City Council and Authorities Concurrent
January 10, 2023

Consultant's Final Report
on Levi's Stadium
Community Engagement
: EM c: • PDC@)~gg~gR~~gue
research
June 21, 2018
· Stadium Authorit S ecial Meetin
Cityof ·
Santa Clara
The Center of What's Possible
SCSA
POST MEmNG MATERIAL
1 Our team prides itself on our professionalism, objectivity, and commitment to reporting on the community s views. We have no position on any of the issues that are the subject of our research and engagement . No members of the team are lobbyists, and none have represented the 49'ers . • Catheririe Lew of the Lew Edwards Group is the Project Lead. LEG specializes in providing award-winning communications services to local governments, which constitutes more than 2/3rds of LEG's practice • Ruth Bernstein from EMC Research directed statistical survey research and scientific focus groups for the project. EMC is a national firm that has conducted thousands of such stuaies.
• Dr. Shawn Spano from Public Dialogue Consortium is directing qualitative focus groups, community dialogue, and collaboration. PDC is a non-i;>rofit organization that has provided a wide spectrum of services to the City in me past.

PDC®PublicDJalogue [[:M]} . 3 ® Consortium research
• lmpl~m~nt an imP,artial, n:iulti-pisciplinary engagement process to assess public views on City-Stadium issues
• Utilize multi-disciplinary approaches that include:
• Quantitative methods that provide random, representative samples • Qualitative methods allowing stakeholders a facilitated forum to express views • Engagement of local residents, registered voters and stakeholders, including businesses • Approach that embraces all types of engagemenVcommunications methods • Provide highlights of results and recommendations to the Stadium Authority Board and public
• Appendices of EMC and PDC work products are also posted online Consultants will be responding to questions at the end of the meeting. 2 • Public Opinion Surveys are Quantitative
o Random, representative sample allows for generalizability o Choice format measured on a scale for statistical/numerical analysis o More precision, less depth
• Facilitated engagements are Qualitative
o Self-selected sample limits generalizability
o Format enabling participants to express their views and experiences in their own words
o More depth, less precision
• PDC utilized the results of the first citywide and near neighbor scientific surveys to inform the design of its engagement meetings and interviews, and qualitative focus groups
• EMC used PDC's qualitative research to inform the development of its May Policy Survey which is the basis of the consulting team's recommendations this evening
3 City of
Santa Clara
The Center of What's Possible
SCSA
[:M~
research 7
• A scientific citywide survey of voters was conducted of 600 respondents in January to identify initial issues
pertinent to our team study.
• Two near-neighbor studies were also conducted of:
• Santa Clara, Sunnyvale, and North San Jose Residents
(174 respondents) living in close proximity to Levi's Stadium and;
• Santa Clara, Sunnyvale, and North San Jose Businesses in close proximity to Levi's Stadium (82 respondents) [:M~ 8 research 4 Methodology: Citywide Voter Survey
Live telephone survey - including landlines and cells - of registered voters in the City of Santa Clara, a universe selected as voters are one of several constituencies on these policy issues
Conducted January 8-19, 2018
600 total interviews; Margin of Error ±4.0 points
Interviews conducted by trained, professional interviewers in English, Spanish, Chinese, and Vietnamese
[[:M~
research 9
Methodology: Near Neighbor Surveys
Residents
Live teleP.hone survey - including landlines and cells - of residents within a mile of Levi's Stadium and in selected areas of Sunnyvale and San Jose ·
Conducted February 8 - March 3, 2018*
174 total interviews; Margin of Error ±7.4 points
l~terviews conducted by trained, professional interviewers in English, Spanish, Chinese, and Vietnamese
Businesses
Live telephone survey of businesses in selected regions of Santa Clara, Sunnyvale, and San Jose Businesses were randomly selected from a list of businesses with addresses in Santa Clara and within a mile of Levi's Stadium and in selected areas of Sunnyvale and San Jose that experience event-related impacts .

Conducted February 2- 23, 2018*
82 total interviews; Margin of Error ±11.0 points
Interviews conducted by trained, professional interviewers 'Data collection was paused in mid-February during Stadium-related media coverage [[:M~ research IO
5 Methodology: Near Neighbor Surveys
a =~ @ -
<.,. Worth San
W<1S1,\1ndsO
.. )
l
I
. Businesses: n=82; Margin of
' Error ±11.0 points
Jose
32Resldent
Interviews / .~~···, .. ~ J .i
, /
r;
.,. a Sunnyvale 17 Busln~ss ·
Interviews
=
! ' ; .. r '
26 Resident
r , ;. IJ;i,,erv~eWS :'I A•l -.:r H,
i!?~B_.,pJine_Ss
ltitl!rvlef s .
0AMCMffc;acfolO ':; ;,,:,l- · L--i:~;t tlORltl S.

Cl litteU,luseum0
~M::£
research 11
The City gets strong marks for the Job it Is doing overall and for keeping citizens Informed. About half give the City a positive roting for responding to concerns/complolnts and using tax dollars responsibly. Strong negative opinion ("poor" rating) Is very low.

The job the City
Government Is
doing overa ll
The job the City
does kee ping
citizens info rmed
• Total Positive a (Don't Know) • Total Negative Excellent Poor (Excellent+ Good) (Fair + Poor)
, . ;,~ .. ~ -GE]
Voters ~~~ NG'6JGE]
,.;,~··--====-=]
Voters I ' . 5% ' . NG'6JGE]
The job the City -Neighbo rs , 14% ' , ...,,.,.GE] does res ponding - ""I to citizen concerns -
andcom plalnts Voters __ ~ NG'6JGE]
Please tell me how you think the City of Santa Clara Is doing In each of the following areas. Use a scale of excell ent, go~d, only fair, or poor. ·
~M::£
research 12
6 Both voters ond stadium near-neighbors hove o positive view of Santa Clara as a place to five.

Positive
88%
Citywide Voters
Negative
(CljJi-!ll',N
Near-Neighbor Residents*
Positive
90%
Negative
[CWOWIN
Overall, how would you rate Santa Clara as a place to live? Would you say It Is an excellent, good, only fair, or poor place to live? •Asked only of those residing in Santa Clara, n=116 [[:M]J research 13
Citywide voters and near neighbors mention the convenient location, small-town feel, friendline ss, and the low crime rate as things they like most about living in Santa Clara.

What do you like best about living in Santa Clara? Voters Near Neighbors• Convenient location 21% 34%
Calm/quiet atmosphere/small-town feel 14% 16%
The community itself/friendly town/the people 11% 14%
Security/safety/l ow crime rate 11% 14%
Climate 9% 9%
Clean/b eaut iful city 9% 5%
Amenities: parks/library/swim center 9% 9%
Shopping/bu sinesses 7% 9%
Utilities: lowe r cost/city-owned/well-run 6% 7%
Employm ent opportuniti es 5% 6%
Diversity 5% 3%
Have lived here many years 5% -
Good schools 4% 3%
Loca l gove rnance/ city council/goo d city se rvices 4% - Activities/events 3% 7%
Affordable cost of living/housing 3% 3%
What do you like most about living in Santa Clara? {Open-end) [[:M]J •Asked only of those residing In Santa Clara research 14
7 Traffic and housing casts/cast af living are the things people like least about living in Santa Clara. One-in-ten near neighbors specifically mention the stadium as the thing they like least. \ ~· ·.·.··- .. ~-~-'!·!"l..~·- .:..;· .. ::~~:··i:~ .. ~·,. . ·. .. ~· - 1-: whatdoyoul ikeleastaboutlivinginSantaClara? ,.;.:_"'l::~:.. ~-· .. (,~, .. • ~ ~ :~' :~,;· .... •. Voters Near Neighbors• Traffic 26% 33%
High housing costs / cost of living 26% 16%
Growth/new development/housing being built 9% 3%
Overpopulated 8% 3%
City government ; th e Mayor and City Council 5% 1%
lack of resta ura nts/ shopping / entertainment 4% 9%
'crime/security 3% 1%
Road conditions/potho les/sign age 3%
Transportation/getting around/public transportation needs upgrad es 3% 1% No downtown area 3% 3%
The Stadium 2" 9%
Schools need improvement 2% 7%
People are not nice/no sense of community 2% 1%
Garbage in streets /d irty/run -down look 2% 3%
And what do you like ~ about living in Santa Clara? (Open-end) ~Mc1 111Asked only of those restdlng In Santa Clara ~~ 15 research Voters and near neighbors are most concerned about the traffic and parking Impacts of the Stadium . Littering, drinking/drugs , and loitering are alsa concerns. Roughly a third of near neighbors {36%} and voters (31%) are concerned about noise from events at night.

Citywide Voters
• Very • Somewhat
Traffic
Parking in neighborhoods dose to the stadium
Uttering
Public drinking or drug use
The numb er of weekday events t
loite ring
Noise from flyovers & hellcopters
Noise from even ts at night I
How late weekday events go
How late weekend events go t
The number of weekend events • '
Artificial IJght from the stadium at night • ,
Noise from events during the day
69%
... please tell me if you personally are concerned or not about each of the following Near Neighbors
• Very • Somewhat Concerned
44% ' 1 : 78%
62%
~t-19
research 16
8 Voters and near neighbors are most concerned about the traffic and parking Impacts of the Stadium. Littering, drinking/drugs , and loitering are also concerns. Roughly a third of near neighbors {36%} and voters {3!%1 are concerned about noise from events at night.

Citywide Voters
• Very • Somewhat
The number of weekday events t
loitering
Noise from flyovers & helicopters
How late wee kday events go
How late weekend events go I
The numb er of weekend events
Artificial tight from the sta dium at night
Noise from events during th e day •
... please tell me ff you personally are concerned or not about each of the following Near Neighbors
• Very • Somewhat ~
78%
mJllrm 27%
mmllll 23%
!11111 20%
111.111 17%
~M::£]
research 17
Voters and near neighbors are mast concerned about the traffic and parking Impacts of the Stadium. Littering, drinking/drugs, and loitering are also concerns. Roughly a third of near neighbors (36%} and voters {31%} are concerned about noise from events at night.

Citywide Voters
• Very • Somewhat
Traffic
Parking In neighbo rhoods close to the stadium
Uttering
Public drinking or drug use
The numbe r of weekday events I
loitering
Artificial light from the stadium at night
Noise from events during the day
35% .i I
50%
49%
Concerned
9%
1iiiiiaaiiiiii~~~~~-~~~~~
Fireworks • •
""'""'""'"-~~~~~~~~~~-
... please tell me if you personally are concerned or not about each of the following Near Neighbors
• Very • Somewhat Concerned
78%
~~
research 18
9 Traffic is the only issue rated as a
problem by a majority of businesses
As with voters ond_neor neighbors, traffic and parking ore top concerns. • 7 Extremely serious • S-6
Parking
Maintenance of sidewalks or streets ]111111
Littering and trash
Noise
Public drinking or drug use
Illegal dumping
I'm going to read you a trst of potential nefghborhood Issues that could Impact your business. For each one, please tell me if that Issue is a problem for your business or not. Use a scale of 1 to 7, where 1 means that issue ls not at all a problem for your business, and 7 means that Issue Is an extremely serious problem for your business. You can use any number from 1 to 7.

City of
Santa Clara
~M]J
research 19
PDC® PublicDjalogue 20 ~ Consortium
10 . Community Interviews at two events (159 participants) . Six Focus Groups (41 participants)
. Three Community Meetings (23 participants)
. Online Questionnaire (223 participants)
• Over 400 people total participated
PDC l1i:'\ Public Djalogue 21 e Consortium
• Near Stadium participants (95054) = 143 (32%)
• Other Santa Clara participants= 182 (41%)
• Non-Santa Clara participants = 117 (27%)
PDC~ PublicDjalogue 22 e Consortium
11 . The energy and passion is with those who have concerns about the Stadium
. The "near neighbors" who participated expressed more concerns; others were more likely to voice appreciations
. Participants who don't live near the Stadium expressed support for those who do
• Trust, Transparency and Communication
• Parking and Traffic
• Safety, Security and Noise
• Economic and Entertainment Benefits
Poe~ Public DJalogue 23 e1 Consortium
Poe~ Public DJalogue 24 e1 Consortium
12 . Many participants say that a lack of trust has developed between the community and Manco, and to a lesser extent, the City . This is due, mostly, to a perceived lack of financial transparency and follow through on initial agreements made when the Stadium was being considered
PDC® PublicDjalogue 25 e Consortium
. Parking and traffic issues are another major concern
. Both are prominent for near neighbors
. Traffic impacts were identified by other participants as well, regardless of where they live
PDC® PublicDjalogue 26 e Consortium
13 . Many participants cited security concerns: Littering, vandalism, loud and raucous behavior and public urination
. Near neighbors, especially, voiced concerns about noise generated by Stadium events, including post-event noise from people and traffic
PDC~ PublicD_ialogue 27 e, Consortium
. Almost all of those who expressed support for the Stadium appreciate the entertainment and economic benefits for the City . A concern among these participants is that the Stadium is not being utilized to its fullest extent, and not maximizing the potential range of benefits available
PDC®PublicD_ialogue 28 e, Consortium
14 City of
Santa Clara
Scientific Focus Groups
Four focus groups held in Sunnyvale on April 251h and 26th, 2018 ~M]J
research 29
Focus group participants were Santa Clara, San Jose and Sunnyvale residents •
Groupl
. -
Group 2
Santa Clara Non-Neighbors, 15+ years in SC (1+ mlles from stadium) Santa Cla,. Non-Neighbors, <15 years In SC (1+ miles from stad ium) •
Group 3 Santa Clara Near Neighbors (<1 mile from stadium) Group 4 Sunnyvale & San Jose Near Neig hbors
Each group had 8-1 O participants
Groups were moderated by Andrew Thibault from EMC Research Note: Due to the nature of qualitative research, the following findings reflect only the attitudes and opinions of the participants In the focus groups, and cannot be reliably projected across the larger population ~M]J
research 3o
15 For the most part, participants had positive feelings about living in Santa Clara/the region
Santa Clara residents had largely positive views of City government and the job it is doing
Top Positives Expressed:

Small town feel
Location/easy access to many
attractions and other communities
Weather
Diversity
City services/amenities
Top Negatives Expressed:

Traffic
Development of housing faster than
services
Cost of living
Lack of a downtown area
Newer Santa Clara residents and those in Sunnyvale and North San Jose tended to have positive views of the stadium
Santa Clara near-neighbors and long-time residents were more critical and more concerned with perceived negative impacts, but still saw positives The stadium is seen as an attraction that brings benefits and people to the City, including generating business for local hotels, shops, and restaurants Some more concerned residents acknowledged that, as problematic as stadium events may be for them, events aren't that frequent
" It's putting Santa Clara on the map, in
term s of 'Oh! This is a place to go' ...

But at the same time, it does bring
more people in, and it does raise the
cost of living. So, it' s good and bad."
- Santa Clara Near-Neighbor Resident
"It's a horror, but only for a
very small amount of the
time . The other tim e, it's just
dead." - Santa Clara Non­
Neighbor Resident
31 ~M~
research 32
16 Scientific Focus Group Issues
. As with the PDC engagement sessions, the EMC focus group participants identified parking as the central issue caused by the stadium, also leading to other issues including litter, noise, public urination and disturbances from foot traffic
. Traffic and traffic jams were viewed as problems as well, but the stadium is not seen as a primary cause of traffic
. Most knew of the curfew but did not know the specifics . While noise was not seen to be as large an issue as parking, there was opposition to eliminating the curfew outright, particularly among Santa Clara near-neighbors
Methodology: May Policy Survey
Live telephone survey of registered voters in the City of Santa Clara Conducted May 10 -17, 2018
400 total interviews; Margin of Error± 4.9%
Interviews conducted by trained, professional interviewers Interviews were conducted in English, Spanish, Chinese, and Vietnamese and included both landlines and cell phones
~M~
resemch 34
17 Levi's Stadium: Top Positives
The Stadium's impact an the local ecanomy is seen as its biggest positive.

What is t he biggest positive? %
Boosts local economy/generates revenue/jobs 39
Draws people/attention to Santa Clara 20
Nearby/local entertainment/events 19
What do you think is the biggest positive about having Levi's Stadium in Santa Clara? {Open-end) l[:M]J resea rch 35
Levi's Stadium: Top Negatives
Traffic congestion and parking are by far the most frequently mentioned negative. - - - What is the biggest negative? %
Traffic congestion and parking 48
Noise from the stadium 14
Crime and security 9
And what do you think Is the biggest negative about having Levi's Stadium In Santa Clara? {Open·end) l[:M]J research 36
18 I
Stadium Importance
Roughly one-In-four respondents soy they hove seen "a lot" about Levi's Stadium recently. A majority soy working on Issues related to Stadium events should be a priority for the Mayor and Council, but only 17% say It should be a very high priority.

Attention to Stadium Issues Priority for Mayor and City Council 57%
40%
(Don't
know)
3%
Priority
54%
Not a
Priority
22%
• How much, if anything, have you heard or seen about Levi's Stadium recently- a lot, some, not too much, or nothing at all?
On a scale of l to 7, where 1 is a very low prrorlty and 7 ls a very high priority, how high of a priority do you think working on issues related to stadium events should be for the Mayor and City Council? Stadium Event Issues
(Don't
know)
24%
f[:M~
research 37
Traffic and parking are seen as the most Important stadium event issues to address, with 4-in-10 saying it is "extremely Important" to address these issues. Disruptive behavior in neighborhoods around the Stadium Is also a top issue. Six-in-ten say it is important to address noise from events, but only a quarter rote it as ''extremely important." • 7 Extremely important • S-6 Total Important
Traffic from stadium events
Parking in neighborhoods close to
the stadium
Disruptive behavior in
neighborhoods around the stadium
on event days
Noise from stadium events
41% _
40% --
37% _ ,
26% -
78%
73%
72%
62%
I'm going to read you a list of Issues that may arise during events at Levi's Stadium. After each one, please rate how Important addressing that Issue is to you, using a scale of 1 to 7, where 1 means not at all Important, and 7 means extremely important. [[:@
research 38
19 Communicating & Responding
A majority give the City positive marks for communicating about and responding to stadium-related Issues. Stadium monogement gets lower marks, primarily because fewer respondents are familiar with their performance. • Total Agree (Don't Know/No Opinion) Strongly Strongly _•_T_o_ta_l_D_l,_ac_r_••~~~A~B~•~~Ofs~g~
The City does a good job
com municating with residents about
stadium-related issues
The City does a good job respondin g
to citizen concerns a nd complalnt s
abou t the s tadium
Levi's Stadium ma nage ment does a
good job communicating with
reside nts abo ut stadi um-related
issues
Levi's Stadium management does a
goo d job respo nding to citizen
concerns an d co mplaints
54% 16%
51 % 27%
41 % 30%
41 % 36%
Please tell me whether you strongly agree , somewhat .agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree with each of the folfowlng statements . If you are not sure please Just say so.

Stadium Problem Frequency
NIIII J;E]
~t-fg
research 39
One-In-four respondents soy they have contacted someone about a stadium-related concern - 6% hove contacted someone 3 or more times.

Stadium Event-related Contacts
1-ZTimes
19%
How many times, If any, have you or someone In your household contacted som eone about a stadium -related problem or concern? ~M~
research 4o
20 Reactions to Potential Solutions
While oil the solution tested hove majority support, there ore significant differences In intensity of support ("strongly support").

Provide more portable toilets in parking lots to
discourage public urination
Increase neighborhood safety patrols before/after
events
Establish an electronic notification system that
gives residents advance notice of events
Reduce stadium parking prices for people who
carpool
Establish more frequent shuttle service from
parking lots further from the Stadium
Designate drop-off and pickup areas for those
using rideshare service
• 7-Strongly Support • 5-6 Total Support ~----- - -------- ·---- [CELLRANGE]
52", -' ;, [CELLRANGE]
so·:, {"J [CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
48•:; I I: [CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
Please use a scale from 1 to 7, where 1 means you strongly oppose that proposal and 7 means you strongly support that 'EM~ proposal. If you have no opinion one way or the other please say so. ~~ 41 Reactions to Potential Solutions
While oil the solution tested hove majority support, there ore significant differences In intensity of support ("strongly support").

Offer incentives for taking public transit to/from
events such as free or reduced fares
Have a live call-in number during events to
respond to concerns or complaints
Lower the price of parking in stadium lots
Increase the fine for violating the curfew and
noise thresholds
City-issued $20 parking permits for residents in
neighborhoods near the stadium
A lOPM weekday curfew for nighttime events like
concerts at Levi's Stadium
• 7-Strongly Support • S-6 Total Support
49% -~ [CELLRANGE]
42% _ [CELLRANGE]
4 1'}~. L , [CELLRANGE]
34% ' CELLRANGE]
25% '' [CELLRANGE]
27% - . [CELLRANGE]
Please use a scale from 1 to 7, where 1 means you strongly oppose that proposal and 7 means you strongly support that proposal. If you have no opinion one way or the other please say so. [[:M~ research 42
21 Curfew Issue
Just over 4-in-10 ore aware of the curfew and half support it. Only 1-in-4 ore opposed to the curfew while the remaining 25% aren't sure. Similarly, about half think the 10 PM curfew is "about right" while one third feel it Is "too restrictive" and 1-in-10 feel it is "not restrictive enough."
Awareness of
Curfew
No
56% Support
Initial Support
for Curfew
Too Restrictive
50% About Right
Neutral Not Restrictive
25% Enough
Don't Know
Curfew is ...
50%
11%
5%
Were you aware or not that the City has a 10 PM weekday curfew for nighttime events like concerts at Levi's Stadium? Please use a scale from 1 to 7, where 1 means you strongly oppose the curfew and 7 means you strongly support the curfew?
~'19 In general, do you feel this curfew on weeknights is too restrlcUve, not restrictive enough, or about right? research 43
Support for Curfew Modifications
A majority support the general Idea of limited exceptions to the curfew and when asked about specific options, 56% support 3-4 --·-~ e_x_ce'-'-ptions per year and 60% support 2-3 exceptions per summer. Opposition Is consistently about a quarter.

Initial
Support
Support
50%
Limited
Exceptions
Support
54%
3-4 Exceptions
Per Year
Support
56%
2-3 Exceptions
Per Summer
Support
60%
~M~
research 44
22 Support for Parking Permits
Initially a majority support city-issued $20 parking permits for residents in neighborhoods near the stadium. Support Increases ofter arguments for and against parking permits.

Initi al Support
In general, do you support or oppose city-Issued $20 parking permits for residents fn neighborhoods near the stadium, Including guest parking posses, to prevent stadium-goers from using street parking on eventdoys7
Suppo rt
52%
Neutral
24%
Informed Support
Some people soy parking permlts would reduce event traffic In their neighborhoods and help make sure they can find parking on event days. They say it would also reduce rowdy behavior, trash, and distu rbances In the fr neig hborhoods.

Other people soy a parking permit program will cost the Oty and local residents too much money and resources to issue, administer, and enfo rce. They soy it wlll m ake parking In those neighborhoods too compllcatedfor guests and non-event visitors to the area.

Suppo rt
60%
l[:M~
research 45
City of
Santa Clara
23 Consultant Observations
. Santa Clarans recognize both the benefits and the impacts of the relationship with Levi's Stadium
. While curfew issues receive significant media coverage, stadium-related noise and the curfew are NOT primary issues for your residents-the following are:
. TRAFFIC
. PARKING
. LOITERING
. Clearly, near-neighbors are more greatly impacted by these issues-the closer one lives to the Stadium, the more intense the reactions and perspectives are . Consultants recommend these top issues of concern be addressed effectively first, prior to addressing any potential curfew review or adjustments . 47
Recommendations: Traffic/Parking
. Establish more frequent shuttle service
. Clarify & enforce drop-off and pickup for rideshare services . Reduce parking prices for carpoolers
. Offer reduced fare incentives for using public transit to/from events . An inexpensive or free permit parking system is overwhelmingly supported by near-neighbors, with far less enthusiasm for a $20 paid­ permit system
. Enhance an electronic notification system for events
. Avoid closure of the San Tomas Trail to enable more bicycle and pedestrian access
24 Recommendations: Enforcement
Residents want neighborhood security, and enforcement against disruptive post-event behavior .
. Provide more portable toilets
. Increase neighborhood safety patrols to address loitering/public disturbance
. Expand security and proper enforcement
Recommendations: Noise Control
Near-neighbor residents want some measures to mitigate noise from stadium events .
. Levy larger fines for noise and curfew violations
. . Place new controls on the decibel levels allowed, instituting and enforcing a permanent noise monitoring system
. Institute noise control measures, such as a sound wall and directional speakers to redirect and dampen the noise for near neighbors . 50
25 Recommendations: Communications
Most residents approve of the City's communications efforts. But near­ neighbors in particular feel the Stadium has broken promises. There is a lack of trust which must be repaired .
. To rebuild this trust, Manco should take the steps necessary to improve transparency and communications
. A Community Advisory Committee structure to liaison with Manco was of interest to stakeholders and near-neighbors
. Neighborhood improvement projects and benefits such as free or reduced cost tickets or other overtures would assist in rebuilding and improving the relationship
. Set up an effective hotline to call with safety and other concerns during events •
Cityof -
Santa Clara
The Center of What's Possible
SCSA
51 ~M~ PDC ~ PubllcD)alogue •
research ~ Consortium 52
26 City of
Santa Clara
The Center of What 's Possible
SCSA
[[:M~ PDC ti;' Public DJalogue • 53 research ~ Consort ium • All studies listed in the Comprehensive Appendix of Studies are available on the Board
1 s website at:
santaclaraca.gov/outreach
• Appendix materials include:
• Public Dialogue Consortium Summary of Community Engagement Input on Levi's Stadium
• EMC Research January Near Neighbor & Santa Clara Voter Issue Identification Survey
• EMC Research Near Neighbor Business Issue Identification Survey • EMC Research Near Neighbor and Santa Clara Resident Focus Group Report • EMC Research May Solutions Survey
PDCl'1!i\ Public Dialogue ~M~. e, Consortium research 54 27 PDC ®. Public DJalogue
e Consortium
Summary of Community Engagement Input on Levi's Stadium May 2018
Back ground
In December 2017, the City of Santa Clara and the Santa Clara Stadium Authority launched a transparent, independent and comprehensive engagement process to hear the community's views on a variety of issues related to Levi's Stadium. The primary purpose of this engagement process was to independently identify the most important issues for Santa Clara residents, and offer policy recommendations to the Stadium Authority Board for addressing these issues. The Lew Edwards Group was hired to coordinate overall efforts related to this project, including gathering statistically valid public views through opinion partner EMC Research. The Public Dialogue Consortium was hired to facilitate meaningful, robust, qualitative input from individuals, groups and organizations. This report is a summary of the qualitative input gathered by PDC during its community outreach and engagement process.

Engagement Events and Outreach
A number of engagement events were conducted to elicit input from community members.

Outreach to participate in these events was conducted via personal emails, City website, Facebook, Twitter,0 Nextdoor, print news, and flyers handed out at events and posted in libraries, community centers, coffee shops and shopping centers.

Here are the specific engagement events conducted:
• Community Interviews with all Stadium Authority Board members were conducted in January 2018, and in March 159 people were interviewed at the Santa Clara farmer's market and at Levi's Stadium during a soccer event.
• Invitations to participate in Focus Groups went out to a wide variety of individuals and stakeholder groups in Santa Clara, resulting in six focus groups with a total of forty-one participants during March and April 2018.
• An Online Questionnaire was initiated to invite broad participation, with the content milroring the questions asked during interviews and focus groups. Input was gathered from 231 participants between February and May 2018.

POST MEETING MATERIAL
• Three Community Meetings were held in late April and early May to invite participants to review input gathered in the previous phases of engagement, and to consider recommendations and solutions, resulting in policy recommendations for City Council and the Stadium Authority. Only twenty-three Santa Clara residents participated in the three community meetings, some of whom had participated in previous focus groups, suggesting a "saturation point" in the community on this topic.

Over 400 people paiiicipated in one or more of the community engagement events . See Appendix A for a summary of focus groups and community meeting dates, times and locations.

Appendix B provides a demographic summary of the paiiicipants.

Questions Asked: Phases 1 & 2
All questions asked were open-ended, enabling paiiicipants to express views and perspectives in their own words and from their own perspectives. The following questions from Phase 1 focused on people's concerns and appreciations for Levi's Stadium.

1. When you think of Levi's stadium, what words come to mind?

2. It sounds like you have some concerns. What are your concerns with the Stadium?

3. It sounds like you have some favorable views . What do you like about Levi's Stadium?

4. What is your overall opinion of the Stadium? (concerned, supportive mixed)

5. What do you say to people who have concerns about the stadium? How should their concerns be addressed?

6. What do you say to people who are more supportive of the stadium? How can we acknowledge their supp01i while addressing your concerns? After collecting responses to the questions above, a second phase of questions was posed to participants to elicit recommendations. These questions were:

1. What suggestions, ideas or recommendations do you have to address and resolve the concerns you have identified?

2. What suggestions, ideas or recommendations do you have to build on and extend the positive features you have identified?
Key Issues & Recommendations
Below are the key issues that emerged through the engagement process, along with recommendations for how best to improve upon these issues to increase the overall quality of , experience as it relates to Levi's Stadium. These issues and recommendations are organized into themes that relate to the most commonly identified concerns and likes.

The issues and recommendations are attributed to three different categories of paiiicipants who responded during the community engagement efforts: Santa Clara Residents who live outside of the Levi's Stadium impact area, Santa Clara Residents who live within the Levi's Stadium impact area in the north side (i.e. near neighbors), and those who live outside of Santa Clara. These three groupings of participants have different experiences and views of the Stadium, with the near neighbors clearly expressing more concerns than the other two participant groups. However, there was some overlap between Santa Clara residents who live outside and inside the Stadium impact area in terms of expressing concerns with Trust, Transparency, and Communication (and to a lesser extent, Traffic). Moreover, the vast majority of Santa Clara residents, both inside and outside the impact area, agree that the Stadium is here to stay and open communication and productive problem solving is needed in order to maximize its assets while minimizing negative impacts.

Trust, Transparency & Commun ication
The issues of trust, transparency and communication are of concern to many Santa Clara residents who engaged in this process, regardless of where they live, although the level of intensity is most acute for the near neighbors. Regardless, many participants say that a lack of trust has developed between the City, community, and Stadium Management Company, mostly due to the lack of financial transparency and follow through on initial commitments and agreements made when voters approved the Stadium via Measure J. Many residents say financial transparency is imperative so taxpayers understand the financial tradeoffs of Stadium events and can better understand the value of Stadium revenue to the City. Some residents are concerned that the City is increasing cost concessions to the Stadium, without holding the Stadium to their initial agreements. Santa Clara residents are concerned about the toll the lack of trust and transparency is taking on their community, both financially and socially.

Recommendations
Repair Trust by Establishing Financial Transparency

1. Establish financial transparency and share financial data as it relates to income and expenses directly associated with the Stadium, return on investment, and profit sharing with Santa Clara residents.
a. Report on how many jobs have been created by the Stadium, as well as residual revenue generated for Santa Clara businesses.

2. Clarify costs to Santa Clara tax payers of what po1tion of Stadium costs are paid for by whom, including costs of security, enforcement and infrastructure.

Repair Trust by Improving Communication

3. Establish ongoing, two-way communication forums for residents to communicate with those in charge of making decisions for Levi's Stadium. Establish an open dialogue to allow for ongoing conversation, feedback, and problem solving. a. Institute a Levi's Stadium Advisory Committee that meets regularly with Stadium Authority, the Stadium Management Company, and the 49ers, allowing residents to give input on policies and decisions.
b. Establish a way to update residents of rules, plans, visions and decisions, i.e. a newsletter or email update.

4. Set up a notification system that notifies resident of Stadium events and concerns, traffic and parking flows and alternatives, fireworks, etc. Include periodic updates in a newsletter format.

5. Set up a hotline for people to call with safety concerns and complaints that is available during events with quick response times - run by either the Stadium, Police, or City.

Provide Neighborhood Improvements and Benefits

6. Allocate revenue to enhance the quality of life for near neighbors and tax payers. a. Earmark revenue to improve the quality of life by making neighborhood improvements (e.g. repair sidewalks, improvements to Lick ill park, etc.). b. Increase revenue and awareness of revenue for schools and libraries .

7. Offer lower cost access to the Stadium to Santa Clara community members . a. Offer low price ticket options and presale access to local neighbors and the community .
b. Create an affordable package for local community and non-profit organizations who want to rent meeting and event space .

8. Offer space for community events throughout the year. a. Hold an open house type event to help the community understand more about the venue. Have 49ers players attend to and connect with the community . b. Offer space for science fairs, stem fairs, etc.
c. Allow a Viva Calle where space surrounding the Stadium is set up with vendors and artisans.
d. Open parking lots for flea market, mtisan space, etc. during times when there are no Stadium events.

Parking & Traffic
Parking and traffic issues are another major concern, with both being prominent for near neighbors, and traffic impacts being singled out by other pmticipants as well, regardless of where they live. Many point out that it is not just the Stadium that is contributing to traffic and parking problems, but also Great America, the Convention Center, the airport, and new development projects. Many pa1ticipants are concerned about City Place and other large retail and residential developments in the area, saying they will contribute to the overall problems of increased traffic, noise, the need for more pm·king, and the erosion of their overall quality of life.

Neighbors of the Stadium indicate they are unable to leave and/or return to their homes easily on event days, with significant increases in commute times. At times they are blocked into their driveways, or others have parked in their driyeways.

The closure of the San Tomas Aquino Creek Trail during events is a concern for bikers and pedestrians. The trail is cited as a needed alternative to driving, as well as being a public trail that needs to remain accessible to the community at all times. Detours through parking areas are seen as unsafe to all, especially those with accessibility concerns.

Most participants agree that easy to implement, low cost solutions are most desirable as a starting point, and that long term, holistic planning is needed to address long term infrastructure needs related to traffic, parking and planned development.

Recommendations
Address Parking Concerns with Permits and Enforcement

9. Institute permit parking only on Stadium event days for neighboring streets. Issue affordable parking permits to residents, including guest parking passes.

10. Enforce parking restrictions by ticketing and towing all non-resident parking during events.
a. Add Agnew and Lafayette streets to the list of streets closed for Stadium parking.

11. Station guards at roadblocks past event start times as those looking for parking ignore and go around roadblocks when left unguarded.
a. Train parking and security guards to stand outside of their cars to increase enforcement of roadblocks.

12. Employ motorcycle and/or bicycle officers to be able to respond more easily to parking and security concerns, while increasing the security staff at events.

Address Traffic Concerns with Alternatives and Improvements

13. Establish a shuttle service from parking lots further from the Stadium.

14. Designate a rideshare area to easily drop off and pick up passengers. a. Extend Uber partnership to Lyft and other transportation services.

15. Reconfigure traffic flows and build pedestrian overpasses. The light rail, pedestrian crossings and cars all need to stop for each other at certain intersections, contributing to congestion.
a. Build pedestrian and bicycle overpasses to ease congestion and contribute to safety.
b. Open up the south east corner of Levi's Stadium to alleviate dangers to pedestrian traffic on Tasman.
c. Install a three-way stop at Mercado 20 shopping center entrance.

16. Avoid closure of the San Tomas Trail and encourage its use to decrease traffic. a. Move the magnetometers and portable traffic signs so they do not block the trail.

1. Alternately, put temporary holes in the fencing along the trail and have everyone on the trail go through security.

11. Alternately, detour the trail down to river level during events to avoid closure .

17. Invest in more signage to indicate parking and road closures. a. Install permanent parking signs so temporary signs can be removed from the San Tomas trail.
b. Indicate where there is bike parking and security for events.

18. Devise a clear system and training of law enforcement so residents with red stickers are allowed to easily turn onto blocked neighborhood streets on event days.

19. Consider scheduled events in the area holistically when scheduling Stadium events.

Incentivize and Expand Public Transportation

20. Offer incentives for public transit, such as free VTA light rail on event days. a. Add a tax to parking or event tickets that generate revenue and incentives to encourage people not to drive and to offset public transportation costs.

21. Coordinate with VTA to ensure public transit is running after events as sometimes people have been left stranded after events.

22. Improve VTA light rail to make it faster and more efficient by introducing express routes with no stops and increasing capacity.

23. Add remote parking lots with VTA transit options east of the Stadium.

24. Establish an inter-department, inter-agency task force to address public transportation and other issues and infrastructure needs for long term planning.

Safety, Security & Noise
Many Santa Clara residents and almost all near neighbors expressed the need for better security and police patrol during events, citing unmanaged crowds and safety concerns, as well as noise disturbances. Neighbors close to the Stadium frequently cited security concerns ranging from littering and vandalism to loud and raucous behavior, public consumption of alcohol and drugs, drunk driving, and public urination.

Neighbors living close to the Stadium frequently cite noise concerns, including high decibel levels generated by the Stadium, ongoing air traffic during and after Stadium events, and noise from attendees walking through neighborhoods after events. Air and foot traffic noise last for hours after a Stadium event ends.

Recommendations
Invest in Neighborhood Safety and Security

25. Increase patrol before and after events in neighborhoods near the Stadium. a. Employ motorcycle cops to be able to respond more easily to parking and security concerns.
b. Train security and traffic officers to interact with the neighbors more effectively. c. Increase police presence in Mission Park.
d. Structure event permitting to pay for increased neighborhood security.

26. Add more public bathrooms to decrease public urination . a. Increase portable bathrooms in the parking lots.
b. Construct and maintain a bathroom in Fairway Glen Park.

27. Add more trash cans and pass around trash bags during game to minimize litter.

28. Employ staff to pick-up litter along the creek, trails and in neighborhoods after events.

Recommendations
Take Noise Control Measures

29. Levy heavierfines for noise and curfew violations.

30. Institute stricter noise control measures.
a. Place new controls on the decibel level allowed, instituting and enforcing a permanent noise monitoring system.
b. Legislate stricter air traffic control restrictions to control late night fly over noise. c. Require the Stadium to institute noise control measures such as a sound wall and directional speakers to redirect and dampen the noise for nearby neighbors. i. Combine a sound wall with a shade structure if possible to protect event- . goers during hot and sunny days .
d. Enforce the current weekday and weekend curfews; do not extend them; revisit the curfew to consider that the noise goes hours past the time the events end. e. Patrol residential streets after events to deter noise from those walking through the neighborhoods.

31. Set up a program for nearby neighbors who are most impacted by the noise to compensate for the installation of thicker windows, insulation and air conditioners.

Economic & Entertaimnent Benefits to the City
Almost all of those who supported Levi's Stadium said that they appreciated having a top-tier entertainment venue in Santa Clara, as well as a facility that can bring revenue, jobs and economic development to the City. A major concern among these participants is that the Stadium is not being utilized to its fullest extent, and therefore is not maximizing the potential range of benefits possible, particularly in terms of revenue generation. They state that the caliber, size and expense of the Stadium justify adding events and extending curfews, including for carefully selected weeknight events.

Recommendations
Expand Events and Extend Curfew

32. Increase the number of events, as reasonable.

33. Schedule weekend events whenever possible.

34. Selectively extend the curfew to 11 pm on weelmights and to midnight on weekends. a. Increase the amount of times the stadium is allowed to host past 1 Opm ( e.g. from four to ten times a year).
b. Charge extra for permitting to mitigate noise concerns for near neighbors. c. Select extended curfew events carefully, with consideration of school and work schedules.

In many ways, these recommendations point to the fundamental tension that the Stadium Board Authority will need to manage as they develop policy options for the Stadium: How to maximize the benefits of the Stadium for Santa Clara, while minimizing (i.e. maintaining, improving) the negative impacts to the near neighbors and the rest of the City.

Strategic Guideline for Policy Options
We offer these concluding observations to suggest a strategic guideline for the Stadium Authority Board to consider as they respond to the issues and recommendations and develop policy options.

J. The energy and passion is primarily with those who have concerns about the Stadium.

It became clear as we talked with participants that the people who expressed mostly concerns about the Stadium have more to say, and are more animated and passionate than those who expressed m,ostly appreciations and support. This observation is not meant as an evaluative statement about the validity of the concerns and appreciations we heard.

However, it does point to the need to address those Santa Clara residents who have strong concerns about the Stadium because the intensity and depth of their views are not likely to dissipate easily or quickly. The energy and passion is with those who have concerns, even though, overall, they are fewer in number than those who do not have concerns.

There is also some energy and passion from those who support the Stadium, but it is muted compared to those who voice concerns. Nevertheless, the passion on the suppmt side comes from wanting to maximize the potential benefits of the Stadium for the City.

From this perspective, the Stadium Authority Board should be working to utilize the Stadium as much as possible to provide economic benefits to the City, which is the basis for the recommendations to increase events and extent the curfew.

2. There is support from most Santa Clara residents for the near neighbors. One of the more heartening findings from this engagement process is the way in which most of the Santa Clara residents who do not live near the Stadium suppmt those who do. Even participants who strongly support the Stadium recognize that there are negative impacts to the near neighbors, and they would like to see those impacts addressed. Put differently, most of the Stadium supporters we talked with are aware that their recommendations to increase events and extend the curfew will increase the negative impacts to the near neighbors, and they want those impacts to be lessened, reduced, or eliminated.

3. This leads to a strategic guideline for the Stadium Authority Board to consider:

Explore policy options to increase events and extend the curfew, but only while pursuing policy options to resolve, minimize, or mitigate the Trust/Transparency/Communication, Parking/Traffic, and Safety/Security/Noise issues.

Appendix A: Focus Groups & Community Meetings

1. Focus Group with Engaged Community Members, March 19, 2018, 6:00 - 7:30 p.m., Santa Clara City Hall Cafeteria, 1500 Warburton Ave, Santa Clara, CA

2. Focus Group with Engaged Community Members, March 21, 2018, 6:00 - 7:30 p.m., Santa Clara City Hall Cafeteria, 1500 Warburton Ave, Santa Clara, CA

3. Focus Group with Great America, March 28, 2018, 10:00 - 11:00 a.m., Great America Administrative Offices, Santa Clara, CA

4. Focus Group with Northside Neighbors, April 2, 2018, 5:00 - 6:30 p.m., Northside Library, Santa Clara, 695 Moreland Way, CA

5. Focus Group with Northside Neighbors, April 2, 2018, 7:00 - 8:30 p.m., Northside Library, Santa Clara, 695 Moreland Way, CA

6. Focus Group with Chamber of Commerce, April 13, 2018, 11:00 a.m. - 12 p.m., Chamber of Commerce Offices, 1850 Warburton Ave, Santa Clara, CA

7. Community Meeting at Central Park Library Redwood Room, April 26, 2018 6:00 - 8:00 p.m., 2635 Homestead Ave, Santa Clara, CA 95050

8. Community Meeting at Santa Clara Community Recreation Center, April 28, 2018, 6:00 - 8:00 p.m., 969 Kiely Boulevard, Santa Clara, CA 95051

9. Community Meeting at Northside Library Community Room, May 9, 2018, 6:00 - 8:00 p.m., 695 Moreland Way, Santa Clara, CA 95054
Appendix B: Demographics of Levi's Stadium Community Engagement Participants Stadium &
Focus Groups Farmers
& Public Market Online
Meetings Interviews Participation Totals(%)
Zip Code Near Stadium 95054 36 5 102 143 = 32%
Santa Clara 15 44 123 182 = 41%
Other 1 110 6 117 = 27%
Totals 52 159 231 442
Gender Male 23 104 113 240 = 54%
Female 28 54 100 182 = 41%
Prefer not to say 1 1 18 20 = 5%
Totals 52 159 231 442
Age Under 18 0 10 0 10 = 2%
18-30 1 41 11 53 = 12%
31-40 10 55 35 100 =23%
41-55 14 29 90 133 = 30%
Above 55 27 23 85 135 = 31%
Prefer not to say 0 1 10 11 = 2%
Totals 52 159 231 442
Ethnicity White 23 49 116 188 = 42.5%
Hispanic 7 85 7 99 = 22%
Indian 4 9 20 33 = 7.5%
Filipino 5 1 10 16 = 3.5%
Chinese 0 2 11 13 = 3%
African American 2 2 3 7 = 2%
Vietnamese l 0 3 4 = 1%
Korean 2 1 1 4 = 1%
Japanese 2 1 1 4 = 1%
Native American 1 0 1 2 = .5%
Pacific Islander 2 0 0 2 = .5%
Mixed Ethnicity 3 7 10 20 = 4.5%
Prefer not to say 0 2 48 50 = 11%
Totals 52 159 231 442
1 EMC
1 I I
research
January Issue Identification Survey ·
of Santa Clara Vote s &
Near Neighbor Resi ents
Methodology ~]]
research
Citywide Issue Identification Voter Survey
~ Live telephone survey - including landlines and cells - of registered voters in the City of Santa Clara, a universe selected as voters are one of several constituencies on these policy issues ~ Conducted January 8-19, 2018
~ 600 total interviews; Margin of Error ±4.0 points
~ Interviews conducted by trained, professional interviewers in English, Spanish, Chinese, and Vietnamese Near Neighbor Residents Issue Identification Survey
~ Live telephone survey - including landlines and cells - of residents within a mile of Levi's Stadium and in selected areas of Sunnyvale and San Jose
~ Conducted February 8 - March 3, 2018*
~ · 174 total interviews; Margin of Error ±7.4 points
~ Interviews conducted by trained, professional interviewers in English, Spanish, Chinese, and Vietnamese *Data collection was paused February 9-19 18-6629/30 Baseline Voter and Near Neighbor Report I 2 Near Neighbor Survey Areas
r ·'c11_,
.· ., - ~
' ;
..
0 .;; . _.._
('.
' .::,
[ u, .. u . "
O Twin Creeks
Bay/and~ Pork • EN
Santa Clara
116 Interviews , .. , L,c.f
Santa Clam t:\
Convention Center .:. 'i)' Q
a<,
Levi's Stadiu , ~ 1,J ut;I' ~·J,·lls .,.,_
i ~·'
-:.;
~ Califo rnia's©
- Great Amer ica
!.,
..
., .
•r.11 1... , ,JI ,, I d
.,~n1 ·uJ P~,.
:,.

Intel Museum G)
• I , ,,rs
~M~
research
TJrg
Westwtnd•,O
North San Jose
32 Interviews
•1r..:,
Ulisrac
Narural Ar
Orncle O
1 -
r,f, ,
. Ir-.,
-
N R H .
18-6629/30 Baseline Voter and Near Neighbor Report I 3
1 EMC
1 I I
research
City of Santa Clara
Opinions and Job Ratings
Santa Clara Quality of Life ~M~
research
Both voters and stadium near-neighbors have a positive view of Santa Clara as a place to live.

Positive
88%
Citywide Voters
Negative
11%
OJ.lb/ Fair 10%
(Don't
know)
1%
Positive
90%
Near-Neighbor Residents*
Negative
10%
Q2. Overall, how would you rate Santa Clara as a place to live? Would you say it is an excellent, good, only fair, or poor place to live? (Don't
know)
0%
*Asked only of those residing in Santa Clara, n=l16 18-6629/30 Baseline Voter and Near Neighbor Report I 5 ~~
research Top Positives of Living in Santa Clara
Voters and near neighbors mention the convenient location, small-town feel, friendliness, and the low crime rate as things they like most about living in Santa Clara.

Near
What do you like best about living in Santa Clara? Voters Neighbors* Convenient location 21% 34%
Calm/quiet atmosphere/small-town feel 14% 16%
The community itself/friendly town/the people 11% 14%
Security/safety/low crime rate 11% 14%
Climate 9% 9%
Clean/beautiful city 9% 5%
Amenities: parks/library/swim center 9% 9%
Shopping/businesses 7% 9%
Utilities: lower cost/city-owned/well-run 6% 7%
Employment opportunities 5% 6%
Diversity 5% 3%
Have lived here manyyears 5% -
Good schools 4% 3%
Local governance/city council/good city services 4% -
Activities/events 3% 7%
Affordable cost of living/housing 3% 3%
Q3. What do you like most about living in Santa Clara? (Open-end} *Asked only of those residing in Santa Clara, n=ll6 18-6629/30 Baseline Voter and Near Neighbor Report I 6 ~M~
research Top Negatives of Living in Santa Clara
Traffic and housing costs/cost of living are the things people like least about living in Santa Clara. One-in-ten near neighbors specifically mention the stadium as the thing they like least about living in Santa Clara.

What do you like least about living in Santa Clara?
Traffic
High housing costs/cost of living
Growth/new development/housing being built
Overpopulated
City government; the Mayor and City Council
Lack of restaurants/shopping/entertainment
Crime/security
Road conditions/potholes/signage
Transportation/getting around/public transportation needs upgrades No downtown area
The Stadium
Schools need improvement
People are not nice/no sense of community
Garbage in streets/dirty/run-down look
Q4. And what do you like least about living in Santa Clara? {Open-end) *Asked only of those residing in Santa Clara, n=116
Near
Voters Neighbors *
26% 33%
26% 16%
9% 3%
8% 3%
5% 1%
4% 9%
3% 1%
3% -
3% 1%
3% 3%
2% 9%
2% 7%
2% 1%
2% 3%
18-6629/30 Baseline Voter and Near Neighbor Report I 7
Favorability of Local Organizations ~Mic1 !..=!.~
resea rch
Overall, near neighbors give higher ratings than voters to all organizations tested. A strong majority of near neighbors and voters have a favorable view of Levi's Stadium, although roughly 1-in-4 have a negative opinion. The City Council is viewed favorably by two-thirds of near neighbors and a majority of voters, with low negative opinion. Opinion of 49ers management is divided, while the Stadium Authority is less well known. t.-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~----~~~- -~------~~--~----------
Santa Clara Fire Department
Santa Clara Police Department
Great America Amusement Park
Levi's Stadium
Santa Clara City Council
Neighbors*
Voters
Neighbors
Voters
Neighbors
Voters
Neighbors*
Voters
• Total Favorable (Don't Know/No Opinion) • Total Unfavorable 9 5 ° o l~Vi11!
90% 1~~1
Strongllt'. Strongll£
Fav. Unfav.
70% 0%
67% 0%
51% 2%
51% 1%
43% 2%
39% 1%
27% 11%
25% 15%
18% 2%
16% 6%
San Francisco
49ers Management
43%
3 %
12% 11%
13% 16%
.. Neighbors
Voters -J'!!!!""!"!!!""!"!!!""!"!!!""!"!!!""!"!!~~!""!"!!!""!"!!!""!"!!!""!"!!!""!"!!!""!"!!~~~~~ ~ ~o~~~~~ ~!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!~~~!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!_ __!~~ ~ ~~!>..._ -32°0 Silicon Valley Chamber of Commerce
Santa Clara Stadium Authority
30°0
QS-12. I'm going to read you a list of people and organizations. Please teil me if you have a strongly favorable, somewhat favorable, somewhat unfavorable, or strongly unfavorable opinion of each one. *Asked only of those residing in Santa Clara, n=llG
0 10% 1%
12% 4%
11% 6%
25% 10% 10%
18-6629/30 Baseline Voter and Near Neighbor Report I 8
Job Ratings for City ~M~
resea rch
The City gets strong marks for the job it is doing overall and for keeping citizens informed. About half give the City a positive rating for responding to concerns/complaints and using tax dollars responsibly. Strong negative opinion ("poor" rating) is very low.

The job the City
Government is doing
overall
The job the City does
keeping citizens
informed
Neighbors
Voters
Neighbors
Voters
The job the City does Neighbors
• Total Positive
51%
(Don't Know) • Total Negative
70% 26%
64% 32%
64% · 34%
60% 35%
14% 35%
Excellent Poor
14% 2%
13% 5%
17% 9%
18% 9%
12% 9%
responding to citizen ·~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~====~~~~~~~~~~~~~------- 50% 16% 34% 12% 10% concerns and complaints Voters
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~======~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-
The job the City does
using your tax dollars
responsibly
Neighbors
Voters
55%
49%
Q13-16. Please tell me how you think the City of Santa Clara is doing in each of the following areas. Use a scale of excellent, good, only fair, or poor. 9%
10%
35% 10% 10%
41% 9% 10%
18-6629/30 Baseline Voter and Near Neighbor Report I 9
f T H F
fl: LE
i EDWARDS
I
CROUP
1 EMC
1 I I
research Neighborhood Issues
General Neighborhood Issues • ~ M]J
resea rch
Traffic and parking are the top neighborhood concerns of both voters and near neighbors. One-in-four near neighbors mention noise as a problem in their neighborhood.

Voters Near Neighbors
• 7 Extremely serious • 5-6 Problem • 7 Extremely serious • 5-6 Problem Traffic 22% 55%
Noise
Crime
Public drinking or drug use
Loitering
Public urination
Q17-27. I'm going to read you a list of potential neighborhood issues. For each one, please tell me if that issue is a problem in your neighborhood or not. Use a scale of 1 to 7, where 1 means that issue is not at all a problem in your neighborhood, and 7 means that issue is an extremely serious problem in your neighborhood. 23% 56%
18-6629/30 Baseline Voter and Near Neighbor Report I 11 Causes of Noise Problems • ~~
research
Near neighbors are most likely to mention the Stadium and airport as the cause of noise problems in their neighborhood.

What is the main cause of the noise Voters --
problem in your neighborhood? n=47
Noise NOT a serious problem 92%
Stadium 2%
Airport 1%
Traffic 3%
Other 1%
Q28a. What is the main cause of the noise problem in your neighborhood? Neighbors
n=22
87%
5%
5%
3%
1%
Noise
,'/The stadium and Great America" - ·Neighbor
"The stadium on certain days, the airport and the train" - Neighbor
"The car racing and other things like speeding" - Neighbor ,'/Drunken fans at Levi's Stadium" - Neighbor
"The airplane noise" - Neighbor
"Cars and traffic noise" - SC Voter
''The events at Levi's Stadium" - SC Voter
18-6629/30 Baseline Voter and Near Neighbor Report I 12 Cause of Traffic and Parking Problems ~M~
research ··
One in ten near neighbors say the Stadium is the main cause of traffic and parking problems in their neighborhood.

What is the main cause of the traffic Neighbors
problem in your neighborhood? n=69
Traffic NOT a serious problem 60%
Too many people/congestion/density 13%
The Stadium 10%
Commuters 9%
Nearby businesses /Infrastructure 6%
Parks/Amusement Parks 2%
Other 1%
What is the main cause of the~ Neighbors
problem in your neighborhood? n=40
Parking NOT a serious problem 77%
Too many people/Infrastructure 11%
The Stadium 9%
Work Commuting 1%
Other 1%
Q28b. What is the main cause of the traffic problem in your neighborhood? * Neighbors only Q28c. What is the main cause of the parking problem in your neighborhood? * Neighbors only Traffic
"Just the layout of the neighborhoods and the streets" - Neighbor "The commute is very heavy during peak hours and amplified during stadium events" - Neighbor
"Most definitely the stadium being there" - Neighbor
"We're building a lot around us, with the economy being good people are back to work, and with Jots of new buildings and construction that leads to lots of traffic everywhere" - Neighbor
Parking
"Too many people. Traffic from the high-tech companies" - Neighbor "The stadium and Great America" - Neighbor
"Overpopulation and events, lack of civil engineering." - Neighbor "There are too many people and game visitors" - Neighbor "It's always been a problem. Too many people crammed into one city." - Neighbor
18-6629/30 Baseline Voter and Near Neighbor Report I 13 1 EMC
1 I · I
research
Levi's Stadium
· Awareness and Issues
Heard/Seen About Levi's Stadium Recently • ~ M~
research
About half of voters and near neighbors say they have heard or seen "a lot" or "some" about Levi's Stadium recently.

Near
Neighbors
Voters
Q30. How much, if anything, have you heard or seen about Levi's Stadium recently? 18-6629/30 Baseline Voter and Near Neighbor Report I 15 Potential Stadium Issues • ~M]J
resea rch
, Voters and near neighbors are most concerned about the traffic and parking impacts of the Stadium. Littering, drinking/drugs, and loitering are also concerns. Roughly a third of near neighbors {36%) and voters {31%} are concerned about noise from events at night.

Voters
• Very • Somewhat Concerned
Traffic 35% ',; 69%
23% , Parking in neighborhoods close.. 50% ~-~~~-= ====--=--==-'-'-"-'-~~~~~~~~~~~~ Litte ring 47%
--!--~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Public drinking or drug use 49%
+-~~~-=;:__:;_:_~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The number of weekday events 10% , ,, 34%
Loitering 13% - ,, 39% --i====-'---=========~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Noise from flyovers and .. 8% : ·~;;. 29%
Noise from events at night 10% ,, 31%
How late weekday events go 12% ,,_ 35%
How late weekend events go 4=:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::===--~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~ 10% - :,- 27% The number of weekend events
Artificial light from the stadium .. 26% E::::::=========-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Noise from events during the day
--i===
Fireworks
Q31-44. Thinking about different issues that may arise during events at Levi's Stadium, please tell me if you personally are concerned or not about each of the following potential issues.

Near Neighbors
• Very • Somewhat Concerned
44% ',, 78%
32% ,, 62%
18% , 46%
25% _,', 43%
17% , 43%
16% 40%
40%
13% , 36%
17% ' 35%
27%
10% --,-,, 27%
10% ,, 23%
18-6629/30 Baseline Vot er and Near Neighbor Report I 16 Positive Stadium Impacts • ~ M]J
research
Strong majorities of near neighbors and voters think all five of the positive stadium impacts tested in the survey are important. The tax revenue and economic impacts are seen as the most important benefits.

The stadium contributes to the city's General Fund, which funds vital services including police, fire, library, senior and youth programs.

The stadium generates millions in economic activity each year, benefitting local businesses, workers, and residents.

The stadium supports local jobs at the stadium and at hotels, restaurants, and other businesses that benefit from stadium events.

The stadium helps showcase our City/area and along with the Convention Center, Great America, and other attractions makes this a place visitors and conventions want to come to. • Very important • Somewhat important Total Important
66% _· .:__-_ -:-~ Neighbors* 88%
--t================================================-~ ~~~~ ~ Voters 83% 58% -= -- ~ - -~'
49% _ ~ ~ ~ Neighbors 83%
--t==============================================--~ ~~~~~~ Voters 81% 51% .:_ .·.

Neighbors 84%
--r-:============================================~~~~~~~~ Voters 84% 51% -~ _
Neighbors 75%
--r-:========================================~~~~-'--~~~~~ Voters 73% 40% , .' \~- _ .

The stadium creates great new entertainment options for Neighbors individuals and families to go to fun/exciting events which makes Santa Clara/our area an even better place to live, work, and play. 39% _ 78%
Voters
Q45-49. Next, I'd like to ask you about some of the positive impacts of Levi's Stadium. After you hear each, please tell me if that item is very important, somewhat important, not too important, or not at all importan t to you. *Asked only of those residing in Santa Clara
71%
18-6629/30 Baseline Voter and Near Neighbor Report I 17 1 EMC
1 I I
research
Stadium-Related
Contacts
Contacts About Stadium Problems • ~~
resea rch
One-in-five {19%} near neighbor households and 13% of voters say they have contacted someone about a stadium-related problem or concern at least once. One-in-ten {11%} near neighbor households has made at least three contacts.

Near
Neighbors
Voters
QSl. How many times, if any, have you or someone in your household contacted someone about a stadium-related problem or concern?
19% at least 1 contact
18-6629/30 Baseline Voter and Near Neighbor Report I 19 Contacts About Stadium Prob·lems ~M~
research
Voters and near neighbors contact a variety of institutions - the police, the City, and the Stadium - about stadium-relared problems. No one issue dominates the list of problems residents reach out about.

Who did you contact? Voters Neighbors
n=77 n=33
And what was the specific issue or Voters Neighbors
concern you had? n=77 n=33
Never contacted anyone for a stadium 87% 83% related problem or concern Never contacted anyone for a stadium 87% 83% related problem or concern City government/City Council 3% 3% Traffic 3% 3%
Noise 2% 2%
Police 2% 5%
Parking 2% 4%
The Stadium 1% 3% Security issue/crime 1% 1%
Neighbors/family/other citizens 1% 2% Drugs/alcohol 1% 2% Closure of the trail nearby 1% -
Other 2% 2%
Other 3% 2%
Don't Know 4% 2% Don't Know 1% 2%
Q52. Who did you contact?
Q53. And what was the specific issue or concern you had? 18-6629/30 Baseline Voter and Near Neighbor Report I 20 Satisfaction with Problem Resolution • ~M]J
research
Only a third of near neighbors and a quarter of voters who have contacted someone about a stadium-related problem say they are satisfied with the response they received. Roughly half are dissatisfied.

Near
Neighbors
(n=33; 19%)
Voters
(n=77; 13%)
• 1-3 Not satisfied • 4/(Don't Know)
17%
QS4. On a scale of 1 to 7, where 1 is not at all satisfied and 7 is extremely satisfied, how satisfied were you with the response you received? You can use any number from 1 to 7. 24%
1 - Not at 7 - Ext.
• 5-7 Satisfied all sat. sat.
31% 21%
26% 12%
18-6629/30 Baseline Voter and Near Neighbor Report I 21 1 EMC
1 I I
research
Awareness
of Curfew
Awareness of 10 PM Weekday Curfew ~M~
research
A majority of voters and near neighbors are aware of the curfew. Awareness is higher among near neighbors.

Yes
56%
Voters
No
41%
{Don't
know)
3%
QSS. Were you aware or not that the City has a 10 PM weekday curfew for nighttime events like concerts at Levi's Stadium?
Yes
63%
Near Neighbors
No
36%
(Don't
know)
1%
18-6629/30 Baseline Voter and Near Neighbor Report I 23 1 EMC
1 I I
research ·Demographics
Stadium Visits ~M~
research
Roughly 6-in-10 voters and near neighbors have been to the Stadium at least once, with 3-in-10 having been 3 or more times _. ._) Near
Neighbors
Voters
QSO. How many times, if ever, have you been to an event at Levi's Stadium? 1-2 Times
27%
1-2 Times
31%
57% at least once
61% at least once
18-6629/30 Baseline Voter and Near Neighbor Report I 25 Media Habits • ~ M~
research
Newspapers (print and online}, social media, and television are the top sources for local news and events in Santa Clara.

Roughly half of voters and near neighbors say they learn about local news through social media at least occasionally. ~- Local News Sources Voters Neighbors
Newspapers in print or online 49% 32%
Social media like Facebook or Twitter 41% 38% Frequently Television 37% 45%
Radio 20% 23% Occasionally
Local neighborhood biogs 14% 9%
Internet (general) 6% 5% Rarely
Word of mouth 5% 5%
Somewhere else 9% 8%
Not at all
Don't know 3% 2%
Q56. Where do you generally get.information about local news and events in Santa Clara? (Multiple Response) Q57. And how frequen tly do you follow discussions or learn about local news or politics using social media like Facebook and Twitter?
Learn About Local News Using
Social Media
23%
25%
• Voters
• Neighbors
20%
21%
18-6629/30 Baseline Voter and Near Neighbor Report I 26 Demographics
Age
18-29
30-39
40-49
50-64
65 or over
Gender
Male
Female
[fil.1~
research
• Voters • Neighbors
Ethnicity
Hispanic or Latino
White
Black
Asian/Pacific Islander
Something else
(Refused)
Own/buying
Rent/lease
(Refused)
Years in Neighborhood/Santa Clara
<11 years ·
53%
11-20 years
21 + years
(Refused)
Home Ownership
':-~ - :-..-- -- -, - . ,;.;
.,, • ;r. • .... N1
58%
3%
18-6629/30 Baseline Voter and Near Neighbor Report I 27 1 EMC
1 I · I
research
Telephone Survey
Near Neighbor Businesses
City of Santa Clara
Methodology ·~ M~
research
~ Live telephone survey of businesses in selected regions of Santa Clara, Sunnyvale, and San Jose
• Businesses were randomly selected from a list of businesses with addresses in Santa Clara and within a mile of Levi's Stadium and in selected areas of Sunnyvale and San Jose that experience event-related impacts
~ Conducted February 2 - 23, 2018*
~ 82 total interviews; Margin of Error +11.0 points
Interviews conducted by trained, professional interviewers * Interviewing paused February 9-15 18-6630 Near Neighbor Business Report I 2 Surveyed Regions •
~]]
research
a
MOR SE P ,\i'~
Seven
Seas Park
N is,s,
m @
O Target
O Twin Creeks
,.

Weslwind sO
Bay/ands Park D RENA I SSANCE
Cisco Systems
North San Jose Building 12 0 c ;,,,
1 \ 0
sf
'"'"' ll<:f fl ,.,._,..
,I·' I .. ' Santa Clara Santa Clara 't
,.,l,7 lnteliviews }
Sunnyvale Convention Center1~ n;on50 Interviews
15 Interviews ,... Ai.lob,· ~· ·.,tis ; Levi's Stadium et P t ~. A lit I +- - ' ~
Lak ewoo d
Park
,.

California 's®
Great America
Mis sion
College
Ullstac
Natural Area
t,..cf'C'"Ru
sareway O
Oracle O O Oracle Building 18 u i
SAN M IGUEL G Q Santa Claro Mmrloll @!) i
'~411,.
anlt e Sunnyv~le O
Lowe's Horne O
Improvement ·
AMC M~:cado 20 0
E Du,,nc Ave
Fry's Elec tronics
0 O Sports Basement
.; ~
Intel Museum ®
O Whole Foods Market
\ o. ,r,

NOR T H SAN JO SI
18-6630 Near Neighbor Business Report I 3
~M]j
resea rch Locations of Businesses Surveyed
li,, ,nv,
r .1.,.
· ... ,, r.,.

MOR 0 E I'
S!!ven
Sea s Park
AN Ml , U L
tf, o,. ,r • •'
I <
unite Sunnyvale O
O Twin Creeks
"'1.,_
m@
9 0 1 rge
9 9 .9
D
99 9 0 9 0 --
ft9 9 9 · o Systelll S
... 9 9 lu1ld111g 12 0 ' 1·•,
99 ~ ::
r.on~ ... . .. Vi. ft .,, T roh'-
U/i·
Natur
8 9
.,t's Stadium O 9
9 0 ( ,-. ia s •. "~a _ · .. _9 u• ••
ft Gre. •ica • - Q.. ... ',, ';, - 9 VJ.,, ,.- "'v
"-.,. ,,..,.,,. ALiNFW S lewuy O
Mission
College
0 99
Oracle O O Oracle Bu,h.ling 18 ·
~
'-' Santa Clam Marriolt
AMC Mt r ,odo 20 0
Intel Museum ® ~·
..
,'.',l •..
.),, : i\\J • RI V I

N RHI A N
F1y'. Electro11I "
Lowe 's Home O O O Sports Basement
Improvemen t O Whole Foods Marke t
18-6630 Near Neighbor Business Report I 4
1 EMC
1 I I
research Neighborhood Issues
Issue Importance ~M~
resea rch
Traffic is the only neighborhood issue that is rated as a problem by a majority of businesses. • 7 Extremely serious 5-6
Traffic 29%
Parking 15% 1?% 35%
Maintenance of sidewalks or streets 21%
21%
Public urination
Graffiti
Crime
QS-15. I'm going to read you a list of potential neighborhood issues that could impact your business. For each one, please tell me if that issue is a problem for your business or not. Use a scale of 1 to 7, where 1 means that issue is not at all a problem for your business, and 7 means that issue is an extremely serious problem for your business. You can use any number from 1 to 7.

Problem
55%
18-6630 Near Neighbor Business Report I 6
Causes of Traffic Problems ~M~
resea rch
Among the 36 businesses who say traffic is a serious problem/ the Stadium is the most commonly cited cause. "On game day there are
road closures and an
influx of people going
the games."
What is the main cause of the traffic problem
in the neighborhood your business is in?
Traffic NOT a serious problem
The stadium
Flow of traffic/congestion
Infrastructure
Other
Q17. What is the main cause of the traffic problem in the neighborhood your business is in? n
46 22
8 4
2 %of
all
56%
27%
10%
5%
2%
"Levi's Stadium. Cross
streets and minor streets are
flooded with traffic
according to what route
they're given for parking. "
18-6630 Near Neighbor Business Report I 7
Causes of Parking Problems ~M~
research
Among the 19 businesses who say parking is a serious problem, the Stadium and the overall number of people are seen as the main causes of parking problems.
"During events at Levi's
Stadium, they use our
office parking to park
and that creates a lot of
problems."
What is the main cause of the parking problem
in the neighborhood your business is in?
Parking NOT a serious problem
The stadium
The general population
Other
Q18. What is the main cause of the parking problem in the neighborhood your business is in? n
63 10
7 2
%of
all
77%
12%
9%
2%
"There's too many
cars on game day."
18-6630 Near Neighbor Business Report I 8
Causes of Noise Problems • ~ M~
research
Among the 5 businesses who say noise is a serious problem, four attributed the noise problem to the Stadium. "The drag racing events
at the stadium and
concerts."
What is the main cause of the noise problem in
the neighborhood your business is in?
Noise NOT a serious problem
Stadium
Traffic
Q16. What is the main cause of t he noise problem in the neighborhood your business is in? n %of
all
77 94%
4 5%
1 1%
18-6630 Near Neighbo r Business Report I 9
1 EMC
1 I I
research
Levi's Stadium
Awareness and Issues
Levi's Stadium as a Neighbor ~M~
research
Most businesses rate Levts Stadium as a good neighbor. One-in-three give the Stadium a negative rating as a neighbor.

Positive
65%
Negative
34%
Only Fair 22%
' _,
Very Poor 6%
Q19. How would you rate Levi's Stadium ,as a neighbor? In general, would you say Levi's Stadium is an ei<cellent, good, only fair, poor, or very poor neighbor? (DK/Ref)
1%
18-6630 Near Neighbor Business Report I 11
~M~
research Positive Impacts of Stadium
A strong majority of businesses value the positive impacts of Levi's Stadium on the local community.

The stadium contributes to Santa Clara's General Fund, which funds vital services including police, fire, library, senior and youth programs. * The stadium supports local jobs at the stadium and at hotels, restaurants, and other businesses that benefit from stadium events.

The stadium creates great new entertainment options for individuals and families to go to fun and exciting events which makes Santa Clara/our area an even better place to live, work, and play.

The stadium generates millions in economic activity each year, benefitting local businesses, workers, and residents.

The stadium helps showcase our City/area and along with the Convention Center, Great America, and other attractions makes this a place visitors and conventions want to come to.
• Very important
Q34-38. Next, I'd like to ask you about some of the positive impacts of Levi's Stadium. After you hear each, please tell me if that item is very important, somewhat important, not too important, or not at all important to your business.
*Asked of businesses in Santa Clara only, n=SO
• Somewhat important Total Important
78%
18-6630 Near Neighbor Business Report I 12
Levi's Stadium Issues • re-Mc1 ~~
research
Eight-in-ten businesses are concerned about the traffic impacts during events at Levi's Stadium and 6-in-10 are concerned about the parking impacts. There is also significant concern about drinking/drug use and littering, and the number and lateness of weekday events.

Traffic
Parking in neighborhoods close to the stadium
Public drinking or drug use
The number of weekday events
Littering
How late weekday events go
Loitering
• Very • Somewhat
41% I ~1,/
57%
18% -~· :, 48%
16% . "'-- ,, 46%
16% · -·~· '( -
35%
Concerned
82%
-====================--~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Noise from flyovers and helicopters at stadium.. 27%
+-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Noise from events during the day 27%
--1=================~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
How late weekend events go 24%
The number of weekend events
Noise from events at night
--E:::==========:==~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Fireworks
Artificial light from the stadium at night
Q20-33. Thinking about different issues that may arise during events at Levi's Stadium, please tell me if your business is concerned or not about each of the following potential issues. 18-6630 Near Neighbor Business Report I 13 Stadium Problem Frequency ~M~
research
Most businesses have never contacted anyone about a stadium-related concern.

Never
84%
1-2 Times
6%
Q39. As far as you know, how many times, if any, have you or someone at your business contacted someone about a stadium-related problem or concern?
16% at least
once
n = 13
3 Times or More
10%
18-6630 Near Neighbor Business Report I 14
Most Contacted Agency ~ M]J
resea rch
Of the 13 businesses who have contacted someone about a stadium-related concern~ the agencies contacted vary.

Who did your business contact? n % of all
Have NOT contacted anyone 69 84%
Police 3 4%
The Stadium 3 4%
City of Santa Clara/City Council 2 2%
Landlord/Building owner 2 2%
Other 2 2%
Don't Know 1 1%
Q40. Who did your business contact? 18-6630 Near Neighbor Business Report I 15 · Specific Issues ~M~
research
Of the 13 businesses who have contacted someone, noise and parking/traffic account for about half of reported contacts. ''Access or denial of
access to my business
due to traffic, road
closures and the closure
of the bike trail"
And what was the specific issue or concern
your business had?
Have NOT contacted anyone
Traffic
Parking
Closure of the trail nearby
Noise
Drugs/alcohol
Other
Q41. And what was t he specific issue or concern your business had? n
69 3
3 2
2 1
2 %
of all
84%
4%
4%
2%
2%
1%
2%
"The noise,
parking and the
littering"
"The intoxicated
Ninersfans
harassing the
employees"
18-6630 Near Neighbor Business Report I 16
·~ M~
research Satisfaction with Problem Resolution
Ten of the 13 businesses who contacted someone about a stadium-related problem were not satisfied with the response they received.
n = 13; 16%
How satisfied was
your business with
the response you
received?
Q42. On a scale of 1 to 7, where 1 is not at all satisfied and 7 is extremely satisfied, how satisfied was your business with the response you received? You can use any number from 1 to 7. 1 - Not at all 7 - Extremely
satisfied satisfied
54% 0%
18-6630 Near Neighbor Business Report I 17
1 EMC
1 I I
research Demographics
~M~
research Business Demographics
Business Size
1-4 employees
Type of Business %
32%
Technology 30%
5-9 employees 22% Professional
,
13%
10-19 employees 15% Manufacturing 12%
Food Service 6%
20+ employees 32%
Retail 6%
Time at Current Location Service 5%
Hospitality 4%
<5 years 39%
Health 4%
5-10 years Re-seller 2%
28%
Distribution Center 1%
11+ years 33% Other 15%
Don't Know /Refused 1%
Q43. How many years has your business been at your current location? Q44. Approximately how many employees does the company you work for employ at this location? 18-6630 Near Neighbor Business Report I 19 1 EMC
1 I I
research
Near Neighbor and
S.anta Clara Resident
Focus Groups
Methodology re-Mc1 . L=!~
research
Four focus groups held in Sunnyvale on April 25th and 26th, 2018 Focus group participants were Santa Clara, San Jose and Sunnyvale residents Group 1 Santa Clara Non-Neighbors, 15+ years in SC (l+ miles from stadium) Group 2 Santa Clara Non-Neighbors, <15 years in SC (l+ miles from stadium) Group 3 Santa Clara Near Neighbors (<1 mile from stadium) Group 4 Sunnyvale & San Jose Near Neighbors
Each group had 8-10 participants
~ Groups were moderated by Andrew Thibault from EMC Research Note: Due to the nature of qualitative research, the following findings reflect only the attitudes and opinions of the participants in the focus groups, and cannot be reliably projected across the larger p Op U I at i On 18-6629 Near Neighbor and Santa Clara Resident Focus Group Report I 2 Near-Neighbor Regions
r ,..
'-'u: ,.t;,, -' 'l ,')r
O Twin Creeks
Bay/ands Park
.:.:

Sunnyvale
Near Neighbors
[ I .11 1 A \•
; \,J
"' Santa Clara
~
! Near Neighbors
eJ
Santa Clara '-'
Convention Center_ ~"rn 'D' a
Levi's Stadiun1 e, !IS .:._ ..
:i.
1;
, California 's @
:i.. Great America
re do 20 !.- • ' I f.., :I . t' Ml,
Intel Museum ®
··.·1
,,,.,,
TJrg •
V'J " l Wllld ' ,I
tJ
North San Jose
Near Neighbors
Ulistac
Narural Ar
Orocle O
" .. ·:.-
•
~~
research
-
~ -; {I lJ, ..
~\ •Jf\ \ I

N R H ,
18-6629 Near Neighbor and Santa Clara Resident Focus Group Report I 3 1 EMC
1 I I
research
General Attitudes
About Santa Clara
General Attitudes ~@
research
For the most part, participants had positive feelings about living in Santa Clara/the region
~ Santa Clara residents had largely positive views of City government and the job it is doing .

Top Positives Expressed:
• Small town feel
• Location/easy access to many
attractions and other communities
• Weather
• Diversity
• City services/amenities
Top Negatives Expressed:
• Traffic
• Development of housing faster than
services
• Cost of I ivi ng
• Lack of a downtown area
18-6629 Near Neighbor and Santa Clara Resident Focus Group Report I 5 1 EMC
1 I I
research
Levi's Stadium Awareness
and Overall Attitudes
Awareness • ~M~
research
~ Awareness of current stadium issues is low-most did not recall seeing or hearing anything recently regarding the stadium
~ Among those who remembered hearing something, details were spotty ~ A handful recalled hearing something about youth soccer field issues, revenue disputes, the cancelled Ed Sheeran concert, or the college football championship
18-6629 Near Neighbor and Santa Clara Resident Focus Group Report I 7 Overall Attitudes • ~ M~
resea rch
~ Newer Santa Clara residents and those in Sunnyvale and North San Jose tended to have positive views of the stadium
~ · Santa Clara near-neighbors and long-time residents were more critical and more concerned with perceived negative impacts, but still saw positives ~ The stadium is seen as an attraction that brings benefits and people to the City, including generating business for local hotels, shops, and restaurants ~ Some more concerned residents acknowledged that, as problematic as stadium events may be for them, events aren't that frequent "It's putting Santa Clara on the map, in terms of
'Oh! This is a place to go' ... But at the same time,
it does bring more people in, and it does raise the
cost of living. So, it's good and bad."
- Santa Clara Near-Neighbor Resident
"It's a horror, but only for a
very small amount of the time.

The other time, it's just dead."
- Santa Clara Non-Neighbor
Resident
18-6629 Near Neighbor and Santa Clara Resident Focus Group Report I 8 ~M~
research The Stadium as a Neighbor
Because San Jose Airport and Great America cause more constant disturbances, some consider the stadium to be a better neighbor in terms of neighborhood disruptions and impacts
However, the stadium is seen as unresponsive to concerns and complaints and many do not feel residents' grievances are listened to ~ While few are clear on the distinction between Manco and the Stadium . Authority, those who live close to the stadium tend to have lower trust in the private side
18-6629 Near Neighbor and Santa Clara Resident Focus Group Report I 9 Perceived Relationship with the City • ~M~
research
~ While most did not know specifics, participants shared a general perception that the relationship between the City and the stadium is tense ~ There is a great deal of uncertainty about the specific revenue situation between the stadium and City of Santa Clara, but many felt the City was getting less revenue than had been originally promised
~ Many had heard the stadium was supposed to give money to local schools but were unsure if they were following through
18-6629 Near Neighbor and Santa Clara Resident Focus Group Report I 10 1 EMC
1 I I
research
Levi's Stadium
Issues & Solutions
Parking • ~ M~
research
~ Participants identified parking as the central issue caused by the stadium; other issues (e.g. traffic) are made worse by the stadium but have other . primary sources ~ Stadium-goers parking in neighborhoods also lead to other problems, including litter, noise, public urination and other disturbances from foot traffic
"The parking [is an issue]. The
walking of the people around me.

My kids play outside, and on game
days, I don't feel safe because of the
people that were walking around."
- Santa Clara Near-Neighbor
Resident
"People are parking in your
apartment building's parking spots,
you don't have a place to park ... and
the people that are walking to and
from the events ... just with
everything in life, there's some not­
so-nice people." - Santa Clara Near­
Neighbor Resident
18-6629 Near Neighbor and Santa Clara Resident Focus Group Report I 12 Parking Solutions • ~M~
research
Reactions to the permit proposal were mixed, though many supported enforcement if limited to event days
• Some felt the program wasn't needed or worried it would push the problem into other neighborhoods
Other ideas expressed by participants:
• More stadium parking for lower cost
• Use more corporate lots and have more frequent shuttles to/from lots • Better-scheduled public transportation
"Instead of trying to force people out of
their cars first and onto public transit,
it's like, make it convenient enough and
timely enough that people will want to
or realize it's much easier."
- Santa Clara Near-Neighbor
18-6629 Near Neighbor and Santa Clara Resident Focus Group Report I 13 Curfew and Noise • ~ M~
research
~ Most knew of the curfew but did not know the specifics While noise is not seen to be as large an issue as parking, there was opposition to eliminating the curfew outright, particularly among near-neighbors in Santa Clara • Reactions to allowing limited exceptions were mixed
• Although some lived within earshot of the stadium, Sunnyvale and San Jose near­ neighbors were more supportive of easing the curfew than Santa Clara near-neighbors Some respondents pointed out that noise is generated not just within the stadium during events, but also by eventgoers passing through neighborhoods before and after
Ideas Suggested by Participants for Noise Issues:
• Rebates for double-paned windows and air conditioning for .impacted neighbors • Begin events earlier or turn down the volume after a certain time 18-6629 Near Neighbor and Santa Clara Resident Focus Group Report I 14 Traffic ~M~
research
~ Traffic is viewed as a general problem in the area that is exacerbated by the stadium
~ Although there was near unanimous recognition that stadium events cause worse traffic jams, most are habituated to planning around traffic on event days and don't see it as a problem badly in need of solving Ideas Expressed by Participants for Event Traffic Issues:
• lncentivize using public transit to get to and from events • Offer discounted parking fees for carpooling
• Parking further from stadium with frequent shuttle service • Better access points through street closures to neighborhoods for residents 18-6629 Near Neighbor and Santa Clara Resident Focus Group Report I 15 Other Solutions Suggested by Groups
More obvious stadium outreach to near-neighbors
Free or discounted tickets for near-neighbors
More portable toilets outside stadium to limit public urination • ~ M~
research
18-6629 Near Neighbor and Santa Clara Resident Focus Group Report I 16 1 EMC
1 I I
research
Solutions Telephone Survey
All Registered Voters
City of Santa Clara
Methodology ~M~
research
Live telephone survey of registered voters in the City of Santa Clara Conducted May 10 -17, 2018
~ 400 total interviews; Margin of Error+ 4.9%
~ Interviews conducted by trained, professional interviewers Interviews were conducted in English, Spanish, Chinese, and Vietnamese and included both landlines and cell phones
18-6845 Solutions Report I 2
1 EMC
1 I I .
research
Levi's Stadium
Awareness and Issues
Stadium Awareness • ~M~
resea rch
Awareness levels remain quite similar to earlier in the year. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~_.,
January May
Heard Heard
56% 57%
Not heard Not heard
41% 40%
(DK/Ref) (DK/Ref)
3% 3%
Q3. How much, if anything, have you heard or seen abou t Levi's Stadium recen t ly - a lot, some, not too much, or nothing at all? ' 18-6845 Solutions Report I 4 Levi's Stadium: Top Positives ~M~
research
The Stadium's impact on the local economy is seen as its biggest positive. ~~~- -~~~~----~-
What is the biggest positive? %
Boosts local economy/generates revenue 26
Draws people/attention to Santa Clara 20
Nearby/local entertainment/events 19
Creates local jobs 12
There are no positives (distaste towards the stadium) 9 Sporting events 0
Other 4
Don't know/NA 9
Refused 1
Q4. What do you think is the biggest positive about having Levi's Stadium in Santa Clara? {Open-end) 18-6845 Solutions Report I 5 Levi's Stadium: Top Negatives • ~M~
research
Traffic congestion and parking are by far the most frequently mentioned negative and most respondents did not differentiate between the two.

What is the biggest negative? %
Traffic congestion and parking 48
Noise or from the stadium 15
Crime and security 9
Financial impact on the city 4
Economic/infrastructural impact 4
Litte ring 4
Nothing negative 4
City/Stadium Officials and management 3
Other 2
Don't know/NA 6
Refused 2
. QS. And what do you think is the biggest negative about having Levi's Stadium in Santa Clara? {Open-end) 18-6845 Solutions Report I 6 Stadium Importance ~@
research
A majority say working on issues related to Stadium events should be a priority for the Mayor and Council, but only 17% say it should be a very high priority.
• 1-3 Low Priority 4/(Don 't Know)
24%
QlO. On a scale of 1 to 7, where 1 is a very low priori t y and 7 is a very high priority, how high of a priority do you think working on issues related to stadium events should be for the Mayor and City Council? • 5-7 High Priority
1 - Very 7 - Very
Low High
4% 17%
18-6845 Solutions Report I 7
·stadium Event Issues • ~~
resea rch
Traffic and parking are seen as the most important stadium event issues to address, with 4-in-10 saying it is "extremely important" to address these issues. Disruptive behavior in neighborhoods around the Stadium is also a top issue. Six-in-ten say it is important to address noise from events, but only a quarter rate it as "extremely important." • 7 Extremely important • S-6
Traffic from stadium events 41% ,.

Parking in neighborhoods close to
the stadium
Disruptive behavior in
neighborhoods around the stadium
on event days
Noise from stadium events
40%
37%
26%
Qll-14. I'm going to read you a list of issues that may arise during events at Levi's Stadium. After each one, please rate how important addressing that issue is to you, using a scale of 1 to 7, where 1 means not at all important, and 7 means extremely important.

Total Important
78%
73%
72%
62%
18-6845 Solutions Report I 8
Communicating and Responding ~M~
research
A majority give the City positive marks for communicating about and responding to stadium-related issues. Stadium management gets lower marks, primarily because fewer respondents are familiar with their performance. • Total Agree (Don't Know/No Opinion)
The City does a good job communicating
with residents about stadium-related issues
The City does a good job responding to
citizen concerns and complaints about the
stadium
Levi's Stadium management does a good
job communicating with residents about
stadium -related issues
Levi's Stadium management does a good
job responding to citizen concerns and
complaints
I
54%
51%
41%
41%
QG-9. Please tell me whether you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree with each of the following statements. If you are not sure please just say so. 16%
27%
30%
36%
Strongly Strongly
• Total Disagree Agr. Disagr.
30% 16% 14%
23% 12% 8%
29% 7% 12%
23% 6% 10%
18-6845 Solutions Report! 9
~M~
research Stadium Visitor Frequency
Most have been to at least one event.
61% at least
once
( 1 \
Never
39% 1-2 Times
28% 3-4 Times 5 Times or more
16% 17%
Q36. How many times, if ever, have you been to an event at Levi's Stadium? 18-6845 Solutions Report I 10 Stadium Problem Frequency ~M~
research
One-in-four respondents say they have contacted someone about a stadium-related concern - 6% have contacted someone 3 or more times.

Never
75%
1-2 Times
19%
25% at least
once
3-4 Times
4%
t,.:..;. ,._ : - - ,j. - -:..~ -.z.,_ .... \
Q37. How many times, if any, have you or someone in your household contacted someone about a stadium­ related problem or concern?
5 Times or more
2%
18-6845 Solutions Report I 11
1 EMC
1 I I
research
Interest in
Proposed Solutions
Potential Solutions ~M]J
research
While all the solution tested have majority support, there are significant differences in intensity of support ("strongly support").
• 7-Strongly Support • 5-6 Total Support
Provide more portable toilets in parking lots to discourage public urination 60 0 / :~ . • . · •• )
:to _._.._.._of,,._-.-.,. - -- ~-3 82%
Increase neighborhood safety patrol s before/after events 52 0 / '• .·r • : · • ~
l'O -· -·. . - , ~ ~ 80%
Establish an electronic notification system that gives resident s advance not ice of events 50% -~ · ~- . , _ ·_ : :
·;,- - '.!.-.._ __ L- a 79%
Reduce stadium parking prices for people who carpool 79% Establish more frequ ent shuttle service from parking lots further from the Stadium 48% . -.-; .. 78% .

Designate drop-off and pickup areas for those using rideshare service 51% . : . 77% . - .....

Offer incentive s for taking public transit to/from events such as free or reduced fares 49% . - 75% Have a live call-in number during events to respond to concerns or complaints 42% . . -~-- - : 72% .. . - . . ... - - -- Lower the price of parking in stadium lots 41 O/ . . • - •• -...:.·. /0 " / . : ... - - - ... -- ~.t 67%
Increase the fine for violating the curfew and noise thresholds 34% "c.-. • - ., ---~~~-:' ~ - - ... ~-"--- ..,. 61%
City-issued $20 parking permits for residents in neighborhoods near the stadium 25% -· .. -~ .. ·,. . , - . ' . --~ 52%
A 10PM weekday curfew for nighttime events like concerts at Levi's Stadium 27o/c ~ .. ..,_.· · .. •. ·.-~.:~< 0 ~-!.·"T_ --J.....~ 50%
Q25-34. Please use a scale from 1 to 7, where 1 means you strongly oppose that proposal and 7 means you strongly support that proposal. If you have no opinion one way or the other please say so. 18-6845 Solutions Report I 13 1 EMC
1 I I
research
Stadium Curfew
Detailed Attitudes
Curfew ~M~
research
Just under half are aware of the curfew. A third feel the curfew is too restrictive while half say it's about right. Only one-in-ten feel it isn't restrictive enough.

Yes
44%
Aware of Curfew
No
54%
{Don't
know)
2%
Too Restrictive
About Right
Not Restrictive
Enough
Don't Know
Q15. Were you aware or not that the City has a 10 PM weekday curfew for nighttime events like concerts at Levi's Stadium?
Q18. In general, do you feel this curfew on weeknights is too restrictive, not restrictive enough; or about right? Feel Curfew is ...
50%
5%
18-6845 Solutions Report I 15
Curfew Support • ~ M~
research
Half support the curfew. Only 1-in-4 are opposed to the curfew while the remaining 25% aren't sure.

In general, do you support or oppose this weeknight curfew? • 1-3 Oppose 4/(Don't Know)
25%
Q16. Please use a scale from 1 to 7, where 1 means you strongly oppose the curfew and 7 means you strongly support the curfew?
• 5-7 Support
1-Strongly 7- Strongly
Oppose Support
11% 27%
18-6845 Solutions Report I 16
Curfew Reactions • ~@
resea rch
Of those who support the curfew, most say it is due to the stadium's proximity to a residential neighborhood and concern for those residents. Of those who oppose the curfew, the most common reason is because they feel it is too restrictive.

Support Curfew (n=199) % Oppose Curfew (n=lOO) %
Residential neighborhood/ residents should be 20 respected Curfew is unnecessary/too restrictive 36 Not fair to residents who work/go to school 13
Disturbs sleep 10 Curfew should be for shorter period/10 PM is too 15 early Security/keep area safe 9
Noise 8 Does not affect me 9
Good/preventative action (generally support) 8
Does not affect me 5 Once in a while is okay to go past curfew/depends 6 Once in a while is okay to go past curfew/depends 5
on event
on event
Traffic/foot traffic 4 Losing out on revenue 6
Q17. Why do you say that? 18-6845 Solutions Report! 17
Support Limited Exceptions to Curfew. ~~~
After hearing brief arguments from both sides, just over half say they would support allowing limited curfew exceptions.

Some people say the Stadium's current curfew policy causes the City to lose out on revenue from concerts that choose not to play in Santa Clara because of it. They argue the policy should be changed to allow a limited number of exceptions for profit­ making events, allowing evening events to go until 11 PM rather than 10 PM.

Other people say the curfew policy should remain as is. The noise generated by events and eventgoers leaving the stadium and passing through nearby neighborhoods is too much of a disturbance to residents during the week before work and school. • 1-3 Oppose 4/(Don't Know)
20%
Q19. Given what you've heard, do you support or oppose allowing limited exceptions to the weeknight curfew? Please use a scale from 1 to 7, where 1 means you strongly oppose this proposal and 7 means you strongly support it.
• 5-7 Support
1 - Strongly 7 - Strongly
Oppose Support
14% 24%
18-6845 Solutions Report I 18
Support 3-4 Exceptions Per Year ~~
research
A majority also support allowing 3-4 exceptions per year.

Would you support or oppose allowing 3 to 4 exceptions per year to the weeknight curfew? • 1-3 Oppose • 4/(Don't Know)
19%
Q20. Please use a scale from 1 to 7, where 1 means you strongly oppose this proposal and 7 means you strongly support it.
• 5-7 Support
1 - Strongly 7 - Strongly
·oppose Support
18% 27%
18-6845 Solutions Report I 19
Support 2-3 Exceptions Per Summer • ~M~
resea rch
A majority also support allowing 2-3 exceptions specifically during the summer months . ..-.~~~~~~~~~~~~
Would you support or oppose allowing 2 to 3 exceptions per year to the weeknight curfew during the summer months only when kids are out of school?
• 1-3 Oppose D 4/(Don't Know)
16%
Q21. Please use a scale from l to 7, where l means you strongly oppose this proposal and 7 means you strongly support it.
• 5-7 Support
1- Strongly 7 - Strongly
Oppose . Support
17% 29%
18-6845 Solut ions Report I 20
Support for Curfew Modifications ~M~
research
A majority support the general idea of limited exceptions to the curfew and when asked about specific options, 56% support 3-4 exceptions per year and 60% support 2-3 exceptions per summer. Opposition is consistently about a quarter.

Support
50%
Initial
Support
Neutral
Limited
Exceptions
Support
54%
Oppose
26% Neutral
3-4 Exceptions
Per Year
Support
56%
Neutral
2-3 Exceptions
Per Summer
Support
60%
Oppose
Neutral
18-6845 Solutions Report I 21
. 1EMC1
I I Parking .
research Issues and Solutions
Support for Permit Program ~M~
research
Initially a majority support city-issued $20 parking permits for residents in neighborhoods near the stadium.

In general, do you support or oppose city-issued $20 parking permits for residents in neighborhoods near the stadium, including guest parking passes, to prevent stadium-goers from using street parking on event days? • 1-3 Oppose 4/(Don't Know)
24%
Q22. Please use a scale from 1 to 7, where 1 means you strongly oppose this proposal and 7 means you strongly support it.
• 5-7 Support
1 - Strongly 7 - Strongly
Oppose Support
14% 25%
18-6845 Solutions Report I 23
Permit Program Reactions ~M~
research
Supporters of the program feel it will help solve the problem. Those who are opposed are largely concerned with the cost to I
residents, though some do feel it is unnecessary or won't be effective.

Support Program (n=210) % Oppose Program (n=96) %
Will help with lack of parking and traffic 21
It's a good/affordable/necessary measure 14 (generally supportive) Will prevent outside people from parking in 11 neighborhood Residents will have guaranteed parking/ park in 11 front of home More organization/ more control 6
Residents should not have to pay to park/not 39 fair
Its unnecessary/A waste/ will not be effective 14 (generally oppose) The cost is too high 10
It's a good/affordable/necessary measure 7 (generally supportive) Will prevent outside people from parking in 5 neighborhood Generates revenue for the City 6
Will help the neighbors/residents 6
Residents will have guaranteed parking/ park in - 4
front of home
Parking should be the Stadium's responsibility 5 Parking should be the Stadium's responsibility 3 Q23. Why do you say that? 18-6845 Solutions Report I 24 Support for Permits After More Info ~@
research
After brief arguments on both sides, support for the permit program remains strong.

Some people say parking permits would reduce event traffic in their neighborhoods and help make sure they can find parking on event days. They say it would also reduce rowdy behavior, trash, and disturbances in their neighborhoods.

Other people say a parking permit program will cost the City and local residents too much money and resources to issue, administer, and enforce. They say it will make parking in those neighborhoods too complicated for guests and non-event visitors to the area.
• 1-3 Oppose • 4/(Don't Know)
20%
Q24. Given what you've heard, do you support or oppose allowing limited exceptions to the weeknight curfew? Please use a scale from 1 to 7, where 1 means you strongly oppose this proposal and 7 means you strongly support it.
• 5-7 Support
1 - Strongly 7 - Strongly
Oppose Support
12% 21%
18-6845 Solutions Report! 25
Support for Parking Permits • ~M~
research
Initially a majority support city-issued $20 parking permits for residents in neighborhoods near the stadium. Support increases after arguments for and against parking permits.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-~---J
Support
52%
Initial Support
Oppose
24%
Neutral
24%
Support
60%
Informed Support
Oppose
20%
'I
12%
Neutral
20%
18-6845 Solutions Report I 26
Demographics ~M~
research
Age Ethnicity Years in Neighborhood/Santa Clara
18-29 - 18%
Hispanic or Latino - 28%
- 17%
White - 38% 30-39
- 18%
Black 1 4%
40-49
Asian/Pacific Islander 11 14%
50-64 - 26% 1 4% Something else
<11 years
11 + years/( Ref)
50%
50%
65 or over - 21% (Refused) - 11%
Gender Home Ownership
Male 49% Own/buying 61%
Female 51% Rent/Lease/(DK) 39%
18-6845 Solutions Report I 27
1 EMC
1 I I
research
Andrew Thibault
[email protected]
206.204.8031