HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-03-19; Parks & Recreation Commission; 301-4; City of Carlsbad Public Opinion SurveyPARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION -AGENDA BILL
AB# 301 -4 TITLE : , INFO
MTG. DATE: 3-19-01 CITY OF CARLSBAD
PUBLIC OPINION SURVEY 0 ACTION STAFF: GARUBA-
CM OFFICE
RECOMMENDED ACTION :
Receive results of the Citywide survey. Comment as appropriate.
ITEM EXPLANATION :
During the January 22, 2001 meeting, the Commission requested a staff report on the results of
a recently conducted Citywide survey which addressed the attitudes of City residents concerning
issues such as City provided services, libraries, cultural arts activities, City conditions and
development, and City facilities.
Joe Garuba, Management Analyst from the City Manager’s office along with other members of
the Performance Measurement Team will make a presentation to the Commission regarding the
survey.
Although they have been asked to focus their presentation on areas more directly related to the
issues of Parks and Recreation, a copy of the entire survey results has been included as
Exhibit 1. If the Commission has more specific questions, staff will be available to address those
issues to the best of their ability and discuss the future of the data which has been collected.
A summary of the survey contents and results which was conducted by the Social and Behavioral
Institute is included within the Table of Contents, Introduction and Executive Summary on pages
1 through 7.
EXHIBITS:
1. City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report. January 2001.
025
City o_f - Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report -
Conducted for:
City of Carlsbad
Conducted by:
The Social and Behavioral Research Institute
January, 2001
Study Team:
Richard T. Serpe, Ph.D., Director
.411en J. ksle).. M.A.; Assistant Director
M~chael D. Large, Ph:D.; Study Director
Lon Brown Large. MA.; Survey Study Director
Mar1 Athenon. M..4; Field Research Coordinator
kchard V. Mason, M.A.; Field Research Coordinator
January 16, 2001 Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRI
EXHIBIT 1
. c . .
..................................................... Development 15
Development by Region .................................... .-I 7
CityFeatwes .......................................................... 32
CitvInformation .................................................. j6 -
Confidence in City Government ..................................... 59
Confidence in City Government and Demographics ................ 60
Concerns about Carlsbad and Confidence in City Government ....... 62
What Residents Like Most about Carlsbad and Confidence in City
Government ......................................... 65
internetAccess ......................................................... 67
January 16. 2001 Version: City of Carlsbad. ZOO0 - SBRl
CityServjcesandFacilities ............................................... l’
City-Provided Services ............................................ 13
Agency-Provided Services ............... .................... .. ..... 14
Service Ratings by Regions ......................................... 1j
Programs and Facilities ............................................ 17
Programs and Facilities by Region ................................... 20
- -
Activities ............................................................. ~1
Park Use ........................................................ 21
- Recreati.on Facilities ............................................... __
PublicPool ................................................--
Multi-use Recreation Facility ................................. __ 73
Recrearlon Activities at 55 .......................................... 23
Cullural . Ans .Activities ............................................ 25
Libraries ........................................................... .g
- 33.
33
City Condltrons and Developmenr ...........................
Road Condirlons ........................................
.... 35
.... 35
Publicsafety .................................................... 38
Feelings of Safety .......................................... 38
.. Exposure to Cnme 42 ..........................................
Confidence in Emergency Services ............................. 42
January 16, 2001 Version: City of Carlsbad, ZOO0 - SBRI
027
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report
INTRODUCTION
- -
This report summarizes the results of the City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey. This \vas a
telephone survey conducted with residents of the City of Carlsbad administered in the Fall of 2000.
The survey was conducted for the City of Carlsbad by the Social and Behavioral Research Instlrute at
California State University, San Marcos.
= The survey addressed the attitudes of city residents concerning issues such as city-provided
services, libraries, cultural arts activities, city conditions and development, and city facilities. The survey
also touches on resident attitudes regarding crime and safety, Internet access, as well as a number of
demoraphic questions. The report contains a description of the data. an executive summaq-, and an
elaboration of the results of the survey.
January 16,2001 Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRI 1
028
I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey report details the results of a telephone sunley of
Carlsbad residents, admjnistered - in the Fall of 2000. The survey was conducted for the City of
Carlsbad by the Social and Behavioral Restarch Institute at California State University, San Marcos.
The survey addressed the anitudes of city residents concerning issues such as city-provided
services, cultural arts activities, city con&tions and development, and city facilities. This executive
summary highlights some of the key results of the survey.
- Data
The data come from 1,001 telephone interviews with Carlsbad residents, 18 years of age or
older. Respondents "ere randomly selected within four regions in the City of Carlsbad fiorthwest,
Xonheast, Southeast. and Southwest) using a computer-assisted-telephone-intenieming (CATI)
system. There were approxlmately 30 respondents from each of the regions.
2 January 16,2001 Version: City of Carlsbad. 2000 - SBRl
Kev Findins
In general, respondents are rather positive about the City of Carlsbad. There was also
generally a good deal of consistency in attitudes across regions. Some of the key findings are noted
below.
- -
Respondent Demographics
- The sample responding to the survey was 40.8% male and 59.2% female. These respondents
had lived in Carlsbad an .average of 1 1.03 years, and averaged 50.48 years of age. More than two
thirds (69.7%) of the respondents had total household incomes over $50,000, and only 7.0% had totai
household incomes belou 525,000. Incomes between 550,000 and $1 00,000 were most typical.
Of the respondenrs. 79.7% indicated that they owned their home, and 20.3% said they were
renting. There u’as an a\’erage of 2.57 people in the households. Of those households with children,
there was an average of 1 .SO children in the household.
City Services and Facilities
All city-provided services addressed in the survey were rated as good or excellent by most
people, and the library services as well as the fire protection services were rated as good or excellent
by 96.0% of the respondents. All the services that were evaluated in this study provided by the city
through outside agencies were also rated as good or excellent by most people. In general, city-
January 16,2001 Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRI
029
provided senkes were rated as good or excellent by 91 -5% of the respondents. The city facilities
regarded as most important were (1) preserved open-space land, (2) trails and paths, (3) picnic areas.
and (4) children’s play equipment.
- -
Activities
Most of the residents supported facilities for activities in the city. Over three quaners ( 79.0Y0)
ofthe respondents indicated that someone in their household had used a city park. Additional])*. 67.8%,
of the respondents said they believe there is a need for another public pool, and 77.5% of the
- rapondents would ,like the City of Carlsbad to consider a large multi-purpose recreation facility that -
would house things such as a gymnasium, aquatic center, and meeting rooms. For respondents aye 36
to 54, recreation activities was by far the most fiequently mentioned city-sponsored activity
respondents said they would like to participate in when they are 55 or older.
Libraries
On averase. Carlsbad residents \kited a Carlsbad library 15.86 times in the past year. Three
quarters of the respondents wsited the librep to check out or read books or magazines for enjoyment,
and three quaners \*islted the libran. to get answers to questions or do general research. The most
common reason residents offered for not visiting the library was that they had no inrerest or need to use
the library.
Ci@ Conditions and Development
January 16,2001 Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRI 4
Road conditions were rated positively. The overall road condition, medians and landscaping
conditions, city street tree conditions, and curb and sidewalk conditions were rated good or excellent
by most (78.1 % to 80.4%) of the respondents.
City residents feel - safe walking in their neighborhood. Respondents said they felt'vep safe -
walking alone in'their neighborhood both during the day and at night, but they did feel more safe during
the day than they did at night. Only 8.0% of the respondents said that they or someone in their
household had been a victim of a crime in Carlsbad in the past year. Further, residents espressed
confidence in the police depanment's ability to respond to police emergencies.
-- For the most pan, residents were not in favor of more development. Most of the respondents
said they would like to see more entertainment VMUCS and fewer big box retail stores, single-family
housing units, and multi-store shopping centers.
concern was. Proxlrnlt. IO the beach was most commonly mentioned as what residents like most aboul
living in Carisbad. Resrdenrs' biggest concern regarding the City of Carlsbad was traffic.
Respondents utillzed a variety of information sources, but the most common source of
information about Carlsbad was local TV news, used by two thirds (67.5%) of the residents. Residents
offered some degree of confidence in the Carlsbad City government to make decisions that positively
affect the lives of its community members. Resldents valued keeping view corridors clear. More than
5 January 16,2001 Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRI
half (64.1 %) of those responding said they would accept a tax increase to assure that facilities are kept
from appearing on the landscape or view comdon.
Internet Access - -
Three quartm (76.5%) of the respondents stated that they had Internet access, and of these.
27.1 % have a hlgh speed Internet connection.
6 January 16,2001 Version: Ciry of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRI
DATA
ne data come from 1,OO 1 telephone intmiews conducted in the Fall of 2000. The
respondents were Carisb_ad residents, 18 years of age or older. Respondents were randomly selected
from four regions in the City of Carlsbad (Northwest, Northeast, Southeast, and Southwest) using 3
computer-assisted-telephone-interviewing (CATI) system. There were 250 or 25 I respondents from
each of the regions. The regions were specified as follows; Northwest included residents in the 9200s
zip code West of El Camin0 Real, Northeast included residents in the 92008 zip code East of El
Cmino Real, Southeast included residents in the 92009 zip code East of El Camino Real. and
Southwest included residents in the 92009 zip code West ofEl Camin0 Real. This sample size ( 1,001)
provides a margin of enor of 3.2%. The margin of error within regions is 6.3%. The Intemieu.
-
-
questions, along with frequency distributions or descriptive statistics. are found in Appendix A.
..
7 January 16,2001 Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRI
RESULTS
Resmndeot DemoPraDhics
- -
The sample responding to the survey was 40.8% male and 59.2% female. This is typical of
gender distributions for telephone surveys. Thest respondents had lived in Carlsbad an average of
1 1.03 years, and averaged 50.48 years of age, ranging hm 18 to 89 years old. Table 1 shows the
distribution of the respondents’ total household income last year. More than two thirds (69.7%) of the
- respondents had total household incomes over %SO,OOO, and only 7.0%’ had total household incomes -
below 525,000. Lncomes between $SO,OOO and $100,000 were most typical.
‘The “Valid Percent” in the table represents the percent of the valid responses, as opposed to
the “Percent” which refers to the percenr of the total sample.
January 16,2001 Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRI 8
Vahd Curnulatlve
Frequency P-t Percent Percent
Vahd hder 525,000 60 6.0 7.0 f.u
S2F500 to under 535,000 73 7.3 8.5 , 15.5
535.000 to under 550,000 127 32.7 14.6 30.3
550.000 to under 575.000 165 16.5 19.1 49.5
575.000 to under 5100.OOO 188 16.8 21.9 71 4
5100.000 to 5115.000 96 9.6 11.2 82.6
5 1 25 .000 and A bow 149 . 14.9 17.4 100.0
Total 858 85.7 100.0
Mlsslnp Don’t Know
Refused
27 2.7
1 I6 11.6
Total 143 14.3
fatal 1001 Ioo.0
QlNCOME “hch category best dcsnbes your household’s total mcome last year before taxes”
Of the respondents. 79.7% indicated that they owned their home, and 20.356 said they were
renting. There was an average of 2.57 people in the households. and 33.4% of the respondents
reponed having children in their household. Of those households with children. there was an average of
1.80 children in the household. This is seen in Table 2a.: Further, 25.3% of the respondents said they
had children under 12 years of age. and 12.8oio said they had children under 6 in the home. For those
with children under 12, there were an average of 1.62 children under 12 in the household, and there
-
were 1.42 children under six in households with at least one child under six. Considermg all
households, the average number of children in each of these categones is displayed in Table 2b.
’The table also displays the “Std. Deviation” (standard deviation) for each of these variables.
The standard deviation is a measure of how vanable the responses were for that item.
January 16,2001 Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRl 9
032
.
Households averaged .60 children in the household, and .41 children under 13. On awage. there was
20 children under six years old in the household.
Tsbk 2.: Howcbold Structure.
N Minimum Maximum Mean Dev1~11on
humber of people In
Household (lncludlnp 992 I 8 2.5726 1.2469
RcspondrnIJ
Number of Childrm Under
the Age of 18 3 34 1 7 I .7964 3974
Number of Childrm Under
the Age of 12 253 I 5 I .6245 .7489
Number of Children Under
the Age of 6 137 I 3 1.4161 sno
- Valid N (lisnvne) 137 - - QDEM03-QDEM06 HoU many pple cumtly reside m your household Including younelf
and any children” .
Table 2b: Average Number 01Childrcn Across All Households.
S td
ri hllnlmum Maxtmum Mean Devmon
umber 01 Cnlurcn Lnaer ! the Age of I E. 7 ,6000 ,9915
Number of Cnlldren Lnacr
the Age of I3 1000 0 5 .4110 . so04
Number of Chrldrcn Lndcr
the Age of 6
Valtd N fl~sru-lsc~ 995
QDEM04 - QDEM06 Hou many people currently rcslde In your household lncludlng yourself
and any chtldren’
995 0 3 . I950 S316
DemoeraDhics bi’Reaion
January ’1 6,2001 Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRI 10
Analyses were pcrfonntd to detcnnine if there were differcnce~ in the demo_pphic
characteristics of the respondents by geographic region. The mpondcnts did not differ by region with
respect to gender or household structure. However, there were differences by region with respect to
income, home ownership, and length of residence in Carlsbad. As illustrated in Table 3. the re, Oions in
the South had higher incomes than those in the North. Almost a quarter of the respondents in the
Southeast (23.4%) and the Southwest (23.3%) had total household incomes of S125.000 or greater.
Additionally, over half the respondents in the Southeast (56.4%) and the Southwest (5720,b) had total
incomes of 575,000 or more, while this was not the case for the Northeast (48.3%) or ru’onhwest
(3%7%) regions.
-
Table 3: Annu81 Housebold lacome by Region.
luonhWest SouthEast SOUlllU CSl
Household Income Household Income Household Income Household Income
Last Year L.sr Yuv Last Year LYI Year
Count O/O Count $0 Count 90 Count 0,”
Lnocr SLj.uuu !b 12.1% 13 6.2 ‘h 13 6.0% b 3.7%
525.000 to under 53S.OOU 20 93% 19 9.0% 10 4.6% 24 I 1.2%
535.000 to under SSO.000 45 21.0% 33 15.6% 28 12.8% 2 I 9.8%
550.000 10 under 575.000 35 17.8% JJ 20.9% 44 20.2% 39 18.1%
575.000 10 under 5 100.000 36 16.8% 65 30.8% 51 23.4% 36 16.7%
5 100.000 to 5 125.000 I9 8.9% 19 9.0% 21 9.6% 37 17.2% s I25.000 and Above 30 14.0% 18 8.5 Yo 5 1 23.4% 50 233%
Tout 2 I I oo.o*/; 2 I I I 00.0% 21s 100.0% 2 15 IOO.O*/.
QlNCOME Whlch category bes; dercnbes your household’s total mcorne i&t vear before taxes’ ~~ ~
Carlsbad residents also differed by region with respect to home ownership. This is seen in
Table 4. About a third (33.9%) of the residents in the Northwest region were renting their home
11 January 16.2001 Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBFU
~~ QrIBsERV Overall, how would you rate the Carlsbad librana as to the availabdlt! oi
matcnals you want?
Citv Conditions and DeveloDment
Road Conditions
Respondents Here asked their impressions of various aspects of the city roads and traffic in the
City of Carlsbad. The responses are summanzed in Table 23. Generally, road conditions were rated
positively. The overall road condlrion, medlans and landscaping conditions, city street tree conditions,
and curb and sidewalk conditions were rated good or excellent by most (78.1% to 80.4%) of the
respondents. Traffic circulation and parking were rated less favorably. Less than half (40.8%) of the
respondents rated traffic circulation efficiency (excluding freeways) as good or excellent, and a quarter
(25.3%) rated traffic circulation as poor. Additionally, 38.4% of the respondents rated parking
January 16,2001 Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRI 35
Citv Services and Facilities
City-Provided Services
Respondents were asked about services provided by or through the City of Carlsbad. Each - -
respondent was asked how they would rate (fiom poor to excellent) a number of city-provided
services. Their answers are summarized in Table 6. All the city-provided services addressed in the
survey were rated as good or excellent by most people. The library services were rated 3s excellent
more often than not, that is, 59.9% of the respondents said the library services were escellent. In fact.
the library services as well as the fire protection services were rated as good or e>rcelle111 bJr 96.00/; of -
the respondents. Traffic- enforcement and environmental protection were not often given a rating of
excellent. but both were typically rated as good.
..
13 January 16,2001 Version: City of Carlsbad, ZOO0 - SBRI
w Poor ExccII~I Goorl’Exceilcnt
Coun1 Ye Count Ye Coun1 Ve Count Yo Count ole
Rating
Frrc ProtectRon
Scrvrccs Rurng
Paramedrc
Scrvrccs Ratrng
POllCC Servrccs
Ratlng
Condmon of
Parks Ratrng
Rccreatlonal
Prognms Raring
Water Services
Ratrng
Env~ronmental
P_rotcctron
Rating
Traffic
Enforcement
Ratlng
Overall City
Services
Rating
24
18
I5
19
72
123
9
31
26
31
64
78
81
98
144
205
74
335
395
336
4-45
489
468
613
340
492
614
556
405
320
380
36 I
282
245
107
135
285
~
QSERV I - QSERL‘S Please rae each SCTVICC prowded by the c~ry of Carlsbad as cxccllcnt, good. farr, or poor
Respondents also provided a general. overall rating of the city services. Most often, residents’
Agency-Provided Services
In addition to the city-provided services, respondents were also asked about services from
outside agencies. Table 7 provides a summary of their responses. Trash and recycling collection was
rated as excelient by almost a thmi (32.5%) of the residents responding. Again. all the senices
evaluated were rated as good or excellent by most people. The Aowe~t ratings were for hazardous
waste disposal, but only 13.5% indicated that they thought this service was poor.
Count SO Count % Count 5; Count 90 Count 90
Tnsn and Rccyclmg 35 35% 131 133% 502 50.8% 321 325% S2j 83.2%
Collection Ratmg
QOUTSRVI - QOLTSRvJ Please me each of smIces provided by ouoldc agcncm as cxccllcnt. good. falr. or poor
Service Ratings by Regions
The ratings of the senlces provided by or through the City of Carlsbad were generally
consistent across reglons However. there.were regional differences for two of the sewices provided
by the city: librap sen'lces and fire protection services. Table 8 shows the ratings of the library
services across the four reglons. The ratings of the library services were positive in all four regions.
However, the respondents In the Southeast and Southwest Regions rated library services more
positively than those in the Northeast and Northwest Regions. In both the Southeast and the Southwest
Regions, about two-thirds of the respondents rated the library services as excellent compared to just
over half in the Konheast and Nonhwest Regions.
January 16,2001 Version: City of Carlsbad, ZOO0 - SBRI 15
Table 8: Ratings of Libmry Senices by Region.
Llbmry Scrv~ccs Rump Libmy Services Rumg Libmy Semccr Rulng Library scf~la hang
Count % COMI Ya COMI Count 90
Poor 3 13% 2 so/; 0 0.0% 1 - .4 VU
Fmr 14 - 6.0% 5 2. I Yo 8 35% 4 1.7%
Good 91 39.1 VO 104 43.7% 67 29J% 73 3 1.7%
Excellent 125 53.6% 127 53.4% 152 67.0% I52 66.1 %I
Total 233 100.0% 238 100.0% 227 100.0% 230 1 OO.O*i.
-
QLJBSERV OvmI1. how would you rau the Culsbnd libraries LT to the rvailabilrry of nutmrls you upan17
There were also regonal differences in the ratings of fire protection services. Fire protection .
- services were rated very positively in all four regions. The Southeast Region, though, had slightly more -
individuals offering only fair or poor evaluations of the fire protection service, as indicated in Table 9.
Only 7.6% of the respondents in the Southeast Region said the fire protection service was fair or poor,
but this was higher than in the other regions. This regional effect may be related to the Harmony Grc
fire in October of 1996 which affected the Southeast Region.
Programs and Facilities
The programs and facilities provided by the City of Carisbad was also of interest. Respondents
were asked to rate the importance of various programs and facilities using a scale of zero to ten. where
zero means nor or all mporranr and ten means uen' intporranr. Table IO contains the at'erage
importance ratings for c~p programs and facilities. with numbers closer to ten indicating greater
imponance. As can be seen In the table, preserved open-space land has the highest imponance rating
(8.31). Trails and paths ('.86). as well as picnic areas (7.33) and children's play equlpment (7.25)
were also regarded as quire ImpORant. Of least impoitance was tennis courts - the average
importance rating was 5.09 on the zero-to-ren scale. Indoor meeting rooms (5.44). pubilc golf courses
(5.62). and basketball courts (5.65) were also rated relatively low in imponance.
17 January 16,2001 Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRJ
Space Land (Accarible
to the Publac)
Impomcc of Nature Tnils,
Joggmg and W&mg Pathr
lmpanrncc of Plcnic ARPS
Impowlce of Children’s
Play Equlpmenr
lmponance of Ahf and
CulnJral Prognms
imponancc of Playtng Fields
lmponancc of Bike Paths
lmpomce of Swlmmmg
Pools
Impomce of Community
Gardens
lmponance of Basketball
Couns
lmpomcc of Publ~c Golf
Courses
lrnponancc of Indoor
b\.leetrn_r Rooms
lrnponancc of iennts Couns
\ all2 4 I IISW ISC)
989 8.4 1
989 7.86
990 7.33
986 7.25
999 7.16
989 7.12
992 6.58
’ 990 6.47
984 6.06
98 I 5.65
993 5.62
978 544
980 5.09
928
2.3 1
2.35
229
2.79
2.44
2.71
2.92
2.84
2.68
2.92
3.44
2.66
2.9 I
OPROCS i . QPROGS13 Hou lmponant IO you YC each of the followmg
on 3 scalc of V to IO. uhcrc zero means not a1 all Imponant. and ten means
vcp wnponml
In general, residents belleved swimming pools to be important. It is interesling. though, to
examine more closely the ratings of the importance of swimming pools. The distribution of responses
rating the importance of swimming pools 1s displayed in Figure 1. Most (57.2%) of the respondents
offered an importance rating between 5 and 8. and there were also many (1 9.2%) that said swimming
i
pools are very imponant.
January 16,2001 Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBW 18
30
Not At All Important 2 4 6 8 Very Impoftan1
1 3 5 7 9 -.
L
Importance of Swimming Pools
Figure 1 : Importance of Swimming Pools.
The imponance ratmgs of public golf courses also merit closer examination. Overall, public self
courses were rated as rmponant (5.62 on the zero-to-ten scale), though less so than most of the other
programs or facil~tles examined. However, as illustrated in Figure 2, the distribution of responses IO this
question. shows the residents are somewhat polanztd with respect to public golf courses. While 20.0%
of the respondents indxated that the believe publlc golf courses are very imponant, 14.5% of the
respondents said they are not at all imponant.
19 January 16,2001 Version: City of Carlsbad, ZOO0 - SBRI
30
1 3 5 7 9
Importance of Public Golf Courses
Figure 2: Importance of Public Golf Courses.
Programs and Facilities b!. Region
The imponance ratlngs were very consistent across regions. The only statistically significant
difference across the reg~ons was found in the ratings of the imponance of public self courses. The
average ratings by regon are shown in Table I 1. Residents in the Southeast region rated the
importance of public golf courses hlgher (6.08) than did the Northwest Region residents (5.15).
January 16.2001 Version: City of Carlsbad. 2000 - SBRI 20
T8ble 1 1 : Imponan# of Public Golf COPISM by Regime
lmwrrnnce of Public Golf Courses
MUIl Std.
'N (Avenge) ' Dewatton Std. Error
IrcOnhkCSt 246 3.15 3.34 2 I - KorthEas 249 5.4 1 3.5 1 .I
SourhEilSl 248 6.08 3.38 .2 1
South Wen 250 5.82 3.46 .I 77
fatal 993 5.62 3.44 .I 1
79
\
QPROCiS 13 How tmportant 10 you are each of the following on a scale
of 0 to 10. where zero means not nt dl ~mpomt, and ten means very
Important?
Activities
Park Use
Respondents were asked about the use of public parks. Specifically, they were asked if
.. anyone in their household had used a Carlsbad public park in the past year. The responses are
summarized in Table 12. Over three quarters (79.0%) of the respondents indicated that someone in
their household had used a clty park. Park use did not differ by region.
21 January 16,2001 Version: City of Carisbad, ZOO0 - SBRI
v
Frquency Percent Pmmf Percent
Lahd tu0 210 2l.U 21 .v 2l.V
Y cs 789 78.8 79.0 100.0
Total 999 99.8 Ioo.0
Missmg Doaow 2
fatal 1001 100.0
7 .-
QPARKUSE Has anyone In your household used a Carlsbad publrc park or park facilrty
durrng the pasr welve months?
Recreation Facilities
- -- Public Pool. The perceived need for an additional public pool was also assessed. Table i 3 -
indicates how many residents think there is a need for another public pool in the tit?,. .4bout two thirds
(67.8%) of the respondents said they believe there is a need for another public pool in Carlsbad
Table 13: Recreation Facilities.
Expressed Interest In a Carlsbad
heed for Another Pool In the C~ty Multi-Lse Recreaaon Facllrr~
Counr 90 Count YO
tW0 294 32.290 '7 I 22.55"
)'e5 616 67.8% 76 I 77.w.
QPOOL The CI!~ of Carlsbad currently operates one pool ad~accnr to Carlsbad
Hlgh School Do you feel there IS a need for anothm publlc pool In the crty?
Mulfi-use Recreafion Facilu?,. Table 13 also shows how many residents are in favor of the
City of Carlsbad building a large, multi-use recreation facility. City residents were asked if they would
like to see the City of Carlsbad construct a recreation facility that would house things such as a
gymnasium, aquatic center, meeting rooms, etc. Three quarters (77.5%) of the respondents said they
73 January 16,2001 Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRI "
would like the City of Carlsbad to consider such a facility. Those who indicated that they IvouId like IO
see Carlsbad consider such a facility were asked how far they would be willing to drive to the faciiit)..
On average, people indicated that they wcrc willing to chive 14.73 minutes to get to such a facility.
Most respondents (91.9%) said they would be willing to drive at least 10 minutes to get to a large
multi-use recrea'tion facility. The time people wm willing to drive did not vary by region.
- -
Recreation Activities at 55
Those respondents 36 to 54 years of age were asked about the sorts of activities they would
lrke to participate in when they reach the age of 55. The responses to this open-ended question of the
452 respondents that fall into this age range were categorized into different types of acri\ities. The
responses.faIling into these categories are summarized in Table 14. Recreation activities was by far the
most frequently mentioned city-sponsored activity respondents said they would like to panicipate in
lvhen they are 55 or older. Thls-was mentioned by 42.00/b of the respondents in the 36 to 54 year-old
age group. Arts actl\'ltles u'as mentioned by 2 1.590 of these respondents, 3nd use of an aquatics center
(If.4%) and fitness cenfer ( 12.896) were also commonly mentioned. A small minority (2.2%) of the
respondents said they would not participate in any city-sponsored activities when they reached 55.
23 January 16,2001 Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRI
Chosen
Count w
Flmess Center 58 12.8%
Aquatic Center 56 12.4%
Areas for Sentor Pro-prams ' 43 9.5%
33 73%
24 53%
23 5.1 %
Wcrght Room 18 4.0%
Indoor Track 17 3.8%
Educanon/Libnry
Banquet Facility
Meetlng Rooms IS 33%
Health & Flrncss 13 2.9%
. Rock Cllrnblng Wall 8 1.8%
Childcare 6 1374
Other 13 t.9./.
\ornm_r 10 2.2./0
~
QRETIRE I When you reach the age of 55 or older what type of
CII! sponsored recrcauon acrlwes would vou like IO panlctpate In7
Only panmpatlon In classroom activities differed by region. As illustrated in Table 15,
residents in the h'onhwest and Southeast Reyons were more likely to state that they would participate
in classes after they turn 55.
January 16,2001 Versron: Ciry of Carlsbad. 2000 - SBRl 24
Table 15: Participation in CLurrooms by Region.
~~ NonhWen IiOnhEaSl Southe southwm
Classrooms Classrooms Clvsroams Classrooms
Pamcipatlon Pamcipation Partielpanon Pamclpation
Count oli, Count 90 count Yo Count U .V
QRETIRE 1 When you reach the age of 55 or older what rype of City sponsored rccrcatlon actwucs
would you like to pantctpatc in?
Cultural Arts Activities
-- A number of cultural arts activities were given attention in the survey. Respondents rated the
importance of various cultural arts activities on a zero-to-ten importance scale, with higher numbers
indicating greater importance. These ratings are summarized in Table 16. All the cultural arts activities
were regarded as imponant. Average ratings of the seven activities assessed ranged between 5.06 (the
middle of the scale) and - 75. Outdoor concerts were considered to be the most important (average
raring of 7.78) culrural acnvity of those assessed. As-Figure 3 illustrates, few respondents regarded
outdoor concerts as Ion In Imponance. In fact. only 7.3% ofthe respondents gave an importance
rating to outdoor concens of 3 or lower. On the other hand, 43.4% of the respondents gave outdoor
concerts an importance ratlng 9 or 10.
25 January 16,2001 Verslon: City of Carisbad, 2000 - SBRl
.
40 1
1 3 5 7 9
Importance of Outdoor Concerts
Figure 3: Importance of Outdoor Concerts.
Table 16: Average Importance Ratings of Cultural Am Activities.
Mean
N (Avenge) Std. Devlatlon
Outdoor Conccns 9Y4 I .76
Perfomlnp Am 994 7.3 1 2.58
Museum and An Exhiblts 996 . 7.31 2.43
Fenlvals and Falrs 996 6.82 2.54
Mutt!-Cultural Events 985 6 46 2.76
An Apprcclatron Classes 985 5.98 2.78
Soclal Danclng 98 1 5.06 2.87
Valid h' Ilrsrw~se) 965
* .l -.
~~
QACTIV 1 - QACTIV7 where zero means not at all tmponant and ten means very
Imponant. how would you raw the lmponance of the foljowlng cultural am
actnmes In your community'
January 16,2001 Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRI 26
(5.06) was social dancing. - Figure 4 shows that about a third (34.5%) of the respondents tared social
dancing at 4 or lower, and 10.6% gave a 9 .or 10 importance rating to social dancing.
J Not At All Imponan: i 4 6 8 Very Important
3 5 7 9
Importance of Soclal Dancing
Figure 4: Importance of Soclal Dancing.,
The imponance ratlngs of the cullural arts activities were rather consistent across regions. Only
the ratings of outdoor concerts vaned by region. Again. the difference amounted to a Nonh-South
split. Those respondents from the Xorthwest and Sonheast rated the importance of outdoor concerts
more highly (7.99) than did those from the Southeast and Southwest (7.56).
January 16.2001 Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRI 27
..
28 January 16,2001 Version: City of Carisbad, 2000 - SBN
1 -2 pries Pa Yur 166 16.6 16.6 21.6
3-5 Trmcs Pa Year 328 32.8 31.9
5- 10 Tlmcs Per Year 252 25 2 15.3 6O.S
More Than 10 Tlmes 191 19.2 19.2 100.0 Per Year
Total 998 99.7 100.0
- - .- zi z
Missing Don't Know
Refused
Total
2 .2
1 .I
3 .3
L Total 100.0 -
QEVEKT Hou ofien do you anend a cultural event such as a play, concen. museum, ctc.. .?
Libraries
The amount and nature of library use was a key concern in this study. Most (7S.89.b) of the
respondents reported usmg one of the Carlsbad library facilities in the past year. On average, Carlsbad
residents visited a Carlsbad library 15.86 times in the past year. The amount of overall library use did
not vary by region. The amount of use of the libranes individually is displayed in Table 18. As can be
seen in this table, the Dove Library is used more than the Cole Library or the Centro de Informacion.'
Both the Dove Library and the Cole Library are used substantially more often than the Centro de
'Of the telephone numbers called. 1.6% were excluded because of languag difficulty. Most of
these were Spanish speaking people, resulting in a probable slight underestimate of the use of the
Centro de Infonnacion.
January 16,2001 Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRI 29
Cole Library and 2% for the Cmtro de Infonnacion. Less than one out of four (23.2%) said they
never used the Dove Library compared to 39.5% for the Cole Library and 96.4% for the Centro de -
Information.
Table 18: Frequency of Wbraq Usc
How Oftq Respondent How Often Respondent How Often Respondent
Pan Year Y ear lnfomcron In Past )'ex
Used Dove Library in Used Cole Library in Pan Used Ccnno de
Count YO Count 9; Count ?O
L - hever 163 233 Ye 311 393% h 7 Yb.4iu
Once or Tw~ce In the Past
YCN 246 31.2% 29.9% 21
Once or Twrce a Month 256 3?S% I63 20.7% 5 .6 %
Once a Week f- 5 7.0% 45 5.7% I .I%
More Than Once a U ecL 6.1 % 33 I . a IU '
QLlB How often ha\e ~OU used an! of the Carlsbad Cq Ltbrap facilttrcs tn the past year?
Looking at these hbranes individually. there is adifference in use by region. As one would
expect, the Dove Library IS used more frequently by residents in the Southeast Region than by residents
in the other regions. The Cole Library, on the other hand, is used more frequently by those in the
Northwest and Nonheast Reglons. The use of Centro de Informacion was too infrequent to determine
if there were any differences in us? 1.: region at a statistically significant level.
The reasons Carlsbad City residents visit the library was investigated. As shoGn in Table 19,
three quarters (76.8V0) of the respondents said they visited the library to check out or read books or
mapines for enjoyment. Additionall>,. three quaners (75.8%) of the respondents said they visited the
30 January 16,2001 Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRI
were offered by less than half of the respondents. The least fnqumtly cited reason for visiting the
library was to use tecbnology resources (latemet, word processing computers, or type\vriten). Onl!.
18.6% of the rcspondmls reported visiting the library to use these technology resources.
Table 19: Rmsons for Visiting C8rlrb8d City Librrrics.
-Yes NO
Count YO Count YO
C.heck Out or Read Books
or Mapaants For 183 233% 606 76.8%
EnJoymen1
Get Answers to Questions - or to do General Rerearch L 191 243% 598 75.8%
Help Met Educational or
Job-Relared Goals 454 57.5% 335 42.5%
Help Yourself or Your
Children Improve Redtng 485 6 1.5% 304 38.5%
Skills
fake Advantage of
Program the Llbran 4 96 63.0% 29 1 37.0%
Offers
For a @let Place 10 Read
and/or Stud! 537 68. I Yo
ljse the Interne:. H ord
Processtng Computers or 642 8 1.4% I47 I8.6’%
Typewrlrcrs
QLIBVIS - QLIBL’K i am potng to read 3 ~IS! of reasons people use the Carlsbd Clr!
Itbrarlcs. please lndlcale whether or not vou VISII the llbrary for each of the following
reasons
January 16,2001 Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRI 31
There were some regional differences with respect to reasons for visiting a Carlsbad city
library. As illustrated in Table 20a, those residing in the Southwest Region were less likely than the I
the other regions to visit the library in order to help meet educational or job-related goals. Only 3 1.2%
of the Southwest residcgts - offered this reason compared to 42.5% of all Carlsbad residents.
Table 20a: Visited Ubnn for Educotion/Job-Related Coals by Region.
NonhWm NonhEast SOUthEan South\b'esr
Vlslted Library IO Help Visited Library IO Help Vlslted Library to Help Vlstted Llbrar) to Help
Meet Educat~onal or Meet Educatmnal or Meet Eduuuonal or Met Educatlonat or
Job-Related Goals Job-Related Goals Job-Related Goals Job-Related Coals
Count YO Count YO Count YO Count YO
h0 105 54.0% 99 52.1 % 1 os 54.8% IJY b&i.8%o
- Yes 92 46.0% 91. 47.9% 89 45.2% 63 31.2?4 -
QLIBVIS? 1 am gomg to read a iln of reasons people use the Carlsbad C~ty librams. please Indicate whether or no1 you
VISII the library for each of the followmg reasons.
Table ZOb shows that those respondents iiving in the Southwest Region also differed from the
other residents nith respec! to taking advantage of library-offered progmns. Of the respondents in the
Southwest, 45.0% said they visited the librar). in order to take advantage of programs offered by the
library. Thus, residents in the Southwest Region were more likely IO take advantage of such programs
compared to residents across the entire city (37.090).
32 January 16,2001 Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRI
Vlslted Library IO Toke Virncd Library to Take VIS& Library to Take VIsltcd Libran. IO fair
Advantage of Proprams Advantage of Ropnms Advantage of Programs Advantage of Programs
the Library Offers the Libny Offers the Libnry Offen the Library Offers
Count % COUnI VO Corn1 90 Coun! OlO
k0 126 - 64.0% 129 683 ‘Ye 126 653% I1 I 55.07u -
Yes 72 36.0% 60 31.7% 68 34.7% 91 45.0%
In addition to the reasons people offered for visiting the city libraries, the reasons why people
did11 ’t visit the iibraxies were of interest. There were 212 respondents that said that the!. had not used
- any of the Carlsbad City Library facilities in the past year. These people were asked \\.hat had kept
them from using the Carlsbad City Library. Their responses are summarized in Table 2 1. The most
common reason for not visiting the library, offered by 40.1% of the respondents, uas that they had no
interest or need to use the libran,. Additionally. 19.3Y0 of the respondents said they were too busy or
they didn’t have time to visit the ‘library. Many people also indicated that they hadn’t visited the library
because they have other resources that meet their informational needs (1 3.2%), they buy books for
themselves or their children ( 12.7%). or they just moved to Carlsbad (1 1.8%).
33 January 16,2001 Version: City of CarIsbad, 2000 - SBRI
Table 21: Reponed Rcasoos tor Not Visiting Ciry Libraries.
Chosen
count Y* ~ ~~
Have No lntm or Need
for Usmg the Libmy 85 40.1 %
DGnt Have Time 41 193%
-
Have Intema or 0th-
Resources That Meet My 28 13.2%
Needs for Infomtmn
Buy Books for Myself or
My Children 27 12.7%
Jus Moved Hm 2s 1 1.8%
The Library is Too Far
A way or Othtrwrse
lnconvenmt
. Health Related
tise Another Library
Other
8 3.8%
8’ 3.8%
7 3.3%
6 2.8%
~
QNOLIB What has prevented you from usmg the Carlsbad City Library?
~~ - ~
Respondenrs also provided an overall rating of the availability of materials at the city libraries.
Their responses are summanzed in Table 22. Most (89.0%) respondents were pleased with the
availability of matenals. offenng a rating of good or excellent. Only 1.7% of the respondents rated the
libraries as poor in thls respect. These ratings did not vary by region.
16,2001 Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRI 34
Citv Conditions and DeveloDment
Road Conditions
Respondents %.ere asked their impressions of various aspects of the city roads and traffic in the
City of Carlsbad. The responses are summanzed in Table 23. Generally, road conditions were rated
positively. The overall road condition, medlans and landscaping conditions, city street tree conditions,
and curb and sidewalk cond~ttons were rated good or excellent by most (78.1 YO to 80.4%) of the
respondents. Traffic clrculation and parking were rated less favorably. Less than half (40.8%) of the
respondents rated traffic circulation efficlency (excluding freeways) as good or excellent, and a quarter
(25.3%) rated traffic circulation as poor. Additionally, 38.4% of the respondents rated parking
January 16,2001 Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRI 35
availability in the downtown village area as good or excellent, and 2 1.4% rated parking in the village 35
poor.
Table 23: Ratings of Ciry of Carlrbad Road Conditions
c&t yo count ./. Count % Count 50 Count 00
Meo~am rnctor Landscaping 41 4.1% 161 I&IX 560 56.1 ./. 136 73.6% 796 79.7%
Condloon
Oven11 Road
Condtuon 26 2.6% 170 176% 585 u15'!! 219 21.9% SW 80.4%
Curb/Sidcwalk
Condition 35 35% 182 18.4% 576 582% 197 19.9% 773 78.17:;
CIV SUCCI T-
Condition . 47 4.8% 156 15.9% 598 601% 182 185% 780 79.3::;
TnffK CIKu'rtlon 252 253% 338 33.9% 361 36.2% 46 4.6% 407 40.8% Efficmcy - Parkmg Av?ilabiltn -
In Downtown 207 21.4% 389 403% 328 33.9% 44 45% 57 38.4%
Village Area
QSTREETI - QSTREET6 Please nte the condlnon of each of the followmg lt- .s excelht, good. fatr. or poor
Some of these conditions were evaluated differently by residents in different regions. Though
ratings of the overall road condition, medians and landscaping conditions, and city street tree conditions
were consistent across regions, the ratings of the other features of the road conditions were not. Table
24a shows that those in the Korthwest Region were the least satisfied with the curb and sidewalk
condition, and yet 7 1.3% of the residents surveyed in this area rated the curb and sidewalk conditions
to be good or excellent. On the other hand, 7.7% of the Northwest Region residents said the
conditions of the curbs and sidewalks were poor. This is twice the percentage (3.5%) of people
entire sample that offered a poor rating of the curbs and sidewalks.
in the
January 16,2001 Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRI 36
Residents also differed by region in their evaluation of traffic circulation efficiency in the city.
The respondents rated the traffic circulation efficiency, excluding freeways, and a quarter (25.>O,b) of
the respondents across regions rated the traffic circulation as poor. However, in the Fionheast Region,
a third (33.1%) of the respondents rated the tramc circulatinn as poor. This is sten in Table 24b.
Table 24b: Traffic Circulation fflkicnry Ratings by Region.
honhH est NonhEasl SouthEast
Traffic Clrcuiallor, Traffic Clrculatlon Traffic C~rculat~on Traffic Clrcuhon
Efficlenc? R311ng Efficlenc? Ramg Effioencv Raung. EffIclenc? R3tmG.
Exciudmg Frecuahs Excluding Freeways . Excluding Freeways Excludlnp Free\rays
Condinon Ram€ Condltlon Ratmg Condwon Ratlng Condltlon R311ng
Count 4 a Count 00 Counl 0," Count ,I
Poor jc, 22.4"#. a2 33.lfa . jo 22.79,; > Z?.U"/*
Falr 30.0'8. 6' 34.7*.. 96 38.9% SO 32.1%
Good I Oj 41.2*#. .> 2Y.99. 67 35.2% 96 38.62;
Excellent 16 6.4f; 6 2.4% 8 3.2% I6 LI.47.
Total 250 1 OO.O*i; 25 I 100.0:; 24 7 I 00.0% 249 IDO.O%
"
7-
QSTREETs Please rate the condlnon of each of Ihc folio\\ Ing Items as exccllcnl. ::md. falr. or poor
There were.also regional differences in resident attitudes regarding parking. Respondents were
asked to evaluate the parking availability in the downtown village area. Residents In the honhwest
January .16,2001 Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRJ 37
046
Region were more positive about the parking availability than WM those in the Southeast Or South\Wst
Regions. This is illustrated in Table 24c. In the Northwest Region, 9.3% of the respondents said th
parking availability in the downtown village area was excellent, and 45.7% said it was good or
excellent. By comparizon, only 2.6% of the respondents in the Southeast and 1.7 % inthe Southwest
said the parking availability was excellent, and 31.5% of the respondents in the Southeast and 33.8% in
the Southwest said the parkmg in the village was good or excellent.
-
Table 24c: Ratings of Parking Av8ihbUiQ in the VuLpc Am by Region.
L lrionh WCSl SOUthESl SouthWest -
Parkrng Availabllrry In Parlcrng Avaitabiliry in ‘Parkrng Availabilrfy In Parking Avaihbrlq In
Downtown Village Arm Downtown Village Am Downtown Village Area Downtown Villqc Am
Condrnon Rartng Condrtion Ruing Conditron Rnung Condluolt Ratlnp
Count Of0 Count Ye count Y* Count 90 4 oor 20.2% 44 62 25. Vm
Fatr 84 34.0% 98 39.8% 1 IO 46.8% 97 40.4%
Good 90 36.d% 93 37.8% 68 28.9% 77 32.3%
Excellenr 25 9.3 ‘I. II 4 5% 6 2.6% 4 I .7%
Total 24- I00.0./. , 246 100.0% 235 100.0% 240 I OO.OYm
QSTREET6 Pk~e rate tnc condillon of each of the followmg Items as excelirnt, good. fair, Or poor
Public Safety
Feelings ofSc$e?.. Residents were asked about how safe they felt walking alone in their
neighborhood. The residents answered using a zero-to-ten scale where zero means not ut all safe and
ten means uep safe. The results are shown in Table 25. When asked how safe they felt walking alone
in their neighborhood during the day, respondents gave an average rating of 9.46, suggesting that they
Tabk 25: Feetiags of Safety Walking Aknr.
- - Mean Std. N (Avenge) Devntlon
How Safe Responaenr Fceis
Walkmg Alone In thelr
kelghborhood Dunng the 1001 9.46 1.20
Day
How Safe Respondent Feels
Walkmg Aione In thclr loo0 7.54 2.55
Kelghborhood After Dark
Valld N Illstwlse) loo0
QSAFE 1 - QSAFU How safe do you feel walkmg alone In your
neighborhood ?
I 40 i
20 -
0
NO! At All Safe 4 6 8 Very Safe
3 5 7 9
Feelmgs of Safety
Figure 5: Feelings of Safety Walking Alone in the Day.
I
39 January 16,2001 Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRI
pp?
the zero-to-ten scale, residents provided an average response of 7.54, suggesting that the!, stili felt s, .
at night. Th~s is shown in Table 25. Residents did feel significantly more safe during the day than they
did at night. While 85,S% - offered a response of 9 or 10 (very safe) when asked about Wlalking alone
during the day, only 41.4% offered a response of 9 or 10 when asked about walking alone a[ tuglrr.
Figure 6 shows the distribution of responses to this question. Comparing Figures 5 and 6 illustrates the
difference in how safe respondents feel walking alone in their neighborhood in the day versLs night.
L
L
No1 AI All Sate 2 4 6 Very Safe
1 3 5 7 9
Feelings of Safety
Flgure 6: feellngs of Safety Walking Alone at Night.
Feelings of safety walking alone in their neighborhood after dark did differ by region. Table
26a shows average 'feelings of safety ratings by region. Those in the Northwest did feel less safe (6.99)
walking alone at night in their neighborhood than did residents in the Northeast (8.02) and the
January 16,2001 Version: City of Carlsbad, ZOO0 - SBRI 40
Mm Std.
N (Average) Denation
rUOrKhk.cn 7'50 '1 82 - 6.99 -.
NorrhEan 25 1 8.02 2.34
SouthEast 250 7.62 1.29
southwen 249 7.53 2.61
QSAFU How safe do you feel dlung alone m your
nclghborilood after dark?
There was also a difference in feelings of safety by gender. That is, females felt less safe than
males walking in their neighborhood alone at night. This is illustrated in Table 26b. While males offered
an average feeling of safer?. raring of 8.54. females offered an average rating of 6.86.
Table 26b: Feelings of Safep N'alking Alone After Dark by Gender.
M can Std.
R's Gender ri (Average) Devlauon
Hov. Saie Respondent Feers Mate 407 8.54 I .go
Walkrng Alone In thelr
Neighborhood Ahn Dark Ftmak 593 6.86 2.75
January 16,2001 Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRI 41
043
.
crime.
Exposure ro Crime. The survey also addressed City of Carlsbad residents' exposure to
Respondents were asked if they or anyone in their household had been the victim of a crime
Carlsbad in the past 12 months. The responses to this question arc summarized in Table 27. Only
8.0% of the respondents - said that they or someone in their household had been a vicrim of a crime in
Carlsbad in the past year. Of those 80 respondents indicating they or a household member had been
victimized, most (80.0%) said the crime had been reported to the police. Exposure to cnme did not
vary by region.
Count Yo Count b/b
Memoer of Fanxi) Vrct~m of
Cnme ~n Carlsbad Donng The 92 1 92.0% 80 S.O./U
PYI I2 Months
Member of Famll! Reponed
Cnme to the Polm 16 20.0% 61 80.0%
QCRJMEI - QCRIbIE2 Durq the pas1 I2 months have you or has anyone In your
household been a ~cnm of any cnme In Carisbad' If yes. dld any member of your
household. repon the cnme(s) to the pol~ce'
Confiderrce I~I Emergent>. Sen*lres. Respondents were asked about their confidence in
poIice and fire departments to respond to emergencies. Residents were asked to respond on a scale of
zero-to-ten where zero means not ar all conjdenr and ten means vety confdenr, how confident they
were in the fire department's ability to respond to a medical or fire emergency. Table 28 shows that,
confidence in fire protection services.
60
50
40
30
20
NO! At kli Confident 2 5 7 9
1 3 6 8 Very Confident
Confidence in Fire Department
Ftgure 7: Confidence in Fire Department's Ability to Respond.
As with the fire department, respondents rated'their confidence in the police depanment's
ability to respond 10 a police emergency. Again. the ratings are on a 0 to 10 scale with higher numbers
indicating greater confidence. Residents'expressed confidence in the police department's ability to
respond to police emerzencies, as indicated by an average confidence rating of 8.32, 3s seen in Table
28. However, this.rating is not as hgh as that for the fire department. As with the fire department,
there was some vanability in responses, and 22.7% of the respondents offered a confidence rating of 7
January 16.2001 Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRI 43
Table 28: Avenge Flrtinp of Confidence in Emyeoq Semim. - N Mean Std. Dewatlon
Connacncc m t Ire
Depamnent's Ability to
Respond to a Med~cal or
Flre Emergency
926 8.87 1.48
Confidence m Pol~ce
Depamnent's Abilq to
Respond to a Pol~ce
Emergency
949 8.42 1.67
c
L
Valid N (I~stw~se) 917
QCONFIDI - QCONFIDZ On a scale of 0 to IO. whm ten means very
confident and zero means not at all confident ..... bow confident are you In the
foiiowtng SCWCCS?
60 1
40 -
30 -
20 -
'E 10-
2 Q,
20
No1 AI All Confident 2 4 6 8 Very Conflc
1 3 .5 ' 7 9
nt
Confidence In Pollce Department
..
Figure 8: Confidence in the Police Department's Ability to Respon
January 16,2001 Version: City of Carlsbad. ZOO0 - SBRI 44
.
nm was a diffA~e by =&on in the ratings of the fire @-CI& but not the poiice
department, Specifically, the residents in the Southeast Region expressed icss confidence (8.57) in the
fire department's ability to respond to a medical or fin emergency than did residents in the North\vest
(9.08) or Northeast (8.95) - Regions. This is sccn in Table 29. Again, this is consistent with the general
ratings of fire protection services. It should be noted that though the average confidence rating in tile
fire department's ability to respond to an emergency is relatively Iowa in the Southeast Re, (lion. it is still
indicative of a high level of confidence.
Table 29: Confidence in Fire Department's Ability
to Respond by Region.
Level of Confidence in FIR Depamnent's Abiltry to
Resbond to a Medical or Flrc Emernencv
Mean Sld.
N (Average) Devuaon
Lonhhcst 230 9.05 I .30
\onhEm 240 8.96 1.47
SouthEasl ' 216 8.57 I .66
SourhWesr 232 8.84 I .45
Toral 916 8.87 I .48
QCOKFIDI Hou confident are you In the fire depanmen:'~
ablllry IO respond to a medlcal or fire emergency?
Development
Development in the city was also given attention. This was an imponant issue to the
respondents as well. Respondents were asked about a number of' types of development. Specifically,
they were asked if they would like to see more or fewer of various types of development or structures. .
January 16,2001 Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRI 45
Table 30 summarizes their responses. TWO brds (66.3%) of the respondents said they would like to
see more cntertainmmt venues, such as movie theatm, live stage theatm, or art museums, while
18.5% said they would like to set fcwa entertainment venues. More than half the respondents
(58.7%) said there should - be more specialty grocery stores.
Table 30: Preference lor Development io the City of C8rlrbid.
( Fewer Of More Of
count YO count Ye Count ?O
Entenamment L enues 184 18.5% 151 15.2% 656 663”/i
Spectalry Grocery Stores . 182 234% 139 17.9Yo 457 58.7%
Upscale, Fine Drnmg 213 21.4% 190 19.1% 593 Restaurants 59.5%
Samlly Style Restaurants 155 2!i.79’0 236 23.8% 500 50.5%
Small Hclghborhood
Retallcrs 333 334% 274 27.6% 386 38.9%
Cas Statlons 427 43.1% 22s 23.0% 336 33.9%
Drug SIores . 393 39.5% 282 28.4% 3 19 32. I21
Grocery Stores 3 97 40.1 % 323 32.6% 27 I 27.3%
Slnglc Family Housmg 589 59.9% 137 13.9% 258 26.2%
Depamnent Stores 468 47.1 % 278 28.0Yo 247 2 4 .Y’%
Multl-Famlly Housing 666 67.3% I24 12.5% 199 20.1 %L
hlultl-Store Shoppmg
Centers 569 57.8% 220 22.3% I96 19.9%
The responses regarding restaurants were interesting. More than half the respondents (59.5%)
suggested that there should be more upscale, fine dining restaurants, and about half (SO.S*/O) of the
respondents said there should be more family-style restaurants. On the other hand, only 9.0% said
there should be more fast food resraurants while 67.3% said there should be fewer. More people
January 16,2001 Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRI 46
neighborhood retailers (33.5%).
Other types of development were less popular. That is, for other types of development. more
people said they wouldJike fewer of these rather than more. Particularly unpopular \vert. convenience
stores, multi-family housing units, and as noted above, fast food restaurants. For each ofthese [>pes of
-
development, about two thirds of the respondents said they would like to see fewer of these in
Carlsbad. Most people also wanted to see fewer big box retail stores, single-family housing unlts. and
multi-store shopping centers.
-- Devefopmenr by Region. Preference for development in the City of Carlsbad differed by
region. This was the case for a number of different types of development. Table 3 1 a shows thar
preference for gas stations differed by region. Most people in the Southeast Region ivould like to see
more gas stations. while most people in the other regions would like to see the same or fewer gas
stations.
47 January 16,2001 Version: City of Carlsbad, ZOO0 - SBRJ
c-
z There was also a regional differmce with respect to grocery stores. This is seen in Table 3 1 b.
The residents in the Northeast were more likely than those in the Southeast to indicate that they would
like to see more grocery stores.
Table 31 b: Preference for Grocery Stores by Region.
REGION
More Of Count 62 90 52 67 27 I
% wlrhln REGIOK 24.8% 363% 2 1.2% 27.0% 27.3%
Total Count 250 248 243 246 YYI
wthm REGIOK 100 Onro 100 0% 100.Oo/o 100.Oo~o 100 0%
QDEVELZ Please tell me If you would llke to see more of or fewer of each of the followmg Items.
48 January 16,2001 Version: Ciry of Carisbad, ZOO0 - SBRI
There was a regional effect for convenience stores. Those residents in the bionhwest Region
were least likely to say they wanted to see more convenience stores. This is seen in Table j 1 c.
QDEVEL3 Please ell me If you would llke w see mom of or fwn ofeach of the followrnp ltems
The preferenc:: for drug slores also varied by region. This is illustrated in Table 2 Id. Ivhich
shows that ,in the Northern Regions. only about a quarter of the residents said they wanted more drug
stores, while in the Southern Regions 35%-40% of the residents would like to see more drug stores.
Overall, though. residents were more likel>- to say they would like to see fewer than were likely to say
they would like to see more drug stores.
49 January 16,2001 Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRI
052
More Of Count 61 71 99 as 3 I9
VO withm REGION 24.5% 28.5% 40.2vo 35.2% 32. I so
2.50 994
Vowithln REGION 100.0% IOO.€Ph 100.0?/, IOO.~h 100.090
Total Counr 249 249 246
QDEVEL4 Please tell me if you would like to KC mote Of Or fewer of uch of the following Items.
z There was a North - South division with respect to the preference for department stores.
Table 3 1 e shows that in the Southwest Regon, almost as many residents would like to see more
department stores as would like to see fewer. This contrasts --x. ith !he rest of the tit),. in which residents
have a clear preference for fewer dcpanment stores.
Tahlc 3Ir: Preference lor Drpanmcnl Stores b? Region.
REGlOh'
hionhhest NorthEast SourhEast Southwest To131 u More or Fewer 01 I31 I IY 9 4bU
Fewer
Depanment
* ullhln REGION 49.87; 52.4% 47.8% 38.5% 47.1%
SIOreS Just the ken: Counl: 8j 82 49 6.4 278
QDEVEU Please tell me If you would hke to see more of or tewer of each of the followme ems
..
January 16,2001 Verslon: City of Carlsbad, ZOO0 - SBRI 50
Preferences varied rtgions for multi-store shopping centers. This can be seen in Table
3 1 f. About a quarter of those in the Southern Regions said they would like to see more multi-store
shopping centers, compared to about half as many in the Northern Regions.
Table 31f: Prrfereace for hlultistore Shopping Ccatm by win.
REGION
NonhWm NonhErn Soulhtsl SouthWest Total
More or icwn Fewer 01 Count I56 I36 142 131 N'I
Shopplng
Centers lusr the Ibghr Count
Multl-Store o/. withrn REGION 63.2% 56.4Y; 51.3% ,U.?C,o 57,s:"
62 62 46 50 220
25.19; 25.726 18.5% 20.1 vi 22.3%
More Of Count 29 43 60 64 I Vo
A moun t Yo wthm REGION
% wnhm REGION I1 .WE 19 VY."
Big box retailers (such as Costco, Target, or Home Depot) were rather unpopular throughout
the city, bur particularly so In the Northwest Region. This regional effect is illustrated in Table 3 lg.
51 January 16,2001 Version: City of Carisbad, 2000 - SBRI
Amount - % withln REGION 30.6% 313% 30.8% 34.4% 3 1.8%.
More Of Counr 8 20 22 31 SI
9O withrn REGIOh' 33 % 8.0% 8.89'0 12.4% 8.1 ./;
foul Count 248 250 250 250 996
% within REGION 100.OYo 100.0% 100.00! 100.001o 100.0%
QDEML 12 Please tell me if you would like to see more of or fcwa of each of the followmg Items.
Respondents were asked a number of questions about features of the City of Carlsbad such as
what they liked most about Carlsbad, and what their biggest concerns about Carisbad were. This
section describes the responses to these questions.
When asked what they like most about living in the City of Carlsbad, respondents offered a
variety of different answers These answers are summarized in Table 32. The most commonly cited
feature in response to this question was proximity to the'beach. Nearly a third (30.8'1b) of the
respondents mentioned this as what they like most about living in Carlsbad. The weather was the
second most commonly cited feature; 20.1 YO of the respondents mentioned the weather or climate as
what they liked most. Additionall>,, 18.9% of the respondents identified location, and 15.3% identified
the community and people as what they like most about living in Carlsbad. At least 10% of the
January 16,2001 Version: Clty of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRl 52
city.
20 I 20.1 Yo
Locatlon 189 18.9%
Like the
Commun;ry/Pwplc
Small Town Fnl
Beautiful
I53 153%
I22 12.2%
121 12.1 %
OBAD 1 What do you like most about lrvlng m the C~ry of Carlsbad’
The features people liked most about living in Carlsbad differed by region. As one would
expect, the residenrs in the 5orthwest and Southwest Regions were more likely to mentlon proximity to
the beach as whar they liked best about living in Carlsbad. As shown in Table 33a. 37.2% of residents
in the Southwest Reyon and 32.0% of the residents Northwest Region cited the ocean or the beach as
the thing they liked most about living in Carlsbad compared to 28.39; for the Northeast Region and
25.6% for the Southeast Region.
January 16. 2001 Version: City of Carlsbad. 2000 - SBRI 53 .:
@54
.-
Llkts Most About Lwmg Likes Most About Livlng Likes Mom About'Llvlng Likes Most About Ltvtng
In Car1sbad:Thc In Carlsbad:The in C8rlsbd:Thc in Culsbad:Thc
Buch/Closc to the Ocm Bac~closc to the ocan BeacWClo~e to the Ocesn Beach;Closc IO the Ocean
Count Ym Count % Count 46 Count 90 - 80 - 32.0% 71 2a3% 64 25.6% 93 37.2%
QBADl What do you like most about lrvlng in the CI~ of Chbad?
There was also variability across regions with respect to the likelihood of stating tila1 the small-
town feel of Carlsbad is what they like most about living in the city. As one would expect, residents in
tk Northwest Region were most likely to say the small-town feel is what they like most about living in
Carlsbad. This is illustrated in Table 33b. Residents in the Northeast Region were also more likely
than those the Southern regions to mention the small-town feel of Carlsbad.
fable 33b: Small-Town Feel is the Best Aspect of Living in Carisbad by Region.
\onniCcs: honhEas: SourhEan SouthU CSI
LlkCS \lOS: .ADOUl LlkCS bios1 .4bOUl Likes Most About Llkes Mos~ About
Imf In CJrtsDad Small IVmg In Carlsbad.Srnalt lung In Car1sbad:Srnall tvlng In Car1sbad:Srnall
Town Feel Town Feel Town Feel Town Feel
Coun1 0 '0 Coum 50 . Count $0 Couni $0
Chosen JE 19.2% 4 I 16.3% 14 5.6% 19 7.6%
QBADl What do you lrkc most abour lrvlng In the Ctry of Carlsbad? ~~~~ ~
Respondents were also quened regarding what concerns they had about Carlsbad
Specifically, they were asked what their biggest concern is regarding the City of Carisbad. These
concerns are displaied in Table 34. The most common complaint was traffic - 36.4% of the
respondents said traffic was their biggest concern regarding Carlsbad. Related are the concerns with .
54 January 16,2001 Verslon: City of Carlsbad, 3000 - SBRI
- prowth, expressed by 3 1.6%; ovm-development, expressed by 19.3%, ad ovcr-populationl
expressed by 1 1.6%. Some (4.2%) residents said they had no concans regarding Carlsbad.
Tabk 34: Residents' Bqgest Concern Regarding Carisbad. -
L
L
Growth (General) /Growmg
Too Fan 316 31.6%
Overdeveloping 1 Overbuilding 1 93 19.3%
Owrcrowdmg 1
Overpopulanon
Cosr of Llvmg/Housmg
BeacWEnvlonrment
C~ty Councll Ronrles
Poltce,Cnrnc
Schools
Other
\o Concerns
116 11.6%
OB 4 DZ \{'ha1 IS your bgpest concem repardlng the C~ry of Carlsbad?
Concern uxh traffic differed by resion. As Table 35 shows, residents in.the Northwest were
the least likely (27.6'0~ 10 rnenrlon traffic as their biggest concern, while those in the Xonheast were
most likely (45.0%) to IISI traffic as their biggest concern.
January 16,2001 Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRI 55
~~
Chosen 69 27.6% 113 45.0Ye 93 372% 89 35.6%
QBADZ Whar IS your blggcst concm mmg the City of CUM?
Respondents were asked what they would like to see in their neighborhood. Their responses
are found in Table 36. More than anyhng else (14.3%), residents said they would like to see less
-. traffic, development, and housing. Many people (16.5%) said they like their neighborhood the way it -
is, and there is notlung they would like to set change.
January 16,2001 Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBIU 56
Table 36: Wbat Raidcots Would Like to See in Tbar
kigbborbood.
Chooscn
Caunr 50
LCSS
TmffidDevelopmcnVHouring - other - More Parks
Street lmprovcments ’
ShopplnglRecaiUGrocq
Stores
Landscaplng
Addtoonal PollcdEnforcement
Gas Statlons
PO01
Power Llnes Underground
Llkcs heqhborhood the Way
It Idtiothlng
143
I13
73
63
34
165
143%
3.4%
16.5%
. QBAD3 What would you hke to see ~n your nelghborhood’
There was one regional difference worth noting. That is, those rcsidents in thi :..anhwest were ..
less Interested In seem; more parks in their neighborhood than those in the other reglons. This IS seen in
Tahte 37
Table 31: Desire IO scc hiore Parks in the fiecighborhood by Region.
honh Vv CSI honhEm SouthEast SOUIil~i esl
Thlngs Respondent Ibould Thlngs Responden! Would Thtngs Respondent Would Thlngs ResponJcnr N’ould
Llkc to See In Their Llke io See In Thclr Llkc IO Sec In Thctr Llkc IO See In Thclr
Ne1ghborhood:More Parks hieqhborhood.Morc Parks Nelghborhood’Mort Parks hetghborhood hlore ParAs
Count YO Count VO Counr % Count ‘ 0”
Chosen 6 2.4% 16 ’ 7.2% 21 8.4% X 1 I . ’ 9;
QBAD3 What would you Itkc 10 see In your nclphborhooL’
Cie Information
Respondents were asked what sources they used to get information about the City of Carlsbad.
Table 38 shows their responses. - The most common source of information about Carisbad \;.as local -
news, utilized by two thirds (67.5%) of the residents. The second most commonly cited source of
information about Carlsbad was the Community Services and Recreation Guide, used by 60.79b. The
North County Times, the San Diego Union Tribune, and the local cable channel were also used by
about half the respondents. The city web page, and word of mouth also served as sources of
information about Carlsbad for some people. -
Table 38: Soums of information about Carlsbad.
Count Yo 9 oca ews
Communlry Serv~ces
Recreation Culde
\onh County Tlmes
Local Cable Channel
60s 60.7%
Sm D~epo hlon Trlbune 489 48.90/0
Ctr! Neb Page
k'ord of Mouth
The Coast Paper 43 4.3 '10
FlycrslPost~ngs
Carlsbad Ctry Councll
40 4.0%
29 2.9%
Other
QCJTYJNF From whar sources do you get mformauon abou
the CIry of Carlsbad?
I IO 1 I .O%
January 16,2001 Verslon: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRI 58
Confidence in City Government
Respondents were asked the extent to whch they were confident in the Carlsbad cit~.
- eovernment to make decisions that positively affect the lives of its community membe,rs. Respondents
answered on a scale of - zero-to-ten, wbm zero means nor or uZZ confidenr and ten means IV~.
conjidenr. On average, residents offered a confidence rating of 6.04, suggesting confidence in tit!,
-
- eovernment. The distribution of confidence ratings by region is displayed in Figure 9.
I kt! Confloen: 2 6 8 Very Confla e nt
1 3 5 7 9
Confidence In City Government
Flgure 9. Confidence In City Government.
59 January 16,2001 Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRI
govcmmcnt to make decisions that positively impact the lives of residents were assessed with respe
their relation to demographic characteristics of Carlsbad residents. The confidence ratings did not vaT
by region. They did, h_owcva, - differ between men and women. While males offered an average
confidence rating of 5.83, women on average, rated their Confidence in the city governen[ at 6.18 on
the zero-to-ten scale. This is sem in Table 39a
Table 399: Confidence in City Government by Gender.
Level of Confidence in Carlsbad City Government to Make
Posltwe Decrsions
Std.
N MW Deviation
Xtak 395 5.83 2.58
Female 563 6.18 2.49
Tow1 95 8 6.04 2.53
OCONFID3 How confident arc you in the Carlsbad City
goc.ernmenr to make decisions which positively affect the live
of 11s communlly members?
Additionall!., as seen In Table 39b. there was a slight effect associated with Income level. That
is, those with an annual household income under S25.000 had greater confidence in clty government
than those with annual household incomes of S I?5,000 and above.
January 16,2001 Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRl 60
Std. - N MCUl Devmon
Lnocr S3uuu >> 6.62 2.49
55.000 ro under 535.000 73 6,lO 2.49
535.000 to under 550.000 122 6.24 2.53
550.000 ro under 575.000 160 6.26 2.36
575.000 IO under 5 IO0,OOO I77 6.1 1 2.32
s 100.000 to 5 125.OOo 93 5.75 2.63
-
S 125.000 and Above 140 5.47 2.78
Toral 820 6.06 32
~ ~~
QCOKFlD3 How confident are you In the Carisbad Cny government IO
make declslons whlch portrtvely affm the lives of ITS comrnunny
members?
~~
There was a difference in confidence in city government between those who own their homes
and those lseho rent Those who rent their homes expressed greater confidence in the city government
than did those who own theu homes. This is seen in Table 39c.
Table 39c: Confidence in City Government by Home Ownemhip. ' '
Level of Confidence in Carlsbad Ciry Government to
Make Positive Decisions
- Sld. - N Ma Deviation
wn .6 1
Rent I89 6.49 2.1 8
Total 953 6.0s 2.54
QCONFID3 How confident are you in the Carlsbad
Ciry government to make decisions which positively
affect the lives of its community members?
There was also a slight negative relationshp between the number of years the respondenr lived ..
in Carlsbad and their confidence in the city government to make decisions that positi\pel>p affect the lives
of Carlsbad residents. That is. the longer a person lived in Carlsbad, the less confidence they had in t
city government.
Comct-ru abour Curisbad umi Corljiderrce iu CrrX Governnlenl. The relationship bettsveen the
concerns of Carlsbad residents and confidence in city government was examined. There were a few
concerns that were expressed by residents that were related to the respondents' confidence in the city
government. One such concern was general growth in the city. This is seen in Table 3Ua. Those
respondents indicating that their biggest concern regarding Carlsbad was general groupth expressed a
lower degree of confidence in the city government than did those who did not mention general growth
as their biggest concern.
January 16,2001 Version: Ciry of Carisbad, 2000 - SBRI 62
Std. Lower Lpper
N MCiW Dewuion Std. Emor Bound Bound
hor Choosrn - 654 6.16 2.59 .IO 5.96 0.30
General Growth 304 5.78 2.40 .14 5.5 1 b.05
Total 958 6.04 2.53 .08 5.8s 6.20
QCONFID3 How confident are you In the Carlsbad Ciry government to make dcclslons which poslr~vcl!
affect the hvcs of its communlty membm?
-
Similarly, there was a relationship between concern about over-development and confidence in
tke city government to make decisions that positively afiect members of their community. Those who
mentioned over-development as their biggest concern regarding Carlsbad expressed lower confidence
in the city government than did those who did not mention over-development as their biggest concern.
This is shown in Table 4Ob
63 January 16.2001 Version: City of Carlsbad, ZOO0 - SBRI
\.
Table 40b: Concern about Over-dcvelopmcnt and Confidence in City Government.
Level of Confidence in Carisbad City Government to Make Positive Decisions
he Internal for Mean
Std. . . Lower Upper
N Mm Deviation Std. Error Bound Bound
hot Chooscn - 171 6.20 2.4 I 09 b.03 b.jb
Overdevelopment 187 5.36 . 2.69 -20 4.96 5.75
Total 958 6.04 . 253 .08 5.88 6.20
QCOMID3 How confident arc you in the Carlsbad City government to make decisions which posttlvel>
affect the lives of its community mcmben?
Concern about city council priorities was associated with confidence in city government. Not
- sqrisingly, respondents who said their were concerned about city council priorities were less confident -
that the city government would make decisions that had a positive impact on them. This is shown in
Table 40c.
There was a small number of individuals that said they had no concerns when they were asked
about their biggest concern regarding Carlsbad. Those who said they had no concerns differed from
the rest of the respondents. As .Table 4Od shows, those reporting no concerns rated their confidence in
city government considerably hgher rhan the other respondents.
Table 4Od: No Coocerns 8nd Confideon io City Coveromcot.
Level of Confidence in Cglsbad Ciry Government to Make Posinvc Dccislons
95% Confidence Interval for Alcm
Std. Lower
h' Mean Dewation Std. Error Bound Liuoer Bound
hot Cnoosen Y I!, 5.96 32 .06 >.E 0 1;
..
KO Concerns 39 7.38 2.45 .3 9 6.59 E IF
WXar Residents Like Most dour Carisbud and Confidence in Cin Goverrlalerlt. The
relationship between what Carlsbad residents like most about living in the City of Carlsbad and
confidence in city sovemment was also examined. Only the endorsement of one feature of Carisbsd
was associated wtth respondents' confidence in the Carlsbad city government to make decisions that
positively affect resldenls That is. those. who mentioned city government and sewices as what they
liked most about li\.tng In Carlsbad had a higher level of confidence in the city government than the other
respondents. Thls IS seen In Table 41
65 January 16,2001 Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRI
Level of Confidence in carlsbad City Govcmmmt to Make Positive Decisions
Sf0r
std. Lower
N Ma Deviation Std. E& Bound Upper Bound
hot Choosen 866 5.92 2.52 09 5.76 0.W
C~ry Govemmcnt & Sew~ces 92 7.12 2.44 25 6.61 7.63
Total 958 6.04 2.53 .OS 5.88 6.20
-
QCONFID3 How confident are you In the Carisbad Ciry govmment to make dcclslons whlch posmvely affect the hves of 11s
communlry members?
The respondents gave an indication of the importance of having clear (fiee of facilities such as
pates, towers, and wires) landscaping and view corridors. Specifically, they were asked if they would
be willing to pay hgher taxes in order to keep landscaping and view corridors fiee of such facilities. As
indicated in Table 42, more than half (64.1%) of those responding said they would accept a tax
increase to assure that facilities arc kept from appearing on the landscape or view comdors.
Willingness to increase tax to keep view comdors clear did not differ by region.
66 January 16,2001 Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRI
Vatid CumulJtrvc
Frequency Pacent Pcrccnt Percent
3 a1 0 5.9
YCS 613 61.2 64.1 100.0
Total - 957 95.6 100.0
Mlsslng Don'know 42 4.2
Refused 2, .2
Total 44 4.4
Total 1001 100.0
QFACILT Would you be willmg to tncrcase your taxes to assure that facillnes are kept from
appeanng on the landscape or m VIW corridors (like poles, tom and w~ru)?
Internet Access
Respondents were asked 'if they used the Internet at home. Three quarters (76.5°/u;~ of the
respondents stated that they hadhernet access. As seen in Table 43, there were regional differences
in the likelihood of ha\~ng Internet access at home. Those in the Southeast Region were more likely
(84.8%) to use the Internet at home, while those in the Northwest Region were relatively less likely
(68.8%) to use the Interne1 at home.
January 16,2001 Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRI 67
Table 43: Use of tbe Internet 8t Home by Region. s Konh West Southli'est
Respondent Uses the Respondent Uses the Respondent Uses the Respondent UKS the
lntmet at Home lntcmct I Home inremet af Home Internet at Home
Counr % Count Ye Count YO Count o/o .
h0 15 =31.2'!!' 62 24.7% 35 15.2'% 3. 22.8YU
Yes 1 72 68.8% I89 753% 21' 84.8% 192 772Y;
QINETl Do you use the internet at home?
Those 766 people who said that they did have Internet access were asked if they had a high
speed Internet connection. Of those responding, 27.1% said they did have a high speed Internet
cmection. Asain we see an interesting regional,effect, illustrated in Table 44. Residents in the
Southeast that have an Internet connection were least likely (2 1.7%) to have a high speed connection,
while those from the Nonhwest were most likely (38.0%) to have a high speed connection. While
residents in the Nonhwest were feasr likely to have an Internet connection, considering those that do,
Northwest Region resldenrs were must likely to have a high speed connection.
Table 44. Respondent Has a High Speed Internet Connection by Region.
Counl 0 '0 Counr 0 Counr 90 Count
h0
Yo
1 U3 b?.O'/o 135 7 5.3 'io 1 jY 78.390 13Y 74.3%
Yes 63 38.0% 45 24.T0/o 44 2 1 .f% 48 25.7%
Total I66 100.0% 1 82 100.0% 203 100.0% IS7 I00.09'0
QINETZ Do you have a hlgh speed tntcmet connectlon (such as a DSL. ISDK or TI l1nc)q
68 January 16,2001 Version: City of Carisbad, 2000 - SBRI
Appendix A
Questionnaire Items - City of Carlsbad Public Opinion survey
CQAREA 1 > Are you cpentiy a resident of Carlsbad?
0. No
1. Yes
8. Don't Know
9. Refused
cQAREA2> First, to be sure that you live in our study area, what is your zip code?
L
L
1 .. 92008
2.92009
3. Other
8. Don't Know
9. Refused
QAREA2 Zip Code
Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid 1 92008 50 1 50.0 50.0 50.0
2 92009 500 50.0 50.0 100.0
Total 1001 100.0 100.0
1
<QAREA3> To be sue we talk to people from all areas of Carlsbad, do you live East or West of El Camino Real?
1. East
2. West
8. Don’t Know
S& Refused
QAREA3 EnsWest of El Camino Real
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid 1 East 50 1 50.0 50.0 50.0
2 West 500 50.0 50.0 100.0
L - Total 1001 100.0 100.0
<QCBAD I > What do you like most about living in the City of Carlsbad?
QBADI-1 Thing Respondent Likes Most About Living In
Carlsbad:Weather/Climate
Valid Cumulative
Freauencv Percent Percent Percent
~ Valid 0 Not Choosen 799 79.8 79.8 79.8
I Choosen 202 20.2 20.2 100.0
~ ~~ ~~
Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI 2
QBAD1-2 Thing Respondent Likes Most About Living In Carlsbad:The
BeacWClose to the Ocean
Valid Cumulntrve
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid 0 Not Chooscn , 695 69.4 69.4 69.1
1 Choascn 306 30.6 . 30.6 100.0
Total 1001 100.0 100.0
QBAD1-3 Thing Respondent Likes Most About Living In Car1sbad:Location
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
L L Valld 0 Not Chooscn 906 90.5 90.5 90.5
1 Choosen 95 9.5 9.5 100.0
Total 1001 1-00.0 100.0
QBAD1-4 Thing Respondent Likes Most About Living In Car1sbad:Small Town
Feel
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Va11d 0 hot Choosen 893 89.2 89.2 89.2
1 Chooscn 108 i 0.8 10.8 100.0
Total 1001 100.0 100.0
Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI 3
QBADI-5 Thing Respoodeot Likes Most About Living In
Csrlsbad:Quiet/Pcocelul
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid 0 Not Choosen 918 91.7 91.7 91.7
1 Cfioosen 83 8.3 8.3 100.0
QBADl-6 Thing Respondent Likes Most About Living In
Carlsbad:BePutifuVClean
~~ ~ Valid Cumulative
- Frequency Percent Percent Percent - Valid 0 Not Choosen 864 86.3 86.3 86.3
1 Choosen 137 13.7 13.7 100.0
QBADI-7 Thing Respondent Likes Most About Living In Carlsbad:Like the
Community/People
Valid Cumulative
Valid 0 Not Choosen 852 85.1 85.1 85.1
I Choosen I49 14.9 14.9 100.0
Total 1001 100.0 100.0
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
4
QBADI-8 Thing Respondent Likes Most About Living In C8rlrbad:Convience
of Location
Valid Cumulatrve
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Vaild 0 hiot Choosen 897 89.6 89.6 89.6
1 choosen 104 10.4 10.4 100.0
Total 1001 100.0 100.0
- -
QBADI-9 Thing Respondent Likes Most About Living In Car1sbad:City
Government
Valid Cumulatwe
Valid 0 Kot Choosen 909 90.8- 90.8 90.6
1 Choosen 92 9.2 9.2 100.0
Total 1001 100.0 100.0
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
QBADl-10 Thing Respondent Likes Most About Living la Car1sbad:Safe
Valid Cumulative
Vahd 0 hot Choosen 934 93.3 93.3 93.3
1 Choosen 67 6.7 6.7 100.0
Total 1001 100.0 100.0
~~
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI . 5
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid 0 Not Choosen 964 96.3 96.3 96.3
1 Choosen 37 3.7 3.7 100.0
Total- - 1001 100.0 100.0
QBADl-12 Thing Respondent Likes Most About Living In Car1sbad:Other
Valid Cumulative
Vahd 0 Not Choosen 904 90.3 90.3 90.3
1 Choosen 97 9.7 9.7 100.0
Total 1001 100.0 100.0
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
QBADI-13 Thing Respondent Likes Most About Living In Car1sbad:Dont Know
Valid Cumulative
Valid 0 hot Choosen 1001 100.0 100.0 100.0
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
QBADl - 14 Thing Respondent Likes Most About Living In Car1sbad:Refused
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid 0 Not Choosen 1001 100.0 100.0 100.0
Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI 6
<QCBAD2> What is your biggest concern regarding the City of Carlsbad?
QBAD2-1 Respondents Biggest Concern Regarding Carlsbad:Growth (general)
/Growing too.f.st
Valid Cumulatwe
Valid 0 sot Choosen 685 68.4 68.4 6ti.4
1 Choosen 316 31.6 31.6 100.0
Total 1001 ' 100.0 100.0
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
QBAD2-2 Respondents Biggest Concern Regarding Carlsbad:Overcrowding /
- - Overpopulation
Valid Cumulative
Valld 0 hot Choosen 885 88.4 88.4 88.4
1 Choosen 116 1-1.6 11.6 100.0
Total 1001 100.0 1000
Frequency Pcrcent Percent Percent
QBAD2-3 Respondents Biggest Concern Regarding Car1sbad:Overdeveloping /
Overbuilding
Valld Cumulatrve
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid 0 hot Choosen 808 80.7 80.7 80.7
1 Choosen 193 19.3 19.3 100.0
Total I001 100.0 100.0
Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI .
,
QBAD2-4 Respondents Biggest Concern Regarding Carisbad:Tmlfic
Valid Cumulauve
Frequency Percent 'Percent Percent
Vahd 0 Not Choosen 637 63.6 63.6 63.6
1 Choosen 364 36.4 36.4 100.0
To& 1001 100.0 100.0
QBADt-5 Respoodcnts Biggest Concern Regarding Car1sbad:Cost of
Living/Housing
Frequency Percent Percent Percent 1 Valid 0 hot hooscn 94.9 94.9
1 Choosen 51 5.1 5.1 100.0
Total 1001 100.0 100.0
QBAD2-6 Respondents Biggest Concern Regarding Carbbad:No Concerns
~~ ~ ~~~ Valid Cumulative
Valid 0 hot Choosen 959 95.8 95.8 95.8
1 Choosen 42 4.2 4.2 100.0
Total I001 100.0 ton n
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI
~~ Valid Cumulative
Valid 0 Not Chooscn 96 / 96.6 96.6 96.6
1 cbooscn 34 3.4 3.4 100.0
TI%% 1001 100.0 100.0
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
QBAD2-8 Respondents Biggest Concern Regarding Car1sbad:PolicelCrime
Valid Cumulat~ve
Valid 0 Not Choosen 974 97.3 97.3 97.2
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
- .. 1 Choosen 27 2.7 2.7 100.0
Total 1001 100.0 100.0
QBAD2-9 Respondents Biggest Concern Regarding Carlsbad:Schools
Valid Cumulatw
Frequency Percent Percent Percent 1 Vaild u ~OI hooscn
I Choosen 22 2.2 2.2 100.0
Total 1001 100.0 100.0
Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI 9
QBAD2-10 Respondents Biggest Concern Regirding CarIsbad:CiQ Coundl
Priorities
\
Valid Cumulative
a1 hot oostn .O
1 choosen 30 3.0 3.0 100.0
T&l 1001 100.0 100.0
Frequency Pcmnt 1 Percent Percent
-
L
L
QBAD2-11 Respondents Biggest Concern Regarding Carbbad:Other
Valid Cumulative
FX-CQUCDCY Percent Percent Percent
Valid 0 Not Chooscn 99 1 99.0 99.0 99.0
1 Choosen 10 1 .o 1 .o 100.0
Total 1001 ’ 100.0 100.0
QBAD2-I2 Respondents Biggest Concern Regarding Car1sbad:Dont Know
~ ~- Valid Cumulative
Vahd 0 hot Choosen 1001 100.0 100.0 100.0
~~
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
QBADZ-13 Respondents Biggest Concern Regarding Car1sbad:Refused
~~ Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI 10
cQCBAD3> What would YOU like to see in your neighborhood?
QBAD3-1 Things Respondent Would Like to See in Their Keighborhood:Likes
Neighborhood the Way It Is/Nothing
- - Valid Cumuiatlve
Frequency Percent Percent Percenr
Valid 0 hot Choosen 836 83.5 83.5 63.5
1 Choosen 165 16.5 16.5 100.0
Total 1001 100.0 100.0
QBAD3-2 Things Respondent Would Ukc to See in Tbcir Neighborhood:Less
TraffrJDcvelopmenUHousing
L - Valid Cumulatwe
Valid 0 Not Choosen 858 85.7 85.7 85.7
1 Choosen 143 14.3 14.3 100.0
Total 1001 100.0 100.0
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
QBAD3-3 Things Respondent Would Like to See in Their Neighborhood:More
Parks
Valid Cumulatrvc
Valid 0 hot Chooscn 92 8 92.7 92.7 92.7
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
1 Choosen 73 7.3 7.3 100.0
Total 1001 100.0 100.0
Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI 11
067
QBAD3-4 Things Repondent Would Like to See in Their Neighborbood:Gas Stations
Valid Cumuianve
0 Not Choosen 919 9'1.8 978 97.8
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
1 - chooscn 22 2.2 2.2 100.0
Total 1001 100.0 100.0
QBAD3-5 Things Respondent Would Like to See in Their
Neighborhood:Sbopping/RttniVCrocery Stores
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid 0 hot Choosen 967 96.6 96.6 96.6
L 1 Choosen 34 3.4 3.4 100.0
Total 1001 100.0 100.0
QBAD3-6 Things Respondent Would Like to See in Their Neighborhood:Pool
Valid Cumulatlve
Valid 0 hot Choosen 990 98.9 98.9 98.9
1 Choosen 11 1.1 1.1 100.0
Total 1001 100.0 100.0
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI - 12
L
QBAD3-7 Things Respondent Would Like to See in Their Neighborh0od:Street
Improvements
Valid Curnularive
Valid 0 Not Choosen 938 93.7 93.7 93.7
1 Chmsen - 63 63 6.3 100.0
Total 1001 100.0 100.0
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
QBAD3-8 Things Respondent Would Like to See in Their
Neigbborbood:Additionnl PolicelEnforcement
Valid Cumulatlve
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Vahd 0 hot Choosen 976 97.5 97.5 97.5
1 Choosen 25 2.5 2.5 100.0
Total 1001 100.0 100.0
QBAD3-9 Things Respondent Would Like to See in Their
I’jeigbborhood:Landscapiog
Valid Cumulatwe
Vahd 0 hot Choosen 9 70 96.9 96.9 96.9
I Choosen 31 3.1 3.1 100.0
Total 1001 100.0 100.0
’ Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI 13
QBAD3-10 Things bpondent Would Like to See in Their , .
Neighborb0od:Power Lines Underground
Valid Cumulative
Vahd 0 Not C'hoosen . 987 98;6 98.6 98.6
1.4 100.0
1001 100.0 100.0
Fqucncy Percent Percent Percent
1 chwsen 14 1.4
Total
-
QBAD3-I 1 Things Respondent Would Like to See in Their
Neighborhood:Other
fl
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Vahd 0 hot Choosen 888 88.7 88.7 86.7
1 Choosen 113 11.3 11.3 100.0
Total 1001 100.0 100.0
QBAD3-12 Things Respondent Would Like to See in Their Neigbborbood:Dont
Know
Valid Cumulatlve
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
.Vahd 0 hot Choosen 1001 100.0 100.0 100.0
QBAD3-13 Things Respondent Would Like to See in Their
h'eighborhood:Refused
Valid Cumulatlve
Valid 0 Nor Choosen 1001 100.0 100.0 100.0
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
..
Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI 14
(TSERW I am going to read a list of services provided by the City of CadSbad. Piease
rate each one as excellent, good, fair, or poor.
<QSERVI > Recreational programs
QSERVl Rctreatioml Programs Rating . - - Valid Cumulative
Frcaumcv Pcmnt Percent Percent
Valid 1 Poor
2 Fair
3 Good
4 Excellent
Total
Missing 8 Don't how
9 Refused
Total
15 1.5 1.8 1.8
81 8.1 9.6 11.3
468 46.8 55.3 66.7
282 28.2 33.3 100.0
846 84.5 100.0
154 15.4
1 .I
155 15.5
<QSERVZ> Library senices
QSERV2 Library Services Ratiog
Valid Cumulative
Valid I Poor 6 .6 .6 .6
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
2 Falr 31 3. I 3.3 4.0
3 Good 335 33.5 36. I 40.1
-I E.\ccllenr 556 55.5 59.9 100.0
Toul 928 92.7 100.0
Missing 8 Don'[ );now 72 7.2
9 Refused 1 .I
Total 73 7.3
Total 1001 100.0 i
Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI *
<QSERV3> Fire protection
QSERV3 Fire Protection Services Rating
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Pemnt Pemnt- Percent
Valid I -Poor 7 .7 .8 .8
2 Fair 26 2.6 3.1 4 .O
3 Good 395 39.5 47.4 51.4
4 Excellent 405 ' 40.5 48.6 100.0
Total 833 83 .Z 100.0
-
Missing 8 Don't Know 168 16.8
Total 1001 100.0
-
<QSERV4> Condition of parks
QSERV4 Condition of Parks Rnting
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent . Percent Percent
Valid I Poor 18 1.8 1.9 1.9
2 Falr 78 7.8 8.2 10.1
3 Good 489 48.9 51.7 61.8
-1 Excellent 361 36.1 38.2 100.0
Total 946 94.5 100.0
Mlssrng 8 Don't Low 55 5.5
Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI 16
cQSERVS> Police services
QSERVS Police Senices Rating
Valid Cumulative
Fmumcv Percent Percent Percent -._ 7-----. . " "" ~ ~~ ~
Valid 1 Poor 24 2.4 2.6 2.6
STair 64 6.4 . 7.0 9.6
. 3 Good 445 44.5 48.7 58.4
4 Excellent 380 38.0 41.6 100.0
Total 913 91.2 100.0
Missing 8 Don't Know 88 8.8
<QSERV6> Traffic enforcement -
QSERV6 Traftic Enforcement Rating
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid I Poor I23 12.3 12.9 12.9
2 Fair 205 20.5 21.5 34.3
5 Good 492 49.2 51.5 85.9
1 Excellem 135 13.5 14.1 100.0
Total 95 5 95.4 100.0
Missing 8 Don't Know 46 4.6
Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI -
cQSERV7p Paramedic services
QSERVl Partmedic Services Rating
Valid Cumulative
Valid I Poor 4 .4 .6 .6
-f Fair 31 3.1 4.5 5.1
3 Good 336 33.6 48.6 53.7
4 Excellent 320 32.0 46.3 100.0
Total 69 1 69.0 100.0
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Missing 8 Don't Know 309 30.9
9 Refused 1 .I
Total 310 31.0
<QSERV8> Environmental protection
QSERVS Environmental Protection Rating
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Pcrcmt
L'alid 1 Poor 72 7.2 10.9 10.9
2 Fair 144 14.4 21.7 32.6
3 Good 340 34.0 51.3 83.9
J Excellent 107 . 10.7 16.1 100.0
Total 663 66.2 100.0
Misslng 8 Don't Know 118 11.8
9 Refused 3 .3
System 217 21.7
Total 338 33.8
Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRl 18
<QGENSRV> In general how would YOU rate the overall services provided by the City?
Excellent, good, fair or poor?
QGENSRV Ovcrpll City Services R8ting
Valid Cumulative
Frcauencv Percent Percent Percent
2 Fair 74 7.4 7 -5 8.5
3 Good 614 613 62.S 71.0
4 Excellent 285 28.5 29.0 100.0
Total 982 98. I 100.0
Missing 8 Don't Know 16 1.6
9 Refused 3 .3
Total 19 1.9
<TSERVICE> The City of Carisbad receives a number of services from outside agencies.
Please rate each of the following services as excellent, good, fair, or poor.
<QOUTSRV 1 > How would you rate trash and recycling collection?
QOLTSRVl Trash and Recycling Collection Rating
Valid Cumulative
i'alld I Poor 35 3.5 3.5 3.5
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
2 Falr 131 ,l3.1 13.2 16.8
3 Good 502 50. I 50.8 67.5
4 Excellent 32 1 32. I 32.5 100.0
Total 989 98.8 100.0
Missing 8 Don't Know I2 1.2
Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRJ
<QOUTSRV2> Street sweeping
QOUTSRVZ Street Sweeping Rating
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid 1 Poor 67 6.7 7.1 7.1 . . - -2 Fair 202 20.2 21.5 28.6
3 Good 484 , 48.4 51 -5 80. I
4 Excellent . 187 18.7 19.9 100.0
Total 940 93.9 100.0
Missing 8 Don't Know 60 6.0
9 Refused 1 .I
Total 61 6.1
Total 1001 100.0
<QOUTSRV3> Water services
QOUTSRV3 Water Services Rating
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valld I Poor ' 19 1.9 1.9 I .9
2 Fair 98 9.8 .
3 Good 613 61.2
10.1 12.0
62.9 74.9
3 Excellent 245 24.5 25. I 100.0
Total 975 97.4 100.0
Missing 8 Don't Know 25 2.5
9 Refused 1 .I
Total 26 2.6
Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI 20
<QOUTSRV4> Hmdo~ waste disposd
QOUTSRV4 Hazardous Waste Disposal Rating
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid I Poor 81 8.1 13.5 13.5
-2 a 139 13.9 23 .2 36.7
3 Good 294 29.4 49.1 85.8
4 Excellent 85 8.5 14.2 100.0
Total 599 59.8 100.0
Missing 8 Don't Know 400 40.0
9 Refused 2 .2
Tml 402 40.2
1001 100.0
<TPROGS> My next questions pertain to Carlsbad programs and facilities. How important to
you are each of the following on a scale of 0 to 10, where zero means not at all
important. and ten means very important.
Let's begin with.. . . . .
<QPROGS I > Arts and cultural programs
Descriptive Statistics
Std.
N Minimum Maximum Mean Deviation
QPROGS 1 lmponance of
Ans and Cultural Promams 999 0 10 7.16 2.44
Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI 21
072
cQPROGS2> Bike paths
Descriptive Statistics
sld
N Minimum Maximum Mean Deviation _. -
QPROGSZ Impo-tyce of 992 0 10 6.58 2.92
Bike Paths "_
cQPROGS3> Tennis courts
Descriptive Statistics
Std. - - N Minimum Maximum Mean Deviation
QPROGS3 lmponance of 980 0 10 5.09 2.9 I
Tennis Courts - "
<QPROGS4> Trails -- including nature trails. jogging and walking paths
Descriptive Statistics
Std. . h' Mln1rnut-n Maxlmum Mean Devmon 1
Nature Tra~Is. iogglng and 989 0 . 10 7.86 2.35
Walk~ng Paths
<QPROGSS> Playing fields
Descriptive Statistics
QPRoGS5 lmponance of
Plavinp: &is 989 0 IO 7.12 2.7 1
Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRl 22
<QPROGS6> Undeveloped or preserved open space land (accessible to the public).
Descriptive Sutistics
Std.
,N Minimum Maximum Mean Deviation
QPROGS6 lmporpnce of
Underdeveloped 6r Preserve
Open Space Land Accessibl
..
989 0 IO 8.4 1 2.3 1
Descriptive Statistics
Std.
N Minimum Maximum Mean Deviation
QPROGS7 Importance of
Picnic Arcac 990 0 10 7.33 2.29
<QPROGS8> Children’s play equipment
Descriptive Statistics
Std . . -. N Minimum Maximum Mean Deviation
986 0 IO 7.25 2.79 QPROGS8 importance of
Children’s Pia\ EoulDment
Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, Ciry of Carlsbad - SBRI 23
73
cQPROGS9> Indoor meeting rooms
Descriptive Statistics
Std.
N Minimum Maximum Mean Deviation
QPROGS9 ImpoTiance of 9711 0 10 5.44 2.66
<QPROGS 1 O> Community gardens
Descriptive Statistics
L
L
<QPROGS 1 1 > Basketball courts
Std.
N Minimum Maximum Mean Deviation
Descriptive Statistics
~~~~ ~
Std.
N Minimum Maximum Mean Deviation
QPROGS I I lrnponance of
Basketball Couns 98 1 0 10 5.65 2.92
1
CQPROGS 12> Swimming pools
Descriptive Statistics
Std. N Minimum Maximum Mean Deviation
QPROGSIZ .Imponance of 990 Swimminc Pools 0 10 6.47 2.84
Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey. City of Carlsbad - SBRI 24
cQPROGS 13> Public Golf Course
Descriptive Statistics m
N Minimum Maximum Mean Deviation "
QPROGS 13 Imponancc of 993 0 10 5.62 3 .a
cTACTIV> On a scale of 0 to 10 where zero means not at all important and ten means
very important, how would you rate the importance of the foliowing
cultural arts activities in your community?
<QACTIVl> Festivals and fairs
L -
Descriptive Statistics
Std.
N Minimum Maximum Mean Deviation
QACTIV 1 lmponance of
Festivals and Fairs 996 0 IO 6.82 2.54
<QACTIV2> Art appreciation classes
Descriptive Statistics
Std.
h Mmlmum Maximum Mean Deviation
A \'? lmponance 01 1 An Appreciation Classes 10 5.98 2.78
Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBFU . - 25
074
<QACTTV7> Multicultural events
Descriptive Statistics
. ~~ Std.
N Minimum Maximum Mean Deviation
QACTIV7 Importance of 0 . 10 6.46 2.76
<QEVENT> How often do you attend a cultural event such as a play, concert, museum. etc.. . .
0. Zero times per year
1. 1-2 times per year
2. 3-5 times per year
4. More than 10 times per year
8. Don't know
9. Rehsed
- 3. 5- 10 times per year -
QEVENT Number of Times Per Year a Cultural Arts Event is Attended
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid , 0 Zero Times per Year . 60 6.0 6.0 6.0
I 1-2 Tlmes Per Year 166 16.6 16.6 22.6
2 3-5 Times Per )'ear 328 32.8 . 32.9 55.5
3 5-10 Times Per Year 252 25.2 15.3 80.8
4 More Than IO
Times Per Year
Total
Missing 8 Don't Know
9 Refused
Total
I92 19.2 19.2
998 99.7 100.0
2 7 .-
1 .I
3 .3
100.0
Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI - 27
<QPARKusE> Has anyone in your household used a Carisbad public park or park facility during the past twelve months?
0. No
1. Yes
8. Don't Know
9. Rcfused - -
QPARKUSE Household Member Has Used a Carlsbad Park or Park Facility in
Past I2 Mootbs
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid 0 No 210 21 .o 21.0 21.0
- 1 Yes 789 78.8 79.0 100.0 - Total 999 99.8 100.0
Missing 8 Don't Know 2 .2
Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI 28
CQPOOL, The City of Carlsbad cumntly operates one pool adjacent to Carlsbad High School.
DO you feel there is a need for another public pool in the city?
0. No
1. Yes
8. Don't Know
9. Refused - -
QPOOL Reed for Another Pool in the City
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
\alid 0 No 294 29.4 32.2 32.2
1 Yes 618 61.7 67.8 100.0
Total 912 91.1 100.0
Missing. 8 Don't how 88 8.8
9 Refused 1 .I
Total 89 8.9
Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI 29
076
cQRECFAC> Manv communities are constructing large multi USI: recreation facilities which
include amenities such as a gymnasium, indoor track, fitness center, aquatic center, child
care facilities. rock climbing wall. banquet faciiities, meeting rooms and more. Is this a
concept you would like to see the City of Carlsbad consider in the future?
0. No
1. Yes -
8. Don't Know
9. Refused
-
L
L
QRECFAC Expressed Interest in a Carlsbad Multi-Use Recreation Facility
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid 0 Eio 22 1 22.1 22.5 22.5
1 Yes 76 1 76.0 77.5 100.0
Total 982 ' 98.1 100.0
Missing 8 Don'r Know 17 I .7
9 Refused 2 .2
Total 19 1.9
<QRCDR> How many rn~nutes .would you be willing to drive to such a facility?
Descriptive Statistics
Std.
?i Minimum Maximum Mean Deviation
QRECFDR Kumber of
Minutes Respondent N'ould
be Willing IO Drlve IO Rec 750 .O 60.0 14.729 6.856
Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI 30
<QDOB> In order to make sure 'we speak with people of all age groups, could you please tell me
in what year YOU were born?
Descriptive Statistics
Std. - - N Minimum Maximum Mean Deviation
~~ AGE AQ~ of Respondent 980 1 8.00 89.00 50.4796 15.65 11
<QRETIREl> When you reach the age of 55 or older what type of City sponsored
recreation activities would you like to participate in?
1. Gymnasium
- 2. Weight Room
3. Aquatic center
4. Rock climbing wall
5. Fitness center
6. Childcare
7. Classrooms
8. Meeting rooms
.- 9. Areas for senior proprams
0
c -
- 10. Indoor track 1 1. Banquet facilities
12. Other. Specify: - 13. DON'T KNOW
14. REFUSED - 15. NO MORE ANSWERS
QRETlREl Gymnasium Participation
Valid Cumulative
Valid 0 Not Chosen 429 42.9 94.9 94.9
I Chosen 23 2.3 5.1 100.0
Total 452 45.2 100.0
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Missing System ..
549 54.8
Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRl 31
077
QRETIRE2 Weight Room Participatioo
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid 0 Not Chosen 434 45.4 96.0 96.0
1 Chosen 18 1.8 4.0 100.0
fitdl 452 452 . 100.0
Missing System 549 54.8
QRETIRES Aquatic Center Participation
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
- L Valid 0 Not Chosen 3% 39.6 87.6 87.6 .
1 Chosen 56 5.6 12.4 100.0
Total 452 45.2 100.0
Missing System 549 54.8
QRETIRE4 Rock Climbing Wall Participation
Valid Cumulative ~~
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid 0 Not Chosen 444 44.4 98.2 98.2
1 Chosen 8 .8 1.8 100.0
Tota I 451 45 .z 100.0
Missing System 549 54.8
..
Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBW 32
QRETIRES Fitness Center Participation
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Pertent Percent Percent
Valid 0 Not Chosen 394 39.4 872 872
I Chosen 58 5.8 12.8 100.0
=tal 452 45 .z 100.0
Missing System 549 54.8
QRETIRE6 Child Can Participation
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
- - Valid 0 Not Chosen 446 44.6 98.7 98.7
I Chosen 6 .6 1.3 100.0
Total 452 45.2 100.0
Missing System 549 54.8
Total 1001 100.0
QRETlRE7 Classrooms Participation
~ Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid 0 hot Chosen 419 41.9 92.7 92.7
I Chosen 33 3.3 7.3 100.0
Total 452 45 .z 100.0
Missing System 549 54.8
Total 1001 100.0 .
Appendix A: Public Opinion Survej, City of Carlsbad - SBRI
.
QRETIRES Meeting Rooms Participation
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid 0 Not Chosen 437 43.7 96.7 96.7
I Chosen 15 1.5 3.3 100.0
ToGl 452 45.2 100.0
Missing System 549 54.8
QRETJRE9 Areas for Senior Programs Participation
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
- L Valid 0, Nor Chosen 409 40.9 90.5 90.5
1 Chosen 43 4.3 9.5 100.0
Total 452 -45.2 100.0
Missing System 549 54.8
QRETIRIO Indoor Track Participation
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid 0 ti01 Chosen 435 43.5 96.2 96 .Z
1 Chosen 17 1.7 3.8 100.0
Total 452 45.2 100.0
Missing System 549 54.8
Total 1001 100.0
Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBFU 34
QRETIRl1 Banquet Facility Participation
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Perccnt Percent Percent
Valid 0 Not Chosen 436 43.6 96.5 96.5
I Chosen 16 I .6 3.5 100.0
Td 452 452 .100.0
Missing System 549 54.8
QRETIR13 Don't Know metired)
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
- Valid 0 Not Chosen 360 36.0 79.6 79.6 .
L
1 Chosen 92 9.2 20.4 100.0
Total 452 45.2 100.0
Missing System 549 54.8
Total 1001 100.0 I
QRETIR14 Refused (Retired)
Valid Cumulative
Vahd 0 hot Chosen 45 1 45.1 99.8 99.8
1 Chosen 1 .I .- ? 100.0
Tom1 452 45.2 100.0
Frequent? Percent Percent Percent
Mlsslng System 549 54.8
Total 1001 100.0
Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRl -
QRETIR16 AN
~~~ Valid Cumulative
Frcaumcv Percent Percent Pemnt
Valid 0 Not Chosen 355 35.5 78.5 78.5
1 Chosen 97 9.7 21.5 100.0
Elal 452 45.2 100.0
Missing System 549 54.8
QRETIRl7 Recreation Activities
Valid Cumulative
L Valid 0 Not Chosen 262 26.2 58.0 58.0
1 Chosen 190 19.0 42.0 100.0
Total 452 ' 45.2 100.0
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
-
Missing System 549 54.8
QRETlRll TravcVDaytrips
Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid 0 ti01 Chosen 428 42.8 94.7 94.7
I Chosen 24 2.4 5.2 100.0
Total 452 45.2 100.0
Missing System 549 54.8
Tota I 1001 100.0
Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, Ciry of Carlsbad - SBRI 36
QRETIR19 Healtb & Fitness
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Pe.rcent Percent
Valid 0 Not Chosen 439 43.9 97.1 97.1
1 Chosen 13 I .3 2.9 100.0
TOG1 452 45.2 .100.0
Missing System' 549 54.8
QRETUUO EducatiodLibmy
Valid Cumulative
- Valid 0 Not Chosen 435 43.5 96.2 96.2
I Chosen 17 1.7 3.8 100.0
Total 452 45.2 100.0
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
L
Missing System 549 54.8
QRETIR22 Other Participation
~ Valid Cumulative
Lalld 0 ~OI Chosen 439 43.9 97.1 97.1
I Chosen I3 1.3 2.9 100.0
Total 452 45.' 100.0
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Mlsslng System 549 54.8
Tom I 1001 100.0 P-
Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI -
QRETIRU Nothing
Vaiid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid 0 Not Chosen 442 44.2 97.8 97.8
1 Chosen 10 1 .o 22 100.0
Tkl 452 45.2 100.0
Missing System 549 54.8
(TSTREEP The next few questions pertain to Carlsbad Streets. Please rate the condition of
each of the following items as excellent, good, fair, or poor.
CQSTREETI > Overall road condition
L
L
QsTREETl Overall Road Condition Rating
Valid Cumulative ~ ~~~
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid I Poor 26 2.6 2.6 2.6
2 Fair I 70 17.0 I7,.0 19.6
3 Good 585 58.4 58.5 78.1
3 Excellent 219 21.9 21.9 100.0
Total 1000 99.9 100.0
Missing 8 Don’t how 1 .I
Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI 38
<QSTREET2> Medians and/or Landscaping
QSTREET2 Medians 8nd/or L8ndK.ping Condition Rating
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent . Percent
Valid 1-Poor 41 4.1 4.1 4.1
2 Fair 161 16.1 16.1 20.2
3 Good 560 55.9 56.1 76.4
4 Excellent 236 ' 23.6 23.6 100.0
Total 998 99.7 100.0
-
Missing 8 Don't Know 3 .3
<eSTR€ET3> City Street trees
QSTREE'M City Street Tms Condition hting
Valid Cumulative
Valid 1 Poor 47 4.7 4.8 4.8
2 Falr. 156 15.6 15.9 20.7
3 Good , 598 59.7 60.8 81.5
4 Excellent 182 18.2 18.5 100.0
Total 983 98.2 100.0
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Missing 8 Don't Know 17 ' 1.7
9 Refused 1 .I
Total 18 3.8
Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI
<QSTREET4> Curb/sidewalk condition
QSTREET4 Curbfiidcwalk Condition Ratiag
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Pemnt Percent Percent
Valid 1 Poor 35 3.5 3.5 3.5 5 Fair 182 18.2 18.4 21.9
3 Good 576 57.5 58.1 80. I
1 Excellent 197 19.7 19.9 100.0
Total 990 98.9 100.0
Missing 8 Don't Know 10 I .o
9 Refused 1 .I
Total 11 1.1
<QSTREETS> Traffic circulation efficiency, excluding freeways
)STREETS Trafiic Circulation Efficiency Rating, Excluding Freeways Condition
Rating
Valid Cumulative
Freauencv Percent Percent Percent
~ Valid I Poor 252 25.2 25.3" ~ 25.3
2 Fair 338 33.8 33.9 59.2
3 Good 36 1 36.1 36.2 95.4
J Excellenr 46 4.6 4.6 100.0
Total 997 99..6 100.0
Missing 8 Don'r how .4 .4
Total 1001 100.0
Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI 40
<QSTREET6> Parking availability in the Downtown Village ~fea.
QSTREET6 Parking Availability in Downtown Village Area Condition Rating
Valid Cumulative
Frmumcv Percent Percent Pemnt
Valid I 3oor 207 20.7 21.4 21.4
2 Fair 389 38.9 40.2 61.6
3 Good 328 32.8 33.9 95.5
4 Excellent 44 4.4 4.5 100.0
Total 968 96.7 100.0
Mlssing 8 Don't Know 33 3 .:
Total 1001 100.0
<QCfTYNF> From what sources do you get information about the Ciry of Carlsbad?
a.
b.
d.
e.
f.
C.
c e.
San Diego Union-Tribune
North County Times
TV-Local New
Local Cable Channel
Communie Services and Recreation Guide
CiF Web Page (u KU .ci.carlshad.ca.us)
Other. Specifis.
41
082
Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBW
QCITYINl Source of Carbbad Iofonnatioo: Lou1 Cable Channel
- Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid 0 Not Chosen 462 462 462 46.2
1 Chosen 539 53.8 53.8 100.0
)CITYINS Source of Carlsbad Informatioo: Community Services Recreation
Guide
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid 0 Not Chosen 393 39.3 39.3 39.3
- 1 Chosen 608 60.7 60.7 100.0 -
Total 1001 100.0 100.0
QClTYIN6 Source of Carlsbad Information: City Web Page
Valid Cumulative
Freauenn Percenr Percent Percent
Vahd 0 hor Chosen 855 85.4 85.4 85.4
1 Chosen 146 14.6 14.6 100.0
Total 1001 100.0 100.0
Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRJ 43
083
QCTYINl5 Source of Carlsbad Information: Radio
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid 0 Not Chosen 989 98.8 98.8 98.8
1 Chosen 12 1.2 1.2 100.0
QCTYIN16 Source of Carlsbad Information: Library
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid 0 Not Chosen 986 98.5 98.5 98.5
1 Chosen I5 1.5 1.5 100.0
-
L Total 1001 100.0 100.0 > - d
QCTYINl7 Source of Carisbad Information: Carlrbad City Couscil
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid 0 hot Chosen 972 97. I 97.1 97.1
1 Chosen 29 2.9 2.9 100.0
Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI .
L
QCTYINl8 Source of Carlsbad Information: Visitors Center
Valid Cumulative
Freauency Percent Percent Percent
Valid 0 Not Chosen 99s 99.4 99.4 99.4
I Chosen - 6 .6 .6 100.0
QCTYIN19 Source of Csrlsbsd Information: Other
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percenr Percent
Valid 0 Not Chosen 942 94.1 94. I 94. I
I Chosen 39 5.9 5.9 100.0
~-
QCTYIN20 Source of Carlsbad Information: Don't Know
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid 0 ho[ Chosen 1001 100.0 100.0 100.0
Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRJ 46
QWIN21 Source of Carlsbad Information: Refused
Valid C%&lative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid 0 Not Chosen 998 99.7 99.7 99.7
1 Chosen 3 .3 .3 100.0
Tolirl 1001 100.0 100.0 *-
QCTYINI I Source of Cnrlsbad Information:-Word of Mouth
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid 0 Not Chosen 860 85.9 85.9 85.9
I Chosen 141 14.1 14.1 100.0
Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI - 47
c
cQLTB> How often have you used any ofthe Carlsbad City Library facilities in the past year?
Descriptive Statistics
~ ~~ ~~~ ~ ~~ Std.
N Minimum Maximum Mean Deviation
QTLIB Hou.Often =
Respondent Used Any
Carlsbad Ciry Library in the 1001 0 365 15.86 34.52
Past Year
<QLIB 1 > The Dove Library (in south Carlsbad near El Camino and Alga).
a. Never
c. Once or Mice a month
d. Once a week
e. More than once a week
- L b. Once or twice in the past year
QLlBl How Often Respondent Used Dove Library in Past Year
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid I &ever I83 18.3 23.2 23 .z
2 Once or Twice In the
Pas ear 246 24.6 31.2 54.4
3 Once or Twice a Month 256 25.6 32.5 86.9
4 Once a Week 55 5 .S 7.0 93.9
5 More Than Once a Week 48 4.8 6. I 100.0
Total 788 78.7 100.0
Missing 8 Don't Know I .I
System
Total
111 21.2
213 21.3
Total 1001 100.0
Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBN 48
cQLIBZ> The Cole Library on (Carlsbad Village Drive next to City Hall).
a. Never
b. Once or Mice in the past year
c. Once or twice a month
d. Once a week
e. More than oncea - week
QLIB2 How Often Respondent Used Cole Library in Past Year
~ Valid Cumulative
Valid 1 hew 31 1 31.1 39.5 39.5
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
2 Once.or Twice in the
Pas: Year 23 5 '3.5 29.9 69.4
3 Once or Twice a Month 163 16.3 20.7 90.1
4 Once a Week 45 4.5 5.7 95.8
5 More Than Once a Week 33 3 -3 4.2 100.0
Total . 787 78.6 100.0
Missing 8 Don't Know 2 .- 7
System 212 21.2
Total 214 21.4
Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBM
.
<QLIB3> Centro de hfonnacion (near downtown on the Pine School camp).
a. Never
b. Once or twice in the past year
c. Once or wice a month
d. Once a week
e. More than one a week
QLJB3 How Often Respondent Used Centro de iaformacion in Past Year
Valid Cumulative
Fnqutncy Percent Percent Percent
Valid 1 Never 757 75.6 96.4 96.4
21 2.1 2.7 99. I
- 3 Once or Twice a Month 5 .5 .6 99.7
4 Once a Week 1 .I .I 99.9
5 More Than Once a Week 1 .I .1 100.0
Total 785 78.4 100.0
2 Once or Twice in the
Past Year
-
Missing 8 Don't Know 4 .4
System 2 I2 21.2
Total 216 21.6
Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI 50
QLIBVIS> I am going to read a list of reasons people use the Carisbad City libraries.
Please indicate whether or not you visit the library for each of the following reasons.
<QLIBVIS I > To get answers to questions or to do general research
QLIBWSI Visited Library to Get Answers to Questions or to do General Research - -
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid 0 No 191 19. I 14 2 24.2
1 Yes 598 59.7 75.8 100.0
Total 789 78.8 100.0
Missing System 212 21.2
Total 1001 100.0
<QLIBVISZ> To help you meet your educational or job-related goals (either formal
schooling or personal g~owth).
!LIBVIQ Visited Library to Help Meet Educational or Job-Related Goal
Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent
.Valid 0 KO 454 ' 45.4 51.5 51.5
1 Yes 335 333 42.5 100.0
Total 789 78.8 100.0
Mmmg System 1 12 2 1.1
Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI 51
087
<QLIBVIS3> To check out or to read books or magazines for enjoyment
QLIBVIS3 Visited Library to Check Out or Read Books or Magazines For
Enjoyment
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Pmmt Pmmt '
Valid - 0 No I83 18.3 . 23.2 23.2
I Yes 606 60.5 76.8 100.0
Total 789 78.8 100.0
Missing System 212 21.2
Total 1001 100.0
<QLIBVIS4> To take advantage of programs the library offers - -
QLIBVISd Visited Library to Take Advantage of Programs the Library Offers
Valid Cumulative
bahd 0 ho 496 49.6 63 .O 63.0
I Yes 29 I 29.1 37.0 100.0
Total 787 78.6 100.0
Frequency Peicent Percent Percent
Mlsslng 8 Don't how 2 .& 1
System
Total
212 2 1.2
214 21.4
Total 1001 100.0
Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI . 52
cQLIBVIS5> To use internet, word processing computers Or typewriters
QLIBVIS5 Visited Libray to Use the Internet, Word Procaring
Cornputem or Typewriters
Valid Cumulative ~ ~~~~ - - Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid 0 No 642 64.1 81.4 81.4
I Yes 147 14.7 18.6 100.0
Total 789 78.8 100.0
Missing System 212 21.2
Total 1001 100.0
<QLIBViS6> For a quiet place to read and study
- -
QLIBVlS6 Visited Library For I Quiet Place to Read and/or Study
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid 0 No 537 53.6 68. I 68. I
I Yes 252 25.2 31.9 100.0
Total 789 78.8 100.0
Missing System 212 21.2
Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI
<QLIBVIS7> To help your children or yourself improve reading skills
QLIBVIS7 Visited Library to Help Yourself or Your Children Improve
Reading Skills
Valid Cumulative - Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid 0 No 485 48.5 61.5 61.5
1 Yes 304 30.4 38.5 100.0
Total 789 78.8 100.0
Missing System 212 212
- - <QLIBSERV> Overall, how wodd you rate the Carlsbad libraries as to the availability of
materials vou want?
QLIBSERV Overall Rating of Carlrbad Libraries is to Availability of Miterials
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
\'3lid I Poor 13 1.3 1.7 1.7
2 Fair 73 7.3 9.3 11.0
3 Good 327 32.7 41.7 52.7
4 Excellent 371 37.1 47.3 100.0
Total 784 78.3 100.0
Missing 8 Don't Know 5 .s
System 212 31.1
Total 217 21.7
Total 1001 100.0
Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey. City of Carlsbad - SBRI 54
<QLIBMAT> What materials were unavailable to you?
cQNOLIB> What has prevented you from using the Carlsbad City Library?
a. Just moved here
b. Have no interest or need for using the library
c. Don't have time
d. The Library is too far away or otherwise inconveniqt
e. Buy books for myself or my children
f. Have Internet or other resources that meet my needs for information - 2. Use another library
h. No transportation
L - i. Other, Specifi:
Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI * . . 55
089
QNOLIB-1 Reason Preventing Library Use: Just Moved bere
Valid Cumulative
Freaumcv Percent Percent Percent
Valid 0 .Not Chosen 187 18.7 88.2 88.2
1 Chosen 25 2.5 11.8 100.0
GKil 212 21 2 100.0
Missing System 789 78.8
!NOLIB-2 Reason Preventing Library Use: Have No interest or Ned for Usinl
the Library
Valid Cumulative
L Frequency Percent Percent Percent - Valid ' 0 hot Chosen 149 14.9 70.3 70.3
1 Chosen 63 6.3 29.7 100.0
Total 2 12 21.2 100.0
Missing System 189 78.8
Total 1001 . 100.0 5
QNOLlB-3 Reason Preventing Library Use: Don't Have Time
Valid Curnula&
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Vahd 0 hot Chosen 181 18. I 85.4 85.4
1 Chosen 31 3. I 14.6 100.0
Total 212 21.2 100.0
Missrng System 789 78.8
Total 1001 100.0
Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBW 56
QNOLIB-4 Reason Preventing Library Use: me Library is TOO Far Away Or
Otherwise Inconvenient
Valid Cumulative
Valid 0 hot Chsm 204 20.4 96.2 96.2
1 Chosen 8 .8 3.8 100.0
Frequency Pment Percent Percent
rital 212 212 100.0
Missing System 789 78.8
Total 1001 100.0
QNOLIB-5 Reason Preventing Library Use: Buy Books lor Myself or MY
Children
~~ ~ Valid Cumulatlve - L Frequency Percent Percent Percen t
bahd 0 hot Chosen 185 18.5 8 1.3 6i.3
I Chosen 27 2.7 12.7 100.0
Total 212 21.2 100.0
Mming System 789 78.8
Total 1001 100.0
QNOLIB-6 Reason Preventing Library Use: Have Internet or Other Resources
That Meet My heeds for Information
Valld Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valld 0 ho~ Chosen 184 18.4 86.6 86.8
1 Chosen 28 2.8 13.2 100.0
Total 212 21.2 100.0
Missing System 789 78.8
Total 1001 100.0
Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI . 57
.
QNOLIB-7 Reason Pwventing Library Use: Use Anotber Library
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid 0 Not Chosen 205 20.5 96.7 96.7
1 Chosen 7 .7 3.3 100.0
larat 212 21.2 100.0
Missing System 789 78.8
QNOLIB-8 Reason Preventing Library Use: No Transportation
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
c - Valid 0 Rot Chosen 212 21.2 100.0 100.0
Missing System 789 78.8
Total 1001 100.0
QNOLIB13 Reason Preventing Library Use: Health Related
Valid Cumulative
Freauencv Percent Percent Percent
Valid 0 Not Chosen 204 20.4 96.2 96.2
I Chosen 8 .8 ' 3.8 100.0
Total 212 ' 21.2 100.0
Missing System 789 78.8
Total 1001 100.0
Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI 58
QNOLIB14 Reason Preventing Library Use: Too Busy
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid 0 Not Chosen 20 1 20.1 94.8 94.8
1 Chosen I1 1.1 5.2 100.0
Tod 212 21.2 100.0
-
Missing System 789 ' 78.8
. QNOLIB16 Reason Preventing Library Use: Other
Valid Cumulative
L Frequency Perccm Percent Percent - Valid ' 0 Not Chosen 206 20.6 97.2 97.2
I Chosen 6 .6 2.8 100.0
Total 212 21.2 100.0
Missing System 789 78.8
Qh'OLIBl7 Reason Preventing Library Use: Don't Know
Valid Cumulative
Valld 0 hot Chosen 210 ' 21.0 99.1 99.1
I Chosen 2 .- 7 .9 100.0
Total 212 21.2 100.0
Frequent! Percent Percent Percent
Missing System 789 78.8
Total ' 1001 100.0
Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRl - 59
QNOLIBl8 Reason Preventing Library Use: Refuted ..
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Vahd 0 hot Chosen 210 21 .o 99.1 99.1
I Chosen 2 ;2 .9 100.0
Tgtal 212 21.2 100.0 -
Missing System 789 78.8
Total 1001 100.0
(TSAFE> The next few questions have to do with neighborhood safety and police services. For
each question, please use a scale of 0 to 10 where zero means not at all safe and ten
means very safe.
-
L Descriptive Statistics
~ ~~ Std.
I4 Minimum Maximum Mean Deviation
QSAFE 1 HOW Safe
Respondent Feels Walklng
Alone in thelr Neqhborhood
During the Day
1001 0 10 9.46 1.20
CQSAFEI > How safe do you feel walhng alone in your neighborhood during the day?
Descriptive Statistics
Std.
;h: Mlnimum Maximum Mean Deviation
QSAkk.:! HOW Sate
Respondent Feels Walklng
Alone in their bieighborhood
After Dark
1000 0 10 7.54 1.55
<QSAFE2> How safe do you feel walking alone in your neighborhood after dark?
Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI 60
<QCRIMEI > During the past 12 months have you or has anyone in you household been a
victim of any crime in Carlsbad?
’ QCRIME Member of Family Victim of Crime in Carlsbad During the
Past 12 Months
- - -
Frequency Percent Percent Percent h Valid 0 No -. 92.0
1 Yes 80 8.0 8.0 100.0
Total 1001 100.0 100.0
-
<QCRIME2> If yes, did any member of your household, report the crime(s) to the police?
0. No
1. Yes
8. Don’t Know
9. Refused
QCFU!WE? Member of Family Reported Crime to the Police
Valid Curnular~ve
Frequency Percent, Percent Percent
Valid 0 so 16 1.6 20.0 20.0
I Yes 64 6.4 80.0 1c)o.o
Total 80 8.0 100.0
Mlssmg System 92 1 92.0
Total 1001 100.0
Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI
L
<TDEVELOP> I am going to read a list of different types of development. Please tell me
if you would like to see more of or fewer of each of the following items.
CQDEVEL 1 > Gas stations
QDEVELl More or Fewer Gas Stations
- - . Valid Cumulative
Valid 0 Fewer Of 427 42.7 43.1 43.1
1 Just the Rght Amount 228 22.8 23.0 66.1
2 More Of 336 33.6 33.9 100.0
Total 99 1 99.0 100.0
Frequency Percent Percent , Percent
Missing 8 Don't Know
9 Refused
Total
= Total
9 .9
1 .I
10 1 .o
1001 100.0
cQDEVELZ> Grocery stores
QDEVEL2 More or Fewer Grocery Stores
Valid Cumulatrve
Vaird 0 Fewer Of 397 39.7 40.1 40. I
1 lust the Right Amount 323 32.3 32.6 72.7
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
2 More Of
Total
Missing 8 Don't Know
9 Refused
Total
27 1 27.1 27.3 100.0
99 I 99.0 100.0
8 .8
2 .2
10 1 .O
Total 1001 100.0
Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI - 62
<QDEVEL3> Quick Stop Stores (such as Circle K or 7-1 1)
QDEVEU More or Fewer Quick Stop Stores
Valid Cumulatlvc
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Vahd 0 FewaOf 6 /O 66.9 6s. I bb. I
I Just the Right Amount 199 19.9 20.1 SS.3
2 More Of I15 11.5 11.7 100.0
Total 984 96.3 100.0
-
Missing S Don't Know 17 1.7
Total 1001 100.0
<QDEVELO Drug Stores
QDEVEL4 More or Fewer Drug Stores
Vaiid Cumulaavc
Lahd 0 Fewer Of 393 39.3 39.3 39.3
1 Just the Right Amount 282 28.2 28.4 67.9
2 More Of 319 31.9 32.1 100.0
Total 994 99.3 100.0
Frequency Pment Percent Percmt
Musing S Don'l Lou - I .7
Total 1001 100.0
Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI 63
093
cQDEVELP Department Stores'
QDEVEL5 More or Fewer Department Stores
' Valid Cumulsrvc
, Frequency Pcmnt Percent Percent
Vahd 0 Fewer Of 468 46.8 47.1 47.1
I Jusrthc Righr Amount 278 27.8 28.0 75.1
2 More Of 247 24.7 24.9 100.0
Total
Missmg E Don't Know
Total
993 99.2 100.0
8 .8
1001 100.0
<QDEVEL6> Fast Food Restaurants - -
QDEVEL6 More or Fewer Fast Fwd Restaurants
Valid Cumulatlke
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid 0 Fewer Of 6 10 66.9 6 i.3 67.3
I lust the Right Amount 236 23.6 23.7 91 .o
2 More Of 90 9.0 9.0 100.0
Total 996 99.5 100.0
Missing 8 Don't Know 5 .5
Total . 1001 100.0
Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI 64
cQDEVEL7' Family Style Restaurants
QDEVEL7 More or Fewer Family Style Restaurants
Valid Cumulatwe
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
L ahd 0 Fewer Of 25s 2x3 2s. I 23.7
I Just th> Right Amount 236 23.6 ' 23.8 49.5
-
2 More Of
Total
'500 50.0 50.5 100.0
99 1 99.0 100.0
Mlssing 8 Don't Know 9 -9
9 Refused
Total
1 .I
10 1 .o
Total 1001 100.0
c
F
<QDEVEL8> Upscale, Fine Dining Restaurants
QDEVELS More or Fewer Upscale, Fine Dining Restaurants
Valid Cumulatwc
Frequency Paccnt Pcrcmt Percent
Lahd Fewer Of 213 21.3 21.4 21.4
1 JUS the Rlght Amount 190 19.0 19.1 40.5
2 More Of 593 59.2 59.5 100.0
Total 996 99.5 100.0
MIssing 8 Don't Knou 5 .5
Total 1001 100 n
Appendix A: Public Opinion Suntey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI . 65
<QDEVEL9> Multi-store shopping centers (Encinitas Towe Center or Pacific coast Pl323)
QDEVEL9 More or Fewer Multi-Store Shopping Centers
Valid Cumulatn:ep ~~
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
bahd 0 kwfr Of 369 56.6 3 1.8 3T.b
1 Just the Right Amount 220 22.0 22.3 80. I
2 MorcOf 196 19.6 19.9 100.0
Total
Missing 8 Don't Know
9SS 98.4 100.0
16 I .6
Total 1001 100.0
QDEVELIO More or Fewer Entertainment Venues
Valid Cumulanve
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valld 0 Fewer Of 184 18.4 18.5 18.5
I Just the Right Amount 151 15.1 15.' 33.7
2 More Of 658 65.7 66.3 100.0
Total .. 993 99.2 100.0
Missmg 8 Don? Know 7 .7
9 Refused
Total
I .I
s .8
Total 1001 100.0
Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI 66
CQDEVEL 1 1 > Smdl neighborhood retailers (dry cleaners, coffcc houses or delis).
QDEVELll More or Fewer Small Neighborbood Retailers
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid 0 kwer_Of 333 33.3 33.3 33.5 .
1 Just ;e hght Amount 274 27.4 ‘ 27.6 61.1
2 More Of 3 86 38.6 38.9 100.0
Total 993 99.2 100.0
Missing 8 Don’t Know 7 .7
9 Refused 1 .1
Total
Total
8 .8
1001 100.0
<QDEVEL 12> “Big Box” retail stores (such as Costco, Target or Home Depot)
QDEYEL12 More or Fewer Big Box Retail Stores
~~~~~ ~ ~ Valid Cumulanve
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid U Fewer Of 600 59.9 60.1 60.1
I Just the Rqht Amount . 317 31.7 31.8 91.9
2 More Of 81 s. 1 8.1 100.0
Total 996 99.7 100.0
Missing 6 Don’t ban, 3 .3
Total 1001 100.0
Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI . 67
cQDEVEL 13> Single Family Housing
QDEVEL13 More or Fewer Siogle Family Housing
Valid Cumulmve
Frequency Percent Percent Percent w Va I 0 ewer 59.9 59.9
I JustTfe Right Amount 137 13.7 13.9 . 73.5
2 More Of 258 25.8 26.2 100.0
Total 984 98.3 100.0
Missing 8 Don't Know 13 1 -3
9 Refused
Total
Total
4 .4
17 1.7
1001 100.0
<QDEVEL14> Multi-Family Housing (such as townhomes, condos or apartments)
QDEVEL14 More or Fewer Multi-Family Housing
Valid Cumulatwe
Vahd 0 Fewer Of 666 66.5 67.3 67.3
1 Just the Rlght Amount 124 12.4 12.5 79.9
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
2 More Of
Total
Missing 8 Don't Kno~
9 Refused
Total
Total
199 19.9 20.1 100.0
989 98.8 100.0
11 . 1.1
1 .I
12 I .2
1001 100.0
Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI 68
<QDEVELl8> Specialty Grocery Stores (such as Trader Joe's, Henry's or Boney's)
QDEVELl8 More or Fewer Specialty Grocen Stores m
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Vahd 0 Fewer Of IS2 1 E.? '3 1 23 4
1 Jus the Right Amount 139 13.9 17.9 41.3
2 MoGOf 457 45.7 5E.7 100.0
Total , 778 77.7 100.0
-
Msmg E Don't Know 4 .6
Svstern 217 21.7
Total 223 22.3
Total 1001 100.0
-
L
cQCONFIDl> On a scale of 0 to IO, where ten means very confident and zero means not at all
confident.. ... how confident are you in the fire department's ability to respond to a
medical or fire emergency?
Descriptive Statistics
Std.
N Minimum Maximum Mean Deviation
QCOKFID 1 Level 0:
Confidence m Flrc
Depamnenr's Ab~llt! IO 926 0 10 8.87 1 1S
Respond IO a XledlcJl or Flre
Emereencv
Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI 69
0%
.
cQCONFIDZ> Using the same scale, how confident arc you in the police department's .. ability to
respond to a police emergency?
Descriptive Statistics
Std. - N Mnmum Maximum Mean Deviatlon *
QCONFm2 Level of
Confidence in Police
Department's Ability to 949 0 10 8.42 1 .E
Respond to a Police
Emergency v
cQCONFID3> How confident are you in the Carlsbad City government to make decisions which -
c positively affect the lives of its community members?
Descriptive Statistics
Std.
N Minimum Maximum Mean Dev~at~on
QCONFID3 Level of
Confidence m Carlsbad C~ry
Government to Make
Positive Decls~ons
958 0 10 6.04 7.53
..
Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI 70
.
cQINETl> Do you use the Internet at home?
0. No
1. Yes
8. Don’t Know
9. Refused
QINETl Respondeat Uses the Internet at Home
~~ Valid Cumulatwc
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Vahd 0 No 235 23.5 23.5 23.5
I Yes 766 76.5 76.5 100.0
Total 1001 100.0 100.0
<QIKETZ> Do you have a high speed internet connection (such as a DSL, ISDN or T1 line)?
0. No
1. Yes
8. Don’t Know
9. Refused
QlYET2 Respondent Has a High Speed Internet Connection
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid 0 ho 53s 53.7 72.9 72.9
I ses 200 20.0 27.1 IOO.0
Total 738 73.7 100.0
Misstng 8 Don’t Know 27 2.7
9 Refused 1 .I
System 235 23.5
Total 263 26.3
Total 1001 100.0
Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carisbad - SBRI 71
nr\7
<QFACILT> Would you be willing to increase your taxes to assure that facilities are kept from
appearing on the landscape or in view corridors (like poles, towers and wires)?
0. No
1. Yes - -
8. Don't Know
QFACILT Respondent Willing to Pay More Taxes to Assure That Facilities Are
Kept From Appearing on the Lnndscpe or in View Corridors
Valid Cumutative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Vahd 0 No 344 34.4 35.9 35.9
1 Yes 613 61.2 64.1 100.0
Total 957 95.6 100.0
L
L Missing 8 Don't Know 42 4 -2
9 Refused 2 .2
Total 44 4.4
Total 1001 100.0
9. Refused
Descriptive Statistics
Std.
N Mlnlmum Maximum Mean Deviation
1001 0 70 1 1.03 10.88 QDEMO 1 Number of )'ears
Lived In Carlsbad
<QDEMOI> How many years have you lived in Carlsbad?
Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, Ciry of Carlsbad - SBRI + 72
f
<QDEM02> Do YOU Own or rent your home?
0. Rent
1. own
9. Refused
QDEMOZ Own/Reat Home
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid 0 Own 794 79.3 79.7 79.5
1 Rent 202 20.2 20.3 100.0
Total 996 99.5 100.0
.( Missing 8 Don't Know 1: .l
9 Refused 4 .4
Total 5 .j - Total 1001 100.0
<QDEM03> How, many people currently reside in your household including yourself
and any children?
Descriptive Statistics
~ ~~~
Std.
h' .2ldtmum Maximum Mean Dc\mlon ._
QDEMO? ?.umber 01
People in Household 992 1 8 2.57 1.25
(Including ResDondent)
"
Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI
i
cQDEM04> HOW many children in your household are under the age of 18?
Descriptive Statistics
St&
N Minimum 'Maximum Mean Deviation
QDEM04 Number,of
Children Under Ageof 18 857 0 7 .70 1.01
<QDEMOS> How many children are under the age of 12?
Descriptive Statistics
L -
Std.
N Minimum Maximum Mean Deviation
334 0 5 1.23 .95 QDEMO5 hiumber of
Chi.ldrcn Under Age of 12
<QDEM06> f :x-jw many children are under the age of 6?
Descriptive Statistics
~~
Std.
N Mmmum Maximum Mean Dewation
QDEM06 humber of
Children under Age of 6 23 8 0 3 .82 .83
r
Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI 74
<QSTREET> One of the ways that 'we will present the results of this study is ,to compare the
responses given by people in different neighborhoods. So that we can do this, could you tell me
the name of the street that you live on?
<QXSTREET> And what is the nearesi Cross Street?
<QINCOME> Which category best describes your household's total income last year before
taxes?
1. Under S25,OOO
2. 525,000 to under 535,000
3.535,OOO to under $50,000
4. 550,000 to under $80,000
5. 575,000 to under S 100,000
7. S125,OOO and above
- = 6. $1 00,000 to under 5125,000
QINCOME Household Income Last Year
Valid Cumulatwe
Valid 1 tinderS25.000 60 6.0 7.0 7 .O
2 S25.000 to under 535.000 73 7.3 8.5 15.5
3 535,000 IO under 550.000 127 12.7 14.8 30.3
.4 550.000 to under 575.000 165 16.5 19.2 49.5
Frequency Pemnt Percent Percent
5 575.000 to under S 100,000 I88 18.8 2 1.9. 71.4
6 5 100.000 to 5 I3.000 96 9.6 11.2 82.6
7 5125,000 and Above 149 14.9 17.4 100.0
Total 858 85.7 100.0
Missing 8 Don't Know 2? 2.7
9 Refused I16 11.6
Total 143 14.3
Total 1001 100.0
Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI 75
<GENDER> 1. Male 2. Female
GENDER R’s Gender ’
Valid . Cumulative - - Frequency Percent Percmt Percent 1 ‘ahd 1 Male 4 .8 40.8
2 Female 593 59.2 59.2 100.0
Total lo01 100.0 100.0
Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI 76