HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-05-01 - AGENDA REPORTS - PUBLIC OPINION POLL RESULTS (2)CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
I N T E R O.F F I C E M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Mayor Boyer and Members of the City C c
FROM: George Caravalho, City Manager
DATE: May 1, 1991
SUBJECT: Public Opinion Poll Results Study Session
As a part of the economic development program, a public. opinion poll was
undertaken by Personal Touch Marketing Incorporated, to determine resident
opinions and perceptions regarding issues and the image of the City.
This research will lead to the.design of a formal communication plan and
to the marketing of the City, both externally to its residents and its.
various external publics.
The results of the image research have been circulated as a draft report.
Ms. Deborah Babcock, President of Personal Touch Marketing will make a
formal.presentation of the survey results and an analysis of the data.
It is recommended that City Council receive the results of this study and
determine if the development of 'a comprehensive communication plan to
market the City is warranted.
MN:dls:l56
Agenda Item: --.P --
An Image Study
MARCH 1991 -
E=*f, to WIS
. WA zffieA
Survey Highlights
• 83% of residents and non-residents alike hold a positive image of Santa Clarita
• There is a high degree of association of Santa Clarita with Magic Mountain, Canyons & Hillsides,
Youthful Community, Parks, Low Crime
• There is a low degree of assocation of Santa Clarita with Regional Employment Center, Cultural
Activities, Santa Clara River, Restaurants, Shopping
• Non-residents give high ratings to Santa Clarita's Magic Mountain, Canyons and Open Spaces, Golf
Courses, Castaic Lake, Placertia Canyon Nature Center and the rural quality of the community
• 62% of non-residents and 46% of residents feel growth has had a positive effect on Santa Clarita
• 32% of non-residents and 50% of residents feel growth has had a negative effect on Santa Clarita
• 48% of non-residents travel to Santa Clarita 11 or more times per year. On average, non-residents
travel to Santa Clarita three times per month
• 33% of non-residents visit Santa Clarita for recreational and entertainment purposes .
• Characteristics which respondents consider positive aspects of the City include its newness,
cleanliness, quietness and family orientation
• Quality, affordable housing is named by both residents and non-residents as a positive characteristic of
Santa Clarita
• Non-residents, in particular, appreciate the availability of recreational activities, particularly Magic
Mountain, Castaic Lake and the Placerita Canyon Nature Center
• Both residents and non-residents believe that growth of the area has created more job opportunities
• Traffic problems are of great concern to both residents and non-residents
• Residents appreciate the increased property values brought to the City through its growth
• 71% of Santa Clarita resident respondents are under age 45 as compared to 54% of the non-resident
group
• 40% of the resident group shows incomes of $60,000+ as compared to 27% of the non-resident group
• Overcrowding in schools and housing development is a concern of residents and non-residents
• Both non-residents and residents gave low ratings to the availability of cultural and
entertainment options, including restaurants and shopping 4%W W
Table of Contents
SurveyHighlights ............................................................. ............_...»...............__.............................................._..........Page 1
Introduction.................................. _..................... ............ ..................................................... ..... ......................................... Page 3
Methodology......................................... ............................... .................... __........ _............................................................ Page 4
FirstImpression ............................................ ................................... _............................. ........................ .......... ................. Page 6
Perceptions.......................................
.......................................... .................... _................................................................... Page 7
Best& Worst Features .............................................. _.......................... _........................................................................... Page 8
Positiveand Negative Changes.............................................................. _........................................................................... Page 9
FeaturesAssociated with City ............... ........ .............. .............................. _.................................. _................. .......... _... Page 10
Growth.......................................................... ............ .................................. _.................................................................... Page 14
IssuesFacing the City .............................. ................... .......... __.................... ___.................................... ..... _.................. Page 15
RespondentDescription ............... ..»......................... _....... ......... ...... ..»............... _ .......................................................... Page 16
Non-resident Travel to Santa Clarita....... .................. ........................__.......... ................... _..................................... Page 18
Conclusions
Tables
RESIDENTS
19
Image...................................................................................._........_................................................................................Table 1
Perceptions........................................................................................................................................................................Table
2
BestFeatures ............................ »....................................................... ................................................................................ Table 3
WorstFeatures..........................................................................._.....................................................................................Table
4
PositiveChange................................................................................................................................................................Table
5
NegativeChange............................................................ ......................................... __.............................. _............
.......... Table 6
FeaturesAssociated with City ............»............. _.................................. ......................................................... _.......... _.... Table 7
Growth.................................................................._...................................._......................................_.........._................Table 8
Issues............................................ ................................................ ........ »»».............. ........................................ _
.............. Table 9
Residenceby Community...........................................................................__.........._................................»..................Table
10
Lengthof Residency .................... _...... ................................. .................... ............ ......_............................................ »....Table 11
Age............................................. _............ ................................................ __.................... _............................................ Table 12
Employment..............................................................................................»..»...........................:......................._...........Table
13
Income............................................................ _..............................................................................................................
Table 14
Gender.............................................................................................................................................................................Table
15
NON-RESIDENTS
Image..............................................................................................................................................................................Table
16
Perception....................................................................:.................................................................................................Table
17
BestFeatures ............................ ........... _.............. ._............................. ................ .................................... ..........
........ Table 18
WorstFeatures ........................ ....................... :............................................................... .................................................
Table 19
PositiveChange ................ _................. ..................................................... .... ................. .......................................
»........ Table 20
NegativeChange .................................. ........................................................................................................... _..............
Table 21
Features..........................................................................................................._..............................................................Table
22
Growth............................................................................................................................................................._.........»..Table
23
Frequencyof Travel......................................................................_.........._....................................................................Table 24
Purposeof Travel..........................................................................................................................................................
Table 25
Ratingof Visit.................................................................................................................................................................Table 26
RepeatVisit.....................................................................................................................................................................Table
27
Lengthof Residency ............... ...................... _............ _............... _....... _......... .....................................................
...... Table 28
Age.........................................................................................................................._....._._............................................Table 29
Employment............................................. ............... _............................... _.......... __........ ........ ................... .. ...... ....... Table 30
Income............... ......................................... .......... ..... ........................... ..... ......... ... ...................................... ....... ... Table 31
Gender................................................. _................................ »...... ............ ...... _...... .._....................................... ............. Table 32
Residence............................................................................................................._.........................................................Table 33
Introduction
The City of Santa Clarita, California, contracted with Personal Touch Marketing; Inc. to conduct
research which would assist the City in determining the image held of Santa Clarita among local resi-
dents as well as among residents in Northridge, San Fernando/Slymar and Lancaster/Palm Dale.
The issues studied include:
• First impression that comes to mind
• Santa Clarita's best features and worst features
• The most significant change (positive and negative) that has occurred in Santa Clarita
• Association of various features with the City of Santa Clarita
• How growth has affected the image of Santa Clarita
• Rating of importance of issues facing Santa Clarita
• Rating of features by non-residents
• Frequency and purpose of travel to Santa Clarita by non-residents
The objectives of the research were to 1) determine and understand the perception that the target
markets hold with regard to Santa Clarita, 2) understand the basis for those perceptions, 3) provide
direction for marketing and economic development efforts to be undertaken by the City of Santa Clarita,
and 4) serve as a benchmark for later review and measurement of any actions implemented following
completion of the research project.
The first part of this report explains the responses received from residents and non-residents in a
narrative form. This is followed by charts detailing the numbers and percentage responses to each
question asked and a copy of the survey instruments. Percentages have been rounded to the nearest
whole number which may result in some totals not adding to exactly 100%.—
The City has also been provided with one complete copy of the computer print-outs of questions
and all cross -tabulations as well as a copy of the entire list of verbatim responses to questions.
Methodology
Sampling Procedure
Between March 1 and March 9, 1991, a telephone survey was conducted among 403 residents of
the City of Santa Clarita, 100 residents of Northridge, 99 residents of San Fernando/Slymar, and 102
residents of Lancaster/Palm Dale. Residents were randomly selected from among the telephone ex-
changes for each community.
Survey Instrument
A ten -question survey instrument was developed for the non-resident respondents and an
11 -question survey was used with residents. The questionnaire was designed with input from the eco-
nomic development office and other departments within the City government. It was tested on a small
sampling of area residents to ensure accuracy and validity of the data being gathered.
Data Analysis
Data from completed questionnaires were entered into a computer program and verified. Data
analysis consisted of descriptive analysis for each question on the survey as well as for selected com-
parisons between related items within a question and between various subgroups within the two sample
populations. These subgroups include residents and non-residents categorized by: age, income, sex,
whether they hold a positive or negative image of the City, employment status, length of time at present
address, and community of residence (Valencia, Canyon Country, Saugus or Newhall; Northridge, San
Fernando/Sylmar, or Lancaster/Palm Dale).
Sampling Error
In every survey some allowance must be made for sampling error. The sampling error for this
survey at the 95% confidence level is a±5 percent range of error. This means that responses of the
resident group as a whole and the non-resident group as a whole can be attributed to the entire popula-
tion of the communities studied within a ±5 percent range. The range of error will be larger for the
smaller subgroups such as residents of a particular community, respondents who fall within a specific
age or income category; etc.
All questions were subjected to a Chi Square test of significance to help determine the degree to
which various factors such as age, length of residency, income, etc, influenced the respondent's answer
to survey questions. The Chi Square test is sensitive to differences in central tendency, dispersion and
skewness of the sample data and is helpful in determining whether sample data collected from two or
more subgroups is impacted by the subgroups as compared to the total sample data collected. The
impact that a particular subgroup's response influenced overall responses to survey questions is ad-
dressed and identified in the body of this report.
First Impression
"It is a nice community. It is safe and clean. It is a decent place to live in."
Residents of Santa Clarita are overwhelmingly positive about the City with 83% stating it has a
positive image [Table 1]. Fourteen percent of residents feel it has a negative image and four percent state
it has neither a positive nor negative image. The.younger the age of the respondent, the more likely they
were to hold a positive image of the City.
Those residents with a positive image of the City cite such features as its small town feeling, low
crime rate, cleanliness,quiet, relaxing atmosphere and well-planned neighborhoods. Those residents
holding a negative view of the City cite such features as its new name, fast growth, traffic, overcrowding
and destruction of trees and natural areas.
Among non-residents Santa Clarita also holds a very positive image with 83% [Table 16]. Seven
percent give the City a negative rating, and 10% gave it neither positive nor negative ratings. Female
non-residents tended to hold a positive image of the City while males were more likely to have no
opinion regarding its image. Non-residents who have lived at their present address five years or less
were slightly more likely to hold a negative image of Santa Clarita than those who had lived at their
present address for more than five years.
Non-residents with a positive image of Santa Clarita tend to cite such features as the city's
newness, clean air and clean community, beauty, quiet and trawl/country atmosphere. Those non-resi-
dents with negative images of the City point to the development, traffic, desert terrain and weather, and
overcrowding. Among the ten percent who hold neither a positive nor negative image of the City, com-
ments centered around lack of knowledge of the City—its location or that they have never stopped for a
visit so they don't know much about it.
Perceptions of Santa Clarita
"It's a bedroom community. A Community of married people with children.
It's an attractive community."
When asked to describe Santa Clarita as a place to live, work, or visit, more residents tended to
hold a positive perception of the community than a negative perception [Table 2]. Those residents with
a positive image of the City cite such features as less conjested than the city, it's in the middle of every-
thing, clean and convenient, good schools, family-oriented, and friendly. Residents with a negative
response commented that there is nothing to do, work is hard to find, incomes are lower than in the city
(LA), and it is crowded.
Non-residents were also asked to describe Santa Clarita and, they too, were more likely to have a
positive perception of the City than a negative one [Table 171. Non-residents with positive perceptions
state it's a nice, quiet place to live, country setting, new and clean, and it's an up and coming city. Non-
residents with negative perceptions cited features such as the a long drive to commute to work, expen-
sive, overcrowded, and poorly planned.
Best and Worst Features
"[The best feature of Santa Clarita?] The whole atmosphere. The spirit.
The togetherness of the community towards schools, the earth and the like."
Respondents, both residents and non-residents, were asked to describe Santa Clarita's best and
worst features.
Among the best features of Santa Clarita, residents cited the friendliness of people, rural, excel-
lent schools, low crime rate, and peacefulness [Table 3). Residents feel that the worst features of Santa
Clarita are the threat that the community is growing too fast, too much traffic, overdevelopment, bad
roads, and the city is becoming too expensive [Table 4].
Non-residents feel that the City's best features are affordable housing, quietness, low crime area,
clean, spacious, and the fact that Santa Clarita is a well planned community [Table 18j. Non-residents
feel that Santa Clarita's worst features are that it is too far away from LA, the cost of living is too expen-
sive, not enough job opportunities, and lack of cultural activities and other things to do [Table 19].
%w Flo
Positive and Negative Change
"Growth in housing and business are bringing in new people and opportunities."
Respondents, both residents and non-residents, were asked to identify the most positive and
negative changes that have occurred in Santa Clarita have been in the last three years.
Table 5 identifies some of the positive comments of residents. Positive changes include a cen-
tralized government, the increasing value of property, construction of new roads, cityhood, and added
recreational facilities. Residents felt that the most negative changes include overdevelopment, general
overcrowding, an increase in crime, and increases in the cost of living [Table 6].
Table 20 lists some of the positive changes as perceived by non-residents. They include more
businesses opening up which means more jobs, more entertainment options, more roads, and the fact .
that it has become a city. Non-residents feel that the most negative changes in Santa Clarita over the last
three years are too much development, increased pollution, increased crime, destruction of natural area,
and loss of the area's rural atmosphere [Table 21].
.�
I
Features Associated with the City
"7t is a beautiful area with mountains, recreational areas"
Resident Response:
Residents were asked to associate 19 features with Santa Clarita [Table 71. The first feature
residents were asked to associate the City with was Magic Mountain. Of 401 responses, 86% of re-
spondents said they did associate Magic Mountain with Santa Clarita, while 13% said no and 1% said
that they didn't know.
The next feature was the Santa Clara River, and 34% of residents stated they associate Santa
Clarita with the river, 59% stated no, and 6% stated they didn't know. Respondents who are between
the ages of 18-34 are more likely not to associate the river with the City, while respondents age 55 and
over are more likely to associate the Santa Clara River with Santa Clarita.
With regard to oak trees, 64% of residents indicated that they associate Santa Clarita with the
trees, while 35% indicated no, and 2% indicated that they didn't know. Residents between the ages of
18-34 were more likely to not associate the trees with the City, while residents age 55 and over were
more likely to associate the oak tree with the City.
When asked if they associate Castaic Lake Recreation with Santa Clarita, 68% of residents said
they did, 30% said they did not, and 2% said they didn't know. Those residents who had a positive -
image of Santa Clarita are more likely to associate the City with the Castaic Lake Recreation than those
who had a negative view of the City.
Seventy-six percent of residents indicate they associate the California Institute of the Arts with
Santa Clarim, while 21% indicate they don't, and 2% indicate they don't know. Female residents are
more likely to associate the Center with the City than males.
When asked if they associate the City with planned residential neighborhoods, 78% of resi-
dents stated they did, 20% stated they didn't, and 2% stated they didn't know. Respondents who have a
positive view of the City were more likely to associate Santa Clarita with planned residential neighbor-
hoods.
Half of residents indicate they associate the City with country estates, while 45% indicate they
do not, and 4% indicate they don't know. Females tend to be more likely to associate Santa Clarita with
country estates than males.
When asked if they associate low crime with the City, 83% of residents indicate they do, 15%
indicate they don't, and 1% said they didn't know. Residents age 35-54 are more likely than those age
55 and over to associate low crime with Santa Clarita. Residents with a positive image of the City are
also more likely to associate low crime with the City than those residents who have a negative view of
Santa Clarita. And, those residents who have lived at their present address 5 years or less are more
likely to associate low crime with Santa Clarita than those who have lived at their present address more
than 5 years.
Ninety percent of residents associate canyons and hillsides with Santa Clarita, while 10% do
not, and 1% don't know. Those residents who have lived at their present address 1-5 years are more
likely than those who lived at their present address more than 5 years to associate canyons and hillsides
with Santa Clarita.
When asked if they associate restaurants with Santa Clarita, 44% indicated they do, 55% indi-
cated they don't, and 1% did not know.
Sixty-four percent of residents associate ruralness with the City, while 34% do not, and 2%
don't know. Those residents who have a positive image of Santa Clarita are more likely to associate the
City with ruralness than residents who have a negative image of the City.
Residents were also asked if they associate affordable housing with Santa Clarita. Forty-four
percent say they do, 53% don't, and 2% do not know. Residents who are younger are more likely to
associate Santa Clarita with affordable housing than residents who are older. Residents who make over
$60,000 a year are also more likely to associate affordable housing with the City than those residents
who make under $40,000 a year. Those respondents who have a positive view of the City tend to
associate affordable housing with the City, while those who hold a negative view tend not to make that
association. Residents who work full-time are also more likely to associate affordable housing with
Santa Clarita than those who work part-time. Finally, residents of Canyon Country are more likely to
associate affordable housing with Santa Clarita than those who reside in Valencia.
Twenty-nine percent of residents surveyed say they think of Santa Clarita as a regional employ-
ment center, while 60% do not, and 11% don't know. Residents who are age 35-54 are more likely to
think of Santa Clarita as a regional employment center than those who are age 18-34. And residents
who work full-time are more likely than those who work part-time to think of the City as a regional
employment center.
When asked if they associate cultural activities with the City, 35% stated they did, 59% said
they didn't, and 6% did not know. Residents who make under $40,000 are more likely to associate
cultural activities with Santa Clarita than those who make over $60,000 a year.
When asked if they associate quality schools with Santa Clarita, 77% said they did, 12% said
they did not, and 11% said they didn't know. Residents of Valencia are more likely to associate quality
schools with the City while residents of Canyon Country are more likely to have no opinion regarding
the quality of schools.
Fifty-nine percent of residents associate Pasteos public walkway with the City, while 32% do
not, and 9% have no opinion. Residents of Valencia are more likely to associate the walkway with the
City than residents of Saugus.
When asked if they think of Santa Clarita as a youthful community, 86% said they did, 11%
said they didn't, and 3% had no opinion. Residents who are younger tend to think of the City as youth-
ful, while older residents don't. Residents who work full-time also tend to think of the community as
youthful more than unemployed residents. And respondents who have lived at their present address less
than 5 years are more likely to think of the City as youthful than those who have lived at their present
address more than 5 years.
Forty-five percent of residents associate shopping with Santa Clarita, while 54% do not. Resi-
dents who make under $40,000 a year are more likely to associate shopping with the City than those
who make more than $60,000 a year. And those who are employed part-time are more likely to associ-
ate shopping with Santa Clarita than those who work full-time.
When asked if they associate parks with the City, 81% stated they did and 19% stated they did
not. Of these, respondents who have a positive image of the City are more likely to associate parks with
Santa Clarita than those respondents who have a negative view.
Non-resident Response:
Non-residents were given a series of features of Santa Clarita to rate on a scale of 1 to 5, with
one meaning Poor and 5 meaning Excellent [Table 22].
The poorest ratings were given to the performing arts and other entertainment (with a
weighted average rating of 2.55) and the quality of lodgings/ other places to stay (with a rating of
3.15) and shopping opportunities, 3.19 rating.
The rural quality of the community received a rating of 3.68, followed closely by water rec-
reation/Castaic Lake with a 3.65 rating and golf courses with a 3.64 rating. Frontier Days received a
3.55 rating; Saugus Speedway a 3.52 rating, and Equestrian Activity, a 3.43 rating. Non-residents
gave restaurants in Santa Clarita a 3.39 rating; and camping/hiking, a 3.31 rating.
Highest ratings were given to Magic Mountain (4.18), Placerita Canyon Nature Center
(3.85), and canyons and open space (3.84).
Growth of Santa Clarita
"It's opened new job possibilites. It's allowed Santa Clarita to expand its horizons."
Residents of Santa Clarita have mixed feelings about the growth of their community. Forty-six
percent of residents say that the growth has had a positive effect, while 50% say the growth has had a
negative effect, and 4% say the growth has not affected the City at all [Table 8]. A sampling of the
positive comments are the growth has attracted younger families, brought in more jobs, the City now has
more services, and growth has brought more attention and recognition to Santa Clarita. A sampling of
the negative comments include the growth has ruined the natural beauty of the City, too much traffic,
crowded schools, losing its country charm, and the fact that the City is growing too fast. .
Residents who are age 18-34 are more likely than those age 55 or more to say that the growth has
had a positive effect on Santa Clarita. And those residents who have lived at their present address less
than 5 years are more likely to say the growth is positive than those who have lived at their present
address more than 5 years.
Among non-residents, 62% say. the growth has had a positive effect on the City, while 32% say
that it has had a negative effect, and 6% say the growth has had no effect on Santa Clarita [Table 231. A
sampling of the positive comments of growth include it brings more business to the city, it is well
planned, better recreational opportunities, and more jobs are now available. Negative growth comments
include too many people, destroying the natural beauty, and that the City has lost its ruralness.
Non-residents who reside in the community of Northridge are more likely to say the growth has
had a positive effect on the City, while respondents from Lancaster and Palm Dale tend to say the
growth has had a negative effect. And respondents from San Fernando and Slymar are more likely to say
the growth has no effect on the City. —
Issues Facing Santa Clarita
"There is too much traffic for the streets. The roads are too narrow and are old.
There were OK for a small town but not planned well for the growth."
Residents of Santa Clarita were asked to give their opinions about issues that affect Santa Clarita,
rating them on a scale of 1 to 5, with one meaning not important and five meaning very important
The issue that concerns residents most is traffic circulation across the valley (with a weighted
average rating of 4.62) [Table 9]. Other issues that residents are highly concerned about are water
availability (4.52) and open space preservation (4.29). The issue of water availability may be somewhat
skewed due to the local, state and national media attention given this issue during the period that data
was collected from area residents.
Residents gave the issue of air pollution a relatively high 4.26 rating; the issue of quality of
residential development a 4.23 rating; and the issue of recycling a 4.20 rating. The Elsmere Canyon
landfill was rated 4.07 in importance followed by local recreational opportunities with a 4.02 rating and
preservation of oak tress with a 4.01 rating.
, Affordable housing receive a 3.96 rating of importance to residents followed by erosion of the
rural character of the city with a 3.94 rating. Residents gave development of a river preservation plan a
3.80 rating of importance.
Local shopping opportunities were rated 3.78 in importance followed by lack of employment
opportunities with a 3.67 rating and public transit with a 3,59 rating.
Description of Respondents
"Santa Clarita is a young growing community. It has young families."
Residents
Table 10 shows in which community respondents reside. Twenty-two percent of respondents
reside in Valencia, 34% live in Canyon Country, 26% live in Saugus, and 19% live in Newhall.
Younger people are more likely to live in Valencia while respondents age 50 and over are more likely to
live in Newhall. Residents who make $59,000 or less are more likely to live in Canyon Country while
those who make over $60,000 are more likely to live in Saugus. Finally, residents who work full-time
tend to live in Saugus, those who work part-time are more likely to live in Valencia, those who are
retired tend to live in Newhall, and those who are unemployed tend to live in Canyon Country.
About one-third of all respondents, who are residents, have lived at their present address 3 to 5
years, while only 4% have resided at their present address less than one year [Table 11]. The average
number of years respondents have resided at their present address is 6.7 years. Residents who are older
tend to have resided at their present address longer than younger residents. Males are more likely to
have lived at a residence a shorter amount of time than females. Those who are retired are more likely
than those who work or are unemployed to have resided at a present address longer than 11 years.
Residents tend to be younger with over 71% of respondents either 44 or younger [Table 12].
Those who make less than $40,000 a year are more likely to be age 18-24 or age 65 and over. Those
residents who make over $60,000 a year are more likely to be age 25-34. Those residents with the most
positive attitude towards Santa Clarita tend to be age 25-34 and those with the most negative attitude
tend to be age 35.44.
Over three-quarters of residents (82%) who are the chief wage earners are employed full-time.
And only 1% of the chief wage earners are students [Table 13]. Those residents who make $60,000 or
more tend to be employed full-time while those who are employed part-time, are retired, are unem-
ployed, or a student tend to make less than $40,000. Full-time employees are more likely to have a posi-
tive attitude about the City than others.
With regard to annual household income, 5% make under $20,000 a year [Table 14] while 21%
make between $20,000 - $39,999 a year. Twenty-seven percent of residents make between $40,000 -
$59,999, 20% make between $60,000 - $79,999, and 8% make $100,000 or more. Eight percent refused
to answer this question.
Of residents surveyed, 58% are female [Table 15].
Non-residents
The average non-resident has lived at their present address is 10 years [Table 281. Over 37% of
respondents have lived at their present address 11 or more years, while only 2% have resided at their
present address less than one year. Those who have lived at their present address longer are more likely
to be age 55 or over. And those respondents who have lived at their present address for 11 years or
more are more likely to have a positive view of the City.
Over 25% of respondents are age 25-34 while only 6% are age 18-24 [Table 291. Respondents
who are age 18-24 or those who are over 65 are more likely to make under $40,000 a year, while those
age 25-34 are more likely to make over $60,000 a year. Respondents who are older are more likely to
work part-time or are retired.
Three-quarters of respondents work full-time while 1% are unemployed [Table 30]. Those who
are employed full-time are more likely to make $60,000 or more.
When asked their annual household income, 9% indicated it is under $20,000, 25% said between
$20,000 - $39,999, 25% said between $40,000 - $59,999, 14% said between $60,000-$79,000, 5% said
between $80,000 - $99,999, and 8% make over $100,000 a year [Table 31]. Fifteen percent refused to
answer the question.
Over 53% of respondents were male, while 47% were female [Table 321. Males were more
likely to live at their present address less than 5 years.
Thirty-three percent of respondents reside in Northridge, 33% reside in San Fernando and
Sylmar, and 34% live in Lancaster and Palm Dale [Table 33]. Respondents who make over $60,000 are
more likely to reside in Northridge. People who reside in Northridge are more likely to live at their
present address longer.
Travel to. Santa Clarita
"Santa Clarita has built up. There are more businesses and better recreational opportunities."
When asked how often they travel to Santa Clarita in a given year, 31% say they travel to the
City more than 25 times a year while only 3% visit less than once a year [Table 24]. The average non-
resident travels to Santa Clarita three times a month. Respondents who make over $60,000 a year are
likely to travel to Santa Clarita more often than those who make less money. Males also are more likely
to travel to the City more often than females.
Over one-third of respondents travel to Santa Clarita for recreation and entertainment [Table 251,
while only 6% travel to the city for shopping purposes and no survey respondents travel to Santa Clarita
to attend higher level education classes. Twenty percent said they travel to Santa Clarita for other pur-
poses which include jury duty, passing through, and business meetings.
When asked to rate their most recent visit to Santa Clarita, 20% give it an excellent rating, 30%
rate their last visit as very good, 37% say good, 11% say fair, and 2% say poor [Table 26]. Those who
rated their last visit to the City as excellent are more likely to have a positive image of Santa Clarita.
Over 90% of those surveyed indicate that they will visit Santa Clarita again, while 3% will not,
and 5% are not sure [Table 271.
Conclusions
"I like the serenity, the quietness. It's a lot more peaceful in the valley."
Based upon the responses from residents and non-residents, the researchers have summarized
strengths and weaknesses of Santa Clarita. This section is strictly the opinion of the researchers.
Strengths
The positive image of the City held by both residents and non-residents is a major strength.
Residents point to the cleanliness of the City, its family orientation, quietness and ruralness as well as
the small town atmosphere as characteristics that give the City a positive image. Residents also feel that
its positive image is due to affordable housing costs, the openness and spaciousness and the increasing
property values.
The majority of non-residents hold a positive image of Santa Clarita citing such characteristics as
City's newness and cleanliness, the quality housing, its scenic beauty, and the young, upscale families
that have moved in. Non-residents also especially appreciate the many recreational and entertainment -
type activities available to them, particularly the recreation (lake, camping) and Magic Mountain.
Residents also view as positive aspects of the City's growth, the road construction projects, and
cityhood: Positive changes as viewed by non-residents include the immense commercial development,
availability of jobs, improvedrdads and that there are more things irrdo.
Santa Clarita enjoys high awareness of its canyons and hillsides, High recognition of its status as
a youthful community, and high awareness of Magic Mountain. Residents also show associate the City
with a low crime rate and with its parks system. Non-residents are most aware of Magic Mountain,
Placenta Canyon Nature Center and the City's canyons and open space.
While residents are split with regard to whether growth has positively or negatively affected the
City, those who feel it is positive point out that growth has brought more jobs to the area, increased the
property values, attracted young families and has brought more attention, recognition and funding to the
City.
Other strengths of the City include its relatively young, affluent community with 71% of resi-
dents under age 45 as compared to 54% for non-residents surveyed and 40% of residents with incomes
of $60,000 and over as compared to 27% of non-residents in this income group.
Weaknesses
While the vast majority of residents and non-residents hold a positive image of the City, the
community shows a few weaknesses. A good number of residents and non-residents believe that Santa
Clarita is becoming too crowded. Quite a number of comments related to houses built too close together
and poorly planned developments. Traffic problems were also mentioned frequently as one of the City's
major weaknesses.
Residents and non-residents alike complained about pollution of the air as the community has
grown and the loss of the City's rural atmosphere. Both groups also felt that it has gotten too expensive
to live in the City as compared to several years ago. Residents complained about the destruction of trees
and natural areas, crowded schools and an increase in crime.
That there are not enough things to do is a complaint of both residents and non-residents. Non-
residents gave lowest quality ratings to such things to do as performing arts and entertainment, shopping
and quality lodging. Residents tended to not associate the City with cultural activities; restaurants and
shopping as well as the Santa Clara River and as a regional employment center.
Using these findings
ears
To enhance a positive image of Santa CIarita, the strengths should be promoted and communi-
cated to the target markets selected for a marketing campaign while the weaknesses need to be addressed
or minimized. For instance, as roads are constructed and upgraded, an effort needs to be made to com-
municate this positive activity. The same advice goes for cpmmunication of actions taken to address
overcrowding, preservation of natural areas, the opening of new businesses, especially entertainment
and recreational facilities. For those features of the City that show low awareness or association, link-
ages could be made to affiliate or associate the feature or organization, such as Cal Arts, with Santa
Clarita.
It is our opinion that the information contained within this report is accurate and can be relied
upon in your decision-making process.
Deborah Babcock, President
Personal Touch Marketing, Inc.
Table 1
Image
Responses of 403 Santa Clarita residents with regard to
whether the city's image is positive or negative
Positive 333
Negative 55
Neither 15
Sampling of Positive Comments:
Small town feeling
Clean
Low crime
Not overcrowded
Family orientated
People are nice
Name sounds nice/romantic
Quiet
Close to big city
Good schools
Good atmosphere
Well planned
No rush/relaxing
Pretty city
Sampling of Negative Comments:
Don't like the new name
Don't want to change
Expensive
Growing too fast
Traffic
Destroying trees/beautiful nature areas
Overcrowded
Sampling of Neither Comments:
It's just a town
Doesn't matter
83
14
4
Table 2
Perceptions
Responses of Santa Clarita residents with
regard to describing Santa Clarita
Sampling of Positive Comments:
Good town
Friendly
Family-oriented
Leisurely living
Not as many jobs as in the city
Beautiful area
Clean and convenient
Growing area for businesses
Small community
Low crime
Quiet community
Weather is good
Advantages of both small town and big city
Lots of open space
Less conjested than big city
Eutopial
Homey
Perfect
It's in the middle of everything
Sample of Negative Comments:
Not good forsingle people
Shortage of good water/destruction of trees
Desert land
Lower annual income
Nothing to do if you just visit
Crowded
Prejudiced people
It's a bedroom community to LA
Main intersection is rated one of five worst in California
Work is hard to find
r Table 3
Best Features
Responses of Santa Clarita residents with
regard to the City's best features
Sampling of Comments:
Small town
Friendly
Excellent schools
Good climate
Clean
Low crime rate
Wholesome
City well planned
Spirit of the community
No gangs
Quiet
Convenient location
Housing is less costly than in city
Space
Family orientated
Pretty area
Nosmog
Table 4
Worst Features
Responses of Santa Clarity residents with
regard to the City's worst features
Sampling of Comments:
Growing too fast
People are snobbish
Growth is uncontrolled
No shopping area
Too much traffic
Bad roads
Too much like a desert
Nothing to do/boring city
No good paying jobs
Not enough schools
Lack of culture
City government is bad
Expensive
People are too conservative
No night entertainment
Overdevelopment
Table 5
Positive Change
Responses of Santa Clarita residents with regard to
the most positive change in the last three years
Sampling of Comments:
The centralized government
More shopping areas
Housing has become more affordable
Value of property is increasing
Construction of new roads
Putting in parks
The addition of new roads
More, businesses .:
More and better restaurants
Cityhood
New schools
Overall community involvement
More recreational facilities
Changing the name
E
`%W
IF
Table 6
Negative Change
Responses of Santa Clarita residents with regard to
the City's most negative change in three years
Sampling of Comments:
Overdevelopment
Increase in drug trafficking
Traffic
Overcrowded schools
Overcrowding
People are unfriendly
Cityhood
L7`ircontrolled growth '
Ruining of the environment
The beginning of gangs
Increase in crime
Cost of Living increases
Y
Table 7
Features Associated
with
City
Responses of Santa Clarita residents with regard to
associating the following features with the City
Yes No
Don't Know
Total
Magic Mountain 86 13
1
401
SantaQaraRtver 34 59 6; 402:
IM
Oak Tree 64 35
2
402
Castaic Lake yRecreation 680 2„ 403`
California Institute of the Arts 76 21
2
403
PlannedRestdentialNetghlwrhoods 78 M 20 2 403;
Country Estates 50 45
4
403
Lpw Cnme 83 15
1 4031
Canyons & Hillsides 90 10
1
403
Restaurantse 44 5S
1, 402:
Rural 64 34
2
402
Affordable Houstng 44 53
2 < 4U3
.<,
Regional Employment Center 29 60
11
402
Cultural Activities 3S
403'
Mff
Quality Schools 77 12
11
403
_
Pzsteas PubltcVYalkway 59 32
.
9'
:, , 403'
Youthful Community 86 11
3
403
Sho ut
Parks 81 19
0
403
Y
Table 8
Growth
Responses of 399 Santa Clarita residents with regard to
whether the City's growth is positive or negative
Sampling of Positive Comments:
Has attracted younger families, good quality people
Growth in businesses helps the city
New businesses give a more positive image
Financially better
Increased property values
Brought in more jobs
Roads have improved
Has been planned growth
Has become more visible and has gotten more funding
More services
Has brought more attention to the valley and recognition to the City
Sampling of Negative Comments:
Ruined the natural beauty
Growing too fast
Crowded roads, too much traffic
No planning or poorly planned
Losing its country charm
Crowded schools
Is becoming unaffordable
Sampling of No Comments:
Growth has not affected the community
Growth has not done any damage to the city
Yes, Positive Effect
184
46
Yes, Negative Effect
198
50
No
17
4
Sampling of Positive Comments:
Has attracted younger families, good quality people
Growth in businesses helps the city
New businesses give a more positive image
Financially better
Increased property values
Brought in more jobs
Roads have improved
Has been planned growth
Has become more visible and has gotten more funding
More services
Has brought more attention to the valley and recognition to the City
Sampling of Negative Comments:
Ruined the natural beauty
Growing too fast
Crowded roads, too much traffic
No planning or poorly planned
Losing its country charm
Crowded schools
Is becoming unaffordable
Sampling of No Comments:
Growth has not affected the community
Growth has not done any damage to the city
Air pollution
Recycling
Table 9
Issues
Responses of Santa Clarita residents with regard to
their opinions about issues on a scale of 1 to 5
Not Tmponant<—. _>vay7mportmt
1 2 3 4 5
% % % % % Total N Wtd Avg.
1 5 15 21 57 401 4.26
3 5 16 22 55 399 4.20
Water availability 1
3
10
15
71
400
4.52
,
Open spacepreservaMIX 2 m ISA 22.., 5i 404
4,29,
Mm -
<, „
-038
Development of river plan 6
10
22
23
39
368
3.80
Preservation of oak trees 5
8
16
24
48
402
4 01
Erosion of rural character of city 3
5
27
23
41
394
3.94
Local recreational opportunities
1 7 21
30
41
395
4.02
I oval shopping opportuntnes 5 10 24 23 38 402
..
-038
Public transit
8 11 29
19
33
395
3.59,
Affordable housing
4 8 - 22— 23 44 400 3.96
Table 10
Residence By Community
Responses of 403 Santa Clarita residents with
regard to which community they reside in
Table 11
Length of Residence
Responses of 399 S anta. Clarita residents with regard to how
long they have resided at their present address
Valencia
87
22
Canyon Country
135
34
Saugus
103
26
Newhall
78
19
Table 11
Length of Residence
Responses of 399 S anta. Clarita residents with regard to how
long they have resided at their present address
Average # Years at Present Address: 6.7
Less than one year
15
4
1 to 2 years
116
29
3 to 5 years
129
32
6 to 10 years
48
12
11 years or more
91
23
Average # Years at Present Address: 6.7
•
Table 12
328
Part-time employed
14
Age
49'
Unemployed
8
Responses of 403 Santa CMta residents
2
with regard to their age
18-24
29
7
25-34
129
32
35-44
130
32
45-54
41
10
55-64
31
8
65+
39
10
NA
4
1
Table 13
Employment
Responses of 401 Santa Clarita residents with regard to
employment of chief wage earner
82
4
12
2
1
Full-time employed
328
Part-time employed
14
Retired
49'
Unemployed
8
Student
2
82
4
12
2
1
Table 14
Income
Responses of 403 Santa Clarita residents
with regard to their annual household income
Table 15
Gender
Responses of 403 Santa Clarita residents
with regard to their gender
Female 234 58
Male 169 42
Under $20,000
20
5
$20,000-$39,999
84
21
$40,000-$59,999
109
27
$60,000-$79,999
81
20
$80,000-$99,999
47
12
$100,000 or more
31
8
Refused to answer
31
8
Table 15
Gender
Responses of 403 Santa Clarita residents
with regard to their gender
Female 234 58
Male 169 42
Table 16
Image
Responses of 301 non-residents with regard to the
image they hold of the City of Santa Clarita
Positive
Negative
Neither
Sampling of Positive Comments:
Fresh and clean
Nice place to raise a family
It's new, lots of development
Beautiful with mountains
Good quality of people
Rural, country atmosphere
Quiet, bedroom community
Attractive, peaceful
Sampling of Negative Comments:
Ruining rural character of the city
Overcrowded
Traffic is terrible
Desert, heat, sand, dust
Sampling of Neither Comments:
I mix it up with Canyon Country, Valencia
Not much more than a sign on the freeway
Don't visit there too often
250 83
21 7
30 10
Table 17
Perception
Responses of non-residents with regard to
their description of Santa Clarita
Sampling of Positive Comments:
It's a nice quiet place to live
Country setting
Pleasant. Less smog, people and more peaceful
Very upscale area
It's a young community with young professional people
Lovely housing and schools
It's hilly. It's green.
It's new and clean
It is a suburb of LA
Scenic. Up and coming city
It's got Magic Mountain
Sampling of negative comments:
Long drive to commute to work, shopping
It's expensive. Lots of rich people
Overcrowded. Poorly planned.
Too congested. Traffic moves slowly.
It's a desert. Too hot. Too dry.
Table 18
Best Features
Responses of non-residents with regard to
what they like best about Santa Clarita
It is not as crowded as LA
Fresh and clean buildings and parks
Low crime area
Clean air
New housing
Openness and spaciousness
Small town community
Friendly people
Wonderful climate and good soil
Magic Mountain
Mountains, hillsides
Shopping
Recreational opportunities
Good schools
Affordable housing
Quiet, peacefulness
Rural quality of life
Golf courses
Green and pretty landscape
Well planned community
Good restaurants
Castaic Lake
A
Table 19
Worst Features
Responses of non-residents with regard to
what they like least about Santa Clarita
Too cold
Too far from LA
Traffic problems
Cost of living too expensive
Overdevelopment
Too hot in summer
Crowded
Limited shopping
Homes are small and crowded in and too expensive
Too windy, sand storms
Property, value is overpriced
People are snobbish
Not enough job opportunities
Lack of cultural activities, things to do
Too blue collar, unsophisticated
Too perfect and well planned. Everything looks the same
Table 20
Positive Change
Responses of non-residents with regard to the most significant
positive change that has occurred in Santa Clarita in the last three years
Lots of businesses opening.... lots of jobs
Getting their own shopping center
The population growth.
The housing boom
More entertainment options, more restaurants
That it has become a city
It has become more well known
Everything is new
The development has been in an orderly fashion
More roads
Table 21
Negative Change
Responses of non-residents with regard to the most significant
negative change that has occurred in Santa Clarita in the last three years
Building too many houses, too close together
Too many people
Too much development
The traffic
Growth without good planning
Crime rate is higher than three years ago
Air is smoggier
Undesirable people coming in
Price of houses has risen
Has lost some of its Waal atmosphere
The landfill that is being built
Destruction of natural areas
a
I
a
Table 22
Features
Responses of non-residents with regard to
their opinions about features on a scale of I to 5
1 2 3 4 5
% % % % % Total N Avg. Rating
Restaurants 3 14 35 38 11 219 3.39
Equestrian Activity 7
13 27
32
20
164 3.43
Quality Lodgings.. . ... . . .......... . .
. . ..10
I8.....
32:19.. ... .. ..
X12
3.52
3
. .. .. . ....
. . . . . .
Performing Arts/Entertainment 25
24 27
19
5
176 2.55
Canyons/Open Space
6 8
19
31-
36 275
3.84
32:19.. ... .. ..
X12
3.52
. . . . . .
Frontier Days
3 12
33
33
20 141
3.55
Water Rec/Castaic Lake 6 8 28 30 27 260 3.65
Golf Courses 6 5 31 33 25 183 3.62
Place%".155� 85
Nat nt 6 " , .: Y . �
.M
r
Table 23
Growth
Responses of 296 non-residents with regard to whether
growth has affected the image of Santa Clarity
Sampling of positive comments:
More people means more money being spent.
Brings different businesses to area ..like malls and stores
Brings better restaurants
Beautiful, quality homes, affordable housing
The building is good, the area is not so desolate
It's been well planned
It is producing its own revenues
Good for young people, taxes too high for senior citizens
Better recreational opportunities
The development provides jobs
It'.s still calm and beautiful
Serves as a model for other new cities
More entertainment
Sampling of Negative comments:
Too many people
Destroying the natural areas
Not enough road planning, terrible traffic
Overcrowed housing
Has lost its rural character
Has created school problems
Yes, positive effect 184
62
Yes, negative effect 94
32
No 18
6
Sampling of positive comments:
More people means more money being spent.
Brings different businesses to area ..like malls and stores
Brings better restaurants
Beautiful, quality homes, affordable housing
The building is good, the area is not so desolate
It's been well planned
It is producing its own revenues
Good for young people, taxes too high for senior citizens
Better recreational opportunities
The development provides jobs
It'.s still calm and beautiful
Serves as a model for other new cities
More entertainment
Sampling of Negative comments:
Too many people
Destroying the natural areas
Not enough road planning, terrible traffic
Overcrowed housing
Has lost its rural character
Has created school problems
Y
Table 24
Frequency of Travel
Responses of 299 non-residents with regard to how often
they travel to Santa Clarita in a year
Average # times per year
respondents travel to Santa Clarita:
35.6 times
Less than once a year
9
3
1 to 2 times a year
51
17
3 to 5 times a year
56
19
6'to 1a'fimes a year "`
40 u
. _ 13
11 to 24 times a year
50
17
25 or more times a year
93
31
Average # times per year
respondents travel to Santa Clarita:
35.6 times
Table 25
Purpose of Travel
Responses of 300 non-residents with regard to the primary
purpose of their travel to Santa Clarita
Recreational/entertainment
Shopping
Work there/employment
Business
Attending classes/higher education
To visit friends or relatives
Other
Sampling of Other comments:
Passing through on way to somewhere else
Jury duty
Looking at houses
Meetings of trade organization
To buy a Christmas tree
Saugus Swap Meet
98 33
17 6
23 8
28 9
0 0
75 25
59 20
a
0
Table 26
Rating of Visit
Responses of 294 non-residents with regard to how they
would rate their most recent visit to Santa Clarita
Excellent 60 20
Very Good 87 30
Good - 107 37
Fair 32 11
Poor 7 2
Table 27
Repeat Visit
Responses of 297 non-residents with regard to
whether they will visit Santa Clarita again .
f
Yes 273
92
No 9
3
Not Sure 15
5
f
0
Table 28
Length of Residence
Responses of 299 non-residents with regard to how
long they have lived at their present address
Average # years lived at
present address: 10 years
Less than one year
6
2
1 to 2 years
84
28
3 to 5 years
65
22
6 to 10 years
35
12
11 or more years
109
37
Average # years lived at
present address: 10 years
C
Table 30
Employment
Responses of 301 non-residents with regard to the
employment status of the chief wage-earner in the family
Table 31
Income
Responses of 301 non-residents with regard to
their total annual family income
Under $20,000
$20,000 - $39,999
$40,000 - $59,999
$60,000 - $79,999
$80,000 - $99,999
$100,000 or more
Refused
26 9
76 25
74 25
43 14
14 5
23 8
45 15
Full time employed
226
75
Part time employed
10
3
Retired
59
20
Unemployed
2
1
Student
4
1
Table 31
Income
Responses of 301 non-residents with regard to
their total annual family income
Under $20,000
$20,000 - $39,999
$40,000 - $59,999
$60,000 - $79,999
$80,000 - $99,999
$100,000 or more
Refused
26 9
76 25
74 25
43 14
14 5
23 8
45 15
Table 32
Gender
Responses of 301 non-residents with regard to
their gender
Male 159
Female 142
Table 33
Community of Residence
Responses of 301 non-residents with regard to
their community of residence
53
47
Northridge 100 33
San Femando/Sylmar 99 33
Lancaster/Palm Dale 102 34