiry about how often residents shop for different
items within the City. Respondents shopped for 'Weekly or monthly groceries' within Peta-
luma more often than any of the other items examined, with 90% of respondents doing so on
a weekly basis. Over 90 percent of respondents indicated that they shopped for 'Clothing and
clothing, accessories' either 'Weekly' (8%), Monthly (60 1 /0), or 'Yearly' (24 %) and over 85
percent of 'respondents mentioned that they shopped for their 'Hardware and home improve-
ment needs' within the City, either `Weekly' (Mo), Monthly (49%), or 'Yearly' (18 %).
Figure I6.. Shopping Behavior Within Petaluma
Groceries
Clothing and Accessories
Hardware & home improvement
Furniture and home decorating
Sporting goods
Audio and video equipment
Appliances over $100
Computer & accessories
Cars or boats
O W eekly ® Monthly ❑ Yearly
City of 'Petalurna Goclbe Research v Analysis
Page 35
0% 25% 50% 75 % 100%
Consumer Behavior
Q15. iVExtl'd like you.to think about
the O pe of purchases you make froln
stores not located in Petalzo.na. How
often do you shop at the following
Oyes of °stores not located a?a
PetaliOna, at least once a °week; less
than weekly but at least once a
month, less than;;naonthly but at
least once a year, or never? Here's
the f ist /neat one: How often do you
shop at
outside_ Petaluma?Weekh; monthly,
yearly; or never?
Fi l reve p p types: located
outside of P taluma, R spondents traveled outside Petalumafmore often fort ' Ma j or variety
retailers (i.e. Target)' than any of the other types of stores examined, with °almost 70 percent
of respondents indicating that they shop at this type of location.either Weekly' (15%) or
'Monthly' (54%), 'Home stores (i.e: Home Depot)' received thesecond Highest amount of
responses for individuals indicating. that they left Petaluma to shop at one of these types of
locations. Almost 55 °,percent of respondents mentioned shopping at a 'Home: store(s)' either
'Weekly' (10 %) or 'Mo (44 %). It should be.noted that more.than half'of all residents
indicated shopping at the five type of locations outside of Petaluma either'Weelely',.
'Monthly' or 'Yearly'.
•
Figure 17. Shopping Behavior Outside of Petaluma
MajorVariety retailers
(Target)
Home stores (Home, - Depot)
Department Stdres. (Macy's',
Club stores (Costco
Mail order or Interne
p W eeMy ® Monthly ❑ Yearly
C]
n
0'0 of Petaltr.�aaa Godbe Research v An�ttysts
Page 36
0% 25% 50% 75/. 1 uu 1.
Consumer Behavior
016. How much money do you Lastly as a follow up to the previous question, residents who indicated that they had shopped
spend on average, for each visit at a given type of store outside Petaluma at least as often as `Yearly' were next asked how
to ? much money, on average, they spend on each visit to that type of store. Figure 18 displays
some descriptive statistics from the results of question 16.
• The `Mean' can also be called the average and is derived by adding up the amount from
all of the responses and then dividing that total by the number of responses.
ZD
• The `Mode' is the response that occurs most frequently.
• The standard deviation (`St Dev °) is a.measure of how the responses are distributed in
relation to the mean. The larger the standard deviation the wider the distribution of
responses from the mean
The figure below reveals that the average (mean) expenditure for a purchase from a `Mail
order or over the Internet' was the highest of the type.of stores evaluated, however the rela-
tively low number for the mode as well as the relatively high standard deviation associated
with the typical average expenditure for `Mail order or over the Internet' reveal that the
responses were much more widely distributed than the average expenditures for the other
types of stores examined.
Figure 18. Descriptive Statistics for the Responses to Question IS
Department stores (Macy's)
Mean
139
Mode
100
St Dev.
322
Major variety retailers (Target)
93
100
265
Club stores (Costco)
160
100
127
Home stores (Home Depot)
- 124
100
203
Mail order or over the Internet
180
50
641
"'Sixty-eight percent of responses will°fall within one standard deviation of the mean, either adding to or subtracting from
the measn, and 95 percent of responses will Pali within two standard deviations of the mean, again either adding orsub-
•
tracting from the mean.
City of Petaluma
Godbe Research &Anall.sris
Page 37
Demograplik and Behavioral Information
Demographic, and Behavioral Information
The final figures graphically present the demographic and behavioral information collected
in the survey. Although the primary motivation for collecting the demographic and behav-
ioral information was to provide a better . insight into how responses to the substantive. ques-
tions of the survey vary across resident subgroups, the information is also useful for better
understanding the profile of adult residents in the City of Petaluma.
Q1. How long have you lived in Figure 19, length of Residence in Petaluma
Petaluma?
Less than 6 months
2.9
Refused 6 months to less than 1 year
0.2% 2.7
1 year to less than 3 years
12.9
15 years or longer 4
40.9% 3 years to less than 5 years
°, x t 11.6
5 years to less than 10 years
10 years to less than 15 years 16.4
12:4%
® 02, Please tell nze which at °ea of Figure 20. Residential Area within Petaluma
Pet(1l21772a you live iii?
soutnwes
20.5%
Refused
4.4
Northeast
4.4
Southeas
23.0
•
Cio) of Petaluazza
]west
27.7
Godbe Research v Malvsis
Page 33
QA. mbich of the following best
describes your curTe71t ljo777e2
QB. LO Y011 rent'or ow?7 your
current residence.
Demograpluc and Dehatdoral htformation
Figure 3b., Current Hoine.Type
Condominium
5.2
Refused
Apartmen
13.0%
Single familyhome
79.7%
Figure 22. Rent or Own
•
QC. Includingyo7rrse f how 7,77a ?7y
adzelts, IS or olcle7; live i77 Win'
household?
Figure 23. Number of Adults in Household
•
Cily of Petaluma
GodbeReseareb &Anakywr
Page 39
Demographic and Behavioral LlformaUon
QD. How manv children under 18 Figure 24. Number of Chiidren in Household
live in. your household?
QE Ira what year zvere you born? Figure 2 5. Age
(Recoded into age).
Refused 18 to 29
6 14.5 5+ 3:2% 16.5%
50 to 64 30 to 39
20.5% 27.9
40 to 49
23:5
QF. Do you have regular access to Figure 26. Regular Internet Access
the Internet?
•
Ci /y of Petalzima Goidbe Research v Anaivsls
Page 40
Demographic and Behavioral hiformadon
QG. There are you most : likely; to get Figure 27. Sources of City Mews
Ci0i news, information, and
programming.?
Refused
Television 4:6%
10.0% Other Mall^
QH..Are yo u employed full -time,
Figure 28. Respondent Status
employed part tune, self - employed,
a,student, retired or are you not
currently employed right now?
DK/NA
0.3%
Not employedhefused
Retired 4.5%
_
13:0
c
Homemaker
Employed;iull time
'
Student
46.3%
.
Self- employed ? ;
11.3% Employed part time
12.1
•
0
•
0) of PetahlMa, Godbe Research & Analysis
Page 41
Demographic and Behavioral Information
a'
01 To zorap things up, I azn going
to read Bonze income categories.
Please stop nze zulien I reach the
categou that best, deso ibes your
total household pre -tax income.
•
Respondent's Sex:
Female
522%
Male
47.6
"The 'Other' category included those individuals that refused to answer this question.
City of PetallOna Godbe Research &Analysrs
Page 42
31. Income
A k to $40k
16.7%
$20k or less
DK /NA 6.8%
40.1k to $60k
16.0%
$150k+
74
$100.1k.. to $150k
11.1%
$80.1k to $Ut6k $60.1 k to $80k
13.5% 12.4%
Figure 32. Gender'
Demographic and Behavioral Information
0.
Survey Language: Figure -33. Language used in the Survey
•
r.
CM) of Petalu??ia Gocdbe Research v Analvsis
Page 43