Issuu

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

O F

Table of Contents

T AB LE

C O N TE N TS

Table of Contents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii List of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Purpose of Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Overview of Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Organization of Report. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Disclaimer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 About True North . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Just the Facts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Quality of Life. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 City Services. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Safety, Code Enforcement & Homelessness. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Spending Priorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Local Government & Customer Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Communications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Quality of Life . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Overall Quality of Life. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Question 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 What do You Like Most About Manhattan Beach? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Question 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Changes to Improve Manhattan Beach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Question 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 City Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Overall Satisfaction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Question 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Specific Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Question 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Question 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Differentiators of Opinion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Performance Needs & Priorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Safety, Code Enforcement & Homelessness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Safety. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Question 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Code Enforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Question 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Question 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Homelessness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Question 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Question 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Spending Priorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Question 13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Local Government & Customer Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Perceptions of City Government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Question 14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Contact with City Staff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Question 15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Rating City Staff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Question 16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

City of Manhattan Beach

Table of Contents

Communications. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Satisfaction With Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Question 17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Information Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Question 18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Background & Demographics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Questionnaire Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Programming & Pre-Test. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sample, Recruiting & Data Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Margin of Error due to Sampling. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Data Processing & Weighting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rounding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Questionnaire & Toplines. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

34 34 34 35 36 38 39 39 39 39 40 41 41 42

Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Table 4 Table 5 Table 6 Table 7 Table 8 Table 9 Table 10 Table 11 Table 12 Table 13 Table 14 Table 15 Table 16

O F

T AB LES

Rating City of Manhattan Beach by Years in Manhattan Beach, Home Ownership Status & Child in Hsld (Showing % Excellent) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rating City of Manhattan Beach by Age & Gender (Showing % Excellent) . . . . . . . . Rating City of Manhattan Beach by Ethnicity & Employment Status (Showing % Excellent) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Satisfaction With Services by Overall Satisfaction With City . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Needs & Priorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Opinion of City Addressing Homeless by Years in Manhattan Beach & Overall Satisfaction (Showing % Yes) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Opinion of City Addressing Homeless by Age (Showing % Yes) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Opinion of City Addressing Homeless by Ethnicity & Home Ownership Status (Showing % Yes) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Opinion of City Addressing Homeless by Perceived Safety of City & Perception of Homeless in Past Year (Showing % Yes) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Spending Priorities by Overall Satisfaction & Age (Showing % High Priority) . . . . . . Spending Priorities by Ethnicity, Gender, Home Ownership Status & Child in Hsld (Showing % High Priority). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Agreement With City Statements by Years in Manhattan & Overall Satisfaction (Showing % Agreement). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Agreement With City Statements by Age (Showing % Agreement). . . . . . . . . . . . . . Agreement With City Statements by Ethnicity & Home Ownership Status (Showing % Agreement). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Agreement With City Statements by Perceived Safety of City & Perception of Homeless in Past Year (Showing % Agreement) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Demographics of Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

City of Manhattan Beach

10 10 10 17 19

List of Tables

L I S T

26 26 26 27 29 29 31 31 31 31 38

iii

Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Figure 12 Figure 13 Figure 14 Figure 15 Figure 16 Figure 17 Figure 18 Figure 19 Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure

20 21 22 23 24

Figure 25 Figure 26 Figure 27 Figure 28 Figure 29 Figure 30 Figure 31 Figure 32 Figure 33

O F

F I G U R E S

Rating City of Manhattan Beach. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Like Most About City. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Changes to Improve City . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Overall Satisfaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Overall Satisfaction by Years in Manhattan Beach, Ethnicity & Gender . . . . . . . . . . 14 Overall Satisfaction by Age, Child in Hsld & Home Ownership Status . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Importance of Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Satisfaction With Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Resident Service Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Perceived Safety of City . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Perceived Safety of City by Years in Manhattan Beach, Overall Satisfaction & Age. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Perceived Safety of City by Ethnicity, Gender, Child in Hsld & Home Ownership Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Satisfaction With City’s Efforts to Enforce Code Violations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Satisfaction With City’s Efforts to Enforce Code Violations by Years in Manhattan Beach, Overall Satisfaction & Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Satisfaction With City’s Efforts to Enforce Code Violations by Ethnicity, Gender, Child in Hsld & Home Ownership Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Issue, Code Violation Not Mentioned. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Perceived Number of Homeless in Past Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Perceived Number of Homeless in Past Year by Years in Manhattan Beach, Overall Satisfaction & Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Perceived Number of Homeless in Past Year by Ethnicity, Gender, Child in Hsld, Home Ownership Status & Perceived Safety of City . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Opinion of City Addressing Homeless . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Spending Priorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Agreement With City Statements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Contact City Staff in Past 12 Months . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Contact City Staff in Past 12 Months by Years in Manhattan Beach, Overall Satisfaction & Age. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Contact City Staff in Past 12 Months by Ethnicity, Gender, Child in Hsld & Home Ownership Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Perception of City Staff... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Satisfaction With Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Satisfaction With Communication by Years in Manhattan Beach, Ethnicity & Gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Satisfaction With Communication by Age, Child in Hsld & Home Ownership Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Information Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Information Sources by Overall & Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Information Sources by Overall Satisfaction, Home Ownership Status & Ethnicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Maximum Margin of Error . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

City of Manhattan Beach

List of Figures

L I S T

Located along the coastal edge of Los Angeles County, the City of Manhattan Beach is home to an estimated 35,058 residents.1 Incorporated in 1912 as a General Law city, Manhattan Beach’s team of full- and part-time employees provides services through more than a dozen departments, agencies, and programs, including the City Attorney’s office, City Clerk’s office, City Manager’s office, Community Development, Environmental Stability, Finance, Fire, Parks & Recreation, Human Resources, Information Technology, MBtv, Police, and Public Works.

Introduction

I N T R O D U C T I O N

As part of its commitment to provide high quality services and facilities that meet the varied needs of its residents, the City of Manhattan Beach engages its residents on a daily basis and receives regular feedback regarding issue, policy, and performance matters. Although these informal feedback mechanisms are a valuable source of information for the City in that they provide timely and accurate information about the opinions of specific residents, they do not necessarily provide an accurate picture of the community as a whole. For the most part, informal feedback mechanisms rely on the resident to initiate the feedback, which creates a self-selection bias. The City receives feedback only from those residents who are motivated enough to initiate the feedback process. Because these residents tend to be those who are either very pleased or very displeased regarding a particular topic, their collective opinions are not necessarily representative of the City’s resident population as a whole.

PURPOSE OF STUDY The motivation for the current study was to design and employ a methodology that would avoid the self-selection bias noted above and thereby provide the City with a statistically reliable understanding of its residents’ satisfaction, priorities, and concerns as they relate to services, facilities, and policies provided by the City. Ultimately, the survey results and analyses presented in this report provide City Council and staff with information that can be used to make sound, strategic decisions in a variety of areas including service improvements and enhancements, measuring and tracking internal performance, planning, budgeting, policymaking, and community engagement. To assist in this effort, the City selected True North Research to design the research plan and conduct the study. Broadly defined, the study was designed to: •

Identify key issues of importance for residents, as well as their perceptions of the quality of life in Manhattan Beach;

•

Measure residents’ overall satisfaction with the City’s efforts to provide municipal services;

•

Measure the importance of specific services to residents, as well as their satisfaction with the City’s efforts to provide each service;

•

Gather opinions on specific topics including public safety, code enforcement, homelessness, budget priorities, and customer service;

•

Determine satisfaction with the City’s communication with residents; and

•

Collect additional background and demographic data that are relevant to understanding residents’ perceptions, needs, and interests.

1. Source: California Department of Finance estimate, January 2021.

City of Manhattan Beach

study is included later in this report (see Methodology on page 39). In brief, the survey was administered to a random sample of 560 adults who reside within the City of Manhattan Beach. The survey followed a mixed-method design that employed multiple recruiting methods (email, text, and phone) and multiple data collection methods (phone and online). Administered between December 6 and December 12, 2021, the average interview lasted 18 minutes.

Introduction

OVERVIEW OF METHODOLOGY A full description of the methodology used for this

ORGANIZATION OF REPORT This report is designed to meet the needs of readers who prefer a summary of the findings as well as those who are interested in the details of the results. For those who seek an overview of the findings, the sections titled Just the Facts and Conclusions are for you. They provide a summary of the most important factual findings of the survey in bullet-point format and a discussion of their implications. For the interested reader, this section is followed by a more detailed question-by-question discussion of the results from the survey by topic area (see Table of Contents), as well as a description of the methodology employed for collecting and analyzing the data. And, for the truly ambitious reader, the questionnaire used for the interviews is contained at the back of this report (see Questionnaire & Toplines on page 42), and a complete set of crosstabulations for the survey results is contained in Appendix A. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS True North thanks the City of Manhattan Beach for the opportunity to conduct the study and for contributing valuable input during the design stage of this study. The collective experience, insight, and local knowledge provided by city representatives and staff improved the overall quality of the research presented here. DISCLAIMER The statements and conclusions in this report are those of the authors (Dr. Timothy McLarney and Richard Sarles) at True North and not necessarily those of the City of Manhattan Beach. Any errors and omissions are the responsibility of the authors.

ABOUT TRUE NORTH True North is a full-service survey research firm that is dedicated to providing public agencies with a clear understanding of the values, perceptions, priorities, and concerns of their residents and customers. Through designing and implementing scientific surveys, focus groups, and one-on-one interviews, as well as expert interpretation of the findings, True North helps its clients to move with confidence when making strategic decisions in a variety of areas—such as planning, policy evaluation, performance management, establishing fiscal priorities, passing revenue measures, and developing effective public information campaigns. During their careers, Dr. McLarney (President) and Mr. Sarles (Principal Researcher) have designed and conducted over 1,200 survey research studies for public agencies—including more than 400 studies for California municipalities and special districts.

City of Manhattan Beach

T H E

F A C T S

The following section is an outline of the main factual findings from the survey. For the reader’s convenience, the findings are organized by the section titles used in the body of this report. Thus, to learn more about a particular finding, simply turn to the appropriate report section.

QUALITY OF LIFE •

More than eight-in-ten respondents shared favorable opinions of the overall quality of life in the City (94% excellent or good) and Manhattan Beach as a place to recreate (85%), as a place raise a family (84%), and as a place to shop and dine (81%).

•

Ratings for Manhattan Beach as a place to retire (60% excellent or good) and work (54%) were somewhat lower, although it should be noted that approximately one-quarter of respondents (27%) were also unsure how to rate the City as a place to work.

•

When asked in an open-ended manner to describe what they like best about the City of Manhattan Beach, approximately 9% were unsure or unable to offer a specific aspect of Manhattan Beach that they would like preserved in the future. Among the specific responses that were offered, the City’s small-town feel and charming beach community vibe was mentioned most often (17%), followed closely by public safety and the low crime rate (16%), the beach and ocean (14%), cleanliness, appearance, and beauty of the City (13%), and the community and its friendly people and family atmosphere (12%).

•

When asked what one change they would like city government to make to improve the quality of life in Manhattan Beach, approximately 16% of respondents could not think of a desired change (10%) or stated flatly that no changes are needed (6%). Among the specific changes suggested, improving public safety and increasing the police presence (10%) and addressing parking issues (9%) were the most common, followed by enforcing traffic and ebike laws (6%), limiting growth and development (5%), encouraging diversity and addressing inequity (5%), and preserving/supporting outdoor dining (5%).

Just the Facts

J U ST

CITY SERVICES •

Nearly nine-in-ten Manhattan Beach residents (88%) indicated they were either very satisfied (40%) or somewhat satisfied (48%) with the City’s efforts to provide municipal services. A very small portion of residents (9%) reported that they were dissatisfied, whereas 3% were unsure or unwilling to share their opinion.

•

When asked to rate the importance of 24 specific services, maintaining parks and open spaces (96% extremely or very important), providing emergency medical services (92%), maintaining sewer and storm drain systems (92%), maintaining a low crime rate (91%), and providing fire protection and prevention services (90%) were viewed as the most important services.

•

At the other end of the spectrum, providing a variety of public art (33%), eastside library services (34%), cultural and arts opportunities (51%), and services and programs for seniors (53%) were viewed as less important overall.

•

With respect to how satisfied they were with the City’s efforts to provide the same list of 24 services, respondents were most satisfied with the City’s efforts to provide emergency medical services (99% very or somewhat satisfied), followed by provide fire protection and prevention services (97%), remove graffiti (96%), provide services and programs for seniors (95%), provide a variety of recreation programs for all ages (95%), provide special events (95%), and keep public buildings, parks and facilities clean and attractive (93%).

City of Manhattan Beach

Respondents were somewhat less satisfied with the City’s efforts to address bike safety and e-bikes (53%), enforce animal control laws such as leash-laws and waste cleanup (67%), enforce traffic laws (69%), and address homelessness (69%).

SAFETY, CODE ENFORCEMENT & HOMELESSNESS •

Overall, 93% of respondents indicated that they feel Manhattan Beach is a safe place to live, with 48% rating it as very safe. Conversely, 6% of residents felt the City is either a very unsafe (1%) or somewhat unsafe (5%) place to live.

•

When asked if, in general, they are satisfied or dissatisfied with the City’s efforts to enforce code violations, 58% of residents indicated they were very satisfied (22%) or somewhat satisfied (36%) with the City efforts in this area, whereas 22% were dissatisfied and 21% of residents did not have an opinion.

•

Among those who were dissatisfied with the City’s code enforcement efforts, construction issues (24%), no-smoking regulations and violations (21%), noise ordinance violations (18%) were the types of code violations mentioned most often as their reason for being dissatisfied.

•

Approximately 43% of respondents perceived that the amount of homeless people in the City of Manhattan Beach has stayed about the same over the past year, whereas 37% perceived that the number has increased, 4% thought the number has decreased, and 16% were unsure.

•

When presented with four strategies the City of Manhattan Beach could pursue to address homelessness, joining with other cities and the County to create more regional homeless shelters garnered the most support (64%), followed by enhancing lighting and modifying benches in public areas to deter overnight camping (63%), providing funding for mental health facilities, street outreach, and housing placement (57%), and providing counseling and rehab for drug and alcohol addiction (56%).

Just the Facts

•

SPENDING PRIORITIES •

When asked to rate nine items in terms of their priority for future city funding, fixing potholes and repairing and improving city streets and sidewalks was assigned the highest priority (90% high or medium priority), followed by repairing and upgrading the City’s sewer and wastewater systems (84%), and improving the maintenance of parks and park amenities including restrooms, sports courts, and dog runs (80%).

•

At the other end of the spectrum, only two-in-ten residents (20%) felt that creating a Manhattan Beach Historical Museum to preserve and store historical documents should be a high or medium priority for city spending.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT & CUSTOMER SERVICE •

Approximately two-thirds of residents agreed with the statements I trust the City of Manhattan Beach (67%) and The City is responsive to residents’ needs (66%). A majority (56%) agreed that The City listens to residents when making important decisions, while just under half of residents (47%) agreed that The City manages its finances well—although it should be noted that one-third of respondents (34%) were also unsure how to rate the City on the latter dimension.

•

Forty-seven percent (47%) of residents indicated they had contact with city staff during the 12 months preceding the interview.

City of Manhattan Beach

When those who had interacted with city staff were given the opportunity to describe staff’s performance, 93% felt that staff members were professional, 89% said they were accessible, and 85% considered staff to be helpful.

COMMUNICATIONS •

Three-in-four respondents (75%) indicated they were satisfied with the City’s efforts to communicate with residents through newsletters, the Internet, social media, and other means. The remaining respondents were either dissatisfied with the City’s efforts in this respect (16%), unsure of their opinion (9%), or unwilling to share their opinion (1%).

•

The most frequently-cited source for City of Manhattan Beach news, events, and programming was The Beach Reporter (49%), followed by Nextdoor.com (25%), Nixle/Alert South Bay (22%), the City’s website (22%), and email notifications from the City (21%). Other sources mentioned by at least 10% of respondents included friends/family/associates (17%), Easy Reader (16%), social media (not the City’s sources) (15%), The Daily Breeze (14%), Manhappenings (11%), and Patch.com (10%).

City of Manhattan Beach

Just the Facts

•

As noted in the Introduction, this study was designed to provide the City of Manhattan Beach with a statistically reliable understanding of its residents’ opinions, satisfaction, and priorities as they relate to services, facilities, and policies provided by the City. As such, the findings of this study can provide the City with information needed to make sound, strategic decisions in a variety of areas including performance management, planning, establishing budget priorities, and community engagement.

Conclusions

C O N C L U S I O N S

Whereas subsequent sections of this report are devoted to conveying the detailed results of the survey, in this section we attempt to ‘see the forest through the trees’ and note how the survey results answer key questions that motivated the research. The following conclusions are based on True North’s interpretations of the results, as well as the firm’s experience conducting similar studies for government agencies throughout the State. How well is the City performing in meeting the needs of Manhattan Beach residents?

The two years leading up to the 2021 Community Opinion Survey were punctuated by difficult and dramatic events in Manhattan Beach. The coronavirus pandemic that arrived in early 2020 has taken lives, threatened livelihoods, and forced dramatic changes in the way residents live, work, socialize, and play. Non-essential businesses were shuttered for weeks or months at a time to curb the spread of COVID-19, and the City’s operations were also adjusted to protect public health and adhere to State guidelines. Services that could be effectively moved to an online format were able to continue in that form, whereas other programs and services were modified, curtailed, or canceled to protect the safety of the public and City employees. Many city facilities were also closed periodically to prevent the spread of COVID-19, including the Manhattan Beach City Hall, Begg Pool, and recreation facilities. Against this turbulent backdrop, residents’ opinions of their community and city government remained positive. Nearly nine-in-ten residents (88%) indicated they were satisfied with the City’s overall efforts to provide municipal services, whereas just 9% were dissatisfied and the remaining 3% were unsure or did not provide a response. The high level of satisfaction expressed with the City’s performance in general was also mirrored in residents’ assessments of the City’s performance in providing most specific services, with the highest satisfaction scores assigned to the City’s efforts to provide emergency medical services, fire protection and prevention services, senior programs/services, recreation programs for all ages, and special events, as well as its efforts to remove graffiti and keep public buildings, parks and facilities clean and attractive (see Specific Services on page 14). For all but one of the 24 service areas tested, the City is meeting or exceeding the needs and expectations of at least two-thirds of its residents—and for many services the City is meeting the needs of at least 90% of residents (see Performance Needs & Priorities on page 18).

City of Manhattan Beach

Conclusions

City staff appear to be instrumental in keeping resident satisfaction high. When those who had contact with the City during the 12 months prior to the survey were asked to comment on staff’s performance, staff received high marks for being accessible, professional, and helpful (see Rating City Staff on page 33). The City’s performance in providing municipal services has also contributed to a high quality of life for residents. Nearly all residents surveyed (94%) rated the quality of life in Manhattan Beach as excellent or good. This sentiment was also widespread across a host of resident subgroups based on length of residence, home ownership status, age, employment status, and other demographics (see Overall Quality of Life on page 9). When asked what they liked most about living in Manhattan Beach, the small town feel/charming beach community vibe and the City’s safety/ low crime rate were the top responses, followed by its proximity to the ocean and beach and the cleanliness/appearance/beauty of Manhattan Beach. To quote one resident: Well it’s absolutely beautiful of course. An independent city with a friendly, safe, small town feel. And to underscore this point, it must be noted that when asked about changes the city government could make to improve Manhattan Beach, the most common response was they could not think of anything to change or that no changes were needed. Where should the City focus its efforts in the future?

In addition to measuring the City’s current performance, a primary goal of this study was to look forward and identify opportunities to adjust services, improve facilities, and/or refine communications strategies to best meet the community’s evolving needs and expectations. Although residents are generally satisfied with the City’s performance (as described above), there is always room for improvement. Below we note some of the areas that present the best opportunities in this regard. Considering respondents’ verbatim answers regarding what city government could do to make Manhattan Beach a better place to live (see Changes to Improve Manhattan Beach on page 11), the list of services and their respective priority status for future attention (see Performance Needs & Priorities on page 18), the manner in which residents prioritize among a variety of projects and programs that could receive funding in the future (see Spending Priorities on page 28), and other relevant questions, the topics of addressing bike safety and e-bikes, improving public safety, addressing parking issues, code enforcement, enforcing animal control laws, street repair/maintenance, repairing/upgrading the City’s sewer and wastewater system, and improving park maintenance and amenities stood out as the key areas of opportunity and interest for residents. It is also important to keep in mind that although these areas represent opportunities to improve resident satisfaction, the City should not over-

City of Manhattan Beach

Conclusions

steer. Indeed, the primary takeaway from this study is that the City does many things very well, and the emphasis should be on continuing to perform at that high level in those areas. The vast majority of residents were pleased with the City’s efforts to provide services, programs, and facilities and have a favorable opinion of the City’s performance in most areas. The top priority for the City should thus be to do what it takes to maintain the high quality of services that it currently provides.

O F

L I F E

The opening series of questions in the survey was designed to assess residents’ top of mind perceptions about the quality of life in the City of Manhattan Beach, as well as their ideas on changes the city government could implement to make the community a better place to live, now and in the future.

OVERALL QUALITY OF LIFE At the outset of the survey, residents were asked to rate the City of Manhattan Beach on a number of key dimensions including overall quality of life, as a place to raise a family, and as a place to work, using a five-point scale of excellent, good, fair, poor, or very poor. As shown in Figure 1 below, more than eight-in-ten respondents shared favorable opinions of the overall quality of life in the City (94% excellent or good) and Manhattan Beach as a place to recreate (85%), as a place raise a family (84%), and as a place to shop and dine (81%). Although opinions regarding Manhattan Beach as a place to retire (60%) and work (54%) were somewhat more mixed, it should be noted that approximately one-quarter of respondents (27%) were also unsure how to rate the City as a place to work.

Quality of Life

Q U AL I TY

Question 2 How would you rate: _____? Would you say it is excellent, good, fair, poor or very poor? FIGURE 1 RATING CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH Excellent

Good

The overall quality of life in Manhattan Beach

Fair

Poor

Very poor

Not sure/Prefer not to answer

57.6

Manhattan Beach as a place to recreate

36.8

48.3

Manhattan Beach as a place to raise a family

49.9

Manhattan Beach as a place to shop and dine

38.3

Manhattan Beach as a place to retire

28.4

23.2 0

7.7 12 4

33.8

9.1 11 6

15.2

17.0

31.1 20

36.8

43.0

31.8

Manhattan Beach as a place to work

4.6

13.3

4 2

21 12

27 80

100

% R espondents

For the interested reader, tables 1-3 on the next page show how ratings of excellent for each dimension varied by years in Manhattan Beach, home ownership status, presence of a child in the home, age, gender, ethnicity, and employment status. In general, new residents (less than 5 years), those renting their home in the City, and younger residents (under 45) were the most likely to rate the overall quality of life in Manhattan Beach as excellent.

City of Manhattan Beach

Overall quality of life MB as a place to raise a family MB as a place to recreate MB as a place to shop and dine MB as a place to retire MB as a place to work

Years in Manhattan Beach (Q1) Less than 5 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 or more 66.2 60.4 52.9 55.6 49.1 56.4 46.2 49.3 52.0 50.7 38.5 49.3 43.7 38.3 30.8 38.9 33.8 30.9 26.3 33.1 22.2 23.6 24.8 23.0

Home Ownership Status (QD4) Own Rent 55.2 63.8 51.7 44.5 49.6 46.2 37.2 42.7 31.6 31.5 22.0 24.5

Child in Hsld (QD3) Yes No 57.8 58.7 58.0 44.5 49.0 47.9 35.8 39.9 28.9 33.8 25.5 21.5

Quality of Life

TABLE 1 RATING CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH BY YEARS IN MANHATTAN BEACH, HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS & CHILD IN HSLD (SHOWING % EXCELLENT)

TABLE 2 RATING CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH BY AGE & GENDER (SHOWING % EXCELLENT)

Overall quality of life MB as a place to raise a family MB as a place to recreate MB as a place to shop and dine MB as a place to retire MB as a place to work

18 to 24 62.9 55.6 41.6 33.5 54.5 18.4

25 to 34 67.5 48.6 47.4 49.8 43.7 25.3

Age (QD1) 35 to 44 45 to 54 62.9 56.2 56.6 51.0 47.6 51.8 32.4 39.8 26.2 25.0 24.5 23.9

55 to 64 50.8 44.2 44.4 37.4 20.8 18.4

65 or older 51.8 45.7 51.2 36.6 37.8 24.8

Gender (QD2) Male Female 59.1 57.0 49.3 50.9 46.6 50.8 37.5 39.1 31.3 32.5 23.4 22.7

TABLE 3 RATING CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH BY ETHNICITY & EMPLOYMENT STATUS (SHOWING % EXCELLENT)

Overall quality of life MB as a place to raise a family MB as a place to recreate MB as a place to shop and dine MB as a place to retire MB as a place to work

Latino/ Hispanic 58.9 57.2 59.5 30.0 35.3 36.5

Ethnicity (QD6) Asian Caucasian American /White 50.2 60.3 49.8 51.3 41.3 50.7 23.9 41.3 28.9 31.0 19.1 22.5

Employment Status (QD5) Mixed or other 53.7 44.8 25.5 33.2 33.3 20.5

Full-time 61.2 50.9 50.8 42.2 30.2 26.7

Part-time 58.6 56.3 54.8 25.5 42.4 21.3

Student 57.1 47.6 49.5 31.8 48.1 20.0

Homemaker 55.3 66.0 36.4 32.5 23.3 16.7

Retired 50.5 43.1 42.9 33.3 35.5 18.1

WHAT DO YOU LIKE MOST ABOUT MANHATTAN BEACH? The next question in this series asked residents to identify what they like most about Manhattan Beach that the city government should make sure to preserve in the future. This question was posed in an openended manner, thereby allowing residents to mention any aspect or attribute that came to mind without being prompted by—or restricted to—a particular list of options. True North later reviewed the verbatim responses and grouped them into the categories shown in Figure 2 on the next page. Approximately 9% were unsure or unable to offer a specific aspect of Manhattan Beach that they would like preserved in the future. Among the specific responses that were offered, the City’s small-town feel and charming beach community vibe was the topic mentioned most often (17%), followed closely by public safety and the low crime rate (16%), the beach and ocean (14%), cleanliness, appearance, and beauty of the City (13%), and the community and its friendly people and family atmosphere (12%).

City of Manhattan Beach

FIGURE 2 LIKE MOST ABOUT CITY

16.7

Small tow n feel, charming beach community

16.2

Public safety, low crime rate

Quality of Life

Question 3 What do you like most about the City of Manhattan Beach that should be preserved in the future?

14.2

Beach, ocean 12.6

Cleanliness, appearance, beauty of City

11.6

Community, friendly people, family atmosphere

10.5

Local businesses, dow ntow n area

10.3

Parks, rec facilities 9.2

Schools, education Not sure / Cannot think of anything

8.7 7.1

Low density development, single family homes

6.6

Community events, activities 5.7

Open spaces, greenbelts

5.4

Outdoor shops, dining options

5.0

Relaxed, casual lifestyle 4.2

Walkability of commercial, residential areas

3.5

The Strand, pier 2.7

Proximity to other areas

2.0

Weather, climate 0

% Respondents

CHANGES TO IMPROVE MANHATTAN BEACH The next question in this series asked residents to indicate the one thing that city government could change to make Manhattan Beach a better place to live. Question 4 was presented in an open-ended manner, allowing residents to mention any change that came to mind without being prompted by, or restricted to, a particular list of options. True North later reviewed the verbatim responses and grouped them into the categories shown in Figure 3 on the next page. Approximately 16% of respondents could not think of a desired change (10%) or stated flatly that no changes are needed (6%). Among the specific changes desired to make Manhattan Beach a better place to live, improving public safety and increasing the police presence (10%) and addressing parking issues (9%) were the most commonly mentioned, followed by enforcing traffic and e-bike laws (6%), limiting growth and development (5%), encouraging diversity and addressing inequity (5%), and preserving/supporting outdoor dining (5%).

City of Manhattan Beach

FIGURE 3 CHANGES TO IMPROVE CITY

Not sure / Cannot think of anything

9.8

Improve public safety, more police presence

9.6

Address parking issues

8.5

No changes needed / Everything is fine

Quality of Life

Question 4 If the city government could change one thing to make Manhattan Beach a better place to live now and in the future, what change would you like to see?

5.6

Enforce traffic, e-bike law s

5.5

Limit grow th, development

5.1

Encourage, support diversity, address inequity

5.0

Preserve, support outdoor dining

5.0

Beautify City, cleanliness, landscaping

4.7

Improve City planning, development

3.8

Attract variety of less expensive restaurants, shops

3.8

Add, improve park, rec facilities

3.7

Provide more affordable housing

3.7

Reduce traffic congestion

3.6 3.6

Improve government leadership, communication

3.5

Address homeless issues Enforce City codes, ordinances

2.7

Improve w alkability, sidew alks

2.6

Underground utilities

2.6 2.3

Increase support for small businesses

2.0

Improve quality of education

2.0

Reduce taxes, fees Reduce cost of living

1.8

Improve permitting process

1.8 1.7

Address Bruce’s Beach issue

1.6

Provide more activities, events for all ages 0

% Respondents

City of Manhattan Beach

S E R V I C E S

After measuring respondents’ perceptions of the quality of life in Manhattan Beach, the survey next turned to assessing their opinions about the City’s performance in providing various municipal services.

OVERALL SATISFACTION The first question in this series asked respondents to indicate

City Services

C I T Y

if, overall, they were satisfied or dissatisfied with the job the City of Manhattan Beach is doing to provide city services. Because this question does not reference a specific program, facility, or service and requested that the respondent consider the City’s performance in general, the findings of this question may be regarded as an overall performance rating for the City. As shown in Figure 4, nearly nine-in-ten Manhattan Beach residents (88%) indicated they were either very satisfied (40%) or somewhat satisfied (48%) with the City’s efforts to provide municipal services. Less than one-in-ten residents reported that they were dissatisfied (9%), whereas 3% were unsure or unwilling to share their opinion. Question 5 Next, I would like to ask a series of questions about services provided by the City of Manhattan Beach. Generally speaking, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the job the City of Manhattan Beach is doing to provide city services? FIGURE 4 OVERALL SATISFACTION

Very dissatisfied 1.9 Somew hat dissatisfied 7.5

Not sure/Prefer not to answ er 2.8

Very satisfied 39.5

Somew hat satisfied 48.4

The next two figures display how residents’ opinions about the City’s overall performance in providing municipal services varied by years in Manhattan Beach, ethnicity, gender, age, presence of a child in the household, and home ownership status. The most striking pattern in the figures is that the high levels of satisfaction exhibited by respondents as a whole (see Figure 4 above) were echoed across resident subgroups, with satisfaction ranging from a low of 80% to a high of 95% for all subgroups.

City of Manhattan Beach

100 90

% Respondents

80 70 60

Smwt satisfied 39.5

50.7

48.4 51.3

50.5

33.3

36.2

10 to 14

15 or more

46.9

46.4

39.1

41.7

Asian American

Caucasian / White

47.6

49.4

41.1

38.2

Male

Female

52.3

City Services

FIGURE 5 OVERALL SATISFACTION BY YEARS IN MANHATTAN BEACH, ETHNICITY & GENDER

50 40 30 20

Very satisfied 52.1

43.2

44.6

31.1

0 Less than 5

5 to 9

Latino / Hispanic

Years in Manhattan Beach (Q1)

Mixed or other

Ethnicity (QD6)

Gender (QD2)

FIGURE 6 OVERALL SATISFACTION BY AGE, CHILD IN HSLD & HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS 100 90

% Respondents

80 70 60 50

Smwt satisfied 35.5

36.7

50.1

41.0

38.6

35 to 44

45 to 54

43.1

54.4

49.4

46.9

50.3

35.2

38.0

40.9

39.7

37.1

55 to 64

65 or older

Yes

49.9

40 30 20 10

Very satisfied 44.2

47.9

18 to 24

25 to 34

47.5

0 Age (QD1)

Child in Hsld (QD3)

Own

Rent

Home Ownership Status (QD4)

SPECIFIC SERVICES Whereas Question 5 addressed the City’s overall performance, the next two-question series asked respondents to rate the importance of specific services offered by the City, as well as their level of satisfaction with efforts to provide these services. For each service, respondents were first asked if they thought the service was extremely important, very important, somewhat important, or not at all important. Respondents were then asked about their satisfaction with these same services. The order of the items was randomized for each respondent to avoid a systematic position bias. Figure 7 presents the services sorted in order of importance according to the percentage of respondents who rated a service as at least very important. In general, Manhattan Beach residents rated parks and open space, public safety, and public works as the most important service areas. More specifically, maintaining parks and open spaces (96% extremely or very important), providing emergency medical services (92%), maintaining sewer and storm drain systems (92%), maintaining a low crime rate (91%), and providing fire protection and prevention services (90%) were viewed as the most important services among those tested.

City of Manhattan Beach

Question 6 For each of the services I read, please tell me whether the service is extremely important to you, very important, somewhat important, or not at all important.

City Services

FIGURE 7 IMPORTANCE OF SERVICES Extremely important Maintaining parks and open spaces

Very important 37.1

59.3

Providing emergency medical services

64.9

Maintaining sewer and storm drain systems

63.5

Maintaining a low crime rate

27.2 28.1 16.6

74.8

Providing fire protection and prevention services

28.4

61.6

Preparing the City for emergencies

33.6

54.8

Maintaining and repairing local streets and roads

36.7

51.2

Preserving the City’s small, beach-town character

23.3

64.3

Keeping public buildings, parks and facilities clean and attractive

39.2

48.4

Providing neighborhood police patrols

22.4

61.1

Protecting the environment

28.6

51.4

Addressing homelessness

25.8

52.5

Maintaining public athletic fields

37.7

33.0

Addressing bike safety and e-bikes

34.7

35.9

Providing a variety of recreation programs for all ages

43.1

27.4

Enforcing traffic laws

30.4

37.9

R emoving graffiti

25.1

41.1

Providing special events such as concerts in the park, holiday fireworks

37.3

25.3

Enforcing animal control laws such as leash-laws and waste cleanup

27.2

Providing after-school programs and diversion programs for youth

27.8

Providing services and programs for seniors

35.3 30.0 33.3

20.1

Providing cultural and arts opportunities

35.0

16.3

Providing eastside library services

14.2

Providing a variety of public art

11.7 0

19.4 21.7 20

100

% R espondents

Turning to the satisfaction component, Figure 8 sorts the same list of services according to the percentage of respondents who said they were either very or somewhat satisfied with the City’s efforts to provide the service. For comparison purposes between the services, only respondents who held an opinion (satisfied or dissatisfied) are included in the figure. Those who did not have an opinion were removed from this analysis. The percentage who held an opinion for each service is shown to the right of the service label in parentheses. Thus, for example, among the 74% of respondents who expressed an opinion about the City’s efforts to provide emergency medical services, 50% were very satisfied and 49% were somewhat satisfied.

City of Manhattan Beach

City Services

At the top of the list, respondents were most satisfied with the City’s efforts to provide emergency medical services (99% very or somewhat satisfied), followed by provide fire protection and prevention services (97%), remove graffiti (96%), provide services and programs for seniors (95%), provide a variety of recreation programs for all ages (95%), provide special events (95%), and keep public buildings, parks and facilities clean and attractive (93%). Respondents were somewhat less satisfied with the City’s efforts to address bike safety and e-bikes (53%), enforce animal control laws such as leash-laws and waste cleanup (67%), enforce traffic laws (69%), address homelessness (69%), and provide neighborhood police patrols (70%). Question 7 For the same list of services I just read, I'd like you to tell me how satisfied you are with the job the City is doing to provide the service. Are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the City's efforts to: _____, or do you not have an opinion? FIGURE 8 SATISFACTION WITH SERVICES Very satisfied

Somewhat satisfied

Somewhat dissatisfied

49.7

Provide emergency medical services [74%]

Very dissatisfied

48.9 65.2

Provide fire protection and prev ention services [93%] 49.9

Remove graffiti [82%]

44.9

48.1

46.3

25.8

48.8

27.6

Preserve the City’s small, beach-town character [96%]

Enforce traffic laws [87%]

25.6

Enforce animal control laws such as leash-laws and waste cleanup [90%]

24.8

42.9

19.2 20.3

34.7 30

27.1 40

6.7 5.7 9.8 5.0

21.3

42.6

13.5

25.1

46.7

18.1

Address bike safety and e-bikes [83%]

7.9

15.8

44.2

22.5

Address homelessness [91%]

9.8

19.7

46.7

25.8

Provide neighborhood police patrols [85%]

2 3.5

16.1

50.7

33.5

Maintain a low crime rate [97%]

12.6

55.1

31.7

Maintain and repair local streets and roads [97%]

13.2

53.3

27.9

Provide a variety of public art [78%] Prov ide eastside library services [54%]

10.0 1

57.1

30.5

Protect the env ironment [76%]

6.9 2

50.2

27.8

Provide cultural and arts opportunities [76%]

8.0

50.7

39.0

Provide after-school programs and div ersion programs for youth [60%]

6.6 1

59.7

40.4

Maintain parks and open spaces [96%]

6.5 1 6.5 1

52.1

31.9

Prepare the City for emergencies [67%]

4.2 2

57.2

39.8

Maintain sewer and storm drain systems [78%]

3.8 2

44.9

35.1

Maintain public athletic fields [86%]

5.2

53.0

48.8

Keep public buildings, parks and facilities clean and attractive [98%]

60.1

41.6

Prov ide a variety of recreation programs for all ages [82%] Prov ide special events such as concerts in the park, holiday fireworks [93%]

46.3

34.8

Provide serv ices and programs for seniors [56%]

1 31.3

9.5 12.4 12.3 20.1

100

% Respondents Who Prov ided Opinion

DIFFERENTIATORS OF OPINION For the interested reader, Table 4 on the next page displays how the level of satisfaction with each specific service tested in Question 7 varied according to residents’ overall performance ratings for the City (see Overall Satisfaction on page 13). The table divides residents who were satisfied with the City’s overall performance into one group and those dissatisfied into a second group. Also displayed is the difference between the two groups in terms of the percentage who indicated they were satisfied with the City’s efforts to provide each service tested in Question 7 (far right column). For convenience, the services are sorted by that difference, with the greatest differentiators of opinion near the top of the table.

City of Manhattan Beach

City Services

When compared with their counterparts, those satisfied with the City’s overall performance in providing city services were also more likely to express satisfaction with the City’s efforts to provide each of the specific services tested in Question 7. With that said, the greatest specific differentiators of opinion between satisfied and dissatisfied residents were found with respect to the City’s efforts to enforce traffic laws, enforce animal control laws such as leash-laws and waste cleanup, and protect the environment. TABLE 4 SATISFACTION WITH SERVICES BY OVERALL SATISFACTION WITH CITY

% Respondents Satisfied With Each Service

City's Overall Performance (Q5) Very or somewhat Very or somewhat satisfied dissatisfied Enforce traffic laws Enforce animal control laws such as leash-laws and waste cleanup Protect the environment Provide cultural and arts opportunities Address homelessness Maintain sewer and storm drain systems Provide eastside library services Provide neighborhood police patrols Provide special events such as concerts in the park and holiday fireworks Preserve the City’s small, beach-town character Maintain and repair local streets and roads Prepare the City for emergencies Maintain a low crime rate Provide services and programs for seniors Provide after-school programs and diversion programs for youth Provide emergency medical services Provide a variety of recreation programs for all ages Remove graffiti Provide a variety of public art Provide fire protection and prevention services Maintain parks and open spaces Maintain public athletic fields Keep public buildings, parks and facilities clean and attractive Address bike safety and e-bikes

City of Manhattan Beach

71.0 70.2 86.3 87.5 72.6 94.6 84.7 72.4 95.5 76.5 76.4 93.1 81.1 96.0 91.0 99.3 95.2 96.8 84.0 97.4 91.6 93.1 93.5 53.2

36.1 38.7 55.6 57.6 42.8 65.5 56.9 44.9 71.9 52.9 55.2 73.9 64.3 79.3 74.8 91.4 87.5 89.3 76.5 91.0 86.0 87.4 89.3 49.1

Difference Between Groups For Each Service 34.9 31.5 30.7 29.9 29.7 29.1 27.8 27.5 23.6 23.6 21.2 19.1 16.8 16.7 16.2 7.9 7.7 7.5 7.5 6.4 5.7 5.6 4.2 4.1

N E E D S

P R I O R I T I E S

With a measure of the importance of a service to residents as well as a measure of satisfaction with the City’s efforts to provide the service, True North is able to examine the relationship between these two dimensions and identify areas where the City has the greatest opportunities to improve resident satisfaction—and identify for which services the City is meeting, and even exceeding, the majority of residents’ needs. Rather than rely on averages to conduct this analysis, True North has developed an individualized approach to identifying priorities. This approach is built on the recognition that opinions will vary from resident to resident and that understanding this variation is required for assessing how well the City is meeting residents’ needs.2 Table 5 on the next page presents a grid based on the importance and satisfaction scales. The horizontal axis corresponds to the four importance options, and the vertical scale corresponds to the four satisfaction options. The 16 cells within the grid are grouped into one of six categories based on how well the City is meeting, or not meeting, a resident’s needs for a particular service. The six groups are as follows: Exceeding Needs

The City is exceeding a respondent’s needs if a respondent is satisfied and the level of expressed satisfaction is higher than the importance that the respondent assigned to the service.

Meeting Needs, Moderately

The City is moderately meeting a respondent’s needs if the respondent is satisfied and the level of satisfaction is commensurate with the level of importance assigned to the service.

Meeting Needs, Marginally

The City is marginally meeting a respondent’s needs if the respondent is satisfied with the City’s efforts to provide the service, but their level of satisfaction is lower than the level of importance assigned to the service.

Not Meeting Needs, Marginally

The City is marginally not meeting a respondent’s needs if the respondent is somewhat dissatisfied, but the service is also viewed as just somewhat or not at all important.

Not Meeting Needs, Moderately

The City is moderately not meeting a respondent’s needs if A) a respondent is very dissatisfied with the City’s efforts to provide the service, but the service is viewed somewhat or not at all important, or B) a respondent is somewhat dissatisfied and the service is very important.

Not Meeting Needs, Severely

The City is severely not meeting a respondent’s needs if A) a respondent is dissatisfied and the service is viewed as extremely important, or B) a respondent is very dissatisfied and the service is viewed as very important.

Performance Needs & Priorities

P E R F O R M A N C E

2. Any tool that relies on the opinions of the average respondent will provide a limited and occasionally distorted picture of how well an agency is performing. The simple fact is that a city is not comprised of average residents—it is comprised of unique individuals who vary substantially in their opinions of the City’s performance in different service areas. Thus, although the arithmetic average of these individuals’ opinions is a useful statistic, it does not capture the variation in opinions that occurs among residents, and it is this variation that is critical for truly assessing how well the City is meeting the needs of its residents.

City of Manhattan Beach

Importance Not at all important

Somewhat important

Satisfaction

Very satisfied Exceeding needs Exceeding needs

Somewhat satisfied Exceeding needs

Somewhat dissatisfied

Very dissatisfied

Meeting needs, moderately

Not meeting Not meeting needs, marginally needs, marginally Not meeting needs, moderately

Not meeting needs, moderately

Very important

Extremely important

Meeting needs, moderately

Meeting needs, marginally

Not meeting needs, moderately

Not meeting needs, severely

Using this framework, True North categorized respondents individually for each of the 24 services tested in the study. Thus, for example, a respondent who indicated that addressing bike safety and e-bikes was somewhat important and they were very satisfied with the City’s efforts in this service area would be categorized in the exceeding needs group for this service. The same respondent may be grouped in the marginally not meeting needs group for another service (e.g., enforcing animal control laws such as leash-laws and waste cleanup) if they were somewhat dissatisfied with the City’s efforts to provide the service, but the service was viewed as only somewhat important.

Performance Needs & Priorities

TABLE 5 NEEDS & PRIORITIES

Figure 9 on the next page presents the 24 services tested, along with the percentage of respondents who were grouped into each of the six possible categories. For ease of interpretation, the color-coding in Figure 9 is consistent with that presented in Table 5. Thus, for example, in the service area of addressing bike safety and e-bikes, the City is exceeding the needs of 9% of respondents, moderately meeting the needs of 21% of respondents, marginally meeting the needs of 23% of respondents, marginally not meeting the needs of 4% of respondents, moderately not meeting the needs of 13% of respondents, and severely not meeting the needs of 30% of respondents. Perhaps the most important pattern that is shown in the figure is that—for the vast majority of services tested—the City is meeting the needs of at least 80% of residents. Further, the City is meeting the needs of at least two-thirds of residents for 23 of the 24 services tested. Operating from the management philosophy that, all other things being equal, the City should focus on improving those services that have the highest percentage of residents for which the City is currently not meeting their needs, the services have been sorted by order of priority. Thus, addressing bike safety and e-bikes is the top priority, followed by enforcing animal control laws such as leash-laws and waste cleanup, enforcing traffic laws, and addressing homelessness.

City of Manhattan Beach

Addressing bike safety and e-bikes

Enforcing animal control laws such as leash-laws, waste cleanup

Enforcing traffic laws

Addressing homelessness

Providing neighborhood police patrols

Maintaining and repairing local streets and roads 3

1 7

Preserving the City’s small, beach-town character

Maintaining a low crime rate

Providing eastside library services Protecting the environment

Maintaining sewer and storm drain systems 2 Maintaining public athletic fields

Providing special events, concerts in park, holiday fireworks

2 31 32

Providing emergency medical services 2 20

121

51 10

012

Not meeting needs moderately

212

42 50

12 3

Providing fire protection and prevention services

12 4 26

52 11

R emoving graffiti

04 3

41 52

Providing services and programs for seniors

Not meeting needs marginally

12 5 41

Providing a variety of recreation programs for all ages

02 6

49 44

Meeting needs marginally

01 8

40 7

33 5

4 4 32

8 3 4

Preparing the City for emergencies 3

Keeping public buildings, parks, facilities clean and attractive

Meeting needs moderately

19 6

Maintaining parks and open spaces 1

17 21

Providing cultural and arts opportunities Providing after-school programs and diversion programs for youth

4 5

Providing a variety of public art

2 5

Exceeding needs

Not meeting needs severely

010 80

Performance Needs & Priorities

FIGURE 9 RESIDENT SERVICE NEEDS

100

% R espondents who Provided Opinion

City of Manhattan Beach

E N F O R C E M E N T

The next section of the report explores residents’ opinions regarding perceived safety, code enforcement, and homelessness in Manhattan Beach.

SAFETY Ensuring the personal safety of residents is the most basic function of local government. It is important to keep in mind, of course, that public safety is as much a matter of perceptions as it is a matter of reality. Regardless of actual crime statistics, if residents don’t feel safe then they will not enjoy the many cultural, recreational, and shopping opportunities available in the City of Manhattan Beach that will enhance their quality of life. Overall, 93% of respondents indicated that they feel Manhattan Beach is a safe place to live, with 48% describing it as very safe. Conversely, 6% of residents reported that the City is either a very unsafe (1%) or somewhat unsafe (5%) place to live (see Figure 10). Question 8 Overall, how safe is the City of Manhattan Beach as a place to live? Would you say it is very safe, somewhat safe, somewhat unsafe, or very unsafe? FIGURE 10 PERCEIVED SAFETY OF CITY Very unsafe 0.9 Somewhat unsafe 5.4

Prefer not to answer 0.3

Very safe 47.8

Figures 11-12 display perceptions of safety by a host of demographic characteristics. Across nearly every subgroup, approximately nine-in-ten residents perceived Manhattan Beach to be a safe place to live. The one notable exception to this pattern occurs among those who were generally dissatisfied with the City’s overall efforts to provide municipal services.

Somewhat safe 45.6

Safety, Code Enforcement & Homelessness

S A F E T Y , C O D E H O M E L E S S N E S S

FIGURE 11 PERCEIVED SAFETY OF CITY BY YEARS IN MANHATTAN BEACH, OVERALL SATISFACTION & AGE 100 90

% Respondents

80 70

21.1

Smwt safe 36.7

46.1

45.9

54.6

46.2 48.3

53.5 49.6

32.4

50 40

28.1

47.0

Very safe 58.4

75.9 49.0

47.2

37.2

49.3

66.3 49.9

37.0

43.0

38.4

44.3

10 0 Less than 5

5 to 9

10 to 14

15 or more

Years in Manhattan Beach (Q1)

City of Manhattan Beach

Satisfied

Dissatisfied

Overall Satisfaction (Q5)

18 to 24

25 to 34

35 to 44

45 to 54

55 to 64

65 or older

Age (QD1)

100 90

% Respondents

80 70

Smwt safe 48.1

45.4

Very safe 49.8

45.0

Latino / Hispanic

Asian American

44.2

46.3

44.7

48.6

48.1

Male

Female

50.8

51.7

42.4

41.8 48.2

50 40 30 20

50.4

39.1

42.1

51.5

43.3

56.6

10 0 Caucasian / White

Mixed or other

Ethnicity (QD6)

Gender (QD2)

Yes

Child in Hsld (QD3)

Own

Rent

Home Ownership Status (QD4)

CODE ENFORCEMENT Respondents were next informed that the City has created codes to address and prevent a variety of issues that can negatively impact a neighborhood, such as nonpermitted construction, junk storage, noise issues, and smoking in public. They were then asked if, in general, they are satisfied or dissatisfied with the City’s efforts to enforce code violations, or if they do not have an opinion on the matter. Overall, 58% of residents indicated they were very satisfied (22%) or somewhat satisfied (36%) with the City efforts in this area, whereas 22% were dissatisfied and 21% of residents did not have an opinion. Examining only those with an opinion, nearly three-fourths (73%) indicated they were satisfied with the City’s code enforcement efforts, while the remaining one-fourth (27%) were dissatisfied. Question 9 The City of Manhattan Beach has created codes to address and prevent a variety of issues that can negatively impact a neighborhood, such as non-permitted construction, junk storage, noise issues, and smoking in public. Overall, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the City's efforts to enforce code violations, or do you not have an opinion?

Safety, Code Enforcement & Homelessness

FIGURE 12 PERCEIVED SAFETY OF CITY BY ETHNICITY, GENDER, CHILD IN HSLD & HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS

FIGURE 13 SATISFACTION WITH CITY’S EFFORTS TO ENFORCE CODE VIOLATIONS

Not sure 19.4

Prefer not to answer 1.1

Very satisfied 22.2

Very dissatisfied 7.0 Somewhat dissatisfied 14.8

City of Manhattan Beach

Somewhat satisfied 35.5

FIGURE 14 SATISFACTION WITH CITY’S EFFORTS TO ENFORCE CODE VIOLATIONS BY YEARS IN MANHATTAN BEACH, OVERALL SATISFACTION & AGE 100 90

% Respondents

80 70 60 50 40

Smwt satisfied 34.0

31.6 37.7

36.4

30.9

39.1

25.1

30 20

26.9

37.5

36.7

46.4

22.7

Very satisfied 26.3

31.0

Less than 5

5 to 9

23.9

21.7

18.5

10 to 14

15 or more

13.1

18.8

Dissatisfied

18 to 24

30.1

25.6

26.9

35 to 44

45 to 54

15.8

15.3

55 to 64

65 or older

0 Years in Manhattan Beach (Q1)

Satisfied

25 to 34

Overall Satisfaction (Q5)

Age (QD1)

FIGURE 15 SATISFACTION WITH CITY’S EFFORTS TO ENFORCE CODE VIOLATIONS BY ETHNICITY, GENDER, CHILD IN HSLD & HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS 100 90

% Respondents

Safety, Code Enforcement & Homelessness

Figures 14 and 15 demonstrate how satisfaction with the City’s code enforcement efforts varied by length of residence, overall satisfaction, age, ethnicity, gender, presence of a child in the household, and home ownership status. When compared to their respective counterparts, younger residents (under 25), Asian Americans, those identifying as mixed/other ethnicities, and those who were generally dissatisfied with the City’s overall performance in providing municipal services were also among the least likely to express satisfaction with the City’s code enforcement efforts.

70 60 50 40

Smwt satisfied 47.1 27.7

30 20 10

37.5

40.4

31.1

23.2

38.6 34.6

Very satisfied 28.7

21.3

21.8

21.9

20.7

24.1

26.1

Latino / Hispanic

Asian American

Caucasian / White

Mixed or other

Male

Female

Yes

38.9

19.7

20.9

Own

30.5

27.2

Ethnicity (QD6)

Gender (QD2)

Child in Hsld (QD3)

Rent

Home Ownership Status (QD4)

Respondents who reported that they were dissatisfied with the City’s code enforcement efforts were subsequently asked if their dissatisfaction was motivated by a particular issue or violation in their neighborhood. Construction issues and concerns (24%), no-smoking regulations and violations (21%), and noise ordinance violations (18%) were the topics most commonly mentioned among those dissatisfied with the City’s efforts to enforce code violations (see Figure 16 on the next page).

City of Manhattan Beach

FIGURE 16 ISSUE, CODE VIOLATION NOT MENTIONED 23.5

Construction issues, concerns 21.4

No-smoking regulations, violations 17.8

Noise ordinance violations 13.3

Dog law s, violations 10.1

Lack of consistent enforcement 8.5

Cannot think of anything specific

8.3

Traffic law violations

7.6

Parking issues

7.2

Bike, e-bike issues 5.8

Building code concerns

5.4

Homelessness issues

4.4

Crime, public safety concerns 1.9

Short-term rental issues 0

% R espondents Dissatisfied With Code Enforcement (Q9)

HOMELESSNESS Most cities in Los Angeles County witnessed an increase in homelessness over the past few years, including a 12.7% increase between 2019 and 2020 countywide.3 Anticipating that homelessness would be an important topic for residents, the survey addressed this issue head-on by asking respondents how they think the City should deal with homelessness.

Safety, Code Enforcement & Homelessness

Question 10 Is there a particular issue or code violation in your neighborhood the City isn't addressing that leads you to be dissatisfied?

Question 11 Over the past year, would you say the amount of homeless people in the City of Manhattan Beach has decreased, stayed about the same, or increased? FIGURE 17 PERCEIVED NUMBER OF HOMELESS IN PAST YEAR Prefer not to answ er 0.2 Decreased Not sure 4.2 15.8

Stayed about the same 42.9

Respondents were first asked whether they thought the amount of homeless people in the City of Manhattan Beach has decreased, stayed about the same, or increased over the past year. As shown in Figure 17, 43% of residents felt the number of homeless has stayed about the same, whereas 37% perceived that the number has increased, 4% thought the number has decreased, and 16% were unsure.

Increased 37.0 3. Source: Los Angeles County Homeless Services Authority 2020 Homeless Count.

City of Manhattan Beach

FIGURE 18 PERCEIVED NUMBER OF HOMELESS IN PAST YEAR BY YEARS IN MANHATTAN BEACH, OVERALL SATISFACTION & AGE 80

Decreased

Increased

% Respondents

60 50

49 36

23 18

20 10

0 Less than 5

5 to 9

10 to 14 15 or more Satisfied Dissatisfied 18 to 24

Years in Manhattan Beach (Q1)

25 to 34

35 to 44

Overall Satisfaction (Q5)

45 to 54

55 to 64 65 or older

Age (QD1)

FIGURE 19 PERCEIVED NUMBER OF HOMELESS IN PAST YEAR BY ETHNICITY, GENDER, CHILD IN HSLD, HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS & PERCEIVED SAFETY OF CITY 80

Decreased

Increased

Safety, Code Enforcement & Homelessness

The two figures to follow display whether respondents felt homelessness in Manhattan Beach has increased or decreased over the past year by a variety of demographic characteristics. Of particular note is the strong relationship between perceived safety in the City and homelessness, with 71% of those who feel unsafe in Manhattan Beach reporting an increase in homelessness over the past year.

% Respondents

60 50

42 37

9 3

0 Latino / Hispanic

Asian Caucasian Mixed or American / White other Ethnicity (QD6)

Male

Female

Gender (QD2)

Yes

Child in Hsld (QD3)

Own

Rent

Home Ownership Status (QD4)

Safe

Unsafe

Perceived Safety of City (Q8)

The next question in this series presented respondents with four strategies that could be used to address homelessness. For each of the strategies shown in Figure 20, respondents were simply asked if the City should take this action. Of the strategies tested, joining with other cities and the County to create more regional homeless shelters garnered the most support (64%), followed by

City of Manhattan Beach

Question 12 How do you think the City should address the homeless issue? Should it: _____? FIGURE 20 OPINION OF CITY ADDRESSING HOMELESS Yes

Not sure

Prefer not to answer

Join with other cities, County to create more regional homeless shelters

64.2

19.4

15.1

Enhance lighting and modify benches in public areas to deter overnight camping

62.7

21.8

14.2 1

Provide funding for mental health facilities, street outreach, and housing placement

57.1

Provide counseling and rehab for drug and alcohol addiction

56.1

23.4

18.0

22.8

19.3

100

% R espondents

TABLE 6 OPINION OF CITY ADDRESSING HOMELESS BY YEARS IN MANHATTAN BEACH & OVERALL SATISFACTION (SHOWING % YES) Join with other cities and the County to create more regional homeless shelters Enhance lighting, modify benches in public areas to deter overnight camping Provide funding for mental health facilities, street outreach, housing placement Provide counseling, rehab for drug, alcohol addiction

Less than 5 55.6 58.2 63.7 56.1

Safety, Code Enforcement & Homelessness

enhancing lighting and modifying benches in public areas to deter overnight camping (63%), providing funding for mental health facilities, street outreach, and housing placement (57%), and providing counseling and rehab for drug and alcohol addiction (56%). Tables 6-9 display how support for each strategy varied across resident subgroups. Interestingly, those who perceived an increase in the amount of homeless people in Manhattan Beach during the past two years were less likely than their counterparts to support regional homeless shelters, counseling, and funding for mental health facilities and housing placement, but were strongly supportive of actions that would deter overnight camping.

Years in Manhattan Beach (Q1) Overall Satisfaction (Q5) 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 or more Satisfied Dissatisfied 58.1 70.6 67.1 56.2 52.2 61.6 73.9 61.5 57.1 57.4 63.8 55.5 53.7 64.1 52.6 54.1 54.9 57.2 65.5 51.7

TABLE 7 OPINION OF CITY ADDRESSING HOMELESS BY AGE (SHOWING % YES)

Join with other cities and the County to create more regional homeless shelters Enhance lighting, modify benches in public areas to deter overnight camping Provide funding for mental health facilities, street outreach, housing placement Provide counseling, rehab for drug, alcohol addiction

18 to 24 81.3 31.4 83.9 80.6

25 to 34 59.3 39.2 76.0 69.9

Age (QD1) 35 to 44 45 to 54 55.8 63.1 56.8 75.8 56.8 58.4 50.6 50.0

55 to 64 65.0 58.7 48.0 50.1

65 or older 75.5 77.4 47.3 61.0

TABLE 8 OPINION OF CITY ADDRESSING HOMELESS BY ETHNICITY & HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS (SHOWING % YES)

City of Manhattan Beach

Latino/ Hispanic 62.2 67.5 57.5 52.7

Ethnicity (QD6) Asian Caucasian American / White 66.5 65.4 55.8 61.2 38.6 60.7 40.9 59.0

Home Ownership Status (QD4) Mixed or other 70.8 75.9 67.4 60.0

Own 64.3 67.4 50.2 50.0

Rent 62.9 55.9 71.7 67.9

Perceived Safety of City (Q8)

City of Manhattan Beach

Safe 64.4 62.3 58.2 57.5

Unsafe 61.1 71.7 41.8 36.0

Perception of Homeless in Past Year (Q11) Stayed about same Decreased Increased 70.8 70.3 55.4 53.8 57.1 76.9 67.4 64.7 47.4 73.8 62.9 45.7

Safety, Code Enforcement & Homelessness

TABLE 9 OPINION OF CITY ADDRESSING HOMELESS BY PERCEIVED SAFETY OF CITY & PERCEPTION OF HOMELESS IN PAST YEAR (SHOWING % YES)

P R I O RI T I E S

It is often the case that residents’ desires for public facilities and programs exceed a city’s financial resources. In such cases, a city must prioritize projects and programs based upon a variety of factors, including the preferences and needs of residents. Question 13 was designed to provide Manhattan Beach with a reliable measure of how residents, as a whole, prioritize a variety of projects, programs, and improvements to which the City could allocate resources in the future. The format of the question was straightforward: after informing respondents that the City does not have the financial resources to fund all of the services and projects that may be desired by residents, respondents were asked whether each project shown in Figure 21 should be a high, medium, or low priority for future city spending—or if the City should not spend money on the project at all.

Spending Priorities

S P E N D I N G

Question 13 The City of Manhattan Beach has limited financial resources to provide the services and programs desired by residents. Because it can't fund every service, program and project, the City must set priorities. As I read each of the following items, please indicate whether you think the City should make the item a high priority, a medium priority, or a low priority for future city spending. If you feel the City should not spend any money on this item, just say so. Please keep in mind that not all of the items can be high priorities. FIGURE 21 SPENDING PRIORITIES High priority Fix potholes and repair and improve city streets and sidewalks

Medium priority 35.0

54.6

33.8

50.5

Repair and upgrade the City’s sewer and wastewater systems Improve maintenance of parks and park amenities including restrooms, sports courts, dog runs

32.0

R edesign public spaces to allow for outdoor dining areas

33.1

Renovate, improve the City’s Community Centers including the Joslyn, Manhattan Heights, Sand Dune Community Centers

26.7 32.3

13.4

R estore and enhance nature areas throughout Sand Dune Park

48.2

37.3

8.4

R econstruct and improve the City’s swimming pool - Begg Pool

16.6

26.1

Provide low-cost, on-demand rideshare services so residents can visit restaurants, shops, and business areas in the City without having to park a vehicle

18.3

23.6

Create a Manhattan Beach Historical Museum to preserve and store 4.0 historical documents 0

16.1 10

100

% Respondents

The projects and programs are sorted in Figure 21 from high to low based on the percentage of respondents who indicated that an item was at least a medium priority for future city spending. Among the projects tested, fixing potholes and repairing and improving city streets and sidewalks was assigned the highest priority (90% high or medium priority), followed by repairing and upgrading the City’s sewer and wastewater systems (84%), and improving the maintenance of parks and park amenities including restrooms, sports courts, and dog runs (80%). At the other

City of Manhattan Beach

Tables 10-11 show how the percentage who rated each item a high priority varied across Manhattan Beach subgroups, with the top three items within each category highlighted in green to ease comparisons. TABLE 10 SPENDING PRIORITIES BY OVERALL SATISFACTION & AGE (SHOWING % HIGH PRIORITY) Overall Satisfaction (Q5) Satisfied Dissatisfied

18 to 24

25 to 34

Age (QD1) 35 to 44 45 to 54

55 to 64

65 or older

Fix potholes and repair and improve city streets and sidewalks

56.5

38.4

44.1

37.6

46.5

50.5

58.9

70.7

Repair and upgrade the City’s sewer and wastewater systems

52.6

32.5

43.1

33.9

45.6

49.5

53.6

62.4

Redesign public spaces to allow for outdoor dining areas

33.4

29.4

35.7

44.1

44.2

36.7

24.5

19.8

Improve maintenance of parks and park amenities including restrooms, sports courts, dog runs

32.3

32.8

24.7

29.7

42.9

33.0

28.0

27.3

Provide low-cost, on-demand rideshare services so residents can visit restaurants, shops, and business areas in the City without having to park a vehicle

18.1

20.0

35.1

33.9

17.5

4.8

10.4

28.4

Reconstruct and improve the City’s swimming pool - Begg Pool

16.3

21.0

10.1

11.0

17.0

17.6

22.9

16.8

Restore and enhance nature areas throughout Sand Dune Park

13.7

17.7

19.6

15.3

13.3

10.7

10.8

Renovate, improve the City’s Community Centers including the Joslyn, Manhattan Heights, Sand Dune Community Centers

8.3

6.0

5.4

8.6

9.2

3.4

11.7

11.6

Create a Manhattan Beach Historical Museum to preserve and store historical documents

4.1

3.8

7.0

12.8

0.7

2.2

2.9

3.8

Spending Priorities

end of the spectrum, only two-in-ten residents (20%) felt that creating a Manhattan Beach Historical Museum to preserve and store historical documents should be a high or medium priority for city spending.

TABLE 11 SPENDING PRIORITIES BY ETHNICITY, GENDER, HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS & CHILD IN HSLD (SHOWING % HIGH PRIORITY)

Latino/ Hispanic

Ethnicity (QD6) Asian Caucasian American / White

Gender (QD2)

Home Ownership Status (QD4)

Mixed or other

Male

Female

Own

Rent

Child in Hsld (QD3) Yes

Fix potholes and repair and improve city streets and sidewalks

55.5

63.4

52.5

58.6

53.0

56.9

57.4

50.4

47.3

60.2

Repair and upgrade the City’s sewer and wastewater systems

39.6

60.0

51.2

44.0

48.3

53.0

52.5

47.2

45.8

53.8

Redesign public spaces to allow for outdoor dining areas

38.8

21.8

35.7

35.1

29.6

37.4

30.9

39.6

37.1

30.6

Improve maintenance of parks and park amenities including restrooms, sports courts, dog runs

50.1

22.7

30.8

37.2

31.7

32.2

32.7

29.0

44.3

24.4

Provide low-cost, on-demand rideshare services so residents can visit restaurants, shops, and business areas in the City without having to park a vehicle

34.9

12.7

18.0

23.8

16.5

20.8

16.9

19.3

11.2

22.6

Reconstruct and improve the City’s swimming pool - Begg Pool

16.5

13.0

19.0

9.4

16.0

17.4

19.0

12.7

24.2

12.7

Restore and enhance nature areas throughout Sand Dune Park

32.0

13.1

12.6

11.5

14.7

12.7

11.3

18.0

16.4

11.3

Renovate, improve the City’s Community Centers including the Joslyn, Manhattan Heights, Sand Dune Community Centers

21.2

6.8

7.4

7.7

8.6

8.2

9.9

5.0

9.2

7.8

Create a Manhattan Beach Historical Museum to preserve and store historical documents

14.6

0.0

3.5

0.0

4.3

3.8

2.7

5.1

2.7

4.5

City of Manhattan Beach

C U S T O M E R

Although much of the survey focused on residents’ satisfaction with the City’s efforts to provide specific services, the City of Manhattan Beach also recognizes there is more to good governance than simply providing satisfactory services. Do residents perceive that the City is responsive to their needs and listens to them when making important decisions? Do residents feel that staff serves their needs in a professional and helpful manner? Do residents trust the City of Manhattan Beach? Answers to questions like these are as important as service or policy-related questions in measuring the City’s performance in meeting residents’ needs. Accordingly, they were the focus of the next section of the survey.

PERCEPTIONS OF CITY GOVERNMENT The first question in this series was designed to measure how residents perceive the City regarding its responsiveness to residents’ needs, management of funds, and tendency to listen to residents when making important decisions, as well as their trust of the City in general. For each of the statements shown on the left of Figure 22, respondents were asked if they agreed or disagreed with the statement. Approximately two-thirds of residents agreed with the statements I trust the City of Manhattan Beach (67%) and The City is responsive to residents’ needs (66%). A majority (56%) agreed that The City listens to residents when making important decisions, whereas just under half of residents (47%) agreed that The City manages its finances well—although it should be noted that just one-third of respondents (34%) were also unsure how to rate the City on the latter dimension. Question 14 Next, I'm going to read you a series of statements about the City of Manhattan Beach. For each, I'd like you to tell me whether you agree or disagree with the statement.

Local Government & Customer Service

L O C A L G O V E R N M E N T S E R V I C E

FIGURE 22 AGREEMENT WITH CITY STATEMENTS Strongly agree

I trust the City of Manhattan Beach

Smwt agree

18.5

City is responsive to residents’ needs

14.3

City listens to residents when making important decisions

12.7

City manages its finances well

12.9 0

Smwt disagree

Strongly disagree

51.3

13.4

43.2

16.9

13.1

34.3 20

5.7

13.1

48.4

7.6

5.4 60

5.6

DK/NA

14.3

15.5

19.6

34.3 70

100

% Respondents

City of Manhattan Beach

TABLE 12 AGREEMENT WITH CITY STATEMENTS BY YEARS IN MANHATTAN & OVERALL SATISFACTION (SHOWING % AGREEMENT)

I trust the City of Manhattan Beach City is responsive to residents’ needs City listens to residents when making important decisions City manages its finances well

Less than 5 69.6 69.0 52.1 41.3

Years in Manhattan Beach (Q1) 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 or more 74.9 60.3 65.7 71.6 58.8 64.6 60.1 53.7 56.6 46.6 44.0 50.2

Overall Satisfaction (Q5) Satisfied Dissatisfied 70.9 35.2 70.1 32.2 60.5 25.3 50.5 25.7

TABLE 13 AGREEMENT WITH CITY STATEMENTS BY AGE (SHOWING % AGREEMENT)

I trust the City of Manhattan Beach City is responsive to residents’ needs City listens to residents when making important decisions City manages its finances well

18 to 24 58.8 64.6 59.2 53.2

Age (QD1) 35 to 44 45 to 54 74.2 75.2 66.4 69.8 59.0 58.2 46.1 48.4

25 to 34 51.6 65.7 49.5 32.0

55 to 64 58.2 58.9 51.7 40.5

65 or older 71.0 69.1 59.4 61.3

TABLE 14 AGREEMENT WITH CITY STATEMENTS BY ETHNICITY & HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS (SHOWING % AGREEMENT)

I trust the City of Manhattan Beach City is responsive to residents’ needs City listens to residents when making important decisions City manages its finances well

Latino/ Hispanic 90.7 74.6 65.0 55.1

Ethnicity (QD6) Asian Caucasian American / White 66.7 65.9 67.3 65.2 62.5 56.3 53.8 48.9

Home Ownership Status (QD4) Mixed or other 67.2 71.5 42.5 24.4

Own 67.4 63.9 56.5 48.0

Rent 67.5 70.8 55.5 45.5

Local Government & Customer Service

Tables 12-15 on the following page show how agreement with each statement varied by years in Manhattan Beach, overall satisfaction, respondent age, ethnicity, home ownership status, perceived safety in the City of Manhattan Beach, and perceptions regarding the number of homeless in the City over the past year. In general, residents who have lived in Manhattan Beach between five and nine years, Latino/Hispanic respondents, residents satisfied with the City’s overall performance, and those who feel safe in Manhattan Beach reported higher levels of agreement with the statements when compared to their respective counterparts.

TABLE 15 AGREEMENT WITH CITY STATEMENTS BY PERCEIVED SAFETY OF CITY & PERCEPTION OF HOMELESS IN PAST YEAR (SHOWING % AGREEMENT) Perceived Safety of City (Q8)

I trust the City of Manhattan Beach City is responsive to residents’ needs City listens to residents when making important decisions City manages its finances well

Safe 68.5 67.1 56.5 48.0

Unsafe 47.1 45.2 49.4 37.0

Perception of Homeless in Past Year (Q11) Stayed about same Decreased Increased 47.3 69.6 65.6 76.6 64.3 68.6 60.6 59.9 53.9 62.7 49.6 49.7

CONTACT WITH CITY STAFF Residents were next asked if they had been in contact with City of Manhattan Beach staff in the past 12 months. Figure 23 on the next page presents the findings of this question and shows that 47% of residents indicated they had contact with city staff during the 12 months preceding the interview, which based on True North’s experience is high for the pandemic period. Respondents 35 to 64 years of age, Asian Americans, those with a child in the household, and homeowners were the most likely to report having been in contact with city staff in the year prior to the interview (see figures 24 & 25).

City of Manhattan Beach

FIGURE 23 CONTACT CITY STAFF IN PAST 12 MONTHS Prefer not to Not sure answ er 1.4 3.5

Yes, contact w ith City staff 46.5

No contact w ith City staff 48.6

FIGURE 24 CONTACT CITY STAFF IN PAST 12 MONTHS BY YEARS IN MANHATTAN BEACH, OVERALL SATISFACTION & AGE

% Respondents With Staff Contact in Past 12 Months

80 70 60 50

49.9

46.3

49.8

53.2

51.8

53.3

57.4

46.3

44.8

41.1

35.9

40 30 20

Local Government & Customer Service

Question 15 In the past 12 months, have you been in contact with staff from the City of Manhattan Beach?

13.5

10 0 Less than 5

5 to 9

10 to 14 15 or more

Years in Manhattan Beach (Q1)

Satisfied Dissatisfied 18 to 24

25 to 34

Overall Satisfaction (Q5)

35 to 44

45 to 54

55 to 64 65 or older

Age (QD1)

FIGURE 25 CONTACT CITY STAFF IN PAST 12 MONTHS BY ETHNICITY, GENDER, CHILD IN HSLD & HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS

% Respondents With Staff Contact in Past 12 Months

80 70

55.2

60 50

49.4 43.5

43.3

44.8

47.9

51.3

49.9 42.6

41.2

40 30 20 10 0 Latino / Hispanic

Asian American

Caucasian / White

Ethnicity (QD6)

City of Manhattan Beach

Mixed or other

Male

Female

Gender (QD2)

Yes

Child in Hsld (QD3)

Own

Rent

Home Ownership Status (QD4)

the past 12 months, Question 16 asked respondents to rate staff on three dimensions: helpfulness, professionalism, and accessibility. The findings of this question are presented below in Figure 26. As shown in the figure, Manhattan Beach city staff received high marks on each dimension of customer service tested. Ninety-three percent (93%) felt that city staff members were professional, 89% said they were accessible, and 85% considered staff to be helpful. Question 16 In your opinion, was the staff at the City very _____, somewhat ______, or not at all _____. FIGURE 26 PERCEPTION OF CITY STAFF... 100 90

% Respondents With Staff Contact in Past 12 Months

2.8 4.6

2.9

3.3 8.2

12.1

45.6

41.6

Not sure

32.8

70 60

Not at all

50 40 30

Somewhat

59.8 43.3

42.9

Very

10 0 Professionalism

Accessibility

Helpfulness

Local Government & Customer Service

RATING CITY STAFF Presented only to residents who had been in contact with city staff in

Q16 Perception of city staff . . .

City of Manhattan Beach

The importance of a city’s communication with its residents cannot be overstated. Much of a city’s success is shaped by the quality of information that is exchanged in both directions, from the city to the community and from the community to the city. This study is just one example of Manhattan Beach’s efforts to enhance the information flow to the City to better understand the community’s concerns, perceptions, and needs. Some of Manhattan Beach’s many efforts to communicate with its residents include its newsletters, timely press releases, social media posts, and its website. The following section presents the results of two communication-related questions.

Communications

C O M M U N I C A T I O N S

SATISFACTION WITH COMMUNICATION Question 17 asked Manhattan Beach residents to report their satisfaction with city-resident communication. Overall, 75% of respondents indicated they were satisfied with the City’s efforts to communicate with residents through newsletters, the Internet, social media, and other means. The remaining respondents were either dissatisfied with the City’s efforts in this respect (16%), unsure of their opinion (9%), or unwilling to share their opinion (1%). Question 17 Overall, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the City's efforts to communicate with residents through newsletters, the Internet, social media, and other means? FIGURE 27 SATISFACTION WITH COMMUNICATION

Not sure 8.5 Very dissatisfied 4.2

Prefer not to answ er 1.2 Very satisfied 24.4

Somew hat dissatisfied 11.3

Somew hat satisfied 50.4

The next two figures display how satisfaction with the City’s efforts to communicate with residents varied across a number of demographic subgroups. Satisfaction with the City’s communication efforts varied somewhat across demographic subgroups, ranging between 68% and 81% at the extremes. It is also noteworthy that seniors and Asian-American respondents were among the most satisfied subgroups with respect to the City’s communication efforts.

City of Manhattan Beach

100 90

% Respondents

80 70 60 50

Smwt satisfied 41.7

56.0

47.0

52.5

24.3

22.1

10 to 14

15 or more

43.2

56.0

51.0

52.4

56.3

44.2

27.4

40 30 20 10

Very satisfied 37.5

18.3

32.7

25.1

24.3

27.0

22.0

Asian American

Caucasian / White

Mixed or other

Male

Communications

FIGURE 28 SATISFACTION WITH COMMUNICATION BY YEARS IN MANHATTAN BEACH, ETHNICITY & GENDER

0 Less than 5

5 to 9

Latino / Hispanic

Years in Manhattan Beach (Q1)

Ethnicity (QD6)

Female

Gender (QD2)

FIGURE 29 SATISFACTION WITH COMMUNICATION BY AGE, CHILD IN HSLD & HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS 100 90

% Respondents

80 70 60 50 40

Smwt satisfied 53.6

45.7 48.2

50.6

Very satisfied 24.1

22.1

22.9

18 to 24

25 to 34

35 to 44

45.8

61.3

47.9

53.0

53.2

45.8

26.8

22.6

23.2

28.1

Yes

30 20 10 0

32.5

45 to 54

Age (QD1)

22.3

19.8

55 to 64

65 or older

Child in Hsld (QD3)

Own

Rent

Home Ownership Status (QD4)

INFORMATION SOURCES To help the City identify the most effective means of communicating with residents, it is helpful to understand what information sources they currently rely on for this type of information. In an open-ended manner, residents were asked to list the sources they typically use to find out about City of Manhattan Beach news, events, and programming. Because respondents were allowed to describe up to three sources, the percentages shown in Figure 30 on the next page represent the percentage of residents who mentioned a source. As shown in the figure, the most frequently-cited source for City of Manhattan Beach news, events, and programming was The Beach Reporter (49%), followed by Nextdoor.com (25%), Nixle/Alert South Bay (22%), the City’s website (22%), and email notifications from the City (21%). Other sources mentioned by at least 10% of respondents included friends/family/associates (17%), Easy Reader (16%), social media (not the City’s sources) (15%), The Daily Breeze (14%), Manhappenings (11%), and Patch.com (10%).

City of Manhattan Beach

FIGURE 30 INFORMATION SOURCES The Beach Reporter

49.3

Nextdoor.com

24.9

Nixle/Alert South Bay notification system

22.2

City website

22.0

Email notifications from City

21.0

Friends/Family/Associates/word of mouth

17.3

Easy Reader

Communications

Question 18 What information sources do you use to find out about City of Manhattan Beach news, events, and programs?

15.8

Non-City Social Media, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, YouTube

15.4

The Daily Breeze

13.7

Manhappenings brochure

10.9

Patch.com

10.3

Internet (not City’s site)

9.5

Letters, postcards, flyers or brochures mailed from City to your home

9.0

Los Angeles Times

8.4

City’s social media posts on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, YouTube

8.0

Television (general)

2.6

Other

2.3

City Council Meetings

2.0

HOA or neighborhood association

1.1

Not sure

1.0

Do Not Receive Information about City

1.0

Radio

0.7 0

% Respondents

For the interested reader, figures 31 and 32 consolidate the information sources into general categories and show how their use varied by age, overall satisfaction, home ownership status, and ethnicity. Reliance on City sources and newspapers generally increased with age, whereas younger residents were most apt to consult the Internet and social media for information about news, events, and programs in Manhattan Beach. FIGURE 31 INFORMATION SOURCES BY OVERALL & AGE

100

77 18

18 to 24

25 to 34

City of Manhattan Beach

35 to 44

45 to 54

55 to 64

29 28 1

0 Overall

Not sure / No sources

Other

40 16

Internet & Social Media

59 29

40 30

City Sources

Newspapers

66 70

% Respondents

78 80

65 or older

Age (QD1)

100

Newspapers

69 68

City Sources

Internet & Social Media

64 63

67 51

Other

Satisfied

Dis-satisfied

Overall Satisfaction (Q5)

Own

Latino / Hispanic

Asian American

Caucasian / White

0 Rent

Home Ownership Status (QD4)

City of Manhattan Beach

40 23

% Respondents

71 74

Communications

FIGURE 32 INFORMATION SOURCES BY OVERALL SATISFACTION, HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS & ETHNICITY

Not sure / No sources

Mixed or other

Ethnicity (QD6)

D E M O G R A P H I C S

TABLE 16 DEMOGRAPHICS OF SAMPLE Total Respondents Q2 Years in Manhattan Beach Less than 5 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 or more Prefer not to answer Age (QD1) 18 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or older Prefer not to answer Gender (QD2) Male Female Prefer not to answer Child in Hsld (QD3) Yes No Prefer not to answer Home Ownership Status (QD4) Own Rent Prefer not to answer Employment Status (QD5) Full-time Part-time Student Homemaker Retired Prefer not to answer Ethnicity (QD6) Latino / Hispanic Asian American Caucasian / White Mixed or other Prefer not to answer

City of Manhattan Beach

560 % 16.6 15.9 14.5 52.9 0.1 5.6 11.4 18.8 23.5 17.6 20.2 2.9

Table 16 presents the key demographic information collected during the survey. Although the primary motivation for collecting the background and demographic information was to provide a better insight into how the results of the substantive questions of the survey vary by demographic characteristics, it was also a means to ensure that the resulting sample matched the profile of Manhattan Beach’s adult resident population on key characteristics according to the latest Census estimates.

51.7 46.0 2.3

Background & Demographics

B A C K G R O U N D

37.9 58.3 3.8 66.8 29.2 4.0 55.9 6.1 3.3 6.1 21.2 7.2 6.6 11.0 69.1 5.3 7.9

The following sections outline the methodology used in the study, as well as the motivation for using certain techniques.

QUESTIONNAIRE DEVELOPMENT Dr. McLarney of True North Research worked closely with the City of Manhattan Beach to develop a questionnaire that covered the topics of interest and avoided many possible sources of systematic measurement error, including position-order effects, wording effects, response-category effects, scaling effects, and priming. Several questions included multiple individual items. Because asking items in a set order can lead to a systematic position bias in responses, the items were asked in a random order for each respondent.

Methodology

M E T H O D O L O G Y

Some questions asked in this study were presented only to a subset of respondents. For example, only respondents who indicated they were dissatisfied with the City’s efforts to enforce code violations (Question 9) were asked to detail the particular issue or code violation leading to their dissatisfaction (Question 10). The questionnaire included with this report (see Questionnaire & Toplines on page 42) identifies the skip patterns used during the interview to ensure that each respondent received the appropriate questions.

PROGRAMMING & PRE-TEST Prior to fielding the survey, the questionnaire was CATI (Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing) programmed to assist interviewers when conducting the telephone interviews. The CATI program automatically navigates the skip patterns, randomizes the appropriate question items, and alerts interviewers to certain types of keypunching mistakes should they happen during the interview. The survey was also programmed into a passcode-protected online survey application to allow online participation for sampled residents. The integrity of the questionnaire was pre-tested internally by True North and by dialing into random homes in the City prior to formally beginning the survey.

SAMPLE, RECRUITING & DATA COLLECTION A comprehensive database of Manhattan Beach households was utilized for this study, ensuring that all households in Manhattan Beach had the opportunity to be selected to participate in the survey. Once selected at random, contact information was appended to each record including email addresses and telephone numbers for adult residents. Individuals were subsequently recruited to participate in the survey through multiple recruiting methods. Using a combination of email and text invitations, sampled residents were initially invited to participate in the survey online at a secure, passcode-protected website designed and hosted by True North. Each individual was assigned a unique passcode to ensure that only Manhattan Beach residents who received an invitation could access the online survey site, and that the survey could be completed only one time per passcode. An email reminder notice was also sent to encourage participation among those who had yet to take the survey. Following a period of online data collection, True North placed telephone calls to land lines and cell phone numbers of sampled residents that had yet to participate in the online survey or for whom only telephone contact information was available. Telephone interviews averaged 18 minutes in length and were conducted during weekday evenings (5:30PM to 9PM) and on weekends (10AM to 5PM). It is standard practice not to call during the day on weekdays because most working adults are unavailable and thus calling during those

City of Manhattan Beach

MARGIN OF ERROR DUE TO SAMPLING The results of the survey can be used to estimate the opinions of all adult residents in the City. Because not every adult resident of the City participated in the survey, however, the results have what is known as a statistical margin of error due to sampling. The margin of error refers to the difference between what was found in the survey of 560 adult residents for a particular question and what would have been found if all of the estimated 26,026 adult residents4 had been interviewed.

Methodology

hours would bias the sample. A total of 560 completed surveys were gathered online and by telephone between December 6 and December 12, 2021.

Figure 33 provides a plot of the maximum margin of error in this study. The maximum margin of error for a dichotomous percentage result occurs when the answers are evenly split such that 50% provide one response and 50% provide the alternative response. For this survey, the maximum margin of error is ± 4.1% for questions answered by all 560 respondents. FIGURE 33 MAXIMUM MARGIN OF ERROR 14%

12%

Margin of Error

10%

560 Respondents ± 4.1%

0% 0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600

Sample Size (Number of Respondents)

Within this report, figures and tables show how responses to certain questions varied by demographic characteristics such as length of residence and age of the respondent. Figure 33 is thus useful for understanding how the maximum margin of error for a percentage estimate will grow as the number of individuals asked a question (or in a particular subgroup) shrinks. Because the margin of error grows exponentially as the sample size decreases, the reader should use caution when generalizing and interpreting the results for small subgroups.

4. Source: U.S. Census Bureau estimate for Manhattan Beach, April 2020.

City of Manhattan Beach

errors or inconsistencies, coding and recoding responses, categorizing verbatim responses, and preparing frequency analyses and cross-tabulations. The final data were weighted to balance the sample by age and home ownership status according to Census estimates.

ROUNDING

Numbers that end in 0.5 or higher are rounded up to the nearest whole number, whereas numbers that end in 0.4 or lower are rounded down to the nearest whole number. These same rounding rules are also applied, when needed, to arrive at numbers that include a decimal place in constructing figures and charts. Occasionally, these rounding rules lead to small discrepancies in the first decimal place when comparing tables and figures for a given question.

City of Manhattan Beach

Methodology

DATA PROCESSING & WEIGHTING Data processing consisted of checking the data for

T O PL I N E S

City of Manhattan Beach Community Opinion Survey Final Toplines (n=560) December 2021

Section 1: Introduction to Study Hi, may I please speak to: _____. Hi, my name is _____ and I m calling from TNR on behalf of the City of Manhattan Beach. The City is conducting a survey of residents about important issues in Manhattan Beach and would like to get your opinions. If needed: This is a survey about important issues in your community. I m NOT trying to sell anything and I won t ask for a donation. If needed: Your answers to the survey will be confidential. If needed: The survey should take about 12 minutes to complete. If needed: If now is not a convenient time, can you let me know a better time so I can call back? If needed: TNR is an independent public opinion research firm. TNR was hired by the City to design and conduct the survey.

Questionnaire & Toplines

Q U E S TI O N N A I RE

Section 2: Quality of Life I d like to begin by asking you a few questions about what it is like to live in the City of Manhattan Beach. How long have you lived in the City of Manhattan Beach? 1

Less than 1 year

1 to 4 years

14%

5 to 9 years

16%

10 to 14 years

14%

15 years or longer

53%

5 99

Not Sure/Prefer not to answer

Fair

Poor

Very Poor

Not sure

Always ask A first, then randomize remaining items

Prefer not to answer

How would you rate: _____? Would you say it is excellent, good, fair, poor or very poor?

58%

37%

50%

34%

Good

Excellent

The overall quality of life in Manhattan Beach Manhattan Beach as a place to raise a family Manhattan Beach as a place to work

23%

31%

13%

23%

Manhattan Beach as a place to retire

32%

28%

17%

11%

Manhattan Beach as a place to shop and dine

38%

43%

15%

Manhattan Beach as a place to recreate

48%

37%

A B

City of Manhattan Beach

Page 1

December 2021

What do you like most about the City of Manhattan Beach that should be preserved in the future? Verbatim responses recorded and later grouped into categories shown below. Categories mentioned by at least 2% of respondents shown here. Small town feel, charming beach 17% community Public safety, low crime rate 16% Beach, ocean

14%

Cleanliness, appearance, beauty of City Community, friendly people, family atmosphere Local businesses, downtown area

13%

Parks, rec facilities

10%

Schools, education

Not sure / Cannot think of anything

Community events, activities Low density development, single family homes Open spaces, greenbelts

Outdoor shops, dining options

Relaxed, casual lifestyle

The Strand, pier

Walkability of commercial, residential areas

12% 11%

Questionnaire & Toplines

City of Manhattan Beach Community Opinion Survey

7% 6%

Proximity to other areas

Weather, climate

If the city government could change one thing to make Manhattan Beach a better place to live now and in the future, what change would you like to see? Verbatim responses recorded and later grouped into categories shown below. Categories mentioned by at least 2% of respondents shown here. Improve public safety, more police presence 10% Not sure / Cannot think of anything

10%

Address parking issues

No changes needed / Everything is fine

Limit growth, development

Encourage, support diversity, address inequity Preserve, support outdoor dining

5% 5%

Enforce traffic, e-bike laws

Beautify City, cleanliness, landscaping

Provide more affordable housing

Reduce traffic congestion

City of Manhattan Beach

Page 2

Attract variety of less expensive restaurants, shops Improve City planning, development Improve government leadership, communication Add, improve park, rec facilities

December 2021

4% 4% 4% 4%

Enforce City codes, ordinances

Underground utilities

Address homeless issues

Improve walkability, sidewalks

Reduce taxes, fees

Reduce cost of living

Increase support for small businesses

Improve permitting process

Improve quality of education

Provide more activities, events for all ages

Address Bruce s Beach issue

Questionnaire & Toplines

City of Manhattan Beach Community Opinion Survey

Section 3: City Services Next, I would like to ask a series of questions about services provided by the City of Manhattan Beach. Q5

Generally speaking, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the job the City of Manhattan Beach is doing to provide city services? Get answer, then ask: Would that be very (satisfied/dissatisfied) or somewhat (satisfied/dissatisfied)? 1 Very satisfied 39% 2

Somewhat satisfied

Somewhat dissatisfied

Very dissatisfied

Not sure

Prefer not to answer

City of Manhattan Beach

48%

Page 3

December 2021

Split Sample for Q6. Sample A receives items A-L, Sample B receives items M-X.

Enforcing traffic laws

38%

30%

24%

0% 0%

Not sure

Somewhat Important

Randomize

Not at all Important

Very Important

Prefer not to answer

For each of the services I read, please tell me whether the service is extremely important to you, very important, somewhat important, or not at all important. Extremely Important

Providing neighborhood police patrols

61%

22%

12%

Providing emergency medical services

65%

27%

Preparing the City for emergencies

55%

34%

11%

Maintaining sewer and storm drain systems

63%

28%

59%

37%

25%

37%

29%

27%

43%

27%

Maintaining parks and open spaces Providing special events such as concerts in the park and holiday fireworks Providing a variety of recreation programs for all ages Providing services and programs for seniors

20%

33%

35%

Protecting the environment

51%

29%

17%

Providing cultural and arts opportunities

16%

35%

38%

Providing eastside library services

14%

19%

34%

25%

75%

17%

62%

28%

27%

35%

26%

10%

51%

37%

11%

Maintaining a low crime rate Providing fire protection and prevention services Enforcing animal control laws such as leashlaws and waste cleanup Maintaining and repairing local streets and roads Removing graffiti

41%

25%

24%

Maintaining public athletic fields

33%

38%

27%

Addressing homelessness Keeping public buildings, parks and facilities clean and attractive Preserving the City s small, beach-town character Providing a variety of public art Providing after-school programs and diversion programs for youth Addressing bike safety and e-bikes

52%

26%

19%

48%

39%

12%

64%

23%

12%

22%

44%

21%

28%

30%

28%

10%

36%

35%

20%

G H

N O P

T U V W X

City of Manhattan Beach

Questionnaire & Toplines

City of Manhattan Beach Community Opinion Survey

Page 4

December 2021

Split Sample for Q7. Sample A receives items A-L, Sample B receives items M-X. For the same list of services I just read, I d like you to tell me how satisfied you are with the job the City is doing to provide the service.

Somewhat Dissatisfied

Very Dissatisfied

Enforce traffic laws

22%

37%

17%

11%

13%

Provide neighborhood police patrols

22%

38%

21%

14%

Randomize

Not sure

Somewhat Satisfied

Prefer not to answer

Are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the City s efforts to: _____, or do you not have an opinion? Get answer. If satisfied or dissatisfied , then ask: Would that be very (satisfied/dissatisfied) or somewhat (satisfied/dissatisfied)? Very Satisfied

Provide emergency medical services

37%

36%

26%

Prepare the City for emergencies

21%

40%

33%

Maintain sewer and storm drain systems

31%

41%

21%

39%

49%

45%

42%

34%

44%

17%

Maintain parks and open spaces Provide special events such as concerts in the park and holiday fireworks Provide a variety of recreation programs for all ages Provide services and programs for seniors

19%

34%

42%

2% 2%

G H

Protecting the environment

23%

41%

10%

22%

Provide cultural and arts opportunities

21%

43%

10%

23%

Provide eastside library services

17%

27%

43%

Maintain a low crime rate

32%

45%

13%

61%

29%

22%

38%

18%

11%

Provide fire protection and prevention services Enforce animal control laws such as leash-laws and waste cleanup Maintain and repair local streets and roads

25%

47%

19%

Remove graffiti

41%

38%

17%

Maintain public athletic fields

30%

49%

12%

Address homelessness Keep public buildings, parks and facilities clean and attractive Preserve the City s small, beach-town character

21%

43%

19%

44%

47%

T U V W X

Provide a variety of public art Provide after-school programs and diversion programs for youth Address bike safety and e-bikes

City of Manhattan Beach

27%

45%

15%

22%

43%

13%

19%

23%

30%

36%

15%

29%

23%

17%

15%

Questionnaire & Toplines

City of Manhattan Beach Community Opinion Survey

Page 5

December 2021

Section 4: Safety, Code Enforcement & Homelessness Q8

Overall, how safe is the City of Manhattan Beach as a place to live? Would you say it is very safe, somewhat safe, somewhat unsafe, or very unsafe? 1

Very safe

48%

Somewhat safe

46%

Somewhat unsafe

Very unsafe

99 Prefer not to answer 0% The City of Manhattan Beach has created codes to address and prevent a variety of issues that can negatively impact a neighborhood, such as non-permitted construction, junk storage, noise issues, and smoking in public. Q9

Questionnaire & Toplines

City of Manhattan Beach Community Opinion Survey

Overall, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the City s efforts to enforce code violations, or do you not have an opinion? Get answer. If satisfied or dissatisfied , then ask: Would that be very (satisfied/dissatisfied) or somewhat (satisfied/dissatisfied)? 1 Very satisfied 22% Skip to Q11 2

Somewhat satisfied

36%

Somewhat dissatisfied

15%

Ask Q10

Very dissatisfied

Ask Q10

Not sure

Prefer not to answer

Skip to Q11

19%

Skip to Q11

Is there a particular issue or code violation in your neighborhood the City isn t Q10 addressing that leads you to be dissatisfied? If yes, ask: Please briefly describe it to me. Verbatim responses recorded and later grouped into categories shown below. Construction issues, concerns 24% No-smoking regulations, violations

21%

Noise ordinance violations

18%

Dog laws, violations

13%

Lack of consistent enforcement

10%

Cannot think of anything specific

Traffic law violations

Parking issues

Bike, e-bike issues

Building code concerns

Homelessness issues

Crime, public safety concerns

Short-term rental issues

City of Manhattan Beach

Page 6

Q11

December 2021

Over the past year, would you say the amount of homeless people in the City of Manhattan Beach has decreased, stayed about the same, or increased? 1

Decreased

Stayed about the same

43%

Increased

37%

Not sure

16%

Prefer not to answer

A B C D

Provide funding for mental health facilities, street outreach, and housing placement Provide counseling and rehab for drug and alcohol addiction Join with other cities and the County to create more regional homeless shelters Enhance lighting and modify benches in public areas to deter overnight camping

Prefer not to answer

Not sure

Randomize

Yes

Q12 How do you think the City should address the homeless issue? Should it: _____?

57%

23%

18%

56%

23%

19%

64%

19%

15%

63%

22%

14%

Questionnaire & Toplines

City of Manhattan Beach Community Opinion Survey

Section 5: Spending Priorities The City of Manhattan Beach has limited financial resources to provide the services and programs desired by residents. Because it can t fund every service, program and project, the City must set priorities. As I read each of the following items, please indicate whether you think the City should make the item a high priority, a medium priority, or a low priority for future city spending. If you feel the City should not spend any money on this item, just say so. Q13 Please keep in mind that not all of the items can be high priorities.

Reconstruct and improve the City s swimming pool Begg Pool Fix potholes and repair and improve city streets and sidewalks Renovate and improve the City s Community Centers including the Joslyn, Manhattan Heights, and Sand Dune Community Centers

City of Manhattan Beach

38%

12%

55%

35%

37%

40%

11%

Prefer not to answer

26%

Low Priority

17%

Medium Priority

Not sue

High Priority

Randomize

Should not spend money

Here is the (first/next) one: _____. Should this item be a high, medium or low priority for the City or should the City not spend any money on this item?

Page 7

D E F G H

Restore and enhance nature areas throughout Sand Dune Park Improve the maintenance of parks and park amenities including restrooms, sports courts, and dog runs Redesign public spaces to allow for outdoor dining areas Create a Manhattan Beach Historical Museum to preserve and store historical documents Repair and upgrade the City s sewer and wastewater systems Provide low-cost, on-demand rideshare services so residents can visit restaurants, shops, and business areas in the City without having to park a vehicle

December 2021

13%

32%

41%

10%

32%

48%

16%

33%

27%

12%

16%

51%

27%

51%

34%

18%

24%

30%

26%

Questionnaire & Toplines

City of Manhattan Beach Community Opinion Survey

Section 6: Local Governance & Customer Service Next, I m going to read you a series of statements about the City of Manhattan Beach. For each, I d like you to tell me whether you agree or disagree with the statement.

Somewhat Disagree

The City is responsive to residents needs

14%

51%

13%

15%

The City manages its finances well

13%

34%

13%

34%

The City listens to residents when making important decisions

13%

43%

17%

19%

I trust the City of Manhattan Beach

19%

48%

13%

Q15

Not sure

Randomize

Strongly Disagree

Somewhat Agree

Prefer not to answer

Here is the (first/next) one: _____ Do you agree or disagree, or do you not have an opinion? If agree or disagree, ask: Would that be strongly (agree/disagree) or somewhat (agree/disagree)? Strongly Agree

Q14

In the past 12 months, have you been in contact with staff from the City of Manhattan Beach? 1

Yes

47%

Ask Q16

49%

Skip to Q17

Not sure

Skip to Q17

Prefer not to answer

Skip to Q17

City of Manhattan Beach

Page 8

Prefer not to answer

Not sure

Not at all

Randomize

Somewhat

In your opinion, was the staff at the City very _____, somewhat ______, or not at all _____. Read one item at a time, continue until all items are read.

Very

Q16

December 2021

Helpful

43%

42%

12%

Professional

60%

33%

Accessible

43%

46%

Section 7: Communications

Questionnaire & Toplines

City of Manhattan Beach Community Opinion Survey

Overall, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the City’s efforts to communicate with Q17 residents through newsletters, the Internet, social media, and other means? Get answer, then ask: Would that be very (satisfied/dissatisfied) or somewhat (satisfied/dissatisfied)?

Q18

Very satisfied

24%

Somewhat satisfied

50%

Somewhat dissatisfied

11%

Very dissatisfied

Not sure

Prefer not to answer

What information sources do you use to find out about City of Manhattan Beach news, events, and programs? Don’t read list. Record up to first 3 responses.

Newspapers 1

Los Angeles Times

The Beach Reporter

49%

The Daily Breeze

14%

Easy Reader

16%

Other newspaper

City Sources 7

City website

22%

Email notifications from City

21%

Letters, postcards, flyers or brochures mailed from City to your home

Manhappenings brochure

City’s social media posts on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and YouTube

Reach MB mobile app

Nixle/Alert South Bay notification system

City of Manhattan Beach

11%

22%

Page 9

December 2021

MBtv, the City’s local government channel on Spectrum Channel 8, Frontier Channel 35, or webstream

City Council Meetings

Internet & Social Media 16

Internet (not City’s site)

Social Media (not City’s) including Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, YouTube

15%

Nextdoor.com

25%

Patch.com

10%

5 19

Blogs

Television (general)

Radio

HOA or neighborhood association

Friends/Family/Associates/word of mouth

17%

Other

Do Not Receive Information about City

Not sure

Prefer not to answer

Other

Questionnaire & Toplines

City of Manhattan Beach Community Opinion Survey

Section 8: Background & Demographics Thank you so much for your participation. I have just a few background questions for statistical purposes. D1

In what year were you born? Year recoded into age groups shown below. 18 to 24

25 to 34

12%

35 to 44

19%

45 to 54

24%

55 to 64

18%

65 or older

21%

City of Manhattan Beach

Page 10

What is your gender? 1

Male

52%

Female

46%

Non-binary

<1%

3 99 D3

Prefer not to answer

Do you have one or more children under the age of 18 living in your household? 1

Yes

38%

58%

99 D4

December 2021

Prefer not to answer

Questionnaire & Toplines

City of Manhattan Beach Community Opinion Survey

Do you own or rent your residence in Manhattan Beach? 1

Own

67%

Rent

29%

99 Prefer not to answer 4% Which of the following best describes your employment status? Would you say you are employed full-time, part-time, a student, a homemaker, retired, or are you in-between jobs right now? 1 Employed full-time 56% 2

Employed part-time

Student

Homemaker

Retired

6 99

6% 21%

In-between jobs

Prefer not to answer

City of Manhattan Beach

Page 11

December 2021

What ethnic group do you consider yourself a part of or feel closest to? Read list if respondent hesitates 1

Latino/Hispanic

Asian American -- Korean, Japanese, Chinese, Vietnamese, Filipino or other Asian Caucasian/White

69%

African-American/Black

<1%

American Indian or Alaskan Native

<1%

Pacific Islander

<1%

Middle Eastern

11%

Mixed Heritage

Other ethnic group

Prefer not to answer

Questionnaire & Toplines

City of Manhattan Beach Community Opinion Survey

Those are all of the questions that I have for you! Thanks so much for participating in this important survey! This survey was conducted for the City of Manhattan Beach

City of Manhattan Beach

Page 12

City of Manhattan Beach Community Opinion Survey Summary Report