HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-01-16; City Council; MinutesMINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING OF:
TIME OF MEETING:
DATE OF MEETING:
PLACE OF MEETING:
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
January 16,2002
11:OO a.m. - 3:lO p.m.
Faraday Administration Center F173A
The Mayor called the meeting to order at 11:07 a.m. All City Council members were present. Also in
attendance were the City Manager and City Attorney.
The Mayor then called for Council Member reports on regional roles and assignments as follows:
9 Mayor Pro Tem Kulchin gave a SANDAG Shoreline Erosion Committee update.
9 Council Member Finnila gave a SANDAG update including its regional governmental activities
and proposed plan and proposed legislation. She further reported on SANDAG’s transportation
committee activities.
= Council Member Nygaard reported on NCTD activities including an update on its “fast forward“
program intended to improve transportation service within the District‘s jurisdiction. She reported
on the increased usage and additional service provided by the Coaster rail service. . The Mayor reported on San Diego County Water Authority activities including a report of the
desalination issues which will be presented to the City Council at an upcoming meeting. He
further reported on MET activities including its proposed rate revisions and “seasonal water
storage” potential policy revisions.
The City Manager reviewed the goal and major project tracking report. A copy of that report is on file in
the office of the City Clerk. The Council then entertained a discussion of excess dwelling units under. the
Growth Management Program and existing Council policies and will consider the financial and facility
impacts at its next study session scheduled for February 20, 2002. The Council continued this
discussion through lunch and the Mayor called a recess at 12:50 p.m. The Council reconvened at 1:05
p.m. to consider the draft “City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report“ dated January 2002 and the
draft “Carlsbad Paired Comparisons, 2001” both reports on file in the office of the City Clerk.
The City Manager introduced members of the Leadership Team, Ann Marie Stuart, consultant, and
Management Analyst Joe Garuba who further explained the surveys and introduced members from the
Tom Ritter. Management Analyst, who introduced Allen Risley, Ph.D.. director of the program. Dr. Risley Social and Behavioral Research Institute at Cal State San Marcos. The item was further introduced by
gave a detailed explanation of the reports with the assistance of a computer presentation.
There was no public comment.
The mayor thanked the Mayor Pro Tern and other members of the City Council as well as staff for their
attendance and participation and adjourned the meeting at 3:lO p.m.
J3e3pqctfully submitted,
RONALD R. BALL
City Attorney as Clerk Pro Tern
cv 0 0 9 s 0 cv
r r ..
r
ul C
V
I-
P
2
c) V a, .-
n e
L
1. I I I
4.
L N
I II
L m
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report
Conducted for:
City of Carlsbad
Conducted by:
The Social and Behavioral Research Institute
January, 2002
Study Team:
Richard T. Serpe, Ph.D., Director
Allen J. Risley, M.A.; Associate Director
Michael D. Large, Ph.D.; Quantitative Study Director
Lon Brown Large, M.A.; Survey Study Director
Kevin G. Kilpatrick, M.A.; Field Research Coordinator
Richard V. Mason, M.A.; Field Research Coordinator
DRAFT - 1/8/02; City of Carlsbad, 2001 - SBRI
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION
DATA .........
............................ 1
................................................. 2
RESULTS .................................................................... 3
Respondent Demographics .................................................. 3
Demographics by Region ............................................. 6
City Services and Facilities ................................................. 10
Services ......................................................... 10
City-Provided Services ....................................... 10
Contracted Services .......................................... 14
Service Ratings by Regions ..................................... 14
... Programs and Facllltles .............................................. 17
Park and Community Center Use ................................ 17
Parks ............................................... 17
comunitycenters .................................... 18
Park and Community Center Condition ............................ 19
Parks ............................................... 19
DRAFT . 1/8/02; City of Carlsbad. 2001 . SBRI
Communitycenters .................................... 19
City Facilities ............................................... 20
.. Llbranes ........................................................ 24
CityFeatures ........................................................... 26
Best Liked Features of Carlsbad ...................................... 27
Biggest Concerns Regarding Carlsbad .................................. 31
Citystreets ...................................................... 33
TrafficReduction .................................................. 38
CityInformation ......................................................... 45
Information Resources .............................................. 45
Interest in Information Sources ........................................ 48
Rating of Information Dispersal ........................................ 49
Calendar ........................................................ 50
CityMeetings ..................................................... 51
City Council Meetings ........................................ 51
Qnarterly Quadrant Meetings ................................... 52
Other Methods of Obtaining City Information ............................. 53
Citywebsite ..................................................... 54
PaymentviaIntemet .......................................... 59
.. City Con&bons ......................................................... 60
Publicsafety ..................................................... 60
DRAFT . 1/8/02; City of Carlsbad. 2001 . SBRI
Feelings of Safety ............................................ 60
RecyclingandPollution .............................................. 62
Recycling .................................................. 62
Greatest Contributor to Ocean Water Pollution Perceived by Residents .... 64
WaterFee ................................................. 65
Graffiti .................................................... 66
Entertainment Venues ............................................... 67
Contact ............................................................... 69
Confidence in City Govemment ............................................. 73
Improving the Qual~ty of Life in Carlsbad ...................................... 75
DRAFT . 1/8/02; City of Carlsbad. 2001 ~ SBRI
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report
INTRODUCTION
This report summarks the results of the City of Carlsbad Public Opmion Survey. This was a
telephone survey conducted with residents of the City of Carlsbad administered in the Fall of 2001.
The survey was conducted for the City of Carlsbad by the Social and Behavioral Research Institute at
California State University, San Marcos.
The survey addressed the attitudes of city residents concerning city-provided services, facilities,
and issues, and included a number of demographic questions. The report contains a description of the
data, and an elaboration of the results of the survey.
DRAFT - 1/8/02; City of Carlsbad, 2001 - SBRl 1
DATA
The data come from 1,010 telephone interviews conducted in the fall of 2001. The
respondents were Carlsbad 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 a
computer-assisted-telephone-interviewing (CATI) system. There were at least 252 respondents from
each of the regions. The regions were specified as follows; Northwest included residents in the 92008
zip code west of El Camino Real, Northeast included residents in the 92008 zip code east of El Camino
Real, Southeast included residents in the 92009 zip code east of El Camino Real, and Southwest
included residents in the 92009 zip code west of El Camino Real.
This survey is similar to a survey conducted by the SBRI for the City of Carlsbad in 2000. For
some issues when the same questions were asked in both the 2000 and the 2001 surveys, comparisons
are made between these years. The interview questions are found in Appendix A and, Appendix B
contains frequency distributions or descriptive statistics for key variables. Additionally, residents
offered "poor" ratings of city services were asked their reason for offering a "poor" rating. Their open-
ended responses are found in Appendix C.
DRAFT - 1/8/02; City of Carlsbad, 2001 - SBRI 2
RESULTS
Respondent Demowaphics
Consistent with most telephone surveys, 40.2% of those responding were male and 59.8%
were female. These respondents had lived in Carlsbad an average of 10.49 years, and averaged 49.13
years of age, ranging fiom 18 to 91 years old. Table 1 shows the distribution of the mceiethnicity of the
respondents.'
Table 1: Respondent's Race/Ethnicity.
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 1 WhiteKaucasian 80 1 79.3 85.4 85.4
2 African-Amelican 10 1.0 1.1 86.5
3 Asian 51 5.0 5.4 91.9
4 American Indian,
Aleut, Eshmo 9 .9 1.0 92.9
5 HispanicLatino 60 5.9 6.4 99.3
6 Other 7 .7 .7 100.0
Total 938 92.9 100.0
Missing 8 Don't Know 4 .4
9 Refused 33 3.3
System 35 3.5
Total 72 7.1
'The 'Valid Percent" in the table represents the percent of the valid responses, as opposed to
the "Percent" which refers to the percent of the total sample.
DRAFT - 1/8/02; City of Carlsbad, 2001 - SBRI 3
Table 2 displays the annual household income of the respondents. The midpoint of the
respondents’ income distribution was $75,000; half the respondents had total household incomes
below $75,000 and half were above $75,000. Incomes from $50,000 to under $75,000 were most
typical. Overall, 30.5 percent of the respondents said they worked in the City of Carlsbad.
Table 2: Household Income Last Year.
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Paent Percent
Valid I Under $25,000 41 4.1 4.6 4.6
2 $25,000 to Under $35,000 69 6.8 7.8 12.5
3 $35,000 to Under $50,000 119 11.8 13.5 26.0
4 $50,000 to Under $75,000 20 I 19.9 22.8 48.8
5 $75,000 to Under $~oo,ono 167 16.5 18.9 67.7
6 $100,000 to$125,000 118 11.7 13.4 81.1
7 $125,000 and Above 167 16.5 18.9 100.0
Total 882 87.3 100.0
Missing 8 Don’t Know
9 Refused
21 2.1
107 10.6
Total 128 12.7
Total 1010 100.0
Of the respondents, 77.7 percent indicated that they owned their home, and 22.3 percent said
they were renting. There was an average of 2.58 people in the households, and 42.7 percent of the
respondents reported having children in their household. Of those households with children, there
was an average of 1.75 children in the household. This is seen in Table 3a? Further, 32.7 percent of
*The table also displays the “Std. Deviation” (standard deviation) for each of these variables.
The stankd deviation is a measure of how variable the responses were for that item.
DRAFT - 1/8/02; City of Carlsbad, 2001 - SBRI 4
the respondents said they had children under 12 years of age, and 18.9 percent said they had children
under 6 in the home. For those with children under 12, there were an average of 1.58 children under
12 in the household, and 1.33 children under six in the households with at least one child under six.
Table 3a: Number of Children in Households with at Least One Child in the Age Group.
Std.
N Minimum Maximum Mean Deviation
354 1.00 5.00 1.7486 ,8392 KlDLTlBR Numberof
Children Under The Age of 18
KlDLT12R Number of
Children Under The Age of 12
KIDLT6R Number of
Children Under The Age of 6
271 1.00 5.00 1.5756 ,7409
157 1.00 3.00 1.3312 ,5237
Considering all households, the average number of children in each of these categories is
displayed in Table 3b. Households averaged .61 children in the household, and .42 children under 12.
On average, there was .21 children under six years old in the household.
Table 3b: Number of Children in the Household.
std.
N Minimum Maximum Mean Deviation
KIOSLTl8 Number of
Children Under the Age of 18
KIOSLT12 Number of
Children Under the Age of 12
KIOSLT6 Numberof
Children Under the Age of 6
1010 .oo 5.00 ,6129 ,9712
1010 .oo 5.00 ,4228 ,7967
1009 .oo 3.00 ,2071 ,5249
DRAFT - 1/8/02; City of Carlsbad, 2001 - SBRI 5
Demographics by Region
Analyses were performed to determine if there were differences in the demographic
characteristics of the respondents by geographic region. The respondents did not differ by region with
respect to gender. There were differences by household structure. Specifically, the Northwest region
on average had fewer people per household than did the Northeast region. This is illustrated in Table 4.
Table 4: Number of People in the Household by Region.
QDEM03 Number of People in Household (Including Respondent)
Std
N Mean Deviation
1 Northwest 25 1 2.49 1.30
2 Northeast
3 Southeast
252 2.19 1.25
253 2.50 1.17
4 Southwest 25 1 2.52 1.26
Additionally, as Table 5 shows, respondents in the Northwest region had fewer children less
than six years old in their household than did respondents in the Southeast or Southwest regions.
DRAFT - 1/8/02; City of Carlsbad, 2001 - SBRI 6
Table 5: Number of Children under 6 in the Household by Region.
KIDSLT6 Number of Children Under the Age of 6
Std
N Mean Deviation
1 Northwest 252 ,1111 ,3728
2 Northeast
3 Southeast
4 Southwest
252 ,2063 ,5476
254 ,2795 ,5802
251 23 11 ,5607
Total 1009 ,2071 S249
There were also differences by region with respect to income, home ownership, and length of
residence in Carlsbad. As illustrated in Table 6, the regions in the South were more likely to have
higher incomes than those in the North especially the Northwest. Nearly 40 percent of the
respondents in the South had incomes of $100,000 or above compared to about 25 percent in the
North.
DRAFT - 1/8/02; City of Carlsbad, 2001 - SBRI I
Table 6: Annual Household Income by Region.
REGION
I Northwest 2 Northeast 3 Southeast 4 Southwest Total
OINCOME I Under Count 16 7 9 9 41
Household $25,000
Income
Last Year
%within
REGION 7.0% 3.2% 4.0% 4.3% 4.6%
2 $25,000 to Count 19 16 I5 19 69
under $35,000 %
REGION 8.3% 7.2% 6.7% 9.2% 7.8%
3 $35.000 to count 43 30 30 16 I19
under $5n,nnn %
REGION 18.8% 13.5% 13.4% 7.7% 13.5%
under $75,000
REGION 23.1% 28.4% 18.3% 21.3% 22.8%
6 slnn,non to count 25 29 34 30 118
$125,000 %within
REGION 10.9% 13.1% 15.2% 14.5% 13.4%
Above %within
REGION 14.0% 14.0~~ 23.2% 25.1% 18.9%
Total Count 229 222 224 207 882
Carlsbad residents also differed by region with respect to home ownership. This is seen in
Table 7. Over a third (35.1%) of the residents in the Northwest region were renting their home
compared to 18.1 percent in the other regions. That is, about twice as many residents are renting in the
Norhwest tban in the rest of the city.
DRAFT - 1/8/02; City of Carlsbad, 2001 - SBRI 8
Table '7: Home Ownership by Region.
QoEMO2 Mem 0 Own Count
Horn!?
I Nonhwest 2 Norhem 3 Southeast 4 Southwest Total
163 201 215 204 783
?4 within REGION 64.9% 80.1% 84.6% 81.0% 71.1%
I Rent Count 88 50 39 48 225
% nitlun REGION 35.1% 19.9% 15.4% 19.0% 22.3%
Total Count 25 I 251 254 252 1008
% witlun REGION IW.O?A 100.0% 1W.WA 100.0% 1W.VA
Region was very strongly tied to length of residence in Carlsbad. Those in the northern regions
had lived in Carlsbad considerably longer than residents in the southern regions. In the Northwest
Region, residents had lived in Carlsbad for an average of 16.17 years -longer than any other region.
This is seen in Table 8. Those in the Northeast Region (10.95) had also lived in Carlsbad longer than
those in the Southeast (7.49) and Southwest Regions (7.42).
Table 8: Years Lived in Carlsbad by Region.
QDEMOl Number of Years Lived in Carlsbad
Std
N Mean Deviation
1 Northwest 252 16.17 14.62
2 Northeast 252 10.95 10.03
3 Southeast 254 1.44 1.49
4 Southwest 252 7.42 7.86
Total I010 10.49 10.98
DRAFT - 1/8/02; City of Carlsbad, 2001 - SBRI 9
City Services and Facilities
Services
City-Provided Services
Respondents were asked about services provided by or through the City of Carlsbad. Each
respondent was asked how they would rate (from poor to excellent) a number of city-provided
services. Their answers are summarized in Table 9. AU the city-provided services addressed in the
survey were rated as good or excellent by most people. The libmy and fire protection services
received particularly good ratings. Both of these were rated as excellent more often than not.
Enforcement of traffic regulations and water services were not often given a rating of excellent, but both
were typically rated as at least good. The highest percentage of poor ratings (enforcement of haffic
regulations) was only 8.2 percent.
DRAFT - 1/8/02; City of Carlsbad, 2001 - SBN 10
Table 9: City Services Ratings
5 Gaodor
I Poor 2 Fair 3 Good 4 Excellent Excellent
% % % % %
Recreational Programs 1.3% 8.5% 57.8% 32.4% 90.2%
Libmy Services .8% 3.3% 34.1% 61.8% 95.9%
Fire Protection Services
Police Services
Enforcement of Traffic
Regulations
Cultural Ms Programs
Water Services
Sewer Services
overall city Services
.6% 2.1% 41.3% 56.0% 97.3%
1.7% 4.8% 43.7% 49.8% 93.5%
8.2% 17.6% 54.5% 19.7% 74.2%
2.3% 6.5% 63.0% 28.3% 91.3%
4.8% 17.6% 47.8% 29.8% 77.6%
1.8% 6.1% 61.2% 25.0% 92.2%
.3% 4.1% 61.4% 34.2% 95.7%
Fire protection service ratings varied by year. This is seen in Table IO. There were
substantially more excellent ratings in 2001 (56.0%) than there were in the 2000 (48.6%).
DRAFT - 1/8/02; City of Carlsbad, 2001 - SBRI 11
Table 10: Fire Protection Services Rating by Year.
ADMIN Survey Administration
1 2000 2 2001
Administration Administration Total
QSERV3 Fire I Poor Count 7 5 12
Protection
Senices Rating %within ADMIN
Survey Administration .8% .6% .7%
2 Fair Count 26 17 43
%within ADMIN
Survey Administration 3.1% 2.1% 2.6%
3 Good Count 395 337 732
%within ADMIN
Survev Administration 47.4% 41.3% 44.4%
4 Excellent Count 405 456 861
%within ADMIN
Survey Administration 48.6% 56.0% 52.2%
Total Count 833 815 1648
%within ADMIN
Survey Administration 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Respondents also provided a general, overall rating of the city services. Most often, residents’
overall rating of the city services was good. The overall city services were rated as good or excellent
by 95.6% of the respondents. These ratings were compared to ratings offered in the 2000 survey.
Table 11 shows that the overall ratings of city services were higher in 2001 than they were in 2000.
DRAFT - 1/8/02; City of Carlsbad, 2001 - SBRI 12
Table 11: Overall City Services Rating by Year.
ADMIN Survey Administration
I 2000 2 2001
Administration Administration Total
QGENSRV I Poor Count 9 3 12
Overall City
Services
Rating
%within ADMM
Survey Administration .9% .3% .6%
2 Fair count 74 41 11s
%within ADMIN
Survev Administration 7.5% 4.1% 5.8%
3 Good count 614 612 1226
%within ADMM
Survey Administration
4 Excellent Count 285 34 1 626
%within ADMW
Survev Administration 29.0% 34.2% 31.6%
Total Count 982 997 1979
% within ADMIN
Survey Administration 1nn.n% 100.0% mo%
DRAFT - 1/8/02; City of Carlsbad, 2001 - SBRI 13
Contracted Services
In addition to the city-provided services, respondents were also asked about services
contracted from outside agencies, Table 12 provides a summary of their responses. Trash and
recycling collection was rated as excellent by a third (34.2%) of the residents responding. Again, all the
services evaluated were rated as good or excellent by most people. The lowest ratings were for
hazardous waste disposal, but only 14.4% indicated that they thought this service was poor.
Table 12: Contracted Services Ratings
5 Goodor
1 Poor 2 Fair 3 Good 4 Excellent Excellent
% % % % Yo
Trash and Recycling
Collection 4.3% 14.2% 47.3% 34.2% 81.5%
Street Sweeping 6.1% 18.9% 52.5% 22.5% 75.Ph
Hazardous Waste
Disposal 14.4% 20.3% 49.7% 15.6% 65.3%
Service Ratings by Regions
The ratings of the services provided by or through the City of Carlsbad were generally
consistent across regions. However, there were regional differences for three of the services provided
or contracted by the city: water, sewer, and hazardous waste disposal services. Table 13a shows the
ratings of the water services across the four regions. The majority of residents in all four regions rated
DRAFT - 1/8/02; City of Carlsbad, 2001 - SBRI 14
the water services as positive. However, the respondents in the Southeast Region rated water services
less positively than those in the other regions.
Table 13a: Water Services Ratings by Region.
REGION
1 Northwest 2 Northeast 3 Southeast 4 Southwest Total
QSERV7 1 Poor Count 7 9 18 8 42
water
Services
Rating
%within
REGION 3.2% 4.1% 8.4% 3.8% 4.8%
35 30 46 41 152
%within
REGION 16.1% 13.6% 21.4% 19.2% 17.6%
3 Good Count 104 112 105 93 414
%within
REGION 47.7% 50.9% 48.8% 43.7% 47.8%
4 Excellent Count 72 69 46 71 258
% within
REGION 33.0% 31.4% 21.4% 33.3% 29.8%
Total Count 218 220 215 213 866
There were also regional differences in the ratings of sewer services. The Northwest Region
residents were more likely to offer atypical responses. This is illustrated in Table 13b. While all regions
were most likely to rate sewer services as good, those in the Northwest were more liely than those in
other regions to rate sewer services as excellent, poor, or fair.
DRAFT ~ 1/8/02; City of Carlsbad, 2001 - SBRI IS
Table 13b: Sewer Services Ratings by Region.
RFGION
1 Northwest 2 Northeasl 3 Southeast 4 Southwest Total
QSERV8 I Poor Count 7 2 2 4 I5
Sewer
Services
Rating
%within
REGION 3.9% .9% .9% 1.9% 1.8%
2 Fair Count 18 IO 10 12 50
%within
REGION 9.9% 4.7% 4.5% 5.7% 6.1%
3 Good Count 103 146 158 147 554
KttilVN
4 Excellent Count 53 55 52 46 206
25.8% 23.4% 22.0%
%within
REGION 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Hazardous waste disposal services were also rated differently by people in different regions.
The ratings of hazardous waste disposal services by region are displayed in Tablel3c. Those in the
Southeast were only half as liely as residents in other regions to rate hazardous waste disposal services
as excellent.
DRAFT ~ 1/8/02; City of Carlsbad, 2001 - SBRl 16
Table 13c: Hazardous Waste Disposal Ratings by Region.
1 Northwest 2 Northeast 3 Southeast 4 Southwest Total
QOUTSRV3 I Poor Count 28 14 20 21 83
waste
Hazardous %within
REGION 20.3% 9.1% 14.6% 14.2% 14.4%
Count 17 38 30 32 117
% within
REGION 12.3% 24.7% 21.9% 21.6% 20.3%
3 Good count 67 74 75 71 287
%within
REGION 48.6% 48.1% 54.7% 48.0% 49.7%
4 Excellent Count 26 28 12 24 90
% within
REGION 18.8% 18.2% 8.8% 16.2% 15.6%
Total Count 138 154 137 148 577
%within
REGION 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Programs and Facilities
Park and Community Center Use
Parks. 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 14. About three quarters (73.4%) of the respondents indicated that someone in
their household had used a city park.
DRAFT ~ 1/8/02; City of Carlsbad, 2001 - SBRI 17
Table 14: Use of Parks and Community Center.
0 No 1 Yes
Count % Count %
Household Member Has
Used a Carlsbad Park in 268 26.6% 738 73.4%
Past 12 Months
Household Member Has
Used a Community Center 733 73.8% 260 26.2%
in Past 12 Months
Park use was different in 2001 than it was in 2000. Specifically, the likelihood that a
respondent said someone in his or her household had visited a city park in the past twelve months
declined from 79.0 percent in 2000 to 73.4 percent in 2001, Park use did not differ by region
Commuaity Centers. The use of community centers was also assessed. Table 14 shows that
about a quarter (26.2%) of the respondents reported that a member of their household had used a
community center in a park in the past year.
The likelihood that a household member used a community center in the last year varied by
region. As Table 15 shows, the residents in the regions in the north were more likely to have a
household member use a community center than were those in the southem regions.
DRAFT - 1/8/02; City of Carlsbad, 2001 - SBRI 18
Table 15: Community Center Use by Region,
REGION
I Northwest 2 Nonhean 3 Southeast 4 Southwest Tofa1
QFACILTY Household 0 No Count 168 156 207 202 733
Member Has Used a
Community Center in % wirhin REGION 68.3% 62.7% 83.1% 81.1% 73.8%
Past 12 Months I Ya Count 78 93 42 47 260
% within REGION 31.7% 37.3% 16.9% 18.9% 26.2%
Total Count 246 249 249 249 993
% within REGION 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% lW.O% lW.O%
Park and Community Center Condition
Parks. Those respondents who reported that a family member had used a city park in the last
year were asked to rate the condition of the park. Over half the respondents said the park was in
excellent condition. This is seen in Table 16. The park condition ratings did not vary by region.
Table 16: Ratings of Parks and Community Center.
5 Goodor
1 Poor 2 Fair 3 God 4 Excellent Excellent
% % % Yo %
Carlsbad Parks .4% 4.1% 43.9% 5 1.6% 95.5%
Community Centers 3.9% 51.6% 44.6% 96.2%
Community Centers. Respondents who had said that someone in their household had used a
community center at a city park in the last year were asked for a rating of the condition of the
community centers. These ratings are wnmarized in Table 16. As with the condition of the parks,
DRAFT - 1/8/02; City of Carlsbad, 2001 - SBRl 19
almost everyone rated the community center condition as either excellent or good. The condition
ratings of the community centers were consistent aaoss regions
Table 17: Facilities Used in the Last Twelve Months.
0 Not Chosen 1 Chosen
count % count ?4
Dove LibTaIy Used in Past the
Twelve Months
Twelve Months
Cole Library Used in Past the
Senior Center Used in the
Past Twelve Months
Swim Complex Used in the
Past Twelve Months
Carlsbad City Hall Used in the
Past Twelve Months
Faraday Building Used in the
Past Twelve Months
Safety Complex Used in the
Past Twelve Months
Parks & Community Centers
Used in Past Twelve Months
Arts Offce Used in Past the
Twelve Months
Cenho de Infarmacion Used
767 75.9% 243 24.1%
814 80.6% 196 19.4%
964 95.4% 46 4.6%
968 95.8% 42 4.2%
970 96.0% 40 4.0%
974 96.4% 36 3.6%
988 97.8% 22 2.2%
994 98.4% 16 1.6%
996 98.6% 14 1.4%
1005 99.5% 5 .5%
DRAFT - 1/8/02; City of Carlsbad, 2001 - SBRI 20
said they had used the Dove Library and 19.4 percent said they had used the Cole Library. The other
facilities were used by less than five percent of the respondents.
Use of the Cole Library varied by region. Table 18a illustrates that those in the north,
particularly the Northwest Region, were much more likely to use the Cole Library than residents in the
South.
Table 18a: Use of the Cole Library by Region.
REGION
1 2 3 4
Northwest Northeast Southeast Southwest Total
QCITYFA4 0 Not Count 169 187 23 1 221 814
Used in Past
Cole Libraly Chosen %
67.1% 74.2% 90.9% 90.1% 80.6%
the Twelve
Months 1 Chosen Count 83 65 23 25 I96
32.9% 25.8% 9.1% 9.9% 19.4%
REGION
%within
REGION
Total Count 252 252 254 252 1010
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% REGION
%within
Table 18b shows the percentage of people by region who reported that a family member had
used the Dove Library. Use of the Dove Library was more likely among residents in the South than it
was among residents in the north.
DRAFT - 1/8/02; City of Carlsbad, 2001 - SBRI 21
Table 18b: Use of the Dove Library by Region.
REGION
I 2 3 4
Northwest Northeast Southeast Southwest Total
QCITYFA5 0 Not Count 198 203 I87 179 167
Dove Library Chosen %
Used in Past 78.6% 80.6% 73.6% 71 .O% 15.9%
the Twelve
Months 1 Chosen Count 54 49 67 73
REGION
243
Total Count 252 252 254 252 lolo
%within
REGION 100.0% Inom 1oom 100.0% ~nn.n%
Residents’ use of the swim complex also varied by region. Those in the north, particularly the
northwest, were more likely to use the swim complex than were residents in the south of the city. This
is illustrated in Table 18c.
Table 18c: Use of the Swim Complex by Region.
REGION
1 2 3 4
Northwest Northeast SoutheaSt Southwest Total
QClTYFA9 0 Not count 234 23 8 250 246 968
Complex
Swim
Used in the
Chosen %within
REGION 92.9% 94.4% 98.4% 97.6% 95.8%
18 14 4 6 42 Past 1 Chosen Count
Twelve
Months
%within
REGION 7.1% 5.6% 1.6% 2.4% 4.2%
Total Count 252 252 254 252 1010
%within
REGION 100.0% 1on.o% 1no.w 100.0% lon.o%
Those who had used the various facilities were asked to rate those facilities that they had used.
These ratings are found in Table 19. Most of the facilities were rated as excellent by those that had
used them. AU of the facilities were rated as good or excellent by the majority of their users. Only the
Dove and Cole libraries were used by enough respondents to allow an assessment of regional
differences. However, the ratings of these libraries was consistent across region.
Table 19: Facilities Rating by Respondent
5 Guodor
1 Pour 2 Fair 3 Good 4 Excellent Excellent
% % % % %
Dove Library .8% 12.5% 86.7% 99.2%
Cole Library
Senior Center
Swim Complex
Carlsbad City Hall
Faraday Building
Safety Complex
Public Parks & Community
Centers
Arts Office
Centru de lnfurmaciun
1 .O% 7.7% 33.8% 57.4% 9 1.2%
2.2% 6.5% 32.6% 58.7% 9 1.3%
2.4% 14.3% 42.9% 40.5% 83.4%
13.5% 56.8% 29.7% 88.3%
2.9% 28.6% 68.6% 97.2%
33.3% 66.7% 100.0%
25.0% 25.0% 50.0% 75.0%
64.3% 35.7% 100.0%
20.0% 20.0% 60.0% 60.0%
DRAFT - 1/8/02; City of Carlsbad, 2001 - SBRI 23
Libraries
The amount of libmy use was of intmst in this study. As noted above, when respondents
were asked an open-ended question about the use of city facilities by family members, the Cole and
Dove libraries were frequently mentioned. When asked explicitly about the respondent’s use, the
responses parallel those reported above. Most (79.8%) of the respondents reported using one of the
Carlsbad library facilities in the past year. On average, Carlsbad residents visited a Carlsbad libmy
16.90 times in the past year. The amount of overall library use did not vary by region. The amount of
use of the libraries individually is displayed in Table 20. As this table shows, 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 Infomcion.
Table 20: Frequency of Library Use.
How Often
How Often Respondent Respondent Used Cole
How Often Respondent
Used Centro de
Used Dove Library in Library in the Past lnformacion in the Past
the Past Year Year Year
Count % Count % Count %
1 Never 147 18.3% 340 42.3% 779 96.5%
2 Once or Twice in the
Past Year 273 34.0% 216 26.9% 21 2.6%
3 Once or Twice a Month 278 34.6% 165 20.5% 6 .7%
4 Once a Week 62 7.7% 47 5.8% 1 .l%
5 More Than Once a Week 43 5.4% 36 4.5%
DRAFT - 1/8/02; City of Carlsbad, 2001 - SBRI 24
Looking at these libraries individually, there are differences in usage by region. As one would
expect, the Dove Library is used more frequently by residents in the South than by residents in the
Northern regions. This is illustrated in Table 21a.
Table 21a: Frequency of Use of the Dove Library by Region.
REGION
Nonhwest Northeast Southeast Southwest
I 2 3 4
Total
OLlBl I Never Count 70 52 13 I2 147
How Often
Respondent
Used Dove
I ihrarv in 2 Once or Twice Count 75 81 58 59 273
%within
REGION 35.2% 26.8% 6.2% 6.0% 18.3%
--- the past in the Past Year %within
Year REGION 31.7% 41.8% 27.8% 29.4% 34.0%
3 Once or Twice B Count 45 51 91 91 278
Month %within
REGION 22.6% 26.3% 43.5% 45.3% 34.6%
4 Once a Week Count 5 7 25 25 62
%within
REGION 2.5% 3.6% 12.0% 12.4% 7.7%
5 More Than Count 4 3 22 14 43
Once a Week Yo within
REGION 2.0% 1.5% 10.5% 1.0% 5.4%
Total count 199 194 209 20 I 803
%within
REGION 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
The Cole Library, on the other hand, is used more kequently by those in the Northwest and
Northeast Regions. This is seen in Table 21b. The use of Centro de hformacion was too inftequent to
determine if there were any differences in use by region at a statistically significant level. Library usage
did not differ significantly from the 2000 survey to 2001.
DRAFT - 1/8/02; City of Carlsbad, 2001 - SBRl 25
Tsble 21b: Frequency of Use of the Cole Library by Region.
I 2 3
Northwest Northeast Southeast Southwest Total
4
OLlB2 I Never Count 21 32 153 134 340
How Often
Respondent
llsed rnte
% within
REGION 10.7% 16.4% 73.2% 66.0% 42.3%
~ib~~~ in 2 Once or Twice Count "" 61 63 48 44 216
the Past in the Past Year %within
Year REGION 3 1.0% 32.3% 23.0% 21.7% 26.9%
3 Once or Twice Count 67 71 7 20 165
a Month
34.0% 36.4% 3.3% 9.9% 20.5%
4 Once a Week Count 24 21 2 47
12.2% 10.8% 1.0% 5.8%
% within
REGION
% within
REGION
5 More Than Count 24 8 1 3 36
Once a Week %within
RF.GI0N 12.2% 4.1% .5% 1.5% 4.5%
~~~~ Tot?.) Count 197 195 209 203 804
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% %within
REGION
Citv Features
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 Carlsbad were. This
section describes the responses to these questions.
DRAFT - 1/8/02; City of Carlsbad, 2001 - SBRI 26
Best Liked Features of Carlsbad
Residents were given an open-ended opportunity to say what they liked best about living in the
City of Carlsbad. The respondents offered a variety of different answers, which are summarized in
Table 22. The most commonly cited feature in response to this question was proximity to the beach.
Nearly a third (31.9%) of the respondents mentioned this as what they like most about living in
Table 22: Features of Living in Carlsbad Most Liked.
0 Not Chosen 1 Chosen
Count % Count %
The BeachiClose to Ocean 688 68.1% 322 3 1.9%
WeatherlCEmate 808 80.0% 202 20.0%
Location 809 80.1% 201 19.9%
Like the Communitylthe People a2 I 81.3% 189 18.7%
Like That it's a Small Town a54 84.6% 156 15.4%
BeautifuVClean 877 86.8% 133 13.2%
City GovemmentmlanningiSeNices 894 88.5% 116 1 1.5%
It Is Safe 926 91.7% 84 8.3%
QuieVPeaceful 945 93.6% 65 6.4%
Trail&arks/Recreation 951 94.8% 53 5.2%
Schwls 968 95.8% 42 4.2%
Not Crowded or 0verdeveloped"Io
Trafic Problems 973 96.3% 31 3.1%
AtmospherelAmbience 976 96.6% 34 3.4%
?he Village 919 96.9% 31 3.1%
Housing 994 98.4% 16 1.6%
Other 913 90.4% 97 9.6%
EverythingNothing I Don't Like 964 95.4% 46 4.6%
DRAFT - 1/8/02; City of Carlsbad, 2001 - SBRI 21
Carlsbad. The weather or climate (20.0%), the location in general (19.9%), and the community and
people (18.7%) were also frequently cited as things people liked best about living in Carlsbad
The features people liked most about living in Carlsbad differed by region. Those in the
Southwest Region were more likely to mention proximity to the beach as what they liked best about
living in Carlsbad than were other residents. As shown in Table 23a, 39.3 percent of residents in the
Southwest Region cited the ocean or the beach as the thing they liked most about living in Carlsbad
compared to 3 1.9 percent for all Carlsbad residents.
Table 23a: Proximity to the Beach as Best Liked Feature by Region.
REGION
I 2 3 4
Northwest Northeast Southeast Southwest Total
QBADl-2 The 0 Not Count 179 177 179 153 688
Ocean
BeachIClose to Chosen within
REGION 71.0% 70.2% 70.5% 60.7% 68.1%
I Chosen Count 73 75 75 99 322
%within
REGION 29.0% 29.8% 29.5% 39.3% 31.9%
Total Count 252 252 254 252 1010
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% %within
REGION
Residents varied by region in the likelihood that they would state that location in general as what
they liked best about living in Carlsbad. Table 23b shows that those in the South were more likely tban
those in the North to offer location as what they liked best about living in Carlsbad.
DRAFT - 1/8/02; City of Carlsbad, 2001 - SBRI 28
Table 23b: Location as Best Liked Feature by Region.
REGION
1 2 3 4
Northwest Northeast Southeast Southwest Total
QBADI-3 0 Not Count 214 209 196 190 809
Location Chosen yo
REGION 84.9% 82.9% 77.2% 75.4% 80.1%
I Chosen Count 38 43 58 62 20 I
%within
REGION 15.1% 17.1% 22.8% 24.6% 19.9%
Total Count 252 252 254 252 1010
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% %within
REGION
There was also variability across regions with respect to the likelihood of stating that the small-
town feel of Carlsbad is what they like most about living in the city. Residents in the Northwest Region
were most likely to say the small-town feel is what they like most about living in Carlsbad, while those
in the southeast were least likely to state this as their best-liked feature. This is illustmted in Table 23c.
~~~ DRAFT - 1/8/02; City of Carlsbad, 2001 - SBRl 29
Table 23c: Small Town Feel as Best Liked Feature by Region.
I 2 3 4
Northwest Northeast Southeast Southwest Total
QBADl-4 0 Not Count 192 212 230 220 x54
Small Town Chosen
76.2% 84.1% 90.6% 87.3% 84.6%
I Chosen Count 60 40 24 32 156
%within
REGION
%within
REGION 23.8% 15.9% 9.4% 12.7% 15.4%
Total Count 252 252 254 252 1010
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% %within
REGION
Residents were also split by north and south regarding the likelihood of listing beauty and
cleanliness as what they liked most about living in the City of Carlsbad. Residents in the south were
more likely than those in the north to say that the beauty or cleanliness of the city was what they liked
best. Table 23d shows this difference.
Table 23d: Beauty and Cleanliness as Best Liked Feature by Region.
RFGICIN
I 2 3 4
Nnrthweqt Nnrtheast Southeast Southwest Total
OBADI-6 0 Not Count 230 226 207 214 877
~~~~~ ~~
~
BeautifuVClean Chosen %within
REGION 91.3% 89.7% 8 I .5% 84.9% 86.8%
I Chosen Count 22 26 47 38 133
%within
REGION 8.7% 10.3% 18.5% 15.1% 13.2%
Total Count 252 252 254 252 1010
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% %within
REGION
DRAFT - 1/8/02; City of Carlsbad, 2001 - SBRI 30
Biggest Concerns Regarding Carlsbad
Respondents were also queried regarding what concerns they had about Carlsbad.
Specifically, they were asked what their biggest concem is regarding the City of Carlsbad. These
concerns are displayed in Table 24. The most common complaint was traffic; 30.7 percent of the
respondents said traffic was their biggest concem regarding Carlsbad. Related are the concerns with
growth, expressed by 26.3 percent; and over-development, expressed by 18.2 percent. Some (6.5%)
residents said they had no concerns regarding Carlsbad.
Table 24: Biggest Concern Regarding the City of Carlsbad.
0 Not Chosen 1 Chosen
Count % Count Yo
T~affic 700 69.3% 310 30.7%
Growth 744 73.7% 266 26.3%
OverdevelopingIOverbuilding 826 8 1 .X% 184 18.2%
OvercrowdingiOverpopulation 926 91.7% 84 8.3%
Cost of LivingiHousing 960 95.0% 50 5.0%
Lack ofPoor City Sewices 914 96.4% 36 3.6%
City StreetsiFreeway Access 975 96.5% 35 3.5%
PollutiodAir Quality 980 97.0?/, 30 3.m
Overcrowded SchoolsiBussing
to San Marcos
Losing Open
SpacesiConservation of Land
ClilX
Othel
984 97.4%
985 97.5%
26 2.6%
25 2.5%
994 98.4% 16 1.6%
914 90.5% 96 9.5%
No Concerns 944 93.5% 66 6.5%
DRAFT - 1/8/02; City of Carlsbad, 2001 - SBRI 31
Concern with traffic differed by region. As Table 25 shows, residents in the northeast were the
most likely (38.5%) to mention traffic as their biggest concern, and those in the southwest were also
somewhat likely (32.9%) to list traffic as their biggest concern.
Table 25 Traffic is Biggest Concern by Region.
REGION
I 2 3 4
Northwest Northeast Southeast Southwest Total
QBAD2-4 0 Not Count 188 155 188 169 700
Concern
Biggest Chosen %within
REGION 14.6% 61.5% 74.0% 67.1% 69.3%
Regarding
Carlsbad is 1 Chosen Count 64 97 66 83 310
Traffic %within
REGION 25.4% 38.5% 26.0% 32.9% 30.7%
Total Count 252 252 254 252 1010
%within
REGION 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
DRAFT - 1/8/02; City of Carlsbad, 2001 ~ SBRI 32
City Streets
The respondents rated the city street conditions in Carlsbad. Overall road conditions were
rated quite positively. Most of the respondents rated the overall road conditions as good or excellent.
This is seen in Table 26. Respondents also rated the parking in the downtown Village area, and traffic
circulation efficiency, excluding freeways. Parking in the Village and traffic circulation received less
favorable ratings. Only about half the respondents rated parking and traffic circulation as good or
excellent
Table 26: City Street Conditions.
5 Goodor
1 Poor 2 Fair 3 Good 4 Excellent Excellent
% % % % %
Overall Road Condition 2.1% 13.7% 59.0% 25.3% 84.2%
Traffic Circulation Efficiency 17.0% 37.5% 38.2% 7.2% 45.4%
Parking Availability in
Downtown Village Area 15.2% 38.9% 39.1% 6.8% 45.9%
DRAFT - 1/8/02; City of Carlsbad, 2001 - SBRI 33
There was a difference between traffic circulation ratings between the 2001 survey and the
previous one. Table 27a shows that residents were much less likely to rate the traffic circulation
efficiency as poor in 2001 (17.0%) than they were in 2000 (25.3%).
Table 27a: Traftic Circulation Efticiency Rating by Year.
ADMIN Survey Administration
1 2000 2 2001
Administration Administration Total
QSTREET5 I Poor Count 252 171 423
Freeways %within ADMIN
Condition Rating Survey Administration 33.9% 37.5% 35.7%
3 Good Count 361 384 745
%within ADMIN
Survey Administration 36.2% 38.2% 37.2%
4 Excellent Count 46 12 118
%within ADMIN
Survey Administration 4.6% 7.2% 5.9%
Total Count 997 1004 200 I
%within ADMIN
Survey Administration 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
DRAFT - 1/8/02; City of Cadsbad, 2001 - SBRI 34
The ratings of traffic circulation efficiency excluding &ways varied by repion. Table 2%
shows that residents in the northeast were the most likely to express disapproval of the trafk circulation
efficiency. A quarter (25.2%) of those in the Northeast Region rated traffic circulation efficiency as
poor, compared to 14.3 percent for the other regions.
Table 27b: Traffic Circulation Eaciency Rating by Region.
REGION
I Northwest 2 Northeast 3 Southeast 4 Southwest Total
QSTREET5 I Poor Count 43 63 35 30 171
Traffic %within Circulation
Efficiency REGIOP'
":. n.....
17.2% 25.2% 13.8% 12.0% 17.0%
1 ra, LUUIIL 89 108 99 81 311
%within
REGION 35.6% 43.2% 39.0% 32.4% 37.5%
3 Good Count 96 68 104 116 384
%within
REGION 38.4% 21.2% 40.9% 46.4% 38.2%
4 Excellent Count 22 II 16 23 12
% within
REGION 8.8% 4.4% 6.3% 9.2% 1.2%
Total Count 250 250 254 250 1004
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% %within
REGION
~~~~~ DRAFT - 1/8/02; City of Carlsbad, 2001 - SBRl 35
Parhg availability ratings differed for residents across years. As with MIC circulation
efficiency, parhg availability in the Village was rated more positively in 2001 than it was in 2000. This
is revealed in Table 27c.
Table 27c: Parking Availability in the Village by Year.
ADMIN Survey Administration
I 2000 2 2001
Administration Administration Total
OSTREET6 Parkine I Poor Count 207 149 356 -
Availability in
DowntOwn Village
Area Condition
Rating 2 Fair Count 389
%within ADMIN
Survey Administration 2 I .4% 15.2% 18.3%
381 770
%within ADMlN
Survey Adminishation 40.2% 38.9% 39.5%
3 Goad count 328 383 711
%within ADMM
SUNW Administration 33.9% 39.1% 36.5%
~
4 Excellent Count 44 67 111
%within ADMIN
Survey Administration 4.5% 6.8% 5.7%
Total count 968 980 1948
%within ADMlN
Survey Administration 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
DRAFT - 1/8/02; City of Carlsbad, 2001 - SBRI 36
Parking availability ratings also differed for residents in d8erent regiom. This is shown in Table
27d. Those in the north were more positive about parking availability in the Village area than were
residents of south Carlsbad.
Table 27d: Parking Availability in the Village by Region.
REGION
I Northwest 2 Northeast 3 Southeast 4 Southwest Total
QSTREET6 I Poor Count 43 36 34 36 149
Parking
Availability 17.3% 14.5% 14.5% 14.5% 15.2%
in Downtown
% within
REGION
Village AX^ 2 Fair C0""t 82 86 113 100 381
%within
REGION 32.9% 34.7% 48.1% 40.3% 38.9%
3 Good Count 100 107 80 96 383
%within
REGION 40.2% 43.1% 34.0% 38.7% 39.1%
4 Excellent Count 24 19 8 16 67
9.6% 1.1% 3.4% 6.5% 6.8%
Total Count 249 248 235 248 980
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
%within
REGION
%within
REGION
DRAFT - 1/8/02; City of Carlsbad, 2001 - SBRI 31
Traffic Reduction
Carlsbad residents were asked about any methods they use to reduce their total number of
commuting trips. Their responses are summarized in Table 28. The most common method, reported
by nearly half the respondents, was flex hours. Carpooling and mass transit were each used by about a
third of the respondents. Use of these methods did not depend on the region in which the respondent
lived.
Table 28: Methods Used to Reduce Commuting Trips.
0 Not Chosen I Chosen
Count % Count Yo
Flex Hours 298 50.% 287 49.1%
Carpooling
Mass Transit
Telecommuting
Bicycling
394 67.4?4 191 32.6%
397 67.% 188 32.1%
456 77.9% 129 22.1%
487 83.2?4 98 16.8%
DRAFT ~ 1/8/02; City of Carlsbad, 2001 2 SBRI 38
The level of interest in various techniques to reduce commuting trips was assessed
Specifically, respondents were asked to indicate their interest in a number of methods to reduce
commuting trips using a scale of zero to ten, where zero means not at all interested and ten means very
interested. The average responses are displayed in Table 29. The highest level of interest was
expressed in the use of flex hours to reduce commuting trips. On the zero-to-ten scale, the average
level of interest in flex hours was 6.26.
Table 29: Interest in Commuting Trip Reduction Methods.
Std.
N Minimum Maximum Mean Deviation
562 0 10 6.26 3.73 QTRAVL5 Level of Interest
in Flex Hours
QTRAVL3 Level of Interest
in Mass Transit
QTRAVL2 Level of Interest
in Telecommuting
QTRAVLl Level of Interest
in Carpooling
QTRAVL4 Level of Interest
in Bicycling
512 0 IO 4.84 3.12
559 0 IO 4.75 4.15
566 0. 10 3.49 3.65
573 0 10 3.04 3.50
QTRAVL6 Level of Interest
in Moving Closer to Work 541 0 IO 2.78 3.85
525 Valid N listwise
~~
DRAFT - 1/8/02; City of Carlsbad, 2001 - SBRI 39
While the average interest score is not particularly hi& a look at the distribution of responses
may be more revealing. Figure 1 shows the distribution of the level of interest responses to flex hours
as a method to reduce commuting trips. More than a third (37.7%) of the respondents offered a nine
or ten rating of their interest in flex hours.
40r"---- 1
30 -
20.
No Interest 2 4 6 8 Very Interested
I 3 5 7 9
Interest in Flex Hours
Figure 1: Level of Interest in Flex Hours.
DRAFT - 1/8/02; City of Carlsbad, 2001 - SBRI 40
There was also a substantial portion of the respondents who expressed interest in using mass
transit as a means to reduce their number of commuting tips. As illustrated in Figure 2,2 1.1 percent of
the respondents rated their interest in mass transit as a nine or ten on the zero-to-ten interest scale.
No Interest 2 4 6 8 Very Intere
1 3 5 7 9
Interest in Mass Transit
Figure 2: Level of Interest in Mass Transit.
DRAFT - 1/8/02; City of Carlsbad, 2001 - SBRl 41
There was moderate interest overall in telecommuting to reduce commuting trips. However,
Figure 3 reveals that there are many who have high interest in telecommuting as well. In fact, over a
qwter (27.7%) of the respondents expressed strong interest in telecommuting, offering interest ratings
of nine or ten. Other means assessed (carpooling, bicycling, moving) did not receive strong interest.
This is illustrated in Figures 4 through 6.
40
30
20
IO
I k3 ::
&O u
No Interest
L
2 4 6 8 Very Interested
1 3 5 7 9
Inte~st in Telecommuting
Figure 3: Level of Interest in Telecommuting
DRAFT - 1/8/02; City of Carlsbad, 2001 - SBRI 42
50
40
30
20
1 3 5 7 9
Interest in Carpooling
Figure 4 Level of Interest in Carpooling.
DRAFT - 1/8/02; City of Carlsbad, 2001 - SBRI 43
No Interest 2 4 6 8 Very Interested
I 3 5 1 9
Interest in Bicycling
Figure 5: Level of Inbest in Bicycling.
DRAFT - 1/8/02; City of Carlsbad, 2001 - SBRI 44
fin '"I
5
4
3
2
1
I 3 5 7 9
Interest in Moving Closer to Work
Figure 6: Level of Interest in Moving Closer to Work.
Citv Information
Information Resources
Respondents were asked what resources they used to get information about the City of
Carlsbad. Table 30 shows their responses. The most common source of information about Carlsbad
reported was the Community Services and Recreation Guide, used by 55.0%. Calling the city on the
telephone was also used by 40.8% of the respondents, and about a third of the respondents used flyers
DRAFT - 1/8/02; City of Carlsbad, 2001 - SBRI 45
in their city billing statements and the same used the city web page. Almost a quarter (22.3%) of the
respondents said they used the new city desktop calendar.
Table 30: Sources of Information about Carlsbad.
0 Not Chosen 1 Chosen
Count Yo Count %
Community Services
Recreation Guide 455 45.0% 555 55.0%
Calling City on Telephone 598 59.2% 412 40.8%
Flyers in City Billing
Statement 680 67.3% 330 32.1%
City Web Page 68 1 67.4% 329 32.6%
The New City Desktop
Calendar 785 77.7% 225 22.3%
City Council Meetings 832 82.4% 178 17.6%
Citizen Forums 939 93.0% 71 7.0%
Other 1005 99.5% 5 .5%
DRAFT - 1/8/02; City of Carlsbad, 2001 - SBRI 46
There were also regional differences in the likelihood of gaining city information by ding the
city on the telephone. As with billing statements, residents in the northwest were more likely than others
to use this method to gain information about Carlsbad. This is seen in Table 3 1.
Table 31: Acessing City Information by Calling the City on the Telephone by Region.
REGION
1 2 3 4
Nonhwest Noaheast Southeast Southwest Total
QINF01-6 0 Not Count 134 155 I65 144 598
Carlsbad
Source of
Call,ng city I Chosen Count Information:
%within
REGION 53.2% 61.5% 65.0% 57.1% 59.2%
118 91 89 108 412
on Telephone %within
REGION 46.8% 38.5% 35.0% 42.9% 40.8%
Total Count 252 252 254 252 1010
%within
REGION 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
DRAFT ~ 1/8/02; City of Carlsbad, 2001 - SBRI 41
Interest in Information Sources
Carlsbad residents were asked about their interest in gaining information on the city through a
few different resources. Specifically, they were asked to rate their interest on the zero-to-ten interest
scale in receiving city infomation through a city newsletter or receiving e-mail notification fiom the city.
Residents were fairly interested in receiving a city newsletter, as indicated by an average interest rating
of 6.87. There was also moderate interest in receiving e-mail notices about the city, indicated by an
average interest rating of 4.87. The responses are summarized in Table 32.
Table 32: Interest in Using Different Resources for Information about Carlsbad.
Std.
N Minimum Maximum Mean Deviation
1009 0 10 6.87 3.08 QNEWSLET Interest in
Receiving a City Newsletter
QEMAIL Interest in
Receiving E-mail 992 0 10 4.87 3.88
Notification from City
Valid N (listwise) 99 1
DRAFT ~ 1/8/02; City of Carlsbad, 2001 - SBRI 48
Rating of Information Dispersal
Residents were asked to rate the job the city does in providing residents with intormation about
important issues. Respondents answered using a zero-to-ten scale where zero means poor and ten
means excellent. They offered an average rating of 5.95 on the zero-to-ten scale. The distribution of
responses to this question may be informative, and is illustrated in Figure 7.
Poor 2 4 6 8 Excellcn~
1 3 5 I 9
City Information Dispersal
Figure 7: Rating of City Information Dispersal.
DRAFT - 1/8/02; City of Carlsbad, 2001 - SBRI 49
Calendar
Reactions to the new city desktop calendar were of interest. Residents were asked if they
received the City of Carlsbad desktop calendar that mailed to each household the previous December.
As Table 33 shows, 62.0 percent of the respondents reported receiving the city desktop calendar.
Those that said they had received a calendar were asked if they found it to be useful. Two thirds
(67.1%) of those receiving calendars said they found them to be useful.
Table 33: City Desktop Calendar.
~~~
0 No 1 Yes
Count % Count Yo
City Desktop Calendar
Received 313 38.0% 511 62.0%
~~
City Desktop Calendar Useful 163 32.9% 332 67.1%
DRAFT - 1/8/02; City of Carlsbad, 2001 - SBRI 50
City Meetings
City Council Meetings
Respondents were asked how frequently they watch Carlsbad City Council meetings on TV.
The responses of the residents are displayed in Table 34. The City Council meetings are never
watched by 45.2 percent of residents. However, 44.8 percent report watching the City Council
meetings on TV at least quarterly. Watching City Council meetings on TV did not vary by region.
Table 34: Frequency of Watching Carlsbad City Council Meetings on TV.
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Vahd 1 Never 456 45.1 45.2 45.2
2 Once a Year 100 9.9 9.9 55.1
3 Once a Quarter 170 16.8 16.8 72.0
4 Once a Month 203 20.1 20.1 92.1
5 Once a Week 80 7.9 7.9 100.0
Total 1009 99.9 100.0
Missing 8 Don't Know 1 .1
DRAFT - 1/8/02; City of Carlsbad, 2001 - SBRI 51
Quarterly Quadrant Meetings
Respondents were also asked if they had ever watched a Quarterly Quadrant meeting on cable
TV. As Table 35 shows, 15.5 percent of Carlsbad residents have watched a quarterly quadrant
meeting on cable TV. Watching Qwterly Quadrant meetings on cable TV did not vary by region.
Table 35: Respondent Has Watched a Quarterly Quadrant Meeting.
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 0 No 835 82.7 84.5 84.5
1 Yes 153 15.1 15.5 100.0
Total 988 97.8 100.0
Missing 8 Don't Know 22 2.2
DRAFT - 1/8/02; City of Carlsbad, 2001 - SBFU 52
Other Methods of Obtaining City Information
Additional means of obtaining information about the City of Carlsbad were offered by
respondents. These are summaized in Table 36. The newspaper was the most commonly mentioned
method through which the respondents would like to get city information, but this was offered by only
7.3 percent of the respondents.
Table 36: Additional Means to Find Information on the City Suggested by
Respondents.
0 Not Chosen 1 Chosen
count % count %
ImproveiProvide More
Information On the City 961 95.1% 43 4.3%
Web Site
Cableicity TV Channel or
City-Related Programming 973 96.3% 37 3.7%
Flyers/iiewsletters
Newspaper
Regular Mail
987 97.7% 23 2.3%
936 92.7% 14 7.3%
982 97.2% 28 2.8%
DRAFT - 1/8/02; City of Carlsbad, 2001 - SBRI 53
City Website
The use of the city website by residents was given attention in the survey. Respondents were
asked if they had accessed the city website in the past year. A third (36.2%) of the residents had
accessed the city website. Respondents saying they had accessed the website were asked how much
of the information they were looking for were they able to find. Table 37 displays their responses. Half
(5 1.7%) of the respondents said they were able to find all the information they sought. Neither the
likelihood of accessing the city website nor the amount of information found differed by region.
Table 37: Amount of Information Found on City Web Page.
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 1 None 16 1.6 4.5 4.5
2 A Little
3 Some
4 All
Total
31 3.1 8.8 13.4
123 12.2 34.9 48.3
182 18.0 51.7 100.0
352 34.9 100.0
Missing X Don't Know 9 .9
System 649 64.3
Total 65 X 65.1
Total 1010 100.0
DRAFT - 1/8/02; City of Carlsbad, 2001 - SBFU 54
Type of hformation Sought
Respondents were asked about the type of information they were looking for when they visited
the city website. The type of information sought is summarized in Table 38. There was a wide variety
of information sought, as the table indicates. The most common response from residents was that they
were seeking information about specific events. This was repoded by 7.6 percent of the respondents.
DRAFT - 1/8/02; City of Carlsbad, 2001 - SBRI 55
Table 38: Type of Information Sought on the City Website.
0 Not Chosen 1 Chosen
Count Yo Count %
Specific City Events Calendar
(street fairs, parades or cultural
events)
General Information About the
City or City Services
Job Listings
City Codes, Laws, Policies,
Licensing
Park InformatiodCamping
ActivitiesiProgramsiClasses
Libraries
City Listings and Hours of
Operation
City Council & Planning
Information
Real Estate and Housing
School Information
Waste Disposal and Recycling
Demographics
Roads and Transportation
TourisdPoints of Interest
Traffic and Weather
Business Listings in Carlsbad
Interest Groups and
Community Organizations
933
956
970
973
973
977
979
980
988
993
996
997
998
998
998
998
999
1003
92.4% 77
94.7% 54
96.0% 40
96.3% 37
96.3% 37
96.7% 33
96.9% 31
97.0% 30
97.8% 22
98.3% 17
98.6% 14
98.7% 13
98.8% 12
98.8% 12
98.8% 12
98.8% 12
98.9% 11
99.3% 7
7.6%
5.3%
4.0%
3.7%
3.7%
3.3%
3.1%
3.0%
2.2%
1.7%
1.4%
1.3%
I .2%
1.2%
1.2%
1.2%
1.1%
.7%
Other 987 97.7% 23 2.3%
DRAFT - 1/8/02; City of Carlsbad, 2001 - SBRI 56
Type of Information Not Found
Those respondents who indicated that they were unable to fmd the information they sought on
the city website were asked what specific type of information they were looking for that they could not
fmd. The responses are summarized in Table 39.
DRAFT - 1/8/02; City of Carlsbad, 2001 - SBRI 51
Table 39: Information Respondent Could Not Find on City Website.
0 Not Chosen 1 Chosen
Count % Count %
General Information About the
City or City Services 1008
City Listings and Hours of
Operation
School Information
Specific City Events Calendar
(street fairs, parades or cultural
events)
ActivitiesiProgramsiClasses
City Council & Planning
Information
Roads and Transportation
City Codes, Laws, Policies,
Licensing
Business Listings In Carlsbad
Park InformationKamping
Libraries
Job Listings
Interest Groups and
Community Organizations
Waste Disposal and Recycling
TourismiPoints of Interest
Real Estate and Housing
Demographics
Traffic and Weather
1001
1003
998
997
1003
1004
981
1005
,1002
1007
1000
1006
1005
1007
1005
1007
1005
99.8% 2
99.1% 9
99.3% 7
98.8% 12
98.7% 13
99.3% 7
99.4% 6
97.7% 23
99.5% 5
99.2% 8
99.7% 3
99.0% IO
99.6% 4
99.5% 5
99.7% 3
99.5% 5
99.7% 3
99.5% 5
.2%
.9%
.7%
1.2%
1.3%
.7%
.6%
2.3%
.5%
.8%
.3%
1 .O%
.4%
.5%
.3%
.5%
.3%
.5%
Other 997 98.7% 13 1.3%
DRAFT - 1/8/02; City of Carlsbad, 2001 - SBRI 58
Payment via Internet
Residents were asked about their willingness to make city financial transactions via the Internet.
Specifically, they were asked if they would be willing to make payments for services provided by the
city via the Internet. As Table 40 shows, more than half (58.7%) the respondents indicated they were
unwilling to make payments for city services via the Internet. It is interesting to note that those who
Table 40: Respondent Willing to Pay for City Services via Internet.
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 1 No 588 58.2 58.7 58.7
2 It Depends 57 5.6 5.1 64.4
3 Yes 356 35.2 35.6 100.0
Total 1001 99.1 100.0
Missing 8 Don't Know 9 .9
reported accessing information about the City of Carlsbad through the city website were more likely
(46.8%) than other residents (30.1%) to say they were willing to make payments for services provided
by the city via the Internet.
DRAFT - 1/8/02; City of Carlsbad, 2001 - SBRI 59
Citv Conditions
Public Safety
Feelings of Safety
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 at all safe and ten means very
safe. The results are shown in Table 41. When asked how safe they felt walking alone in their
neighborhood during the day, respondents gave an average rating of 9.56, suggesting that they felt vexy
safe. These ratings did not differ by region or by gender.
Table 41: Feelings of Safety Walking Alone in the Neighborhood.
Std.
N Minimum Maximum Mean Deviation
OSAFEI How Safe
Respondent Feels Walking
Alone in HisiHer 1010
Neighborhood in the Day
QSAFEZ How Safe
Respondent Feels Walking
Alone in HisiHer
Neighborhood after Dark
1007
0
0
IO 9.56 1.04
IO 7.63 2.60
DRAFT - 1/8/02; City of Carlsbad, 2001 - SBRI 60
Residents were also asked about how safe they felt walking in their neighborhood at night. On
the zero-to-ten scale, residents provided an average response of 7.63, suggesting that they felt safe at
night as well. This is shown in Table 41. Residents did feel significantly more safe during the day than
they did at night
Feelings of safety walking alone in their neighhrhood &r dark did differ by region. Table
42a shows average feelings of safety ratings by region. Those in the Northwest Region did feel less
safe (7.33) walking alone at night in their neighborhood than did residents in the Southwest Region
(7.96).
Table 42a: Feelings of Safety Walking at Night by Region.
QSAFE2 How Safe Respondent Feels Walking Alone in Their
Neighborhood After Dark
Std.
N Mean Deviation
1 Northwest 252 1.33 2.98
2 Northeast
3 Southeast
4 Southwest
25 1 1.12 2.40
254 1.52 2.59
250 1.96 2.36
DRAFT - 1/8/02; City of Carlsbad, 2001 - SBIU 61
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 42b. While males offered
an average feelig of safety rating of 8.56, females offered an average rating of 7.01
Table 42b: Feelings of Safety Walking at Night by Gender.
Std. Std. Error
GENDER Gender N Mean Deviation Mean
QSAFE2 How Safe 0 Female
Respondent Feels Walking
Neighborhood After Dark
Alone in His or Her
602 7.01 2.78 .II
405 8.56 1.96 9.76E-02
Residents reporting feeling safer walking alone in their neighhrhood during the day in 2001
than they did in 2000. In 2001, the average rating of feelings of safety walking alone during the day
was 9.56 compared to 9.46 in the 2000 survey. There was no difference by year of survey (2000
versus 2001) for feelings of safety walking alone in their neighhrhood at night.
Recycling and Pollution
Recycling
Respondents were asked about the amount of recyclig they do. They were asked to estimate
the percentage of the waste items that their household disposes of via recycling. Overall, Carlsbad
residents reported recycling almost two thirds (63.34%) of the materials that they could. Figure 8
displays the distribution of responses. A quarter (25.9%) of the respondents reported recyclig ovex
DRAFT - 1/8/02; City of Carlsbad, 2001 - SBRI 62
90 percent of the material that could be recycled in their household, and 62.0 percent said they recycle
more than half the recyclable materials in their household.
"" I
20 -
0-10% 21.30% 41-50% 61-70% 81-90%
11-20% 31-40% 51.60% 71.80% 91-100%
Material Recycled
Figure 8: Percentage of Material Recycled.
The percentage of recyclable materials recycled varied by region. This is seen in Table 43.
Those in the Northeast Region reported recycling more materials (70.01%) than those in other regions.
DRAFT - 1/8/02; City of Carlsbad, 2001 - SBRI 63
able 43: Percentage of Recyclable Material That Is Recycled
by Region.
ALLRECYC Percentage of Recyclable Materials That Respondent
N Mean Std. Deviation
I Northwest 250 61.80 34.96
2 Northeast
3 Southeast
4 Southwest
252 70.01 31.82
253 59.94 34.19
25 1 61.63 35.52
Greatest Contributor to Ocean Water Pollution Perceived by Residents
Carlsbad residents were also asked what they thought was the greatest contributor to ocean
water pollution. Their responses are displayed in Table 44. The most frequently identified contributor
to ocean water pollution was contaminated storm water runoff. This was identified by 35.3 percent of
the respondents as the greatest contributor to ocean water pollution. A quarter (27.3 %) of the
respondents identified car washing as the greatest contributor to ocean water pollution, and 10.1
percent said pet waste.
DRAFT - 1/8/02; City of Carlsbad, 2001 - SBRI 64
Table 44: Greatest Contributor to Ocean Water Pollution.
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid
waterhuban runoff
1 Contaminated storm
2 Sewage treatment plants 63 6.2 7.1 42.4
312 30.9 35.3 35.3
3 Industries discharging into
the ocean 38 3.8 4.3 46.7
4 Boats and ships: oiligas spills 30 3.0 3.4 50.1
5 Sewage spills or overflows 4 .4 .5 50.5
6 Illegal dumping ofchemicals
or other materials
7 Trashilitter
8 Pet waste
9 Fertilizeripesticides
10 Cars: oiVgas leaks
1 I Car washing
12 Algae
13 Mexico
14 Other
Total
Missing 99 Refused
23
31
89
I1
19
242
1
7
15
885
125
2.3
3.1
8.8
1.1
1.9
24.0
.I
.7
1.5
87.6
12.4
2.6
3.5
10.1
1.2
2.1
27.3
.I
.8
1.7
100.0
53.1
56.6
66.7
67.9
70.1
91.4
99.2
100.0
99.1
Water Fee
Residents expressed willingness to pay an annual fee to improve coastal water quality. When
asked if they would pay a $50 annual fee per household to improve coastal water, over half (58.2%) of
the respondents said they would be willing to pay such a fee. Those who said they were not willing to
pay a $50 annual fee were asked how much they would be willing to pay on an annual basis. Most
DRAFT - 1/8/02; City of Carlsbad, 2001 - SBRI 65
(73.7%) said they would not be willing to pay anyhng. However, those who did not say zero, on
average said they would be willing to pay $21.84. Including those who said zero, the average is $5.75.
Graffiti
A number of questions were posed to the respondents regarding graffiti in the City of Cglsbad.
Respondents were asked if they had seen graffiti anywhere in Carlsbad in the past year. As Table 45
shows, over half of the respondents reported seeing grafiti in Carlsbad in the past year. However, of
those that had seen graffiti, only 12.1 percent reported it to the city. Almost all of the respondents who
hd seen graffiti said the graffiti had been cleaned up.
Table 45: Grafiti in Carlsbad.
0 No I Yes
Count % Count %
Grafitti Seen in Carlsbad
within the Past Year 470 47.1% 527 52.9%
Graftiti Reported by
Respondent 463 87.9% 64 12.1%
Glaffiti Cleaned Up 37 8.4% 401 91.6%
The likelihood that the respondent had seen graffiti in the past year differed by region. That is,
those in the north regions were more likely to repat having seen graffiti in Carlsbad in the past year
than were residents in the south xgions. This is seen in Table 46. There were no regional differences
in the likelihd of rephg gmlliti or the graffiti being cleaned up.
DRAFT ~ 1/8/02; City of Carlsbad, 2001 - SBRI 66
Table 46: Graffiti Sighting by Region.
REGION
1 2 3 4
Northwest Northeast Southeast Southwest Total
QGRAFl Grafitti 0 No Count 95 101 140 134 470
within the Past
Seen in Carlsbad
Year
% within
REGION 38.0% 40.9% 56.0% 53.6% 47.1%
1 Yes Count 155 146 110 1 I6 527
%within
REGION 62.0% 59.1% 44.0% 46.4% 52.9%
Total Count 250 247 250 250 997
%within
REGION 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Entertainment Venues
In the survey last year, the city of Carlsbad learned that residents in Carlsbad would like to see
more entertainment venues. As a follow-up, this year’s respondents were asked more specifically
about what type of entertainment venues they would like to see in greater numbers. Respondents rated
the importance of each of these venues on a zero-to-ten scale where zero means not at all important
and ten means very important. These responses are summarized in Table 47. Live concert venues,
performing arts theaters, outdoor amphitheaters, and museums were all seen as fairly important, while
movie theaters were seen as less so.
DRAFT - 1/8/02; City of Carlsbad, 2001 - SBRI 61
Table 47: Importance of Having More Entertainment Venues.
N Minimum Maximum Mean Deviation
Live Concert Venues 1001 0 10 6.56 3.20
Performing Arts Theaters 1002 0 10 6.54 3.13
Outdoor Amphitheaters 1002 0 10 6.33 3.26
Museums 1000 0 IO 6.12 3.07
Movie Theaters 1007 0 10 4.40 3.48
Std.
The perceived importance of movie theaters varied by region. This is seen in Table 48.
Residents in the northeast viewed having more movie theaters as more imprtant than did those in the
southeast.
Table 48: Importance of Movie Theaters by Region.
OVENUEl Imoortance of More Movie Theaters
Std
N Mean Deviation
1 Northwest 250 4.59 3.50
2 Northeast 252 4.88 3.61
3 Southeast 254 4.01 3.45
4 Southwest 25 1 4.14 3.31
Total 1007 4.40 3.48
DRAFT ~ 1/8/02; City of Carlsbad, 2001 - SBRI 68
Contact
Resident contact with the city was given attention in the survey. Respondents were asked
about calls they made regarding code enforcement, as well as calls in general. A total of 21.5 percent
of the respondents reported having contact with the City of Carlsbad to ask a question or report a code
enforcement matter. The likelihood that someone called the city depended on region. As Table 49
indicates, those in the nolthwest were considerable more likely to call the city than were residents in
other parts of the city.
Table 49: Respondent Contact with the City in the Past Year.
REGION
1 2 3 4
Northwest Northeast Southeast Southwest Total
QCALLI 0 No Count 174 20 I 211 205 79 I
Respondent %within REGION Contact with the 69.0% 80.1% 83.1% 81.7% 78.5%
City in the Past I Yes Count 78 so 43 46 217
Year %within REGION 3 1 .O% 19.9% 16.9% 18.3% 21.5%
Total count 252 25 I 254 25 I 1008
% within REGION 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
DRAFT ~ 1/8/02; City of Carlsbad, 2001 ~ SBRI 69
The 217 respondents who said they had called were asked about their contact with the city
Most residents found the city to be responsive when they called. This is seen in Table 50, which shows
that 86.7 percent of the respondents said their calls were returned promptly, 81.1 percent said they
received the information that they were after, and 71.1 percent said their concerns were addressed to
their satisfaction.
Table 50: Perceived Responsiveness of the City to Code Enforcement Calls.
n NO 1 Yes
Count % Count %
Call Was Returned Promptly 28 13.3% 183 86.7%
Respondent Received
Information Sought 40 18.9% 172 81.1%
Respondent's Concern Was
Addressed to His/Her 61 28.9% 150 71.1%
DRAFT ~ 1/8/02; City of Carlsbad, 2001 - SBRl 70
The likelihood that the respondents said that their concerned was addressed to their satisfaction
varied by region. As illustrated in Table 51, those in the southeast were less liely to say their Concern
was addressed to their satisfaction, while those living in the northeast were more liely to express
satisfaction.
Table 51: Satisfaction with Response by Region.
REGION
1 2 3 4
Northwest Northeast Southeast Southwest Total
QCALL4 0 No Count 22 7 19 13 61
Respondent's
Concern Was %within REGION 28.6% 14.6% 46.3% 28.9% 28.9%
Addressed to I yes Count
HisIHer 55 41 22 32 150
Satisfaction % within REGION 7 1.4% 85.4% 53.7% 71.1% 71.1%
Total Count 71 48 41 45 211
% within REGION 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
DRAFT ~ 1/8/02; City of Carlsbad, 2001 - SBRI 71
Respondents were also asked if they had any other contact with the city of Carlsbad by
telephone in the past year. Over a third (37.2%) of the respondents said they did have some other
telephone contact. These respondents were asked to rate the their contact with the city. Their
responses are summarized in Table 52. Only 5.6 percent rated their contact with the city as poor,
while 83.4 percent rated their contact as good or excellent.
Table 52: Overall Rating of Contact with the City by Those Reporting Other
Contact.
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 1 Poor 21 2. I 5.6 5.6
2 Fair 41 4.1 11.0 16.6
3 Good 133 13.2 35.7 52.3
4 Excellent 178 17.6 41.1 100.0
Total 373 36.9 100.0
Missing 8 Don't Know 1 .I
System 636 63.0
Total 631 63.1
DRAFT - 1/8/02; City of Carlsbad, 2001 - SBRI 72
Respondents were asked the extent to which they were confident in the Carlsbad city
government to make decisions that positively affect the lives of its community members. Respondents
answered on a scale of zero-to-ten, where zero means not at all confident and ten means very
confident. On average, residents offered a confidence rating of 6.52, suggesting confidence in city
government. The distribution of responses is displayed in Figure 9, which shows that most people xated
their level of confidence in the city government on the high side of the scale. In fact, two thirds (67.6%)
of the respondents offered a confidence rating over 5, and over a third (38.8%) rated their confidence
in the city government to make decisions that positively affected residents at 8 or higher.
nt
I 3 5 7 9
Confidence in City Government
Figure 9: Confidence in City Govemment to Decisions
That Positively Affect Residents.
DRAFT - 1/8/02; City of Carlsbad, 2001 - SBRI 73
Confidence in the Carlsbad city govemment to make decisions that positively affect the lives of
its community members varied by region. This is illustrated in Table 53. Those in the northwest, on
average, expressed more confidence in the city govemment than did those in the southeast.
Table 53: Confidence in City Government by Region.
QCONFID3 Level of Confidence in Carlsbad City Government to
Make Positive Decisions
Std.
N Mean Deviation
1 Northwest 240 6.82 2.47
2 Northeast 240 6.42 2.36
3 Southeast 237 6.15 2.51
4 Southwest 235 6.70 2.20
The extent to which residents expressed confidence in the city govemment to make decisions
that positively impacted Carlsbad residents differed in the 2001 survey from the previous year. That is,
respondents were more confident in 2001 (6.52) than they were in 2000 (6.04) that the city
government would make decisions that would benefit residents.
The association between confidence in the City of Carlsbad govemment to make decisions that
positively affect the lives of residents and ratings of the job the city does in providing intonnation on
important issues was of interest. The responses to these two questions was positively correlated
(1=.482), indicating that the higher someone rated the job the city does in providing information, the
DRAFT - 1/8/02; City of Carlsbad, 2001 - SBRI 14
more confidence he or she has in the city government to make decisions that positively affect him or
her.
Improving the Oualitv of Life in Carlshad
Residents were asked about improving the quality of life in the comm~ty. They were given the
opporhmity to offer suggestions regarding what the City of Carlsbad could do to improve the quality of
life. Their responses are summarized in Table 54. There were two issues that were more commonly
mentioned by respondents: setting limits on growth and development, and improving traffic circulation.
Setting growth and development limits was suggested by 28.0 percent of the respondents, and
improving traffic circulation was offered by 16.8 percent.
DRAFT - 1/8/02; City of Carlsbad, 2001 - SBRI 15
Table 54: Improving Quality of Life.
0 Not Chosen 1 Chosen
Count % Count %
Set Limits on Growth & ""
Development
Improving Traffk
CirculatiodEfiiciency
More or Better Parks and
Recreation Facilities
Road Construction and
Maintenance
More Responsive to
Community
WantslNeedslConcerns
Clean and Beautify City
Better Inform Carlsbad City
Residents (general)
More Police and Enforcement
of Laws
EventsISpecial Events
More Community
(concerts, fairs, festivals)
More Entertainment Venues
More AffordablelLow Income
Housing
MorelBetter Public
Transportation
ImproveIExpand Parking
More Schools
Programs, Activities, Facilities
for Children andlor Teens
Better Safety
More Policy & Relief for
UnemployedlPoorlHomeless
lL I
840
941
94 1
950
967
980
984
987
987
990
992
994
994
995
997
999
72.0%
83.2%
93.2%
93.2%
94.1%
95.7%
97.0%
97.4%
91.1%
97.7%
98.0%
98.2%
98.4%
98.4%
98.5%
98.7%
98.9%
283
170
69
69
60
43
30
26
23
23
20
18
16
16
15
13
I1
28.0%
16.8%
6.8%
6.8%
5.9%
4.3%
3.0%
2.6%
2.3%
2.3%
2.0%
1.8%
I .6%
1.6%
1.5%
1.3%
1.1%
DRAFT - 1/8/02; City of Carlsbad, 2001 - SBRI 16
There was an effect of region on the likelihood that the respondent suggested improving traffic
circulation as a means to improve the quality of life in Carlsbad. Consistent with the findings (Table 25)
regmding residents’ biggest concerns with the city, residents in the Northeast Region were more likely
to propose improving traffic circulation as the way to improve the quality of life in Carlsbad. This is
seen in Table 55a.
Table 55a: Residents Suggesting Improving Tralfc Circulation by Region.
REGION
1 2 3 4
Northwest Nofist Southaast Southwest Total
LIFEQ-I Carlsbad 0 Not Chosen Count
Could Impmve
Quality of Life in %within REGION
the Community
Tmtfic Circulatiod
By: Improving I Chosen Count
Eiliciency
216 188 219 217 840
85.7% 74.6% 86.2% 86.1% 83.2%
36 64 35 35 170
%within REGION 14.3% 25.4% 13.8% 13.9% 16.8%
Total count 252 252 254 252 1010
%within REGION lW.O% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% IW.O%
DRAFT - 1/8/02; City of Carlsbad, 2001 - SBRI I1
There was also a difference in the likelihood of offering road construction and maintenance as a
means to improve the quality of life in their community. This is dluslmted in Table 55b.
Table 55b: Residents Suzzestine. Road Construction and Maintenance by Region.
REGION
1 2 3 4
Northwest NonheaEt Southeast Southwest Total
LIFEQ2 Carlsbad 0 Not Chosen Count 243 224 238 236
Could Improve
941
Quvlity of Life in %within FEGION 96.4% 88.9% 93.1% 93.1% 93.2%
the Community By: I chosen
Road ConStmclion C0"nt 9 28 16 16 69
and Maintenance % wi!hin REGION 3.6% 11.1% 6.3% 6.3% 6.8%
Total count 252 252 254 252 1010
DRAFT - 1/8/02; City of Carlsbad, 2001 - SBN 78
Appendix A
Questionnaire Items
QAREA1.
QAREAZ.
QAREA3.
QWORU.
Are you currently a resident of Carlsbad?
0. No 8. Don’t Know
1. Yes 9. Refused
First, to be sure that you live in our study area, what is your zip
code?
1. 92008 8. Don’t Know
2. 92009 9. Refused
3. Other
To be sure we talk to people from all areas of Carlsbad, do you live
east or west of El Camino Real?
1. East
2. West
Do you currently work within the City limits of Carlsbad?
0.
1.
2.
8.
9.
No
Yes
Retired/Hornernaker/Not Applicable 3 skip QTRAFIC questions
Don‘t Know
Refused
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Fall, 2001 -Final Draft 10/8/01 1
qcan~i-i-2i. What do you like most about living in the City of Carlsbad?
(ooen end)
1. Weather/Climate
2. The Beach/Close to the Ocean
3. Location (general)
4. Like that it’s a “small town”
5. Quiet/Peaceful
6. Beautiful/Clean
7. Like the “community”/the people
8. City government; planning; services provided by the City (general).
9. Safe
10.The schools
11.The housing
12. Not crowded or overdeveloped; no traffic problems
13.Trails, parks, recreation services
14.The Village
15.Atmosphere/Ambiance
16.0ther
17.Everything/Nothing I don’t like
18.Nothing
19. Don‘t Know
~c~~~2-1-20. What is your biggest concern regarding the City of Carlsbad?
(ooen end)
1. Growth (general) /Growing too fast
2. Overcrowding / Overpopulation
3. Overdeveloping / Overbuilding
4. Traffic
5. Cost of Living/housing
6. Pollution/Air Quality
7. Lack of/ Poor City Services
8. Losing Open Spaces/Conversion of land
9. City Streets/Freeway Access
10.Crime
11.Overcrowded schools/bussing to San Marcos
12.Other
13.No Concerns
14.Don’t Know
15. No response
City of Cnrlsbnd Public Opinion S~rrvey Fall, 2001 -Final Draft 10/8/0I 2
QSERVI-8. I am going to read a list of services provided by the City of
Carlsbad. Please rate each one as refused (9), don’t know (S), excellent (4), good (3), fair (2), or poor (1).
o Recreational Programs
o Library Services
o Fire Protection
o Police Services
‘0 Enforcement of Traffic Regulations
o Cultural Arts Programs
o Water Services
o Sewer Services
<QSERVl>
<QSERVZ>
<QSERV3>
<QSERV4>
<QSERV5>
<QSERVb>
<QSERV7>
<QSERV8>
QSERVIP-8~. [If ‘poor”] is there a specific reason why you rated this service as
poor? (open end)
QGENSERV. In general how would you rate the overall services provided by the
City? Refused (9), don’t know (S), excellent (4), good (3),
fair (2) or poor (l)?
1. Poor
2. Fair
3. Good
4. Excellent
8. Don’t Know
9. Refused
QOUTSRVI-3. The City of Carlsbad contracts with outside companies for a variety
of services. Please rate each of the following services as refused
(9), don‘t know (S), excellent (4), good (3), fair (2), or poor
(1).
o Trash and Recycling Collection <QOUTSRVl>
o Street Sweeping <QOUTSRV2>
o Hazardous Waste Disposal <QOUTSRV3>
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Fall, 2001 -Final Draji IO/S/OI 3
.
QPARKUSE. Has anyone in your household used a Carlsbad public park during
the past twelve months?
0. No + skip to QFACILTY
1. Yes 3 ask QPARKWTE
8. Don't Know
9. Refused
QPARKRATE. How would you rate the condition of the park/s you or your family
used? Refused (9), don't know (8), excellent (4), good (3),
fair (2) or poor (l)?
1. Poor
2. Fair
3. Good
4. Excellent
8. Don't Know
9. Refused
QFACILTY. Has anyone in your household used a community center at a park
during the past twelve months?
0. No + skip to QCITYFAC
1. Yes + ask QCfRRATE
8. Don't know
9. Refused
QCTRRATE. How would you rate the condition of the community center at the
park you visited? Refused (91, don't know (8), excellent (4),
good (3), fair (2), or poor (l)?
1. Poor
2. Fair
3. Good
4. Excellent
8. Don't Know
9. Refused
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Fall, 2001 -Final DrafllO/S/Ol 4
QcITYFAi-11. Aside from parks and community centers, have you or a member of
your family used any other City facility such as [ random insert from
No (0), yes (11, don't know (S), refused (9).
[DO NOT READ LIST, MARK ALL THAT APPLY]
... - kt ] or r random insert from list ] during the past twelve months?
.
o Carlsbad City Hall
o Faraday Building
o Arts Office
o Cole Library
o Dove Library
o Centro de Informacion
o Senior Center
o Safety Complex
o Swim Complex
o Parks & Community Ctrs.
o Other
<QCITYFAl> __
<QCITYFA2; __
<QCITYFA3> __
<QCITYFA4> -
<QCITYFAS> -
<QCIlYFA6> __
<QCITYFA7> __
<QCITYFAB> __
<QCTPIFA9> -
<QCTPIFA10> -
<QCITYFAll> -
QCTyOTHl Any other city facitities used in the past twelve months ?
0. No
1. Yes
QFRATE1-11. [FOR EACH ITEM CHOSEN]
How would you rate the condition of this facility? Refused (9),
don't know (S), excellent (4), good (3), fair (2), or poor (l)?
o Carlsbad City Hall <QFRATE-l> __
o Faraday Building <QFRATE-2> __
o ArtsOffice <QFRATE-3> __
o Cole Library <QFRATEQ> __
o Dove Library <QFRATE-5> -
o Centro de Inforrnacion <QFRATE-6> __
o Senior Center . <QFRATE-7> -
o Safety Complex <QFRATE-B> __
o Swim Complex <QFRATE-9> -
o Parks & Community Ctrs. <QRATE-10> -
o Other <QRATE-ll>-
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion S~~rvey Fall, 2001 -Final Draft I0/8/0I 5
.
QSTREET. Please rate the condition of each of the following items as refused
(9), don't know (S), excellent (41, good (3), fair (2), or poor
(1).
o Overall Road Condition <QSTREETl> -
o Traffic Circulation Efficiency, Excluding Freeways <QSTREETS> -
o Parking Availability In The Downtown Village Area <QSTREET6> -
QTRAFIC. Citizens have identified traffic as a concern. In the past year have
you used any of the following methods to reduce your total number
of commuting trips. (O=No) (l=Yes)
[READ LIST, MARK ALL THAT APPLY]
o Carpooling
o Telecommuting
o Mass Transit (bus, trolley, or Coaster)
o Bicycle
o Flex-Hours Or Off-peak Hours
o Walking
o Other:
o Don't Know
<QTRAFICl> __
<QTRAFICZ> -
<QTRAFIC3> -
<QTRAFIC4> __
<QTRAFIC6> __
<QTRAFIC7> -
<QTRAFICB> -
<QTRAFICS> -
QTRAVLI-~ Using a scale of 0 to 10 where zero means not at all interested
and ten means very interested, how interested would you be in
using any of the following to reduce your total number of
commuting trips? Refused (9), don't know (8).
[READ LIST, MARK ALL THAT APPLY]
o Carpooling <QTRAVLl> __
o Telecommuting <QTRAVLZ> -
o Mass Transit (bus, trolley, or Coaster) <QTRAVL3> __
o Bicycling <QTRAVL4> -
o Flex-Hours Or Off-peak Hours <QTRAVLS> __
o Moving Closer To Work <QTRAVL6> __
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Fall, 2001 -Final Draft 10/8/01 6
QINFO1. In the past year, have you used any of the following to gain
information about the City? (O=No) (l=Ye~) . . .-.
[READ OPTIONS, CHECK ALL THAT APPLY]
. o Community Services Recreation Guide <QINFO1-1> -
o City Web Page (www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us) <QINFO1-2> -
o The New City Desktop Calendar <QINFO1-3> -
o Flyer in City Billing Statement <QINF01-4> -
o Citizen Forums <QINFOl-S> -
o Calling the City on the Telephone <QINFO1-6> -
o City Council Meetings <QINFO1-7> -
o Other: <QINFOl-E> __
(combination water/trash bill for some homes)
QNEWSLET. Using a scale of 0 to 10, where zero means not at all interested
and ten means very interested, how interested would you be in
using any of the following to gain information about the City?
A city newsletter mailed to your home (just City news, not including
recreation class schedule)? (98=DK) (99=REF)
QEMAIL. How about automatic e-mail notification on topics of your choice?
(98=DK) (99=REF)
QOTHI-2-10. Are there any other methods through which you would like to
receive information about the City? (open end)
o Cable TV Channel/City-Related Programming <QOTHI-2> -
o Flyers/Newsletters <QOTHI-4> __
o Newspaper <QOTHI-12> __
o Regular Mail <QOTHI-13> -
o Other <QOTHI-10> -
CITYINFZ. . Using a scale of 0 to 10 where zero means poor and ten means
excellent, how would you rate the job the city does in providing
you with information about issues that are important to you?
(98=DK) (99=REF)
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Fall, 2001 -Final Drafl10/8/01 I
QMETG1. On average, how frequently do you watch Carlsbad City council
meetings on television? Would you say once a week (5), once a
month (4), once a quarter (3), once a year (2) or never(1)
(8=DK) (9=REF)?
5. Once a Week
4. Once a Month
3. Once a Quarter
2. Once a Year
1. Never
8. Don’t Know
9. Refused
QMETGZ. Have you ever watched a City quarterly quadrant meeting on cable
television?
0. No
1. Yes
8. Don’t Know
9. Refused
QWEBACSS. Have you accessed the City’s website in the past year?
(www.ci.car1sbad.ca.w)
0. No 3 skip to QWEBPAY
1. Yes + ask QWEBINF
8. Don’t Know
9. Refused
City of Cnrlsbad Public Opinion Survey Fall, ZOO1 -Final Drafi 10/8/01 8
QWEBI1-39. What type of information were you looking for (when accessing the
City web site during the past year)? fooen end) . . ..
1. General Information About The City Or City Services
2. Listings and Hours of Operation
3. .School Information
6. Specific City Events Calendar (street fairs, parades, cultural events, etc.)
7. Activities/Programs/Classes
8. City Council Meetings/Planning
10. Roads and Transportation
11. City Codes, Laws, Policies
13. Business Listings
17. Park Information/Camping (location, hours of operation, etc.)
18. Libraries
19. Job Listings
20. Interest Groups & Community Organizations
21. Waste Disposal & Recycling
26.Tourism/Points of Interest
27. Real Estate/Housing
32. Demographics
34. Traffic & Weather
38. Other
39. None
QWEBFIND. How much of what you were looking for were you able to find?
Would you say all of the information, some, a liffle or none of
the information?
1. None + skip to QNOTFIND
2. A little
3. Some
4. All 3 skip to QTUS
8. Don’t know
9. Refused
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Fa& 2001 - FinalDraft 10/8/01 9
QNOTF1-39. What were you looking for that you were unable to find (when
accessing the City web site)? fooen end)
1. General information about the City or City Services
2. Listings and Hours of Operation
3. School Information
6. Specific City Events Calendar (street fairs, parades, cultural events, etc.)
7. Activities/Programs/Classes
8. City Council Meetings/Planning
10. Roads and Transportation
11. City Codes, Laws, Policies
13. Business Listings
17. Park Information/Camping (location, hours of operation, etc.)
18. Libraries
19. Job listings
20. Interest Groups & Community Organizations
21. Waste Disposal & Recycling
26. Tourism/Points of Interest
28. Real Estate/Housing
32. Demographics
34. Traffic &Weather
38. Other
39. None
QWEBPAY. Would you be willing to make payments for services provided by
the City via the Internet if available? (Ex: pay water bills, obtain
business licenses, etc.)
0. No
1. Yes
2. It Depends
8. Don't Know
9. Refused
QTUB. How often have you used any of the Carlsbad City Library facilities
in the past year?
times 3 If ZERO, skip to QSAFEl
3 If > 0, go to QUBl
8. Don't know
9. Refused
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Fall, 2001 -Final Draft 10/8/01 10
QUBl. The Dove Library (in south Carlsbad near El Camino and Alga).
1. Never
2. Once Or Twice In the Past Year
3. Once Or Twice a Month
4. Once a Week
5. More Than Once a Week
8. Don't Know
9. Refused ,
QUB2. The Cole Library on (Carlsbad Village Drive next to City Hall).
1. Never
2. Once Or Twice In the Past Year
3. Once Or Twice a Month
4. Once a Week
5. More Than Once a Week
8. Don't Know
9. Refused
QUB3. Centro de Informacion (near downtown on the Pine School
campus).
1. Never
2. Once Or Twice In the Past Year
3. Once Or Twice a Month
4. Once a Week
5. More Than Once a Week
8. Don't Know
9. Refused
QSAFE1. The next few questions have to do with neighborhood safety. For
each question, please use a scale of 0 to 10 where zero means
not at all safe and ten means very safe. Don't know (S),
refused (9).
How safe do you feel walking alone in your neighborhood during
the day?
QSAFE2. How safe do you feel walking alone in your neighborhood after
dark?
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Fall, 2001 -FinalDraji 10/8/0I 11
ALLRECIC.
WEAN.
QWATRFEE.
WARTFEEZ.
If you had to estimate the percentage of waste items that your
nothing and 100% would be recyding everything you can household disposes of via recycling, where 0% would be recycling
recycle, what would you say your percentage would be? YO
What do you think is the greatest,contributor to ocean water
pollution? '
[DO NOT READ LIST -- RECORD ONEANSWER ONLY]
1. Contaminated Storm Water/Urban Runoff
2. Sewage Treatment Plants
3. Industries (Discharging To the Ocean)
4. Boats and Ships: Oil/Gas Spills
5. Sewage Spills or Overflows
6. Illegal Dumping Of Chemicals Or Other Materials
7. Trash/Litter
8. Pet Waste
9. Fertilizer/Pesticides
10. Cars: Oil/Gas Leaks
11. Car Washing
12. Algae
13. Mexico
14. Other:
98. Don't Know
99. Refused
Would you be willing to pay a $50 annual fee per household to
improve coastal water quality?
0. No 3 ask WATRFEEZ
1. Yes 3 skip to QGRAFl
8. Don't know
9. Refused
[If no,] how much would you be willing to pay on an annual basis?
fooen end)
City of Curlsbad Public Opinion Survey Full, 2001 -'Final Draji 10/8/01 12
QGRAF1.
.
REPGRAF.
CLNGRAF.
QCALLl.
QCALLZ.
QCALU.
In the past year have you seen graffiti anywhere in Carlsbad?
0. No 3 skip to QCALLl
1. Yes 3 ask QREPGRAF
8. Don't know
9. Refused
[If yes] did you report it?
0. No I. Yes
Was the graffiti cleaned up?
0. No
1. Yes
8. Don't know
9. Refused
1. Yes
In the past year, have you called the City to ask a question or
report a code enforcement matter such as illegal dumping of
garbage, abandoned vehicles, animal problems (such as barking
dogs), or any other complaint?
0. No 3 skip to QCALL5
1. Yes + ask QCALLZ
[If yes] was your call returned promptly?
0. No
1. Yes
[If yes] did you receive the information you were seeking?
0. No
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Fall, 2001 -FinalDraji 10WO1 13
.
QCALL4. [If yes] was your concern addressed to your satisfaction?
0. No
1. Yes
QCALLS. Have you had any other contact with the City of Carlsbad via
telephone in the past year?
0. No + skip to QCALNDRl
1. Yes 3- ask QCALL6
8. Don’t know
9. Refused
QCALL6. Overall, how would you rate your contact with the city?
Refused (9), don‘t know (S), excellent (4), Good (3), Fair
(2), or Poor (l)?
1. Poor
2. Fair
3. Good
4. Excellent
8. Don’t know
9. Refused
QCALNDRi. The City of Carlsbad mailed a city desk top calendar to each
household this past December.
Did you receive this calendar?
0. No + skip to QVENUE1-5
1. Yes 3 ask QCALNDR2
8. Don’t know
9. Refused
QCALNDR~. Did you find the calendar useful?
0. No
1. Yes
8. Don’t know
9. Refused
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Fall, ZOO1 -Final Draft 10/8/01 14
QVENUEI-5. Citizens have previously identified the desire for more
entertainment venues. On a scale of 0 to 10, where zero means
not at all important, and ten means very important, how
important is it to you to see more of each of the following?
o Movie theaters <QVENUEl> -
o Performing arts theater <QVENUEZ> -
o Outdoor amphitheater <QVENUE3> __
o Museum <QVENUE4> -
o Live concert venue <QVENUES> -
o Other: <OTHVENUZ>
QCONFID~. On a scale of 0 to 10, where ten means very confident and zero
means not at all confident, how confident are you in the
Carlsbad City government to make decisions which positively affect
the lives of its community members? <QCONFID~> -
L1FEQi-w. What could the City of Carlsbad do to improve the quality of life in
the community? (onen end)
1. Improve traffic circulation & efficiency (general)
2. Road Construction and Maintenance
5. More/better public transportation (buses, coaster hours of operation, etc.)
6. Set limits on growth, development, population
7. More affordable/low income housing
8. Better inform Carlsbad residents (general)
12. More entertainment venues (move theaters, performing arts, etc.)
14. More police/Enforcement of Laws
16. More/Better Parks & Recreation Facilities
17. Clean & Beautify City
20. Better safety (rid of gangs, drugs & criminal activity)
21. Programs, activities, facilities for children and/or teens
23. More Responsive to community wants/needs/concerns
24. Improve/Expand parking (general)
25. More policy & relief for the unemployed/poor/homeless
33. More schools
37. More community events/special events (concerts, fairs, festivals, etc.)
42. Other
43. Don’t Know
44. Refused
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Fall, 2001 -Final Draji 10/8/01 15
..
QDEMO1.
...
QDEMOZ.
QDOB.
QDEM03.
QDEM04.
QDEMOS.
QDEM06.
QWCE.
How many years have you lived in Carlsbad?
Do you own or rent your home?
0. Own
1. Rent
8. Don't Know
9. Refused
In order to make sure that we speak with people of all age groups,
could you please tell me in what year were you born?
How many people currently reside in your household including
yourself and any children? + If 1, skip to QRACE
How many children in your household are under the age of 18?
3- If zero, skip to QRACE
How many children are under the age of 12?
3- If zero, skip to QRACE
How many children are under the age of 6?
What race do you consider yourself to be?
1. White/Caucasian
2. African-American
3. Asian or Pacific Islander
4. American Indian, Aleut, Eskimo
5. Hispanic/Latino
6. Other:
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Fall, 2001 -Final Draft I0/8/01 16
QSTREET. Could you please tell us the street you live on and the nearest cross
street? (open end)
QINCOME. Please stop me when I reach the category that best describes your
household’s total income last year (2000) before taxes?
1. Under $25,000
2. $25,000 to under $35,000
3. $35,000 to under $50,000
4. $50,000 to under $75,000
5. $75,000 to under $100,000
6. $100,000 to under $125,000
7. $125,000 and above
QCOMENT. Do you have any comments you would like to add about the
subjects we have covered today? fooen end)
GENDER. 1. Male 0. Female
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Fall, 2001 -Final Draft 10/8/01 17
.
.
Appendix B
Frequencies and Descriptive Statistics
QAREAZ Zip Code
Cumulative
Frequency percent Valid Percenl percent
Valid I 92008 504 49.9 49.9 49.9
2 92009 506 50.1 50.1 100.0
QARE.43 EastNest of El Camino Real
FCC"W"C" percent Valid Percent Percent
Cumulativc
\Ad I East 506 50.1 50.1 50.1
2 West 504 49.9 49.9 100.0
Tom1 IOIO 100.0 100.0
QWORK Respondcnt Currently Works \Vithin Carlsbad City Limits
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid 0 No 520 51.5 51.8 51.8
I Yes 306 30.3 30.5 82.3
2 RrtirediHomemakeriNot
Applicable 178 17.6 11.7 100.0
, Total 1004 99.4 100.0
Missing 8 Don't Know 6 .6
QBAD1-1 Thing Respondent Likes Most About Living In Carlsbad WeatherlCLimate
Cumulative
I Chosen 202 20.0 20.0 100.0
QBADl-2 Thing Respondent Likes Most About Living In Carlsbad: The BeaCh/ClOSe to Ocean
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent PUCC"t
Valid 0 Not Chosen 688 68.1 68.1 68.1
I Chosen 322 31.9 31.9 100.0
Totill 1010 100.0 100.0 . QBADI-3 Thing Respondent Likes Most About Living In Carlsbad: Location
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent PEXC"t
Valid 0 Not Chosen 809 80.1 80.1 80.1
I Chosen 201 19.9 19.9 100.0
QBADl-4 Thing Respondent Likes Most About Living In Carlsbad Like That it's a Small Town
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
PCCCe"t
Valid 0 Not Chosen 854 84.6 84.6 84.6
I Chosen 156 15.4 15.4 100.0
QBADl-5 Thing Respondent Likes Most About Living In Carlsbad: QnieUPeaceful
Cumulative
FE0W"C" Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 0 Not Chosen 945 93.6 93.6 93.6
I Chosen 65 6.4 6.4 100.0
Total 1010 100.0 100.0
QBAD1-6 Thing Respondent Likes Most About Living In Carlsbad BeautifuUClean
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent PcKc"t
Valid 0 Not Chosen 877 86.8 86.8 86.8
I Chorcn 133 13.2 13.2 100.0
QBADl-7 Thing Respondent Likes Most About Living In Carlsbad Like the Communityltbe People
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Pelcent
Vniid 0 Not Chosen 821 81.3 81.3 81.3
I Chore!> 189 18.7 18.7 100.0
Total 1010 100.0 100.0
QBADl-8 Thing Respondent Likes Most About Living In Carlsbad: City GovernmenVPlanninglServices
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 0 Not Chosen 894 88.5 88.5 88.5
I Chosen 116 11.5 11.5 100.0
QBADl-9 Thing Respondent Likes Most About Living In Carlsbad Safe
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Cumulative
Valid 0 Not Chosen 926 91.7 91.7 91.7
I Chosen 84 8.3 8.3 100.0
Total 1010 100.0 100.0
QBADI-IO Thing Respondent Likes Most About Living In Carlsbad: The Schools
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 0 Not Chorrn 968 95.8 95.8 95.8
I Chosen 42 4.2 4.2 100.0
QBADl-11 Thing Respondent Likes Most About Living In Carlsbad The Housing
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 0 No1 Chosen 994 98.4 98.4 98.4
I Chosen 16 1.6 1.6 100.0
QBADl-12 Thing Respondent Likes Most About Living In Carlsbad: Not Crowded or OverdevelopedNo Tramc Problems
Fre0"e"C" Percent Valid Percent Percent
Cumulative
Valid 0 Not Chosen 973 96.3 96.3 96.3
I Chosen 37 3.7 3.7 100.0
Total 1010 100.0 100.0
QB,\Dl-l3 Thing Respondent Likes Most About Living In Carlsbad: TrailflarkslRecreation
Fre0"e"C" Percent Valid Percent Percent
Cumulative
Valid 0 Not Chosen 957 94.8 94.8 94.8
I Chosen 53 5.2 5.2 100.0
QBADI-14 Thing Respondent Likes Most About Living In Carlsbad The Village
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 0 Not Chosen 979 96.9 96.9 96.9
I Chosen 31 3.1 3.1 100.0
Total 1010 100.0 100.0 . QBADI-15 Thing Respondent Likes Most About Living In Carlsbad: AtmospherelAmbience
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 0 Not Chosen 976 96.6 96.6 96.6
I Chosen 34 . 3.4 3.4 100.0
QBAD1-16 Thing Respondent Likes Most About Living In Csrhbad: Other
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 0 Not Chosen 913 90.4 90.4 90.4
I Chosen 97 9.6 9.6 100.0
QBADI-17 Thing Respondent Likes Most About Living In Carlsbad EveryihingINothing I Don't Like
FIMW"C" Percent Valid Percent PWW"t
Cumulative
Valid 0 Not Chosen 964 95.4 95.4 95.4
I Chosen 46 4.6 4.6 100.0
QBADl-18 Thing Respondent Likes Most About Living In Carlsbad Nothing
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent percent
Valid 0 Not Chosen 1007 99.7 99.7 99.7
I Chosen 3 .3 .3 100.0
QBr\DI-IY Thing Respondent Likes Most About Living In Carlrbad: Don't Know
Frcqucncy Percent Valid Perccm Percent
Cumulative
Valid 0 Not Chosen 1002 99.2 99.2 99.2
1 Chosen 8 .8 .8 100.0
Toul 1010 100.0 100.0
QBADZ-1 Respondent's Biggest Concern Regarding CarlsbadGrowth/Growing Too Fast
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent percent
~ ~~~ ~~~ ~ ~
Valid 0 Not Chosen 744 73.7 73.7 13.7
I Chosen 266 26.3 26.3 100.0
QBAD2-2 Respondent's Biggest Concern Regarding Carlsbad: Overcrowding/Overpopulation
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent percent
Valid 0 Not Chosen 926 91.7 91.7 91.7
1 Chosen 84 8.3 8.3 100.0
Total 1010 100.0 100.0
QBAD2-3 Respondent's Biggest Concern Regarding Carlsbad: OverdevelopinglOverbuilding
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 0 Not Chosen 826 81.8 81.8 81.8
I Chosen I a4 18.2 18.2 100.0
QBADZ-4 Respondent's Biggest Concern Regarding Carlsbad: Traflic
Frequency Percent Valid Percent PeKc",
.
Valid 0 Nor Chosen 700 69.3 69.3 69.3
1 Chosen 310 30.7 30.7 100.0
QBA62-5 Respondent's Biggest Concern Regarding Carlsbad Cost of Living/Housing
Fre0Ue"C" Percent Valid Percent Percent
Cumulative
Valid 0 Not Chosen 960 95.0 95.0 95.0
I Chosen so 5.0 5.0 100.0
Total 1010 100.0 100.0 2
QBAD2-6 Respondent's Biggest Concern Regarding Carlsbad: PollutiodAir Quality
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
cumu1ativc
Valid 0 Not Chosen 980 97.0 97.0 97.0
I Chosen 30 3.0 3.0 100.0
QBAD2-7 Respondent's Biggest Concern Regarding Carlsbad Lack ofiPoor City Services
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid 0 Not Chosen 974 96.4 96.4 96.4
I Chosen 36 3.6 3.6 100.0
.
QBAD2-8 Respondent's Biggest Concern Regarding Carlsbad: Losing Open SpscedConservation ofLand
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 0 Not Chosen 985 97.5 97.5 97.5
I Chosen 25 2.5 2.5 100.0
QBAD2-9 Respondent's Biggest Concern Regarding Carlsbad City StreeWFreeway Access
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Pcrcc"1
Cumulative
Valid 0 Not Chosen 975 96.5 96.5 96.5
I Chosen 35 3.5 3.5 100.0
Total IOIO 100.0 100.0
QBADZ-IO Respondent's Biggest Concern Regarding Carlsbad Crime
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 0 Not Chosen 994 98.4 98.4 98.4
I Chosen 16 I .6 I .6 100.0
QBAD2-11 Respondent's Biggest Concern Regarding Carlsbad: Overcrowded SchoolslSussing to San Marcos
~~~ ~~~~ ~ ~~
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid 0 Not Chosen 984 97.4 97.4 97.4
I Choren 26 2.6 2.6 100.0
QBAD2-12 Respondent's Biggest Concern Regarding Carlsbad: Other
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent percent
Valid 0 Not Chosen 914 90.5 90.5 90.5
I Chosen 96 9.5 9.5 100.0
QBADZ-13 Respondent's Biggest Concern Regarding Carlsbad: No Concerns
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 0 Not Chosen 944 93.5 93.5 93.5
I Chosen 66 6.5 6.5 100.0
Total .. QBADZ-14 Respandent's Biggest Concern Regarding Carlsbad: Don't Know
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid 0 Not Chosen 979 96.9 96.9 96.9
I Charm 31 3.1 3.1 100.0
QBADZ-15 Respandent's Biggest Concern Regarding Carlsbad No Response
~~
Cumulative
Valid 0 Not Chosen
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
999 98.9 98.9 98.9
I Chosen II 1.1 1.1 100.0
QSERVI Recreational Programs Rating
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
VJlid I Pow II 1.1 1.3 I .3
2 Fair 73 7.2 8.5 9.8
3 Good 495 49.0 57.8 67.6
4 Excellent 278 27.5 32.4 100.0
Total 857 84.9 100.0
Missing 8 Don't Know 151 15.0
9 Refused 2 .2
Total 153 15.1
QSERVZ Library Services Rating
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Cumulative
Valid I Poor 7 .7 .8 .8
2 Fair 31 3.1 3.3 4.1
3 Good 317 31.4 34.1 38.2
4 Execllent 575 56.9 61.8 100.0
Total 930 92. I 100.0 .
Missing 8 Don’t Know 80 7.9
QSERV3 Fire Protection Services Rating
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent PtXC”t
Valid I Poor 5 .5 .6 .6
2 Fair 17 1.7 2.1 2.7
3 Good 337 33.4 41.3 44.0
4 Excellent 456 45.1 56.0 100.0
Total 815 80.7 100.0
Missing 8 Don’t Know 195 19.3
QSERV4 Police Services Rating
Cumulative
Valid I Poor
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
16 I .6 I .7 1.7
2 Fair 45 4.5 4.8 6.5
3 Good 408 40.4 43.7 50.2
4 Excellent 465 46.0 49.8 100.0
* Total 934 92.5 100.0
Missing 8 Don’t Know 76 7.5
QSERV5 Trallic Enforcement Rating
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 1 Poor 7f 7.3 8.2 8.2
2 Fair 160 15.8 17.6 25.8
3 Goad 494 48.9 54.5 80.3
4 Exeellent I79 17.7 19.7 100.0
Total 907 89.8 100.0 *
Missing 8 Don'( Know 102 10.1
9 Refused I ' .I
Toral 103 10.2
QSERV6 Cultural Arts Programs Rating
Cumulative
Valid I Poor 22 2.2 2.3 2.3
2 Fair 63 6.2 6.5 8.7
3 Good 612 60.6 63.0 71.7
4 Excellcnt 275 27.2 28.3 100.0
Total 972 96.2 100.0
Missing 8 Don't Know 38 3.8
QSERV7 Water Services Rating
Cumulativc
Frequency Percent Valid Percent PerCe"t
Valid I Poor 42 4.2 4.8 4.8
2 Fair 152 15.0 17.6 22.4
' 3 Good 414 41.0 47.8 70.2
4 Excellent 258 25.5 29.8 100.0
Total 866 85.7 100.0
Missing 8 Don't Know 142 14.1
9 Refused 2 .2
Total 144 14.3
. .. . . - . .
QSERVS Sewer Services Rating
~ ~
Cumulative
Frequency Peree'nt Valid Percent Percent
Valid I Poor 15 1.5 I .8 1.8
2 Fair 50 5.0 6.1 7.9
3 Good 554 54.9 67.2 75.0
4 Excellent 206 20.4 25.0 100.0
Total 825 81.7 100.0 ..
Missing 8 Don't Know 68 6.7
System 117 .I 1.6
Total 185 18.3
QTRAFIIO Walking Used to Reduce Number of Commuting Trips
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Cumulative
Valid 0 Not Chosen 984 97.4 97.4 97.4
I Chosen 26 2.6 2.6 100.0
QGENSRV Overall City Services Rating
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid I Poor 3 .3 .3 .3
2 Fair 41 4.1 4.1 4.4
3 Good 612 60.6 61.4 65.8
4 Excellent 341 33.8 34.2 100.0
Tom1 997 98.7 100.0
Missing 8 Don't Know 13 I .3
QOUTSRVI Trash and Recycling Collection Rating
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid I Poor 43 4.3 4.3 4.3
2 Fair 142 14.1 14.2 18.5
3 Good 474 46.9 47.3 65.8
4 Excellent 343 34.0 34.2 100.0
Total 1002 99.2 100.0
Missing 8 Don't Know 8 .8
QOUTSRVZ Street Sweeping Rating
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Cumulative
Valid I Poor 58 5.7 6.1 6. I
2 Fair I79 17.7 18.9 25.0
3 Good 498 49.3 52.5 77.5
4 Excellent 213 21.1 22.5 100.0
Total 948 93.9 100.0 .
Missing 8 Don't Know 59 5.8
9 Refused 3 . .3
Total 62 6.1
QOUTSRV3 Hazardous Waste Disposal Raling
Fmqucney Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
percent
Valid I Poor 83 8.2 14.4 14.4
2 Fair 117 11.6 20.3 34.7
3 Goad 287 28.4 49.7 84.4
4 Excellent 90 8.9 15.6 100.0
Total 577 57.1 100.0
blissin&! 8 Don't Know 427 42.3
9 Refused 6 .6
Total 433 42.9
QPARKUSE Household Member Has Used a Carlsbad Park in Past 12 Months
Freq"e"Cy
Cumulative
Valid 0 No
Percent Valid Percent
268 26.5 26.6
Percent
26.6
I Yes 738 73. I 73.4 100.0
TOlZll 1006 99.6 100.0
Missing 8 Don't Know 4 .4
Total 1o1n 100.0
PARKRATE Rating of Carlshad Park
.
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 1 Poor 3 .3 .4 .4
2 Fair 30 3.0 4.1 4.5
3 Good 323 32.0 43.9 48.4
4 E~~dle~t 380 37.6 51.6 100.0
Total 736 72.9 100.0
Missing 8 Don't Know 2 .2
System 272 26.9
Total 274 27.1
QFACILTY Household Member Has Used a Community Center in Past 12 Months
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 0 No 733 72.6 73.8 73.8
1 Yes 260 25.7 26.2 100.0
Tolal 993 98.3 100.0
Missing 8 Don't Know 17 1.7
QCTRRATE Rating of Community Center
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Pcrceltt
Vdlld 2 Fair IO 1.0 3.9 3.9
3 Good 133 13.2 51.6 55.4
4 Excellent I15 11.4 44.6 100.0
Total 258 25.5 100.0
Missing 8 Don't Know 2 .2
Sys,cm 750 74.3
Total 752 74.5
QClTYFAl Carlsbad City Hall Used in the Past Twelve Months
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 0 Not Chosen 970 96.0 96.0 96.0
I Chosen 40 4.0 4.0 100.0
QCITYFAZ Faraday Building Used in the Past Twelve Months
Frequency Percent Valid Percent percent
Cumulative
Valid 0 Not Chosen 974 96.4 96.4 96.4
I Chosen 36 3.6 3.6 100.0
QCITYFA3 Arts Ofiice Used in Past the Twelve Months
~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 0 Not Chosen 996 98.6 98.6 98.6
I Chosen 14 I .4 1.4 100.0
Total Inlo 100.0 1oo.n
QCITYFA4 Cole Library Used in Past the Twelve Months
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 0 Not Chosen 814 80.6 80.6 80.6
1 Chosen 196 19.4 19.4 100.0
Total 1010 100.0 100.0
QCITYFAS Dove Library Used in Past the Twelve Months
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid 0 Not Chosen 767 75.9 75.9 75.9
1 Chosen 243 24. I 24.1 100.0
Total 1010 100.0 100.0
QCITYFA6 Centro de Informacion Used in the Past Twelve Months
Cumulative ~ ~~~~
Frequency Percent Valid Pcrcenr Percent
Valid 0 Not Chosen 1005 99.5 99.5 99.5
I Chosen 5 .5 .5 100.0
QCITYTA7 Senior Center Used in the Past Twelve Months
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 0 Not Chosen 964 95.4 95.4 95.4
I Chosen 46 4.6 4.6 100.0
QCITYFAS Safety Complex Used in the Past Twelve Months
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Cumulative
Valid 0 Not Chorcn 988 97.8 97.8 97.8
I Chosen 22 2.2 2.2 100.0
Total 1010 100.0 100.0
QCITYFA9 Swim Complex Used in the Past Twelve Months
~~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~~~ ~
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent percent
Valid 0 Not Chosen 968 95.8 95.8 95.8
I Chosen 42 4.2 4.2 100.0
QCITYFll Don't Know if any City Facilities Were Used in the Past Twelve Months
Frcaucncv Percent Valid Percent Percent
Cumulative
Valid 0 Not Chosen 1006 99.6 99.6 99.6
I Chosen 4 .4 .4 100.0
~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~~
QCTYF.412 Parks & Community Centers Used in Past Twelve Months
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Perecnc
Valid 0 No~Chosen 994 98.4 98.4 98.4
I Chosen 16 1.6 1.6 100.0
Total 1010 100.0 100.0
QCTYOTHl Other City Facility Used in the Past Twelve Months - Not a City Facility
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 97 Not a City Facility 21 2. I IOO.0 100.0
Missing 0 No 800 79.2
I Yes 3 .3
system 186 18.4
Total 989 97.9
Total 1010 100.0
QFRATE-1 Rating of the Carlsbad City Hall
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 2 Fair 5 .5 13.5 13.5
3 Good 21 2. I 56.8 70.3
4 Exeellcnt II 1.1 29.7 100.0
Total 31 3.7 100.0 . Missing 8 Don't Know 3 .3
System 970 96.0
Total 973 96.3
QFRATE-1 Rating of the Faraday Building
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
percent
Valid 2 Fair I .I 2.9 1.9
3 Good 10 1 .o 28.6 31.4
4 Excellent 24 2.4 68.6 100.0
Total 35 3.5 100.0
Missing 8 Don't Know 1 .I
System 974 96.4
Total 975 96.5
QFRATE-3 Rating of the Arts Ollice
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
~ ~~~~
Valid 3 Goad 9 .9 64.3 64.3
4 Excellent 5 .5 35.7 100.0
j Total 14 I .4 100.0
Missing System 996 98.6
QFRATE-4 Rating of the Cole Library
.
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid I Poor 2 .2 I .o I .o
2 Fair IS 1.5 7.7 8.7
3 Good 66 6.5 33.8 42.6
4 Excellent 112 11.1 57.4 100.0
Total 195 19.3 100.0
Missing 8 Don't Know 2 .2
SyStern 813 80.5
Total 815 80.7
TOI~ 1010 100.0
QFRATE-5 Rating of the Dove Libraq
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 2 Fair 2 .2 .8 .8
3 Good 30 3.0 12.5 13.3
4 Excellent 208 20.6 86.7 100.0
Total 240 23.8 100.0
Missing 8 Don't Know 1 .I
system 769 76.1
Total 770 76.2
QFRATE-6 Rating of the Centro de Informaeion
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Peiecnt
Valid I Poor I .I 20.0 20.0
> 2 Fair I .I 20.0 40.0
3 Good 3 .3 60.0 100.0
Total 5 .5 100.0
Missing System 1005 99.5
QFRATE-7 Rating ofthe Senior Center
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Cumulative
Valid I Poor I .I 2.2 2.2
2 Fair 3 .3 6.5 8.7
3 Good I5 1.5 32.6 41.3
4 Excellent 27 2.7 58.7 100.0
Total 46 4.6 100.0 *
Missing System 964 95.4
QFRATE-8 Rating of the Safety Complex
Cumulative
Valid 3 Good 7 .7 33.3 33.3
4 Excellent 14 I .4 66.7 100.0
Total 21 2.1 100.0
Missing 8 Dodt Know I .I
System 988 97.8
Total 989 97.9
QFRATE-9 Rating of the Swim Compler
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid 1 Poor I .I 2.4 2.4
2 Fair 6 .b 14.3 16.7
3 Good la 1.8 42.9 59.5
4 Excellent 17 1.7 40.5 100.0 - Tom1 42 4.2 100.0
Missing System 968 95.8
QRATE-It Rating of Public Parks & Community Centers
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 2 Fair 4 .4 25.0 25.0
3 Goad 4 .4 25.0 50.0
4 Exccllcnt a .8 50.0 100.0
Tmnl 16 1.6 100.0
Missing System 994 98.4
QSTREETl Overall Road Condition Rating
.
Cumulative
Frcqumsy Percent Valid Pcrscnt
21
Percent
Valid 1 Poor 2.1 2.1 2.1
2 Fair 138 13.7 13.7 15.8
3 Good 595 58.9 59.0 74.7
4 Exeellcnt 255 25.2 25.3 100.0
Total 1009 99.9 100.0
Missing 8 Don't Know 1 .I
QSTREET5 Traffic Circulation Efficiency Rating, Excluding Freeways Condition Rating
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
171
Percent
Valid I Poor 16.9 17.0 17.0
2 Fair 377 37.3 37.5 54.6
3 Good 384 38.0 38.2 92.8
4 Excellent 72 7.1 7.2 100.0
Total 1004 99.4 100.0
Missing 8 Don't Know 5 .5
.I
.6
9 Refused 1
Total 6
QSTREET6 Parking Availability in Downtown Village Area Condition Rating
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid I Poor 149 14.8 15.2 15.2
2 Fair 381 37.7 38.9 54.1
' 3 Good 383 37.9 39.1 93.2
4 Ereellcnt 67 6.6 6.8 100.0
Tot~l 980 97.0 100.0
Missing 8 Don't Know 30 3.0
QTRAFICI Carpooling Used to Reduce Number of Commuting Trips
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent Valid Percent Pelcent
Valid 0 Not Chosen 394 39.0 67.4 67.4
I Chosen 191 18.9 32.6 100.0
Total 585 57.9 100.0
Missing System 425 42.1
QTRAFICZ Telecommuting Used to Reduce Number of Commuting Trips
Fre0"e"C" Percent Valid Percent Percent
Cumulative
Valid 0 Not Chosen 456 45.1 11.9 77.9
I Chosen 129 12.8 22.1 100.0
Total 585 51.9 100.0
Missing System 425 42.1
QTRAFIC3 Mass Transit Used to Reduce Number of Commuting Trips
FIea"e"C" Percent Valid Percent PeXent
Cumulative
Vaitd 0 Not Chosen 397 39.3 67.9 67.9
I Chosen 188 18.6 32.1 100.0
Total 585 57.9 100.0
Missing System 425 42.1
~~ ~
QTRAFIC4 Bicycling Used to Reduce Number of Commuting Trips
I Chosen
Total
Missing System
98 9.7 16.8 100.0
585 51.9 100.0
425 42.1
QTRAFIC5 Flex Hours Used to Reduce Number of Commuting Trips
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percenr Pelcent
Valid 0 Kor Chosen 298 19.5 50.9 50.9
I Chascn 287 28.4 49.1 100.0
Total 585 57.9 100.0
Missing System 425 42.1
QTRAFIC6 Other Technique Used to Reduce Number of Commuting Trips
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Cumulative
Valid 0 Not Chosen 565 55.9 96.6 96.6
I Chosen 20 2.0 3.4 100.0
Total 585 57.9 100.0
Missing System 425 42.1
QTRAFIC7 Don't Know
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Cumulative
Valid 0 ti01 Chosen 578 57.2 98.8 98.8
1 Chosen 7 .7 1.2 100.0
Total 585 57.9 100.0
Missing System 425 42. I
~~~~~ ~
QINFOl-1 Source ofCarlsbad Information: Community Services Recreation Guide
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid 0 Notchasen 455 45.0 45.0 45.0
I Chosen 555 55.0 55.0 100.0
QlNFOlZ Source ofcarlsbad Information: City Web page
Cvmulative
I Chosen 329 32.6 32.6 100.0
QINF01-3 Source of Carlsbad Information: The New City Desktop Calendar
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent percent
Valid 0 Not Chosen 785 77.7 77.7 77.7
I Chosen 225 22.3 22.3 100.0
QINF01-4 Source of Carlsbad Information: Flyers in City Billing Statement
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 0 Not Chosen 680 67.3 67.3 67.3
I Choral 330 32.7 32.7 100.0
Tolal 1010 100.0 100.0
QINFOl-5 Source ofcarlsbad Information: Citizen Forums
Cumulative
Valid 0 Not Chosen
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
939 93.0 93.0 93.0
I Chosen 71 7.0 7.0 100.0
QINF01-6 Source of Carlsbad Information: Calling City on Telephone
Cumulative
Valid 0 Not Chosen
Frequency Percent Valid Percent PMCent
598 59.2 59.2 59.2
I Chosen 412 40.8 40.8 100.0
QINFOI-7 Source of Carlsbad Information: City Council (MeetingsIOther
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 0 Notchasen 827 81.9 81.9 81.9
I Chasm 183 18.1 18.1 100.0
~ ~~~~
QINFO-I1 Other Source of Carlsbad Information: City Council Meetings
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 0 Not Chosen 812 82.4 82.4 82.4
I Chosen 178 17.6 17.6 100.0
Total 1010 100.0 100.0
QINFO-21 Other Source of Carlsbad Information: OTHER
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent Valid Percent
1005 99.5 99.5
Percent
Valid 0 Not Chosen 99.5
I Choacn 5 .5 .5 100.0
QOTHLl Other Method Respondent Would Like to Receive Info About the City: ImproveiProvide More Info On City Web Site
Frequency Pcrcent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
V;klid 0 No! Chosen 967 95.7 95.7 95.7
I Chosen 43 4.3 4.3 100.0
I QOTHI-2 Other Method Respondent Would Like to Receive Info About the City:
CabldCity TV Channel or City-Related Programming
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid 0 Not Chosen 973 96.3 96.3 96.3
I Chosen 37 3.7 3.7 100.0
QOTHI-4 Other Method Respondent Would Like to Receive Info About the City: FlyerslNervsletters
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Cumulative
Valid 0 Not Chosen 987 97.7 97.7 97.7
I Chosen 23 2.3 2.3 100.0
Total 1010 100.0 100.0
QOTHl-IO Other Method Respondent Would Like to Receive Info About the City: OTHER
Cumulutiu.
I Chosen 54 5.3 5.3 100.0
QOlHILII Other Method Respondent Would Like to Receive Info About the City: No Response
Cumulative
Valid 0 Not Chosen
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
242 24.0 24.0
percent
24.0
I Chosen 768 76.0 76.0 100.0
QOTHL12 Other Method Respondent Would Like to Receive Info About the City: Newspaper
Cumulative
Valid 0 Not Chosen
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
936 92.7 92.7
Percent
92.7
I Chosen 74 7.3 7.3 100.0
QOTHI-13 Other Method Respondent Would Like to Receive Info About the City: Regular Mail
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 0 Sot Chosen 982 97.2 97.2 97.2
I Chosen 28 2.8 2.8 100.0
Total 1010 100.0 100.0
QMETCI Frequency of Watching Carlsbad City Council Meetings on TV
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid I Never 456 45.1 45.2 45.2
2 Once a Year 100 9.9 9.9 55.1
3 Once a Quarter 170 16.8 16.8 72.0
4 Once a Month 203 20.1 20.1 92.1
5 Once a Week 80 7.9 7.9 100.0
Total 1009 99.9 100.0
Missing 8 Don't Know I .I
QMETGZ Respondent Has Watched a Quarterly Quadrant Meeting
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
PerCc"t
Valid 0 No 835 82.7 84.5 84.5
I Yes 153 15.1 15.5 100.0
Total 988 97.8 100.0
Missing 8 Don't Know 22 2.2
Total 1o1n 100.0
QWEBACSS Respondent Accessed the City Web Page in Past Year
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 0 No 642 63.6 63.8 63.8
I Yes 364 36.0 36.2 100.0
Total 100.6 99.6 100.0
Missing 8 Don't Know 4 .4
QWEBI-I Type of Information Sought on City Web Site: General Information About the CiIy or City Senices
Frequency Percent Valid Percent P.rsc"I
Cumulative
Valid 0 Not Chosen 956 94.7 94.7 94.7
I Chosen 54 5.3 5.3 100.0
Total IOIO 100.0 100.0
QWEBI-2 Type of Information Sought on City Website: City Listings and Hours of Operation
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 0 Not Chosen 980 97.0 97.0 97.0
1 Chosen 30 3.0 3.0 100.0
.. QWEBI-3 Type of Information Sought on City Web Site: School Information
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid 0 Not Chosen 996 98.6 98.6 98.6
I Chorcn 14 I .4 1.4 100.0
QWEBI-6 Type of Information Sought on City Web Site: Specific City Events Calendar (street fairs, parades or cultural events)
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 0 Not Chosen 933 92.4 92.4 92.4
I Chosen 71 7.6 7.6 100.0
QWEBl-7 Type of Information Sought on City Web Site: ActiritieYFrogramdCIasses
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent PUCC"t
Valid 0 Notchoren 977 96.7 96.7 96.7
I Chosen 33 3.3 3.3 100.0
QWEBI-8 Type of Information Sought on City Website: City Council &Planning Information
Frequency Percent Valid Pcreent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid 0 Not Chosen 988 97.8 97.8 97.8
I Chosen 22 2.2 2.2 100.0
Total 1010 100.0 100.0
QWEBI-IO Type of Information Sought on City Website: Roads and Transportation
~ ~ ~~~ ~~
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 0 Not Chosen 998 98.8 98.8 98.8
I Chosen 12 I .2 1.2 100.0
Total 1010 100.0 100.0
QWEBI-11 Type of Information Sought on City Website: City Codes, Laws, Policies, Licensing
~
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Cumulative
Valid 0 No1 Chosen 913 96.3 96.3 96.3
I Chosen 37 3.1 3.7 100.0
QWEBI-13 Type of Information Sought on City Web Site: Business Listings In Carlsbad
F=OUe"C" Percent Valid Percent PcrCe"t
Cumulative
Valid 0 Not Chosen 999 98.9 98.9 98.9
1 Chosen II 1.1 1.1 100.0
Total I010 100.0 100.0
QWEBI-17 Type of Information Sought on City Web Site: Park InformatiodCamping (location, hours of operation, etc.)
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent PCTSC"t
Valid 0 Not Chosen 973 96.3 96.3 96.3
I Chosen 37 3.7 3.7 100.0
QWEBI-18 Type of Information Sought on City Web Site: Libraries
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 0 Nor Chosen 919 96.9 96.9 96.9
I Chosen 31 3.1 3.1 IOO.0
QWEBI-19 Type of Information Sought on City Web Site: Job Listings
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 0 Not Chosen 970 96.0 96.0 96.0
1 Chosen 40 4.0 4.0 100.0
QWEBIZO Type of Information Sought on City Website: Interest Groups and Community Organizations
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid 0 Not Chosen 1003 99.3 99.3 99.3
I Chosen 7 .7 .7 100.0
QWEBI-21 Type oflnformation Sought on City Website: Waste Disposal and Recycling
Cumulative
Frequency Pcrcc.1 Valid Percent Percent
Valid 0 Not Chosen 997 98.7 98.7 98.7
I Chosen 13 1.3 1.3 100.0
. QWEBI-26 Type of Information Sought on City Web Site: TourismIPoints of Interest
Frequency Pcrcsnt Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid 0 Not Chosen 998 98.8 98.8 98.8
I Chosen I2 1.2 I .2 100.0
QWEBI-27 Type of Information Sought on City Website: Real Estate and Housing
Valid 0 Not Choscn 993 98.3 98.3 98.3
I Chosen 17 1.7 1.7 100.0
QWEBI-32 Type of Information Sought on Ci@ Web Site: Demographics
Fre0"e"C" Percent Valid Percent percent
Cumulative
Valid 0 Not Chosen 998 98.8 98.8 98.8
I Charen I2 1.2 1.2 100.0
Total 1010 100.0 100.0
QYESI-34 Type oflnformation Sought on City Website: Traffic and Weather
Cumulative
Fleq"e"Cy Perscnt Valid Percent Percent
Valid 0 Not Chosen 998 98.8 98.8 98.8
I Chosen 12 1.2 1.2 100.0
QWEBI-38 Type of Information Sought on City Web Site: OTHER
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent percent
Valid 0 Not Chosen 987 97.7 97.7 97.7
.I Chosen 23 2.3 2.3 100.0
Total 1010 100.0 100.0
QWEBI-39 Type oflnformation Sought on City Web Site: None
FrW"e"C" Percent Valid Percent Percent
Cumulative
Valid 0 Not Chosen 1009 99.9 99.9 99.9
I Chosen I .I .I 100.0
. QWEBFIND Amount oflnformation Found on City Web Page
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cvmulstive
percent
Valid I None 16 1.6 4.5 4.5
2 Some 31 3.1 8.8 13.4
3 A Little 123 12.2 34.9 48.3
4 All 182 18.0 51.7 100.0
Total 352 34.9 100.0
Missing 8 Don't Know 9 .9
System 649 64.3
Total 658 65.1
QNOTF-1 Information Not Found on City Web Site: General Information About the City or City Services
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 0 Not Chosen 1008 99.8 99.8 99.8
I Chosen 2 .2 .2 100.0
Total IO10 100.0 100.0
QNOTF-2 Type ollnformation Sought on City Website: City Listings and Hours OfOperation
Valid 0 Not Chosen 1001 99. I 99.1 99.1
1 Chosen 9 .9 .9 100.0
QNOTF-3 Information Not Found on City Web Site: School Information
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent PeTSC"t
Valid 0 Not Chosen 1003 99.3 99.3 99.3
I Chosen 7 .7 .7 100.0
QNOTF-6 Information Not Found on City Web Site: Specific City Events Calendar (street fairs, parades or cultural events)
FXa"e"C" Percent Valid Percent Percent
Cumulative
Valid 0 No! Chosen 998 98.8 98.8 98.8
1 Chosen I2 I .2 1.2 100.0
.
QNOTF-7 Information Not Found on City Web Site: ActivitiesIF'rogramdClasses
Frequency Perccnt Valid Percent Percent
Cumulative
Valid 0 Not Chosen 997 98.7 98.7 98.7
I Chosen I3 1.3 1.3 100.0
QNOTF-8 Type of Information Sought on City Website: City Council 81 Planning Information
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 0 Not Chosen 1003 99.3 99.3 99.3
I Chosen 7 .7 .7 100.0
QNOTF-IO Type of Information Sought on City Website: Roads and Transportation
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
~ ~~~~~~~
Valid 0 Not Chosen 1004 99.4 99.4 99.4
I Chosen 6 .6 .6 100.0
QNOTF-11 Type of Information Sought on City Website: City Codes, Laws, Policies, Licensing
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
VnI8cl 0 Not Chosen 981 97.1 91.1 91.1
1 Chosen 23 2.3 2.3 100.0
QNOTF-I3 Information Not Found on City Web Site: Business Listings In Carlsbad
FlegUctXy
Cumulative
PWCe"1 Valid Percent percent
Valid 0 Not Chosen IO05 99.5 99.5 99.5
I Chosen 5 .5 .5 100.0
QNOTF-17 Information Not Found on City Web Site: Park InformatiodCamping (location, hours of operation, etc.)
Freouencv Percent Valid Percent Percent
Cumulative
Valid 0 Not Choscn I002 99.2 99.2 99.2
I Chosen 8 .8 .8 100.0
. QNOTF-18 Information Not Found on City Web Site: Libraries
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Cumulative
Valid 0 Not Chosen 1007 99.7 99.1 99.1
I Chosen 3 .3 .3 100.0
QNOTF-19 Information Not Found on City Wcb Site: Job Listings
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
~ .
Valid 0 Nor Chosen 1000 99.0 99.0 99.0
1 Chosen 10 1.0 I .o 100.0
QNOTF-20 Type oflnformation Sought on City Website: Interest Groups and Community Organizations
Cumulrtivr
Freq"c"Cy Percent Valid Percent percent
~ ~~~ """ .
Valid 0 Not Chosen 1006 99.6 99.6 99.6
I Chosen 4 .4 .4 100.0
QNOTF-21 Type of Information Sought on City Website: Waste Disposal and Recycling
FWqW"Cy
Cumulative
Percent Valid Percent PWX"l
Valid 0 Not Chosen IO05 99.5 99.5 99.5
I Chosen 5 .5 .5 100.0
QNOTF-26 Information Not Found on City Web Site: Tourisfloints ollnterest
Fle0"c"C" Percent Valid Percent Percent
Cumulative
Valid 0 Not Chosen 1007 99.7 99.7 99.1
I Chosen 3 .3 .3 100.0
QNOTF-27 Type uf Information Sought on City Wehsite: Real Estate and Housing
Cumulative
Frequency Psrccnt Valid Percent . Percent
Valid 0 Not Chosen IO05 99.5 99.5 99.5
I Chosen 5 .5 .5 100.0
QNOTF-32 Information Not Found on City Web Site: Demographies
FrW"e"C" Percent Valid Percent Percent
Cumulative
Valid 0 Not Chosen 1007 99.1 99.1 99.1
I Charen 3 .3 .3 100.0
QNOTF-34 Type oflnfurmatiun Sought on City Website: Tramc and Weather
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Cumulative
Valid 0 Not Chosen IO05 99.5 99.5 99.5
I Chosen 5 .5 .5 100.0
Total 1010 100.0 100.0
QNOTF-38 Information Not Found on City Web Site: OTHER
Fcequcncy
Cumulative
Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 0 Not Chosen 997 98.7 98.7 98.7
I Chosen 13 I .3 1.3 100.0
Total 1010 100.0 100.0
j QNOTF-39 Information Not Found on City Web Site: None
Cumulative
Frequency Pereenf Valid Percenr percent
Valid 0 Not Chosen 998 98.8 98.8 98.8
I Chosen I2 I .2 1.2 100.0
. . . . . . .
QWEBPAY Respandent Willins to Pay for City Services via Internet
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Per0e”t
Valid I No 588 58.2 58.7 58.7
2 I1 Depends 57 5.6 5.7 64.4
3 Yes 356 35.2 35.6 100.0
Total 1001 . 99.1 100.0
Missing 8 Don’t Know 9 .9
Total 1010 1000
QLlBl How Often Respondent Used Dove Library in the Past Year
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid I Never 147 14.6 18.3 18.3
2 Once or Twice in the Past
Year 273 27.0 34.0 52.3
3 Once oc Twice a Month 278 27.5 34.6 86.9
4 Oncea Week 62 6.1 7.7 94.6
5 More Than Once a Week 43 4.3 5.4 100.0
Total 803 79.5 100.0
Missing 8 Don’t Know 5 .5
System 202 20.0
Total 207 20.5
QLIBZ How Often Respondent Used Cole Library in the Past Year
~~ ~ ~~~ ~~ ~~~
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid I Never 340 33.7 42.3 42.3
, Year
2 Once or Twice in the Past 216 21.4 26.9 -69.2
3 Once or Twice 2 Month I65 16.3 20.5 89.7
4 Once a Week 47 4.7 5.8 95.5
5 More Than Once a Week 36 3.6 4.5 100.0
Total 804 79.6 100.0
Missing 8 Don’t Know 4 .4
System 202 20.0
Total 206 20.4
QL163 HOW Often Respondent Used Centro de Informacion in the Past Year
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
779 77.1 96.5
Percent
Valid, I Never 96.5
2 Once or Twice in the
PPI1 Year 21 2.1 2.6 99.1
3 Once or Twice a Month 6 .6 .7 99.9
4 Once a Week I .I .I . 100.0
Total 807 79.9 100.0 .
Missing 8 Don't Know 1 .I
System 202. 20.0
Total 203 20.1
2 Total
QOCEAN Greatest Contributor to Ocean Water Pollution
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Perccnt PerECnt
Valid 1 Conmninated storm
waledurban runoff 312 30.9 35.3 35.3
2 Sewage treatment plants 63 6.2 7.1 42.4
3 Industries discharging into the 38 3.8 4.3 46.7 ocean
4 Boats and ships: oillgas spills
5 Sewage spills or ovemaws
6 lllcgal dumping ofchemicals
01 other materials
7 Troshilittcr
8 PC1 waste
9 Fenilircdpesticides
10 Cars: oiUgas leaks
I I Car washing
12 Other
I3 Algae
14 Mexico
Total
Missing 99 Refused
30 3.0
4 .4
23 2.3
31 3.1
89 8.8
II 1.1
19 1.9
242 24.0
15 1.5
I .I
7 .7
885 87.6
I25 12.4
3.4
.5
2.6
3.5
10.1
I .2
2.1
27.3
I .7
.I
.8
100.0
50.1
50.5
53.1
56.6
66.7
67.9
70.1
97.4
99.1
99.2
100.0
QWATRFEE Respondent Willing to Pay Annual Fifty Dollar Water Quality Fee
Cumulative
FIc0"e"C" Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid. 0 No 374 37.0 41.8 41.8
I Yes 520 51.5 58.2 100.0
Total 894 88.5 100.0
Missing 8 Don't Know 113 11.2
* 9 Refused 3 .3
Total 116 11.5
QGRAFl Grafitti Seen in Carlsbad within the Past Year
~ ~~ ~~ ~~~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~ ~~
Frequency
Cumulativc
Percent Valid Percent PcrCc"t
Valid 0 No 470 46.5 47.1 47.1
I Yes 527 52.2 52.9 100.0
Total 997 98.7 100.0
Missing 8 Don't Know 12 I .2
9 Refused I _I
Total 13 I .3
REPCRAF Graftiti Reported by Respondent
Frequency Percent Valid Percent percent
Valid 0 NO 463 45.8 87.9 87.9
I Yes 64 6.3 12.1 100.0
Total 527 52.2 100.0
Missing System 483 47.8
CLSUCIUF Grafliti Cleaned Up
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent percent
Valid 0 No 37 3.7 8.4 8.4
I Yes 401 39.7 91.6 100.0
Total 438 43.4 100.0
Missing 8 Don't Know 89 8.8
System 483 47.8
Total 572 56.6
Total I010 100.0
QCALLl Respondent Contact with the City in the Past Year Regarding Code Enforcement Matter
Cumulative
Vrlid , 0 No
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
791 78.3 78.5 78.5
I Yes 217 21.5 21.5 100.0
Total 1008 99.8 100.0
Missing 8 Don't Know 2 .Z
Total 1010 1nn.o
QCALW Call Was Returned Promptly
Cumulative
Valid 0 No
Frequency Percent Valid Percent percent
28 2.8 13.3 13.3
1 Yes 183 18.1 86.7 100.0
Total 211 20.9 100.0
Missing 8 Don't Know 6 .6
System 793 78.5
Total 799 79. I
QC.4I.U Respondent Received Information Sought
Cumulative
Valid 0 NO
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Psrncnt
40 4.0 18.9 18.9
I Yes 172 17.0 81.1 100.0
Total 212 21.0 100.0
Missing 8 Don't Know 5 .5
System 793 78.5
Toral 798 79.0
QCALL4 Respondent's Concern Was Addressed to HidHer Satisfaction
Cumulative
Frequency
61
Percent Valid Percent Percent
~ ~ ~~~ ~~
Valid 0 No 6.0 28.9 28.9
I Yes I50 14.9 71.1 100.0
Total 211 20.9 1n0.0
Missing 8 Don't Know 6 .6
System 793 78.5
Total . 799 79.1
QCALL5 Other Contact with the City in the Past Year
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent percent
Valrd 0 No 632 62.6 62.8 62.8
I Yes 374 37.0 31.2 100.0
Total I006 99.6 100.0
Missing 8 Don't Know 4 .4
Tolal 1010 100.0 -
QCALL6 Overall Rating ofcontact with the City
Cumulative
Frequency Peccent Valid Percent
21
percent
Valid I Poor 2.1 5.6 5.6
2 Fair 41 4. I 11.0 16.6
3 Goad 133 13.2 35.7 52.3
4 Excellent 178 17.6 47.7 100.0
Total 373 36.9 100.0
Missing 8 Don't Know 1 .I
System 636 63.0
Total 637 63.1
QCALNDRl City Desktop Calendar Received
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent percent
Valid 0 No 313 31.0 38.0 38.0
I Yes 511 50.6 62.0 100.0
Total 824 81.6 100.0
Missing 8 Don't Know 186 18.4
Tlr,;,l inln 100 n
QCALNDRZ City Desktop Calendar Useful
Valid 0 No
Frequency Percent Valid Percent percent
163 16.1 32.9 32.9
I Yes
Total
332 32.9 67.1 100.0
495 49.0 100.0
Missing 8 Don'l Know 14 1.4
9 Refused 2 .2
System 499 49.4
Total 515 51.0
. .. ,
OTHVENUI Respondent Would Like to See Other Venue
Cumulativ.
I Chosen 182 18.0 18.1 100.0
Total 1006 99.6 100.0
Missing 8 Don't Know 4 .4
Total 1010 100.0
OTHVENUZ Type of Other Venue Respndent Would Like to See
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
~ ~~
Valid I Comedy Clubs 2 .2 5.6 5.6
2 MarinaiArca for Boating
or water Sports 2
3 Dance ClubrMightclubr
4 Barr
5 Ice Rink
6 Dinner Theater
7 Sponr Complex
Total
.Missing 97 Not a Venue
98 Don't Know
System
Total
3
1
3
3
22
36
145
2
827
974
.2 5.6 11.1
.3 8.3 19.4
.I 2.8 22.2
.3 8.3 30.6
.3 8.3 38.9
2.2 61.1 100.0
3.6 100.0
14.4
.2
81.9
96.4
LIFEQ-I Carlsbad Could Improve Quality ofLife in the Community By: Impraiving Tralfic CirculatiodElficiency
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 0 Not Chosen 840 83.2 83.2 83.2
I Chosen 170 16.8 16.8 100.0
LIFEQ-Z Carlsbad could Improve Quality of Life in the Community By: Road Construction and Maintenance
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Pelcent
Valid 0 No1 Chosen 94 I 93.2 93.2 93.2
I Chore" 69 6.8 6.8 100.0
LIFEQ-5 Carlsbad Could Improve Quality of Life in the Community By: MoreiBetter Public Transportation
Cumulative
Valid 0 Not Chosen
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
992 98.2 98.2
Percent
98.2
I Chaocn 18 1.8 1.8 100.0
* LIFEQ-6 Carlsbnd Could Improve Quality ofLife in the Community By: Set Limits on Growth & Development
Cumulative
Valid 0 Not Chosen
Frequency Psrccnt Valid Percent Percent
727 72.0 72.0 72.0
I Chosen 283 28.0 28.0 100.0
LIFEQ-7 Carlsbad Could Improve Quality ofLife in the Community By: More AtTordnblelLow Income Housing
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 0 Nor Chosen 990 98.0 98.0 98.0
I Chosen 20 2.0 2.0 100.0
LIFEQ-8 Carlsbad Could Improve Quality of Life in the Community By: Better Inform Carlsbad City Residents (general)
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Cumulative
Valid 0 Not Charen 980 97.0 97.0 97.0
I Chosen 30 3.0 3.0 100.0
TOW1 1010 1oo.n 1oo.n
LIFEQ-I2 Carlsbad Could Improve Quality ofLife in the Community By: More Entertainment Venues
Cumulative
Valid 0 Notchoren
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
987 97.7 97.7
Percent
97.7
I Chosen 23 2.3 2.3 100.0
LIFEQ-I4 Carlsbad could Improve Quality of Life in the Community By: More Police and Enforcement ofLaws
Cumulative
I Chosen 26 2.6 2.6 100.0
LIFEQ-16 Carlsbad could Improve Quality of Life in the Community By: More or Better Parks and Recreation Facilities
Cumulative
Valid 0 Not Chosen
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
94 I 93.2 93.2
percent
93.2
1 Chosen 69 6.8 6.8 100.0
LIFEQ-I7 Carlsbad could Improve Quality of Life in the Community By: Clean and Beautify City
Frequency Percent Valid Percent percent
Cumulative
Valid 0 Not Chosen 967 95.7 95.7 95.7
1 Chosen 43 4.3 4.3 100.0
Total I010 100.0 100.0
LIFEQ-18 Carlsbad Could Improve Quality of Life in the Community By: Cleaflmprove Quality of Beaches
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 0 Not Chosen 989 91.9 97.9 97.9
I Chosen 21 2.1 2.1 100.0
Total 1010 100.0 100.0
LIFEQ-20 Carlsbad Could Improve Quality of Life in the Community By: Better Safety (rid of gangs, drugs & criminal activity)
Cumulative ~ ~~~~~~~ ~
Valid 0 Nor Chosen
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
991 98.7 98.7
percent
98.7
I Chosen 13 I .3 I .3 100.0
LIFEQ-21 Carlsbad Could Improve Quality ofLife in the Community By: Programs, Activities, Facilities for Children andor Teens
Cumulative
Valid 0 Not Chosen
Frequency
995
Percent Valid Percent percent
98.5 98.5 98.5
I Chosen I5 1.5 1.5 100.0
LIFEQ-22 Carlsbad Could Improve Quality of Life in the Community By: MoreITletter Bike Lanes or Walking Trails
Cumulative
Valid 0 Not Chosen
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
999 98.9 98.9
percent
98.9
I Chosen II 1.1 1.1 100.0
LIFEQ-23 Carlsbad Could Improve Quality of Life in the Community By: More Conscientious of Community WantsiNecdslConcerns
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
percent
Valid, 0 Not Chosen 950 94.1 94.1 94.1
I Chosen 60 5.9 5.9 100.0
Total 1010 100.0 100.0
LIFEQ-24 Carlsbad Could Improve Quality ofLife in the Community By: ImprovelExpand Parking (general)
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 0 Not Chorsn 994 98.4 98.4 98.4
I Chosen 16 1.6 1.6 100.0
LIFEQ-25 Carlsbad Could Improve Quality of Life in the Community By: More Policy & Relief for Unemployedmoor~omeless
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Cumulative
Valid 0 Not Chosen 999 98.9 98.9 98.9
I Chosen II 1.1 1.1 100.0
LIFEQ-30 Carlsbad Could Improve Quality of Life in the Community By: Sports Center/GolfCourse/Recreation Facilities
Frequency Percent Valid Pcrscnt
Cumulative
Pewen1
Valid 0 Not Chosen 989 97.9 97.9 97.9
I Chosen 21 2.1 2.1 100.0
LIFEQ-33 Carlsbad Could Improve Quality of Life in the Community By: More Schools
Frequency Percent Valid Percent percent
Cumulative
Valid 0 Notchoren 994 98.4 98.4 98.4
I Chosen 16 1.6 I .6 100.0
Total 1010 100.0 100.0
LIFEQ-34 Carlsbrd Could Improve Quality of Lifc in the Community By: Aesthetic
Improvements (landscaping, trees, repair old buildings)
FleCpe"Cy
Cumulative
Percent Valid Percent Pelcent
Valid 0 Not Chosen 984 97.4 97.4 97.4
I Chosen 26 2.6 2.6 100.0
LIFEQ-35 Carlsbad Could Improve Quality of Life in the Community By: Enforce Laws (general)
Frequency Percent Valid Percent PCWC"t
Cumulative
Valid 0 Not Chosen 995 98.5 98.5 98.5
1 Charen I5 1.5 1.5 IOO.0
LIFEQ-37 Carlsbad Could Improve Quality of Life in the Communily By: More
Community EventdSpeeial Events (concerts, fairs, festivals) .
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Pelcent
Valid 0 Not Chosen 987 97.7 97.7 97.7
I Chosen 23 2.3 2.3 100.0
rota1 1010 100.0 100.0
LIFEQ-42 Carlsbad Could Improve Quality ofLife in the Community By: Other
FCe0"e"C" Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid 0 NoiChorcn 827 81.9 81.9 81.9
I Chosen 183 18.1 18.1 100.0
Total 1010 1on.o 1on.o
LIFEQ-43 Carlsbad Could Improve Qualily of Life in the Community By: Don't Know
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 0 No1 Chosen 790 78.2 78.2 78.2
I Chosen 220 21.8 21.8 100.0
LIFEQ-44 Carlsbad Could Improve Quality of Life in the Community By: Refused
Cumulative
Frequency Peccent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 0 Not Chosen 1007 99.7 99.7 99.7
I Charm 3 .3 .3 100.0
QDEMOZ OwnlRent Home
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 0 Own 783 77.5 77.7 77.7
I Rent 225 22.3 22.3 100.0
Total 1008 99.8 100.0
Missing 8 Don't Know 2 .2
Total 1010 100.0 .
QRACE Respondent's Race
~~
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid I WhitelCaucasian 801 79.3 85.4 85.4
2 African-American 10 1.0 1.1 86.5
3 Asian 51 5.0 5.4 91.9
4 American Indian,
Aleut. Eskimo
5 HirponisILatino
6 Other
Total .
hlirrini: 8 Don't Know
9 Refused
System
Total
9
60
7
938
4
33
35
72
.9 1 .o 92.9
5.9 6.4 99.3
.7 .7 100.0
92.9 100.0
.4
3.3
3.5
7.1
QINCOME Household Income Last Year
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent percent
Valid I Under 525,000 41 4.1 4.6 4.6
I 2 525.000 to Under 535,000 69 6.8 7.8 12.5
3 535.000 to Under 150,000 119 11.8 13.5 26.0
4 550.000 to Under 175,000 20 I 19.9 22.8 48.8
5 575.000 to Under 1100,000 167 16.5 18.9 67.7
6 5100,000ta $125,000 118 11.7 13.4 81.1
7 5125.000 and Above 167 16.5 18.9 100.0
Taral 882 87.3 100.0
Missing 8 Don't Know
9 Rcfurcd
Total
21 2.1
107 10.6
128 12.7
GENDER Gender
Cumulative
Frequency Pcrcsnt Valid Percent Percent
Valid 0 Female 604 59.8 59.8 59.8
I Male 406 40.2 40.2 1no.o
. Descriptive Statistics
N .Minimum Maximum Meall Deviation
Std.
QTRAVLI Level of Interest in
C.IIpIIO/IIlg
QTRAVL2 Level of lntere~t in
Tclccommuting
QTRAVL3 Level of lntcrest in
Mass Transit
QTRAVL4 Level of Interest in
Bicycling
QTRAVL5 Level of IntereSt in
Flex Hours
QTRAVL6 Level of Interest in
Moving Closer IO Work
QSEWSLET Interest in
Receiving a City Newslertcr
QEMAIL Interest in Receiving
E-mail Notification from City
CLTYINFZ Rating of City
Information Dispersal
QTLIB How OAen Respondent
the Pasf Year
Used Any Carlsbad City Library in
QSAFEI How Safe Respondent
Feels Walking Alone in Their
Si.ighhorhood During the Day
QSAFE2 How Safe Respondent
Feel; Walking Alone in Their
highburhood After Dark
ALLRECYC Pcrccntage of
Recyclable Materials That
Respondent Recycles
WATRFEE2 Annual Amount
Water Quality
Respondent is Willing to Pay for
QVENUEI Importance of More
Movie Theaters
QVENUEZ Importance of More
Performing Arts Theaters
QVENUE3 Importance of More
Outdoor Ampitheaters
OVENUE4 lmoortanse of More
566
559
572
573
562
547
1009
992
967
1002
1010
1007
1006
323
1007
1002
I002
lnoo
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
n
0
n
0
0
0
0
0
n
0
0
10
10
In
In
IO
10
10
In
In
365
10
In
Inn
100
In
IO
10
10
3.49
4.75
4.84
3.04
6.26
2.78
6.87
4.87
5.95
16.90
9.56
7.63
63.34
5.75
4.40
6.54
6.33
6.12
3.65
4.15
3.72
3.511
3.73
3.85
3.08
3.88
2.49
32.79
I .04
2.60
34.32
12.67
3.48
3.13
3.26
3.07
Descriptive Statistics
N Minimum Maximum Mea"
Ski.
DWiZlliO"
QVENUE5 Imporlance of More
Live Concert Venues 1001 0 IO 6.56 3.20
QCONFlD3 Level of Confidence
in Carlrbad City Government to 952 0 IO 6.52 2.40
Makc Positive Decisions
QDEMOI NumberofYears
Lived in Carlsbad
AGE Respondent Age 956 18 91 49.13 15.45
QDEM03 Number of People in
Household (Including Respondent) 1007 I ,8 2.58 1.25
. I010 0 62 10.49 10.98
QDEM04 Number of Children
Under Age of 18 830 0 5 .75 1.02
QDEMO5 Number of Children
UnderAgeof12 354 0
QDEM06 Number of Children
Under Age of 6 270 0
5 1.21 .93
3 .77 .77
Appendix C
Reasons for “Poor” Ratings of City Services
.
. SERVlP Recreational Pro-rams
QSERV2P Library Services
1. I don’t how what they did to the one on Carlsbad village drive, but when
they renovated they took everything of value to the new library where the
bigger homes are and left very little here.
2.
There is only one major libmy in Carlsbad and that one is in La Costa. Why 4.
There book selection is out of date; too many kids running around in there. 3.
Lack of books for youth
5. They robbed all the library materials from the Cole to the new one, so the
can’t the city expand the library on Carlsbad Village Drive?
service is poor for those who don’t live in La Costa.
1
QSERV3P Fire Protection
1. Because I work on an ambulance and my Mom had an attack and the fire
department did not follow prope! protocol in treating her, and when I called
to complain about it they didn't do anything about it. My mom doesn't even
want to call 9 1 1 anymore because of how badly they treated her.
2. Had to put out fire on my property.
3. 1 Her home burned in Harmony Grove.
4. I They sent his garage plan to the fire department to be approved and they
never got back to him in 3 months.
house was gone, this is what happened 5 years ago.
5. Well, again my only experience is 5 qears ago in this location I thought my
QSERV4P Police Services
1. I 3 years ago the neighbor called the cops on the neighbor for being drug
dealers and they didn't do anything.
2.
Had reported a burglary about 6 to7 years ago. Officer had me walk 3.
A lot of people that don't listen to the older residences.
I had some small boys skateboarding and going in the street during the rush 4.
through the house looking before he did. I had to insist that they dust for
fingerprints. Not good follow up either.
hours for their safety and the police didn't come because they had too my
emergencies and they need more officers to handle norremergencies for the
safety of the citizens of Carlsbad.
have been severely assaulted by the police.
5. I often see them camping out by the library not doing much and my friends
6. I think the police force in Carlsbad is simply a revenue-generating function
in the city. They give out more tickets than they need to.
I.
On several occasions I have been completely disappointed in their lack of 9.
In my area I have called them in several occasions and they take there time.
8. Not that I want to go on record as saying.
action, tkir indifference, and you know I have no problem with them
coming on time. It's disappointing. And I'm not judging them on one officer
(the whole police force.) I think they've become discriminatory.
10. The location of the police department is far away from the community.
11. The uolice seem to talk to each other in clusters other than managing the
"
1 traffic.
12. I There are no police about anywhere on Tamarack or Victoria and people are
racing.
13. They are just raising there revenue by giving us tickets. They refuse the
services when the residents complain.
14. They are very unfriendly.
15. They supposed to investigate and they do not.
16. We needed the police because of a break-iq it took % (hr) for someone to
arrive.
2
QSERV5P Enforcement of Traffic Regulations
1.
Because a few years ago they were more focused they have redirected their 3.
Because of the amount of lights. 2.
(In) a lot of the areas (there) seems to be too much speeding going on and
heavy traffic; trucks in areas they shouldn’t be.
purpose and you don’tsee them out there as often
4.
Because I see a lot of people doing crazy things: cutting people off in lanes; 5.
Because I live on a street where people speed horrendously!
high speeds.
6. Because I see people going 60 or 70 mph all of the time down Tamarack.
I.
Because on our street they go 45mph and it’s a residential speed limit of 9.
Because of the traffic going thru here. 8.
Because of people over the speed limit.
I 25mph and they won’t do anything about it.
10. 1 Because ueople are violating the trafflc regulatiors like running red lights: .~ especially the busiest time of day people are running the red lights and a lot
of speeding in the area.
no U-turn optioq so they are going to the residential area to make U-turns on
highway 101; and the signs are poor and don’t tell you where you need to be;
and the light are poor on Palomar Airport road.
- - I -.
11. Because the amount of traffic lights going in by me is extreme and there is
12.
There are just’too many cops in Carlsbad. Their focus is just to give tickets.
Because when people see cops they slow down and cause traffic accidents. 13.
Because there are too many people speeding on the streets and the freeway.
14.
Because you see people break the laws. There are not police men to enforce 15.
Because (I’ve) witnessed how people drive around here
16. Because of the traffic signals; and the down town area is confusing.
17. City won’t reduce the speed limit near Coreo elementary.
18. Don’t think the city job should be traffic enforcement. Too many home
the law.
break-ins in the cik-and no fiup.
19.
I live on a street where it supposed to be 25 mph and people do 50 all the 20.
Good on the weekdays and poor on Sat. and Sun and holidays.
time! People speed too much in front of the Post Office, they should lower
the speed there!
around here.
turned around and followed me for awhile and then he pulled me over
21.
I had a Carlsbad police officer was going the opposite side of the street he 22.
I don’t feel my kids are safe in my own neighborhood the way people speed
I because of my head light; their hiring rookies and not experienced cops.
23. I I have 2 to 4 commercial trucks parked in front of my house and I cadt get 1 the city to do any thing about it. -
24. 1 I have to go through El Camino Real and I never see a policeman and I see
all kinds of trafficviolations.
and there never looking and police cars are never there!
25. I have tried to turn on ElCamino from Chestnut. People are running lights
3
26.
I live on a street that people speed by on all the time and there doesn't seem 27.
I live at Tamarack and Birchwood; we have the worst intersection in the
state, overloaded trucks, very busy, lots of accidents; need better regulations.
to be officers around.
28.
I notice a lot of excessive speeding in residential areas. And people running 29.
I live on a street that they continually speed (on). Could be avoided if the . police were to monitor it.
lights and constant violations of the laws.
30.
I see a lot of speeding; a lot of running red lights and speeding through 31.
I see a lot of people racing through lights.
32. I see so many people speeding and never see police men around.
33. I think it's very subjective in what regs. they want to enforce and where they
schools, and this is on the comer where I live.
1 accidents, speeding tickets, etc.
36. I It is my opinion (that there) is a bottle neck and nothing much is done about
37.
Not controlling speed limits in residentialareas. 38.
Just don't like them.
Not enough enforcement on speeding at all hours of the day and night on El 39.
it.
Someone todrive maybe 3 miles over the speed limit and they stop YOU.
Very authoritative police force.
motor home and no one does anything about it. He just moves it a few feet
every day and he has been there a year and a half now.
41. Out on the main street by where I live there is a homeless man that lives in a
42.
School zone speed limits are not enforced and blinking lights no one pays 43.
People don't stop at red lights.
attention to them including police department; and I've gotten fie finger by
police department officers also.
44. I So many speeders.
45. I The oolice officers don't even use their turn signals appropriately. The
police, as an example, need to obey there rules and they are not. They speed
when they don't need to be speeding and they are not enforcing the speed I
limit in residentialareas.
46.
The traffic over by El Camino near Oceanside is heavy because the lights are 47.
The speeding and the noise!
4
I Poinsettia.
58. 1 They do not have the signals right, some signals are too long some are too
wall. There are lots of older folks that walk there. There are lots of
skateboards, roller-bladers, and bicycles on the sidewalks. There is lots of
speeding on Carlsbad blvd from Clubbed village Dr. to Cannon. Cars &
people ignoring crosswalks.
69.
Whena stop light is off or broken there is nobody there to stop traffic. They 70.
We need more stop lights, the ones we have need to be regulated better.
should have traflic police to direct the trafflc. 78 & El Camino Real need
police presence to direct traffic & to keep it flowing.
and make you miss your light ..... all through Carlsbad.
71. Whenxer you get out in El Camino people run red lights and block traffic
5
.
QSERV6P Water Services
1.
Because the water is undrinkable with out a filter, to many chemicals in the 4.
Because the water tastes like chlorine and it builds up on my dishwasher and 3.
Because our bills are all the same. If we have a water main break and there is
2.
wasted water, we still have to pay for it, even though it is not our fault.
Because she did not get her refund for when she was gone.(trash pick up)
my washer.
water.
5.
Because they’re too hard to get through on the phone and they didn’t answer 6.
Because the water tastes bad.
my questions very well, and I haven’t received my water bill yet.
7.
I can’t drink the water here, it has a funny taste. 9.
Because they put chemicals in tk water
8.
10.
Expense is high
I try to pay my bills on the first and the bills never come on time or Ithev) 12.
I think the water tastes unsafe, bad and poor and makes a messel (?)of any 11.
I have a lot of sediment in my water. It might be in my pipes, I do not know.
metal contact!
QSERV7P Cultural Arts Pro rams
an the few people that s
6
8. I I don't think that we have a whole lot of it here.
9. 1 I guess because I don't know of any. If they have a program, the programs
- are unknown, so that's not good.
10.
It does not to seem the audience attends the same in larger cities so there is 14.
I would like to see more of them 13.
I think they are better in Oceanside. 12.
I question whether it is really a municipal function. 11.
I have never heard of too much happening in that area.
- not much demand.
15. It doesn't really seem that we have one.
16. It is such a small town; it almost does not warrant any cultural types of
events. I do not see Carlsbad's mission as competing with major urban
centers culturally.
17. It seems pretty, it doesn't seem like there is a whole lot of variety. More Jazz
other tvDes of music and the Museum has onlv contemDorarv thev should be
like La jolla they have a lot modem arts and classical Iialian. ,,
18.
Not enough culture and art! Not enough night clubs to go to for an older 19.
Never used them
crowd!
about it; they're not getting the info out.
anywhere.
20.
There is no art in Carlsbad and there are no committees and no cultural stuff 21.
Nothing available as far as arts go, and if there is I don't know anything
There are no galleries or music festivals here, at least not that I am aware of. 22.
23. There is not very much of it and what they have is superficial.
24. There is only one cultural arts program that I know of and that is during the
summer time. They don't have galleries that I know about. There is no
reason why we can't have more concerts. Make use of the libraries and do art
.
QSERVSP Sewer Services
8
.-
This report presents findings from the City of Carlsbad Paired
Comparisons study. The Paired Comparisons study took the form of
telephone interviews conducted in the summer of 2001 with residents of
the city of Carlsbad. The Social and Behavioral Research Institute at
California State University, San Marcos, conducted the survey for the
City of Carlsbad.
The Paired Comparisons survey addressed attitudes of Carlsbad
residents concerning future recreation projects the city is considering.
The survey was constructed to offer residents random pairs of choices
between four possible projects, and administered to collect data
regarding preferences from a variety of respondents. The results touch
on resident attitudes regarding (a) project preference, @) project
preference given the added element of project costs, and an examination
of demographic trends associated with these preferences.
Respondents were questioned twice regarding their preferences
for city recreation projects. Prior to the second query, the estimated total
cost and per household breakdown for each project were explained to
the respondent. Chart 1 illustrates these costs.
December 14, 2W1 Version: Carlsbad Paired Comparisons, 2001 - DRAFT 1
!- c
r
r c
r
r
,-
Table I.
Total and Per-Household Project Cost
Total Cost Per-Household Cost
Citywide Trails Program $3,000,000.00 $90.00
50 -Meter Pd $5,500,000.00 $160.00
Community Park $7,200,000.00 $210.00
Municipal Golf Course $25,000,000.00 $740.00
Respondents were informed that, "there is no intent to collect this
amount from households; the second figure is being presented merely
for comparison purposes." The financial information about the projects
was disclosed to add an additional factor in the second round of
preference queries.
December 14, 2001 Version: Carlsbad Paired Comparisons, 2001 - DRAFT 2
r
The data come from 510 citywide telephone surveys administered
during June 2001. The respondents were Carlsbad city residents, and
the interviews were performed at the Social and Behavioral Research
Institute at California State University San Marcos on weekday and
weekend shifts at various times during day and evening hours.
The sample responding to the Paired Comparisons survey was
49.0% male and 51.0% female. Over one-third of the respondents had
lived in Carlsbad at least three years, with 37.0% claiming eleven or
more years of residency.
About one quarter (26.9%) of the respondents were under 35 years
of age, another 33.3% were between 35 and 49, and 20.1% were at least
60 years old. Over one-third (36.30/) of the respondents reported
children living in their home. Of those surveyed, less than one-sixth
(14.7%) listed incomes of less than $35,000, with almost half (40.3%)
reporting incomes between $50,000 and $100,000, and almost two-
thirds (66.1%) of those interviewed held at least a bachelor degree.
Respondents were asked a series of questions regarding potential
recreation projects in the city of Carlsbad. A total of six comparisons
were posed, giving each project the potential to be selected three times.
December 14, 2W1 Version: Carlsbad Paired Comparisons, 2001 - DRAFT 3
c-
r
With 510 respondents in the sample, a total of 1530 possible overall
preferences existed for each project.
The Citywide Trails Program amassed 58.9% of the overall
preferences, followed by the Community Park 53.5%, the 50 - Meter
Pool 42.2%, and the Municipal Golf Course 39.OYa A second series of
questions were asked following financial disclosure for each project. No
change occurred in either order of preference or preference between
individual pairs of projects, however, there was a change in the weight of
the preference after financial disclosure.
A higher percentage of respondents selected the Citywide Trails
Program in comparisons with all other projects. Moreover, in each
comparison, the percentage for Citywide Trails increased after financial
disclosure. The Community Park rated second as a preference for
respondents. A higher percentage of respondents selected the
Community Park in comparisons with two other projects, the 50 - Meter
Pool and Municipal Golf Course.
A higher percentage of respondents selected the 50 - Meter Pool
in the comparison with the Municipal Golf Course. After financial
disclosure, the preference for the 50 - Meter Pool increased nearly ten
percentage points, with about two-thirds (66.0%) preferring this project.
The Municipal Golf Course project garnered the lowest rating by survey
December 14, 2001 Version: Carlsbad Paired Comparisons, 2001 - DRAFT 4
r
r
respondents. Further, the percentage for those preferring the Municipal
Golf Course decreased after financial disclosure.
After costs were disclosed in the comparison between the
Community Park and the Municipal Golf Course, 61.4% of the males
and 72.50/0 of the females preferred the Community Park. Regarding the
same comparison, respondents with incomes of under $50,000 listed the
highest percentage (80.0%) for the Community Park, and after financial
disclosure only 14.8% selected the Municipal Golf Course.
In the comparison between Citywide Trails and the Municipal Golf
Course, the post-finance percentage increased for the trails project by
almost ten points, from 62.7% to 71.4% Cross-referencing the 50 -
Meter Pool with the Municipal Golf Course shows that less than one
percent of the respondents shifted to the golf project, and roughly ten
percent converted to the 50 - Meter Pool after costs were introduced.
December 14, 2001 Version: Carlsbad Paired Comparisons, 2001 - DRAFT 5
c
r
c
The data come from 510 telephone surveys administered to
Carlsbad city residents during June 2001. The questions concerning
comparison choices were assigned in random order and in random
blocks to reduce bias in responses. In this way, no one project received
priority by being mentioned first in the paired order for every
respondent. For example, in the comparison between the Community
Park and the 50 - Meter Pool, one respondent would receive the
question as a choice between the park or the pool, and the next
respondent would hear the choice read as the pool or the park. Each of
the four recreation projects were tested against all others, for a total of
six comparison choices.
Respondents were read the following descriptions of the four
recreation projects in random order:
The first project is a SO-Moter Pool located at a future park site
north of Alga Road and east of El Camino Real in the northeast La
Costa area. This project includes land acquisition and
construction of a 50-meter pool, a Pool House with a locker room
and storage, offices and meeting rooms. It could be expanded later
into a larger aquatic complex.
The next project is a Communi- Rrk at the former location of
Pine School, two blocks south of the Carlsbad Village downtown
area. This project could include ball fields, a playground, picnic
tables and a community center facility.
r
f-
r
c r
r
The next project is a Mdcipd Qoll Caww, located between
Palomar-McClellen Airport and Legoland. This project would
include an 18-hole championship length golf course, driving
range, clubhouse and restaurant.
The next project is a CI-8 Rdt Prqgrrpn. This project
includes acquisition of land to 'link" existing trails within the city,
and development of new trail segments. These trails could be
used for walking and bicycling, but would not allow horseback
riding.
These descriptions, along with project financial information, were
available to telephone interviewers whenever respondents asked for
clarification during the course of an interview.
The sample responding to the Paired Comparisons survey was
49.0% male and 51.0% female. Over one-third of the respondents had
lived in Carlsbad less than three years, with 37.0% claiming eleven or
more years of residency. Slightly more than half (51.8Yo) of the residents
contacted for the telephone survey lived in the northern section of
Carlsbad.
About one quarter (26.90/) of the respondents were under 35 years
of age, another 33.3% were between 35 and 49, and 20.1% were at least
60 years old. Over one-third (36.3%) of the respondents reported
December 14, 2001 Version: Carlsbad Paired Comparisons, 2001 - DRAFT 7
r
c
r
r
,-
children living in their home. Of those surveyed, less than one-sixth
(14.7%) listed incomes of less than $35,000, with almost half (40.3?'0)
reported incomes between $50,000 and $100,000. Over three quarters
(83.5Y0) of the respondents were Caucasian, with 6.2% of
Hispanic/Latino origin. Almost two-thirds (66.1%) of those interviewed
held at least a bachelor degree.
This section of the Paired Comparisons report delivers the overall
response percentages for each comparison. The figures also show the
effect of re-examining each comparison after project financial disclosure.
Figure 1 shows that over half (57.40/) of the respondents selected the
Community Park over the 50 - Meter Pool, which garnered 38.4%. Less
than five percent (4.2%) stated no preference. Figure 1A depicts this
comparison after reporting the costs of these projects to the
respondents. After financial disclosure, roughly the same percentage
(55.8%) selected the Community Park over the 50 - Meter Pool, which
39.5% selected. Again, a small portion of the respondents (4.7%) stated
no preference.
December 14, 2001 Version: Carlsbad Paired Comparisons, 2001 - DRAFT 8
PI",",1:
Community part;va.50 ~Meter Pool
Pre-Finance
II COmmunity Park
II 50 -MeterPool
CJNo Preference
Figure 1A:
Community Park va.50 -Meter PoolPost~ance
55.8%
IiJCommurdty Park
IiJ50 -MeterPool
a No Preference
December 14,2001 Version:Car13bad Paired Comparisons,2001 -DRAFT 9
Figure 2 shows that of the respondents surveyed?almost two-
thirds (61.80/0)selected the Citywide Trails Program over the Municipal
Golf Course.which 36.6%selected.A small portion of the respondents
(1.60/0)stated no preference.Figure 2A depicts this comparison after
reporting the costs of these projects to the respondents.After fmancial
disclosure,a slightly higher percentage (69.4%)selected the Citywide
Trails Program over the Municipal Golf Course.which 27.9%selected.
Again,a small portion of the respondents (2.7%)stated no preference.
Figure2:
CitywideTrail.Programva.MunldpalGolfCoursePre-Flnence
II citywide TI'aDProgram
0 Municipal Golf Course
0 No Preference
December 14,2001 Ve1"$ion:Carlsbad Paired Comparisons,2001 -DRAFT 10
Figure 2A:
CitywideTrails Program va.MunicipalGolfCourse
~
II CitywideTrailProgram
a MunicipalGOlfCourse
D No Preference
Figure 3 shows that over half (52.50/0)of the respondents selected
the 50 -Meter Pool over the Municipal Golf Course,which garnered
42.80/0.Slightly less than five percent (4.70/0)stated no preference.Figure
3A depicts this comparison after reporting the costs of these projects to
the respondents.After financial disclosure,almost two-thirds of the
respondents (62.4%)selected the 50 -Meter Pool over the Municipal
Golf Course,which 32.1%selected.Again,a small portion of the
respondents (5.50/0)stated no preference.
December 14,2001 Version:Carlsbad Paired Comparisons,2001 -DRAFT 11
Figure 3:
50 -Meter Pool va.MunicipalGolf Courae
Pf'e..Finance
Ii 50 -Meter Pool
0 MunicipalGolf Course
0 No Preference
52.5%
4.7%
Figura3A:
50 -Meter Pool va.Municipal Golf Courae
Post-Finance
II 50 -Meter Pool
0 MunIcipalGolf Course
0 No Preference
December 14,2001 Version;Carlsbad Paired Comparisons,2001 -DRAFr 12
Figure 4 shows that of the respondents surveyed,almost two-
thirds (61.4%)selected the Citywide Trails Program over the 50 -Meter
Pool~which garnered 35.4°/0.Less than five percent (3.20/0)stated no
preference.Figure 4A depicts this comparison after reporting the costs of
these projects to the respondents.After fmancial disclosure~almost the
same percentage (61.9%)selected the Citywide Trails Program over the
50 -Meter Pool,which 34.6%selected.Again,a small portion of the
respondents (3.5%)stated no preference.
Figure 4:
Citywide Trails Program Ya.50 -Meter Pool
Pre4=inance
.CitywideTrailProgram
.50 -Meter Pool
0 No Preference
December 14,2001 Version:Carlsbad Paired Comparisona.2001 -DRAFT 13
Figure 4A:
CitywideTrails Program va.50-MeW PoolPost-Ftnance
II CitywideTrailProgram
8150 -Meter Pool
0 NoPreference
Figure 5 shows that of the respondents surveyed,roughly two-
thirds (59.6%)selected the Community Park over the Municipal Golf
Course,which 37.50/0 selected.A small portion of the respondents (2.9°/0)
stated no preference.Figure 5A depicts this comparison after reporting
the costs of these projects to the respondents.After financial disclosure,
a slightly higher percentage (64.6°/0)selected the Community Park over
the Municipal Golf Course,which 31.7%selected.Again,a small portion
of the respondents (3.7%)stated no preference.
December 14,2001 Version:Carlsbad Paired Comparisons,2001 -DRAFT 14
Figure5:
CommunityParkv..MunicipalGolfCourse
Ple-Finance
II CommunityPark
0 MunicipalGolfCourse
0 No Preference
Figure SA:
Community Park Y8.Municipal Golf Course
Pcm.Finance
II CommunityPark
0 MuniQpalGolfCourse
0 No Preference
December 14,2001 Version:Carlsbad Paired Comparisons,2001 -DRAFT 15
Figure 6 shows that of the respondents surveyed.over half (53.80/0)
selected the Citywide Trails Program over the Community Park,which
43.40/0 selected.A small portion of the respondents (2.80/0)stated no
preference.Figure 6A depicts this comparison after reporting the costs of
these projects to the respondents.After financial disclosure.a slightly
higher percentage (55.8°/0)selected the Citywide Trails Program over the
Community Park.which 40.5%selected.Again,a small portion of the
respondents (3.7°/0)stated no preference.
Figure 6:
Citywide Trails Program VII.Community Park
Pfe.Flnance
I!ICitywideTrailProgram
..CommunityPark
C No Preference
53.8%
43.4%
2.8%
December 14,2001 Version:Carlsbad Paired Comparisons,2001 -DRAFT 16
Figure 6A:
Citywide Trail.Program va.Community Park
Post-Finance
55.8%
II Qtywide TrailProgram
.Community Part(
0 No Preference
Crosstabulations
After displaying a layout of overall results,we wished to examine
items in the survey by comparing scores of different groups.For
example,introducing demographic characteristics like gender or income
level might influence comparison data.
December 14,2001 Version.Carlsbad Paired Comparisons,2001 -DRAFT 17
Comparisons by Gender
Regarding thecomparison between the Community Park and the
50 -Meter Pool,males held roughly the same percentage in the pre and
post-finance questions,with almost two-thirds (63.2%)choosing the
Community Park after financial disclosure.While females still preferred
the Community Park in this comparison,after learning of the costs for
the two projects,their preference dipped slightly.A little more than half
(53.8%)chose the Community Park over the 50 -Meter Pool.
Figure 7 highlights the comparison between the Community Park
and the Municipal Golf Course,with both male and female percentages
increased after financial disclosure.After costs were revealed,61.4%of
the males and 72.5%of the females preferred the Community Park.
A similar result occurred in the comparison of the Municipal Golf
Course and the Citywide Trails Program.After financial disclosure,
63.6%of male and 78.8%of female respondents preferred the Citywide
Trails Program.Figure 7A illustrates these differences.
December 14,2001 Version:Carlsbad Paired Comparisons,2001 -DRAFT 18
FIgur8 7:
CommunIty Park Y8.MunIctpIIIGolfCounIe by Gender
Male
F"ost-RIance
Female-~--Female
~
0¥8nIIIPraS'I ~,.o-aI1
Post~
.CommunIty Park C Municipal Golf Course
FIguI'87A
MunlctpalGoIfCounle va.CItyWIdeTrails Program by Gender
00enII o-aa
PosI-F-Pl&-Fnance
..CItywIde Trails Program c Munk:tpaI Golf Course
December 14,2001 Version:Carlsbad Paired Comparisons,2001 -DRAFT 19
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
;:
50%....
40%
30%
20"4
10%
0%
Male
PnH=ine<oce
100%
90%
80%
TO'JI.
80%
C
3 50%..II.
40%
30%
20"4
10%
0%
I
Male
Pr&-Finance
Comparisons by Presence of Children in Home
Regarding the comparison between the Community Park and the
50 -Meter Pool,a greater percentage of respondents with or without
children in the home selected the Community Park,however,
respondents with children (51.7%)did so at a lower rate than those with
no children (62.5%).Mirroring the overall comparison,families with
children as well as those with no children showed a slight drop in their
Community Park preference of one to two percent after the costs of the
projects were disclosed.
Figure 8 shows a clear difference between respondents with
children and those with no children in the comparison between the
Citywide Trails Program and the 50 -Meter Pool.In both pre and post-
financial disclosure questions,respondents with children listed a higher
percentage for Citywide Trails.After costs were revealed,70.5%of those
with no children and 53.0%of families with children preferred the
Citywide Trails Program.
December 14,2001 Version:Carlsbad Paired Comparisons,2001 -DRAFT 20
-----------------------------
figure8:
CItywIde TraIJa PrvgJam va.50 -MeIer Pool by Pnt8ence of ChIldren In Home
,TO.!!_63.tr1-J'St.1,~!B1
0veI8I
Post.f'"IRIIRC8
A post-finance increase occurred in the comparison of the
Citywide Trails Program and the Community Park.After fmanciaI
disclosure,61.5%of f&lmi1ieswith no children and 52.2%of families with
children preferred the Citywide Trails Program.Figure 8A illustrates
these differences.
December 14,2001 Venlion:Carlsbad Paired Comparisons,2001 -DRAFT 21
100..
90110
80"
TO"
80%
C2 50%
l
40110
-
20110
10...
O'!I.
I
No CIiIIdI8n
Pn>-Finance
CI1idIen
I
Children
I
0veI8I
f'n>..Finroce Post.f'"-Ple-r.18oce
iii CItywide Trails Program .50 .Meter Pool
figura 8A:
CItywkfeTrailaProgram va.CoIrIInumcyPaI1(by PnIunce ofChlfdnln InHome
B CItywIde TraIlS Program IIICommunIlypm
Comparisons by Income
Regarding the comparison between the Community Park and the
50 -Meter Pool,a greater percentage of respondents at all income levels
selected the Community Park,however,respondents with incomes
under $50,000 (65.70/0)did so at a higher rate than those with higher
incomes.Respondents with incomes of over $100,000 represented the
only group with a slight increase in their Community Park preference
after the costs of the projects were disclosed.
December 14,2001 Version:Carlsbad Paired Comparisons,2001 -DRAFT'22
100'11.
90'lIo
7'!J'!I.
60%
i!50')(,
l
4Q%
30%
20%
10'4
Q'!L
Figure 9 shows the array of preferences between respondents with
different income levels in the Community Park and Municipal Golf
Course comparison.In the post-financial disclosure question,
respondents at all income levels boosted their percentage for the
Community Park.Respondents with incomes of under $50,000 listed
the highest percentage for the Community Park,and after financial
disclosure only 14.80/0selected the Municipal Golf Course.
figure9:
ColmlUnity ,ark va.llunlc:lpalGolfCounIe by Income
i
10%
0%
Under$5Ol<Under$5Ol<$501<110$1001<$501<110$1001<0ver$1001<0-$1001<0ver8II Overall
Pre-Anance Post-Rn8nc8 PnH'In8nc:8 ~Pre-Anance Past-fInano8 ~PQsI-Fname
Ii Comrm.I\Ity Paftt c MunIc:IpaI Golf Course
Figure 9A displays the Citywide Trails Program and Community
Park comparison.Those with higher incomes list greater percentages for
the Citywide Trails Program.All income categories reflect the overall pre
December 14,2001 Vel'!lion:Carlsbad Paired Comparisons,2001 -DRAFT 23
100%
90%
80%
10%
60%
"so...0..
40%
30%
20%
----------------
and post-costs pattern,however t more than two.thirds (69.3%)of the
respondents with incomes greater than $100,000 selected the Citywide
Trails Program.
FigureSA:
CItywIde TnII18 PIogram va.Community Park by Inc:om8
II CItywIde Trails Program .ConmtI1Ity Park
December 14,2001 Version:Carlsbad Paired ComparisoDs,2001 -DRAFr 24
100'1\.
90'1\.
80%
70"
80%-".I!50%.0.
.w"
30'1\.
20%
10%
0'1\.
Comparisons by Length of Residency
Regarding the comparison between the Citywide Trails Program
and the Community Park.a greater percentage of respondents at almost
every length of residence interval selected the Citywide Trails Program.
Less than half (48.60/0)of the respondents with the longest residency,
eleven or more years,opted for this program.While most respondents
elevated their preference for Citywide Trails after fmancial disclosure.
the preference for those with two or less years of residency remained
fairly constant.Figure 10 displays the results of this cross-tabulation.
Figure10:
~TnIIIProgramYS.CommunItyhrlctlyLengthof~~
Pre-l'inMIXI I PosI-fil1anCe I Pm.fbanc:e I PosI-FiNlooe I Pre-I'iiI1anCe I PosI-FiI1anCe I Pre-I'iI1MIXI I PoIIt-FiI1anCe
.~TralProgram II CommunItYParIt
December 14,2001 Version;Carlabad Paired ('A)mpar1sOIls,2001 -DRAFT'25
100%
9!1%
9!1%
10%
00%
C
00%:.
4C'JI.
30%
20%
10%
0""
The results offered in the preceding pages provide a description of
respondent preferences for recreation projects in the city of Carlsbad.
Overall results were complemented by comparisons which cross-
referenced gender, income, presence of children and length of Carlsbad
residency.
As Table 2A clearly shows, a higher percentage of respondents
selected the Citywide Trails Program in comparisons with all other
projects. Moreover, in each comparison, the percentage for Citywide
Trails increased after financial disclosure. In the comparison between
Citywide Trails and the Municipal Golf Course, the post-finance
percentage increased by almost ten points.
Table 2A.
Preference for Citywide Trail Program over
Community Park I50 - Meter Pool I Municipal Golf Course
~
Citywide Trail Program
PreFinance Post-Finance
Cornrnunih, Park 55.4% 57.8%
50 - Meter Pod 63.4% 64.0%
December 14, 2001 Version: Carlabad Paind Comparisons, 2001 - DRAFT 26
The Community Park rated second as a preference for
respondents. As Table 2B illustrates, a higher percentage of respondents
selected the Community Park in comparisons with two other projects,
the 50 - Meter Pool and Municipal Golf Course. After fiiancial
disclosure, the preference for the Community Park over the 50 - Meter
Pool dipped slightly, however, over half (58.4Yo) still chose the park
project.
Table 2B.
Preference for Community Park over
50 - Meter Pool I Municipal Golf Course
Community Park
Pre-Finance Post-Finance
50 - Meter Pool 59.9% 58.4%
Municipal Golf Course 61.4% 67.1 %
The 50 - Meter Pool placed third as a preference for respondents.
As Table 2C illustrates, a higher percentage of respondents selected the
50 - Meter Pool in the comparison with the Municipal Golf Course. After
financial disclosure, the preference for the 50 - Meter Pool increased
nearly ten percentage points, with about two-thirds (66.OYo) preferring
this project.
December 14, 2001 Version: Carlsbad Paired Comparisons, 2001 - DRAFT 27
Table ZC.
Preference for 50 - Meter Pool over
Municipal Golf Course
50 - Meter Pool
Pm-Finance Post-Finance
Table 2D highlights the percentage of respondents who selected
the Municipal Golf Course in comparisons with all other projects. This
project garnered the lowest rating by survey respondents. Further, the
percentage for those preferring the Municipal Golf Course decreased
further after financial disclosure. In the comparison between the
Table 20.
Preference for Municipal Golf Course over
Citywide Trails Program I Community Park I50 - Meter Pool
Municipal Golf Course
Pre-Finance Post-Finance
Citywide Trail Program 37.3% 28.6%
Communih, Park 38.6% 32.9%
50 - Meter Pool 44.9% 34.0%
Municipal Golf Course and the 50 - Meter Pool, the post-finance
percentage decreased more than ten points.
December 14, 2001 Version: Carlsbad Paired Comparisons, 2001 - DRAFT
c
Cross-referencing identical comparison questions before and after
financial disclosure highlights any changes in preference due to costs.
For example, examination of the Community Park or 50 - Meter Pool
comparison questions show that 89.6% of the respondents did not
change their answer after financial disclosure. Slightly more than one in
ten answers did change, however, with 6.0% shifting towards the 50 -
Meter Pool and 4.4% shifting in favor of the Community Park, for a net
shift of 1.6% in favor of the pool project.
Changes occurred in all other comparisons after financial
disclosure. In the 50 - Meter Pool or Municipal Golf Course comparison,
0.2% of the respondents shifted to the golf project, and 10.5% converted
to the 50 - Meter Pool, for a net shift of 10.3% in favor of the pool
project. In the 50 - Meter Pool or Citywide Trails Program comparison,
82.2% of the respondents did not change their preference, with 3.5%
shifting to the pool project, and 4.3% converting to the Citywide Trails
Program, for a net shift of .8% in favor of the trails project.
In the comparison between the Community Park and the
Municipal Golf Course, 0.8% of the respondents changed to the golf
project and 6.2% converted to the Community Park, for a net shift of
5.4% in favor of the park project. With the second option between the
Citywide Trails Program and the Community Park, 4.9% shifted to the
December 14, 2001 Version: Carlsbad Paired Comparisons, 2001 - DRAFT 29
*-
r
trails project and 2.7% shifted to the park project, for a net shift of 2.2%
in favor of the trails project. In the Citywide Trails Program or Municipal
Golf Course comparison, 1.0% of the respondents shifted to the golf
project, and 8.9% converted to the Citywide Trails Program, for a net
shift of 7.9% in favor of the trails project.
Depicting these shifts as an average over all 1530 possible
comparison choices, respondent answer shifts after financial disclosure
tend to favor the 50 - Meter Pool with an average positive shift of 3.70%,
and the Citywide Trails Program with an average positive shift of 3.63%.
The Community Park shows an average positive shift of 0.53%, and the
Municipal Golf Course shows an average negative shift of 7.87%. Figure
11 exhibits these shifts.
A closer inspection of the bars in Figure 11 reveals how these
positive or negative shifts were calculated. Each pair of bars represents
one pre and post-finance comparison, and the values attached to the
bars depict the percent of respondents gained after cost disclosure. For
example, in the first pair, pool vs. park, the pool project gained 6.O%,
and the park project 4.4%, yielding a 1.6% net in favor of the pool.
Taking the average of all three pool net shifts gives us the average shift of
3.700/0. The other average shifts were calculated in a similar fashion.
December 14, 2001 Version: Carlsbad Paired Comparisons, 2001 - DRAFT 30
Figure 11.
Effect of Cost Disclosure Question on Each Forced COmparison
121).
~~-Pool .3.-
Trab +3.63'J1o
IQO .l.Part .00.53'11>GoI -7.~
10.6
4.0
6.2
8.0
c::.."
C 6.0......CI>a.
2.0
0.0
Pool Park Golf Trail Pool Golf Pool Trail Park Golf Park Trail
Another way of highlighting preferences is by looking at the
number of times individuals selected each of the various projects,both
before and after cost disclosure.Recall that in the comparison questions,
each project had the chance of being selected three times.Table 3
displays the average number of times each project was selected by each
respondent,in both pre and post-fmance comparisons.
There is no significant change in support for the Community Park
between pre and post-finance options.A significant decrease appears in
the average number of times people selected the Municipal Golf Course.
The Citywide Trails Program and the 50 -Meter Pool both show
significant increases in the average number of times they were selected
December 14,2001 Version.Carlsbad Paired Comparisons,2001 -DRAFT 31
r
by respondents. These numbers display the difference in the number of
times a respondent chose a particular project before and after costs were
disclosed.
Paired Samples t Test
Table 3.
Average Number of Project Selections
PreFinance POst-Fim
Citywide Trails Program 1.80 1.91
consnritym 1.62 1.63
5O"etsrpaol 1.29 1.39
1.17 .93
In almost all cases, cross-referenced choices mirrored overall
comparisons. Whether the controlling factor was gender, presence of
children, income or length of residency, the increase or decrease of
preference after fmancial disclosure was comparable to the direction of
the overall comparison. That is, if the overall comparison preference for
one project increased after financial disclosure, the demographic factor
preference also would increase, albeit at different weights and
percentages. For example, in Figure 9A, the overall preference for the
Citywide Trails Program over the Community Park increased by 2.4%
after costs were introduced. An increase in preference for the trails
December 14, 2001 Version: Carlsbad Paired Comparisons, 2001 - DRAFT 32
program also occurred in all household income categories. Figure 7
shows that the overall preference for the Community Park over the
Municipal Golf Course increased by 5.7% after costs were introduced. An
increase in preference for the park also occurred in both gender
categories.
December 14, 2001 Version: Carlsbad Paired Comparisons, 2001 - DRAFT 33
c
r
r
I
r
r
c
Appendix 1.
Paired Comparisons Descriptive Statistics
Number of People Liung in Home
Valid Cumulative
Valid I
Frequency Percent percent percant
89 17.4 17.5 17.5
2
3
4
5
6
8
13
Total
Missing Refused
205
91
86
29
5
1
1
506
4
40.1
17.8
16.9
5.7
.9
.2
.2
99.2
.8
40.5 58.0
18.0 76.0
17.0 93.0
5.7 98.8
.9 99.7
.2 99.8
.2 100.0
100.0
Respondent% Ethnic Group
Vsiid
Frequency percent Parcent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Hispanic or Latino 30 5.9 6.2 6.:!
Black or African American 8 1.6 1.6 7.9
Asian American or Pacific
Islander 18 3.5 3.7 1l.!i
White or Caucasian American 406 79.6 83.5 95.'
Other 24 4.7 4.9 100.0
Total 486 95.3 100.0
Missing Refused 24 4.7
1
Respondent's Education Led
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid Cumulative
Valid Less Than High School 1 .2 .2 i'
High School Graduate 34 6.7 6.7 7s
r
c
Some Collage (TechNoc
SchoolR-Year Degree) 1 36 26.7 27.0 33.8
College Graduate 204 40.0 40.3 74.:
Post College Graduate
Education
Total
Missing Don't Know
Refused
Total
130 25.5 25.8 1OO.C'
506 99.1 100.0
1 .2
3 .6
5 .9
Respondent's Year 2000 Income
Valid CumulatlVe
Valid Less than $10.000
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
5 1 .o 1.2 1.2
$10.000 to under $25,000
$25,000 to under $35,000
$35,000 to under $50,000
$50,000 to under $75,000
$75,000 to under$100.000
$100.000 to under $125.000
$125,000 to under $150,000
$150,000 or more
Total
Missing Don't Know
Refused
Total
25
32
51
86
65
57
30
53
425
13
72
85
4.9
6.3
10.1
16.9
16.7
11.2
5.9
10.4
63.4
2.5
14.2
16.6
5.9
7.6
12.1
20.3
20.0
13.4
7.1
12.5
100.0
7.C'
14.7
26.7
47.C'
67s
80.4
87.5
1OO.C'
Respondent's Zip Code
Valid Cumulative
Valid 92008
Frequancy percent Percent Percent
264 51.6 51.8 51.8
92009 246 48.2 46.2 100.0
2
c r
r
r
Respondent's Gender
Valid Cumulative ~~ ~
Valid Male
Frequency Percent Percent percent
250 49.0 49.0 49.0
Female 260 51,O 51.0 100.0
Presence of Children in Home
Frequency Percant percent Percent
Valid Cumulative
Valid Households With No Children 325 63.7 63.7 63.i
Households With Children 185 36.3 36.3 lO0.C
Total 510 100.0 100.0
Respondentk &)e
Valid Cumulative
Valid 18 to 24 Years 55 10.7 10.7 10.7
. . . . . . .
2310 29 Years
30 to 34 Years
35 to 39 Years
40 to 44 Years
45 lo 49 Years
50 lo 54 Years
55 10 59 Years
60 10 64 Years
65 to 69 Years
70 Years or More
29 5.7 5.7
54 10.5 10.5
53 10.3 10.3
64 12.6 12.6
56 11.4 11.4
66 12.9 12.9
30 5.9 5.9
28 5.5 5.5
23 4.6 4.6
51 10.0 10.0
16.4
26.9
37.2
49.8
61.2
74.0
79.9
85.4
90.0
100.0
Total 510 100.0 100.0
Length of Carlsbad Residency
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid Less than 3 Years 184 36.1 36.1 36.1
3-10 Years 137 26.9 26.9 63.0
11 Years or More 189 37.0 37.0 100.0
3
r
50-Meter Pool or CommunityPark (Pre-Finance)
Frequency Percent percent Percent
Valid Cumulative
Valid Respondent Prefers
Community Park 292 51.3 59.9 59.9
Respondent Prefers
50-Meter Pool 196 30.4 40.1 100.0
Total 409 95.8 100.0
Missing No Preference 21 4.1
Refused 1 .2
Total 22 4.2
Total 510 100.0
50-Meter Pool or Community Park (Post-Finance)
Valid
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent Percent Percent
Valid Respondent Prefers
Community Park 285 55.8 58.5 58.5
Respondent Prefers
50-Meter Pool 202 39.5 41.5 100.0
Total 486 95.3 100.0
Missing No Preference 23 4.5
Refused
Total
1 .2
24 4.7
4
,"
.-
50-Meter Pool or Municipal Golf Course (Pre-Finance)
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid Respondent Prefers
Municipal Golf Course 218 42.8 44.9 44.9
Respondent Prefers
50-Meter Pwl
Total
Missing No Preference
268 52.5 55.1 100.0
486 95.3 100.0
24 4.1
50-Meter Pool or Municipal Golf murse (Post-Finance)
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid Respondent Prefers
Municipal Golf Course 164 32.1 34.0 34.0
Respondent Prefers
50-Meter PwI 318 62.4 66.0 100.0
Total 482 94.5 100.0
Missing No Preference
Refused
Total
21 5.3
1 .2
28 5.5
5
r
SO-Meter Pool or atywlde Trail Program(Pre-Flnance)
Frequency Percent percent Percent
Valid Respondent Prefers
50-Meter Pool 181 35.4 36.6 36.6
Respondent Prefers
Citywide Trail Program
Total
Missing No Preference
Refused
Total
313 61.4 63.4 100.0
494 96.8 100.0
15 3.0
1 .2
16 3.2
Total 510 100.0
SO-Meter Pool or atywide Trail Program(Post-Finance)
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent percent
Valid Respondent Prefers
50-Meter Pool 177 34.6 35.9 35.9
Respondent Prefers
Citywide Trail Program 316 61.9 64.1 100.0
Total 492 96.5 100.0
Missing No Preference
Refused
Total
17 3.3
1 .2
18 3.5
6
r
Community Park or Municipal Golf 8urse (Pre-Finance)
Valid
Frequency
Cumulative
PBK8"t Percent Percent
Valid Respondent Prefem
Community Park 304 59.6 61.4 61.4
Respondent Prefers
Municipal Golf Course 192 37.5 38.6 100.0
Total 496 97.1 1co.o
Missing No Preference
Refused
Total
14 2.7
1 .2
15 2.9
Community Park or Municipal Golf 8urse (Post-Finance)
Valid Cumuiative
F,eq"e"cy Percent 'Percent Percent
Valid Respondent Prefers
Community Park 330 64.6 67.1 67.1
Respondent Prefers
Municipal Golf Course
Total
Missing No Preference
Refused
Total
162 31.7 32.9 1co.o
491 96.3 1co.o
17 3.4
2 .3
19 3.7
Total 510 100.0
7
,-
f-
r
c
,-
Community Park or Citywide Trail Program (Pre-Finance)
~~
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid Respondent Prefers
Community Park 222 43.4 44.7 44.7
Respondent Prefers
Citywide Trail Program
Total
Missing No Preference
274 53.7 55.3 100.0
496 97.2 100.0
14 2.8
Total 510 100.0
Community Park or Citywide Trail Program (Post-Finance)
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent percent percent
Valid Respondent Prefers
Community Park 207 40.5 42.1 42.1
Respondent Prefers
Citywide Trail Program 285 55.8 57.9 100.0
Total 491 96.3 100.0
Missing No Preferenc8
Refused
Total
18 3.6
1 .z
19 3.7
r
r
r
r
r
c
r
r
8
Municipal Golf Course or CilyNide Trail Program (Pre-Finance)
Valid
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent Percent Percent
Valid Respondent Prefers
Municipal Golf Course 187 36.6 37.2 37.2
ReSpondent Prefers
Citywide Trail Program
Total
Missing No Preference
315 61.8 62.8 100.0
502 98.4 100.0
8 1.6
Total 510 100.0
Municipal Golf Course or CllyNide Trail Program (Post-Finance)
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Pelcent Percent
Valid Respondent Prefers
Municipal Golf Come 142 27.9 28.6 28.6
Respondent Prefers
Citywide Trail Program
Total
Missing No Preference
Refused
Total
354 69.4 71.4 100.0
497 97.3 100.0
12 2.3
2 .3
14 2.7
9